>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME.
I'D LIKE TO CONVENE TODAY'S HEARING OF THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND ENERGY.
UH, SERGEANTS, IF YOU CAN,
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
BEFORE WE BEGIN WITH OUR AGENDA, I HAVE
A FEW HOUSEKEEPING ANNOUNCEMENTS TO MAKE.
UH, FOR TODAY'S HEARING,
WE HAVE TEN MEASURES ON THE AGENDA.
FIVE OF THOSE ARE ON CONSENT.
UH, PLEASE NOTE THAT TWO ITEMS.
ITEM NUMBER 2AB2221 UH, BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER CARRILLO.
AND ITEM NUMBER 4AB3200 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOOVER.
UM, HAVE BOTH BEEN PULLED FROM TODAY'S AGENDA
AND WILL NOT BE HEARD AS PART OF OUR HEARING TODAY.
UM, AGAIN, BEFORE WE BEGIN,
I WILL MAKE A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL ANNOUNCEMENTS.
UM, WE WILL MAINTAIN DECORUM THROUGHOUT
THE HEARING, AS IS CUSTOMARY,
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.
UH, PLEASE NOTE THAT TESTIMONY IS
LIMITED TO FOUR MINUTES TOTAL,
TWO MINUTES IN SUPPORT, TWO MINUTES IN OPPOSITION.
UH, FOR ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES ON A MEASURE,
PLEASE ONLY STATE YOUR NAME,
POSITION AND AFFILIATION.
UH, IF WE EXCEED TODAY'S HEARING TIME,
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR TESTIMONY THROUGH
THE EMAIL ADDRESS ON OUR WEBSITE.
UH, MOVING TO THE AGENDA.
WE DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM,
SO WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD.
>> WE DON'T HAVE.
OH, I'M SORRY.
WE.
IN ORDER TO BEGIN, WE NEED ONE OF OUR
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS TO JOIN US.
UH, SO IF WE CAN PLEASE CALL OUR REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES TO JOIN US.
AND WE WILL BEGIN AS A SUBCOMMITTEE
WHEN THEY ARRIVE.
>> YOU CAN'T DO.
LISTENING TO THE FLOOR.
LOOKS LIKE.
THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT ME.
THEY DON'T.
YEAH.
YES, YES.
NO.
ALL RIGHT.
OKAY.
TAKE TWO.
WE ARE READY TO RESUME.
WE WILL BEGIN TODAY'S HEARING AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
I DON'T SEE ANY AUTHORS.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
THERE ARE FIVE MEASURES ON OUR CONSENT CALENDAR.
OH, MY GOD, WE DON'T HAVE QUORUM.
SORRY.
GOOD LORD.
NOW WE'RE WAITING FOR AUTHORS.
THERE WE GO.
HELLO.
ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL GO AHEAD AND BEGIN.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
ARDIS.
WHEN YOU'RE READY.
847.
>> SO IT SLOWS DOWN.
>> WELL THANK YOU CHAIR.
THANK YOU.
STAFF.
GOOD.
OKAY.
WELL THANK YOU, CHAIR, STAFF, ADVOCATES MEMBERS.
TODAY I'M HERE TO PRESENT AB 2847 THE RATEPAYER
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
AND IT'S NO SECRET THAT ENERGY
RATES ARE SKYROCKETING,
IMPACTING REAL PEOPLE ACROSS CALIFORNIA.
IN JUST THREE YEARS.
ELECTRICITY RATES RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY
RATES HAVE INCREASED
63% FOR PG AND E CUSTOMERS AND 52%
FOR SOCAL EDISON CUSTOMERS.
AND WE ALL KNOW WE'VE ALL HEARD FROM FAMILIES THAT
ARE STRUGGLING TO PAY THEIR MONTHLY UTILITY BILLS.
AND TO ME, I'D SAY TO MANY OF US,
IT FEELS LIKE THERE'S NO END IN SIGHT,
AND WE'RE REALLY WONDERING JUST HOW HIGH
THESE BILLS ARE GOING TO CLIMB.
SO WE FEEL IT'S TIME TO PROVIDE RELIEF.
RESIDENTS ACROSS OUR STATE REALLY,
TRULY DESERVE TO KNOW TWO THINGS.
ONE IS WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN THEY
OPEN THEIR MONTHLY ENERGY BILL,
AND THE OTHER IS THAT ALL THE COSTS INCLUDED
IN THEIR BILLS ARE FAIR AND ARE REASONABLE.
AND SO IN ADDITION, HAVING THIS KIND OF INFORMATION
CAN IN TURN LOWER COSTS FOR RATEPAYERS.
UNDER CURRENT LAW, UTILITY CUSTOMERS PAY FOR UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS THROUGH THEIR RATES,
AND TYPICALLY WHEN UTILITIES REQUEST
PERMISSION TO MAKE CAPITAL
PROJECT EXPENDITURES AND RECOVER
COSTS FROM RATEPAYERS,
THEY'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION ABOUT THE LIST PRICE
OF THE ASSET AND THE IMPACT
ON RATES IN THE SHORT TERM.
AND THIS REALLY, TRULY LEAVES CALIFORNIA
RATEPAYERS IN THE DARK WITHOUT IMPORTANT
INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THESE CHOICES ARE
GOING TO IMPACT RATES IN THE FUTURE.
SO AB 2487 WILL SHINE A LIGHT ON THE LONG TERM
IMPACTS OF UTILITY UTILITY'S CHOICES,
AND WILL REQUIRE UTILITIES TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
ABOUT THE LONG TERM COSTS OF THEIR CAPITAL
EXPENSES UP FRONT WHEN MAKING THEIR CASE TO
THE PUC OR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.
THIS.
THIS, IN TURN, CAN ENSURE THAT THE COMMISSION,
RATEPAYER ADVOCATES AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
HARD WORKING CALIFORNIANS HAVE THE INFORMATION
THEY NEED TO DETERMINE WHETHER
UTILITIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PASS THESE
COSTS ALONG TO CONSUMERS OR NOT.
SO JOINING ME TODAY IS MARK TOOMEY HERE TO TESTIFY.
AND HE'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK.
AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, MARK.
>> THANK YOU.
I'M MARK TONY.
I SERVE AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TURN THE UTILITY
REFORM NETWORK CHAIR PETRIE-NORRIS
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TURN
IS PROUD TO SPONSOR AB 2847.
IT'S REALLY A TRUTH IN FINANCING
PROVISION THAT REQUIRES
UTILITIES TO DISCLOSE THE ESTIMATED COST OF CAPITAL
PROJECTS OVER THE FULL TIME PERIOD AND FOR EACH YEAR
IN WHICH MONEY IS COLLECTED FROM RATEPAYERS.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE CPUC WHEN
THEY'RE MAKING A DECISION
TO SEE THE ENTIRE RATEPAYER COST OVER TIME.
WHEN A UTILITY SUBMITS APPLICATIONS
FOR CAPITAL SPENDING,
JUST LIKE CONSUMERS ARE PROVIDED
DISCLOSURE FOR THE FULL
COST OF THEIR HOME OVER THE LIFE OF THE MORTGAGE,
AND NOT JUST PROVIDED THE STICKER PRICE OF THE HOME.
WE'RE IN A TREMENDOUS AFFORDABILITY CRISIS.
ALL CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS,
REGULATORS ARE APPROVING ENORMOUS CAPITAL
PROJECTS THAT WILL LOCK IN OVER
THE LONG TERM A HIGH RATE BASE.
LOCK IN HIGH MONTHLY BILLS.
IT ALSO LOCKS IN LONG TERM SHAREHOLDER PROFITS.
THAT'S WHAT ALSO GETS LOCKED IN.
PROVIDING ONLY THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT
DURING THE YEARS OF THE RATE
CASE DOES NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE
PREDICTOR OF LONG TERM COSTS,
BECAUSE TAX BENEFITS ARE APPLIED IN
THE EARLY YEARS AND ARTIFICIALLY
REDUCED THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT IN THE EARLY YEARS,
AND SOMETIMES THE COST IS MORE IN LATER YEARS.
RATEPAYERS NEED TO KNOW NOT JUST THE STICKER
PRICE OF A PROJECT, BUT THE FULL FINANCING,
INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL COSTS FOR THE LIFE OF THE 20,
30, 40 OR 50 YEAR PAYMENT PERIOD.
AND FOR EACH YEAR IN BETWEEN,
THE UTILITIES HAVE THE DATA THEY
NEED TO PROVIDE THIS ESTIMATE.
THEY KNOW THE STICKER PRICE RETURN
ON EQUITY, FINANCING COSTS,
DEPRECIATION AND LENGTH OF TIME.
IF YOU COULD.
IF YOU COULD WRAP UP.
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.
TURN ASK FOR YOUR YES VOTE ON A B 2847 TO
PROVIDE REGULATORS WITH THE DATA NEEDED
TO PROTECT RATEPAYERS AGAINST UNKNOWN
RATEPAYER SHOCKS IN THE FUTURE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
AND DO WE HAVE ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION?
I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
UH OH.
WE DO.
THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD AND COME UP.
>> UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS LORDS
ALONG WITH SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC.
UM, IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL.
SO WHEREAS WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE.
PART ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.
I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT AS WELL
IN THIS COMMITTEE LAST WEEK.
WE'VE ALSO SPONSORING AN IMPORTANT
BILL THAT TALKS ABOUT AB 1912,
WHICH IS PACHECO'S BILL ON TRANSPARENCY
AS WELL IN TERMS OF UM, POLICY.
UM, WE DO FEEL THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT
AND AGREE DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE THAT
THIS POLICY IS NECESSARY BECAUSE IT'S
ALREADY DONE AT THE CPUC LEVEL.
SO WE DO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION ALREADY.
THE ONLY PART THAT WE DISAGREE WITH IS THAT WE WE
DO DISCLOSE AND DO DISCUSS THIS INFORMATION.
IN FACT, THE INFORMATION IS POINTED OUT IN THE.
ANALYSIS THAT WE DID PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND
INFORMATION OR FUTURE INFORMATION,
UM, IS JUST NOT NECESSARILY LOOKED AT.
SO WE FEEL THAT THIS POLICY IN PARTICULAR WILL
PROBABLY JUST BECOME MORE CUMBERSOME,
MAKE FOR MORE PAPERWORK, AND CREATE A MORE
COMPLICATED PROCESS WITHIN THE PUC.
SO WE'RE OPPOSED TO THE BILL.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND TESTIMONY.
WE'LL NOW GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR OH, YOU KNOW,
BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT,
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
UH, MADAM SECRETARY, IF YOU CAN,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
PETRI NORRIS.
HERE, PETRI.
NORRIS HERE, JIM PATTERSON.
BARICKMAN.
BARICKMAN HERE.
CALDERON HERE.
CHEN CHEN HERE.
CONNOLLY.
HERE.
FRIEDMAN.
HERE.
HOLDEN.
HERE.
JOE.
PATTERSON.
HERE.
JOE.
PATTERSON.
HERE.
REYES.
HERE.
RAY IS HERE.
SANTIAGO.
SHIAVO.
>> TING.
WALLACE.
HERE.
WOOD.
HERE.
ZIPPER.
THAT'S A LOT.
OKAY, GREAT.
UH, WE WILL NOW GO AHEAD AND OPEN
IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN
THE HEARING ROOM TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT?
SEEING NONE.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN THE HEARING
ROOM TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2847?
ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN
IT UP TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
UM, SO, MEMBER, I JUST WANTED
TO SAY THAT I LOVE YOUR BILL.
I THINK IT'S I REALLY THINK THAT IT'S
SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT
WHEN THE PUC IS MAKING THESE DECISIONS
THAT AFFECT RATEPAYERS,
THAT THEY HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION
IN FRONT OF THEM.
AND I THINK THAT WE ARE WELL AWARE IN
THIS ROOM THAT MANY OF THE DECISIONS,
MANY OF THE PROPOSALS PUT FORWARD BY IOUS,
ARE INTENDED TO MAXIMIZE RATE OF RETURN,
AND THAT'S THEIR ROLE.
BUT IT IS THE ROLE OF THE PUC TO PROTECT RATEPAYERS.
AND I THINK HAVING THIS INFORMATION
WILL MAKE THAT JOB EASIER.
AND SO I REALLY APPLAUD YOU FOR THIS WORK.
I'M EXCITED TO SUPPORT IT TODAY.
I WOULD LOVE TO BE AT IT AS A CO-AUTHOR.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES.
>> TRANSPARENCY IS ALWAYS A GOOD THING.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE FINAL RESULT IS GOING
TO BE FROM HAVING THE INFORMATION.
SO THE ESTIMATION IS GIVEN.
AND IF.
IT'S OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS, TEN YEARS.
AND THEN WE FIND OUT THAT WAS A BAD ESTIMATE.
WE SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR MORE
THAN THEY ASKED FOR MORE.
UH, WHAT WHAT DO WE GAIN FROM IT?
IS WHAT I WANT TO KNOW.
MAY I PLEASE.
OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR ASKING THE QUESTION.
SO PART OF IT IS THAT THERE ARE
CHOICES TO BE MADE OVER.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN IF YOU FINANCE
YOUR HOME OVER 15 YEARS OR OVER 30 YEARS.
AND SO THERE'S A BALANCE BETWEEN HOW
MUCH DO YOU WANT TO PAY EACH MONTH.
AND, YOU KNOW, DO YOU WANT TO
BE HIGHER AND BE DONE SOONER,
OR DO YOU WANT TO PAY LESS
AND PAY FOR A LONGER TIME?
THERE'S ALSO THE ISSUE OF WILL THE CAPITAL PROJECT?
WILL THE LIFESPAN OF WHAT'S BEING SPENT,
WILL IT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF
TIME YOU'RE PAYING FOR IT?
NOBODY WILL GIVE YOU A 30 YEAR LOAN
TO GO BUY A NEW CAR, OKAY,
BECAUSE A NEW CAR IS NOT EXPECTED
TO HAVE A 30 YEAR LIFETIME.
WE HAVE A SITUATION NOW WHERE
THE UTILITIES CAME IN TEN YEARS
AGO ASKING FOR 20 YEAR FINANCING FOR SMART METERS.
THEY'RE BACK AGAIN SAYING, WELL,
THE TECHNOLOGY HAS CHANGED AND WE'RE
GOING TO SEE THIS MORE AND MORE.
SO PART OF THE REASON FOR THIS
BILL IS TO CREATE A, UH,
AN ALIGNMENT BETWEEN THE LIFE
OF THE EXPECTED LIFETIME OF
THE PROJECT AND THE AMOUNT OF
TIME YOU'RE FINANCING IT.
THROUGH THE CHAIR.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I'M SAYING, WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY COME
BACK AND THEY SAY THE METERS,
IT'S NEW TECHNOLOGY.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO START ALL OVER AGAIN.
DO YOU USE THE INFORMATION THAT WAS EITHER CORRECT
OR INCORRECT TO SAY YOU WERE HONEST LAST TIME?
WE'RE GOING TO BELIEVE YOU THIS
TIME OR YOU WERE NOT ACCURATE.
IT WAS A BAD ESTIMATE.
SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE YOUR ESTIMATES.
HOW DO WE USE IT IN THE FUTURE?
IT ALLOWS INTERVENERS LIKE TURN TO BE ABLE
TO PRESENT AN ALTERNATE PROPOSAL,
AN ALTERNATE NUMBER OF YEARS,
AN ALTERNATE RATE OF DEPRECIATION AND ALT ALTERNATE
FINANCING THAT IN THE LONG RUN WILL
MINIMIZE SHAREHOLDER PROFIT AND MAXIMIZE
TRYING TO CONTROL THESE BILLS OVER TIME.
IF I COULD.
THE INTENT ISN'T SO MUCH TO BE A GOTCHA.
YOU GAVE US A BAD INFORMATION.
NOW YOU'RE IN TROUBLE.
UM, AS THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEING ASKED FOR,
WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME ESTIMATING
THAT HAS TO GO INTO IT.
JUST SIMILAR TO NOT JUST LIKE,
BUT SIMILAR TO A 40 YEAR HOME MORTGAGE THAT
MANY PEOPLE ARE GETTING INTO LONGER
AND LONGER MORTGAGES NOW, RIGHT?
UM, BUT FOR THE IOUS ALSO TO
SUBSTANTIATE WHERE THEY'RE
GETTING THESE ESTIMATES FROM SO THAT THE PUC HAS
A FULL BREADTH OF INFORMATION THAT THEY CAN THEN
BE CONSIDERING AS THEY'RE PROTECTING RATEPAYERS,
CONSIDERING RATE INCREASES, THAT THEY HAVE
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF INFORMATION POSSIBLE.
SO LESS OF A GOTCHA AND MORE OF
A HELP TO RATEPAYERS, CONSUMERS,
SO THAT WE ALSO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE
PAYING FOR OVER THE LONG TERM.
AND ASSESSMENTS CAN BE MADE UP
FRONT ABOUT IS THAT JUSTIFIED?
ARE THESE COSTS FAIR AND JUSTIFIABLE?
THANK YOU.
UM, MADAM CHAIR, MAY I ADD A LITTLE BIT OF COLOR?
YES, I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY THE RUB.
UH, ASSEMBLYWOMAN, THAT THE ASSUMPTIONS
ARE LARGE, RIGHT?
DO WE HAVE TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THINGS?
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE?
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POSSIBILITIES
OF LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE,
WE DIDN'T KNOW COVID WAS HAPPENING.
RIGHT?
SO HOW CAN WE MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION IN THERE?
WE'D HAVE TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS FOR UM, AND,
UH, LAWS, DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
WE'D HAVE TO MAKE, UM, ASSUMPTIONS FOR UM.
EVEN INFLATION.
WE JUST DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE LOOKING
IF WE HAVE AN ASSET THAT'S 50 YEARS,
THAT HAS A LIFESPAN OF 50 YEARS,
HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO MAKE AN ACCURATE
ASSUMPTION 50 YEARS FROM NOW?
I THINK THAT'S HARD.
AND WHEN WE MAKE THOSE ASSUMPTIONS WHICH
WE CAN MAKE, WE ABSOLUTELY CAN.
BUT THEY COME UP HIGHER BECAUSE
WE HAVE TO TRY AND PROTECT
AGAINST ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN,
AND WE WILL MISS A BUNCH OF THINGS.
SO IN THE END, IT'LL BE A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE.
RIGHT NOW, THE WAY IT WORKS IS THAT WE DO
PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION BEFORE THE PUC,
AND THE PUC HAS THE OPPORTUNITY
TO REJECT, TO SLOW IT DOWN,
TO MAKE PART OF IT, OR TO COME BACK AND SAY,
HEY, NOT $100 MILLION, $50 MILLION OR,
UM, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT AT
ALL BECAUSE IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.
UH, THERE IS THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
NOW.
THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS THAT EXISTS BEFORE THE PUC,
BUT THE RUB IS MAKING AN ASSUMPTION
TOWARDS SOMETHING
THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
IT'S HARD.
IT'S I THINK IT'S VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE
THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN,
ESPECIALLY NOW WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.
THERE'S THERE'S VERY, UM,
WEATHER THAT WE CAN'T PREDICT
EVEN THAT THAT IS CAUSING A LOT OF CHAOS.
SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS.
DID YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP?
NO.
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS WERE.
>> SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THE BILL,
AND I WANT TO THANK THE SPONSOR.
I HAVE A GREAT RESPECT FOR BOTH OF YOU.
UM, AND, UM, UH, AND UNDERSTAND HOW FOCUSED YOU
BOTH ARE TO MAKING SURE THAT RATEPAYERS,
UM, ARE BEING TREATED FAIRLY AND THAT
WE'RE KEEPING OUR ELECTRIC RATES.
UM, UH, BOTH FAIR AND REASONABLE
FOR PEOPLE OF ALL INCOME LEVELS.
AND SO I KNOW THAT THAT IS BEHIND
EVERYTHING THAT YOU ALL DO.
UM, MY BIGGEST QUESTION ON THIS WAS UNDERSTANDING
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE RATE MAKING PROCESS.
I THINK IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT MY
COLLEAGUE IS SORT OF ASKING.
UM, AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW TO CRYSTALLIZE IT,
BUT IT'S, UM,
I KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION
IN THE RATE CASES.
AND WHEN I LOOK AT THIS,
THIS LOOKS LIKE ANOTHER PIECE OF INFORMATION.
I DON'T HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF HOW MUCH IS
DUPLICATIVE OF WHAT ALREADY IS PROVIDED,
BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT'S A PIECE OF INFORMATION
THAT I'M WONDERING HOW IT IS USED AND THE.
THE WHAT'S BEHIND IT IS REALLY JUST
IF WE'RE REQUIRING THE PGA TO SPEND A LOT
OF RESOURCES ON SOMETHING THAT IS NOT
THAT VALUABLE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
YOU KNOW, I A LOT OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT I'M HEARING
ARE BASICALLY ABOUT DELAYS IN CONNECTIONS,
DELAYS IN THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO
DO TO MEET OUR CLIMATE GAIN,
OUR CLIMATE STUFF,
AND THEN ACTUALLY HAVING A VERY COMPLICATED
WHAT SEEMS TO ME LIKE A VERY COMPLICATED
AND DIFFICULT THING TO BE A NEW REQUIREMENT
THAT'S IMPOSED ON THESE RATES.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, IT SAYS, OKAY,
LET'S LOOK AT THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
OF THE CORPORATION.
UM, AND IT REQUIRES, UH, IT UM.
YOU BASICALLY ARE LOOKING AT
THE NET ARE EXPECTED TO.
WHAT WHAT THE CAPITAL EXPECT TO EXPENDITURES
ARE EXPECTED TO REMAIN IN
THE APPLICANTS RATE BASE IF IT'S APPROVED
AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVED,
AND THEN SET TO A NET PRESENT
VALUE OF THOSE IMPACTS.
SO I THINK WHAT THAT MEANS IS IF YOU ACTUALLY
HAVE A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TODAY, RIGHT,
YOU HAVE TO ASSUME WHAT ARE ALL THE COSTS RELATED
TO SERVICING THAT CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.
WHAT ARE THE INTEREST COSTS?
UM, OVER A 50 YEAR PERIOD.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE JUST
A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN THAT,
WHICH ARE GOING TO BE PRETTY SUBJECTIVE.
SO HOW DO YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION
WHERE YOU ACTUALLY
START WITH SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE $100 MILLION,
AND THEN IF YOU APPLY ALL THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS, UH,
OVER 50 YEARS AND YOU GET
A REALLY BIG NUMBER FOR THAT,
HOW DOES HAVING TWO SMALL NUMBERS THAT
YOU COULD COMPARE THE RELATIVE
SIZE OF THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE
SOME IMPACT ON THE RATE BASE?
HOW IS HAVING TWO REALLY BIG
NUMBERS THAT YOU COMPARE?
HOW DOES THAT GIVE YOU MORE
INFORMATION THAT HELPS US
UNDERSTAND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S FAIR AND REASONABLE,
AND WHETHER THE INVESTMENT SHOULD BE MADE.
SO THAT'S THE QUESTION.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR, FOR FOR ASKING THAT.
IT'S A COMPLETELY REASONABLE QUESTION.
UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SIMPLY ASKING FOR AN ESTIMATE
BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT IS KNOWN.
ALL THE INPUTS ARE KNOWN NOW.
OKAY, THERE ARE, BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
THINGS LIKE THE, UH, AUTHORIZED RETURN ON EQUITY,
THAT DOES VARY OVER TIME.
UM, RIGHT NOW IT'S ABOUT IN THE RANGE OF TEN
AND A HALF OR SO FOR MOST OF THE UTILITIES.
BUT WE'VE SEEN IT, YOU KNOW,
HIGHER THAN THAT AND LOWER THAN THAT.
SO FOR THAT YOU WOULD SAY, WELL,
IF IT WERE AT TODAY'S RATES,
WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE OVER THE TIME?
YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT IS NOT GOING TO BE PRECISE.
TURN IS ASKED FOR THIS INFORMATION.
SOMETIMES WE GET IT, SOMETIMES WE DON'T.
THE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO
SUGGEST IS HAVING A BALLPARK
ESTIMATE IS BETTER THAN HAVING NO ESTIMATE AT ALL.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
PATTERSON.
JOE.
PATTERSON.
I'M JUST KIDDING.
UM.
I'M.
VOTING YES ALL DAY.
THIS IS WHAT I HEARD.
YO.
YES, I DID SAY ON THE ELEVATOR.
I WAS VOTING FOR EVERY PIECE OF LEGISLATION TODAY,
BUT, UH, I DO HAVE,
UM, SOME A QUESTION AND,
AND I THINK SOME FOLLOW UP SORT OF CONCERNS,
BUT IS THIS SOMETHING THE PUC CAN, YOU KNOW,
IF IT WAS VALUABLE FOR THEM THAT THEY CAN'T,
UH, YOU KNOW, MAKE A DECISION
TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW ALREADY?
ABSOLUTELY.
THE PIECE.
THE CPUC HAS THE AUTHORITY OKAY TO REQUEST THIS NOW.
THEY IN MANY TIMES HAVE CHOSEN NOT
TO EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY.
THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHERE ATTORNEYS ASKED
THE PUC TO EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY.
AND WE HAVE GOTTEN RADIO SILENCE.
NOT A WE AGREE YES OR A NO, BUT NO RESPONSE AT ALL.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE COME TO THE LEGISLATURE.
WE BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT TO ALWAYS
WORK THROUGH THE REGULATOR,
TO THE CAPACITY OF WHAT
THE REGULATOR IS WILLING TO DO,
AND WHEN THE REGULATOR IS THEN
UNWILLING TO DO IT, THEN,
AND ONLY THEN DOES TURN FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE TO
TURN TO THE LEGISLATURE TO ASK FOR THEIR INPUT.
>> OKAY.
UM, I JUST, UH, A COUPLE THOUGHTS.
UH, WELL, THANK YOU.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, UM, YOU KNOW,
I'M SURE THE RATEPAYERS APPRECIATE,
UH, YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE HEARINGS
AND LOOKING OUT FOR THINGS.
I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
I MEAN, EVERYBODY'S PRICES ARE
VERY EXPENSIVE RIGHT NOW.
UM, UH, COUPLE CONCERNS I HAVE IS
THAT I DON'T REALLY THINK IT'S,
UH, YOU KNOW, REALLY JUST GOING TO BE AN ESTIMATE.
I THINK IT ACTUALLY SETS UP A SERIES
OF POTENTIAL CHALLENGES
TO SORT OF BOG DOWN THE PROCESS OVER TIME.
BECAUSE IF THIS IS THE ESTIMATE NOW AND THEN,
MAYBE TECHNOLOGY CHANGES OR MAYBE DIFFERENT
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO IT,
OR MAYBE THE ASSUMPTIONS CHANGE
OR MAYBE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN,
I CAN NAME A LOT OF REASONS THAT
IT WOULD CAUSE MAYBE SAY,
OH, REMEMBER THEY SAID THIS OR, YOU KNOW,
THIS WAS A DELIBERATION THAT HAPPENED
THAT AND I'M CONCERNED THAT
IT COULD BOG DOWN THE PUC DELIBERATIONS IN REALLY AT
THE END OF THE DAY, NEEDING TO FOCUS ON LOWER RATES.
AND BY THE WAY, I WISH THAT
WAS LIKE POINT NUMBER ONE
ON THEIR WEBSITE OF WHAT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY WAS.
UM, BUT THE OTHER THING IS, TOO,
AS WITH A MORTGAGE AND YOU REFERENCED
THAT EXAMPLE, UM, YOU KNOW,
WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW WE WHEN IT COMES TO HOME,
WE ONLY KNOW THE PRICE OF THE MORTGAGE.
WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING ELSE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER COSTS THAT
BECOME ASSOCIATED WITH IT AT TIME.
CHANGES LIKE MY ROOF JUST HAD
A LEAK IN IT THE OTHER DAY,
AND WHEN I GOT MY MORTGAGE,
I DIDN'T KNOW, YOU KNOW,
THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE CASE.
YOU JUST KIND OF ASSUME MAYBE.
UM, BUT I THINK, UH,
THE REASON WHY I HAVE CONCERNS WITH THIS,
I WILL SAY ONE THING AND I WANT TO PUT ON RECORD
IS I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT A LOT
OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT
HAVE COME IN FOR FEE INCREASES JUST OVER TIME.
AND I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHEN THERE'S
A COST RECOVERY FOR VARIOUS THINGS THAT,
WELL, HOW DO I KNOW THAT THERE WASN'T
TOO MUCH OVERTIME SPENT ON THIS JOB?
OR, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE WEREN'T COST OVERRUNS HERE?
AND I DON'T NECESSARILY SAYING WE
GET DOWN TO THAT GRANULAR LEVEL,
BUT BUT THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS TO
ENSURE THAT THERE'S EFFICIENCY OF THE DOLLARS SPENT.
AND I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE THAT THIS DOES THAT.
AND I APPRECIATE THE THOUGHT
AND THE CONVERSATION AROUND IT.
BUT I JUST HAVE CONCERNS ONLY BECAUSE I'M AFRAID
IT'S GOING TO SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS
AND NEEDING TO FOCUS ON WHAT I THINK YOUR
MAIN PURPOSE OF BEING CONCERNED ABOUT IS.
AND SO I WELCOME THE CONVERSATION MOVING FORWARD.
BUT I THINK THIS BILL RIGHT NOW,
I'M I'M CONCERNED IT'S GOING
TO ADD TOO MUCH COMPLEXITY
TO TO STAY LASER FOCUSED ON WHAT I THINK WE
NEED TO DO OVER THE NEXT HOPEFULLY YEAR,
BUT PROBABLY TEN YEARS ON LOWERING RATES OR
AT LEAST MAKING THEM SOMEWHAT AFFORDABLE.
SO THANK YOU.
IF I MAY JUST ADD THE LAST PIECE, I JUST AGAIN,
PART OF THE OPPOSITION IS JUST WE
DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT IN PROVIDING INACCURATE
INFORMATION RIGHT AT IF IT'S ALL.
UM, IN ASSUMPTIONS, IT WOULD
IN ESSENCE BE INACCURATE.
SO IT'S.
I DON'T KNOW HOW VALUABLE THAT IS.
YEAH.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
THAT COMMENT, I THINK FOR ALL OF US,
I'D SAY THE UNIVERSAL CHALLENGE
THAT WE'RE ALL GRAPPLING
WITH AND THAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER ALICE TEED UP
IN HER OPENING REMARKS, IS THAT TODAY,
ALL OF OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE OPENING THEIR BILLS
AND LIKE FALLING OFF THEIR CHAIR THINKING THAT,
YOU KNOW, CALLING OUR OFFICES BECAUSE
THEY THINK THEY MUST BE WRONG.
AND I THINK WE ALL RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEM STATEMENT,
AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT OUR SHARED
GOAL IS COST CONTAINMENT
AND TO LOWER BILLS FOR CALIFORNIANS.
UM, FIGURING OUT EXACTLY HOW WE
DO THAT IS IS THE TOUGHER PART.
UM, SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR ENGAGEMENT ON THIS,
AND I REALLY DO THINK THAT THE POINT THAT
YOU MADE THAT SOMETHING THAT IS,
YOU KNOW, PERHAPS AN ESTIMATE THAT'S ONLY 80% RIGHT,
IS STILL BETTER THAN THAN NO ESTIMATE AT ALL.
UM, AND SO LET'S CONTINUE.
TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE GET BETTER
AT MAKING THOSE ESTIMATES,
AND HOW DO WE CREATE SOME MORE PREDICTABILITY
FOR CALIFORNIANS?
SO WITH THAT, I THINK I'VE GOT ONE MORE COMMENT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES.
I DO WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT ALTHOUGH
I DO HAVE QUESTIONS,
I THINK THAT WHENEVER WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT TRANSPARENCY,
TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING THAT
IS GOOD FOR THE RATEPAYERS,
WE'VE GOT TO BE CREATIVE ABOUT WHAT WE DO.
UM.
THE BILL DESERVES TO MOVE FORWARD,
BUT I THINK THAT TRYING TO JUST
TIGHTEN IT UP OR WHATEVER,
WHATEVER THE WORD IS, UM,
IS IMPORTANT SO THAT WE KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
WE DON'T OVERBURDEN, WE'RE NOT
CAUSING MORE, JUST PAPERWORK.
UM, BUT TO TO REALLY HELP BECAUSE IT'S
THE RATEPAYERS WE WANT TO TO HELP,
BUT JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT MAKE THAT POINT.
THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS.
I SORT OF FEEL LIKE WE'RE CLONED
OF EACH OTHER TODAY.
UM, I JUST, I, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE BILL,
BUT I DO, UM,
I DO THINK THAT BECAUSE OF
THE TRANSPARENCY AND BECAUSE,
REALLY OF THE FACT THAT I GIVE
WEIGHT TO THE FACT THAT
BOTH OF YOU ARE SAYING THAT THERE'S IT'S NEEDED.
AND I THINK WE SEE THAT IT'S THAT
WE NEED MORE TRANSPARENCY.
BUT I THINK THIS COULD BE SOMETHING
THAT COULD JUST GOBBLE UP A TON,
A TON OF TIME FOR POC STAFF IF IT'S ACTUALLY NOT
MORE DEFINED IN SOME PRETTY SPECIFIC WAYS.
UM, MAYBE EVEN REQUIRING THE PUC
TO COME UP WITH SOME GUIDELINES
ON HOW YOU ESTIMATE IT SO THAT
WHEN THEY'RE DOING THIS,
IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY TAKE OUT
THE RULE BOOK AND IT AND THIS IS
THE CALCULATION THAT'S REQUIRED
AND THAT THEY CAN SORT OF DO IT.
UM, SO THAT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE, YOU KNOW,
HAVING ALSO DIFFERENT INFORMATION
BETWEEN WHAT PG AND E IS DOING
AND WHAT SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC
IS DOING AND WHAT EDISON IS DOING.
AND THEY MAY NOT BE DIFFERENT IN TERMS
OF THE ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND IT.
SO, UM, WITH THAT, I, YOU KNOW,
I THAT'S WHAT I WOULD
HOPE THAT WILL HAPPEN AS IT MOVES FORWARD.
MOVE THE BILL.
THANK YOU.
UM, ALL RIGHT.
UH, ASSEMBLY MEMBER ADDIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
YEAH.
I MEAN, I WANT TO APPRECIATE THE COMPLEXITY
THAT THIS BRINGS TO THE TABLE.
I WAS TALKING TO SOMEONE RECENTLY
ABOUT UTILITIES AND HOW, UH,
SOMETIMES YOU START TO GO INTO WHAT FEELS LIKE
A BLACK HOLE OF TERMINOLOGY AND UNDERSTANDING,
THE NITTY GRITTY, ALL THE PIECES.
AND SO I WANT TO APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.
IT'S A COMPLICATED ISSUE.
THAT SAID, IT'S ABSOLUTELY ONE WE HAVE TO SOLVE.
IT'S ONE WE NEED TO SOLVE.
IT'S ONE I THINK WE'RE ALIGNED IN SOLVING WHEN
IT COMES TO TRANSPARENCY FOR RATEPAYERS.
SO I HEAR A LOT OF COMMON GOALS, UH, IN THIS ROOM.
AND I JUST I WANT TO APPRECIATE THAT
BECAUSE I'LL REPEAT IT AGAIN.
WHAT I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, AT THE VERY LEAST,
IN THIS WORLD WHERE RATES ARE OUT OF CONTROL,
WHERE PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW WHAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN THEY
OPEN THAT BILL AND HOW MUCH THEY'RE GOING TO OWE.
AND WE SAW IN THE PAST DRASTIC THREE AND FOUR TIMES
WHAT PEOPLE HAD PAID ONE MONTH TO THE NEXT.
AT THE VERY LEAST,
PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW WHERE THEIR MONEY IS GOING
TO AND THAT THEY ARE BEING CHARGED
FAIR AND REASONABLE.
AND SO I THINK THIS BILL GETS US TOWARDS THAT PLACE.
WE'RE HAPPY TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.
UM, WE'VE ALWAYS HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP.
I EXPECT THAT TO CONTINUE.
AND SO VERY OPEN, UM, YOU KNOW,
TO MAKING SURE THAT THIS GETS
TO A BETTER PLACE WHERE,
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THERE
IS A LITTLE MORE SURETY.
SO WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
OKAY.
SECOND.
SORRY.
OKAY.
SECOND FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN
WHO SAID SHE LOVED THE BILL.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
UH, THE MOTION IS DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
UH, MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ITEM NUMBER THREE, AB 2847.
THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
PETRIE-NORRIS I PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON.
BAUER-KAHAN.
HI.
MARY KAY HIAN I CALDERON I CALDERON I CHEN CHEN.
NOT VOTING.
CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN.
I JOE.
PATTERSON.
JOE.
PATTERSON.
NO.
REYES.
REYES, I.
SANTIAGO.
SHIAVO.
THING.
WALLACE.
WALLACE I WOULD, I WOULD I.
ZIPPER.
ZIPPER I.
RIGHT.
UH, TEN ONE.
UH, SO THAT BILL IS OUT AND WE'LL LEAVE
THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
THANK YOU.
BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND DISPENSE
WITH THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
ALL RIGHT.
WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE FIVE MEASURES ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
MADAM SECRETARY, IF YOU CAN,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE CONSENT FILE.
ITEM NUMBER ONE, AB 1921.
THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASSES AMENDED TO NATURAL RESOURCES,
ITEM NUMBER SIX, AB 3247.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, AB 2462.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO APPROPRIATIONS.
ITEM NUMBER NINE AB 2764.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
ITEM NUMBER TEN AB 3006.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
PETRI NORRIS I PETRI NORRIS
I JIM PATTERSON, BARKHAN.
BARKHAN.
I CALLED AROUND I CALDERON I CHEN.
CHEN I CONNELLY.
FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN, I.
HOLDEN.
HOLDEN, I.
JOE.
PATTERSON.
JOE.
PATTERSON, I.
REYES.
I.
SANTIAGO.
SHIAVO.
TING.
WALLACE.
WALLACE I WOULD.
WOULD I?
ZIPPER.
ZIPPER I.
OKAY.
UH, 12 ZERO.
BUT WE'LL KEEP IT OPEN.
ALL RIGHT, 11 ZERO.
AND WE WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
MOVING RIGHT ALONG.
LET'S SEE.
WE'LL DO FILE ITEM SEVEN AB 2054 FROM
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN.
RENUMBERED.
FROM MY FILE BECAUSE.
THE POLLS.
OH, YEAH.
I GOT A FEW.
OKAY.
HI.
ALL RIGHT.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
UM, FIRST, I WANT TO THANK COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON
THE BILL AND THEIR HELP GETTING
IT TO WHERE IT IS TODAY.
UM, THE AMENDMENTS RESOLVE CONCERNS
RAISED BY THE OPPOSITION ABOUT
THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS AFTER REASONABLENESS
REVIEW BY THE PUC,
AND RESTRICT THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE BILL
TO WILDFIRE COSTS AND BALANCING ACCOUNTS,
AND SHORTENS THE TIME FRAME
FOR THE COOLING OFF PERIOD.
UM, WITH THAT, I'M PROUD,
AND I ACCEPT ALL THOSE IF I WASN'T CLEAR.
UM, SO I'LL BE PRESENTING AB 2054,
AND I WANT TO START WITH A STORY
ABOUT ONE OF MY CONSTITUENTS.
WE GOT A CALL RECENTLY FROM
A CONSTITUENT NAMED LYNN.
SHE'S 101 YEARS OLD.
SHE HAS SPENT HER LIFE BEING VERY DILIGENT
ABOUT HER ELECTRICITY USAGE,
AND HAS BEEN ABLE TO KEEP HER BILL TO $100
A MONTH CONSISTENTLY UNTIL THREE MONTHS AGO,
WHEN IT SHOT UP TO $300 A MONTH.
THIS IS A WOMAN ON A FIXED INCOME.
IT'S ONE OF MY SENIOR CONSTITUENTS,
AND SHE'S NOW FACING $200 MORE
A MONTH IN HER UTILITY BILL,
AND SHE HAS NO MORE ENERGY.
SHE CAN SAVE AND REMAIN HEALTHY AND SAFE.
THAT'S WHAT CALIFORNIANS ARE FACING RIGHT NOW.
AND SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS COMMITTEE'S
FOCUS ON DRIVING RATES DOWN,
ENSURING THE PUC IS DOING THEIR
JOB IN PROTECTING RATEPAYERS.
AND THAT'S THE WORK WE HAVE AHEAD OF US IN AB 2054.
FIRST, THE BILL CREATES A COOLING
OFF PERIOD BEFORE PUC,
BEFORE ENERGY AND PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSIONERS CAN WORK IN
THE REGULATED INDUSTRIES FOR
WHOM THEY SET THE RATES.
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE COMMISSIONERS
SETTING RATES WHO GET TO GO
ACCEPT A HUGE PAYDAY THE DAY
THEY LEAVE THE COMMISSION.
IT'S A CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND ONE
THAT I BELIEVE NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.
IN ADDITION, THE BILL ENSURES THAT THEY'RE NOT
TAKING GIFTS FROM THE ENTITIES FOR WHOM
THEY'RE REGULATING AND THAT THEY ARE PUTTING
OUR CONSTITUENTS IN CALIFORNIANS FIRST.
SECOND, THE BILL ESTABLISHES ACCOUNTABILITY
WHEN UTILITIES
OVERSPEND ALLOCATIONS IN THE BALANCING ACCOUNTS.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE THE AMENDMENTS
WERE FAIRLY LENGTHY.
SO IT REALLY NARROWED WHERE THAT
OVERSPENDING IS REGULATED.
BUT THE SINGLE LARGEST FACTOR CONTRIBUTING
TO PGALS UM $348 MILLION
IN DISTRIBUTION COSTS WAS IN A TREE
TRIMMING BALANCING ACCOUNT.
AND THE WAY THESE BALANCING ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN
USED IS THAT THE IOUS IN THIS CASE PGA,
OVERSPEND AND THEN COME BACK AND ASK
FORGIVENESS INSTEAD OF PERMISSION.
THE WAY THE PUC IS SUPPOSED TO REGULATE SPENDING
IS TO FIGURE OUT IN ADVANCE IF IT'S JUST
AND REASONABLE WHEN THEY OVERSPEND
ON BALANCING ACCOUNTS,
THAT ISN'T CURRENTLY HAPPENING.
AND SO WHAT THIS BILL WILL NOW DO
WITH THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
IS ENSURE THAT WHERE THERE WAS OVERSPENDING,
THE PUC CAN ENSURE IT WAS JUST AND REASONABLE,
SO THAT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT ANALYSIS
DONE AND WHERE IT IS NOT,
IT WILL FALL ONTO THE SHAREHOLDERS
INSTEAD OF THE RATEPAYERS.
SO THEY NO LONGER HAVE A BLANK CHECK OUT
OF THESE WILDFIRE BALANCING ACCOUNTS.
UM, SO THAT'S WHAT THE BILL DOES.
IT IS A SIMPLE BILL FOCUSED ON MAKING
SURE THAT WE'RE DOING WHAT IS RIGHT.
THE PUC IS DOING THEIR JOB IN AN UNBIASED WAY,
AND THAT WE ARE REVIEWING ALL COSTS SO THAT WHAT
IS BEING PUT INTO UTILITY RATES
IS JUST AND REASONABLE,
AS IS ALREADY INTENDED BY THE PUC.
WITH ME TODAY IN SUPPORT IS MARK TONEY,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TURN.
THANK YOU.
MARK TONEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TURN.
TURN IS PROUD TO SUPPORT 2054
TO SET LIMITS ON UTILITY,
OVERSPENDING AND INCREASE UH,
COMMISSIONER WAITING PERIODS BEFORE
THEY BECOME UTILITY EXECUTIVES.
UM, WHICH WHICH IS, YOU KNOW,
PART OF THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE.
AND THAT'S A REALLY BIG CONCERN BECAUSE WE
THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC
CONFIDENCE IN THE CPUC NOT TO BE WORRIED
THAT COMMISSIONERS ARE MAKING
DECISIONS BASED UPON THEIR FUTURE ABILITY TO
CASH IN ON THEIR EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE,
UM, WITH, UH, THE ENTITIES THAT
THEY CURRENTLY REGULATE.
I THINK IT'S A BAD LOOK TO THE PUBLIC
WHEN A SITTING CPA COMMISSIONER
IS BEING LOBBIED BY THEIR FORMER
CPUC COMMISSIONER BOSS,
WHO IS CURRENTLY A UTILITY EXECUTIVE,
I THINK IT'S A BAD LOOK.
AND WE WE THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
IF YOU WANT COST CONTAINMENT,
WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING AND FIX THE BROKEN
SYSTEM WHERE THERE ARE NO LIMITS TO
HOW MUCH UTILITIES CAN OVERSPEND,
AND A GUARANTEE THAT RATEPAYERS
WILL PAY ALMOST 100% OF THAT BY
REQUIRING SHAREHOLDERS TO SHARE
THE PAIN OF COST OVERRUNS.
I GUARANTEE YOU THAT UTILITIES,
BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE
ACCOUNTABLE TO SHAREHOLDERS THAN RATEPAYERS,
SADLY, WILL BE MUCH MORE DILIGENT
WITH RATEPAYER FUNDS.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS,
BUT I'M GOING TO CLOSE NOW
AND ASK FOR YOUR YES VOTE.
THANK YOU.
UM.
ARE THERE IS THERE A PRIMARY WITNESS IN OPPOSITION?
YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND APPROACH THE PODIUM.
THE DAIS.
THANK YOU.
HEY.
>> UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, RACHEL KASS, ON BEHALF OF
THE COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES.
UM, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO
THE REVOLVING DOOR PROVISIONS,
THE GIFT PROVISIONS OF THE BILL.
UM, WE DO HAVE ISSUES WITH
THE BALANCING ACCOUNT PROVISIONS,
UTILITIES TRACK COSTS AND BALANCING ACCOUNTS
FOR A HOST OF SAFETY AND RELIABILITY WORK,
WILDFIRE PREVENTION, VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT, SYSTEM HARDENING.
THIS IS BECAUSE CALIFORNIA'S GENERAL RATE
STRUCTURE IS BASED ON FORECASTS.
THE UTILITY SUBMITS AN APPLICATION TWO
YEARS BEFORE THE GRC TEST YEAR,
AND SIX YEARS BEFORE THE LAST YEAR OF THE GRC CYCLE.
THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE COSTS
ARE GOING TO BE, WHAT THE WORK WILL BE.
UM, WHAT ISSUES WILL ARISE IN TWO,
THREE, FOUR, FIVE AND SIX YEARS?
GRC AUTHORIZED FORECASTS WILL
NEVER BE EXACTLY RIGHT.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE BALANCING ACCOUNTS
WITH THE ONE WAY ACCOUNT.
THE UTILITY GETS MONEY FOR A PARTICULAR THING,
SAY VEGETATION MANAGEMENT.
THE PUC HAS DETERMINED THAT AMOUNT
TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE.
THE MONEY IS TRACKED AND ANY MONEY NOT
SPENT IS RETURNED TO RATEPAYERS.
IF THE UTILITY SPENDS MORE,
SHAREHOLDERS ARE ON THE HOOK FOR THAT.
UNDER A TWO WAY ACCOUNT, UNSPENT MONEY IS RETURNED
AND UNDER COLLECTIONS ARE COLLECTED.
THESE TOOLS BENEFIT RATEPAYERS
BECAUSE THE UTILITY RECOVERS
ONLY WHAT IT SPENDS ON A NARROW CATEGORY OF WORK.
THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM MONEY AUTHORIZED
IN THE GENERAL GRC POT,
WHICH CAN BE SPENT ON A WHOLE HOST OF
THINGS AND DOES NOT GET RETURNED
TO RATEPAYERS BECAUSE IT CAN
BE USED FOR OTHER THINGS.
WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE BILL IS IT WILL EFFECTIVELY
ELIMINATE THE USE OF THESE TOOLS,
BECAUSE THE UTILITY CANNOT PUT MONEY IN AN ACCOUNT
IF THERE'S A RISK OF NOT RECOVERING IT,
DESPITE THE PUC FINDING IT
TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE,
THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BORROW MONEY TO GET WORK DONE.
THEY WON'T BE FINANCIALLY VIABLE.
INSTEAD, THE PUC IS GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE
UTILITIES WAY MORE MONEY IN THE GRC
POT TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE ENOUGH TO
DO THE WORK KNOWN AND UNKNOWN WORK.
BECAUSE REMEMBER, THE GRC IS A FORECASTING
EXERCISE WHICH CAN NEVER BE EXACTLY RIGHT.
AND UNLIKE A BALANCING ACCOUNT WHERE
A UTILITY WOULD GIVE BACK UNSPENT MONEY,
THEY WON'T HAVE TO GIVE IT BACK.
THIS IS GOING TO INCREASE RATES.
BALANCING ACCOUNTS ARE NOT
A PIGGY BANK FOR UTILITIES.
THEY ARE A TOOL TO CONTROL COSTS.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE BILL IS GOING TO TAKE
AWAY THAT TOOL THAT HELPS RATEPAYERS.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
UM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, OR DO WE HAVE A.
SORRY.
A SECOND WITNESS IN OPPOSITION.
ALL RIGHT.
YEAH.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
ISRAEL SALAS WITH SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC
AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
COMPANY ALSO IN POSITION.
I'LL TRY NOT TO REITERATE, UM,
THE COMMENTS THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY HEARD,
BUT BALANCING ACCOUNTS ARE A PRETTY
COMMON TOOL THAT UTILITIES USE,
AND IT FUNDS IMPORTANT SAFETY AND RELIABILITY WORK,
BUT ALSO SUPPORTS IMPLEMENTATION OF VARIOUS
NEW LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND MANDATES.
UH, BY THE CPUC.
UH, GENERALLY, AS YOU HEARD,
THESE ARE DIFFICULT TO FORECAST ACTIVITIES.
AND THE BEST EXAMPLE THAT I CAN GIVE YOU IS WE
HAVE A BALANCING ACCOUNT THAT HELPS TO FUND,
UH, NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SAFETY WORK
THAT IS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW.
TYPICALLY, THE REASON THAT'S DIFFICULT TO FORECAST
IS WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE SCALE OF REMEDIATION
OR THE COSTS THAT ARE INVOLVED UNTIL WE GET
INTO THOSE PIPES AND INSPECT THE PIPES.
FOR THAT REASON, THE CPUC GIVES US THE ABILITY
TO TREAT THOSE COSTS AS BALANCING ACCOUNTS.
UM, THE CPUC ALSO IMPOSES LAYERS OF REVIEW
WHEN WE SEEK RECOVERY FOR THESE ACCOUNTS.
IT INCLUDES AN ADVICE LETTER PROCESS
THAT TAKES ABOUT 2 TO 3 MONTHS.
BUT SOMEONE AT THE CPUC IS DOING THE REVIEW,
AND THAT REQUIRES CPUC APPROVAL.
AND IN SOME CASES, WE HAVE TO FILE AN APPLICATION,
AS THIS BILL SUGGESTS.
SO WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE REVIEW PROCESS.
THIS BILL IS APPLYING A ONE SIZE
FITS ALL REVIEW OF APPLICATION
FOR EVERY SINGLE BALANCING ACCOUNT THAT WE HAVE,
THAT IS A 12 TO 24 MONTH REVIEW
PROCESS THAT WILL IMPACT
CASH FLOW FOR THE UTILITY'S UNDERFUNDED UTILITIES,
BUT ALSO RESULT IN RATE SHOCK,
BECAUSE THESE BALANCES THAT WE'RE ACCUMULATING
ARE SITTING IN A WAITING ROOM
ACCUMULATING BORROWING COSTS.
AT SOME POINT THEY HAVE TO GO INTO RATES.
THE LONGER THEY SIT THERE,
THE MORE BORROWING COSTS THEY ACCUMULATE.
THAT'S A BIGGER RATE SHOCK TO
TO RATEPAYERS AS OPPOSED TO
THE CURRENT CADENCE WHERE IT'S REGULAR,
IT'S STEADY WITH REVIEWS.
UM, THE LAST THING I'LL NOTE IS THAT
THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ON REVIEW OF BALANCING ACCOUNT FOR REASONABLENESS.
THAT CAN HAPPEN ONE YEAR AFTER WE PUT THE,
THE THE THE COST INTO RATES,
OR IT CAN HAPPEN FIVE YEARS AFTER.
THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
UM.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH,
OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OR SORRY,
NOT PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP
FOR TESTIMONY IN THE ROOM.
UM, IF ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT,
YOU CAN APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AT THIS POINT.
>> I'M MEGAN SHUMWAY ON BEHALF OF SACRAMENTO 350
AND CLIMATE ACTION CALIFORNIA IN STRONG SUPPORT.
>> KIM STONE.
STONE ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
SOLAR AND STORAGE ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
>> CYNTHIA SHALIT REPRESENTING INDIVISIBLE
CALIFORNIA STATE STRONG WITH 60 GROUPS,
WITH DISTRICTS AND ALL OF YOUR
AREAS IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
>> REBECCA MARCUS, REPRESENTING THE UNION
OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS AND SUPPORT.
>> KIM CRAIG ON BEHALF OF SONOVA IN SUPPORT.
>> ALLISON HILLIARD WITH REIMAGINED POWER AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE ROOM WISHING
TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2054?
>> MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, SCOTT,
WHICH ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS IN OPPOSITION.
>> UH, MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS.
HUNTER STERN, IBEW 1245.
IN OPPOSITION.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, BRANDON EBACH,
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC OPPOSITION.
ALSO HAPPY TO LOOK AT YOUR CONSTITUENTS,
BILL, TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.
THAT'D BE GREAT.
SOMETHING SOUNDS OFF.
BRANDON.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CATHERINE BORG,
WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ANYONE QUESTIONS ASSEMBLY MEMBER CALDERON.
THANK YOU.
UM.
>> ASSEMBLYWOMAN, UM, DO THE COMMITTEE
AND FORGIVE ME IF I MISS.
THIS IS A VERY BUSY WEEK TO
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, UH,
LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE BILL TO BALANCING
ACCOUNTS PERTAINING TO WILDFIRES.
YES, ONLY.
AND I THINK.
OKAY.
GLAD I'M NOT.
MISS IT.
OR NOT.
YES.
UP THERE.
YES.
OKAY.
UM, YOU KNOW, I KNOW RATE AFFORDABILITY IS.
I'M SORRY.
NO, THAT'S THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
IS LIMITED TO WILDFIRE EXPENSES.
SO THAT'S THE PART THAT'S LIMITED TO.
WILDFIRE ACCOUNTS I'M ASKING ABOUT.
NOT JUST TO THE WILDFIRE BALANCING ACCOUNTS.
YEP.
OKAY, SO.
THE ANSWER IS.
NO.
THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE AMENDMENTS.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE I THOUGHT THEY WERE
MUCH MORE NARROWING THAN THEY ARE.
SO I'M HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO THAT,
BECAUSE I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED
BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE OPPOSITION,
TO BE HONEST, BECAUSE I WAS LIKE,
DIDN'T WE NARROW EVERY EXAMPLE THEY'RE USING?
SO WE'RE HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH COMMITTEE BECAUSE
WE THOUGHT WE HAD NARROWED IT MUCH FURTHER.
OKAY, OKAY.
SO THAT'S NO, NOT YET THE AMENDMENTS.
NOT YET.
BUT YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE WORKING.
YES OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
CLEARLY I'M OPEN TO IT OKAY.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
UM BUT YEAH.
SO AND I KNOW HOW HARD YOU WORK YOUR BILLS AND,
AND, AND YOU PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THEM.
AND I KNOW RATE AFFORDABILITY
IS A PRIORITY FOR ALL OF US.
I MEAN, FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS, FOR CALIFORNIA,
FOR EVERYBODY.
UM, BUT I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS.
UM, I AM GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY,
BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE I NEED TO SHARE THEM WITH YOU.
SO MY CONCERN IS THAT ADDING A REASONABLENESS
REVIEW PROCESS ON BALANCING
ACCOUNTS WILL ADD MORE TIME TO
THE RATE RECOVERY PROCESS,
AND OFTEN BALANCING ACCOUNT EXPENDITURES
ARE MADE BY UTILITIES
UTILIZING INTEREST BEARING FINANCING MECHANISMS.
SO I'M A LITTLE WORRIED THAT
RATEPAYERS WILL ULTIMATELY
BE PAYING MORE AS THE INTEREST
CONTINUES TO ACCRUE.
UM, AND I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT
THE FISCAL IMPACT OF THE BILL.
I MEAN, RIGHT NOW I'M LOOKING AT
THIS THROUGH A POLICY LENS,
BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT
I BROUGHT THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION.
SO I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE
TO WORK ON THE BELL,
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING HOW THIS EVOLVES.
MAY I PROVIDE A QUICK THANK YOU.
IT'S UP TO THE CHAIR.
SURE.
YEAH.
OH, SORRY.
THANK YOU.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, 2022,
THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR,
UM, TOOK A LOOK AT THE CPUC,
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY FOUND
WAS THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED
ABOUT DUPLICATION AND BALANCING ACCOUNTS,
THAT THERE ARE SO MANY.
AND THEY SPECIFICALLY, UM, IDENTIFIED $2.5
BILLION IN VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS.
A COST IMBALANCE ACCOUNTS WOULD QUOTE
EITHER DUPLICATE COSTS THAT
THE CPUC HAD ALREADY AUTHORIZED THROUGH
A GENERAL RATE CASE PROCEEDING,
OR REQUIRE ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION
AND DOCUMENTATION FROM
THE UTILITIES TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THEY DUPLICATED SUCH COSTS.
I I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THAT PART OF OUR CONCERN
IS WHAT THE FINDING OF THE STATE AUDITOR WAS.
OKAY, SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE WEEKS
WE HAD A HEARING HERE,
UM, ON RATES, REALLY GOOD INFORMATIONAL HEARING.
AND WE HEARD FROM THE CPUC PRESIDENT REYNOLDS.
UM, AND SHE ASSURED US THAT THERE'S
A VERY ROBUST PROCESS TO EVALUATE,
BALANCING ACCOUNTS AND ALSO ENSURE THAT
THESE REQUESTS ARE JUST AND REASONABLE.
SO, UM, I AGAIN, I LOOK FORWARD
TO SEEING HOW THIS PLAYS OUT,
BUT I JUST THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CHEN.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
UM, I HAD A QUESTION, UH,
WITH THE OPPOSITION EARLY ON IN YOUR TESTIMONY,
YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW THE UNSPENT FUNDS
WILL BE GOING BACK TO THE RATEPAYERS.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT TO ME
SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENS,
HOW YOU DETERMINE THOSE UNSPENT
FUNDS GIVEN BACK TO RATEPAYERS?
WHERE DO THEY GO?
WHAT'S THE PROCESS OF THAT?
YEAH.
SO ALL OF THE REVENUES AND ALL OF
THE COSTS ARE TRACKED IN THE ACCOUNT.
AND PERIODICALLY THERE'S ESSENTIALLY A TRUE UP, UM,
WHERE IF THE UTILITY HAS NOT SPENT WHAT
HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED TO SPEND ON,
SAY, VEGETATION MANAGEMENT,
THEN THERE WOULD BE A TRUE UP IN THE RATE.
AND SO IT WOULD THE RATEPAYERS WOULD
SEE THAT MONEY COME BACK.
AND THEN SAME WITH THE FLIP SIDE.
IF IT'S A TWO WAY BALANCING ACCOUNT, UM,
SO IF THE UTILITY SPENDS MORE
THEN THAT WOULD BE TRACKED.
AND, AND EVENTUALLY COLLECTED THROUGH RATES.
AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH, I ASSUME,
THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS OF WHETHER IS GOING
TO BE SOME INFRASTRUCTURE PROCESS THAT IS
GOING TO BE AGREED UPON AND BUILD UPON,
IF THE ACCOUNTING IS GOING TO BE DONE AS A, UH,
ITEM TO LINE ITEM BASIS AS OPPOSED TO A PROJECTION.
UM, IS THERE IMPACT IN TERMS
OF THE CONSTRUCTION ITSELF,
TIMELINE WISE, EXPEDITING THE PROCESS?
UM, I MIGHT LET MY UTILITY COUNTERPART ANSWER THAT.
I THINK THE ANSWER IS NO, BUT YEAH.
AND IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION CORRECTLY,
UM, ARE YOU ASKING IF.
IF WE'LL SEE ANY DELAYS IN HOW QUICKLY WE,
UM, THE ANSWER IS MAYBE AND PROBABLY, UM,
WHAT WHAT THE BILL IS SAYING IS THAT WE HAVE TO
GO THROUGH A VERY LENGTHY REVIEW PROCESS BEFORE
WE'RE ABLE TO COLLECT ANY BALANCES THAT WE
HAVE ACCRUED IN THESE BALANCING ACCOUNTS.
SO THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY.
SITTING.
THERE.
AND SO IT COULD HAVE THAT IMPACT.
MAY I?
YES, PLEASE.
JUST POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
ONLY IF IT'S OVER WHAT YOU HAD
SAID YOU WERE GOING TO SPEND.
AND I WOULD JUST PERSONALLY SAY AS A RATEPAYER,
I DON'T KNOW THE LAST TIME
I SAW A DISCOUNT ON MY BILL.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY
IS COMING BACK TO RATEPAYERS.
SO AGAIN, JUST SO THAT BECAUSE SO WHAT TO UM.
MAKE SURE WE ALL UNDERSTAND
WHAT YOU JUST THE POINT YOU
JUST MADE THAT WHEN YOU SET
UP THIS BALANCING ACCOUNT,
YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF ESTIMATE AROUND
THE LIKELY SIZE OF THE EXPENDITURE,
SO THAT AMOUNT WILL BE RECOVERABLE.
IT IS IN THE COURSE OF DOING THE PROJECT
IN THE WORK AS YOU REALIZE,
OH MY GOSH, THIS IS GOING TO COST US
NOT LIKE 10% MORE THAN WE THOUGHT.
IT'S GOING TO COST US 300% MORE THAN WE THOUGHT.
THAT'S WHEN YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE
WHY AND GO BACK TO THE PUC.
AND I CAN ELABORATE.
YEAH, WELL, I'M JUST MAKING SURE
THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
UM.
ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS.
WERE.
YES.
I JUST WANTED TO, UM.
AND I APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING.
I HAD TO GO TO ANOTHER HEARING.
UM, MY BIGGEST CONCERN.
YOU MIGHT HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS.
MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THIS 5050 ISSUE
ON SOMETHING THAT'S DETERMINED,
FAIR AND REASONABLE.
IS THAT CONTINUING TO REMAIN IN THE BILL?
NO, NO.
SO, YEAH, AS LONG AS IT'S FAIR AND REASONABLE,
JUST REASONABLE,
THEY WILL BE ABLE TO RECOVER IT.
OKAY.
YEAH, 100%.
THAT'S GREAT.
I JUST I THERE'S SOME OTHER ISSUES I DON'T,
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION
THAT I HAVE WITH THIS.
AND I JUST HOPE THAT YOU'LL CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH BOLTON
AND THE OPPONENTS ON SOME OF THESE OTHER ISSUES.
BUT THAT WAS THE BIGGEST CONCERN I HAD.
AND SO THANK YOU FOR.
YEAH, THANK YOU.
AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT.
UM, I SAID AT THE BEGINNING,
BUT I WANT TO REITERATE IT.
I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE WORK OF
THE COMMITTEE ON THESE AMENDMENTS.
WE DID HEAR FROM A LOT OF THE OPPOSITION THAT IT
DID DEAL WITH A LOT OF THEIR CORE CONCERNS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HEARING HERE TODAY,
BUT I THINK THEY GO A LONG WAY.
THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
I, I DID HAVE A QUESTION.
I KNOW THERE WAS THE OPPOSITION
FROM THE UTILITIES,
BUT THERE WAS OPPOSITION FROM THE WORKERS.
AND I WANT TO KNOW IF THE OPPOSITION
FROM THE WORKERS IS INDEPENDENT,
FROM THE OPPOSITION, FROM THE UTILITIES THEMSELVES.
I THINK SHE IS WITH IBEW.
RIGHT?
YEAH.
I REPRESENT.
THE EMPLOYEES OF THE INVESTOR OWNED.
UTILITIES.
OH, THE EMPLOYEES OF THE.
SORRY.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE.
YEAH.
HELLO?
YEAH.
SCOTT, WHICH ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION OF UTILITY EMPLOYEES,
WE SHARE MANY OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE UTILITIES
HAVE ABOUT BALANCING ACCOUNTS.
MOSTLY, WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
THIS CRITICAL WORK THAT IS FUNDED
THROUGH THE BALANCING ACCOUNTS
BEING SLOWED DOWN OR STOPPED,
OR EVEN THE FUNDING NOT BEING
APPROVED AFTER THE FACT.
THAT HAS ALL KINDS OF RAMIFICATIONS,
INCLUDING FOR OUR UNION TRUST FUNDS,
BECAUSE WHEN THE WORK IS PERFORMED
AND THE CONTRACTORS, UH,
THEY WILL GET PAID FOR THE FOR FOR
A PORTION OF THE WORK IF THEY HAVE
TO GO AND WAIT FOR THE UTILITIES
TO GET THEIR REIMBURSEMENT.
THAT SLOWS SOMETIMES BY A YEAR OR MORE,
THE PAYMENTS TO OUR HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUNDS.
SO THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF RAMIFICATIONS
ABOUT ABOUT THIS.
AND, AND I THINK JUST THE IMPORTANT POINT, MR.
CHIN, TO YOUR QUESTION, WAS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE BALANCING ACCOUNT
AND IF YOU FUNDED ALL THIS THROUGH
THE GENERAL RATE CASE,
AS WAS POINTED OUT EARLIER,
IF IT'S FORCED INTO A GENERAL
RATE CASE AND THEY DON'T SPEND ALL OF THE MONEY.
THEY KEEP IT, IT DOESN'T GO BACK TO
THE RIGHT PAIR IN THE BALANCING ACCOUNT.
IT'S REQUIRED TO.
YOU DON'T SEE IT ON YOUR BILL AS,
HEY, YOU JUST GOT REIMBURSED,
YOU KNOW, REBATED $50.
THE VOLUMETRIC RATE THAT YOU PAY IS REDUCED
IN ALL THE BILLS FORTHCOMING.
THANK YOU.
I OFTEN LIKE THESE ARE ALWAYS
VERY COMPLICATED ISSUES.
AND THE WAY FOR ME TO SEE THIS IS THAT
IF THE THE FUNDING IS RECEIVED
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND IT
IS NOT ALL SPENT FOR THAT,
THE COMMENT WAS MADE THAT IT IS RETURNED,
BUT IN FACT IT'S NOT RETURNED.
I JUST WANT TO.
THAT'S MY FIRST POINT.
SO WITH THE BALANCING ACCOUNT, IT WOULD BE
IF THE MONEY IS AUTHORIZED JUST THROUGH THE
THE LARGE GENERAL RATE CASE POT
OUTSIDE OF A BALANCING ACCOUNT,
IT WOULD NOT BE RETURNED.
IT COULD BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE.
THAT'S THE BENEFIT OF THE BALANCING ACCOUNT.
SORRY, IS WHO IS RETURNED TO.
>> RATEPAYERS.
IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS?
HOW OFTEN HAS THAT HAPPENED?
OR TEN YEARS.
I DON'T KNOW, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD,
I KNOW THAT THE ANALYSIS POINTS
TO ONE PARTICULAR INSTANCE RECENTLY
WHERE THAT HAPPENED.
UM.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A LOG OF HOW MANY TIMES.
WE'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU WITH THAT NUMBER.
UM, AS FAR AS, LIKE,
THE UNIVERSE OF HOW OFTEN THAT OCCURS.
BUT AS, AS WAS MENTIONED, THE BENEFIT OF
THE BALANCING ACCOUNT IS THAT THE RATEPAYERS
ARE PAYING EXACTLY FOR OR EXACTLY THE AMOUNT
THAT IS NEEDED TO FUND THE WORK.
BUT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL LAYERS
OF REVIEW THAT ARE ALREADY
REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF BALANCING ACCOUNTS,
AND THAT'S REALLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CPUC.
AND I THINK THE GAS SAFETY
WORK IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE,
WHERE WE GET A BASE AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT'S
APPROVED THROUGH OUR GENERAL RATE CASE.
BUT THE CPUC GIVES US THAT BALANCING ACCOUNT
TREATMENT TO COVER ANY OVERAGES,
BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COST WILL BE.
AND ANY TIME WE GO OVER THAT.
SO BETWEEN 1 AND 35% OF OVERSPEND,
THERE'S ONE PROCESS THAT WE NEED TO FOLLOW TO
LET THE CPUC KNOW AND TO RECEIVE APPROVAL.
ANYTHING ABOVE 35% DOES REQUIRE
AN APPLICATION PROCESS.
SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT LAYERS OF REVIEW.
AND.
UNDER THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL,
ANY TIME YOU OVERSPENT,
YOU ARE GOING BACK TO THE PUC FOR REVIEW.
THAT IS HOW WE ARE READING IT.
YES, IT'S BROADLY APPLICABLE
TO ANY BALANCING ACCOUNT.
IF I MAY, MADAM CHAIR.
YES, PLEASE.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT ONE
THING THAT'S BEING SAID,
WHICH IS WHEN THEY SAY THAT SOMETHING
HAS BEEN APPROVED,
THEY'RE APPROVED FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT
AND THEY DON'T SPEND ALL THAT AMOUNT,
IT WILL BE RETURNED TO RATEPAYERS.
NOTHING ABOUT THIS BILL CHANGES THAT.
THIS DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING THAT IS APPROVED.
ONCE IT IS APPROVED, IT CAN BE SPENT.
NOTHING TOUCHES THAT.
WHAT THIS FOCUSES ON IS WHEN THEY
GET APPROVAL FOR CERTAIN COSTS,
AND THEN THEY JUST OVERSPEND
BY MULTIPLES AND MULTIPLES.
AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT JUST
LIKE IN EVERY OTHER PROCESS,
IF YOU ARE SPENDING RATEPAYER DOLLARS,
THE PUC NEEDS TO APPROVE IT.
THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE IT'S JUST AND REASONABLE.
SO I'M I THINK THAT THIS PART ABOUT RETURN TO
RATEPAYERS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A RED HERRING,
BECAUSE ANYTHING APPROVED THAT PROCESS
DOESN'T CHANGE BASED ON THIS BILL.
WHAT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME IS TO
KNOW IF IT EVER IS RETURNED.
YEAH, AND I LIKED THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I.
THE IT APPEARS TO ME FROM THE MANY HEARINGS
WE'VE HAD OVER THE YEARS THAT.
THE ESTIMATES ARE USUALLY SOMETHING
LESS THAN WHAT IS ACTUALLY SPENT.
AND AT LEAST FROM MY EIGHT YEARS
ON THIS PARTICULAR COMMITTEE,
WE DON'T HEAR A WHOLE LOT ABOUT RATEPAYERS RECEIVING
ANYTHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN SPENT.
BUT THE BIG ISSUE IS WHEN AN ESTIMATE
IS GIVEN AND THE THE,
THE FINAL AMOUNT THAT IS SPENT IS MUCH MORE
IF WE HAVE TO WAIT TILL THE VERY END.
THAT IS A PROBLEM.
I ABSOLUTELY SEE THAT AS A PROBLEM.
I SEE THIS AS AS A GOOD STEP IN MOVING TOWARDS UM.
TOWARDS ACCOUNTABILITY IN A TIMELY MANNER,
AS OPPOSED TO WAITING UNTIL THE VERY END.
SAYING, OH, YOU KNOW WHAT?
WE OVERSPENT.
WE NEED TO GET AN ADDITIONAL $10 MILLION.
WHATEVER THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IS,
BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN SPENT.
WHEREAS IF YOU HAVE REVIEWS ON A REGULAR BASIS,
THEN YOU KNOW THAT YOUR ESTIMATE WAS SO FAR OFF
AND YOU HAVE TO KEEP GETTING IT REVIEWED SO THAT
NEXT TIME THE ESTIMATES ARE MORE ACCURATE.
BECAUSE AS LONG AS THE THERE YOU CAN.
ESTIMATE SOMETHING.
THIS IS JUST IN GENERAL AND JUST
ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT WE DO,
WE ESTIMATE SOMETHING THAT'S THAT'S LOWER.
IT COULD BE ON A BID FOR SOMEBODY.
THEY, THEY, THEY GIVE THE LOWEST BID,
THEY GET THE CONTRACT.
AND THEN THERE'S OVER, OVER THE OVER COST.
I THINK HAVING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT
TALKING ABOUT OUR OWN MONEY,
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RATEPAYERS MONEY,
AND WE ARE ALL HEARING FROM THEM ABOUT HOW MUCH
MORE THEY'RE HAVING TO SPEND EVERY MONTH.
AND SO IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE THAT
WE NOW TRY TO FIND WAYS TO
KEEP TRACK OF THIS IN A TIMELY
MANNER BEFORE IT BECOMES
SUCH A LARGE AMOUNT THAT WE THEN HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE
SPENDING $200 MORE THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO SPEND.
I THINK IT IS A GOOD THING TO HAVE, BUT CERTAINLY I,
I UNDERSTAND THE OPPOSITION
AND THE COMMENTS THAT ARE MADE.
AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
THE THE, THE TRUST FUND,
THAT WILL DEPEND ON A LOT OF THESE THINGS.
THE WORK'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.
THEY HAVE TO BE PAID.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.
BUT I THINK JUST IN GENERAL WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT TRANSPARENCY,
IT HAS TO BE TIMELY.
IT CANNOT BE A YEAR DOWN THE ROAD
OR TWO YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.
IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS DONE
ON A TIMELY IN A TIMELY MANNER.
UM.
MAY I RESPOND?
YES.
SO I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY, UM,
ONE OF OUR CONCERNS WITH THE BILL
IS THAT THE REVIEW WON'T
BE TIMELY IF EVERYTHING HAS TO GO THROUGH
A FORMAL APPLICATION PROCESS, WHICH IS,
YOU KNOW, AT LEAST 18 MONTHS LONG,
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TIMELY,
AND IT'S THE BILLS ARE GOING TO PILE UP,
WHEREAS CURRENTLY THOSE COSTS
ARE REVIEWED PERIODICALLY.
UM, JUST THROUGH A MORE INFORMAL PROCESS,
YOU KNOW, LIKE AN ADVICE LETTER PROCESS.
SO THEY ARE REVIEWED.
IT'S JUST MORE EFFICIENTLY, UM,
THIS WILL TAKE MUCH, MUCH LONGER.
AND I HEAR YOU, BUT SOMETHING IS STILL WRONG.
AND MAYBE THIS ISN'T THE PERFECT RESPONSE.
MAYBE THIS ISN'T THE PERFECT ANSWER.
THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING MORE
THAT WE AS LEGISLATORS DO,
AND THERE'S STILL TIME TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.
AND I WANT THE CONVERSATION TO CONTINUE SO THAT WE
CAN PROVIDE THE PROTECTIONS ALL THE WAY AROUND.
BUT WE HAVE TO DO MORE.
WE CANNOT LEAVE IT AS IT IS.
SOMETHING MORE HAS TO BE DONE.
AND, UM.
THIS IS THIS IS ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS
THAT'S BEING OFFERED.
UM, AND I APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
AND I KNOW I THINK WE'VE GOT, UH,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOOD AND THEN
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CALDERON
AND THEN ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZIMMER.
>> THANK YOU.
UM, JUST AND THIS IS JUST
A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION.
UH, DON'T THE UTILITIES HAVE LIKE, I THINK,
AS I RECALL FROM MY RESEARCH ON A BILL LAST YEAR,
THAT UPWARDS OF MAYBE 100 BALANCING
ACCOUNTS AT A TIME.
300.
THAT IS CORRECT.
SO FOR SGA WE HAVE ABOUT 70 PLUS AND FOR SOCAL
GAS IT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 60.
SO THERE ARE THERE ARE COMMON FEATURE
UM THAT AGAIN SUPPORTS
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING FOR VARIOUS PROGRAMS.
SOME OF THEM ARE DRIVEN BY STATUTE.
IF THERE'S A NEW PROGRAM, NEW REQUIREMENT,
AND IT HAPPENS IN BETWEEN OUR RATE CASE CYCLES,
IT'S LIKE A BUDGET CHANGE PROPOSAL.
IT COMES IN AND AN A BALANCING
ACCOUNT IS THEN AUTHORIZED
IN MANY CASES WITH CONDITIONS TO SUPPORT THAT.
AND ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING TOO, IS THAT THOSE UM.
THAT THE REVIEW FOR A BALANCING ACCOUNT EXISTING IN
THE CURRENT PROCESS COULD BE
SEVERAL MONTHS OR LONGER.
CORRECT?
YES, AS WAS NOTED.
SO ADVICE LETTER FILINGS CAN TAKE ANYWHERE
FROM 2 TO 3 MONTHS IN MANY CASES.
SO THAT REQUIRES CPUC ENERGY
ENERGY DIVISION TO APPROVE.
BUT IN SOME CASES, THE CPUC
WILL REQUIRE AN APPLICATION
IF YOU SPEND OVER A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE.
SO THAT APPLIES TO OUR GAS PIPELINE SAFETY WORK.
OUR TREE TRIMMING BALANCING ACCOUNT
ALSO HAS THE SAME REQUIREMENT.
ANYTHING OVER 35% TRIGGERS AN APPLICATION.
WE JUST WENT THROUGH ONE FOR SPENDING 10
MILLION OVER OUR AUTHORIZED BUDGET.
SO I GUESS THEN THE THE THE BIGGER QUESTION
THAT I'M COMING TO IS, IS YOUR CONCERN, UM,
THAT THE PROCESS WILL JUST TAKE TO TOO MUCH
TO AS I HEARD IT, OBVIOUSLY IT TAKES TIME.
YOU'VE GOT FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS THAT ARE FUNDING
THIS AND THAT'S POTENTIALLY OTHER COSTS.
OR ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT SOME OF THOSE COSTS MAY
ACTUALLY BE REJECTED AS OVER AS AS INAPPROPRIATE?
IT'S THE FORMER.
IT'S THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT
IT WILL TAKE TO DETERMINE
THE REASONABLENESS OF ALL OF THOSE COSTS.
AND HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THAT TIME?
BECAUSE WE THIS ISN'T A PROCESS THAT
EXISTS THAT'S EXISTING YET.
SO WHERE DID YOUR 18 MONTH TIME
FRAME TIMELINE COME FROM?
SO THAT'S THE THE STANDARD, UH,
CPUC TIMELINE FOR AN APPLICATION.
AS A LEGISLATURE DICTATE A SHORTER
TIME STANDARD TIME FRAME.
COULD WE NOT DO THAT?
CERTAINLY.
I MEAN, IF THE IF YOU'RE CONCERNED IS TIME,
COULD WE AS A LEGISLATURE NOT DICTATE
AND SAY YOU HAVE 60 DAYS?
IT.
WOULD THAT SOLVE YOUR ISSUE?
WOULD THAT WOULD THAT CHANGE
YOUR POSITION ON THE BILL?
CONCEPTUALLY AND IN THEORY, THAT WOULD ADDRESS
THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE RAISING ABOUT REGULATORY LAG.
YES.
THE QUESTION IS IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE?
WELL, I YOU KNOW, I, I'M,
I'M LOOKING FOR THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE,
NOT THE ART OF THE IMPOSSIBLE.
SO I'M JUST I'M JUST SIMPLY ASKING A QUESTION.
I'M NOT TRYING TO AMEND THE AUTHORS BILL,
BUT I SEE YOUR SMILING OVER THERE.
UM, BUT BUT IF TIME IS THE ISSUE,
IT'S NOT APPROPRIATENESS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK
YOU'RE BEING QUESTIONED AS WHETHER.
SO IF IF TIME IS THE ISSUE,
IF THERE WAS A WAY TO SHORTEN THE TIME,
THEN THEORETICALLY YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE.
THIS OBJECTION TO THIS DEGREE.
THAT WOULD BE FAIR.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
UM, ASSEMBLY MEMBER CALDERON.
YEAH.
JUST ONE QUICK THOUGHT.
I WANTED TO SHARE.
YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO REMEMBER,
UH, WE'RE BALANCING ACCOUNTS CAME FROM.
THEY WERE A DIRECT RESULT FROM
THE ENERGY CRISIS, RIGHT?
WHERE THE COST OF ENERGY WENT FROM CENTS
PER KILOWATT TO SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS.
RIGHT.
AND THERE WAS NO.
THERE WAS NO CONTROL OVER THAT.
AND SO THERE WAS NO WAY TO RECOVER THOSE COSTS.
AND SO I THINK THIS IS A VERY
IMPORTANT MECHANISM TOOL, UM,
NOT ONLY FOR THE PROCESS,
BUT ALSO TO HELP PROTECT RATEPAYERS.
AND, AND SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE
THAT BECAUSE IT WAS ON MY MIND.
THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZEBRA.
>> JUST A LAST QUESTION.
SO I.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M VOTING ON.
IT'S YOU'RE GONE FOR A LOT OF IT.
UM, SO IS IT CURRENTLY PROPOSED, UH,
OR TO BE WORKED ON TO GET THERE, THE 50%, UM,
DIVISION ON SOMETHING THAT'S
DETERMINED TO NOT BE FAIR
AND REASONABLE WOULD CONTINUE
TO GO TO THE RATEPAYERS.
RIGHT.
SOMETHING THAT'S DETERMINED TO BE FAIR
AND REASONABLE IS NOT DIVIDED.
IS THAT.
TRUE?
SO ANYTHING THAT'S JUST AND REASONABLE
WILL BE 100% BORNE,
JUST LIKE TODAY BY THE RATEPAYERS.
ANYTHING NOT JUST AND REASONABLE WILL
BE BORNE BY THE SHAREHOLDERS.
>> OKAY.
SECOND THING ON TIMING THE REVIEWS THAT
ARE HAPPENING UNDER THE PROPOSED BILL,
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD GO THROUGH SOME KIND
OF FORMAL RATE MAKING PROCESS THAT.
AN APPLICATION.
PROCESS, APPLICATION PROCESS THAT
COULD TAKE SOME AMOUNT OF TIME.
AND SO.
THAT MAKES ME NERVOUS, OBVIOUSLY,
GIVEN ALL THESE BALANCING ACCOUNTS.
GIVEN WHAT I HEAR IS JUST THE BACKLOG
OF WHAT'S BACKLOGGED AT THE PUC,
I'M WONDERING IF YOU'RE OPEN TO AMENDING
THE BILL SO THAT IT'S AT LEAST CODIFYING.
SO ON ONE HAND, YOU HAVE
THE OPPONENTS BASICALLY SAYING,
LOOK AT YOU DON'T NEED THE BILL BECAUSE THERE
IS REVIEW ON WHERE WHETHER IT'S FAIR AND REASONABLE,
IT'S JUST DONE IN A MORE INFORMAL WAY.
RIGHT.
WHICH IS FASTER.
UM, I KNOW A MORE GENERAL RATE MAKING APPLICATION
WOULD BE MORE RIGOROUS, PERHAPS,
BUT I'M WONDERING IF THERE ARE WAYS TO SHORTEN
THAT SO THAT THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE,
WHICH IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
SLOWING DOWN PUC PROCESSES
ON OTHER STUFF THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT,
ISN'T SLOWED DOWN, SLOWED DOWN.
OH, YEAH.
PLEASE.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT TO ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT
IS IT POSSIBLE TO EXPEDITE SOME OF THIS REVIEW?
I ALSO JUST WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER
THAT IF YOU EXPEDITE IT TOO MUCH,
THEN YOU PREVENT THE ADVOCATES FROM
BEING ABLE TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS,
FROM BEING ABLE TO ASK FOR DISCOVERY WHEN
THE PROPOSALS LACK OR LACKING IN INFORMATION.
SOMETIMES THEY ARE OKAY WHERE
THERE'S MORE INFORMATION.
SO, UM, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT TURN HAS ALWAYS
BEEN WILLING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH.
UM, THERE WERE CERTAIN EXPEDITED, UH,
PROCEDURES AND AB 1054, THE WILDFIRE,
UM, YOU KNOW, UH, BOND PROPOSAL, INSURANCE BOND.
AND SO WE'RE CERTAINLY OPEN
TO HAVING THE CONVERSATION.
WE JUST WOULD LIKE IT TO BE SOMETHING WHERE
THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE'S OFFICE GROUPS LIKE
TURN HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO AT LEAST REVIEW
AND TO PUT IN OUR INPUT AND COMMENTS.
AND IF I MAY, ONE THING YOU MISSED,
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS.
SO JUST TO, UM,
MISS CALDERON HAD ASKED A QUESTION EARLIER.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT IS NARROWING
THE BALANCING ACCOUNTS THAT THIS APPLIES TO.
THERE ARE OVER 300 BALANCING ACCOUNTS WITH
OVER $16 BILLION IN THEM RIGHT NOW.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THIS COMMITTEE, UM,
HAS REALLY BEEN GRAPPLING WITH
AT THE CHAIR'S LEADERSHIP
IS JUST SORT OF THE BREADTH OF WAYS
THAT THINGS ARE BEING FED INTO RATES
AND THE DISORGANIZATION AROUND IT
THAT IS RESULTING IN SORT OF AN INABILITY
TO GET OUR ARMS AROUND IT.
AND SO I THINK PART OF WHAT
WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH IS,
UM, I'M NOT GETTING RID OF BALANCING ACCOUNTS.
I WANT THAT TO BE SUPER CLEAR.
SO THIS YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BALANCING ACCOUNTS ARE IMPORTANT.
I VOTED FOR BILLS IN THIS COMMITTEE THAT
ESTABLISHED BALANCING ACCOUNTS.
AND SO THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION.
BUT I THINK TO THE POINT THAT OUR COLLEAGUE MADE,
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE AN EXPECTATION THAT WHEN
THEY COME FORWARD AND GET THE APPROVALS,
THAT IT'S A REASONABLE APPLICATION,
THAT WE'RE SEEING WHAT IS GOING TO BE APPROVED,
WE ARE SEEING WHAT THE RATEPAYERS ARE GOING TO PAY,
AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE A SYSTEM
WHERE THEY'RE INCENTIVIZED
TO MAKE THAT LOW AND JUST COME BACK AND GET WHATEVER
THEY WANT THROUGH A TWO MONTH
LETTER PROCESS THAT DOESN'T
HAVE THE SAME ROBUST, JUST AND REASONABLE STANDARD.
BUT I'M ABSOLUTELY OPEN TO THIS CONVERSATION
AROUND HOW WE EXPEDITE THAT.
BUT I THINK ONE OF THE WAYS THAT
IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE DONE
IS BY LIMITING THE BALANCING
ACCOUNTS THAT'S APPLIED TO,
WHICH WOULD NARROW THE SCOPE OF THIS REVIEW.
YEAH.
THANK YOU.
YEAH.
ALL RIGHT.
UM, SO JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
UM, AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU.
AND I GUESS I WOULD SAY, I THINK THAT THE, UM,
THE ISSUE THAT THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER RAISES
IS ONE THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT.
UM, SO WHILE ASSEMBLY MEMBER CALDERON'S
POINT IS, IS VERY WELL TAKEN,
THE BALANCING ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN
AROUND FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
IT IS, TO MY UNDERSTANDING,
ONLY IN RECENT YEARS THAT WE HAVE
SEEN THIS MASSIVE PROLIFERATION
OF BALANCING ACCOUNTS.
I THINK AS RECENTLY AS FIVE YEARS AGO,
SOMETHING LIKE 90% OF CHARGES WERE ACTUALLY
GOING THROUGH THE GENERAL RATE CASE,
AND NOW ONLY 60% ARE GOING THROUGH
THE GENERAL RATE CASE.
SO THAT CERTAINLY TELLS ME WE HAVE
AN ISSUE WORTH GRAPPLING WITH.
AND I, YOU KNOW,
THINK THIS IS PART OF A POTENTIAL SOLUTION.
I THINK WE HAD SOME VERY GOOD AND HOPEFULLY
PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION HERE.
UM, I, I THINK BOTTOM LINE IS BALANCING
ACCOUNTS HAVE A ROLE,
BUT THEY SHOULDN'T JUST BE A BLANK CHECK.
AND THERE'S NO BUSINESS IN THE WORLD
WHERE YOU CAN JUST GO, HEY,
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW,
$10 TO MAKE THIS WIDGET.
AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT COSTS $40 AND.
SOMEBODY PAYS FOR IT LIKE THAT'S WE'VE
GOT TO FIND A WAY TO STOP THAT,
IF ONLY BECAUSE IT CONTRIBUTES TO THIS
SENSE THAT RATES ARE OUT OF CONTROL.
SO I THINK GETTING CONTROL OF BALANCING
ACCOUNTS IS IMPORTANT.
AND I JUST HEADS UP,
YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOME MORE LEGISLATION
ON THIS ISSUE I THINK AS THIS SESSION MOVES FORWARD.
UM, I DO THINK THAT YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT.
UH, FEEDING A REVIEW THROUGH A PROCESS
THAT IS SO ONEROUS AND SO CUMBERSOME
THAT IT ACTUALLY HAS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
OF MAKING RATES HIGHER.
SO I APPRECIATE THE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE WITH YOU
AND FIGURE OUT PERHAPS THERE'S SOME
KIND OF INTERIM PROCESS OR,
YOU KNOW, MIDPOINT PROCESS WHERE
THERE'S A REAL AND ROBUST REVIEW
THAT DOESN'T TAKE 18 MONTHS
AND CONSUME 20 PUC STAFF MEMBERS.
UM, EQUALLY, I KNOW ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT, UM,
THAT I THINK IS IS WORTHWHILE FOR CONSIDERATION IS
A THRESHOLD AT WHICH THIS PROCESS WOULD KICK IN.
SO IF YOUR COST OVERRUN IS 10 OR 20%,
I DON'T REALLY THINK WE WE NEED TO GO THROUGH,
YOU KNOW, ANY SIGNIFICANT PROCESS.
IT IF YOUR COST OVERRUN IS GOING TO BE 200 TO 300%,
I THINK YOU NEED TO BE RAISING A RED FLAG SO THAT WE
CAN ANTICIPATE THIS AND UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.
AND PERHAPS THE PUC CAN EVEN
THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
THAT'S SOMETHING WE WANT TO ASK YOU TO BE DOING.
UM, SO THOSE WERE MY COMMENTS.
UM, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
AND, UH, ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
I'LL OVER TO YOU FOR YOUR CLOSE.
I WILL ACCEPT THAT AS MY CLOSE.
MADAM CHAIR, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE.
OKAY.
WELL.
THANK YOU.
UM.
LET'S SEE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND ON AB 2054.
I'LL MOVE THE.
BILL.
SECOND.
ALL RIGHT.
MOTION AND A SECOND.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THANK YOU.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, AB 2054.
THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
PETRIE-NORRIS I PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON,
BAUER-KAHAN I FARRAKHAN I CALDERON.
CHEN.
NO.
CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY, I.
FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN, I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN, I JOH.
PATTERSON.
JOE PATTERSON NOT VOTING.
REYES.
REYES I SANTIAGO.
SCHIAVO.
TING TING I WALLACE.
WOOD.
EYES.
ZIPPER.
I.
NINE.
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
UH, NINE ONE SO THAT BILL IS OUT AND WE WILL LEAVE
THE ROLL OPEN FOR OTHER MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
ALL RIGHT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GARCIA,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
YOU MAY, UH, COME TO THE DAIS AS YOU'RE READY.
HELLO.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
THANK YOU.
>> EVERYONE.
GOOD.
GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL.
AND GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.
YEAH.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES.
IT IS MY PLEASURE TO PRESENT A B 3238.
I'LL BEGIN BY THANKING THE TEAM ON
THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR ANALYSIS,
FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
WE WILL BE ACCEPTING TODAY.
UM, THE BILL, UH, STRIVES TO DO A COUPLE OF THINGS.
AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THEMES
IN THIS PRIOR DISCUSSION
THAT JUST CLOSED OUT WAS TIME MOVING FASTER.
UH, THIS BILL, UH,
ATTEMPTS TO DO THAT AND YOU'LL HEAR
THE WORD ACCELERATION USED QUITE A FEW TIMES,
UM, IN OUR PRESENTATION AND THAT OF THE WITNESS,
UH, SPECIFICALLY, THIS BILL, UH, WILL, UH,
ACCELERATE THE BUILDOUT OF ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION
TO MEET CALIFORNIA'S AMBITIOUS CLIMATE GOALS.
UH, THE BILL ENJOYS QUITE A BIT OF SUPPORT.
MANY OF YOU WHO ARE HERE HAVE SIGNED
ON BOTH AS CO-AUTHORS AND HAVE ALSO
SIGNED ON TO A LETTER WHICH WILL
BE REFERENCED IN A FEW MINUTES.
UH, SPECIFICALLY, THIS BILL INCLUDES MEASURES THAT
MODERNIZE EXISTING CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES,
PERMITTING AND EXPEDITE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT PROCEDURES CONSISTENT
WITH THE 18 PARTY JOINT MOTION FOR
ADOPTION OF PHASE ONE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT FILED IN A RECENT CPUC RULEMAKING
RELATED TO PERMIT STREAMLINING
AND COMPLIANCE WITH SB 529,
ADOPTED IN 2022 AND AB 1373 ADOPTED IN 2023.
AB 3238 ALSO INCLUDES BENEFICIAL MEASURES
TO PRUDENTLY EXPEDITE NATURAL COMMUNITY
CONSERVATION PLAN AMENDMENTS
AND INCIDENTAL TAKE AUTHORIZATIONS
OF CERTAIN SPECIES WHICH ARE UNDER
THE JURISDICTION OF WATER,
PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMITTEE,
WHERE THIS BILL WILL ALSO BE HEARD.
AB 3238 WILL REMOVE DUPLICATION AND ENSURE
THAT PROCESSES USED BY THE CPUC
AND OTHER AGENCIES CAN HANDLE THE VOLUME
OF ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE STATE'S
GOALS TO ACHIEVE OUR ENERGY
RELIABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGES
THAT WERE JUST TALKED ABOUT.
THE BILL COULD SAVE UP TO THREE
YEARS ON TRANSMISSION
PROJECTS THAT WE KNOW, UM, AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS,
COULD TAKE UP TO 9 OR 10 YEARS AT LEAST ONE
OF THE LAST PROJECTS THAT'S BEEN APPROVED.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE WITH ME TODAY.
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS ERIKA MARTIN,
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
FOR SDG AND E COMPANY.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
I'M VERY HAPPY TO BE WITH YOU HERE TODAY.
UH, MY NAME IS ERICA MARTIN.
I'M THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
FOR SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC,
AND I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT
OF AB 3238 AND THE ESSENTIAL ROLE
THAT THIS LEGISLATION WILL PLAY
IN THE CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITION,
AS YOU JUST HEARD SOME OF A MOMENT AGO,
JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO,
ON APRIL 1ST, THE CAISO RELEASED ITS
DRAFT TRANSMISSION PLAN FOR 2024.
THAT PLAN IS BASED ON A FORECAST
THAT THE STATE WILL NEED TO ADD
7000MW OF GENERATION CAPACITY EVERY
YEAR FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS.
THAT'S AN INCREASE OF OVER 1000MW
FROM 1000MW IN THE 2021 PLAN.
AND JUST FOR PERSPECTIVE, 7000MW WOULD
POWER ABOUT 5 MILLION HOMES.
SO THAT'S JUST AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GENERATION
CAPACITY THAT THE STATE NEEDS TO ADD.
AND IT UNDERSCORES WHAT WE ALREADY KNEW,
WHICH IS THAT WE NEED TO BUILD
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO CARRY IT TO THE PEOPLE
WHO USE IT AT AN UNPRECEDENTED SCALE AND RATE.
THE EXISTING PROCESS FOR APPROVAL
AND CONSTRUCTION OF
ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS LENGTHY AND BURDENSOME.
IT'S COSTLY AND TIME CONSUMING, AND WE HAVE GOT TO
TAKE A HARD LOOK AT HOW TO DO THIS DIFFERENTLY,
OR WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MEET
THE STATE'S POLICY GOALS.
FACING THIS ENORMOUS ELECTRIC DEMAND
ON THE ROAD TO DECARBONIZE,
WE NEED TO ANALYZE THE PLACES WHERE
THESE PROJECTS FACE THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT OBSTACLES FOR STREAMLINING
AND MOVING THROUGH.
AB 32.
38 IS A MEASURED AND TAILORED PROPOSAL
THAT FOCUSES ON THOSE PLACES.
PRIMARY FOCUS IS THE CPUC PERMITTING AND CEQA REVIEW
BECAUSE OF THAT AGENCY'S CONSTITUTIONAL
AND STATUTORY JURISDICTION
OVER ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION
AND OTHER ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
THERE IS AN OPEN PROCEEDING AT
THE CPUC THAT THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER, UM,
THAT THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER THAT SOUNDS LIKE
THE ALARM WHEN I HAVE TO WAKE UP IN THE MORNING.
SO IT SENDS A LITTLE BIT OF PANIC,
UM, I WILL I WILL MOVE QUICKLY.
UM, THE FOCUS IS, ARE THE CPUC RULES.
THERE IS ALSO A NARROWLY TAILORED
CEQA EXEMPTION FOR THE INSTANCE
WHERE A UTILITY NEEDS TO WIDEN
ITS EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY.
AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT
IS NOT AN EXEMPTION FOR
THE PROJECTS THAT WOULD THAT WOULD
STILL NEED TO GET A PERMIT.
IT IS JUST FOR THE AGENCY DECISION TO WIDEN
THE RIGHT OF WAY AND AND PROVIDE THE LAND.
RIGHT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE A PRIMARY WITNESS IN OPPOSITION?
YOU MAY GO AHEAD AND COME UP TO THE DAIS.
>> MADAM CHAIR JOHN FISCHER.
JUST ONE MOMENT.
OKAY.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS,
JOHN WHITE WITH THE CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN,
WE SUPPORT THE BILL BECAUSE
WE AGREE WITH THE PREMISE.
JUST BEFORE I OPEN IT UP FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY,
IS THERE ANYONE TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION?
OUR PRIMARY WITNESS IN OPPOSITION.
>> I GOT A LITTLE THROWN OFF THERE.
UM, SO MY NAME IS KIM DELFINO,
AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE AND AUDUBON CALIFORNIA.
I JUST WANT TO ASK A QUICK.
I'M THE ONLY OPPOSITION WITNESS.
SO DO I HAVE 4 MINUTES OR 2 MINUTES?
JUST HOW FAST DO I.
TWO MINUTES.
OKAY, WELL, I WILL GO VERY QUICKLY.
WELL, FIRST I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, UM,
THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT I REPRESENT
WORK VERY HARD TO ACCELERATE
DEPLOYMENT OF CLEAN ENERGY.
MY PERSONALLY WORKED FOR TEN YEARS
ON THE DESERT RENEWABLE
ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN AND IDENTIFIED 400,000
ACRES OF LAND FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY.
AND I WOULD ALSO SAY I TAKE NO PLEASURE IN
OPPOSING A BILL BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER GARCIA,
BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN A REAL CHAMPION ON
THE CLIMATE AND ON THE SALTON SEA,
WHICH IS VERY NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART AS WELL.
BUT WITH THAT SAID, I MUST RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL,
AND I'M GOING TO GIVE THREE REASONS WHY QUICKLY.
FIRST, THE PREMISE OF THE BILL IS FLAWED.
WE DO NOT NEED TO MOVE TRANSMISSION BY
CUTTING ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS
AND CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTIONS
AND CUTTING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
UM, AND WHEN LEGISLATION WAS PASSED IN WITH SB 529,
THE PROPONENTS OF THAT LEGISLATION
SAID SPECIFICALLY,
THE POINT OF THIS CPUC PROCEEDING THAT WE'RE
ASKING FOR IS TO EXPEDITE APPROVALS.
THAT, QUOTE, ENSURES THAT SEQUA IS COMPLIED WITH.
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS BILL HAS
MULTIPLE CEQA EXEMPTIONS.
IT ALSO PREEMPTS THE JURISDICTION OF
THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION,
THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE,
AND IT ELIMINATES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
AND THERE'S REAL CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT CULTURAL
RESOURCES ARE GOING TO BE PROTECTED.
TRANSMISSION DEPLOYMENT DOES NEED TO GO FASTER.
PART OF THAT IS CLEARING OUT THE CLOGS AT THE QUEUE.
AND SOME OF IT'S ALSO DEALING WITH THE PUC AS WELL.
THERE IS A PROCEEDING GOING FORWARD AT
THE PUC TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW.
WHICH LEADS ME TO MY SECOND POINT,
WHICH IS THAT THIS BILL IS PREMATURE.
UM, THE PUC IS MOVING FORWARD EXPEDITIOUSLY
AND CONSIDERING THE,
UH, SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL BY THE IOUS RIGHT NOW.
THEY FINISHED THEIR SCOPING PROCEEDINGS
IN FEBRUARY, UM,
WHICH AND I WANT TO QUICKLY GO TO MY THIRD POINT,
WHICH IS THIS BILL IS CHARACTERIZED AS DO
I HAVE JUST A BRIEF MINUTE TO GET TO?
YEAH.
IF YOU CAN JUST START TO WRAP UP, AS YOU HEARD,
WE'VE GOT A LOT OF FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO
ASK QUESTIONS SO YOU'LL GET A CHANCE.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
UM, REALLY QUICKLY, THIS BILL SAYS THAT IT'S ONLY
HERE TO ENSHRINE THE PROPOSAL BEFORE THE PUC.
THAT IS NOT THE BILL.
I DID A COMPARISON.
ABOUT 70% OF THE BILL IS A BUNCH
OF EXEMPTIONS THAT WERE NOT
PUT FORWARD BY THE PARTIES THAT
THE PUC FOR THE SETTLEMENT.
AND AGAIN, COASTAL COMMISSION IS NOT EXEMPTED.
THERE'S ALL KINDS OF PREEMPTIONS,
THE RIGHT OF WAY EXEMPTION AGAIN,
WHEN AS AN SB 529 WAS PUT FORWARD,
IT WAS TO DEAL WITH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAYS,
NOT EXPANSIONS OF RIGHT OF WAYS AND CEQA EXEMPTIONS.
IT ALSO INCLUDES AN IN-LIEU PERMITTING
PROCESS AT THE END OF THE BILL
THAT HAS NONE OF THE PROTECTIONS THAT
WERE PUT IN PLACE IN AB 205,
WHICH DID CREATE AN IN-LIEU PROCESS OVER AT THE CEC.
SO FOR THESE REASONS, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
URGE A NO VOTE ON THIS BILL.
THANK YOU.
UM, ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL.
WE'RE NOW GOING TO GO AHEAD AND WELCOME
TESTIMONY FROM THE ROOM.
UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH
ANY WITNESSES HERE IN SUPPORT.
UH, IF YOU'RE IN SUPPORT OF AB 3238, MADAM.
CHAIR JOHN WHITE WITH THE CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN.
UM, WE REALLY BELIEVE THIS IS
AN URGENT MATTER AND THAT WE
CAN'T TREAT THIS PROBLEM
THE WAY WE'VE BEEN TREATING IT.
WE CAN'T TAKE 7 TO 10 YEARS TO REVIEW
THESE PROJECTS AND GET THEM BUILT.
THEY'RE GOING TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
ALMOST ALL THESE PROJECTS, THE MITIGATIONS
WILL STILL BE PROTECTED.
BUT WE WOULD URGE AN I VOTE.
I JUST DID.
OH, AND SORRY, JUST AS FOR FOLKS APPROACHING,
JUST NAME, POSITION AND AFFILIATION.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MICHAEL COLVIN WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND.
EDF WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER A SUPPORT IF AMEND
SUPPORTING SECTION SEVEN OF THIS BILL,
AND I HAVE AN UPDATED LETTER WHICH
I'D BE HAPPY TO HAND OFF.
THAT REPRESENTS IT.
KARA MARTINSON WITH THE LARGE SCALE SOLAR.
>> ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
>> CHRIS ROSE ON BEHALF OF SILICON VALLEY
LEADERSHIP GROUP IN SUPPORT.
>> THAT'S IMPRESSED WITH ADVANCED ENERGY.
UNITED IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO,
UH, SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.
GO AHEAD AND APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
>> HELLO, I'M AARON WOOLLEY,
I'M WITH SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA,
AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL PROTECTION NETWORK,
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE AND CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN OPPOSITION.
>> HI, NATALIE BROWN FROM THE PLANNING
AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE,
ALSO IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL.
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
OUR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES AND THEN WOULD.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
I THINK THE THE OPPOSITION STATED IT CORRECTLY.
YOU WERE CHAMPION.
YOU WERE AN EXPERT.
WE LOOK TO YOU ON SO MANY OF THESE ISSUES.
UM, I WILL BEGIN BY SAYING I AM
GOING TO SUPPORT IT TODAY,
BUT I DO SEE ISSUES THAT THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE DELAYS.
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, AND WE ABSOLUTELY
HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT.
AND THERE IS NO QUESTION WE NEED TO BUILD
OUT TRANSMISSIONS IN AN EXPEDITIOUS WAY.
BECAUSE WE NEED TO GET MORE PROJECTS, UH,
PUT MORE CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTS ONLINE.
I THINK WE ALL SHARE THE SAME GOAL OF.
BUT SOME OF THOSE ITEMS THAT
ARE IN THE ANALYSIS, UM,
FOR THIS BILL, MAKE ME QUESTION
DIFFERENT PIECES OF THE BILL.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
REMOVE THE CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION UNDER SEQUA FOR WILDFIRE MITIGATION,
AND THAT THERE WILL BE A TEN YEAR SUNSET ON SOME
OF THESE NEW ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW EXEMPTIONS.
HOWEVER, I DO WONDER WHY THESE ARE BEING
CONSIDERED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THE ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT 90% OF IOU PROJECTS IN
THE PAST HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXEMPTED FROM SEQUA.
SO I'M WONDERING WHAT EVIDENCE OR ANALYSIS THERE IS,
OR THERE HAS BEEN THAT SHOWS THAT THE BILL
WILL LEAD TO FASTER TRANSMISSION PROJECTS.
SO THE FIRST QUESTION IS,
IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT THESE ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEWS ARE INDEED SLOWING DOWN TRANSMISSION.
TRANSMISSIONS.
YEAH.
I'M GOING TO DEFER TO ERICA TO ANSWER
THOSE QUESTIONS, PLEASE.
YEAH.
THANK YOU.
GREAT QUESTIONS.
UM, SO AND I WOULD LOVE TO JUST POINT OUT THAT,
UM, THE THE BILL DOES NOT REMOVE CPUC OVERSIGHT
OR THE NEED TO UNDERGO CEQA REVIEW WHEN
TRIGGERED FOR A DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL,
WHICH WOULD STILL ANALYZE
THE IMPACT TO ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES AND REQUIRE MITIGATION OF THEM.
SO SO THAT STILL PROVIDES REALLY VALUABLE
PROTECTIONS FOR THE STUDY
OF IMPACTS AS WELL AS OPPORTUNITIES
FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
I THINK YOUR QUESTION ABOUT
THE PERCENTAGE OF PROJECTS
THAT DOESN'T GO THROUGH SEQUA IS A GOOD ONE.
I THINK THAT'S BASED ON SOME STATISTICS,
UM, OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT HAD TO GET
A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT OR A CPCN FROM THE CPUC,
WHICH IS A LOT OF ACRONYMS AT ONCE.
UH, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THOSE
PROJECTS DID NOT GO THROUGH
SEQUA AT ANOTHER AGENCY OR, UH,
NEPA ON THE FEDERAL SIDE.
AND SO WITHOUT KNOWING EXACTLY
WHAT PROJECTS THOSE ARE,
WE CAN'T SAY ACROSS THE BOARD THAT
THEY THEY DID NOT TRIGGER SEQUA.
UM, BUT THEY ARE ALSO FREQUENTLY
THE TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT
THE CPUC HAS DECIDED DO NOT NEED TO
COME BEFORE THEM FOR A PERMIT.
SMALLER PROJECTS GENERALLY,
THERE'S VARIOUS CATEGORIES MODIFICATIONS,
UPGRADES, REPAIRS.
IN SOME CASES, WHAT WE'RE THE MOST CONCERNED
ABOUT ARE THE MAJOR TRANSMISSION PROJECTS
OF THE TYPE THAT THE CAISO IS APPROVING
IN THEIR TRANSMISSION PROJECT,
AND WHAT CONCERNS US THE MOST IS LOOKING
AT THE 2023 TRANSMISSION PLAN,
AS WELL AS THE NEW ONE THAT'S JUST IN DRAFT FORM.
AND THE LARGE PROJECTS THAT THE CAISO HAS
APPROVED LAST YEAR WAS 45 PROJECTS.
I THINK THIS, UM, REPORT HAS MAYBE 25.
THOSE ARE THE PROJECTS THAT
WILL COME BEFORE THE CPUC.
NOW, THOSE MAJOR TRANSMISSION PROJECTS NEEDED FOR
RELIABILITY AND TO MEET THE STATE'S POLICY GOALS.
THOSE ARE THE PROJECTS THAT WILL
NEED TO HAVE THESE ACCELERATION,
STREAMLINING AND REFORM BENEFITS TO BE ABLE
TO MEET THOSE FORECASTED LOAD DEMANDS,
MEET THE POLICY GOALS.
SO WE'RE REALLY TAKING A FORWARD LOOK HERE ON THOSE.
HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION.
IT HELPS.
UM, IT IT HELPS DOESN'T COMPLETELY ADDRESS IT.
AS TO THE 90% THAT IS PART OF THE ANALYSIS.
AND SO I WOULD ASK THAT IF THAT THAT BE ADDRESSED
AT SOME POINT WITH THE COMMITTEE,
THE COMMITTEE WORKS VERY HARD IN THEIR ANALYSIS,
AND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED
IS WHAT WE AS LEGISLATORS
USE IN OUR EVALUATION OF THE BILL.
SO IF THERE IS A QUESTION ON THAT,
I DO RECOMMEND THAT THAT BE DISCUSSED
WITH THE COMMITTEE.
UM.
SEPARATELY.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CHARACTER CHARACTERIZATIONS ON
THIS BILL FROM SUPPORT SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS,
ESPECIALLY RELATED TO THE SETTLEMENT
FROM GENERAL ORDER ONE THREE 1D.
IF THE PROPONENTS OF THIS BILL CLAIM THAT AB 3238 IS
INTENDED TO JUST CODIFY THE IOU SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL,
WHY DOES MUCH OF THE BILL INCLUDE EXEMPTIONS
WELL BEYOND WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE IOUS?
AND THAT GOES TO THE COMMENT FROM THE OPPONENT.
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION.
AB 3238 DOES CODIFY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
IT ALSO LOOKS AT OTHER PLACES
WHERE PERMITS STREAMLINING
IS NECESSARY TO ACCELERATE THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE
AND TO CARRY THE RENEWABLE
ENERGY TO THE PLACES WHERE PEOPLE NEED IT.
IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVELY FOCUSED
ON THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
ALTHOUGH THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF IT.
THERE IS AN OPEN PROCEEDING, AS WAS MENTIONED,
THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN BEFORE
THE CPUC SINCE LAST SEPTEMBER.
AND ALTHOUGH WE HEAR THAT THE CPUC IS TAKING IT UP,
WE ARE SIX MONTHS LATER CURRENTLY
AWAITING A NEW STAFF PROPOSAL
WITH A NEW PROPOSALS FOR HOW TO ADDRESS REFORM,
WITH MAYBE A DECISION BY THE END
OF THE YEAR ON THAT PROCEEDING.
MEANWHILE, THE UTILITIES ARE ACTIVELY DEVELOPING
AND PLANNING THOSE TRANSMISSION
PROJECTS THAT I JUST MENTIONED THAT
WERE APPROVED ALMOST A YEAR AGO.
45 OF THEM, THREE OF THEM WILL
BE AWARDED BY THE CAISO
THIS MONTH AND 25 MORE TO BE APPROVED NEXT MONTH.
SO WE CAN'T WE SIMPLY CANNOT WAIT
ANOTHER YEAR TO HAVE A DECISION
ON THE REFORMS THAT HAVE BEEN
PENDING FOR SIX MONTHS.
COULD I JUST MAY I ADD A LITTLE JUST I WAS OKAY.
I WAS GOING TO GO TO YOU.
OKAY.
THROUGH THE CHAIR.
THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
YES OKAY.
GREAT.
THANK YOU.
SO WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSAL
THAT WAS MADE TO THE PUC,
I WOULD NOTE THAT IN THAT PROPOSAL,
VERY SPECIFICALLY,
THE PARTIES MADE IT CLEAR THAT
THEY WERE NOT INTENDING
ON PREEMPTING THE EXISTING JURISDICTIONS
OF OTHER STATE AGENCIES LIKE THE COASTAL COMMISSION,
LIKE THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE.
THIS BILL DEPARTS STARKLY FROM THAT PROPOSAL
AND DOES DO THOSE EXEMPTIONS,
AND IT DOES CREATE A NEW PROCESS IN OR
IT'S PROPOSING TO AT THE PUC THAT
WOULD BE IN LIEU OF ALL THE PERMITTING FROM
ALL STATE AGENCIES WITH NO SIDEBOARDS,
NO PUBLIC PROCESS, NO CLARITY
ABOUT WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS.
SO IT IS QUITE A DEPARTURE FROM WHAT'S
BEING PUT FORWARD AT THE PUC.
AND WITH RESPECT TO THE PUC S PROCEEDING.
CAN I STOP YOU FOR A SECOND?
I DO WANT YOU TO RESPOND TO THAT.
YES, I'D BE HAPPY TO.
UM, SHE STATED IT A WHOLE LOT BETTER
THAN I THAN I COULD HAVE,
AND IT DESERVES A RESPONSE.
YEAH, I'M HAPPY TO, UH, THE A THE INTENTION
OF THIS BILL CERTAINLY WAS NOT TO,
UM, AVOID THE JURISDICTION OF CDF.
IT DOES NOT IT DOES NOT CLOSE
OUT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
CPUC OVERSIGHT STILL PROVIDES THAT
VERY SUBSTANTIAL OPPORTUNITY
WHEN AN APPLICATION GOES BEFORE
IT TO OBTAIN A PERMIT.
THE GOAL IS TO STREAMLINE BY IDENTIFYING THE CPUC AS
THE AUTHORITY FOR PERMITTING ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION.
AND I'LL I'LL JUST NOTE TRANSMISSION SPECIFICALLY
AS A STREAMLINING MEASURE.
THERE ARE STATE AGENCIES THAT ARE LISTED IN
THE DRAFT BILL FOR WHICH THERE IS AN EXCEPTION.
UM, IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CONCERNS RELATED
SPECIFICALLY TO COASTAL COMMISSION,
WE WOULD CERTAINLY BE OPEN TO TALKING
ABOUT HOW TO ADDRESS THOSE DIRECTLY.
CDF IS, I THINK, NOT IMPACTED BY THIS BILL.
AND THAT MAY BE SOMETHING ELSE FOR FOR ADDITIONAL
DISCUSSION TO UNDERSTAND THAT,
UH, INTERPRETATION.
WELL, SO THE BILL CLEARLY DOES IT SAYS IN LIEU
THE PUC DECISION IS IN LIEU OF ALL STATE AGENCIES.
AND THEN IT DOES GO BACK AND TALK ABOUT BCDC
STATE LANDS COMMISSION AND THE WATER BOARD.
BUT THE YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S THAT.
THE OTHER THING IS, I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT
THE IN-LIEU PERMITTING PROGRAM
THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING,
AGAIN, DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HOW IT FITS
IN WITH THE LARGER CPUC PROCEEDINGS.
IT'S COMPLETELY UNCLEAR.
SO THAT SO BY THE DEFAULT OF NOT SAYING ANYTHING,
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,
NO TIMELINE.
IT'S VERY UNCERTAIN.
AND FINALLY, THAT IN-LIEU PERMITTING PROGRAM THAT
THEY'RE PROPOSING GOES FAR BEYOND TRANSMISSION.
IT INCLUDES SUBSTATIONS.
IT INCLUDES ENERGY STORAGE.
IT INCLUDES RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS,
WHICH, BY THE WAY,
COMPLETELY DUPLICATES THE WHAT WE
JUST PUT INTO LAW WITH AB 205.
SO IT'S THIS ISN'T JUST TRANSMISSION.
I WILL SAY THAT, UM, THAT IT IS
MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN LIEU PERMITTING PROCESS,
IT DOES CONTAIN NONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLIC.
OUTREACH, PUBLIC COMMENTS, STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT,
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAWS INCLUDING
THE COASTAL ACT AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE RESPONSE
HAS BEEN JUST THE OPPOSITE.
THAT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED AND AS IT MOVES IT,
AS IT MAKES ITS WAY THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE.
I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH WITH THE OPPOSITION ON THIS.
IT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED.
IF IT IS YOUR INTENTION THAT THAT IT THAT
THAT IS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT,
THEN IT IT SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO.
MADAM CHAIR, MAY I CONTINUE?
YES.
YEAH.
UM, SORRY.
DO YOU IS IT CHAIRMAN, MAY I RESPOND
BRIEFLY TO THAT QUESTION?
I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION.
OKAY.
AND THAT GO AHEAD.
BECAUSE THERE'S THEIR OPPOSING VIEWS.
I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH THE OPPOSITION ON THAT.
I STILL WILL SUPPORT IT.
IT DESERVES TO MOVE FORWARD.
UM, BUT IT DOES HAVE TO.
IT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED.
NOT RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, I UNDERSTAND, THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
UM, THE OTHER IS, WHY DOES
THE BILL INCLUDE A CEQA EXEMPTION
FOR THE EXPANSION OF A RIGHT
OF WAY ONTO STATE LANDS,
SUCH AS STATE PARKS FOR TRANSMISSION
AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE?
ARE PROJECTS EXPERIENCING DELAYS
WITH PROJECTS ON STATE PARKS?
YEAH, THAT I APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION.
SO, UH, FREQUENTLY WHEN WHEN
UTILITIES OBTAINED RIGHT
OF WAY A LONG TIME AGO, SOMETIMES 100 YEARS AGO,
THE NEED FOR SPACE FOR THE ELECTRIC
INFRASTRUCTURE WAS LESS,
THE EQUIPMENT WAS DIFFERENT,
THE STANDARDS HAVE CHANGED.
AND SO, FOR EXAMPLE, MAYBE WE NEEDED 100FT
FOR A TRANSMISSION RIGHT OF WAY.
AND NOW, UH, IN A DESIRE TO UPDATE BECAUSE OF
CHANGING STANDARDS AND DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT
TO CO-LOCATE FACILITIES SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE
TO GET NEW RIGHT OF WAY IN A NEW PLACE,
WE MAY NEED 200FT, UH, FOR THE FOR THE UTILITY
RIGHT OF WAY AND ASKING FOR A WIDENING
OF THE UTILITY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY,
NOT FOR PERMISSION TO BUILD THE PROJECT.
JUST JUST THE LAND.
RIGHT.
STILL IS A DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL
BY AN AGENCY THAT TRIGGERS CEQA
REVIEW AND CAN EVEN WHEN A PROJECT
IS APPROVED BY THE CPUC,
THAT RIGHT OF WAY CAN SIGNIFICANTLY DELAY
AND ADD ADDITIONAL TIME AND EXPENSE TO
A PROJECT IN A PLACE WHERE THERE IS ALREADY
UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND USE.
SO.
WHY NOT THEN JUST SAY WHERE IT'S ALREADY BEEN
APPROVED AND YOU NEED ADDITIONAL THEN THIS.
THIS WOULD BE THE PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO JUST SAYING
WE'RE GOING TO EXEMPT RIGHT OF WAYS ON STATE LANDS.
THAT THAT'S AN EXAMPLE.
IT COULD BE THE RIGHT OF WAY IS SOUGHT
DURING THE COURSE OF A PROCEEDING.
UM, BECAUSE THOSE THINGS NEED TO
MOVE IN PARALLEL FREQUENTLY
IN ORDER TO HAVE THE LAND RIGHT
IN TIME FOR CONSTRUCTION.
SO I THINK THE ISSUE THERE IS JUST
THAT ALTHOUGH THE PROJECT
IS MOVING THROUGH ANOTHER AGENCY
FOR AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT
THE DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL
AT A STATE AGENCY TO ISSUE
A LAND RIGHT CAN STILL BE A SIGNIFICANT
SOURCE OF DELAY,
AND IS IS SOMETHING THAT WE OUGHT
TO ENCOURAGE BECAUSE IT DOES
ENCOURAGE THE CO-LOCATION
AND MODERNIZING OF FACILITIES.
AND MY FINAL QUESTION, MADAM CHAIR.
THE PROPONENTS OF THE BILL.
CLAIM THAT THE CPUC AND YOU MENTIONED THIS EARLIER,
IS DRAGGING THEIR FEET ON THE RULEMAKING AROUND
LOOKING FOR EFFICIENCIES IN SITING DECISIONS.
UM, AND AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER,
THE CPUC FINISHED PHASE ONE IN LESS
THAN A YEAR AND JUST CLOSED ITS SCOPING
NOTICE JUST OVER A MONTH AGO.
IS THERE A REASON WHY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
SHOULD BE DONE THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE,
RATHER THAN THE ONGOING PROCEEDINGS?
WELL, I MENTIONED SOME OF THAT
RESPONSE A LITTLE BIT EARLIER.
UM, JUST IN TERMS OF THE TIMING THAT WE ARE
LOOKING AT THE ACCELERATION THAT'S NEEDED.
BUT IN ADDITION, THE THE LEGISLATURE HAS
EXERCISED LEADERSHIP HERE IN SB 529,
IN OTHER PLACES WHERE THE TIMING
IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE
CAN IGNORE AND THAT WE NEED
TO STEP IN IN THE FACE OF.
LARGE ENERGY FORECASTS.
ELECTRICITY FORECASTS THE NEED
TO DECARBONIZE THE GRID.
THE LEGISLATURE HAS LED ON THOSE,
AND WITH THINGS LIKE SB 529 HAS MOVED
THE CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITION FORWARD,
AND WE NEED THAT HERE AGAIN.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
UM, ASSEMBLY MEMBER, WOULD YOU.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
SO I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
FOR THE BILL COMING FORWARD.
UM.
I DON'T THINK I COULD STRESS ENOUGH THE IMPORTANCE
OF HOW OF IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF PERMITTING,
SITING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSMISSION.
IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT OUR CLEAN ENERGY GOALS,
WE HAVE TO ABSOLUTELY DO THIS.
UM, I AM, UH, I WILL I WILL SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS.
THIS BILL'S DOUBLE REFERRED IS GOING
TO WATER PARKS AND WILDLIFE.
SO SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT THAT
HAVE COME UP HERE WILL
I'M SURE I KNOW THE CHAIR IS
SITTING RIGHT OVER THERE.
SHE'S TAKING NOTE OF THIS I'M SURE.
AND SO I KNOW THOSE ISSUES WILL COME UP.
AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT THE CHAIR WILL
BE LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
I'M SORRY, MADAM CHAIR.
OH, NO, SHE'S NOT.
I'M SORRY.
THE FORMER CHAIR.
I'M SORRY.
I WAS I MY MY APOLOGIES.
WELL, ANYWAY, THE THERE IS A I KNOW YOU DO.
I KNOW THERE IS ANOTHER COMMITTEE
THAT WILL BE LOOKING AT THIS.
SO, UM, I WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE PARTICULARLY, UM,
THAT THE BILL COMES UP WITH A CONCRETE TIMELINE FOR
THE CPUC TO INVOLVE IT TO RESOLVE
ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTES.
WHY THAT WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH FOR
THE PUC WHEN THE OTHER 18
OTHER 18 PARTIES AGREED TO TO THAT,
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
UM, AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A DUPLICATE,
THERE ARE ADDITIONAL DUPLICATIVE
PROCESSES WITHIN THE PUC WHICH
SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS.
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
UH, AND SO I'M HAPPY TO SEE HAPPY
TO SEE THAT HAPPENING.
UM, AND WE'VE ASKED WE ASKED
AN OVERSIGHT HEARING, YOU KNOW,
MORE ABOUT THE 131 D PROCESS
AND REALLY GOT PRETTY VAGUE ANSWERS,
QUITE FRANKLY, ABOUT THAT.
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, UM,
I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY WHY THEY
FEEL THEY HAVE TO BE SPECIAL
AND OUTSIDE OF THE RULES THAT EVERYBODY
ELSE HAS AGREED TO FOLLOW.
SO, UM, I'LL GO BACK TO BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW,
I APPRECIATE THAT ASSEMBLYMEMBER REYES BROUGHT
UP THE 90% OF THE PROJECTS ARE,
YOU KNOW, ARE ARE ALREADY HAVE EXEMPTIONS.
THE NUMBERS CAN BE DECEIVING BECAUSE THAT 10%
REPRESENTS POWER TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE,
WHEREAS THAT 90% MAY REPRESENT POWER
TO TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.
AND SO THE FACT THAT YOU YOU HAVE
A HUGE CHALLENGE WITH THIS 10%,
WHICH ARE MAJOR CORRIDORS FOR TRANSMISSION,
IS A OF SIGNIFICANT, REALLY
SIGNIFICANT CONCERN TO ME.
SO, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT
THAT DIDN'T COME UP AND UM, UH,
IS OF CONCERN TO ME IN MY DISTRICT IS, IS UM,
THE PERMITTING AND IN LIEU, UH, PERMITTING PROGRAM.
HOW DOES THIS RELATE WITH TRIBES?
WE HAVE I HAVE LARGE, UH,
TRIBE TRIBAL LAND IN MY DISTRICT.
UH, AND THEY'RE ANTICIPATING
I MEAN, WE'RE ANTICIPATING,
UH, MAJOR TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS FOR OFFSHORE WIND.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT'S GOING TO GO,
BUT HOW HOW ARE TRIBES ADDRESSED IN THIS?
SO WE AT SGA IS ALSO VERY PROUD
OF THE RELATIONSHIPS THAT WE
HAVE WITH THE MANY TRIBAL PARTNERS
IN OUR SERVICE TERRITORY.
I THINK WE HAVE THE LARGEST
CONCENTRATION OF FEDERALLY
RECOGNIZED TRIBES IN OF ANY COUNTY IN THE COUNTRY.
SO OUR INTENTION IS ALWAYS TO WORK
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THEM.
THIS BILL DOES NOT, UM, CHANGE ANY
CONSULTATION RESPONSIBILITIES,
ANY EXISTING PROCEDURES THAT
EXIST TO INVOLVE THE TRIBES
BOTH AT THE CPUC OR BASED ON OTHER,
UH, LAWS THAT EXIST.
AND WE WOULD CONTINUE TO PURSUE THOSE
PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES,
THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM.
THE GOAL HERE REALLY IS THE STREAMLINING OF
TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND AND TO OBVIOUSLY DO THAT IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE LIVE AND WORK IN.
MAKE YOU IN JUST A JUST A FINAL FOLLOW UP.
SO I WILL JUST SAY FOR THE RECORD,
I DON'T REALLY LIKE THE WORD STREAMLINING.
I PREFER THE WORD, I PREFER IT
MORE OF EFFICIENCIES BECAUSE
I DON'T PERCEIVE THAT WE'RE CUTTING CORNERS.
ALTHOUGH THERE'S SOME QUESTION
ABOUT THAT RELATING TO
SOME OF THE SOME OF THE POTENTIAL SEQUEL EXEMPTIONS.
BUT WHAT WE SEEM TO LACK ARE TWO
THINGS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
URGENCY ON PART OF OUR STATE AGENCIES
THAT ARE DOING THE PERMITTING
AND AND AND SUCH AND EFFICIENCY
AND AND WITHOUT THAT,
WE ARE WE ARE DOOMED.
I MEAN, WE'VE ALREADY SAW IN
ONE OF OUR HEARINGS THAT
THE GOALS FOR OFFSHORE WIND THAT
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IN
2030 WERE QUIETLY PUSHED OUT
TO 2032 WITHOUT ANY ADVANCE
WARNING TO THE COMMITTEE THAT THAT WAS EVEN THERE.
THAT WAS THE FIRST WE WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THAT.
AND SO.
IF YOU HEARD ME BEFORE, YOU KNOW,
TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT BILL,
ABOUT HOW WE CAN MOVE THINGS MORE EFFICIENTLY.
THINGS SHOULDN'T TAKE THIS LONG.
AND, YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE I KIND OF FEEL LIKE WE'RE
HERE TO KIND OF LIGHT A FIRE, QUITE FRANKLY,
AND MAKE MAKE THESE AGENCIES ACCOUNTABLE
IF WE'RE TRULY SERIOUS ABOUT THESE GOALS.
AND THAT'S AND I AM.
SO, UM, THAT BEING SAID, IF, UH,
I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF WORK TO DO,
BUT I'M COMMITTED TO WHAT YOUR, YOUR PROCESS.
AND IF YOU'RE TAKING CO-AUTHORS AT SOME POINT,
I'D LOVE TO BE ADDED AS A CO-AUTHOR, MR.
GARCIA.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FRIEDMAN.
>> THANK YOU.
UM, VERY MUCH APPRECIATE, UH,
THE DISCUSSION AND, OF COURSE,
THE GOALS OF THE LEGISLATION,
WHICH ARE REALLY IMPORTANT.
AND IF THE AUTHOR IS VERY TRUSTED
AND THOUGHTFUL AUTHOR IN THIS SPACE,
WHICH MAKES ME A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE BILL.
UH, YOU KNOW, I DID A VERY, A SMALLER,
A MUCH SMALLER VERSION OF THIS BILL,
I BELIEVE LAST YEAR OR THE YEAR
BEFORE WHERE WE WERE TRYING
TO DO AN EXEMPTION FOR SUBSTATIONS
AND THE BEGINNING,
THE BEGINNING OF TRANSMISSION LINES.
AND THAT BILL WAS HELD IN NATURAL RESOURCES BECAUSE
OF THE CEQA EXEMPTIONS THAT WERE IN IT.
AND THAT WAS A MUCH SCALED
DOWN VERSION OF THIS BILL.
I HAVE TO SAY, I AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE FACT
THAT THE THAT THE CONCERNS AROUND THIS
BILL REALLY CENTER AROUND THE CEQA EXEMPTIONS
AND THE PREEMPTION OF LOCAL AGENCIES.
I'M UNCOMFORTABLE THAT THIS BILL IS
NOT REFERRED TO NATURAL RESOURCES.
THAT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR
US TO BE AIRING THOSE CONCERNS.
UM, AND I, I'M SORRY THAT THE BILL
IS NOT GOING TO BE REVIEWED,
UM, WITHIN THAT JURISDICTION,
WITHIN THAT COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF
THE JURISDICTION OF THAT COMMITTEE.
UM, CENTERING AROUND SEQUA.
UM, THAT SAID, UH, I, I, I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE
OF WHAT THE BILL IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH,
AND I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THOSE GOALS.
AND LIKE I SAID, I'VE LEGISLATED
IN THIS SPACE AS WELL,
BUT THERE ARE SOME AREAS IN THIS BILL
THAT I THINK ARE AN OVERREACH.
I, I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT EVERYTHING
THAT MY COLLEAGUE,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES SAID.
MY MY MISTAKE WAS LEAVING THE ROOM
AND SHE CLEARLY LOOKED AT ALL OF MY NOTES.
UM, SO I'M NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, REPEAT.
BUT I, I SHARE A LOT OF THE CONCERNS AROUND
SOME OF THE LOCAL AGENCY PREEMPTION AROUND,
UM, UH, THE SCOPE OF THIS AROUND
THE CEQA EXEMPTIONS,
AROUND THE REMOVAL OF COMMUNITY AND TRIBAL INPUT
AROUND PREEMPTING THE CUP FROM BEING ABLE
TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES WHEN THEY REVIEW PROJECTS,
YOU KNOW, ALL OF THOSE AREAS.
SO I'M GOING TO, UH, NOT SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY.
BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A WAY TO GET
THE BILL THERE TO WHERE YOU'LL ADDRESS,
YOU KNOW, A BIT OF THESE CONCERNS,
MAYBE RAIN SOME OF THIS IN, YOU KNOW,
I THINK SHOWING A NEXUS BETWEEN
THE DELAYS AND THESE SPECIFIC CONCERNS
IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT.
UM, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT UTILITIES
ARE HAVING TO DO SQL REVIEWS THAT
A LOT OF TIMES WHERE THERE'S REALLY
NOT GOING TO BE ANY IMPACT AT ALL.
UM, BUT THERE ARE PLACES WHERE
THERE WILL BE AN IMPACT.
AND I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION
ABOUT THE TRADE OFFS IN THOSE AREAS.
AND I THINK THE BILL THAT THERE'S A WAY OF,
OF CRAFTING THIS WHERE YOU CAN STILL ALLOW FOR
A LITTLE BIT OF THAT AROUND THOSE REALLY REAL
AREAS OF CONCERN WHILE ALLOWING THE REFORM,
THE PERMITTING REFORM AND THE ACCELERATION THAT
WE ALL NEED IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES.
SO I'M VERY HAPPY TO, YOU KNOW,
I'D BE HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO,
TO HELP WITH THIS, IF THAT'S NECESSARY.
BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS
IN ITS FINAL FORM WHEN IT COMES TO THE FLOOR.
THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONNOLLY.
>> THANK YOU.
CHAIR, I'M GOING TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH,
UH, ASSEMBLY MEMBERS FRIEDMAN AND REYES,
INCLUDING STARTING WITH REALLY, UM,
THANKING THE AUTHOR FOR YOUR WORK IN THIS SPACE.
UM, UH, REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO WORK WITH YOU, PARTICULARLY AROUND,
UH, THE OBVIOUS NEED FOR TRANSMISSION DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK WE'RE IN AGREEMENT ON THAT.
UM, IN FACT, I RECENTLY SIGNED ON TO THE LETTER
IN SUPPORT OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
UM, AS WAS NOTED, WE'VE HEARD THIS BILL
DESCRIBED AS CODIFYING A CONSENSUS
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ADDITIONAL SMALL
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW EXEMPTIONS.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE DISAGREEMENT COMES IN.
IN THE LATTER PART OF THAT STATEMENT, UM,
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ASKED QUESTIONS
ON CERTAIN ASPECTS,
UH, INCLUDING RIGHTS OF WAY.
ALSO, UM, THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, UH,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
ALL CONCUR IN THOSE QUESTIONS.
ADDITIONALLY, UM, ONE QUESTION IS.
IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, WOULD THE BILL ENABLE
ANY PROJECT THAT HAS A FEDERAL ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT PERMIT TO BYPASS COMPLIANCE WITH
THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT?
SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I UNDERSTOOD THAT THOSE ISSUES MAY BE TAKEN
UP AT THE NEXT HEARING WITH WATER,
PARKS AND WILDLIFE, BUT AND I SEE
THAT THE CHAIR HAS STEPPED AWAY.
UM, AND SO I CAN GO AHEAD
AND START TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
UM, AND I KNOW THERE WILL BE MORE
DISCUSSION OF THESE ISSUES AGAIN.
SO CAN JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND
THE QUESTION IS,
IS IT THAT THE THE PROVISIONS OF
THE BILL WILL ALLOW A PROJECT
TO BYPASS THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT PROTECTIONS?
NO.
IF IT HAS A FEDERAL PERMIT, IS IT ENABLED TO BYPASS
THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT?
THERE THERE IS A THE PROVISION
OF THE BILL WHERE A APPLICANT
HAS A FEDERAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN IN PLACE
OR OBTAINS A TAKE PERMIT FOR
A SPECIES THAT IS DUAL LISTED
AS BOTH A FEDERALLY PROTECTED AND STATE PROTECTED.
RATHER THAN DUPLICATING THE PERMITTING PROCESS THAT
HAS ALREADY OCCURRED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL,
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO RELY ON THE FEDERAL APPROVAL,
UM, FOR THE SAME SPECIES,
NOT FOR ANY OTHER STATE LISTED
SPECIES THAT ISN'T COVERED UM UNDER FEDERAL LAW.
THEY WOULD RELY ON THAT FEDERAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL
FOR TAKE AUTHORIZATION OR FOR CONSERVATION PLAN.
CAN I JUST BE REALLY CLEAR?
YES, IT INCLUDES AN EXEMPTION.
SO IF YOU HAVE A STATE LISTED SPECIES
THAT'S ALSO FEDERALLY LISTED,
IF THE BILL PROPOSES THAT IF IT
HAS A PERMIT BY THE FEDERAL,
THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH
THE STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT,
WHICH INCLUDES THE FULLY MITIGATED STANDARD.
SO WE WOULD BE BASICALLY SUBVERTING
STATE PROTECTIONS
TO WHATEVER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
DECIDES FOR DULY LISTED SPECIES FOR
ALL PROJECTS IT DOES NOT INCLUDE.
I MEAN, ALL PROJECTS, PERIOD.
NOT TRANSMISSION.
IT'S EVERYTHING.
YEAH.
AND I'LL FLAG THAT AS A CONCERN.
UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'LL BE DISCUSSED FURTHER.
I THINK WE CAN ALL, UNFORTUNATELY,
IMAGINE SCENARIOS WHERE THERE'S
A LESS BENEFICIAL FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION
TOWARD ENDANGERED SPECIES.
SO I THINK WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
CALIFORNIA STAYS STRONG THERE.
ONE FINAL QUESTION.
UM, HOW DOES THIS BILL IMPACT NATURAL COMMUNITY
CONSERVATION'S CONSERVATION PLANS,
AND WHY IS THAT NECESSARY?
THE BILL WOULD STREAMLINE THE ABILITY
TO AMEND A NATURAL CONSERVATION PLAN.
NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN
ONCE IT'S ALREADY BEEN OBTAINED.
AND IT WOULD DO THAT PARTLY IN THE STREAMLINING
OF THE AGENCY'S REVIEW,
AS WELL AS IN A CEQA EXEMPTION
FOR THE AMENDMENT OF A PLAN.
A CONSERVATION PLAN IS A NET
BENEFIT TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
IT REQUIRES UM AVOIDANCE PROTOCOLS AND MEASURES,
AS WELL AS MITIGATION CREDITS APPLIED WHEN
THERE ARE IMPACTS TO HABITAT AND SPECIES.
ONCE THAT IS OBTAINED,
AMENDING IT SHOULD NOT BE THE HEAVY
LIFT THAT GETTING THE PLAN IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS.
UM, AND BECAUSE WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE
THIS PROGRAMMATIC
CONSERVATION PLAN FOR ENTITIES
TO OBTAIN AND TO USE STREAMLINING THAT
IS A BENEFIT BOTH TO THE ENVIRONMENT,
TO THE AGENCIES, AS WELL AS TO
THE ENTITY THAT OBTAINS THE PERMIT.
SO THE THE GOAL THERE IS TO STREAMLINE AND ENCOURAGE
OBTAINING CONSERVE PLANS ON THE STATE LEVEL TO BE
USED TO ULTIMATELY PROTECT ON A WIDE SCALE WHILE
THE WORK IS BEING PROJECT AND WORK IS BEING DONE.
THANKS.
DO YOU CAN I JUST RESPOND REALLY QUICKLY?
YEAH.
UM, SO, UH, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS,
IS AND SO SGA HAS A 1995,
UM, NCP, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, HAS IT'S GREAT.
I LOVE THE NCP.
IT IS THE GOLD STANDARD OF CONSERVATION PLANNING.
IT IS VERY SMART AND IT MAKES EFFICIENT MUCH MORE
EFFICIENT WAY OF PROCEEDING WITH PROJECTS.
HOWEVER, WHAT THE BILL PROPOSES TO DO IS SAYS
WHEN YOU HAVE A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO AN NCCP,
UM, AND IN THIS CASE FOR FOR THEM, IT'S A 30 YEAR.
THEY WANT A 30 YEAR EXTENSION TO THEIR 1995
PLAN TO ENCOMPASS A SUITE OF ACTIVITIES
TO THAT IMPACT SPECIES THAT SOME OF
WHICH WERE ACTUALLY NOT LISTED AT
THE TIME WHEN THE NCCP PLAN WAS PUT IN PLACE
TO CONSTRAIN HOW THEY HOW THE DEPARTMENT
LOOKS AT WHAT IS IMPACTED AND TO EXEMPT
THAT MAJOR AMENDMENT FROM SEQUA.
IT IS A IT IS A HAMSTRINGING
OF THE ABILITY TO ASSESS
AND TRY TO APPROPRIATE AND COME
UP WITH GOOD APPROACH.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE WERE GOING TO WE'LL DEAL
WITH THIS IN WATER PARKS AND WILDLIFE.
BUT I DO WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT IT IT
IS A IT IS BLOWING A HOLE IN A GOLD
STANDARD CONSERVATION LAW THAT'S BEEN
ON THE BOOKS SINCE, UM, 1990.
YEAH.
SO I THINK ALL OF THIS WILL
WARRANT FURTHER DISCUSSION.
I THINK WHERE I'M LANDING TODAY IS, UM,
NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT IT AT THIS TIME.
HOWEVER, LOOKING FORWARD TO CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT,
LOOKING AT IT ALMOST AS A CONTINUUM,
I THINK IF IT IS ULTIMATELY
A TRANSMISSION SPECIFIC BILL.
YOU'RE HEARING A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR THAT.
IF IT IS EXPANDED MORE TOWARD KIND OF
A WISH LIST TYPE CEQA REFORM BILL HARDER.
SO I'LL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING
WHERE WE LAND ON THAT CONTINUUM.
THANKS.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN.
THANK YOU.
AND I, UM, I WILL JUST BRIEFLY SAY THAT
I SHARE MY COLLEAGUES CONCERNS ABOUT
THE IMPACTS TO SISA AND THE OTHER WILDLIFE
ISSUES CONTAINED IN THE BILL,
BUT TRUST THE WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE TEAM TO
MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ISSUES ARE DEALT WITH.
BUT I SHARE OUR COLLEAGUE FROM LOS ANGELES,
CONCERNS AROUND THE FAILURE TO SEND
THIS TO NATURAL RESOURCES.
AND AS A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE,
I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT
SEQUA HERE TODAY BECAUSE NOBODY'S
GOING TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
AND IT IS, I THINK, ONE OF THE MOST
CONSEQUENTIAL PARTS OF THIS BILL.
AND I WILL SAY THAT IN JUNE AT REALLY
AT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE GOVERNOR,
WE MOVED AN INCREDIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE,
AND WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE A PACKAGE THAT
WILL MOVE INFRASTRUCTURE FASTER
WHILE MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY
OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.
AND I THINK THAT WAS AN INCREDIBLE EFFORT
AND A WIN FOR EVERYBODY IN CALIFORNIA.
AND I FEEL LIKE ONE OF MY MAJOR
CONCERNS IS THAT THAT HAS
BEEN IN PLACE FOR SIX MONTHS, SEVEN, EIGHT MONTHS.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN ITS IMPACT.
IT DOES CONTAIN THIS STUFF.
AND YET WE'RE HERE EXPANDING IT AND BLOWING
HOLES THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS THAT WE ENSURED WERE
IN THE INTEGRITY OF THAT BILL.
UM, SO ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS
YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE RIGHT
OF WAY OVER PUBLIC STATE LAND, PUBLIC STATE LANDS,
SORRY, PUBLIC LAND, STATE LANDS, UM,
AS IF THAT WILL HAVE NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW YOU
USE THOSE RIGHT OF WAYS, RIGHTS OF WAY?
THEY WOULD CONTAIN EXISTING UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
OF DIFFERENT KINDS, TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE,
FOR EXAMPLE, TOWERS AND WITH WIRES
AND OTHER TRANSMISSION RELATED FACILITIES.
SO IF YOU NEED SO THEN YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO EXPAND
THEM IF THEY CONTAIN CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE.
UM, WOULD WE NEED TO EXPAND THE FACILITIES?
THE RIGHT OF WAY?
YES, WE WOULD NEED TO EXPAND THE RIGHT.
YOU'RE NOT TOUCHING THE INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT'S ON THE RIGHT OF WAY.
THERE MAY BE A VARIETY OF PROJECTS THAT WOULD BID
THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
IF WE WANT TO CO-LOCATE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE
WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE,
BUT THAT MEANS IT NEEDS MORE SPACE,
A WIDENING WOULD FACILITATE THAT
IF WE WANT TO UPDATE AND MODERNIZE,
BECAUSE THE ELECTRIC STANDARDS HAVE CHANGED
SINCE THE TIME IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT,
AND NOW THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS LARGER,
THAT MIGHT ALSO REQUIRE MORE SPACE.
I THINK THE IDEA IS THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO
GO GET NEW RIGHT OF WAY IN A NEW LOCATION.
WE CAN USE AN AREA THAT HAS ALREADY CONTAINED
UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE WITH AN EXPANSION.
RIGHT.
SO I THINK THAT MY CONCERN IS
THAT IN THE NEED TO EXPAND,
TO CHANGE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE,
THERE'S NO QUESTION IN MY MIND SOME OF CALIFORNIA'S
MOST PRECIOUS LAND COULD BE AFFECTED.
WHEN YOU'RE CHANGING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE,
UPDATING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE,
PUTTING NEW WIRING IN THAT IT COULD
HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN
A FULL EXEMPTION IN STATE PARKS FEELS
WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE TO ME.
AND I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THAT
MADE ME SUPPORT THE PACKAGE THAT MOVED
IN JUNE WAS THAT WE DID STREAMLINING AND NOT
EXEMPTIONS WAS THINGS MOVED IN 270 DAYS.
WE ENSURED THAT THINGS WENT FASTER,
BUT WE DIDN'T EXEMPT
OUR PRECIOUS LAND FROM THESE PROTECTIONS THAT
I PERSONALLY BELIEVE ARE SO CRITICAL
TO WHAT IS KEPT CALIFORNIA,
THE NATURAL BEAUTY THAT IT IS.
AND SINCE THIS GOES SO FAR AS TO
JUST EXEMPT THOSE PROJECTS,
I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT TODAY.
UM, IN ADDITION TO MY CONCERNS
AROUND THE CSA PIECES,
BUT I JUST, I REALLY URGE, UM.
THE AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS TO
THINK DEEPLY ABOUT HOW WE CAN.
CONTINUE TO MOVE INFRASTRUCTURE FASTER WHILE
PROTECTING OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.
I ACTUALLY THINK THOSE TWO THINGS
GO CAN GO HAND IN HAND.
AND WE HAVE DONE IN THE LAST YEAR SOME
REALLY PHENOMENAL LEGISLATION
IN THIS BODY THAT HAS BEEN ABLE
TO MEET BOTH OF THOSE NEEDS.
AND I FEEL LIKE THIS BILL IS NOT IN THAT PLACE,
BUT I'M HOPEFUL IT WILL GET THERE.
THANK YOU.
CAN I MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION, UM, MADAM CHAIR?
CERTAINLY.
THANK YOU.
UM, THE PROJECTS WOULD STILL GO UNDERGO CEQA REVIEW
AT THE AGENCY THAT'S AUTHORIZING THEM.
SO THE THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
OF THEM IS NOT EXEMPT FROM SEQUA.
IT IS ONLY THE AGENCY'S DECISION
OVER THE RIGHT OF WAY,
THE EXPANSION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY,
NOT THE ULTIMATE AUTHORIZATION AND APPROVAL.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT ADDRESSES SOME OF
YOUR CONCERN THAT THIS WOULDN'T
BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BYPASS
THE REVIEW OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE,
ITS LOCATION, ITS IMPACT IN THAT LOCATION.
THAT WOULD BE DONE AT THE CPUC.
IS IT OKAY IF I RESPOND?
SINCE WE'RE NOT DOING THERE'S NO
HEARING AT NATURAL RESOURCES,
I WOULD WANT TO COMMENT ON THE SEQUA ISSUE.
SO, UM.
IT'S THE IT'S BEEN PUT FORWARD
THAT SOMEHOW DOING SEQUA ON
A RIGHT OF WAY EXPANSION IS
KIND OF LIKE WHY, YOU KNOW,
WHY WOULD WE EVEN BOTHER IF WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING
SEQUA ON THE PROJECT BEING PROPOSED ITSELF?
BUT THE POINT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT,
UM, IF THE IF THE RIGHT OF WAY
EXPANSION WAS NOT GOING TO IMPLICATE
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE ISSUES,
THEN IT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A CEQA EXEMPTION.
WE HAVE SO MANY SCOPE EXEMPTIONS NOW.
IT'S KIND OF WE'VE GOT A LOT OF SECRET EXEMPTIONS,
BUT IF IT DOES TRIGGER REAL CONCERNS SUCH AS
CULTURAL RESOURCES OR NATURAL RESOURCES,
I WOULD SUBMIT THAT IT WOULD BE
SMARTER TO DO THAT EVALUATION.
WHEN YOU'RE EVALUATING THE RIGHT OF WAY EXPANSION,
INSTEAD OF GRANTING THE EXPANSION AND THEN GOING
THROUGH THE PROCESS OF PUTTING IN A PROJECT WHICH,
YOU KNOW, IS GOING TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS.
SO TO ME, I DON'T SEE THE SEQUA, UH,
REVIEW OF AN EXPANSION ONTO A STATE PARK AS BEING,
UM, A MINISTERIAL TRIVIAL THING.
I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S VERY SMART TO
DO THAT TYPE OF REVIEW UP FRONT,
RATHER THAN GETTING CAUGHT ON
THE BACK END AND HAVING HUGE
MITIGATION COSTS AND MAJOR DELAYS AND AND ALL THAT,
BECAUSE MY STRONG BELIEF IN ALL OF THIS IS GOOD.
SITING LEADS TO FASTER, CHEAPER,
MORE EFFICIENT PROJECTS.
AND IF YOU DON'T DO SECRET REVIEW
ON THE RIGHT OF WAY,
YOU ARE RUNNING YOURSELF RIGHT INTO
A BUZZ SAW OF PROBABLE LITIGATION.
THANK YOU.
DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
NO.
UH, NO.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CHEN.
OKAY.
UH, ASSEMBLY MEMBERS.
SUPERB.
WE'VE GOT ASSEMBLY MEMBER JO PATTERSON.
THANKS.
UH, I'D JUST LIKE TO PUT ON RECORD.
UH, THE REPUBLICAN MINORITY LEADER TOLD ME THAT THIS
WAS GOING TO BE A SMALL SUBJECT MATTER COMMITTEE,
AND THAT'S NOT PANNING OUT TO BE THE CASE.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE OPPOSITION.
UM.
YOU KNOW, IF, IF LET'S SAY THERE WERE
PROCESS NOT JUST HERE BUT JUST
GLOBALLY IN OTHER AREAS WHERE THERE
ARE A LOT OF CEQA EXEMPTIONS.
IF WE WERE TO SAY, HEY,
LET'S GO THROUGH THE CEQA ANALYSIS,
BUT PUT SOME KIND OF PROTECTIONS FROM ACTUALLY
LITIGATING THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS,
BECAUSE IT JUST TAKES ONE SINGLE PERSON
WITH ONE SINGLE ISSUE TO LITIGATE.
WHAT WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT
IN THIS KIND OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE?
I MEAN, I'M OPEN TO ALL NEW IDEAS, HONESTLY.
I MEAN, BECAUSE I AGREE THAT
WE DO NEED TO MOVE QUICKLY,
AND I ALSO DO NOT LIKE THE ABUSE THAT
HAS BEEN DONE OF SEQUA BECAUSE I ACTUALLY THINK
IT UNDERMINES THE LEGITIMATE USE OF SEQUA.
SO I, I NEVER SAY NO.
GREAT.
ME NEITHER.
UM, EXCEPT FOR THAT LAST TIME A COUPLE BILLS AGO.
UM, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW,
I'M THE VICE CHAIR OF THE HOUSING COMMITTEE,
AND THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS NOT ONLY IN HOUSING,
BUT A LOT OF THINGS THAT THE STATE HAS PUT FORWARD
WITH BOLD VISIONS THAT WE NEED TO DO.
A LOT OF THEM, WHICH, FRANKLY, I'VE DISAGREED WITH.
BUT WHETHER IT'S GETTING TO OUR, UM, YOU KNOW,
THE ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS THAT WE'VE SET, HOUSING.
HEY, LOOK, WE NEED TO DO INFILL PROJECTS,
BUT JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING FROM
COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL,
WE DON'T NEED TO DO A SEQUEL EXEMPTION.
BUT FOR SOME REASON WE DO,
AND IT SLOWS DOWN THE PROCESS.
IT TAKES YEARS AND HAS VERY SMALL TO
NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AT ALL.
BUT I RECOGNIZE THE POINT THAT, HEY, LOOK,
MAYBE IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES IT HAS,
BUT THERE'S BEEN NO MOVEMENT TO SAY,
HEY, WELL, LET'S DO THE SEQUEL ANALYSIS,
BUT LET'S WAIVE THE LITIGATION REQUIREMENT.
UM, BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW,
SECRET DOCUMENTS IRS CAN SAY,
HEY, THIS HAS A SERIOUS IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT,
BUT THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD ANYWAYS
WITH SOME KIND OF MITIGATION.
AND SO, UM, IF WE WANT THE DISCLOSURE,
IF WE WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE
ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING,
I THINK WE GOT TO LOOK AT HOW DO
WE STREAMLINE SOME OF THESE,
THESE GOALS WE'VE SET AS GOAL HIGH SPEED RAIL.
WE'VE SAID, HEY, LOOK,
WE WANT TO BUILD MORE HOUSING.
WE NEED MORE ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE,
WE NEED CLEAN ENERGY.
THAT'S WHAT THE STATE HAS SAID.
BUT WE HAVE NOT ALIGNED OUR ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICIES TO DO THAT.
UNTIL WE DO THAT, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO HAVE,
WELL, HIGH SPEED RAIL.
I'LL BE RETIRED.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO
ADDRESS OUR HOUSING CRISIS.
3.5 MILLION HOUSES GOT DOWNGRADED,
2.5 MILLION HOUSES.
NOW IT'S LIKE NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND THEN OUR UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND SO I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS
A THIS IS A BITE AT THE APPLE.
THIS IS THE THE RIGHT YOU KNOW
THIS IS THE RIGHT DISCUSSION.
I THINK THERE ARE FAIR POINTS
BEING BROUGHT UP IN CONCERNS,
BUT WE NEED TO TAKE A SERIOUS AND BOLD ACTION
TO GET THIS INFRASTRUCTURE BUILT.
I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ON THIS BILL, BY THE WAY.
I THINK GOING INTO, UH, YOU KNOW,
WHEN I WAS ON A CITY COUNCIL,
WE DEALT WITH EMINENT DOMAIN WITH
UTILITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT,
AND ALSO ISSUES WHERE, YOU KNOW,
WE LOST SORT OF CONTROL OF THINGS.
I UNDERSTAND THOSE CONCERNS.
UM, BUT IT ALSO ASSUMES THAT EVERYBODY'S
A BAD ACTOR IN THIS PROCESS.
AND I THINK WE WE GOT TO COME TO
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING, I THINK,
BOTH FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY AND THEN
ALSO JUST IN MEETING OUR ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS.
AND SO I HOPE WE CAN CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
APPARENTLY THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO
HAPPEN IN THIS COMMITTEE AGAIN.
UH, STUFF GETS GOES IN NATURAL RESOURCES
AND I NEVER WANT TO BE ON THAT COMMITTEE.
UM, SO BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING THIS BILL.
AND IF THE CONVERSATIONS CONTINUE, UM,
I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE, UH, YOU KNOW, GOOD.
I'D LOVE TO HAVE THE CONTINUE TO HAVE
THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OPPOSITION
JUST MORE GLOBALLY ON ALL SORTS
OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS.
SO THANK YOU.
LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING THE BILL.
THANK YOU, MR.
PATTERSON.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CALDERON.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
UM.
YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD.
I'M A CO-AUTHOR OF THIS BILL,
SO OBVIOUSLY I BELIEVE IN IT.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'RE AT A CRITICAL JUNCTURE.
UM.
WHERE WE REALLY WE REALLY JUST
NEED TO KEEP MOVING FORWARD.
AND I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, UM.
HOW WE'RE GOING TO MEET OUR GOALS.
AND I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
PIECE OF OF HOW WE GET THERE.
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT
I SUPPORT THE BILL AND,
UM, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD.
THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER TING.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
UM, YOU KNOW, JUST TO ECHO SOME
OF THE COMMENTS AGAIN,
I THINK WE DO HAVE TO DO A MUCH
BETTER JOB OF BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE
AND GETTING IT DONE QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY.
HOWEVER, UM, I JUST WANT TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND,
ARE THERE PARTICULAR AREAS OR REGIONS IN PARTICULAR
THAT YOU'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT,
THAT YOU FEEL LIKE, UH, THE ROADBLOCKS
HAVE BEEN PUT UP,
THAT THINGS HAVE BEEN EXTRAORDINARILY SLOW?
UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY
THIS SEEMS LIKE A FAIRLY BROAD BILL,
RATHER THAN SOMETHING A LITTLE
BIT MORE SURGICAL OR A LITTLE
MORE DETAILED OR SPECIFIC ABOUT A PARTICULAR AREA.
I WOULDN'T SAY THERE ARE PARTICULAR
AREAS OR REGIONS.
I THINK THIS IS A STATEWIDE CONCERN, PARTICULARLY,
AGAIN, FOCUSED ON THE CAISO TRANSMISSION REPORT,
WHICH LOOKS AT THE STATEWIDE NEEDS FOR TRANSMISSION.
UM, I THINK WE HAVE TRIED TO BE
VERY FOCUSED AND TARGETED WITH
THE BILL FOCUSED PARTICULARLY ON
THE CPUC AND THEIR PROCESS,
GIVEN THAT THEY HAVE PRIMARY JURISDICTION,
UH, ON ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
THAT IS WHERE THE SEQUEL REVIEW
WOULD CONTINUE TO TAKE PLACE,
WHERE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS
WOULD BE, UM, WOULD BE PRESENT.
UM, IT'S ALSO WHERE THE PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION WOULD BE TAKING
PLACE FOR ALL OF THE EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE,
UM, WHO GENERALLY PARTICIPATE AND ARE INVITED
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REVIEW OF THAT PROJECT.
SO, UM, SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE,
WE TRIED TO FOCUS PRIMARILY ON THAT
AND TO LOOK AT THE OTHER NARROWER
PLACES WHERE WE COULD DO SOME,
SOME SIGNIFICANT STREAMLINING,
HEARING LOTS OF THE CONCERNS.
WE ARE CERTAINLY OPEN TO DISCUSSION
ABOUT HOW TO REFINE THOSE
SO THAT THERE AREN'T UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES TO THE BILL,
BECAUSE THE GOAL IS CERTAINLY NOT TO SHORTCHANGE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PROTECTION.
THE THE CONTRARY, ACTUALLY, IT IS TO PROTECT
THE ENVIRONMENT FROM THE WARMING CLIMATE.
UM, BUT WE HAVE TO DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
SO TO DO THAT, WE'VE GOT TO THINK
ABOUT DIFFERENT PROCESSES,
DIFFERENT PROCEDURES.
GREAT.
THANK YOU.
AND THEN WHAT ABOUT WHAT ABOUT
YOU MENTIONED THE PUC PORTION.
WHAT ABOUT THE FISH AND WILDLIFE PORTION.
SO THAT'S A POINT FOR DISCUSSION
I THINK FOLLOWING THIS UH,
CONCERNS THAT HERE TODAY BECAUSE
THE GOAL CERTAINLY WAS NOT TO,
UH, ADDRESS CDF JURISDICTION OR LIMIT IT
IN ANY WAY WITH RESPECT TO AN EXEMPTION.
UH, THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES CONSERVATION
PLAN AND CONSERVATION
PLANNING PIECE IS A IS A SIGNIFICANT
PART OF THE BILL,
BUT A NARROW PIECE OF CDF JURISDICTION IN THAT WAY.
AND SO, UH, WE WOULD CERTAINLY
BE WANT TO DISCUSS HOW
WE COULD REFINE IT AND ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.
YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S
WHERE I HAVE MORE MISGIVINGS IN TERMS OF,
YOU KNOW, MOVING FASTER THROUGH THE CPUC.
YOU GOT ALL OF MY SUPPORT.
THAT'S YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT
THAT'S VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS.
IT'S NOT EASY.
UH, YOU KNOW, WE AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY HAVE
DIFFICULTY COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUC.
SO I CAN ONLY UNDERSTAND HOW IT FEELS
WHEN YOU'RE ON THE INSIDE.
SO, AGAIN, UM, I THINK THAT PORTION
I DON'T HAVE AS MANY CONCERNS.
IT'S REALLY AROUND SOME OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING, YOU KNOW,
IF THERE'S CERTAIN JURISDICTIONS,
IS THERE SOME IS THERE SOME PARK OR SOME SOME SORT
OF WILDLIFE AREA THAT IN PARTICULAR IS OF CONCERN?
BECAUSE I THINK IF IT IS,
I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE IT SPELLED OUT SO WE KNOW
WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH RATHER
THAN LOOKING LIKE WE'RE,
UM, POTENTIALLY,
UH, YOU KNOW, GOING INTO AREAS WHERE
THERE ARE ENDANGERED SPECIES,
WHERE THERE ARE VERY DELICATE,
UM, DELICATE NATURAL AREAS.
UM, AND AGAIN, I REALLY DO THINK
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT
TO MAKE SURE WE ARE DOING THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
BUT AGAIN, I THINK THAT THAT'S
WHERE I FEEL LIKE THERE NEEDS
TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFICITY OR REFINEMENT.
SO WE'RE ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING.
THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
ZIPPER.
SO, UH, MR.
GRAY, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THE BILL.
UH, I THANK THE OPPONENTS FOR, I THINK, RAISING,
I THINK, SOME VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES.
UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN I TAKE A STEP
BACK AND I LOOK AT THIS,
UM, I AM VERY, VERY.
NERVOUS THAT WE ARE NOT CLOSE
TO MEETING THE GOALS THAT
WE'VE SET AS A STATE TO MEET THE CLIMATE NEEDS.
UM, AND I'VE BEEN VERY FOCUSED ON OFFSHORE WIND,
BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT WE ABSOLUTELY
HAVE TO HAVE IF WE'RE GOING
TO ACTUALLY MOVE TO A CLEAN
ENERGY ECONOMY AND GET OFF OF DIRTY FOSSIL FUELS.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE THING WE'RE
SORT OF FURTHEST BEHIND ON.
THE NEXT THING WE'RE FURTHEST
BEHIND ON IS TRANSMISSION.
AND I KNOW THAT ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WAS JUST
ASKING ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S SPECIFIC AREAS.
I MEAN, WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE 2 TO 3 TIMES
THE ELECTRICITY THAT WE HAVE TODAY,
AND WE NEED TO BUILD THE TRANSMISSION OUT
IN THE NEXT DECADE OR TWO AT THE MOST.
AND THAT'S THAT IS TRANSMISSION LINES
THAT ARE RUNNING ALL OVER THE STATE.
I MEAN, THEY REALLY ARE.
I KNOW THAT THE UTILITIES, BECAUSE I'VE
HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM AND A LOT OF
THE CLEAN ENERGY FOLKS AND FOLKS THAT ARE
IN THIS SPACE AND IN THE REGULATORS.
ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS OF MAKING SURE
THAT THE TRANSMISSION THAT IS DONE,
THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY USING HIGHER
EFFICIENCY TRANSMISSION
LINES TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT THAT NEEDS TO BE BUILT,
THAT WE'RE DOING STUFF IN EXISTING
ALIGNMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAYS.
UM, BUT THE REALITY IS, YOU KNOW,
IS THAT WE HAVE A VERY COMPLEX
REGULATORY PROCESS WHERE I THINK
CALIFORNIA IS UNUSUAL,
THAT WHAT WE HAVE DONE,
WHICH IS A GOOD THING WHEN WE WANT TO
REALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOTTING
EVERY I AND EVERY T.
BUT WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE ACTUALLY
HAVE JUST AN EMPTY SPACE.
WE HAVE THREE AGENCIES, AT LEAST THE PUC,
THE CEC AND CAL ISO THAT ALL HAVE REGULATORY
OVERSIGHT OVER THIS BODY OF AREAS.
THEY ALL HAVE REGULATORY REVIEWS.
THEY THEY MANY SOME OF THEM,
SOME OF THE STUFF IS OVERLAPPING AND IS DUPLICATIVE.
NOT ALL OF IT IS.
UM, AND THEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE STATE
AGENCIES THAT HAVE AUTHORITY
OVER IMPORTANT PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF,
OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES
AND A BUNCH OF AREAS, YOU KNOW,
YOU LOOK I LOOK AT OTHER STATES SOMETIMES,
AND THEY WILL HAVE A MICHIGAN EPA AND BASICALLY ALL
THE THINGS THAT WE DO IN PROBABLY 20 OR 25 AGENCIES
IN CALIFORNIA ARE DONE IN ONE PLACE.
SO I THINK THE GOAL OF THIS BILL,
WHICH IS REALLY TO TRY TO.
HAVE PUT THE MAIN AGENCY THAT'S
IN CHARGE OF TRANSMISSION,
IN CHARGE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS
A GOOD ONE AND IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ONE.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE SHOULD BE, I THINK,
SHORTCUTTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW THAT IS BEING DONE.
SO I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT BILL.
I DON'T SEE HOW WE'RE GOING
TO MAKE OUR CLIMATE GOALS
IF WE DON'T MOVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS FORWARD.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE THE TIME TO WORK WITH
THE OPPONENTS TO STRENGTHEN THOSE AREAS IN THE BILL.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE
REALLY ROBUST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
THROUGH ROBUST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
NEEDS TO BE IN ALL OF THE AREAS.
I DO THINK, YOU KNOW.
THE.
YOU CAN HAVE A ROBUST ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
WHERE YOU'RE NOT CUTTING SEQUA,
WHERE YOU'RE ACTUALLY HAVING A ROBUST SEQUA
PROCESS THAT'S HOUSED AT THE PUC,
AND WHICH EVERY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
COMES IN AND BASICALLY
HAS COMMENTS AND PUTS ADVICE
IN AND SUGGESTS MITIGATION
MEASURES WHERE THE PUBLIC HAS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT,
AND YOU CAN DO THAT AND HOUSE IT AT THE PUC.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT
THE GOAL OF WHAT THIS BILL IS.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT TODAY.
I DO THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE WORK.
I MEAN, I'M A LITTLE BIT TROUBLED.
I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S YOU KNOW,
THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED ABOUT UM,
ABOUT FEDERAL PRE, I MEAN,
RELYING ON A FEDERAL PERMIT,
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE, UH, EVER DELEGATE
CALIFORNIA AUTHORITY
AND THE CALIFORNIA LAW TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
I MEAN, WE NEVER KNOW WHAT THAT GOVERNMENT
IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
WE NEED TO SORT OF KEEP IT HERE, BUT WE CAN MAKE
THOSE DETERMINATIONS AND STILL STREAMLINE IT.
WE CAN ACTUALLY TAKE ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
THAT WERE PREPARED AT THE STATE AGENCY,
AND THAT CAN BE THE BEGINNING
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE
THAT THE THAT THE THAT THE PUC STARTS FROM.
IT WILL, IT WILL REDUCE A LOT OF TIME.
AND THEN BASICALLY WE WORK
WITH ALL OF THE FOLKS THAT
ARE THERE AND SAY LIKE, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS?
THERE HAS TO BE A ROBUST PROCESS,
WHAT WAS MISSED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
AND THEN YOU MAKE DETERMINATIONS ON THAT.
SO ANYWAY, I'M SPENDING A LOT OF
TIME TALKING ABOUT RECOGNIZE
THAT THE I THINK THAT THE CONCERNS THAT I'VE RAISED,
TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY'RE, THAT WE'RE SHORTCHANGING
OTHER REVIEW PROCESSES, I THINK IS VALID.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS ACTUALLY
BEEF UP WHAT'S AT THE PUC,
BUT MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A VERY ROBUST PROCESS
THERE THAT PRESERVES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
UM, BUT THAT WE HOUSE IT AT
THE PUC BECAUSE THE RESULT OF
THAT IS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING
TO BUILD ALL THESE THINGS.
I MEAN, I WORKED ON A LONG LINE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
LINE ONE TIME, UM, WHEN I WAS A LAWYER.
THE ENTITLEMENT OF THAT, BECAUSE YOU'RE,
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING THROUGH.
50 MAYBE.
JURISDICTIONS.
COUNTY CITIES CROSSING OVER FEDERAL LAND,
STATE LAND, UH RAILROAD EASEMENTS.
UM FOREST THAT THAT THE ENTITLEMENT
OF THAT BECAUSE OF ALL OF
THOSE VARIOUS OVERLAPPING THINGS TOOK,
I THINK A DECADE.
WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO DO THAT FOR EACH THING.
SO I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND
THAT WE HAVE TO FIND WAYS
OF MAINTAINING OUR ROBUST ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW PROCESSES,
BUT WE DO HAVE TO STREAMLINE IT
AND HOUSE IT IN ONE PLACE.
AND THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THE BILL.
I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR, UM, FOR DOING THAT.
AND I'M HOPING AND I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR RAISING, I THINK,
REALLY VALID ISSUES ABOUT WHETHER
ABOUT AREAS WHERE THIS IS SHORT,
AND I'M HOPING THAT THE AUTHOR WILL CONTINUE WORKING
WITH THE OPPOSITION TO TRY TO STRENGTHEN THAT.
SO WITH THAT, I WILL SUPPORT THE BILL.
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER SANTIAGO.
>> YEAH.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK THE OPPOSITION
FOR BRINGING UP SOME VALID POINTS.
AND I KNOW THAT AND I TRUST IN
THE AUTHOR THAT GOING FORWARD,
THERE MIGHT BE SOME PLACES THAT ARE SENSITIVE THAT
YOU'LL BE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH THESE DEFINITIONS.
AND.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW,
MAKE A COMPARISON OF APPLES AND ORANGES,
BUT BUT I WILL.
AND KIND OF.
WE HAD A SIMILAR SITUATION, UM,
IN LOS ANGELES BECAUSE I'VE CARRIED
A COUPLE OF CEQA EXEMPTION BILLS,
AND IT WASN'T EASY TO DO BECAUSE YOU REALLY HAVE TO
SEARCH IN YOUR SOUL IF THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO,
BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF OPPOSITION
TO IT AND GOOD MERITED OPPOSITION.
AND I THINK IT'S BEEN ECHOED.
SO I WON'T GO VERY FAR INTO INTO
MEETING OUR ENVIRONMENTAL
STANDARDS AND GOALS AND NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET THEM,
BUT BY THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
THAT WE HAVE TODAY THAT THAT IMPEDE IT.
AND I THINK ALL THE CONVERSATIONS ARE VALID.
BUT THE REASON, ONE OF THE REASONS
I'M SUPPORTING IS BECAUSE
I DO THINK WE NEED TO MOVE
THIS CONVERSATION FORWARD.
AND I DO THINK WE NEED TO BUILD
THE INFRASTRUCTURE AS
TOUGH AS IT MAY BE TO GRAPPLE WITH THE CONVERSATION.
BUT WE HAD, AGAIN, SIMILAR BUT VERY
DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS IN
LOS ANGELES WHEN IT CAME TO SOLVING
THE ISSUE OF HOMELESSNESS.
AND SOME OF YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THE FIRST
TIME I TRIED TO CARRY AN EXEMPTION,
A SECRET EXEMPTION BILL ON ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
BUT THE VERY PROBLEM WE WERE HAVING WAS
THAT THESE PROJECTS WOULD GET TIED.
UM.
FIVE, SIX, SEVEN YEARS AND WE
WEREN'T BUILDING ANY OF IT.
UM, AND IT WAS A SIMILAR CONVERSATION
WHERE WE WERE ARGUING.
THERE'S ALREADY INFRASTRUCTURE THERE THAT'S BUILT.
IT'S A MATTER OF I DON'T KNOW
WHAT WORD YOU WANT TO USE.
KNOCKING DOWN, BUILDING BACK UP.
BUT THERE HAD BEEN PLANS AND REVIEWS DONE, UH,
IN PAST GENERATIONS OF THOSE BUILDINGS.
AND NOW TODAY WE WANT TO DO PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING AND EMERGENCY SHELTERS,
AND YOU'D HAVE TO START AN ENTIRE PROCESS OVER.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, UH,
THERE WERE SOME THAT WERE HELD UP IN COURTS,
IN COMMUNITIES WHERE THEY COULD
PUT THE DEFENSE FUNDS UP.
AND IT WASN'T UNTIL WE GOT STREAMLINING
DONE OR SQL EXEMPTIONS OR HOWEVER
WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT OR WHATEVER
WORD WE WANT TO PUT TO IT.
THEN THEN WE BEGAN TO SEE, UH, SOME OF THE EMERGENCY
SHELTERS AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, UH, DONE.
AND IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE
SOME OF THE SEQUA LAWSUITS
WERE NOT EVEN ON THE BRICK AND MORTAR PIECES,
BUT ON THE ORDINANCE CHANGES OR
THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
OR THOSE NON BRICK AND MORTAR THINGS WHERE SOME WHO
WERE LEGALLY MORE SAVVY THAN
I AM COULD FIND TEETH TO
STOP THE VERY PROJECTS THAT WE NEEDED DESPERATELY.
SO I KNOW HOW DIFFICULT THOSE CONVERSATIONS CAN BE,
AND THAT'S WHY I WANT TO.
AS AS MUCH AS I THANK THE OPPOSITION FOR
BRINGING UP VERY LEGITIMATE CONCERNS,
I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BEING BOLD
IN HIS APPROACH AND TAKING A CONVERSATION
THAT COULD BE MISUNDERSTOOD AS NOT CARING
ABOUT AN ENVIRONMENT WHEN I KNOW,
YOU KNOW, I'VE SERVED WITH, UH,
THE MEMBER FROM COACHELLA FOR THE LAST TEN
YEARS ON THIS COMMITTEE AND IN THIS HOUSE,
WHERE IN EVERY ENVIRONMENTAL FIGHT THAT HE HAS
BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF, WITHOUT EXCEPTION,
ALMOST FROM THE FIRST TIME WE GOT HERE,
UH, ON THE, UM,
ON RENEWABLE STANDARDS FROM THE FIRST TIME, I MEAN,
GO ON AND ON AND PROBABLY MAKE A LIST OF 20,
25 DIFFERENT THINGS WHERE THERE
HAS BEEN AN ENVIRONMENTAL
FIGHT TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.
AND HE'S LED IT.
SO I THINK IT'S SO I THINK I THINK WE NEED
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD,
BUT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT TAKES TAKES A LITTLE
BIT OF BOLDNESS TO BE ABLE TO NOW SAY,
HEY, WE NEED TO MOVE THIS ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING
TO MEET LARGER ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
THAT WE HAVE SET BEFORE US.
AND THAT'S WHY I'M READY AND PREPARED
TO SUPPORT IT TODAY.
UM, NOT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE ANYBODY
WANTS TO RUIN THE ENVIRONMENT.
OF COURSE NOT.
BUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS.
IN A PERFECT WORLD, THE WHOLE SECRET
PROCESS WILL GET REVIEWED.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD LAND
PERFECTLY IN EVERY SINGLE
SECTION OF THE LAW AND EVERY SINGLE SCENARIO.
BUT THAT DOESN'T.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN,
BECAUSE NO LAW CAN PREDICT
ANY SITUATION OR ALL SITUATIONS THAT MAY ARISE.
AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME HESITATION
IN THE PAST ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, DOING A PIECE BY PIECE,
BUT THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHY THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS IS SO IMPORTANT,
BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO DO IT PIECE BY PIECE.
BECAUSE WHEN YOU MAKE BROAD POLICY
AND I'LL BE THE FIRST
TO SAY IT AND LIKE I WHEN
I DID FREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
MOST OF YOU GUYS WILL REMEMBER THERE WAS THERE
WAS INTERPRETATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT
THAT EXEMPTED POPULATIONS THAT I HAD HOPED
WOULD NEVER BE EVEN TALKED ABOUT.
VERY, VERY FEW PEOPLE EVER KNEW ABOUT IT.
BUT THE DEPARTMENTS THEN TRANSLATED
IT TO SAY THAT PEOPLE WHO TOOK LESS
THAN FULL TIME WOULD NEVER BE ABLE
TO GET FREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE.
WELL, NOBODY EVER THOUGHT AT THAT POINT IN TIME THAT
SOMEBODY WHO WAS DISABLED, WHO TOOK ONE UNIT,
WAS NOW EXEMPTED FROM GETTING
FREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
HAD TO GO BACK AND REWRITE THE BILL.
YOU KNOW THAT I DID TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE THAT
ONE PIECE THAT WAS INADVERTENTLY CHANGED.
SO THERE IS A NECESSITY TO SOMETIMES TAKE
A LOOK AT THINGS PIECE BY PIECE BY PIECE.
SO FOR THAT, I THANK YOU.
AND I'M PREPARED TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU.
UH, ASSEMBLY MEMBER SHABO.
>> THANK YOU.
UM, I WANT TO COMMEND THE AUTHOR.
THIS IS A BIG BILL.
IT'S A HARD BILL.
IT'S A LOT.
AND, UM, AND REFLECT, YOU KNOW,
REFLECT ON THE COMMENTS OF BOTH MR.
ZUBER AND SANTIAGO.
I THINK THAT THERE'S REALLY IMPORTANT
PROGRESS THAT WE HAVE
TO MAKE IN THIS SPACE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE OUR GOALS.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, SHARE CONCERNS AROUND MAKING
SURE THAT WE GET THE ENVIRONMENTAL PIECE OF IT.
RIGHT.
UM, I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO BE COMING IN FRONT
OF WATER PARKS AND WILDLIFE AS WELL.
RIGHT.
AND SO I SIT ON THAT COMMITTEE.
SO I'M, I'M, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT TODAY.
AND UM, AND YOU KNOW,
LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE PROGRESS THAT'S
MADE BEFORE IT GETS UP IN WATER PARKS AND WILDLIFE,
UM, AS WELL.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.
ALL RIGHT.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER HOLDEN.
I'LL BE VERY QUICK.
I JUST WANT TO COMMEND THE AUTHOR ON,
AS OTHERS HAVE AROUND THE THE NEED TO TO MOVE
FORWARD AGGRESSIVELY AND ADDRESSING THE.
>> ISSUES AROUND OUR TRANSMISSION LINES
AND TO MEET OUR CLIMATE GOALS.
IT'S IT'S CRITICAL.
UM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME,
THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD CALL THE NATURAL BILL THAT.
UM, NEEDS TO BE IN THIS COMMITTEE
TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES
THAT ARE PRIMARY TO WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME,
NATURAL RESOURCES TO KIND OF BE THE HAND AND GLOVE.
UM, SO WE'RE NOT SPENDING TIME SORT OF ADDRESSING
SEQUA TYPE ISSUES AND UTILITY AND ENERGY.
UH, BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, I THINK THAT
THE WITNESS MADE SOME VERY COMPELLING POINTS,
AND I THINK THAT THERE HAVE BEEN
RECEIVED BY THE AUTHOR.
I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY.
I KNOW THIS IS THE FRONT END
OF A VERY LONG PROCESS, UH,
TO GET THROUGH THIS HOUSE AND THEN ALSO THE SENATE.
AND SO ALONG THE WAY, NATURAL PARKS
AND NATURAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE WILL ALSO,
I'M SURE, WEIGH IN APPROPRIATELY
ON THE SUBJECT MATTER.
UM, BUT I DO THINK IT'S VERY CRITICAL THAT
WE CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON HOW WE MOVE
FORWARD MOST EFFICIENTLY AND ADDRESSING
OUR CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES THAT ARE,
UH, THEY'RE GETTING MORE AND MORE
CRITICAL AS THE DAYS GO BY.
SO I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU.
UM, SO AS I THINK EVERY MEMBER HAS NOTED,
I THINK WE ALL RECOGNIZE TO
ACHIEVE OUR CLIMATE GOALS,
WE'VE GOT TO DRAMATICALLY ACCELERATE
THE PACE OF CLEAN ENERGY DEPLOYMENT.
UM, AND WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT WE WANT TO DO
THAT IN A WAY THAT MOVES INFRASTRUCTURE
MORE QUICKLY WHILE MAINTAINING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS.
LIKE OUR COLLEAGUE, ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOOD.
I ACTUALLY DON'T LIKE TO USE THE WORD STREAMLINING.
I LIKE TO USE THE WORD RATIONALIZE.
UM, AS I THINK YOU'VE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR
FROM MEMBERS THROUGHOUT THE TAPE,
YOU KNOW, AROUND THE ROOM.
UM, I THINK THAT IN ORDER FOR THIS BILL,
IF THIS BILL MAKES IT OUT OF
COMMITTEE TODAY IN ORDER TO MOVE
THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS,
I THINK THERE'S A NEED FOR SOME,
YOU KNOW, MORE NUANCE.
UM, AND TO TAKE A MORE SURGICAL APPROACH,
WHICH I HAVE EVERY FAITH THAT THAT YOU WILL AND, UM,
I DO WANT TO JUST APPRECIATE YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO WADE INTO THIS,
BECAUSE THIS IS HARD, AND IT IS INCREDIBLY,
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT.
UM, SO THANK YOU FOR FOR BEING
WILLING TO DO THIS WORK.
UM, AND LOOK FORWARD TO PARTNERING
WITH YOU AS WE, UH,
REFINE THE BILL AND MOVE IT THROUGH THE PROCESS.
SO WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
SO A COUPLE COUPLE TAKEAWAYS.
I'LL START BY SAYING I APPRECIATE MUCH OF
THE DEFERENCE THAT'S BEING GIVEN TO US,
GIVEN, YOU KNOW, OUR ROLE AND OUR
HISTORY WORKING ON THESE ISSUES.
UM, MUCH APPRECIATED.
UM, THE GOOD NEWS, IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYONE
RECOGNIZES THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM, RIGHT?
THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS.
UM, PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE ARE SAYING
WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OUR PROCESS.
OUR STATE PROCESS.
UH, THE OTHER IS, UH, THE RECOGNITION THAT, UH,
WE'RE PROBABLY NOT ON TRACK TO MEETING
OUR RENEWABLE ENERGY GOALS,
UM, AND OBJECTIVES.
AND, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO BE
A LITTLE MORE FRANK ABOUT THAT.
I THINK WE'RE NOT GOING TO MEET OUR
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES IF WE DON'T,
UH, REALLY DO SOME TRANSFORMATIONAL
POLICY CHANGES, UH,
THAT ARE NOT, UH,
COMPROMISING OF THOSE SAME GOALS AND OBJECTIVES,
RIGHT, WHICH ARE TO ENSURE THAT
THE EARTH DOESN'T GET REALLY HOT.
RIGHT?
AND THAT ULTIMATELY WE HAVE AN ENVIRONMENT
THAT IS PROTECTING,
YOU KNOW, OUR GENERATIONS.
RIGHT?
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT,
THAT AT THE SAME TIME,
WE ALSO HAVE A THRIVING ECONOMY, UM, THAT, UH,
THAT WE CAN POINT TO AND SAY, YOU SEE,
THESE POLICIES ARE ACTUALLY ALSO CREATING SOME GOOD,
YOU KNOW, JOBS.
WE'VE HEARD A PRETTY GOOD DEBATE
TODAY IN IN SOME INSTANCES,
I THINK THERE'S SOME ISSUES
THAT NEED TO BE CLARIFIED.
AND.
AND WE'RE PREPARED TO DO SO.
UM, THE BILL IS INTENDED TO BE VERY NARROW.
AND AROUND THE JURISDICTION OF THE CPUC.
WE'VE SAT IN THAT CHAIR, UH,
ALONGSIDE MANY OF YOU WHERE WE'VE HAD
THE CPUC HEAR TIME AND TIME AGAIN,
ASKING A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT PROCESS,
ABOUT TIMELINES,
AND IN MANY INSTANCES, NOT GETTING A LOT OF ANSWERS.
UM, AND WHEN WE DID GET THE ANSWERS,
IT WASN'T THE ANSWERS THAT WE WERE HOPING WE DID.
AND YET WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT MAYBE
WE MIGHT ACHIEVE OUR OBJECTIVES,
UH, 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY GOALS.
MAYBE.
YOU KNOW, MR.
PATTERSON MIGHT BE ABLE TO BUILD OUT, YOU KNOW,
FRESNO AND THE REST OF THE ZOO THAT HE TALKS ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, UH,
IN THAT REGION AND THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
THAT HE, YOU KNOW,
HAS MENTIONED HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE MANY,
MANY TIMES.
UM.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE BEING
HONEST WITH EACH OTHER,
THAT OUR OWN POLICIES ARE WHAT
ARE GETTING IN THE WAY.
I THINK THAT WE CAN THREAD THE NEEDLE AND PRESERVE
OUR STATE PRISTINE PARKS AT THE SAME TIME,
WHILE ENSURING THAT WE'RE BUILDING
OUT THE NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE
TO MEET WHAT IS NOW THE CAL ISO GOALS OF 7000MW
A YEAR FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS
TO MEET THE ENERGY DEMANDS
IN THE 10% AREAS OF WHERE
THE POPULATION SETTINGS ARE,
NOT THE 90% WHERE SMALL POCKETS
OF CALIFORNIANS LIVE,
AND WHERE IT'S PRETTY EASY TO APPROVE
A PROJECT IN SEQUOIA, RIGHT?
SO, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN HERE FOR TEN YEARS,
AND WE'VE HEARD THESE CONVERSATIONS
TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
AND WHETHER YOU'RE AN ENVIRONMENTALIST
OR AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ADVOCATE OR A MODERATE DEMOCRAT
OR REPUBLICAN ADVOCATING FOR,
YOU KNOW, RATEPAYERS OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE,
UM, THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS,
IS THAT, UM, KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON
AND KEEPING IT AFFORDABLE, UM,
ALL HAS TO DO WITH MAKING SURE THAT
WE HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE
AND THE TIME THAT IT TAKES TO BUILD
IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THAT.
SO IF YOU'RE FOR THOSE THINGS, RIGHT,
YOU'RE YOU'RE FOR THIS BILL.
AND IF YOU'RE NOT FOR THOSE THINGS AND YOU'RE
NOT FOR THE BILL, UM, YOU HAVE MY WORD,
MY COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE TO WORK
ON THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED.
AND I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY INVITE SOME OF YOU,
THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE MOST
VOCAL WITH CONCERNS RAISED
TO BE PART OF A SMALL LITTLE WORK GROUP,
I'M GOING TO ASK MY OFFICE TO DIRECTLY
REACH OUT TO YOUR OFFICES
TO ANSWER AND CLARIFY THE POINTS
THAT YOU'VE RAISED TODAY,
AND INVITE YOU TO BE PART OF A COUPLE OF MEETINGS
WITH THE OPPOSITION SO THAT YOU CAN DIRECTLY
HEAR THE CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING
WITH THE SPONSORS AND THE OPPOSITION,
SO THAT WHEN WE GET BACK TO
THE NEXT COMMITTEE OR ON THE FLOOR,
YOU AND OR YOUR STAFF CAN KNOW FIRSTHAND
WHAT THOSE CONVERSATIONS WERE LIKE,
WHY THE OPPOSITION MAY STILL BE OPPOSING THE BILL,
OR WHY THEY MAY HAVE TAKEN THEIR
OPPOSITION OFF THE BILL,
SO THAT I'M NOT HAVING TO TWIST AN ARM
OR ASK FOR A VOTE AT A COURTESY.
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY,
YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR THE BILL ON THE BASIS OF MERIT.
THE NEED THAT'S OUT THERE.
AND KNOWING THAT THE FACT IS,
IS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO MEET OUR GOALS
UNLESS WE ACTUALLY MAKE SOME TRANSFORMATIONAL
POLICY CHANGES.
AND THAT'S WHY THIS BILLS BEFORE YOU
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
ALL RIGHT.
MOTION FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER WALLACE,
SECOND FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOOD.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO WATER,
PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMITTEE.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE AB 3238.
THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS IS AMENDED TO WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE.
PETRIE-NORRIS I.
JIM PATTERSON I.
BAUER-KAHAN BATTER.
BAUER-KAHAN KNOW.
CALDERON I.
CHEN.
CHEN I.
CONNELLY.
NOT VOTING.
FRIEDMAN.
FREEDMEN NOT VOTING.
HOLDEN.
HOLDEN I JOE PATTERSON.
I JOE.
PATTERSON I.
REYES.
I.
SANTIAGO.
I.
SCHIAVO EATING.
WALLACE.
WALLACE I WOULD.
WOULD I?
ZIPPER.
ZIPPER I.
12 ONE.
UH, THAT BILL IS OUT, AND WE WILL KEEP
IT OPEN IF THERE'S ANY ABSENT MEMBERS.
OH, FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
OKAY.
AND I THINK I'M UP NOW.
I WILL HAND IT OVER TO OUR VICE CHAIR.
>> UM.
>> YEAH.
SINCE.
ALL RIGHT.
MEMBERS, UH, IS THIS IS THIS ON?
YEAH, I KNOW, YEAH.
OKAY.
YEAH.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
RIGHT.
WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH THIS?
HELLO?
YEAH.
I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE.
OKAY.
YEAH.
YEAH, I CAN HEAR.
YEAH.
ALL RIGHT.
UM.
WE HAVE MEMBERS.
THAT'S OUR LAST TWO BILLS.
AND THEN WE WILL BE, UH, OPENING UP, UH,
FOR ADD ONS, UH, AND THEN WE'LL, UH, ADJOURN.
MADAM CHAIR, YOUR NEXT TWO BILLS.
THANK YOU.
UM, MEMBERS, UH, AS WE JUST DISCUSSED
AT SOME LENGTH, UH, CALIFORNIA,
IN ORDER FOR US TO DELIVER
ON OUR CLEAN ENERGY GOALS,
WE HAVE GOT TO DRAMATICALLY ACCELERATE
THE PACE OF CLEAN ENERGY DEPLOYMENT.
AND IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A VERY NARROW
AND MODEST PROPOSAL TO DO SO.
HAVE I GOT THE BILL FOR YOU?
UM, SO, UH, THIS BILL, UH, WHAT THIS BILL DOES.
SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO
IS IDENTIFY AREAS WHERE THERE,
THERE IS REDUNDANCY, WHERE THERE IS OVERLAP,
AND WHERE WE'VE GOT, UH,
PROCESSES THAT ARE TAKING TOO
LONG AND ADDING NO VALUE.
SO, UM, WHAT WE HAVE DONE WITH AB
2292 IS REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT
THAT THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TO PROSPECTIVE TRANSMISSION
PROJECTS BEFORE ISSUING A PERMITTING APPROVAL.
UM, IN 2005, THE LEGISLATURE PASSED SB 1037,
WHICH ESTABLISHED A NON WIRES CONSIDERATION IN
TRANSMISSION PROJECT APPROVALS AT THE CPUC.
THIS IS UNNECESSARY AND REDUNDANT
FOR PLANNING AND PERMITTING
WORK THAT'S ALREADY BEING DONE AT THE CAISO.
UM, SO IT IS DUPLICATIVE TO THE TPP AT
THE CAISO AND LEADS TO UNNECESSARY
AND UNPRODUCTIVE DELAYS IN TRANSMISSION
PROJECT TIMELINES.
UM, AS I SAID EARLIER,
WE'RE LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES
TO RATIONALIZE OUR PROCESSES
AND THINK THAT THIS IS A, LIKE I SAID,
A SMALL BUT VALUABLE STEP.
UM, WITH THAT, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF, UH,
WITNESSES WHO ARE JOINING ME TODAY, UM,
JAN SMUTNY JONES WITH INDEPENDENT ENERGY
PRODUCERS AND MICHAEL COLVIN,
UH, WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND.
UM, I THINK ARE YOU JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS,
OR DO YOU WANT TO ADD A BRIEF COMMENT OF SUPPORT?
YEAH, I.
CAN DO A BRIEF COMMENT ALSO.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
YEAH.
>> JUST REAL QUICK JANICE MONEY JONES IEP.
UM, AND IT'S THE FIRST TIME IN 37 YEARS
I'VE EVER SEEN A BILL THAT'S TAKING
SOMETHING OUT OF THE PUC CODE THAT
MAY ACTUALLY ADVANCE THINGS.
SO THE CONGRATULATIONS.
YOU'RE HERE FOR HISTORIC MOMENT.
UH, I HEARD ALL OF YOU TALK ABOUT
MOVIE TRANSMISSION FORWARD.
WE DON'T NEED TO BELABOR THAT.
UH, AS, UH, CHAIR HAS SAID,
THIS REMOVES A SECTION THAT WAS PUT IN IN 2005.
WE'RE DOING THAT THROUGH OTHER
PROCESSES NOW IN TERMS OF,
UH, LOOKING AT NON, UH, WIRES ALTERNATIVES.
UH, THAT'S ALREADY IN THE PROCESS.
UH, AND BY REMOVING THIS, IT WILL MAKE, UH,
GOING THROUGH A CPM MUCH SMOOTHER ABOUT NOT
HAVING TO DETERMINE THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY
BEEN TERM FURTHER BACK IN THE PROCESS.
SO IT'S A KIND OF BILL WE SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR.
AND I'M HAPPY TO HELP PRUNE THE TREE.
SO.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
SEEING HOW RESTLESS EVERYONE IS,
I'M GOING TO SKIP MY PREPARED REMARKS
AND HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
I DO WANT TO MAKE ONE REALLY BRIEF OBSERVATION,
WHICH IS THERE WAS SOME OPPOSITION
THAT WAS PUT OUT THERE,
UM, ABOUT HOW ONEROUS IT IS TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE KAISER'S PROCESS.
UM, I'D LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT
IF I CAN FIGURE IT OUT.
ANYONE CAN FIGURE IT OUT.
IT'S ACTUALLY NOT THAT HARD.
IT'S NOT LIKE A PC PROCESS WHERE YOU NEED
ATTORNEYS AND FORMALLY DOCKET THINGS.
THIS IS SENDING AN EMAIL.
UM, AND THEY JUST PUT A DRAFT OUT THIS WEEK.
THERE'S LOTS OF WAYS OF HAVING AN ON RAMP FOR THIS.
UM, SO IF THE CONCERN IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
HOW TO ENGAGE OR THE PROCESSES TO BLACK BOX,
UM, LET ME JUST SAY THERE'S LOTS OF DIFFERENT
ONRAMPS TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE IN THIS.
UM, AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT COME UP.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
WELL, GOOD.
UM, ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE?
PRIMARY.
PRIMARY OPPOSITION.
DO WE HAVE ANY?
OKAY, UH, LET'S MOVE TO THE PUBLIC THEN.
UH, COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL, PLEASE SUPPORT.
>> MR.
CHAIR MEMBERS GREG COOK,
REPRESENTING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
POWER AGENCY IN SUPPORT OF A VERY IMPORTANT BILL.
THANK YOU.
>> MR.
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS.
THEO PIHOS REPRESENTING SAN DIEGO
GAS AND ELECTRIC IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, ALEX JACKSON WITH
THE AMERICAN CLEAN POWER ASSOCIATION.
SMALL STEP BUT WORTH TAKING SUPPORT.
>> LAURA PARR ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON AND SUPPORT.
BRANDON NYBACK, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC SUPPORT.
>> MELISSA CORTEZ ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT.
UH, ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE.
OKAY.
WE SEE NONE.
THANK YOU.
UH.
YES.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY MEMBERS OF BARE AND A SECOND.
YES WE DO.
WE HAVE.
UH HUH.
OH, OKAY.
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS, PLEASE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR.
IT'S A COMMENT.
YES.
THIS IS A GREAT BILL.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD, MADAM CHAIR.
THANK YOU.
GOING TO CLOSE.
THANK YOU.
IN CLOSING, I'LL JUST SIMPLY,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
OKAY.
AND I'LL CALL THE ROLL.
JUST BEFORE WE, UH.
I DO RESPECT THE CHAIR.
I APPRECIATE WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE.
AND THERE'S GOOD, STRONG SUPPORT HERE.
BUT GIVEN THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THE DISTRICT,
I SERVE IN THE OPPOSITION OF THE FARM
BUREAU OUT OF RESPECT FOR THEM.
AND YOU, I WILL LAY OFF.
THANK YOU, MR.
VICE-CHAIR.
ANY READY TO CALL THE QUESTION.
ITEM NUMBER 11 AB 2292.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS
PETRIE-NORRIS
I PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON I'M NOT VOTING.
JIM PATTERSON NOT VOTING.
BAUER-KAHAN.
CALDERON I CALDERON I CHEN CHEN I CONNELLY.
CONNELLY I FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN I JOE.
PATTERSON.
I JOE.
PATTERSON I REYES.
REYES I SANTIAGO.
SANTIAGO I.
ZERO.
I.
TING TING I.
WALLACE.
WALLACE, I.
WOOD.
WOOD I.
ZIPPER.
ZIPPER I.
AND THAT'S.
14.
ZERO ONE.
YEAH.
14 ZERO.
WE'LL KEEP THE ROLL OPEN.
AND NEXT TO AB 3264.
ALL RIGHT.
WELL THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE THE MOTION.
AND THE SECOND.
UM, I'LL BE BRIEF.
I AM HERE TO PRESENT AB 3264,
WHICH IS A CODE CLEANUP BILL.
IN 1996, THE LEGISLATURE PROMPTED THE CREATION
OF THE CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE.
HOWEVER, THE POWER EXCHANGE WAS CLOSED IN 2001.
CAISO HAS UNDERTAKEN THE MANAGEMENT
OF THE DAY AHEAD MARKET AND OTHER
RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY
TASKED TO THE POWER EXCHANGE.
UH.
THE BILL SIMPLY ALIGNS STATUTE WITH
CURRENT PRACTICE BY ELIMINATING,
UH, THE MENTION OF THE NOW DEFUNCT POWER EXCHANGE.
THAT'S IT.
UH, DO YOU HAVE WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
I DO NOT.
HUH?
OKAY.
UH, ANY PRIMARY OPPOSITION?
SEEING NONE.
AND PUBLIC COMMENTS.
ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION.
SECOND, LET'S CALL THE ROLL.
OH!
MEMBERS.
YEAH.
KIND OF CLOSE.
YEAH, I.
GUESS I CAN'T RESIST JUST NOTING I WAS ACTUALLY
A STATE PROSECUTOR BACK IN THE ENERGY
CRISIS DAYS WHERE THE THE POWER EXCHANGE
EXISTED THEN THANKFULLY DIDN'T.
SO GOOD JOB.
YOU'RE DATING YOURSELF.
THESE MANY YEARS LATER.
YEAH.
SO RIP TO THE POWER EXCHANGE.
THANK YOU.
YES.
AND JUST ALSO YES TO TO CLARIFY,
SINCE THE POWER EXCHANGE IS NOW DEFUNCT,
THE BILL WILL HAVE ZERO IMPACT OR EFFECT ON PRESENT
DAY ELECTRICITY MARKETS AND OPERATIONS.
TO ASSUAGE ANY LINGERING CONCERNS,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR PHONE.
CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
ITEM NUMBER 12 AB 3264.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO THE FLOOR.
PETRIE-NORRIS I PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON.
JIM PATTERSON I BAUER-KAHAN
CALDERON I CALDERON I CHEN.
CHEN I CONNELLY.
CONNELLY I FRIEDMAN I FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN.
I JO.
PATTERSON.
JO.
PATTERSON I REYES.
REYES.
I SANTIAGO.
SANTIAGO.
I SHIAVO SHIAVO I TING TING I WALLACE.
WALLACE I WOULD, I WOULD I ZIPPER, ZIPPER I.
THANK YOU.
MEMBERS.
15.
WE'LL KEEP THE ROLL.
15.
ZERO.
WE'LL KEEP THE ROLL OPEN.
THAT'S OUT.
15.
ZERO.
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE ROLL OPEN.
OKAY.
UH, THAT CONCLUDES OUR OUR BILL LIST.
I'M GOING TO GO BACK AND WE'RE GOING TO NOW
GO BACK AND ALLOW MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
SO.
OKAY.
THIS IS THE CONSENT FILE.
JIM PATTERSON.
JIM.
PATTERSON I.
CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY, I.
SANTIAGO.
SANTIAGO, I.
SHIVA.
SHIVA, I.
TING.
TING I.
THAT'S 16 ZERO.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
16 ZERO.
THE CONSENT FILE IS OUT.
UH, MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, AB 2847.
ITEM NUMBER THREE AB 2847 JIM PATTERSON.
NO.
JIM PATTERSON.
NO.
SANTIAGO, I.
SHIAVO I.
TING TING I.
13.
THAT'S 13.
TWO.
13 TWO.
THAT BILL IS OUT.
UH, ITEM NUMBER FIVE,
AB 3238 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER GARCIA.
TING TING I.
THAT IS 13 ONE THAT BILLS OUT.
13 ONE.
THAT BILL IS OUT.
UH, MOVING TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AB 2054
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN.
JIM PATTERSON.
NOT VOTING.
JIM PATTERSON NOT VOTING.
CALDERON I CALDERON I.
SANTIAGO.
I.
SCHIAVO.
SCHIAVO I.
WALLACE.
NO.
WALLACE.
NO.
I HAVE 12, 212 TWO.
THAT BILL IS OUT.
AND 22.
ITEM NUMBER 11 AB 2292.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO
APPROPRIATIONS BAUER-KAHAN.
OKAY, THAT'S 14 ZERO.
OKAY.
14 ZERO.
THANK YOU.
THAT BILL IS OUT.
AND THEN MOVING TO ITEM NUMBER
12 AB 3264 BAUER-KAHAN.
ALL RIGHT 15 ZERO.
THAT BILL IS OUT.
THAT'S IT.
OKAY.
THAT CONCLUDES THE BUSINESS OF OUR HEARING TODAY.
WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
I WAS GOING TO TAKE THAT HOME.
JUST.
IT'S OKAY.
BYE.
THIS IS YOURS.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK WITH MARATHON.
I READ THAT THAT WAS.
YEAH, THIS WAS A.