6. Assignment of Proceeding
Michael R. Peevey is the assigned Commissioner and Carol A. Brown is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.
1. This mission of the CICS is:
· To administer grants for mission-oriented, applied and directed research that results in practical technological solutions and supports development of policies to reduce GHG emissions or help California's electricity and natural gas sectors adapt to the impacts of climate change.
· To speed the transfer, deployment, and commercialization of technologies that have the potential to reduce GHG emissions or otherwise mitigate the impacts of climate change in California.
· To facilitate coordination and cooperation among relevant institutions, including private, state, and federal entities, in order to most efficiently achieve mission-oriented, applied and directed research.
2. It is necessary for the SRC of the CICS to first develop a Strategic Plan as described in this decision.
3. The Strategic Plan will be the framework from which the Institute will formulate its budget, long- and short-term goals and grant administration process. It will be updated annually.
4. The Institute will reduce GHG emissions within the state both by transferring technology for cleaner energy and improved EE that has already been developed and by formulating new commercially viable technology
5. Stabilizing GHG emissions will require an economic investment in this Institute on the scale established in this decision.
6. The mission of the CICS is consistent with the purpose and findings contained in AB 32 wherein the Legislature found that "global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California," and with SB 1368 wherein the Legislature found that California must reduce its exposure to the costs associated with future federal regulations of [GHG] emissions.
7. We find that it is appropriate and necessary to direct ratepayer funding for the establishment of CICS and the activities described in this decision.
8. We find it necessary and reasonable given ratepayer funding of the Institute that the Institute be accountable to the Commission and the ratepayers. The Commission shall approve the following: non ex officio appointments to the Governing Board; appointments to the Executive Committee; the Strategic Plan; the annual proposed budget; annual report that includes external financial audit; biennial external performance review; and the IP and technology transfer policies and protocols.
9. A ratepayer benefits index will be an integral part of the Strategic Plan and will rank proposed projects on a continuum, from a high ratepayer benefit to low, or no ratepayer benefit, depending on cost-effectiveness, amount of GHG emission reductions, and whether the results are in the energy sector or another field. The SRC will develop this index.
10. The ratepayer benefit index will be included in the grant RFA, must be referenced in individual grant applications and will be employed as a selection factor in the choice of grants to receive CICS funding. Only proposals with articulated ratepayer benefits can be considered for CICS funding.
11. We find that the proposed budget of $60 million a year over 10 years is appropriate and reasonable for the CICS investment, especially if it is leveraged with additional funds from private and public sources.
12. We find that in the absence of statewide legislation authorizing a tax to fund the Institute, it is appropriate to use ratepayer funds.
13. Energy use is a logical and equitable means of apportioning the costs of CICS and allocating the surcharge on an equal cents per therm or kWh basis among all CPUC jurisdictional California electric and gas utilities is fair and reasonable. However, to avoid any duplication, gas-fired electricity generators are explicitly exempt from assessment for gas CICS costs for gas purchases.
14. We state that customers whose rates are capped under AB1X and customers eligible for California's Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program will be exempt from paying for the electric and gas surcharge to fund the Institute. Consistent with D.04-02-057, total (commodity plus non-commodity) residential electric rates for usage up to 130% of baseline remain unchanged.
15. We find it reasonable to specify that administrative costs, including the development of the Strategic Plan, and grant administration should be kept to a minimum, although we anticipate that there could be higher up-front costs for the initial administrative function costs that must be incurred before work in other areas can begin. We limit administrative costs to a maximum of 10% of the total funding for the Institute. In the competitive process for the hub site, a critical selection factor will be how the applicant proposes developing the Strategic Plan and managing and controlling the administrative costs associated with operating the hub.
16. Mission-oriented applied and directed technological R&D is the primary purpose of the Institute and we expect that it will require a minimum of 85% of the CICS budget.
17. The Workforce Transition Subcommittee will study whether there is a need to support the energy sector's transition to a carbon-constrained future by anticipating and preparing for the resultant changes through workforce development and report back to the Commission on the study within six months. If the study supports having the Institute fund grants for the emerging workforce training, the Commission can consider, and approve if appropriate, an appropriate percentage allocation of Institute funds for that purpose. The Commission must act on the report within three months of its receipt.
18. We find it reasonable to allow the Governing Board and the Institute Executive Director to exercise some discretion in the percentage allocations between the administrative and R&D budget, as long as at a minimum 85% of the Institute's budget is allocated strictly to the R&D function. Any unspent funds from any yearly budget are to be rolled-over to the next budget year of the Institute. Any unspent funds remaining at the end of the tenth year are to be returned to the ratepayers, unless the Commission acts to continue ratepayer funding of the Institute.
19. We do not find it reasonable to allow the CICS to spend or allocate the ratepayer funds authorized in this decision for the purchase of research equipment or information infrastructure for the central hub of the Institute beyond the 10% allotted for program administration. Grant recipients may spend grant monies on equipment if the need for the equipment was identified in the grant application.
20. We find it reasonable to establish that the Institute will have a Governing Board with an Executive Committee, an Institute Executive Director, a Managing Director, staff, SRC, and subcommittees.
21. It is reasonable for the CICS Governing Board to select the geographical location of the Institute's headquarters, or hub, in California, through a competitive solicitation. The Governing Board is to issue a Request for Proposals to which all non-profit California-based entities, including but not limited to public and private universities may respond. A peer review committee will rank the proposals and present the rankings to the Governing Board for selection.
22. Although it is our intent for the Institute to have a presence in both northern and southern California, we will leave it to the discretion of the Governing Board to determine how to best ensure that, once the physical location of the hub is determined.
23. We find that the CICS would benefit from a broad-based Governing Board as set forth in Attachment C. No single organization or interest may hold a majority of seats on the Governing Board or the Executive Committee.
24. The Governing Board shall be co-chaired by the President of the Commission and the President of UC, or their respective designees for the first three years. Other specifics relating to the Governing Board, including its duties, are set forth in the Charter, Attachment A.
25. We find it reasonable to require all members of the Governing Board to be subject to the conflict of interest policy, Attachment B.
26. In particular, members of the Governing Board who are affiliated with an applicant for the hub site or for a grant may not vote on that selection.
27. The Governing Board will conduct a national search for an Institute Executive Director who has responsibilities as set forth in the Charter, Attachment A.
28. The SRC shall be chosen by the Governing Board and will have no more than 20 members, all residing in California, or connected with an entity with a presence in California, with subject-matter expertise in a designated field related to climate change issues. The duties and responsibilities of the SRC are set forth in the Charter, Attachment A.
29. It will be the responsibility of the SRC to develop a Strategic Plan from which the short-term and long-term goals for the Institute will follow. The SRC is to undertake the following tasks as part of developing the Strategic Plan: conduct an inventory of current publicly and privately funded research efforts to meet the requirements of AB 32; identify areas of technological innovation not being developed that will bring about the most promising options for reducing GHG emissions; identify which R&D areas have the potential for the greatest ratepayer benefits and develop a ratepayer benefit index; utilize the resources that the hub provides to execute the above functions; and identify and, where appropriate, prioritize opportunities that have the potential to benefit and/or engage members of California's disadvantaged communities.
30. The purpose of the research inventory is to avoid redundancy and overlap with existing programs and to utilize the efforts undertaken by CARB, the ETAAC and PIER.
31. The SRC will assist the Institute's staff in developing and administering the grant process. Utilizing the Strategic Plan, SRC is to develop target RFAs for the short-term and long-term research goals consistent with the Plan.
32. Once the Institute issues grant RFAs, it must ensure a competitive process for the review and awarding of grants. The awarding of grants shall be consistent with the policy set forth in this decision.
33. We find it reasonable to direct the Institute staff, in consultation with the Governing Board, to develop a peer review process through which all grant applications will be reviewed prior to being approved for funding. The peer review process shall be consistent with the requirements set forth in this decision.
34. The Governing Board shall oversee the Institute.
35. The Executive Director's duties and responsibilities are set forth in the Charter but include the responsibility to cause to be prepared a biennial comprehensive performance review by an outside source, and we adopt the recommendation that CCST do such a review. This performance review should include an overall assessment of the Institute's effectiveness in achieving the Strategic Plan and reaching the long-term and short-term goals. CCST is to develop specific performance metrics to use to evaluate the success of the Institute.
36. The Executive Director should also cause the completion of an annual external financial audit.
37. The Executive Director is to prepare, in conjunction with Institute staff, an annual report. This report is to be submitted to the Governing Board within 90 days of the close of the fiscal year, and then to the Commission for approval. The annual report is to describe the activities of the Institute during the course of the year, including the RFAs issued, grant applications received, grants awarded, conferences organized, private and public funds solicited and obtained, and the accomplishments achieved by the Institute and its grantees.
38. The Executive Director is to prepare a proposed budget for each fiscal year of the Institute and submit it to the Commission for approval.
39. All reports submitted to the Commission for approval are to be posted on the Institute's website simultaneously with their submission to the Commission. The Executive Director shall appear, if requested by the Commission, before a public Commission meeting to answer questions on any Institute item before the Commission.
40. The annual report is to include the external financial audit that presents a financial summary of expenditures and funds received. The CICS is to maintain detailed financial records under generally accepted accounting principles and these records shall be maintained for at least six years. These records are to be made available to the Commission upon request.
41. It is reasonable to require that the Governing Board establish a TTS responsible for taking specific steps outlined in the decision to establish IP and technology transfer policies and protocols specific to the Institute. Once the TTS establishes policies and protocols for IP and technological transfer specific to the Institute it is to be given to the Executive Director for presentation to the Governing Board, and then posted on the Institute's website and submitted to the Commission for approval. Unless violative of any law, the TTS is to include in the policy at least a 10% return to ratepayers from net revenues.
42. It is a reasonable to find that until the Institute establishes IP and technology transfer policies and protocols specific to the Institute, all grant agreements shall be consistent with the framework established by Bayh-Dole.
10. We find that it is in the public interest and the ratepayer interest to establish the CICS to accelerate applied R&D of practical and commercially viable technologies that will reduce GHG emissions and allow California to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
11. The mission of the CICS is consistent with the purpose and findings contained in AB 32 wherein the Legislature found that "global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California," and with SB 1368 wherein the Legislature found that California must reduce its exposure to the costs associated with future federal regulation of [GHG] emissions.
12. We find that it is appropriate and necessary to direct a total of $60 million a year for 10 years of ratepayer funding for the establishment of CICS and the activities described in this decision, with direction to the Institute to use this money as leverage to secure additional funds from public and private sources
13. We find it necessary and reasonable given ratepayer funding of the Institute that the Institute be accountable to the Commission and the ratepayers. The Commission shall approve the following: non ex officio appointments to the Governing Board; appointments to the Executive Committee; the Strategic Plan; the annual proposed budget; annual report that includes external financial audit; biennial external performance review; and the IP and technology transfer policies and protocols.
14. The Strategic Research Committee will develop a ratepayer benefits index that will be an integral part of the Strategic Plan and will rank proposed projects on a continuum, from a high ratepayer benefit to low, or no ratepayer benefit, depending on cost-effectiveness, amount of GHG emission reductions, and whether the results are in the energy sector or another field. No project without an articulated ratepayer benefit will be chosen for CICS funding.
15. The costs of CICS should be allocated among CPUC jurisdictional gas and electric utilities on an equal cents per therm or kWh basis. To avoid any duplication, gas-fired electricity generators are explicitly exempt from assessment for CICS costs for gas purchases.
16. The costs for CICS should be apportioned between gas and electric customers based on the percentage of total 2007 state revenues once electricity generation, wholesale sales to municipalities and DWR revenues are excluded, resulting in an approximately 70-30 split between electric and gas ratepayers respectively.
17. Customers whose rates are capped under AB1X and customers eligible for California's Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program will be exempt from paying for the electric and gas surcharge to fund the Institute. Consistent with D.04-02-057, total (commodity plus non-commodity) residential electric rates for usage up to 130% of baseline remain unchanged.
18. The CICS should strictly segregate the ratepayer monies invested in CICS from other funds and keep them in an interest-bearing account so that all principal and interest generated by the funds are reserved for the purposes of CICS.
43. The Institute should allocate the $60 million funding for each year of the Institute's operation among the Institute's activities as follows: except for the initial two start-up years, administrative costs, including hub costs, should not exceed 10%; the R&D budget should receive a minimum allocation of 85% of the Institute's funding; no money is authorized for the purchase of equipment beyond the 10% allotted for hub administration. Hub expenses may not exceed 10% of the total budget over the ten year life of the CICS. As specified in the decision, grant recipients may purchase equipment.
44. Any unspent funds from any yearly budget are to be rolled-over to the next budget year of the Institute. Any unspent funds remaining at the end of the tenth year are to be returned to the ratepayers, unless the Commission acts to continue ratepayer funding of the Institute.
45. The Institute should have a Governing Board with an Executive Committee, an Executive Director, a Managing Director, staff, a SRC and subcommittees. The particulars of these positions are set forth in the Charter, Attachment A.
46. All members of the Governing Board are subject to the conflict of interest policy set forth in Attachment B.
47. The Institute should have a physical headquarters, or hub, geographically located in California at an institution chosen through a competitive solicitation. The Governing Board is to solicit applications from all non-profit California institutions, including, but not limited to, public and private universities. A panel of peer review experts is to evaluate and rank the proposals, with the final selection of the host institution to be made by the Governing Board. Specifically, institutions are to provide the following information that will be considered in the hub selection process:
a. A detailed description of how they would host the Institute in a way that would advance the Institute's mission─applied and directed R&D and commercialization of technologies;
b. How the hub would be structured to utilize the existing or planned resources of the institution;
c. How the infrastructure and existing systems of the host institution can serve the Institute;
d. Describe the physical space;
e. What intellectual and other resources does the proposed hub have that could enhance the Institute, and would propose to contribute to the Institute's operations;
f. Whether the host institution would house the Institute wholly within;
g. How they would control and manage the administrative costs of the hub;
h. How they would maintain a web portal;
i. How they would approach the Strategic Planning process to ensure that the SRC fulfills its duties to create an inventory of existing programs, identify uncharted areas of R&D, and focus on R&D that has a ratepayer benefit;
j. How the practices and policies of the hub and the resources of the host institution will be used to support participation of members of disadvantaged communities in projects funded by the CICS;
k. A description of practices and policies it intends to use to support participation of members who are broadly representative of the population of California in the projects funded by the CICS;
l. How much matching funding they will commit to raise; and
m. How they could ensure that whether its geographic location was northern or southern California, it could serve the interests of the entire state.
48. We defer to the Governing Board how to ensure that the Institute has a presence in both northern and southern California.
49. The Institute shall establish and maintain a website for climate-related research directed at researchers and students.
50. The first and primary function of the SRC is to develop a Strategic Plan that will be the framework from which the Institute will formulate its budget, short-and long-term goals and grant administration process. The SRC is to undertake the following tasks as part of developing the Strategic Plan: conduct an inventory of current publicly- and privately-funded research efforts to meet the requirements of AB 32; identify area of technological innovation not being developed that will bring about the most promising options for reducing GHG emissions; identify which R&D areas have the potential for the greatest ratepayer benefits and develop a ratepayer benefits index; utilize the resources that the hub provides to execute the above functions; and identify and, where appropriate, prioritize opportunities that have the potential to benefit and/or engage members of California's disadvantaged communities.
51. The Strategic Plan must include a ratepayer benefit index that will be used by SRC and Institute staff to develop and administer the grant process from solicitation through selection.
52. SRC, in consultation with Institute staff is to develop a peer review process through which all grant applications will be reviewed prior to presentation to the Executive Director for recommendation to the Governing Board.
53. The Governing Board shall oversee the Institute and its duties and responsibilities are set forth in the Charter.
54. The Executive Director's duties and responsibilities are set forth in the Charter, but to ensure Commission oversight of the Institute, the Executive Director is to cause to be prepared a biennial comprehensive performance review. An external evaluator should conduct this review that includes an overall assessment of the Institute's effectiveness in reaching the goals of the Strategic Plan, as well as descriptions of specific performance metrics, drafted specifically for the Institute.
55. We adopt the recommendation that CCST perform this biennial comprehensive performance review and that CCST recommend performance metrics that will assess the Institute's success in carrying out its mission and Strategic Plan. This audit is to be presented to the Governing Board, posted on the Institute's website and submitted to the Commission for approval.
56. Every year, the Executive Director is to cause to be prepared an external financial audit. This audit is to be presented to the Governing Board, posted on the Institute's website and submitted to the Commission for approval.
57. Every year, the Executive Director is to prepare a proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year that is to be presented to the Governing Board, posted on the Institute's website and submitted to the Commission for approval.
58. Every year, the Executive Director is to prepare an annual report. The annual report should describe the activities of the Institute during the course of the year, including the RFAs issued, grant applications received, grants awarded, private and public funds solicited and obtained, conferences organized, and the accomplishments achieved by the Institute and its grantees.
59. The annual report is to include an audit that presents a financial summary of expenditures and funds received. The CICS is to maintain detailed financial records under generally accepted accounting principles and these records shall be maintained for at least six years.
60. This annual report is to be presented to the Governing Board within 90 days of the close of the fiscal year of the Institute, and once approved by the Governing Board, posted on the Institute's website and submitted to the Commission for approval.
61. The Executive Director shall appear, if requested by the Commission, at a public Commission meeting to answer questions on any submission before the Commission for approval.
62. The Governing Board is to establish a Technology Transfer Subcommittee responsible for taking specific steps outlined in the decision to establish IP and technology transfer policies and protocols specific to the Institute, and, unless violative of law, include at least a 10% return to ratepayers from net revenues. Until then, all grant agreements shall be consistent with the framework established by Bayh-Dole. Once completed, the IP and technology transfer policy is to be presented to the Executive Director for presentation to the Governing Board, and then posted on the website and submitted to the Commission for approval.
63. This decision should be effective immediately so that the process of establishing the CICS can begin forthwith.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. We establish a California Institute for Climate Solutions (CICS) to accelerate applied research and development (R&D) of practical and commercially viable technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and allow California to adapt to impacts of climate change.
2. The Charter of the CICS, Attachment A to this decision, sets forth the particulars of the Institute, including its authority, mission, the constitution of the Governing Board and its functions and authority, meeting requirements, subcommittees, officers and duties and committees.
3. As a condition precedent to establishing the CICS, the co-chairs of the Executive Committee of the Governing Board, the President of the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) and the President of the University of California (UC), are directed to meet within 90 days of the date of this decision, to initiate the steps, as set forth in the decision and consistent with Attachments A, B and C, to create the Executive Committee and the Governing Board and to make nominations to the Strategic Research Committee (SRC). The assigned Commissioner or Administrative Law Judge may modify the timeline set forth in this ordering paragraph.
4. The California investor-owned electric and gas utilities shall collect the $60 million per year, for the ten years authorized by this decision, from all electric and gas ratepayers, exempting gas-fired electricity generators from the gas charge. Customers whose rates are capped under AB 1X and customers eligible for California's Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program will be exempt from paying for the electric and gas surcharge to fund the Institute. Consistent with D.04-02-057, total (commodity plus non-commodity) residential electric rates for usage up to 130% of baseline remain unchanged. The utilities shall hold these funds and pay the funds out directly to each grantee, and make monthly payments to the hub. The exact mechanics of how this process will work shall be addressed by each utility via advice letter.
5. The utilities shall allocate these additional revenues on an equal cents per kWh or cents per Therm basis.
6. The utilities shall each file an advice letter within 30 days of the effective date of this decision to modify tariffs to implement this decision. The revised tariffs shall become effective no later than 90 days after the effective date of this decision subject to Energy Division determining that the tariffs are in compliance with this order. The utilities may consolidate rate changes with other planned rate changes following approval of the tariff changes.
7. The utilities may record the actual payments made to the CICS in a memorandum account, the CICS Memorandum Account, or an existing account, as deemed appropriate by the utilities.
8. Once CICS receives ratepayer funds, CICS is to strictly segregate the ratepayer monies invested in CICS from other funds, and keep them in an interest-bearing account so that all principal and interest generated by the funds are reserved for the purposes of CICS.
9. The $60 million funding for each year of the Institute's operation should be allotted among the Institute's activities as follows: except for the initial two start-up years, administrative costs should not exceed 10%; technological R&D through the grant administration process should not fall below 85% of the budget; and no money is authorized for the purchase of research equipment or information infrastructure for the central hub of the Institute beyond the 10% allocated for program administration. Hub expenses may not exceed 10% of the total budget over the ten year life of the CICS. Grant recipients may spend grant money on equipment if the need for the equipment was identified in their grant application. Not less than 85% of the Institute's budget must be spent on R&D activities.
10. The CICS shall obtain matching funds over the ten year life of the Institute that equal or exceed the $600 million in ratepayer funding. The CICS should obtain 100% of the matching funds on an annual basis beginning in Year 5.
11. The Institute will have a physical headquarters, or hub, located in California that shall perform the core functions of the Institute. The Governing Board is directed to run a competitive solicitation, seeking proposals from non-profit California institutions, including, but not limited to, public and private universities. A panel of qualified external peer reviewers shall be used to evaluate and rank proposals, with the final selection of the host institution to be made by the Governing Board from the ranked reviews. We defer to the Governing Board the responsibility of ensuring that the Institute has a presence in both northern and southern California.
12. The Institute shall establish and maintain a web portal.
13. Creation of the Strategic Plan is the first and primary function of the SRC, is due March 13, 2009, and pursuant to our directive in Ordering Paragraph 3, that is to be the focus of the Governing Board as soon as it is constituted according to the prescriptions set forth in this decision and Attachments A, B and C.
14. The Executive Director shall ensure that the following reports are prepared:
¬ a biennial comprehensive performance review that includes an overall assessment of the Institute's effectiveness in reaching the long-term and short-term goals consistent with the Strategic Plan approved by the Governing Board, as well as descriptions of specific performance metrics, to be determined by the Executive Director and the Governing Board. We adopt the recommendation that the California Council on Science and Technology perform this review;
¬ an annual external financial audit;
¬ a yearly proposed budget; and
¬ an annual report [within 90 days of the close of the fiscal year]. The annual report is to include an audit that presents a financial summary of expenditures and funds received. The annual report should describe the activities of the Institute during the course of the year, including the RFAs issued, grant applications received, grants awarded, private and public funds solicited and obtained, conferences organized, and the accomplishments achieved by the Institute and its grantees.
15. The CICS shall maintain detailed financial records under generally accepted accounting principles and these records shall be maintained for at least six years
124498. Once these reports are prepared, they are to be presented to the Governing Board, posted on the Institute's public website and submitted to the Commission for approval. The Executive Director shall appear, if requested by the Commission, before a public Commission meeting to answer questions on any Institute matters before the Commission for approval.
124499. The Governing Board shall establish a Technology Transfer Subcommittee responsible for taking specific steps outlined in the decision to establish intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer policies and protocols specific to the Institute, and, unless violative of law, include a return of 10% to ratepayers from net revenues. Until then, all grant agreements shall be consistent with the framework established by Bayh-Dole. Once completed, the IP and technology transfer policy is to be presented to the Executive Director for presentation to the Governing Board, and then posted on the website and submitted to the Commission for approval.
124500. The Workforce Transition Subcommittee of the governing board shall study whether it is necessary to support the energy sector's transition to a carbon-constrained future through anticipating and preparing for the resultant changes through workforce development and report back to the Commission on the study. The workforce transition study should identify gaps in current workforce development programs with specific reference to new professional and job opportunities likely to result from the transition of California toward its green energy economy goals. The study should make recommendations on how to best coordinate industry, government, academic, business and professional groups relevant to filling those gaps and should present a detailed plan. This plan may include (1) a recommendation as to whether the Institute should take on a role in workforce development, and, if so, how the Institute could best collaborate with others to fill the gaps, and (2) specific recommendations to relevant State and public authorities such as educational and vocational institutions. We recognize that funding workforce training programs is not a direct purpose of this research Institute; however, the study may include suggestions for funding or providing matching money for discrete projects that are not to be funded by others in an effort to jumpstart appropriate emerging workforce development programs. The workforce transition subcommittee shall submit its study to both the Governing Board and the Commission within six months from its initiation, and Commission should act on the subcommittee's recommendations within three months of receipt. If the study supports having the Institute fund grants for the emerging workforce training and the Commission concurs in this recommendation, the Commission may allocate an appropriate percentage of Institute funds for that purpose.
124501. Rulemaking 07-09-008 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated April 10, 2008, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
DIAN M. GRUENEICH
JOHN A. BOHN
RACHELLE B. CHONG
TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON
Commissioners
I will file a concurrence.
/s/ John A. Bohn
Commissioner
I reserve the right to file a concurrence.
/s/ Rachelle B. Chong
Commissioner
I reserve the right to file a concurrence.
/s/ Dian M. Grueneich
Commissioner
I will file a concurrence.
/s/ Timothy Alan Simon
Commissioner
Concurring Opinion of Commissioner Bohn on D.08-04-039
I believe our action today is a positive step in California's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this State. I support the Governor's and Legislature's call for California to make every effort to reduce its contributions to GHG and to set an example for the rest of the world. The California Institute for Climate Solutions (Institute) that is established by this decision may indeed be an effective contributor toward that end. As structured, this Commission maintains close oversight of Institute operations, assures that its focus remains on ratepayer benefit and applied technology solutions, and does not duplicate the activities of other entities, public or private. Ratepayer funding is to be matched over time from other sources so that ratepayers can benefit from the seed money they have contributed, and promotes coordination within California of scientific research to maximize collaboration.
Nevertheless, though I concur in the result and the decision of this case, I have deep reservations about certain aspects of today's Commission's action. By this decision, we announce our intent to assess ratepayers served by the investor-owned utilities of the state of California $600 million over a ten year period in order to establish and operate a new organization devoted to seeking and implementing technology solutions to the global problem of climate change. We are, in short, telling the ratepayers that as a condition of receiving essential utility services delivered by licensed monopoly enterprises under our jurisdiction, they are required to pay additional monies beyond the millions already included in their rates for new research and commercialization efforts for uses far beyond our jurisdiction, that may never deliver results that reduce global warming and, if they do, they are probably unlikely to deliver those results in the near term. And we do so without any review as to whether the more than $80 million a year already being funded by ratepayers pursuant to State law for similar research and commercialization efforts by the Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) program is an adequate or possibly even more effective tool than the new organization we fund today.
We do so knowing full well that the problem we seek to address is a global one rather than one limited to California, and thus, despite our own efforts on a state and local scale, can be effectively addressed only through national and international efforts. We do this to "lead the way" and to encourage others globally and, indeed, to encourage others in our own country, to follow our lead. Finally, we are asking the ratepayers to fund these efforts knowing that many in our State and elsewhere, who will receive the benefits, if any, of this activity, will do so without cost to them, an indirect subsidy from those this Commission is assessing today. Those we regulate pay, and the rest get a free ride.
Many sources of authority are arrayed as authorizing us to take this audacious leap. AB 32 and SB 1368 are cited. To be sure, those legislative actions have laid out goals. But our elected representatives, despite the lofty rhetoric, have not seen fit to assess the entire electorate to provide funding toward the achievement of those goals. There is no taxpayer burden, nor action of our elected representatives that spurs us to action. Rather, this Commission is left to inflict the cost of this unfunded legislative mandate on the already burdened ratepayers, and at a time of national economic crisis. As we take these actions, this Commission must keep in mind that this is not public money we are committing, nor are these employees of the State funded by taxpayer assessments. Rather, the "beneficiaries" of our decision are hardworking individuals and countless numbers of small businesses whose choices are diminished by our action today.
Some parties urge that this is a tax by another name. This decision dismisses this argument out of hand as simply not a tax but a "surcharge." What should arouse concern is that, indeed, this is not a tax but not so only by semantic sleight-of-hand. There are procedures established in this State by which the people of California consent to be taxed for certain purposes through their elected representatives. Yet the burden we place on the ratepayers is not too dissimilar. This Commission must guard against being used to fund legislative intentions, however lofty, which impose no cost to the policymakers in either budgetary or political terms because the cost of those programs can be assessed against the ratepayers by vote of this Commission. Our democratic system is awash in such unfunded mandates. We must not facilitate this abuse of the public trust.
It should be clear, though it is nowhere stated, that this Commission's authority to assess its ratepayers must be limited. There must be some nexus between ratepayer benefit to be achieved and the money we take from their pockets. That connection should be reasonably proximate in time and result, and not simply incidental to living in California. It cannot be enough that a "good idea" in and of itself is justification for additional burdens to be placed on the ratepayer. If it were, then when judged against a perceived peril, no good idea could ever be rejected.
This Commission must also be skeptical of other related demands on ratepayers in pursuit of solutions to the problems of climate change. We have already imposed surcharges to fund the California Solar Initiative, the PIER Research program, renewable energy programs, and soon we will fund transmission lines which are not self-supporting, all in the interest of transitioning our economy into the renewable age. We approve today yet another "good idea" from Southern California Edison for an authorization to collect money from ratepayers to support a study of a potential clean-hydrogen power plant. At each meeting the utilities bring this Commission "good ideas" for research, development, pilot programs, and the like, each one noble in its purpose and consistent with our aspirations. Each one, however, reflects additional costs to be imposed on the ratepayers. Let us recall as well that these particular ideas are in addition to the "good ideas" that are generated and funded through the general rate case process in which utilities present and attempt to justify planned improvements, programs, and expenditures, and choices are forced to be made.
Under what conditions, then, can we say "no" to those pleas of "you told us to do it, to be more green?" We recognize that in large part California ratepayers, if they benefit from our actions today, benefit only as a part of general humanity. We also recognize that the people of California have signaled again and again their willingness to support climate change initiatives. This Commission, however, no matter how noble the cause, cannot, must not, assess California ratepayer for distant, speculative goals, even for the general good. One might as well assess them for a new dam in Wyoming which will reduce the use of coal generation on the theory that fewer emissions in Wyoming will result in fewer emissions in the United States and, therefore, in California, or we might assess them for a smoke stack filter in Pittsburg. If indeed, as we herein say, that ". . . climate change is the preeminent environmental challenge of our time," no amount of funding can be considered by some as "enough" to solve the problem. Any efforts are justified in light of the impending crisis. Why $600 million? Why not $1 billion?
The real question, then, is how much more we should burden California ratepayers? We as a Commission have neither the skill, the scope, nor the mandate to solve the problem of global warming on our own, even if we have a vision and share a goal. Our task is to balance what we can ask of the ratepayers in light of all the circumstances, economic and political, personal and financial. We must be able to say "no," though the cause be noble, the burden is too great at this time. Yet I do not see that happening, colleagues. Nor do I see an effective voice of business, the private sector or consumers in these deliberations. This decision pushes the boundaries of our duty and our jurisdiction almost to the breaking point.
Yet, it is my hope that this decision will help California to organize the quest. It sets about to leverage ratepayer investment for the greater good to gather the community of the concerned in common dialogue. It requires others to step up for the common good. It organizes and focuses discussion around what is going on among key players in the search for solutions. It encourages collaboration among science; it catalyzes funding; it provides leadership in shaping an important agenda; and it calls for collaboration among the federal, private and public sectors. With appropriate leadership, it can make a difference. But only if it steps outside the normal walls and silos of academia and government, eschews bureaucracy in favor of action, and keeps its focus on concrete steps to achieve the broad objectives to be achieved for the benefit of Californians. A "roadmap" is at once an inventory of current possibilities and a guide to future possibilities. But without a destination, on which any roadmap is silent, it is of little value in reaching one's destination. This Commission cannot abdicate its leadership role in finding that direction, but it must be ever conscious that it is using other people's money, money not freely given over to our use.
There are precious few members of the proposed Governing Board who come from "the real world" of business. Yet we direct that the activities of the Institute be aimed at commercialization of practical, near term technologies. I would have preferred to see additional representation from the private sector. I would have preferred a Governing Board of greater independence of deliberation. Therefore, we as a Commission must be constantly aware of the effect of the structure on its operations. I would have preferred to invite a member of a publicly-owned utility to sit at the table to discuss these common issues, rather than, with reluctance, asking them to pay to play, a request we make to no other member of the Governing Board. I hope that our nearsightedness has not made the problem of coordinated action more difficult.
I would have preferred fewer representatives of the University of California system, superb educational system that it is. The ratepayer, alas, pays twice for this participation, once as a taxpayer to support that system and again by virtue of this decision, as a ratepayer to support the operations of that same system. There should be concern about the danger of excessive influence here, and of double funding of the operations and objectives of the University system. This Commission has an obligation to the ratepayers to assure itself that this does not happen.
Finally, this decision reminds us again that we must be wary of other attempts to "pick the pocket" of the ratepayer under the banner of climate change. Though each assessment may be relatively small on each ratepayer's bill - an argument used to justify the repeated adventures of this Commission - we must be careful to focus our efforts. It is of particular importance that efforts by the Institute be vigorous and thorough at the outset to evaluate the current state of relevant research and technology funding in both the public and private sectors in order to avoid duplication. At the same time, however, the Institute must be equally vigorous in drawing on those efforts and maximizing benefit from what is already taking place.
And we must guard against attempts to "pick us off" one project at a time under the assertion that a particular project will help California become more green and the cost to each individual ratepayer is insignificant because, in the abstract, each project may seem appealing, and each project may not seem like an unreasonable financial burden to place on ratepayers. Without this self-imposed discipline, I worry for the ratepayer, I worry for the business community, and I worry for our State.
In spite of my reservations, but given the close oversight this Commission will maintain, I have voted in favor of the proposal. I will be watching the development and work of this Institute closely to ensure that this latest assessment on the ratepayers of California was not done in vain.
/s/ JOHN A. BOHN
John A. Bohn
I join in the concurrence of Commissioner Bohn.
Dian M. Grueneich
Concurrence of Commissioner Rachelle Chong
Decision Establishing California Institute
For Climate Solutions - Item 51
April 10, 2008
Today, we take on the most challenging environmental issue of our time. I support this decision because I believe we must take this step to address global warming in the energy industries we regulate. To do that, we must thoughtfully find solutions to the impacts on climate change caused by our traditional generation and use of energy.
I have been convinced that this is best accomplished through the type of Institute we are setting up today. I believe that we must put all the best minds in California on this global climate change problem, whether from public or private universities, or other sources. This does not mean that we are funding a "think tank" as some have tried to characterize our action today. Quite the opposite, as the mission statement for the Institute makes clear, any funded research should speed the transfer, deployment and commercialization of technologies that have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the electric and gas sectors or otherwise mitigate the impacts of climate change in California. Furthermore, this Commission will continue to have significant influence on the workings of the Institute to ensure that it adheres to its mission.
Our responsibility is to ensure that ratepayer money is used as efficiently and effectively as possible. Thus, I am pleased that we have a requirement that clear ratepayer benefits must to be demonstrated in applications. We require an assessment of ratepayer benefits before any Institute grant is awarded. We also impose a new requirement that ratepayer funds be used to leverage other outside funding sources, further enhancing benefits to ratepayers.
In light of the ratepayer funds being used, I am pleased that we have added additional Commission oversight to ensure the Institute performs consistent with the mission statement, the details set forth in this decision, and our collective vision. This oversight is very important to the success of this Institute, and will not be taken lightly by this Commission.
I commend all my colleagues for working long and hard to thoroughly debate the issues before us and to come to a fair compromise solution that we could all support. I particularly applaud the leadership of President Michael R. Peevey, in conceiving of this Institute and pursuing it with great determination.
I reiterate my sense of urgency about this very important environmental issue. Every one of us plays a role in its solution. We need to act quickly to set up the Institute properly and have it get to work on all the important work we have asked it to do. Thus, I ask that all parties to cooperate in its formation activities.
Dated April 10, 2008, at San Francisco, California.
/s/ RACHELLE B. CHONG
RACHELLE B. CHONG
Commissioner
Concurrence of Commissioner Grueneich
I concur.
I describe below the reasons I have voted for today's decision. But I remain seriously concerned, despite the many changes made in the final decision. For example, we did not undertake a threshold examination as to whether the ratepayer funds already committed by state law to the PIER program could be used as or more effectively to undertake the tasks assigned to the Institute. In a deepening recession, there will be increasing pressure to reduce rates by reducing our funding of clean energy programs and today's decision may jeopardize funding for other, more important clean energy efforts funded by ratepayers.
But let me first turn to the reasons for my vote today. I realize that reasonable minds can and do differ on how this Institute should be funded and whether this Commission can or should be in the position of creating research institutes. Many have pointed out that ratepayers already provide millions of dollars in funding to the PIER program for similar research efforts and that any additional funding should more appropriately be provided by all California taxpayers. However, reasonable minds agree that we need more basic and applied research that leads directly to widely available tools and products for sustainable energy production and use. This is an industry that relies on 100 year old technologies. We must change to ensure that the energy sector will be able to serve the needs of the economy of the future.
Ultimately, I come down on the side of additional funding, beyond that now paid for in rates, for applied and basic research and development (R&D) that is directly relevant to the purpose of this Commission to ensure that electricity and natural gas customers have clean, reliable, and reasonably priced energy sources well into the future.
This Commission and the Legislature have rightly imposed large mandates on the Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) to meet the Renewable Portfolio Standard, California Solar Initiative, and energy efficiency goals. These mandates, in some part, are technology forcing. That is, new technologies are necessary to meet the goals in a cost effective manner and the goals are set purposely high to encourage rapid development and commercialization of these technologies. I support this Decision because the purpose of this Institute is to develop a path for technologies that will help achieve current mandates and higher mandates that will likely be imposed in the future. The Institute must be closely linked to the success of our existing programs and achievement of our goals for the energy sector, as defined in state law, Commission decisions and the Energy Action Plan II.
I draw an analogy to the internet and biotech revolutions, which began in academic research institutes and created a pipeline to move basic R&D into Silicon Valley for commercialization. I recently visited a number of new companies where the brightest minds and tremendous drive are bringing the internet revolution to the energy sector. The private sector needs the basic R&D from academia, but is better suited to create the products and technologies that move markets. To that end, I believe it is critical to have robust private representation on the governing and executive boards to ensure a rapid and robust path of new products and technologies that truly benefit ratepayers. While such representation increased in the final decision, I would have increased it further.
I have spent many, many hours reviewing the Institute proposal and I do not approve this Decision lightly. While R&D is a component of the success of this Commission's mission, I am very concerned about the additional burden on ratepayers in the midst of a recession. I am concerned about the increasingly broad definition of "just and reasonable" that is used by this Commission to justify new ideas that add to ratepayer cost. I am concerned about requiring the ratepayers to be the sole source of funds for functions that should be paid for by all taxpayers. I am concerned that Sacramento will view ratepayers as captive taxpayers from whom no vote is required. I strongly agree with Commissioner Bohn's call for this Commission to put reasonable and rational limits on the costs that we require ratepayers to bear, and join in Commissioner Bohn's concurrence. As Commissioner Bohn stated so eloquently, ratepayer money does not belong to the Commission, it belongs to the ratepayers.
While we move quickly to start necessary research, it does not mean that we will move without thoughtfulness or deliberation. Several vital changes have been made to this decision:
· Increased Commission oversight and scrutiny of appointments to the Governing Board and the Executive Committee, budgets and research plans;
· Changes to the governing structure to ensure that no one person or entity will have undue influence over the Institute;
· More stringent conflict of interest rules to prevent self-dealing;
· A requirement to establish clear metrics by which the success of the Institute will be judged and which will allow the public to understand the basis of the Commission's future decisions regarding the Institute;
· A requirement to obtain matching funds by Year 5 of the Institute;
· More business representation on the boards; and
· A requirement that ratepayer benefit is a condition precedent to a grant award.
I intend to carefully review the Institute's progress and performance to ensure that the ratepayers receive real, measurable benefits from their investments and to take the necessary steps if the Institute does not meet these expectations.
There are several metrics by which I will measure the success and relevance of this Institute. First, the Institute cannot move down the well worn path of well-meaning but esoteric studies that lead to tenure rather than ratepayer benefit. Second, the basic and applied R&D must have a clear pipeline and path to businesses that are experienced in creating useful and usable products and technologies. Third, the administrative expenses must be consistently below the 10 percent cap. Fourth, I must be confident that the Governing Board and Executive Committee are acting in the best interests of ratepayers. And finally, there must be robust success in obtaining matching funds before the Year 5 requirement for 100% matching funds that will provide a signal that this requirement will be achieved. Finally, I am committed to the consideration of a reduction or elimination of ratepayer funding in the future. I view the $600 million figure as a cap, not a commitment, for ratepayer funding.
I join in the concurrence of Commissioner Bohn and strongly support his call for this Commission to curb additional spending on R&D. We can no longer grant every one-off R&D proposal in each clean energy area or program on climate change. The investor-owned utility ratepayers have done more than their fair share and we cannot continue to add surcharges on our rates in such a piecemeal fashion. Because ratepayers have no say over the costs they must pay to obtain vital resources, we must act reasonably and rationally to fulfill our constitutional obligation to protect ratepayers.
Dated April 10, 2008, at San Francisco, California.
Concurrence by Commissioner Timothy Alan Simon
Rulemaking 07-09-008: OPINION ESTABLISHING CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE SOLUTIONS
I. Introduction.
I have voted in favor of the Proposed Decision ("PD") because I am in agreement that "[c]onfronting climate change is the preeminent environmental challenge of our time." (PD, 2.) Along with the passage of Assembly Bill 32, the California Institute for Climate Solutions ("CICS" or "Institute") will help to accelerate "applied research and development (R&D) of practical and commercially viable technologies that will reduce [greenhouse gas] in order to slow global warming, as well as technologies that will allow California to adapt to those impacts of climate change that may now be inevitable." (PD, 3.) However, I disagree with the PD in its modification of the portion of the opinion dealing with Workforce Training and Education. The modification states:
"Instead of the Commission making a determination in this decision about what kind of workforce development and education may be needed, the Workforce Transition Subcommittee (WTS) will study whether there is a need to support the energy sector's transition to a carbon-constrained future through anticipating and preparing for the resultant changes through workforce development and report back to the Commission on the study within six months of the Institute's inception. If the study supports having the Institute fund grants for the emerging workforce development, the Commission can allocate an appropriate percentage of Institute funds for that purpose. The commission must act on the WTS report within three months." (PD, 10-11.)
California faces a workforce constraint that threatens the ability of this state to deploy the technologies including, but not limited to, infrastructure necessary to successfully retard climate change. Accordingly, it is consistent with the stated goals of CICS that grant applicants demonstrate a California workforce development strategy to support the deployment of the proposed technologies. The PD's requirement that the WTS "determine" if workforce is relevant to this ratepayer funded endeavor supports a paradigm of status quo with an intended design to deny access to opportunities for all California Ratepayers.
Accordingly, I see no reason why the WTS has to study the workforce issue for six months. The need for mitigation and adaptation strategies to address global climate change is immediate and must be addressed. Just as pressing is the need to establish a sufficient and well-trained green job workforce in California that can play an instrumental part in the realization of the goals set forth in AB 32 as well as the CICS that this PD creates. In the balance of this concurrence, I will explain why this PD should make the determination now as to the type of workforce development and education that is needed.
II. There Is An Immediate Need For The Creation Of A Skilled Green Energy Workforce In California.
With multiple policies supporting climate change mitigation and increased investment in green technologies, a skilled workforce will need to be ready and available to fill a growing supply of jobs necessary to implement the technologies derived for the CICS. According to "Green Collar Jobs: An Analysis of the Capacity of Green Businesses to Provide High Quality Jobs for Men and Women with Barriers to Employment", a recent study by San Francisco State University professor Raquel Pinderhughes, PhD, a leading authority in new green energy workforce, 73% of businesses surveyed in Berkeley, California cited a shortage of skilled and qualified workers for their sector, with the greatest needs in energy, green buildings, and mechanics. (Green Collar Jobs, Executive Summary, 4.) Dr. Pinderhughes goes on to state that "[g]reen collar jobs represent an important new category of work force opportunities because they are relatively high quality, with relatively low barriers to entry, in sectors that are poised for dramatic growth." (Id. 1.) For these reasons, green-collar jobs are an excellent opportunity for all segments of California's population to participate in a dynamic and growing area of employment.
If there is any doubt about the immediate interest and need for green job development, one need only look at the results of the January 14, 2008 summit entitled "Advancing the New Energy Economy in California" that was sponsored by this Commission, the Willie L. Brown, Jr. Institute on Politics and Public Service, the Ella Baker Center For Human Rights, the Apollo Alliance, and the California Clean Energy Fund. Over 800 members of the utility industry, the general public, faith-based organizations, and various high-level government representatives attended and extolled the virtues of new green job creation and developmental opportunities. The positive public responses to the instructive panel discussions should be clear evidence that the Commission does not need to delay its determination about the kind of workforce development and education that is needed.
In addition to tremendous opportunities for green-collar job development, engineers are also in short supply due to retirements and a growing energy sector. There is an urgent need to train more engineers and other scientific professions through higher education to fill this gap. Utility workforces in large numbers are also at or nearing retirement. Fifty percent or more of the country's workforce will be retirement-eligible in the next five years. For Pacific Gas & Electric, 42% of its workforce will be retirement-eligible in the next five years.
Accordingly, there is no reason to study the workforce issues for an additional six months as we run the risk of delaying and possibly removing this critical component to mitigating climate change. The PD supports an unsubstantiated sense of status quo entitlement in the determination of ratepayer resources, and unfairly subordinates inclusion of new entrants into the green energy economy as a perceived impediment to CISC integrity. Of greater concern is the possibility that CISC will lack the vision and commitment to increase domestic workforce and, in particular, Californians to compete for CISC opportunities. There is a wealth of documentation available already to show that the Commission can determine the type of workforce development and education that may be needed. Yet the PD ignores this documentation and creates an unwarranted suspicion towards the efforts to commit CISC resources to foster inclusion and workforce development.
III. There Are Tangible Solutions That This Commission Can Pursue To Help Overcome Any Perceived Barriers To Green Job Opportunities.
Based on information gained to date through proceeding workshops in the instant matter, as well as comments from the January 14, 2008 summit, discussed supra, stakeholders cite three main barriers to workforce development of skilled laborers. First, stakeholders believe that the K-12 education system is not producing students that a) see green career-technology as a viable career-path, and b) have the basic skills to pass entry exams into unions or energy utilities. Even if students do pass the basic skills test and begin apprenticeship programs, many of them drop-out before completing the program. Second, underserved or at risk communities are often not informed about the existence of green jobs or career-technology as a career option. Third, education professionals do not believe they have enough funding to create green workforce training programs. The unions, on the other hand, do not see funding as a barrier, since they have a training budget from union fees. Each of these barriers can be overcome through the adoption and implementation of the following goals:
1. Meet California's green workforce needs by providing job training to all interested and qualified Californians, with an enhanced focus on workforce from underserved communities.
Sub goals within this first category include:
· Create and enhance collaborative partnerships between relevant sectors, including state and local government; workforce developers, labor unions; utilities and green energy businesses; investors; educational institutions; community organizations; and job applicants/employees.
· Design green curricula and green career-tech courses for grades 9-12, community colleges, and four year colleges.
· Secure funding and develop curricula for training of persons who have completed their path through the education system but who are interested in green energy career alternatives.
· Raise awareness in school children about the benefits of green jobs through coordinated outreach with educational, community, and faith based institutions.
· Recruit recent war veterans.
· Provide mentoring and pathways to employment through:
o Ongoing on-the-job training opportunities in green energy
o Access to apprenticeship programs, particularly electrical, gas, and construction
o Access to higher education through adult-schools, community colleges, and four-year institutions
o An articulated strategy for ongoing job placement services through green energy employers
Careful planning, investment, and a strong partnership between employees, government, workforce development organizations, and the community are essential to creating a robust program that meets the workforce needs of the utilities and trains all of California's communities.
2. Educate Californians on their personal impact on climate change and foster an entrepreneurial spirit to devise creative solutions to carbon reduction.
There needs to be a targeted effort to inform the public about their energy usage as well as the innovative programs that the Governor, the Legislature, and this Commission are undertaking to achieve the goal of carbon reduction. For example, a public awareness program should be part of the CICS wherein all segments of the population are saturated with information regarding, at a minimum:
· The California Solar Initiative, and how the Commission has instituted performance-based incentives in which rewards are provided for the best designed and functioning solar installations.
· The Demand Response Program, in which individual electric customers can learn how to reduce or shift their electricity usage in peak hours.
· The Low Income Energy Efficiency Program, in which no-cost services are provided to low-income households in order to make their living environments more energy efficient.
· The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), in which the public learns about the Governor's greenhouse gas reduction targets and what each citizen can do to help the State meet its goals.
· The California investor owned utilities ("IOU") Statewide Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, in which this Commission has ordered in D.07-10-032 that the IOUs, in collaboration with publically-owned utilities, state agencies, and other stakeholders to prepare a single comprehensive Strategic Plan for the period 2009-2020.
IV. Recommendations For Implementing The Above Goals.
In order to implement these goals, there needs to be a Workforce and Education Advisory Group within the CICS. The Workforce and Education Advisory Group (Advisory Group) could review each applicant's workforce investment proposal and oversee all workforce/ education programs and projects. The Advisory Group could be housed at CSU due to CSU's partnership with the California Community College System. In addition to CSU and the community colleges' participation, the Advisory Group could consist of at least one member from the various sectors, including a CPUC Commissioner, Union representative, Non Union Workforce Development Professional, utility representative, green investment fund representative, and a community organization. A Green-Collar Job Training Program ("Training Program") could either be a new program, partnership with an existing program, such as the Oakland Green Jobs Corps, or an expansion of existing utility apprenticeship programs. The Training Programs could be located throughout the state in communities with a demand for green-collar jobs and a need for job training-programs. As it is essential that the community is involved throughout the development of a training program, the Training Program should involve community members to assist with recruitment and retention of program applicants.
Development of green curricula for 9-12, community colleges, and higher education is essential to building the pipeline for a diverse green workforce. Students at every level, from elementary age to post-graduate studies, need to be aware of the threat of climate change and occupations they can take up to reduce carbon emissions. These students need to have the basic skills and aptitude for career-technology before they enroll in a community college, union apprenticeship program, or take a utility entrance exam. The Advisory Group needs to work through the pipeline to ensure that students of all levels are learning about climate change and careers that serve the goal of reducing carbon emissions.
V. Conclusion.
There are various dimensions of these goals, all of them either in summation or individually, contribute to carbon reductions and economic development through green job creation and investment. If a labor shortage results from an inadequately trained workforce, then businesses will not be able to reduce carbon emissions at the rate needed to meet the state's climate change goals. If businesses instead import labor from other states or countries, then ratepayer dollars will not be reinvested in California's economy and will not provide economic benefits to the state. While importing labor is possible, it is unlikely since all states are facing a retiring workforce in the utility and engineering sectors, which may result in labor shortages in all states. Moreover, educating Californians on their personal impact on climate change and helping them learn what they can do to reduce their carbon footprint will also have profound effect on reducing carbon emissions.
This is why I believe that time is of the essence. Given the urgent signals that this Commission, the Legislature, and the Governor are giving through our various pronouncements regarding greenhouse gas reduction, the need to promote energy efficiency, as well as the need to develop alternate energy sources, there is no reason why the Commission cannot direct the CICS to act now, as opposed to six months from now, in confronting the issues of workforce development and education.
/s/ TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON |
Timothy Alan Simon Commissioner |
