Announcer: The feed for this streaming event
brought to you by adminmonitor.com--
-: Hi, welcome to
the second Low-Income Oversight Board Meeting of 2021.
I am really hoping this is
the last full Low-Income Oversight Board Meeting on WebEx,
but I'm sure we'll wait and see
and do whatever is the most safe
and recommended, and makes everybody feel comfortable,
but I just missing people.
So I want to open with that and I've started to see a lot of
people I haven't seen in more than a year
in the last few weeks, and it's just really been wonderful.
So it's wonderful to see everyone here today.
I'm looking forward to the meeting and going over all of
these important items, but most of all,
just happy that the news seems to continue to improve
as each day goes by.
With that, as always, it's my pleasure,
before we do introductions of the full board to introduce
our assigned Commissioner for her opening comments,
Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Yes and I thank you.
Good morning Chair Delgado Olsen, and fellow Board Members,
I also want to extend a warm welcome
to everyone attending today's meeting.
As you said, Chair, this last year was phenomenal
and in so many ways, and in terms of
what everyone experienced with the pandemic,
the stay-at-home and continuing to do what we need to do.
And so I want to first recognize the contribution
of this Low-Income Oversight Board
with the recent decision adopted
by the California Public Utilities Commission
on June 3rd, five, zero, this decision
authorizes $11 billion for low-income programs administered
by Pacific Gas & Electric,
Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric,
and SoCal Gas to reduce the hardships
of income-qualified Californians
and the communities with the greatest need
to lower their energy bills, combat climate change,
and improve health, comfort, and safety.
This decision has over 500 pages.
It was a huge accomplishment.
And I want to thank the LLIB members for your participation,
your recommendations throughout the process to improve
the California Alternate Rates for Energy, CARE,
the Family Electric Rates Assistance, FERA,
and the Energy Savings Assistance, ESA programs.
More specifically,
this was the first time that we at the CPUC
through our judge, we engaged the LLIB very early
in the proceeding record development process.
Over six months before the final decision was moving out,
to issue a ruling garnering party comments
on your ideas, that was conveyed through a letter
as soon as put that out as a ruling to garner comments,
to get that those ideas into the docket, into the record,
and to really be able to fold
in the ideas into the decision.
I want to personally thank all of you each LLIB member
for your additional engagement in the applications
from the IOUs.
And if anyone reads the over-500 pages plus appendices,
you will see that we fold in the LIOB
and the metrics that you recommended.
And turning further to today's agenda
I want to call it another landmark decision
the CPUC adopted on May 20th, 2021,
in our main energy efficiency program.
I am also the assigned Commissioner on Energy Efficiency.
And since the 1970s,
California has led the nation on energy efficiency.
As the assigned Commissioner,
we worked on a decision that reforms,
the energy efficiency policy in California
towards better aligning programs
with reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
addressing customer equity,
really helping to put together a program
where we are providing greater equity
in terms of how these programs are reached,
and creating longterm energy grid stability.
I do in more to do a shout out
to the Natural Resources Defense Council
and helping us navigate and put together
this new way of looking things that doesn't always have
to be cost effective, but meanwhile,
metrics of course are always tracked,
but really looking at how do we provide
for some greater flexibility
and some different ways to look at how do we
accomplish that, that energy efficiency,
which continues to be very important.
So we will be joined later by just the Alison,
a Senior Analyst in the CPUC's Energy Division
who will give us a presentation
on the new energy efficiency decision.
Jessica will explain a new total system benefit metric
we use for tracking and reporting energy,
or efficiency savings,
and the new energy efficiency portfolio segmentation
of programs to categorize based on our primary purpose
of delivering energy savings,
providing market-like workforce development
and addressing equity issues like targeting
hard-to-reach customers.
And there's one more thing I wanted to mention
about all of this and it,
anyways, we will hear thoroughly from Jessica,
how all of this is going to work
a little later this morning.
So I'll stop there back to you, Chair Delgado Olsen,
thank you.
-: Thank you, Commissioner.
I believe next word businesses introduction.
So Dillings, if you want to set up that slide?
I think we finally put a roster so everyone will know
when to introduce themselves.
Woman: Yes, so going past some of the meeting information
and the introductions there is the roster.
-: So I would say, Commissioner Shiroma
and I have introduced ourselves.
So starting with vice chairs down.
-: Good morning, everyone.
Vice Chair Santis here, public member.
I'm looking forward to the conversation today,
especially with the warm weather and June 30th approaching
looking forward to the conversation.
-: Good morning, this is Jason Wembley, a board member,
Jason Wembley representative as CSD and board member
to the LIOB, looking forward
to today's conversation as well.
-: Hey, all right.
Robert Castineda, public member.
Yeah.
I'm looking forward to continuing to contribute and work
towards a framework put forward, which is solid change,
positive change that does two things.
It meets the needs of our communities at the same time,
embracing technology and different activities
that clearly we can discuss how we perform measures
or how we do specific things with energy efficiency
and to work through the barriers, that's
a discussion that we've been looking to have,
at least from an LIOB perspective
for as long as I've been on the board.
And I think what I'm hearing from Commissioner Shiroma is
that on the energy efficiency side,
we're going to get a presentation that is very robust,
and it's going to deal with a lot of the issues,
either based on cost effectiveness
or any other types of barriers, and how we're going
to a cow, we're going to press on.
So, I'm looking forward to it, sounds great.
Thanks.
-: Good morning, Pat Watts, President/CEO, FCI Management,
and the Private Weatherization Contractor Representative
on the board.
And I am really happy to represent the group of contractors
that make sure that all of the ESA contract, all of
the ESA customers are served, well-mannered, well-deserving,
and the quality of ways of thank you
and looking forward to today's discussion.
-: Good morning, I'm Paul Reuben, public member.
I'm also the Executive Housing Director of
the North Fork Ranchera Indian Housing Authority.
Also look forward to the date today's meeting.
Thank you.
-: Good morning, I'm Lisa Castelone,
I'm a public member and I'm a Representative
from Grid Alternatives Inland Empire,
and I'm especially interested in today's meeting.
There's a lot of great information
and some new things that are coming on.
I'm very excited about, so thank you.
-: Hi, good morning everyone.
I'm Jeff Wyam, I am a Water Utility Representative
on the LIOB.
It's certainly challenging and hopeful times
as well on the water side.
And certainly our challenge as a board
is furthering good public policy.
And with coming out of COVID,
but also some of the drought challenges
we have in the state, finding that balance
that protects the most vulnerable of our population
and make sure that we conserve a precious resource
are our two big challenges.
So I'm glad to be here to participate today.
-: Hi, good morning everyone.
My name is Jessica Lim
and I am the LIOB Board Representative
for the Electrical and Gas Utilities.
I'm also looking forward to today's discussion,
honor to be here, and also what to wrap up
the introductions, and agree with Benito
that looking forward to this being may be
our last virtual meeting and being in-person soon,
very hopeful things are taking a good churn in California.
So thank you.
-: Okay, thank you, Board Members.
We're going to move on to item two, which is public comment.
Just as a reminder to everyone,
public comment is intended to provide an opportunity
for members of the public who wish to address the board
on a topic that is not on the agenda.
Members of the board are not allowed
to take any formal action on an item
not on the agenda, if possible,
it is requested that public comment be limited
to two minutes and Jillian,
if you could start public comment, we're ready.
-: Great, thank you, Chair.
Let me just go over some instructions for public comment
on both the English audio via WebEx
and the Spanish audio via the call-in line.
So if you are, we'd like to make a comment
in English via the WebEx platform,
please use the "raise hand" feature.
If you open the panelists, the participant panel,
you should see a small little hand,
which has circled on this slide,
and you can use that feature to raise your hand.
Then you will be put into a queue requesting to speak.
And when it's your turn, the host will unmute you
and allow you to make public comment.
You could also use the chat box if you're unable
to find the raise hand feature and request
to comment that way.
For those who are listening on the Spanish phone line
and would like to make a comment,
please press star one and state your name when prompted.
This will allow the operator to put you
into the queue for this Spanish comment.
And we will check with the Verizon operator,
whether there is any Spanish comment
after we go through the English.
So again, a reminder,
any of those who wish to make public comment,
please use the raise hand feature or use the chat box.
As of right now, I do not see any requests to comment,
but I'll give people a few moments.
For the operator, do we have anyone who wishes
to comment in Spanish?
All right, I see a message that we do not at this time.
So just give a few more seconds
I think for English public comment via WebEx,
but I don't see any raised hands
or any messages in the chat.
Joe, as host, have you received any messages in the chat?
Just want to double check with you that I've seen.
-: Thank you for asking.
No, I have not.
-: Okay.
Well, we'll move on to item three then,
but if somebody comes in late, just let us know.
Item three is approval of the March 11th, 2021,
LIOB meeting minutes.
I'll open it up for discussion and or a motion for approval.
Okay, I don't think there's any discussion,
would somebody like to make a motion
to approve the previous meeting minutes.
-: I'll make a motion to approve.
-: I will second.
I'll say Vice-Chair Stamis this afternoon
'cause I saw her first,
but anyway, so motion by Board Member Casteneda,
seconded by Vice-Chair Stamis.
Jillian, do you need to call the roll
on this or can it be consented?
-: I think just for those listening over the phone
or any other features, I will just call roll quickly.
So Board Chair Delgado Olsen?
-: Yes.
-: Board Member Watts?
-: Yes.
-: Board Member Castendeda?.
-: Yes.
-: Board Member Lin.
-: Yes.
-: Board Member Wembley?
-: Yes.
-: Board Member Wynham?
-: Yes.
-: Board Member Castelone?
-: Yes.
-: Vice-Chair Somis?
-: Yes.
-: Board Member Irwin?
-: Yes.
-: And Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Aye.
-: All right, thank you.
So it, the meeting minutes are approved unanimously.
-: Okay, excellent.
So we will move on to item four,
which is comments from community-based organizations
and dealing and Ali with you,
if there's any community-based organizations that wish
to present to the board.
-: All right thank you.
So similar to public comment,
any individuals or members of
the community-based organizations
who wish to address the board at this time
should please use the raise hand feature or the chat
so that the WebEx host can unmute you
and allow you to speak.
Are there any community-based organizations
that wish to comment to the board?
Again, please use the raise hand feature
or the chat box to request to speak.
But right now I'm showing no one.
Joe, have you received any chat messages?
-: I've received none.
-: Okay.
In that case we will move on to Joe,
the energy division update
and move into Joe, Joe, whenever you're ready.
Welcome, and you may begin.
-: Okay, thank you, Chair Delgado Olson and good morning.
Low-Income Oversight Board Members
and members of the public computable, Carney, California,
Public Utilities Commission,
Energy Division staff with the energy division update.
Next slide, please.
-: Say, Kakil, your voice is a little bit soft.
-: Okay, let me speak a little louder.
-: Thank you.
The purpose of this update is to provide information
on three topic areas, the recent ESA FERA decision
that the Commissioner mentioned,
including an update on what changed
from the previous update I gave,
an update on the low-income needs assessment,
as well as an update on the potential and study, next slide.
So this slide shows some of the previous highlights
that were shown as well as changes
from what was presented previously and changes from
what was, what came out in the proposed decision in May.
And just backing up a little bit.
The previous update I gave was on May 14th
at a sub committee meeting.
That was a few weeks after the proposed decision came out.
What usually happens is that the parties to the proceeding
provide comments on the decision that the 500-page decision,
they're given about three weeks to provide comments and then
another week or two weeks to provide replies
to those comments.
And so the soon after the update
that I gave previously, comments came in.
And so a lot of the changes that you see here that are
in bold are in response to the comments
that were received in the applied comments by parties.
The major change for the budget.
Overall, there for the six years,
the budget stayed the same at 2.2 billion,
over five and a half years
with the new budget starting July 1st, 2021,
going through December 31st, 2026, we, the Commission,
increased the budget for the second half of 2021,
kind of extending the bridge period that was in place
for the first of 2021,
but increasing the proposed budget from around 170 million
to 210 million for the second half.
And that was in response to comments,
primarily by contractors to ensure
a smooth transition for the ESA program moving
from one program cycle and one kind of budget to the next.
Everything else regarding
the budget primarily stayed the same.
Next slide.
Regarding the ESA Pilot Program is the program
that would test the feasibility of deeper energy savings
and try and achieve up to 50% energy savings
per household, setting aside 4% of the budget,
the overall budget over the six years.
So about a hundred million or a 20 million per year.
And in response to the comments received by the IOUs,
we decided, the Commission decided to delay some of
the timelines in order to allow more time
for ideas to come in.
So the first step that we planned to start working with
the IOUs on, is a workshop that will be public,
that the board and other stakeholders
and parties will be invited to collect ideas
and how this program should look in terms of
the population trying to reach the measures
that we will be a part of the program,
whether the program should be Statewide
or run regionally or locally.
So that workshop will happen by October 1st.
So Commission gave an extra 30 days
for this workshop to happen.
The, or the, I use to then submit a advice letters,
which will include these programs, designs,
and budgets or Commission approval
to submit them by December 31st.
So giving additional time for them to submit that
and receive their energy division approval.
And then in order to allow more time for these ideas,
as well as for contractors to get their teams ready
to bid on these programs and to allow the IOUs
to get their contracting efforts in place,
moving back the start of the program from January 1st
or by Q1 2022, to Q3 2022,
and just allowing more time for this new program
and pilot to take effect.
So no major changes to the program other than the timeline
to just allow an overall more effective process.
Next slide.
This slide here, no major changes,
but highlights what the ESA working group will do in terms
of providing feedback on measuring program changes,
progress towards program goals,
including recommending changes
as part of the mid-cycle update,
and also reviewing the 2023 Potential Goal Study,
which I'll talk about later on,
also looking at the cost effectiveness tests
and how those should be considered,
especially regarding the new cost-effective guidelines.
And then also the, working to develop
the new systems that will be in place
for customers and property owners
with regards to the low-income programs
and that, and the multi-family central portal
that will provide a Statewide system for property owners
and renters for the new Statewide
or regional Multi-family Whole Building program.
And just a recap of what was approved
in the decision for the working group.
Next slide.
And similarly wanted to highlight
the new things in the decision,
in addition to the working group
is approved, additional workshop
that will occur around the same time
as the staff proposal pilot workshop.
This workshop will be focused on program coordination
and bring other kind of a wider audience,
not just within ESA, but also other programs
that are targeted towards low-income customers,
or that involve clean energy programs either
within the Commission or all, but also outside of it.
And having the IOU's then put together a report
that summarizes the actions from this workshop
and start to implement some of those actions
in order to get greater coordination among programs
that long-term customers will be eligible for
just beyond ESA, Karen Kira.
Also the, something new that in this proceeding
as part of the decision is the two electrification pilots
that Southern California Edison will be implementing.
One is for existing homes
that build electrification pilot for $40 million.
And then one is the $10 million pilot for new construction
going to incentivize developers to build housing
for low-income families that incorporate electrification.
And then also the greater alignment
between what the California Workforce Development Board
and I use are doing regarding workforce education
and training and making sure that contractors are able
to receive training and adjust to the new programs
and pilots, and components of the ESA program.
That's all.
So as far as specific next steps, as I mentioned earlier,
that some of the timelines were removed in addition
to the timeline that the IOUs have for submitting
a compliance violet and this compliance filing was extended.
The deadline was extended 45 days to 90 days
after the decision, so by September 1st,
the guy used to have to jointly file a document that it was,
or how the customer segments treatment tiers
and measures are going to be aligned.
There was some alignment and some differences between what
the utility submitted in their applications.
And this advice letter filing will seek to point out,
where they're aligned, where they're different,
and try and achieve greater alignment,
so that a customer in the Northern part of the state,
that's say a medical baseline customer and high usage can
receive similar benefits to a customer in the Southern part
of the state who is also medical baseline
and then high usage.
So trying to achieve greater consistency
for the benefits of customers
and for easy ease of implementation.
I think the next step after that would be the workshops.
Yeah, the workshops for the staff proposal,
pilot and the Low-Income
and the Clean Energy Program coordination.
And just a reminder that all the documents
and all the reports that the monthly reports
that the IOUs will be submitting will be available
through the service list,
as well as through the docket card for this procedure.
Next slide.
And actually before this next slide,
just wanted to pause if there any questions
on the ESA tier, FERA proceeding in decision
or anything I presented so far.
-: Thank you, yes, I have.
Oh, go ahead, Robin.
-: Yeah, I've just made some notes here.
On the ESA test pilot,
looks like it's going to be an expansive sort of effort.
I believe that's through Edison.
We're going to do it,
or all the utilities got perform that pilot.
-: These pilots on slide four, or slide four
of the presentation that's going
to be for all four utilities.
-: Is there a distinction between all four utilities
with this pilot and what Edison is doing
with their electrification pilot?
-: There is.
Yeah, because one difference is that the pilot,
the sacral of the pilot will not just will not be exclusive
to electrication measures.
They can include them.
But the Edison pilot will be exclusively electrification.
And we want to make sure that if the utilities want
to include electrication measures
in their SOC proposal pilot,
that it does not necessarily conflict
with other electrification efforts, but the focus
will be on just deeper energy savings companies.
-: Right, right.
Well, another possible deliverable
on the SAE electrification pilot
could be net energy metering reform
because as we go across the state,
we kind of do the math, low-income communities
are paying the brunt of other households
that are much more well-heeled
that can afford rooftop solar.
So, our strategic sort of vision
and connection with utility rates are going up.
That means an increased burden to low-income households.
So what we can do to kind of even the scale
probably makes some sense
with the SCE electrification pilot.
So clearly looking at what the integration would be
with that particular application with low income
to help reduce, like you said,
obviously we're going to get energy savings.
We're clearly going to get deliverables
in terms of greenhouse gas reduction,
but also we're going to see a significant reduction
in energy burden to these households.
So I would think that that's the element of it
that excites me to see how they see that done,
because there was a piece of legislation this year
that was going to deal with any and reform.
It did not make it out of the assembly.
So like I said, I think the ball falls back to us
in terms of taking the necessary steps.
It seems like this electrification pilot might be one
where we can get some meaningful, short of data
in terms of what could be done with low-income households
that simply cannot afford photovoltaic on the routes.
The other issue that I have is
what question rather, clean energy homes pilot,
is that also an all-inclusive pilot
as opposed to the ESA test pilot?
Or are, is there a distinction there?
-: Yeah, I guess the difference is,
the ESA stock proposal pilot, the goal is
to try and achieve up to 50% savings per household
and looking at whatever combination of measures
can help that also produce the energy,
the clean energy homes pilot that Edison is running is only
for new construction affordable housing.
And so I think we'll have a similar focus
and being comprehensive for that household, but I think
what is actually delivered to that home may be different
because it is new construction and should already be up
to code for many of the shell and building upgrades.
-: Yeah, apologize, that was in the 562-page decision.
For some reason, it just escaped my mind,
given those distinctions.
And the last thing I wanted to bring up was
the integration, enhance the integration
with workforce development in our program.
One of the things that was mentioned during the comments
in connection with the passing of the proceeding,
I know that Cliff had mentioned was very,
very emphatic about the need to kind of address
the wage issues within our program.
And so it kind of sent a shock up my spine
because frankly right now,
given the fact that utilities drill down pretty good.
I mean, as they should, as administrators,
the financial bandwidth, as it exists today,
doesn't really provide us enough latitude.
However, if we can build skill sets,
if we can definitely through the program
and enhance measures in activities consistent
with these pilots and other activities,
clearly that presents an opportunity
to go into disadvantaged communities,
provide this training and certification.
So then the employee can work for the ESA program.
Can then basically go out with a very robust energy industry
and seek meaningful employment
if not eventually own their own business,
their contracting license.
And so one of the things that also kind of sent
a little mini shock up my spine was
the California Workforce Development Board.
I mean, I'm on the Board of Directors of (speaks Spanish).
We work with that Statewide entity all the time,
but one of the things that we constantly struggle
with is their reach and their production
within some of these disadvantaged communities
that we serve.
So one of the things that I think about
in terms of helping that issue is
the utilities have training centers.
They're very sophisticated sort of structures.
They work with contractors that employ
and could possibly pull,
employ additional workers within disadvantaged communities
and really kind of tightening that up and expanding it
where we can in terms of who we're already working with
to maybe get a bigger bite towards workforce
and wages and skill sets.
Those are some of the things that I was thinking about.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Robert.
Commissioner, I think I saw your hands up also.
Yes, I think thanks.
Thanks, yeah Robert.
This is something that Commissioner Rick Shelton
and I are keenly interested in, the decision
that the sets the platform for doing exactly
what you just described.
Okay, now we've got to make it happen,
but beyond that are looking at
what else can we do going forward as a Commission
in terms of wages and what have you that,
or fold through the IOUs to the ESA contractors
and what have you in is something
that we are interested in looking at.
There's always that legal authority thing,
which is very important, but suffice to say,
hopefully we have the platform to repeat,
to both have platform to do exactly what you said.
Thank you for pointing out the bandwidth,
the Labor and Workforce Development Agencies,
Workforce Development Board so much is needed,
and that's something we've got to pay attention to,
and then going forward,
is there anything else that we can do in terms of wages?
So thank you, thank you for your comments.
Back to you, Kakil.
-: So did other board members have questions or comments
on this section before you'll continue?
-: Right, I just had two quick, oh, sorry.
Go ahead, Maria.
-: Sure, yeah.
I was just gonna ask
if you might say a few words about
the Whole Building Multi-Family Programs
that were approved in the decision,
and I'm also, I realized those are going
to be launched later on,
but curious also about how we might incorporate updates
on that and to LIOB agendas moving forward.
So I'm thinking about like the Northern
and Southern multifamily whole building programs.
-: Yeah, so the multi-variable building program,
and there was some iteration on those programs
in the appendix of the presentation as well.
And there wasn't much change with the proposed decisions.
I didn't include an update here,
but there are a couple of things.
One is that these programs are scheduled
to start January 1st, no later, or Jennifer's 2023.
And the utilities will all provide updates
on the contracting process and kind of an update
on the program design towards the end of 2022.
So about a year from now.
And one way that the public will have the chance
to weigh in early, at least the ease of working group
through that is those meetings are going
to start no later than January of 2022.
So about six months from now.
And they can start earlier and we've had some discussions
with the IOUs as to when we can start developing
the framework for that working group.
And so that will be an opportunity to discuss
the multi-family whole building program,
the multifamily programs in general,
including the ongoing in unit and miss a camper,
a common area measure programs.
And also, I think it'll be possible
to also provide updates to the Low-Income Oversight Board
through these quarterly energy division updates
on the status of that.
Although I think that some of that will occur.
It'll take some,
there's a longer timeline for that multiple chemicals.
-: Thanks so much.
And just to clarify, is that those conversations
will happen as part of the overall ESA working group,
or will a separate working group established?
-: So the decision has two working groups,
one for the studies and one for overall.
And I think the way that we,
the decision tried to have it was to have separate
sub-committees or it's kind of sub working groups
within the main working group to discuss, for example,
multifamily wanting to discuss
the universal application system, one on cost-effectiveness.
So however many are needed to make sure
that all the issues are addressed.
-: Great, thanks so much.
-: I had two quick questions that are more clarification,
but before I just wanted to recognize
and welcome Board Member Medina
who joined us a little while ago.
Good morning, Laura, it's great to see you,
and then could be like,
if you're giving, if I missed it,
but I just had two questions.
One was, is there an opportunity
for an LIOB member equally qualified the way
the decision lays it out to join the ESA working group?
And, well, that's, the second question is kind of unrelated.
So I should probably pause there.
-: Yeah, we haven't had any discussions about that yet,
but I think that's that we want to look into in terms of
being able to facilitate that and make sure
that it complies with the decision.
-: Okay, excellent.
And then the news on the pilot is really exciting and I
noted the 12/31 deadline for the program designs.
And I was wondering,
the board usually has a meeting in December.
Would it be possible to incorporate
into the energy division or IOU presentations
just whatever framework is available at that time
so that the board could hear it
and see it, and provide comments.
-: Yeah, I think that the timing is,
in terms of the December board meeting,
will be an opportunity and that the utilities
may be kind of finalizing their designs
based on the workshops.
I think workshop is probably the best opportunity
and we may not, energy division may not know exactly
what is being proposed until we receive the advice letters.
But yeah, I think we can try and work
on incorporating some of that
into the December presentation.
-: Okay, that'd be great.
That's exciting news and work,
and excited to say the rollout.
So appreciate it.
Any other questions or comments from members of the board?
Okay, and Bill, please continue.
-: Thank you, so you can see the next slide
is on the small municipal,
small and multi-jurisdictional utility proceeding schedule.
So this is kind of a parallel process to what occurs
for the large IOUs, the four large IOUs,
but this is for the six SMJ use,
which are small multi-jurisdictional of these
and they're located throughout the state
from the North to the Northern side of the Eastern borders.
Those six utilities are Alpine Bear Valley Electric,
Liberty Pacific, or Southwest Gas and West Coast Gas.
So combination of electric and gas utilities as well.
So they submitted their applications
for their ESA Medicare programs in May of 2020.
So a few months kind of behind or lagging
the larger IOU proceeding comments were,
or testimony was received by two of the parties
in this proceeding is a council
and which is a contractor advocacy group,
as well as public advocate's office, Cal PA.
That was an earlier this year
with opening our applied briefs filed
by the same two parties, as well as
the six small SM&G use.
And we expect a decision on this proceeding
sometime in Q3 of 2021.
And so the information for the application
in terms of being on the service list,
as well as looking at the DACA card is available,
320 to 332, to provide information for those
who are tracking this proceeding,
or would like to find out more information about it.
And as you probably have figured, Commissioner Shiroma,
is the assigned Commissioner for this proceeding.
-: Oops, I'm sorry.
I could feel, I didn't catch that, what's the last?
-: Oh, sorry.
Just pointing out that you were the assigned Commissioner
for this proceeding as well.
-: Yes, okay, thank you.
We've got to make sure that the smaller energy utilities
have have some good programs, too.
Okay, thank you.
All right, thank you.
-: Oh, Mr. Chair, is this the end of the presentation
could peel or?
-: More sections I'm pulling?
-: Oh yeah, because I had a question for Kakil,
but if he's going to continue,
please allow me to let him do that.
-: Okay, I'll go to the next slide,
which is on the update on the low-income needs assessment.
And just to recap here,
the low-income needs assessment is done kind of
on a three-year cycle.
The last study for 2019 was completed at the end of 2019.
And so 2020 activities focused on the scope of the study,
as well as putting out an RFP and selecting
an implementer for this project.
The update here focuses on the draft research plan that
the research team and the contractor developed that was
presented at the leanest subcommittee meeting on March 5th
and based on feedback from the board,
as well as from public,
those were incorporated into the final research plan,
as well as a detailed response to comments
on the Energy Division public document area website
on April 9th, 2021.
So that's the recent activity, and the next slide, please.
The current activity is,
and this is based some of the feedback that was received
at that meeting,
as well as through some of the comments is that
the contractor is interviewing ESA contractors and community
based organizations to provide information on the renter
and landlord surveys.
That will be a part of the research plan
and part of the data collection phase,
both to understand how to get information
from the participants of the survey
that will primarily focus on low-income renters,
as well as how to reach non-English speaking households
more effectively for future studies,
where there will be a requirement to make sure
that the surveys are done in languages
in addition to English, starting in 2025, as well as 2028.
So the current activities focused on developing
those tools that will be used to collect data
for this current Lena, as well as inform,
and to help out with feature Lena studies too.
So that that data collection will occur through June, 2022.
And the draft report will be presented to the,
at the lav public meeting in October, 2022,
so that the research and data collection phase
will continue on for awhile.
And we hope to have a lot of good information to report out.
-: Excellent.
-: Okay, and then the next slide just shows activities
that have occurred previously, as well as
what will occur in for the rest of 2021,
as well as when these reports are planned
to be ready and reported out in 2022.
So that's it on the LINA,
any questions from the board before
the next sub presentation?
-: Sure then, so the data collection and analysis
for the quarter, fourth quarter or 2021,
would that be when the survey samples
will be available or they when?
-: I believe those should be available and out
for the survey participants sometime in Q3.
So I believe that kind of the pre-phase
is going on currently, and then the actual phases
of finalizing the survey and collecting that data,
we'll start in by around Q3.
-: Okay, I'd like to mark it on here.
So that way I remember about it.
Thank you.
-: Any other questions or comments with respect
to the LINA from members of the board?
Okay, you can move on to the next section.
-: All right, thank you.
Next slide.
The final part of this presentation focuses
on the potential and goal study.
And just to back up a little bit,
we provided an update at the December 2020 board meeting
on the potential gold study
that was occurring at the time.
I think at that time,
they were also in the analysis phase
and full results had not been available yet.
And I'll get to what that looks like in a second,
but just wanted to review what the potential goal study is.
It's primarily used for the market rate programs
are the main energy efficiency goal setting process.
The potential studies is completed over a multi-year period,
and then the results of that studies are used to set goals
for kind of the non ESA programs for efficiency,
for variety of sectors, residential, commercial, industrial,
agricultural for the investor-owned utilities
throughout California.
And just to recap how the central goal study is developed,
there's different components to potential,
and this is referring to energy savings, potential,
both electric and gas.
You have technical potential, economic potential,
and achievable potential.
And one way to think about this is,
if you look at your home,
maybe they're about 10 or so light bulbs
that you have that are CFLs or incandescents
that are inefficient compared to the current technology.
If you replaced all of them right away to LEDs,
then that would be kind of your technical potential.
But people don't typically do that
because LEDs, you have to go to the hardware store
and you have to spend a lot of money
on those lights initially, so when the lights burn out,
economic potential looks at what is cost effective.
So comparing the cost of buying that led versus the benefits
we receive over when you install it and then achieve
a little potential is kind of the way that people
and companies of need in doing energy efficiency work.
So they don't typically replace everything at once,
but they do it over time based on how much money they have
available, or how much capital they have available.
And so if the potential is replacing every ball at once,
then achievable potential is replacing one at a time,
maybe one every year based on when it burns out.
And so a more realistic look at what types of savings
for electric and gas are out there.
And so when you look at that light bulb example
and we're, or the study,
you're multiplying this across all the different end uses
in your household appliances, HVAC, insulation,
weatherization, and then multiplying that across all
the 10 to 15 million households across California,
as well as for the commercial sector
and other sectors as well.
So it's a very, very complicated and complex undertaking,
but one that is very useful in order to determine
where funding should be allocated
to achieve energy-savings potential
across the utilities and across the state.
Next slide please.
So the objective of the 2021 Low-Income Potential Study,
which was completed in, is in draft form right now,
was to develop a forecast for these two categories,
technical and achievable potential,
but not the economic potential,
just because that's based on cost effectiveness.
And he says, not had a cost-effectiveness requirement
or the current programs.
Another objective was to improve upon previous results
that looked at the low-income sector
and the energy savings potential,
but didn't necessarily translate those
to actual goals for the program.
So the studies were completed for low-income previously,
but one of the,
in terms of the third bullet is to try and use those results
to inform what the goals are trying to better understand
what the potential is for the ESA program
based on this type of rigorous analysis
that it incorporates data from throughout the state,
as well as historical data.
Next slide.
This slide provides a little bit more detail
on how the 2021 study differed from previous studies.
Previous studies looked at more historical data,
as well as budgets and the 2019 study relied more
on information from the mean E proceeding
or the market rate programs.
But the 2021 study tried to look at ESA specifically
in terms of the measure list,
looking at historical adoption rates
or some of these measures and measured categories
to come up with a better approximation of
what could be achieved or the low-income sector,
and also looking at of that number
that is technical potential,
and trying to translate that to what could actually
be achieved over the longer term,
not trying to achieve all that.
A few things that were not in scope for that
for the 2021 study was economic potential.
Based on the fact that you said does not have
a cost-effectiveness requirement,
fuel substitution measures or electrification measures
was also not considered,
which adds a kind of a more complexity to the model
in terms of looking beyond, the study only looked
at replacing like for like measures.
So replacing a inefficient cast furnace
with a more efficient gas furnace,
but did not look at replacing it with a heat pump,
for example, Capela.
-: Kakil, could I ask a quick clarifying question?
Sorry to interrupt.
So for the 2021 study for the technical potential were
the only measures that were explored were ones
that are already approved for the ESA program.
Is that right?
-: There were some measures that,
so it included current measures that are part of
the program, as well as other measures proposed
by the in their applications from 2019,
as well as other measures that were discussed
through the south proposal pilot.
So I tried to look at not only was it
in the program currently,
but what could be installed for low-income households
going forward.
-: Thanks.
-: Another part that is not in scope
is demand response measures since demand response
has not been required or a part of the ESA program
for low-income customers.
And then also new construction built a building is
what was not included as well.
Okay, next slide.
And so the results of that study are available
on the CPUC website.
There is the result available in a variety of ways,
looking at, by end use five different scenarios
in terms of technical potential, achievable potential,
a few different scenarios for achievable potential
since that really depends on what customers are willing
to adopt, as well as what the budgets are
for the programs and what the utilities
can achieve year-to-year.
So, and there's both a report for the low-income sector
as well as more detailed analysis.
So the low-income report is,
it's kind of a good place to start
to familiarize yourself with how the study was done,
as well as detailed data to really get
into some of the more complex issues.
And, as I said, one of the purposes of this 2021 study
was to help inform future efforts
and the next P & G study, this is done every two years.
We'll likely start sometime in 2022
and be available for completion in 2023,
which will help potentially set or help inform goals
for not only the main three programs,
but also the ESA program as part of that mid-cycle update
that will, or mid-cycle report and update
that will occur later in 2023.
And so we want to make sure that the board,
as well as other parties of the stakeholders
are aware of
the process for this and including workshops, discussions
that will occur over the next two years to help design
the study as well as present results and provide feedback.
And so that's what I have presented
on the jungle study so far,
the remainder of the presentation has additional slides,
the ESA program,
and proceeding in decision relating
to some of the more detailed tables.
So please take a look at that as well.
If you want more detail on what was approved
in the final decision.
-: And you built, we'll start with questions
or comments from members of the board.
And then I know there's a couple of public comments
in queue, but we'll start with the board,
if any board members have questions
or comments on this section.
Oh, and yep.
-: Okay.
Yeah, I think that this helps me certainly,
and it might help the other board members, once the decision
ESA, CARE, FERA was approved, sake of argument, 10 days ago,
the utilities were ordered to provide an advice letter
no later than 90 days subsequent to that approval, correct?
Kakil?
-: Or the compliance filing for the measures and treatments.
-: Yes, well, their activities, their programs, their,
what they plan to do consistent with the decision.
-: Yes.
-: That's an advice,
now this is where I get a little confused.
Do you get a tier one advice letter and the tier two?
So these advice letters as filed by the utilities consistent
with what we just talked about is that a tier one advice
letter, or tier two?
The compliance filing to align the treatments, the measure,
and the customer segments that
will be treated will be a tier two.
-: Tier two, so does the tier two allow for,
let's say stakeholder feedback
and the process that we typically go through
when it comes to, again,
people pining on what the utilities have proposed?
Is that going to be open through a tier two process?
-: Yes, the utilities will submit the advice letters,
and then parties will have 20 days to provide comments
or protests to that advice letter, if, and they can,
in those protests,
they can recommend changes or ideas that they have on what
they want to see different from what the utilities proposed.
-: Okay, great, thank you, that's good news.
Because as my understanding that tier one,
a letter doesn't allow for that sort of participation
is strictly submitted from the utilities
to the energy division for a thumbs up or a thumbs down,
is that correct on the tier one?
-: Tier one also allows for protests and comments,
but there are some differences in terms of what is allowed
through a tier one to tier two is considered
a little more, has more significant, I guess,
interest or more policy considerations
and the effective date as well.
-: Okay, and again, I'm thinking (crosstalk).
-: I just want to add if thank you.
And I would suggest that the Alison hear from CPUC,
that if you know stakeholders know
that they're potentially going to protest an advice letter,
what that does is it delays significantly
when energy division will be able to move forward
with approving the advice letter in these programs,
ultimately, getting designed and carrying forward.
And so my suggestion would add as a stakeholder would be
that you inform the utilities upfront,
what your view or how somehow engage
with the utilities upfront before they put
that advice letter submitted into us.
-: Say, your thoughts are exactly mine.
What we don't want as a protest.
What we don't mind is to stop the system,
but where we can work in an inclusive
and transparent manner.
I mean, we should do so to come forward
with the appropriate sort of ultimate outcome,
but having said that, and again,
it's an opportunity for the board
to kind of look through perhaps a subcommittee process.
And I know that the chairman and I had discussed this
and he'll bring in more detail it later,
but we thought that would help that outcome if perhaps
the utilities would provide presentations
to the subcommittee of this board as to
what would be some of the broad strokes
on their advice letters.
I think that that would help.
That's a suggestion that I would have.
The other issue is just one of clarification, Kakil,
because I know this was brought to your attention
and it was brought to mine,
we have this bifurcation in 2021 with the bridge,
we have the first year of funding that was established
through the 2020 sort of lens.
And then the Commission wisely put in force
the bridge funding stability based on that same lens
for the balance of 2021.
So the reality is,
is that for some contractors and maybe, Pat,
you could apply it on this because I don't know
if my understanding is complete,
but there are a couple of issues that,
that we want to seek to try to avoid.
I think we can do that based on clarification
that would not stop or slow or encumber the process.
One is for funds, and I'm reading from notes here,
funds for work completed invoice,
and yet not paid in the first half of 2021.
Those monies when they are paid,
should come out of the first half of the 2021 budget.
In other words, we shouldn't take those outstanding invoices
and bill them against the back half of 2021 bridge funding.
Does that make sense?
So in essence,
the overall contractual agreement is not reduced based
on monies that had to be carried over
because frankly work was completed in June.
It's built in June.
Most contractors are on a 30 net 10.
They don't get paid till July.
So without clarification,
the money's in my view should come from the June
or the first half of the 2021 contract
and not so much out of the 2022.
And then the second half is that for work not completed.
In other words,
you could start work depending on the job
and the liberty of materials.
My understanding is getting very,
very competitive and tough out there,
or it might extend a contractor, stay on a particular house
or houses with the same needs.
So in other words, even though the contract,
the contractor works started in the beginning of
the first initial bridge year,
the work would not be completed until
the second half of the bridge.
So again, it's another billing issue.
It's another accounts receivable issue
where I think that what we don't want to see is, again,
funds kind of coming out of the program simply
because we have this bifurcated fiscal year.
Does that make sense?
Where, perhaps the Energy Division
can provide some clarification to the utilities?
-: Yeah, we've had some discussions with the utilities
on that specific issue,
just because of the separate budgets
and when work is completed and invoiced, and paid.
And so we're looking to get some clarification
from the utility doesn't how do you plan to treat that
and to make sure that it's fair for
the contractor is, and for the budget for the (mumbles).
-: And more importantly, the employees, because I think that,
again, if a contractor is envisioning
at a reduction for the balance of 2021,
they have to adjust their payroll and you know what,
we know what that means.
That's not a good thing.
So the whole idea through 2021 is to stabilize,
is to keep it copacetic.
So again, we don't take a step back, so again, thank you.
Thank you very much, those are my comments and questions.
-: Thank you, Robert, going, I think we had
a couple of public comments if I'm not mistaken?
Woman: Hi, yes, we've received some via the WebEx chat.
And I also just want to let a member of the public know
that they could use the raise hand feature at this time
if they'd like to comment on if they're on the phone
to press star three.
I forgot to mention that earlier,
but I did have one question for the presenter.
Will the LINA seek to determine
if Soma and MF CAM landlords, sorry, lost my place.
Will LINA seek to determine if Soma and NF CAM landlords
had helped get their tenants into ESA?
-: Yes.
The surveys will interview landlords and find out
what programs are, have led to those referrals
or what programs they participated in.
I'm not sure if Soma will be asked specifically,
but it could be an option for survey respondents
to provide whether they have,
were referred from Soma or have interest in Soma.
So I'd say for ESA CAM, the answer is yes for some not,
not clear yet.
-: Okay, thanks Neil.
Next public comment.
-: Then there was a comment that states, as I recall,
the potential workshop clearly stated that they did not
fully apply program rules in determining their analysis,
which means any potential savings are overstated.
So I think that is just a comment.
And the next comment slash question,
this refers to actual assistance beyond a referral
to the East administrator.
What percentage of tenants were treated compared
to appear to other rental properties?
-: Yes, I believe that this information,
if it's relating to the lien
and I believe it will be a part of the,
it will be available through the survey data.
-: Okay, thank you.
And then Jillian, you mentioned there was one person
with their hand raised.
-: No, sorry.
I was just pointed it out as an option
or to use a star three for those on the English call-in
and star one with the Spanish call-in,
but I don't see anyone with their hand raised.
I don't know if the host is able to see if anyone
on this phone has their hand raised.
I think that would show up in a purchase
as a bolt to the participant candle as well.
No hands raised.
Okay. -: I understand.
Well, we can go to break early,
but are there any other questions or comments from members
of the board?
Okay, we'll move on to the break,
which means we will come back at 10:40 AM.
What you thought a little more than 15 minutes.
See you all soon.
Bronco.
(indistinct chatter)
-: So Chair, do you want me to introduce Jessica
for this next item?
-: Yeah, I think that'd be great.
And it looks like we have quorum, so whenever you're ready,
let's get started.
-: Okay, all right.
Okay, welcome back everyone.
I have the privilege of introducing our next presentation.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks on May 20th,
the CPUC adopted another landmark decision,
this on energy efficiency, it addressed,
and this addresses several policy issues that involved
reforming the energy efficiency portfolios currently
administered by the four large investor-owned utilities.
So I'm pleased to introduce Jessica Alison,
who will provide information about those policy changes.
Jessica is a Senior Regulatory Analyst
from the Energy Division.
I particularly wanted this presentation
from Jessica for the LIOB, because
I think there are synergies to be garnered,
to share information between the programs,
particularly ESA and energy efficiency.
Also in the energy efficiency proceeding,
there was interest to have ESA contractors become part
of the advisory group, which is referred to as CAEECC.
That's an acronym.
Jessica will tell us what that acronym stands for.
It is a very,
it's an egalitarian group insofar as interested folks
who want to join that group
simply apply the group decides
in terms of joining in the decision,
we encouraged ESA contractors to apply and for the CAEECC
to include ESA contractors.
Now, anyways, with that, Jessica,
thank you for taking the time to present to the LIOB.
The microphone is yours, thank you.
-: Thank you, thank you for the introduction, Commissioner.
That was, that was helpful for everybody.
So as the Commissioner mentioned,
I'm going to be discussing the goals and policy track
modification to the energy efficiency portfolio process,
which was set by decision 21-05-0-31.
Next slide please.
So this is just a quick overview of
what we're going to be discussing today.
The decision included many important topics,
but for the purposes of time,
we're going to be focusing mostly on three with our
primary focus on the total system benefit metric,
which is our new energy efficiency gold metric.
And then also the port portfolio segmentation process.
And we're going to be touching a little bit
on the portfolio structure and approval process,
but only at a very high level.
So before we get started on the total system benefit metric,
I just want to quickly note that this new structure includes
a four-year funding application with an eight-year strategic
business plan portion included in that application
and then a mid cycle refresh in the second year,
just to realign the programs with the goals,
the new goals decision.
So with that next slide, please,
and we'll discuss the new total system benefit metric.
And then one more.
So the total system benefit metric as stated in the decision
is an expression in dollar terms of the life cycle,
energy capacity and GHG benefits of an energy efficiency
resource expressed on an annual basis.
So what this means is that instead of having the three
energy efficiency goal metrics,
which is the gigawatts megawatts and firms, we'll be
transitioning in 2024 to a single metric
for the EE portfolios,
which is the total system benefit metric,
which is actually a dollar expression.
So rather than saying 100 megawatts,
we're talking about like a million or $1,000.
So it will be an a dollar increment.
And the total system benefit is the monetary avoided costs,
which are calculated by our cost effectiveness calculator.
And then this the same calculator is used
across the EE proceedings.
So the avoided cost calculator is a universal tool
for Energy Division, with the cost effectiveness tool,
being specific to the energy efficiency group.
The total system benefit output will come from the potential
and goals study, which is
a longstanding study that Kakil discussed
in his presentation that has actually outfitted
this metric for many years now.
So even though it's a new goals metric,
it has been around in the energy efficiency world
for a while, and we can pull that output straight
from the potential and goals study.
So the energy forecast, the kilowatt, kilowatt hours,
and therms will still be reported and transmitted to the CDC
as they've done historically.
So we'll still be able to take a look
at how much actual energy we're saving,
but the goal is metric will be in this dollar value.
So we have a new metric,
but we're not losing track of our old goals.
Next slide please.
So this wasn't a change that we came to lightly.
The rationale that's presented in the decision
for why we transitioned from these energy savings
to a dollar value is that when the portfolios were optimized
to meet the kilowatt hour, kilowatt, and therm goals,
those were focused on energy savings,
but the actual value of those energy savings
in the dollars they delivered to the grid vary wildly,
depending on the time of day the energy was saved.
So for example,
I think as most of us know a unit of energy that's saved
during the peak period of like 6:00 PM, for example,
will deliver a greater dollar benefit to the grid
than a unit of energy that was saved in the middle of
the day when we're relying mostly on solar
and that dollar value while being important
from a monetary perspective,
also can translate to the greater environmental benefit.
So we're saving more GHGs in the evening,
during the peak period than we are
when we're using our primary solar resource
during the middle of the day.
So by transitioning to this dollar framework,
we're really targeting these high value savings
that both save, hopefully the energy grid money,
and also produced environmental benefits
for all of California.
Another key rationale for this was that the state policy is
increasingly focused on a GHG reduction goal.
So rather than thinking about just saving kilowatts in any
hour, state policy is really focused on these GHG reductions
because those have important ramifications just
for our environmental future.
So this goal was not, the GHG reduction target wasn't
previously reflected in energy efficiency goals.
So by targeting the kilowatt hour,
we weren't actually focused on the GHG.
And that's not to say that in our existing policies,
we didn't focus on GHG reductions
in other ways, like for example,
the GHG value was baked
into our cost effectiveness calculations,
but now by transitioning to this new total system benefit
metric, it will be more of
a forefront of both the cost effectiveness
and then also our goals target.
And then a third benefit to this is while kilowatt hour,
kilowatt, and therm was fuels specific,
the total system benefit metric is actually fuel agnostic.
And what this means is that we can set goals easier,
both for the utilities that have dual fields,
so that offer electricity and natural gas.
And then those that just offer natural gas.
And one of the reasons this is important is that when you're
looking at fuel substitution activities that swap on used
with one fuel for an end use with another fuel,
rather than having to use any kind of conversion factor,
just to value that and set goals for the utility
that's making the switch, we're able to just count that
as just a total system benefit metrics.
So for example, if Southern California Edison
was to install a heat pump in place of a gas furnace,
you could just set their goal for that
using TSB rather than converting
the natural gas saved into a unit that they're able
to take credit for, which is in, is electricity.
That's a little bit complicated, but just
the key point here is that this is fuel agnostic,
which facilitates fuels substitution.
Next slide, please.
And then the next portion we're going to be discussing is
the portfolio structure.
And before we go into what the changes
to this portfolio structure are,
I just want to focus on what the challenges were with the
portfolio structure going into the, before the decision.
And then this is kind of an important level setting for why
the change was made.
So as we all know,
the energy efficiency portfolios serve many objectives,
but the savings from the resource programs or the programs
that are delivered energy efficiency savings previously
needed to justify all of the costs of
the entire energy efficiency portfolio.
So what that meant is that the energy savings
from the high intensity savings program needed
to basically cover all the costs of
the non resource programs or the programs
that are important,
but don't deliver energy efficiency savings
in order to be cost-effective.
So that was kind of the balancing act
that had to occur previously.
And then the programs which served important equity
and market support functions applied downward pressure
on the overall portfolio cost effectiveness.
So that means that because they weren't delivering
as many energy savings,
they dragged down the cost effectiveness,
and this in the past, was able to be balanced out
by highly cost-effective programs,
such as the lighting that delivered a great amount
of energy savings at a pretty low cost.
But a lot of those programs have been included in code now
and are no longer available for the energy efficiency
portfolio administrators to use to support their
cost-effectiveness.
So therefore, we were in a dilemma
where the program administrators needed
to maintain the cost effective portfolios while still trying
to deliver a balanced portfolio that met all of these other
important equity and market support functions.
So that was the challenge we were facing
going into the decision.
Next slide, please.
And this table just shows the difference
between the status quo, so where we were
and then where we moved to.
So in the past,
all of the programs were assessed costs or sorry,
assessed collectively.
So there was one total resource cost ratio
for the entire portfolio.
And in that paradigm,
all the program benefits needed to outweigh
the program costs at a ratio of one in the past,
and then 1.25 going forward.
So that was a pretty high ratio for the full portfolio.
And then the adopted change is that rather than doing one
collective assessment,
we're going to be segmenting the programs based
on their primary purpose.
And there'll be three buckets.
There'll be the resource acquisition bucket,
which is just your kind of
classic energy efficiency programs
that really have a primary focus of saving energy.
And then there's the market support programs,
which have a little bit different function than all the fine
on the next slide.
And then the equity programs,
which are focused primarily on customer equity,
and the resource acquisition programs,
the benefits must have a one-to-one ratio to the costs,
which means they have to be cost-effective at a TRC of one
while the market support
and equity program budgets must not exceed 30%.
So rather than having a cost-effectiveness ratio
for these buckets where there's just a budget cap.
In addition to the quantitative metrics,
which we'll discuss a little bit later that are still
in development through the CAEECC working groups,
and just an important exception to this budget cap is that
the 30% cap on the market support and equity bucket is not
applicable to the wrens, and that's because they
have a little bit different goal setting process,
and they also just have a different mandate so that they
serve a large portion of equity customers,
and that that's a big function of their portfolios.
So the 30% budget cap might not have been
as appropriate for them.
So the CEECC, which is
the California Energy Efficiency Coordinating Committee,
working groups will develop
a quantitative assessment metrics.
And that process will be discussed
at the full committee meeting,
which is scheduled for June 24th.
And I've included a link to the CEECC website for those that
are interested in taking a look at that.
Next slide, please.
So these are the segment definitions for the three parts of,
the three parts of the portfolio and the program
administrators are directed the segment,
their portfolios based on the program's primary purpose.
So this isn't to say that these three buckets are mutually
exclusive or anything like that.
It's just that we're asking the program administrators
to focus on what the main purpose of these programs are,
even if there is some overlap.
And then the primary resource acquisition programs are
programs with a primary purpose of an a short-term ability
to deliver cost effective avoided costs benefits
to the electricity and natural gas system.
And for this purpose,
the short term means for the duration of the site,
the life cycle of the applications.
So it's not to say they're one year,
it's like four years or eight years.
The market support their programs with a primary objective
of supporting the long-term success of the energy efficiency
markets by educating customers, training contractors,
building government partnerships,
or moving beneficial technologies
towards greater cost effectiveness.
So these programs are designed to just focus on
supporting the energy efficiency market rather than
delivering energy efficiency savings right away.
And then the equity definition,
our programs with a primary purpose of providing energy
efficiency to hard to reach or underserved customers
and disadvantaged communities and advancement of the
Commission's environmental and social justice action plan,
and then improving access to energy efficiency for ESJ
communities may provide corollary benefits,
such as increased comfort and safety,
improved indoor air quality and more affordable utility bill
is consistent with goals two, , and five
of the ESJ action plan.
And just to quickly summarize
what that ESJ action plan goals are.
So the first one is consistently integrate utility equity
and access considerations throughout the proceedings.
The second one is increased investment in clean energy
resource for the ESJ communities,
just to kind of summarize the actual language is available
on the Commission website.
And then the fiscal is just enhanced outreach and public
participation opportunities for these ESJ communities.
Next slide please.
So this slide does a deeper dive
into the equity program specifically,
just because that might not be of interest
to the Low-Income Oversight Board.
So the actual definitions and the criteria
for these programs are still under development,
but just as an example,
so we can kind of get a sense of
what this type of program might be,
I went into the PG&E's implementation plans and pulled
out a possible example of what an equity program might be.
That's not to say that this real program that's listed here
will be classified as an equity program,
but it's something that I thought might be a good example
to at least consider.
So the program criteria for equity programs are distinct
from the energy savings assistant program,
and that's discussed in the decision and we're not trying
to necessarily have an overlap of these programs,
even though there are similarities,
the budgets will remain separate and the ESA will continue
to do its important work without being absorbed into equity
or anything like that.
And the equity program criteria is it will include the
distinction between the equity and ESA programs to be
further explored in the CEECC working group.
So an example,
possible example of a potential equity program might
be PG&E's direct install for manufactured and mobile homes.
This program historically has a rather low TRC of 0.37.
And in an implementation plan,
you see that it has a focus on serving moderate income
residential customers.
So these are our customers who may be on a fixed income or a
moderate income that may not qualify for the ESA program,
but while they're focused
on targeting moderate income customers,
they're also delivering measurable energy efficiency,
direct savings to the grid.
So they still want to procure
those energy efficiency savings.
And on top of those considerations,
they're also targeting non-English speaking customers.
So these customers may be a little harder
to reach due to the language differences,
and that may account for higher program costs,
which could lead to the lower TRC.
So this is currently defined as a resource program,
but because it serves hard to reach middle income customers,
it suggests that equity may be a primary focus of including
it in the portfolio rather than just
the avoided cost benefits.
Next slide, please.
So the segmentation or the timeline for segmenting
the portfolios is listed here, in June of 2021,
CAEECC will meet to discuss the segmentation criteria that's
happening on the 24th, and they will propose more granule,
granular segment definitions and criteria.
And this is a opportunity for stakeholders to take a look at
the first possible program segmentation criteria,
then coming in September of 2021,
we'll see inform informational segmentation for the 2022
and 2023 ABALS.
So that means that for the annual budget advice letters
for those years, we will see segmentation in the portfolios,
but that segmentation may not be
the final segmentation policies.
It won't be a criteria for approval of the ABALs,
which means that energy efficiency staff won't go through
all of those segmentation
and just see if we agree with it.
It's really just an opportunity
for the program administrators
to do their first segmentation plan.
And there won't be a segment.
There won't be an assessment of reasonableness
at this point,
just because those definitions are still being hammered out,
but then come February of 2022,
the PAs will propose segmentation strategies
for their 2024 applications.
So in this is the place where the reasonable is,
and this will be assessed in the application process.
And the program administrators are encouraged to work with
the CAEECC working group,
especially in instances where they're not sure what program
should be classified as.
So if there's doubt as to the objectives of the program,
they're especially encouraged to work with CAEECC,
and then a CPUC decision will approve
the final segmentation scenarios.
So this will be a chance for everyone to weigh in
and take a look at those, next slide, please.
And that wraps up the bulk of my presentation.
I have the three main topics here just as a summary,
and I'd be happy to take any questions that you have
on the presentation or the decision generally.
-: Thank you, Jessica.
That was very good presentation
and actually quite an education.
I didn't know a lot of that material they went through.
I thought Board Member Castenada, do you have a question?
-: Yeah, just one question.
The cost benefit, excuse me, I'm watching my nephew here.
My brother's kid, so right.
Cost-effectiveness at 1.0 for act for this program,
as opposed to the decision on ESA that's 0.07 or 0.7.
So how do you see that kind of working?
I mean, is that important to both
the cost effectiveness with either programmatic effort
be the same, or let's say because yours has a provision
for equity for missing some of the low income.
The other thing I love that by the way,
to be defined by your group,
I think the Commissioner's comments about adding use of
contractors is going to help this effort tremendously.
Many of these folks have been with this program
for over 20 years and they get it soup to nuts,
much more than I do.
But the other issue is with the, equity and the expansion,
because you had brought up a sort of a model
with PG&E and mobiles,
and I think you're 100% percent correct,
if I heard it correctly, that is they might not necessarily
be eligible for ESA by every practical standard
in California,
they're low-income given cost of counseling.
And that's why they are where they are in that type
of housing stock, number one and B,
where they're typically located.
So they would be eligible.
So there's kind of almost in my view,
an expansion of eligibility with your program that
may not meet the traditional 200% federal poverty guideline
at ESA, but would definitely address the needs
of low-income people based on the dynamics of your program.
So again, I guess where I'm falling
is this sort of cost-effectiveness differential.
Can you speak to that for a sec?
-: Sure, so, I mean,
I think the first piece of the cost-effectiveness
this differential is that because the 1.0 is applying
just to the resource acquisition programs,
it's not really touching this equity bucket.
So essentially the equity category
for the normal just main rate programs
doesn't have a cost-effectiveness minimum,
as long as it's included under that cap,
it's okay if the programs aren't cost-effective.
So I think they're pretty separate in that sense
that we want our programs that are really focused
on just savings to be cost-effectiveness
because there aren't any barriers
that should prevent that, but for the equity programs,
there's a little bit more flexibility there.
So, I mean, I think it maybe makes sense for ESA
to set the cost effectiveness
where it's appropriate for those programs
without maybe direct consideration of
what the cost effectiveness score is
for the like rate programs,
just the general EE, I hope that helps.
And then, yeah.
Yeah, that's I think that's the main,
was there a second part of your question?
-: Well, no, I think you answered it with your explanation,
which is through your program approach,
you created sort of latitude, right, through the equity
provision to address some of the concerns that maybe I had.
So I think it's a perfect, it's just the perfect solution.
Thank you for this.
-: Great, no problem.
-: And Robert and everybody,
I simply amplify that under an ESA.
It's qualified in the length.
Qualified we've grappled with the attribute of that
and with the new CARE/ESA/FERA decision.
And we're looking at the noodle,
the whole house treatment results of the wildfire zone
and in the health, safety, and comfort
in terms of hardening a house.
And the energy efficiency program,
you could have a renter who's low-income
that low-income renting a group of customers
that can be targeted for the energy efficiency.
And it is a big deal to go from cost effectiveness
across the board to these three fins of activities.
And that's why we're the IOU.
There is this cap of 30% for the Rens,
which are the local governments on, there's no
eventual cap on that particular bend of activity.
So now hopefully we help fill in the gap here
on reducing and boiling on a day like today.
And there's a flush from five to 10:00 PM.
Oh, okay.
These efforts become more and more important.
I'll stop there, back to you a chair and Jessica's okay.
-: I think Jessica, and then board members,
Kimberly Medina and very popular presentation.
-: Yeah, no, thank you, Jessica.
It was very enlightening and helpful.
I just had a quick question around
the, what you had mentioned about a program being distinct,
a distinct, sorry, figuring out if a program falls
under the equity or the resource acquisition buckets.
Did I hear correctly that a program needs to be an either
or that the program can't sit in both
and are those the details that are going
to be worked out in the CAEECC working sessions?
-: So I think the distinction will be worked out further
in CAEECC and just how to sort that out,
but because the funding streams are different
for like the general energy efficiency
versus ESA, ESA has its own specific budget.
My understanding is that if a program is inequity and funded
through this just regular energy efficiency budget,
it won't also be an ESA program.
So I think that they are separate in that sense.
I mean, in terms of how they're implemented,
CAEECC will work out like practically speaking
from a customer perspective, how that works,
but from a funding and approval perspective,
they will be separate, yes.
-: Well, just to clarify, sorry.
I meant using the PG&E example that you provided,
that program would need to make a decision,
whether it falls within the resource acquisition
or equity right within this.
-: I believe so, yes.
-: It can't be in both.
-: That's correct.
-: All right, thank you.
-: Board Member Wembley.
-: Right.
Jessica, that was a great presentation.
And my question kind of ties
to what Bob had asked earlier regarding,
I know that I'm clear that the,
but the equity programs don't have
this cost effectiveness standard,
but they're guided by this budget control,
which is 30% in the PG&E's example,
I mean, what is the scale of what budget
and just trying to get an idea of scale
in terms of what that 30% would equate to.
-: I'm trying to remember what the overall P&E budget was.
And I honestly, I don't remember exactly off
the top of my head, but for example,
so say if the PG&E budget was $700 million,
the equity and market support budget combined would be 30%
of that and determining, oh,
so actually Alison just messaged me.
And she said that it would be about 150 million annually
for the combined, yeah.
-: Okay, thank you.
-: Thank you, Alison, by the way.
-: Vice-Chair Dennis.
-: Thank you for this presentation.
And this is a welcome change to the,
how the efficiency portfolio is governed.
So really appreciate all the work that went into this.
My question is, well, I have two questions.
One is for the equity portion of the efficiency program,
will health and safety be considered eligible
for some of the funding for those programs?
I'm just thinking about like the barriers report
from that was published several years ago,
saying that health and safety issues in housing
is one of the key barriers to implementing
efficiency measures.
So just curious about that.
-: So I think the details are actually,
did I hear Alison jump in there?
No, okay.
I think the details of that still are in development.
So I don't want to say definitively one way or another,
but if you look at the decision,
the definition for equity does
include like corollary benefits
such as like indoor air quality, comfort, and safety.
So my understanding is that those types
of considerations are on the table for the equity programs.
Exactly how that will look though,
I believe is still being worked out.
-: Great, and then I think that just answered
my second question,
but just in case I was curious how equity is being defined
or if there were going to be any more guidance on yeah.
What makes up an equity program like whether it's like
geographic or demographic or other elements?
-: Yeah, so the, does the definition that I presented
on a previous slide is what was included
in this most recent decision, but there is,
there will be more granularity about like
what an equity program that looks like, including like,
if it's specifically disadvantaged or how that works.
And we are,
the decision has left the initial segmentation
to the program administrators and CAEECC.
So I think the process will be that they'll look at what
those programs are and then they'll create guidance,
switch the decision, coming out for
the application approvals will further approve
or alter as needed, but they're going
to take the first pass at it.
And then more granularity is coming, I believe.
-: Thanks so much.
-: No problem.
-: Board Member Medina,
I think you had a question pulled up.
-: A question?
I'm excited you guys are excited that it looks like
it's a good presentation.
You're not, I don't understand nothing.
So going by the slides going,
these are the questions I came up with, after
I think that we have this opportunity to share with public
and not all the public has the office jargon practice.
And you guys talking about all of this stuff.
So I'm like, I'm afraid that I'm upset that I'm lost.
So on your one that says rationale of change,
I wrote down, will these, the kilowatts and all that,
but would this also equate to solar value cells
to income to other states?
I just heard an NPR report that when we were in last year,
the rollout blackouts will affect things.
We didn't have enough energy here to give out
'cause we were selling it to another state.
Does this factor into that?
-: So the solar program does use the avoided cost calculator
to do their assessments.
So it's related in that we use similar assessment structures
and then the avoided costs of an energy efficiency program
does include generation costs,
which in the hours where solar is active,
that it would be factored into the avoided cost calculator.
It's a little bit complicated just how that happens.
But the awarded house calculator process does include like
an assessment of how the energy in that hour is generated.
So whether it's solar or if it's like a geothermal
or like a terroir, like a turbine,
all those things are considered in valuing the energy,
if that makes sense?
-: Okay.
-: And the other question I wrote down about the budgets,
so how in layman's term as possible, as simple as possible,
how does this impact or benefit our customers,
our CARE constituents and CARE and FERA
and baseline, medical baseline,
or even customers who are on solar panels,
paying them, how does this,
or is this just like how you guys do math in the bank?
What is this I'm lost?
Like I said, please clarity.
-: So I think it does have a direct impact on the customers.
And I think I'll pass it over to Alison in a second,
just because she may have a really good perspective,
but I mean, one of the main benefits
that I see towards this is that we're essentially reserving
a part of the budget for these equity activities
that might have otherwise just gotten absorbed
by the cost effectiveness requirements.
So as it became harder and harder
to develop cost-effective portfolios,
we were going to, in my opinion,
start seeing a greater shift
towards really high value savings programs,
which equity programs don't always have.
So it's basically protecting that portion of the budget.
And I think that that really will benefit customers,
but I think I'm going to pass it to Alison too,
just to see if she has an additional thought on that.
Alison, I think you may be muted.
-: Can you hear me now?
-: Alison you're muted.
-: Yeah, here you go.
-: Thank you for the question Loris.
I wanted to just add CARE and FERA customers
in particular since they're income- eligible for ESA,
then primarily, hopefully signed up
and being served by the energy savings assistance,
energy efficiency program.
The impact though, that the work here
in budget here that Jessica just described is perhaps that,
there's more service or more emphasis
towards those middle-income customers,
which could end up having an impact as far
as more market players,
more knowledge built of your neighbors,
maybe you're income qualified, but your neighbor is not,
but they got this gadget and learned through
the process of having gone through
the middle-income program in the EE space
that, oh, have they been income eligible,
then there would have been a different program eligible.
So just getting the word out
and having more market players potentially serving
that middle space could end up carrying over
to helping and building awareness of CARE customers
that are actually eligible for ESA
and having them participate more in ESA.
-: Okay, I appreciate that and we'll find out
and I get it more now because thinking
to how this would be advertised right now,
unfortunately through the internet, through social media,
a lot of advertising goes out
to get those middle-income customers
to benefit from instead of,
so I was just wondering how this is going
to translate to those contractors and those people
who understand there's a no to reach out.
So it's very important because unfortunately,
this is one thing we can regulate
what kind of business you open.
It's a lot of businesses when they see an opportunity like
this, it opens itself up to sometimes scams.
-: Okay, thank you, Board Member Medina,
the Pop Walks has her hand up and then will unfortunately,
have to move to the next item after that.
But please go ahead.
-: Thank you Benito, so first of all,
I really appreciate this system change and the direction
that we're going with this effort here,
but what I'm more appreciative is the invitation
for contractors to participate at the CAEECC level.
I think it's really important and the contractors have very
valuable input to the development of programs.
So I'm really here to encourage any contractors that are
attending this meeting today to take this opportunity
to have your voice here by getting involved with the CAEECC.
I think that's a great opportunity to get the contractors
more involved.
-: I agree, thank you.
Yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing the results of that.
-: Okay, great.
Well, Jessica, thank you again for a great presentation.
Obviously keep everybody's interest.
So we really appreciate your time this morning.
And thank you Commissioner Shiroma for setting this up.
This is very informative.
We're gonna move on to item seven,
which is CPUC standing reports.
I believe the first is the legislative update.
I know OJ is a little stretched given the time of year
and aren't able to make it, so I was unclear.
Jillian, is this just a time for any questions or comments
from members of the board
or is there assigned staff person for this one?
-: For this item,
it's just a bill update slide, which is in the slide deck.
Just for comment or questions from board members.
We will note those.
It can follow up at a later time.
-: Any comments I suppose,
for members of the board on the legislative bill update?
I'll note that all three bills here
seem to be sailing so far.
So you're in support of them.
That's good news.
All right, we will move on then
to Kevin at the Water Division.
Whenever he's up, there you are, sorry,
every time somebody new comes on to WebEx,
all of the slides shuffle,
I don't know if that happens for other people.
So it's hard to keep track of who's here,
but whenever you're ready, please go ahead.
-: Okay, thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
I'm Kevin Truong from Water Division and I will be providing
updates on the water utilities.
Next slide, please.
We'll go over the latest cap enrollment and bill
arrearages, discuss the water utilities, transition plans,
and last but not least,
I'm going to talk about the jobs there are currently facing.
Next slide, please.
The number of customers and cap saw a significant increase
in the month of April with over 270,000 participants
now enrolled.
This is a change from the past several months,
which have participation covering around 250,000 compared to
the beginning of the pandemic in March of last year,
enrollment has increased 22.7% consistent with the jumps
in participation seen in May and August, 2020.
The big jump in April was due to the completion of the most
recent data exchange between energy and water utilities.
Next slide, please.
Looking at water bill arrearages, the total arrearage amount
as of March, 2021 was $62.1 million of which 11.7 million
or 18.9% are from customers.
And we'll then cap the percentage of cap customers behind
on their bills compared to all customers which include
residential and non-residential is 26.7%.
I put two charts on this slide.
The blue graph shows the number of cap customers
in arrearage in the past six months.
And orange graph shows the average amount owed by
those cap customers.
So based on these graphs,
my original takeaway was the number of cat customers behind
on their bills is trending downward.
While the average amount owed is trending outward.
However, the Water Division just put together numbers
for April and the other day.
And while the average amount owed continues
to increase the number of cat customers
in your weird is also increased in April.
So it's now at 62,000.
So the trend is no longer increasing, next slide, please.
Transitioning to transition plans.
Another thing that happened after I submitted these slides
was the Governor releasing a new executive order last week,
which extended the disconnection moratorium
to September 30th.
So that's the big date.
That means the standard pre pandemic procedures
on disconnections will resume on October 1st,
the R use we'll also begin re-certifying customers
and will be capped, spending that after that date,
as part of the transition plans that are usable notify
customers of the upcoming disconnection policy resumption,
and we'll focus on hard reach and disadvantaged communities,
they will also increase their data exchange
from biannual to quarterly.
If not this year, then by next year,
we'll continue to offer alternative payment plans
to help with those behind on their bills and customers
under such plans will not be disconnected.
Regarding arrearage management program
or a debt forgiveness, no IOU has currently proposed
to implement a program, debt forgiveness may be considered
in the water affordability proceeding.
Next slide, please.
Okay, last slide.
The drought.
So the are in the next California drop, unfortunately,
as you can see on this really red map of California,
which shows how much rain and snow has happened or has not
happened since October, the Governor declared drought
emergencies in April and May, 441 out of the 58 counties
though, I wouldn't be surprised if more counties are added.
There is currently no mandatory conservation yet,
but the chances of that happening again,
like in 2015, 2016, only increases if high dry weeks
like this week continue.
The Commission recently sent out a letter to all water.
I use large and small to remind them to plan and prepare for
a dry conditions and encourage actions to reduce water usage
that I use are starting to follow their schedule 14.1
to promote voluntary conservation.
And that will also enable them to enforce mandatory
conservation, if and when that is declared.
I've shared links on this slide for those that want to learn
more about the job and how to better conserve water usage.
And that concludes my presentation, thank you.
-: Okay, thank you, Kevin.
I had a quick question and then
I saw a hand up from one member.
I see Board Member Medina also, but it might be premature,
but I know there was a press release a while ago about the
new federal low-income water assistance program.
I was just curious that in addition to all the great
measures the state is taking, if there's any updates yet,
otherwise we just ask whenever the time is appropriate.
It'd be great to hear about that as well.
-: Yeah, currently,
I guess we're not sure how those funds will be disbursed
at this moment, but once we know more about it,
I'll definitely update that report.
-: Sounds good.
Board Member Medina.
-: Well, a few where the center values
and the really scary stuff,
the drought and what's going on,
the moratorium will affect,
especially during the summer and October families burly
and start going back to work field work
if there's any and due to the drought.
So in my experience, the last drought,
one of the biggest crisis was that the communities
that had to get water to their well system,
they had to dig deeper and it was more costly to dig deeper
because they have to go through different sediments
and it takes a driller's different skills.
So that is a huge cost for any family or farmer,
or families that live in farmland,
and that having to do that for themselves,
'cause they're usually their tenants were farmers owned,
don't supply any help there,
but then also the cost of pumping the sort of water
from during a drought is also a factor
that we have to start looking at.
And I don't know if there's any way
through this program or through this apartment.
When we start seeing how we could or create some sort of
an axillary water dispense, cost or service,
like the water trucks and all that municipalities
usually can't do this and there's still customers
and children out there who need this service.
So I don't know if somehow we could start looking at that
because looking at this red map, it's really scary,
but central valley because of the agricultural needs,
there's still a lot of homes who are subpar,
where unfortunately not energy efficient homes
that all serve multi-families and are of low income.
So this could be a consideration or I don't know
where you guys want to put this, but it is a regular for me.
Thank you.
-: Board member Wembley, Casteneda, and then one other,
why is your hand still up from last time or, Jason,
whenever you're ready?
-: Sure, Benito to your question regarding
the Federal Water Assistance Program,
I'm not sure if you're aware or the rest
of the board is aware about CSD is the designated agency
to administer those water funds.
-: What does the ATC acronym stand for?
-: Oh, so the acronym for this program is
the Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program,
LIHWAP, it's a it's contained
in the Governor's May revision.
There was a placeholder in there
for the receipt of these dollars.
At that time, we didn't know whether our allocation share
was going to be, but we do know
that now it's roughly $116.4 million.
-: So the Community Services Department, you are,
your state agency has been designated as the agency
to distribute those funds for the water customers
who are in arrearage.
-: Yes, so yes, exactly.
So the appropriation language for this program is that
the dollars can be used to provide financial assistance
for water services and water treatment services.
So we are still working with
the federal U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
to obtain a final guidance.
This is a new program,
so they are working diligently to try to define
the parameters and the requirements for the program.
And we do know that there will be a model
or a state plan that will be released shortly.
And then once it's released,
we have 45 days to submit that application
to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
And that basically serves as the prerequisite
to receiving funds.
The guidance--
-: And Jason, sorry, let's pick it because of Lordis's
comments about what does all mean to people
who aren't familiar with the nomenclature and so forth?
This program is for both the regulated water districts
that Viet Kevin was talking about,
plus also the municipally owned water utilities,
the publicly owned water municipalities,,
you didn't seek houses and so forth and so on for both.
So all the more the Governor pushing the moratorium
to September 30th gives time for you.
-: Yes.
-: You write all this out and everyone else as well.
Yeah, okay, back to you, Jason.
-: No problem.
And so we do have some discretion as a state to decide
on how best to implement these dollars
since they are limited in terms of the scale of need
and the population size in California,
there could be some benefits to maybe using these dollars
to address arrearages, since arrearages is kind of
a friend-centered topic on both the energy and water side,
but you know the particulars on that,
it hasn't been finalized,
but just wanted to update that kind of
that's where things are at.
And the next critical step would be obtaining
the state plan, taking a look at it,
getting a better understanding of the requirements.
And then from there, we can figure out as a department,
how we want to proceed.
Also just wanted to also touch on that
in the Governor's may revised budget.
There was also a billion dollars that was proposed
to address water arrearages in the state.
So that's another form of financial relief
that might be available as well.
It's going through the budget process as we speak.
And Kevin, I do have a follow-up question for you.
So in 2014, during the last drought emergency,
the Governor's Office had convened a Drought Task Force,
and I know the CPUC regularly attended those meetings
as well as CSD and others that state departments.
Do we know from some of the things that were done during,
in response to that last drought emergency,
are there some things that you feel that the Commission
could start to kind of re-look at
and apply for this response,
for this drought that we're currently experiencing?
-: Yeah, so there were definitely, I guess,
lessons learned from the last drought, I guess,
one of the, I guess, speak to one of the things
the Commission did directly was
the schedule 14 point ones that I mentioned,
each utility came up with their ways
of having customers conserve water.
And I've been tracking water usage
since the drought, 2014, and overall Statewide since 2015,
water usage has decreased by 15% and among the,
our use only that that conservation was 20%.
So we're, I guess there's hope
that the measures put in place in the last drought
will help during this trial.
And maybe we can try to tinker the ways that are gonna
improve the waves when the last drought.
Right.
It sounds like we're going to probably have to do that
as a state, this given the severity of this current drought,
yeah.
-: Thank you.
-: Okay, Board Member Casteneda,
I believe you had a question.
-: Yeah.
-: Maybe Jeff can also help with this,
during the last drought,
we had a very timely piece of legislation by,
I believe Senator Dodd that also included
a Statewide low-income rate assessment, low income,
it's a LIRA, I think it's a rate assessment.
In other words,
it functions somewhat like CARE and there were serious
discussion about how that would be administered
and how it works.
And the utilities, both public and private,
we're looking at our care program in terms of
an administrative model.
So I guess my question is,
is that legislation or that effort
still being worked or have we kind of backed away
from many low-income rate assistance with water?
-: Yeah, yeah.
You're referring to AB 401,
the Statewide low-income program.
The State Water Board, I think, released their,
I guess their draft proposal last year, sometime last year.
And I guess I'm not sure I can follow up with that,
but I'm not sure if there has been any happening
since they submitted their report to the legislation.
And I guess that's where it stands right now.
Yeah, so yeah.
-: I can.
Yeah, I think at this point,
I don't know if you guys can hear me.
I think at this point it's really in the hands of
the individual legislators to develop bills around this,
to push forward aspects.
But of course the big issue is,
is that the funding piece of it.
So that that's the challenge,
but with respect to the drought,
there are the drought is becoming much more severe
as time goes on.
But parts of the state that do not have like the coast,
the central coast parts of the states, Sonoma County,
places like that, have already implemented some measures.
But I think there's some concern
that the Southern part of the state has made
a lot of investment.
And so the reservoirs in Southern California are
in better shape, but typically I think where
the state has gone is to take a much more of
a state approach to drought restrictions.
So I think we will likely see some more movement on that.
-: Yeah, I think that my limited experience
in connection with this two years ago,
because I was kind of drafted to go into a sort of a,
I wouldn't call it a workshop as much broader than that,
but a sort of a session to discuss the TATA legislation
as well as the low-income rate assistance program
and how that would work and so on and so forth.
And one of the things that I've learned is that,
and again, I think it's important for this for this board
to kind of know they had owned already
that the utility Commission only regulates 14%
of all actual water utilities, the rest are municipals.
And that means that their own little fiefdoms
and believe me, there are a lot of them.
So I mean to develop consensus Statewide, I mean, it's,
and again, I'm a layman, I don't really know,
but I would say it's practically mission impossible,
and it's certainly not going to be quick.
So again, I just hope that the legislation stays alive.
I think we need to have all stakeholders at the table.
I think that the last time we heard from the California,
what is it?
The California Water Board, Jeff, is that it,
the one that was doing the draft letter,
but we haven't heard from them from a wall for a while.
I think it would be good just to maybe at the next board
meeting, possibly Mr. Chair, if he can kind of update
where everybody's at with this.
Because I think the last time that we seriously took the
look at it because without legislation two years ago,
and I know that through the Commission,
we created what we call was an energy water nexus that
allowed us to do additional water conservation measures
through our ESA program.
So maybe some sort of update on that might help
and connection with what contribution possibly we can make.
-: Yeah, absolutely.
We can look into contacting the Water Board and see if the
next meeting, I think Jason and Commissioner,
and then we should call on Maria.
And then we can move on.
-: I just wanted to Jeff, this is probably more for you.
I thought there was, let's say bill SB 222,
that was sponsored by Dodd,
that was also going through the process.
So let's say process,
but it was aimed at establishing those very programs
that Bob was just speaking to.
Have you been tracking that piece of legislation?
Kevin?
-: Yeah, I'd have to circle back on that one.
-: There's a statement or a question on the chat.
I don't know if (mumbles).
-: We can go to that, but I think the Commissioner
and then Vice-Chair Stamis are next.
-: Just simply saying yes, indeed.
You share indicated that we can follow up
to let you invite state Water Resources
Control Board, a representative to come and talk
to the LIOB on what is latest.
And it's at the next meeting and meet maybe in between maybe
at one of the technical committee meetings as well.
-: Okay, some time shift.
-: Vice Chair, Stanis?
-: Okay, great.
But the caveat that I'm not as well-versed on the water side
of things, just a question about in light of Jason's news,
about funding from the state for water arrearages,
I'm just curious about the timeline of when the Water
Utility Moratoria or like disconnections timeline expires
and when the funding's available and how that is,
or isn't aligned, and if there's anything to do there?
-: Do you want to answer that Kevin or do you wan to have me?
-: Yeah, I think Kevin stated that the Governor's extended
the moratorium to September 30,
there was also a proposed decision that came out two days
ago and the LIRA proceeding sort of directing
the utilities in terms of how they would take
the arrearage balances, how they would apply federal
and state dollars when they are available
and how they would address that.
So I don't know if I answered your question, Maria,
but that that's kind of the time, that's the timeline,
as I know.
-: That's helpful.
And I don't know if you have
any sense of like administratively,
how long it will take to process
all this funding that comes through.
And if that will align with the September 30th or date,
or if everyone's kind of playing it by ear
to see that makes sense.
-: Yeah, and I think Jason touched on it a little bit.
Yeah, the CSD, they will be the ones responsible
for dispersing, those distributing those funds.
And yeah, just to follow up Jason, on your question,
SB 222, I will provide, I'll look into
and provide more updates for the next meeting.
-: Sounds great, and then I think there was one question
from public comment that Lauren is touch on, which was good.
CSD, the CPUC and DWR work with counties
to regulate well drilling
and or over pumping and areas where low-income customers are
at risk of losing access to water supply.
I'll preface by saying that the CPUC's jurisdiction,
it is over the regulated water utilities
such as Jeff's company.
And as Robert indicated, it's,
I think maybe it's around 16% now,
16% of the water customers in California receive their water
from a regulated water district.
And in that arena certainly be a Kevin
and the Water Division, the CPUC, we regulate.
And in terms of the water availability,
the sources of water, the environment impacts and so forth.
So for those 16% approximate being customers,
we have that jurisdiction, where the other 85%,
84% that is from the publicly-owned entities
and the umbrella and the umbrella agency
for all is the state Water Resources Control Board.
Now Commissioner and myself are,
need the Commissioners to coordinate with
the State Water Resources Control Board.
And we will share concern with our counterparts
at the state Water Resources Control Board.
I'll stop there.
And if Jeff or Kevin, Kevin, or anyone else
wants to weigh in, I want to push the microphone over.
-: I just say that the state passed several years back
legislation regarding groundwater Sigma legislation.
So there are actions in place now
to prevent over-pumping of basins that are not adjudicated.
So I think that that is one issue.
As far as what the state Water Board is doing
on some of these issues,
maybe that's something we could talk about
when they're here,
but I think as Commissioner Shiroma said,
the state Water Board has,
I don't know how to say this, probably the vast reach
of water regulation in the state, so...
-: Okay, great.
Probably gonna have to call time so we can move
on to the next item ahead of lunch.
Kevin, thank you again for the presentation
and also to Jason for the update on the federal program.
That sounds pretty exciting.
And hopefully Kevin, we'll see you again with somebody
from maybe the Water Board at a committee or board.
And with that,
we're going to move on from the last piece of item seven,
which is the presentation on changes and is Robby here?
I think I saw him a little while ago.
Jillian is you need to be promoted the panel.
-: Eventually, Chairman Delgado Olsen,
t's Ravi here and I'm ready
to give the presentation.
-: Okay, please proceed whenever you're ready.
-: Okay, thank you.
Just wanted to say, first of all, thank you,
Chairman Delgado Olsen and to members of the board
for accommodating the changes update.
My name is Ravi Manget.
I work within the consumer affairs branch in the News and
Outreach Office and in the CPUC,
which is the group that manages the changes program,
which is the program that provides support to limiting
English customers with their energy services.
There is also a sister program called team, which is a,
which is focused on Telco, but there are,
27 currently funded CBRs that provide programs on the ground
with a lead contractor being self-help for the elderly and
casing all of the contractors there on the line, as well.
Overall, I wanted to move,
we'll be providing a quick update on the program and we'll
be moving forward fairly quickly through this slide deck.
I know you guys are, I've been on for a few hours now
and want to make sure that we provide the information
as efficiently as possible.
And that would allow also a good amount of time
for conversation with the contractors and with,
and so if we could ask that their questions are held
to the end, that would probably appreciate it.
Before I go into the main slide deck,
quick overview on funding, the CARE proceeding was,
as you all know, is, was voted out on June 3rd.
It for, in terms of changes,
it approved the changes at the current funding amount,
through the full cycle.
There's a proposal for funding to move to the GRC.
The ALG rejected that proposal and decided that there was a,
the CARE was a more stable vehicle.
And also the concerns about the changes
not addressing low-income was rejected
by the ALJ because the evidence was felt
to be sufficient that the program
does address low-income customers,
therefore making care and appropriate vehicle.
Also a we had made a proposal to increase
and expand the evaluations, and increased funding.
So that was approved also.
So there'll be some evaluations starting
within 12 months of the program.
And that's really it at an overall programmatic level,
funding level.
The evaluation will look actually very interesting,
but it'll look at the future of the program
and how it is being administered
and answer questions such as size
and funding source and these sort of issues.
So that'd be exciting.
And a public workshop will be set up
when that is in place.
Okay, I'll live into the next slide, please.
Overall, despite the impact of the pandemic changes,
CVS continue to find ways to reach out and deliver services
to limited English customers.
They provided information and collected bills
from customers during using very innovative methods
of using COVID-relief activities,
particularly food deliveries,
a lot of receivers involved in food deliveries
and pickups, food pickups.
They also provide are involved in providing assistance
through for items such as rental nutrition
and COVID testing sites, and vaccine clinics.
So CBOs and been able to use that to piggyback off that,
to collect documents and especially bills from customers.
And in that way, they'd be able to navigate
the restrictions that are imposed
by the shelter-in-place during COVID, next slide, please.
Just look quick pictorial on
a food distribution event with some consumers
that are, have been brought their bills with them,
for CBS to look at and review, and then help them
with their bills.
Okay, next slide, please.
Changes and team has been responsive
to newly implemented programs.
Some of these are COVID-related.
The first one at the top of the eras management plan
is not COVID-related.
It's related to the disconnections proceeding 18-00-7005.
It's interesting that there's,
the CBOs have already signed up 373 people
for the amp, in terms of COVID,
there are two specific measures
there where C changes, CBS have been responsive
and provide services.
The emergency broadband benefit was enrollment began
in May, and there's already been 68 households
that are now receiving those discounts
that are federally-funded for eligible, economic
eligible households.
The CPUC resolution 488-4848,
impose a moratorium on telephone disconnections
and on accounts, which are self-start certified.
CBOs have helped 292 different consumers
with becoming certified so that they are eligible
for those, the benefits.
Okay, next slide please.
Needs and the disputes that are
a form of individual case assistance,
one of the main issues has been collecting documents
for the CBOs, but they've also, again,
they've found different ways to collect those documents.
For example, phoning customers,
consumers limiting as consumers and describing
how they can take the photo of the documents
and texting or emailing those documents,
sometimes driving to contacting a consumer
and asking them to place the documents
outside their house,
so they could go themselves to pick up from outside
and have a contact-less pickup encouraging.
As we've mentioned at COVID relief events
and encouraging consumers to bring documents
with them so they can collect them there.
Next slide, please.
They've been, Steve has been helping
because she was setting up their online accounts
and walking them through the process remotely
and helping them in that way.
Calling, just getting on the phone,
calling previous clients and trying to complete
a bill review and provide information
about COVID release policies to consumers,
so they can benefit from their information
and their technical assistance in language,
in it and culturally relevant to.
They've sent them clients address envelopes
that which has been helpful.
It can cause some delays because of the mail
and collecting and entering the documents.
Next slide, please.
Okay, as an overall, yeah, kind of snapshot here.
This is between November and May of November last year,
May of this year that needs assistance or needs assistance
is specifically where a consumer needs to support,
but it's not related to a dispute they're not in dispute
and they don't find that the value is acted incorrectly.
It's more that they have a need.
As we've seen that over this program
for many years, several years now,
LIHEAP is the emergency payment is the largest component.
We've seen this for a number of years and yeah,
looking down at those needs assistance of those five,
for them are directly related to financial assistance.
It's interesting that AMP has jumped up to the second
on that list in a fairly short time,
it's only been since February.
Disputes, gas aggregation continues to be an issue.
That's one, that's again, been there for many years.
Electricity aggregation is more of a recent area
and I'm going to get a Q and A,
I think maybe a case you might want to say
a few words about that and assistance.
Again, financial assistance applications and help with,
to joining programs is a common issue
that folks with their own dispute are also helped
with as part of an overall case management approach
to the CBOs use.
Can I have the next slide, please.
This program is aimed at outreach, education,
and case assistance.
So education has during the pandemic
as many shifted to remote online classes,
the contractor has had to convert all
of their education materials onto, into a format,
which is useful and can be easily accessible online.
So it's been a major undertaking that they've had to go
through and they've managed to do that.
And they found that going remotely has had success,
but it's, there are concerns about the,
particularly with the population that are targeted,
they can have some difficulties with the technology
and with, and also their issues around the internet
services that this, that the population has access to,
or so there are some concerns.
Other issues are attendance, from operational standpoint
is they find it hard to receive attendance signatures,
and definitely the facilitating group conversations,
which are difficult with this kind of a group,
and evaluations also been difficult.
It's really hard to evaluate a program
during the middle of a pandemic.
So I think that's been suspended for the time being.
Next slide, please.
It's not an ideal delivery method.
And as I mentioned,
low-income programs may not provide speeds
that adequately accommodate the meeting platform.
So that's been a constraint.
Many me may, many also lack computer access
to the computers that they need.
Some of these meeting platforms,
the verbal instructions are not easy to follow.
So that's been another challenge.
So overall, it, there is some concern that,
it's not, we're not reaching some of the customers
that are hard to reach and vulnerable
that the program would like to reach.
Another concern is that education can be more effective.
In-person many learners require different kinds of methods
to facilitate their learning.
For example, hands-on aids or group discussions,
or just being in that personal environment is beneficial.
Next slide, please.
Overall, looking at the education numbers,
I think it's interesting to look at, if you look at,
if you go for it to the left,
the left side of the first bar,
that's kind of the baseline that starting
in sort of end of 2019, beginning of 2020,
that's really where we were 11, in a quarterly basis,
close to 11,000 customers educated.
As you move to the right,
you'll see that there's a reduction as we go
into the pandemic that the trough was in June
to August and their struggles with educating folks online
are already shown there in that data, as we get
to September of that year
and you see the CBOs and the contractors,
the lead contractors have pivoted to try to continue
the administration of education, but,
and with some success and,
but looking at those last two bars,
you can see that we're still less than half
of what we were in end of 2019.
So they've done a great job,
but I think it's a challenging environment.
And I think that they've continued to do really well,
really well to get through and try to administer
more these classes.
So we'll see, as things open up, well,
hopefully those numbers will start to increase,
but also, we've wanted to have learnings from this program.
And I think as we all have,
we've learned from the program
and how we deliver information and services,
I think is there are some learnings,
I think during this time.
Next slide, please.
Overall outreach, again,
has been because in-person events have been mostly canceled.
The kind, the CBOs I'm trying
to piggy-bank off drive-through events,
social media has become more of
a prevalent form of outreach,
many because of the absence of the in-person events.
There are some issues with it, again,
reaching some of the hard to reach and vulnerable.
And those that don't have not technically have
don't have access to the technology
or the knowledge to use it.
So there are some concerns there, again,
we're bill fairs were a type of outreach
that those are mostly all actually all canceled,
that there were none in last period.
Media have also been compromised because access
to broadcasting facilities has been limited,
but where the broadcasts have happened, they've been,
there's been a special emphasis
on COVID related protections,
and you can see the numbers that are,
these are quite low compared
to what we've seen in other years.
So I think we're there, with that,
I'll bring the presentation
to a close and move to two Q and A,
and hear the program context, Annie, Casey, and myself.
-: Okay, thank you.
I'm a couple of questions,
but I'll open it up the members of the board first.
Okay, great, I'll make it easier for me.
So, oh, go ahead.
-: Sorry, by the time I found a little hand
where it's amazing, thank you, Robbie,
for this presentation.
And despite all the challenges,
I think that the numbers are really good
in amazing efforts going on in the community
and taking an opportunity to also do double work.
So my hats off tool of your team and changes participants,
because it really was so necessary.
And yeah, I've also seen so much efforts to,
through social media platforms, like on Facebook,
being shared and stuff like that.
So I think that was really bad and to have them
on interviews and also my hats off
to the IOUs for at least my area PG&E.
I did see a lot of efforts with correlating
with other organizations on there,
their presentations online too,
to talk about AMP and the other services.
But thank you so much, great work.
-: Thank you.
And preventative too,
is that the credit goes to Casey and Annie and their team,
and the CBO is themselves individually,
but the work that they do.
Oh, please go ahead.
-: I'll be real brief.
Connie Chung, are you on the line?
I think it's been 25 years.
I just wanted to say hello.
-: Sorry, hi, Robert.
-: How are you doing?
-: I'm good.
Good to see you.
-: Good to see you.
Very good.
Well, I just had a really brief comment.
I know we all want to get to lunch with reduced
really thank you, Ravi,
for the presentation and Casey and the whole Changes team.
One thing I noted from your presentation was a point that
noted that remote consumer education does not reach the most
vulnerable consumers.
And I just really wanted to underscore that point because
the board has spent a lot of time over the years,
talking about coordinated outreach and leveraging existing
efforts to integrate other efforts to improve overall
penetration rates, program effectiveness, et cetera.
And it seems like there's another good case in point example
here where, when it was most necessary,
things like vaccination trips and other things
for leverage is instances of opportunity
to provide other services and resources
that might be helpful for the same families.
And so I really just want to come in,
the Changes team and the CEOs that they work with
because through my gainful employment,
there's a lot of what we've been doing
the last year from the supply side of things.
And I've heard a lot about the extraordinary measures
that all of these frontline workers
who were deemed essential had been going through
with home visits for really simple things, really,
but critical if you don't have them.
And so in any case, I wanted to note one,
two, just commend the work to just that finding
about remote consumer outreach.
I, there's a reason why big, large
well-resourced corporations are moving away
from traditional TV, radio, billboard media
targeted digital coverage, because it's much more effective.
And I think it's that.
And what we learned from your presentation here, Robbie is,
are two good points of why perhaps coordinating outreach
for some of the programs that we oversee and advise
the Commission on might be worthy
of consideration of leveraging on to other things
that are systematic and already verifying the incomes
because it's the same people and the same family.
And there hasn't been a whole lot of opportunity
to really reflect on the lessons of the last year
and a half when I think that's a big one.
So that was my main comment,
but happy to open it up to any other members of the board.
So the board, Lisa had your Andrea, sorry, Lisa.
-: Hi, thank you.
I just had a question, Ravi,
about the metrics slide about the people benefiting
from the different programs.
Are those all individually counted
or are people using multiple programs
and respond, hi, Lisa,
are you asking about the education numbers?
-: No, I'm asking about the slide with the different programs
like people are benefiting from the light heat.
I think it was the two sides.
-: The most predominant issues.
So some of those may be duplicated.
So for example, if a client has a need,
maybe their bill is too high
and they can't make their payments,
they may be enrolled in HEAP,
and then added to Medical Baseline.
And of course, we'll make sure they're already on CARE.
They may also need to get an outside payment
from a church or something like that
in order to get their bill down low enough.
I'm speaking of course,
when there's not a moratorium in order
to enter into a payment plan, those kinds of things.
So those numbers may be duplicated, in our regular reports,
we'll show the exact number of people who use these services
or the exact number of cases.
And then the number of services provided in those cases.
So that chart is the number of services provided.
-: Thank you.
And then do you also break out,
like if there's new customers that you're serving
versus like repeat or different
for people entering programs?
-: One of the things that we're doing,
we were like just now finalizing some changes
to our data collection.
And so what we've we're doing is
we're breaking out each program separately.
So while you're seeing now like enrollment
in assistance programs,
those will all be broken out separately.
And then we'll ask,
is this a new enrollment or a re-certification,
but you won't see those numbers probably until September.
-: Thank you.
-: Okay.
Other questions or comments from members of the board?
Terrific, well, I think it's really important.
We all have an hour for lunch,
so we'll come back at 10 after one.
I'll see everybody then.
Thank you.
Everyone could come back.
We're going to get started.
-: Hi Benito, before you Dan, can I just make
a few announcements about the chat box?
Also, I don't know if you noticed,
but your webcam is pointing up at the ceiling.
-: All right, excellent.
I think we look like, have a quorum
and it looks like my camera, the ceiling.
I never had self view on, cause I don't like it.
So let me, there you go.
Hopefully you guys didn't see my Grateful Dead art,
but if you did, I hope you enjoyed it.
So anyway, we're going to resume.
I believe we left off on item eight,
which were recommendations pursuing to resolution 4849,
and related matters.
And I believe we have Ben Menzies returning to the board
for a presentation.
Oh, and sorry about that.
Before we get started,
I think there were a couple of really quick housekeeping
matters, sorry about that, Ben.
Jillian, would you like to address those?
-: Yes, thank you.
So hi, am I on mute?
Can people hear me?
Yeah, can you hear me?
-: We can hear you.
I think it's okay.
So we have expanded the chat feature
for meeting participants a little bit,
but we are asking that if any members of the public have
questions or comments to message to all panelists,
and I'll put this reminder in the chat box,
but not message to all that affects some of
our streaming of the meeting.
So questions or comments should go
to all panelists that would be appreciated.
And then the second is following this agenda item agenda
item nine will be the IOU report outs,
which is just question and answer.
But if there are any IOU staff that EAD panelists
capabilities and they have not received it,
please message myself or the host.
We can get you set up in advance of that,
not this agenda item, but the one following.
That's all I have,
Okay, thank you, Jillian ,
and sorry for the technical difficulties of mine once more.
With that, we'll start with item eight then
whenever you're ready, please proceed.
-: Sure thing.
Good afternoon, Chair and Members.
And thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
As mentioned, that my name is Ben Menzies.
I'm an Analyst here in Energy Division at the CPUC and our
presentation is regarding follow-up to the recommendations
made by this board in response to the emergency customer
protections transition plans filed
by utilities as required by resolution M-4849.
Responding to these recommendations has really been
a team effort across Energy Division and beyond.
So in addition to myself, I have a few other colleagues,
Janell Shu, Mia Hart,
and of course Gillian here who will also be presenting
on different recommendations.
Next slide, please.
So to level set,
these were the eight recommendations identified by LIOB in
its letter to the IOUs following review of the transition
plans, and we are going to address them one-by-one.
So here they are.
Next slide, please.
So first up is regarding extreme climate protections.
LIOB recommended adopting a seven-day or 168-hour
look ahead window for extreme temperatures,
including above 100 degrees Fahrenheit
or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit,
so that customers would not be disconnected
if temperatures were forecast to exceed these thresholds
in the next seven days.
LIOB recommended implementing this on a temporary basis for
the remainder of this calendar year and ultimately adopting
it as a permanent measure.
LIOB also recommended establishing an emergency restoration
policy to reconnect customers who have been disconnected on
a temporary basis.
So the customers could receive service during these extreme
weather events,
even if they had been disconnected previously,
although LIOB would be acknowledged that it was beyond
the scope of the transition plans.
Next slide, please.
So this recommendation was not adopted by the utilities
at this time, for context, the current rules establish
a three-day or 72-hour look ahead window
for these extreme weather events during which utilities
may not disconnect customers and using
the same temperature thresholds that LIOB recommended,
that rule was established in the disconnections
proceeding for which I'm the lead analyst.
That proceeding is R-18-0-7005.
And the rule was established first on a temporary basis
in decision 18-12-013 in 2018,
and then subsequently made permanent in decision
20-06-003, which was passed last June by the Commission.
Given that the current rule was established in that
proceeding in two separate decisions,
the disconnections proceeding is likely the most appropriate
procedural venue for modifying that rule.
So I wanted to provide an update on where things stand in
that proceeding very briefly.
Currently, that proceeding is focused on
considering a percentage of
income-based payment plan pilot program.
This would allow low-income customers
who are particularly vulnerable to disconnection,
to enroll and receive bills that are determined based
on income rather than based solely on usage.
And there are a lot of complicated issues to consider
in establishing that pilot.
So we've been soliciting input from parties and are actually
about to put out a ruling for comment that will describe
our current thinking on the proposal in a bit more detail.
And the anticipation right now is that we'll hopefully have
a decision in that phase of the proceeding regarding the
percentage of income payment plans around October.
After that decision is voted on and issued,
the current plan is to move to a phase one-A,
in the proceeding,
which will examine the applicability of the rules already
established in the proceeding to small and
multi-jurisdictional utilities who so far have not been
affected by any of the rules established in this proceeding.
However,
I did want to note that the scope of the proceeding
for phase one-A is,
does currently include quote, "Other safety issues,"
which the Commission should consider in phase one-A.
So it's not particularly, it's not specifically defined,
but that might be an avenue for considering something like
the temperature policies described in the LIOB's letter.
And then after phase one-A,
the Commission is currently planning to move to a phase two
in this proceeding,
which will include more fundamental reforms
to disconnection policies.
The relationship between rate payers and utilities,
and could include this emergency restoration policy concept
that was described by LIOB as it,
I think it would count as a fairly fundamental reform,
but that would require a modification to
the existing 72-hour rule set forth
in D20-06-003 as discussed above.
So those are the current,
that's what's in the pipeline for this proceeding now,
it's fairly packed,
but it's also been a proceeding with a lot of twists
and turns so far.
So there may be other opportunities
to consider it as part of the other items
being considered in that proceeding.
Next slide, please.
And I believe I'm going to turn it over now to Gillian.
-: Thank you, Ben.
So the LIOB's second recommendation was on increasing CARE
subsidies for the most vulnerable, increasing the subsidy
to 50% as part of AMP.
And this recommendation would be for households believed
to be at a high risk of a future disconnection.
Increasing the care subsidy would be a way to reduce their
financial burden.
Next slide, please.
In the utilities transition plan
advice letters, which they filed in response,
they noted that the CARE discount is set in both California
law and P U code section 739.1,
which sets the CARE discount rate at not less than 30 and no
more than 35% of the revenues that would have been produced
by non-CARE customers.
The utilities also noted that the CARE discount could be
addressed or would be better suited to be discussed in the
Commission's low-income qualified proceeding, A.19-11-003,
which was the utility, CARE, and ESA applications.
Next slide, please.
And from the Commission standpoint, I wanted to note too,
a previous Commission decision and a proceeding,
which looked into rate setting as well as specifically
exploring whether a increased discount or tiered CARE
discount could be adopted.
So this would be a different CARE discount rates for
different customers.
Ultimately, in that decision D.19-09-004,
the Commission declined to adopt any tiered care proposals
because increasing the discount for one subset of CARE
customers would necessarily result in reducing the CARE
discount or another subset of CARE customers.
Next slide please.
The third recommendation from the LIOB was on data sharing
between energy and water utilities regarding low-income
customers.
The LIOB recommended that the Commission instruct energy
utilities to share data, CARE data with class A and B water
utilities at intervals no less than a quarterly basis as
part of their transition plans and encourage the Commission
to pursue all avenues
to make this a permanent policy moving forward tasks
the transition period.
Next slide.
In the advice letters of the utilities filed,
they noted general support for this recommendation
to increase the frequency of data sharing,
but noted that depending on the size of water utilities
and their administrative capabilities,
that quarterly may not be feasible or practical
for all of them,
and pointed to a permanent increase
in the frequency of data sharing,
be directed to the low income water proceeding,
R.17-060-024.
And I wanted to note that there isn't a slide
because this is very new information, but on Tuesday,
there was a proposed decision released
in that low-income water proceeding,
which did include some information on increasing
the frequency of data exchanges.
So again,
not enough time to include in this presentation,
but I think there is some support for the LIOB's
recommendation in that proposed decision
and I will be sharing that with the board
after this meeting, next slide.
All right, and I will be passing it over to Mia.
-: Thanks.
So the fourth recommendation is related
to marketing and outreach,
and to quickly summarize each of the three sections,
A through C, four-A recommends utilities have separate
and distinct marketing education outreach,
or ME&O plans for targeting hard to reach customers
and then show the geographic reach for those targeted plans.
Four B recommends utilities increase their ME&O budgets
by 50% in transition plans to incorporate enhancements,
to effectively serve hard
to reach and underserved customers.
And four-C recommends utilities develop reporting mechanisms
to track expenditures and outreach for the benefits.
Next slide.
So in response to four-A through their transition plans,
I use did not accept the recommendation for distinct amino
plans for hard to reach customers.
However, in response from at least PG&E, Edison, and SDG&E,
they did note that their current outreach plans
do include hard to reach customer groups
as a target customer segment.
And on four-B, utility is noted that they did not anticipate
needing additional funds.
And they actually had that flexibility recommended for ME&O
budgets because they're able to track those expenditures in
their CTPMAs, which is the COVID-19 pandemic protections
memorandum accounts as COVID related costs.
So those CTPCMA accounts are separate from their program,
ME&O budgets, next slide.
And then born out of a discussion that we had with utilities
following their response to LIOB recommendations surrounding
the barriers to in-house Hanson immuno strategies,
and then in conjunction with this recommendation for
particularly four-C the arrears OYR,
which is rulemaking 21-02-014 directs IOUs
and energy division to create a map of CPOs in each
energy utility service area that presents the geographic
reach of each CBO,
the functions that they perform, and the communities that
they serve.
And then either in the map or in the accompany reports,
utilities will also report compensation structures
and additional detail with the types of communities served.
So at a minimum that's would be DAX ESJ,
hard to reach small businesses, tribes,
and access and functional needs groups,
but more specifically blamed is preferred.
And so the purpose of this mapping and reporting will be to
provide a structure,
to identify the gaps and identify the barriers to overcome
and to have clear insights and recommendations to improve
CBO outreach,
to more effectively reach the hard to reach
the underserved customers.
So the comment period closed earlier this week,
and we're expecting it to be voted on at the Commission
meeting on June 24th,
and then after which utilities will submit a joint reporting
template within 60 days.
And then ed energy division will work with utilities to
finalize them.
And then we'll bring it back to a future LIOB meeting
for additional refinement.
Next slide.
And I'll pass it to Jenelle.
-: Hi, can you hear me?
Thank you.
So the board recommend utilities to define success
and the proposed metrics that will track this connection as
well as customers enrolled in CARE Lockheed, et cetera.
So for five-A, the board proposed a set of metrics here,
mainly focusing on the number and the percentage of this
connections received by M customers, CARE customers.
And also the board is interested in learning about a program
with program referral from AMP to other programs.
And the board is also interested in about length of
disconnections and the earlier amount owed by customers and
for five-B the board further recommend utilities to work
together and to discuss a unified template.
Next slide, please.
So for five-B, the large IOUs
defined success as preventing disconnections
and helping customers enroll in programs
and the large IOU's will report baseline data
purchased one time figures.
That is the number of customers enrolled
in an and tough month payment plans.
They ring the protections period
from March, 2020 to June, 2021.
And also starting this and starting July this year,
the large outages use while continuing
to provide numbers for the programs.
So we can compare baseline data to the new data
and see if there's any trends.
And this reporting will last for a year
and ending June, 2022.
Next slide, please.
So here is the joint metrics proposed by the use.
They will report on a number of customers remain in AMP and
a tough month payment plans after June 30th,
and also new number of customers in the programs.
And I use were also report CARE/FERA customers
finished verifications and they will,
and they also cooperate the five,
A recommendation and will report customers removed from N,
and then received this connections six months.
Other metrics can be found in
the currently published monthly reports in this connection.
OAR, and on the other hand, smudgies
proposed different metrics, but overall,
they will provide a number of payment plans,
number of CARE customers,
and they have begun providing their data starting in April
and to Energy Division, and there's and the world lads
until counting 2022, just like the large IOUs.
Thank you, next slide.
And I believe it's Gillian next.
-: Thank you.
So the six recommendation referred to Aliso Canyon,
best practices, and the LIOB recommended
that the Commission direct the IOUs
to enhance energy savings assistance,
or ESA measures with emergency energy cost production
measures that ensure a minimum of 10% savings
to low-income rate payers as part of their transition plans.
Next slide, please.
It, in the utility transition plans,
they noted that any changes in ESA measures or budgets
should be discussed under the Commission's
income qualified proceeding.
As I referenced earlier, that's A.19-11-003.
Also current approved ESA measures to address energy savings
cannot ensure a minimum of 10 savings,
10% savings to low-income repairs as is.
Next slide.
However, the Commission will be,
did support a pilot program for the ESA program
in the most recent ESA CARE decision that will seek
to increase energy savings per household.
So, Kakil mentioned this in his earlier presentation
on the ESA CARE proceeding,
but here are some more specific details
of that pilot program.
So there will be two tracks in the pilot program.
One that will seek to achieve up
to 15% energy savings per household,
and a deep package that will aim to achieve
up to 50% energy savings per household.
The plus package, the 15% energy savings
will target households who are part
of a specific customer segments.
And then the D package will target
the neediest of households then.
The above customer segments as part of the plus package,
but also other considerations such
as high use, climate zone, et cetera.
Next slide.
A little bit more detail on that pilot program,
that they will be targeting the neediest and those with the
highest opportunity to achieve the specified percent savings
per household.
I wanted to note that the pilot workshop will be held
by October 1st, 2021.
And that workshop will introduce the utilities preliminary
implementation plans for the pilot deep and the pilot plus
measure packages and seek stakeholder feedback.
Following the workshop,
the utilities will file tier two advice letters detailing
the pilot and implementation of this pilot program
will be by quarter three of 2022.
With the timing of the pilot workshop,
I wanted to note that that could be before
the ESA working group meets and begins.
So it's highly encouraged for stakeholders to attend
the pilot workshop and provide feedback
on this specific ESA pilot program.
Next slide.
-: Great, I think this is me again.
So recommendation number seven,
involved coordination with LIHEAP, the LIOB recommended,
oh, wait, I think it was this.
Hmm.
The board recommended that the Commission direct the
utilities to establish data sharing portals or data sharing
agreements between local service providers,
CSD and utilities to target LIHEAP assistance
to at-risk customers.
And the board also recommended that the Commission direct
utilities to explore opportunities for joint enrollment
pilots to facilitate enrollment of customers in LIHEAP
CARE, medical baseline,
percentage of income payment plans,
and arrearaging management plans using
a single streamlined intake process
as part of the transition plans.
And as part of the decision 20-06-003,
which I discussed previously utilities have launched data
sharing portals with CSD and LIHEAP local service providers.
So those would be logical starting places for exploring some
of that leveraging and coordination.
In addition,
anticipate the anticipated state budget allocation
for utility arrears,
which I believe was discussed a bit earlier today
will necessitate that PUC and CSD coordination,
including for targeting funds to the highest risk customers.
And that coordination is ongoing.
In addition,
we're anticipating that phase two of the COVID arrears
proceeding, which is R.21-02-014.
We'll explore opportunities
for targeting that assistance better.
And in addition,
the percentage of income payment plan pilot that's
development is underway in the disconnections proceeding
that I discussed previously is anticipated to include dual
enrollment for customers who qualify for both arrearage
management plans and the percentage of income payment plans.
And so we can also,
that's also a logical opportunity to explore other
opportunities for leveraging those multiple programs
that customers might qualify for.
I did want to note that the different eligibility criteria
for these programs may make a single intake process
challenging, although that would also make sense
as something to explore in a pilot program, the context
to find ways to streamline those.
Next slide, please.
Next slide please.
I think that was the same one.
And then finally recommendation eight was related
to referring a Rouge management plan customers
to weatherization and other programs.
The board recommended that the Commission direct utilities
to include referrals to ESA, LIWP, and other
weatherization programs as part of the transition plans.
And also recommended that a utility,
the Commission direct utilities to work with those service
providers to con to construct enrollment best practices,
improved outreach, program eligibility,
and tailored household energy assistance
to target those investments,
enhance energy savings, and reduce energy burden.
Next slide.
So generally utilities indicated that they are supportive of
the recommendation to refer customers
to these weatherization programs where eligible and several
indicated that that is already part of the process.
PG&E specifically indicated that this referral is part of
it's a standard AMP enrollment process.
Other utilities did not identify specific barriers to
implementing this and indicated that they would explore it
further, for the second part of the recommendation,
the proposed decision in the ESA care proceeding,
which I unfortunately don't have the number off-hand,
directs the large utilities to hold a workshop
with other Low-Income Clean Energy Program administrators
that would within 120 days of the decision
to align customer eligibility for the program,
increase referrals, and enrollment across multiple programs
and increased coordination efforts.
So that workshop would be a great venue to evaluate other
opportunities for coordination across these programs
and identify ways to create that referral process
that was recommended by the board.
Next slide, please.
And that is the end of our slides.
So I think at this time we're going to open it up
for a few minutes, at least of questions.
-: Thank you, Ben
and Gillian, Alison, Jenneille, and forgot anybody.
Sorry, but thank you everyone for the thorough presentation.
Before we start taking questions,
comments from members of the board, just a quick time check.
I know there that we're already at time for the next item,
but there are a number of items this afternoon that don't
have an update for, we will probably have some time-savings.
So we'll go ahead and use that for this,
because I know everyone on the board contributed quite a bit
to feedback and input and with that,
happy to open it up to questions and comments.
Man: Mr. Chairman, sir, Porter and Castenada.
-: Yeah, I tell you, I can't remember the number,
but it had to do with the San Aliso best practices.
And I personally worked on that recommendation
in terms of its content.
So I just wanted to say at this point,
I'm fairly satisfied with exploring those sorts
of opportunities for additional energy savings
and bill reduction through the pilot.
I heard some pretty good things there,
so I just wanted to say that I think we can get there
and the pilot is a way for us to do that.
Thank you.
-: Likewise.
Well, first and foremost, just thank you to everyone again,
for all of your work on this.
I know it was quite a bit, I certainly can say
through the whole experience and the resolution,
there's a heightened appreciation
for the level of process that's involved
in all of these different policies, being crafted.
A couple of things that I did want to note specifically,
thank you to Edison for working with us
and with me on the weather and the climate issue.
One thing that came out of it that I thought was interesting
and perhaps an item for a future committee meeting was
we did do a little bit of research in terms of accuracy
and engagement with NOAA and the National Weather Service
and confirm their level of accuracy for long-term forecast,
as well as projections of how they're going to improve more
and more in terms of accuracy over time.
But it's something related that came up
that I was entirely unaware of,
is that a number of local municipalities,
as well as municipal utilities have started
to move away from a definitive hour model
and switched to a key index model
where it's what they do for heat advisories.
And they're starting to use that data to make determinations
for various public health policies,
inclusive of things relevant like disconnections.
So I'm hoping that either the meteorologists
that we were working with on the Warning Coordination Team,
or one of their colleagues in DC that helped
with the data collection can do a presentation for,
'cause I found it to be thoroughly interesting
and there's always ways to improve with utilization of data.
So that was one thing that I thought that was good,
that came out of this.
The other that I would just continue to underscore
is I certainly appreciate the level
of increased coordination that is already happening.
And particularly I saw in PG&E's final plan
that they did have a piece of referral,
which I thought was great progress,
but just to continue to bang the drum
on coordination of programming,
it's the same families in the same households.
And I know that there's pushes across other areas of
safety net and human services to integrate programs
that used to be different arms and different legs.
So that it's just a one-stop user experience for the family.
And the more we can do that
and I think it's a million baby steps,
but the more of them we can take the closer we'll get.
So just to reiterate that point and other than that,
those are all my comments and happy to,
Vice Chair Stametz's hand is raised
as well as Martez and Lisa.
So Maria, whenever you're ready.
-: The chairs' comments, and really appreciate all the work
that went into following up on all our recommendations
and providing more guidance on
the particular proceedings and updates there.
Have an overarching that kind of follows up on
the discussion around water ridges and moratoria dates.
I'm wondering, given that it looks like there's going
to be a $1 billion allocation for energy arrearages,
but that may not be ready by June 30th.
I'm just wondering if what the right vehicle would be,
or if there are any conversations about extending the date
of the June 30th utility disconnection moratoria
so that the funding can get to folks in time.
I feel like time is of the essence
in terms of potentially getting disconnected.
And if it's just a matter of months,
just wondering if that there's conversations there or what
the right proceeding would be to start that conversation,
or if there's an update that I'm just not aware
of around that.
-: I can speak to that a little bit just to say that
there are conversations taking place about that issue
because it's the money is certainly not going
to go out by June 30th.
And the proposed decision in the arrears proceeding,
r.21-02-014 does contemplate or does direct the utilities
to automatically enroll customers with arrearages
in payment plans within 60 days of the decision.
In addition, Steve St. Marie in the chat is noting that
the water moratorium was extended to September 30th
by the Governor's executive order.
So there's a lot of conversations ongoing,
and I wouldn't want to speak specifically to those
because I don't have the latest,
but it's definitely been identified as an issue.
And we're thinking through how to handle that.
-: Thanks.
-: Board Member Medina.
-: Yeah, this is an amazing format.
The way you put this over
very helpful for me, at least.
So I wish that once they get,
go from recommendations to implementation,
I would like the same kind of list.
And maybe if it could be a more useful language,
meaning like that a church could read it
and see the benefits of it, or that
a community-based organization can share in,
or just print and share with their constituents.
Because right now I know we needed like that
to speak the business language, but,
and also adding with what Board Member Samuel said with,
oh Lord, don't let me forget.
I hate this with the payment plans right now,
and with AMP and all that,
what I'm noticing with our constituency
in the central valley, that a lot of them that are,
have not been able to benefit or been able to attain
the mortgage or house, or rent payments,
because it's so tedious.
So a lot of these families who are looking for this
assistance, the housing one is the most important for them.
So I'm seeing that
if ever there was a time for us to be doing data sharing,
with programs that are helping with housing,
maybe that that's an opportunity for us to integrate this,
the information on the utility programs to help
because them housing one is really tedious
and unfortunately, a lot of homeowners
and that they would at least from my community date,
and I'm talking about
the migrant farm working monolingual community.
They've the last thing they would do is
be late on their rent.
So they borrowed this from family members
and stuff like that.
So they're actually not qualifying being able
to get that assistance paid for their mortgage
because they can't pay that to who they loan the money from.
And so they're on date with their rent,
but they're still don't have the rent for the future
because they borrowed this money
from family and other methods.
So one, I think that the application process for that,
for the water and for the utilities,
we have to see if there's someone
who could work with the cities
who are providing the housing relief.
If we could piggyback there somehow to help that person,
who's going through that to get
also the utility plus on there.
But yeah, it's really tedious.
It's very hard to help the community
because they don't have the language skills
and they don't have the procedural skills
or the paperwork, right?
Just to get from a homeowner who rents their house.
Who's also working in the fields, but they bought a home,
when they older kids were working, now,
their homeowners and their renters,
but they don't know how to help that homeowner
or that renter to get that assistance.
It's like, you guys don't even understand how,
whatever crazy Alice in Wonderland procedures
has felt for us to help families with this.
So these recommendations, like I said,
when, if you could give us a list,
once they are adopted or ready for implementation,
and then two is seeing how the data sharing can help
or piggyback on those other services
that the state is providing right now,
because the state is providing these funds
and they have more of the personnel
and the equipment to do this.
A lot of CBLs don't have a lot
of these scanning equipment stuff,
they have one printer that was made for printing.
And I had also scan it's a big hurdle.
So yeah.
Good thing that were changes reported to
that they're being innovative by taking a picture of it,
a screenshot of it.
And a lot of people know those things, but thank you.
-: Thank you, Board Member Medina,
other questions or comments from members of the board?
Board Member Wembley, Jason.
-: And this question is for the Commission,
as we are talking about these additional resources
where they're coming from the federal government
or the state to address utility arrearages,
water arrearages, et cetera,
and this going through this process
of formulating these recommendations,
going back to chair's comments about process
and how it was, I think kind of enlightening
to understand how some of the recommendations
that we offer had to navigate some of
the existing decisions or open decisions
as a natural tie-in.
But my question is like, we're again,
dealing with an emergency situation
and in emergency response, what mechanisms do we have
if we see an opportunity where these,
there are emergency dollars that we would like
to figure out how best to optimize this use
and the optimization of those dollars requires coordination
or some type of activity or assistance with a utility,
whether it be energy or water,
what's the mechanisms that we have
at our disposal to do that?
-: I'll take a first stab at that.
And Jason, by the meantime, for the CPUC staff, the team,
thank you so much for the presentation.
And it was a team that put that together,
step-by-step, that was very, very informative.
Now, okay, so, Jason,
I don't know if we have our legal counsel
on the line as well, but there have been,
a year ago when we were doing a whole bunch
of emergency things, we, depending on the action taken,
we used an executive director order
and our executive director is Rachel Peterson ,
and followed up by a vote of the board.
We also used assigned Commissioner rulings
to quickly get things done.
We also utilized industry division resolutions.
And there could be a few more things.
So we can harken back to how do we handle things
a year ago to quickly put in place various things.
Gosh, somebody needs to remind me, is it CSD
that so far as being assigned lead role
on the energy arrearages, 'cause those energy arrearages
monies that are making their way through the state budget,
the Governor has not yet signed the state budget.
That is not only for the regulated energy utilities,
is also for the municipal utilities as well.
Okay, so that's that flow through CSD
and then within those arrearages,
how does one prioritize low-income and non low-income?
Because there are lot of non low-income customers.
We've got our arrearages just as well,
but there's limited amount of money.
So, okay.
I think there are some folks who are posting
in the chat and I'll stop there
and see if the CPUC team have anything else
to add or correct to what I just said.
-: Just want to thank you, Commissioner, for the response.
That's helpful.
Okay, excellent.
Any other cause or hope, sorry, go ahead.
-: Lauren has put a question utility arrearages
of someone who's been displaced or even to, yeah.
So we don't want to lose track of such customers
and again, working with CSD,
the Commission and the utilities,
what we'll want to figure out what the priorities
and for the use of those state dollars
to defray these deaths.
-: Okay.
Any other questions or comments from members of the board?
Okay, excellent.
We will move on then to item nine,
which is the joints investor owned utilities,
status reports.
As always, instead of presenting, I use,
I have shared their slides and advanced in this period
of time is for board members to ask questions.
Jessica, is there anything else you wanted to add
before we begin on this item?
-: Yeah, thank you.
I'll just quickly mention overall,
the utilities are in a good space, program activity
has picked up from the onset of COVID,
and we're all working through our bridge funding
and we are all ramping up our implementation efforts
based on our recent decision.
And we're looking forward to the discussion today.
-: Okay, thank you.
With that, happy to open it up to questions and comments
from members of the board.
Board Member Medina and go ahead.
-: Thank you.
I have to say that I really enjoyed seeing the CARE program
slide and all it says page two here, but the,
because of my area, the 58% that we're to date
in process and seeing that we have newly enrolled,
77,000 newly enrolled customers that had never been
enrolled, it would be my question.
And if this could be something that we could look
at this number maybe a year from now this 77,664,
the, I guess if they're new or what,
what the progress was because this would maybe
reflect customers that because of the pandemia,
because of the COVID and all that they were reached out
to were able to pay attention, to get access,
to join the CARE program.
So I don't know if that's possible, that'd be great,
but it's good to see that you are all at an 110%, past
100% penetration.
So that's really exciting from when I came on,
I know like two or three years ago, and I was like,
this is not a good percent year they're giving me and it was
a fourth quarter.
So I'm excited to see that we're getting there, thank you.
-: Thanks Lordis, any other questions?
Yep.
-: Yeah.
Thank you.
You know with the new decision, we have a,
I team emphasis on FERA and in connection with,
obviously enrollment and greater levels of penetration.
And so we have some unique areas in terms of CARE
and perhaps single fuel utilities and, or a
great swath of Southern California that has a combination of
an investor-owned utility and a municipal utility.
I'm thinking about Southern California Gas, LADWP,
and then also with the gas company to a smaller degree,
they have some overlap in terms of energy services with PGD.
So having said that,
I think it makes an awful lot of sense
for us to explore with CARE outreach.
And thanks to the Commission.
The capitation was increased from 20 to $30.
I mean, that's fact, we should see some differences there,
but I think that what we can do to also help both sides of
the fence, natural gas, as well as electricity,
to see much more of a coordinated effort
with outreach contractors that would represent
not just one utility, but would conceivably
represent different utilities in combination
with both electricity and natural gas,
and especially bringing along in their tool box,
the FAIR program for potential eligibility and Walnut.
So that would be one thing that I would bring forward
that I think could almost make an immediate difference
in terms of our FAIR penetration, together
with our deeper dive in connection
with low-income households that may have a municipal utility
on the electric side and an IOU on the natural gas side.
Thank you.
-: And if I could tag onto what Robert just said on FERA Act,
the decision, well, first of all, FERA has tended to be
not highly signed up for program is as far
as I think about on average,
it's been about 20% of those folks who are left,
and less than 20% of the folks who are eligible
have been signing up.
Now during the pandemic that if I recall,
it's gone up to an approximate 27%.
We have tasked the IOUs to take that up to 50% by 2023,
it's just a couple of years away.
And so that will require a very focused
and very strong effort of Robert
to double the number of folks who are eligible
to get signed up, and the notion of coordinating
with the municipal utilities.
Well, maybe Jessica can speak to that, but we are looking
at under the energy efficiency program
to make it easier for folks to coordinate
between the and the investor owned utilities on that again,
all towards creating those synergies
that you're talking about.
So, there are efforts underway on these things.
Now, Lordis I think said you forgot one more thing,
I'll turn the mic over, thank you.
-: Can I go with somebody else?
-: You were next, sorry.
-: So on the Energy Savings Assistance Program,
I had a question looking at all this
because my family lives down.
My sister lives down in Southern California,
and I wanted to see if we could get more knowledge
or you could give me more knowledge
and how in Southern California is like near Aliso Canyon.
She, her multi-unit apartments.
Well, she lives in apartments, her utility billing
goes through her apartment owner
and how much is being charged?
I feel it's at the highest tier rate.
And she says she has no say in
that they just increased it for a bill,
like almost $100 more than what it was.
And I don't know how that works because that's kind of,
it sounds like all of the tenants
that is then I think they have,
there's only 50 units in that apartment complex
and they get billed like that.
So that's a little bit too much in
by Kirk total bill right now is like almost $214.
That's ridiculous.
So I don't know how that goes about,
and she says, why can't get CARE
because I paid through my house bill.
So I just want to know that's what we mean by multilevel.
I know we don't, but I just want to see
if we can a future get something on that.
Especially if whoever's in that region.
I don't know what the company is that.
-: With the supposition that this is Southern California,
California Edison territory, Jessica,
do you have any insights?
And beyond that, Lordis, we should connect you up
with our consumer affairs branch
who helped individual customers navigate this.
-: Yeah, actually I did have her go on the website and say,
go in there and put all your paperwork
and we'll see how that works.
So as soon as that, we get a response, bring it back.
Yeah.
-: For someone who lives in a multifamily and we charge the
utility bill through, through that multifamily and
not able to falsify for CARE?
-: Commissioner, this is Eugene from SDG&E.
We do have the customers who have a master service account,
meaning the electric bill is distributed
through the tenants.
We do offer CARE rate for those customers.
So maybe Lordis, we'll coordinate with you offline
and find out what's going on.
I'll have one of my team members search the account
and we'll go from there.
-: Thank you.
Because unfortunately,
because everything we've been going through,
it's a lot open for abuses and I was like, no,
you have three kids.
You should qualify for CARE.
I don't care if it goes through there, but thank you.
-: Happy to check the account for you, thank you.
-: I guess Lordis, one of the things
that you could do on the front end
with your sister is that, again,
with the multiple children in the household,
clearly with the federal poverty guidelines on income
that are established for CARE eligibility,
those are things that you can kind of do on the front end
to see if, again, she qualifies.
I have no way of knowing,
because I don't know what her income is.
-: Yeah, but she doesn't get a bill
from PG&E or for medicine, or nothing.
-: Right, right.
Yeah, because it's typically a single meter at the property.
And so there's some sort of algorithm or formula
that they use to come up with a bill.
And again, maybe that's something Edison
can help you with too, because if it ain't cool,
you know what I mean?
I mean, if I'm not saying this is going on,
but again, it bears looking into,
and that is contingent upon the fact
that she qualifies for CARE.
Clearly, she'll get the assistance right.
Or FERA Or if that's not the case, we have plan B,
which is to kind of look at the property owner
and seeing what they're doing,
but the billing based on single meter.
-: And that's where Jean
from our CPUC Enforcement Division,
that's where she has offered to work with Lordis
on that became this.
And I'm sure that Jessica, even will help as well.
Okay.
Since it says I've taken a mic,
I just wanted to say that to the IOUs,
thank you for the slide deck.
A lot of work goes into preparing the slide deck.
I want to emphasize to the IOUs that many of us use
the slide deck as a resource page,
where we go to this to look at the latest metrics,
the programs that you're working on,
the status reports and we routinely go
to this information.
So, while we are not asking for a presentation in detail,
many, and we are reading through it,
and many of us are using this as that resource now.
I just want to, once again, acknowledge,
and I set up before in the San Diego Gas& Electric
territory, there are just a handful of areas
that it is just hard to get folks to sign up for CARE.
And Miguel, I mean,
one could have a notion that these are areas Coronado
and so forth that are higher income areas,
but there are people living there who qualify
and the sheer number of people in growing well,
be far less than say in a more populated area,
but I appreciate all the efforts being made.
It's it looks like during the pandemic,
the numbers actually improved in those areas.
All right, I'll stop there and turn the mic
over to somebody else.
-: Thank you, Commissioner.
Other questions or comments from members of the board?
Okay, well thank you once again,
to the IOUs for their always thorough presentation,
echoing all the Commissioner's comments.
We're going to go ahead and oh,
the next item is a break in four minutes early.
So we will come back at 2:25, start five minutes early.
If that works for everyone?
-: And apologies, I will need to leave
this meeting and go to another,
but have a good rest of the afternoon, everybody.
Thank you so much.
-: Thank you, Commissioner.
-: Thank you.
-: So we're going to Zoom with the view,
revisit items that we have left on the agenda.
I know a number of individuals have hard 3:30 stops,
so we'll do our best to try to end early.
So folks could come back, turn on their screens.
That'd be great and get started.
Okay, I think we have seven.
I think that's a quorum for us to get going on a couple of
quick items so I can help with the first one,
the technical advisory committee didn't meet this last
quarter is a lot of our focus was tied to the decision and
the resolution and some of the other items we had updates
on, but I suspect there will be an update
at the next meeting.
And that brings us to item 11,
which are the subcommittee reports.
Subcommittees several times committee did meet,
including the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program
subcommittee jointly with water and climate change.
But most of them, if not all,
were tied to updates on the resolution and or the decision,
but with that,
happy to open it up to comments and input from members about
the committees or subcommittee reports.
We can go in order, I suppose,
whatever caffeinated do you have any updates for the
Low-Income Energy Assistance Programs Committee?
-: No, I think that what are the things that was happening?
We're in the final throes of looking at a PD to be affirmed
where the red line document to the voted on,
which was done some 10 days ago,
as the Commissioner mentioned with the five/zero votes.
So now we got it, now we need to work it.
So that's kind of where we're at.
There are some key changes in this that will affect this
subcommittee, I think,
as was mentioned earlier that utilities have 90 days
subsequent to the affirmation of
the decision to file a tier two advice letter.
I think it makes some sense, Mr. Chair,
because again, I think Alison Oban also made mention,
and I happen to agree completely.
Whatever we can do in advance with stakeholders
to not delay the process,
but to be as inclusive as we possibly can
with whatever comes out in the way of
a confirmed advice letter in terms of the program,
we should take advantage of perhaps opportunities to have
the utilities make a short presentation on what they're
planning to put in their advice letters,
responsive to the Commission and the decision.
And I thought that potentially we could do those
presentations through a sub committee.
-: Sounds like a good idea.
So the timing on that would likely be mid-to-late July.
-: Yes.
Okay.
I think that's in lockstep with a couple of the other items
that were being planned for that committee anyway.
So that sounds like a good idea.
And we can work on that offline, perhaps.
Did other members of that committee have any other
comments or question?
Okay.
I don't believe the LINA committee met since our last board
meeting, nor did the legislative subcommittee,
although with deadlines that may happen this quarter, Jeff,
were there any reports from the Water and Climate Change
Committee?
-: No, we didn't meet this quarter,
but I take it as an action item
that we will have a subcommittee meeting prior
to the September meeting and have some discussions
with state Water Board,
both about AB-401 and some other issues
that came up on the call today.
-: Okay, that sounds good.
Perhaps that might be a good place, if that makes sense.
The meteorologist from the National Weather Service make
a presentation on the heat advisory index.
Excellent.
So this is also the time just as a friendly reminder,
any board member wishes to add themselves and remove
themselves from one of the sub committees
that they may do so.
Okay, excellent.
We will move on to item 12.
I was told Jason had to step out for a brief minute,
but there's no updates at this specific meeting.
However, there may be at the other one, for item 13,
I can provide an update that's,
we're planning to reach out to this group to set up
an initial meeting this quarter,
as well as potentially the Lifeline Committee,
just to see how we might be able
to coordinate our work together.
His advisory groups,
hopefully we'll have some substantive updates about an item
at the next board meeting,
but that's all preliminary at this point is a lot of our
focus has been on the decision and resolution.
And so that's really it as far as updates are concerned
for item 13, unless anybody has any questions or comments.
Okay, great.
Moving right along.
So for wrap-up in closing remarks,
before I touch on the other item
of the 20th anniversary, Gillian,
did you have any comments about the next board meeting date?
I know it was somewhat tentative that finalized or?
-: Hi, thank you chair.
Could I also ask it to advance the slide deck a little bit?
We're on wrap up and closing remarks, thank you.
And I think one more slide please.
So at the moment I have a tentative hold on September 27th,
which is a Monday,
which is not a day that we've met.
Since I've been working,
I don't know how board members feel about that,
but I would say the state is more tentative than previous
dates and I'm working quickly to try and come on a better
hold for September,
but I'll probably need another week or so to get some data
information.
But if board members have comments on September 27th,
they can raise them now.
And I can see if we can find another date.
-: For myself, Mondays is a never note though, so far.
-: Okay, okay.
I had a feeling Mondays would be hard,
so I will try and find another date.
-: Early October might be okay.
-: Not Friday?
-: I was gonna add if it's agreeable
to calendars and of course we have a lot of time
to work that out, early October would
be a little later than usual for that quarter,
but if it allowed people to come back together and what's
deemed a safe environment that might be worth doing to avoid
another WebEx, not that it isn't great,
but it'd be wonderful to be back in person.
It's possible just to consider anything.
Okay, well, we'll stay up-to-date on that.
I just have some very, very brief closing remarks.
The last six months or the first
six months of this year,
I think has been a tremendous increase in board activity
and work particularly with the resolutions and the decisions
sort of happening on parallel timelines.
So just once again,
thank you to everyone from the Commission,
IOUs, all the stakeholders,
and of course, colleagues here,
I think our board did excellent work
and generated a lot of ideas.
Some were appropriate for the vehicles,
with the proceeding and resolution, others
I think we'll take more work to work on in the future,
but nonetheless,
I think our work that our board is a really good job.
So just thank you to everyone for your contributions.
And with that is just a high level update.
This is our board's 20th year in existence.
And so we're working on some preliminaries.
The biggest of which is when will it be safe for us all to
be together in person and what could be formal or informal
or semi state functions that commemorate that?
So once we figure out that key question,
we'll probably start figuring out locations and some of the
other basic details.
In the perfect world,
hopefully at the next regular quarterly meeting,
it could be something that would follow it similar to what
we saw in San Ecedro for Mexican Independence Day,
which means that Board Member Casteneda
has to get another (speaks Spanish).
And I think a couple of board members are vegans,
so maybe they have a tofu one now I don't know,
but in any case, in all seriousness,
that would be a wonderful way to come back together for the
first time and almost two years.
So that's really it for updates,
unless of course any other board members have closing
remarks, Board Member Medina?
-: They have to be closer to our remarks because I didn't
listen to my alarm this morning.
I'm so sorry about that tardiness.
So in thinking of all the work that we've been doing
and the thrust of the COVID and everything,
everything changed for every family member and ourselves.
I want to give a big shout out to all of you for putting
through all this hard work, because we are making such
a difference and we're impacting communities,
and we're finally having a dialogue
and I really love that from seeing them,
the different IOUs on different platforms,
online collaborating with Zoom meetings, with organizations
and their participants is I think is really interesting
and very useful, but also remembering too,
that I know the live is created so that we can help
with the assisting the low-income communities.
But then also this low-income community
is not only suffer from the rates or access
to having homes that could be energy savers.
Those are for the terrible conditions
in their environment where they live.
And today actually what this month is 25-year anniversary
of Hinkley, California.
And we have to still remember that
we asked for all of us to remain vigilant,
especially the IOUs about our earth
and how you are working and what you are doing
to making sure that we don't have something like that
continuing, and remembering that for-profit,
or non-profit what matters is this one planet.
So I think that we have to take that in consideration
and making sure that we're also looking at those safeguards,
pandemic or not, where I'm not thinking my finger off of
that point, that making sure that solar is
the solution that we also start looking at
what we're going to start doing to help families
with the electrification,
for them to understand why we want to do that,
and live in what is that going to create more trash, right?
Because from what I've been here from the communities
that they're being told to electrification means
that they're only going to have stove tops
that are electric, and trust me,
all the me cows are mad at y'all
because we hate that electric stuff.
We like our Fleck-Gerwin.
So just think about that, right,
and to the drought being a big concern
for us in the communities here in the central valley.
And not only because of the lack of water,
but an access to drill deeper,
but also our sediment here in the central valley.
I mean, there's reports that show
that we're sinking and this affects infrastructure
for not only electricity and gas and so forth,
but it does just displaced communities.
So we have to start looking at those things also
in our considerations with the IOUs.
Thank you.
-: Chairman.
-: Yeah, I had some closing comments.
I think that one of the things that former Jerry Brown said
about any and everything that we deal with
in the low-income space or brightly within renewables
or any other agenda that we take on through the CPUC,
it's a period of transition.
We can't literally address every issue completely
in its own place, in its all
in all it's all at the same time.
So I think it's a very, very tough job to CPUC has,
it's even to some degree, a tougher job
that utilities have with this transition.
I think we need to be mindful and respectful of that while
at the same time advocating for our communities
and really moving forward, things that we know.
Having said that,
with all of the changes that we have coming forward
with this decision, including some objectives
that we want to achieve with wages
and other sorts of program portfolio development,
I would advise the IOUs kind of coming up
because I know the solicitation process was mentioned
within the decision in terms of the purview
of the administrators, which is the IOUs,
that frankly we've spent a lot of time,
rate payers have invested a lot of money
in ensuring our workforce through our contractor network,
across the state of California with ESA program.
And I think that one of the big kudos, point
to the contractors, is that the Commissioner
was very keen on involving them
on the general energy efficiency side of what we do.
I think that their expertise, their ability to,
frankly, help mold a program is with great value.
Having said that I just, I would be again, very watchful
and I will be very watchful that we don't try
to squeeze financial bandwidth with any sort of contracts
coming out of the bridge period
because I think that two things we're going to need,
we're going to need the ability to grow the program.
We're going to need the ability to invest in workers
in terms of training and actual job production.
And we're going to need the ability to sort of transition.
And I think that all of that takes resources, and frankly,
I've been more impressed over the last 10 years
with this program, with our ESA contractors
than I have with any other private sector
sort of service capacity that works with government.
So I would recommend that we don't do anything
moving forward, it destabilizes those relationships
if that makes sense.
And again, I'm just sort of thinking
about all the work ahead.
I'm thinking about all the change ahead.
I'm thinking about all the expertise and really counsel
that will be needed kind of moving
towards the next two years.
And I'm hoping we can keep whatever's working
in place, if that makes sense.
-: Okay, thank you, Robert.
Any other questions or sorry,
any other closing remarks from members of the board?
Pat, was your hand up?
-: Yes, it was.
So I would like to thank you Benito for your leadership
as our chair, this past year is really been important,
working remotely, not for every single meeting,
every single subcommittee meeting,
and then the other meetings that we have together working
to put together our recommendations to the Commission.
I mean, you have really been a great leader
and once appreciate working, not only with you,
but the entire team here is so amazing.
They give a bit of time.
They give up their selves to make sure
that we are able to provide the advisory capacity
and support to the low-income community
as our role should be.
So thank you again for your leadership
and thank everybody else for our collaboration's together.
They have been great.
And I vote for December.
I vote for December for the in-person meeting.
-: Fair enough.
I think that's pretty open ended and I'm happy
with what the consensus is so long as it happens,
hopefully sometime this year.
-: Well, if you do it in December
and if you do it in San Diego,
I'll commit to the level of, shall we say,
embellishment that we had with (speaks Spanish),
with (speaks Spanish), the Folklorico, with the dancers,
and all of the rest of it.
I can make that happen.
-: Well, we might hold you to that, Robert, we'll see.
-: Well, hold me to it, hold me to it.
There's people that I work with, that'll be happy to do it.
-: I'll get the gate.
-: That sounds like a very good way to come
back together after two years apart.
So that sounds like fun.
Well, happy to give everybody forty-five minutes
back on their calendar.
So have a great afternoon,
have a great first start of your summer.
We'll talk to everybody soon.
Have a good one.
-: Bye. -: Bye.