July 20, 2020 President Marybel Batjer California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Dear President Batjer: Throughout our tenure in state service, we have supported the state’s efforts to protect our climate by passing legislation that call for carbon neutrality by 2045. While we continue to support reasonable measures to further our climate goals, we must do so in a way that reflects the interests of the residents we serve. For many of our constituents, energy affordability and reliability are significant factors that greatly affect their daily living. The Legislature has embraced all technologies that effectively reduce greenhouse gases and serve the interests of our diverse residents. However, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) appears to be pushing utility customers to an all-electric structure. The discussion of electrification and its impacts has been growing in recent years in the Legislature, but we are unaware of any specific policy decisions or laws that declare “electrification” as the exclusive policy of the state. While we recognize that electrification will play a large role in our efforts to decarbonize, we do not believe it should be the only tool used, as such an approach would be prohibitively expensive for many of our constituents. The current economic crisis that is impacting households in all 58 counties could potentially continue for the next few years, and disproportionately affects working class and poor Californians. We are concerned that promoting electrification as a policy will lead to increased costs to gas customers that are least able to absorb such costs. Rate designs that encourage customers to electrify by giving them access to TOU rates for charging their electric vehicles or encouraging conversion to all electric appliances might be effective in getting households that can afford an EV or new appliances to convert to fully-electric, but it imposes a burden on working households that cannot take advantage of TOU rates or afford new appliances. Compounding this is the fact that the fixed costs for the remaining gas customers will increase proportionality, thereby exacerbating the rate impact to these customers. Anyone who represents struggling blue-collar families will agree that an electrification push may appear to be good policy, but for families and individuals who are living paycheck to paycheck, a balanced and more affordable approach is needed. We would like a better understanding of the authority CPUC is using to guide what appears to be policy that prioritizes electrification. This information will be useful as we prepare for future discussions on the state’s path to decarbonization. We would appreciate a response. Thank you. Sincerely, Patrick O’Donnell Assembly District 70 Blanca Rubio Assembly District 48 Cc Shannon O’ Rourke, Chief of Staff Jim Cooper Assembly District 9