A1908013 - Public Comments


This page includes the Public Comments for this proceeding. The CPUC values your input on our proceedings, as public comments help us reach an informed decision.

Tip: You may download these comments as a PDF by clicking the PDF Download button below.
To provide us your thoughts on this proceeding, click on the Add Public Comment button below.

DISCLAIMER: Comments that include inappropriate language, or language that is potentially slanderous, purposefully demeaning of some specific person or persons, or threatening violence may not be posted. Additionally, anonymous comments will not be posted.




Use the Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate link to submit a complaint on Public Comment.
row(s) 1 - 15 of more than 500Next
Jennifer Garcia Covina, CA91722

I'd like to add my comment to oppose the rate increase for SCE. I'm sure the CPUC can't help but notice that so many comments are from those who know that any little extra that SCE is trying to get from us small residential customers will be putting a strain on their already tight financial belt. Folks who live on a fixed income like my senior mother, or the self-employed who work paycheck to paycheck. It's ridiculous that a company as huge as SCE, with investors and senior execs that bring in 6 figure salaries could have the conscience and audacity to ask a senior widow for $14 dollars more a month for the little bit of energy she uses. But with all of the fees the unexplained debits that are tacked onto our bills every month, it's hard to believe they are in dire straights. I thought this is why they charge the astronomical high price for the delivery of energy from their sister company Clean Power Alliance. No one has ever been able to answer the question with any kind of intelligence why it costs more to deliver energy than the actual energy itself. My surrounding neighbors and I were dupped when we were told that getting our energy from Clean Alliance would not only save us money but would also help our state's energy crisis, that this would be good for everyone, never mentioning that SCE controlled the actual delivery and would be charging its own tiered pricing accordingly. So yes, Clean Alliance is providing what they said they would, a cleaner energy at a lower cost. But SCE had to make up for lost revenue somehow, right?? It's not right. And for persons like me who get discounted rates due to being a low income famiy, makes that whole program a joke if in the long run SCE is taxing us anyway and our bill amounts are the same with or without a rate discount... At some point someone has to tell these giant companies that are used to getting their way, who enjoy those huge paychecks and quarterly bonuses that enough is enough, they have the means to do what ever upgrades are needed, they are not in any way suffering financial loss like most of us here in California. Raising our rates does nothing more than prove that they can do what they want when they want without answering to anyone. Your opposing vote could be the start of companies like these to take responsibility, to service their customers not use them as a scapegoat to line their pockets under false pretenses. Thank you for your time and giving the public a forum to be able to speak their mind and say their peace.

Nov 12, 2021 9:18 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Mary Dellavalle Town of Apple Valley, CA92307

I understand the need to prevent fires. I also have some concerns that should be taken into consideration: 1. The rate structure should encourage, not penalize, property owners to install backup systems that disconnect from the grid while continuing to generate solar or wind power. This would both add to resiliency during weather conditions that are conducive to fires and lower carbon emissions without destroying habitats, such as deserts, that naturally sequester carbon. 2. Escalating power costs, water costs, etc. could easily add to the homeless crisis by forcing residents on limited incomes out of their homes. Residents are not endless deep pockets for utility companies to pick.

Oct 22, 2021 4:23 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Alex Steele Covina, CA91724

As a *progressive* household that added solar in 2016 and has driven EVs since 2013, we were very surprised to get notification from SCE that our rate plan (TOU-D-B) was being discontinued at the end of 2021. By SCE's own calculation, our annual cost will increase 54% when we are switched to the new TOU-D-Prime rate. This seems unreasonable and contrary to encouraging renewable energy and reducing fossil fuel use. Ironic, since SCE's 14.4% overall increase is supposedly to mitigate climate change issues (increased fire risk).

Oct 18, 2021 12:17 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
jenny zhou foothill Ranch, CA92610

As a resident of California, I strongly request you to consider rejecting this proposal. Because under the current epidemic, our income has decreased, even unemployment, increasing the electric rates will put a burden and pressure on our life. Please do not allow it. Thank you very much!

Sep 04, 2021 4:30 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Karri Ocampo Palm desert, CA92260

On behalf of a resident of California Raising the rates during a pandemic where people are already behind and struggling paying thier electric bill as IS and in the middle of inflation. I find this absolutely appalling and wrong on so many levels. I am a single mom with kids on the care program living in a small apt working a min wage job. My electric is normally 150ish to 200 in the summer now it is projected to be 300?? We can barely afford what it normally is and I dont even want to imagine people who don't have a job at all due to the pandemic. You should be ashamed of your selves seriously. Can you have some sort of decency and compassion for those who are struggling please.

Aug 18, 2021 8:08 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Fred Main Sacramento, CA95616

On behalf of the Chamber of Commerce Alliance of Ventura Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties, I am writing in to oppose the CPUC's decision to reduce SCE's ask for grid hardening. Installation of covered conductor is SCE’s primary grid hardening wildfire mitigation solution, providing insulation over wire that is designed to withstand incidental contact from foreign objects. SCE asked for funds to cover over 6K miles of conductors, but the CPUC reduced it to 2.5K. This is inconsistent with State fire mitigation goals to reduce the risk of wildfires in high fire threat areas. In addition, the proposed decision would significantly reduce funding necessary for tree trimming and tree inspections that take place throughout the year to help mitigate wildfires. Last year was the state's worst wildfire season on record with a staggering 4.1m acres burned. As of August 8, 2021, a total of 6,172 fires have already been recorded, burning 876,055 acres across the state. Utility companies must do their part to protect California from worsening wildfires and have the approval for funds by the CPUC to operate and maintain their systems through the GRC process.

Aug 18, 2021 7:53 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Mary Leslie Los Angeles, CA 9006

On behalf of the Los Angeles Business Council, I am writing in to oppose the CPUC's decision to reduce SCE's ask for grid hardening. Installation of covered conductor is SCE’s primary grid hardening wildfire mitigation solution, providing insulation over wire that is designed to withstand incidental contact from foreign objects. SCE asked for funds to cover over 6K miles of conductors, but the CPUC reduced it to 2.5K. This is inconsistent with State fire mitigation goals to reduce the risk of wildfires in high fire threat areas. In addition, the proposed decision would significantly reduce funding necessary for tree trimming and tree inspections that take place throughout the year to help mitigate wildfires. Last year was the state's worst wildfire season on record with a staggering 4.1m acres burned. As of August 8, 2021, a total of 6,172 fires have already been recorded, burning 876,055 acres across the state. Utility companies must do their part to protect California from worsening wildfires and have the approval for funds by the CPUC to operate and maintain their systems through the GRC process.

Aug 09, 2021 4:43 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Arielle Lopez Los Angeles, CA91324

On behalf of the Los Angeles Business Council, I am writing in to oppose the CPUC's decision to reduce SCE's ask for grid hardening. Installation of covered conductor is SCE’s primary grid hardening wildfire mitigation solution, providing insulation over wire that is designed to withstand incidental contact from foreign objects. SCE asked for funds to cover over 6K miles of conductors, but the CPUC reduced it to 2.5K. This is inconsistent with State fire mitigation goals to reduce the risk of wildfires in high fire threat areas. In addition, the proposed decision would significantly reduce funding necessary for tree trimming and tree inspections that take place throughout the year to help mitigate wildfires. Last year was the state's worst wildfire season on record with a staggering 4.1m acres burned. As of August 8, 2021, a total of 6,172 fires have already been recorded, burning 876,055 acres across the state. Utility companies must do their part to protect California from worsening wildfires and have the approval for funds by CPUC to operate and maintain their systems through the GRC process.

Aug 09, 2021 4:36 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Cinde MacGugan-Cassidy Avalon, CA90704

As Mayor Pro Tem for the City of Avalon on Catalina Island, I urge you to please take the position that ALL power lines should be replaced in order to mitigate the mass devastation a fire would do to our community and Island. By ensuring all miles of wire are replaced the reduction of danger to life and property will be mitigated. I urge you to support these measures.

Aug 08, 2021 5:48 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Jay Boyetye Pico Rivera, CA90660

SCE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED, INSTALLED AND MAINTAINS THE CURRENT TRANSMISSION LINES IN USE, SOME OF WHICH ARE NOW BEING BLAMED FOR CAUSING FIRES DURING HIGH WIND EVENTS. IT IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE THAT SCE SHOULD SHOULDER THE COSTS OF HARDENING, RETROFITTING, OR UPGRADING THE SYSTEMS THEY WERE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING. THE COSTS OF WHICH SHOULD NOT BE PASSED ON TO CUSTOMERS NOW. THE PROFIT MARGINS SCE HAS REPORTED THROUGH ITS FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES IS PROOF BEYOND A DOUBT THAT THE COMPANY CAN ABSORB THESE COSTS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THEIR BUSINESS. CUSTOMERS SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR SCE'S POOR MAINTENANCE PRACTICES, FAULTY DESIGNS, NEGLIGENT TREE OR ENVIRONMENT CLEARING, POORLY PLACED TRANSMISSION LINES, OR FAILURE TO CHECK THE INTEGRITY OF TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS THEY RE-ENERGIZE WHICH HAD BEEN DE-ENERGIZED JUST HOURS BEFORE TO "PREVENT ARCING WHICH COULD CAUSE FIRES." SCE CAN ABSORB THESE COSTS WITHOUT ANY RATE INCREASE TO CUSTOMERS. THEIR FINANCIALS PROVE IT. THEY BUILT IT... THEY CAN FIX IT... THEY CAN PAY FOR IT...

Aug 07, 2021 11:35 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Don Barnes Santa Ana, CA92703

From: Don Barnes, Sheriff-Coroner, County of Orange Dear Commission President Batjer: As the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) takes action on Proceeding Number A. 19-08-013, I encourage you to take into account the need to mitigate the impact of wildfires. This letter is not intended to oppose or support a specific rate calculation, but instead to highlight the importance of a multi-strategy approach to wildfire prevention. Orange County is all too familiar with the devastation caused by wildfires. In 2020, our county suffered three catastrophic wildfires: Blue Ridge, Bond, and Silverado. These were each within the wildland-urban interface and resulted in the evacuation of thousands of residents. Over 90,000 structures were threatened during the three fires. The County suffered over $30 million in damages to County infrastructure, the cost of which will be borne by taxpayers. Unless proactive action is taken to mitigate the causes of these fires, we can expect continued risk to our community. The wildfire mitigation activities described in Section 16 and 17 of Southern California Edison’s proposal will put us on the right track. These activities include vegetation management, covered conductors, fusing mitigation, targeted undergrounding, enhanced overhead inspections and remediation, fire science and advanced modeling, and wildfire risk-mitigation. Each of the described activities will reduce the wildfire and power outage risks in Orange County, potentially saving lives, natural habitat, and millions of dollars in public and private property damages While these efforts include public safety power shutoffs as an option, it is important to note that relying solely on power shutoffs to prevent wildfires will put the public at risk. Power shutoffs limit the ability of law enforcement to alert and warn residents of hazardous situations and potentially prevent the public from requesting 911 services. As an example, in Orange County, shutoffs have cut power to our 911 dispatch center and emergency operations center. Using multiple strategies, like covering conductors, will prevent the need to use risk adverse shutoffs. Investing in the activities proposed by SCE will reduce the danger to life and property. I urge you to support these measures.

Aug 05, 2021 6:14 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Geoffrey Sarkissian Silverado, CA92676

In my community, more than 10 homes burned down last year during a planned power outage. We think it imperative that the bare power lines be replaced with insulated wiring to reduce both the probability of sparking dangerous fires, and to reduce the number of power outages. Our safety can be significantly improved by the wiring upgrade. The proposed rate changes do not include enough funds for completing the task of replacing all the bare power lines with insulated conductors. This is a serious oversight failure and needs to be addressed. I am writing to you as President of the Inter-Canyon League, a non-profit organization, dedicated to help preserve our community in our semi-rural environment. We understand that the additional cost to each of our homeowners would amount to about $2 per month beyond any other planned price increases. Our members were uniformly in favor of such an increase though generally opposed to rate hikes of any kind. Please consider SCE’s request for this wiring-upgrade funding as important and mandatory. All our residents understand the necessity of providing the funds for this work.

Aug 05, 2021 2:26 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Kome Ajise Los Angeles, CA92831

Dear CPUC Public Advisor's Office: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regarding the proposed decision before the CPUC on Southern California Edison's 2021 General Rate Case (GRC). On January 7, 2021, SCAG's Regional Council unanimously adopted a resolution to promote climate adaptation, mitigation, and resilience across the six‐county SCAG region. This includes developing a regional resilience framework "to help the region plan and prepare for a changing climate as well as potential near‐ and long‐term disruptions to Southern California, such as earthquakes, extreme weather, drought wildfires, pandemics, and economic shocks." Wildfire risk poses both short‐ and long‐term threats to the region's economic security, public safety, and overall quality of life as roughly 1.8 million Southern Californians live in very high fire hazard severity zones. In 2020, California experienced a record number of dry heat days and more than 9,000 fires that burned millions of acres. It was the largest wildfire season in the state's modern history, linked to more than 1,200 preventable deaths due to respiratory health impacts. Additionally, one‐third of residents live in areas recognized as disadvantaged communities – disproportionately vulnerable to the health risks from worsening air quality and extreme heat. SCAG recognizes the extreme threat of climate change and its many potential hazards to the Southern California region and its residents. Climate‐safe infrastructure offers sustainable and adaptive solutions that can improve resilience in the face of shocks and stresses caused by climate change hazards, such as wildfires. SCAG supports and encourages the Commission's full consideration of the best means to protect the Southern California region. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please reach out me at (213) 236‐1800. Sincerely, Kome Ajise, Executive Director, Southern California Association of Governments

Aug 05, 2021 2:19 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Ann Scheid Pasadena, CA91105

To reduce the previous commitments of SCE to "harden" more than 6,000 miles of overhead transmission lines is risking the lives and property of Californians and endangering public lands, wildlife, and the environment. Fires are already part of California's new reality, and to risk more of them by allowing these overhead transmission lines to remain unprotected is unconscionable. As a public body the CPUC is responsible for weighing the benefits to Californians and the environment against the business interests that profit from power generation. In this case however, the dangers from this overhead transmission system are proven many times over. The responsible course is to mitigate these dangers to people, property and the environment as swiftly as possible. Please do not waiver in your responsibility to protect California and Californians from dangerous wildfires.

Aug 05, 2021 1:32 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Lori Paul Altadena, CA91001

On July 9, SCE received the proposed decision (PD) on its GRC from the CPUC, that would approve increases for some activities and decreases in others. The PD’s largest and most concerning reductions are related to wildfire risk mitigation. Specifically, the PD would reduce the amount of work necessary to replace bare distribution conductors with new covered conductors by 55%, resulting in 3,522 fewer miles of covered conductor than SCE’s request over the 2019-2023 period. This is inconsistent with State fire mitigation goals to reduce the risk of wildfires in high fire threat areas, and to reduce the use of PSPS events to mitigate ignition events as soon as possible. As an SCE ratepayer and California resident, I strongly oppose this aspect of the proposed decision. CPUC should not reduce the amount of hardening upgrades necessary for SCE to cover power lines across this state in order to reduce wildfire ignition by line arcing and equipment failures. Other states where wildfires are ubiquitous across rugged terrain and forests have long required hardened lines for their electrical grid, including lines run through protective conduits, under-grounding lines through high wind and high-risk areas; and other investments in robust power grid resiliency to prevent catastrophic wildfires. California’s shareholder / profit-based power companies have not made these necessary improvements to our aging system. SCE’s neglected maintenance and deferred upgrades have not only led to incredibly destructive, massive fires (some of which are burning as you read this), SCE’s practices have also resulted in the necessity for more frequent Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) — deliberate power outages during heat waves and other conditions that disrupt work and can endanger public health. Further, we have received insufficient notification for deeper preparation and participation in this critical decision (Proceeding #A.19-08-13) that will adversely impact our safety and that of this state’s wildlands and cities. We only learned of this proceeding the day it is now happening. A deeper examination of the Proposed Decision would be likely to show that the full number of miles of lines originally proposed to be protected by covered conductor and by burial is insufficient to protect California homes, businesses, ecosystems and watersheds from serious harm caused by electrical power distribution system faults. Without even more extensive hardening, extant and future climate change is likely to increase risk from the present unacceptable acreage and intensity of utility-caused destructive wildland fires.

Aug 05, 2021 11:56 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
row(s) 1 - 15 of more than 500Next