Announcer: Adminmonitor.com will begin momentarily.
Thank you for your patience.
Operator: Now I'd like to turn the call
over to President Batjer.
Thank you, you may begin.
-: Thank you operator, and good morning, everyone.
Welcome to the California Public Utilities Commission
meeting of August 6th, 2020.
There is Spanish translation available for this meeting.
If you would like to listen to the meeting in Spanish,
please dial (800) 857-1917 and enter passcode 6946898.
I will now pause for the translation.
(speaking in Spanish)
Thank you.
We need to establish a quorum.
So will the agenda clerk please call the roll.
Operator: Good morning.
Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Present.
Operator: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Here.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Here.
Operator: Commissioner Rechtschaffin
-: Present.
Operator: President Batjer.
-: Here.
Thank you, we have established a quorum.
I'm calling the CPUC meeting of August 6th, 2020,
public agenda item number 34662 order.
In March, Governor Gavin Newsom issued a stay at home order
to protect the health and wellbeing of all Californians
and to establish consistency across the state
in order to slow the spread of COVID 19.
As such, we are conducting today's business meeting online
and by remote participation.
This meeting is live streamed on the CPUC's website.
You can view the meeting at www.adminmonitor.com/ca/cpuc.
Adminmonitor, one word.
A-D-M-I-N-M-O-N-I-T-O-R.
Public engagement is critical to the CPUC process.
If you wish to make a public comment,
dial 800-857-197 and enter passcode 9899501
and press #1.
You would be placed into a queue and the operator will take
your name and your organization.
There may be a delay from the time you press #1
to the time the operator asks for your information.
So please be patient and stay on the line.
You will be called upon to speak
when we get to the public comment period in today's agenda.
Email, comments received will be distributed
to the Commissioners and senior management.
Before we begin, I wanna take a moment to honor the life
of the late Congress member and civil rights leader,
John Lewis, who passed away last month.
Mr. Lewis was the son of sharecroppers
and grew up in an era of racial segregation.
He was inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King jr.
and joined the civil rights movement
to affect the changes he wanted to see.
Mr. Lewis was a Freedom Writer, the youngest person
to speak at the 1963's March on Washington.
Led demonstrations for the right
for black Americans to vote,
that became known as Bloody Sunday.
He was elected to Congress in 1986
and served more than 30 years in public service.
In 2011, Mr. Lewis received the Presidential Medal
of Freedom from President Obama.
I quote Mr. Lewis from his essay published
in the New York Times after his death.
Quote, "So I may not be here with you.
"I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart
"and stand up for what you truly believe."
Mr. Lewis spent his life fighting for the equality,
for Black Americans and other oppressed people.
His work inspired countless people and his legacy serves
as a reminder that as a nation, as a democracy,
we can do more and we can do better.
Please join me in a moment of silence to honor
the exemplary life of the late Mr. John Robert Lewis.
Thank you all very much.
Earlier this week, Governor Newsom shared the information
that things may be getting better in California
amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The seven day average of the new COVID-19 cases
is down 21% from a week ago.
However, the death rate is rising with the 14 day average.
Currently, there are 38 California counties that are now
on the state's monitoring list.
This means that these counties will have stricter guidelines
and it has implications for when certain businesses
as well as schools can reopen.
But the CPUC staff with families and school-aged children.
This presents an added challenge when summer break ends.
The Commissioners and senior management
are committed to remaining flexible
as we adjust to the new normal and maintaining
a healthy work life balance.
We thank the staff for all their doing during this time
to carry out the responsibilities
and serve the people of California.
The pandemic is very real.
And until there is a vaccine,
we have to continue to be smart and we have to continue
to wear a cloth covering or may have mask
when six feet of distance cannot be maintained.
We have to practice physical distancing of six feet,
wash hands or soap and water for a minimum of 20 seconds,
avoid touching your eyes, nose,
or mouth with unwashed hands.
And to the extent possible,
stay at home except for essential needs and activities.
All right, we will now turn to public comment.
The Commission provides three minutes for each speaker.
You'll hear a bell sound when your time is up.
Then, to make telephonic public comments,
please dial (800) 857-1917
and enter passcode 9899501 and press #1.
If you are experiencing difficulty with getting
into the public comment queue, please email
votingmeetinghelp, all one word,
votingmeetinghelp@cpuc.ca.gov.
The operator will call your name
when it is time for you to speak.
You will hear a bell sound when your time is up.
Please be mindful of the other people waiting in the queue
to provide public comment.
Your cooperation will help us ensure that everyone gets
their turn to share their comments with the Commissioners.
The 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 agendas,
and including items not on the agenda.
Please note, there will not be public comment
on items seven, 12, 32, 34 and 35,
and any item on the closed session agenda.
With that guidance in mind, I welcome the day's speakers.
I'll now turn back to the operator
to open the public comment telephone line.
Thank you.
Operator?
Operator: Thank you.
Our first comment comes from Jennifer Tanner
with Indivisible, California.
You may go ahead.
Jennifer: Oh, hi, can you hear me?
Batjer: Yes, we can, thank you.
Jennifer: Okay, thank you so much.
And first of all, again, thank you President Batjer
and the CPUC for allowing us to make comments.
We're very grateful we can do this.
My name is Jennifer Tanner,
Indivisible California Green Team,
which has always had a focus on energy.
And the post is agenda item 10 on the consent agenda
draft resolution E5083,
which permits San Diego Gas & Electric
to procure resources using contract lasting up to five years
based on an old bundled procurement plan BPP from 2014.
We're asking the Commission to reject this resolution and
the similar ones to sell Cal Edison
because they are one, in compatible with
the Commission's integrated resource planning process.
Number two, not compliant with legal,
clean energy mandates of SB 350 and SB 100
and run counter to the state's clean energy goals.
Three, abandons oversight of the IOUs and likely
to increase costs or both IOU and CCA customers.
And four, the Commission should reject the draft resolution
and instead require that all BPP reviews occur
within the integrated resource plan proceeding.
And I'd like to make a second comment
regarding the SB 1339 proceeding.
It is time to stop demonizing microgrids
for cost shifting.
Cost shifting is a policy issue, not a structural issue.
Once microgrids are implemented,
utilities should be directed to eliminate and/or restructure
their existing costs in order to ensure that costs
are fairly and equitably a portion.
It is no longer the case that microgrids
are research, a pilot project.
As a recently approved rollout of microgrid
for resiliency under track one
of SB 1339 proceeding demonstrated, they are now required
as a matter of preferred policy for resiliency purposes.
It is time for the CPUC to require utilities,
to adjust their current pricing policies
to reflect this reality.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Ms. Tanner.
Next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Bill Christiansen,
Alliance for Water Efficiency.
You may go ahead.
Bill: Good morning, Commissioners and President Batjer.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
My name is Bill Christiansen and I'm the director
of programs for the Alliance for Water Efficiency.
The North American nonprofit, dedicated to the efficient
and sustainable use of water.
I am here to comment on agenda item 19, specifically changes
to Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanisms.
AWE cares about the proposed decision
and its potential implications,
and urges the CPUC to consider it carefully
with more analysis.
As it could set a nationwide precedent if adopted.
AWE has filed two letters for the record
on the proposed decision dated July 28th and July 30th,
indicating our concerns.
AWE offers our help to the Commission
in whatever way would be useful.
Our apologies that Mary Ann Dickinson,
AWE's president and CEO,
is not able to make these comments herself
because of a schedule conflict.
But we wanted to make sure you know
that we're interested in providing whatever assistance
the Commission might find helpful.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.
-: Thank you, Mr. Christiansen.
Next speaker, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Ricky Samayoa
with the City of Marysville.
You may go ahead.
Ricky: Hi, good morning.
I'm Ricky Samayoa, the mayor of City of Marysville.
I want to thank President Batjer and the Commissioners for
the opportunity to speak about the proposed decision,
rulemaking 1706024.
There's no question that water supplies in California
are scarce and that jobs
are becoming more frequent and severe.
Given that I am pleased, the Commission decided
to delay action on this proposed decision today.
And I hope more time is taking through to thoroughly examine
the pros and cons of eliminating
the regulatory best practice of decoupling.
As you all know,
water conservation is the least expensive source of water.
Every gallon saved by consumers, every gallon not paid for.
And that can be used for another purpose.
So we'll need more,
not less conservation in the coming decades,
to meet the growing and competing demands.
This is precisely why the CPUC authorized
for the largest water providers to the couple water sales
from their revenues, rather than it be incentivized
to sell more water to generate revenue
to operate their systems.
These providers are incentivized to educate their consumers
and help facilitate more water conservation.
Based on the data I have seen, decoupling is working.
Perhaps more importantly, if decoupling is prohibited
as a proposed decision direction,
rates will go up for residents in my city.
They used the least amount of water.
10% for all residents and almost 14%
for our most vulnerable residents
who qualify for lower income reg assistance.
And I was not the type to take action
that we do some water conservation and racist rates.
Thank you for giving this important issue with
the additional consideration that warrants.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, thank you very much.
Next speaker, please.
Operator?
Operator: Our next speaker is Erica Chahal
with Alice Steven supporter.
You might go ahead.
Erica: My name is Erica Chahal and I'm calling,
first of all, to support Alice Stevens,
who's a strong advocate for the elderly
and disabled communities and a vital voice for them.
I'm also strongly protesting the grid de-energization plan
for high fire areas in California.
It's hugely endangered the elderly
and handicapped communities.
They rely on the energy,
to power their medical and mobility devices.
The majority of whom are on disability incomes
and are unable to afford backup battery installations,
and you don't provide them.
These are real people and they are at real risk
of either burning to death or dying of asphyxiation.
I'm also part owner of a mobile home park
in San Diego County where the Rice Canyon fire destroyed 106
of our mobile homes in 2007.
I've had experience with fire
and I know what I'm talking about.
Please reconsider that decision.
-: Thank you.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Liane: President Batjer.
Could I just make a quick comment
just to mention around that?
-: Yes, of course, Commissioner, please.
Liane: Thanks.
I know later on our agenda,
we have a presentation from our Wildfire Safety staff
about PSPS and the importance of the oversight
of the utilities around PSPS.
So I'm encouraging that commenter to stay online
and listen to that presentation
to bring everyone up to date.
And I know we have had discussion and presentations
from commenters about the important issues
of the disability community.
And I know our staff is working very hard on maintaining
a line of communication with that community.
I know David Van Bacon and other safety stuff
are working closely.
And so, hopefully, the safety staff will address that
in their presentation.
And we may wanna ask for some further presentations
on PSPS and how we are working to ensure that the utilities
are taking into account the needs of the disabled community
during the shutoff.
So I just wanted to note that.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Randolph.
One of the important questions that will be asked
to the IOUs is what they are doing in preparation
for those customers who are behind the master meter,
such as those customers in mobile home parks.
I intend to be asking each of them that
in the workshops later in this month.
And we've been addressing those questions
on a regular basis with the IOUs,
but they will be asked in public forum to address it.
Well, thank you, Commissioner Randolph.
And thank you caller.
I believe we have another caller, operator.
Operator: Yes, our next caller
is Laura Rosenberger Heider of the welfare.
Can you go ahead.
Laura: I'm actually today just tryna analyze
the San Diego Gas and Electric,
to help them take the impacts of fires and shutoffs.
The CPUC must allow community microgrids
that interconnect facilities in different locations,
connecting with multiple firearms police stations
and healthcare centers and other essential services,
and where people with essential medical devices
are living, eliminate departing load charges
for all microgrids, for all customers,
until they could adjust their prices
so that costs are fairly and equitably, appropriate needed.
And I'm opposed to agenda item 10,
draft resolution E5083,
because they are not complying with the legal,
clean energy mandates and would allow
and ensure energy outside of state law
and outside of Commission review.
Alright, thank you.
Batjer: Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
Operator: Our next speaker is John Bond
who's representing himself.
So you may go ahead.
John: Thank you madam president,
Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, my name is John Bond.
I happen to have been the assigned Commissioner
when the WRAM was created.
So I wanna make a couple of comments with respect
to item 19, if I might.
When this was created,
it was designed to balance an increasing and very,
very passionate need to deal with encouraging conservation.
The discussion took a fair period of time.
We established the standard record.
We had a series of discussions and hearing
on this involving all interested stakeholders.
And the WRAM was a creation to try to balance
the requirement that the water companies,
the investor-owned water companies at the same time
could achieve the revenue requirement,
but also deal with conservation.
That was the origin of the decoupling mechanism.
There was an aspect of that, that I was often lost sight of
an added list, we deliberately created some flexibility
because of the diverse nature of the various districts
and the consumer groups they're in, with the design
and the desire to let them try to protect the very interests
of the low income consumer,
which as I understand, is the purpose of this item 19.
We were very concerned and continue to be concerned
about that problem,
but we also had to operate within the legal requirement
that the revenue must be adequate
for the delivery mechanism chosen by
the State of California,
namely the investor owned utilities.
It's worth noting perhaps that
the investor-owned utilities have a good deal,
more flexibility in a policy driven adjustment to protect
the low income consumer,
than communities who have only to cost justify
any differential in rate.
I confess having looked just quickly
at the proposed decision.
I think that the purpose is laudable.
I think that the proposal does not get you
where you wanna go.
And I think it is really important that other alternatives
be considered in a substantive proceeding.
And I say this for another reason, that is,
I know from my own personal experience,
both on the Commission and as a fugitive from Wall Street,
that the investor community on which
the investor-owned utilities depend follow decisions
of the CPUC very closely in terms of pricing
and in terms of the availability of capital that
the investor-owned utilities needs.
And so, a sudden departure from an established precedent
is one of those kinds of things that I would urge
the Commission not to do.
It's an important policy decision
if I was gonna change an established procedure, and--
-: Mr. Bond, I hate to interrupt you, but,
your three minute time has run.
-: Fine, I didn't hear a bell.
So I apologize to you all.
-: No problem, but I really,
I appreciate very much your comments today.
Operator the next speaker, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Lisa Vela
with San Joaquin County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
You may go ahead.
Lisa: Good morning, Commissioners and President Batjer.
My name is Lisa Vela.
I am the CEO of
the San Joaquin County Hispanic chamber of commerce.
And I appreciate the opportunity to join your meeting today,
to express my concern about the proposed decision
and rulemaking 1706024.
I also appreciate that this matter is being held over
for additional discussion.
California is already an expensive place to do business,
particularly in these COVID times.
Elected officials and regulators should be evaluating ways
to reduce cost impacts on businesses and on Californians.
In fact, I was pleased to read that
the CPUC recently adopted affordability metrics of some kind
to better evaluate how utility costs impact the overall cost
of living and the impacts
of potential policies on customer costs.
I am curious whether this proposal is being considered
against these metrics because I understand eliminating
the decoupling mechanism
could results in an average rate increase of 7.7%
for all customers of one of
the state's largest water suppliers.
And that's average, meaning many of us will pay even more.
Many businesses have taken steps
to reduce our water consumption over the years
because we recognize
that sufficient water supply is critical
to the continued growth of our economy.
It would be very unfortunate if those businesses
who have been responsible and taken steps
to reduce water consumption would be punished
with higher rates.
Please take the time to thoroughly examine
the potential consequences
of this proposal before approving it.
We literally cannot afford to get this wrong right now.
And thank you for your time.
-: Thank you, operator, the next speaker, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Steve Nelson,
vice mayor, City of Visalia.
You may go ahead, sir.
Steve: Thank you, thank you to the Commissioner
for giving me the opportunity to speak.
I'm calling in regard to rule number 1706-024.
The City of Visalia respectfully request
the Commission provides stakeholders additional time to work
with the Commission to conduct a more comprehensive analysis
of the impacts on water conservation,
the cost to low income taxpayers
prior to the final decision.
The city and Cal Water, who is our water provider,
both have programs in place to conserve ground water.
Cal Water has a low income rate payer assistance,
LIRA program, in place for qualified rate payers.
Based on the information that has been provided,
and we've been able to assess in the limited time we
are unclear what the impact could be to our citizens.
We appreciate and commend the Commission and the work that
has been done, but we believe more time is appropriate
before decision is rendered.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak.
-: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor.
Next speaker, please.
Operator?
Operator: our next caller is Alice Huffman
with California state NAACP.
You may go ahead ma'am.
Batjer: We're not hearing the next caller.
Operator: And again, Alice Huffman, your line is open.
Batjer: Can you check again, operator, make sure.
Operator: Alice Huffman,
We were unable to hear you at this time.
Can you check your mute button or lift your hands up please.
Batjer: Well, perhaps she can call back in.
Operator: Okay, and again, Alice Huffman,
if you would like to ask the question later,
please press #1.
Our next caller then is Holian Dellel.
Holian: Can you hear me?
Batjer: Yes, we can.
Holian: Hello
Batjer: Yes, we can hear you.
Holian: Okay, thank you.
Thank you for your patience.
This is a little difficult technology on
the speaking end here.
Thank you for the time.
I'm Holian Dellel.
I'm with Designing Accessible Communities,
the Coalition of Disability Access professional
and California for Disability Rights.
And I wanna talk about the enralization briefly.
The Commission has voted five to zero,
two years ago, to allow PG&E and other electrical utilities
to de-energize their grids without any mitigation measures
to protect the state's most vulnerable during those events.
In other words, the Commissioners voted to endanger people
with disabilities and the elderly.
Without power, people with disabilities cannot breathe,
cannot charge their mobility equipment,
cannot meet their other needs.
And as in my case,
I cannot use the pain mitigating equipment I need.
So, that's something that needs
to be addressed and be addressed immediately.
The PG&E's SGIP, Self Generation Incentive Program,
supposedly was one of the answers.
However, I worked for three months to try
to qualify and it's riddled with obstacles.
I was giving conflicting information the whole time,
I was told from one vendor to go to another vendor
and that vendor told me to go back to the first vendor.
And for three months,
I worked in LA only to find out at
the last minute after working for three months,
after they canceled my appointment with the vendor,
that I'd waited for three weeks
to tell me that I don't qualify
because I don't live in a high fire threat district,
which does not make any sense at all.
As I was told, I had to evacuate last year
and I went through
the most difficult process you can imagine.
I spent all afternoon trying to find a hotel
that had rooms available,
which was not easy as there are 180,000 people told
in my area they had to leave and to find a hotel
that had rooms and that had rooms
that are wheelchair accessible.
It was practically impossible,
I ended up driving at two o'clock in the morning
to a friend's house in Sonoma.
I couldn't use her restrooms.
I had to pee in a bucket.
I finally ended up in South San Francisco to a hotel there,
and this is all done because they cut off
not only our electricity, so I couldn't use my phone,
they cut down the power to the who head for cell phones.
So I couldn't use my cell phone.
Of course I had no gas.
Every obstacle was put in my way.
Every opportunity that I have to evacuate safely,
which I was told I had to do was not there.
So the Commission has put people with disabilities and
their vulnerable elderly in an irrediculously bad situation.
And the SGIP is a joke for helping out
people with disabilities.
You've either got to fix it.
So it doesn't have all these obstacles and impossibilities,
or you've gotta come over the program that immediately
as soon as possible,
provide battery backup systems for people with disabilities.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Ms. Dellel
Holian: Yes.
-: I said thank you.
Holian: Thank you for your time here.
-: Thank you.
We will be presenting a petition
and I am asking what time,
what day will be the hearing for Mr. Stebbins
who's been most helpful to us?
She's the only one we've been able to rely on
to provide information and help during this terrible crisis
of fires and de-energization.
-: That agenda item will be announced after this meeting.
Participant: Okay, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, the next speaker, please.
Operator: The next caller is Israel Sotelo,
office of Senator Scott Wilk.
You may go ahead sir.
Israel: Hi, it is Sotelo calling on behalf
of Senator Scott Wilk, the representative for the district
in which the dispute under file item 13,
Leisure Lake HOA versus clanky real estate takes place.
I would just like to start off by thanking the Commissioners
for their work in public service.
And in an effort to express my vested interest
in this matter, I would like to encourage the Commission
to give this case their thorough consideration
and clarify whether they have read both the file,
filed the docket office comments,
as well as the ALJ summary to the proposed decision
for file item 13.
Thank you.
Batjer: Thank you, and thank you Senator.
Operator, the next speaker, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Julian Canete
with the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
You me go ahead.
Julian: Thank you, and thank you President Batjer
and Commissioners for allowing me to join the meeting today.
We appreciate the opportunity to express our concern
about the proposed decision and rulemaking.
Hello, can you hear me?
Hello.
Batjer: Now we can hear you again.
I'm sorry, you cut out. Julian: Okay.
Well thank you President Batjer and Commissioners
for allowing us to join the meeting today.
So we appreciate the opportunity to express our concern
about the proposed decision and rulemaking 17-06-024.
But the chamber is opposed to anything
that would raise water rates
without any corresponding benefits and reduction
of water conservation in California.
Now is not the time to unnecessarily increase
the cost of essential services for millions of California
and hundreds and thousands of small businesses.
And it's certainly not the time to waste
already scarce water resources in our state.
The water service providers that would be impacted
by this proposal are currently incentivized to operate
as efficiently as possible and to invest
in water conservation efforts.
Under this new plan, they would be incentivized
to sell more water given the increased frequency
and duration of routes in California, this makes no sense.
Even worse, the new proposal would increase monthly bills
by an average of 7.7% for everyone
except the top 25% of water users.
This means we would be punishing those who conserve
and rewarding those who waste.
Again, it makes no sense.
We sincerely appreciate the Commission,
that the fact that the Commission is holding this item over
for additional discussion and review.
We believe that the time will be well spent
in analyzing data and hearing from experts
to help ensure that the path forward
does not inadvertently harm the very people
it was designed to assist.
Thank you for your time.
Batjer: Thank you.
Operator the next speaker, please.
Operator: The next caller is Kuyler Crocker
with Tulare County Board of Supervisors, District 1.
You may go ahead, sir.
Kuyler: Thank you.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to my comments.
As stated, I'm Kuyler Crocker, Tulare County supervisor,
home of the highest peak in the lower 48, Mount Whitney and
the largest tree in the world, the General Sherman
and Decoy National Park.
I'm also calling to share some of my concerns
regarding rulemaking 17-06-024.
We are in a water sub basin that is extremely overdraft,
we're knee deep and the Sigma efforts that is very critical
for not only our communities,
but for our large agricultural base and any efforts
to reduce, or that whether intentional or not,
that may reduce water efficiency,
is extremely concerning to myself.
I think that in addition to that, looking at the lack
of management of our forest and what that does to
the upper watershed in light of not necessarily investing
in additional major water storage projects
in over 40 years, make it even extremely more important
that we put added emphasis on water efficiency
and water conservation.
Our county, the average median household income
is under $30,000 a year.
So we're one of the poorest counties,
if not the poorest county in the state.
And anything that might drive rates up again
is another great concern for mine.
We have been on the board of supervisors.
We've been very big proponents of the safe
and affordable drinking water fund that the state
has implemented and is beginning to implement.
And I think that I would urge that the Commissioners
to look at options,
to try and collaborate more with other state agencies,
whether it'd be with the water resiliency portfolio
that was recently released several months ago,
for some of the other efforts that I mentioned.
These are the things that we need to be looking at
to try and reduce water use,
not to encourage additional water usage.
Our livelihoods depend on it.
And quite frankly,
my constituents and Visalia and other communities,
they just can't afford it.
So thank you for your time.
Batjer: Thank you, sir.
Operator, the next speaker, please.
Operator: And before we go to the next caller,
as a reminder, if you would like to speak during
the public comment period, please press #1,
unmute your phone and clearly provide
your name and organization when prompted.
Our next caller is David McCord, representing himselves.
So you may go ahead.
David: This is David McCord.
I'm a rate payer and El Cerrito speaking for myself,
and I've got two comments.
San Diego Gas and Electric's request on item 10 would bypass
the integrated resource planning process.
This utility and Southern California Edison need to follow
this process as load surfing entities.
These utilities want to contract
more multi year energy than it will need
considering eminent departure of customers to CCAs.
This will increase costs for bundled customers
and for CCA customers to the PCIA.
Microgrids, I attended yesterday's workshop on microgrids.
It was apparent that to reduce health and safety impact
of fires and shutoffs,
the CPUC must allow community microgrids
to interconnect facilities in different locations.
Solar panels on the city hall,
fire and police stations and other large municipal roofs
should interconnect with other essential services
such as hospitals and people with essential medical devices.
Many of those people's lives depend on uninterrupted power.
Please do what you can to allow these facilities
to be exempt from rules 18 and 19.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Mr. McCord.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Jim Stewart.
Is a rate payer.
So you may go ahead.
Jim: Hello.
I also want to support what McCord said here that you need
to revise rule 18 to allow the kind of interconnection
across property lines, across streets, so that you could
have a solar panel on city hall and it could power
the fire and police stations, hospitals,
other essential services,
and you should allow the people with these health emergency
things to join these microgrids.
Your rule 18 is obviously antiquated and needs
to be fixed immediately because we're getting into more
and more fire danger.
Secondly, I think you should withdraw item 10
from the consent agenda
and postpone it for some consideration.
I wanna ask if all of you Commissioners have read
the submission by the Protect our Communities Foundation
and by the San Diego community power proposed that.
What is happening here is that you have violated
your requirements for integrated resource planning
by just automatically rubber stamping
the proposed bundled procurement plan,
the BPP, dated from 2014.
This is not up to date.
So if you please reject this proposal and take another look
at it and try to see if you can get the planning
for millions of dollars of important procurement
in San Diego to occur using your own rules.
And I'm just praying that you can stop this.
So Cal Gas also probably on the next run since agenda
will have a similar resolution for a rubber stamp.
Stop rubber stamping these old ancient procurement plans.
Thank you.
-: Thank you Mr. Stewart.
Operator, the next speaker, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Richard Skaff
of Designing Accessible Communities.
Go ahead, sir.
Richard: Thank you, can you hear me?
Batjer: Yes, we can hear you fine.
Richard: Okay.
President Batjer and Commissioners,
thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I'm both a rate payer and the executive director
of Designing Accessible Communities,
501c3 nonprofit organization.
I want to ask a question first before I start my comments,
if that would be allowed.
It's about the agenda just for clarification.
Batjer: Yes, certainly.
Richard: Is the item that was on page 66,
I'm looking on your webpage agenda and there used
to be a page 66 that had a closed session item four
employee related issues.
Is that no longer on today's agenda?
Batjer: That's correct.
Richard: Thank you.
Then I'll go ahead and speak.
We have in Northern California,
experienced over 85 deaths caused by utility,
electric utility caused fires.
The last one didn't kill anybody,
the Kincade fire didn't kill anybody,
but it burned over 300 buildings.
Many of them private residences.
PG&E is attempting to catch up to work
that should've been done years ago.
Something just like the natural gas pipeline
that exploded in the South Bay
and killed at least one person.
This maintenance that hasn't been done for years.
My understanding of the reason the CPUC was put into place
by the state legislature was to protect Californians
from abuse, rape abuses
and assures that the electric,
the utilities that you oversee do what they're supposed
to be doing.
Clearly, PG&E and some of
the other electric utilities have not done that.
We are now facing the 2020 fire season.
We still don't have an SGIP program,
as you heard, that is functional.
I hear from all over the state,
people have tried to apply to get the batteries
that are supposedly allowed under that program,
but we're having contractors that are demanding
a down payment of $10,000 to people that
are on fixed income.
We are unable to find contractors that are on the CPUC list.
That continually say, well, if you don't do so,
we're not gonna do batteries.
It's chaos.
We still don't have the batteries.
We still have a problem with multifamily housing resolution.
How do these people that live in multifamily housing units
in tier two, tier three, wildfires zones that experienced
at least two the de-energization events?
What happens when their building owner says, no,
I don't want a battery installed in my building.
We don't have flexibility in the SGIP program
to allow alternatives like portable battery generators
that can be as effective as
the Tesla wall type power generator.
And in midst of all of this,
the Commission is looking at the possibility
of firing their executive director.
The only person that listened to us a year and a half ago.
I was one of four people that was given one minute,
the four of us each were given one minute to speak to four
of you, your president, the next day resigned.
And before he finished, he looked down on us and said,
don't worry, we'll be back next year to see
how every thing's going.
Well, it's not going well.
And we will not allow the only person at the CPUC
that's paid attention to this and listened to
the vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities
that are not the cause of the flyers.
We need your help to get this resolved immediately
before more people are killed, thank you.
Batjer: Thank you, Mr. Skaff.
Operator, could you please open the line for
the next caller.
Operator: Our next caller is Neal Desai
with National Parks Conservation Association.
Sir, you may go ahead.
Neal: Hi, good morning.
It's just Neal Desai with
the National Parks Conservation Association.
We've been working to protect our national parks around
the country for the last 101 years.
Thank you, President Bajer and Commissioners
for this opportunity to comment, and I hope you
and the Commissioner staff and, you know,
everyone else here on this call is just hanging
in there staying healthy.
I'll keep this pretty brief because we are fully supportive
of the Commission's position memo on Assembly bill 1720,
that recommends opposing that legislation.
We've been working to oppose
the $3.5 billion rate payer funded bailout of
the Eagle Crest pumped storage project for many years now
and have successfully stopped the four prior bills.
AB 1720 overwrites the Commission's IRP.
It's the fifth bill since 2018,
then the third one this year.
So, given all of that, it's, you know,
it's just really critical that the Commission assure
the public, that the fact based decision making
that it drives and it moves forward,
you know, the type of procurements that are important
for meeting our energy needs.
And that's why our organization is part of a pretty large
and diverse coalition representing environmental,
publicly owned utility, CCAs, renewable energy,
rate payers, ag, tribal veterans,
interests that have all been working
to defend your authority, the Commission's authorities
and the integrity of the IRP.
So, we just wanna thank the staff for their attention
to this and for the Commission
for having this on the agenda.
Thank you.
Have a good rest of the day.
Batjer: Thank you very much.
Operator, the next speaker, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Charles Russell.
He is the rate payer, so you may go ahead.
Charles: Hi, my name is Charles Russell
and I'm calling to comment on track two of
the SB 1339 proceeding.
Microgrid development is a significant event in California.
The state will not achieve its decarbonization goals
nor limit the environmental impact of wildfires
without significantly shifting to local generated power.
The result is an inevitable shift of load generation
to the distribution grid.
During yesterday's microgrid workshops,
staff addressed concerns about an infrastructure
that can handle widely distributed power.
They also raised concerns about the involvement
of outside vendors and protecting consumers
and utilities from load shifting.
The result is a proposal for track two
that is heavy on piloting and light on tariff creation
and commercialization.
The first sets of concerns are valid, the second are not.
The entities most impacted by microgrids
are local municipalities.
Local residents are impacted both by the lack of resilience
and the potential for load shifting.
Local government is best suited to decide how
to deploy local generation in order to increase resilience
while protecting disadvantaged communities.
The load being shifted is not oftentimes utility owned load.
For the growing majority of the state is load owned by CCAs
and financially guaranteed by their municipalities.
These local interests were not addressed yesterday.
The CEC has been piloting microgrids for over a decade.
Hundreds were already installed in California.
The technology is mature.
What is needed is an aggressive program to develop tariffs
for their deployment and a relaxation of the rules,
which limit municipal involvement.
I would like to end with a cautionary note,
when deregulation occurred on
the closed transmission grid three decades ago,
utility practices resulted in widespread price manipulation.
FERC responded with a series of orders
that created an open transmission grid.
We are now entering a period
of significant two-regulation style change on
the state run distribution grid.
As a result of PUC 218,
the distribution grid is a closed grid.
California should not allow the mistakes of
the past to be repeated.
Thank you for the chance to enter my comments.
-: Thank you, sir.
Next, operator, please call or please open the line
for the next speaker.
Operator: Our next caller is Claire Broom.
Also representing herself as a rate payer.
You may go ahead ma'am.
Claire: Good morning, Commissioners.
Can you hear me okay?
-: Yes, we can.
Clair: Okay.
I'm a rate payer from Brooklyn, California,
and I wish to speak on agenda item 10, which is currently on
the consent agenda,
permitting San Diego Gas and Electric to procure resources
for up to five years based on a bundled procurement plan.
This plan was last reviewed
in an official proceedings from 2014.
I strongly urge you to check it out of the consent agenda
and hold it for further consideration
for very substantive issues.
Number one, the approval constitutes an approval
of an advice letter,
which is essentially an explicit and run
around your own integrated resource planning procedure.
In May of 2020,
the scope of the IRP illicitly incorporated review
of bundled procurement plans from the IOUs.
So, waving through something from 2014,
which does not incorporate the statutory requirements
from SB 350 and SB 100, clearly against the spirit
and letter of California law and the IRP.
These laws require procurement and prioritizing
of renewable resources and avoiding disproportionate impacts
of pollutants on vulnerable communities.
The second problem with this draft resolution is related
to the assessment of the departing load charges.
Commissioner Shiroma, you told us that
the CEC microgrid workshop, that you were unable
to do anything about departing load charges,
that they were pushed up with them.
Well, today you are being asked to approve something
which may well result into payments
from both bundle customers and CCA customers
for years to come.
You are the people who approved these charges.
The specific reason why this is likely to be an overcharge
is because the Commission's own projections from
the IRP suggest that over 50% of the San Diego Gas
and Electric load may depart over the next two years.
Therefore, permitting for five years may well result
in excess charges.
Both for those customers who remain with SDG&E and also,
imposing unnecessary departing load charges
that will go into the PCIA and Burton CCAs
and help make it harder for them
to succeed in California's energy crisis.
You have a chance today to save rate payer dollars
and to obey the law.
Please take item 10 out of the consent agenda
and look at it hard.
Your staff argue that it is necessary as an interim measure,
until such time if there's Commission review.
I suggest that it's past time for the Commission
to take seriously oversight of
the IOUs supportive California law and encouragement
of community choice, which is what we need
for moving forward to a clean energy future.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you, Ms. Broom.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Connie Arnold
with Disability Rights Advocate.
You may go ahead, ma'am.
Connie: Yes, hi, this is Connie Arnold.
I'm a Disability Rights advocate and I'm calling regarding
the problem that I see that's happening at the Commission.
I would like to see the Commission obey the regulations of
the state of California and make sure to secure the safety
of vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities
that rely on electricity.
Something that they did not do
when they originally voted, five to zero to allow
the Public Safety Power Shutoff
to go through, push by the PG&E entity
and is embraced by all electric utility companies.
This has caused numerous persons with disabilities
and seniors to die in wildfires, not have
the electricity they need to meet their life
and health safety needs during shutoff events.
And the only person that has acted on behalf
of this vulnerable seniors and people
with disability has been Alice Stebbins.
The Self Generation Incentive Program is riddled
with all kinds of problems.
People with disabilities and seniors
are having difficulty accessing those services
that were supposed to be available.
And then somehow the funds have disappeared.
And I'm very concerned that the actions being taken against
the executive director, Alice Stebbins and her staff
who have worked tirelessly to resolve these issues
and recognize the needs, and safety of persons
with disabilities and seniors under threats
of de-energization and the ability
to obtain battery backup systems is wrong-headed.
It is retaliatory.
And, I would like to see something done even at
the state level to address the Commission operate above
the law, not operate above the law,
operate within the guidelines and not retaliate
against Alice Stebbins.
It's outrageous and completely counterproductive
to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable seniors
and persons with disabilities from PG&E
and electric utility shutoffs, and de-energization events
and smacks totally to me of politics and retaliation
for her trying to do no harm to the most vulnerable.
So, I wanna thank you for my ability to comment,
but I would like to see her continue in her role and try
to continue to address these issues
of these electric utility power shutoff
and how they endanger lives of people with disabilities
and the elderly who have died.
In Chico, I have friends that lost their home,
including the senior in Chico,
barely escaped with their lives.
I know people over in Santa Rosa who were in the fires
and this is wrong and something needs to be done
to make sure that the CPUC operates appropriately so that
the lives of residents of California
are not put at harm by these electric utility companies.
Thank you.
Batjer: Thank you, Mrs. Arnold.
Operator the next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Clinton Olivier
with the Business Federation of the Central Valley.
Go ahead sir, you may speak.
Clinton: Thank you, Commissioners.
My name is Clint Olivier.
I represent the Business Federation of the Central Valley
or BizFed, for short.
It's a coalition of about 70 associations,
professional trade associations and companies here in
the Central Valley.
And I appreciate the opportunity to call in
to today's meeting.
I strongly encourage you
to delay action on proposed decision
and rulemaking 1706024,
until some more thorough analysis can be conducted
on the impact this decision could have on water conservation
and customer rates.
Now, this regulatory body has a solid reputation
of being leaders on sustainability and conservation
as directed by statewide policy makers
and supported by Californians.
This proposal seems counterintuitive to those objectives
and will raise water rates for millions
of our neighbors in our states.
Decoupling water sales from the revenues
of water providers is a best practice used
by other regulatory bodies throughout the country
to incentivize efficient operations and conservation.
It's a big deal to consider eliminating this proven tool.
And it seems appropriate to allow for more than 30 days
of review and input before making such
a significant change as this.
The notion of returning to a regulatory structure
that incentivizes waterproof providers to sell more water,
to generate revenue, to operate their systems,
just seems countered to our state's conservation priorities
and to the best interest of customers.
And as we are all well aware,
water is scarce in California and every gallon saved
is a gallon available for another purpose,
and one less gallon we need to procure.
Customers who use less water
have lower bills than those who use more water.
So incentivizing water providers to invest in efforts
to educate customers, to conserve and in rebates for things
like high efficiency toilets,
or drought resistant landscaping is money well spent.
I understand there may be differences of opinion as to
whether the same level of conservation can be achieved
among water providers who have decoupling mechanisms
and those who don't.
But that again is why more time is needed
for thorough objective third party analysis.
The impact to our scarce water supplies
and to customer bills is too serious
to rush in this direction.
Please we ask,
take the time to make sure what you are considering is in
the best interest of water customers before it's too late
and we can't change course.
Thank you so much Commissioners for your time.
Batjer: Thank you very much.
The next speaker please, operator.
Operator: Our next caller is Alice Huffman
with the California State NAACP.
Thank you Ma'am, you may go ahead.
Participant: Can you hear me?
Batjer: Yes, we can.
Alice: Thank you commisioners.
My name is Alice Huffman, representing
the California state NAACP and here today out
of concern regarding proposed decision
and rulemaking 1706024.
The fact that we are considering a change
to current regulations
that would substantially increase water bills
for low income proponents is mind boggling.
I don't know.
I don't need to tell you any or anyone in this meeting that
these are unprecedented times right now and that I am,
and many Californians are out of work and struggling
to pay their bills.
COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted
the African American community and many African Americans
live in the water districts that will be forced
to pay substantially more for water services
if this proposal is ever adopted.
Thank you for delaying the actions on this proposal,
and we urge you to carefully consider the impact of
any of your changes that would make our customers,
that would impact our customer's bills.
Thank you so much.
And I'm sorry for the missed half this morning.
Batjer: Thank you very much for calling in,
I appreciate it.
Operator, the next speaker, please
Operator: The next caller is Erica Martin
with SDG&E rate payer.
You may go ahead.
Erica: Yes, thank you.
My name is Erica Morgan,
and I wanna thank all the Commissioners for their time
and attention this morning.
I've been online an hour already,
and I dare say you have a whole meeting ahead of you.
My company name is Energetic Management Associates.
I'm a sole proprietor working in downtown San Diego,
and I'm calling to oppose item 10 on the consent agenda,
which as you've heard already, has a draft resolution
approving SDG&E bundled procurement plan.
As you've also heard very well put already this morning,
this resolution should be rejected for many reasons,
but the one that concerns me the most, and I have been at
an electricity policy consultant for 20 years,
is that this plant is terribly out of date.
This 2014 plan, too many things have changed since 2014
that are not reflected in this plan.
And here are four big ones.
First, we passed SB 350 in 2015.
SB 350 requires that SDG&E minimize air pollutants
and greenhouse gas emissions with priority
to disadvantaged communities.
SDG&E's plan does not mention disadvantaged communities.
Second, the Commission ordered in decision 15-10-031,
a required by any old review of these procurement plans.
And no such review has occurred of this plan since 2014.
And third, we the people, passed SB 10 in 2018,
which like SB 350, and the resulting public utilities code,
requires SDG&E to rely upon.
And I'm quoting, "Rely upon zero carbon emitting resources
"to the maximum extent possible," unquote.
This plan does not do that.
And fourth, in October, 2019,
San Diego and four other cities voted
to create San Diego Community Power,
an outcome for which many of us have been working
for a very long time.
In this plan, SDG&E fails to update its procurement plans
to recognize this substantial decline in load,
leading to the increases in
the power charge indifference adjustment
that all your previous speakers have mentioned and feared.
My bottom line is, how can the Commission condone
such an egregious lack of planning
as to ignore all these factors.
That just seems to me impossible that
this would be a consent item,
and I urge you to remove it from the consent agenda
and think about it again.
And if I have another minute, I want to second some of
the very thoughtful and appropriate comments on
the microgrid proceeding and particularly on
the workshop proposals that were presented yesterday,
I did not attend.
But I did notice in going through that material,
that there was a consistency seeming in the staff proposal.
10 microgrids per state, 15 microgrids per state.
Really, we need to anticipate the rapid penetration
of this technology because it provides
the resiliency benefits that so many other speakers
have spoken about so critically and so movingly.
And with that,
I want to conclude my comments and thank you very much
for the opportunity to make them.
(bell dinging)
Oops, it's a bell.
Batjer: You just got in under the wire.
(laughing) Thank you.
Operator, the next speaker, please.
Operator: And President Batjer,
there are no more participants
on the public comment, telephone line at this time.
Batjer: Okay, let's just wait a minute or two.
I know people have been waiting a long time
to speak to us today.
So in another minute, if there's any people
that have difficulty calling in and they wanna call.
Operator: To provide another reminder,
if you would wish to speak during the public comment period,
please press #1, unmute your phone and clearly provide
your name and organization when prompted.
Please stand by for next caller.
-: President Batjer, if I could on item 19 comments,
just make a comment to the commenters.
-: Certainly.
Thank you. -: Thank you.
I really appreciate all the public comment.
I would really invite those who can stay.
We will be discussing the item,
although we will be voting to hold it.
And so, I really encourage everyone to stay
for the discussion on item 19, that's the item dealing
with water affordability and conservation.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
I really wanna check the lines again to see if there's
anybody else that's called in.
Operator: Yes, we have a few more callers.
Blair Beekman representing himself.
So you may go ahead.
Blair: All right, thank you.
Can you hear me?
Batjer: Yes, we can.
Blair: Thank you very much.
And all the current questions
we are currently going through of...
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong letter here.
I have a letter to speak this afternoon, so thank you.
Let me try that again here.
With this being the 75th anniversary of
the atom bomb falling on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan,
I think the current state of California,
ideas of rent forgiveness for tenants
and mortgage forgiveness for owners
has been some incredible work in this time of COVID-19.
These times may be grim, but people's ideas
and full forgiveness for both tenants and owners
is incredibly compassionate and has good logic.
I feel these are the deeper meanings
on how to begin to reopen our future.
Another simple question at this time,
how can our future ideas of longterm social planning
be based on the genuine concepts to positive sustainability,
and without hurting mass numbers of people in order
to accomplish longterm societal plans and goals?
I think we are seeing a pattern develop that seems
a form of state sponsored violence, extremism,
and terrorism that keeps being developed
and refined over the past 20 years.
It seems disconcerting to almost everyone that
there seems to be difficult in talking
about it openly and publicly.
As I spoke here at the end of June,
please consider the many possibilities of how
current local community check accountability guidelines,
legal precedence, and open democratic practices
from the ACLU and certain departments
within the state of California, and even the UN
are specifically meant to address ideas
of peace and how to end continual war
and shock doctrine practices.
It is to help everyday community
and local government work together
to create open responsible technology surveillance
and data collection for its local community.
Collectively, across the country, this local level work
of more shared, open democratic practices
can eventually make important demands of peace
at the national/international level
and even of the UN and WHO.
These are the ways to empower and invite everyday people to
be able to talk with different levels of government on how
to end the concepts of government
and corporate shock doctrine.
And to a better reason, humanistic peaceful ideas,
many have been working on for decades now.
Thank you.
I'd like to conclude, how much time do I have left?
Batjer: I don't know, I don't have a timer on.
Blair: I probably have about 30 or 40 seconds.
I've been working with studying
the East Bay community energy ideas.
They've been terrific,
you know, local community ideas.
How can we really focus on local energy ideas
without these big bulk packages that PG&E
is forcing on everyone in this time of fear
with their nuclear plans?
You know, we wanna work in good sustainable terms
at the local level wise,
PG&E forcing these nuclear ideas onto it still.
You know, we have options,
let's make our options positive and good.
And what I'm learning right now with what is possible,
I hope we can make those efforts.
Thank you.
Batjer: Thank you, sir.
Operator, is there anybody else on the line?
Operator: Yes, we have two more callers at this time.
Our next caller is Catherine Sandoval
with Santa Clara University.
You may go ahead, ma'am.
Catherine: Yes, good morning.
This is Catherine Sandoval and I'm a law professor
at Santa Clara University and a former Commissioner
of the California Public Utilities Commission.
I'm here representing myself
as an individual water rate payer,
and also as a law professor to express my concerns
about the proposed decision in item 19,
which unfortunately undermines affordability,
deters conservation, and is founded on legal
and factual error.
So the fundamental issue driving the legal
and factual error,
the heart of the PD, is the conflation of forecasting with
the WRAM, the Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism,
the Modified Cost Balancing Account, MCBA,
and the Monterey-style WRAM.
Those are four analytically distinct tools.
And yet the PD also misunderstands the WRAM
and the Monterey-style WRAM as substitutes from each other
when their purposes are distinct.
So the WRAM captures variations in sales and water rates
and contrast the Monterey-style WRAM,
covers variations in water rates.
It does not provide any adjustment for the divergence
between forecasted and actual sale.
And there's even less of a relationship between
the Monterey-style WRAM and forecasting.
Then there is between WRAM and forecasting
because different forecasting models or projections
would not influence the revenue collected
through the Monterey-style WRAM.
And so, the issue here is that WRAM, MCBA,
Monterey-style WRAM were neither listed in the OYR
for rulemakings 170602 nor in it's three scoping memos.
So despite the PD's suggestion that these topics have always
been within the consideration as part of the review
of forecasting, the PD commits, unfortunately, legal error
in treating WRAM, MCBA and Monterey-style WRAM
as subsets of forecasting,
when in fact they are absolutely not.
And any reference to forecasting
and the proceeding scoping memo,
discussion of WRAM and Monterey-style WRAM in a workshop,
in a brief question they'll say,
rulings are legally insufficient
to bring those revenue collection and rate design issues
within this proceeding scope.
So, as someone who worked on the previous proceeding
that was adopted in 2016 to help to improve forecasting,
I do agree with the PD's important work on forecasting
and recommend that this PD should be withdrawn
to revise it and to address issues within its scope,
including improving forecasting.
And because the OYR doesn't mention WRAM, MCBA,
Monterey-style WRAM,
I recommend that you amend the OYR to include those issues
and then give the public an opportunity to comment on
the affordability and conservation impact
of those revenue collection of rate design mechanisms.
And since the Monterey-style WRAM is so closely related
to local tiered rate,
it must be analyzed on a service by service area basis.
And so this also suggests that the CPUC should do so
in a rate setting proceeding that would allow
for hearings, testimony, griefs, oral arguments
to analyze those issues.
So I thank you for this discussing holt to address
the legal and factual errors underlying this PD,
and I thank you for your important work
to promote affordability and conservation.
Thank you very much.
Batjer: Thank you for calling in today,
I appreciate it Mrs. Sandoval.
Catherine: Likewise, you take care.
Batjer: Okay, operator please.
I think there's one more caller on the line.
Operator: Yes, our next caller is Leslie Purcell.
She is a member of the public.
Kindly, you may go ahead.
Leslie: Hi, can you hear me?
Batjer: Yes, we can.
Leslie: Great.
This is Leslie Purcell.
I am calling to support
the community microgrid facilitation,
and just mentioned that we have many opportunities
to put solar on municipal buildings and parking lots
and commercial buildings and industrial sites as well.
It's just an opportunity that needs to be taken.
And that would be helpful if we could facilitate
these community microgrids.
I'm also calling about item 10 on the agenda,
which is the draft resolution, E-5083.
I think you've heard a lot about that already.
I would also support withdrawing it from the consent agenda.
It's extending this old per securement plan for SDG&E,
and I believe there's a similar one
in the offing per so Cal Edison.
And instead, please require the proper review of these BPPs
within the IRP proceedings.
The proposed extension does not incorporate
the clean energy legislation and mandates
that we've had since 2014, including SB 350 and SB 100.
It does not address disadvantage communities
that's required by SB 350.
And it further fails to ensure
that that's SDG&E minimize the localized deer pollutants
and other greenhouse gases with the priority
on disadvantaged communities, also per SB 350.
And it also fails to ensure that SDG&E would rely
upon zero carbon emitting resources
to the maximum extent reasonable or feasible.
So for these various reasons,
I believe you should take it off the consent calendar
and have a full IRP proceeding that would allow
full consideration of these very important issues.
Thank you very much.
Batjer: Thank you, Miss Purcell.
Operator, you wanna check the line for any other callers.
Operator: No additional callers at this time, but again,
if you would like to make a public comment,
please press #1, unmute your phone and provide
your name and organization when prompted.
Please stand by for incoming questions, comments.
Batjer: Why don't you check one more time?
Operator, could you check the line one more time?
Operator: Yes, and they showed no additional callers
at this time.
Batjer: Okay, with no more callers on the line,
the public comment period is now closed.
Thank you operator.
We will move on now to the agenda changes.
Those held--
Participant: President Batjer?
President Batjer?
Batjer: Yes.
Participant: I'd like to request given that there was
a lot of comments about item 10.
My suggestion would be to hold that item for one meeting
and allow for energy division to come back and present
some of the further information about that item
and the effect of the rolling five-year approval
with regard to the BPP.
So I'd like to go ahead and move that we hold that item.
Batjer: Okay.
We'll have to vote separately on that.
So, I guess we'll take a vote on it first,
before I read through the old items.
Because we have another item that
we have to do the same with.
Now, I'm gonna see, and Simon is on the line.
And what could you advise?
Should I hold till we go through the held first
and then have the vote or vote first?
Simon: Go through the listed held items first,
and then you will have two votes, one on each request.
Batjer: Okay.
Well, that's the way we'll do it.
I'll go through the held and withdrawn items now.
And then we'll pick up item 10
and we will also be taking up item 18.
Okay, item two is withdrawn.
Item three will be held
until the Commission meeting on 8-27-20.
Item four will be held to the September 24th, 2020 meeting
and will be on the regular agenda.
Items six will be held to the 8-27 Commission meeting,
item seven will be held to the 8-27 meeting,
item 19 will be moved to the regular agenda
of today's agenda.
Item 21 will be held until 8-27 Commission meeting.
Item 26 will be held until the 8-27 Commission meeting.
Item 29 will be held until the 8-27 Commission meeting.
Item 39 will be taken up with the consent agenda.
Item 40 will be held until the 8-27 Commission meeting
except B, which is AB 1720.
That will be taken up with the consent agenda.
Okay.
We now will take up.
We can vote on the consent agenda and then we will take up
the separate items I mentioned earlier.
Participant: I think we have to vote on the holds
before we do the consent agenda.
Batjer: Okay, let's do that then.
Thank you for the clarification.
Commissioner Randolph, would you like to present
your motion again, please?
Randolph: Yes, I would like to hold item 10
for one meeting.
Batjer: Okay.
The motion's been made, is it seconded?
Participant: It's second.
Batjer: Well, like, agenda clerk, please call the roll.
Operator: Commissioner Shiroma.
Shiroma: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
Guzman: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
Randolph: Yes.
Operator: Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
Retchtschaffen: yes.
Operator: President Batjer.
Batjer: Aye.
Batjer: It's unanimous, thank you Commissioner Randolph--
Participant: President Batjer.
Batjer: Yes.
Participant: I'd like to request a hold on item 18
for one meeting.
Batjer: I was just going to turn to you, okay.
Thank you.
I'm going to take that that's a motion.
Participant: Yes, please, I'll move to a hold item 18
for one meeting.
Batjer: Okay, thank you.
Is there a second?
Participant: I'm pleased to second the motion,
but is it item 19 or-- Participant: No.
This is item 18 related
to Liberty Utilities General Rate Case.
Participant: Oh, I'm sorry, yes, yes.
Yeah, I'll be happy to second your motion.
Batjer: Okay, the motion has been made to hold item 18
to August 27th, Commission meeting agenda
and it's been seconded.
Agenda clerk, please call the roll.
Operator: Commissioner Shiroma.
Shiroma: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
Guzman: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
Randolph: Yes.
Operator: Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
Retchtschaffen: Yeah.
Operator: President Batjer.
Batjer: Yes.
Okay, that's passed unanimously.
All right, now we will move to take up the consent items.
Is there a motion?
-: Well moved.
-: And a second please?
-: Second. -: I'll second.
-: Okay.
It's been moved and seconded twice that we vote
on the consent agenda items.
Agenda clerk, please call the roll.
Operator: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Operator: Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Operator: President Batjer.
-: Yes.
It has been passed unanimously.
Okay, thank you.
I believe Commissioner Guzman Aceves
you have a comment on item 20?
-: No, thank you, President Batjer.
-: Okay, thank you.
All right, with that,
we will move to the regular agenda items.
The first item is item 19,
and that is the affordability, sales forecast and changes
to the Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanisms,
naming consistency of low income rate assistance programs.
-: And apologies, President Batjer,
I had my notes out of order.
I would like to, before going to this item
please speak on the consent items 20.
I'm a California advisor.
Batjer: I know, so right then.
-: I'm glad you're tracking my talking points.
I'll be very brief.
I just wanted to thank everyone who's worked
on this decision, on the California Advanced Services Fund.
The program, as you know,
is our major broadband infrastructure funding.
And as we've mentioned before,
the over a half a billion dollars of requests
are really twice the amount of the remaining funds.
So we have included a provision in the decision
that allows out of abundance of caution,
if for some reason there is some funding
that is remaining after this round,
that staff would have the ability to issue a new round
so that we can again be expeditious
on our funding of this projects.
We also did some changes to the Public Housing Account Fund,
and just to stress that, there is such a need
in our affordable housing, public housing,
whether it be senior housing or different types
of low income housing, as we know today.
And this program needs many more reform statutorily,
but some of the things within our power we did with
this decision to try to get more of
these facilities on access.
And just as a point of awareness,
I know many of you know this,
but Commissioner Shiroma and I had the opportunity
to meet with the California Department of Aging.
And they shared some of their statistics
just a few weeks ago,
where one in five adults in their facilities
between the ages of 50 and 64,
do not have access to the internet,
and the older you get, the worse it gets.
So we really still have a great need
within our public housing communities.
And finally, one of the most exciting provisions
that was included in the decision was a technical assistance
for tribes, and really building up the capacity of tribes.
We know that in one of our recent studies from 2018
at really the lowest benchmark,
a six megabit down, one megabit up to speed,
the lowest speed that's insufficient.
Even with that low threshold,
44% of California tribes are unserved, 100% unserved.
That's roughly 30% of tribal lands in California.
And really, we can't just wait for them to come in
with an infrastructure proposal.
We need to help them build the capacity to do this.
And so there's a very exciting provision.
There's many people to think, as you know,
we've really enhanced our team here
at the CPUC on folks dedicated to tribal issues.
Karen Eckersley, who's now working as a liaison
in Northern California on the issues
of all communication resiliency.
Stephanie Green, our tribal liaison.
Hector Garcia, who's worked with her on local government
and tribal outreach.
And most recently our tribal adviser, Ken Holbrook.
In addition, I just want to thank all the staff
that has worked on this.
President Batjer, you're my badly key partner
and your staff, Michael Mullaney, Judge Colbert,
Judge Stevens, Helen Savage, Enrique Gallardo, Stacy Castro.
And of course the communications division strong team with
the leadership of Rob Osborn, Michael Minkah,
Selena Shek, Luis Fisher and James Chang.
And finally, my staff, we've helped get this PD through.
And my newest advisor, Stephani Crespin
for all her work on this, Sarah Sharpe,
and of course Justin Fong.
Okay, so thank you for giving me
that opportunity to speak on that item.
It is actually a very exciting, but small PB
but very exciting, we hope to get some traction.
-: And I wanna add my thanks to you because
your passion and doggedness and...
Brain power.
To work so very hard and so passionately on this.
So, great, thanks to you, Martha.
Great thanks to you.
-: Thank you. -: Okay.
Now we'll move on to the regular agenda.
-: Okay, thank you very much.
Well, we've heard a lot about this today and I will be,
you know, just going to say that--
Batjer: Martha, you're speaking on item 19, correct?
-: Yes, thank you.
I'm speaking on item 19,
the Waterford ability sales forecasting,
and obviously the WRAM issues proceeding.
And I wanna reiterate that we'll be discussing this item
and then I'll be asking all of you to vote,
to hold it at the end of the discussion.
Okay.
So the headline here is that this decision
will not increase bills and it will not increase bills,
certainly on low income California.
This decision does not end conservation.
It does not enter in pricing,
and it does not end conservation investments.
It's unfortunate that some of the water companies have spent
a lot of money running ads and paying for more lobbyists,
which by the way, I hope they're not using shareholder,
that they are using shareholder funds to pay for,
instead of rate their funds.
It convinced people that we heard this morning,
like the chambers, the NAACP and others,
that this decision would somehow make
those increase and then will make conservation.
They actually developed a PowerPoint,
a couple PowerPoints that I saw, showing
that they had different findings on the WRAM conservation,
what would happen to them with a going to a Monterey WRAM?
And I asked for the underlying data of this information,
I never received it.
And of course, it's all post-record.
But I did have a bit of a moment on that.
You know, I just want to reflect,
there's only one time, and this is a big statement here,
that I have seen such misinformation displayed
and getting to the public.
There was one time when I had the privilege
of being with (indistinct)
under the Industrial Welfare Commission.
Well, we still had it, not previous to elimination
under a certain governor.
She had her wage increase hearing.
She put us to a half a monthly minimum wage.
And through the VFW, through her leadership,
now pushing for an increase, that means she passed.
And ranchers have brought the sheep herders
and they have hundreds sheep herders testifying
against a wage increase.
And the loaders went and she spoke to every one of
those workers to explain to them that they weren't gonna
lose their jobs and the economics of what was happening.
And I feel very reminiscent of that moment today.
I do want to explain how this PD does not do what
has been alleged by the water companies and how in fact
it will save customers on their bills,
especially when they conserve.
But before I get into that,
I do wanna give a brief history on the proceeding.
And I wanna share the trajectory
of what I see, the water utilities in the state,
which is a trajectory as well.
Well, we initiated the proceeding two years ago,
to look at ways to improve affordability
for water customers.
We held five workshops in conjunction with
the State Water Board.
The proceeding explored various measures
that could potentially help attain more affordable bills
from everything, from sharing data that we had,
from the IOU, electric value side,
identifying low income customers with municiple providers
before a lot of them, that's a whole nother story.
We discussed the acquisition of systems,
especially failing systems.
We talked about how to ensure that renters
could potentially benefit from these discounted programs.
We've talked about establishing guidelines
on what central water use was, guidelines
for improving forecasting, consolidation of districts,
pulling mechanisms, including the possibility
of statewide pooling, should the state legislature
and governor ever establish
a statewide low income assistance program,
which in fact there are investing on.
By the way, I do wanna recognize that the water utilities
have had a very progressive stance in advocating for
a statewide affordability program.
They've led the call for all Californians
to getting safe and affordable drinking water.
And even on the acquisition of failing systems
in collaboration with the State Water Board,
the water utilities test showed great interest in exploring
how they can play a critical role in this safer program
of providing support for acquiring
and managing failing water systems.
It's clear to me that the role of our water utilities
in providing this essential service is one that will grow
and expand in our state.
And with the policy reforms that I proposed in this PD,
I envision a growth that will be better balanced,
both for the customers, new and existing,
after the utilities.
The balance in this decision is especially critical
now, during COVID-19.
It's important for households,
especially low income households, to be able to conserve
and not pay more a year later,
for utilities to have uniform reporting
so we can track critical data points
and really adjust in our rulemaking.
We should have water conservation database mines.
We are a program baseline.
Many different elements of reporting that are included
in this decision.
We have, of course, improved forecasting and lessening
to avoid the lessening revenue shortfalls.
Guidance on developing rate structures
that you do take into account this essential usage that
was decided on the affordability decisions
and the state board guidance.
And of course, piloting how low income customers
in affordable housing units can benefit from
the low income discount program and many other provisions.
Okay, so with that background,
I do wanna say, to address these two allegations that
have been raised that water bills are going to go up.
And actually, it took me a long time to even understand how
they were deriving this claim.
I do want thank Bruce from the Water Division
for pointing out what potentially is dragging that claim.
Yeah, and this it is.
This, unfortunately, it's an easy clarification.
The PD includes a directive to the utility for establishing
a base rate that first tier to be sufficient
to cover the basic amount of water
that is considered essential as defined again
by the State Water Board and that's timed
in our affordability proceedings.
And the PD has two provisions.
One, it has the conclusion of law that states,
and I quote, "Water utilities should consider
"and provide analysis for establishing a baseline,
"not set below both the essential indoor use,
"the 600 cubic feet per household per month,
"as stated in the affordability proceeding
"and the average one to use in each rate making district".
And to implement that,
there's an ordering paragraph that states,
"Water utilities shall provide analysis in the next general
"rate case applications to determine
"the appropriate tier one breakpoint that aligns
"with the baseline amount of water
"for basic human needs for each rate making area".
I believe that the concern and the allegation
of this bill going up for low use customers
is that the terminal line is being viewed
as a cap on what the baseline allocation
of water for essentially use should be.
Essentially, a cap on what the tier one level should be.
But in fact, it's a minimum not set below.
It's a minimum of what the tier one level should be set up.
In addition, this is obviously a guidance for analysis,
not a hard and fast level for the tier one.
But for a level that should be based on local needs,
along with the state budget and guidance
for essentially use.
In a review of a major class tier one level
that we've been doing our last couple of days,
this analysis will be met with their existing allocations.
However, I am committed in making a clarification
to the ordering paragraph to make this explicitly clear.
Okay, that should address the first claim.
The second claim, the claim that the elimination of the WRAM
will eliminate the conservation rate structure,
that it will eliminate and undermine conservation efforts.
All utilities, all of our utilities are conserving
and not all of them are provided
this generous recovery mechanism.
Someone mentioned already as
a nine class tier water utilities,
only five have access to the full recovery WRAM.
Cal-Am, Cal Water, Golden state and Liberty.
None of the class B, class C or class D water utilities
really see that WRAM recovery.
San Jose, Great Oaks suburban, San Diego
have Monterey-style.
And four of the class B water utilities
have no rounds at all.
Eliminated in the round does not eliminate tier prices,
nor does it eliminate the separate balance sheet accounts
that exist for each of the utilities,
on conservation programs and investments.
Separate balancing account,
nothing to do with the WRAM.
Eliminating the WRAM eliminates the rate payer guarantee
and the utility revenue.
That's what is eliminating, the WRAM does.
It illuminates the rate payer, guaranteeing the revenues,
which means the guarantee of utility profit is something
that we payers have complete obligation with the WRAM.
Regardless of any of the factors that have taken place
in the economy.
I'm not disputing
that decoupling benefited greater conservation in the state.
That utilities don't work against conservation
because of financial reasons.
What I am saying is that we have a law
in our public policy about conservation.
We are in a new climate reality and we know that's useful,
it needs to go down.
We do not need to guarantee the utility profits in order
to accomplish conservation anymore.
Even if the utilities did launch the campaign
on increasing water conservation, which would be illegal,
customers would never go for it.
Customers are leading their conserving.
In addition to the risk itself being born by the customers,
it's delayed nature of how the WRAM is recovered,
that makes it even more perverse in the policy.
The customer can conserve for an entire year,
just to see for the staff the following year
to be build for Von consumption.
It's really, I was trying to think of a word for it,
it's just rude.
Further more, these amounts can be up to 10%
of the overall revenue requirement.
The worst offender of this is Cal Water.
It has in its last report,
over 60 million in their overall balance.
Their entire annual revenue is seven hundred million.
That's nearly 10% of their annual overall revenue
that will be collected back from customers.
It's very difficult for customers to understand
why they have a constantly conservation rate charge
after they've conserved.
Uplifting the utility by guaranteed profits
so that they conduct and promote conservation
is now an antiquated policy.
It had it's role in the late 2000's
when the benefits of conservation,
I guess, we're still being in dispute.
Today, we should not have to insulate the utility
for the entire economic reality of running a utility
because we want them
to not work against conserving.
Customers are the conservers of water, not utilities.
Conservation measures, including tiered pricing,
firm regional water wholesale requirements,
and state mandate are now in place.
And they are truly how conservation is accomplished.
They are really mandated that you will not get more water.
You in fact, have to plan for less.
The regional wholesalers have not lifted
their restrictions from the drought.
They can't even install more water if they wanted to.
The clean and efficiency programs,
the toilet, the water fixtures and the showers,
everything will not be promoted,
if the investments by the utilities will decrease,
if they don't get guaranteed which amounts
of profits is possible.
To establish those budgets separately.
And the utilities
all have separate conservation balancing accounts.
Those types of investments that they provide.
If work is sure that they want to implement those programs,
they must have a third party deal.
Many of them are underspent now, even with the WRAM.
So we actually should consider it.
I'm sure organizations like (indistinct), LA and others
who have done conservation programs for decades,
they probably do a better job.
As I said in California, water budgets,
your statute are now requirement
in water conservation reduction rules as well.
We must know that our it's going down and must go down.
We have climate change, more frequent.
We all know.
So let's plan for it.
Let's forecasts the real amount and let's discuss
the real cost for that water service.
There's no reason why the same amount of revenue
cannot be collected without a WRAM.
It requires good planning, knowing your customers.
A good forecast with conservation by customers,
with assumed implementation of efficiency
and those investments.
There will be reduced risk in good planning
and knowing how your customers will behave.
Versus poor forecasting and guaranteed recovery.
In addition to the major provision of transitioning,
which is not aspiring provision,
it's not something that we're gonna transition it
to the next year, two of Monterey WRAM.
Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Sandoval,
there's definitely apples and oranges.
In addition to that element
of transition, water utility will also have
their other balancing accounts
that insulate them from risks.
They have this semiannual report,
includes how many of these are,
just to give you a sense.
Costing water utilities had 150 balance
in accounts combined.
There are very important mechanisms that I believe should
and will continue.
Particularly those that deal with the recovery
for increased water supply costs and energy costs.
These are referred to in different utilities
as incremental costs, balancing accounts, water costs,
balancing accounts, power costs, balancing accounts.
These balancing accounts are akin to our era accounts
in the energy world.
And I believe those are responsible recovery accounts.
There are times that we make a determination
that certain costs like the cost of water supply
and energy costs can be fully recovered,
for different policy reasons,
primarily that they're on unforecastable.
And we also establish recovery mechanisms
that I believe also should continue, like during drought
or other emergencies like today with COVID.
This is how I believe
we should rate regulate these utilities.
We require good planning, require conservation investments
and allow for certain more limited recovery mechanisms
that consumers can understand.
A PB will lead to a reduction in bills.
And eliminating the unanticipated,
eliminating the practice of rate payers
bringing all the risks to operating a utility.
Thank you for giving me so much time to explain
how I've derived my thinking on this.
And I really do look forward to hearing
from you on your thoughts on how to improve this PD.
And I certainly wanna thank my Bagley-Keene partner,
Commisioner Shiroma, who has really struggled with finding
with me this balance in my PD,
and continues to dialogue on how to improve this decision.
Thank you.
Batjer: Thank you, Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
That was an excellent presentation.
It helped me answered several of my questions.
Commissioner Randolph.
Randolph: Thank you.
I just had a few kind of questions and things
to discuss with regard to the proposed decision.
I like a lot of what it did around creating
some standardization around the low income programs
and, you know, various other steps of the PD
that I think are an improvement.
What I'm trying to get my head around is the fact
that the question of whether or not to have a WRAM
is kind of,
there's two fundamentally competing public policies, right?
It's that you want to encourage decoupling, you know,
you wanna have decoupling as we do in the energy world
where you don't want to have the utility incentivized
to increase their volume metric collection for any reason.
And at the same time,
you wanna avoid rate impacts to customers,
particularly low income customers.
And I think you have correctly pointed out
that these amounts collect over long periods of time.
And then the customers look at their bills and go,
wait a minute, I've been conserving, why am I paying more?
And I think you got to the, sort of the heart of the issue,
which is that if we had better forecasting
and better planning, then you wouldn't see that up and down,
you wouldn't see that sort of financial shock
to the rate payer.
So my first question is where you see
that fundamental question about improved forecasting going?
Cause I think some parties have commented that
the forecasting has been improving
and that there is some sort of less situations
where the WRAM recovery presents
a significant shock because, you know,
that Delta has started to go down.
Where do you see that issue going in this proceeding?
Guzman: Well, I think that you're right,
the forecasting has improved.
Although there are some that haven't.
And I would say just to the point that really,
that we don't have to depend, well, let me,
just on the conservation point, you really just don't have
to depend on centralizing utility anymore.
That's kinda my other fundamental point.
But if I'm answering your question on
where do I see improve forecasts going in the proceeding?
It's the clear guidance that the state
has now required water budgeting for each utility,
public or private.
We now know that the state is forcing a reduction
in consumption, certainly during the drought,
it's a very explicit mandate.
And the forecasting has to be more conservative.
And it's not just the utilities responsibility,
it's the public advocates, the main party.
We've had very open discussions about this as well.
In kind of the unfortunate situation that settlements
were coming together that included forecasts
that were not conservative enough.
And part of the driver to that was to agree
on a rate increase that was bearable without considering
the real impact on bill,
which is around coming back as a surcharge
the following year.
I think that the public advocates obviously
have seen the result of that now.
And obviously, has a changing position.
I think the part that's going to be now difficult for us all
is that we're gonna have to deal with that reality
at the forefront, at the very beginning with a GRC forecast.
And that's the shift.
The shift is coming back to kind of regular budgeting
where you say, this is gonna be how much I have to,
this is the limit of how much I have to sell.
And, just frankly, the fact that, you know,
Metropolitan, Santa Clara, don't tell sellers,
they're not even gonna give you more water.
And by the way, some of our old forecasting tools,
the name is leaving me right now,
but they don't even allow for the assumption
of a drought to occur.
Drought years are pulled out of the forecast.
So, I think it's the new model mechanism
or something like that.
And so our traditional forecasting models and assumptions,
what we recognized in this decision
they're harmful to our forecasting and that
that was a good recognition, all the parties agreed.
Here's the assumptions we need to use.
They need to use the budgeting requirements.
And we need to look at our regions for sure.
What are the limitations on our regional suppliers?
What are we assuming there?
And what are we assuming on this point down?
I don't know if I'm answering your question, but--
Randolph: Yeah
-: Okay.
Randolph: Yeah, that was really helpful.
That did answer my question.
Actually, one of the things that I found encouraging
about your answer is I feel like when I first read
the PD, I was concerned that we hadn't made enough progress
in forecasting, but I feel
like you've identified some areas.
And so, I guess my question then is,
does it make sense to see how the improvements to be made
to forecasting play out before assuming that
the WRAM can be eliminated?
Because I guess I see decoupling as not only
a function of sending, you know,
incentivizing the utilities to ensure conservation,
which you were absolutely right,
they need to do anyway.
But it also is a simple budgeting reality
that they have to run a water system.
They have to figure out how to finance
the cost of the water system.
And so, inevitably they are gonna need to budget
and forecast, figure out the amount.
And at the end of the day,
they still have to operate the system.
And they still have to meet their budgetary needs.
And if we do have improved forecasting,
is it possible that that will address the concern
about customers shock because
that those costs have been built in all along.
And then, if there's an anomaly
or if there's something unexpected,
then they're able, as you pointed out,
in other circumstances,
we do allow them to recover excess costs.
But if it's just a weather anomaly
or a forecasting misfire,
it seems like we might still want to allow them to recover.
It's just, if we do the better planning, the recovery gap
won't be quite so great.
-: Yeah, you know, I think inherently kind
of knowing you can go back to
that account to pull from that money,
you know, it's that kind of mental dependency
and lack of independency, I guess.
It is why you can't retain it.
But it is why we have the Monterey WRAM there.
And it is why I say I wanted to affirm here,
why some of these other real critical things that drive some
of that variance, like the power costs,
the water supply costs and an emergency drought.
We're not touching those.
Those are gonna provide the installation
that you're talking about.
I'm talking about, you know,
that other kind of crutch of the WRAM that's enabling
and for forecasting and settlement on all parties,
all parties have a sibling here.
Yeah, I think that's why we can't retain the crutch.
Randolph: Okay.
I'll let my colleagues answer
or ask them questions as well.
Thank you.
-: Commissioner Shiroma, did I see your hand up?
I'm sorry.
-: No, but I'm happy to go next if you like.
-: Okay.
-: Okay
Yes, yes.
So, I do want to thank Commissioner Guzman Aceves
for describing, particularly, the perspectives
that have gone into the proposed decision.
I mean, well, I do wanna thank the folks who did call in
to comment on the proceeding
and definitely respect all the different viewpoints.
And we will need to go through the various viewpoints,
you know, and profit up to date,
including from Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Bond
and all the folks who called in.
I've been perplexed by the whole water arena.
And the complaints we've been hearing over
the last one year and a half that I've been on
the Commission and also the complaints that
I've heard on our public participation,
hearing workshops from customers,
lots of complaints about bills going up, using less water
and so forth and so on.
And I do appreciate Commissioner Guzman Aceves
who's description, any efforts being made
in the face of drought,
in the face of during the resourcing.
Former Governor Brown issued an executive order calling
for water conservation and the state wanted
to introduce a neutral board.
It has various policies and programs underway.
And meanwhile, we know
that clean drinking water is an essential service.
And I also appreciate that, you know,
the water utilities have fixed costs,
investments made, the infrastructure and what have you
to provide for clean drinking water.
And that they have been having to substantially recover all
of these costs, the cost of water,
or have you through sort of a volume metric quantities,
as we have all been saying to customers use less water.
And also, I have come
to realize that in any number of general rate cases,
that settlements are encouraged.
Of course, they're encouraged, but it is an artifact of
the utilities, whether it's water or energy to come in,
likely with higher requests than
they ultimately anticipate getting.
It's because of this whole rubric that we've got
in terms of the folks who are advocating on part
of the customers, saying those requests have to be less.
And what happens to settlements?
And then we don't have precedent.
We don't have
the kinds of things you can point to a decision, which says,
look, here's how we're going to do things from here on.
And so,
I'm very much appreciative that this proposed decision
has been looking to fill that gap.
In the meantime, our colleagues,
commenters, folks who've written in,
are saying that there are some more changes to be done.
There are some more areas that need to be addressed.
And, so I look forward to working
with Commissioner Guzman Aceves and our colleagues.
We have requirements in terms of Babby Keen,
who could work keenly day by day on a proceeding.
And so I'll be looking forward to working on
the granular details and so forth
and with the water division legal,
our judges towards next steps in addressing
the current trends that have been bought for us.
And overall, I very much appreciate that
what we're looking at is having viable water utilities
that provide for affordable water bills,
the low income affordable water bills to all.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, yes, Commissioner Retchschaffen.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Guzamn Aceves,
for that extremely, thorough
and very persuasive presentation.
It was extremely helpful.
I have also struggled with this decision.
I don't know if it captured the complete struggles
that Commissioner Shiroma had.
And I've had a number of questions,
some of which have been answered
by water division this week
and some of which you address in particular.
I did start out with skepticism about removing
the decoupling mechanism in the WRAM.
And I still have concerns about it and I was helpful or,
you know, wanted to know more about why at a forecast
and including some of the measures that
the PD requires, height or bands of water use that
are mandated by the state water conservation plan
or other ideas like yearly adjustments,
which we do in the energy context could not achieve some of
what we're trying to achieve here to prevents
the significant shortfalls and discrepancies.
And I had a similar question as Commissioner Randolph about
whether we should wait to see how the changes
in forecasting play out before necessarily moving
to the Monterey WRAM.
But I had those questions,
I do think you've answered quite a number
of those concerns.
I have been concerned also that I didn't have enough
of an understanding about whether or how
this shift would impact lower income consumers.
And I don't think the PD did as good a job as it could have
but maybe this can be changed,
explaining the difference between forecasting assumptions
and rate designing tools, conservation tools,
which as you said, remain in place, independent
of the forecasting tool that we've achieved.
I appreciate the change in the org or in paragraph
that you are proposing.
I would like to see from water division,
or maybe the parties who will respond,
your throwing it out there,
if that changes the analysis of whether our division
will be able to say yes.
With this different approach, we can ensure that
the costs don't fall disproportionate
on low income consumers.
It may not be possible because the may depend
on a specific rate design interior instructor
that's put in place in a given service territory,
but that remains a concern.
I look forward to changes
that are coming from you and me in the next round.
And again, I appreciate very much,
your excellent presentation and explanation.
-: I'd like to make an additional,
just a quick comment.
I'm just following up
on what Commissioner Retchtschaffen said.
I do feel like you should type out your talking points
and put them into PD because I feel
like you did a good job explaining some of
the reasoning that I felt was not quite there in the PD.
And then the second thing,
I feel like the PD needs is more explanation
about the Monterey-style WRAM
and fundamentally, you know, why it's better.
I found the discussion somewhat unclear
and a little too brief.
So I would like to have more explanation about that.
Thank you, that's all I have.
-: Well, as I had said, thank you to all Commissioners.
As I had said earlier,
your presentation Martha was excellent and answered
a lot of my questions and I was skeptical at the beginning.
I was very concerned, actually.
I think that perhaps there could be
a little bit more development in the record.
I think, that's probably important.
I think there's a verification and development
of record around the WRAM, it'd be very helpful.
The points have been made and I appreciate very much.
So, what we will be doing with this is,
as you said earlier, there is no vote,
but we do need to vote on having it held until
the 8-27 meeting.
So that will be the vote we'll be taking today.
Can I have a motion on that?
-: So moved.
-: Second.
-: It's been moved and seconded
to move item number 19 from today's regular agenda items
to the Commissioner meeting on 8-27.
Well, the agenda clerk, please call the roll.
Operator: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
-: Aye
Operator: President Batjer.
-: Aye.
It is unanimous, thank you.
I am going to call a 15 minute break.
Is that okay with my fellow Commissioners?
Okay, 15 minutes.
And it's currently, well, we'll call it 12:20.
So lets sit back in our seats at 12:35.
Okay, thank you all.
Announcer: The feed for this streaming event brought
to you by adminmonitor.com.
Operator: Thank you all for standing by.
You'll hear music until the conference resumes.
(upbeat country music)
Batjer: Quorum, quorum.
Operator: Commissioner Shiroma
Shiroma: Present.
Operator: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
Guzman: Here.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
Randolph: Here.
Operator: Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
Retchtschaffen: Present.
Operator: President Batjer.
Batjer: There.
Thank you, we have established a quorum.
We're now moving on on the regular agenda items,
to items 30, and that is Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
This is an issue dealing with the conditions
for wireline competition
in these small local exchange carrier service territory.
Often referred to these carriers
as the rule LECs or small LECs.
And just to kind of remind ourselves, there's 13
of these small ILECs and they find themselves
in 17 counties in California.
I won't go through naming them all,
but really, they're in the parts of the state
that are hard to serve, expensive to serve,
and they play a very critical role
in providing essential service, telecommunication service
to many rural Californians.
For years, these companies have been
the sole telephone service providers in their territory.
And the big finding in the PD is that federal
and state law requires us to open these territories
for competition, as federal statute that states
that no state law may prohibit or have the effect
of prohibiting the ability of any entity
to provide any interstate
and intrastate telecommunication service.
And in the California PUC code, section 709.5,
the legislature expressed its intent that all
telecommunication markets be subject to our jurisdiction
and be open to competition.
So, it's a little bit of an ironic position for me,
knowing that, um,
many of the carriers that want to compete
in these rural territories often are some of
the major barriers to competition elsewhere.
But nonetheless, we need to comply with federal state law
and open these territories for application.
And by the way, the PD,
like we've talked about in our last one, that's the policy,
the individual applications will have to come in
for access to these territories.
And they'll have to meet the requirements
put forth in the PD, which I'll talk about.
The decision allows is for communication is 13 area.
Establishes non-discriminatory
and competitively neutral conditions.
And those include,
that competitive local exchange carrier,
which I'll refer to as a CLEC, now.
It's a CLECs come in
with a self designated service territory,
but then it represents the demographics that exist
within the whole small LEC territory.
This is a particularly important condition because
of the propensity to cherry pick by carriers throughout
the state, and to only serve certain demographics.
By meeting this proportionality measure,
it guards against serving only
the subset of wealthy customers or commercial customers.
And so we set that they must serve a proportional number
of residential to commercial as our LEC territory has.
And the proportional low-income to non-low income,
as the ILEC territory has.
Doesn't mean they have to serve the whole area
and use their stock designated territory
has to proportionally have the same demographics.
The CLECs who intends to serve these areas
are also subject to the best then ongoing
and reporting requirements to demonstrate quality service.
In addition to the basic things like filing territory maps,
annual reports on their existing facilities,
quarterly copies of written customer notices,
they have to insure 911 or E911 service.
They have to be compliant
with the emergency disaster relief requirements.
They have to report their major service interruptions.
And importantly, they must participate in lifeline.
In recognition that there may be impacts
to the existing ILEC carriers,
we have included descriptions of the pathways
for how in the future they too can seek
how to continue in a sustainable way
with this potential impact to their customer base.
They will be allowed to apply for High Cost Fund-A,
additional funding to offset potential declining revenues.
Obviously, that'll have to be
litigated and not individual application.
It also affirms that the small LECs,
requests for proportional pricing flexibility
will also be considered on a case by case basis
when they've been impacted by competition.
It requires also that the CLECs make
all telecommunication service offerings available
for resale on a nondiscriminatory basis.
And this is a component that really needs
to be available across all elements of our metric system.
Finally, the decision includes a request by the rural,
small LECs or an extension of their timing of submitting
their subsequent GRSP application
and essentially extends by one year
and establishes specific groupings of
how they will come in year after year.
And it is a generous extension of time
for a couple of them.
So with that, based again on both federal
and state law requiring us to do this together with
the consumer protections that are put in as safeguards,
I do ask for your support in this decision today.
I also wanna thank my Berkeley partner,
Commissioner Retchtschaffen and in particularly,
his advisor, Simi George.
I wanna thank the ALJs, Judge Colbert,
Judge Fortune, Judge Wercinski.
I wanna thank Legal Helen Savage, Cindy Yu, Lindsay Brown,
and of course the excellent work
of the communications division,
Bravas Ones, Eva Hernandes, Felix Robles, Doris chow,
Tannis Diner, Tasner Ramen.
And finally my advisers, Jonathan Koltz, Stephani Crespin.
So thank you very much
and I'm happy answering questions on this decision.
-: Does anyone have any questions of Martha or any comments
to make on this item number 30?
Yes, Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
I think you're on mute.
-: I apologize.
I would like to thank Mrs. Guzman Aceves
who I would be cade with on this proceeding
and her advisors and judges and staff.
And I think she said it, we're doing this consistent
with legislative requirements.
Make the decisions, strikes the right balance
by advancing competition,
but it also has many safe cards to ensure fairness,
total quality of service and to safeguard consumer rights.
And as Commissioner Guzman said
that, mentioned that it's important to note
that it will be additional locations,
specific conditions to protect rate payers
that can be developed
in individual CLEC applications, if appropriate.
I'll be voting and supportive of this item.
Batjer: Thank you.
Commissioner Randolph.
I think you're muted.
Randolph: What, I'm on mute too.
We're a little rusty after that break.
I just wanted to state my support for this decision as well.
You know, wireless carriers can endue,
to have competition in small ILEC territories.
And this centrally allows wireline competitors
the same opportunity and can benefit customers
with the right protections in place.
And I appreciate the fact that this decision lays out some
of the basics and also ensures that some of these conditions
and protections can be addressed in future proceedings.
And I have one of those,
I have an application of Comcast
to enter a Ponderosa territory.
And so, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to consider
the local needs and the conditions as we evaluate
that proceeding and decide
what issues to deal with in that application.
So thank you very much, Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
Batjer: Commissioner Shiroma.
Shiroma: Thank you, President Batjer.
Yes, I also want to add my thanks
to Commissioner Guzman Aceves
and Judges Fortune and Wercinski
for this work putting forth the PD.
I was very interested to learn that there hadn't been
a competition allowed in these areas and that we, you know,
we have millions of customers
who rely on wireline phone service,
and I appreciated that the Commission did a study
to look up at impacts of competition
in this service charge hurry.
An independent consultant was hired and it showed
that there is evidence based
to decision-making opportunity for us here, based
on those local conditions to provide for that competition
and for the customers to have other offers
to take a look at.
And as Commissioner Guzman Aceves outlined,
there are protections included in or opportunities,
maybe I'll call them within the PD for the current carriers.
There are consumer protection rules,
and I'm pleased to support this proposed decision.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
I just have a couple of quick comments and I think
the decision is a cautious step forward.
I think it provides a path for the companies to provide
a competitive wireline voice service
in the historic small rural telephone company territories
has just been well-stated, because this is while preserving
the essential carrier of last resort duty
that these companies perform.
And as such, I will join my other Commissioners
in supporting it.
However, I'd like to note also that the program is focused
on the wireline voice service and the internet era
is our challenge.
As the pandemic has accentuated,
Californians need high speed broadband services.
And I hope that the next phase of this receding
that we can ensure that this program
is meeting the broadband needs of Californians at service.
And I note an agreement on that.
And I noted too the very helpful information that came out
of this study.
Commissioner Shiroma, so thank you for mentioning that.
And thank you Commissioner Guzman Aceves
for all your hard work on this as well as the ALJs
and the Communications division,
all working very hard, of course.
So with that, is there any other comment on item 30?
Okay, seeing none, will
the agenda clerk please call the roll.
Operator: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Operator: Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Operator: President Batjer.
-: Yes.
-: Thank you, the vote is unanimous.
Turning now to item 31,
which is, I am the assigned Commissioner of.
Item 31 is the order extending statutory deadline
for the rulemaking of 14-10-003,
which is known as
the integrated distributed energy resources proceeding
or the IDER proceeding.
This order extends the deadline for completion
of this proceeding an additional six months,
and until February, 2021.
The Commission established the IDER proceeding in 2014
in response to assembly bill 327,
to explore the creation of a regulatory framework
that would provide a consistent policy approach,
for evaluating all the demand side resource programs.
The proceeding has successfully established an approach
for evaluating the cost effectiveness
of the demand side programs that can be applied consistently
across all technology types.
This approach is ever evolving and is updated
on a regular basis via this proceeding.
Most recently, in April this year,
we adopted updates to the avoided cost calculator that
will allow the Commission to better align
the distributed resource values
with our integrated resource planning process.
So today's extension would provide an additional timeframe
to finalize a number of outstanding tasks,
including work being done
on the alternative sourcing mechanisms
or the distributed energy resources.
So with that, I ask your support for this extension.
Thank you.
Any comment on item 30?
31, excuse me.
Okay, seeing none, will the agenda clerk
please call the roll.
Operator: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Operator: Commissioner Retchschaffen
-: Yes.
Operator: President Batjer.
-: Yes.
The vote is unanimous, thank you.
Moving on to item 32,
which is assigned to Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Yes, thank you President Batjer.
Item 32 is an extension order request for Radian
versus Southern California Edison, it's complaint 1708007.
I'm asking for an extension by six months
to February 8th, 2021.
This case has been on hold while
the Commission considers changes to the ReMAT program,
which is being done in a separate proceeding.
The six month extension should allow adequate time
for further consideration of the ReMAT program.
And then for our Administrative Law Judge,
to draft a presiding officer's decision,
resolving this particular complaint.
Thank you.
Batjer: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
Are there any questions on item 32?
Okay, seeing none, will the agenda clerk
please call the roll.
Operator: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Operator: Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
-: Yeah.
Operator: President Batjer.
-: Yes.
Thank you, the vote is unanimous.
Moving on to item 33,
which is also assigned to Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Yes, thank you, President Batjer.
Item 33 is A-19020004.
It's a PTC permit to construct applications
for their Humboldt Bay
to Humboldt number one transmission line.
I'm requesting an extension to November 8th, 2020.
This proceeding has been going through the secret process
and the final mitigated negative declaration was completed
on April 17th, 2020,
following the publication
of the final mitigated negative declaration
we held in the pre-hearing conference in may.
It was slightly delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
And in order to complete this process,
we need a little more time.
So I'm requesting your vote for a short extension.
Thank you.
Batjer: Okay, are there any comments on item 33?
Okay, seeing none, will be agenda clerk
please call the roll.
Operator: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Operator: Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Operator: President Batjer.
Yes.
Thank you, the vote is unanimous.
Moving now on to item 34,
which is assigned to Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
-: This is an extension order in
the OII concerning 1 million new internet users.
The OII was issued in July, 2018 to investigate
whether the five organizations
in this coalition misused grant funds.
From February, 2019 through February, 2020,
the respondents participated
in alternative dispute resolution.
Four of them reached agreement with our consumer protection
and enforcement division to settle the action.
One of them, Community Union, has not settled an intent
to contest the allegations at an evidentiary hearing
that is currently scheduled for the end of August.
A deadline is needed to allow for a complete resolution
of this investigation.
And I ask for your support in extending the deadline
to March, 2021.
Batjer: Wow.
Hey, are there any questions?
Seeing none, will the agenda clerk
please call the role for item 34.
Operator: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
-: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Operator: Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Operator: President Batjer.
-: Yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Moving on to item number 35 that is assigned
to Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Yes, thank you, President Batjer.
So item 35 is a complaint case, C 1908011.
It involved a complaint filed by James P Kern against
the California-American Water Company or Cal-Am.
or am seeking restoration of water service
to Mr. Kern's property.
I'm asking for your support to extend the deadline
to May 19th of 2021.
And here's the reasons why.
The parties have been engaged
in ongoing settlement discussions
and have been filing periodic status reports
regarding their settlement efforts.
And now the parties have reached a settlement agreement with
the condition to restore service to Mr. Kern's property.
The parties also anticipate filing a stipulated motion
to dismiss the complaint with the settlement agreement
by the end of November, 2020.
The new statutory deadline,
should provides sufficient time for the parties
to file their anticipated motion.
Or if that ends up not happening, to litigate the case,
if the conditions of the settlement
are unable to be finalized.
So with that in mind,
I'm asking for an extension to may of 2021.
Thank you.
-: Okay.
Any questions on item 35?
Seeing none, will the agenda clerk please call the roll.
Operator: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Operator: Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Operator: President Batjer.
-: Yes.
Thank you, the vote is unanimous.
Moving on to item 36,
which is assigned to Commissioner Randolph.
-: All right, thank you very much.
Item 36 would extend the statutory deadline
for a railroad crossing in the city of ION.
This proceeding is complicated because the city built
the crossing before it had Commissioned authority.
So the proceeding is going to look at the safety of
the crossing and whether or not the city should be penalized
for building the crossing without authority.
Fortunately, we are getting very close
to being ready for this item.
So this proposed extension would be only
until November 20th, 2020.
I ask for your support of this item.
Batjer: I liked when they don't go into 2021.
(laughing)
Does anyone have any comments on item 36?
It's good.
Will the agenda clerk please call the roll.
Operator: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Operator: Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
-: Yeah.
Operator: President Batjer.
-: Yes.
Thank you, the vote is unanimous.
Moving now on to item 37,
which is also Commissioner Randolph.
-: And this one is going to extend beyond 2020,
sorry President Batjer.
This is an order extending statutory deadline
on the Aliso Canyon OII.
This is an investigation proceeding to determine
the feasibility of minimizing or eliminating
the use of the Aliso Canyon storage facility
while maintaining reliability in the LA region
and just in reasonable rates.
The current deadline for the proceeding
is August 8th, 2020.
However, in order to complete phases two and three
of the proceeding, which are highly technical in nature,
we need to extend the deadline by 18 months
to February 11th, 2022.
That time period aligns with a duration of a contract
that several weeks ago,
we executed with an independent expert consultant
who will develop scenarios that explore
how to modify the existing system
to replace Aliso Canyon and its entirety.
That work is underway.
My advisors and I had the opportunity
to meet with the consulting team a few weeks ago.
And as I mentioned in one of
my recent Commissioner comments,
we did have a workshop two weeks ago to go over
some of the last of the hydraulic modeling.
So we have one more tranche of modeling to finish analyzing
the system as it currently exists.
And fortunately, this independent consultant
was brought on board in time to attend
that workshop recently and is hard at work digesting
the existing modeling that we've done and getting started
on the analysis that they will do for phase three
of the proceeding.
So, thank you, and I ask for your support.
-: I have a quick question.
So the independent consultant
which we have brought on FTI consulting,
they will not be finished with their work until 2022?
-: I think there'll be able to.
As I understand their work plans,
a significant amount of it will happen in 2021.
But I think we wanna make sure that we have enough time
for them to fully complete their analysis
and present alternatives and have the parties comment
on those alternatives and prepare a proposed decision.
So we really, you know,
the consultant is gonna be working with us throughout.
So that 18 months is their entire retention.
And so we want them to stay with us for
the entire completion of the process.
Do you see what I mean?
So like their heavy lifting will be sooner than 2022.
Yeah.
-: Hopefully, I don't think I knew that timeframe
when we brought them on board.
Okay.
Any other questions on item 37?
Okay, seeing none, will the agenda clerk
please call the roll.
Operator: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Operator: Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Operator: President Batjer.
-: Yes.
Item 37 passes unanimously.
Let's turn in to item 38.
This is assigned to me.
This is an order extending statutory deadline.
Is for the application of 18-07-013.
Authorization to establish a Diablo Canyon DeCommissioning
Planning Costs Memorandum Account.
And consolidated application 18-12-008,
PG&E is, 2018 Nuclear DeCommissioning
Cost Trienniel Proceeding.
In the application, PG&E sought to establish
a memorandum account to track the cost
of deCommissioning planning activities
incremental to those reimbursable from
the Diablo Canyon Nuclear DeCommissioning Trust Fund.
Under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations,
operators of nuclear power plants,
they only withdraw up to 3% of the total funding amount
of the trust fund to use for deCommissioning and planning.
PG&E believes it will require more than
the authorized 3% or 37.2 million,
that NRC rules currently allow PG&E to withdraw
for the accelerated pre-planning activities.
PG&E requested, and the NRC granted the use of funds
from Diablo Canyon nuclear deCommissioning press
for deCommissioning planning
above the 3% limitation specified in the NRC regulations.
The interstate exception, allows for PG&E to withdraw
up to 187.8 million on the pre-shutdown planning activities.
And our C staff determined that the trust
is adequately funded.
And the withdrawal from the additional funds for
the pre-planning activities would not adversely impact
PG&E's ability to complete the deCommissioning process.
On January 10th, 2020, a joint motion for adoption of
the settlement agreement was filed by the majority
of the parties in
the 2018 Nuclear DeCommissioning Costs Triennial Proceeding.
Administrative Law Judge Robert Hager
is currently drafting
a proposed decision that resolves both of these matters.
An extension of the statutory deadline
to December 13th, 2020, is necessary to allow enough time
to issue a proposed decision for public review and comment,
and to allow the Commission enough time
to deliberate and issue its final decision.
With that, I request your support for item 38.
Are there any questions or thoughts?
Seeing none, will the agenda clerk please call the roll.
Operator: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Operator: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Operator: Commissioner Retchtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Operator: President Batjer.
-: Yes.
The vote is unanimous, thank you all.
That completes the regular agenda items.
We'll now move on to the management reports.
There's no report for item 42,
manager report on administrative activities.
Item 41, report a discussion on recent consumer protections
and safety activities.
There is a presentation on the CPUC's oversight
of the IOU preparation for the 2020 wild fire season
and the Public Safety Power Shutoff.
I will now turn to Rachel Peterson,
deputy executive director of
the Safety Enforcement and Policy to begin.
Rachel, are you on the line?
Rachel: I am, President Batjer, thank you.
Can you hear me?
Batjer: Yes, loud and clear, wonderful.
Perfect!
Rachel: Wonderful! All right.
Good afternoon, President Batjer and Commissioners.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to present
to you today on the staff oversight
of our electric utilities preparation for wildfire
and Public Safety Power Shutoffs in 2020.
I am Rachel Peterson.
I'm the Deputy Executive Director
for Safety Enforcement and Policy at the Commission.
I'll be joined by my colleagues Lee Palmer,
Director of the Safety and Enforcement Division
and Caroline Thomas Jacobs,
Director of the Wildfire Safety Division.
Next slide please.
So, what I'd like to cover today is the preparation
that our staff is doing, broken into three parts.
First, I'll go over the oversight
that we've conducted leading up
to the Public Safety Power Shutoff season,
which generally we're all marking as September 1st, 2020.
Although we know that some PSPS events
have been called already.
Then I'll turn it over to Lee Palmer who will talk
about SED's enforcement and accountability work
during the upcoming season.
And then finally,
Caroline Thomas Jacobs will speak about how we're looking
to advance the maturity of the conduct of PSPS,
excuse me, events over time,
which generally means reducing their use
and scope and impact.
Next slide please.
So, my first point is I just wanted to locate
our oversight work in the broader California wildfire
and PSPS framework.
We are building on the work of the Commission
on catastrophic wildfire cost and recovery recommendations.
We see ourselves as implementing the statutory framework
of this three significant laws
that the legislature has passed,
and the governor assigned to implement wildfire response
in California, SB 901, AB 1054 and AB 111.
And very importantly, we are implementing the decisions
that you have voted on
with two really core principles at their heart.
The first is that the utilities themselves
are operators of their systems.
They are responsible for safe electric service
and the safe execution of Public Safety Power Shutoff.
And the second core principle being that PSPS
is a wildfire risk mitigation tool of last resort.
And so, the way we've approached this year is that
we are looking to conduct oversight of their preparation
before the season, hold them accountable during the season,
and then work to advance the maturity of their execution
of these events after the season.
Next slide, please.
I Put this slide in because I just wanted to show you
the kind of global overview of all the different areas
in which we're conducting oversight of the IOUs preparation.
This list comes from the January,
2020 ruling by President Batjer,
specifically with respect to PG&E and they're reporting
on their preparations for PSPS.
But I have found it to be a very useful list
in terms of addressing all the different facets
of these types of events, that it's been helpful for us
to work with, as far as looking at what
the different electric IOUs are doing.
Next slide, please.
And, here's why I'd like to give a few examples
of the staff oversight of how the utilities
are getting prepared.
As I start this slide,
I actually wanted to address some of the comments
that were made at the beginning of today's meeting
by the commenters and what Commissioner Randolph referenced,
specifically with respect to our work on ensuring
the preparedness for persons and communities
with access and functional needs.
This actually applies to our work with respect
to all six electric utilities, not just PG&E.
Back last fall in 2019, as part of our AB 1054 response,
we brought in our first ever AFN coordinator,
David van Dyke is his name.
And he has been our lead person in terms of connecting
with people in communities with access and functional needs,
and really becoming our point person,
as far as reviewing electric utility action.
Under your decisions,
the utilities are under an obligation to consult
with people in communities with access and functional needs,
and directly incorporate their feedback
into their PSPS protocols.
And that's one of the key activities
that David has been doing.
To give you a few examples,
he is a member of the joint IOU AFN advisory council.
This is a statewide group that
the IOUs put together somewhat in advance
of your recent guidelines decision in May.
And David is a member of that council along with groups like
the center for independent living and Vince Taylor
from the California governor's office of emergency services.
Specific to the self generation incentive program,
which a number of speakers mentioned this morning,
David hosted a meeting last week with a number
of AFN representatives of both individuals
and organizations, as well as Cal OES,
and really walked through a number of the SGA program rules,
in order to both inform the participants
as well as obtain feedback about the program.
And then last, this is not just David,
but actually across divisional team around the Commission.
We'll be looking at the update reports
that the utilities just filed on August 5th,
also in compliance with your guidelines decision
to specifically look at this question of
how they've consulted with AFN communities
and are incorporating that feedback
into their PSPS protocols.
So I hope that gives a little bit of context about the work
that staff have been doing specific to AFN communities.
And now just turn to this slide briefly to give
a few examples of the work we've been doing
with respect to PG&E.
This is definitely the company with
which staff has been spending by far the most time.
And, just some of the examples I listed here,
very early on this year, Caroline Thomas Jacob
in particular urged that the company pivots
to mobile intensive community research centers,
because it looked like COVID-19 was going to be with us
for a while, and sure enough
that has turned out to be the unfortunate reality.
We requested and California department of technology
has conducted a very thorough review of PG&E upgrade
of its website.
Our teams and this includes our news and outreach team,
under Terry Prosper have been observing
the company's outreach to public safety partners
at the local county and travel governments,
as well as their community webinars that
they've been hosting online because of the requirements
of public health directive.
This relationship I would point out is one of the ones
that failed last year, and it will be the core
of their success this upcoming season.
So, we are definitely hoping that those new
and emerging relationships are building well.
Our staff tested the accuracy
of their PSPS portal location information,
especially for medical baseline customers
who live behind master meters, such as in mobile home parks.
So it was something our new GIS expert was able to do.
And then we've been observing
their three full-scale exercises
that PG&E has been conducting along with colleagues
from Cal OES and CAL FIRE.
Next slide please.
Turning to Edison.
Some more examples of our oversight is that we are requiring
that they conduct a test notification
to communication service providers.
We simply wanna make sure that the company has
the correct email addresses
and names of the operational folks
at different communication service providers to ensure
that they receive proper notification of the PSPS event.
Similar to with PG&E,
we've requested that the department of technology take
a look at their website improvements,
especially with respect to whether or not people will
be able to access their information on their website
at moments that they have low bandwidth
or using only mobile phones.
Specific to Edison as well,
we have conducted some after action review meetings
of their May and June near events.
They notified public safety partners, but ultimately,
thankfully didn't have to turn off
the power in May and June, and with CAL FIRE and Cal OES,
we've been looking back and discussing with the company,
their decision making process.
Next slide please.
And then this is about the other four utilities,
SDG&E, Bear Valley, Liberty and PacifiCorp.
I wanna point out that we,
one thing we did actually for all of them,
but I put this only on this particular slide is
that we had staff really talk in depth with all
of the utilities to ensure that they know
where their medical baseline customers are.
Including those who live behind a master meter,
that their notification tools work to notify those folks.
And that they are working to create their notifications
in appropriate languages across their service territories.
And I just like to point out that doing that work,
we really looked at three different decisions
that you all voted on in the last few months.
One on PSPS, the relevant languages decision
from the wildfire mitigation plans
and the disconnections and reconnection decision
that you voted on not long ago.
Right now there's a cross division step effort going on
to review their websites to ensure that transparency
and communication standards are met.
So there's folks taking a close look
at every utilities web pages to ensure
that they discuss transparently,
how they make their PSPS decisions.
And then last, apart from PG&E, because PG&E
is reporting every two weeks to us and to you
about their PSPS preparations,
our staff conducted thorough briefings back in early June,
in which we ask them to brief us thoroughly
on their preparations,
alongside their adjustment for COVID-19 and links
to those briefing decks are available on our PSPS page.
Next slide, please.
This is where I turn it over to Lee Palmer to talk about
the work that his division will be doing
during the upcoming season.
Thanks Commissioners.
Guzman: Rachel, I don't know,
are we gonna take questions after President Batjer,
but I just had a couple of followup questions.
Rachel: I can go, however you'd like
to answer, now or later.
Guzman: Okay, well, let me just ask a couple,
which is on that local government in particular,
you know, we have continued concerns coming in
from local government.
I just know of one particular letter from Lake County.
And, I wonder, are we evaluating some sort
of sub metrics under, you mentioned that we're participating
in the sessions that utilities are having
with the local government, but are we confirming
or doing drills on that communication, you know,
confirming, they've identified critical facilities,
points of contact.
And certainly one of the items raised
in that Lake County letter in terms of backup generation?
Rachel: Yes, I can speak to some of that Commissioners.
So, in the sense of drills, so first of all,
in the PG&E's full-scale exercises,
they have been running tests notifications in that
they are both sending out to their email lists,
test notifications of their simulations
of what would be happening during an actual event.
And as part of the after action review,
one thing that we ask them is whether or not they know
that those emails landed with the right people,
especially at the local County and tribal levels.
They invited every local county
and tribal representative that they have been working
with to those exercises.
And so those representatives have been able to watch
as observers because these are happening in
a virtual environment, and then those folks can also see
whether or not they received the simulated notifications.
So, that's kind of specific to the question of whether
or not their systems are working.
PG&E also developed a PSPS portal,
and that portal has the opportunity
for government representatives,
who are permitted to see confidential information,
to sign up and become a validated user.
That means that during an event,
they would be able to use that portal to track the location
of critical facilities and medical baseline customers
on de-energized circuits.
So they would receive the most detailed
and confidential information.
And PG&E has been doing webinars weekly at this point during
all of July and probably into August to train people
on how to use that portal.
So those are a couple of examples.
I would say the last piece is that basically every time
we receive communication,
say from Lake County or another county asking for,
to be put in touch with the right person or to say,
you know, that something is not quite going right,
as far as the relationship,
our staff has really endeavored to get them in touch with
the right public safety specialist at the company
and to make sure that those conversations occur.
I hope I answered all parts of your questions but,
let me know if not.
I think the commisioner is dialing back in.
-: That might take a few minutes 'cause she has
to go through the operator.
So maybe somebody else might wanna ask a question.
-: Sure.
-: Rachel, what do you see as the biggest execution risks
in the upcoming fire season,
especially for PG&E?
Rachel: Yeah, so, specific to PG&E,
I think it actually is, that exact risk Commissioner.
It's the risk of actual execution.
So, what we have been tracking at the staff level is
the improvement of many tools and processes,
and the introduction of new people
into this overall emergency response, essentially.
So, let's say new weather stations, new cameras,
new public safety specialists assigned
to different counties.
The PSPS portal alone is a brand new tool.
All the sectionalization devices that
the company has installed,
and it's gonna continue installing on their grid.
The question is, does all that come together,
such that in their incident response,
in their incident command room,
they can draw on all those tools?
Hopefully, protect some customers
from actual de-energization because they know
that sectionalizing devices working
or temporary backup generation is located
at a given critical facility.
Can they bring all those tools together and execute
a well done de-energization.
-: Thank you.
-: Are there are any other questions before we go to Lee?
It looks like none.
So, Lee, do you wanna discuss your division's work upcoming?
Lee: Yes, excellent.
Thank you very much.
First of all, can everyone hear me okay?
Right.
Good afternoon, President Batjer and Commissioners.
And thank you again.
Just wanna big up Rachel here,
thank you for your time and continued interest in
what I myself and those with the most call in SED, consider
a significant concern to the safety and delivery
of reliable service of utilities
to the people of California.
The Wildfire Safety and Enforcement Branch consists
of 14 staff led by program manager, Tony gnome.
The staffs consists of public utility regulatory analyst,
Purs and utility engineers.
That's mainly scenery towed engineers
with one utility engineer.
And they are charged with conducting investigations
and analysis of potential utility costs,
wildfires and PSPS events,
along with reviewing and enforcing regulations,
policies and legislation designed
to hold utilities accountable
for providing California's act with the safe
and reliable utility infrastructure and services.
So just a little bit of history,
the Wildfire Safety and Enforcement Branch,
or a WSEB has been in development really since 2016,
when the idea was first floated within SED.
And that's really when, at least within SED,
we were recognizing wildfires and later PSPS events and
the danger that they pose a significant threat to the safety
and reliability of utility service to all Californians.
So, through the Wildfire Safety and Enforcement Branch,
the CPUC and specifically SED now have a dedicated team with
a specific mission focus
of enforcing existing general orders,
primarily GO 95 in our case
and regulations public utility codes with regards
to wildfires and PSPS events.
Again, with the end goal being to not only mitigate
the wildfire in the first place through proper enforcement,
but also ensure that PSPS events or far in between
and they're truly being used as a last resort.
The establishment of
the Wildfire Safety and Enforcement Branch gives SED both
the capacity and flexibility to continue performing,
regulatory required Electric sodi audits,
conducted by ESRB, Electric Safety and Reliability Branch,
non-fire investigations, and respond to consumer concerns
while having a dedicated staff
to investigate current wildfire and PSPS events so
that we can do this in a more timely and consistent manner.
Again, that is a goal of SED, we're trying to get to timely
and consistent in both our investigations and enforcement.
In the course of their numerous activities,
the Wildfire Safety and Enforcerment Branch
is positioned through existing and developing memorandums
of understanding, and also nondisclosure agreements
to work in contract with CAL FIRE, Cal OES
and the Wildfire Safety Division,
so they may provide and form
a complete investigation report and findings.
This collaboration includes sharing training,
which I'll talk about a little bit later,
sharing of information,
which is vital for all of us in
the wildfire and PSPS community,
and the oversight investigation sites and other activities.
So, to date wildfire safety enforcement staff,
as well as other key staff in the safety
and enforcement division have worked tirelessly
to coordinate with its state partners and utilities
to participate in utility organized PSPS exercises,
which Rachel alluded to earlier.
Wildfire mitigation plan would be used,
which that was in contract with Caroline's group WSD.
And mitigate impacts to both
the state and local communities.
And next slide, please.
Within this toolbox,
the Wildfire Safety and Enforcement Brands
is a corporate staff that are being trained and some already
are trained to be subject matter experts with regards
to wildfires and PSPS events.
The staff is learning from the experience of
the SED during the Butte fire of 16,
the North Bay fires of 17, the campfire of 2018,
and the numerous PSPS events over the past two years.
And it's gearing up to serve as the central CPUC and
enforcement authority points of contact with regards
to wildfires and PSPS events.
This includes ongoing review and investigation
of potential utility cost wildfire events,
review of utility wildfire mitigation plans,
and review of ongoing PSPS events, and the development
of future wildfire and PSPS policies and regulations
with the safety policies division.
The staff of the Wildfire Safety Enforcement Branch,
as well as key staff from SED
is currently undergoing training and SEMS, ICS,
and other emergency response protocols to ensure
that we ourselves are equipped and prepared
to effectively interact with Cal OES,
CAL FIRE and the utility staff during
and after their PSPS events, as well
as any other future emergency event that comes up.
I know this is mainly about PSPS,
but this is gonna be an asset throughout the Commission
if any other emergency event did arise.
Wildfire Safety and Enforcement Branch staff,
will co locate with the utility
and their respective emergency operations center
during PSPS events, to not only oversee the event
in terms of regulatory authority,
but also to provide support as required to the utility
and Commission during the event.
With this dedicated staff SED anticipates and expects
to be intimately involved and engage in PSPS events,
training, mitigation, and post event review.
Additionally, the new branch is integrated
with the utility PSPS planning
and community outreach efforts.
So, going back to an earlier question, we have,
we attract any community concerns, whether it's by,
you know, the local community or another state agency.
And each one of them is ran down and we'll look
into each one to ensure that one,
the utility is following up and two,
have we missed something ourselves.
So when the next review comes, has this been captured?
This will all lead to a more timely and transparent effort.
Well, for Safety Enforcement Branch is additionally charged
with the review and consumption
of the utilities 10 day post PSPS event reports.
Currently, there's an effort underway in reviewing both
the pre and post event reporting and training requirements
with the expectation to make the posted
that reports both more transparent and also hold
the IOUs more accountable to ensuring
the PSPS event was appropriately executed and incorporated
the safety needs and requirements
of the communities that are affected
Next slide, please.
So, for the current wildfire and PSPS, then
the Wildfire Safety Enforcement Branch continues staffing
in the course of AB 1054,
as well as its predecessors, SB 901 and SB 1028.
As of today, WSEB has eight of 14 positions staffed
with all remaining positions currently in the posting
or hiring process in the constraint curvature guidelines,
Additionally, WSEB is involved
with ongoing PSPS wildfire event reviews and investigations
and Commission proceedings involving wildfire
and PSPS policy and execution.
Again, with the end goal of making
the post 10 day review process,
more seamless, more transparent, but also applying metrics
to, was it executed in an appropriate manner.
Effective this year,
the Wildfire Safety and Enforcement Branch
has assumed primary investigative responsibility
for all wildfire events potentially
caused by utility infrastructure and current PSPS events.
Since WSEB is still in the staffing process,
its current staff will be augmented by existing staff from
the Electric Safety and Reliability Branch, ESRB
which has extensive knowledge and experience
in investigating wildfires and PSPS events.
This means that once a wildfire PSPS event
is identified, over notified
the Wildfire Safety Enforcement Branch
will immediately coordinate with the WSEB
to identify appropriate investigators dedicated
to that event.
These investigations include staff onsite investigations
of the incident, the issuing of data requests
to the involved utility, and most importantly,
and coordinating with our sister state agencies
and local communities to ensure
that this current service being provided is
both safe and reliable.
In short, the establishment of
the Wildfire Safety Enforcement Branch
is a significant upgrade in the SED and CPUC toolbox
in relation to holding utilities accountable
for wildfire and PSPS events.
As it again, provided dedicated staff
who will be subject matter experts of PSPS
and the wildfire policy and regulations.
The WSEB work in coordination with
the Wildfire Safety Division
and it's other state partners provides dedicated trainings,
trained staff who will assist the Commission
and be more proactive to the mitigation of wildfires,
and the review of PSPS events and will result in more timely
and consistent enforcement to potential violations.
That concludes my part.
I just wanna see if there's any questions before I pass it
on to Caroline to discuss the activities of
the Wildfire Safety Division.
-: Sorry, Commissioner Randolph.
You mentioned more complete review of the 10 day reports.
Do you have a target timeframe where you wanna turn
those reports around in terms of review
so that we ensure a timely review of those reports.
Do you have a specific target you're trying to meet?
Lee: Yes, thank you.
So, initially there was no metric,
there was no timeframe behind how long we had to review
that 10 day report.
And depending on the size of the event, the scale of it,
how many communities were de-energized,
that 10 day report could be anywhere from a few pages long
to 20 to 30 pages long.
And, initially the staff that was reviewing them
were also tasked with other events as well,
that may be outside that PSPS event.
So now with the Wildfire Safety Enforcement Branch,
the staff is there to be dedicated to that event
so they can see it from a to Z in terms of completion.
Once the utility provides a report in 10 days,
it is my goal that the branch turning around
within 15 days of receipt.
In order to facilitate that, the program manager Tony Gnome,
myself as well as others are currently looking at
the review process and how the 10 day report is structured.
And what we're attempting to do is come up
with actual metrics and a more formalized way
that the utilities provide inputs that tend to have report.
So one, we can ensure that we're only reviewing
what's vital in terms of safety and execution of
the PSPS events, and two, make more streamlined process
that's easier to bring other staff on board
if a surge is needed.
I'm hoping to have that new template by the end of August.
-: Okay, thank you.
Retchtschaffen: You also mentioned making
the reports more transparent.
Is there anything else you can say about that?
Lee: So, right now there is a PSPS webpage
that is public.
It is in the process of being updated,
and maybe talk about, later on today.
And if anyone wants to talk about, later,
I'm more than happy to discuss.
But, the sort of the bottom line up front here
is we reviewed those reports.
I wanna make sure that when we designed the new template,
it's very clear exactly what SED was looking for in each
of those sections of the template.
There's no question of, well,
how did SED decide this is why this was reasonable
or this wasn't.
I wanna have this measurable items in there
so it's very transparent.
This is how SED will reach
the conclusion of this was reasonable,
this was not reasonable.
Did that answer your question Commissioner?
-: Yes, thank you.
-: Thanks lee that was really terrific, very helpful.
Lee: Thank you, President Batjer.
I'll be followed by Caroline with WSD.
-: Sounds good, thank you.
Caroline: Great, thank you Lee and good afternoon,
President Batjer and Commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to present on
a lot of our safety divisions continued work to ensure that
the electrical corporations are executing
on their wildfire safety and mitigation commitments.
As you are aware,
the Wildfire Safety Division was established as
of January this year.
And our first task was to evaluate
the 2020 wildfire mitigation plans submitted by
the eight electric corporations.
The lots of which we reported out in
the June 11th Commission meeting.
And if you don't mind, if you can flip
to the next slide, please.
These plans for the first time require the utilities
to articulate their plan,
to reduce wildfire risk over a three year time period.
From the moment the division was established
however, we understood the urgency of the mission
and that this year 2020 is a critical year
to ensuring there is meaningful improvements
in wildfire safety and Public Safety Power Shutoff.
So to that end, in parallel
to conducting our formal evaluation of
the 2020 wildfire mitigation plans,
we immediately began working in close collaboration with
the Safety Enforcement Division on overseeing
the utility's near term actions to reduce wildfire risk,
and reduce the scope and scale of potential PSPS events.
In late March, with the ever emerging impact
of COVID-19 on daily life,
the division alongside CAL FIRE and Cal OES,
issued a letter to the utilities,
reaffirming our expectations that they maintain a clear
and persistent focus on wildfire mitigation activities
while closely coordinating with local jurisdictions
to minimize the impact
of potential associated planned outages.
The division's near term actions fall into three categories.
Initiating field inspections and compliance audit,
driving resolution on the conditions we set in
the WMP approvals, and incorporating updates
to the 2021 guidelines, and conducting thorough reviews
of requests for state certificates, and establishing
the new safety culture assessment processes.
As of early May,
the division's compliance branch is staffed and equipped
and been out in the field conducting field inspections
on wildfire mitigation activities,
including enhanced vegetation management activities,
system hardening, PSPS projects,
and associated GO 95 requirements.
Today we've completed over 1,470 inspection activities.
And in that have identified 57 defects.
As we're prioritizing inspection locations
by considering the fire risk area classification,
so tier two and tier three areas,
the type of wildfire mitigation activity
and the related historic IOU performance with that activity,
the duration of the activities by the location and
the efficiency and safety of inspection scheduling.
So this is specific to the COVID-19 restrictions on travel.
So we're not having any of our inspectors travel by plane
at this point, but within driving distance.
And then also the number of completed inspections
by territory and activity type to ensure that we have
a balanced spread across the electrical corporations in
the types of wildfire mitigation activities
that they're conducting.
So the defects we've identified to date include things
such as poor poll conditions, clearance issues,
and object contact.
As of yesterday, of the 57 defects identified, 18 defects
have been closed and 39 remain open.
And we are driving the utilities
to resolve these open defects as quickly as possible.
In addition to the inspection work,
we are maintaining a focus on the utilities resolution to
the conditions we set in the approval
of their wildfire mitigation plan.
Last week we received,
each utilities required remedial compliance plan,
which articulate their approach
to resolving the class aide deficiencies,
that were identified by our team
in the wildfire mitigation plan evaluations.
The team is beginning to digest those RCP now, and we are,
we'll be incorporating public comments
that is received by Monday, August 10th.
So that's open for public comment right now,
and we'll be providing our assessment
of those RCP soon thereafter.
We've also received, active safety certificate requests
from Bear Valley on June 5th, San Diego Gas
and Electric on June 16th, California Edison
on June 19th and PG&E on July 29th.
And those are all under consideration.
And we also have a public workshop scheduled next week
to discuss our initial draft staff proposals on
the annual safety culture assessment,
as well as the data standardization
and taxonomy schema that we've proposed.
Next slide, please.
One of the cornerstones
of our new 2020 wildfire mitigation plan guidelines was
to drive a forward looking focus on the guidelines.
If you could skip to the next slide, please.
We did this through implementation of
a new utility wildfire mitigation maturity model.
The model provides a framework
to assess utilities across 10 Gatorade categories
and 52 specific capabilities.
Each utility is assessed as to
how their wildfire mitigation plan initiatives will mature
these capabilities over time.
13 of which, which are highlighted on this slide
are directly related to PSPS operations.
By directing their attention to specific areas,
we can help the utility self identify opportunities
for continuous improvement and
where they should be investing
their wildfire mitigation plan focus over the course
of the three year plan time period.
We've already seen the results of this in
the data governance categories
with utilities reporting that completing the maturity model,
highlighted opportunities for them
to strengthen focus on improving their data capabilities.
Next slide, please.
As we begin to think through how we want to evolve
the 2021 Wildfire Mitigation Plan guidelines,
we've identified three key objectives.
To increased standardization,
continue to increase standardization across
how we're assessing the utility as
a wildfire mitigation plan.
Improving the structure in
which they're submitting those plans, to facilitate
the assessment and review of those plans, and updating
the performance metrics and the data.
As you may remember from my previous reports,
one of the fundamental goals of the 2020 guidelines was
to leverage data in our decision making and gather data
to ensure that the utilities
are supporting their initiatives with data,
in terms of how they're deciding
where to focus their energies.
By continuing to evolve
the guidelines across these three areas,
we aim to increase our ability to consistently
and constantly drive the utility accountability
to reduce utility wildfire and PSPS risk.
I thank you for your time today and thank you
to the Safety Enforcement and Policy Division,
as well as CAL FIRE and Cal OES to
the continued close collaboration on our shared mission
to reduce the utility related wildfire and PSPS threat.
Pending questions, I will turn it back
to Deputy Executive Director Peterson to close us out.
-: Okay, I have, oh, go ahead, Martha.
Caroline: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Okay, thank you.
I'm sorry though.
I thank you for the presentation Caroline.
I know I've sent you a couple of complaints
that have come our way from folks on concerns
with hazard vegetation, hazards and other examples
and, I wonder if it's kind of a two part question.
One is, are there now again,
established point of contacts
for those types of issues locally?
I know that was a area of deficiency before,
and it's related to the earlier conversation on,
some of the communications
that you guys have been overseeing.
And so, that's the first part is,
is there now greater clarity for local,
especially local government on who they can go to
for these types of identification of local hazards?
And second part, and maybe this is a question
that you can think about and maybe a question for all three
of you is, if you had an opportunity to review
the regionalization application from PG&E,
to see how that may improve some of the performance
that we're looking for in all of these areas?
Caroline: Thank you for the question.
So, in regards to the first one,
in terms of local contact, that and this refers back
to a comment, I believe Rachel made too on
the PSPS contacts for the County.
So I would say there has been improvement with communication
of having a single point of contact
for the counties individually, for PSPS related matters.
I know that PG&E specifically has it broken down
into their public safety specialist position,
and then there's also their general jurisdiction contact
for sort of all other matters.
So I do believe that there's been improvement there.
What I can also say is that within the Commission
with us standing up our compliance branch,
we've also established a coordination
with our consumer affairs branch that
when we get escalations of issues,
in addition to those issues being
as per standard protocol passed along
to the utilities directly,
my team is also getting those customer escalations so
that we can then incorporate them as appropriately
into our inspection protocols, so that we can try
and follow up and make sure that the utilities
are responding to those in a timely manner as well.
Does that answer your first question?
And then I'll move on to your second question.
-: Yes, I'm very glad to hear you're incorporating
into your inspection protocol.
Caroline: Yes, yeah.
And then in terms of the regionalization I would say,
absolutely that's something we're looking at.
I can't say that we fully digested
what that will mean as we're looking
at updating the 2021 guidelines.
Certainly that's something that we're looking at on
how we would incorporate that into our evaluations,
but it's something that we're still processing.
I guess it's probably the best way to put it.
I can't say yet how I think that will have a direct impact,
but it's certainly something that we wanna look
at really carefully in terms of ensuring
that it is supporting a positive improvement in executing
on their individual wildfire mitigation activities.
-: Great, thank you.
-: Any other question?
Yes, Commissioner Shiroma
-: Yes, thank you President Batjer,
Caroline and the whole team,
it's tremendous in a central work, you know,
one of our commenters today, Holian Dellel
and she described her experience,
plus her difficulties getting access to the STR program
by virtue of not living in a high fire zone,
but having experienced a PSPS last year.
And I'm just wondering if,
perhaps someone can connect
with her to learn more about what happened
and what can be done for this coming season
to not repeat the experience.
-: Commissioner Shiram--
-: So, thank you.
That was really it. -: Sure.
Rachel: Yes, point taken Commissioners Shiroma
this is Rachel and I will,
I believe that people from energy division
have actually been in touch with her,
but I will follow up on that and make sure.
-: Thank you.
-: I was just gonna add,
I had the same question and also ask people
from energy division to also follow up with Richard gap,
who raised issues about the accessibility of SGIP.
And I wanna just mention two things in particular response
to the point you just made Commissioner Shiroma
and then Holian made, I think,
there is some boundary drawing of how much exposure
to a PSPS event or a wildfire event you need
to have in order to get the full complete SGIP subsidy,
the most generous subsidy that we set out for,
for medically vulnerable customers,
low income customers in high fire zone, right?
I think we need to look at whether
or not we need to tweak that.
So there's someone in her area where she has
a real threat, or there might've been a wildfire,
if we can liberalize that a little bit.
And we are working with staff on a proposed decision
that may tee that up for further consideration.
I don't think it will help this fire season cause we have
to change the rules.
We're experimenting with the rules.
We're trying to benefit a lot of people
but not get over run.
And there's a lot of adjusting on the flight.
And then the second point we did adopt
a decision about three weeks ago, which addresses,
I think one of the points is the staff,
where people can't afford to make an upfront payment.
And, developers are now, especially,
I don't know if this is an alternate to it but, I know
for PG&E, if a developer wants to get incentives up upfront,
then they cannot require any kind of down payment
from a customer.
So that addresses the concern that customers don't have,
the ability, they're low income or disadvantaged
to make an upfront payment.
This gives the developers money up front
and definitely they don't, they're not allowed to ask
for payments upfront from the customer.
Those are two small changes.
I figured very important as you suggest for the staff
to continue to engage.
This community, from what Rachel said,
it sounds like that's was done at a workshop last week
with David and others.
And it's critical that we keep doing that.
-: Any other questions or comments?
-: I have one, quick one Caroline, sort of down in the weeds,
but when you were talking about the field inspections
and, you said there were 57 defects out of the, I didn't get
the, it was 1,050, I think it was, you said, um.
Caroline: 1,470.
-: 470, thank you.
Are those numbers all the IOUs or is just PG&E?
I'm sorry if I missed it.
Caroline: So, it's all of
the inspections that we've done.
Right now, we've focused our inspections on PG&E,
the majority of our PG&E,
but we have begun inspections at California Edison,
as well as San Diego, and then we'll be bringing in
the smalls as well.
So right now it is statewide, but on the big three.
-: This is for least that's doing this, right?
Caroline: Correct.
-: Okay.
Just so that my fellow Commissioners know,
we've been contacted with following this work.
Okay.
Well done as always, Caroline, thank you so much,
Rachel and Lee, very thorough, very helpful.
I always, whenever we do these,
I just keep thinking of living over SOC last fall,(laughing)
day in and day out, and just hoping
that we really don't have the situation.
And thank you, Mrs. Shiroma and Mr. Retchtschaffen
for mentioning what Hollins Delle talked about
and what Richard Skaff talked about.
I think we do need to get some followups.
I suspect that they have been working with David in safety.
But we do need to follow up.
I was particularly concerned about
the difficulties they're having with vendors,
on accessing the SGIP and trying to get battery backup.
And I think you're absolutely right how Lynn haug,
I think lives in Santa Rosa, as I recall,
but at any rate there is I think that that tweak that needs
to be made between the high fire area and then the area
where people are de-energized.
A lot of folks are de-energized
and don't live in high fire or in three or two.
Anyway, thank you all very, very much.
Really appreciate the briefing
and I'm really looking forward to the workshops next week.
So, thank you.
Rachel: President Batjer, it's Rachel.
Yes, you click to the next slide.
You'll just see, we included information about
the public briefings that are happening next week at
which the companies will provide you with a very thorough
and forthright update about their preparations.
And thank you all for the opportunity to present today.
Sounds terrific, thank you very much.
Guzman: Thank you.
Caroline: Thanks everybody again.
Batjer: Okay.
Hang on while I get back to my agenda, you guys. (laughing)
I've torn apart my book,
so I could look at the presentation more easily.
Okay.
All right.
So, I think that we're now moving on from
the management reports to the Commissioners reports.
Would anybody like to go first?
Oh yes, Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Thank you.
I know we've had a long and very excellent meeting today,
but I do wanna report out on three topic areas.
Microgrids, PPH's and
the upcoming low income oversight board meeting.
We heard commenters today about the microgrid workshop,
which has held yesterday.
I'll speak briefly about that.
But first, before attending the workshop,
I spoke at a climate center summit
on community energy resiliency.
And the summit was focused on ways
to ensure equitable access
to resiliency solutions across California.
It was interesting because one of the presenters presented
the UCLA study on,
who has access to solar, who is paying for solar.
And I think folks may be familiar with that study,
which says that,
households that can afford solar,
of course, substantially outnumber the households
that cannot afford it.
And that the households that could afford the solar
are being subsidized by those who cannot afford it.
And, meanwhile, I shared about our programs
for low income and disadvantaged communities.
I also covered our Microgrid Proceeding and
the end, Commissioner's Retchtschaffen SGIP program in terms
of the synergies towards providing core resiliency options
for low income customers and disadvantaged communities.
Yesterday, we had our workshop on track two,
The staff proposal and concept paper,
we had close to 200 attendees.
There is an interest, a passion,
a hunger for a microgrid development
for a whole host of reasons.
The staff went through and described that in terms
of commercializing market grids.
You know, whether it is market grids,
whether it's a new product,
whatever, it might be an unfamiliar with this from my time
at snug, you know, that there are horror stages
to commercialization.
Surely, research and development, technology innovation,
market testing, and pilot projects,
pilot projects, market testing, and pilot projects,
early commercialization, early adoption,
and then scalable or mass production adoption by the market.
I mean these are standard steps.
They're taking overlay that with the requirement for safety
and affordability, it was very interesting to hear comments,
really diverse viewpoints about what does it mean
to not have cost shifting?
Some were saying it's simply a concept,
it's not a strict requirement.
Others were saying, it's a strict requirement.
And we need to have a consultant from the assembly
who had worked on the original legislation that
from the Senate, this was from the assembly.
And she was very emphatic that
that language of costs do not cost shift is absolute.
So, I emphasize to,
the folks in the staff emphasize
that here's a staff proposal
on turf commercialization, so forth.
The technical requirements that are needed
for successful commercialization, islanding,
municipal low income communities and so forth.
And if they could have other ideas, send them in.
You know, submit the documents in the docket,
because otherwise we won't know if,
the alternative have good veracity.
But it was an all day workshop it was really good.
And then of course,
we have our upcoming workshop on August 25th on
the alternatives to diesel.
And we will be hearing from vendors
and other organizations about alternatives.
Hopefully, they are feasible alternatives.
I think we encountered a misunderstanding that, you know,
recently in my article and certainly,
it's pretty much common knowledge.
There are thousands
of backup diesel generators across California.
I mean, there are 25,000 in the five largest
or Corgan management districts.
I think there's been a misunderstanding that somehow
they come under our jurisdiction and they do not.
They come under the jurisdiction of
the air quality management districts
and under the umbrella rubric of the air resources board.
Now, I'm hopeful that the alternative that we see
for you till the scale diesel backup, you know,
alternative diesel backup will help inform
and spark a dialogue on these generators
that have been around for decades.
And so there there's that microgrid.
Now, I had another set
of public participation hearings earlier this week.
They were on Cal-Am's proposed acquisition
of the East Pasadena water district.
It was a smaller,
but very vociferous set of customers who called in.
I mentioned how unhappy a lot of water customers are.
And we heard viewpoints from far and wide, you know,
from Cal OES and existing customers.
These are very tough times.
The PPHs are really providing, these virtual PPH
are providing an excellent opportunity
for customers to call in.
We had one in the afternoon, one in the evenings.
And then I'll end with saying
that our low income oversight board is holding
its next quarterly meeting on September 17th over WebEx,
folks can participate virtually.
And we will hear from our sister agency,
the California Conservation Corps
about their work on energy efficiency.
They have about a thousand core members.
40% Latino, Latin X, 30% African American.
40% of their core members start
without a high school degree.
They work on receiving their high school degree.
And the whole point is to prepare these young adults,
18 to 24 years old, to go out into the workforce.
So we will be hearing from the CCC
at our September board meeting.
Thank you, thank you, President Batjer.
Batjer: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
Anybody else wanna go next?
Okay, I have a brief report that I will make.
In June, I informed you that the Commission established
a diversity equity and inclusion working group to advise
the CPUC on organizational changes,
aim to achieve diversity, equity and inclusion
as cultural and institutional imperative here
at the Commission.
The working group had its inaugural meeting early this week.
I am excited by the energy of the current members
of the working group.
And I look forward to working with them on ways,
we all do, on ways to better foster diversity,
equity and inclusion here at the CPUC.
In addition to working on governance structure,
the working group will also examine new avenues
and processes for raising awareness and sharing knowledge
to make the cultural shifts a consistent part
of the CPUC's work.
And, as I said before, we will be adding more members
to the working group as we progress
and as we identify the agenda more specifically.
The Commissioners and I are committed
to ensuring this organization,
their work place, where the values of diversity, inclusion
and equity are infused
to our internal culture and practices.
We know that real and lasting change will take time
and is always and very important ongoing endeavor.
So I believe that finishes the, oh, I'm sorry, Martha.
Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
Guzman: Thank you, I have a very brief update.
I just wanted to share that I have hired a new AGPA
in my classroom at our office.
She will be my deputy chief of staff and,
her name is Pilar Manriquez.
She has a BA in Chicano studies and with an emphasis
in public policy from UC Berkeley.
Before joining us here,
she participated as an executive fellow at
the California Energy Commission
with the Office of Commissioner Monahan.
She's a native from Helm, California,
and she strived bringing the bridge for community members
who have political and economic advocacy.
She has herself dramatically benefited
from public service programs.
And for that reason,
she wants to be involved in policy making on issues
that impact the people of California.
She was raised in this part
of rural Southwest Fresno County,
and she's dedicated much of her time,
In training for cross country, volleyball,
soccer and softball, and she intends
to join local intramural sports here in Sacramento.
She's a gardening enthusiast and had hoped
to engage in self sustainable practices
by creating community gardens.
She was very excited to work with us here.
So please join me in welcoming her to the--
-: Is she gonna start till next week, right?
That's terrific, Martha that sounds
like a wonderful addition to your staff.
Look forward to meeting her.
Anybody else have any management reports
they'd like to make?
Okay.
With that, and I've lost my page (laughing)
of where we're going here.
I think we are finished.
Yes, with that the public meeting is now adjourned
and we will all log off our computers and get prepared
for the closed session on legal matters.
We'll do that in five.
Give five minutes.
It's, let's say it's two,
let's call it 2:10 and let's be back on by 2:15.
Thank you.