OLIVER W. WANGER
TIMOTHY JONES*
MICHAEL S. HELSLEY
RILEY C. WALTER
PATRICK D. TOOLE
SCOTT D. LAIRD
JOHN P. KINSEY
KURT F. VOTE
TROY T. EWELL
JAY A. CHRISTOFFERSON
MARISA L. BALCH
AMANDA G. HEBESHA**
PETER M. JONES
†
MICHAEL L. WILHELM †
STEVEN M. CRASS †
JEFFREY B. PAPE †
DEBORAH K. BOYETT
STEVEN K. VOTE
NICOLAS R. CARDELLA
GIULIO A. SANCHEZ
CHRISTOPHER A. LISIESKI***
BENJAMIN C. WEST
HUNTER C. CASTRO
STEPHANIE M. HOSMAN
GARRETT R. LEATHAM
††
RACHEL L. POMBO
NATHAN J. MARTIN
* A lso admitted in Washington
** A lso admitted in Idaho
*** A lso admitted in Virginia
†† A lso admitted in Utah
† Of Counsel
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
ATTORNEYS
265 E. RIVER PARK CIRCLE, SUITE 310
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93720
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 28340
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93729
TELEPHONE
(559) 233-4800
FAX
(559) 233-9330
CLOVIS OFFICE:
642 Pollasky Avenue
Suite 100
Clovis, California 93612
OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR
LYNN M. HOFFMAN
Writer’s E-Mail Address:
[email protected]
Website:
www.wjhattorneys.com
{10193/002/01480828.DOCX}
September 27, 2022
Via U.S. Mail
California Public Utilities Commission
President-Commissioner Alice Busching Reynolds
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Complaint Regarding the Reallocation of PG&E’s
Resources for New Residential Projects in the
Counties of Fresno and Madera
Dear Ms. Busching Reynolds:
I write to you on behalf of Th e Building Industry Association for the Counties of Fresno and Madera (the “BIA”), which is composed of more than 100 comp anies and individuals involved in developing residential housing in the Fresno/Ma dera area. This letter is also joined by the Building Industry Association of the Greater Valley, whose more than 100 members develop and construct Housing in the greater Stockton area.
Established in 1943, the California Building Industry Association, of which the BIA is a chapter, is a membership-based organization representi ng builders, developers, subcontractors, and affiliated businesses in the residential, commercial, and industrial building industry. The mission of the BIA is to cooperate with all branch es of government and with other community organizations to promote housing affordability and economic development in Fresno and Madera II
California Public Utilities Commission
President-Commissioner Alice Busching Reynolds
September 27, 2022
{10193/002/01480828.DOCX}
Counties. Our members employ thousands of Ca lifornia residents in hi gh-paying jobs. The “ripple” impact of the wages earned by our employees spreads throughout California.
Development and construction of new residential housing serves several important purposes in Central California. First, building new houses helps meet the demands caused by California’s ongoing housing crisis. The State of California has set ambitious goals for each area of the State to meet when it comes to the development of new housing. The impact of the Regional Housing Need Allocations is discussed in more detail below. Second, building new residential homes generates money for the local economies. St udies from the National Association of Home Builders show that, on aver age, construction of only 100 new homes adds $30,000,000 to the economy of the location where the homes are built, creating 400 new jobs, and adding $6,000,000 in annual revenue for local governments. Th e vast majority of the material suppliers and subcontractors who build homes for our BIA members are, themselves, local businesses.
United States Chamber of Commerce studies show that every dollar spent in a local economy gets recirculated through that local economy 6-7 times. It is, therefore, difficult to understate the importance of the economic benefits that new home construction creates in the Central Valley.
But the new home industry in Central California, a nd especially in Fresno and Madera Counties, has come to a halt due to PG&E’s limited pool of approved transformer suppliers and their inability to timely deliver transformers to BIA members’ projects. The failure of PG&E to be able to either directly, or th rough approved suppliers, source and install tr ansformers and then energize projects means that homes which have b een finished cannot be energized and sold to local families. It also means local homebuilders are forced to make the difficult decision to slow down or even stop commencement of constructi on on new homes because even if the homes are timely finished, they cannot be powered up and sold – leaving th e builder stuck with huge sums of capital expended and no clear idea of when to expect a return.
My clients’ members have been experiencing significant problems with PG&E related to transformers for quite some time. These are the types of things they are experiencing:
‐ Transformer lead times:
o Lead times for transformers from PG&E approved suppliers are being quoted in the 18-24 month range for standard-sized units and extended lead times for more specialized units. These leads times are fo r production builders. Lead times for the smaller builders, apartment developers, etc. is even more extended. The typical time it takes from breaking ground to being ready to close escrow is 9-14 months. Completion times vary based on in clement weather, labor shortages, and other factors. Nonetheless, even a “fast” development is looking at a very large gap in time between completing a project to having the transformers to energize it. This puts a huge financial strain on th e builder and disincentives investment.
One local BIA member has tabled two pr ojects that were slated for 2023 and would have delivered nearly 100 new homes. Those homes cannot even be started until the builder gets a clear line in sight to deliver of transformers. Other
California Public Utilities Commission
President-Commissioner Alice Busching Reynolds
September 27, 2022
{10193/002/01480828.DOCX}
developers are running into the same issue, which exacerbates the ongoing housing shortage.
‐ Energizing the Tract Once Transformer Arrives:
o Once the transformers arrive, PG&E still n eeds to energize the project and set the electric meters on the houses. Energizing requires a PG&E crew or third party PG&E-affiliated contractor to be scheduled to do this work. Getting these crews scheduled is still challenging, especially during heat waves, wildfires, etc. This is not about whether new home construction is more or less important than public safety. It is about a regulated public utility being consistently unable to plan for the clearly foreseeable (windstorms in the winter and fires in the summer).
Consequently, even when the transformers arrive, getting the job energized still takes another few weeks to months. PG&E also struggles to communicate across departments internally once a project ha s been energized and individual houses have passed municipal inspection. When a home buyer is at risk of an expiring interest rate lock on their loan, especially when rates are rising, every day counts and builders lose precious time after the transformers arrive getting the project energized and then setting meters to get individual houses in a position to close.
‐ Impact on Home Buyers:
o PG&E’s abject inability to approve a sufficient number of suppliers who can source and install the needed quantity of transformers continues to put a serious strain on homebuyers in the state. Potential buyers who cannot move into their homes because PG&E cannot energize them are having to extend leases – at record-high rents - on a month-to-month basis or find alternative, expensive short- term housing solutions. Homebuyers’ mortga ge rates are only locked by lenders for a specific period of time before expiring. If a buyer’s house is delayed beyond the expiration date of the rate lock, the lock expires and the buyer has to re-apply for a new loan at present interest rates. In this environment of rates increasing, this forces the buyers to have to be re -qualified. Many buyer s cannot qualify for the same loan at a higher rate or ar e uncomfortable moving forward because a higher rate means more debt and higher paym ents for the life of the loan. These problems also exacerbate the housing crisis.
‐ Lack of Long-Term Solutions & Urgency from PG&E:
o PG&E has offered some short-term solutions to the crisis, such as allowing a project to be partially-ene rgized if only some transf ormers can be installed.
However, there is no sense of urgency to find long-term solutions. PG&E reports it is working to bring on new transfor mer manufacturers, but the process is “months to years” long just for a pproval by PG&E, not to mention the
California Public Utilities Commission
President-Commissioner Alice Busching Reynolds
September 27, 2022
{10193/002/01480828.DOCX}
transformers actually being manufactur ed and delivered. Finally, once the transformers are delivered, BIA member s have to wait mont hs for PG&E to install them.
We think it is important to note the foregoing problem s do not exist, either at all or with nearly the degree of severity, in areas served by other utilities, such as Southern California Edison or San Diego Gas & Electric. This is not specula tion. Many of our BIA members build homes in more than one location and they have persona l experience when saying Edison and SDG&E do not have nearly the same level of transformer problems as PG&E.
The BIA and its members have diligently tried to communicate with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) regarding the transformer a nd new service connection issues that plague PG&E’s operations related to new residential construction projects. Our members have watched as PG&E’s level of service slowly and inexorab ly degrades to the point that finished homes throughout the Fresno/Madera area cannot be de livered to homebuyers because PG&E simply cannot manage the limited resources it has dedicat ed to new construction in this area. PG&E takes literally months to review simple design s which are prepared using PG&E’s established standards. Following design approval, PG&E furthe r delays the approval and installation of its own work, which only exacerbates the delays BI A members face in completing their portion of the utility work. Finally, when all work is done and projects are ready to be “heated up”, PG&E delays assigning dates for power to be provi ded and then, routinely, postpones the actual provision of power on several occasions – often at the last minute.
Lack of transformers, and the resulting lack of power to the projects, prevents homes from closing escrow, which causes members of the home-buying public substantial emotional and financial damage. In addition to expiring rate locks, discussed above, homebuyers who have given notice at their apartments or arranged to sell their existing homes are left scrambling for shelter, moving arrangements are disrupted, and tim e taken off of work to pack and move is often forced to be repeated several times. Pe rhaps most importantly, the recurring delays from PG&E prevent the BIA and its members, as well as the municipalities in which we build homes for Central Valley families, from helping reduce the crushing housing shortage within the State of California.
During our discussions with PG&E, which have involved PG&E officials at the local and regional level, as well as the CEO, we have determined the best way to resolve our members’ concerns involves a re-ordering of PG&E’s priorities, which are dictated by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), as related to allo cating resources. The BIA has been informed that continuity of service, including storm repair, is the highest priority. Wildfire prevention and infrastructure safety upgrades comes in second. Pursuit of renewable energy and transmission grid upgrades is next, followed by large industrial projects, with general new business being last in priority.
The BIA is extremely concerned the CPUC would place new business last in priority for PG&E when the State Legislature and Governor have ma de it their priority to end the State’s housing
California Public Utilities Commission
President-Commissioner Alice Busching Reynolds
September 27, 2022
{10193/002/01480828.DOCX}
crisis. The BIA believes that by placing new business last in priority, the CPUC is directly contributing to local counties and cities bein g unable to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) as determined by the Califo rnia Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).
For the reasons set forth below, we ask that th e CPUC adjust PG&E’s priorities to reflect the importance of providing utility service to new residential construction in the Fresno/Madera area, including (but not limited to) approving more transformer suppliers and heating up projects more quickly.
The Building Industry Association’s Role in Helping Each County Meet Their Regional Housing Needs Allocations
The BIA’s members develop and build reside ntial housing in the Counties of Fresno and Madera, which are (respectively) located in PG&E’s Fresno/Kern Division and PG&E’s Madera/Yosemite Division. In 2021, private developers pulled building permits for new residential housing with a cost of over $735 million dol lars within the County of Fresno alone. (2021 CIRB Report for Fresno Count y.) In the County of Made ra, well over $1 billion in housing is completed annually by BIA members to help the Counties meet their RHNAs.
To give some perspective on the allocation to each individual County, the County of Fresno’s 2013-2023 RHNA detailed a total of 41,470 housing units were alloca ted to the County to be built by 2023. This means that approximately 4,147 units need to be built every year to meet the allocation. (Fresno Multi-Juris dictional 2015-2023 Housing Elem ent, § 3-2, at p. 97.) The County of Madera’s 2014-2024 RHNA that 12,895 un its housing units were allocated to the County, with 1,289 units needing to be built every year to meet its allocation . (Madera County 2016-2024 Housing Element Update, § 3-3, at p. 59.)
The BIA is an integral part in meeting the RH NAs for both Counties, as the members of the BIA consist of all of the major deve lopers in the community, as well as specialty trade contractors, engineers, and those who provide ancillary serv ices. As such, BIA members are on the “front lines” when it comes to dealing with PG&E to pr ovide service connections to new residences.
Further, because a substantial portion of the hous ing the BIA develops sells for under the State median price, the majority of the homes the BIA builds are disproportionately delivered to people of color and those who are under-served.
The Department of Housing and Community Development’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the Counties of Fresno and Madera
Since 1969, California has required all local governments adequate ly plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. However, since that requirement has begun, California has slowly slipped into a major housing crisis. In 2019, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 330, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, into law to respond to the soaring housing crisis. The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 was part of the G overnor’s pledge to create 3.5 million new housing
California Public Utilities Commission
President-Commissioner Alice Busching Reynolds
September 27, 2022
{10193/002/01480828.DOCX}
units by 2025. In 2021, G overnor Newsom, as part of his “C alifornia Comeback Plan,” signed new bills that would lead to over $1.75 billion in affordable housing funding for the new California Housing Accelerator and require local governments to plan for the creation of more than 2.5 million units statewide, more than dou bling their obligation under the previous RHNA cycle (5th Cycle).
Table 1, below, shows that 41,470 housing units were allocated to the County of Fresno during its 2013-2023 RHNA. In 2021 alone, the BIA de livered approximately 2,800 new residential units, the vast majority of which were considered to be low to moderate housing units by income level.
Table 1
2013-2023 Regional Housing Needs Allocation by Jurisdiction Fresno County
Jurisdiction
Housing Units by Income Level Total
Housing
Units
Extremely
Low
Very
Low1
Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Clovis 1,160 1,161 1,145 1,018 1,844 6,328
Coalinga 75 75 115 123 201 589
Firebaugh 64 64 169 204 211 712
Fowler 61 62 83 75 243 524
Fresno 2,833 2,833 3,289 3,571 11,039 23,565
Huron 43 44 107 106 124 424
Kerman 119 119 211 202 258 909
Kingsburg 56 57 70 60 131 374
Mendota 40 40 56 77 341 554
Orange Cove 55 56 86 105 367 669
Parlier 55 55 82 77 319 588
Reedley 196 197 204 161 553 1,311
San Joaquin 51 52 36 35 204 378
Sanger 156 156 175 163 568 1,218
Selma 70 70 115 69 281 605
Unincorporated County 230 230 527 589 1,146 2,722
Total County 5,264 5,271 6,470 6,635 17,830 41,470
Table 2, below, shows that 12,895 housing units we re allocated to the County of Madera during its 2014-2024 RHNA. Again, in 2021 alone, the BIA delivered approximately 531 new residential units.
California Public Utilities Commission
President-Commissioner Alice Busching Reynolds
September 27, 2022
{10193/002/01480828.DOCX}
Table 3, below, details that, as part of Governor Newsom’s “California Comeback Plan,” Fresno County is slated to have appr oximately 58,298 new housing units al located to it in the next Cycle. That is an increase of 16,828 new housing units since the previous Cycle. BIA members will be the leading developers in the constr uction of these new housing units, communicating directly with PG&E to ener gize these homes. While no new RHNA assessment for the County of Madera has been released, a similar allocation increase is expected, with the BIA again by far leading the development of low to medium income housing.
Also passed in 2021 was Assembly Bill 215, which gave the HCD additional enforcement authority for local agency violations of specifi ed housing laws, and increases public review for housing elements, a required component of long-ra nge General Plans. With this additional authority, the HCD created the Housing Authority Unit (“HAU”), which in turn is able to initiate an enforcement action against a local jurisdiction for housing element noncompliance.
The reason this is so important stems from th e fact that PG&E’s extreme delays in timely connecting new services to BIA residential project s effects the Counties’ ability to meet their allocations under the current (and succeeding) RHNAs. Failure of the Counties, and the smaller municipal units therein, to meet their RHNA needs, leaves them vulnerable to having legal action taken against them by the HAU and/or community or ganizers. The City of Clovis is currently facing just such a lawsuit. ( https://www.fresnobee.com/article249982694.html.) While there is no guarantee this will happen, the fact the CPUC is the core reason as to why PG&E allocates its resources away from new resident ial projects, an issue so importa nt to the State Legislature and Governor, will most certainly be raised as part of any ensuing litigation.
Table 2
2014-2024 Regional Housing Needs Allocation by Jurisdiction Madera County
Jurisdiction Income Level
Total
Housing
Units
Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Madera 1,352 1,056 1,091 2,600 6,099
Chowchilla 253 190 204 467 1,114
Unincorporated County 1,285 984 1,015 2,398 5,682
Total County 3,040 2,135 2,314 5,406 12,895
California Public Utilities Commission
President-Commissioner Alice Busching Reynolds
September 27, 2022
{10193/002/01480828.DOCX}
The California Public Utilities Commission Di ctates Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Resource Allocation
When a California constitutional amendment renamed the Railroad Commission to the California Public Utilities Commission in 1946, the CPUC was given carte blanche regulatory authority over the public utilities within the State. Curren tly, the CPUC directs PG&E as to the priorities it should follow when allocating resources. The BIA is no way minimizing the need or importance of wildfire prevention and infrastruc ture safety upgrades. The BIA is also not disregarding the importance of pursuing renewable ener gy and upgrading the State’s transmission grid, as new residential homes will be at the forefront of needing these resources.
The BIA, however, believes California resident s in general, and residents of the Counties in particular, would be better serv ed with new residential projec ts taking a highe r priority in PG&E’s allocation schedule. The residential hous ing industry in Fresno/Madera is an industry which generates over $1 billion in annual new ho me sales – yet the CPUC’s prioritization of PG&E’s resources treats new hom e construction as having no highe r a priority than providing Table 3
January 2021 Revised Allocation for
the 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation by Jurisdiction Fresno County
Jurisdiction
September
Subcommittee
Approved Allocation
January Updated
Allocation (Revised
Methodology and Final
Determination)
Allocation Change:
September-January
Clovis 9,179 8,759 (420)
Coalinga 583 552 (31)
Firebaugh 459 432 (27)
Fowler 348 331 (17)
Fresno 39,792 35,972 (3,820)
Huron 336 311 (25)
Kerman 1,102 1,037 (65)
Kingsburg 904 861 (43)
Mendota 668 626 (42)
Orange Cove 478 458 (20)
Parlier 767 715 (52)
Reedley 1,507 1,428 (79)
San Joaquin 1,559 1,458 (101)
Sanger 207 195 (12)
Selma 1,554 1,456 (98)
Unincorporated
County
3,857 3,707 (150)
Total County 63,300 58,298 (5,002)
California Public Utilities Commission
President-Commissioner Alice Busching Reynolds
September 27, 2022
{10193/002/01480828.DOCX}
power to a new fast food restaurant. The CP UC has the power, however, to expedite the reallocation of PG&E’s resources to new resi dential projects (inclu ding, but not limited to, sourcing, delivering, and installing transformers) because the CPUC’s current allocation does not allow the Counties, and the cities of Fresno and Madera, to meet the requirements under the Governor’s “California Comeback Plan,” resulting in the Counties’ residents being kept out of desperately-needed homes.
The Reallocation of Pacific Gas and Electri c Company’s Resources to New Residential Projects
Since the CPUC dictates PG&E’s resources, th e BIA believes new resi dential projects should take a higher priority and the CPUC should reallocate PG&E’s res ources immediately.
Considering that new residential projects in the Counties are part of an industry which generates over $1 billion dollars every year, and new housi ng units are a critical part of the State’s expressed public policy, the BIA believes the Coun ties’ residents would be better served with more homes rather than a new warehouse or similar industrial project.
Further, the reallocation of PG&E’s resources will help each County (and each City therein) achieve their RHNA allocations, thereby meeting the goals of the State Legislature and the Governor of delivering more housing units in Ca lifornia. Also, with PG&E prioritizing new residential projects, it will simultaneously help provide homes to the thousands of people whom have lost homes due to fires caused by PG&E’s equipment. Th e CPUC has the authority to immediately dictate PG&E’s reallocation of its reso urces in order to ensure that new residential projects are connected and energized in a timely and reasonable manner.
Conclusion
The delays experienced by BIA members in getting PG&E to deliver and install transformers and energize their projects are shameful. These ongoing delays adversely impact the Counties and the local residents themselves. The BIA implores the CPUC to aid the BIA’s desire to help “California Comeback” and provide homes to local residents. The BIA challenges the CPUC to put the needs of the Counties’ residents before more industrial develo pment and the noble but long-term pursuit of more renewable power. Families who cannot move into their homes will not understand why the CPUC placed more emph asis on a wind farm or yet another Amazon distribution center. Frankly, but respectfully, the BIA demands the CPUC reallocate PG&E’s resources to ensure that PG&E can timely prov ide and install transformers, and connect new service, to residential projects in the Fresno/Madera area.
This issue is critical en ough to the residents of the Counties, and the BI A’s members, that we have taken the deliberate step of copying this letter of complaint to the elected officials and other government representatives identified below. We in vite them to share w ith you their frustration with PG&E and their endorsement of our request.
California Public Utilities Commission
President-Commissioner Alice Busching Reynolds
September 27, 2022
We look forward to your action in regards to this matter.
Veryt ours,
Kurt F. Vote
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
KFV/kd
cc: State of California
Governor Gavin Newsom
I 021 "O" Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Via fax to (916) 558-3160
Building Industry Associations
Michael Prandini
President & CEO
BIA - Fresno/Madera Counties
420 Bullard Ave., Suite 105
Clovis, CA 93612
[email protected]
City of Clovis
John Holt, City Manager
City of Clovis
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
E-Mail: [email protected]
Drew Bessinger, Councilmember
City of Clovis
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
E-Mail: [email protected]
{ 10193/002/01480828.DOCX}
John Beckman
Chief Executive Officer
BIA of the Greater Valley
1701 W. March Lane, Ste. F
Stockton, CA 95207
[email protected]
Bob Whalen, Councilmember
City of Clovis
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
E-Mail: [email protected]
Jose Flores, Councilmember
City of Clovis
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
E-Mail: [email protected]
California Public Utilities Commission
President-Commissioner Alice Busching Reynolds
September 27, 2022
{10193/002/01480828.DOCX}
Lynne Ashbeck, Councilmember
City of Clovis
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
E-Mail: [email protected]
Vong Mouanoutoua, Councilmember
City of Clovis
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
E-Mail: [email protected]
City of Fresno
Georgeanne White, City Manager
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno St, Room 2064
Fresno, CA 93721
E-Mail: [email protected]
Esmeralda Soria
Councilmember, District 1
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93720
E-Mail: [email protected]
Mike Karbassi
Councilmember, District 2
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93720
E-Mail: [email protected]
Garry Bredefeld
Councilmember, District 6
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93720
E-Mail: [email protected]
Miguel Arias
Councilmember, District 3
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93720
E-Mail: [email protected]
Nelson Esparza
Councilmember, District 7
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93720
E-Mail: [email protected]
Tyler Maxwell
Councilmember, District 4
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93720
E-Mail: [email protected]
Luis Chavez
Councilmember, District 5
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93720
E-Mail: [email protected]
California Public Utilities Commission
President-Commissioner Alice Busching Reynolds
September 27, 2022
{10193/002/01480828.DOCX}
County of Fresno
Paul Nerland
County Administrative Officer
County of Fresno
2281 Tulare, Suite 304
Fresno, CA 93721
E-Mail: [email protected]
Brian Pacheco
County of Fresno, District 1 Supervisor
2281 Tulare, Suite 304
Fresno, CA 93721
E-Mail: [email protected]
Steve Brandau
County of Fresno, District 2 Supervisor
2281 Tulare, Suite 304
Fresno, CA 93721
E-Mail: [email protected]
Sal Quintero
County of Fresno, District 3 Supervisor
2281 Tulare, Suite 304
Fresno, CA 93721
E-Mail: [email protected]
Buddy Mendes
County of Fresno, District 4 Supervisor
2281 Tulare, Suite 304
Fresno, CA 93721
E-Mail: [email protected]
Nathan Magsig
County of Fresno, District 5 Supervisor
2281 Tulare, Suite 304
Fresno, CA 93721
E-Mail: [email protected]
County of Madera
Jay Varney
County Administrative Officer
County of Madera
200 W. 4
th Street
Madera, CA 93638
E-Mail: [email protected]
Brett Frazier
County of Madera, District 1 Supervisor
200 W. 4
th Street
Madera, CA 93638
E-Mail: [email protected]
David B. Rogers
County of Madera, District 2 Supervisor
200 W. 4
th Street
Madera, CA 93638
E-Mail: [email protected]
Robert L. Poythress
County of Madera, District 3 Supervisor
200 W. 4
th Street
Madera, CA 93638
E-Mail: [email protected]
Leticia Gonzalez
County of Madera, District 4 Supervisor
200 W. 4
th Street
Madera, CA 93638
E-Mail: [email protected]
Tom Wheeler
County of Madera, District 5 Supervisor
200 W. 4
th Street
Madera, CA 93638
E-Mail: [email protected]
California Public Utilities Commission
President-Commissioner Alice Busching Reynolds
September 27, 2022
{10193/002/01480828.DOCX}
State Assembly Members
Frank Bigelow
Assemblymember, District 5
730 North I Street
Madera, CA 93637
E-Mail:
[email protected]
Jim Patterson
Assemblymember, District 23
6245 North Fresno Street, Suite 106
Fresno, CA 93710
E-Mail:
[email protected]
Dr. Joaquin Arambula
Assemblymember, District 31
Hugh Burns State Building
2550 Mariposa Mall, Suite 5031
Fresno, CA 93721
E-Mail: [email protected]