GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE AND
WELCOME I WOULD LIKE TO CONVENE.
UH, TODAY'S HEARING OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES
AND ENERGY. UH BEFORE WE MOVE TO
THE AGENDA, I DO HAVE A FEW
HOUSEKEEPING ANNOUNCEMENTS TO
MAKE WE HAVE THREE MEASURES ON
THE AGENDA TO OUR ON CONSENT.
UH, ASSEMBLY MEMBER REBECCA
BAUER KHAN WILL BE ABSENT FROM
TODAY'S HEARING. UH, AS IS
CUSTOMARY, I WILL MAINTAIN
DECORUM DURING THE HEARING IN
ORDER TO HEAR AS MUCH FROM THE
PUBLIC WITHIN THE LIMITS OF OUR
TIME. WE WILL NOT PERMIT CONDUCT
THAT DISRUPTS OR OTHERWISE
IMPEDES THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF
LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS. ANY
INDIVIDUAL WHO IS DISRUPTIVE MAY
BE REMOVED FROM THE ROOM. UM
PLEASE NOTE THAT, UH, WITNESS
TESTIMONY IS LIMITED TO FOUR
MINUTES TOTAL, UH, TWO MINUTES
IN SUPPORT TWO MINUTES IN
OPPOSITION FOR ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES ON A MEASURE, PLEASE.
UH, ONLY STATE YOUR IN POSITION
AND AFFILIATION. IF ANY, UM UH,
MADAM SECRETARY. UH, WE, UH, WE
DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE A QUORUM,
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND
BEGIN TODAY'S HEARING AS A
SUBCOMITTEE. WE WILL GO AHEAD
AND IS OUR AUTHOR HERE. YES
EXCELLENT. OK WE ARE GONNA GO
AHEAD AND JUMP INTO THE ONE ITEM
ON OUR AGENDA. UH, THAT'S UP
FOR, UM, PRESENTATION. SO ITEM
NUMBER ONE A B 1912 ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, PACHECO. GOOD AFTERNOON.
IT IS GOOD OUTSIDE. AND OF
COURSE I'M ALWAYS COOL. OH, 16.
YEAH, WE ARE. WE'RE ONE SHORT OF
A QUORUM. SO FOR ANY OF OUR U N
MEMBERS WHOSE OFFICES ARE
WATCHING THIS, PLEASE SEND YOUR
MEMBERS HERE AND WE WHILE WE ARE
YOU MAY GO AHEAD AND BEGIN.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I
AM HERE TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL
1912 AND I WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS.
CALIFORNIANS ARE STRUGGLING WITH
SKYROCKETING COSTS OF GOODS AND
SERVICES. WITH LOW INCOME
CUSTOMERS DISPROPORTIONATELY
BURDEN, FOR EXAMPLE, IN SAN
DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC SERVICE
TERRITORY ABOUT 23% OF AVERAGE
RATES ARE ATTRIBUTED TO
LEGISLATIVE MANDATED COSTS. 5%
OF THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH
PUBLIC PURPOSE PROGRAMS SUCH AS
NET ENERGY METERING, WHICH
CREATES AN ADDED COST TO PEOPLE
WHO DON'T HAVE SOLAR ON THEIR
HOMES. WHEN THE LEGISLATURE
CONSIDERS PROPOSING NEW PROGRAMS
AND REQUIREMENTS. WE SHOULD LOOK
AT HOW EXISTING PROGRAMS MAY BE
LEVERAGED RATHER THAN
DUPLICATED. AND CONSIDER THE
COST OF NEW PROGRAMS TO REDUCE
THE RATE IMPACTS. A B 1912 WITH
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS DIRECTS
THE CALIFORNIA COUNCIL ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO
PREPARE A WRITTEN ANALYSIS THAT
INCLUDES RELEVANT DATA ON THE
EFFICACY COST IMPACT. AND
OVERALL EFFECT OF EACH PROPOSED
LEGISLATIVE MANDATE PRIOR TO A
VOTE IN LEGISLATIVE POLI POLICY
COMMITTEES. THIS MEASURE IS
MODELED AFTER THE EXISTING
PROCESS OF THE ASSEMBLY HEALTH
COMMITTEE'S REVIEW OF NEW BILLS
THAT AFFECT HEALTH CARE
AFFORDABILITY. KNOWN AS TO BURP.
A 1912 WILL PROVIDE LEGISLATORS
WITH THIRD PARTY DETAILED
TECHNICAL AND ACADEMIC DATA
ABOUT PROPOSED LEGISLATION THAT
WILL RESULT IN RATE OR BILL
INCREASES. LEGISLATORS WILL BE
ABLE TO USE THIS ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION TO SHAPE ENERGY
POLICY THAT BOTH ACCELERATES THE
STATE TOWARD MEETING ITS CLIMATE
GOALS AND KEEPS ELECTRIC RATES
PORTABLE. THIS BILL REQUIRES I
TO PAY FOR THIS REPORT. AS
SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT LARGE
ELECTRICAL CORPORATIONS SHALL
NOT RECOVER THE COST FROM ITS
RATEPAYERS WITH ME TODAY IS A
WITNESS AND SUPPORT LOURDES, SAY
THE MANAGER OF STATE GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS FOR SAN DIEGO GAS AND
ELECTRIC. AND UM, BEFORE WE MOVE
TO THE WITNESS TESTIMONY, WE'LL
JUST PAUSE FOR A MOMENT SO THAT
WE CAN ESTABLISH A QUORUM. UM,
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. PETRIE, NORSE. PRESENT
PARE. NOR IS PRESENT JIM
PATTERSON. PRESIDENT. PATTERSON
PRESENT. CALLED AROUND. CALLED
AROUND PRESIDENT CHEN CONNOLLY.
FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN HERE, HOLDEN
HOLDEN HERE, JOE PATTERSON. JOE
PATTERSON HERE, REYES WHEREAS
HERE, SANTIAGO XIA ABOVE. TING.
HERE WALLACE WALLACE. HERE WOOD
WOOD HERE, THE BUR ZUR HERE.
THAT'S A LOT. ALL RIGHT.
WONDERFUL. WE, UH DO HAVE A
QUORUM. YOU MAY CONTINUE. THANKS
THANK YOU. CHAIR MEMBERS. GOOD
AFTERNOON. UH, MY NAME IS
LOURDES AON, AND I'M THE MANAGER
, UM OR IN HOUSE LOBBYIST FOR
SANDY HOOK, GAS AND ELECTRIC.
VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE. UM WANTED
TO TALK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT THIS
BILL AS WELL. UM MAYBE 1912 IS
GONNA INFORM THE LEGISLATURE
ABOUT RATEPAYER COST OF EACH
MANDATE RIGHT? SO AS IT
CURRENTLY CURRENTLY STANDS WHEN
YOU ALL WHEN THE LEGISLATURE
LOOKS AT BILLS, WE'RE LOOKING AT
THE STATE IMPACT AND NOT
NECESSARILY THE IMPACT TO EACH
PERSON'S POCKET. AT THE END OF
THE DAY, OUR CUSTOMERS AND
RATEPAYERS POCKETS UM AND THE
BILL IS GOING TO BE REQUIRING A
CREDIBLE SOURCE TO TELL THE
LEGISLATURE AND INFORM YOU, UH,
INFORM YOU ALL OF WHAT THAT COST
WILL BE OF ANY ELECTRIC MANDATE
THAT YOU MAY BE LOOKING AT, UM I
KNOW I WOULD WANNA KNOW THAT IF
I WERE IN YOUR SEAT FOR SURE.
LIKE, WHAT IS THE FINAL COST
GONNA BE TO RATEPAYERS? I KNOW.
I WANT TO KNOW IN THIS SEAT. UM
I'M FROM SAN DIEGO ORIGINALLY,
AND MY MOM IS A SAMUEL GAS AND
ELECTRIC CUSTOMER. AND SHE WILL
CALL ME AND ASK ME IF S¼ Dð G
CAN PLEASE LOWER HER BILLS, AND
I CAN'T DO THAT FOR HER, AND
IT'S FUNNY, AND IT'S ALSO SAD,
BECAUSE, UM, SHE DOESN'T
UNDERSTAND THE BIGGER PROCESS
THAT GOES INTO ACTUALLY CREATING
RATES AND HOW POLICY IS DRIVING
A LOT OF THOSE RATES. I EXPLAIN
THAT TO HER, UM I HAVE AN
EXAMPLE FOR YOU IN TERMS OF WHY
IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT WHAT
THE FINAL COST IS GOING TO BE.
AND UM 2020 ASSEMBLY MEMBER TING
VIA A B 841 PRESENTED A
FANTASTIC BILL ON ENERGY
EFFICIENCY FOR SCHOOLS, AND THAT
BILL WE SUPPORTED AND IN CONCEPT
WAS AMAZING, AND WE LIKED IT AND
THE ANALYSIS THAT CAME OUT. THIS
IS ONE OF THE LAST ANALYSIS AS
THIS WAS IN CONCUR CONCURRENT IN
IN THE SENATE FOR CONCURRENCE.
UH THE ANALYSIS STATED THAT THE
BILL WOULD COST AS A ROUGH
ESTIMATE. $20 MILLION OVER FIVE
YEARS TO RATEPAYERS. AND AS
WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS BILL NOW
IN 2024, NOT EVEN THE FIVE YEARS
IS UP. UM THE ACTUAL COST OF
THAT BILL HAS BEEN BY OUR, UM,
AN ANALYSIS AND, UM, REAL TIME.
THAT COST HAS BEEN 740. THREE
MILLION BETWEEN THE THREE I Ó U
S¼ AND SO FOR US IN PARTICULAR.
THAT BILL IS COSTING 100 AND 17
MILLION TO OUR RATEPAYERS NOW
THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A THIRD
PARTY ENTITY INFORM THE
LEGISLATURE ABOUT REAL TIME.
ACTUAL COSTS IS SO THAT WE ARE
LOOKING WELL AND BY WE I MEAN,
BECAUSE WE'RE PARTNERS IN THIS
AND IN LOOKING AT PROGRAMS AND
TO SEE HOW IT'S GOING TO
ACTUALLY AFFECT VERSUS JUST
HAVING A ROUGH ESTIMATE AND NOT
REALLY KNOWING WHAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, SO I'M
REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS
PARTICULAR BILL. BECAUSE HAVING
A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WILL
HELP ME. I THINK ANSWER.
QUESTIONS FOR MY OWN PARENT,
RIGHT? WHO IS ON A FIXED INCOME
AND WHO I'M AFRAID OF, UM WHAT
IS GONNA END UP HAPPENING TO HER
? WHEN EACH YEAR HER BILL KEEPS
GOING UP, EVEN THOUGH SHE'S
STILL ON CARE? THOSE BILLS STILL
GO UP AND AT THE END OF THE DAY,
I END UP HELPING HER AND I DON'T
MIND DOING THAT. BUT WHEN I
THINK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE WITHIN
THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA, THEY
CAN'T DO THAT. I YOU KNOW, I. I
GENUINELY WORRY, AND I THINK
THAT THIS IN TERMS OF
AFFORDABILITY, THIS BILL IS ONE
THAT CAN HELP ADDRESS SOME OF
THESE ISSUES AND HOPEFULLY
PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION. SO YOU
ALL CAN MAKE, UM BETTER
DECISIONS ON WHILE VOTING. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IN
OPPOSITION? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
OK SEEING AND HEARING NONE. UM
DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, WITNESSES IN
THE HEARING ROOM IN SUPPORT. YOU
CAN GO AHEAD AND APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. NONE ALL RIGHT, ANY
WITNESSES IN THE HEARING ROOM IN
OPPOSITION? ALRIGHT. AND HEARING
. NONE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT
UP TO THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
PATTERSON. THANK YOU. I, UH I DO
HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE
BILL. AND ONE OF THE CONCERNS I
HAVE IS. DOES DOES THE BILL LOOK
BACK TO THE OLD MANDATES. I AND
IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT IS IF THIS IS
ONLY GOING FORWARD. WERE
EFFECTIVELY FREEZING THOSE
MANDATES INTO PLACE. CAN YOU?
CAN YOU SPEAK OF THAT? UM SO
WE'RE NOT GONNA UNDO ANY OF THE
MANDATES THAT HAVE GOTTEN US
HERE. NÓ THIS BILL DOES NOT UNDO
THE MANDATES MOVING OF THE ONES
FROM THE PAST. WE'RE LOOKING AT
MANDATES MOVING FORWARD. SO THE
PU èC AT THE MO AT AS IT STANDS
CAN DO THAT. THAT THE CPUC CAN
ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE OLD
MANDATES AND TO LOOK AT ACTUAL
COSTS. THERE THEY HAVE A YEARLY
REPORT THAT THEY PROVIDE. I
THINK THEY'RE WORKING ON ONE
RIGHT NOW ON GAS AND HOW MUCH
THAT COST WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL
COST? UM AND SO THEY ARE ABLE TO
DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN
THAT IS HAPPENING OR WHERE
YOU'RE WELL OTHER THAN THE
YEARLY REPORT WHAT THE
LEGISLATURE IS ACTUALLY DOING
WITH THOSE NUMBERS. BUT THIS
WOULD, UM, HAVE THESE NUMBERS.
BEFORE THEY HAPPEN, RIGHT?
HOPEFULLY WE CAN HAVE THOSE
NUMBERS BEFORE THE MEASURES
BEING VOTED ON UNDOING. EXISTING
UM OR IMPLEMENT OR EXISTING LAW
WOULD BE UP TO THE LEGISLATURE
AND PUC TO LOOK AT THAT. I MEAN,
CAN WE ADD THAT TO THIS BILL?
MAYBE IT MIGHT COMPLICATE IT
MORE BUT SURE. THAT'S AN IDEA.
BUT I THINK THAT IT CAN ALREADY
BE DONE NOW. THE PU èC CAN DO
THAT NOW. YEAH, UM SO WHAT? I
GATHER FROM THIS. UH UH, WE'RE
ESSENTIALLY WE'RE BASICALLY
FREEZING WHERE WE ARE. AND THEN
WE'RE RELYING ON THE PUC. TO
LOOK BACKWARDS. YOU KNOW
SOMETHING? I'VE BEEN ON THIS
COMMITTEE NOW WHAT? 11 GOING ON
12 YEARS. WHERE'S THE PU èC?
WHY AREN'T YOU HERE? THE
TESTIMONY HERE HAS BEEN YOU THE
PU èC CAN DO THINGS LIKE THIS.
WHY AREN'T THEY DOING IT? AND
WHY THEN? ARE WE PUTTING THAT
COST? ON THE UTILITIES. SEEMS TO
ME. WE'RE FREEZING THE RATE
INCREASES WHERE THEY ARE UH,
WHERE THIS IS ESPECIALLY OF
CONCERN FOR ME IN MY REGION
BECAUSE PG AND E SERVES THAT
REGION. AND THE BILL BASICALLY
SAYS THAT YOU'RE GONNA SLICE UP
TO $2 MILLION BASED ON THE SIZE
OF THE MARKETPLACE, AND ALL OF
THAT, WHICH MEANS A BIG CHUNK OF
THIS IS GOING TO END UP IN IN IN
THE IN THE COST OF, UH,
ELECTRICITY IN IN CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA. UM, SO MY QUESTION
IS WHY OUR ART IS IF THE PU èC
CAN DO THIS WHY DOES THE BILL
PUT THE BURDEN OF PAYING FOR
THIS. ON THE UTILITIES. THEY'RE
THEY'RE NOT. THEY'RE NOT
CREATING THE MANDATES. THEY HAVE
TO LIVE WITH THEM. THEY THEY PAY
A LOT OF ATTENTION TO, UH
CUSTOMERS AND THEIR THEIR THEIR
CONCERNS. AND SO I, I I'M I'M
CONCERNED NUMBER ONE THAT THIS
ISN'T LOOKING FORWARD. IT'S
LOOKING. IT'S FREEZING
EVERYTHING. I MEAN, IT'S LOOKING
FORWARD, BUT IT'S FREEZING
EVERYTHING WHERE IT IS. UM AND
NUMBER TWO. I THINK WE HAVE
MISSED THE OPPORTUNITY TO
REQUIRE THE PU èC TO DO WHAT
IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO. UM I KNOW
THAT YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH
MY LED DIRECTOR, AND HE'S HERE.
AND THERE AND THIS WAS A
UNSOLICITED SOLICITED CALL. AND
YOU CALLED, UH, AS A COURTESY,
AND YOU HAD THIS CONVERSATION.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE
IS SOME SOME INTEREST IN MOVING.
WHO PAYS FOR THIS? FROM THE
UTILITIES TO THE PUC. AND THE
TESTIMONY HAS BEEN THAT THE PUC
ANNUALLY CAN ACTUALLY CONDUCT
THINGS LIKE THIS. AND SO UH,
WHAT I HEARD FROM MY LEDGE
DIRECTOR WAS A WILLINGNESS TO
PERHAPS MOVE. THIS TO THE PUC.
IS THAT A FAIR? RECOLLECTION OF
THAT CONVERSATION. DID YOU HAVE
A, UM SO WE ARE OPEN TO WHATEVER
ENTITY IS GONNA PROVIDE THE
INFORMATION AHEAD OF TIME, SO PU
SEEMS LIKE A NATURAL FIT IN
PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION ONE
BECAUSE THEY ALREADY DO IT. THEY
SHOULD BE DOING IT. YOU ALL HAD
TO HEAR OVERSIGHT HEARING LAST
WEEK ON IT, UM, HOLDING THEM
ACCOUNTABLE FOR NOT PROVIDING
ENOUGH INFORMATION OR MAYBE NOT
REGULATING IN THE WAY THEY'RE
SUPPOSED TO BE TO BE REGULATING.
UM AND SO THIS PARTICULAR PIECE
TO ME FEELS LIKE YEAH, PUC
SHOULD DO THAT THEY HAVE A $1.9
BILLION BUDGET THAT COULD
PROBABLY COVER THIS 70 OR TO 100
BILLS RELATED TO ELECTRICITY
THAT THAT COME THROUGH THIS THIS
, UH, COMMITTEE AND THROUGH THE
LEGISLATURE IN GENERAL. YEAH
THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF THEY
COULD DO THAT, AND PART OF THE
RATES AND OR OR THE PIECE IN
WHICH WE PAY OR THAT WE THE
COSTS THAT ARE INCURRED IT. IT'S
PART OF THOSE FEES THAT WE THAT
ARE INCURRED IN WORKING WITH
WITH THE PU èC, SO WE WOULD YOU
KNOW. THAT WOULD BE PART WE
WOULD STILL BE WORKING WITH A
WITH A PU èC TO PAY SOME OF
THOSE FEES IN AND PROVIDING THAT
REPORT. AS WELL. SO IT WOULD BE
A NATURAL FIT MY CONCLUSION IN
LOOKING THROUGH THE BILL AND
THINKING ABOUT IT SERIOUSLY AND
RETROSPECTIVELY WITH MY 1112
YEARS. HERE. UM, MY TAKEAWAY IS,
UH, THIS IS THIS IS THIS IS THIS
IS LATE IN THE GAME. UM AND I. I
AND IT LOOK. I WAS MARY FRESNO
FOR EIGHT YEARS. $2.5 I
UNDERSTAND THAT FUNDS AND MONEY
IS FUNGIBLE. RIGHT AND I KNOW
THAT THE BILL SAYS THAT CAN'T
HAVE ANY OF THE OF THIS. GO TO
THE RATEPAYER. YOU KNOW
SOMETHING? WHAT HAPPENS? BEHIND
THE SCENES AND WITH THE
ACCOUNTANTS AND A CO COLUMN OVER
HERE, AND A MINUS COLUMN OVER
HERE AND A PLUS COLUMN OVER
HERE. THIS GOES INTO A BIG PO
AND THAT BIG POT MAKES UP THE
EXPENSES AND THE COST. SO WHY
ARE WHY EVEN RUN THE RISK? WHY
NOT MANDATE AND REQUIRE THAT THE
PUC DO ITS JOB. AND THEY'RE
THEY'RE CAPABLE OF DOING IT.
THEY HAVE THE BUDGET TO DO IT.
SO THIS. THE BILL IN PRINCIPLE,
I THINK IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH
SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN DOING A LONG TIME AGO. AND
AS VICE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE,
I WARNED ABOUT THESE KINDS OF
THINGS 5610 YEARS AGO. AND HERE
WE ARE LIVING LIVING IN THE TIME
WHEN YOU KNOW OUR MOTHERS CAN'T
AFFORD TO PAY THEIR THEIR
ELECTRICAL BILLS. THIS IS THE
REAL WORLD WE'RE LIVING IN. UM
AND SO I ALSO SEE THE FAILURE
HERE OF WHERE WAS THE PU èC.
ALL OF THIS. IF THEY CAN DO IT,
WHY AREN'T THEY AND IF I MAY I
AND I HAVE SOME COMMENTS AND
QUESTIONS FOR THE AUTHOR. BUT I
JUST I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IN
TODAY'S HEARING, UM AND MOVING
FORWARD THAT WE RECOGNIZE I
MEAN, ONE OF THE CONCERN THAT
YOU'RE RAISING IS THAT WE'RE
LATE IN THE GAME AND THAT WE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR
A LONG TIME. WELL, WHAT I WANNA
S¼ TO DO IN THIS COMMITTEE IS
NOT RELITIGATE THE PAST. I WANT
US TO FOCUS ON THE POLICIES AND
THE POLICY CHANGES THAT ARE
GOING TO HELP US MOVE CALIFORNIA
PRODUCTIVELY AND HOPEFULLY IN A
WAY THAT MAKES UTILITY PRICES
MORE AFFORDABLE. AND I KNOW THAT
YOU ARE DEEPLY DEEPLY COMMITTED,
AS AM I TO LOWERING THE COST OF
UTILITIES FOR CALIFORNIANS, AND
I APPRECIATE THAT, AND I WOULD
SAY IF THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION, EXISTING
MANDATES. UM I KNOW THAT THAT I
AND I'M SURE OTHER COMMITTEE
MEMBERS WOULD WOULD WELCOME AN
OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AN
ADDITIONAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION,
YOU KNOW, FROM YOUR OFFICE THAT
FOCUSES ON EVALUATING THOSE
MANDATES. WELL AGAIN. I
APPRECIATE THE CHAIRS. UH, WORDS
HERE. BUT WE JUST GOT A
CONFIRMATION FROM THE CHAIR THAT
THIS ESSENTIALLY FREEZES. IT IT
DOES NOTHING TO FREEZE ANYTHING.
I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU KEEP SAYING
THAT. IT DOES NOT 11 YEARS WE'VE
TRIED REPEATEDLY TO CHANGE
COURSE, AND IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
AND HERE WE ARE WITH A SET OF
RATES, PARTICULARLY, YOU KNOW,
PG AND E AND MY NECK OF THE
WOODS. THAT'S THAT. THAT'S
EXORBITANT. UM AND I KEEP COMING
BACK TO WHERE IS THE PUC? WE
THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE ALL
ALONG. HEARING THESE BILLS IN
THE LAST 10 YEARS. AND
ADVOCATING. AND TALKING TO US.
AND MAYBE EVEN WARNING US ABOUT
THE IMPLICATION. WE HEARD THE
TESTIMONY HERE THAT WHAT
INITIALLY WAS, YOU KNOW, $20
MILLION OVER A PERIOD OF TIME
TURNS INTO WHAT 100 SOME ODD
MILLION 743,000,700 ALMOST A
BILLION DOLLARS NOW. OUR
RATEPAYERS. HAVING TO TAKE CARE
OF THAT. YES. YES, MHM. SO
AGAIN. I'VE JUST REMINDING US
UH, GOING FORWARD. I THINK THAT
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE BILL ARE
SUPPORTABLE, BUT I JUST DON'T
LIKE WHO IS HAVING TO PAY THE
BILL PAY THE FREIGHT. BECAUSE
AFTER BEING HERE A WHILE, UM
APPRECIATE WHAT, UH, THE
OFFICIAL POSITION IS GOING TO
BE, UH UH, WITH RESPECT TO, UH
RATE PAYERS AND ALL OF THAT. AND
WHAT THE WHAT THE BILL SAYS. DO
YOU KNOW SOMETHING? UM I I'M A
LITTLE JADED. AND I'LL JUST, UH,
SAY THAT I UNDER COMPLETELY
UNDERSTAND, UM, YOUR POSITION
AND YOUR FRUSTRATIONS. UH THIS
LIKE, UH, THE CHAIRWOMAN
MENTIONED, UH, THE EXISTING
MANDATES. UM WILL STAY IN PLACE,
BUT AT LEAST THIS WILL GIVE US
AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A
SEPARATE ANALYSIS AS TO THE
IMPACT ON RATEPAYERS, AND I
BELIEVE WE JUST NEED TO MOVE
FORWARD AND DO BETTER FOR
CALIFORNIA. BUT I COMPLETELY
UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION. I
GET IT. UM, BUT THIS BILL IN
FRONT OF US IS JUST GOING TO WAS
THAT THE INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS,
SO THAT WAY WE AS LEGISLATORS
ARE INFORMED. ALRIGHT, UM,
MOVING ON ASSEMBLY MEMBER 10.
THANK YOU, UM, II. I DO AGREE
WITH, UM MY COLLEAGUE FROM F
NOTE THAT THE PU èC WAS, UH,
SHOULD BE HERE. UM MY
UNDERSTANDING WAS IN YEARS PRIOR
TO US JOINING THIS COMMITTEE
THAT THEY WERE HERE. UM I DO
HAVE, UH, I. I DO. UH, I
REMEMBER THE BILL A B 841. I
DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD AGREE
WITH THE WAY THAT IT'S BEING
CHARACTERIZED SO I'D BE HAPPY TO
GO BACK THROUGH THAT, UM AGAIN.
THE MONEY THAT WE ENDED UP
SPENDING OUT OF THAT BILL WAS
FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND FOR A
NUMBER OF EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS
AND MONEY THAT WAS SITTING IN
THE PUC. THERE'S A NUMBER OF
PROGRAMS WITHIN THE PU èC, UH,
RATE PAYER PROGRAMS WHERE THEY
LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS JUST LYING AROUND
THERE, AND THIS IS A THIS IS A
FUND THAT I WAS VERY FAMILIAR
WITH RATE PAYER FUNDED FOR
ENERGY EFFICIENCY THAT LITERALLY
THE MONEY NEVER WENT OUT THE
DOOR. SO I, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY
HOW YOU GOT THAT FIGURE. UH, MY
RECOLLECTION OF HIM HAPPY TO GO
BACK THROUGH. IT WAS THAT THAT
WAS MONEY THAT WAS SITTING AT
THE PU èC. IT WAS NOT, UM
ADDITIONAL RATEPAYER FUNDS, AND
SO I DON'T I DON'T REALLY AGREE
WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION, UM,
HAVE HAVING SAID THIS, UH I. I
DO HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE I
KNOW THESE ARE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. II I SUPPORTED THE
BILL WHEN IT WAS U èC BERKELEY.
UM DOING THE ANALYSIS. I HAVE
SOME CONCERNS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL ON SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY. I'M LIKE, I
GUESS I WOULD ADDRESS THIS BACK
TO THE CHAIR. JUST UNDERSTAND
WHY THIS AGENCY? I DON'T THINK
THIS AGENCY HAS REALLY ANY UM,
IN PARTICULAR, UH, EXPERTISE IN
THIS AREA. THEY DO. MAYBE ONE OR
TWO REPORTS IN ENTIRE YEAR. I
DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WOULD KEEP
UP WITH THIS KIND OF VOLUME, UH,
GOING BACK TO THE PUC èC WHEN
WE HAVE AN OFFICE OF RATEPAYER
ADVOCATE. THEIR ENTIRE JOB IS TO
DO RATE PAY OR ANALYSIS ADVOCATE
FOR THE RATEPAYERS. I DON'T KNOW
WHY WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO DO
THE ANALYSIS, OR PERHAPS L, Ó
OR SOME SOME OTHER AGENCY. THAT
IS REALLY WELL, I. I KNOW THESE
ARE NOT YOUR MAN. THESE ARE THE
CHAIRS. AMENDS. I JUST I JUST GO
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. UM AND
JUST UNDERSTAND. I MEAN THE THIS
AGENCY. THEIR PRIMARY FUNCTION
IS TO DO THE SCIENCE FELLOWS
PROGRAM NOT TO DO UM RESEARCH,
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
II. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
SUBSTITUTING THIS AGENCY INTO
THIS BILL. UM AND THANK YOU FOR
THAT QUESTION, AND I WOULD SAY
THERE'S BEEN QUITE A LOT OF
DISCUSSION. UM WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE ABOUT THE APPROPRIATE
PLACE TO HOUSE. UH THIS ANALYSIS
FUNCTION. UM IN AS YOU MAY
RECALL IN, UH 2019. I DON'T HAVE
THE BILL IN FRONT OF ME. 1980
THREE 1080 THREE, WHICH WAS A
BELL BY OUR COLLEAGUE, UH,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, BURKE HAD
ESTABLISHED A SIMILAR
REQUIREMENT. UM AGAIN, THERE HAD
BEEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH
ABOUT WHETHER SHOULD BE HOUSED.
YOU KNOW THE YOU SEE, HOW IS IT?
S¼ Tð. ULTIMATELY THE REASON THE
DECISION WAS TAKEN TO SUPPORT CS
Tð WAS WAS TWOFOLD. NUMBER ONE.
THEY WERE WILLING TO DO IT. UH
AND NUMBER TWO. I THINK THE
COMMITTEES AS IS THAT THEY WILL
BE RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS AND
THE TIMELINE OF THE LEGISLATURE,
UH, IN ORDER TO, UH, QUICKLY
TURN AROUND ANALYSIS THAT WE CAN
ACT ON BECAUSE I THINK THE
ANTICIPATION IS THAT THERE WILL
BE QUITE A VOLUME OF LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSALS THAT THEY'RE HAVING TO
ANALYZE AND CONSIDER, AND WE
DON'T THINK THAT THE OFFICE OF
RATE PAYER ADVOCATE WOULD DO IT.
THAT'S AN INTERESTING GIVEN THAT
THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE
THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE COAL
THAT IS AN INTERESTING
ALTERNATIVE AS WELL. I'M NOT. I
LIKE THE IDEA. I LIKE. I LIKE
THE BILL. I DON'T WANNA BE YOU
KNOW, I DON'T WANNA BE THROWING
A MONKEY A MONKEY WRENCH INTO
THIS THING, BUT TO ME, I JUST
WANNA II. I LIKE THE BILL. I
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE CHOOSE
AN AGENCY THAT CAN ACCOMPLISH
WHAT WE ALL CRACKED. WE WANT TO
DO. YEAH. AND I AM OPEN TO THAT.
WHOEVER THAT AGENCY WILL BE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WELL,
THAT'S WHY I SAID OFFICER RIPE
OFF, BECAUSE THAT'S THAT THAT'S
THAT IS THEIR JOB. SO I GUESS
GIVEN THIS I MEAN, II. I GUESS I
COULD I I'LL. I'LL VOTE FOR THE
BILL TODAY IN HOPES THAT YOU
WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO IRON
THIS OUT, I SAY. SO AND THAT THE
AUTHOR? YES, I MEAN, NÓ I OF ALL
THE FAITH IN THE WORLD THAT THE
AUTHOR WILL, UH ENSURE THAT WE
HAVE IT AT THE OPTIMAL LOCATION.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOULD THANK YOU.
UM FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THE BILL FORWARD. I
HAPPEN TO REALLY LIKE THIS IDEA.
UM I WORKED WITH FOR EIGHT YEARS
AS THE CHAIR OF THE HEALTH
COMMITTEE. TO BURP IS FUNDED BY
A SMALL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON
HEALTH PLANS. THE ONES DIRECTLY
AFFECTED BY MANDATES. SO IN MY
MIND, IT ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE
FOR THE UTILITIES TO PAY FOR
THIS BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES
WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THE
MANDATES. UM AND BY EXTENSION,
YOU COULD SAY THAT THE RATEPAYER
THE CONSUMER IN THE HEALTH
INDUSTRY IS PAYING WHEN THESE
MANDATES ARE ADDED, AND THEY AND
THEY AND THEIR BILLS GO UP AND
THEIR INSURANCE RATES GO UP, SO
I THINK IT ACTUALLY MAKES
PERFECT SENSE TO LEAVE IT THE
WAY IT IS. SO UM, NOW THE
CHALLENGE BECOMES WITH, UM UH,
MADAM CHAIR. UM, IS THAT UM, MY
COLLEAGUES DIDN'T LIKE ME VERY
MUCH AT TIMES WHEN I MANDATED
THAT ANY BILL THAT WAS GONNA BE
A MANDATE ON THAT I THAT I
REQUIRED THAT ANY BILL THAT WAS
GONNA BE A MANDATE ON INSURANCE
COMPANIES GO THROUGH THE PROCESS
PRIOR TO BEING HEARD IN
COMMITTEE. AND UM AND I THINK
THAT, UH, WELL, IT'S NOT IN THE
BILL. UM HOPEFULLY, THAT COULD
BE A COMMITTEE RULE GOING
FORWARD BECAUSE I THINK IT IT
DOES PROVIDE REALLY, REALLY
VALUABLE INFORMATION. UH TO
PEOPLE NOW THE OTHER PART OF
CHAP IS THAT YOU KNOW, IT IS, UM
IT IS A TASK FORCE HAS PUT
TOGETHER WITH EXPERTS AND THEN
THEY IT IT. IT COULD BE FLUID.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T
NECESSARILY HAVE ALL THE EXPERTS
THAT COULD ANSWER THE QUESTIONS,
BUT THEY COULD REACH OUT TO
PEOPLE TO HAVE INPUT ON ON ON
THE POLICY. SO, UM SO I THINK I
DON'T I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH
ACTUALLY MOVING IT TO THE PUC.
UM THEY'RE THE REGULATOR. UM AND
THEY'RE ALSO GONNA BE LOBBIED,
UH, BY PEOPLE AS WELL, UH, SO I
HAVE A HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT,
AND I SEE THIS ALSO AS A YOU
KNOW, AS A HEALTHCARE PROVIDER.
UM IS THIS KIND OF A PREVENTIVE
THING? YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD WE
SHOULD KNOW UP FRONT WHAT THE
IMPACTS OF THINGS ARE GOING TO
BE, UM AND YOU KNOW, WHILE IT IS
LATE IN THE GAME. UM I'D SAY
IT'S BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.
QUITE FRANKLY, UH, GOING GOING
FORWARD, UM WE ARE GOING TO SEE
MORE AND MORE POTENTIAL MANDATES
. I BELIEVE ON UTILITIES GOING
FORWARD, AND THAT'S KIND OF THE
NATURE OF THE COMMITTEE. UH OVER
THE YEARS, AND SO I THINK THIS
MAKES PERFECT SENSE. UM AND, UH
YOU KNOW, WE CAN HOPEFULLY, FINE
TUNE WHO DOES IT? WHERE UNDER
WHAT? AUSPICES BUT BUT I DON'T.
I DON'T THINK IT IS A IT IS
GONNA BE A SO THAT THAT THAT
CENTRAL ENTITY THAT DOES THIS IS
NECESSARILY GONNA BE ALWAYS
COMPOSED OF THE SAME PEOPLE
PUTTING INPUT INTO INTO THE
REPORT. UM SO I THINK IT'S A
GREAT BILL. I'D LOVE TO BE ADDED
AS A CO-AUTHOR. IF IT MOVES OUT
OF COMMITTEE TODAY, AND, UM, AND
I THINK, UH, I THINK IT'S UH, I
THINK IT'S HIGH TIME. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER. UH,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER IS A BUR SO I. I
ACTUALLY LIKE THIS BILL A LOT.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT. UH
ACTUALLY, I'M NOT GONNA TAKE TOO
MUCH TIME BECAUSE SOME OF THEM
WOULD, I THINK STATED A LOT OF
MY VIEWS ABOUT THIS. UM, I ONE.
I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S THAT
THAT IT SHOULD BE MOVED TO THE
PU èC. I THINK THAT THEY ARE
THE REGULATOR. THEY'RE THE
SUBJECT OF A LOT OF THE
MANDATES. I THINK HE NEEDS
SOMEONE THAT'S INDEPENDENT. I
DON'T HAVE STRONG VIEWS ABOUT
WHAT THE COMMITTEE DID. I DO.
SORT OF LIKE THE RATEPAYER
ADVOCATE IDEA. UM BUT I THINK
THIS IS A REALLY GOOD BILL. I
MEAN, WE ARE GOING TO BE MAKING
REALLY IMPORTANT DECISIONS THAT
POTENTIALLY AFFECT THE RATEPAYER
TO ACHIEVE OUR CLIMATE GOALS
OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT
DECADE, AND OFTEN WE HAVE
INCOMPLETE INFORMATION. THAT YOU
KNOW OUR STAFF GIVEN EVERYTHING
THAT THEY'VE GOT TO DO HAS
LIMITED RESOURCES AND HAVING
THIS, UM THIS BILL, I THINK IS A
REALLY GOOD THING TO BRING
INFORMATION TO LEGISLATORS. AS
WE'RE MAKING ALL THESE DECISIONS
AND I. I AGREE THAT THE CHAP UM
UH, MODEL IS A GOOD ONE, AND I
THINK HAS RESULTED IN
PROTECTIONS FOR CONSUMERS. SO I
AM FULLY BEHIND THE BILL. THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING IT, AND I'M
GLAD TO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, UH, ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
JOE PATTERSON. I'M LOOKING
FORWARD TO A YEAR OF THAT. UM
YES. I'M JOE PATTERSON. UM I'VE
ONLY BEEN HERE. THIS IS MY FIRST
BILL HEARING. UM I, UH I REALLY
LIKE THIS IDEA. A LOT. UH, I
THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, UM,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOULD NOT
EVERYBODY DISLIKED YOU AND YOU
KNOW, JUST SO YOU KNOW NÓ NÓ NÓ.
UM BUT SITTING ON HEALTH I. I
DID THINK IT WAS A GREAT POLICY
TO HAVE THAT BEFOREHAND.
OTHERWISE THERE'S NÓ USE IN THE
INFORMATION. UM IT HELPED, AND
THERE WERE PLENTY OF TIMES WHERE
THERE WOULD BE CRAZY NUMBERS AND
IT WAS GONNA BE EXPENSIVE AND
PEOPLE VOTED FOR IT ANYWAYS. BUT
AT LEAST THE PUBLIC, UM KNEW AND
THE POLICY MAKERS WHO ARE GOING
TO BE VOTING ON THAT NEWS, SO I
THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA. WE
SHOULD DO IT FOR MORE POLICIES
PASSED IN THIS PLACE. I MEAN, I
THINK THERE'S A THERE'S CAN BE
SOME DISCUSSION ON. YOU KNOW HOW
IT'S PAID FOR AND THINGS LIKE
THAT. UH AND I THINK THOSE ARE
FAIR DISCUSSIONS. I THINK
THERE'S PLENTY OF MONEY, UH, OUT
THERE RIGHT NOW. BUT I DON'T, UH
, OBJECT TO HOW IT'S PUT IN THE
BILL RIGHT NOW, AND I SUPPORT
IT, AS IS WHETHER èC èC S¼ Tð
DOES. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE IT
AT THE MOST EFFICIENT PLACE. AND
ALSO MOST EXPERIENCED PLACE. YOU
KNOW, WHATEVER WE CAN FIND WITH
THOSE TWO THINGS. I DO HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT SENDING THIS TO
SOME, YOU KNOW, UH, GOVERNMENT
BUREAUCRACY TO DO IT. I THINK
IT'D BE MORE EXPENSIVE. AND IT
MIGHT. IT MIGHT, UH, YEAH, I
MEAN, JUST BE HONEST, BE SLOWER,
SO WE NEED THE INFORMATION WHEN
THE BILLS ARE PRESENTED, BUT
ANYWAYS, I THINK THIS IS A GREAT
BILL. I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY, AND, UH, LOOKING FORWARD
TO WATCHING IT AS IT GOES
THROUGH THE PROCESS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, UH, SOME OF MEMBER
CONNELLY AND THEN SOME MEMBER IS
THANKS CHAIR AND ALSO APPRECIATE
THE AUTHOR. I THINK YOU KNOW, I
FULLY AGREE ON THE STRONG
SENTIMENT. YOU'RE HEARING THAT
WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPETUS BEHIND
THIS BILL. THE AFFORDABILITY
THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE FACING
AROUND RATES, UM, FRANKLY, BUT
EXORBITANT RATES RIGHT NOW. UM
SO I'M GONNA BE A SUPPORTER, BUT
MAYBE IN THE CONTEXT OF SOME
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION,
POTENTIALLY UM, AS THE ANALYSIS,
UH, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS REALLY
GOOD, UH, DESCRIBED, UM THIS
BILL WOULD HIGHLIGHT THE COST OF
NEW LEGISLATIVE MANDATES, BUT
NOT OTHER DRIVERS OF CARS. UM SO
UH, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS THE FINDINGS
OF A RECENT STATE AUDIT THAT
INCREASES IN IOU OPERATING COSTS
ARE ALSO CONTRIBUTING. UH TO
INCREASE RATES WITH SOME
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES AROUND THAT.
SO WHILE I'M IN FAVOR OF HAVING
MORE INFORMATION ON HOW
LEGISLATION WILL AFFECT RAY
APPEARS, I THINK IN TERMS OF
OVERALL TRANSPARENCY AND TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUES I'M CONCERNED
THAT, UM HAVING INFORMATION
ABOUT ONE TYPE OF DRIVER OF
RATES WITHOUT HAVING SIMILAR
INFORMATION ON OTHER RATE
DRIVERS COULD BIAS. THE
AFFORDABILITY DISCUSSION, FOR
EXAMPLE, MAYBE WAITING AGAINST
PUBLIC PURPOSE PROGRAMS, WHICH
IS KIND OF WHAT WE OFTEN TIMES,
UH, BRING FORWARD WHILE OTHER
DRIVERS ARE RATE INCREASES
RECEIVE LESS SCRUTINY, SO I'D
LOVE TO SEE A WAY TO MINIMIZE
OUR POTENTIAL. UM PROBLEM IF YOU
WILL, BUT I SEE IT MORE AS
ONGOING DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER IS THANK YOU. I
AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT,
UM, ENERGY AFFORDABILITY. IT'S A
CRISIS AND WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT
A WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS. HAVING
MORE INFORMATION WILL ALWAYS
MAKE IT EASIER. BUT I'M JUST NOT
SURE AND MAYBE, UM, UH UH, MY
COLLEAGUE UM DOCTOR WOOD, THE
WAY THEY DO DONE IT IN HEALTH,
BUT I'M JUST NOT SURE ON THE HOW
PRACTICALLY WE ARE GOING TO BE
DOING THIS AND NOT TALKING ABOUT
MEMBERS, OUR STAFF AND EVEN
COMMITTEE STAFF ON HOW THE
PROCESS WILL GO. SO THE LANGUAGE
SAYS THAT BEFORE THE BILL GETS
HEARD IN A POLICY COMMITTEE A
WRITTEN ANALYSIS SHALL BE
PREPARED ON THE COST TO THE
RATEPAYERS. SO MY QUESTION IS.
HOW WOULD THAT WORK IF A BILL
GETS AMENDED LATE IN THE
PROCESS? TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE
THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A MANDATED
PROGRAM, UH OR REQUIREMENT WILL
HAVE TO WAIT. ANOTHER UH UH,
WILL I HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE
ANALYSIS IS COMPLETED? UM THE
WAY THAT I WOULD SEE IS THAT
THIS IS GOING TO LEAD TO BILLS
THAT ARE AMENDED LATE AND THEY
MAY DIE OR GET STALLED OUT. UM
BECAUSE OF THE BECAUSE WE DON'T
HAVE THE CLARIFICATION. WE DON'T
HAVE THE ANALYSIS. SO I IN THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WE TOOK FOR THE
BILL, THERE WAS A LANGUAGE IN
THERE. THAT CHANGED THAT AROUND,
UM, WHERE IT PROVIDES A LITTLE
BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY. UM IN
TERMS OF TIMING, AND SO THERE,
WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A AT A AT A
PARTICULAR 60 DAYS VERSUS, YOU
KNOW, 45 DAYS AS AS THE CHAIR
HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, SO
THERE'S MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE
IN THE AMENDED VERSION OF THE
BILL THAT SAID THE PIECE ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT THE UM UH, AN
AMENDED BILL LATER ON IN THE
PROCESS. WHAT DO WE DO WITH THAT
? UM WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE MORE
DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, AND MAYBE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOULD MAY HAVE
MORE INFORMATION ON THAT AS WELL
AS HE'S ACTIVELY. UM UH, YOU
KNOW, IN THIS PROCESS AS WELL,
SO MAYBE YOU COULD SHARE A
LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT, TOO.
BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO CONTINUE THE
DISCUSSION. UM INTERESTINGLY
ENOUGH, UH, CERTAINLY IN THE
HEALTH CARE SPACE AS WE KNOW, UH
JUST JUST THINK ABOUT OUR OWN
APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS. THE
TREND IS USUALLY TO MAKING BILLS
LESS COSTLY, NOT MORE COSTLY. SO
UM, WE OBVIOUSLY CAN'T CONTROL
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SENATE AND
THAT THERE MIGHT BE A SENATE
AMENDMENT BUT THAT WOULD TAKE A
BILL AND THEN SUDDENLY MAKE IT
MORE COSTLY TO RATEPAYERS.
HOWEVER UM, THAT BILL HAS TO
COME BACK ON CONCURRENCE AND THE
COMMITTEE CHAIR COULD PULL THE
BILL BACK HERE. UM AND MAYBE NOT
MOVE THE BILL. IF THAT'S THE IF
THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, IF THE COST
HAD BEEN BLOWN COMPLETELY OUT OF
PROPORTION, UM, BUT, UM, BUT IN
GENERAL, UM THE POLICIES FROM
AND CERTAINLY IN THE HEALTH
SPACE USUALLY ARE MOVING TOWARDS
LESS COST TO THE SYSTEM RATHER
THAN MORE COST, BUT THAT YOU YOU
BRING UP AN INTERESTING POINT.
UM AND, UH, BUT I'M I'M TRYING
TO. I'M STRUGGLING TO REMEMBER
OVER THE YEARS. HOW IF THAT
REALLY EVER HAPPENED, UH AND
RELATED TO HEALTH AND IT AND IT
THE ONLY TIME I EVER REALLY
HAPPENED WOULD HAVE BEEN A GUT
AND AMEND, UM, WHICH WOULD HAVE
BEEN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BILL. UM
AND THAT THAT THOSE IN THE IN A
IN AND OF THEMSELVES CREATE, UM,
PARTICULAR CHALLENGES FOR THE
FOR THE LEGISLATURE, BUT BUT I
LOOK AT THIS AS A UM AS A TOOL,
UH, THAT GIVES MORE INFORMATION
AT THE TIME SO THAT WE CAN MAKE
A MORE INFORMED DECISION. IS IT
GOING TO BE PERFECT NÓ? IT'S NOT
AND UM AND I THINK THAT YOU HAVE
TO LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT THAT
WAY AS AS WE MAKE DECISIONS, I
ALSO BELIEVE I HAVE TO BELIEVE
BECAUSE IT ENDS UP IN OUR
ANALYSIS THAT APPROPRIATIONS
LOOKS AT THIS AS WELL, UH AND
THEIR ANALYSIS OF THIS AND UM,
WHICH IS ALSO WHICH IS ALSO
HELPFUL. SO IT'S MORE
INFORMATION. UM IS IT NOT? I
WOULDN'T SAY IT'S A PERFECT TOOL
, AND I KNOW THAT AT TIMES, UH,
YOU KNOW, MEMBERS HAVE BEEN
FRUSTRATED WHEN THEY SEE THE
COST OF A CBO REPORT, UH,
THROUGH THE CHUR REPORT, AND
THEY THEY MIGHT DISPUTE THAT,
BUT THEY'RE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO
DO THAT. UM UH, I THINK THE
CHALLENGE ALSO BECOMES THAT, UM,
AS YOU HAVE MORE AND MORE BILLS,
UM, THERE WERE TIMES WHEN WE
ACTUALLY HAD TO PUSH BILLS OUT
TO THE VERY LAST HEARING BECAUSE
YOU'VE GOT TO KNOW EARLY ON WHAT
BILLS ARE GOING TO HAVE
SIGNIFICANT COSTS. AND SO THAT
MADE THOSE LAST HEARINGS AND
SOMETIMES, UH, BILLS BECAME TWO
YEAR BILLS. UM, BECAUSE OF THE
NEED TO DO A CHIP RP ANALYSIS BY
SOMETHING THAT WAS INTRODUCED
LATE, SO I WAS TRYING TO
ENCOURAGE ANYBODY WHO WAS DOING
BILLS IN THE HEALTH SPACE TO YOU
GOT A BILL. IT'S GOING TO BE A
MANDATE. WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT
IT REALLY QUICKLY SO THAT WE CAN
DO AN ANALYSIS SO THAT WE
UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS TO
THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. IT IT IT IN.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALSO THE
BILL CAPS THE TAX AT 2 MILLION
TO DO THIS WORK. UM BUT I AND I
UNDERSTAND THAT FROM THE
ANALYSIS THAT IT APPEARS AT THE
COST IS CLOSER TO 3. MILLION SO
MY QUESTION IS, ARE YOU PLANNING
ON RAISING THE AMOUNT OR DO YOU
INTEND TO COVER THE GAP WITH
OTHER STATE FUNDS? UM THAT IS A
GREAT QUESTION. UM, AT THE
MOMENT, WE PROVIDED THIS THIS
CAP AT 2 MILLION. NOW, AS WE
CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS OR AS WE
WERE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS
AND TALKING, UM UNDERS, WE
UNDERSTOOD THEN THAT THEY THAT
THE CURRENT ENTITY SO NEEDED
MORE MONEY BECAUSE OF INFLATION
OR OTHER COSTS. NOW CAN WE
INCREASE THAT CAP? I DON'T KNOW.
WE NEED TO CHECK FURTHER AND
HAVE MORE DISCUSSIONS. IT IS
THAT A POSSIBILITY. MAYBE BUT I,
I REALLY DON'T KNOW I DON'T HAVE
AN ANSWER, BUT I CAN DEFINITELY
GET BACK TO YOU, UH, ON THAT.
BUT CERTAINLY A POINT TO DISCUSS
FURTHER. AND I KNOW WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT MANDATES, AND, UM
SOME OF THE PROGRAMS. IT ISN'T
BECAUSE IT'S COST EFFECTIVE.
IT'S BECAUSE IT'S NECESSARY FOR
THE FUTURE OF SOCIETY. FUTURE OF
CALIFORNIA, UM MAYBE AIR QUALITY
. WHAT WHATEVER THE ISSUE IS, IT
ISN'T JUST A COST QUESTION. I
WOULD BE CONCERNED ALSO THAT IF
WE ONLY LOOK AT THE COST THEN
THAT WOULD ALSO SKEW IT IN FAVOR
OF NOT REQUIRING A MANDATE ONLY
BECAUSE OF THE COST INVOLVED.
AND I. I CAN'T HELP BUT WITH THE
REPORTS THAT HAVE COME COME OUT
REGARDING PROFITS THAN IT IS THE
ONLY ISSUE. THE ONLY THING WE
LOOK AT IS WHAT'S GOING TO THE
TAXPAYERS, OR ARE WE ALSO
LOOKING AT PROFITS THAT HAVE
GONE THOSE ARE SKY HIGH, ALSO
FOR OUR UTILITIES, ACCORDING TO
THE LAST THE LAST HEARING THAT
WE HAD THE JOINT HEARING THAT WE
HAD, SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT. I
THINK THAT THIS IS A BILL THAT'S
WORTH, UM CONTINUING IN THE
PROCESS BECAUSE THE IDEA OF
AFFORDABILITY IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT. AND WE ALL HEAR FROM
IT FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS. UM
JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE
PRACTICALITY OF HOW IT WORKS.
UH, IS IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT AND
I SURE THAT BETWEEN NOW AND THE
FLOOR, WE WILL HAVE MORE ANSWERS
AND WE ARE GONNA BE CONTINUING
TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS AS
AS YOU CAN TELL, EVEN AS TO
WHO'S GONNA PREPARE THE ANALYSIS
. WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE HAVING
FURTHER DISCUSSIONS. SO THAT WAY
WE CAN FINE TUNE THIS BILL. UH,
BUT I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING
IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT
LEGISLATORS HAVE THE INFORMATION
THAT THEY NEED AND THAT WAY THEY
CAN DECIDE OR WE CAN DECIDE, UH,
WHETHER WE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING
OR NOT SUPPORTING A BILL I. I
BELIEVE THE MORE INFORMATION
THAT WE AS LEGISLATORS GET IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. AND THAT'S
THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL.
THAT CONCEPT IS PERFECT. THAT
PART OF IT IS PERFECT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, HOLDEN. MY
QUESTION IS SINCE WAS BASICALLY
ANSWERED IN THE COMMENTS FROM MY
COLLEAGUES. I WOULD SAY I
SUPPORT THE BILL. UH, BUT I
WOULD LIKE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
IN YOUR EXAMPLE, UM, ON THE TEAM
BILL, UH, HOW IT WENT FROM 20
MILLION TO OVER 700 MILLION
BECAUSE THAT THAT DOES CREATE AN
IMPRESSION THAT UH, THERE, UH,
EXCESSIVE COSTS THAT NOW ARE
BEING PASSED TO RATEPAYERS AND
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO FIGURE
OUT WHICHEVER AGENCY ULTIMATELY
THIS WORK, UH, THAT IT BE
INDEPENDENT. UH, SO I WOULD ASK
THIS QUESTION. UH, THE EXAMPLE
THAT YOU CITED WAS THAT
INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS BECAUSE
WHEN IT GOES ON THE RECORD, IT
SORT OF SETS AN IMPRESSION. SO
I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW THAT
NUMBER WAS DETERMINED. THAT WAS
NOT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS. WE
DON'T HAVE A. THIS IS AN
ANALYSIS OF NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE
INTERNALLY JUST RAW NUMBERS THAT
WE HAVE. UM IF I, UM I'M HAPPY
TO PROVIDE AND TO FOLLOW UP WITH
BOTH OF YOU AND PROVIDE THOSE
NUMBERS TO TELL YOU HOW WE CAME
TO THAT TO THAT. TOTAL COST.
THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, BECAUSE,
UH, I'VE NOTICED OVER THE YEARS
THAT IF THINGS ARE GOING OUT ON
THE MICROPHONE, AND PEOPLE ARE
SAYING, AH, SEE, THIS IS EXACTLY
WHAT I THOUGHT AND IT WASN'T
INDEPENDENT AND OTHER THINGS ARE
ADDED TO THAT COST THAT DON'T
NECESSARILY MATCH UP WITH WHAT
WILL BE EVALUATED THROUGH THIS
LEGISLATION, WHICH I SUPPORT. UH
THEN IT'S A LITTLE SKEWED. AND
UM, I'M NOT SAYING IT WAS, BUT I
WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEE THE
INFORMATION SO WE CAN KIND OF
ASCERTAIN JUST HOW THAT NUMBER
WAS ARRIVED AT AND WHAT NEEDS TO
BE, UH, MAYBE SEPARATED OUT. UM,
COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES. IF
YOU ABSOLUTELY WE'LL MAKE SURE
THAT WE GET BACK. NOT ONLY TO,
UM, TO YOU AND MR TING BUT TO
THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE. DO SO THAT
EVERYBODY HAS THOSE NUMBERS. MM.
MR TING. SO JUST A JUST TO
CLARIFY. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS
AGAIN THAT THE $20 MILLION
ESTIMATE WAS A TYPICAL
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ESTIMATE
AS TO THE COST FOR THE STATE.
THE $743 MILLION THAT YOU'RE
REFERRING TO IS MONEY THAT WAS
THE COST TO THE RATEPAYER NOW.
THE DIFFERENCE IS IT WAS NOT AN
ADDITIONAL COST. WHAT THE WHAT
THE BILL DID WAS APPROPRIATE. OR
AS THE PUC TO SPEND MONEY THAT
ALREADY WAS IN THEIR BUDGET THAT
WAS ALREADY MONEY THAT HAD
ALREADY BEEN TAKEN BY THE
RATEPAYERS FROM THE RATEPAYERS
FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY. THIS IS A
FUND THAT HAS EXISTED FOR MANY,
MANY YEARS AND QUITE OFTEN, UM,
THE PUC, IN MY OPINION, DOES A
POOR JOB OF SPENDING THAT MONEY
SO OFTEN YOU'LL FIND I. I
HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT RECENTLY.
BUT OFTENTIMES YOU'RE LITERALLY
FIND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS JUST SITTING THERE AT
THE PUC THAT SHOULD BE SPENT ON
EFFICIENCY, WHICH IS VERY
IMPORTANT, VERY USEFUL FOR MANY
RATEPAYERS, AND IT'S NOT. AND SO
THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE BILL
DOES. I THINK YOU'RE, UM YOUR
NUMBERS ARE NOT REALLY APPLES TO
APPLES, AND I THINK THAT JUST
WANTED TO KIND OF CLARIFY WHAT I
THINK YOU'RE TRYING TO
COMMUNICATE. UH BECAUSE WHAT?
WHAT THE ANALYSIS DID NOT TALK
ABOUT WAS THE IMPACT ON THE
RATEPAYERS. JUST THE IMPACT TO
THE STATE BUDGET, SO I THINK
THAT'S THE ONE OF THE ISSUES
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GRAPPLE
WITH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, UH,
SEE NÓ NÓ FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. UM, I'LL JUST, UH,
JUST SAY THANK YOU, UH, FOR
INTRODUCING THIS MEASURE, I
THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AND
NECESSARY. UM AS WE ARE
CONSIDERING POLICY PROPOSALS IN
THIS COMMITTEE, I THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE
VERY CLEAR EYED ABOUT THE IMPACT
THAT THOSE PROPOSALS ARE GOING
TO HAVE ON RATES AND ON
RATEPAYERS. I THINK IT REALLY
HELPS US. UM MAKE THE RIGHT
TRADEOFFS. UH, AS WE, UH AS WE
FORGE OUR CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE
FOR CALIFORNIA. SO WITH THAT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? YES UH, THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. I ALSO WANT TO
THANK COMMITTEE STAFF FOR ALL
THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS SPILL. I
KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND
FORTH. UM AND I ALSO APPRECIATE
ALL THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WERE
HELD AND ALL THE COMMENTS,
QUESTIONS AND, UH, AS YOU CAN
TELL, WE'RE STILL WORKING OUT
THIS BILL. MORE WORK TO BE DONE,
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE
HAVE A MOTION FROM ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WOULD A SECOND FROM
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WALLACE. UH, THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. UH, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ITEM NUMBER ONE A B 1912. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRO NORRIS I JOE PATTERSON. I
I'M I'M SORRY, JIM PATTERSON. WE
GET THIS OFTEN? UM I APPRECIATE
THE EFFORT, BUT I DO OBJECT TO A
COUPLE OF PIECES IN THE BILL.
WHO'S PAYING FOR IT, AND ALSO
THE ORGANIZATION CHOSEN TO
PERFORM THE ANALYSIS. AND WITH
THESE CONCERNS, UH, I WILL BE
ABSTAINING BUT WILL CERTAINLY
RESERVE MY VOTE ON THE FLOOR. IF
IN FACT WE CAN MOVE THE BILL
FORWARD AND SORT OF ADDRESS SOME
OF THESE SHORTCOMINGS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. CALLED AROUND.
CALLED AROUND. I CHEN CHEN. I
CONNOLLY CONNOLLY, I FRIEDMAN
FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN HOLD AN EYE.
JOE PATTERSON. JOE PATTERSON. I
REYES REYES I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO
AVO. TING TING I, WALLACE
WALLACE. I WOOD WOULD I ZIPPER
ZIPPER? I THAT'S 13. IT'S 13,
BUT, UH ALL RIGHT. SO UH, 13 0.
THAT BILL IS OUT AND WE'LL LEAVE
THE ROLL OPEN TO ENABLE ABSENT
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. UH, THANK YOU
. AND UH OH, WITH THAT, LET'S GO
AHEAD AND MOVE TO OUR CONSENT
CALENDAR. UH LET'S SEE, WE HAVE,
UH, TWO MEASURES ON TODAY'S
CONSENT CALENDAR. A B 1918 FROM
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOO AND A B 2092
FOR MEMBER MATHIS. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION IN A SECOND? ALL RIGHT,
UH, MOTION AND A SECOND. MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON THE CONSENT FILE. ITEM NUMBER
TWO A B 1918. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO BUSINESS AND
PROFICIENT PROFESSIONS. ITEM
NUMBER THREE A B 2029. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. MAYBE. 20 I'M
GONNA SAY THAT AGAIN. ITEM
NUMBER THREE A B 2092. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. P PETRIE-NORRIS
A PETRI NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON.
JIM PATTERSON. I CALDER. I
CALDERON I CHEN CHEN I CONNOLLY
CONNOLLY. I, FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN I
HOLDEN HOLD AN EYE. JOE
PATTERSON. JOE PATTERSON. I
REYES REYES I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO
AVO. TING. I WALLACE WALLACE. I
WOULD WOULD EBER. ZER I THAT'S
ALL RIGHT. UH, THAT IS 13 0. 13
0 15 0 13 0. WE'LL KEEP IT OPEN
FOR X, THOUGH. OK SORRY, 13 0
AND WE'LL KEEP IT OPEN FOR OUR
ABSENT MEMBER TO ADD ON THAT IS
14. WELL, WE'LL SAY IT WHEN.
THAT'S RIGHT. I WANTED TO MAKE
SURE YOU KNEW, YOU KNOW. YEAH.
YEAH. MM.
WHAT SAID I WROTE IT. I LIKE.
ALL RIGHT. UH, MADAM SECRETARY,
LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, OPEN THE
ROLLS SO THAT ABSENT MEMBERS MAY
ADD ON UH PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ITEM NUMBER ONE. ITEM NUMBER
ONE. ITEM NUMBER ONE SORRY. ITEM
NUMBER ONE A B 1912. THE MOTION
IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. SHE HAVE A EYE.
ALL RIGHT. UH, THAT BILL IS OUT.
UH, 14 0. THE CONSENT FILE ITEM
NUMBER TWO A B 1918 DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS. ITEM NUMBER THREE.
A B 2092 DO PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CHIA I THAT'S ALL
RIGHT. 15 0 ARE THOSE THOSE ARE
BOTH OUT AND, UH, THAT CONCLUDES
THE BUSINESS OF TODAY'S HEARING
OF THE, UH UTILITIES AND ENERGY
COMMITTEE WITH THAT WE ARE
ADJOURNED.