HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso-E-4907_LtrToPicker_20171222■
Office of the City Council
990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401-3249
805 781 7114
SIIt% 0 1 � I
December 22, 2017
President Michael Picker
Commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves
Commissioner Carla Peterman
Commissioner Liane Randolph
Commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: Oppose Draft Resolution E-4907
Dear President Picker and Commissioners:
On December 8, 2017, the Executive Director of the California Public Utilities Commission
("the Commission") issued Draft Resolution E-4907 ("Draft Resolution"). The Draft
Resolution proposes to significantly expand the Commission's oversight of the Community
Choice Aggregation ("CCA") implementation process. Based on direction from our City
Council and consistent with objectives set forth in the City's Major City Goals and legislative
platform, I urge you to oppose this Draft Resolution. The process proposed to adopt the
resolution is inconsistent with fundamental concepts of due process, transparency and public
participation. Moreover, the proposed resolution is over reaching in its stated objective to
implement existing law regarding the Commission's review of CCA implementation plans.
CCAs are expanding because localities are eager to take a more active role in California's
climate change fight. I urge the Commission to embrace the opportunities CCAs offer to
deepen and broaden California's efforts to combat climate change. While, we value the
important public policy and regulatory role of the Commission, we respectfully recommend
that the Commission's primary charge in this arena is to facilitate the careful evaluation of
and implementation of community choice energy and the City of San Luis Obispo urges the
Commission to resist the urge to erect cumbersome regulatory barriers to the timely local
implementation of this important tool.
The Draft Resolution Raises Significant Concerns Regarding Adequate Review and
Public Participation
The City of San Luis Obispo recognizes the challenges the Commission faces as more CCAs
launch and the need for a defined and predictable regulatory review process. However, the
CPUC must follow appropriate processes and procedures in developing significant new rules.
The Draft Resolution lacks the input and information necessary to support a sound regulatory
approach and the Draft Resolution is not an effective means of resolving the identified issues
of concern to the Commission. These issues should be considered in a formal regulatory
proceeding so that all stakeholders, including the CCAs and local governments, are ensured a
full and fair opportunity to be heard and to provide valuable evidence and testimony on this
important issue of local and global concern. Adequate process is required to ensure
compliance with AB 117 (2002) and to ensure the most effective and efficient facilitation of
CCAs.
The Draft Resolution allows only 20 days for stakeholders to respond to the substance of the
resolution. Under normal conditions, this 20 -day period is a short timeframe in which to
address any proposed Commission decision. That incredibly tight timeframe is exacerbated
by the decision to issue this resolution in the heart of the holiday season, without any prior
notice to affected stakeholders. The timing is highly prejudicial to affected stakeholders and
communities, marginalizes public input on issues that affect the extensive planning efforts of
numerous communities throughout California, and dramatically diminishes the likelihood of
adopting a regulatory framework that engenders comprehensive informed regulatory
oversight.
The Resolution appears to rely on confidential data, apparently solicited and received only
from PG&E, as the basis for fundamental conclusions regarding stranded costs and the need
for the approach to that issue proposed by the Draft Resolution. While we are not insensitive
to this issue, the sole reliance on exclusive and non-public data of a single provider potentially
undermines public understanding and informed analysis of concerns and possible alternative
policy approaches. The Commission has instituted expanded access to data within the PCIA
docket (R.17-06-026) in recognition of concerns over transparency and access to data that
impacts CCAs. The Resolution's claims that data must be kept confidential directly
undermines the progress the Commission has made in fostering a more open and collaborative
process.
The Draft Resolution Would Impose a CCA "Freeze" and Raises Significant Substantive
Concerns
Timing issues aside, the Draft Resolution itself poses significant due process and jurisdictional
concerns. The Draft Resolution envisions a dramatic departure from the Commission's
existing oversight of CCAs. It undermines the statutory authority of a CCA's Board of
Directors to implement and enroll new CCA communities. It further disregards the substantial
investments local governments have made to diligently, responsibly, and expeditiously
establish their CCAs as a critical means to combat climate change in partnership with state
efforts as envisioned in AB 32.
The Draft Resolution is an improper de facto freeze on CCA implementation. The legislature
considered a statutory freeze on CCA implementation in the past session and ultimately
decided against it out of recognition of the successful steps local governments are taking to
responsibly develop programs suited to their constituents' needs in ways that support
affordability, reliability, decarbonization and social equity. It would be wholly inappropriate
for the CPUC to administratively implement a freeze that was legislatively rejected. Adoption
of the resolution would unreasonably delay new communities from joining or forming CCAs.
The delay would inhibit CCAs from collecting timely revenue to recoup the vast
implementation expenditures made to date based on the Commission's current CCA
implementation timeline.
The Commission's Concern Regarding Resource Adequacy Should Be Addressed in the
Resource Adequacy Proceeding (R. 17-09-020)
Since the primary policy issue raised in the Draft Resolution concerns coordination with the
Resource Adequacy ("RA") process, the Commission should use the existing RA proceeding
or initiate a rulemaking to address CCA -related implementation issues to ensure a
comprehensive and cohesive approach that does not unreasonably impede or delay local CCA
implementation. All interested parties must have equal opportunity to engage, provide and
examine evidence, and provide legal arguments to ensure any resulting policy complies with
statute and is based on a robust record. The timing for review and comment on the Draft
Resolution is antithetical to sound and transparent Commission decision making and the
Commission should decline to approve the Draft Resolution without an adequate opportunity
for public and stakeholder input.
The Commission should only adopt a regulatory review framework of this nature after
informed consideration of a fully developed factual record, which will lead to reasoned,
effective and carefully tailored solutions to defined and well -substantiated problems.
I respectfully request that you vote "no" on the Draft Resolution and consider the underlying
concerns and appropriate means to resolve those concerns in an existing or newly initiated
Commission proceeding that facilitates fact based decision making and public participation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Heidi Harmon
Mayor
cc: Tim Sullivan, Executive Director
Edward Randolph, Director of Energy Division
Nidhi Thakar, Chief of Strategy and External Affairs
James Ralph, Chief of Policy and Legal Affairs
Michael Minkus, Chief of Staff, for Commissioner Guzman Aceves
Jennifer Kalafut, Chief of Staff for Commissioner Peterman
Rachel Peterson, Chief of Staff for Commissioner Randolph
Sean Simon, Chief of Staff for Commissioner Rechtschaffen