FACILITIES. AND COMMUNICATIONS
WILL COME TO ORDER. GOOD MORNING
. I WANT TO WELCOME THE
COMMITTEES TO OUR FIRST HEARING
OF 2024. TODAY'S HEARING IS OUR
ANNUAL UPDATE FROM THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION AND OUR PUBLIC
ADVOCATES OFFICE SIMILAR TO LAST
YEAR'S ANNUAL UPDATE. WE REMAIN
COMMITTED TO KEEPING THE FOCUS
ON UTILITY AFFORDABILITY THAT IS
CRITICAL. THE INABILITY TO
AFFORD A CENTURY UTILITY
SERVICES, ESPECIALLY LIGHT AND
HEAT. CAN HAVE DEVASTATING
EFFECTS ON RESIDENTS' QUALITY OF
LIFE. ALTHOUGH CALIFORNIA HAD A
LONG EXPERIENCE OF HIGH ENERGY
RATES COMPARED TO OTHER STATES,
OUR UTILITY BILLS ARE OFTEN
AVERAGED MORE THAN OTHER STATES,
LARGELY BECAUSE OUR MILD WEATHER
AND THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY
POLICIES THAT WE'VE IMPLEMENTED
OVER THE YEARS. BUT THAT IS NÓ
LONGER. THE CASE. IN YOUR
UTILITY BILLS ARE NOW TRENDING
HIGHER AND ARE EXPECTED TO
CONTINUE TO GROW AND OUTPACE
INFLATION. WE CAN NÓ LONGER
COUNT ON MILD WEATHER AND ENERGY
EFFICIENT. PROGRAMS ALONE TO
HELP HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON
OUR ENERGY BILLS. TODAY WE WANT
TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THE
ISSUES WE DISCUSSED AT LAST
YEAR'S HEARING. ALSO HEAR FROM
SOME OF THE NEW ABOUT SOME OF
THE NEW ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE
BEEN IN PLACE SINCE LAST LAST
MEETING. SPECIFICALLY WE MUST
NOT FORGET THE LASH WINTER,
CALIFORNIANS EXPERIENCED THE
EFFECTS OF SKYROCKETING
WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS PRICES,
WHICH CAUSE UTILITY BILLS. UH,
SHOCK IN THE WINTER NATURAL GAS
UTILITY BILLS, I SHOULD SAY.
WE'RE ENCOURAGED THAT THIS
YEAR'S NATURAL GAS PRICES HAVE
NOT REPEATED THEIR SURGE.
HOWEVER, WE REMAIN DILIGENT,
DILIGENT. AND UH, IDENTIFYING
THE CAUSES OF LAST YEAR'S PRICE
SPIKES. AS THE WHOLESALE PRICES
ARE NEARLY 10 TIMES GREATER ON
THE WEST COMPARED TO, UH
TRENDING HUBS AND OTHER PARTS OF
THE COUNTRY. MANY OF OUR
RESIDENTS WILL CONTINUE TO RELY
ON NATURAL GAS TO PROVIDE SPACE
AND WATER, HEATING AND FUEL FOR
COOKING, NOT TO MENTION THE
CRITICAL ROLE THAT NATURAL GAS.
UH, GENERATIONAL, UH, PLAYS IN
KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON. AND WE
MUST NOT. FORGET THAT IF IT
WASN'T FOR NATURAL GAS TWO YEARS
AGO, THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT
HAVE MET ITS CLIMATE GOAL
NUMBERS, SO NATURAL GAS IS STILL
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO WHAT WE
DO ON A DAILY BASIS. WITHOUT
IDENTIFYING IDENTIFYING SPECIFIC
CAUSES OF PRICE SURGES. WE
CANNOT EXPECT TO PREVENT SIMILAR
EVENTS IN THE FUTURE. WE'VE ALL
HEARD FROM CONSTITUENTS
EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT
SOARING UTILITY BILLS. AS STATE
POLICY. POLICIES. TO SHIFT MORE
CALIFORNIA TO SWITCH TO
ELECTRICITY AS A FUEL SOURCE. WE
ALSO NEED TO ENSURE THAT
ELECTRICITY UTILITY BILLS REMAIN
AFFORDABLE. AFFORDABILITY ALONG
WITH RELIABILITY AND SAFETY ARE
THE BEDROCKS THE, UH, UTILITY
REGULATIONS IN NOVEMBER? THE
JUNIOR WRIGHT CASE OF THE
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC WAS
APPROVED BY THE PUC, WHICH
RESULTS IN A SIZABLE INCREASE IN
RESIDENTS' MONTHLY BILLS ON
AVERAGE $34 A MONTH BEGINNING
THIS YEAR AND INCREASING OVER
THE COMING YEARS, WE WANT TO
HEAR FROM THE PUC AND THE PUBLIC
ADVOCATE'S OFFICE ABOUT THOSE
COSTS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO
REDUCE THE IMPACTS ON CUSTOMERS.
WE KNOW THAT WILDFIRE MITIGATION
IS A KEY DRIVER. CALIFORNIA HAS
UNFORTUNATELY EXPERIENCED
SEVERAL CATASTROPHIC FIRES.
RELATED TO UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED IGNITIONS
. THIS PAST FALL. WE WITNESSED
HOW PERVASIVE THIS CHALLENGE IS
IN OTHER PARTS OF THE GLOBE,
SPECIFICALLY IN HAWAII, WHEN WE
SAW THAT TRAGIC EXAMPLE WHAT WE
ARE LEARNING ABOUT HOW WE CAN BE
MORE STRATEGIC AND JUDICIOUS
WITH WILDFIRE MITIGATION
INVESTIGATIONS AND WHAT
OPPORTUNITIES EXIST FOR FUNDING
BEYOND RATEPAYERS. SHOULDERING
THESE COSTS. OF COURSE, WE NEED
TO MENTION THE STATE AUDITORS
REPORT, WHICH WAS RELEASED IN
AUGUST. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS FOR BOTH
THE PUC AND THE PUBLIC
ADVOCATE'S OFFICE TO BETTER
PROTECT CALIFORNIA'S FROM
EXCESSIVE UTILITY BILLS. WE
WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM BOTH
ENTITIES ABOUT THEIR RESPONSE
AND THEIR FOLLOW UP ACTIONS.
THERE ARE OTHER UPDATES.
INCLUDING ALL THE ACTIVITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PU èC S¼
ACTIVITY PROCEEDINGS TO
IMPLEMENT THE INCOME BASED FIXED
CHARGES AUTHORIZED BY A B, 205
AND 2022. WE UNDERSTAND THAT
THERE ARE SEVERAL PROPOSALS THAT
HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY PARTIES
IN THE PROCEEDINGS. WITH VARYING
DESIGNS, STRUCTURES, INCOME
TIERS AND FIXED CHARGE AMOUNTS
TODAY AS AN IMPORTANT
OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS TO HEAR
FROM THE PUC ABOUT WHAT IS BEING
CONSIDERED IN THE PROCESS AND
THE EXPECTED TIMELINE FOR A
DECISION. OTHER ACTIVITIES
INCLUDE. HOW ARE WE SUPPORTING
EFFORTS TO SECURE FEDERAL
FUNDING FROM THE INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT ACT? UH, AND JOBS
ACT? AND THE INFLATION REDUCTION
ACT. HOW CAN THIS FUNDING
DISPLACE WHAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE
COLLECTED FROM OUR UTILITY
CUSTOMERS? I LOOK FORWARD TO THE
DAY'S UPDATE TO LEARN WHAT STEPS
THE PU èC AND THE PUBLIC
ADVOCATE'S OFFICE ARE TAKING TO
ENSURE ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL
GAS UTILITY BILLS BECOME AND
REMAIN AFFORDABLE FOR
CALIFORNIANS. NOW, LET'S HEAR
FROM OUR FIRST SET OF, UH,
PRESENTERS. I WELCOME OUR PUC.
UH, COMMISSIONER PRESIDENT ALICE
REYNOLDS TO JOIN US AND, UH,
LEAD THE STAFF ON THE PIECE.
LEAD STAFF TO THE PEACE HERE.
GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
BRADFORD AND SENATORS MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I'M ALICE
REYNOLDS, PRESIDENT OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION. I'M REALLY PLEASED
TO BE HERE TODAY. UM I'D LIKE TO
START WITH A BRIEF INTRODUCTION,
UH, TO PROVIDE SOME HIGHLIGHTS
FROM THE PAST YEAR AND SOME
CHALLENGES WE FACE IN 2024. I'M
JOINED BY TWO OF MY COLLEAGUES,
RACHEL PETERSON, THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE èC, P èC AND
LEAM TFA, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE
POLICY. RACHEL AND THE ARE
AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT COME UP
AT THE HEARING TODAY. SO FIRST
I'LL START WITH A VERY BRIEF
OVERVIEW OF THE èC PU èC S¼
ROLE AS YOU KNOW, IT'S THE èC P
èC REGULATES AND MONITORS
UTILITIES THAT DELIVER ESSENTIAL
SERVICES THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA.
WE REGULATE ENERGY, WATER,
COMMUNICATIONS, TRANSPORTATION
AND RAIL. AND FOR A BIT OF
CONTEXT, I'LL NOTE THAT IN THE
ENERGY SECTOR, WE REGULATE THE
INVESTOR OWNED ELECTRIC AND GAS
UTILITIES AND OUR JURISDICTION
COVERS ABOUT 75% OF THE LOAD IN
CALIFORNIA. THE UTILITIES, OF
COURSE, OWN A MASSIVE EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FOR CONTEXT
AGAIN IF YOU LAID OUT THEIR
MILES OF TRANSMISSION,
DISTRIBUTION AND NATURAL GAS
PIPELINES IN A STRAIGHT LINE UP
AND DOWN THE STATE, YOU COULD
MAKE THE TRIP APPROXIMATELY
THREE 160 TIMES, SO A LOT OF
INFRASTRUCTURE UM, ADDITIONALLY
I'LL NOTE THAT IT'S NOT JUST THE
LARGE INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES
THAT ARE MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT
THE SOURCES OF ENERGY THAT IS
SUPPLIED TO OUR HOMES,
BUSINESSES AND INDUSTRIES. WE
HAVE 43 RETAIL PROVIDERS OF
ELECTRICITY. THESE ARE THE
ENTITIES THAT ARE PROCURING
CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCES ON BEHALF
OF THEIR CUSTOMERS. THEY INCLUDE
THE LARGE INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES PG AND E, SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON AND S¼, Dð, G
AND E, AS WELL AS COMMUNITY
CHOICE AGGREGATORS AND ACCESS
PROVIDERS. SO I WANTED TO
EMPHASIZE THE FRAMEWORK FOR OUR
WORK AT THE PUC. OUR ULTIMATE
GOALS REMAIN CONSTANT. WE FOCUS
OUR WORK ON DRIVING THE
UTILITIES TO PROVIDE ALL
CUSTOMERS IN EVERY PART OF THEIR
TERRITORIES WITH SAFE AND
RELIABLE SERVICES, AT LEAST COST
AND AN EQUITABLE MANNER. IN THE
ENERGY SECTOR. WE ARE VERY
FOCUSED ON REDUCING GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS PRODUCED IN THE
GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY AND
FOR OUR JURISDICTIONAL LOAD
SERVING ENTITIES THAT MEANS RELY
REDUCING RELIANCE ON NATURAL
GAS. THIS IS CHALLENGING WHEN
YOU CONSIDER THE EXTREME WEATHER
EVENTS THAT ARE IMPACTING OUR
STATE. THEY ARE FORCING US TO
RESPOND AND ADAPT AT THE SAME
TIME THAT WE'RE REDUCING
RELIANCE ON FOSSIL FUELS. SO
ADDITIONALLY, AS YOU KNOW, THE
LOAD IN CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN VERY
FLAT. UH, SINCE THE 19 SEVENTIES
AND THE CHAIR MENTIONED SOME OF
OUR EARLY ENERGY EFFICIENCY
MEASURES, BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT
THIS IS CHANGING. WE'RE
PREDICTING NEW LOAD FROM NEW
INDUSTRIES, DATA CENTERS,
ELECTRIFIED WAREHOUSES AND PORTS
, CANNABIS CULTIVATION AND AREAS
WHERE THE GRID WAS BUILT TO
SERVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LOAD.
AND WE PREDICT INCREASED LOAD
FROM ELECTRIFICATION OF
TRANSPORTATION AND BUILDINGS. AT
THE SAME TIME, OUR ELECTRICITY
SYSTEM WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT
DECADES AGO AND NEEDS TO BE
UPDATED. IT NEEDS TO BE HARDENED
TO REDUCE THE RISK ASSOCIATED
WITH EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS AND
CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES. AND
CALIFORNIA IS MAKING A STATEWIDE
PUSH TO DO THIS. AS YOU KNOW. S¼
B 844 ALLOWS UTILITIES TO SEEK
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FOR COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH TENURE
UNDERGROUND PLANS. UM AND THE
STATE AS A WHOLE HAS
SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED FUNDING
FOR WELFARE PREVENTION, RESPONSE
AND RESILIENCE THROUGH CAL FIRE
AND OTHER AGENCIES. BUT FOR THE
ELECTRICAL INFRA INVESTMENTS AND
MAINTENANCE. ALL OF THE FUNDING
COMES FROM RATEPAYERS. AND IT'S
COLLECTED THROUGH OUR ENERGY
BILLS. AND AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE
SEEING THESE COSTS INCREASE. SO
I HAVE JUST TWO SLIDES TO
ILLUSTRATE SOME OF THE POINTS
THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. SO I'LL
START WITH THE FIRST ONE, WHICH
SHOWS THE, UM TRAJECTORY OF
RATES AND THE COMPONENTS OF
RATES. ELECTRICAL RATES. THE
LARGEST SOURCE OF, UM UH, THE
RATE INCREASES IS THE
DISTRIBUTION COST. WHAT YOU'LL
SEE IS THE RED ON THE BAR
CHARTS. THERE HAS BEEN A SHARP
INCREASE IN SPENDING ON WELFARE
MITIGATION, MOSTLY INCLUDING
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AND ALSO
INSURANCE WILDFIRE INSURANCE. UM
DISTRIBUTION COSTS HAVE GROWN
45% FROM 2016 TO 2022. OTHER
COSTS INCLUDE MAINTAINING POLES
AND TRANSFORMERS, SENDING OUT
REPAIR CREWS AFTER A STORM. AND
THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT THAT
THE UTILITIES DO TO PROVIDE
ELECTRIC SERVICE TO EVERYONE AND
ESPECIALLY OUR OUR MOST
VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS. UM
GENERATION COSTS ALSO GO UP AND
DOWN BECAUSE OF TRENDS IN THE
MARKET. AND THAT'S THE BLUE. UM
THE, UH, BLUE, UM, PART OF THE
BAR CHART. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE
TRANSMISSION COSTS, WHICH IS THE
GREEN THE NEXT ONE. THE NEXT
LEVEL. UM TRANSMISSION COSTS
HAVE GONE UP SLIGHTLY IN RECENT
YEARS, MOSTLY DUE TO COSTS OF
SELF APPROVED TRANSMISSION
PROJECTS. THESE ARE LOCAL AND
REGIONAL PROJECTS THAT DON'T
NECESSARILY EXPAND CAPACITY OF
THE GRID, SUCH AS REPAIRING AND
REPLACING OLD SUBSTATION
EQUIPMENT. YOU'LL ALSO SEE THAT
PUBLIC PURPOSE PROGRAMS HAVE
ALSO INCREASED, AND THAT'S THE
NEXT LAYER. UM, PUBLIC PURPOSE.
UH UH, PROGRAM COSTS HAVE NOT
FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. THE
MAIN REASONS ARE INCREASED
FUNDING FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAMS AND THE CARE PROGRAM.
SO THIS IS A GRAPHIC DEPICTION
OF WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH RATES.
I'LL TALK ABOUT THE COMPONENTS
AND A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL AND
A FEW ACTIONS THAT WE'RE TAKING
WITH RESPECT TO RATES. ONE WAY
WE EVALUATE RATES AND RATE
INCREASES IS THROUGH OUR GENERAL
RATE CASE APPLICATIONS. WE DO
GENERAL RAPE CASES FOR EACH
UTILITY ON A FOUR YEAR CYCLE?
UH, CHAIR, BRADFORD MENTIONED
THE PGE GENERAL RATE CASE. THIS
IS A PROCEEDING THAT WE CONDUCT
THAT WE WILL RECEIVE
APPLICATIONS FROM THE UTILITIES.
THE COSTS ARE PRESENTED TO
COMMISSION STAFF AND ASSIGNED
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND
REVIEWED AND ANALYZED. IN PG AND
E S¼ CASE. UH PGE ORIGINALLY
REQUESTED FOR THEIR BASE YEAR, A
REVENUE REQUIREMENT OF $13.5
BILLION. WHAT WE ULTIMATELY
APPROVED WAS $2 BILLION LESS
THAN THE REQUEST AND OVER THE
PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS THAT
AMOUNTED TO A REDUCTION OF
ALMOST $9 BILLION. BUT OF COURSE
, A LOT OF THESE COSTS ARE
THINGS THAT YOU SEE THE IMPACTS
OF SO THIS IS RESPONDING TO
CATASTROPHIC EVENTS SUCH AS
STORMS AND FLOODS. UM AND, UH
AND THE WORK THAT IS BEING DONE
TO MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM AS WELL
AS TO BRING TO SUPPORT CLEAN
ENERGY PROJECTS. IN ADDITION TO
GENERAL RAPE CASES, WE ALSO HAVE
ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT GO INTO
RATES THROUGH OTHER MECHANISMS.
ONE MECHANISM IS A MEMORANDUM
ACCOUNT. UM THE MEMORANDUM
ACCOUNTS GENERALLY COVER COSTS
THAT WERE NOT FORESEEABLE. SOME
OF THIS IS WILDFIRE COSTS,
SOMETHING THAT WAS APPROVED IN A
B 1054. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
MEMORANDUM ACCOUNTS FOR
ADDITIONAL COLLECTION FROM
RATEPAYERS FOR THE COST OF
WELFARE MITIGATION, AS INCLUDED
IN THE WELFARE MITIGATION PLANS
APPROVED BY THE OFFICE OF
INFRASTRUCTURE SAFETY. SO A FEW
MEASURES IN ADDITION TO THE
GENERAL WRAY CASE THAT WE USE TO
EVALUATE COSTS, SCRUTINIZE THEM
FOR REASONABLENESS AND ENSURE
THAT THE UTILITIES ARE WORKING
IN THE MOST COST. EFFECTIVE WAY.
UM, WE HAVE, UH, EFFECTIVE WAYS
TO PROVIDE COMPETITION AND COST
EFFECTIVENESS IN CLEAN ENERGY
GENERATION. SO THERE IS A
REQUEST FOR OFFERS SOLICITATIONS
DONE BY EACH LOAD SERVING
ENTITIES THAT REQUIRE LEASE COST
BEST FIT SELECTIONS FOR NEW
ENERGY GENERATION. LAST YEAR, WE
ELIMINATED SUBSIDIES FOR THE
EXTENSION OF ELECTRIC LINES FOR
NEW MIXED FUEL BUILDINGS USING
NATURAL GAS OR PROPANE, IN
ADDITION TO ELECTRICITY AND THIS
DECISION FOLLOWS A 2022 DECISION
IN WHICH WE ELIMINATED SUBSIDIES
FOR THE EXTENSION OF GAS LINES.
AND SO THAT MEANS THAT THE GAS
LINE EXTENSIONS FOR NEW
DEVELOPMENTS ARE NÓ LONGER ADDED
TO RATES. THIS DECISION IS
EXPECTED TO SAVE RATEPAYERS.
$480 480 MILLION DOLLARS
ANNUALLY FOR THE NEAR TERM. UM
THESE DECISIONS MOVE US CLOSER
TO THE CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE. AND
OF COURSE, THEY SUPPORT
ELECTRIFICATION AND
DISINCENTIVIZE NEW GAS HOOKUPS.
LAST YEAR. WE ALSO MODERNIZED
OUR ROOFTOP SOLAR TARIFFS, WHICH
ALSO CONTROL OVERALL SYSTEM
COSTS BY REDUCING THE AMOUNTS
PAID TO CUSTOMERS WHO DON'T HAVE
ROOFTOP SOLAR. THE NEW TARIFF
HAS IMPROVED PRICE SIGNALS SO
THAT ROOFTOP SOLAR CUSTOMERS ARE
INCENTIVIZED TO INSTALL STORAGE
TO PREVENT THEIR LOAD FROM
SHOWING UP ON THE GRID AS THE
SUN SETS, WHICH IS WHEN WE RELY
ON POWER PLANTS BURNING FOSSIL
FUELS. SO WE ARE ALREADY SEEING
A SIGNIFICANT UPTICK IN THE
NUMBER OF BATTERY STORAGE
SYSTEMS INSTALLED WITH ROOFTOP
SOLAR AS A RESULT OF THE NEW
TARIFF. AND IMPORTANTLY, THIS
NEW TARIFF CONTROLS COSTS FOR
CUSTOMERS WITHOUT ROOFTOP SOLAR,
WHO ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY LOW
INCOME CUSTOMERS. THERE IS STILL
A LARGE LEGACY COST, WHICH ADDS
TO HIGH ELECTRICITY BILLS. FOR
INSTANCE, BILLS IN S¼, Dð, G AND
E TERRITORY. CUSTOMERS WHO DO
NOT HAVE ROOFTOP SOLAR WOULD BE
17% LOWER IF THEY WEREN'T
COVERING THE COSTS OF ROOFTOP
SOLAR CUSTOMERS. THOSE LEGACY
CUSTOMERS ON THE OLD NM TARIFF
AND A PG AND E. THE BILLS WOULD
BE 14% LOWER. SO CHANGES TO OUR
ROOFTOP SOLAR TARIFFS HELPS TO
CONTROL THE COST ON ELECTRICITY
BILLS GOING FORWARD, AND WE'LL
ALSO HELP TO INCENTIVIZE OUR
CLEAN ENERGY GOALS. UM IT'S ALSO
HELPFUL TO SEE SOME SOURCES OF
NON RATEPAYER FUNDS TO SUPPLANT
RATEPAYER FUNDING, AND THIS
MONTH IS PUC ISSUED A PROPOSED
DECISION TO ALLOCATE 280 MILLION
, WHICH WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE
LEGISLATURE TO FUND UPFRONT
INCENTIVES FOR BEHIND THE METERS
, SOLAR AND STORAGE PROJECTS
DEDICATED TO LOW INCOME AND
UNDERSERVED CUSTOMERS. I DO WANT
TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF ASSEMBLY BILL
205, WHICH THE CHAIR MENTIONED.
UM, THIS, UH, BILL CREATES OUR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BILL WILL
CREATE AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE WAY
COSTS ARE COLLECTED FROM
CUSTOMERS TO ACCELERATE
DECARBONISATION AND IMPROVE
EQUITY BY MINIMIZING BILL
IMPACTS TO LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS.
THE EXISTING BILL STRUCTURE IN
CALIFORNIA IS OUTDATED AND NOT
IN LINE WITH UTILITIES ACROSS
THE COUNTRY AND THE MUNICIPAL
UTILITIES IN CALIFORNIA AND THE
WAY THAT THEY STRUCTURE THEIR
ELECTRICITY BILLS. SO THIS IS
REALLY AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE
STRUCTURE OF BILLS SO CURRENTLY
FOR PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON AND
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC ALL
THE COSTS OF BUILDING AND
MAINTAINING THE ELECTRIC GRID
ARE BUNDLED INTO THE PRICE THAT
CUSTOMERS PAY FOR ELECTRICITY IN
THEIR SENSE. HOUR OR THEIR USAGE
RATE TO THINK OF IT AS THE
AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY THEY USE.
ALL COSTS ARE CURRENTLY BUNDLED
TOGETHER AND CHARGED
VOLUMETRICALLY. BY COMPARISON.
MOST OTHER UTILITIES LIKE SMD
AND L, A Dð WP BREAK OUT AT
LEAST SOME OF THE FIXED COSTS
SUCH AS THE COST OF TRANSFORMERS
THAT SEND ELECTRICITY TO AND FRO
FROM ONE'S HOME. THEY THEY PULL
THESE OUT AND PUT THEM IN A
SEPARATE LINE ITEM ON CUSTOMER
BILLS CALLED A FLAT RATE. FLAT
THE FLAT RATE COVERS THE COST TO
BUILD AND MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT
THAT ALLOWS EVERYONE TO RECEIVE
THE POWER WHENEVER THEY NEED IT.
AND ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF
MAKING THIS TYPE OF BUILDING
ADJUSTMENT IS IT SHRINKS THE
KILOWATT HOUR PER HOUR PRICE FOR
ALL CUSTOMERS? AND IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS BILL TO
CREATE A FLAT RATE WOULD NOT BE
A NEW ADDITIONAL CHARGE, BUT
INSTEAD WOULD BE AN ADJUSTMENT
TO ONE PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE
OF ELECTRICITY BILLS. SO IN
OTHER WORDS, THIS ADJUSTMENT
DOESN'T INCREASE THE TOTAL PIE.
IT JUST CHANGES THE WAY THE PIE
IS DIVIDED. AND THAT MEANS THAT
WITH THIS CHANGE, CUSTOMERS
WOULD BE INCENTIVIZED TO
ELECTRIFY BECAUSE IT WOULD BE
CHEAPER TO ADD NEW ELECTRICITY
DEMAND. UM WHICH IS WHAT WE WANT
TO INCENTIVIZE. WE WANT TO MAKE
IT EASIER FOR CUSTOMERS TO
REPLACE GAS POWERED VEHICLES
WITH ELECTRIC ONES AND SWITCH TO
ELECTRIC APPLIANCES. AND
IMPORTANTLY, THEY WOULD STILL BE
PRICE SIGNALS TO CONSERVE
ELECTRICITY. AT TIMES OF THE DAY
WHEN WE DO NEED TO REDUCE OUR
ENERGY USAGE. A P IS CURRENTLY
CONSIDERING THE DETAILS OF HOW
TO IMPLEMENT THE BILLING
ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED BY A B 205
PROPOSALS WERE SUBMITTED FROM A
WIDE RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS,
INCLUDING RATEPAYER ADVOCATES,
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, THE
INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES AND
INDUSTRY GROUPS. IN TOTAL NINE
TO FIXED CHARGE. PROPOSALS WERE
SUBMITTED BY 12 PARTIES. UM
ANOTHER POINT TO NOTE IS THAT
WHILE THE PROPOSALS DID INCLUDE
DISCOUNTS FOR LOW INCOME
CUSTOMERS, THEY WOULD NOT
REQUIRE CUSTOMERS TO VERIFY
THEIR INCOME INFORMATION IN A
NEW WAY, BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE
A WAY TO CREATE DISCOUNTS BASED
ON INCOME, USING THE CURRENT
CARE AND FAIRER PROGRAMS, WHICH
INCORPORATE A VOLUNTARY INCOME
SELF ATTESTATION PROCESS. UM THE
ADDITIONALLY UH, CONCURRENTLY
WITH THE, UH, THE PROCEEDING ON
THE FIXED CHARGE, THE èC P èC
IS ENGAGED IN A RULEMAKING THAT
WOULD CONSIDER DYNAMIC CHARGES
BASED ON REAL TIME GRID
CONDITIONS. THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR
MORE TARGETED PRICE SIGNALS THAT
FURTHER ENCOURAGE LOAD SHIFTING.
WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMING ON A
B 205 WERE CONSIDERING THE
PROPOSALS AND IN EXPECT TO REACH
A DECISION THIS QUARTER. OK UH,
THE SECOND SLIDE. UM LIKE TO
TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR
CLEAN ENERGY SUPPLY AND HOW
RATEPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR COST
EFFECTIVE WAYS TO CLEAN UP OUR
GRID SUPPLY SO THAT WE CAN ALL
ACCESS CLEAN ENERGY. WE'RE
MAKING GREAT PROGRESS IN
CLEANING UP OUR ELECTRICITY
SYSTEM. CLEAN ENERGY CAPACITY
HAS TRIPLED OVER THE LAST
DECADE, AND WE'RE RAMPING UP THE
PACE. THE CPUC INTEGRATED
RESOURCE PLANNING PROCESS
ENSURES THAT CALIFORNIA'S
ELECTRIC SECTOR MEETS ITS
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION
REDUCTIONS WHILE MAINTAINING
RELIABILITY AT THE LOWEST
POSSIBLE COST. SO THIS GRAPH
DEPICTS TWO LINES. THE LIGHTER
COLORED LINE IS ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL, AND THE DARKER COLORED
LINE SHOWS. OUR RECENT PROPOSAL,
WHICH SETS REDUCTIONS AT A
STEEPER PACE, SO THAT WE'LL SEE
SOME OF THOSE REDUCTIONS IN
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS COME
SOONER. IN FEBRUARY, 2020 THREE,
THE èC P èC ADOPTED A
PORTFOLIO OF RESOURCES TO MEET A
STATEWIDE TARGET OF NÓ MORE THAN
THREE MILLION METRIC TONS.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM
THE ELECTRIC SECTOR IN 2030. UM
THIS THIS PORTFOLIO ALSO FEEDS
INTO KO'S TRANSMISSION PLANNING
PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT THE PLANT
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
KEEPS ON PACE WITH RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT AND IT IS GEARED IS
TARGETED TOWARD THE CARB.
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
SCOPING PLAN. SO IN LINE WITH
THE TARGETS THAT WE NEED TO SEE
FROM THE ELECTRIC SECTOR TO
REACH CARBON NEUTRALITY BY 2045.
TO GET US TO THESE TARGETS. WE
HAVE THE OVER 40 LOAD SERVING
ENTITIES, INCLUDING THE
COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATORS,
WHO ARE MAKING FINANCIAL CHOICES
ON BEHALF OF CUSTOMERS IN
CALIFORNIA TO GET TO THESE
TARGETS. SO THE PROPOSED PLAN
THAT IS DEPICTED IN THE SLIDE
AND WHICH WE'RE VOTING ON THIS
WEEK WOULD REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS FROM THE ELECTRIC
SECTOR. TO 25 MILLION METRIC
TONS BY 2035 AND PUT US ON TRACK
TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE ANNUAL
EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC
GENERATION BY 2045 DOWN TO 8
MILLION METRIC TONS BY 2045.
THIS PORTFOLIO WOULD ACHIEVE
CLEAN IN ENERGY PRODUCTION
BEYOND THE S¼ B 100 INTERIM
TARGETS IT ACHIEVES CLEAN ENERGY
PRODUCTION OF 101% BY 2035 AND
113% OF RETAIL SALES BY 2045. IN
ADDITION TO R, AND IN ADDITION
TO THE CLEAN ENERGY MIX,
CUSTOMERS ALSO NEED TO BE ABLE
TO ACCESS SUPPLY EVERY DAY AT
ANY TIME. AND WE NEED TO
GUARANTEE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING
TO RUN OUT OF POWER, AND THIS
GUARANTEE IS EXPENSIVE,
ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF
UNCERTAINTY AROUND EXTREME
WEATHER EVENTS AND NEEDLE PEAKS
THAT WE'RE SEEING BECAUSE OF
CLIMATE CHANGE INDUCED EVENTS.
SO IT'S THE CPUC èC. IN
ADDITION TO THE ENERGY MIX,
WE'RE VERY FOCUSED ON CAPACITY
NEEDS THE CAPACITY OF THE SYSTEM
TO SERVE CUSTOMERS THE CAPACITY
WE NEED FOR ENERGY SUPPLY AND
THE ABILITY OF THE ELECTRICITY
TO REACH LOAD THROUGHOUT THE
SYSTEM THROUGH THE DISTRIBUTION
AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM TO
DELIVER CLEAN ENERGY, EVEN WHEN
DEMAND IS HIGHEST, ESPECIALLY
DURING THOSE HOT SUMMER MONTHS
AND EXTREME HEAT EVENTS. SO WHEN
THE SUPPLY SIDE WE ARE
IMPLEMENTING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
RESOURCE ADEQUACY PROGRAM, WHAT
WE CALL THE R PROGRAM, UH, TO
ENSURE THAT ENERGY SUPPLY IS
AVAILABLE TO MEET THESE PEAKS
AND UNPREDICTABLE EVENTS. UM AND
, UH WE ARE ALSO INCREASING
DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS SO THAT
RESOURCES CAN BE MAXIMIZED AS
COST-EFFECTIVE AND READY WHEN WE
NEED THEM. UM A LITTLE BIT ON
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PLANNING. UM
I KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN AN
ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN VERY MUCH ON
THE MINDS OF MANY CALIFORNIANS.
UH, AS WE'RE SEEING DELAYS IN
ENERGIZING THROUGHOUT THE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. WE ARE
WORKING TO IMPROVE DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM PLANNING TO PREPARE THE
GRID FOR A HIGH ELECTRIFICATION
FUTURE A FUTURE WHERE ELECTRIC
VEHICLE CHARGERS HEAT PUMPS. AN
ELECTRIC APPLIANCES ARE
PREVALENT AND EQUITABLY
DISTRIBUTED. SO THIS WORK
INCLUDES IMPLEMENTING SENATE
BILL 410 AND ASSEMBLY BILL 50 TO
IMPROVE ELECTRIC UTILITY
PLANNING AND ENERGY ORGANIZATION
PROCESSES TO FACILITATE TIMELY
ENG ORGANIZATION. UM JUST
BRIEFLY ON THE ACTIONS THAT
WE'RE TAKING TO IMPLEMENT THESE
BILLS SINCE THEY WENT INTO
EFFECT. WE HAVE MULTIPLE
PROCEEDINGS. FIRST WE HAVE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION
PLANNING PROCESS. IMPROVEMENTS
ARE BEING INCORPORATED INTO OUR
HIGH Dð ER PROCEEDING. SECOND UM
, THE PG AND E GENERAL RAPE CASE
. TRACK TWO IS CONSIDERING PG
AND E S¼ B 410 RATE MAKING
REQUEST, SO THAT'S A REQUEST FOR
A MECHANISM TO COLLECT COSTS FOR
ENG ORGANIZATION OF DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM PROJECTS. AND TODAY PGE
IS THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS MADE
THIS REQUEST UNDER S¼ B 410. AND
FINALLY, THE COMMISSION
ESTABLISHED A NEW ENG
ORGANIZATION PROCEEDING IN
JANUARY TO ESTABLISH TIMELY
ENERGIZING CRITERIA. SO WE'RE
LOOKING FOR TIME FRAMES,
CRITERIA AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS FOR ENG
ORGANIZATION FOR ALL OF THE
LARGE INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES.
SO IN CLOSING, I'D LIKE TO SAY,
JUST EMPHASIZE THAT WE'RE VERY
FOCUSED ON AFFORDABILITY WHILE
AT THE SAME TIME PUSHING FORWARD
ON OUR CLEAN ENERGY, RELIABILITY
AND SAFETY GOALS AND A AT THE
èC PU èC. WE ARE CONTINUING TO
FOCUS ON COST EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS
WHERE WE CAN ENHANCE EQUITY AND
REDUCE COSTS, WHICH ALL FALL ON
RATE PAIR. WE'LL CONTINUE TO
IMPROVE PRICE SIGNALS TO
INCENTIVIZE STORAGE. AND
RESPONSE AND ENCOURAGE ENERGY
USES USAGE WHEN THE GRID IS
OPERATING. AT LEAST STRESS. AND
WITH THE HIGHEST PENETRATION OF
CLEAN ENERGY SUPPLY. WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH OUR SISTER
AGENCIES AND OTHER ENTITIES TO
PLAN FOR THE TRANSFORMATION AND
HARDENING OF THE DISTRIBUTION
AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS TO
ENHANCE THEIR RESILIENCE AND
PREPARE FOR HIGHER LOAD AND
HIGHER ADOPTION OF ELECTRIC
VEHICLES AND ELECTRIC
APPLIANCES. I AM GRATEFUL TO
HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT
TO THE COMMITTEE AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO YOUR QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU. PRESIDENT REYNOLDS FOR HIS
PRESENTATION. I WILL NOW OPEN IT
UP TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SENATOR
DODD. YES. UH, THANK YOU, MR
PRESIDENT. I'M GONNA IT IS OK.
MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND
ASK WHAT QUESTION AND THEN GET
AN ANSWER AND ASK ONE MORE
QUESTION. IF THAT'S OK WITH THE
CHAIR FIRST OF ALL, PRESIDENT
REYNOLDS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR BEING HERE AND YOUR DETAILED
REPORT. I APPRECIATE THE FACT
THAT THE CPUC AND PG AND E HAVE
PLACED WILDFIRE PREVENTION AND
MITIGATION PLANNING AT THE TOP
OF THE AGENDA. LORD KNOWS I'VE
SPENT MORE THAN HALF OF MY
TENURE IN THE LEGISLATURE TRYING
TO GET TO THIS POINT. THE FACT
IS AS MUCH AS THE RECENT $13.5
BILLION RATE INCREASE RECENTLY
APPROVED FOR PG AND E IS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO WILDFIRE
PREVENTION AND MITIGATION AND IN
PARTICULAR ATTRIBUTABLE TO, UH,
UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES IN A
HIGH WILDFIRE THREAT AREAS. BUT
IT'S THREE EURO MILLION DOLLARS
A MILE. THAT RATE INCREASE GETS
CALIFORNIA ONLY 1230 MILES OF
UNDERGROUND, OF WHICH 300 IS
ALREADY DONE. SO WE NOW HAVE
MILLIONS OF PG AND E CUSTOMERS
PAYING AS MUCH AS $40 MORE PER
MONTH FOR A WILDFIRE MITIGATION
STRATEGY THAT WILL TAKE MORE
THAN 10 YEARS TO COMPLETE. BEST.
I LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE
ALTERNATIVES OF èC PUC
CONSIDERED FOR PG AND E TO
PROVIDE SIMILAR WILDFIRE
PROTECTION SOONER THAN THE PG
AND E UNDERGROUND TIMETABLE, AND
DID THE èC PUC CONSIDER THE
TIME VALUE OF RATEPAYER MONEY
INVESTED SUCH THAT MORE REPAY
BENEFITS FROM SIMILAR LEVELS OF
PROTECTION AT PERHAPS LOWER COST
OVER TIME. IT JUST IN CONTEXT.
WE TOOK A LEGISLATIVE TOUR DOWN
TO, UH. THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON WHEN THEY WERE PUTTING
COVERED CONDUCTORS. SO I MEAN,
THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF THINGS
THAT I I'M THINKING THAT, UH,
YOU KNOW, SHOULD BE ANALYZED IN
TERMS OF WHAT IS THE BEST BANG
FOR THE BUCK FOR SAFETY FOR OUR
RATEPAYERS. SORRY, WENT ON SO
LONG. NÓ NÓ PROBLEM, SENATOR.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. UM
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP
ON THIS ISSUE, AND I'LL TRY TO
TAKE A STAB AT GETTING TO THE
QUESTION AND IT IT'S AN
EXCELLENT UH, CHARACTERIZATION
OF THE STRUGGLES THAT WE FACE IN
EVALUATING AND APPROVING THE
REQUESTED RATE INCREASES THAT PG
AND E BRINGS FORWARD TO THE èC
PU èC. WE DO LOOK AT RISK
REDUCTION TARGETS. SO LOOKING AT
OVERALL RISK REDUCTION TARGET
AND WE LOOK AT THE MEASURES THAT
ARE POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE THAT
TARGET AND THE COST OF THOSE
MEASURES AND THERE ARE PROS AND
CONS. RIGHT SO WITH UNDERGROUND
YOU MIGHT GET SOME LONGER TERM,
UH, BENEFITS AND SOME MORE
CERTAINTY COMPARED TO COVERED
CONDUCTOR. THE LINES ARE NÓ
LONGER SUSCEPTIBLE TO HIGH WINDS
AND TREES FALLING ON THEM, WHICH
CAN HAPPEN WITH COVERED
CONDUCTORS STILL CAN BE
SUSCEPTIBLE. TO STORM DAMAGE AND
PETITION POTENTIAL IGNITIONS. SO
SOME RISK REMAINS. UM BUT AS YOU
NOTE UNDERGROUND IS INCREDIBLY
EXPENSIVE, IT IS USUALLY FUNDED
THROUGH INVESTMENTS, WHICH ARE
PAID OFF OVER TIME. AND SO WHILE
THIS IS AN ASSET UNDERGROUND AND
CONTINUES TO PROVIDE PROTECTIONS
AS A LONG TERM INVESTMENT IN THE
SYSTEM, IT IS ALSO PAID OFF OVER
TIME BY RATEPAYERS, AND IT'S NOT
PAID THE COSTS DON'T ALL HIT
RATES AT ONCE LIKE THEY DO WITH,
UM WITH, UH, VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT. UM WHICH ARE
ESSENTIALLY OUR COST OF SERVICES
THAT GO DIRECTLY INTO RATES
IMMEDIATELY. UM WE EVALUATED
INFORMATION TAKING INTO ACCOUNT
THE WELFARE MITIGATION PLANS
THAT ARE APPROVED BY Ó E I WE
ALSO HAVE STAFF WHO, UM,
EVALUATE DIFFERENT TOOLS AND,
UM, LOOK FOR RATE RED LOOK FOR
RATE REDUCTION TARGET. WE
RECEIVED TESTIMONY FROM THE
PARTIES THAT WAS CONSIDERED AND
BALANCED. ALL OF THOSE FACTORS
IN COMING UP WITH THE AMOUNTS
THAT WERE APPROVED IN THE
GENERAL RATE CASE. PJE IS ABLE
TO, UM IS ON A PATH AS YOU NOTED
TO COMPLETE UNDERGROUND. WE'RE
HOPING TO SEE COST REDUCTIONS.
AND UM, THEY HAVE, UH, PRESENTED
A CASE THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO
ACHIEVE COST REDUCTIONS OVER
TIME AS THEY BECOME MORE
EFFICIENT AND WE WILL BE LOOKING
FOR THAT. UM AND WE'LL ALSO BE
LOOKING FOR THAT TYPE OF PLANNED
EFFICIENCIES AND COST REDUCTIONS
AS WE EVALUATE ANY S¼ B 884
PROPOSAL THAT MIGHT COME FORWARD
, WHICH WILL BE THE LONGER TERM
EXPENDITURES. LET ME TURN TO MS
PETERSON AND MS TESTIFIED TO SEE
IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD,
BECAUSE THIS IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT SUBJECT. THE PRESIDENT
REYNOLDS. GOOD MORNING, SENATOR
RACHEL PETERSON, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE èC PU èC, AND
I THINK YOUR QUESTION AND THE
PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE EXACTLY
ENCAPSULATE THE TRADEOFFS THAT
WERE ALL CONSIDERING, UM AS WE
EVALUATE PROPOSALS, LIKE WHAT PG
AND E PUT FORWARD TO THE
COMMISSION. THE ONLY THING I
WOULD ADD TO THE PRESIDENT'S
RESPONSE IS THAT PG AND E AND
ALL OF THE UTILITIES ARE USING A
TOOLKIT TO ADDRESS WELFARE RISK
MITIGATION. SO UM, THERE'S
ENHANCED FIRE LINE SAFETY
SETTINGS, WHICH IS COLLOQUIALLY
KNOWN AS FAST TRIP THAT HAS BEEN
EFFECTIVE IN SEVERAL OF THE
SERVICE TERRITORIES THEY USE AT
A DIMINISHING RATE, PUBLIC
SAFETY POWER SHUTOFFS. WE'RE
THANKFUL THAT IT'S AT A
DIMINISHING RATE. BUT THERE ARE
NÓ. THEY ARE DEFINITELY A TOOL
STILL IN USE. AND THEN THERE ARE
SEVERAL OTHER ENGINEERING
SOLUTIONS THAT I'M NOT QUALIFIED
TO EVEN SAY THE NAME OF BUT, UM
THERE ARE OTHER ENGINEERING
SOLUTIONS THAT THEY'RE USING. SO
THERE IS CONSISTENT WITH
CALIFORNIA'S, UH, TOOLKIT
APPROACH. THERE'S A PORTFOLIO
THAT EACH OF THE UTILITIES,
ESPECIALLY PG, AND E, IS USING
AT THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION TO
REDUCE THE RISK OF UTILITY
IGNITED, OR UTILITY INVOLVED.
WILDFIRE. I DON'T WANT TO GET IN
THE WEEDS ON THIS, BUT, UH,
ISN'T FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS NOT
A HIT ON PG AND E, I I'LL TELL
YOU I'VE BEEN A VERY IMPRESSED.
UH, WITH THE WORK THAT THEY'VE
BEEN DOING. YEAH YOU KNOW, IN
OUR COMMUNITIES, WHAT WE HAVE TO
DO IS YOU KNOW? TRUST BUT VERIFY
. AND I THINK WHAT? WHAT WHAT
I'VE SEEN LATELY I'VE BEEN VERY
IMPRESSED WITH, BUT THE PROOF IS
IN THE PUDDING AND HOW THIS GOES
LONG TERM. BUT I DO WANT TO ASK
ISN'T THE PROPHET. THAT'S
CHARGED THE RATEPAYER
ULTIMATELY. IS A PERCENTAGE ON
THE UNDERGROUND THAT WOULD BE ON
THE COVER CONDUCTOR OR THE TREE
TRIMMING. BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO
BE THE WAY I SAW THIS IS THAT
THE, UH THE, UH THIS RATE CASE
WAS OVER, NOT OVER A LONG PERIOD
OF TIME. IT SEEMED TO ME IT WAS
LIKE AGAIN. I FORGOT 3 TO 5
YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
WHEREAS WHEN THEY GO OUT AND DO
THE TREE TRIMMING, THEY GO OUT
AND BOND FOR OVER 15 YEARS. I
THINK SO. I. I JUST ASSUME THAT
YOU'RE REALLY PAYING ATTENTION
TO THAT, TOO, IN TERMS OF WHO IS
REALLY MAKING THE DECISION TO DO
WHAT ON THESE LINES? UH AND FOR
WHAT REASONS THOSE ARE GOOD,
REALLY GOOD CONSIDERATIONS AND
SOMETHING TO THINK THROUGH WHEN
WE THINK ABOUT ALL OF THE TOOLS
THAT PG AND E IS USING, UM SO
BONDS HAVE BEEN ISSUED PURSUANT
TO A B 1054. THE UTILITIES WERE
ALLOWED TO ISSUE BONDS FOR LOTS
OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES,
INCLUDING TREE TRIMMING, AND
THOSE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE
NORMALLY NOT FUNDED WITH DEBT.
THEY'RE NORMALLY JUST PASSED
THROUGH IMMEDIATELY AND
COLLECTED FROM RATEPAYERS BUT IN
ORDER TO SPREAD OUT THOSE COSTS
OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME,
BONDING WAS ALLOWED. AND WE HAVE
APPROVED REQUESTS FOR ISSUANCE
OF BONDS FOR SOME OF THOSE
ACTIVITIES. UM NORMALLY AGAIN,
THEY'RE THEY'RE COLLECTED
IMMEDIATELY FROM RATEPAYERS, SO
THERE'S NÓ RETURN ON THE CAPITAL
INVESTMENT, BUT THEY HIT
RATEPAYERS IMMEDIATELY, SO TRADE
OFF THERE INVESTMENTS IN
INFRASTRUCTURE, LIKE BOTH
COVERED CONDUCTOR AND
UNDERGROUND ARE FINANCED BY THE
UTILITIES. SO THEY PUT CAPITAL
FORWARD AND THEN THERE IS A
REGULATED RATE OF RETURN, NOT AN
UNLIMITED RATE OF RETURN, BUT A
REGULATED, BUT THERE IS A RATE
OF RETURN. SO WHEN YOU'RE
THERE'S DEBT FINANCING EQUITY
FINANCING. SOME OF THE COVERED
CONDUCTOR COULD BE OR THE
UNDERGROUND AND COULD BE
FINANCED BY DEBT. UM, BUT WE DO
HAVE A SET RATE OF RETURN FOR
ALL TYPES OF FINANCING. THANK
YOU ONE MORE, AND I'LL BE SO ON
THE CPUC SYSTEM PLANNING GHG
TARGETS THAT WE'VE GOT HERE IN
FRONT OF THE TODAY THIS IS A
AMAZING GRAPH. I TELL YOU, I'VE
I'VE NOT ACTUALLY THIS WOULD
HAVE BEEN REALLY NICE. IT'S NOT
YOUR FAULT BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE
JUST DOING WHAT WE TOLD YOU TO
DO WITH THESE BILLS THAT WE'VE
BEEN PASSING AS OF LATE. BUT
THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A NICE
GRAPH FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO
HAVE BEFORE WE PASS SOME OF THE
BILLS BECAUSE I'M INTERESTED ON
THAT DARK BLUE LINE FROM 2026.
UH, THAT BEND IN THE CURVE FROM
2026 TO 2045, WHICH IS SPEEDING
UP OUR G HÌ G. SPEEDING UP OUR.
DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF GHGS
WE HAVE HOW MUCH DO YOU DO YOU
HAVE ANY IDEA AT THIS POINT IN
TIME, AND IF YOU DON'T, I'D LIKE
TO GET IT IN THE FUTURE. WHAT
DOES THAT COSTING US? WHAT IS
THAT COSTING RATEPAYERS GOING
FORWARD BECAUSE YOU KNOW? IN MY
DISTRICT, AND I'M SURE WITH MY
COLLEAGUES IN THEIR DISTRICTS.
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE HEARING THE
MOST ABOUT. AND SO THIS IS NOT A
CRITICISM OF THE èC PU èC,
BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN YOU'RE JUST
ENACTING WHAT WE TOLD YOU THAT
SO BUT I, BUT I THINK IT'S
SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT
THAT WE KNOW AND UNDERSTAND WHAT
PERCENTAGE OF THESE HOW MUCH IS
THIS GONNA INCREASE RATEPAYERS
RATES GOING FORWARD? UM AND IF
YOU LIKE SPECIFIC NUMBERS, WE
CAN CERTAINLY DO FOLLOW UP. BUT
I'LL JUST ADDRESS THAT FROM THE
GENERAL PERSPECTIVE, SO FOR A
GENERATION COSTS GENERATION OF
ELECTRICITY YOU SAW IN THE BAR
GRAPH. THAT GENERATION IS NOT
GROWING AT A SUBSTANTIAL RATE
COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEARS. UM
WE, UH AND PART OF THAT IS
BECAUSE THE NEW RESOURCES CLEAN
ENERGY RESOURCE CONTRACTS ARE
LARGELY CHEAPER NOW THAN THEY
WERE, SAY. 1015 YEARS AGO WHEN,
UH, INVESTMENTS WERE STARTING
AND IN PARTICULAR SOLAR PROJECTS
. THERE ARE STILL SOME VERY
EXPENSIVE LEGACY CONTRACTS
BECAUSE WE HAVE A COMBINATION OF
LONG TERM SHORT TERM CONTRACTS
THAT ALL OF THE LOAD SERVING
ENTITIES ENTER INTO THE NEW
CONTRACTS ARE, UM, ARE BIT OUT,
SO THERE'S A COST EFFECTIVENESS
REQUIREMENT. UM, SOLICITATIONS
ARE MADE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
PROJECTS THAT COME BACK IN
RESPONSE TO THE SOLICITATIONS AS
THAT THE COST IS AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE. UM SO THERE THERE IS A
COST, BUT IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT
DRIVER OF RATE INCREASES AT THIS
POINT. WHEN WE DO OUR ANALYSIS
WE ALSO INCORPORATE, SO WE MODEL
FOR THE LEAST COST BEST FIT
PORTFOLIO TO FIT OUR FUTURE
NEEDS. UM AND WE INCLUDE IN THAT
THE COST OF ANY TRANSMISSION
UPGRADES THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED
FOR THE PROJECT, SO ALL OF THOSE
ARE INCORPORATED TO GET THE
LEAST COST BEST FIT PROJECTS.
AND THEN THE LOAD SERVING
ENTITIES GO OUT AND BASED ON
WHAT WE SAY WE NEED FOR
RELIABILITY AND TO MEET THE
NEEDS OF THE SYSTEM AND TO MEET
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION
REDUCTIONS. THEY PROCURE. MEET
THOSE PORTFOLIOS WE'VE SEEN
ALREADY, UM AAA LARGE INCREASE
IN PROJECTS. AND LAST YEAR WE
HAD THE, UM, THE RECORD, UH, FOR
BRINGING NEW MEGAWATTS ONLINE AT
5700 MEGAWATTS WERE BROUGHT
ONLINE, AND THAT'S OVER 100
PROJECTS. I WOULD ESTIMATE I
KNOW THERE WERE 36 IN DECEMBER
ALONE THAT CAME ONLINE. SO MANY,
MANY PROJECTS ARE HAPPENING NOW.
UM AND AGAIN, THESE ARE THROUGH
COMPETITIVE BIDDING OR THE JUST
KEPT DOWN THERE. THEY'RE TO
PROJECT OUT INTO THE FUTURE TO
MEET GROWING NEED TO MEET THE
RETIREMENT OF DIABLO CANYON, BUT
ALSO TO REPLACE GAS EMISSIONS.
AND SO IF WE DO THIS IN AN
ITERATIVE WAY, TOO, SO
PORTFOLIOS ARE PUT TOGETHER FOR
ON A TWO YEAR CYCLE. UM AND THEN
WE ALSO PROJECT OUT INTO THE
FUTURE. BUT THERE'S MORE
UNCERTAINTY IN THE FUTURE. AND
SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT COSTS ARE
GOING TO, UM WHAT THE WHAT THE
PORTFOLIO WILL LOOK LIKE AND
WHAT COSTS WILL. WHAT PROJECT?
WILL BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE TO
MEET OUR NEED BASED ON THE
COMBINATION OF RESOURCES ON THE
SYSTEM AND WHAT'S AVAILABLE. SO,
UM, A SUPPORTER OF THE POLICY.
OBVIOUSLY, I VOTED FOR THE
POLICY. UM BUT I THINK NOW
KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT RATES
AND EVERYTHING ELSE, SO WHAT I'M
GETTING FROM YOU IS PRICEY
INCREASES ARE NEGLIGIBLE FOR
TRANS. EXCUSE ME FOR GENERATION.
NOW ON TRANSMISSION. IT WOULD
JUST BE NICE FOR US TO KNOW,
LIKE IN THE 2035 GOALS. WE WERE
DECREASING BY THE POLICY THAT WE
SUPPORTED AND PASSED HERE BY 5
MILLION METRIC TONS. CO. TWO
REDUCTION. WHAT IS TO ACCELERATE
OUR TRANSMISSION. WE GOT TO DO
THIS ANYWAY, RIGHT? I MEAN, THIS
IS THAT'S OUR FUTURE HERE. BUT I
GUESS IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO
KIND OF JUST UNDERSTAND WHAT
THIS POLICY REALLY IS COSTING US
ON THE TRANSMISSION SIDE. YEAH
LET ME I DON'T WANT TO NÓ NÓ.
IT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION, AND
I DON'T WANT TO MINIMIZE IT,
WHICH I MAYBE DID IN MY REMARKS,
SO IT'S NOT, UM, BECAUSE THERE
IS A COST TO THIS. THERE'S A
COST TO THIS TRANSITION AND THE
TRANSITION IMPACTS ARE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OR
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM. WE'RE
HAVING TO UPGRADE ALL OF IT IN
ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THESE NEW
PROJECTS, WHICH ARE THROUGHOUT
THE STATE, AND, UM SO THERE
THERE IS, AND THERE'S A COST FOR
DOING IT MORE QUICKLY. LET ME
TURN TO M Tð TO SEE IF SHE HAS
ANY MORE SPECIFICS ON THE
NUMBERS, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY
GET THOSE TO YOU BECAUSE FASTER
YOU GO, THE MORE EXPENSIVE IT
IS. GOOD MORNING, LUAN TESTIFIED
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR
ENERGY AND CLIMATE POLICY AT THE
èC P èC. I THINK WHERE I WOULD
FOCUS. MY RESPONSE HERE IS ON
THE ACTIVITIES THAT THE èC P
èC IS UNDERTAKING IN ORDER TO
MAKE SURE THAT RATEPAYERS ARE
GETTING THE BEST VALUE FOR THE
TRANSMISSION INVESTMENTS AND ARE
GETTING AS MANY SAVINGS AS
POSSIBLE. UM YOU KNOW THE OUR
OUR STAFF AT THE èC PU èC, UH,
APPEAR BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION. THROUGH
THAT PROCESS, WE'VE HELPED TO
SAVE RATEPAYERS OVER $5 BILLION
AND TRANSMISSION COSTS AND A LOT
OF THAT WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE
LEGISLATURE, UM AND SO I THINK
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
KEEP UP WITH THAT WORK AT THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION TO ADVOCATE AND MAKE
SURE THAT COST OVERRIDE OVERRUNS
ARE ACCOUNTED FOR AND THAT WE'RE
ABLE TO SAVE AS MUCH MONEY FOR
RATEPAYERS AS POSSIBLE. OK?
THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. VICE, SHE
DALLY. MR CHAIR MEMBERS. GOOD TO
SEE YOU AGAIN. UM I JUST WANT TO
KIND OF SPRINGBOARD OFF OF, UH,
SENATOR DODD'S COMMENTS. UM
BECAUSE WE ALL OBVIOUSLY WE IN
CALIFORNIA WE KNOW THAT RATES
ARE GOING UP AND TO THE
RATEPAYER. IT DOESN'T MATTER.
THEY THEY JUST KNOW THE RATES
ARE GOING UP. BUT TO US, WE NEED
TO BE LOOKING AT WHAT KIND OF
POLICIES ARE DRIVING THE RATES
UP AND SO OBVIOUSLY MOST OF MY
AREA IS PG AND E. MY CUSTOMER.
MY CONSTITUENTS ARE IN PG AND E
ONE I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT I KNOW
GENERATION IS LOW, BUT OUR
TRANSMISSION IS VERY EXPENSIVE
AND OUR TRANSITION FROM UM. OF
RENEWABLES IS GOING TO IMPACT
BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO BE
PHASING IF WE ARE GOING TO GO
HIGHER ON THOSE PERCENTAGES FROM
TO 2030 2045, WE'RE GONNA BE
REDUCING GAS. AND WE'RE GOING TO
BE REDUCING OTHER. DIABLO CANYON
IS ONE OF THOSE. THAT'S I. I
BELIEVE IT'LL BE RUNNING FOR A
LONG TIME. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW
WE'RE GONNA GET THERE. SO CAN
YOU TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE GONNA
GET THERE? NOT JUST ON THE
GENERATION OR THE TRANSMISSION
BUT THE GENERATION PART INTO THE
FUTURE. AND WHAT WHAT THAT LOOKS
LIKE FOR THE RATEPAYER. UM SO
BOTH. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE
TRANSMISSION AND THE GENERATION
THAT'S NEEDED TO GET TO THE
FUTURE YOU'RE SAYING GENERATION
IS PRETTY STABLE RIGHT NOW, BUT
IS THAT IN IS THAT TAKING INTO
CONSIDERATION THAT WE'RE GOING
TO TRANSITION TO MORE CLEANER
ENERGY IN THE FUTURE? AND SO WE
DO? UM I MEAN, WE WILL SEE
INVESTMENTS. WE WILL SEE
INCREASES IN TRANSMISSION COSTS
BECAUSE OF UPGRADES THAT ARE
NEEDED. THOSE ARE LOOKED AT IN
OUR PLANNING PROCESS TOGETHER
WITH THE COST OF GENERATION, SO
WE ESTIMATE FOR PARTICULAR
PROJECTS THAT PARTICULAR PLACES
IN THE SYSTEM. WHAT ARE THE
GENERATION? UM, OPTIONS AND WHAT
IS THE TRANSMISSION NEEDED? WHAT
IS THE SYSTEM NEED TO
ACCOMMODATE THE TRANSMISSION?
THIS IS BOTH TO DISPLACE GAS AND
TO MEET OUR GROWING LOAD. UM AND
THOSE SO THAT IS INCORPORATED
INTO OUR INTEGRATED RESOURCE
PLAN PROCESS AND THE KO'S
TRANSMISSION PLANNING PROCESS.
UM, SO THERE ARE COSTS BUT TO
MEET RELIABILITY NEEDS AND TO
MEET CLEAN ENERGY TARGETS. WE
EVALUATE THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT
ON THE SYSTEM, SO THE LEAST COST
AND THE BEST FIT, INCLUDING THE
TRANSMISSION THAT'S NEEDED. UM
SO THOSE COST? YES DO GO INTO
RATES. WE'RE NOT SEEING THEM AS
THE BIGGEST DRIVERS RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE SEEING WILDFIRE
COSTS AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
COSTS AND AGAIN, THERE IS THE
LEGACY COST OF ROOFTOP SOLAR
THAT IS CARRIED BY CUSTOMERS
EVERY YEAR. SO MAYBE MAYBE I'LL
ASK IN A LITTLE DIFFERENT WAY TO
TRY TO GET WHERE BY 2035. WE'RE
NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUY
COMBUSTIBLE ENGINE VEHICLE IN
CALIFORNIA. THAT'S THE LAW.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED. WE
HAVE. A CUSTOMER BASE THAT IS
THEY ARE NOT BUYING THOSE
ELECTRICAL VEHICLES RIGHT NOW.
AND SO I GUESS MY POINT IS, IF
YOU'RE GOING TO ELECTRIFY OUR
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AT THE
SAME TIME REDUCING GAS AND WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT. I THINK THE
LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT
THOSE PROJECTIONS LOOK LIKE. AND
I. I LOOK THROUGH THE
INFORMATION I HAVE HERE TODAY
DOESN'T TALK ABOUT
ELECTRIFICATION OF CARS THAT I
SAW. MAYBE IT IS IN HERE
SOMEWHERE, BUT TO TAKE ON THIS
TASK IN A VERY SHORT TIME, IT'S
2024. THAT'S SIX YEARS TO 2030.
THEN I THINK IT MAKES 2035 IS
THE ACTUAL DATE FOR
ELECTRIFICATION IN CALIFORNIA
TRANSPORTATION. THAT'S LIKE THAT
FAST SO AS A POLICY MAKER. YOU
KNOW, THE CHARTS ARE GREAT THAT
SHOW US OUR GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTIONS BECAUSE NOBODY'S
GONNA BE LEFT IN CALIFORNIA, I
GUESS OR NOBODY'S GONNA BE Dð.
HOW ARE THEY GONNA? HOW ARE WE
GONNA GET THEIR AT THE SAME
TIME? WE HAVE TO TRANSITION ALL
THESE PEOPLE FROM COMBUSTIBLE
ENGINES TO ELECTRIFICATION.
THAT'S A RATEPAYER. THAT'S
ANOTHER ADDED COST TO THEM. WE
HAVE TO COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES
HERE AND LET THE PEOPLE KNOW
WHERE WE'RE HEADED AND WHAT THE
COST IS GONNA BE. AND CAN WE GET
THERE? CAN WE GET THERE? I MEAN,
I THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA WHEN I
HAVE INTERCONNECTION QUESTION. I
WANT TO ASK TOO. SO IS THERE
SOMEBODY TAKING INTO
CONSIDERATION ALL THE
LEGISLATION THAT'S BEEN PASSED
OR EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND SAYING
HOW MUCH ENERGY WE'RE GOING TO
NEED BY 2035. WHAT THE RATE IS
GOING TO BE, BECAUSE I THINK
THOSE IF WE HAVE THAT NUMBER, WE
CAN THEN MAKE GOOD DECISIONS
BECAUSE I'M HEARING FROM MY
RATEPAYERS. THEY DON'T CARE
ABOUT ANYTHING BUT THEIR RATE.
THEY DON'T CARE THAT IT'S
UNDERGROUND. THEY DON'T CARE
THAT IT'S GENERATION. THEY DON'T
CARE THAT THEY'RE REDUCING
CARBON. THEY CARE ABOUT. $40 A
MONTH MORE COSTING THEM AND I
HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
BUT I CAN'T BE RESPONSIBLE IF I
DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION
THAT I NEED. MAKE GOOD DECISIONS
. THAT IS MY POINT. I KNOW THAT.
NOT ALL THIS LANDS ON YOU. I
JUST CAME FROM THE GGRF HEARING,
WHICH IS GOING ON IN 1200. AND
ARE 2100 THERE, BUT THEY'RE IN
THEIR SILO. THEY'RE IN THEIR
SILO OF GETTING CARBON OFF OUT
OF THE AIR. AND SO EVERYBODY'S
IN THEIR SILOS, BUT AT THE SAME
TIME, IT ALL HAS TO WORK
TOGETHER BECAUSE THE RATES
CONTINUE TO GO UP. SO I I'M
FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THE
LEGISLATORS CAN'T MAKE GOOD
DECISIONS IF THEY DON'T HAVE ALL
THE INFORMATION, AND THAT MEANS
NOT JUST YOUR SILO. AND NOT JUST
THEIR SILO. BUT EVERYBODY'S
SILOS AND I DON'T I DON'T EXPECT
YOU TO HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE
ANSWERS BECAUSE YOU'RE IN YOUR
SILO. I THINK AS A GROUP OF
LEGISLATORS, WE NEED TO BE
TALKING ABOUT THAT. MESS WITH.
LET ME FOLLOW UP. I DO HAVE ONE
MORE QUESTION SO I HAVE PROJECTS
IN MY DISTRICT THAT ARE HAVING
Dð GREEN ENERGY PROJECTS THAT
ARE ARE NOT BEING ABLE TO GET
THEIR CONNECTIONS AND IT IS IT
AND THEY'RE DEALING WITH THE
KISO WAS PART OF THE PROBLEM.
IT'S NOT THE UTILITIES IT WAS
WITH THE UTILITIES WERE BLOCKING
, BUT THE CHILE ARE PRETTY MUCH
OUT OF THE GENERATION BUSINESS.
THEY'RE IN THE TRANSMISSION
BUSINESS AT THIS POINT, AND SO
WHO'S WHO'S IN CONTROL OF THAT,
SO I CAN KNOW WHERE TO SOME
PRESSURE ON TO GET THESE
PROJECTS IS IT IS Ó. IS IT CAL?
ISO OR OR IS IT YOU GUYS? IT
WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT THE
PARTICULAR ISSUE IS. I'D SAY,
PROBABLY BOTH THE UTILITIES. YOU
DO HAVE A ROLE WITH DOING
STUDIES TO ENSURE THE
INTERCONNECTION CAN WORK. BUT
CAL ISO, UM, IS WORKING ON Q
REFORM. YOU SAY YOU'RE PROBABLY
TALKING ABOUT THE QUEUE FOR
INTERCONNECTION AND CERTAIN
PLACES, BUT IT'S LIKELY ALSO A
NEED FOR UPGRADES TO ACCOMMODATE
THE AND SO THERE WILL BE UPGRADE
PROJECTS THAT WILL HAVE TO GO
THROUGH LOCAL APPROVAL. AND YOU
KNOW, SIWA, UM, BUT I JUST AM
GUESSING ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE
DELAY. THANK YOU, BUT WE'RE
CERTAINLY HAPPY TO LOOK AT
PARTICULAR PROJECTS AND TALK
ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S ANYTHING
WE CAN DO TO EXPEDITE. ALL
RIGHT, SENATOR RUBIO. THANK YOU
AND GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU
FOR THIS PRESENTATION. UH YOU
KNOW, I. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
MORE OF A COMMENT RATHER THAN A
QUESTION, BUT I DO WANT TO
VALIDATE WITH SENATOR DOLLY SAID
, UH, BECAUSE I HEARD YOU SAY
RIGHT NOW THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
FIND THE LEAST COST AND THE BEST
FIT AND LIKE NOTHING THAT YOU
CAN DO RIGHT IN THIS MOMENT AND
BUT ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT
THERE'S GONNA BE INCREASES
BECAUSE WE KNOW WE HAVE TO MAKE
INVESTMENTS FOR SOME OTHER
PROJECTS NEEDED AND I. I THINK I
HAVE THE SAME CONCERN. AS OF
TODAY. I'M ALREADY GETTING A LOT
OF CALLS FROM MY CONSTITUENT. I
GUESS THAT THIS HEARING IS GOING
ON. AND THEY'RE ALREADY
COMPLAINING ABOUT, UH WHAT
THEY'RE SEEING THE HIGH RATES
AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE
THE RIGHT ANSWER FOR THEM, AND
THEY WANT TO KNOW. IS IT GOING
TO GO DOWN? AND WHAT ARE YOU?
WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT
AND AGAIN WITHOUT THAT
INFORMATION AND SEE IN THE
FUTURE? IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT
BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO TELL MY
CONSTITUENTS NOT TO WORRY, UM,
THAT WE'RE WORKING ON IT, AND
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE REDUCE THE COST. IT'S NOT
JUST THIS, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE,
YOU KNOW, FOOD, HOUSING
EVERYTHING THAT COMES WITH IT,
AND SO THEY'RE ALREADY REALLY
DIS. OVER THIS AND WHEN THEY ARE
ASKING ME ABOUT WHAT DO WE SEE
IN THE FUTURE? IS IT GONNA COME
DOWN? IT'S REALLY HARD BECAUSE
WE'RE WORKING ON TRYING TO
REDUCE THE COST. BUT WE DON'T
KNOW IF THAT'S GONNA BE
ACCURATE. BASED ON YOU KNOW WHAT
I'M HEARING IN TERMS OF THE
INVESTMENTS NEEDED, AND, UH,
YOU'RE STILL TRYING TO FIND THE
BEST FIT AND YOU'RE GONNA GO OUT
TO BID AND THERE'S SO MANY
UNKNOWNS AND THIS IS JUST, UH I
GUESS A COMMENT IF WE CAN FIGURE
OUT A WAY TO PROJECT YOU KNOW,
WHAT ARE THESE PROJECTS THAT ARE
NEEDED? UM AND THERE'S NÓ
CRYSTAL BALL, SO I'M SORRY. I'M
NOT TRYING TO PUT YOU IN THE IN
THE SPOT, BUT I DO AGREE THAT
BEFORE WE PROCEED AND MOVE IN A
FAST PACE, WE HAVE TO KIND OF
LOOK AT THESE LITTLE UNKNOWN
FACTORS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE
RESPONSIVE TO OUR CONSTITUENTS
AND SEEING THE COST RIGHT NOW.
AND WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE
MOVING, UM COURTS AND THE
INVESTMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO
MAKE. I CAN ONLY IMAGINE IT'S
GONNA KEEP GOING HIGHER. AND SO
YOU KNOW, THERE'S NÓ CERTAINTY
HERE. BUT IF YOU CAN'T PROVIDE
FOR ME IN THE FUTURE, UM YOU
KNOW, SIT DOWN WITH ME. I'D LIKE
TO SEE WHAT WE SEE IN THE
FUTURE. IF YOU CAN GIVE US AN
ESTIMATION, PROJECTIONS ANYTHING
THAT YOU CAN OFFER SO THAT I CAN
INTERNALIZE IT AND BE ABLE TO
TALK MORE INTELLIGENTLY WITH MY
CONSTITUENTS AND GIVE THEM A
SENSE OF WHERE WE'RE HEADED.
LET'S JUST REALLY A COMMON.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DINNER,
SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO.
BUT DOESN'T ESCAPE ME IS THE
REASON WE'RE HERE IN THE FIRST
PLACE, AND, UM, AND THAT'S
BECAUSE WE'VE DEVELOPED OVER THE
LAST FEW YEARS, A REALLY
UNREALISTIC AND A REALLY
EXPENSIVE AGENDA TO ADDRESS.
CLIMATE CHANGE OR ENERGY POLICY,
OUR ENERGY POLICY. UH IS WHAT WE
HAVE DEVELOPED. AND, UH,
UNFORTUNATELY WE'VE ALSO
DEVELOPED SEVERAL AGENCIES THAT
I CALL FIREWALL AGENCIES THAT WE
STICK IN THE MIDDLE. AND SO WE
COME UP WITH ALL THESE GREAT
IDEAS THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND
THEN, UH, WE GIVE THEM TO YOU SO
THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS HAVE
SOMEBODY TO YELL AT BECAUSE I
KNOW THIS BECAUSE I USED TO BE
ONE OF THOSE, AND EVERY TIME
SOMEONE COME OUT FROM THE PU OR
THE I, I I'D BE MANAGED A HORNET
AT THE èC PU èC OR THE AIR
RESOURCES BOARD OR THE RECYCLE
AGENCIES OR WHATEVER THEY ARE.
ONLY TO DISCOVER AS I LEARNED
MORE DURING MY TIME IN BOTH CITY
POLITICS AND THE LEGISLATURE
THAT, UM YOU GUYS ARE JUST DOING
WHAT WE HAVE. DIRECTED YOU GUYS
TO DO. AND UH AND I FEAR THAT AS
WE KEEP DOING THESE UNREALISTIC
POLICIES, WE'RE GOING TO KEEP
GOING DOWN THAT PATH. WE WILL
HAVE PEOPLE SPENDING THEIR
ENTIRE CAREERS TRYING TO. UM AND
CREATE SOMETHING THAT'S
REALISTIC. BUT THE REASON WE'RE
THAT THIS IS HAPPENING IS NUMBER
ONE. THE RELENTLESS ATTACKS. AND
THE INSISTENCE THAT WE ELIMINATE
RELIABLE AND ABUNDANT ENERGY
SOURCES THAT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN
PART OF AND PLAYED A CRITICAL
ROLE IN, UM THE QUALITY OF LIFE
THAT WE ENJOY TODAY. AND THAT IN
AND OF ITSELF IS REALLY
UNREALISTIC. ANOTHER REASON IS
WE'RE CREATING THIS OVER
RELIANCE ON A SINGLE ENERGY
SOURCE. AND WHEN YOU HAVE A
SINGLE ENERGY SOURCE, THAT MEANS
THE COST FOR THAT SOURCE IS
GONNA BE TREMENDOUS BECAUSE
YOU'VE CREATED A DEMAND ON ONE
THING. AND IT'S ALSO SOME PEOPLE
WOULD CALL THAT A MONOPOLY. ONCE
YOU HAVE RELIANCE ON JUST THAT
ONE THING AND YOU'RE THE ONLY,
UH THAT THAT YOU'RE THE ONLY
PRODUCER OF THAT. SO. TRYING TO
ACHIEVE THIS ALL IN ONE ALL IN
ONE BASKET ALL OUR EGGS IN ONE
BASKET AGENDA. IN ADDITION TO
HAVING A TIME FRAME AS MY
COLLEAGUE HAD NOTED IT TOTALLY
TOTALLY UNREALISTIC. AND THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HOPE.
FROM OUR AGENCIES THAT ARE
TRYING DESPERATELY TO. AND KEEP
UP WITH WHAT OUR OUR, UH DEMANDS
ARE FROM THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THAT THEY CAN
TELL US WHAT IS REALISTIC AND
WHAT'S NOT. UM THIS ALL
ELECTRIFICATION? UH I'VE TALKED
TO SOME INDUSTRY PEOPLE, UH,
RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION, AND
THEY SAID THEY WERE ALL ON BOARD
ABSOLUTELY ON BOARD WITH IT. BUT
NOW THEY'RE FINDING THERE IS NÓ
WAY THEY CAN PHYSICALLY GET IT
DONE IN THE TIME FRAMES THAT
WE'VE BEEN GIVING. SO IF WE
DON'T ADJUST IF WE DON'T START
LOOKING REALISTICALLY, AT THOSE
TIME FRAMES, WE'RE GOING TO LOSE
EVERYBODY. BECAUSE BELIEVE ME,
THE PUBLIC IS GETTING SICK AND
TIRED OF RATE INCREASES AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. SO ANOTHER
THING IS, IF WE'RE GONNA TRY TO
ACHIEVE WHAT I THINK, IS A VERY
ILL DEFINED GOAL OF SUPPOSED
EQUITY INTO AN ENERGY POLICY
THAT'S GOING TO WREAK HAVOC ON
OUR ECONOMY, AND IT'S ALREADY
WREAKING HAVOC. UM, THAT HITS
EVERY LEVEL OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC,
OUR SOCIO ECONOMIC MAKEUP.
EVERYBODY IS SUFFERING. WHAT
WE'RE DOING IS REALLY TRYING TO
DECIDE WHO'S GONNA FEEL THE PAIN
THE MOST. IT'S NOT ABOUT
PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM FEELING
PAIN. IT'S WHO'S GONNA GET THE
MOST PAIN. THAT'S BAD POLICY. UM
SO IF WE INSIST ON HURTLING
DOWN, HURTLING OUR STATE DOWN
THIS PATH, REGARDLESS OF THE
FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR
ALREADY STRUGGLING CITIZENS.
THEN WE SHOULD USE THE MONEY
THAT WE ALREADY COLLECT FROM
THEM. TO ADVANCE THESE GOALS AND
WE THE COLLECTIVE ELECTED BODIES
SHOULD GO TO OUR CONSTITUENTS
AND TRY TO CONVINCE THEM THAT
THIS PATH IS WHAT YOUR MONEY IS
BEST WELL SPENT FOR INSTEAD OF
COMING UP WITH ALL THESE IDEAS
THAT SIMPLY ADD ON TO THE BURDEN
OF AN ALREADY TOO EXPENSIVE
CALIFORNIA FOR TAXPAYERS THAT
ARE ALREADY THE HIGHEST TAX. ARE
PAYING TAXPAYERS IN THE UNITED
STATES. AND UH SO, UM, ADDING TO
THAT ALREADY SKYROCKETING COST
OF LIVING IN CALIFORNIA. SO THAT
I THINK THE BEST WORD I CAN USE
IS VIRTUE, SIGNALING ON THE 1%
OR LESS IMPACT WE MIGHT MAKE ON
THE ISSUE OF GLOBAL WARMING IF
WE WERE 100% SUCCESSFUL IS BOTH
UNREALISTIC. AND IT'S
IRRESPONSIBLE AND I PLACE A LOT
OF FAITH. AND THE PEOPLE THAT
ARE REALLY EXPERTS IN THIS I. I
KNOW FROM A ELECTED POLITICAL
POSITION THAT PEOPLE, AREN'T WE.
WE'RE NOT EXPERTS IN THIS STUFF,
BUT A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WE RELY
ON ARE BUT THEY'RE KIND OF
SILENCED BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN
GIVEN THE GOAL OF HEY, GET THIS
DONE IN 10 YEARS. WHEN THEY KNOW
DARN WELL, THIS CAN'T BE DONE IN
30 YEARS. OR IF WE WANT TO BE
HAVE A RELIABLE SYSTEM. IT CAN'T
JUST BE ALL OUR EGGS IN ONE
BASKET. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I ASK
OF YOU GUYS IS TO ENSURE THAT
ALONG THE WAY YOU NOT ONLY
GIVING US THE REPORTS ON WHAT
YOUR WHAT WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE.
BUT. REALISTIC IDEA OF WHETHER
OUR POLICY MAKING IS OUTSIDE THE
REALM OF, UM YOU KNOW, BEING
REALISTIC BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I
FEAR WHAT WE'RE HAVING RIGHT
NOW. UM, I THINK PEOPLE OUT.
THERE ARE REALLY SUFFERING AND
ALL WE'RE OFFERING, UM IS WE'RE
GONNA RAISE YOUR RATES EVEN
MORE, AND I THINK THEY'RE DONE.
SO UH, HOPEFULLY WE CAN WORK
TOWARDS THAT. AND UH, I LOOK
FORWARD TO BEING A PARTNER AND
TRYING TO ACHIEVE THAT TRYING TO
GET OUR ENERGY POLICY RIGHT? SO
THAT WE HAVE THE REDUNDANCY THAT
WE NEED. WE HAVE THE RELIABILITY
THAT WE NEED AND THAT REGARDLESS
OF THE WEATHER THAT WE CAN
ADJUST TO ANY OF THAT, AND THAT
TAKES US BEING BETTER AT
PRIORITIZING OUR THE MONEY THAT
WE ALREADY GET THE BILLIONS AND
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WE
ALREADY GET FROM OUR TAXPAYERS
AND ENSURING THAT WE'RE REALLY
ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES IN A
RESPONSIBLE WAY. OTHERWISE, WE
WILL FAIL. AND I DON'T WANT
THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SENATOR Dð RASO. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. UM I WANNA ECHO SOME OF
MY COLLEAGUES. OBVIOUSLY THE
CONS THE CONCERNS ABOUT, UH,
UTILITY BILL AFFORDABILITY, AND
THAT WAS THE FOCUS OF TODAY. UM
I KNOW WE'RE HAVING, UM, MR
BAKER, UM, FROM THE PUBLIC
ADVOCATE'S OFFICE, FOCUSING ON
UTILITY BILL AFFORDABILITY, BUT
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU COULD
. YOU KNOW, SUMMARIZE OR
IDENTIFY. FROM UM THE èC PU èC
THAT HAS TO DO NOT ONLY
AFFORDABILITY BUT IN PARTICULAR
LOW INCOME CALIFORNIANS. UM WHAT
IS IT THAT THE èC P èC, WHICH
POLICIES OR WHICH DECISIONS HAVE
YOU MADE? THAT REALLY WILL
ADDRESS? UM AGAIN, NOT UM. TO
DISREGARD ALL CALIFORNIANS, BUT
LOW INCOME CALIFORNIANS. UM ARE
THE ONES THAT HAVE TO YOU KNOW
THAT $40 THAT IS FOOD, AND
THAT'S A LOT OF OTHER REAL BASIC
THINGS. UM AND THEN I JUST HAVE
ONE MORE QUESTION. YOU HAVE TO
GIVE A LONG ONE. BUT SOMETHING
THAT I THINK WRAPS UP WHAT THE
PPU èC HAS DONE. SURE UM, IT'S
A BIG QUESTION, BUT I'M I'M
HAPPY TO TRY TO ADDRESS IT AT A
HIGH LEVEL. AND UM, THE, UM
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT RATE
INCREASES PRESSURE ON RATES. A
LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH
RESPONDING TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
AND SO THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF
THINGS THAT ARE HARD TO DRIVE
DOWN. UM WE WILL, UH, EVENTUALLY
SEE DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON RATES
AS MORE PEOPLE ELECTRIFY AS WE
HAVE MORE CUSTOMERS
ELECTRIFYING. HAVING MORE OF
MEGAWATTS ON THE SYSTEM,
ESSENTIALLY AND YOU'RE SPREADING
OUT COSTS AMONG MORE CUSTOMERS
FOR MORE END USES, SO THAT MEANS
KEEPING CUSTOMERS ON THE SYSTEM
AND THEN FINDING THE BEST WAY TO
CONTROL THE COST INCREASES AND
SPREAD THEM OUT AMONG ALL OF THE
CUSTOM ON THE SYSTEM
SPECIFICALLY FOR LOW INCOME
CUSTOMERS, ONE THING THAT WILL
START TO PROVIDE SOME RELIEF IS
THE FLAT RATE, UM, THAT THE
LEGISLATURE DIRECTED THE PUC TO
DEVELOP UNDER A B 205. THE FLAT
RATE WILL WE WERE DIRECTED TO
MAKE AN INCOME GRADUATED, AND SO
FOR LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS, THE
RATE WILL BE LOW AND AS WE
DISCUSSED EARLIER, THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF POSSIBLE PROPOSALS TO
DO THIS WITH A WIDE RANGE OF
PROPOSALS ON WHAT THAT RATE
MIGHT BE. AND UM, THE AS I
MENTIONED BEFORE THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES USE THIS KIND OF MODEL
, AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT AN
ADJUSTMENT IN BILLS, BUT ONE
ELEMENT OF THAT WILL BE THAT LOW
INCOME CUSTOMERS WILL PAY LESS,
AND THE LEGISLATION DIRECTS US
TO MAKE SURE THAT LOW INCOME
CUSTOMERS ARE PAYING PAYING LESS
WHEN YOU COMPARE THE SAME TYPE
OF USAGE. UM, THE CARE IN THE
FAIR PROGRAM CONTINUE TO BE VERY
, VERY IMPORTANT ABOUT A THIRD
OF THE CUSTOMERS IN THE INVESTOR
OWNED UTILITY, UM, TERRITORIES
ARE ON THE CARE PROGRAM. UM AND,
UH SO THIS PROVIDES A SUBSIDY OF
ABOUT 30% FOR UTILITY BILLS. UM,
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE
CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON AND IS VERY
IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE WAY
ENERGY PRICES WORK. WE ALSO TRY
TO DIRECT, UM, ANY KIND OF
SUBSIDY. LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS.
UM, SO WE'RE KIND OF THINKING
ABOUT THAT ACROSS THE BOARD. SO
TO THE EXTENT THAT, UM,
SUBSIDIES ARE PROVIDED FOR
THINGS LIKE BATTERY SYSTEMS THAT
THEY ARE TARGETED TOWARDS LOW
INCOME AND VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS,
UM SO WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT
WAYS TO BOTH DRIVE DOWN COSTS
FOR EVERYBODY, BUT ALSO TO FOCUS
ON LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS AND MAKE
SURE THE PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE
ARE TARGETED TO THOSE CUSTOMERS.
OK, AND THEN, UM IF I COULD ASK
YOU ABOUT THE BROADBAND.
AFFORDABILITY. AND, UM. YOU KNOW
, WE DO HAVE A I GUESS IT'S THE,
UH, FEDERAL PROGRAM THAT IS
WINDING DOWN OR. HAS YOU KNOW?
FINISHED WE'RE AT THAT LEVEL.
WE'RE AT THAT POINT YET. BUT IF
YOU COULD TALK ABOUT BROADBAND
AFFORDABILITY, SURE. SO
BROADBAND AFFORDABILITY IS TO
BROADBAND FOR ALL STATEWIDE KIND
OF INITIATIVE. THE PU èC HAS
PART OF THAT ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WE'RE WORKING ON. A VERY
FOCUSED ON IS INFRASTRUCTURE. SO
GETTING LAST MILE INFRASTRUCTURE
IN PLACE IN AREAS WHERE IT IS
NOT ACCESSIBLE CURRENTLY, SO WE
HAVE MAPS OF AREAS THAT DO NOT
HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE NOW
, AND WE ARE, UM, IMPLEMENTING
FEDERAL FUNDS, SO THIS IS TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO
ISSUE UH, GRANTS TO PROVIDERS.
UM WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN OPEN
PROCEEDING TO, UM TO ACCEPT. WE
HAVE PROPOSALS IN NOW WE'RE
EVALUATING THOSE AND THEN WE'LL
BE LOOKING AT GETTING MONEY OUT
THE DOOR FOR PROJECTS, SO
THERE'LL BE MANY PROJECTS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. THE
FUNDING IS DIVIDED BY COUNT. SO
EACH COUNTY GETS AN ALLOCATION
LOOKING TO TARGET THOSE AREAS
WHERE SERVICE IS MOST NEEDED
SERVICE, MEANING INFRASTRUCTURE
AND SERVICE THAT THAT THAT THAT
GOES ALONG WITH THAT, AND, UM,
WE'RE PARTNERING WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE
THEY HAVE A MIDDLE MILE PROJECT
WHERE THEY'RE WORKING TO DEVELOP
STATEWIDE MIDDLE MILE, UM,
HOPING TO USE THAT KIND OF TO
LEVERAGE TO GET COSTS DOWN. WE
ISSUED. UM UH, TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE GRANT. UM IN ALMOST
EVERY SINGLE COUNTY IN
CALIFORNIA TO ENCOURAGE TRIBES,
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, LOCAL JP A R
èC R èC HAS BEEN VERY INVOLVED
TO, UM DEVELOP PROJECTS TO
PROVIDE COST EFFECTIVE, COST
EFFICIENT SERVICE AND THEN USE
THE GRANT PROCESS TO APPLY FOR
GRANTS AND HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT CAN PROVIDE CHEAPER SERVICE
TO CUSTOMERS. SO THE IDEA I'M
SORRY, SO THE IDEA IS, UM, BY
HELPING TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN
CERTAIN AREAS THAT SHOULD THAT
SHOULD RESULT SHOULD RESULT IN
LOWER COST PLANS AND ALSO
BRINGING IN NEW TYPES OF SERVICE
PROVIDERS TO OFFER PLANS. BUT
THERE IS NÓ LOW INCOME OPTION
FOR SERVICE. UM RIGHT NOW,
EXCEPT WHATEVER A COMPANY MIGHT
WANT TO OFFER SO FOR SUBSIDIES,
WE ARE USING THE FEDERAL OUR
PROVIDERS IN CALIFORNIA USE THE
FEDERAL AFFORDABLE CONNECTIVITY
PROGRAM THAT IS STILL IN PLACE.
UM THAT'S SET TO EXPIRE. IF
CONGRESS DOESN'T ACT, WE ALSO
HAVE STATE SUBSIDIES. THAT UH,
THAT THAT HELP LOW INCOME
CUSTOMERS. PROVIDERS DO PROVIDE
LOW INCOME PLANS AND IN OUR
GRANT PROGRAM, WE PROVIDE EXTRA
POINTS FOR A COMMITMENT TO
PROVIDE A LOW INCOME PLAN AS
WELL. WE ALSO HAVE OTHER GRANT
PROGRAMS THAT HELP WITH ADOPTION
. AND SO THERE THOSE ARE ONGOING
STATE PROGRAMS. OK? SENATOR
RUBIO. I THANK YOU. I JUST WANT
TO, UH ON, UM, FOLLOW UP ON WHAT
SHE JUST SAID, AND YOU SAID THAT
THE FEDERAL PROGRAM IS GOING TO
EXPIRE. UM CAN YOU SHARE IF YOU
KNOW, I KNOW THAT I'VE TALKED TO
SEVERAL, UM STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS
AREA, AND THEY'RE SAYING THAT
FOR SOME REASON, CALIFORNIA
HASN'T TAKEN ADVANTAGE AS MUCH
AS OTHER STATES ON ON THE GRANTS
PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, AND THERE'S A LOT OF
MONEY LEFT ON THE TABLE. CAN YOU
SPEAK TO THAT? IF YOU KNOW AT
ALL? UM I? I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT
THAT'S THE CASE. WE HAVE A VERY
ACTIVE PROGRAM, AND WE'RE, UM SO
THE LEGISLATURE ACTED TO CREATE
THE, UM, PROGRAMS BOTH AT èC Dð
Tð FOR MIDDLE MILE. UM, IT'S A
YOU KNOW IT. IT'S A PRETTY GIVEN
THE SIZE OF OUR STATE. IT'S A
VERY IMPORTANT PROJECT, THE
STATEWIDE MIDDLE MILE AND THEN
PARTNERED WITH US FOR LAST MILE
PROJECTS TO GO WITH THAT, YOU
KNOW, WE HAVE A BIG STATE URBAN
AREAS HAVE DIFFERENT NEEDS THAN
RURAL AREAS, BUT WE'RE REALLY
LOOKING AT IT TO AS FOR
BROADBAND FOR ALL, SO LET'S
MATCH INFRASTRUCTURE, GET IT TO
THE PLACES THAT NEED IT BOTH IN
URBAN AREAS AND IN RURAL AREAS,
AND WE ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
THE FEDERAL FUNDS THAT THE
PROGRAM IS OVERSUBSCRIBED, SO WE
DON'T HAVE MONEY ON THE TABLE
FOR THAT FEDERAL PROGRAM. WE'RE
ALSO LOOKING FORWARD TO WHAT'S
CALLED THE BEAD PROGRAM,
BROADBAND EQUITY AND ADOPTION. I
THINK PROGRAM. WHAT IS IT?
EQUITY AND ADOPTION AND
DEPLOYMENT AND DEPLOYMENT. OK
BEAT. UM AND, UH SO WE WILL BE
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT PROGRAM
AS WELL WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF
PROJECTS. SO IF YOU ARE AWARE OF
SOMETHING WHERE WE'RE NOT
SPENDING FEDERAL MONEY, WE'D
LOVE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION
ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU, THAT'S
ALL. THANK YOU. GREAT. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. I IN MY OPENING
STATEMENT MENTIONED THE STICKER
SHOCK THAT CUSTOMERS SAW LAST
YEAR FROM NATURAL GAS AND I,
ALONG WITH ME AND MY COLLEAGUES
SENT A LETTER TO THE PUC ASKING
FOR AN INVESTIGATION. CAN YOU
TELL US WHERE YOU ARE WITH THAT
INVESTIGATION AND YOU KNOW,
WHAT'S YOUR MOST CURRENT
INFORMATION THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE
AVAILABLE? UH, FROM THE WORK. WE
HAVE AN OPEN PROCEEDING. AND
THEN AS YOU KNOW, FERC IS
UNDERTAKING AN INVESTIGATION. WE
DON'T HAVE AN UPDATE ON THE FERC
INVESTIGATION, EXCEPT THAT WE
KNOW THAT IT'S ONGOING AND THEY
HAVE THAT. THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE
TOLD US ABOUT IT IS THAT IT'S
ONGOING. UM ON OUR END. WE'RE
NOT INVESTIGATING. SO THE
REGIONAL MARKET IS THE FIRK
REALM. WE'RE LOOKING AT
CALIFORNIA AND WHAT BOTH THE SO
NOTIFICATIONS OR THE UTILITIES
DOING A BETTER JOB WITH LETTING
CUSTOMERS KNOW KNOW WHAT'S GOING
ON. ANTICIPATING WHATS HAPPENING
, COMMUNICATING WITH CUSTOMERS
AND THEN ALSO EVALUATING SOME OF
THE FACTORS THAT WE DO HAVE
ACCESS TO INFORMATION FOR, SUCH
AS STORAGE LEVELS? AND UM, UH,
AND SO THE GAS SYSTEM ITSELF.
THERE WERE SOME OUTAGES OF
PIPELINES. AND SO WE MONITOR.
UM, ANY OUTAGES IN THE REPAIR
ACTIVITIES THAT ARE UNDER TAKEN
IN WITH THE UTILITIES TO TRY TO
MAKE SURE THEY'RE DONE QUICKLY
SO THAT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS UP
AND RUNNING. THIS YEAR WE WERE
IN BETTER SHAPE THAN LAST YEAR.
UM AND WE DID TAKE ACTION TO
INCREASE STORAGE LEVELS AND WE
SAW THIS YEAR, UM, RATES IN PG
AND EPG AND E TERRITORY WERE
DOWN 35% COMPARED TO LAST YEAR
AND IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 64%
SO AS AS YOU NOTED, WE WERE, UM
WE WEATHERED THE WINTER BETTER.
WE ALSO HAD SOME MILDER LAST
YEAR. THE TEMPERATURES COLD
EARLY, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING
THE MARKET LOOKS FAVORABLY ON.
AND SO THIS YEAR WE DIDN'T HAVE
AS EXTREME CONDITIONS. DO YOU
THINK SOME OF YOUR FLOW ORDERS
IMPACTED? ASKING PRIVACY AS WELL
LAST YEAR. UM SO I THINK I'LL
TURN TO MS TESFA FOR THAT. I
THINK THE ANSWER IS NÓ. BUT WHY
DON'T I LET HER EXPLAIN? YEAH.
OK THERE YOU GO. UM SO, UH, THE
OPERATIONAL FLOW ORDERS ARE A
WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT IN
PARTICULAR LARGE CUSTOMERS ON
THE GAS SYSTEM, UM NON CORE
CUSTOMERS LIKE POWER PLANTS, FOR
EXAMPLE, ARE QUICKLY REPLACING
THE GAS THAT THEY ARE USING. AND
SO, UM THE èC P èC HAS MADE
SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE
PENALTIES THAT SOME OF THESE
CUSTOMERS WILL PAY SO THAT
THEY'RE A BIT MORE GRADUATED.
BUT THESE THESE, UM PENALTIES
AND ORDERS ARE REALLY CRITICAL
TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW, IN A
TIME OF GAS TIGHTNESS IN THE
WHEN THESE LARGE GENERATORS ARE,
YOU KNOW, TAKING GAS FROM THE
SYSTEM. THEY'RE ALSO REPLACING
THE GAS FROM THE SYSTEM THAT
THEY ARE USING. AND SO THE èC P
èC HAD MADE SOME CHANGES, BUT
IT RELATED TO THE PENALTY
STRUCTURE. BUT THESE WEREN'T
REALLY THE MAIN DRIVER OF THE
HIGH GAS PRICES. OK? AND HOW
SUCCESSFUL HAVE WE BEEN IN
ACCESSING FEDERAL FUNDS
SPECIFICALLY IN THE INFLATION
REDUCTION ACT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT? DOLLARS. SO THAT'S A
QUESTION THAT I THINK THE ANSWER
IS STILL TO BE DETERMINED IS
ONGOING. WE'VE THE INVESTMENT
TAX CREDITS THAT WERE RECENTLY
EXTENDED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY
HELPFUL TO US AND MANY OF THE
NEW PROJECTS THAT WE'VE WELL ALL
OF THE NEW PROJECTS THAT WE'VE
SEEN COME ONLINE ESSENTIALLY
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE TAX
CREDITS, AND IT'S A BIG PART OF
WHY WE'RE ABLE TO KEEP COSTS OF
GENERATION DOWN AND THAT THE
PROJECTS ARE ABLE TO SUCCESSFUL.
UM AND SO IN THAT SENSE, I THINK
THE RECENT ACTIONS OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN
VERY IMPORTANT TO CALIFORNIA. WE
HAVE ALSO ENCOURAGED THE
INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES TO
APPLY FOR FUNDS AND TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF FUNDS IN ANY WAY
THEY CAN. UM SOME OF I KNOW
LIBERTY UTILITIES HAS RECEIVED
AWARDS. WE HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE
SMALLER UTILITIES RECEIVE AWARDS
. WE KNOW PGE IS IN
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LOAN
PROGRAM OFFICE, UM AND SO WITH
RESPECT TO THE FUNDING FOR
UTILITIES THEMSELVES, IT'S STILL
ONGOING AND I THINK WE'LL STILL
CONTINUE TO SEE THAT PLAY OUT.
AND I THINK I'M NOT TO BELABOR
THIS. BUT I THINK THE OVERALL
SENTIMENT OF MY COLLEAGUES IS
THAT WE FIND OURSELVES HERE
BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE
ASPIRATIONAL AND FLAWED.
POLICIES THAT WE AS LEGISLATORS
HAVE IMPLEMENTED. AND. WE TALKED
TO OUR CONSTITUENTS AS HE SAID,
WHAT THEY CONCERNED ABOUT WHEN
THEY OPEN UP. THE BILL IS HOW
MUCH THEY OWE. THEY DON'T CARE
WHERE IT COMES FROM HOW WE GOT
IT. IT'S CAN I AFFORD IT, AND
RAPIERS ARE ESPECIALLY WORKING
CLASS. PEOPLE ARE PAYING FOR IT.
MOST OF THESE ASPIRATIONAL
PROJECTS THAT LIKE YOU SAY, ARE
WAY DOWN THE LINE, AND WE
HAVEN'T EVEN PROVEN THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO PAN OUT AND HIT OUR
ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND TO
CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION
THAT WE SHOULD MOVE AWAY FROM
NATURAL GAS. WHEN I STATED IN MY
OPENING STATEMENTS, THE U S¼
WOULD NOT HAVE MADE ITS CLIMATE
GO. TARGETS TWO YEARS AGO. IF IT
WERE NOT FOR NATURAL GAS, SO
NATURAL GAS STILL PLAYS A
CRITICAL ROLE IN DELIVERY IN
CALIFORNIA AND RELIABILITY AND I
JUST WISH WE WOULD HAVE MORE
HONEST CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE
PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS ALL
THE TIME. AND THAT'S WHAT FINDS
OURSELVES IN MANY OF THESE TOUGH
MINDS RIGHT NOW TO MAKE TOUGH
DECISIONS TO SAY WE HAVE TO
REACH THIS GOAL BY THIS CERTAIN
DATE WHEN, AT THE END OF THE
DAY, AS MY COLLEAGUE SAID ABOUT
UNDERGROUND WHY ARE WE SPENDING
█4 MILLION A MILE? UNDERGROUND.
POLES AND WIRES AND TRANSMISSION
LINES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR
DECADES. AND WE DIDN'T HAVE
THESE ONGOING FOREST FIRES.
BECAUSE WE ARE NOT CLEARING
LINES AND WE'RE NOT HAVING THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. WE'RE NOT DOING A
LINE CLEARING THAT WE WERE DOING
1015 20 YEARS AGO, AND THAT'S
WHAT'S LEADING. TO MOST OF THIS.
IT'S NOT CLIMATE CHANGE ALONE.
IT IS THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOT
MANAGING OUR FORCE, AND I'VE
TAKEN TOURS UP THERE AND THOSE
LANDOWNERS WOULD TELL YOU I
CAN'T CUT DOWN THE TREES OR THE
UTILITIES WILL TELL YOU WE CAN'T
ACCESS PROPERTY ANYMORE TO CUT
DOWN THESE TREES. SO WOULDN'T
THAT BE A BETTER INVESTMENT IN
LINE CLEARING THAN $4 MILLION A
MILE TO UNDERGROUND THAT LEADS
TO LONGER? JUST FOR CUSTOMERS.
ONCE ONCE IT'S UNDERGROUND
VERSUS WHEN IT'S OVERHEAD. I AM
JUST CURIOUS. I THINK THAT
THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION SOMETHING
TO TAKE INTO EFFECT TO ACCOUNT.
WHAT ARE THE WHAT ARE THE TRADE
OFFS? AND WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS
AND PART OF THAT IS THAT WE
PROVIDE THE UTILITY WITH SOME
FLEXIBILITY. TO CHOOSE THE
CHEAPEST PROJECTS AND SO IN
GENERAL CASE WILL PROVIDE A
LIMITATION ON THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY. OF COURSE, WE HAVE
MEMORANDUM ACCOUNTS WHERE THEY
CAN SAY OH, WE DID THIS XY AND
Z. WE NEED FUNDING FOR THAT. BUT
IN GENERAL, IT'S A THERE'S A
RISK REDUCTION TARGETS. HERE'S
HOW WE SEE YOU MEETING IT.
HERE'S FUNDING ATTACHED TO THAT
YOU NEED TO DO IT IN THE MOST
COST. EFFECTIVE WAY POSSIBLE. $4
MILLION A MILE IS NOT THE MOST
COST EFFECTIVE WAY AS WELL AS
SUBSIDIZING NEEM ON ROOFTOP.
SOLAR FOR FOLKS WHO MANY TIMES
LIVE IN THEIR HOMES THREE MONTHS
OUT OF THE YEAR AND WORKING
PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT, SO
I MEAN, WE NEED TO REALLY HAVE
HONEST DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IS
PAYING FOR. THIS IS THE BEST WAY
TO GO ABOUT ACHIEVING OUR
CLIMATE GOALS, OUR ENERGY
EFFICIENCY GOALS AND WHATEVER
ELSE SO ANYWAY ARE THE QUESTIONS
. SENATOR DODD. YEAH I'M SORRY
TO DO THIS AGAIN. BUT FIRST OF
ALL, I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR TIME
HERE AND THE WORK THAT YOU'RE
DOING, UM ON BEHALF OF REPAYERS.
I THINK IN LIGHT OF THE COMMENTS
THAT YOU MADE ON TRANSMISSION
AND GENERATION. THAT IT MAY BE
FRUITFUL FOR US JUST TO, YOU
KNOW, HAVE A HEARING IN THE
FUTURE ON WHAT OTHER ITEMS IN
OUR BILL IN RATES THAT AREN'T
GENERATION AND THAT AREN'T UH,
TRANSMISSION. OR. YOU KNOW A
BRIEFING ON THAT BECAUSE WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT THAT A LOT, AND I
DON'T REALLY THINK THAT WE CAN
GET IT. WHAT IS GOING ON THERE
AND AGAIN? A LOT OF THIS WAS
THIS. YOU KNOW? THE LEGISLATURE.
SEEN THESE BILLS THAT AT THE
TIME WERE THE BEST. A GOING
FORWARD FOR TRYING TO GET TO THE
POINT WHERE WE ARE TODAY. SO I,
I THINK WE JUST NEED TO
UNDERSTAND AND LOOK AT IT AND
SAY OK, WHAT IS IT? OUR
RATEPAYERS ARE PAYING AND IS IT
A VALID ANY LONGER AND IT MAY
VERY WELL BE. I DON'T WE JUST
DON'T KNOW, BUT I THINK I'D LIKE
TO SEE THAT MR CHAIR. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. I'VE
BEEN THE COMMENTS. WE WOULD BE
HAPPY TO DO THAT, AND WE'D BE
HAPPY TO ALSO PROVIDE
INFORMATION TO YOUR STAFF. WE DO
DO AN A B 695 REPORT EVERY YEAR.
I THINK OUR REPORT IS COMING UP
FOR RELEASE. UM IT'S YOU KNOW,
PROVIDING TRANSPARENCY. THERE'S
A LOT OF DETAIL BEHIND IT, BUT
WE TRY TO PULL UP AND EXPLAIN
SOME OF THE NUMBERS AND SO YOU
CAN START THERE. BUT HAPPY TO
RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU
HAVE. WELL, THANK YOU, PRESIDENT
REYNOLDS AND YOUR TEAM FOR BEING
HERE TODAY AND, UH, PROVIDING
GREAT TESTIMONY AND INFORMATION
AS WE GO FORWARD. WE WANT TO DO
THIS IN A COLLABORATIVE MANNER
AND WORK CLOSELY WITH YOU WITH
THE LEGISLATURE AS WELL AS YOUR
AGENCY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
DELIVER RELIABILITY, SAFETY BUT
MOST IMPORTANT, MOST IMPORTANTLY
, AFFORDABILITY FOR OUR
CUSTOMERS HERE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, BUT THANK YOU FOR
YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AND THANK YOU FOR ALL
THE SENATORS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
TO THESE MATTERS. THANK YOU.
NEXT UP. WE'RE GOING TO HEAR
FROM OUR PUBLIC ADVOCATES. AND
WE'RE GONNA HAVE, UM MR MATT
BAKER, DIRECTOR OF THE PROGRAM
AND HIS TEAM COME FORWARD.
YOU'RE READY. YOU MAY BEGIN.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. THANK YOU
FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY. UM,
YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE OUR ANNUAL
REPORT, WHICH OUTLINES A LOT OF
THE WORK THAT WE DID OVER THE
PAST YEAR. UM DETAILS OUR WORK
TO PROTECT CONSUMERS IN WATER,
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND ENERGY,
THAT THE THREE AREAS THAT WE
WORK IN I'LL KEEP MY COMMENTS
BRIEF. UM. TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. I PLAN TO
FOCUS ON ELECTRICITY PRICES, HOW
WE GOT THERE WHAT WE CAN DO
ABOUT IT, AND IN THE PROCESS I'D
LIKE TO DESCRIBE OUR ADVOCACY IN
THIS AREA. UM FIRST A LITTLE
BACKGROUND ON OUR OFFICE. UM.
I'M NOT SURE IF THE PRESENTATION
IS ON. IT IS NOW. OK, GREAT. UM.
BUT UH, YOU KNOW, FIRST. I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE TO
ORGANIC POWERS THAT ARE MOST
IMPORTANT AT THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION ARE TELLING
A UTILITY WHAT THEY CAN BUILD
HOW MUCH THEY CAN CHARGE FOR IT.
AND UH, YOU KNOW WHAT THEY CAN
CHARGE IS CALLED THE REVENUE
REQUIREMENT. UH THE PRESIDENT OF
THE COMMISSION WENT OVER IN
GREAT DETAIL KIND OF WHAT THE
REVENUE REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN, UM
AND OUR ROLE IN ALL OF THIS
PROCESS REALLY IS TO SCRUTINIZE
EVERY UTILITY APPLICATION THAT
COULD INCREASE COSTS TO
RATEPAYERS. OUR FOCUS IS ON
KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON IN AN
AFFORDABLE, SAFE, SUSTAINABLE
MANNER WHILE ADDRESSING OUR
CLIMATE GOALS AND DOING ALL THIS
THROUGH THE LENS OF
AFFORDABILITY FOR ALL
PARTICULARLY LOW INCOME RATE
PAYERS. UM. I THINK THE MOST
IMPORTANT WAY TO LOOK AT
AFFORDABILITY REALLY IS HOW IT
AFFECTS, UH, RATEPAYERS AND
WE'RE IN A POSITION RIGHT NOW.
WHERE ALMOST 21 ALMOST 20% OF
ALL ONE IN FIVE OF ALL
RATEPAYERS IS EITHER LATE ON
THEIR BILLS OR IN, UH IN ARREARS
AND WITH AN AVERAGE AMOUNT OF
ABOUT $700. THIS IS BECAUSE WE
HAVE SEEN A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN
RATES, WHICH I THINK IS A REALLY
YOU KNOW, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ALL
HERE TODAY. UM I DO WANNA POINT
OUT THE PERIOD LIKE WE STARTED
DEVIATING FROM INFLATION AROUND
2014, BUT IT WAS A RELATIVELY
MANAGEABLE ISSUE. AT THAT TIME
AFTER 2020. OUR RATES WENT UP
FAIRLY DRAMATICALLY, AND I'D
LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
THAT. UM AS THE PRESIDENT HAS
SAID, A LOT OF IT. IS THIS
INCREASE IN THE REVENUE
REQUIREMENT IF YOU LOOK AT THE
2020 REVENUE REQUIREMENT IS JUST
UNDER $30 BILLION AT, UH, IN
2023. IT WAS APPROACHING $40
BILLION. WE ESTIMATE THAT IN
2024. WE'LL BE INTERESTED IN THE
REPORT. THAT'S GOING TO BE
COMING OUT FROM THE P. IT WILL
BE OVER $42 BILLION, AND WHERE
ARE THOSE COSTS INCREASING. I'LL
JUST BE REALLY QUICK BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT REALLY WENT THROUGH.
WELL THEY'RE NOT INCREASING IN
GENERATION THAT'S BEEN A
RELATIVELY GOOD SUCCESS STORY.
THEY ARE INCREASING IN
DISTRIBUTION, TRANSMISSION AND
PUBLIC PURPOSE PROGRAMS. UM. AND
I THINK THAT YOU KNOW AGAIN. IF
YOU THINK ABOUT IT, I JUST WANT
TO PUT A POINT ON THE IDEA THAT
I THINK THE REASON WE ARE HERE
AND THE REASON THIS IS SUCH A
DRAMATIC ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS
BECAUSE OF YOU KNOW THE SHOCKS
TO THE SYSTEM THAT WE'VE
EXPERIENCED THROUGH WILDFIRE. UM
AND WE CAN'T FORGET THE HIGH
INFLATION THAT WE EXPERIENCED
OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS AND THE
HIGH INTEREST RATES THAT WE'RE
LIVING WITH RIGHT NOW, SO THOSE
ARE REALLY IMPORTANT PARTS OF
THE PROBLEM AND, YOU KNOW, I
THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO
ADDRESS THOSE PARTS OF THE
PROBLEM BECAUSE THAT IS CAUSING
THE MOST IMMEDIATE PAIN. UM, BUT
ALSO TO LOOK AT KIND OF ISSUES
THAT ARE MORE STRUCTURAL. AND
HOW DO WE DO THAT? SO UM, AGAIN,
IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THIS SLIDE
SHOWS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SINCE
2020 $14 BILLION IN UTILITY
WILDFIRE REQUESTS SINCE 2020. I
WOULD JUST SAY IN THE LAST TWO
YEARS ABOUT 2 BILLION OF THAT
WILDFIRE DOLLARS HAVE BEEN FOR
Ó AND M, WHICH ARE LIKE THE
MOST IMPORTANT IMMEDIATE COST
DRIVERS AND THINGS WE COULD BE
LOOKING AT. UM AND I WOULD YOU
KNOW, SO THAT'S THE STORY ON WHY
THE PIE IS GETTING BIGGER. UM I
THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE SLICES OF THE
PIE ARE EQUITABLE, SO EVERYBODY
FEELS LIKE THEY ARE PAYING
PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE. THIS IS
WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS REFERRED
TO KIND OF AS THE YOU KNOW THE
UNIT PRICE OF ELECTRICITY, WHICH
WE MEASURE IN TERMS OF THE RATES
THAT ARE BEING ASSESSED TO
CONSUMERS. UM AND THESE RATES
ARE INCREASING EVEN FASTER THAN
THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. AND
THAT IS, I WOULD ARGUE MOSTLY
THE RESULT OF THE RATE BASED
SUBSIDIES, PARTICULARLY LEGACY
NEM ONE AND LEGACY NEM TWO
CUSTOMERS WHERE WE CALCULATE
THAT THERE, UM THAT ABOUT $6.8
BILLION A YEAR STARTING THIS
YEAR IS BEING CONCENTRATED IN
FEWER RATEPAYERS. SO IT'S MAKING
THE NONPARTICIPANTS CHARGE GO UP
BY THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND
THAT IS A BIG, UH, A LARGE
AMOUNT OF MONEY. NOW I'M SORRY.
NET ENERGY METERING. SO IT IS
THE ROOFTOP SOLAR PROGRAMS THAT
HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN NEM.
THREE SO WE GRANDFATHERED A
WHOLE BUNCH OF FOLKS IN, UM AND
I'M NOT. I DON'T WANNA TALK
ABOUT THE YOU KNOW WHETHER
THAT'S GOOD OR BAD, BUT IT IS A
HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND WE HAVE
TO DEAL WITH IT. SO UM, OUR
OBJECTIVE HERE REALLY IS TO BEND
THE COST CURVE TO GET THIS COST
CURVE DOWN OVER TIME SO THAT
RATES ARE NOT INCREASING FASTER
THAN INFLATION. UM AND WE LIKE
TO CATEGORIZE THE PROBLEMS. YOU
KNOW OUR APPROACH TO THIS REALLY
IN THREE BUCKETS. WE'VE GOT
THESE KIND OF, UM EXOGENOUS
SHOCKS OR CLIMATE SHOCKS THAT
THROUGH WILDFIRE OR THROUGH BIG
STORMS. I I THINK I COULD PUT
COVID IS IN CLIMATE, BUT IT IS
DEFINITELY A SHOCK TO THE
SYSTEM. AND SO HOW CAN WE
NORMALIZE THESE KINDS OF SHOCKS?
HOW CAN WE SMOOTH THEM OUT OVER
TIME? UM EITHER THROUGH, YOU
KNOW, PREFUNDING THEM IN RAPE
CASES WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL
OF THE EXPENSES AND JUDGING THEM
BEFORE THEY'RE INCURRED, UM, YOU
KNOW, OR THROUGH SOME FORM OF
INSURANCE TO HELP PROTECT
RATEPAYERS FOR IT. I THINK OUR
SECOND BIG BUCKET OF, UH,
SOLUTIONS WOULD BE HOW DO WE
ECONOMIZE THE CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSITION? THE CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSITION IS GOING TO COST
MONEY. SO HOW CAN WE MAKE IT AS
ECONOMICAL AS POSSIBLE? THE
PRESIDENT HAS MENTIONED
ELECTRIFICATION. ELECTRIFICATION
IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE HAVE TO DO
THAT IN A COST. EFFECTIVE WAY.
WE CAN'T JUST USE RATE SUBSIDIES
TO DO THAT TO, YOU KNOW TO
ENCOURAGE ELECTRIFICATION OR WE
START TO EAT ANY OF THE SAVINGS
THAT WE HAVE RIGHT THERE. I
THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO THE
, UH, TO LOOK AT THE NEED TO
SEQUENCE THINGS, YOU KNOW, COULD
WE DO TRANSPORTATION
ELECTRIFICATION FIRST, SINCE
IT'S COMING UP? IT'S SOMETHING
THAT'S GOT. YOU KNOW, IT'S GOT
LEGS ON IT RIGHT NOW. AND
SEQUENCE THE BUILDING
ELECTRIFICATION PARTS OF IT, YOU
KNOW, AFTER WE'VE KIND OF
STARTED TO SWALLOW THAT BALL, WE
SHOULD LOOK AT THOSE THOSE
ISSUES. UM AND I THINK WE ALSO
NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW CAN WE
APPLY LIKE THE GENERATION SIDE
OF THINGS THE ACTUALLY MAKING OF
ELECTRONS THROUGH WIND AND SOLAR
AND BATTERIES AND THINGS LIKE
THAT. THAT'S A BIG SUCCESS STORY
. UM WHAT WE'RE SEEING NOW IS
THE REST OF YOU KNOW IS HOW WE
ARRANGE THE SYSTEM AROUND THOSE
COSTS. HOW CAN WE ECONOMIZE
THERE? HOW CAN WE MAKE
TRANSMISSION LESS EXPENSIVE? HOW
CAN WE MAKE DISTRIBUTION LESS
EXPENSIVE? HOW CAN WE REQUIRE,
YOU KNOW? DO THE INVESTMENTS IN
A WAY THAT YOU KNOW ARE CLOSELY
MATCHED TO ELECTRIFICATION AS
IT'S COMING, SO THAT'S BUCKET
NUMBER TWO ECONOMIZING, THE
CLEAN, UH, ENERGY, TRANS
TRANSITION, AND I THINK THE
THIRD BUCKET IS ONE THAT WE'RE
KIND OF MOST FAMILIAR WITH IS
REALLY HOW DO WE REFOCUS ON THE
BASICS OF UTILITY REGULATION? UM
AND I THINK THIS IS A
CONVERSATION THAT NEEDS TO BE
STATEWIDE. BUT I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR US TO PRIORITIZE
WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT AND WE
WOULD ARGUE WHAT'S MOST
IMPORTANT IS SAFE, RELIABLE
SERVICE. DECARBONISING THE GRID.
UM ELECTRIFYING IN A COST
EFFECTIVE MANNER. UM AND DOING
ALL OF THIS THROUGH THE LENS OF
AFFORDABILITY AND LEAST COST
WITH AN EYE TOWARDS HOW IT
IMPACTS. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO
ARE LEAST LIKELY AT LEAST HAVE
THE LEAST ABILITY TO PAY FOR
THEIR, UM PAY THEIR BILLS. UM
AND AS SO IF WE LOOK AT THOSE
BUCKETS THERE. THIS IS WHAT A
UTILITY SHOULD DO. THEN THINGS
THAT FALL OUTSIDE OF THOSE
BUCKETS. WE SHOULD BE ASKING
OURSELVES. WELL IS THAT REALLY
WORTH SOMETHING THAT RATEPAYERS
SHOULD BE PAYING FOR? UM YOU
KNOW, SO LET'S SET PRIORITIES
AND LET'S LET'S LET'S WORK
THROUGH THAT. I THINK PART OF
ANOTHER COST CONTROL MEASURE
THAT IT FALLS INTO THIS BUCKET
IS WE REALLY WANT TO TRY TO
RETURN TO BASIC BUDGETING AND
COST CONTROL THROUGH RAPE CASES,
THE RAPE CASES WHERE WE SET A
BUDGET YOU KNOW, IT'S WHERE THE
UTILITY COMES IN WITH THEIR
PRIORITIES. ALL PARTIES KIND OF,
YOU KNOW, PLAY IN THAT WORLD, SO
THIS IS A WAY TO YOU KNOW, UH,
REALLY START TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE DOING WHAT WE ARE
PRIORITIZING. UM AND I WOULD SAY
FINALLY, WE'RE REALLY INTERESTED
IN COST BASED AND EQUITABLE
RATES. WE REPORT WE'RE A PARTY
IN THE PU èC PROCEEDING AROUND
INCOME, GRADUATED FIXED RATES.
UM WE SUPPORT MODEST FIXED
CHARGES OR FLAT FEES TO ADDRESS
THESE CONCERNS. WE'RE LOOKING AT
THINGS LIKE WHAT YOU KNOW, IN
THE LEVEL OF WHAT THIS
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY
DISTRICT HAS PROPOSED. UM AND WE
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. IN
ADDITION TO, UH, I, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO HAVE THESE TOOLS
THE COMMISSION TO HAVE THESE AS
WELL AS THE ABILITY TO SET TIME
BASED PRICE BECAUSE TIME BASED
PRICES ARE ALSO IMPORTANT. AND
IF WE DO ALL THIS, THIS WILL
HAVE A BENEFIT OF NOT JUST
CREATING MORE EQUITABLE RATES.
IT WILL HELP PROMOTE
ELECTRIFICATION, AND IT'LL HELP
SET US UP FOR A WORLD WHERE
THERE ARE MANY MORE PEOPLE WHO
ARE PUTTING POWER INTO THE GRID
AND TAKING POWER OUT OF THE GRID
BECAUSE WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT
THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE
PLUSES AND MINUSES ARE ARE IS
WELL FUNDED. SO I JUST WANNA
CLOSE WITH, UH, THREE QUESTIONS
THAT I THINK ARE REALLY
IMPORTANT AND THAT WE ASK
OURSELVES AND WE'D REALLY LOVE
UH, THE LEGISLATURE TO ALSO
THINK ABOUT UM, ARE THERE COSTS
THAT COULD OR SHOULD BE SHIFTED
FROM ELECTRIC RATE PAYERS? UM
WE'RE ASKING ELECTRIC RATE
PAYERS TO DECARBONIZE THE
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR TO
DECARBONIZE THE BUILDING SECTOR
PLACES WHERE THERE'S YOU KNOW,
THERE'S YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE
WHOLE SECTORS. WE'RE ASKING THEM
TO DO SO IN THE FACE OF KIND OF
A CLIMATE STORM IS THERE, YOU
KNOW? CAN WE HELP RATEPAYERS
THAT WAY THROUGH EITHER OTHER
OTHER FUNDS OR OTHER OTHER OTHER
SECTORS? TWO IS. ARE THERE COSTS
THAT CAN BE MORE EQUITABLY BORNE
BY FUTURE RATEPAYERS? UH, LAST
YEAR OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS WE
SPENT ABOUT $2 BILLION ON
ENHANCED, UM VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT, UH, TREE TRIMMING
THINGS LIKE THAT. THOSE ARE BIG
OPERATING COSTS THAT HIT
RATEPAYERS RIGHT AWAY. UM A LOT
OF THAT WAS BECAUSE WE WEREN'T
NECESSARILY DOING IT IN THE PAST
. SO RATEPAYERS TODAY ARE PAYING
FOR THINGS THAT WE COULD HAVE
BEEN DOING IN THE PAST. IT IS
ALSO THE CASE THAT TO SOME
DEGREE THIS IS A CAP. YOU KNOW,
ONCE WE GET THROUGH THIS KIND OF
SLUG, THERE'LL BE A LOT LESS
THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE
FUTURE. SO WE'RE CREATING A
BENEFIT FOR PEOPLE IN THE
FUTURE. WHAT KIND OF EXPENSES?
ONES THAT WE COULD SPREAD OUT
EITHER THROUGH SECURITIZATION OR
THROUGH REVENUE BONDS OR OTHER
MEANS THAT CAN POSSIBLY, UM, YOU
KNOW, HELP US IN THAT AREA. AND
THEN FINALLY, I THINK BASED ON
THE PRIORITIES THAT WE'RE
LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, ARE THERE
COSTS THAT WE NEED THAT WE CAN
STOP INCURRING RIGHT NOW, UM,
YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO LOOK FOR
THE NICKELS AND THE DIMES AND
THE COUCH. AT THIS POINT. YOU
KNOW, THERE'S NÓ. THERE ARE NÓ
COSTS THAT ARE TOO SMALL THAT WE
SHOULD BE SEEING. SO YOU KNOW,
WE'RE IN FAVOR OF SCRUTINIZING
AS MANY OF THE PROGRAMS AS
POSSIBLE AND THROUGH A
COST-EFFECTIVE TEST. IF IT'S NOT
PROVIDING BENEFIT FOR THE
RATEPAYERS, WE NEED TO COME BACK
AND ASK. WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?
AND SHOULD WE BE DOING THIS? UM
I'LL STOP THERE. THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRETEND PRE
PRESENT TODAY. UM YOU KNOW, I
WANT TO REITERATE THAT WE SHARE
MANY OF YOUR GOALS AND CONCERNS.
UM I DO THINK THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT, UH, YOU
KNOW RATES THAT PEOPLE PAY KIND
OF LIKE A TAX LIKE IT'S A $40
BILLION TAX THAT IS ASSESSED
EVERY MONTH. UM AND YOU KNOW,
BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE IN THE HOT
SEAT. FOR A LOT OF THESE
CONCERNS, AND SO THINKING
BROADLY ABOUT SOLVING THE
PROBLEM IT IT. I I THINK IS
REALLY HELPFUL. UM, SO WE STAND
BY READY TO SUPPORT YOU, UM,
WITH MAKING THESE TOUGH
DECISIONS, I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
THANK YOU, SENATOR DALLY. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I WANT
YOU TO GO BACK TO YOUR, UH, PAGE
SIX. IT'S THE COST UNRELATED TO
CONSUMPTION. UM CAN YOU TALK A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT DISTRIBUTION
AND TRANSMISSION? WHAT'S THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO?
AND WHY ARE THE COST? EXPLAIN IT
TO ME WHAT DISTRIBUTION IS UP
15. IN 2020 THREE OR. AND IN
2020. IT WAS UP 10. SO THAT'S
25% AND. THREE YEARS. YEAH, IT'S
40% ACTUALLY FOR DISTRIBUTION.
UM AND I THINK THERE THAT IS
WHERE WE SEE THE IMPACTS OF
WILDFIRE, SO A LOT OF THE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM HAS BEEN
BURNED DOWN. THAT'S WHERE WE SEE
THE MONEY THAT'S GONE INTO
HARDENING OF THE DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, THROUGH, UH,
AUTOMATIC SHUT OFFS. UM AND, UH,
THAT'S WHERE VEG MANAGEMENT
COMES IN, OR VEG, YOU KNOW, TREE
TRIMMING AND THINGS SO
TRANSMISSION 34% SO BETWEEN THE
TWO OF THEM, IT'S. IT'S UH, 76%
ON WHAT? WHAT'S TRANSMISSION
THAT'S BUILDING NEW LINES OR
ACCESSING TO NEW GENE OR NEW
CUSTOMERS THAT ONCOMING LIKE
DEVELOPMENT. UM IT'S MOSTLY
BUILDING NEW LINES VERSUS
REPLACING EXISTING LINES. SO AS
WE'RE. YOU KNOW, IT'S REACHING
OUT TO, UH WIND AND SOLAR SITES.
IT IS, UM THERE'S A COUPLE OF
LINES THAT ARE GOING OUT OUT OF
STATE TO HELP WITH OUR
RELIABILITY. UM AS WELL AS
MEETING OUR CLIMATE GOALS, AND
WE EXPECT A GREAT DEAL. YOU
KNOW, PART OF THE ENERGY
TRANSITION WILL REQUIRE A LOT
MORE TRANS TRANSMISSION. UM, AND
THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT COST.
THEN THE PUBLIC SECTOR OR PUBLIC
PURPOSE WAS UP. 110% WHAT IS THE
WHAT? WHAT ARE THOSE PROGRAMS?
SO THAT WOULD BE, UM, A LOT OF
THE PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE FOR
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS FOR,
UM, SELF GENERATION. THE CARE
PROGRAM IS IN THERE, AND THAT'S
A VERY BIG EXPENSE. SO IS THE
RATES GO UP? MORE PEOPLE CAN'T
AFFORD THEIR BILLS, SO WE
SUBSIDIZE THEIR RATES FURTHER,
WHICH GETS PUT INTO THERE, UM,
THAT THAT'S MOSTLY WHAT THOSE
PROGRAM WHICH GETS PAID BY WHO,
IF YOU SUBSIDIZE SOMEBODY
SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO PAY. THAT
IS TRUE. WHO PAYS. FOR ALL OF
THE PROGRAMS THAT WE LIST IN THE
REVENUE REQUIREMENT THEY'RE PAID
FOR BY RATEPAYERS. SO WEALTHIER
RATEPAYERS OR OR OR RATE PAYER,
BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GETTING
SUBSIDIZED, YOU'RE GETTING THE
BENEFIT OF SOMEBODY ELSE'S, UH,
NOT BENEFIT, I GUESS. YEAH SO
LET'S SAY WE'RE YOU KNOW THE 30.
OF THE. UM YOU KNOW, THE CARE
PROGRAM IS ABOUT 30 PER THE
LOWEST 30. THE CUSTOMERS WHO
FALL INTO THE LOWEST, ROUGHLY
THIRD OF INCOME ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
A 30% DISCOUNT ON THEIR
ELECTRICITY RATES, AND THAT IS
PAID FOR BY THE REST OF THE 70%
THAT DON'T FALL IN THAT CAST.
YEAH OK. AND THEN I WANNA TALK
ABOUT S¼ AND I AND I ASKED THE
FOR THE ACRONYM BECAUSE I DON'T
KNOW IF FOR THE PUBLIC IF THEY
ARE WATCHING UNDERSTANDS. I
THINK THAT IS REASONABLE. I
SHOULDN'T HAVE USED THAT. YEAH.
SO LET'S TALK ABOUT UM, WHO
SUBSIDIZING WHO IN THAT PROGRAM.
SO IN THAT PROGRAM, AND I MIGHT
ASK MIKE TO JUMP IN ON SOME OF
THESE, UH, SPECIFIC IDEAS SO
THAT WE BELIEVE SO. THAT PROGRAM
COVERS ABOUT 1.7 MILLION M. AND
THESE ARE CUSTOMERS WHO, UM HAD
APPLIED FOR SOLAR AND WERE
ACCEPTED INTO THE SOLAR PROGRAM
BEFORE THE COMMISSION CHANGED
HOW THEY WERE REMUNERATING, UH
CUSTOMERS. SO THE NEW WHAT'S
CALLED NEM THREE NET ENERGY
METERING THREE, WHICH IS KIND OF
TECHNICALLY MORE OF A NET
BILLING PROGRAM. UM THAT IS MUCH
, MUCH MORE COST EFFECTIVE, BUT
FOR THOSE 1.7 MILLION CUSTOMERS,
UM THEY ARE THEY RECEIVE THE
FULL RETAIL RATE. UM, SO EVERY
TIME THE RATE GOES UP UM YOU
KNOW THAT? AFFECT THE EFFECT OF
THAT SUBSIDY GETS LARGER, SO YOU
KNOW IS WHETHER IT'S WILDFIRE
GOING UP BECAUSE OF WILDFIRES OR
IT'S GOING UP BECAUSE OF, UM
INCREASED INVESTMENTS IN THE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. UM, THOSE
CUSTOMERS PAY VERY, VERY LITTLE
OF THOSE OF THOSE BILLS, AND
THOSE BILLS ARE THEN SHIFTED. TO
THE OTHER. UH, YOU KNOW, YEAH,
IT'S THE OTHER NUMBER. UH, YOU
KNOW THE REST OF THE CUSTOMER
BASE. ARE IS THIS ROOFTOP? OR IS
THIS IS MOSTLY ROOFTOP. IT ALL.
YEAH SO IT'S ALL ROOFTOP. THIS
ISN'T THIS ISN'T A SOLAR FIELD
THAT'S SUBSIDIZING A.
AGRICULTURAL WELL OR A OR A
MANUFACTURER. THIS IS ROOFTOP,
SO PEOPLE THAT HAVE SOLAR ON THE
ROOFTOP WHO GOT A TAX SUBSIDY.
GOT A BENEFIT TO THEIR TAX. GOT
YOU ARE GETTING THEIR ENERGY AT
THIS AT A THE RATE, WHATEVER THE
RATE IS AS EVEN IF IT GOES UP.
SOMEBODY ELSE IS PAYING FOR
THAT. SO THEY GOT ATTACKED. SO
THE TAX PAYER WE, THE TAXPAYER
SUBSIDIZES THEM. AND ON TOP OF
THAT THE ENERGY IS GETTING
SUBSIDIZED AT THE SAME TIME.
YEAH III. I WOULD JUST SAY WE
THINK ROOF ANYBODY THAT DIDN'T
LET ME PUT IT TO YOU THIS WAY.
ANYBODY THAT DID WAS NOT IN THAT
BUCKET. IS PAYING FOR SOMEBODY
THAT'S IN THAT BUCKET. THAT IS
CORRECT, AND THAT'S EVERYBODY.
THAT'S LOW INCOME. MIDDLE OF THE
ROAD. HIGH INCOME EARNERS. YEP
ACROSS THE BOARD, SO THE
DISADVANTAGED FOLKS THAT MY TWO
COLLEAGUES THAT JUST LEFT THAT
WERE WORRIED ABOUT SUBSIDIZING
SOMEBODY WHO HAD THE ABILITY TO
BE ABLE TO PUT IN THE FIRST
PLACE A ROOFTOP SOLAR ON THEIR
ON THEIR HOMES. PEOPLE WHO COULD
AFFORD TO PUT ROOFTOP SOLAR PUT
ROOFTOP SOLAR ON THEIR HOMES.
PEOPLE COULDN'T COULD NOT, UM,
THE PROGRAM POOR AND THE RICH
GET RICHER. YEAH, IT IS REALLY
WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE? LET'S
JUST SAY FOR WHAT IT IS, AND I
AND WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT
ISSUE? MAYBE. SO ONE OF THE
OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS THAT IS
REALLY TO TRY TO FIND A WAY
EQUITABLE WAY THAT WE CAN PAY
FOR THE COSTS OF THE SYSTEM THAT
DON'T AREN'T DEPENDENT ON
WHETHER OR NOT YOU USE MORE OR
LESS ELECTRICITY AND THAT IN OUR
MIND, WE WOULD. THAT'S THE WAY
SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME, SO
THERE'S THE PARTS OF THE
ELECTRICITY BILL THAT GO UP AND
DOWN WITH YOUR USE, WHICH ARE
MOSTLY GENERATION SO YOU USE
MORE GENERATION. IT'S MORE AND
THEN, FOR THE MOST PART, UM, THE
SYSTEM ITSELF, THE WIRES AND THE
POLES. THOSE WHAT ARE CALLED THE
FIXED COSTS. UM OR THE PUBLIC
PURPOSE PROGRAMS THAT EVERYBODY
HAS TO PAY FOR, UM THOSE ARE, UM
. UH YOU KNOW, THE THOSE FIXED
COSTS ARE THE THINGS THAT WE
NEED TO DEVELOP WAYS TO EQUITY
EQUITABLY PAY FOR. SO WE ARE A
PARTY IN THE INCOME, GRADUATED
FIXED CHARGE PROCEEDING OR THE
FLAT FEE AS THE PRESIDENT HAS
DESCRIBED IT, AND WE BELIEVE
THAT SETTING AN APPROPRIATE FLAT
FEE. HELPS REDUCE THOSE
INEQUITIES IN FOR EXISTING DID
YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE BECAUSE
EVERYBODY WOULD PAY FOR IT? IF
YOU'RE HAVE SOLAR ON YOUR ROOF,
YOU WOULD HAVE TO PAY THAT FIXED
FEE. UM AND THAT FIXED FEE. WHY
DON'T WE JUST MAKE IT TO PEOPLE
THAT HAVE SOLAR ON THE ROOF HAVE
TO PAY. EVERYBODY ELSE IS PAYING
THE FIXED FEE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE SOLAR, YOU'RE PAYING THE
FIXED FEE. WELL ARE YOU HAVE
SOLAR? YOU'RE NOT OUR OUR
POSITION IN THE LAST UM IN THE
NEM PROCEEDING WAS CLOSER TO
THAT WHICH WAS TO SET A FIXED
FEE. UM THAT PROVED TO BE VERY
CONTROVERSIAL, AND I VOTED
AGAINST THE FLAT FEE BECAUSE
THERE'S NÓ INCENTIVE FOR
SOMEBODY TO ACTUALLY REDUCE
THEIR CONSUMPTION. IF IN MY MIND
IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR
YOUR CONSUMPTION, YOU'RE GONNA
USE MORE. AND THE GOAL IS TO
ACTUALLY GET AWAY FROM CARBON
AND ACTUALLY USE LESS ENERGY IS
THE GOAL. I THINK THE RATES ARE
SO HIGH THAT IF YOU ENACTED OUR
OUR FIXED FEE, WHICH IS ABOUT
$25 ON AVERAGE THAT YOU'RE
MOVING. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE YOU'RE
TAKING THE RATE AT WHAT IT WOULD
WHAT IT IS IN 2024, AND YOU'RE
BASICALLY MOVING IT BACK TO WHAT
IT WOULD BE IN 2021. WHAT WE
WERE PAYING IN 2021 WAS AN
ENORMOUS INCENTIVE TO CONSERVE.
IT'S STILL THERE. THAT SIGNAL IS
STILL THERE. I ALSO THINK THAT
MAKING OUR. ELECTRICITY SYSTEM
MORE FOCUSED ON ELECTRIFICATION
LIKE WE NEED NEW LOAD. IT'S GOT
TO BE THE GOOD STUFF. IT'S GOT
TO BE CARS. IT'S GOTTA BE TRUCKS
. IT'S GOTTA BE HEAT PUMPS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. AND TO GET TO
THAT WE NEED A LOWER MARGINAL
RATE. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S REALLY
HELPFUL TO PUT SOME AMOUNT OF
THOSE FIXED COSTS INTO FIXED
RATES OR INTO FLAT FEES. WELL, I
THANK YOU FOR AND. TRYING TO
ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. I'M
FRUSTRATED AS YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY,
SEE, I'VE SAID ON THIS COMMITTEE
FOR 12 YEARS, 11 YEARS I WASN'T
ON MY FIRST YEAR, THEY WOULDN'T
LET ME ON IT. BUT AND I'VE BEEN
THE VICE CHAIR AND I'VE HAD A
GREAT CHAIR WHO WE HAVE A LOT OF
THE I MEAN, THE TWO OF US. NOT
CONSIDERING HAVE THESE
CONVERSATIONS A LOT ABOUT WHO'S
REALLY PAYING FOR WHAT AND THE
PUBLIC REALLY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND
IT AT THE END OF THE DAY. IT'S
WHAT I SAID. EVERYBODY'S IN A
SILO. AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST CAME
FROM THE GGRF THING. WE HAVE TWO
COMMITTEES AT THE SAME TIME. I'M
THE VICE CHAIR OF ENVIRONMENT EQ
. I'M THE VICE CHAIR OF THIS
COMMITTEE AND I'M THE VICE CHAIR
OF SUB TWO. ALL THE WHERE ALL
THE MONEY GOES AND NATURAL
RESOURCE. AND I'M FRUSTRATED
BECAUSE I GET THE CALLS. FROM
THE PEOPLE WHOSE RATES ARE GOING
UP, AND THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT
ELECTRIFICATION OF A CAR WHEN
THEY ESPECIALLY IN MY DISTRICT,
WHERE THEY HAVE HUNDREDS OF
MILES TO DRIVE TO GET TO YOU
KNOW THEIR HEALTH CARE. AND
THEY'RE THEY'RE BEING TOLD THIS
IS THE FUTURE. AND WHAT THEY DO
IS THEY LOOK AT THEIR CHECKBOOK
AND THEY GO GOSH, I'M ON A FIXED
INCOME. THERE IS AN ARTICLE
TODAY. IT WAS IN CALMATTERS IS
MY COMMUNITY. BIEBER WHERE I
COME FROM? IT'S THE STORE THERE,
AND IT'S THE OWNERS OF THE
STORE, AND THERE'S A GENTLEMAN
WHOSE MOM'S GETS $400 A MONTH.
ON SOCIAL SECURITY, AND HE IS
LIVING WITH HIS MOM. TRYING TO
MAKE HELP HER GET HER AND SHE'S
GOT A HEART FAILURE. AND SHE HAS
TO DRIVE A LONG WAYS TO GET HER
MEDS AND HER ELECTRICITY RATE
WENT UP 50 BUCKS. THAT'S THE
CALL. I GET. AND THEY DON'T GIVE
A CRUD ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE OTHER
THAN GETTING THAT $50 OFF
BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THEY
HAVE TO PAY, OR THEY DON'T HEAT
THEIR HOUSE OR THEY CAN'T COOK
THEIR FOOD. SO I. I KNOW THAT
YOU'RE NOT THE PROBLEM. BUT IT'S
NOT YOUR PROBLEM, AND IT'S NOT
THE PERSON IN THE OTHER ROOM'S
PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THEIR
THEIR PROBLEM IS ONLY THEIR
THEIR SILO, AND I THINK THAT'S
WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO PUSH AS
A LEGISLATOR TO SAY WE HAVE TO
LOOK AT ALL THE PROBLEMS AND
THEN WE HAVE TO SEE HOW DO WE
SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS. AND YOU
CAN'T JUST FOCUS ON THE LOW
INCOME GUY BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE
IS IMPACTED BY THAT, AND
BUSINESSES ARE LEAVING
CALIFORNIA. AT THE SAME TIME, WE
HAVE AN EXODUS OF PEOPLE WHO PAY
THE BILLS. BECAUSE THEY'RE LIKE
THEY CAN MOVE. AND THEY ARE AND
SO I WANT I THANK YOU FOR COMING
AND I AND I'M NOT HERE BEATING
UP ON YOU, BUT I'M PISSED. TO MY
LAST YEAR, AND I WE HAVEN'T IT'S
GOTTEN WORSE. IT'S NOT GETTING
BETTER. AND ON TOP OF THAT, I
CAN TAKE YOU TO MY DISTRICT AND
SHOW YOU WHERE PG AND E IS
PUTTING A BEARING A POWER LINE
THROUGH A AGRICULTURE FIELD. AT
HOW MANY. DOLLARS PER MILE WHEN
WE SHOULD JUST INSULATE THAT
POLE AND YOU KNOW WE COULD DO IT
CHEAPER AND YOU KNOW, BECAUSE
THEY ARE THERE IS A MASS AMOUNT
OF MONEY GOING INTO THESE
PROJECTS AND NOT YOU CAN'T SEE
EVERY ONE OF THEM. SO ANYWAY,
I'LL JUST CONTINUE TO SAY I
DIDN'T VOTE FOR THESE BILLS. II
I WILL TELL YOU THESE GUYS TALK
ABOUT THE BILLS. THEY THAT MAYBE
THE LEGISLATURE CAUSES THEM. I
VOTED AGAINST THOSE BILLS
BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THE
BROADER PICTURE. SO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME. I'M SORRY. I'M
FRUSTRATED. BUT AT THE END OF
THE DAY, CALIFORNIANS ARE GONNA
WAKE UP AND THEY'RE GONNA THROW
THE BS OUT. HOPEFULLY THEY DO.
HOPEFULLY THEY THROW EVERYBODY
OUT OF THIS PLACE BECAUSE WE
HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS
HOLISTICALLY. OR IT'S NOT GONNA
SOLVE THE PROBLEM. SO CAN I JUST
RESPOND TO ONE THING, BY THE WAY
, I LOVE THIS GUY. HE'S A HE'S A
GREAT CHAIRMAN AND I CAN SAY
THINGS HE CAN'T BECAUSE I'M ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE AND
I'LL SAY HIM FOR HIM SOMETIMES,
AND HE CAN DENY THAT IF HE WANTS
TO UM, II. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
POINT OUT TO SHORT TERM. THINGS
THAT I COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
UM I DO THINK ADDRESSING THIS
COST SHIFT WITH LEGACY SOLAR IS
VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. AND I DO
THINK A. YOU KNOW, A FIXED
CHARGE GETS US STARTS TO GET US
IN THAT DIRECTION, BUT UM, I
WOULD SAY, THOUGH, I REFERENCED
BEFORE THAT WE HAD SPENT ABOUT
$2 BILLION IN ADDRESSING, UH,
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT. UM IF WE
WERE TO, SO THAT'S $2 BILLION IF
WE AND THERE'S A REVENUE
REQUIREMENT THAT'S ABOUT $40
BILLION, IF YOU WERE TO TAKE UH,
$4 BILLION OF THAT REVENUE
REQUIREMENT. AND YOU KNOW, ENACT
SOME LONGER TERM REFORMS BECAUSE
I DO THINK WE CAN BEND THAT
CURVE OVER TIME. BUT IF YOU WERE
TO TAKE $4 BILLION IN OPERATING
EXPENSES, YOU COULD GET ANYWHERE
FROM 10. DEPENDING ON WHAT IT IS
10 TO 15% RATE REDUCTIONS FOR
THOSE CUSTOMERS TODAY, SO ARE
THERE THINGS THAT SHOULD COULD
BE SPREAD OUT OVER LONGER
PERIODS OF TIME, LIKE MAYBE THAT
$2 BILLION BECAUSE THOSE AREN'T
GOING TO NECESSARILY REPEAT
THEMSELVES INTO THE FUTURE, OR
ARE THERE THINGS THAT RATEPAYERS
SHOULD NOT BE COVERING? MAYBE
SOME OTHER SOURCE COULD BE
COVERING. UM AND THAT CAN
PROVIDE IMMEDIATE RELIEF. VERY,
VERY QUICKLY. I WOULD CAUTION
YOU, THOUGH, THAT WE REALLY
WANNA. COMBINE IT WITH SOME OF
THIS WHAT WE WOULD CALL KIND OF
BASIC UTILITY REGULATION BECAUSE
THAT'S ALSO VERY IMPORTANT. IN
ADDITION TO THE CONCERNS YOU
HAVE ON EVERYBODY, YOU KNOW WHAT
THE GOALS ARE, WHAT THEY COST
AND CAN WE MAKE A DECISION
COLLECTIVELY ABOUT THEM? SO. I
HAD A QUESTION. UH, WHAT'S YOUR
OFFICE RESPONSE TO THE STATE. A
AUDITORS REPORT THAT STATES THAT
YOU SHOULD IMPROVE. UH, THE
UTILITIES BALANCING ACCOUNT
THROUGH THE REVIEW OF THAT YEAH.
SO II. I THOUGHT THE AUDITORS
PROVIDED SOME GOOD INSIGHTS AND
THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE ARE
MOVING FORWARD WITH. YOU KNOW,
WE ARE INTERESTED IN INCREASING
OUR CAPACITY TO, UH AUDIT ALL OF
THE AUDIT BALANCING ACCOUNTS
RIGHT NOW WE AUDIT ABOUT, I
THINK 85% OF THE DOLLARS IN ALL
OF THE BALANCING ACCOUNTS SO WE
WOULD LOOK, YOU KNOW, MAY MAYBE
WE COULD COVER MORE OF THAT. UM
BUT I DO THINK THAT ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT THE AUDITORS
WEREN'T ASKED TO ANSWER IS WHY
DO WE HAVE SO MANY BALANCING
ACCOUNTS? AND WHAT ARE WE USING
THEM FOR? BALANCING ACCOUNT LIKE
A MEMO ACCOUNT IS KIND OF LIKE
SAYING, OK, WE WANT YOU TO DO
THIS THING RIGHT NOW, AND WE'RE
GIVING YOU A CREDIT CARD TO DO
IT, AND THEN WE'LL LOOK BACK
LATER TO SEE IF THAT'S YOU KNOW
IF SOMETHING THAT YOU SPENT WAS
IMPRUDENT, WHICH IS A PRETTY
HIGH STANDARD IT THEN BECOMES,
YOU KNOW IT, IT IT IT IT IT
REALLY MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT.
TO SET A BUDGET AND TO KEEP IN
WITH EXPENSES. SO THAT WAS ONE
THING. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF
OTHER THINGS IN THERE. SO THE
AUDITOR ALSO HIGHLIGHTED THAT,
UM, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT WANNA
FORMALIZE OUR HOW WE DEAL WITH
ADVICE LETTERS, WHICH WE HAVE
INSTITUTED THAT. UM BUT YEAH, I
WOULD I. I YOU KNOW, III I I'LL
LET MY, UH UH DEPUTY LINDA TALK
ABOUT ANY OTHER THINGS THAT
WE'RE ALSO DOING IN RESPONSE TO
WHAT THE AUDITOR HAS.
HIGHLIGHTED. SO WE UM. WE REVIEW
THE ACCOUNTS THAT THE UTILITIES
PUT BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN
APPLICATIONS, PRIMARILY GENERAL
RAPE CASES. THERE ARE OTHER
PROCEEDINGS, TOO. AND THOSE
ACCOUNTS ARE WHAT THE UTILITIES
REQUESTING IS COST RECOVERY. UM,
THAT FOR COSTS THAT ARE BOOKED
TO THOSE ACCOUNTS ON FORWARD
LOOKING BASIS. THOSE ARE COSTS
THAT ARE NOT BEEN APPROVED FOR
RECOVERY. YET THAT'S WHERE WE
SPEND AS A PUBLIC ADVOCATE'S
OFFICE. THAT'S WHERE WE SPEND
OUR TIME IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT
WHETHER WHAT THE UTILITY IS
ASKING FOR IS A REASONABLE AND
COST EFFECTIVE. THE AND MOST OF
THOSE REQUESTS ARE IN THE FORM
OF MEMO ACCOUNTS AS WELL. THAT'S
WHERE WHAT WE LOOK AT IS WHAT
THE UTILITY IS ASKING FOR. ON A
FORWARD LOOKING BASIS. WHAT'S
NOT IN RATES ALREADY? AND WHAT
THE STATE AUDITOR WAS SAYING WAS
THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT
ACCOUNTS THAT WERE THE UTILITIES
HAVE ALREADY BEEN AUTHORIZED TO
RECOVER THOSE COSTS. GIVEN OUR
RESOURCES, WE WANNA FOCUS ON THE
COST THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
AUTHORIZED YET TO MAKE SURE
THEY'RE REASONABLE. YEAH. WANT
TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT SO OFFSHORE
WIND IS GOING TO BE THE WAVE OF
THE FUTURE. AND WE'RE GOING TO
FIX EVERYTHING. WE'RE GOING TO
GET 25 GIGAWATTS. SUPPOSEDLY
FROM OFFSHORE WIND. AND THAT'S
FUTURE. SO THAT'S GONNA BE
FUNDED BY THE FLAT RATE, RIGHT?
THE BOND. THAT WAS PROPOSED. SO
TALK. TALK ABOUT THAT. TALK
ABOUT. WELL I. I WOULD JUST SAY
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHAT A
DEVELOPER WILL COME IN? AND
THEY'LL SAY, AND THEY'LL WOW.
THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS IS THE
, UH INTEGRATE. WE HAVE AN
INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN. SO WE
LOOK AHEAD. THIS COMMISSION
LOOKS AHEAD. THE ENERGY DIVISION
STAFF LOOKS AHEAD. THEY SAY
WE'RE GONNA NEED THIS MUCH POWER
. HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET IT?
WHAT'S THE CHEAPEST WAY TO GET
IT? UM AND IF THAT, UH IRP SPITS
OUT OFFSHORE WIND AS THE YOU
KNOW, AS PART OF THE LOWEST COST
PORTFOLIO. THE ACTUAL COST OF
THE WIND MIGHT BE HIGHER, BUT IT
HAS TO HAVE A YOU KNOW THE
PORTFOLIO THAT IT'S INCLUDED HAS
TO BE LESS THAN UM, THAN THE
COMMISSION WOULD FIGURE OUT A
WAY TO PROCURE THAT, UH, MY
EXPECTATION WOULD BE WHAT THEY
WOULD DO WOULD BE, UM, GO OUT
FOR BIDS FOR A, UH, YOU KNOW,
LIKE THEY WOULD FOR WIND AND
SOLAR FARM, WHICH ASKING FOR A
FIXED PRICE CONTRACT OR WITH,
UH, KNOWN YOU KNOW, WITH
ESCALATORS, BUT IT WOULD BE A
POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND
THAT YOU KNOW THAT'S THAT'S HOW
THE SYSTEM THAT'S HOW THE
PROCESS NOT NOT. MCGUIRE DID A
BILL LAST YEAR THAT ALLOWS THEM
TO BOND OUT AND WE'RE MOVING
DOWN THAT TRACK. WE ALREADY WE
ALREADY SAID THAT THE TRADES AND
EVERYBODY WAS IN HERE, PRAISING
THE BILL. THAT SAID, HEY, WE'RE
GOING TO GO WELL, THIS IS THE
WAY WE'RE GOING. IT ISN'T IT
ISN'T A BID PROCESS. WE ARE
GOING TO BUILD OFFSHORE WIND AND
THE RATEPAYERS ARE GOING TO BOND
IT OUT. THAT WAS THE I THINK IT
WAS 39 S¼ B THREE 98. I DON'T
QUOTE ME ON THE NUMBER. BUT
THERE WAS A MCGUIRE BILL. I
RAISED HELL ABOUT IT ON THE
FLOOR AND EVERYBODY'S LIKE, OH,
THIS IS IT WAS COOKED. AND WE'RE
GONNA WE'RE GONNA PAY FOR THAT.
III I? WELL I, I SHOULD GET BACK
TO YOU ON THAT, BUT I BUT I DO
LIKE TO KNOW BECAUSE I THINK
THERE'S LEGISLATION ALREADY
PASSED. THAT SAID THIS IS THE
RIGHT. THIS IS WHERE WE'RE
GOING. WE'RE GONNA GET 25
GIGAWATTS, WHICH IS 25,000
MEGAWATTS OF WIND. AND WE'RE
GOING TO LAND IT IN HUMBOLDT AND
IN SAN DIEGO, AND WE'RE GONNA
FIGURE OUT HOW IT GETS TO THE
REST OF CALIFORNIA. II. I THINK
IT'S A TARGET BILL AND I AND MY
RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT STILL
HAS TO PASS. UH YOU KNOW, IT
STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PE
HÌ èC IRP PROCESS AND GO
THROUGH A COST PROCESS AT THE
èC èC, BUT I COULD BE WRONG SO
ALL RIGHT. I THINK I DON'T KNOW
IF ANYONE ELSE HAS NÓ. ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE
ADVOCATE. I APPRECIATE YOU, MR
BAKER AND YOUR TEAM FOR BEING
HERE AND YOUR TESTIMONY THIS
MORNING. IT'S BEEN VERY USEFUL
AND HELPFUL TO US MOVING FORWARD
AS A COMMITTEE AND AS A
LEGISLATIVE BODY. SO, UM IF NÓ
OTHER QUESTIONS, I WILL NOW OPEN
IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'RE
GOING TO ALLOW INDIVIDUALS ONE
MINUTE TO MAKE A STATEMENT OR
ASK A QUESTION. FOR THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. HELLO UH,
MY NAME IS DOCTOR J. NELSON I'M
WITH CALIFORNIANS FOR GREEN
NUCLEAR POWER. THE GUY WITH THE
GREEN HEADBAND. UM AND I'M HERE
TODAY. PROTESTING THE èC P èC
S¼, UH, CUTTING OUR JANUARY 30TH
2020 THREE INTERVENOR
COMPENSATION REQUEST TO ZERO AND
I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH UH UH,
FOR SOME TIME WITH ALICE
STEBBINS UH, THE FORMER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE èC P
èC. SHE TOLD ME VIA EMAIL LAST
NIGHT THAT FRANCISCO JURY SAID
THAT SHE WAS A WHISTLEBLOWER.
ALICE AND HER TEAM WERE CLEANING
UP THE PAYMENT PROCESS FOR
INTERVENOR COMPENSATION. SHE
RECOGNIZED THAT IS OWED A LOT OF
MONEY FOR THE ADVOCACY WORK
THEY'VE BEEN DOING. THIS IS
ANOTHER FISCAL AREA, THE S¼ E
NEEDS TO REVIEW MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS ARE OWED TO INTERVENORS,
WHO SUPPORT GOOD GOVERNMENT LIKE
AND THEN I SENT YOU FOLKS A
LETTER, UH, ON MONDAY. AND I
CONCLUDED THE LETTER WITH, UH
WELL, èC GMP IS NOT PRIVY TO
THE èC PU èC DELIBERATIONS. WE
CAN'T AVOID WONDERING IF THESE
GARGANTUAN, UH SUMS FROM PACIFIC
CORPORAL LOBBYING, UH, MAY HAVE
INFLUENCED ALL THE INTERVENOR
COMPENSATIONS IN THE FIRST
PARAGRAPH, SO I SINCERELY HOPE
THAT YOU CAN GET TO THE BOTTOM
OF THIS AND CORRECT THIS
INJUSTICE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
NEXT WITNESS. THANK YOU. MARK
TONY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TURN
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK. WE
HAVE A BROKEN SYSTEM WHERE THE
SKY IS THE LIMIT TO HOW MUCH OR
HOW MANY TIMES A YEAR UTILITIES
CAN COME IN FOR A RATE INCREASE
AND HOW MUCH THE èC PU èC CAN
AUTHORIZE FOR RATE INCREASES.
WHAT WE NEED IS A RATEPAYER
RELIEF ACT TO REDUCE BILLS,
ENFORCE FISCAL DISCIPLINE AND
LIMIT INCREASES. WE NEED TO
INCENTIVIZE GREATER UTILITY
SPENDING DISCIPLINE TO DRIVE
DOWN MONTHLY. STRENGTHEN
EXISTING TOOLS AT THE PU èC TO
MAXIMIZE COST EFFECTIVE SPENDING
PLANS AND LIMIT BILL INCREASES
TO THE ANNUAL SOCIAL SECURITY
COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. UM AND, UH, MR
VICE CHAIR, VALERIE TERRELL OF
LAHO WITH PACIFIC ACID ELECTRIC
COMPANY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
BRINGING THIS ROBUST DISCUSSION
FORWARD TODAY. PGE TAKES OUR
COMMITMENT TO RELIABILITY AND
SAFETY VERY SERIOUSLY IN THE
SERVICE THAT WE'RE PRIVILEGED TO
PROVIDE IN, UM THE LEAST COST AS
POSSIBLE. UM BUT TO DELIVER ON
THIS RESPONSIBILITY. WE HAVE
BEEN LOOKING IN THE COUCH
CUSHIONS AND MORE THAN THE COUCH
CUSHIONS WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT
HOW TO DO PROCESSES. UM MORE
EFFICIENTLY. WE'VE BEEN LOOKING
AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR
GRANTS AND LOANS, AS WAS
DISCUSSED TODAY. UM, WE HAVE
BROUGHT BILLS FORWARD.
UNFORTUNATELY NOT IN YOUR HOUSE
TO TWO YEARS IN A ROW TO FOR PP
COSTS, UM, TO BE, UM, SHIFT OFF
OFF OF OUR, UH, CUSTOMER BILLS.
TO SECURE TIES. THE UH THE COST
THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING TODAY ON
WILD WILDFIRE MITIGATION, SO WE
LOOK FORWARD TO, UM, HAVING THIS
OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS
AFFORDABILITY DISCUSSION THIS
YEAR TO FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THE
IMMEDIATE PAIN. UM AND SOME
LONGER TERM SOLUTIONS. THANK YOU
AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE
DISCUSSION. HØI I'M ROB HAWLEY
FROM SAN JOSE. I OPPOSE THE A B
205 UTILITY TAX. THE CLEAN
COALITION HAS PROVED THAT THE
TAX FAILS IN ALL OF ITS GOALS.
THE WORKING POOR WILL SUBSIDIZE
THE LARGEST USERS OF
ELECTRICITY. UH, IT WILL
PENALIZE CONSERVATION, WHICH
WILL MAKE THE SYSTEM EVEN MORE
EXPENSIVE. OVER 200 GROUPS HAVE
JOINED TOGETHER TO OPPOSE THIS
POORLY CONSIDERED IDEA WHEN
HOWARD JARVIS AND THE GREENPEACE
AGREE ON SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO
TAKE NOTE. A B 1999 IS HAPPENING
BECAUSE THE PUBLIC WANTS THIS
INSANE IDEA KILLED AND WANTS TO
RESTORE THE CAPS THAT THE
CURRENT LAW THAT THE OLD LAW
BEFORE A B 205 HAD IN PLACE AND
BY THE WAY IN ANOTHER TOPIC, UH,
IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO EXPLAIN
HOW HOW ANY EM TWO REALLY WORKS
BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF
STATEMENTS THAT I'VE HEARD THIS
MORNING THAT JUST TOTALLY
INACCURATE. I'M HAPPY TO STICK
AROUND AFTERWARDS AND GIVE YOU
THAT EXPLANATION. GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS ESPERANZA VILMA. AND
UM, I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE
COALITION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
EQUITY AND ECONOMICS. èC E WERE
A STATEWIDE COALITION OF OVER
220 GRASSROOTS ADVOCATES FROM
VARIOUS SECTORS. WE STRONGLY
URGE THE REPEAL OF THE UTILITY
TAX. WE DON'T NEED TO ADD ANY
MORE PIECES TO THE UTILITY COST
PIE. IT WAS A RUSHED
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIXED
CHARGE POLICY BY THE èC P èC
WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND
THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. THIS TAX
IS REGRESSIVE, AND IT'LL BURDEN
MILLIONS OF RESIDENTS,
PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT ARE IN
APARTMENTS AND SMALL HOMES. IT
DISCOURAGES ENERGY CONSERVATION
EFFORTS AND UNDERMINES
CALIFORNIA'S CLEAN ENERGY GOALS.
THE WORKING POOR WILL BE HIT THE
HARDEST BY THIS TAX, FURTHER
EXASPERATING INEQUALITIES. THIS
IS AN EQUITY. OUR ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE WORKING CLASS ARE NOT AT
THE TABLE, BUT THEY'RE STILL
HAVING TO PAY THE WHOLE PIE. AND
SO WE IMPLORE YOU TO PRIORITIZE
THE EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION OF
ALL CALIFORNIANS AND RECONSIDER
THIS DETRIMENTAL POLICY. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. GOOD
MORNING, PATRICIA BARRETT. UM,
AS A CONSTITUENT FROM STOCKTON,
REPRESENTING MILLIONS OF
CALIFORNIANS ON LIMITED INCOMES.
I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE
IMPACT OF PROPOSED UTILITY TAX
INCREASES ON FAMILIES LIKE FINE
I HAVE SOLAR PANELS AND A
MONTHLY BILL OF LESS THAN $26.
THAT'S GAS AND ELECTRIC. BUT I
UNDERSTAND THE STRUGGLES FACED
BY RANCHERS AND THOSE IN SMALLER
HOMES. OUR RECENT SAN FRANCISCO
CHRONICLE OPINION HIGHLIGHTED
BURDEN ON WORKING FAMILIES WITH
POTENTIAL INCREASES UP TO $30
PER MONTH FOR THOSE ALREADY
STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET.
THIS IS NOT EQUITY. THIS PLACE
IS A HEAVY FINANCIAL BURDEN ON
WORKING PEOPLE ON WORKING POOR,
YOU TRULY UNDERSTAND THE
REALITIES OF POVERTY AND
ASPIRATIONS. I KNOW YOU DO. I
HEARD IT THIS MORNING. AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR COMPASSION. THE
WORKING CLASS SHOULD NOT BEAR
THE COST OF ELECTRIFYING HOMES
OR MODERNIZING THE GRID,
ESPECIALLY WHEN UTILITY
COMPANIES CONTINUE TO PROFIT.
NONE OF THESE PROPOSALS ADDRESS
THE ISSUES OF LOWERING THEIR
GUARANTEED PROFIT MARGIN. I URGE
YOU TO PRIORITIZE THE NEEDS OF
CONSTITUENTS LIKE MYSELF AND
REJECT PROPOSALS THAT FURTHER
BURDEN WORKING FAMILIES. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. I DO
WANNA ADD A LIVED EXPERIENCE. I
DO MAKE LESS THAN 1000 880 ON
SOCIAL SECURITY. I DO HAVE A
HOUSE PAYMENT. I DID GET MY, UM
SOLAR IN, UH, PUT ON TO A
PROGRAM OFFERED TO LOW INCOME
FAMILIES. I LIVE IN SOUTHERN
STOCKTON, WHICH IS ONE OF THE
POOREST COUNTIES PARTS OF THE
COUNTIES. UM MY BILLS, GAS AND
ELECTRIC ARE UNDER $26. OK
USUALLY MY BILL. MY ELECTRIC IS
LIKE FIVE OR $8. I'M TRYING TO
BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION. NOT A
PART OF THE PROBLEM. I DON'T GET
A TAX WRITE OFF BECAUSE I DID GO
THROUGH THAT PROGRAM FOR LOW
INCOME PEOPLE. SOMETHING LIKE
THIS HAS REALLY GOT TO BE LOOKED
AT. AND I IN SERIOUSLY, I CAN'T
AFFORD ANOTHER $30. I TRIED TO
GET AWAY FROM THE $30. I NEED TO
GO WATERLESS AND ELECTRIC ON MY
GAS TANK. I NEED TO GO, UM,
ELECTRIC ON MY STOVE. HOW CAN I
DO THAT? IF THEY'RE GONNA KEEP
TAXING ME BECAUSE WHEN I GO DOWN
ON GAS, I'LL GO UP ON
ELECTRICITY, BUT THEN I STILL
GOTTA PAY THIS EXTRA. IT'S NOT
FAIR TO THE CONSUMERS. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS BETH OLAS ON BEHALF OF
THE AGRICULTURAL ENERGY
CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION WANTED TO
BRING IN A LITTLE BIT OF AN IDE
AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
RESIDENTIAL RATES A LOT. UM, YOU
KNOW, ON IN THE PG AND E RATE
CLASS FOR THE AG COMMUNITY.
WE'RE LOOKING AT A 36% RATE
INCREASE, UM, STARTING AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, AND
THERE'S ANOTHER HALF BILLION
DOLLARS PENDING AT THE PU èC SO
FOR THE AG COMMUNITY WHERE
PRICES ARE FIXED IN MOST CASES,
IT'S A REALLY IT'S A IT'S A HARD
HARD TIME FOR US, UM CLIMATE
SMART AG HAS TO START WITH
RENEWABLE ENERGY ON FARMS AND
THE PUC JUST ELIMINATED AG'S
ABILITY TO PUT SOLAR ON THEIR
FARMS WITH THE ELIMINATION OF
THE NET ENERGY METERING
AGGREGATION PROGRAM, UM, AS PART
OF THE LARGER NEM PROGRAM WE
WERE TALKING ABOUT, BUT NOW
FARMS CAN'T AGGREGATE THEIR
LOADS BEHIND A SINGLE METER ON
THE FARMS AND I. I DON'T KNOW
HOW WE CAN DO THAT. WE CAN HAVE
SOLAR ON FARMS IF WE CAN'T
AGGREGATE UM THERE'S NÓ EVIDENCE
THAT AG WAS PART OF THE COST
SHIFT. WE'VE NEVER GOTTEN THE
FULL RETAIL RATE THAT
RESIDENTIAL DID SO VERY
DIFFERENT. WE'RE WE'RE NOT PART
OF THAT CO COST SHIFT
CONVERSATION. SO UM, WE REALLY,
YOU KNOW, WANNA URGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO CONTINUE LOOKING
AT THAT AND FIND A WAY FOR, UM
AG TO BE ABLE TO GENERATE ON
THEIR FARM. IF WE CAN'T CREATE
OUR OWN ENERGY, WE ARE JUST
SUBJECT TO THE PRICES THAT WE'RE
GETTING FROM THE UTILITIES. WE
HAVE NÓ WAY TO TAKE OUR ENERGY
FUTURE. OWN HANDS. SO, UM,
REALLY HOPE WE CAN CONSIDER IT.
THANK YOU. GREAT THANK YOU.
CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS ALEXIS. I'M HERE
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE.
WE REPRESENT LOW INCOME AND
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ACROSS
CALIFORNIA THAT ARE SUFFERING
THE CUMULATIVE AND WORST IMPACTS
OF POLLUTION, CLIMATE DISASTERS
AND ECONOMIC INSECURITY AS RATES
INCREASE FOR EVERYONE WE KNOW
THAT THESE ARE THE COMMUNITIES
THAT ARE ESPECIALLY IMPACTED AND
WE URGE CALIFORNIA TO WORK ON
SOLUTIONS TO PROTECT THESE
COMMUNITIES AND ALSO PAVE THE
WAY FOR LONG TERM ENERGY
AFFORDABILITY. WE BELIEVE THIS
WILL TAKE A COMBINATION.
PROGRESSIVE RATE REFORM, SO WE
ARE SUPPORTIVE OF, UM, EQUITABLE
INCOME GRADUATED FIXED CHARGES
DESIGNED CORRECTLY, UM GREATER
UTILITY ACCOUNTABILITY, ALSO
REJECTING UNNECESSARY OR HARMFUL
ENERGY INVESTMENTS AND REALLY
MAXIMIZE MAXIMIZING THE
POTENTIAL FOR CLEAN AND
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES
THAT CAN COST EFFECTIVELY
SUPPORT OUR CLEAN ENERGY GOALS
WHILE ALSO PRESERVING STATE LAND
AND, UH, PROVIDING NUMEROUS
COMMUNITY BENEFITS, SO
DEFINITELY WANT TO SEE A
COMMUNITY SOLAR DON'T OPEN UP
FOR RENTERS WHO HAVE NOT HAD
ACCESS TO ROOFTOP SOLAR. THUS
FAR LOW INCOME CALIFORNIANS
CAN'T AFFORD TO WAIT ANY LONGER
AND WE ARE EXCITED TO WORK WITH
CALIFORNIA LAWMAKERS AND
REGULATORS TO ACT NOW ON THESE
SOLUTIONS. THANK YOU. HELLO.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING US SPEAK
HERE TODAY. MY NAME IS SUSANNA
PORT. I AM A MUSIC TEACHER AND
AN EXTREME CONSERVATIVE ENERGY.
I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THE IGF èC.
UM IT'S A CONS SUPPOSEDLY MODEST
CHARGE OF EVEN $25 A MONTH IS
ALMOST THREE TIMES THE NATIONAL
AVERAGE AND WILL INCREASE BILLS
ON PEOPLE WHO DON'T QUALIFY FOR
CARE, OR FARAH, WHO LIVE IN
APARTMENTS, CONDOS AND SMALL
HOMES AND WHO CAN SERVE THAT'S
MILLIONS OF LOW AND MIDDLE
INCOME PEOPLE, INCLUDING SINGLE
MOMS, FAMILIES MAKING JUST 26 Kò
A YEAR TRANSIT DRIVERS, TEACHERS
, NURSES, COPS, ET CETERA. I
ALSO OPPOSE A SOLAR TAX OF ANY
FORM TO ADDRESS A MISCONCEPTION.
HERE THERE IS NÓ COST SHIFT.
EVERY ROOFTOP SOLAR SYSTEM
REDUCES THE COST OF THE
ELECTRICAL GRID FOR EVERYONE BY
REDUCING THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF
LONG DISTANCE POWER LINES BY
CREATING INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE
LOCAL DISTRIBUTION LEVEL AND BY
REDUCING THE NEEDED CAPACITY OF
UTILITY SCALE GENERATIONAL
FACILITIES BUILT OVER WILD LANDS
AND SOLAR USERS. PAY A FIXED
CHARGE OF $12 A MONTH. MULTIPLY
THAT BY 2 MILLION PEOPLE. THAT'S
$24 MILLION A MONTH THAT THEY
ARE PAYING. SO THE UTILITIES
WON'T PROFIT LINE ABOUT THE IGF
èC IS JUST NOT TRUE. A UTILITY
TAX THAT PUNISHES LOW ENERGY
USERS AND REWARDS LARGE ONES
WILL RESULT IN MORE ELECTRICITY
USE WHILE GIVING THE UTILITIES A
STEADY STREAM OF INCOME WITH
UNLIMITED POTENTIAL TO GROW. SO
PLEASE NÓ IGF èC NÓ SOLAR TEXT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I'M CHARLENE. WOODCOCK I, UH.
WANT TO SAY THAT AS A MAIN
DRIVER OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS,
THE REDUCTION OF GAS SHOULD BE
OUR HIGHEST GOAL. AND IT WILL
REDUCE RATES AS WELL AS REDUCE
HOME FIRES. UM. I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THE UTILITY TAX. IT
REMOVES THE INCENTIVE TO
CONSERVE AND CALIFORNIANS ARE
ALREADY PAYING A HIGH COST FOR
UTILITIES. I STRONGLY OPPOSE A
SOLAR TAX. INSTEAD THE STATE
SHOULD WORK TO INCENTIVIZE MORE
PEOPLE TO INSTALL ROOFTOP SOLAR
PANELS AND USE LESS ELECTRICITY.
A FIXED RATE CHARGE FOR ENERGY
WOULD REQUIRE A WHOLE NEW
BUREAUCRACY TO ATTEMPT TO VERIFY
EVERYONE'S ACTUAL INCOME AND
INCOMES CHANGE FROM YEAR TO
YEAR. THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF A NEW INCOME
BASED UTILITY TAX OR SIGNIFICANT
PG AND E IN ITS EFFORTS TO
MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER ITS
CUSTOMERS SEEMS DETERMINED TO
DISCOURAGE ROOFTOP SOLAR THE
MOST EFFICIENT, AFFORDABLE,
QUICKLY ACHIEVED WAY TO REDUCE
OUR CARBON CARBON FOOTPRINT IN
CALIFORNIA. INDUSTRIAL SCALE
SOLAR TAKES LONGER TO BUILD IS
VASTLY MORE COSTLY. USUALLY
INVOLVES THE LITIGATION BEFORE
PROJECTS CAN PROCEED IS DAMAGING
TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND REQUIRES
NEW TRANSMISSION LINES, WHICH
ROOFTOP SOLAR DOES NOT REQUIRE.
THE INVESTOR OWNED MONOPOLY,
SUCH AS PG AND E THAT PLAY A
LARGE AND OFTEN COSTLY ROLE IN
THE DAILY LIVES OF CALIFORNIANS
EXIST TO MAKE PROFITS FOR THEIR
STOCKHOLDERS. THIS FACT IS
INCREASINGLY AT ODDS WITH THE
NEEDS OF CALIFORNIANS FOR CLEAN,
SAFE, AFFORDABLE,
ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE
ENERGY SOURCES. DON'T LET PG AND
E KEEP US AND ENSLAVED TO GAS.
AND NET METERING IS NOT A SOLAR
SUBSIDY. IT WAS OUTRAGEOUS TO
HEAR IT BEING TREATED AS THAT.
AND THE GRAPH THAT I'VE SEEN IN
A PAPER THAT WAS PRESENTED TO
YOU SHOWS IT AS A SOLAR SUBSIDY.
IT IS PAYMENT FOR ENERGY
PRODUCED AND RETURNED TO THE
GRID, AND IT HAS ALLOWED THE
ENERGY SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA NOT
TO NEED TO BUILD ANOTHER GAS
PLANT. THAT'S OF THE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE PRODUCING ENERGY
ON THEIR ROOFS, AND THAT SHOULD
BE ENCOURAGED FOR EVERYONE WHO
CAN POSSIBLY DO IT. IT'S THE
CHEAPEST WAY TO GET US CLEANER.
THANK YOU. GOOD DAY, MR CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. UH, MY
NAME IS HUNTER STERN. I'M WITH
IBW LOCAL 1. 1245 1245 IS A
MEMBER OF THE COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA UTILITY WORKERS. SO
THREE THINGS FIRST AND FOREMOST
OUR MEMBERS IN ADDITION TO
WORKING FOR THE IOU, UTILITIES,
PG AND E AND LIBERTY, THEY ALSO
WORK FOR 28 DIFFERENT MUNICIPAL
UTILITIES OF THE LARGEST
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES. OUR MEMBERS
WORK FOR SMD BEING THE LARGEST.
THEY HAVE FIXED CHARGES IN THEIR
RATE. IN THEIR BILLS AND THEIR
RATE STRUCTURE, AND THEY HAVE
HAD FOR MANY YEARS. 15 YEARS FOR
SURE. UM THIS IS BECAUSE THE
CHANGE IN THE RATES OR THE
CHANGE IN THE COST HAVE MOVED
THE STRUCTURE SO THAT A
VOLUMETRIC RATE NÓ LONGER FITS
THE BILL. SO THE IBM AND 1245
AND Q AND SPECI OVERALL SUPPORTS
THE FIXED CHARGE SPECIFICALLY,
AND WE FILED SUCH COMMENTS IN
THE PROCEEDING AT THE PUC,
SPECIFICALLY, A WELL CRAFTED
FIXED CHARGE WILL NOT INCREASE
OVERALL RATES. A WELL CRAFTED
FIXED CHARGE WILL REDUCE THE
ELECTRICITY BILLS FOR LOW INCOME
CUSTOMERS. A WELL CRAFTED FIXED
CHARGE WILL REDUCE THAT
VOLUMETRIC AMOUNT. THAT ALL
CUSTOMERS PAY FOR EACH KILOWATT
OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMED, AND
THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST
IMPORTANT PART OF THIS CHANGE
AND A WELL-CRAFTED FIXED CHARGE
WILL IN ENCOURAGE
ELECTRIFICATION AND CONSERVATION
BECAUSE YOU WILL BE PAYING FOR
WHAT YOU USE MORE CONSISTENTLY
AND MORE ACCURATELY, AND THAT
WILL APPLY TO EACH CUSTOMER. NOT
GROUPS OF CUSTOMERS, SO WE
ENCOURAGE THAT STRUCTURE. THANK
YOU. I'M ME IN SOME WAY. A
RETIRED PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE WHO
LIVES IN SACRAMENTO AND I HAVE
ROOFTOP SOLAR AND I AM VERY
MIDDLE INCOME AS MOST PEOPLE WHO
HAVE ROOFTOP SOLAR ARE UM, IT'S
A MYTH THAT IT'S ALL RICH
PEOPLE. YEAH, AND WE NEED TO
KEEP THAT IN MIND. UM ONE OF THE
OTHER THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO
KEEP. KEEP IN MIND IS THE COUGH
SHIFT WAS INVENTED. BY A RIGHT
WING THINK TANK. ROOFTOP SOLAR
IS A WAY TO CONSERVE. UM, ENERGY
AND. IT IS THE SAME AS IF YOU
PUT YOUR CLOTHES ON THE LINE TO
DRY THEM IN THE SUN RATHER THAN
USE YOUR DRYER, SO YOU'RE BEING
MORE EFFICIENT AND NOT USING A
LOT OF ELECTRICITY. IT'S THE
SAME IF YOU HAVE ROOFTOP SOLAR,
AND YOU'RE NOT USING A LOT OF
ELECTRICITY, SO THERE'S MORE
ELECTRICITY FOR THE REST OF THE
PEOPLE WHO CAN'T HAVE ROOFTOP
SOLAR, FOR WHATEVER REASON,
WHETHER THEY'RE IN AN APARTMENT
BUILDING OR THEIR, UM, TREES ARE
ALL COMING COVERING THEIR ENTIRE
ROOF AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS
ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I THINK
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT
WOULD BE A SOLUTION IS TO GO TO
THE CAP AND TRADE PEOPLE. I WAS
LISTENING TO THEM THIS MORNING,
AND ONE OF THEIR SUGGESTIONS WAS
THAT MAYBE THEY COULD USE SOME
OF THE INCOME THEY'RE GENERATING
TO. HAVE A SUBSIDY TO REBATE. TO
ELECTRICITY USERS SO THAT IT CAN
BRING THEIR ELECTRICITY BILLS
DOWN AND THAT I THOUGHT WAS
MAYBE A REALLY GOOD IDEA THAT
SOMEBODY SHOULD LOOK AT, UM YOU
KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER
SOLUTIONS TO THIS THAN TO HAVE A
FIXED RATE APPLIED. I LIVE IN
AREA. I HAVE ONE OF THE SIX THE
HIGHEST FIXED RATES IN THE
NATION. AND IT IS INCREASED MY
BILL IN THE LAST 10 YEARS. UM E,
EVEN THOUGH I BE I'M AN EARLY
ADOPTER OF ELECTRIFICATION. MY
BILL IS INCREASED TREMENDOUSLY,
AND I'M PAYING LIKE $200 A MONTH
SOMETIMES. WHICH IS A I GO. WHAT
YOU KNOW, I'M BUT I'VE I'VE DONE
ALL THOSE THINGS THAT EVERYBODY
TELLS YOU. YOU SHOULD DO BECAUSE
I BELIEVE IN IT. I THINK THAT WE
NEED TO BE ALL ELECTRIFIED, BUT
IT'S GONNA BE HARD FOR PEOPLE TO
SWALLOW. IF THEY THEIR BILLS GO
UP, SO YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING
TO MITIGATE THAT. THANKS. MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS ALWAYS NICE TO
BE IN FRONT OF YOU. I'M JOHN
WHITE WITH THE CENTER FOR ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE
TECHNOLOGY. THANK YOU FOR THIS
EXCELLENT HEARING TODAY. I JUST
WANNA, UH, TOUCH ON SOMETHING
THAT DIDN'T GET A LOT OF
ATTENTION. BUT WE THINK IS
REALLY IMPORTANT AND THAT IS THE
URGENT NEED TO BUILD OUT
TRANSMISSION. TO CONNECT ALL THE
CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCES THAT WILL
LOWER OUR BILLS AND LOWER OUR
DEPENDENCE ON GAS, THE TIME IT
TAKES TO GET PROJECTS APPROVED
AT THE PUC IS SIMPLY NOT
ACCEPTABLE. PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE
THEIR PREROGATIVES AND THEIR
AUTHORITY AND THEIR DISCRETION
PRESERVED. BUT THESE PROJECTS
ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE FUTURE
OF BOTH RELIABILITY AND
AFFORDABILITY. AND WE URGE, UH,
THE LEGISLATURE TO KEEP WORKING
ON THIS. LAST YEAR, WE WORKED
WITH SENATOR PADILLA ON S¼ B
619, WHICH WAS ALMOST
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE
LEGISLATURE BUT VETOED BY THE
GOVERNOR BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR
DOESN'T YET FULLY GET HOW URGENT
THIS PROBLEM IS. SO WE'D URGE
YOU TO KEEP WORKING ON IT AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
I'M BILL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL
WORKING GROUP. YOU'RE USED TO
SEEING ME HERE ON TOXIC ISSUES
FOR VARIOUS THINGS, BUT WE'VE
BEEN GETTING MORE AND MORE
INVOLVED WITH ENERGY AND REFORM
AT THE PUC AND THE CAL IS SO, UM
, WE URGE YOU TO BE VERY CAREFUL
ON THE FIXED CHARGE THING THERE
COULD BE VERY LIKELY UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES TO GROUPS INCLUDING
MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE OR MIDDLE
INCOME PEOPLE. APARTMENT
DWELLERS, UH, BECAUSE OF WELL,
WE, UH WE URGE YOU TO READ THE
FLAGSTAFF RESEARCH REPORT, WHICH
WAS HANDED OUT TO YOU AND GIVEN
TO PU èC LAST YEAR, AND THAT
GOES INTO DETAIL ON THIS WHICH
YOU DON'T SEE REFLECTED IN THE P
èC ANALYSIS SO FAR, OR THE
PUBLIC ADVOCATES, UM YOU COULD
DISCOURAGE CONSERVATION AND HURT
OUR CLIMATE GOALS BY THIS LARGE
FIXED CHARGE. IF I'M PAYING $900
A YEAR, NÓ MATTER WHAT? WHY
SHOULD I HANG OUT MY CLOTHES TO
DRY AND GO? OH, WELL, I'LL JUST
PAY THE 900 TURN ON THE DRYER.
UM LOOKED AT THE BIEBER CASE
THAT SENATOR DOLLY TALKED ABOUT
JUST NOW ON CAL MATTERS, AND SO
A SMALL STORE IS EXPECTING TO
PAY ABOUT $40,000 IN UTILITY
ELECTRICITY BILLS THE NEXT YEAR.
IT JUST ISN'T IT'S NOT
SUSTAINABLE. AND SO THERE'S ONE
BEGGING FOR ROOFTOP SOLAR WITH
WITH A ROBUST BATTERY THING, SO
THEY GO OFF. THE ENERGY GOES OFF
. THEY'VE GOT THE BATTERIES.
MEANWHILE THEY'RE PRODUCING
THEIR OWN ENERGY. BUT I DON'T
THINK PG AND E IS INTERESTED IN
THAT THAT SET UP THEY WANNA SELL
US ELECTRONS. THEY DON'T WANT US
TO MAKE THE TRANS AND PUT THEM
BACK INTO THE SYSTEM, AND THEY
ALSO ARE VERY INTERESTED IN
LARGE TRANSMISSION LINES BECAUSE
THEY GET A GUARANTEED PROFIT
THERE DISTRIBUTED GENERATION IS
NOT PROFITABLE TO PG AND E, BUT
BUILDING A NEW TRANSMISSION LINE
. AND I URGE THE SENATOR
MENTIONED THERE COULD BE ONE
EVEN BUILT IN AN AGRICULTURAL
FIELD BEING UNDERGROUND AND IN
AGRICULTURAL FIELD WHEN THERE'S
OTHER WAYS AROUND THAT, SO WE
JUST THINK THERE'S A BUILT IN
CONFLICT THERE. BETWEEN WHAT PG
Dð AND THE OTHER I Ó U S¼ ARE
GETTING FOR TRANSMISSION. VERSUS
WHAT COULD BE DONE. ARNOLD
SCHWARZENEGGER SET THE MÐI
MILLION SOLAR ROOFS GO AND WE
EASILY MET IT. I'D LIKE TO SEE
US GO FOR 5 MILLION SOLAR ROOFS
AND GET IT ON EVERY CHURCH AND
SCHOOL AND SMALL BUILDING AND
WAREHOUSE AND HOME AND SEE WHERE
WE ARE IN 10 YEARS AND I THINK
WE'LL DO REALLY WELL AND I KNOW
SOME FIXED CHARGES NEEDED NÓ.
ONE SHOULD HAVE A FREE
CONNECTION TO THE GRID. BUT WE
URGE YOU TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ON
A LARGE FIXED CHARGE, WHICH
COULD HAVE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. I THANK
EVERYONE FOR THEIR TESTIMONY.
DOES ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
ANY CLOSING STATEMENTS? I JUST
WANTED TO SAY ONE THING. UM YOU
KNOW, SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO STEP
OUT AND GO TO ANOTHER MEETING,
BUT WE CAN HEAR YOUR COMMENTS ON
THE MONITOR IN OUR IN OUR
OFFICES. SO I, I WAS HEARING
YOUR COMMENTS AND THEN PICKED A
TIME TO COME BACK DOWN. SO I
JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW MY
COLLEAGUES AND I ARE ALWAYS
WE'RE WE ARE LISTENING. WE'RE
NOT STEPPING OUT WHEN YOU START
TALKING. UH, BUT SOMETIMES WE
HAVE THOSE CONFLICTS, SO I
APPRECIATE THAT. YOU UNDERSTAND
THAT, BUT KNOW THAT WE ARE
LOOSENING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
AND I WANT TO THANK ALL THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO PARTICIPATE IN
TODAY'S PUBLIC TESTIMONY. AND IF
YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO TESTIFY,
YOU MAY SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN
WRITING TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE
ON ENERGY, UTILITIES AND
COMMUNICATIONS OR VISIT OUR
WEBSITE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR
PARTICIPATION. I THINK IF THERE
IS AN OVERARCHING THEME THAT WE
HEARD TODAY, IT'S ABOUT CLEAN,
RELIABLE, SAFE ENERGY. BUT
PARAMOUNT IS AFFORDABLE AND
AFFORDABLE. ALWAYS HAS TO BE AT
THE TOP OF THAT CHART OF MAKING
SURE THAT RESIDENTS HERE AND
BUSINESSES HERE CAN AFFORD TO
TURN ON THE LIGHTS. UH MANY OF
THE REASONS WHY BUSINESSES ARE
LEAVING CALIFORNIA IS DUE TO
THE, UH, HIGH ESCALATING COST OF
UTILITIES HERE IN CALIFORNIA,
AND THEY NEED PREDICTABILITY AND
WE'RE MOVING THE MARKERS. WE
HAVE HEARD FROM SOME VALUABLE
TESTIMONY TODAY AND HELP WILL
GUIDE OUR CONSIDERATION ON
ISSUES AFFECTING ENERGY UTILITY
BILLS, AS WELL AS AREAS WHERE WE
CONTINUE TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE,
UH PU èC AND, UH ADVOCATES, UH,
OFFICE FOR ADVICE AND MOVING
FORWARD AGAIN. I AM COMMITTED TO
MAKING SURE THAT WE ENSURE THAT
WE ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS THAT HAS TO BE
PARAMOUNT. AND WE AT TEND TO
KEEP, UH THIS THE FOCUS OF OUR
CONVERSATION. AS WE MOVE FORWARD
THIS LEGISLATIVE YEAR HERE IN
THIS COMMITTEE, SO I WANT TO
THANK EVERYBODY FOR
PARTICIPATING AND WE STAND
ADJOURNED. HAVE A GOOD EVENING
AFTERNOON.