HERE AS UTILITY AND ENERGY
COMMITTEE ALL THIS IS AN
INFORMATIONAL HEARING.
OF THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
CONDUCTING TODAY -- TO HEAR FROM
THE CHAIR ON THE NINE OH ONE
COMMISSION ALSO KNOWN AS
CATASTROPHIC WELL FIRE COST
RECOVERY.
A COMMISSION -- TO GIVE US SORT
OF A PRELIMINARY A READ ON THERE.
ARE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE
THEY WILL BE VOTING ON LATER
THIS WEEK -- AS A COMMITTEE
WHERE -- HERE TODAY -- REALLY TO
HEAR THE REPORT -- BUT ALSO.
TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
INQUIRE AROUND SOME OF THE
ASPECTS OF THE DIRECTION THAT.
THE COMMISSION -- SEEMS TO BE
MOVING IN AND TO GIVE
OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS TO A TO
DIALOGUE AROUND THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS ARE CERTAINLY
THOSE -- THE DIRECTION THAT'S
BEING DISCUSSED.
AND THEN WILL -- LOOK TO THE
PUBLIC AND TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT --
BUT THIS WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR THIS COMMISSION OR THIS
COMMITTEE.
OUGHT TO BE COME A LITTLE BIT
MORE FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF THE
THE IDEAS AND CONCEPTS SOME OF
THEM.
ARE NEW -- THAT WE HAVE HEARD
PREVIOUSLY -- BUT SOME I THINK
WILL ALLOW US TO EXPAND A LITTLE
BIT MORE IN OUR THINKING SO WILL
APPRECIATE HEARING FROM.
OF THOSE WHO ARE HERE TO PRESENT
I I'D LIKE.
TO HOW TO CALL AFFORD A
COMMISSIONER AND CHAIR OF THE
COMMISSION OUR CARLA PETERMAN
SHE IS THE CHAIR OF THE
COMMISSION ON CATASTROPHIC
WILDFIRE.
COST AND RECOVERY -- WILL ALSO
AND YOU CAN JOIN US HERE -- WE
ALSO -- WILL HAVE -- MICHAEL
KAHN WHO WAS -- OF ONE OF THE
COMMISSIONERS WHO WAS PART.
OF THE UTILITY WHILE FAR
LIABILITY.
PORTION THERE IS A SECTION
THAT'S DEALING WITH INSURANCE --
BUT THIS COMMISSION THIS
COMMITTEE -- IT'S A IT'S OUTSIDE
OF OUR JURISDICTION PER SE AND
SO WE'RE GOING TO JUST FOCUS ON
THE OVERVIEW.
WHICH MADAM CHAIR YOU'LL BE ABLE
TO A HIGHLIGHT -- BUT THEN WILL
ALSO GO A LITTLE DEEPER -- WITH
MR KHAN IF THAT'S NECESSARY ON
THE A UTILITY WELL FIRE
LIABILITIES SO IF THE BOTH OF
YOU WILL JOIN US -- AND THEN WE
ALSO WELCOME -- EVAN JOHNSON
WHO'S EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
COMMISSION ON CATASTROPHIC WHILE
FOR COST RECOVERY.
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR
PRESENTATION -- THIS AFTERNOON.
I'M GOING TO ALSO NOTE THAT WE
AS THE YOU IN A COMMITTEE.
OF BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SUCH A
CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WORKING
RELATIONSHIP WITH.
OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEES OF
THE CONFEREES.
OF FROM THE ASSEMBLY LAST YEAR
WORKING CLOSELY.
WITH THE SENATE ON THE NINE A
ONE LEGISLATION -- THAT WE HAVE
A COUPLE MEMBERS WHO WILL JOIN
US IN A DOCTOR WOULD IS ONE WHO
IS A MEMBER OF OF THE CONFEREES
AND WE ALWAYS WELCOME HIM.
TO BE A PART OF THIS
CONVERSATION SO YOU HAVE THE
FULL COMMITTEE BUT YOU ALSO HAVE.
THE VALUE OF TALKED WITH HERE'S
WELL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH YOU'RE
HOLDEN AND THANK YOU COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR INVITING MYSELF.
MY FELLOW NOT A ONE COMMISSION
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL KAHN AND
OUR EXECUTIVE OFFICER EVAN
JOHNSON TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE IN
BRIEFING ON THE ACTIVITIES OF
THE NINE A ONE COMMISSION.
SOMEONE TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW
OF THE NINE A ONE COMMISSION THE
PROCESS WE'VE HAD TO DATE.
AS WELL AS DETAIL AT THE DRAFT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT ARE COMMITTEE RELEASED
[inaudible]
LAST WEEK.
SO THE NINE OH ONE COMMISSION.
IS THE RESULT OF SENATE BILL
NINE A ONE PASSED LAST YEAR.
AND THAT SENATE BILL -- ORDERED
THE CREATED OVER CREATION OF A
COMMISSION WITH FIVE APPOINTEES.
ONE FROM THE ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY
FORMER ASSEMBLYMEMBER PAGE --
NAVA BECAUSE OF THIS CHAIR OF
THE LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION.
ONE APPOINTEE FROM THE SENATE DR
MICHAEL LARA WHO IS A PROFESSOR
AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND AN
EXPERT ON A UTILITY AND
INSURANCE ISSUES.
AND THREE APPOINTMENTS FROM THE
GOVERNOR.
MYSELF A FORMER C. P. U. C. M.
C. C. COMMISSIONER.
MICHAEL KAHN I IN A LONG TERM
EXPERT ON ENERGY ISSUES AND
ENERGY UTILITY ATTORNEY.
AND THEN FINALLY FORMER
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER DAVE
JONES.
THE COMMISSION IS SUBJECT TO
OPEN MEANING ACT REQUIREMENTS
AND SO WE DISCUSS AND COORDINATE
ONLY IN PUBLIC MEETINGS.
WE ARE SUPPORTED BY EXCELLENT
STAFF AT THE OFFICE OF PLANNING
AND RESEARCH.
AS WELL AS SUPPORT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE AND THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.
AND WE THANK ALL THREE OF THOSE
AGENCIES FOR THEIR SUPPORT
DURING THIS PROCESS.
THE NINE OH ONE LEGISLATION
FOCUS THE COMMISSION ON ISSUES
RELATED TO WILDFIRES ASSOCIATED
WITH UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND ASK FOR RECOMMENDATIONS TO
LAW THAT WOULD INSURE EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS.
AMONG AFFECTED PARTIES.
AT OUR FIRST MEETING WE FURTHER
REFINED OUR SCOPE TO FOCUS ON
THREE AREAS.
FIRST OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE
CURRENT STATUS OF UTILITY
LIABILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF FINES.
THE SECOND THE IMPACT ON THE
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
INSURANCE MARKETS.
AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO MITIGATE
THOSE IMPACTS.
AND THIRD RECOMMENDATIONS ON A
FUNDING MECHANISM TO ASSIST IN
PAYMENT OF DAMAGES ASSOCIATED
WITH CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES.
WE'VE HAD A VERY PUBLIC PROCESS --
SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.
WITH HELD A SERIES OF FOUR
PUBLIC MEETINGS.
AND WE HAVE OUR LAST PUBLIC
MEETING THIS FRIDAY IN
SACRAMENTO.
OUR FOR MEETINGS HAVE BEEN
AROUND THE STATE WE MET IN
SACRAMENTO.
REDDING SANTA ROSA AND VICTORIA.
WE IN PARTICULAR CHOSE
COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN
AFFECTED BY WILDFIRES AND MADE
SURE WE HEARD TESTIMONY AND
INFORMATION FROM LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND WHILE
FIRE VICTIMS IN THOSE AREAS.
IN EACH MEETING IN ADDITION TO
TAKING PUBLIC TESTIMONY WE ALSO
CONVENE EXPERT PANELS.
INCLUDING WILDFIRE VICTIMS
UTILITIES BOTH INVESTOR OWNED
AND PUBLICLY OWNED RATE PAYER
ADVOCATES BUSINESS OWNERS AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
I NEED TO THE MEETINGS FOCUSED
ON ONE OF THE SUB TOPICS WITHIN
SCOPE.
AND WE USE ALL THAT INFORMATION
TO INFORM OUR DRAFT
RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE ALSO INVITED WRITTEN COMMENT
ON ISSUES IN SCOPE AND RECEIVED
THIRTY SEVEN SETS OF COMMENTS
FROM A RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS.
WHICH WILL PROVIDE TO THE
LEGISLATURE WHEN WE TRANSMIT OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO WE RELEASED OUR DRAFT
RECOMMENDATIONS LAST WEEK.
OUR REPORT DRAFTING WAS SPLIT UP
INTO THREE WORK GROUPS DUE TO
BAGLEY KEENE RESTRICTIONS.
THE WORKGROUPS NEARED THREE
AREAS OF FOCUS SO WE HAVE THE
LIABILITY WORK GROUP WHICH
INCLUDED MICHAEL KAHN PAGE --
NAVA.
THE FUNDING MECHANISM GROUP
WHICH INCLUDED MYSELF AND
MICHAEL LARA.
ANY INSURANCE GROUP WHICH
INCLUDED DAVE JONES AND MICHAEL
WAR.
STAFF FROM OPR TOOK THESE THREE
SEPARATE PRODUCTS AND WROTE THE
DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IN
ATTEMPT TO INTEGRATE THEM.
THE FINAL SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS
POSTED LAST WEEK WERE NOT SEEN
BY ALL THE COMMISSIONERS UNTIL
THEY WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
PUBLIC.
SO THIS FRIDAY WILL BE OURFIRST
AND ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE
DIRECT FEEDBACK WITH EACH OTHER
ON THE SUB RECOMMENDATIONS.
AS WELL AS GIVE FEEDBACK
REGARDING THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AND HOW IT INTEGRATES THOSE
THREE CHAPTERS TOGETHER.
SO I'M NOW GOING TO DETAIL THE
DRAFT FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE REPORT.
AND MYSELF AND MISTER CONNOR
HERE TO ANSWER SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS AROUND OUR SUBSECTIONS
AS WELL AS A REFERENCE ANY OTHER
MATERIAL THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE.
SO OVERALL OUR FINDINGS HAVE
BEEN CONSISTENT.
WITH THE STRIKE TEAMS FINDINGS
THAT THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
INCREASES PLUS THE INCREASE IN
CALIFORNIA POPULATION.
HAVE PLAYED A DIRECT ROLE IN
FIRE THREAT.
SO INDEED THE INFORMATION WE
TOOK AND THAT SAY WE ARE IN THIS
NEW NORMAL.
WE ALSO FOUND THAT UTILITIES
HAVE PLAYED A PIVOTAL ROLE IN
CAUSING THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE
FIRES AND MUST TAKE A LEADERSHIP
ROLE IN MITIGATING RISK.
WE CONCLUDED THAT SB NINE OH ONE
DOES NOT DO ENOUGH TO MANAGE THE
SYSTEMATIC RISK FROM WILDFIRES
TO THE STATE'S MAJOR UTILITIES.
AND THAT THE SOLUTIONS TO MORE
ACTIVELY ALLOCATE COSTS ARE MORE
BURDENSOME THE BIGGER THE
LIABILITY SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO
FOCUS ON MEDICATION.
AMONG ALL THE OTHER
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HAVE.
AT A HIGH LEVEL THE
COMMISSIONERS ACROSS THE
SUBGROUPS RECOMMEND THAT THE
CURRENT STRICT LIABILITY
APPLICATION INVERSE CONDEMNATION
BE REPLACED.
WITH A FOUGHT BASE STANDARD.
WE ALSO RECOMMENDED THE CREATION
OF A WILDFIRE VICTIMS CLAIMS
PAYING FIND.
AS WELL AS A SERIES OF REFORMS
TO THE HOMEOWNER INSURANCE
MARKET TO MAINTAIN AVAILABLE AND
AFFORDABLE INSURANCE.
THESE RECOMMENDATIONS CAN
WORKING COORDINATION AND NONE
ARE DIRECT SUBSTITUTES FOR EACH
OTHER.
MOREOVER WE ACKNOWLEDGE TO
IMPLEMENTING ONE OR MORE OF
THESE CAN IMPACT THE NEED AND
THE SCOPE FOR SOME OF THE OTHER
RECOMMENDATIONS.
SOMEONE TO TAKE EACH SECTION IN
TURN THE THREE SUBGROUPS. FOR
THE LIABILITY WORKING GROUP
THERE ARE THREE KEY FINDINGS.
THE FIRST THAT CALIFORNIA HAS A
DECENTRALIZING INCONSISTENT
SYSTEM OF REGULATING AND
GOVERNING UTILITY WILDFIRE
PREVENTION AND MITIGATION.
THE SECOND FINDING IS THAT THE
CURRENT APPLICATION OF INVERSE
CONDEMNATION AFFECTS THE
VIABILITY OF THE STATE'S
UTILITIES AND CUSTOMERS ACCESS
TO AFFORDABLE AND CLEAN ENERGY
AND WATER.
THE THIRD IS THAT THE TIME
REQUIRED FOR AND THE UNCERTAINTY
OF WILDFIRE COST RECOVERY FROM
REPAIRS REDUCES INVESTOR
CONFIDENCE IN UTILITIES AND
LIMITS UTILITY ACCESS TO CAPITAL
AFTER MAJOR FIRE.
THE SAME FINDING WAS FOUND BY
THE FUN GROUP AS WELL.
SO THERE ARE THREE KEY
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
LIABILITY GROUP.
FIRST AS I MENTIONED REPLACE THE
INVERSE CONDEMNATION STRICT
LIABILITY STANDARD WITH A FAULT
BASED STANDARD [inaudible]
THE SECOND.
ESTABLISH AN ELECTRIC UTILITY
WILDFIRE BOARD TO GOVERN UTILITY
WILDFIRE PREVENTION AND
MITIGATION IN A SINGLE ENTITY
SEPARATE FROM THE C. P. U. C..
AND THIRD THAT THE COST RECOVERY
STANDARD BE MODIFIED.
A FUN GROUP SPEAK SPECIFICALLY
TO HOW TO DO THIS IN OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS.
NESTLE TURN TO THE FUNDING
MECHANISMS THAT FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS.
FIRST WE FOUND THAT THE
FINANCIAL MECHANISMS FOR PAYING
FOR WILDFIRES ARE STREAMED AND
NOT SUSTAINABLE.
SECOND WILDFIRE RISK IS CREATED
BY MULTIPLE PARTIES WHO SHOULD
ALL BE INCENTIVIZE TO REDUCE THE
RISK AND SHARE IN PAYING FOR
WILD FIRE DAMAGES.
THIRD CALIFORNIA'S ELECTRIC
COSTS ARE INCREASING IN
PARTICULAR DUE TO INVESTMENTS IN
WHILE FIRE MITIGATION.
AND FOURTH THE LIABILITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH WILDFIRES ARE
CHALLENGING TO MODEL AND NOT
WELL UNDERSTOOD.
SO OUR SUBGROUP HAT TWO
CATEGORIES OF RECOMMENDATIONS
THE FIRST IS ON COST RECOVERY.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT COST RECOVERY
THE REASON THIS IS AN ISSUE?
IS THAT GIVEN THE SIZE OF
POTENTIAL WILDFIRE LIABILITIES.
AND THE INABILITY OF THE UTILITY
COMMERCIAL INSURANCE MARKET TO
COVER THESE CLAIMS.
UTILITIES WILL LIKE TO SEE MORE
OBJECTIVE PREDICTABLE STANDARDS
FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES PRUDENT
BEHAVIOR.
BECAUSE IF THEY EVEN GET ACTED
PRUDENTLY THE MOST COST CAN BE
RECOVERED FROM RATE PAYERS.
THIS IS DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE
GIVEN THE RELATIVE IN EXPERIENCE
WE HAVE A CATASTROPHIC FIRES IN
THE VARIOUS FACTORS THAT CAN
CONTRIBUTE TO WILDFIRE COST AND
DAMAGE.
HOWEVER WE DO THINK THAT THERE
ARE REFORM OPTIONS THAT CAN
BETTER STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN
THE LIKELIHOOD OF COST RECOVERY.
AND ENSURING RATE PAYERS ARE NOT
AUTOMATICALLY ON THE HOOK FOR
IMPRUDENTLY DERIVED COST.
SO I SUB GROUP.
PROVIDED THREE OPTIONS FOR
REFORMING COST RECOVERY WHICH
ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
THE FIRST OPTION IS SHIFTING THE
BURDEN OF PROOF.
AT OF IMPRUDENCE TO INTERVENE.
THIS ALLOWS FOR PRESUMPTION OF
PRUDENCE FOR UTILITY WILDFIRE
EXPENSE.
BUT STILL ALLOWS CHALLENGERS TO
PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE.
THAT EXPENSE WAS IMPRUDENTLY
OCCURRED.
THIS IS THE STANDARD USED BY THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION.
I'LL NOTE THIS CHANGE IS NOT
INSIGNIFICANT.
AND IS A DIFFERENT APPROACH THAN
IS USED FOR OTHER TYPES OF COST
RECOVERY.
AS SUCH OF THIS THAT OPTION IS
PURSUED ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID
TO ENSURETHAT INTERFERES HAVE
ACCESS TO THE RESOURCE AND DATA
THEY NEED. TO LAUNCH A
REASONABLE OFFENSE.
THE SECOND OPTION WE RECOMMEND
IS FURTHER REFINEMENT OF THESE
SB NINE A ONE FACTORS THAT THE
CPC SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN
ASSESSING THIS ALLOWANCES. TO
GIVE A HIGHER WAITING TO THOSE
FACTORS THAT A KNOWLEDGE OF THE
UNIQUE EXHAUSTION A
CIRCUMSTANCES POSSIBLY PRESENT
IN A CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES. FOR
EXAMPLE EXTREME WEATHER.
AND IN OUR THIRD OPTION.
IS ONE THAT PROPOSES A
PREDETERMINED MAXIMUM LIABILITY
BE SET.
REGARDING -- SHAREHOLDER
LIABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH A
CATASTROPHIC WILD FIRE.
THIS PRE DETERMINED MAXIMUM
LIABILITY WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED
IN CONJUNCTION WITH A WILDFIRE
VICTIMS FINE.
WHERE YOU CHIU UTILITY
SHAREHOLDERS HAVE MADE A
SUBSTANTIAL UP FRONT
CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIND?
SETTING THIS UP PREDETERMINED
LEVEL FOR MAXIMUM LIABILITY
COULD BE TIED TO A VARIETY OF
METRICS SUCH AS MARKET
CAPITALIZATION AND THAT IT COME.
I KNOW THIS IS THE ONLY OPTION
THAT WOULD PROVIDE AN ABSOLUTE
CAP ON SHAREHOLDER EXPOSURE TO
LIABILITIES.
THE SECOND SET OF
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
WILDFIRE FROM GROUP NOT
SURPRISING THE WELFARE FUND.
I SO OVERALL WE PROPOSE A
WILDFIRE VICTIMS FUN THAT WOULD
BE APPLICABLE TO UTILITY COST
CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES.
A FUND THAT IS BROADLY SOURCED
INCLUDING FUNDING FROM
SHAREHOLDERS RATE PAYERS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS.
SUCH A FUN WOULD SUPPORT
LIQUIDITY AND CREATE A BUFFER
AGAINST THE SHOCK OF LIABILITY
COSTS FROM CATASTROPHIC FIRES
FOR ANYONE GROUP.
THIS RECOMMENDATION SUBCHAPTER
HAS A LOT OF DETAIL IN IT BUT
I'M GOING TO SUMMARIZE SOME OF
THAT DETAIL AT A HIGH LEVEL.
THE SUB GROUP RECOMMENDS THAT
THE PARTICIPATION BE VOLUNTARY
FOR INVESTOR OWNED AND PUBLICLY
OWNED UTILITIES.
AND THAT THE FUNDING BE
SUFFICIENTLY CAPITALIZED TO
SURVIVE ANTICIPATED THIRD PARTY
DAMAGES.
UNDER A HIGHER EXPECTATION RISK
FIRE SCENARIO.
AND THEN AS I MENTIONED EARLIER
THE FUND BE SOURCED BOB BROADLY
FROM CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
SHAREHOLDERS RATE PAYERS -- AND
PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND PARTICULAR THAT THOSE
CONTRIBUTIONS BE TIED TO ACTUAL
RAIL BRISK SO THOSE UTILITIES
THAT HAVE GREATER RISK FOR
WILDFIRES WOULD PAY MORE.
WE RECOMMEND THAT THE FUND BE
CLAIMS PAYING.
AND PAY UP TO A MAXIMUM AMOUNT
FOR FIRE AND PER UTILITY.
WE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE FUND
SHOULD PAY CLAIMS WHEN THE
UTILITY IS FOUND TO BE IMPRUDENT
SO THAT WHILE FIRE VICTIMS GET
PAID QUICKLY.
BUT THAT A SPECIFIED AMOUNT WE
GET REPAID BY THE UTILITY IF IT
IS AN PRUDENT.
WE RECOMMEND THAT THE FUN LAST
AS LONG AS NECESSARY AND SHOULD
BE REEVALUATED EVERY FIVE TO TEN
YEARS.
AND IF IS THE SIDE OF THE FUND
IS NO LONGER NEEDED THAT THERE
BE A PLAN TO WIND DOWN THE FIND.
AND RETURN UNUSED CAPITAL TO ALL
THE CONTRIBUTORS.
OUR WORK GROUP HIGHLIGHTED
SEVERAL CHALLENGES ESTABLISHING
A FIND.
AND I'LL JUST LIST THESE. ONE ON
ONE CHALLENGE OF THE FUN IS THAT
IN NOT PERVERSE LEE --
INCENTIVIZE RISKY BEHAVIOR BY
UTILITIES AND HOMEOWNERS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE FOR EXAMPLE
THAT PEOPLE GO OUT THERE AND GET
ADEQUATE INSURANCE THAT
UTILITIES DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN
TO AVOID.
FIRES.
HAVING THE PRESENCE OF A
GUARANTEED FUNDING SOURCE CAN
CREATES A PERVERSE INCENTIVE AND
WE NEED TO WORK AROUND THAT.
THE SECOND IS AGAIN THE
POTENTIAL FOR CLAIMS TO GET
INFLATED GIVEN THAT THERE'S
GUARANTEED FUNDING.
A THIRD CHALLENGES WITH SOURCING
THE FUND INITIALLY AND
PARTICULAR HOW TO GET
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM P. JEANNIE.
AS THEY ARE IN THE MIDST OF A
BANKRUPTCY.
THERE'S ALSO A CHALLENGE WITH
MAINTAINING PAY OUTS AT CURRENT
SETTLEMENT VALUES -- CURRENTLY
WILDFIRE AT VICTIMS INSURANCE
COMPANIES WILL GET A CERTAIN
PERCENTAGE ON THE DOLLAR WHEN
THEY SETTLED IN COURT WITH THE
UTILITIES.
HOW DO YOU MAINTAIN SIMILAR
LEVELS WITH THE FIND?
AND THEN THERE'S THE OVERALL
COURSE TURN ABOUT AFFORDABILITY
FOR ASKING PROPERTY OWNERS AND
REPAIRS TO CONTRIBUTE TO FIND.
HOW DOES THAT?
AFFECT THEM A FINANCIALLY.
IN OUR PROCESS WE DO NOT GET
CLEAR INPUT ABOUT HOW TO
LEGISLATE OR DIRECTLY DEAL WITH
THESE CHALLENGES AND SO WE
WANTED TO RAISE THEM TO YOUR
ATTENTION AS WELL AS THE
ATTENTION OF OTHER STAKEHOLDERS.
SO THEY CAN BRING A PROPOSALS TO
YOU THAT ADDRESS THESE
CHALLENGES.
IF YOU DON'T ADDRESS ALL THESE
CHALLENGES THAT HAS THE
POTENTIAL TO INCREASE THE NEEDED
SIZE OF A FIND.
WHICH HAS IMPLICATIONS AS WELL.
AND THE FINALLY OUR WORKGROUP.
NOTED THAT ABSENT CREATION OF A
VICTIMS PAYING FIND REVISING THE
COST RECOVERY STANDARD AND
ESTABLISHING A LIQUIDITY FINE
CAN'T PROVIDE BENEFITS.
ALBEIT NOT THE BENEFITS A
BROADER COST SOCIALIZATION.
FINALLY WE ALSO COMMENTED ON THE
C. P. U. C. FINE AUTHORITY.
AND RE I RECOMMEND REVIEWING
THEIR FINEST ALREADY TO ISSUE
FINES FOR ANY VIOLATIONS AND
ALTERING THE DISPOSITION OF THAT
FINE REVENUE TO THE WILDFIRE
VICTIMS FINE OR TOWARDS
MITIGATION EFFORTS.
AND THEN FINALLY OUR LAST
CATEGORY RECOMMENDATIONS TO DEAL
WITH INSURANCE.
THE INSURANCE SUB GROUP FOUND
THAT HOME INSURANCE IS BECOMING
MORE DIFFICULT AND MORE
EXPENSIVE TO TEEN AND HIGH WILD
FIRE RISK AREAS.
RELATEDLY MORE HOMEOWNERS ARE
HAVING TO PURCHASE FIRE
INSURANCE FROM THE SURPLUS LINES
MARKET OR FROM THE FAIR PLAN.
WHICH IS THE STATE'S FIRE
INSURANCE PLAN.
THE HOME INSURANCE MARKET IN
CALIFORNIA IS NOT IN CRISIS YET
AND AS SUCH THE GROUP DOES NOT
RECOMMEND A NEW GOVERNMENT
CREATED INSURANCE PROGRAM BEYOND
THE FAIR PLAN.
HOWEVER THE MARKET IS ON A PATH
TOWARD BECOMING LESS AFFORDABLE
AND AVAILABLE.
THIS SUB GROUP RECOMMENDS MANY
RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THEM IN
TURN. ONE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT
CALIFORNIA MAINTAIN INCENTIVES
AT THE RISK BASE PRICING OF
INSURANCE FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS.
NEXT IMPROVE THE CALIFORNIA FAIR
PLAN AND THE CALIFORNIA
INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION
BY INCREASING THE CLAIMS CAP.
THIRD REQUIRE FIRE RISK
UNDERWRITING MODELS USE BIND
SHORES TO BE FILED IN APPROVED
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE.
AND REQUIRE ANNUAL FILING WITH
CDI FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
THE REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATING
MODELS AND TOOLS.
I'LL SAY MANY OF THESE ON
RECOMMENDATIONS WERE ECHOED IN
THE COMMENTS WE HEARD IN THE
WILD FIRE VICTIMS ABOUT SOME OF
THE CHALLENGES THEY SAW WITH
THEIR INSURANCE COMPANIES A POST
FIRES.
THE NEXT RECOMMENDATIONS THE SET
HOME FIRE RISK REDUCTION AND
COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION
STANDARDS.
OR REQUIRE INSURERS uIMPLEMENT
A TIERED MITIGATION CREDIT BASED
ON THE LEVEL OF HOME HARDENING.
BASICALLY GIVE PEOPLE CREDIT FOR
SECURING HARDENING THEIR HOME
AGAINST WILDFIRES.
ALSO REQUIRE INSURERS TO
CALCULATE AND PROVIDE A
REPLACEMENT HOUSING ESTIMATE.
IN WRITING TO ENSURE IT ANNUALLY
AND BEFORE ENTERING INTO AN
ASSURANCE CONTRACT.
AGAIN WE HEARD FROM ALL FIRE
VICTIMS THAT THEY WERE UNDER
INSURED WHEN THEY ALTERNATELY
WENT TO REBUILD THEIR HOMES.
IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT
HOMEOWNERS ARE PREPARED.
IT'S ALSO RECOMMENDATIONS
REQUIRE THAT HOMEOWNERS INSURERS
OFFER A ONE YEAR NOTICE OF NON
RENEWAL IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
INSTEAD OF THE FORTY FIVE DAY
NOTICE.
THAT HOMEOWNERS CURRENTLY GET.
AND THEN FINALLY REQUIRE THAT
THERE BE A VALLEY QUOTE FOR
INSURANCE COVERAGE BEFORE ANY
REAL ESTATE OFFER IS ACCEPTED.
AS I MENTIONED I BELIEVE WE ALL
FEEL THAT INVESTMENTS IN
WILDFIRE RISK MITIGATION ARE
IMPORTANT SO THE REPORT INCLUDES
A FEW RECOMMENDATIONS ALONG
THESE LINES.
FIRST WE NEED TO MONITOR
ACTIVITY AND HELP COORDINATE
EVERYONE BETTER.
SO ESTABLISH A WILDFIRE MON
ABILITY RISK AND REDUCTION
COORDINATOR WITHIN THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING
AND RESEARCH.
NEXT PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT STATE
INVESTMENTS AND PREVENTION AND
MITIGATION EFFORTS EVEN BEYOND
THE FINDING THAT THIS
LEGISLATURE HAS ALREADY
AUTHORIZED.
NEXT TAKE ACTIONS TO
SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE
CONSISTENCY A PRIVATE PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE LOS.
NEXT REQUIRE THAT ANY
MUNICIPALITY OR GOVERNMENT BODY
THAT APPROVED NEW DEVELOPMENT IS
ABLE TO PROVIDE FIRE FIGHTING
SERVICE TO THAT PROPERTY WITHIN
A CERTAIN MAXIMUM TIME.
AND THEN LASTLY. THREE A
DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION AND THE WILD FIRE
URBAN INTERFACE.
OUT WITH THAT THAT'S THE
SUMMATION OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
AS I MENTIONED REPORT HAS A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TO STAND
CHENEY TESTIMONY AND COMMENTS.
WHICH WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE
TO YOU AFTER OUR MEETING ON
FRIDAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND
MYSELF THE COMMISSIONER CONNIE
MISTER JOHNSON -- HERE FOR
QUESTIONS.
BURGER -- YES WELL AS WELL TURN
TO THE VICE CHAIR AND THEN I'LL
TURN TO DR QUIRK BUT I JUST
WANTED.
TO I THANK YOU FOR THE
PRESENTATION AND THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE AND HELPING TO
PREVIEW WHAT -- YOU WERE ABLE TO
ARTICULATE IN THE REPORT IS VERY
CLEAR AND VERY THOUGHTFUL.
EXPLORATION VARIETY OF IDEAS --
AND SOME OF THEM ARE ARE
CHALLENGING AND SOME OF THEM NOT
AS CHALLENGING.
SO WE DO LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR
FURTHER DELIBERATION AND SEEING
WHICH HER ULTIMATE
RECOMMENDATIONS ARE GOING TO BE
AND I SUSPECT THAT.
SOME OF THESE IDEAS ARE GOING.
TO EXTEND BEYOND THIS
LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND WILL
REQUIRE A FURTHER DELIBERATION
FROM THE LEGISLATURE.
ARE GOING FORWARD INTO THE NEXT
SESSION AS WELL BUT CLEARLY WE
NEED TO ACT AND WE'RE VERY.
APPRECIATIVE OF THE THE RANGE OF
IDEAS THAT YOU'RE PUTTING OUT
THERE -- WE'LL TURN TO OUR VICE
CHAIR AND GIVEN UP A RICHER --
FIRST OF ALL THANK YOU FOR THE
FOR THAT FOR THE WORK -- THIS IS
DEEP AND SERIOUS AND I THINK
WELL DONE.
AND SO I'M GRATEFUL FOR I'M
GRATEFUL FOR IT.
I I WOULD LIKE YOU TO HELP ME
UNDERSTAND.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE BROAD AN
OVERALL POLICIES THAT ARE HERE.
BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT.
RATE PAYERS AND VICTIMS.
ARE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO
SHOULDER A SIGNIFICANT BURDEN.
CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND.
HOW RATE PAYERS ARE?
FAIRLY AND APPROPRIATELY
[inaudible]
RESPONSIBLE.
FOR INCREASED COST AND CAN YOU
HELP ME UNDERSTAND.
WITH RESPECT UP TO VICTIMS
[inaudible]
OUR WHETHER OR NOT THEIR
COMPENSATION AS YOU SEE IT.
WILL BE ADEQUATE AND SUFFICIENT
[inaudible]
WHAT?
I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION AND
ONE OF THE THINGS I HAD REFLECT
ALONG THIS PROCESS IS THAT.
THERE IS THE SAME PEOPLE THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR WILD
FIRE VICTIMS ARE ALSO RATE
PAYERS AND THEIR PROPERTY OWNERS
AND SOME OF THEM ARE
SHAREHOLDERS.
AND WANTING TO ULTIMATELY BE
FAIR TO CALIFORNIANS IS
SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN
FOCUSED ON AND THE A I WAS SANTA
TALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS.
THEY INCLUDE COMPONENTS THAT
MAKE SURE THAT UTILITY
SHAREHOLDERS AND UTILITIES ARE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
BOTH EXPECTATIONS FOR UTILITY
MANAGEMENT.
AND SPECIFIC EXPECTATIONS AROUND.
PRUDENT BEHAVIOR.
AND MAKING SURE THAT IF THERE
ARE COSTS THAT ARE INCURRED IN
PRUDENT BEHAVIOR.
THAT IS THE FINANCIAL COMMUNITY
THE SHAREHOLDERS THAT BEAR MUCH
OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
NOW THAT BEING SAID IT IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF RATE PAYERS TO
FIND THE SYSTEM THAT IS HEALTHY
AND STRONG.
AND A BIG PART OF THAT IN THIS
NEW NORMAL WITH WILDFIRES.
IS FUNDING INVESTMENTS AND WHILE
FIRE MITIGATION.
AND ALSO AT TIMES ABSORBING SOME
OF THE COST WHEN THERE IS A FIRE
ON THE SYSTEM.
THERE ARE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT
WE RECOMMEND -- TO REDUCE THE
COSTS TO RATEPAYERS AND WHILE
FIRE VICTIMS.
WHEN IT COMES TO REDUCING THE
COST?
RATEPAYERS.
MISTER KHAN CAN SPEAK TO THIS
BUT THE RECOMMENDATION TO REFORM
INVERSE CONDEMNATION.
IT'S PARTLY DRIVEN BY THE FACT
THAT ABSENT REFORM IN THAT AREA
THOSE COSTS FALL TO SHAREHOLDERS
IN RATE PAYERS.
AND REFORM TO A FAULT BASED
STANDARD ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THOSE
ARE COST THAT CAN BE BROADLY
SOCIALIZED ACROSS ALL
CALIFORNIANS ACROSS ALL
TAXPAYERS.
THE PROPOSAL OF A FIND IS
FOCUSED ON GIVEN INVERSE
CONDEMNATION AND THE FACT THAT
THE COST.
OTHERWISE DEFAULT TO
SHAREHOLDERS AND RATE PAYERS CAN
YOU MORE BROADLY SOCIALIZES COST.
AND SO WHEN YOU CREATE A FINE
YOU SOCIALIZE THOSE COST AS WELL
TO PROPERTY OWNERS WHO LIVE IN
THESE AREAS AS WELL AS SOME
COSTS ARE BORNE BY THE STATE WE
RECOMMEND SPECIFICALLY THAT.
A FUND BE SET UP AS A TAX EXEMPT
ORGANIZATION.
AND SO THE STATE'S CONTRIBUTION
TO SOME OF THAT LOST A TAX
REVENUE.
THE FUND IDEA WE PROPOSED
GENERALLY AND I'LL SAY MORE
SPECIFIC PROPOSALS I'VE HEARD
HAVE REALLY FOCUSED ON REPAIR
NEUTRALITY -- SO WE RECOMMEND
FOR EXAMPLE THAT THE RATE PAYER
CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIND BE
SIMILAR.
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES CHARGE THAT REPAIRS
CURRENTLY PAY FOR POWER KAMALA
TRICITY CRISIS WHICH IS DUE.
TO A AND NEXT YEAR AND SO IF
REPLACE THAT BOND WITH A SIMILAR
SIZE BOND.
RATE PAYERS SHOULD BE.
NEUTRAL TO THE IMPACT OF A FUN.
AND THEN YOU SUPPLEMENT THAT
WITH OTHER FUNDING.
AS IT RELATES THE FAMOUS FOR
WILD FIRE VICTIMS MAN I THINK
FIRST AND FOREMOST THE MOST
IMPORTANT THING TO DO IS AS MUCH
MEDICATION AS POSSIBLE.
SO THAT THAT NUMBER OF PEOPLE
GET SMALLER AND SMALLER.
BUT WHAT A FINE DOES IS ALLOW
FOR QUICKER PAYMENTS. TO THOSE
WHILE FIRE VICTIMS -- THAT HAS
BEEN A CHALLENGE HISTORICALLY
WHAT WE HEARD FROM WHILE FIRE
VICTIMS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS.
WAS THAT ONE OF THE BENEFITS
BENEFITS OF HAVING INVERSE
CONDEMNATION AS IT CURRENTLY IS
IS THAT THE UTILITIES MORE
QUICKLY COME TO THE TABLE
SERVICE SETTLING CLAIMS.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR WHILE
FIRE VICTIMS TO GET PAID QUICKLY
BECAUSE THEY ALTERNATE LIVING
EXPENSES THEY GET FROM INSURANCE
COMPANIES.%
AND WITHIN A TWO YEAR PERIOD.
SO SOME OF THE WHAT WE PROPOSE
IS ABOUT GETTING WHILE FIRE
VICTIMS PAID QUICKLY.
BEFORE THEIR SET A PRUDENT SEE
DETERMINATION.
SO I'LL STOP THERE BUT I THINK
EVEN SENSITIVE AT TO BOTH OF
THOSE GROUPS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND.
I'D.
IT'S NOT NECESSARY IF YOU WHAT
IF YOUIF YOU WOULD LIKE TO AYE
THAT'S FINE.
IT WOULD HELP CERT CERTAINLY --
WHAT THANK YOU HI?
I IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION
ABOUT VICTIMS ARE WHAT WE TRIED
TO DO WAS DETERMINE HOW VICTIMS
ARE TREATED NOW.
AND THE EFFECT ON VICTIMS OF THE
CURRENT SITUATION AND WHAT WE
LEARNED WAS THAT.
UNDER THE CURRENT SITUATION
VICTIMS ARE TERRIBLY COMPROMISED
BECAUSE THE UTILITIES ARE EITHER
BANKRUPT OR THREATENING TO GO
BANKRUPT.
SO THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF
VICTIMS ONE KIND OF VICTIM IS
THE CASUALTY VICTIM IT'S THE
PERSON WHO LOST THEIR LIFE IT'S
THE PERSON IS NOT COVERED BY
INVERSE CONDEMNATION.
THAT PERSON IN THE ABSENCE OF
THE P. JEANNIE BANKRUPTCY WOULD
HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO GO TO COURT
WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE A JURY WOULD BE VINDICATED.
BUT BECAUSE INVERSE CONDEMNATION.
HAD THE RESULT OF FORCING P.
JEANNIE TO BANKRUPTCY THE
CASUALLY VICTIMS HAVE ALL BEEN
LUMPED IN WITH EVERYBODY ELSE SO
ONE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCE OF
INVERSE CONDEMNATION WE LEARNED.
AT ALL I'M DOING IS REFLECTING
WHAT WE LEARNED THIS IS JUST
THIS IS AN OPINION THIS IS THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE ONE PIECE
OF EVIDENCE IS.
INVERSE CONDEMNATION IS VERY
HARMFUL TO CASUAL THE VICTIMS
BECAUSE IT THROWS THE UTILITY IN
A BANKRUPTCY AND ELIMINATES OR
SEPARATE RIGHTS.
AS TO THE PROPERTY DAMAGE
VICTIMS THE PEOPLE WHO GET AYE
RECOVER ADDITIONALLY BECAUSE OF
INVERSE WHAT WE LEARNED IS TWO
THINGS.
PREJUDICE THEM ONE IS IN THE
NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCE A PROPERTY
DAMAGE VICTIM IN THE CASE OF
NEGLIGENCE WOULD HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A JURY WOULD
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF THE
RIGHTS VINDICATED.
BUT RATHER THAN THAT HAPPENING
THEY ARE THROWN INTO BANKRUPTCY
AND AGAIN THEIR RIGHTS ARE
PREJUDICED MORE OVER AND THIS IS
THE REALLY BAD EFFECTIVELY PGD
BANKRUPTCY.
IF THERE ARE FIRES.
AFTER THE BANKRUPTCY THERE'S A
PROCESS IN THE BANKRUPTCY THAT
SUBORDINATES THE CLAIMS OF THE
PROPERTY DAMAGE VICTIMS SO WHAT
WE LEARNED WAS.
THAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF
INVERSE CONDEMNATION IS TERRIBLY
PREJUDICIAL TO THE VICTIMS ON
BOTH ACCOUNTS OF THE VICTIMS AND
THE PROPERTY VICTIMS.
OF AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS
WHY WE THOUGHT THAT.
CHANGING THE INVERSE
CONDEMNATION WOULD BE MORE FAIR.
IN TERMS OF THE RATE PAYERS.
WHAT WE LEARNED WAS UNDER THE
STRESS TEST THE WAY THAT NINE A
ONE WORKS THE CURRENT SYSTEM?
DEFAULTS TO THE RATE PAYER
PAYING.
SO I KNOW AND AND YOU SHOULD
UNDERSTAND NONE OF US ARE
POLITICIANS.
MARY YOUR CONSULTANT COULD TELL
YOU OF MY EXPERIENCE HERE.
IS IT BY AYE MY FIRST COMMISSION
WAS THIRTY YEARS AGO -- I'VE HAD
MANY COMMISSIONS IN MANY
DIFFERENT ASSIGNMENTS BUT I'M
I'M NOT A POLITICIAN.
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT
PART OF IT ALL WE KNOW IS THE
FACT THAT WE WERE TOLD.
AND THE FACTS WE WERE TOLD OUR
THAT UNDER THE CURRENT SITUATION
ONCE THE UTILITIES ARE BANKRUPT
AND GONE OR WORSE.
IN THE CASE OF THE PUBLIC THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES ALL TALK ABOUT
THE REPAIRS ARE ON THE HOOK THE
CURRENT SITUATION IS REALLY.
A DAMAGE TO THE RATE PAYERS AND
LET ME EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU IN
THE CONTEXT WE HAVE.
FIFTY SIX PUBLIC UTILITIES THAT
MEET YOU CALL THEM UNITS AND WE
HAVE THREE THOUSAND WATER
COMPANIES.
THOSE FIFTY SIX PUBLIC UTILITIES
ARE THE RATE PAYERS THEY HAVE NO
SHAREHOLDERS THE EFFECT OF
INVERSE CONDEMNATION IS THAT
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU TILT
THEIR UTILITY LET'S TAKES MUD
SINCE WE'RE ALL HERE.
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SMOG DOES
ANYTHING WRONG.
THE EFFECT IS THE RATE PAYERS
PAY.
SO WE HEARD TESTIMONY AND WE
HAVE WILL PASS IT ON TO YOU OUT
WE HAVE LUMINOUS TESTIMONY THAT
THE RATE PAYERS OF THE STATE
ALREADY ENORMOUSLY BURDENS
THEY'RE KIND OF UP TO IT.
WE GOT IT FROM THE ARE THE
CONSUMERS WE GOT IT FROM THE
COMMERCIAL RATE PAYERS BUT IN
ANSWER TO YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION.
ASSEMBLYMAN PATTERSON THE WHAT
WE LEARNED WAS THE IF IMPACT OF
INVERSE CONDEMNATION WAS.
TERRIBLY THREATENING THE RATE
PAYERS THEY ARE WE'RE GOING TO
PAY.
OUT FOR ALL OF THIS IN THE CASE
OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THE
WATER COMPANIES THERE IS NO
SALVATION FOR THEM THEY THEY'VE
COME TO US AND SAID THAT THEIR
FAITH AND THIS IS IN A REPORT.
THEY ARE THREATEN THEIR
EXISTENCE IS THREATENED.
IN THE CASE OF THE THREE I'LL
USE THE STRATEGY OF THE I. O.
USE THE P. YOU SEE AND NINE A
ONE IS TO SHIFT.
THE COST OF INVERSE CONDEMNATION.
TO THE RATE PAYERS AFTER A
CERTAIN AMOUNT SO THE QUESTION
IS WE FACED IS WHAT COULD WE DO
ABOUT IT.
AND WE THINK THAT THERE'S TWO
THINGS TO DO ABOUT IT EITHER TO
FIGURE OUT SOMEWHERE ELSE THE
SHIFTED.
HICH WE COULD DO [inaudible]
FOR TO ELIMINATED.
ON THE LIABILITY BUT THE CURRENT
STATE OF AFFAIRS.
UNLESS IT'S REMEDY EITHER THAT
THE EFFECT OF THE CAUSE IS
TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES TO THE
VICTIMS.
AND THE RATE PAYERS THERE ARE
OTHER PEOPLE TOO BUT YOU ASKED
THAT QUESTION AND ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION.
AMERICAN ONE OTHER POINT SIR --
THAT MISTER KHAN THAT REMIND ME
OF WE TALKED ABOUT THE
BANKRUPTCY.
WHICH IS.
UNDER THE STATUS QUO RIGHT NOW
AS MISTER KHAN NOTED THE
COMBINATION OF INVERSE
CONDEMNATION AS WELL AS HOW COST
RECOVERY IS PURSUED IS VIEWED BY
INVESTORS AND RATING AGENCIES AS
VERY RISKY.
AND SO THEY HAVE DOWNGRADED
SEVERAL OF OUR UTILITIES AND
THEY HAVE SAID THAT THERE AREN'T
THERE ARE NO REFORMS THEY WILL
DOWNGRADE THEM SOME MORE.
AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE IN
BANKRUPTCY TO HAVE THOSE
DOWNGRADES ACTUALLY COST REPAIRS.
WHAT WE HEARD IN TESTIMONY WAS
THAT IF THE COST OF CAPITAL COST
OF DATA IS INCREASED 1% AND THEN
IT'S COUPLED WITH A 3% INCREASE
IN THE COST OF EQUITY?
THAT RAISES RATES NEARLY 7% FOR
RATE PAYERS AND THAT'S WITHOUT
DOING ANYTHING WE ALSO HEARD
FROM SMUD THAT EVEN GOING DOWN
FROM A DOUBLE A RATING. ONE
NOTCH CAN COST THEM A HUNDRED
MILLION DOLLARS EXTRA IN
SERVICING THAT AND THAT'S WHY
ARE BIG TAKE AWAY IS THAT THE
STATUS QUO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.
UP WITH THE GOVERNOR.
AND YOUR GROUP ISSUED -- A
STATEMENT ABOUT THIS AND I WANT
TO QUOTE.
FROM THE PARAGRAPH.
WE WILL PURSUE LEGISLATION TO
TACKLE THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES.
TO PROVIDE CERTAIN THE
ACCOUNTABILITY WE WILL SEEK
EQUITABLE RESOLUTION ON THE
PRUDENT MANAGER.
STANDARD BRIDGE FINANCING AND TO
ALLOW COST RECOVERY FOR
ELECTRICITY PROVIDERS WHO ACT
RESPONSIBLY AND THE PUBLIC'S
BEST INTEREST CAN YOU GIVE US.
A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE KIND
OF LEGISLATION THAT.
YOU MAY BE SUGGESTING.
WELL SIR THAT WAS NOT FROM OUR
GROUP -- THAT WAS FROM THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AS WELL AS
SENT AN ASSEMBLY LEADERSHIP BUT
I THINK CONSUME WITHIN.
WITHIN OUR REPORT YOU CAN FIND
SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
WOULD SUPPORT THAT DIRECTION.
SO IN YOUR REPORT YOU HAVE
SUGGESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO
LEGISLATION OR BASICALLY IN
IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT LEGISLATION
MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
WE HAVE A COMBINATION
IMPLICATIONS AS WELL AS ELEMENTS
THAT WE THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO
INCLUDE IN LEGISLATION.
I THINK ONE OF THE THE KEY
POINTS TO RAISE IS THAT IS GOING
TO TAKE SEVERAL DIFFERENT
STAKEHOLDERS COMING TOGETHER TO
MAKE THE SOLUTIONS WORK
AND SO OUR OBJECTIVE WAS TO BE
REALLY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE
OBJECTIVE OF THE LEGISLATION TO
BE WATER SOME THIRD RAILS TO
AVOID BUT THEN PROVIDE YOU AND
THE MANY STAKEHOLDERS
PARTICIPATE IN OUR PROCESS AND
YOUR PROCESS.
WITH INFORMATION TO COME
TOGETHER AND ACTUALLY PUT PEN TO
PAPER OKAY WE VIEW THIS AS WE
WORK FOR YOU AND SO OUR JOB WAS.
TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE FACTS
WERE.
AND TO IDENTIFY THINGS THAT
COULD BE DONE.
BUT WE DIDN'T PRESUME TO SUGGEST.
OBVIOUSLY IT'S IT'S THE NIGHT A
ONE SWEATSHIRT ONE FINAL AND
FINAL I KNOW I C. PUSHING THE
BUTTON.
YOU'RE VERY KIND.
DID YOU APPROACH.
WITH RESPECT TO THIS NEW NEW
NORMAL EXPLOSIVE FIRES THAT ARE
pDID YOU APPROACH ANY TESTIMONY
INFORMATION OR DO YOU HAVE ANY
KIND OF DAUGHTER RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH RESPECT.
TO WHAT.
UP CALIFORNIA CAL FIRE.
NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND WITH RESPECT
TO FIRE FIGHTING.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE ARE
REAL CAPACITY ISSUES HERE.
THAT THERE ARE REAL PRE
POSITIONING ISSUES THERE'S REAL
QUESTIONS ABOUT ADEQUATE
PERSONNEL ADEQUATE TRUCKS
ADEQUATE AVIATION.
AND THE LIKE IT SO IT SEEMS TO
ME LIKE WE ARE SORT OF IN.
IN A WORLD WAR TWO MODE AND WE
SORT OF NEED A MARSHALL PLAN.
FOR FIGHTING FIRES IN CALIFORNIA
THIS VERY VERY DIFFERENT FROM
THE APPROACH THAT WE HAVE TAKEN
IN TIMES PAST HAVE YOU TOUCHED
ON THAT IN ANY OF THIS.
WE HAVE NOT WE FOLLOW THE
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION TO FOCUS
ON COST AND THERE IS A LOT TO
COVER WITHIN THAT TOPIC.
I I DISAGREE WITH THAT I'M SORRY --
I THINK WE HAVE IN IN OUR
SECTION IN THIS WAY.
AND YOUR SECTION NEWARK WHICH OF
THE REPORT.
IT'S RETURN TO THE LIABILITY SIX
OKAY WE OBSERVE THE FOLLOWING.
FIRST OF ALL WE GOT JUST SO YOU
UNDERSTAND WE GOT TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF TESTIMONY WHICH
CORROBORATES WHAT YOU JUST SAID
AND WE WILL PASS IT ON TO YOU.
THAT WE ARE RESOURCE.
STARVED AND WE NEED TO
COORDINATE BUT HERE IS WHERE I
DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES.
WE FOUND OUT THAT ALL FIFTY SIX
PUBLIC UTILITIES HAVE THEIR OWN
WAY OF DOING THINGS AND THE I
USE THREE PUBLIC UTILITIES
PRIVATE UTILITIES HAVE THEIR WAY
OF DOING THINGS.
AND WE CONCLUDED THAT WHAT
SHOULD HAPPEN IS THEY SHOULD
THERE SHOULD BE A WILDFIRE BOARD
WHICH COORDINATES ALL OF THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE TELE THESE
WITH RESPECT WILD FIRES.
BECAUSE THERE'S A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF REDUNDANCY AND THERE'S
A TREMENDOUS THAT PEOPLE DO THE
SAME THING IN DIFFERENT ARE
JURISDICTIONS AND ALSO THIS
CONTRADICTION.
WE FOR CITED THE FACT THAT.
IN FLORIDA THEY FACE THE SAME
EMERGENCY FOR HURRICANES AND WE
ALSO FACE THE SAME PROBLEM WITH
RESPECT EARTHQUAKES.
AND WE IF YOU'LL SEE IN OUR
REPORT IN OUR SECTION OF AND
THAT'S WHY MY COLLEAGUE PROBABLY
DIDN'T JUMP TO THE THE THOUGHT.
ON IN OUR SECTION WE RECOMMEND
CONSOLIDATING THE APPROACH WE
THINK THAT HAVING FIFTY NINE
DIFFERENT.
APPROACHES TO HARDENING AND
SAFETY AND HERE'S THE POINT
FIFTY NINE DIFFERENT PEOPLE
AGENCIES COORDINATE WITH CAL
FIRE AND YES.
ISRAEL MAKES NO SENSE THAT WOULD
MAKE SENSE SINCE THIS IS SUCH A
BIG EMERGENCY TO HAVE ONE
CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY THAT
COLLECTS DATA THAT.
MARSHALS RESOURCES AND
COORDINATES WITH THE STATE SO.
THAT KIND THAT'S OUR BEST EFFORT
AT YOUR MARTIAL PLEDGE.
THE SHERIN THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY AND I WANT EXPRESS
SAID.
REAL APPRECIATION FOR THE
QUALITY OF THE WORK I I'M JUST
GONNA SAY THAT YOU FOLKS ARE
REALLY GOOD.
THAT I APPRECIATE HOW DEEP AND
THOROUGH YOU'VE BEEN IN THIS AND
THANK YOU FOR HAVE.
APPROACHING THE QUESTIONS THAT
THAT I'VE RAISED I'M VERY
GRATEFUL FOR THAT THANK YOU FOR
THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE.
EVAN AGAIN WE RECOGNIZE THAT YOU
HAVE NOT MET AS A AS A BODY TO
SOAR RECONCILE YOUR POINTS OF
VIEW SO WE WE APPRECIATE SO THE
RAWNESS OF PRESENTATION IN TERMS
OF KNOWING THAT THERE ARE STILL
ELEMENTS THAT YOU STILL HAVE TO
COME TOGETHER ON SO.
WE APPRECIATE THE REFLECTIONS
BUT UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT IN
WHICH YOU HAVE TO REPORT DR.
FIRST OF ALL.
AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID WE
REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK
YOU'VE DONE.
I ALSO APPRECIATED THE ANSWERS
THAT YOU GAVE TO OUR VICE CHAIR.
THAT YOU FULLY REALIZE HOW
IMPORTANT IT IS TO KEEP THE
UTILITIES OUT OF BANKRUPTCY IF
THE RATE PAYERS AND THE VICTIMS
OF THE FIRE GOING TO BE MADE
WHOLE.
AND YOU REFLECT THAT ON A CAP ON
UTILITY PAYMENTS.
NOT VOTE FOR THAT THE MINUTE.
BUT I KNOW OF ONE SENATOR IN
PARTICULAR -- CALL IT A BAILOUT.
THE BAILOUT IS BANKRUPTCY -- AND
I'LL GET INTO THAT MORE BUT THAT
IS THE BALLOT FOR THE UTILITY IT
IS BANKRUPTCY THAT IS THE
BAILOUT FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS IN
HIS BANKRUPTCY.
WE'RE GOING TO HOLD PEOPLE
ACCOUNTABLE WE HAVE TO AVOID
THAT.
YOU TALK ABOUT A PRUDENT MANAGER
STANDARD.
WE ALSO HAVE HEARD THAT WE'RE
SUPPOSED TO GET SOMETHING DONE
BY JULY TWELFTH.
NOT SURE THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN BY
THE END OF THE SESSION.
THE ONLY THING WE'VE REALLY
WORKED ON SO FAR AND THAT'S FOR
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BURKE IS THE THE
FIRE FUND.
SO HOW WOULD YOU SUGGEST WE GO
ABOUT LOOKING INTO PRUDENT
MANAGER STANDARD WHERE SHOULD WE
START.
MARY FOR A REPORT.
WELL I'VE READ IT AND I DON'T
SEE LEGISLATION NOT SOMETHING I
CAN PUT INTO LAW AND I HAVE.
NOT HAD TIME TO TO REACH I HAVE
GONE THROUGH IT RIGHT.
BUT I DON'T I DON'T SEE
LEGISLATION THERE.
UNDERSTOOD WELL ONE THING THAT I
HAVE BEEN HEARTENED BY ITS THAT
AS WE'VE ALL BEEN GOING ABOUT
DOING OUR WORK.
INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS HAVE
BEEN DOING WORK ON THEIR OWN AND
SO I I WOULD IMAGINE THAT
UTILITIES RATE PAYER ADVOCATES
INVESTORS HAVE ALL BEEN THINKING
ABOUT THIS QUESTION AROUND COST
RECOVERY AND PRUDENT.
MANAGER STANDARD BECAUSE IT HAS
BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A KEY IF NOT
THE KEY ISSUE OF CONCERN.
PARTICULARLY FOR INVESTORS AS I
THINK ABOUT.
HOW WILL THEY BE JUDGE GOING
FORWARD ME THE BASIC QUESTION IS
WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO BE
PRUDENT -- AND SO I THINK THAT
THE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE LAID
OUT OUR FEASIBLE WITHIN
LEGISLATION ONE OF OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS OPTION.
TWO REFERS TO ADDING AN EMPHASIS
TO THE NINE A ONE LANGUAGE
AROUND THE FACTORS THAT -- MIGHT
MITIGATE.
IN PRUDENT BEHAVIOR THINGS THAT
ARE EXHAUSTION IS LIKE WEATHER
PATTERNS CLIMATE CHANGE ETCETERA.
IF YOU CHOOSE TO GO WITH
ADOPTING THE FIRST STANDARD THAT
IS ALSO A STANDARD THAT IS OUT
THERE AND I THINK THAT LANCASTER
BE THE FIRST SO THE FIRST HAS A
STANDARD IN TERMS OF THE SHIFTED
THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR PRUDENT
SEE.
IS TO THOSE ARE INTERVENING IN A
PROCEEDING SO THAT IS THE
STANDARD THAT YOU WOULD APPLY TO
THE EXISTING P. YOU SEE AT
PROCEEDING PROCESS AS WELL.
IN TERMS OF OUR THIRD OPTION.
ABOUT A ABSOLUTE CAP ON
SHAREHOLDER LIABILITY ASSUMING
THAT THEY HAVE SUBSTANTIAL
CONTRIBUTION -- TO A FUND AGAIN
I THINK THERE ARE POTENTIAL
OPTIONS OUT THERE AND THAT
UTILITIES INVESTORS WILL COME
FORWARD WITH PROPOSALS TO YOU
OKAY WELL BUT THE PROBLEM WILL
BE GETTING IT DONE WHEN SO MANY
PEOPLE WANT TO POLITICIZE THE
ISSUE.
HI THIS IS A BAIL OUT IF YOU CAP
THE UTILITIES.
WHEN THE REAL BALLOT THIS
BANKRUPTCY SO I MEAN WHAT MAY I
HAVE A MOMENT ASSEMBLY MEMBER
EVERY **** BEEN REFLECTING ON
WHAT'S DIFFERENT?
NOW THAN LAST YEAR AND ONE THING
THAT'S DIFFERENT IS THE NINE OH
ONE SB NOT A ONE ORDERING THE
WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLANS FOR
THE UTILITIES.
THE P. YOU SEE HAS WORKED VERY
QUICKLY AND HARD TO TO GET THOSE
PLANS APPROVED AND IT STARTS THE
COURSE OF HAVING.
A PLAN THAT THE UTILITIES HAVE
TO MEET BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF
THE CONCERNS WE TALK ABOUT A
BAIL OUT IS WILL ONE CENT OF IS
THERE FOR THE UTILITY TO DO
RIGHT.
WHY I BELIEVE THAT THE UTILITIES
WILL DO THEIR BEST TO AVOID
WILDFIRES BECAUSE THE SITUATION
IS NOT TENABLE FOR THEM AS WELL
NO ONE WANTS TO BE IN A POSITION
TO HAVE TO EXERCISE SOME OF
THESE?
LAST RESORT OPTIONS AND THEN
ALSO THERE'S GOING TO BE THIS
IMPROVING PUBLIC PROCESS.
I DO NOT FEEL THAT THE TIME IS
RIGHT TO RELY ON THOSE
MEDICATION PLANS EXCLUSIVELY FOR
SAYING TO PRODUCE THE STANDARD
BUT I DO THINK THEY HELP PROVIDE
THE RIGHT INCENTIVES FOR THE
UTILITIES. TO BEHAVE BETTER SO
ONE OF MY CONCERNS THERE IS THE
P. YOU SEE HAS NOT SAID WHETHER
OR NOT THE UTILITIES.
WILL BE ABLE TO GET ARM RATE
PAYERS TO PAY FOR THAT WORK.
WHICH PROBABLY DOWNGRADED --
YEAH THIS IN AND SAN DIEGO GAS
ELECTRIC -- IF IT DOESN'T DOUBT
GRAY THEM TODAY IT'LL DOWNGRADE
THEM TOMORROW NOT KNOWING THAT
THOSE CAN BE REIMBURSED -- I
REALLY WELL.
THEN TO GET ONTO CATHOLIC THINGS
I WILL SAY THIS I MEAN THE TOTAL
MAGNITUDE OF THOSE COSTS ARE A
FEW BILLION FROM WHAT I'VE
UNDERSTOOD FROM RATING AGENCIES
THEIR CONCERN IS NOT THAT
LIABILITY WHICH IS.
UNDERSTOOD IT'S THE POTENTIAL ON
CAPITALIZE BILL OF THE OF
BILLIONS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
OKAY WITH POTENTIAL FIRES SO
WHAT WOULD YOU SAY WE HAD TO DO.
TO KEEP THE OTHER TWO INVESTOR
OWNED UTILITIES OUT OF
BANKRUPTCY KEEP P. JEANNIE FROM
GOING INTO IT AGAIN WHEN IT
COMES OUT.
AND TO KEEP THE PUBLICLY OWNED
UTILITIES FROM GOING INTO
BANKRUPTCY -- THAT'S WHAT I I'M
GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION A
SECOND BUT FIRST LET ME.
TALK ABOUT GETTING RID OF
INVERSE.
NOW FOR THE INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES THAT'S ONLY BEEN A
DOCTRINE SINCE THE MID NINETIES
THAT WAS AN INTERPRETATION
THOUGH.
OF HEARD APPELLATE COURT LOOKING
AT CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
HAD A CHANCE TO ROUTE TO TAKE A
LOOK AT THAT INTERPRETATION P.
JEANNIE BROUGHT IT FORWARD THEY
REFUSE TO LOOK AT IT.
IT.
DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY WON'T
LOOK AT IT EVENTUALLY AND MAYBE
DECIDE BUT FOR THE MOMENT THEY
DIDN'T SEEM TO THINK IT WAS A
COMPLETELY OUT OF THE REALM OF
VALID INTERPRETATION. FOR THE
PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITIES WATER
AND ELECTRIC IT'S VERY CLEAR TO
ME HE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT
IT WAS SET UP TO DO THIS.
THE IDEA WAS IF CITY OR A COUNTY
BUILDS A ROAD OR BRIDGE -- THEN
IF DOWNSTREAM THERE'S A FROM THE
BRIDGE THERE'S SOMEONE IS LOST
PART OF THEIR PROPERTY IT'S
ACCEPTED THAT A PUBLIC ENTITY
CAN.
A CHARGE TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR
THAT THE WHOLE IDEA WAS TO BE
FAIR IF SOMEONE IS HIDDEN IN IN
VIRTUALLY HURT.
BY SOMETHING GOING WRONG WITH
INFRASTRUCTURE.
NOW WE DO HAVE A LAWYER HERE BUT
I DO NOT SEE ANY WAY WE CAN BY
LAW.
FIX THE PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITY
AND IF WE WERE TO TRY TO DO
SOMETHING FOR THE INVESTOR LEóN
UTILITIES.
AGAIN I WOULD SAY.
I DON'T SEE A WAY TO DO THAT
EITHER IT WOULD OF COURSE GO
INTO COURT BY THOSE WHO FELT
THEY WERE.
DAMAGED BY THIS ARE MOST LIKELY --
ATTORNEYS AND INSURANCE
COMPANIES THEY WOULD FIGHT IT.
ARM I JUST DON'T SEE AND PERHAPS
IN WHAT I WANT TO HEAR IS
PERHAPS FROM THE LAWYER HERE WHY
THEY THINK PASSING A LAW.
WOULD BE -- WOULD JAM.
OF TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
STATE I JUST DON'T SEE.
SO FIRST OF ALL I THINK THAT YOU
HAVE VERY GOOD GRASP OF THIS --
AND I DON'T KNOW.
WHAT I CAN ADD THAT'S THAT
INTELLIGENT BUT I'LL GIVE YOU
THE CONTRARY VIEW?
FIRST OF ALL AS TO THE APPELLATE
AN E. M..
EARLIER LIABILITY AS ALL OF YOU
RECALL IN THE NINETIES THE
UTILITIES IN THE STATE WERE
VERTICALLY INTEGRATED MONOPOLIES
AND THEY HAD AN ABSOLUTE
OPPORTUNITY TO PASS ON RATES TO
THE RATE PAYERS.
ARM AND THE THE NUMBERS WERE
SMALL AND THE THE AN ANALYSIS OF
THEIRS THERE IS THERE A I THINK
THERE SEVEN APPELLATE COURTS IN
THE STATE'S SOMETHING LIKE THAT
ONLY TWO APPELLATE COURTS HAVE.
DEALT WITH THIS AND THE ONE
APPELLATE COURT THE DEALT WITH
THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE I. O.
U.'S DEALT WITH IT IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE TIME THAT THE
IRAQIS WERE MONOPOLY.
AND HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO
PASS THE RATES ON THEY WOULD DID
NOT FACE A SITUATION WHERE THE
UTILITY WAS ORDERED TO DO
SOMETHING AND HAD NO OPPORTUNITY
TO PASS THINGS ON I DO BELIEVE.
THAT THE BUNCH CASE THE FLOOD
CONTROL CASES MAKE ABSOLUTELY
CLEAR THAT THE LEGISLATURE
CANNON NOW IT'S AND THE GOVERNOR
CAN ANNOUNCE THAT WE'RE FACING
UNPRECEDENTED EMERGENCY AND WE
HAVE TO ORGANIZE OURSELVES IN A
WAY TO FIGHT OFF.
WHAT IS A REAL THREAT TO OUR
POPULOUS?
IN THE BUNCH CASE AND IN THE
LEGISLATIVE THE THE CONSTITUTION.
IS INTERPRETED WILL BY THE
LEGISLATURE THAT IS CLEAR AND
WHERE THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT
INTERPRETED THE CONSTITUTION THE
LEGISLATURE IS -- DIFFERENCE SO
NUMBER ONE THE SUPREME COURT HAS
INTERPRETED IT NUMBER TWO THE
LEGISLATURE CANADA FOR THE
CONSTITUTION NOT TO APPLY I'M
TALKING ABOUT THE I'LL USE ONLY
NOMINAL PARTY I'LL USE BECAUSE
THEY ARE NOT VERTICALLY
INTEGRATED.
MONOPOLIES ANY LONGER BUT
INSTEAD HAVE TO GO TO THE P. YOU
SEE AND HAVE TO BEG FOR THE
MONEY TO BE PASSED ON SO I
BELIEVE.
THE UNDER THOSE TWO DOCTRINES
THE LEGISLATURE CAN ANNOUNCE
THAT A WOULD THAT THE DOCTOR THE
INVERSE CONDEMNATION DOES NOT
APPLY TO THE I USE THIRD.
WE'VE THIS IS NOT THIS IS A REAL
SERIOUS PROBLEM AND AND JUST SO
YOU ALL UNDERSTAND YOU KNOW I
WAS ON THAT PROP THIRTY
COMMISSION I WAS THE HEAD OF THE
I. SO DURING THE ENERGY CRISIS.
I WILL WORK THROUGH THE ENTIRE
ENERGY SITUATION I'VE DEALT WITH
A LOT OF PROBLEMS IN THE STATE
THIS IS THE BIGGEST ONE I'VE
EVER SEEN.
AND THE AND IT'S A SELF
INFLICTED WOUND I BELIEVE THAT
THE LAW IN THE STATE IS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR
ANNOUNCED WE HAVE A REAL
EMERGENCY AND IF YOU READ OUR
REPORT AND THE STRIKE FORCE
REPORT.
WE HAVE AN UNPRECEDENTED THREAT
OF WILDFIRES THE COSTS ARE
UNPRECEDENTED I BELIEVE THAT THE
LEGISLATURE THE GOVERNOR
ANNOUNCED THAT WE HAD ON
PRESIDENTE THREAT.
AND WE WERE MEETING THE THREAT
UNDER THE BUNCH CASE UNDER THE
LEGISLATIVE INTERPRETATION
DOCTRINE THAT THE SUPREME COURT
WOULD DIFFER I DO NOT BELIEVE
THE SUPREME COURT WOULD SAY.
WE ARE IMPOTENT TO TO MEET
EMERGENCY OF THIS NATURE AND WE
HAVE AN EMERGENCY WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT.
RIGHT NOW
MULTIPLE TWENTY THIRTY BILLIONS
BUT WE COULD BE FACING ARM
DEPENDING ON THE SUMMER WAY
GREATER SO AS TO THE I'LL USE I
ACTUALLY THINK.
IT'S A PRETTY GOOD STRONG CASE
OF THE LEGISLATURE IN THE
GOVERNOR STARTUP ANNOUNCED THERE
IS AN EMERGENCY AND THEY WERE
FACING EMERGENCY.
YOUR DISCUSSION OF THE PO USES
REALLY NUANCED AND TO BE.
HONEST REALLY SOPHISTICATED AND
I AM NOT SURE THAT YOU'RE WRONG
YOU MAY BE RIGHT ABOUT THAT AND
THEY MAY NEED TO REORGANIZE
THEMSELVES TO DEAL WITH THIS.
ON I I AM NOT CONFIDENT THAT
THEY CAN'T BE.
PUT WITHIN THE UMBRELLA OF THE
EMERGENCY UNDER THE FLOOD CASES.
THE THE THE OBJECTION THAT YOU
RAISED.
WAS OVERRULED BY THE COURTS IN
MARCH SAID IN THE FLOOD
SITUATION IN THE BUNCH CASE THEY
GET ALL FLOODS.
ARE SUBJECT TO ARE NOT SUBJECT
THE INVERSE CONDEMNATION SO I
BELIEVE UNDER THE FLOOD CASE SO.
ARM AGAIN I APOLOGIZE FOR LAWYER
IN BUT I WAS INVITED NO NO WE WE
WANTED THAT AT I BELIEVE THAT.
THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR
COULD TAKE OUR REPORT AND THAT'S
RIGHT.
FOR AND FACE UP TO THE FACT WE
HAVE AN EMERGENCY.
DECLARED AN EMERGENCY AND THEN
LEGISLATE IN THE FIELD I BELIEVE
THEY COULD CREATE YOUR MARTIAL
PLAN THAT YOU SUGGESTED IN THE
SENSE OF MARSHALLING THE
RESOURCES AND CREATING A AGENCY
TO DEAL WITH THIS.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY DID THAT
THEY COULD ALTER THE LANDSCAPE
OF LIABILITY NOTE WE DON'T
ADVOCATE THAT THE LIVE THE
ITALIANS ARE OFF THE HOOK.
RIGHT NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT A
100% MY MY CONCERN IS IS MORE
DEALING WITH THE CONSTITUTION
AND WHAT IT IS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE COULD DO
TRADITIONALLY WE DO NOT OVER
REAL COURT CASES.
PERIOD.
I IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING WE DO.
RIGHT BUT WE'RE NOT DOING THAT
HERE WERE WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE
HAVE SIX DISTRICTS ONLY TO HAVE.
OPINED ON THIS THE OTHER FOUR OF
NOT RULE THE SUPREME COURT HAS
NOT RULED AND YOU KNOW I KNOW
THAT YOU DON'T OVERRULED COURT
CASES BUT JUST.
IN MY CHECKERED PAST THAT
REPRESENT THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
AND ONCE UPON A TIME DIGITAL
COUNCIL WENT FOR THE RIGHT TO
ORDER COURT REPORTERS IN THE
COURTROOM.
AND THE SUPREME COURT RULED
WHILE THE LEGISLATURE DECIDED
NOT TO ACT AND THE LEGISLATOR
WANTED TO ACT THEY COULD HAVE
LEGISLATURE TAKES NOTE.
THE SUPREME COURT TAKES NOTE OF
THE DECISION OF THE LEGISLATURE
TO ACT OR NOT TO ACT.
ON ANYWAY IT'S MIGHT BELIEVE.
OPTIMISTIC THAT IF YOU WISH TO
SOLVE THE PROBLEM YOU CAN.
OKAY -- THE OUR FINAL QUESTION
IS.
WHAT YOU E. F. COMMISSIONER --
PETERMAN YOU SAID YOU'VE TALKED
TO THE CREDIT RATING AGENCIES
WHAT DO YOU THINK WE NEED TO DO.
EITHER BETWEEN NOW AND JULY
TWELFTH AT THE END OF THIS
SESSION OR NEXT YEAR BUT WHAT DO
YOU THINK WE NEED TO DO TO KEEP
THE OTHER UTILITIES FROM GOING
INTO BANKRUPTCY AND GETTING THE
SAME PROBLEMS WE NOW HAVE.
WITH VICTIMS -- BEING PUT IN AN
AREA WHERE THEY CAN'T GET
COMPENSATION WHAT DO WE NEED TO
DO.
WELL I WOULD DISTINGUISH RATING
DOWNGRADES FROM AND BEING BELOW
INVESTMENT GRADE FROM BANKRUPTCY --
WELL WAIT A SECOND.
THEY ARE THAT THEY ARE VERY
CLOSELY RELATED I'M SORRY TO
INTERRUPT BUT WHAT HAPPENED A
PGA ANY IS ONCE THEY WENT INTO.
THE DOWNGRADE OF JUNK BOND THEY
COULD NO LONGER GET CASH.
THEY DIDN'T GO INTO BANKRUPTCY
BECAUSE UP THERE WAS SOME HUGE
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY HAD TO
PAY.
THEY WENT INTO BANKRUPTCY
BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T GET CASH A
PARTLY THAT WAS BECAUSE THE CPUC
DID ALLOW THEM TO TAKE OUT A
LINE OF CREDIT -- PARTLY BECAUSE
THEY INDICATED THAT THEY WERE
GOING TO MAKE ANY. EIGHTY EIGHT
RULINGS SO THE P. YOU SEE DID
HAVE A ROLE BUT ONCE YOUR JUNK
BOND STATUS YOU RUN OUT OF CASH.
AND ONCE YOU RUN OUT OF CASH
YOUR ONLY ALTERNATIVE IS
BANKRUPTCY.
SO A OWNGRADE I BELIEVE THAT
EDISON IS JUST ONE OR TWO CLICKS
UP FROM.
BOB JUNK BOND STATUS AND ELLIS
AND THEN SOUTHERN SAN DIEGO IS
GAS ELECTRIC IS I THINK THEY CAN
WELL DOCTOR QUIRK AYE YEAH FIND.
TO THE QUESTION MAKE THAT THE
OTHER DISTINCTION WAS GOING TO
MAKE THAT.
HAVING A BIG CATASTROPHIC WILD
FIRE WHERE THE LIABILITIES
POTENTIALLY OUTSTRIP THE ASSETS
IS A CRITICAL FACTOR IN GETTING
TO BANKRUPTCY -- BUT EVEN IF WE
HAVE NO FIRES THIS YEAR -- I
WANT TO ADDRESS YOUR FIRST POINT
WHICH IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF
RATING DOWNGRADES EVEN IF WE
DON'T HAVE A FIRE.
AND THAT THE RATING AGENCIES
HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR AND THEY
CONTINUE.
TO ISSUE PUBLIC DIRECTIVES
REGARDING THE EXPECTATION THAT
THEY WILL DOWNGRADE.
UTILITIES IF WHAT THEY PERCEIVE
AS THE RISKY ENVIRONMENT FOR
UTILITIES IN THE STATE DOES NOT
IMPROVE -- SO I WOULD REFER YOU
ALL TO THE REPORTS FROM S. AND
P. AND MOODY'S.
WHERE THEY HIGHLIGHT WHAT ARE
SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT THE
LEGISLATURE CAN MAKE?
THAT WOULD MAKE THEM FEEL THAT
THE UTILITIES ARE NO LONGER
BEARING AS MUCH RISK
SPECIFICALLY THEY IDENTIFY
CHANGES AND REFORMS THE COST
RECOVERY STANDARD.
CHANGES IN VERSE A CONDEMNATION
ALTHOUGH I THINK THEY SEE THAT
AS A LOW PROBABILITY -- AS WELL
AS THE BUFFER IN SUPPORT THAT A
FUND COULD PROVIDE BUT I I WILL
SAY THE MAIN ONE THAT THEY
IDENTIFY IS REALLY TO COST
RECOVERY.
BUT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT YOU
HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE
TO YOU THAT BE GREAT
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
I HAVE -- CHAD MAYES AND THEN --
SERIOUS AND I AND OKAY.
I I THINK IT -- AND UNFAIRNESS
ALSO TO YOU MISS MAYES I THINK.
IT'S CLEAR OF HIS BURKE DOES
HAVE A BILL THAT'S MADE IT OFF
THE FLOOR BUT I THINK WE ALSO
HAD A BILL THAT THIS COMMITTEE
SAW.
THAT DEALT WITH THE FUND -- WE
ARE COULD NOT -- PINE -- NOW A
DO AN ANALYSIS OF THE BILL FOR A
LOT OF REASONS THAT YOU BROUGHT
UP IN YOUR REPORT THERE ARE A
LOT OF PIECES THAT ARE SHIFTING
HERE -- AND KNOWING THAT THIS
PROCESS WAS CONTINUING SO.
WILL -- BUT THAT BE A TRANSITION
FOR FOR YOUR PROTECTION CHAU
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR IS YOU
KNOW -- THIS -- THIS IS BEEN A
TEAM EFFORT -- MANY OF US THAT
THAT SERVE ON THIS -- ON THIS
COMMITTEE SPENT A LOT OF TIME A
LAST YEAR.
NO WORKING ON THIS -- PARTICULAR
ISSUE THERE ARE FOUR OF US THAT
ARE SITTING HERE NOW OUT OF FIVE
ON THAT SERVED AS CONFEREES ON A
NINE OH ONE A CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE AND WE SPENT A LOT OF
TIME -- LAST YEAR WORKING ON
THIS I DO WANT TO SAY AND TO
JOIN MY COLLEAGUES AND AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR DILIGENT WORK --
FOR YOUR SERVICE -- TO THE
PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA -- ON THIS
WORK IN THE NIGHT A ONE THE
COMMISSION -- I KNOW THAT --
COMMISSIONER PETER MEN -- CARLA
AND I SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME
TOGETHER -- I CAN THINK OF
NOBODY BETTER -- TO HAVE BEEN
THE CHAIR I FOUND YOU TO BE A
BRILLIANT -- AND DISCIPLINED IN
IN YOUR IN YOUR WORK -- AND THEN
JUST LISTENING TO YOU GUYS TODAY
KNOWING THAT YOU WERE THE ONLY
ONE ON THE COMMISSION -- THAT
REALLY DOES AGAIN -- TO BE ABLE --
TO TO TO TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE
CAN SOLVE -- WHAT I THINK IS AN
EXISTENTIAL THREAT -- TO
CALIFORNIA AND SO I WANT TO
THANK YOU.
VERY MUCH FOR A FOR YOUR SERVICE --
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD
OF ALREADY BEEN -- BEEN ANSWERED.
AB SO I JUST WANTED TO MAYBE
TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT -- YOU
KNOW A COUPLE OF THE CONCEPTS
THAT WERE A WE'RE IN THE REPORT --
MANY OF US THAT THEY BEGIN
WORKING ON THIS -- JANUARY OF
LAST YEAR REALIZEVERY QUICKLY
THAT THE BIG QUESTION BEFORE US --
WAS OKAY WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM --
SO WHO PAYS AND HOW MUCH.
RIGHT THOSE ARE SORT OF THE THE
TWO BASIC QUESTION WHO PAYS AND
AND AND HOW MUCH.
MAN IN THIS REPORT AND
SPECIFICALLY IN REGARDS -- TO
THE FUND AND THERE CAN BE ALL
SORTS OF DIFFERENT FUNDS THE
GOVERNOR PROPOSED ILLIQUIDITY
FIND IN A CATASTROPHIC FUND
THOSE COULD BE ONE FUND -- THEY
COULD BE SEPARATE FUNDS THERE
COULD BE MULTIPLE FUNDS -- BUT
BROKEN UP BY GEOGRAPHY I THINK
I'VE NOW SEEN FIFTEEN OR TWENTY
DIFFERENT -- TYPES OF PLANS FOR
A DIFFERENT TYPES OF OF OF FUNDS
BUT IT STILL GOES BACK TO THAT
QUESTION OF OF WHO PAYS AND AND
AND HOW MUCH.
AND THE THE ONE THING THAT YOU
HAVE IN YOUR REPORT AND IS THAT
TOO BUT TO BROADEN NEEDS THAT
WERE BROUGHT IN -- THAT THAT THE
COST IS IT'S NOT JUST RATE
PAYERS AND SHAREHOLDERS AND
TAXPAYERS BUT YOU ALSO ADD ON
THE THE PROPERTY INSURANCE
PREMIUM PAYERS OR SOME SORT OF
SURCHARGE -- THAT'S A THAT'S
THERE AND AND I'LL.
I REMIND MYSELF OF MY DAYS ON
THE CITY COUNCIL ALWAYS TO TALK
ABOUT A NEXUS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A TAX AND IF HE WAS
WHETHER THERE WAS A NEXUS AND I
LIKE TO SEE THINGS WHERE THERE
IS A VERY CLOSE.
NEXUS BETWEEN THE COSTS AND WHAT
YOU'RE GETTING A FOR A FOR THE
FOR THOSE COSTS AND SO.
WHEN YOU THINK OF SOLVING THIS
PROBLEM I'M?
YOU KNOW WHO WHO SHOULD PAY
BASED UPON -- THAT NEXUS THAT
THE DIRECT CONNECTION.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AS
YOU NOTED. ONE OF OUR KEY
OBJECTIVES WAS RISK PULLING AND
SOCIALIZING ACOSTA MORE BROADLY.
AND IN THE FRONT CHAPTER WE
DETAIL WHY WE THINK.
ALL OF THOSE PLAYERS
SHAREHOLDERS UTILITY MANAGEMENT.
PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE A ROLE TO
PLAY -- IN TERMS OF HELPING TO
REDUCE WILD FIRE RISK -- SO OUR
INTENTION WITH INCLUDING
PROPERTY OWNERS IN A SURCHARGE A
SURCHARGE ON INSURANCE WAS
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THAT WAS ALSO
A BROAD BASE OF INDIVIDUALS.
OVER WHICH TO SPREAD SOME OF
THESE COSTS AND THEY DO HAVE
SOME RESPONSIBILITY AND HELPING
TO REDUCE THE OVERALL SIZE OF
WILD FIRE DAMAGE.
BECAUSE WE'RE FOCUS NOT JUST ON
THE IGNITION WE KNOW THAT
THERE'S WHILE FIRING MISSION BUT
THE TOTAL ACTUAL COST TO THAT
IT'S REALLY A FUNCTION OF WHAT
PROPERTY IS IN HARM'S WAY.
AS WELL AS WE KNOW WHAT
INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS HAVE DONE
A LOT TO FORTIFY THEIR HOME AND
WHAT LEVELS OF INSURANCE THEY
HAVE SO THAT WAS THAT THE NEXUS
THAT.
WE IDENTIFIED.
WE APPRECIATE THAT THIS WOULD BE.
A DIFFERENT TYPE OF FEE THAN
OTHER FEES THAT HAVE BEEN.
ASSOCIATED WITH INSURANCE.
BEFORE AND SO THAT'S EXACTLY THE
TYPE OF FEEDBACK WE LOOK FORWARD
TO GETTING -- FOR THOSE WITHIN
THE INSURANCE MARKET AS THOSE AS
WELL AS I'M FROM HOMEOWNERS STOW
I JUST WOULD LIKE.
TO TELL YOU THAT WE HAVEN'T
DISCUSSED THIS.
AND WE WILL ON FRIDAY AND WE'VE
BEEN PREVENTED TO TALK TO EACH
OTHER I I COULD BE THIS CLOSE TO
CARLA BUT I CAN'T TALK TO HER
ABOUT THIS -- A BECAUSE THE BAG
LOOKING RULES SO I THINK WORLD
WE MAY HAVE SOME MORE
ILLUMINATION FOR YOU ON THAT ON
FRIDAY.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE TALKED
ABOUT WHO SHOULDN'T PAY ON HAND
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS WE
THOUGHT EVERY SOLUTION THAT
TALKED ABOUT FUNDS OR ANYTHING
ELSE WAS A DISGUISED WAY OF
MAKING THE RATE PAYERS PAY.
AND THE ONE THING THAT DROVE THE
LIABILITY SECTION AND I
ASSEMBLYMAN FORMER SELL ME A
NOVICE VIEW WAS THAT THE RATE
PAYER SHOULD NOT BE UNFAIRLY
BURDEN THAT WE SHOULDN'T.
PRETEND ARM THAT OUT SOMEBODY
ELSE IS PAYING BUT ACTUALLY THE
RATE PAYERS ARE GONNA IT'S GONNA
CREASE ACROSS THE RATE PAYERS SO
THAT'S DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE
MIGHT BE SOME INDIVIDUALS.
THAT OUR SHAREHOLDERS
[inaudible]
TAXPAYERS RATEPAYERS.
AND BUFF PROPERTY INSURANCE
PREMIUM PAYERS THAT THERE'S
GONNA BE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE
OUT THERE THAT ARE GONNA BE
THEY'RE GONNA BE PAYING ON ALL
ON ALL FOUR CERTAINLY CERTAINLY
COR IS AND SO I THINK THAT'S THE
QUESTION I THINK YOU YOU WE WERE
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RATE PAYERS
I KNOW.
WAS POLITICIANS -- BECAUSE I AM
ONE BY THE WAY -- BUT WE'LL
WE'LL SAY I'M NOT A POLITICIAN
I'M A STATEMENT I LIKE TO THINK
THAT I'M A STATESMAN BUT I'M
ALSO.
I'M ALSO A POLITICIAN -- AND AND
AND BY THAT WE REPRESENT FOLKS --
AND SO WE LIKE TO USE DIFFERENT
TERMS TO TRY TO SHIELD -- YOU
KNOW WHAT ONE WHERE THE OTHER
BUT ULTIMATELY SOMEBODY -- IS
GOING TO PAY FOR A FOR THIS
LIABILITY IF WE DON'T SOLVE IT.
OF THE FOLKS LIKE THE DOCTOR
QUIRK WAS SAYING ARE GOING TO
PAY PHONE THROUGH BANKRUPTCY OR
WE DON'T SOLVE THIS AND WE
DOWNGRADE -- THE THE THE THE THE
THE CREDIT RATING AGENCIES BEGIN
TO DOWNGRADE THE DEBT THE COST
OF BORROWING IS GOING TO GO UP
IN.
IF I HEARD -- CARLA CORRECTLY
MISTER MISS PETERMAN A CORRECTLY
THAT COULD ACTUALLY INCREASE
COST 7% -- AND SO IT'S IT'S ONE
OF THOSE THOSE QUESTIONS THAT
THE THAT THAT I THINK WE DON'T
KNOW YOU YOU'RE COMPLETELY RIGHT.
BUT I JUST WANT I THINK
EVERYBODY SHOULD DOC THE
FOLLOWING UNDERSTANDING.
INVERSE CONDEMNATION CREATES
ADDITIONAL COST WHETHER THAT
STATE WHICH IS TO HAVE IT OR NOT
THAT'S UP TO YOU FOLKS NOT US
BUT IT CREATES ADDITIONAL COST.
CURRENTLY A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF
THAT COST IS PAID FOR BY
INSURANCE IT'S ALREADY PAID.
FOR AND THE PURPOSE THE
EFFECTIVE INVERSE CONDEMNATION
IS TO TAKE THE INSURANCE THAT
YOU BOUGHT.
AND PAID FOR FOR THE INSURANCE
CARRIER AND LET THE INSURANCE
CARRIER GOAL TO RECOVER THAT
THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL COST WE
ASKED EVERYWHERE WE COULD
WHETHER THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE
THAT IF THEY DO RECOVER THIS
COST THAT THE RATE THAT THE
PROPERTY OWNER WILL PAY LESS
INSURANCE.
WE WERE TOLD THERE'S NO EVIDENCE
OF THAT SO WHAT THE EFFECTIVE
INVERSE CONDEMNATION IN THE WHO
PAYS IS WE'RE TAKING MONEY.
THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS
ALREADY.
ACCOUNTED FOR IN THEIR RATES AND
WE'RE GIVING IT TO ARM THE
INSURANCE COMPANY IT'S A
REIMBURSEMENT WERE CREATING A
COST AND THE WERE PAIN AND WE'RE
TAKING IT.
WOULD GIVE ANYTHING INSURANCE
COMPANIES THAT IS A POLICY
DECISION WE COULD MAKE BUT
THAT'S THE REALITY OF WHO'S
PAYING.
CARLOS POINT ABOUT INSURANCE IS.
THE OBSERVATION THAT ALREADY A
LOT OF THESE COSTS ARE PAID FOR
BY INSURANCE THAT IS OUR CURRENT
TO MECHANISM FOR PAYING FOR THIS.
AND MAYBE WE SHOULD.
PIGGY BACK ON THAT I THINK THAT
WAS HER OBSERVATION AND HEARINGS
AND I THINK IT WAS VERY CLEVER --
BUT THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHERE
THAT COMES FROM THE LEFT THE
IDEA WHO REYES DREAD THOUGH
BECAUSE THE ONE THING THAT COMES
UP WITH THAT IS THE UNDER
INSURED AND UNINSURED SO THOSE
WHO ARE NOT PAYING -- PREMIUMS
IN ESSENCE -- ARE ARE THOSE THAT
ARE PAYING PREMIUMS ARE PAYING
FOR THOSE WHO AREN'T BY PAYING
FOR PREMIUMS RIGHT IT IS ON THIS
WE CALL THAT MORAL HAS WHAT IT
IS MORAL HAZARD AGAIN MORAL HELD
A PROBLEM.
OF IF YOU TELL THE INSURANCE IF
YOU TELL PEOPLE IF YOU DON'T
HAVE INSURANCE -- WE'VE CREATED
THIS THING CALLED INVERSE
CONDEMNATION AND IF YOU DON'T
BUY INSURANCE WILL TAKE CARE OF
YOU.
THERE'S A WORRY THAT PEOPLE
WON'T BUY INSURANCE MORE TO THE
POINT THERE'S THE WHOLE RIFIC
PROBLEM OF PROPERTY VALUES
INCREASE IN CALIFORNIA AND
RAMPANT UNDER INSURANCE RIGHT SO.
THEN REMEMBER THE WE'RE PAYING.
FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND
WE'RE PAYING FOR THE UNDER
INSURANCE RIGHT IN THIS COST I I
AGREE WITH I AGREE WITH THAT YES.
I WANT TO ADD ONE OTHER POINT BY
WAY OF BACKGROUND -- WE HEARD IN
OUR IN THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD A
PROPOSAL FROM EVERY PAIR
ADVOCATES GROUP AROUND.
HAVING A WILDFIRE FIND THAT
WOULD BE COMPLETELY CAPITALIZE
BY SURCHARGES ON INSURANCE --
THE PERSPECTIVE THERE WAS THAT
WHEN WE LOOK AT FOR REALLY FOCUS
ON AFFORDABILITY AND PRICKLY FAR
LOW INCOME CALIFORNIANS.
THAT WHEN YOU PUT ALL THESE
COSTS ON ELECTRIC REPAIRS AS
MISTER KHAN IS HIGHLIGHTED.
THAT POOR PEOPLE DON'T USE A
DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF LESS
POWER THAN RICH PEOPLE AND SO
INHERENTLY.
ELECTRICITY PRICES CAN HAVE A
REGRESSIVE AFFECT -- THAT'S NOT
THE SAME WITH PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
AND I KNOW THAT ALL PEOPLE HOME
PROPERTY OR RICH BY ANY MEANS --
BUT THAT IS MORE CORRELATED WITH
WEALTH AND SO THE PROPOSAL FROM
THAT REPAIR ADVOCATES GROUP WAS
THAT IF WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO
EQUITABLY SOCIALIZE AND PART OF
WHAT WE MEAN BY EQUITABLE.
IS MAKING SURE THAT THOSE WHO
CAN'T BEAR THE BURDEN DON'T HAVE
TO THAN SOCIALIZE ACROSS THE
BROADER TAX BASE OR CROSS POP
PROPERTY OWNERS -- WOULD BE A
MORE FAIR OUTCOME -- SO THAT'S
ANOTHER PIECE OF INPUT THAT WE
RECEIVED -- THAT LET MY WORKING
GROUP TO RECOMMEND SOME
COMPONENT COMING FROM PROPERTY
OWNERS I WILL SAY WE ARE VERY
HIGH LEVEL ABOUT HOW THE SPLIT
NEEDS TO BE -- IS THE PRINCIPAL
MORE THAT WE WANT TO LEAVE YOU
WITH MR JUST HAVE TOO MUCH TO
MORE QUESTIONS -- ONE IS -- DID
YOU LOOK AT ALL ABOUT IT IN
ESTABLISHING A FIND.
A DID YOU LOOK AT WHETHER THEY
CAN BE BROKEN UP G.
GEOGRAPHICALLY MAYBE IN NORTH
STATE FUND AND A SOUTH STATE
FUND OR IS THERE ANY THOUGHT OF
JUSTIN NEEDED BE -- ONE ONE FUND
ACROSS ALL CALIFORNIA.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAKES
FUNDS WORK WELL IS PULLING RISK
AND SO THE BROADER EACH YOU CAN
GEOGRAPHICALLY.
SOURCE SAID AS WELL AS COMBINING
DIFFERENT TYPES OF RISK OUR
UTILITY TERRITORIES HAVE
INHERENTLY DIFFERENT RISK COULD
DO TO THE GEOGRAPHY SO MY
CONCERN PRACTICALLY WITH
BREAKING UP INTO MULTIPLE FUNDS
IS THAT A VERY QUICKLY JUST
BECOMES IN A SELF INSURANCE
MECHANISM.
WITHIN EACH UTILITY TERRITORY I
AND SO THAT'S WHY WE RECOMMEND
THAT INCLUDING PUBLICLY OWNED
UTILITIES AN INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES NOW ALLOWING THAT TO
BE VOLUNTARY.
BUT OUR DISSIPATION WOULD BE
THAT INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES
BUT ALL PARTICIPATE GIVEN.
THE POTENTIAL FOR SOME COST
RECOVERY FORMS ASSOCIATED WITH
THAT PARTICIPATION AND THEN THE
LAST QUESTION IS -- IN REGARDS
TO THE TIMING OF A FUND THE
RECOMMENDATION WAS TEN YEARS --
WHY TEN YEARS WHEN NOT FIFTEEN
YEARS WHY NOT TWENTY YEARS IF
THIS IS A NEW NORMAL -- AND
THESE NEW CLIMATE I'M IMPACTS --
HAVE CREATED THIS NEW NORMAL --
IS IT BECAUSE OF INVESTMENT --
IS IT BECAUSE THE STATE HAS
INVESTED IN -- BUT LAST YEAR WE
TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS HOW
TO D. G. R. F. WE JUST WERE
TALKING ABOUT THAT LAST LAST
WEEK IS THAT NUMBER NEED TO GO
HIGHER.
I'M IS IT BECAUSE OF THAT IS IT
BECAUSE OF THE WORK THE
HARDENING THAT WE EXPECT OUR
UTILITIES TO DO WHY TEN YEARS
AND NOT A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.
THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION AND
WE I'LL MAKE SOME CLARIFICATIONS
ON FRIDAY REGARDING OUR
RECOMMENDATION THIS REGARD WHICH
IS.
WE DON'T RECOMMEND AN AUTOMATIC
SUNSET TO A FUND -- I THINK YOU
SHOULD KEEP A FINE AS LONG AS
NECESSARY BUT WE WOULD
ANTICIPATE THAT WITH THE WILD
FIRE MITIGATION PLANS GOING INTO
A FACT TO SOME OF THOSE
PREVENTION EFFORTS GOING TO A
FACT.
THAT WE SHOULD SEE LOWER RISK IN
TEN YEARS AND SO.
WHEN WE'VE ASKED THE UTILITIES
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ABOUT HOW
MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK WE NEED
TO ACTUALLY SEE THESE MITIGATION
PLAN RESULTS COME INTO EFFECT?
TEN YEARS WHAT PEOPLE HAVE
RAISED SO WE RECOMMEND.
EVALUATING THE FIND THE NEED THE
CAPITALIZATION EVERY FIVE TO TEN
YEARS -- AND THEN OVER TIME YOU
MIGHT NEED A VERY SMALL FUND
WHICH MIGHT JUST MAKES SENSE TO
ROLL IT DOWN BUT I WOULD NOT
AUTOMATICALLY SENSE THAT IT I
THINK THAT MAKES SOME SENSE
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
THANK YOU -- THIS RARE SOON AND
DOCTOR WOULD.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
I DO WANNA JOIN MY OF MY FELLOW
MEMBERS AND THANKING YOU. FOR
YOUR HARD WORK THIS WAS A LOT OF
WORK AND WE WE WE SPENT A LOT OF
TIME AND SB NINE A ONE ON THAT.
COMMISSION AND WE I RECOGNIZE
THE HARD WORK THAT WENT INTO. TO
PREPARING THIS AND HAVING THOSE
HEARINGS LISTENING TO THOSE WHO
ARE MOST AFFECTED. TO THEM
PREPARED THIS REPORT.
IN LOOKING AT THE THE PURPOSE.
OF THE COMMISSION -- IT.
WHERE IT AND I QUOTE IT IT WAS
TO MAKE?
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO
LAW THAT WOULD INSURE EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS.
AMONG AFFECTED PARTIES END QUOTE.
MY CONCERN IS THAT FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE
LOOKING TO SEE.
AND I KNOW IT'S NOT A VERY
POPULAR TERM BUT WE'RE LOOKING
TO SEE HOW WE'RE GOING TO BAIL
OUT.
OF THE UTILITIES.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES WERE TALKING
ABOUT AFFECTED PARTIES WELL THE
AFFECTED PARTIES ARE GOING TO BE
THE RATE PAYERS AND TO THE THE
THE FIRE VICTIMS.
THERE THAT THEY ARE THE AFFECTED
PARTIES SO WE'RE LOOKING AT
DISTRIBUTION COSTS AMONG
AFFECTED PARTIES.
RATHER THAN.
AMONG AFFECTED PARTISAN
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES.
AND THEN WE JUMP RIGHT INTO
GETTING RID OF INVERSE
CONDEMNATION.
SOMETHING THAT.
L. IS DR CORPUS TALKED ABOUT A
WEEK IT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT
SOMETHING THAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL
IS ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED.
AND THE PROCESS IS GOING TO BE
VERY LONG SO SHOW EVEN IF WE'RE
GOING TO DO SOMETHING TO CHANGE
THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
IN A VERY SHORT WHILE THIS GOING
TO HELP US IN WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO.
INVERSE CONDEMNATION HAS A LOT
TO DO WITH EMINENT DOMAIN SO
DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE PROPERTY
THEN REVERTS BACK TO THE
HOMEOWNERS BECAUSE THAT WAS A
TRADE OFF THERE WAS A BALANCING.
SO WE CAN'T JUST GET RID OF
EMINENT DOMAIN THERE'S A WHOLE
LOT MORE TO THAT.
I IT WASN'T JUST -- SAYING WELL
LET'S.
REALLY MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR
UTILITIES HERE AND LET'S HAVE
LET'S PUT IN STRICT LIABILITY.
NO WE WAS THEY GOT TO TAKE YOU
THE PROPERTY WILL PAUSE I GUARD
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
TAKING THE PROPERTY THROUGH
EMINENT DOMAIN -- THERE WAS JUST
SO MUCH TO IT [inaudible]
THE IT LATER ALSO IN THE REPORT
WE TALK ABOUT SHIFTINGTHE
BURDEN I MEAN I WAS SHOCKED WHEN
I SAW THIS ONE QUITE FRANKLY
WERE.
NOW THE IT IS PRESUMED OR ONE OF
THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COST
RECOVERY.
THEY WOULD BE PRESUMED.
THAT THE UTILITY ADDED AT ACTED
PRUDENTLY AND IF BUT THOSE WHO
WERE AFFECTED CAN THEN FILED
THEIR LAWSUIT AND TRY TO PROVE
OTHERWISE.
THAT ISN'T THE LINE I I WOULD
ABSOLUTELY.
OBJECT TO CHANGING THE THE
BURDEN.
SHIFTING THE BURDEN THAT WAY TO
THE VERY VICTIMS WERE TRYING TO
HELP SO WE'RE GOING TO FIGURE
OUT WAYS TO HELP UTILITY AND
LIKE I GET IT WE DON'T WANT PGA.
TWO TWO TO BE COMPLETELY
BANKRUPT I KNOW WE WE DON'T WANT
THAT.
WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO VICTIMIZE
A VERY VICTIMS WERE SAYING WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
HOW WE SOCIALIZE ALL OF THIS AND
FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT IT DOESN'T
FALL ON JUST?
ONE PERSON ONE GROUP.
WE'RE FORGETTING THE UTILITIES
WERE FORGETTING THE THE
SHAREHOLDERS AND I AND I EVEN
NOW AS I SAY THAT I DO RECOGNIZE
THE YOU TALKED ABOUT.
IN YOUR THE THIRD OPTION FOR
COST RECOVERY IT'S LIKE THE
STRESS TEST THAT WE HAD TALKED
ABOUT IN OUR NINE A ONE
DISCUSSIONS.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
BUT BUT I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT
A LOT OF WHAT I HAVE.
READ IT HERE HOW HAS MORE TO DO
WITH.
WITH FIGURING OUT HOW WE'RE
GOING TO HELP.
SPECIFICALLY PGA ANY THROUGH ALL
OF THIS.
WITHOUT CALLING IT A BAILOUT
[inaudible]
BUT FINDING WAYS TO GET
EVERYBODY.
TO CHEN SO THAT WE CAN TAKE CARE
OF BUSINESS.
THAT THAT ISN'T WHAT WE THAT
ISN'T WHAT I WANT TO DO.
I THINK THAT IF IF WE DIDN'T AND
I RECOGNIZE THAT WE DON'T WANT
THE SUNSET NECESSARILY.
BUT I APPRECIATE THAT THERE'S
GOING TO BE THE WE'RE GOING TO
REEVALUATE.
BUT I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED BY
THAT.
I I DO WANT US TO FIND SOLUTIONS
I DO WANT US.
TO YOU KNOW REVIEWS SO THEY'RE
TOO BIG TO TO TO FAIL I GET THAT --
AND IN THE END THE RATE PAYERS
MAY PAY MORE IF THEY FAIL I GET
THAT.
BUT IF WE ARE BEGINNING OR AT
LEAST AS AS I READ THIS.
WE ARE BEGINNING THIS WHOLE
PROCESS.
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?
FIGURING OUT A WAY. TO TO CHANGE
THE LAW. TO ENSURE EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS AMONG
AFFECTED PARTIES.
I AM TERRIBLY CONCERNED
[inaudible]
ABOUT THAT -- I I APPRECIATE ALL.
STILL APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK
THAT WENT INTO IT.
I DO I DO APPRECIATE ALL THE
WORK THAT WENT INTO IT.
BUT BUT I AM I AM CONCERNED
ABOUT BEGINNING THERE I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT FINDING WAYS. TO
TO HELP THIS.
CORPORATION NOT FILL THIS THIS
UTILITY NOT TO FAIL.
I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT THAT.
IS WHAT I HEAR MOST HERE -- I
APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORTS BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BURKE AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MAYES IN TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT THIS FUND AND YOU
HAVE CERTAINLY LOOKED AT WAYS.
ARE ON ON ON PAYING OUT TO THESE
CLAIMS -- I APPRECIATE THE FACT
THAT THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT
MAKING SURE THAT THERE ISN'T A
AN INCENTIVE.
ON THE PART OF HOMEOWNERS TO
OVERSTATE THEIR CLAIMS.
BUT I APPRECIATE ALSO THAT YOU
TALKED ABOUT THAT THERE ISN'T AN
INCENTIVE ON THE USE.
OF THE PART OF THE UTILITIES
ALSO TO RELY ON THAT RATHER THAN
DOING THEIR WORK.
THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE THAT
WASN'T DONE AND I RECOGNIZE THAT
WE NEED.
TO TURN OVER THE LEAF AND YOU
KNOW WE WE WE WE NEED TO TURN
THE PAGE AND GO ON TO THE NEXT
THING BUT I'M STILL THERE I'M
STILL IN THE FACT THAT.
THAT WE HAD SO MUCH THAT WAS.
NOT DONE BY OUR UTILITIES TO THE
DEGREE THAT WE NOW HAVE THE
DEATHS AND WE HAVE THE THE LOSS
OF PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE.
I I I WANT TO BE SURE -- THAT
THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN THIS.
THAT WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR WAYS
JUST TO HELP A UTILITY THAT
WE'RE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO HELP
THOSE VICTIMS.
AND THE RATE PAYERS.
BECAUSE THEY ARE THE TWO THAT WE
SHOULD HAVE THE GREATEST
RESPONSIBILITY. TO AND SO I
ASKED MY ONE QUESTION.
THE WHAT IS THE INCENTIVE FOR
THE UTILITIES. TO BEHAVE BETTER.
WELL LET ME SAY FOR SO I
APPRECIATE GREATLY YOUR COMMENTS
AS WELL AS YOUR FRUSTRATION -- I
SURE THAT FRUSTRATION.
WHEN I GOT?
APPOINTED TO THE WELFARE
COMMISSION MY LOOK AT THE
EXPERTISE THAT ALL FIVE MEMBERS
ARE BRINGING.
I WAS COMING FROM THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION AND WITH
THAT I KNEW I HAD AND I STILL
BELIEVE A REAL RESPONSIBILITY TO
LOOK AT THIS FROM A REPAIR
IMPACT PERSPECTIVE.
AND WITH EACH OF THESE ISSUES AS
I LOOKED AT IT AND I THOUGHT
THROUGH.
SOLUTIONS MANY OF THEM COME BACK
EVENTUALLY TO THE RATE PAYERS
IT'S JUST WHETHER WHERE HONEST
ABOUT THAT AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS
AND SO.
I THINK WE ARE AT THIS TIME WHEN
THIS THE LEVEL OF CATASTROPHE.
AS THE SONG I MEAN THIS WAS NOT
SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE GET TO
ANTICIPATED TO GET TO THIS
MAGNITUDE -- AND YOU KNOW
COLLECTIVELY.
WE HAVE NOT REQUIRE THAT LEVEL
INVESTMENT AND NOW WE'RE
REQUIRING THAT THE LEGISLATION
TO HAVE THE WHILE FIRE
MITIGATION PLANS OF THE EFFORTS
AROUND CAL FIRE AND CLEARING OUR
FOREST ALL THAT IS GOOD WORK BUT
WE HAVE A LOT OF CATCHING UP TO
DO.
AND I'M TO BE HONEST THAT' ALL
GOING TO COST A LOT OF MONEY.
AND IT IS REALLY HARD TO GET
THAT MONEY.
I PARTICULARLY FROM INVESTORSAT
A REASONABLE PRICE IF WE DON'T
ADDRESS.
THE NEAR TERM A VIEW THAT THE
UTILITIES ARE TOO RISKY TO
INVEST IN.
SO THE WAY I PERCEIVE SEVERAL OF
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS IT'S ABOUT
RESTORING RIGHT NOW INVESTOR
CONFIDENCE.
AND YOUR CONFIDENCE IN UTILITIES
LONG ENOUGH TO LET THESE
PREVENTIONS WORK -- WE HAD
TESTIMONY THAT THE UTILITIES ARE
SCHEDULED TO SPEND. THREE I'LL
USE SEVENTY BILLION DOLLARS IN
INVESTING IN OUR SYSTEM OVER THE
NEXT FIVE YEARS.
WE HAVE TO RAISE THAT MONEY FROM
BOND HOLDERS INVESTORS THAT'S
JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT RATE
PAYERS ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE I IN
REAL TIME.
AND SO GIVEN THAT YOU KNOW HOW
DO WE GIVE OURSELVES SOME
BREATHING ROOM COLLECTIVELY TO
IMPROVE THE SYSTEM WHILE HOLDING
UTILITIES FEET TO THE FIRE SO TO
YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION.
WHAT IS THE INCENTIVE?
FOR THE UTILITIES.
TO BEHAVE BETTER -- I THINK
THERE ARE A FEW. ONE IS MAKING
SURE THAT WE'RE PURSUING.
FINES AND PENALTIES -- ALL OF
THAT WORK HAPPENS IN PARALLEL TO
A PRUDENT SEE DETERMINATION --
IT YOU THAT SO I THINK THAT'S
ONE OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
MAKING SURE WE HAVE THAT THE
SECOND IS HAVING ACTUAL WHILE
FIRE MITIGATION PLANS HAVING
UTILITY SAY UP FRONT THIS IS
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
AN IMPROVING THOSE PLANS EVERY
YEAR -- THE OTHER IS REQUIRING
US SOME INVESTMENT BY
SHAREHOLDERS AND THE NUMBERS
THAT ARE BEING THROWN AROUND ARE
NOT INSIGNIFICANT -- AND I WOULD
SAY FAIRLY UNIQUE IN TERMS OF
WHAT SHAREHOLDERS HAVE BEEN
ASKED TO DO AROUND THE COUNTRY I
THINK THIS LEGISLATURE HAS
SPOKEN VERY CLEARLY.
THAT THEY EXPECT.
THE STATE NOT TO BEAR ALL THESE
COST -- AND AND I THINK THAT YOU
WILL BE SUCCESSFUL IN THAT -- IS
SO I I THINK WE'RE AT THE POINT
WHERE SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.
BECAUSE AT SOME POINT CAPITAL
CAN MOVE ELSEWHERE AND WE REALLY
DO NEED THAT CAPITAL TO HELP US
INVEST IN ALL THE OTHER THINGS
THAT WE WANT TO SEE THE CLEAN
ENERGY ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
ETCETERA -- BUT I'LL TAKE YOUR
COMMENTS TO HEART AND WILL
CONTINUE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT WE
CAN RECOMMEND -- TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE UTILITIES ARE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE -- BUT ULTIMATELY P.
GENIE IS THE BIGGEST UTILITY IN
THE STATE AND SO.
WE NEED.
THEM TO WORK SUCCESSFULLY.
AND STILL LOOK.
AT IT AGAIN DID YOU MENTION P.
GINNY EXCUSE ME JUST ONE SECOND.
IF WE'RE ASKING ALL OF OUR
UTILITIES TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS
FUND.
THERE WASN'T THE GREATEST SHARE
THEIR BANKRUPTCY SO WE CAN'T
REALLY EXPECT A WHOLE LOT FROM
THEM IN THE END THEIR
CONTRIBUTION AND THAT'S NOTED IN
THE REPORT SO I RECOGNIZE THAT
I'M NOT SAYING SOMETHING YOU
HAVEN'T ALREADY THOUGHT ABOUT.
THAT'S A THAT'S A CONCERN.
AND THEN FINALLY WE TALK ABOUT
INVESTORS AND INVESTORS.
CLEARLY CALIFORNIA'S NOW GOING
TO BE AN INVESTOR WHAT IS OUR
RATE OF RETURN.
I'M JUST A ONE POINT ABOUT THE
P. GINNY CONTRIBUTION.
I THINK THERE ARE PROPOSALS OUT
THERE.
FROM INVESTORS AND BOND HOLDERS --
REGARDING HOW THEY MIGHT
CONTRIBUTE TO THE SOLUTIONS OF
THOSE ARE MY PROPOSALS TO BRING
FORWARD AND THEY WERE NOT
SUBMITTED TO OUR RECORD -- AND
BUT I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE
QUESTION ASKING I DO THINK THAT
THERE ARE SOME POSSIBILITIES I
EVEN WITHIN THE BANKRUPTCY
PROCESS. TO HAVE P. JEANNIE BEAR
THEIR SHARE OF THE RISK AND COST
SO I'D JUST LIKE TO RESPOND TO
YOUR COMMENTS BECAUSE I THINK
YOU.
ARE YOUR COMMENT AND MARRIED
WITH -- SOMEONE MAYES YOU FOR
YOUR YOUR POINT OF VIEW IS. ONE
THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE FEEL A LOT
OF PEOPLE AGREE WITH IT.
AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO FACE
UP TO THE QUESTION OF WHO PAYS
AND IF THE POINT OF VIEW IS WE
REALLY WANT TO PRIORITIZE THE
VICTIMS.
AND TO GIVE THEM RIGHTS THAT ARM
AB THIS INVERSE RIGHT AND AT
THIS COST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR IT.
AND I CAN JUST TELL YOU MY POINT
OF VIEW.
I THINK IF WE JUST IF THE STATE
DECIDES TO DO THIS AND IT'S YOUR
JOB NOT OURS.
I THINK THE TAXPAYERS SHOULD PAY.
THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE RATE
PAYERS CAN PAY THE RATE THE THE
COST OF THIS.
NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT.
THE THE WE CAN GET ONLY SO MUCH
BLOOD FROM THE STONE WE CAN
BANKRUPT UTILITIES.
THAT'S FINE BUT THEN THE RATE
PAYERS PAY AND YOU KNOW I'VE
BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE I BEEN
THROUGH THE POINT WHERE THE RATE
PAYERS WHERE I WENT TO SAN DIEGO
ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNOR AND
THE RATE PAYERS WERE WRITING.
BECAUSE THEY WERE SO UPSET ABOUT
THE RATES.
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT
INFLECTION POINT IN THE STATE WE
HAVE TO DECIDE IF IT IS YOUR
DECISION.
THAT YOU WISH TO KEEP THIS COST.
YOU CAN ARGUE YOU CAN DECIDE
WILL GOING TO KEEP IT TO THE
BANK FOR THE UTILITIES BANKRUPT
BUT YOU'RE GONNA RUN OUT OF
MONEY TO THE UTILITIES WILL BE
BANKRUPT.
AND THEN THE QUESTION IS WHO
PAYS AND IT IS BY RESPECTFUL
OBSERVATION THAT THE RATE PAYERS.
CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY ANYMORE THEY
ARE READY AND HAVE TO PAY TO GET
THE SYSTEM BETTER THEY'RE READY
COULD HAVE TO PAY FOR OUR ENERGY
GOALS WE WERE READY ASK HIM TO
PAY FOR A CLIMATE GOALS.
THEY CAN'T PAY ANYMORE SO IF YOU
IN YOUR WISDOM DECIDE TO KEEP
THE INVERSE.
THEN FINE THEN MAKE THAT THE
DECISION OF THE STATE AND HAVE
THE TAXPAYERS PAY I DO THINK I
AM VERY SKEPTICAL.
OF ANY OTHER WAY I DON'T SEE HOW
THE WE ALREADY HAVE INVERSE.
WE WE HAVE WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN
UNPAID FOR INVERSE IF WE WE WE
HAVEN'T FACED UP TO THE ISSUE.
OF WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IF WE
HAVE A TERRIBLE FIRE EXACTLY
WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE WERE
FACING UP TO WRITE BUT I WAS
TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT RIGHT
I THINK I THINK THE BROADER
POINT THAT.
I'M NOT A LAWYER SO I CAN REALLY
SPEAK OF A LOT ABOUT AYE NUMBERS.
THAT THE POINT INVERSE
CONDEMNATION ASSUMES THAT YOU
CAN PROBABLY SOCIALIZE THE COST --%
THAT AT TIMES IS INTENTION AND
EVEN CONFLICT WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION.
I TO SURE THAT RATES ARE JUST
AND REASONABLE AND A BROADER
MISSION TO ENSURE THAT THERE
AFFORDABLE AND SO WE'RE AT THE
INTERSECTION OF THAT CHALLENGE
OUR REPORT NOTES A. P. YOU SEE
REPORT THAT JUST CAME OUT SB.
SIX NINETY FIVE REPORT WHICH
TALKS ABOUT HOW RATES ARE GOING
UP IN THE STATE FOR A HOST OF
REASONS AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT
THIS QUESTION AND REALLY ABOUT
COULD THE RATE PAYERS ABSORB
THIS.
THE INPUT WE GOT WAS NO AND SO
THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES THEN
WHAT.
AND AND JUST SO TOOK MAKE THE
POINT WE DID HAVE TESTIMONY.
THAT THERE ARE A SIGNIFICANT
NUMBER OF CALIFORNIANS WHO CAN'T
AFFORD THEIR LECTURES CITY NOW
UNDER NOT GETTING IT.
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT AND
IF WE MAKE THE RATES SO MUCH
MORE HIGH WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS
PEOPLE WILL WITHDRAW YOUR THE
ENERGY COMMITTEE YOU KNOW THAT.
BETTER THAN I DO THE PEOPLE
WITHDRAW FROM THE ELECTRIC
SYSTEM AND THE RATES WILL GO UP
ON A SMALLER BASE SO.
IT'S NOT FOR ME TO JUDGE.
WHO YOU WANT TO HAVE TO PAY BUT
IT IS FOR ME TO POINT OUT IN A
ROLE AS A COMMISSIONER THAT
SOMEONE'S GOING TO HAVE TO PAY
AND IN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IT'S
NOT EQUITABLE? TO MAKE THE THIS
POLICY DECISION.
ON THE BACKS OF THE RATE PAYERS
IT'S PERFECTLY FAIR FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO DECIDE TO
SOCIALIZE ACOSTA AMONG ALL OF
THE CITIZENS BECAUSE THIS IS A
POLICY.
SO IN ANSWER YOUR SECOND
QUESTION ABOUT INCENTIVES ASIAN.
I I TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW I
THINK THAT'S OUR PROPOSAL NUMBER
THREE I THINK WE NEED A NEW
SHERIFF.
I THINK THAT AND I THINK THAT
IT'S EXPRESSED IN OUR OUR IN IN
MY PART OF THE REPORT.
THE FEELING IS THAT THE CURRENT
SHERIFF ISN'T DOING A VERY GOOD
JOB AND IT'S NOT ITS ENTIRELY
IT'S FALL THE P. YOU SOMETHING
ABOUT SEPARATE GROUP YES.
THE P. YOU SEE WAS SET UP
CONSTITUTIONALLY TO REGULATE THE
RAILROADS.
WE HAVE A ONE HUNDRED YEARS WITH
THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND AN
IN PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES.
YOUR NEVER IN MY PERSONAL
JUDGMENT IT'S JUST ME.
BUT IT'S IN OUR REPORT YOU'RE
NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO MODIFY
IT. TO MAKE IT RESPONSIVE TO AN
EMERGENCY WE HAVE AN EMERGENCY
AND SO.
I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY WE
NEED TO DO MORE WE CAN DO MORE
BUT IT'S NOT FAIR TO HYPOTHESIZE
THAT THIS.
RAIL ROAD RATE MAKING
INSTITUTION WHICH HAS GOT ALL
THESE RULES OR REGULATIONS.
THE THE POOR COMMISSIONERS --
ARE TREMENDOUSLY HAMSTRUNG BY
THE WAY IT WORKS SO IN MY
JUDGMENT THE ANSWER TO YOUR
INSTEAD OF STATION QUESTION IS
TO GET A NEW SHERIFF.
MAKE IT ACTUALLY IN ITS LAID OUT
EXPLICITLY IN OUR REPORT MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT THAT NEW SHERIFF WILL
HAVE THE ABILITY TO CRIMINALLY
REFER.
TO PROSECUTE THIS ASSEMBLY AND
TO INCENTIVIZE WHERE IT SEEMS
JUDGE ALL STOP ONCE WAS OUT OF
ICE IF MY LIFE AND JUST.
MAY I I JUST BECAUSE THIS IS
COME UP A FEW TIMES -- IT'S
REGARDING WHO SHOULD HAVE
OVERSIGHT OVER THESE WILL OF
WILDFIRE MATTERS I I DO HAVE A
DIFFERENT VIEW THAN COMMISSIONER
CON ON THIS AND I APPRECIATE
THAT AND HE'S ACKNOWLEDGE VERY
WELL IN HIS SECTION THAT.
WE HAVE DIFFERENT AND
INCONSISTENT RULES ACROSS. FIFTY
SEVEN UTILITIES THAT IS NOT NEW
THAT IS OUR CIRCUMSTANCE FOR
EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAPPENS AND
ENERGY REGULATION AND THE
LEGISLATURE THROUGH MECHANISMS
FOR EXAMPLE LIKE THE RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO STANDARD IS REALLY
CLEAR GUIDANCE ABOUT WHERE YOU
WANT TO SEE CONFORMITY BETWEEN.
INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES AND
PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITIES.
SO I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE
OPPORTUNITIES TO BETTER SHARE
BEST PRACTICES.
BUT THE CHALLENGE BEFORE US HERE
IT HAS EVEN GOTTEN TO THE POINT
OF BEING ABOUT.
WHAT?
HOW MUCH TIME DOES THE ECONOMIC
REGULATOR TAKE IN THIS CASE IT
REALLY GETS BACK TO YOU WHOEVER
IS LOOKING AT THIS ISSUE IS
GOING TO BE FACED WITH THE SAME
FUNDAMENTAL UNDERLYING FACTS?
THAT WE HAVE A VERY BIG
LIABILITY AND HAS TO BE PAID BY
SOMEONE IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS
THE PERSON MAKING THAT DECISION
AS YOU'VE JUST HIGHLIGHTED --
WHOEVER HAS TO MAKE THE DECISION
AND STILL THE SAME QUESTION.
AND SO WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS
MORE ON FRIDAY BUT I THINK THAT
THERE ARE PERHAPS OTHER WAYS TO
GO ABOUT.
MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE A
FISHING REGULATION -- THAN
CREATING A NEW.
A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY.
MY LAST QUESTION FROM A MIXTURE
[inaudible]
IT [inaudible]
IS.
THE BIG ISSUE NOW IS TAKING CARE
OF THE VICTIMS.
WITH A BANKRUPT -- UTILITY.
SO THIS ISSUE OF INVERSE
CONDEMNATION THE ISSUE THE NEW
ELECTRIC UTILITY WILDFIRE BOARD.
ALL OF THESE OTHER ISSUES.
SEEMSTO ME ARE SECONDARY RIGHT
NOW WE'RE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE
PUT TOGETHER FUND -- FIGURE OUT
HOW WE'RE GOING TO PAY.
SO THAT WE CAN TAKE CARE OF
THOSE WERE VICTIMS NOW.
IS WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE.
I THINK TAKING CARE OF THE
VICTIMS NOW IS IMPORTANT I'LL
I'LL MAKE THE FOLLOWING
OBSERVATION AND THOSE WHO ARE
MORE DIRECTLY ENGAGE IN THE
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS CAN.
COMMENT ON THIS BUT IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT TO GET OUT OF
BANKRUPTCY.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A
UNDERSTANDING ABOUT.
HOW THE SITUATION THAT GOT THE
UTILITY INTO BANKRUPTCY WHEN NOT
HAPPEN AGAIN?
AND SO I DO THINK THE REFORMS
COLLECTIVELY THAT WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT.
ARE IMPORTANT FOR A
DEMONSTRATION ABOUT WHAT WILL BE
DIFFERENT THE NEXT TIME AND SO I
DO THINK THAT TAKING CARE OF THE
TWENTY SEVENTEEN TO TWENTY
EIGHTEEN VICTIMS.
IS TIED TO HOW YOU THINK ABOUT
TAKING CARE OF VICTIMS GOING
FORWARD -- THANK YEARS JUST
SIGNALING TO MY CHAIR OF THAT
JUST ONE FOLLOW UP THEM.
BUT I I WAS.
IF WE FIGURE OUT THIS.
KIDDING.
IF IF WE FIGURE OUT THIS FUND
FOR NOW AND WE THEN WE HAVE NEW
RULES FOR THE THE THE THE
PRUDENT MANAGER STANDARD.
SO THAT THE UTILITY WHEN THEY
REALLY HAVE BEEN PRUDENT.
CAN THEN GO TO THE UC TO TRY TO
GET THAT -- THEIR COST.
SWITCHED OVER TO WERE.
HANDED OVER TO THE RATE PAYERS --
IF WE HAVE THAT.
I REALLY AM LOOKING FOR TO MAKE
SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE NOT SAYING
WITH THE COMMISSION IS NOT
SAYING IS THE INVERSE
CONDEMNATION.
WE GOT TO GET RID OF INVERSE
CONDEMNATION THAT'S THE THE CURE
ALL FOR ALL OF OUR ILLS BECAUSE
IT CERTAINLY IS NOT I THINK THAT
[inaudible]
THE INVERSE CONDEMNATION CAUSES
ENORMOUS COST IF YOU DO NOT WISH
TO THE WITH THE BECAUSE THAT'S
YOUR BUSINESS WE HAVE TO DO WITH
THE EFFECT WE CAN'T LEAVE IT
ALONE.
BUT IF THE IF IN DEALING WITH A
CAUSE IS OFF THE TABLE YOU MUST
IDENTIFY A DEAL WITH THE AFFECT
YOU CANNOT SAY.
YOU BE DE WE LIKE INVERSE
CONDEMNATION WALK AWAY FROM IT
WE ARE FACING NOBODY LIKES IT
IT'S JUST THE LAW FORGOT BUT BUT
NEVERTHELESS THE POINT IS THAT
WE'RE WE ARE NOT SAYING TO YOU.
YEAH NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY
TO YOU YOU MUST.
DO THIS OR YOU MUST DO THAT IN
TERMS OF THE DIRECTION.
THAT STRIP THAT'S YOUR JOB ALL
WE'RE SAYING TO YOU IS WORD
PRESENT HE KNEW THE FACTS THE
FACTS ARE INVERSE CONDEMNATION
CAUSES A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF
PROBLEMS.
AND IF YOU WISH TO DEAL WITH THE
AFFECT CARLOS SECTION OF THE
REPORT IN ALL CARLOS GRAY
THINKING IS ADDRESSING THE ISSUE
OF DEALING WITH THE EFFECT.
NOT DEALING WITH THE COSTS BUT
THE CAUSE WAS THE FACT THAT THE
UTILITIES WERE NOT DOING WHAT
THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IN
THE FIRST PLACE BUT MA'AM IT
GETS INVERSE CONDEMNATION THAT'S
JUST ONE MORE PART PART TO IT.
I I WILL LEAVE THEIR IT MEANT I
MEANT TO SAY ONE THING I AGAIN
NOT BEING A LAWYER I'LL GIVE YOU
MY OPINION INVERSE CONDEMNATION
WHICH IS.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING.
IT I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE
HIGH LEVEL POINT THAT MISTER
KHAN IS MAKING BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT EVEN WITH
REFORM.
THERE IS STILL OPPORTUNITY TO
LITIGATE THESE ISSUES IN COURT
AND SO.
THEREFORE YOU WILL SEE
POTENTIALLY APPLICATIONS FOR
COST RECOVERY STILL COMING TO
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EVEN IF YOU CHANGE THAT STANDARD.
AND SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS I
MENTIONED IN MY COMMENTS I THINK
ALL AT LEAST THREE TYPES OF
RECOMMENDATIONS.
ASH CAN AND SHOULD BE DONE IN
COMPLEMENT HOW BIG A A FUNDER
AFFECTED WE NEED I THINK WOULD
BE AFFECTED BY -- WHETHER YOU'RE
CHANGING FIRST OR NOT BUT I
AGREE THAT IT IS NOT A CATCH ALL.
AND THAT WE DID HAVE A
STAKEHOLDERS TO RAISE CONCERN
ABOUT THAT CHANGE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIR.
JUST ONE MORE QUESTION NO JUST
DR.
THIS IS AN EMERGENCY TO FALL.
THIS WAS A THANK YOU THE CHAIR
FOR THE OPTING TO BE HERE I'M
NOT ON THIS COMMITTEE -- I WAS
ON THE NINE ONE COMMISSION A
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE AND WAS
FROM A COMMUNITY THAT WAS
DEVASTATED BY THE TUBS FIRE AND
SO -- THINGS I WANT TO TALK
ABOUT ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS.
INSURANCE FIRST AND THEN.
WELFARE RISK GOING FORWARD SO.
WITH REGARDS TO INSURANCE AND
PERSONAL THE THOROUGHNESS OF
YOUR REPORT IS IS -- IS IS
REALLY WONDERFUL AND AND THE
READABILITY IS IS IS MUCH
APPRECIATED -- YOU TALKED ABOUT
WE'RE NOT A CRISIS YET -- IN
REGARDING -- PEOPLE LOSING
INSURANCE AND I WOULD I WOULD I
WOULD SAY THAT.
IF YOUR NEIGHBOR LOSES HIS
INSURANCE IS NOT A BIG DEAL YOU
YOU LOSE YOUR INSURANCE THAT'S A
CRISIS.
THE NUMBER THERE'S A SURGE IN
THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
GOING TO THE FAIR PLAN WE'RE
PRETTY DARN CLOSE TO A CRISIS.
A WHEN YOU HAVE AN ENTIRE ZIP
CODES.
LOSING THEIR INSURANCE
REGARDLESS OF THE PROPERTY IN
THE INSURANCE WHETHER OR NOT
THEY'VE TAKEN EFFORTS. TO TO TRY
TO MITIGATE FIRE RISK WE HAVE A
PROBLEM AND THAT'S THE KIND OF
THING THAT'S GOING TO SPREAD.
LIKE A VIRUS POTENTIALLY --
THROUGHOUT THROUGHOUT THE STATE
AND SO I JUST I JUST PUT THAT
OUT THERE I WILL SAY TO THAT.
WHAT HAS BEEN MISSING FROM PART
OF OUR CONVERSATIONS -- WITH
REGARDS TO INSURANCE.
IS THAT SHOULD PEOPLE TAKE
EFFORTS TO REDUCE RISKS WHERE
WILL INSURANCE BE WILL THERE BE
AND YOU TALK ABOUT THE THE
POSITIVE BENEFITS OF INCENTIVIZE
YOU TO HOMEOWNERS.
IF THEY'RE DOING THE WORK AND
THEY'RE LOSING THEIR INSURANCE
THAT'S HARDLY AN INCENTIVE AND
THAT IS THAT IS FRUSTRATING AND
JUST SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS WHAT
YOU SAID.
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER FOURTEEN
UNDER THIS HERE REQUIRE THAT
THERE BE A VALID QUOTE FOR
INSURANCE COVERAGE BEFORE ANY
REAL ESTATE OFFER IS ACCEPTED.
THAT SOUNDS REALLY GOOD BUT I
CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT WOULD BE
REALLY HARD TO GET PASSED IN
THIS LEGISLATURE.
I'M NOT AND AND AND MAYBE I'M
WRONG.
BUT YOU'RE NOT OKAY.
WE USE YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND
NUMBER ONE RECOMMENDATION YOU'RE
DOING NOTHING TO IMPROVE
INSURANCE CONDITIONS FOR THE
STATE IS NOT A GOOD OPTION I
COULDN'T I COULDN'T AGREE MORE
AND WE ARE VERY CONCERNED AND WE
NEED TO WORK TOGETHER IF WE ARE
GOING TO IMPROVE FIRE RISK
CONDITIONS.
WE NEED THE INSURANCE SOME
COMPANIES TO WORK WITH US ON
THAT AND AND MIKE I I I DON'T
SEE THAT HAPPENING RIGHT NOW AND
THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S OF
CONCERN -- WITH REGARD TO THE
REDUCTION OF WELFARE RISKING
CALIFORNIA -- YOU TALK ABOUT AND
RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDATION
NUMBER SEVENTEEN AND THIS IS IN
YOUR A SUMMER WORK PROVIDE
SIGNIFICANT STATE INVESTMENTS IN
PREVENTION MITIGATION EFFORTS
NOW WE DID.
PUT TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS
FOR LAST YEAR THE LA -- IN THEIR
EIGHT AUGUST APRIL THE TWO
THOUSAND EIGHTEEN REPORT
RECOMMENDED TWO HUNDRED AND
EIGHTY MILLION ON GROWING.
AND THEY DIDN'T PUT AN END DATE
ON THERE AS I RECALL IN THAT
REPORT -- AND THEN THE GOVERNOR
LIST LAST YEAR PUTTING
ADDITIONAL MONEY -- THAT HELPS
ME TO FEEL LIKE WE VALIDATED THE
THE THE NEED TO CONTINUE TO MAKE
SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS IN FIRE
AND WHILE FOR MEDICATION GOING
FORWARD -- THE END MISTER KHAN
YOU TALKED ABOUT A WILDFIRE
BOARD FOR YOU TILL AT EASE --
BUT I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT
A WILDFIRE BOARD FOR CITIZENS
SORT PEOPLE OUT THERE TRYING.
TO AS WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
TO DO AND THE REASON I CUT I
BRING THAT UP IS -- YOU NUMBER.
EIGHTEEN TALK TO SAYS TAKE
ACTION TO SIGNIFICANTLY
INCREASED.
CONSISTENCY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE LAWS.
A LOT OF FIRES HAVE BEEN IN THE
S. R. RAY.
AND SO ONE OF THE CHALLENGES
THAT WE FACE IS THAT
CALIFORNIA'S.
OUR GREATEST THEIR JOBS BUT
THEY'RE UNDER MANNED AND
UNDERSTAFFED AND SO WHEN FIRE
SEASON STARTS AND IF THERE'S A
FIRE THOSE PEOPLE THEY'RE GOING
OUT AND DOING PROPERTY
INSPECTIONS AND AND AND TRAINING
COURAGE PEOPLE TO DO THINGS.
THEIR GOD.
AND THEY DON'T THEY WON'T BE
BACK FOR A LONG TIME.
AND SO WE DO ANY TALK ABOUT
RESOURCES WE NEED MANPOWER
DEDICATED MANPOWER THEY CAN BE
YEAR ROUND TO HELP WITH
INSPECTIONS TO HELP PEOPLE.
N..
N. AS WE LOOK AT YOU KNOW IF.
YOU LOOK AT COMMUNITIES OUT
THERE WHO CAN MITIGATE FIRE RISK
WEALTHY COMMUNITIES ARE GOING TO
DO WELL BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE
WEALTHY AND THAT THAT THAT MIGHT
HELP.
BUT POORER COMMUNITIES ARE GOING
TO STRUGGLE.
WITH THAT AND SO WHEN YOU DO
THINGS LIKE FIRE HARDENING AND
DEFENSIBLE SPACE IT'S EXPENSIVE.
AND AND AND YOU'RE GONNA SEE AN
PARTICULARLY IN AND POTENTIALLY
IN THE A LOT OF THE S. R. AREAS.
THAT THAT GETTING TO REDUCE THAT
RISK IS GOING TO BE GOING TO BE
CHALLENGING.
I THINK YOU ADD -- TO AND MISTER
MISTER PATTERSON IS NOT HERE HE
TALKED ABOUT PRE POSITIONING AND
YOU KNOW GET MORE FIREFIGHTERS
OUT THERE I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON
PREVENTION.
AND AND THROWING MASSIVE
RESOURCES AT THAT SO WE DON'T
HAVE TO HAVE A HUGE YOU KNOW A
MASSIVE MASSIVE FIREFIGHTING
FORCE.
THAT THAT WE FEEDING CLOSER THAN
AND AND TAKE CARE OF FOR EVER I
SO I'M I'M VERY MUCH IN THE
PREVENTION PART OF IT.
BUT SOME OF THIS GOES BACK TO A
CONCERN THAT THAT THAT I HAVE --
THAT THAT OTHERS HAVE IS IS
UTILITY BEHAVIOR.
AND A TRUST IN THE UTILITY TO DO
THE RIGHT THING.
AND I AM CONCERNED THAT AS WE GO
FORWARD WITH THESE WILD FIRE
MITIGATION PLANS.
THAT.
SOME UTILITIES MAY START TO TRY
TO CUT CORNERS.
AND THAT'S NOT THE BEHAVIOR WE
WANT TO INCENTIVIZE.
MATTER OF FACT WE NEED TO STOP
THAT.
IN ITS TRACKS IF WE BEGIN TO SEE
SIGNS OF THAT.
BECAUSE IT'S THAT BEHAVIOR
CUTTING CORNERS THAT GODDESS
PARTLY INTO THE MESS WE'RE IN
NOW.
AND SO WE DO NOT.
TAKE ADVANTAGE AND AND AND PUSH
BACK WHEN THEY'RE A TIME IF
THERE'S A TEMP TO DOWNGRADE OF
FIRE MITIGATION PLAN OR YOU KNOW
THE LAST MOMENT MAYBE CHANGE
SOMETHING IN -- AND AND NOT
REALLY STUDY THE THE IMPACTS OF
THAT WE NEED TO BE REALLY REALLY
CAREFUL THAT SOMEBODY'S OUT
THERE NOT TRYING TO PULL ONE
OVER ON US AND PUT US AT FURTHER
RISK SO -- WHY DON'T HAVE A
QUESTION FOR YOU -- THESE THESE
ARE THESE ARE ARE MORE COMMENTS
AND I BUT I DO I DO -- I DO
APPRECIATE.
MISTER KHAN SAID ABOUT THE
POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD
MARSHAL UP SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES
AND REALLY ATTACK THIS AND GO
BACK TO NONE OF US WERE HERE --
IN THE LEGISLATURE WHEN THIS
HAPPENED BUT AFTER THE THE EARTH
THE THE LARGE EARTHQUAKE AND
NORTHRIDGE WE MARSHALL
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES AND NOW
YOU SEE.
CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM
AND AND UPGRADES AND THINGS THAT
HAPPEN PRETTY QUICKLY.
WE NEED I THINK WE NEED TO DO
THAT FOR THIS AS WELL.
THANK YOU MAY I OFFER JUST A
COUPLE OF BRIEF COMMENTS IN
RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENTS.
FIRST SO I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP
INSURANCE AND I KEEP GOING BACK
TO HOW DO WE MANAGE RISK
NORMALLY IT'S WITH INSURANCE
RIGHT AND WHAT WE'RE DEALING
WITH HERE IS THAT.
THESE THIS RISK IS SO GREAT THAT
INSURANCE MARKETS INCREASINGLY
DON'T WANT TO COVER IT.
AND THE INSURANCE MARKET FOR THE
UTILITIES THEMSELVES AND CRISIS
SO AGAIN AT HISTORICALLY UTILITY
INSURANCE HAS BEEN ABLE TO COVER
THE COST OF THESE CLAIMS.
IT NO LONGER IS ABLE TO DO SO
AND THERE'S VERY FEW MAYBE ONE
OR TWO INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT
WILL NOW WORK WITH UTILITIES AND
WE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM A
PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITY THAT
CANNOT GET INSURANCE -- AND SO
THAT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER AND
SO THEN THAT LEADS TO HOW TO USE
HOW DO WE GET THE INSURANCE
INDUSTRY BACK INTO DOING WHAT
IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO.
HELPING MANAGE THIS RISK.
AND WHAT WE'VE HEARD DIRECTLY
FROM A COMMERCIAL INSURANCE
COMPANIES AND I IMAGINE IT'S THE
SAME FOR RESIDENTIAL.
IS THAT IF THERE CAN BE AN
OVERALL REDUCTION IN THE RISK
THEY ARE MORE WILLING TO COME
AND PUT THEIR CAPITAL AT RISK
BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEAR RIGHT NOW
WHETHER WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS A
ONE A TWENTY YEAR EVENT OR ONE
IN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY YEAR OF
THAT.
WHICH IS WHY ARE CHAPTER REALLY
GETS INTO WIDE THE INABILITY TO
MODEL UNDERSTAND THIS IS SO
IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF WE CAN'T
UNDERSTAND THIS RISK IT IS VERY
HARD FOR INSURANCE TO PRICE IT
SO THEY WON'T COME IN AT ANY
PRICE POINT.
SO WITH REGARD TO THE
RECOMMENDATION TO INVEST MORE IN
MITIGATION.
IS PARTLY TIED TO THAT WHICH IS
BOTH A DEMONSTRATION BY THE
STATE TO INVEST AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE IN A MEDICATION I THINK
WILL BE PERCEIVED POLICY
POSITIVELY BY THE COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE THAT.
COMMUNITIES AND MAKE IT EASIER
TO HAVE ACCESS TO INSURANCE --
WHAT THAT NUMBER IS?
THAT SHOULD BE I CAN'T SAY ALL I
CAN SAY IS WE'VE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT TEN YEARS FOR MITIGATION
TO COME INTO AFFECTED SO IF YOU
WANT TO MAKE THAT TIME LINE
FASTER.
OR HAVE THAT EXTEND BEYOND THE
UTILITY EFFORTS THEN -- IT'S
WORTH THINKING ABOUT WHAT MORE
DOLLARS IN THAT AREA WOULD DO.
AND THEN I WANNA MAKE A LAST
COMMENT ABOUT UTILITY BEHAVIOR
AND THE CONCERN THERE AND THAT
IS ALWAYS A CONCERN -- WHEN I?
I DO NOT IT IS NOT IN THE
UTILITIES INTERESTS TO HAVE WILD
FIRES IT SIMPLY ISN'T EVEN IF
THE COST GET RECOVERED
[inaudible]
THEY LOSE INVESTORS THEY HAVE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF INVESTORS
THIS IS NOT A SITUATION ANY
UTILITY WANTS TO BE AN AND SO I
THINK THERE IS SIGNIFICANT
INCENTIVE. TO DO EVERYTHING
POSSIBLE AND TO NOT CUT CORNERS.
AND I WOULD KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE
HASN'T BEEN A FULL REVIEW OF THE
RECENT FIRES AND WHAT THE
UTILITIES COULD HAVE OR SHOULD
HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY.
AND SO I WANT TO RESERVE
JUDGMENT ABOUT WHAT COULD HAVE
OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE INTO
THAT REVIEW IS DONE -- BUT WHEN
WE LOOK AT ANY -- GAS ELECTRIC
FOR EXAMPLE WHO IS HIGHLIGHTED
FOR THE WORK THEY'VE DONE WHAT
THEY'VE REALLY INVESTED IN ISN'T.
SYSTEM HARDENING IT'S WILD FIRE
DETECTION.
COM AND THE ABILITY.
TO TURN OFF THE SYSTEM TO
DEACTIVATE THE SYSTEM WHEN
THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR A FIRE.
THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN.
THE UTILITY INVESTING
SIGNIFICANTLY AND SAFER POLES
AND WIRES I DO WANT TO MAKE THAT
DISTINCTION.
THE THE P. YOU SEE THE
LEGISLATURE TO NOT ORDER ALL
UTILITIES TO FOLLOW THAT PATH --
ALTHOUGH WE HAVE ORDER THEM TO
INVEST IN PLENTY OF OTHER THINGS
AND SO I WANT TO BE SENSITIVE
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT UTILITY
BEHAVIOR. TO TO REALLY EXAMINE
WHAT THEY'VE BEEN ASKED TO DO
AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE DONE
THAT VERSUS WHAT WE WISH THEY
HAD DONE OR WISH WE WISH WE HAD
ASKED THEM TO DO.
SO I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU THAT.
EVERYTHING YOU SAID [inaudible]
HI.
IS THAT CODE IN A REPORT YOU'LL
SEE SUBSTANTIATION PORT AN
ASSEMBLY.
WOMAN HIT REYES.
ARM THE MOST HEARTBREAKING PART
OF THIS PROCESS FOR THE
COMMISSIONERS WAS TO HEAR FROM
THE VICTIMS.
AND ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT
ASPECTS OF BEING A VICTIM IS THE
DEALING WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES.
THE YEAH I AND I'M SURE THE
OTHER COMMISSIONERS I VISITED
THE SITES AND TALK TO BUT TO THE
VICTIMS.
YOUR EVERYTHING YOU SAID WE CAN
PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR BECAUSE IT'S
THE TRUTH.
F. BASE THIS IS A HORROR THIS IS
A HUMAN HORROR AND WE HEARD FROM
ONE PERSON WHO VICTIMIZE AFTER
ANOTHER AND THE ESSENTIAL POINT
YOU MADE IS REALLY CRITICAL.
INSURANCE COMPANIES. FOR REASONS
THAT I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND
ARE NOT PROVIDING SATISFACTORY
EXPERIENCE AS FAR CITIZENS THEY
ARE VERY VERY UPSET AND
FRUSTRATED.
AND YOUR RIGHT ABOUT OUR STATE.
ONE THING THAT'S ABSOLUTELY
FASCINATING ABOUT HOW WE
SERVICES FIRES.
WE DO A GREAT JOB EVERYBODY SAYS
IN TRYING TO RUSH IN AND STOP
THEM.
WE DO A GREAT JOB IN THE
IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH PROVIDING
SERVICES AND HELPING PEOPLE
FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO.
AND THEN WE ABANDON THESE
COMMUNITIES WE GIVE THEM PHONE
NUMBERS THAT THEY CAN'T ANSWER
WE GIVE THEM FOR NUMBERS WITH
THE GET RECORDINGS WE GIVE THEM
AGENCIES THAT DON'T GET FUNDED.
AND SO JUST SO THE RECORD IS
CLEAR.
THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING
OPPORTUNITY.
WE ARE HEROES IN PREVENTION AND
AND STOPPING IT WE ARE HEROES IN
COMING IN AND HELPING PEOPLE AND
THEN WE ARE OF THE BAND IN THESE
COMMUNITIES AND THERE IS
ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF PAIN.
AND SUFFERING THAT'S GOING ON
FOR THESE PEOPLE THAT'S WHAT WE
DISCOVERED AND THAT'S FOR US TO
FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO.
AND JUST AS A FOLLOW UP THAT
THANK YOU AND THANK YOU THINK OF
THE CHAIR AND I DO APPRECIATE
PROCEDURE KNOWLEDGE MEN OF THAT
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M LIVING
THROUGH WITH MY CONSTITUENTS.
AND THAT IS THE FRUSTRATION THAT
THAT -- YEAH WE'D WE BE THE
FIRES OUT EVERYBODY.
YOU KNOW THE PEOPLE WENT HOME
AND THEN A LOT OF OUR AGENCIES
AND SUCH IT IS BEEN REALLY
REALLY REALLY DIFFICULT AND AND
IT IS A CHALLENGE GOING FORWARD --
I A COUPLE OF A COUPLE JUST
POINTS AND THEN -- I WOULD LIKE
TO SAY I I BELIEVE WE HAVE AS A
STATE THE RESOURCES TO DO A
MASSIVE MEDICATION -- PLAN -- WE
WE USED MONEY FROM OUR G. G. R.
F. FUND -- WHICH WAS NOT EASY
AND IT WAS CONTROVERSIAL TO A
LOT OF PEOPLE -- BUT THERE ARE
RESOURCES THERE FOR PREVENTION
AND PRIOR TO THAT YOU SAID THAT
WE DON'T USED ABOUT 2% OF OF
THAT MONEY FOR FIRE PREVENTION --
IF YOU YOU SPEND ANY TIME AROUND
THE FIRE ZONES YOU SAW.
THE HORRIBLE AIR QUALITY THAT WE
EXPERIENCED IN THE MASSIVE
RELEASE OF CARBON INTO THE
ATMOSPHERE.
QUITE FRANKLY I CAN THINK OF NO
GREATER INVESTMENT IN REDUCING
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS BY
HELPING TO REDUCE THE RISK OF
FIRE IN OUR ENVIRONMENT -- AND I
I HOPE THAT WE CONTINUE AND DOWN
DOWN THE PATH TO DO THAT BUT WE
ALSO -- AND IT WAS IMPORTANT TO
ME IS IS IS CHANGING BEHAVIOR.
PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO BE TOLD --
THAT THEY NEED TO DO SOMETHING
THEY DON'T WANT TO BE THAT I
WANT TO CLEAR SOMETHING FROM
AROUND THEIR HOUSE.
THEY'RE THEY'RE ATTACHED TO
THEIR FAVORITE TREE AND I AND I
UNDERSTAND THAT AND I I DO AND I
BECAUSE I I AS I AM AS WELL --
BUT BUT INTO WE BEGAN TO TO FIND
A WAY TO HELP PEOPLE CHANGE
BEHAVIOR.
THE RISK IN SOME AREAS IS NOT
GOING TO GO DOWN.
AND AND THAT IS THAT IS OF OF
GRAVE CONCERN -- UP THERE
BECAUSE PEOPLE SIMPLY ARE
RESISTANT TO CHANGE CHANGING
THEIR BEHAVIOR -- AND OUR
ABILITY TO DO INSPECTIONS AND
FOLLOW UP IS VERY LIMITED BY OUR
LACK OF PERSONNEL THE CINEMA
COUNTY TO THEIR CREDIT
[inaudible]
HIS NOW.
MADE F. MAKING AN EFFORT TO TO
EXAMINE OR TO DO INSPECTIONS ON
THIRTY FIVE HUNDRED PROPERTIES
THIS YEAR -- AND AND AROUND FIRE
MITIGATION AROUND FIRE
PROTECTION IN THE CITY THAT I
USED TO LIVE IN.
IF YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT.
THE FIRE EVENTUALLY CAN'T YOU
GOT TAG YOU DIDN'T GET YOU
DIDN'T RESPOND TO THAT THEY CAME
IN THEY CLEANED IT UP AND THEY
SENT YOU A BILL.
BECAUSE IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT
PROTECTING YOUR PROPERTY.
IT'S ABOUT WHAT YOU DO FOR YOUR
NEIGHBOR AND YOU CAN HAVE THE
BEST PROTECTED PROPERTY IN THE
WORLD IF YOUR NEIGHBOR DOESN'T
DO THAT YOU'RE AT RISK.
IT'S MEANT YOU'RE A TERRIBLE
RISK AND SO SO ANYWAY I'M SORRY
GET OFF ON A SOAPBOX BUT THIS
PART. TO ME IS IS IMPORTANT AND
I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT -- HOW
WE HOW WE WORK TOGETHER WITH
INSURANCE IN THE FUTURE?
HOW WE ENSURE THERE IS INSURANCE
FOR PEOPLE AND JUST TO YOU
UNDERSTAND HISTORY -- WE WE
TRUST ME THERE WERE A LOT OF
EFFORTS LAST YEAR AND MOST OF
THEM MOST OF THEM DIDN'T GO VERY
FAR QUITE FRANKLY.
AND IT IS SO YOUR POINT.
ABOUT THIS IS IMPORTANT BUT THE
REALITY IS IT'S VERY DIFFICULT
TO INSTITUTE CHANGE.
THANK YOU.
BECAUSE TAKE A MOMENT TO RESPOND
TO THAT TO ME BECAUSE WE WE
DON'T HAVE ANY OF THE INSURANCE.
A WORK GROUP MEMBERS HERE AND IS
THIS ON THE PART OF A GOOD IF I
COULD MAKE IT VERY BRIEF BECAUSE
AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING IT'S
NOT A COMMITTEE THAT HAS A
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER BUT ABSOLUTELY.
BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THE INTO THE REPORT.
THAT AND THAT IN PARTICULAR THAT
WE'RE GROUP.
RECOGNIZES THE CHANGES IN THE
MARKETS I THINK AT THE MOMENT
AND AND MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO
THE WAY THAT THAT THE INDUSTRY
IS REGULATED. TO HELP FORTIFY
THAT MARKET TO FORTIFY BOTH
AVAILABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY
AND ONE OF THE KEY PIECES AS YOU
SAID IT IS USING THOSE MARKETS
TO INCENTIVIZE GOOD BEHAVIOR AND
THE RECOMMENDATION NUMBER.
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AB.
NO IN THE SECTION IT'S
RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDATION SIX
AND SEVEN IS TO LOOK AT SETTING
STANDARDS BOTH FOR HOME AND
COMMUNITY.
MITIGATION THAT WOULD THEN BE
PAID TO A REQUIREMENT FOR THE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO OFFER --
TO TO OFFER UP THAT POLICIES TO
THOSE COMMITTEES A IF THEY MET
BOTH OF THOSE STANDARDS AND I
THINK THAT ADDRESSES A
SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF THIS
QUESTION WHICH IS.
HOW YOU INCENTIVIZE?
GOOD BEHAVIOR.
SO TO AND PUT THAT POOR
APPRECIATE THAT.
A MISTER CUNNINGHAM.
AND THEN -- IF I COULD IF THERE
WERE WE WILL THEN MOVE.
QUICKLY TO PUBLIC COMMENT SO ON
THE SECOND.
NO I THINK -- I DON'T THINK ANY
OTHER MEMBER.
I HAD A QUESTION SO WILL TURN TO
YOU AND THEN WE'LL MOVE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
WITH RESPECT TO INVERSE SEEMS
LIKE THERE'S TWO QUESTIONS.
WELL THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS.
BUT THERE'S THE CAN WE AS A
LEGISLATURE DO SOMETHING TO
CHANGE THAT.
AS A POLICY MATTER AND THEN
THERE'S THE SHOULD WAY WHICH IS
A POLICY OF POLITICAL QUESTION
WHICH IS VERY VERY DICEY. TO SAY
THE LEAST BUT ON THAT CAN WE
PIECE AND THIS IS JUST AN AND
ONE PICK UP ON YOUR LEGAL
ANALYSIS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR
OPINION IF I FOLLOWED IT
CORRECTLY IS.
THAT WELL IN VERSE HAS SOME
ROOTS IN THE CONSTITUTION IT WAS
A CREATURE OF JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION WITH BY TWO
APPELLATE COURTS OF THE SIX
INTERMEDIATE LEVEL APPELLATE
COURTS IN THE STATE.
IT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESS CORRECT
BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT.
AND THEREFORE OUR OPINION I
BELIEVE IF I UNDERSTOOD
CORRECTLY IS THAT IT COULD BE
ALTERED BY LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
WHAT I DIDN'T FALL THOUGH IS --
YOU HAVE THAT WERE CORRECT SO
FAR YES OKAY CORRECT I WOULD SAY
THAT.
COM THAT'S CORRECT AND ALSO I
THINK VERY IMPORTANTLY.
ON IT WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE
CONTEXT.
THAT WE ARE FACING.
THERE ARE TWO THINGS WHAT WAS IT
IT WAS ADDRESSED IN THE CONTEXT
OF A MONOPOLY IT UTILITIES
BEFORE WE DE REGULATED.
AND IT WAS ADDRESSED NOT IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE EMERGENCY AND THE
REASON THAT MATTERS IS BECAUSE
THERE'S A LINE OF AUTHORITY IN
THE FLOOD CASES.
WHERE THE COURTS AT THAT AGAIN I
ACKNOWLEDGE THE OPPORTUNITY OF
THE LEGISLATURE TO RESPOND TO A
CNSOLIDATED EMERGENCY TO ALTER
THE CONCEPTS OF INVERSE SO IS IT
BECAUSE IF I FALL CORRECTLY IS A
BECAUSE OF?
THE EMERGENCY NATURE OF THE FIRE
HAZARD THAT WE THE LEGISLATIVE.
ACTION WOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS
THAT FEEL SO IF YOU ASK NINE
LAWYERS YOU CAN GET.
YOU KNOW EIGHT OPINIONS BUT I
ONLY HAVE ONE GOOD ONE I'M
TALKING TO RIGHT OKAY.
WHAT WE ARE SURE WE RECEIVE WE
RECEIVE IT WILL PASS ON TO YOU?
EXTENSIVE LEGAL BRIEFING THAT
SUPPORTED THE POSITION THAT YOU
CAN DO THIS AND IT IS MY OPINION.
HAVING BEEN A LAWYER HERE FOR
FORTY SOME YEARS THAT.
THE LEGISLATURE CAN ANNOUNCE A
UNIQUE EMERGENCY AND CAN.
STAND UP AND AGREE WITH THE
GOVERNOR THAT THERE'S THE
EMERGENCY AND THAT WE ARE GOING
TO HAVE A CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE
TO IT.
AND AND ORGANIZE THE STATE I
BELIEVE AND THAT'S NOT A POLICY
THAT'S ILLEGAL I BELIEVE YOU
COULD DO THAT.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT I IT IS MY
BEST GUESS THE SUPREME COURT
WOULD GO ALONG WITH THAT BECAUSE
IT'S VERY UNUSUAL FOR ANY
SUPREME COURT UNITED STATES FOR
CALIFORNIA. TO HAVE A GOVERNOR
AND THE AND THE LEGISLATURE
ANNOUNCE A GENUINE EMERGENCY AND
FOR THOSE COURTS TO INTERFERE
ESPECIALLY WHERE THEY HAD NEVER.
THE SUPREME COURT IS NEVER
COMMENTED ON THIS AND I WILL
MAKE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
NO OTHER STATE DOES THIS FORTY
NINE OTHER STATES HAVE
CONSTITUTIONS THAT READ THE SAME
WAY OURS DOES BUT NOBODY ELSE
INTERPRETS THIS WAY AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T DO IT
THIS WAY.
SO WE ARE ADOPTING A POLICY
LEGALLY THAT NO ONE ELSE HAS
ACCEPTED SO I THINK IF YOU GO TO
THE SUPREME COURT AND YOU SAY
IT'S A BLANK SLATE. FORTY NINE
OTHER STATES DO WITH THE OTHER
WAY YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE.
OKAY I THINK ALABAMA HAS ITS I
DON'T WANT.
TO YEAH THE L. THAT WAS UNIQUE
SITUATION BESIDES LAST TIME I
LOOK WE DON'T FOLLOW ALABAMA
MUCH.
SO SO IT YOU'RE GET SO THIS
WOULD.
ALMOST CERTAINLY BE LITIGATED AS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER QUIRK ALLUDED.
TO AND YOUR BELIEF IS WHEN IT
WENT WHEN AS A GOES UP ON APPEAL.
THAT WHEN AT BY THE TIME IT GOT
TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT.
THE COURT WOULD A CENTURY SO
SHOW DEFERENCE TO THE
LEGISLATIVE ACTION BECAUSE IT'S
NEVER ACTUALLY -- FORMALLY
ENDORSED INVERSE I THINK THAT
THE COURT WOULD SAY THAT ON AS
IT THE S. SIDE.
NOT TO BE YOU KNOW TO GRAVE
ABOUT IT I THINK THE COURT WOULD
SAY THAT THE CALIFORNIA IS NOT
DISABLED FROM PROTECTING ITSELF.
THAT WE HAVE AN EXISTENTIAL
THREAT AND WERE ALLOWED TO
PROTECT OURSELVES I ALSO BELIEVE
THAT ARE THERE ARE LEGAL EXPERTS
AVAILABLE TO YOU -- ARE THAT CAN
THAT THAT AGREE WITH MY POSITION
I I THINK THAT ARE THERE PEOPLE
DISAGREE I ALSO THINK THERE'S
WAYS THAT WE COULD EXPEDITE ARM
OUR REVIEW ON THIS.
ARM AND THERE'S ALSO A REMOTE
POSSIBILITY THAT SOME OF THE
PEOPLE ARE DEPENDING ON HOW YOU
DEAL WITH THIS WILL DECIDE NOT
TO HARM.
A OPPOSE SO I THINK IT'S DOABLE
I'VE I'M NOT.
SO ON THAT FOR YOU COULD I AND I
DON'T WANT.
TO NO BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A PRETTY
GOOD AROUND ABOUT ON THE IN
PERSON I DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU
OFF FROM THE POINT YOU WANT TO
MAKE BUT I THINK IT IS SAFE TO
SAY THAT. ONE OF THE COURT WAS
ASKED TO LOOK AT IT A REFUSE.
TO THIS -- STATEMENT THAT I READ
FROM THE GOVERNOR STATE OF THE
PRESIDENT PRO TEM AND ASSEMBLY
SPEAKER.
ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT AS AN
AREA WHERE WE WOULD BE FOCUSING
ON IN THIS IMMEDIATE MOMENT OF
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DEAL WITH
IN TERMS OF ADDRESSING THE
URGENCY ISSUES OF STABILIZING
UTILITIES.
IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT IF WE DON'T.
LOOK AT IT DOWN THE ROAD AND TRY
TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME
GETTING OUR ARMS AROUND THE
ISSUE -- BUT THOSE ARE NOT THE
POINTS THAT I AM TAKING MY READ
FROM AS I HEAR THEM SPEAK ABOUT.
THE LANES THAT WILL HAVE TO
OPERATE IN IT WILL HAVE SOME
MAJOR LISTING TO ADDRESS THE THE
CHALLENGES IN THOSE LANES -- AS
IT RELATES TO BRIDGE FINANCING --
PRUDENT MANAGER STANDARD.
AND ALLOWING COST RECOVERY.
THOSE ARE THE AREAS THAT.
A AND AND I JUST SAY THAT
BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE SOME WORK
TO DO.
THAT -- I'M NOT I'M NOT TRYING
TO PRECLUDE AND THIS WAS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO GET A
PREVIEW AND I REALLY DO
APPRECIATE COULD YOU GO TO SAID
NOW YOU COULD HAVE SAID NO WE
HAVE [inaudible]
TO WELL [inaudible]
WELL.
NO YOU REALLY COULD.
BUT BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS AN OPTION
THAT THAT YOU STILL HAVE ANOTHER
STEP TO YOUR PROCESS TO GO AND
WE'RE TRYING TO BE RESPECTFUL.
OF THAT -- SO.
CONTINUE TO HAVE A DIALOGUE AND
DEBATE AROUND INVERSE IS
CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE I JUST
WANT. TO GIVE THE MEMBER AN
OPPORTUNIST SORT OF GET -- TO
FINISHING HIS LINE OF
QUESTIONING ON IT.
BUT ALSO THEN BE ABLE -- TO TURN
TO THINK MISS BURKE WHO ALSO HAD
A QUESTION.
OKAY -- AND THEN I REALLY WOULD
LIKE TO GET TO THE THE PUBLIC --
TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO
SORT OF SHARE THEIR THOUGHTS AND
WHAT THEY'RE HEARING FOR ONE
MINUTE JUST ONE MORE QUESTION
SURE DEFINITELY.
YEAH NO I THOUGHT I THINK IT'S
AN INTERESTING LEGAL ANALYSIS
NOBODY'S EVER PERCENT OF THAT
BEFORE I THOUGHT THAT WAS.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE I
WOULD UNDERSTAND CLEARLY WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING.
PUSHING BACK THE LITTLE BIT ON
EITHER THAT WOULD REALLY BE A
CURE ALL IT OCCURS TO ME THAT IF
YOU MOVE TO FALL BASED STANDARD.
AT LEAST WITH RESPECT THE P.
JEANNIE HISTORY.
ARE THERE STILL SOME MASSIVE
WILDFIRE INDUCED LOSS.
THAT THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE
AT FAULT.
FOR SO I DON'T.
NO IF IF WE'RE GONNA TRY TO LIFT
THE HEAVIEST THING AROUND WE GOT
TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S REALLY --
A A WORTH PUTTING IN THAT EFFORT
TO SECURE IS YOU'RE PROBABLY
VERY WELL TAKEN YOU'RE
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THERE NO CURE
ALLS THAT'S WHAT CARL SAID
ACCORDING EIGHTY APPROACH NEEDED.
IF AN NSA.
I THINK IT HAS BEEN HELPFUL FAR
REPORT.
TO TALK ABOUT INVERSE
CONDEMNATION BECAUSE THAT PUTS
INTO CONTEXT WHY ONE OF THE
REASONS WHY THE UTILITIES IN
CALIFORNIA IS VIEWED AS RISK
HERE.
AND WHY WE ARE SEEING INCREASED
COST AND RATING AGENCY INVESTOR
CONCERNS -- WHICH I KNOW HAS
BEEN A KEY CONSIDERATION AND
AFFECTS US WELL WHAT WE'RE
THINKING ABOUT COST RECOVERY IN
THE FIND AND SO THAT'S WHY WE
CONTINUE TO INCLUDE THAT TOPIC
IN OUR DISCUSSION WHILE
RECOGNIZING.
THAT IS YOUR PREROGATIVE ABOUT
WHETHER TO PURSUE SOMETHING AT
THIS TIME.
OKAY -- IS BURKE.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
REPORT TO AND AND MY QUESTION IS
MUCH LESS PROFOUND AND MOST OF
THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN TODAY --
I DO APPRECIATE THE COMMENT THAT
IT'S A COORDINATED APPROACH AND
I THINK SOME OF THE FRUSTRATION
SOMETIMES YOU HEAR FROM OUR
MEMBERS IS.
BECAUSE WE ALWAYS COME BACK TO
THIS UTILITY FINDING AND YOU
KNOW WHO'S GONNA PAY AND AND I
THINK THAT THE REPAIRS ARE THE
TAXPAYERS WHOEVER.
YOU TALK ABOUT THEY HAVE CERTAIN
EXPECTATIONS THEY HAD
EXPECTATIONS THAT THEY PAID
THEIR RATES AND THAT THEY WOULD
HAVE THE SAFE UTILITY AND THAT.
THEY PAID FOR IT ALREADY AND SO
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A MORE
CORNING APPROACH I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT -- OR IT WOULD BE
GREAT AS YOU GUYS CONTINUE TO
TALK.
IS IS THAT YOU DISCUSS WHAT WHAT
ELSE WERE REALLY PROVIDING THEM
WHAT WHAT ELSE IF FOR ASKING
THEM FOR MORE WHAT.
IN ADDITION ARE WE GOING TO
PROVIDE THEM WITH AND WHAT KIND
OF GUARANTEES ARE WE REALLY
LOOKING AT PROVIDING THEM WITH.
BUT MY BIG MY ACTUAL REAL
QUESTION IS NOT ABOUT INSURANCE
IN GENERAL BECAUSE THEY THINK
THERE'S A LOT OF CONVERSATION TO
HAVE ABOUT FAIR PLAN AND WHETHER
IT'S TIME FOR FAIR PLAN TO OF
ALL OF OR THE HIGH RISK
INSURANCE A MINUTE MARKET WHAT.
DO WE DO ABOUT THAT BUT ACTUALLY
ABOUT I OWE YOU INSURANCE WOULD
YOU HAPPEN TO MENTION -- WHEN
YOU HAVE LOOKED AT INSURANCE AND
I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT I -- USE
HAVE HAD DIFFICULTIES AMPERE USE
GETTING INSURANCE BUT WHEN YOU
HAVE LOOKED AT THAT HAS THAT
BEEN AT THE TEN MILLION DOLLAR
DEDUCTIBLE THAT THE
TRADITIONALLY PAY OR HAVE YOU
ACTUALLY LOOKED AT IF WE
INCREASE THEIR DEDUCTIBLE WHICH
BY THE WAY IS A SAVINGS TO
REPAIRS BECAUSE INSURANCE IS.
PASSED ON TO REPAIRS HAVE WE
LOOKED AT WHAT THAT WITH WHAT
THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE -- IF WE
INCREASE OUR DEDUCTIBLE AND AND
IS IF IF THERE IS INSURANCE MORE
AVAILABLE AT THAT IN DOING THAT.
THAT'S A GREAT RECOMMENDATION
AND WE OFFER SOMETHING SIMILAR
IN THE REPORT THAT YOU HAVE A
HIGHER DEDUCTIBLE -- I DON'T
RECALL WITH AXE THAT EXACT
QUESTION BUT IN TERMS OF THE
TESTIMONY WE'VE GOTTEN FROM
INSURANCE COMPANIES.
THEY SIMPLY SAY THERE IS NOT THE
CAPACITY IN THE MARKET TO COVER
LIABILITIES THAT ARE TWENTY
TWENTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS
BECAUSE THE MOST A UTILITY CAN
GET RIGHT NOW IS ONE POINT FIVE
BILLION.
AND SO I ASK THE QUESTION IS
THERE ENOUGH INSURANCE OUT THERE
AND WHAT I'VE HEARD IS NO.
WE'VE HEARD THAT IF THERE IS
SOME TYPE OF FUNDER SUPPORT FOR
LIABILITIES FROM TWO BILLION TO
TWENTY BILLION THEN THEIR
INSURANCE MARKETS THAT MY KICK
IN FOR THE REAL REAL TALE RISK
OVER TWENTY BUT IT REALLY GETS
BACK TO YOU IF IT IS A ONE A TWO
HUNDRED AND FIFTY YOUR SITUATION.
WHAT WE JUST EXPERIENCE THEN I
THINK YOU HAVE INSURANCE BUT IF
IT'S SOMEONE IN TWENTY YEARS
THEN THERE'S NOT THAT CAPACITY
AT THE MOMENT?
I WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT THE A
MY UNDERSTAND FROM THE RECORD.
HAVE TEST ME THEY RECEIVED WAS
THAT IT WASN'T THAT DEDUCTIBLE
THAT WAS SORT OF THE DESIGN OF
THIS I THINK WHAT YOU'RE GETTING
AT CHAIRS AT THAT THAT WAS A
GOOD DOCTOR WASN'T THE DECIDING
FACTOR.
CAM AND IMPACTED THE ATTACHMENT
POINTS WEREN'T WEREN'T REALLY
THE DECIDING FACTOR WAS.
THE OVERALL RISK PROFILE THAT
WAS DRIVING AND THE INABILITY TO
GET INSURANCE.
AND JUST -- ON THAT POINT.
THERE ARE OTHER FINANCING
MECHANISMS OF THAT WE TALKED
ABOUT THAT TYPICALLY ARE USED TO
DEAL CATASTROPHE IS LIKE.
A CAT CATASTROPHE BONDS FOR
EXAMPLE BUT WHAT WE KEPT COMING
BACK TO IS THAT ALL THOSE OTHER
MECHANISMS OUT THERE ARE
REASONABLE WHEN YOU HAVE A
LIABILITY OF A FEW HUNDRED
MILLION ONCE YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT.
TENS AND TENS OF BILLIONS.
MANY OF THOSE MECHANISMS OF
THEY'RE JUST THEY'RE NOT
INVESTORS WHO WANNA WHO WANT TO
TAKE THAT ON IT SO THAT'S WHY
THE MORE WE CAN REDUCE.
THE OVERALL LIABILITY THEN THE
MORE MECHANISM THAT BECOME
AVAILABLE TO US.
NOT -- TO COPY EVERYBODY ELSE
BUT I THINK I MIGHT.
CAN HAS ONE MORE QUESTION OKAY --
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS TO
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IS THAT IF
THERE WERE SOME FIND OR SOME
SORT OF BRIDGE LIABILITY FIND
WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE THEN
THAT INITIAL INSURANCE WOULD
BECOME MORE MORE AVAILABLE AND
THEN IN THAT CASE SO WOULD THERE
BE AN ISSUE IN RAISING.
THE DUCK DOUBLE FOR THE PURPOSE
OF MAYBE A VALUES FEEL PEOPLE
FEEL LIKE THEY MORE SKIN IN THE
GAME TEN MILLION DOES NOT A LOT
OF SKIN IN THE GAME WHEN YOU'RE
LOOKING AT FIRE IS THAT.
EVEN SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT
MILLION WHICH IS LIKE ONE OF OUR
SMALLER ONES AT THIS POINT.
IT SO I DON'T THINK THE CREATION
OF A FUND MAKES INSURANCE MORE.
AVAILABLE UNLESS YOU'RE TRYING
TO GET PERHAPS INSURANCE AT A
HIGHER ATTACHMENT POINT BUT I
THINK THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF
WHAT YOU SAID WHICH IS WHAT WHAT
DO REPAIRS GET OUT OF THIS MEAN
WHAT.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS CAN BE
HAVE A HIGHER DEDUCTIBLE ONE I
HAVE TO BE I THINK WE
RECOMMENDED A HUNDRED MILLION OR
EVEN A FEW HUNDRED MILLION I
MEAN I THINK THAT SOMETHING
WORTH KEEPING ON THE TABLE
BECAUSE EVERY DOLLAR COUNTS AND
THAT IS SOMETHING.
AS YOU KNOW THAT WOULD OTHERWISE
GO TO RATES AND SO I THINK
THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
OKAY WE'RE GONNA TAKE US SOME
TIME NOW TO TURN FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT -- WE'RE GOING TO
RECOGNIZE THOSE WHO'D LIKE.
TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE WILL --
REQUEST A MINUTE. TO A MINUTE
FOR EACH PERSON SHOULD BE
RETURNED WE JUST MISTER WELL IF
YOU DON'T MIND THE THERE MAY BE
SOMETHING.
PLEASE FISHERMEN HOLDEN --
MEMBERS THE COMMITTEE PATRICK
CALLUM REPRESENTING UP FROM THE
ASHES.
WE ARE REPRESENTING THE VICTIMS
THE VICTIMS FROM THOMAS WOLSELEY
NORTH BAY AND CAMP FIRE WE'RE
ALSO REPRESENTING THE FORTY ONE
LAW FIRMS.
IF VICTIMS IS THE FOCUS AND
FRANKLY I'M NOT HEARING THAT
TODAY I'M LOOKING AT THE
COMMISSION AND RESPOND TO THAT.
THEN WHAT LET ME TELL YOU WHAT
WE LIKE ABOUT THE COMMISSION
REPORT WE AGREE YOU NEED A GOING
FORWARD WILDFIRE FINE.
WE AGREE WITH MRS BURKE THAT YOU
NEED A HIGHER DEDUCTIBLE. TEN
MILLION DOLLARS OF LIKE AND
HAVING A TEN DOLLAR DEDUCTIBLE
ON YOUR AUTO INSURANCE WE AGREE.
AND HAVE PUT THAT WE PUT A
SPECIFIC PROPOSAL OUT THERE ON
THE FUND WE DON'T AGREE ON THE
SIZE WE THINK IT'S SMALLER WE
AGREE NAY NEW COST RECOVERY
PRUDENT MANAGER STANDARDS WE PUT
A VERY SPECIFIC PROPOSAL ON THAT
TO HELP VICTIMS.
WE AGREE YOU NEED MUCH MORE IN
SAFETY WE AGREE WITH US TELL
WHEN WHAT.
THE STATE NEEDS TO STEP UP ALONG
WITH THE AYE WHO'S AROUND SAFETY
AND MITIGATION WE HAVE SOME
PROPOSALS AROUND THAT.
WHAT'S MISSING IS ANYTHING
DEALING WITH SEVENTEEN EIGHTEEN
VICTIMS IS NOT PART OF THE
REPORT.
WE GET THE GOVERNOR THE SENATE
PRO TEM THE INVERSE SHOULD NOT
BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION WE
DISAGREE COMPLETELY.
N. VERSUS THIS WEED VENDORS
FIGHT LAST YEAR IT DOESN'T SAVE
YOU A DOLLAR IN THE FUTURE.
IT HELD A STATE BY GOING A
QUICKER PROCESS TO GET THE
VICTIMS AND STUFF LIKE THAT AND
IT IS COMPLETELY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL WATER.
AND THE INTENDED USE OF A POLL
IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SO THANK
YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN THANK YOU.
CARE MARTIN ST ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES I I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMISSION FOR THE WORK THAT
THEY'VE DONE WE'VE ATTENDED MANY
OF THE MEETINGS OVER THE LAST.
FEW MONTHS AND THEY HAVE HEARD
FROM US DIRECTLY AND VICTIMS --
BUT WE ARE A LITTLE DISMAYED AND
SOME OF THE FINDINGS IN THE
REPORT -- AS MY COLLEAGUE
MENTIONED WE'RE FOCUSED ON
SOLUTIONS AND WE THINK THAT
CHANGES TO INVERSE CONDEMNATION
IS NOT A SOLUTION THAT'S GOING
TO BRING GREATER CERTAINTY.
AT WAR UP PROTECT VICTIMS IN
THIS MATTER WE WANT TO ROLL UP
OUR SLEEVES AND GET TO WORK WE
AGREED WITH THE GOVERNOR'S --
PRESS STATEMENT AND LEGISLATIVE
LEADERSHIP THAT THERE ARE A
SIGNIFICANT THINGS THAT WE CAN
DO IN THE NEAR TERM.
AND ALSO WORK ON A FUND THAT
PROVIDE CERTAINTY TO THE
UTILITIES WHILE PROTECTING
VICTIMS AND OF FOCUS ON SAFETY
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON CAREY PASSED MORE
FOR CONGRESS OF CALIFORNIA
SENIORS.
FIRST OF ALL LET ME SAY THANK
YOU TO THE COMMISSION.
IT'S A REMARKABLY GOOD REPORT IS
THAT IS THESE THINGS GO AND TO
THIS HEARING TODAY WHICH WAS.
AN AMAZINGLY INFORMATIVE ONE
WE'RE VERY ENCOURAGED BY YOUR
RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND WE OBVIOUSLY.
ARE VERY VERY SUPPORTIVE AND
INTERESTED IN THE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HELP
PROTECT CONSUMERS.
UP.
AS YOU COLUMN RATE PAYERS -- WE
HAVE A LOT OF LOW INCOME SENIORS
IN CALIFORNIA HIGHER THAN ANY
OTHER STATE.
AND MOST SENIORS ON FIXED INCOME
SO THEY HAVE A VERY LIMITED
ABILITY TO BE.
ENGAGED BY HELPING PAY FOR THE
PROBLEM THAT WE ALL FACE.
UP MANY OTHERS ARE HIGHLY
SUSCEPTIBLE TO BEING IN THE
CASUALTY FIGURES BECAUSE THEY
HAVE.
LIVE IN ISOLATION THEY HAVE.
ARE -- MOBILITY CHALLENGES OR
RELY ON MEDICAL DEVICES AND
EQUIPMENT SO WITH THOSE COMMENTS
I WOULD SIMPLY SAY.
THIS IS NOW I THINK MOVING TO BE
IN YOUR LAP CHAIRMAN HOLDEN AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
AND WE HOPE YOU YOU ALL ACT
QUICKLY AND RECOGNIZE THAT WE
NEED TO TAKE SOME ACTION BEFORE
WE ENTER ANOTHER WILDLIFE
WILDFIRE SEASON THANKS.
THANK YOU [inaudible]
THANKS BAKER. TO A DEVON BOUGHT
A A RP REPRESENTING THREE POINT
THREE MILLION MEMBERS IN
CALIFORNIA.
AND I ALSO HAVE A FAMILY MEMBER
WHO LOST THEIR HOME IN THE TUBS
FIRE SO PER SHAPE WHAT EVERYONE
IS DOING. TO TRY AND HELP
VICTIMS AND TO MAKE OUR STATE
SAFER -- A. R. P. IS REALLY
CONCERNED BECAUSE OUR MEMBERS
ARE ON FIXED INCOMES FOR THE
MOST PART WE ARE ALSO NOTED THAT
IN THE LOSS OF LIFE.
IT WAS THE SENIOR POPULATION AND
THE DISABLED THE MEDICALLY
FRAGILE.
OF AN ELDERLY FOLKS WHO LOST
THEIR LIVES -- SO THERE THERE'S
A LOT TO BE CONSIDERED WE JUST
DON'T WANT THE RATE PAYERS TO
HAVE -- TO FACE THE WHOLE
FINANCIAL BURDEN FOR IT THANK
YOU [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
PATRICK WELCH ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES
ASSOCIATION APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM CHAIR
AND COMMISSIONER TODAY ABOUT.
THEIR DRAFT REPORT WILL BE
PREPARED TO MAKE.
MORE DETAILED PUBLIC COMMENTS ON
FRIDAY WHEN THE COMMISSION --
HOLZER HEARING JUST MAKE THREE
PUBLIC COMMENTS -- BASED ON WHAT
WE HEARD TODAY APPRECIATE.
COMMISSIONER KHAN AND HIS
COLLEAGUES.
MOVING FORWARD THE CONVERSATION
ON THE DISCUSSION MY STRICT
LIABILITY WE APPRECIATE THE
INCLUSION WHEN IT COMES THE FUND
OF VOLUNTARY AND OFTEN
PARTICIPATION FOR PUBLICLY OWNED
UTILITIES IT'S VERY CRITICAL FOR
MEMBERSHIP.
AND FINALLY WHEN IT COMES THE
CREATION OF A NEW STATEWIDE
ELECTRIC BOARD WERE STILL
ASSESSING THAT RECOMMENDATION
BUT I JUST WANT.
TO INFORM THE COMMITTEE THAT
THERE ARE STATEWIDE STANDARDS --
FOR INSPECTIONS OF ELECTRICAL
LINES THERE ARE FEDERAL STANDARD
FOR TRANSMISSION LINES AND CAL
FIRE ALSO HAS STANDARDS FOR
INSPECTIONS VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT IN STATE
RESPONSIBILITIES.
IN ADDITION PO USE ALSO HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO DEVELOP A WHILE
FOR MEDICATION PLANNED UNDR SB
NINE A ONE THAT HAS TO BE.
INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED BY AN
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR SO THERE ARE
EXISTING STANDARDS ARE OUT THERE
AND JUST A HAPPY TO INFORM THE
COMMITTEE MORE ON THOSE ASPECTS
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY JUSTIN
SCARBOROUGH -- WITH CALIFORNIA
WATER SERVICE WHERE THE SECOND
LARGEST BY WATER UTILITY IN
CALIFORNIA SERVING A POPULATION
OF ABOUT TWO MILLION FROM CHICO
IN THE NORTH DOWN TO PALACE
VERDES PENINSULA IN THE SOUTH.
I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMISSIONERS FOR BEING HERE
TODAY AND FOR THE AMAZING WORK
THAT YOU ALL DID PUTTING
TOGETHER THIS REPORT FOR A SHORT
AMOUNT OF TIME.
MR JOHNSON FOR THE EFFORTS THAT
YOU PUT INTO THIS AND MISTER
CHAIRMAN FOR HOLDING THIS
HEARING TODAY A MAN FOR ALL THE
INPUT -- THERE WAS HERE I WANTED
TO HIGHLIGHT ONE THING THAT WAS
MENTIONED TODAY AND ALSO WAS
HIGHLIGHTED IN THE DRAFT REPORT
THAT THE COMMISSION PUT TOGETHER.
IS THE INVERSE CONDEMNATION IS
NOT JUST AN ISSUE THAT AFFECTS.
ONE ENERGY UTILITY THREE ENERGY
UTILITIES AFFECTS EVER UTILITY
IN THE STATE INCLUDING ALL OF
THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIERS IN
THE STATE.
ANSWER RISK THAT THE COMMISSION
I THINK CORRECTLY WE THINK
CORRECTLY POINTS OUT THREATENS
NOT ONLY ACCESS TO CLEAN ENERGY
IN THE STATE AND AFFORDABLE
ENERGY AND STATE.
BUT ALSO ACCESS TO CLEAN WATER
IN THE STATE WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS
A PRIORITY FOR ALL OF US WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE. TO ADDRESS THIS
VEXING PROBLEM MOVE IN FORT
THANK YOU.
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION GOT SPENT ON BE ON
BEHALF OF UTILITY WORKERS UNION
OF AMERICA A WATER UTILITY
COUNCIL -- OUR MEMBERS ARE MADE
UP OF THE LOCALS IN THE STATE
THAT HAVE -- THEIR WORKERS ARE
MEMBERS AT VARIOUS WATER
UTILITIES UP AND DOWN THE STATE.
THEY WANT TO COMMEND THE
COMMISSION AND KNOWLEDGE THE
HARD WORK THAT THAT YOU ALL HAVE
DONE -- AND WE ALSO SHARE THE
PREVIOUS SPEAKERS -- CONCERNED
ABOUT -- POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR
A WATER UTILITY THAT DIDN'T
CAUSE A FIRE.
AND THE IMPACT ON JOBS PENSIONS
AND ETCETERA AND WE WOULD LIKE
TO MAKE OURSELVES AVAILABLE TO
THE COMMITTEE ON TO YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN AS THIS DISCUSSION GOES
FORWARD.
THANK YOU APPRECIATE THANK.
GOOD AFTERNOON SELENA PRIOR.
ON BEHALF OF DR ALICE HAUSMANN
AND THE CALIFORNIA HAWAII STATE
CONFERENCE OF THE AND DOUBLE ACP
I'M JUST HERE TO EXPRESS MY
CONCERN FOR THOSE PEOPLE IN OUR
AND OUR COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE
BEEN AFFECTED BY THESE FIRES --
WHEN THESE FIRES HAPPENING
COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE --
CALIFORNIA FAMILIES AND LOCAL
BUSINESSES ARE AMONG THE HARDEST
HIT -- IT OFTEN TAKES MANY YEARS
TO REBUILD AND SOME ARE
STRUGGLING TO REGAIN -- HOPE --
AND SEEING THAT PEAK.
WILDFIRE SEASON IS COMING SOON
WE ENCOURAGE THE LEGISLATURE TO
TAKE ACTION BEFORE THE NEXT BIG
FIRE HAPPENED SO THAT WE ARE
PREPARED.
AND IN A BETTER POSITION ON TO
HELP VICTIMS RECOVER THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
CAPTION TURN MEMBERS THEIR
COFFEE BEHALF LEAGUE CALIFORNIA
CITIES WHEN I THANK THE
COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR HARD
WORK ON THIS AND LIKE TO LINE MY
COMMENTS WITH US THE SACK AND
SAY THAT YOU KNOW WE DO THINK
THAT CHANGING INVERSE
COMBINATION IS NOT.
THE RIGHT APPROACH HOWEVER WE
ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH
THE LEGISLATURE WITH THE
GOVERNOR WITH YOU -- TO DEVELOP
SOME ANOTHER OPTION SUCH AS A
FUND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
PROTECT YOU KNOW VICTIMS AND
REPAIR SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY.
TO GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS
CARL LEVIN AND I AM HERE TODAY
FROM BEHALF IBEW LOCAL -- FORTY
SEVEN WHICH REPRESENTS THOUSANDS
OF HARD WORKING MEN AND WOMEN
MANY WHO LIVE IN YOUR DISTRICTS
SOME HAVE ACTUALLY LOST THEIR
HOUSES FROM THESE FIRES.
IBEW MEMBERS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE ARE WORKING AROUND THE
CLOCK TO HARDEN OUR ELECTRICAL
SYSTEMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE. TO
NOT ONLY MAKE THE SYSTEM MORE
FIRE RESISTANT BUT ALSO TO
ENSURE THAT OUR MEMBERS CAN
CONTINUE TO SAFELY DELIVER THE
POWER.
THIS WALL FOR CRISIS AND THE
UNCERTAINTY OF OUR STATES
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT IS
IMPACTING BOTH INVESTOR OWNED
PUBLIC UTILITIES THE MEN AND
WOMEN WHO WORK IN ALL OF THIS IS
CALIFORNIANS.
WE NEED TO A COMPREHENSIVE
APPROACH THAT INCLUDES ENHANCED
PREVENTION EFFORTS.
AND MORE RESOURCES FOR FIRST
RESPONDERS AND THERE IS NO
QUESTION.
THAT THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO
ACT ON MANY OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS IN SB NINE A ONE
THE COMMISSION IS REPORTING
INCLUDING THE NEED FOR CLEAR
PREDICTABLE RULES.
THE THE APPROPRIATION OF COSTUME
WILDFIRES DO OCCUR AND THE
ESTABLISHMENT O THE WALL FOR
FUN TO HELP VICTIMS RECOVER.
AND AGAIN THANK YOU FOR YOUR
HARD WORK IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE
CAN DO PLEASE LET ME KNOW
[inaudible]
FURTHER.
GOOD AFTERNOON REX I'M A WE HAVE
A CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATION WE AGREE WITH THE
SENTIMENT OF THE STATUS QUO IS
NOT WORKING OUT.
BUT WE CAN HOLD UTILITIES
ACCOUNTABLE FOR IMPLEMENTING
THEIR WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN
AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE
CLEAR RULES WORK BECAUSE
ALLOCATED.
ONE CAUSE CATASTROPHIC EVENTS
LIKE THIS DO OCCUR SO WE ARE
ABLE TO REBUILD THANK YOU
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIRMAN
ALAN JACKSON WITH ENERGY -- AND
I AM A HOMEOWNER I AM A RATE
PAYER AND I'M SOMEONE WHO'S
FAMILY WAS THIS PLACE -- TO IN
PARIS BY THE CAMPFIRE BUT IN MY
OFFICIAL CAPACITY I MAKE CLEAN
ENERGY ADVOCATE AND I DID WANT
TO MAKE THE CONNECTION WHICH HAS
NOT COME UP TODAY.
IT'S A MULTIFACETED ISSUE --
DEEPLY CONCERNING.
BUT IT WOULD BE A TRAGIC IRONY
IF IN THE PROCESS OF RESPONDING
TO WILDFIRES WHICH ARE MADE MORE
CATASTROPHIC BY CLIMATE CHANGE
WE MAKE OUR SOLUTIONS ON
AFFORDABLE AND WE CANNOT BE
ELECTRIFYING TRANSPORTATION AND
BUILDINGS IF WE HAVE.
OUR ELECTRIC BILLS ESSENTIALLY
PAYING FOR THESE COSTS SO WE
NEED TO BE A MINDFUL OF THAT I
THINK WE DEEPLY APPRECIATE THE
REPORT -- WHICH CORRECTLY
DIAGNOSED THE FACTORS THAT PUT
US INTO THIS MESS AND I THINK
I'M CHARTER WAY OUT OF IT.
BUT TO THE LEGISLATURE JUST ONE
UNDERSCORE THAT THESE REFORMS DO
WORK AS A PACKAGE AND IF
LIABILITIES OFF THE TABLE WE ARE
CONCERNED THAT THE OPTIONS LEFT
ARE STILL GONNA PUT TREMENDOUS
STRAIN.
ON CUSTOMERS AND SHAREHOLDERS TO
BE SHOULDERING HIS BURDEN AND
THAT'S GONNA BE VERY
INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR CLINICAL
THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE THAT I AM SUSAN
APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU WHO CAME
OUT AND A SHARED YOUR THOUGHTS
WITH US AND IT IS THIS.
PRESENTATION HAS BEEN
EDUCATIONAL AND INFORMATIVE AND
WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT AND
APPRECIATE THE REFLECTION ON ON
THAT AS A GOOD OUTCOME.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OTHER
MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
COMMENT THAT AS WE CLOSE OUT BUT
YEAH WITH THIS IS SO WE'RE ALL
IN IT TOGETHER RIGHT.
SO WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR
HARD WORK AND HOW WE'RE GOING --
TO CUP FROM YOUR GOOD WORK AND
TRY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE
SOLUTIONS THAT.
ARE WILL GET US TO A PLACE WHERE
WE CAN SAY THAT WE HAVE
STABILIZE THE THE UTILITY MARKET
PLACE AND AND RECOGNIZING THAT
THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME.
COMPONENTS OF THIS THAT WILL
REQUIRE US TO CONTINUE TO HAVE
DIALOGUE GOING FORWARD AND WE
RECOGNIZE THAT AND I DON'T THINK
ANY OF US ARE PREPARED. TO TO
NOT -- GET OUR ARMS AROUND SOME
OF THOSE IMPORTANT A PRINCIPLES
THAT YOU'VE OUTLINED IN YOUR
REPORT AND EVEN HERE TODAY.
US SO.
WITH THAT I WILL APPRECIATE ALL
OF YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS
MEETING IS ADJOURNED