1. Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee
July, 18, 2018

2. 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

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

7. 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

8. 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?

11. 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 will likely delay bidding and/or add increased risk for implementers while creating
inequitable opportunities for implementers

12. Others signing on:

13. 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.