Reynolds: Good morning.
We need to start by establishing a quorum.
Agenda Clerk, could you please call the role?
-: Commissioner Houck? -: Here.
-: Commissioner Shiroma? -: Present.
-: Commissioner Rechtschaffen? -: Here.
-: President Reynolds? -: Here.
A quorum has been established.
Welcome everyone to the
California Public Utilities Commission meeting.
I'm calling this meeting of January 27th, 2022,
Public Agenda Number 3501 to order.
Due to the Coronavirus pandemic,
pursuant to the authorization of Section Two
of Assembly Bill 361,
we are conducting today's business meeting online
by remote participation.
The meeting is live streamed on the PUC's website.
You can view the meeting at www.Adminmonitor.com/CA/CPUC.
Closed captioning is available in English
and Spanish through the webcast.
To view the closed captioning,
click the green button beneath the webcast video player,
and follow the instructions that appear on the screen.
We also have Spanish interpretation available
during the public comment portion of today's meeting.
Dial 800-857-1917,
passcode: 3799627#,
and follow the instructions
to be connected to the Spanish line.
I ask that my colleagues
and today's speakers remain mindful,
and speak clearly and slowly.
I will also occasionally pause for interpretation.
(operator speaks in Spanish)
Public engagement is critical to the CPUC process.
If you wish to make a public comment on the English line,
dial into 800-58...
Excuse me.
Let me start over.
800-857-1917, and enter passcode:
9899501#, and press *1.
You'll be placed into a queue,
and the operator will take your name and information.
You will be called upon to speak
when we get to the public comment period in today's agenda.
If you encounter difficulty
calling into the public telephone line,
please email Votingmeetinghelp@CPUC.CA.gov.
Thank you to all the members of the public
who have joined today.
Before we begin public comment,
I wanna pause for a moment to reflect on the month ahead.
As we come to the end of January,
and look forward towards February,
we take this moment to acknowledge Black History Month,
and the history and accomplishments of African Americans
as we celebrate.
As we strive to be better,
we embrace the opportunities
that Black History Month offers to honor the work
and achievements of African Americans throughout history.
Those achievements in politics, law,
civil rights, the arts, entertainment, sports, and science,
all aspects of this country's history,
shape our realities today.
The theme of this year's Black History Month
is Black health and wellness.
Given the continued presence of the COVID-19 pandemic,
and the focus on African American history of physical
and emotional health,
the disparities that are readily apparent
should be discussed and better understood.
As a community, together, we remember the work,
strife, accomplishments, and contributions
of African Americans throughout history.
But our work together is not done,
and there is much more to be done.
Inequality still burdens too many.
And as decision makers this month, and every month,
it is our responsibility to incorporate
the principles of justice, inclusion,
and equity into all that we do.
February 1st also marks the start of the Lunar New Year,
an auspicious holiday,
and week long celebration with family and friends,
symbolizing a fresh start and renewal.
2022 is the year of the tiger.
Both celebrations are a time of traditions
and customs focusing on family, friends, and community.
Wishing you all good health and good fortune.
I will now turn to public comment.
If you wish to make a public comment,
and you have already dialed
into the public comment telephone line,
please press *1, and unmute your phone
to enter the public comment queue.
CPUC rules do not allow for parties
and proceedings to speak about open proceedings.
The public can make comments addressing items
on the consent and regular agenda,
as well as items not on the agenda.
Please note that there will not be public comment
on items 2, 17, and 18,
and all items on the closed session agenda.
You will have one minute to speak.
You will hear a bell sound when your time is up.
Please be mindful of other speakers in the queue,
and keep to your allotted time.
As a reminder,
please speak clearly
and slowly to accommodate Spanish interpreters
who are available during the
public comment portion of today's meeting.
With that guidance in mind,
I welcome today's speakers.
I will now turn to the operator
to open the public comment telephone line.
Operator?
Operator: The public comment line is now open.
If you wish to speak during the public comment period,
please press *1, unmute your phone,
and clearly record your first and last name when prompted.
Our first comment comes from Dylan Mathias.
You may go ahead.
Dylan: Yeah, can you hear me?
Reynolds: Yes, we can.
Please proceed.
Dylan: Yeah, my name's Dylan.
I work for First Response Solar.
I'm one of the owners in Sebastopol.
And I am calling in in regards to
the decision about the CPUC and the energy metering.
Just wanted to say that, the current proposal,
I hope it's being revised and looked at it.
The current proposal as is
would ultimately end our industry,
and I hope that the CPUC takes a look at it.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is from Vincent Battaglia.
You may go ahead.
Vincent: Good morning, Commissioners!
My name is Vincent Battaglia.
I'm the founder/CEO of Renova Energy Corporation,
a rooftop solar and battery integrator founded in 2006.
I represented a 275 person employee-owned company,
with 10,000 happy customers,
and a combined 35 million dollars
in annual electric savings.
I've got a true story for you.
Our region is bifurcated
by two of the state's electric utility monopolies,
Southern California Edison
and the Imperial Irrigation District.
The Imperial Irrigation District
created a Frankenstein monster called net billing in 2015.
In the years since,
net billing has eviscerated the choice of rooftop solar,
so that they can maintain an unchecked monopoly.
NEM3 is also called net billing.
It was built by the utility monopoly
for the utility monopoly.
Guaranteed, it will eviscerate rate payer choice
and thousands of rooftop solar careers,
just as the Imperial Irrigation District has done.
No, please, to NEM 3.0.
Let's begin, instead,
to dismantle the electric utility monopoly
in favor of a cleaner energy future
secured by rooftop solar.
Thank you for my time.
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Steve Beck.
You may go ahead.
Steve: Yes.
My name is Steve Beck.
To stop climate change,
we must have government mandated incentives
to promote new and existing solar.
And if we pay people who have excess rooftop solar
to sell it back to the grid,
this will increase our use of renewable energy.
Increasing our use of renewable energy
is what it's all about.
So if we pay people who have excess rooftop solar
to sell it back to the grid,
this will increase our use of renewable energy.
Let's keep California the nation's leader
in promoting solar power.
Thank you, guys.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Carol Cole-Lewis.
You may go ahead.
Carol: Good morning.
I am commenting on the proposed NEM tariff provisions.
I've been an independent solar consultant in poor,
rural Lake County since 2016.
My customers are currently not eligible
for any low income solar programs,
because, evidently, Lake County air is not polluted enough.
However, my homeowners still want rooftop solar,
'cause they want more freedom
and control over their own energy destiny.
The proposed NEM revisions would not only bring
my business here to a screeching halt,
but also will prohibit my lower income Lake County neighbors
and friends from going solar.
Please consider the poor, rural California counties,
and allow us to achieve more energy independence,
and to do our part towards helping California achieve
her climate action goals.
I urge you to keep solar affordable,
and reject the proposed NEM tariff revisions.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Joseph Robinson.
You may go ahead.
Joseph: Good morning, Commissioners!
My name is Joseph Robinson.
I am retired.
Two years ago, my wife and I downsized,
and used part of the proceeds to pay for solar
and batteries in our new residence.
We now live in a HOA community
in the High Desert of Apple Valley.
We are not rich,
unlike those who say, "Solar is for the rich".
Now you wanna break your word.
I ask myself, where is your honor?
I say, no solar tax of any kind
ensure us that solar will become more affordable
for working folks, middle class households,
retirees, and senior citizens.
Do not turn your back on those
who will be affected the most.
A sudden spike in cost can cause many of us
to cut back on food, medicine, transportation,
home heating, and water usage.
Fixed income, I'm sure you have heard of that.
For the planet,
(bell dinging) go big, go bold,
and help protect our precious planet.
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
I'd like to take a moment to recognize
that we currently have 455 callers in the queue.
If callers could take care
to keep their comments within the one minute,
and I would even ask
if commenters could shorten their comments.
We are listening very carefully to every single caller,
but we have a lot of people waiting today,
and for everyone's time,
if we could keep comments as short as possible.
Thank you very much.
Operator, let's go to the next caller.
Operator: Our next caller is Adlai Outa.
You may go ahead.
Again, Adlai Outa, we are not able to hear you.
Can you please check
your mute button? -: Oh, can you hear me now?
Can you hear me? -: Yes, we can.
Adlai: Okay.
My name is Adlai Outa with Magic Sun Solar,
located in Loomis, near Sacramento.
I've been selling residential solar now for over 12 years.
NEM 3.0 in its current form will kill solar for me
and the nearly 70,000 solar workers in California.
It will also prevent hundreds of thousand
California electricity consumers from going solar,
because of the prohibitively high solar tax being proposed.
Many of my customers are retirees on fixed income,
or are just trying to stay above water
due to rising electricity rates.
NEM 3.0 will prevent them from doing so.
The vast majority of my customers are regular,
everyday people in middle class,
residential PG&E territories,
who are just trying to stay ahead
of the rising cost of electricity.
NEM 3.0 will prohibit them from going solar.
Please prevent NEM 3.0 from going forward
in its current form.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Mike Rosenfeld.
You may go ahead.
Mike: Mike Rosenfeld from Redondo Beach, California
with Power of Public Benefit Company.
I lost my job in December of 2019.
Three months later, the pandemic hit.
My family got hit with
the biggest hardship we have ever faced.
In September, 2020, I found Power,
and have been learning and growing my own solar business.
I have an eight-year-old daughter that I provide for.
My business recently started picking up,
and I'm finally climbing out of the hole from 2020.
Every customer that has gone solar is happy
and in a better place.
I'm in a better place,
and the planet is in a better place.
So what are we doing here?
The specifics of my story are unique, but my story is not.
Solar energy is changing so many lives.
Are we really gonna take away
the tens of thousands of jobs that solar provides,
and the hundreds of thousands of jobs
that this exponentially growing industry
will provide in the future?
Please do not pass this proposed decision.
California needs needs to continue
to move forward, not backwards.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kyle Severns.
You may go ahead.
Kyle: Hi, my name's Kyle Severns.
I work for Solar Technologies in San Ramon.
I'm proud to have worked in the solar industry in California
for the last 15 years,
and greatly hope to be able to do so for another 15.
The CPUC's proposed decision would not allow me to do so,
and would immediately halt the sustainable growth
of green energy in our state,
while killing thousands of solar jobs.
Myself, and so many other California workers,
have committed their lives
to this great environmental cause.
Please don't allow utility pressure
and misinformation to undo that work.
California must continue to lead
when it comes to solar energy.
This decision, as written, would instantly make California
the least solar-friendly state in the country.
Please say no to the solar tax,
and reject this proposed disaster.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Brett Phillips.
You may go ahead.
-: Good morning.
My name is Brett Phillips.
I'm a co-founder of Unico Solar,
which is building and operating dozens of
commercial solar projects throughout California.
We bring clean, affordable energy to schools
that educate our kids,
life science companies that are performing
life-saving research,
farmers that put food on our tables,
and many more organizations that provide
important services to our communities.
We strongly oppose the proposed NEM3 policy,
which will kill our ability
to continue this work in California.
I have a one-year-old son,
and for me, Unico Solar represents my duty as a parent
and as a human being
to leave a more sustainable world for ourselves
and our children.
Through many late nights and weekends,
we are in the process of delivering on that responsibility,
but NEM3 will kill that work,
and force our business out of the state.
I urge you to modify the NEM3 proposal to give our,
to give customers the full value of electricity,
and preserve our ability to deliver
on our sacred duty to protect our climate
for future generations.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Steve Kruetzfeldt.
Your line is open.
Keith: Hi, this is Keith Kruetzfeldt.
I am the owner of Suntegrity Solar.
We've been installing rooftop solar
in the North Bay for 12 years.
And I'd just like to thank you
for the chance to speak today.
The utilities want you to believe
the rich are going solar at the expense of the poor.
The reality is,
our largest customer base is the middle class
that elects to go solar for financial
and environmental benefits,
including many PG&E employees.
I implore you to abandon the proposed decision,
and work closely with CalSSA
to ensure NEM3 preserves the 50,000-plus jobs in California,
and supports California's most important demographic,
the middle class.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Heath Kirin.
you may go ahead.
Heath: Thank you for allowing me to speak.
My name is Heath Kirin with Excite Energy
based in El Dorado County.
I started my business eight years ago,
and I've worked really hard to build it.
I'm proud to employ 15 blue collar workers
with livable wages, health benefits, and PTO.
If the proposed decision is approved,
I'll have to lay off everyone,
and I'll no longer be able to honor my warranties
to my thousand-plus customers.
My employees have families, as do I.
It will be heartbreaking for both them and us.
Sadly, this is not an exaggeration.
The proposed rule changes are terrible,
and not even remotely economic for the industry.
Unlike the utility propaganda,
we are not solar billionaires.
We are middle class.
As a matter of fact, we don't know any solar billionaires.
The only one who's quite famous
made his money with electric vehicles and rockets.
Please don't make the changes as proposed
to the current net energy metering.
Utilities won't lose a single job in either scenario.
The solar industry will go out of business in California
as the nation's leader in renewable energy
with these changes.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Bill Stewart.
You may go ahead.
Bill: Yes, hi, thank you.
I'm with SolarCraft in Novato,
and I've been fully employed in the solar industry
my entire professional life, spanning over 40 years.
SolarCraft is employee-owned,
and supports over 50 employee owners and our families.
The proposed NEM3 decision
will decimate the California solar industry,
and be in direct contrast to
California's stated climate goals.
A recent independent study estimated
the adoption of rooftop solar would be cut by more than half
should this proposal be implemented.
One other factor to consider,
is that the solar industry has been required
to provide labor and material warranties of up to 25 years.
What will happen to those customers and those owners,
if over 50% of solar companies in the state
are unable to continue in business?
I respectfully urge the Commission to reject the proposal.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Greg Albright.
You may go ahead.
Greg: Good morning, Commissioners.
I wake up with two nightmarish realizations every day.
COVID is here,
and California is trying to kill solar.
Not sure what to do about the COVID,
but you can fix this anti-solar NEM 3.0.
Please author a new NEM that benefits the many,
not just utilities.
My name is Greg Albright of Freedom Forever.
Our company started in my backyard around 10 years ago,
and now employs 2,000 amazing, hardworking,
and dedicated employees.
Please don't take this away from us.
I'm very confident that you'll find a better solution
to meet everyone's needs.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Aaron Nitzkin.
You may go ahead.
Aaron: Yes.
Hello, Commissioners.
My name is Aaron Nitzkin.
I've worked in the solar industry for over 18 years,
and I currently work for Citadel Roofing & Solar.
We're a large, residential roofing solar
and battery contractor here.
We're a family-owned business,
with our headquarters in Vacaville,
and we employ over 600 people,
of which over 150 are primarily focused on
our solar business.
These employees are spread out
throughout Northern California, the Central Valley,
we have a lot there,
and we're going in Southern California.
We can take really good care of our employees,
and as a result, we have very high job satisfaction,
and relatively low turnover.
And we have helped thousands of families,
including many low income families, get solar,
which has led to these families saving money,
and having more disposable income
to support other areas of their lives.
The proposed decision as written
would devastate the industry, as we've all said.
And as a result of this,
it would devastate our company,
and the hundreds of families
that rely on us for their livelihood.
I ask you to please reject this proposed decision,
and ensure that solar remains strong.
(bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jim Jenal.
you may go ahead.
Jim: Good morning.
My name is Jim Jenal.
I'm the founder and CEO of Run on Sun,
a solar and storage installation company in Pasadena.
I saw the flyer that Edison distributed in my service area,
claiming that the present net metering rules are, quote,
"making billionaires and big businesses rich", unquote,
and I just had to shake my head,
as I really don't know who they're talking about.
Run on Sun is a gross revenue,
half a million a year company.
Not exactly a big business.
And no, I'm not a millionaire,
let alone a billionaire!
Nor is anyone I know in this industry.
Most of us are small and scrappy,
and are doing this because we believe in the mission
to make the world a better place one roof at a time.
And after all, isn't that what we all strive to achieve,
to make the world a better place for our kids?
The proposed decision does the opposite,
and it needs to be scrapped.
Thank you for your consideration.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is David Rinearson.
You may go ahead.
David: Good morning.
I'm David Rinearson from Huntington Beach.
The utility argument that rooftop solar
doesn't support the electrical grid is bogus.
Solar provided enough power for the state
to scale back more than 20 powerline projects in 2018 alone,
saving 2.6 billion dollars for all ratepayers.
And when my solar system produces (distorted audio)
uncredited (distorted audio) per kilowatt hour,
the utility resells that power
for 30 to 49 cents per kilowatt hour,
a gross margin of between 20 and 96%.
Under the NEM3 proposal,
my credit would drop to 5 cents,
and utility gross margin would jump to between 400 and 880%.
In fact, my annual electric bill under NEM3
would be about three quarters of the bill ahead
before I installed solar.
That's why a recent poll showed,
that if NEM3 goes into effect,
95% of Californians would not invest in rooftop solar,
killing the industry overnight,
and destroying 60 to 70,000 good paying green jobs.
NEM3 only benefits the utilities,
and the CPUC is supposed to be the public's watchdog.
NEM3 is bad for the environment,
bad for the solar industry,
and an unfair breach of trust to existing solar users.
I urge you to block it.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Charlotte Blake.
You may go ahead.
Charlotte: Good morning.
My name is Charlotte Blake,
and I work for Blue Planet Energy,
and I've been employed in the solar industry for 13 years.
We need the CPUC to reject the current proposed NEM 3.0
to protect solar growth in California.
The most cost effective way to get a decarbonized grid
is with robust deployment of distributed energy resources,
and the investor-owned utilities
should be prioritizing lower rates to make electrification
an equitable, fair option for California.
Local resilience is key for community strength and wellness.
Thank you so much for your time,
and for helping California live a sustainable future.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Anne Revere.
You may go ahead.
Anne: Thank you.
My name is Anne Revere in San Francisco,
and I am a consumer,
and I paid nearly $16,000 in 2017 for eight solar panels.
My main goal was to help the planet.
I produce 100% of the energy I use,
and send some back to the grid.
I want all Californians in the planet to benefit from solar,
but not at the expense of those who went first.
The proposed plan seems to make it harder
and more expensive for new solar owners.
I hope the CPUC will develop a plan that is fair
and balanced for the poor,
and for those who can afford to buy solar energy.
Thank you very much.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Nick Peterson.
You may go ahead.
Nick: Hi, I live in Albany, California
in the PG&E service area, and I'm a NEM2 customer.
The CPUC preliminary decision NEM3 is regressive
and environmentally dangerous.
It throws well-meaning Californians under the bus,
along with the entire fledgling solar rooftop industry,
in order to further entrench an outdated status quo
electrical power system and its monopolistic corporations,
while hiding behind a false claim of a rate shift.
The most egregious rate shift is
from the pocketbooks of Californians,
especially low income Californians,
to the bank accounts of investor-owned utility shareholders
and corporate executives.
This has got to stop!
NEM changes need to be made,
but not in the manner...
The CPUC must go back to the drawing board
with the support of the Governor and the state legislature,
and created a holistic approach that supports
and encourages private citizens to use their own resources
to significantly address climate change using solar.
We are the fifth largest economy in the world.
We have the capacity to massively roll out
sustainable energy on all fronts,
not just through the monopolistic, profit-loaded utilities.
You need to show
the people of California, (bell dinging)
that you have heard us,
and stop the- -: Thank you very much.
Nick: From doing the right thing.
Reynolds: Sorry, we need to move to the next caller.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tyler Crossno.
You may go ahead.
Tyler: Hello, Commissioners.
My name is Tyler Crossno,
and I work for Revel Energy in Irvine.
First, I'd like to thank you all for listening
to the many comments presented today.
I've only been in the solar industry for two years,
but the passion on display in this meeting
clearly shows how egregious
the current proposed decision is.
I grew up here in California,
learning about solar power
and sustainability in elementary school,
how our state can uniquely take advantage
of all these sunny days.
California has grown into a model for sustainability,
but these changes to net energy metering
are not sustainable, nor reasonable.
Committee, I implore you to please
reconsider this proposed decision.
Thank you for your time.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
-: Nailed it! -: Our next caller
is Jeff Howard.
You may go ahead.
Jeff: Good morning, Commissioners.
Jeff Howard.
I live in Visalia, California.
On a side note, with Black History Month,
I hope you'll hear about a man named Edmond Wysinger,
who's from Visalia, who was a slave,
and he won a legal challenge
in the California State Supreme Court
to be able to send his son to White schools here in Visalia.
Hope you'll learn more about that.
I work for a company called Kuubix Energy.
We have almost 500 employees,
and the three founders
started this company right here in Visalia,
which is in Central California.
If you've ever seen the movie, "McFarland, USA",
those are my people.
That's right around the corner.
And that's what life is like here.
I have solar coworkers who worked in the fields
before joining this company.
We install solar on their homes,
on the average individual's homes,
and in those neighborhoods that help
the average Californian offset very expensive utility bills.
I switched from the fuel industry
after 11 years to come to solar,
because renewable was supposed to be sustainable,
and a secure industry in California.
On a personal note,
I'm the sole provider for my wife and four children,
from senior down to fifth grade.
We're a low margin business.
Please think about my job, my family, my coworkers,
as I previously described, and their families,
when you vote, and please, please reject this proposal.
Thank you. (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jeff Spies.
You may go ahead.
Jeff: Yes, good morning.
My name's Jeff Spies.
I'm the president of Planet Plan Sets.
We're a solar drafting company based in Anaheim, California.
And I've worked in the California
solar industry for 15 years.
The NEM3 utility proposals are based on misinformation.
They argue, the utilities argue,
they can supply solar power with solar farms in the desert,
but they ignore the massive cost to upgrade the wires
that get that power to our neighborhoods
from hundreds of miles away.
Distributed generation, which we call rooftop solar,
is a more cost effective option than grid power,
if you look at the true cost benefit.
We need consumers to be provided a fair rate structure
that assesses this cost benefit to the grid properly.
I respectfully request the Commission reject
this disastrous NEM3 proposal.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Rebecca Vartineck.
You may I go ahead.
Rebecca: Hi, I live in Menlo Park.
I'm opposed to decisions
to further tax installed solar panels.
We need to make solar
and battery installations more affordable, not less,
for all energy users in California.
Privately owned solar systems
should be considered a truly important
and valuable resource for supplementing power,
versus buying power from out of state, higher priced,
and offer higher polluting sources.
California should be a leader in the United States,
and the world, for that matter,
for encouraging solar collection systems
on all of our structures,
homes, businesses, et cetera.
Net metering makes home systems much more affordable
for people to put solar on all feasible structures.
This in turn provides power which is cleaner
and more affordable for all.
And finally, California needs to honor its commitment
to current net metering customers,
and to extend that to future solar installations.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Ben Bellacheski.
You may go ahead.
Ben: Hi, my name is Ben Dellaheski,
and I live in San Jose, California.
I oppose the proposed NEM3 decision,
because it is a major step backwards on clean energy.
California is supposed to be a leader in sustainability,
and Californians wanna be able to do their part
to protect the environment.
This decision will make solar unaffordable
for most people in the state.
The state should be making it easier
for people to add solar to their homes and businesses,
and not penalize them for it.
We need to remove solar taxes,
make solar more accessible to all Californians,
and protect existing solar users.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Erik Sattler.
You may go ahead.
Erik: Hi, my name is Erik Sattler.
I'm the founder of Sattler Solar,
a San Diego-based small business solar contractor.
I started my business six years ago
to be part of a solution,
to be part of a sustainable energy future for all.
Net Metering 3.0 will take away 95% of the market.
It will be disastrous for our customer base,
for our employees, and for my family.
Let us continue to have a positive impact
one roof at a time.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Dustin Dunaway.
You may go ahead.
Dustin: Hi, my name's Dustin Dunaway.
I'm a co-founder of HDM Renewable Finance.
I've been in solar for 12-plus years.
Called in today asking you to reject
the current proposal NEM 3.0.
HDM provides a finance product that helps lower income,
fixed income, and nonprofits.
We're targeting 30 to 40 megawatts of solar
in California this year,
again, for nonprofit and low income.
Types of organizations that we're helping go solar
and save money: schools, houses of warships, church camps,
hospice centers, youth and community centers,
recovery centers, mental health facilities.
These are the type of the organizations that,
when they save that money,
they put it right back into our community.
And I'm hoping that we can reject this proposal,
'cause, most likely, all these will fall out of the process,
and not get installed.
Thanks and have a great day.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Frank Scotti.
You may go ahead.
Frank: Hello, Commissioners.
Please reject NEM 3.0.
My name is Frank Scotti with Solarponics.
We're a solar installer on the Central Coast.
We were founded in 1975.
I installed solar on my personal home in 2008.
And at that time, I believes so strongly in solar
that I actually switched careers,
and joined Solarponics in 2012.
That year, we installed, I think, 27 PB jobs.
Last year, we installed 270.
We employed 45 people,
and they're people just like me,
who can't really see ourselves doing anything else.
We shouldn't be here discussing
how many of us may lose our jobs.
We should really be celebrating our accomplishments
and all we've done together, and move forward.
So please do not approve NEM 3.0.
Please save our jobs,
and really, please save our legacy.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Steve Pariani.
You may go ahead.
Steve: Hello, can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can. -: Hello?
-: Please proceed. -: Okay, great.
-: Yes, we can hear you. -: Hello,
my name's Steve Pariani,
and I've been working in the solar industry
for eight years now.
When I started my own solar company,
Solar Pro Energy Systems, about five years ago,
I did so to support my family,
but also to do my part in fighting climate change.
I install solar power on people's homes
and businesses to feed my wife and four children,
but also, to create a better future for all of them,
and all of Californians.
The proposed decision facing you today
would put Solar Pro out of business,
and my workers, me, and thousands like us out of our jobs.
The utility companies would like you to believe
that standard ratepayers are subsidizing solar customers,
because they can't raise solar homeowner's rates.
The truth is, that rate increases on anyone
are actually subsidizing PG&E's bankruptcy
and lawsuits to their decades of neglect
and wildfires they have caused.
So my question to you is,
why should those who have installed
solar panels to fight climate change
be taxed to subsidize the fossil fuel
burning utility companies who are causing it?
Please reject the proposed decision.
Start from scratch to protect our jobs,
and a greener feature for all of California.
Thank you for your time.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Ernesto Montenero.
You may go ahead.
Ernesto: Good morning.
My name is Ernesto Montenero,
operations manager at Sustainable Technologies,
a 22-year-old company in Alameda, California.
We mostly work with the small farmers,
building solar systems to make their operations
more sustainable and more cost effective.
I could say, that this proposed NEM3,
basically, will make it impossible for farmers
to really go solar.
And also, I represent all the workers here
at Sustainable Technologies
that have been with me for 20 years, most of them,
and they all have really good jobs,
and they're all very concerned.
I urge you to tax the PG&E, and not tax solar.
We need to install more solar systems, not less.
(bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Chris Connolly.
You may go ahead.
Chris: Thanks.
I'm Chris Connolly.
My comment is about the proposed decision for NEM3.
I'm a solar project developer
at Centrica Business Solutions in San Francisco.
11 years ago, I moved into a career in solar,
because I needed my work life to mean something.
The existential threat of climate change
is paralyzing to an individual,
and addressing it requires a huge collective effort.
So working in solar, at the end of each day,
I know my hard work is in direct service of that mission.
A strong California solar industry
is one of America's critical tools
to reach our clean energy goals.
"Our" clean energy goals!
When we desperately need policies
that expand and support solar,
the proposed decision is a baffling setback,
and I strongly urge the Commission to reject it.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mark Byington.
You may go ahead.
Mark: My name is Mark Byington.
I'm the president of Cobalt Power Systems.
Cobalt has 80 employees,
and we have been doing solar
and energy storage for over 18 years.
We urgently ask you to reject the proposed decision.
It will decimate the solar industry.
It will kill our jobs, our livelihood,
and possibly our company.
It will make solar unaffordable
and financially unattractive.
This is the opposite of what you should be doing
as public policy.
Solar is mission-critical
to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels
that are causing serious climate change.
I'm sorry if distributed solar
is inconvenient for the utilities,
but it is right for the planet.
If the CPUC moves forward
with anything like the proposed decision,
I believe you will come down on the wrong side of history.
People in California want to install solar
and energy storage.
You should reject the proposed decision
as bad policy for California.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is George Valenza.
You may go ahead.
Tor: Actually, it's Tor Valenza.
My name is Tor Valenza, as I said,
and I'm from UnThink Solar based in Oakland, California.
I've worked in the solar industry for 13 years,
and I've met people rich
and poor who've worked in solar, and gone solar,
and we all think that solar is magic.
I mean, the sun shines on their roof,
and it creates electricity.
It's amazing.
But this NEM 3.0 proposal that you're considering right now,
it's gonna take that magic away from them.
You're going to ignore numerous value of solar studies
that show that rooftop solar
defrays utility infrastructure costs for everyone,
poor people, rich people,
everyone who's connected to the grid.
And then you're gonna wave your magic CPUC wand,
and kill thousands of solar jobs,
just like it happened in Nevada and Hawaii
when they got net metering.
And I urged you to look at those regions again,
see what happened to the jobs,
and what it did for the grid.
So, you know,
distribute clean power- (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jeff Baker.
You may go ahead.
Jeff: Hello, Commissioners.
My name is Jeff Baker, and I live in Santa Rosa.
Although we are not wealthy,
my wife and I decided to install rooftop solar
and batteries in 2020.
The main reason we did it was not to save money,
but to help save the planet.
After spending over $30,000,
last year's rebate was less than $300.
Still, we were happy to contribute
knowing how beneficial and necessary it is.
Reducing carbon emissions by using sustainable energy
seems incredibly important,
as our planet is warming at alarming rates
due to the burning of fossil fuels.
We are concerned for our children and our grandchildren,
as well as all the other forms of life on this planet.
Please do not take away the incentive
for people to do the right thing.
Please reject this proposal
as bad policy for California and the Earth.
Thank you, Commissioners.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Roger Williams.
You may go ahead.
Roger: Good morning, Commissioners.
Thank you for the chance to speak.
My name is Roger Williams.
I live in Fairfax, California.
20 years ago, I began doing PV in California,
primarily in the East Bay around Oakland.
I moved to California to get work in the solar industry.
It was basically the only place
you could get work in the US.
Now, I'm concerned that I'm gonna have to leave California
because of the proposed decision.
I and thousands of others may have to leave
to continue doing the work they love in the solar industry.
Personally, I know hundreds of people
and their families who might lose their job
and livelihood due to this proposed decision.
I respectfully ask you to reconsider,
and redo the proposed decision,
so it does not benefit the IOUs.
Thank you for your time on this beautiful, sunny day.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jose Contreras.
You may go ahead.
Jose: Hi, my name is Jose Contreras.
I'm the president of Solare Energy in San Diego.
I have worked in the past as a consultant in energy
and other industries.
I'm calling to ask the Commissioners to reject
an extremely flawed decision on net metering.
First, it is bad, long-term planning.
It is based on a very short-term model
that looks at incremental cost benefits,
and is not appropriate for long-term planning.
Second, it increases long-term utility rates.
We're looking at billions of dollars
on transmission-related improvements and capacity.
Re-distributed generation, including rooftop solar,
will help reduce our reliance on transmission,
and help us avoid future expenses.
Third, it imposes taxes on solar customers,
just because they are no longer using
as much of the services.
This is ridiculous!
Not just in the business world,
but in any regulated industry.
The world is watching.
Don't let utilities run this show.
Keep California as a leader in the fight
against climate change with sound energy policies.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Danny Pham.
You may go ahead.
Danny: Commissioners, thank you for your time.
My name is Danny Pham.
I am an electrical contractor
and owner of Sungenix Energy in San Jose.
I've been in the solar industry for over 13 years.
Net energy metering has helped
to drive the success of our industry
by providing a means to fairly account for
and credit the solar electricity
generated by households and businesses.
This electricity benefits everyone on the grid.
The changes proposed now will completely gut
the net energy metering program.
The drastic evaluation of NEM credits
and outrageous per kilowatt fees
will have a devastating impact on me
and countless other solar professionals
and solar consumers who just want to do the right thing
for our environment and for California's future.
So I urge you to do the right thing,
and reject this proposed decision.
We have the technology
and the means to make solar more affordable,
more equitable, and more accessible.
By attacking the very foundation of net metering
is ill-conceived and is not the answer.
It is wrong on all levels,
and must not be allowed to pass.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Patricia Blevins.
You may go ahead.
Patricia: Yes, my name is Patricia Blevins,
and I live in San Jose.
NEM 3.0 has been written to increase the profits
of the felon, PG&E, and other big power companies
at the expense of the public and the planet,
which is out of step with California's clean energy goals.
I respectfully ask the CPUC to vote against NEM 3.0.
Long distance power lines and wildfire mitigation
are what's actually driving up our electricity cost.
Rooftop solar actually benefits all ratepayers
by lowering cost, while also increasing
the resilience of the electric grid.
Low and middle income households
account for almost 50% of installed systems.
Additionally, over 2,000 schools
and hundreds of churches are powered by solar panels.
NEM 3.0 will make solar unaffordable for most people,
and penalize those who have already sacrificed
to install solar panels
and batteries under NEM 1.0 and 2.0
by changing the rules and adding costs they never agreed to.
The CPUC should keep rooftop solar
and battery storage growing by defeating NEM 3.0.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Gerald Radberry.
You may go ahead.
Gerald: Good morning, Commissioners.
I'm a homeowner on the Mendocino Coast.
I support NEM reform that increases the climate
and grid benefits of customer-sited clean energy generation
through rate structures that encourage
and dispatch of solar-paired batteries
during the day when an electrical grid is strained,
and fossil fuel plants are most polluting,
such as the reform recently enacted by the Sacramento MUD.
In turn, I oppose the current CPUC proposal.
Imposing fixed charges only on those customers
who choose to install solar
impinges on customer's right
to self-generate their own energy,
violates every tenant of regulatory fairness,
and is likely illegal under federal law.
Furthermore, the dramatic change from the current NEM policy
will reduce customer adoption of clean energy in California
at a time when more is needed
to meet the state's climate goals,
and to provide more energy resilience
in the face of unprecedented wildfires and grid outages.
(bell dinging) I urge the-
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Karen Palestra.
You may go ahead.
Karen: Hi.
My name is Karen Polestra.
I'm a part owner of a small solar
contracting business in San Diego County.
I've been in the solar industries for 17 years.
We started our company in 2007,
and since that time,
other family members have joined us full-time,
and have made a commitment to the solar,
to solar as an industry of the future,
and to be part of the solution.
The decision on NEM3 directly affects our future,
our family's future,
and that of our employee and their families.
We are a small business,
not billionaires to get rich, looking to get rich.
The majority of the solar industry
is comprised of medium-sized businesses,
small businesses, and family owned contractors, like us.
There is plenty of information out there
that shows what the effect of similar decisions
on the solar industry was,
not only in neighboring states,
but also in other California utility districts.
I'm asking you to reject the proposal as it is written.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is James Michaels.
You may go ahead.
James: Hi, this...
Can you hear me?
Reynolds: Yes, we can.
James: Okay, this comment is representing
Alternative Energy Systems out of Chico, California.
We live in Northern California,
which is ground zero for utility-sparked wildfires,
like the Camp Fire and the Dixie Fire.
Many of our employees lost their homes in these fires,
and we were all affected.
This place will never be the same.
These fires were caused by utility negligence,
and the fact that PG&E burned our houses,
and now they wanna shut down our company and take our jobs,
because we're their only competition is unbelievable.
The proposed decision will empower this negligence,
and hurt much needed innovation.
Reports that solar...
Reports that solar hurts the grid
and only favors the wealthy are outdated and inaccurate.
We need innovation in clean energy for accessibility,
and job creation, not regression.
We need a reasonable, common sense approach
to this transition, (bell dinging)
like CalSSA has proposed. -: Thank you very much
-: Thank you very much. -: for your comments.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Zach Sharpe.
You may go ahead.
Zach: Hi, my name is Zach Sharpe,
and I've been working for Luminalt Solar for nine years.
I'm asking you to reject the proposed decision in full.
My solar job has supported my family,
and I've created a good life for my two daughters,
both toddlers, in the Bay Area.
If the proposed decision,
or anything that resembles it, is approved,
my job and the company I work for will be jeopardized,
which directly affects the wellbeing of my family.
Since rooftop solar is my career,
we will likely have to move to another state
that is more friendly to solar.
I also speak for the thousands of Luminalt clients,
many of whom are low income veterans
or elderly on a fixed income,
that rely on their utilities being low,
and who rely on their solar
and battery systems to provide backup power
to their medical devices and air conditioners
during this era of increasingly frequent power outages.
These systems require servicing to operate properly.
If Luminalt goes under, we can't service those systems.
The state of California rightly requires us
to provide a minimum 10 year warranty on battery systems
to ensure consumers are protected.
But if this decision goes through,
the survival of many solar companies is threatened,
and therefore, puts all of those warranties at risk.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller...
I'm sorry.
Our next caller is Steve Saeger.
You may go ahead.
Steve: Good morning.
My name is Steve Saeger with Quality Home Services in the
Central Valley of California.
All five major counties we serve
have a poverty value ranging from 20 to 27%
living below the poverty line.
Based on the average solar facility in the Valley,
the typical homeowner would pay $850 annually
in connection fees alone.
An increase of this magnitude is in no way equitable
to the people living in poverty,
and would shut out over 20% from the population
of being able to afford taking steps
that are in line with the goals of the state of California.
During my nine years in this industry,
I've watched numerous people rise out of poverty,
start families, and some have gone off
to start their own solar companies, and create new jobs.
As proposed, this decision will stifle the growth
of the renewable energy industry,
hurt small businesses and families,
while propping up monopolized power companies
that are too big to fail.
Thank you for all your hard work
in regulating on the consumer behalf.
Please don't cut those efforts short
in rushing a policy through
that would drastically change so many lives.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Brandon Karashi.
You may go ahead.
Brandon: Brandon Carlson?
-: Yes, we can hear you. -: Yes, go ahead.
Brandon: Okay, there you go. (chuckles)
Thank you, Commissioners.
My name is Brandon Carlson,
and I'd like to state for the record
my disappointment with the net metering proposal.
I'm an applications engineer
focused on low income communities,
and have been in the solar industry for over 20 years now.
I volunteer 20 to 30 hours a month
developing electric codes
and standards to assisting in finding solutions
for all stakeholders involved.
Thanks to your predecessors' decisions in the past,
California leads the way in distributed solar.
Solar users feel fairly treated, contractors have work,
utilities have a great deal of control,
and innovation in solar energy
is booming more and more every day.
There's a reason that code developers like me
for the solar industry are nearly all located in California.
Not Arizona, not Nevada, not Texas, but California.
This proposal's drastic changes
would be a hard load to California's solar future,
and send all aspects of our industry elsewhere.
Again, I implore you to find a better solution.
Especially in times of COVID,
we have plenty of time to find a better solution.
Thank you for your time.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Connie.
You may go ahead.
-: Hi, my name is Connie.
I work for Baker Electric Home Energy.
As a former long-time utility worker,
I am extremely disappointed in the proposed decision.
The amount of money
that the utilities make off of capital projects,
and the amount of money
that they pay their employees is astronomical.
This is only feeding their greed.
Not to mention, and if you remember, in 2014,
it was founded that SCG&E purposely went after
low income households to make money on late fees.
The utilities don't care about low income households.
Please say no to NEM3,
and don't penalize sustainable energy.
We must reject this decision.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Emily Langenbahn.
You may go ahead.
Emily: Good morning.
My name is Emily Langenbahn.
I work for Renova Energy in the Coachella Valley.
I'm asking you to scrap the NEM3 decision all together.
The same program was put in place by the municipally owned
Imperial Irrigation Districts in July, 2016.
Their program started five years ago,
and there's been a 100% decline
year-over-year in solar installation.
The ratepayers in that district fell victim
to two drastic rate increases over the last year alone,
with no option to save money through solar leasing
or through a five year payback period after purchasing.
Rooftop solar is flourishing
in the neighboring SCE territory.
Please do not destroy the progress we've made
in favor of the utilities' bottom line.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tommy Winick.
You may go ahead.
Tommy: Hello, my name is Tommy Winick,
and I've been in solar energy since 2018.
Prior to finding solar,
I had $30,000 in student loan debt,
$12,000 in personal debt,
18,000 in auto loan debt,
and no clue what to do, besides hide in depression,
living paycheck to paycheck.
I urge you to please set fire to this proposal,
because California is on fire in January!
Since 2018, I've helped over 100 families go solar.
I have added over 1 million dollars to property values.
I've created lasting friendships
and good relationships with all of my homeowners.
I had the opportunity
to work with someone in Paradise, California,
and this was the saddest experience of my life.
Please do not be on the wrong side of our future.
I urge you.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mike Davidson.
You may go ahead.
Mike: Good morning.
My name is Mike Davidson.
I'm calling from San Diego County Solar in Carlsbad.
And 15 years ago, when I began my solar career,
there were only a handful of solar companies
in the San Diego area,
and all of them were struggling to survive.
In fact, it was necessary for me to work a second job
for the first several years of my career.
At that time,
homeowners investing in a solar installation
could expect a payback period of 10 to 20 years.
It's common knowledge in the solar industry
that homeowners' primary motivation to go solar
is the prospect of saving money.
As the cost of solar equipment has come down,
companies like ours have been able to create
thousands of good jobs, providing health insurance,
and retirement benefits for employees.
A 10 to 20 years payback
is not a compelling value proposition for homeowners.
The proposed NEM3 decision will take us back to a time
when there were only a handful
of struggling solar companies.
I ask you to please reject the proposed decision.
Thank you. (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Adam Gerza.
You may go ahead.
Adam: Hi, good morning.
This is Adam Gerza.
I am the VP of Business Development with Energy Toolbase.
We're a software company that specializes
in modeling the economics of solar and storage.
Developers use us to, you know, run avoided cost analysis
and financial analysis.
And we've always done this in a really,
you know, objective fashion.
We've been watching the proceeding very closely
over the last 12 months.
Certainly appreciate and kinda understand
the difficult job the PUC has here to reform NEM.
Our view is that the proposed decision does go way too far.
We don't think it's a stretch to say,
it would decimate the market,
and, we think, result in pretty similar outcomes
to what we saw firsthand in both Nevada and Hawaii
when those, you know, markets abruptly changed their rules.
So we encourage the PUC to reject it, and rework it.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jon Landsman.
You may go ahead.
Jon: Good morning, Commissioners.
My name is Jon Landsman,
and I'm the sales director
for the Solar Bill Review team in Dublin.
I've been in the industry for 10 years.
I got involved on this journey having no idea whatsoever
on the impact this career would have on me personally.
I've helped over 1500 households go solar,
reaching their financial and environmental goals.
Whenever my days here on Earth are done,
I'll know I've left the world a better
than when I came into it
by how much I've reduced the carbon footprint.
In addition to those accomplishments,
I've made a ton of friends with like-minded goals
on helping customers.
One of them is the owner of the company
I work for today, Bill Gurgol.
He started our small company that has about 15 employees
that all genuinely care about each other and our customers.
We wanna fulfill our promise to our customers
by providing them with top-notch customer service,
NEM 3.0, as it's currently being proposed,
would take that away from us,
as well as all the potential referrals
that our customers wanna give us.
I am appealing to all of the Commissioners
to please reject NEM 3.0 as it's currently being proposed.
Thank you so much for your consideration.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Norm Koenig.
You may go ahead.
Norm: Thank you to the members of the Commission
for giving me a chance to share my grave concerns
about this proposed decision.
My name is Norm Koenig.
I work as a home energy consultant
at Treeium Energy in Valley Village,
serving the greater Los Angeles area.
I'm in my fifties,
and at the beginning of the pandemic,
I lost my job in corporate relocation for obvious reasons.
I have since completely reinvented my professional self
in the solar industry as a sales consultant,
and I've never had greater job satisfaction.
The solar industry is a great place to work,
as 60,000 passionate Californians will tell you.
The solar industry supports the great state of California's
admirable goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2045.
I'm wondering where all the people are
who are supporting this proposed decision?
Please reject NEM 3.0,
and save California solar.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Woody Hastings.
You may go ahead.
Woody: Can you hear me?
Reynolds: Yes, we can.
Woody: Okay, good.
Good morning, President Reynolds and Commissioners.
My name is Woody Hastings with the Climate Center.
I'm speaking today to urge the Commission to reject the PD,
go back to square one on this matter.
We are in a climate crisis,
and we need all the solar and storage we can get
in the built environment first as quickly as possible,
and the smart rules that can make that happen.
The $8 fixed charge is extremely regressive,
and not calibrated to specific costs,
and should be discarded.
The abrogation of the NEM1 and 2 20 year promise
is patently unfair,
and the immediate 80% cut on export bill credit
is capricious and severe.
It should be adjusted over time to be in line
with actual agreed upon value of solar.
Yes, utility scale solar is cheap,
about 3 cents per kilowatt hour, but for whom?
That is a low cost for the utilities, not for customers.
It doesn't get passed along.
Utility rates just keep going up,
as they have been for 40 years.
We need new rules that help everyone,
including lower income customers,
to deploy as much fuel-free, clean generation as they can
on their sunny rooftops.
Please reject- (bell dinging)
Those that support all -: Thank you very much.
Woody: income levels in the industry.
Thank you. -: Operator,
next caller, please.
Thank you.
Next caller, please.
Thanks.
Operator: Our next caller is Mamun Rashid.
You may go ahead.
Mamun: Good morning.
My name is Mamun Rashid.
I'm CEO of Auxin Solar.
We're an American solar module manufacturer
located in Santa Fe.
I'm here to voice my concern
about the proposed net metering change.
In addition to the many environmental benefits of solar,
it has distributed power generation.
The deployment is distributed, creating thousands of jobs.
Dis-incentivizing distributed
deployments removes competition,
which is not in the best interest of the end consumer.
As an American manufacturer of solar panels,
a lot of our customers serve
the residential and commercial space.
The proposed change would have a negative impact
on this customer base on our local manufacturing jobs.
We're already under pressure
competing with unfairly priced imports,
and typically priced out of the utility space.
The proposed change to net metering will negatively impact
our residential and commercial market.
As California goes, so does the rest of the country.
The proposed net metering change is turning back the clock.
It is bad for the consumer,
it is bad for the solar installation industry,
and it is bad for domestic manufacturing and jobs.
I urge you not to proceed with the proposed change.
Thank you.
(bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Ross Williams.
You may go ahead.
Ross: Hi, good morning.
My name is Ross Williams, CEO of HES Solar in San Diego.
I'm gonna keep this short in an effort to allow
as many of the 400-plus solar supporters on this call
to speak in opposition.
We all know this proposed decision is awful policy,
and needs to be dramatically changed.
Please do the right thing.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Operator, do we have another caller?
Operator: Our next caller is John Semington.
You may go ahead.
John: Hi, thank you for the time.
I'm the managing partner of Peak Demand.
We do consulting and executive search in renewables.
Also, a solar consumer.
Please reconsider this Net Metering 3.0 decision.
It will be horrible for California consumers
on the solar side,
particularly as we're already seeing
enormous bill increases,
both for gas and power across the board.
As an employer of individuals
that rely on the solar industry,
and companies that are growing in the solar industry,
this will decimate solar jobs.
So thank you,
and please reconsider your decision.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is John Huxsol.
You may go ahead.
John: Hello.
Thank you, Commissioners.
This is John Huxsol.
I work for Mendocino Solar Service
up in Mendocino County on the North Coast.
I've been there for nine years.
I like my solar career,
because it feels good and right to provide clean energy
to so many homes in our area.
If this new NEM3 proposal is accepted,
solar will not be affordable for
any more homeowners in Mendocino County,
and our company would have to shut its doors.
I would lose my job,
and I don't know what my wife
and I will do without my solar career.
California is the leader in the nation in solar.
Rooftop solar will not kill utility workers' jobs,
nor does solar raise costs for other ratepayers.
These two things are myths.
We need a combination of utility scale solar
and rooftop solar in order to meet
California's energy goals.
This proposal doesn't make sense,
and I urge you to reject it.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Steve Kuttner.
You may go ahead.
Steve: Hello, CPUC, President Reynolds,
and Commissioners.
Steve Kuttner, project developer,
Sun Light & Power, Berkeley.
And I've worked in solar power for seven-plus years.
Chose the career to be part of
the clean energy movement in California,
and I enjoy working with tens of thousands of others
towards a more or sustainable future.
Californians seem to wanna harvest sunshine
for cleaner energy.
And NEM compensation, re-compensation, today
affords a significant and widely accessible path
to clean energy, helping keep our planet livable.
But globally, we do slip into environmental catastrophe,
as existential risk for young people and future generations.
Eyes are on the state of California.
The proposed decision would kill my job, and is a disaster.
You must reject this.
Thank you for listening.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Robert Gumm.
You may go ahead.
Robert: Yes, my name is Robert Gumm
from B & B Solar in Redding, California.
I've been involved in solar for 45 years continuously.
Started when it was water heating, pool heating, and such,
the liquid heating.
I've watched 45 years the industry to grow to this point.
It's a little discouraging to see this particular decision
that's being looked on to destroy those 45 years of work
that assisted the Californians to save on their bills,
help the environment, and do the things that are correct.
I feel that if the industry works
with the solar industry utilities and with the Commission,
we can come up with a better proposal
that will be more fitting.
And I also want to warn the issue
of abandoning people this year
who have started their systems,
and now are facing the prospect
of not having to be cost efficient,
or achieve what they were promised.
I really urge that this existing decision be scrapped,
start over, and do something
that'll work for the environment,
and work for all the workers
in this area. (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jerry Gruber.
You may go ahead.
Gary: Was that Gary Gerber?
-: Yes, please proceed. -: Yes, go ahead.
Gary: Okay.
Good morning, Commission.
My company, Sun Light & Power,
we have 80 passionate employees.
We're employee-owned.
We've been designing
and installing solar systems for over 45 years,
and in all those years,
I've never seen such an existential threat
to the future of solar than I'm seeing now in this NEM3 PD.
I'm actually especially worried
about the effect this PD would have
on our nonprofit, multifamily, affordable housing clients,
which we have hundreds.
Solar, under NEM, has become an integral contributor
to the financial success of these housing projects.
This PD will severely undercut the ability of PB systems
to provide the critical savings.
You know, the utilities claim that the so-called cost shift
is costing low income utility users,
but then they concoct this disingenuous plan
that is going to hurt those very people,
while putting thousands of solar workers
into the ranks of unemployed.
Please do not allow this PD to stand.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jared Slusser.
You may go ahead.
Jared: Hello, my name is Jared Slusser.
I'm the owner of Transform Power.
We are a local solar installer in Temecula.
Commissioners, please say no to NEM3.
These proposed changes would put my company out of business,
and I would be forced to lay off my employees.
If NEM3 passes,
I will be looking to move to a solar-friendly state,
such as Texas or Florida.
My customers are also very concerned,
and have been calling me since this solar tax was announced.
These low income and middle class families invested
in a clean energy future.
This proposed tax will put
an unfair financial burden on them.
The state of California
and the country are watching your decision.
To all the linemen and utility workers listening today,
please join us in the solar industry.
We need your skills and talents,
and have many job openings.
We look forward to working with you.
Commissioners, please reject NEM3.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mark Crowdis.
You may go ahead. (interposing voices)
(male mumbles indistinctly)
Again, Mark Crowdis,
your line is open. -: Hi, this-
Mark: Yes, hi!
This is Mark Crowdis with 127 Energy,
based in the City of Napa.
I am a native Californian,
and I have been working in the solar industry since 1997.
What we do, is development in finance.
I've worked in over 35 states.
What I've seen in virtually every state
that has a structure similar to NEM 3.0,
which is, essentially, a standby charge,
is that there's almost no solar industry.
What I'm asking you to do is reject this proposal,
and identify other options.
In terms of low income folks in the marketplace,
creating a credit facility, but via the state,
you could help them.
And in the event that you want to also
deal with the duck curve,
you could have distributed energy storage,
which now is cost effective.
Please reject this proposal,
because we will lose way too many jobs,
and climate change will not be being addressed via solar
in the state of California any further.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jim Jenner.
You may go ahead.
Jim: Thank you.
My name is Jim Jenner.
I own and operate Fusion Power Design in Lodi.
I've been building solar
and storage in the Central Valley for 15 years.
I urge you to reconsider the proposed NEM 3.0.
Every single solar system that I've personally designed
and installed has been based on solid financial goals,
and a modest return on investment.
This is especially true for commercial systems.
A five year return on investment has always been my goal,
and allows all California families
an opportunity to invest in themselves,
and get the added benefit of producing clean energy.
The current NEM 3.0 would allow a 12 year ROI in best cases,
and that includes battery incentive.
This will destroy the momentum
that has been created for clean energy in California,
and turn solar back into a purely luxury item.
It is clear to me that California has the opportunity
to have the electoral grid in the nation,
but the only way that this will happen
is if we continue to allow distributed solar
and storage to grow,
and the public has a right
to have an equal share in this process.
-: Thank you. -: Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next comment is Dan Jamal.
You may go ahead.
Sam: Hi, it's actually Sam Jammal.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
My name is Sam Jammal and I work for Mosaic.
For over 10 years, Mosaic's been headquartered in Oakland.
Our mission's 100% clean energy for all.
Since our founding,
we've helped nearly 80,000 families in California
add solar to their homes.
We finance solar loans.
We've worked with small, medium,
and large installers across the state.
We know this industry well,
and just how harmful the proposed decision will be.
Yet, we're looking at potentially
nearly $700 in new fees to add solar.
Plus, in Southern California Edison territory,
it'd actually be more expensive to add solar to your home
than neighbors who choose not to.
This is a huge step backwards for California.
The state really is still committed
to clean energy adoption,
and it's really unfortunate after all the wildfires
and droughts in recent years.
And so we hope the Commission rejects this decision,
comes back to the table,
and focuses on how to make solar
more affordable to families,
and really tries to move the state forward on climate.
I think, right now, we're in a critical moment,
and the Commission has an opportunity, really,
to correct course, and work with the industry,
and work with the different partners out there
to make this- (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Ed Murray.
You may go ahead.
Ed: Hey, thank you.
Good morning.
Thank you, President Reynolds and Commissioners, PUC staff.
I'm Ed Murray, president of Aztec Solar in Rancho Cordova.
The company that I run is about 50 employees,
similar to the 720 companies that are involved in
California Solar and Storage Association,
which I'm the president of.
Right now, there's 70,000 or so employed in California.
That will at least go in half, if not more,
that will lose those jobs.
The other side of this is the equity issue.
There is no huge equity problem.
There's only opportunity.
The largest single group of solar adopters today
are families earning under $100,000 per year.
These are working class, middle class,
school teachers, mail carriers, grocery store workers.
They are going solar at a rate
of two times out of the wealthiest.
If you make solar more expensive,
this is who you cut out of the energy economy.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Ben Justino.
You may go ahead.
Ben: Hi!
Thanks for hearin' us out.
My name is Ben.
I'm a solar installer from Berkeley, California.
I've been installing solar for the past 15 years.
Distributed solar installation provides a career,
and not just a temp job, installing utility scale solar.
This NEM3 proposal puts my career,
and tens of thousands of careers like mine, at serious risk.
The major flaw in this proposed NEM3
is the monthly fine per kilowatt of solar installed.
This would effectively stop new installations.
It would also send pricing signals to homeowners
with 15-year-old systems to remove their existing systems,
rather than maintain them.
The state and federal government have spent billions
encouraging solar installation,
and this monthly fine turns that investment
into a complete waste.
Please consider keeping the current interconnection fee,
instead of this monthly $8 per kilowatt fine.
Thanks.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is from Meghan Stimmler.
You may go ahead.
Meghan: Hi, my name's Meghan Stimmler.
I am the sales director for my family's solar company,
SolarHut, in El Dorado County.
My father started the business in 2008.
I came from Sacramento State
as an environmental post-science major.
We have served our community,
and that has been devastated by fires and public shutoffs.
People in El Dorado County
are reliant on electricity staying on,
and they want to save money.
Since 2012, pricing has increased tenfold.
NEM 3.0 will devastate my company and my family.
Director asked changes of grandfathering
is gonna affect my home and several hundred of my customers.
We need a gradual step down of the credits,
not a drastic one.
We need to not tax homeowners wanting to go solar,
and we need not to destroy 60,000 solar jobs.
Don't be a destroyer of livelihoods and green future.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Vicki Vaugn.
You may go ahead.
Vicki: Hi, good morning.
My name is Vicki Vaugn.
I work at Solar Works in Sonoma County.
We've been in business since 1986,
and employ 11 people on very thin profit margins.
I echo all the other commenters' concerns
about the negative impact that the proposed NEM changes
would have on our industry,
especially on other small businesses like ours.
And I would support fair
and balanced revisions to net metering
that would distribute the cost of grid maintenance
and resilience projects amongst all utility customers,
not just of solar customers.
Thanks.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Veronica Lombardi.
You may go ahead.
Veronica: Hi, good morning.
Thank you for listening to our comments this morning.
I work with California Clean Energy in Berkeley.
We've been in business for 12 years
providing financing to nonprofits, churches, and schools.
You've heard from many, many people that NEM3 will not,
you know, make us feasible anymore.
We can tell you, that we do that math every day,
and we know for a fact that it will make us non-feasible.
Our company's small.
We don't charge these churches and schools very much.
And NEM3 will, effectively, end our business.
So we really urge you to reject this proposal as it is,
go back to the drawing board,
and hope we can come up with something more equitable.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is JD Dillon.
You may go ahead.
JD: Hi, Commissioners!
I'm JD Dillon,
representing about a hundred Tigo employees
in Santa Clara County,
and the eight people and pets of the Dillon family
in Contra Costa County.
So in 2017, I joined the solar industry.
Soon after, my daughter proudly declared
at her elementary school's Daddy and Donuts Day
that her dad was in solar.
That is not something she would've been able to say
when I was in semi-connectors.
And I'm not sure if you know,
but 8% of California homes have solar.
We're second only to Hawaii in the United States,
and our influence is staggering.
Where California goes, the country goes,
and indeed, where the world goes,
and I take that very seriously.
So I think we're in a unique position to unite the state
and the country around solar.
I'm actually a proud Republican
who works alongside Democrats and independents alike
to help the planet with this great technology.
Not too many issues can unite the country like this.
So let's reject this decision, so we can work together,
change the world one rooftop at a time.
In the process, (bell dinging)
I can keep making daughter proud.
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Scott Connolly.
You may go ahead.
Scott: Yes, good morning from sunny Palm Springs.
Do not let special interest of utility corporations
try to dismantle solar incentives
and the progress we have made
to reduce our carbon emissions.
I am proud to be a solar user,
and it makes me feel good to be doing my part
to help save the environment, and mitigate climate change.
The proposal is unfair.
It is an ex-post-facto-type law.
It retroactively changes the legal consequences
of actions that we made prior,
before this, solar users made decisions
and large financial investment
based on the given factors at the time.
We need to promote
and provide incentives for rooftop solar,
and to help mitigate climate change, and provide solar jobs.
Thank you, and that's my end conclusion.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jennifer Pickering-Kronick.
You may go ahead.
Jennifer: Hi.
My name is Jennifer Pickering-Kronick.
In late 2009,
after being laid off for a second time
within a 10 year period,
I took the initiative to invest in solar training,
and founded a small contracting firm in February of 2010
called NewGen Energy Corporation.
I'm passionate about solar,
because I feel it's a critical technology
to the reduction of greenhouse gases,
which it protects future generations.
On a personal note, for 12 years,
solar has become the very foundation of my livelihood,
that of an amazing small workforce,
and thousands like us working hard every day
in the California solar industry.
As it's written,
I'm extremely concerned about
the negative impacts NEM3 will have on this industry.
Not only is it gonna jeopardize
the livelihoods of an incredible workforce in California,
but it will debilitate future growth
in a critical green energy.
Please rewrite NEM3 to promote a more fair
and balanced approach to this industry.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jake Marshall.
You may go ahead.
Jake: Hi, my name's Jake Marshall
with CED Greentech in San Diego.
And I gotta tell you,
I have 65 employees here,
and they are all scared to death right now
that their job is in jeopardy,
and they don't deserve to feel like that
in an industry that they put so much into
for the past 12 years that we've been in business.
In the past 18 months,
we've had 12 brand new babies at our location
with people who are starting their lives,
and depending on this industry to support their families.
These are hardworking people.
You don't need a college degree to work in this industry
or for my company.
And so until you tell me where my people are gonna work
once NEM3 goes through as proposed,
then you cannot let this happen.
So please, I want you to reject NEM3,
unless you wanna go tell all these babies
that their dads and moms don't have jobs.
So you can tell Benny, and Sienna, and Nolan,
and Nicoli, Farrow, Gage, Callem, Nicari, Mizel, Caleb,
all these kids that
their mom and dad- (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you very much for your comment.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Daniel M. King.
You may go ahead.
Daniel: Hi.
My name's Daniel Lanking.
Can you hear me?
Reynolds: Yes, go ahead.
Daniel: Hi, my name's Daniel Lanking,
and I'm an energy consultant for Sandbar Solar,
which is a small electrical contractor
employing about 50 people in Santa Cruz.
I started working in solar in 2013,
and I left the industry for a few years,
but ultimately came back,
because there's really no job that I like better
than helping people use their rooftops
to generate clean, reliable energy for their homes.
Knowing that I'm making a difference for people
and the planet is really what gets me
out of bed every morning,
and I'm sure that I'm not alone in that.
The proposed decision is an absolute disaster,
and I ask you to reject it outright,
and come up with a new proposal
that will allow California solar industry
to continue to thrive.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Susan Dembowski.
You may go ahead.
Susan: Good morning.
My name is Susan Dembowski.
I live in the San Gabriel Valley in Southern California.
My interest in is in California
achieving its clean energy goals,
while ensuring energy equity
for low to moderate income rate-payers,
and encouraging good, local, clean energy jobs,
and supporting small and minority businesses.
However, the proposed decision is a solar tax,
which will prevent California
from realizing these objectives.
It will discourage ratepayers of all incomes
from making the big expenditures that will be required.
It will be unaffordable for low, working,
and middle class ratepayers.
Only the wealthy will invest in it,
while rooftop solar ratepayers will get back
significantly less for the excess energy
they export to the grid.
All ratepayers will pay very high monthly solar fees.
Please expand rooftop solar's attainability,
especially for low to moderate income ratepayers,
honor existing solar users' protection for 20 years,
and don't target rooftop solar ratepayers
with discriminatory fixed charges.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tim Glanville.
You may go.
Tim: Hi, thanks.
My name is Tim Glanville.
I work with Solar Technologies in the Bay Area.
I've been in the solar industry for 10 years now.
The proposed decision, or really, anything close to it,
would kill my job,
the jobs of the 80-plus employees in my company,
and it could be a death sentence
to California solar industry as a whole.
The proposed NEM tariff provision is so counterintuitive
to the climate goals of our state.
It would be a huge step in the wrong direction.
California should be a leader
in the fight against climate change,
and I urge the CPUC to reject this utility profit grab,
and make sure solar remains a viable option for the people.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jenny Ross.
You may go ahead.
Sherry: Thank you for hearing me.
My name is Sherry Ross,
and I'm a senior citizen living in San Diego.
And since 2018, my electric bill has tripled.
I'm planning to use savings to purchase solar panels
to help the environment and control my cost.
It is unjust to force me to pay a tax to the utility
for generating my own electricity.
It is equally unjust to not honor the promises
to current solar users.
Your decision on net energy metering should be set aside.
Again, thank you for hearing me.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Randy Wise.
You may go ahead.
Randy: Good morning, Commissioners.
Does Governor Newsom
and the CPUC really wanna associate themselves with PG&E?
Here's a company who's responsible for
over 2,000 wildfires in the last five years,
and you want to reward them with a rooftop solar tax?
Really?
Here's a company who's
inadvertently killed its own customers,
and you're proposing giving them a bonus
by gutting the solar power credit by 80%?
Really?
PG&E has been charged with multiple felonies,
and you say, "Good job"!
"We'll help you gut all rooftop solar power for decades."
Really?
Come on!
Governor Newsom just survived a recall election last year.
Does the CPUC really wanna **** off current
and future rooftop solar homeowners,
an enormous coalition of organizations
and community leaders?
Not to mention,
responsible for laying off
thousands of solar panel installers in an election year.
Really?
Let's get real.
No one thinks your new NEM proposal is a good idea,
and that's the real truth.
Let's turn off the lights
on this proposal- (bell dinging)
-: Thank you very much. (interposing voices)
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Wrede Whitney.
You may go ahead.
Wrede: Hi, good morning, Commissioner President,
and all those listening today.
My name is Wrede Whitney,
I'm the owner of WC Whitney, Inc,
a renewable energy broker that started in the solar,
California solar industry in 1983.
We ask that the Utilities Commission do what's fair.
We know that they're inundated
with a lot of work at this point.
But what is fair for not only the utility companies,
but please the homeowners here in California
who need it the most.
The proposed decision of Net Metering 3
as it's written now is definitely one-sided,
and not fair to the homeowners.
We ask that you reject this proposal,
and create something that's fair.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Steve Chan.
You may go ahead.
Steve: Hi, thank you for your time.
My name's Steve Chan,
and I work at a company called TerraVerde Energy
based out of San Francisco.
I'm calling today as a solar worker,
yes, and who depends on this.
I've been working in solar for the past three, four years.
I'm a young professional only in my mid-20s,
and I'm also calling to you as a young person
who has to live for the next 80 years on this planet,
who has to deal with the climate impacts,
who has to deal with these wildfires.
I'm a lifelong Californian.
Born and raised here.
And I love California.
But every year, we see that these effects are getting worse.
The droughts are getting worse.
Fires getting worse.
And this is my life that I'm talking about here.
I'm speaking for my own self-interest,
and for the self-interest of Millennials
and Gen Zs who have to deal with these impacts.
So yes, I'm talking to you for my livelihood, for my job,
and I wanna keep working in this industry,
and I love working in this industry,
but also, just my life.
I deserve...
I have a right to have a good, and fair,
and safe life on this planet.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Cynthia Lau.
You may go ahead.
Cynthia: Hello?
Can you hear me?
Reynolds: Yes, I can.
Please proceed.
Cynthia: My name is Cynthia Lau.
I'm from Stockton.
I am a member of the CEEE.
I am also involved in various community
and civical organization.
Before any meeting,
someone would always mention the weather,
and the rising cost of utilities.
No real mention of the role of climate change
and systemic inequity, which has led to these rising costs.
I would like for you to reconsider
your proposed decision on net metering.
Please revise the current proposal,
and ensure that there are no civil tax,
solar becomes more affordable
for working and middle class households,
and honor the existing 20 year protection
for solar users on NEM1 and NEM2.
We wanna decrease our reliance on fossil fuels,
and increase renewable energy
to meet our climate change goals.
More rooftops solar will also help to protect
the last of our remaining open space.
Rooftop solar reduces the need
for large solar wind farms and transmission lines.
Please reconsider. (bell dinging)
Thank you. -: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is from Larry Giustino.
You may go ahead.
Larry: Yes, my name is Larry Giustino,
president of A1 Sun in Berkeley, California.
We're a small company.
We employ about 20 people with good benefits,
and central services in the Bay Area.
So while growing our career is extremely important,
there are a few things that need to be attended to.
First, the utility analysis doesn't give
full credit for solar kilowatts.
It doesn't include AC load reduction,
wildfire risk reduction,
or local efficiency gains, health benefits,
all these things that are not in that analysis.
So it's flawed.
So the imaginary cost shift
doesn't give full credit for solar benefits,
so it results in an undervaluation.
That's a big flaw.
If the utilities really wanna help lower income households
take the millions of dollars that are wasted
on these misleading ads,
and provide it directly to the folks
that are struggling with their bills, clear.
Second, Gavin Newsom, you know,
he's introduced this new energy charging structure.
How are we gonna charge that with coal?
Okay, third,
utilities claim there's a surplus of solar energy.
Incorrect.
We can easily store solar energy,
and solve some urgent challenges.
At the same time- (bell dinging)
Of ocean water, pumping water- -: Thank you very much.
Thank you for your comment. (interposing voices)
Larry: To produce green hydrogen, et cetera.
So instead of just- -: Thank you.
We do need to end now. (interposing voices)
Operator, next caller, please. -: Stop!
Operator: Our next caller is Rebecca Ruben.
You may go ahead.
Rebecca: Hi, my name is Rebecca Ruben,
and I live in Felton, California,
and I'm a rooftop solar user.
We put solar on our home just last year,
because my electricity bills were over $200,
as well as the power outages we experience from PG&E.
Rooftop solar and a storage battery
is the best way to protect ourselves
from constant rate hikes and power outages.
We should be able to control our energy bills,
and give back to the environment,
especially when we are expected to switch
to electric cars and appliances.
Rooftop solar let's us do that.
I strongly oppose the proposed M 3.0 decision.
Please, no solar tax of any kind.
Ensure that solar becomes more affordable for working
and middle class households, not less.
And honor the existing 20 year protection
for solar users like myself.
Thank you for your time.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Peter Aardema.
You may go ahead.
Peter: Hello?
Yeah, my name is Peter Aardema.
I'm an installer in San Diego.
I've got five employees.
From what I can tell,
this net effective NEM 3.0 is to move panels
from their maintenance of homeowners
to the utility companies.
The utility companies want to put this,
put these panels out in the middle of the desert,
far away from the homes they supply,
then dragged to potentially dangerous
and visually offensive power lines
all over the state to reach their customers.
This would put many of the 500 callers
currently in this queue, not to mention me,
and their employees out of business,
with no one to support the existing systems
they carefully installed.
What happens if this passes as written,
and the pushback is then coming from environmental groups,
Indian tribes, groups that are forced to live
next to a once open field of panels,
instead of valuable California open space?
Is this really the direction we want to go?
Give more power to the few,
take it away from the public?
This is exactly what's wrong
with most of California's policies,
and what's driving people away.
This favors the rich.
It favors monopolies, (bell dinging)
and ignores the wishes of its residents.
Reynolds: Very much.
We appreciate your comment.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Margaret *******.
You may go ahead.
Margaret: Yes, my name is Margaret *******.
Good morning.
I live in Santa Cruz, California,
and I strongly oppose the current M 3.0 proposal.
The utilities are claiming
that the current system is inequitable,
while at the same time,
they continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels
and natural gas power plants,
which are disproportionately located
in disadvantaged communities.
These communities have extreme exposure
to fossil fuel toxins and dangerous chemicals.
It has resulted in their children having asthma,
and being born with birth defects.
This kind of inequity is real inequity.
The more solar reliant we become,
the less fossil fuels we use,
and the safer lower income and communities of color are.
The real equity issue is about
the devastating effects of fossil fuels.
We cannot move away from fossil fuels without solar
and rooftop solar is an essential piece
of the solar solution.
So I do not believe that NEM3 is good for the middle class
or lower income people,
who include almost 50% of solar users.
This model will make
all solar users- (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sandra Rennie.
You may go ahead.
Sandra: Good morning.
Thank you for hearing my story, which is a personal one.
Presently, a solar system is being installed
on the roof of our house.
We're adding solar to do our part for the climate,
to lower our energy bill,
and to be able to afford to be a bit warmer.
We live in mild climate San Diego County.
Even so, in winter, our house is cold.
We turn the heat on for only two hours in the morning,
and then we turn it off,
because our winter bill is nearly $700 per month.
I am constantly cold,
even with two sweaters.
My husband and I are retired with modest incomes.
Our new solar system will pay for itself in 7.1 years
under the present rate structure.
If the PUC adopts this change
as requested by the utility company,
the value of our energy savings
will basically go to the utility.
We will not be able to afford more warmth,
and I don't think- (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
We appreciate your comment.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Henry Maui.
You may go ahead.
Henry: Hi, my wife and I are solar customers
living in San Francisco.
Like many of the electricity customers in California
who invested in solar panels and batteries,
we will likely not break even for 20 or more years
on our investment under our current rate system.
We did it mainly
because it's the right thing to do to combat climate change.
NEM3 penalizes current solar customers,
and will likely discourage
any other customers from going solar.
This is a big gift to the fossil fuel industry
at the expense of future generations
dealing with the effects of climate change.
We should be encouraging customers to adopt solar energy.
When PG&E needs more income from its customers,
it seems only fair that this comes from
an increase to the grid maintenance fee
and electric rates equally to all customers,
solar and non-solar.
And for the past 105 minutes,
you have yet to hear from anyone supporting NEM3.
Doesn't that tell you something?
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
We appreciate your comment.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Richard Blum.
You may go ahead.
Richard: Hello, Richard Blum.
I'm a homeowner in San Diego.
To address global warming,
we need more, not less, solar energy generation.
This proposal would drastically decrease new
photovoltaic deployment with associated adverse effects
on jobs and climate change.
There's a problem with time of day mismatch
between generation and use.
The solution is better storage.
We don't have a battery on our system,
and are concerned about both cost,
and the risk of overheating and fire.
Storage technology will catch up,
but we need more photovoltaic panels on the roofs now,
not sometime in the future.
Claims that this proposal is about
redistribution of wealth or income is a hoax,
and in any case,
would be the wrong approach to those issues.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
I did wanna take a moment to
thank everyone for their patience.
We still have over 300 callers in the queue,
and I wanted to let everyone know
that we'll be taking a 15 minute break at noon.
Until then, we'll proceed with the callers.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kenny Tew.
You may go ahead.
Kenny: Hi, good morning.
And thank you for the opportunity
to address the Commission this morning.
My name is Kenny Tew.
I work for a company called GoGreenSolar in Orange County.
We're a really small business with just 24 employees.
Every employee is very critical to our success.
If NEM 3.0 moves forward under the PD,
it would devastate our business, our lives,
and the families of all of our employees.
We love our work.
We consider it a calling and a mission.
When one of our customers completes their solar project,
we have taken a small step
to provide a more sustainable planet
for generations to come.
Our customers are much like us,
hardworking and middle class families
trying to improve their lives and communities.
NEM makes rooftop solar a terrible investment, period.
I encourage the Commission to stop,
follow your mission statement,
and draft a new decision that protects California jobs,
our economy, families, the environment, and consumers.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tom Cotter.
You may go ahead.
Tom: My name is Tom Cotter.
I'm with Powur, a public benefit corporation.
I've worked in solar for 15 years,
and the sole provider for my wife and three kids.
I've also had solar on my house in Clovis
for the last 13 years.
I'm incredibly proud of the solar progress
we've made in our state.
It was just a few years ago
we celebrated the success
of the Million Solar Roofs Initiative
with Governor Schwarzenegger and Brown.
But I'm deeply concerned about this PD,
because, as written, it would reverse our progress,
and end my career in California,
and it would decimate the careers
of thousands of solar professionals I know,
and force hundreds of us to leave the state.
I respectfully request the Commission push pause,
and rethink the PD.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Rozz Sohailey.
You may go ahead.
Rozz: Hello, my name is Rozz Sohailey,
and I am a California native.
I've always been so proud to be from a progressive state
that champions initiative
that paves the way for other states to follow.
I am heartbroken and disgusted
that during our climate crisis,
when we are supposed to be working to meet
our clean energy goals,
you're considering taxing people for having solar.
I'm completely opposed to the solar tax
or any fees that would punish folks who have solar.
This is wrong.
It is completely immoral.
If you care about our futures
and the generations that follow,
you will do all that you can to protect clean energy.
No taxes or fees on renewable energy.
Not now, not ever.
Thank you for listening.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Niels Lund.
You may go ahead.
Neils: Yes, hi, thank you.
My name is Neils Lund.
I live in Encinitas in Southern California.
My wife and I are both retired, moderate income.
I have solar panels on my house and an electric car,
so I feel proud to drive and partially heat my home
with the power from the sun.
I'm reducing the consumption of fossil fuel,
doing what I can to combat climate change.
If a solar tax was forced on me, I would feel betrayed.
It's not fair
that those of us doing the right thing
to help save our planet
should be penalized with a solar tax.
I spent a considerable amount of money
to do the right thing to help with California's efforts
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
and I should not be penalized for doing so.
A solar tax is a betrayal of me
and our beautiful state of California.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Cynthia Chalet.
You may go ahead.
Cynthia: Hi, this is Cynthia Chalet.
I'm in Sacramento.
And I wanna tell you that we need to promote
the faster use of rooftop solar, not slow it down.
Even our local utility says
that they can not meet their solar goals
without doubling rooftop solar in Sacramento.
And we will not do that if you put this extra tax on solar.
No solar tax, please!
And save jobs, save the climate, look up.
Thank you.
Bye.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Teresa Acero.
You may go ahead.
Teresa: Hello?
Reynolds: Yes, we can hear you.
-: Hello? -: Please go ahead.
Teresa: Oh.
Hi, my name is Teresa Acero.
I live in Chula Vista,
and I've had solar for over 20 years.
I overproduce.
I've always overproduced,
and SDGE sells my extra kilowatts
for much more than it credits me for.
Now I have a battery,
and I only use the grid to give SDG&E energy.
Charging me to use the grid
is like charging a power plant to use the grid.
Solar on rooftop saves money for everyone,
and saves our valuable open space environment
from destruction by huge, unnecessary projects.
The state and utilities should rent rooftops from landlords
and low income residents for solar and batteries.
The city should reduce the minimum amount paid to utilities,
since growing numbers of CCAs
is making them into bill makers and maintenance providers.
Much less costly jobs than
providing electric utilities. (bell dinging)
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kaylee Underhill.
You may go ahead.
Kaylee: My name is Kaylee Underhill,
and I live in Long Beach, California.
I'm calling in today because the sun belongs to everyone,
and the last thing we should do is tax it.
No solar tax, not even a dime.
This Commission has an honorable objective
to help Californians receive safe, clean,
and affordable utility services.
The utilities' long distance power lines are not safe,
they are not clean, and they are not affordable.
These lines spark devastating wildfires,
rely on dirty energy sources,
and cost consumers an estimated 9 billion a year.
Rooftop solar is safe,
rooftop solar is clean,
and rooftop solar can continue to become more
and more affordable for working
and middle class Californians,
if this proposed decision is fixed.
Please do not tax the sun.
Do not make solar less affordable
for those who need it most.
Do not roll back protections for existing solar customers.
Please protect rooftop solar,
so that we can build the clean energy future
our children deserve.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Dooms Johandes.
You may go ahead.
(female speaks indistinctly)
Again, Dooms Johandes, your line is open.
And Dooms Johandes, your line is open.
You may go ahead.
James: Hello?
-: Yes, go ahead please. -: Yes, please proceed.
James: Hi, my name is James Johandes.
I live in Arroyo Grande, California.
Governor Newsom- (male speaks in Spanish)
Can you hear me?
Reynolds: Yes.
James: I trust you
to act in the best interests of the people,
not the utilities.
I trust you to keep your promises.
I trust you not to burden the people
with another utility charge,
which would, in effect, harm the environment
by crippling solar generation.
Please, please find the strength to act on our behalf.
I trust you, Governor Newsom and Commission members.
I trust you to do the right thing.
Thank you very much.
(female speaks in Spanish)
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Albero Testero.
You may go ahead.
Al: Hello?
Can you hear me?
Reynolds: Yes, please proceed.
Al: My name is Al Castro.
I live in Saratoga, California.
I am a retired rocket scientist.
I oppose the proposed decision.
Rooftop solar is the solution towards energy independence.
Nine years ago, I design and install a solar system.
My system supplies power for my home and my electric car.
Every day, I supply power into the grid
during critical consumption times.
I believe I am part of the solution.
I think that what you're trying to do is just wrong.
No solar tax of any kind.
I believe we are being penalized for good behavior.
Please stop.
I oppose the proposed decision.
Thank you and have a good day.
Bye. -: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Audrey Echenosa.
You may go ahead.
Audrey: Thank you.
Good morning.
I'm a Berkeley resident.
My husband and I own a small 1.71 kilowatt system
with no batteries.
And we appreciate the importance of the grid
to provide clean, affordable,
and reliable electricity to our homes and businesses.
But we also adamantly refuse
to prop off PG&E stewardship
of the transmission and distribution lines.
The IOUs monopoly should be revoked.
And in the case of PG&E,
its service territory broken up
in favor of more manageable,
not for profit, public agencies
that better serve the many needs of local communities.
Thank you very much.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Paul Sullivan.
You may go ahead.
Paul: Hello, Commissioners.
My name is Paul Sullivan,
and I'm directly responsible for 14 energy consultants
and their wellbeing.
Many are the sole providers for their family,
and they're passionate about what they do.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide comment
on the proposed NEM decision.
In short, just start over.
If the PD stands as is,
the utilities will succeed in ridding themselves
of rooftop solar in California,
and will have the solar industry,
just like North Dakota, none.
I've been in solar for 17 years.
I put solar in my house to save money, and I did,
but I soon realized more good was being done with my choice
than just saving money.
It was doing my part to help save our planet.
I had to share that.
Went to work for the company that installed my system.
I entered this industry
to make a difference in people's lives.
First, by saving them some money,
and more holistically,
to free ourselves from the fossil fuel addiction.
I beg you to scrap this proposal,
write one that has a gentle path,
that doesn't kill tens of thousands of jobs overnight.
Thank you for listening.
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Michael Powers.
You may go ahead.
Michael: Hello, Commissioners.
My name is Michael Powers,
and I work for Stellar Solar in San Diego.
In the past 20 years,
we've installed more than 14,000
rooftop solar energy systems in Southern California,
including vital nonprofit institutions,
like the SOCC Institute in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.
As a locally owned and operated business,
we employ about a hundred professionals and skilled workers,
and over 40% of them identify as Black, Asian,
or Latino heritage.
Many of them have worked for us for more than 10 years.
Most of our workers have families to support,
and our annual payroll exceeds 10 million dollars.
However, your proposed decision on NEM 3.0
would put all of this and those families in jeopardy.
With due respect,
please reject and revise it.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
It is 12 o'clock now.
We will be taking a 15 minute break.
So we will resume at 12:15.
Operator: By today's conference is resumed.
President Reynolds, you may proceed.
Reynolds: Thank you.
First, we need to establish a quorum with the clerk.
Please call the role.
-: Commissioner Houck? -: Here.
-: Commissioner Shiroma? -: Present.
-: Commissioner Rechtschaffen? -: Here.
-: President Reynolds? -: Here.
Thank you.
We have a quorum.
We are resuming the public comment portion of our agenda.
I wanted to remind speakers
that you will have up to one minute to make your comment.
You will hear a bell sound when your time is up.
And please remember, brevity is your friend.
We have many, many people still in the queue,
people who have been waiting already
a long time this morning.
So if you are able to shorten your comments,
that will give everyone a chance to have a time to speak,
and will minimize the waiting period.
Thank you very much.
Operator, let's take the next caller.
Operator: Our next caller is Jennifer Gass.
You may go ahead.
Jennifer: Hi, my name is Jennifer Gass,
and I'm a blind homeowner and rooftop solar user
here in Stockton, California.
I'm on a fixed income.
I got solar originally
because I knew it was better for the environment,
and the state was encouraging it,
but mostly because it would save me a little money,
and I can't afford a tax on solar.
A lot of people I know can't.
Or any increases in our utilities,
especially now on a fixed income when times are hard.
I urge you not to adopt the proposed solar tax today.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Hellen Birecki.
You may go ahead.
Helena: Hi, my name is Helena Birecki,
and I was born and raised in California.
I live in San Francisco.
We've heard two hours of comments saying,
"Save our electricity, save jobs, save the planet, look up".
I am completely echoing everybody's comments so far,
and asking the CPUC to reject the proposed decision,
and remake it, so it includes no solar tax of any kind.
We need all of California's policies working together
to ensure that solar becomes more,
not less, affordable for working
and middle class households.
And I'd urge the Commission to consider
the climate necessity, not only for mitigation,
which the CPUC's own report say,
we need to triple existing rooftop solar
to meet our energy goals, but also adaptation.
With the fire in Big Sur not yet under control in January,
it reminds us of the power shutoffs
to millions of people who aren't even
in the fire risk zone in the summers,
and how many lives of people who need to keep
medication refrigerated, (bell dings)
et cetera, will be safe. -: Thank you very much.
-: Thank you. -: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is William Macy.
You may go ahead.
William: Yeah, I'm William Macy,
and I live in San Jose, California.
I urge the CPUC to reject the current NEM3 proposal.
As a middle class resident in California,
and rooftop solar and battery owner,
I am seeing my electric costs
associated with these technologies spiral upwards,
because of PG&E infrastructure delivery costs
that make them increasingly expensive year-over-year.
Without affordable alternatives to our power companies,
or options to disconnect from PG&E's grid,
and avoid the escalating costs,
this leaves consumers of all income brackets
open to uncontrollable energy bills
for the foreseeable future.
Consumers are now paying for PG&E's decades long lack
of investment in infrastructure,
and this is unfair to all consumers.
Please do the right thing.
Reject this proposal.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Troy Carroll.
You may go ahead.
Troy: Yeah, my name's Troy Carroll.
I've been in the solar industry for the past seven years.
The proposed Net Metering 3 is just ridiculous.
It'll be devastating,
and gut the solar industry in California.
We're supposed to be the leaders
in green energy in the nation,
and honestly, it's become a farce.
The documentation that was sent out
by the utilities this past weekend
is just shy of being reliable,
and only meant to perpetuate their monopoly on California.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Amber Woodworth.
You may go ahead.
Amber: Hello.
I am Amber Woodworth from Rise Energy in Humboldt County.
I implore you also to please oppose
the drastic changes to net energy metering.
Please imagine what our future will look like
when we reach California's climate goals.
100% clean energy.
On one hand, there could be vast infrastructure
built over open land and sea.
All energy, including for heat
and transportation would come from
centralized sources controlled by the few,
all powerful corporate monopolies.
It may seem efficient,
but at the expense of resiliency, safety,
small businesses, self autonomy, and nature,
this is not the future we want.
On the other hand, with distributed solar
and storage built into our homes and communities,
we create a future where there is local control,
energy independence, resilience, power to the people,
and efficient land use.
Rooftop solar owners and installer are rightly proud.
Please do not enact regulation that would tax
and kill citizen-owned distributed generation.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is James Pearson.
You may go ahead
Again, James Pearson, your line is open.
Please check your mute button.
And should we go to the next caller?
Reynolds: Yes, please, Operator.
Thank you.
Operator: Our next caller is David Rush.
You may go ahead.
David: Over the past two decades,
thousands of middle class Californians, like my wife and I,
both retired teachers,
did what we thought was the right thing.
We answered the call to help save our planet to go solar.
Now, the message that we are getting,
is that rooftop solar is a problem,
not a part of the solution.
For four years,
we listened to a president declare that he alone
could fix all the problems that plague our country.
Likewise, the utilities are now now telling us
we alone can fix our clean energy problems,
and do it more cheaply for everyone.
Many experts in the field don't believe it.
Credible studies rebut the utilities' projections
that rooftop solar creates a huge cost shift
to other ratepayers.
Now is not the time to throw
all of our clean energy eggs in one basket.
There are too many unknowns to conclude that utilities alone
will best solve our clean energy needs.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Meaghan Mroz-Barrett.
You may go ahead.
Meaghan: Hi, my name is Meaghan Mroz-Barrett.
I have been in the solar,
worked in the solar industry for seven years,
and I'm also a solar customer.
I work for Solar Technologies out of Antioch, California.
I joined the solar industry
after completing my Masters in Regional Planning
in order to have a direct impact
on the adoption of renewable energy in California.
I love helping businesses realize energy savings,
and improve their financials
by adding solar to their properties.
I strongly oppose this decision due to the negative impacts
it will have on our future customers and our industry.
Help save my and my coworkers careers
by rejecting this proposal.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Diane Andrews.
You may go ahead.
Diane: Hello, I'm Diane Andrews
in Bakersfield, California,
and I oppose the proposed decision.
And the only way to properly address it
is there to be no solar tax of any kind.
Solar should become more affordable
for the working and the middle class, and not less.
The 20 year protection,
which encouraged us to bear the cost of adding solar,
should be honored.
Local rooftop solar and battery storage is the best
and proven way for people to protect themselves
from power outages.
It is especially important for people with disability
and medical issues on a fixed income,
the seniors and the disabled, the veterans, like my husband,
whose budgets are devastated
when other increases like this are added on,
California will not meet its climate change goals
if we back off from rooftop solar.
The state itself has said
that we need to triple the amount of solar
to get off of the fossil fuels,
both the large and the rooftops.
We can't do that alone with large scale renewables.
We ask you to honor the promise made to us,
and the protection of 20 years,
and not to penalize those who have done the right thing
for our ecology and our economy.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Rosalyn Young.
You may go ahead.
Rosalyn: My name is Rosalyn Young,
and my family has homes with solar in San Francisco
and outside of Stockton.
I believe that the CPUC
should protect the people of California, not PG&E.
PG&E wants to break their contract
with the existing solar customers.
We installed solar in good faith.
It was expensive,
but it was worth it for the environment,
and that we could eventually recoup our investment
through the agreed upon net metering over 20 years.
Now, PG&E wants to cheat us
with a huge monthly access fee,
and vastly reduced net metering benefits.
If anyone else did business like this,
they would go out of business or go to jail.
PG&E needs to honor their commitment
to existing solar customers,
and they must continue programs
that enable middle class households to afford rooftop solar,
a small monthly infrastructure fee like we have now,
and full credit for the energy that rooftop panels produce,
and send back to the grid
that PG&EE sells to other customers.
Thank you. (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sunny Wang.
You may go ahead.
Connie: Hi, I'm Connie Wang
speaking on behalf of Aurora Solar,
a solar software solution company
headquartered in San Francisco.
My team of 300 work every day
to help contractors drive solar adoption
and energy independence.
And the current proposal will tank
California's bright solar market,
and layoff thousands of jobs.
I respectfully ask you to find a solution
that doesn't include a tax for harvesting energy
from a star that belongs to no one,
a solution that works for the public,
and eases the NEM changes,
so that the industry doesn't collapse.
Thank you for my time.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kathleen Giustino.
You may go ahead.
Kathleen: Yes, good afternoon.
My name is Kathleen Giustino.
I'm the CFO for A1 Sun,
an (mumbles) solar energy company
and energy storage company.
We founded it in 2007 after self-installing on our own.
We share our expertise to help others in our neighborhood
get the solar benefits,
and to help the planet reduce global warming
one system at a time.
The proposed NEM 3.0 will destroy our company,
and stall the California state goals for
assaulting global warming.
Incentivized rooftop solar,
you don't have the line laws.
There's no fires and deaths.
Keep wildlands wild.
We don't need the CPUC to gut our company,
and hurt our country and our climate.
So please rewrite the NEM3,
and make it useful for everybody.
Kathleen Giustino, I'm with A1 Sun in Berkeley.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Gardio Sanoya.
You may go ahead.
Again, Gardio Sanoya, your line is open.
Please check your mute button.
Darby: Hello?
-: Hi, you may go ahead. -: Yes, we can hear you.
-: Oh, my name is Darby Osnaya.
So...
Yes, Darby Osnaya here on occupied Tongva land in Colton.
So thank you, CPU, for everything that you have done.
I'm just calling to let y'all know that,
you know, here in Colton, occupied Tongva land,
we definitely live with the effects of air pollution
and climate change every day.
We are part of a disadvantaged community.
I live right next to the train tracks,
so polluted air is my life right here.
So we are asking y'all to please vote
to approve the IRP,
to approve the new 38 million metric ton
greenhouse gas emission limit,
and continue working towards a 30 million metric ton,
and eventually, even lower greenhouse gas target.
Please do not waste any ratepayer money on dirty
and polluting gas plants.
Reject all proposals for new gas resources,
and please retire existing gas plants now,
beginning with those in- (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Steve Bardwell.
You may go ahead.
Steve: Yes, hello.
My name is Steve Bardwell.
I am the president of the
Morongo Basin Conservation Association,
located in the High Desert near Joshua Tree.
We are in opposition to the proposed decision,
and we encourage the Commission to rewrite NEM 3.0
to encourage more rooftop solar
within the built environment,
close to the ultimate point of use.
It's critical to develop a distributed
electrical generation system
that promotes equity and resilience.
The value of resilience will become obvious
when the big one hits,
and long distance transmission lines
are damaged or destroyed.
The alternative to rooftop is desert utility scale.
One only need look at the proposed Stagecoach Solar Project
north of Lucerne Valley,
that would ruin over 3,000 acres of intact habitat.
I encourage the CPUC to think about
Governor Newsom's executive order, N-82-20,
which calls for
conservation of 30%- (bell dinging)
Thank you. -: Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Thomas Irvin.
You may go ahead.
Thomas: Don't pass this
rooftop solar (distorted audio).
We need no tax on solar,
and preserve the 20 year for existing customers.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Glen Colwell.
You may go ahead.
Glen: Hi, my name is Glen Colwell.
I'm a retired homeowner
on a fixed income in Arcata, California.
I am middle class.
I've invested in rooftop, solar with net metering
on every house I've lived in
to get control of my utility bills,
while my neighbors pay 300 to 400 a month for power,
and can't afford groceries.
If this solar tax passes,
you will be hurting people like me!
The only way to fix this proposal is
no solar tax of any kind.
Make solar more affordable
to middle class households, not less.
Honor the promised 20 year protection
for solar users like me.
Consumers should be able to control their utility bills.
Rooftop solar saves all users money,
whether they have solar or not,
by reducing wear and tear on long distance power lines
we produce and share locally.
Decentralized rooftop solar and battery storage
is the best way for people like me
to protect themselves from power outages.
Climate change is happening now.
Why would you nickel and dime rooftop solar?
Open space?
Rooftop solar reduces the need
to develop large solar wind farms and transmission lines.
(bell dinging) Let's be smart
about how we transition- -: Thank you very much.
-: And utilize rooftops. -: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kristin Kirk.
You may go ahead.
-: My name is Kristin Kirk.
I'm a solar sales rep for SunPower by Precis,
a local Southern California company.
I'm worried for my job, the company I work for,
my clients in the queue,
and the solar industry as a whole.
NEM 3.0 only favors the utility companies,
and I urge the CPUC to consider the consequences
if this is implemented as it stands now.
The customers in the queue are nervous
they may end up in 3.0.
As there was a desirable payback period
in a good investment under 2.0,
this could drastically change.
If PTO is in the hands of the utility,
that's concerning, as they have an incentive
to not process applications in a timely manner.
I have a number of clients rebuilding houses
that were burned in fires and building ADUs,
so they're required to have solar now.
They're outraged that they're
legally required to have solar, and could end up in 3.0,
and they'd have to pay enormous grid charges
and receive unfair compensation for their solar generation.
I urge the CPUC to reject this proposal,
and go back to the drawing board
to come up with- (bell dinging)
Thank you. -: Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Duncan Cleminshaw.
You may go ahead.
Duncan: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
My name is Duncan Cleminshaw,
and I live in Alameda with my wife, Mary,
my daughter, Samantha, my son, Cole.
And this is actually my 14th year
feeding my family in solar.
I work for GAF Energy in San Jose,
where we just, I mean, just finished building
a brand new factory to make solar energy shingles
for your home's roof.
When other companies were taking
manufacturing jobs out of California,
we decided California's our home,
and we put our stake in the ground here.
These are good paying, meaningful jobs
that make a difference, that have full benefits.
Our growing company has more than 150 employees,
most of us with families here in the Bay Area,
and all of us are betting our livelihoods and our futures
that rooftop solar has a future in California.
Please do not let NEM3 wipe out all of our jobs,
and all of this hard work, as we're just getting started.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is from Wayne Morgan.
You may go ahead.
Wayne: Hello, Commissioners.
With regards to the NEM3 PD,
the export compensation is far too low.
Referring to SCE's 2020 annual report, page 63,
how is it that SCE's cost of purchased power
and fuel is 36% of its operating expenses,
and yet, the PD only pays pennies for net metering exports?
And this percentage would be 41%,
if it weren't for the wildfire expenses.
This leads me to the conclusion
that the avoided cost calculator isn't reflected
of the avoided costs.
There may be many other NEM customer-supplied benefits
that should be taken into account also.
We also need to value
the solar generated by owners without store,
as this energy will be needed locally
to charge batteries for storage on EVs.
As far as social justice,
the biggest gain would be,
that if the customers in IOU areas
would be given the same rates as POUs.
In 2022, for example,
SCE's peak rate will be 49 cents,
versus SMUD's- (bell dinging)
That's 50% higher.
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Chris Shunman.
You may go ahead.
Chris: Hi, my name is Chris Shunman,
and I am a resident of Lake County.
I oppose any solar tax in this proposed.
I dislike PG&E greatly,
and installed solar to do my part to fight climate change
for the future of my elementary-aged children and family.
Each year, since 2015,
I have weathered PG&E-caused fires,
terrible air quality, smoke days from PG&E fires,
and PG&E forced PSPS's.
I never want to send the criminals at PG&E
a dime of my hard earned money again.
Please save my solar independence,
and keep these crooks away from my solar power freedom.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Marcy Snyder.
You may go ahead
Again, Marcy Snyder, your line is open.
Please check your mute button.
And should we go
to the next caller? -: Ms. Snyder?
Yes, let's go to the next caller.
Thank you, Operator.
Operator: Our next caller is Amy Josephec.
You may go ahead.
Amy: Hi there.
So now I'm really confused.
I thought the idea was for California to lead
in making solar power more available, not less affordable?
There's a climate crisis now,
and it defies logic to tax owners, like me,
who really wanna put panels on rooftops.
Please take a stand against the solar tax,
and vote to make rooftop solar more affordable
for middle and working class people, not less.
Please side with the people
and with all of our futures.
Thank you, and here's to sun-filled days ahead.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Peter Erwin.
You may go ahead.
Peter: Sorry.
Hello, my name is Peter Erwin.
My company's PJ Erwin Electric out of Oakland.
I'm a second generation electrician
in a trade that is quickly aging out.
I've only been in solar for four years,
but in those four years,
I've seen more young, idealistic people
join my business than ever before.
They come to solar to make a difference.
It's a field with a low barrier to entry,
so I see people show up that may not have the opportunities
or education I got.
And these folks now have
a venue to exercise their integrity,
and a place to put these positive principles.
My company is small,
and already more expensive than the big players.
Our solar business will 100% go away
if any of these proposals pass.
I'll close my doors, a few jobs will go away,
and I'll do something else.
Life goes on.
My biggest concern is,
leaving these young people without a place
to put their hearts and bodies to do good for the planet.
Please don't take away this opportunity for young people.
Thank you for considering
the deep implications of your decision.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Laura Deehan.
You may go ahead.
Laura: Hello, this is Laura Deehan.
I'm the State Director for Environment California.
Thank you, President Reynolds,
and Commissioners, and staff.,
At the recent Joint Agency Report from SB 100,
showed that we're going to need
to more than triple the amount of energy
from rooftop solar by 2045 to get to California's targets.
And we know that we really need to
get to those targets even faster,
because of the urgency of the climate crisis
that we're experiencing all around us in our state
with the wildfires and the drought.
That's why Environment California joined 17 state
and national environmental organizations
to oppose the punitive solar penalties
proposed in the proposed decision,
and to urge you to make sure that the revised proposal,
that it honors existing customers' agreements,
and really takes into account the true value of solar.
We have the potential to get
three quarters of our energy needs from rooftop solar.
Let's make sure that we get as much of it as we can.
Thank you so much.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Celeste Duffy.
You may go ahead.
(indistinct chattering)
Reynolds: Please begin speaking, Ms. Duffy.
-: Again- -: Hi!
Reynolds: Ms. Duffy, your line is open.
Go ahead.
Celeste: Oh, hi, yes.
My name is Celeste Duffy, and I live in Sebastopol.
I oppose the solar tax bill.
I feel strongly solar should be more affordable to all,
and the honoring of existing 20 year protection
for solar users is the right thing to do.
My family of four recently experienced a $500 power bill
for a small home,
despite having efficient appliances,
doing laundry and charging our AV after 9 PM.
We're doing all the right things
that's prescribed by the P&G website,
but we're still experiencing high bills.
So we're waiting, currently,
for a rooftop solar installation.
With that-
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Eric Ike.
You may go ahead.
Eric: Hi.
Thank you.
I have had rooftop solar since 2001.
Our household recently updated our aging panels.
We don't do it for profit,
but rather to play a role in fighting climate change.
Contrary to what the utilities are arguing,
residential rooftop, solar represents
substantial investment in our grid by homeowners and others.
Rooftop solar is environmentally responsible,
and it offsets grid project costs,
benefiting everyone, including low income households,
as well as utility companies themselves.
Rooftop solar should be encouraged, not punished.
I understand that the utility operating costs are going up,
and while I'm okay with increasing fees
for access to the grid,
it must be done fairly, rather than singling,
rather than by singling out one group,
like rooftop solar producers.
Thank you for listening.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Álvaro Casanova.
You may go ahead.
Álvaro: Hello, my name is Álvaro Palacios Casanova,
a staff conservation advocate
representing the California Native Plant Society.
CNPS is a statewide nonprofit organization
with more than 11,000 members and 35 chapters
dedicated to the conservation of our state's flora.
CNPS opposes the CPUC's proposed decision on net metering.
This proposal further disenfranchises
environmental justice communities,
penalizes current rooftop solar customers,
and makes access to rooftop solar
out of reach for many Californians.
Meanwhile, the need for investor-owned utility companies
to develop large scale, centralized,
renewable energy farms in biodiverse areas would increase.
These large scale industrial projects
are incompatible with habitats
that contain rare flora and fauna,
and would impede California
in reaching both its 3030 in-climate goals.
This proposed decision serves no one, other than the IOUs,
and that is unjust.
In closing, we urge the CPUC
not to move forward with this decision
that will harm communities, habitats,
and California's reputation as a leader
in the fight against climate change.
Thank you very much.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Al Nastrom.
You may go ahead.
Al: Hi.
I live in the South Bay,
and I taught financial analysis before retiring.
I am very worried about climate change,
and have been proud of California's role in this area.
I am also a homeowner
getting a solar system installed in my home as we speak.
Based on my review of the proposed decision by
the CPUC report of 12/13,
and my actual cost data and expected savings,
I conclude, that if I was looking to buy
my systems within the new net filing tariff, billing tariff,
I could not afford it,
with serious implications for the future of this planet.
Your report stated, your objective is to enable
a payback of 10 years.
However, the payback on my system,
including the 12 kilowatt panel system,
19.2 kilowatts in batteries
and preparatory underlayment replacement,
and all incentives,
including the market transition credit, would be 37 years.
Not 10 years. (bell dinging)
It could be- -: Thank you very much.
Thank you. -: Thank you.
Reynolds: Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Russell King.
You may go ahead.
Russ: I'm Russ King in Richmond.
In ice, near the South Pole, going back 800,000 years,
carbon dioxide was under
300 parts per million in the atmosphere,
until mankind found fossil fuel.
This Monday, CO2 reached 4 20, 420.
The resulting climate crisis
is already causing fatal heat waves,
worse droughts and floods, crop failures,
wildfires, rising sea, extinctions,
and is turning the ocean acidic.
Last June, the heat outright killed
almost 600 people in British Columbia.
One town set a new record for Canada
at an astonishing 121 degrees,
and then burned down.
Over 46% of a electricity generated in California
comes from burning natural gas.
Bring that down to zero.
Promote rooftop solar.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jared Menning.
You may go ahead.
Jared: In just about 24 hours,
we Californians have emitted
over a million tons of greenhouse gases.
That's enough to cover the entire County of San Francisco
to adapt to 15 feet with a pure CO2 gas.
And in another foot or two, since this meeting started.
Another 15 feet today, tomorrow, every other day,
driving us recklessly closer to climate disaster.
Ours efforts to stop this are still minuscule,
but one of the few bright lights
are the one million solar roofs now in California.
Net billing tariffs will, overnight,
destroy our rooftop solar industry.
We cannot afford to wait for new transmission lines
and massive solar farms,
and all their permits, and all their delays.
We cannot afford more huge wildfires
and their massive emissions.
This tariff needs to be utterly scrapped.
Let's re-start with the prime aim to massively increase
distributed solar power, not kill us.
Please remember the word "public" in PUC,
and please act in the interest of all Californians,
not the outdated utilities.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is James Irving.
You may go ahead.
James: Thank you.
I'm James Irving.
I run a cattle ranch west of Paso Robles.
Last summer, after five outages,
and one including 28 hours,
I decided to borrow the money
to invest in a $40,000 solar system.
It was based on the projected return
and payback to run the three houses
and the wells on the ranch.
This system, this proposed system, is completely wrong.
It's a violation of the contract that was set up,
and I do object very strongly to any tax.
For those of us who are providing power into the grid,
that we should be rewarded, not taxed,
and the state should do what they can
to increase battery storage.
Thank you for your time
in listening to all of our complaints.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Susy Boyd.
You may go ahead.
Susy: Good morning, Commissioners.
I'm Susy Boyd with Mojave Desert Land Trust.
The Mojave Desert Land Trust
works to preserve our public lands,
with over 120,000 acres acquired
across the Mojave and Colorado Deserts.
While we support transition to clean energy,
the proposed NEM3 rule removes economic incentive
to promote rooftop solar.
Large scale solar utility plans are projected to occupy
over a half million acres of desert lands.
With that number, exponentially greater,
if rooftop solar is reduced.
Desert land sequester 10% of our state's carbon,
if the land is left undisturbed.
California must prove it's an environmental leader,
and make rooftop solar an integral part
of its 2030 strategy.
Thank you so much.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sharon Grant.
You may go ahead.
Sharon: Hi, Sharon Grant, (speaks indistinctly).
I'm retired, and have had solar, rooftop solar,
for eight years,
saving thousands of dollars and kilowatts of energy.
It's unconscionable for CPUSC to personally,
sorry, to penalize rooftop solar,
and allow energy monopolies
to discourage California residents from installing solar.
As a public utility,
I urge the CPUC to assist residents to add solar,
not help power monopolies to increase their profits.
And the only people who want to gut solar
are the people who figured out how to make a profit from it.
So please protect the public good and the environment,
not the power monopolies.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Daniel Berso.
You may go ahead.
Daniel: Hello, my name is Daniel Bertow.
I live in Petaluma, California,
and I am a solar customer.
I budgeted and planned.
It was not an easy decision.
It was a struggle to come up with the finances
to install the solar in my house.
And then, now, with the proposed changes,
that puts my financial stability at risk.
Please don't penalize me, or punish me,
for doing the right thing
by increasing solar access, and reducing carbon,
our carbon footprint.
Thank you so much for your time.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mike Pane.
You may go ahead.
Mike: Hello, Commissioners.
Thank you for taking my call.
My name is Mike Pane,
and I am not only a solar and energy storage customer,
but also a solar and storage business owner.
My company, Synergy Solar, based in Sebastopol,
has seven employees.
The NEM3 proposal could put us out of business.
I've been in the industry for 19 years,
after soul searching around what career move
would help ensure there was a habitable planet
for my then 10-year-old daughter, and future grandchildren.
Solar was the answer,
and I believe it still is one of the major ways
to combat climate change.
Distributed solar and storage reduces the need
for transmission lines,
which, in turn, reduces wildfire risks,
and increases customers' resiliency in energy independence.
I urge you to make solar and storage stronger, not weaker.
The NEM3 proposal would not only contradict
California's climate goals,
but would also cripple the industry,
and impact the career paths of our employees and myself.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Cherene Birkholz.
You may go ahead.
Cherene: Hello, my name is Cherene Birkholz,
and I live in Long Beach.
I oppose the NEM 3.0 proposal.
It is deeply flawed, and it can't be fixed.
There should be no tax of any kind on rooftop solar,
and the utilities should honor their existing
20 year protection for solar users.
I invested in solar panels in 2019,
with the understanding that my investment
was protected for 20 years.
I am appalled that the CPUC would allow the utilities
to shorten their promise to their customers.
I invested in solar panels for two reasons.
First, to take control of my energy bills.
The second, was that solar is good for the environment.
I am convinced that the proposed NEM 3.0
would kill rooftop solar.
The middle class and lower income people
who want to take control of their utility bills,
and want to help fight climate change
should not be locked out.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Judy Pinegar.
You may go ahead.
Judy: Yes, my name is Judy Pinegar,
and I live outside of Loomis in Placer County.
I've been a solar producer since 2012.
I installed a system on my roof,
and was okay with a $200 a month PG&E bill.
Six years later, in 2018, the bill was $900 a month.
So I leased a solar array,
and I now pay about 330 a month,
and still have to pay more to PG&E (speaks indistinctly).
I do not think there should be a tax on solar power.
56 to $91 a month is way too much.
I am personally paying for everything I produce,
and PG&E is taking advantage of my production.
PG&E pays 25 cents per kilowatt hour I produce,
and turns around and sells it for 38 cents an hour or more.
And their proposal to reduce my payment
to only five to seven per kilowatt hour.
We need solar power to be more available
for middle class ratepayers like myself.
After 10 years of doing the right thing to save energy
and help stop the climate change,
why should I have to pay a tax to PG&E?
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
-: I'm done. -: Our next caller
is Brett Garrett.
You may go ahead.
Brett: Hi, this is Brett Garrett in Goleta, California.
I'm a volunteer with the
California Alliance for Community Energy,
and I'm calling on you to save rooftop solar.
The proposed decision is based on the mislead,
the avoided cost calculator,
which fails to recognize
the community benefits of rooftop solar,
such as health benefits, resilience, local jobs,
reduced wildfires, and reducing power shutoffs.
All overlooked in the avoided cost calculators,
and in the proposed NEM3 decision.
California should be a leader
in supporting President Biden's plans
to expand rooftop solar.
Don't punish solar customers with fixed monthly charges,
and the extreme reduction of compensation.
Existing customers have been promised 20 years of NEM,
and those promises should be kept.
Please support rooftop solar,
and also incentivize battery storage.
The existing proposal will leave wealthy customers
with their own batteries to defect from the grid,
the exact opposite of what is needed.
Please reject or change the proposed decision.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jason Jackson.
You may go ahead.
Jason: Hi, my name is Jason Jackson.
I'm CEO of Vital Energy Solutions in Sonoma County
with 34 employees.
I've been in all aspects of solar
and the alternative energy industry in the Bay Area,'
and nationally, since the Carter administration.
I'm proud of working in this industry,
and I love the passionate people in solar.
This proposed decision, NEM3,
will absolutely cripple the industry for years to come.
All eyes are on this at this critical time.
We have to think beyond the economic agenda
of the utility companies.
A lot of good people are going to be out of work,
and won't be able to afford solar and storage.
At a time when we are all living
with the obvious impacts of climate change,
and the increasing unreliability of the grid,
this is absolutely the wrong direction.
California has been leading
the green energy movement for the country.
In the interest of protecting the climate
for our children and for future generations,
we need to be very careful
about the impact of decisions we make today.
Don't vote for this proposed decision.
Start over.
I thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Peter Davis.
You may go ahead.
Peter: You know, I'm Peter Davis from San Bruno,
and this new net billing tariff is grossly unfair,
as it's based ridiculous assumptions,
as many experts have already described.
For me, I have the only solar roof in my neighborhood,
so my excess electricity never leaves the block.
This proposal would allow PG&E
to pay me 6 cents for my electricity,
and turn around and sell it to my neighbor
20 feet away for 25 cents.
But, you know, I wouldn't even see that 5 cents,
'cause I'd be paying PG&E 60 bucks a month
just for the rights of solar panels.
This is just crazy.
You know, even the mafia
wouldn't come up with a shakedown like this.
My house, it's partially shaded,
and so my a payoff time is not 10 years.
It's not five years.
It's 17 years.
And now, I have to replace my roof,
and so I'll have to pay extra
to take the solar panels off and on again.
I could never afford to install solar under this new tariff.
While the utilities claim to be
on the side of economic access for all,
this would have exactly the opposite impact,
freezing out low and middle income households
just when solar has got affordable,
and is being installed at all economic levels.
You're the PUC.
Please stand up for the public.
Don't support legacy utilities.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Molly McCoy.
You may go ahead
Again, Molly McCoy, your line is open.
Please check your mute button.
Molly: Oh! (clears throat)
Good morning.
My name is Molly McCoy,
and I'm a Ventura County resident and college student.
I strongly oppose any type of solar panel tax.
Rooftop solar must be affordable for all Californians.
I am implore the committee to honor
the existing 20 year protection for solar users,
like myself and my family.
As a young adult here in California,
I am dependent on public officials, such as yourself,
to protect my generation from the devastating
ramifications of climate change.
We are the ones that have to live with your decisions.
Reliance on greenhouse gas emissions
creates a positive feedback loop in our ecosphere,
which progressively worsen the climate crisis.
We must transition to renewable energy
to mitigate these consequences,
such as the heat waves, droughts,
and wildfires we are all familiar with.
I, along with the 400
and counting constituents calling in today,
urge you to protect solar,
and reject the NEM 3.0 in this current proposal.
California has a responsibility
to lead the way in the climate movement.
My generation, the United States,
and the world is counting on you.
Thank you for your time.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Dina Lane.
You may go ahead.
Dina: Yes, thank you, Commissioners.
My name is Dina Lane, and I'm retired.
I live in Upland, California,
and installed rooftop solar on my home in 2018
to afford summer heating bills.
My family needs reliable low cost electric power,
because we have a medical device in the house
that we must maintain,
and we need to stabilize summer electric bills
since I'm on a fixed middle income ratepayer.
This past weekend,
our electricity was out for over 20 hours.
Please help me to maintain my dignity
to continue to afford solar system, my solar system,
and install an affordable battery storage system to it.
Lastly, please continue to honor,
and not renege, on the 20 year protection for solar units.
We thank you- (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Bill Brown.
You may go ahead.
Bill: Hi, thank you for listening to us today,
Commissioners and Miss President,
and being so kind in the process.
And I put rooftop solar on my house,
because we had a $600 utility bill,
and I wanted to cut down on costs.
I also remember the days...
I'm a native Californian in the Los Angeles area.
I remember when the skies were gray because of smog
and all the pollution from cars,
and our state stepped up and changed that
with the whole smog on cars.
Now, that's starting to happen with solar,
and you guys wanna cut it off.
I implore you, CPUC, Governor Newsom, to not do that,
not make solar unaffordable to everybody,
but to promote it,
to let it be allowed to continue in an industry
to keep our skies blue, like they are today,
to cut down on pollution,
and enable us to have
cheap renewable energy through rooftop solar.
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mike Mclaughlin.
You may go ahead.
Mike: Hi, my name is Mike Mclaughlin.
I just retired after 31 years
in the waste and recycle industry,
and I live in Brentwood, California.
I'm strongly opposed to the proposal
put forth by the CPUC and utilities.
There should be no solar tax surcharge
or connection fee of any kind.
You should be working to ensure
that solar becomes more affordable for everyone.
We're all expected to switch to electric vehicles
and appliances in the very near future.
You're gonna need more solar installations, not less.
(clears throat) California will not meet
its climate change goals if we back away from rooftop solar.
The state itself says, "We need to triple the amount
of solar power to get off of fossil fuels".
We can't conserve our way to these goals.
At this time, when it's so urgent
to get more clean energy to the grid,
why would you propose such a tax on rooftop solar?
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Alice Root.
You may go ahead.
Alice: Hi, this is Alice Root
from rough and Redding, Northern California.
I'm opposed to the proposed rule change
for solar reimbursement.
It's not fair to change
and go back on your promise in 2016,
that we would be guaranteed fair reimbursement.
We still owe over $8,000 on the system we installed
for about $22,000 in 2019.
Last year, we already paid
almost three and a half times more for PG&E energy
than we did the previous year,
even though we produced more solar to send back to the grid.
But because of the mandatory rate change
to time of day metering plan,
we are already paying a huge increase.
This needs to stop.
I ask you to scrap this plan,
and have no solar tax whatsoever.
Thank you. -: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Marcy Snyder.
You may go ahead
Again, Marcy Snyder, your line is open.
You may go ahead.
Reynolds: Operator, let's move to the next caller.
Operator: Our next caller is Olivia.
You may go ahead.
Olivia: Oh, hi, yes, can you hear me?
-: Yes, thank you. -: Okay, hi.
This is Olivia.
I'm a homeowner.
I am here today to ask that you reject the proposal
of adding solar tax to solar homeowners.
I'm a single mother with two children.
I work very, very hard to support my family.
And I installed solar systems on my house,
because I thought it was the right thing to do.
It better for the environment.
However, if the NEM 3.0 proposal pass,
it'll be very hard for working women to afford solar,
because on top of paying all the bills,
I will be forced to pay
the $8 per kilowatt solar tax each month.
And adding solar tax,
it is just not fair!
It's punish people who are trying to do the right thing
to save the environment, and it is not right.
So I asked the PCUC to reject this proposal.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Olin Walsh.
You may go ahead.
Colin: Hi, my name is Colin Walsh,
the COO with SolarReviews.com.
Over a million California homeowners visit our website
researching solar every year.
So we're in kind of a unique position
to see what ratepayers think about the NEM proposal.
To that end, three weeks ago,
we sent out a survey to all the California homeowners
who requested quotes through our site
over the past couple years,
and we got 4,848 responses.
68% of people that responded said,
they would no longer consider installing solar
if California implements
the proposed avoided cost rate plan,
and 95% of respondents would no longer consider solar
if California adopted both the avoid the cost rate plan
and implemented the monthly grid participation charge.
So we'd like to urge the Commission
to consider this real up to date data in your assumptions.
If we have 90% of people considering solar
no longer willing to move forward,
they will not be paying the grid participation charge,
and a lot of installers will be out of work.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jeff Lounsberry.
You may go ahead.
Jeff: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Thank you for the time to speak.
My name is Jeff Lounsberry,
and I've worked in the solar industry for 15 years,
primarily working with farmers
across the entire state of California.
And I think that we all are aware
that the challenges of climate
for farmers in California are not hypothetical.
Over the last decade,
droughts have rendered
a lot of their farmable land unusable.
They cannot irrigate that land.
There is a greater amount of drought crops
that are going out of a circulation right now,
and that land is fallow.
So to farmers across the state,
the ability to have a way to predict their energy cost,
install solar, reduce some of the pressure
on them financially is a big deal.
It can mean the livelihood of that family farm.
And I implore you to start over.
Reject this current preliminary decision,
and find a more equitable way forward.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kevin Grundy.
You may go ahead.
Kevin: I've been a solar customer
with San Diego Gas and Electric since 2002.
There are four things we all need to do
to stop this uncontrolled profit gouging
by energy providers, like San Diego Gas and Electric.
First, we should elect a different Governor,
one that prioritizes increasing green energy production
over corporate profiteering.
Second, the Public Utility Commission, as it exists today,
should be abolished,
and replaced with a voter-approved panel of regular citizens
whose pockets aren't being lined
by the corporations they're supposed to be overseeing.
Third, we need to encourage our cities, like San Diego,
to opt out of their agreement
with shareholder-owned utilities,
and instead, replace them with publicly-owned utilities,
like they have in Sacramento,
which has some of the lowest utility rates in the state.
Finally, customers like myself with off-grid systems
that are just connected to the grid
to back-feed our excess energy
should go completely off-grid,
and return our meters to their owners.
California law does not prevent us
from going completely off grid.
So instead of making (bell dinging)
money from our three cent- -: Thank you very much.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Harold Birdman.
You may go ahead.
Harold: Hello.
I'm a renter, and I'm retired.
I'm a renter in a large apartment building.
I have no ulterior financial motive in saying
this proposal is a complete outrage.
The exact opposite of what California should be doing.
We face potentially catastrophic climate change.
We should be encouraging the use of rooftop solar,
not discouraging it.
The justifications for the proposal are completely bogus.
Solar power users pay for the grid
exactly like every other customer.
Why should they pay more?
Why is power from rooftop solar that fights climate change
worth 80%, less than power from fossil fuels,
which contribute to climate change?
This proposal is a craven surrender
to the power companies' greed,
an exact opposite of what you,
members of the CPUC, should be doing.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Scott Evans.
You may go ahead.
Scott: Good afternoon.
My name is Scott Evans,
and I am a resident of Inglewood, California,
currently installing rooftop solar,
purchased from a California small business,
because I believe in strongly
in reducing my personal impact on the environment,
and reducing my reliance and burden on the electric grid.
I've already reduced my home energy usage to a point.
Your proposed solar tax
will exceed my average electric bill,
in effect, punishing me financially
for doing the right thing for the environment, our air,
and for over-burdened electric grid.
My city averages 263 days a year of sun,
ranking it with other California cities
among the sunniest in the entire country.
It is also located in the
densest urban region of the country.
Rooftop solar is an ideal means
of achieving California's goals in reducing pollution,
combating climate change, and wildfires,
protecting our open spaces,
and fortifying our under-maintained electric grid.
It is unconscionable a California State regulator
would propose drastically increasing
the cost of rooftop solar in the face of these goals.
The goal should be to make rooftop solar
as accessible to as many Californians as possible.
Your responsibility as a public regulator
is to protect people, not utility profits.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Steve Chang.
You may go ahead.
Steve: Thanks, President Jennings
and Commission members for this discussion.
I know you're put in a bind.
But here, I'm affiliated also with SunPower,
a top-rated company.
Wanna echo the valid points of the previous callers,
and just wanna say that,
this is one of those, where you vote yes on NEM3,
if you want more extreme fires
and windstorms that we just had,
then you would wanna vote yes.
But here, I'm also powering my home
and electric minivan with solar, the ultimate solution.
Why we would wanna stymie that progress is,
it's up to you to explain.
And also, to add on,
I had a bunch of valid points,
but they've all been covered.
It's kinda like the ozone layer.
When we found there was a hole,
we fixed that as a world.
Okay? (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sam Johnson.
You may go ahead.
Sam: Hi, thanks for taking the time
to listen to all our comments.
My name's Sam Johnson.
I work with SunPower by Green Convergence.
I'm a solar energy consultant.
Been in the in industry for about eight years.
And yeah, it's been a huge blessing for me and my family.
I am the sole provider of my family.
I have a beautiful wife and little girl,
who's six-years-old, and she's homeschooled.
And in this industry and this job just helped me
provide in a really wonderful way
to give the life to my wife and daughter
that's what's right for us.
And in addition to all the
thousands upon thousands of other people
in the exact same situation as me,
this whole proposal, Net Metering 3,
completely contradicts everything
the state of California is incentivized.
There's zero justification for it.
I mean, I think it's extremely obvious
that there's no good will or rational justification for it.
It's obviously a massive greed and power grab,
which only corruption and greed could possibly explain.
So it doesn't even seem to make sense
that we've come this far to have to have this conversation.
But nonetheless, I think- (bell dinging)
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Serena Sarah.
You may go ahead.
Serena: Thank you.
Thank you, CPUC and amazing callers.
Like many Bay Area imports,
we'll ship our green dream out of California,
if Governor Newsom and CPUC taxes all the user,
and so impedes the rights of middle
and lower income classes to breathe clean,
and live healthy green.
We are Newsom voters, progressive, ethnically diverse,
high tax paying, US naturalized,
award-winning energy saving expertise, immigrant family.
My sister in the UK is a founding member of Rising Up.
Later, became Extinction Rebellion.
She's been present to many of these courses.
We'll have to sell out on our investments,
our much loved solar energy home in the Hills.
We just got solar.
We'll ship out our on our green dream, just as Newsom is,
and move away from California,
and taking our electrical vehicles with us.
We call on Governor Newsom to honor his voting promise
for keeping net metering as it was.
No M3, which is just a PG&E profit only.
And no solar tax.
Or face the consequences of November the eighth, 2022.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Daniel Ames.
You may go ahead.
Daniel: Thank you.
Several decades ago,
former California Governor, Jerry Brown,
continued the legislative push for renewable solar energy,
a very worthy and worthwhile goal,
but this, unfortunately, came at a hidden cost at the CPUC,
not keeping technically competent, long-term,
knowledgeable regulators on the CPUC staff prioritized
to ensure our utilities kept the grid
well maintained and safe.
The recent loss of life, property, and ensuing lawsuits,
25 billion in known settlements,
has motivated these corporate controlled power companies
to have the extraordinarily powerful CPUC
shift the cost to ratepayers with on-grid solar.
Unfortunately, California wildfires have done
emitted more carbon than offset by solar energy,
because these utilities
and the CPUC did not do their job competently.
The NEM 3.0 proposal will shift the cost
to those who went solar.
This is not fair.
We need a better solution.
We'll be watching.
Please stay on the right side,
or be on the right side of history.
Don't make me consider disconnecting
my 16-year-old solar system.
Thank you, Daniel Ames.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Luis Portillo.
You may go ahead.
Luis: Good afternoon.
My name's Luis Portillo.
I'm the president
and CEO of the San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership.
I wanna express our appreciation to the Commission
for the proposed station,
which begins to address the cost shift that exists.
But we are concerned that the proposed station
doesn't remove the cost shift entirely.
The current rooftop solar structure is inequitable,
and places unnecessary burdens
on those that can least support it.
Without meaningful reforms of non-solar,
small businesses and residents will continue to pay
higher electricity bills to subsidize solar customers.
Rooftop solar is an important part
of the state's clean energy portfolio,
but it should not be achieved on the backs of low income
and middle income Californians.
We urge the Commission to approve the proposed decision.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Nick Batacosian.
You may go ahead.
Nick: Hello, Commissioners.
Thank you for taking our comments.
My name is Nick Batacosian,
and I'm an electrical engineer
and contractor based in Los Angeles.
I've been in the solar industry for 11 years,
and I'm proud to be part of this industry
that does so much good on a daily basis.
Unfortunately, this proposal will be
devastating to our industry,
but it will be even worse for consumers,
and I wanna take a moment to advocate on their behalf.
Over the past decade,
the dream of solar ownership has become reality for people
of all socioeconomic backgrounds.
This is now under attack.
So I urge you to reject not only this proposal,
but also the spirit behind this proposal,
which is against competition, and against consumer choice.
I urge you, as Senator Feinstein did in her letter,
to be on the right side of history
when we look back on this moment,
and enact policies that will encourage
the growth of rooftop solar.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Leslie Gaynor.
You may go ahead.
Leslie: Thank you.
My name is Leslie Gaynor.
I'm the Vice President of Sales and Marketing at Clean Solar
in San Jose.
I've lived in California my entire life.
I've been working in the solar space for over 10 years now,
and I manage and coach our inside
and outside sales teams who create the opportunity every day
for our customers to make the world literally
a better place than it was before.
All of our over 50 employees at Clean Solar receive a W2,
health benefits, and access to 401K.
NEM in California has also helped the solar industry
grow to meet our state's climate goals.
The current NEM3 proposed decision
would punish solar customers,
and devastate our industry.
As proposed, this is a disaster.
I respectfully request that you reject
the current NEM3 proposal decision as written.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kay Bonnie.
You may go ahead.
And it looks like Kay has disconnected.
Our next caller is Joanie Eisen.
You may go ahead.
Joanie: Good morning, Commissioners.
Please fix this proposal.
Surely you can find a solution
that doesn't penalize people
for doing what they thought, and still think,
was the right thing?
20 years ago, my husband and I had solar panels
put on the roof of our house in San Francisco,
a separate system for each floor,
because each floor has a different address,
and therefore, a different PG&E account.
So we got solar panels for our tenant
in the first floor flat
for the same reason we got panels for us,
to do something positive for the environment
by producing clean energy from the sun,
and to save everyone some money in the process.
We are not rich,
but imagine how our tenant will feel
if you enact this proposal,
and suddenly add a large monthly fee to his electric bill.
The tenant would get punished
because his landlord provided him with solar panels,
because we thought it was the right thing to do.
Does that sound fair to you?
Thank you for listening.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Taylor Turnbull.
You may go ahead.
Taylor: Hello, can you hear me?
Reynolds: Yes, we can.
Taylor: Hi, my name's Taylor Turnbull.
I work for Sunrun, and live in Encinitas.
Seven years ago,
I moved from Utah to California with my wife, Missy,
and our five young children.
We moved here for the opportunity to work
in the best solar state,
because Rocky Mountain Power had implemented
a similar tariff to what the CPUC is now proposing,
and it ended solar in the state of Utah.
I manage an organization of over 1500 people
here in Southern California,
many of whom have also relocated from out of state
for the opportunity to work in this industry.
I speak for all of us when I say,
the proposed NEM 3.0 decision would kill our jobs,
and force many of us to move to other states
for different opportunities.
It's the CPUC's responsibility to represent the public.
The public is speaking, and you must reject this.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jim Adams.
You may go ahead.
Jim: Yes, my name is Jim Adams,
and I live in Bakersfield.
I am strongly opposed to the recent proposal
for Net Energy Metering 3.0.
The proposal is punitive
for all existing residential solar systems,
and for all future are new systems.
Particular troubling is the reduction
of the grandfathering provision from 20 to 15 years,
and a solar tax based on a system size.
I urge the PUC to come up with a new proposal
that will increase electrical generation from solar
that is fair to all stakeholders.
We must work together to provide California
with clean, affordable power.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Marshall Weisman.
You may go ahead.
Marshall: Yeah, 10 years ago,
I was staring at an outrageous electric bill,
and I was concerned about my climate change
and reducing my carbon footprint.
The best way I could solve that problem
was by putting rooftop solar on my roof.
In Virginia, the cost for electricity right now
is 12 cents a kilowatt.
I'm currently paying in San Diego,
36 to 49 cents a kilowatt,
four times what it costs in other states.
The Commission needs to stop
the out of control utility money grab,
drop the tiered rate structure,
and encourage solar roof panels.
No one should pay a penalty
for putting solar panels on their roof.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Robert Levering.
You may go ahead.
Robert: Yes, my name is Robert Levering.
I live in Ben Lomond, which is in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
We're very conscious of climate change here,
as we were evacuated two years ago because of the wildfire.
We put solar panels on our house
to do our part to fight global warming.
I'm calling because I'm very upset
that the PUC is even considering levying a solar tax.
I can't believe that Governor Newsome
would go along with PG&E,
rather than with those of us who've made sacrifices
to do something for the environment.
Please, PUC members and Governor Newsom,
make it easier, rather than harder,
for people to go solar.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Ben Montclair.
You may go ahead.
Ben: Hello, my name is Ben Montclair.
I'm giving you a call from Richmond, California.
I've been in the solar industry 14 years.
Today, 100% of the speakers have come out against this PD.
We've heard from people
who are fighting for their livelihoods,
and those of tens of thousands of families
who rely on solar policy to put food on the table.
I joined these hundreds of direct stakeholders
in calling for you to reject this proposed decision.
Good net metering policy
would create fairness for individuals
and companies who wish to invest in solar
at their properties, and would protect the integrity
of an increasingly distributed grid.
The Hub-and-Spoke energy infrastructure model
is vulnerable by design, and we see that every fire season.
A distributed system is a pathway to a greater,
to greater energy security.
This PD would break the market,
and would undermine California's
global leadership in equity -: Thank you very much.
-: and environment. -: Thank you for your comment.
Ben: Thank you for the
opportunity to speak. -: Operator,
the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sam Gopinathan.
You may go ahead.
Sam: Thank you.
Can you hear me?
Reynolds: Yes, we can.
Sam: Thank you.
I was looking at the mission statement for CPUC.
It says, "CPUC serves public interest
by protecting consumers".
NEM 3.0 is not protecting the consumers.
It is protecting the utility companies.
And ensuring the probation of safe,
reliability utility services,
and infrastructure at a reasonable rate.
This proposal increases rate for the consumers.
So it's not reasonable.
With a commitment to environmental enhancement
and healthy California economy,
NEM 3.0 will result in a lot of job losses.
I'm a homeowner.
I'm not representing the solar industry.
I'm a homeowner who put the initiative
of putting solar on my rooftop
as the right thing to do to protect the environment
(bell dinging) for clean energy-
Thank You. -: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: And our next caller is Danett Abbott-Wicker.
You may go ahead.
Danett: Hi, thank you so much.
Can you hear me?
Reynolds: Yes, we can.
Please proceed.
Danett: Danett Abbott-Wicker.
I'm in the City of Orange.
I oppose the proposed decision,
and the only way to fix it
is no solar tax of any kind,
ensure that solar becomes more affordable for working
and middle class households, not less,
honor the existing 20 year protection for solar users.
Consumers should be able to control their energy bills.
We're getting socked with endless rate hikes.
Consumers should be able to control their energy bills,
and not be penalized for it,
especially if we are expected to switch
to electric cars and appliances.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kimberly Calvert.
You may go ahead.
Kimberly: Hi, thank you for taking my call.
I'm a proud resident of California,
and my heart is breaking
listening to all of these hardworking people
who would be losing their livelihoods
with the passing of NEM3.
I don't understand how this proposal
is even up for consideration.
It will clearly be handcuffing consumers
so that monopolistic utility companies can make more money
from the burning of fossil fuels.
The only way we will ever get close
to reversing our global carbon footprint
is by encouraging citizens to put solar on their rooftops.
If you take that away through this proposal,
we'll be taking a huge step backward.
California has always been a leader
on all things environment.
If we pass NEM3,
we will be sending a message to the rest of the world
that it's okay not to make green energy a priority,
and to continue using fossil fuels for energy.
It most certainly will create
a massive domino effect around the globe.
Do you want that on your conscience?
Every single action we take,
every single proposal we pass,
needs to be moving in a direction
towards more renewable energy, not less.
I am begging you as a parent,
and as a citizen of our planet,
not to pass NEM3.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Judith Small.
You may go ahead.
Judith: This is Judith Small.
I live in Berkeley,
and I have four little granddaughters close by.
Pretty soon, my oldest granddaughter
will start understanding about climate change.
She's going to ask questions like,
what are we going to do to stop this, Granny J?
I wanna tell her,
that the panels on my roof are part of the solution,
that more and more Californians can now have solar panels,
that the sun belongs to everyone,
and that everyone can afford to help cool our Earth.
But if this proposal stands, I can't say that.
That's why it's essential to reject this proposed tax,
to keep solar affordable for all Californians,
their children, and their grandchildren.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Deborah Harrington.
You may go ahead.
Deborah: Thank you.
I would like to express my opposition
to the proposal before you,
that will financially affect all homeowners in California.
All these homeowners have taken
the financial responsibilities
to install solar to their homes
to provide a direct benefit to the electrical companies,
and reducing the impact on the grid.
Without these homeowners,
the state would be in a constant state of rolling blackouts.
We are the ones you should be supporting,
and not financially punishing.
The electrical companies want our generated electricity.
At the same time,
they want to charge us providing that energy.
I see myself as an energy provider to SDG&E,
and where would an energy provider agree to be charged
for providing a service?
This is nothing more than backstabbing homeowners.
Unacceptable!
Where is the initiative in the future
for homeowners to participate?
You need homeowners and should be doing
whatever it takes to- (bell dinging)
Thank you.
Operator: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Christopher Young.
You may go ahead.
Christopher: Good afternoon.
My name is Christopher Young.
I'm calling from Ojai, California, Ventura County,
and I am the chair of the
Climate Reality Project of Ventura County.
I'm the primary organizer of Fridays for Future of Ojai.
I'm a member of the Ventura Climate Coalition.
I very much appreciate you listening to all of us.
And what inspiring, rational,
and informed comments from callers thus far.
I certainly oppose the current decision.
I support no solar tax of any kind,
ensuring solar becomes affordable,
more affordable, not less.
And of course,
honoring the 20 year existing protection for solar users.
While your deliberation obviously
centers on California policy,
I trust that you see it as more than that,
given that your decision will influence
our collective ability to address climate change,
and to protect life on Earth.
It's obvious that rooftop solar supports grid resilience,
reduces our carbon footprint,
and mitigates some of the damage
caused by private utility monopolies.
(bell dinging) At this time-
Thank you. -: Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Operator, next caller.
Operator: Our next caller is Kirk Bueller.
You may go ahead.
Kirk: Hi, my name's Kirk Mueller with Action Energy
here in Santa Barbara, California.
I'm just gonna echo the sentiment of everyone.
It's quite evident that the current NEM3 proposal
is absolute garbage.
I'm surprised it got to this point where we're at now.
With NEM3 going through as proposed,
many people will lose their jobs.
Many homeowners will be left with a solar system
that's not doing what it's promised to do.
And I trust that the CPUC will act
in the best interests of California,
and work together with solar
and the utility companies to revise NEM3.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Nate Knott.
You may go ahead.
Nate: Yes, thank you for this opportunity to speak.
Nate Knott in Stockton, California,
also representing the CEEE organization.
I urgently ask you to reject this proposal
for several reasons.
Increasing NEM charges will reduce
or almost eliminate installation.
My installation of my panels was done by local people,
who were people of color,
and it was great employment for them.
It was done with made in USA material,
something I haven't heard today.
If we have more expensive or less solar,
we're gonna wind up having
made in China panels and materials,
because they might be cheaper.
Whereas, we keep the current incentives,
we can stay with American-made products and American labor.
If you put more power
on the PG&E strain by reducing solar,
then PG&E's going to come back later
and ask for rate increases,
because there'll be more strain on the grid.
Raising the rates does not level the playing field
for all economic people.
It just makes it unaffordable.
A better- (bell dinging)
-: Thank you very much. -: Thank you very much.
Reynolds: Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Steven Hadglade.
You may go ahead.
Steve: Hi, my name is Steve Hadglade,
and I live in El Dorado Hills.
I'm a retiree, a prospective grandparent,
and I'm very much worried about climate change.
That's why I'm calling to urge the Commission
to reject the proposed $57 a month fee on rooftop solar.
It amounts to a tax on clean energy.
If you look at it analytically,
a monthly rooftop solar fee
operates like a carbon tax, except backwards.
A carbon tax combats climate change.
How?
By raising the cost of fossil fuels,
and increasing incentives to adopt
clean energy alternatives,
but a rooftop solar tax does the opposite.
It discourages investment in clean energy,
and makes fossil fuels more attractive in comparison.
To protect our environment,
I urge the Commission to reject
the proposed tax on rooftop solar.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Crystal Wysong.
You may go ahead.
Crystal: Hi, my name is Crystal Wysong.
My husband and I are homeowners
in the desert community of Joshua Tree,
located in the Morongo Basin,
which is in the Southern California Mojave Desert.
We have solar panels.
We are still on the grid.
Our main reason for installing solar
was to protect the desert, the planet, and mankind itself,
not to pay for the poor judgment
and bad decisions of our state utility, utilities, sorry.
I would like to echo what the
Morongo Basin Conservation Association
and the Mojave Desert Land Trust have already stated.
Please reject this proposal that hurts individuals,
small businesses, our precious environment,
and because it is the right thing to do.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Joel Schaben.
You may go ahead.
Joel: Yes, I oppose the proposed CPUC action
that allows California utilities to impose a solar tax,
called the Grid Participation Charge,
on those with rooftop solar.
It threatens California's climate change goals,
and everyone's efforts to reduce
global greenhouse gas emissions.
I have solar on my roof,
and I paid thousands of dollars for that installation.
In effect, a power generator
providing electrical energy to PG&E.
In addition, I help meet,
PG&E meet its resource allocation
for renewable energy required by the state.
And now they want people like me to pay monthly
for providing this electricity to PG&E's grid.
This is beyond unfair and unreasonable.
It's a travesty.
It will destroy the solar installation industry,
and the jobs of as many as 60 to 70,000
Californians employed- (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kathleen Singer.
You may go ahead.
Kathleen: Hello, my name is Kathleen Singer.
I'm calling here from Lancaster, California.
I'm with Advanced Conservation Systems,
DBA, Solar Powered Independence.
I've been working in the solar industry for seven years,
which is basically my entire adult life.
I'm very passionate about solar.
I think that it does great things for our community,
the whole Antelope Valley, and all of California.
My primary job is to help customers with interconnections.
That's one of the major job functions of mine.
I've been with customers, you know,
with the transition from NEM 1.0 to 2.0.
And I just don't think that with NEM 3.0
we'd be able to go on.
We've been here for 39 years,
and this is very important to me.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Rob Holley.
You may go ahead.
Rob: Hi, this is Rob Holley from San Jose.
I'm a member of the Solar Rights Alliance,
and I was in Sacramento to deliver
the 125,000 signatures to the Governor,
and stood with the solar workers in San Francisco
that NEM3 will rob of a job.
I echo the other speakers.
Stop all solar taxes!
Support an NEM that works for working
and middle class families.
Don't change the rules on existing installations.
Put solar on rooftops, instead of our open space.
We need solar and batteries to keep our lights on,
since we can no longer rely on the utilities to do so.
Finally, ditch the cost shift nonsense.
Your draft conveniently omits
the detailed Vibrant study that refutes this myth.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Heidi Harmon.
You may go ahead.
Heidi: Thank you so much.
I'm directing my comments to Governor Newsom.
As the recent former mayor of San Luis Obispo,
I was honored to host you many times,
and I've been proud to campaign on your behalf.
I went to bat for you during the recall,
which, as I'm sure you can imagine,
was at the daily personal cost
to my mental health on social media.
And I did all of these things because I believe in you,
and I believe in your courage
and commitment to the next generation.
And I'm speaking to you now
to ask that you do everything that you can
to keep rooftop solar alive
at this critical time in history.
I'm now the Senior Public Affairs Director
at Let's Green California,
and I spend a lot of my time thinking about
how California can reach its
2030 GHD emission reduction goals.
And at our current rate of emissions reductions,
we won't reach our goals until 2063.
And we certainly won't come anywhere close
if rooftop solar energy generation
becomes out of reach for California's families.
As a former mayor, climate activist,
rooftop solar owner, and most importantly, a mother,
I am asking you to support rooftop solar for all,
and not to tax it.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: And our next caller is Markus Messiah.
You may go ahead.
Markus: Sorry about that.
My name is Markus Messiah.
I'm with a nonprofit called The Good Guys.
And to be honest with you,
I feel like we're having the wrong conversation right now.
I feel like NEM 3.0 should be introducing
a soft phase out of current utility companies,
and a slow adoption of solar
as a permanent method of power production.
'Cause let's just play this out for a second.
Let's say, NEM 3.0 gets pushed through,
unemployment will go up,
electric use will stress out the grid,
causing more blackouts, causing more fires,
and drive the population to move away,
and take their business with them.
But if you love the air you breathe
and the Earth you walk on,
you'll see through the NEM 3.0 ploy, and save California.
For just a second,
imagine California with less brush fires
and less ruling blackouts.
(scoffs) Sounds like heaven, I'm sure.
Or, you know, we can keep setting our land on fire,
gouging our citizens for more profit,
and leave nothing for our kids,
but at least the utilities will get rich.
Regardless of what they whisper in your ear, CPUC,
if you approve the current NEM 3.0,
it will be the tipping point (bell dinging)
that brings America to its knees.
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Theresa Benosa.
You may go ahead.
Theresa: Hi!
Good afternoon, Commissioners.
I'm here to comment on the most recent
biting the hand that warned you.
I come from a humble, lower middle class beginning.
I never felt poor,
but my parents worked hard, as did I.
I don't drink, party, smoke, do drugs, or gamble.
I don't have tattoos or multiple piercings.
I'm conservative in how I use my money and my utilities.
Why?
I saved and purchased solar,
so that as I age into a fixed income,
I could have electricity I would need to be comfortable
in my retired years.
Right now, I'm using solar to dry my clothes,
and I'm living in a house that's set at 61 degrees.
I was paying for electricity 10 years ago,
and now you're asking me to pay more in taxes,
and then what I was paying for electricity
back when I got solar.
Energy demands keep increasing in our lives,
and I thought I prepared well.
I've grown very tired of paying for other people
and their poor decisions.
If I had a choice to be off-grid, I would.
I have no choice on who, what, if, or where.
It's not- (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, our next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jan Dietrich.
You may go ahead.
(male speaks indistinctly)
Male: So if the supervisor in that home district.
Operator: Again, Jan Dietrich, your line is open.
You may go ahead.
Jan: Or was that supervisor parked, or no?
(interposing voices)
Oh, right. -: Okay, yeah!
-: Ms. Dietrich? -: Or his friend.
All right. -: You may begin speaking.
(electronic beeping)
-: Sorry. (male speaks indistinctly)
Reynolds: Excuse me, Ms. Dietrich, your line is open.
Jan: A complete jerk.
(male speaks indistinctly)
Operator: Should we go to the next caller?
Reynolds: Yes, please, Operator.
Operator: Our next caller is Naomi Cohen.
You may go ahead.
Naomi: Yes, my name is Naomi Cohen,
an attorney in LA County.
California is burning to the ground.
People are losing their homes, their livelihoods,
their pets, and their lives!
PGE's power grid is responsible for many of the fires
and the loss of life!
And it contributes much to the climate change
that fuels these fires.
Solar energy needs to be made less expensive
and more accessible,
so more people can help California not burn.
The committee's proposal is outrageous!
Because each of these proposed changes
makes it less likely that people will install solar,
and more likely that California will have more fires.
And the proposals are deliberately designed
to be outrageous,
so that when the committee compromises,
it can claim it is being reasonable,
but any compromise,
anything that makes it harder,
more expensive to install solar, will be egregious,
because it will condemn California to burn,
and it will cost (bell dinging)
more Californians their lives!
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller, please. -: Thank you.
Operator: Our next caller is from Benjamin Wisoff.
You may go ahead.
Benjamin: Hi, good morning,
or good afternoon, President and Commissioners.
Benjamin Wisoff here,
a concerned citizen of Fremont, California
on the disastrous NEM3 proposal.
The foundation of the current PD is rotten,
built on lies and specious logic,
an outrageous and thinly veiled attempt
by utility monopolies to scapegoat rooftop solar,
rather than addressing
their own negligence and shortcomings.
The current NEM3 PD would murder retrofit rooftop solar
through extreme disincentivization.
And what about our housing crisis?
California's Title 24 mandates solar install
on all new home construction.
Big win for clean energy.
But this PD would penalize builders
and homeowners by making
new home ownership more unaffordable,
imposing solar fines on all new home utility bills.
Commissioners, it's your duty
and obligation to protect the public.
Throughout this corrupt dumpster fire of a proposal,
rewrite NEM3 in the spirit
and intent of our climate goal commitments
to current and future generations.
Thank you for your time and service.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Norene Griffin.
You may go ahead.
Norene: Thank you.
My name's Norene Griffin.
I live in Alameda.
I do not have rooftop solar or work in the solar industry.
I'm here today to ask you to reject
the proposed NEM3 decision.
It will make rooftop solar less affordable
and accessible for low and middle income Californians,
which is the exact opposite of what needs to happen.
Creating barriers to access for rooftop solar
will make it harder for California
to reduce reliance on fossil fuels
and reach state climate goals.
The state needs to triple its solar production
to get off fossil fuels,
and that can't be achieved
with utility scale renewables alone.
The impacts of climate change,
which are increasingly increasing
noticeably in severity every year,
disproportionately affect lower income Californians,
younger Californians, like my teenage son,
and all future generations.
That is the real equity issue here.
An equitable outcome will be
aligned with California's climate goals,
will increase, not decrease, access to rooftop solar
and its benefits for all Californians,
and will honor the state's commitments
to current solar customers and solar businesses.
Thank you. (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you.
Please note that we will be taking a break
at 2:00 PM for 15 minutes.
So we'll take a few more calls until 2:00 PM.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Gordon Leppig.
You may go ahead.
Gordon: Good afternoon.
I'm the conservation chair for the North Coast chapter
of the California Native Plant Society.
Our chapter is opposed to the revision
to net energy metering rules.
The reason for our opposition,
is that climate change is a grave environmental
and humanitarian crisis.
Thus, we need all the greenhouse gas emission-reducing,
renewable energy as possible.
But rooftop solar has considerable less,
considerably less environmental impacts
as solar and wind production in wildlands,
such as desert, forest, and grassland prairie habitats.
Yet, this rule, rule change,
will substantially disincentivize
future rooftop solar installation,
and result in more wildland energy production,
thus our opposition to the rule change.
Thank you very much.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Bill Hilton.
You may go ahead.
Bill: Good afternoon.
I'm Bill Hilton in Sunnyvale,
and I thank you for this opportunity
to speak as an individual concerned about climate justice,
and as a rooftop solar owner.
I oppose the proposal that is publicly available for review.
The proposal will stifle new rooftop solar,
and make achievement of the state's clean energy goals
far more difficult, even unlikely.
One estimate is a 20% drop
in new rooftop solar installations next year.
My estimate, based on added costs I'll incur,
is a more drastic reduction.
More importantly, for you and me,
and our children and grandchildren,
is that slower progress on combating climate change
will make living in the future
much more difficult, even dangerous.
For what benefits?
To bolster PG&E's bottom line?
Or some claim, it will make electric rates fairer
for low income people,
about $10 a month on average.
Surely- (bell dinging)
Reynolds: Thank you very much.
Operator, -: Thank you.
Reynolds: the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Paul Newman.
You may go ahead.
Paul: Thank you.
I'm the residence of Santa Monica,
and I'm against this bill as well.
In 2019, I put my solar panels up
with the intent of reducing my electric bill,
because we've had many heat waves, and it continues,
and our summers seem to be longer,
and the use of air conditioning
is more important to my health.
I'm a heart patient.
So, you know, bringing in a tax on this
is just despicable!
And so I urge you, no, on NM3.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Ann Harvey.
You may go ahead.
Ann: Hi, I'm in Ann Harvey,
a retired family doctor in Oakland,
and a member of Climate Health Now.
To address the climate crisis
and our state's unacceptable levels of deadly air pollution,
we must quickly electrify our buildings and transportation,
and rapidly expand renewables and storage.
Extensive reliance on long distance transmission
makes electricity more expensive and less reliable.
Power outages, just like air pollution,
particularly harm the poor,
including people with chronic medical conditions,
and those who can't afford to replace
refrigerated foods that spoil.
Imagine the broad impact
once almost all our vehicles are electric.
We absolutely need not only more solar, but local solar.
The CPUC should do its part
by making rooftop solar more affordable,
especially for low income people.
The proposed decision clearly does the opposite.
I trust you will scrap it, and start over.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Carol,
I'm sorry, Carl Farrington.
You may go ahead.
Carl: Hello.
Thank you, Commissioners, for taking our comments.
As public servants
and as stewards of California's energy infrastructure,
I urge you to reject the NEM3 proposal of solar tax.
For 30 years,
the broad outline of the climate crisis have been clear.
Throughout that time,
our response has been political inaction,
justified by corporate disinformation.
Delays made the clean energy transition more difficult,
but no less necessary.
California's recent political
commitment to carbon reduction
has been a necessary positive step away from this history,
and undermining that commitment
for the purpose of propping up utility profits
would be criminal.
Utilities are looking for political cover
by painting this as an equity issue.
Equity is a concern that we should address
by subsidizing energy efficiency
and clean energy upgrades for low income consumers,
not by preserving a business-as-usual model
that's destroying our climate.
Thank you.
Reynolds: Thank you.
And with that, we're at two o'clock,
and we will be breaking for 15 minutes.
Operator: This conference has resumed.
President Reynolds, you may proceed.
Reynolds: Thank you.
We need to first establish a quorum.
Will the clerk please call the role?
-: Commissioner Houck? -: Here.
-: Commissioner Shiroma? -: Present.
-: Commissioner Rechtschaffen? -: I'm here.
-: President Reynolds? -: Here.
We have a quorum.
We are now resuming the
public comment portion of our meeting.
Before we turn back to public comments,
I wanted to let everyone who is waiting in the que know,
that as we get later into the afternoon,
if you are unable to remain on the line,
you may submit your comment by email
to the CPUC public advisor.
I'm going to give you the email address now,
so that you have it.
The email address is Public.Advisor,
A-D-V-I-S-O-R, @CPUC.CA.gov.
Again, you may provide your comment by email.