(upbeat music)
Operator: Welcome to the California
Public Utilities Commission public voting meeting
on this day, Thursday, September 24th, 2020.
Today's call is being recorded.
If you have any objections, you may disconnect at this time.
President Batjer, you may proceed.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you operator and good morning everyone.
We need to establish a quorum.
Would the agenda clerk please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Present.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Here.
Clerk: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Here.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Present.
Clerk: President Batjer.
-: Here.
A quorum has been established.
Welcome to the Public Utilities Commission,
the California Public Utilities Commission.
I am calling this meeting of September 24th, 2020,
public agenda item 34-71 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 livestreamed on the CPUC's website.
You can view the meeting at ww.adminmonitor.ca/.com.
Excuse me, /ca/cpuc.
Let me do that over again.
ww.adminmonitor, one word,
.com.ca.cpuc.
Okay, the public engagement is critical to the CPUC process.
If you wish to make a public comment,
please dial into (800) 857-1917,
and enter passcode 9-8-9-9-5-0-1,
and press star one.
You will be placed into a queue,
and the operator will take your name
and organization, if appropriate.
You will be called upon to speak
when we get to the public comment period in today's agenda.
If you encounter any difficulty
calling into the public telephone line,
please email VotingMeetingHelp@cpuc.ca.gov.
Voting meeting help is all one word.
I would like to start by acknowledging the great loss
our nation suffered last Friday
in the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Before discussing the achievements and contributions
of Justice Ginsburg, please join me
in 87 seconds of silence to honor her 87 years of life.
Thank you all.
Justice Ginsburg, or how she more recently was known as
The Notorious R.B.G., was a prominent women's rights lawyer.
The second woman appointed to the Supreme Court,
and a champion of gender equality.
A debt of gratitude is owed to Justice Ginsburg
for the historic impact she made on the court
and on our country.
As we mourn her loss, we also take comfort
and find strength in the legacies that she left behind.
We all know that representation matters.
Justice Ginsburg's 27 years on the highest court
serves as an inspiration to all who might aspire
to roles not traditionally assigned to them,
to pursue their dreams and despite societal norms.
Finally, I would like to share with you all
one quote of Justice Ginsburg's
that seems particularly relevant.
"Dissents speak to a future age.
It's not simply to say, 'My colleagues are wrong
and I would do it this way,'
but the greatest dissents do become court opinions,
and gradually, over time, views become the dominant view.
So that's the dissenters hope,
that they are writing not for today, but for tomorrow."
I think of the state of California, as the great dissenter.
We continue to lead on issues such as climate adaptation
and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
in the hopes that one day soon,
our policies will become the dominant view.
I share these hopes today,
not just because it's climate week,
but because we have suffered greatly
over the last two months from the surge
of climate-change-induced wildfires that have claimed lives,
destroyed communities, and altered landscapes,
and contaminated our air.
I also mention this because in the public space
we have witnessed the furthering
and the unnecessary politicization of climate change
in reaction to these tragic events.
California's climate strategy has always been served well
by being grounded in science and technological feasibility,
as well as being considerate of the diverse local cultures
of those communities we are serving to protect.
We have done our best, always,
we have done our best work when we recognize each region
and community has its own vision
for protecting its people, property, and way of life.
It has been over a decade since the Democratic legislature
and a Republican Governor
established our initial climate goals.
Since then, we have continued to see bipartisan support
at the state and community levels,
as we have enhanced our commitments
to greenhouse gas reductions,
increased our use of renewable and clean energy technologies
and committed significant resources
to better prevent wildfires and manage our forests.
This model of building an effective consensus
on climate in California is just as important
as the specific policy tools we have chosen
to reach our goals.
Through support for a broad framework
that combats climate change
and strengthens public health and safety,
with a focus on our most vulnerable communities,
can we better prepare all Californians
for the changes to come.
The CPUC is at the front of these efforts,
given the entities and services we regulate
that touch the lives of almost every Californian.
As we move forward on these issues,
including the implementation of the executive order
issued by Governor Newsom yesterday,
which seeks to achieve all new passenger vehicle sales
to be zero emissions by 2035,
it will be critical that we work towards
broadening the support of this work
and ensure our solutions are accessible by all Californians.
We must take bold steps to address our climate emergency.
I am honored to live in a state that takes these steps,
and to work for the Commission where we can translate
these bold goals into actionable implementation.
Thank you, and I invite any of my fellow Commissioners
for any comments that they wish to make
at this time regarding The Notorious R.B.G.
Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Yes, thank you President Batjer.
I'm wearing my lace color in,
with respect to The Notorious R.B.G.
I want to reflect- -: It's beautiful.
-: Thank you, her contributions to our country's body of law
and her lifelong efforts in the furtherance
of gender equality have been unmatched.
Her patience as a jurist, as a judge, as a litigator,
is really a testimonial for all of us.
Her successful work prior to becoming a judge
was really to impress upon the courts
how gender equality positively affects not only women,
but also men and families.
And I'm really honored to serve on this Commission
where women are serving as four of our five Commissioners.
We really stand on her shoulders and her career.
So, I close with a reminder for all to register to vote,
double check your registration and vote early, if you can.
Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
Yes. Commissioner Randolph.
-: I think both you and Commissioner Shiroma
sort of reflected things well,
but I just wanted to add the perspective of
the fact that Justice Ginsburg served
as such a huge inspiration to women lawyers,
and women lawyers who are moms.
And I cannot tell you how many texts I got
from so many of my colleagues over the years at, you know,
commemorating her passing, and just reminding each other
what a huge inspiration she was to us.
So I'm very pleased to take a moment to remember her.
And as Commissioner Shiroma said,
make a plan and please vote.
Because all of these efforts around climate change
and the regulatory framework we need to build
to combat climate change,
needs to be sustained in the courts.
And we all need to get out and vote
to make sure that that happens.
Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Thank you, I wanted to just say two things
about why Justice Ginsburg was so inspirational to me.
One, I'm an attorney and she had a brilliant career
as a lawyer, arguably more influential as a lawyer
than as a Justice.
And one of the things she did
to promote gender equality is she challenged
not just traditional,
stereotypical role models for women,
but she also challenged them for men.
It was a brilliant litigation tool,
but it also was something that helped promote
gender equality for everyone.
Secondly, I'm very proud that Justice Ginsburg grew up
in Brooklyn, about a mile and a half from where I grew up.
She went to the rival high school,
but we still claim her as a champion of Brooklyn.
She devoted her life and career to advancing the principles
of equality, and I hope that our nation can live up
to those ideals in the days and months ahead.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you so much, Commissioner.
Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Yes. Thank you, President Batjer.
And thank you all for your very beautiful words
about Justice Ginsburg.
I think, it's kind of interesting where she,
when she gained her kind of rebranding
as The Notorious R.B.G., and I often wondered
if she actually knew who The Notorious B.I.G. was.
I think a fellow from Brooklyn, if I'm not mistaken.
So, there's so much irony in that and so much beauty in it.
I think it's just tremendous to take a moment
to think all the work that any woman, any woman of color
has benefited from her work, both as, as you've all said,
as a litigator and as a judge.
And just recognizing the tremendous burden that she bore
for so many years, and what a critical moment we're in
in our history.
So, thank you for recognizing that,
and thank you to her for the tremendous role
she's had in our society.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you all my fellow Commissioners
for the wonderful thoughts and words
that you have stated in memory of The Notorious R.B.G.
And thank you too, Commissioner Shiroma
and Commissioner Randolph for reminding people
the importance of making sure they're registered
and that they vote.
There is way too much at stake at this time in our history.
We are now in the public comment period.
If you wish to make a public comment
and you have already dialed in,
and I understand we have approximately 33 people
in the queue at this time,
the public comment telephone line, please press star one
to get into the public comment queue.
The CPCU 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 including items not on the agenda today.
Please note that there will not be public comment
on items 15, 25, 28,
and any item on the closed session agenda.
You will have two minutes to speak,
and then a bell will ring to notice you
that your time is up.
With that guidance in mind, I welcome today's speakers
and we'll now turn back over to the operator
to open the public comment telephone line.
Operator?
Operator: Thank you. The public comment line is now open.
Our first speaker is Dennis Geist, a citizen.
Sir, you may go ahead.
Dennis: Good morning, and thank you so much
for the opportunity to speak today.
I'm calling regarding the expansion of power lines
in the Escondido, San Marcos area.
I've lived in San Elijo Hills for almost 13 years.
And during my time in this community,
I have been evacuated twice due to fires
in or near our community.
My concern today is not just about the potential increase
in fire risk associated with the expansion
of overground power lines.
It's also about the fact that when I moved
into San Elijo Hills, the power lines
were wooden and non-intrusive.
The wooden poles were removed and replaced with giant poles.
And that was done without obtaining
an environmental impact report.
Now, they want to install several miles of obtrusive
overground power lines again, without any
environmental impact study or report.
Not only does this not appear to comply
with CTUC's general order 131-D,
but it may have a cumulative impact on future power lines,
and in fact, then again, would not require an EIR
if they wanted to expand the lines in the future.
Given that as a state, we are in the middle
of the worst fire year in history,
I believe it's incumbent upon all of us
that we seriously consider the current
and future consequences of a project of this magnitude.
Additionally, I consider it inconceivable
and irresponsible that an EIR is not an automatic report,
obtained to ensure that there is a clear understanding
of exactly how a project again, of this magnitude,
would or could impact the communities
that they were specifically intended to serve.
I would also like to quickly address
the underground power line option.
Understandably, it might be more expensive,
but that's in today's dollars.
It does not consider the future savings
for the required maintenance of poles,
or the fire mitigation required to remove brush
and debris from under power lines.
We've got a recent fire that just broke out
that may be attributed to a downed power line.
We don't know yet.
But all we're trying to do is to consider
the risk associated with this,
and cost should not be a driving factor.
Safety and convenience of the community,
and specifically safety to the community
and the environment should be our main concerns.
So I'd like to have the CPU consider,
and really focusing more
on the underground power line option.
It's a modern alternative to overground,
and I think it's a much safer alternative.
I wanted to thank everyone today for their consideration
of my comments, thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Elaina Quinova,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Elaina: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners.
My name is Elaina Quinova,
and I live in San Elijo Hills neighborhood.
Can you hear me okay?
Ms. Batjer: Yes, we can.
Elaina: Okay. Thank you.
Just wanted to check. Thank you for taking my call.
I'll be speaking on the agenda item number 21.
This morning we hope to provide you with insight
to why we, Rancho Dorado, San Elijo Hills,
and the city of San Marcos are strongly urging you
to consider other alternatives in lieu of approving
SDG&E prospective project.
As you did two weeks ago,
you will hear from people who live and work
in these communities and will be impacted
if you allow this 12-mile circuit above the ground route
to be built.
We are reasonable, we're not demanding this project
not to be built.
What we are demanding is a consideration
of alternative routes, given the unique nature
of San Elijo Hills and its exposure to wildfire risks.
As you will hear, San Elijo Hills is nested in the hills,
100% surrounded by Cal Fire's highest wildfire risk zone,
the FHSZ, home to approximately 10,000 residents.
This is also a virtual island,
with limited evacuation routes.
Should not be subject to having one more transmission line
to be built halfway around its border.
Particularly when they're an alternative,
such as undergrounding, that you will hear more about,
that would not increase the wildfire danger.
Why put so many people's lives at increased risk
when it doesn't have to be that way.
We hope that after listening to our heartfelt concerns,
you will do what is truly in the public's best interest
and either mandate and EIR to be completed
before proceeding, or bypass that process
and order this transmission line to be buried underground
along this 5.21 mile route that would be directly connected,
will connect San Marcus and Escondido substation.
Thank you for your consideration and for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sharon Harrisford.
from Rancho Dorado, you may go ahead.
Sharon: Good morning Commissioners.
My name is Sharon Bowsford.
I live in the Rancho Dorado neighborhood.
Thank you for taking my call.
I will also speak to agenda 21.
We would now like to make an argument
that the MND's analysis of aesthetics is flawed,
and that the MND should not have been basis
for ruling out an EIR.
What started us going down this rabbit hole of aesthetics
was the fact that the Simmons Family Park was not evaluated
in the initial MND as part of the aesthetics analysis.
This is surprising, because a quick examination
of the 12-mile route using Google Earth
instantly identifies Simmons Family Park
as the most impacted public spaces along the route,
and the only public park along the route.
Due to our limited resources, time, and the lack of staff,
we decided rather than trying to digest the entire MND,
we would focus on the aesthetics portion of that report.
What we found was the submission was only the beginning.
When the final MND was realized, Simmons Family Park
was depicted and analyzed,
but in a completely misleading and inaccurate manner.
The reason for this had to do with the picture used
to complete the aesthetics analysis of the park.
The picture was taken, supposed to represent
the scenic vista from the park.
However, instead of taking that picture
from the western edge of the park,
that would have revealed the sweeping panoramic views
of the Pacific Ocean,
it was taken from the picnic area, facing west.
We ask that you consider some of these analyses
moving forward, and thank you for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Aaron Gaines,
San Elijo resident.
You may go ahead.
Aaron: Hello president and Commissioners.
Thank you for your time today listening to our concerns.
I have lived in San Elijo,
I think we were the 25th house into this community.
It was very rural at that time.
And that's back when the power lines here,
which we're talking about agenda 21,
were just tarred wooden poles.
Non-intrusive, you barely noticed them in the landscape.
And in 2010, these metal poles were constructed
and they are now aesthetically unpleasing.
There is safety concerns.
I watched them being built.
I see, out of my backyard, I see four of them.
One is extremely close to my house,
about a hundred yards to the west.
And, the whole western-facing view
is nothing but electric poles.
The concern is that, not only with the installation,
which was done by helicopter over weeks,
but the issue is that we've been evacuated
multiple times here because of fire,
and the power poles are to the west,
which is our only route out of here.
Our evacuation route is currently San Elijo Road,
which cannot hold the capacity for egress during a fire.
Should one of these power poles fail, fall,
there's nothing but dry brush surrounding all of them.
I've now committed to only having all-wheel drive vehicles
and know the back roads and the trails out of here
and have bolt cutters in my car because of it,
because there is no proper egress route out of here
that can hold the capacity.
Now you look to have more power poles placed.
We are asking for underground poles
to handle the scalability.
In 10 years, you have not been able to scale to the need.
We look for you to add the poles underground.
Thank you. -: Sir, I'm gonna ask you
to sum up your comments because your
two-minute time has run.
Aaron: I did. Thank you very much.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is April Sparks, a homeowner.
You may go ahead.
April: Hi, my name is April Sparks
and I'm a resident that also lives in San Elijo Hills.
I moved here in 2001, when our community
was newly being developed.
I live in Sagewood on Rivercrest Road,
and directly behind my home is a reserve or natural brush,
and there's also a trail system.
When we moved in, there were only small wooden poles,
and they were replaced with large metal power lines.
My biggest concern is a fire danger.
Back in, let's see, it was 2007,
we had a much smaller community
and the Union Tribune newspaper headline
for that fire was "Inferno."
How we found out that that fire was happening
was fire department was coming down,
and I'm just so upset about this, I'm sorry.
They were actually using a blow horn to tell us to evacuate.
Now, our community is so much bigger.
The last time during the Cocos Fire,
I could not get out of our community with my kids.
We were trapped. I was in traffic, stopped for over an hour.
This cannot happen.
We have got to have an EIR,
or you just have to put them underground.
Please, I'm asking you,
please do not build these power lines.
It's so dangerous here.
There's only three ways to get out.
It's a two-lane road on San Elijo Road to get out.
When they're blocked off,
the last time Elfin Forest was blocked off,
we couldn't go over the hill to get towards the freeway.
We were all trying to get out in one direction.
Currently, there's over 8,000 people in our community,
and now they're even building more homes.
We are not going to be able to get out in a fire.
So please, I'm sorry for my emotion,
but please do something about this, thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Stacy Matthews,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Stacy: Good morning, Commissioners.
My name is Stacy Matthews and I live
in the Calistoga development, San Elijo Hills.
Thank you for taking my call.
I would like to speak to agenda item number 21.
Before I talk further about the reason
the aesthetic analysis was flawed,
I would like to briefly describe Simmons Family Park.
The park was designed to build on top of the highest point
of the area because its expansive unobstructed
panoramic view of the Pacific Ocean.
Because the park was dedicated to the public
to enjoy those west-facing views,
they created a grassy knoll on the western edge of the park,
with a permanent west-facing cement bench at its pinnacle.
Given this, it is hard to understand why the picture
used to analyze the park was not taken from this grassy hill
or viewing bench.
Instead, the vantage point for the picture that was used
was taken from the picnic area
located behind the cement viewing bench.
And, the field of view was southwest,
highlighting a small hill, approximately a mile away.
What is even more puzzling is the caption for that picture.
Simmons Family Park picnic view area, looking west.
This is simply not true.
However, this statement is repeated at least four times
in the aesthetics analysis to describe that picture.
There's one instance in the final MND
where the caption for the same picture
correctly says Simmons Family Park picnic area,
looking southwest.
Notably, and unfortunately, there was no picture analyzed
in the final MND facing due west from the bench
or on a hill, west-facing hill.
That picture would have captured the scenic view.
I think that we need to have an accurate representation
of the view that has been obscured by these new poles.
It's really important. Thank you for your time.
I strongly urge you to do an EIR
or place this project underground.
Thank you so much.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you, caller.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Thomas Matthews
with San Elijo Hills.
You may go ahead.
Thomas: Good morning, my name is Thomas Matthews
and we live in the Calistoga neighborhood
and are backed up against the area
that leads into Elfin Forest.
Probably one of the most disturbing things
about the aesthetic analysis of the Simmons Family Park...
Oh, wait a second. I'm sorry.
I just got lost on my notes here. Just a second.
Let me grab this and let me know
I'm heading in the right direction.
Ms. Batjer: It's okay.
Thomas: Okay, so probably what is the most disturbing
about the aesthetic analysis of the Simmons Family Park,
besides only looking at one photograph to evaluate,
is that there were other pictures submitted
as a result of the public comments of May of 2019.
Several were pictures from the western hills,
facing the west.
However, those pictures were dismissed
and not used as part of the evaluation.
Why was this?
The answer can be found in the project manager's
one-page findings, where she stated, she said
that they were purporting to address views of the project
from Simmons Family Park, purporting to find,
as appeared to be claimed to be do something,
especially false light.
There were actual photographs taken by real people
from Simmons Family Park, and yet the,
excuse me just a minute, I'm losing it again.
I'm sorry. I just lost my place in my notes here.
I'll just go hop down to this.
The caption of the pictures in question reads,
"Simmons Family Park, panoramic view,
looking due west to the Pacific Ocean,"
and the captions of the simulations made from this picture
say, "These simulations were based off SDG&E simulation
of KOPD, and from the original picture
taken on March 17th, 2010, of the wooden poles
next to the brand new, at times, steel poles."
And I'll just leave it at that. Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kimberly Daley, a resident.
You may go ahead.
Kimberly: Hello, and I'm speaking
in regards to item 21 as well.
I actually live in the Rancho Dorado community of La Fuente,
which runs parallel to San Marcos Boulevard.
Our concern over here is that we live within
what I call tipping distance of power lines already.
Meaning the wooden poles that run along San Marcos Boulevard
are right above our houses.
And we've lived here for 20 years.
So we've been involved in some of the possible evacuations
of our area, packing our children and our home
in the event of leaving.
But we've also experienced concerns with these power lines,
with having things explode up there
in the middle of the night.
And I can only imagine that if these power lines
were increased in size,
that they become even more impactful to our house.
Like, if something were to happen to one of these lines,
they would be that much closer to reaching our house.
Additionally, everybody's talked about the views
from Simmons Park, but the lines run all the way down
and across a green area that involves both
the cities of San Marcos and the city of Carlsbad.
If a fire were to start in that particular
Greenscape Canyon area, it could run very far east
and very far west.
And those lines are already there.
I can't imagine increasing the potential for more fires
than we've already had.
We've had stuff start as minimum as a golf, you know,
somebody on a golf cart in Carlsbad.
So, to put something on purpose into an area
that is highly flammable is unconscionable.
We just request that you would do, at minimum,
an environmental impact report.
But preferably, we'd love to see these lines
put underground.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Heidi Ludwig,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You might go ahead.
Heidi: Hi, good morning.
I would also like to speak on agenda number 21.
I recently moved here and, first of all,
I want to say, we were planning on going to Carlsbad,
but it was solely based on those electric wires
and all of the awful-looking things
and the diseased plants underneath, and the potential fires,
that we actually moved here to San Elijo Hills,
because it was so beautiful.
I just wanted to let you know that
because coming with fresh eyes, it's very beautiful here
and we would hate to have a fire with,
you know, caused by these wires.
But, I also wanted to talk about the flawed and inadequate
MNDs that involves the description
of Rancho La Costa Preserve,
which is one of the scenic vistas
analyzed along segment two.
In the initial MND, Rancho La Costa Preserve
is described as having no view obstruction
because the project is located to the east,
behind the viewer.
However, this is not true.
And it was pointed out in public comments,
and acknowledged in the final MND,
in the staff's response to these public comments.
Additionally, in the initial MND
under the analysis of recreation it says,
"The southern section of segment two
would cross through the preserve."
In other words, segment two of the project
would cross over the preserve,
meaning the preserve runs both east and west of the project,
in direct contradiction with the description of the preserve
in the aesthetics analysis.
Despite the fact the preserve runs east of the project,
the description of the views is not corrected
in the final MND.
It says- (timer rings)
Okay, anyways, it sounds like
there is some incorrect information
and I would love to see these lines put underground.
Thank you. Goodbye.
Ms. Batjer: Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is John Spellar,
a Rancho Dorado homeowner.
You may go ahead.
John: Thank you, I just wanted to add my voice
to those of my neighbors in strong opposition
of this project.
We would hope at a minimum, if this does go forward,
that an environmental impact report be conducted
to look at alternate routes.
Or, as there also is precedence recently in Rancho Bernardo,
a 69 kv transmission line was buried underground.
So the underground route would definitely be preferable.
Knowingly putting Rancho Dorado, my community,
and Santa Elijo Hills and other nearby communities
at risk from fires and health dangers
by installing a second set of above-ground power lines
seems to be incredibly irresponsible,
and shows a blatant disregard for us,
people that are impacted.
You have heard this week and weeks prior
from many of my neighbors about aesthetics,
and to have the aesthetics completely dismissed
could only be by somebody who doesn't live here
and who already looked at the current power lines
and would need to look at additional ones as well.
Currently, these power structures,
the poles are also a magnet for blight and graffiti.
So adding new polls would only add to that.
These points were made repeatedly over a thousand comments
provided to the CPUC back in spring of 2019.
And it's abundantly clear that these
were not given the consideration they deserve.
90% of them were dismissed out of hand.
We look at that as, it's really a disgrace
and not serving the public interest.
And just on a final note, in today's San Jose Union Tribune
business section, there was an article saying
that the Bobcat Fire may have been started
by utility equipment.
So the fire danger is definitely an increased risk.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator your next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Julie Creon, a homeowner.
You may go ahead.
Julie: Yes, good morning.
Thanks for the chance to comment on SDG&E's plan
to extend the power lines.
We live in San Marcos in our house above the canyon
bordering Carlsbad, and we have power lines
well within about 150 feet from our backyard.
We have power lines in our sight line,
and you can sometimes hear the buzz of the current.
When we first moved in,
we had trouble getting homeowners insurance
due to living in a wildfire-prone area.
And we have lived through the real fear
of seeing fires break close to our home.
For one, I remember the harrowing experience
of the 2014 fires.
From our homes, we could see the growth of the Carlsbad fire
to the west.
We could see smoke from the Pendleton fire to the north.
And fires raging in Escondida.
And I remember how distraught parents and staff were
when I went to pick up my children from school.
I was worried about my husband being able to get home
in heavy traffic,
and whether or not we would have to evacuate.
It's an experience that is all too present,
and we fear every time Santa Ana winds are in the forecast.
The proposed work to relocate the power lines
will adversely affect what is already
a very perilous situation.
The fire danger is real and very high.
The most prudent step is to take all possible options
to mitigate this danger.
We implore you, please, to require SDG&E
perform an environmental impact report,
or place the lines underground.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Hank Engervate,
a Rancho Dorado resident.
You may go ahead, sir.
Hank: Thank you for your time. My name's Hank Engervate.
I'm a 19-year resident of Rancho Dorado.
We decided to move here to a quiet community
with clear views of rolling hills and the ocean.
There were SDG&E wooden transmission poles with three wires
only one house away from our property.
Years later, SDG&E removed the poles
and replaced them with taller steel poles with 12 wires.
Now, SDGE wants to add another set of polls
for a 69 kva possible future requirement.
If the CPUC grants SDG&E permission for this,
what would prevent SDG&E from years later
to add additional lines?
This is a very big concern.
Two years ago, our homeowner's insurance was canceled
after having the same company for 46 years,
with no claims ever filed.
The reason given was the 2,000 fires caused by SDG&E,
and the underwriters of the homeowners insurance
was canceling it.
Why?
Because our home was too close to brush
and the SDG&E power lines.
Seven insurance companies turned us down.
Now our insurance is twice as much.
With more transmission lines in higher brush areas,
it's time for the CPUC to have SDG&E
put all power lines underground.
Burying the power lines will decrease the effects of EMF
and possible health problems like leukemia, brain cancer,
miscarriage, or even problems with pacemakers.
PUCP should protect the property and human life,
and support the future underground power lines.
Bottom line, it is essential that an EIR be done.
We need a very detailed EIR to cover,
A, does SDG&E really need new power lines?
Because more homeowners are putting in,
and businesses are installing solar.
B, is there a better underground path?
And C, what are the effects on human health?
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jennifer Barahas,
a ratepayer.
You may go ahead.
Jennifer: Hi. Good morning, Commissioners.
Thank you for your time.
I'm calling on item 20-
Ms. Batjer: Jennifer, we can't hear you.
You might want to check your audio.
Jennifer: Can you hear me now?
Ms. Batjer: Nope. Barely.
Jennifer: Okay. How 'bout now?
-: That's better. -: Okay.
I'm calling on item number 21.
I am a ratepayer, but I don't live in the community.
I feel for those in the community because I,
we also had something similar built two years ago
in our community, and based on,
it headed from one substation to another.
And, we had a lot of poles in the area already
because there was like a corridor, so like trails there.
And they were gonna build, put some more poles in
and also new wires.
And one of the reasons why they said
it couldn't be underground was the cost,
and that the cost was shared across everybody
that paid for SDG&E.
And, while I understand that it was really frustrating
that we didn't have a community from some other parts
arguing and fighting for us as well.
And I really think that it should be equitable
and that we should take these lines into consideration,
and undergrounding them everywhere,
not just where the community is more affluent
or they have more time or money to do that.
It would have been nice to have the option
to have our lines underground as well.
So thank you for your time and your consideration,
and thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Lisa Druxman,
San Elijo Hills.
You may go ahead.
Lisa: Hi, my name is Lisa Druxman,
and I am speaking on agenda number 21.
I have been a resident at San Elijo since the beginning,
I think it's been about 18 years now.
I have also been a business owner in the community
for 18 years, and really I am just concerned
and really appalled that SDG&E
could put in these power lines without an EIR.
These power lines, I don't feel too extreme to say,
will ruin our community.
They put us in great danger.
We are literally trapped in this community
if there is a fire.
In my time here, I've had to evacuate two times,
and it took us hours to get out of the community.
And the last time we evacuated,
there were so many less residents than there are right now.
Plus, I do believe that they put us at a health risk,
and finally, they will devalue our community.
Nobody is going to want to buy into a community
where you can't get fire insurance.
No one is gonna wanna buy into a community
where our health is at risk,
and where there are these very unsightly power lines
hanging over our beautiful community.
So, I feel it is irresponsible to move forward
without an EIR report.
And, I look forward to your consideration
and thank you for listening to us.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Freddie Pakier,
a Rancho Dorado resident.
You may go ahead.
Freddie: Good morning, Commissioners.
As was just said, I'm a 16-year Rancho Dorado resident
and extremely concerned for San Elijo Hills,
as well as Rancho Dorado, with the extreme fire risks
that we'll have with your plan.
Also concerned with our insurance rates going up
or our insurance being canceled.
In addition, the plan would decrease our property value
as well as being a health risk because of the EMFs.
So, please look at conducting an EIR,
or putting the power lines underground.
Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jerry Bolan,
San Elijo Hills.
You may go ahead, sir.
Gerry: Yeah, hi, I've been a San Elijo resident
almost since the beginning, for about 17 years.
I bought this property mainly for the 270 degree
panoramic view that I have.
I have probably the westernmost house in San Elijo.
These power lines are closer to my house
than probably any house in San Elijo.
And it's inconceivable to me that they're gonna put lines
even closer to my house.
I've planted, 10 years ago when they added those polls,
my views were reduced to 90 degrees.
I've planted trees and vegetation,
anything I can do to block these monstrosities
that are in my backyard.
And the other thing that really bothers me,
is if you hear the construction noise in the background,
that's SDG&E building a platform for a pole
that's twice the size as the one that's already there.
So it's clear to me the SDG&E
doesn't even respect this process.
So, I just implore you at the very least
do an economic impact report,
and better yet, put 'em underground.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator?
Operator, can you bring on the next caller please?
Rob: President Batjer?
Ms. Batjer: Yes.
Rob: Our next caller is Heidi Resset.
-: Thank you, Rob. -: Yes.
I'm here. Thank you.
And hello, and good morning to the President Batjer
and all the Commissioners.
I live in Rancho Dorado.
My backyard faces Leo Carrillo,
and the power line that was existing
when we moved in 20 years ago was a three-wire structure.
Couple of years later,
we were told another one would come up.
To our surprise, it was a 12-wire power line.
It was imposing metal power structure that was installed,
which I call a monster.
And now your current plan is to put a second
large metal power line, another monster,
next to this existing monster.
I ask you, do the right thing,
conduct an EIR and vary the existing power.
None of us saw this coming several years ago,
and now it's coming again.
I have always learned to choose the harder right,
instead of the easier wrong.
I think this is irresponsible of SDG&E.
You need to go to what is the right thing to do.
We picked this place because it was beautiful and safe
in this forever-home that we bought in Rancho Dorado.
And now I question, what happened to our beauty,
and what happened to our safety?
Please consider this. Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Dave Churchill
with San Elijo Hills.
You may go ahead.
Dave: Hi, thank you for taking my call.
Thank you members.
I heard the beginning of the segment. That's wonderful.
I would like to describe to you
something maybe that you've already heard, or not,
about the poles that they want to do on agenda 21.
You might ask the question,
"Why would you buy a house so close to these power lines?"
Well, back when most of these houses were built
they were small wooden poles, not a big deal.
We didn't have climate change happening
as fast as it is now.
And, then subsequently it does not require an EIR
to increase or bump power up
and change the pole to something bigger, which has happened.
SDG&E would like to install extra power,
which is fine because the city is growing.
But what they are doing is telling us
that they need to install a 69 kv tower.
That's not the tower they're installing.
They're installing a tower that will take
approximately four times more power than they're asking for.
And that's because they do not need an EIR
in order to bump the power.
So with that in mind, an EIR is something we need too.
Also, an EIR has never been done along this line.
I looked at the records and found that Partner Environmental
is the company that did studies,
but no EIR had ever been done.
So I'd like to ask, let's do the first one.
Let's do it absolutely the first EIR ever on this line.
And let's push the fact
that we would like to go underground.
It would cost approximately four cents per month to do so.
Not a big cost problem.
Thank you for taking my call. I appreciate it.
Bye now.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Elliot Herman,
San Elijo Hills.
You may go ahead.
Elliot: Okay. Can you hear me?
Do you hear me? Okay. -: Yes, we can.
Yes, we can. Go ahead. -: All right.
All right, I'm calling in reference to agenda number 21.
I'm currently the vice president of the San Elijo HOA.
So you know I get a lot of input
from the residents about this.
I'm calling to basically express, once again,
my opposition to this new electrical line,
which goes from San Marcos to Escondido.
The only way that this new line can be fully designed
is to have an environmental impact report done.
The line, as planned, will go through Elfin Forest,
which is just south of San Elijo.
The park is open space and there's lots of vegetation
and insurance companies consider it a fire danger.
Residents I'm hearing all the time
are having their insurance canceled.
I live in the middle of a block,
and I just had my insurance canceled.
I've gone to seek alternatives, and it's already
(indistinct).
If this line is built the way you say it's going to built,
or they're going to be built,
I'm going to pay more in insurance,
and along with my rest of my neighbors,
than what it would have cost to put this underground
in the first place.
I think that we simply need to understand that you,
what you want originally,
which was a rock solid circuit between the two substations,
this will not do that.
Because last year, when high winds and the fire danger
was high, they shut the wires down.
They shut the power line down.
This line is parallel to that line,
which means the same thing's gonna happen.
It's gonna get shut down.
You should simply build underground.
You'd make better than (indistinct) came up with
(indistinct) San Marcos Boulevard.
Worst possible way of doing this.
And, I can see my time is up.
So I will simply end by saying,
an EIR is the only way to fully evaluate this project
and to build what is (indistinct) and for the future,
because this project does not do that.
Thank.
Ms. Batjer: Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Elliot Balm,
a San Marcos resident.
Sir, you may go ahead.
Elliot: Yes. Thank you again for your time.
And again, this is regarding item 21
regarding SDG&E's power line
going through Santa Elijo, San Marcos, Carlsbad.
Again, as my previous neighbors
and residents have mentioned,
regardless of the impact and significant impact
on our views, our property values, and health issues,
more importantly, it's the health and safety
of our communities that I think everyone
can understand our concern.
With a significant portion of our state on fire,
the possibility of power lines causing
at least one of these fires,
we are in a high-risk fire area,
and our communities do a significant amount
to clear brush and to be as safe as possible.
But with the impact of this amazing community,
we are getting many people moving in,
more homes being built,
and the congestion to evacuate is becoming more significant.
So please, if you could do an EIR,
or even better put these underground,
that would be basically the best way to afford all of us
to be safe and incur a cost across the entire SDG&E payers,
as opposed to a few.
So when you get that opportunity,
please do the right thing for my neighbors
and residents of this area.
And thank you for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Greg Newman,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Greg: Yes, thank you for your time.
I would like to make a short statement,
and my wife, Suzanne Newman,
would also like to make a statement at the end.
I've been a resident, or we've been a resident
of San Elijo Hills since 2005.
We've been evacuated three times due to wildfires.
I believe that if SDG&E builds more overhead power lines
it'll greatly increase the chance of sparking
and causing fires.
I urge that they place them underground.
Also the synthetic impact greatly decreases
our property values, thank you.
Suzanne: I wanted to say, it's not only our families
in San Elijo who are affected by the gross negligence
of SDG&E, and the danger of power lines,
where we had to be evacuated.
Last time our family had to be evacuated,
we had nurses on our street who couldn't get to work.
My 747 captain husband couldn't get his credentials
from the house to fly, so for over 400 passengers
had their international flight canceled,
with untold repercussions.
As a high school teach- (bell dinging)
Ms. Batjer: Operator, just a moment. Hang on.
Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Robert Castaneda,
with Low Income Oversight Board.
You may go ahead.
Robert: Yeah, good morning, Commissioners.
My name is Robert Castaneda, and I proudly serve
on your Low Income Oversight Board
with Commissioner Shiroma.
Good morning, Genevieve.
In addition to being on the LIOB,
I serve on the board of directors
of La Cooperativa Campesina, a 50-year-old statewide network
of farm worker services agencies.
I take the time to address you all this morning
on what I believe is an imminent crisis
that we all must get ahead of.
Mounting low-income household debt,
as a result of the moratorium on utility bills
is an issue that should concern us all.
In addition, COVID and other factors
are having a negative impact on low-income
energy assistance program enrollment,
with both the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program,
LIHEAP, and our own Energy Savings Assistance Program, ESAP.
Requests for applications with the federal LIHEAP program
are down considerably.
Modifications by the CSD, which is the administrative body
for LIHEAP, consists of enhanced data sharing by IOUs.
In other words, their response to deal with
this lower levels of enrollment
are enhanced data sharing by IOUs,
and direct marketing by contractors.
Perhaps we should explore some of this
out-of-the-box execution with our own ESAP program.
We are a partnership with our programs.
Hopefully we can leverage that with this issue. Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Lindsey Smith
with San Elijo Hills.
You may go ahead.
Lindsey: Hi, I'm Lindsey Smith,
president of the San Elijo Hills HOA.
Commissioners, regarding agenda item number 21.
San Elijo Hills is just that, massive hills and deep canyons
with over 10,000 residents, in what we refer to as
our cul-de-sac community.
Neighborhoods that are one way in and one way out,
with limited egress and ingress, three roads only,
and two run directly under the proposed
new transmission lines, potentially leaving only one way
in or out during an emergency evacuation.
100% of our community is enveloped
by Cal Fire's highest wildfire risk zone.
And 80% of the entire 12-mile above-ground route
would run through that same zoning.
We experience the strong Santa Ana winds
that whip through our canyon, and have dealt firsthand
with preventative power outages due to an increased threat
of the winds downing our power lines.
Last year, I remember receiving almost simultaneously
a red flag warning, a Santa Ana wind warning,
and a text from SDG&E about preventative power shutoff
right at that time.
Despite my house being pitch-black that night,
I did not sleep.
The last time we evacuated was for the Cocos Fire.
Since then our community demographics
have changed immensely.
We have built out four additional neighborhoods,
added a new K through eight school.
And during our last evacuation,
both lanes of eastbound and westbound traffic were diverted
so all four lanes led westward, away from the fire.
We waited in bumper-to-bumper traffic
with the fire headed towards our cars,
waiting for up to an hour to egress our community.
All three of our community schools have been deemed
shelter in place schools, three of them.
Can you imagine evacuating your home
and driving away from your children?
Not only do we need to consider the cumulative impact
of what these power lines mean to our community's risk,
but the cumulative impact to the growth of our communities,
which has made these evacuations more difficult
than they already were.
Not only is there more risk and greater threats
from climate change, there are more lives to be lost here.
The Bobcat Fire is now being investigated
as a utility-ignited fire.
Why, in an age of climate change,
are we building above-ground transmission lines,
along half of my community's perimeter,
in a highest wildfire risk zone?
It doesn't make sense to us.
Please consider our mental and physical health
and what an increased fire risk means
to our already on-edge community, thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Christine Julia.
with San Elijo Hills.
You may go ahead.
Christine: Thank you.
Hi, I am a San Elijo resident of 12 years.
I have two children and we have two grandchildren.
I originally came from Europe, where the power lines
were put underground in the 80s and 90s.
When I first came to the U.S., to California,
to the state of California, the most progressive state,
I was slightly shocked that there were
above-ground power lines.
And, I had to witness one of those transformers
blew up on one of my neighbor's power lines.
It was not in San Elijo, it was before that.
Yet, before we moved here, I asked my husband
to actually buy a gas meter and measure the electric fields
around the house.
Luckily, we're far enough away,
but the fire danger's imminent.
My brother and sister-in-law live in Paradise,
used to live in Paradise, California.
On my sister-in-law's 66th birthday,
luckily, it was her birthday because their son was in town,
he got them out.
He got them out of the Paradise fire,
and now two years later, looking at their lives,
my brother-in-law is still heartbroken.
He was an artist and a craftsmen.
He couldn't believe that everything that he built
with his hands was just gone in less than 15 minutes.
I teach my kids (indistinct), then you make a decision.
It is safe? Is it legal?
Is it moral? Does it make sense?
If there's a no to any of these, don't do it.
Have the courage to do the right thing.
So is it safe? It is not safe.
We have seen this in Northern California.
We're seeing it currently.
And I urge you to do the right thing
and put those lines underground.
I do enjoy the low prices of power,
but I don't enjoy them at the risk of like,
I don't enjoy them at the risk of this fire,
and possibly devastating 10,000 families.
Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sarah Turner, a citizen.
You may go ahead.
Sarah: Hello, my name is Sarah Turner
and I'm calling regarding the agenda line 21.
I'm a recent college graduate that lives
in North County, San Diego,
and I would like to speak on behalf of the project.
I think this project and other similar types of projects
need to be approved and built.
We need reliable power in North County.
I'm also trying to find a place to live.
And in these times we should not be holding things up
and increasing utility bills.
It is already too expensive.
Also, this project is replacing wood poles with steel poles
for fire mitigation.
So that would help with fires,
and I would think more people would support this.
Additionally, with more houses being built in the area,
the more power they would need.
Therefore, I support this project.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Michael Owen,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Michael: Hello. Thank you for your time.
I too am calling about agenda 21 and the concerns.
SDG&E's recently been advertising on TV
about their concern for the safety of their customers.
Specifically, the program burying cables underground.
And the local newspapers also run stories
about the utility burying existing above-ground lines
in San Diego County, Escondido, and Rancho Bernardo,
and other locations.
I don't understand why SDG&E is pursuing this project,
installing yet another above-ground series of power towers
in the San Elijo Hills and Rancho Dorado neighborhoods.
If they profess their concern for public safety,
they should be doing an EIR and looking into burial cables.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller.
Operator: And our next caller is Jacqueline Hooper,
a real estate agent.
You may go ahead.
Jacqueline: Hello. My name's Jacqueline.
I'm a real estate agent calling on behalf of
the power line project in San Marcos.
I'm here to support the project.
It is very important that when I speak to people
who are moving to this area,
that we have safe and reliable power.
In addition, I understand that people
may want this going underground.
I do not think that it should be at the cost
of all ratepayers.
Typically, when homes are sold
and the lines are put into the ground,
it's done by the HOA or at the cost of the homeowner.
So I support the project going forward quickly
as it is proposed, to ensure a safe and reliable power
in the area.
It should not be at the cost of all ratepayers.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: And our next caller is Peter Austin,
a San Elijo Hills residence.
You may go ahead.
Peter: How's it goin'?
I support the project that would help the ability
of our electrical system that would,
does not unnecessarily increase our rates.
We already spend enough on utilities
and we do not need that increase.
So please vote and get this project started.
Thanks for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller.
Operator: Our next caller is Deborah Gutzmer,
a San Marcos resident.
You may go ahead.
Deborah: Thank you.
Good morning Commissioners,
I'm calling regarding agenda item 21,
the San Marcos to Escondido power line project.
I am a caregiver for my 85-year-old mother
who lives on a fixed income in a senior retirement
mobile home park in San Marcos.
Any plans to pass on additional costs to the ratepayers
to underground the power lines for this project
would create a financial hardship for my mother,
and not just her, but the hundreds of other area seniors
living in a similar situation.
These older residents would get the added costs
with no real benefit to them over the earlier approved plan
to upgrade lines and replace the wooden poles.
And that plan meets all the power and safety goals.
It's for those reasons I ask that you do not revise the plan
if it includes any financial increase to ratepayers.
Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Bob Peppler,
a Rancho Dorado resident.
You may go ahead.
Bob: Good morning, I'm calling regarding
agenda item number 21.
My name is Bob Peppler.
I'm the former undersheriff
for San Bernardino County Sheriff's department.
And after more than 35 years, I am now retired,
and my wife and I live in Rancho Dorado.
During my early career,
I spent many years as a deputy evacuating people
during devastating wildfires,
and San Bernardino County has had some of
the worst wildfires in the state.
Many were caused by Southern California Edison power lines
that snapped or little blown down during high winds.
On more than one occasion,
while returning to burned out areas for security
and to keep looters out, my fellow deputies and I
ended up finding people who died in their cars
while trying to get out of their neighborhood.
Found another couple who died in their doorway
trying to get to their car.
To this day, I have a tough time getting those images
out of my head.
So here we are 40 years later,
my wife and I retired in Rancho Dorado,
having invested every penny we have saved
into our dream home.
The sad irony is that we are now facing the exact same
fire risks that I helped save people from years ago.
And what is just as devastating is the loss of value
in our home because of the location of these power lines.
I proudly devoted my career to helping people
who needed me, now I'm respectfully asking you
as Commissioners, please help the people in this community
who need you.
Do not approve this project.
There is no rush.
Please request an EIR, or better yet,
just require SDG&E to do the safest thing
and bury these lines underground.
Thank you so much for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Susanna Castillo,
a Rancho Dorado resident.
You may go ahead.
Susanna: Good morning Commissioners and dear neighbors.
My name is Susanna Castillo
and I'm a Rancho Dorado resident.
And I would like to ask you to please review
everyone's concern of safety and wellbeing
of our communities here in San Marcos, please.
We all face (indistinct) route.
And please consider the schools in San Elijo area.
The health of many students from (indistinct)
and San Marcos, that's our main concern.
The kids, our families please.
We're all facing daily anxiety and the stress
of living in an area of high risk, fire risk.
And this labeling was of course
done by our insurance companies.
No, because we said that.
And we usually, who usually cancel or increase
our home insurance yearly.
I just, I implore you do to help us to build
a better future for our kids,
the environment, and our planet.
And for me, it is hard to conceive that at this time
you're still having issues to convince
San Diego Gas and Electric to understand the risks
of construction of more power lines in this area.
At this point, I just concerned they should be mandatory
to build power lines underground in all California,
based on our terrain.
I would think it's better just to put our money
that goes to our insurance that are so high,
towards HOA, and just to make our areas more safe.
Thank you, please help us to have more safe
and beauty in our areas.
Thank you, Commissioners. Have a great day.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Shea Exner,
a Rancho Dorado resident.
You may go ahead.
Shea: Hi, good morning, Commissioners.
Thank you very much.
I am calling in regards to agenda item 21.
I am a homeowner in Rancho Dorado,
and I want to add my voice to those of my fellow neighbors
and community that I am strongly against
this power line project.
And I would hope, at the very least, that this group ensure
that an EIR is done before any movement is on this project.
It seems with so many fires happening due to utilities,
just like the Bobcat one that is being speculated
as a utility fire, that it is in the best interest
of everyone in our communities to make sure
that power lines are put underground.
You know, people have mentioned Simmons Family Park,
my kids play there every single day.
This is an obvious safety issue,
and there is absolutely no reason that there should not be
a environmental impact report done before any movement
is on this project.
So thank you for your consideration
and I appreciate your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Marjorie Dykema,
with San Elijo Hills Westridge HOA.
You may go ahead.
Marjorie: Good morning Commissioners.
Thank you for your time.
Yes, I am a member of the HOA board at Westridge,
and I've listened to our neighbors, our residents,
expressing from the heart they're great concerns
and strong opposable to this project.
I wanna add my name to that.
We also are very much aware that this project,
proposed project runs through 80%,
if this is correct, I'm just amazed.
80% of this project is gonna run through Cal Fire's
highest wildfire risk zone.
Why it's even being considered is beyond me.
At the least, we need an EIR.
And I oppose this project.
I do not find this to be advantageous to anybody
that lives in this area based on our history of fires,
the evacuations in our area,
insurance policies that are being canceled
because we live in a high risk fire area.
All of these things,
I urge the Commissioners to take into consideration,
and deny this project.
And at the least I'm asking you to do,
require an environmental impact report.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Katie Hadley,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Katie: Good morning. My name is Katie Hadley.
I have been a resident of San Elijo Hills for 10 years.
I'm calling in reference to item number 21 as well.
I was just reading an article published a few days ago
about the horrible fires in Oregon,
and how 13 of those fires were started
by downed power lines.
Those 13 fires spread into the Beachie Creek fire
in the Cascade Mountains, and they've burned, right now,
193,000 acres and counting.
So that fires only 38% contained.
Those lines are owned by PG&E and PacifiCorp.
PG&E was already sued for California's 2019 Kincade Fire,
and they committed to paying 25 and a half billion dollars
to people affected by that fire.
175 homes were burned to the ground in that fire.
Imagine the devastation that could occur
in a neighborhood like mine, like San Elijo Hills,
or Rancho Dorado, with fires started by power lines
in these very congested and heavily populated areas
with thousands of families in its path.
SDG&E has turned off our power, just last year actually,
because these neighborhoods are high fire-threat areas.
This would absolutely be irresponsible and negligent
to even consider even more power lines
through these backyards.
We will sue SDG&E if this happens in our backyard,
if fires take our house, and we won't be alone, I know that.
Yes, it is expensive to put them underground,
more expensive, but aren't the guaranteed lawsuits to come
and loss of human lives much more expensive?
Please put these lines underground, or at the very least,
we need an EIR to look into this project more.
I know you guys all have families.
If this project was coming to your backyard,
what then would you want for this project?
Please do the right thing. Thank you so much.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Angela Ayers,
a Santa Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Angela: Yes, I am also commenting
on agenda item number 21.
I live in San Elijo Hills and I am also an insurance agent.
I insure many homes in the area,
and homeowners insurance rates just continue to rise
and finding carriers that will write policies
in these fire-prone areas
is becoming increasingly difficult.
It would be unconscionable in my opinion,
to run above-ground power lines through an area
that is already considered a high-fire area.
It would seem to me that your planning
would consider safety first and foremost
in our current wildfire environment,
and to reduce the risk of fires rather than make a choice
to increase the fire risk in this area.
I'm asking that these lines be placed underground.
Thank you for hearing my opinion on this matter.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jean Young,
a San Marcos, Rancho Dorado resident.
You may go ahead.
Jean: Hello. Good morning.
We have been declined homeowner and fire insurance from AAA
a few years ago because they said we live across the street
from a high fire-risk zone.
When we bought the house, it was called a green zone.
We bought the house 20 years ago
and there was a single wooden pole
with a couple of lines on it.
Now there's a giant pole.
And, we moved here from Thousand Oaks
where all lines were in, every neighborhood,
were put underground, and we thought that would be
what would happen here, but the opposite has happened.
Please consider putting these lines underground.
It's scary having a fire zone across the street from us.
Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Erica Williams, a ratepayer.
You may go ahead.
Erica: Hello, my name is Erica Williams,
and I'm speaking to agenda item number 21.
I'm actually calling in support of this project.
As a teacher in this county, and somebody who is already
on a fixed income with limited flexibilities,
I'm concerned about the increased cost as a ratepayer
if the polls are to go underground.
And I wanna minimize the cost for others
who are in similar situations to me.
As a teacher, I firsthand have seen working from home
has become a necessity for many like myself,
and it's incredibly important to have reliable power
and connection to do my job.
And I'm concerned about the quickness
and the readiness of this project if it were to transition
to an alternative option such as underground.
And ultimately I'm asking for a solution
that minimizes the cost for teachers like me.
So, I wanna say that I want a quick
and safe reliable power option.
And again, that I am in support of this project by SDG&E.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller.
Operator: Our next caller is Melissa Smith,
a San Marco resident.
You may go ahead.
Melissa: Hi, thank you for my call.
I'm a North County ratepayer as well,
speaking in favor of agenda item number 21.
I've been a long time resident of San Marcos since 1993.
And as a result I've seen North County grow quite a bit.
I still want reliable energy for my community
and this project does that, as is.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Carrie Fernandez,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Carrie: Hi, I've been a San Elijo Hills resident
for 17 years, that was before Twin Oaks even went through,
so we had even fewer ways to get in and out
of the community.
And besides, like my neighbors, I'm concerned about fires,
and, you know, getting out of the community evacuation,
but I'm also, for the last 25 years,
have been an environmental planner.
So I prepare SEQRA documents all day, every day.
And, I was very disappointed in this MND.
And there's such, there's a legal review
for environmental impact reports
and for negative declarations and this
fair argument standard, which means
if a community member can prove, or actually not even prove,
but just demonstrate potential impacts
that can not be mitigated, there was a requirement
to prepare an environmental impact report.
It's legal, it's been through supreme courts,
it's the right thing to do.
And so really, there's a legal cause
to be challenged on this.
And so as, you know, a preparer and somebody
in this industry, I would hope that you would, you know,
take that into consideration, and for ratepayers,
the last thing you want is to be in lengthy litigation.
I am concerned also that some of the evidence,
the things that were done for aesthetics and for wildfire,
were just really not done to the standards.
Finally, I just wanna say, let's learn lessons from PG&E
and the fires up there and filing for bankruptcy,
and prepare an environmental impact report,
but also just look at the bigger picture
about wildfire risk, about ratepayers,
about constituents that are getting their fire insurance
canceled and homeowners insurance.
And last week I moderated a presentation on building homes
in the wild urban interface.
And California is like 70% in high fire severity zones.
We have a housing crisis, we need to continue to build.
Thank you, I'll conclude. Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Nadine Cirqua,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Nadine: Hi, I am speaking to agenda item number 21
as well, and I just wanna say I was genuinely surprised
and alarmed when I first found out that SDG&E
was planning to add additional power lines
to the neighborhoods.
I mean, aside from the eyesore and the health risks,
they do create a very real fire hazard.
So, not only should any additional lines
that might be added to the system be placed underground,
but so should all the existing lines,
in the interest of safety.
And I just wanna point out that SDG&E
is a company that's purpose is meant to provide
a necessary service to the community.
So it just seems that putting that community
at even greater risk, it seems unconscionable.
And I know that SDG&E has a very lucrative contract
with the county, and they just might consider that,
I know they like to continue that,
and the goodwill of the community,
and really just doing the right thing,
can go a surprisingly long way.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: And our next caller is Salvador Arditi,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Salvador: Hello. My name is Salvador Arditi.
I'm a San Elijo Hills resident.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
I am calling to talk about item 21.
As a lot of my fellow neighbors have expressed,
I am very worried about this project going through.
I've been a resident of San Elijo Hills since 2014,
and funny enough, in 2014,
when we were in the middle of escrow,
was the Cocos Fire, and the whole neighborhood
was completely evacuated.
We didn't even know if we were gonna be able to,
you know, move into our new home or not, at that time.
Even though we are in the middle of town,
we're very close to the downtown, to the town center.
We, experienced how long it took for people to get out
during that fire.
I'm extremely concerned about these poles going up,
and it's incredible that being in such a high fire zone,
this is still being considered.
I was originally born in Mexico City,
and I've lived here for 25 years,
and I've always considered the United States
a first world country.
Decisions like this remind me of the country
that I used to live in, which made a terrible country.
I would plead to the people making decisions,
to please consider an EIR, and to consider the lives
of many people that that are in jeopardy
if there would be a fire in the area.
I know that the project is expensive,
and the cost of putting the lines underground
is very expensive.
But think about how much the expense would be
if there was another fire,
and if it would consume more homes than it already did
in the fire of 2014.
Thank you for your time,
and thank you for listening to my call.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Carissa Chu,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Again, Carissa Chu, we are unable to hear you.
Carissa: Oh, I'm here. I'm sorry.
Can you hear me?
Ms. Batjer: Yes, we can hear you now.
Please go ahead. -: Okay, great.
Sorry about that.
I'm a resident of San Elijo Hills, and I've been living here
for about 18 years, and I just wanted to voice my concerns
and request to have an EIR done.
We have survived through three wildfires so far.
It has been very challenging to get fire insurance
every year since we've lived here.
In fact, I just tried again about six months ago
to switch our insurance and nobody will insure us
because they say we have too much brush
and we're in a high-fire zone
according to the insurance companies.
I'm from Northern California, from Santa Rosa area.
My sister lost a home in the wildfires in 2018.
And you know, we've obviously seen the devastation
from the lack of responsibility on utilities companies
like PG&E.
And, you know, I would like to avoid that.
Obviously we've had a lot more people move to this area,
and there's only one method in and out, an egress route.
And that is very concerning.
When we've evacuated before it can take hours
just to get out of our community.
And, so I am requesting that at the very least
you do an environmental impact report
and see if it's possible to put the lines underground.
I do understand some people have economic concerns,
but I think we need to look at all sides of the picture
and take our time with this and make sure
that we do what is the most advantageous for everyone.
And I forgot to mention this was agenda item number 21.
Thank you so much for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Operator: And our next caller is Cheryl Hanson,
a Rancho Dorado homeowner.
You may go ahead.
Cheryl: Good morning Commissioners.
I am calling regarding agenda item number 21.
I've been a Rancho Dorado homeowner for,
it'll be 21 years this October.
And in that time we've had to evacuate twice.
When that Poinsettia Fire broke out, let me tell you,
I will never forget the panic call of my son,
my middle school son, as he watched it from the playground.
He was begging me to come get him and his friends
out of there.
So of course, as a parent, I go there
and there's nothing but chaos,
parents trying to get their children.
Now, granted, I know it wasn't close to the school,
but these children are seeing this fire,
which seems like it's right on top of 'em.
And so there was nothing, it was just chaotic.
And you know, everyone trying to get out in a one way,
you know, one way in, one way out.
So, you know, they just, we just felt trapped.
And that was a terrible experience.
Prior to this major fire breaking out,
we had a neighbor who had a birthday party
for her little toddler.
One of her Mylar balloons got loose and got trapped up
into the, got tangled up in a wire and started a fire.
Again, chaos, kids are crying.
The fire department has to come out,
and what a blessing it was that it wasn't during
one of those Santa Anas,
'cause that would've been a terrible experience.
Not only is the risk of fires so great,
it's a terrible eyesore.
You know, as I travel back home on coast
and look over and see this beautiful sunset, you know,
just looking at this view and then all of a sudden,
bam, you get this huge ugly transmitter
that's got this continuous buzzing there.
And I know firsthand from friends who have opted not to buy
in our neighborhood because of that.
So, I'm asking as a homeowner to do the right thing
and to at least do an environmental impact report,
but preferably put them underground.
Thank you so much.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Next caller, please, operator.
Operator: Next caller is Nicholas Ovisamara with UCSV.
You may go ahead, sir.
Nicholas: My name is Nicholas Ovisamara,
and I'm calling to item 21 of the agenda.
I am a professor of electrical power engineering
at the University of California-San Diego.
I also have over 40 years of experience
in the power industry,
being at the Electric Power Research Institute,
as well as other leading companies in the field.
I'm also the sole author of the textbook
on the effects of extreme weather,
including wildfires, on the power grid.
I propose that SDG&E considers two alternatives
for the present line.
One is wired-base, and the other one
is non-wired-based solution.
The wired-based solution can be achieved
by double circuiting an existing line
at a fraction of the cost of the proposal.
And the non-wires based solution can be achieved
by implementing energy storage,
alongside management and other technologies
that SDG&E is very familiar, and it worked really well.
I also reviewed energy data on a monthly basis
from the SDG&E site for San Marcos and Escondido.
And I found that the load in the last couple years
is not increasing as they said, but actually decreasing,
especially for the residential load.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: And our next caller is Didi Hornby,
a resident.
You may go ahead.
Didi: Yes, earlier this morning you heard from
real estate agent, Jacqueline Hooper, who is from Del Mar,
which isn't even anywhere near the area of project TL 6975.
And we would think that her concerns,
if she were lucky enough to get a listing in this area,
would be to keep the property values up,
to keep the county coffers full from the property taxes,
which are based on the property values.
If TL 6975 were implemented, property values and taxes
will plummet.
That means less real estate agent Commissions, lower comps.
Please disregard the comments for people
who are in support of TL 6975,
because if they don't want SDG&E costs to increase,
then how about not implementing this unneeded project?
Why support an expensive, risky, unnecessary behemoth,
which will cost the ratepayers?
SDG&E has not demonstrated in any solid data
that TL 6975 is even needed.
So we have proven to you that the information that NMD,
which is what you are using to formulate your opinion,
is flawed and invalid.
We'd just like to confirm.
You wouldn't drive down an unfamiliar dirt road
with your children in the car
with an eminent blizzard, right?
You wouldn't invest your own money into a fund
without doing research on it.
So why would you allow this monstrous, risky,
horrible project without an EIR?
Is it because you know with an EIR
that this project won't fly?
Please, keep this in mind
when you're considering the project.
Thank you so much.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tristine Reyes Yoder,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Tristine: Hi, I am Tristine Reyes Yoder,
calling regarding agenda number 21.
I'm opposed to the power lines proposed
due to increased wildfire and health risks.
I've been a San Elijo Hills resonant for 16 years.
Wildfires are very real in this area.
So the proposal running 80% of power lines
through Cal Fire's highest wildfire risk zone is appalling.
We've had to evacuate two times.
Last one was during Cocos Fire,
and the evacuation was a nightmare.
We were deadlocked because there's only one way in and out
of San Elijo Hills.
So wildfires due to power lines has happened too many times.
In fact in 2018, the Camp Fire in Butte County
was caused by a failed power line owned by PG&E.
And it was one of the deadliest and devastating wildfire.
85 deaths, 150,000 acres, and 18,000 structures destroyed.
So, we don't want this to happen here.
This is a disaster waiting to happen.
So we ask that you require a thorough EIR,
and require transmission lines to be put underground.
This may be more expensive to build,
but it would be more expensive for SDG&E
if there were lawsuits to come about
because of power line failures.
And, lives do better.
So, please do the right thing with people's safety
and protection in mind, thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Eric Kwan,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Eric: Good morning, Commissioner.
My name is Eric Kwan, and I'm calling regarding agenda 21.
Again, just like everyone else has called here,
and I'm also against the idea of putting
additional power line in the San Marco area.
I live in this area for the past 15 years,
and I have been evacuated,
my family and I has been evacuated for multiple times.
And one thing I want to mention is how San Elijo Hills,
there's only one way in and one way out.
And there's thousand of family and children,
live in the same area.
In fact, there's two elementary school
and one middle school in the same area.
During the Cocoa Fire, I remember I was driving,
I had to leave the area, I was driving back
towards San Elijo so I can pick up my children.
The same thing for Rancho Dorado,
there's only one way in and one way out.
So if there's a wildfire,
you have a huge impact on all the family in the area.
So please, Commissioner, all we're asking for you to do
is just do a EIR, thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tony Beckerman,
a Rancho Dorado resident.
Sir, you may go ahead.
Tony: Good morning, and thank you
for taking the time here regarding item 21.
I've been a resident of the Rancho Dorado community
since 2004, and I've enjoyed the beauty,
safety, and environmental concerns of our neighbors.
Recently, SDG&E replaced the old wooden poles
for larger more power metal poles.
We as a community had no input into this.
These poles were installed without our knowledge
when it was already too late.
That was disrespectful and inconsiderate.
These polls are ugly and they devalue our property.
Last year, my insurance was canceled
due to being in a fire hazard area,
plus being so close to high voltage electrical cables.
These power lines are dangerous.
Many years ago, my father passed away from leukemia,
and they had similar electricity poles in his home,
and we believe it was due to excessive EMF.
Besides health, there is a visual impact,
plus impact on our children's health.
We can't walk our trails without seeing
and hearing the ugly, dangerous EMF polls.
Whenever we get Santa Ana winds,
we all get scared that these wires will fall
and cause fires.
SDG&E's only reason for not going underground
with these cables is potential cost.
But no one has told us the cost,
and if we are prepared to foot this bill.
But what about the cost of potential lawsuits and fires?
Like what happened to PG&E up north.
To do an EIR is the responsible thing to do.
I implore the CPUC to insist that SDG&E do an EIR
and put these lines underground.
We are relying on this committee to do the right thing
that we, the taxpayers, are requesting.
Even those who support this agenda
should support doing an EIR first.
Again, I implore, please bury these lines underground,
or at least do an environmental impact report.
Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Daniella Milik,
a Rancho Dorado resident.
You may go ahead.
Daniella: Good morning Commissioners.
My name is Daniella Milik,
and I am a Rancho Dorado homeowner.
And I am calling in regards to agenda number 21.
Well, my main concern here, as it looks like
for most residents and homeowners, is the risk of fires.
We are in one of the highest wildfire risk zones
of California.
So if SDG&E wants to keep us safe,
I believe these transmission lines,
they need to go underground.
Like someone else said, I don't understand
how they want to proceed with this project.
Why do they have a beautiful commercial on TV
that says they are doing their part
to keep the community safe
in adding new power lines underground.
So it doesn't make sense to me that they wanna go ahead
with this project.
So I ask you to please consider what these communities
are asking you,
and put these new transmission lines underground
to keep us safe, and to keep,
we can't risk human lives.
I believe human lives are more important
than the cost of doing this.
You know, it's not about money, it's about human lives.
Thank you very much for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Dr. Michael Godfried,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
Sir, you may go ahead.
Michael: Hi, thank you for taking my call.
In a time of climate change and increased fire risk,
it's really unconscionable
to place power lines above ground.
If a fire occurs, and it will eventually,
it will be very difficult to evacuate this area
because there's only one way in and out.
We've seen that, it took hours for people to get out.
The fire was maybe a hundred yards from my house,
and people were lined up on San Elijo Road for hours.
Very dangerous situation, lives are at stake.
From a monetary point of view, it's very shortsighted
to place these lines above ground, because the longterm cost
of the fire catastrophe that will occur
will be exponentially more expensive
than the initial cost of underground placement.
In my opinion, placing power lines above ground
is reckless, misguided, and in my opinion, malpractice.
Thank you very much.
Do the right thing.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Susan Miller,
a Rancho Dorado resident.
You may go ahead.
Susan: Thank you.
I'm a Rancho Dorado resident and have been for 19 years.
And I wanna talk about the transmission line project
that has already occurred.
It's TL 633 project that connected two substations,
the Bernardo and the Rancho Carmel,
substations that are approximately three miles apart
and less than 10 miles as the crow flies from TL 6975.
Those two substations were already connected with a 69k volt
above ground line.
TL 633 moved those existing power lines underground.
This is a good example of what the future should look like
for underground transmission lines.
This project made the neighborhood safer
and helped to prevent PSPS events.
It also improved the aesthetics of the area.
According to the brochure SDG&E published on this project,
it said, under project benefits,
it would cause, I'm quoting, "improved aesthetics
in the surrounding areas," end quote.
And quote, "minimize environmental impacts
and future maintenance," end quote.
This description is even more applicable to TL 6975.
With TL 633, they were not trying to add another connection
between two substations, as is the case with TL 6975.
They actually removed the old above-ground lines.
They were also not primarily concerned with wildfire risk
because it is not located in an area
that is nearly as vulnerable to wildfire risks,
as this project is.
Rather, the main purpose of that project
was to remove ugly above-ground transmission lines
by placing them underground out of sight,
with the side benefit of hardening the grid,
making it safer and adding a small amount of capacity
due to newer transmission lines.
This example shows underground 69k volt lines
is a smart option.
Cost obviously was not an issue with that project.
Why is it a deciding factor in this project?
We ask you to place these new underground lines,
these lines underground and reap the benefits, thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sonny Livsay,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Sonny: Hi, thank you for your time.
My name is Sonny Livsay, I'm a five-year resident
of San Elijo Hills.
I'm calling regarding agenda item number 21,
and to state my concerns about the proposed
additional power lines being proposed for,
to be ran through San Elijo Hills community.
I'm very concerned with the fire risk potential
that this poses.
Every year we run the risk of catastrophic wildfires
started by downed power lines and Santa Ana winds.
It seems very extremely negligent to me
to want to put additional overhead lines
through this community.
There's already one set of overhead power lines,
and it's ugly, unsightly blight to the community,
and it impacts home values.
It already poses a fire risk that we don't need to add
an additional amount to.
It is aesthetically displeasing and marring
an otherwise beautiful landscape.
It poses a health risk, and it exponentially increases
the risk of avoidable but catastrophic loss of property
and life from wildfires in an already wildfire-prone area.
There are three schools in this community,
with a single road in and out.
And, has been stated numerous times before, you know,
in past history with fire threats to this community,
getting in and out of this area takes hours,
and that's thousands and thousands of lives
you are putting at risk in favor of saving some money.
So I ask that regarding this agenda item number 21,
that at the very minimum, an EIR is done.
And, quite honestly, I believe that these lines should be
underground, as well as the existing overhead lines.
Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller.
Operator: Our next caller is Edward Wills,
a Rancho Dorado resident.
You may go ahead.
Edward: Hi, good afternoon.
I'm calling regarding agenda item number 24. I'm sorry, 21.
My name is Edward Wills.
I'm a 20-year resident in the Rancho Dorado community
of San Marcos.
We're on segment two of the proposed project TL 6975.
I'm concerned about the additional power poles
proposed in TL 6975, for many reasons,
especially the fire danger and environmental impact
in our neighborhoods.
We purchased our home in 2000 when the power poles
were low-profile with four lines attached.
Over the years, the lines have increased in quantity
and size to a total of 12 lines.
Project 6975 recommends yet another set of power poles,
and increases the quantity of total lines to at least 16.
The net effect of quadrupling the number of potential
failure points that could spark a fire along the lines
has not been addressed.
Our neighborhoods are in an area defined as tier two,
elevated fire risk, as defined by this body C-PUC.
TL 6975 may increase the fire policy portion
of our homeowners insurance to a point
that it will price us out of our own home.
I respectfully request C-PUC direct SDG&E
to conduct a full EIR,
as well as a wildfire risk assessment.
I also encourage SDG&E to consider the options of alternate,
horizontal, and vertical paths for TL 6975
to mitigate environmental impact and fire dangers
within San Elijo Hills and Rancho Dorado communities
of San Marcos.
Thanks for the time and the opportunity to speak.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Twee Hyler,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Twee: Hi, my name is Twee Hyler.
I am calling on number 21.
I am San Elijo Hills resident, and I am calling, two things.
Number one, telling you my personal story.
I'm sorry, I kinda get emotional still.
Regard to the fire damage that we have experience
in 2007, and also I want to bring out the point
that many caller have, might not mention, which is the cost.
Let me tell you about the cost first,
because I might run out of time.
So the cost is, the reason why we're not voting today
for underground is because of cost.
For the SDG&E's own data and usage,
which is 5.68 mile underground, is however it is right now,
but the distance is a lot shorter.
It's 5.21 miles, compared to original plan.
So the cost is about five to $10 million per mile.
If we're using the number of the new one, for eight mile,
that is about $41.6 million cost.
So many caller might not realize the cost is a lot,
a lot lower number than the SDG&E estimated.
So at least talking about,
and if you, all of you five vote today
for approving underground wrap today, which is 5.2 mile,
then the SDG&E can connect directly with the San Marcos City
planning division and work along with the new route install.
Then we can save another, sorry about, the cost can be,
you know, somewhere about 30 (drown out by bell ringing)
So for this, the estimate from BG&E
currently say that it's 50 to $90 million
is not true- -: Caller?
-: Yes? -: Caller, excuse me.
Excuse me, your time is up.
We need to go onto the next caller. Thank you.
-: Thank you. -: Operator,
the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Justin Dailey,
a Rancho Dorado resident.
You may go ahead.
Justin: Hi, and thank you for taking my call.
I'm calling in respect to agenda item 21.
And to be clear, I'm in opposition.
I can't add any additional concerns
that you haven't already heard today,
but I would like to respond to a few things
that have been brought up today.
First, with respect to the MMD report
that has been submitted, if what I've heard here today,
I'd go so far as to say that SDG&E
was intentionally deceitful with respect
to some of the analysis that was done.
I can only assume they hoped this would fly under the radar.
Based on this alone,
I would hope that the Commission would require an EIR.
And just to provide a brief definition,
an EIR is a document that outlines the impact
of a proposed project on its surrounding environment,
and is meant to inform the work and decisions
of policymakers and community leaders.
I can say that I don't feel anyone on this call today
has been properly informed.
To the small percentage that have called
and supported this agenda item,
they seem to revolve around two issues.
Number one being reliable power.
SDG&E will shut down power during high winds,
causing interrupted service and unknown economic loss
to businesses.
So I think that's a mute argument.
The second being rate increases.
If a fire should happen due to downed power lines,
this will cause loss,
which will be translated to rate increases.
So regardless if you think this is above line power
is the right thing to do right now,
if a fire happens because of these above-ground power lines,
your rates will increase.
With the technology that we have today,
and with the safety concerns,
the right thing to do would be to place these power lines
under the ground.
I would like to see at a minimum,
in addition to the environmental impact report,
an economic analysis of what the cost of this project
versus the cost of the fire damage to taxpayers.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Emily Dosaul,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Emily: Hi, my name is Emily. I'm not an engineer.
I don't have an understanding when it comes to the,
like, high end areas of, you know,
more detailed pieces of this,
but I'm more so just a concerned citizen.
When it comes to having the above-ground power lines,
it's just a high risk with fires and the whole west coast
right now it seems like is on fire.
The air quality has been terrible.
And, to add additional above-ground power lines,
it just doesn't really make sense to me, you know, for us,
and I'm sure many additional residents here,
safety is the number one concern and making sure
that your home is somewhere you feel safe and protected in.
And so, already being in a high fire risk area,
adding additional power lines
which could increase that risk,
just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
And so I just wanted to call in
and voice my concern with that.
You know, I don't have any statistics or anything like that,
but I used to actually live in Florida, and there,
they also had underground power lines,
and they're not considered like, a high fire-risk area.
So to me, in California and especially where we are,
it's just something that I feel like I would appreciate
if that's being taken in consideration when you vote today,
because I know that safety and everyone's family
is the reason why everyone's calling in.
You know, they wanna make sure that their home,
they can feel safe in.
And so I just wanted to call in and kind of voice
my opposition to have above power lines.
That's all. Thank you. -: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: And our next caller is Brian Wood,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Brian: Great. Thank you very much.
Hello, name's Brian Woods,
seven-year resident of San Elijo Hills.
I'm calling in to request in environmental impact report,
or for you to mandate moving the power lines underground,
for the reason everyone else has outlined,
fire risk, aesthetics, impact the wildlife, insurance rates,
and ultimately all those add up to home values and safety.
So again, please insist on an EIR,
or mandate the underground construction, thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Next caller, please, operator.
Operator: And our next caller is Ryan Lipscomb,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Ryan: Hi, thank you.
I'm calling regarding agenda item 24.
I'm a ten-year resident of San Elijo Hills.
I am a native San Diegan, and have lived every one
of my 61 years in either Lemon Grove, San Diego,
or San Marcos.
Politics and global warming aside,
I'm not sure why there seem to be wildfires,
major wildfires, every year.
Whereas, when I was a kid, they were somewhat rare.
I'm sure stupid people are a cause,
but there were lots of stupid people around
in the 60s and 70s too.
There's a lot more development now,
but that's displaced a lot of brush that fuels wildfires.
So you'd think that's not a cause,
or would at least lessen the scope of wildfires.
Mother Nature still throws her share of lightening
probably on par with what she tossed in the 60s and 70s,
so I gotta think that's not a cause.
Maybe the increased number of above-ground power lines
is the cause, I don't know.
But I'm sure there are some smart apolitical people
who know the honest answer.
Before approving any more above-ground power lines
and creating more critical control points
that can trigger fires, I ask that you please pause
and take the time necessary to conduct and review
an the environmental research report.
And if you've not already done so, I respectfully ask
that you please drive through our community,
meander through Elfin Forest.
See for yourself the impact that more
above-ground power lines would have on habitats
that are rapidly disappearing.
Those of us who live here, including the people,
animal, birds, even Larry the lizard
who climbs my wall every day, would really appreciate that.
Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you. Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Heman Bellaforia,
a San Elijo Hills resident.
You may go ahead.
Heman: Hi. My name is Heman Bellaforia.
I would echo, I'm absolutely opposed for this (indistinct).
I would basically request an EIR study,
as well as moving those power lines underground,
not only are they hazardous in the event of fire,
look at what's going on all over California right now.
And one of those was caused by a generator spark
that has taken, damaged, caused some loss,
and inflict of property damage and economic damage as well.
So I, again, strongly oppose above-line power lines,
and would recommend an environmental study,
as well as moving those power lines underground.
Ms. Batjer: Okay, thank you.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: President Batjer,
there are no more participants
on the public comment telephone line.
Ms. Batjer: Okay, thank you.
With no more callers on the public line,
that will end our public comment period for now.
I'm going to call on Commissioner Shiroma,
I believe you have some remarks.
-: Yes. Thank you, President Badger.
I understand that for the viewing audience
and for all of the public folks who called in today,
thank you for your participation.
During the regular agenda for today's voting meeting,
I will be providing an overview presentation on item 21.
And if we are taking a lunch break before then
for folks who are interested,
they can log back in or call back in
to hear the presentation and our deliberations.
Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you, Commissioner.
We will be taking a break for 45 minutes.
So we'll call that 12:50, 12-5-0.
If you all will be back in your seats at that time
and we will then begin the rest of our agenda.
Thank you all very much.
Announcer: The feed for this streaming event
brought to you by adminmonitor.com, will begin momentarily.
Thank you for your patience.
Operator: Thank you all for standing by,
today's conference has resumed.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you, operator.
We will be taking up next the agenda changes.
But before we do that, I would like to have the roll called
so we can establish quorum.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Present.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Present.
Clerk: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Here.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Present.
Clerk: President Batjer.
Ms. Batjer: Here. Thank you.
Before we take up the agenda changes,
I would like to turn to Commissioner Randolph.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
I wanted to make a motion to move item,
sorry, now I'm losing my
item number. -: 22.
-: 22, thank you.
For some reason I wrote down 21 in my notes.
I was like, no, that's not right.
-: Well we remember- -: Item 22.
Ms. Batjer: We had that, yes.
-: Yeah. Item 22, the interconnection item.
I would like to make a motion to move to consent.
-: Okay. Is there a second? -: I second the motion.
-: Okay, great. -: Second.
Ms. Batjer: It's been moved and seconded
to move item 22 from the regular agenda today to consent.
Could the agenda clerk please call the role?
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Clerk: President Batjer.
Ms. Batjer: Yes. Thank you.
So item 22 will be moved to the consent calendar.
All right.
Now I will take up the changes to the agenda today.
These are the following changes.
Item two has been held and will be taken up
with the regular agenda today.
Item 23 has been held to 10-8-20 Commission meeting.
All right.
Now with the change that we just made,
we will now take up the consent items.
Is there a motion?
-: So moved.
-: And I'll second it. -: Second.
Ms. Batjer: It has been moved and seconded
to take up the consent items.
Can I please have the agenda clerk, please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves .
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Clerk: President Batjer.
Ms. Batjer: Yes.
The Consent Agenda items have passed unanimously.
Thank you.
I believe that we have, some of the Commissioners
would like to speak to some of the items
that were on the consent, or are on the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Shiroma.
I believe you would like to speak on item four.
-: Yes. Thank you, President Batjer.
I wanted to make remarks on item four,
which we just voted out.
It is the decision to deny Southern California Edison's
proposed transaction with
the Bonneville Power Administration.
Now in that application, Southern California Edison
was requesting approval for a continuous purchase
of five megawatts of surplus electricity,
which was described as a surplus for Bonneville
through its energy efficiency program.
And we denied the contract for two primary reasons.
First, the cost was twice that what Edison estimates
for its 2020 energy efficiency costs.
The proposal was costed out at $139 per megawatt hour,
and Edison's energy efficiency cost
is a little less than $72 per megawatt hour.
Now the second reason is that the resource,
when analyzed and through the review
of the proposed contract,
does not qualify as greenhouse-gas free.
Our staff's analysis determined
that this inter-regional energy efficiency transfer
was actually a standard surplus energy contract
with the Bonneville Power Administration
and does not have the zero emission factor assigned to it
by the California Air Resources Board.
And as such, it doesn't qualify as carbon free,
and also does not meet things like our resource adequacy,
and had not been studied
through our integrated resource planning process.
Now, having said all that, I do want to applaud
Edison's innovative efforts,
their vision in proposing this, their collaboration
with the Bonneville Power Administration,
and the Northwest Power Council on Conservation.
And of course this was supported
by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
So I want to encourage Southern California Edison
and the others to work with our energy divisions,
energy efficiency teams,
our resource adequacy and integrated resource plan teams,
as well as the California Air Resources Board,
any other stakeholders, on looking at this out of state
kind of resource that could really help our California.
All in all, I do wanna also thank
Administrative Law Judge Scarlett Liang-Uejio,
and Administrative Law Judge Burt Mattson.
Also from our legal division, Elizabeth Dorman,
and the cross-divisional teams from energy efficiency,
resource adequacy, integrated resource planning,
Sasha Merigan, Hal Kane, Jamie Gannon, Nathan Barcic,
and Lauren Reiser.
So again, I do want to encourage Edison
to seek new opportunities
that can meet all of these requirements.
And in particular, to assure that we are getting
a zero greenhouse gas resource.
Thank you. Thank you, President Batjer.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma,
and Commissioner Rechtschaffen,
and I believe you would like to make some remarks
on item four as well.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
I agree with Commissioner Shiroma in part,
and I have a different perspective in part,
which is why it's good for us
to have these public conversations.
I agree with denying this decision for all the reasons
that Commissioner Shiroma suggested,
and the decision laid out.
I would also add there was the possibility
of resource shuffling, and the lack of any showing
that these resources were additional
to what would've otherwise occurred,
which the judge's careful decision lays out.
And, the decision does lay out what in my mind
are some appropriately stringent requirements
that would have to be satisfied to approve this transaction,
type of transaction going forward.
I understand the superficial appeal of this,
and I agree with Commissioner Shiroma that it's important
to pursue innovative ideas,
and I'm not ruling out the possibility that something
that would work could come forward.
But I do have to say, I'm largely skeptical of the concept,
at least as it came before us.
For one thing, energy efficiency investments
provide concrete benefits to Californians
beyond just the energy savings created.
And these include improvements to health, safety,
and comfort among others that would not be realized
if the benefits occur out of state.
For another, I think our neighboring states,
such as Washington and Oregon,
have their own increasingly ambitious clean energy
and energy efficiency policies.
So I, although Bonneville is maybe
in a bit of a unique situation,
as its revenues haven't been decoupled from its sales.
I'm not so sure we're gonna find a lot of low hanging
energy efficiency fruit in other states.
And I'm also far from sure that we've run out of
innovative energy efficiency investments here in California.
And I want our utilities to keep their eye on that ball.
I think this is especially true
as we consider fuel switching,
from gas to electric appliances.
That is an efficiency measure,
it's gonna grow in importance.
And we have now approved efficiency incentives for those.
So again, while I haven't made up my mind,
and I do think there are good reasons to largely focus
our efficiency efforts on California.
President Batjer, if I could, I also wanted to talk about
item nine that we just approved.
-: Yes, but I wasn't going to speak on item four,
but hearing your comments,
I'd like to add something on item four
prior to turning it back to you, Commissioner Rechtschaffen,
for your remarks on item nine.
And I just, given the rolling blackouts
that we experienced recently,
and some of that was due to, well,
the blackouts weren't, but we lost energy coming in
from the northwest inner tie.
And that was very important imports to California.
So I just wanted to underscore that pursuant to federal law,
the contract cannot guarantee the delivery
of the round-the-clock surplus power
if BPA needs the power to serve its own customers.
And the transaction could therefore not be relied upon
to prevent future blackouts.
Further, Edison also states that the transaction
is not needed for reliability or to meet
its energy efficiency targets.
And therefore, the contract would not provide Edison
any RA capacity value.
I just wanted to underscore that because I don't want
to give anyone the impression that this is somehow power
that we would not be able to be importing
in a time of great need for California.
So, with that, I think you do wanna make some comments
on item nine, Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Thank you very much.
This decision that we just approved,
which grants an exemption from rule 18
for medium-duty and heavy duty charging stations
is extremely timely, given all that we've been doing
as a state to accelerate transportation electrifications.
Of course, this includes the zero emission truck rule
that was adopted by the Air Resources Board
earlier this summer, that requires 50% of trucks
to be electric by 2035.
And the Governor's bold executive order yesterday,
setting a target of a hundred percent
trucks and buses being electric by 2045.
So what this decision does is, it exempts charging providers
who provide electricity to medium and heavy-duty vehicles,
as well as electric off-road vehicles and equipment
from being classified as public utilities.
We've had this type of exemption for the chargers,
charging providers of light duty electric vehicles
since 2010, and it's important because, for many reasons,
but one of the goals of SB 350 that sets us on the path
for transportation electrification,
is to have a competitive charging market.
When we last considered this in 2010,
there was no commercial marketplace for charging
of medium and heavy-duty vehicles
because there were effectively no electric
medium heavy-duty vehicles on the road.
That of course has changed, and it's changing very rapidly.
We now have a number of different models of electric buses
and electric trucks, new ones emerging all the time.
The PUC has authorized hundreds of millions of dollars
for the utilities to build infrastructure
for these medium and heavy duty vehicles
and for off-road vehicle charging.
And as I noted, the state has adopted broad mandates
for electrification.
We have a number of projects funded by us,
funded by the Air Resources Board and others
waiting for this exemption in order to move forward.
And there's little or no reason to regulate
these charging providers as utilities.
That's expensive.
It's a total change of business model for these companies.
And it's also not what the legislature intended.
And it could slow down the growth
of this much-needing infrastructure.
I wanna mention one final thing.
Initially, the decision extended this exemption
just to traditional medium and heavy-duty vehicles
and some off-road vehicles,
but after receiving comments from the parties,
we revised the decision to include
off-road vehicle equipment,
along with a broader variety of off-road vehicles.
The Air Resources Board is encouraging electrification
of these types of equipment as well.
And, this broader exemption will advance those policies.
Means we don't have to come back again
and take additional actions in the future
to exempt this equipment.
I wanna thank our electric vehicle team,
which is a pleasure to work with,
and everyone who worked on this.
Judge Doherty for his remarkable thoroughness and speed.
Ed Pike in the energy division,
and our former staffer and now judge,
her honor Carrie Sisto, our legal advisor, Theresa Buckley,
and my advisor, Yuliya Schimdt.
Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Okay, well thank you,
Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
Commissioner Guzman Aceves,
I believe you want to speak on item 22.
-: Yes. Thank you, President Batjer.
This decision adopts recommendations
from three working group reports regarding
the interconnection of distributed energy resources
under our electric tariff rule 21.
We took recommendations that reflect 60 formal working group
meetings over the last two years.
It's truly a tremendous amount of work that's been done
by all the diverse parties, and especially our staff
and our judge.
So I wanna start first by thanking them.
Judge Hymes, who's really made this very technical decision
understandable to the public, Justin Regnier, Sophie Meyer,
Jose Aliaga-Caro, David Lee, and Jimmy Mahady.
All of them have been extremely busy
over the last two years.
I know there was a little stint there
in Commissioner Shiroma's office as well.
So, just wanna give you a few examples of the many reforms
that have taken place with this effort,
and will continue to take place with this effort.
And, I wanna highlight just a few to give you a sense.
In the effort to maximize the integration
of renewables, what will be happening now
is we'll be leveraging the information that we have
with the integration capacity analysis,
the API tool, during the interconnection process,
so that we can set limits for adding
distributed energy resources to the existing circuits
for every month of the year,
and allow those resources to export up to those limits.
It's a level of granularity that's gonna be afforded
for greater participation of optimizing these resources.
In addition, as it relates to a topic
that Commissioner Rechtschaffen just spoke to,
vehicle to grid interconnection, integration of that.
We have many reforms, but I'll just give you an example.
We are gonna now be allowing to use as this,
and as you know, the interconnection under rule 21
is the expedited process.
So we'll be allowing the EV chargers
that are currently capable of direct current,
EVG vehicles, to use the rule 21 process.
And just as a overall streamlining and transparency
and automation, a lot more optimization
of the updated hardware that's being used for the inverters.
And just as another example,
we are able to expand and use this fast track process
for interconnection for projects now of all sizes.
So really we're kind of going away from a size cap
to really more of the capacity of the types of integration
and technology that's available.
So that's a great thing because it doesn't set
a arbitrary cap on the projects.
Okay, so, lots more in here,
but I just wanted to give you a little bit of a taste
of some of the reforms.
And again, thank all the staff and all the stakeholders
who've been working on this so diligently for two years now.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you, Commissioner Guzman Aceves
for that very helpful explanation on item 22.
All right. We will now take up the regular agenda items.
And I will start with item number two,
and that's Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
Actually Commissioner Randolph and I
are gonna be presenting this jointly.
I will start off with an introduction and background
and some discussion, and then Commissioner Randolph
will continue and talk about next steps.
So, I'll go first.
Just by way of background, this resolution is the product
of the work of our policy and governance committee.
About two years ago, we initiated a review
of our rules of procedure and practice
in order to accomplish a few goals.
We wanted our rules is to be more transparent,
provide greater accessibility to the public,
and make the proceedings more effective.
Of course, these rules govern how all our parties,
utilities, advocacy groups,
and others participate in our processes.
It's the guidebook for our procedures.
Very importantly, this has been an iterative process,
informed by feedback from many stakeholders
and many staff members.
We held workshops in 2018, in 2019.
We heard from a lot of people, frequent practitioners,
community-based organizations, local government agencies,
and others.
I'd like to thank all of the stakeholders
who've been engaged in this process
and offered very, very thoughtful feedback.
The resolution makes roughly 30 updates to Commission rules,
not all significant, some more minor than others,
but they fall into four general categories.
One is changes that we were required to make by statute.
And then there're three additional areas
where we wanted to make improvements.
First, rules that clarify things in our existing rules.
Second, that expedite our processes,
and third, rules that improve public accessibility.
So with that background, I wanna highlight
a few of the more significant changes.
First, there's a new catastrophic wildfire
proceeding category, and that's implementing
a statutory directive in SB 901,
I'm sorry, in AB 1054.
We've integrated the requirements of that statute
into various parts of the rule so that the schedule
established by statute is now in our rule.
Second interrelated, there's a new rule 2.9,
and comparable to the legislative directive
for expediting catastrophic wildfire proceedings,
we've created a new rule for expedited proceedings.
And in particular, a streamlined process
to make sure that applications that concern,
especially time sensitive matters
with a public safety impact or major financial implications.
In those cases, this process will ensure
that they can be resolved expeditiously.
So what this rule says does, is it establishes
a standardized timeline for how milestones in the proceeding
will go forward.
That ensures that the proceedings will move forward
consistently and predictably.
Our current rules provide that in rate setting cases
and in quasi-legislator proceedings,
we need to resolve the matter within 18 months
from the time that it was started.
Here, in proceedings where we grant a request
for an expedited schedule,
the schedule provides that a proposed decision
will be issued within 12 months from the start.
Important to note, this schedule is subject to change
if unanticipated factors necessitate more time
for consideration.
Third, I wanna talk about rules 7.2 and 13.3,
that deal with remote participation.
We've been working for some time, as I mentioned,
to make our processes more broadly accessible to the public,
easier to navigate.
Of course, these efforts, like so many other things,
have been accelerated by our shelter in place requirements.
Those made it necessary for us to move our work online
and to allow for remote participation
in all of our activities.
And that's been a positive thing in many respects.
The rule revisions here, codify some of the changes
we've made to how we conduct our business,
and they reflect our broader desire
to make remote participation possible,
encourage remote participation wherever possible,
as a way of improving the accessibility for our processes.
This is a significant undertaking.
We hope it will enhance participation.
We hope it'll save people travel costs.
California's a very big state,
people have to come a long way to some of our proceedings,
and reduce GHG and other transportation-related emissions.
And then lastly, before I turn it over
to Commissioner Randolph, Rule 14.2 deals with
the issuance of recommended decisions.
And in response to a number of stakeholder requests,
this rule commits us to serve proposed decisions
to parties in uncontested proceeding,
where the proposed decision does not mail
for public comment.
We also agree, and put in the rule,
that we will serve revisions to proposed decisions
so that affected parties are aware of the outcome
and rationale of all decisions
before the Commission acts on a matter.
This is a way to ensure that everyone knows
exactly what we're voting on,
even if changes are made right before
or the week of a decision.
In this one instance,
we are requesting from the Office of Administrative Law,
that the rule change be put into effect
at a later effective date.
And this will allow us time to improve our own internal
IT systems in order to implement this practice.
With that I'll turn it over to Commissioner Randolph.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
I'm gonna go over a few more of the rule changes,
and then I'm gonna,
I get the honor of doing the thank yous
and talking about next step.
So, some of the additional rule changes
are a new meet and confer process.
This rule was added in 12.1.
It requires parties to meet and confer
after rebuttal testimony is served
and before evidentiary hearings.
This provides an opportunity for parties
to narrow contested facts and issues
and explore a settlement,
in the hopes of making the proceedings more effective.
The assigned Administrative Law Judge will have
the flexibility to modify this requirement as needed.
But we really wanted to institute something similar
to requirements in civil court,
at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
and other regulatory agencies,
where parties are required to meet and confer.
Rule 7.5 and Rule 1.3 include changes
to our quasi-legislative proceeding category.
These revisions better define and distinguish
quasi-legislative proceedings
from other types of Commission proceedings,
and standardized procedural requirements.
These rules identify the primary public engagement
and information-sharing tool
in a quasi-legislative proceeding,
such as staff reports and proposals, workshops,
and then public engagement workshops.
The purpose of the new language is to provide transparency
and to better inform the public
about how quasi-legislative proceedings work
as distinguished from the other types of proceedings.
Rule 13.6 was revised to clarify the standard
for admission and use of relevant evidence
in hearings at the Commission.
We wanted to distinguish these rules
from the restrictions applied in court proceedings,
while still ensuring the integrity of the evidence
and protecting the right types of parties.
I will note that we had originally intended
to add our tribal land policy to the rules,
but ultimately decided it would be better to do that
after the guidelines implementing that policy are finalized.
So we will include that in our next package of rule changes.
The next step in our process
is for the state's Office of Administrative Law
to review our proposed revisions to the rules.
Both rounds of party comments on the draft resolution,
and today's adopted resolution,
will go into the rulemaking record at OAL.
We're on schedule to go through that process this fall
in order for the rules to be made effective
January 1st, 2021.
And we look forward to sharing updates
after OAL has completed its review.
So, in closing, I want to thank everyone involved
in this proceeding.
This process was a very participatory process.
We had, as Commissioner Rechtschaffen mentioned,
several workshops, and we got a lotta party comments.
So I really wanted to take a moment to thank those parties.
We got excellent feedback from people who have been involved
with Commission proceedings for decades,
and people who have just recently tried to understand
and navigate the process.
And so having that range of feedback was really important.
So I wanna thank the Union of Concerned Scientists,
of course the large energy utilities,
So Cal Gas, SDG&E, Southern California Edison,
PG&E, Southwest Gas.
The California Cable and Telecommunications Association
was very active.
TURN was very active, and provided many years
of expertise and experience.
The Commission's public advocate's office,
Matt Vespa on behalf of Earthjustice and Sierra Club
shared some really good information
about his experiences in individual proceeding.
AT&T, the Coalition of California Utility Employees,
the California Water Association, and Goodin MacBride.
In particular, I wanna thank Tom MacBride for again,
providing a lot of perspective over time
about how proceedings have gone.
And we're very appreciative of the feedback
from the Rural County Representatives of California,
who actively engaged in this effort
and offered really valuable input.
And of course, we didn't always take the input
of all of the stakeholders,
but we really considered it very carefully,
and just very much appreciate your time.
And within the CPUC, I want to thank
the following individuals for their dedicated work.
From the ALJ division, the lead drafters,
Sophia Park and Hallie Yacknin, and chief LJ Anne Simon.
All of these judges worked very hard
and had very, very thoughtful input.
Our attorneys, Chris Nolan, Jason Reiger, Jack Mulligan,
and Geoff Dryvynsyde.
My fellow Commissioners and their advisors for participation
in the policy and governance committee meetings
and workshops, and strong interest in engagement
in this topic.
Of course, (indistinct) partner and fellow policy
and governance committee member, Commissioner Rechtschaffen,
and all of our staff, Sean Simon, Simi George,
Nicole Cropper, Anand Durvasula, and Suzanne Casazza.
And a shout out to Rachel Peterson,
my former chief of staff, for leading the process early on.
So that's it for my presentation. Thank you very much.
And I ask your support of this resolution.
-: Thank you.
I wanna just say, this is a big damn deal. (laughs)
And I am extremely excited about these rule changes,
as discussed in item two.
This resolution represents an extraordinary collaboration
among Commissioner Rechtschaffen and Commissioner Randolph
and their respective staff, and the ALJ division
and the legal division.
Truly, this has been a tremendous amount of work
and so important.
I just wanna shout it from the rooftops.
The changes contained in the resolution
are intended to make, as has been stated
by Commissioner Randolph and Commissioner Rechtschaffen,
to make the Commission's processes more accessible
and effective.
But as we know, and have experienced, the speed and focus
with which they are applied in the day-to-day business
of the Commission will greatly determine
their true level of accessibility and effectiveness
in the days to come.
When Governor Newsom appointed me,
I clearly understood that part of my charge
is to implement the organizational changes
that would facilitate converting our best ideas
into actions at a pace fast enough to solve a problem
when it counts most.
This is how we maintain the confidence of those we serve.
I didn't know at the time, however,
that such great tremendous work was underway
by Commissioner Rechtschaffen and Commissioner Randolph.
As was stated, 33 major changes,
extremely important to making us more effective,
and serving our public more effectively.
Over the last year, we have worked collectively
to realize this intent, as we have fast-tracked
establishing new wildfire-related rules
and added the most dangerous periods of wildfire season,
as well as through our responses and actions
to protect customers from financial impacts
of COVID-19 pandemic.
The speed and focus of these actions were propelled
by the urgency of the moment.
As we all well know, there are additional priorities,
including those of reliability and climate change,
that require similar responses
in the months and years ahead.
If we were going to meet these challenges,
the change we felt to our speed and focus this last year
must become the norm.
And these changes will help us realize that.
These modified rules will work towards this goal.
I look forward to working with you all
in their implementation.
And again, I really wanna thank Commissioner Rechtschaffen
and Commissioner Randolph for their spearheading
this effort and hanging in there,
working diligently and innovatively,
and most importantly, pushing us all forward.
So thank you very much.
Are there any other comments on item number two?
Yes, Commissioner, I think Martha Guzman Aceves was first.
-: Okay, thank you, President Batjer,
and I do think this is a lot of work and a lot of patience,
and I just wanted to reflect that one of the rules here,
Rule 4.1, related to complaints by mobile home park tenants,
I know some of you know the story I've told before,
but my first exposure to the PUC was when I was at
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation,
and their lobbyist in our Coachella office
had an attorney working with some of the
mobile home residents at a mobile home park in Oasis
that was charging them in some cases,
over a thousand dollars a month for water.
This was a mobile home park in an agricultural area.
So most of the folks were farm workers.
Anyway- -: Martha.
Martha, sorry to interrupt you.
Could you speak a little bit closer to your mic?
-: Oh, okay, sure.
Ms. Batjer: That's much better. Thank you.
Thank you, much better. -: Okay. Thank you.
Anyway, it took about two years for our attorney there
to even get the PUC to look at this issue.
Subsequently, Commissioner Sandoval took on the issue,
and there even had to be, subsequent to that,
legislation to provide a remedy for those residents.
So, I guess kinda coming full circle,
I'm very happy to see that we have a clear rule here
for our practice and procedures that these tenants
have a right to file these complaints here,
as it was a very hard process back,
oh, over 10 years ago now.
So, it takes a while to get some of these changes in place.
But I do hope that the realities of COVID
that have really created a necessity where we have created
so many changes and a greater accessibility,
as we saw even this morning in the ability for the public
to participate in our processes,
that we really take the time to formalize the best practices
that we're using in our COVID times.
Many of our good practices that we're using
with our pre-hearing conferences, our workshops,
our accessibility issues, continue to be a challenge.
So I really do hope that we can take this
silver lining of COVID, and make this next round of updates
to our rules even more aggressive.
But, thank you very much for all of your work.
-: President Batjer should I go next?
-: I'm sorry, I've been on mute, didn't realize it.
Yes, I was calling on you. Thank you.
-: All right, thank you.
Thank you, I just wanted to add my thank yous,
Commissioner Rechtschaffen and Commissioner Randolph,
tremendous work.
Tremendous work from our Administrative Law Judges,
Judge Yacknin, Judge Park.
I appreciate how changing rules of practice and procedure,
it is a big deal, especially when folks have been used to
doing things the same way for decades.
So, I appreciate all the effort and especially the workshop
that occurred about a year ago,
where I could listen to the seasoned practitioners,
the stakeholders, have a conversation,
a dialogue with our judges.
It was fascinating.
And I think the result, it really does move us forward.
The standardizing of the public participation hearings
to make us more accessible is really important.
And I really appreciate the efficiencies
folded into the procedures,
and also that we're encouraging parties
to find common ground where possible,
which increases the efficiencies manyfold.
So, I'll be voting "aye," when the time comes for this.
Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
Okay, with that, I would like to get,
are there any other comments on item two?
Okay, seeing none, I would ask the agenda clerk
to please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves .
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Clerk: President Batjer.
Ms. Batjer: Enthusiastically, yes.
The vote is unanimous for item number two.
Moving on now to item 21, Commissioner Shiroma.
-: All right, thank you, President Batjer.
We heard many public comments this morning on this item.
This proposed decision would approve
San Diego Gas and Electric Company's application
for a permit to construct, and the mitigated
negative declaration for its infrastructure rebuild
and expansion of 12 miles on the San Marcos
Escondido transmission line.
I would like to start by acknowledging
the importance of public participation
and express my appreciation for all of those
who made public comments throughout the process,
made them on the record, and the folks who called in
at our last voting meeting and also today's voting meeting.
Our ability to make informed and rational decisions
do depend on robust public participation.
And we received that in this process.
And I do want to assure all of those
who participated in the process
that safety is a core mission for this Commission.
It's foremost on all of our minds,
and that is what we have strived for in numerous decisions
that we have taken, especially those dealing with
wildfire and wildfire mitigation.
Now, this proposed project is located in San Diego County
within the cities of the Carlsbad, Escondido,
San Marcos, and Vista,
as well as in areas of unincorporated San Diego County.
Again, the line travels a total of 12 miles
in existing rights of way.
In addition to converting approximately 36
older wooden poles to steel poles,
and thus improving their durability,
safety, and resistance to wildfire conditions,
the project includes a new 2.8 mile segment of steel poles
to provide an additional circuit
to serve this growing community
and to ensure reliable service.
The project is split into three segments.
The right of way for segment one is made up of 10 easements
established between 1944 and the year 2000.
Segment two includes rights of way established in 1940,
1965 and 1966.
And segment three is made up of easements
established in 1940.
The fundamental objectives of this project
are to mitigate North American Reliability Corporation,
or NERC, violations at the federal,
of the federal requirements.
There've been violations on this line.
The objectives are to eliminate congestion,
to meet mandatory NERC reliability criteria, again,
in this growing Escondido and San Marcos area,
and to improve power service reliably
by providing an additional feed
to the existing San Marcos substation.
The project was originally identified as needed
starting during the 2013 and 2014 CISO,
or California Independent System Operator
transmission planning process.
And the project continues to be needed
in that transmission planning process since that time.
Now to issue a permit to construct,
pursuant to our general order 131-D,
the CPUC must find that the project complies with CEQA.
In evaluating whether to approve the project,
CEQA requires the leading agency,
and in this case that's the CPUC, to conduct a review
to identify environmental impacts of the project,
and ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.
And that initial assessment,
that mitigated negative declaration,
the appendices alone are over 2,000 pages of analysis.
If the initial study shows
that there is no substantial evidence
that the proposed project may have a significant impact
on the environment,
or if the initial study identifies
potentially significant effects,
and the project proponent makes or agrees to revisions
to the project that will reduce all project-related
environmental impacts to less than significant levels,
then the lead agency shall prepare a negative declaration
or a mitigated negative declaration,
that is subject to public notice
and the opportunity for the public review and comment.
These are the steps, these are the procedures
that are provided and outlined and required under CEQA.
As you know, we had a groundswell of public engagement,
including the public comments again made today,
at our last voting meeting.
I want to highlight a number of things that the CPUC
CEQA team did in response.
First of all, the team made some extra efforts
not required by CEQA review for this project.
The team expanded the noticing of the project required
in general order 131-D from 300 feet to 600 feet
from the edge of the right of ways.
The staff also increased the public comment period
from 30 days that are required by the statute, to 60 days.
The staff also responded to the over 1,000 comments
in the mitigated negative declaration.
Under CEQA, through a mitigated negative declaration,
the lead agency is not required to respond
to the comments, however here, the staff did so.
Our staff also met with the city of San Marcos
to add additional mitigation measures
for wildfire prevention during construction,
including additional agency coordination
with the San Diego unit of Cal Fire,
the San Diego County Fire Authority,
and the fire departments of the cities of Carlsbad,
Escondido, San Marcos, and in Vista.
During the environmental review period,
many comments from the public requested
that an environmental impact review, an EIR,
be conducted instead of a mitigated negative declaration.
However, a mitigated negative declaration
was found to be appropriate,
to be the appropriate environmental document
because mitigation measures included
as conditions of the project were found to reduce
significant impacts to less than significant under CEQA.
And again, the analysis done
for the mitigated negative declaration is over 2,000 pages.
And that's all in the materials for this project.
Now, it is typical and standard to use
a mitigated negative declaration
for these types of transmission line proposals.
So again, in the sequence of things that the CPUC staff
are required to do, when that mitigated negative declaration
has found that the measures will bring the impact
to less than significant,
it proceeds with the mitigated negative declaration.
Now the staff analysis determined that
if San Diego Gas and Electric
completes all of the mitigation measures
included in the mitigated negative declaration,
that all the impacts of the project would be reduced
to less than significant.
Further, there are several areas of public comment
that I wanna highlight
that the mitigated negative declaration does address.
On the evaluation of aesthetic impact,
the CPUC used the Federal Highway Administration
methodology, which is the standard methodology
for evaluating aesthetics.
It is used to analyze the potential effects
to visual resources in CEQA review.
Public views are considered under CEQA,
but not private views, which are not protected under CEQA.
And that has been upheld in California case law.
The CPUC staff conducted several,
and their experts consultants, they conducted several
visual simulations as part of its initial review.
And after four additional visual simulations,
the final mitigated negative declaration
found that the aesthetic impact remained
less than significant,
based on that Federal Highway Administration standard
for public views.
Even so, San Diego Gas and Electric added measures,
such as aligning the new poles with the existing poles,
and keeping the height of the new lines at the same height
as the existing lines.
The issue of property values was raised.
However, under CEQA, it is not required to be evaluated.
And this is pursuant to California case law.
Now, on wildfire safety and evacuation safety,
the team reviewed the facts related to evacuation and egress
from the San Elijo Hills and surrounding communities,
and determined that these are existing baseline conditions
that are not attributable to the project.
They are based on land use decisions
of the local jurisdiction.
However, as mentioned before, as I said before,
the project transitions would post a steel pole,
which does reduce the risk of wildfire
ignited by infrastructure.
Further mitigation measures added by San Diego Gas Electric
meet higher wildfire tier levels
than what is actually designated for that area.
The final project also includes
construction fire prevention plans,
and those were developed in coordination
with the fire departments.
And they do include that San Diego Gas Electric,
and/or its contractors shall have water tanks, water trucks,
or portable water backpacks,
where there isn't space for the trucks or tanks.
And these will be available within the study area
for fire protection within the impacted area.
All construction vehicles shall have fire suppression
equipment, and San Diego Gas Electric shall ensure
that all construction workers receive training
on the proper use of firefighting equipment
and procedures to be followed in the event of a fire.
Now, beyond that, the Commission had previously adopted
San Diego Gas Electric's wildfire mitigation plan.
We approved those in June, this past June.
They are available for reading,
and further information on our website,
and also on the San Diego Gas and Electric website,
SDGE.com/2020WildfireMitigationPlan.
And that has been the major,
really massive effort by San Diego Gas and Electric
and the Commission in updating wildfire mitigation
procedures for the entire San Diego district.
So, overall the proposal by San Diego Gas and Electric,
the 12 miles of rebuilding, reconductoring, and so forth
is proposed by the utility to address NERC violations,
meet NERC reliability, to eliminate congestion
in a growing area, to address what (indistinct)
has identified as what's needed
in the transmission planning process.
It qualified for a mitigated negative declaration
because the utility will reduce impact
to less than the significant level under the CEQA criteria.
With the replacement of wood poles, reconductoring,
and so forth, wildfire risks are reduced.
And again, there was a very thorough
environmental assessment.
And I refer to the over 2,000 pages,
and the panoply of review,
the staff assured compliance with CEQA.
And so I would like to conclude by thanking our staff
on the project first.
Lisa Orsaba is the project manager at the CPUC
who has worked on shepherding his project
through the thorough environmental review,
going the extra mile to be responsive
to the surrounding community.
I would also like to thank legal counsel, Jack Mulligan,
our previous project manager, Joyce Steingass,
who's now working on microgrids,
our Administrative Law Judge, Brian Stevens,
and my chief of staff, Leuwam Tesfai.
And with that, I respectfully ask my fellow Commissioners
for your aye vote on approving the permit to construct
and the mitigated negative declaration.
Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma
for that excellent and very thorough explanation,
appreciate it greatly.
Are there any comments on item 21?
Okay, seeing none, will the agenda clerk
please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Commissioner, President Batjer.
Ms. Batjer: Oh, excuse me, excuse me.
Yes. I'm so sorry.
Before we take the vote, Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes, I just wanna comment briefly.
Commissioner Shiroma provided a very thoughtful discussion,
but I do wanna just comment briefly to note how,
that these infrastructure decisions typically raise
very important and difficult issues,
and this case is no exception.
I wanna underscore my thanks and appreciation
for the speakers today who represented their community
so well, for returning for today's discussion.
We could hear their concerns and their worries about
larger wildfire risks.
And, I don't question their perspective
on how they view this project,
but I agree with Commissioner Shiroma
in going forward with this decision
for all the reasons she outlined.
I just wanna underscore that there's an immediate
reliability risk that itself poses public safety
and economic risk to these communities
that the project will address.
I looked very carefully at the concerns
about introducing a new ignition source,
given that wildfire risk is undeniable today in California.
But I think Commissioner Shiroma laid out very carefully
why the decision comes out in the right place.
It requires that the specifications for this project
meet the highest safety standards,
the very highest safety standards,
that there'd be extra safety measures during construction,
and that the utility coordinate carefully
with local agencies because of various elements
of the project, including converting the three dozen
wooden posts to steel.
The result is that on balance,
the project will decrease overall risk in this area
compared to existing infrastructures.
It's never an easy decision when there's the kind of
well-organized community feeling in opposition
as there is in this case.
But given the facts here,
I believe going forward with the proposed decision
is the right one, thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you, Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
I'm sorry I didn't notice your hand up earlier.
Are there any other comments on item 21?
Okay, seeing none, will the agenda clerk
please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves .
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Clerk: And President Batjer
Ms. Batjer: Yes.
Thank you. The vote is unanimous on item 21.
Moving now to item 24, Commissioner Randolph.
-: Thank you.
This is an order extending statutory deadline
in the application of California Water
for its general rate case.
We have extended the deadline in this case before,
that was extended to September 30th, 2020,
but the proposed decision has not yet been mailed.
So a short extension to November 20th, 2020 is needed.
That will allow time for the comment period
and Commission review.
I ask for your support of item 24.
Ms. Batjer: Okay. Thank you.
Are there any questions for Commissioner Randolph
on item 24?
Okay, seeing none, will the agenda clerk
please call the roll?
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Clerk: And President Batjer.
Ms. Batjer: Yes.
The vote on item 24 is unanimous. Thank you.
Item 25 will be withdrawn, as it was voted on in item 15
in the public Consent Agenda.
So we will be moving on then to item 26,
which is Commissioner Shiroma.
-: All right. -: Looks like you're on mute.
-: Yes. And you know what?
I just, myself, and I have to apologize.
I am looking for my notes on item-
-: Well, we can give you a minute, and then we can move on
to item 27- -: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Batjer: And come back. Okay.
Commissioner Randolph. -: Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. -: No problem.
No problem, we'll take up 27, and while you are searching,
and Commissioner Randolph, item 27.
-: This is one of those orders extending statutory deadlines
that's anticipated because this has been structured
to be a multi-year rulemaking.
It was open to consider strategies
to integrate climate change adaptation planning
in Commission proceedings.
In October of 2019, the Commission adopted
the first decision in this proceeding,
which defined climate adaptation
for energy utilities in California,
identified the California Fourth Climate Assessment,
and subsequent assessments as the primary sources
of climate forecast, pathways, and scientific study,
and established criteria for any further data or models
that energy utilities may develop
to understand climate impacts.
Then, last month, this Commission issued a second decision
in the proceeding,
which adopted climate adaptation reporting requirements
and community outreach plan requirements,
so that the energy utilities are prepared to upgrade
their infrastructure, operations, and services
to adapt to climate change and to ensure safe
and reliable service to all Californians,
including those most vulnerable and disadvantaged.
So this decision closes phase one of the proceeding,
and extends it an additional 12 months,
to September 30th, 2021,
which will allow enough time to issue a phase two
scoping memo and ruling on additional topics,
convene working groups, to elicit written comments,
and allow time for the Commission to issue decisions
on climate adaptation as related to other utilities.
With that, I ask for the support of my fellow Commissioner.
Ms. Batjer: Okay. Thank you.
Are there any questions of Commissioner Randolph on item 27?
Okay, seeing none, will the agenda clerk
please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Clerk: President Batjer.
Ms. Batjer: Yes. Item 27 has passed unanimously.
Thank you. Commissioner Shiroma, on item 26.
-: I apologize, if you could take up item 28,
then I will be- -: No problem.
-: Right back with item 20.
Thank you so much. -: No, it's quite all right.
-: Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Not a problem.
All right, moving on to item 28, Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Well let me tell you a long story about item 28.
In the beginning, way back when.
No, this is a complaint case.
The current statutory deadline is September 30th.
We need a relatively short three months extension
for the assigned Administrative Law Judge
to finalize the presiding officer decision.
That will be issued imminently, and then of course,
we need to provide parties with, when it's time to decide
whether or not to accept the decision
or file an appeal of the pod.
So, I ask for your support for a three-month extension.
Ms. Batjer: Okay, are there any comments or questions
of Commissioner Rechtschaffen on item 28?
Okay, seeing none, will the agenda clerk
please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Clerk: President Batjer.
Ms. Batjer: Yes.
Unanimous vote to approve item 28.
All right, Commissioner Shiroma. (laughing)
-: I'm ready.
Ms. Batjer: Okay, there you go.
Take it away. -: Thank you so much.
Item 26, which is A. 19-04-002,
order extending statutory deadline.
It is the application of Phillips 66 Pipeline
for authority to increase rates
for pipeline transportation services within California.
We anticipate that the PD will mail very shortly,
but insofar as the logistics of all of that,
and bringing it forward for a vote by the Commission,
I'm asking for an extension to December 30th of 2020.
Thank you.
Ms. Batjer: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
Any questions on item 26?
Seeing none, will the agenda clerk please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Randolph.
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Clerk: President Batjer.
Ms. Batjer: Yes.
The vote is unanimous on item 26.
So thank you all.
That takes care of our regular agenda for today.
We will now move on to management reports.
There's no report for item 29,
which is the report and discussion
on recent consumer protection and safety activities.
I will turn now to the acting executive director,
Rachel Peterson, for item 30,
which is management report on administrative activities.
Rachel.
Rachel: Thank you, President Batjer and Commissioners.
We have a management report today
from Chief Administrative Law Judge Anne Simon.
Anne.
Anne: Thank you, Rachel.
Commissioners, I would like to formally introduce to you
our seven new Administrative Law Judges
who began work in their roles at the Commission in August.
So boringly alphabetically by last name,
I will introduce or reintroduce Joanna Gubman,
who is rejoining the Commission
as an Administrative Law Judge.
She's previously served as an advisor to two of you,
Commissioner Randolph and Commissioner Guzman Aceves,
and to former Commissioner Peterman.
She's been a supervisor of the energy efficiency
residential programs and portfolio approval section
in energy division.
And she has been an analyst in the resource adequacy
and procurement oversight section in that division.
She returns to the Commission from her third
research fellowship in Germany.
On this one, she studied e-scooters
and micro-mobility policy.
She received her bachelors and masters degrees
in mechanical engineering from Stanford university.
Joanna has a lifelong love of turtles,
and she will hasten to add, of tortoise's too,
so they don't feel left out.
And in her free time, she enjoys yoga, urbanism advocacy,
and spending time outdoors.
We are very happy to have Joanna back
at the Commission with us.
Next, John Larsen, who has served
as an Administrative Law Judge and mediator
for the California Department of Insurance since 2011,
prior to coming to the Commission.
At the department of insurance,
his jurisdiction included a variety of complex matters
throughout the state, including large rate proceedings.
Prior to serving at the Department of Insurance,
he adjudicated felony, misdemeanor,
and parole suitability hearings
for the California Board of Parole hearings.
He has a bachelor of science degree
in mechanical engineering from UC-Berkeley,
a JD degree from Santa Clara University School of Law,
and a masters in judicial studies
from the judicial studies program
at the University of Nevada-Reno, in collaboration
with the National Judicial Council.
When he was an engineer, he managed construction projects
for the Corps of Engineers, and helped oversee
environmental remediation projects
in the U.S. Department of Energy,
prior to going to law school.
He was born in Oakland and has lived in the East Bay
most of his life, where he lives with his wife
and three children.
He enjoys hiking and biking when the weather allows.
Our next new Administrative Law Judge is Daphne Lee.
She was born in Hong Kong and grew up in Sacramento.
She earned a bachelors degree in architecture
from the University of California-Berkeley,
before attending law school at Southern Illinois University
in Carbondale, Illinois.
She was admitted to the California state bar in 1998.
Prior to joining the CPUC,
Daphne was an Administrative Law Judge
with the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board,
reviewing unemployment compensation, disability insurance,
and tax appeals.
Prior to her service
at the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board,
she represented the California Department of Social Services
enforcement unit,
and the Department of Health Services
in administrative litigation involving licensing,
employment, and regulatory issues.
When she's not working, Daphne enjoys spending time
with her husband, her boys, and her spoiled Labradoodle.
Susan Lee, our next new judge
was most recently also an Administrative Law Judge
with California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.
During her more than 17 years with that board,
she served as an ALJ I, an ALJ II,
an acting presiding Administrative Law Judge in Oakland,
the city of her birth.
Last year, she was elected president of the voluntary
Association of the Administrative Law Judges
at the Unemployment Compensation Appeals Board.
Prior to her judicial roles,
Susan was a supervising attorney
with the East Bay Community Law Center,
working on tenants' rights.
Her state service career began in 1996
as a field representative in the California State Assembly.
She also served as committee analyst
for the California Integrated Waste Management Board,
and is a research attorney for the State Bar of California.
She's proud of her ability to speak Cantonese.
She and her husband have two children
characterized as beautiful, a characterization
I'm sure you will all agree with.
Next I'd like to introduce Suman Mathews,
who is coming back to the Commission
after having served as a deputy attorney general
in the civil division
of the California Attorney General's Office.
There, she represented the Franchise Tax Board,
the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration,
the Department of Real Estate, the Department of Insurance,
the State Controller's Office,
and the Employment Development Department
in state and federal courts.
Prior to being at the Attorney General's Office,
Suman worked at the Commission
as a senior regulatory analyst and rotational attorney.
She has also worked
at the State Office of Administrative Law
and in private legal practice.
In her spare time, Suman enjoys spending lots of time
outdoors and in nature, and something she will hopefully
be able to do soon again,
exploring new local and distant places.
She also enjoys finding new recipes to try out
on family and friends.
Carrie Sisto most recently served as the senior analyst
in the Commission's energy division,
transportation electrification team,
and Commissioner Rechtschaffen mentioned her earlier today.
With nearly four years of experience helping focus
IOU infrastructure investment programs
on specific market segments, and developing rate designs
that encourage third-party electric vehicle
infrastructure development.
Prior to coming to the CPUC,
Carrie helped launch a new environmental commodities
trading desk for a Michigan-based utility,
and spent eight years learning about,
and educating compliance entities about,
the nuances and lowest cost strategies
for meeting emissions reductions
and renewable energy obligations.
She has bachelor of science degree in natural resources
management and a masters degree in international finance,
both from the University of Kentucky.
She currently lives in San Francisco
and takes every possible opportunity
to take a hike or go camping.
Again, activities that we also will be able to do
successfully in the future, as well as the present.
Finally, I'm very happy to say that Garrett Toy
is rejoining the Administrative Law Judge division
from his time in legal division,
where he has spent the last three years
working on public records act requests,
confidentiality matters, rehearing decisions,
and representing the public advocate's office.
Prior to getting swiped by legal,
he interned in the ALJ division
and worked on the intervener compensation team.
He also has experience working at Cal EPA
on environmental justice issues.
Garrett majored in biochemistry and political science
at UC-Davis and attended law school at UCLA.
A native San Franciscan, on most days you can find him
running in Golden Gate Park with a Giant's hat.
I don't know how tall the Giant's hat is
to keep up with him,
but his other hobbies include traveling, milk tea,
and internally debating the merits of his online purchases,
a mode of purchasing that we are all now
all too familiar with.
And with that, I thank you for your attention
and complete my introduction of a wonderful class
of summer 2020 ALJs.
Thank you.
Rachel: Thank you, Anne.
And, that concludes the management report for today,
President Batjer.
Ms. Batjer: We're all shaking our hands and waving.
Congratulations, what a great class, Anne.
Outstanding credentials.
And welcome back to those who are returners. Great to hear.
Thank you very much for the presentation
and thanks to each of them for their public service.
Okay, Rachel, thank you.
That concludes our management reports for today.
So we will move on to Commissioner reports.
Who'd like to begin?
Trying to see hands. Are there any hands up?
Yes, Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Oh, thank you, President Batjer.
I just wanted to give a couple updates.
I'll start with the fun one,
which is to remind everyone of our upcoming
Hispanic heritage events.
And I wanna thank Commissioner Shiroma
for kicking it off this week with Professor Mendez,
that talked about some of the climate
and emergency response issues and vulnerable communities.
Next week we have on Friday, October 2nd, at noon,
I will have the privilege of moderating a discussion
with Dolores Huerta,
and the following week on October 5th at 1:00 p.m.,
President Batjer will be having a coffee chat
with Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzales.
And then our final speaker will be on October 9th,
where Commissioner Randolph will be moderating a discussion
with David Hayes-Bautista, that is a excellent historian
slash social demographer out of UCLA.
And then, last but not least, Commissioner Rechtschaffen,
on October 15th at 3:00 p.m.,
will be hosting the celebration of art, culture, and food
for Hispanic Heritage Month.
So hopefully, staff is able to join.
I know we had a great over, I think, 220 participants
on the first discussion.
So I really look forward to continuing
to have these dialogues with our staff.
It's very, hopefully, and also not the,
hopefully the kickoff of more months of celebration
of our diversity here at the Commission and the state.
In addition to that, I did want to thank you,
President Batjer for your followup letter to AT&T
in regards to their efforts with their current customers
VoIP service, and their efforts on fiber.
I just wanted to share this because it came
at such a timely moment, where I've been in discussions
just this past week with two separate communities
in our state that are dependent on AT&T DSL.
And, in one case, in both cases,
one case down in Monterey County in San Hildago,
we first became aware of this community
because the children in that school district,
just outside of Salinas, were given hotspots
that didn't work in their communities.
This is a small farm worker co-op,
it's a farm worker camp,
essentially right outside of Salinas.
And, so they have this old landline going in from AT&T,
and they have satellite.
And it was interesting to me in the letter that AT&T
responded to you that, you know,
they're helping folks transition.
We don't see that.
And that if they don't help them, essentially,
I'm oversimplifying here,
essentially they have other options
because there's competition.
And it's just not a fact.
That's not a fact in San Hildago,
and it's also not a fact in the other community
that we recently talked to,
which was brought to our attention by a former Commissioner
as well.
And that's up in Mendocino County,
the community of Kanchi, that also has AT&T DSL,
voice, and broadband through that DSL, very low speeds,
about three down one up.
And they wanted to, you know,
there's actually an AT&T fiber line going through
the community there.
And so it's a perhaps more egregious case there
where there's the ability to serve,
and these communities are really just,
they're alarming of what we should be concerned about
for the future here, that we don't have a provider
of last resort there, there's no competition.
And, particularly where there's children today that have,
continue to lack access for their own education.
Anyhow, I just wanted to share those
'cause it's really weighing on me in that we don't have
an immediate solution for these
other than if AT&T were to step up.
So I look forward to their further response
to your questions, President Batjer, on your letter.
And I hope that we don't lose sight of these communities
and that, hopefully, we can develop some solutions.
But ultimately I fear that we need a different
social construct and regulatory construct
that really depends on some federal leadership.
So I'll stop there, but I just wanted to share my concern,
and certainly my commitment to do what we can
with our current structures and incentive programs
with these communities.
Ms. Batjer: Thank you, Commissioner Guzman Aceves,
and thank you for underscoring by important example,
some of the things that were illustrated or questioned
in the letter that I sent to AT&T yesterday,
which I do believe can be found on our website,
but I'll double check that.
Are there any other Commissioner reports today?
Yes, Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
Yes, last week I attended
the Low Income Oversight Board Meeting,
the third meeting of the year.
The last meeting of the year will be in December.
We heard an update from the utilities on many things,
but I wanted to point out that we heard about
the impact of COVID
on the Energy Savings Assistance Program,
it's known as ESAP.
ESAP contractors are back at work,
installing weatherization measures in customers' homes,
now that the COVID stop-work order has been lifted.
But, this is happening in fewer numbers than before,
because many customers are, you know, understandably,
very nervous still about having contractors in their homes.
The contractors are following all of the criteria,
all of the safety criteria that they're supposed to,
but it will likely be some time before the ESAP
treatment figures return back to the pre-COVID levels.
But there are folks back at work.
And we also received excellent presentations
from the energy division staff on the many recent
CPUC decisions and initiatives
to assist low-income customers,
including the SGIP equity and equity resiliency budgets.
By the way, the SGIP equity,
the program for the low-income communities,
the folks who've experienced PSPS,
there is a great hunger for that program,
Commissioner Rechtschaffen, and the monies
are being earmarked for quite a few different projects.
We also heard about the recent disconnection proceeding
spearheaded by Commissioner Guzman Aceves,
the affordability proceedings
and climate adaption decisions.
And then there'll be some upcoming workshops
on the California climate credit.
And I wanna thank our staff, Kapil Kulkarni,
Adam Banasiak, Nora Hawkins, David Matusiak,
and Ankit Jain for their very important presentations
that really highlight the great expertise
that rests with our staff.
And then the only other thing is that there was
a lifeline advisory committee meeting,
it's called the universal lifeline telephone service
administrative committee, that was held earlier this week.
I was not able to attend personally, but my chief of staff,
Leuwam Tesfai, my advisor, Terence Shia,
were able to attend.
And one of the key things that this advisory committee
needs to do is to do an annual report
for the Commission each year.
It's due this fall towards the end of the year.
And I'm happy to report that the advisory committee
is hard at work on that report for us.
And I'm hoping that we will be able to see that report
and have it shared with the Commission later on this year.
And it was really a privilege to participate in the kickoff
of the Hispanic Heritage Month.
The conversation with Dr. Michael Mendez,
who I think I first met when he was here in Sacramento
and volunteering time on the City Planning Commission,
and talk about a tough gig. (laughs)
You serve on the planning Commission,
you're dealing with all sorts of projects of various sizes
and all over the geographical area.
And he did, it was amazing what he's doing
at University of California-Irvine.
And again, thank you for the privilege
of facilitating that discussion.
Thank you, President Batjer.
Ms. Batjer: Yes, certainly.
Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
Are there any other reports at this time?
Okay, seeing none, the public meeting is now adjourned.
Please log off and dial into the WebEx invitation
that has been sent out by staff.
Thank you.