Transcripts For SFGTV Special Joint Public Safety LAFCo 121

Pg e and preventing us from the robust roll out and less funds to do build out this is a direct attack against our cleanpowersf Power Program two resolutions to say ask the California Public Utilities Commission not to approve those increases that is dramatic two increases for the residents i think that is important to talk about some of the things going on behind the scenes thats been going on earlier this year we put on two measures on the ballot the lafco and city put on proposition h that was really about move forward with our cleanpowersf program and have a clear statement about what kind of energy were producing the iuoe under stern have put out their own version of the property g do undermine our effort would be they realized that the city was probable going to prevail on our measure that would not be good for them and their measure would lose and it very well well, did to you make sure theyre not attacking our measure and stern from i b w worked very much to try at one end promote the measure he was going to try toy kill prop g earlier this week, i was tarnishing to mr. Stern he said the energy fee that is working its way to the Public Utilities commission was all but settled our resolution before us today regarding the metering was really not important anywhere i dont believe that is true and talking with lafco jason fried sdrook interest the California Public Utilities Commission has not made a decision on the Net Energy Metering and talking to a liaison who is here in 9 puc whos name a cody he said the decision is not made either so heres what howard stern told me are signed the metering decision is pretty much set nothing it changing and i dont believe that is for what ive been hearing that is true things are locked up between ibw and the California Public Utilities Commission to present and let us know what we have before us. Sure jason fried executive director for lafco on those matters ive invited speakers if a statewide level and have presentations on each of the items into a local level how it impacts San Francisco directly so we will take them in the order on the agenda and our presenter from solar to present followed by a receptionist in the San Francisco Environmental Department talking about the impact the lafco and the pc i a and having lean energy present on a statewide prospective and have the sfpuc how to impacts us with that, ill call of sue huhuh h h sue is an do the presentation and the next presenter after that. Convalescent Committee Members thank you. I am supposed to say sfgovtv goes to the power point so, yeah im susan the west coast with go solar a nonprofit Advocacy Organization that is working around the country to bring solar into the mainstream about the efforts to slow down the rooftop by attacking and policy called net meters were in the middle of the debate the commission has not made a determination i could talk about this topic for many hours but keep it to 5 minutes as a context to start important to note were reilly in the midst of a rooftop innovation in San Francisco we serve 3 percent of big incurs demand the average price has dropped by more than half by 2009 and tripled the solar on the rooftop since 2011 and seeing 2 3rds of the rooftop solar installation happening in lshgsz neighborhoods it is good news for the state but prompting a backlash that seize it as a threat is their directly attacking net meters not only in california but dozens of other states across the country an explanation of what net metering and simple method for crediting people so when a roosevelt is producing more energy than the confers needed it get sent back the grid owe the skpz sell it so the metering makes sure that the similar customers get credit it allows their meters to roll backwards and give us full Retail Credit for kilowatt for the clean theyre paying the utility when necessary buy the hours so legislationer passed it in the early 2000 and have it in place across the country but in 2013 in response from the utility the legislator passed a law that told the commission by the end of this year determine what the net goals should be when they reach a 5 percent cap what 5 percent of the peak demand is served by the rooftop solar and pg e will hit that cap around the middle of next year and so all 3 of the utilities as a proceeding in the puc have submitted proposals to end that 3450er9 and drastically reduce the solar bill saves and each utility proposed a different proposal but at pg e they have a host of different proposed changing reduce the bill by more 50 percent that ends the metering you get the same credit for what is returned to the grid and on top of to add a 3 theres per kilowatt monthly demand charge it is pegged to the maximum demand that a customer buys from the utilities so it is hard for residential customers to predict we see anywhere in the country the utility has levied levied a demand charge the customers dont know their maximum demand will be and it is difficult charge to manage more them as well to pg e is proposed to disallow rolling over the bill credit that is part of our net metering structure and theyve made other proposals ill not get into detail but you know it is essentially if pg e proposal was adopted by the puc it will drastically reduce the savings to the customers and dramatically slow down continued solar growth and so you can all utilities theyve proposed this combination of reduced to credit for exported clean energy and add fees on top of that for solar customers so you might be wondering you know how which of that is impacting the solar customers bill in pg e territory and that gets complicate because it matters what the customers demand and the size of solar ray and so on we crunched the numbers in an analysis to the puc look at an average residential scloo solar customer in fresno a hot spot for the state right now this graph shows a customer who is under net meters the status quo and have got solar with a no down payment even though up as many solar customers do on net metering the customer saves over 20 percent a month before they got solar but pg es process is adopted by the puc the savings go down to 3 percent youre talking about a decline of more than 80 percent in solar savings to customer under the pg e proposal compared with net meters so you know in response to those attacks from the utilities weve got a number of pro solar voices including my organization is advocates for the preservation of net metering and for californian not make it more expensive for low and middleincome and an out power of the preserve more comments as in the puc has seen on any issue we have a very Broad Coalition of voices from City Government to save organizations not only organizations urging the commissions not to adopt but stick with the metering so where we are in the process raw the c puc about issue their appropriately decision and another a round of applause do comment and thirty days before they adopt a final decision wont happen until middle january so definitely time for the city to weigh in and definitely think that is a great idea if they decide to do so ill stop there for any questions. From our last comments were nothing is definitely soda up. The proposal has not been issued so by no means decided. So permanently no decision on the proposed decision. No proposed decision out yet. And the proposed decision public input and we get to see that public input can influence what comes out in the final. Exactly often changes between the changes and the. Youve answers my next question. How common is that. It is quite common the commission seize heavy lobbying by stakeholders who want to make changes so, you know, i think in this issue thats been so important to the public and controversial i think there is absolutely more time to look at this from the commission. Thank you. Commissioner crews. Thank you so much for your presentation it is remarkable that the different solar customers in fresno 0 no will see to have the net metering changed do you have numbers for San Francisco. Unfortunately, i took this out of an analysis earlier this year i think that the results will look not too much different than San Francisco but fresno customers buy more energy so probable the impact on savings would be somewhat less in San Francisco but still looking at pg e proposal adopted a severe reduction in savings all throughout pg e territory. I more example friends that bought a house looking to add solar panels and people that are you know financing their solar panels and theyre looking for the cost association the cost Savings Association with the build in order to pay for the solar installation do we see them going underwater with solar panels. One thing to note the puc potential of net mooefrt will apply for customers that go solar in the future after the utility hits the 5 percent cap if i have solar the Commission Says you get to keep the program for 20 years and move over 0 the new program is the puc is you know theyre seeking to provide certainty so if youre under the current rules youll stick with the rules the question what are the rules for the future customers. Right so people who before all of this financeing you know flexibility is offered to go solar people that went green early on are going to stop being the seeing the benefits. Yeah. For current customers and customers went solar in the early days when is serve years ago they will see good savings but this is going to throw you know a possible big change in added fees for solar customers and create communication in the market for customers that have solar and those going solar if you look at a whole bunch of confusing fees and demand charges it is really going to put a chill on the market from the simple system of solar to a complex and thats one of the reasons weve urged the puc we have a program that works well, were macro solar affordability to ordinary californians now is it so not the time to change could you say but to maintain this program and keep reaping all the benefits. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner campos. What is the what could possible be the rational by the utilities for what theyre proposing well open this up for Public Comment what are they saying trying to understand. The one side. Yeah. Can anyone keep a straight fast, no pun intend. As ive said i think their ulterior motivates on in their part the argument making sure that all customers including the solar customers pay their fair share for the grid what is the fixed costs every customer should be paying pg e incentive to have their rate basis is the idea is were moving into a future with a distributed grids customers will provide clean green choices the idea not for the utilities to build out the expensive grid and require the customers to pay for it ever they dont need it yeah pg e argument has been around solar customers shouldnt be allowed to zero out their bill and not pay towards the sgridz the fact solar customers pay not zeroing out theyre bill theyre paying their fair share. Okay. Thank you commissioner mar. Thank you for the presentation i just wanted to add my 0. 02 he feel pg es out arraign and the other utilities out arraign forecast it disincentivizes but grad glad you made it clear i have a question im not sure you can answer may cal or other from the department of the environment but in the materials it says about 5 thousand San Francisco homes we know of have solar installations or 5 thousand solar installations around San Francisco that that are similar 10. 5 megawatts do i know how is are low and you mentioned solar in homes is expanding to more low income and middleincome homes. I dont know that offhand i know there was recently a report that look at the average incomes of the zip codes for solar being installed over the last 5 years a distinct move from solar in higher income neighborhoods i dont know what the politician for the solar already installed by the across the country as the costs come down most of the installations with disconnecting of in case of less than 70 thousands or less. Maybe cal knows about the 5 thousand installations are we seeing an increase in the lower and middleincome homes. Thank you commissioner, i cant answer that question but certainly try to get an answer for you. To finish up my political 0. 02 pg es actions are outrageous bus the climate submit and the protests around the woodland is out praejz what is happening around the Public Utilities commission. Thank you commissioner mar and sir, thank you for your presentation so i have two maybe hear Public Comment or an explanation of the changes from mr. Frieds and Public Comment. Before we do that we have cal has a quick presentation how to impacts california before we get there. Commissioners, thank you very much i said to painted a picture of a larger picture were electrifying our electric vehicles moving away from natural gas to electrify our spaces heating we need more electricity resources and we the more we have in house in San Francisco the better off we are what is proposed with the net metering is more difficult part of the charge of the department of the environment to think about Green House Gas emissions so i want to point out that the pucs our puc sfpuc go solar with the metering has installed the 7 hundreds plus solar installations in addition those are providing about 23 megawatts of capacity the late number and want to make the point weve been employing people prosecute Disadvantaged Community in those programs as well as installing solar throughout the city including the southeast and other parts of city that are lower income and finally the point i think not been in the comments before those improve the reliance were working on a project to provide batteries and scombrrg storage to back up the systems when we have a major broadbased quarter we have resources that will come from rooftop solar not a solar installation in the valley the more we can do to put the solar on our rooftops that improve our conditions here thank you. Thank you. So chair avalos to have Public Safety and neighborhood chair wiener to take the a good deal of and read in the amendments those amendments are a quick synopsis they are clarifying and clearing up up a few things weve produced that and gotten feedback from go solar about technical changes that are necessary we took the comments and your staff he provided edits and something that the Public Safety committee tapes not a lafco item ill get into that at the ends the difference and what the Public Safety Neighborhood Services committee and after reading those amendments sgoerd and then we should if you want to get Public Comment on this item or have a presentation on the pc i a ill yield. Do pc i a read the comments or do the presentation all the stuff together. If you like. Im not clear what i have. Maybe. So i would do at this point call up shawn and shell do the presentation on the pc i a and have sfpuc do that and the amendments then. Okay. Thank you he everybody nice to be here im shawn with lean energy jason can you help me with queuing up those slides. Super. Thank you. Before i get started into this topic i think that will be helpful to set context and let you i know i was asked to give a 5 minute presentation highlevel and brief ill be happy to answer any questions but what is the definition of this power charge in different adjustments this is a long term form f 50 an exit fee it is also categorized as a departing low charge an annual calculations based on the advantageing the Pacific Gas Electric has engaged in or entered into on behalf of the customers and so in order to keep the fundamental rate payers whole you have to pay a departing low charge for the case of Community Choices aggregation or cleanpowersf and want to be clear at this point we are not disallowing the need for a low charge we understand that is an obligation in particular not necessarily so much of the utility but the fundamental ratepayer is not unduly impacted by the departing load has to do with with the way the p kay is calculated and the mitigation strategies to handle some of these more intense rates we see proposed this year with that, well sort of recap what we see as the owner currently before the c puc. 2016 it is scheduled to go up nearly 100 percent in cleanpowersf case actually a little bit over 100 percent this is the highest in history so it is unprecedented that estimates or calculates out to 2 point 3 cent and kilowatt hour the communities have to add into the generation rate to for the wholesale power rates from the market in order to then come up with a full rate at the end of the day needs to be competitive with pg e you can imagine a 2 pointed 3 kilowatt hour charge is actually pretty hefty charge but this means for cleanpowersf is a potential hit of 8. 4 million in 2016 that is just for a partial year and only for phase one customers you have youre rolling out a modest phase if i look at 24 over the course of the Program Actually a potential for a much larger financial hit Going Forward Peninsula Clean Energy the ambulance in san mateo that is 40 million in 2016 and that is also 2307 for the Phase One Program and the pc i a has a hard hits on care customers they rely on programs that help them meet in their olympics low Income Customers that are undial burdened by 100 percent increase