A2010012 - 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.

When entering a Public Comment, use a Microsoft Windows browser such as Microsoft Edge. Safari is not supported.




Use the Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate link to submit a complaint on Public Comment.
row(s) 1 - 15 of 102Next
Rachel Kuypers Vista , CA92083

It is the height of hypocrisy to require solar customers pay extra when we are providing the grid with power. We already pay a connection fee and received Pennies on the dollar for our unused generated electricity. This money grab is probably just meant to cover the devastation caused from a managed Network. California going to have another year where we lose the chunk of our population to other states. The bad policies like this that never will just keep going up.

Jan 06, 2022 3:38 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Linda Stephens Mira Loma, CA91752

I do not have solar, though I have considered it. However, I agree with the complaints made by customers who have put solar into their dwellings with the understanding it would benefit the environment and keep their electricity rates reasonable and feel that has not necessarily been the case. It certainly would make others reconsider "going green". This never-ending cycle of rate increases to customers with little or no real "return on investment" is tiresome.

Jul 13, 2021 1:17 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Aravind Rav Cypress, CA90630

This rate change should be worded to say 500 kwh electricity after it's been reconciled with the amount produced to protect roof-top solar customers. If you say 500 kwh does it mean even with solar panels I'll be charged more? That's how it's worded. You are taking power generated by me from panels I've paid for and then turn around and increase price to deliver the power back to me. Allow us to go off grid so we can store power if you want to find devious ways to over charge customers even after getting solar panels. With climate change and hotter weathers, it might be time to let roof-top customers go off-grid.

Jul 09, 2021 6:23 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Chekesha George Temescal Valley, CA92883

I do not think that imposing additional fees upon solar panel customers is fair or warranted. We moved into a new development and were not given a choice as to whether or not we would be purchasing solar panels, at the time this was required. I pay my share to Edison and the solar panel company and that is enough. Customers in California are always being taxed and asked to pay more. If anything more discounts should be provided to solar customers. We pay enough! Stop charging working class families more. Please do not approve this change.

Jul 06, 2021 11:58 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
danny Ortiz Downey, CA90241

Why doesn't SCE's care program apply to disabled Veterans? why doesn't SCE recognize disabled Veteran members of the community for its discounted rates? This is almost incomprehensible to some of SCE's own customer service personnel. I have to be living in utter poverty and collecting some form of Government welfare/aid to receive a discount AFTER EVERYTHING MYSELF AND FELLOW VETERANS HAVE DONE FOR THIS COUNTRY???? I'm contacting my representative, local American legion, VOFW, etc. I think a sign over the 710, 405, 101, 10, 605 and 5 fwys would remind everyone how SCE really feels about Veterans.

Jun 28, 2021 4:07 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Linda OBrien Palmdale, CA93551

I agree with the other users regarding rooftop solar and the extra expense paid to the utility companies which should NOT be as we are providing electricity to the grid. I do not understand the constant (quarterly?) requests by SOCAL EDISON rate increases. I am looking at my bill and pay transmission charges and delivery charges (what's the difference?). On top of that I am paying a conservation incentive adjustment. Um why? And then there's the "new system generation" charge? That does not include the actual electric use bill that is added on another page. These are not even all the other charges, but those are clear. And the utility is asking again for a rate increase. For what? Don't all those charges pay for all their expenses? Seems like a lot of overcharging to me, particularly now that they charge extra for "connection to the grid" for those with solar cells installed.

Jun 25, 2021 4:16 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
raquel brac redlands, CA92374

We rate payers do not need another increase for residential family use of electricity. In fact many of us are apartment dwellers that would like some innovation and a form of solar panel that could be attached to our window so that we could lower our bills. Instead we get additional paperwork from Edison with more graphs. There is a public comment above that resonates with the way I feel about the way business is conducted by the SCE monopoly with the consent of the regulators: "...No other company is allowed to charge their customers a fee to stay in business." (Andres Almeida) Additionally, it seems that all our subsidies can't keep up and never will with their greed. Just check out the salaries in the millions that their top executives receive. Also, isn't capitalism all about inefficient companies going bankrupt or selling their business to someone else who can make a better go of it and efficient companies staying in business? In this case it seems the opposite is occurring and the government is forcing families to prop up a failing monopoly.

Jun 23, 2021 7:07 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
susan odegaard turner Thousand Oaks, CA91360

i do not want to be penalized for agreeing to green energy options. a rate increase now would indicate that is the case. i have solar panels and am now also enduring more additional charges every month than what i use. unacceptable!

Jun 23, 2021 10:19 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Wendy Mello Jurupa Valley, CA92509

I am a single Mom, Covid brought my grown adult children and an additional occupant back to live at my home. I am keeping a roof over all their heads without monetary compensation. I am telecommuting and using quadruple the electricity 8-5 due to monitors and computers and fans. I had my house efficiency updated (through State program)they installed a swamp cooler and it does use a lot less electricity than A/C but the summer it runs a lot during my work hours. This extra electricity is mainly due to working. I appreciate the opportunity to work remotely and the ease of my disabilities. Some points to consider: 1) baseline has been lowered so many of us are hitting the additional tier despite being very energy efficient. 2) Rates are being raised between the hours that I work for an employer. (Not subsidized) and not able to claim on your taxes either. 3) My home is not new and therefore does not have the mandatory solar newer homes have to help them with electricity. 4) Aftermarket solar is too expensive to purchase for those of us with older homes. I do know that employers are saving money with employees not occupying buildings and using electricity. Could Edison and the Judges please consider these unique situations. I do foresee more remote jobs continuing and if not a hybrid work for the future. Please take into consideration that we need to use this electricity to work and be viable and keep a decent temperature that is healthy to be able to get our work done. Please consider some options for these new scenario's in our life I really appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

Jun 22, 2021 8:52 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Amy Sullivan View Park-Windsor Hills, CA90043

My name is Amy Sullivan and I live in View Park in the heart of Los Angeles California. I have lived in California my entire life. I grew up in San Diego, went to college in Northern California and now own properties in Los Angeles and San Diego. I’ve watched the weather patterns change over the recent years, including hotter longer summers, extensive, more destructive fire seasons and extreme drought. I see the difference. I feel the difference. I worry about the future for myself and all of our children and grandchildren. But I do have hope. We have an opportunity today to move things in the right direction that protects the environment for the next generation but still allows for businesses to be successful. Over the past decade I’ve noticed a surge in solar on residential properties across the state and that excites me. We added solar to our LA house last year and all the neighbors came to inquire about it. The people want rooftop solar. It is finally more accessible and affordable and it is the correct path forward to protect the environment. Yes we need large scale projects to meet our goals, but we also need local rooftop solar to actually achieve them. Rooftop is also a cost savings for our state and all rate payers whether they have solar or not. The houses already exist. It’s much less of a cost to infrastructure and the natural habitat is we add panels to existing buildings. Rooftop solar is also reducing the cost of maintaining long-distance power lines, which saves all ratepayers money. As a taxpayer, property owner and utility customer I would much prefer that the utility companies spend their profits and budgets on keeping current equipment from aging and creating destructive forest fires, cleaning up the damage they have already caused, and helping create more local power grid infrastructure, working with rooftop solar customers and businesses toward a collective goal of getting off our dependency on fossil fuels. 2) I request that the CPUC Keep rooftop solar and battery storage growing in California by continuing to incentivize solar home owners with net metering market rate rebates for power supplied to the grid and not allowing price gouging for connection to the grid by the utilities. Make it more equitable so that millions of working class people can get solar in the coming years by not cutting the CARE credit, letting CARE recipients get the full credit and expanding the multi family homes eligibility for net metering. Don't buy the utility lie that rooftop solar is costing other people money. Rooftop solar is reducing the cost of long-distance power lines, which are the actual reason for high rates, blackouts and wildfires

Jun 22, 2021 6:04 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
John Huddleston IDYLLWILD, CA92549

I am a Board Certified Master Arborist with the International Society of Arboriculture and Registered Consulting Arborist with American Society of Consulting Arborists. I've responded to dozens of emails and calls from members of my community about questionable tree removal and pruning activities by Southern California Edison's Utility Vegetation Management assessors and contractors. Not only are very few of their assessors qualified to assess tree risk by any established standard, but very few of their supervisors are, either. According to Utility Vegetation Management Final Report March 2004 – CN Utility Consulting, LLC, "As a general rule of thumb, the higher the voltage, the more sensitive the line will be to treerelated faults. For example, uninsulated low voltage secondary lines (120/240 volts) can come in direct contact with vegetation and it will be highly unlikely that an electrical outage will occur. The same can be said for most typical primary voltage lines carrying 4-12kV. However, as we reach higher transmission voltages, the likelihood of an outage, due strictly to contact, is exponentially increased. As a result, utilities maintain typically larger clearances between vegetation and transmission lines than would be seen on a typical distribution line. Generally speaking, the higher the voltage, the higher the lines will be located above the ground, and away from the vegetation." Our mountain doesn't have a single power line above 33kV, yet the UVM contractors are pruning trees to provide 60' of clearance in some cases. Not to mention the hundreds of trees that have been removed with little to no identifiable hazards. When homeowners have disputed some of the outrageous assessments, SCE sends in their fast talking bullies to threaten homeowners with implausible liability scenarios until they feel they have no choice but to sign on the line and let SCE remove their extremely valuable and irreplaceable trees, some of which are hundreds of years old. Tree by tree, SCE's unqualified assessors and tree contractors are deforesting this community, and there's no reason I can find (again, as a Board Certified Master Arborist, Registered Consulting Arborist, and Qualified Tree Risk Assessor). When I have personally disputed the findings of the under-qualified assessors, SCE has told the homeowners that my assessments are invalid, and that my recommendations for mitigation, which come directly American National Standards Institute A300 series on tree management, are invalid. Furthermore, their contractors, Utility Tree Service, are not following the ANSI A300 pruning standards. Using climbing spikes in living tree with many other means of access, and pruning trees that are known to attract mortal pests during the times of year that pruning is most likely to attract those mortal pests. A great example of this are pine bark beetles. SCE knows full well the impact of pine bark beetles, and have I reached out to upper management, Mr. Christopher Coker, to ask them to stop pruning activities during the summer which has been proven to kill trees. Lastly, SCE's UVM contractors seem to be intentionally distributing infested wood, from trees they removed, around the community, guarantying that the pine bark beetles, and more importantly the Gold Spotted Oak Borer (an invasive species) continue to spread and increase their "need" for more UVM. They call it "job security" amongst the individual crew members and sub-contractors. These infested trees are left out of the top priority, allowing insects to spread, while trees free from defects are being cut down as fast as possible, seemingly before someone notices the fraud. It is a huge conflict of interest letting SCE pick and pay their "independent assessors", especially when they also mandate their mitigation strategies to be the most expensive and most destructive to the forest.

Jun 22, 2021 2:54 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
April Huddleston Idyllwild, CA92549

I live in the area of Idyllwild. Last year SCE subcontractors were marking perfectly healthy trees for removal. Trees that had no damage and were not a threat to our power lines. Every summer SCE subcontractors come through and prune our trees. Several times. Our trees are in a drought affected forest and do not growth rate significant enought to warrant annual pruning. Including Pines which is the worst time of year to be pruning. It invites bark beetles which then end up taking the invite coming over and killing the tree and then SCE comes through and removes that tree that had been perfectly healthy. I have talked to the subcontracters when they have come to my house and told them not to prune any of my trees. They tell me they have to or they would need to call the County arguing over which trees are my property and I told them to go ahead that I would be home all day. They told me they need 25 feet of clearance and you look up and you can see that the lines have more than enough clearance. They are spike climbing living trees which is not acceptable and they literally had a bucket truck 10 feet away so why did the need to spike climb that living pine? Job security? I am not going to be surprised if half the trees they pruned this year need to be removed next year. Are these trees a fire hazard....no. SCE should be hiring qualified tree companies to be doing this. Not to mention that they leave wood of infested trees to spread more infestation around the mountain. Or one of my favorites is offering homeowners fresh pine chips for the properties like they are doing them a community service when all it does is invite the beetles to their homes to attack their trees. I understand the removal of trees and limbs that are actually hazardous. What I don't understand is why these home owners are bullied and not told that there are other options. Like cableing codominant stems or if their tree has something as simple as scale insects not letting them know that their tree can be treated and able to be saved. But to go around with no oversight on what they are doing, not following standards that have been set and then asking the homeowners to foot the bills for work that doesn't need to be done is ridiculous and greedy.

Jun 22, 2021 2:54 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Andrea Almeida Los Angeles, CA90048

Mayor Garcetti should find new jobs for folks rather than charge customers who decided to participate with green energy (solar panels or Clean Power Alliance customers). If SoCal Edison is going to lose money because they aren't generating power for every customer anymore (Clean Power Alliance is now generating greener energy for lower costs) then SoCal Edison should find a different revenue source. No other company is allowed to charge their customers a fee to stay in business. Unfortunately, if you cannot employ as many people because of a loss of revenue, then ask Mayor Garcetti and Governor Newsom for help not hard working citizens. There needs to be a transition for employees to switch into another job that isn't a burden for families switching to green energy. To summarize; do not increase prices for families.

Jun 22, 2021 2:51 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Scott Hudson Hemet, CA92545

Dear Judge and Members of the Commission, Thank you for letting me speak. I am Scott Hudson, General manager of the Oak Glen Domestic Water company. We are the only water company in Oak Glen, California, and we have been supplying drinking water in Oak Glen since 1902. We are a very small “Non-Profit” water system located in the mountains above Yucaipa, we are designated a “Small Community Water Provider” in San Bernardino county. With our water wells and reservoirs tanks, we also have a system of 12 fire hydrants, the only ones in the Oak Glen community. We understand and know the importance of the Time of Use (TOU) system and the cost connected to those rates. We understand that so much, that we have equipped all three of water wells with timers so we can avoid pumping that the higher “On-Peak” hours, and (Lucky for us) we can do most of our pumping in “Off-Peak” hours. That has worked well for us for many years. Last year, on August 1st, 2020 our Oak Glen community was threatened by the APPLE wildfire which burned along the east side of Oak Glen. Since we supply water to the fire hydrants and the water was needed for fighting the wildfire, we turn off our timers to keep the fire hydrants supplied (we also maintain a pump operator). We only have 260,000 gallons in storage and firefighters would deplete that supply very quickly. We pumped without our timers on for five days. Even before the fire was out, we got a message from SCE that we pumped over our daily kW amount and this was our first warning. I called the number provided and explained why we had to pump because of the fire. I was told they cannot do anything about that but would note that in our file. Three weeks later, we got our second and more serious wind-driven wildland fire which threaten Oak Glen. Within an hour, the fire started burning into neighborhoods in Oak Glen. Oak Glen was not even fully evacuated yet. This was the El Dorado Fire – September 5, 2020. Again, we turn off our timers to run all our water wells to supply the community with firefighting water. We kept our timers off for over 10 days to assure a supply of firefighting water as overhaul and flare-ups were an extensive issue in the Oak Glen community. It was no surprise that during this time we got our second and third - the last warning that we went over our daily kW use and are now assigned to a higher rate because of this kW daily use violation. As a small water utility this newer rate, which will be in effect for a year as long as we don’t go over the daily kW use rate has affected our budget. We as SCE users, feel like this is an unfair rate on us for supplying the water that our whole community needed during these times of fire emergencies. Our Board of Directors are not happy, our shareholders not happy. This makes Edison look greedy or not caring. Maybe both? We feel an exception should be allowed for water companies to not be penalized for doing our duty to provide water during an emergency, something we have no control over. Anyway, I hope the Commission would consider this factor in setting new rates. Thank you, Scott Hudson, General Manager Oak Glen Domestic Water Company (951) 694-2591 scotth1902@gmai.com P.O. Box 7141, Hemet, CA 92546

Jun 22, 2021 2:49 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Mark Shabashov Palm Desert, CA92260

I live in the Coachella Valley full time where temperatures have already reached 120 degrees Fahrenheit My SCE billing always compares my bill with that of my neighbors. Since 70% of my neighbors are snowbirds living in cooler climate areas in the summer, my summer bills range in April from high $300/mo to Sept high $600/mo . I am being discriminated against because I live in the area full time. My usage will always be higher than at least 70% of my neighbors , since they are not here all summer! This discrepancy issue needs to be resolved before any rate increases should be considered. My wife and I are retired and have a fixed income . We do not have the luxury of leaving the area in the summertime to areas where the weather is cooler. Will we get to the point where we have to set the thermostat to temperatures that are unhealthy ? Possibly we will , if rates keep going up , and this billing discrepancy continues.

Jun 22, 2021 7:23 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
row(s) 1 - 15 of 102Next