Announcer: Rev.com will begin momentarily,
thank you for your patience.
(upbeat music)
-: The court reporters confirm they are ready to begin.
Okay, we will now be on the record.
The Commission will come to order.
It is Tuesday, June 22nd, 2021
and this is the remote public participation hearing
for Southern California Edison's General Rate Case
Phase 2 application.
The application number is A20-10-012.
Please note that the audio and visual feed
of this public hearing is being recorded
and is accessible on the CPUC website.
If you do not wish to be recorded, please disconnect now.
My name is Patrick Doherty
and I am the assigned Administrative Law Judge
for this proceeding.
I am joined by the Assigned Commissioner Genevieve Shiroma.
Commissioner Shiroma, would you like to make
any opening remarks?
-: Yes, thank you, Judge.
Good evening, everyone.
My name is Genevieve Shiroma and the Assigned Commissioner
for this case.
I am pleased to join Judge Doherty
at this poll participation hearing today.
First, I would like to thank all of you
for attending and voicing your opinions.
Your comments made here will be an indispensable part
of the Commission's decision making process.
Your participation in this hearing
whether you are phoning in or watching it online,
is very much appreciated.
Next, I want to clarify on the scope of this case
and Judge Doherty we'll go into more detail
and the other presenters.
This case, which is about electric racing line
and is about setting the rates for different classes
or types of customers.
In order to allocate the cost feature
by the different customer groups.
The cost feature itself, the budget itself
also known as the revenue requirement.
It is approved in a separate proceeding,
known as the Southern California Edison General Rate Case.
Meanwhile, on the setting of rates for different classes
or types of customers, we welcome your input
on this very important topic.
Finally, I'd like to thank those who have worked so hard
to make this hearing possible.
I would like to thank our core responders Doris Foreman
and Engineer Ross, our interpreters Britney Cognis
and Laura Alcoa, Robert Stanford and Joel Hager
with the information technology.
And Claudia Sanchez, Morrison Herald, Allison Brown
and Christine Wallen and Eric Sawyer
in the public advisor's office.
I want to give a particularly big thank you to Jesse Levine
for your excellent organization at this hearing.
I look forward to hearing the presentations and the comments
this evening.
Thank you back to you, Judge.
-: Thank you Commissioner.
As mentioned by the Commissioner,
the purpose of today's hearing is for the Commission to hear
from Southern California Edison, utility customers
and members of the public.
About Southern California Edison's application
to set marginal costs and establish rate designs
for its customer classes.
If you have a customer specific question,
such as the question about your bill or service,
we have an SCE customer service representative present,
but encourage you to please contact SCE
at the following phone numbers for help.
The first number is (626) 815-7222
and the second number is (626) 302-0290.
I will begin by providing some background
on the California Public Utilities Commission
and the General Rate Case application.
And then turn it over to Ms. Alison Brown
from the Commission's public advisor's office.
We will then hear brief statements
from Southern California Edison
and the public advocate's office,
before we begin the public comments.
If you are participating today
and would like to provide public comments,
you may do so by calling 1-800-857-1917
entering passcode 1673482
and pressing star, one on your phone.
This will alert the operator
who will begin to cue public speakers.
Please provide your name if you wish to speak
and please refer to the slide on the screen
for the information I just read out.
Now I'd like to provide some background
on the California Public Utilities Commission.
The Public Utilities Commission is the state agency
that decides how much money Southern California Edison
may earn.
And the rates that will be included on your bills
for electricity service.
The Commission is comprised of five Commissioners
who are appointed by the Governor
and confirmed by the California State Senate.
As the judge in this proceeding,
I manage the day-to-day activities of the case.
The five Commissioners are the ones who will decide
with a vote on whether to approve
Southern California Edison's requests.
My role as the judge is to evaluate the evidence
in the proceeding and to write a proposed decision based
on that evidence.
This proposed decision will then be considered
by the five Commissioners, who will decide
whether to adopt the proposed decision
or to adopt their own alternate decision,
based on the evidence in the proceeding.
The current schedule for this proceeding indicates
that the Commission will vote on the decision
in the first quarter of 2022.
Now I will provide a summary
of Southern California Edison's application.
This past October, Southern California Edison submitted
its General Rate Case, Phase 2 application
seeking Commission approval of its proposal.
To adopt electric rates that more accurately reflect
what it costs to serve each customer class.
The proposed electric rates will be applicable
for the years, 2022 through 2026.
We are here today to receive comments from the public
on SCEs requests to change electric rates.
In its application SCE proposes rate increases
for some customer classes and rate decreases
for other customer classes.
There are no new costs being proposed
in this year's SCE Phase 2 application.
SCE has currently proposed to increase rates
by four tenths of a cent per kilowatt hour
for residential customers.
If the rate request is approved,
the average non-care monthly bill,
using 500 kilowatt hours per month
would increase by approximately $1 and 18 cents
or 1.1% a month.
Agricultural customer rates would decrease by half a cent,
a kilowatt hour or 3.2%.
Street lighting customer rates would increase by 6.90 cents
per kilowatt hour or a 33.8%.
I also want to start by acknowledging the pain,
grief and hardships that COVID-19 has imposed
throughout our state, communities and in our daily lives,
we are holding these hearings online and by phone.
I want to emphasize that public engagement
remains more important to the Commission than ever,
and that we will be paying careful attention
to the feedback provided today.
The basic purpose of today's hearing is to hear directly
from Southern California Edison customers
and members of the public about this particular application.
The Commissioners and I will pay close attention
to the opinions expressed during today's public hearing.
A court reporter will be transcribing everything
that is said today.
If you speak, I ask that you speak slowly and clearly
so that the reporter can capture everything that is said.
At the beginning of your comments,
please spell your first and last name
and provide your location.
The written transcript of today's hearing
will be posted publicly on a Commission webpage
for this proceeding.
In addition to submitting oral comments today,
written comments on SCE's, GRC Phase 2 application
may be submitted by going to the following website,
cpuc.ca.gov/A2010012Comments.
And that website address is on the slide
currently being displayed on your screen.
As of this morning, we have received 88
written public comments.
And I will now invite Ms. Alison Brown
of the Commission's public advisor's office
to provide guidance on participation in this proceeding.
Ms. Brown, please proceed.
-: Thank you, Judge.
Welcome everyone.
My name is Allison Brown and I'm the public advisor
for the CPUC.
The public advisor's office assist and advises the public
with participation in Commission proceeding.
We are here as a resource for you.
I wanna thank you for participating today.
As the judge and Commissioner stated public participation
and input are essential to the Commission's
decision making process.
This is your opportunity to be heard,
to share your thoughts on the application
with the Administrative Law Judge and the Commissioner.
If you have specific questions about the proceeding
or about your service,
please reach out to the public advisor's office.
That email address is public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov
or visit the CPUC or Addison website for more information.
If you or anyone you know,
is not able to make a comment today,
or you think of anything later you would like to add.
There are several other ways to become involved.
Those interested can provide written comments
on today's topic on the docket card.
Comments can also be submitted via email,
U.S postal service mail, or the phone.
If you wish to find more information on becoming a party,
subscribing to this proceeding or submitting comments
in any way, please go to our website,
cpuc.ca.gov or email the public advisor.
Again, that email address is public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov.
All of this information is on the notice you received
for this PPH and on the screen as well.
We look forward to your comments today.
Thank you again for joining us, Judge.
-: Thank you, Ms. Brown.
A reminder again, to please press star, one
on your phone now so that the operator can begin to form
the speaking queue.
We will now hear from some of the parties
in this proceeding, beginning with a representative
from Southern California Edison followed by
the public advocate's office, Mr. Robert Thomas,
director of pricing, design and research
on behalf of SCE, please proceed.
Robert: Thank you Judge Doherty and Commissioner Shiroma.
Thank you everyone for taking time out
of your busy schedules and participating
in today's public participation hearings.
My name is Rob Thomas and I'm the director
of the pricing design, load research and forecasting groups
in the regulatory affairs department
at Southern California Edison Company.
In this position I'm responsible for development
of SCE's rated designs.
It is a privilege to be here,
to learn from you and listen to your input and concerns
regarding our, regarding SCE's 2021 General Rate Case
Phase 2 proceeding.
Edison recognizes this proceeding is taking place
during unprecedented times.
We understand that our customers and the communities
we serve have faced extreme hardships
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Even as we see the state reopening
and the pandemic receding, we know how challenging
2020 and 2021 have been
and that our customers may need help with their bills.
The California Public Utilities Commission,
and SCE have put in place important customer protections
to help customers with difficulty paying their bills.
If you need more information on those customer protections,
please go to sce.com forward slash, bill help
or call (800) 367-8851 for information
on money saving programs and tools.
Additionally, Jerry Aguilar
from our customer service organization
is in attendance today to provide a contact,
to help resolve any customer service questions you may have.
Can we proceed to slide two, please?
Turning back to this Phase 2 General Rate Case.
This case is about rate, design and issues
such as how to allocate or in other words,
how to divide the total costs authorized
by the CPUC among SCE's customer classes,
based on their respective costs responsibility.
These customer classes include residential,
commercial industrial, streetlights and agricultural.
The proceeding also addresses how to design
the specific rates that are offered to customers.
What this case is not about, is the total cost
that SCE has authorized to recover from customers and rates.
That amount is determined in a separate proceeding.
In this proceeding SCE has proposed to change
how costs are divided among its customer classes,
and also propose certain changes to specific rates
offered to customers.
We are currently in the middle of what we refer to as
the discovery period, where parties to the proceeding
are learning more about our application
and cost recovery proposal.
Next in the proceeding, other interested parties,
including those that are, those that represent residential
and small commercial customer interests,
will submit their testimony to present their analysis
of SCE's application and recommend adjustments
to SCE's proposal.
We expect this interested party testimony
to be submitted soon.
We also anticipate that there will be evidentiary hearings
in November so that the Commission can continue to build
it's official record of our proposal.
The overarching theme of SCE's proposals is to continue
to carry on the revolutionary steps
taken in SCE's 2018 GRC Phase 2 proceeding.
Which included the introduction of new time of use periods
and pricing structures designed to encourage usage
during periods of generation oversupply
and discourage usage during distribution
and generation peak conditions.
There are currently rate options designed specifically
for distributed energy resource technologies,
such as solar, energy storage, electric vehicles,
and other advanced technologies.
SCE is proposing to maintain the current offering
of rate options for customers with a few and new offerings
to further encourage electrification.
And we can move on to slide three, please.
SCE's revenue allocation proposal results
in an average rate of change from a minus 18.9%
to a positive 33.9% for various customer groups.
The primary reason around the variation
is the result of the movement towards a more cost of service
based allocation relative to current rates.
Under SCE's proposal, residential customers
as a whole inclusive of care and non-care.
Residential customer rates would increase
by approximately 1.9%.
We can move on to slide four, please.
For residential customers some of SCE's proposals include
maintaining the baseline allocation for basic customers
at the statutory maximum of 60%.
Offering an incremental baseline option
for customers with heat pump water heater.
And including a rate rider option dedicated
for the charging of separately metered electric vehicles.
For example, an apartment settings.
Once again, thank you for attending
and I'm looking forward to hearing your comments
and feedback.
Thank you Judge, that'd be all.
-: Thank you, Mr. Thomas.
And we will now hear from Crystal Yiu
from the public advocate's office.
Crystal: Thank you Your Honor.
Good evening Your Honor, Commissioner Shiroma
and participants.
My name is Crystal Yiu, I'm the attorney representing
the public advocates office.
We are also known as Cal Advocates.
During the public participation hearing today,
I will briefly present the mission of Cal Advocates,
the role of Cal Advocates in this
Southern California Edison's GRC Phase 2 proceeding,
and the main issues that we have focused and investigated
in this proceeding.
Can we go to the next slide, please?
The role of Cal Advocates,
we are an independent all face within the CPUC.
The Public Utilities co-provides for Cal Advocates mission,
which is to obtain the lowest possible rate
for a service consistent with reliable
and safe service levels.
To achieve that mission Cal Advocates participates
in various CPUC proceedings, workshops and other forums
with significant impact on rate payers.
We have staff with a variety of background and expertise,
including engineering, economics, accounting and finance.
In the Commission proceedings and workshops
we address issues of consumer protection,
development of fair rules for competition
or other significant policy issues.
Can you go to the next slide, please?
Thank you.
In this GRC Phase 2 proceeding, Cal Advocates investigate
the several issues with significant impact.
For example, we analyze Addison's rate proposals
to verify that they are reasonable
and in the best interest of Edison's residential customers,
as well as small business customers.
We determine how Edison's revenue requirements
should be allocated to different classes of customers
for recovery.
Here revenue requirement is a Commission approved budget
in Phase 2 of the General Rate Case.
With respect to issue of wildfire mitigation
related costs, Cal Advocates, reviews wildfire related costs
and assigns those costs to customer classes.
Specifically Cal Advocates recommend advocating
all wildfire related costs using an equal cents per kilowatt
and efficient methods to all customer classes.
The next issue is the transportation, electrification costs,
which assigns electrification, infrastructure cost
responsibility to customer classes.
Can we go to the next slide, please?
The last topic is the rate design.
Under residential rate design baseline allowance means
how much energy should have a lower price to the customers.
Cal Advocate examines Edison's proposal on retaining
the maximum baseline allocation percentage,
creating a separately metered rate option for customers
with electric vehicles.
And providing baseline allowance increases
as an incentive for customers with heat pump water heaters.
Cal Advocates also reviews Southern California Edison's
proposed small commercial rate designs
including fixed charges cost
and time of use rate differentials.
We make recommendation that
the Commission adopt Cal Advocates marginal costs
for use being rate design.
Cal Advocates will prepare tax money
to report these findings after discovery is completed.
The probably version of our tax money will be available
after June 24th on the CPUC website.
Thank you, Your Honor, that concludes my presentation.
-: Thank you Ms. Yiu.
And we will now hear from members of the public.
To those who wish to speak
if you have not done so already,
please press star one on your phone.
And the operator will add you to the queue of speakers.
If you are not currently queued at any time
during the session, and you decide you would like to speak,
the line will remain open for you to join.
Based on the number of speakers currently in the queue,
and to ensure everyone has the chance to provide comments.
Each speaker will have a time limit of five minutes.
A chime will be sounded when the five minutes is up.
And as a reminder to those waiting on the phone,
please speak slowly and clearly so that our court reporters
may accurately transcribe your comments.
When the operator lets you know, it is your turn to speak.
Please start your comments by providing your full name,
spelling your name and giving your location.
We will be able to hear you best
if you speak directly into your phone or headset.
Please avoid having your phone on speaker
when you are providing comments.
Please keep comments brief and concise
to ensure that we can get to everyone.
And now operator,
can you call on the first person in the queue?
Operator: Yes, Your Honor.
The first person in the queue is Matthew Affolter
your line is open.
Matthew: Well, hello.
My name is Matthew Affolter
and I run the Cottonwood Laundry Matthalon
that's A-F-F-O-L-T-E-R.
And I wanted to thank everyone
that's come to the table and I appreciate the ability
to have my voice heard.
I have firsthand experience on how the water rates
affect my livelihood, my employees and my family.
I know we're talking about residential rates,
but I wanted to be sure to include a commercial aspect,
because I believe we're also talking
about small commercial rates.
And I'd like to say three simple things
before I tell my story.
Our little island already pays
some of the highest water rates in the state,
and from what I've heard, even in the country.
A rate increase to commercial rates will directly
and completely destroy my company,
my livelihood and the jobs of the people I employ.
I could not continue my business
with the proposed rate increase.
A rate increase will also depress of the residents
and visitors of the island,
the badly needed essential service.
As a laundromat,
we use more water than almost any other company.
And this thinks our profit margin and our livelihood tied
to the water rates.
Because of the recent increased rates
we only have two laundromats left on the island.
Our residents and visitors need these types of services.
Our population cannot go anywhere else to do it.
It must be done on the island.
Let me mince no words.
A new rate increase will destroy my company.
I'll be forced to close, lay off my employees,
lose my investment.
We had already raised our prices 15% on January 1st,
even though our water rate has doubled recently.
We lost customers because we've had to increase our rates
and no amount of price raising can compensate
for another increased rate.
We survived COVID through sheer determination.
Many of my friends and collaborators did not.
We opted to keep our essential service going
because we wanted to be sure that the community
would have a safe place to do their laundry.
To make that sacrifice so our company could survive
the pandemic only to then be hit with a rate increase.
Really, so how out of touch with our community,
the people who are requesting this increase are.
We just went through the biggest economic downturn
in decades on our island.
Yeah, SCE wants to raise our rates.
I know my customers can't afford a new rate increase,
not only will it destroy my small business
and my employees jobs, but will reduce available
essential services for those rate payers
who reside in that block.
I appreciate your time,
and I thank the Commission for allowing me to speak.
Patrick: Thank you very much Mr. Affolter,
I appreciate your comments today.
Matthew: Thank you.
Patrick: Operator, can you please call on the next person
in the queue?
Operator: Your Honor, our comments comes
from Diana Lee Luxenberg, your line is open.
Diana: Hello, my name is Diana D-I-A-N-A,
Lee L-E-E, Luxenberg L-U-X-E-N-B, like boy, E-R-G.
And I live in Three Rivers, California.
I would like to make a couple of comments
pertaining to the rate increase.
And also some comments about Edison in general.
Edison has been warned by me multiple times
that there were water leaks up here on the flume.
The flume is how we get our water to generate electricity
and Edison has repeatedly done nothing to fix those leaks.
I commented before on this
and to me it speaks of Edison's
perhaps not on all the departments.
But up here it's refusal to look at small, inexpensive,
cost cutting procedures, to reduce loss of water
and therefore to have more of a flow
and to provide us with adequate electricity.
I am on the summer discount program.
I spent my own money to get newer appliances
and also put in over 1000 dollars worth of installation.
I have done what I can to increase my ability to use less
and yet, even though I use the way less than other people,
Edison's tiers of three tiers means that.
Even though I'm using less than the average citizen,
way less, not only here, but in other areas,
I get no cost benefit.
So if Edison, who, to whom I've complained
would consider doing more tiers.
So that people who actually are very judicious
about turning off their lights,
unplugging stuff when they leave, keeping the temperature
in the house higher, cooling their house early
in the morning when there's plenty of sun.
It would behoove them because then they would be encouraging
the people who are wasteful to pay more
and get their act together.
And they would be rewarding the people who are already doing
more than their fair share.
There was a letter from Edison that stated
that we had saved 1000 kilowatts last time they did,
last year when they were implementing
their summer discount program.
Where we have electricity on for 15 minutes
and then off for 15 minutes.
This whole program has been a boondoggle
because there was no one intelligent enough at Edison,
to after they had decided which boxes
they were gonna put on people's AC conditioners.
No one tried it out to see that there were very problematic
issues, because if you didn't have a Wi-Fi connected unit,
the way the system was working, you were basically receiving
no electricity for 30 minutes.
So to me, it speaks of Edison's failure
to look into small cost, saving procedures.
They had so many people cancel
who had been on the summer discount program.
And if 1000 kilowatts in a month is actually something
that makes a big deal, then Edison is not doing
their job engineering wise to give people options.
They've taken away the discounts that you could get
for new refrigerators and other appliances.
The discounts that they do offer are minuscule.
There's no incentive, but Edison easily finds a reason
to raise the rates for residential customers all the time.
What are the incentives for big Ag and streetlights?
What are the incentives that they are using
so that these entities that use a tremendous amount
of electricity?
It costs Edison less to provide it,
but they still use a tremendous amount of electricity.
What are the incentives for them to use less?
(bell chiming) very few.
Patrick: Okay, thank you, Ms. Luxenberg.
I appreciate your comments today.
I am sorry to hear of your difficulties with Edison,
but I appreciate you bringing those to our attention.
Diana: And it just seems that it's, they got
some people who were energy efficient in consulting,
that they would know that their time of usage,
which I had also attempted to do was slightly asinine.
Because if you have solar that's being generated
during the day, and sometimes you have excess solar.
Why are you asking people not to do,
not to use their appliances during the day
when you have the solar available?
It was like a 12th grade stem student
could have done a better job.
And I would encourage Edison to put out a contest
where you have a 12th grade stem student
or a college student come up with better ideas
because I'm pretty sure they could.
Thank you for listening.
Patrick: No, problem.
Thank you, Ms. Luxenberg.
Operator, can you call on the next person
in the queue please?
Operator: The next person in the queue is, Wendy Mello
your line is open.
Wendy: Hey, there.
Can you hear me? -: Hello.
Yes, we can hear you.
Wendy: Great.
Hi, my name is Wendy Mello, M-E-L-L-O is my last name.
And I actually would have rather done the written comment,
but at the moment the meeting started,
I thought I better just call in.
I actually just, I've been a customer
I think of Edison for over 30 years since I was an adult.
And I think they've always been very fair.
But what I'm noticing lately is the kilowatts
they allow for residential has gone down.
Even though I'm actually on a property
that has a larger lot, which sometimes for lighting
and stuff can take more electricity.
But also they've changed it
to where the rates go by the daytime.
And when my university closed down
and I had to start working from home,
which has been a Godsend
because I have some mobility issues.
So I'm doing far better and we want to hope
to keep working remote since this pandemic started.
But I think remote is going to be an hybrid,
the more norm I'm finding out from the rest of California
and some of the other state agencies.
So now I'm footing the bill to have all of my electronics
running and working, and I'm not getting any help
from my employer and I don't wanna ask for help.
Because I appreciate being able to work remotely.
So, but now I'm one of the most efficient,
I had Edison come and weatherize my entire home.
I, they even put a swamp cooler in,
but I'm telling you I'm struggling on a fixed income
because all my adult children have to move back home
and we're all working remote from home.
So basically my electrical needs have gone up,
but the differences in the rates such as the eight to five
has gone up, which is when I'm working
and as well as the kilowatts has gone down,
what's allowed at the lower rate.
So I'm really struggling.
And I feel that eventually,
we may have a new hybrid world here
with all that we've learned from the pandemic
and making work-life balance better.
But what about the, these rates are gonna really affect me?
Right now I'm roasting because I'm using a swamp cooler
instead of my air conditioner, because it's more efficient.
And Edison helped me to install one,
but it's also very difficult to get cool enough
to be able to tolerate working.
So I think that if they could just look at the new things,
since this pandemic, the new crisis we've been through
and how maybe families and residential families
may have evolved and changed.
And that, please take that into consideration,
whatever you have to do.
I really I don't know how they changed
all of the time-sensitive rates.
I don't know how they changed by lowering the kilowatts
of the baseline because I didn't find it all bad,
or I would be speaking about that heavily.
Because it's really changed how I can afford
having electricity at my house,
which is so vital right now to keep my job.
And if I could retire, I would,
but I'm not at that point.
But also I have everybody else working in my house too,
because they had nowhere to go and lost their jobs
and were.
So everybody had to shelter at home
and I had a roof over their head.
So, we're all using a ton of electricity.
So this rate increase could very much affect families
and the rest of the 10,000 people
that started working remote,
just from the campus alone that I'm with.
And, as the last person talked about,
I'm not sure why large businesses since UCR
from where I work is the largest
and third largest in California.
What incentives their buildings are ancient,
what incentives are they doing to use the less,
a lot less electricity?
Part of it is we're all using our electricity
for our double monitors and our computers at our own home.
And so can Edison not give us allowance or find out,
are we also working from home as well
and using electricity for that?
Even the IRS is not giving us tax breaks for home office.
So I couldn't even get a break on my last income tax
for being fully remote three people in my house,
fully remote, working from home and a lot of electricity.
Including fans to keep cool, it's now summer.
So we're trying to keep cool.
So, I just want them to consider that.
And Judge, if you guys could also think like that,
you probably are aware of some of your workers and stuff
that are probably going through that.
And so maybe take that into consideration
as feedback to help us out so we can not struggle
and actually be productive and efficient.
Thank you so much.
Patrick: Thank you, Ms. Mello.
And I will note for the record that
I don't have air conditioning
and the last week has been very difficult where I live,
and I've had multiple fans running to try to keep me cool.
So I think I understand.
-: Thank you. -: On what you mean.
Wendy: I appreciate your words to me.
Patrick: Well, and I appreciate your comments
concerning baseline quantities.
This is an issue that several other customers
have raised in their written comments.
And so, I will keep an eye on that issue
as the proceeding goes along.
Wendy: And Judge, even just changing the highest rates,
being eight to five, when that's,
when I'm working for my employer and not for myself.
I'm not doing laundry, I'm not using electricity, I'm,
during that eight to five, I'm using my laptop,
my double monitors, my printer things,
and yeah my calculator and the fan.
So I mean, the rate being during eight to five
is really hitting us when we're working for our jobs.
And maybe they could have a program like,
"Hey, are you working for your job and not getting subsidies
for your electricity?
Maybe you could have a different rate,
or maybe you could have a discount."
Or that kind of thing during eight to five,
something like that.
Anything would help.
Thanks again, Judge.
Patrick: Thank you, Ms. Mello.
I do appreciate your comments this evening.
Wendy: Thank you.
Patrick: Operator, can you call on the next person
in the queue please?
Operator: Our next caller is Amy Sullivn.
Your line is open.
Amy: Hello, thank you so much for taking my comments.
My name is Amy Sullivn, last name spelled S-U-L-L-I-V-N.
And I live in View Park in the heart of Los Angeles.
And I just wanted to make some comments
regarding the rate increase as well as the importance
of keeping rooftop, solar accessible to all.
I've lived in California, my entire life.
I grew up in San Diego,
I went to college in Northern California
and now I own properties in both Los Angeles and San Diego.
I've watched the weather patterns change
over the recent years, including hotter longer summers.
I too grew up without air conditioning
all about fans these days.
So I've also seen extensive, more destructive fire seasons
and extreme droughts.
I see the difference, I feel the difference,
I worry about the future for myself and all of our children
and our grandchildren.
But I also have hope and we have an opportunity today
to move things in the right direction
that protects the environment for the next generation,
but also allows for the utilities to be successful.
Over the past decade, I've noticed a surge on solar
on residential properties across the state,
and that excites me.
We've added solar to our Los Angeles house last year
and all the neighbors came out to inquire about it.
The people want rooftop solar, it's finally more accessible
and affordable and it's the correct path forward
to protect the environment.
Yes, we need large scale projects that are solar and wind
to meet our goals, but we also need local rooftop solar
to actually achieve them.
Rooftop is also a cost savings for our state
and all the rate payers, whether they have solar or not.
It benefits all of us to continue with these programs.
The houses, and also like houses already exist.
So it's much less of a cost for infrastructure
and less detrimental to the natural habitat.
And if we're adding panels to structures that already exist
in houses versus going out into the wilderness
and adding new solar fields and whatnot.
Rooftop solar is also reducing the cost of maintaining
long distance power lines, which saves rate payers money.
And so as a tax payer, a property owner,
a solar owner and a utility customer,
I would much prefer that the utility company
spend their profits and budgets on keeping current equipment
from aging, creating more destructive forest fires
and then cleaning up the damage they've already caused.
And all, as well as helping to create
a more local power grid infrastructure,
working with rooftop solar customers,
and businesses toward a collective goal
of getting off of our dependence on fossil fuels.
It's frustrating as a solar customer to be doing our part,
to help lower fossil fuels dependents
and seeing that we're gonna get an increase,
a rate increase anyways,
that just makes no sense to me.
We're providing electricity to the grid.
So with all that, I request that the CPUC
keep rooftop solar and battery storage growing in California
by continuing to incentivize solar homeowners
with net metering market rebates
for the power supply to the grid.
And not allowing price gouging
for connection to the grid by the utilities.
I would like you to make it more equitable
so that millions of working class people
can get solar in the coming years.
Not by cut, by not cutting the care credit,
letting that care credit recipients get the full credit
and expanding the multifamily homes,
eligibility for net metering.
And finally don't buy the utility live,
rooftop solar is costing other people money.
Rooftop solar is reducing the cost
of long distance power lines,
which are the actual reason for high rate, blackouts
and wildfires.
Thank you again for allowing us the time for public comment
and that's all for me, thanks.
Patrick: Thank you, Ms. Sullivn.
Operator, can you please call on the next person
in the queue?
Operator: Yes, sir.
Our next caller is Raphael Lopes.
Your line is open.
Raphael: Thank you, my name is Raphael Lopes, L-O-P-E-S.
I am a resident of Idaho.
I pay our residential electric bill
and I have seen no service on investment
in our community as from Southern California Edison.
I also continue to see power outages
that happened multiple times per month in our community.
I also want to register a complaint
around the dishonest tactics and harassment
by entities contracted by Southern California Edison.
Requiring, or basically insinuating that removal of trees
is necessary on private property,
which is inaccurate in terms of the risks
that they are fighting to residents.
We are losing many trees in our community,
which take 100s of years to grow.
And it's a very unfortunate situation.
I've made multiple complaints to Southern California Edison
about their trespassing on my property
and the removal of trees without my authorization.
Even though I've requested conversations with them
before they appear on my property
or remove any of my trees or foliage
and those calls have remained unanswered.
I also want to make a comment about how these proceedings
are disenfranchising other residents
un-served by Southern California Edison
due to their subpar technology that's being used
on these conferences.
Which prohibits listening to the audio
and watching the video to correspond
or to fully participate in these conferences.
This is very outdated technology.
I'm actually having to use two different phones
in order to call in, make my comments
and watch the audio presentation.
Also, there was very limited notification
I luckily was told by a neighbor
of this event happening today.
So people that do not have access to Facebook
or other digital technologies,
unlikely were not notified of this hearing.
Disenfranchising them and making them subject
to these higher rate without the opportunity
to speak up and be heard.
So based on all of that, I am asking that the application
for rating Christie's declines in a,
I do wanna say that I agree with the former speaker,
former residents speaking about trying
to find creative ways for people that are working remotely
to possibly transfer some of the past burden on that.
Typically been borne by employers,
which is now being borne by residents.
I think that's a really fabulous idea
and I concur with that.
I wanna thank you for the opportunity
to submit my feedback today.
Patrick: And thank you Mr. Lopes,
I appreciate your comments.
I'm sorry to hear about your technology issues.
Well, we'll take that under advisement
and consider that going forward
for hearings such as this one.
So thank you very much for your comments tonight, sir.
Operator, can you please call on the next person
in the queue?
Operator: Our next caller is John Winiarz.
Your line is open.
John: Hi, my name is John Winiarz
I'm calling from Ventura, California.
Last name is W-I-N-I-A-R-Z.
And actually, my comment is twofold.
One is that I do understand that in California,
especially with climate change and the wildfire situation,
we had in Ventura, one of the worst fires ever
in terms of actually burning
into Ventura City itself it was the terror of fire.
Literally almost a year later, the Woolsey Fire occurred.
And SCE put out a great deal of money in costs
in terms of liability,
and I do understand as customers of incurring that cost.
So that part of it, is something
I'm looking at in a realistic manner.
However, I own a 4,200 square foot home.
And I'm not a very wasteful person in terms of electricity,
but recently my tenants moved out.
I moved back into the property
and I was shocked by the bill.
And as I read an article, literally a few weeks later
by a lady named Aziza Goin,
and it says in, and if you don't mind,
I'll quote it, because it really is how I feel.
I recently received a quote on solar
and I was just blown away both by the sales tactics
and also by June the inference,
that's spending $42,000 when I have almost
a paid off mortgage, it makes sense.
But it basically says that our policy,
our state's approved of subsidy policy called NEM
flies in the face of logic.
Financial incentives, given to the homeowners
that put rooftop solar in their homes.
The outdated 25-year old and contributing program
is contributing to higher electric rates across California,
increasing bills for customers without solar.
And it settles on to say the utility reform network
and other property have, a trying to get
the unfair car shift must be fixed before it gets worse.
Currently customers with rooftop, solar,
is receive a credit on their electric bill,
when their system generates XX electricity,
this credit is set at or nearly full retail rate.
There are two big problems with that.
The amount utilities are required to credit
the rooftop covered, customer far exceeds solar is eight,
or for access solar is eight times
more than they would cost to buy solar in the open market.
And number two, the artificially high monthly credit
mandated by the NET or NEM program.
These customers with solar systems are paying nominal bills
and no longer contributing their fair share,
towards the cost of operating and maintenance
of the electric grid or mandated public policy programs.
And it goes on to say, "The cost won't go away,
they get shifted to non-solar customers.
Non-solar customers end up paying roughly $200 more
each year for these overly generous credit."
And she goes on to say,
"If no changes made in the net metering program,
this amount will continue to increase each year
as more customers install solar."
But what she's getting to, which is I'm one of those
even though, I don't consider myself in the bottom 40%.
But she says, "Just like non-solar customers,
solar customers rely on the grid 24/7,
try to receive energy or sell energy back to the grid.
70% of solar adopters are of the wealthiest 40% of society.
Lower income Californians are subsidizing discounts
for the wealthiest underscoring,
the glaring inequity that currently exists."
And she goes on to say, "Who qualifies
for low-income assistance are paying extra
on their electric bill to cover costs,
being avoided by wealthy customers
who install sort of systems."
And so when she goes on to say, "In 1995,
10,000 homes had solar systems,
today there are over a million systems.
And the rates for installing the systems
have fallen by 70%."
Which she goes, she ends by saying,
"But because net energy metering credit
is tied to retail rates, the credits keep going up."
And so what she's really suggesting,
and I would suggest that SCE look at this
or Southern California Edison, excuse me.
That given California's clean energy program,
dramatically falling rooftop, solar prices.
And she's not, she's saying basically when those subsidies
end up being paid predominantly by lower income residents.
And her comment, or really her push is to get rid
of the subsidies that are being offered.
And the purchasing of the solar energy,
excess solar energy that's being generated
and paying if not, not eightfold,
what it would cost to buy on the open market,
but it just paying market rate.
And passing that cost on to people who don't have solar
to some extent to make it more equitable.
Because if they're not paying for the grid,
quite honestly, they are benefiting from the grid
when they are not generating electricity.
So hopefully that's useful.
It was something I normally don't get involved
in these kinds of hearings,
but I, I'm from a generation that's used to a $40, $50 bill.
And when I received my first bill and it was $290,
I thought there was an error and I kept calling and calling.
And quite frankly, it's in excess of what people
should lack, especially with having survived the COVID.
Anyway, that's all.
Thank you, sir.
Patrick: Thank you, Mr. Winiarz.
And I should point out to both you and Ms. Sullivn
and I was remiss and not mentioning this to Ms. Sullivn.
The Commission currently has an open proceeding considering
the structure of net energy metering.
I would encourage both of you to submit written comments
on the Commission's website for that proceeding.
The proceeding numbers are 20-08-020.
And if you have questions about how to
actually submit comments in that proceeding regarding
net energy metering.
Just please get in touch with our public advisors,
they can help you with that.
And their email is public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov.
And I appreciate your comments tonight, Mr. Winiarz.
Raphael: All right, thank you.
Patrick: Thank you.
Operator, are there any other callers
currently in the queue?
Operator: No, sir.
At this time, I'm sure in no further callers at this time.
Patrick: Okay, let's be off the record.
Operator I think I'd just like to take a three minute
break off the record and see if anyone joins the queue.
And again, if you're on the line
and you would like to provide comment,
just dial star one, and we'll get you in to speaking to you.
So we'll come back in three minutes at 6:59 p.m.
and then go back on the record.
I just wanna make a brief announcement about coming back
for a second turn in order to give everyone a chance
to speak tonight and be fair to everyone.
We're only gonna give people a chance to speak once
for their five minutes.
So unfortunately, if you wanted to call back in
and get a second turn, we're not gonna do that this evening.
However, I do encourage those of you that want to provide
more comments on this proceeding to submit written comments.
By rule, I am required to read everyone's written comments
and summarize those in the proposed decision
in this proceeding.
So I will read them, I can assure you of that.
So I do encourage you to do so and the public advisor
can assist you with that.
So having said that, operator can you please introduce
the next person in the queue?
Operator: Thank you, Your Honor.
Our next comment comes from Raquel Breck.
Your line is open.
Raquel: Hello.
-: Hello Ms. Breck,
I can hear you. -: Hello. Okay, yes.
The reason I'm calling is because
just the way people get solar by spending all of this money,
I was thinking a lot of us are low income apartment dwellers
that are getting high electric bills, okay?
And, or, and many of us are subsidized as well,
but still the bill is extremely high, even subsidized.
So my question is just like,
television comes via a dish, okay?
They invented a dish,
they put it out for apartment dwellers
and you get television in your home,
you get programs.
Or why can't there be some sort of a dish
for a sunlight that will provide electricity
for apartment dwellers at a lower rate than we have today?
That's just a suggestion.
Patrick: Thank you, Ms. Breck.
I appreciate your comments.
Raquel: All right, thank you.
Bye-bye.
Patrick: Thank you.
Operator, please call on the next speaker in the queue.
Operator: Our next caller is Terry Bold.
Your line is open.
Terry: Great, thank you.
My last name is Bold, like the font B-O-L-D.
So I've been an SCE customer for 18 years
and up until last year, every year
I was signing up for the summer program.
And last year it just became abusive.
It was every day and four hours or more,
where you were cutting off my air conditioner.
So I discontinued that plan.
So my question is,
what is the purpose of this great discussion?
Is it because you can't get employees back after COVID
where everybody was home or what?
That would be my one question, but all along,
I've done laundry after 7:00 p.m.,
moving into California from the East Coast,
I followed the rules.
But it's just abusive to continually get
more and more increases for the times
that I use my electricity.
I've always worked from home,
my air conditioner is set to no lower than 80 degrees
all of these years.
And my bill keeps going up
and I'm not getting anything more for it.
I am not interested in solar, on my roof.
I think it's ugly and it's not gonna happen.
So what is the ultimate goal?
I understand that you need to pay employees
that are very skilled.
You need to keep them involved and keep increasing
their rates or their pay.
And, but at the cost of average citizens
that are paying attention to all the rules,
why do we all need to be penalized
if the rates go up?
That's, and thank you for listening,
and that's my only questions.
Patrick: Thank you, thank you, Ms. Bold.
I would just say that in this proceeding,
we are looking at how Edison designs their rates.
And so it's not really a question of how much money Edison
should receive overall, that overall number is fixed
in a different proceeding.
But I take your point that Edison has proposed
to increase residential rates, nonetheless,
in this proceeding while other classes
might see lower rates, all else being equal.
And so I take your comments seriously,
and I hear you on that.
And that's one of the issues that will be litigated
in this proceeding is whether or not residential customers
should pay more as a result of Edison's application.
So I thank you for your comment tonight.
Okay, operator, can you call on the next person
in the queue?
Operator: Our next caller is Francine Smith.
Your line is open.
Francine: Hello, appreciate the opportunity to speak.
Looking at the numbers, we pay more than most states.
And that's part of the reason a lot of people
are leaving California.
Last week my water rates went up,
last night my sewer district had a meeting
to raise the rates.
And so, yeah, who's gonna raise our money?
One thing I'm not, the tiers kinda confuse me
and everything.
And we're looking at disparity,
the rate option for the electric car.
Just some of, do they get a break, do they pay more?
And some of that goes to the state to help with the roads,
because that's the, I don't like oil.
But I look at people being able to buy an electric car
sort of like the other things we're talking about here that,
might cost $50,000 to buy a brand new electric car.
But Joe Blow driving his, and paying for the gas tax
to help our roads.
He can't afford that electric car
and he's the one paying the gas tax.
So I'm wondering do the electric car people,
do they pay some kind of a gas tax I'm not aware of?
And they're on the road, they're using the road,
just like the solar panel may or use the grid.
So I kind of have a question about that.
Also being in an area and affected by the Thomas Fire.
I do know that right away from the Thomas,
the Woolsey Fire within a year or two years,
three years of these fires.
360 million was paid out to firefighters and the city
and the county's good, okay?
The insurance companies were reimbursed,
excuse me, 2.2 billion for the Woolsey Fire.
At least 1.16 for the Thomas Fire went out within a year
or so to the insurance companies.
There are people who have never, they've given up
on being able to rebuild their houses.
Their, I know that they settled some personal claims
with the Montecito mudslides.
But the people who lost their houses
and thought they were gonna die in them on the hillsides
in Ventura, a lot of them have just given up
and sold their properties.
The fact that it happened, that the electric company
should have taken care of these things.
And at the beach, they put their lines
underground decades ago.
But that they can't keep the maintenance up,
that's their responsibility.
But my big question, seeing these billions of dollars.
Who's paying for the, for their lack of oversight?
Is that why our prices keep going up?
We're paying, and like I say,
a lot of the lawsuits haven't been finished yet.
So I don't know if that's a question.
What are the customers paying for?
I mean, someone said salaries for their employees, okay.
But are we paying for the lack of taking care of business
that Addison had and we're paying these lawsuits?
Thank you.
Patrick: Thank you, Ms. Smith.
Obviously this is, these are issues in the proceeding,
not necessarily Edison's culpability
or responsibilities per se,
but who should pay for wildfire mitigation costs.
I think as Cal Advocates referred to in their presentation,
this is one of the issues they're examining
in this proceeding.
And they have a proposal that's different from Edison's
and would distribute the costs of wildfire mitigation
differently among customers.
So certainly that is a question before us
and that's something we will be looking at
in this proceeding.
With respect to electric vehicle drivers
I would say that the gas tax and the road user fees
are beyond my purview.
I don't know much about those
my understanding is EV drivers do pay more
on the registration.
I'm not sure how much more to compensate
for not paying gas taxes.
But with respect to Edison's electric vehicle rates,
to answer your question, no, they're designed to be neutral.
So in theory, an average EV customer should be paying
Edison, as much money to keep the grid going
and to procure their electricity as a non EV customer.
The rates are designed slightly differently
so that EV drivers pay much more during peak periods
and less during off-peak periods,
as a way to incent them to charge their EVs off peak.
However, they are designed to be neutral
with respect to the technology.
So I don't know if that exactly answers your questions,
but that's the best I can do.
Francine: Thank you.
Patrick: Thank you, Ms. Smith.
I appreciate your comments tonight.
Operator, do we have anyone else in the queue
that wishes to speak?
Operator: No, sir.
I'm sorry, no further questions at this time.
-: Okay, well, if there's no one else in the queue,
then I think we're gonna call the hearing to an end
for this evening.
Again, I encourage those of you that had follow-up comments
to certainly post those on our webpage.
I will be reviewing them and summarizing them
in the proposed decision.
So I do wanna thank everyone that participated today
I do appreciate your comments.
The webpage, where you can go to make written comments
appears on the slide on your screen,
but I'll state the web address for the record.
It's cpuc.ca.gov/A2010012Comments
and for assistance with providing additional comments,
please contact the Commission's public advisor's office
at public advisor, excuse me, public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov.
Commissioner Shiroma, do you have any additional comments?
-: Yes, thank you, Judge Doherty.
Just simply to express my appreciation to all of the members
of the public who participated this evening for your input.
I look forward to working with Judge Doherty
on this case.
I would also like to thank Ms. Christine Hughes
of Oak Hill Advocates and Mr. Archines
of the Philadelphia Essences that's represented today,
as Judge Doherty outlined.
Your public comments are very important
and all of become litter rotted
through the public participation period.
Or through written public comments
will be carefully considered.
So, thank you and have a great evening.
Back to you judge, thank you.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma
with that, I will conclude
this evening's public participation hearing.
We will now be off the record.