-: The feed for this streaming event.
-: Welcome to the California Public Utilities
Commission Voting meeting on the state
Thursday, March 17th, 2022.
Today's call is being recorded.
If you have any objections,
you may disconnect at this time.
President Reynolds, you may begin.
-: Good morning.
We need to start by establishing a quorum agenda clerk?
Could you please call on the roll.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner, John Reynolds?
-: Present
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Here.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Present.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Here.
Agenda Clerk: President Alice Reynolds?
-: Here.
A quorum has been established.
Welcome to the California Public Utilities Commission.
I'm calling this meeting of March 17th, 2022
public agenda number 3504 to order.
-: Due to the coronavirus pandemics
(indistinct) the authorization of section two
of assembly bill 361, we are conducting
today's business meeting
online and by remote participation.
The business meeting is live streamed on the CPUC website.
You can view the meeting at www.adminmonitor.com/ca/cpuc.
Closed captioning is available
in English and Spanish through the webcast.
To view the closed captioning
click on the green button
beneath the webcast video player
and follow the instructions that appear on screen.
We also have Spanish interpretation available
during the public comment portion of today's meeting.
Dial 8008571917 passcode 3799627 pound
and follow the instructions
to be connected to the Spanish line.
I ask that my colleagues and today's speakers
remain mindful and speak clearly and slowly.
I will also occasionally pause for interpretation.
(speaking in Spanish)
The coronavirus
(speaking in Spanish)
Public engagement is critical to the CPuC process.
If you wish to make a public comment,
dial into 8008571917 and enter pass code
9899501 pound and press star one.
You'll be placed into a queue and the operator
will take your name and information.
You'll be called upon to speak
when we get to the public comment
period in today's agenda.
If you encounter difficulty calling
into the public telephone line,
please email votingmeetinghelp@cpuc.ca.gov.
Before we...
We now turn to the public comment
period of the agenda.
If you wish to make a public comment
and you have already dialed
into the public comment telephone line,
please press star one and unmute your phone,
to enter the public comment queue.
CPUC rules do not allow for parties in proceedings
to speak about open proceedings.
The public can make comments addressing items
on the consent and regular agenda
as well as items not on the agenda.
Please note that there will not be public comment
on items 21, 40 or 40A.
You will have one minute to speak.
You will hear a bell sound when your time is up.
Please be mindful of other speakers in the queue
and keep to your allotted time.
As a reminder, please speak clearly and slowly
to accommodate Spanish interpreters who are available
during the public comment portion of today's meeting.
With that guidance in mind,
I welcome today's speakers.
I will now turn to the operator
to open the public comment telephone line.
Operator: Thank you.
The public comment line is now open.
If you wish to speak during the public comment period,
please unmute your phone, press star one,
and clearly record your first and last name when prompted.
Our first comment is from David Reinerson.
You may go ahead.
David Reinerson: Good morning.
I'm David Reinerson from Huntington beach.
The current NEM proposal uses flawed assumptions
to calculate the value of rooftop top solar
and consequently it dramatically undervalues it.
Here are three points where I believe
the calculus is wrong or flawed.
One, it counts energy that is locally generated
and consumed as if it were a cost to other consumers.
This is the equivalent of saying
that if I buy a more fuel efficient car,
it increases your gas bill.
Two, it only calculates 10 years
of rooftop solar benefit per system
when in reality systems are warranted
for 15 to 20 years and often last much longer.
Three, it ignores the cost of transmission lines
that do not need to be built
only counting deferred construction.
This is especially egregious given that the proposed
large scale solar plants (indistinct) utilities
now proposed would require significant
new transmission lines to support.
In short, the cost shift premise
upon which NEM three is based uses
flawed misguided calculations,
designed to bolster the utilities case
at the expense of the citizens.
I urge you to do what's right for the citizens,
the environment, and the economy,
and craft the solution that makes rooftop solar
more affordable and speaky about
(bell ringing)
between the energy in our state.
Thank you.
-: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Carol Cole Lewis.
You may go ahead.
-: [Carol Cole Lewis] Good morning.
I'm commenting on the proposed NEM tariff provision.
I'm a 67 year old female solar sales consultant
in rural lake county.
There's not a lot of options here
for boomers who want or need to work.
Plus solar is a great option for my older customers
who are living on a fixed income
and not eligible for care
or other reduced rate plans.
With solar, they can better afford and predict
their electricity costs,
and don't have to go through the monthly agony
of choosing whether they pay for electricity or medicine.
The NEM revision as it currently stands
will profoundly impact me and the lake county economy.
Please consider the plight of poor rural
California communities and allow us all
to do our part towards the helping California
achieve her climate action goals.
I urge you to keep residential solar affordable
and reject the proposed NEM revision.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mike Rosenfeld.
You may go ahead.
Mike Rosenfeld: Hello.
My name is Mike Rosenfeld
from Redondo Beach, California.
I'm calling you to oppose a solar tax of any kind.
We need to ensure that solar is more affordable
to working in middle class households.
My personal story, my family was hit hard
financially by the pandemic.
I started working in the solar industry
in the third quarter of 2020.
This amazing industry has helped my family
begin to climb out of our financial situation.
Every day, I hear similar stories from my colleagues.
We have been told by the same administration
to follow science over the last two years.
So, why in this circumstances science being opposed?
It's because a corrupt monopoly is being threatened
by an amazing industry that gives Californians more freedom,
an industry that provides jobs and hope for a better planet.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Alan
with the sunrise movement.
You may go ahead.
Alan: President and Commissioners,
president Biden's commitment to ban Russia's oil
makes investment in alternative energy
even more critical for national safety.
To meet California's goals for clean energy
we will need both utilities, scale solar,
as well as rooftop solar according
to the U.S. Department of Energy 2021 report.
Rather than taxing those who invested in rooftop solar,
we should be incentivizing it so all Californians
can access nearby power.
I also wish to speak in support
on solidarity with venturous citizens
who shouldn't be endangered
for the sake of outdated energy.
Further, the CPUC should not cut off
public comments without first making a commitment
to protect rooftop solar from PG&E's fiery greed.
Otherwise the Commission's time
is better spent doing nothing
rather than worsening global crises.
I am a member of the Bay Area Sunrise Hub.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kyle Severns.
You may go ahead.
Kyle Severns: Good morning,
president Reynolds and Commissioners.
My name's Kyle Severns.
I work for Solar Technologies in San Ramon
I'm proud to have worked in the solar industry
in California for the last 15 years
and greatly hope to be able to do so for another 15,
the CPUC proposed decision would not allow me to do so
and would immediately help the sustainable growth
of green energy in our state
while killing thousands of solar jobs.
Myself and so many other California workers
have committed their lives
to this great environmental cause.
Please don't allow utility pressure
and misinformation to undo that work.
California must continue to lead
when it comes to solar energy.
The current proposed decision
would instantly make California
the least solar friendly state in the country.
Please say no to the solar tax
and reject this proposed disaster.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tyler Crossno.
You may go ahead.
Tyler Crossno: Good morning Commissioners.
My name is Tyler Crossno and I've worked
for Rebel Energy in Irvine for the last two years.
First, I wanna thank the Commission for listening
to all the comments and perspectives
you've heard throughout this decision process.
Growing up in California,
I wanted to commit my career to our environment.
As our state is taking the steps
to become a model for that sustainability,
utilities are proposing to change net energy metering
to a point that would be disastrous for the solar industry
and is absolutely unreasonable.
I implore you to reject the current proposed decision.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our caller is Marcy Snyder.
You may go ahead.
Marcy Snyder: Good morning.
Yeah, my name is Marcy Snyder.
I'm from Fort Bragg and I totally oppose
this NEM three proposal.
My first point is we should have no solar tax of any kind.
Number two, ensure that solar becomes more affordable
for working in middle class households, not less.
Number three, honor the existing 20 year contract
that is with protecting, that is in current place
for solar users, rooftop solar customers.
We're the ones who pay for these solar systems
through little power plants.
We should not be harmed by endless rate hikes.
We should not be penalized for paying
or are already paid for solar systems.
I ask you to reject this NEM proposal
and go back to and reconfigure things
to a way that it is now.
So solar customers--
(bell ringing)
(indistinct)
-: Thank you very much.
Operate our next caller please.
Marcy Snyder: Great.
Good deal.
Operator: Our next caller is Marshall Wiseman.
You may go ahead.
-: [Marshall Wiseman] First, let me thank
the State of California and the federal government
for providing solar energy rebates.
I also wanna thank SDG&E and its efforts
to providing transmission lines
and the necessary services
that give me dependable electricity
and for its net energy metering program.
And I would like to thank you the CPUC
for protecting my rights as a citizen of California
in governing these utilities.
Rooftop solar was the most important decision
that I have ever made.
I am proud that I have produced
141 million Watt-hours of green energy
and dramatically reduced my carbon footprint.
At the same time, I am protecting sensitive,
biological areas like De Anza Bargo
and personally funding rooftop solar,
and offering my roof for the energy generation.
Please support affordable rooftop solar.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is John Christensen.
You may go ahead.
I apologize.
Our next caller is Anna Sunrun.
You may go ahead.
Anna Sunrun: I've helped many low-income families
in California and it's untrue and it's a false narrative
that solar disproportionately affects low income people,
which is the main argument of the utility.
It is not rooftop solar's fault for all
the harm and damage that the utility companies
have done to the state of California
and it's time for them to take
responsibility for their actions
and not turn to rooftop solar and crush it,
and crush my job, and the rest of the solar industry.
There should be no solar tax of any kind.
Solar should become more affordable.
We all know what the utility company,
we all know what the bills look like in California
with the fees and surcharges,
and it's time that customers pay for their negligence.
Wouldn't we want to all be partners
and pull alongside each other to help the grid
become more reliable and decentralized
and pay a little more for that.
Instead of paying the dirty supplier
for the power that we're currently using,
the utility company is in hard times
saddled with lawsuits and solar is something
that is something that's uninstall for homes.
(bell ringing)
Given the current rate--
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
-: I am loud.
Operator: Our next caller is John Christensen.
You may go ahead.
-: [John Christensen] Hi, I'm John Christensen.
I'm from Lancaster, California.
I'd like to comment on a couple things
that have been said about solar
being out of reach for everyone.
Anyone can get solar.
It just matters the way you get it.
I don't own my panels.
I've signed up for a long term contract
and basically what it does is reduces
my tier costs because those panels
do not support my entire electrical load.
And that brings up the second point I've heard
that because we have solar and those who don't,
the power company is suffering
because we're not paying our fair share.
Most of my share, most of my electricity bill
does go to of Southern California Edison.
So, people can get solar if they just choose
the right package and we do pay our bills
to Southern California Edison.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Courtney Corda.
You may go ahead.
Courtney Corda: Hi, good morning. I'm Courtney Corda.
I own a family owned solar installing company
in Danville, which is in Contra Costa county.
We support several employees who were unskilled,
who we trained in this field and they have...
we pay a living wage better than living wage.
We are happy to help our and neighbors here
in central Contra Costa go solar.
I'm speaking today in opposition
of the proposed changes, the net metering.
I think I echo many of the already excellent comments
that have been made about how some of the logic
that is flawed on how this proposal has been developed.
Obviously from a personal standpoint,
we stand to lose our business
if this proposal goes through.
So that's bad, but I also wanna think
about the big picture and I urge the Commission
to think about the big picture
of how we all need to be in this together
to help more solar being home in California.
(bell ringing)
-: Thank you. Courtney Corda: Thank you.
-: Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Alexandra Massey.
You may go ahead.
-: [Alexandra Massey] Hi.
My name is Alexandra Massey
and I'm with California Youth For Safe Oil.
I'm 18 years old and I live in Ventura county
and I'm calling in from UCBerkeley.
I'm calling to demand that the CPUC rejects SoCalGas
and prioritize the health and wellbeing
of the west side community in Ventura.
The SoCalGas compressor station has been devastating
damage to the people living by as highlighted
by other callers in past meetings.
And also catalyzing climate change
as a super emitter of methane.
As a young person in California,
who is going to deal with the consequences
of climate change,
I demand that you stop all the fuel production
and shut down the SoCalGas and preservation
not letting it expand.
I also support the solar rights callers
and urge you to follow their request
to increase solar energy in California,
not tax it as we've seen in from scientists
and from the war in Ukraine.
We need to go to renewable energy
as opposed to taxing it and making it more difficult--
(bell ringing)
Thank you.
-: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Patricia Blevins.
You may go ahead.
-: [Patricia Blevins] It's Patricia Blevins.
I live in San Jose,
the CPUC silence and lack of a timeline
for a decision on rooftop solar is not acceptable.
Over 140,000 people have said this to the CPUC
in every possible way.
The CPUC says it cares about equity.
If that is really true,
then help more people get solar
rather than taking it away
from the middle and working classes.
California cannot meet its climate change goals
if the CPUC destroys rooftop solar.
Further, California cannot require all new houses
to have solar panels and then turn around
and tax them anymore than it can renege
on its agreements with current solar owners
without being found guilty of bait and switch.
To sum up, I want no solar tax of any kind.
Ensure solar becomes more affordable
for working in middle class households
and honor the existing 20 year protection
for current solar users.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is John Servingson.
You may go ahead.
John Servingson: Hi.
Hello.
I'm calling in opposition
to the new net metering revisions.
While I run a small Boutique Staffing Firm
that serves residential and commercial
contractors and developers in California.
The proposed changes would decimate the economics
for solar energy impacting not only the team we have here,
but all of the companies that we work with and support.
Through these changes would be absolutely horrendous
for the growth and the sustainability of the solar industry.
I asked the CPUC to reconsider
and really go back to the drawing board
and find a new solution to this.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Dwayne Sanders.
You may go ahead.
Dwayne Sanders: Good morning.
This is Dwayne Sanders.
I'm from Riverside area,
and I just wanna voice my opinion
that we should not be taxed
for purchasing solar panels.
We spent $25,000 plus and it benefited us,
but it'll take 20 years to recoup that.
So, we do not allow any taxes on that.
Also, we shouldn't be paying for mismanagement
of the utility companies.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Benjamin Wiffer.
You may go ahead.
Benjamin Wiffer: Hi.
Spoken on a few of these already.
Just wanted to say that this aggressive posturing
by the utilities should not be the starting point.
It's kinda of embarrassing that the previous CPUC members
put that forward as a starting point.
Let's look at NEM 2.0 as a starting point
instead and if there needs to be
a small incremental change to that,
that's fine I think that's the intent moving forward
is small incremental changes
not such an aggressive change
that would completely destroy solar
moving forward on rooftops
and speaking of new homes require solar.
So, under this new proposal,
you'd be essentially taxing everybody
who wants to buy a new home
just kinda of goes completely against the grain
and it's out tune and out of touch
with what California's moving towards.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Patricia Wayne.
You may go ahead.
Patricia Wayne: Thank you.
I'm a home owner in Beaumont, California.
I live in an over 55 community
and just retired in September.
We have been wanting to do solar for a while
and we're figuring out how we could do that in our budget
when we had a multiple day power outage this past summer.
So, we went into our savings
to install solar for three reasons.
To save on our electric bill
and zero out our cash investment
over the next 10 years to do our part
for the environment in California's goals,
as well as to protect ourselves from power outages.
Many of our neighbors who are all seniors
and on fixed incomes have done the same.
Please, I just ask you sincerely
to think about the hard working homeowners
and who didn't make this financial decision easily,
and don't subscribe to the claims of utility companies.
(bell ringing)
Thank you. -: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Rebecca Barconnect.
You may go ahead.
-: [Rebecca Barconnect] Hi.
As noted my name's Rebecca Barconnect,
I live in Memo Park, California,
which is in San Mateo county.
I'm calling in because I do oppose the proposed decision
to further tax solar panel systems.
We grew in this state of all states
need to make solar and battery installation more affordable
not less for all energy users in California.
Privately owned solar systems should be considered
an important and valuable resource
for supplementing power versus buying power
from out of state higher priced
and often higher polluting sources.
California really should be a leader
in the United States and world for that matter
for encouraging solar connection systems
on all of our structures, homes,
businesses, garages, et cetera.
Distributing sources of power generations
such as these can greatly lessen the variability
of demand on centralized systems.
In times of system wide outage,
localized sources can keep things running
for a period of time while reducing the load
as primary systems return to service.
Net metering makes home solar systems
more affordable for people--
(bell ringing)
Thank you. -: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Michael Canner.
You may go ahead.
Michael Canner: My name is Michael Canner.
I live in Oakmont,
senior community in east Santa Rosa
called, as I said Oakmont.
We have lots of rooftop solar and battery walls here.
Since the PSPS shutoff,
we all sell lots of power back to PG&E.
We would not have purchased this under the new rate proposal
was under my impression, California, trying to become
more energy efficient and encouraging rooftop solar
you don't do this by...
you do this by offering incentives,
not by taxing people.
And since when does California go back
on its word for 20 year commitments.
This new proposal will also harm people with disability
who've been trying to buy rooftop solar because of the PSPS.
I am speaking in and ask the Commission
to reject the proposal.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Craig Rush.
You may go ahead.
Craig Rush: Thank you.
Can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Craig Rush: Great.
So Craig rush, I live in Foster City.
I've worked in solar since 2007.
When we have solar on our roof since 2009,
the NEM three proposal does nothing
to advance California climate goals
and it's not more inclusive for energy users.
It's less inclusive.
So, I think you need to go back square one and start over.
I don't think there's a big hurry on this,
but we do need something that's more equitable
for everyone and not totally leaning
toward the utility companies.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Milton Nogueira.
You may go ahead.
Milton Nogueira: Good morning, Milton Nogueira.
I work for Roof Tech
as a monthly system company of California.
We are also members of the California Solar Energy
and Storage Association.
I'm calling to rebut this proposal.
I've been in the business since 1997 is about 25 so years,
we have helped train a lot of installers.
A lot of small businesses have been created
for the solar installations,
and this is gonna affect tremendously
families in their livehood.
So, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Brent Mailand.
You may go ahead.
Brent Mailand: Hi.
Yes, good morning.
My name is Brent Maland.
I live in Stockton, California.
I represent (indistinct) and there is only one way
the CPUC can fix this mess,
no solar tax of any kind.
Consumers should be able to control their energy bills
and we should be helping people
to become more energy independent from utilities,
especially when we're expected
to switch to energy efficient cars and appliances.
Let's be smart on how we transition
to clean energy and utilize our rooftops.
If we cannot complete this goal,
California will not meet a climate change needs
and the monopolies will continue to line
their own pockets and the consumers
will continue to pay the price.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Eric Whiteside.
You may go ahead
Again, Eric Whiteside.
Your line is open.
You may go ahead with your comment.
And we're not able to hear you.
Please check your mute button.
And should we go to the next caller?
-: Yes, please.
Thank you operator.
Operator: Our next caller is David Rush.
You may go ahead.
David Rush: Too much is still unknown
about the electric grid of the future
to kill rooftop solar now in its infancy.
Credible research refutes the claim by utilities
that rooftop solar is creating
a huge cost shift to non solar customers.
The NEM proposal before the Commission
does not give a full and fair accounting
of the benefits that rooftop combined with storage
will add to the grid of the future.
The chorus of opposition to the proposal is growing,
the public is listening to respected
and informed voices like Loretta Lynch
former CPUC member president,
who has opined that any cost shift
related to rooftop is tiny in comparison
to the many decisions by the regulators
and utilities that have contributed
much more to higher rates.
The verdict is still out.
The public believes that rooftop solar
should be an integral part of a post fossil fuel world.
And the best solution is both centralized
and local generation.
(bell ringing)
Thank you.
-: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Clint Biddle
with Solar Technologies.
You may go ahead.
Clint Biddle: Hi, my name is Clint Biddle.
I've been working for Solar Technologies
in San Jose, California for 15 years.
I've been very proud to work in this industry.
It would be absolutely devastating to me personally
for the proposed NEM decision to move forward
as I would expect to lose my job and livelihood,
but there are thousands more just like me
wondering if we will still have a job
in this industry under the proposed decision.
And I think those lost jobs would be disastrous
for our economy, but further than that,
the proposed NEM decision would immediately
slow down consumer solar adoption,
which is crucial to decentralizing our electric grid,
which adds resiliency and helps
decarbonize our energy sources.
So, I strongly urge you to make solar
more accessible for consumers in order to fight
climate change and support our economy,
which would be a win-win as opposed to a lose-lose
under the proposed decision.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Dennis del Far.
You may go ahead.
Dennis del Far: Hello.
My name is Dennis Dennis del Far
and I first want to thank all the CPUC Commissioners
and others from hearing my comments today
on this and important NEM 3.0 issue.
I am a homeowner in the Star City of Cypress
along with my wife Marrian,
and we are new solar system owners.
We are very proud that we have already offset
over four and a quarter tons of carbon
since our solar system was turned on
in September, 2021.
Commissioner, please do not hurt regular
middle class solar system owners like us
who invested in their homes for their long term.
We are not wealthy.
Our NEM 2.0 agreement is for 20 years,
not 15 years or less because a deal is a deal.
Finally, seven hardworking young men
came to our home and did a great job
installing our solar system.
As you move forward with the new NEM 3.0 decision making,
please do not to destroy the solar industry
for the hard working Californians.
(bell ringing)
(indistinct)
Thank you so much.
-: Thank you. Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kristen Kirk.
You may go ahead.
Kristen Kirk: Yes.
I'm a solar sales representative for Sun Power
by Preses, the proposed NEM 3.0,
has me worried for my job,
the company I work for, my clients in the queue
in the solar industry as a whole,
NEM 3.0 will devastate the solar industry
and put me and thousands of people out of the job,
not to mention thousands of local businesses.
Please reject this.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mark Simmons.
You may go ahead.
Mark Simmons: Hello.
I'm the founder of the Nonprofit
California Zero Carbon Communities.
Have worked in solar for 15 years
including for solar manufacturers.
We work primarily in the San Joaquin valley.
One of our programs is focused on providing
solar systems to low income homeowners without credit.
And the changes that are now being proposed
would basically kill program.
Overall net metering needs to stay intact
at retailer near retail in order
for the industry to serve the public.
So please don't harm low income homeowners
and reject this proposal.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kent Basian.
You may go ahead.
Kent Basian: Hi, my name is Kent Basian.
I live in Orangeville, California.
I'm just a homeowner.
I'm requesting that there be no tax of any kind on solar.
The utility companies are the benefactor
of charging owners or fees on their solar panels.
Homeowners pay for the installation maintenance,
and also bear the wear and tear
on the roast of their homes
for the installation of solar.
If the CPUC allows these additional fees,
there is no benefit to installing solar,
the CPUs...I'm sorry.
CPUC's core value includes operating with transparency.
I, for one can say that if the CPUC had notified
the public of the possibility
that it will impose fees on solar,
I definitely would not have purchased solar.
(clearing throat)
We purchased a solar to reduce the energy fees
in our retirement, which--
(bell ringing)
-: Thank you very much.
Kent Basian: Thank you.
-: Operator, next caller please.
Operator: And one moment for our next caller.
Our next caller is Ann Marie Wibo.
You may go ahead.
Ann Marie Wibo: Hi, my name is Ann Marie Wibo.
I live in Albian in Mendocino county.
I paid $30,000 for my solar panels
and my kids cannot afford it.
And also they're told that about this new net metering law.
The attack on rooftop solar with deceptive propagandas
aimed at squashing energy independence is non acceptable.
And how can you consider changing the rules
for the 1.3 million of us who have already gone solar?
I cannot believe how the state
can take solar and batteries away
from the public who had blackouts
while California is still declaring an energy crisis.
And we need to reject this proposal
and not increase and tax people who are suffering
with COVID and with above--
(bell ringing)
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Richard Waserman.
You may go ahead.
-: [Richard Waserman] My name is Richard Waserman
and I am a member of the City Council
of the City of Point Marina.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak
to this extremely important topic.
We all know that the issue of human cause
global climate change is one of the most
drastic problems facing the earth today.
One way to combat this problem
on an individual basis is to install
rooftop solar panels on our homes.
We did so about four years ago at great financial sacrifice,
but with the hope that we are combating the effects
of global warming and providing long term savings.
The main goal is reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Allow me to be very clear.
The members of the California Public Utilities Commission
do not exist to protect the profits of utilities.
You're mission statement is contained
and that most important word
and that word is public.
Please do not allow our California utilities
to weaken rooftop solar incentives
with a thousand cuts.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Hasim Rahman.
You may go ahead.
Hasim Rahman: Hello.
My name is Hasim Fady.
I'm with wired into the future
upon becoming a C10 electrical contractor.
I chose to leave my 15 year technician job
at a local community college and go
into the solar business.
I knew at the time,
the direction the solar industry would take
and how much it could help in many ways.
That belief hasn't changed.
It's what's driven me to take care
of solar customers, whether ours or folks
that had their installer go out of business.
I've witnessed what solar power can do for folks,
how they feel after going solar,
how they feel safe when the lights don't go out at night
because of their solar with batteries,
how they feel they've made the investment
towards their future and the future of the planet.
With the currently proposed NEM three agreement,
the right to produce your own energy is a on the line.
And dis-incentivizing low to moderate income California's
in the adoption of decentralized energy production
impedes on their own individual ability
to help themselves and to do their part
in saving the environment.
Unfortunately, moving towards a model that NEM three
represents will set a new negative tone
to the energy consumer.
An energy consumer is considering moving towards solar
(bell ringing) who wants to help supply their own energy--
-: Thank you very much.
Thank you for your comment.
Hasim Rahman: Thank you.
-: Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Julia Sinquimani.
You may go ahead.
-: [Julia Sinquimani] Hello.
My name is Julia Sinquimani.
I am the Latina owner of Solar Connection, Inc.
And we are a green certified
Social Enterprise and Mission Hills.
I've worked in solar for five years.
I love and I am very proud of my small business
because it allows me the opportunity
to show my daughters that neither my sex
or ethnicity matter in this field.
And that with hard work and perseverance,
anything is possible.
It allows me to prove to them that women
like the Lotus Walter, May Carol Jameson,
Hellen Ochoa, Danica Patrick,
and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
didn't paste the way of equality,
just so that the big energy companies
and their lobbyists make it harder
for us to survive and provide for our children.
For those small businesses who survive the pandemic
and the shutdowns, the proposed decision
would kill our small businesses
and it's a disaster.
I implore you the Public Utilities Commission
to just say no and reject this NEM three.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Steven Pope.
You may go ahead.
Steven Pope: Good afternoon.
Good morning, sorry.
I'm calling from Ojai in Ventura county.
You may remember that Ojai was a 100%
surrounded by the 2017 Thomas fire,
which was sparked by Southern California.
Edison's antiquated equipment.
I've retired university of California faculty.
So that doesn't qualify me as a rich man.
My wife and I live in a Senior Centric Development
where I operate in amateur radio,
emergency service hub.
And so another power outage would require us
to be able to provide a cool house
to our neighbors and communication infrastructure.
So, solar panels and battery backup
are not simply a rich man's luxury for us.
Widespread solar panels decreased the need
for long distance power lines,
saving the utilities many millions of dollars
I would like to remind you that the state
had set a goal of a 100% clean energy by 2045.
Why would the CPUC move in the opposite direction?
Lastly, I'd like to remind us that when we deregulated
(bell ringing)
the utilities in 1996--
-: Thank you very much.
Steven Pope: I'll stop there.
-: Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is P. Peterson.
You may go ahead.
P. Peterson: I'm P. Peterson.
I'm with ATS solar in San Diego.
I've been in the solar industry for two years
after my job in a different industry got eliminated.
All my jobs all through my career
have been private industry jobs. And I wanted to ask you,
please don't kill the small businesses.
The make up the solar industry.
We're growing here.
We hired two people this week,
so please don't end my job.
And please don't stop us
from expanding the jobs of California.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
I did wanna pause for a moment
and let the members of the public
who are on the phone line
know that we have a large number
of commenters today.
It may be a long wait time.
And if for those of you who are unable
please know that you can submit comments by email.
The email address is public.advisor.cpuc.ca.gov.
That email address is an alternative to oral comments
this (indistinct) meeting this morning.
Just wanted to let everyone know that, that is an option
if you're unable to wait on the line
for the long wait time that we expect.
Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Joan Taylor.
You may go ahead.
Joan Taylor: Joan Taylor, Palm Springs,
and I'm another voice opposing the proposed decision
on NEM especially any monthly charge.
In short, the PDE would let utilities
monopolize solar power.
And that's the true cost shift
because approving anything that (indistinct)
to this PDE will saddle ratepayers
with yet another gift to utilities.
This time in the form of unnecessary transmission
to costs an ongoing charges.
And when deny us all the reliability and jobs
that rooftop solar provides.
In short DGE is the way of the future.
It's clear with all the proposed NEM
is intended to kill it.
Please throw out this PDE and go back
to square one with a new decision.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mindy Sloan.
You may go ahead.
Mindy Sloan: Hi, I'm Mindy Sloan,
otherwise known as grandma opgrid.
I live in my solar powered home on 15 acres
sitting next to two protected
land spaces near San Diego.
My hope is to consume as little footprint as possible
and leave the planet green and clean
for my grandchildren and other children.
I'm asking for no solar tax of any kind
that we ensure that solar becomes affordable
for all Californians.
That we honor the existing 20 year
protection for solar users.
The utility industries anti-solar propaganda
must be responded to with a firm no,
and replaced with a strong yes.
Yes to equity, open spaces and healthy climate.
Yes to jobs, energy independence,
and California's place as a leader for the nation.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Nick Pearson.
You may go ahead.
Nick Pearson: Thank you for letting me
voice my concerns regarding
the current net energy metering situation.
It is not fair to the citizens of California,
that the CPUC and the Governor are resolving
this issue in the dark behind closed doors.
Thousands of Californians have spoken out
on their right to access the sun
and generate their own electricity
using their own rooftop solar systems.
They rightfully deserve to offset
their own use at retail rates and receive
a fair wholesale price for the access.
Yes, more affluent folks benefited
initially, but now cost drop.
So that middle and low income families
can benefit as long as a fair NEM program is in place.
Changing it now to exclude all that the wealthy
on the claim that it helps the disenfranchise is pathetic.
This would forever prohibit middle
and low income folks from benefiting from solar.
And when ensure monopolistic dominance
of profit driven investor on utility,
it is not the CPUC's place to reinforce
and strengthen monopolies.
It is your place to keep solar powered democratic
and in the hands of the people,
please be as transparent and let the people
of California know your plans
for the future of solar power.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Gary Bus.
You may go ahead.
Gary Bus: Good morning.
I'm Gary Bus.
I'm retired in San Petro, California.
We signed a contract for $20,000 for solar last year,
we were excited, we're going to help our state
out of the depression of unhealthy air
and environment for now and the future.
We cheered and laughed and we thought the best.
Government utility has changed their mind.
Most investors at panels are not blow to taxpayers
like we say, like I say,
we're hardworking families and paying taxes.
We did this investment to clear the air
and feel good about it,
is the pride thing for sure.
I vote for no solar tax.
Please protect our investment.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tor Valenza.
You may go ahead.
Tor Valenza: Hi. My name is to Tor Valenza.
I'm CEO of Unthink Solar in Oakland, California.
I don't directly install solar,
but I work with a lot of people who do.
These are good, hardworking people
who are working their butts off to transition
our state to clean energy.
You've heard from many of them today.
As you know, we are in a climate crisis.
Every clean Watt counts.
Every roof can be a solution,
but only if Commissioners don't gut net metering
and the jobs of thousands of my hardworking solar friends,
please do the right thing,
maintain a high value for them
that creates more jobs and more clean power
for California and as an example
to the rest of the United States.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sherry Roth.
You may go ahead.
Sherry Roth: Thank you.
I'm calling to ask that you please
allow net metering to continue.
It allows households, schools, businesses,
and nonprofits to make long-term
financial investments in rooftop solar.
It is also unjust to not honor promises
to current solar users
in reference to cost shifting
as a justification to make solar harder
for families to install.
I do not believe that my neighbors having solar
increases my cost or means
that they don't pay their fair share.
It's false and has been refuted by many experts.
To increase equity, please help more people get solar
rather than making it harder.
Thank you for hearing me.
Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mary Solday.
You may go ahead.
Mary Solday: Good morning.
I'm Mary Solday homeowner in Oakland.
I'm middle income and I could never afford solar
until I got it through Sunrun.
I sheltered two disabled people who work remotely
through our frequent brownouts.
Thanks to my solar.
Why colonized precious open space
in order to centralize solar.
Centralized power didn't save paradise,
nimble stable, cleaner decentralized solar
provides local jobs,
helps the climate, preserves
the open space and incentivizes companies
to give ordinary working people like me cleaner energy.
Don't protect the utilities CPUC please,
protect California.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Susan Debowski.
You may go ahead.
Susan Debowski: Hi, I'm Susan Debowski.
I live in the San Gabriel valley,
not so long ago we invested
in rooftop solar for a modest home.
Now however, I fear that rooftop solar customers
will be discriminated against
by a solar tax and very concerned,
We won't have 20 years protection
for our considerable investment.
It's important to me that California
meet its clean energy target
by greatly expanding rooftop solar
matching up affordability for middle
and working class ratepayers.
However, the proposed decision will guarantee
that rooftop solar will only be
for upper income homeowners
contrary to the utilities,
very deceptive costship argument
rooftop solar reduces the cost electricity
for all ratepayers by decreasing the cost,
a large scale solars investment in land
and its disruption of sensitive environmental ecosystems
of long distance transmission lines
with a record of wild devastation
and immeasurable cost of grid infrastructure investments,
upgrades, maintenance, and dependence on peaker plants
of excessive power outages as IOU's
increasingly expand long distance power lines
and infrastructure and their investors reap the profits,
all customers of every income pay.
(bell ringing)
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Victoria Krishnan.
You may go ahead.
Hello Victoria Krishnan go ahead.
-: [Victoria Krishnan] Hi, it's Victoria Krishnan.
I live in Burbank.
I strongly feel there should be no solar tax of any kind.
We need more incentives for folks
to invest in solar not less.
We are in a code red climate emergency.
Yes, we need utility scale renewables,
but the fastest way to wean ourselves off fossil fuels
is a solar panel on every roof
and a battery in every garage.
Thanks.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sharine Barkov.
You may go ahead.
Sharine Barkov: Hello.
My name is Sharine Barkov and I live in Long Beach.
I oppose the current NEM three proposal.
It is deeply flawed and can't be fixed.
There should be no tax of any kind on rooftop solar
and the utility company should honor
the existing 20 year protection for solar users.
Your lack of transparency over the rooftop
solar decision is unacceptable.
You owe the public a clear timeline for your process.
During Governor Newsom's state of the state,
he said, quote,
"The California way means rejecting all binarys
and finding new solutions to big problems."
The new solution is clean energy.
Clean energy is rooftop solar.
In 2019 my husband and I installed
rooftop solar on our home.
Our decision was twofold to take control
of our energy bill and to do our part for the environment.
Please keep rooftop solar affordable.
It's good for California.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kay Bonnie.
You may go ahead.
Kay Bonnie: Hello.
My name is Kay Bonnie.
I live in San Carlos.
We all know how climate change is devastating California.
Burning forests, smokey air, dry creeks.
It makes no sense for the California Public Utilities
Commission to penalized people for using solar.
We need more people to install rooftop solar panels.
I have solar panels installed on my roof as does my church.
We want to mitigate climate change,
not make it worse.
I oppose a proposal that requires current
and new solar users to pay new fixed charges
and drastically lowers of solar customer credit
for the extra clean energy they send back to the grid.
This moves California backwards
at a time when we should be doing more
to put electricity into the hands
of everyday people to help address wildfire risk,
blackouts, air pollution, and climate change.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Cameron Thompson.
You may go ahead.
-: [Cameron Thompson] Hi,
I'm Cam Thompson and I live in Simi valley Ventura county.
I'd like the CPUC to recommend to Governor Newsom
that the existing net metering rates be retained
and that no solar power penalty tax
be levied against residential solar power users.
The reason being that if my family
who lives in an average Bryce Ventura county home
had not had these financial assurances.
We would not have been able to afford
to install the solar panels on our roof.
As it is, the monthly savings
we now have on our electrical bill
will over 15 years equal the amount we spend
on installing our solar system.
The big picture here for our state
should be to establish a distributed electrical system
where most single family residents
can be self-sustaining for power
and even contribute to their neighbors power needs.
This would help reduce an increase in transmission lines,
which have been responsible for disastrous fires,
costing lives and billions of dollars in damage.
I believe that incorporating the distributive model
is key to in converting California to clean energy
and a productive economy.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is James San Weiss.
You may go ahead.
James San Weiss: Hello.
This is James San Weiss.
I live in Woodland Hills, California,
and I work for Solar San Weiss as a Solar consultant.
I really would appreciate it
if Governor Gavin Newsom would take a public stand
against the solar tax and in favor of making
rooftop solar more affordable for middle
and working class people,
as well as low income and wealthy people.
Just don't make it certain Governor Newsom
is a leader of our state not to CPUC.
His silence on this issue is very concerning.
I want to know if he is on the public side
or the utility side,
we have the right to know,
and I would appreciate it if he would let us know
how he feels and stop this net metering tree
from controlling whether or not people
can put solar on their home and afford it.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Gregory Stark.
You may go ahead.
Gregory Stark: Hi, Greg stark here.
I own a small solar contracting business
and I've been involved in solar since 1979.
I have well paid electricians and other skilled laborers
working for me and they are all minorities.
So, I want you to understand
solar equals high paying skilled jobs for minorities.
I take pride in providing reasonably priced
and professionally installed PV solar
from my clients with the ROI of between
five and seven years.
I'm dedicated to PV solar not only as a trade,
but as a green alternative energy source
for a small company like mine TO survive
is already challenge with the hurdles of paperwork
and documentation required by utilities
and building departments are reviewed
the proposed CPUC NEM three, and was stunned.
Not only would it change the expected ROI
to 12 to 15 years at today's prices,
it would shorten the promised 20 year grandfather,
to 15 years, which in my opinion would be illegal.
Anything close to that proposed, being a proposal,
being adapted, and I'll be forced to shut the doors.
It would be impossible to give customers
a reasonable return on their--
(bell ringing)
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Craig Dortie.
You may go ahead.
Craig Dortie: My name is Craig Dortie.
I'm a resident of Los Angeles.
Renewable energy is essential if the effects
of climate change are to be mitigated.
It's essential to do everything possible
to reduce greenhouse gases from fossil fuel consumption.
Rooftop solar must not be handicapped
for the financial benefit of investor
owned utilities and stockholders.
The PUC must also ensure that electrical energy
produced by rooftop installations is affordable
to everyone working class and middle class especially
equity and pricing for low income families
need not be achieved by placing special charges
on those who elect to in install rooftop panels.
There are other and better ways to all families
to meet their energy needs.
Equity for those who've already installed
rooftop panels means that the CPUC must not rescind
its past promises of net metering
promises are to be kept not equivocated.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Brian Leval.
You may go ahead.
Brian Leval: Hello.
Thank you for taking my call.
And I had prepared remarks
and my computer just went to sleep.
Okay.
My name is Brian Leval.
I'm from Humboldt county and I wanted
that first thank to Commissioners for your service.
I know that it's not always easy
to sit through these kinds of meetings.
One year ago, my family spent 28,000 to Solarize our home.
With the information we had at the time
it made fiscal sense and more importantly,
it was the right thing to do.
At the time we did not think PG&E
would levy a huge tax on our solar equipment.
I completely understand that PG&E
has made horrible decisions by not maintaining
their electric and gas infrastructure
and now needs to spend huge funds
to fix their problem.
That money should come from stockholders
and not the hardworking people who invested
in their energy futures.
Tax and solar is not the way to a better tomorrow.
This tax will cost California as many
as 60,000 good paying jobs.
No on the solar tax.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Frank Kaitawa.
You may go ahead.
Frank Kaitawa: Hi, this is Frank Kaitawa.
I've been working in the solar industry in North Carolina,
actually for a little over a year,
but in the short time I've been doing this,
I've decided to dedicate my career,
the advancement of renewable energy.
I said, I'm disappointed that California Law crisis
the state in which we in the EC is the solar state
kinda the gold standard is pushing
these harsh penalties on their people
who have gone solar.
This doesn't only affect Californians either.
If back peddling on renewable energy can happen there,
it can happen in any and every state.
It's this simple, any policy that helps renewables
is the right choice and any policy that hurts it
it's the wrong choice,
which is black and white as it gets.
If California wants to remain our leader in clean energy,
the CPUC to keep profit motivated utilities
from punishing California's own citizens
with these draconian fines and penalties
for just contributing renewable energy.
That's all.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Denise Al Halabi.
You may go ahead.
-: [Denise Al Halabi] I'm here. Thank you.
One second please.
Thank you.
President Reynolds, Commissioners,
staff and listeners.
My name is Denise Al Halabi
and I work at Sungage Financial
LLC and Oakland as a Territory Account Manager
for Southern California, Arizona and New Mexico.
I've worked for solar for over a year.
I love my solar career because I get to help
our installer partners offer the lowest
monthly payment options to their customers
as well as zero fee financing options.
The net energy metering to 3.0 proposal would kill my job
and be an absolute disaster
because it would make it impossible
for people to go solar in California
from early 2021 to today,
we have provided thousands of reasons why this decision
would be a disaster for California Rooftops for jobs
are planet and the great state of California.
Please do the right thing and don't believe the lives
and height presented by those who support
the current NEM 3.0 proposal.
Just say (bell rings) no to 3.0.
Thank you.
-: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Brian Wolfson.
You may go ahead.
Brian Wolfson: Good morning.
My name is Brian Wolfson.
I work for SnapNrack Solar Mounting Solutions
manufacturer based out of San Lu Obispo.
I've worked in solar for four years and I chose
to work in this industry as it allows Californians,
the ability to lower their carbon footprint by powering
their home with locally sourced, clean energy.
The proposed net metering decision would be devastating
in our fight against climate change and would undoubtedly
lead to massive job losses across the rooftop industry.
I fear for my future, my livelihood and my family.
California's a leader in this space.
Other states that are starting to ramps up
their solar production, look up to us for guidance.
If we are to foster jobs and do something positive
for our climate, then we must lead by example.
Commissioners, you must reject proposed decision.
Let's make history the right way.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jim Jenal.
You may go ahead.
Jim Jenal: Good morning.
My name is Jim Jenal, I'm the founder
and CEO of Run On Sun.
A small solar and storage installation
company located in Pasadena.
We need net metering rules that make solar affordable
for all, but adding a tax on solar
it just makes it more expensive for everyone.
My company has been in business for 15 years.
We've survived two recessions in a once in a lifetime
pandemic, but we cannot stay in business,
if the net metering rules make the payback
on a solar system decades long.
California needs more solar and storage, not less.
The proposed NEM 3.0 rules need to encourage
those installation, not for them.
Thank you very much for your time.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tim.
You may go ahead.
Tim: Yes, I am here to support the NEM decision.
No, just kidding, I'm with everyone
else and think it's horrible.
I wanna talk about some of the unintended consequences
of a change to net metering.
First, the residential and solar...
The residential, solar and commercial solar
and storage mandates put in place
by the CEC are immediately at risk.
The financial viability of those mandates
would be challenged and likely result in their undoing,
wasting a large amount of generation that will be added
to our energy system over the next decade.
Second, in an already difficult real estate market,
people will be more hesitant than ever to move.
Especially if they're living under an NEM two rules.
I for one, would include the utility cost
in the calculation of any moving decision.
Third encountered to several
of the parties, supporting them change.
Homeowners like myself will be less likely
not to electrify their homes.
When I see an ever increasing electricity rates,
why would I add to that but?
Convincing people to break from their comfort zone
is hard enough, even though heat pumps offer
superior comfort and efficiency, induction offers
cooks more control and they all improve indoor air quality.
(bell rings) The ability to add solar
to their home jump starts the electrification conversation
as the legislature already defeated in attempt to change.
-: I'm sorry, sir, your time is up.
Thank you very much for your call.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Keith Cibber.
You may go ahead.
Keith Cibber: Hi, my name is Keith Cibber.
I'm a resident of Fort Bragg.
I've had solar systems on my homes since 2006
I'm not making money on these systems.
I'm saving my already fixed retirement income.
What happens to the price of solar power when a dictator
invades another country, somewhere in the world?
Absolutely nothing.
Same when OPEC raises their prices or a refinery blows up.
Solar power is economic insurance
ensuring the stability of an economy.
There is only one way to fix the mess that we we're in.
A, no taxes of any kind.
I pay for my system, I pay taxes on the purchase.
B, make solar more, not less affordable
by supporting not impeding market forces
and C honor your existing 20 year
commitments to solar users.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Joseph Scott.
You may go ahead.
Joseph Scott: Hello, Joseph Scott,
power California retired homeowner.
I've heard a lot of discussion about how non solar
customers are disproportionately carrying
more on their monthly bills for the maintenance
of the electrical grid.
And there's a thought of creating
a grid participation charge.
I suggest that it's not just residential customers,
but the grid charge should go to everyone.
Commercial, industrial businesses, schools, and churches.
We all share the grid we should all
share the cost of maintaining it.
In addition, there's a suggestion,
without not paying net providers, the retail cost.
That's kind of like a double whammy.
If you don't get paid for what you provide
and you have to pay the grid, that's like double taxation.
In closing, with the current drought
and the potential for less hydroelectric power,
you should promote more solar.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Man: Hey, I got to do it.
Operator: Our next caller is Maggie Former.
You may go ahead.
Maggie: Hello?
Can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Thank you.
Maggie: Hi, my name is Maggie Volock.
I'm a resident of Santa Cruz.
I'm opposed to the an NEM 3.0 proposed
decision on rooftop solar.
As you consider this decision, please do not impose
any solar tax or fee of any kind on rooftop solar customers.
Also do not remove the 20 year protection for solar users.
We need less costly solar for lower and middle income home.
In this time of conflict with Ukraine,
we need solar more than ever.
As we move to electric vehicles,
gasoline prices is searching after the US banns Russian oil.
It is your patriotic duty now to provide
solar support for electric vehicles.
You are in a position to help our country and our state
to no longer be dependent on Russian gas.
Over 140,000 people have already told you
that they do not want any solar tax.
Please listen to us.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Nate Nott.
You may go ahead
Again, Nate Nott.
Your line is open.
You may go ahead.
Nate Nott: Yes.
This is Nate Nott calling from Stockton,
California presenting CEEE.
Raising rates on all does not provide
equity for people lower income.
My solar panels were installed by local workers of color.
They were installed with made in USA components.
If we lose this industry now
we'll also lose the technology to China.
We should make solar power more available to disadvantaged
communities rather than making it more affordable.
And for those homes that cannot have solar power,
we should provide programs, improve insulation
and materials for making those homes more energy efficient
so that they are more equitable
with homes that have solar panel.
Reducing rooftop power will strain the grid and lead
to more rate requests by PG&E and other major utilities
and taking away this program bait and switch on
the people who signed up for the 20 year program.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jane Penny Morris.
You may go ahead.
Jane: Good morning.
Thank you.
We're a retired homeowner I am...
And we've had solar for since 2017.
At this moment with all that's going on
in our world, we should be helping people
become more energy independent from monopolies
of any kind, including utilities.
We're getting harmed by endless rate hikes.
Consumers should be able to control their own
energy bills and not be penalized for it.
Rooftop, solar and battery storage projects
employ over 60,000 people in every community in the state.
We need to keep these kinds of local clean energy growing,
not put them out of work.
If the CPUC cares so much about equity,
then help more people get solar rather than taking it away
from the middle and working class.
Rooftop solar reduces the cost of long distance power lines
and can save every rate payer $300
a year for the next three years if we keep it growing.
California can't require that all new homes
to have solar panels (bell rings) and turn around--
-: Thank you, thank you for your comments.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Rennie Wise.
You may go ahead.
Rennie Wise: Morning Commissioners.
It's been a year since utilities launched
the attack on rooftop solar with misleading
net metering guidelines provided
by the deceptive right wing lobby group, Alec.
It's been three months since the California
public utilities for mission submitted
their own NEM proposal pricing rooftop solar
out of reach for new adopters.
It's been six weeks since the Commission decided
to delay his decision on NEM three changes,
indefinitely with still no new word.
And the silence is deafening.
Despite crushing backlash from the public Governor Newsom
and the CPUC has still not explained while the state
would even consider making new rooftop solar unaffordable.
How can they justify changing the rules
from 1.3 million of us who've already gone solar?
Or make solar with batteries more expensive for the elderly
or disabled while we're mired and rolling blackouts.
The list of unanswered questions goes on
and the silence is deafening.
Come on and Governor Newsom,
you need you to speak up now.
We demand more transparency
in what's going on (bell rings) behind closed doors.
It's time to end the silence-- -: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Rob Holly
with the solar rights Alliance.
You may go ahead.
Rob Holly: Hi, this is Rob Holly from San Jose.
I'm a member of the solar rights line.
In December you proposed a vicious
anti-consumer giveaway to the utilities.
The Governor said changes are needed.
You owe the public a clear timeline for when.
You should be willing to say that the solar taxes
off the table, after all, even your own
study had trouble justifying it.
You should be able to say that a future NEM
will not discriminate against the poor
as the current one does.
You should be able to reaffirm
your commitment to existing solar users.
This is not a banana Republic where the state can promote
rooftop solar one moment, and then just say,
or just kidding the next,
if we cannot rely on the state to keep its commitments,
what else could be swept away?
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Dan Sparrow.
You may go ahead.
Dan Sparrow: Here I go here. Hello?
I hear you, can you hear me now?
-: Yes, we can.
Dan Sparrow: I'm speaking for Barbara, George.
All of us are threatened by wars for oil
and now greater than ever or nuclear threat.
It's important SOS, save ourselves, save our solar, no tax.
We need incentives, we must get affordable solar for all.
And now that oil's $110 per barrel,
it's going to be more for affordable energy.
So please no tax.
We need upgrades, and incentives.
Look at it, we're facing possible world war three.
And if we're renewable energy,
we're not threatened by nuclear.
I'm an unemployed electrician and the solar industry
needs this to work because I'm unemployed
(bell rings) right now is really important.
-: Thank you.
Thank you very much for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Wayne Morgan.
You may go ahead.
Wayne Morgan: Good morning Commissioners,
from Ventura with regards to top solar,
how will the next proposed decision support
California's clean energy goals?
Looking at the December PD
I see many areas that need to be addressed.
A few of them there shouldn't be a fee based on capacity.
Also there's a limit on installed capacity.
What's the rationale for this?
Both of these factors, disincentive
local electrical production.
Local is where we need the energy.
And there are many other benefits to DERs.
When looking at the avoided cost calculator application
of a discount rate in a climate change context,
doesn't make sense to me and others.
I argue that it should be zero percent.
This shouldn't be...this should be evaluated.
What is the sensitivity of the output
of the ACC to the discount rate?
Please use zero percent in your analysis also.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Raymond Darislack.
You may go ahead.
Raymond: Yes.
This is Raymond Darislack.
I'm from Nevada.
I'm against a solar tax of any kind.
CPUC proposal, it's classic bait and switch,
it's unjust and unethical.
Honor of the existing 20 year potential
or protection rather for solar users,
solar use should be an encouraged, not discouraged.
Is it time to end the ownership model of PG&E?
I suggest we changed to a nonprofit cooperative
where the choice to maintain the systems
is higher than just paying fines.
Lives are at stake.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Dempsey Nelson.
You may go ahead.
Dempsey Nelson: Good morning Commissioners.
My name is Dempsey Nelson from Hermosa beach
where my wife and I have owned our home for 40 years.
And we're the first in Hermosa beach,
and among the first in California to have a photovoltaic
rooftop solar, we did it in 1999.
We are Southern California, Edisons NEM customers Number 33.
We did it because of the million rooftops campaign
that the then Governor and the state of California
knew with an invaluable component in achieving clean,
renewable energy for our state, our nation and the planet.
We have to ensure that rooftops solar
becomes more affordable for working
in middle class people, not less.
No solar tax of any kind more incentives for homeowners
to invest in rooftop solar, not less.
All of this, not just for the homeowners
who rooftops provide a big part
of the clean energy solution,
but for the safe local neighborhood jobs
for the thousands of rooftop workers
who are currently working for hundreds
of local rooftop solar companies
that have sprung up in the over 20 years
since that call for (bell rings)
a million rooftop was initiated.
-: Thank you. Dempsey Nelson: Thank you.
-: Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Debbie Cal.
You may go ahead.
Debbie: Hi, this is Debbie and we live in Sonoma county.
I'm retired, I have three generations in one home.
It has taken me years, but if you hear any noises
in the background, it's because
they're currently installing solar on our home.
I want to beg the CPUC members to reject
these tariffs and changes in the NEM.
Our a electric bill used to be over two years ago,
less than $200 a month, now it's over $300 a month.
The private equity, gray star Blackstone and lone star
in 2011 owned one third of all apartments.
Now they own in 2021, one half of all apartment.
It's them, the private equity companies
that are taking over renters, have them pay for solar.
Another suggestion is instead of burying the cables,
the grid, I think you should create microgrids.
I think that's the way to go for the future
(bell rings) of which you should--
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Ellis Clemens.
You may go ahead.
Ellis Clemens: Hi, excuse me.
My name is Ellis Clemens.
I'm a working class stiff.
I work from paycheck to paycheck.
2017 I took out a $32,000 loan to place solar
on my roof to help with the environment
along with getting out from underneath
Pacific gas and electric thumb.
I think it's a burden and overreach to change
the rules on the hookup speed of the grid.
I'd like to talk about the steps PG&E can take
to save money internally as a corporation.
I drive a nice 1992 GMC Sierra pickup.
If I could afford something different,
I would electric preferred.
However, if you look at PG&E's equipment,
all of it is new, probably replaced annually.
What happened is using the same equipment
for five or 10 years?
PG&E has had decades to upgrade the electric system.
PG&E has put profits and shareholders
over customers (bell rings) and safety.
-: Thank you very much.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is David Hoyer.
You may go ahead.
David Hoyer: Name is David Hoyer,
Lynn city of Lincoln in Placer county.
Saying no to NEM 3.0.
I send an email with all my electrical
and money calculations on February 24th.
I would like to say that with the calculations
that the utility companies have come up with,
the breakeven point will never be reached
because due to the fact that solar energy
is only put out maximum at a certain time of day,
at certain months of the year,
based on those calculations every month
for every kilowatt will be at a loss.
So all of the profit will be realized
by the utility companies.
If that sets the case, why aren't the utility companies
paying to put solar on the roofs, just as,
and they could sell it back to the people the same way
they do from other generation facilities.
They can maintain it,
they can provide the cost,
they can update it.
If they are only gonna be able to make the profits on it.
I'd also like to see that if bond
(bell rings) money was given.
Thank you -: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sally Morgan Gannon.
You may go ahead.
Sally Morgan: Thank you Commissioners
for your objective and neutral service on CPUC.
I'm a retired homeowner in San Diego.
My husband and I worked and saved to install solar
on our home, which California encouraged and incentivized.
And they're now pushing electric cars
and electric appliances, all more ways to address
climate change and provide clean energy jobs.
And that's why we went solar.
Solar should not be taxed and the utilities must honor
their 20 year protection for solar users
and keep net metering the way it is.
Don't let this agreement be reversed.
The utilities are powerful monopolies
responsible to their stockholders.
They need your guidance to reinvent their business models,
working with not against solar owners.
It's just wrong for them to think about changing
the agreement that's been in place.
Please support rooftop solar and solar batteries,
and please be transparent to the public.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Rose Ann Whit.
You may go ahead.
Rose Ann: Expand rooftop solar, not SoCalGas.
My name is Rose Ann Whit with the can climate coalition.
I urge CPUC to require an in an environmental impact report
for SoCalGases, Ventura compressor expansion,
and abide by Ventura county board of supervisors call
for a neighborhood compatibility
and comprehensive health needs assessment.
Utility has repeatedly acted in bad faith and continues
to disrespect and ignore residents health and safety.
It not be trusted to give an unbiased alternatives analysis.
Expanding fossil fuels during a climate emergency
is an affront to all Californians facing
historic mega drought, extreme heat and wildfire threats.
Please expedite closing all methane gas infrastructure,
the Ventura compressor station, Ali canyon,
and PO Del Delray gas storage facility.
Thank you.
(bell rings)
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Art Pinette.
You may go ahead.
Pinette: It's Art Pinette
city of Lakewood solar rights Alliance.
As a tired middle class construction worker,
we deliberated on getting solar
to save money, not lose money,
helping to save the environment for our children
and grandchildren was important to us.
Climate change was becoming more and more evident.
Five years ago, we added solar.
It was expensive for us.
We couldn't afford it if not for the incentives rebate.
Because of the bottom line that the NEM one system
would pay for itself in eight years
was the biggest factor for our decision to go solar.
Savings from our electric bill helped us afford
a used plugin hybrid, which now saves on gas big time.
It doesn't pollute to boot.
If you vote this rule with a monthly fees,
plus the cut on our excess energy to the grid by 80%,
I will consider going off the grid
and turning off Edison altogether.
I don't want to have to go this route.
(bell rings) if NEM three is passed, I'll certainly
scare off solar investors and loose thousands of solar.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Seth Devey
with green day power.
You may go ahead.
Again, Seth Devey, your line is open.
We're not able to hear you.
Please check your mute button.
Seth Devey: Hey, this is Seth Devey.
I'm the owner of Green Day Power
and with all the kinda nonsense with NEM 3.0,
it's made it very difficult as a business
to plan for our future, we have 150 employees.
We're trying to decide one, if they're gonna have jobs,
if we need to as we're growing,
we're trying to buy trucks and make business decisions
and this pause and wait, and all this drama
is just making it very difficult.
We want to reject the NEM 3.0,
we want to have people have their choice
to go solar and also keep jobs strong and solid
in California for the solar market.
And so we oppose it and we want a full rejection
of the proposal so we can move our businesses
forward and plan for the future.
Thanks.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Isaac Lieberman.
You may go ahead.
Isaac Lieberman: Hello, can you hear me?
-: Yes, you can.
Isaac Lieberman: Okay.
My name is Isaac Lieberman, RN in Valencia.
Super comodity graduate of UCLA elected member
of the county and state democratic party.
I support rooftop solar to paraphrase Kennedy,
"Don't see the world as it is and say why,
but let us see the world as it should be and say, why not?"
I oppose violence of all kinds except in self defense.
I oppose any violence retaliatory acts
against executives at company or utility.
However, I encourage prosecution and imprisonment
of every executive from the corrupt monopoly, PG&E, ALEC,
and other organizations who in anywhere responsible
for involved with the fraudulent and vicious attacks
on working class Californians and our children's futures
through these stop seeing lies against rooftop
solar energy, they can switch turning around
taxing solar panels after they appropriately
acquired on new homes, break fraudulent
propaganda campaign, all utilities to public ownership--
(bell ringing)
-: Thank you. Isaac: Thank you.
-: Thank you very much for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mike Payne.
You may go ahead.
Mike Payne: Hello Commissioners.
Thank you for taking my call.
My name is Mike Payne and I am a solar and energy
storage customer and a solar and storage business owner.
I've been in the industry for 19 years and my company
Synergy Solar based in Seba Pool has seven employees.
The NEM three proposal would not only contradict California
climate goals, but could also put us out of business.
I urge you to create a glide path for any changes
and not make the changes effective overnight.
A glide path will help meet the CPUC goals
and protect the solar industry.
I also urge you to remove the fixed fees,
which hurt both solar and energy storage.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jean King.
You may go ahead.
Jean King: Hello.
This is Jean King.
I live in Lemoore, California.
I am a proud owner of solar panels.
I have solar on my house since 2006
(indistinct) no additional costs at true up for 15 years.
I recently installed a heat pump
for use for heating instead of gas.
I will be adding additional solar to provide
the power needed for that heat pump.
Please fix the solar controversy.
I oppose the proposed change in net metering.
The need for more solar is increasing with the invasion
of Ukraine and the restrictions on Russia and its gas.
Distributed solar is best and fastest way
to reduce the dependency on fossil fuel.
The 20 year protection plan must be retained.
Rooftop solar reduces the cost of long distance
power lines and can save all rate payers
$300 a year for the next 30 years.
Rooftop solar also saves for my end for agriculture
and open space to meet our 30% goal
(bell rings) to present our environment.
Thank you. -: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Pete Mecna.
You may go ahead.
Pete: Thank you.
(chuckles) I had a laugh at some of these things.
Thank you Commissioner for listening.
I have... I'm a homeowner.
I'm retired, I'm 78.
We have panels and power walls and we witness
put in power walls, I mean panels,
unless we had power walls storage.
The purpose was to run our house night
and during power failures, reduce electrical charges
and charge electrical vehicles.
The first question that our neighbors have asked us
is what's our return on investment?
How long is it gonna take to pay off?
And so fees, my feeling will have negative impact.
The incentives that have been provided
for us to put the solar panels on have helped
greatly and our system is pretty large.
Yesterday we put in 22.9 kilowat hours onto the grid
while utilizing 30.8 kilowat hours.
That was (bell rings)
-: Thank you. Pete: Thank you.
-: Thank you for your comment.
Operator your next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sue Saunders.
You may go ahead.
Sue Saunders: Hi, my name is Sue Saunders
and I went from Indivisible Ross Valley
and the cross shift argument to justify
NEM three proposal is a lie
and no solar taxes warranted.
Rooftop solar is saving all rate payers money
because it reduces the need
for long distance transmission lines.
Your own research shows that the long
distance power lines are causing rates
to go up yet, you still blame rooftop solar.
Solar users do pay their share of the grid
with a minimum bill and deductions to their solar credit.
In the words of Loretta Lynch,
the former CPUC Commissioner and president,
California utilities make money in large part
by receiving a profit on their assets.
The Commission sets the percentages of profits
that consumers are required to pay.
A utility can increase its profit by building more assets,
including power lines and other equipment.
If they kill rooftop solar then they need
more transmission lines and they profit even more.
By blaming sky high energy bills on solar owners,
(bell rings) utilities and regulators turn attention
away from their many (indistinct) to high rates.
-: Thank you.
Thank you very much for your comment.
Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tony Swan.
You may go ahead.
Tony Swan: Hi, I'm Tony Swan,
am 64 years old and live in Santa Cruz, California.
I worked in the solar industry in the 1970s and 80's,
and then now a solar home owner, which feels great.
The current generation of solar industry workers
is a huge plus to the California economy
meeting the energy needs of California.
Also, I live in a rural area with high fire risk.
We need more solar and batteries to build more resilience
in communities at risk of wildfires.
California has a proud history of leading
on sustainable energy policies.
It's outrageous to see the utility companies attempt
to reverse this and literally kill the solar industry.
Utilities have campaigned to make rooftop solar
unaffordable, and break promises to those
who've already made investments in rooftop solar.
That's unacceptable.
The CPUC is here to regulate the utilities,
not to approve their outrageous requests
to (bell rings) those serve our fossil fuel to produce--
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please. Tony: Thank you
Operator: Our next caller is Deborah Hanky.
You may go ahead.
(indistinct sounds)
Deborah Hanky: Sorry, I couldn't find my phone.
(chuckling)
I'm Deborah Hanky from the Bonny Doon in Santa Cruz county.
I'm a single mom who raised four children
and at 75, a retired home health nurse.
I said over several years,
so I could install solar panels
because of high energy bills.
You hold the key to the future.
It's time for the utilities to adapt.
They aren't the grand investment of the future.
You must stop the greed grab it's time to be publicly owned.
It's time for utilities to plan for solar, not to stop it.
PG&E has generated multiple rate hikes
37% from the PUC since 2019
when they went into bankruptcy.
Nor should I have pay for the 201 million dollar
profit margin they asked for, and you granted in 2021
to pay board members and to help raise stock prices
of which the board members also get.
NEM three seems to be really about paying for the past
non-maintenance (bell rings)
and an attitude and the inability to adapt to reality.
Thank you. -: Operator.
Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Dave Shukla.
You may go ahead.
Again, Dave Shukla your line is open.
We're not able to hear you.
Please check your mute button.
Dave Shukla: Hello, CPUC Commissioners,
Dave Shukla from long beach California.
One, the NEM three process needs
clear transparency and timelines.
Two, I wanna see NEM four rules
that hold polluters responsible.
Three, Edison is a polluting company.
Four, Edison is an entity.
The CPUC is required to regulate in the public interest,
just like Carb with the refinery rule.
Five, the avoided cost calculators in evident embarrassment.
Six, lithium battery needs to be a state monopoly,
not wasted on centralized private plants.
Seven, everyone in California has the right to solar
and frankly, to every dime of Edison's profits
from climate forcing activities to pay for it.
Eight, any tax on behalf of Edison violates my rights
and my family's rights under PURPA.
California ain't Alabama yo.
Nine, Finally present Reynolds,
I encourage you ma'am to look up the story
of David Cash Jr and Jeremy Steyer (bell rings)
who exactly is Edison building the re privatized
infrastructure form men.
Thank you. -: Thank you for your comment.
Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Homer Cathne.
You may go ahead.
Homer Cathne: Yeah.
Hi, good morning Commissioners.
The utilities monopoly and for mismanagement,
the mismanagement they did and all that, they're going
after money from solar homeowner instead
of going restructuring and looking internally
and looking at their investors
and getting the money from there.
Now you guys gonna kill a whole industry in California,
thriving industry in California.
An industry that is gonna save the environment,
it's gonna fight to global warming, all that stuff.
Now, all that is not gonna go unnoticed.
And Governor Newsom term is up for election this year,
and is gonna be problematic.
And he, at some point, somebody's gonna put the finger like,
Hey, who's (bell rings) doing all this.
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator. next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Eric Height.
You may go ahead.
Eric Height: Thank you.
My name is Eric, I live in Santa Clara county.
Rooftop solar is a huge investment,
mostly by homeowners and our shared energy grid.
Rooftop solar offsets grid costs elsewhere
benefiting the utilities and others.
Rooftop solar needs to be encouraged, not deterred.
Rooftop solar needs to become more affordable,
not more expensive.
I understand if the cost of grid access needs to be raised,
but it must be done uniformly for all
rather than picking on rooftop solar.
Thank you for listening.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Glen Calwell.
You may go ahead.
Glen Calwell: My name is Glenn Calwell.
I'm a retired homeowner in a fixed
income in Arcata, California.
I am middle class.
I've invested in rooftop solar with net metering
on every house I've lived in to get control
of my utility bills while my neighbors
pay $300 to $400 per month per power,
and can't afford groceries.
If the solar tax passes you'll be hurting people like me,
the only way to fix this proposal
is no solar tax at any kind,
make solar more affordable for middle
class households, not less affordable.
Honor the promised 20 year protection
for solar user like me.
Consumers should be able to control their energy bills.
Rooftop solar saves all users money,
whether they have solar or not
by reducing wear and hair on long distance,
power lines we produce and share locally.
Decentralized rooftop solar and battery storage
is the best way for people like me
to protect themselves from power outages.
Climate change is happening now,
why would you nickel and dime roof rooftop solar
on open states, rooftop solar reduces a need to develop
large solar and wind farms and transmission lines.
Let's be smart about how we transition
to clean energy and utilize our rooftop.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Gerald Etchingham.
You may go ahead.
-: [Gerald Etchingham] Thank you.
My name is Gerald Etchingham and I live
in Sebastopol, California,
and I spent over $30,000 in 2021
to put solar panels on my roof.
I took out a loan and relied on PG&E's statements
that I would continue to receive the 20 year
net metering credit so that I could recover the expenses
of my $30,000 investment and help pay back my loan.
This is a bait and switch technique
by PG&E and should not be allowed.
I also need to add another
15 to $20,000 for backup batteries.
I would like to purchase an electric vehicle,
all this costs money and goes in the same direction.
I wanna reduce my carbon footprint.
So I strongly oppose any solar tax
and any reduction in the solar credit.
The CPUC must honor the existing 20 year protection
of net metering and protection for solar users like me,
who borrowed money to pay for my solar panels.
I live paycheck to paycheck and I fully relied
on the net metering program to continue
and get better, not worse.
The CPUC should be helping consumers to become
less team dependent on monopolies like PG&E
(bell rings) who influence police
lobby politicians to do the wrong thing.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Liz Campos
with Westside community council.
You may go ahead.
Liz Campos: You ordered so Southern California gas
to meet with my community about the toxic
compressor poisoning and elementary school.
Their so-called public meetings in October 9th, 2021
locked me and others out denying us access.
Their new meetings proposed for March 29th
through April 2nd, deny my community access.
64% of us do not own vehicle.
53% have no digital access.
The meetings are being held in a fancy High Rise Hotel
with no bus service from west Ventura.
These meetings need to be rescheduled in an area
where anyone who wants to can attend.
The CPUC should be morally obligated to order SoCalGas,
to end the farce and move this compressor
away from our children's school.
Stop SoCalGas's environmental racism,
focus on climate and life,
not the greed of this corporation.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Greg Higgins.
You may go ahead.
And it looks like he has one moment
again Greg Higgins, go ahead.
Greg Higgins: Hello.
Good morning members of the CPUC.
If you're listening, would you mind raising your hands?
Okay.
Thank you for giving my time for comment.
I'm a California rooftop solar owner,
but more specifically, I'm an early adopter.
The world is changing like it always has, and always will.
Transformational change is at our doorsteps
and the change always requires early adopters,
but world change events also require
next step majority adoption.
This is where you are being asked to participate.
We are all running our own legacy and today
your legacy will be cast in history.
In the end history will see two participants in the quest.
One will be remembered as adopters and leaders and the other
will be remembered as laggers and obstructionist.
History is always rendered laggers insignificant.
It's time now for you
to invest in our children's children's future
and follow our lead in a world changing endeavor.
We early adopters have led the way to provide
a viable solution to the climate crisis.
Full adoption (bell rings) is now needed.
Please exercise your core value of stewardship
and lead the rest of the way.
You know what's need.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Nancy Mangini.
You may go ahead.
Nancy: Hi, my name is Nancy Mangini.
I live in Redwood city, California.
I invested nearly $30,000 in 2012
to put solar panels on my roof.
I used to work for NASA and I could see
the development of solar industry there.
I am leasing on a 20 year lease.
I will recoup my investment only if NEM is rejected
and you honor your contracts.
I'm retired.
The reason we we put on solar way back then
was because we anticipated a fixed income
and needed to cap our energy bills.
I represent hundreds of thousands of retirees
in the bay area who have done the same thing,
and we are all politically active.
Please tell the Governor his future
as well as ours is on the line on this issue.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tom Felan.
You may go ahead.
Tom Felan: My name is Tom Felan,
myself and wife live in a home near the town of Santa Rosa.
We are retired and lived on a fixed income.
Global warming is not coming to California,
it's already here.
Thanks to PG&E, we lost our house in the 2017 tubs wildfire.
At the time, it was the worst wildfire
in California's history.
That is no longer the case because every year,
since the wildfires were larger than the preceding year,
the CPUC needs to stop acting like a who owned subsidiary
of the utilities and start acting like a reguratory agency
working for the benefit of the citizens of California.
Here's how, solar power needs to be more affordable
for its citizens, not less affordable
by taxing solar and implementing fees.
Solar power will free us
from the never ending escalating power hikes.
You guys allow PG&E to impose on us.
It makes us independent of power outages.
It creates jobs and solar power will help mitigate
the impact of global warming.
You need to honor the existing 20 year
protection for solar users.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Dave Comca.
You may go ahead.
Frank: I'm Frank.
Waited in fear for our rights
to save solar from the government.
Government only care to win and hurt money rather than save
innocent children from their gas chamber.
For many decades, we have been SoCalGas gas as,
and if you CPUC fail to move SoCalGas away from Ventura.
You are responsible for our unjust gas deaths.
How will you look into our children's eyes
and tell them you condemn them to die at the hands
of SoCalGas, make the SoCalGas men move away.
Our children are in fear.
Save our children in Southern California.
Save our children, save our children, save our children now,
else you'll be out of office Newsom.
Please save our children.
Save our children,
save our children now because children are our future.
(bell rings)
-: Thank you.
Frank: Thank you. -: Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Daniel O'Connell.
You may go ahead.
-: [Daniel O'Connell] Hello, my name's Daniel O'Connell.
I'm a farmer and cattle rancher.
Agriculture is one of the cornerstones of our economy.
It's one of the old industry.
The basically pays retail for everything and gets
a wholesale price for their product.
In addition to historic drought and the freeze that killed
80% of our fruit crop were being hit with crippling costs
on all our inputs including fueled fertilizing chemicals.
Hedging our electrical costs for solar
is the only overhead we can hedge both environmentally
and financially remains sustainable
because the more our majority of agriculture
is seasonal, we are highly dependent
on export credits and can't utilize batteries.
These proposals under consideration will destroy
the economic feasibility of solar for our seasonal pumps
and processors, and be the demise of our agricultural
economy, which hurts not only farmers,
the supporting businesses and farming communities,
but raise the cost of food for everyone
and put our food security at risk.
We're already dependent on foreign fuel.
Do we really wanna put ourselves in the same situation
with the food we feed our families,
please rule against the proposed rate changes
in the present form and continue
to support customer side solar energy.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
I did wanna pause for a moment to let the members
of the public know that we'll be taking
a 15 minute break at noon.
So we'll break at noon and come back at 12:15,
but we'll proceed with a few more comments until noon.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Laura Rosenberger Haider.
You may go ahead.
-: [Laura Rosenberger Haider] Hello.
Please reverse the new decision, we need to encourage
installation of solar panels so that we have enough
electricity to meet the cap 26 agreement to keep
global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius,
but we need 90% of us to convert
to a electric space and water heaters by 2035.
And there's even grants for that conversion
to grants from Tech Clean California,
and also in the new inverter type of heat pumps
are more efficient and save money
and keep more constant room temperature.
If I think a lot of people are gonna be converting
over and for me having a electricity for them, right?
Thanks.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Chris Dorin.
You may go ahead.
Chris Dorin: Good morning.
My name's Chris Dorin from Bakersfield.
The CPUC can fix this disastrous
proposed vision of NEM program.
First abolish a solar tax of any kind period.
No one should be taxed on a monthly basis
for choosing to utilize renewable solar power.
The sun belongs to everyone.
Ensure that solar power becomes more affordable
for all households and users
are compensated at a retail rate.
Consumers should be able to control
their energy bills and not be penalized for it.
And finally avoid the bait and switch,
honor the existing 20 year protection
for current solar users, use your great
sound financial decisions under the current
NEM structure to invest in benefits of solar.
Benefits that positively affect all of us
by boostering grid capacity, realizing
positive environmental aspects of electric vehicles
and reducing our dependence on fossil fuel.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is James Pearson.
You may go ahead.
James Pearson: Hi, can you hear me now?
-: Yes, we can.
James Pearson: Hi, my name is James Pearson.
I live in Gilroy, California in Santa Clara county
and I'm also retired and a solar rooftop owner.
I urged the Commission to reject NEM three,
it's completely backwards in meeting
California's climate globals.
We would be silly to try to make our climate change goals
simply with concentrated energy production distributed
generation is a necessary part of the whole plant.
We need to start over and be more transparent
and open in our discussion.
There's a lot of stakeholders at the table,
but the primary ones, the CPUC has is the consumer.
Thank you.
(bell rings)
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Thomas Folsom.
You may go ahead.
Thomas Folsom: Hello, my name is Thomas Folsom,
a homeowner and Joshua Tree, a small rural community
that is the gateway to a Beautiful national park.
I oppose NEM three, especially the increase in feeds.
We must focus on making home and business rooftop solar
more affordable for everyone instead of penalizing,
those that invest in solar at home.
This is a blatant attempt by the utilities to favor
industrial generation over homeowners.
Our Joshua Tree community fought hard and won against local
industrial solar projects because of the dev stating effects
to the environment and improper placement.
We are seeing the desert destroyed
as more and more huge industrial projects
and transmission lines are being implemented.
I was just in an area south of Peram where thousands
of acres of untouched desert are being devastated
by a huge industrial solar project.
We must invest in the environment and energy
security by investing in local generation
storage and other solutions.
Listen to don't penalize the people.
Thank you.
(bell rings)
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Patrick McKenzie.
You may go ahead.
-: [Patrick McKenzie] Thank you.
My name is Patrick McKenzie.
I live in San Bernardino County.
I'm a small organic farmer.
I put solar in my house, farm, and electric car.
I invested in solar because of promises
and because I believe in alternative sources of power.
To now tax me and make it more difficult and expensive
to install solar for everyone is against
what California is working for.
We also need our 20 year protection.
Listening to comments today,
sounds like it is the public against the utilities.
Kind of like Ukraine, huh?
Thank you for listening to my concerns.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is John Brooks.
You may go ahead.
John Brooks: Yes, hello.
I am John Brooks.
I'm calling you from the Oak View, California.
I'm about eight miles from the dangerous polluting
McFarland gas compressor in west Ventura.
I don't know what Southern California Gas
will say about relocation
in the upcoming so called community meetings.
Will they lock the doors
like they did in October when people arrived?
Do they care that these meetings are being held
at a luxury hotel where people can't even get to it?
Southern California gas just wants you to think
that they carried out your public input mandate.
The only way to achieve environmental justice
is to order a full EIR,
which would prove the Olive street
location is a disaster waiting to happen.
I must say happy St. Patrick's day.
Let's drive the snakes outta west Ventura
and that's Southern California Gas.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
And now we will be taking a 15 minute break.
So we will return at 12:15.
Man: Brought to you by admin monitor.com
will begin momentarily.
Thank you for your patience.
The feed for this--
-: Thank you all for standing by, today's conference
has resumed president Reynolds, you may proceed.
-: Thank you very much.
We do need to reestablish a quorum Agenda Clerk,
could you please call the role.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner John Reynolds?
-: Here?
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Here.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Present.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: I'm here.
Agenda Clerk: President Alice Reynolds?
-: Here.
We have a quorum.
We continue with our public comment period.
Operator, could you please call the next caller?
Operator: Our next caller is Diana Otto.
You may go ahead.
Diana Otto: Thank you monopolies,
like PG&E failed to plan for a solar future
and now they blame it on the rate payers.
Instead of coming up with creative solutions
to share expenses, they want to go back on their promises
and punish customers who are actively helping
California meet its energy goals.
A smart fifth grader could tell you
this isn't about fairness.
It's about laziness in the part of the giant monopolies.
Don't go backwards,
keep solar affordable and viable,
by the way I'm one of five children.
As kids, we learn not to waste anything
as in turn off the lights when you leave the room,
But we did not get punished for doing the right thing.
Solar is the right thing.
Don't smother it.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Renee Ryan.
You may go ahead.
Renee Ryan: Good morning.
My name is Renee Ryan.
I'm an educator from San Jose
and I am against the NEM 3.0 proposal.
Last year, my husband and I were finally able to afford
to put rooftop solar on our home.
I love it, I tell everyone how great
it is to be more energy and dependent.
You can imagine my disappointment when learning
about the NEM 3.0, it's a travesty and it's unacceptable.
We should want more people in the state
to be able to afford rooftop solar.
We should not be penalizing Californians
who wanna do the right thing to help
tackle the climate crisis just so the utility companies
like PG&E and their stockholders can benefit.
Do not impose a solar tax of any kind,
ensure that solar becomes more affordable for all.
And please honor the existing 20 year
protection for solar users.
(bell rings)
These are just the basics.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Doug Heir.
You may go ahead.
Doug Heir: Hi, this is Doug Heir. I live in Bakersfield.
I'm opposed to the NEM three agreement.
I don't believe that any to solar tax should be implemented.
I think that you'll crush an industry that supports
over 60,000 jobs in the state,
and I'd like to see the NEM two agreements continue.
I, for one, if this goes through,
will be looking at battery backup and disconnecting
from the grid so that I don't have to pay PG&E anything.
Currently we're paying $120 a year just as a connection fee.
So we're already giving PG&E money when I'm a net producer.
I don't rely on the grid for anything aside from
nightly use, but I have a surplus at the end of every year
and have since I installed my system.
So I oppose all changes to the current net metering system
and would encourage the public utility Commission
to reject this new NEM metering program.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Man: I'm J--
Operator: Next caller is Jeff Rudison.
You may go ahead.
Jeff Rudison: My name is Jeff Rudison.
When my wife and I moved back
to Santa Cruz county, eight years ago,
we chose to put rooftop solar on our manufactured home,
an investment for our old age, and to save the planet.
Our end of the year, true up cost
for electricity last year was $18.
$18 because we decided to generate our own electricity city.
Now you, the CPUC seem prone to grant private utility
companies permission to undermine
our investment for their monetary gains.
As I look at your faces, I have to wonder as the CPUC
become the California private utilities Commission,
serving the money to interest of private instead
of the life interest of the public
valuing money over life is not okay.
In the light of all this public comment,
should you decide to go ahead and NEM three,
you'll expose your commitment to private money
over public life, then shame on you.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
-: Our next caller is Trisa Lafer.
You may go ahead.
Trisa Lafer: Hello. I'm Trisa Lafer.
I live in Somerset, California,
that's a rural area in El Dorado county.
I am a senior citizen, 75 years old.
I'm living on a fixed income.
Seven years ago my PG&E bill
was around $700 during the summer.
I needed to have affordable electricity
to run my large pot because of a 900 foot water well
and a 5,000 gallon water tank for my livestock
and to fight the fires.
Therefore I borrowed $42,000 on the equity of my home
to put on solar panels on my property.
If this I am against the Nem three proposal,
if this goes through, I will loose my investment.
I will have to pay the loan back, and also again,
very, very, very high rates.
When this has been done in other parts of the other parts,
it has been destroying the solar industry
in Nevada was done.
47% in one year was lost on solar installations
and they reversed it.
This your plan was done in Imperial Irrigation District
a year later, 88% over the next two years,
a loss in solar installations in Turlock Irrigation District
in net metering in 2015 and installations declined by 74%.
It's very obvious, the proof is there.
This will destroy our solar industry in California.
It will not be good for energy.
It will not be good to fight the wildfires
I beg you Please do not go with this plan.
The M excuse me, NEM 3.0.
It hurts seniors.
It hurts low income people
and the middle class work of people. (bell ringing)
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Julian Aguilar.
You may go ahead.
Julian Aguilar: Hi, thank you so much.
My name is Julie Aguilar.
I live in this Sierra foothills in Plasterville
similar to the previous caller
up here between Sacramento, Lake Tahoe.
And I'm calling to urge CPUC and Governor Newsom
to fix their current proposal that's drastically
gonna limit California's ability to benefit from solar.
My husband and I are in our 60's
and just like many other callers
we added solar to our roof three years ago,
as a way to manage living expenses,
trying to make that ballooning PG&E cost
under in our just maybe making,
helping us fix, manage our budget.
So, we expect our state leaders and state agencies
to support all California's ability to use solar energy,
which is one of our best aspects here in California.
And so we say no to the solar tax.
We want to the proposal to honor the 20 year protection.
As many colleges have mentioned,
it takes 15 or 20 years just to net out after you install.
And we want also all solar users
to be able to get the full net meeting-- (bell ringing)
promise.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jose Tori Boyino.
You may go ahead.
-: [Hose Tori Boyino] Hello.
I'm Hose Tori Boyino.
I represent here for community energy in San Diego.
I want to say the justification for the proposed NEM three
is the new version of the avoided cost calculator.
The changes to the avoided cost calculator
were approved without public hearing
on the grounds of the changes were minor,
but changes that profoundly alter
the output of a model cannot be called minor.
Further a study by vibrant clean energy
came to the opposite conclusions
that the new avoided cost calculator did.
So, the avoided cost calculator cannot be considered
reliable enough to base policy on.
I think the whole thing needs to go back
to the original studies and needs to be reworked.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Dolly Riley.
You may go ahead.
Dolly Riley: Thank you.
Greetings to the CPUC president,
Commissioners and solar advocates.
My name is Dolly Riley for Redwood valley, California.
As fossil fuels ruin our planet quite obvious
in our extreme drought and severe weather.
It is only logical to use rooftop solar energy,
a solar tax makes the use of solar panels
less attractive, more expensive.
Solar users should not be unfairly taxed
for doing the right thing.
That brings me to the CPUC.
I ask that you stop your lockstep actions,
approving everything PG&E wants
and begin to finally do your job
advocate for citizens rights, not green light,
everything the utilities ask for.
Governor Newsom, we need your support now
to disallow any solar tax.
The solar tax is an evil idea.
Stop it now.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Next caller is Chris Ryan.
You may go ahead.
Chris Ryan: Yeah.
Hi.
Can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Chris Ryan: Yeah.
I'm Chris Ryan, a private citizen in San Diego.
When purchasing my solar panels about five years ago,
I actually bought a little bit more than I consumed
because I didn't want to have a shortfall
in power generation and so I generate a surplus
which goes on in grid and it benefits
those who need electricity.
And I get no compensation for that, of course.
I'm doing my part on following the guidance
we've been given in our state historically,
which was reducing our carbon footprint.
Now changing the rules.
It really is a bait and switch that is not fair
to the people who calculated their payoff
to be sometimes 10 or 20 years to pay off their panels.
It really is not fair to us.
It's a bait and switch by changing the rules
in the middle of the game.
Please let these net metering rules as they are scanned.
And we look for the Governor to provide leadership in this.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Cindy Bailey.
You may go ahead.
Cindy Bailey: Hi.
My name is Cindy Bailey.
I live in Culver city, California,
which is right in between Los Angeles and Venice Beach.
And I opposed to any NEM three proposal.
I definitely agree with the first caller
that the calculations in the document
are deeply flawed and cannot be counted on
for any conclusions they have come.
Those would be flawed as well.
I want to reiterate that all of the solar rooftop users,
we do pay grid fees every month.
Although we're totaled into a yearly calculation
every single month, those are added to our bill.
So, we do pay grid fees to keep up the grid.
We do pay taxes on any energy that we use.
So, anything we have to buy from the electric company
we do pay taxes and fees on that as well as our grid fee.
So for people to say that we're not paying
our fair share is simply not true.
The other thing that I wanted to mention
was for lower income families.
I think it is important that they also be able to afford
to put solar rooftop on for their own homes
or their rental units.
And in that case, the state or the Commission
or whoever would be responsible for this,
could certainly give them--
(bell ringing)
more tax incentives based on their income level.
Thank you.
-: Thank you very much for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Karine Rigie.
You may go ahead
Again Karine Rigie, your line is open.
We're not able to hear you. Please check your mute button.
Karine Rigie: Okay.
My name is Karine Rigie.
What did I pay for my solar rooftop panel?
Zero, zero, zero.
I'm 70 years old on a fixed income.
Most of our politicians have voted in favor of this tax.
We need to get them accountable
and find out where they live.
I live in Yorba Linda.
I don't have a lawn anymore.
I went to rock.
I don't... my water bill is almost $20 a month.
Come on, everybody has... Kaiser has solar panels.
Solar panels are free.
Oh, all you have to do is contact Tesla.
Oh, the government ran Tesla out of the state.
I didn't get my solar panels from Tesla.
I got them from Solar City in 77A.
(bell ringing)
Thank you very much. -: Thank you.
Karine AG: Go get 'em. -: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Bruce Goffy.
You may go ahead.
Bruce Goffy: Yes.
My name is Bruce Goffy in Piedmont, California.
I installed solar panels in my house two years ago
because the net energy metering agreement
made it affordable and practical.
My systems costs will be paid for with the savings
on my PG&E electric bill in approximately seven years.
In earlier years,
the estimates were too high,
12 to 13 years.
I wanted to go solar because I believe
we must all do what we can to combat Lomo climate crisis.
We must create more electricity
without burning fossil fuels.
And that goes for home owners
as well as energy companies.
In the coming years,
electric cars will create a larger
and larger demand for electricity,
which our current grid cannot satisfy.
My solar panels help reduce the residential demand
so that power can go to vehicle charging stations instead.
If CPUC use decision makes it more expensive
for residential solar panels,
there will be less clean energy available.
(bell ringing) There will be more to teach need
you need to generate electricity--
-: Thank you.
Bruce Goffy: By burning carbon--
-: Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Maylee Hun.
You may go ahead.
Maylee Hun: Hi.
My name is Maylee Hun and I live Ohio, California.
I was born and raised in California
and I'm calling in to make it clear
that there should be no solar tax of any kind
and CPUC ought to ensure that solar
becomes more affordable for working
and middle class households.
The only thing a solar tax is going to do
is reduce solar and we need much more of it.
If California's gonna its climate(indistinct)
rooftop solar is an empowering win-win
for our environment and for communities
to create resilient energy infrastructure
that can also give back to.
We're running out of time.
We must slash our emissions in half by 2030
for a livable future and that means dramatically
different government policies.
And you can be a part of that.
California's a leader in climate policy
and what we do other states and countries follow.
So, I urge you to consider the legacy you'll be leaving.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Fiji Shook.
You may go ahead.
Fiji Shook: Hi.
My name is Fiji Shook and I live in Rancho Palo Verde
and we've had rooftop solar panels on our house
for about 16 years.
We're the first in our neighborhood to get 'em.
It was the best investor we ever made.
We encourage everyone to get them.
I'm here to voice our concerns with even
the thought of a solar tax event,
any kind solar needs to be affordable
to all households and encouraged,
not discouraged as the tax will surely do.
Please honor the existing 20 year protection for solar use.
It's absolutely shameful that we even have to ask for that.
We generate clean electricity for ourselves
and our neighbors with minimal
electrical transmission loss.
How efficient is that?
We need to know your position on the solar tax
so we can all move forward with our action plans.
Your own website says your agency is dedicated
to ensuring a safe, reliable utility service
at reasonable rates protecting against fraud
and promoting the health of California's economy.
A solar tax is counterproductive to your goals.
As you know, households get paid
from Edison for the electricity we generate
and they turn around and sell it for a much higher price.
Now the monopolies are pushing for a solar tax.
(bell ringing)
(indistinct)
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sam Johnson.
You may go ahead.
Sam Johnson: Hi, thank you.
Yeah, I guess it's still a head scratcher to me,
how we're kinda having this conversation still
since all the information and data out there
really makes this an obvious situation
and it's not one of good will or rationale,
but really just a, an attempt to destroy an industry
that's important to obviously a huge percentage
of Californians and people in general.
So, obviously vote no to NEM metering three,
everybody on this call is a very intelligent person
and clearly there is no goodwill
rationale behind supporting it.
So it really begs the question,
why are we still having a conversation?
So do the right thing,
and do what's right for the people
as you're called to do.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is David Robinson.
You may go ahead.
-: Yes.
I'm a long time customer of solar.
I bought, I put solar in 2011
and it's been a fantastic thing for my home
and for our budget.
And the idea that you can't plan to add solar.
If you're thinking about getting a heat pump
or electric car really puts people behind the eight ball,
you really gotta make a choice here.
You're choosing winners and that's the utilities
and these losers of the consumers.
And you guys are supposed
to be standing up for the consumers.
You're not supposed to be in the back pocket
of the IDEW and the big utilities.
So, I urge you to vote no on NEM 3.0.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jeff Griffith.
You may go ahead.
Jeff Griffith: Hey, thank you for listening to me.
My name's Jeff Griffith,
I live in San Diego county.
I'm retired fire captain.
The fires about 30 years ago
are different than the fires today.
When I received my paramedic license,
I did a rotation through paradise hospital.
The hospital along with an entire community
of paradise has been devastated by wildfire.
We need to go forward with, from top fire.
I oppose any changes in reimbursement rates.
And the thing is the state of Florida just passed this.
It was sponsored by Republican state Senator.
We should be better than the state of Florida.
We are a state of California.
Thank you so much.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Glen Duma.
You may go ahead.
Glen Duma: Yes.
I renovated my small Santa Monica home
in 2019 because climate change
had made an unlivable, many hot days forcing
me to spend all my time in the one room
where I had put a window air conditioner.
As a retired senior I'm 74,
my very survival was at stake.
So, I installed all electric appliances
and central HVAC air and heat investing
in solar panels on the roof
to support the increased energy usage.
Under the current surcharge proposal.
My electric bill would be about twice
what it was before I ditched my gas stove,
dryer and wall heater and wet all electric
effectively punishing me for doing so.
How is that fair?
The proposed kilowatt surcharge is an unacceptable
overreach and a breach of faith.
With those who have tried to support
California's response to climate change,
please reject the surcharge and thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Bob Chipola.
You may go ahead.
Bob Chipola: Hello.
At 70 years old, I rebuilt our home.
After the 2017 tubs fire destroyed our neighborhood.
The rebuilt process was tough with half of our old neighbors
leaving instead of staying to fight
for recovery of their homes.
We all just wanted to go back home.
The 2018 advanced energy rebuild program
approved by the CPUC encouraged me
to create an energy efficient
state of the art carbon saving home.
Ours is a solar powered home with battery storage,
which generates more electricity than it uses.
To increase profits,
the large utilities are trying to reduce
incentives for rooftop solar,
and to reduce payments for excess power sent to the grid.
Now is not the time to go backward.
If zero net carbon and zero net energy are our goals.
All electric homes with rooftop solar
is the future of California.
Governor Newsom, are you listening?
CPUC members, are you listening?
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: And Our next caller is Robert Grayson
with blue sky solar.
You may go ahead.
Robert Grayson: After earning my degree
in Environmental Biology,
I embarked upon a 17 year career in solar.
During which time I have trained
many individuals into a good paying career
in the state of California,
bolstering our economy while helping to increase
the quality of life for over 600 rooftop solar customers.
The measure before this body would threaten
all those jobs, all those gains,
it would threaten to un-employ thousands of Californians
and harm hundreds of thousands more
while harming the environment and our economy.
Please, I beg you consider supporting rooftop solar
instead of assaulting it.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Marion Gala.
You may go ahead
Again Marion Gala.
Your line is open. We're not able to hear you.
Please check your me button.
And should we go to the next caller?
-: Yes, please do operator.
Thank you.
Marion Gala: Hello?
Okay.
My name is Marion Gala
and I'm a resident of Elecerburn, California.
I invested in solar panels two years ago,
centralizing our cooperation
and with the government to use solar.
It's not only unfair,
but accrual betrayal of the trust
we had put in the state of California.
My objections to this NEM proposal are as follows.
Number one, this discourage is more people
to participate in the solar program
rather than incentivize more people to do so.
Number two, taxing solar users or making them
pay more seems to be the most illogical
and nonsensical strategy.
Externalizing them rather than rewarding them
for their cooperation, investment and sacrifice.
In short, this is the most counterproductive move
California will ever have.
If it wants to achieve clean energy and clean environment.
Number three, this is an additional financial burden--
(bell ringing)
Thank you.
-: Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Karen Cue.
Your line is open.
You may go ahead.
Karen Cue: Thank you.
My name is Karen Cue and I live in Bellina, California.
I'm 75 years old and we've had solar's panels
on our roof since 2005.
I don't usually speak out,
but I feel so strongly about this,
that I'm calling today to urge you
to reject the proposal NEM 3.0 and to do three things.
One is to have no solar tax of any kind.
Two is to strive to make solar more,
not less affordable for all Californians
and three to honor that existing
20 year protection for solar users.
My reasons for speaking out today are many
from equity to energy independence,
but most of all is that rooftop solar
reduces the needed developed large solar
and wind farms and transmission lines.
Please move immediately with a clear timeline
to protect rooftop solar battery storage jobs,
help more people get rooftop solar,
reduce the cost of long distance power lines
and protect our open space and our climate.
(bell ringing)
-: Thank you.
Operator, next call please.
Operator: Our next caller is Billy Eliza.
You may go ahead.
Billy Eliza: Hi,
Billy Eliza from Chico, California,
that's in the county of Butte.
I previously lived in paradise until my home
and our entire town were damaged
in the 2018 campfire caused by PG&E.
We had to use every penny we had to purchase
another home here in Chico after the campfire.
And the first thing we did was put on
a new roof and install solar panel.
We knew we would not be able to afford
the high cost of electricity
along with a much higher mortgage living in Chico.
Solar was supposed to be a long term investment
to us save money while helping the environment
in the state of California.
Now the CPUC wants to penalize us by charging us
an additional monthly fee for having solar/
$57 per month is not a small fee
that's money that could be used
to put food on the table and gas in our cars.
In addition, you're trying to eliminate
the 80% of the solar credit that users get
for sharing our surplus of solar energy.
Slashing the--
(bell ringing)
metering credit by 80% will destroy bill savings
for solars and make it non affordable
for low income and regular income family.
Thank you.
-: Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Woman: You made that next caller-- (indistinct)
Operator: Our next caller is Mike Johnson
with the Ventura city council.
You may go ahead.
Mike Johnson: Thank you anonymous operator,
Mike Johnson, Ventura city council
calling about the SoCalGas compressor station.
Next that decided next to a title one elementary school
in a predominantly Spanish speaking
low resource area, a Ventura.
As a city, we have an obligation to protect
our residents and things happen
at the current compressor site
that can tie up half our fire engines for example.
We have to pay to develop a plan
for emergencies at the compressor station.
The city and county and our residents
are shouldering huge external costs,
a full EIR would make all that plane
and examine alternatives
meetings in a luxury hotel which is kinda the point.
Please don't shift costs to our residents
or the city or county.
When the externalities get priced into rates.
When customers come a little closer to paying
the actual cost of their gas,
some will invest in upgrading
or replacing outdated equipment,
reducing their reliance on fossil fuels
and it will pay off.
That's good for everybody,
a shiny new station across the river.
Nobody loses.
I'm confident the full EIR would prove that.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Nore Colick.
You may go ahead.
Nore Colick: Hi, my husband and I are retirees
living in LaQuinta in the Sunny Desert
of the Coachella valley.
In 2016, we had to battle with our utility company,
Imperial irrigation district to honor our net majoring
contract for our newly installed rooftop solar.
We were one of the last family allowed into the program,
and now it is not cost effective to install rooftop solar
in the IID service area.
Rooftop solar is clean, renewable energy,
sorry, getting nervous.
And all California utilities should move into the future
and adapt their business practices
to fairly compensate folks doing their part
to the outta climate change.
Those of us that do have rooftop solar
should not be penalized for investing
our hard earned money and a product
that will improve the health of our planet.
So that future generations including
our three beautiful grandchildren can thrive here.
IIDs squashed future growth
of rooftop solar in our community.
Please don't let that happen to the rest of California.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Martin Haynes.
You may go ahead.
Martin Haynes: Yes.
This is Martin Haynes live in Placentia,
North Orange County.
I was a science major and a science teacher
and learned 53 years ago,
a university that we could power the earth
by capturing only a small part of the sun's energy.
And that's why on my mind ever since
so very early on, when they became available
I decided to install solar panels,
to reduce the load on the overburdened SCE
to save money for me and my family,
and to help the environment by doing so.
And it's been a win, win, win all the way around.
There should be no solar tax of any kind,
the only incentives for the population
to install solar panels.
It helps everyone, all of us in the long run.
The idea that solar panel owners
are costing non solar customers
more is a red herring of the first order.
It's just not true.
The anti-solar message is deceptive propaganda.
It's divisive, it's false.
And it's misleading.
Considering all the jobs provided by the solar industry,
the independence provided to customers
and the benefit TO environment and society in general.
Make it clear.
There should be no solar taxes any kind, only incentives.
Move backward, not or move forward, not backward.
Please reject this proposal.
Thank you for listening to all this,
(bell ringing) goodbye.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Karen Schultz.
You may go ahead
Again, Karen Schultz.
Your line is open.
You may go ahead,
please check your mute button.
Karen Schultz: Sorry.
I didn't release the mute.
This is Karen Schultz.
I live in Whittier, California.
I am for no solar taxes ever
and rather than repeat everything
that everybody said in my script that I wrote,
I just want to agree with everyone that is against taxes.
And I think that Governor Newsom
should take a public stand against solar tax
and make it known to all of us
so we can support him.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Carlos Ford.
You may go ahead.
Carlos Ford: Yes.
This is Carlos Ford.
I live in Stockton and I have just put solar on my roof
with the batteries to try and cut down my PG&E bill.
I'm tired of paying them higher rates
so that they can use that money to pay for their fines
rather than using the profits.
I do not believe we should tax solar.
We need to make it more affordable for everybody.
Climate change is going to make this drought
and everything worse,
and we will not be fighting over oil
in the future if we don't,
we'll be fighting over water and food.
We need to make sure that solar
is available for all and affordable.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is--
Man: Just brief(indistinct)
-: You may go ahead.
Your line is open.
Man: Yeah, good afternoon.
I'm just (indistinct),
I'm a homeowner in Ferry of Cypress.
Our state is leading the country
in implementation of renewable sources, energy.
I believe everybody knows that, right?
California has mandated rooftop solar on all new homes.
I myself have invested $20,000 rooftop solar.
So, instead of moving in the right direction,
we are trying to punish the people
who have invested in solar energy
by slapping solar fee you're taxing them.
We should encourage more and more people to get solar
so that it solves the energy problems of our state.
Make shortages and outages.
Think of the past.
We should make solar energy more affordable
for everybody, not more expensive.
If we do not move in the right direction
or we move in the opposite direction,
then general public will be forced
to go off grid and have complete independence
from utility companies.
I hope we will move in the right direction
and reject NEM three revision
for solar tax and also honor, 20 year protection.
Have you heard a single person
in favor of this NEM revision?
None.
Nobody supports it.
I hope you make notice.
(bell ringing)
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tom O'Connor.
You may go ahead.
Tom O'Connor: Good afternoon.
I'm a homeowner in Laguna De Go.
I am not a affiliated in the solar
construction or utilities.
Commissioners, I encourage you to see
your roles very broadly and to fully step
into that role as advocate for the public.
The world is changing.
Distributed power generation is now lower cost
than the centralized system.
Even without any subsidies,
like it or not, there will inevitably
be increased local power generation.
Let's figure out how to distribute it
through the existing statewide grid.
This will reduce the need for centralized investment
and reduce the burden on all taxpayers.
There is a need for universal access,
but I urge you to separate the cost of generation
from the cost of transmission
and price each one separately and fairly.
Forget this incremental self-serving NEM three proposal.
It's like taxing the railroads to protect the pony express.
I suggest you spread the cost of the distribution system
directly and explicitly across all users,
including commercial customers who connect to the grid,
maybe a flat monthly charge with exemption
for lower income clients.
This is about connection not generation,
then charge intelligently for the power.
(bell ringing)
Sure make..
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Terry One.
Your line is open.
Terry One: Hello?
Can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Terry One: As an owner of solar,
I think actually save a lot of money before this policy
come out and absolutely give great things
for our environment, but you can still come out
with this policy around cost me a lot
and I think we should take the advantage of California,
which have if I agree,
sunshine and protect our environment together.
So, it not make sense for customer to support the policy.
So, please do not make this.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Paul Sullivan.
Your line is open.
Paul Sullivan: Yeah.
Hi, good morning everybody,
Or afternoon everyone.
My name is Paul Sullivan and I've been
in the industry for 17 years.
I've helped thousands of customers from all walks
make a difference in their lives by going solar.
I don't think one is billionaires as the utilities suggest.
I've also helped dozens of solar workers
make a good living and take care of their families.
I urge you to eliminate the additional fees
of solar tax and propose a plan
that keeps California's leadership in renewable energy
and to save the livelihoods of more than 60,000
solar workers in our great state.
Thank you.
And please take into account all of the other
great comments that people have made today.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Neste Nury.
Your line is open.
Neste Nury: Hi, my name is Neste Nury
from San Jose, the land of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe tribe.
I represent the green party of Santa Clara County
and we strongly oppose any solar tax and consumers
at a time where our state claims
this deep commitment to addressing the climate crisis
and also insists on addressing
the vast inequities in California.
We simply cannot allow the burden of switching
to solar to fall on the same middle
and lower income working families
that are burdened by those inequities.
A solar tax makes installing and using solar
much less affordable to people.
The state should be making it easier and more affordable
too far more Californians so that the state
can actually save money over time
through a larger scale switch to rooftop solar.
The health of our communities and of our planet
are too important to jeopardize
with uninformed bias policies that target tax rate,
taxpayers and rate payers,
and also benefit only corporate benefits.
We urge you to listen to the over 140,000 people
that have all told you and asked you
to commit to transparency, to deliver on your mandate,
to protect rate payers and consumers,
to honor the promises made to existing solar users
and also to oppose any type of solar tax.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Randy Katz.
Your line is open.
Randy Katz: Hello.
My name is Randy Katz,
a retired professor of engineering
and former vice chancellor for research at UCBerkeley.
I live in San Rafael and purchased
a rooftop solar system last fall,
and it was became operational in late January.
Our electric bill went from $170 to $10.
Given the dramatic rise in energy prices worldwide
this is an incredible savings for this retiree.
for California to meet its current and future energy needs,
the solution is distributed generation
made possible by rooftop residential solar.
When I look around at my neighbor's roofs,
I see lots of opportunity to expand
the state's distributed generation capacity.
All we need is continued incentives
to convince those neighbors to deploy solar now.
It is good for jobs.
It is good for the economy.
It is good for the environment.
It is good for the climate.
Thank you for your time today.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Rick Enrique.
Your line is open.
Rick Enrique: Hi, my name is Rick Enrique
and I work for Sunrise in San Francisco.
I like my solar career because it gives me
a good way to earn a living while helping
the community to move away from fossil fuels.
I've worked in solar for five years.
This NEM three proposal would kill my job
and it would be a disaster for the people of California.
I very strongly urge you to reject this NEM three proposal.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Richard Robinson.
Your line is open.
Richard Robinson, your line is open.
-: [Richard Robinson] Hi...
Operator: Our...
-: [Richard Robinson] Am I here?
-: Yes, we can hear you.
-: [Richard Robinson] Okay.
I'm retired on a fixed income.
We spent some of our savings on a solar system
to try to inflation proof that part of our bills,
as you know, inflation is hitting all of us
but especially the retired,
any change to the current solar agreements
would make my investment worthless.
It would make my solar system a liability
when I need to sell my home.
Requiring solar on new homes
and then making those solar systems
a liability is unethical.
Solar will cost more than it will ever repay.
With a gallon of gas hitting $6,
electric cars will soon outsell gas cars.
California will need all the electricity it can get.
With the drought and removal of some hydroelectric dams.
Hydro will supply less and less of our electric needs.
Solar is the answer, not the problem.
Please make it more affordable.
Do not tax it.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Helen Couture Rodriguez.
Your line is open.
-: [Helen Couture Rodriguez] Hi,
my name is Helen Couture Rodriguez
and I work at American solar corporation.
I've been in the solar business as a reentering Latina mom
for last eight years now and an assault
on rooftop solar distributed energy is an assault on women.
And in honor of women's history month, this March,
I ask you to support solar industry as the fastest growing
employer in the United States
and in the state of California of women.
I think it's very important to take that into consideration
as you're going through all of these comments.
Let's reward, what's been built.
Let's incentivize people who have put solar
on their homes already and this will help us grow
to the CEC goal that I know new Commissioner Reynolds
is working very hard towards.
Let's make sure that the penalties in placed
on PG&E by CPUC for all of their negligence
for the wildfires that have been caused,
don't end up coming out of people's checking--
(bell ringing)
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Barbara Morton.
Your line is open.
Barbara Morton: Good afternoon.
Your proposed changes to net metering,
kill solar for many and unilaterally breaches the rules
of a million solar owners that they accepted.
If this happens, how can anyone trust you again?
We can't.
Your proposals or any consumer will fail to grow solar
won't costs or get people to buy batteries.
Most Californians want more affordable solar and batteries
and your proposals fail to do that.
They make solar more costly stunt solar growth
and make the CPUC untrustworthy.
You unilaterally breach the legacy period
from 20 to 15 years.
This breach would cause your GPC to start applying
in 2023 major breach of trust here.
Your GPC discriminates against solar owners
because we produce our own energy
rather than buy it from a utility.
Your fee would be the biggest solar fee passed
on any US regulated utility.
Your fee would kill buying batteries
and lower income people from going solar.
How can this fee be legal as it is a non-cost based fee?
ACC harms everyone current and all future solar owners
and your proposals Go-Contra-SB-100.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Josephine Jefferds.
Your line is open.
-: [Josephine Jefferds] Josephine Jefferds San Diego.
We are retired senior citizens living on a fixed income.
We paid cash for our system last summer
with savings that took years to set aside.
It is a false statement that only the wealthy
are installing solar systems.
This was an expensive investment intended to drastically
cut our 500 to $700 a month utility bill.
Our decision to purchase was heavily based
on our understanding of the net metering 2.0 plan
in which we were being enrolled
and were told that any future changes to NEM
would not affect us,
imposing an additional monthly charge
now by moving everyone to a 3.0 plan
is dishonest and unfair.
It is a bait and switch by the state of California and CPUC
and would be a huge hardship and betrayal
to those who purchased under a previous program.
It would null and void the whole purpose
for which we spent this money to lower our energy bill.
Today it's a proposal to change NEM to 3.0,
what guarantees do we have if there is a future proposal
for 4.0, where will it end?
How long will it be before I find myself
with a $500 utility bill--
(bell ringing)
that no longer charges for energy but is tax--
-: Thank you. -: Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Lionel Rodriguez.
Your line is open.
Check your mute button, Lionel Rodriguez.
Your line is open.
-: [Lionel Rodriguez] Thanks so much.
I appreciate that to apologize for that.
My name is Lionel Rodriguez.
I work for older optimum in city of Glendale.
I worked for the solar industry for about
seven years and I love my career.
It has supported my family of seven
and allowed me to place my oldest daughter
into college during typical time
that we've had in the last two years,
the proposal decision that has been brought to your
attention will be extremely devastating to our family
and the way of living, including the colleagues
of the solar industry that we have currently
about 20,000 jobs in the city of California.
It is written that from everyone
who has been given much,
much has been demanded.
And from those who have been entrusted with much,
much more will be at.
You must reject this proposal.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Lori Oyia.
Your line is open.
Lori Oyia: Yeah. Hi, my name's Lori Oyia
and I live in Fort Bragg, California.
I find it disturbing that the CPUC
is even considered making rooftop solar less affordable,
and they that they have not resolved this issue.
There's only one way to do this,
ensure no solar tax and ensure rooftop solar
is more affordable for working people, not less.
In this time of climate change,
energy uncertainty and the desire preserve
open space in California, rooftop solar is critical.
It has created a thriving industry
in addition requiring solar and then taxing
homeowners on it is completely unfair.
The only winners from the NEM three proposal
are utility companies that Commissioners
has heard from hundreds of thousands
of people who support rooftop solar.
I implore them to do the right thing for the people,
environment and for energy stability
and reject the disastrous NEM three proposal
which is nothing but a utility company power grab.
And unless I missed something,
not a single call today has supported
the NEM three proposal.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is John Farnic.
Your line is open.
John Farnic: Yes.
This is John Farnic from Long Beach.
This NEM three is all about greed to lies
and discrimination against saviors of our planet.
The solar generators whom invested
and most likely will never because of the lies
already told recoup their investment fully.
These proposals put an unfair burden
on the solar generators even further,
and whom have lightened the load
for everybody not created one.
There should be further equitable benefits
for solar generators,
not further thievery from the contrary
to what they were promised by the utilities,
changing their position because of their frauds
and failure actions behind closed doors
are acts of gangsters, not honest, competition and agencies.
(bell ringing)
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Beverly Alexander.
Your line is open.
-: [Beverly Alexander] Thank you.
For one thing, if everyone had solar
there would be no need for transmission lines
and there would be no fires caused by transmission lines.
The elephant in the room is that PG&E is a corporation
and they are obliged to put the profits
of their shareholders first.
We need you on the CPUC to protect us
or else the State of California should take over PG&E
and make it a public utility.
Are you listening Governor Newsom?
When we first got solar,
we got a message from PG&E saying,
we had saved over $300 in one year,
but they were paying us $49 because
that's what they would pay wholesale.
That means they were getting a 600% markup.
Does that makes sense.
Is that good business practice?
So, I went and bought us an EV
and--
(bell ringing)
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Nera Salton.
Your line is open
Nera Salton, your line is open.
Nera Salton: Can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Nera Salton: I'm a homeowner in San Diego
and I like virtually everyone who is speaking today.
And at the last hearing am shocked and angry
at the stunningly shortsighted anti-consumer
job killing action the CPUC is considering.
The proposals being considered will in no uncertain terms,
kill rooftop solar in the state of California.
Your actions are not supported by the vast,
vast majority of the people of the state.
What's more is virtually identical
To what the Florida legislature passed last week,
which was against what 84%
of the people of that state wanted.
This is not a coincidence.
These are concerted actions by the powerful utility
companies who want to extract every cent they possibly can.
This is not what the people want,
and these actions will not stand.
If you want to see the people unite
and revolt against this insanity,
then by all means keep doing what you're doing.
Fascinating to see you are modeling your action
on that great progressive state of Florida.
If Florida is your guide, Lord help us all.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Vidia Mertens.
Your line is open.
Vidia Mertens: Hello.
I'm sorry, I'm (indistinct)
Hello.
My name is Vidia Mertens of fast in Sonoma county.
I am a proud owner of rooftop solar for 20 years.
We also have multiple tools powered
by electric batteries, not gas.
I have a solar car, which is powered by the sun.
Solar power has a cascade effect on many use
of fossil fuel.
A rate, a tax increase on rooftop solar
will significantly decrease
the solar energy produced in California.
California needs solar power to decrease
our use of fossil fuels
whose use causes global warming.
Rooftop solar is decentralized,
is a decentralized power that will decrease
global warming, provide power during power outages,
decreases the risk of fire secondary to decrease
transmission lines and helps us gain our--
(bell ringing)
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller, Sandra Raisman.
Your line is open.
Sandra Raisman: Yes.
Hi, good afternoon.
My name is Sandra Reisman from Berkeley, California,
and I oppose the CPUC approving a solar tax on citizens,
along with the other egregious items in this proposal.
When the utilities cannot see beyond their century old
business model or greed,
I have two young kids and the cost
of climate change to future generations
is terrifying to me as it should be to all of us.
And I consciously made a career change
to solar 10 years ago for that very reason.
I work at GAF Energy where we just launched
the first mailable solar shingle,
which is a huge opportunity for solar
and California and homeowners.
And in fact, we manufacture our products
in San Jose where hundreds of jobs
and growing and all of that is at risk.
So, I ask that the Commission vote
on behalf of the health and livelihood of Californians.
You are elected to do so and reject
the proposed NEM revision.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Gela Clayton.
Your line is open.
Gela Clayton: Yes.
This is Gela Clayton.
I'm from Leon valley,
which is in Northern Los Angeles county.
As a 75 year old widow on a fixed income.
I sacrificed to purchase the solar panels
in order to reduce my exorbitant electric bills.
For example, during the summer I had two bills.
This is the two, three years ago.
At $650 plus, and the following year it was only 111.
So, my solar didn't pay for all of it
but it certainly did help.
It would be unconscionable to tax
solar owners and users more.
We purchased in good faith.
We feed our excess into the grid
in order to reduce SES reliance on
out-of-state costs for high energy use times,
especially in the summertime.
And we have had nothing but unending
rate increases for many, many years.
It's never gone down and it can't even
be to be raised as much as it is.
(bell ringing)
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your call.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Pretty Mather.
Your line is open.
Pretty Mather: Hi, my name is Pretty Mather.
I'm a passionate solar home owner
from Irvine California, CEC is my energy provider.
My family house has a large solar system
already eight kilowatts and I'm planning
to upgrade to another 17 Kilowatt in a few months.
With power volts batteries to reinstall.
All my extended family members own five houses
with solar system in Orange County.
We have several electrical vehicles
that we charge at our home,
and this is only because we have solar panels.
Please encourage largest solar systems and batteries
for all Californians without any taxes.
Please give incentives to Californians
to increase solar energy.
Please vote for California for positive
solar energy environment, climate changes
and clean green earth,
especially after current worldwide situations.
Please encourage solar systems,
energy and power walls for Californians.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Duncan Clemen Shaw.
Your line is open.
-: [Duncan Clemen Shaw] Hey Commissioners.
Good afternoon.
My name is Duncan Clemen Shaw of Alameda.
I spent this morning on the front steps
of the building you're in right now
and I was surrounded by hundreds of Californians.
All of whom are against NEM three,
just as all of the callers today
have been against NEM three.
This is actually my 14th year feeding my family in solar.
Like one of my fellow callers.
I worked for GAF energy in San Jose,
where we just finished building a brand new factory
to make sure solar energy Shingles for your home's roof.
We invite all of you to come on down
and take a look at what we got going down there.
And while other companies continue
to take good manufacturing jobs out of California,
we made the decision, Hey, California's our home.
We put our stake in the ground right here.
These are good paying meaningful
high tech jobs, full benefits.
You can raise a family, you can feed a family.
You can keep a roof over your head.
Our growing company has more than 175 employees.
Most of us with families right here in the bay area.
Our target is to be over 300 employees just this year
and all of us are betting our livelihood
and our future on rooftop solar in California.
So, please don't let NEM three wipe out all of our jobs
and all of our hardwork just as we--
(bell ringing)
Thank you so much.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Robert Levering.
Your line is open.
Robert Levering: Yes.
My name is Robert Levering.
I'm a 78 year old retired journalist.
Seven years ago, we installed solar panels
in our home own in Santa Cruz Mountains
to do our part for the environment.
Besides raising our PG&E bill,
what upsets me most about the proposed solar tax
is that it is part of a coordinated national effort
to destroy the solar industry.
That's being led by ALEC,
the American Legislative Exchange Council
funded in large part by the Koch brothers.
They've spent millions of dollars since 2013
to destroy solar, a direct competitor
to their fossil fuel company.
My question to the Commissioner
and to Governor Newsom is,
why are you even considering being agents
of this right wing effort?
I would hope that you will do your duty
to protect the little people
against the big monopolies like PG&E and SoCal Edison.
Thank you.
(bell ringing)
-: Thank you all.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jennifer Tanner.
Your line is open.
Jennifer Tanner: Oh my God. Hold on.
Okay.
Thank you, Jennifer Tanner,
invisible California green team.
You say that... Can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Jennifer Tanner: Yeah.
You say that public engagement is critical for the CPUC
but you're still not listening to us
because we've been talking for over a whole year
and we're still asking you for no solar tax.
At this time of climate emergency,
the CPUC is crumbling over a bogus cost shift
or at the very worst, a minor one
while we're on the brink of extinction,
the CPUC is still looking diesel for emergency
and denying local micro-grids for years now.
Micro-grids provide quick local
renewable energy for resilience.
The fact is the utilities are the subsidy.
We subsidize their long distance power lines.
They're wildfires, and we're so called wildfire mitigation.
We subsidize their rolling blackouts
and we subsidize constantly increasing
exorbitant energy fees.
We subsidize their lobbying efforts.
(bell ringing)
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Cynthia Kennedy.
Your line is open.
Cynthia Kennedy: My name is Cynthia Kennedy.
I'm from Pasadena.
I join in the other good comments against NEM three
but as a woman of color,
I have a particular concern.
I object to the cynical use by the IOUs of the quote.
It hurts the poor and people of color
close quote argument.
Last night at a public meeting,
I heard this phrase recited over and over again
by a utility company representative.
This is a wedge argument unjustified by facts.
Doing the math on the so-called grid participation charge
shows that NEM three would be a powerful
disincentive to rooftop solar
for all people regardless of class or color.
What NEM three is really about is the utility companies
don't like distributed generation
because they profit from centralized generation.
Please reject NEM three.
And while you're at it, reform the utility system
which guarantees profit to monopolies
that should have transitioned
to renewable energy years ago.
By the way, I have no association with the--
(bell ringing)
(indistinct)
That I have a rooftop solar system.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Margo Davis.
Your line is open.
Margo Davis: Westside Ventura resident
here to inform you that Southern California Gas
is not in compliance with the directives of this Commission.
Southern California Gas is not engaging the community
surrounding its gas compressor station
or taking public input from its neighbors
as this Commission has mandated.
I registered online to attend
the first "town hall meeting"
but with 50 some other people
was blocked from entering.
I will register to attend the Gas Company's
latest "public forum" being held
at the Crown Plaza Resort Hotel
on the Beach with no parking.
These meetings are not held in the neighborhood
where the compressors sits.
These meetings cannot be defined
as town halls
(bell ringing)
(indistinct)
by any stretch--
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Doug McKinsey.
Your line is open.
Doug McKinsey: Hello.
I have three points.
First, please listen to your at callers.
They're incredibly knowledgeable and articulate.
They're overwhelmingly against as one caller labeled it.
The fire greed of the utilities that drove
the IOU proposal to kill rooftop solar,
and that was fully accepted in your proposed decision.
You should be blown away by the power this respond.
Second, there are no downsized to rooftop solar.
It's clean, cheap, safe, resilient takes no space.
It can be used in other ways.
It empowers the micro-grids for our future
and it employs tens of thousands of Americans.
Doesn't guarantee profits for the utilities.
So that's why they wanna kill it.
Third point, you have two choices as Commissioners now.
One is to follow this magnificent
flood of public sentiment toward a sustainable future.
And the other choice is to slink back into regulatory
captured by full felonious, fiery greed.
If you listen, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Michelle Pierce.
Your line is open.
Michelle Pierce: California investor owned utilities
are banding together to rage war
against rooftop solar in our state.
Rooftop solar is not a problem.
It is a solution to reliance on foreign sources
of oil and gas,
the solution to our climate crisis
and the solution to our polluted air.
IOUs have spent millions of dollars
in research on distributed generation,
which include micro-grids and energy storage
and have not implemented these solutions at scale.
The IOU cling to the ancient model
of remote large scale electrical generation
with transmission lines,
moving electrons for hundreds of miles.
They're using propaganda tactics for pitting
lower income families against middle income families
who have spent their hard earned money for rooftop solar,
referring to them as wealthy homeowners.
This propaganda machine of misinformation
they're using is disgusting.
Lower income families will not benefit
from the elimination of rooftop solar.
They will only suffer more due to climate change.
There are many solutions available
to level the playing field with equitable access.
(bell ringing)
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller, Pam Brennan.
Your line is open.
Pam Brennan: Hi, I'm really blown away by the comments.
It's a parent that there's a lot of fight
left in California.
It sounds like you've really kicked
a Hornets nest with net metering NEM three.
These callers have a depth of understanding
and a lot of resolve and resource.
So, I've personally found renewed hope
for progressive California on this call.
And you, the CPUC members have your work cut out
for you because there are plenty of avenues
that we can pursue in the defense of our rights.
Do your jobs, reject any proposal
that disenfranchises ratepayers illegally.
Good luck.
And may you find the courage of your conscience?
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Gus Petro Board.
Your line is opened.
Gus Petro Board: Thank you. My name is Gus Petro Board.
I live in Placer county and I am a retired senior citizen
living on social security and what is now becoming
an aging and older energy inefficient home
that I purchased new only 20 years ago.
My home has now become the equivalent
of a gas guzzler automobile and has been facing
increasing and OBS seemly rising energy utility power bills,
rooftop solar cell technology promises to allow
the retrofit of our older homes and to contribute
to the delivery of a newer electric network
of reliable and cleaner energy that may also help
meet federal energy regulatory Commission goals
to share reliable and cleaner energy supplies
with other regions.
This is the time to assure senior citizens
that we can afford,
we can find affordable means to update our homes
and be able to retire in an affordable
and comfortable manner.
I support the reasons offered by the Solar Rights Alliance
and I urge Governor Newsom to take a public stand
against the--
(bell ringing)
-: Thank you.
Gus Petro Board: Thank you.
-: Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next callers Anne Wright.
Your line is open.
Anne Wright: This is Anne Wright with Pegasus solar,
and I am opposed to the NEM three proposed decision.
What I find really irritating beyond a whole lot of things
being in the solar industry,
it is detrimental to our low and middle income families.
Pegasus employs 20 local Richmond, California residents.
They're well paid, they're safe.
We took care of all of them during COVID
and with the projected 50% drop
in rooftop solar in California,
we would have to lay off these loyal employees.
The second one is the affordable solar home,
which a lady spoke about just not too long ago.
The Lawrence Berkeley national lab showed
that California is very,
has a strong trend and is encouraging the move
for low and middle income families
to utilize distributed generation.
And with the change in them,
it would make it unaffordable and we'd trend back.
And that-- (bell ringing)
(indistinct)
Thank you. -: Thank thank you.
Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Steve Barian.
Your line is open.
Steve Barian: Yes.
Hi, my name is Steve Barian,
owner of Solar Pro Energy Systems.
And I just left the CPUC building just a few minutes ago.
I'm on my way to actually a solar install right now.
'Cause I would like to have five seconds of silence, please.
That five seconds of silence was meant to represent
the last year of silence we've had from the CPUC
as to how we are gonna deal
with the challenges infront of us.
What is going on with NEM 3.0,
I have to maintain my business.
I have to keep my people employed.
I have to keep jobs going, food on the table
for my employees and myself and my family.
How are we gonna get over this hurdle?
We need to end this Charade.
Get rid of NEM 3.0 now.
Please reject it.
Governor Newsom, do you wanna be mentioned
in the same sentences as Ron DeSantis in Florida?
Is that your legacy?
Please, keep rooftop solar alive in California.
End NEM 3.0 now.
Thank you for your time.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Lisa Shafer.
Your line is open.
Lisa Shafer: Hi, Santa Cruz.
And I've lived in California my whole life.
And I'm very proud of what we stand for.
Leaders for change and for doing what is right
for our country and the world
and in particular to decreasing global warming,
which is why I'm very concerned about this solar tax.
We should be leading the country by making solar
more readily available and affordable to everyone.
PG&E should evolve with the times and be nimble
to meet the current public demand.
Like the dairy industry is done with the development
of more plant based milks to meet the evolving public needs.
PG&E should take a page outta their book
and move towards solar and not away from it.
My husband and I would like to eventually
be able to install solar and we should be encouraged
to do so, to help do our part to decrease climate change.
Please reject the proposed solar tax.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sonya Marwood.
Your line is open.
Sonya Marwood: Hi, my name is Sonya Marwood
and I'm a solar owner in Mountain View.
I'm against the NEM three proposal
and the CPUC should make policies
that encourage more homeowners, businesses
and organizations to put solar on their roof.
This proposal does the opposite.
Why is solar, rooftop solar in particular important?
Seeing rooftop solar in our communities
reminds us of the climate crisis we are in.
Rooftop solar is a symbol of the hope
that we can all do something
to make our planet a better place.
Utility scale solar while also crucial,
false prey to the out of sight out of mind problem.
Consider what you've heard here today.
The vast majority of callers oppose this proposal.
If you move forward with the current proposal,
the message you'll send
is that the public's opinion
does not matter.
You'll erode the trust and integrity of the CPUC.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is John Shungur.
Your line is open.
John Shungur: Hi, my name is John Shungur
and I live in closed California.
I installed rooftop in 2017 at my house.
I'm very happy with the system.
Proposal to tax solar users like me is a very bad idea
and a breach of 20 year protection
for the net metering rules.
I'm concerned that CPUC has not been transparent
in its dealing with utilities, antisolar propaganda,
and it's time for transparency and answers.
When world is dealing climate change crisis
caused by fossil fuel emissions,
rooftop solar is the salvation.
State wants solar deployment to get off fossil fuel.
This is not achievable through
large scale renewables alone.
When we need more rooftop solar,
why would we nickel and dime solar users?
My humble requests to CPUC and Governor Newsom.
Please do not adopt policies that will--
(bell ringing) current users(indistinct) solar systems--
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
operator, next caller please.
Operator: And Our next caller is--
Debbie Salhi: Debbie Salhi.
Operator: You may go ahead. Debbie Salhi: Hi.
This is Debbie Salhi and I live in Laguna Niguel.
I'm asking for you to make solar more affordable
for working in middle class households,
no solar tax of any kind, honor the existing
20 year protection for solar users.
It is time for transparency and answers.
Over 140,000 people have told you
this in every possible away,
California needs to remain a climate change leader.
And it requires being a solar leader.
California has said that it needs
to triple the amount of solar
to get off fossil fuels.
Getting more clean energy on the grid.
It all forms is an urgent need.
You just called for all new cars sold in the state
to have zero carbon emissions by 2035,
families need affordable solar
to use those electric cars.
According to the solar foundation,
the proposed anti-consumer changes
could ruin thousands of small locally owned
solar businesses and threatened
over 60,000 good paying jobs.
I hope you will show us by your decision you make
that you are on the public side and of public health.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kent stout.
May go ahead.
Kent Stout: Yes, my name's Kent stout.
I'm from clean energy funding solutions.
I'm from back of O'California,
and I represent my solar brothers and sisters.
We were here today at the CPUC hundreds of us
and they wouldn't let us in.
So, I'm right now trying to write a book
on California's a zero net energy mandate.
So we can go carbon free with solar and storage.
But unfortunately I can't finish my book
because I don't have an ending right now.
Is it about hope or is it about doom
Until the CPUC decides if they support
the people or the big money utility corporations,
I wanna be helping businesses, nonprofits
and homeowners convert to clean energy.
By this NEM 3.0 wants to kill the solar storage industry
based on lies and misinformation.
At the same time, our leaders are wanting
to promote green infrastructure.
This is a joke.
We have chaos and wars going on all around the world
based on energy fights and fighting
for our freedoms for choice.
(bell ringing)
So, I would recommend that we say no
to NEM 3.0.
Thank you. -: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mark da Monte.
You may go ahead.
Mark da Monte: Oh my gosh. Where (indistinct)
Oh no, come on please.
Operator: And Mark, your line is open. You may go ahead.
Mark da Monte: Don't tell me I was on phone
for four hours and missed it.
-: And Mark da Monte, you may go ahead.
Mark da Monte: Okay.
Thank you.
As you just stated, my name is Mark da Monte.
I live in the Coachella valley.
It gets to 120 plus.
I've lived in California, all my life.
Calfornia once represented a land of opportunity.
People would hear that name
and they would associate it with success.
They'd associate it with things of glory and beauty.
And I help people, every single day
that when I go into their home,
their temperatures almost 90 degrees
because they're afraid to turn on their air conditioner.
And I said, you should not be living that way.
And I do my best to help people every day
to mitigate their costs.
But what has happened is that CPUC
has forgotten their mission statement.
They've forgotten their core values,
or they have disregarded them altogether.
And so we're looking at a time where
consumer confidence is at an all time low
when we look at government and we look at bureaucracy.
So, we're at a time where you get to impact
your future and how you're going to be remembered.
But I look at your mission statement.
It says that you exist to help the consumers
to help us--
(bell ringing)
(indistinct)
practices in pricing.
But that's the contrary when you consider
NEM three 3.0, you are doing the exact opposite
of your purpose for existing.
-: Thank your comment.
Mark da Monte: If we're asking that your conscience
would guide you and that you would be remembered
for doing right in the midst of the storm.
'Cause we're all in this together.
-: Your time is up, sir.
Thank you for your comment.
Mark da Monte: Yes.
God bless you.
-: Thanks very much.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Carla Campbell.
You may go ahead.
Carla Campbell: Hi. My name is Carla Campbell
and I live in Davis, California.
My husband and I invested in installing solar
on our roof three years ago.
First off the CPUC proposed tax
to tax people who install,
pay for and maintain solar panels
is complete wrong.
This tax would make the idea of solar,
a losing proposition for many families,
including mine.
Solar needs to be more affordable for working
and middle class families.
Not less.
Second, the claims that rooftop solars
don't pay their fair share is a complete fallacy.
Rooftop solar reduces the cost of long distance
power lines and can save everyone money in the long run.
Lastly, during this time of energy uncertainty,
we need more energy independence for energy monopolies.
Governor Newsom and Commissioners,
I hope you're listening.
I hope you are listening to us the ratepayers,
not the utilities.
Please stand up for rooftop solar.
Thank you very much for listening.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: And Our next caller is Ruben Wilmarth.
You may go ahead.
Ruben Wilmarth: Hi.
My name is Ruben Wilmarth.
I live in the rural area of California near Modesto.
I'm calling, talking regarding NEM 3.0.
Rooftop solar has the greatest combination of value
to the California ratepayers by generating electricity
at the point of use and facilitating backup power as well.
Please ignore the special interests
and support the California homeowners
in owning rooftop solar wherever possible.
Taxing the user residential rooftop solar
benefits the utility at the expense
of the ratepayers and California in general,
please do the right thing.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller
is Joshua Resnick with Sungage.
You may go ahead.
Joshua Resnick: Thank you very much.
My name is Joshua Resnick with Sungage
and I work with a bunch of small solar contractors.
None of whom are giant rich companies.
I was born and raised in Berkeley
and I've worked in solar myself for 11 years.
And I love this career because we're democratizing
energy independence and contributing
to job growth in California.
The proposed NEM 3.0 decision would actually kill
the value proposition for homeowners and my job
and nearly 70,000 other California solar jobs along with it.
It just doesn't make any sense.
The current NEM three proposal is a disaster
for the solar industry and for California,
you must reject this please.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Nancy Milov.
You may go ahead.
Nancy Milov: Hi, I live in Pleasanton California.
And I just want you to listen
to what everyone has been saying.
Go with what you know,
go with the facts.
It's ridiculous.
There is no logical reason for this NEM three.
I got solar back in 2007
'cause it was the right thing to do. I didn't get enough to,
I got as much as I could afford at the time.
I continued to pay PG&E and last year
I got mad and I increased it.
So now I am producing more than I can use.
And I feel like doing the right
and I'm being punished for it.
CPUC, Governor Newsom, it's political.
Do the right thing.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you for listening.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Donald Thorn.
You may go ahead.
Donald Thorn: Hi.
I'm calling in from La Honda, am an ordinary citizen.
And I agree with many of the comments that have made so far.
No one of the public has commented in favor
of the NEM three proposal.
And so I am happy to be one of the majority.
I'm also interested to state that shifting
the cost of solar ownership to avoid
the income or color disparities
seems to be a straw man sort of argument
that is clearly been seen through
incentives are a better way to promote equity.
And I'd also like to ask you to let
the federal government know that having taken
a tax credit for my solar panels,
it seems you're robbing from the tax credit
from the federal government.
I appreciate the Commissioner's time
and listening to the comments and as--
(bell ringing)
(indistinct)
Thank you. -: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jeffrey Crawford.
You may go ahead.
-: [Jeffrey Crawford] Yes.
Hello.
My name is Jeffrey Crawford
and I live in Lakewood, California.
We in California need to lead the fight
in climate change rooftop solar
as an ID way to support moving forward
to that goal without giving us much open space
and devote to renewable energy projects.
The state itself says we need 300% more rooftop solar
to be able to move away from fossil fuel energy sources.
Let's make sure the rooftop solar stays affordable
and viable to working and middle class populations.
Please reject NEM three.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Matthew Hirsch.
You may go ahead.
Matthew Hirsch: Thanks so much for calling on me,
I've been waiting quite a while.
I do appreciate your time.
My name is Matthew Hirsch.
I run a marketing agency called TerraCurrent.
We like to say, we help clean energy companies
both the same to be in thrive
or based in, excuse me, in Berkeley.
Many homes in Berkeley around California have solar access,
but even under the current NEM tariff
have a tough time making the transition to clean energy.
That's the case of my home,
where the last contractor who did a site analysis
that my youngest child who's in kindergarten
would be outta college before the end
of my solar payback period.
We have unfinished business
with each passing month of uncertainty
about the future of rooftop solar,
solar companies lose, solar customers lose,
people eager to become solar customers like myself lose.
Please make the NEM 3.0 proceeding,
more transparent, more democratic,
and more accountable to all the people of California.
Thanks.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Stuart Wadsworth.
You may go ahead.
-: [Stuart Wadsworth] Hello.
This is Stuart Wadsworth Santa Cruz, California.
I wanted to make a few comments
about my lack of support from NEM three.
I have been in the solar industry
since the lights went out in 1998.
And for the first time when it was unexpected,
now it seems to go off on a regular basis.
I have installed or been involved in
well over a thousand solar installations,
a small residential and commercial.
I have trained through the community college
hundreds of different installers into California's
thriving solar industry and the CPUC needs
to make a decision to support a very active,
positive and environmentally conscious industry,
as opposed to an investor owned monopoly
in power distribution through California.
And in fact, in my opinion,
if we moved back towards the 1980s
regulations of the utilities,
our utility rates would plummet
as well as distributed generation
is the only solution to a future
of electric vehicles.
If you have a centralized generation facility (bell ringing)
compared distributed,
the energy efficiency on central
is 40% distributed generation, 98%.
Thank you for your time.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: And Our next caller is Karen Iovino.
You may go ahead.
Karen Iovino: Hello?
-: Yes, we can hear you.
Karen Iovino: Oh, good.
Thank you.
I live in San Francisco.
I retired a year ago and PG&E was high
and I found Solar Experts and Freedom Forever
installed it and it went live last fall,
and everything was great.
And I just wanna say that the only thing
I agree with everybody's comments
and I'm on a fixed income.
Only have social security
I never turned on my furnace.
So I look like a polar bear in San Francisco,
and the only way the CPUC can make this right
and Governor Newsom can come out publicly
is to support the solar industry
and make California wonderful
keeping everybody employed
(bell ringing)
and no tax assistance. -: Thank you.
Karen Iovino: Thank you.
-: Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Thomas Lumberg.
You may go ahead.
Thomas Lumberg: Hello, my name's Tom Lumberg.
I'm in Marin county and a retired homeowner
with solar on the roof up here.
I've listened to about 120 comment so far plus or minus,
and not one is positive for this NEM three.
It just seems like this is just
a Wolf in sheep's clothing to kill
the solar competition to the utility companies
and the California state needs to decide
either they mandate solar roofs on new houses,
which they did, or they go
for this horrible proposal NEM three.
So, which is it gonna be Commissioners?
Please vote against this horrible thing, byebye.
Thanks.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Patricia Joki.
You may go ahead.
-: Good afternoon.
Thank you, like many people who spoke before me
I'm a homeowner and our family took out a loan
to install solar a number of years ago,
because we wanted to do the part,
the right thing to combat climate change.
And we also wanted to reduce our energy costs.
The proposal that's been presented by NEM three
penalizes us families only to the benefit
of the for-profit utilities.
Really any solution should make it easier
for families to make the choice to go solar.
And this a current time with the United States,
moving away from fossil fuel with the electric cars,
wind power, and the like
this proposal only serves to line the pockets
of the utilities and does nothing
to move us forward with power independence.
I urge the CPUC to support a no tax on solar,
honor the promises made to existing
NEM one and two customers,
continue the net metering credit
with full credit for power generated
and returned to the grid,
which is resold at a higher rate to customers
by the, for-profit utility.
And don't believe the nonsense that solar users
don't pay their fair share for the cost of the grid.
That's just a smoke and mirrors argument
made for the made bait pie
by the for-profit utility.
Thank you--
(alarm ringing)
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jeff Howard.
You may go ahead.
Jeff Howard: Hi there.
Thank you Commissioners for your time.
I love the enthusiasm of all those calling today
in opposition to NEM three,
especially the gentleman this morning,
who said, Hey, I got to do this.
It's super exciting to hear that because each of us
on this call has taken valuable time off work
and other responsibilities to speak our voice
and exercise freedoms,
which we don't take lightly
especially with the current Russia invasion
of its democratic neighbor Ukraine.
My name is Jeff Howard.
I live in Visalia,
which is ULA county and central California.
Our county consistently has the highest
unemployment rate in the state.
We live in average neighborhoods at best,
especially when you compare
to Southern California or the bay area.
Despite this, I see solar panels on a large number
of these very basic entry level homes,
which completely contradicts statements
by the big utilities that solar or the rich.
I work for cubic energy.
We have nearly 500 employees.
We employ those with high school education
(bell ringing)
all the way up to master's degrees.
-: Thank you.
Jeff Howard: Please oppose NEM three.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Arthur Silon.
You may go ahead.
Arthur Silon: This is Arthur Silon
and I live in Davis.
I'll try and keep it short.
I agree with everything that's been said
about the unfairness
and inequity of the current NEM three proposal.
The mathematics that they use is above us.
And it's the arguments are false.
That's about as much as I'm gonna say,
I'm gonna be mailing a lengthier comment
to your office to be included in the public record.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tom Watson.
You may go ahead.
Tom Watson: Hi, can you hear me.
-: Yes, we can.
Tom Watson: Thank you for listening
and thank you to the Commission
for sitting through all these.
I'm Tom Watson from Chico, California.
I'm a veteran.
I volunteered with grid alternatives,
where I get hands free training on how to install.
They've done hundreds of homes over the years.
I'm also a homeowner who generates
more electricity than I use each year.
So I'm actually paying into the system as most of us are.
Everybody has said everything very eloquently.
I will just say that if this gets put through
despite the clear and overwhelming opposition,
then I don't think we can really consider ourselves
as living in a representative democracy anymore.
That we're gonna be controlled by corporate needs
and they will control what's best for us.
So, I wish all the best to the Commission.
Please do what's right.
I think everybody knows what is right.
So all the best to you.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: And Our next caller is Jolene Ciosek.
You may go ahead.
Jolene Ciosek: Thank you.
Can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Jolene Ciosek: Okay.
Hi, my name's Jolene Ciosek.
I'm the Marketing Manager for EcoFasten.
We manufacture rooftop mounting systems
and solar roof attachments,
and I'm going to make this short and sweet.
I've worked in solar for over a decade.
I love my solar job.
I love knowing that what I do makes the difference
that I'm helping to enable the transition
to solar energy for future generations
like my 15 year old son.
And I love that I'm empowering solar heroes
every single day.
The CPUC's proposed NEM 3.0 would absolutely kill solar
in California would kill solar jobs like mine.
And it absolutely cannot be supported.
Thank you so much for taking the time to listen.
My family, my colleagues, my network
of installer friends, as well as future generations
appreciate and depend on you making the right decision here.
Please reject this proposal on support
affordable rooftop solar.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Linda Cook.
You may go ahead.
Linda Cook: Hello.
I'm calling today from Santa Clarita, California.
And as you may know,
we are famous for our winds and for our fires.
And my neighborhood is frequently shut down
by Edison because of high winds.
If we were able to have everybody on solar,
this wouldn't be an issue.
I'm one of the few in the neighborhood
that does not get affected because
I've got solar on my house.
We're retired.
We spent over $30,000 to put this on
and for you to come in and change the rules
after we've even made our investments.
And it's diametrically opposed to what Newsom
said about cutting fossil fuel.
You can't cut fossil fuel and then go ahead
and cut out solar.
This just makes no sense.
So, I hope you will think about the citizens
of this state and the need for us to correct.
(bell ringing)
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Ed Murray.
You may go ahead.
Ed Murray: Thank you Operator.
Thank you, president Reynolds
and esteemed CPUC Commissioners.
First of all, happy St. Patrick's day.
I'm the president of Aztec Solar,
solar installation firm located in the Sacramento area.
I am also the president of the California Solar and Storage
Association representing more than 700 member companies,
many like my company and employees
installers throughout California.
On behalf of rooftop solar contractors.
I hope that there will be an alternate proposed decision,
which is better than the original proposed decision.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Michael Harris.
You may go ahead.
Michael Harris: Thank you.
I live in Marin county where we've had solar
at our home for 12 years.
We're about to move to Sonoma county.
We will also have solar on our home there.
Solar is not only an environmental in imperative.
It's now been shown that it is a national security
and a human rights imperative.
Let's take power away from the line regimes
whose economic and military influence
stems solely from the use of fossil fuels.
It's also incredibly unfair to ask owners of solar
who are helping to mitigate climate exchange
to pay extra for that while we,
as well as everyone else has to pay
for the downstream costs of climate exchange
due to fossil fuel use.
So with that, I will join with every other person
who has spoken in opposition to the NEM three.
And also note that you have not had a single person
speaking in favor of this today.
So please, I hope you do take that under consideration
when you make your decision.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Ernestine Hester.
You may go ahead.
-: [Ernestine Hester] Hi.
My name is Ernestine Hester
and I live in Los Angeles area of Southern California.
And I hope that the CPUC and Governor Newsom
are actually listening to these calls
because they, like the previous person said
they're all against this.
So if you go forward, it's only for the benefit
of the utility companies who are inefficiently run,
but I am a senior citizen retired homeowner
in the Los Angeles area.
I have a customer of DWP and I'm trying to make ends meet
with a fixed income because of the solar incentives
that have are in place.
I was able to scripting and saving
to install a solar system with a battery storage.
And the hopes was to reduce my current
and future utility bills to give me some financial security,
but also to give me protection against
the outages of the grid when it goes down.
California has stated that their goals
(bell ringing)
are for clean energy.
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Theresa Asero.
You may go ahead.
Theresa Asero: Oh!
Hello.
I live in Shula Vista.
I've had solar since December of 2000.
Recently, I got a parallel battery.
We need a new PD.
The old PD is totally unacceptable because it penalizes
the 1.3 million homes that have rooftop solar
by not calming us as part of the 30% required
renewable energy for the space
or as an energy asset for all rate payers.
Also the incredible cost that big distance
environmentally destructive fire causing transmission lines.
The rate payers is downplayed and the rate payers
are not given ownership of them after paying for them.
CPUC must come up with a good PD that fully values
the superior environmental value of rooftop solar,
and save our environment from the ugly destructive
fire prone, long distance power lives,
and the rate payers from their huge--
(bell ringing)
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Vivian Guan.
You may go ahead.
Vivian Guan: Yes, I'm here.
Hello.
-: Please go ahead.
We can hear you.
Vivian Guan: Hi, my name's Vivian Guan.
I'm a solar user, I like solar a lot,
not only helped me saving my electric bill,
but also this absolutely is a great thing
for our environment, because of pandemic
all cause increases quickly.
So that electric bill here in California,
we have such great sunshine.
We should take advantage of the sunshine here
and protect the environment together.
New CPUC makes no sense for customer
who likes to go solar by California law.
All of new houses need to have sold.
That means in the future,
all the homeowners can save money,
cannot save money by going solar.
This makes no sense.
So, please reject this.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Dan Knight.
You may go ahead.
Dan Knight: Hello.
Can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Dan Knight: Hi.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you guys today.
It's very disheartening in California.
It just seems like being run into the ground.
When we should be investing in water,
not high speeded rail,
solar Is not a rich person's undertaking.
It took me to get a loan to pay for mine.
And to say this is for rich people is just ridiculous.
And I hope all you on the board are listening.
I really appreciate the guy who said
for you guys to raise your hands during his testimony,
because I hope you really take into account
what we're saying.
This is beyond politics and it's just the right thing to do.
Please take this decision,
even if you've already decided
on what you were gonna do before you're listening to us.
Please, please take this very seriously.
(bell ringing)
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tesa Woodman C.
You may go ahead.
Tesa Woodman C.: Okay, good. Yes.
Thank you.
I'm Tesa Woodman C. resident of San Jose,
and I am against the net energy metering increases
and any charges on solar, any taxes on solar users?
Our current rely on fossil fuels,
including natural gas is now set to destroy
global civilization via the twin threats
of global heating and global war.
The low hanging fruit to reduce our dependency
on fossil fuels is residential rooftop solar
as an alternative to this proposed solar tax,
the CPUC should certainly place a carbon fee
on the consumption of natural gas
and then rebate a 100% of that to help pay
for even more rooftop residential solar
in underserved communities.
So more of us can participate in saving ourselves
from global heating and global warfare.
Thank you.
(bell ringing)
-: Thank you.
And I did wanna pause for a moment and announce
that the Commission will be taking a short break at 2:15.
Again, we will be going into recess at 2:15 until 2:30.
Just an announcement to get you advanced notice.
We'll commence with additional calls until then.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is June Danzel.
You may go ahead.
June Danzel: Hello.
My name is June Danzel Solano County residents
like everyone else on the previous call
that mentioned and said about their grievances
regarding about this proposal.
I do agree to all this people that spoke before me
on hand regarding about we even considering
this proposal and nothing else on this call,
disagree about this.
I mean agree on this proposal.
So, all I get to say is nothing is good
will come out with this proposal.
Only the utility company that would gain profit
and pay for their negligence for being people
that lost their house and their property.
That's all.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller.
Operator: Our next caller is Bill Brown.
You may go ahead.
Hi again, Bill Brown.
You may go ahead.
Your line is open.
Bill Brown: Okay.
I'm Bill Brown.
I'm from Simi valley in Ventura county, California.
And I just wanted to say that after a year of listening
to the utilities, anti-solar propaganda,
why are we still here?
The CPUC silence and lack of a timeline
for decision is not acceptable.
Where are all these poor people
that are being affected by rooftop solar?
Why aren't they here?
Why aren't they speaking?
Where is anybody that is against this in the two meetings
where the public has spoken and you're
the California Public Utilities Commission,
the public is speaking.
Everybody on these calls is in favor of wiping out
this net three metering and advancing rooftop solar
there's there's no opposition.
And so what is going on?
There's a SOS in California like a previous caller said,
so save our solar, save our savings.
I invest.
(bell ringing)
I made a retirement investment.
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Dr. John Maholick.
You may go ahead.
-: [Dr. John Maholick] Good afternoon,
Mr. President and Commissioners.
And thank you for your service to the people
of the state of California.
My name is Dr. John Maholick and like you,
I also serve the people of California
as a rural physician in Hillsborough, California.
I see the climate crisis as the greatest threat
to health of the people of California.
Continued incentives to local solar
production will help reduce this risk.
The use of fossil fuels perpetuate
the known health threats of fire,
droughts and extreme weather.
But I personally see and treat the effects
of heat and air pollution and the result
in suffering among farm workers and their families.
High rates of asthma are common,
especially among the poor.
And it's worsened by living in houses
where gas is used for heating and cooking.
Many of my patients are dependent on electricity
to run medical devices as well.
And they're at risk during blackouts.
Local solar is part of the solution to electrifying
our homes and improving health conditions within our homes.
So not only should we not rule back
existing centers from solar--
(bell ringing)
-: Thank you
-: [Dr. John Maholick] But we should-- (indistinct)
-: Thank you very much for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Megan Maraz Barrett.
You may go ahead.
-: [Megan Moraz Barrett] Hi.
My name is Megan Moraz Barrett,
and I've worked in the solar industry
for over seven years now
for the last five, I have worked on San Ramon
with solar technologies on a team helping businesses
improve their financial stability by adding
solar and batteries to their facilities.
I'm opposed the NEM three proposal
due to the negative effects it will have
on the bottom lines of the businesses
that I help support.
Thank you for your time.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mike Johnson
with city of vent of Ventura.
You may go ahead.
Again Mike Johnson, you're line is open.
We're not able to hear you. Please check your mute button.
-: Operator, I think we called Mr. Johnson earlier.
Operator: Okay, we'll go to the next caller.
Alfred Petzner, you may go ahead.
Again Alfred Petzner,
your line is open.
We're not able to hear you.
Alfred Petzner: Hi, sorry about that.
Yes.
I've been a solar provider in a PG&E for over seven years.
In that, time I've given PG&E over 13,000 kilowatts
of excess solar, which they paid me to the three cents for,
and they later sold to their customers for over 30 cents.
Tenfold profit.
How are they losing?
They are cheating, they're low income users and I'm not.
CPUC NEM three proposal would make California the lowest,
the most hostile state in the United States
to green power and solar.
The CPUC's mission statement says
that they were formed to protect the consumer.
You should start to do that by being more transparent,
represent us and not the utilities.
Thank you very much for listening to me
and please vote no on NEM three
and honor the commitment to NEM two.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Alex Deeterr.
You may go ahead.
Alex Deeter: One sec, one sec, one second.
Good afternoon.
My name Alex Deeter,
and I work for SunGreen Systems in Pasadena.
I am against the NEM three proposal
and it's been painful to see this continue
with our climate emergency and current war
crimes in Petro states.
So my patients is running thin today.
Surprise 45% of Californians rent.
We need virtual net meter
and community solar programs that work.
How do rebate for solar,
how to help renters go solar.
Over the past year, our industry customers
and supporters have given up countless days
to convey our opinions to you.
We have spent hours on hold
for these comment periods every two weeks.
We have spent hours protesting outside of your offices.
And meanwhile have only heard
a handful of comments that support this decision.
The utilities out spent by ten's of millions to lobby you.
We have seen full environmental organizations
that are funded by them support this decision.
Where are their comments on these calls?
Are IOU executives waiting on hold to comment?
Tragically their money is being listened to
because the California legislature
nearly revoked net metering last year,
and this proposed NEM decision exists.
Where did this money come from?
(bell ringing)
Californians paid them and--
(indistinct)
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Ernesto Montenero.
You may go ahead.
-: [Ernesto Montenero] Yes.
Good afternoon.
This Ernesto Montenero with Sustainable Technologies,
solar provider for 22 years.
We're a company of professionals that are well paid.
we provide health insurance
and I find it crazy that we're talking about this
right now because all the staff
that people have said so far,
and also it seems like a crazy idea.
We should be talking about making a municipal utility
and how to put solar on every roof.
Not like charging people to put solar.
The utilities are trying to take the investment
that we made and they're pocketing that money.
I'm afraid that you're not gonna listen to us
and you're gonna just vote for the utilities.
I hope you find find some heart and you listen.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
And with that, the Commission
will now be taking a short break.
We'll go in to recess and we'll return
to resume the public comment portion
of our meeting at 2:15.
Thanks.
-: Streaming event brought to you
by adminmonitor.com will begin momentarily.
Thank you for your patience.
The feed for this streaming event brought to you
by adminmonitor.com will begin--
Operator: Thank you all for standing
by today's conference has presumed.
President Reynolds.
You may proceed.
-: Thank you.
Welcome back, everyone.
Agenda Clerk.
Could you please call the roll?
Agenda Clerk: Commission John Reynolds?
-: Here.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Here.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Present.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Here.
Agenda Clerk: president Alice Reynolds?
-: Here.
We have a quorum.
We're now ready to continue
the public comment portion of our meeting.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Carmerly Turkinjo.
You me go ahead.
-: Hello?
Can you hear me Ma'am?
-: Yes, we can.
-: [Carmerly Turkinjo] Okay.
This is Carmerly Turkinjo
from Loma Linda San Bernardino County.
First and foremost, I would like to thank everybody there.
CPUC, listeners and honorable government leaders
who are participant in the resolution
of our contributial issues.
Now from my perspective,
I strongly oppose whatever current proposals
being made to increase additional financial burden.
Two years ago, we invested $18,890 paid off
to a Sunrun lease solar 16 panels plus LG battery.
We did that because we are senior citizens
with medical issues.
And to just set aside from financial burden,
we use our old earned savings.
I helped attest to you what really transformed
since that agreement was--
(bell ringing)
So, it has really a factual negative financial impact on us.
First contrary to solar agents presented
common incentive tax credit San Bernardino County
tax office had increased significantly
our property tax, reason--
-: Thank you.
(indistinct)
Could you please wrap up your comment?
Your time is up.
-: [Carmerly Turkinjo] It's not even one minute.
Second.
(President Reynolds chuckling)
Operator: Should we go--
(indistinct)
-: You feel free to submit comments by email.
Everyone should note the email address.
If you have comments longer than one minute,
please feel free to submit them in writing.
Yes, let's go to the next caller operator.
Operator: Our next caller is Chad Riccolo.
You may go ahead.
Chad Riccolo: Hi, can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Chad Riccolo: Hi, my name's Chad Riccolo.
I'm with ADT solar.
I've been in the industry for about 15 years
and completely oppose NEM 3.0.
I'm responsible for many jobs and many homeowners.
And this is gonna be a massive detriment
to the industry and to the individual
that I see on a daily basis with ADT
coming in as new into the industry,
we're trying to spread our wings as well
and bring opportunity across many states.
And like it said earlier in some comments where,
what happens in California,
we will eventually make its way to other states.
We really need to set the example and do what's right.
So, I oppose NEM 3.0.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
(indistinct)
Operator: Our next caller is Paul Ellis
with solar energy partners.
You may go ahead
And it appears he disconnected
our next caller is Bill Young.
You may go ahead.
Bill Young: Yes.
As you just said,
my name is Bill Young.
I live in backfield, California,
same I retired.
We installed the largest solar panel field
that would sit on my roof and it only does about 30%.
I agree a 100% with everything said before me.
So my comment, what I would like to add
is that the CPUC approved Southern Cal Ed
and PG&E's initiatives back 20 years ago
to try and do instead to go to solar,
wind and to avoid peaker plants because
of the California energy load being
so high on the hottest days,
they avoided spending billions and billions of dollars,
which was a savings to them by incentivizing
all of us to use solar and other means
of alternative energy.
Now they're feeling the impact of the fires
and the huge lawsuits as well as possibly
reductions in the overall load,
which is the reduced revenue
(bell ringing)
and point is--
-: Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Bill Young: Okay.
-: Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Howard Fallon.
You may go ahead.
Again, Howard Fallon, your line is open.
Please check your mute button.
We're not able to hear you.
Shall we go to the next caller?
-: Yes. Thank you Operator.
Operator: Our next caller is May Tift.
You may go ahead.
May Tift: Hi.
Can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
[May Tift: Thank You.
I'm May Tift from San Rael, California
and I've vehemently opposed NEM three.
I wanna say shame on you to PG&E
and I'm wondering what is it gonna take for us
to wake up to the reality of this climate emergency?
We need to do the right thing.
I was in San Francisco this morning with over,
Sorry, just ran...
(breathing heavily)
a 100 people who support rooftop solar
is a very exciting group.
We're allow, we're committed and we're not gonna give up.
My 13 year old son was there with me, Sky London,
And I'm here to seek up for our planet.
We absolutely have to deal with this crisis
and we have to deal with it now.
It's critical that we increase our rooftop solar
right now, and we have to decrease
our reliance on fossil fuels.
We have to use renewable energy.
We have to do it now.
I'm also very upset that I carefully
priced out the system that we bought.
It was a stretch.
We had to amortize it over 20 years
(bell ringing)
And now I'm being penalized.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Ben Justino.
You may go ahead.
Ben Justino: Hi.
My name is Ben.
I work in the solar industry.
I wanna say something that I haven't heard yet,
but a bad NEM three three decision
would put all 70,000 solar careers
across the state in jeopardy.
Our careers would be replaced with temporary
six month unskilled labor installing utility scale solar,
those low paying temp jobs,
help utilities get to that fictitious $20 per watt.
They use in their faulty cost models
for utility scale solar.
Rooftop solar supports good paying careers
for a growing number of people across the state.
Maintaining systems should be encouraged
with favorable any NEM three decision.
This keeps these existing operating systems online.
The longer these systems run
the better the positive environmental impact
and benefits to homeowners as well.
A bad NEM three would effectively stop
new rooftop installations and also devalue
the billions of dollars of public
and private investment in rooftop solar.
A bad NEM three would send financial signals
to system owners to remove the panels from their roof.
This would be a huge waste and a sad outcome for the state.
You pull that proposed decision to rework it.
Please take your task seriously
because it has a huge implications
for people like me all across the state
in a amazing career path.
So, thank you for listening to me.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: And Our next caller is Paul Ellis.
You may go ahead
Again Paul Ellis, your line is open.
We're not able to hear you.
Please check your mute button.
Paul Ellis: Can you hear me now?
-: We can.
Paul Ellis: Okay.
My name's Paul Ellis.
I'm a consultant with Solar Energy Partners.
I'm from Santa Clarita, California.
The CPUC needs to make the utility companies
honor the NEM one and two agreements,
thereby opposing NEM three.
Also ensure that solar remains affordable, beneficial,
and desired by the working class homeowners
who are the backbone of the economy.
Homeowner assistance for medical,
disabled and retired people needs to be increased.
Solar is creating jobs in helping the economy grow
throughout California and the entire or USA,
and should be encouraged.
Residential solar is helping
not hurting the utility companies.
The management of the power generated is a real issue
and reduces the use of long transmission lines.
Help us save the environment by saving our jobs
and let's meet our clean energy goals.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kim Stringzelo.
You may go ahead.
Kim Stringzelo: Hi, can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Kim Stringzelo: Good afternoon.
I'm a single female homeowner in Joshua tree.
I purchased my three kilowatt rooftop solar system
in 2012 through a small local installer
encouraged by state and federal incentives.
I'm in the process of updating my system with more panels.
I'm against any solar tax of any kind.
We need to ensure that distributor rooftop solar
remains affordable for everyone in the state.
I'm particularly disturbed how community solar programs
are threatened by the CPUC's proposed changes
to net metering, high Country News
just published a article this week.
And I'd like to quote from it.
Energy just as advocates say that community solar
is one of the most important ways to make
renewable energy accessible to all
while community ownership is crucial to ensuring
that solar benefits are more evenly distributed,
community solar, creating small solar farms
on community centers, vacant lands
nearby landfills allows household
who don't have rooftop--
(bell ringing)
(indistinct)
-: Thank you for your comments.
Kim Stringzelo: Renewables--
-: Thank you very much.
Kim Stringzelo: Community solar--
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mark L Field.
You may go ahead.
Mark L Field: Can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
-: My name is mark Delfield.
I live in the Eastbay and I'm asking you
to not tax or penalize rooftop solar.
Based on your last meeting in this meeting,
if you go ahead with any proposal that discourages solar
you'll demonstrate to everyone that public comment
has no meaning, no meaning at all.
Your website says we help Californians receive safe,
clean, and affordable utility services.
And that's what rooftop solar does.
And it's the opposite of what the utilities have been doing.
For example, my utility PG&E has been not safe,
not clean and not affordable.
PG&E has pled guilty to manslaughter in the fire
that destroyed the entire town of paradise.
You really want to pander the criminals,
please start it over, honor your promises
and do your best to increase existing incentives
so that more families can go solar and in turn
reduce the devastating effects of climate change.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Shannon Schaffer.
You may go ahead.
-: [Shannon Schaffer] Hi, my name is Shannon Schaffer.
I'm from aromas, California,
and I'm calling in opposition to this NEM three proposal
as a retired pro... Oh, just a moment please.
As I purchased my solar system and back in 2009,
with the goal of both protecting the environment
and offsetting costs to during my retirement,
I paid taxes on that purchase and object
to the proposed solar tax.
There should be no solar tax.
It isn't fair to require homes to have solar
and then place an additional tax upon those families.
We should be striving to encourage more families to invest
in solar in order to become energy, independent,
protect our environment, limit the effects
of power outages and control our costs.
The majority of my electric costs
are in the transmission and meter fees.
It is already difficult to make ends meet on a fixed income.
NEM three will have the opposite effective equity
making it unafordable and excluding many families.
It'll be (bell rings) it'll additional families
from installing solar, which will be a--
-: Thank you very much for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Zach McMorty.
You may go ahead.
Zach: Good afternoon Commissioners.
Thank you for taking my call today.
I appreciate all the time you've taken to listen
to all our comments against NEM three three solar
I too opposed to NEM three solar.
I work for a electrical contractor in Northern California,
and we would, if it goes through,
we would have to lay off probably about half
of our workers and it creates a lot of uncertainty
and progress for us in the future.
Solar is good for the state.
It's good for our energy needs,
and it'll also help offset the electrical grid for guys
that are going to electric cars in the future.
So please do everything you can to keep solar
alive in the industry and in the state.
And I appreciate your time.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller, David Girly.
You may go ahead.
David Girly: I live in Santa Rosa
still after losing my home and everything in it
in the tubs fire in 2017,
any NEM three will require me fire victims everywhere
and all solar customers across the state
to pay the big companies to recoup the costs
associated with their continuously bad decisions.
Looking at the CPUC website, there's a long list
of its repeated safety violations and citations
to those suppliers still in a mega drought
with undoubtedly more fires come electric cars
and trucks should be in every garage.
CPUC should be pushing for more cheaper rooftop
generated green power, not less magically.
The website for PG&E has been down
during this entire call,
but referencing the earlier bills I've saved PG&E's
recent hikes have increased my bill
by over 50% in the last year.
And I see PG&E's 2023 rate increase request is already
been filed with CPUC.
So why --(bell rings)
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Bertrand Perry.
You may go ahead.
Bertrand Perry: Hello.
Hello Commissioner.
My name is Bertrand Perry and I'm the Davis president.
First do not institute the solar tax and please honor
the existing 20 year protection for existing solar users.
CPUC need to announce this is no longer a consider
and be open and of what, what they are planning now.
Second, keep the annual tool up to allow for designing
higher efficiency service rooftop solar.
Sure, incentivize bad fee for new rooftop solar,
but also for existing system.
That means do not for people to choose between their current
name agreement and installing battery.
The mobile fee goes online, the better for everybody.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Brian Lamoreaux.
You may go ahead.
Again, Brian Lamoreaux your line is open.
We're not able to hear you.
Brian Lamoreaux: Okay, thank you.
Yes.
I own a small, I own and operate a small drafting
design drafting, an engineering service
called BBL solar design.
I've worked in solar industry for 20 years.
I'm the sole provider for my family of five.
I have a newborn child and I have a son in college.
The proposed decision would kill my job.
I urge you to reject the proposal.
Utilities saying that solar unfairly impacts
those who cannot afford it is dishonest.
To echo what the gentleman from Powerway said
hours before the solution is easy.
All grid users can pay the same maintenance fees
without shutting off solar.
Utilities wanna just scourge customer owned solar.
Why do utilities want to own discourage customer owned solar
and build more utility owned solar?
The answer is money.
The decision would destroy Virgin habitat by building
encouraging, building more utility scale solar.
And we need that habitat to mitigate
and fight climate change.
(bell rings)
Once that land is lost.
-: Thank you.
Brian Lamoreaux: It can never be returned.
Thank you so much.
-: Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Alan Schroeder.
You may go ahead.
Alan Schroeder: Yes.
Good afternoon.
My name's Alan Schroeder and I'm a resident
in San Mateo, California.
Thank you CPUC Commissioners for hearing our thoughts.
You've heard many many people provide comments
on the NEM three proposal well over a hundred
and they unanimously oppose it
for a variety of really good reason.
I'm in the solar industry.
I'm a worker in the industry and I work
for an employer that has about a thousand employees.
I, secondly, since everybody's put forth today
to reject their current NEM three proposal,
We all want a fair proposal that'll help us
provide power to the grid,
both through rooftop solar and utility power.
We can coexist.
So I asked you to go work with us, to put a plan together
that'll work for everybody and all of us in California.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Larry Justino.
You may go ahead.
Larry Justino: Yep. Yeah.
My name is Larry Justino, working in with solar
since 1965 in the state of California.
Bell telephone labs had a program in the elementary schools
when schools in California were number one in the nation.
Now they're way below that, but anyway,
am CEO of community company, A1 Sun, Inc. in Berkeley.
Our home electric and electric bills
been running on sunshine for decades.
Simple, elegant, economical, dependable
stated by the many good callers were facing
unprecedented climate, change wars over fossil fuel
record energy costs, and now an economy
at risk because of these things.
Local solar solves all of these problems simultaneously.
So let's conserve our precious, valuable time money,
resources, and for the real challenges ahead.
So please do the right thing.
Abandon any NEM three.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: And Our next caller is Brian Richmond.
You may go ahead.
Brian Richmond: Oh, hi there.
My name is Brian Richmond.
Can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Brian Richmond: Good.
My wife and I have three sons.
We live in El Rto in the Bay area.
And we did see if the CPUC's published mission
is to serve the public interest.
And I want to believe that you
take that to heart Commissioners.
I'm very disappointed in the proposal issued in December,
but I remain hopeful that you are reminded
by all of these amazing comments that your mission
is to serve us the public and not utility companies.
This might be the most important decision
that you make as a Commissioner.
It marks an inflection point in our fight
against climate change and climate change
is the defining problem of our time.
A hundred years from now,
our grandchildren will look back
at the decisions that we're making now.
We need to move forward, not backwards.
It's critical that solar becomes more and not less
affordable for working in middle class households.
This is critical for reaching California's clean energy
climate and open space goals.
And we can't go backwards with the solar tax.
We personally don't have solar,
but we want it and we're waiting to learn what.
(bell rings)
-: So thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Catherine Von Burg.
You may go ahead.
-: [Catherine Von Burg] Yes, thank you.
Catherine Von Burg CEO of SimpliPhi Power
manufacturer of clean energy storage here in California.
Penalizing California citizens for using
their hard earned dollars to do what the utilities
should be doing, generating clean, distributed energy
to create resilient homes, businesses and communities
that reduce CO2, methane and climate change,
particularly as utilities shut off the power and market.
These forced blackouts as public safety
power shutoffs is criminal.
California utilities and the CPUC need to address
climate change and rising CO2 levels and support
California residents to generate more clean solar energy,
not charge draconian fees that deter clean rooftop,
distributed generation, which provide safety
and resilience to residents during any power outage.
The utilities need to invest in their own infrastructure
and stop penalizing residents for investing
(bell rings)
in distributed solar that benefits the entire state.
-: Thank you.
-: [Catherine Von Burg] Commissioners, do your job
and serve the public interest.
-: Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Steve Rose.
You may go ahead.
Steve Rose: Hello?
-: Yes we can hear you.
Steve Rose: Okay. My name's Steve Rose,
my wife and I are retired and live in Altina in LA county.
Since moving here nine years (indistinct)
a nonprofit organization that installs
free solar on income housing
while training individuals to enter the solar job market.
The training I received allowed me to help
make friends install an eight kilowatt system
labor free on their house five years ago.
I'm currently installing
an eight kilowatt system in my own home.
My new system opens the door for me to purchase
an electric vehicle and convert my natural gas range,
water heater, and dryer to electric
with our expected savings of over $2,500 a year
by going solar, our increase in disposable income
allows us to go ahead with a drought tolerant yard as well.
All the above benefits were created
by going solar and helps our environment.
Every dollar saved by going solar is a dollar
that can be spent on rent, mortgage,
health, food, et cetera.
(bell rings)
Please incentivize solar instead of putting up block.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Craig Gillingham.
You may go ahead.
-: [Craig Gillingham] Hi, I'm retired.
I live in the High desert.
I'm a grid tie provider to Southern California Eddison.
I heat my home with a pellet stove
and cool it with evaporative swamp coolers.
It was only mentioned once taxes.
When I installed solar county tax assessor up the value
of my home and I've been paying every year
for that addition cost due to solar.
Regarding charging additional fees
after two years after I got solar installed Southern
California Edison started charging extra money
for great expenses for us that have solar.
They've done that, they've been doing that.
The whole proposal is obscene.
It should never have been produced.
I'm sad to say that it even exist to charge taxes.
It took a woman from Pasadena to say
that this poor versus rich is just a sham.
So vote no on this.
(bell rings)
Do not even consider this kind of proposal.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is from Jonathan Greenberg
with Sonoma independent.
He's a Sonoma independent editor.
You may go ahead
Again, Jonathan Greenberg.
Your line is open.
We're not able to hear you.
Shall we go to the next caller?
-: Yes, please do operator.
Thank you.
Operator: Our next caller is Lawrence Chapman.
You may go ahead
And again, Lawrence Chapman
I'm not able, we're not able to hear you.
Please check your mute button.
-: [Lawrence Chapman] Lawrence Chapman.
Hello?
-: Yes, please.
Go ahead.
-: [Lawrence Chapman] I'm sorry.
I added so 11 years ago,
I'm retired and I wanted to protect
myself from increased expenses.
Solar was very expensive back in 2009,
but I justified it because of the 20 year protection
and the NEM 1.0 program that was promised.
I sized my system so the credit from energy I generated
during I would offset my energy cost at night
and I would have a zero bill.
Then SDG&E added a fixed monthly charge
followed by changing the time of use rates
so that my credit for daytime production
is now more than offset by the high rates
being charged in the evenings.
As a result, I'm already paying over a thousand as a year
for something that was promised to be zero.
As others have said, it's disappointing
that we have to be calling you to ask you
to simply honor your promises.
Please maintain the 20 years you promised.
Continue to give full credit for energy we feed
into the grid during the day and not impose
any further fixed monthly charges.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Lee Schwarz.
You may go ahead.
Lee Schwarz: Hi, do I have to unmute?
-: We can hear you.
Lee Schwarz: Okay.
Oh. Would you mind hold holding on just a minute
because I have to turn my dryer on otherwise
I'm gonna be penalized for ludicrous rates.
My name is Lee Schwarz.
I live in sunny, San Diego county, the county that pays
the highest electricity rates in the country.
I am obviously opposed to NEM three.
We have solar and we've had to get batteries because we
are tired of living in darkness and throwing out food
whenever it's too windy or too hot because your antiquated
infrastructure has killed and displaced people.
I don't even think that we need your utility anymore.
It should be optional.
I wish the only transmission lines I would have
would be from my panels to my batteries, to my home.
We will never go to war over solar
because we have plenty of it,
it's clean, it's unlimited,
it fits nicely in this crowded state on our rooftops.
This is where we should invest in the future,
on your contract to us and continue
to invest in rooftop solar.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Danette Abbot Wicker.
You may go ahead.
-: [Danette Abbot Wicker] Hi, thank you so much
for having these comments today.
I second, all of the comments so far, great job.
I live in Orange and I just wanted to start out
with a couple of degree changes that our global be facing.
Global crop failures hit at 1.5 to two degrees Celsius.
Sun scientists say we're already past that mark.
Billions diet three centimeter, I'm sorry, three Celsius.
Most humans dead at four Celsius.
The earth is uninhabitable by six.
We're heading for 1.5 by 2025, as I said,
although some say we have already been, we are already here.
And then we are gonna hit four to six Celsius by 2075.
No solar tax of any kind in ensure
that solar becomes more affordable
for working in middle class households not less.
Honor the existing 20 year protection for solar users.
Access to affordable energy as a human right,
consumers should be able to control their energy bills.
We're getting harmed by endless rate hikes.
Consumers should be able to control their energy,
not be penalized for it, especially for expects
to switch to electric cars and appliances.
Where do you think this extra monies
(bell rings) gonna come from?
If you can really afford to pay their utilities now.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: And Our next caller is Adam Bagnar.
You may go ahead.
Adam Bagnar: Yes, thank you.
Hi, my name is Adam Bagnar and I've worked
in the solar industry for about nine years.
In 2012, Arizona gutted them added state
monthly fees for solar customers.
As a result, several big companies pulled out
of the state overnight, and this led to immediate job losses
since California is the national
(indistinct) for clean energy.
Not only will this cost us jobs,
it create a domino effect of other states
having the same idea that we just saw a disasters
then proposal passing Florida.
So it's imperative, California doesn't follow that lead.
I'm confident there's a solution
that will increase solar costs for consumers
while maintaining price equity.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Brian Grouse.
You may go ahead.
Brian Grouse: Hi, thank you for taking my call today.
This is Brian Grouse from Palo Alto, California.
I've worked with solar industry for the last 12 years
and really wanted to thank all of the callers today
for just all of the great points you brought up.
I'm not gonna rehash those.
This net meter and 3.0 situation reminds me of a situation
that happened in Nevada several years ago.
And the results for Nevada were not great.
Tons of lost jobs, lost livelihoods.
After a two year fight,
we were able to get back in in Nevada.
I would hate to see that happen in California,
the greatest solar markets in the US.
Thank you for your time Commissioners.
Please do the right thing.
Vote against NEM 3.0.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jesse Elliot.
You may go ahead.
Jesse Elliot: Hi, can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Jesse Elliot: Hi, kicked off many times, but thank you.
So Jesse Elliot, I live in San Louis Obispo.
I worked in this industry for 18 years.
For 17 years, I grew one of the largest
solar companies in the nation.
Watched the largest utility duke energy bought us out.
And I watched them basically destroy the organization
due to in confidence of management.
And this is what I feel's going exactly
what's happening with the utility company.
PG&E, SPG&E, SC, right?
Incompetent management.
That's why they're losing profits.
It has nothing to do with solar customers
taking away profits from them.
And so this whole NEM proposal you've heard well
over 150 comments today, we were on the phone
for over like five, six hours in January,
overwhelming public sediment that the NEM three proposal
is garbage is premises based on garbage.
And it needs to be scrapped and there needs
to be a proper solution (bell rings)
(indistinct) worth it.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: And Our next caller is Jillian Hall.
You may go ahead.
Jillian Hall: Hi.
Can everyone hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Jillian Hall: Hi, my name is Jill Hall.
I live in Ventura county.
I'm calling on behalf of shutting down the SoCalGas
into a compressor station.
SoCalGas is holding to me as the meetings
later this month at a luxury hotel,
far away from and inaccessible to many members
on the west side who do not have vehicles.
This is just another performative action on part,
pretending to care about community input.
We've been asking for an environmental impact report
for a full year, and I've seen no response.
You have the power to demand one,
and we're asking that you demand a full environmental
impact report, but of vent inter compressor station.
I stand with everyone else who spoke
on the solar tax issue today.
I think we need to increase solar use in California
and incentivize it rather than deincentivize it.
Thank you so much for your time.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: One moment for our next caller.
Our next caller is Patricia Langan.
You may go ahead.
Patricia Langan: Hello.
I live in Carlsbad, California,
and like 100% of the other callers for the past five hours,
I oppose the proposed changes to net metering.
Rooftop solar should become more affordable and incentivize
not result in increased taxes of any kind.
Rooftop solar homeowners like myself, who would become
victims of a government bureaucracy BA and switch.
California has clean energy and open space goals.
Rooftop solar minimizes potential impacts to the environment
that large solar fields can cause.
Rooftop solar requires no additional land development,
so it can help to conserve open space.
We are going to need to harness as many avenues as we can
to meet the 100% clean energy goals for California.
So don't take away one of those pathways,
just be big power companies.
I urged this CPUC to keep California a green energy leader
and work for the public good, not for big energy,
corporate greed, reject NEM 3.0.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
-: At this time,
we have no more in the public comment section.
If you would like to make a comment,
please unmute your phone,
press star one and record your first and last name
fully and clearly, so I may introduce you.
Again that is star one to make a comment.
Our next caller is Gary Fulton.
You may go ahead.
Gary Fulton: Yes.
I purchased my home solar system in 2014.
It was with the understanding that if I owned the system,
then everything would be locked in.
I think it's unfair the public utilities
to try to attack on extra fees.
Everything everybody said today is good.
It also enhances our own security because if there's
multiple sources, a distributed source,
then it's not as susceptible to an internet attack
anyway, to change the rules now I'm 75,
I'm on a fixed income, I bought these panels
because I understand that with inflation,
the pension that I received
will actually become worth less and less.
This was a method of mitigating that
and you're taking it away from me.
It's unfair.
Unjust.
Okay. That's my comment.
Thank you very (bell rings) much for hearing.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Augustus Brown.
You may go ahead.
Augustus Brown: Yes.
My name is Augustus Brown.
I live in San Diego.
I did not represent or work for the solar industry.
I just installed solar panels and plan
on getting an electric vehicle.
Increasing the financial liability on individuals
who produce solar energy is the wrong thing to do.
The state needs to encourage more solar
energy production not discourage it.
I oppose an NEM 3.0 or any kind of solar tax.
Please reject it.
Thank you.
-: Do Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Shirley Lewandowski.
You may go ahead.
-: [Shirley Lewandowski] Yes.
I'm Shirley Lewandowski from Dublin, California.
Solar farms are being herded as being vastly cheaper
than rooftop solar, whereas in reality,
the selective map of CPUC calculations are after tax
credits to the wealth as tax equity investors.
Current any NEM one, two, our main street solar
versus NEM three three, which is wall start solar.
We want solar and built environment first
without the added burden of NEM three.
We want solar, those jobs, those tax rates
to stay in the local communities building local jobs,
local economies are the major source
of building equity within communities.
Local economies are imperative for the climate change
economy we want to build.
Turn NEM one and two rooftop solar accomplishes
this without destroying nature.
Please reject NEM three.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is John Ross.
You may go ahead.
John Ross: Hi, I'm a new Homer of 2020
about solar eight months after I got my house.
I thought it was a good investment.
I do not agree with this new bill.
I think solar is the right way to go.
Slight charging people for air,
air free solar is free.
The sun is free.
It should be a joy for everyone. That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Elena Waters.
You may go ahead.
Elena Waters: Hi, good afternoon.
Sorry, I know this is really long.
I wanted to mention that I did receive an insert this time
in my PG&E bill about this meeting that was going on,
but paperless billing people are not gonna get that same
notification so we're lacking notifications
appropriately on this meeting.
I wanted to bring up that electric cars, a typical
electric car uses 3,680 kilowatt hours per year.
And there are still no low income program
for people to get solar put on their house.
The kilowatt hours usage of cars
when you go to an electric car,
you can no longer use low income programs
like care for some of the different,
low income programs, medical baseline,
none of those discounts come into effect.
You actually lose those discounts.
When we have to go to electric cars, solar could offset it,
but they just have nothing on the table.
as far as for low income programs,
at least with PG&E and I've applied three times
and I've been told three times at PG&E
is not supported for low income programs,
but (bell rings) with electric cars.
Thank you
-: Thank you.
Elena Waters: Have a good day.
-: Thank you for your comment. Operator next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Louis Clark.
You may go ahead.
Louis Clark: Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Two years ago and early this year,
I decided to we to put a solar solar system
in our home to reduce our costs, electrical costs.
California has more than 1.3 million system installed,
and really we need to triple or quadruple
the number of systems installed within the next 10 years.
So we can become the number one solar energy generator
in the world, in the state and in the world.
This is not the time to install the solar transition.
This is not the time to talk
about adding a tax to solar energy.
This is the time again, to give additional state
and federal tax credit for the millions
of Californians that want to solar.
So please solar tax will hurt.
Californian's transition to renewable energy.
Honor, (bell rings) the 20 year rotation plan.
-: Thank you. Louis Clark: Vote no.
Thank you. -: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Roger Espanola.
You may go ahead.
Roger Espanola: Yes.
My name is Roger Espanola.
I live in ESCO on California.
I've had my system for almost 17 years now.
And over that period of time,
I've had to replace all four of my inverters.
Of course they that's at my own cost.
So that has increased my cost over the years.
And as far as the advertisements on TV,
about us creating issues with the lower income people
and not contributing, I just had my summary.
And over this last year, I have generated
over 1800 kilowatt hours to the system.
PG&E would normally charge $499 a 40 cents for that.
The reimbursement that I got for that was $81 and 36 cents.
So that amount difference, the 499.40 versus the 81.36,
that PG&E has paid has paid me for the energy I produced,
that's not us generating these excess costs.
That's PG&E so I really am (indistinct)
(bell rings)
Please vote no.
Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
-: And president Reynolds there are no more participants
on the public comment, telephone line.
-: Okay, thank you.
Let me ask one more time if there's anyone on the line,
we don't have you in the queue.
You need to press a star one to get in the queue.
Operator could you check one final time?
Operator: Yes, one moment.
And our next caller is Valerie Gonski.
You may go ahead.
Valerie Gonsk: Hi.
My name is Valerie Gonski.
I'm from Arcade California.
I've had my ear glued to the phone the past five hours.
Not because I have nothing else to do,
but because I, along with all of the callers
and there I say, majority is Californians to deeply
the enormity of the consequences of these decisions
you're making, that affect how we combat climate change
and the urge need for an affordable, clean energy future.
Thank you all conditioners these hours
with us listening to our concerns.
We've heard the passioned well reasoned castigating,
as well as plaintiffs, please of retired seniors,
solar installers, fire refugees, people of color,
professor's doctors, homeowners, you name it.
You don't need to meet hear my own reason
to carefully compose comments,
just register my name, added to the chorus
on your NEM three proposal.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
-: And caller is Howard Fallon.
You may go ahead.
Howard Fallon: Hi.
Can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Howard Fallon: Okay, great.
Thanks.
I'm Howard Fallon.
I am a retiree living at a home I own
with San Francisco with rooftop solar.
I oppose the a NEM three proposal
that's in front of the CPUC.
And I think it's appalled that we're even having to do this.
I've been on the line for five hours
because it's a naked power grab by monopoly.
PG&E needs a monopoly and basically
they've killed a lot of people.
It's a criminal enterprise, but yet they put this stuff
up and people in just everybody's bought off
and they're all happy to go forward with it.
I'm embarrassed for the CPUC Commissioners
that you'd even put this in front of the public,
but the state of the world we live in today.
Thank you for your time.
-: Thank you.
Operator next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Sage Monteiro.
You may go ahead.
Sage Monteiro: Hello.
Like she said, my name is Sage Monteiro.
I just wanted to say, I hope that you guys are listening,
listening to our call, please vote no,
and do to not put the profits of a private
utility company ahead of the people.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Scott Lonsford.
You may go ahead.
Scott Lonsford: Hi, my name is Scott Lonsford.
I live in Solana beach, California.
I work for dividend finance and I speak with hundreds
of people in the solar industry
every week as part of my accounts.
And they're all very concerned that this
could negatively impact their job in their livelihood.
Vote no against NEM 3.0.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
-: And president Reynolds,
there are no more participants
on the public comment, telephone line.
-: Thank you very much operator.
With no more callers on the line.
The public comment period is now closed.
We'll move next to the rest of the agenda.
I have a few agenda changes to announce.
The following or the changes to today's agenda.
Item 14, 15, 40,
40A, 41 and 43 are held until seventh 2022.
Items 42, 45 and 48
will be taken up with the Consent Agenda.
We'll next move to the Consent Agenda
and take up the items on that agenda.
Do I have a motion for the items on the agenda?
-: So move.
-: Do we have a second?
-: I'll second.
-: Motion by Commissioner Rechtschaffen
second by Commissioner Shiroma.
Agenda Clerk could you please call the role.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner John Reynolds?
-: Aye.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Houck.
-: Yes.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Hi.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Agenda Clerk: President Alice Reynolds.
-: Yes.
The consent item pass 50.
I will now turn to item number 46.
We are going to take things a little bit out of order
and I will be taking item number 46 next,
management report on consumer
protection and safety activities.
We will have a presentation on consumer customer,
centric approaches to our consumer protection programs.
Now I will turn it over to executive director,
Rachel Peterson to present today's speaker, Ms. Peterson.
-: Thank you, president Reynolds and Commissioners.
Good afternoon.
My name is Rachel Peterson.
I'm the executive director of the California
Public Utilities Commission.
And thank you for the opportunity to present
the third in a series of three staff briefings on consumer
protection and safety activities here at the CPUC.
In October, 2021, we briefed you on the protections
that the Commission established during the COVID 19
pandemic for customers who fell behind
on their electric and gas bill.
Also last fall, you heard from our consumer affairs
branch and our utilities enforcement branch,
who presented how we receive and track complaints
by the public about utility services
and how we enforce our rules when there's a violation.
Today, we're turning towards a future
with two of our innovative and forward looking programs.
Before I introduce them, I want to provide you
with a short update on our role in securing
emergency COVID relief for utility customers
in the first quarter of this year.
Because we established several moratoriums
during the pandemic, which meant that people
who could not pay their utility bill were disconnected.
This meant no household was getting their electricity or gas
shut off for failure to pay bills during the COVID crisis.
Other major step was to ensure the delivery
and distribution of federal relief funds.
Relief that has now arrived and is making a difference
in the lives of Californians.
Or electric and gas customers
the California Arrearage Payment Program
is administered by our colleagues at the California
department of community services and development.
CSD is our partner and it has awarded all 695 million
in relief funds statewide for customers
of eight investor owned electric and gas utilities.
The allocations for each utilities customers
were based on the share of outstanding debt
that customers of those companies had.
Our staff collaborated intensively with CSD to get
this relief flowing and I'm very proud of effort.
And now a few months on, there is one message
I would especially like to send to customers,
particularly small business and residential customers,
which is that we are requiring utilities
to work with customers on payment plans.
Please contact your utility if you need to get
on a payment plan to pay some past arrearages.
So with the leadership of you as Commissioners,
especially former Commissioner and now region nine EPA
administrator Guzman Aceves you have helped nearly
three quarters of a billion dollars
flow to Californians to assist with their energy bills
that accrued between March, 2020 and June, 2021.
Thank you as well to Commissioner Houck
and Commissioner Chiroma are continuing to lead
in this area of ensuring affordability
and delivering real timely relief to Californians.
I wanna turn for a moment to water customers
for everyone who had arrearages.
We also facilitated the California water
and wastewater arrearage payment program.
The water board has now reported that it has provided
301 million to water systems statewide
for drinking water arrearages,
which is 100% of eligible drinking water debt
that was requested by participating systems.
All of the class, a water systems that we regulate
have received payments through this program.
And now the remaining funds that need to be allocated
for relief are wastewater arrearages.
The water board anticipates that this allocation
will also meet 100% of eligible requests.
And so, again, for any member of the public listening,
the application for wastewater relief funds opened
on February 1st and we'll close on April 1st, 2022.
Okay.
Now turning from our actions during the pandemic to today.
You're going to hear today from two
of our teams on the innovative ways
that we are changing our customer program,
specifically in the areas of energy and transportation.
The innovations are consistent with our mission
of delivering safe, clean, reliable,
and affordable utility service.
And you're gonna hear the special emphasis
by these staff, people on improving the affordability,
accessibility and sustainability of energy
and transportation services.
Our part one will be presented by Kapil Kulkarni
of energy division to discuss customer focus
improvements to the energy savings assistance program.
And then you'll hear from Tara Curtis
of our consumer protection and enforcement division
about implementation of California's
TNC access for all program.
This was authorized by the legislature in 2018
to address long standing gaps in affordability
and accessibility of on demand,
wheelchair accessible transportation.
Thank you again Commissioners
for the opportunity to present
and I'll turn it over to Kapil Kulkarni for part one.
-: Thank you, Executive director Peterson
and president Reynolds and Commissioners
for the opportunity to present.
Good afternoon everyone.
My name is Kapil Kulkarni senior analyst
at the Energy Division
at the California Public Utilities Commission.
My presentation is on how the energy savings assistance
program or ESA is adapting to be more customer-centric.
Next slide, please.
First, let's start with what we see as the problem
that we're trying to solve,
which is at lower income households
face higher energy burdens.
Energy burden can be loosely defined as having trouble
paying your electric and gas bills to keep the lights on
and keep comfortable throughout the year
when it's cold and winter and hot and summer.
The more technical definition is displayed here,
which is simply your energy expenses divided by your income.
And even with other public benefit programs
like temporary aid MedCal or Cal fresh
helping your household, your energy burden
can still remain high with lower income household
spending more than 5% of their income
on energy bills compared to one and a half percent
or less for higher income households.
You can also see the types of customers
that are more affected by energy burden
and the impacts on them if they can't pay
their bills or be comfortable.
This may include having to make tough choices
such as foregoing health visits or medications
or other options that may exacerbate existing
or create new health issues.
Next slide please.
So how can the CPUC help?
The CPUC tries to alleviate these burdens
through the oversight of three programs
that can help reduce burdens on low income housings.
Through of the programs CARE,
California Alternate Rates for Energy
and FERA, Family Electric Rate Assistance program
provide a direct bill discount eligible houses.
CARE provides an electric and gas bill discount
for households who are at 200% or below
of the federal poverty guidelines
or about $50,000 in annual income
for a household of FERA.
For families that make a little bit more than 50,000,
let's say $60,000 in annual income for a household of FERA.
They would not qualify for CARE,
but they would qualify for the electric rate discount.
The third program is the ESA program,
which provides no cost direct installation
of energy efficiency and other beneficial measures
and services like LED light bulbs
and smart thermostats to qualify houses.
The investor owned utilities deliver the program
through the use of outside contractors.
Until now ESA was only available
for CARE eligible household.
However, starting July 1st, thanks to a new state law,
SB7056, that just went into effect.
Nearly all households at 250% or below of the federal
poverty guidelines or add or about $65,000
in annual income for a household of FERA
will generally would be able to both a build discount
and free energy efficiency services
to help reduce their burden.
Next slide, please.
More than 10 years ago, the CPUC set a goal
for the investor utilities to provide all eligible
and long households with treatment through the ESA program.
This goal was largely met by the end of 2020,
and so it is time to set new goals and redesign
the program to meet these goals.
Through proceeding that incorporated the input
of the investor, utilities, contractors,
and other stakeholders, the CPUC adopted new energy savings
goals that will encourage more savings per home,
and a program design that is more customer-centric
and allows for differentiated to, and by home.
Next slide.
This slide goes into detail on how the program design
is evolving to meet customer needs,
previously to meet the 2020 goal,
customer treatments were similar by home
so that the IUs could scale delivery to meet the goal.
But which also meant there was little differentiation
by customer it as any consumer facing company knows
two houses on the same block have entirely different needs.
As part of the new program design,
we are allowing the investor on utilities
to differentiate treatment to different
customer types within their unique service territories,
and also requiring the IOU investor own utilities
to report on eligibility and activity by customer segment
and delivery is measures based on customer type.
Here's a mapping of all the different customer
types that we have identified initially.
You can see categories for demographic
including the housing type that the household
is in whether they rent or own their property
as well as other categorizations such as seniors or vet.
There's also categories for financial
location and health condition.
One of the goals of this could be for example,
to ensure that previously disconnected customers
identified in the financial category
or financial column or customers at risk
of disconnection receive ESA measures or services
such as bill or energy education
that may prevent future disconnections.
High usage customers also shown in the financial column
may receive measures and services related
to the highest energy using appliances in the home,
which is off the air conditioner
and also related measures such as insulation
to make their homes less leaky and more efficient.
Another example is customers based
on their location for example,
in public safety, power shutoff, or wildfire zones
are there certain measures that can help
these customers when reliability at risk,
such as portable batteries or generators
or clean generators that they can be referred to
through other programs outside of visa
that may be more appropriate.
We hope this turns into a feedback loop
where we can see how large the population
of a customer segment is and see if this segment
is receiving upgrades and what type of upgrades
work well for them.
Next slide, please.
This slide highlights some of the other new
components of the program design
including deeper energy savings and electrification.
Deeper energy savings relates to the shift
of moving away from the quantity of homes treated to quality
and trying to achieve up to 50% savings per home
compared to the historical average of up to 5% savings,
energy savings per home.
We are excited about the possibility for certain homes
to be able to reduce their energies use by half.
This can have a huge impact on their bills
potentially saving the home hundreds of dollars per year.
The IOUs will be spending a $100 million
over the next five years,
just on this deeper energy savings pilot
to install more measures and spend more per home
perhaps $10,000 per home,
compared to the current average
of about 1000 to $2,000 per home,
then measure the energy savings and see if it makes sense
to expand these efforts.
The next innovation is through the electrification pilots,
Southern California Edison is having two programs.
And for the first time we are incorporating
electrification into the ESA program
to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
such as replacing a gas furnace with electric pump.
We have to measure the impacts on low income customers
including targeting and outreach efforts,
awareness of electrification and bill savings.
And these two programs including one for retrofit,
for existing homes and a new construction pilot program.
The other opportunity is something that PG&E is doing
called the Virtual Energy Coach Pilot,
which involves segmentation
and personalization of customers.
Similar to the ideas that went through
that went into the program design.
While I previously spoke about how we plan
to get more detail on the types of customers
that participate and what services they receive.
We see the PG&E pilot as a more formal effort
to gather this data and provide
this information back to household.
This pilot compliments the overall effort
to provide households with more information
on how they can benefit from ESA
and have the IOUs and contractors deliver
the measures and services that best meet their needs.
Whether it's a few simple measures
or deeper energy savings or electrification measures.
While these are efforts are just starting out,
they are a natural and necessary
evolution of the ESA program
to ensure that income qualified households
in California can reduce their energy burden
and save on their energy bills.
I look forward to updating you on our progress
as well as any questions.
And that concludes my presentation.
Thank you.
-: Thanks Kulkarni.
And if we go to the next slide,
then we can move to Tara's presentation.
Thank you.
-: Good afternoon, president Reynolds and Commissioners.
My name is Tara Curtis and I supervise
the transportation and analysis section
within the consumer protection and enforcement division.
It's truly a pleasure to present to you
and members of the public today
on another of the Commission's
customer oriented programs,
the TNC Access for all program established
by Senate bill 1376 in 2018.
My team has lead responsibility
for program implementation.
Next slide.
So in SB 1376, the legislature recognized
that people with disabilities face more social isolation,
less access to jobs, higher rates of depression
and other negative quality of life outcomes
relative to their peers.
These are outcomes that have been exacerbated
by the pandemic and the legislature
stated that more can be done to address
these inequities and called on the CPUC
to implement the TNC Access for all programs
to increase access to on demand transportation
for people with disabilities,
particularly those who use non foldable wheelchairs.
Next slide.
But what got us here in the first place,
existing public programs have resulted
in a patchwork of accessible transportation options,
leaving both geographic and temporal gaps.
Congress passed the Americans with disabilities act in 1990,
which required public transportation agencies
across the country to develop wheelchair
accessible transportation
known as complimentary paratransit.
And while those services provide lifelines
for tens of millions of Americans every year
funding challenges mean that transit agencies
typically only respond to trip requests
made a day or more in advance.
To address this, some agencies have found funding
to start supplementary same day trip programs,
that typically control costs through service cap.
In SB 1376, the legislature attempts
to address this patchwork by offering incentives,
to stimulate growth in on demand wheelchair
accessible transportation across the state.
Next slide.
And people really need this.
Some of the things we've heard in workshops
or program feedback includes that transportation
is a daily barrier that disabled customers
can't just ask a friend or use ride hail
when a sudden need or desire to get somewhere comes up.
And it's a daily momentary uncertainty sharing
that "We don't know when or if we can get a ride"
Next slide.
And this is why my team is proud
to be working with assigned Commissioner
Shiroma and the rest of the Commission
to be implementing the TNC access for all programs.
This program raises a 10 cents for every TNC trip
taken in California and deposits the money
into the access fund.
This funding incentivizes the TNCs to invest
in on-demand wheelchair, transportation,
and counties across the state.
And it also funds county level government agencies,
contracts with access providers in places
where TNCs leave money on the table.
And thanks to a compensation program element
created by the legislature.
This proceeding has been supported
by robust participation from disability rights advocates.
Next slide.
Implementation of this program started in 2019.
So, I wanted to briefly share
a few stats on where we are now.
Last year we observed TNC
on demand wheelchair accessible
transportation options in 18 counties across the state,
we are aware of almost 40 million of investment
in these services in California,
almost 15 million of which was through funding
generated by this program.
So far, we've seen over 75,000 trips completed
and county level agencies and aid counties
have also started efforts in implementing
local programs through funding
provided through the TNC access for all programs.
Next slide.
What I'm really most excited to share with you today
are some direct quotes from customers of the service,
and special thanks to lift in the city of San Francisco
for helping us here direct from dozens of customers
in advance of this presentation,
as well as to members of the public
who've attended our workshops
and shared feedback with us directly.
Overall, what we're hearing is a story
of early success with calls to continue to do more.
We hear that these types of programs are indispensable.
Not only for individuals with disabilities,
but also for their whole families.
And we also hear that they're not well known
asking where have they been hiding them
and that the investments so far are serving
to increase quality of life among people
with disabilities and their families.
Next slide.
It was such a powerful experience
to read through all the customer feedback
we've received thus far,
I'm sharing just a snippet with you
but here are a couple more.
A mother tells us in not having a car
and having a wheelchair bound immune compromised daughter,
and that TNCs provided a lifeline as a low exposure risk
travel option during the pandemic.
Another person wrote to celebrate
their newfound travel freedom
when traveling in San Francisco,
but lamented the persistent patchwork accessibility,
observing that the same access is not currently
available in some parts of the Eastbay.
And lastly, a traveler reminds us
of the inequities that people with disabilities
must confront in their daily lives
stating that seeing non-accessible TNCs available
at the airport reminds them of the disparate access
SB 1376 seeks to address.
The next slide.
Looking ahead,
we know that we have to focus on learning
and adjusting to become a national leader
in the deployment and adoption of on demand
transportation options for people with disabilities
as envisioned by SB 1376.
By 2026, we're aiming for big changes to the status quo.
And in addition to ongoing program implementation,
we're continuing to work with you in the open proceedings.
Next and final slide.
In SBE 1376, the Legislatures saw the link
between transportation, accessibility,
economic competitiveness, and quality of life.
We're proud to be working with you
and are thankful for parties participation
in the proceeding to increase the independence, freedom,
and dignity in the lives of people with disabilities.
Thank you again for this opportunity
to speak with me today.
-: Thank you again president Reynolds,
and back to you.
-: Thank you, director Peterson,
and much thanks to Kapil and Tara
for both of your presentations.
It's obvious that there's a lot of work
on behalf of staff that went into,
that's behind the presentation
and that you're providing benefits to many customers.
I did appreciate the summary of the comments
from customers that you provided.
Tara really appreciate your time today.
And we look forward to continuing to hear from you
as your work progresses.
Thank you very much.
We'll now turn to agenda item number 44.
The item number is P.21-10-003
order instituting rule making to consider amendment
to General Order 133-D.
Commissioner Houck, would you like to present?
-: Thank you president Reynolds,
on October 7th, 2021,
the public advocates office
of the California Public Utilities Commission,
or Cal advocates filed a petition requesting
that we open a rule making to amend
and update general order 133-D.
The petition stated that communication services provided
via broadband, wireless and VoIP
along with traditional wire-line telephone service
now constitute essential services.
Cal advocates ask the Commission to establish
minimum service quality standards
applicable to broadband wireless and VoIP services.
Currently the Commission's minimum service quality standards
apply only to plain old telephone service
or what's referred to as pots providers,
California advocates further recommended
that the Commission review and consider revisions
to geo 133-D's penalty framework to ensure penalties
result in actual improved service quality.
In 2016, the Commission issued decision
1608021 adopting (GO) 133-D,
which revised the minimum service quality standards
that legacy pot service providers must meet.
However, consumers increasingly rely
on VoIP wireless and broadband services
rather than plain old telephone services
for their communications needs.
The Commission has acknowledged this trend
in many proceedings, but thus far,
we have not updated our service quality rules
to reflect this change.
In 2020, the communications division released
phase two of its network exam study required
by Commission decision,
which reviewed AT&T and Frontier California's
Telecommunications Networks for the years, 2018 to 2019.
This study found that communities and areas
with the lowest household income suffer the most
from poor service quality resulting
from insufficient network, investment and maintenance.
We've also determined that our existing policy,
which permits investments in lieu of penalties
is not working to improve service quality.
While these communication services
have been essential to modern life,
the pandemic deepened our reliance on them
and underscored the importance of communication services.
Today adequate VoIP wireless and broadband services
are necessary for attending school work,
participating in government using
TAA health services and receiving emergency alerts.
We're all familiar with the struggles
that so many students have had
these past few years with assessing
remote classes and at a recent public PSPS workshop.
We heard from electric utilities who struggled
to send PSPS text message alerts to their customers
due to the lack of bandwidth of the local providers.
This rule making seeks to address these issues
and ensure that all Californians
receive a minimum level of service quality
that allows them to access to emergency information
and to fully participate in modern life.
The Commission has previously determined
that wireless and interconnected VoIP providers
meet the definition of telephone corporations
and the Commission's rule making on emergency
disaster relief are 1803011,
the Commission confirm jurisdiction over VoIP providers
in wireless telephone corporations and defined
a minimum level of service and coverage
that VoIP and wireless providers must achieve
for public health and safety purposes.
The Commission must ensure that telephone corporations
provide customer service that needs reasonable
statewide service quality standards,
including but not limited to standards
regarding network technical quality,
telephone support, installation, repair, and billings.
In order to make these assurances, we agree
with Cal advocates that we must carefully examine
the standards set out in (GO) 133-D
and therefore grant the petition filed
by Cal advocates as to opening this rule making.
We do not adopt everything that Cal advocates
requested in its petition.
This OYR is open to assess whether
service quality measures set out in (GO) 133-D.
First, whether they meet the goals of (GO) 133,
which is to ensure that telecommunications
providers meet the level of service
required by public utilities, code 451.
Second, remain relevant to today's
regulatory environment and market.
Third, incorporate an effective penalty mechanism
and enforcement framework, and then we
will additionally close the petition 2110003,
as opening this rule making addresses the petition.
I'd like to thank all of the parties
for their detailed comments and contributions
that led to a better proposed order.
I wanna thank judge Gal for her work on this matter
and the team from the communications division,
which include McKayla Panli, Gregory Rubenstein,
NL Balvarda, and Theresa Hernandez
for all of their time and work on this rule making.
I also want to thank Helen Mickiewicz
and CARRIE ANNE Shepherd for their legal counsel.
And finally, I want to thank my advisor,
Candace Choe for all of her great work
and long hours on this matter.
So with that, I ask that you join me
in supporting the opening of this important rule making,
and I'm looking forward to continue
to work on these critical matters.
And I'll turn it back over to you President Reynolds.
-: Thank you, Commission Houck.
Comments from other Commissioners?
Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Yes.
Thank you President Reynolds.
I'm in support of this item.
It is one with the Commission's vision statement,
which is to better the lives of all Californian's
through recognize leadership in innovative communications,
energy transportation, and water policies
and various and facility on communication.
This new OIR will allow us to be innovative
in a way that definitely looks to improve
the lives of Californians as Fisher,
Houck has outlined very timely
because it's been a number of years
since we lost, made adjustments to (GO) 133.
And since then we have (indistinct) launch for advances
and funding opportunities.
I wanna thank the account advocates
for the petition on this, also to ALJ
and to Commissioner Houck to you
in your office in getting us to this point.
Thank you.
-: Thank you Commissioner Shiroma,
Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Thank you.
I'll be supporting this OIR, this item
I wanna thank Commissioner Houck for taking leadership
and I wanna thank Cal advocates for their initiative
and bringing the petition forward.
This is extremely important for the reasons
my colleagues said it's way long past time,
given what we've been through with COVID
to say again how essential communication services
are for everyone in the state.
I just wanna know one thing,
Commissioner Houck mentioned this,
that the OYR is looking at enforcement issues.
I think that's timely.
Some of the enforcement mechanisms
we have to enforce service quality,
performance standards are not effective.
And our and reforms to them are overdue.
We currently have a provision that permit's companies
who violate the service quality standards
to request that rather than pay penalties,
they reinvest twice the fine amounts
to make necessary improvements in lieu of paying a penalty.
This alternative mechanism just hasn't worked.
It has not had a strong return effect the way penalties can.
Our communications division has found that these
re-investments have not resulted in improvements
to service quality and at their recommendation
we've denied requests from carriers to utilize
this alternative mechanism recently.
So, I think it's time that we revisit
and revise this alternative enforcement scheme
among many other critical things in this OIR.
So, as I said, I will be strongly supporting this item.
-: Thank you Commission Rechtschaffen.
Commissioner Reynolds?
-: Thank you, president Reynolds.
It has become apparent during this pandemic
that Californians rely on high quality
telecommunications services
has only increased in recent years.
Californians do rely on telecommunications
for access to emergency services,
education, healthcare, employment,
staying in touch with loved ones and entertainment.
The CPUC does have a critical role
in monitoring Californians access
to these critical services.
Even before COVID-19 changed daily life.
An increasing share of life and business
was facilitated by services enabled
by telecommunications connectivity.
As already mentioned, this rule making
will allow this Commission to assess
and examine (GO) 133-D service quality standards,
metrics, and enforcement mechanisms
in order to ensure that the Commission
is meeting its goals for telecommunication services.
By opening this rule making the Commission
does not make any predetermination
of the quality standards measures,
quality enforcement mechanisms
that should apply to broadband,
wireless, VoIP or other services
Whether it be for education, work opportunities,
government services, or the wide range
of connected commerce and contact facilitated
by telecommunications service quality standards
matter in the digital age.
That is why I will be supporting this item.
And I would like to echo the thanks.
Thanks to Commissioner Houck for her leadership
to judge go to staff who've worked
on this item as well as to Cal advocates
for bring this petition.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Reynolds.
I will also be supporting this item
as Commissioner Houck outlined.
The Commission has existing service quality protections
for traditional landline telephones,
but those protections are limited
because landlines now make up a small percentage
of communications subscriptions in the state about 5%.
And this leads the majority of consumers
without our protections.
This inconsistency has been accentuated
over the past two years of the pandemic,
where we've relied on many types of communication
subscriptions to work, learn, and meet our everyday needs.
And we've felt the impacts of disruptions.
For example, recent events have included
a catastrophic outage in Morgan Hill
lingering outages over this past winter storms,
long standing service concerns
in Mono, Placer and Nevada counties
and communities like Markville
who have struggled through many weeks
without service after being devastated by wildfires.
These are extraordinary event
that have highlighted how communications outages
impact Californians outside of these events.
We have little insight into how smaller
day to day outages impact these services
that the majority of Californians rely on.
This proceeding is timely and will provide
an opportunity to review our existing oversight
play mechanism, collect better data
and develop new tools that will more accurately
and effectively serve and protect all Californians.
I am in support of the rule making.
Thank you very much Commissioner Houck
for your leadership on this matter.
With that, I do we have a motion on item 44.
-: Law move.
-: Motion by Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
Do we have a second.
-: Seconded.
-: Second by Commissioner Reynolds,
we have a motion and a second Agenda Clerk,
please call the role.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner John Reynolds?
-: Yes.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Yes.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Aye.
Agenda Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Yes.
Agenda Clerk: President Alice Reynolds?
-: Yes.
The vote is five-zero.
The motion passes.
Turning now to item 47.
There's no report for item 47 main management report
and discussion on consumer protection and safety activities.
That brings us to the Commissioner reports
section of the agenda.
Who would like to go first?
Commissioner Houck.
-: I just wanted to thank everyone again
for getting that rule making done.
I have a 4:00 PM commitment that I need to make,
so I will be leaving,
but so I just wanted to note that
and on my next report we'll hopefully
have some more information to report back on
follow up from our affordability on bond.
So, thank you.
And with that, I will be leaving the meeting.
-: Thank you Commissioner Houck.
Commissioner Reynolds, present next.
-: Thank you, president Reynolds.
I have a couple of items that I would like to update.
First, as the assigned Commissioner
for the PCIA proceeding,
I would like to make a few remarks about an item
that we voted out on the Consent Agenda.
Item 18, the resolution on the PCIA prepayment framework.
I would just like to briefly note
some significant aspects of that resolution.
So, this resolution approves a framework
that the electric utilities and CCA
or DA parties will use to negotiate prepayment of the PCIA.
I maybe stating the obvious but I expect
that working out ways to prepay
these costs will be a complicated endeavor.
It is bound up with risk and uncertainty
around power costs, financial viability,
and load forecasts much like other aspects of the PCIA.
When we originally directed a working group
to explore this concept back in decision 18, 10, 019
a big part of the intent was that this option
should be explored because of its potential
to reduce uncertainty by a process separate
from the technical annual PCIA calculation itself,
which of course attracts party attention and dispute.
Market prices change over time.
There's inherent variability,
but right now resources are tight
and market costs are relatively high,
which reduces the PCIA and may in turn
drive some DA and CCA entities to turn
to prepayment as a potentially attractive option.
So, negotiating parties will need to forecast
future changes in market costs,
as they consider inappropriate figure for prefound.
If parties take a prepayment option,
this variability creates risk
that an individual prepayment may wind up
lower or higher than a PCIA obligation Would've been.
We permit parties to take that risk
in order to provide certainty to all parties,
departing customers who will know how much they owe
for the resources, procure it on their behalf,
but also certainty to remaining customers in utilities
who will receive a prepayment that provides
certainty about the contributions of departing customers.
And this certainty should aid IOUs and making
portfolio management decisions going forward.
Over time, I hope that we will see
any prepayments even out
while some may eventually prove
lower than PCIA obligations
would've been others may prove higher.
This would be a good outcome providing
certainty while preserving indifference.
And so here we've approved this framework
and it remains to be seen
whether this prepayment option
will be used to what extent
and when providers will pursue prepayment.
I will look forward to keeping an eye
on the progress and outcomes
as prepayments move forward.
I would also like to thank key staff
in the energy division on this resolution,
Nick Dalberg, Dina Macin and Sasha Cole,
as well as my advisor, Maria Satero.
Thank you all very much.
Also one more brief item.
I would like to mention that we've been holding
PPHS in the PPG&E GRC over the past few weeks,
I attended our PPH dedicated to Sanquin Valley Customers.
And my office has been present for all of the PPHS.
We heard from local officials
in the city and county of Madera,
who were concerned about local distribution
grade capacity issues that apparently
are holding back development in the area,
as well as about affordability
issues in their community.
We also heard from repairs
and concerned community members
about increasing costs,
especially in a time of COVID
recovery and high inflation.
I would like to thank my fellow Commissioners
and their offices for their attendance.
And I would like to thank the customers
who appear at these CPUC to explain to us
their experiences with their utility
and their views on the rate work us before us.
With that, I will turn it back
to you president Reynolds.
Thank you.
-: Thank you Commissioner Reynold.
Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Thank you.
I just wanted to share that next week
we have two advisory committees
who will be having their quarterly meetings.
The first one will be on Monday from nine-noon.
It's our universal lifeline, telephone service trust
administrative committee or TSTAC, all are welcome.
At the lifeline program provide discounts
on home phone and cell phone service
to qualify the low income households.
During this meeting we will hear
about the lifeline budget,
the status of the renewals working group report.
We'll hear about how the successful eye foster,
foster youth pilot program is transitioning
into our main lifeline program.
And the information about the advisory community
is our website on a daily calendar.
And then on Thursday, we have our low income
oversight board quarterly meeting.
It will go from 10:00 AM to 3:30 PM.
They advise us on low income electric, gas
and water customer issues on the programs
that appeal Coal county just outlined for us.
We will receive an update from the investor on utilities,
on those programs that he outlined today.
We will also hear from several
community based organizations.
One of them is revalue.io.
The other is Vermont Energy Investment Corporation.
revalue.io is a community based
organization in Northern California.
That prepares communities to transition,
to create energy by increasing
the energy efficiency of building
while removing health houses,
such as lead and molds.
Now as part of a Senate bill for 1477,
Vermont Energy is the administrator
of tech clean in California.
It's a $120 million initiative to help advance
the state's mission to achieve
carbon neutrality by 2045.
Tech clean California is funded
by California Gas Corporation Repairs
under the offices of the Commission.
Vermont Energy Aid will provide details
on their upcoming quick start grant solicitation
that provides funding to organizations
and ideas for pilot programs that overcome
barriers to building electrification
for low income and underserved communities.
Again, all our welcome and the information
is on our website and the VA calendar.
Thank you.
-: Thank you Commission Shiroma.
Commission Rechtschaffen?
-: Thank you, President Reynolds.
First, I wanna thank Commissioner Reynolds
for the PCIA decision and it's fantastic fair
we have an expert on PCIA from Commissioner Reynolds
prior work at the Commission who's see it right
into the really difficult also controversial issues in PCIA.
Again, I feel very good at night
knowing that Commissioner Reynolds is on the case.
Two things I wanted to mention.
One, we along with the energy Commission
are currently accepting applications
for membership in the disadvantaged communities
advisory group, which advises
both of our agencies on clean energy issues.
Applications are due on March 31st or due by March 31st.
And you can find more information
about this on the disadvantaged communities
advisory group webpage that that CPUC maintained.
So that's March 31st.
Please share this information widely.
Second, I want to provide a positive report
about an event we had yesterday
in our long term gas planning rule making.
Our business and outreach and energy division teams
held an unusual session.
It was an informational webinar
and the purpose was to familiarize community
based organizations and other members
of the public local governments,
others who are not regular parties or participants
are proceedings with the issues in that proceeding
relating to how the gas market works,
how the gas system operations work,
pretty technical issues,
but very germane to the proceeding.
So that was part of it.
We also tried to get feedback from them
about how we can make it easier to participate
in our proceedings and some of the barriers,
barriers to electrification
that they face in their communities.
I'm really happy to say we had over 250 people who joined.
A really good participation.
We got some very, very positive feedback.
We're gonna consider doing more of these
as the rule making progress
progresses to get this broad possible engagement.
You'll be amused to say among the comments,
the CPUCs perhaps the most difficult agency
in California to deal with,
proceedings are titled by long string of numbers.
And when the words are used, they're very abstract.
So there's lots of things
that we can learn from this process.
And we intend to utilize some of the lessons
that we learned at this workshop.
We are holding a half day workshop focused
on equity issues in the long term
gas proceeding on March 29th.
And I hope that the other Commissioners
and everyone else will join us.
And I wanna give a special shout out
to everyone who worked on putting together
this really well received webinar
from the business and outreach team Chris Moore,
Stephanie Green, John Baker, and hope Chrisman.
And from the energy division,
Jean Spencer, Renee Guild, and Karen Trump.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
I don't have a report today.
So with that, we are concluding our Commissioners report
and that is the end of our agenda today.
So this public meeting is now adjourned.