CCMIN 12072021 - Laserfiche WebLink

• now asking to have revised and finds this confusing. She advised solar customers currently pay a $10 monthly fee. Councilmember Narum clarified she cannot get into the numbers but theorized they may be looking to potentially combine a fixed and variable fee in the future like water utilities. Councilmember Arkin stated this could push people out of the market for solar and she wants more people to go for solar. Councilmember Narum reported EBCE also wants more people to go solar. Councilmember Arkin stated she would like to strike "high" because there is no definition. She stated she wants to create equity with lower-income residents and make solar affordable. Councilmember Narum confirmed there currently is a fee set at $10. She reported there have been 17 or 18 proposals submitted to the CPUC and the investor-owned utility proposal wants this fee to be $70 or $80. She stated they do not want this. Councilmember Arkin stated she wants to get rid of"high" to better promote solar for everyone. Mayor Brown suggested rewriting Section 2(iv) as "includes provisions for low monthly fixed fees." She noted "low" would also still be undefined and suggested $25 or less. Councilmember Narum stated this suggestion gets too deep into the weeds. She reported there are follow-up letters from the Community Choice Aggregation to the CPUC getting into the numbers. She stated the EBCE, representing 15 cities in Alameda County, is behind making solar accessible to lower- income customers. EBCE is contracting with a company to go into communities of concern and upgrade utilities, including solar, to help improve quality and reduce greenhouse gasses. Mayor Brown called for a vote on the substitute motion first. Councilmember Balch stated he does not know enough so will take EBCE's lead. He advised a change to the language could have unintended consequences. Deputy City Manager Pamela Ott stated it may be best to follow Mayor Brown's suggestion of flipping the script with the undefined definition of "high." She suggested changing Section 2(iv) to read "include provisions that limit" or something similar to reinforce low monthly fees and exclude provisions reducing or eliminating credits. She suggested stating the Council's intention of urging the CPUC to keep the monthly fees as low as possible if they are struggling with what specifically constitutes a high monthly fee. She stated it is high-level feedback to the CPUC intended to provide them with the principles to weigh proposals. In response to Councilmember Balch, Deputy City Manager Ott suggested Section 2(iv) could read something like "include provisions that support lower monthly fixed fees and exclude provisions that reduce or eliminate credits for sharing electricity." She stated they can combine them as one or separate them as two. In response to Councilmember Balch and Narum, Assistant to the City Manager Hopkins stated the wording about credits is in the staff report and not the resolution. Councilmember Balch stated he would approve this language. Councilmember Arkin stated this proposed change would not make the resolution any better. She stated monthly fixed fees are punitive by their nature. She advised including provisions for lower fixed fees is almost worse than excluding provisions for higher fixed fees. City Council Minutes Page 16 of 18 December 7, 2021