OKAY GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE
AND WELCOME TO UTILITIES AND
ENERGY. WE'RE GOING TO GET
STARTED. FIRST WITH A COUPLE OF
THE HOUSEKEEPING REMINDERS THAT
WE TRADITIONALLY HAVE TO READ IT
FOR THE RECORD, AND IF WE DON'T
HAVE A QUORUM AS WE WRAP THAT
UP, WE WILL START OFF AS A THE
SUBCOMMITTEE AND WILL BEGIN WITH
THE FIRST ITEM. SO GOOD
AFTERNOON AND WELCOME EVERYONE
LIKE TO CONVENE THIS MEETING.
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS,
SERGEANTS. WE WILL HEAR TODAY 15
MEASURES ON THE AGENDA FOR ON
CONSENT. WE WILL FOLLOW SPECIAL
ORDER. MAYBE 11 82 PETRIE-NORRIS
HAS REMOVED FROM OUR AGENDA
TODAY IT WILL BE HEARD IN
APPROPRIATIONS. MAYBE 15 38
TESTIMONY WILL BE HEARD FIRST.
BUT FIVETHIRTYEIGHT AT 15 35 38
IS LIMITED TO THREE SPEAKERS
WITH TWO MINUTES EACH 12 MINUTES
IN TOTAL, SIX MINUTES AND
SUPPORT SIX MINUTES IN
OPPOSITION. REGULAR ORDER OF
BUSINESS TESTIMONY IS LIMITED TO
FOUR MINUTES TOTAL TWO MINUTES
SUPPORT TWO MINUTES OPPOSITION
FOR ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES ON
A MEASURE ONLY STATE YOUR NAME,
POSITION AND AFFILIATION, IF ANY
IF WE EXCEED THIS TIME, PLEASE
SUBMIT YOUR TESTIMONY THROUGH
THE EMAIL ADDRESS ON OUR
WEBSITE. SO WE WON'T BE ABLE TO
ESTABLISH A CORN QUITE YET. BUT
WE WILL ASK, UM, FOR THE FIRST
PRESENTER, WHICH IS OUR
COLLEAGUES ON THE COMMITTEE, MR
HOLDEN TO PLEASE COME FORWARD.
AND IF WITNESSES WILL ALSO COME
WITH HIM. WE APPRECIATE THAT.
AND SO.
MR HOLDEN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FOR, UH COMING BEFORE US BEFORE
WE START. I WANTED TO JUST KIND
OF PUT SOME REMARKS, UM OUT
THERE FOR THE RECORD, AS AS YOU
KNOW, UM, WE HAVE WE WANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A
DIFFICULT POLICY. AND WE'VE
HEARD FROM MANY OF THE
STAKEHOLDERS. FOR A FEW WEEKS,
BOTH COLLEAGUES AND STAKEHOLDERS
AS CHAIR. I HAVE SOUGHT TO
CREATE AN OPEN DIALOGUE
ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE
COLLABORATION CONVERSATIONS WHAT
I BELIEVE THIS PROPOSAL NEEDS.
AND WHAT I STRIVE FOR AS CHAIR
WE WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE
SURE THAT WE GAVE YOU THE
OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS THE BILL
BUT ALSO ALLOW FOR THIS
COMMITTEE TO DELIBERATE AND
DEBATE SOME OF THE POLICY
QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN
UNANSWERED. I KNOW IT'S BILL IS
IMPERFECT. IT ISN'T IN HIS FINAL
FORUM. WE ALSO KNOW, BUT I ALSO
KNOW THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE
AUTHOR AND COMMITMENTS HE'S
OFFERED THAT HE'S COMMITTED TO
RESOLVING A LOT OF DIFFICULT
POINTS IN THIS BILL THAT STILL
NEEDS SOME IRONING OUT. UH TO MY
FRIENDS IN LABOR AND OTHERS WHO
HAVE ADAMANTLY STRONGLY OPPOSED
THIS BILL OVER THE LAST FEW
WEEKS. UM THERE WILL CONTINUE TO
BE SOME CONVERSATIONS AND WE'VE
EXPRESSED THAT LOT AND CLEAR
HOPEFULLY AGAIN JUST NOW. THERE
ARE TWO MAIN POINTS, UH, THAT
THE COMMITTEE HAS FOCUSED ON AND
TRYING TO ADDRESS. ALTHOUGH WE
RECOGNIZE THESE ARE NOT THE ONLY
CONCERNS WE'VE WE'VE REALLY
FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE OF IMPACTS
ON JOBS AND BRINGING THE CHAOS
SO GOVERNANCE BACK TO THE
LEGISLATURE. WE'VE MADE AN
ATTEMPT ON THE PEACE RELATED TO
JOBS WE'VE HEARD FROM YOU THAT
IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH. BUT I
HOPE THAT YOU VIEW THIS AS A
SIGN OF OUR COMMITMENT TO
ADDRESS THE CONCERN IN OUR
COMMITMENT TO COMING UP WITH A
SOLUTION, AND I'M LOOKING
FORWARD TO SOME IDEAS BEING
PRESENTED HERE FROM THE DIOCESE
TODAY ON THE SECOND ISSUE,
BRINGING IT BACK TO THE
LEGISLATURE. WE COULDN'T LAND ON
THE FINAL AGREEMENT WITH ALL
PARTIES. HOWEVER I KNOW THAT
THERE IS A COMMITMENT TO FINDING
A SOLUTION THAT LOOKS AH, AT THE
BILL THROUGH THE LENS OF WHAT I
THINK WE'LL HEAR TODAY IS
WANTING TO HAVE LEGISLATIVE
OVERSIGHT. UH AND SOME TYPE OF
CHECK. AND SO WITH THAT, MR
HOLDEN WHEN A PAUSE CALL, UM THE
. MEMBERS TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM
AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED. BUT
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SAY
A FEW WORDS BEFORE YOU PRESENT
YOUR BILL. EDUARDO GARCIA
PRESENT. GARCIA PRESENT,
PATTERSON. HERE. PATERSON HERE,
BAUER-KAHAN. CALLED AROUND. HERE
AROUND HERE. KOREA. HERE.
CARILLO HERE, CHEN. HERE CHEN
HERE, CONNELLY CONNELLY. HERE
HOLD HIM HERE. MATHIS.
MURATSUCHI RAISE. SANTIAGO.
BROUGH. TEACHING. WALLACE
WALLACE HERE. THANK YOU. THE
FLOOR IS YOURS, MR HOLDEN. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND LET ME JUST
SAY I APPRECIATE YOUR OPENING
COMMENTS, AND I ALSO APPRECIATE
YOUR TIME THAT YOU SPENT WITH ME
AND OTHERS TO EXAMINE THE
FULLNESS OF THE BILL AND
UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE DOING OUR
VERY BEST TO LINE UP WITH.
CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN
EXPRESSED AND YOU HAVE PLAYED A
VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN TERMS OF
HELPING US TO MOVE TO THIS POINT
TODAY, SO I WANT TO SAY THANK
YOU TO YOU ON THAT POINT. I'D
ALSO LIKE TO START BY TAKING THE
AMENDMENTS REFLECTED AND THE
COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS IN COMMON
EIGHT AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 19.
AND NOT IN THE AMENDMENTS. BUT
ALSO IMPORTANT IS THAT I HAVE
HEARD THEIR CONCERNS OF MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE AS WELL AS
FOLKS IN MY OWN COMMUNITY, UH,
WHICH HAVE CONCERNS REGARDING
THIS PARTICULAR BILL? AND I WANT
TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I'M
ABSOLUTELY COMMITTED TO
EXPLORING. THE ISSUE OF HOW THE
GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE CAN COME
BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE FOR
FURTHER REVIEW. WE HAVE A
LOOMING ENERGY CRISIS RIGHT
BEFORE US. NOT ENOUGH NON FOSSIL
FUEL SOURCES OF ELECTRICITY TO
KEEP THE LIGHTS ON AND STILL
MEET OUR CLIMATE CHANGE GOALS.
THIS CRISIS REQUIRES US TO DIG
DEEP AND RESTORE, EXPLORE AND
UTILIZE EVERY TOOL WE HAVE.
MAYBE 5 38 IS ONE OF THOSE
TOOLS. THE WESTERN STATES SHARE
TRANSMISSION GRID AND 80% OF THE
ELECTRICITY SOLD ORIGINATES IN
STATES OR UTILITIES WITH 100%
GOALS, JUST LIKE CALIFORNIA. 57%
OF THAT ELECTRICITY SERVES
CUSTOMERS IN WASHINGTON AND IN
OREGON. ACROSS THE WEST STATES
AND UTILITIES ARE HAVING THE
SAME CHALLENGES AS WE ARE AND
MEETING THOSE GOALS WITH THE
ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES OF
RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS, FIRES AND
EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS. CARLI SO
IS THE BEST GRID OPERATOR IN THE
COUNTRY WITH THE MOST EXPERIENCE
MANAGING RENEWABLE RESOURCES
LIKE WIND AND SOLAR AND TRACKING
GHD RESOURCES. OTHER STATES AND
UTILITIES IN THE WEST ARE
INTERESTED IN JOINING THE CASE.
SO WHY BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE
SAME INTEREST IN GETTING RID OF
FOSSIL FUELS FROM THEIR
GENERATION PORTFOLIO AS WE DO.
THEY HAVE A TOUGH TIME GOING
BACK HOME AND MAKING THE CASE TO
JOIN OUR ISIL WITHOUT AN
INDEPENDENT BOARD THAT ISN'T
APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR OF ONE
STATE. MAYBE FIVETHIRTYEIGHT
WOULD FACILITATE THAT EXPANSION.
SAME STRUCTURE, AS IT HAS HAD
FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS, A
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, SAME
LAWS, SAME UTILITIES AND IS
MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT
ELECTRICITY GENERATION. BUT A
BIGGER POOL OF CUSTOMERS AND
FLEET TO POWER PLANTS ACROSS THE
WEST UNDER ITS PURVIEW TO USE
ELECTRICITY MORE EFFICIENTLY
REDUCE COSTS. SHARE RESOURCES
DURING HEAT WAVES, FIRES AND
OTHER CHALLENGES OF CLIMATE
CHANGE. THE GOVERNING BOARD
WOULD FOLLOW PRINCIPLES ADOPTED
BY WESTERN REGULATORS, INCLUDING
OUR OWN CPU C A YEAR AGO THAT
CALLED FOR AN INDEPENDENT BOARD
SELECTION PROCESS FROM
DISINTERESTED PARTIES. WESTERN
STATES COMMITTEE WITH THE ROLE
IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND
DECISION MAKING TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND
PERFORMANCE DATA.
REPRESENTATIVES FROM ALL STATES.
TWO AND ALSO CONTINUE TO BE
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION, WHICH IT HAS BEEN
FOR YEARS. THERE ARE NO STUDIES.
THERE IS NO RESEARCH SEARCH THAT
DOESN'T SUPPORT THE NEED FOR
EXPAND TO EXPAND OUR GRID AND
WORK WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. UNDER
EVERY SCENARIO CALIFORNIA
BENEFITS FROM CAICEDO'S
EXPANSION AND BIGGER THE BIGGER
THE FOOTPRINT, THE GREATER THE
BENEFITS TO ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS
RELIABILITY AND ACHIEVING OUR
CLIMATE GOALS. THE NEXT ENERGY
CRISIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
ENRON AND EVENTS THAT HAPPENED
MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO, AND
EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HOW WE ARE
GOING TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
IMPACTS, MADE OUR CLEAN ENERGY
GOALS AND KEEP THE LIGHTS ON. I
HAVE WITH ME TODAY, DR MICHAEL
LARA AND JAN SMUTNY JONES WITH
THE INDEPENDENCE ENERGY
PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
MICHAEL LARA. I WORKED AT
STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN THE
CLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICY
PROGRAM AT THE WOODS INSTITUTE.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
APPEAR BEFORE YOU. IT'S AN
HONOR. UM I SUPPORT CONTINUING A
CONVERSATION ON CHANGE IN
GOVERNANCE IN ORDER TO GET TO A
WORKABLE SOLUTION ON INDEPENDENT
GOVERNANCE FOR THE I S O UM, I
WANT TO START BY NOTING THAT
THIS CHANGE IS NOT A SILVER
BULLET. WE FACE AN ENORMOUS
CHALLENGE IN ACHIEVING
CALIFORNIA'S CLEAN ENERGY GOALS
THAT I'M CONFIDENT WE CAN MEET
AS LONG AS WE RECOGNIZE THAT IT
WILL REQUIRE AN ALL HANDS ON
DECK STRATEGY IN ORDER TO MEET
THE SB 100 TARGET AND THE
SCOPING PLAN TARGETS WE NEED TO
BUILD SOMETHING LIKE 120
GIGAWATTS OF NEW RENEWABLES
CAPACITY OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF
DECADES. WE CURRENTLY HAVE ABOUT
30. INCLUDING BOTH UTILITY AND
ROOFTOP RESOURCES. SO WE'RE
GONNA HAVE TO BUILD SOMETHING
LIKE THREE TIMES AS MUCH AS WE
HAVE OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
THAT'S AN ENORMOUS CHALLENGE
THAT WE FACE NUMEROUS
CONSTRAINTS. HOW MANY ACRES ARE
AVAILABLE? ROOF IS THERE HOW
WILL WE BALANCE CLEAN ENERGY
AGAINST LOCAL IMPACTS,
ESPECIALLY TO HABITATS AND
SPECIES? WE'RE GONNA NEED TO
BUILD EVERYTHING WE CAN BOTH
BEHIND THE METER AT UTILITY
SCALE PLANTS IN CALIFORNIA, AND
I WOULD ARGUE AT UTILITY SCALE
PLANTS AND OTHER STATES. THIS
BILL IS REALLY, REALLY ABOUT
FACILITATING THE LAST OF THESE
ISSUES. IN THIS CONTEXT,
REGIONALIZATION IS PART OF A
MULTI PRONGED SET OF SOLUTIONS
AND I STRONGLY BELIEVE WE NEED
ALL OF THEM. LAST TIME AROUND. I
DIDN'T SUPPORT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
HOLDEN'S BILL, AND I THINK THE
REASON I DO NOW IS THAT THE
SITUATION HAS CHANGED.
FUNDAMENTALLY IN A NUMBER OF
RESPECTS. FIRST OF ALL
RELIABILITY. CONCERNS FOR THE
GRID ARE A MUCH LARGER AND MUCH
MORE REAL ISSUE THAN THEY WERE 6
TO 7 YEARS AGO. SECOND CORPS IS
A FIVE CENT PRODUCT IN A THREE
CENT MARKET. WE'VE SEEN LOTS OF
RETIREMENTS, AND THERE ARE MANY
PLANNED RETIREMENTS IN THE NEAR
TERM. THIRD CHANGES IN THE
ECONOMICS OF NEW BUILD OF
UTILITY SCALE PLANTS FAVOR SOLAR
WIND AND TO A LESSER DEGREE,
NATURAL GAS OR STORAGE. UNLIKE
SEVEN YEARS AGO. GRADUAL
DEPLOYMENT OF HALF STEPS BY THE
I S O HAS INCREASED CONFIDENCE
IN THE VALUE OF GREATER MARKET
INTEGRATION. I'M REFERRING TO
THE ENERGY IMBALANCE MARKET AND
THE RECENTLY ENACTED ENHANCED
DAY AHEAD MARKET. IT'S ALSO
DEMONSTRATED THE CREDIBILITY OF
THE I S O ON EMISSIONS
ACCOUNTING, PUSHING A R B TO BE
MORE RIGOROUS ON IMPORTS THROUGH
THE I D E I M ACCOUNTING
PROCESS. FINALLY AND IMPORTANTLY
, PASSAGE OF THE INFLATION
REDUCTION ACT MEANS THAT
CONCERNS CAN AROUND INCENTIVES
TO REDUCE BUILD IN CALIFORNIA,
BECAUSE BUILDING AND OTHER
STATES THAT ARE RIGHT TO WORK
WELL REDUCE COSTS ARE
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED AFTER
JANUARY. 1ST 2024 THE QUESTION
IS REALLY WHERE NON CALIFORNIA
PROJECTS GOING TO GET THE
UNIONIZED LABOR THEY WILL NEED
TO TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF
FEDERAL TAX CREDITS. I
PERSONALLY WONDER IF IT WILL BE
FROM CALIFORNIA WORKERS. A
GROWING LIST OF STATES AND
UTILITIES HAVE JOINED CALIFORNIA
AND SETTING AMBITIOUS, CLEAN
ELECTRICITY GOALS. FIVE WESTERN
STATES PLUS NUMEROUS UTILITIES.
SO IF THE RISKS ARE LOWER, WHAT
ARE THE BENEFITS OF THE APPROACH
? I THINK THE KEY BENEFITS TO
FOCUS ON RELIABILITY AUTHORITY
TO CONTROL LARGER FOOTPRINT OF
RESOURCES CAN OPTIMIZE
DISPATCHED DURING CRISES AND
WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE CLOSE CALLS.
A SECOND IMPORTANT BENEFIT. YOU
CAN WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS. I
WILL. I WILL. THANK YOU. UM I
JUST SAY RELIABILITY, ACCESS
AFFORDABILITY, GREATER ACCESS TO
OUT OF STATE RENEWABLES AND THE
OPPORTUNITY AND THIS IS
IMPORTANT TO PLAY A ROLE IN
DEFINING WHAT A REGIONAL
GOVERNANCE REGIME LOOKS LIKE
THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR
VALUES WHERE WE GET TO DECIDE
WHAT IS IMPORTANT. TO US, I
THINK ARE ALL REASONS TO SUPPORT
CONTINUATION OF THIS
CONVERSATION. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. I KNOW WE HAVE
NEXT WITNESS. THREE MINUTES.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME QUESTIONS
ALREADY WILL HOLD OFF ON THOSE
QUESTIONS. BUT LET'S LET'S
FINISH THAT. GREAT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR CHAIRMAN
, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I'M
JAN SMARTY JONES WITH THE
INDEPENDENT ENERGY PRODUCERS. MY
MEMBERS HAVE BEEN BUILDING CLEAN
ENERGY AND CALIFORNIA SINCE 1982
. SO WE'RE NOT NEW TO ANY OF
THIS, AND WE ARE HERE IN SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL. UM I BROUGHT ALONG
22 PRESENTATIONS HERE. ONE IS
1/16 CENTURY MAP OF CALIFORNIA
AS AN ISLAND. A LOT HAS CHANGED
SINCE 15 89. WHEN THIS MAP WAS
DONE, WE ARE NOW PUSHING 40
MILLION PEOPLE WITH FOURTH
LARGEST ECONOMY ON THE PLANET,
UH AND VERY AGGRESSIVE CLIMATE
CHANGE GOALS, AND I THINK IF YOU
JUST HEARD DR WAR, ALEJO'S
CHANGED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL
YEARS, IS THERE A NUMBER OF THE
STATES. FIVE OF THEM HAVE
SIMILAR POSITIONS THAT WE DO A
COMPLIMENTARY AND A NUMBER OF,
UH, TRANSMISSION OWNERS IN
STATES WITHOUT THOSE HAVE
EXPRESSED INTEREST IN ACTUALLY.
AH BASICALLY GREENING UP THEIR
GRIDS, SO A LOT OF MOVING
FORWARD AND I THINK THAT'S A
POSITIVE THING. THERE IS ANOTHER
RTO FORMING IN THE WEST, AND YOU
NEED TO BE AWARE OF THIS. IT'S
CALLED THE SOUTHWEST POWER POOL
OUT OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
THEY'RE AGGRESSIVELY WORKING IN
OUR NEIGHBORING STATES TO TRY TO
GET THEM TO JOIN THEIR RTO. UH
THIS WILL BE A DIFFERENT RTO
THAN THE ONE THAT WOULD BE BUILT
BY THE ISSO. AND I THINK DR
WARREN DID A GOOD JOB OF LAYING
OUT SOME OF THE BENEFITS THERE.
AH SO THE SECOND, UH AND OUT I
GAVE WAS A BASICALLY LESTRADE OF
DIAGRAM OF TRANSMISSION
DEVELOPMENT THAT CAME OUT OF THE
EYES. SOAPS 2020 YEAR PLAN AND I
PUT IT HERE BECAUSE I KNOW
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT JOBS. NOBODY IS LEAVING
THIS STATE BECAUSE THEY THINK
THEY'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, GET
A LOT CHEAPER JOBS ANYWHERE ELSE
FOR TWO REASONS. ONE IS THE
RESOURCES ARE GOOD HERE. AND IF
YOU ADD UP ALL THE NUMBERS HERE
THAT APPEAR IN BLACK THERE.
THERE'S 47,000 MEGAWATTS OF
SOLAR THAT'S LOOKING TO BE
DEVELOPED IN CALIFORNIA THAT
ALONE AND SORRY ABOUT THAT. UM
AND, UH THAT WAS THAT TWO
MINUTES, SO AT AT ANY RATE, SO
THAT SO BASICALLY, THERE'S A LOT
OF THE DEVELOPMENT GOING ON. MY
MEMBERS ARE BUILDING NOW USING
PLS. SO THIS IS NOT AN ANTI
LABOR THING AT ALL. AND I THINK
THE AMENDMENT THAT MR HOLDEN
TOOK WILL BASICALLY FREEZE IN
TIME TO EXISTING BUCKETS THAT
EXIST UNDER THE RPS, WHICH HAVE
A LONG HISTORY. SO IN CLOSING. I
JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS
THIS BILL SETS FORWARD A PROCESS
THAT'S ALL IT IS TO BASICALLY
DETERMINE HOW WE CAN STRUCTURE A
MULTI STATE R R T O WITH AN
INDEPENDENT BOARD RECOGNIZED THE
INTERESTS OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THERE AS WELL. SO
THAT'S ALL IT DOES, AND IT'S
VERY IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT
THERE WILL BE AN RTO FORMING IN
THE WEST. THE QUESTION. IS THAT
WHETHER WE WANT IT TO BE LOCATED
IN FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA AND
REFLECTING OUR VALUES OR LITTLE
ROCK, ARKANSAS AND THAT THAT
REALLY IS WHAT WE NEED TO BE
WORKING ON. WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH NOT ONLY THE
COMMITTEE, BUT SOME OF THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA POP UP
HERE IN OPPOSITION IS, UH, IN A
SHORT MATTER OF MINUTES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO ASK.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
PROVIDING THE MAP. UH THERE YOU
GO. BUT SOME OF US HAVE A
QUESTION. WHY YOU PROVIDING THE
SPANISH CONQUEST MAP HERE FROM
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS, YOU'LL
HAVE TO BRING IT UP WITH THE
CONSULATE IN SAN FRANCISCO. I
DON'T SPEAK FOR SPAIN. JUST
WONDERING, UM, WE NOW HAVE TO
FOLKS WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING IN
OPPOSITION. I'LL ASK HIM. PLEASE
COME FORWARD. THREE. ACTUALLY,
WE HAVE THREE AND, UH AND THEN
WE DID OFFER THAT WE HAVE THREE
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT AS WELL. IF
I'M NOT MISTAKEN, EACH ONE WILL
HAVE THREE MINUTES. EACH ONE
WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES AS WELL.
OVER THERE. WE HAVE THREE OF US,
YEAH. SO WE DO CHAMPION. MR
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. SCOTT WISH
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS. THE WESTERN STATES
COUNCIL OF SHEET METAL WORKERS.
THE CALIFORNIA STATE PIPE TRADES
COUNCIL. IN THE CALIFORNIA LET
YOU DO THAT, UM TODAY'S AN
IMPORTANT DAY. IT'S NOT OFTEN
THAT YOU ALL GET AN OPPORTUNITY
TO VOTE ON A BILL THAT COULD
ELIMINATE OVER A MILLION
CONSTRUCTION JOBS. UM WE'VE
CIRCULATED OUR STUDY OR ECONOMIC
STUDY THAT YOU ALL HAVE. I WON'T
GO INTO DETAIL, BUT I'M MORE
THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS REGARDING IT. WE'VE
ALSO, UM CIRCULATED ARE EIGHT
PRINCIPLES. I WANT TO BE CLEAR.
WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO
REGIONALIZATION. WE JUST WANTED
TO BE DONE RESPONSIBLY. 85 38
AUTHORIZES AN UNELECTED ENTITY
CALLOUS, SO TO NEGOTIATE AWAY
CALIFORNIA SOVEREIGNTY AND
CONTROL OF NOT JUST OUR GRID,
BUT THE FUTURE OF OUR ENERGY
POLICY. AS WELL AS HOW BILLIONS
OF REPAIR FUNDS WILL BE SPENT.
AND IT DOES SO WITHOUT GIVING
THE LEGISLATURE THE FINAL SAY ON
THE DEAL. THINK ABOUT THAT. THE
BILL GIVES CALIFORNIA ONE VOTE
ON THE POLICY COMMITTEE THAT
WILL SET THE RTO S POLICIES AND
RULES EQUAL TO IDAHO. MONTANA
UTAH, ETCETERA, DESPITE THE FACT
THAT CALIFORNIA REPRESENT
BETWEEN 55 AS MUCH AS 75% OF
LOAD. IT ELIMINATES HAVING THE
CALIFORNIA BOARD MEMBERS
APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR. AND
HIS SILENT. SILENT AS TO WHO
WILL SELECT THOSE MEMBERS TO
REPRESENT CALIFORNIA THINK ABOUT
THAT FOR A MOMENT. MR HOLDEN IS
BASICALLY ASKING YOU TO GIVE
CALLOUS. OH A BLANK CHECKED
TRUST THAT THEY WILL WORK OUT
THE DETAILS THAT WILL PROTECT
CALIFORNIA. TWO FINAL THOUGHTS
BEFORE I HAND IT OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUES. ASK YOURSELF WHAT
HAPPENS IF WE SURRENDER OUR
CONTROL OVER OUR ENERGY POLICY?
TWO FOR VIA A REGIONAL R T O AND
WE HAVE A DONALD TRUMP WORK. ARE
YOU COMFORTABLE? ENTRUST THE
CALIFORNIA'S ENERGY POLICIES
WON'T BE UNDERMINED. AND LASTLY,
IT'S NOT THE LEGISLATURE'S JOB
TO MAKE ISIS NEGOTIATION
POSITION EASY FOR THE OTHER
WESTERN STATES. IT'S YOUR JOB TO
PROTECT CALIFORNIA. OUR
POLICIES. OUR WORKERS. AND OUR
RATEPAYERS. I'LL BE HERE TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS. THREE
MINUTES, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS. MY NAME IS MARK
JOSEPH, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF
THE COALITION OF CALIFORNIA
UTILITY EMPLOYEES. EVERYONE IS
IN FAVOR OF GREATER REGIONAL
COOPERATION. EVERYONE IS IN
FAVOR OF MEETING RSP 100 GOALS
OF SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF
THIS BILL. BUT THOSE AREN'T THE
QUESTIONS. RIGHT NOW. THE I S O
IS A FEDERALLY FEDERALLY
REGULATED UTILITY. IT IS NOT
REGULATED BY THE CPUC OR ANY
OTHER STATE AGENCY. CALIFORNIA'S
ONLY CONTROL OVER THE CAISO. IS
IT THE GOVERNOR APPOINTS IN THE
SENATE CONFIRMS THE MEMBERS OF
THE GOVERNING BOARD. 85 38 WOULD
REPEAL THAT PROVISION OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE. I'M
SUBSTITUTE INSTEAD, AN
INDEPENDENT BOARD. NOT ANSWERING
TO ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA. SO THE
REAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD THROW AWAY
THAT LAST BIT OF CONTROL. BEFORE
YOU KNOW THE TERMS OF THE DEAL.
FOR THE NEW UTILITY THAT WOULD
REPLACE THE CAISO. NOW I HAVE
NEGOTIATED HUNDREDS OF LABOR
AGREEMENTS. I WOULD NEVER THROW
AWAY THE ONLY CARD I HAVE TO
PLAY BEFORE LOCKING IN THE TERMS
THAT I WOULD GET. IN EXCHANGE.
YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER. BEFORE THE
LEGISLATURE PLAYS. IT'S ONLY
CARD. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT THE
TERMS OF THE DEAL WILL ENSURE
ONE THAT WE STILL HAVE
DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RESOURCES IN
CALIFORNIA ENTITIES AND OTHER
STATES ARE EXPLICIT THAT THEY
WANT OUR RATEPAYERS YOUR
CONSTITUENTS TO PAY FOR
DEVELOPING NEW GENERATION IN
THEIR STATES. TO THE CALIFORNIA
WILL STILL BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE
2045 CARBON GOALS. DO THE TERMS,
NEGOTIATED, HELP OR HURT THAT
GOAL? THREE. THE CALIFORNIA'S
VOTES. IN THE NEW RTO WILL BE
PROPORTIONAL TO OUR ELECTRIC
USAGE. WYOMING AND MONTANA
SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TEAM UP TO
OUT VOTE CALIFORNIA AND FOUR THE
CALIFORNIA RATEPAYERS WON'T BE
USED AS THE DEEP POCKET. TO PAY
FOR TRANSMISSION ACROSS THE WEST
THAT DOES NOT BENEFIT
CALIFORNIA. SB FIVETHIRTYEIGHT
WERE ENACTED, THE LEGISLATURE
WOULD PLAY YOUR ONLY CARD
GOVERNANCE OF THE CHI. SO BEFORE
YOU KNOW ANY OF THESE THINGS
YOUR VOTE ON A B 538 COULD BE
THE LAST VOTE YOU EVER TAKE
REGARDING THE ENTITY THAT
CONTROLS THE TRANSMISSION GRID.
IF THE AUTHOR WILL NOT ACCEPT AN
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD BRING THE
TERMS OF THE DEAL BACK TO YOU TO
DECIDE WHETHER THEY'RE GOOD
ENOUGH. YOU SHOULD NOT SUPPORT
THE BILL. FINALLY I WANT TO
BRIEFLY DISCUSS THE PROPOSAL AND
THE ANALYSIS TO ADDRESS THE
PROBLEM THAT EXPANDING THE CHI
SO TO A WIDER FOOTPRINT
EVISCERATES THE BUCKET SYSTEM.
WITHOUT THE BUCKET SYSTEM. WE
DON'T GET RENEWABLE ENERGY
DELIVERED TO CALIFORNIA
CUSTOMERS, AND WE DON'T GET THE
JOBS BUILDING THAT GENERATION IN
CALIFORNIA. WE APPRECIATE THE
EFFORT IN THE ANALYSIS TO
ADDRESS THIS CRUCIAL ISSUE.
UNFORTUNATELY THE PROPOSAL DOES
NOT WORK. I WISH IT DID. THE
IDEA WAS FLOATED IN 2018 THE
LAST TIME MR HOLDEN HAD A BILL
ON THIS TOPIC. IT WAS THOROUGHLY
VETTED. IT WAS DISCUSSED WITH
THE ISSO. THE CONCLUSION WAS
CLEAR. IT DOES NOT PRESERVE THE
BENEFITS OF THE BUCKET SYSTEM TO
CALIFORNIA CUSTOMERS ARE
WORKERS. I COULD GIVE THEM MORE
DETAILED RESPONSE. BUT I HEAR
THE BELL RINGING. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MATT FRIEDMAN, STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH THE UTILITY REFORM
NETWORK. UM MAYBE
FIVETHIRTYEIGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY
IS PRETTY MUCH A CARBON COPY OF
THE BILL THAT WAS BEFORE THE
LEGISLATURE IN 2018 88 13 THAT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HOLDEN AUTHORED
. FIVE YEARS HAVE PASSED, BUT
THE BILL BASICALLY REMAINS THE
SAME. WE PROVIDED A FOUR PAGE
LETTER IN AN EIGHT PAGE FACT
SHEET FOR CONSIDERATION. I CAN'T
GO THROUGH ALL THE ISSUES, BUT I
ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THEM IF
YOU WANT TO GO DEEPER ON ANY OF
OUR ISSUES. THIS BILL ISN'T
ABOUT WHETHER CALIFORNIA CAN
MEET ITS LOW CARBON AND CLEAN
ENERGY GOALS OR WHETHER
CALIFORNIA REFUSES TO TRADE WITH
THE REST OF OUR WESTERN
PARTNERS. CALIFORNIA'S ALREADY
PART OF A REGIONAL MARKET
TRADING HAPPENS EVERY HOUR OF
EVERY SINGLE DAY. IT'S NOT A
CHOICE BETWEEN ISOLATIONISM AND
ENGAGEMENT. THE QUESTION ISN'T
WHETHER WE SHOULD ENGAGE IN
BETTER REGIONAL COORDINATION.
BUT HOW, AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT
OPTIONS FOR INCREASING REGIONAL
INTEGRATION AND MARKETS, BUT THE
LEGISLATURE IS BEING ASKED TO
CONSIDER ONLY ONE OF THEM. UNDER
THIS BILL, CALIFORNIA WOULD GIVE
UP MEANINGFUL CONTROL OVER THE
CALIFORNIA IS SO MARGINALIZED
THE ROLE OF ITS ELECTED
OFFICIALS AND STATE REGULATORS
AND INVITE GREATER INVOLVEMENT
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND
HOSTILE PRIVATE INTERESTS
THROUGHOUT THE WEST. IF THIS
BILL PASSES, IT'S THE LAST BILL
THE LEGISLATURE WILL EVER
CONSIDER RELATING TO WHOLESALE
ELECTRICITY MARKETS. THE
CREATION OF THE MULTISTATE RTO
DIVEST THE LEGISLATURE. FROM
HAVING ANY ONGOING ROLE, AND IN
FACT, YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO
MAKE YOURSELVES AND STATE
AGENCIES AND THE GOVERNOR
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. REGIONAL
EXPANSION COULD LEAD TO HIGHER
COSTS FOR CALIFORNIA CUSTOMERS.
GREATER UTILIZATION OF COAL AND
GAS FIRED POWER PLANTS. HIGHER
IN STATE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS, FEWER IN STATE JOBS
AND AN INCREASED RISK THAT
CUTTING EDGE STATE POLICIES WILL
BE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL
PREEMPTION. AS MENTIONED, THE
BILL FAILS TO PROVIDE KEY
DETAILS REGARDING THE STRUCTURE
OF EXPECTED GOVERNANCE, CHANGES
TO HOTEL MARKETS, TERMS AND
CONDITIONS FOR NEW UTILITIES TO
JOIN REGULATION AND MUCH, MUCH
MORE. THESE DETAILS WOULD ONLY
BE KNOWN AFTER THE LEGISLATURE
PROVIDES ITS APPROVAL. THE LACK
OF ANY CLEAR ROLE FOR CALIFORNIA
AND THE GOVERNANCE IS
PROBLEMATIC. BECAUSE THE
CONDITIONS AND THE INTENT
LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL INTENDING
TO PROTECT CALIFORNIA POLICIES
ARE VAGUE, UNENFORCEABLE AND
THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY
ONGOING OVERSIGHT BY THE
LEGISLATURE. THESE COMMITMENTS
ARE SIMPLY NOT DURABLE. THE ONLY
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IS A
REQUIREMENT THAT CALIFORNIA'S
UTILITIES WITHDRAW FROM THE
MULTISTATE RTO IF CERTAIN
COMMITMENTS ARE NOT MAINTAINED,
BUT THERE ARE SERIOUS QUESTIONS
ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS FEASIBLE
AND IMPLEMENTED AND WHETHER IT'S
EVEN PREEMPTED UNDER FEDERAL
LAW. IN SHORT, THE BILL OFFERS A
ONE WAY TICKET THAT CANNOT BE
UNWOUND. THERE IS NO WAY TO GO
BACK TO THE CURRENT SITUATION,
AND THE RISKS ARE NUMEROUS. THE
ELIMINATION OF A KEY PROVISION
OF THE STATE'S RPS PROGRAM THE
POTENTIAL FOR TENS OF BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS OF TRANSMISSION COSTS
ACROSS THE WEST TO BE DUMPED ON
CALIFORNIA RATEPAYERS GREATER
RISKS THAT PRIVATE COMPANIES AND
OTHER WESTERN INTERESTS WILL
PURSUE CHALLENGES AGAINST
CALIFORNIA'S CUTTING EDGE
POLICIES. AND THE POTENTIAL FOR
FEDERAL REGULATORS TO TAKE
ADDITIONAL ACTIONS THAT DEVALUE
CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCES SERVING
CALIFORNIA AND EVEN COULD FORCE
US TO SUBSIDIZE DIRTY RESOURCES
THROUGHOUT THE WEST. SO TO SUM
UP, CALIFORNIA CAN ENGAGE IN
GREATER REGIONAL COORDINATION
WITHOUT APPROVING THE CREATION
OF A MULTISTATE RTO. WE THINK
THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES THAT NEED
TO BE CONSIDERED. THANK YOU. SO
I NEED TO. AH CORRECT THE RECORD
HERE. I WAS JUST TOLD THAT MR
HOLDEN, UM YOU WERE NOT NOTIFIED
THAT YOU COULD BRING THE THIRD
WITNESS AND ADDITIONAL THREE
MINUTES. SO FOR LEVELING THE
PLAYING FIELD HERE WISH TO USE
AN ADDITIONAL THREE MINUTES IS
MINUTES. EITHER YOURSELF OR ANY
OF YOUR WITNESSES. OR WOULD YOU
LIKE TO DEFER TO, UH, GOING TO
PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT LEAVE IT UP
TO YOUR 33 MINUTES? ARE YOU SURE
DISCRETION. ANY OF YOUR
WITNESSES WANTED USE THE THREE
MINUTES SAYING NO. SURE. JACK.
OKAY OKAY, WE'RE GONNA WE'RE
GONNA GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS NOW.
WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. I
KNOW THAT WE HAVE A SERIES OF
QUESTIONS THAT MEMBERS ARE
ALREADY EAGER TASK. WE'RE GOING
TO BE GOING WITH MISS CARILLO
FIRST, BUT WE'LL ASK PUBLIC
COMMENTS. THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK
IN, UH, FAVOR OR AGAINST THE
MEASURE. WILL YOU PLEASE STATE
YOUR NAME? AND, UM, AFFILIATION.
IN YOUR POSITION, PLEASE. MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS DELANEY HUNTER
ON BEHALF OF THE SOLAR ENERGY
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION. PDF
RENEWABLES AND GDP, RENEWABLES.
INSTRUCT SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR
HOLDEN. LILLIAN MERVIS WITH M C
E HERE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
TIM MCRAE SILICON VALLEY
LEADERSHIP GROUP. WE STRONGLY
SUPPORT THE BILL. JOHN WHITE
WITH THE CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN.
WE SUPPORT THE BILL. ALEX
JACKSON WITH THE AMERICAN CLEAN
POWER ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT
ROCKY RUSHING WITH THE CLEAN
ENERGY BUYERS ASSOCIATION. FOR
THE SAKE OF RELIABILITY AND
AFFORDABILITY. WE HEARD YOUR
ICEBERG. ADAM SMITH, SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON SUPPORT. NICK
BROKE OUT HERE ON BEHALF OF
MICROSOFT AND SUPPORT. HI I'M
CYNTHIA SHALLOT. I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF ALL 80 GROUPS AND
INDIVIDUAL CALIFORNIA STATE
STRONG AND ON BEHALF OF ALL 40
LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS IN
OUR COALITION LETTER, WHICH YOU
HAVE BEFORE YOU, WHICH IS A
TOTAL OF 1 20 GROUPS. WE
STRONGLY OPPOSE ÁP ÁP
FIVETHIRTYEIGHT AND URGE YOU TO
VOTE NO ON THIS BILL. I'M ALSO
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
WHO VOTED 88 TO 17 TO OPPOSE A B
538 AND WE URGE YOUR NO VOTE
NOW. I'VE ASKED FOR THE SERGEANT
TO DISTRIBUTE THIS LETTER, WHICH
I THINK YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MELISSA CORTEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA WIND ENERGY
ASSOCIATION, WE ARE A LITTLE BIT
OF A TWEENER. WE HAVE A
SUPPORTIVE AMEND POSITION ON
THIS BILL AND WOULD ASK THAT THE
AUTHOR AND THIS COMMITTEE AS
THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD,
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO PRESERVE
THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR BOTH
LAND BASED AND OFFSHORE
DEVELOPMENTS. THANK YOU. CHAIR
REMEMBERS AMISH AWRY WITH
ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED HERE IN
SUPPORT. CAITLYN RUDNER SUTTER
FROM ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
JENNA PRICE ON BEHALF OF ENVIRO
VOTERS IN AN L IN SUPPORT. MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS, VICTORIA'S
ROME WITH THE NATURAL RESOURCES,
DEFENSE COUNCIL AND RDC AND
SUPPORT. NATALIE HIGLEY ON
BEHALF OF JOHN MCINTYRE, GERT
LOCAL I B W 551 IN OPPOSITION.
CRUZ MARTINEZ ON BEHALF OF I B W
LOCAL 12, 45 AND OPPOSITION.
CHRISTINA SURRENDERED THE CENTER
FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND
OPPOSITION. KIM STONE STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF CONSUMER
WATCHDOG IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. MEGAN LOPER ON
BEHALF OF WESTERN FREEDOM AND
SUPPORT. THE DOG BARKED OUT WITH
FOOD AND WATER WATCH AND
OPPOSITION. PATRICK WELSH,
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES
ASSOCIATION OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED. LOOK FORWARD TO FURTHER
DISCUSSIONS WITH AUTHOR. THANK
YOU. TAMARA ANGER ON BEHALF OF
SERIES AND SUPPORT. BRADY OF IN
ENGLAND. HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. RUTH
MARINO WAS SAN JOSE COMMUNITY
ENERGY ADVOCATES, A COMMUNITY
GROUP IN OPPOSITION. CHAIR
MEMBERS, DEAN TALLY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. AFRAID OF ME. DO YOU
KNOW HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT?
WHILE WE DON'T HAVE A SUPPORT
POST POSITION ON FILE, WE'RE
HERE TO ECHO THE COMMENTS MADE
BY CMU AND HOPE TO WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR. THANK YOU. TIMOTHY
JEFFERIES. INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD. BOLA MAKERS
REPRESENTED 1000 BULLET
MAGAZINE, CALIFORNIA STANDING
WITH STATE BUILDING TRADES IN
OPPOSITION OF THIS GOOD
AFTERNOON, ERIN LATINA ON BEHALF
OF THE NEARLY HALF A MILLION
MEMBERS OF THE STATE BUILDING
AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
OF CALIFORNIA IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. GOOD
AFTERNOON MARK LUBELL WITH THE
HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS LOCAL
16. WE STAND WITH THE BUILDING
TRADES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. HI MY NAME IS RACHEL
SHOEMAKE WITH I B W LOCAL 302
REPRESENTING OVER 1300
ELECTRICAL WORKERS IN CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY WERE IN OPPOSITION
OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU. HI.
GOOD AFTERNOON. ANTHONY RESCUE
SO ALSO WITH LOCAL 16 HEAT AND
FROST INSULATORS, AND WE ARE
ALSO IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M
JOHN HERSHEY WITH THE PLUMBERS
AND PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 447 HERE
IN SACRAMENTO AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. STAND SOCIAL WITH I B
W 47 ABOUT 15,000 PEOPLE IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. WE OPPOSED
THE BILL. GOOD AFTERNOON. RANDI
THOMAS, BUSINESS MANAGER,
SECRETARY TREASURER.
BOILERMAKERS LOCAL 5 49.
PITTSBURGH CALIFORNIA REPRESENTS
753, GENTLEMEN AND 90
APPRENTICES. AND WE OPPOSE THIS
BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
BENJAMIN WHAT THEY ARE WITH THE
LOCAL 5 49 POSES BILL. AND THE
CASTLE IS WITH LOCAL 549
BOILERMAKERS, AND WE OPPOSE THIS
BILL. HI AGAIN. MICHAEL DRIVING
LOCAL 5 49. PITTSBURGH
CALIFORNIA OPPOSE THIS BILL.
ANDREW HAYES, ALSO FROM
BOILERMAKERS. LOCAL 5 49. ONE OF
THE. OR INSTRUCTORS. YOU ALSO
OPPOSE THIS BILL. I SEE YOUR
KRINGS HERE ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA ENERGY STORAGE
ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT. SELENA
DARRYL WITH TRADES WOMEN INC WE
STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE
BUILDING TRADES IN OPPOSITION OF
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. BILAL LEO
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP, ONE
OF THE OTHER WE'RE LOOKING AT
THE AMENDMENTS CLOSELY. HAVEN'T
REALLY LOOKED AT HIM YET, AND
WE'LL KEEP ANALYZING. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AS ANYONE
ELSE. YOU. NO ONE WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE CENTER. WE HAVE
SEVERAL QUESTIONS FROM HERE.
WE'LL START WITH SOME MEMBER
KOREA. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AND I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING FORWARD AN
IMPORTANT PIECE OF POLICY THAT
WE SHOULD ALL BE CONSIDERING AND
LOOKING AT MORE CLOSELY. I DO
HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR
THE OPPOSITE THE OPPOSITION. FOR
THAT OVER HERE. A LOT OF PEOPLE
ON THE DIET. UM MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT UNDER THE MULTI STATE
ART EOS THE COST OF SYSTEM
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS ARE
ALLOCATED TO STATES BASED
LARGELY ON THEIR LOAD. WHAT ARE
THE RAMIFICATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA
REPAIRS? I CAN THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MATT FRIEDMAN
ON BEHALF OF TURN. I THINK ONE
OF THE CONCERNS WE HAVE NO IDEA
WHAT KIND OF COST ALLOCATION
WOULD OCCUR IN A MULTISTATE RTO
. UM THAT'S NOT SPELLED OUT. THE
BILL SIMPLY SAYS IT HAS TO BE
SOMETHING THAT'S APPROVED BY THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION, WHICH DOESN'T REALLY
GIVE US MUCH COMFORT BECAUSE IT
WOULD BE DEVELOPED BY MANAGEMENT
AND AN INDEPENDENT BOARD THAT
HAS NO ASSOCIATION OR
REPRESENTATION OF CALIFORNIA
INTERESTS. AND ONE THING WE DO
KNOW IS THAT OTHER WESTERN
STATES WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE FOR
CALIFORNIA TO PAY FOR ALL THE
TRANSMISSION THAT THEY BUILD.
AND THEIR POSITION WOULD BE.
THEY'RE BUILDING IT FOR US.
THEY'RE BUILDING IT BECAUSE OF
CALIFORNIA BEING THE LARGE
CONSUMER IN THE WEST BECAUSE
WE'RE A LARGE DEVELOPER OF
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS
THROUGH OUR PROCUREMENT POLICY,
SO WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE END
RESULT WILL BE IN TERMS OF
TRANSMISSION COST ALLOCATION TO
CALIFORNIA. BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW
IS THAT WE HAVE NO
REPRESENTATION IN THE DECISION
MAKING PROCESS. UM THERE'S A
PROPOSAL IN THE BILL TO
ESTABLISH A WESTERN STATES
COMMITTEE, BUT THAT COMMITTEE
WOULD ONLY PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO
THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND TO
THE MANAGEMENT. UM THAT'S NOT
VERY ENCOURAGING. ANYBODY WHO'S
WORKED ON BILLS NOTES THAT
GUIDANCE IS KIND OF A WEAK WORD.
IN ADDITION, CALIFORNIA WOULD
HAVE ONE SEAT, UM, IDAHO,
MONTANA, WYOMING. WOULD EACH
HAVE A SEAT. SO THAT'S THREE
SEATS FOR STATES THAT HAVE ABOUT
FOUR MILLION PEOPLE TOTAL. WE'VE
GOT 10 TIMES THE POPULATION.
IT'S JUST NOT VERY ENCOURAGING.
AND IN THIS CONVERSATION OF THE
LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WE'VE HEARD
REPEATEDLY AND INTEREST IN OTHER
UTILITIES AROUND THE REST WEST,
REALLY WANTING CALIFORNIA TO PAY
FOR THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT. I THINK THAT'S THE
RISK WE FACE AND I'LL JUST ADD
ONE MORE THING, WHICH IS ALL OF
THE STUDIES THAT ARE MENTIONED
THAT ANALYZED THE ECONOMIC
BENEFITS TO CALIFORNIA.
POTENTIALLY UNDER REGIONAL
EXPANSION SCENARIO EXCLUDE THE
IMPACT OF TRANSMISSION COSTS.
THEY SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED AS
PART OF THEIR MODELING, SO WE
REALLY DON'T KNOW WHETHER
ADDITIONAL TRANSMISSION COSTS
SWAMP THE OTHER BENEFITS THAT
ARE BEING PROMISED. SO AS A AS A
FOLLOW UP, MR CHAIR. UM ARE
THERE ANY PROTECTIONS THAT THE
OPPOSITION MY PROPOSED TO ENSURE
CALIFORNIA REPAIRS? AH DON'T
UNFAIRLY OUR OUR FUND STONE
UNFAIRLY GO TO, UM OTHER STATES
PROJECTS. UM WELL BACK IN 2016.
WHEN THIS ISSUE FIRST SURFACE,
THERE WAS A PROPOSAL TO HAVE, UM
, A GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
COMPOSED OF STATE
REPRESENTATIVES WITH A WEIGHTED
VOTING STRUCTURE WHERE EACH
STATE WOULD HAVE WAITED, VOTING
BASED ON EITHER THEIR SHARE OF
TOTAL LOAD IN THE WEST OR
POPULATION. AND THIS KIND OF A
STRUCTURE THAN UNDER THAT
PROPOSAL, THAT BOARD WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO APPROVE ANY
TRANSMISSION COST ALLOCATION
POLICY BEFORE IT COULD BE
PROPOSED TO FERC. UM UNDER SUCH
A STRUCTURE, CALIFORNIA WOULD
EFFECTIVELY HAVE VETO POWER OVER
A BAD PROPOSAL. BUT AS THE
CONVERSATION EVOLVES, THAT
CONCEPT WAS DROPPED. AND NOW
WE'RE DOWN TO ONE STATE ONE
VOTE. SO A FEW WAS IT A FEW
YEARS AGO LAST YEAR, I LOSE
TRACK OF TIME DURING DURING
COVID. WE MOVE FORWARD, UM,
ADDITIONAL ACCESS TO, UM,
OFFSHORE WIND. SO I'M CURIOUS IF
UNDER THIS RTO OF CALIFORNIA
WANTED TO BUILD A TRANS
TRANSMISSION LINE 100% WITHIN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WOULD
WE THEN NEED TO OBTAIN APPROVAL
FROM THE RTO AND OTHER STATES TO
AUTHORIZE IT? WELL THE WAY THAT
IT WORKS NOW IS THAT THE
CALIFORNIA IS SO APPROVES THE
TRANSMISSION LINE TO BE BUILT.
UM AND IT'S DOING SO TODAY BASED
ON THE RESOURCE PLANS THAT ARE
SUBMITTED BY THE STATE AGENCY,
SO THE PUC, FOR EXAMPLE, SENDS
OVER WHAT THE RESOURCE PLANNING
LOOKS LIKE. BASED ON ALL OF THE
AGGREGATED COMMITMENTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUYERS. AND THE
CALIFORNIA IS SO THEN
PREAPPROVED ESSENTIALLY THE NEED
FOR CERTAIN LINES UNDER A
MULTISTATE RTO. WE DON'T KNOW
HOW THEY WOULD DO IT. WE DON'T
KNOW WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA
RESOURCE PLAN WOULD BE SIMPLY
CONSIDERATION WHETHER IT WOULD
DRIVE OUTCOMES OR SOMETHING ELSE
. THERE'S REALLY NOTHING IN HERE
TO HELP US TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
HOW THAT WOULD PLAY OUT. IS
THERE A DIFFERENT OPINION FROM
THE SUPPORTERS OF THE GROUP THAT
COULD TALK ABOUT HOW HOW DO WE
MOVE FORWARD IN CALIFORNIA?
BASED ON ALL OF OUR CLIMATE
GOALS AND, UM, THINGS THAT WE
WANT TO DO WITHIN THE STATE
WITHOUT HAVING TO SEEK APPROVAL
ELSEWHERE? UM RESPECTFULLY, I
THINK A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT
WE'RE SAYING ONE IS THAT, UM
VARIOUS DECISIONS OVER THE LAST
DECADE HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT
THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF
ROUGH. ROUGH JUSTICE IN RTO S IN
TERMS OF HOW COSTS ARE ALLOCATED
AND THAT THE BENEFICIARIES OF
PROJECTS DO YOU NEED TO PAY FOR
THEM? SO IF IT IS, IN FACT THE
CASE THAT MONTANA IS BENEFITING
FROM PROJECT THAT WAS BUILT IN
THE NEW STRUCTURE THAN MONTANA,
REPAIRS WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR
IT, AT LEAST TO SOME DEGREE,
RIGHT AND IT'S ROUGH JUSTICE. I
WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THERE'S
NO PERFECT WAY TO ALLOCATE THESE
COSTS, GIVEN THE WAY ENERGY
FLOWS. SO THAT WOULD BE ONE
POINT ANOTHER. ANOTHER POINT I
WOULD MAKE WOULD BE JUST REFER
TO SOMETHING THAT THAT, UM MR
FRIEDMAN JUST SAID, WHICH IS
THAT? THE CPUC TELLS THE I S O.
WHICH RESOURCE IS IT INTENDS TO
PROCURE? AND THEN THE I S L IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR BUILDING THE
TRANSMISSION TO CONNECT THOSE
RESOURCES TO THE DEMAND CENTERS
FOR ELECTRICITY, SO WE STILL
HAVE SOME CONTROL THERE BECAUSE
THE PUC DECIDES WHICH POWER
PLANTS WE ARE GOING TO BUILD TO
SERVE OUR LOAD. AND THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT BALANCE. IT'S NOT, AND
I WOULD AGREE THAT THERE IS SOME
SOME LOSS OF CONTROL, RIGHT? WE
WON'T HAVE AS DIRECT CONTROL AS
WE DO NOW, IN A IN A IN AN
INDEPENDENT GOVERNANCE
STRUCTURE, THAT'S WHAT
INDEPENDENT MEANS, BUT THERE ARE
STILL SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS TO
THAT AS WELL. BUT I THINK ARE
WORTH EMPHASIZING, UM IN
RESPONSE TO THAT. I WOULD JUST
ASK PROFESSOR WAR IF HE COULD
POINT THE COMMITTEE TO WHERE
THOSE TWO PROVISIONS ARE IN THE
BILL THAT THE PUC HAS TO APPROVE
AND DIRECT THE ICE. OH AND ALSO
WHERE THE, UH RTO WOULD HAVE TO
ALLOCATE COSTS BASED ON UM WHICH
STATE BENEFITS BECAUSE I HAVEN'T
FOUND THAT IN THE BILL, SO IF WE
COULD KIND OF GO THROUGH THE
CHAIR WHEN WE WANT TO ASK SOME
QUESTIONS. I APPRECIATE THAT.
THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF
SOME ORDER. UM I KNOW HIS CAREER
STILL HAS THE FLOOR WITH
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
APPRECIATE AND I APPRECIATE THE
EXCHANGE. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING
THAT. I'M JUST, UM WITH. WITH
ALL DUE RESPECT, I JUST FIND
SOME CONTROL OVER WHAT
CALIFORNIA CAN POTENTIALLY DO
WITHIN STATE BOUNDARIES TO BE A
LITTLE CHALLENGING. SO IF WE
DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT
WERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE
ARE NOW MANDATED TO DO, BASED ON
THE CLIMATE GOALS THAT WE HAVE
PUT IN PLACE? IT GIVES ME PAUSE
TO NOW BE IN A POSITION WHERE WE
HAVE OTHER STATES, POTENTIALLY
GIVING US A YES OR NO ON WHAT WE
CAN POTENTIALLY DO INTERNALLY
WITHIN OUR STATE. SO THANK YOU
FOR THANK YOU FOR THE RESPONSE
IS THANK YOU, MR CHAIR, AND I
WILL. YOU KNOW, I THINK, UM THE
QUESTION POSED BY THIS WHICH IS
A VALID ONE. SO I'D LIKE FOR AH
, THOSE WHO COULD ANSWER IT.
RESPOND UH YEAH. TWO POINTS. ONE
IS THAT THE TRANSMISSION LINES
OFFSHORE? UH IT'S A WHOLESALE
TRANSACTION. IT WILL IT WILL
HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY FERC, WHO
DOES SET THE RATES FOR WHOLESALE
TRANSMISSION LINES, SO THE
SIGHTING OF THE OF THE LINE
WOULD FALL UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
LAW, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT STATES
DO. BUT THE ACTUAL RATE MAKING
TREATMENT IS THAT FOR THERE IS A
LONG PROCESS OF THAT. THE I S O
HAS AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS TO
DETERMINE WHAT TRANSMISSION GETS
BUILT OR NOT. AND I THINK MR
WORK SUGGESTED THAT I WANT TO BE
CLEAR WHAT'S IN THE BILL BECAUSE
I THINK EVERYBODY'S REACHING THE
CONCLUSION THAT THIS IS WHAT
IT'S GOING TO DO, AND THERE'S A
PARADE OF HORRIBLES. IT'S A LAYS
OUT A PROCESS WITH 18 POINTS OF
LEGISLATIVE GUIDANCE AND THREE
MAJOR POLICY PRINCIPLES FOR US
TO WORK OUT AS THIS GOES FORWARD
, THAT'S WHAT IT DOES. SO
THERE'S NO END USE. IT DIDN'T
PREDETERMINED. HOW MANY BOARD
MEMBERS SIT FOR WHATEVER STATE
OR WHATEVER ELSE AND IT DIDN'T
PREDETERMINED WHETHER OR NOT HOW
THAT STATE GOVERNANCE GROUP
WORKS. SO WHEN I WITHOUT
ENCOURAGE IS, LET'S MOVE THIS
THING THROUGH AND SEE IF WE CAN
WORK OUT THE DETAILS OF IT. IT'S
NOT DESIGNED TO BE THE END
PRODUCT. THE QUESTION WAS, WHERE
IN THE BILL, IS IT? RIGHT BY THE
HONORARY CHAIR. IT'S GOT WET
SHARE COMMITTEE. BUT. IF YOU ARE
RESPONDING, PLEASE. THE WHAT I
WAS ALLUDING TO WOULDN'T BE IN
THE BILL BECAUSE IT'S THE
CURRENT SYSTEM AND THE FUTURE
SYSTEM ARE CONTROLLED BY FEDERAL
LAW. AND THERE ARE FEDERAL COURT
DECISIONS, APPELLATE COURT
DECISIONS THAT DETERMINE HOW
COST ALLOCATION OF TRANSMISSION
AND FEDERALLY REGULATED
ELECTRICITY MARKETS OCCURS. AND
THAT IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO.
SO THAT'S NOT IN THE BILL
BECAUSE CALIFORNIA LAW DOES NOT
CONTROL IT. THANK YOU. YOUR
ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? MR MR
SANTIAGO. I'M SORRY, SANTIAGO
NÓ. TO THE CHAIR. MAY I? PLEASE
ASK, UM, I WAS LOOKING FOR A
BETTER REFERENCED A MINNESOTA
CASE. ANY CIRCUIT INVOLVING
GENERATED FROM NORTH DAKOTA.
PLEASE PLAY THIS. THE RELEVANCE
OF THAT. YEAH THAT'S
PARTICULARLY IN CALIFORNIA. YOU
MIGHT SURE THANK YOU. I'M SURE
MR WAR IS GONNA HAVE SOMETHING
TO SAY ABOUT THIS AS WELL. THIS
IS THE HATING YOUR CASE THAT WAS
DECIDED BY A THREE JUDGE PANEL
ON THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. UM THIS
IS WAS A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE
OF MINNESOTA FOR A LAW THAT IN
ENACTED, UM, THAT WAS DESIGNED
TO PROHIBIT THE IMPORT OF COAL
FIRED ELECTRICITY. UM THE THREE
JUDGE PANEL STRUCK DOWN THE
MINNESOTA LAW. FOR A VARIETY OF
REASONS. BUT YOU KNOW, ONE OF
THE REASONS THAT SEEM TO BE
PERSUASIVE TO THE JUDGES WAS THE
FACT THAT MINNESOTA IS PART OF
AN RTO THE MISO MISO ALONG WITH
OTHER STATES LIKE NORTH DAKOTA,
AND THAT MINNESOTA'S ACTIONS
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO MUCH
STRICTER SCRUTINY TO THE EXTENT
THAT IT AFFECTED RESOURCES
OUTSIDE OF ITS BORDERS. THE
DECISION SAYS A LOT OF DIFFERENT
THINGS, BUT I THINK WHAT IT
STANDS FOR IS THE NOTION THAT
WHEN YOU'RE PART OF AN RTO, I
THINK COURTS ARE GOING TO APPLY
A LOT MORE SCRUTINY TO POLICIES
THAT AFFECT OTHER STATES WITHIN
THE SAME RTO OR THAT ARE SEEN AS
PROTECTIONIST OR THAT ARE SEEN
TO HAVE EXTRA TERRITORIAL IMPACT
FROM THE STATE ITSELF. WE DON'T
KNOW HOW COURTS ARE GOING TO
DECIDE. AND IN FACT, RECENTLY,
MINNESOTA PASSED 100% CLEAN
ENERGY LAW AND IN RESPONSE, THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA HAS
ALREADY SENT MINNESOTA A LETTER
SAYING, REMEMBER THAT CASE WHERE
WE BEAT YOU? IN THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT. WELL WE MAY JUST SEE
YOU AGAIN UNDER THE SAME
PRINCIPLES BECAUSE MANY OF THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IS
CONCERNED THAT THIS LAW WILL
ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS COAL
INDUSTRY, SO THERE'S A LOT OF
RISKS HERE. I'D ALSO POINT OUT
THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STATE OF
UTAH, THE LEGISLATURE THERE HAS
AUTHORIZED MONEY. IN THEIR STATE
BUDGET TO INVESTIGATE SUING
CALIFORNIA UNDER ITS
CALIFORNIA'S CLIMATE POLICIES
AND THE DISCRIMINATORY IMPACT
THAT THEY BELIEVE IT HAS ON
UTAH'S COAL INDUSTRY. IF WE'RE
ALL PART OF THE SAME RTO, I
THINK IT PUTS CALIFORNIA AT
GREATER RISK THAN UNDER THE
CURRENT STRUCTURE. YES PLEASE. I
JUST WANT TO PRESS A LITTLE BIT.
SO GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT
COULD HAPPEN. I READ THE READ
THAT I GENERALLY UNDERSTAND
THAT, BUT THE RELEVANCE. UH A
NUMBER OF CALIFORNIA POLICIES.
UH, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE AN
EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE STANDARD
IN CALIFORNIA THAT PROHIBITS
LONG TERM CONTRACTS FOR COAL
FIRED GENERATION. WE HAVE A CAP
AND TRADE SYSTEM THAT APPLIES
CARBON PRICING TO IMPORTS,
PARTICULARLY FROM COAL PLANTS.
THEY PAY THE HIGHEST IMPORT
ADDER. UM AND WE ALSO HAVE CLEAN
ENERGY POLICIES LIKE THE
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD. WE
HAVE AN INTEGRATED RESOURCES
PLANNING PROCESS. LOTS OF
DIFFERENT STATE POLICIES THAT
DRIVE OUTCOMES FOR BUYERS AND
REALLY MAKE IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE
, IN FACT, IMPOSSIBLE TO BUY
COAL ON ANY LONG TERM BASIS IF
YOU'VE GOT A STATE THAT HAS A
SIGNIFICANT BASIC COAL FIRED
POWER PLANTS, AND THEY'RE
ARGUING THAT CALIFORNIA CAN'T DO
THAT, AS PART OF AN RTO WE DON'T
KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN. I
COULD ARGUE IT BOTH WAYS. I'M
SURE MR WARREN COULD ARGUE IT
BOTH WAYS. BUT THEN WE'RE IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS. AND I DO BELIEVE
THAT UNDER A SINGLE RTO, WE ARE
AT MUCH GREATER RISK THAN UNDER
THE CURRENT STRUCTURE. THANK YOU
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE?
IS THERE A RESPONSE TO THAT FROM
THE OPPOSITION ON THAT? I LOVE
TO HEAR PERSPECTIVE ON THAT. I
JUST I THINK I THINK, UM MR
FRIEDMAN IS HAS A REASONABLE
POSITION, BUT I THINK THERE ARE
OTHER VERY REASONABLE POSITIONS
AS WELL. IN PARTICULAR, RECENT
DECISIONS BY THE SUPREME COURT
ON THIS ISSUE OF DORMANT
COMMERCE CLAUSE, YOU KNOW THAT
SORT OF PREEMPTION OF FEDERAL
LAW FEDERAL LAW OVER STATE LAWS
THAT ARE PROTECTIONISTS HAS
STRONGLY SUPPORTED CALIFORNIA'S
EFFORTS WHERE THEY REGULATE WHAT
BUYERS IN CALIFORNIA CAN DO WITH
RESPECT TO OUT OF STATE PRODUCTS
. THAT'S WHAT THE SUPREME COURT
IS SAYING, JUST BECAUSE THERE
ARE CIRCUIT COURTS THAT HAVE
SAID OTHER THINGS DOES NOT
NECESSARILY MEAN THAT LITIGATION
IF IT WERE TO OCCUR, WOULD TURN
OUT THIS WAY. THANK YOU.
REMEMBER CHEN FOLLOWED BY, UM
BACK BAUER-KAHAN. UM THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR FOR YOUR TIME. SHELDON
AND DOCTOR THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
BRINGING THIS DISCUSSION TO THE
TABLE. AND YOU KNOW, DOCTOR YOU
STATED EARLY ON TALKING ABOUT
THE REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS REGIME
AND THAT IF CALIFORNIANS AND
GIVE UP ITS ENERGY SOVEREIGNTY
THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
SHARE SOME OF THAT POLICY AND I
THINK THAT'S WHAT GIVES ME A BIT
OF TREPIDATION. SO ONE OF
NUMBERS I'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT
TIME AND TIME AGAIN IS LOAD AND
CALIFORNIA'S ROLE IN HIS LOAD. A
NUMBER THAT I KEEP ON HEARING IS
55 TO 75. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT
YOU WOULD AGREE WITH IN TERMS OF
THE LOAD THAT CALIFORNIA HAS
BEEN DOING ITS OUTPUT IN? I
THINK IT DEPENDS VERY MUCH ON
WHICH OTHER UTILITIES DECIDE TO
JOIN A REGIONAL REGIONALIZED S O
R R T O I AGREE WITH THE
ASSERTION THAT WE ARE LIKELY
ESPECIALLY FOR THE EARLY YEARS
TO BE THE MAJORITY OF LOAD. AND
I THINK THAT RAISES A QUESTION
ABOUT A FUTURE CONVERSATION
ABOUT HOW GOVERNANCE AND STATE
INPUT SHOULD BE CREATED FOR THAT
ARE TÌM. THANK YOU, DOCTOR. SO
IF CALIFORNIA RESPONSIBLE TO YOU
KNOW, AS YOU SAY THE MAJORITY OF
LOGAN NUMBERS HAVE BEEN GONE
FROM 55 TO 75. PART OF THIS
REGIONALIZATION. THIS RTO POLICY
COMMITTEE IS THAT OTHER STATES
INVOLVED UTAH. IDAHO MONTANA,
MONTANA'S WHAT IS POPULATION 1.1
MILLION L. A COUNTY HAS A
POPULATION OF 11 MILLION. WHY IN
TERMS OF THE RTO POLICY COMING?
WHAT IS THE RATIONALE IN TERMS
OF THEY GET ONE VOTE? WE GET ONE
VOTE, SO IN MY OPINION, IF WE'RE
GOING TO BE MAKING THE BULK OF
LOAD AS YOU ASSESS IN THE FIRST
COUPLE OF YEARS, WHY ARE WE
GOING TO HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF
SAY IN TERMS OF THE POLICY? SO
FAR AS I KNOW THE BILL DOESN'T
SPECIFY VOTING RIGHTS WITHIN THE
STATE, THE BODY OF STATE
GOVERNORS, SO I THINK THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT QUESTION TO CONSIDER
IN FUTURE CONVERSATIONS AROUND
THIS LEGISLATION, AND I WOULD
SAY THAT WE NEED TO STRIKE A
BALANCE BETWEEN REPRESENTING THE
FACT THAT WE DO HAVE 40 OUT OF
100 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE
WESTERN UNITED STATES. AND THE
FACT THAT OTHER STATES NEED TO
BE GIVEN SOME SORT OF A VOICE
OVER THAT, THAT THAT IS
MEANINGFUL. THAT IS NOT TRIVIAL
OVER, UM THEIR ROLE IN A
REGIONAL RTO. WE NEED TO STRIKE
A BALANCE. AND I THINK THAT
WOULD BE A QUESTION OF DETAILED
, PERHAPS TO BE WORKED OUT HERE
OR WITHIN THIS BODY AND PERHAPS
TO BE WORKED OUT. WITH THE I S O
AND OTHER PARTNERS. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, UM, FALSE QUESTION ON
THAT IN WHICH YOU KNOW, I'LL ASK
THE OPPOSITION LATER IN TERMS OF
IF THAT IS IN THE POLICY FOR
THIS BILL PER SE, BUT, UM, AS
YOU SAID, EARLY ON, YOU KNOW, I
THINK THERE'S A LOT OF
DISCUSSION TO BE HAD, AND THIS
IS A STATED BY BOTH SIDES. THIS
IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. YOU KNOW,
IT'S GOING TO MAY NOT BE THE
FINAL POLICY THAT ENDS UP ON THE
PLATE OF THAT DOES PASS THIS
COMMITTEE. UM WHY WOULD WE NOT
IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY
CALIFORNIA'S ENERGY SOVEREIGNTY
, INCLUDING MANAGEMENT CONTROL
OF THE GRID, WHY WOULD NOT COME
BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE? THE
APPOINTED BODY? TO RATIFY THE
FINAL PRODUCT THAT IS DECIDED BY
POLICYMAKERS. WELL, I'D SAY
THAT'S ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. I'M
THE ACADEMIC IN THE ROOM. BUT,
YOU KNOW, I LEAVE THAT
CONVERSATION TO FOLKS YOU KNOW
WHO WHO ARE BETTER TO ANSWER IT?
DID YOU WANT TO DID YOU WANT TO
HAVE. WELL, I'M A NON ACADEMIC.
UM I THINK THE IDEA HERE WAS THE
POLICIES ARE LAID OUT
BEFOREHAND. UM IN TERMS OF
WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE, UH,
GUIDELINES, UH, GUARDRAILS IF
YOU WILL, UM, THE I S O IS
SUPPOSED TO GIVE THAT DOCUMENT.
THEN IT COMES UP WITH A WITH A
POLICY THAT CAN ADDRESS ALL
THOSE IT IS, UH, GOES OVER TO
THE ENERGY COMMISSION TO CHECK
ALL THE BOXES AND ULTIMATELY
GETS REVIEWED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SO THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WHAT
WE'RE DOING, AND YOU KNOW IT.
LAST TIME AROUND. THE
LEGISLATURE HAD A SIMILAR
PROCESS, ALTHOUGH WE HAD AN
OVERSIGHT BOARD AT THE TIME THAT
CHECKED ALL THE BOXES, AND THEN
IT COULD GET APPROVED BY THE
GOVERNOR. SO THAT WOULD THAT
CREATED THE I S SO, UM, SO YOU
KNOW, I UNDERSTAND IT THAT
PEOPLE WANT A LITTLE MORE
DIRECTION THERE AND WE'RE HAPPY
TO TALK MORE IN TERMS OF HOW
THAT MIGHT WORK. I THINK THAT
WAS WHAT I WAS ALLUDING TO IN MY
OPENING STATEMENT. WAS THAT THIS
COMMITTEE? MEMBERS OF MY
COMMUNITY HAVE RAISED THE
CONCERN AS WELL. AND SO I SAID
THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE
NEED TO CONTINUE TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS ON TO SEE JUST HOW
WE CAN BEST. UM CONCERN ADDRESS
THE CONCERN AND THAT'S PART OF
MY COMMITMENT AS WE CONTINUE TO
MOVE FORWARD TO THE COMMITTEE
ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN, AND
THEY'RE GOING TO BE OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO BE A PART OF THIS
CONVERSATION. UM THE ENERGY
ENTITIES NEED TO BE A PART OF
IT, UM, LABOR, OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS THAT HAVE BEEN PART
OF THIS CONVERSATION AT THIS
POINT BECAUSE YOU'RE GETTING
MORE INTO THE PROCESS OF HOW IT
WOULD COME TOGETHER. AND WHAT
WOULD YOU DO IN ORDER TO ADDRESS
POTENTIAL TRIGGERS THAT WOULD
CAUSE OTHER OTHER PARTICIPANTS
OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA TO WANT TO
BE A PART? IF THERE WAS
EXPECTATION THAT THERE COULD BE
A FULLY INVESTED TIME FRAME THAT
ALL OF A SUDDEN, LATER DOWN THE
ROAD, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S
GOING TO MATERIALIZE AND OTHER
OPPORTUNITIES TO MOVE TO OUR
OTHER RTO S MAY HAVE BEEN MISSED
. THAT'S REAL, BUT THE ISSUES
THAT ARE BEING TALKED ABOUT IN
TERMS OF HAVING SOME ELEMENT OF
CONNECTED TISSUE. I THINK WE'RE
OPEN TO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE AND
HAVE CONVERSATIONS TO SEE WHAT
WE CAN DO ABOUT FINDING THE
RIGHT BALANCE QUESTION, MR CHEN
. THANK YOU, MR MR ROWLAND.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT
RESPONSE. YOU KNOW, MY DISTRICT
IS A SEVERAL AND BEDROOM
COMMUNITY AND THE NEEDS OF MY
DISTRICT ARE DRASTICALLY
DIFFERENT FROM MY COLLEAGUE OVER
AND 81 WHERE IT'S A VERY RURAL
AREA, SO I CERTAINLY WOULD
APPRECIATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
THIS TO BE COMING BACK TO THE
LEGISLATURE TO GET RATIFIED FOR
FINAL APPROVAL. SO I'M LOOKING
FORWARD TO SEE IF THERE'S A
POSSIBILITY IN THAT. UM AND I DO
HAVE ONE FINAL QUESTION. UM
BEFORE I GO AND I HAPPY TO HAVE
SOME OF THE FOLKS IN THE
OPPOSITION. UM, DISCUSS THIS
BILL. UM YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD
ANOTHER DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF
THE WORKFORCE AND THE WORKFORCE
IS SOMETHING I THINK YOU KNOW,
MY PERSONAL OPINION, THE SKILL
AND TRAINED WORKFORCE OF THE
BUILDING TRADES IS SECOND TO
NONE AND CONCERNS ABOUT
WORKFORCE AND EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CALIFORNIANS,
LEAVING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND BEING PROVIDED BY FOLKS
OUTSIDE THE STATE. YOU KNOW, MY
CONCERNS ARE WITHIN THE 40
MILLION RESIDENTS TO HAVE JOBS
STAY IN CALIFORNIA, AND ONE OF
THE RESULTS I HEARD WAS THERE'S
ENOUGH JOBS TO GO AROUND THAT
THERE'S SO MANY CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, UM, THAT THEY'LL BE
SO BUSY THAT WE NEED OUTSIDE
CONSTRUCTION. SO I HAVE A
QUESTION FOR THE OPPOSITION. NOW
I'LL ASK THE HONORARY VICE CHAIR
SCOTT WATCH FOR THAT QUESTION.
IS THAT TRUE? I MEAN, IS THAT
TRUE? MR WEST? I MEAN, YOU HAVE
ENOUGH CONSTRUCTION JOBS TO GO
AROUND AND, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU
. UM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S, UM, NO,
WE DON'T AND WE'RE VERY
CONCERNED AND, AS WAS, UM I
THINK I SO YOU KNOW, BACK IN
2015. WHEN THIS LEGISLATURE
PASSED. SB 3 50 BY KEVIN DELEON
THAT TOOK US TO A 50% RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO STANDARD. EMBEDDED IN
THAT LEGISLATION WAS DIRECTION,
ASKING CALYX SO TO CONDUCT A
STUDY ON WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD
BE IF WE WENT TO A R T O WITHOUT
THE BUCKET SYSTEM IN PLACE.
THEIR STUDY. AND THESE ARE THE
FOLKS WHO WANT TO DO
REGIONALIZATION CAME BACK AND
FOUND THAT WE WOULD LOSE 160,000
CONSTRUCTION JOBS PRIMARILY IN
THE SOLAR SECTOR. OKAY SO WHEN
MR HOLDEN INTRODUCED THIS BILL
WE ASKED OUR ECONOMIST STANFORD
TRAINED ECONOMIST WHO DOES ALL
OF OUR WORK BEFORE THE PUC. TO
TAKE THE CALISTO STUDY FROM 2015
TAKE THE METHODOLOGY AND TAKE
THE NEW NUMBERS THAT NOW THAT
WE'RE LOOKING BACK THEN WE'RE AT
50% BY 2030. NOW WE'RE AT 100%
BY 2045. BèC PROJECTS THAT WE'RE
GONNA HAVE A 28% INCREASE IN
LOAD JUST BETWEEN NOW AND 2031.
SO WE TOOK THOSE NUMBERS, WHICH
ARE QUITE CONSERVATIVE, BECAUSE
WE DON'T KNOW YET THAT WE DIDN'T
HAVE THE LOAD GROWTH PROJECTIONS
BEYOND 2030, AND YOU ALL HAVE
RECEIVED IT, AND THEY FOUND THAT
USING THE ICE OZONE METHODOLOGY
WE WOULD BE PUTTING AT RISK 1.1
MILLION CONSTRUCTION JOBS. NOW
YOU ASK, WHY IS THAT? THE REASON
FOR THAT IS BECAUSE THE
SURROUNDING STATES THAT WOULD BE
PART OF THE R T O HAVE. LOWER
TAX RATES. PROPERTY TAX RATES
CHEAPER LAND. LESS ENVIRONMENTAL
OBSTACLES. AND THEIR RIGHT TO
WORK STATES. NOW THIS ISN'T SOME
THEORETICAL EXERCISE. THE
CALLOUS SO TODAY DOESN'T AND
THAT CAN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS WHEN
THEY HAVE TRANSMISSION,
COMPETING TRANSMISSION PROJECTS
, AND, FOR INSTANCE, AFTER SANTA
NO FREE WENT DOWN, AND WE HAD TO
REPLACE 2200 MEGAWATTS OF, UH,
GHG FREE POWER. WHEN CAO IS A
WAS CONSIDERING, UH, BUILDING A
TRANSMISSION LINE TO IMPERIAL TO
BRING IN MORE GEOTHERMAL OR
BUILDING THE PALACE VERDICT TO
LINE IN ARIZONA. THEY DID AN
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND WE HAVE
CIRCULATED A COPY OF THAT TO
YOUR OFFICES. IN THAT ANALYSIS
THAT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS THEY
FOUND IN IN PART WHY THE, UH,
ARIZONA PALOS VERDES LINE WAS
MORE ADVANTAGEOUS. WAS BECAUSE
IT WOULD BE BUILT CHEAPER FOR
ALL THE SAME FOUR FACTORS THAT I
JUST OUTLINED. THEY GAVE POINTS
TO ARIZONA LINE BECAUSE IT WAS
CHEAP. THE LABOR RATES WERE
CHEAPER BECAUSE THERE'S A RIGHT
TO WORK STATE. THEY GAVE POINTS
TO THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS LIKE WE DO.
THEY GAVE THEM BECAUSE THEIR
PROPERTY TAX STRUCTURES CHEAPER
AND THEY GAVE THEM POINTS
BECAUSE UM, LAND IS CHEAP. SO
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR CONCERN
IS NOT JUST ARE CONCERNED, BUT
WHEN ALYSSA WAS GOING THROUGH
THIS EXERCISE SIX YEARS AGO, THE
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT
HAVING THE SAME FEARS THAT WE
HAD FILED AN ANTITRUST SUIT IN
FEDERAL COURT. CHALLENGING THAT
THE COW IS A SCHEME TO CREATE A
REGIONAL STATE WOULD COLLUDE
WITH OTHER GENERATORS AND OTHER
UTILITIES AND OTHER STATES AND
PUSH CALIFORNIA GENERATORS OUT
OF THE MARKET. OKAY? THAT WAS A
SUIT BROUGHT BY ID. THEY ENDED
UP SETTLING IT WITH CALLOUS, SO
IN RETURN FOR WE WOULD ASSUME
KELLY'S WITHIN APPROVED ANOTHER
ANOTHER PROJECT THAT I D WANTED,
AND BECAUSE THE REGIONALIZATION
ISSUE KIND OF WENT AWAY, THEY
THEY DROPPED THEIR SUIT. SO
YEAH, THAT'S A VERY REAL
CONCERN. FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS IF
I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A HAND UP
WHEN YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT THE
WEIGHTED VOTE. AND THE
RATIFICATION AND I THINK
OPPOSITION WANTED TO MAKE A
COMMENT COULD I MEAN CAN WE AT
LEAST GET EXTRA ON THIS? BECAUSE
I THINK THAT THE IT GOES TO THE
EFFORT BEHIND TRYING TO ADDRESS
THE BUCKETS IN THIS BILL, AND
THERE HAS BEEN ANY REFERENCE TO
HOW IT WAS ADDRESSED IN 2018
VERSUS NOW, I WAS GOING TO ASK
MR SMARTY JONES TO SORT OF
CREATE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THE TWO BECAUSE THERE IS A
DIFFERENCE. UH, YES, I'LL POINT
OUT THAT THAT STUDY THEY DID,
THE AUTHOR HIMSELF SUGGESTS OR
THE AUTHOR'S SUGGESTED THAT THE
DATA THEY'RE THEY'RE USING MAY
NOT BE ACTING. THEY'RE THEY'RE
ASSUMING 26 JOBS PER MEGAWATT.
IT'S ACTUALLY 2.5 SO YOU CAN DO
THE MATH THERE, BUT MORE
IMPORTANTLY, LET'S JUST GET TO
THE POINT. THE POINT IS THE
REASON I SENT THIS AROUND. THIS
MAP. IT COMES OUT OF A HIGHER SO
DOCUMENTED 2020, OR OUTLOOK OF
WHERE THEY THINK TRANSMISSION
NEEDS TO BE BUILT IN CALIFORNIA
. ALL OF THOSE NUMBERS THAT ARE
IN THERE ARE PLANTS THAT ARE
PROPOSED IN CALIFORNIA. OR AT
LEAST THAT'S THE PLAN COMING OUT
OF THE ENERGY COMMISSION AND THE
PUC. IT'S CALIFORNIA CENTRIC AND
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE'S
47,000 MEGAWATTS OF SOLAR
IDENTIFIED IN HERE. I CAN'T
GUARANTEE YOU THAT THEY ALL GET
BUILT AND I CAN'T GUARANTEE YOU.
WE HAVE THE PEOPLE TO BUILD IT
ALL. WE DON'T KNOW THAT. BUT
THAT'S THAT'S WHERE YOU KNOW
THAT THAT'S WHAT WHAT? WHERE THE
TARGET IS. THAT'S A B THE THING
THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
LAST TIME WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION
ISN'T INFLATION REDUCTION ACT.
THERE'S AN I IN INVESTMENT TAX
CREDIT AND THE PRODUCTION TAX
CREDIT THAT GIVES HUGE
INCENTIVES FOR PEOPLE TO USE
LABOR. OKAY, THAT DIDN'T EXIST
BEFORE, SO THE IDEA THAT SOMEONE
IS GOING TO RUN OFF TO ARIZONA
TO BUILD PROJECTS AND FORGO IT,
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO
AVOID LABOR UNIONS BECAUSE
THEY'RE GOING TO FORGO LITERALLY
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF TAX
BENEFITS. JUST DOESN'T HOLD
WATER, OKAY? IT JUST DOESN'T AND
YOU KNOW, THE FACT OF THE MATTER
IS CALIFORNIA HAS VERY NICE TAX
AND PROPERTY TAX AND CENTERS FOR
BUILDING OUT SOLAR. AND IF WE
WANT TO TALK ABOUT CHANGES TO
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, I'M ALL EARS
. MR CHEN, YOU HAD A QUESTION
AND THE OPPOSITION WANTED TO
ALSO RESPOND TO AS IT RELATES TO
THE WAY TO VOTE. AND
RATIFICATION. DID YOU WANT TO
TOUCH ON THAT? STILL YOU LIKE IT
BRIEFLY. MR. CHAIRMAN THERE WAS
A QUESTION BROUGHT UP ABOUT
THIS. WESTERN STATES COMMITTEE,
THE ONE STATE ONE VOTE ISSUE,
AND I THINK THE RESPONSE THAT
YOU RECEIVED WAS WELL. THIS IS
JUST A CONVERSATION. IT WILL
EVOLVE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S
GOING TO LOOK LIKE, UM, I POINT
OUT THAT THE BILL ITSELF
SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE
UTILITIES IN CALIFORNIA CANNOT
JOIN A MULTISTATE RTO UNLESS IT
INCLUDES A WESTERN STATES
COMMITTEE THAT FIRST OF ALL, HAS
EQUAL NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES
FROM EACH STATE. AND SECONDLY,
THAT THIS COMMITTEE PROVIDES
GUIDANCE. SO IF THE COMMITTEE
WERE TO BE CONSTRUCTED
DIFFERENTLY. UNDER 85 38. THE
CALIFORNIA UTILITIES WOULD NOT
BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE. THIS
IS THE BILL YOU'RE BEING ASKED
TO VOTE ON. SO IF THERE'S A
DIFFERENT IDEA FOR HOW THIS
WOULD WORK, UM, I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS
YOUR ONLY CHANCE TO VOTE ON THIS
. THERE IS NO CONVERSATION
INVOLVING THE LEGISLATURE. ONCE
THIS BILL GOES THROUGH. IT IS A
CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE I S SO
AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, NAMELY
THE UTILITIES AND OTHER STATES
THAT THEY WOULD SEEK TO HAVE
COME IN. THERE IS NO SECOND BITE
AT THE APPLE FOR THE
LEGISLATURE. NO CHANCE TO REVIEW
AND A DEVIATION FROM THE WAY
IT'S DRAFTED HERE UNDER THE
BILL'S OWN LANGUAGE. WOULD MAKE
THE PROPOSAL. UM, ILLEGAL UNDER
STATE LAW. I THINK THE AUTHOR
WANTS TO RESPOND AND WOULD LIKE
TO. YEAH I MEAN, I THINK I THINK
WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT
EARLY ON THAT WHAT WE'RE
ATTEMPTING TO DO IS TO PUT
TOGETHER A FRAMEWORK THAT ALLOWS
US TO REASONABLY APPROACH HOW WE
WOULD ENTER THE MARKETPLACE WITH
THE NEW RTO APPROACH. WE ARE. WE
STILL HAVE ENTITIES THAT NEED TO
BE A PART OF THIS CONVERSATION.
I APPRECIATE THE, UM. THE
COMMENTS AROUND BASED ON WHAT'S
IN FRONT OF US. HOW BAD IT MAY
LOOK, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT
LOOKS LIKE THAT. THERE ARE
ELEMENTS OF IT THAT NEED TO BE
FURTHER FLUSHED OUT TO SAY THAT
THE LEGISLATURE WILL NOT HAVE A
FURTHER CONVERSATION. WE'RE NOT
AT THE END WHERE THIS IS OUT
THERE. WE STILL HAVE A WE'RE AT
THE BEGINNING IN OUR FIRST
POLICY COMMITTEE TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW WE ENGAGE
HOW WE MOVE FORWARD WITH
ADDITIONAL TWEAKS WE NEED TO
MAKE I'M TAKING NOTES. VOEPEL
WHICH YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
. EVEN BEFORE TODAY WE TRIED TO
ADDRESS THE BUCKETS AND I THINK
WE DID A GOOD JOB. I THINK THAT
THERE MAY BE STILL SOME CONCERNS
ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. BUT
THE IDEA OF LOCKING IN THE RPS
IS A BIG DEAL. NOW IF WE CAN
COLLABORATE AND FIGURE OUT WELL
, HOW DO WE MAKE IT TIGHTER THAN
LET'S DO THAT? BUT TO IGNORE THE
FACT THAT WE ARE TRYING TO
ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THERE ARE
JOBS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY IN THE
BALANCE. WE'RE MAKING OUR EVERY
EFFORT IN THIS COMMITTEE AT THIS
POINT IN TIME IN THIS PROCESS TO
GIVE OUR BEST EFFORT TO TRY TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE BEING
RESPONSIVE TO THAT CONCERN. WE
DON'T WANT TO SEE JOBS LEAVE. I
MEAN, I'M FIGHTING FOR JOBS. I'M
STILL GETTING HAMMERED ABOUT
LAST YEAR'S EFFORT TO HELP
WORKERS, SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO HERE IS TO ENGAGE
IN A DIALOGUE WITH THE POLICY
COMMITTEE THAT HAS SUPREME
INSIGHT AND UNDERSTANDING AROUND
THIS SUBJECT MATTER, BUT WE ALSO
RECOGNIZE THEIR OTHER PARTIES
THAT ARE GOING TO ULTIMATELY
HAVE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS TO ADD
ADDITIONAL INSIGHT TO THEIR
EXPERTISE, THEIR FINE TUNING
THEIR CREATIVE THINKING TO HELP
US GET TO SOMETHING, ADDRESS
SOME OF THE CONCERNS AND ALSO TO
EXPAND AND GIVE CLARITY AROUND
SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT ARE
OUTLINED THAT THEY COMMITTEE HAS
RECOMMENDED AND WE HOPE THAT YOU
ALLOW US TO CONTINUE THAT
CONVERSATION. I JUST WANTED TO
THANK YOU, MR HOLDEN. WE DON'T
WE HAVE A LIST OF OTHER
QUESTIONS COMING FROM OUR
COLLEAGUES. MR JOSEPH HAS BEEN
WHAT RAISING HIS HAND VERY
POLITELY THERE. I'D LOVE TO HEAR
YOUR PERSPECTIVE. THIS IS WHERE
WE WANT TO HEAR THIS DEBATE. SO
PLEASE, THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. I'D
LIKE TO ADDRESS TWO ISSUES THAT
HAVE BEEN RAISED FIRST. AND THE
INFLATION REDUCTION ACT, WHICH
DOCTOR WAR MENTIONED IN HIS
INITIAL COMMENTS WAS JUST MARTY
JONES JUST MENTIONED IT. UM THE
IDEA WAS WELL WITH THE INFLATION
REDUCTION ACT. DON'T WORRY.
CALIFORNIA NO LONGER HAS HIGHER
LABOR RATES. AND SO DON'T WORRY.
THAT'S NOT THAT WON'T
DISADVANTAGE US. INFLATION
REDUCTION ACT REQUIRES THAT
PROJECTS PAY PREVAILING WAGE IN
ORDER TO GET THE TAX CREDIT BENT
. FULL TEXT. CREDIT BENEFITS.
THE PREVAILING WAGE IN OTHER
STATES IS LOWER THAN IN
CALIFORNIA. THEY HAVE LOWER
RATES, ESPECIALLY IN RIGHT TO
WORK STATES. AND THEY WILL STILL
HAVE A COST ADVANTAGE WHEN IT
COMES TO LABOR, NOT TO MENTION
ALL THE OTHER THINGS LAND
PERMITTING ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.
UM I STOOD. AT THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A SOLAR PLANT VERY CLOSE TO
THE CALIFORNIA BORDER. I COULD
SEE ACROSS THE BORDER, ANOTHER
PROJECT BEING IDENTICAL PROJECT
BEING BUILT BY THE VERY SAME
COMPANY AND THE CALIFORNIA SIDE.
IT WAS BEING BUILT UNION AT
CALIFORNIA WAGES AND THE ARIZONA
SIDE IT WAS BEING BUILT AND
ONION IDENTICAL PLANT. THAT'S
EXACTLY THE THING WE WILL HAVE
HAPPEN. SECOND IF YOU'D LIKE TO
HEAR IT NOW MORE DISCUSSION
ABOUT WHY THE PROPOSAL Tð SAVED
BUCKET SYSTEM IS INSUFFICIENT.
WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE NOW?
IF YOU COULD DO THAT WE CAN
QUICKLY AND WE DO HAVE ANOTHER
LIST OF I WILL DO IT. I WILL DO
THE SHORTEST VERSION. I CAN YOU
YOU HAVE THE BENEFIT HERE OF
HAVING THE TWO PEOPLE WHO
ACTUALLY DRAFTED THE LANGUAGE
FOR THE BUCKET SYSTEM AS WELL AS
THE PERSON WHO NAMED IT THE
BUCKET SYSTEM. UM, THAT'S MR
SMARTY JONES. IT WAS GOOD AT
GOOD. YEP UM, THERE ARE TWO WAYS
TO QUALIFY FOR BUCKET ONE, WHICH
IS THE THING WE'RE TRYING TO
PROTECT. PROTECT FIRST THAT IT
THAT A POWER PLANT HAS ITS FIRST
POINT OF INTERCONNECTION. TO A
FACILITY CONTROLLED BY THE
CALIFORNIA S O THAT MEANS THAT
MOST, THOUGH NOT ALL PLANTS. TO
GET FIRST POINT OF
INTERCONNECTION QUALIFICATION
WOULD BE IN CALIFORNIA. SOME
WOULD BE OTHER PLACES LIKE
AROUND. UM LAS VEGAS THEIR THEIR
CASE. SO, UH, FACILITIES THE
SECOND IS THAT A THAT THE
GENERATION TO BE SCHEDULED IN IN
ADVANCE SCHEDULED INTO THE
CALIFORNIA IS SO IN ADVANCE. IF
WE HAVE A WIDER RTO WITH A WIDER
FOOTPRINT THAN EVERYTHING'S
GOING TO QUALIFY. AS FIRST POINT
OF INTERCONNECTION BECAUSE IT
WILL BE THE FIRST POINT OF
INTERCONNECTION WITH THE WITH
THE NEW RTO. THE PROPOSAL IS TO
SAY OKAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO
COUNT THE FIRST POINT OF
INTERCONNECTION. TWO THINGS THAT
ARE BEYOND THE BORDER THAT WE
HAVE RIGHT NOW FOR THE S O. THE
PROBLEM IS THAT EVERYTHING WILL
STILL QUALIFY UNDER THE SECOND
OPTION. THE SCHEDULED AN OPTION.
UM THAT EVERYTHING WILL BE
TREATED AS SCHEDULED IN UP TO
THE PHYSICAL TRANSFER CAPACITY
OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM. AND
IN MOST HOURS OF THE YEAR, THERE
IS SLACK CAPACITY ON THE
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM. AND SO FOR
MOST HOURS OF THE YEAR
EVERYTHING WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT
WILL QUALIFY AS BUCKET ONE. I
WISH THIS PROPOSAL WORKED. IF
THIS PROPOSAL WORKED, WE'D BE
HERE SITTING HERE ADVOCATING
SAYING YOU HAVE TO PUT THIS IN
THE BILL. UNFORTUNATELY, DOES
NOT THANK YOU. UM, MR WALLACE.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. I WILL BE
VERY BRIEF, BUT I DO HAVE A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR MR
JOSEPH. UM SO WE'VE ALL HEARD,
AND PROPONENTS HAVE ARGUED THAT
WITHOUT AN RTO, CALIFORNIA WILL
BECOME AN ENERGY ISLAND. I WAS
WONDERING IF YOU COULD SHARE
YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT. YES UM, I
LOVE MR SMARTY JONES MAP. IT'S
HIGHLY ENTERTAINING. BUT
CALIFORNIA IS NOT NOW AND HAS
NEVER BEEN AN ENERGY ISLAND AND
IT NEVER WILL BE. RIGHT NOW.
EVEN WITHOUT A WEST WIDE R T O
EVERY MINUTE. EVERY SECOND OF
EVERY DAY. FOR THE LAST 50
YEARS, WE HAVE IMPORTED OR
EXPORTED ENERGY TO STATES AROUND
THE WEST. ALL WE NEED ARE
GENERATORS WHO WANT TO SELL.
BUYERS WHO WANT TO BUY AND
TRANSMISSION LINES CONNECTING
THEM. THAT'S HOW WE THAT'S WHY
WE'RE NOT AN ENERGY ISLAND NOW
AND WE WILL NOT BE I'M GOING TO
GIVE TO VERY RECENT EXAMPLES.
WHY FAILURE TO NOT PROCEEDING
WITH A WIDER RTO DOES NOT MEAN
WE'RE AN ENERGY ISLAND. ON APRIL
3RD. THREE WEEKS AGO. THE I S O
ISSUED HIS DRAFT TRANSMISSION
PLAN TO AUTHORIZE MAJOR NEW
TRANSMISSION, WHICH THE EYE SO
SAYS WILL DELIVER. ARIZONA SOLAR
GENERATION. NEW MEXICO WIND
GENERATION NEVADA SOLAR
GENERATION, NEVADA GEOTHERMAL
GENERATION AND WYOMING AND IDAHO
WIND GENERATION TO CALIFORNIA
WITHOUT A WEST WIDE T. O SECOND
EXAMPLE. IN DECEMBER, THE CAISO
APPROVED THE TRANS WEST EXPRESS
TRANSMISSION LINE, WHICH WILL
DELIVER 3000 MEGAWATTS OF NEW
WIND ENERGY FROM WYOMING TO
CALIFORNIA WITHOUT A WEST WIDE
RTO. IT'S JUST NOT TRUE TO SAY
WE WILL BE AN ENERGY ISLAND.
WE'RE NOT NOW AND WE WON'T BE IN
THE FUTURE. THE SKY. SO IS
ENSURING THAT WE HAVE LOTS OF
ACCESS TO LOTS OF RESOURCES
AROUND THE WEST. FOLLOW UP
QUESTION. JUST ONE MORE QUESTION
. PROFESSOR JUAREZ ARGUED THAT
WE NEED AN RTO IN ORDER TO MEET
OUR GENERATION NEEDS IN THE
SHORT TERM IN THE METER 25 2045
GOALS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT
YOU AGREE WITH HER? CAN YOU
SPEAK TO THAT? I DISAGREE. UM.
WE ARE GETTING ENERGY FROM ALL
OVER THE WEST ALL THE TIME. WE
CAN'T DO IT. WE ARE DOING IT.
THE ESSO IS DOING IT. IT'S IN
THE PSC'S PLANS. IN THE
INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN, WHICH
THE PUC TRANSMITS TO THE I S O.
THE ISAF FIGURES OUT HOW TO DO
IT. THEY COME OUT WITH, UM AH!
AH TRANSMISSION PLANS JUST LIKE
THEY DID THREE WEEKS AGO. UM,
WHICH ACCOMPLISHED EXACTLY THAT
WHERE WE GET RESOURCES FROM ALL
AROUND THE WEST. HE IS CERTAINLY
CORRECT THAT WE WILL NEED THESE
RESOURCES WE WILL NEED TO USE
RESOURCES ELSEWHERE. UM, THAT'S
CERTAINLY TRUE. BUT WE DON'T
NEED NEED A WEST WIDE RTO TO GET
THERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, SARAH. DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVE FROM THE E YAHOO
WOULD LIKE WITNESSES, TWO
DIFFERENT ISSUES. UM ISSUE
NUMBER ONE ON THE BUCKETS
BECAUSE, AS MR JOSEPH INDICATED
, WE CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA. UM
CURRENTLY THEY WHAT? WHAT THE
AMENDMENT, IT DOES IS IT FREEZES
THE DELIVERY POINTS AS OF THIS
YEAR IN TERMS OF HOW PEOPLE
SCHEDULE INTO CALIFORNIA AND
HE'S QUITE RIGHT. THERE ARE
DELIVERY POINTS AT PALO VERDE,
WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF PHOENIX AND
ONE OUTSIDE OF VEGAS. RIGHT NOW
, PEOPLE CAN SCHEDULE INTO THEIR
IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANY OF THAT,
UH, THE THERE'S RESOURCES COMING
FROM EASTERN NEW MEXICO THAT
HAVE THE TRANSMISSION
CAPABILITIES THAT TIE INTO
DALIBERTI ENCOUNTERS BUCKET ONE.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED. THE ONLY
THING THAT'S CHANGED THERE IS
THEY DIDN'T RESPONSE TO CONCERNS
THAT THE BUCKETS WERE SOMEHOW
GOING TO GO AWAY OF FREEZING
THOSE SCHEDULING POINTS. SO WE
THINK THAT PROBLEM SOLVED IF
IT'S NOT LET'S TALK, BUT WE
THINK THAT THAT SELF IN TERMS OF
ENERGY ISLAND I DIDN'T PUT THAT
OUT THERE JUST TO BE
ENTERTAINING, BUT TO MAKE A
POINT IF WE HAVE SPP, CREATING
THEIR OWN DAY AHEAD MARKET AND
THEIR OWN REAL TIME MARKET, ONE
OF THE BIG SUCCESSES WE'VE HAD
IS WHAT'S CALLED THE ENERGY
IMBALANCE MARKET RESULTED IN
OVER $4 BILLION HAVE BENEFITS
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THAT GOING
TO CALIFORNIA. REDUCTION OF CO.
TWO. BUT BY REAL TIME MARKETS
ARE OTHER STATES AROUND US THAT
WOULD LIKE TO JOIN US AREN'T
GOING TO STAY IN TWO DIFFERENT
MARKETS THAT HE I AM WILL BE GET
ERODED IF SPP MOVES FORWARD, SO
WE MAY NOT BE A COMPLETE ISLAND
. BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE PLAYING
BY OTHER PEOPLE'S RULES. AND
AGAIN. I'M GOING TO JUST WE CAN
EITHER DO THIS FROM FRONT FROM
FOLSOM. OR WE CAN DO IT FROM
LITTLE ROCK. AND I'D MUCH RATHER
DRIVE TO FOLSOM, THEN DRIVE OUT
TO LITTLE ROCK. ONE QUICK
ADDITIONAL POINT, WHICH I THINK
WE HAVEN'T TALKED ENOUGH ABOUT
RELIABILITY TODAY. MY FEAR FOR
THE RPS IS NOT ABOUT WHERE WE
GET THAT FIRST BUCKET IS THAT WE
HAVE A BLACKOUT THAT'S DRIVEN BY
THE RENEWABLES TO NATURAL GAS
TRANSITION IN THE EVENING. WE'VE
ALL EXPERIENCED THAT WE WERE
SAVED BY A TEXT MESSAGE THE LAST
TIME THE REASON A FUNDAMENTAL
REASON TO MOVE TOWARD A REGIONAL
FOOTPRINT IS TO GIVE THE I S O
DIRECT OPERATIONAL CONTROL OVER
RESOURCES THAT WILL KEEP THE
LIGHTS ON DURING THE DIFFICULT
TIMES IN THE SUMMER. AND I THINK
THAT YOU KNOW TO ME WHAT I WORRY
ABOUT IS WHAT THIS THE PRESSURE
THIS COMMITTEE WILL FACE THE DAY
AFTER THIS DISRUPTION CAUSED BY
. BY OUR BEST EFFORTS TO KEEP
THE LIGHTS ON, CONFRONTED BY
IMPACT FROM CLIMATE CHANGE. AND
I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT
FOR THE COMMITTEE TO KEEP IN
MIND THE RELIABILITY BENEFIT IN
ADDITION TO THE POTENTIAL
PROCUREMENT BENEFITS OF MOVING
TOWARDS REGIONAL GOVERNANCE,
THANK YOU. NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
WE'RE MOVING ON TO SOME MEMBER
CONNOLLY FOLLOWED BY GÓMEZ RAISE
THE SHOWER. NO I APPRECIATE IT.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE
SHORTLY FOR ANOTHER HEARING, BUT
REALLY APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATION THE WORK OF THE
AUTHOR OVER SEVERAL YEARS.
ALRIGHT AND BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. UM I SHARE A LOT OF THE
CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED,
SO I WANT TO PUT A FINER POINT.
ON A COUPLE OF YEARS USE AND
THEN ACTUALLY DIRECTLY ASK A
QUESTION TO THE AUTHOR. UH
WHAT'S WEIGHING ON ME? IS DOES
THIS PROPOSAL ACTUALLY FURTHER
THE INTERESTS OF CALIFORNIA RAY
PAIRS AND WE DO NEED TO LOOK AT
ISSUES AROUND RELIABILITY,
AFFORDABILITY. AND ALSO, I THINK
ARE DEMONSTRATED LEADERSHIP IN
RENEWABLE ENERGY THROUGH OUR RPS
STANDARDS THROUGH THE BUCKET
SYSTEM, SO I WANT TO DELVE INTO
THE BUCKET ISSUE MORE. THERE ARE
THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT, UM IF WE
WERE TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS, IT
WOULD EVISCERATE THE BUCKET
SYSTEM. THE REAL WORLD IMPACT OF
THAT BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
UM, IN LAW, STATE LAW
PRIORITIZING. UM QUALIFYING,
RENEWABLE ENERGY THAT TO
SIMPLIFY IT IS PRODUCED IN
CALIFORNIA. THAT'S CALIFORNIA
JOBS. IT'S CALIFORNIA GOALS.
WHAT GUARANTEE DO WE HAVE UNDER
THE PRINCIPLES OF FEDERAL
PREEMPTION AND IN AN R T O
STRUCTURE THAT WILL BE GOVERNED
BY FOR THE FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION. AH THAT
THE BUCKET SYSTEM WILL NOT GO
AWAY. I UNDERSTAND THE
AMENDMENTS, I THINK TO THE TO
THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THAT ISSUE, BUT
THE LEGISLATION ITSELF.
RECOGNIZES THAT WE'RE REALLY
JUST TALKING ABOUT, UM TO THE
FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE
CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAW,
MARKET RULES AND POLICIES THAT
DO NOT CONFLICT WITH AND ALLOW
FOR CONSIDERATION OF STATE
AUTHORITY OVER GENERATION.
PREFERENCE UH, THE FEDERAL CASE
LAW THAT'S BEEN CITED, UM,
PERHAPS NOT DIRECTLY ON POINT
BUT IS IN THE REALM. AND SO WHAT
KIND OF CERTAINTY? DO WE HAVE?
AH THAT THE BUCKET SYSTEM AND
THE JOBS AND THE GREEN ENERGY
GOALS THAT COME WITH IT WOULD
NOT BE IN PERIL. TO THE AUTHOR.
YEAH. THANK YOU. AND I THINK
WHAT I'VE TRIED TO SAY AT
DIFFERENT STAGES OF THIS
PRESENTATION TODAY, AND PRIOR TO
THAT IS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AND I
THINK IT WAS PART OF THE
AMENDMENTS TO EMBRACE
CALIFORNIA'S POLICIES. AND TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH INTEGRATING
THOSE POLICIES INTO HOW WE MOVE
INTO A R T O. I THINK IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WITH THE
BUCKETS, IT WAS OUR EXPECTATION
OUR GOAL. TO THE LOCK IN THE RPS
TO WHAT IT IS TODAY. TO LOCK IT
IN SO THAT THAT 60% WOULD BE IN
PLACE. ABSENT THIS APPROACH, UH
, THAT IS THERE SOME EXPOSURE
THERE, AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT. SO
THIS WAS OUR ATTEMPT TO TRY TO
LOCK IT IN THE PREVIOUS EFFORT,
AS I UNDERSTAND, AND I'LL HAVE
TO LOOK TO THE ARCHITECT OF THE
BUCKETS. IS THAT IT WAS
INITIALLY, UH DESIGNED FOR THE S
O. OKAY, LET ME LET YOU THEN.
YEAH WELL, IT'S JUST THAT HAS
MANY FATHERS. UM SO THE WITH THE
BUCKETS WERE DESIGNED TO DO IS
SOMETHING VERY THERE WAS A BILL
THAT GOT VETO THAT WOULD HAVE
PRETTY MUCH REQUIRED EVERYTHING
JUST TO BE BUILT IN CALIFORNIA
THAT WOULD HAVE THAT WOULD HAVE
RAISED THAT WOULD HAVE RAISED A
SIGNIFICANT UH, YOU KNOW,
COMMERCE CLAUSE ISSUE. SO THE
BUCKETS WAS AN ATTEMPT TO
BASICALLY DISTINGUISHED
DIFFERENT PRODUCTS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE THAT COULD BASICALLY
SERVE CALIFORNIA NOW, THIS WAS A
CALIFORNIA AND THIS IS VERY
IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE SUPREME
COURT HAS BEEN CLEAR THAT THAT
WE CALIFORNIA THE OTHER STATES
GET TO CHOOSE WHAT KIND OF
RESOURCES ARE UTILITIES BY
THAT'S YOU KNOW, BY THE WAY
THAT'S IN TALLINN HUGHES, SO
THAT'S THERE. AH BUT IT WAS AN
ATTEMPT TO BASICALLY, UH, MAKE
SURE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO
THAT. UM, IT HAS GONE 12 YEARS
WITHOUT CHALLENGE. IT SEEMS TO
WORK. WE HAVEN'T HAD NO FIGHTS
ABOUT HOW THE BUCKET WORKS. THE
BUCKETS WORK AND THE SITUATION
CURRENTLY IS AND YOU KNOW, MAYBE
WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
HERE. IF YOU CAN SCHEDULE INTO
THE 1ST 120.8 OR CONNECT WITH
THE ISSO. YOU'RE IN BUCKET ONE.
THAT'S HOW IT IS TODAY. THAT WAS
THE INTENT OF THE OF THE
AMENDMENT. IF THERE'S IF THERE'S
AN ADJUSTMENT, THAT LANGUAGE IT
NEEDS TO BE MADE. LET'S MAKE IT
UM, YOU KNOW, GOING FORWARD. YOU
KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S
WHERE IT IS. IT'S PRETTY CLEAR
THAT WHEN IT COMES TO RATES, YOU
KNOW THE DEAL. YOU KNOW, THE
FEDS SET SET RATES AND
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION. BUT
WHEN IT COMES TO PROCUREMENT
CHOICES THAT'S LEFT TO THE
STATES. UM AND SO I'M CONFIDENT
THAT THIS THIS THIS THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD WORK. BUT IF WE
NEED TO FIND TUNE IT AND WE'VE
DONE THAT BEFORE, LET'S DO IT
AGAIN. YES. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S UM THE PROPOSAL
ON THE BILL DOESN'T WORK. UM AND
THE REASON IT DOESN'T WORK IS
ACTUALLY SPELLED OUT IN PART IN
THE ANALYSIS. UM THERE IS NO
REQUIREMENT IN ANY OTHER RTO BY
ANY OTHER STATE THAT THERE'LL BE
DELIVERY FROM ONE PART OF THE
RTO TO ANOTHER PART OF THE RTO.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY ANALOGS ACROSS
THE COUNTRY. SO THIS IS A BRAND
NEW CONCEPT, AND IT'S NOT
RECOGNIZED BY FERC. RIGHT
RECOGNIZES BOUNDARIES OF I S, O
S AND R T O S THE SUB BOUNDARIES
AND THE IDEA THAT STATES CAN SET
THEIR OWN DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS
WITHIN A LARGER FOOTPRINT. THIS
IS NEW GROUND, AND WE DON'T
THINK FERC IS LIKELY TO BE
FAVORABLY INCLINED TO THIS. THE
DECISION THAT CITED IN THE
ANALYSIS THIS IS THE ALLCO
VERSUS KLAY SECOND CIRCUIT
DECISION. THIS IS A CHALLENGE TO
GET TO CONNECTICUT'S RPS
DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS, WHICH
REQUIRED DELIVERY INTO THE ICE,
A NEW ENGLAND AND ONE OF THE
THINGS THE COURT SAID THERE AS I
SAID, WELL, THIS IS REASONABLE
BECAUSE FERC RECOGNIZES THAT THE
ICE A NEW ENGLAND HAS
ESTABLISHED BOUNDARIES. THIS IS
RECOGNIZED BY FEDERAL REGULATORS
AS LEGITIMATE. SO IF YOU WANT TO
REQUIRE DELIVERY TO THE WHOLE
PARTY, OH, THAT'S FINE. BUT THIS
TAKES IT A STEP FURTHER AND
ESTABLISHES WHAT ONLY STATE OF
CALIFORNIA WOULD RECOGNIZE AS A
BOUNDARY. WE THINK THIS MAKES
THE PROGRAM MUCH MORE
SUSCEPTIBLE TO A DORMANT
COMMERCE CLAUSE CHALLENGE.
THERE'S BEEN NO ANALYSIS ON THIS
POINT. SECONDLY WE DID HAVE
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT A SIMILAR
PROPOSAL SEVERAL YEARS AGO WITH
THE I S O MANAGEMENT ABOUT HOW
THEY WOULD IMPLEMENT SUCH A
PROPOSAL BECAUSE OF VERY SIMILAR
PROVISIONS APPEARED IN
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HOLDEN'S PRIOR
BILL. ASSEMBLY BILL 8 13. WE
SAID, HOW WOULD YOU DO IT? IT
TURNS OUT IT WOULD BE BASICALLY
AN ASSUMPTION THAT EVERYTHING IN
THE WEST IS DELIVERABLE. IT KIND
OF BLOWS UP THE WHOLE STRUCTURE
BECAUSE THERE'S NO PROCESS FOR
SCHEDULING DELIVERY FROM ONE
PART OF THE FOOTPRINT OF THE
OTHER, SO IT BECOMES KIND OF A
SPREADSHEET ANALYSIS. UM WE JUST
THINK THAT IT ENDS UP BEING ALL
SYMBOLS AND NO SUBSTANCE. THAT'S
THE CONCERN WE HAVE, AND IS A
REALLY SETS A BIG TARGET FOR
CALIFORNIA TO BE SUED BY OTHER
PRIVATE GENERATOR INTEREST,
PROBABLY THROUGHOUT THE WEST.
NO, AND I CERTAINLY SHARE THOSE
CONCERNS. IN THE INTEREST OF
TIME. I'M GOING TO JUST MOVE ON
TO A COUPLE OTHER QUICK, UH,
THINGS AND THEN THE QUESTION UM
, I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT
GOVERNANCE. UM WE ARE BY FAR THE
BIGGEST PLAYER IN THE WESTERN
REGION. AND THE NOTION AS
WRITTEN IN THE CURRENT DRIVE
THAT SOMEHOW IT'S GOING TO BE
ONE STATE ONE VOTE. THAT HAS TO
BE CHANGED IF THIS IS EVEN TO GO
FORWARD IN ANY FORM. UM SO
UNDERSTANDABLY, I THINK THE ODD
THERE IS RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL
WORK. WOULD NEED TO BE DONE ON
THAT. FINALLY I THINK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CHAN RAISED A
VERY VALID POINT. THE ROLE OF
THE LEGISLATURE. FRANKLY, IT
WOULD BE PREPOSTEROUS FOR US TO
VOTE THIS OUT TODAY AND JUST LET
IT GO OFF AND ALL THESE
COMPLEXES SHE IS BEING FIGURED
OUT WITH NO ADDITIONAL ROLE. FOR
THE LEGISLATURE. THAT'S A
NONSTARTER. FRANKLY MAYBE MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE A DIFFERENT
VIEW. BUT I DON'T THINK SO. SO,
MR HOLLANDE, LET ME ASK YOU THIS
QUESTION. UM I WANT TO ASK YOU
IF YOU ARE WILLING TO COMMIT TO
PARKING THIS BILL IN THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. GIVEN
THE UNCERTAINTY AROUND KEY
ISSUES, I E EXPLICITLY MAKING
THIS TO YOUR BILL. THIS IS
SOMETHING WE HAVE DISCUSSED. AND
I KNOW THAT YOU'RE OPEN TO
ENGAGING MORE WITH THE
GOVERNOR'S ADMINISTRATION
STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING LABOR.
AND WORKING IN A GREATER
CAPACITY WITH THE LEGISLATURE TO
RECEIVE MEANINGFUL INPUT ON THIS
PROPOSAL, THE LEGISLATURE
UNDERSTANDABLY WANTS TO PLAY
THIS ROLE BEFORE ANY PROPOSAL.
EVEN COULD BE SUBMITTED TO FOR
RICK FOR FINAL APPROVAL. CAN YOU
COMMIT TO PARKING THE BILL IN
APPROPRIATIONS TO ALLOW FOR THIS
EXPANDED DIALOGUE WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT IF AN
ADEQUATE RESOLUTION IS NOT
REACHED, THE BILL WOULD THEN BE
HELD IN APPROPRIATIONS. IT WOULD
BE MY IT WOULD BE MY INTENT TO
AS I SAID BEFORE TO WORK ON
THESE ISSUES, THEY'RE VERY
IMPORTANT. MY GOAL IS TO SEE THE
BILL MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE THAT
NEEDS TO CONTINUE. IF WE FIND IN
THAT PROCESS THAT IT ADDS
COMPLEXITY BEYOND WHAT WE THINK
THAT WE CAN UH ACCOMPLISH OR
THAT OTHERS COMING IN BEING A
PART OF THAT CONVERSATION.
WITHIN THE TIME FRAME THAT WE
WOULD HAVE AN APPROPRIATIONS TO
WORK. AND IT WAS NECESSARY TO GO
BEYOND THAT TIME FRAME. I WOULD
BE WILLING TO DO THAT. SO THAT
SOUNDS LIKE A QUESTION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. I KNOW WHAT
FOLLOWING UP. THE LIST. WE HAVE
UM SZABO. THANK YOU. I WANT TO.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT I
SHARED. YOU KNOW A LOT OF THE
CONCERNS OF MY COLLEAGUES, WHICH
I DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE HER. BUT
I JUST WANT TO SAY I KNOW THIS
IS A MONSTER THAT YOU AREN'T
TAKING ON. UM I KNOW THAT YOUR
HEART IS IN THE RIGHT PLACE, AND
WE ALL ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
RELIABILITY OF ENERGY FOR OUR
CONSTITUENTS. UM YOU KNOW, BEING
FROM L. A. WE HAVE SEEN THE
IMPACTS OF ROLLING BLACKOUTS. UM
WE KNOW THAT YOU KNOW LIVES ARE
AT RISK WHEN PEOPLE'S MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT DEPENDS ON ENERGY. UM
AND AS WE ELECTRIFY MORE AND
MORE, I SURE CAN'T GO ANYWHERE.
IF I CAN'T PLUG IN MY CAR, I'LL
TELL YOU THAT MUCH. SO UM, YOU
KNOW, SO I KNOW I REALLY RESPECT
THAT YOU ARE TAKING THIS ON AND
REALLY TRYING TO SOLVE A PROBLEM
THAT WE ARE ALL FACING. AND I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM
IT'S A DEEPLY APPRECIATED AND I
KNOW IT'S NOT BEEN AN EASY ROAD.
UM YOU KNOW, I JUST I SHARE THE
CONCERNS COMING OUT OF THE LABOR
MOVEMENT. OBVIOUSLY I THINK
THESE CONCERNS AROUND LABOR ARE
REAL. RIGHT UM AND I'VE TALKED
WITH PEOPLE IN THE LABOR
MOVEMENT. I'VE TALKED WITH
PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE LABOR
MOVE. MOVEMENT AND THERE'S
PRETTY BROAD AGREEMENT THAT THIS
COULD LEAD TO A LOT OF LOST JOBS
IN OUR STATE. UM AND AT A TIME
WHEN WE ARE WORKING SO HARD TO
TRANSITION FROM A FOSSIL FUEL
ECONOMY TO A GREEN ECONOMY. WE
HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WE
CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
PROTECTING THESE GOOD NEW GREEN
JOBS RIGHT IN CREATING THIS NEW
GOOD GREEN ECONOMY, LIVING WAGE
UNION JOBS, UM, THAT CAN YOU
KNOW THAT CAN HELP WITH THAT
TRANSITION FOR THOSE WORKERS WHO
COULD BE LEFT BEHIND IN THIS
TRANSITION? UM AND SO YOU KNOW
THAT'S FOR ME. REALLY REALLY
IMPORTANT. AND I YOU KNOW, I
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMITMENT TO
MOVE FORWARD. UM AND CONTINUE
THOSE CONVERSATIONS. I THINK
THERE THERE REALLY HAS TO BE A
COMING TOGETHER, UM, OF
EVERYBODY WHO'S CONCERNED HERE
BECAUSE, LIKE YOU SAID, THESE
ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS. YOU KNOW,
THERE ARE REAL CONCERNS AND UM,
YOU KNOW, AND THEN JUST TO SAY,
UH THAT I ALSO SHARE CONCERNS
AROUND THE GOVERNANCE PIECE. I
KNOW WE HAD A PRIOR CONVERSATION
. I WAS LIKE, IT JUST FEELS A
LITTLE BIT LIKE WE'RE JUST
HANDING OUR BABY TO SOMEONE AND
SAYING, YOU KNOW, JUST CROSSING
OUR FINGERS AND BEING LIKE,
PLEASE TAKE CARE OF IT AND DO
THE RIGHT THING, YOU KNOW, AND,
UM AND WE DON'T REALLY GET TO,
YOU KNOW, HAVE ANY INPUT OR OR
COME BACK TO US, AND SO YOU KNOW
US BEING ABLE TO HAVE SOME
PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THAT
FEEDBACK TO GIVE INPUT? UM TO
STILL HAVE OUR HANDS ON IT. YOU
KNOW, I THINK IS REALLY, REALLY
IMPORTANT. AND UM, AND WOULD
JUST, YOU KNOW, ECHO THE MY
COLLEAGUES AND I KNOW I KNOW YOU
INTEND TO WORK HARD TO FIND
RESOLUTION TO USE THESE
CHALLENGES. UM BUT YOU KNOW,
WANTED TO SHARE SOME OF MY
CONCERNS AROUND MOVING THIS
FORWARD. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF
MOVING PARTS, AND THERE'S A LOT
OF PROBLEMS YOU CAN FIND. UM I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
REALLY FOCUSING ON THE ONES THAT
HAVE THE BIGGEST IMPACT PACKED
AND REALLY DO THE MOST TO GET TO
THE GOAL THAT I THINK WE ALL
WANT TO GET TOO. SO UM SO JUST,
YOU KNOW, APPRECIATE THAT AND
APPRECIATE TO, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE CONTINUE THIS
CONVERSATION AND REALLY HOLD THE
LINE ON THOSE AREAS. POWER CAN
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
UM, I WANT TO START BY SAYING I
DON'T THINK ANYBODY SITTING AT
THIS TABLE INCLUDING THE AUTHOR
WANTS TO BE IN THE POSITION TO
HAVE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.
WE ARE WHERE WE ARE BECAUSE OF
CLIMATE CHANGE. AND IT HAS
CHANGED THE WEST IN REAL AND
MEANINGFUL WAYS THAT REQUIRE
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ENERGY ON
EXTREMELY HOT DAYS THAT ARE
CHANGING THE WAY WE CREATE
ENERGY, USE ENERGY, AND, UM, I
HAVE TO THINK ABOUT ENERGY. AND
IT PUTS US IN WHAT I SEE AS AN
IMPOSSIBLE POSITION, WHICH IS
WHAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS DOING.
WRIT LARGE. UM AND YOU KNOW, I
THINK THAT THERE ARE SO MANY
THINGS THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT IN
THIS CONVERSATION, AND I
APPRECIATE PROFESSOR WARA
TALKING ABOUT RELIABILITY AGAIN.
I THINK EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE
AGREES THAT RELIABILITY IS
PARAMOUNT. UM YOU KNOW, I AS
SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN THE AREA
THAT HAD WEEKLONG PSP S S PEOPLE
DIED FROM NOT HAVING THEIR
MEDICAL DEVICES. SENIORS DIED
FROM FALLING IN THE DARK. I
MEAN, WHEN WE DON'T HAVE POWER
ON IT AFFECTS PEOPLE'S LIVES IN
REAL WAYS. AND SO THIS IS REALLY
CRITICAL THAT WE TALK ABOUT HOW
WE ENSURE CALIFORNIA'S ENERGY
SECURITY, AND THAT'S THE
CONVERSATION THAT MR HOLDEN, I
THINK YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT
FORWARD INTO SUCH AN IMPORTANT
ONE. AND, UM. TO BE FRANK. I
DON'T FEEL LIKE ANY OF THE
SOLUTIONS ARE PERFECT. UM AND SO
WHAT IS THE BEST SOLUTION FOR
THE 40 MILLION PEOPLE THAT WERE
RESPONSIBLE FOR AND WHICH SHOULD
DRIVE THAT DECISION FOR EVERY
SINGLE ONE OF US IS OUR VALUES
AND THE VALUES OF THE STATE. AND
SO MUCH OF THAT IS WRAPPED UP IN
THIS DECISION, WHETHER IT'S THE
INCREDIBLY GOOD JOBS THAT GIVE
PEOPLE THE LIVING WAGE. THEY
DESERVE TO RETIRE IN DIGNITY AND
LIVE IN THIS BEAUTIFUL STATE. UM
AND I WAS I FOUND SOME OF YOUR
CHANCE. REMARKS ABOUT WHAT WE
HAVE ENOUGH JOBS THAT CONFUSED
ME BECAUSE EVEN IF THIS MADE
MORE JOBS, THAT'D BE A GOOD
THING, RIGHT? SO WHETHER YOU
KNOW OUR ENTIRE WORKFORCES AT
WORK TODAY, IF WE COULD CREATE
MORE JOBS, WE COULD GIVE MORE
HIGH PAYING WAGES TO MORE
PEOPLE. SO THAT WOULD BE A GOOD
THING. SO YOU KNOW, I DO THINK
THE IDEA OF CREATING GOOD UNION
JOBS AND NOT PUTTING THE POWER
INTO THE HANDS OF STATES THAT
ALREADY SAID THEY DON'T CARE
ABOUT THAT, RIGHT? THE RIGHT TO
WORK STATES THAT COULD CARE LESS
ABOUT THE WORKERS AND WHETHER
THEY HAVE THE DIGNITY OF
RETIREMENT AND GOOD LIVING WAGES
AND ALL THE THINGS THAT COME
WITH THE ABILITY TO ORGANIZE AND
BE REPRESENTED IN THE WAY THE
WORKERS ARE REPRESENTED HERE
TODAY. UM YOU KNOW OUR CLIMATE
GOALS, RIGHT? WE ARE A STATE
THAT STANDS PROUDLY BEHIND OUR
CLIMATE GOALS AND BEING LEADER
IN THE WORLD IN PUSHING FORWARD
ON THAT ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE
WANT TO BE AT THE FOREFRONT OF
THIS CONVERSATION. AND UM SO.
YOU KNOW, I JUST I THINK THERE'S
A LOT OF THINGS HERE THAT ARE
REALLY CHALLENGING. AND I GUESS
PART OF WHAT THIS COMES DOWN TO.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK
IS TWO THINGS AND THE FIRST I
WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE PROFESSOR
WARA TO COMMENT ON BECAUSE I
DON'T THINK I GOT CLARITY WHERE
YOU THINK THIS QUESTION OF THE
ISLAND IS RIGHT. SO I KIND OF
UNDERSTAND THAT WE THINK THAT WE
MIGHT END UP IN ISLAND BECAUSE
YOU KNOW IF EVERYBODY ELSE JOINS
THIS RTO, AND THEN IT'S
CALIFORNIA, AND THE RTO WERE
LAST IN LINE FOR THE ENERGY WHEN
THE WHOLE WEST IS BURNING IN THE
MIDDLE OF JULY. I THINK THAT'S
THE THEORY. UM AND I'M NOT. YOU
TALKED ABOUT RELIABILITY, BUT I
JUST WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THIS
NOTION OF WOULD WE BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE TO TRADE IF WE DID GO
AT OUR OWN WAY? SURE SO THERE'S
TWO ISSUES TO THINK ABOUT. THANK
YOU FOR THE QUESTION. ONE IS
KIND OF CONTRACT ID RENEWABLES
AND WHERE THOSE ARE COMING FROM.
AND I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO
AND WE DO IT TODAY, RIGHT BY
RENEWABLES FROM NEVADA OR AND
USE A SCHEDULED TRANSFER IN THE
BUCKETS DO CREATE LIMITATIONS ON
THAT SORT OF THING. AND HAVE
HELPED TO GENERATE AN ENORMOUS
INDUSTRY IN CALIFORNIA, WHICH IS
CREATED AS YOU POINT OUT LOTS OF
GREAT JOBS, AND WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE THAT INDUSTRY CONTINUES TO
GROW, NOT JUST STAY THE SAME BUT
GROW. WHEN I TALK ABOUT
RELIABILITY. THE OTHER ADVANTAGE
OF WHAT AN I S O DOES IS ON ANY
GIVEN DAY. IT'S SAYING WHICH
POWER PLANTS TURN ON AND WHICH
POWER PLANTS DON'T TURN ON
WITHIN ITS FOOTPRINT. AND SO IF
WE CAN BRING THINGS INTO OUR
FOOTPRINT THAT HELPED TO ENSURE
OUR RELIABILITY WE WIN. RIGHT
NOW, ON A TOUGH DAY IN THE IN
THE I S O IN CALIFORNIA. THE CEO
IS CALLING S¼, CALLING UP HIS
FORMER COLLEAGUES AT BONNEVILLE
POWER ADMINISTRATION AND SAYING,
HEY, I COULD REALLY USE SOME OF
THAT POWER FROM THE COLUMBIA
RIVER HYDRO SYSTEM, PLEASE. WE
REALLY NEEDED IN CALIFORNIA, AND
EVERYBODY HELPS EVERYBODY ELSE
RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU
DO. BUT THE. HAVING MORE
RESOURCES LIKE BP, A IN OUR
FOOTPRINT IS GOING TO HELP TO
ENSURE RELIABILITY, HAVING
GREATER DIVERSITY OF RESOURCES
IN OUR FOOTPRINT THAT WERE THE
SUN IS SHINING IN ONE PLACE, BUT
NOT IN ANOTHER. IT'S HOT IN
CALIFORNIA, BUT NOT IN OREGON
AND WASHINGTON. THOSE ARE THE
KINDS OF THINGS THAT THAT HELPED
TO ENSURE NOT JUST OUR
RELIABILITY BUT ALSO THE
RELIABILITY UP IN PORTLAND'S,
AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M
TALKING ABOUT IS HAVING THAT
ABILITY TO CONTROL A SYSTEM
THAT'S LARGER. THAT'S WHERE THE
RELIABILITY BENEFIT WILL COME
FROM. IT'S NOT SO MUCH LIKE
TRANSACTIONAL THING LIKE IT'S.
IT'S MUCH MORE LIKE WHAT HAPPENS
IN THE DAY AHEAD MARKET AND THE
REAL TIME MARKET. AND WHAT I
MEAN, I'VE SEEN THE CHARTS OF
WHAT THE COST OF ENERGY IS ON
THE AVERAGE DAY WHEN THINGS ARE
GREAT, AND IT'S PRETTY LOW,
RIGHT? BUT THEN ON THOSE DAYS
WHEN IT'S REALLY, REALLY HOT,
AND THERE'S DEMAND ACROSS THE
ENTIRE WEST, THOSE PRICES GO
THEY SKYROCKET AND ACTUALLY THE
PRICES. WE PAY OUR THAN COVERING
FOR THOSE REALLY HIGH DAYS,
RIGHT? IF WE COULD BRING THOSE
HIGH DAYS DOWN, THEN ENERGY
COSTS WOULD ACTUALLY BE LOWER
OVERALL. DO YOU BELIEVE THIS
WOULD DO THAT? IF WE HAD MORE
RELIABILITY ACROSS THE RTO THAT
THERE'S A CHANCE THAT WE COULD
BRING THOSE REALLY HIGH DEMAND
DAYS COST DOWN OR KNOW WHAT IT
WOULD ALLOW US TO DO? IS RELY ON
A GREATER DIVERSITY OF YOU KNOW
THE LET ME JUST BACK UP AND SAY
THERE'S ENSURING RESOURCE
ADEQUACY, WHICH IS KIND OF THE
HOW DO WE HAVE ENOUGH POWER
PLANTS AROUND TO KEEP THE LIGHTS
ON? PROBLEM IS SOMETHING THAT WE
WILL MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER
RIGHT, WE MIGHT. THERE'S A
THERE'S A WESTERN RESOURCE
ADEQUACY PROGRAM. I AS FAR AS I
KNOW, WE'RE NOT PLANNING TO JOIN
THAT. UM BUT YOU KNOW, WE WILL
PROTECT OUR AUTHORITY TO HAVE
THAT. ALRIGHT, BUT BUT CERTAINLY
IN A PINCH RIGHT WHEN THINGS ARE
REALLY HARD. WE ARE GOING TO
RELY ON IMPORTS, JUST LIKE WE
ALWAYS HAVE HAVING GREATER
CONTROL. OVER THAT DISPATCH
ACROSS A LARGER FOOTPRINT WILL
HELP AND THAT'S A THAT'S A
THAT'S THAT'S THE MESSAGE ON
ROBOTIC. OKAY THAT'S HELPFUL.
AND I THINK I MEAN, I'M
COMPELLED BY THE AUTHOR AND WHEN
I'M HEARING THAT I UNDERSTAND
THE CURRENT MARKETS, BUT THAT IF
YOU KNOW AGAIN IF WE ARE THE
ONLY ONES THAT DON'T JOIN THIS
RTO THAT IT COULD IMPACT OUR
ABILITY IN THE DAY AHEAD MARKET
ETCETERA, WHICH WE RELY ON
PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY, UM AND SO
I GUESS THEN TO ME, IT COMES
DOWN TO THIS QUESTION OF THE
REPRESENTATION, WHICH I THINK
YOU HEAR EACH ONE OF US TALKING
ABOUT OVER AND OVER AND OVER
AGAIN. AND I THINK IT'S BECAUSE
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGE
OF ENERGY THAT WE USE IN THE
WEST, IT IS YOU KNOW,
SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN ANY OF
OUR NEIGHBORING STATES, RIGHT
AND THE IDEA AND I'M GLAD THAT
IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THE BILL
DOES SAY THAT THE WESTERN STATES
COMMITTEE REQUIRES THE COMMITTEE
TO HAVE AN EQUAL NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH STATE.
SO THAT ISN'T AN OPEN QUESTION
IN THE BILL. THE BILL REQUIRES
EQUAL REPRESENTATION AT THIS
POINT, WHICH I THINK IS HUGELY
PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE WE'RE NOT
EQUAL IN THE MARKET, RIGHT? SO
AND I THINK IF WE WERE TO BE
ABLE TO CORRECT THAT, AND IT
SAYS THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS
SHOULD BE APPOINTED BY THE
GOVERNOR AND SUBJECT TO
CONFIRMATION BY THE SENATE RIGHT
SO THOSE INDIVIDUALS WOULD GO
THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THE
LEGISLATURE WILL NOT THE
ASSEMBLY BUT AS ALWAYS THE
SENATE, UM AND THEORETICALLY
REPRESENT THE VALUES OF THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR.
AND IF WE HAD MORE CONTROL IN
THAT SPACE, I THINK IT COULD
PROTECT CALIFORNIA'S VALUES. WE
COULD MAKE SURE THOSE ARE
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE GOING TO
FIGHT TO KEEP PRODUCTION IN
CALIFORNIA AND KEEP OUR WORKERS
AT WORK. WHO WILL MAKE SURE THAT
THERE AREN'T INCREASED
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WHO
WILL ENSURE THE RATES AREN'T
GOING UP POOL ENSURE THAT WE
HAVE RELIABILITY, BUT WE NEED
THAT REPRESENTATION. AND IT'S
NOT HERE. THE OPPOSITE IS
ACTUALLY IN THE LANGUAGE, AND
THAT'S INCREDIBLY CONCERNING TO
ME, BECAUSE I JUST DON'T SEE HOW
WE DON'T PUT OURSELVES AT THE
WHIM OF RIGHT TO WORK STATES AS
YOU'VE HEARD, MR WEST SAY, AND I
THINK THAT'S REAL AND THAT IS
CONCERNING TO ME, AND I DON'T
KNOW. MR HOLDEN. IF YOU WANT TO
ADDRESS THAT I KNOW IT'S
SOMETHING WE'VE SAID WE'D WORK
ON. BUT I THAT IS THE THING IN
THE BILL THAT I THINK MOST
CONCERNS ME BECAUSE I THINK IT
DOES TAKE EVERYTHING CALIFORNIA
CARES ABOUT AND PUT IT INTO THE
HANDS OF STATES WHO DON'T ALWAYS
SHARE OUR VALUES, ALTHOUGH SOME
DO YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO
WASHINGTON ALSO HAVE 100. AND I
THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE.
I KNOW THAT WE'VE REFERENCED OR
THAT IT'S BEEN REFERENCED ABOUT
UTAH AND IDAHO AND OTHER STATES.
BUT I MEAN YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UM
, OREGON AND WASHINGTON AND
OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN A PART OF
THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE AND
TOGETHER WOULD REPRESENT 60% OF
NOT MORE THE AREA. UM. YOU KNOW,
I THINK IT IS AND I SAID BEFORE
TO EACH OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY AND
HERE THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF
THIS MEETING. THAT I DO BELIEVE
THAT THERE ARE SOME IMPORTANT
ELEMENTS HERE THAT WE NEED TO
REALLY UNPACK, AND I DON'T THINK
IT WAS EVER OUR EXPECTATION THAT
WE WERE DELIVERING. A 100. UH
BACK PRESENT WITH A BOW ON IT,
AND ALL IS DONE. THERE'S STILL A
LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE. AND
THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO
ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE A PART
OF THIS CONVERSATION THAT ARE
NOT SITTING AROUND THIS TABLE
RIGHT NOW. THAT ARE GOING TO
BRING EXPERTISE. THEY'RE GOING
TO BRING POLITICAL MUSCLE THAT
ARE GOING TO BRING A VARIETY OF
IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF HOW WE CAN
ULTIMATELY LAND ON A ON A
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE THAT TAKES
INTO CONSIDERATION SOME OF THE
CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN POINTED
OUT WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? WE
DON'T WANT IT TO BE COOKIE
CUTTER COOKIE CUTTER, BUT WE
ALSO KNOW THAT THIS IS A PART OF
THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE HOPING
THAT WE CAN CONTINUE ON. AND AS
I MADE A COMMITMENT TO THE
EXTENT THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO GET
THAT DONE, AND IT BECOMES A
LONGER CONVERSATION WITH THE
PARTICULAR BILL. YEAH, MR WATCH,
I THINK WANTED TO CHIME IN. YES
I JUST WANT TO PUT A FINER POINT
ON THAT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THE POLICY COMMITTEE, THE BILL
DICTATES TO CALIFORNIA GETS ONE
VOTE. THE BILL IS SILENT ON WHO
SELECTS THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT
WILL ACTUALLY HAVE THE POWER TO
MAKE THE DECISIONS COMPLETELY
SILENT. NOBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE
KNOWS NOBODY IN THIS ROOM.
NOBODY IN THIS CAPITAL KNOWS
WHAT WHAT THE PROCESS IS GOING
TO BE. AND WHO IS GOING TO
SELECT THEM AND HOW THEY'RE
GOING TO BE SELECTED. IT'S NOT
IN THE BILL, RIGHT? SO I THINK,
OBVIOUSLY AN IMPORTANT POINT.
AND I THINK, UM AND I DO THINK I
WOULD ADD NOT ONLY EQUAL, YOU
KNOW, PROPORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION, BUT ALSO THE
ROLE OF THAT WESTERN STATES
COMMITTEE, WHICH WAS POINTED OUT
BY MR FRIEDMAN TRYING TO GET ALL
YOUR NAMES RIGHT BY MR FRIEDMAN,
RIGHT? NOT ONLY DO WE NEED
REPRESENTATION, WE NEED TO KNOW
WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO AND
WHAT THEIR ROLE IS TO ENSURE
CALIFORNIA HAS ENOUGH OVERSIGHT
OVER THIS TO GIVE US THE COMFORT
TO SAY OKAY. THIS IS THE ENTITY
THAT'S GOING TO LOOK OUT FOR THE
40 MILLION PEOPLE. WE SPEND
EVERY DAY WORRYING ABOUT AND SO
YOU KNOW, I REALLY APPRECIATE
YOUR COMMITMENT TO BOTH WORK ON
THAT PIECE. UM THE WHOLE BELL.
I'M SURE ALSO THE PEACE MR.
WHICH POINTED OUT, UM AND ALSO,
YOU KNOW THIS QUESTION OF HOW TO
WE GET COMFORT THAT, UM YOU
KNOW, WE HAND THIS OVER TO THE C
E. C AND K SO AND THEY DON'T GO
STRIKE A DEAL THAT WE ALL HOPED
WAS A GOOD ONE, BUT WASN'T
RIGHT. AND I THINK AS LONG AS
THIS BILL IS TIGHT ENOUGH, WE
CAN FEEL COMFORT IN THAT. BUT AT
THIS POINT, IT'S NOT. UM AND SO,
YOU KNOW. HOPEFULLY I KNOW WE
HAVE YOUR COMMITMENT. UM AND YOU
HAVE KEPT YOUR WORD TO ME IN THE
PAST, SO I KNOW HE WILL TODAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, GÓMEZ
REYES. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. IT
TOOK ME A WHILE TO WARM UP TO
THE IDEA OF REGIONALIZATION.
AYE. I HAVE WITH MY CHAIR I'VE
WHEN HE WAS CHAIR. AND NOW IS MY
COLLEAGUE. UM I WAS NEVER TOOK
ME A WHILE TO GET TO THAT POINT.
BUT I DO RECOGNIZE THAT IF WE'RE
GOING TO MEET OUR RENEWABLE
ENERGY CLIMATE GOALS TO KEEP THE
LIGHTS ON TO AVOID THE
BLACKOUTS, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT
OPTIONS. THERE ARE TWO THINGS
THAT I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT ARE
MY BIGGEST CONCERN, AND WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT IT HERE. HAS TO DO
WITH LABOR AND I SEE MY I B W
LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE HERE AND
PIPE TRADES. THOSE ARE THE JOBS
WE HAVE TO PROTECT. THERE'S NO
QUESTION ABOUT IT, AND THAT HAS
TO BE AT THE TOP OF WHATEVER IT
IS THAT WE DO THAT WE PROTECT
THOSE JOBS. THE SECOND HAS TO DO
WITH THE CONTROL. WHAT GIVING UP
GIVING UP? UM WE ARE A SOVEREIGN
STATE AND TO GIVE UP SO MUCH AND
TO LET SOMEBODY ELSE HAVE AN
EQUAL VOTE. I HAVE EXPRESSED
THAT THAT THAT CONCERN FOR
YEARS. AND I CONTINUE TO HAVE
THAT CONCERN. MY COLLEAGUE IS
RIGHT. THE WAY THE BILL IS
WRITTEN, DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT.
IT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR
CALIFORNIA TO HAVE THE SEAT AT
THE TABLE. WITH THE POWER THAT
WE SHOULD HAVE AT THAT TABLE. UM
WITH OUR SHARE OF THE VOTE AT
THAT TABLE, IT ISN'T. IT ISN'T
IN WHAT WE READ WHAT WE READ
NOW. OH I HEARD SOMEBODY TALK.
TALK ABOUT STRIKING A BALANCE.
WE HAVE TO STRIKE A BALANCE, BUT
REPRESENTATION HAS TO BE
REPRESENTATIVE OF WHO WE ARE.
WHERE THE FOURTH LARGEST ECONOMY
IN THE WORLD AND OUR OUR GOALS
HAVE BEEN. I SUPPOSE WASHINGTON
AND OREGON ARE ALONG THE SAME
LINES, BUT WITH THE GOALS THAT
WE HAVE HAD. WE WANT TO CONTINUE
WITH THOSE GOALS. WE'VE HAD LOTS
OF SACRIFICE TO GET TO WHERE WE
ARE AND TO. WE HAVE TO BE ABLE
TO COUNT ON WHOEVER IS PART OF
THAT REGION. AH! TO HAVE THE
SAME GOALS THAT WE DO. SO
FINDING. A WAY TO TAKE CARE OF
THOSE TWO THINGS, AND I KNOW
WITH THE BUCKET SITS THERE.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK THERE
AND WE WERE PROBABLY VERY CLOSE.
BUT WE AREN'T ON THE GOVERNANCE
STRUCTURE. THE LEGISLATIVE
REVIEW. IT IS FOR ME. EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT, UM, CALIFORNIA
OVERSIGHT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
UNION VERSUS NON UNION, BUT WE
HAVE TO. WE WERE NOT PROTECTING
OUR MEMBERS IF WE ALLOW NON
UNION TO TAKE OVER THE JOBS UM I
LIKE MY COLLEAGUE. HAVE GREAT
FAITH IN YOU. UM, WHATEVER YOU
HAVE SAID YOU'RE A MAN OF YOUR
WORD. AND WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE
GOING TO WORK ON THIS, I KNOW
YOU ARE AND TO BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE. THE CONVERSATION IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ENGAGE.
THE ADMINISTRATION IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT. IF WE WERE TO LET
THIS GO NOW, THE ADMINISTRATION
WOULD NEVER BE INVOLVED. AND WE
WOULD BE RIGHT BACK HERE NEXT
YEAR, TRYING TO GET THINGS
STARTED AGAIN. IF WE'RE GOING TO
MOVE FORWARD, IT'S GOING TO BE
ALL OF EVERYONE WHO'S HERE. I'D
LIKE TO HAVE SOME WOMEN IN THE
GROUP, THOUGH. UM AS WE MOVE
FORWARD, UH, BUT, UM, I KNOW
THAT AND THEN WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION'S INVOLVEMENT, I
KNOW THAT WE CAN. WE CAN MOVE
TOWARDS SOMETHING THAT THE
SEMBLANCE OF WHERE WE WANT TO
BE. BUT I KNOW WE'RE NOT THERE
YET. BUT I TRUST THAT WE CAN GET
CLOSER. THANK YOU. GOOD NEWS ON
THAT IS THAT WOMEN HERE, MAYBE
DETERMINING THE FATE OF THIS
BILL, NOT THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN
TESTIFYING. POINT I WANT TO MAKE
. UM I WANT TO, UM, ASK IF THERE
ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THERE'S
NO ONE TO MY LEFT ANYWAY.
TOMORROW PLEASE TELL THEM TO
COMMENT. UM I JUST WANT TO THANK
THANK YOU, MR HOLDEN. WE'VE HAD
, UM MANY CONVERSATIONS IN THE
LAST 24 HOURS LATE AT NIGHT
EARLY IN THE MORNING, AND I
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR
THOUGHTFULNESS AND ALL THE WORK
THAT YOU'VE PUT INTO THIS BILL.
UM YOU ARE A MAN OF YOUR WORD,
AND I ALSO APPRECIATE YOUR
COMMITMENT TO WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND UM, YOU KNOW, IF
NECESSARY, MAKE THIS A TWO YEAR
BILL. UM AND I ALSO APPRECIATE
THE ADVOCACY ON BOTH SIDES. I'VE
HEARD FROM A LOT OF YOU. AND I
THINK THAT THIS THIS IS WHAT
MAKES THE PROCESS WORK. UM THE
OPPOSITION AND I WANTED TO SEE
IF SCOTT HAS BEEN IN THIS
THINKING POST. I WANT TO SEE IF
THERE'S ANY CLOSING COMMENTS
FROM SCOTT. UM YES. THANK YOU
FOR THAT. ASSUME CALDER AND I
THINK THAT THE, UM THE
DISCUSSIONS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE
IS HAS BEEN HAS BEEN REALLY GOOD
. I THINK THE COMMENTS BY, UM
SEVERAL OF YOU RECENTLY, UM SOME
OF THE MEMBER REBECCA BEAR CONE
. UM. SUMMARIZE I THINK WHERE WE
ARE, AT THE MOMENT, WHICH IS
GIVEN, UM ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT
HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED, AND, UM,
THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN
FRAMED THAT YOU KNOW, MY CLIENTS
WOULD BE COMFORTABLE. AH.
SUPPORTING MOVIE THE BILL OUT OF
COMMITTEE TODAY FOR THE PURPOSES
OF CONTINUING THE DIALOGUE AND
THE WORK. AH ON THIS ISSUE, NOT
WE TRIED FOR I DON'T KNOW. WE
TRIED FOR FOUR YEARS LAST TIME
AROUND, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT
THAT THIS BILL IN THIS NEW
STRUCTURES IS GOING TO COME TO
CLOSURE THIS YEAR, BUT WE'RE
CERTAINLY WILLING TO PUT IN PUT
IN PUT IN THE EFFORT BEYOND
TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANOTHER QUESTION AND COMMENT.
SORRY I FORGOT TO ASK MY
QUESTION EARLIER. UM SO, UM,
AND, YOU KNOW, APPRECIATE THE
OPPOSITION'S WILLINGNESS TO MOVE
FORWARD AND I THINK WE ALL WANT
TO SEE HOW THIS HOW THIS
PROCEEDS, UM, AND I'M HOPEFUL
THAT THERE'S SOME REALLY GOOD
DIALOGUE AND SOME REALLY GOOD
DISCUSSION TO HELP GET GET US TO
THE NEXT STEP. UM ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD A
NIGHT AND I HAD TO STEP OUT TO
PRESENT A BILL. SO FORGIVE ME IF
I MISSED IT, BUT I JUST WANTED
TO CHECK. I KNOW THERE'S
DISCUSSION IN THE BILL ABOUT
TRACKING EMISSIONS, BUT UM, ONE
OF THE QUESTIONS I JUST WANTED
TO GET CLARITY ON IS, YOU KNOW
HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT KIND OF
ENERGY WE'RE GETTING IF IT'S
SCREEN ENERGY IF IT IS NOT GREEN
ENERGY. UM WHAT? WHAT'S. WHAT
LEVERS DO WE HAVE AROUND THAT?
WHAT DID SAY IS. IT IS HARDER
WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A SCENE TO
DO THAT ACCOUNTING, AND I DON'T
WANT TO, LIKE, HIDE THE BALL ON
THAT AT ALL. UM SO IF WE HAD A
REGIONAL MARKET, IT WOULD BE A
MORE CHALLENGING EFFORT TO
DETERMINE ESPECIALLY WHAT, UM
WHAT IS SO CALLED UNSCHEDULED
POWER. UM WHERE, WHERE THAT
MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE COME
FROM AND TO ASCRIBE EMISSIONS TO
IT. WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS
THAT THE I S O AND ITS CURRENT
FORMATION HAS REALLY BEEN A
LEADER ON TRYING TO DEVELOP
BETTER ACCOUNTING METHODS, AND
THEY HAD PUSHED THE AIR
RESOURCES BOARD TO DO A BETTER
JOB ON ACCOUNTING FOR IMPORTS OF
ELECTRIC POWER INTO CALIFORNIA
AS THE E I M HAS GROWN. UM THE
OTHER FACTOR. I THINK THAT
REALLY IS IMPORTANT TO THINK
ABOUT IS THE DYNAMICS IN THE
WEST THAT WE ARE SEEING
RETIREMENTS OF COAL FIRED POWER
PLANTS, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO
BE NATURAL GAS FIRED POWER
PLANTS, BOTH IN CALIFORNIA AND
IN OTHER PLACES FOR A LONG TIME.
AND THE QUESTION WILL BE. HOW DO
WE ACCOUNT FOR THOSE EMISSIONS
MOVING AROUND THE GRID, BUT
WE'RE INCREASINGLY MOVING
TOWARDS A TIME WHEN THERE JUST
AREN'T GOING TO BE COAL PLANTS
TO WORRY ABOUT. THANK GOODNESS.
UM AND THAT'S A HUGE VICTORY FOR
CALIFORNIA. IT'S ALSO GOING TO
MAKE THE ACCOUNTING A LITTLE BIT
EASIER, BUT IT'S A HARD PROBLEM.
THERE'S NO PERFECT SOLUTION.
THEY'RE ONLY THERE'S ONLY KIND
OF ROUGH JUSTICE. THAT'S THAT'S
FRANKLY POSSIBLE BECAUSE
ELECTRONS ARE GOING TO GO WHERE
THEY'RE GOING TO GO. YES PLEASE
. THANK YOU, UH, MATT FRIEDMAN
AND WITH TURN, BUT I THINK TO
CONCERNS WE HAVE ON THIS 0.1. UM
THE BILL ITSELF SAYS THAT THE
EMISSIONS TRACKING SYSTEM THAT
WOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY THE
MULTISTATE RTO WOULD TRACK
EMISSIONS FOR RESOURCES DIRECTLY
DISPATCHED TO SERVE CALIFORNIA
LOAD. THOSE ARE THE WORDS IN THE
BILL. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH
THAT? THE PROBLEM IS WHAT'S
CALLED RESOURCE SHUFFLING, AND
THIS IS ACTUALLY A PIECE OF WHAT
IS EMBEDDED INTO THE SB 100
TARGETS THAT THE STATE HAS 100%
0 CARBON ELECTRIC TARGET THE
CONCERN BEING THAT YOU TAKE A
LARGE FOOTPRINT WITH BOTH DIRTY
AND CLEAN GENERATION. YOU ASSIGN
THE CLEAN STUFF TO THE PEOPLE
WHO WANT TO BUY THE CLEAN STUFF,
THE DIRTY STUFF TO EVERYBODY
ELSE WHO DOESN'T CARE AND MAYBE
WHAT YOU END UP WITH IS NO NET
BENEFITS BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG
SHUFFLING EXERCISE. WILL THE
MULTISTATE RTO TRY TO GET AT
THIS GET AT THE ISSUE OF
SHUFFLING AND WHAT'S CALLED
SECONDARY DISPATCH. THIS GUY'S
KIND OF TECHNICAL. UM NO IDEA.
IN FACT, THE BILL DOESN'T REALLY
GET INTO IT. IT'S SPECIFICALLY
KIND OF AVOIDS THAT ISSUE. UM
THE OTHER THING I'D POINT OUT IS
, UM UNDER THE PRIOR
PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION,
THERE WAS A PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE
SUBSIDIES OF COAL PLANTS WITH AN
RTO S AND THOSE SUBSIDIES WILL
BE PAID FOR BY ALL OF THE
PARTICIPANTS. NOW, TODAY WE HAVE
AN I S O THAT HAS NO COAL IN IT.
SO THAT KIND OF HEAVY HANDED
FEDERAL POLICY FROM A HOSTILE
ADMINISTRATION COULDN'T BE USED
TO FORCE CALIFORNIA TO SUBSIDIZE
COAL FROM THROUGHOUT THE REGION.
BUT IF WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME
FOOTPRINT THERE'S CLEAN AND
DIRTY GENERATION. AND WE HAVE A
RETURN OF, UM SOMEBODY IN THE
WHITE HOUSE WHO MIGHT TRY TO
FORCE CALIFORNIA CUSTOMERS TO
PAY TO SUBSIDIZE COAL. THE
MULTISTATE RTO ACTUALLY PROVIDES
A PATHWAY TO DO THAT. THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE'RE CONCERNED
ABOUT IT AND IT WAS SPECIFICALLY
UNDER CONSIDERATION. UM BEFORE
PRESIDENT BIDEN GOT ELECTED.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. CONCERNS. I
WANT TO JUST THANK, THANK
EVERYONE HERE WHO HAS PROVIDED
TESTIMONY, AND I GUESS I'LL
ALLUDE TO THE OPPOSITION'S
POSITION. UM NOT NECESSARILY
SHIFTING ENTIRELY, BUT CERTAINLY
CREATING A SPACE FOR US TO
CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION. AND
SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND TO
OUR COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE ASKED
THE HARD QUESTIONS AND THE
DIRECT QUESTIONS BUT TO THE
WITNESSES, AND UM AND THE AUTHOR
SO, MR HOLDEN, YOU DO HAVE A, UM
I RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE THIS
ISSUE FORWARD. WE'VE WE HOPE
THAT ANTICIPATED THAT THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE HAD
TODAY WOULD BE SUCH THAT WOULD
ALLOW US TO CONTINUE IN GOOD
FAITH DIALOGUE, AND I HOPE THAT
THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN KIND OF
WITNESS TODAY. WE CREATED A
SPACE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD
THE NECESSARY BACK AND FORTH. UM
SO I ASK YOU TO CLOSE AND THEN
WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO MOVE
THIS POLICY FORWARD. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR AND TO THE COMMITTEE.
AH I WOULD EXPECT EXPECTED
NOTHING LESS. WE PUT FORTH THE
RESOLUTION LAST YEAR A CR 1 88
TO AT LEAST START BRINGING
TOGETHER THE INFORMATION SO THAT
WE COULD BE IN A POSITION TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENED FROM
THE LAST TIME THAT THIS BILL OR
A BILL LIKE THIS WAS BEFORE US
AND WHERE WE ARE TODAY. AND THE
DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF THE
MARKETPLACE THAT HAVE CHANGED.
POLITICS THAT HAVE CHANGED.
PATTERNS OF HOW OTHER STATES ARE
LOOKING AT. QUITE FRANKLY. THE
POLICIES OF CALIFORNIA. AND ARE
CHANGING. YOU NOW HAVE STATES
THAT WERE NOT FOCUSED ON 100%
CARBON FREE FOR A STATED PERIOD
IN THE FUTURE, 2045 THAT NOW
HAVE THE SAME KIND OF POLICIES
IN CALIFORNIA DOES AND THEY'RE
NOT OREGON AND WASHINGTON. AND
SO I THINK THAT OUR INFLUENCE
CONTINUES TO RADIATE AROUND THE
REGION. AND I GUESS FOR ME, THE
OTHER THING THAT'S CHANGED IS
WHAT DR WARREN TALKED ABOUT. IN
2020 WHEN WE HAD THE ROLLING
BLACKOUTS EVEN FOR A VERY SHORT
PERIOD OF TIME. IT CREATED A LOT
OF DISRUPTION AROUND THE STATE.
AND CAN YOU IMAGINE? HAVING TO
CONTINUE TO BE IN THAT POSITION
WHERE WE'RE HAVING TO ADDRESS.
THE DEMAND BASED ON FLEX ALERTS.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT'S THE
RIGHT WAY TO GO. AND CLEARLY
WE'RE STILL USING THE ONCE
THROUGH COOLING POWER THROUGH
BACK GAS POWERED TO KEEP THE
LIGHTS ON. WE NOW HAVE NUCLEAR
POWER BACK ON THE PORTFOLIO TO
KEEP THE LIGHTS ON. AND SO I'M
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THAT
FORETELLS IN TERMS OF THE KIND
OF CRISIS DYNAMICS THAT WE SEEM
TO FIND OURSELVES STARING FACE
TO FACE THAT UM THERE'S A LOT OF
WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON
THIS BILL. THERE ARE ISSUES THAT
I'VE MADE COMMITMENTS TO I DON'T
THINK THAT THERE'S ONE THING
THAT THE OPPOSITION HAS RAISED
OR THAT ANY OF YOU HAVE RAISED
THAT. I HAVEN'T THAT I'VE SAID
WE DON'T NEED TO TALK ABOUT I
SAID, WE NEED TO NOT JUST TALK
ABOUT IT. WE NEED TO TRY TO
FIGURE IT OUT. IT'S GOING TO
TAKE OTHER FOLKS, AS I SAID
BEFORE ENGAGING AND I THINK OUR
ENERGY ENTITIES PLAY AN
IMPORTANT ROLE IN THAT BECAUSE
THEY UNDERSTAND THE REGION. THEY
UNDERSTAND THE REGULATORY SCHEME
AND HOW ALL OF THEIR THOUGHTS
AND INPUT I THINK AND COME INTO
THIS CONVERSATION. ALONG WITH
ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS. AND
ESPECIALLY MY GOOD FRIENDS IN
LABOR, SO I APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSION. I LOOK FORWARD TO
THE CONVERSATION AS WE MOVE
FORWARD. I THINK THE CHAIR FOR
HIS LEADERSHIP LOOK FORWARD TO
HIM BEING A PART OF THIS
CONVERSATION AS WE MOVE FORWARD,
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU, MR HOLDEN. THIS
DOES ENJOY I WRECK. OH
AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED
MOTION AND A SECOND AND GLAD WE
DIDN'T HAVE TO UNDERTAKE ANY
ROUGH JUSTICE HERE. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR COOPERATION. AND WITH
THAT BEING SAID, I'LL CALL THE
QUESTION, MADAM SECRETARY. ITEM
NUMBER ONE A. B 538. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA GARCIA,
I, PATERSON PATERSON. I
BARRICADE HAN BAUER-KAHAN. I
CALLED AROUND CALDERON I KOREA.
CHEN. CONNELLY CONNELLY. I HOLD
IN MY MATHIS. MURATSUCHI RAISE
RAISE I SANTIAGO SZABO. VÚI TING
WALLACE WALLACE. AYE. CAN YOU
GIVE THAT HOW MANY VOTES. THAT'S
NINE WILL KEEP THE ROLE OPEN.
OKAY SO THAT BUILDS OUT.
CONGRATULATIONS MR HOLDEN. UM
AND WE WILL. CAN I ENTERTAIN A
MOTION ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
HER PERFECT WE HAVE FOUR BUILT
SUDDENLY CONSENT CALENDAR. UM A
B 12 93 DO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS 11 81 DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. MAYBE
13 49 Dð PASSES AMENDED TO THE
FLOOR AND MAYBE 15 80 Dð PASSES
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. GARCIA.
PATERSON. BARRY CAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN. I CALLED AROUND
AROUND I PATERSON. AYE. KOREA.
CHAN. CONNELLY CONNELLY. I
HOLDEN MATHIS. MURATSUCHI. RAISE
RAISE I SANTIAGO. SZABO VÚI
TING. WALLACE. BY WALLACE. AYE.
ON THE CONSENT, VILE. MR HOLDEN.
HOLD ON. I. THAT'S EIGHT. THAT'S
EIGHT THAT BUILDS OUT THERE OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. MR WOOD IS
HERE SO WE WILL TAKE UP A B 50.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
DOCTOR WOULD. I KNOW. OKAY I
WILL NOTE THE SEATS STILL WARM,
SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I WANT TO START BY
THANKING THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR
EXCELLENT WORK ON THIS BILL, AND
I'M HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS. MEMBERS
CALIFORNIA HAS LED THE NATION
WITH SOME OF THE MOST AMBITIOUS,
AMBITIOUS CLIMATE CHANGE GOALS
IN THE WORLD. YES, WE ALL KNOW
CREATING GOALS AND TARGETS AS
THE ONLY THE BEGINNING OF THE
WAR ON CLIMATE CHANGE. THE REAL
CHALLENGE LIES IN WINNING THE
BATTLES ALONG THE WAY. AS WE
MOVE TO ELECTRIFY OUR GRID BY
2045 REALIZE WE RELY ON OUR MANY
PARTNERS. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THE ELECTRIC CORPORATIONS THE
UTILITIES TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. THE
TRULY SCARY SCARY REALITY IS IN
MANY AREAS OF CALIFORNIA. THEY
ARE NOT MOVING AT THE RATE. WE
NEED THEM TO. SEVERE ELECTRIC
ENERGY IZATION DELAYS HAVE
BECOME THE EVERYDAY REALITY OF
UTILITY CUSTOMERS IN CALIFORNIA.
WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT IF
YOU NEED ELECTRICITY FIVE YEARS
FROM NOW, YOU NEED TO GET IN
LINE RIGHT NOW. CUSTOMERS
SEEKING ELECTRICITY FOR NEW
DEVELOPMENTS OR FOR UPGRADES TO
EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE
EXPERIENCING HUGE SPIKES IN
THEIR WAIT TIMES FOR
INTERCONNECTIVITY, MY OFFICE
LIKE MANY OF YOURS, I'M SURE IS
HEARING FROM COUNTLESS CUSTOMERS
WHO APPLIED FOR POWER AND
RECEIVED WHAT'S CALLED A WILL
SERVE LETTER FROM THEIR ELECTRIC
PROVIDER. THESE CUSTOMERS ARE
NOT ONLY INDIVIDUALS, BUT ARE
BUILDERS TRYING TO MEET OUR
HOUSING GOALS. NEW COMPANIES
THAT WANT TO HIRE PEOPLE AND
CONTRIBUTE TO LOCAL ECONOMIES
SCHOOLS. AND THE CREATORS OF
MUCH NEEDED NEW AND EXPANDING
HEALTHCARE FACILITIES. AFTER
RECEIVING THESE COMMITMENTS TO
SERVE CUSTOMERS PAY LARGE FEES,
SOMETIMES HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF DOLLARS, ONLY TO FIND OUT IT
MIGHT BE MONTHS OR EVEN YEARS
UNTIL THEY RECEIVE POWER. THINK
ABOUT THAT A DEVELOPER BUILDS
100 HOMES WITH SIGNIFICANT
FINANCIAL OUTLAY ONLY FIND OUT
THAT THE FAMILIES WANTING
WAITING CAN'T HAVE THE KEYS FOR
SEVERAL YEARS, SO IT TURNS OUT
THAT WILL SERVE REALLY MEANS
WILL SERVE EVENTUALLY. IN
HUMBOLDT COUNTY IN MY DISTRICT,
LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES LEARNED
LAST FALL THAT 67 CUSTOMERS
WOULD BE WAITING YEARS TO TURN
THE LIGHTS ON. 23 OF THESE NEW
BUSINESS APPLICANTS WILL BE LEFT
WAITING FOR POWER FOR FOUR YEARS
, 37 CUSTOMERS WERE TOLD THAT
THEY WOULD HAVE TO WAIT MORE
THAN 10 YEARS AN ENTIRE DECADE.
THAT'S TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. WE
ARE FAILING BUSINESSES, HOUSING
, HOUSING DEVELOPERS, SCHOOL
DISTRICTS, INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS
AND MORE. A B 50 IS ABOUT
GETTING REAL ABOUT THIS PROBLEM
AND PROVIDING REAL SOLUTIONS.
MAYBE 50 DOES TWO CRITICAL
THINGS FIRST. IT REQUIRES A CPUC
THROUGH THE REGULATORY PROCESS
TO DETERMINE THE ENERGY IZATION
TIMELINES AND GUIDELINES FOR
UTILITIES. THROUGH THIS PROCESS
. IT ALSO REQUESTS THE CPUC TO
CONSIDER WHETHER IMPACTED
CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE COMPENSATED
FOR THE NEGATIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT
CAUSED BY LONG DELAYS. BEFORE
THE REGULATORY PROCESS IS
COMPLETE, BECAUSE THIS CAN TAKE
YEARS. THIS BILL SETS ITS OWN
TIMELINES FOR ENERGY IZATION. 30
DAYS FOR UPGRADES TO EXISTING
INTERCONNECTIONS 90 DAYS FOR NEW
CONNECTIONS. I LOST MY LAST PAGE
AFTER PERIOD. PAUSE. OH AFTER
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE UTILITIES,
ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS, I
BELIEVE THESE TIMELINES ARE FAIR
AND REASONABLE, THOUGH I KNOW
THERE IS MORE WORK TO BE DONE IN
REFINING THE LANGUAGE. SECOND
MAYBE 50 REQUIRES UTILITIES TO
EVALUATE AND UPDATE THEIR
DISTRIBUTION PROCESSES AND MEET
REGULARLY WITH COUNTY STAFF TO
DISCUSS THE STATUS OF ELECTRICAL
CAPACITY. RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TRYING HARD TO
MEET HOUSING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC
GROWTH, AND THEIR PLANNERS NEED
TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATION
IMPLICATIONS OF ELECTRICAL
CAPACITY RESTRAINTS. THIS BILL
WAS CRAFTED WITH INPUT FROM A
COALITION OF RATEPAYER
ADVOCATES, BUSINESS OWNERS,
ENGINEERS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
HOUSING DEVELOPERS, CLIMATE
CHANGE CHAMPIONS AND MORE. WITH
ME TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY IS TODAY
IS BEN SCHWARTZ FROM A CLEAN
COALITION AND JOHN KENNEDY FROM
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA. GREAT WE'LL DO TWO
MINUTES EACH. WHOEVER WANTS TO
GO FIRST. MY NAME IS BEN
SCHWARTZ. I'M THE POLICY MANAGER
WITH THE QUEEN COALITION
COALITION AS A NONPROFIT
DEDICATED TO ACCELERATING THE
TRANSITION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY
AND A MODERN GRID THROUGH
TECHNICAL POLICY AND PROJECT
EXPERTISE TO START. LET'S
CONSIDER HOW THIS BILL FITS IN
WITH THE STATE'S AMBITIOUS
CLIMATE AND ENERGY GOALS. THE
2022 CARBS SCOPING PLAN
PROJECTED THAT TO REACH OUR 25
45 GOALS. OVERALL DEMAND FOR
ENERGY IS PROJECTED TO INCREASE
BY 68. WHICH WILL REQUIRE AN
UNPRECEDENTED RATE OF
DEPLOYMENT. AN EFFICIENT AND
PREDICTABLE PROCESS TO CONDUCT
CONDUCT UPGRADES AS LOADS
INCREASES NEEDED BOTH AT THE
MAIN SERVICE PANEL FOR
FACILITIES AND AT THE LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION LEVEL SLOW EXISTING
PROCESSES, IF NOT ADDRESSED
TODAY WILL BECOME SIGNIFICANT
IMPEDIMENTS TO PROGRESS IN THE
FUTURE. A B 50 WILL BETTER
CODIFY THE PROCESS FOR
FACILITIES SEEKING NEW OR
INCREASED SERVICES AND FOR
GOVERNMENTS CONDUCTING
RESIDENTIAL ECONOMIC AND
RESILIENCE PLANNING. THE CLEAN
COALITION HAS EXPERIENCED MANY
PROJECTS LIMITED BY A
CONSTRAINED GRID SEARCHES
HUMBOLDT COUNTY OR A LACK OF
TIMELY UTILITY SERVICE. FOR
EXAMPLE, A FARM IN SANTA BARBARA
LEARNED THAT DISTRIBUTION GRID
CONSTRAINTS WOULD MAKE INCREASED
SERVICE IMPOSSIBLE FOR AT LEAST
FIVE YEARS IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. SEVERAL TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING PROJECTS RECEIVED
PERMISSION TO DEPLOY SOLAR
MICROGRIDS AND LATER LEARNED THE
UTILITY WOULD NOT PROVIDE A GRID
CONNECTION. FOR OVER A YEAR AND
A HOUSING COMMUNITY IN IMPERIAL
IRRIGATION DISTRICT RECEIVED TWO
EQUALLY UNTENABLE OPTIONS PAY
$30 MILLION FOR AN ENTIRELY NEW
SUBSTATION OR 10 MILLION TO
COMPLETELY RE CONDUCTOR EACH OF
THE HOUSES INDIVIDUALLY. WHAT IS
NEEDED IS CERTAINTY. RATEPAYERS
NEED ACCURATE TIMELINES.
GOVERNMENTS NEED TRANSPARENT AND
ACTIONABLE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
EXISTING GRID FOR PLANNING
PURPOSES. GRID CAPACITY. MAPS DO
EXIST CALLED. I SEE MAPS, BUT
THE GRANULARITY OF THE
INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED
AND THE MAPS NEED TO PROVIDE
ACTIONABLE INFORMATION TO ENABLE
AND ENHANCE TWO WAY DISCUSSIONS
BETWEEN UTILITIES AND
GOVERNMENTS TO FORECASTS NOT
JUST FOR NOW, BUT THE COMING
YEARS. FOR THESE REASONS, I
STRONGLY SUPPORT A B 50. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, JOHN
KENNEDY WITH RC RC. WE REPRESENT
40 OF THE STATE'S 58 COUNTIES
AND ARE PLEASED TO BE HERE AND
VERY STRONG SUPPORT OF A B 50.
TODAY YOU'VE HEARD OF THE
EXPERIENCES IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY
AND FROM SOME OTHER EXPERIENCES
ELSEWHERE. AS YOU CAN TELL. THIS
IS HAPPENING THROUGHOUT THE
STATE POLITICAL NOTES IN A
RECENT ARTICLE, THERE ARE DELAYS
CONNECTING HUNDREDS OF PROJECT
HOMES THROUGHOUT THE STATE. EVEN
WORSE, MANY COUNTIES AND PROJECT
AS HAS BEEN INDICATED, ARE TOLD
IT WILL TAKE 2 TO 5 YEARS TO
PROVIDE SERVICE OR INCREASED
LOAD FOR EXISTING CUSTOMERS.
THESE DELAYS ARE SIMPLY
UNACCEPTABLE, ESPECIALLY WHEN
UTILITIES HAVE BEEN UP MONOPOLY
ON THE PROVISION OF ELECTRICITY.
THESE DELAYS PREDATE COVID AND
SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH COVID. THESE
LINKS TO YOU DELAYS HAVE LONG
THROTTLED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES AND
MANY AREAS, ESPECIALLY RURAL
AREAS. MORE RECENTLY. THESE
DELAYS AND DECLINE IN ENERGY
RELIABILITY ARE FRUSTRATING THE
STATE AND LOCAL ABILITY TO MEET
ENERGY IZATION AND
DECARBONIZATION GOALS. SO WHAT
DOES THIS LOOK LIKE? THE
HOSPITAL DELAYS AND RURAL
HUMBOLDT COUNTY CHARGING
STATIONS THAT ARE DELAYED AND
SONOMA COUNTY AND ELSEWHERE
FLEETS BEING ABLE TO COMPLY WITH
THE ARABS. NEW FLEET
ELECTRIFICATION RULES MOVING
DELAYS FOR HOMEOWNERS THE
ABILITY TO COMMENCE OPERATIONS
AT STATE OF THE ART FOOD
PROCESSING FACILITIES THAT
TRADITIONALLY RELY ON LARGE
QUANTITIES OF NATURAL GAS BUT
ARE TRYING TO SHIFT TO
ELECTORATE ELECTRICITY. SO THESE
ARE THE PROBLEMS A B 50 IS PART
OF THE SOLUTION. A B 50
IMPORTANTLY, ESTABLISHES
TIMEFRAMES FOR CONNECTION. A B
50 IMPORTANTLY, TRIES TO IMPROVE
THE DISTRIBUTION PLANNING
PROCESS TO INCREASE COORDINATION
BETWEEN LOCALS AND THEIR
INCUMBENT UTILITIES. SO THAT THE
DISTRIBUTION PLANS MORE CLOSELY
MEET THE NEEDS OF LOCALS AND
LOCAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES. IT SEEKS
TO FACILITATE INFORMATION
SHARING BETWEEN LOCALS AND
UTILITIES. WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE
THE CAPACITY EXISTS ON THE GRIDS
AND OUR AREAS SO WE CAN ENSURE
THAT THE LOCAL HOUSING MAPS THE
LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANS
ARE ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED AND
ACTIONABLE. FOR THESE REASONS.
WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT OF A B 50
AND I'VE ALSO BEEN ASKED TO
CONVEY THE SUPPORT OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES. THANK YOU. UM DO WE
HAVE ANYONE IN THE ROOM? WHO
WANTS TO ADD ON IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL? MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS SCOTT WESTON BEHALF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION UTILITY
EMPLOYEES. WE HAD AN OPPOSED
POSITION. WE'VE WORKED SOME
AMENDMENTS OUT WITH THE AUTHOR.
THERE'S STILL SOME FINE TUNING
THAT NEEDS TO DO BUT GENERALLY
WERE SUPPORTIVE AND OF THE BILL
IN ITS CURRENT FORM. LOOK AT
THAT. ETHAN AGLER ON BEHALF OF
THE CITIES OF BELMONT, FOSTER
CITY MOUNTAIN VIEW AND SANTA
ROSA IN SUPPORT. MATT FRIEDMAN
WITH THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. WE'VE
APPRECIATED WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR ON WHERE IT IS TODAY.
THANK YOU. CATHERINE
BRANDENBURG, REPRESENTING
CINEMA, CLEAN POWER AND SUPPORT.
JASON I COULD ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE
ASSOCIATION, ALSO IN SUPPORT. HI
ELLEN MCGILL REPRESENTING SAN
DIEGO COMMUNITY POWER IN
SUPPORT. HELLO MARK FINSTER
MAKER ON BEHALF OF VALLEY CLEAN
ENERGY SERVING THE CITIES OF
DAVIS, WOODLAND AND WINTERS IN
THE UNINCORPORATED YELLOW COUNTY
IN SUPPORT. HELLO AUDREY HARTMAN
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
LARGE ENERGY CONSUMERS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT IS HE
SWINDLER, RASHAYA TOWER AND
SMELLS ARE LYING ON BEHALF OF
THE SNOW SNOWMEN COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU ALL. DO WE HAVE
ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION? I GUESS NOT.
EVERYONE WAS AS PLEASED AS MR
WATCH. UM. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE
BRANDY BACK HERE ON BEHALF OF
PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY
WHILE WE SUBMIT SUBMITTED AN
OPPOSED LETTER PRIOR TO THIS
HEARING, WE HAVE BEEN COMMITTED
TO WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUES AND
CUSTOMERS, ORGANIZATIONS AND THE
AMENDMENTS TO TODAY TAKE A
SIGNIFICANT STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. WE APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR AND HIS STAFF, CONTINUING
ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH SINCE
LAST FALL TO ADDRESS THE VERY
COMPLEX PROBLEM THAT WE'RE
DEALING WITH HERE. LIKE TO START
BY SAYING THAT PGD ACKNOWLEDGES
THE DISSATISFACTION WITH
CUSTOMER CONNECTION TIMELINES
AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE
AUTHORS DISTRICT HAS BEEN
SUBJECT TO PARTICULARLY ACUTE
ISSUES WERE NOT SATISFIED WITH
OUR TIMELINES, EITHER. PIGEON
HAS ALREADY TAKEN STEPS TO BEGIN
FIXING THESE ISSUES AND
CUSTOMERS ALREADY ARE
EXPERIENCING SOME IMPROVEMENTS.
WE'D ALSO LIKE THIS COMMITTEE TO
KNOW THAT PGD HAS SPENT MORE
RESOURCES ON NEW BUSINESS
CONNECTIONS IN THE LAST FEW
YEARS, AND WE EVER HAVE. IN FACT
, WE'VE INVESTED MORE THAN THE
AUTHORIZED SPEND BAR REGULATORS
IN THE GENERAL RATE CASE, WHICH
HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED IN THE
LAST FIVE YEARS, AND IT'S STILL
NOT ENOUGH. WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE
HOW THE EXISTING REGULATORY
PROCESS IMPACTS. UH THE ABILITY
TO HAVE CASH FLOW AND RESOURCE
TO INVEST IN THIS BASIC WORK
WHILE REMAINING AFFORDABLE FOR
CUSTOMERS. I HIGHLIGHT THIS
BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FALSE
ASSUMPTION THAT SOMEHOW PGD HAS
NOT BEEN INVESTED IN CONNECTIONS
WE HAVE AND CONTINUE TO DO SO.
AT THE SAME TIME, PJD HAS
INVESTED UNPARALLELED FINANCIAL
AND WORKER RESOURCES TOWARDS
WILD FIRE SAFETY IN RECENT YEARS
, WHICH I BELIEVE WE ALL AGREE
IS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT THING TO
DO FOR COMMUNITIES. THIS
UNPRECEDENTED WILDFIRE SAFETY
SPINNERS COMMON COMBINATION WITH
INCREASING LOW DEMAND AMIDST
GROWING ELECTRIFICATION,
ELECTRIC VEHICLE BUILD OUT
HOUSING, CANNABIS CULTIVATION
AND OTHER UNEXPECTED ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT CHANGES IN OUR
TERRITORY. SO WHAT? WE AGREE PG
AND E CAN AND WILL GET BETTER
AND FASTER CUSTOMER CONNECTIONS.
WE ASK THAT YOU WORK WITH US AND
THE OTHER UTILITIES AND POLICY
SOLUTIONS THAT FIXED THE ISSUES
AND ALIGNED LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS TO MEET
INCREASED DEMAND AND NOT SIMPLY
SET ARTIFICIAL TIMELINES AND
PENALTIES THAT ONLY SERVED TO
MAKE THINGS HARDER OR WORSE, OR
FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR CUSTOMER
RESPONSIBILITIES OR DEPENDENCIES
THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF UTILITIES
CONTROL. UM, WITH ME TODAY IN
THE AUDIENCE IS MATT VENTURA,
WHO IS OUR SENIOR DIRECTOR OF
SERVICE PLANNING WHO CAN ANSWER
ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT
OUR PROCESS AND WHAT CAN ALREADY
BE WHAT CAN BE DONE TO IMPROVE
PERFORMANCE. AND LASTLY, WE LOOK
FORWARD TO THE COMMITTEE HOLDING
AN OVERSIGHT HEARING IN THE
COMING WEEKS OR NEXT MONTH ABOUT
CUSTOMER INTERCONNECTIONS AND
DISTRIBUTION PLANNING PROCESS.
UM, AND WE ALSO WELCOME ALL THE
MEMBERS AND STAFF FOR TWO OF OUR
NEW BUSINESS COMMAND CENTER,
WHICH IS IN OUR OAKLAND
HEADQUARTERS TO GET A REALLY
DEEP DIVE INTO WHAT WE'RE DOING
TO ADDRESS THIS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE THAT
WANTS TO ADD ON AN OPPOSITION
HERE IN THE ROOM? AFTERNOON
ANDREW COZIED ARE WITH SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON REALLY
APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THIS
COMMITTEE, THE MEMBER THE AUTHOR
AND ALSO THE STAFF. WE
RESPECTFULLY ARE OPPOSED TO BE
50. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON
CHAIR MEMBERS IN HERE WITH
SANTIAGO GAS AND ELECTRIC AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU SEEING NO
ADDITIONAL FOLKS WANTING TO GET
ON ANY MEMBERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS? SEEING OH, YES,
WISH I WILL. I JUST WANTED TO
SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. UM THIS
IS IT'S BEEN EYE OPENING BEING
ON THIS COMMITTEE AND HAVING
PEOPLE COME INTO MY OFFICE AND
TALK ABOUT INTERCONNECTION
PROBLEMS, AND YOU KNOW, AT A
TIME WHEN WE ARE WORKING TO
TRANSITION TO MAKE OUR ENERGY
GOALS TO BE TOLD THAT IT'S GOING
TO TAKE A YEAR OR TWO OR FOUR
YEARS BEFORE YOU KNOW, SOLAR
BATTERY STORAGE, YOU KNOW,
LOCATIONS CAN BE CONNECTED, OR,
UM, HOUSING WHEN WE'RE IN THE
MIDDLE OF A HOUSING CRISIS.
WHOLE HOUSING COMMUNITIES ARE
NOT BEING CONNECTED. AND SO IT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO FIGURE
OUT. I UNDERSTAND IT'S A
STRUGGLE ON THE SIDE OF THE
UTILITIES. UM BUT I THINK YOU
KNOW, WE HAVE TO DIAL DOWN ON
WHAT REALLY IS THE ISSUE AND
FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN MOVE THIS
FORWARD MUCH MORE QUICKLY,
BECAUSE AS WE KNOW, WE JUST HAD
A VERY LONG CONVERSATION ABOUT
REGIONALIZATION, AND ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES IS THAT WE ARE
WORRIED THAT WE CAN'T PROVIDE
THE KIND OF ENERGY THAT WE NEED
FOR DEMANDS, ESPECIALLY GOING
FORWARD RIGHT. AND SO WE HAVE TO
GET FASTER AT CONNECTING, UM,
YOU KNOW, AT CONNECTING UP OUR
GRID, TOO. PEOPLE WHO NEED IT
AND SOURCES THAT CAN PROVIDE IT
. AND SO I KNOW WE'RE DOING A
WHOLE HOST OF BILLS AROUND THIS
ISSUE TODAY. UM BUT THIS IS, YOU
KNOW FOR ME. POPPED UP AS THE
MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT WE
REALLY NEED TO TAKE ON IN TERMS
OF BEING A BARRIER FOR US TO
GETTING WHERE WE NEED TO GET
AROUND, YOU KNOW, HOUSING,
ADDRESSING OUR HOUSING CRISIS
AROUND ADDRESSING OUR ENERGY,
YOU KNOW, A CHALLENGE IS TO MAKE
TO MAKE OUR GOALS AS WELL. SO
JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR
THAT. IT'S CALLED AROUND. YEAH,
IT'S JUST MORE OF A COMMENT I
THANK YOU REMEMBER WOULD FOR
TALKING TO ME EARLIER AND JUST
WANTED TO NOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, I
SHARE MY CONCERN WITH YOU ABOUT
PUTTING TIMELINES AND DEADLINES
AROUND THIS TYPE OF WORK HAS IT
CAN BE A SAFETY ISSUE, AND
THAT'S MY PRIMARY CONCERN. BUT I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR HAVING
THAT CONVERSATION WITH ME. THANK
YOU SEEING NO ONE ELSE I'LL JUST
SAY I THINK WE'VE HIT ON A CLEAR
NEED. WE HAVE FOUR BILLS TODAY
ON THE TOPIC. UM SO CLEARLY,
IT'S SOMETHING THAT CALIFORNIANS
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, UP AND DOWN
THE STATE, AND I THINK IT'S
REALLY CRITICAL WORK. SO I
APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP IN
THE SPACE AND I COULDN'T AGREE
MORE WITH MY COLLEAGUE FROM, UM
, THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY THAT
IT'S STOPPING A LOT OF OUR
GOALS. AND IN ADDITION, I MEAN,
WE'RE HEARING FROM HOSPITALS AND
OTHER ESSENTIAL RESOURCES THAT
THIS IS A CRITICAL NEED. SO WE
NEED TO GET THIS FIXED. SO THANK
YOU WITH THAT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YEAH. I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR THEIR ATTENTION TO
THIS ISSUE WHEN WE HAD HEARING
HEARING LAST YEAR, AH, WHEN WE
WERE DISCUSSING THE CLIMATE
PACKAGE THIS COMMITTEE THIS
COMMITTEE CONVENED A HEARING IN
AUGUST. I ACTUALLY SAT IN ON
THIS HEARING. UM, AND ON THAT
PARTICULAR HEARING AND ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT CAME OUT OF THAT
HEARING WAS COMMENTS ABOUT
CHALLENGES WITH TRANSMISSION
CONNECTION, AND I REMEMBER
ASKING SOME PRETTY COIN POINTED
QUESTIONS TO, UH EVERYONE THAT
THE ADMINISTRATION EVERYONE.
WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT THIS
ISSUE AND. AND IT BECAME
APPARENT THAT IT WASN'T IT
WASN'T AS HIGH A PRO PRIORITY.
AT THAT POINT. THERE'S AN
AWARENESS OBVIOUSLY, PEOPLE KNEW
THIS WAS A CHALLENGE. UH AND
THEN A FEW WEEKS LATER, I FOUND
OUT IN MY OWN DISTRICT THAT THAT
SUDDENLY I'VE GOT HUGE SWATHS OF
AREAS THAT ARE GOING TO BE
WAITING FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND
YEARS FOR POWER, AND SO AS WE
STARTED DIGGING THROUGH THIS, WE
FOUND IT. IT ISN'T JUST OUR
DISTRICT. IT'S OTHER PARTS OF
THE STATE. AND SO I WELCOME THE
OTHER UTILITIES WHO ARE WHO TO
WORK WITH US ON THIS AS WELL.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION IN GENERAL, BUT IT
CLEARLY IS NOT JUST A POSITION
IN MY DISTRICT IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. THIS IS A STATEWIDE
ISSUE. IT MAY NOT BE TO THE
SCALE THAT I'M EXPERIENCING IT,
BUT IT'S COMING, FOLKS AND I
DON'T LIKE PENALTIES. WHAT I
WANT IS FOR FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO
DO THE RIGHT THING IN A TIMELY
MANNER. AND SO UM SO WITH THAT I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
AND I KNOW THERE ARE OTHER BILLS
ON THIS ISSUE, SO I WILL. JUST
AT THIS POINT. RESPECTFULLY ASK
YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU. CAN I DO
HAVE A MOTION ON THE MATTER?
THANK YOU. MUSHROOM INITIATIVE.
A SECOND BY MR CONNELLY. LET'S
CALL THE ROLL. ITEM NUMBER TWO A
B 50. THE MOTION IS DUE PASSES
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
GARCIA. PATERSON BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE CALDERON CALLED
AROUND I. KOREA CHEN CONNELLY
CONNELLY. I HOLDEN MATHIS,
MURATSUCHI REYES SANTIAGO
SCHIOPPA VÚI TING WALLACE
WALLACE. AYE. THAT'S FIVE. WE'LL
KEEP THE ROLE OPEN. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR WOULD WE WILL MOVE
TO MS CALDERON, DESPITE THE FACT
THAT SHE'S LAST. SHE'S THE ONLY
ONE HERE. SO WE'LL TAKE A BABY
15 13.
YEAH THAT WAS THAT FUNNY. THAT'S
ONE AT ALL. WHY DON'T YOU SIT
HERE? WHEN YOU'RE READY, MISS
CALDERON. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH US ON
THIS BILL AND I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. ASSEMBLY BILL 15 13
WOULD STABILIZE ELECTRICITY
FLUCTUATIONS BY ALLOWING AN
ELECTRIC UTILITY TO REQUEST CPUC
AUTHORIZATIONS TO FINANCE
WILDFIRE MITIGATION EFFORTS,
INCLUDING THEIR OPERATIONAL AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS THROUGH
SECURITIZATION. EXISTING LAW
ALLOWS ELECTRIC UTILITIES TO
SEEK CPUC AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE
OUT BONDS AND TIE THEM TO REPAIR
BILLS OR SECURITIZED BONDS TO
PAY FOR JUST AND REASONABLE COST
AS DETERMINED BY THE PUC. WITH
LONGER AND MORE DESTRUCTIVE
WILDFIRE SEASONS, ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC UTILITIES HAVE
INCREASED THEIR WILDFIRE
MITIGATION EFFORTS, SUCH AS
THEIR VEGETATION MANAGEMENT.
THESE ASSOCIATED COSTS ARE
TYPICALLY REQUIRED TO BE
RECOVERED BY ELECTRIC UTILITIES
WITHIN 12 MONTHS. WITHOUT THE
OPTION OF STRETCHING THE
RECOVERY PERIOD WITH FINANCING
MECHANISMS LIKE A BOND, CONSTANT
WILDFIRE MITIGATION CAN LEAD TO
SIGNIFICANT RATE HIKES FOR
REPAIRS. THIS BILL. I LOST MY
SPOT POUNDS OF REINTRODUCTION OF
MY BILL LAST YEAR A B 29 37 UPON
THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THIS
COMMITTEE LAST YEAR, I HAVE
NARROWED THE BILL AND REMOVED AN
ELECTRIC UTILITIES ABILITY TO
SECURITIZE JUSTIN REASONABLE
COSTS STEMMING FROM ANY
WILDFIRES IN 2018. AFFORDABILITY
IS A PRIORITY OF MINE AND THE
PRIMARY FOCUS OF THIS SPELL.
SIMPLY A B. 15 13 IS SEEKING TO
ENSURE THE CPUC CONSIDER THE
SHORT TERM RATE STABILITY THAT
SECURITIZATION PROVIDES WHEN
EVALUATING SECURITIZATION
APPLICATIONS. HERE WITH ME TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT IS ADAM
SMITH FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON MARIZA NEGATORY IN FROM
SANDY HILL, GAS AND ELECTRIC.
THANK YOU. ACTING CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ADAM
SMITH, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON SHARING OUR STRONG
SUPPORT FOR MAYBE 15 13 SCE
APPLAUDS THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS
COMMITTEE ON THE ISSUE OF
AFFORDABILITY. WE'VE BEEN HERE
FOR THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS.
WE'VE HEARD THE IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES FROM
THE CHAIR AND OTHER MEMBERS
HERE. WE SEE RATES RISING AND
WE'RE ALL LOOKING FOR WAYS TO
SMOOTH THE SPIKES AND OFFER
RELIEF TO ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS
FACING INCREASED BILLS. THAT'S
WHY WE THINK ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
CALLED AROUND. FOR BRINGING THIS
IMPORTANT BILL FORWARD AND
STRONGLY SUPPORTED TODAY. AS
YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE AUTHOR, A
B 29 OR MAYBE 15 13 WOULD ALLOW
ELECTRICAL CORPORATIONS TO FILE
AN APPLICATION REQUESTING THE
PUC ISSUE OF FINANCING ORDER TO
AUTHORIZE THE RECOVERY OF
WILDFIRE RELATED EXPENSES. FOR
CONTACTS, BUT IN THE LAST COUPLE
OF YEARS WE'VE INCURRED
APPROXIMATELY 325 MILLION IN
INCREMENTAL WILDFIRE MITIGATION
AND VEGETATION. MANAGEMENT WORK
ARE WILDFIRE AND VEG MANAGEMENT
WORK IS NECESSARY EVERY YEAR.
IT'S NECESSARY TO KEEP OUR
SYSTEM SAFE. WE ALSO RECOGNIZE
IT AS IMPACTED AFFORDABILITY AND
WILL CONTINUE IN THE FUTURE.
MAYBE 15 13 PUTS AN IMPORTANT
TOOL IN THE PSC'S TOOLBOX TO
HELP SMOOTHIES NECESSARY COSTS
OVER TIME. THE LEGISLATURE IS
PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED
SECURITIZATION AS A TOOL FOR
SPREADING OUT THE RATE IMPACTS
OF OTHER UTILITY WILDFIRE COSTS
. SECURITIZATION ALLOWS
UTILITIES TO ACCESS FUNDS
IMMEDIATELY TO START OUR
IMPORTANT WORK THROUGH THE SALE
OF BONDS, WHILE SPREADING OUT
THE COST RECOVERY OF THESE
PROJECTS OVER THE APPROVED
SECURITIZATION PERIOD, THAT
SECURITIZATION PERIOD WOULD BE
APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION. BUT EXISTING LAW
DOESN'T ALLOW THE PUC TO
CONSIDER THE BENEFITS OF RATE
STABILITY WHEN EVALUATING
WHETHER TO ALLOW ELECTRICAL
CORPORATION TO USE THIS OPTION,
AND WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
CONSIDERATION AND AS YOUR
COMMITTEE IS HIGHLIGHTED, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO THINK ABOUT RATE
STABILITY AND BENEFITS TO
CUSTOMERS IN THE SHORT TERM, BUT
ALSO IN THE LONG TERM. I THINK
THAT WAS THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT. WE THINK IT WAS A
GOOD ONE. IN CLOSING. MAYBE 15
13 WILL HELP MANAGE SIGNIFICANT
RATE SPIKES CAUSED BY THE
IMMEDIATE NEED. TO HARDEN OUR
SYSTEM AGAINST THE THREATS OF
WILDFIRE AND CLIMATE CHANGE AND
ALSO DELIVERED TO OUR ON OUR
SHARED SAFETY AND AFFORDABILITY
GOALS. FOR THOSE REASONS. WE
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY AND URGE
YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU. I AM NOT
MARISSA, UM, ON BEHALF OF SAN
DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL, AS WELL, UM
, AS YOU KNOW, THE LAST SEVERAL
MONTHS, WE'VE HAD EXPERIENCE
WITH SIGNIFICANT HIGH BILLS. UM
OUR RATES HAVE BEEN INCREASING
AT A RATE HIGHER THAN INFLATION
. WE HAVE WILDFIRE COSTS WE HAVE
, AS WE JUST DISCUSSED ON THE
PREVIOUS BILL. A LOT OF ENERGY
IZATION COSTS THAT ARE HEADING
OUR WAY. THIS IS ONE OF THE
TOOLS THAT WE HAVE TO HELP
MITIGATE SOME OF THOSE RATE
IMPACTS. THERE'S A LOT OF
INVESTMENT. WE'RE GOING TO BE
INVESTING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS
WE MOVE TOWARDS THE 2045 2045
DECARBONIZATION GOALS. THIS IS
JUST ONE PIECE THAT WILL HELP US
MITIGATE THOSE RATE IMPACTS AND
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS
TO ADD THEIR SUPPORT HERE IN THE
ROOM? GOOD AFTERNOON, BRANDON
BECK, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
AND SUPPORT THE KING. GOOD
AFTERNOON BREAD, EVEN ENGLAND,
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
HERE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL? YES.
COME ON UP. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS BRUCE MIGNONI
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
LARGE ENERGY CONSUMERS
ASSOCIATION. BY WAY OF
INTRODUCTION. CLICK MEMBERS TAKE
THEIR LOAD AT EITHER SOME SUB
TRANSMISSION OR TRANSMISSION
LEVELS, SO THEY HAVE BILLS THAT
RANGE IN THE HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS, IF NOT OVER A MILLION
DOLLARS A MONTH. SO THESE ARE
LARGE ENERGY CONSUMERS AS THE
NAME IMPLIES. AND THEY PROVIDE,
UM GOODS AND SERVICES THAT WE
REQUIRE IN OUR MODERN SOCIETY,
INCLUDING MEDICAL. UH, GASSES,
FOOD DISTRIBUTION, COLD STORAGE,
CEMENT, STEEL, ETCETERA. AND WE
WANT TO POINT OUT. I THINK THE
ANALYSIS GOT THIS CORRECT IN
THAT, UM, SECURITIZATION CLICK A
RELUCTANTLY AGREED TO IN MR
HOLDEN'S 10 54 A FEW YEARS AGO.
UNDERSTANDING THE COSTS NEEDED
TO BE MITIGATED. BUT WE WERE
VERY CONSISTENT IN OUR
OPPOSITION TO O AND M COSTS
BEING SECURITIZED BECAUSE THOSE
ARE MAINTENANCE COSTS. THEY'RE
NOT CAPITAL COSTS WHERE THE
RATEPAYERS GET THE BENEFIT OVER
OVER TIME OF THE USE OF THAT
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THESE ARE
CURRENT COSTS THAT ARE TAKEN ON
TODAY. UM AND WE PARTICIPATED
THE CPUC AND WE SEE THIS AS KIND
OF GOING. AROUND THAT PROCESS,
WHERE THEY SPECIALIZE IN RATE
MAKING AND APPROVING RATES AND.
ONE OF THE MOST RECENT
PROCEEDINGS, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON ASKED TO SECURITIZE A
PORTION OF THEIR COSTS ON O AND
M AND THE PC REJECTED IT AS NOT
BEING JUSTIN. REASONABLE BECAUSE
THOSE COSTS THE SECURITIZATION
MAY FLATTEN RATES TODAY. BUT BY
SCE ZONE NUMBERS, THE FUTURE
RATES COULD BE AS HIGH AS 35%
HIGHER FOR FUTURE RATEPAYERS. SO
FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS WERE
PERSON. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
WANT TO ADD IN AN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL? SEEING NONE. I'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH. MICHELLE.
UM, I APPRECIATE THAT. YOU KNOW?
A LOT IS BEING PUT ON ENERGY
COMPANIES RIGHT NOW, RIGHT FOR
US TO BE ABLE TO MEET OUR ENERGY
GOALS. UM, AND THAT THAT YOU'VE
GOT TO BE ABLE TO RECOVER SOME
OF THIS THAT IT'S REALLY
CHALLENGING. UM, I SHARE SOME
CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THIS COULD
MEAN FOR RATEPAYERS, AND I'M
REALLY WORRIED THAT OUR RATES
CONTINUE TO JUST GO UP AND UP
AND UP AND UP. UM AND SO I, UM,
YOU KNOW, I HOPE THAT THERE'S
SOME DISCUSSION THAT THAT CAN
CONTINUE AROUND ADDRESSING SOME
OF THE CONCERNS THERE, BUT, UM,
HAPPY TO, YOU KNOW, SUPPORTED
TODAY AND HOPE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS GO FORWARD. THANK
YOU. OKAY UM, WELL, I'LL SAY
THAT I LIVE IN A HIGH WILDFIRE
ZONE AND, UM, MY CONSTITUENTS
ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT RATES.
SO THESE ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT
VEX MY CONSTITUENTS, WILDFIRES
AND HOW UTILITY RATES AND THEY
TEND TO INTERSECT. AND SO YOU
KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT BY
THE UTILITIES TO ENSURE THAT
THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES TO
PREVENT. THE LOSS OF LIFE AND
COMMUNITY THAT RESULTS FROM THE
WILDFIRES. UM AND YOU KNOW I'LL
BE SUPPORTING THE BILL, BUT I
THINK IT IS REALLY CRITICAL THAT
AS YEARS GO BY, WE ENSURE THAT
WE KEEP THOSE RATES AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT HURTS
CALIFORNIANS WHEN THEY GO UP
WITH THAT. I HAVE A MOTION.
SURE. SO MOVED EXACTLY, MR
CONNELLY SECONDS. DO YOU WANT TO
CLOSE? SORRY ACTUALLY ASKED FOR
AND I VOTE. CALL THE ROLL. ITEM
NUMBER 16 A B 15 13. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA PATERSON
BARRICADE KHN BARRICADE HANAI
CALDERON CARILLO! CHEN CONNELLY
CONNELLY I HOLDEN MATHIS
MURATSUCHI MARIA'S SANTIAGO
SHABA. SHALL VÚI TING WALLACE
WALLACE? AYE. THAT'S 50 WILL
KEEP THE ROLE OPEN. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR FLEXIBILITY, MISS
CALDERON TO KEEP US MOVING. MR.
BERMAN YOU ARE UP. WE'RE BACK IN
FILE ORDER WITH A B 6 43. ALMOST
GOT THERE, ALMOST ALMOST SO
CLOSE BROTHER. I WAS. AMAZON
RADIO COMMERCIAL. DOES DOES
ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SHARE THE
COMMITTEE? I'M DOING GREAT.
ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO PRESENT?
JUST CURIOUS IF THERE WERE
OPTIONS? I DIDN'T. WELL, I WISH
I SAW ANOTHER AUTHOR IN THE
ROOM. WE COULD JUST MOVE ON. NOT
KNOW MADAM CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES
WOULD LIKE TO START BY THANKING
THE COMMITTEE CONSULTANT FOR HER
WORK ON THIS BILL. I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS TODAY. AS AMENDED A B
6 43 DIRECTS THE CPUC TO OPEN A
PROCEEDING RELATED TO ELECTRIC
RULE 21 IN ORDER TO ADOPT
MECHANISMS TO ENFORCE
INTERCONNECTION TIMELINES,
REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN AND
PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY AND
CERTAINTY TO CUSTOMERS. THE BILL
ALSO DIRECTS THE CPUC TO ADDRESS
A NUMBER OF COMMON AREAS OF
SOLAR INTERCONNECT CONNECTION
DELAYS. CALIFORNIA WANTED TO
ROUGHLY TRIPLE ITS CURRENT
ELECTRICITY POWER CAPACITY IN
ORDER TO MEET OUR GOAL OF
BECOMING CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2045.
THIS MEANS THAT CALIFORNIA WILL
NEED TO SUSTAIN ITS EXPANSION OF
CLEAN ELECTRICITY GENERATION
CAPACITY AND A RECORD BREAKING
RATE FOR THE NEXT 25 YEARS. WE
KNOW HOW IMPORTANT AND TIMELY
SOLAR ADOPTION IS, AND YET SORT
SOLAR INTERCONNECTION IS RIDDLED
WITH PROLONGED DELAYS. AS WE'VE
HEARD TODAY, SOLAR CUSTOMERS
ACROSS THE STATE ARE
EXPERIENCING UNNECESSARY WAIT
TIMES AS THEY TRY TO GET THEIR
SYSTEMS CONNECTED. TO THE GRID.
THESE DELAYS ARE A SIGNIFICANT
BURDEN FOR CALIFORNIANS AND
CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES WERE
STRUGGLING TO GET MAYBE
SOMETIMES EVEN A RESPONSE FROM
THE INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES.
INTERCONNECTION DELAYS ALSO
STALL THE STATE'S CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT PROGRESS TOWARDS
CUTTING CARBON EMISSIONS FROM
GENERATING ELECTRICITY. THE
STATE HAS ESTABLISHED
INTERCONNECTION TIMELINES, BUT
THESE TIMELINES ARE NOT ENFORCED
AND THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY
MECHANISM FOR THE I R US OR THE
PUC. MAYBE 6 43 CREATES AN OPEN
AH CREATES AN OPEN IN PUBLIC,
STAKEHOLDER DRIVEN PROCESS TO
ENSURE WE REACH A FAIR, BALANCED
SOLUTION. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE AND WITH ME TODAY OR
MICHAEL LINDSAY OF ENERGY, SOLAR
AND BREAD, HE EVEN R OF
CALIFORNIA SOLAR AND STORAGE
ASSOCIATION. GREAT TWO MINUTES
EACH WHEN YOU'RE READY, THANK
YOU, MA'AM. CHARITY MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE BRAD HEFNER AND
THE POLICY DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA SOLAR IN STORAGE
ASSOCIATION, IN ADDITION TO MY
WORK, PARTICIPATING AT THE PUC
ON INTERCONNECTION ISSUES, I
TEND TO BE A POINT PERSON FOR
COMPLAINTS FROM CONTRACTORS AND
CUSTOMERS ABOUT UTILITY DELAYS
IN INTERCONNECTION, AND I CAN
TELL YOU I GET A LOT OF
COMPLAINTS. CUSTOMERS ARE UPSET
AND FRUSTRATED BY THE DELAYS,
AND IT CAUSES AND INCONSISTENCY
FROM THE UTILITIES. IT CAUSES
FINANCIAL HARM TO THE CUSTOMERS
. PEOPLE TEND TO BORROW MONEY TO
BUILD THINGS LIKE SOLAR AND
STORAGE. AND IF YOU HAVE TO PAY
THOSE LOANS WITHOUT BEING ABLE
TO USE THE FACILITIES BECAUSE OF
UTILITY DELAYS, YOUR DOUBLE
PAYING AND ITS FINANCIAL HARM
THAT REALLY UPSETS CUSTOMERS.
THERE ARE TIMELINES IN RULE 21
FOR VARIOUS STEPS IN THE PROCESS
THERE WELL OUTLINED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS OF THIS BILL,
THE UTILITIES HAVE CERTAIN
NUMBER OF DAYS TO DO CERTAIN
STEPS OF THE PROJECT PROCESS,
AND WE CAN LIVE WITH THOSE
NUMBERS, BUT THEY'RE NOT
ENFORCED. THERE IS THERE ARE NO
CONSEQUENCES FOR REPEATED
SYSTEMATIC FAILURE TO MEET THOSE
TIMELINES. ANOTHER THING I'D
LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT
CUSTOMERS PAY FOR THE UTILITY
TIME TO PROCESS AND STUDY THE
INTERCONNECTION REVIEWS THAT
THERE IS AN INTERCONNECTION
APPLICATION FEE THAT IS BASED ON
THE REAL COST OF THE UTILITIES
TO PROCESS AND STUDY
INTERCONNECTION REQUESTS, SO
WE'RE PAYING FOR THE SERVICE AND
NOT GETTING IT. CURRENTLY
UTILITIES HAVE THE ABILITY TO
ADJUST THOSE INTERCONNECTION
APPLICATION FEES IF THEIR COSTS
GO UP TO REALLY MEET THE
TIMELINES IN RULE, 21 UH, THERE
WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION OF
THIS BY A STAKEHOLDER WORKING
GROUP AT THE C P U C FOUR YEARS
AGO, AND WE GOT CONSENSUS ON THE
AND GETTING, UH, MORE DETAILED
REPORTING OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH
UTILITIES ARE MEETING. THE
TIMELINES ARE FAILING TO MEET
THEM. WE DID NOT GET ANY
CONSENSUS ON WHAT TO DO
AFTERWARDS. AND THE ONLY THING
THAT EXISTED IS A WORKSHOP AFTER
SOME PERIOD OF REPORTING THERE
WILL BE A WORKSHOP AT THE PUC
AND THAT HAS FINALLY BEEN
SCHEDULED FOR THIS SUMMER. AND
THAT'S GOOD, BUT WORKSHOPS COME
AND GO WITH NO ACTION AND WE
NEED THE LEGISLATURE TO DIRECT
THE PUC TO ADOPT ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISMS FOR RULE. 21
TIMELINES. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MICHAEL
LINDSAY. I'M A PROJECT MANAGER
AT N. G. N G IS A COMPANY WE
PARTNER WITH CUSTOMERS TO
PROVIDE RENEWABLE ENERGY
SOLUTIONS. JUST WANTED TO SHARE
A REAL LIFE EXAMPLE TODAY OF A
SPECIFIC PROJECT WE HAVE WITH
YUCAIPA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT.
THE WATER DISTRICT SERVES 51,000
RESIDENTS IN SAN BERNARDINO AND
RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, PROVIDING
DRINKING WATER, RECYCLED WATER
AND SEWER SERVICES. IN RECENT
YEARS, THE DISTRICT HAS HAD MANY
UTILITY OUTAGES FROM FIRES AND
PS PS EVENTS. BECAUSE OF THIS,
THEY PARTNERED WITH N G FOR A
MICRO GRID, SOLAR AND BATTERY
BACKUP SYSTEM. UM THE INTERNET
CONNECTED APPLICATIONS FOR THE
PROJECTS WERE SUBMITTED IN JUNE
OF 2021. THE UTILITY DID NOT
COMPLETE INITIAL REVIEW OF THESE
APPLICATIONS UNTIL MARCH OF THIS
YEAR, ALMOST TWO YEARS. UM IT
TOOK OVER 20 MEETINGS WITH WITH
THE UTILITY AND THE NUMEROUS
EMAILS TO COMPLETE THE INITIAL
REVIEW. AND NOW WE HAVE BEGUN
THE UTILITY ENGINEERING STUDIES
THAT WILL TAKE MUCH MORE MONTHS
. UH AND THEN, AFTER THAT, WE
HAVE THE ACTUAL TIMELINE OF THEM
CONSTRUCTING THE UTILITY
UPGRADES THEY WILL REQUIRE, UM,
THE 2.5 YEARS IT WILL TAKE TO
COMPLETE THE REVIEW OF THIS
INITIAL REVIEW AND, UH AND THE
ENGINEERING STUDIES IS GOING TO
INCLUDE INCLUDE EXCUSE ME IS
GOING TO RESULT IN A MASSIVE
COST INCREASE LAWSON SAVINGS FOR
THE CUSTOMER AND CONTINUED RISK
OF OUTAGES FOR THE WATER
DISTRICT. MICROGRIDS ARE A PATH
CUSTOMERS AND COMPANIES ARE
PURSUING, AND IT'S NOT UNIQUE TO
THIS PROJECT IF THE UTILITY HAD
COMPLETED THE INITIAL
INTERCONNECTION APPLICATION
REVIEW IN A TIMELY FASHION.
INSTEAD OF PARTIAL REVIEWS AND
DELAYED RESPONSES, THE UTILITY
COULD HAVE STARTED THEIR
ENGINEERING STUDY 18 MONTHS AGO.
THE PROJECT WOULD BE OPERATIONAL
TODAY AND THEIR CUSTOMERS WILL
NOT HAVE A RISK OF AN OUTAGE AND
THEY'RE DRINKING WATER WOULD BE
SAFE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE IN THE ROOM WANT TO ADD
ON IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL?
MADAM MADAM CHAIR JOHN WHITE
WITH A CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN IS
COMMITTEES HEARD TODAY. ON OTHER
OCCASIONS. THIS INTERCONNECTION
PROBLEM IS A NIGHTMARE, AND IT'S
UP AND DOWN THE SYSTEM. IT'S
EVERYTHING FROM TRUCKSTOP
BATTERY CHARGERS TO ORGANIZATION
AND SUPPORT. PLEASE, SIR, YOU'RE
OKAY. SUPPORT THE BILL JOHN
WHITE, CLEAN POWER CAMP. HMM
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS DELANEY
HUNTER ON BEHALF OF THE
BIOENERGY ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA AND THE SOLAR ENERGY
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, BOTH IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HI
KIM STONE OF STONE ADVOCACY. I
REPRESENT COUNCIL BUT HAVE BEEN
ASKED BY A NUMBER OF
ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT TO LIST
THIS. I'M GOING TO GO SUPER
FAST. ECO ACTIVE ONE. OH ONE
ROMERO INSTITUTE CLIMATE REALITY
PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER,
SUSTAINABLE MILL VALLEY CLIMATE
MOBILIZATION. SAN DIEGO
EXTINCTION REBELLION, SAN
FRANCISCO BAY AREA OIL AND GAS
ACTION NETWORK. MARENGO BASIN
CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION,
SUNFLOWER ALLOWANCE BAIT. 3 50
BAY AREA ACTION, INDIVISIBLE
EAST BAY. THE CLIMATE REALITY
PROJECT, SILICON VALLEY
WELLSTONE DEMOCRATIC CLUB,
ALAMEDA COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
, SUNRISE BERRY AREA. AZTEC
SOLAR SUNRUN TERRA VERITY, SO,
NOVA SUNPOWER JKB ENERGY. N G
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS.
NEW CHEN ENERGY SIERRA CLUB,
CALIFORNIA SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
DEMOCRATIC CLUB ALBANY CLIMATE
ACTION COALITION RESOURCE
RENEWAL INSTITUTE. SOLIDARITY
INFO SERVICE, RECALL IT ENERGY
SANTA CRUZ CLIMATE ACTION
NETWORK, MCGEE, SPALDING
NEIGHBORS AND ACTION CENTER FOR
I THINK HE WAS JUST HERE.
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 1000
GRANDMOTHERS FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS. THANK YOU MEAN YOU
SPOKE FOR 1000 GRANDMOTHERS, SO
IT'S PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. HI.
ELLEN MCGILL REPRESENTING SAN
DIEGO COMMUNITY POWER IN
SUPPORT. CATHERINE BRANDENBURG
ON BEHALF OF SONOMA CLEAN POWER
IN SUPPORT. BEN SCHWARTZ ON
BEHALF OF THE CLEAN COALITION
AND SUPPORT THANK YOU AND WE
HAVE A PRIMARY WITNESSES OR
WITNESS IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON AGAIN. BRANDON E BOOK
WITH PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC, US
AND THE OTHER UTILITIES HAVING
OPPOSED POSITION ON THE BILL IN
PRINT, BECAUSE IT WAS WOULD BE
OVERLY ONEROUS FOR REPORTING IT
WOULD HAVE UNREASONABLE
TIMELINES AND JUST TO CLARIFY
THE RULE, 21 PROCEED AND ALL THE
TIME LINES IN THERE. THEY WERE
KIND OF PICKED OUT OF A HAT.
THERE ARE METRICS IN A WORKSHOP
SETTING THAT EVERYONE AGREED IN
A COLLABORATIVE FASHION. WHAT
WOULD WORK? SO WE'RE WORKING
TOWARDS THOSE AND WE'RE
REPORTING AND THE DATA FROM THAT
IS IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND
ON AVERAGE, WE STILL CONNECT
SMALL ROOFTOP SOLAR WITHIN FIVE
BUSINESS DAYS. UM WE TYPICALLY
RECEIVE ABOUT 100,000
APPLICATIONS FOR ROOFTOP SOLAR
EVERY YEAR, AND WE'VE HAD
100,000 SO FAR THIS YEAR BECAUSE
OF THE CHANGES IN THAT BUILDING
TARIFF, SO THERE'S A BIG BACKLOG
CURRENTLY WILL HOPE TO WORK
THROUGH THAT. AND SO FINALLY WE
ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING
THE AMENDMENTS AND POSSIBLY
MIGHT BE ON NEUTRAL JUST
DEPENDING ON WHAT THE LANGUAGE
LOOKS LIKE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. LARA PERON BEHALF OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON WILL
BE REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS AND
HOPEFULLY GO TO NEUTRAL AS WELL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR
MEMBERS. LORDS ALIEN WITH
SENEGAL. GAS AND ELECTRIC ALSO
WILL BE REVIEWING AMENDMENTS AND
HOPING TO SUPPORT AFTERWARDS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. SURE YES
. DESCRIBE IT. LIKE I DON'T
THINK YOU WERE HERE EARLIER
BECAUSE YOU WERE OUT MISSING
YOUR TURN. BUT UM, THAT HURTS.
BUT WHAT I WAS SAYING IS, UM, NO
. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. IT'S A
HUGE, HUGE ISSUE. UM AND
SOMETHING I HAVE HEARD FROM
NEARLY EVERYONE WHO'S COME,
JIMMY, EITHER AROUND CONNECTING
UP SOLAR. UM YOU KNOW, BATTERY,
UM, BATTERY STORAGE SITES OR
HOUSING? UM AND ALSO JUST I HAVE
YOU KNOW, I WAS LOOKING AT SOME
OF THE TIMELINES. I DON'T KNOW
IF THERE'S STILL CONVERSATIONS
GOING ON ABOUT FINE TUNING SOME
OF THOSE AND MAKING SURE THERE'S
A BROAD CONSENSUS AROUND THEM
BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS THE
ONLY THING THAT I WANTED TO I'M
JUST CHECKING ON. BUT YOU KNOW,
WE CAN'T BE WAITING 1 TO 4 YEARS
, UM, FOR HOUSING TO GET ONLINE
OR ENERGY WHEN WE'RE
TRANSITIONING TO NET ZERO TO
COME ONLINE, AND SO I THINK THIS
IS THE MOST YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE
MOST URGENT ISSUES WE CAN DEAL
WITH HERE. APPRECIATE THAT.
THANKS, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY
WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AND
YOU KNOW IF THE TIME LINES NEED
TO BE RE EVALUATED, THEN YEAH,
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT CAN
HAPPEN. BUT IF WE HAVE
TIMELINES, THEY SHOULD BE
FOLLOWED. AND SO WE'RE JUST
ASKING THAT THE TIMELINES THAT
CURRENTLY EXIST BE FOLLOWED.
THANK YOU. THAT SOUNDS SO
REASONABLE TRY ALTHOUGH I
PERSONALLY IMMIGRATING MY
PURCHASE OF SOLAR RIGHT NOW, I
DO THINK SOLAR ROOFTOP SOLAR IS
REALLY IMPORTANT AND OBVIOUSLY
WITH RELIABILITY ISSUES AS THEY
ARE. UM WE NEED TO MAKE SURE
WE'RE GETTING AS MUCH ENERGY ON
THE GREATEST QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE
BEFORE THE SUMMER HEAT HITS. SO
UM, WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? MOVED BY MASSIVE Ó
SECONDED BY MR HOLDEN. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR I VOTE. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. ITEM NUMBER THREE A. B 643
. THE MOTION IS DUE PASSES
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
GARCIA PATERSON BARRICADE KHN
BARRICADE HANAI, CALDERON KOREA
. CHEN CONNELLY CONNELLY. I
HOLDEN HOLDEN. I MATHIS
MURATSUCHI REYES SANTIAGO SZABO
BY VÚI TING. WALLACE WALLACE.
AYE. THAT'S 550 WILL KEEP THE
ROLE OPEN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MR BERMAN. MR GABRIEL, YOU'RE UP
NEXT. THERE GOES THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS A B 14 82.
THEY. ALWAYS GOOD LUCK.
MR GABRIEL WHEN YOU'RE READY I
HAVE A WITNESS WAITING FOR OUR.
HERE HE COMES. HERE WE GO. ALL
RIGHT, WE'RE READY, OKAY? NO
PROBLEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MADAM CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES. I
WANT TO START BY ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. I WANT TO
THANK AH, THE COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR THEIR THOUGHTFUL FEEDBACK
AND ASSISTANCE ON THE BELL AND,
UH, ALSO, THANK YOU FOR THE
WHIMSICAL HEADINGS IN THE
ANALYSIS. WE APPRECIATE THAT. SO
UM AS, UH AS ALL OF YOU ARE WELL
AWARE WE HAVE COMMITTED TO
ELECTRIFY OUR TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM TO HELP MEET OUR
AMBITIOUS CLIMATE GOALS. AND WE
ARE, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY WAY
WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT IS BY
BUILDING A LOT MORE EVIE
INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE STATE. WE
NEED ABOUT APPROXIMATELY 1.2
MILLION CHARGERS WE CURRENTLY
HAVE ABOUT 70,000 CHARGERS. SO
WE ARE A LONG WAY FROM GETTING
TO WHERE WE WANT TO BE. AND ONE
OF THE, UM SIGNIFICANT
CHALLENGES. THERE IS DELAYS IN
ENERGY IZATION AND, AS WAS NOTED
BY SOME OF THE SUPPORTERS OF
THIS BILL COST APPROXIMATELY 50%
MORE ON AVERAGE TO DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTING TV STATION IN
CALIFORNIA THAN TO BUILD A
SIMILAR STATION. ANOTHER STATE,
AND A LOT OF THAT IS
DISTRIBUTED, DRIVEN BY PERMANENT
DELAYS AND ENERGY IZATION DELAYS
. AND SO THIS BILL AIMS TO
CREATE UNIFORMITY ACROSS
CALIFORNIA BY REQUIRING THAT ALL
PUBLIC ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS
BE ENERGIZED WITHIN 125 DAYS OF
AN APPLICATION. THIS IS AND I
SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. AS THE
ANALYSIS NOTES ARE OUR WAY OF
STARTING A CONVERSATION AROUND
WHAT THAT TIMELINE SHOULD BE.
THE BILL HAS BUILT INTO IT A
PUBLIC PROCESS FOR FEEDBACK. ÁP.
CLICK PROCESS TO ALLOW FOR
FLEXIBILITY. BUT REALLY, WE NEED
TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT A
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT CREATE
UNCERTAINTY SO THAT THOSE WHO
ARE GOING TO BUILD AND DEPLOY
THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE
DESPERATELY NEED CAN DO. SO WITH
THAT KNOWLEDGE, AND WITH THAT
COMFORT AND WITH THAT CERTAINTY,
SO WE ARE ALREADY FAR BEHIND.
BUT I THINK BY GETTING ALL OF
THE STAKEHOLDERS ALIGNED ON THE
SAME PAGE, WE CAN DO THAT. UM, I
WILL NOTE THAT WE HAD SOME LATE
OPPOSITION THAT THAT CAME IN.
BUT WE ARE FIRMLY COMMITTED TO
WORKING WITH THE POUSADA E I O U
S EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN THIS
PROCESS TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE.
I THINK WE ALL SHARE SIMILAR
GOALS AND WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT
HOW WE CAN WORK TOGETHER. GIVEN
THE PRACTICAL REALITIES, GIVEN
THE DEMANDS ON, UM ON ON THE
POUSADA IN ON THE I O U. S, FOR
THIS AND FOR EVERYTHING ELSE
ABOUT HOW WE CAN WORK TOGETHER
TO COME UP WITH A CONSISTENT
UNIFORM PROCESS THAT IS GOING TO
WORK AND IS GOING TO GIVE US THE
CERTAINTY WE NEED. SO WITH THAT
I HAVE WITH ME TO TESTIFY RYAN
MCCARTHY FROM ELECTRIC VIA
AMERICA AND WOULD RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS RYAN MCCARTHY. I'M HERE
ON BEHALF OF ELECTRIFY AMERICA.
WE SUPPORT A B 14 82. UM
ELECTRIFY AMERICA IS THE
NATION'S LARGEST OPEN DC, FAST
CHARGING NETWORK FOR ELECTRIC
VEHICLES JUST TO ADD A COUPLE
ADDITIONAL STATISTICS HERE, UM
AS OF THE END OF Q 3 2022 NEWS
SERVICE UTILITY INTERCONNECTION
PROCESS FOR ELECTRIFY AMERICA
STATIONS AVERAGED 190 BUSINESS
DAYS OR ABOUT 38 WEEKS IN
CALIFORNIA. SINCE THAT DATA WAS
REPORTED, THOSE NUMBERS HAVE
BEEN GOING UP. OUTSIDE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR REFERENCE. THIS
IS 117 BUSINESS DAYS, AND SINCE
THAT DATA HAS BEEN REPORTED,
THOSE NUMBERS ARE GOING DOWN. WE
REALIZED THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF PRIORITIES AND ISSUES THAT
UTILITIES HAVE TO ADDRESS. BUT
WE BELIEVE 125 BUSINESS DAYS IS
A REASONABLE EXPECTATION FOR
ENERGIZING EVIE CHARGING
STATIONS IN CALIFORNIA, AND IT
WOULD BE POWERFUL AND HELPFUL TO
HAVE A STATEWIDE CONSISTENT
GUIDELINE TOWARDS THAT EFFECT.
UM SO FOR THESE REASONS, WE ARE
JUST SUPPORTED THE BILL. AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK
YOU. SER MINUTES WHEN YOU'RE
READY, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS
DAVID BOND, REPRESENTING THE
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
ASSOCIATION WITH AN ASSOCIATION
OF 20 CHARGING COMPANIES AND
JUST DON'T NEED TO REITERATE,
BUT THE ENERGY REALIZATION ISSUE
IS ONE OF THE MAJOR CHALLENGES
OF GETTING CHARGES UP AND ONLINE
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. SO WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE
HERE AND THERE ARE THE ONES TO
ADD THEIR SUPPORT ON NOTHING.
NOBODY. DO YOU HAVE ANY PRIMARY
OPPOSITION? APPRECIATE THE
PARTICIPATION IN DENIM DAY, TWO
MINUTES EACH WHEN YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
PATRICK WELSH WITH THE
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES
ASSOCIATION ARE PUBLIC POWER
MEMBERS ARE WORKING WITH THE
COMMUNITIES TO PROVIDE THE
REBATES AND FACILITATE THE
INSTALLATION OF EVERY CHARGERS.
THE SAME TIME THERE
DECARBONIZATION THEIR POWER
SYSTEMS AND REWIRING THE ENTIRE
GRID. APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS
FROM THE AUTHOR ABOUT COMMITMENT
TO RESOLVE OUR CONCERNS. WE ARE
NOT AN OFFICIAL OPPOSITION, BUT
WE DO HAVE STRONG CONCERNS WITH
THE BILL. WE SUBMITTED
AMENDMENTS TO THE AUTHOR AND
COMMITTEE THREE WEEKS AGO, WE
WERE HOPEFUL THAT THOSE WILL BE
ACCEPTED IN THEIR CURRENT FORM
OR IN SOME FORM. THE BILL IS
IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IN OUR
VIEW, PROPOSES A ONE SIZE FITS
ALL APPROACH THAT DOESN'T
REFLECT THE UNIQUE COMMUNITIES
THAT ARE MEMBERS SERVE THE BILL
ASSERTS AN INTERIM CPU DECISION
. CPUC DECISION AND PUBLIC
PUBLIC POWER UTILITIES, WHICH
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PUC
JURISDICTION. THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS AND I'LL READ NOTES. IT
IS NOT CLEAR HOW MUCH IF ANY,
INPUT THE POUSADA ALLOWED DURING
THE PROCESS OR HOW
REPRESENTATIVE THE 125 DAY
TIMELINE IS OF PURE, YOU ENERGY
IZATION EFFORTS ARE DEFICIENCIES
. THE APPLICATION OF AN INTERIM
C BèC DECISION WITH CURLY
ACKNOWLEDGED DATA LIMITATIONS TO
A SEPARATE SET OF UTILITIES,
WHICH ARE LARGELY INDEPENDENT OF
THE CPC. RAISES QUESTIONS AS TO
THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE
TIMELINE PROPOSED BY THE BILL
POUSADA NOT INVOLVED IN CUZ CPUC
PROCESS AND WE AGREE IT IS NOT
APPROPRIATE IN THE CURRENT FORM
TO EXTEND IT TO P. O U S. THE
COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS ALSO NOTES
THAT STAFF TIME AND WORKFORCE
LIMITATIONS, PARTICULARLY FOR
SMALLER PUGH USED AS WELL AS
SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES SUCH AS
TROOP TRANSFORMERS. PRIMARY
DRIVERS OF PROJECT DURATION. WE
THINK THE BILL NEEDS TO REFLECT
THOSE REAL WORLD CONDITIONS ARE
AMENDMENTS DO THAT JUST TO GIVE
YOU A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. WE HAVE
A MEMBER UTILITY THAT IS WORKING
WITH TESLA IN CHARGE. NEW TESLA
CHARGERS. THEY CANNOT GET THE
TRANSFORMER THAT THEY NEED FOR
THAT BANK OF CHARGERS UNTIL 2025
THAT IS A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IS
OUTSIDE OF THE UTILITIES CONTROL
, AND WE THINK IT IS A LITTLE
BIT UNFAIR TO HOLD THOSE
UTILITIES TO AN AVERAGE ENERGY
IZATION TIMELINE BECAUSE OF
THOSE REASONS, SO HOPEFULLY TO
WORK WITH AUTHORS OFFICE LOOK
FORWARD TO SITTING DOWN WITH HIM
AND HIS STAFF AND THE COMMITTEE
TO WORK THAT OUT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GREAT ADAM SMITH
SENDING CALIFORNIA EDISON AND
RESPECTFUL AND I WANT TO STRESS
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO A B 14
82 INFORMED THE COMMITTEE AND I
THINK THIS IS THE MENTION OF THE
LATE OPPOSITION. WE DIDN'T HAVE
A READ, AND I THINK THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS KIND OF
AGREED WITH THAT READ THAT WE
WEREN'T ACTUALLY IMPLICATED IN
TIMELINES PORTIONS OF THIS BILL,
AND SO ONCE WE REALIZED THROUGH
THE COMMITTEE AMENDS PROCESS WE
WOULD BE BROUGHT IN. THAT'S WHAT
SORT OF SPAWNED. I THINK. THE
JOINT IOU OPPOSITION LETTER THAT
WE SUBMITTED UM, THIS BILL, I
THINK AS YOU HEARD WOULD BE
CODIFYING 125 DAY ENERGY IZATION
TARGET THAT IS IN A DRAFT BèC
RESOLUTION. YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOT
IT RIGHT HERE. DRAFTED RIGHT AT
THE TOP. IT'S ON THE TOP OF
EVERY SINGLE PAGE. THE DRAFT
RESOLUTION AND COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS POINT OUT THAT THE PUC
DIDN'T HAVE DATA TO SET CLEAR
ENERGY IZATION TARGETS AT BEST
125 DAYS IS A MILDLY INFORMED
GUESTS. IN THEIR OWN WORDS AND
FROM THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AT THE
PC PUT FORTH, IT SAYS THEY DO
NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT DATA TO
DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE
PERMANENT AVERAGE SERVICE.
ENERGY IZATION TIMELINE AT THIS
TIME AND I WOULD POSITIVE THE
PUC DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THEY HAD
THE ABILITY TO START WITH
PERMANENT NUMBER. I DON'T KNOW
WHY THE LEGISLATURE WOULD VOTE
ON THEM TODAY. WE THINK PUTTING
ANY NUMBER INABILITY, PREMATURE
, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT IS IN THE
DRAFT PC DOCUMENTS AND CLEARLY
NOT SUPPORTED BY DATA IN THE
COMMISSION'S ON WORDS, THAT THIS
RESOLUTION IS GREAT, THOUGH, AND
ACTUALLY STARTS TAKING US
TOWARDS THE GOALS THAT ARE
OUTLINED IN THIS BILL. IT
DIRECTS US TO GO OUT. COLLECT
DATA HOLD WORKSHOPS REPORT BACK
TO THE PC CAN SET A STANDARD
TIMELINE FOR THE TV CONNECTIONS
WITH THE BENEFIT OF A FULL YEAR
OF IMPLEMENTATION DATA, THE PC
CAN ISSUE ANOTHER RESOLUTION
ADOPTING A PERMIT SERVICE ENERGY
IZATION TIMELINE. MAYBE OUT IN
2024. THAT'S THE REGULATORY PATH
WE ARE ON, AND IT'S SET. IT'S
GOING TO SET INFORMED DATA
INFORMED TIMELINES FOR
ENERGIZING EVIE PROJECTS.
THERE'S A CLEAR PATH AT THE PC
TO GET TOWARDS THIS GOAL AND TO
PUSH A KIND OF A HOLISTIC LOOK
AT ALL INTER CONDITION.
TIMELINES WHICH I THINK WE'VE
GOT A NUMBER OF BILLS ON TODAY.
I'M GOING TO CLOSE RIGHT HERE IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, BECAUSE
IT REALLY IS RESPECTFULLY. WE
COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE GOAL
OF GETTING MORE EVS ON THE ROAD,
MORE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE OUT THERE IN THE
WORLD, BUT I THINK THE BILLS
MATURE. TIMELINES AREN'T BASED
ON DATA AND THERE'S ALREADY A PC
PROCESS TO DEAL WITH THESE
ISSUES UNDERWAY FOR THOSE
REASONS. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU. I
NEEDED ANY ADDITIONAL OPPOSITION
IN THE ROOM. NAME ORGANIZATION
POSITION, PLEASE. MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS GREGG COOK,
REPRESENTING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
POWER AGENCY. I'D LIKE TO
ASSOCIATE MY SELF WITH THE
COMMENTS MADE BY CMU A. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR MEMBERS
LORD ZION, WITH SENEGAL,
GASOLINE AND ELECTRIC AND
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON.
BRANDON IBEX HAVE THE GAS
ELECTRIC LINER COMMENTS WITH US?
OKAY, ALLISON. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. OKAY, SEEING YOUR
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BACK TO
COMMITTEE. YEAH. MR CONNOLLY IN
CANADA, JUST, YOU KNOW, RESPONSE
TO THE OPPOSITION. YEAH SO I'LL
JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, WE REACHED
OUT TO FOLKS AHEAD OF TIME
BEFORE I INTRODUCE THEM. LET
THEM KNOW THAT ARE
UNDERSTANDABLE. YOU KNOW, WE
INTENDED TO INCLUDE BOTH I O U S
AND P O USING THIS. UM AND THEN
YOU KNOW, TOOK THE AMENDMENTS TO
CLARIFY THAT AT THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE,
SO WE WERE VERY, VERY
TRANSPARENT ABOUT THAT. UM YOU
KNOW, THE 1 25 DAYS IS NOT
SOMETHING WE JUST PULLED OUT OF
THIN AIR. UM THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT YOU KNOW IS THE ANALYSIS
POINTS OUT THE E V INDUSTRY
RECOMMENDED 90 DAYS THE I O U S
PROPOSED 260 DAYS. THE PUC
LOOKED AT THIS AND SAID, WELL,
THIS IS SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE
THAT MAYBE PEOPLE CAN WORK
TOWARDS BUT I DO AGREE. WE NEED
MORE DATA. WE NEED TO HAVE A
PROCESS HERE. AND SO THE POINT
HERE IS TO BEGIN A CONVERSATION
AROUND THAT WE ARE VERY, VERY
COMMITTED TO TALKING WITH ALL
FOLKS UNDERSTANDING. THE REALITY
IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO ASK PEOPLE
TO DO THINGS THAT ARE
IMPOSSIBLE. YOU KNOW, THE BILL
ALREADY HAS CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS.
WE ARE OPEN TO HEARING OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE MIGHT
NEED TO BE EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE
YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO BE
REALISTIC AND WE WANT TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WHAT THE
DEMANDS ARE OF DIFFERENT SIZE
UTILITIES AND WHAT THEY CAN DO.
BUT WITH THAT, WE DO THINK THE
SORT OF OVERLYING IDEA HERE OF
HAVING A UNIFORM CONSISTENT
STATEWIDE STANDARD THAT
EVERYBODY CAN FEEL GOOD ABOUT,
IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT'S AN
IOU OR POU THAT'S SERVING THAT
AREA. THAT CONSISTENCY I THINK
WILL BE ESSENTIAL FOR THE
DEPLOYMENT OF THIS TECHNOLOGY,
AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'RE
SAYING. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
THE INDUSTRY SIGN RIGHT AND THEY
HAVE DATA. THEY HAVE DATA TO
SUPPORT THAT. SO WE ARE. I THINK
YOU'RE HEARING RESPECTFUL. TOÀN
BOTH WAYS WE ARE 1000% COMMITTED
TO SITTING DOWN TALKING WITH
FOLKS UNDERSTANDING HOW WE COULD
DO THIS, BUT YOU KNOW WE'RE
BEHIND ON MEETING OUR GOALS
HERE, AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO
SLOW THE PROCESS DOWN ANYMORE. I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO GET INVOLVED.
PUSH FOLKS TOWARDS TOGETHER AND
AGAIN. WE'VE ALREADY BUILT
FLEXIBILITY INTO THIS PROCESS.
ROBUST OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION, ROBUST
OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY CHANGE
THINGS FROM YEAR TO YEAR. I
CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE, AND SO, UM
, YOU KNOW, I HOPE WE'LL HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO
MOVE. THIS BILL PASSED THE
COMMITTEE AND CONTINUE TO HAVE
THOSE CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE WE
WANT SOMETHING THAT WORKS, BUT
ULTIMATELY THERE'S SOMETHING
THAT PUSHES US TOWARDS OUR
GOALS. I APPRECIATE THAT AN ARMY
FOR APPROVAL. THANK YOU, MR
CONNELLY. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND?
OKAY OH, YEAH. NO, OF COURSE. I
JUST WANT TO GET THE SECOND
CALDERON. WE'RE MOVING ORIENT
ALONG HERE. SO UM, SOME OF THE
MEMBER WE TALKED BRIEFLY EARLIER
, AND I JUST LEARNED OF THE LATE
AMENDMENTS AND, UM, I UNDERSTAND
THAT THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE
BILL JUST WAS DEALT WITH P O US.
BUT THEN IN THE AMENDMENTS
PULLED IN THE I O U. S. AND SO
ARE YOU COMMITTED THAT YOU WOULD
CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND I APPRECIATE
THAT. SO I THAT BEING SET OFF
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MISS CALLED
AROUND YOU GOOD. OKAY? SHE'S
GOOD, SO SEEING NO ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
MR RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED I
VOTE. THANK YOU. I KEEP
FORGETTING TO LET PEOPLE CLOSE
TRYING TO MOVE US ALONG. LET'S
CALL THE ROLL. MHM NUMBER FIVE A
B 14 82. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA PATERSON
. BARRICADE HAM BARRICADE HANAI
CALLED A ROOM CALLED HER OWN I.
KOREA CHAN. CONNELLY. CONNOLLY I
HOLDEN MATHIS, SOUCI REYES
SANTIAGO SHIAVO VÚI TING WALLACE
WALLACE NOT VOTING. THAT'S FOUR.
WE WILL KEEP THE ROLE OPEN.
THANK YOU, MR FRIEDMAN, YOU ARE
UP. A B 9 14. MISTER TY. SEE
YOU. YOU'RE NEXT. GOOD AFTERNOON
, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS. WE
ACCEPT THE SUGGESTED COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS ON THE TOP OF PAGE
SIX OF THE ANALYSIS. THE
ANALYSIS ALSO NOTES THAT I TOOK
AN AMENDMENT IN THE NATURAL
RESOURCES COMMITTEE THAT REMOVES
THE SEQUEL EXEMPTION IN THE
BILL. 89 14 IS AN ATTEMPT TO GET
US MOVING QUICKER IN TERMS OF
BEING ABLE TO TRANSMIT RENEWABLE
ENERGY. IT WOULD ESTABLISH A TWO
YEAR TIME LIMIT FROM THE DATE OF
THE APPLICATION THAT THE
APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR A LEAD
STATE AGENCY TO COMPLETE THE
SECRET REVIEW AND APPROVE OR
DENY AN APPLICATION FOR
ELECTRICAL IN FOR AN ELECTRICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT. WE ALL
KNOW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS AN
EMERGENCY, AND THIS WILL HELP
SPEED UP THE PROCESS. UM WE I
BELIEVE HAVE NO REGISTERED
OPPOSITE. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY
THAT, BUT WE HAD BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT IN THE LAST COMMITTEE,
AND THE GOAL IS TO WORK WITH THE
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE AND
WITH STAKEHOLDERS ON LIMITING
THE SEQUEL EXEMPTION TO WHERE
IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY THAT IT
HAS STRONG GUARDRAILS, BUT ALSO
HELPS OUR UTILITIES MOVE FORWARD
WITH THEIR PROJECTS MORE
QUICKLY. AND WITH THAT WE HAVE A
COUPLE OF WITNESSES WILL TESTIFY
. YOU, MISS FRIEDMAN. TWO
MINUTES EACH. YOU'VE BOTH BEEN
UP HERE. YOU KNOW THE DRILL.
THANKS. YEAH THANK YOU. ACTING
CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
ADAM SMITH'S AND THE CALIFORNIA
EDISON IN SUPPORT FOR A B 9 14.
OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, THE
STATE HAS DRAMATICALLY INCREASED
THE AMBITION OF OUR CLIMATE
GOALS AND EDISON SUPPORTS THAT
WE'VE ENSHRINED CARBON
NEUTRALITY IN LAW PASSED
REGULATIONS IN THE STATE TO
DRAMATICALLY CONVERT FLEETS AND
BUSSES OVER TO ELECTRICITY.
MASSIVE ELECTRIFICATION IS
COMING. WE NEED TO PREPARE OUR
GRID FOR CARBON NEUTRALITY. WE
NEED TO DO THAT IN A WAY THAT'S
RESPONSIVE TO OUR CUSTOMERS'
ACCORDING TO OUR FORECAST FROM
THE STATE ELECTRICITY NEEDS, SO
THAT'S DEMAND INCREASE 40%
RELATIVE TODAY BY 2035. THAT'S
12 YEARS FROM NOW IT TAKES US
CANDIDLY ON AVERAGE, ABOUT 10
YEARS TO BUILD THE TRANSMISSION
LINE 10 YEARS TO BUILD A
SUBSTATION. THAT'S A LOT OF WORK
THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN A SHORT
AMOUNT OF TIME AND THAT
ELECTRICITY DEMAND JUST RAMPS UP
BEYOND THEIR AS WE MOVE TOWARDS
CARBON NEUTRALITY 80% HIGHER
THAN CURRENT LEVELS OF DEMAND BY
2045. AS A STATE. WE NEED TO
MOVE MORE SWIFTLY WHEN CUSTOMERS
NEED UPGRADES OR WHEN THEY'RE
CONNECTING LOW CARBON SOLUTIONS.
WE'VE HEARD THAT IN A NUMBER OF
BILLS TODAY WE THINK THERE ARE
OPPORTUNITIES TO STREAMLINE
PERMITTING, AS ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
. FRIEDMAN HAS MENTIONED AND
APPLIED THE FOCUS THAT SHE'S
BROUGHT TO THIS ISSUE. WE KNOW
THERE WILL BE ONGOING
DISCUSSIONS WITH THIS COMMITTEE,
THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS AND WE
LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE AS AMENDED
RIGHT NOW, MAYBE 9 14 WOULD
REQUIRE A LEAD AGENCY TO
COMPLETE ITS ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW FOR AN ELECTRICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT AND TO
APPROVE OR DENY THAT PROJECT
WITHIN TWO YEARS OF SUBMISSION
OF AN APPLICATION. BUT IF THE
STATE DOESN'T MEET THAT SOFT
DEADLINE, THE BILL WOULD REQUIRE
THE STATE AGENCY TO SUBMIT TO
THE LEGISLATURE A REPORT FOR
KIND OF CLARIFYING WHY THAT
COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN
THAT TIME PERIOD. THIS GIVES US
WITH THIS WILL GIVE US AN
UNDERSTANDING OF WHY SOME
PROJECTS TAKE LONGER THAN TO
APPROVE THAN SEQUEL GUIDANCE
CALLS FOR WHICH CAN INFORM
FURTHER POLICY MAKING. WE THINK
THIS IS A REASONABLE BILL AN
IMPORTANT CONVERSATION. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
KENT COWS WITH SAN DIEGO. WE
HAVE SOME ELECTRIC, UM,
ASSOCIATE MY COMMENTS WITH ADAM
SMITH'S AS WELL. BUT JUST POINT
OUT THAT THIS IS THE FIRST AND
ONLY BILL BEING DISCUSSED BY
THIS COMMITTEE TODAY THAT
ACTUALLY GIVES US THE TOOLS TO
GET WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GET.
WE WANT TO CONNECT CUSTOMERS. WE
DON'T LIKE CUSTOMER
DISSATISFACTION WITH OUR
INTERCONNECTION OR ENERGY
IZATION PROJECTS. THIS BILL
ADDRESSES ONE OF THE CONCERNS
THAT WE HAVE IN DOING THAT WORK.
THAT IS NOT EASY. IT DOES TAKE
TIME. AND WITH THAT WE ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU, UM, ANY
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN THE ROOM
NAME POSITION ORGANIZATION,
MADAM CHAIRMAN JOHN WHITE WITH A
CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN. WE SUPPORT
THE BILL. TIM MCRAE SILICON
VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP. WE
SUPPORT THE BILL. MIKHAIL
SKVARLA HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE OF
BUSINESS LABOR ORGANIZATION AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. MELISSA
CORTEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA WIND ENERGY
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT GOOD
AFTERNOON. BRANDON PACIFIC GAS
ELECTRIC IN SUPPORT. THANKS.
LOOK AT THIS COALITION YOU'VE
BUILT UM, ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? NO YOU WERE RIGHT.
NO OPPOSITION IN THE ROOM, BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. MR
CONNELLY? YEAH JUST A REAL POINT
OF CLARIFICATION AND APPRECIATE
THE WORK OF THE AUTHOR AND
SUPPORTERS. SO WHEN DOES A TWO
YEAR TIME CLOCK START NOW WITH
THE AMENDMENTS? I'LL LET YOU
KNOW IT'S WHEN THE APPLICATION
IS DEEMED COMPLETELY TOOK THAT
COMMITTEE AMENDED. PERFECT. OKAY
MOVE. THANK YOU. YEAH MR SECOND
IT WE GOT EMOTION IN A SECOND.
GREAT WE GOT YOU'VE GOT TWO
MOTIONS. TWO SECONDS. YOU'RE
JUST FLYING OUT OF COMMITTEE. UM
WILL ADD, UM, YOU KNOW, I REALLY
APPRECIATE THIS. I REPRESENT, UH
A COMMUNITY THAT IS DOING A LOT
IN THE GREEN ENERGY SPACE, BOTH
LARGE SCALE SOLAR AND WIND AND
IT HAS BEEN, UM, INTERESTING TO
SEE THE, UM TENSION AT TIMES
BETWEEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
WE HAVE IN THE CLEAN ENERGY SIDE
AND THE NEED TO CONNECT TO THE
GRID AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
WE HAVE WITH PRESERVING OPEN
SPACE AND ARE CREATURES. UH AND
ACTUALLY, WHAT HAS BEEN THE
SAVING GRACE IS THAT YOU
ACTUALLY CAN'T INTERCONNECT
EVERYWHERE, SO IT HAS SOLVED A
LOT OF THOSE PROBLEMS BY
LIMITING WHERE WE CAN DO IT. AND
SO THE QUESTION WE'RE ASKING
HERE, WHICH IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT ONE IS HOW DO WE BUILD
OUT THOSE INTERCONNECTIONS TO
ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES,
I THINK REQUIRES THE KIND OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT
YOU'RE GONNA, UM YOU KNOW YOU'VE
COMMITTED TO PUTTING IN THERE,
SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT
BECAUSE I THINK BOTH ARE A LOT
OF GOALS. AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE
TO FIND THE INTERSECTION THERE.
SO WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL. AND WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE MISS FRIEDMAN? WE
LOVE BRINGING ALL THE SIDES
TOGETHER TO SOLVE REAL PROBLEMS,
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
DO HERE AND WITH THAT I WOULD
APPRECIATE AND I VOTE AND YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU CALL
THE ROLL. ITEM NUMBER SIX A B 9
14. THE MOTION IS DUE PASSES
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
GARCIA PATERSON BARRICADE KHN
BAUER-KAHAN I CALLED AROUND.
CALLED AROUND I. KOREA, CHEN
CONNOLLY. CONNELLY. AYE. HOLDEN
MATHIS, MURATSUCHI REYES
SANTIAGO SHIAVO. CHING WALLACE
WALLACE. AYE. CUTE THANK YOU
AGAIN. THIS IS A B 9 14. THE
MOTION IS DUE PAST AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA GARCIA.
AYE. THAT'S 50 WILL KEEP THE
ROLE OPEN. THANK YOU. WE WILL
NOW ASK NOW FOR ITEM 11. MAYBE
17 10. REMEMBER TOUGH. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBER OF
THE COMMITTEE. AND HERE TODAY 2%
A B 17 10 AND IMPORTANT BILL,
WHICH WOULD RESTRICT INVESTOR OR
UTILITY ABILITY TO AND REACH RAY
ABOVE THE RATE OF INFLATION
WHILE ALLOWING APART FOR
NECESSARY INCREASES. I WANT TO
BEGIN BY, UH, THINKING OF MANY
STAFF FOR WORKING WITH MY OFFICE
AND THIS BILL AND IT WILL BE
ACCEPTED THE COMMITTEE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO A B 17 10. SECTION
7 47 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY CODE
DECLARED THAT HE SAID IN 10 OF
THE LEGISLATOR THAT CALIFORNIA
BUT UTILITY COMMISSION LOWER
ELECTRIC CITY RATE TO THE LOWEST
AMOUNT POSSIBLE DESPITE THIS
INVESTOR OR UTILITY, HAVE SINCE
22 13 CONSISTENTLY IN RECENT
PRICES ABOUT THE RATE OF
INFLATION FOLKS IN CALIFORNIA
RESIDENT TO MAKE DIFFICULT JOYCE
ABOUT ENERGY. USES èC BERKELEY
AND ENVIRONMENTAL NONPROFIT NEXT
10 FOUND THAT LONE GUN CUSTOMERS
ARE MEN IN THE BRANCH OF THESE
HIGH ENERGY PRICE BETWEEN
FEBRUARY AND DECEMBER OF 2020
CALIFORNIAN COMMONLY MORE THAN
650 MILLION IN LATE PAYMENT TO
THEIR UTILITY PROVIDERS. THE
ENERGY OF AFFORDABILITY RISES.
WE ONLY CONTINUE TO WASN'T FOR
RAY. THEY'RE YOURS. IT IS FOR
CARS THAT BY 2025, THE AVERAGE
RESIDENTIAL RATE WILL BE HIGHER
BY APPROXIMATELY 6% FOR PACIFIC
GAS AND ELECTRIC 25% FOR SUN,
CALIFORNIA EDISON AND 70% FOR
SANTIAGO GAS ELECTRIC THAN THEY
WOULD HAVE BEEN IF 20 TOOK TEEN
RIGHT FOR EACH I O U HAD ROLE AT
THE RATE OF POPULATION OVER THE
NEXT DECADE. CALIFORNIA
HOUSEHOLD WE SHOULD GO WITH
ENERGY AFFORDABILITY FOLKS IN
CALIFORNIA RESIDENT TO HAVE NO
CHOICE BUT TO PACK EXCEPTIONALLY
HIGH ENERGY VIEW OR SUFFER THERE
IN EXTREME WEATHER. ESPECIALLY
GIVEN THE LACK OF COMPETITION IN
ENERGY INDUSTRY TO TRY IT DOWN
PRICE. THE LEGISLATOR HAS AN
OBLIGATION TO TAKE ACTION AND
RESPOND TO THIS ROLE AND ENERGY
BRUSH RICES. BEFORE BRYCE RICH
AND EXTENDABLE LEVEL A B 7 10
WOULD ASSIST IN THIS EFFORT IN
ENCOURAGING IOU TO FIRE
REASONABLE BALANCE. WHEN BETWEEN
, UH, RAISING THE FISH AND
REVENUE FOR OPERATION AND
ENSURING THAT CUSTOMERS ARE
PROTECTED FINANCIALLY. THIS
LEGISLATE AND OH, BY, UH. RECENT
ABLE EXCEPTION FOR COSTS
DIRECTLY RELATED TO SERVE THE
ENHANCEMENT. MODERNIZATION AND
HIGHER COMMODITY OR FEWER CAUSE
THIS MEAN ENERGY CORPORATION
WILL STILL BE ABLE TO MEET LEGAL
OPERATE OBLIGATION REGARDING
COMBATING WHY FIRE CLIMATE
CHANGE AND MORE. OUR OFFICE IS
COMMITTED TO STRENGTHENING AND
LET ME FIND THIS EXCEPTION TO
ENSURE THAT EFFECTIVE, EFFECTIVE
NESS OF THE FINAL LEGISLATION
OUTSIDE THIS ISN'T ABLE
EXCEPTION. CALIFORNIA BUT
UTILITY COMMISSION WOULD NEED A
CERTIFICATION TO IMPROVE ANY
RATE IN REASON ABOVE THE RAY OF
INFLATION, PROVIDING RATE PAYER
WITH SANSHO PROTECTIONS AGAINST
RUNAWAY CARS. THE OPPOSITION HAS
. I'LL GOOGLE DOT THE INFLATION
IS AND IN IN FACT, IN A CORRECT
UH METRIC FOR THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TO
USE STATING THAT THE PUC HAS
REJECTED IN RELATION AS AND
APPROPRIATE MEASURE A PRICE CHAN
FACED BY ELECTRIC. UTILITY HOW
WE EVER ASK A B 17 10 COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS. NOT THAT THIS
REJECTION IS BY ARGUE TEARY COST
BROADLY AND GIVE AN EXCEPTION,
INCLUDING IN THIS VIEW,
CALIFORNIA CONSUME PRICE INDEX
WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE INDEX
WHEN EVALUATING IOU. READY ROLL
RELATE TO TWO IN PLACE AND JUST
RAY. A B 17 10 BEGIN RADICAL
CONVERSATION ABOUT THE HIGH COST
OF ENERGY IN THIS STATE. MY
OFFICE REMAINED COMMITTED TO
WORKING WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS TO
DROP AND EFFECTIVE PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT OFFER RATEPAYER
THE RELIEF THEY NEED. THE
UTILITY REFORM NETWORK IS
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS CONCEPT. AND
HE'S HERE TO ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL WESTERN. THE COMMITTEE
MEMBER MAY HAVE REGARDING A B 17
10 AND ENERGY RACIAL. I
APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AND ASK
WHEN I GO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DO YOU HAVE ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES? DO YOU WANT TO BRING
FORWARD I HAVE AN EXPO FOR MY
TURN AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION
QUESTIONS, YES. OKAY, SO SEEING
THAT THERE AREN'T ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES AND SUPPORTERS THAT HE
PRIMARY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD
TWO MINUTES EACH. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS BRANDENBURG AGAIN HERE
ON BEHALF OF PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC AND ALSO ON ALL THE
ISSUES IN THE STATE, SO TAKE UP
A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN TWO
MINUTES. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE
BILL IN PRINT AND WILL REMAIN
OPPOSED. EVEN WITH THE PROPOSED
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS FOR SECOND
TIME I WILL SPEAK TO THE BILL AS
PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED. AT THE
OUTSET, WE ARE COMMITTED TO
KEEPING CUSTOMERS COSTS AS LOW
AS POSSIBLE. WE HAVE COMPANY
GOAL OF BETWEEN TWO AND 4%
INFLATION OVER THE LONG TERM. WE
ALSO APPRECIATE ANY AND ALL
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT AFFORDABILITY
. BUT WE ARGUE THAT THIS BILL
GOES ABOUT THE HOLY WRONG WAY
AND WILL DO NOTHING TO ADDRESS
THE COST DRIVERS SUCH AS I YOU
CUSTOMER SPENDING FIVE TIMES
MORE THAN THE STATE ON CRITICAL
WILDFIRE MITIGATION. FURTHER,
IT'S LIKELY NOT REALISTIC TO
IMPLEMENT AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AS WELL AS IGNORING THE BASIC
FUNDAMENTALS OF UTILITY RATE
MAKING AND COST RECOVERY. THE
GENERAL RATE CASES NOW A FOUR
YEAR PROCESS WHERE UTILITIES
PROPOSED REVENUE REQUIREMENT TO
THE CPUC BASED ON HISTORICAL
DATA AND FORECASTS ABOUT WHAT
WILL BE REQUIRED TO SAFELY AND
RELIABLY OPERATE, MAINTAIN AND
UPGRADE THE UTILITY ENERGY
SYSTEM. THIS PROCESS INVOLVES
MORE THAN TWO YEARS OF
DELIBERATION, AUDITING PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND SETTLEMENT WITH
INTERESTED PARTIES TO ARRIVE AT
A COST FIGURE THAT IS DIVIDED
AMONG CUSTOMER CLASSES. THE GRC
REPRESENTS ABOUT 60% OF OUR
ANNUAL REVENUE, AND THE
REMAINING EXPENSES MUST BE
RECOVERED FROM CUSTOMERS, BUT
ONLY IF THE CPUC DETERMINES
THOSE COSTS ME JUST AND
REASONABLE. THESE CAN INCLUDE
LARGE BUCKETS OF EXPENSES, SUCH
AS STORM RESTORATION WORK, WHICH
JUST TOTALED OVER SEVERAL $100
MILLION THIS YEAR ALONE.
WILDFIRE MITIGATION EXPENSES,
ENERGY PROCUREMENT COSTS, WHICH
HAVE ANNUAL RATES THROUGH UPS,
OR ANY INTERIM RATE RELIEF
PROCEDURES. ALL THESE CAN AND DO
RESULT IN ADJUSTED RATES. THIS
BILL CREATES A SITUATION WHERE
COSTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO
OPERATE THE SYSTEM RELATED TO
FACTORS OUTSIDE OF OUR CONTROL
WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE
RECOVERED FROM OUR CUSTOMERS,
EVEN IF THE PUC WOULD OTHERWISE
DETERMINE THEM AS JUST AND
REASONABLE THAT'S LIKELY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR A VARIETY
OF LEGAL, UH, CASES. IT'S ALSO
IMPROVING PUBLIC POLICY BECAUSE
THE ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS
FOR DECISIONS TO BE MADE ABOUT
WHAT ACTIVITIES WE SHOULD NOT
UNDERTAKE TO REDUCE COSTS. AS
THE BILL ANALYSIS STATES. THE
EXEMPTION OF THIS BILL CAN
EITHER BE DEFINED SO BROADLY AS
SURRENDER THE ENTIRE PROCESS,
AMIR COUNTY EXERCISE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE AND ADDITIONAL
COST BURDEN FOR US IN THE CPC OR
SO NARROW AS TO PROHIBIT THE
BASIC FUNDING OF UTILITY
OPERATIONS COULD WRAP UP YOUR
COMMENTS INEVITABLY WILL BE LEFT
WITH A BUCKET OF EXPENSES THAT
DON'T FALL IN THESE EXEMPTIONS
AND NO PATHWAY FOR COST
RECOVERY. THE PUC HAS
CONSISTENTLY REJECTED A FIRM
INFLATION RELATED COST CAP,
NOTING THAT CP SIMPLY DOES NOT
AND WILL NOT REFLECT HOW
UTILITIES INCURRED COST. THANK
YOU. UM CHAIR MEMBERS. GOOD
AFTERNOON. LORD ESTROGEN WITH
SANTIAGO GAS AND ELECTRIC, ALSO
IN OPPOSITION TO A B 17 10. I
WANT TO THANK THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE
OPPOSE IT, IT'S A REALLY
IMPORTANT BILL WITH RESPECT TO
DISCUSSION ABOUT RATES AND HOW
ALL OF US ARE TIRED OF PAYING
HIGH RATES IN ELECTRICITY, IN
PARTICULAR SENEGAL GAS ELECTRIC
BEING THE UTILITY WITH THE
HIGHEST RATES. WE CERTAINLY DO
NOT WANT TO SEE ANY, UM. OR WELL
, WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO SEE
ANY INCREASE IN IN OUR RATES
ANYMORE, AND WE FEEL THAT OUR
RATES CAN ONLY BE AS REASONABLE
AND BALANCED AS THE POLICIES AND
MANDATES WILL ALLOW. THE TRUTH
OF THE MATTER IS THAT EVERY TIME
THERE'S A NEW POLICY EVERY TIME
THERE'S A PULSE ON YOUR MANDATE
THAT'S COST THAT'S INCREASED
COSTS TO OUR RATES. SO TO THE
EXTENT THAT WE CAN MANAGE THOSE
MANDATES WOULD BE GREAT. AND
WITH RESPECT TO CP, THERE'S
REALLY NO RELATIONSHIP TO
WILDFIRE. UH AND OR 2045 GOALS.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS LOOK AT,
UM PUBLIC PURPOSE PROGRAMS. HOW
WE CAN REMOVE THOSE FROM, UM
CURRENT RATES AND EVEN UM,
PROVIDE SOME SORT OF EVALUATION
IN WHICH WE CAN REVIEW THESE
PROGRAMS TO SEE IF THEY ACTUALLY
WORKING. ARE THE MONEY GOING
WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE
GOING, OR ARE WE JUST KEEPING IT
BECAUSE IT FEELS GOOD TO, YOU
KNOW, PRESENT A BILL THAT'S
GOING TO HELP CALIFORNIANS WENT
AT THE END OF THE DAY OR JUST
STRIKING HARD IN, YOU KNOW,
CALIFORNIA'S POCKETBOOKS AND IN
SAN DIEGO IN PARTICULAR. SO UM I
THINK THAT'S WHY I HAVE TO SAY
JANUARY. JUST OPPOSE THE BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU OPEN UP FOR
PUBLIC COMMENTS. THOSE WISHING
TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THE
BILL, PLEASE GET YOUR NAME.
AFFILIATION AND YOUR POSITION,
PLEASE. YES MY NAME IS KATIE.
MORE SONY AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK.
AS THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SAID, WE
SUPPORT THIS BILL IN CONCEPT AND
WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO THE OFFICE
AND PLAN ON CONTINUING TO TALK
TO THE OFFICE ABOUT IMPROVEMENTS
THAT WE BELIEVE WILL BEST
SUPPORT REPAIRS. GOOD AFTERNOON
. LARA PERON, BEHALF OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON AND OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL. MR CHAIR MEMBERS
DELANEY HUNTER ON BEHALF OF
PACIFIC COURT IN OPPOSITION.
OKAY SEE YOU. NO ONE ELSE LINED
UP OR BRING UP THE CONVERSATION
. TADEUSZ QUESTIONS? YES.
REMEMBER THANK YOU, MR CHAIR,
AND I JUST WANT TO THANK THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL. I THINK THAT WE ARE
AT A POINT WHERE THE PUC IS JUST
RUBBER STAMPING WHATEVER RATE
INCREASES COMING FROM THESE I O.
U S. AND IT IS HURTING
CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS AND WE NEED
BETTER CONTROL OF WHAT IS
HAPPENING AND OBVIOUSLY
INFLATION IS REAL AND THEIR
REASONS TO INCREASE RATES. BUT
THERE NEEDS TO BE TIGHTER
CONTROLS ON THAT, BECAUSE THE
STANDARDS AS LAID OUT BY, UM,
MYSTERY. BECK IS CLEARLY NOT
WORKING AT THE PUC RIGHT NOW.
AND I KNOW THAT, LIKE MANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES, THE NEW RATE
INCREASE BASED ON INCOME LEVEL
THAT MANY OF OUR CONSTITUENTS
ARE VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
AND LET ME BE CLEAR. SOMEONE IN
CALIFORNIA WHO MAKES $69,000
WOULD SEE THE RATES GO UP $51 A
MONTH ON TOP OF THEIR BILL.
PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA ARE NOT
MAKING 16,000 IS NOT A LOT OF
MONEY, ESPECIALLY IF YOU LIVE IN
THE BARRIER OR OTHER PARTS OF
THE STATE, AND SO I MEAN, RATES
JUST KEEP GOING UP, AND I THINK
THE I U. S WILL CONTINUE TO JUST
ASK FOR RATE INCREASES UNLESS WE
AS A LEGISLATURE DO SOMETHING,
AND SO I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. PLEASE. I
DO APPRECIATE THAT IN THE
COMMITTEE. UM, THE THIS WAS THIS
WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS TAKEN
INTO CONSIDERATION, AND THE
COMMITTEE NOTED THAT THE
EXCEPTIONS APPEAR TO ALLOW THE
UTILITY TO RECEIVE A RETURN ON
THE ACTUAL COST NEEDED TO
OPERATE THE UTILITY. UM CLEARLY
, AS WITH EVERY CASE, WHEN WE
HAVE OPPOSITION, I WOULD ALWAYS
ASK THAT YOU, UM DO SPEAK WITH
THE STAKEHOLDERS, OPPOSITION AND
CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
YEAH, I REALLY I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR WISHING AND
CONCERNS AND ACTUALLY, LIKE A
FEW WEEKS AGO, I PROBABLY
PROBABLY LAST WEEK I HAD A
MEETING WITH OPPOSITION AND I
LISTENED TO THEIR CONCERNS. AND
I THINK THAT OUR OFFICE, UH WE
ARE THE I THINK THAT WE ALREADY
WALK WITH. AH COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT. TO REMOVE ELECTION
COMPONENT, SO I THINK THAT
DURING THAT MEETING WE LISTEN TO
THE CONCERNS AND WE TRY TO WORK
WITH ARTISTIC HOLD UP OR SIDE TO
COME UP WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE
BILL. I THINK THAT I THINK THIS
BILL IS REALLY FAIR. AND I THINK
THAT, UH, IT'S A TOOL TO PROTECT
OUR CONSTITUENTS. I BELIEVE THAT
WE ALL HER. WE ALL RECEIVED
EITHER BY EMAIL OR BY CALL FROM
THE LAST FEW MONTHS THAT I CAN
STAY STILL AND UM, HOST. THEY'VE
GOT IT FOR NYA BECAUSE US THEY
RAISED CONCERNS. UH THEY HAVE A
FIXED INCOME. BUT I HAVE TO PAY
REALLY, REALLY HIGH PRICE. AND I
THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY
WE'RE HERE TO SERVE AND WE SERVE
OUR CONSTITUENTS. SO I HAD A
MEETING WITH THE OPPOSITION. I
WILL APPRECIATE THEIR INPUT.
THEIR CONCERNS AND I WANT PLEASE
. WE DID REMOVE THE ELECTION
COMPONENT. AND I THINK THAT
RIGHT NOW I THINK THAT I'LL BE
REALLY, REALLY CONSISTENT. SO I
HOPE THAT WELL, I HAVE SUPPORT
FROM THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, UM.
RIGHT WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR ANY COMMENTS. IS
THERE A MOTION TO MOVE THE BILL
MOTION? IT WAS SECOND WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? HI I HUMBLY ASK
ONE NOVEL, OKAY? DOES HAVE A DO
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS AND SECRETARY.
ITEM NUMBER 11 A B 17 10. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA GARCIA I
PATERSON BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE, CALDERON.
KOREA, CHEN. CONNELLY CONNELLY.
I HOLDEN MATHIS MURATSUCHI RAISE
RAISE I SANTIAGO BROUGH. TING
WALLACE WALLACE. AYE. OKAY.
WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR OTHER
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. ANY OTHER
AUTHORS IN THE AUDIENCE. OKAY?
MURATSUCHI NEEDS TO COME. YEAH.
OKAY MR. CHAIR IS UP. WHICH BILL
? YOU WANT TO PRESENT FIRST? MR
13 73 HERE AT 13 73 WHEN YOU'RE
READY TO PRESENT A B C 13 73
MEASURE PUT FORWARD BY THE
ADMINISTRATION AND THE BUDGET.
THAT MY COLLEAGUE DENY AND
BUDGETS OF THREE THOUGHT
DESERVED TO HAVE A POLICY
DISCUSSION IN THIS COMMITTEE. WE
WERE HOPING THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE
SOMEONE HERE TO KIND OF
ARTICULATE THE AND THE REASONING
BEHIND THEIR, UM, EFFORT. AND
UH, AND ADD VALUE TO THIS
CONVERSATION, BUT THEY'RE NOT,
AND SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE
THAT DISCUSSION HERE, AS WAS
INTENDED. UM HAPPY TO DISCUSS
THE ASPECTS THAT I FIND VERY
VALUABLE. WE HAVE SOME EXPERT
WITNESSES HERE THAT COULD ANSWER
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS.
RESPECTFULLY ARE ASKING FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. BUT I'LL JUST SAY THIS
OFTEN, IT SAID THAT OUR
PROCUREMENT NEEDS TO WEIGH BOTH
AT LEAST CAST BEST FIT, SO WE
DON'T HAVE GAPS THAT LEAD TO
RELIABILITY ISSUES. WE HAD A
ROBUST CONVERSATION AT THE END
OF SESSION LAST YEAR RELATED TO
RELIABILITY ISSUES, AND WE HOPE
THAT BY TAKING AN APPROACH OF
THIS MANNER WE WILL AVOID HAVING
TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION OF
EXTENDING A NUCLEAR PLANT IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH WE
HAD ALREADY TAKEN A STRONG
POSITION TO SHUT DOWN HAVING THE
WR BE ABLE TO BUY THESE
RESOURCES WHEN OUR UTILITIES
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO OR HAVE
CHOSEN NOT TO IS THE CHEAPEST
AND MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO GET
THESE NEEDED RESOURCES ONLINE.
I'M HAPPY TO BE JOINED BY MATT
FRIEDMAN UTILITY NETWORK REFORM.
AND AH, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN. HATE TWO
MINUTES EACH WHEN YOU'RE READY
UM, THANK YOU, MATT FRIEDMAN. ON
BEHALF OF TURN, WE SUPPORT MANY
OF THE KEY PROVISIONS OF HB 13
73 THAT WOULD FILL THE GAPS IN
THE CURRENT STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
GOVERNING ELECTRIC RELIABILITY
AND RESOURCE PLANNING AND
ESTABLISH A NEW CENTRAL
PROCUREMENT OPTION THROUGH THE
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES.
THE BILL WOULD FIRST ESTABLISHED
SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE
RESOURCE ADEQUACY PROGRAM TO
ENSURE THAT RESOURCE DIVERSITY,
RENEWABLE INTEGRATION NEEDS AND
THE STATE'S 100% 0 CARBON
ELECTRICITY TARGET ARE
INCORPORATED INTO THE INTO THE
OPERATION OF THE RESOURCE
ADEQUACY PROGRAM. IN RECENT
YEARS, THE RESOURCE ADEQUACY AND
INTEGRATED RESOURCES PLANNING
PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN INCREASINGLY
INTERTWINED. THEY NEED TO WORK
TOGETHER TO ENSURE THE CAPACITY
THAT'S USED TO MEET RELIABILITY
NEEDS IS COMPATIBLE WITH ADOPTED
RESOURCE PLANNING GOALS. ON THE
INTEGRATED RESOURCES PLANNING
SIDE. THESE CODE SECTIONS WERE
FIRST ENACTED IN SP 3 50, WHICH
WAS IN 2015. BUT SINCE THE
INITIAL ROLLOUT BY THE PUC, THIS
PROGRAM HAS EVOLVED
SIGNIFICANTLY, BOTH IN SCOPE AND
IMPACT. THE I. R P IS NOW THE
CENTRAL DRIVER OF NEW RESOURCE
PROCUREMENT. BY LLCS OR LOAD
SERVING ENTITIES REGULATED BY
THE PUC. WE THINK THAT THE CODE
NEEDS TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT
THE CENTRAL ROLE OF THE I R. P
PROGRAM, THE EXPECTATION THAT
ALL LOAD SERVING ENTITIES WILL
MEET THEIR ASSIGNED OBLIGATIONS
THE NEED FOR A ROBUST BACKSTOP
MECHANISM AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF
ADDITIONAL TOOLS TO PROCURE LONG
LEAD TIME RESOURCES, AND THIS
BILL WOULD ADAPT THE RELEVANT
CODE SECTIONS TO ACHIEVE EACH OF
THESE OBJECTIVES. THE BILL ALSO
PROVIDES AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN
BACKSTOP PROCUREMENT TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES IN
THE EVENT THAT THE COLLECTIVE
PROCUREMENT BY LOAD SERVING
ENTITIES IS INADEQUATE. TO
ACHIEVE RESOURCE PLANNING
OBJECTIVES. UM THE ANALYSIS
POINTS TO THE STAGGERING
QUANTITIES OF NEW RESOURCES
NEEDED TO MEET OUR GOALS THE
STATE NEEDS AS MANY TOOLS AS
POSSIBLE AT ITS DISPOSAL. THE
PRIMARY TOOL IS FOR LOAD SERVING
ENTITIES TO PROCURE TO MEET
THEIR OBLIGATIONS. BUT THERE ARE
SOME RESOURCES THAT MAY BE
CHALLENGING TO PROCURE USING
THIS APPROACH, IN PARTICULAR,
LONG LEAD TIME RESOURCES THAT
INVOLVE A SMALL NUMBER OF
SELLERS OR CONSTRAINED
GEOGRAPHIC AREAS THAT MAY NOT BE
EASY TO DEVELOP WITHOUT MORE
COORDINATED EFFORTS. WE THINK
THAT THE USE OF DWR IN THIS ROLE
IS APPROPRIATE, AND WE THINK
THAT THE STRUCTURE OF THE BILL,
WHICH PROVIDES BOTH UPFRONT
AUTHORITY FROM THE PUC AND BACK
END REVIEW AND APPROVAL FOR ANY
COMMITMENTS THAT ARE MADE WILL
ENSURE THAT THE STATE REGULATORY
AGENCIES REMAIN IN CONTROL OF
ANY COMMITMENTS THAT ARE MADE.
THIS BILL HAS A LOT OF STUFF IN
IT. OBVIOUSLY NOT ENOUGH TIME TO
DISCUSS BUT HAPPY TO TALK MORE
ABOUT ANY OF THESE ISSUES. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS MOLLY KROLL
WITH THE AMERICAN CLEAN POWER
ASSOCIATION. WE SUPPORT A BABY
13 73 IN THE CENTER OF
PROCUREMENT MECHANISM FOR THREE
REASONS. FIRST AS MY COLLEAGUE
IDENTIFIED, WE NEED TO DIVERSIFY
OUR ENERGY MIX TO MEET OUR CLEAN
ENERGY GOALS RELIABLY AND
AFFORDABLY LONG LEAD TIME.
RESOURCES LIKE OFFSHORE WIND ARE
CRITICAL PIECE OF THE PUZZLE BY
PRODUCING ZERO CARBON ENERGY.
WHEN THE SUN SETS AND WHEN OUR
GRID IS UNDER THE MOST STRESS,
AS FOUND IN SP 100 STUDIES
SECOND, WE NEED TO BE PROACTIVE
IN ENSURING WE HAVE THE RIGHT
TOOLS TO BREAK BRING DIVERSE
ENERGY RESOURCES ON ONLINE.
UNLIKE SOLAR AND BATTERIES, THE
CPUC HAS RECOGNIZED THAT DIVERSE
RESOURCES MAY BE DIFFICULT TO
PROCURE DUE TO THEIR SIZE, LEAD
TIME AND DEVELOPMENT RISK. MAYBE
13 73 INSURERS. WE AREN'T CAUGHT
FLATFOOTED. IF THOSE CHALLENGES
PERSIST, GOING FORWARD, WE AGREE
THAT THERE MAY BE A NEED TO
NARROW THE, UH INTENTION BEHIND
CENTRAL PROCUREMENT TO FILL THE
GAP THAT'S REALLY DESIGNED TO
FILL. MOST PROCUREMENT WILL
CONTINUE. BY INDIVIDUAL LLCS FOR
THINGS LIKE SOLAR AND BATTERIES
, AND AS THE ANALYSIS NOTES,
THIS PROVIDES MORE TOOLS FOR THE
CPUC TO EXERCISE WHEN PLANNING
EFFORTS IDENTIFY A NEED, BUT
INDIVIDUAL LLCS ARE NOT
PROCURING THOSE RESOURCES.
FINALLY, WE NEED TO LEVERAGE
ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND PROVIDE
MARKET CERTAINTY TO REDUCE COSTS
FOR REPAIRS. THE MORE CERTAINTY
WE CAN PROVIDE, THE SOONER WE
CAN GET PROJECTS IN THE PIPELINE
AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF FEDERAL
TAX CREDITS, AS WELL AS
STIMULATE LOCAL INVESTMENT.
USING DWR AUTHORITY CAN PROMOTE
COST SAVINGS DUE TO THE STATE'S
BONDING AUTHORITY. TAX BREAKS
ABILITY TO INCORPORATE NEW
FUNDING SOURCES AND THE
REDUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT RISKS
BY HAVING A STATE ENTITY,
ORGANIZING SOLICITATIONS AND
NEGOTIATING CONTRACTS. WE CAN
NOT ONLY REDUCE RISKS BUT ALSO
MAXIMIZE LOCAL LOCAL BENEFITS
AND INVESTMENTS FROM DIVERSE
RESOURCES. MAYBE 13. 73 PROVIDES
TOOLS TO DIVERSIFY OUR ENERGY
PROCUREMENT. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT WILL TAKE
NAME ORGANIZATION, MADAM CHAIR
JOHN WHITE, REPRESENTING THE
CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN. WE SUPPORT
THE BILL. THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS. BRIAN WHITE ON BEHALF
OF OFFSHORE WIND, CALIFORNIA WE
ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE CENTRAL
PROCUREMENT PROVISIONS OF THE
BILL. THANK YOU. MARIAN
BERGERSEN WITH NATURAL RESOURCE
TO DEFENSE COUNSEL. THERE'S A
LOT OF DETAILS HERE. WE'RE STILL
REVIEWING THAT. WE'RE SUPPORTING
CONCEPT. THANK YOU. MARK JOSEPH
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS AND THE COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MELISSA
CORTEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA WIND ENERGY
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS DAN
JACOBSON WITH ENVIRONMENT,
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. DO WE HAVE WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. YEAH.
THAT AREN'T ON THE DAIS. WELCOME
GENTLEMEN. TWO MINUTES EACH WHEN
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU. PATRICK
WELSH AGAIN WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION.
FIRST JUST THINK THE CHAIR MR
GARCIA AND THE MEMBERS OF SUB
THREE FOR PLACING THIS TRAILER
BILL AND THE POLICY COMMITTEE
PROCESS SO THAT IT RECEIVES THE
ANALYSIS THAT WE THINK IS
NEEDED. SEEMA IS OPPOSING LESS
AMENDED. SECTION SEVEN OF THE
BILL CREATES A NEW CAPACITY
PAYMENT PENALTY ON SENIORS,
MEMBERS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS IF
THERE IS A SHORTFALL ON MEETING
THEIR PLANNING RESERVE MARGIN,
WE BELIEVE THIS DOES NOT HAVE A
PLACE IN THE BILL, AND WE URGE
YOU TO STRIKE IT FROM IT. THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS CORRECTLY
NOTES THAT THE RESOURCE ADEQUATE
MARKET IS SIGNIFICANTLY
CONSTRAINED AND PRICES FOR
ENERGY PROJECTS HAVE RISEN
SIGNIFICANTLY AND A NEW PENALTY
WOULD PUNISH UTILITIES AND THEIR
CUSTOMERS AND I QUOTE FOR A
MARKET CONDITIONS OUTSIDE OF
THEIR CONTROL. THE ANALYSIS ALSO
CORRECTLY NOTES THAT THE PENALTY
IS DUPLICATIVE. THERE'S ALREADY
TO SAFETY NET PROCUREMENT
PROCESSES THAT ASSIGN COST TO
OUR MEMBERS. IF THERE IS AN
ABSURD SHORTFALL, AND LAST YEAR
, THE LEGISLATURE ENACTED A NEW
COLLABORATIVE PROCESS FOR MANY
OF SUMAS MEMBERS TO DEVELOP A
NEW PLANNING RESERVE MARGINS AT
THE CUSHION THAT UTILITIES NEED
TO HAVE FOR EXCESS POWERFUL WHEN
THERE'S HIGH DEMAND ON THE GRID.
THAT PROCESS ISN'T STARTED. THAT
PROCESS ISN'T NEAR TO CONCLUDING
AND ANALYSIS CORRECTLY NOTES
THAT IT WOULD HAVE THE BILL.
THIS BILL WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT
OF HOLDING THE POUSADA STANDARDS
STILL IN DEVELOPMENT AND FOR THE
POTENTIAL THAT PAYMENTS WILL BE
ASSESSED AGAINST THE VALUE THE
PEEL US WERE UNAWARE OF THEY
NEEDED TO MEET SO FOR THESE
REASONS, WE URGE THE COMMITTEE
TO REMOVE SECTION SEVEN THE BILL
AND FINALLY JUST WANT TO NOTE
GIVEN THE TIGHT MARKET
CONDITIONS. WE ALSO URGED THE
COMMITTEE TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF
WRS AUTHORITY IN THE BILL TO
ONLY CLEARLY DEFINED LONG LEAD
TIME RESOURCES TO ENSURE DBR
MAINTAINS ITS CORE MISSION OF
WATER MANAGEMENT. AND WE THINK
AN INTERESTING IDEA ALSO IS TO
SEE IF THERE'S A PLACE FOR
SUNSET FOR DBRS AUTHORITY AS
WELL. AND WITH THOSE, UM, I'LL
TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE
FROM CALC C A. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS SEAN
MCNEIL WITH THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY CHOICE ASSOCIATION. UM
WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION IN OUR
UM, OPPOSITION OPPOSING LESSON
MANY POSITION IS FOCUSED ON
THREE ISSUES. CENTRAL
PROCUREMENT, I R. P JURISDICTION
AND THE PENALTIES THAT WAS THAT
WAS CITED BY CMU, A FIRST ON THE
CENTRAL PROCUREMENT ISSUE. WE'RE
NOT CONVINCED THAT THE CPS
NECESSARY AT THIS POINT AND I
AND I CAN ELABORATE ON THAT MORE
ON THAT MORE IF NEEDED. UM, BUT
THE STATE FEELS THAT WE NEED TO
HAVE THIS TOOL. IT NEEDS TO COME
WITH CLEAR BOUNDARIES AND THE
CAR PROPOSALS REALLY JUST TOO
MUCH OF A BLANK CHECK FOR THE
CPUC AND OUR OPINION. UM AS THE
ANALYSIS POINTS OUT, PROCUREMENT
SHOULD BE LIMITED TO PROJECT
THAT THAT TAKE 55 YEARS OR MORE
. WE SUPPORT THIS, BUT WE WOULD
ADD MORE MORE PARAMETERS ON THIS
, SUCH AS LIMITING PROCUREMENT
TO RESOURCE RICH REGIONS WHERE
INFRASTRUCTURE BUILD OUT IS
NECESSARY. UM GOOD EXAMPLES OF
THIS ARE OBVIOUSLY OFFSHORE WIND
AND GEOTHERMAL IN THE SALTON
SEA. UM WE ALSO NEED TO LIMIT
THE CPS WORKS THAT IT DOESN'T
COMPETE WITH THE WORK THAT LS
HE'S ALREADY DOING. UM, THAT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT TO US. WE THINK
THAT IF WE DON'T DO THAT, YOU
COULD ACTUALLY STALL
DEVELOPMENT. UM LASTLY, WE
BELIEVE THE CPSC SHOULD BE WITH
DO YOU DWR PUTTING THE EYE USING
RCP ROLE FOR US CREATES A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. UM, YOU'RE
ASKING THEM TO TAKE ON TWO
DIFFERENT ROLES. UH, AND WE
THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY KIND OF
CREATES PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD
THAT WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO
COME BACK AND FIX ISSUE NUMBER
TWO I R P A JURISDICTION. THE
BILL SEEKS TO CLARIFY THE CPUC S
CURRENT PRACTICE OF ISSUING
PROCUREMENT MANDATES AND
REQUIRING ALL OF THESE TO
COMPLY. WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE
WITH THAT. BUT THE LANGUAGE
THAT'S IN THERE IS BROADER THAN
THAT, AND IT GETS AT SORT OF THE
CORE DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY
THAT CCS CURRENTLY HAVE, AS SORT
OF THE COURT OF OUR MODEL AND
MODEL THAT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL
AND SO WE WOULD ASK THAT
AMENDMENTS BE TAKEN ON THAT
ISSUE. ISSUE NUMBER THREE THAT
WAS MORE OR LESS TALKED ABOUT BY
CMU A ON THE R A CAPACITY
PAYMENT. THE ONLY THING WE WOULD
ARGUE IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE
A SITUATION WHERE THE MARKET IS
THIS CONSTRAINED, YOU NEED TO
HAVE A SORT OF OFF RAMP. UM, SO
WE WOULD SUGGEST A WAIVER
PROCESS FOR SYSTEM ARE A AND WE
THINK THAT'S REASONABLE FOR
THOSE REASONS. WE STILL ARE
OPPOSING THIS AMENDED, BUT UM, I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
FOCUSING ON ENERGY RELIABILITY
AS WELL AS BEING OPEN TO MEETING
WITH US AND THAT THE TIME
COMMITMENT THAT HIS STAFF HAS
MET WORKING WITH US OVER THE
LAST MONTH. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE WHO WANTS TO REGISTER
OPPOSITION ON THE BILL NAME
POSITION AND ORGANIZATIONS CHAIR
MEMBERS TO OPPOSE WITH THE
ALLIANCE FOR RETAIL ENERGY
MARKETS. WE WOULD LIKE TO
ASSOCIATE OUR REMARKS WITH THE
CCS AND JUST ALSO ADD. SOME OF
OUR MEMBERS HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT
LONG TERM RESOURCES, AND WE'D
LIKE TO MECHANISM BE ABLE TO
SELL THEM TO THE C P E, SO WE'RE
NOT STRANDED WITH THEM. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
VALERY TERRELL OF LAJOS WITH
PACIFIC ASCEND ELECTRIC COMPANY
AND TRULY TESTIFYING AS A
TWEENER BECAUSE I'LL JUST SAY WE
ARE CONVINCED A CENTRAL
PROCUREMENT ENTITY IS NEEDED AND
LIKELY THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO
ENSURE THAT WE CAN AS A STATE
PROCURE A DIVERSE SET OF CLEAN
RESOURCES AND A TIMELY MANNER.
UM THAT YOU KNOW, COME WITH
THOSE A LOT OF RISKS AND COSTS,
UM, THAT WE SHOULD BE
DISTRIBUTING OF ALLOCATING
FAIRLY TO A VERY LARGE GROUP OF
CUSTOMERS. SO UM, WE THINK A
WELL DESIGNED CP. UM IT IS
NEEDED. THANK YOU. RICARDO AND
BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN POWER ALLIANCE
AS CALIFORNIA'S BIGGEST CC, A
DOWN IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SINCE AMENDED IN OUR CONCERNS
ARE ALIGNED WITH LCCS. THANK
THANK YOU. ALICIA PRIEGO ON
BEHALF OF SAN JOSE CLEAN ENERGY
AND ALSO LET HER COMMENTS WITH
LTC A THANK YOU. CATHERINE
BRANDENBURG ON BEHALF OF CINEMA
, CLEAN POWER, AND WE ALSO
ALIGNED WITH CT A THANK YOU.
LILLIAN MARVIS WITH EMC E.
CALIFORNIA'S FIRST COMMUNITY
CHOICE AGGREGATOR, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED LESS AMENDED AS OUTLINED
BY MY COLLEAGUE FROM KLCC A.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THANK
YOU. MARK FINSTER MAKER ON
BEHALF OF PENINSULA, CLEAN
ENERGY AND VALLEY CLEAN ENERGY
OPPOSING LESS AMENDED FOR THE
REASONS STATED BY KLCC, A THANK
YOU, OKAY. SAYING NO ONE ELSE
I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE STRESSED. THANK YOU,
MADAM. CHAIR FIRST. I WANT TO
THANK THE CHAIR FOR TAKING UP
THIS MEASURE AND FOR ENSURING
THAT THE ASSEMBLY HAS THE
APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF REVIEW FOR
THIS PROPOSAL. AS THE EXPERIENCE
OF THE LAST FEW SUMMERS HAS
SHOWN. WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF
MAJOR OF A MAJOR TRANSITION, HOW
WE GENERATE ELECTRICITY AND HOW
WE ENSURE RELIABILITY IS
CHANGING RAPIDLY. GENERALLY
SPEAKING, I THINK THE CONCEPTS
IN THIS BILL ARE REASONABLE.
THEY'RE. TO MAINTAIN RELIABILITY
IN A HARDER, HOTTER CLIMATE. I
LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE
PROPOSAL WORK ITS WAY FORWARD. I
DO HAVE A PROBLEM, THOUGH. I'M
CONCERNED THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION DID NOT BOTHER TO
SEND ANYONE TO THE COMMITTEE
TODAY. THIS IS THEIR PROPOSAL.
AND THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD
SOMEBODY HERE TO ALSO PROVIDE
INFORMATION TO US. AND I'M
PARTICULARLY CONCERNED BECAUSE I
WOULD HAVE LIKED TO ASK THE
ADMINISTRATION ABOUT THE
SAFEGUARDS NEEDED IN THIS BILL,
INCLUDING TO PREVENT THE CENTRAL
PROCUREMENT ENTITY THIS BILL
AUTHORIZES FROM FROM PROCURING
SUSPECT RESOURCES. THIS LANGUAGE
CURRENTLY LACKS ANY FIRM
GUARDRAILS. EXCEPT FOR THE PSC S
DISCRETION. THAT'S IT. AS THIS
BILL MOVES FORWARD, I WOULD LIKE
TO SEE HOW THIS MECHANISM WILL
CONSIDER THE IMPACTS OF THE
ENERGY PROCUREMENT ON THE
FRONTLINE COMMUNITIES CLOSEST TO
WHERE THE RESOURCES ARE CITED.
THIS INCLUDES THE NEED FOR NEW
CLEAN RESOURCES PROCURED UNDER
THE BILLS AUTHORITY TO DISPLACE
TO DISPLACE POLLUTING EXISTING
RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE STRUGGLED
TO GET RID OF. THERE ARE NO
LIMITATIONS ON THE SCOPE OF THIS
EXPERIMENT IF WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT OFFSHORE WIND AND
GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES, I THINK WE
SHOULD RESTRICT THIS PROPOSAL TO
THOSE CLEAN RESOURCES. I FULLY
EXPECT THAT THE AUTHOR OF THIS
BILL WILL ENSURE THIS POLICY
CONTINUES TO GET THE ATTENTION
IT DESERVES, AND I LOOK FORWARD
TO SEEING THE FRUITS OF YOUR
LABOR. AND I WILL SUPPORT THE
BILL TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MISS RESTS. MR CONNELLY.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND I,
TOO APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE
CHAIR ON THE SPELL AND SECOND,
MY COLLEAGUE'S COMMENTS, BUT
MORE SPECIFICALLY, I'M ALSO VERY
MIND FOR THE ISSUES RAISED BY C.
C. A UM TO THE CCS IN MY
JURISDICTION OR HERE, MARINE,
CLEAN ENERGY AND SINAMA CLEAN
POWER. APPRECIATE THEIR REMARKS
AND WONDERING WHAT IS THE STATUS
OF ANY NEGOTIATIONS JUST WITH
THE CCS? ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS
. ON ONE HAND, WE GET THE
CONCEPT AND IN NEED OF SOME SORT
OF CENTRAL PROCUREMENT. UM ON
THE OTHER HAND, RECOGNIZING KIND
OF THE UNIQUE NATURE OF BUSINESS
ENTITIES AND TRYING TO GO
FORWARD WITH THOSE GOALS AS WELL
, SO I'LL RESPOND TO THE FIRST.
PART OF THE QUESTION IS THAT
WE'RE VERY OPEN TO THE
SUGGESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE
BY CCS AND THE PUBLICLY OWNED
UTILITIES. UM SPECIFIC MECHANICS
OF THAT ALL THAT MEANT FREEDOM
AND KIND OF ADDRESS SOME OF
THOSE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME
UP, BUT WE CERTAINLY SEE A
POTENTIAL PATH FOR A CONSENSUS
AROUND THOSE ISSUES. UM WHAT THE
OBJECTIVES REMAINING THE SAME OF
HAVING SOME STATE ENTITY BE ABLE
TO GET IN FRONT OF THE
PROCUREMENT NEEDS OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA AND THE POINTS
MADE BY MS GOMEZ REYES, I THINK
, NARROWING IT DOWN TO A VERY
SPECIFIC TYPE OF FIRM RENEWABLES
. UM SOMETHING THAT WE'RE VERY,
VERY, UM, INTERESTED IN AS WELL.
YES UM, YEAH. JUST TO ADDRESS
SOME OF THE CONCERNS AND TO BE
CLEAR. THIS IS NOT TURNS BILL.
UM WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE
OUR COMMENTS ON IT, AND WE'RE
GENERALLY IN SUPPORT. I THINK WE
DO RECOGNIZE SOME OF THE
CONCERNS ABOUT SECTION SEVEN
THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED THE
ASSESSMENT OF FEES RELATED TO
CAPACITY PROCUREMENT
DEFICIENCIES. I THINK THAT THAT
PROVISION COULD BE AMENDED OR
EVEN STRUCK FROM THE BILL
WOULDN'T AFFECT OUR POSITION ON
THE OVERALL PACKAGE. WITH
RESPECT TO THE TWO OTHER PIECES
. THE ROLE OF THE CENTRAL
PROCUREMENT ENTITY. I KNOW
CALCIUM HAS RAISED CONCERNS
ABOUT WHAT IS IT GOING TO BUY?
IS THIS JUST KIND OF A BROAD
GRANT OF AUTHORITY, OR ARE THEY
REALLY GOING TO BE FILLING GAPS
THAT IN THE RESOURCE PORTFOLIO,
SPECIFICALLY THOSE THAT INVOLVE
RESOURCE CONSTRAINED LONG LEAD
TIME RESOURCES WHERE THERE'S NEW
INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED. MAYBE
YOU HAVE A FIVE OR A 10 YEAR
HORIZON AND YOU NEED A
COORDINATED EFFORT THAT MIGHT
INVOLVE FINANCING A NEW
TRANSMISSION AND WHATNOT. UM AND
OFFSHORE WIND IS CERTAINLY ONE
OF THOSE CANDIDATE RESOURCES. I
THINK THAT'S ALIGNED WITH OUR
VISION FOR HOW THIS SHOULD WORK.
UM THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE
SHOULD NOT BE A SHORT TERM
PROCUREMENT ENTITY. WE'VE
WATCHED DWR DO SHORT TERM
PROCUREMENT IN THE LAST COUPLE
OF YEARS, AND THE RESULTS ARE
UNINSPIRING. WE THINK THAT THEY
SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON LONG TERM
NEW RESOURCES THAT AREN'T
GETTING BOUGHT IN THE MARKET,
AND WE THINK THERE ARE WAYS TO
INCORPORATE THE CONCERNS THAT
CALCUTTA HAS RAISED INTO THAT ON
THE I R. P SECTION. I THINK I
DISAGREE. WE WITH THE
CHARACTERIZATION THAT THIS BILL
WOULD INFRINGE UPON COURT
DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY BY THE
SEA BY THE CIA'S OR ANY OTHER
LOAD SERVING ENTITY, REALLY? THE
AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING CODE
HERE, IN MY VIEW, ARE DESIGNED
TO ENSURE THAT THE PUC HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO PROPERLY ENFORCED
THE IRP REQUIREMENTS ON ALL
THOSE SERVING ENTITIES UTILITIES
CCS DIRECT ACCESS PROVIDERS.
THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THESE
REQUIREMENTS WILL MINIMIZE THE
NEED FOR BACKSTOP. PROCUREMENT
UM SO I DON'T SEE THE NIGHTMARE
SCENARIO THAT THE SIKA HAS PUT
FORWARD HERE. I THINK THIS IS
STILL RETAINED FLEXIBILITY, BUT
THE PUC HAS ALREADY BEEN PRETTY
DIRECTIVE IN ITS RP PROGRAM. I
THINK THIS IS MORE A MATTER OF
THE CODE CATCHING UP TO THE
REALITY ON THE GROUND. THAT'S
HOW WE SEE IT. YEAH I APPRECIATE
THIS PERSPECTIVES AND THE
ONGOING DISCUSSION. IT SOUNDS
LIKE WE'LL CONTINUE THANKS. ALL
SUPPORT TODAY. THANK YOU, MR
CONNELLY. MHM MR. TALA, MR.
TINGO FIRST. THANK THANK YOU, UH
, MADAM SHARON AND THEN TO MR
CHAIR REALLY APPRECIATE. YOU
FOR, UM, CARRYING THE BILL, AND
, UH, HAVING THIS DISCUSSION IN
COMMITTEE, UH, I CAN'T SUPPORT
THE BILL TODAY. UH I'M A LITTLE
BIT SURPRISED AT ALL THE FOLKS
UM IN CLEAN ENERGY WHO ARE
SUPPORTING IT? SIMPLY BECAUSE I
THINK IF THEY HAD BEEN IN OUR
BUDGET SUB THREE HEARINGS LAST
YEAR, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY
WOULD BE HEARING IT OR
SUPPORTING IT. UH, I DO AGREE
THAT WE DO NEED A CENTRAL
PROCUREMENT PROGRAM. UH
ORGANIZATION. I DON'T KNOW IF
DWR REALLY IS THE RIGHT
ORGANIZATION BECAUSE WHEN THEY
HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROCURE
ENERGY. WHAT THEY ABOUT OUR
NATURAL GAS PEAKER PLANTS. NOT
CLEAN ENERGY. THEY DIDN'T. THEY
DIDN'T FOLLOW THE DIRECTION THAT
WE'RE GOING, WHICH WAS TO MOVE
TOWARDS CLEAN ENERGY. AH! THAT
IS RELIABLE THAT IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN VERY USABLE. THEY DECIDED
TO GO WITH NATURAL GAS, WHICH I
DON'T BELIEVE IT'S CLEAN. NOW IT
MIGHT BE CLEAN UNDER THE
DEFINITION OF THIS BILL BECAUSE
THE DEFINITION IS NOT DEFINED.
SO I GUESS BROADLY SPEAKING,
THAT COULD BE CLEAN ENERGY, SO I
JUST POINT OUT TO ALL THE FOLKS
IN THE ROOM, UM, IN TERMS OF
MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S A
BALANCE BETWEEN RELIABILITY. AND
THE CLEANLINESS OF THE ENERGY, I
THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT. UH I
BELIEVE THAT IN THE PAST, DWR
DID NOT BALANCE THAT THEY JUST
FOCUSED ONLY ON RELIABILITY. OR,
FRANKLY, MAYBE THE ONLY FOCUSED
ON CONVENIENCE WHAT THEY FELT
THEY KNEW WHAT TO GO PURCHASE
AND WENT TO GO GET WHICH IS ALSO
WHY, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK
THAT DWR IS NECESSARILY THE
RIGHT AGENCY OR THE RIGHT
ORGANIZATION TO EITHER OVERSEE
THIS OR TO DO THIS WORK BECAUSE
THEY HAVEN'T EXEMPT. THEY
HAVEN'T EXEMPLIFIED A HISTORY OF
BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND AND TO
REALLY PROCURE. UH THE RIGHT
ENERGY, AT LEAST FOR CALIFORNIA
. MAYBE IT MIGHT BE THE RIGHT
ENERGY FOR TEXAS OR FLORIDA. BUT
NOT FOR OUR STATE. UM BUT BUT
JUST IN THIS INFORMATION, I
THINK THIS THIS IDEA NEEDS A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK. I DO
APPRECIATE YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD SO THAT WE COULD
ACTUALLY HAVE A DELIBERATIVE
PROCESS, UM, IN COMMITTEE AND
ACTUALLY HAVE YOUR UTILITIES
TEAM REALLY TAKE A HARD LOOK AT
IT, BUT GIVEN THEIR TRACK RECORD
, AND, FRANKLY, THEIR INABILITY
TO PROCURE THE ENERGY THAT
CALIFORNIANS WANT, WHICH IS
CLEAN ENERGY. AT THIS POINT, I
CAN'T. I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION AND REALLY CAN'T
SUPPORT THE DIRECTION THIS BILL
IS GOING THANK YOU, MR TINK. UM
. SO I YOU KNOW THE CHAIR WAS
THE FORMER CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE. I NOW CHAIR AND THE
WATER PARKS AND WILDLIFE
COMMITTEE WHERE UM, WE DEAL WITH
A LOT OF WRS CORE
RESPONSIBILITIES, WHICH ARE
LARGE AT A MOMENT IN TIME WHEN
WE'RE FACING EXTENSIVE DROUGHT
AND FLOODING AND THE NEED TO DO
INCREDIBLE AMOUNTS OF WORK TO
ENSURE THE RELIABILITY OF WATER
IN CALIFORNIA IN THE YEARS TO
COME, UM, I MEAN THE PREDICTIONS
OF WATER RELIABILITY ARE SUCH
THAT I WOULD ARGUE THEY ACTUALLY
MIGHT BE MORE DIRE THAN OUR
ENERGY RELIABILITY ISSUES. THE
SCIENTISTS SAY THAT IN 25 YEARS
WE WILL HAVE NO MORE SNOW IN
CALIFORNIA. WHEN THAT HAPPENS,
WE WILL BE IN REAL TROUBLE. AND
THAT IS D WRS. CORE FUNCTION,
AND SO I GUESS. I UNDERSTAND
THAT HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN
SOMETHING DWR DOES, BUT THIS
BILL PERMANENTLY MAKES IT PART
OF THEIR PORTFOLIO. AND I GUESS
PART OF MY CONCERN HERE IS ARE
THEY THE RIGHT AGENCY? DO THEY
HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO DO THIS?
AND HOW WILL THIS DISTRACT THEM
FROM THOSE CRITICAL CORE
FUNCTIONS THAT I THINK EVERY ONE
OF US WOULD AGREE? THEY NEED TO
GET RIGHT AND BE SPENDING A LOT
OF TIME AND ENERGY ON. UM I
DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS A
COMMENT ON THAT. I WISH THE
ADMINISTRATION WE'RE HERE TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS.
BUT MR FRIEDMAN, IF YOU'D LIKE,
THANK YOU. UM DWR DOES HAVE AN
EXTENSIVE POWER PORTFOLIO THAT
IT MANAGES TODAY AND HAS FOR
QUITE SOME TIME. IT MIGHT SEEM
LIKE AN ODD FIT, GIVEN THAT
THEIR ROLE IS TO MANAGE WATER
RESOURCES, BUT THEY PROCURE
ELECTRICITY FOR THE STATE WATER
PROJECT, AND IN FACT, THEY ARE
SPECIFICALLY OBLIGATED. TO
ENSURE THAT THE STATE WATER
PROJECT ACHIEVED 100% 0 CARBON
ELECTRIC SUPPLY. THEY WERE ALSO
DEPUTIZED SEVERAL TIMES
PREVIOUSLY DURING THE 4001
ENERGY CRISIS, AND THEN LAST
YEAR AS PART OF THE STRATEGIC
RELIABILITY RESERVE. THAT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S TING REFERENCED
. I THINK WE LEARNED SOMETHING
FROM THOSE EXPERIENCES. I DO
THINK THIS BILL INCORPORATES
LESSONS LEARNED IN THOSE PRIOR
TO EXAMPLES. THEY WERE GIVEN
UNBOUNDED AUTHORITY TO GO DO
WHATEVER THEY WANTED. AND THERE
WERE NO CHECKS AND BALANCES.
THIS BILL PROVIDES A VERY
DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK IN ORDER FOR
IN ORDER FOR DWR TO GO OUT AND
BUY ANYTHING UNDER THIS BILL.
THE PUC WOULD NEED TO GIVE THEM
A DIRECT ORDER TO DO IT. AFTER
WORKING WITH THE ENERGY
COMMISSION AND THE ISSO ONCE DWR
GOES OUT AND MAKES PURCHASES,
THEY WOULD NEED TO COME BACK AND
BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
PUC BEFORE THEY WOULD BE
EFFECTIVE, SO THIS IS ACTUALLY
THEM BEING TREATED MORE LIKE A
UTILITY THAN THEN A STATE AGENCY
AND I DO THINK IT'S A
FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE. IT
ENSURES THAT THE REGULATORY
AGENCY IS THE GATEKEEPER AND
REMAINS IN CONTROL OF
DETERMINING WHAT GETS PROCURED
AND WHETHER WHAT COMES BACK
AFTER THE ORDER IS REASONABLE. I
DO THINK IT'S VERY DIFFERENT.
AND I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND
OBVIOUSLY, THEIR ROLE IN THE
STATE WATER PROJECT THAT FEELS
THEORY DIFFERENT TO ME TO
PROCURE ENERGY FOR THEIR NEEDS,
WHICH IS WHAT THAT IS. RIGHT
VERSUS AND CENTRAL PROCUREMENT
ENTITY. I MEAN, THOSE TWO THINGS
ARE DIFFERENT, SO I WOULD JUST
HIGHLIGHT THAT, ALTHOUGH I
UNDERSTAND THAT PART OF THEIR
ROLE, UM AND THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY
HUGE ENERGY CONSUMER IN
CALIFORNIA IN THAT ROLE. UM AND
I SO I'VE HEARD A LOT OF THINGS
HERE THAT I THINK I LIKE AS
POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE BILL. I
REALLY LIKED YOUR SUGGESTION
THAT THEY FOCUS ON LONG LEAVE
RESOURCES, SOMETHING THAT IS
HARD FOR OUR CIRCUS AND OTHERS
TO DO. UM, I LIKED THE IDEA THAT
IT IF THIS WERE TO GO FORWARD,
IT SHOULD SUNSET. I THINK THAT
HANDING OVER THIS AUTHORITY, UM
TO AN AGENCY THAT HASN'T HAD A
GREAT TRACK RECORD HAS BEEN
NOTED, IS SOMETHING THAT WE
SHOULD DO WITH CAUTION, AND
SOMETIMES THE SUNSET IS THE WAY
TO EXERCISE THAT CAUTION. FORCE
US TO COME BACK AND REVISIT THE
QUESTION AND IN THE FUTURE AND
SEE IF THESE NEW GUARDRAILS AS
YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT, ACTUALLY DO
WHAT THEY NEED TO DO, BECAUSE I
GUESS I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE
FROM THE INLAND EMPIRE THAT, UM
I DON'T KNOW THAT. I THINK THESE
GUARDRAILS FEEL SUFFICIENT TO ME
. I THINK THAT WE DO OVERSIGHT
HEARINGS OF THE PUC ON THE
REGULAR BASIS, AND I DON'T OFTEN
FEEL LIKE THEY ARE. FIRST OF
ALL, THEY'RE OVERWHELMED, UM,
WITH THE CURRENT WORK THEY HAVE
IN FRONT OF THEM. UM AND IN
ADDITION, I DON'T KNOW THAT I
FEEL LIKE THEY ARE DOING THE
OVERSIGHT THAT WE OFTEN FEEL
LIKE THEY SHOULD BE IN THE AREAS
THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE
RESPONSIBILITY OVER. AND
ALTHOUGH YES, YOU WOULD HAVE TO
GO TO THE PUC AND COME BACK
ETCETERA WERE NOT DEFINING
PARAMETERS AROUND THAT RIGHT TO
YOUR POINT ABOUT COULD WE DO YOU
KNOW? COULD WE FOCUS THOSE
PARAMETERS? RIGHT? SO WE'RE
TELLING THEM EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.
THEY SHOULD BE APPROVING AND
SHOULD NOT BE APPROVING WHERE WE
WANT THIS FOCUS TO BE. FOR
EXAMPLE, ON LONGLEY RESOURCES,
UM BECAUSE I THINK HANDING OVER
THIS AUTHORITY TO DWR GIVEN
THEIR TRACK RECORD AND THEN
HAVING JUST PUC CHECKS DOESN'T
FEEL SUFFICIENT TO ME. UM AND
THEN I ALSO SHARE THE CONCERNS
OF MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT THE FACT
THAT THIS APPEARS TO EXTEND THE
STRATEGIC RELIABILITY RESERVE IN
A WAY THAT WOULD EXTEND THE LIFE
OF OUR UM 30 ENERGY IN
CALIFORNIA TO BE FRANK, AND IT
DOESN'T CONSTRAIN US IN THE WAYS
WE ARE LOOKING TO BE CONSTRAINED
TO MOVE TO 100% CLEAN ENERGY.
AND I THINK THAT IF WE ARE GOING
TO GO TO THE CENTRAL PROCUREMENT
ENTITY, MAYBE IT'S AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PUSH US IN THAT
DIRECTION RATHER THAN THE
OPPOSITE, WHICH IS, I THINK,
ALLOW FOR THE PURCHASE OF, UM OF
NON CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCES,
WHICH, AS I UNDERSTAND, IT IS
PART OF WHAT IS HAPPENING OUT OF
OUR STRATEGIC RESERVE TODAY. UM
AND SO I JUST THINK THERE'S A
LOT HERE THAT NEEDS TO BE
TIGHTENED AND WORKED ON. IF
WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS. I KNOW I
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR FOR
BRINGING THIS TO OUR COMMITTEE.
IN THIS WAY. I THINK IT'S REALLY
MEANINGFUL FOR US TO HAVE THIS
CONVERSATION. I ALSO KNOW YOU
HAVE BEEN A LEADER IN THE
CENTRAL PROCUREMENT. SPACE FOR
MANY YEARS WHILE I'VE BEEN HERE,
THIS ISN'T YOUR FIRST TIME
BRINGING THE CONVERSATION OF
CENTRAL PROCUREMENT TO THE TABLE
ISN'T THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS
BEEN TURNED ABOUT IT. UM AND
IT'S A HARD CONVERSATION TO
FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE BALANCE UM
, YOU KNOW OUR CURRENT RESOURCES
THAT MANY OF US, UM REALLY
CHERISH. I CHERISH MY CIRCUS I
HAVE TO IN MY DISTRICT AND I
THINK THEY'RE INCREDIBLE. I'VE
SEEN WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO
CREATING MORE CLEAN ENERGY IN MY
OWN BACKYARD. WIND ENERGY HAS
APPEARED IN THE TRI VALLEY
BECAUSE OF UM R C C A AND, UH,
THAT'S REALLY INCREDIBLE AND WE
DON'T WANT THOSE RESOURCES IS
MENTIONED BY SOME OF THE
OPPOSITION TO BE, UM, NO LONGER
A VALUE AND INSTEAD TO HAVE SORT
OF THE PROCUREMENT OF DIRTY
RESOURCES, SO HE'S NOT HERE. UM
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I
THINK YOU KNOW, I'M HOPEFUL THAT
THIS CONVERSATION I ALSO SHARED
MY FRUSTRATION THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION IS IN HERE TO
ENGAGE IN THIS POLICY
CONVERSATIONS SINCE THEY INVITED
IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. UM BUT
I'M GLAD WE CAN HAVE IT AND THEY
CAN HEAR WHAT WE'RE THINKING
ABOUT IT. SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
THEY CAN SEE THE ANALYSIS BY OUR
, UM BY OUR COMMITTEE AND WE ARE
ABLE TO HAVE THIS ROBUST
CONVERSATION. SO YOU KNOW WITH
THAT, I GUESS I'LL CONCLUDE MY
REMARKS, BUT, UM, WELL, I'M SURE
WE'LL GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE
ON THIS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, AND
I HOPE THAT ALL OF THESE
THOUGHTS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED.
THANK YOU. MR TING HAS MORE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. UM YOU
KNOW, I ALSO WANTED TO ECHO THE
, UH, THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE
DISAPPOINTMENT ABOUT THE
ADMINISTRATION NOT BEING HERE
FOR ALL THE COLLEAGUES BECAUSE
OF THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
HEARING THIS ITEM AGAIN IN
BUDGET COMMITTEE, SO WE'LL BE
WE'LL BE, UM, MAKING SURE THAT
WE REQUEST THEIR PRESENCE SO
THAT THEY CAN ANSWER AH, THE
QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S, UM, I AM
INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM MR
FRIEDMAN IS ALWAYS APPRECIATE
HIS HIS THOUGHTS. UM AGAIN, UH,
WITH THE CENTRAL PROCUREMENT
PROCESS BEING DESIGNED UNDER.
DWR HOW? HOW CAN WE ACTUALLY
ENSURE THAT THEY WILL BE, UH,
RESPONSIBLE OR OR EVEN A
COMPETENT PROCURE OF ENERGY AND
ALSO, HOW DO HOW DO WE ENSURE
THAT'S ACTUALLY CLEAN ENERGY
BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID IN THE PAST
, WHEN, UNFORTUNATELY THEY HAVE
PROCURED ENERGY. THAT'S NOT THE
DIRECTION THAT THEY WENT IN. UM
WELL, ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S THANK YOU
FOR THE QUESTION, AND I SHARE
ALL OF YOUR CRITIQUES OF DWR S
PERFORMANCE TO DATE, SO THERE'S
NO DAYLIGHT BETWEEN US ON THAT
ONE. UM, I THINK THE WAY TO
THINK ABOUT THIS. UM
CONSTRUCTIVELY IS THAT DWR IS
BEING DEPUTIZED AS A TOOL OF THE
STATE AGENCIES TO GO OUT AND
PERFORM SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS
SUBJECT TO THEIR DIRECTION. SO
WHAT KIND OF CONSTRAINTS COULD
BE PUT ON THEM TO PREVENT THEM
FROM GOING ROGUE? UM IT COULD BE
CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT THEY CAN
BUY. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU COULD SAY
UNDER THIS BILL, UM THEY'RE NOT
ALLOWED TO BUY FOSSIL FUEL
GENERATION PERIOD. THAT WOULD BE
ONE START SOME OF THE OTHER
SUGGESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED BY CALC CIA, I THINK ARE
REASONABLE. YOU COULD PUT
ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS OR
LIMITING WHAT THEY CAN GO OUT
AND BUY AND TO THE EXTENT THAT
IT'S NOT CLEAR, OUTLINING THE
EXACT STEPS THAT THE PUC WOULD
TAKE TO REVIEW AND APPROVE ANY
COMMITMENTS THAT ARE MADE BY DWR
, SO WHEN THE WHEN THE UTILITIES
GO OUT AND SIGN CONTRACTS THEY
HAVE TO COME TO THE PC FOR
APPROVAL, AND ALL THOSE
CONTRACTS INCLUDE PROVISIONS. PC
DOESN'T APPROVE THE CONTRACT.
THE CONTRACT IS BASICALLY IT
DISAPPEARS. UM DWR, OF COURSE,
SHOULDN'T BE ON THE HOOK FOR A
CONTRACT THAT ISN'T APPROVED BY
THE PC, SO THERE'S A WAY TO
ENSURE THAT THAT PROCESS IS
ALIGNED WITH HOW THE UTILITY
CONTRACT REVIEW IS DONE. BUT I
AGREE WITH THEM BEING USED AS A
TOOL AND LOOK TURN IN THE PAST
IS ALSO ADVOCATED FOR NOT DWR,
BUT A NONPROFIT UTILITY TO BE
CREATED. IN FACT, WE WORKED WITH
THE CHAIR HERE IN 2019 ON
ASSEMBLY BILL 56, WHICH WOULD
HAVE ESTABLISHED A NONPROFIT
ENTITY TO PERFORM THIS EXACT
FUNCTION, SO WE'RE OPEN TO OTHER
SOLUTIONS, BUT ONE PIECE OF
FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT AT THE TIME
WAS, UM, SOUNDS GREAT TO COME UP
WITH AN ALTERNATIVE. BUT DWR
EXISTS HERE AND NOW AND SO MAYBE
USE THE TOOLS YOU HAVE RATHER
THAN TO TRY TO CREATE NEW ONES.
BUT WE'RE OPEN TO BOTH
APPROACHES. ONE JUST CURIOUS,
UM, GOING ALONG THAT LINES WHY
WHY NOT? GO WITH MUNICIPAL
UTILITY OR A PUBLIC UTILITY. OR
EVEN, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE I O U
S. E I O U'S TODAY ARE
ESSENTIALLY IN THE ROLE OF
BACKSTOP PROCUREMENT FOR THEIR
SERVICE TERRITORIES. I SUPPOSE
YOU COULD TAKE THEM AND TURN
THEM INTO A SUPER PROCURE
STATEWIDE. I THINK A LOT OF US
ARE NOT EXCITED ABOUT THAT.
WE'RE LOOKING MORE TO KIND OF
PARE BACK THE FUNCTIONS OF THE
UTILITY RATHER THAN EXPAND THEIR
ROLE. UM IN TERMS OF USING A POU
, WE'D BE OPEN TO IT, BUT THEY
WOULD NEED TO BE WILLING TO
SUBJECT THEMSELVES TO PUC
OVERSIGHT, WHICH TYPICALLY
PUBLICLY ON UTILITIES ARE VERY
LOATHE TO DO SO. THE KEY IS, IS
THE ENTITY WILLING TO BE SUBJECT
TO REGULATORY OVERSIGHT HAVE
THEIR COMMITMENTS APPROVED? IF
THEY ARE, THEN I THINK IT OPENS
UP THE SCOPE OF OPTIONS. AND THE
THIRD THE WITNESSES DESIGNED IS
REALLY TO, UM PURCHASE POWER IN
A TIME OF NEED, BUT THAT'S NOT
THE WAY THAT THIS LEGISLATION
WAS INITIALLY WRITTEN. IT SORT
OF GIVES THEM A MUCH BROADER, UH
, PURVIEW. I MEAN, THAT'S THE
WAY THAT THE ENERGY WAS BUDGETED
LAST YEAR, BUT IN TERMS OF THIS
LEGISLATION GIVES THEM A MUCH
BROADER PURVIEW JUST ALMOST
STOCKPILE. ENERGY BUT WITHOUT
ANY JUSTIFICATION OR ANY
REASONING. IS THERE A REASON
THAT THAT MAKES SENSE? I DON'T
SEE THE LEGISLATION THAT WAY. UM
I SUPPOSE YOU COULD READ IT
DIFFERENTLY. BUT HOW I
UNDERSTAND IT IS AN ATTEMPT TO
CREATE A TOOL FOR REALLY
DEVELOPING THESE OVER THE
HORIZON RESOURCES THAT ARE VERY
DIFFICULT TO GET BUILT AGAIN.
OFFSHORE WIND BEING AN EXAMPLE
OF THAT. THAT'S NOT A DIRTY
RESOURCE. IF THE IF THE GOAL IS
STRATEGIC RESERVE ON STEROIDS,
THEN WE'RE NOT IN SUPPORT OF
THAT. UM BUT IF IT'S ABOUT
TRYING TO CREATE A TOOL FOR LONG
TERM RESOURCE PROCUREMENT THAT
IS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT'S GOING
ON AT THE LOAD SERVING ENTITY
LEVEL. THAT'S WHEN WE THINK IT
MAKES SENSE FOR CLEAN RESOURCES
ONLY, AND IF THAT'S THE CASE,
THEN WHY NOT JUST UM, CREATE A
SUBSIDY PROGRAM. LIKE WHAT WE'VE
DONE WITH SOLAR YOU SAW YOU SAW
HOW WE YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T GO
PROCURE SOLAR. WE HAD A SOLAR
PROGRAM. WE HAD RATEPAYERS
SUBSIDIZE ROOFTOP SOLAR. WE
AGGRESSIVELY HAD DIFFERENT TOOLS
TO ENCOURAGE BOTH THE PRIVATE
SECTOR PUBLIC SECTOR TO REALLY
GO PROCURE AND TO DEVELOP SOLAR
, AND THAT WAS THAT'S BEEN QUITE
SUCCESSFUL IN THE STATES. SO WHY
WHY HAVE THE STATE ACTUALLY GO
PROCURE IT? WELL, I THINK IF
IT'S FOR SOLAR, YOU'RE RIGHT ON
THAT YOU DON'T NEED THE STATE TO
ENTER INTO THIS SOLAR CAN BE
BUILT IN VERY DISCRETE
QUANTITIES. IT HAS A LOT OF
GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY ASSOCIATED
WITH IT. YOU DON'T NEED TO
ASSIGN THAT TO A CENTRAL
PROCUREMENT ENTITY, NOR DO YOU
NEED TO ASSIGN, LIKE LITHIUM ION
BATTERY PROCUREMENT. THESE ARE
THINGS ALREADY HAPPENING. BUT
WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH
CONSTRAINED GEOGRAPHIC RESOURCES
, OR MAYBE HAVE A SMALL NUMBER
OF SELLERS. AND YOU HAVE TO
BUILD TRANSMISSION. THE IDEA OF
A SIGNING FRACTIONAL SHARES OF
THAT TO DOZENS OF DIFFERENT
BUYERS WHO ALL HAVE TO NEGOTIATE
THEIR OWN CONTRACTS. IT GETS
REAL MESSY, COMPLICATED AND
INEFFICIENT. UM, SOMETIMES IT
MAKES SENSE TO HAVE A SINGLE
BUYER OUT THERE DOING THAT, AND
ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S
TRANSMISSION INVOLVED, AND THIS
BILL ALSO PROVIDES BONDING
AUTHORITY TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT
WAYS TO BUY DOWN THE COST. SO
THERE ARE CERTAIN TYPES OF
RESOURCES WERE STREAMLINING. THE
PROCESS IS BETTER AND IS MORE
LIKELY TO SUCCEED. ESPECIALLY IF
YOU HAVE A RESOURCE THAT MIGHT
BE IS SUBJECT TO LONG TO
SIGNIFICANT DELAYS OVER TIME.
LLCS ARE FACING COMPLIANCE
OBLIGATIONS. THEY NEED TO KNOW
THAT THEY CAN GET SOMETHING
ONLINE BY A DATE. OR THEY MIGHT
FACE A PENALTY IF YOU HAVE A
RESOURCE WITH UNCERTAIN HURDLES
, THEN IT MAKES SENSE TO THINK
ABOUT DIFFERENT WAY TO DO IT. SO
THE WAY I THINK YOU'RE
CHARACTERIZING THIS BILL, WHICH
IS NOT HOW I UNDERSTOOD IT, AND
THAT'S THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM IS
THE WAY IT SOUNDS. IT'S ALMOST
LIKE THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
THE STATE TO ASSIST THAT'S IT,
BUT TITLE POWER UM IT REALLY GET
THAT GOING, UH, THE WAY IT WAS
INITIALLY PRESENTED TO US. US
MEANING THE ASSEMBLY WAS THAT
THIS WAS JUST AN EXTENSION OF,
UH, STRATEGIC RESERVE AND THE
NEED FOR THE STATE TO GO. UH,
HAVE A HAVE A STOCKPILE OF
ENERGY OR TO ENSURE THAT SHOULD
WE HAVE BLACKOUTS OR WHERE THE
RISK OF BLACKOUTS OR WE DON'T
HAVE ACCESS TO ENERGY THAT THAT
IS REALLY WHAT THIS IS, BUT THE
WAY YOU'RE YOU'RE, UM YOU'RE
DESCRIBING IT, WHICH IS TO
PERHAPS HELP. SORT OF.
TECHNOLOGY THAT IS IN ITS
INFANCY. UH IT'S I THINK IT'S
VERY, VERY DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS
AT FIRST PRESENTED TO US WELL,
THERE'S TWO PARTS OF THE BILL
THAT AUTHORIZED DWR TO PROCURE
THEIR SECTION SEVEN THAT WAS
MENTIONED EARLIER, WHICH IS MORE
LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND THEN THERE'S THE OTHER
SECTIONS THAT DEAL WITH THESE
LONG LEAD TIME RESOURCES, SO I'M
NOT HERE TO DEFEND SECTION
SEVEN, AND I'M NOT HERE TO
DEFEND THE DWR, CONTINUING ITS
ROLE IN THE STRATEGIC
RELIABILITY RESERVE, SO I THINK
YOU CAN SEPARATE OUT THOSE
ISSUES. GOT IT. OKAY THAT
APPRECIATE THE DISTINCTION, SO
IT'S NOT SURPRISING THAT YOU AND
I TEND TO FIND AGREEMENT ON
THINGS. SO UH, WITH THAT AGAIN
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE CHAIR
AND ALL THE FEEDBACK FROM ALL
THE AH, STAKEHOLDERS AND WE'LL
LOOK FOR THE LOOK FORWARD TO
FURTHER SCOTT. THANK YOU.
CALDERON. YES AND I APOLOGIZE. I
MISSED SOME OF THE QUESTIONS
BECAUSE I WAS IN ANOTHER
COMMITTEE AT FIRST OF ALL, I
JUST WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR FOR
TAKING THIS ISSUE ON. UM AND I
UNDERSTAND THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION IS NOT HERE. UM
IS BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION. IS
THIS INTENDED TO TAKE OVER THE
ROLE THAT LOAD SERVANT ENTITIES
ARE SUPPOSED TO FILL WHERE THEY
DECIDE THEIR OWN PROCUREMENT
STRATEGY. UM FOR WHICH THEY ARE
RESPONSIBLE TO THEIR CUSTOMERS.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE
, OKAY. PATRICK WITH THE
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITY
ASSOCIATION. WE DON'T READ IT
THAT WAY. BUT I WANTED TO ADD
SOMETHING TO THE CONVERSATION
THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT.
THERE'S ACTUALLY HISTORIC
PROCUREMENT GOING ON RIGHT NOW,
BOTH AT THE PUC FOR LOAD SERVING
ENTITIES AND MUNICIPAL UTILITIES
. IT'S SO HISTORIC THAT OUR
MEMBERS ARE PUTTING OUT OUR FPS
FOR RPS RESOURCES AND RECEIVING
ZERO BID RESPONSES. KIND OF LIKE
PANDEMIC TOILET PAPER. THE
SUPPLY CHAIN WAS ALL MESSED UP.
EVERYONE WAS BUYING. AT THE SAME
TIME PRICES WENT UP. YOU
COULDN'T GET TOILET PAPER AT THE
BEGINNING. THAT'S WHAT'S
HAPPENING TO PROCUREMENT SPACE.
AND SO WE'RE CONCERNED THAT AN
ENTRANCE OF A NEW PROCUREMENT
ENTITY WHO CAN PROCURE ARE UNDER
OUR READ OF THE BILL. DIVERSE
CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCES COULD BE
ANYTHING. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
BE COMPETING IN THAT MARKET, AND
IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA MAKE OUR
MEMBERS JOBS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT
TO DELIVER CLEAN ENERGY FOR
THEIR CUSTOMERS. AND THAT'S WHY
WE THINK THIS THING IS BE REALLY
NARROWLY TAILORED. SO I JUST
THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT
THE COMMITTEE UNDERSTAND THAT 30
IS A LOT OF CUBA GOING ON AND IN
THE MUNICIPAL UTILITY WORLD, WE
DO IT JOINTLY ALL THE TIME TO
TAKE ON BIG PROJECTS. IF I CAN
HAVE. MOLLY ALSO CHAIRMAN YOU
THANK YOU REMEMBER, AND I AGREE
. I THINK THAT WE'VE SAID WE
AGREE WITH NARROWING TO WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH IS
REALLY LONG LEAD TIME HARD TO
PROCURE RESOURCES THAT ARE
FRANKLY NOT GOING TO BE SHOWING
UP IN AN ALL SOURCE SOLICITATION
OF WE NEED 200 MEGAWATTS OR 500
MEGAWATTS OF ANYTHING IN THE
NEXT THREE YEARS. THESE ARE THE
RESOURCES THAT ARE NOT GOING TO
BE PROCURED IN NORMAL FASHIONS.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE BèC
PUT OUT RECENTLY OF ITS PLAN TO
GO TO THE CAISO TO PLAN FOR
TRANSMISSION PORTFOLIO IS HUGE.
IT'S LIKE 86 GIGAWATTS OR
SOMETHING. AND ONLY ABOUT 10% IS
THE LONG LEAD TIME RESOURCES AND
THOSE MIGHT BE A LARGER PORTION
OF THE PIE IN THE FUTURE. BUT
THE POINT BEING, THE VAST
MAJORITY OF PROCUREMENT SHOULD
STILL OCCUR BY INDIVIDUAL POU
CCS LLCS. THANK YOU. HMM. YEAH
THANK YOU, MISS CALDERON. ANYONE
ELSE? SEEING NONE. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE THAT THIS IS THE
EXACT TYPE OF CONVERSATION THAT
THIS BILL ALLOWS US TO HAVE
VERSUS AS JUST FOLLOWING THE
PROCESS THROUGH A BUDGET
CONVERSATION, AND SO WE
APPRECIATE MY MUCH OF WHAT'S
BEEN SAID. WE HAVE NOT SAID THAT
WE CAN'T GET THERE TOO MANY OF
THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON
THE TABLE. I APPRECIATE THE TWO
WITNESSES THAT ARE HERE
PROVIDING THE VERY SPECIFIC YOU
KNOW, ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS
AND HELPING ME ALSO KIND OF PUT
OUR HANDS AROUND WHAT IT IS.
IT'S UM, PENDING FOR US TO WORK
ON. AND SO WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT TO MOVE THIS
CONVERSATION SO THAT WE CAN
CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF
DELIBERATION THROUGHOUT THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AND DO WE HAVE
EMOTION? THANK YOU. OKAY THAT
LET'S CALL THE ROLL. ITEM NUMBER
14 A B 13 73. THE MOST MOTION IS
DUE PAST APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA
GARCIA I PATERSON BAUER-KAHAN.
BARRICADE HAND NOT VOTING CALLED
AROUND. THANK YOU. CALDERON I.
KOREA. CHEN. CALLED DAYS WHICH
ONE THIS IS A B 13 73 DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHEN NÓ.
CONNELLY CONNELLY. I HOLDEN
MATHIS. MATTHEW SNOW MURATSUCHI.
RAISE DÍAS I SANTIAGO. BROUGH.
SHOVEL. AYE TING. NOT GOING. NOT
VOTING, WALLACE. WHILE IT'S NOT
VOTING. THAT'S 52 WILL KEEP THE
ROLL OPEN. THANK YOU. OH GREAT.
YOU'VE GOTTA GO. OKAY I FORGOT.
I WAS IN CHARGE. UM WE WILL TAKE
UP A B 15 33. THIS IS THE
COMMITTEE. OPTIMUS CLEANUP BILL
BILL PROVIDES CALLED CLEAN UP,
INCLUDING PROVISION TO THE
EXTENSION OF THE CANYON NUCLEAR
PLANT. RESPECTFULLY AS FRIDAY.
WELL, THANK YOU. SEEING NO
PRINCIPLE WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
ANYONE IN THE ROOM WITH LIKE TO
ADD THEIR VOICES SUPPORT, SEEING
NONE. ANY OPPOSITION IN THE
ROOM. SEEING NONE. WE'RE GOING
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. SEEING NO
COMMENTS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU. LOOK AT THAT.
AH LET'S CUT THE EMOTION IN
SECOND, SO ITS COLOR ITEM NUMBER
15 A B 15 33. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA GARCIA, I
PATERSON BARRICADE KHN
BARRICADE AND I CALLED AROUND
CALDERON I KOREA. CHEN CHEN, I
CONNOLLY. CONNELLY. AYE. HOLDEN.
MATHIS. MATHIS. I MURATSUCHI
REYES. BRACE I SANTIAGO. SZABO
LIGHTING ALRIGHT, I. WALLACE
WALLACE. AYE. THAT'S 10. 0 WILL
KEEP THE ROLE OPEN. THANK YOU.
AND WE DID ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS
FOR THAT LAST BILL 15 33 15. SO
WE HAVE ONE MORE BILL THAT NEEDS
TO BE PRESENTED. BUT WHY DON'T
WE GO UP TO THE TOP OF THE
AGENDA SO WE CAN GET FOLKS TO
ADD ON WE'LL START WITH THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. THIS IS A
CONSENT CALENDAR. GARCIA. I
GARCIA I KOREA. CHAN CHAN? AYE.
MATHIS. YOU CAN SET, ALL RIGHT.
MATHIS. I MURATSUCHI SANTIAGO.
CHING CHING. AYE. ITEM NUMBER
ONE A B 5 38. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSES AMANDA TO APPROPRIATIONS
KOREA. CHAN. CHEN NOT VOTING.
MATHIS VOTING. MATH IS NOT
VOTING MERCER MURATSUCHI.
SANTIAGO. CHING. KING. I. ITEM
NUMBER TWO A. B 50. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA. HIÂU I.
PATERSON KOREA. CHEN NO. CHEN
NO. HOLDEN. MATHIS. YES. MATHIS
SNOW. MASUCCI RAISE. I SANTIAGO
TING TING. AYE. ITEM NUMBER
THREE A B 6 43. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS GARCIA. I GARCIA.
I. PATERSON CALLED AROUND
CALDERON? AYE. KOREA. CHEN CHEN
, I, CONNELLY CONNELLY. I HAVE
YOU AS I MATHIS. MATHIS I SOUCI
RAISE RAISE I SANTIAGO. TING
TING. AYE. ITEM NUMBER FIVE A B
14 82. THE MOTION IS DUE PASSES
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
GARCIA GARCIA, I PATERSON KOREA,
CHEN. I APOLOGIZE. THIS IS A B
14 82 Dð PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHEN NO. HOLDEN.
MATHIS MATHIS SNOW MURATSUCHI
AND YOU'LL FIND MORE. RAISE
RAISE I SANTIAGO. CHING. CHENG?
AYE. ITEM NUMBER SIX A B 9 14.
Dð PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PATTERSON KOREA.
CHEN CHEN. AYE. HOLDEN. MATHIS
MATHIS. I MURATSUCHI. RAISE
RAISE I SANTIAGO. SZABO VÚI.
TING TING. AYE. ITEM NUMBER 11 A
B 17 10. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSES AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS
. PATTERSON CALLED AROUND
VOTING. CALDERON, NOT VOTING
CARILLO. CHEN CHEN I HOLDEN
MATHIS. CORRECT. MATHIS I
MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI NOT
VOTING. SANTIAGO. SHE BROUGH.
AYE VÚI TING TING NOT VOTING.
ITEM NUMBER 14 A B 13 73. THE
MOTION IS DUE PAST TWO
APPROPRIATIONS. PATERSON, KOREA
HOLDEN. MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI,
AYE. SANTIAGO. AN ITEM 15 ITEM
15. MAYBE 15 33. THE MOTIONS DO
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PATTERSON. ON
14. WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET. UM
I DIDN'T ITEM 15 80 15 33. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PATTERSON.
CARILLO. HOLDEN. MURATSUCHI
MURATSUCHI. AYE. SANTIAGO. WHICH
BILL WAS THIS AGAIN? THIS IS A B
15 33 Dð PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. HI. SANTIAGO.
AYE. OKAY? OH, ITEMS. 16 80 15
13, THE MOTION IS DUE PASSES
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
GARCIA GARCIA I. PATERSON,
KOREA. CHEN CHEN, I HOLD HIM.
MATHIS. MATHIS NOT VOTING
MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI I RAISE I
SANTIAGO. AS I SAT DOWN, LOST
TRACK, GILLIGAN THEN MAYBE 15 13
CALLED AROUND A B. I MEAN, DO
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. SANTIAGO I TING
TING. AYE. OKAY WE'LL LEAVE THE
ROLE OPEN FOR A LOT OF THOSE
BILLS FOR OTHER MEMBERS TO COME
AND ADD ON. WE DO HAVE LAST BILL
PRESENTER MR MASUCCI OF ITEM 12
AND 13. OKAY? YOU MAY BEGIN.
ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR
CHAIR. I UNDERSTAND THIS HAS
BEEN A ALONG HEARING FOR THIS
COMMITTEE AND SO I WILL TRY TO
KEEP THIS BRIEF. I AM HERE TO
PRESENT A B 13 58. I UM I WOULD
LIKE TO, UH, TURN IT OVER TO, UH
TO MY WITNESS AND SUPPORT JOHN
WHITE WITH THE CLEAN POWER
CAMPAIGN WOULD BE HAPPY TO, UH,
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS THAT
COMMITTEES HEARD A LOT OF
TESTIMONY TODAY. JOHN WHITE WITH
THE CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN ABOUT
THE IMPORTANCE OF TRANSMISSION
AND THE IMPORTANCE OF IT TO
MEETING OUR CLIMATE GOALS AND
OUR RELIABILITY GOALS WITH THIS
BILL DOES IS SOMETHING THAT I
THINK IS LONG PAST OVERDUE,
WHICH IS TO HAVE A STATEWIDE
TRANSMISSION PLAN AND SOME
ACCOUNTABILITY BUILT IN FOR
OVERSIGHT SO THAT THE GOVERNOR
AND THE PC CAN REPORT TO US
REGULARLY ON HOW WE'RE DOING AT
MEETING THESE GOALS AND WHAT WE
NEED TO DO TO MAKE IT DO BETTER
SO WE WOULD ASK FOR AN EYE, BUT
WE THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT
BILL.
THIS IS WHAT SHE YOUR WITNESSES
WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.
OKAY SO NO ONE ANYONE WISHING TO
SPEAK IN FAVOR AGAINST PUBLIC
COMMENTS, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
OKAY SO YOU NO ONE WILL BRING
HIM BACK TO DIOCESE QUESTIONS.
COMMENTS. THERE IS EMOTION.
THERE'S A SECOND. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
IVO. OKAY, THANK YOU DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. ITEM 12 A BEEF
13 58 Dð PAST APPROPRIATIONS.
GARCIA GARCIA I PATERSON
BAUER-KAHAN. CALLED AROUND
CALLED AROUND I. KOREA. CHEN
CHEN, I, CONNELLY CONNELLY. I
HOLDEN MATHIS. MATHIS. I
MURATSUCHI CHIRLA RAISE RAISE I
SANTIAGO SANTIAGO, I SHABA
SHOVEL FIGHTING. WALLACE
WALLACE. AYE. OKAY THANK YOU.
WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR OTHER
MEMBERS SAT ON. ITEM 13. MAYBE
16 23. THANK YOU, UM SECOND.
MOTION SECONDED. THANK YOU. I
JUST WANTED TO, UH AH,
COMPLIMENT. I DON'T KNOW WHO'S
SAMUEL MÀ HAYNES'S, BUT, UH,
EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT I, YOU
KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S SUCH A
COMPLICATED SUBJECT MATTER. IT
WAS EXPLAINED, AND WRITTEN SO
WELL, I WISH I HAD THIS WHEN I
FIRST JOINED THIS COMMITTEE TO
UNDERSTAND RESOURCE ADEQUACY AND
ITS COMPLEXITIES. UM I
COMPLETELY AGREE AND ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS TO
REFOCUS THE BILL TO REQUIRE THE
PUC TO STUDY REPORT ON THE
BEARERS TO INDUSTRY ENERGY
STORAGE DEVELOPMENT. I AM JOINED
WITH RYAN MCCARTHY WITH SP
ENERGY AND SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
UM GOOD EVENING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AS UM, AS SWITCH ON THE
WITNESS ON JACKSON SALOVAARA VP
OF STRATEGY AND INVESTMENTS AT
SP ENERGY, GRATEFUL FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE WITNESS
TESTIMONY, AS THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SAID, OR THE
PREVIOUS WITNESS SAID. IT'S BEEN
A LONG DAY, SO I'LL TRY TO BE
BRIEF. UM WE'RE SP ENERGY IS A
UTILITY SCALE SOLAR AND BATTERY
STORAGE DEVELOPER HERE IN
CALIFORNIA NATIONWIDE, WE HAVE
650 MEGAWATTS. UM OF SOLAR
OPERATING AND A 2.5, UM,
GIGAWATT PIPELINE OF SOLAR AND
STORAGE PROJECTS. WE'RE VERY
PROUD OF WHAT CALIFORNIA IS
DOING ON THE CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSITION AND PROUD TO SUPPORT
THAT. UM WE'RE, UH WE VERY MUCH
SUPPORT THIS BILL BECAUSE WE'RE
STARTING TO SEE SOME ISSUES IN
DEPLOYING STORAGE, ENERGY
STORAGE RESOURCES AT THE LEVEL
NEEDED TO EFFECTUATE
CALIFORNIA'S CLEAN ENERGY GOALS
. UM SPECIFICALLY, WE'RE SEEING
THAT THE CURRENT RULES FOR
CONNECTING ENERGY STORAGE
RESOURCES TO THE GREATEST IS
BEGINNING TO BLOCK. UM UH, NEW
ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCES
SPECIFICALLY TO CPUC S RESOURCE
ADEQUACY PROGRAM AND CAISSONS
DELIVER ABILITY, METHODOLOGY.
THIS RESULTS FROM THE WAY, UH,
CASE SO, UM AND CPUC BY
REFERENCE STUDY AND NEW ENERGY
STORAGE RESOURCES. THEY TREAT
ENERGY STORAGE LIKE A GENERATING
ASSET RATHER THAN A FLEXIBLE
RESOURCE AND BASICALLY REQUIRE,
UM, SUFFICIENT TRANSMISSION
CAPACITY FOR ENERGY STORAGE,
TOO. ENERGY SOURCE RESOURCES TO
DISCHARGE ON TOP OF ALL OF THE
RENEWABLE RESOURCES. WE'VE ADDED
, UM WHEN, IN FACT, THE ROLE
THAT ENERGY STORAGE WILL PLAY
LIKELY TO PLAY IN THE GRID OF
THE FUTURE IS TO CHARGE FROM, UH
FROM PARTICULARLY SOLAR
RESOURCES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
DAY AND THEN PROVIDE, UM,
DISCHARGE IN THE IN THE EVENING
HOURS. AND, UM AND REALLY
PROVIDE RELIABILITY. THEN UH, WE
WERE SEEING AN ISSUE WHERE BEING
HELD TO THIS STANDARD THAT
DOESN'T REALLY REFLECT THE
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF
STORAGE LEADS TO STORAGE
RESOURCES BEING BLOCKED AND,
PARADOXICALLY THREATENS
RELIABILITY. AND SO, UM WE VERY
MUCH SUPPORT THE CPUC STUDYING
THIS ISSUE, LOOKING FOR WAYS TO
WORK WITH CHI, SO TO CHANGE THE
METHODOLOGY. UM TO BETTER
RECOGNIZE THE ENERGY STORAGE
ROLE IN THE GRID OF THE FUTURE.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES
SUPPORT ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
TWO MINUTES EACH. UH HELLO, MR
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I WANT A SECOND, THE
AUTHOR THAT THIS IS REALLY
COMPLICATED AND THAT WE WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR
WORK. UM, THANK THE AUTHOR AND
HIS STAFF. UM AND IT LOOKS LIKE
WITH THE AUTHOR ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS. UM, WE'RE HEADED IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR A VERY
COMPLICATED ISSUE. THAT WE'D
LIKE TO HAVE OUR, UM OUR
REGULATORS. UM, LOOK AT MORE
CLOSELY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
GOOD EVENING, ANDREW COZIER WITH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON. WE
ARE ALSO VERY APPRECIATIVE OF DR
SAM ATONES FOR HIS WORK ON THIS
ANALYSIS AND APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATION WITH THE AUTHOR AND
THE COMMITTEE. THE AMENDS ALLAY
EDISON'S CONCERNS, AND SO WE
WILL BE REMOVING OUR OPPOSITION
IN TAKING A NEUTRAL POSITION. WE
THINK THE MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE AND ALL OF THE STAFF
FOR THEIR WORK AND HEARING OUR
CONCERNS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ALASKA PROBABLY COMMENTS WILL
OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
THOSE WISHING TO STATE THEIR
POSITION IN FAVOR AGAINST
PLEASE. COME FORWARD, SAYING NO
ONE WILL BRING IT BACK TO DIE.
YES THERE IS A MOTION TO SECOND
ALREADY ANY QUESTIONS? ANY
COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CALL
THE QUESTION. SPECTRAL LAST
FRIDAY. HMM. ITEM NUMBER 13.
MAYBE 16 23. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSES AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS
. GARCIA GARCIA I PATERSON
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN. AYE,
CALDERON. CALDERON I KOREA
CARILLO I CHEN. CONNELLY
CONNELLY. I HOLDEN. MATHIS
MATHIS. I MURATSUCHI GI RAISE. I
RAISE I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO, I
SHABA SHOW VÚI TING TING I
WALLACE. WALLACE. AYE. THAT'S 12
0. YOU WANT TO KEEP THE ROLE
OPEN THE ROLL OPEN FOR OTHER
MEMBERS HAD ON. WE'LL GO BACK TO
THE TOP OF THE AGENDA FOR THOSE
MEMBERS THAT JUST WALKED IN.
WE'LL GO TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR
AND GO DOWN THE LIST THERE.
SECRETARY THIS IS THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. KOREA KOREA LIE
MURATSUCHI GI SANTIAGO SANTIAGO
AYE. 15 0 15 0, THE CONSENT
CALENDARS OUT. ITEM NUMBER ONE.
A B FIVETHIRTYEIGHT Dð PASSES
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS KOREA,
CARILLO AYE. MURATSUCHI E I.
SANTIAGO. THAT'S A B
FIVETHIRTYEIGHT CORRECT.
SANTIAGO, NOT VOTING. 12 0 12 0
BILL GETS OUT.
ITEM NUMBER TWO ITEM NUMBER TWO.
A B 50 MOTION IS DUE PASSES
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. KOREA
VÚI HOLDEN. MURATSUCHI DIÆN
SANTIAGO, RIGHT? MAYBE 50.
SANTIAGO. AYE. 11 TO 11 TO.
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE ROLE
OPEN FOR OTHER MEMBERS TO COME
OUT ON NUMBER THREE A. B 6 43
MOTIONS DO PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS KOREA CARILLO?
AYE, MURATSUCHI. MURATSUCHI I.
SANTIAGO? SANTIAGO. AYE. THAT'S
14 0 KEEP THAT OPEN FOR OTHER
MEMBERS TO ADD ON ITEM NUMBER
FIVE A B 14 82. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS KOREA CREOLE.
AYE. HOLDEN. MURATSUCHI DIÆN.
SANTIAGO. SANTIAGO. AYE. 10.
WE'LL KEEP THE ROLL OPEN. ITEM
NUMBER SIX. MAYBE 9 14 DO PASS
AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
KOREA CARILLO AYE, HOLDEN.
MURATSUCHI DIÆN. SANTIAGO.
SANTIAGO I, HMM. I THINK WE'LL
KEEP THAT ROLE OPEN AS WELL FOR
OTHER MEMBERS HAD ON ITEM NUMBER
11 A B 17 10 Dð PASSES AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS KOREA CARILLO
AYE. HOLDEN. SANTIAGO SANTIAGO.
AYE. HAVE YOU BACK? OKAY, WE'LL
LEAVE THAT OPEN, ALSO FOR OTHER
MEMBERS TO ADD ON ITEM NUMBER 12
MAYBE 13 58 Dð PAST
APPROPRIATIONS BAUER-KAHAN
BARRICADE HANAI. KOREA CARILLO
AYE, HOLDEN. TING TING. AYE.
OKAY WE'LL KEEP THAT OPEN 13
ITEM NUMBER 13 A B 16 23 DO
PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHEN. HOLDEN.
OKAY WE'LL KEEP THAT OPEN FOR
MEMBERS TO ADD ON ITEM NUMBER 14
13 73 DO PAST APPROPRIATIONS.
KOREA, CARILLO AYE. HOLDEN.
SANTIAGO. SANTIAGO. AYE. KEEP
THE ROLE OPEN FOR MEMBER TO ADD
ON NUMBER 15 A B 15 33 Dð PASSES
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS KOREA
CARILLO AYE. HOLDEN. KEEP THAT
OPEN. OTHER MEMBERS. IF YOU'LL
JUST LET, UH MR HOLDEN WILL
REMAIN OPEN UNTIL SIX PM ITEM
NUMBER 16 AB 15 13 Dð PASSES
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS KOREA
VÚI HOLDEN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
AGAIN. WE'LL KEEP THE ROLE OPEN
UNTIL SIX O'CLOCK FOR SOME
REASON. 15 33. I HAVE HIM. I
THANKS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SIX
PM WILL KEEP THE ROLL OPEN.
OKAY WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO THE
TOP OF THE AGENDA. WE'RE GOING
TO BE CLOSING OUT THESE ITEMS SO
SECRETARY CONSENT CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN CLOSED OUT.
ITEM ONE A B FIVETHIRTYEIGHT. 12
0. ZERO. THE BILL GETS OUT ITEM
NUMBER TWO A B 50. 11 TO THAT
BILL GETS OUT. ITEM NUMBER
THREE, MAYBE 6 43 14 0 GETS OUT.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE. 14 80 80 14 82
TEND TO GET OUT. ITEM NUMBER
SIX. MAYBE 9 14. 13 0 GETS OUT.
ITEM NUMBER 11 A B 17 10. 10 0
GETS OUT NUMBER 12 MAYBE 13 58.
13 0. 13 0. BILL GETS OUT NUMBER
13 A B 16 23 12 0 GETS OUT. ITEM
NUMBER 14. 82 THE BILL GETS OUT.
ITEM NUMBER 15. MAYBE 15 33. 13
0 GETS OUT. ITEM NUMBER 16.
MAYBE 15 13 12 0. IT'S OUT, AND
WE WILL ADJOURN THE UTILITIES
ENERGY MEETING FOR WEDNESDAY,
APRIL 25TH MEETING, JOE.