Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee July, 18, 2018

Agenda Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee (RMCP) C/CAG CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY Atherton  Belmont  Brisbane  Burlingame  Colma  Daly City  East Palo Alto  Foster City  Half Moon Bay  Hillsborough  Menlo Park Millbrae  Pacifica  Portola Valley  Redwood City  San Bruno  San Carlos  San Mateo  San Mateo County  South San Francisco  Woodside Agenda Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee (RMCP) Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Location: 455 County Center, 4th Floor, Room 402 Redwood City, CA 94063 1. Introductions 2. Public Comment 3. Approval of Minutes from June 27, 2018 Committee meeting (Kim Springer – Committee Staff) Action 4. Update on Governor’s Global Climate Action Summit and Affiliate Event (Kim Springer – Committee Staff) Discussion 5. Presentation on Addressing the Split Incentive with Integrated Approaches to Deep Energy Retrofits and Green Leases (Derek Hansen, Mynt Systems) Presentation, Discussion 6. Update on San Mateo County Energy and Water Strategy 2025 7. Report on Office of Ratepayer Advocates Application for Rehearing of CPUC Decision and C/CAG’s possible response 8. Committee Member Updates 9. Next Meeting Date: August 15, 2018

Update on Governor’s Global Climate Action Summit and Affiliate Event

Local Affiliate Event with C/CAG and Joint Venture: Focused on Local Government Thursday, September 13th, in the morning Potential location, Genentech Potential transportation, Proterra

Update on San Mateo County Energy and Water Strategy 2025 Energy Stakeholder Group Seat Organization Name Community Choice Aggregator Peninsula Clean Energy Rafael Reyes County County - OOS Kim Springer Nonprofit - Energy/ Microgrid Clean Coalition Frank Wasco Real Estate Mynt Systems Derek Hansen Vehicle/ Bus Manufacturer Proterra Andre Lalljie back up Kent Leacock Electric Utility PG&E Bill Chiang Community College SMC CCD Joe Fullerton City/ Town Council South San Francisco Pradeep Gupta Public Works Fleet City of San Mateo Andrea Chow Public Transportation SamTrans Health Care District Kaiser Nonprofit - Energy SunRun Water Stakeholder Group Seat Organization Name Water Agencys BAWSCA Adrianne Carr County County - OOS Kim Springer Water Agencies Cal Water Kyle Ramey Silicon Valley Clean Water Eric Hansen Health Department County - EH Kate Elgin back up Greg Smith RCD Joe Issel Water Technology Fluence Biotech Genetech?

Report on Office of Ratepayer Advocates Application for Rehearing of CPUC Decision and C/CAG’s possible response The Joint Parties urge the Commission to deny the rehearing of the cost-effectiveness orders A move back to a forecast 1.25 TRC requirement will impact customers who need it the most and result in undue burden on small business, hard to reach, and disadvantaged business ORA’s claims that a Total Resource Cost test value below 1.0 will burden ratepayers is inaccurate as long as the Program Administrator Cost test is above 1.0 ORA’s claim that “Cost-effectiveness forecasts substantially exceed reported and evaluated results” and that “nothing in the record shows that the utilities can deliver energy efficiency portfolios that meet or exceed their cost-effectiveness forecasts” is not applicable Rehearing D.18-05-041 will likely delay bidding and/or add increased risk for implementers while creating inequitable opportunities for implementers

Others signing on:

Since 2012 when the Commission directed a required forecast TRC of 1 Since 2012 when the Commission directed a required forecast TRC of 1.25, numerous policies that impact the composition of the portfolio have been implemented without any updates to the cost-effectiveness inputs or framework (with the exception of avoided costs). Specifically, many policy changes have led to requiring programs that are very beneficial to customers, but that add substantial cost without yielding comparable energy savings. These changes include (but are not limited to): 1. AB 758 focus on improving the energy efficiency workforce; 2. SB 350 focus on disadvantaged programs; 3. SB 350 requirement to pursue Market Transformation efforts; and 4. Commission direction to focus on small and medium business. The sum of these actions results in a TRC value that is no longer able to be driven by only highly cost-effective resource programs yet the cost-effectiveness framework continues to focus primarily on avoided energy use. This creates an extensive imbalance between what the Commission and state law directs the PAs to do and how we measure the value and reasonableness of those investments when evaluating cost-effectiveness.