Announcer: The feed for this streaming event.
Operator: Public Utilities Commission
the state October 22nd, 2020.
President Batjer will convene the meeting shortly.
If you wish to speak during the public comment period
please press star one, unmute your phone
and record your name and organization would prompted.
You'll be placed into a queue
in the order in which you identify yourself.
When it comes time for you to speak,
I will announce your name and open your line.
You will have two minutes to speak.
To withdraw your question, press star two.
President Batjer, you may begin.
-: Thank you operator and good morning, everyone.
We need to establish a quorum.
So may I please ask the agenda clerk to call the roll.
-: Comissioner Shiroma. -: Present.
-: Commissioner Guzman Aceves. -: Here.
-: Comissioner Randolph. -: Here.
-: Comissioner Rechtschaffen. -: Here.
-: President Batjer. -: I am here as well.
Thank you, we have established a quorum.
Welcome to the California public utilities Commission.
I'm calling this meeting of October 22nd, 2020,
public agenda item number 3473 to order.
Due to the coronavirus pandemic
and the shelter in place order,
we are conducting today's business meeting online
and by remote participation.
The meeting is live-streamed on the CPUC's website.
You can view the meeting
at www.adminmonitored.com/CA/CPUC
Closed captioning is available
in English and Spanish through the website.
You can click on the green button
to select your language of choice.
That is on admin monitor.
Public engagement is critical to the CPUC process.
If you wish to make a public comment,
dial 808-857-1917.
I'm sorry, we're getting a little background noise,
I apologize.
Let me start that over again.
If you would like to make a public comment
dial into (800) 857-1917
and enter passcode 9899501 and press star one.
You will be placed into a queue
and the operator will take your name
and information if appropriate.
You will be called upon to speak
when we get to the public comment in today's agenda.
If you encounter any difficulty
calling into the public telephone line,
please email votingmeetinghelp all one word,
votingmeetinghelp@cpuc.ca.gov.
If you wish to make a public comment,
and have already dialed in
to the public comment telephone line, please press star one
to get into the public comments two.
CPUC rules do not allow for parties in proceedings
to speak about open proceedings.
The public can make comments addressing items on the consent
and regular agenda and items not on the agenda.
Please note that there will not be public comment
on any item on the closed session agenda today.
You will have two minutes.
You will have two minutes to speak.
You will hear a bell.
You will hear a bell sound when your time is up.
Please be mindful of other speakers in the queue
and keep to your allotted time.
We would appreciate that.
With that guidance in mind, I welcome today's speaker.
I will turn now back to the operator
to open the line for public comment.
Operator.
Operator: The public comment line is now open.
One moment while we wait on our first comment.
The first comment is from David McCord.
Your line is now open.
David: Hi, this is David McCord
and I'm a rate payer and El Sorito.
I'm following the new proceeding to review and update
MET energy metering rulemaking 2008020.
Due to its nature,
this proceeding is coordinated with others,
including those on distributed energy resources.
Distributed solar generation and storage
both in front of the meter and behind it
are indispensable tools to assure resilience
and resource adequacy and the distribution grid
and to avoid unnecessarily costs
and line loss for long distance transmission.
So we need to incentivize installation of solar
and storage in our homes and businesses.
The more, the better within their need for power.
I've noticed that in the current tariff,
the one-time fee for interconnection
of under one megabyte of solar is between 75 and $145,
depending on the utility,
while the fee jumps to $800 for anything larger.
With increasing use of electric stoves and other appliances
plus charging of electric vehicles,
I expect many homes to need more power than a decade ago.
The utilities trying to discourage larger installations
shame on them.
Utilities could also offer an additional option
a feed in tariff for larger residential
or small business mounted solar rays.
Thank you.
Batjer: Thank you, Mr. McCord.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Patrick Carnes.
Your line is now open.
Patrick: Madam president, honorable Commissioners,
I return to share a perspective
of your constituent rate payers
as expressed by a single member of an advocacy group
from the South Bay area.
My perspective has been developed from interaction
with the administrative judicial system
acting under the auspices of the CPUC,
the Governor and the state legislature.
Starting with a blank slate, I have been driven to view
the functioning of the CPUC
as framed by an administrative judiciary acquiescence
to the tyranny of an irrational bias
that promotes and extends monopolistic power
to the detriment of California's public interest.
In the interest of time, I will cite two instances
blocking or inhibiting ratepayer participation
in judicial proceedings.
In the interest of time,
the first is the rate payer complaint
that was submitted to the Commission
after an Administrative Law Judge intimidated a rate payer
who was a representative in a proceeding with a utility
and also was submitting a witness testimony
when he was intimidated by, as I say,
involved ALJ that he better be careful
not to practice law without a license.
This was done at a time
just proceeding submission of documents and testimony
that inhibited the representative
to a point where he could not file
and had to withdraw documents
because he didn't want to get embroiled
in a legal accusation and indictment.
Very intimidating.
Second proceeding occurred in Pari Passu
with this intimidation where the conversation
with the party representative
with the representative and the representative for CPED
just said, all I'm interested in
is making sure I don't anger the judge
and we don't bankrupt the utility.
(beeping)
Is that time or is that a warning?
Batjer: Yes, that's your time is up.
Could you just summarize very quickly?
(indistinct)
Patrick: Thank you.
Just one additional.
Yeah, I am submitting this.
So I will expand on this.
And according to the previous speaker,
the NEST energy efficiency program,
in terms of where they're getting their replacements
NEST light bulb et cetera, are all from China
in terms of the ones that I have received.
And I don't think that this is appropriate at this time
during the corona crisis.
Thank you for the extra time, I apologize
and I submit this respectfully and will send it in writing.
Thank you very much. -: Thank you Mr. Kerns.
Operator, the next caller please.
Operator: I apologize.
The next caller is Emily Ramirez.
Your line is now open.
The next caller is Emily Ramirez.
Your line is now open.
Ms. Ramirez, please check your mute button.
Emily: I apologize.
Yeah, good morning.
My name is Emily, from Parlier, California.
I want the Commissioner to know that every step you take
to help protect consumers from their fraud is important.
The companies IOU should tell their clients
that our energy bills will be changing
because we got a notice from such solar company.
We need them to help us better understand
that our bills are going to change.
Thank you.
Operator: Thank you, Ms. Ramirez.
Batjer: Next caller, please operator.
Operator: The next caller is Nora Salazar Hernandez.
Your line is now open.
Nora: Good morning all
and thank you for the open comments.
I just wanted to comment.
I just got the document, so I really did not have a chance
to review everything.
So I really can't comment on it very much.
Not enough time to review the whole document.
Thank you.
Batjer: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Ludus Medina.
Your line is now open.
Ludus: Good morning Commissioners.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Regarding item six the new citation program
for interconnection.
I strongly suggest that you help us with a vote yes.
Our consumers and are not being protected.
We are used to having our IOUs
be our sole providers of energy,
but now with the renewable energy such as solar,
we've fallen into a lack of knowledge and experience
with handling these matters.
NEM is not common sense for all of us or none of us maybe.
And when this interconnection is not being protected
by at least our IOU to the customer, where we fall short.
This is just the first step in many steps
that needs to be taken to protect consumers in California
from solar fraud, for renewable energy, that information
and even though the industry is trying to say
that they're trying their best, no, they are not.
They're still big gap in information
in languages, culturally adaptable
and also understandable for our communities.
I, as a community organizer for the last three years
have been terrorized I guess, with the information
of lack of information to our consumers who are migrants,
monolingual or rural area community members
by their homes being installed with solars
and not understanding what NEM
or even interconnection means, or even just the language
of what's going to happen from then on.
So please, I request that you support us
with this resolution, UEB04-004.
Thank you. -: Thank you, caller.
Operator, the next caller please.
Operator: I'm showing no further callers at this time.
Batjer: Okay, thank you.
With no more callers on the line,
the public comment period is now closed.
We'll move on into the agenda or the agenda changes.
These are the following changes to today's agenda.
Item number two will be held
into the November 5th, 2020 Commission meeting.
Item six will be taken up with the regular agenda today.
Item 10 will be held until the November 19th,
2020 Commission meeting.
Item 24 will take up with the Consent Agenda.
Okay, we will now take up the consent items.
Is there a motion? -: So moved.
-: And a second.
It has been moved and seconded.
Will the agenda clerk please call the roll.
-: Comissioner Shiroma. -: Aye.
-: Commissioner Guzman Aceves. -: Aye.
-: Comissioner Randolph. -: Yes.
-: Comissioner Rechtschaffen. -: Yes.
-: President Batjer. -: Yes.
The Consent Agenda items have passed unanimously.
-: I believe Commissioner Rechtschaffen
you would like to make remarks on a couple of the items,
item number three.
-: Just item number three President Batjer.
This decision approved the transfer of funds
within categories of our self-generating incentive program.
I just want to explain a bit of what we did.
It responds to really, what's been
an overwhelming number of applications filed for incentives
in the budget category or the program category
that we refer to as the equity budget.
This was created by Commission decision in 2017
and it's for projects for low-income residential customers
or non-residential customers such as local governments,
schools, nonprofits, and small businesses
that are located either in disadvantaged communities
or low income communities.
This is different than the SJ program
we're gonna be talking about
on the regular agenda in item 18.
That program is focused on high fire threat areas
and has higher incentive levels.
That's the equity resilience budget.
This is just the equity budget.
When we established the program,
we said incentive levels that were not high enough
to trigger participation.
We had very, very little participation.
We then increased the incentive amounts.
And at the point when we did that,
the budget for facilities that were not homes
the non-residential budget had about $53 million available.
And for the residential budget,
it was about $32 million available.
Right now, jointly the investor
on utilities have a waiting list of projects
seeking over $300 million for non-residential customers
and about $20 million for residential customers.
In response to this situation, we received a petition
for modification by the California Energy Storage Alliance
that's sought to transfer more funding
for the equity budget for this category of projects.
And we are transferring $100 million in this decision
to non-residential equity projects
and 8.5 million in residential equity projects.
This won't meet all the demand
as I indicated this over $300 million waiting lists
for the non-residential customers
but it will fund a significant portion
of those non-residential projects.
And it will fund nearly all of the residential projects
that are are currently on the wait list.
We also in this decision imposed a limit of $5 million
in incentives per applicant.
This is designed to ensure that more individual cities
and counties and other entities
can participate in S chips
so that the incentives are not taken up
just by one applicant.
The category where we took the money
out of the large scale storage budget,
that budget does not have a waiting list.
It has enough funds in order to make this transfer.
I should point out though
and this is indicative of the intense interest in S chips
we're seeing across the board.
We are starting to see more applications
in this general non-residential storage category as well.
And in part, that's because some of the facilities
in this category qualify for a resiliency adder
for projects in high fire threat areas
of those with two or more PS events.
This is not again the equity resilience budget
we're going to talk about later.
We have a bunch of different categories
but the bottom line is we're seeing a lot of participation.
We're seeing that as S chips fills a very important need.
And the term picture here
is we hope that the incentives we're providing now
will pave the way for storage installations
to continue for the market to be transformed.
And as customers gain more familiarity with the technology
and the benefits of storage
and its applications will continue to grow
even as our programming and incentive to phase out.
Thank you.
-: Okay, thank you Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
I believe that Commissioner Guzman Aceves
would like to speak to item four.
-: Yes, thank you President Batjer.
I'll speak to item four and eight together.
They're both surcharge resolutions
for some of our telecommunications program.
And first I wanna start by thanking our staff
who worked so hard on doing this math.
On the high cost fund, a Helix Roblas and Hannah Steiner
and on the California advanced service fund
Selena Long and Angela Yang.
One of the things I just want to continue to raise
for all of us and the public and ultimately the legislature
is that over the past few years, we've really acknowledged
that the Commission has been seeing a negative repercussions
from having the type of surcharge structure that we have,
which is a voice based surcharge collection
to fund our public purpose programs.
This is also called the interest state revenues
because we have the voice service jurisdiction.
And not only has it been declining rapidly
for legitimate reasons on why people are using more data.
We're texting, we're using applications
like the one we're on today, social media, et cetera.
But addition to the revenue being voice-based,
the determination of how much of it is voice versus data
is determined by the carriers themselves.
So it's a declining source of revenue
and it's a volatile source
that we are in this constant catch-up.
We're doing these annual adjustments
and I wanna highlight in particular
how negative that impact has been
for the California advanced service fund.
Even with this resolution to adjust the revenue
to kind of adjust for the formula,
we're going to end up seeing at minimum,
over $77 million of under collections
for the California advanced service fund.
That means that even though the legislature
authorized to collect over 330 million by 2020,
we will only attain at the most, 252.
This is a huge problem.
We need surcharge reform.
We need to do, there've been suggestions
obviously the 911 surcharge with one was also reform
to be a customer based, not this voice versus data
false structure that's been set up for us.
So, anyhow, I just wanted to really reiterate this need
for surcharge reform and the need to really stabilize
the revenues for these public purpose programs
so we don't fall short of the goals
that the legislature has actually set forth for us to meet.
So I really look forward
to working with the legislature this year
to attain those reforms.
Thank you.
President Batjer, you're muted.
-: Sorry, sorry.
Thank you Martha.
Thank you for speaking on item four and item eight,
very important.
And I now turned to Commissioner Shiroma
who wishes to speak on item 24.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
Good morning everybody and thank you for your vote
to appoint Jessica Lim to the low income oversight board
as the electrical gas utility representative.
Jessica is the principal manager
for Southern California Edison's income qualified
customer programs behind the meter
customer generation programs and customer care solutions.
She also serves on the board
of the Asian Pacific Community Fund,
which serves over 700,000 people through a network
of 56 nonprofit agencies in Southern California.
78% of them of which are considered low income.
Additionally, Jessica serves on the education committee
for the North American smart energy week.
This is solar power international
and energy storage international,
as well as she's a member of the advisory committee
for the utilities conference
through the Smart Electric Power Alliance.
Ms. Lin also serves as a member
for the Association of Women
in Water, Energy and Environment,
as well as serving as an advisor
to the Asian Employee Resource Group.
After the counseling innocence,
she brings a wealth of experience to this role
and I look forward to working with her
on the low income oversight board.
Thank you.
-: President Batjer, you're muted.
-: Sorry.
All right sorry.
I've got to pay better attention today.
Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
We now will take up the regular agenda items
and the first item is item number six
and I would like to turn to the consumer protection
and enforcement division to introduce resolution UED-004
for discussion today.
Jeanette Lowe and Marna Anning
will be presenting on behalf of the division.
Jeanette, please proceed.
-: Thank you, Commissioner.
Support, could we have
the PowerPoint presentation up, please.
-: We're having difficulty hearing you.
Have you moved your mute button perhaps?
-: Is this is better? -: Yes, I can hear you now.
-: Okay, thank you.
Good morning.
Good morning Commissioners.
Good morning, President Batjer.
Thank you for this opportunity to present item six
for your consideration.
Before we get to the details of the citation program
in the next slide I want to briefly talk about
what got us here in the first place.
Next slide, please.
There are many issues that were reflected
in the 1809 that affected consumers
especially consumers in vulnerable communities
and those related to issues
about aggressive marketing tested,
pressure to sign contracts, false advertising,
misleading marketing.
Solar transactions are already complicated
in the (indistinct)
And so there's a higher burden for disclosures
and consumer education
to actually make them understand
what they're buying into.
And these are longterm purchasing
and hardware they're already installed
in properties that are now subject to lien.
So the Commission was right
in recognizing that these consumer concerns are important
and must be addressed.
These predatory behaviors and other complaints
relating to harming permanently, in some cases
the credit ratings of vulnerable communities
that did not understand what they're getting into
in the first place are very valuable concerns.
And so what we're trying to do in the citation program,
next slide please,
is to address those concerns in a systematic way.
I'm waiting for the next slide to show up
so that we can follow.
So in early this year, we were directed by the Commission
to propose a citation program
to implement the consumer protection
and the document requirements
that the Commission itself already adopted.
So we did that within the required 90-day timeframe.
We had parties participate, provide comments, reply comments
and revise a draft resolution to reflect those comments.
And because of the requests from parties
for more open discussions
about what we've had in division one,
we held a public workshop
and we made revisions to that public workshop.
And I will reconcile those revisions later
after my colleague Marna Anning
presents the actual citation program and the citation.
But in the next slide, I want to present the primary goals
that EED had in establishing the citation program.
What we wanted to do with the requirement in the first place
that IOU the IMC Steven track,
the very information that the Commission
already deemed necessary to protect me.
And these are still the consumer guide,
disclosure statements, (indistinct) stations
and other parents actually transaction details.
But at the same time, what we wanted to establish
is a mechanism but actually deters continuing wrongdoing
by the solar providers.
So what we're trying to create
it's not only a one-way compliance paradigm with the IAO.
But we also want to create a mechanism
that draws in the third party into this compliant model.
So the next slide.
I wanna explain the rationale
for why you structured the citation program in this manner.
First of all, we wanted any citation program
to have a streamlined way of eliciting compliance.
But at the same time we want to accommodate
the interconnection process
and the speed of that interconnection process
by not burdening the detailed review for access
of every single data in the documentation.
So how do we balance that?
We balanced that by requiring a cognition
that IOU received the document that the Commission decision
intended for them to receive.
What that means is, it's not sufficient
to just have a notation that you received something,
but at least a minimum acknowledgement
that you received the access station,
the consumer disclosure and the consumer guide, et cetera.
So not only does this provide us with affirmative structure
that can monitor compliance with those required documents.
It allows CPB and other governmental agencies
if we share them to have information
to address consumer complaints and inform our investigation.
Now, based on this information,
we can then create a monitoring tool
that can identify providers, solar providers are asking
who are continually not complying
with submitting the required document.
So here I hand this off to Marna Anning
to discuss the actual elements of the citation program
and the citation.
Marna: Good morning Commissioners.
Can you hear me?
Batjer: Yes, we can Marna.
Thank you go ahead.
Marna: Thank you, Commissioner Batjer.
There are four elements in the proposed citation program.
The solar transaction record, compliance report,
suspension of noncompliant providers
and a suspended applicants list.
So the solar transaction record is an online portal
that we developed in collaboration with the IOUs
to gather all of the documents and disclosures
that are required by the decision.
Essentially, it's an administrative tool
that allows us to efficiently collect
and obtain the documents needed
to follow up on complaints or investigations.
The compliance reports allow staff to track and take action
for providers that are chronically non-compliant,
chronically not providing the guide to customers.
The suspension mechanism allows us to suspend providers
who are consistently not uploading the correct documents.
And the applicant lists assist consumers
and companies by informing customers
and companies of providers
who do not have internet connection access.
Next slide, please
Essentially, all of the elements
were developed from the decisions.
And so the solar transaction record
developed from the decision the 1809-04
requirements for the utilities to collect and store,
track and store the information in their portals
for the utilities to modify the portals
to collect that information
and also incorporating the requirements
as the 2002-011 including the assets stations
in the audit trail document.
The compliance reporting was likewise developed
from the 1809-044 requirement
to track and store the document,
also to collect the necessary licenses from the providers
and for staff to monitor
interconnection application information
to ensure that the correct information
is being uploaded to the portal.
The suspension mechanism and the providers
are developed from D20 requirements for CPD mechanisms
to ensure that the correct documents are being collected
and to ensure that we can access the information
and to ensure that providers are following
or uploading the correct documents to the portal.
Next slide please.
So the following are the citations that we'd receive
from the violations of the requirements in the program.
For an incomplete SDR,
it would be $1,000 dollars per violation.
For failing to provide a quarterly report,
it would be $1,000 dollars per violation
and $1,000 for each day the violation continues.
For failing to issue a suspension warning notice
to an applicant that is chronically non-compliant
to give the applicant opportunity to come into compliance,
the citation is $5,000 per violation.
The citation is hired because we recognize
the importance of notifying providers who are noncompliant
and providing them an opportunity
if noncompliance is due to the administrative error.
The same with the notice of suspension.
Again, chronic non-compliant providers who not upload
we wanted to provide them with an opportunity.
And so failure to notify them or give them the notice issues
a 5,000 per day of pre-incident violation.
And $1,000 per day for the violations.
Failing to suspend future interconnection assets
for not uploading the correct document
chronically not providing
the correct documents to customers,
chronically not providing the correct information
as part of the interconnection application
the consumer protection information,
failing to suspend the $10,000 per violation
and $5,000 for each day the chronically non-compliant
or applicant continued to remain accessible to the portal.
We also believe that the defendant applicant list
is highly important to protect consumers.
The signed applicant list has two components.
One, placement on the list
and two, generating and maintaining
and reporting the list to CPB.
CPB does make the decision
as to whether or not an applicant is placed on the list.
However, the IOU generally maintain
and report that list to CCD,
which then gets published on the TPC website.
So failing to provide information
regarding applicants who should be placed on the list,
both generates a $5,000 violation
and $1,000 each day, the violation precedes.
Next slide, please.
Jeanette: Thank you Marna.
So when we issued a revised one,
there are many issues that the parties wanted to discuss.
And so we held a workshop to give them ample opportunity
to hear the structure of the citation program
and propose alternative.
Only counsel proposed an alternative during the workshop
and in its comments.
And they proposed to expand the audit
in lieu of a citation program.
The IOU expressed concerns about liability
and delays in interconnection,
concerns about being the approver of the compliance plan
that is required in the citation program and such.
So we addressed some of the concerns in the next slide.
I wanna talk about the CPU's position
and addressing some of these concerns.
Council's proposal to expand spot audit
from 100 to 1,000 while in general it's good
because it advances the consumer protection goals
and the Commission in general,
CPD does not believe that it's an adequate substitute
for the citation program.
We don't think that it turns effect of increased scrutiny,
which is what that proposal is based on
will adequately deter continued wrongdoing by applicants
or solar providers.
And so what we think
it's an actual carrot and stick structure,
is the actually threatened extension
of interconnection access.
Now, while that sounds wrong, I wanna highlight
that the citation program provides ample opportunity
for providers to really want to comply
to actually come back to comply.
To comply in time so that they won't be suspended
from the interconnection assets.
So this is not a draconian way to simply suspend that.
It is a structure that allows a well-meaning compliant,
or willing to comply solar providers
to come into compliance and not be suspended.
But at the same time provide the structure
that allows the permission
to suspend those who are habitually not compliant.
And what do we mean by habitual or chronic?
In the structure of the citation around,
those are identified solar providers
who have noncompliant applications
that are 5% of its total applications.
In addition, we believe that house's proposal
based on collect and transmit
does not up could be 1809 permits of track and store.
And what we mean by that is the condition foundings
consider documentation to be important.
And required the IOU to collect and track them.
We believe that that tracking requires an acknowledgement
that you actually need to see the intended document.
Not that you received a document.
So council proposal based on collect and transmit,
is a more passive, non affirmative model
of receiving something.
And so even in their ultimate citation program,
what they're saying is we can swipe the IOD,
if they didn't receive it.
But if they receive something and if it's totally unrelated
to the intended document, that they'll pay.
And what CPDs position, it is not okay.
If the Commission had intended to protect consumers
with the document we've acquired,
we would like to put the IOD at a minimum.
These have received the intended documents.
Nonetheless, we support the expansion of the audit program
in tandem with a citation program,
because in general we believe
that add to the continuous protection goals
but not in place of the citation program.
In addition, CPD now is the approver
of the required compliance plans
that are submitted by the applicant to not be suspended
in the prior revision warning.
We designed it such that the IOU approve it
sent it to us, that we won't issue a suspension.
We would lift the suspension warning.
We acknowledge the IOU concern
about certain liability exposure.
While we might not fully agree with the extent
that that liability exposures to reduce that concern,
CPD will take on the role of approving the compliance plan
to avert any suspension.
In addition in the revision too,
we clarify certain circumstances
that CPD would consider as noncompliant or compliant
which are subject to the citation on what's going on.
This is on the IOD receiving a better understanding
of how to implement the citation program.
And finally, we added attending grace period
from the date of the suspension is noted
if we actually issue one
and remember, that's after having issued a warning first
giving them an opportunity to ask
and file the compliance plan
that only contains three items.
What happened?
How are you gonna address what happened
for noncompliance, and how are you gonna change
your processes such that going forward
you're gonna be submitting the required documents.
After the filing,
if they still don't follow the compliance plan
and we issue a suspension notice to the IOU
that suspension will not take effect until after 10 days.
Again, that's another grace period that we're providing
providing the providers.
So the providers to the extent
that they really intend to comply,
there are many opportunities.
And so overall, I think our citation program
complies with the requirements or with the direction
from the Commission to enforce the requirements
in the named decision.
We feel that it's an adequate
and a strong mechanism to both
and this is compliance with IOU
as well deter non-compliance from solar providers.
And at the same time,
it's streamlined enough to make a citation program work
from a ministerial perspective.
With that, I'd like to thank Marna for her presentation
but open the question, answers to the Commission.
-: Thank you very much Jeanette and Marna.
That was extremely helpful.
I asked that this item be moved
to the regular agenda from consent.
And I'd like to begin by saying
that I very much appreciate the hard work
that the consumer protection
and enforcement division has put
in developing and refining this resolution.
It's very evident by the presentation
that Jeanette and Marna just gave.
Without a doubt, there are bad actors in the solar industry
who have defrauded some of our state's
most vulnerable residents.
I've personally heard troubling stories
and I'm strongly in favor of measures
to prevent this from happening
and to punish those responsible.
Predatory behavior is unacceptable
and I commend Commissioner Guzman Aceves
for her incredible leadership and rooting out fraud
and protecting the consumers of California.
I wanna take the opportunity to discuss this resolution
with the other Commissioners today
because I do have concerns
with the proposed enforcement approach.
These are concerns I have discussed
with my Begley keen partner, Commissioner Shiroma
and I'm sure she will share her views as well.
Before I go into my concerns
I wanted to briefly review again,
the timeline of our relevant consumer protection actions.
In late 2018, the Commission put in place requirements
with utilities modify their interconnection portals
to track and store newly required solar documentation
for contracts signed after October, 2019.
In may of this year, we received the results
of the first semi-annual spot audits of those requirements.
In February of this year, we modified the 2018 decisions
to require that additional documentation
be uploaded to the interconnection portal.
The implementation of these requirements was delayed
until the end of the year of last month for PGNE
and for Edison and until January 21 for SDGNE.
I raised this because it ties
into one of my principle concerns with this program.
We don't have enough information, I don't believe
to know whether a citation program is needed
on top of our existing fraud protections.
So far, the utilities have complied
with the portal upgrade and spot audit requirements to date
and are working to implement our recent 2020 decisions.
Just to be clear, the February decision does not require
that we put a citation program in place.
It simply provided the opportunity for one to be proposed.
With that said, my concerns with this resolution
fall into two main areas.
First, I'm concerned that this program
could cause significant interconnection delays
which would harm all behind the meter solar and storage,
residential customers
whether it be through the delayed backup power
or the millions of annually lost customer billing savings
during that period.
And second again, as I just mentioned,
I'm concerned that adding an additional layer of bureaucracy
is premature and would not be more effective
at deterring fraud than our current enforcement approach.
With regard to my first concern
on delays in the interconnection,
utilities have credibly stated that the threat of penalties
means that there is a defacto obligation
for them to manually review each application
to ensure they will not be penalized
as there would be no way, no way clear way
to automate the process.
So while the resolution may state
there is not an obligation to review each document,
utilities risk aversion as we know it well
means they will take the most conservative approach
to compliance to avoid the penalty in terms of delays.
The average utility reviewed time
for residential interconnection of a system right now
is one to three days,
with the utilities processing
thousands of applications monthly.
This process is the result of years of progress made
among many stakeholders in our interconnection proceedings
to streamline and standardize the process.
The utilities were took them back to manual review
of the additional documentation.
They estimate that the applications
could take up to 30 days to process.
Even a shorter delay would still result
in customers losing out on millions of dollars annually
in bill savings or the chance to back up their home
with clean energy during an outage.
In addition the utilities would also have to hire
additional staff to conduct manual reviews,
passing along millions of dollars in costs
to our rate payers each year.
I also want to note
that any obligation to review each document explicit or not
is contrary to the Commission's direction.
In our 2018 decision, directs the our clients decisions
directs utilities to track and store these documents
as part of the customer's interconnections information
so that these documents can be reviewed
or compliance by the utilities during spot audits.
However, that same decision also states
that "The utilities are not required to manually view
"uploaded documents as part of the interconnection
"application review process."
This was included for a reason.
We understood that manual review
would lead to unacceptable interconnection delays.
To put these delays in the context
of challenges we are facing today,
the legislature just last week
our root cause analysis hearing
encouraged us to speed up the interconnection process
even further to ensure that our state's residents
can deploy clean, backup power as quickly as possible.
My second concern is connected to my first.
I'm also concerned
that while this program would cause delays,
it's not clear would actually enhance
our ability to serve fraud.
Specifically, the resolution only requires utilities
to verify that the correct consumer protection documents
are uploaded, not that the documents
are filled out accurately or signed.
As a result, an installer could theoretically
forge signatures on documentation.
And as long as they're uploaded the correct document type
the utilities would be in compliance
with the citation program
and the bad actor would not be identified.
This issue is known and the resolution doesn't address it.
Per the original consumer protection decision,
utilities are already required
to collect consumer protection documents at interconnection,
perform semi-annual spot checks on these documents
and provide their findings
to the contractor state license board
to support its enforcement and disciplinary actions
against contractors that operate without a valid license
or fail to ensure consumer verification.
It is appropriate to refer such cases
to the contractor state license board
as it is the agency that licenses and regulates contractors
and has the authority to revoke a contractor's license.
Additionally, utilities have updated
their interconnection portals
to make it impossible for contractors
without a valid license number to submit an application.
Given that these protections were just recently implemented,
we don't yet know the size of the problem
with complete interconnection applications.
Y'all know lack of good data,
we simply don't know whether incomplete applications
correlate with fraud.
While we must absolutely continue to collect
consumer protection documents,
and refer those solar providers
to the contractor state license board,
I am not convinced that we have enough information
to justify a program that could put a solar company
and that may forget,
a solar company who perhaps could forget to upload a form
on utility supervise corrective action plan,
particularly because most fraud occur far upstream
from the interconnection process.
In closing, my concern with this resolution
isn't because I don't think there is a fraud problem
that needs to be addressed,
but because this problem strikes me
as premature and misplaced.
We simply don't have the data
to know the extent of the program.
Without that, we can't know
whether targeting the utility's compliance
with document collection will prevent the fraud
at the point of sale.
In other words, way upstream
from the interconnection process.
There may be other programs that can achieve the goals.
The goal without the negative impact
to all the customers
that I would be very open to considering,
but I don't think this proposal gets us there.
And finally, I'd like to remind my fellow Commissioners
that even if the citation program is not adopted,
the ordering paragraphs in the relevant decision
must still be followed by the utilities.
Consumer protection documents will still be collected.
Semi-annual audits will proceed
and the contractor's state license board in conjunction
with the CPUC staff will still be empowered
to revoke the licenses of solar providers
who don't follow the rules.
I would like to thank everyone
for the hard work that has gone into this difficult
and complicated issue,
and for staff and stakeholders continued commitment
to consumer protection.
So with that, I will turn to my fellow Commissioners.
Commissioner Shiroma, I think you had some comments
that you wanted to give.
-: Yes, thank you President Batjer.
I support the sentiments expressed by President Batjer
and I'd like to share a few additional thoughts.
I do want to thank Laura Medina
who I served with on the low income oversight board.
She talked about needing protection
from the sorts of predatory activities,
protection from the IOUs.
I agree with that sentiment.
What I don't agree with, in terms of the resolution
is that this citation program would accomplish that.
Now, I think we have CPED with an almost impossible mission.
Impossible because of the jurisdictional issues
and really because of jurisdictional issues
with the contractor state licensing board,
they had to practically what I think
is accomplish a proposed workaround.
Again, I share the resolution concerns
about fraudulent solar practices.
It's just unconscionable.
But the legislature has clearly designated in the garner
that the responsibility for policing such practices
rests with the contractor state license board.
It has the authority to sanction contractors
for misrepresenting their work
or engaging in unprofessional conduct.
And they are the ones who can suspend
or revoke their licenses to do business.
We don't have that direct authority.
And so the political situation
is rather than able to work within those bounds,
which is not our authority,
to me and the resolution attempts to work around
by penalizing the utilities who have not been accused
of the wrong doing, but potentially here,
for the imperfect performance of clerical duties.
Now, I'm uncomfortable again
with this jurisdiction of work around
and even if the proposal were to have
the potential to prevent fraud and I don't see it,
the citation program would only require utilities
to verify as President Batjer said,
the crux set of documents are uploaded.
Not that the documents are filled out accurately
or signed appropriately.
I cannot see how considering unsigned forms
would be acceptable documents
would effectively enforce consumer protection requirements.
Again, I really want to continue to emphasize,
I feel like we gave CPEB
an almost impossible assignment here.
I'd also like to underscore as in President Batjer has,
that Commission has a distinct
enforcement approach in place already
whereby utilities perform semi annual spot audits,
report the results to the contractor's state license board
for investigation and potential revoking
of contractor's licenses.
This approach was first implemented in late 2019,
and we have not received results
from the first complete semi annual period.
I agree with President Batjer that further information
about the efficacy of the existing regime
that we've outlined is needed before adopting a new,
really what comes across
as an administratively burdensome citation program
that only indirectly targets the real wrongdoers
through implementation of our existing framework
our existing person approach,
and while new, I think that we will learn much more
about whether improvements needed.
I'm hopeful that there will be consensus among the parties
in energy division staff about those areas for improvement.
Some of this was alluded to at the workshop,
ideas about increasing the number of in-depth audits
from the current 600 per year to 6,000 per year.
The use of a more risk-based approach
to choose which applications to audit.
For example we could focus the audits
on developers that a history of a contractor
state license board complaints
or issues identified in past utility audits.
When we could require that every geographical area
and climate zone be included in the audit
to ensure we're getting
a representative cross section of the state.
Improvements like these
combined with our continued engagement
with the contract and state licensing board
in the solar inter agency task force
could prove to be an effective deterrent to fraud.
I feel that the proposal before us today
has significant drawbacks interconnection delays.
What I feel is really an ineffective citation program
the jurisdictional overreach with our sister agency
and the prospect of increasing bureaucracy.
So again, I know these are heavy words for our staff.
I feel like we gave you an impossible task.
I support rejecting this proposal,
going back to the drawing board.
Once we have the audit results,
and determine whether anything else need to be done
from the CPEC perspective
or whether there needs to be even more coordination
through the inter-agency task force
and to work hand in hand with our sister agency,
the contract of state licensing board.
Thank you.
Batjer: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
Would anyone else like to speak on item number six?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Commissioner Randolph.
-: Thank you, President Batjer and Commissioner Shiroma.
I have some of the same concerns that you articulated
particularly because I do feel like this
is as Commissioner Shiroma described it,
it's a workaround for an imperfect regulatory structure
where we have authority over the IOUs
and then the contractors state licensing board
has authority over the solar contractors.
And so we end up with this odd gap in jurisdiction.
And I think the requirement for the spot audits
is a helpful way to hopefully get a picture
of if the IO user keeping an eye on these,
whether or not these forms are filed fully and completely
that the contractors are complying with the rules.
And if not the contractor state licensing board
can get involved.
But I agree with the perspective
that giving that structured time to work its way through
makes logical sense.
And then we can circle back and revisit this in the future.
Although I'm concerned that it's gonna be challenging
to really build a robust enforcement structure
without some legislative help
to really kind of clarify that these solar providers
could use some more direct oversight
with regard to protection of consumers
from fraudulent contracts and aggressive marketing.
So in some I share the concern
that as Comissioner Shiroma said,
maybe we have given the staff and the working group folks
kind of an impossible task.
And maybe we need to eat to set this aside
and take a look at it a little bit more in the future.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Randolph.
I believe Comissioner Guzman Aceves
had her hand up.
I've lost the screen.
-: Yes, thank you President Batjer.
Well, needless to say, I am very disappointed
in the perspective that you've shared.
I think I know that you shared the concern
for the customers.
There was a piece of maybe a clarification
that I think is really important.
You've all referenced the rules that we put in place.
And there's a saying in Spanish called,
that they came from the indigenous people
that were conquered by the Spanish that say
(speaking Spanish)
Which is I'm gonna follow the rules.
I'm not gonna comply.
And it's really what I'm seeing today here
is that you're all referencing these rules that exist
but you're not willing to enforce them.
You're not creating new rules with this resolution.
We're proposing a citation mechanism for the rules.
And please, the contractor state licensing board
is very supportive.
They have been with us every which way,
asking us to cut these contractors off.
We have done a lot.
We've put in these rules,
but they're not all being enforced.
Yes, having the contractor state licensing requirement
went a long way.
The board just gave us recent members to date.
In 2015, there were 279 complaints annually.
This year alone, not even to the end of the year,
there's 843 complaints.
That's over 100 a month, five times what we had
five years ago.
The contractor state licensing board wants this partnership.
This is an enforcement program of an existing rule.
If we're gonna reference our rule,
if we believe in our rules, then let's enforce them.
We have an environmental and social justice action plan.
We said in that rule, we're gonna develop action 6.11.
We're gonna develop residential rooftop
solar consumer protection measures.
We're not gonna develop them in vain.
We wanna enforce them.
I'm not sure if there's some clarification with that point
but when people say there's these rules,
that's what we're talking about.
We're talking about enforcing the rules.
We're not talking about new things.
Well, the concern that there's gonna be a delay
because we're enforcing our rules, that's a valid concern.
When I spoke to the utilities
and I have had many conversations with utilities
about how they implement this.
And I will say to the utilities because they,
more so than the industry right now are protecting repairs.
They on their own are calling out schemes
that are being used in their territories.
Right now, there is manual review.
Do you know what they're reviewing manually?
They're looking at the line map for the solar projects
and they're making sure
the interconnection equipment is correct.
They're already reviewing these.
Is it gonna take another, maybe another day,
maybe two days to look to see
if the other requirements are there?
Yes, it is.
And I'm saying because of the vulnerable customers
that have been losing all of like tremendous amount
of their financial assets,
not to mention extraordinary amounts in debt.
Those two days by do arrive,
who has the luxury of asking for solar?
It's worth it.
It's worth it to protect those customers, that delay.
They're already reviewing these.
They're already catching fraud.
Edison just in the last conversation I had with them
put a stop to a contractor that happened to be submitting
all self financing projects that was impossible.
So is there gonna be a delay?
Perhaps.
You would have my commitment.
There's a NEM proceeding.
If there's some crazy the way
where we're exceeding this timeframe
and getting people connected,
we have a NEW proceeding to correct this.
It's not like we can't review this.
But we need to stop the bleeding
on the type of predatory practices happening
on the most vulnerable customer today.
Why do we have to choose between clean energy
and good economic wellbeing?
We do not.
It's a false choice.
It's a false narrative.
I've spoken to the utilities, endless amounts of time.
Marna and Jeanette, more so than me.
And I do want to thank them for all their work here
but this is a principle about enforcing our own rules.
What is the point of a rule
if we're not going to enforce it?
I'd ask you to reconsider
and really think about the fact
that we're just talking about our own rules.
The CSLB wants this partnership.
These tools help them enforce as well.
Help them help us stop before it gets.
We may not stop at the 5% turn yet.
I want it at zero.
I wanted that to be zero.
They have to be chronic violators.
And maybe we catch them at the 20 households customers
that they get and not the 200
which we have some of these cases that have that many.
We're going to stop it before it gets to that point.
The audits are good.
They can build on this system.
Nobody's saying the audits are bad.
The audits are insufficient on their own
because there's no system for them to feel into.
The CSLB is asking us to do this.
I ask you to reconsider.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
Are there any other comments on item six?
Yes, Comissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Thank you.
I was reaching back to look in a book
about enforcement for a quote
to rival what Commissioner Guzman Aceves said.
I couldn't find something as eloquent.
I do want to speak in support of the resolution
and highlight a few points
in addition to what Commissioner Guzman Aceves said.
But the quote I sent I found is that
compliance is essential to achieving the goals
of protecting public health and environmental quality.
It's the regulatory bottom line.
So what we're talking about here
is the regulatory bottom line to making sure
that our requirements are adhered to
and enforcement is the set of actions that we take
to achieve compliance within the regulated community.
And without those actions, compliance is never assured.
I don't think this raises the issues of jurisdiction
are not as troubling to me as my colleagues are outlined.
I think we have a very important role here.
We created the NEM program.
It's a creation of the PUC
and I take seriously our obligation
to respond as effectively as possible,
and as strongly as possible when the program is being used
as a vehicle for fraud
that is causing serious harm to some consumers.
That's sort of the bottom line here.
As Commissioner Guzman Aceves indicated,
the number of complaints filed with the CSLB
is growing five times as many this year as in 2015.
The program doesn't look just further
our environmental and social justice action plan
but it also furthers one of the key tenants
of our enforcement principles which we've adopted
which dictates to us that we collectively
have decided that we need to tailor enforcement responses
to vulnerable and disadvantaged communities.
I was especially persuaded here
by the input and conclusions of CPED and their experience.
And in particular, their view
that the existing system of audits is not sufficient
and that we need a citation program,
because without it, the IOUs will continue their practice
of just doing after-the-fact spot checks.
And that's important.
These are after-the-fact spot checks.
Even if we do more of these spot checks,
their initial semi-annual spot audit
showed significant and concerning levels of non-compliance
for all the IOUs.
So we're already seeing that in place
and I think the alternative of spot checks,
even enhanced spot checks does not include
the threat of suspension, which is the strongest deterrent.
I'm not even clear what the remedy is
under the proposal of just doing spot checks.
It's not clear how many instances out of compliance
there needs to be or is the IOU do further review
and scrutiny after that point.
That's unclear, but it does not present
the clear remedy of suspension for failure to comply.
It also means that the vast majority of applicants
would not be reviewed in advance
to determine if the application requirements are met.
I do want to address the concern raised by my colleagues
in particular President Batjer about the delays.
I think those are overblown.
I think it's very, very important that we do things quickly.
The current average time right now
to review an interconnection application
for NEM customers is three days.
CPD asked the IOUs, what's your best estimate
of how much additional time this would take?
Even if you do a manual review,
which as the resolution indicates you're not required to do
but staring up President Batjer pointed out,
utility the risk of that, they may do an annual review.
Utility said our estimate
is 10 to 15 minutes more per application.
So I don't think it's fair to characterize this
as a decision that will result
in a great deal of enhanced bureaucracy,
millions of dollars in loss savings for customers
and intense delays.
If we're talking about an average
of 10 to 15 minutes per application,
that is well within the rule of reason
and something that could be accommodated.
And I think it is worth the extra care
needed to ensure that our rules are followed
and the fraudulent practices we've seen are stopped,
especially when you consider the balance
of 10 to 15 minutes review
against the great harm that we see
for customers who are victimized by fraud
and other deceptive behavior.
I will stop there.
I understand that there are three votes
by my colleagues to reject this application
as currently formed
but I do want to emphasize my strong support
for the resolution as proposed.
-: Can I just President Batjer,
first I was gonna thank Commissioner Rechtschaffen
for his very thoughtful remarks
and that of Martha's.
Yes, Commissioner Randolph.
-: I guess my fundamental concern,
and I think Commissioner Guzman Aceves did an excellent job
of explaining the importance of enforcement.
I guess the hurdle that I'm having trouble getting over
is are we enforcing it against the right people?
Because we're setting up a structure
where we are sort of going to be citing
essentially middleman is not the right word.
Cause I obviously play a much more significant role
but I feel like we are not citing the right people.
And I guess I just don't,
I hear the frustration of Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
She makes excellent points, but I feel like
is there a better way to do this?
Does it make more sense to give the contractor board
more authority as a legislative strategy?
Is there a way that there can be more of a direct connection
between the fraudulent actors and the enforcement process
instead of a circuitous road.
And that's kind of my fundamental concern.
Well, I certainly would support a more specific approach
that the legislature could be more expressed about.
But fundamentally when we develop these rules initially,
again 'cause this is just a citation
of the rules we approved.
That's the question we answered.
We have many areas, whether it be
what kind of specific procurement
we can push the PCAs on to meet the right pair needs
and the state of California needs.
We have all these areas of jurisdiction
where we wish we had a much more explicit statute
telling us what to do.
But when we have a problem, whether it's reliability
or it's consumer fraud, that's predatory for monolingual
and vulnerable low-income customers,
we have an obligation, a constitutional one, I would argue
to fight and extend jurisdiction to the tip.
And these utilities want to do something
for their customers.
They're doing it already.
Like I said, maybe what I'm protecting against
is something that is gonna make it more comprehensive.
They are going to do that extra 15 minutes a day review
to make sure it's all there.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Guzman Aceves
and Comissioner Randolph.
I feel and so believe in the passion and concern
and feel it myself.
I agree.
Perhaps my words were not clear
in what Comissioner Randolph just said.
I believe where the fraud happens
is where we have to have enforcement.
And I pledge to do whatever we can myself individually
as well as collectively to make sure that we get that right.
Not even as the CPUC, but literally as regulators
and executive in state government in California.
Are there any other comments today on item six?
Yes, Comissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: I just wanna ask my colleagues.
I think I've heard this,
but is your objection so fundamental
that you are opposed to any citation program
that opposes penalties or consequences on the IOUs
or are there different configurations
that might be more palatable?
The program, the penalties have been reduced
under revised decision.
The IOUs are no longer reviewing compliance plans
by the developers.
That's the responsibility of CPED.
Is there any configuration you could imagine
whether some consequence regulatory disclosure
or other obligation that puts the IOUs in some position
of enforcing these requirements, reviewing them,
or are you fundamentally joined the line and saying
you don't they should be responsible in any way
for a consequences if these rules are not enforced?
You can think of that, I suppose.
I don't know what middle ground there is
but it's not worth exploring
if your point of view is that there's no place to go
other than to remove the IOUs
from any enforcement role here.
-: I never draw the line.
Absolutely, but so what I think of is it fundamental?
Am I absolutely, no,
but I would like to get to go at the fraud
where the fraud occurred.
And I don't know that the IOU is the right instrument
to do that.
I would like to think through that more
if there are other ideas.
I certainly, I think there has been so much hard work put in
to thinking through this
by both the consumer protection enforcement division
and the energy division.
But no, I would never draw the line,
Comissioner Rechtschaffen.
I would always be open for other considerations,
but my mind goes to a different type of protection
of the consumer.
But as I said, upstream from when they're dealing
with interconnection applications at the utilities.
That's my feeling.
-: President Batjer. -: Yes, Commissioner Shiroma.
-: So first of all, I'd like to make a motion
and then also respond to Comissioner Rechtschaffen.
And I'll make the motion to reject the current proposal
and instruct the staff to go back to the drawing.
I said this before, but to go back to the drawing board
once the audit results have been received
and continue working with the inter-agency task force
and determine whether anything else needs to be done
which can include a citation program
even as I have reservations about this current one.
And look, the Commission has a lot of authority.
The Commission has opened up orders
instituting investigations
in all four corners of what we do.
We have that ability and authority to do that.
This proposal drills down deep into processing paper.
What I'm saying is yes,
collectively, we want the bad actors stop,
arrested, what have you.
I don't know what all the options there are
for stopping these folks.
Constantly puts up, somebody comes to the door
and says they represent some MUD make them show ID
contact MUD before you agree to anything.
So I think that there's not a bright line here
and I've expressed my concerns or reservations
and meanwhile, there's a lot more work to be done here.
And so that work needs to continue.
-: You said you may have a motion.
-: I'm sorry to reject this proposal.
-: I wanna check with Anne Simon too.
I think I wanna make sure how we do this procedurally.
-: Can we maybe finish the, I'm sorry to interrupt.
Can we maybe just finish
kind of the substantive conversation
and then talk about the procedural than the procedural step
if that's okay.
-: I'm sorry, I thought we were done.
Okay, sure.
But then I need to be clear on the procedure.
-: Comissioner Randolph.
-: Comissioner Rechtschaffen I know had his hand up
I don't know if you wanted to make a substantive comment.
I wanted to make a substantive comment
in response to your question.
-: You go first. -: Okay.
I think the short answer is yes.
I think I would be open to another sort of thinking
about the options in terms of
a slightly different framework.
And I sort of I have not had the benefit
of kind of sitting through these working group meetings.
So I don't wanna presume that there is some obvious solution
that I'm not seeing because I just,
I haven't delve into the details yet.
And so I am certainly open to taking a look
and considering what some possible other options were
as I articulated before I kind of, my main concern
is I feel like we are sort of asking the IOUs
to kind of act in an enforcement way
that I'm a little nervous about,
but willing to consider further conversations and options.
So that's where my I am.
I mean, I think my preference would be
to set aside this resolution for now
and look at other possibilities.
-: Thank you Commissioner Randolph.
Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: I was going to ask Commissioner Shiroma
in the approach you outlined,
how long would you wait till you direct PPE
to come back with something new?
I heard you say you wanna wait their next audit,
but what is your specific timeframe?
-: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: I think the next audit results are due this fall.
If something untoward is found,
I would want the utilities and the staff
to immediately raise their hands,
go to the state contracting board
to don't delay if there is a bad actor that is observed.
But in the meantime,
in terms of framing our next incarnation
of added requirements that we would want,
we should be assured that we've got a risk-based approach
we haven't had a chance
to look at that first round of audit reports
and go from there.
So we don't have a specific timeframe
and it might be a status report initially.
It's hard to say I do want to encourage
that this effort continues towards something workable.
Any more, by the way, I suppose my motion
should have simply been, shall we vote?
I'm sure the Ann or somebody will-
-: Yeah, I think we need to be advised first before we-
-: I hope that answers your question
Comissioner Rechtschaffen
because like Commissioner Randolph,
this comes from the CPED group.
I have not been heavily involved in,
I mean I'm not an assigned Commissioner
to some sort of proceeding I know on this
and I would want to see what other ideas are on the table.
-: Thank you Comissioner Shiroma.
I think Commissioner Guzman Aceves
her hand up again. -: Yes, thank you.
Just to follow up with Commissioner Randolph,
because I feel like the gap between where you're at
is more narrow and then where maybe President Batjer
and maybe Commissioner Shiroma are at.
What the structure is from how I see it,
and we are finding the utilities
if they're not assisting in their role
with the information that they received
in a potential CPD action.
Ultimately, we're just to put these contractors
on a suspension list.
That's the mechanism to stop the bleeding.
And there is opportunity to the attorneys themselves
came up with a great solution, which is the online portal,
instead of a more complicated approach
that we had initially which was to require them to do
monthly submittals of this information.
And that monthly submittal
was tied with a citation component.
So they came up with this excellent recommendation.
It's more transparent, it's more efficient.
It's there for you to be.
There are certainly, we have seven core citation points
to make this construct work.
There could be alleviation.
Further alleviation to the utilities concern
on them facing fines for actions of others
in that construct.
That's really the space I see.
And we can cut it to less than seven
to make it less punitive for them
who I truly believe are getting the best job here.
But we need a construct to be sustain one.
That's why we need citations
to make it consistent and enforceable
just so the citations
for when people started getting charged deposits
when they're no longer supposed to be.
It's just a matter of maintaining that law,
maintaining the rule in place.
That's what the construct is for.
But ultimately the mechanism is a suspension.
I guess my question is there a room there in the construct
from going to less than seven,
whatever you think is the right balance there
or is it just in the,
there's a different elements of citations.
We could lessen it.
If that's the area for is that a pathway
because if I think that's a worthy pathway
it's one I've already been focused on and reducing.
You're nodding your head.
Yeah, we'd like to hear your thoughts.
-: Yeah, I guess I would say two things
I think, yes, that would help.
And I will say when I first went through this resolution,
there were things that jumped out at me
as are these going to really be implementable?
Like the online portal, how is that gonna work?
Is that gonna work well?
So one option might be to make some of those,
to get that sort of set up and see how it goes.
And then sort of consider how the citation would work.
I mean, that's one option or as you pointed out,
just sort of maybe pairing down
some of those citationable steps
and really getting at the heart of,
are you taking this seriously?
Are you actually doing what we are asking you to do?
So I think you're probably reading me correctly
I'm little less concerned about the delay
kind of as Commissioner Rechtschaffen indicated.
But I am concerned that I don't wanna trip up IOUs
because they got behind or because they,
and I realize some of that is gonna be
enforcement discretion
and we wouldn't necessarily automatically do that.
But I feel like when we have this regime
where we are asking them to take the enforcement steps
that need to be taken.
We need to consider that really carefully
and not have too many pitfalls.
-: Understood.
Okay, with that President Batjer,
we request a hold on this item
so I can work with UED on revising the resolution
to attempt to accommodate Commissioner Randolph's concerns.
-: This is Anne Simon.
The Commissioners need to take a vote
on whether this whole requested from the day should occur.
-: I'll make a motion to hold this resolution.
-: Second. -: Hang on a second.
You guys, I'm confused.
Anne, do we need to take a vote straight up vote on item six
and then take consideration
or do we vote on Commissioner Guzman Aceves'
request to hold?
And I would assume someone needs to second that.
-: Since the hold is related to the item
that you are currently considering,
you can take Commissioner Guzman Aceves' request
to hold up first, if the Commission decides to hold the item
the item will be held until the next meeting
and you will not vote on the merits of the item
at this meeting.
If the Commission does not go to hold the item,
then you will next vote on the merits of item six
at this meeting.
-: Does the hold need a second in any way?
-: Request to hold needs a second, yes.
-: I will second the motion
in so far as I would hope Commissioner Guzman Aceves
now this resolution came forward from CPED
in response to a decision that we all voted out last spring.
But I would hold in terms of holding this
and working on this,
that the concerns expressed by President Batjer and myself
are also taken into consideration.
But I'm happy to second the motion to hold it.
-: So for discussion, before we,
discussion before we vote.
I understand this as a hold
for only one Commission meeting.
I'm not sure that going back to the drawing board
to quote you Commissioner Shiroma
or some of my concerns can be taken care of in two weeks.
So am I understanding that the hold
is just to one Commission meeting, correct?
-: I think I would propose to start there
and see if we need additional time.
We can request a whole through our regular process.
-: Okay, thank you for the clarification.
-: And also just if I could respond to Commissioner Shiroma,
I understood your concern to be more fundamental,
that's why I wouldn't expressing a pathway
with Commissioner Randolph.
But it wasn't to say that your concerns were not valid.
They just seem a little more fundamental in that
I'm not sure we could address it with the resolution itself.
-: Okay, thank you.
Understood, understood.
Thank you.
-: So there's been a motion to hold item number six
and it's been seconded.
Will the agenda clerk please call the roll.
-: Comissioner Shiroma. -: Aye.
-: Commissioner Guzman Aceves. -: Aye.
-: Comissioner Randolph. -: Yes.
-: Comissioner Rechtschaffen. -: Yes.
-: President Batjer. -: No.
The vote is four to one to hold this item
for future consideration.
Okay.
I think that takes care of item six.
Does it not, Anne?
-: Yes, President Batjer.
Item six has been held to the next Commission meeting.
So there is nothing more for you to do about it now.
-: Okay, thank you all.
Appreciate that.
Moving on now to the regular agenda item 18.
Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
This is the second S chip proceeding that I mentioned.
It concerns rules in our equity resilience budget.
As I mentioned, this is the program
targeted for certain customers in high fire threat areas
or those who face multiple power safety shutoffs.
It adopts income limits for electric well home customers.
Those who rely on electricity for their well water
and also clarify requirements that we adopted in January
and our decision specifying that those customers
need to be using batteries that are receiving incentives
at their primary residence, not at a vacation home.
We took this up last meeting.
The decision has been revised now
so that it's into restriction for well customers.
And this only applies to well customers,
applies to applicants who do not have
a confirmed reservation as of today's date if we adopt it
if their application was filed after August 17th.
If you recall, August 17th was the date we issued a decision
indicating that we were considering
imposing an income restriction and that it might be applied
to all applications filed after the August 17th date.
The revisions are compromised
from our original proposed decision
that applied this income restriction
to all applications without a confirmed reservation.
No matter when the application was filed.
There are concerns from several Commissioners last meeting,
it's been revised to reflect those
and the concerns of others.
And at bottom, we are balancing two sets of interests
as I mentioned at our last meeting.
On the one hand, we have the need
to provide market certainty to developers and customers.
On the other hand, it's very important
that we direct what are really scarce public resources
to customers with the greatest needs
and to the critical facilities
that serve the largest numbers of our customers.
To remind folks of the context,
this equity resilience budget
is something that we designed last year
in the face of an unprecedented wildfire risk
and power outages.
And we wanted to get the program up and running
as quickly as possible to address the needs
vulnerable customers faced in this wildfire season.
Our clear focus was always
on protecting disadvantaged communities
and customers with medical needs.
We also included customers who rely on electricity
to operate their wells because they also faced hardship
in the event of power shut off.
I have to know how much interest this program has developed.
Just to give you some context,
PGNE has received 10,000 applications
for S ship this year, 10,000.
That's more than it received in the first 18 years
in which S ship has been operational.
And we've already allocated close to $400 million
out of 612 million total in the equity resilience budget.
As I mentioned before,
there's a lot of need, a lot of interests.
In hindsight, given this surge of applications
from well customers,
it would have been better to limit the program
to low income customers from the outset.
I think Commissioner Shiroma said this last meeting
and we are making that adjustment now.
I wanna close by addressing another set of issues
at work here that I think is worth thinking about.
I think it's somewhat unfortunate
that the developers have focused so much of their attention
on signing up well customers.
Right now half of all the equity resilience budget customers
are wealth customers, residential customers
half of all residential customers are well customers.
As opposed to focusing on medical baseline
or low-income residential customers.
Those customers face the greatest needs.
They suffer the most from power shut off.
I understand and appreciate
the developers are trying to grow their businesses.
I support that.
We absolutely need and want to have successful,
clean energy programs in California.
They're necessary to realize
our ambitious clean energy goals
but at the same time S chip is a rate payer funded program.
And in this instance,
this category provides extremely generous subsidies
and we have to be vigilant in ensuring
that we maximize the achievement
of the large public purposes underlying these programs.
Some of the developers who criticize this action
criticize what we're doing here
have also argued loudly to the legislature and others
that they are advancing the state's policy interests
with their projects as a way to shape decisions
in their favor.
I think today's modifications are necessary
to ensure that the remaining amount of money
in our equity resiliency budget
really does go to advance what are the highest policy
the highest priority policy interests of the state.
With that, I asked for your support
for the revised decision.
I want to thank Judge Fogel, Nora Hawkins
Nora Hawkins, and Tori Francisco from the energy division,
Brandon Barstow and Theresa Buckley from legal division.
My advisors, Sandy Goldberg and Shawn Simon,
my Bagley keen partner of President Batjer and her advisors
Josh Honeycutt, and Brian corporates for their help
in this decision has gone through a lot of twists and turns.
And again, I ask for your support.
-: Thank you very much, Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
Are there any other comments on item 18?
Yes, Comissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Thank you President Batjer,
and thank you Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
At the risk of delay in this decision
I'd asked you to consider a different approach.
I think back to our hearing,
when we were still traveling out in person
and we had a fresh set of comments
from people dealing with PSPS,
and we had one woman with her daughter
and sharing the really difficult situation that she faced
given the medical needs of her daughter.
And I just can't see
why we need to not prioritize the medical baseline needs
in particularly thinking of that PGNE territory.
And if a different approach can be
to first allow the medical baseline to be served
and if there is remaining funds, to allow those
with confirmed reservations from this time period
to then be eligible.
But to not continue the perpetuation
of running out of funds for the most vulnerable
do the inverse can go through
those enormous amount of applications
that you mentioned earlier,
ensure that the medically vulnerable are covered
and then if there are sufficient funds thereafter,
to allow them to be used
for the remaining these customers
who have confirmed reservations.
Thank you for considering.
-: Were there any other comments on item 18?
Yes, Commissioner Randolph.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
I am supportive of the modifications
that Commissioner Rechtschaffen made.
As we discussed at the last meeting,
I was very concerned about sort of modifying the rules
in the middle of the process.
And I was concerned
that we were over-capturing existing contracts.
I still have that concern
but I recognize that there are countervailing issues
with regard to the large amount of funds
that would otherwise not be available
for other aspects of the program.
So I am comfortable with the August 17th date
as proposed by Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes, Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Yes, I want to thank you Commissioner Rechtschaffen
Judge Fogel and energy division for these revisions.
I support the revisions and overall
with any of these programs, any of our programs
that involve these kinds of attributes
to the amount of monies, the subsidies
the full payment for items, and what have you.
There are lots of lessons learned
from any of these experiences
towards crafting the criteria going forward
for those with space kinds of like decisions
and priorities as opposed to a simple
first come, first serve.
But anyway, thank you very much for the revision
and I support them.
Thank you.
-: Thank you Commissioner Shiroma.
As your Bagley keen partner on this,
Commissioner Rechtschaffen on this proposal,
I am supportive as well
and I wanna thank you very much for your hard work.
You've really you and the energy division
and Judge Fogel worked very hard
on making this sort of difficult situation
as right as it could be.
And I certainly support moving the date
to the 17th of August as well.
And I know how hard you all worked to get there.
I do have considerations that are similar
to Commissioner Guzman Aceves in that
it seems like we don't have the data.
I asked for it, but it doesn't seem
that we have all of the data
that this was an abused situation by people who,
for example, this is anecdotal
but are using the program for a second home
a well for example, in the Sierra Nevada Hill country
At any rate, I'm very supportive
and I want to thank you and Judge Fogel
for the hard work that you put into to make these changes.
And I appreciate it very much.
Any other comments on item 18?
Yes Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: I want to respond to the Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
I don't think I have the votes
to do any to change the decision.
Your formulation is not very different
than what was originally proposed,
which did change the expectations of well customers
if we were to go with your approach,
we would essentially say
if you applied under the rules that were in effect
at the time you applied, you would be a lower priority
than a medical baseline customer
and that's very similar to what we said
in the original decision which is you not,
you're not eligible
unless you're a low-income well customer.
So if you applied under the old rules,
and you haven't gotten a reservation yet,
you can't qualify for the program.
So while I'm sympathetic to the thrust of what you suggest
and would like to keep as much money
for the most vulnerable customers,
I don't think we have the votes to do that
and change this proposed decision.
-: I'm sorry.
I was on mute again.
Seeing no more comments on item number 18
with the agenda.
Clerk, please call the roll.
-: Comissioner Shiroma. -: Aye.
-: Commissioner Guzman Aceves. -: No.
-: Comissioner Randolph. -: Yes.
-: Comissioner Rechtschaffen. -: Yes.
-: President Batjer. -: Yes.
The vote count is four to one, item number 18 passes.
Okay, thank you.
Moving on, I will now introduce item 19.
This proposed decision authorizes PGNE
to recover in rates on an interim basis,
447 million in costs it has incurred
for completing wildfire mitigation work
pursuant to AB 1054 and SB 901.
This amount is about half of the 891 million
and cost PGNE sought three cover in its application.
The proposed decision authorizes interim cost recovery
for welfare mitigation memorandum accounts.
It does not authorize PGNE to recover costs that it recorded
in its catastrophic events memorandum account,
and the SEMA as it requested
because state law allows PGNE to recover those costs
in an expedited manner
without needing interim cost recovery.
To provide more detail
on the types of costs that were incurred
PGNE incurred these costs from 2017 through 2019
and according to it's wildfire mitigation plan.
Some examples of the work PGNE did with these funds
are advanced system hardening and resiliency,
improved wildfire detection,
enhanced events response capacity,
and enhanced vegetation management.
These are exactly the types of investments
that are needed for PGNE to harden its infrastructure
as utility works to comply with statutory
and Commission requirements to mitigate wildfires
and enhance public safety.
The costs are not related to paying for expenses
or liabilities for past wildfires.
Approval of these costs would translate
into an approximate monthly bill increase
for residential customers of $2.74 cents per month,
or 1.9% increase for 17 months
from December, 2020 to May 2022.
So this will be on customer's bills for 17 months,
and then it will go away.
Although this decision temporarily increases rates,
it will ultimately lead to lower rates
because it will lower financing costs
which rate pairs would eventually be responsible for.
Allowing for interim rate recovery now
will also provide a rate smoothing benefit to customers
because it spreads cost recovery
over a longer period of time
than otherwise would be provided.
One thing I want to underline
is that these are not new costs.
Additionally, the proposed decision
requires PGNE to publicly report the revenues collected
in order to track and monitor reconciliation of the costs
over the coming years.
PGNE filed another application
where we will be reviewing the reasonableness of these costs
and the Commission subsequently determines
that any of the costs are not reasonable.
PGNE will refund that amount to the customers with interest.
Finally, the proposed decision denies PGNE's requests
for future interim cost recovery
when a memorandum mechanic seats $100 million
because PGNE did not show that such a broad policy shift
would always result in just and reasonable rates.
And I think that something like this
would be more appropriately considered
in a proceeding that looks at a policy across all utilities
and with sufficient time and record
to consider the pros and the cons.
I'd like to extend a tremendous thanks to you,
ALJ Haiga who worked very hard
and very quickly on this decision.
I'd also like to thank Julia Endie,
Michael Conklin, Bridget Sear Smith, Dorothy Duda,
Paul Phillips in the energy division.
Candice Moray, Chris chow, and Ed Aldavoski
in the legal division and of course,
and most importantly, my BK partner you Mr. Retchschaffen
and his chief of staff, Shawn Simon,
and my chief of staff, Shannon Rourke,
and my legal advisor, Brian Corbik.
This has been quite a journey.
So with that, I ask your aye vote on this item.
Turning back to my fellow Commissioners.
Yes, Commissioner Rectschaffen.
-: Thank you President Batjer.
Thanks for that strong notice support,
and thank you for your very very hard work
and care and attention to this decision.
I think it strikes the right balance.
As you note, it does increase customer bills
very very modestly in the short term
but in the end, it's a lower cost impact to customers.
Otherwise, PGNE would have to continue carrying
over a billion dollars in wildfire-related expenditures
that shortens that length of time.
It's not to say that any bill increase right now
given the economic impacts of COVID is not difficult.
It is.
But I think the decision overall
is in the best interest of PGNE customers.
As President Batjer indicated,
these expenditures are very important
to the critical wildfire mitigation efforts
and it was essential investment.
As President Batjer also noted,
the costs are subject to the reasonable its review
and other proceedings.
And if we determine any were not prudently spent,
PGNE is required to refund
the amount of customers with interest.
So with that, I echo my strong support for the decision,
and I think it's the right result
in a very difficult and tricky matter.
-: Thank you Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
Any other comments on item 19?
Okay, seeing none, we'll the I'm sorry.
Mr. Shiroma did you have a comment?
-: Just to say thank you formally.
Once again, a Herculean complicated effort
and there will be the view of the expenditures
and the application to the customers.
And if there's a refund that needs to be done,
that that will be done.
And meanwhile, the wildfire mitigation plans,
all the efforts to prevent wildfires
to hardness system are essential.
And meanwhile, the efforts made to look out
for minimizing the impact on the customers
I think it's a very holistic effort all the way around.
So I support the proposal.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
Any other comments on item number 19?
Okay, seeing none will the agenda clerk
please call the roll.
-: Commissioner Shiroama. -: Aye.
-: Commissioner Guzman Aceves. -: Aye.
-: Commissioner Randolph. -: Yes.
-: Comissioner Rechtschaffen. -: Yes.
-: President Batjer. -: Yes.
Thank you, the vote is unanimous on item number 19.
Thank you very much.
Moving now to item number 20.
Comissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: This is an extension order
in the Crimson pipeline general rate case.
It's a rate case for all pipelines.
It involves several applications for rate increases
that were consolidated.
A proposed decision was issued on the 16th, just last week
to expected that it will be on the agenda
for the November 19th Commission meeting.
This extension will allow us time
to adopt the final decision and would grant an extension
until December 31st of this year.
I ask for your support.
-: Tank you Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
Are there any comments or questions on item 20?
Okay, seeing none,
will the agenda clerk please call the roll.
-: Comissioner Shiroma. -: Aye.
-: Commissioner Guzman Aceves. -: Aye.
-: Comissioner Randolph. -: Yes.
-: Comissioner Rechtschaffen. -: Yes.
-: President Batjer. -: Yes.
Thank you, the vote is unanimous on item 20.
Moving now to item 21.
This is an informational only item, a non-voting item
and that is the legislative outcomes presentation
of the 2020 legislative session.
I'm waiting on the edge of my seat.
Director Hazel Miranda.
(laughing)
-: Good morning, or good afternoon.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to present.
We have I'll be providing a summary
of the 2020 legislative outcome.
Next slide please.
So the office of government affairs
actively engages in the legislative process
providing essential insight, perspective and information
about the PUC's regulatory activity.
This engagement helps shape proposed legislation
so that they are designed as the most effective solutions
towards addressing important social challenges.
This legislative year proved to be one of the most unusual
and challenging due to the frightening impacts
of the COVID pandemic,
following guidance of the stay-at-home order
the legislature recessed in mid-March until May
this gap in the legislative process
significantly shortened the amount of time
in which introduced bills could be analyzed
and deliberated upon.
Legislators were encouraged to reduce their bill load
and refocus their legislative efforts
on immediate issues related to health,
safety, and economic impact of the virus.
In addition, the new social distancing,
remote voting and personal protective equipment rules
and requirements for legislators and their staff
slowed the pace of the legislative process
until the end of the year.
In the last month of the legislative year,
members were forced to further prioritize their efforts
in that mitigating the negative economic impact
of the recent natural disasters
and table non-urgent matters to next year.
Next slide, please.
Despite the new challenges this year presented,
OGA continued efforts to engage in the legislative process
and ensure the perspectives of the PUC were shared,
recognized and used to inform legislation.
Over the course of this year,
OGA formally tracked 124 bills of interest to the PUC.
Each of the CPC divisions provided invaluable insight
on potential impacts of each bill
on the agency's existing policies, practices, procedures
and the objective.
Of the 124 bills formerly tracked by OGA,
nine passed the legislature
and nine were signed by the Governor.
In addition, the CPC participated
in four legislative committee oversight hearings
and provided three formal legislative staff briefings
on a variety of topics.
The formal briefings were aimed
at informing legislative staff
about the PEC's regulatory activities and policy actions.
Next slide.
OGA actively collaborated and coordinated
with its sister agencies and organizations
including energy Commission, Tyso, CARB,
OES, Cal fire, Cal jam
on its engagement with the legislature this year.
This collaboration was critical
for the agency to communicate shared interests
and concerns about legislation.
And in many circumstances,
leveraging each organization's subject matter expertise
was essential and help lead to positive
and important outcome.
Next slide.
This year, the CPS team took a public oppose position
on AB 1720 Kareo.
The long duration energy storage bill,
a bill aimed at forcing the procurement
of pump hydro electric energy storage projects
that would have undermined the CPC's
integrated resource planning process
and compromised the state's ability
to achieve its greenhouse gas emission goals.
The energy resource procurement mandate in this bill
could have resulted an energy resource mix
that falls significantly short
of meeting the goals established in SB 350.
OGA issued an opposed position on the memo,
actively engaged stakeholders and the legislature
to ensure the PEC's concerns were with this new
energy procurement mandate were widely understood.
The bill was ultimately pulled from policy committee hearing
and failed to advance.
Next slide.
In light of COVID, the legislature expressed
a heightened interest in broadband service
and closing the digital divide.
There were many policy priorities
but they primarily centered around modification
to the CPC's California advanced services fund.
Legislatively, there were two major broadband bills
AB 570, AGI or Curry and SB 1130, Senator Gonzalez.
While the bills ultimately did not end up passing,
OGA provided significant technical feedback
in guidance to both authors
they coders and other legislative opposites.
The pandemic has highlighted the necessity
of broadband service for essential activities
such as teleworking, tele-health and distance learning.
As a result, the legislature will continue to be engaged
on broadband next year,
and the broadband policy proposals
noted above will likely be reintroduced.
Aside from these efforts,
several legislators introduced bills
on other telecommunications issues,
such as universal service, consumer protection
and resiliency to name a few.
There were bills focused on disaster preparedness
for telecommunication providers that were held
in their house of origin and the most significant bill
which would have codified the PEC's
backup power supply rules for communication service
was ultimately held in the second house
and appropriations committee.
Ultimately, almost no highly significant
telecommunication legislation was passed this year.
However, looking at next year,
there is a high likelihood that we will see
significant legislative efforts
to address telecommunication issues
such as broadband quality access, affordability
resiliency, and reliability.
Next slide.
OGA also provided technical feedback on two assembly bills
pertaining to the CPCs regulatory authority
over several transportation services
AB 2995-2 and AB 3116 from assembly member Erwin.
We also participated in an oversight hearing
on TNC data privacy
held by the Senate transportation committee.
OGA provided regular updates
with key legislative staff
regarding the implementation of AB-5,
the Gonzalez bill that passed last year.
There was minimum legislation activity
pertaining to CPC jurisdictional water companies this year.
There were two bills pertaining to the topic
in their respective policy committee.
This was large.
Neither of the two bills were ever heard
in their respective policy committee.
This was largely due to the reduced capacity
of the legislature to consider bills
not focused on the impact of COVID.
Next slide please.
At the beginning of the legislative year,
OGA was tracking roughly 80 energy bills.
These bills proposed a multitude of new policies,
largely focused on preventing electric utility equipment
from igniting wildfires, including but not limited
to requiring additional electric system hardening,
limiting the scope and magnitude of public safety
power shutoff, and increasing vegetation management.
Some bills were introduced to expand
and modify rate and bill assistance programs
for customers experienced income losses or reductions
due to the COVID pandemic.
Finally, there were a number of bills,
aimed at expanding consumer protection,
mitigating immediate electric rate impacts,
encouraging the expeditious development,
deployment of transportation, electrification infrastructure
and providing incentive programs
to capture non-energy benefits in K through 12 schools.
The latter bills were largely passed
and are summarized in our legislative outcomes report.
Next slide.
As you can see, the Commission was extensively involved
in many oversight
and informational policy committee hearings this year.
Please note that the hearings listed on the slide
are only those that were held
throughout the 2020 legislative year
and do not include a recent hearings
that the PNC has participated in slide in.
Next slide.
In addition to participation
in several informational policy committee this year,
we provided on her own accord
the three informational briefings to legislative staff.
The purpose of these briefings
are to one, inform legislative staff
about various CPC programs and initiatives
that may spill over into the legislative arena
to provide legislative staff with a basic understanding
of the PhD regulatory activities
to inform active and potential legislation,
to build our political capital
and strengthen relationships with key legislative staff,
and to continue to demonstrate to the legislature
that we are a reliable and trustworthy
subject matter oriented organization
aimed at protecting the public interest.
During the current fall interim,
we continue to hold these legislative briefings
and have set six formal briefings
between now and the end of the year
on issues ranging from energy,
to broadband to transportation.
Next slide please.
OGA worked closely with divisions
to provide the department of finance
and the appropriations committees with critical information
about the cost impact of various proposed policies
within legislation, the economic outlook for the state
in the wake of the COVID pandemic
became the main criteria employed to judge the necessity
of each piece of legislation and any related costs
resulting from its implementation.
During the 2020 legislative year,
the PEC 67 fiscal impact estimate requests for 35 belts.
And despite the reduced number of bills
affecting the PUC, dozens of conversations were held
with the department of finance
and the appropriations committee
of both the Assembly and the Senate
to further explain, discuss and justify
our fiscal impact analysis
as well as express our policy concerns.
Next slide.
And lastly, and most importantly,
as always I want to acknowledge that our work in OGA
can only be successful because we have the commitment
and dedication of a larger group of people
that includes besides OGA staff, the OGA liaison,
the division staff, the support and engagement
division directors, Commissioners, advisors,
our legislative partners, sister agencies,
and the Governor's office.
I appreciate the contributions
of all of who offer their time and expertise
to help us carry out our responsibilities.
Next slide please.
And OGA has put together a larger,
more extensive set of outcomes report
which you can find on the website.
I've included a link on this final slide,
and that concludes my presentation
and thank you so much for your time and for your attention.
-: Hazel, thank you very much.
This was an incredibly difficult and odd year
with the COVID-19 and the various close downs
that the capital experienced.
I personally wanna thank you and your team Grant and Marinas
Emilio, Laurie and you are five mighty hard work
and terrific people.
I want to also personally thank you
for the various hearings that I had.
Most importantly, I selfishly say my confirmation hearings
that you all were tremendous in helping prepare me
and setting up all of the various meetings.
I've tried hard to create some relationships
since I came on board
and much to my thanks to you and your staff
for helping and guiding me in establishing
some of those relationships on behalf of the CPUC.
So you are a mighty team.
I watched you all worked so hard
And in some disheartening times,
particularly with the telco bills,
the knife were crushed and thinking
that one of the really important bills
was gonna get through
and for some reasonable last, probably five minutes
before assignee die before the session closed, we were done.
So, and you and your team hung in there
on so many occasions, working tirelessly
for the bills that were so important
to the CPUC and the Governor.
We really thank you.
And this was an excellent report.
This is a really odd and difficult year.
So thanks Hazel.
Would anybody else?
Yes, I think Commissioner Shiroma first, yes.
You're muted.
Genevieve, you're muted.
-: I'm talking and I'm on mute.
Okay.
I wanted to add my admiration, respect
and extreme gratitude, Hazel to you and your team.
I remember when I first came on board,
with making the rounds as well
and I remember saying, do you have
with are one pages, your plaque sheet
because there is so much I need to learn.
Of course know what it is was that your team is nimble.
You're listening, you're learning,
you're guarding the information
and quickly turn that around
to communicate with legislators, the Governor's office
stakeholders, and so forth
and it was just happening so quickly.
So thank you for all of the hard work.
You make a huge difference for us.
Again, my extreme admiration.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
And I believe Martha, Comissioner Guzman Aceves,
you had your hand up.
-: Thank you.
Just to reiterate everything that President Batjer
and Commissioner Shiroma has said,
it's just we are so fortunate to have all of you
from Lori's kind of ability
to really speak the finance language
and translate that for everybody
and all of the different programs that we do.
Grant's ability to really do everything
from representing us that CAFDA
that to explaining probably a thousand times over
with the IRP processes
and Marina and Emilio and their work
around telecommunications and water.
Such different dynamics from each one of those sectors
and certainly Hazel,
your ability to really keep us all informed
and as Commissioner Shiroma said,
just be so nimble right now with the different adjustments
that are required on a weekly basis
new rules, new processes, and new communication styles.
And then I also do want to recognize the teams
within the divisions that make our work possible as well.
And I know that they did just as many drills
for you guys to really able to communicate our work better
to the legislature.
So much thanks to that side of the puzzle.
And here's to a better year next year.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Yes, Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: I'd like to echo my thanks.
I think the work that Hazel and her colleagues have done
has been extraordinary
and I think it's reflected and viewed
that the legislature has of the PUC
and specifically of the office of government affairs.
They're asked to weigh in on many, many things,
more so than I think ever.
And I think they are more highly and respected then in year.
And I think that's a real tribute
to the work that you're doing.
I'm a little bit worried though
because I got a call from the cooking channel this morning
and they are apparently recruiting Hazel
to chef a new show that they're unveiling.
They barely got a leak copy of Hazel's demonstration
of how to cook proportions last week
at the, our Hispanic Heritage Month event.
I don't know how those of you
who are outside the PUC may not know
we had a series of events
to celebrate Hispanic heritage month
and Hazel did a cooking demonstration
of how to make the quizzes, which was extraordinary.
Those of you who were at the PUC who didn't see it,
please check it out.
It's recorded online.
But the cooking channel is very interested
in seeing if Hazel can come work for them.
So I think it was fine.
President Batjer with a counter offers.
-: Oh, no political leaked that story.
-: Oh, I love it.
I love it.
Comissioner Randolph, yes.
-: I'll just say thank you as well.
I've always incredibly impressed
whenever I talk to any of Hazel and Grant
and everyone about a bill.
I'm always amazed at the depth of their knowledge
and the fact that they always ask the right questions
and are always ready to provide the right answers.
And we just, there is no way we could do it without you all.
So thank you very much for your continued hard work
and this was an extremely challenging year.
But I don't know.
It seems like every year is challenging
for different reasons and you always manage
to rise to the occasion.
So thank you.
-: Thank you.
Always in good spirits as well.
So thank you again, Hazel.
Great job.
Yay.
Congratulations everyone.
Thank you very much.
That concludes our regular agenda items.
We'll move now onto the management reports.
There is no report on item 22.
That would be the report and discussion
on recent consumer protection
and safety activities management report.
And item 23, manage report on administrative activities
general counsel Eric Aguilar will present on item 23.
Eric, please.
-: Yes, thank you, President Batjer
and good afternoon Commissioners.
Before I introduce the class of 2020
which are the new hires to legal division this year,
I really want to celebrate the success the division has had
in augmenting legal resources for the Commission.
When I became general counsel in March of 2015,
legal had about 63 attorneys.
After years of unfunded mandates,
legal division had basically not grown
to keep up with the increasing demands being made
on the division and on the Commission.
So one of my goals was to remedy that situation
and grow legal division
in order to have sufficient resources
to meet all these demands.
Long story short, with great help
from my assistant general counsel,
and with the support from both President Picker
and president Batjer as well we were successful
in getting many new positions.
So after we fill all of our current vacancies
which we're in the process of,
legal division will have over 100 attorneys.
So it's been a real significant augmentation of resources,
which well for the benefit of the whole Commission.
And I want to give a shout out
to my assistant general counsel
we've had considerable manager resources
the past 12 months to fill vacancies and to make promotions.
And again, promotions are a very important part
of our mentoring responsibilities as well.
And since March with COVID,
we've had to do all of our hiring interviews virtually
which has been challenging,
but we've made do.
So during the past 12 months
we've hired three new assistant general counsels.
We've filled 17 attorney vacancies,
including 13 internal candidates.
We've filled five attorney five vacancies
and these are all internal candidates.
So I'm not gonna go into detail about the promotions
other than just to quickly name
the people who've been promoted.
So for the fourth, we promoted Stacy Castro,
Kathleen Chavon, Darlene Clark,
(indistinct)
Enrique Galardo, Darryl Drew,
Lot Hill, Stephanie Hollan, Jonathan Knapp
Tony Manzo, Chris Nolan, Krista Sala, and Karen Shepherd.
We also hired four new attorneys at the four-level.
Won't be discussing as far the new hires.
Galen LeMay, Crystal, Hue,
Michael Einhorn, Matthew Yuovich.
We also made five attorney promotions.
Peter Allen, who came to us from the elder division
although he originally was in legal division.
Dale Holzschuh, Diana Lee, who subsequently was promoted
to assistant general counsel of public advocate's office.
Kim Woopy, Noel Obiora, Jason Rieger.
So kind of a quick snapshot.
We've hired 13 attorneys from the outside
and they're all very experienced attorneys.
Nine of them came from the public sector,
state local and federal government.
We are very fortunate to have brought
this public sector experience
and they came from the department of general services, DWR,
city and county of San Francisco,
treasury and tax collector, the AG's office,
their office of corporate fraud,
California department of tax and fee administration
the CDC CalTrans and social security administration.
The other four came to us from the private sector.
So with no further ado,
I would like to introduce our new hires from the outside.
Kevin Dollison is a 1996 graduate
from the University of the Pacific
with George School of Law and a 1990 graduate
from Nebraska Wesleyan University.
He's worked for law firms
and commercial real estate developers
in the Sacramento region
as well as operating his own practice
where he represented both public and private entities
in real estate matters.
In 2016, Kevin joined the office of legal services
at the department of general services,
and then the Governor's office of emergency services.
His contract related work with the state
has included reviewing goods and service contracts,
defending bid protests during administrative hearings.
Kevin loves all things outdoors.
So when he's not working in the office,
he can be found outside caring for his menagerie of animals
or riding his mules in the back country of the sheriff.
Jimmy Lee Jones has practiced employment law
at California Department of Water Resources since 2003
where she advised management on personnel related issues
and represented DWR before the state personnel board
California department of human resources,
California unemployment insurance appeal board
and Cal OSHA appeals.
She's a 2001 graduate of the University of the Pacific,
at George School of Law.
Has a BS in environmental resources,
science degree from UC Davis
with a minor in environmental policy analysis and planning.
Prior to law school Jeannie performed
water quality monitoring and testing
in the Bay Delta estuary for DWR.
During her spare time, she enjoys traveling around the world
and baking at home.
We hear that certain DWR colleagues
greatly missed her lemon bars and banana bread.
Theresa Buckley is a 2008 graduate
of UC Berkeley School of Law.
Prior to law school, Theresa studied public policy
at Princeton University.
She has worked for the federal government
in Washington DC and in San Francisco.
They began her career in litigation,
working for several large and mid-size law firms.
In 2015, she joined the legal team at Sun Edison
and witnessed the renewable energy companies
rise and fall up close.
After that she returned to public service
working with the city and County
of San Francisco's treasurer and tax collector.
Although she grew up in San Francisco,
for college he was drawn North
to the University of Washington
where she was a coxswain on the women's crew team.
She is also the mother of a very bright and energetic
seven-year-old son.
Donald Hila spent 20 years
at the California department of insurance
and is well-versed in administrative litigation
including insurance rate cases investigations
and enforcement matters.
His victories at the department of insurance
include the hearing record fines
and returning premiums to rate payers
in cases against insurance company.
He comes to us most recently from private practice work,
including stints at the AG's office
of corporate fraud section
where he worked on the Morgan Stanley
securities fraud allocation,
and practicing before the Commission, this Commission,
while working for the Consumer Federation of California
for two years.
He has argued cases in the state trial court of appeal
on federal court of appeal.
He's a graduate of USF School of Law
and has a BA in English from Kean University in New Jersey.
He's an avid reader of non-fiction, including economics
American history and biographies of historical figures
and the actors from Hollywood to golden age.
And she gave an example of Karl Malden.
He's also a collector of film.
Has more than 1500 films in digital format.
He lives with his wife in Noey Valley.
His past pets include lizards, snakes, a rat, and many mice.
He has no pets right now
but has been using his mother-in-law's rescue dog
as a cert pet until the pandemic hit.
He is like kitchen windows gardener.
He also has a garden plot in San Francisco
parks and recs departments, quipper street.
Next, John van Griffin.
John spent the last 14 years in private practice
in an aviation law firm.
His prior experience provided him
with much related experience
in regulatory compliance matters
representing federally certified air carriers and operators
in enforcement and others before the NTSB, ALJs,
the FAA administrator
and appeals to the US district court.
John has experienced representing parties
and NTSB investigations and at implementing
corporate emergency response plans.
He additionally has general corporate tax
and civil litigation experience
and has practiced before the federal court of claims,
US bankruptcy court, ninth circuit court of appeals,
federal district courts
and California superior and appellate court.
He graduated from Santa Clara University, School of Law.
He also BA from Pennsylvania State University
in advertising and public relations, a minor in business.
He is a trustee on the Emory Unified School district,
claims he used to play guitar and Kickbox,
but now loves board sports and science fiction.
He lives in Emeryville with his wife
and four year old daughter who he describes
as being pure gasoline and vinegar
and a 300-pound cat that sets off his motion detector
when jumping off the kitchen table.
Next, Crystal Yu.
She graduated from UC Davis in 2009.
Prior to joining the Commission,
she worked at the litigation bureau
of the California department of tax and fee administration
and the state board of equalization for 10 years,
where she handles a variety of state
and local tax law related matters,
including tax refund court actions
and administrative appeals
at CVTFA Crystal also made substantial contributions
to California state tax legislation.
And the administrative rule-making process.
Crystal lives in the East Bay
with her two wonderful children, ages five and four.
Dalene Ramae joins the CPC from the CEC
where he served for 12 years,
both as an attorney and as advisor
to Commissioner Aaron Douglas.
Prior to joining the CEC,
Galen served as legal consultant
for the Center for Resource Solutions
and as an associate with Gibson Dunn and Crutcher,
practicing commercialization and business law.
He is a graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School
and UC Berkeley.
He grew up in Cornado California,
where his parents first met in high school and still reside.
Galen lives in Sacramento with his wife, Emily
and a two-year-old son, Casper.
When he isn't chasing Casper, Galen and joys cards
and board games, soccer and watch movies.
Christopher Cho joins us from Curved Flow,
a startup where he works with developers and tech companies
on land and infrastructure development.
Prior to his in-house role,
Chris spent several years
as an associate at Perkins Coy, Paula White covalence patch
Duffy and Baths, where he worked on an array of issues
and environmental land use,
local government transportation and property law.
He is a graduate of Stanford Law School
and also holds a PhD in economics from Stanford.
He has a deep interest in history, both natural and urban.
And he's always happy to nerd out
on the early development of San Francisco Chinatown
in fact, which is the topic of his dissertation.
He lives in Daly city with his partner, Adam,
their daughter Annalise
and their 13-year-old pound puppy, Layla.
Michael Einhorn is coming to the CPUC from CalTrans
where he was a member of the environmental
and real property practice group.
His work at CalTrans included contaminated site mediation,
regulatory enforcement proceedings
and cost recovery contribution litigation,
state, and federal courts
federal and state land transfers,
sequel, NEPA, advising and rip proceedings.
Permitting issues, asserting claims against Edison
arising from the Montecito debris flows
following the Thomas fire,
state and federal appeals, eminent domain and enforcement
in defense of the outdoor advertising act.
Prior to state service,
Michael worked for a small environmental law firm
involved in many of the same areas just listed.
He attended the University of Michigan
for undergrad and USF School of Law.
He and his wife, Lilly spend their free time
with their two children, Maddie nearly six
and Arnica, three.
Aaron Jacob Smith.
Aaron is a native stance Santa cruising,
having grown up in the redwoods above UCFU.
Miraculously and thankfully,
his family home survived the recent fires
but it was a very close call.
That early connection to natural spaces
as central a lifelong passion for environmentalism.
Aaron joined the Wego Division from Inspire Energy Holdings
where he managed regulatory strategy
and previously worked for the Clean Air Council
in Philadelphia Pennsylvania.
He received his bachelor of arts in philosophy
from Reed College and his JD from NYU Law School.
He and his wife, Kara, currently live in Hawaii
with Masha and Tolstoy, two cats to demand attention
on their own terms.
Aaron surfs and climbs whenever possible.
Matthew Jurkovich.
Matt Jurkovich joined the CPUC
after working in the telecommunications industry
for nearly 15 years.
Most recently, he worked as in-house counsel
for a telecommunication services company called Qualtec.
And before that, for Extenet System
supporting the deployment of fiber
and small cell wireless facilities
throughout the Western US.
As as a board member of the California Wireless Association
Matt rarely address municipal state
and federal telecommunications regulations.
He's a proud California native raised in Benicia,
35 children.
He received his bachelor of arts in psychology from UCLA
and his JV from Hastings.
Matt enjoys running, swimming,
rooting for Bay Area sports teams
and spending time with his wife and daughter
with whom he lives in Berkeley.
He has also only recently discovered the bakeries
around civic center and is responsible
for putting some of us into dessert Komen.
Angela Worth joined the CPC
after working as an attorney
for other federal and state agencies.
Angela most recently worked at CalTrans
where she defended the state in environmental
and real property matters in the state and federal courts.
She also reviewed environmental documents
for transportation projects and advisor clients
on landlord-tenant matters and other legal issues.
Before that, she worked at the CEC
where she drafted regulations and advise staff
on the implementation energy efficiency programs.
Prior to that, she worked as a special advisor attorney
and presidential management fellow at HUD.
Angela received her BA in psychology
with minors in business and political science
from Indiana University in 2009.
Entered JV from Florida State University in 2013.
In her free time,
she likes to hike with her dog, Kiko and volunteer.
Last but not least, Carolyn Chen,
who comes to us from the social security administration
office of the general council
with 10 years of experience
in social security administrative law and litigation
before federal district courts
of the ninth circuit court of appeals.
He also brings with her administrative hearing experience
before the EOC and state unemployment insurance boards.
He's also had experience with bankruptcy litigation,
evaluation of beneficiary trust for compliance,
civil rights complaints
and privacy act requests for information.
He's a graduate of Northeastern University School of Law
and holds a BS from MIT in art and design
with an architectural design discipline.
Before law school, she worked as a site planner and designer
where she first discovered
her proclivity to administrative codes
specifically for planning and zoning
and advocating for Commission approval of her site project.
He was born in the Midwest, but also says she's from LA.
And she mostly grew up there before heading East for school.
She now resides in her Oakland Emeryville condo
where she frequently finds something amiss,
giving her an excuse to go to Home Depot.
In her free time, she composes and performs music
and this is playing live shows right now.
She loves theater.
She's actually written and had a play produced
and independent film.
She was selected to script read at Sundance before.
Her activities now are conceptualizing
a revamp of her bathroom,
looking for a dog to adopt,
exploring Emeryville history,
watching PBS and talking to her parents
and two sisters and families, six nephews and nieces
spread across the West coast from Portland to LA.
And I thank you very much for your patience
in getting through all that.
I know that was a very long presentation
but I also did want to really highlight
the success that legal division has had in hiring people
of just great experience and quality and promoting.
We still have more to do.
We still have quite a few vacancies
but we are just actively interviewing.
In fact, we're having interviews this afternoon.
I think the Commissioners don't always realize
how much work it takes for management teams
to engage in the hiring process.
It's not insignificant and with the challenges of COVID,
it's been even more stressful,
but I did want to highlight the progress legal has made
in this area.
So thank you very much for your patience.
-: Eric, it's our pleasure to be patient.
That was an incredible lineup of wonderful recruits,
wonderful attorneys that you and the legal division
have recruited and hired.
Very, very impressive academic backgrounds,
very impressive personal interests, very diverse.
So we are the fortunate ones that they applied
and we are on the receiving end
of their public service interests.
So that is just terrific.
And also thank you for the update on the legal division.
You are such a hardworking group of people
and the Commissioners appreciate every day
how hard you and your team work.
And I'm thrilled that you were able
to finally receive attorney five positions
because as you said, promotion is extremely important
and we now have a good legal career ladder at the PUC.
So thank you for that.
And as I said, we were thrilled to sit through
the wonderful description of each of your new hires.
With that I'll ask any comments
from my fellow Commissioners.
Okay, they're all saying, thank you very much.
-: Of course, I can't resist.
I don't do anything without consulting the legal division.
-: They appreciate that, Commissioner Shiroma.
They appreciate that very much.
(laughing) -: Thank you.
-: They at times have accused me
of practicing law without a degree,
which I always apologize for.
But however, I'd like to make one last remark
for Commissioner Rechtschaffen benefit.
We've hired a lot of previous students
of Professor Rechtschaffen.
We didn't have any of those in this particular batch
but I'm sure there's more out there.
So send them our way.
-: I will.
And I was noticing that but I always speak extremely highly
of the legal division and recommend former students,
even ones I've had or otherwise to come work here
because it's an excellent career path for people.
And I think many lawyers you have come from Golden Gate
or other schools really have found that to be the case.
But even though you didn't,
I noticed that there's some that are very strong
barrier sports adherence.
So that's like my second most important criteria.
So I'm glad you hired some with that profile.
-: Hopefully, some of them are Dodger fans
and are watching the series right now.
(laughing)
-: Oh, oh.
Did I get into it?
All right, any other thoughts
or comments from the Commissioners?
All right, thank you again Eric Lee.
Very, very impressive and we all look forward
to our continued work with the legal division.
Thank you so much.
Congratulations to you and all of the wonderful new hires.
Thank you.
Okay, with that, we will move from the management reports
to Commissioner's report.
Does anyone wish to go first today?
Yes, Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: I wanted to thank my advisor, Alex Grenada
who is returning to the Safety Enforcement Division.
After six months into my office,
Alex was extremely helpful on a number of safety,
risk assessment and water proceedings.
She brought a lot of his expertise from SED.
We will miss Alex and we wish him the best.
Thanks.
-: Thank you.
Yes, Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Thank you.
I have a handful of things to report on.
First of all, on our PGNE general rate case phase two
we've got pumped participation hearings coming up.
On November 6th, we will host
virtual public participation hearings.
At 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM, the information is on our website.
And for those who aren't familiar with our rate cases
the phase two proceedings is not approve you cost
that is done in the phase one of the rate case.
But in the general rate case two,
that's where we figure out how those monies are allocated
between residential, agricultural, other customer classes.
We may approve new rate designs and modify existing ones.
So that's on November 6th at 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM.
And then on Monday, I was pleased to participate
in the Energy Commissions epic conference
on moderated a plenary panel on the opening day
where I spoke with the leads of four epic projects
about the important work they're doing
to bring the benefits of clean energy technologies,
energy efficiency to underserved customers
in their communities.
And these projects are located in Lancaster,
avocado in San Gabriel Valley Richmond and Oakland,
and they are taking diverse and innovative approaches
to transforming those communities
to some of the most technologically advanced
clean energy communities in the world.
They are a model to be replicated elsewhere.
Very happy to play a part in that in the Epic conference.
And then finally, speaking of being involved
in job announcements and going through applications
and interviews and so forth.
I'm very pleased to announce
that my new career executive assignment or CA
advisor in my office is Terrence Sheer.
I had a lot of applications, very qualified folks.
I think everyone who was interested
in that particular position, Terrence has been serving
as you all know, as a rotational advisor in my office
since July of 2019, advising me on water, telecommunications
and transportation matters, even providing some expertise
on the energy cost of capital.
His work has been essential
to the Commission's COVID-19 response
and our inter agency work
with the state Water Resources Control Board
and also the California State Transportation Agency.
Prior to joining the Commission,
Terrence worked on the engineering team
at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
in their water and waste water division.
And he joined us in 2008 in the water division,
first as a utilities engineer.
Then he served as a senior utility engineer
in the telecommunications
and water branch as a public advocate's office.
And then more recently served as a supervisor
in the water division for five years
prior to joining my team.
And now in his new role at my CA.
He's a professional engineer earning his degree
in mechanical engineering from my Alma mater,
University of California at Davis and last but not least,
and more importantly, during the stay-at-home environment
Terrence has brought extra fun to our team WebEx meetings
with his nine month old son, Daquiri.
So congratulations to Terrence.
Thank you.
-: Okay, Comissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Thank you.
I just want to do an additional plug
for two of the COVID focus workshops that we will be having.
As at the end of the month on October 30th,
we will be having a joint workshop
with the state water resources control board.
We will be focusing on two topics.
One is addressing, continuing to address
some of the customer arrears
and preparing for the moratorium coming to an end next year
and also the financial impacts of small water systems
and how we can work collaboratively
to help them stay afloat.
We will be joined by Senator Dodd
and assembly member (indistinct)
for that workshop in the morning at that minimum.
So hopefully, you can join a part of that day.
And then also on November 12th,
we will be having a energy focus Kohler workshop
that will only be for half a day,
but it will be looking similarly at customer impacts
and continuing to ask the question
of what else we should be continuing to look at
as we see some of those arrears increasing.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Comissioner Randolph.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
I just wanted to note that this week
is the fifth anniversary of the leak
at the Elisa Canyon storage facility.
So I wanted to take this opportunity
to provide an update on that proceeding.
As I mentioned that our last meeting,
we had a workshop on October 15th,
and that workshop was to present the final modeling results.
So the modeling has now been completed
which is a huge accomplishment by our modeling staff
headed by Donald Brooks and our gas team in energy division,
headed by Jean Spencer.
The legislature required us to,
and it's a very important step that we need to take
to understand fully what the economic
and reliability impacts of closing the facility would be.
And so that modeling really helps us understand
the situations under which the facility is needed
and situations under which the system can rely
on other storage fields or pipeline capacity.
So I'm very pleased that that modeling is finished
and the next step will be to provide that modeling
to our consultants FTI.
They are the consultants on phase three of the proceeding
which will look at potential alternatives
to the Aliso facility and will provide us with analysis
of what steps could be taken to reduce
or eliminate the use of the Aliso facility.
So that work is continuing.
And again, I wanna thank all the staff
who worked on this incredibly comprehensive
and detailed modeling analysis.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Randolph
and thank you for holding that very important workshop.
As I think everyone knows,
I certainly hope everyone knows
that we're about two weeks away
from the election on November 3rd and it's an important one.
They're all important
but this one feels like a lifetime important one.
And as everyone knows, voting is a fundamental right.
It is the glue that keeps our democracy together.
So I encourage everyone who is eligible to vote to do so.
And I also want to remind that even
though the deadline to register to vote has passed,
California state law allows eligible citizens
who need to register or re-register to vote
after the deadline to do so
at their County election office polling place
or vote center.
Their ballots will be processed and counted
once the County election office has completed
voter registration verification process.
For more information on same day registration,
polling places, and ballot measures for general elections,
please visit the secretary of state's website
at sos.ca.gov please vote.
I would like to note that I represented the Commission
at last Monday's assembly utilities
and farmers committee oversight hearing
regarding the August, 2020 heat wave
and associated power outages.
The new Cal ISO CEO
Elliot Mainzer and the outgoing CEO, Steve Burbridge
also were at the hearing
along with the California energy Commission chair,
David Hashield presented the findings and recommendations
from the recently published preliminary
root cause analysis, which we presented to the Governor
two weeks before the hearing.
And I do want to thank the tireless work
of our energy division staff.
Truly, they missed holidays, weekends,
and a lot of sleep between August
and when we finally gave the report to the Governor
and also prepared for this hearing.
There's a collective of understanding, I believe
among the legislature's sister agencies and us at the CPUC,
that critical work is before us in the months ahead
to ensure such outages do not occur again.
We are already at work and we will continue to report
to the legislature and the public in the coming months,
as we make progress on this effort.
I wanna think in particular, my begley keen partner,
Lena Randolph in all of her support and hard work
and wonderful patience with me during this period of time
of this crisis that we confronted.
And lastly, I would like to take this opportunity
to thank Rahima Molly.
This is hard.
Who is leaving the Commission at the end of the week.
Molly joined the Commission in 2017.
She has served in the office of the president
and the office of the Commission.
Molly's mandates and contributions of the Commission
has been ensuring the successful management
and execution of key administrative projects
and processes that have required collaboration
with all of the Commissioners in our divisions offices.
For example, as many of you know,
Molly managed the process to update the Commission's
strategic directors.
She has been instrumental in creating
and jump-starting the office of the Commission.
And she has been behind the scenes conductor
orchestrating the various meetings
which facilitate the Commissioners administrative
and deliberative processes, including our voting meetings.
She absolutely kept me going, taught me a day to day,
helped me through a pretty tough initiation
to the president's office of the Commission.
I literally could not have probably shown back up to work
by the second week if it hadn't been for Molly.
And it's not that what Molly has accomplished
that makes her extraordinary.
It's how she does it.
She instantly earned one's respect
because she is ready to give it all to everyone
with whom she works.
She offers kindness and patience,
a helping hand to get the job done.
She brings a fearlessness and focus to her work,
but does so in a joyful and optimistic manner.
Despite how bad things may appear at times,
Molly is always quick to assure me with her go-to line.
It's gonna be fine, Marybele.
It's gonna be fine.
So I know it's gonna be fine.
I am still gonna miss working with her every day.
I'm going to continue to miss our conversations
as I do now and our late night drive
to and from San Francisco
and our late night musings here in the office
and our many texts throughout the day.
The wonderful thing about you leaving the Commission,
my dear is that I do not have to say goodbye.
Friends fortunately plan, and get to look forward
to the next conversation.
So back to the park, we will go many, many times.
Thank you Rahima Molly.
Thank you Molly.
I wish you only the very, very best.
Thank you.
Man: President Batjer.
Rohima has something to say.
-: So with that, that ends our public meeting for today
and we will now adjourn.
And for my fellow Commissioners,
we will be taking an hour and 15 minute break.
So we'll be back at 2:15.
Thank you all.
(indistinct)
I got through it.
Announcer: You are on hold for a conference call.