FOR FOLKS WATCHING AT HOME OR IN
THE ROOM. WE ARE JUST AWAITING
THE ARRIVAL OF ONE OF OUR
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES. SO WE MAY
PROCEED. IF OUR SERGEANTS COULD
PLEASE CALL OUR REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES OFFICE AND LET THEM
KNOW THAT WE NEED ONE OF THEM
HERE TO GET STARTED.
YES. YEP GOOD AFTERNOON AND
WELCOME. I'D LIKE TO CONVENE
TODAY'S UTILITIES AND ENERGY
HEARING SERGEANTS. IF YOU CAN,
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS
BEFORE WE MOVE INTO OUR AGENDA.
I'LL JUST DISPENSE WITH A FEW
HOUSEKEEPING ANNOUNCEMENTS, AS
IS CUSTOMARY, I WILL MAINTAIN
DECORUM DURING THE HEARING IN
ORDER TO HEAR AS MUCH FROM THE
PUBLIC. WITHIN THE LIMITS OF OUR
TIME, WE WILL NOT PERMIT CONDUCT
THAT DISRUPTS OR OTHERWISE
IMPEDES THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF
LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS. ANY
INDIVIDUAL WHO IS DISRUPTIVE MAY
BE REMOVED FROM THE ROOM. WE DO
HAVE OTHER COMMITTEE MEETINGS
HAPPENING CONCURRENTLY, AND
MEMBERS MAY BE STEPPING AWAY TO
PRESENT THEIR BILLS. WE WILL
WORK TO KEEP THE HEARING MOVING
AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE FOR
TESTIMONY. WE WILL ALLOW FOR
FOUR MINUTES OF SUPPORT,
TESTIMONY AND FOUR MINUTES OF
OPPOSITION TESTIMONY FOR ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. ON A
MEASURE, PLEASE ONLY STATE YOUR
NAME, POSITION AND AFFILIATION,
IF ANY, PLEASE NOTE THAT ITEM
NUMBER 11 AB2256 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FRIEDMAN AND ITEM NUMBER
13 A B 2619 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CONNOLLY HAVE BEEN PULLED AT THE
REQUEST OF THE AUTHORS AND WILL
NOT BE HEARD TODAY, TODAY WE
HAVE 13 MEASURES ON THE AGENDA.
THREE OF THOSE ARE ON CONSENT,
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUST
MOVE TO AUTHOR. PRESENT ALL
RIGHT. SO YES, WE DO NOT HAVE A
QUORUM. SO WE WILL JUST BEGIN AS
A SUBCOMMITTEE AND WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND BEGIN ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CARILLO, WHENEVER YOU ARE READY,
YOU'VE GOT TWO MEASURES BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE TODAY
.
WE'RE SITTING AT 21 TONIGHT.
FIRST NUMBER 21 OH 2109 001
SECOND, ONE. WE DON'T MIND.
YES, SIR. YOU GOT SOME? ALL
RIGHT, ASSEMBLY MEMBER, AS
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I'LL
START BY SAYING THAT I'LL BE
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS OFFERED
BY THE COMMITTEE. AND I'M HAPPY
TO PRESENT A B 2109, A MEASURE
THAT SEEKS TO TREAT INDUSTRIAL
PROCESS HEAT RECOVERY AS AN
ENERGY EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY AND
WOULD THEREFORE REMOVE THE
PUNITIVE DEPARTING LAW CHARGE
THE CALIFORNIA CEMENT INDUSTRY
MUST BE CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2045,
AND ONE LEVER THAT CAN BE
UTILIZED RIGHT NOW TO ACHIEVE
THAT GOAL IS INDUSTRIAL PROCESS
HEAT RECOVERY. HOWEVER, THE
DEPARTMENT LOAD CHARGE IS THE
BIGGEST BARRIER AS TO WHY THE
INDUSTRY IS NOT ALREADY
UTILIZING THIS TECHNOLOGY UNDER
THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS,
CEMENT AND STEEL MANUFACTURERS
PRODUCE EXCESS HEAT THAT IS
CURRENTLY NOT BEING CAPTURED.
THIS MEASURE WILL ALLOW THESE
INDUSTRIES TO CAPTURE THIS HEAT
AND CREATE CARBON FREE
ELECTRICITY WITHOUT BEING
PENALIZED. MY BILL SPECIFICALLY
STATES THAT THIS ELECTRICITY CAN
ONLY BE CONSUMED ON SITE AND
CANNOT EXCEED 25% OF THE
INSTALLING CUSTOMER'S PEAK
ELECTRICAL LOAD. THIS MEANS THAT
NONE OF THE ELECTRICITY
GENERATED WILL GO BACK TO THE
GRID TODAY, THERE ARE ONLY SEVEN
CEMENT KILNS AND ONE STEEL
MANUFACTURER LEFT IN CALIFORNIA.
THIS BILL SEEKS TO HELP ENSURE
THESE INDUSTRIES AND THE JOBS
THEY PRODUCE FOR SO MANY, SO
THEY CAN STAY IN THE GOLDEN
STATE. AS WE HAVE SEEN FOR
CEMENT AND FOR STEEL FACILITIES
CLOSED SINCE 2006. ADDITIONALLY
AND JUST AS IMPORTANT, LOAD WILL
BE EASED OFF TODAY. ELECTRICAL
GRID THAT HAD EXPERIENCED ISSUES
IN RECENT YEARS IN 2020 AND
2022, CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCED
SOME OF THE TOUGHEST TIMES FOR
OUR ELECTRICAL GRID. IT HAS BEEN
ESTIMATED, WHICH MY SPONSORS CAN
ELABORATE FURTHER ON, THAT THIS
MEASURE WILL ALLOW A TOTAL OF
45MW TO BE GENERATED THROUGH
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES. RECOVERY
IN ALL CEMENT PLANTS IN
CALIFORNIA, THIS IS 45MW OF
ELECTRICITY THAT OUR GRID IS
BEING RELIEVED OF AND CAN NOW BE
UTILIZED FOR OTHER CONSUMERS, AS
WE WITNESSED IN 2020 AND 2022,
THE DEMAND IS THERE. WITH ME
HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY IS AUDRA
HARTMAN, REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA LARGE ENERGY
CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION. PLEASE
THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME. GOOD
AFTERNOON, AUDRA HARTMAN WITH
CALIFORNIA LARGE ENERGY
CONSUMERS, ALSO KNOWN AS CLIQUA.
SO WANTED TO THANK YOU ALL FOR
GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK AND THANK THE CHAIR AND
HER STAFF FOR ALL OF THE WORK
YOU DID ON THIS, AND ALSO THE
AUTHOR AND HIS STAFF FOR ALL THE
WORK AS WELL. THERE WAS A LOT
THAT WENT INTO THIS BILL. AND SO
EXCUSE ME, I THINK MOST OF WHAT
I WAS PLANNING TO SAY WAS
ALREADY MENTIONED. SO I'LL BE
VERY BRIEF, AB 2109 IS EXCUSE ME
, AB 2109 IS INTENDED TO
FACILITATE DECARBONIZATION
EFFORTS IN SOME OF THE HARDEST
TO DECARBONIZE SECTORS OF
INDUSTRY. AND SO THAT'S WHY
WE'RE SPONSORING THE BILL, SOME
OF THESE SECTORS, LIKE CEMENT,
HAVE COMMITTED TO BE CARBON
NEUTRAL IN CALIFORNIA BY 2045,
BY THE PREVIOUS BILL. THIS BILL
WILL ASSIST THESE COMPANIES THAT
WOULD LIKE TO INSTALL INDUSTRIAL
PROCESS HEAT RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY
. AND YOU'VE HEARD A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT WHAT IT DOES AND HOW THE
BILL IS LIMITED TO CERTAIN
SECTORS, THIS IS THE CAPTURE OF
PROCESS HEAT. AND THERE'S NO
ADDITIONAL FUEL USED IN THE
PROCESS FOR ELECTRICITY. AND IT
WILL BE ZERO CARBON ELECTRICITY
THAT COMES OUT OF IT AND WILL
NOT GO TO THE GRID. SO,
BASICALLY IT'S CONSUMED ON SITE
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SUPPORTING
THE BILL, IT ENABLES INDUSTRY TO
MAKE INCREMENTAL CHANGES TO
THEIR FACILITIES THAT WILL
RESULT IN REDUCED EMISSIONS. AND
IT'S A SMALL STEP FORWARD IN THE
STATE'S EFFORTS TO REDUCE GHG
EMISSIONS IN THE MANUFACTURING
SECTOR. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE
SUPPORTING THE BILL AND ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT AS WELL. THANK YOU,
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP
FOR, TESTIMONY IN THE ROOM OF
SUPPORT. IF ANYONE WANTS TO COME
AND SPEAK IN SUPPORT, YOU CAN
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. OKAY
YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON. MEMBERS
SPIEGEL CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS
AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. DYLAN FINLEY, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA NEVADA CEMENT
ASSOCIATION, CO-SPONSORS OF THE
BILL. ALSO IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, DARRYL LETO WITH NRDC
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE,
ANY PRIMARY WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION. OAN SEEING NONE. GO
AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR ANY
STATEMENTS IN THE ROOM IN
OPPOSITION. ANYONE WISHING TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2109,
ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
NÓ. ALL RIGHT. WE DO NOT
CURRENTLY HAVE A QUORUM, BUT
WHEN WE DO, YES, HE DID. WE DID
ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS. ALL
RIGHT. BUT SORRY. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THANK YOU. AGAIN THAT TO THAT
END, I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON
SB 596 OF 2021, WHICH REQUIRES
THE CEMENT INDUSTRY TO BE CARBON
NEUTRAL BY 2045. AS MENTIONED
EARLIER, THIS MEASURE WAS PASSED
WITH INDUSTRY SUPPORT, INCLUDING
THE CALIFORNIA NEVADA CEMENT
ASSOCIATION, ONE OF THE SPONSORS
OF THIS BILL. AS MENTIONED. AND
HOWEVER, THAT SUPPORT WAS BASED
ON AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
STATE WOULD WORK WITH THE
INDUSTRY TO REMOVE HURDLES TO
REACHING CARBON NEUTRALITY. THIS
BILL IS THE FIRST STEP IN BEING
A PARTNER WITH THE INDUSTRY, SO
WE CAN ACHIEVE THOSE AMBITIOUS
GOALS, AND AT THAT TIME, I'LL
RESPECT ANY VOTE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU MAY GO AHEAD AND
CONTINUE WITH YOUR NEXT MEASURE.
IT'S YOUR TURN. I'M JUST GOING.
TO.
THANK YOU AGAIN, MADAM CHAIR,
FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT
ASSEMBLY BILL 2221. I WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO BEGIN BY STATING THAT I
WILL BE ACCEPTING ALL OF THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS, AND
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR
HEART, THE COMMITMENT FOR THEIR
HARD WORK, MADAM CHAIR, I KNOW
WE'VE MET MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE
PAST, SEVERAL WEEKS, AND I JUST
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
AND DEDICATION, TO THIS
IMPORTANT ISSUE. I LOOK FORWARD
TO CONTINUING THE WORK WITH YOU
AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF. SHOULD
THIS BILL PASS TODAY, MY STAFF
AND I HAVE SPENT SEVERAL MONTHS
MEETING WITH STAKEHOLDERS ALL
OVER THE STATE WITH THE INTENT
TO FIND A BALANCE THAT WILL
PROTECT WORKERS. THE LENGTHY SET
OF AMENDMENTS ADDRESS MANY OF
THE CONCERNS THAT OPPOSITION HAS
RAISED IN MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS
IN REGARD TO HEALTH AND SAFETY.
I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER AS
A LOCAL CITY PLANNER WITH 20
PLUS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WHERE I
HAVE CONDUCTED AND APPROVED
THESE KIND OF PERMITS, I HAVE
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE APPROVED
ANYTHING THAT WOULD JEOPARDIZE
THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR
COMMUNITIES AND SISTERS AND
BROTHERS, THE SAFETY OF OUR
WORKING MEN AND WOMEN OF OUR
COMMUNITY REMAINS MY TOP
PRIORITY. AND IT IS THE COURSE
OF THE WORK THAT I PLAN TO DO
WITH THIS BILL. AND THROUGHOUT
THE PROCESS. MEMBERS, I KNOW WE
ALL SHARE THE COMMON GOAL OF
CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE. WE
ALL WANT TO CONNECT UNDERSERVED
AND UNSERVED COMMUNITIES ACROSS
OUR STATE. THIS BILL ENSURES
THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS WILL HAVE
ACCESS TO BROADBAND PROJECTS IN
MOST, INSTEAD OF IN MONTHS
INSTEAD OF YEARS. BY REQUIRING
BROADBAND PROVIDERS AND
UTILITIES TO WORK TOGETHER AND
UTILIZE THE BEST PRACTICES TO
REDUCE DELAYS, WE NEED TO DO ALL
WE CAN TO STREAMLINE THE
DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND. SINCE
STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
CALIFORNIA'S BROADBAND FOR ALL
PROJECTS NEEDS TO BE ALLOCATED
BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, AND
PROJECTS NEEDS TO BE BUILT BY
THE END OF 2026. IF WE DON'T
ACCOMPLISH THIS, MONEY WILL HAVE
TO BE SENT BACK TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. THANK YOU FOR
SUPPORTING MY BILL LAST YEAR,
WHICH WAS SIGNED BY THE
GOVERNOR, REQUIRING CITIES AND
COUNTIES TO UTILIZE BEST
PRACTICES AND STREAMLINE THEIR
PROCESS FOR BROADBAND PERMITS,
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MUST ALREADY
COMPLY WITH SHOT CLOCKS AND
STREAMLINING WHEN DEALING WITH
BROADBAND PERMITS, BUT UTILITIES
CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE SET
TIMELINES OR ANY REQUIREMENTS.
SOME UTILITIES IN CALIFORNIA ARE
DOING A GOOD JOB OF HANDLING
BROADBAND APPLICATIONS,
APPROVING PROJECTS, AND
CONNECTING POWER IN A REASONABLE
AMOUNT OF TIME. UNFORTUNATELY,
MANY ARE NOT, AND BROADBAND
PROJECTS ARE TYPICALLY DELAYED
BY MONTHS OR YEARS DUE TO
UTILITY DELAYS. AB 2221 USES
BEST PRACTICES CURRENTLY IN
PLACE WITH GOOD ACTORS AROUND
THE STATE, AND REQUIRES A
UTILITY, AND BROADBAND PROVIDERS
WORK TOGETHER TO REDUCE DELAYS
IN THE PROCESSING OF
APPLICATIONS. HERE'S HOW THE
PROCESS CURRENTLY WORKS IN
CALIFORNIA. FIRST, A BROADBAND
PROVIDER SUBMITS A POWER DESIGN
APPLICATION TO A UTILITY. THE
UTILITY CAN TAKE AS LONG AS THEY
WANT TO APPROVE OR DENY THE
APPLICATION. SECOND, IF A
UTILITY APPROVES THE APPLICATION
, THE BROADBAND PROVIDER BUILDS
THE PROJECT. THIRD, AFTER THE
PROJECT IS BUILT AND THE UTILITY
PERFORMS ALL THEIR SAFETY
INSPECTIONS, THEN THE UTILITY
CONNECTS ELECTRICITY TO THE
POWER, WHICH MAKES THE CELL
TOWER GO LIVE. THESE BROADBAND
PROJECTS TYPICALLY REQUIRE A
SMALL AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY AND
ARE OFTEN DUPLICATED IN
SIMPLISTIC THINK OF LITTLE
ANTENNAS BEING PLACED ON TOP OF
EXISTING STREETLIGHTS, OR FIBER
BEING PLACED ON EXISTING UTILITY
LINES, OR EVEN ADDITIONAL
ANTENNAS BEING PLACED ON CELL
TOWERS. AB 2221 STILL KEEPS ALL
THE DECISION MAKING, WITH THE
UTILITY. THEY CAN APPROVE OR
DENY THE APPLICATION. IT JUST
REQUIRES THAT THEY MAKE A
DECISION IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT
OF TIME, CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL
SHOT CLOCKS AND EXISTING LAW FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AB 2221 STILL
KEEPS ALL OF THE SAFETY
REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE. IT GIVES
THE UTILITY AS LONG AS IT WANTS
TO PERFORM INSPECTIONS, TO MAKE
SURE THE PROJECT MEETS ALL THEIR
SAFETY STANDARDS BEFORE
ELECTRICITY IS CONNECTED, AND
ONCE ALL THE SAFETY INSPECTIONS
ARE PERFORMED, THE UTILITY
APPROVES THE PROJECT. IT
REQUIRES UTILITY TO CONNECT
POWER TO THE PROJECT MEMBERS.
THIS BILL STRIKES THE RIGHT
BALANCE. IT CONTINUES TO GIVE
ALL THE DECISION MAKING TO THE
UTILITIES AND ENSURES THEY STILL
PERFORM ALL THEIR SAFETY CHECKS.
WE MEET TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS
AMANDA VALDERRAMA WITH CAL
BROADBAND AND YOLANDA BENSON
WITH US TELECOM. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING MEMBERS. YOLANDA BENSON
REPRESENTING US TELECOM, THE
BROADBAND ASSOCIATION. WE WANT
TO THANK THE CHAIR. WE WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF. THEY
WORKED TIRELESSLY TO COME UP
WITH AMENDMENTS THAT, AS YOU
HEARD, THE AUTHOR IS ACCEPTING
TODAY. SO WE APPRECIATE ALL THE
HARD WORK OF THE COMMITTEE AND
THE STAFF AND CERTAINLY OF THE
AUTHOR, US TELECOM IS CERTAINLY
IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT WITH THE
NEWEST MONEY THAT HAS COME FROM
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WE CALL
IT THE FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNT.
THERE WERE OVER 400 APPLICATIONS
TO BUILD PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA.
SO WE ARE STEPPING UP TO THE
PLATE. WE WANT TO SERVE. WE WANT
TO SERVE THOSE MOST REMOTE AREAS
THAT WE HAVE YET TO REACH
BECAUSE THEY'RE SO HARD TO REACH
. SO THIS IS TRULY A PUBLIC
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP. I WANT TO
REITERATE KIND OF WHAT THE
AUTHOR HAS MENTIONED, THAT THE
BILL DOES NOT PUT BROADBAND AT
THE FRONT OF THE LINE. IT DOES
NOT CIRCUMVENT SAFETY
INSPECTIONS BY THE UTILITY, NOR
DOES IT TIE THE HANDS OF THE
UTILITY WITH THE TIMELINES. THE
TIMELINES ARE THERE SO THAT
THERE WOULD BE BETTER
COMMUNICATION AND MORE AND
BETTER COLLABORATION TO ENSURE
CERTAINTY WHEN WORKING ON
BROADBAND PROJECTS, WHAT THE
BILL WILL DO IS ESTABLISH THE
GUIDELINES FOR THAT BETTER
COLLABORATION, AND OBVIOUSLY
BUILDS ON THE CURRENT PRACTICES
OF SOME OF THE IOUS AND PPAS.
THEY STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO
APPROVE OR DENY THE PROJECT
DESIGN WITHIN 60 TO 90 DAYS.
THAT'S IT. THAT IS THE TIMELINE.
BUT THEY CAN STILL CHANGE THAT.
BUT WE ARE WE FEEL LIKE THAT AT
LEAST THAT COMMUNICATION HELPS
TO GIVE MORE CERTAINTY. THE
SAFETY INSPECTIONS CONTINUE TO
BE IN THE HANDS OF THE UTILITIES
AS TO WHEN TO ELECTRIFY THE
FINAL BROADBAND PROJECT. AND AS
MENTIONED, THIS IS TOO
IMPORTANT. WE HAVE NEVER SEEN
UNPRECEDENTED FUNDING LIKE THIS
FOR BROADBAND TO REACH THOSE
LAST UNSERVED AREAS OF
CALIFORNIA. IF WE MISS THESE
DEADLINES, AS WAS MENTIONED, BY
THE END OF 2026, HAVING TO HAVE
PROJECTS BUILT, WE LOSE THE
ABILITY TO REACH THOSE LAST
UNSERVED HOUSEHOLDS. SO WE ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS AMANDA
GUADERRAMA. WITH CAL BROADBAND.
WE REPRESENT THE CABLE BROADBAND
PROVIDERS IN CALIFORNIA. I WANT
TO START AGAIN THANKING THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FOR HIS
COMMITMENT TO CLOSING THE
DIGITAL DIVIDE, AND ALSO THANK
THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK ON
THIS BILL. ALL STAKEHOLDERS HERE
CARE ABOUT CLOSING THE DIGITAL
DIVIDE AND DEPLOYING BROADBAND
IN CALIFORNIA, AND IT'S GOING TO
TAKE ALL OF US BROADBAND
PROVIDERS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
UTILITIES AND THE LEGISLATURE TO
STREAMLINE THESE PROCESSES SO WE
CAN BUILD BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
WORTH OF BROADBAND WITHIN THE
STATE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND
PRIVATE FUNDING. THIS IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE OUR
MEMBERS ARE SEEING UTILITY
DELAYS OF 18 MONTHS OR MORE.
CURRENTLY, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE
REQUIRED TO PROCESS BROADBAND
PERMITS IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT
OF TIME, BUT UTILITIES DO NOT.
THIS BILL, AS IT'S PROPOSED TO
BE AMENDED, ADDRESSES NEARLY ALL
OF THE OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS AND
SIMPLY REQUIRES UTILITIES TO
WORK WITH BROADBAND PROVIDERS IN
A MORE COLLABORATE WAY. TO AVOID
THESE DELAYS, THE BILL STRIKES
THE RIGHT BALANCE BY CONTINUING
TO GIVE UTILITIES FULL CONTROL
TO APPROVE OR DENY APPLICATIONS
AND SPECIFIES THAT THE UTILITY
PERFORM ALL OF ITS SAFETY
INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO THE PROJECT
BEING ENERGIZED. ONLY THE
UTILITY CAN CONNECT ELECTRICITY
TO THE PROJECT. THE UTILITY
REMAINS IN FULL CONTROL WITH
REGARDS TO SAFETY. THIS BILL
SIMPLY REQUIRES THE UTILITY TO
LET THE BROADBAND PROVIDER KNOW
IF THEY'RE GOING TO APPROVE OR
DENY THE PROJECT DESIGN IN A
REASONABLE TIME. THE AMENDMENTS
THE AUTHOR HAS ACCEPTED ARE
REASONABLE AND STRIKE THIS RIGHT
BALANCE. WITHOUT THIS BILL,
APPLICATIONS WILL CONTINUE TO
GET DELAYED FOR YEARS, AND WE
COULD SEE DEPLOYMENT ASSOCIATED
WITH THE FEDERAL GRANT MONEY AS
AS STATED, TAKE TOO LONG TO MEET
THE FEDERAL DEADLINES. WE ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT TESTIMONY IN
THE ROOM, IF ANY. ANYONE WISHING
TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF
SUPPORT, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. SOMEONE TALL WAS
HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON. ROXANNE
GOULD, REPRESENTING THE WIRELESS
INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION. WE
OWN, OPERATE, BUILD AND DEVELOP
THE NATION'S WIRELESS
INFRASTRUCTURE. WE ADVOCATE ON
BEHALF OF RESPONSIBLE AND
TIMELY, TIMELY DEPLOYMENT AND
BELIEVE THIS BILL GOES A LONG
WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. MADAM
CHAIR, MEMBERS, STEVE CARLSON
FOR CTIA. WE'RE THE TRADE
ASSOCIATION FOR THE WIRELESS
INDUSTRY AND STRONG SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, TRACY RYAN,
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, AUDRA HARTMAN, ON
BEHALF OF QUALCOMM IN SUPPORT.
RYAN, ELAINE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. CHAIR MEMBERS NATE
SOLOVE ON BEHALF OF THE
FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS WHO
COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY THE
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
PASADENA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
SAN FRANCISCO CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, SAN MATEO COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
, AND THE SILICON VALLEY
LEADERSHIP GROUP. THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS ROCHELLE
SWANSON AND IN SUPPORT ON BEHALF
OF CROWN CASTLE AND THE
CALIFORNIA WIRELESS ASSOCIATION.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS,
HUNTER STERN, ON BEHALF OF THE
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY
EMPLOYEES, WE'VE WE'RE
WITHDRAWING OUR OPPOSITION. WE
CAN'T OFFER COMPLETE SUPPORT
YET, BUT WE DO GREATLY
APPRECIATE WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR AND PARTICULARLY THE WORK
OF THE COMMITTEE ON MAKING THIS
A MUCH SAFER AND A MUCH MORE
VIABLE BILL FROM OUR POINT OF
VIEW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, WITH
THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE,
TO OPPOSITION. DO WE HAVE ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
I DON'T BELIEVE SO, WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND THEN MOVE TO THE ROOM,
OR YOU ARE GOING TO BE OUR.
YEAH, I JUST HAVE A BRIEF
COMMENTS, SO. OKAY. YOU CAN COME
HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, DEREK DORFF, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL
UTILITIES ASSOCIATION, ALSO BEEN
ASKED TO, RELAY COMMENTS ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL
DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION. REALLY?
WE JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE CURRENTLY OPPOSED TO THE
BILL THAT'S IN PRINT, BUT WE'D
LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR ALL THE HARD
WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE ON THIS
BILL. WE CERTAINLY THINK THAT
THE AMENDMENTS GO A LONG WAY TO
HELPING ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS. WE
THINK THERE'S STEPS IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. HOWEVER, WE DO NEED
TO REVIEW THEM WHEN THEY'RE IN
PRINT TO ACTUALLY KNOW, YOU
KNOW, THE EXTENT OF THOSE
AMENDMENTS. YOU KNOW, REALLY OUR
MAIN GOAL HERE IS TO ENSURE THAT
THE SAFETY OF OUR UTILITY
WORKERS AND OUR UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE AND WE REALLY DO
HOPE THAT THE AMENDMENTS DO
THAT. SO WITH THAT, WE'RE
LOOKING FORWARD TO REVIEWING
THEM AND HOPE THAT WE CAN HELP,
CRAFT THOSE AMENDMENTS. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. BRANDON
EBCLC, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC.
I WANT TO ECHO A LOT OF THE
COMMENTS FROM OUR PUBLIC
UTILITIES. I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR AND HIS STAFF FOR
REACHING OUT EARLY, WE HAVE
THREE KIND OF PRIMARY CONCERNS
THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH.
ONE, WE DON'T SUPPORT INDUSTRY
SPECIFIC TIMELINES AND STATUTE.
EVERY APPLICATION SHOULD BE
TREATED EQUALLY, FOR THE IOUS,
THE LEADERSHIP OF AB 50 AND SB
410 LAST YEAR HAVE KICKED OFF A
COMPLEX PROCESS OF THE PUC THAT
WILL COME UP WITH TIMELINES FOR
ALL INDUSTRIES. WE WANT TO SEE
THAT PROCESS PLAY OUT. WE KNOW
CROWN CASTLE AND TELECOM ARE
PARTY TO THAT PROCEEDING, AND
ULTIMATELY WE WANT TO HAVE A
MAINTAIN A GOOD BUSINESS TO
BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP. THESE ARE
OUR CUSTOMERS ULTIMATELY, WHEN
WE LOOK AT OUR DATA, BROADBAND
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 60% OF THE
DELAYS IN THE OAN APPLICATIONS.
THERE'S A LOT OF WORK WE CAN DO
ON BOTH SIDES. SO WE THINK
SOMETIMES A BILL CAN GET IN THE
WAY OF THAT REGULAR COOPERATION.
BUT OTHERWISE WE LOOK FORWARD TO
SEEING THE AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU, OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION IN THE ROOM GOT AN
APPROACH TO THE MICROPHONE. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS ANDREW
CÁC WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON REALLY APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR WORKING WITH US ON THIS.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE REMAIN OPPOSED
TO THE BILL. THANK YOU. MADAM
CHAIR, MEMBERS, BRIAN WHITE, ON
BEHALF OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT
OF WATER AND POWER, WE ALSO HAVE
AN APPROVED POSITION FROM THE
CITY COUNCIL. OUR RESPECTFULLY
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS THAT
THE COMMITTEE HAS DONE. WE STILL
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEEMED
APPROVED LANGUAGE. WE THINK THAT
NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED OR TAKEN
OUT OF THE BILL ALTOGETHER, BUT
WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
THE AUTHOR ON THAT AND JUST FOR
CLARIFICATION, A LOT OF THE
COMMENTS ABOUT THE GEO 95 CODE.
WE DON'T WE'VE GOT TO STICK WITH
NAME, POSITION. THANK YOU AND
AFFILIATION. THANKS GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS KIRA
ROSS, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
BURBANK WATER AND POWER, WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR AND THE
AMENDMENTS. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE
A LOOK AT THE AMENDMENTS, BUT
REMAIN OPPOSED AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU. ETHAN NAGLER, ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, OPPOSED TO THE BILL
AND PRINT. BUT LOOK FORWARD TO
REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. ISRAEL SALAS
WITH SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC
ALIGN OUR COMMENTS WITH PG AND
E. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
ANTHONY SAMPSON. ON BEHALF OF
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
POWER AUTHORITY, IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS
AND COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. ALL RIGHT. SEEING MISS.
I JUST WANTED TO, THANK YOU.
THANK THE COMMITTEE, THE CHAIR,
STAFF, FOR THE WORK THAT'S BEEN
DONE ON THE BILL. I, YOU KNOW,
DEFINITELY NONE OF US CAN REALLY
LIVE THESE DAYS WITHOUT
BROADBAND. WE KNOW HOW IMPORTANT
IT IS, AND CERTAINLY DON'T WANT
TO MISS OUT ON THOSE FEDERAL
DOLLARS, SO APPRECIATE YOU
REALLY HIGHLIGHTING THAT AND
BRINGING THAT ISSUE FORWARD AND
MAKING SURE WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT, AND ALSO,
YOU KNOW, AS I EXPRESSED BEFORE
IN CONVERSATIONS, THERE'S A LOT
OF PRIORITIES THAT NEED TO GET
ENERGIZED. RIGHT? AND SO, SO
VERY GRATEFUL THAT THIS IS GOING
TO BE PART OF, YOU KNOW,
CONTINUE TO BE A PART OF THAT
LARGER CONVERSATION HAPPENING IN
THE CPUC. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS, FOR FIRST OF
ALL, I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR
THE AUTHOR. AND I KNOW THAT,
THAT THE AUTHOR DOESN'T BRING
THINGS TO THIS BODY WITHOUT
THERE BEING AN ISSUE THAT IS
REAL AND AUTHENTIC. AND SO I
JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT,
AS I THINK I'VE MENTIONED TO
YOU, I'VE HAD, CONCERNS ABOUT
THE BILL, NOT BECAUSE OF THE
FACT THAT, IT'S, NOT NECESSARILY
NEEDED IN SPECIFICALLY, BUT
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT
JUMPS ONE INDUSTRY AHEAD OF
OTHER AREAS THAT I THINK ARE
PROBABLY EQUALLY IMPORTANT, YOU
KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE
ELECTRIFYING BUILDINGS THAT NEED
TO BE BUILT IN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND, AND ELECTRIC
CHARGING STATIONS AND THAT WHOLE
HOST OF THINGS, AND SO, YOU
KNOW, I, I'M NERVOUS ABOUT, AND
THEN ON TOP OF IT, YOU KNOW, I
APPRECIATE YOUR TAKING THE
AMENDMENTS, BUT THIS IS SORT OF
A COMPLICATED AREA WHERE I THINK
SORT OF GETTING INTO SORT OF
THIS LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY FOR
ONE INDUSTRY. I'M WORRIED ABOUT
THE RESOURCES THAT'S GOING TO
TAKE AWAY FROM OTHER THINGS THAT
ARE SORT OF GOING TO BE EQUALLY
IMPORTANT. AND I DO THINK THAT,
YOU KNOW, SB 410 AND AB 50 DID
IS REQUIRING THE PUC TO LOOK AT
HOW WE EXPEDITE EVERYTHING IN A
FASTER WAY. SO WITH THAT, I'VE
GOT CONCERNS. I'VE GOT CONCERNS
ABOUT THE BILL, AND I, BUT I
WANT TO JUST THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING IT TODAY. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES. THANK YOU
. I THINK ONE OF THE PRIMARY
CONCERNS NOW IS TO MAKE SURE WE
DON'T HAVE TO GIVE BACK THIS
MONEY THAT WE ACTUALLY USE IT,
AND THAT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
BUT MY COLLEAGUE IS ABSOLUTELY
CORRECT. THIS IS VERY
COMPLICATED. I'M GLAD TO HEAR
THAT YOU'VE ACCEPTED THE
AMENDMENTS. SO WE DEAL WITH
PRIORITY SELECTION, SAFETY
VIOLATIONS, TIMELINES, IT STILL
IS COMPLICATED. AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S. THE
CONSULTANTS WORK ON THIS WITH
YOUR OFFICE AND YOUR WORK ON
THIS ISSUE, I ALSO WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ONE OF MY
CITIES, THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, HAS BEEN OPPOSED. AND
I REALLY LISTENED TO MY CITY'S.
BUT I KNOW THAT THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH, AND I, I'M SURE
THAT THERE'S THE COMMITMENT TO
WORK SPECIFICALLY WITH MY LITTLE
OLD CITY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THAT
CONVERSATION, AS WE MOVE FORWARD
WITH THIS. SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. DID YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT?
YES THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. WE'LL GO AHEAD
AND PAUSE SO WE CAN ESTABLISH A
QUORUM, MADAM SECRETARY, IF YOU
CAN, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
PETRIE-NORRIS HERE.
PETRIE-NORRIS HERE, JIM
PATTERSON HERE. KHN. BARBARA
KHN HERE. CALDERON GRAVERT
CALDERON HERE. CHEN CONNELLY.
CONNELLY. HERE. FRIEDMAN. HOLDEN
JOE. PATTERSON. REYES. REYES
HERE. SANTIAGO. ZERBO Ó HERE.
SCHIAVO. HERE. I'M HERE. ANDA
TING. WALLACE. WALLACE. HERE.
WOOD WOOD. HERE. ZIPPER. HERE
ZIPPER. HERE ALL RIGHT. WITH
THAT, WE HAVE A QUORUM WHERE WE
ARE IN ACTION. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
I JUST WANT TO START BY SAYING
THAT YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT. I
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON,
IRONING OUT THOSE THOSE
CONTINUED CONCERNS THAT HAVE
BEEN EXPRESSED. AND YES, WITH
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND
ANY OTHER CITY THAT WANTS TO
COME TO THE TABLE SO THAT WE CAN
FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE ON THIS
IMPORTANT MEASURE, I ALSO WANT
TO SAY THAT THIS BILL ALLOWS
UTILITIES TO RETAIN CONTROL.
THEY DECIDE IF THEY APPROVE OR
DENY THE APPLICATION. THEY
DECIDED THE PROJECT MEETS THEIR
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. THIS BILL
IS ABOUT STREAMLINING THE
PROCESS. SO OUR COMMUNITIES CAN
GET CONNECTED TO HIGH SPEED
INTERNET AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
IT'S ABOUT SETTING UP CONSISTENT
PROCESSES STATEWIDE, SO BOTH
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND UTILITIES
ARE PROCESSING BROADBAND
APPLICATIONS AS EFFICIENTLY AS
POSSIBLE. WE DON'T WANT TO SEND
BROADBAND FUNDING BACK MONEY.
THOSE ARE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
THAT WE WOULD BE LOSING. AND THE
ONES THAT ARE GOING TO LOSE MORE
ARE OUR COMMUNITIES THAT DON'T
HAVE ACCESS, TO WHAT IS THE 21ST
CENTURY BASIC NEED? WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
. ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVEYANCE.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ITEM NUMBER THREE, AB 2221.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED TO COMMUNICATIONS AND
CONVEYANCE. PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON.
BARRY KHN. HI BARRY KHN I
CALDERON. NOT VOTING. CALDERON
NOT VOTING. CHEN CONNOLLY I
CONNOLLY I FRIEDMAN. HOLDEN. JOE
PATTERSON REYES I REYES I
SANTIAGO SHIAVO I. SCHIAVO I
TING WALLACE WALLACE I WOOD I
WOULD I ZIPPER I ZIPPER I. ALL
RIGHT. EIGHT ZERO SO THAT BILL
IS ON CALL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. MEMBERS ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ITEM NUMBER ONE, AB 2029. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. ITEM NUMBER 12,
AB 2891. THE MOTION IS Dð. PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. ITEM NUMBER
15, AB 2779. THE MOTION IS Dð.
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
PETRIE-NORRIS I PETRIE-NORRIS I
JIM PATTERSON, BARRY KHN BARRY
KHN I CALDERON I CALDERON I
CHEN. CONNOLLY CONNOLLY I
FRIEDMAN. HOLDEN, JOE.
PATTERSON. REYES REYES I
SANTIAGO. SCHIAVO I SCHIAVO I
TING. WALLACE. WALLACE I WOOD
WOOD I ZIPPER. ZIPPER I OKAY SO
NINE ZERO AND WE WILL LEAVE THE
ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO
ADD ON AB 2109. ALL RIGHT. DO WE
HAVE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT. WE'VE
GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND ON AB
2109. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ITEM NUMBER TWO AB
2109. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
PETRIE-NORRIS I PETRIE-NORRIS I
JIM PATTERSON, BARRY KHN BARRY
KHN I CALDERON. CALDERON I CHEN
. CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY, I
FRIEDMAN. HOLDEN JO. PATTERSON.
REYES. REYES I SANTIAGO. SHIAVO
CHAU. VÚI. TING. WALLACE.
WALLACE I. WOOD, WOOD I ZIPPER.
ZIPPER I. ALL RIGHT, NEXT UP ON
OUR AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE,
AB 2487. ASSEMBLY MEMBER FONG
.
SECOND, THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY BILL 2487
REQUIRES THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
CLIMATE TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN A
CALIFORNIA GREEN JOBS WEBSITE.
THIS WEBSITE CREATES A
CENTRALIZED HUB FOR CALIFORNIANS
TO ACCESS INFORMATION ABOUT
GREEN JOBS AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL
JOB TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES. THE
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF CLIMATE WAS
ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE LABOR AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
AND HAS ALREADY CHARGED WITH
IDENTIFYING WORKFORCE TRANSITION
NEEDS, RECOMMENDING STRATEGIES
FOR TRAINING AND EDUCATION, AND
TRACKING CLEAN ENERGY JOBS BY
ALLOWING DIRECT ACCESS TO THIS
INFORMATION. THIS WEBSITE
ADDRESSES A KEY PART OF THE
TRANSITION TO A CARBON NEUTRAL
CALIFORNIA AND TRAINING WORKERS
AND FILLING POSITIONS. BUT THIS
IS NOT JUST AN ENERGY TRANSITION
, IT'S ALSO AN ECONOMIC ONE. IT
MUST BE A JUST TRANSITION WHERE
WORKERS IN DECLINING INDUSTRIES
ARE NOT LEFT BEHIND, WHERE
COMMUNITIES ARE NOT LEFT BEHIND,
AND WHERE JOBS ARE AVAILABLE TO
EVERYONE. REDUCING SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC INEQUALITY. ASSEMBLY
BILL 2487 REQUIRES THAT OUR
DEPUTY SECRETARY CLIMATE
PROVIDES CALIFORNIANS THE GREEN
JOBS WEBSITE AND ENSURES THAT
ALL CALIFORNIANS CAN CONNECT TO
A GOOD GREEN JOBS. HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS FATIMA
IQBAL ZUBAYR WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS. HI
EVERYONE, I'M FATIMA WITH
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS,
HELLO CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. AB 2487 REPRESENTS A
SIGNIFICANT STEP TO FORWARD IN
CALIFORNIA'S COMMITMENT TO A
GREENER ECONOMY BY MANDATING THE
CREATION OF A CALIFORNIA GREEN
JOBS WEBSITE. THE STATE IS NOT
JUST FOCUSING ON ENVIRONMENTAL
GOALS, BUT ALSO ON DEMOCRATIC
PRINCIPLES. SORRY, I'M A LITTLE
OUT OF BREATH BECAUSE I WAS
RUNNING AROUND TODAY. SORRY AND
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EQUITY BY
MAKING INFORMATION EASILY
ACCESSIBLE. CALIFORNIA'S
TRANSITION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY
SOURCES AND ZERO CARBON
RESOURCES BY 2045 IS NOT JUST
ABOUT REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS,
BUT ALSO ABOUT CREATING NEW
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CALIFORNIANS,
ESPECIALLY IN THIS UNIQUE
OPPORTUNITY AS BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN FEDERAL FUNDING IS
COMING DOWN FROM THE GOVERNMENT
TO CREATE GOOD CLIMATE JOBS,
REQUIRING THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
OF CLIMATE TO MAINTAIN A WEBSITE
SO THAT AVAILABLE GREEN JOBS ARE
EASILY ACCESSIBLE WILL BE A GAME
CHANGER FOR REGULAR WORKING
PEOPLE. TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ON
HOW ON THESE NEW JOBS CREATED AS
AB 2487 ALIGNS WITH CALIFORNIA'S
EFFORTS TO PHASE OUT COMBUSTION
TRUCKS AND PROMOTE ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLES, WHICH NOT ONLY WHICH
WILL NOT ONLY REDUCE POLLUTION,
BUT ALSO DRIVE THE CREATION OF A
CLEAN VEHICLE MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRY. THE STATE'S LEADERSHIP
AND CLIMATE TECHNOLOGY, WITH A
SIGNIFICANT PRESENCE OF CLIMATE
TECH COMPANIES, FURTHER
DEMONSTRATES THE POTENTIAL FOR
JOB CREATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
IN THE GREEN SECTOR. THE NEED
FOR THIS BILL STEMS FROM THE
REALIZATION THAT WHILE
CALIFORNIA IS MAKING SIGNIFICANT
STRIDES IN TRANSITIONING ITS
WORKFORCE AND ECONOMY, THERE'S A
LACK OF PUBLICLY SANCTIONED
RESOURCES FOR COMMUNICATION,
COORDINATION AND ACCESSIBILITY.
THE CALIFORNIA GREEN JOBS
WEBSITE WILL BRIDGE THIS GAP BY
PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT
GREEN JOB OPPORTUNITIES,
TRAINING PROGRAMS, AND SKILL
REQUIREMENTS. THIS ENSURES THAT
ALL CALIFORNIANS, ESPECIALLY
THOSE IN DECLINING INDUSTRIES,
HAVE THE CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE
IN AND BENEFIT FROM THE STATE'S
GREEN ECONOMY, SO IN ESSENCE, AB
2487 IS NOT JUST ABOUT
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES. IT'S
ABOUT EMPOWERING WORKERS,
PROMOTING ECONOMIC EQUITY, AND
FOSTERING A MORE INCLUSIVE
FUTURE FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR
STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT IN THE
ROOM. ANYONE WISHING TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT OF AB 2487, YOU CAN
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. ALL
RIGHT. SEEING NONE. ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? SEEING
NONE. WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. ASSEMBLY MEMBERS ARE
I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU. I
THINK THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT
BILL, AND I JUST WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD. AND
I WANT TO THANK CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS FOR BEING A
PART OF IT, SO I WILL BE
OBVIOUSLY STRONGLY SUPPORTING
THE BILL. THANK YOU. AND YES, I
WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AS WELL.
AS YOU SAID, WE'RE NOT JUST IN
THE MIDST OF A CLIMATE
TRANSITION. WE'RE IN THE MIDST
OF AN ECONOMIC TRANSITION. AND
I'M PERSONALLY JUST VERY EXCITED
ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE
GREAT GREEN JOBS FOR
CALIFORNIANS. AND I THINK THAT
THIS IS GOING TO BE A REALLY
IMPORTANT STEP AS PART OF MAKING
THAT VISION A REALITY. SO WITH
THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
THINK THAT'S A CLOSING
STATEMENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
MADAM CHAIR. AND RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ITEM NUMBER FIVE, AB 2487. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON.
BARRY KHN BARRY KHN I CALDERON
I CALDERON I CHEN. CONNOLLY I
CONNOLLY I FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I
HOLDEN. JO. PATTERSON REYES I
REYES I SANTIAGO SHIAVO. SCHIAVO
I TING WALLACE WALLACE I WOOD
WOOD I ZIPPER I ZIPPER I. OKAY.
TEN ZERO THAT BILL IS OUT AND
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON. THANK
YOU, ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO
MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, AB
2329. ASSEMBLY MEMBER MURATSUCHI
.
HOW ARE YOU? ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I AM
HERE TO PRESENT AB 2329, WHICH
WOULD CREATE THE CALIFORNIA
AFFORDABLE DECARBONIZATION
AUTHORITY, A NONPROFIT THAT WILL
ADMINISTER THE CLIMATE EQUITY
TRUST FUND TO PROMOTE
ELECTRICITY AFFORDABILITY AND
INCENTIVIZE ELECTRIFICATION. WE
ALL KNOW THAT IN ORDER TO MEET
OUR AMBITIOUS CLIMATE GOALS,
THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE KEEP ELECTRICITY AFFORDABLE.
THAT IS THE GOAL AND INTENT OF
THIS BILL. AND LET ME TURN IT
OVER TO, SOME, EXPERTS THAT HAVE
BEEN WORKING ON THIS BILL SINCE
LAST FALL. I'D LIKE TO START
WITH MATT FRIEDMAN, THE STAFF
ATTORNEY FROM THE UTILITY REFORM
NETWORK, AND ALSO, VERY HAPPY TO
HAVE SCOTT WELCH HERE
REPRESENTING THE COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES AND
THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS IN SUPPORT
OF THE MEASURE. THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MATT
FRIEDMAN. I'M A STAFF ATTORNEY
WITH THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK,
AND I'M VERY PROUD HERE TO BE
HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT AB 2329,
WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH A CLIMATE
EQUITY TRUST FUND TO ADDRESS
RAPIDLY RISING RETAIL
ELECTRICITY RATES THAT THREATEN
THE AFFORDABILITY OF BASIC
SERVICE. AS WE KNOW FROM
HEARINGS THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS
HELD VERY RECENTLY, RETAIL
ELECTRICITY RATES CHARGED BY THE
THREE MAJOR INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES HAVE RISEN AT A
SHOCKING PACE IN RECENT YEARS.
PG AND E RATES HAVE MORE THAN
DOUBLED SINCE 2019 AND ARE UP
50% SINCE 2022. SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON RATES UP 70%
SINCE 2019, AND SAN DIEGO'S
RATES UP MORE THAN A THIRD SINCE
2019. AND THESE RATES ARE LIKELY
TO INCREASE IN THE COMING YEARS
TO CREATE MASSIVE AFFORDABILITY
CHALLENGES. UNLESS THERE ARE
OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING THAT
CAN BE IDENTIFIED AS ONE OF THE
SOLUTIONS TO HELP PUT DOWNWARD
PRESSURE ON RISING RATES, THE
BILL ESTABLISHES A NEW DURABLE
STRUCTURE FOR CHANNELING SOURCES
OF EXTERNAL FUNDING TO OFFSET A
VARIETY OF COSTS THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE COLLECTED IN RETAIL
RATES, AND THIS APPROACH IS
CONSISTENT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE FOUR
MAJOR AGENCIES THE PUC, ENERGY
COMMISSION, ARB, AND ISO TO THE
LEGISLATURE AND TO THE GOVERNOR
IN A SEPTEMBER 2021 REPORT. IT'S
ALSO SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN
DISCUSSED IN FRONT OF THE PUC,
AND THEY'RE ON BANK PROCEEDINGS
ON AFFORDABILITY. AND THIS TOPIC
HAS COME UP IN FRONT OF THIS
COMMITTEE, REALLY WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF FINDING
NEW APPROACHES TO PAYING FOR AN
ARRAY OF SOCIAL POLICY,
ENVIRONMENTAL ELECTRIFICATION
AND WILDFIRE RELATED COSTS. THE
TRUST ESTABLISHED BY THIS BILL
WOULD BE ADMINISTERED BY THE
CALIFORNIA AFFORDABLE
DECARBONIZATION AUTHORITY, A NEW
NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT
CORPORATION, AND THE
DISBURSEMENTS FROM THE TRUST AND
ALL THE PLANS FOR SPENDING WOULD
BE REGULATED AND APPROVED BY THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.
WITH RESPECT TO MONEY THAT FLOWS
INTO THE IOU SERVICE TERRITORIES
AND BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION FOR DISBURSEMENTS
THAT FLOW TO THE CUSTOMERS OF
PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITIES, THE
MONEY THAT WOULD BE ADMINISTERED
BY THE TRUST COULD BE USED FOR
DIRECT CREDITS ON RATEPAYER
BILLS, SUPPORTING REBATES AND
OFFSETTING COSTS THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE COLLECTED IN RATES.
WE THINK THIS IS AN IDEA THAT'S
TIME HAS COME AND WE ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT TODAY. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS. SCOTT,
WHICH ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF UTILITY
EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, YOU KNOW, THE REALLY
EXHAUSTIVE AND COMPREHENSIVE
AFFORDABILITY HEARING THAT THIS
COMMITTEE HELD, REALLY TEED UP,
I THINK THIS BILL, WE'RE VERY
INTERESTED IN WORKING WITH THIS
COMMITTEE AND WITH THE AUTHOR
AND OTHERS IN EXPLORING, WHERE
APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITIES TO
FUND THINGS LIKE WILDFIRE
PREVENTION, TRANSPORTATION,
ELECTRIFICATION, LOW INCOME,
RATEPAYER ASSISTANCE AND OTHER
EXPENDITURES. THROUGH THIS
MECHANISM, WE THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR INTRODUCING IT. AND WE WOULD
URGE, AND I VOTE, THANK YOU.
OTHERS WISHING TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. KENT COUCH WITH SAN
DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC IN
SUPPORT. MICHELLE KANELLIS,
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
AND SUPPORT. TONY SERNA,
CITIZENS CLIMATE LOBBY,
CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT. PAM
SQUIRES, CITIZENS CLIMATE LOBBY
IN SUPPORT. DARYL LITTLE, NRDC
IN SUPPORT. AND JANET COX FOR
CLIMATE ACTION IN CALIFORNIA.
THE SANTA CRUZ CLIMATE ACTION
NETWORK. ELDERS CLIMATE ACTION
BOTH NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. SACRAMENTO
350 AND THE CLIMATE REALITY
PROJECT, SILICON VALLEY CHAPTER.
THANK YOU. HELLO, DEREK DOLPHIN,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HELLO,
VALERIE CHIRLA. GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY. AND, NOT AN OFFICIAL
SUPPORT, BUT A SUPPORT IN
CONCEPT. AND THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR HIS WORK IN THIS AREA. JOHN
WHITE WITH THE CLEAN POWER
CAMPAIGN IN SUPPORT. HUNTER
STERN, IBEW 1245, AN OFFICIAL
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
FATIMA ZUBIATE WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANY, I DON'T BELIEVE
WE HAVE A PRIMARY WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE, ANYONE
IN THE ROOM WISHING TO TESTIFY
IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2329, SEEING
NONE. WE'LL TURN IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FRIEDMAN, I DO HAVE A
QUESTION. I APPRECIATE WHAT THE
BILL IS TRYING TO DO. SO THIS
THE NONPROFIT THAT IT'S
ESTABLISHING, HOW IS IT FUNDED?
WHERE IS THE FUNDING FOR ANY OF
THIS COMING FROM? IS IT
ANTICIPATING YOU'LL BE TRYING TO
GET FUNDING FROM RATEPAYERS FROM
I MEAN, FROM THE GENERAL FUND,
FROM GRF. WHAT IS THE FUNDING
SOURCE FOR ALL THIS, I BELIEVE
THAT THE IDEA IS THAT THERE'S A
STARTUP FUNDING THAT'S REQUIRED,
BUT AFTER THAT IT WOULD BE ABLE
TO USE A SMALL PORTION OF THE
EXTERNAL FUNDS THAT IT'S
ADMINISTERING TO FUND ITS
OPERATIONS. AND IN FACT, THE
BILL WOULD REQUIRE THAT ITS
OPERATIONAL BUDGETS WOULD BE
APPROVED BY THE PUC AND THE
ENERGY COMMISSION. SO, THERE
WOULD BE OVERSIGHT IN THAT
RESPECT. AND THE INITIAL STARTUP
FUNDS THERE. IS THAT AN
APPROPRIATION FROM THE GENERAL
FUND? IT COULD BE IT'S NOT
INCLUDED IN THE BILL, BUT IT
COULD BE INCLUDED IN A SEPARATE
PIECE OF LEGISLATION AND A
BUDGET VEHICLE. I WOULD ALSO ADD
THAT, I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT
THIS WITH THE CHAIR, YOU KNOW,
GIVEN THE CURRENT BUDGET
SITUATION, WE THE, THE FIRST WE
HAVE DISCUSSED THE GREENHOUSE
GAS REDUCTION FUND, AS A
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR,
FOR THIS EFFORT. THE ORIGINAL,
CONCEPT OF, OF THIS BILL, WAS
PROPOSED BY THE CITIZENS CLIMATE
LOBBY, WHICH WAS, YOU KNOW,
THERE LONG STANDING CAMPAIGN FOR
THE CARBON FEE AND DIVIDEND IDEA
THAT THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO, IF
CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS ARE, YOU
KNOW, BEARING THE HIGHER COSTS
OF, OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE
MITIGATION EFFORTS, THAT THERE
SHOULD BE A DIVIDEND TO HELP
OFFSET THOSE, THOSE COSTS, SO
THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT.
OF COURSE, WE KNOW THAT, THE
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND,
YOU KNOW, HAS MANY, YOU KNOW,
COMMITMENTS ALREADY MADE, AS
WELL AS, YOU KNOW, CONCERNS
ABOUT, FUTURE INTERESTS THAT MAY
HAVE INTERESTS IN THAT FUND, BUT
THAT THAT HAS BEEN PART OF THE
DISCUSSION. ASSEMBLYMEMBER SCOTT
WESTROM, ON BEHALF OF QUÊ, I
ALSO KNOW THAT SOME OF THE
WORKING GROUPS THAT HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON THE CLIMATE BOND HAVE
HAVE EXPLORED THE IDEA OF HAVING
A COMPONENT IN THE CLIMATE BOND
TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THIS BILL
PURPORTS TO DO. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BAUER-KAHAN, THANK YOU. SO I SAW
THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS,
REPRESENTATIVE WALKED OUT OF THE
ROOM. IF YOU'RE OUT THERE
LISTENING, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR
YOU, BECAUSE PART OF PART OF MY
AND I HAD SEEN IN THE ANALYSIS
THAT IT SAID THAT IT COULD BE
GRF FUNDING, ALTHOUGH IT'S JUST
ONE OF THE OPTIONS TO THE POINT
THAT WAS JUST MADE. AND I GUESS
THAT'S CONCERNING TO ME, BECAUSE
GRF IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WE
KEEP THROWING AROUND ALL OVER
THE PLACE AND, ALTHOUGH I AM
DEDICATED AND I WANT TO APPLAUD
THE CHAIR FOR HER IMMENSE
EFFORTS AT DRIVING DOWN RATES, I
THINK IT IS SOMETHING THIS
COMMITTEE SHOULD BE LASER
FOCUSED ON GRF, WHICH RESULTS
FROM EMISSIONS. I THINK MY
UNDERSTANDING, ALTHOUGH I WASN'T
HERE WHEN IT WAS PASSED, WAS
INTENDED TO BE USED TO
COUNTERACT THOSE EMISSIONS.
RIGHT? WHICH THIS BILL DOES NOT
PURPORT TO DO. AND SO I GUESS I
WOULD WONDER WHY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY WOULD BE
SUPPORTIVE OF GRF BEING USED IN
SUCH A DIFFERENT WAY THAN, AS I
UNDERSTOOD IT WAS INTENDED, BUT
THEY'RE NOT HERE, SO I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD
TO THAT. MR. MURATSUCHI, YOU
WERE HERE, AND THEN I HAVE OTHER
QUESTIONS AFTER THAT, YEAH,
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. I
THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE
HOPING TO DO WITH THIS TRUST
FUND IS TO USE THE MONEY FROM
SOURCES LIKE GRF AND OTHER
SOURCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO
PAY FOR THE COSTS OF PROGRAMS
THAT ARE CURRENTLY COLLECTED IN
UTILITY RATES THAT PROMOTE
DECARBONIZATION AND CLEAN
ENERGY. THOSE ARE COSTS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY HELPING TO DRIVE UP
RATES AND FINDING ALTERNATIVE
FUNDING SOURCES WOULD BE A WAY
TO SOLVE FOR BOTH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL GOAL THAT'S BEEN
ARTICULATED AND AFFORDABILITY,
AND THAT WAS, I THINK, MAKES
MORE SENSE TO WHAT MR. WHICH HAD
SAID EARLIER, I DIDN'T BECAUSE I
ACTUALLY AS I READ THE BILL AND
MAYBE IT WAS MY MISREADING, I
UNDERSTOOD THE BILL TO BE GIVING
MONEY DIRECTLY BACK TO
RATEPAYERS TO DRIVE DOWN THE
COST OF UTILITIES. WHAT I HEARD
HERE TODAY WAS A COMBINATION. I
THINK OF THAT AS WELL AS
BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE ON WHICH
THE UTILITIES WOULD RECEIVE A
RATE OF RETURN. HENCE THEIR VERY
ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT HERE TODAY.
AND I DON'T I GET THEIR DESIRE
FOR THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S
SOMETHING WE REALLY NEED TO BE
LOOKING AT BECAUSE PUTTING THIS
MONEY INTO THE HANDS OF THE
INVESTORS IS NOT WHAT I WOULD
LIKE TO SEE. AND SO GIVEN THE
BREADTH OF THAT, I'M JUST NOT
SURE WHERE I AM ON THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. IF I JUST MIGHT ADD,
THE, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE
DRIVING COSTS, OBVIOUSLY
AFFECTING RATEPAYERS IS THE COST
OF TRANSPORTATION,
ELECTRIFICATION AND, AND
OBVIOUSLY, ONE OF THE MAJOR
FOCUSES OF THE, YOU KNOW,
SCOPING PLAN AT CARB AND ONE OF
THE PURPORTED, PURPOSES FOR THE
GRF IS TO DO EXACTLY THAT, TO
ACCOMPLISH A TRANSPORT
ELECTRIFICATION. SO WE THINK
THAT THAT THAT WOULD BE A, A
THERE'S SYNERGY THERE. GOT IT.
AND I GUESS I GUESS THEN THAT
THAT ACTUALLY OPENS UP A
QUESTION WHICH IS IF IT'S
BUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE,
WILL THE UTILITIES GET THE SAME
RATE OF RETURN AS IF THEY'RE
INVESTING IN IT? AND CAN WE
CLARIFY THAT IN THE BILL? AND,
THAT WOULD MAKE ME ACTUALLY MUCH
MORE COMFORTABLE IF THESE FUNDS
ARE COMING OUT OF GRF, I DON'T
WANT TO SEE THE UTILITY GETTING
THAT RATE OF RETURN. THAT MAKES
NO SENSE TO ME, BUT I WANT THAT
TO BE CLEAR. SO I DON'T KNOW IF
THE AUTHOR WILL COMMIT TO THAT.
WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS ON THE BOTTOM
OF THE FIRST PAGE, IT, SPECIFIES
THAT MONIES IN THE TRUST SHALL
NOT BE USED FOR RETURN ON EQUITY
OR ON SHAREHOLDER INCENTIVES,
NOR FOR ANY ADMINISTRATIVE OR
OVERHEAD COSTS INCURRED. WELL
THAT'S FAIR. YEAH, BUT WE'RE
SEEING RIGHT NOW THE UTILITIES
TRYING TO LEND MONEY AND STILL
GET A RATE OF RETURN ON MONEY
THAT'S NOT THEIRS. SO I GUESS I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS
COMPLETELY TIGHT, THAT THAT
WHATEVER MONEY IS COMING OUT OF
THIS, THEY'RE NOT GETTING A
RETURN ON THIS MONEY, BUT WE'RE
BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
THEY WILL GET A RATE OF RETURN
ON. SO I GUESS MAYBE IT IS, BUT
JUST MAKING SURE WE'RE CLEAR
ABOUT THAT, THAT WOULD MAKE ME
MORE COMFORTABLE. AND ACTUALLY I
THINK COULD DRIVE DOWN COSTS FOR
RATEPAYERS SIGNIFICANTLY. AND SO
I SEE A BENEFIT IN THAT, AND
THEN THE OTHER QUESTION IS FOR
THOSE AND MAYBE IF THERE'S NO
RATE OF RETURN, WE WOULDN'T HAVE
THE SAME PROBLEM WE HAVE TODAY,
WHICH IS SEEKING TO BUILD THINGS
WELL BEYOND BOTH CAPACITY AND
NEED, BUT WOULD THE PROJECTS
THEMSELVES, I ASSUME, WOULD
STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AT THE
PUC, EVEN IF THEY CAME OUT OF
THIS FUND. BUT AND MAYBE I'M NOT
SAYING IT DOESN'T. I'M ASKING
JUST CLARIFICATION. TO BE CLEAR.
YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT AS
STRUCTURED THE IDEA HERE IS THAT
THE TRUST WOULD PHYSICALLY
INVEST IN INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS.
IT'S MORE ABOUT PROVIDING
METHODS OF PASSING THROUGH MONEY
TO PROVIDE CREDITS TO CUSTOMERS
THAT ARE PAYING THE BILLS. SO
THE TRUST WOULDN'T ITSELF BE
INVESTING DIRECTLY IN
INFRASTRUCTURE IF IT WERE. I I
WOULD AGREE WITH YOU 100% THAT
THAT THE UTILITIES SHOULDN'T BE
ALLOWED TO DOUBLE DIP ON THAT BY
SOMEHOW TAKING CREDIT FOR IT AS
IF IT WERE A SHAREHOLDER
INVESTMENT. BUT THAT'S NOT THE
STRUCTURE OF THE BILL AS SO. SO
IT WOULD GO DIRECTLY TO
RATEPAYERS. I GUESS THAT'S WHAT
I THOUGHT. AND THEN THIS
CONVERSATION CONFUSED ME. THE
BILL INCLUDES SEVERAL POSSIBLE
WAYS THAT MONEY COULD FLOW BACK
TO CUSTOMERS. ONE WOULD BE
DIRECT CREDITS ON THE BILLS, THE
SECOND WOULD BE A CREDIT AGAINST
REVENUE REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE COLLECTED FROM THE
UTILITIES FROM THEIR CUSTOMERS.
AND THE THIRD COULD BE THEY
COULD PROVIDE SAY THAT SO THAT
SECOND ONE CREDIT ON REVENUE
INVESTMENTS. SO IF THE UTILITY
HAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY
THAT IT'S SEEKING TO COLLECT
FROM CUSTOMERS, OKAY, A PORTION
OF THAT COULD BE FUNDED BY THE
TRUST. IT WOULDN'T COME OUT OF
THE RATEPAYERS, IT WOULDN'T COME
FROM RATEPAYERS. AND THE THIRD
COULD BE THAT THE TRUST COULD
PROVIDE DIRECT REBATES TO
SERVICE PROVIDERS OR LIKE
ROOFTOP SOLAR INCENTIVES OR
OTHER THINGS. THERE'S A WHOLE
UNIVERSE OF THINGS THAT COULD BE
PROVIDED THROUGH THE TRUST THAT
OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN FUNDED
OUT OF RATE. SO THERE'S
FLEXIBILITY, OKAY. SO I GUESS
THAT DOES ACTUALLY. RIGHT. SO
THE SO AS DESIGNED THE UTILITY
WOULD GO TO THE PUC, DO THE COST
BENEFIT ANALYSIS TO GET THE
APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT. THEY
WOULD THEN NEED TO RECOUP THAT
MONEY, AND THAT MONEY COULD BE
RECOUPED THROUGH THIS IN LIEU OF
THE GENERAL RATE CASE. I THINK
I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT
CORRECTLY. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR, OKAY. I MEAN, I THINK I
STILL SORT OF I FIND THIS TO BE
A REALLY FASCINATING WAY TO
DRIVE DOWN RATES. AND I THINK IT
IS A REAL QUESTION THAT WE NEED
TO GRAPPLE WITH AS A LEGISLATURE
OF WHETHER THESE GRF FUNDS
SHOULD BE USED IN THIS WAY,
ALTHOUGH I DO THINK WE HAVE
SERIOUS NEED TO BUILD
INFRASTRUCTURE. I GUESS MY
PREFERENCE, ALTHOUGH I'M KIND OF
REWRITING YOUR BILL, IS ACTUALLY
WHAT I CAME TO THAT I THOUGHT
WAS KIND OF EXCITING, WHICH I
THINK IS ONE OF THE MOST
EXCITING WAYS FOR US TO BE
FUNDING THIS INFRASTRUCTURE,
WHICH IS TO BE DOING IT OUTSIDE
OF THE UTILITY. SOME OF THE, YOU
KNOW, TRANSMISSION, ETC, WHICH
THEN TAKES THE RATE OF RETURN
OFF THE TABLE AND DRIVES DOWN
THE COST OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE,
WHICH COULD BE DONE THROUGH THIS
, WHICH I THINK WOULD MAKE MORE
SENSE THAN ALLOWING THE RATE OF
RETURN AND THEN REDUCING IT ON
THE RATEPAYERS. SO I'LL JUST PUT
THAT ON THE TABLE. YEAH. I MEAN,
JUST ON THAT LAST POINT. SO IF
YOU LOOK ON, PAGE THREE OF THE,
OF THE BILL, IT LISTS THE, THE
POTENTIAL USES OF THE, THE
CLIMATE EQUITY TRUST FUND. BUT
ONE OF THEM IS TO ADDRESS THE
BIGGEST COST DRIVER OF
ELECTRICITY RATE RATES
INCREASING, WHICH IS THE
WILDFIRE MITIGATION ACTIVITIES,
RATHER THAN HAVING THE
RATEPAYERS PAYING THAT THIS FUND
CAN BE USED, DIRECTED TOWARD
THAT PURPOSE. RIGHT. SO USE IT
DIRECTLY, RIGHT. INSTEAD OF
REIMBURSING THE IOUS IS WHAT I'M
SAYING. AND I GUESS I WOULD I
WOULD SAY A COUPLE THINGS. SO I
THINK NUMBER ONE, I DON'T THINK
I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE
AUTHOR. I DON'T THINK THE AUTHOR
WOULD WOULD ASSERT THAT THIS IS,
YOU KNOW, THE FULL AND FINAL
ANSWER TO ANYTHING WE EVER MIGHT
WANT TO DO IN TERMS OF EXPLORING
ALTERNATIVE FINANCING MODELS, I
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS
FORWARD, BECAUSE I DO THINK WE
NEED TO HAVE A VERY SERIOUS
CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW WE ARE
GOING TO FINANCE WHAT IS TRULY A
TRANSFORMATIONAL MOMENT FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. LIKE THIS
IS NOT IN INCREMENTAL LIKE AS AS
WE KEEP SAYING LIKE, THIS IS A
PIVOTAL MOMENT. WE NEED A 300%
INCREASE IN GENERATION. WE NEED
A 350% INCREASE IN TRANSMISSION.
ALONGSIDE OF THAT, WE HAVE A
WHOLE HOST OF CLIMATE PROGRAMS
THAT WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT AND
WANT TO RUN ALL OF THAT STUFF
RIGHT NOW IS JUST GETTING PASSED
ON TO RATEPAYERS. IT'S BEING
DONE IN THE LEAST EFFICIENT WAY
POSSIBLE. IT'S BEING FINANCED IN
THE MOST EXPENSIVE WAY POSSIBLE,
AND IT IS. IT'S LEAVING
CALIFORNIANS AT THE BREAKING
POINT. AND SO, I THINK THAT YOU
KNOW, CLEARLY THERE'S A LOT THAT
NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED AND WORKED
THROUGH. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW,
THIS DOESN'T SPECIFY ALL THE
DETAILS. IT SORT OF DIRECTS THE
AGENCIES TO SHAPE THIS
COMMISSION, BUT I WANT TO HAVE
OTHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
ALTERNATIVE FINANCING AND OTHER
CONVERSATIONS ALONGSIDE THAT
ABOUT PUBLIC FINANCING FOR THE
TRANSFORMATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE US TO
ACHIEVE OUR CLIMATE GOALS AND
MOST IMPORTANTLY, ACHIEVE THOSE
COST EFFECTIVELY. SO LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING THAT
CONVERSATION. ALL RIGHT. BACK TO
YOU. BACK TO THE BILL AT HAND.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, ALL RIGHT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOULD THANK YOU.
THIS IS A FASCINATING
DISCUSSION. SO I APPRECIATE I
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD HERE. I
JUST I WOULD JUST NOTE IN THE IN
THE SUMMARY OF THE BILL HERE,
ONE OF THE THINGS IT SAYS ABOUT
AUTHORIZING DISBURSEMENTS FROM
THE TRUST IS REIMBURSEMENT OF
ELIGIBLE COSTS INCURRED BY LOAD
SERVING ENTITIES OR PUBLICLY
OWNED UTILITY. SO, I DON'T KNOW,
PART PART OF IT FEELS LIKE AN
OFFSET TO MONEY THEY WOULD BE
SPENDING ON ON, ON ACTIVITIES
THERE. OBVIOUSLY WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT ESTABLISHING THIS AND HOW
EVERYTHING GETS SPENT AND ALL OF
THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, HAPPEN
LATER ON. YOU ALSO MENTIONED
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, MONIES FROM
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I HAVE
NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.
WHERE WOULD YOU WHAT FEDERAL
FUNDING ARE WE ELIGIBLE TO GET
TO PUT INTO A TRUST THAT'S GOING
TO BE ABLE TO HELP US WITH RATES
, WELL, ASSEMBLY MEMBER, THERE'S
A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF FEDERAL
MONEY THAT'S BEEN MADE AVAILABLE
THROUGH THE INFRASTRUCTURE ACT
AND THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT,
THROUGH THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION. THIS IS A ONCE
IN A GENERATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
FOR US TO CLAIM OUR SHARE OF
THAT FEDERAL MONEY. AND SO THIS
WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM A
SHARE OF THAT MONEY OR TO GO OUT
AND SEEK THAT MONEY TO THE
EXTENT IT'S ELIGIBLE AND HAVE
THOSE HAVE THAT MONEY COME BACK
TO CUSTOMERS. THERE ARE MANY
EFFORTS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW TO CLAIM
FEDERAL MONEY, AND IF THE MONEY
IS CLAIMED AND WE'RE SUCCESSFUL
IN GETTING IT, THIS WOULD BE ONE
OF THE DISBURSEMENT STRUCTURES
THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE. AND
THERE MIGHT, OF COURSE, BE
FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE
FUTURE ADMINISTRATION. I GUESS
THE, THE I GUESS THE BIGGER
QUESTION FOR ME IS HOW BIG DO
YOU ANTICIPATE THIS TRUST BEING
IF WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE
ABLE TO DO ANYTHING THAT'S GOING
TO IMPACT RATEPAYERS? REMEMBER,
THERE'S 40 MILLION PEOPLE THAT
LIVE IN CALIFORNIA AND THEY ALL
CONSUME ELECTRICITY. HOW BIG OF
A FUND DO YOU ANTICIPATE
BUILDING HERE THAT'S GOING TO
HAVE AN IMPACT? AND WHAT WHAT
WHAT ARE RATEPAYERS ULTIMATELY
GOING TO SEE OUT OF THIS? ARE WE
JUST GOING TO SEE THAT MAYBE THE
RATES JUST DON'T GO UP A LITTLE
AS MUCH OR ARE WE GOING TO SEE
THAT THIS ACTUALLY IMPACTS RATES
IN A IN A POSITIVE WAY OR A
NEGATIVE WAY OR POSITIVE WAY?
WELL IT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION,
AND IT REALLY DEPENDS ON HOW
MUCH MONEY IS MADE AVAILABLE
FROM OTHER SOURCES. THIS BILL
DOESN'T AUTHORIZE SPENDING FROM
ANY OTHER SOURCE. IT DOESN'T IT
DOESN'T ITSELF CREATE THE
EXTERNAL SOURCES OF FUNDING, BUT
I THINK IT GETS THE CONVERSATION
GOING IN THE LEGISLATURE AND
AMONG THE AGENCIES ABOUT HOW TO
IDENTIFY THOSE OTHER SOURCES,
MR. WELCH TALKED ABOUT THE IDEA
OF CLIMATE BONDS BEING USED SO
IT COULD BE SOMETHING ON THE
BALLOT. IT COULD BE GRF, IT
COULD BE OTHER MONEY THAT
BECOMES AVAILABLE THROUGH OTHER
SOURCES. NOW, THE UTILITY SYSTEM
IS INCREDIBLY CAPITAL INTENSIVE.
THESE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS ARE
OBVIOUSLY QUITE LARGE, AND MORE
MONEY IS BETTER. WE CAN'T SAY
HOW MUCH MONEY IS BEING TARGETED
BY THIS, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE
AN IMPOSSIBLE EXERCISE AT THIS
POINT, BUT WHATEVER MONEY IS
AVAILABLE AND IS CREATED COULD
BE DEPLOYED EFFECTIVELY TO TRY
TO REDUCE THE PRESSURE ON RATES,
THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT NEED
TO HAPPEN TO CONTAIN RATE
INCREASES AND TO BRING RATES
DOWN OVER TIME. THIS IS NOT A
SILVER BULLET. THIS IS ONE OF A
PORTFOLIO OF STRATEGIES THAT WE
THINK THE STATE SHOULD PURSUE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN I
GUESS ONE THING I WOULD JUST ADD
IS, SINCE YOU TALK ABOUT YOU
MENTIONED THE LEGISLATURE
MULTIPLE TIMES, MAYBE YOU MIGHT
WANT TO CONSIDER HAVING A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
LEGISLATURE BE A PART OF THIS,
GROUP SO THAT THE LEGISLATURE
CAN HAVE SOME INPUT INTO HOW HOW
SOME OF THIS IS DONE. WELL, IN
FACT, ASSEMBLY MEMBER, THE, THE
BOARD STRUCTURE FOR THE
NONPROFIT THAT WOULD ADMINISTER
THE TRUST, HAS IS, A MEMBER FROM
THE GOVERNOR, A MEMBER FROM THE
SPEAKER, AND A MEMBER FROM THE
SENATE, SENATE COMMITTEE ON
RULES. SO THE LEGISLATURE WOULD
HAVE DIRECT OVERSIGHT OVER THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ENTITY.
OKAY ALL RIGHT. OH. MR. ZUBER
AND THEN MR. REYES. SO, FIRST OF
ALL, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THE BILL, I, I THINK
IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE. AND I
THINK SOME OF IT IS, BECAUSE OF
SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT, ARE PRO
TEM. MR. WOOD WAS BRINGING UP
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE BEEN
NERVOUS ABOUT. I DON'T KNOW THAT
IT'S NOT HAPPENING. IT'S SORT OF
STUFF THAT HAPPENS ABOVE MY PAY
GRADE, AND I THINK MANY OF OURS.
BUT I'VE BEEN VERY NERVOUS ABOUT
THE FACT THAT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA IS, DOESN'T APPEAR IN
A VISIBLE WAY TO BE CAPTURING A
LOT OF THE FEDERAL FUNDING.
THAT'S AVAILABLE THROUGH THE
VARIOUS MECHANISMS THAT HAVE
BEEN PASSED AT THE FEDERAL
LEVEL. AND IF ONE OF THE THINGS
THIS DOES IS AND I KNOW THAT
GO-BIZ HAS BEEN WORKING ON THAT,
I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF
THAT HAS BEEN WITH THE FOCUS OF
MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE GOT THE
FUNDING THAT WE CAN TO ACHIEVE
OUR CLIMATE GOALS, THE
ELECTRIFICATION THAT WE NEED,
THE TRANSMISSION THAT WE NEED,
YOU KNOW, APROPOS. OF WHAT THE
CHAIR SAID, WE HAVE TO, YOU
KNOW, WE HAVE HUGE, GOALS THAT
WE HAVE TO MAKE. AND SO WE HAVE
TO THINK BIG AND WE HAVE TO TAKE
EVERY TOOL THAT WE HAVE OUT
THERE. AND I THINK THIS IS ONE I
HOPE THIS BECOMES A VERY LARGE
ENTITY, IF IT BECOMES A VERY
LARGE ENTITY, THEN IT'S A BIG
SUCCESS BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT IT
WILL HAVE FOUND WAYS OF
CAPTURING FEDERAL FUNDING,
PHILANTHROPIC DOLLARS, OTHER
THINGS THAT WILL REALLY, HELP
BRING DOWN RATES IN THE LONG
RUN. BUT SECONDARILY, I DON'T
THINK THE MEASURE, THE ONLY
MEASURE IS BRINGING DOWN RATES.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT RATES
ARE ARE FAIR FOR OUR
CONSTITUENTS AND WE'RE BRINGING
THEM DOWN. BUT THAT WE'RE
MEETING OUR CLIMATE GOALS. AND I
KNOW THAT THAT IS THOSE ARE THE
DUAL GOALS OF THIS THING. SO
WITH THAT, I'M STRONGLY IN
SUPPORT. I WANT TO THANK THE
WITNESSES FOR COMING TODAY, AND
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
REYES. A MORE BASIC QUESTION WHY
A NONPROFIT? I WANT TO, WELL, A
NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT
CORPORATION, IS A STRUCTURE
UNDER STATE LAW THAT PROVIDES
SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR THE
OPERATION OF THE INSTITUTION
THAT WOULD ADMINISTER THE TRUST.
THE NONPROFIT, AS I MENTIONED,
IN RESPONSE TO ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WOOD'S QUESTIONS, WOULD ACTUALLY
HAVE THE BOARD COMPOSED ENTIRELY
OF APPOINTEES FROM THE GOVERNOR,
THE ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE, SO
RIGHT NOW, THE CALIFORNIA
INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, FOR
EXAMPLE, IS A NONPROFIT PUBLIC
BENEFIT CORPORATION, WHICH IS
THE SAME DESIGNATION WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE. I THINK,
BECAUSE ALSO THIS TRUST WOULD
FUND WOULD PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
CUSTOMERS OF BOTH PUBLICLY OWNED
UTILITIES AND THE INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES, NEITHER OF WHICH
REALLY SORT OF THERE'S NO SINGLE
AGENCY THAT PROVIDES THAT TYPE
OF OVERSIGHT OVER BOTH, THE
TRUST WOULD BE DESIGNED AND THE
NONPROFIT WOULD BE DESIGNED TO
SERVE THE INTERESTS OF ALL OF
THOSE ENTITIES, BUT WOULD HAVE
THE APPROVAL FOR SPENDING IN
EACH OF THE RESPECTIVE SERVICE
TERRITORIES REVIEWED AND
APPROVED BY THE REGULATORY
AGENCIES. SO I THINK THERE'S A
THERE'S A GOOD ARGUMENT FOR
CREATING A NEW NONPROFIT
STRUCTURE HERE THAT WOULD BE
STATEWIDE AND REACH COULD EVEN
PROVIDE REBATES AND OTHER
SERVICES TO CUSTOMERS ACROSS THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BUT WOULD
BE FULLY REGULATED BY THE Kò
STATE AGENCIES AND WOULD HAVE
ITS BOARD COMPOSED OF
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR. SO
WHAT DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF MEMBERS ON THIS BOARD?
I KNOW IT TALKS ABOUT
APPOINTMENTS FROM THE GOVERNOR,
THE ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE.
SURELY IT'S NOT A BOARD OF
THREE, THE STATUTE, THE LANGUAGE
THAT SAYS SEVEN MEMBER BOARD.
AND THEN I WOULD IMAGINE YOU
THEN HAVE TO HIRE STAFF TO TAKE
CARE OF ALL OF ALL OF THE WORK
THAT THE BOARD DECIDES ON,
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE I
CAN JUST IMAGINE HOW IF WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU TALKED
ABOUT, HOW MUCH MONEY IS GOING
TO COME INTO THIS FUND, THE
BIGGER IT IS, THE MORE YOU HAVE
TO HAVE. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
HAVE YOUR ATTORNEYS AND EVERY
OTHER PROFESSION TO TAKE CARE OF
THE WORK OF THIS, OF THIS TRUST,
WELL, IT WOULD ALSO BE THE SAME
AS IF WE ADMINISTER MONEY
THROUGH STATE AGENCIES WHERE
THEY COME IN WITH REQUESTS FOR
ADDITIONAL STAFF. SO, I'M NOT
SURE THERE'S ANY WAY TO GET
AROUND THIS ISSUE, BUT RATHER TO
SAY THAT IT WOULD BE MY HOPE
THAT THE STAFFING WOULD BE
RELATIVELY LEAN FOR THIS KIND OF
AN OPERATION. AND GIVEN THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY INVOLVED, THAT
THIS IS A GOOD INVESTMENT TO
SPEND ON A SMALL AMOUNT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD. I WOULD
JUST ADD, MISS REYES, I MEAN,
YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT
DIFFERENT POTENTIAL OPTIONS, I
WOULD POSE A QUESTION TO YOU,
WOULD YOU PREFER THAT THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION ADMINISTER
THIS FUND? NO, I DON'T I DON'T
WANT THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION TO DO IT, BUT I, I DO
HAVE ISSUES WITH SETTING UP A
SEPARATE ENTITY TO TAKE THE
MONEY FROM THE STATE, FROM THE
FEDS, AND WHATEVER OTHER SOURCE
TO THEN ADMINISTER THESE FUNDS.
I I WOULD JUST EMPHASIZE WHAT
MR. FRIEDMAN, EMPHASIZED, THAT
THIS IS A NONPROFIT ENTITY THAT
WOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE
APPOINTEES OF THE GOVERNOR, THE
SPEAKER, AND THE AND THE SENATE
PRO TEM. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT,
SEEING NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOULD YOU LIKE
TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU
KNOW, I MISS BEING ON THIS
COMMITTEE BECAUSE YOU HAVE, YOU
KNOW, MANY OF THE SMARTEST, MOST
THOUGHTFUL MEMBERS OF OUR OF OUR
HOUSE. AND SO I APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSION. THÀNH, BUT I THINK I
WOULD, COME BACK TO THE BOTTOM
LINE WHERE I STARTED, WHICH IS
THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PURPOSE OF
THIS BILL IS TO, ADDRESS THE
ISSUE OF ELECTRICITY
AFFORDABILITY. IF ELECTRICITY IS
NOT AFFORDABLE, WE'RE NOT GOING
TO BE ABLE TO ELECTRIFY OUR
ECONOMY, TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE
OUR CLIMATE GOALS. AND SO THAT
IS THE CORE MISSION OF THIS.
APPRECIATE THE CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR, KEEPING THIS THIS
DISCUSSION MOVING FORWARD. LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORKING
WITH YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS ALL THE
MEMBERS RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR I
VOTE. THANK YOU, DO WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND? ALL RIGHT.
MOVED BY ASSEMBLYMEMBERS BURR,
SECOND FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CALDERON, MADAM SECRETARY, IF
YOU COULD PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, AB 2329. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED A NATURAL
RESOURCES PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON,
BARRY KHN CALDERON I CALDERON I
CHEN CONNOLLY I CONNOLLY I
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN. JOE
PATTERSON. REYES REYES I
SANTIAGO SHIAVO I CHAU. VÚI TING
WALLACE WALLACE I WOULD WOOD I
ZEBRA A ZEBRA I THANK YOU VERY
MUCH NINE ZERO THAT BILL IS OUT
AND WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MOVING TO ITEM SIX AB 2528.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ARAMBULA
.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AB 2528 ENSURES THAT
CALIFORNIA MEETS ITS CLIMATE
GOALS, PROTECTS GROUNDWATER AND
IMPROVES AIR QUALITY BY
INCREASING THE AVAILABLE K¾T OF
RENEWABLE PROJECTS IN OUR STATE.
ACCORDING TO THE CPUC,
CALIFORNIA MUST ADD 114,000MW OF
NEW UTILITY SCALE RENEWABLES
ONTO TO OUR GRID. INCLUDED
WITHIN THAT IS 70,000MW, WHICH
WILL BE UTILITY SCALE SOLAR.
MOST OF THESE PROJECTS WILL
HAPPEN IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY.
ALSO HAPPENING IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY IS THAT MANY AGRICULTURAL
LANDS OWNERS ARE AT RISK OF
LOSING ACCESS TO WATER THAT IS
ESSENTIAL FOR THEIR ABILITY TO
FARM THEIR LAND. MANY OF THESE
LANDOWNERS WILL BE LEFT WITH NO
VIABLE ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVE.
THIS CONFLUENCE OF WATER
SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS AND CLEAN
ENERGY DEMAND CREATES AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO CRAFT AN
APPROACH THAT ADDRESSES MULTIPLE
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
GOALS. IT IS POSSIBLE FOR US TO
ACHIEVE A CARBON FREE FUTURE
WITH GOOD PAYING JOBS, CLEANER
AIR AND MITIGATION OF CLIMATE
CHANGE. WHILE RESPECTING LOCAL
CONTROL AND GIVING A LIFELINE TO
LANDOWNERS TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
OF AB 2528 IS SHANNON EDDY, WITH
THE LARGE SCALE SOLAR
ASSOCIATION AND GAIL DELAHUNT
WITH THE WESTERN GROWERS. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS
SHANNON EDDY WITH A LARGE SCALE
SOLAR ASSOCIATION. WE'RE A STATE
BASED TRADE GROUP OF UTILITY
SCALE SOLAR OWNERS AND
DEVELOPERS. HAPPY TO BE HERE.
AND ODDLY, SORT OF HAPPY TO HAVE
THIS BILL COME TO A COMMITTEE
THAT IT WOULDN'T NORMALLY COME
TO JUST BECAUSE OF THE SITING
ELEMENTS. AND I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR THE STATE TO BEGIN
TO FIND TOOLS TO MEET THE VERY
TARGETS THAT WE ARE FACING. AS
THE MEMBER, AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ARAMBULA WAS TALKING ABOUT, WE
NEED TO BASICALLY TRIPLE THE
SIZE OF OUR GRID IN 25 YEARS OR
20 YEARS. EXCUSE ME. IT'S
GETTING AWAY FROM US, 57 TO
70,000MW OF THAT WILL BE SOLAR.
FOR CONTEXT, WE HAVE ABOUT
17,000MW ONLINE TODAY. SO FOR
THAT, THAT MUCH SOLAR TO COME
ONLINE, WE NEED ABOUT 500,000 TO
700,000 ACRES. AND WHEN YOU TALK
TO DEVELOPERS TODAY, THEY WILL
SAY THAT MOST OF THE EASY SITES
ARE TAKEN. IN ADDITION, BECAUSE
THE STATE IS SO TRANSMISSION
CONSTRAINED, A LOT OF THESE
PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE ON
SOME MORE SIGNIFICANT
TRANSMISSION COMPONENTS LIKE
SUBSTATIONS, LONGER CHEN,
TIMELINES, THAT KIND OF THING.
SO THAT MEANS THAT YOU'VE GOT
BIGGER PROJECTS THAT ARE NEEDED
IN ORDER TO SHOULDER THOSE
ECONOMICS BIGGER PROJECTS NEED
BIG CONTIGUOUS LAND AREAS,
PREFERABLY WITH LOW SPECIES
CONFLICTS. AND THAT ALSO THEN
REQUIRES THEM TO NEGOTIATE
ACROSS MULTIPLE LANDOWNERS. AND
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
WILLIAMSON ACT, WHICH THEN
COVERS A LOT OF THESE, AG LANDS
THAT ARE GOING TO BE LOSING
WATER, WILLIAMSON ACT COMPRISES
ABOUT 50% OF THE AG LANDS IN THE
STATE. AND SO ADDING A
WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT
CANCELLATION TO A TO A TO A
PROJECT DEVELOPERS LIST OF
THINGS TO DO. YOU'RE ADDING
COSTS. YOU'RE ADDING DELAY,
YOU'RE ADDING COMPLEXITY. AND
THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH
THAT COMPLEXITY BASICALLY FORCES
THE DEVELOPER TO ABANDON THAT
SITE. AND THE TRUTH IS, WE'RE
KIND OF RUNNING OUT OF SPACE AND
WE'RE ONLY JUST GETTING STARTED
WITH THIS. THAT'S WHY THIS BILL
IS SO IMPORTANT TO US, BECAUSE
IT REALLY DOES PROVIDE A VERY
SURGICAL TOOL FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, TO STREAMLINE THE
PROCESS. IT GIVES THEM NEW
FINDINGS WHERE THERE'S AN
ABSENCE OF WATER IN A, IN A
COMPROMISED WATER BASIN, AND
ALSO TO BUILD SOLAR, I'M GAIL
DELAHANTY WITH WESTERN GROWERS
ASSOCIATION. OUR MEMBERS GROW
FRESH PRODUCE IN CALIFORNIA,
ARIZONA, COLORADO AND NEW
MEXICO. OUR ORGANIZATION IS EVER
CHANGING TO ADAPT TO THE DYNAMIC
NEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL
COMMUNITY. WE HAVE A LONG
ESTABLISHED HISTORY OF LOOKING
AHEAD TO ANTICIPATE THE NEEDS OF
OUR INDUSTRY. 95% OF
CALIFORNIA'S 77,000 FARMS ARE
FAMILY OWNED. MANY FARMERS IN
THE CENTRAL VALLEY HAVE SEEN
REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS ON THEIR
WATER SUPPLY, AND AS OF TODAY,
THE NORTHERN SIERRA SNOWPACK IS
AT 124% AND THE SOUTHERN
SNOWPACK IS AT 107. YET THE
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, WHICH
DELIVERS WATER TO FARMERS SOUTH
OF THE DELTA, IS ONLY GOING TO
DELIVER 35% OF OUR CONTRACTED
AMOUNT. NOW, MIND YOU, I HAVE TO
PAY FOR OR THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR
100% OF THE CONTRACT. BUT ONLY
GET 35% OF THE WATER, MANY
GROUNDWATER BASINS ARE ALSO
CHARGING FEES TO PUMP ON
GROWERS. NOW, SOME OF MY GROWERS
ARE PAYING $50 AN ACRE FOOT TO
$2,150 AN ACRE FOOT CHARGED BY A
GSA. YOU CAN'T GROW FOOD ON
$2,100 AN ACRE FOOT EXTRACTIONS
ARE ALREADY BEING LIMITED BY
GSA'S, AND SO THAT IS WHY
WESTERN GROWERS IS HERE TODAY TO
SUPPORT AB 2528, BECAUSE IT
STREAMLINES THE PROCESS FOR
FARMERS TO TRANSITION SOME OF
THEIR FIELDS FROM AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION TO SOLAR, THEREBY
SAVING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
WILLIAMSON ACT CANCELLATION FEES
. WE BELIEVE THIS IS A WIN WIN
FOR LOCALS, FARMERS AND THE
STATE. HEY, THANK YOU, IF ANYONE
ELSE WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT, YOU MAY APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. OKAY. MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS AARON NIEMELA,
REPRESENTING INTERSECT POWER.
ALSO IN SUPPORT. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS MCKINLEY THOMPSON.
MORLEY, ON BEHALF OF THE SOLAR
ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS
MEGAN MURRAY WITH THE WHITMAN
GROUP ON BEHALF OF RWA
RENEWABLES AND AES, CLEAN ENERGY
AND STRONG SUPPORT. MADAM CHAIR
ALEX JACKSON WITH THE AMERICAN
CLEAN POWER ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, AARON
NORWOOD. ON BEHALF OF THE ALLMAN
ALLIANCE, REPRESENTING 7600
GROWERS AND OVER 100 PROCESSORS
HERE IN THE STATE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. KRISTIN
OLSEN HERE ON BEHALF OF
TERRA-GEN RENEWABLE ENERGY HERE
IN SUPPORT. MADAM CHAIR, MY NAME
IS DAN JACOBSON WITH ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
, MADAM CHAIR. I WOULD KIDANI
WITH LAYING HANSONS-BROOKS ADANI
ON BEHALF OF CLEARWAY ENERGY AND
STRONG SUPPORT. HUNTER STERN, ON
BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES AND
THE STATE ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL
WORKERS AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
WE'LL NOW MOVE TO, OPPOSITION
TESTIMONY. THE OPPOSITION
WITNESSES WANT TO APPROACH THE
DAIS. THANK YOU. YOU'RE THERE?
YEAH OKAY. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M ALEX BEHRING. I AM A SENIOR
POLICY ADVOCATE FOR THE
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU. I'M NOT
USUALLY IN THIS COMMITTEE
BECAUSE I ONLY DO WATER. SO
THERE'S A NEXUS HERE, WHICH IS
ONE OF THE REASONS I'M HERE, AND
THIS IS MY COLLEAGUE PETER. SO,
WHAT'S THAT SAID? GOOD AFTERNOON
, CHAIR MEMBERS. SO, WE, YOU
KNOW, PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT
THE WILLIAMSON ACT, AND IT'S
BEEN ALWAYS KIND OF A BRIGHT
LINE FOR CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
TO PROTECT THE WILLIAMSON ACT.
IT'S BEEN ONE OF THE MAJOR TOOLS
THAT WE'VE HAD TO PROTECT THE
MOST PRODUCTIVE FARMLAND,
PROBABLY IN THE WORLD FOR THE
PAST 50 YEARS, SO WE DON'T TAKE
CHANGES TO THAT LIGHTLY, BUT WE
DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE GOING TO
BE MAJOR CHANGES IN CLIMATE AND
THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT THAT
ARE GOING TO USHER IN PRETTY
SUBSTANTIAL LAND USE CHANGES
OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS. I MEAN,
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE WENT
TO THE WATER BOARD YESTERDAY,
BUT I WAS THERE UNTIL 7 P.M, AND
SO THESE CHANGES ARE GOING TO BE
HAPPENING SOON IN THE BASINS AND
IN TERMS OF LIMITING PUMPING AND
GAIL WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT
THAT THESE THINGS ARE ALL
HAPPENING, SO WE KNOW THAT THERE
IS POTENTIALLY A NEED TO, TO
MAYBE BUILD IN SOME FLEXIBILITY
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HOW THE
WILLIAMSON ACT APPLIES IN SOME
OF THESE AGRICULTURAL LANDS, BUT
AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK THIS
THIS ISN'T THE BILL THAT
PROBABLY DOES THAT OPTIMALLY. I
THINK IT'S PROBABLY PART OF A
LONGER CONVERSATION THAT THE
THAT THE, THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO
HAVE, BECAUSE THIS JUST REALLY
WEAKENS THE BEST MECHANISM WE
HAVE FOR PROTECTING THOSE
FARMLANDS, I THINK, AGAIN, AS
SOMEONE WHO FOCUSES ON WATER,
ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THAT THERE
ISN'T ANY INVOLVEMENT OR
COORDINATION OR CONSISTENCY WITH
THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY
AGENCIES AND THEIR GROUNDWATER
GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLANS
, YOU KNOW, IT IT IT SEEMS THAT
IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT MOST
LANDS ARE GOING TO HAVE A ZERO,
A ZERO PUMPING ALLOCATION.
RIGHT? YOU MIGHT HAVE A HALF AN
ACRE FOOT, PER ACRE, SOMETHING
THAT ISN'T OPTIMAL FOR GROWING
THINGS. AND THAT'S ABSOLUTELY
TRUE. BUT, YOU KNOW, HAVING A
ZERO PUMPING ALLOCATION FOR THE
PURPOSES OF AVOIDING A
CANCELLATION FEE FOR MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IS ONE THING, WHEN YOU
HAVE STILL AN ALLOCATION ON THE
BOOKS OTHERWISE. SO I THINK IT
INTRODUCES SOME UNCERTAINTY
THERE WITH THE GSA'S, AND THAT'S
PROBABLY I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S
KIND OF ONE OF OUR BIGGEST
CONCERNS. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. THANK
YOU. AND THEN, DID YOU HAVE
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY TO PROVIDE?
YEAH. PETER ANSEL, CALIFORNIA
FARM BUREAU, THANK YOU. CHAIR
MEMBERS. IN ADDITION TO THE
ISSUES THAT WE HAVE WITH THE
CHAOS THAT'S POTENTIALLY CREATED
WITH WATER MANAGEMENT LOCALLY,
WE ALSO HAVE REAL CONCERNS THAT
THE SOLAR INDUSTRY HASN'T
EXHAUSTED ALL OF THE PLACES
WHERE THEY COULD POTENTIALLY
BUILD IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY. THE
GOVERNOR WAS JUST DOWN AT THE
SAN LUIS MENDOTA CANAL ABOUT TWO
WEEKS AGO, WITH THE BIDEN
MINISTRATION PUTTING, RECOVERY
ACT FUNDS TO WORK TO BUILD SOLAR
OVER CANALS AND RESERVOIRS. AND
WE'VE GOT THOUSANDS OF MILES,
POTENTIALLY ENOUGH PLACES TO
ACTUALLY SITE ON THOSE CANALS
AND RESERVOIRS TO MEET SOLAR'S
NEEDS FOR ITS STATEWIDE ENERGY
PRODUCTION. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
BUILT ENVIRONMENT IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY, YOU'VE GOT COSTCOS,
YOU'VE GOT PARKING LOTS, YOU'VE
GOT ALL SORTS OF PLACES ALREADY
IN THE EXISTING BUILT
ENVIRONMENT THAT COULD BE SITED,
AND WE RESPECT THE FACT THAT
IT'S GOING TO COST MORE TO
NEGOTIATE WITH A COSTCO THAN IT
IS TO BE, THAN IT WILL BE TO
CANCEL A WILLIAMSON ACT
CONTRACT. BUT THOSE CANCELLATION
FEES PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE, NOT
ONLY IN KEEPING, THE LANDOWNERS.
TRUE WITH WHAT THE LAND IS
INTENDED TO DO, WHICH IS BE
PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LANDS.
THE LANDS THAT ARE IN THE
WILLIAMSON ACT ARE CLASS ONE
SOILS. THERE ARE ONLY FIVE
PLACES ON THE PLANET THAT
BENEFIT FROM THESE TYPE OF
SOILS, AND THE CENTRAL VALLEY IS
ONE OF THE PLACES WHERE THERE'S
A HUGE, AGGREGATION AND
CONCENTRATION OF THOSE CLASS ONE
SOILS. FARMERS PUT THEIR LANDS
INTO THE WILLIAMSON ACT BECAUSE,
FRANKLY, THOSE ARE THE MOST
PRODUCTIVE LANDS THAT HAVE THE
BEST SOILS. WE'VE NOT SEEN ANY
STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT THERE'S
INSUFFICIENT NON-PRIME AG LANDS
IN THE VALLEY TO SITE THESE
PROJECTS. AND SO WE JUST FEEL
THAT WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY TO
SIT DOWN AND HAVE DISCUSSIONS
AMONGST SMALL AND LARGE FARMERS,
AMONGST THE GSA'S AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, THAT THIS BILL IS
JUST PRECIPITOUS AND DOESN'T
ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE CONCERNS.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. HELLO.
MICHAEL JARRETT, ON BEHALF OF
THE COMMUNITY ALLIANCE WITH
FAMILY FARMERS, WE APOLOGIZE TO
THE AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEE FOR
GETTING OUR LETTER IN LATE,
MISSING THE DEADLINE, BUT WE ARE
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED. WE
BELIEVE THE BILL IS TOO BROAD.
WE SUPPORT SOLAR. WE'VE
SUPPORTED NEM PROJECTS AND
AGRIVOLTAICS IN THE PAST. WE
WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEE TO
NARROW THE BILL, BUT FOR RIGHT
NOW, WE REMAIN OPPOSED. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL
GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT BACK UP.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CONNOLLY. APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
COMING FORWARD, WITH THIS. AND
FRANKLY, AN IMPRESSIVE,
COALITION THAT YOU'RE STARTING
TO PUT TOGETHER. A LOT OF FOLKS
I'M USUALLY ALLIED WITH. AND I
THINK WE GET THE NOTION THAT A
LOT OF THESE LANDS AS THEY GO
FALLOW, FOLKS ARE LOOKING AT
ALTERNATIVES AND NGUYEN WINS.
AND OFTENTIMES SOLAR IS THAT, I
GUESS, WHERE I'M LANDING ON THIS
AND WHERE I'M STRUGGLING AND
PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT IT AT THIS TIME IS I'M A
HUGE FAN OF THE WILLIAMSON ACT.
I THINK IT PLAYS AN INVALUABLE
ROLE IN OUR COMMUNITIES. IT
CERTAINLY HAS. I COME FROM LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND HAVE USED IT, SO
IN A WAY, I'M KIND OF GOING OLD
SCHOOL ENVIRO HERE, IF YOU WILL,
AND I THINK THERE STILL ARE SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT IS THIS I
FRANKLY FOUND MYSELF AGREEING
WITH SOME OF THE, OPPOSITION
WITNESSES. IS IT KIND OF MOVING
TOO BROADLY AND QUICKLY TOWARD,
WHAT LIKELY WILL BE GOALS OVER
TIME? SO AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING
TO LAY OFF, BUT LOOK FORWARD TO
THE CONTINUED CONVERSATION ON.
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS CHAU. SO CAN YOU
CAN YOU ADDRESS SOME OF THE
CONCERNS, AROUND THE, YOU KNOW,
USE OF THE LAND AS INTENDED?
AND, AND ONCE IT'S GONE, YOU
KNOW, WE'RE WE DON'T GET IT BACK
NECESSARILY. I'M HAPPY TO. AND
I'LL START JUST WITH PRIDE THAT
I REPRESENT A COUNTY THAT AT
TIMES DURING MY TENURE HERE IN
THE LEGISLATURE, HAS BEEN THE
NUMBER ONE PRODUCING AG COUNTY
IN THE STATE. THE COUNTRY AND
THE ENTIRE WORLD. AND SO IT'S A
GREAT AMOUNT OF PRIDE THAT I
HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE
PRODUCTIVE AG LAND IN OUR STATE,
AND OUR INTENT IS NOT TO GO
AFTER THE PRODUCTIVE AG LAND,
BUT TO FOCUS ON THE BASINS THAT
ARE MODERATELY AND SEVERELY
OVERDRAFTED, AND THAT THERE IS
NO ECONOMIC VIABILITY FOR THEM
TO BE ABLE TO PRODUCE ON THAT
LAND. TODAY, THOSE LANDOWNERS
WILL STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A
PROCESS OF SEEKING APPROVAL FROM
THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THEIR
BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS, WHICH I
BELIEVE REALLY HELPS US TO MAKE
SURE THAT ANY TYPE OF SITING IS
IN COLLABORATION WITH EVERYONE
WHO'S LOCAL. BUT WE HAVE TO
PROVIDE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO
START SITING NOW SO THAT WE CAN
HAVE THESE LARGE SCALE
OPERATIONS COME ONLINE. IF WE'RE
NOT ABLE TO BEGIN TO CANCEL SOME
OF THESE WILLIAMSON ACT
CONTRACTS THERE TEN YEARS TO 20
YEARS IN LENGTH AND IT MAY BE 10
TO 20 YEARS BEFORE WE'RE THEN
ABLE TO HAVE THESE TYPES OF
CONVERSATIONS TO ENSURE THAT
WE'RE ABLE TO SITE THESE
PROPERTIES. BUT IT REALLY IS IF
I CAN JUST BE CRYSTAL CLEAR,
THESE ARE LANDS THAT OTHERWISE
WOULD NOT BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE
FOR THESE FARMERS TO USE. WE'RE
GIVING THESE LANDOWNERS A
LIFELINE. WE'RE ACTUALLY
SUPPORTING THEM BY HAVING THEM
LEASE THESE LANDS OUT TO THE
SOLAR COMPANIES. SO THAT THEY
CAN THEN PLACE THEIR PROJECTS
ONTO THEIR LANDS. THANK YOU. SO,
SO DO YOU THINK THAT THEN
THROUGH GOING THROUGH THESE
LOCAL PROCESSES AND BOARDS, THAT
THAT IS IN EFFECT, GOING TO
LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THESE KINDS
OF PROJECTS. AND THAT'S WHY THE
BILL DOES NOT DO THAT DIRECTLY
OR, I'LL SPEAK FOR MY LOCAL
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, WHO ARE
ALL FANS OF AGRICULTURE AS WELL.
THEY'RE UNLIKELY TO CITE
ANYTHING THAT AFFECTS PRODUCTIVE
AG LAND. AND SO IF I CAN JUST
OVERSTEP, ALL EIGHT OF OUR BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS AND THE CENTRAL
VALLEY HAVE A REPUBLICAN
MAJORITY, AND I DOUBT THAT MANY
OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE CHANGING
THE PRIDE WE HAVE IN WHO WE ARE
AS THE CENTRAL VALLEY AND WHAT
WE DO, BUT WE'LL ALLOW MY
WITNESS TO ADD SOMETHING IF SHE
WANTS. SHE WANT. THANK YOU, FOR
THE GROWERS THAT ALREADY HAVE
SOLAR ON THEIR PROPERTIES NOW,
ESPECIALLY DOWN ON THE WEST SIDE
OF THE VALLEY WHERE THE
GROUNDWATER IS TOO SALTY AND THE
SURFACE WATER IS NOT RELIABLE,
THOSE SOLAR PANELS ARE DESIGNED
TO COME OFF, AND STAY ON. SO
IT'S NOT LIKE IF YOU PUT THEM ON
THERE FOREVER. THEY'RE ON THERE
FOREVER. IT'S. SO THAT'S THE WAY
IT'S WORKING RIGHT NOW.
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS OF OUR I MEAN,
FROM JUST LOOKING AT
UNDERSTANDING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
LARGE SCALE SOLAR, AND EVEN SOME
OF THE WIND, I MEAN, THESE ARE
NOT PROJECTS THAT PHYSICALLY
ALTER THE LAND IN A WAY THAT IS
IRREVERSIBLE. I MEAN, IT'S
REALLY THESE ARE STRUCTURES
THAT, DON'T EVEN GENERALLY HAVE
FOUNDATIONS THAT YOU CAN REALLY
SORT OF TAKE OFF, YOU KNOW, I
SORT OF LOOK AT THIS AS YOU
KNOW, WE'VE GOT A WE'VE GOT TO
FIND WAYS OF REALLY INCREASING
THE AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY THAT
WE'RE RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY THAT
WE'RE PRODUCING, THE, YOU KNOW,
AND ALSO GIVING AREAS WHERE,
WHERE FARMING IS STRUGGLING,
GIVING PEOPLE IN THOSE AREAS
OPPORTUNITIES FOR GOOD, HIGH
PAYING JOBS THAT HELP REPLACE
THAT, AND SO I THINK THIS IS A
GOOD BILL, I WILL SUPPORT IT,
AND I THINK THE ONLY THING I
WOULD ASK IS THERE I DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE WILLIAMSON ACT
CONTRACT FRAMEWORK ENOUGH TO
UNDERSTAND WHETHER THERE'S
SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE AS A
BACKUP CLAUSE THAT IF YOU ENDED
UP NOT USING THIS AT A PERIOD OF
TIME, THAT IT KIND OF REVERTS
BACK INTO A WILLIAMSON THAT
CONTRACT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S
A POSSIBILITY OR NOT. DOES
ANYONE HERE KNOW THAT? YEAH.
TYPICALLY THE CONTRACT, ISN'T
FULLY CANCELED UNTIL THE PROJECT
WOULD BE PERMITTED. SO IF THE
PROJECT DIDN'T GO THROUGH, THEN
THE CONTRACT WOULD REVERT BACK.
NO, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT MAYBE
30 YEARS OUT AFTER OR 20 YEARS
OUT. IF THE BASICALLY THE, YOU
KNOW, AFTER DECOMMISSIONING
ECONOMICS, SOMEONE DECIDED NOT
TO REINVEST IN THAT PARTICULAR
THING. THERE WOULD BE SOME
ABILITY TO SORT OF PUT THAT BACK
IN, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THAT
THERE'S SOME WATER, NEW WATER
SOURCE NOW THAT IS AVAILABLE.
THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. THERE'S
NOTHING IN THE BILL THAT
PRECLUDES THAT. THERE'S NOTHING
IN THE BILL THAT PRECLUDES THAT.
BUT I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S
SOMETHING YOU COULD PUT IN THE
BILL THAT ACTUALLY ADDRESSES
SOME OF THE CONCERNS PEOPLE ARE
RAISING. THAT'S THE QUESTION.
YEAH. ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONNOLLY,
MY COLLEAGUE'S COMMENT, JUST TO
CLARIFY, THOUGH, LIKE WE DO HAVE
ANOTHER BILL COMING UP THAT WILL
RESULT IN, UTILITY SCALE SOLAR
ON PRIOR AG LANDS. THAT'S NOT
THE ISSUE FOR ME. IT'S THE
WEAKENING OF THE WILLIAMSON ACT.
THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.
UNDERSTOOD. AND I, I SO MY, MY
PERSPECTIVE AND I APPRECIATE THE
CONCERNS THAT THE FARM BUREAU
RAISED. I THINK YOU, YOU KNOW,
DESCRIBED THE ROLE THAT THE
WILLIAMSON ACT HAS PLAYED TO.
I'M QUOTING YOU PROTECT SOME OF
THE MOST PRODUCTIVE FARMLAND IN
THE WORLD, I WILL HIGHLIGHT THE
REASON I'M GOING TO BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY IS
THAT THE BILL DOES SPECIFY THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LAND THAT IS
LOCATED IN A BASIN DESIGNATED AS
HIGH OR MEDIUM PRIORITY, AND
SUBJECT, ALREADY SUBJECT TO
VARIOUS GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
PLANS, HAS NO GROUNDWATER RIGHTS
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VIABLE
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL USE, OR
DOES NOT HAVE PERMANENT ACCESS
TO SUFFICIENT WATER. SO WE'RE
NOT TALKING ABOUT TRACKS THAT
ARE CURRENTLY THE MOST
PRODUCTIVE. SO I RECOGNIZE THAT
IT'S, WE'RE IT'S A TOUGH MOMENT
OF TRANSITION. IT'S A VERY, VERY
TOUGH AND PAINFUL. AND I'M SURE
FOR MANY FAMILIES, HEARTBREAKING
MOMENT OF TRANSITION. THRILLED
ABOUT IT. BUT WE ARE. YEAH. BUT
WE'RE AT A MOMENT OF TRANSITION.
AND I THINK IT'S NOT A QUESTION
OF WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE
FOLLOWING PRODUCTIVE FARMLANDS.
IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR
NOT NONPRODUCTIVE, HOW BEST DO
WE UTILIZE NONPRODUCTIVE LANDS?
YES ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOULD I
GUESS JUST A COMMENT. THIS BILL
IS DOUBLE REFERRED. IT'S GOING
TO AG COMMITTEE NEXT WEEK. IT IS
IT IS CORRECT. AND THEY ARE THE
WILLIAMSON ACT EXPERTS. I JUST
PLAY ONE ON TV. THANK YOU. I'M
ON THAT TOO. YEAH RIGHT. OKAY.
WITH THAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS FOR THE
DISCUSSION HERE TODAY. FOR US TO
MEET OUR CLIMATE GOALS AS A
STATE, WE HAVE TO HAVE VISION
LARGE ENOUGH TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE SITING THESE PROJECTS. WE
HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORK
THROUGH THESE ISSUES WITH THE
WILLIAMSON ACT, SO WE CAN GET
UPSTREAM AND BEGIN TO HAVE THESE
RENEWABLES COME ONLINE SOONER
RATHER THAN LATER. CLIMATE
CHANGE IS AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS,
AND THE SOONER WE BEGIN, THE
BETTER WE WILL BE AS A STATE. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MOVED BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZIPPER. SECOND
SECOND BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER TANG,
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ITEM NUMBER SIX AB 2528.
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
AGRICULTURE. PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON.
BARBARA KHN CALDERON I CALDERON
I CHEN. CONNELLY. CONNELLY. NOT
VOTING. FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I
HOLDEN. JOE PATTERSON. REYES.
SANTIAGO. SHIAVO I SCHIAVO I
TING TING I WALLACE. WOOD. WOOD.
I ZIPPER I ZIPPER I, MADAM
CHAIR. ALL RIGHT. SEVEN ZERO
THAT BILLS ON CALL. THANK YOU,
OKAY. MOVING TO ITEM NUMBER
EIGHT AB 2750. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
GALLAGHER, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY
.
OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR. MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS WITH
YOU, AB 2750, A DISTRICT BILL
THAT ADDRESSES AN OVERSIGHT AND
CURRENT LAW THAT AFFECTS BIOMASS
FACILITIES IN PARTICULAR.
SPECIFICALLY, ONE OF MY DISTRICT
IN LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA, IN 2022,
SB 1109 EXTENDED BY FIVE YEARS
REQUIREMENT IN EXISTING LAW THAT
AN IOU OR A CA PURCHASE
GENERATING CAPACITY FROM
ELIGIBLE, BIOENERGY PROJECTS AND
I KNOW SOME OF YOU WERE HERE
WHEN WE DID THAT. THAT WAS A
BIG, BIG DEAL, FOR THOSE OF US
THAT ARE TRYING TO ENSURE THAT
WE HAVE THESE LONG, MORE, LONGER
TERMS, SUSTAINABLE CONTRACTS,
ESPECIALLY ON THE WILDFIRE
FRONT, BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE
BIOMASS FACILITIES TAKE IN, YOU
KNOW, WOODY WASTE, FROM, YOU
KNOW, DOING FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES PREVENT, YOU KNOW,
WILDFIRE PREVENTION ACT
ACTIVITIES. AND THIS BILL
ENJOYED BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
, BECAUSE THAT BIOTHUM PROGRAM
HAS, YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY BEEN
SUCCESSFUL IN EXTENDING THE LIFE
OF THOSE PLANTS, BUT ALSO WITH
THIS, FOREST FUELS REDUCTION,
GOAL AS WELL. SO UNDER CURRENT
LAW, IOUS AND CCAS ARE EXEMPTED
FROM THE PURCHASE REQUIREMENT
FROM PLANTS THAT ARE IN A
FEDERAL SEVERE OR EXTREME
NONATTAINMENT AREA FOR
PARTICULATE MATTER OR OZONE. AB
2750 CLARIFIES THAT BIOMASS
FACILITIES LOCATED IN AIR
DISTRICTS THAT HAVE VOLUNTARILY
RECLASSIFIED THEIR OZONE OR
PARTICULATE MATTER, FEDERAL EPA
CLASSIFICATION TO A HIGHER, MORE
RESTRICTIVE TIER ARE NOT
PROHIBITED, FROM RECEIVING THE
HIRAM POWER. WHY? WHY ARE WE
SAYING THAT? WHAT'S THE REASON?
WELL, IN THIS CASE, THE LOCAL
AIR DISTRICT ACTUALLY
VOLUNTARILY PUT THEMSELVES IN A
MORE HIGHER CATEGORY, FOR
NONATTAINMENT, EVEN THOUGH
ACTUALLY, ACCORDING TO THE
STANDARDS AND THEIR OZONE AND
THEIR PPM, THEY ARE ACTUALLY NOT
IN AN EXTREME, OR SEVERE
NONATTAINMENT, THEY DID THAT FOR
OTHER REASONS, BUT THE BOTTOM
LINE IS THIS IS STILL IN, ACTUAL
ATTAINMENT FOR THOSE, FOR BOTH
OF THOSE THINGS, FOR PPM AND FOR
OZONE, AND, AND THIS IS A VERY
MUCH NEEDED FACILITY, FOR THE
REGION, BOTH FOR, AS I SAID,
WOODY BIOMASS, FROM FORESTRY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS, BUT
ACTUALLY ALSO FROM AGRICULTURE
AS WELL, YOU KNOW, SO, IF YOU
WERE INTO MY DISTRICT TODAY AND
YOU WERE DRIVING UP, INTERSTATE
5 OR 99, YOU'D ACTUALLY PROBABLY
SEE A LOT OF ORCHARDS THAT ARE
BEING PULLED OUT RIGHT NOW.
THEY'RE REACHING THE END OF
THEIR OF THEIR LIFE, OR BECAUSE
OF, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW THERE'S
A LOT OF STRESS ON A
PARTICULARLY NUT, PRODUCT. NUT
TREES. SO THOSE ARE BEING PULLED
OUT RIGHT NOW AND REPLANTED, TO
EITHER OTHER CROPS OR OR MAYBE
REPLANT IT INTO THOSE, INTO
THOSE CROPS. BUT THESE ARE, YOU
KNOW, RATHER THAN JUST BURNING
THOSE OPENLY IN THE FIELDS, WE
SEND THOSE TO THESE BIOMASS
FACILITIES, OF WHICH, RIO BRAVO,
ROCKLIN IS ONE OF THEM, SO THIS
IS SPECIFICALLY JUST TRYING TO
DEAL WITH THIS, YOU KNOW, VERY
SPECIFIC, UNIQUE ISSUE, OF THE
AIR DISTRICT VOLUNTARILY
RECLASSIFY THEMSELVES, WILL NOT
CONTRIBUTE. YOU KNOW, TO, YOU
KNOW, THIS BEING A
NONATTAINMENT, THEY ACTUALLY ARE
STILL ON ON SCHEDULE TO MEET
THEIR ATTAINMENT GOALS, YOU
KNOW, THEIR REGULAR ATTAINMENT
GOALS. SO IT WOULDN'T CHANGE ANY
OF THOSE THINGS. BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO CONTRACT
AND THEM TO GET THE CONTRACT
WITH THE IOU AND HAVE THOSE
LONGER TIME CONTRACTS SO THEY
CAN CONTINUE TO KEEP THIS, PLANT
VIABLE. SO I HOPE I DID A GOOD
JOB KIND OF EXPLAINING THAT IT'S
A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED, BUT
WOULD CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR
SUPPORT. AND HERE TO TESTIFY, ON
THE BILL ALSO, AS CHRISTIANA
DARLINGTON WITH THE PLACER
COUNTY AIR CONTROL, DISTRICT AND
JULIE MALINOWSKI BALL, WHO HAS
MANY TIMES AS TESTIFIED ON
BEHALF OF THE BIOMASS INDUSTRY
AND THE BIOMASS ENERGY ALLIANCE.
HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
CHRISTIANA DARLINGTON. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR HAVING ME HERE.
CHAIR PETRIE-NORRIS, I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT TO REPORT
THAT THIS FACILITY WOULD NOT
THREATEN OUR, THE STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, WE IT DOES
NOT JEOPARDIZE OUR AIR
DISTRICT'S ATTAINMENT STATUS FOR
EITHER THE FEDERAL OR THE STATE
LEVEL. ALSO NOTE THAT THE
FACILITY IS NOT LOCATED IN A
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY, THAT
THIS FACILITY PROCESSES WOOD
WASTE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE
LEFT ON THE FOREST FLOOR AND IN
PILES THAT YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN
ON YOUR DRIVES TO LAKE TAHOE OR
IN OTHER PLACES IN THE SIERRA.
NOT ONLY ARE THOSE PILES UGLY,
BUT THEY ALSO LOWER THE EFFICACY
OF OUR FUEL REDUCTION PROJECTS
PURPOSE BECAUSE THEY CAN
ACTUALLY SET OFF FIRES. THERE'S
EVIDENCE OF ONE SUCH FIRE BEING
TRIGGERED IN GREENVILLE,
CALIFORNIA, WHERE A FOREST
BIOMASS PILE EXACERBATED THAT
FIRE PROCESSING FOREST BIOMASS
WASTE IN A FACILITY LIKE RIO
BRAVO, ROCKLIN IS BETTER FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT THAN FIRE. OUR
DISTRICT PUBLISHED A STUDY IN
2015 THAT SHOWED THAT BIOMASS TO
ELECTRICITY IS 98% CLEANER IN
TERMS OF PPM, 65% CLEANER IN
TERMS OF NOX, AND 15% CLEANER IN
TERMS OF CO2 THAN AN OPEN PILE
BURN. WILDFIRES, AS OPPOSED TO
THE OPEN PILE BURNING, ARE EVEN
WORSE IN THE HEALTH RISK BECAUSE
THEY THE SMOKE TRAVELS FURTHER
AND IT CONTAINS TOXIC AIR
CONTAMINANTS FROM NON, NON
NATURAL SOURCES OF BURNING.
SOMETIMES FORESTERS EVEN USE
FIRE IN PLACES IN THE WOODS, FOR
CULTURAL BURNING OR TO DO
PRESCRIBED FIRE AND PILE
BURNING. ACTUALLY MAKES IT MORE
DIFFICULT FOR THOSE PROJECTS TO
GO FORWARD, BECAUSE THE MORE
SMOKE THERE IS, THE HARDER IT
IS. AND TO MANAGE IT, AND IT
MAKES PEOPLE SICK. SO WE ALSO
WANT TO POINT OUT THAT COMPOST,
WE CANNOT COMPOST OUR WAY OUT OF
THIS PROBLEM. COMPOSTING WOOD IS
WATER INTENSIVE AND ALSO EMITS
METHANE. THE CALIFORNIA COMPOST
COALITION STRONGLY URGES WOOD
WASTE TO FIND ALTERNATIVE WASTE
PATHWAYS. ALSO, OPPOSITION
COMPARES EXHAUST STACK EMISSIONS
FROM BIOMASS WASTE TO
ELECTRICITY FACILITIES WITH
FOSSIL FUEL FOSSIL FUEL. IF LEFT
IN THE GROUND, HAS NO NEGATIVE
IMPACT. WHILE WHEN YOU LEAVE
WOOD ON THE GROUND THERE IS A
NEGATIVE IMPACT THAT WE JUST
DISCUSSED. SO THAT'S VERY
IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH. AND
ALSO IN CALIFORNIA THEY DO NOT
GROW TREES FOR POWER, WHICH THEY
DO IN THE SOUTHEAST. OTHER
COUNTRIES. THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN
HERE. SO WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO
POINT THAT OUT. ALSO NOTE THE
RPS AND THE CALIFORNIA AIR
RESOURCES BOARD. CONSIDER IT TO
BE CARBON NEUTRAL IN THE SCOPING
PLAN, IN THEIR CAP AND TRADE
PROGRAM AND THE RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO STANDARD. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, JULIE
MALINOWSKI BALL, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA BIOMASS ENERGY
ALLIANCE. I'LL ACTUALLY JUST,
TRUNCATE MY COMMENTS JUST BY
QUOTING THE US FOREST SERVICE
ABOUT THIS PROGRAM AND THE USE
OF BIOMASS FACILITIES. SO THE
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION FIVE OF
THE US FOREST SERVICE WAS
MANAGED AS 32 MILLION ACRES IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SAYS
ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR
FOREST MANAGEMENT IS MECHANICAL
THINNING AND MECHANICAL
HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION WOULD
OFTEN LEAD LARGE PILES OF
NONCOMMERCIAL LOGS, AND BRANCHES
WOULD HAVE TO BE DISPOSED OF.
THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO GO. THE
ONLY CONSISTENT MARKET FOR
EXCESS FOREST BIOMASS OVER THE
LAST TEN YEARS OR MORE HAS BEEN
BIOMASS POWER PLANTS, WITH BIO
RAM CONTRACTS, SO IN TOTAL,
THESE FACILITIES TYPES OF
CONTRACTS CONSUME HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF TONS OF BIOMASS
ANNUALLY FROM FEDERAL FOREST
LAND PROJECTS, WHICH OTHERWISE
WOULD HAVE TO BE OPEN BURNED.
IT'S SIMPLE. THIS PROGRAM IS
SUCCESSFUL AND WE ASK THAT YOU
APPROVE THIS BILL. THANK YOU,
OTHER WITNESSES IN THE ROOM IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MADAM CHAIR. CHRIS MCCAULEY, ON
BEHALF OF HUMBOLDT REDWOOD
COMPANY IN MENDOCINO, REDWOOD
COMPANY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
HELLO, I'M KATIE FALKENBORG. I'M
THE GENERAL MANAGER OF RIO
BRAVO, ROCKLIN, AND I'M HERE IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. GOOD
AFTERNOON. NICO MOLINA, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
FORESTRY ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION, DO WE
HAVE A PRIMARY WITNESS? I DON'T
THINK SO. ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION IN THE ROOM, YOU CAN
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AT THIS
TIME. JANET COX FOR CLIMATE
ACTION CALIFORNIA AND 350
SACRAMENTO IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. THANK YOU. THEO LARKIN
WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY ALSO IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOOD, I
JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU, MR.
GALLAGHER, FOR BRINGING THE BILL
FORWARD, RECOGNIZING THIS IS A
SOMEWHAT OF A LOCAL ISSUE FOR
YOU, BUT IT IS A BIGGER ISSUE
STATEWIDE AND, WHILE WHILE I
DON'T THINK ANY OF US WANT TO
WANT TO BURN ANYTHING IF WE
DON'T HAVE TO, I THINK THAT THIS
IS A REASONABLE, POSITIVE
ALTERNATIVE TO AN UNCONTROLLED
BURN, WE AS AS WAS YOUR WITNESS
SAID WE CAN'T COMPOST OUR WAY
OUT OF THIS. WE ALSO CAN'T
DIVERT THIS THIS WASTE INTO
LANDFILLS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE
THE SPACE FOR THAT. AND WE CAN'T
CITE NEW LANDFILLS BECAUSE IT'S
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, SO I'M
HAPPY TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL
TODAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR MEMBER. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. OH ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PATTERSON. THANK YOU, JOE
PATTERSON. JIM PATTERSON WILL BE
HERE SOON. MR. GALLAGHER, WHAT,
WHAT CITY DO YOU REPRESENT, I
REPRESENT SEVERAL CITIES.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, THIS IS RIO
BRAVO. ROCKLIN MY DISTRICT
OFFICE, YOU KNOW, IN ROCKLAND.
SO. RIGHT. I KNOW WE HAVE THIS
ONGOING DISPUTE ABOUT, ABOUT THE
DISTRICT LINE. YOU KNOW, IT IS
TECHNICALLY IN HIS DISTRICT, BUT
I SEE IT FROM MY HOUSE, BUT I
THANK YOU FOR BEING A COAUTHOR
OF THIS LEGISLATION. YES, YES,
SO I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO,
GO TO RIO BRAVO IN PARTICULAR
AND TOUR THE FACILITY, AND, YOU
KNOW, AND I USED TO ALSO SERVE
ON THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
DISTRICT IN PLACER COUNTY, AND
WE HAD A GREAT PARTNERSHIP WITH
RIO BRAVO AND JUST INDUSTRY IN
GENERAL WITH, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE
BOTH OF OUR DISTRICTS, AS YOU
KNOW, HAVE BEEN DEVASTATED BY
WILDFIRES AND, WE TAKE VERY
SERIOUSLY NOT ONLY, ENSURING WE
ARE TRYING OUR BEST TO NOT
CONTRIBUTE TO CARBON EMISSIONS,
BUT ALSO THE REALITY THAT OUR
DISTRICTS ARE IN, UNFORTUNATELY,
ANNUAL PERIL, BECAUSE OF THESE
MEGA FIRES. AND SO I COMMEND YOU
FOR INTRODUCING THIS BILL, AND
THANK YOU FOR ALWAYS BEING A
LEADER ON WILDFIRE ISSUES IN
PARTICULAR, BUT ALSO GENERATING
ELECTRICITY. SO NGUYEN NGUYEN.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS BROUGH, I JUST
AS SOMEONE WHO HAS A LANDFILL
THAT IS BURNING RIGHT NOW, NOT
ON PURPOSE. THE IMPORTANCE OF
KEEPING THINGS OUT OF OUR
LANDFILLS HAS HAS NEW
SIGNIFICANCE IN MY LIFE AND IN
THE LIFE OF MANY PEOPLE IN MY
COMMUNITY, AND SO I KNOW THAT
THERE'S, VERY DIFFERENT OPINIONS
WHEN IT COMES TO BIOMASS. AND I
THINK THAT, WE NEED TO HAVE A
BROADER CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS
BECAUSE I THINK IT IS SOMETHING
THAT WE REALLY NEED TO GRAPPLE
WITH AND TACKLE. BUT, YOU KNOW,
I'VE DRIVEN BY MANY, YOU KNOW,
FIELD THAT IS BURNING PILES OF
TREES JUST OUT INTO THE
ENVIRONMENT. AND WE KNOW THAT
THAT THAT'S NOT HELPFUL, SO I
APPRECIATE THAT THIS IS, SMALL
IN SCOPE AND, BUT I THINK AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE, AND I'M HAPPY
TO SUPPORT IT TODAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, SURE. I
MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU
FOR THE COMMENTS, AND IT IS IT
IS A BIG ISSUE AND THAT WE NEED
TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON. WE'VE
DONE SOME GREAT WORK. I, YOU
KNOW, WANT TO RECOGNIZE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER WOOD, YOU KNOW,
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK
WE'VE WORKED ON IN A BIPARTISAN
FASHION FOR, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL
YEARS. AND, AND THIS LIKE I
SAID, THIS PROGRAM AND THE
AGREEMENT WE MADE, YOU KNOW, IN
2022, I THINK WAS A GOOD ONE TO
HELP EXTEND THESE CONTRACTS,
KEEP THESE THESE EXISTING ONES,
IN PLACE AS LONG AS THEY WEREN'T
IN, YOU KNOW, SEVERE OR OR,
EXTREME NONATTAINMENT. AND SO
THIS IS VERY MUCH IN ALIGNMENT
WITH THAT POLICY. AND IT HELPS
KEEP THIS MUCH NEEDED CRITICAL
FACILITY IN MY DISTRICT. SO
THANK YOU FOR YOUR, CERTAINLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND
MOVED BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BAUER-KAHAN, SECONDED BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOOD. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT AB 2750. THE
MOTION IS Dð. PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON.
BARRY KHN BARRY KHN I CALDERON
I CALDERON I CHEN. CONNOLLY I
CONNOLLY I FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN. JO PATTERSON I PATTERSON
I REYES SANTIAGO SHIAVO I
SCHIAVO I TING I TING I WALLACE
WOOD I WOOD I ZIPPER I ZIPPER I
TEN ZERO THAT PULLS OUT I'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER PATTERSON'S
DISTRICT. ASSEMBLY MEMBER GARCIA
. AB 3246. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES. I WILL BE
BRIEF, AS WILL OUR TWO
WITNESSES. THIS BILL, STRIVES TO
ENHANCE TRANSMISSION LINE
SAFETY, RELIABILITY AND
EFFICIENCY, RESULTING IN WHAT WE
HOPE WILL BE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY
FOR OUR TRANSMISSION
INFRASTRUCTURE, SPECIFICALLY,
THIS WILL ALLOW FOR CONDUCTORS
TO USE MUCH MORE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY, TO ACHIEVE THOSE
GOALS THAT I JUST STATED WITH ME
IS MAYA LEROY WITH THE CENTER
FOR ENERGY AND EFFICIENCY
RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGY, ALONG WITH
DUNCAN CALLOWAY, RESEARCHER AT
UC BERKELEY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
WITH YOU ABOUT AB 3246. MY NAME
IS DUNCAN CALLOWAY. I'M A
PROFESSOR OF ENERGY AND
RESOURCES AT UC BERKELEY, THIS
BILL REFERENCES ADVANCED
CONDUCTORS WHICH HAVE AN
IMPORTANT POTENTIAL TO INCREASE
CALIFORNIA'S ELECTRICITY GRID AT
LOW COST. SO, AS BACKGROUND
TRANSMISSION LINES SAG IN AN ARC
AS THEY SPAN BETWEEN TOWERS AND
AS MORE POWER MOVES THROUGH
THEM, THEY HEAT UP DUE TO
RESISTIVE HEATING AND THEY SAG
EVEN MORE. GRID OPERATORS LIMIT
HOW MUCH POWER MOVES THROUGH
EACH TRANSMISSION LINE TO KEEP
THEM FROM SAGGING TOO MUCH, FOR
OVER A CENTURY, MOST
TRANSMISSION LINES HAVE BEEN
CONSTRUCTED WITH ALUMINUM, WHICH
IS AN EXCELLENT CONDUCTOR AND
REINFORCED WITH THE STEEL CORE
TO GIVE ADDITIONAL STRENGTH,
ADVANCE CONDUCTORS USE A
DIFFERENT CORE MATERIAL. FOR
EXAMPLE, A COMPOSITE LIKE CARBON
FIBER, AND THEY PROVIDE MORE
STRENGTH AND LESS SAG. AND THEY
ALSO ENABLE USING A LOWER
RESISTANCE ALUMINUM. BECAUSE
THEY SAG, LESS ADVANCED
CONDUCTORS CAN MOVE TWICE AS
MUCH POWER OR MORE THAN A
CONVENTIONAL CONDUCTOR. SO
ADVANCED CONDUCTOR RING INVOLVES
REPLACING CONVENTIONAL
CONDUCTORS ON EXISTING CORRIDORS
WITH ADVANCED CONDUCTORS, AND IN
MANY CASES YOU CAN USE THE
ORIGINAL TRANSMISSION TOWERS, ON
THOSE CORRIDORS. SO THE
CONDUCTORS THEMSELVES, ADVANCED
CONDUCTORS, THEY DO COST MORE
THAN A CONVENTIONAL CONDUCTOR,
BUT OUR RESEARCH INDICATES THAT
THE INCREASES IN TRANSMISSION
CAPACITY THAT YOU CAN GET FROM
ADVANCED CONDUCTING, RE
CONDUCTING COSTS, HALF AS MUCH
OR LESS THAN BUILDING NEW RIGHTS
OF WAY WITH NEW TRANSMISSION
TOWERS, SINCE IT AVOIDS THE NEED
TO PROCURE THAT LAND AND BUILD
THE NEW TOWERS. SO THIS MEANS
THAT THE TRANSMISSION OWNERS CAN
INCREASE THEIR CAPACITY OF THE
TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR WITH FAR
LESS INVESTMENT THAN NEW
TRANSMISSION LINES WOULD
REQUIRE. MOREOVER THEY CAN DO IT
QUICKLY, WHEREAS TRANSMISSION
CAN TAKE TEN YEARS OR MORE TO
COMPLETE A NEW RIGHT OF WAY.
ADVANCED RE CONDUCTING CAN BE
DONE IN A MATTER OF YEARS. THANK
YOU. THANKS GOOD AFTERNOON,
MADAM CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. I'M MAYA LEROY HERE
FROM THE CENTER OF ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE
TECHNOLOGIES. AS MANY OF YOU
KNOW, MUCH OF CALIFORNIA'S
ELECTRICAL GRID IS GROSSLY
OUTDATED, LACKING EFFICIENCY AND
RESILIENCY, WHICH CAN INCREASE
THE RISK FOR OUTAGES AND
WILDFIRES. ADDITIONALLY
CALIFORNIANS FACE SOME OF THE
HIGHEST ELECTRICITY BILLS IN THE
COUNTRY, BUT WE ALSO FACE
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
EVERY YEAR IN CONGESTION RENT,
WHICH COULD BE GREATLY REDUCED
IF WE HAD INCREASED LINE
CAPACITY. ADVANCED RE CONDUCTING
IN THE NEAR TUM, ALLOWS FOR A
BROADER COST RECOVERY AT A
FRACTION OF THE COST THAN IF WE
WERE TO WAIT FOR THAT CAPACITY
TO COME ONLINE FROM NEW
TRANSMISSION PROJECTS ALONE OVER
THE NEXT TEN YEARS OR MORE. THIS
WOULD GREATLY REDUCE THE BURDEN
RATEPAYERS FACE, WHO ARE
ULTIMATELY THE ONES, FINANCING
FOR THESE PROJECTS. AB 3246 AIMS
TO FIRST DEFINE ADVANCED
CONDUCTORS IN CALIFORNIA POLICY
AND SECOND, TO CREATE A
PERMITTING INCENTIVE FOR
UTILITIES TO USE THESE ADVANCED
CONDUCTORS WHEN UPGRADING
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAYS FOR THE
SAKE OF A STRONGER, HIGHER
CAPACITY GRID. THE BILL ADOPTS
THE SAME DEFINITION USED IN
MONTANA'S HOUSE BILL 729 THAT
DEFINES AN ADVANCED CONDUCTOR TO
BE A CONDUCTOR WITH AT LEAST A
10% REDUCTION IN ELECTRICAL
RESISTANCE THAN EXISTING
CONDUCTORS ON THE SYSTEM WITH
SIMILAR DIAMETER. THIS BILL
WOULD EXPAND UPON AN EXISTING
EXEMPTION FOR THE PLACING OF NEW
CONDUCTORS UNDER THE CPUC
GENERAL ORDER 131 D PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT SECTION TO FURTHER
SPECIFY THE INCLUSION OF AN
ADVANCED RE CONDUCTING PROJECT,
ADVANCED RE CONDUCTING PROJECTS
WOULD NOW SEEK PUC APPROVAL
INFORMALLY THROUGH THE TIER TWO
ADVICE LETTER PROCESS AS SET IN
GENERAL ORDER 96 B SO OTHER
STATES ARE ALREADY ENACTING
LEGISLATION FOR THESE
TECHNOLOGIES IN CALIFORNIA
SHOULD CERTAINLY FOLLOW SUIT. IF
WE WANT TO MAINTAIN OUR POSITION
AS CLIMATE AND ENERGY LEADERS,
AND AS CALIFORNIA IS AWAITING
THESE LONG PERMITTING AND
CONSTRUCTION TIMELINES FOR NEW
TRANSMISSION PROJECTS, THERE ARE
SOLUTIONS THAT WE CAN DO NOW TO
UNLOCK MORE CAPACITY ON OUR
EXISTING GRID, AND ADVANCED
CONDUCTORS CAN OFFER THIS IF WE
CAN INCENTIVIZE THE UTILITIES TO
USE THEM MORE WIDELY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT. YOU MAY GO AHEAD AND
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. IF YOU
WANT TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF AB
3246, MADAM CHAIR JOHN WHITE
WITH THE CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN,
WE SUPPORT THE BILL. MADAM
CHAIR, MY NAME IS DAN JACOBSON
WITH ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA.
STRONG SUPPORT CHAIR MEMBERS
EDSON PEREZ WITH ADVANCED ENERGY
UNITED AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, MELISSA CORTEZ ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA WIND ENERGY
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT SHANNON
EDDY ON BEHALF OF THE LARGE
SCALE SOLAR ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT AND JANET COX FOR
CLIMATE ACTION, CALIFORNIA AND
350 SACRAMENTO IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. MCKINLEY THOMPSON MORLEY ON
BEHALF OF THE SOLAR ENERGY
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL? GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. KIM STONE OF STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA SOLAR AND STORAGE
ASSOCIATION, IN A VERY
RESPECTFUL OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION. COUNCIL'S POSITION. WE
UNDERSTAND THAT THE UTILITIES
HAVE AN INTEREST IN REDUCING THE
REVIEW PROCESS FOR RE
CONDUCTING, BUT BELIEVE THAT THE
EXTREMELY, POTENTIALLY HIGH
COSTS OF THOSE DESERVE THE
HIGHER SCRUTINY OF A
COMMISSIONER VOTE, WHICH AND SO
THEREFORE RECOMMEND AN AMENDMENT
TO HAVE A TIER THREE PROCEEDINGS
WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A VOTE
RATHER THAN MERE STAFF ANALYSIS.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. QUESTIONS COMMENTS?
ASSEMBLY MEMBER THANKS FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. I AM
PERSONALLY VERY, VERY EXCITED
ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF GRID
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES. AND I
REALLY LIKE THE APPROACH THAT
YOU'RE TAKING WITH THIS MEASURE.
SO WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YEAH. THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING US TO TAKE UP SOME
AMENDMENTS IN THE NEXT
COMMITTEE. AND I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE STATE THAT. FOR THE
RECORD, WE'VE BEEN LEARNING
ABOUT THIS TECHNOLOGY AS WE ARE
WORKING ON THIS ISSUE AND AS
IT'S COME BEFORE YOU, THE ISSUE
OF TRANSMISSION DEVELOPMENT, IS
LENGTHY, COSTLY. AND IF WE CAN
FIND WAYS TO ACHIEVE THE SAME
GOAL IN A QUICKER TIME ON THE
INTERIM, WE SHOULD BE OPEN TO DO
THAT. RIGHT. AND SO RESPECTFULLY
ASK, FOR THOSE OLD SCHOOL
ENVIROS, THE OG AND VIRALS AND
THE NEW SCHOOL AND VIRAL, YOU
KNOW, FOLKS, TO SUPPORT THIS
MEASURE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT,
DO WE HAVE A MOTION, THEN? ALL
RIGHT. MOTION FROM ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CALDERON SECOND
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS BURR. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ITEM NUMBER NINE, AB 3246. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON.
BARRY KHN BARRY KHN I CALDERON
CALDERON I CHEN. CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I FRIEDMAN. HOLDEN.
HOLDEN. I JO. PATTERSON. JO.
PATTERSON I REYES. I REYES. I
SANTIAGO. SCHIAVO. SCHIAVO. I
TING I TING I WALLACE. WOULD
WOOD I ZIPPER ZIPPER I OKAY 11
ZERO THAT BUILDS OUT. WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS TO ADD ON SEEING NO
OTHER AUTHORS, I CAN GO AHEAD
AND TAKE UP MY BILL. AND PERHAPS
IF, SERGEANT, IF YOU CAN CALL
THE OTHER TWO AUTHORS TO TELL
THEM THEY'LL BE UP SOON.
I LIKE. TO. SNEAK.
ITEM NUMBER 14. AB 2672
PETRIE-NORRIS CALIFORNIA.
ALTERNATE RATES FOR ENERGY
PROGRAM. PUBLIC HOUSING
AUTHORITY OWNED OR ADMINISTRATED
BY HOUSING AFFILIATES OR HOUSING
FACILITIES. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY, CHAIR. THANK YOU,
MEMBERS, I AM HERE TODAY TO
PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 2672,
WHICH WILL ALLOW PROJECT HOME Kò
SITES TO RECEIVE A DISCOUNT ON
THEIR UTILITY BILLS, FIRST OFF,
I WOULD LIKE TO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, WHICH
CLARIFIES THAT THE BILL ONLY
APPLIES TO PROJECT HOME KEY
MASTER METERED PROPERTIES OWNED
BY A PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY, AS
YOU KNOW, THE CARE DISCOUNT
APPLIES TO INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS.
AND APPLIES TO A CUSTOMER METER.
HOWEVER, THESE HOME KEY SITES
ARE OFTEN IN CONVERTED HOTELS OR
MOTELS THAT ARE MASTER METERED
PROPERTIES. AS SUCH, THE CARE
DESK ACCOUNT CURRENTLY IS NOT
APPLIED, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A
POPULATION THAT WOULD OTHERWISE
QUALIFY. AB 2672 CLARIFIES THAT
IN THESE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES,
THIS POPULATION IS ELIGIBLE FOR
THE CARE DISCOUNT, WITH THAT,
GRATEFUL TO BE JOINED TODAY BY
TWO WITNESSES WHO WILL INTRODUCE
THEMSELVES AS THEY MAKE THEIR
COMMENTS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR, COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS BETH
JUAREZ. I'M WITH THE SAN DIEGO
HOUSING COMMISSION. I AM THE
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND ASSET
MANAGEMENT AT THE SAN DIEGO
HOUSING COMMISSION. STRONGLY
SUPPORTS ASSEMBLY BILL 2672. WE,
AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE THE PUBLIC
AGENCY FOR THE CITY OF SAN
DIEGO, THE SECOND LARGEST CITY
IN THE STATE, IN THE EIGHTH
LARGEST IN THE NATION. WE OWN
AND MANAGE APPROXIMATELY 2400
RENTAL HOUSING UNITS IN THE CITY
OF SAN DIEGO THAT ARE AFFORDABLE
FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH LOW INCOME.
OF THESE, MORE THAN 500 UNITS
ARE AT MASTER METER PROPERTIES
THAT WOULD BENEFIT BY EXPANDING
THE CARE UTILITY DISCOUNT
PROGRAM TO PROPERTIES OWNED OR
ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC HOUSING
AUTHORITY. MADAM CHAIR, THANK
YOU FOR AUTHORING THE BILL AND
SPONSORING THE BILL, TO
ILLUSTRATE HOW THIS BILL WILL
HELP SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES.
FOR EXAMPLE, OUR MASTER METER
PROPERTIES INCLUDE TWO SITES
WITH 332 AFFORDABLE UNITS WITH
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES THAT THE
HOUSING COMMISSION CREATED
THROUGH DIRECT PROPERTY
ACQUISITIONS WITH STATE HOMEKEY
FUNDS. THESE PROPERTIES PROVIDE
CRUCIAL RENTAL RENTAL HOMES FOR
HOUSEHOLDS THAT PREVIOUSLY WERE
EXPERIMENTING HOMELESSNESS IN
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, THE
HOUSING COMMISSION INCURS THE
COSTS FOR UTILITIES THAT ARE
MASTERED METER PROPERTIES
INSTEAD OF PASSING THEM ALONG TO
A RESIDENTS. FOR THESE TWO
PROPERTIES, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE
BUDGETED $879,000 FOR THE YEAR
FOR ELECTRICITY AND GAS UTILITY
EXPENSES ALONE. THE SAVINGS FROM
THE UTILITY DISCOUNT PROPOSED BY
AB 2672 WOULD TOTAL MORE THAN
$250,000 ACROSS THESE TWO
PROPERTIES AND PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR THE
HOUSING COMMISSION TO USE
TOWARDS EFFORTS TO BENEFIT OUR
RESIDENTS, SUCH AS SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES. OUR MISSION IS TO
FOSTER SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
STABILITY FOR THE VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS IN THE CITY OF SAN
DIEGO THROUGH QUALITY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, OPPORTUNITIES FOR
FINANCIAL SELF-RELIANCE AND
HOMELESSNESS SOLUTIONS. AB 2672
WILL SUPPORT QUALITY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
SOLUTIONS IN SAN DIEGO. THANK
YOU AGAIN, CHAIR NORRIS FOR
INTRODUCING THE LEGISLATION AND
THANK YOU, THE COMMITTEE, FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU
TODAY. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
ISRAEL SALAS WITH SAN DIEGO GAS
AND ELECTRIC ARE HERE IN
SUPPORT. THE BILL IS A VERY
SURGICAL FIX AND CLOSES A GAP IN
EXISTING LAW THAT DOESN'T AFFORD
ACCESS TO OUR CUSTOMER CARE
PROGRAMS TO PUBLICLY FUNDED
AGENCIES THAT HAVE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE UTILITY
BILL. HAPPY TO BE HERE IN
SUPPORT AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK
YOU. AND IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
SUPPORT WITNESSES AND PUBLIC
COMMENT? SEEING NONE, ANY MAIN
OPPOSITION AND SEEING NONE. ANY
PUBLIC COMMENT OPPOSED? OKAY.
WELL BRING IT BACK TO THE DÍAS.
ANY QUESTIONS? GREAT. BILL.
YEAH. SO I LOVE THE BILL, I HAVE
ONLY ONE QUESTION. AND IS THAT
WOULD THIS COVER LONG TUM CARE
RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES, OR COULD
IT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A WHOLE
HOST OF LONG TUM CARE FACILITIES
THAT ARE CLOSING RAPIDLY BECAUSE
THEY HAVE SUCH LIMITED FUNDING.
I'VE GOT IN ANOTHER, COMMITTEE,
A STUDY BILL, BECAUSE THERE'S
NOT MONEY IN THE BUDGET THIS
YEAR TO SORT OF HELP THEM. BUT,
REALLY, YOU KNOW, THESE
FACILITIES ARE ONE OF THE KEY
THINGS TO KEEPING PEOPLE WITH
MENTAL ILLNESSES FROM NOT
BECOMING HOMELESS. THEY'RE
GENERALLY, PROVIDE, HOUSING,
FOOD AND MEDICAL CARE FOR LESS
THAN $1,500 PER RESIDENT. AND
THEY'RE LOOKING FOR WAYS OF JUST
PROVIDING RESOURCES TO THESE
FOLKS BECAUSE THEY'RE CLOSING SO
RAPIDLY. I'M JUST WONDERING IF
THIS WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO
ASSIST THEM AS WELL. SO AS THE
BILL IS DRAFTED, IT WOULD APPLY
TO MASTER METERED PROPERTIES
THAT ARE OWNED BY A PUBLIC
HOUSING AGENCY. SO IN THAT CASE,
YES. AND I GUESS IN OTHER CASES,
YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE VERY OPEN
TO CONTINUING A CONVERSATION
WITH YOU ALONG THOSE LINES. I
THINK MY VIEW IS THE CARE
DISCOUNT. I THINK THAT THE
THEORY OF IT IS IT SHOULD FOLLOW
THE PERSON OAN RIGHT.
REGARDLESS OF THE HOUSING
SITUATION IN WHICH YOU YOU ARE,
YOU FIND YOURSELF. I LOVE TO
BUILD THIS IRRESPECTIVE OF THAT.
BUT WE SHOULD BE WE SHOULD TALK
ABOUT IT, THINKING ABOUT WHETHER
OR NOT IT COULD BE AMENDED TO
HELP THESE OTHER FACILITIES. I
THINK THERE'D BE A LOT OF PEOPLE
THAT'LL BE VERY GRATEFUL. YEAH.
APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU, I
ALSO LOVE THE BILL. WOULD LOVE
TO BE A COAUTHOR IF YOU'RE
TAKING COAUTHORS. YES. I
APPRECIATE THAT. AND IS THERE A
MOTION? AND A SECOND I MOVED IT.
OH FIGHTING OVER MOVING. OKAY.
SOMEBODY HERE? SOMEBODY HERE?
OKAY. MR. ZUBER IS CLOSEST TO ME
, SO HE MOVED IT SECOND. OKAY
CALDERON. THANK YOU. AND, CAN
WE. MADAM SECRETARY, CAN YOU
CALL THE ROLL ITEM NUMBER 14, AB
2672. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS,
AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
ÓRDENES PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON,
BAUER-KAHAN. I KHN I CALDERON
CALDERON I CHEN. CONNOLLY.
FRIEDMAN I FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN I JOE PATTERSON. JOE
PATTERSON I REYES I REYES I
SANTIAGO SHIAVO I SCHIAVO I TING
I TING I WALLACE WOULD I WOULD I
ZIPPER ZIPPER I CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I THAT'S 12 ZERO.
THAT'S OUT 12 ZERO. AND WE'LL
KEEP THE ROLL OPEN. THANK YOU.
TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU.
PERFECT CHAIR. YES. RIGHT. YEAH.
OKAY. THANK YOU. SO.
ALREADY. ASSEMBLY MEMBER. SORIA.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I'D LIKE TO START BY
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS
OUTLINED IN THE ANALYSIS. AND
THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN. AND YOUR
STAFF FOR THE WORK ON THIS BILL,
AB 2661, AS PROPOSED TO BE
AMENDED, WILL HELP ACHIEVE
CALIFORNIA'S RENEWABLE, GOALS BY
FOCUSING THE EFFORTS, OF THE
CPUC AND LEVERAGING THE EXISTING
CAPABILITY OF WESTLANDS WATER
DISTRICT, WHICH IS IN MY
DISTRICT, TO DELIVER NEW SOLAR
GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION
LINES TO COMBAT THE IMPACTS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE. CALIFORNIA HAS
SET AMBITIOUS GOALS TO INCREASE
THE USE OF CLEAN ENERGY, AIMING
TO ACHIEVE 60% ELIGIBLE
RENEWABLE ENERGY BY 2030 AND
100% 100% ZERO CARBON ENERGY BY
2045, TO MEET THESE GOALS, NEW
RENEWABLE GENERATION FACILITIES
AND THOUSANDS OF MILES OF NEW
TRANSMISSION LINES ARE NEEDED.
THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT
SYSTEM OPERATOR HAS ALREADY
IDENTIFIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO
DEVELOP 30,000MW OF SOLAR IN THE
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, CAL. ISIL'S
IDENTIFICATION OF THESE
POTENTIAL RESOURCES IS
ESPECIALLY TIMELY GIVEN CHANGES
OCCURRING IN OUR REGION DUE TO
THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER
MANAGEMENT ACT. THE SIGMA AS
GROUNDWATER BASINS ADOPT
SUSTAINABILITY, GROUNDWATER
MANAGEMENT PLANS, MANY REGIONS
OF THE STATE ARE EXPECTED TO
EXPERIENCE AS MUCH AS 20%
DECLINE IN AVAILABLE WATER
SUPPLY BY 2030. DUE TO THIS
MASSIVE CHANGE, IT IS ESTIMATED
THAT BETWEEN 500,000 AND 900,000
ACRES OF FARMLAND MAY NEED TO BE
FALLOWED IN THE SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY ALONE, THIS FALLOWED
FARMLAND CAN BE THE KEY TO
EXPANDING OUR SOLAR GENERATION.
WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT. WHO IS
IN THE BEST POSITION TO IDENTIFY
A SUITABLE FALLOWED FARMLAND IN
THEIR SERVICE TERRITORY FOR
CONVERSION TO SOLAR GENERATION
CAN HELP CONTRIBUTE TO THE
STATE'S RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO
WHILE MAKING UP FOR LOST WATER
SUPPLY REVENUES NEEDED TO
CONTINUE SERVING THEIR REMAINING
WATER CUSTOMERS. UNFORTUNATELY,
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TRANSMISSION
CURRENTLY PLANNED FOR THE
CENTRAL VALLEY TO CAPITALIZE ON
THIS OPPORTUNITY. THUS, AB 2661
WILL REQUIRE THE CPUC TO
EVALUATE THIS POTENTIAL NEW
SOLAR GENERATION AND GIVES
WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT THE
AUTHORITY TO BUILD, OWN AND
OPERATE TRANSMISSION LINES TO
CONNECT THIS NEW GENERATION TO
THE GRID. IN THE END, THIS BILL
WILL HELP US ACHIEVE OUR CLIMATE
GOALS WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY
PROVIDING AN INCREDIBLE
OPPORTUNITY FOR DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES LIKE PLACE IN PLACES
LIKE WEST FRESNO COUNTY, WHERE I
REPRESENT, WHICH ARE IN NEED OF
SKILLED AND WELL-PAYING, WHICH
ARE IN NEED FOR SKILLED AND
WELL-PAYING JOBS IN THAT AREA.
THE PROJECTS THAT COULD BE
UNDERTAKEN THROUGH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL WILL
HELP THESE WORKERS UPSKILL AND
ENTER INTO THE TRADES WHICH WILL
UPLIFT THESE COMMUNITIES THAT
ARE OFTEN LEFT OUT OF THE
CONVERSATION WHEN IT COMES TO
THESE TYPES OF INVESTMENTS. WITH
ME HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2661 IS MARK
JOSEPH, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF UTILITY
WORKERS AND STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS. AND THEN I
HAVE ALSO JEFF PAYNE, ON BEHALF
OF WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS, MARK JOSEPH, ON BEHALF
OF THE STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS. AB 2661 IS
AN ELEGANT SOLUTION TO SEVERAL
WELL-KNOWN PROBLEMS WE NEED. WE
NEED LOTS MORE ELECTRIC
TRANSMISSION TO DELIVER CLEAN
ENERGY. WE HAVE TO CONTROL
ELECTRIC RATES. WE NEED TO FIX
THE MAJOR TRANSMISSION
CONSTRAINT THAT IS FORCING LOTS
OF SOLAR IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
TO BE CURTAILED BECAUSE IT CAN'T
REACH NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, WHICH
IS WASTING LOTS OF MONEY. AND WE
NEED TO CREATE INCOME FOR PEOPLE
WHOSE FARMLAND NO LONGER HAS A
RELIABLE WATER SUPPLY. OR IS
DRAINAGE IMPAIRED. AND WE NEED
TO CREATE JOBS FOR THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE WORKING AND LIVING IN
THESE COMMUNITIES. AND WE NEED
TO DO ALL OF THESE THINGS
QUICKLY. SO THIS BILL ADDRESSES
ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS BY DOING
TWO THINGS. FIRST, IT GIVES THE
WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT THE
AUTHORITY TO BUILD AND OWN
TRANSMISSION LINES IN THE
DISTRICT FOR PUBLIC USE AND I
WOULD NOTE THAT BECAUSE IT IS A
PUBLIC DISTRICT, IT CAN USE 100%
DEBT FINANCING, NO UTILITY
PROFITS, WHICH WILL BE A LOWER
COST FOR RATEPAYERS US SECOND,
IT DIRECTS THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE
WESTLAND WATER DISTRICT'S MASTER
PLAN, CURRENTLY IN THE SEQUA
PROCESS THAT MASTER PLAN WOULD
BUILD 500 KV BACKBONE
TRANSMISSION IN THE DISTRICT TO
CREATE NEW CONNECTIONS FOR 10 TO
30,000MW OF SOLAR IN THE
DISTRICT AND CREATE AN
ADDITIONAL HIGH VOLTAGE
TRANSMISSION CONNECTION BETWEEN
SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. I WANT TO STRESS
THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT HARDWIRE
ANY PARTICULAR OUTCOME, NOTHING
WOULD HAPPEN UNLESS THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION FINDS THAT
THIS WOULD BE A GOOD DEAL FOR
RATEPAYERS. THEN, IF AND ONLY IF
IT IS COST EFFECTIVE FOR
RATEPAYERS, THE COMMISSION WOULD
THEN SEND THE RECOMMENDATION ON
TO THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT
SYSTEM OPERATOR, AND THEN IF AND
ONLY IF THE CAISO SELECTS THE
PROJECT IN ITS ANNUAL
TRANSMISSION PLAN, THEN THE PLAN
COULD PROCEED. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU FOR HAVING. MY NAME IS JEFF
PAYNE WITH WESTLANDS WATER
DISTRICT AND WE REPRESENT
600,000 ACRES OF LAND IN WESTERN
FRESNO AND KINGS COUNTY, THIS
BILL WOULD PROVIDE US THE
CRUCIAL AUTHORITIES AND POWERS
NEEDED TO EFFECTIVELY PLAN AND
PROVIDE STRATEGIC OVERSIGHT FOR
TRANSMISSION OF LANDS WITHIN OUR
BORDERS FROM AGRICULTURE TO
SOLAR. AT THE POWERS. I'LL NOTE,
ARE NOT NOVEL TO SPECIAL
DISTRICTS. WE CURRENTLY HAVE THE
POWERS FOR HYDROPOWER, BUT LACK
THEM FOR SOLAR AND OTHER SPECIAL
DISTRICTS IN CALIFORNIA HAVE
THEM, SUCH AS IRRIGATION
DISTRICTS ALREADY. AND WE'RE NOT
LOOKING TO TAKE ALL THE POWERS,
SUCH AS RETAIL DEVELOPMENT. IT'S
JUST SIMPLY LIMITED TO THOSE
THAT WE NEED FOR THIS PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, I ALSO NOTE THAT, WE
ARE SUBJECT TO SEQUA AND OUR
PROCEEDING WITH AS A LEAD AGENCY
ON AN EIR UNDER SEQUA. AND THE
PROJECT WILL ALSO BE REGULATED
BY FERC. THE SCALE OF THIS IS
LARGE. IT'S ABOUT 35% OF OUR
DISTRICT, WHICH HAS REMAINED
FALLOW FOR THE PAST DECADE DUE
TO WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
ISSUES FROM THE DELTA AND
FURTHER RESTRICTIONS DUE TO
SIGMA IMPLEMENTATION. THAT'S
APPROXIMATELY 140 TO 220,000
ACRES OF LAND THAT HAS
PERIODICALLY BEEN FALLOWED OVER
THE PAST DECADE. AT PRESENT,
WE'RE PLANNING UNDER OUR SCL
PROCESS FOR ABOUT 130,000 ACRES,
50% OF WHICH IS ALREADY OWNED BY
THE DISTRICT, IT'S OWNED BY THE
DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS DRAINAGE
IMPAIRED, IT'S CAUSING
SUBSIDENCE AND NEEDED TO BE
REMOVED OUT OF PRODUCTION, OR IT
WAS A MARGINAL IN ITS CONDITION,
THE VALUE OF THAT IN TERMS OF
POWER IS ROUGHLY 20GW. OUR
OVERSIGHT IS IMPORTANT AS IT
ALLOWS FOR TRANSMISSION, TO BE
MANAGED IN A MANNER THAT FAVORS
THE INCLUSION OF MARGINAL LANDS,
IT ALLOWS US TO LOOK FOR DUAL
USES, SUCH AS LANDS THAT COULD
BE BOTH SOLAR AND RECHARGE, OR
AGRIVOLTAICS, IT ALSO ALLOWS US
TO MANAGE THOSE LANDS IN A
COMPREHENSIVE MANNER THAT'S
CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJACENT
LAND USES IN THE DISTRICT. THANK
YOU, ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. GO AHEAD AND APPROACH
THE MICROPHONE IF YOU'D LIKE TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT ON AB 2661,
GAIL DELAHANTY AGAIN FOR WESTERN
GROWERS, WE SUPPORT SCOTT, WHICH
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS AND SUPPORT BOB GEROW ON
BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED
TRADES IN SUPPORT. AND WE ARE
AWAITING LETTERS AND SUPPORT
FROM THE E AND J GALLO WINERY
FAMILY AND FROM THE CALIFORNIA
DAIRY INSTITUTE, MICHAEL
BOCCADORO, ON BEHALF OF THE AG
ENERGY CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION AND
VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL GROUPS AND
STRONG SUPPORT, ROB SPIEGEL,
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT CARLOS GUTIERREZ ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CON
GARDENERS AND GROWERS
ASSOCIATION, WESTERN AG
PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION,
CALIFORNIA CITRUS MUTUAL, AND
THE WALNUT AND AVOCADO
COMMISSION IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON AGAIN HERE IN NORWOOD
ON BEHALF OF THE ALLMAN ALLIANCE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, DANIEL KIM WITH
GOLDEN STATE CLEAN ENERGY AND
SUPPORT, JOHN WHITE WITH THE
CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. PRIMARY WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION. I DON'T THINK WE
HAVE ANYONE. ALL RIGHT. SEEING
NONE, ANY WITNESSES WHO WANT TO
PROVIDE, OPPOSITION TESTIMONY.
YOU CAN APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
THANK YOU. MELISSA CORTEZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA WIND
ENERGY ASSOCIATION, WE'RE LISTED
IN OPPOSITION. WE'RE ACTUALLY
OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED. OUR
CONCERNS ARE SOLELY WITH SECTION
ONE OF THE BILL, WHICH REQUIRES
THE PUC TO EVALUATE THE 10 TO
30GW OF SOLAR IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY. WE READ THIS TO BE
BEYOND THE AMOUNT IN THE MOST
RECENTLY ADOPTED PREFERRED
SYSTEM PLAN. MORE SOLAR WILL
CERTAINLY CROWD OUT WIND AND
OTHER NON SOLAR RESOURCES. WE
DON'T OBJECT TO THE LEGISLATURE
DIRECTING UTILITY SCALE SOLAR IN
THE CENTRAL VALLEY. HOWEVER IT
SHOULD REPLACE SOLAR ELSEWHERE
IN THE PUC PLAN, WE APPRECIATE
THE AMENDMENTS. WE WILL BE
REVIEWING THOSE. HOWEVER A
SENSITIVITY STUDY IS LARGELY
DUPLICATIVE OF WHAT THE PUC
ALREADY DOES, SINCE THERE'S
VIRTUALLY NO LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT
OF SOLAR THAT THE MODEL CAN
SELECT. HAVING SAID ALL THAT, WE
HAVE NO ISSUES WITH SECTION TWO
OF THE BILL, WHICH RELATES TO
THE TRANSMISSION AND THE WATER
DISTRICTS. SO WE ASK THAT THE
AUTHOR LOOK AT THESE ISSUES AS
THE BILL MOVES FORWARD. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT, BRINGING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? MOTION FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BURR, SECOND
FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER CALDERON.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WALLACE, JUST
FOR CLARIFICATION, I GUESS THIS
IS PROBABLY FOR THE WESTLANDS
WITNESS, BUT, DOES DOES THIS
BILL GOING TO TAKE ANY
AGRICULTURAL LAND OUT OF
PRODUCTION, NONE THAT ISN'T
ALREADY OUT OF PRODUCTION DUE TO
WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY ISSUES.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOOD, THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SORIA FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. JUST A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THIS IS
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY AS MR.
JOSEPH, AS YOU SAID, AN ELEGANT
AND ELEGANT SOLUTION TO A
CHALLENGE. CAN YOU GIVE US AN
IDEA OF HOW MUCH TIME YOU THINK
THIS MIGHT SAVE IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSMISSION
COMPARED TO WHAT WE SEE WITH A
TRADITIONAL PUC PLAN? WE OFTEN
HEAR THAT SITING A NEW
TRANSMISSION LINE TAKES A
DECADE, AND GIVEN THAT THE,
WATER DISTRICT ALREADY HAS ITS
MASTER PLAN, EIR IN PROCESS, AND
THAT IT IS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR
THE SITING, I THINK WE WOULD
MEASURE THE SAVING IN MANY YEARS
. OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. YOU
ALSO MENTIONED THAT, BECAUSE OF
THE NATURE OF THE FUNDING, THE
COSTS ARE GOING TO BE LESS
BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE HOW
THIS WOULD BE FUNDED. SO
OBVIOUSLY THAT'S GOOD
POTENTIALLY FOR RATEPAYERS AS
WELL, I GUESS WHAT I WOULD, I
WOULD AS YOU TALKED ABOUT THE
TRANSMISSION, YOU ALSO I THINK
YOU ALSO MENTIONED NORTH OF, THE
OF THE, OF THE MADERA AREA OR
THE FRESNO MADERA AREA. SO CAN
YOU, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT YOU
TALKED ABOUT 500 KV LINES WHERE
WHAT WHAT IS THAT ALL OF THAT
ENCOMPASS. SO THE BILL REQUIRES
THE LINE TO BE WITHIN THE
BOUNDARY OF THE DISTRICT. THERE
WOULD BE A CONNECTION TO PG AND
E IN THE NORTH, AND A CONNECTION
TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON IN
THE SOUTH. GOT IT, GOT IT, WELL,
THANK YOU, I'M HAPPY TO VERY
HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS BILL. I'M
PARTICULARLY INTRIGUED BY THE
POSSIBILITIES THAT THIS MIGHT
LEAD, OTHER OTHERS TO CONSIDER
IN THE FUTURE, THE SHORTENED
AMOUNT OF TIME TO BUILD
TRANSMISSION IS PARTICULARLY
INTRIGUING BECAUSE I THINK YOU
WERE GENEROUS WHEN YOU SAID A
DECADE, MR. JOSEPH, I THINK WE
ALL KNOW IT'S 7 TO 12 YEARS ON
SEVEN YEARS. I'M NOT SURE HOW
YOU DO IT IN SEVEN YEARS, QUITE
FRANKLY. BUT I KNOW THE BILL IS
NARROWED TO WESTLANDS, BUT I AND
I KNOW IT WAS ORIGINALLY BROADER
THAN BROADER THAN THAT BECAUSE I
JUST ENVISION THAT THERE ARE
OTHER, OTHER, OTHER
OPPORTUNITIES HERE THAT COULD
BE, COULD BE CONSIDERED. SO
WHILE I KNOW IT'S THE BILL IS
NARROWED, I'D SURE LIKE US TO BE
LOOKING AT THIS ON A BROADER
PERSPECTIVE, CENTRAL VALLEY IS A
BIG PLACE, AND I KNOW THAT THERE
ARE OTHER AREAS IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY IN THE NORTH EVEN, THAT
HAVE WATER ISSUES AS WELL. AND
THERE MAY BE EVEN OTHER WATER
AGENCIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE
THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO UNDERTAKE
AN OPPORTUNITY LIKE THIS. SO, AS
WE ARE LOOKING AT, REACHING OUR
CLIMATE GOALS, WE HAVE TO
SHORTEN THE TIME TO BUILD
TRANSMISSION. IT IS THE ABSOLUTE
CRITICAL PIECE OF THE PUZZLE,
AND FOR, FOR EVERYONE. AND SO
THAT, I JUST SEE THAT THERE IS
AN OPPORTUNITY HERE THAT WE, I
THINK WE COULD HOPEFULLY BE
EXPLORING IN THE FUTURE. SO
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BAUER-KAHAN. THANK YOU. I AGREE,
IT'S AN ELEGANT SOLUTION. SO
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER, FOR
THIS. I HAVE TO SAY THIS IS THE
SECOND BILL TODAY WHERE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT, THE EFFECTS OF
SIGMA ON OUR FARMLAND AND
FOLLOWING IT. AND I KNOW YOU
SHARE MY CONCERN FOR THE IMPACT
THAT'S GOING TO HAVE ON YOUR
COMMUNITY. AND REALLY ON THE
STATE AND TO BE HONEST, THE
NATION, BECAUSE YOUR COMMUNITIES
GROW FOOD FOR THE NATION AND SO
I THINK THAT I JUST WANTED TO
RAISE MY REAL CONCERN THAT WE
DON'T LEAD DOWN A PATH OF A GOLD
RUSH FOR THIS LAND, THAT THEN WE
HAVE SOLAR FARMS EVERYWHERE, AND
WE LOSE THE VERY VITAL
AGRICULTURAL LAND IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. AND THE REASON I
CALL THIS SOLUTION ELEGANT IS I
THINK IT DOES THAT. I THINK IT
TAKES A WATER DISTRICT THAT'S
NESTED IN THE COMMUNITY, THAT
COMES UP WITH A PLAN TO PUT
SOLAR ON SOME OF THIS FARMLAND,
FIND REAL SOLUTIONS FOR CLEAN
ENERGY. BUT I DON'T THINK IT
RUNS US INTO A PLACE WHERE WE
START TO PUT OUR AGRICULTURAL
COMMUNITY AT RISK. AND SO I
REALLY APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I
THINK IT DOES BOTH OF THOSE
THINGS. AND I THINK THOSE ARE
TWO THINGS WE REALLY NEED TO
BALANCE AS WE MOVE TOWARDS MORE
CLEAN ENERGY IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY. SO THANK YOU FOR THIS.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO
Þ. THANK YOU, I WANTED TO SECOND
WHAT MR. WOOD WAS SAYING IN
TERMS OF I UNDERSTAND, DOCTOR
WOOD. SORRY ABOUT THAT, AS WE,
THANKS FOR CORRECTING ME. I'M
JUST KIDDING. IT WAS, AS, WE
HAVE A WATER DISTRICT IN MY
DISTRICT, PLUS COUNTY WATER
AGENCY THAT'S VERY EXPERIENCED,
AND HAS A LOT OF WATER ASSETS,
AND HAS HYDROPOWER AND IS DOING
A LOT OF INNOVATIVE THINGS. AND
IF WE CAN GET MORE, AGENCIES, TO
THAT HAVE THE EXPERIENCE AND
EXPERTISE TO BE ABLE TO BUILD ON
TO TRANSMISSION LINES AND JUST
KIND OF GET THROUGH SOME OF THIS
, VERY NICE TEN YEAR, WINDOW
HERE. I THINK THAT THAT'S A GOOD
THING. SO I UNDERSTAND, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS TAKE THE
AMENDMENTS AND IT'S A IT'S A
GOOD, I THINK, FIRST BITE AT THE
APPLE. BUT AS WE KIND OF GO
THROUGH THE NEXT FEW YEARS, I
DEFINITELY WOULD BE INTERESTED
IN KEEPING IT HOW IT ORIGINALLY
WAS IN YOUR BILL. SO BUT THANK
YOU FOR, FOR BRINGING THIS AND
OPENING IT, OPENING UP THE
CONVERSATION. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE, THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN.
AND I DO WANT TO SAY I
APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS,
BEING STATED FROM ALL MY
COLLEAGUES, I THINK THAT THERE
IS AN INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY
THAT THIS CAN PRESENT. AND SO
WHILE WE WERE HOPING THAT IT
WOULD BE MUCH BROADER, WE
UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY,
NARROWING PROBABLY IS A GOOD
START, BUT I THINK THAT IT'S A
GOOD START TO A CONVERSATION
THAT WE NEED TO HAVE AS WE ARE
LOOKING AT, TRANSITIONING AND
MEETING THE VERY AMBITIOUS
CLIMATE GOALS THAT WE HAVE, YOU
KNOW, I REPRESENT A COMMUNITY
THAT IS VERY DISTRESSED AND
POOR. AND I THINK THAT IT
PROVIDES HOPE FOR THOSE FOLKS
THAT, YOU KNOW, ARE HAVE LOST
JOBS OR MANY OR ARE SEEING THE
LOSS. AND SO, WE WE'RE HOPEFUL
THAT THIS WILL PRESENT KIND OF,
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE LOCAL
FAMILIES TO REALLY BENEFIT. AND
THAT'S MY GOAL, REALLY, IN
SEEING THAT, WORKING WITH
WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, THAT
OUR FAMILIES FIRST LOCALLY
REALLY SEE THE BENEFITS OF IT,
AND THEN JUST TO YOUR POINT,
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BAUER KHN ABOUT,
NOT LOSING THE AGRICULTURAL,
HISTORY AND JUST, YOU KNOW WHAT,
WHAT GETS PRODUCED OUT OF THE
VALLEY. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY MY
NUMBER ONE PRIORITY. AND I THINK
THAT'S WHY WE'RE WORKING VERY
CLOSELY WITH WITH WESTLANDS. AND
THEY HAVE THE EXPERTISE IN TERMS
OF WORKING, IN THE DISTRICT AND
MAKING SURE THAT THEY MANAGE THE
LANDS CORRECTLY AND THAT WE DO
IDENTIFY THOSE LANDS THAT REALLY
ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, WORKABLE
BECAUSE OF SIGMA, AND SO THANK
YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT THIS BILL. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
TODAY. THANK YOU, DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? YEAH. WE HAVE, WE HAD A
MOTION AND A SECOND, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, AB 2661 IS Dð
PASS TO NATURAL RESOURCES.
PETRIE-NORRIS I PETRIE-NORRIS I
JIM PATTERSON. BAUER-KAHAN BARRY
KHN. I CALLED AROUND I CALDERON
I CHAN. WHAT WAS THAT? I CHAN I
CONNELLY. CONNELLY I FRIEDMAN.
HI FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN. HOLDEN I
JOH. PATTERSON HI. JO. PATTERSON
I REYES REYES I SANTIAGO A
SANTIAGO I TING TING I WALLACE.
WALLACE. I WOOD, WOOD, I ZIPPER
A ZIPPER I. AND THAT'S 14 1414.
ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT AND WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. OKAY. WE ARE
ON OUR LAST ITEM FOR TODAY'S
HEARING, MR. WALLACE. AB 2172,
MOVE THE BILL. SECOND, YOU'VE
GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. I'D
LIKE TO BE QUICK, BUT I CAN'T
BE, UNFORTUNATELY. YEAH, RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M
HERE TO PRESENT AB 2312, A BILL
RELATED TO ELECTRICAL SERVICE IN
THE COACHELLA VALLEY. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND, SO I'M
GOING TO TAKE THAT HINT, THE
GOAL WITH AB 2172 IS TO HELP OUR
REGION FIGURE OUT THE FUTURE OF
OUR ELECTRICAL SERVICE. IT'S
ABSOLUTELY CLEAR FROM THE LAFCO
STUDY THAT THE ASSESSMENT WE'RE
ASKING FOR IS CRITICAL TO THE
DECISION MAKING PROCESS AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL. WITH ME TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT IS LA QUINTA CITY
COUNCIL MEMBER AND RIVERSIDE
LAFCO COMMISSIONER STEVE SANCHEZ
. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK
YOU, ASSEMBLYMAN. THANK YOU.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, STEVE
SANCHEZ, I'M A EIGHT YEAR MARINE
CORPS VETERAN AND ALMOST EIGHT
YEARS CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IN THE
GREAT CITY OF LA QUINTA, LOCATED
IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY, AND I
HAPPEN TO ALSO BE ON RIVERSIDE
COUNTY. LAFCO, I AM HERE IN
SUPPORT OF, ASSEMBLYMAN GREG
WALLACE'S LEGISLATION REGARDING
I.D. AND, THE STATE AUDITORS,
ABILITY TO CONDUCT AN AUDIT, I
THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR FOR
TRANSPARENCY FOR RATEPAYERS OF
BOTH IMPERIAL COUNTY AND
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TO UNDERSTAND,
WHO OWNS THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND
THE AGE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE,
THE, THE AGING INFRASTRUCTURE
AND WHAT THE COST WOULD BE TO
REPLACE, UPGRADE AND FIX, OUR,
OUR INFRASTRUCTURE OUT IN THE
COACHELLA VALLEY, THERE'S A
LARGER, ISSUE THAT WE HAVE WHEN
IT COMES TO POWER OUT IN THE
EASTERN COACHELLA VALLEY, WHICH
HAPPENS TO BE OVER 60% OF IID'S
RATEPAYERS COME FROM, OUT OF THE
IMPERIAL, OUT OF THE COACHELLA
VALLEY. IT IS LOCATED IN
IMPERIAL COUNTY, AND WHAT THAT
MEANS IS ALL THE VOTING
REPRESENTATION IS OUT IN
IMPERIAL COUNTY. WE HAVE NO
VOTING REPRESENTATION WHEN IT
COMES TO OUR RATEPAYERS IN THE
COACHELLA VALLEY, OF WHICH AGAIN
MAKE UP OVER 60% OF THE
RATEPAYERS FOR IID'S ELECTRIC
PORTION OF THEIR, OF THE
DIVISION WATER. THEY TAKE CARE
OF THAT AND IT IT HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH THE COACHELLA VALLEY,
NOR DO WE WANT IT, BUT THIS BILL
IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE NEED TO
KNOW WHERE DO WE STAND WITH THE
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE
RIGHT NOW, READING THE
OPPOSITION, I SAW THAT THIS BILL
BASICALLY IS DOING WHAT THE
EFFORTS OF IID'S ALREADY DOING.
IF THAT IS TRUE, THERE SHOULD BE
NO OPPOSITION TO THE BILL,
BECAUSE THIS BILL, IF IT IS
DOING WHAT THE EFFORTS ARE
ALREADY IN PLACE, THEN WE SHOULD
HAVE A UNANIMOUS, SUPPORT FROM
ALL ENTITIES IN IMPERIAL COUNTY
AND COACHELLA VALLEY FOR THIS
PIECE OF LEGISLATION. SO I WOULD
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS
PIECE OF LEGISLATION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN THE ROOM WISHING TO PROVIDE
SUPPORT, SEEING NONE. MOVING ON
TO OPPOSITION, THEN WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. ARE YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. COMMITTEE MEMBERS. JB
HAMBY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, I WANT TO
PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF
BACKGROUND HERE, BUILDING OFF
OF, MAYOR PRO TEM STEVE
SANCHEZ'S COMMENTS THERE. ID
PROVIDES WATER AND POWER AS A
PUBLIC POWER AND WATER PROVIDER
IN THE IMPERIAL VALLEY, AND THE
COACHELLA VALLEY HAS BENEFITED
FROM THE VERY LOW RATES THAT ID
HAS PROVIDED. ONLY A THIRD OF
THE NEIGHBORING INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITY IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY,
UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE OVER
TIME, THE POPULATION IN THE
EASTERN COACHELLA VALLEY HAS
GROWN. WE HAVE THE COACHELLA
FESTIVAL GOING ON JUST RIGHT NOW
THIS LAST WEEKEND AND COMING UP
AGAIN THIS WEEKEND TO IN OUR
SERVICE AREA. SO WE HAVE SOME OF
THE HIGHEST POWER RELIABILITY
AND AFFORDABILITY. BUT WE ALSO
HAVE THIS UNIQUE ISSUE, AND
WE'VE TRIED TO TAKE A LEADERSHIP
POSITION ON THIS VERY UNUSUAL
ISSUE. AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING
THAT WE FEEL IS NECESSARY TO
BURDEN YOU ALL WITH, WHICH IS
WHY WE TOOK THE INITIATIVE TO
FORM THREE YEARS AGO WITH MR.
WALLACE'S PREDECESSOR,
ASSEMBLYMAN MAYES. THE COACHELLA
VALLEY ENERGY COMMISSION, TO
BRING TOGETHER A WIDE RANGE OF
STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COACHELLA
VALLEY SIX CITIES, FOUR TRIBAL
NATIONS, TWO COUNTIES, A COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT AND THE IMPERIAL
IRRIGATION DISTRICT AS WELL. AND
JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, WE
FINISHED A TWO FULL DAY LONG
SESSION WHERE WE BROUGHT IN A
SACRAMENTO BASED GOVERNANCE FIRM
THAT HAS DONE WORK WITH SMUD FOR
THE PAST NUMBER OF DECADES TO
BRING IN SOME EXPERIENCE, HELP
FACILITATE THESE DISCUSSIONS AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL. AFTER JUST
THOSE TWO DAYS, WE FINISHED THAT
SESSION WITH LOCAL CALLING THAT
PROCESS THEIR FEELINGS AFTER IT
HOPEFUL, ENCOURAGED, OPTIMISTIC,
AND I WANT TO TELL YOU ANOTHER
SUCCESS SUCCESS STORY THAT CAME
OUT OF THAT PROCESS. OVER THOSE
TWO DAYS, WE WERE ABLE TO
IDENTIFY AN ISSUE THAT WAS A
PROBLEM FOR ONE OF THE TWO
OPTIONS THAT WERE IDENTIFYING
PRO TEM SANCHEZ IDENTIFIED SOME
OF THE CHALLENGES WE'VE
EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST, AND
WE'RE TRYING TO IDENTIFY
SOLUTIONS. ONE IS A POTENTIAL
MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT. THE
OTHER IS A JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITY. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT
IS THAT THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
IS PRECLUDED FROM DOING SO. THE
LOCALS SAW THIS WAS AN ISSUE. WE
ACTUALLY DRAFTED LEGISLATION
WITHIN OUR COMMITTEE OR WITHIN
OUR COMMISSION, FORWARDED THAT
TO ASSEMBLYMAN GARCIA. AND AFTER
THE UNANIMOUS, SUPPORT BY ALL
LOCALS PARTICIPATING IN THE
COMMISSION, THAT BILL IS NOW IN
PRINT. AS OF LAST NIGHT, IN ALL
LOCALS SUPPORT THAT BILL THROUGH
THAT VOTE. AND WHILE THAT
ADDRESSES ALL OF OUR FUNDAMENTAL
ISSUES THAT AT LEAST WE'VE
IDENTIFIED THIS BILL BEFORE YOU
TODAY IS NOT THAT BILL. THERE'S
BEEN NO LOCAL AGENCY SUPPORT TO
DATE. WE'VE NEVER BEEN CONSULTED
ON THE LOCAL BASIS ABOUT MOVING
FORWARD IN THIS PARTICULAR
DIRECTION. AND IT INSERTS A
LEVEL OF DIVISION AND
DYSFUNCTION INTO THIS PROCESS.
AND TO JUST IN CLOSING HERE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP TO
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. DEREK DOLPH,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION.
ALSO IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY.
BRINGING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SANTIAGO. AND JUST FOR
CLARIFICATION, MAYBE THE AUTHOR,
IF THAT'S OKAY WITH THE CHAIR,
SO IF THERE'S A CURRENT PROCESS
IN PLACE THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT
UP BY THE OPPOSITION, THEN, AND
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED AS
OTHER LEGISLATION ADDRESSING THE
ISSUE, NOW WE HAVE THIS BILL
BEFORE US THAT SAYS, THE STATE
SHOULD TAKE A POSITION OF
AUDITING. SOUNDS TO ME LIKE
THERE'S KIND OF LIKE 2 OR 3
CONFLICTING POINTS OF VIEW HERE,
OR MAYBE LIKE TWO AND JUST KIND
OF WANT TO GET FROM YOUR
PERSPECTIVE. THEN, IF THIS IS
ONE ROUTE, THEN WHY IS THERE A
NEED FOR THIS ADDITIONAL ROUTE
IN TERMS OF, TERMS OF THIS AUDIT
OR STATE PRESENCE, IN A LOCAL
ISSUE, IF THERE'S BEEN A
COMMISSION BUILT, BY REGIONAL
LEADERS ON THIS PARTICULAR
ISSUE, AND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE
IS, BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE BIT
CONFUSED ON THAT. YEAH. SO
THERE'S A LONG HISTORY HERE IN
THE, WITH, WITH THE, THE MOTION.
AND THE SECOND WE KIND OF
SKIPPED THROUGH MY REMARKS ON
THAT, BUT BASICALLY, THE LAFCO
AGENCIES OF RIVERSIDE AND
IMPERIAL COUNTY WERE DIRECTED TO
STUDY THE DISTRICT AND LOOK AT
LONG TERME PUBLIC POWER
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE EASTERN
COACHELLA VALLEY. AND IN THE
FUTURE, BEYOND THE END OF THIS
100 YEAR AGREEMENT THAT WE
CURRENTLY HAVE WITH IID, THE
LAFCO REPORT STATED THAT THEY
NEED THIS INFORMATION. IT'S NOT
CLEAR THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OF
THIS INFORMATION. SO OUR LOCAL
STAKEHOLDERS AREN'T ABLE TO MAKE
INFORMED DECISIONS WITHOUT
GETTING THAT INFORMATION. SO
THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING TO DO
WITH THIS BILL. MADAM CHAIR BUT
BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE
BIT OF A CONFLICT. AND THAT'S
WHY I WAS TRYING TO RECONCILE IN
MY MIND, IF I IF IT'S OKAY WITH
THE CHAIR, THAT MAYBE. SURE.
YES. GO AHEAD AND RESPOND.
APPRECIATE THAT THAT QUESTION.
SO IN THE LAFCO REPORT THAT WAS
COMMISSIONED A FEW YEARS AGO IN,
2021 WITH AB, 20 TEN, 21 WITH
ASSEMBLYMAN MAYES, THAT BILL
ESSENTIALLY TURNED INTO THE
GOVERNOR FUNDING A LAFCO STUDY
TO HELP INFORM THESE LOCAL
DISCUSSIONS. AS PART OF THAT
PROCESS, THE COACHELLA VALLEY
ENERGY COMMISSION ASKED FOR
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS. ONCE
THAT STUDY CONCLUDED.
IDENTIFYING THOSE TOP TWO
SOLUTIONS THAT WE I SHARE WITH
YOU EARLIER, WE ASKED THEM, HEY,
WHEN YOU FINISH YOUR STUDY
PROCESS, CAN YOU GIVE US SOME
TIPS ON WHAT TO LOOK AT NEXT?
THEY THEN YIELDED 11 INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THINGS TO
CONSIDER. ONE OF THEM, THE VERY
FIRST ONE, WAS IDENTIFY A LEADER
AND THEY SUGGESTED THAT BE THE
COACHELLA VALLEY ENERGY
COMMISSION. THAT BRINGS TOGETHER
ALL THE TRIBAL CITY, MUNICIPAL,
COUNTY INTERESTS. ONE OF THEM
CERTAINLY IS. ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION. I THINK THERE'S A
BIT OF A MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT
WHAT THE LAFCO CONSULTANTS WERE
LOOKING FOR. ULTIMATELY, THAT
INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED, AND
THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS THAT
WE'RE LOOKING TO HAVE WRAPPED UP
WITHIN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS, THIS
IS GOING TO BE ONE SMALL
COMPONENT OF A MUCH LARGER
PICTURE WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF
INFORMATION, THÀNH THAT'S GOING
TO HAVE TO BE DRIVEN BY WHAT THE
LOCALS ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR
TO INFORM THEIR POLICY CHOICES.
OKAY. SO CAN, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WALLACE AND OR YOUR WITNESS, CAN
YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT'S
MISSING FROM THE PROCESS THAT'S
UNDERWAY, SUCH THAT THIS
INVENTORY IS REQUIRED? SURE,
MADAM CHAIR, COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY A FEW
THINGS WHICH WILL, I THINK, HELP
ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS,
THERE IS A COACHELLA VALLEY,
ENERGY COMMISSION THAT WAS PUT
IN PLACE MANY YEARS AGO. I MEAN,
THIS DATES BACK TO SENATOR JIM
BARTON DAYS, AND DENISE DUCHESNE
DAYS WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT
THESE ISSUES REGARDING IID
INFRASTRUCTURE, DATA
INFRASTRUCTURE AUDITING. ALL OF
THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON, IT
RANGES BACK TO THE 70S BEFORE
EVEN MOVED OUT TO CALIFORNIA. I
WAS ON THE CONSUMER, ENERGY
CONSUMER COMMISSION AS A MEMBER
OF, CAC, AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, WE HAVE A
REPRESENTATIVE ON, FROM EACH
CITY WITH IID'S BOARD MEMBERS,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, WHAT
IS THE DIFFERENCE HERE? WHEN IT
WAS TIME FOR MY REAPPOINTMENT
FOR THAT COMMITTEE, I WAS NOT
RATIFIED BY THE BOARD MEMBER OF
IID FOR THE MANY QUESTIONS THAT
THE ASSEMBLYMAN IS ASKING. WHAT
IS THE DIFFERENCE? I WAS ASKING
THINGS ON BUDGET TRANSPARENCY. I
WAS ASKING THINGS ON, BIDS. I
WAS JUST THINGS THAT I WOULD DO
IN MY OWN CITY IF A CONTRACT WAS
COMING UP REGARDING
INFRASTRUCTURE OR, BIDDING
PROCESS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I
WAS ASKING, I WAS DOING MY DUE
DILIGENCE REPRESENT AS I'M
SUPPOSED TO BE DOING FOR MY CITY
, BUT, ON THE COMMISSION. SO
THESE WERE SOME OF THE REASONS
WHY I WASN'T RERATIFIED ON THAT
COMMISSION. ANYTIME WE ASK FOR
INFORMATION, WE. WHEN I SAY WE,
IT'S NOT THE CITY OF LA QUINTA.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE EASTERN
COACHELLA VALLEY, THE CITY OF
INDIO, COACHELLA, LA QUINTA,
UNINCORPORATED AREAS. FOR THOSE
THAT AREN'T FAMILIAR, THE
EASTERN COACHELLA VALLEY IS A
SMALL PORTION OF RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, THE EASTERN MOST PART OF
THE COUNTY, AND THE AND THE
COACHELLA VALLEY, IS SERVICED BY
EDISON. AND IID. IID COVERS THE
EASTERN, THE FURTHEST EAST PART
OF THE EASTERN COACHELLA VALLEY.
AND WHEN I WASN'T RATIFIED, IT
WAS DUE IN PART BECAUSE OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT I WAS ASKING. ANY
TIME WE ASK FOR INFORMATION,
OFTEN THERE'S RESISTANCE AND,
IT'S NOT REALLY FULL REPORTS ON
WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. AND SO
THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT WE IN THE
COACHELLA VALLEY HAVE BEEN
FACING FOR MANY YEARS, AS WE
DON'T HAVE THE TRANSPARENCY FROM
IID THAT IID CLAIMS. AND IF THEY
ARE TRANSPARENT, THEY SHOULD
HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL
BECAUSE IT'S DOING EXACTLY WHAT
THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE DOING
ANYWAY. SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE
OPPOSITION TO THIS. ALL RIGHT,
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER REYES. THE OPPOSITION
MENTIONED THE LAFCO REPORT AND
THAT AS A RESULT OF THAT, IT
REQUIRED THERE BEING A LEADER
AND THE LEADER THEN WAS
COACHELLA VALLEY ENERGY
COMMISSION. ENERGY COMMISSION,
IS THAT ACCURATE? IT'S NOT
INACCURATE. IT DOESN'T CALL
SPECIFICALLY OUT THE ENERGY
COMMISSION. WHAT IT DOES IS.
WHAT IT DID WAS LAY OUT
DIFFERENT OPTIONS OF WHO IS
GOING TO TAKE OVER IN TEN YEARS,
NINE YEARS FROM NOW, WHO'S GOING
TO BE THE PROVIDER OF ENERGY OUT
IN THE AREA? IT'S ALSO A BIT
PRESUMPTUOUS TO SEE THAT IT IS
CURRENTLY PURSUING A 15 YEAR,
PLAN ON INFRASTRUCTURE WHEN THEY
DON'T EVEN KNOW FOR SURE THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO BE THE ENERGY
PROVIDER IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY
IN 15 YEARS, WHEN OUR AGREEMENT
ENDS, IN TEN YEARS. IT'S A
LITTLE PRESUMPTUOUS THAT I WOULD
THINK THAT. BUT IT DOESN'T CALL
OUT SPECIFICALLY THAT THE, WHO
THE LEADER WOULD BE. WHAT WHAT
IT DID WAS IT PROVIDED A RANGE
OF OPTIONS THAT, QUITE FRANKLY,
WE IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY
ALREADY HAD THOSE SAME OPTIONS.
EITHER WE STAY WITH IID, EITHER
THE COACHELLA VALLEY ENTITIES
FORM ITS OWN, ENERGY AGENCY.
EITHER THE CITIES GO ABOUT IT
THEMSELVES. A VARIATION OF ALL
OF THAT, SO IT DIDN'T
NECESSARILY CALL FOR THE CAC TO
BE THE LEAD, BUT IT ONLY MADE
SENSE TO USE THE CAC, BECAUSE
THAT WAS ESTABLISHED. I HAVE
BEEN ACTUALLY SAYING FOR A
MOMENT, DID I, DID I STATE YOUR
DID I STATE IT CORRECTLY? IS
THAT THE WAY YOU SAID IT, THAT
THEY, THAT THE STUDY DID CALL
FOR A LEADER AND CALLED FOR THE
COACHELLA VALLEY, ENERGY
COMMISSION? IT IT DID. THAT'S
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN. AND I WANT TO
MAKE AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION
BECAUSE I THINK, RESPECTFULLY,
MAYOR PRO TEM SANCHEZ IS
CONFLATING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
I THINK WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT
IS THE ENERGY CONSUMERS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, WHICH IS SORT OF A
PLANNING COMMISSION TYPE BODY
AND ISSUES THAT OCCURRED SEVERAL
YEARS AGO, WHICH WERE HAPPY TO
HAVE MOVED BEYOND WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S INCLUDED
IN THE LAFCO STUDY IS THE
COACHELLA VALLEY ENERGY
COMMISSION, THAT WHEN FORMER
ASSEMBLYMAN MAYES BROUGHT THIS
UP BACK IN 2021, I'D ASSEMBLYMAN
GARCIA AND ASSEMBLYMAN MAYES
WORK TOGETHER TO FORM THIS GROUP
THAT INCLUDES THOSE SIX CITIES,
THE FOUR TRIBES, THE TWO
COUNTIES, THE WATER DISTRICT AND
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT. TO BE
ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHAT THE LONG
TERME SOLUTION IS. AND I DON'T
THINK THAT WE'RE BEING
PRESUMPTUOUS TO MAKE LONG TERME
SOLUTIONS BY THAT COLLABORATIVE
GROUP OF ALL OF THE
STAKEHOLDERS. THIS IS A VERY
SENSITIVE, COMPLEX. I THINK I
HEARD THE WORD MESSY BACK HERE
EARLIER PROCESS. I'VE BEEN
LIVING IT DAY IN AND DAY OUT FOR
THE LAST THREE YEARS, AND WE
WANT TO HAVE IT BE AS SMOOTH AND
FUNCTIONAL AS POSSIBLE, WHICH IS
WHY WE'RE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE
EFFORTS AND THE PROCESS THAT
ASSEMBLYMAN GARCIA TOOK, WHICH
WAS TO WORK UNTIL THERE WAS A
LOCAL SOLUTION AND CONSENSUS,
AND NOT ONE THAT'S SORT OF
COMING OUT OF LEFT FIELD AND IS
VERY DISRUPTIVE. ANOTHER COMMENT
THAT WAS MADE IS THAT THERE IS
NO LOCAL AGENCY SUPPORT, THAT
THAT IS INCORRECT BECAUSE IID IS
THE ONLY AGENCY THAT'S PROVIDING
THE POWER. SO OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE
NOT GOING TO SUPPORT SOMETHING
AGAINST THEMSELVES. BUT IF YOU
ASK THE CITIES OF LA QUINTA,
INDIO, COACHELLA, THE
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES,
PORTIONS OF INDIAN WELLS AND
PORTIONS OF RANCHO MIRAGE, IF
WE'RE CONSIDERING THEM AGENCIES,
YOU WOULD HAVE THEIR SUPPORT AS
WELL. BUT OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT
GOING TO HAVE A SUPPORT FROM THE
IT'S OWN ENTITY OPPOSING ITSELF.
ALL RIGHT. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PATTERSON. YEAH. TO ME IT SOUNDS
LIKE, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M
WRONG, BUT WE THERE'S A
OBVIOUSLY A DISPUTE GOING ON
WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, BUT THERE
ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED AND, AND THERE'S A IT
SEEMS TO BE A STAKEHOLDER GROUP.
THE LAFCO, WHICH I SAT ON LAFCO
KIND OF UNDERSTAND THAT PROCESS,
SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS A LITTLE
BIT OF, NOT REALLY A HUGE DESIRE
EITHER TO HAVE THAT EITHER
HAPPEN, THE LAFCO PROCESS AND
THE LAST LEGISLATION, TO ME,
WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS IT KIND
OF ADDS IT DOESN'T IT? IT
DOESN'T REALLY, TAKE AWAY ANY OF
THIS PROCESS. IT ACTUALLY ADDS
AN UNINTENDED THIRD PARTY IN
DEVELOPING, IN DETERMINING, WHAT
THE ASSETS ARE AND THINGS LIKE
THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT WHEN THERE'S A DISPUTE
LIKE THIS, MAYBE SOME OF THOSE
CITIES DON'T AGREE, BUT WE HAVE
AN UNINTERESTED PARTY BRINGING
CRITICAL INFORMATION TO THE
PROCESS THAT IT EXISTS ALREADY.
AND I THINK THAT'S GREAT THAT
THERE'S A PROCESS THAT EXISTS
ALREADY. BUT I THINK HAVING THIS
UNINTERESTED INFORMATION WOULD
BE CRITICAL TO THIS, TO THIS
PROCESS. AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER REYES. ALL
RIGHT. WELL, I'M LOOKING AT A
DOCUMENT. DOES SAY IDENTIFY A
LEADER, VERIFY IF THE PARTIES
DESIRE TO CONTINUE WITH THE CVC
AS A LEADER TO SPEARHEAD THE
EFFORT GOING FORWARD. AND START
BUILDING AWARENESS AND SUPPORT
WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. YEAH,
OKAY. THE OTHER COMMENT WAS THAT
THERE WAS NO REACHING OUT TO
THEM. THAT'S INACCURATE. WE'VE
REACHED OUT TO THEM MANY TIMES.
ALL RIGHT. FOR ME, IT SEEMS THAT
THERE ARE TWO COMPETING
INTERESTS, AND WE'RE BEING ASKED
TO TAKE SIDES HERE, AND I FEEL
VERY UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT DOING
THAT WITHOUT HAVING THE, THE
INPUT. HERE FROM FROM OUR
COLLEAGUE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
GARCIA, WHO SEEMS, IT APPEARS AS
THOUGH THERE IS A COMPETING
INTEREST THAT HE IS AUTHORING, A
RELATED TO THE SUBJECT. IT.
YEAH, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
DISAGREE WITH THAT
CHARACTERIZATION. THIS IS JUST A
BILL TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION
TO THAT LOCAL PROCESS AND
ACTUALLY STRENGTHEN THE DECISION
MAKERS LOCALLY. THAT'S WHAT WE'D
LIKE TO SEE GOING FORWARD, I'M
ACTUALLY COAUTHORING
ASSEMBLYMEMBER GARCIA'S BILL AND
IN REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE, BUT
THEY'RE NOT RELATED AT ALL. THIS
IS TO GET MORE INFORMATION FOR
THAT PROCESS. ALL RIGHT. ANY
FINAL COMMENTS BEFORE I, I THINK
WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE IS THAT
IT'S TAKEN A LOT OF TIME TO GET
ALL OF THESE STAKEHOLDERS
TOGETHER ON THIS COMPLEX ISSUE
THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG
TIME. AND I THINK WHAT THE
DIFFERENCE IS HAS BEEN IN THE
LAST THREE YEARS, WE'VE MADE A
COMMITTED EFFORT WHERE WE'RE
WORKING DAY IN AND DAY OUT,
HAVING A MEETING EVERY SINGLE
MONTH WITH ALL THE PARTIES.
WE'RE LOOKING TO HAVE THIS
WRAPPED UP WITHIN 12 MONTHS.
ASSEMBLYMAN GARCIA'S BILL, HE
WAITED UNTIL WE WERE ABLE TO
DELIVER HIM LANGUAGE THAT 100%
OF THE PARTIES AND STAKEHOLDERS
WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH. THIS ONE
HAS NOT. AND WE WOULD PREFER
THAT ABILITY TO BE ENGAGING WITH
THE MEMBER TO IDENTIFY WHAT ARE
THE LOCALS LOOKING FOR. AND I
THINK ONE OF THE OTHER
CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE WITH
THIS IS THAT IT'S IMPLICIT
WITHIN THE BILL, OR IMPLIED THAT
IT IS NOT WILLING TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE
BEEN DOING FOR THE ENTIRETY OF
THIS THREE YEAR PERIOD, WORKING
WITH ALL THE LOCALS. AND THE
ENTIRE FIRST YEAR WAS SPENT ON
EDUCATION AND PRODUCING
INFORMATION ALONE. SO WE YES,
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CALDERON. YES THANK YOU, YOU
KNOW, I JUST WANT TO ECHO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER. GÓMEZ. REYES
COMMENTS, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS
DISCUSSION, I FEEL A LITTLE BIT
MORE AND MORE UNCOMFORTABLE,
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MAKING A
DECISION ON THIS, BUT THAT BEING
SAID, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY, BUT I IF IT COMES BACK TO
THE FLOOR, I'M GOING TO REVISIT
MY SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY ADDITIONAL
ASSEMBLYMEMBER HOLDEN? EXCUSE
ME. I WAS JUST GOING TO ECHO
THOSE SAME COMMENTS, I AND IT'S
A SCREWDRIVER. LET ME JUST SAY
THAT WHEN I LOOK AT THE ANALYSIS
AND HEARING THE WAY THIS
DISCUSSION IS UNFOLDING, AND
NORMALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A
REPRESENTATION ON THAT, THERE IS
COMMUNITY SUPPORT. YOU SEE THAT
REFERENCED IN THE ANALYSIS. WHEN
I TURN TO SUPPORT, I DON'T SEE
WHERE THAT IS REFLECTED. NOW,
MAYBE THERE ARE CITIES OUT THERE
THAT HAVE A POINT OF VIEW THAT
ALIGNS WITH YOURS, WITH YOURS AS
THE AUTHOR, BUT IT'S HARD WHEN
YOU DON'T KNOW. AND HAVING SPENT
SOME TIME DOING POLICY, IN THE
COACHELLA VALLEY, AND
UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS, AT
LEAST IN THE PAST, AROUND IID
AND THE COMMUNITY AND TRYING TO
WORK THROUGH SOME OF THOSE
ISSUES. AND IT APPEARS THAT YOU
HAVE IT STARTS, STARTS SOUNDING
LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF, AT LEAST
IN MY MEMORY, WHAT THOSE
DIVISIONS REPRESENTED, IN TERMS
OF A POSITION IN THIS CASE OF A
BILL THAT'S SAYING THAT WE NEED
TO DO MORE TO ENGAGE, AND YOU
HAVE A PROCESS THAT APPEARS,
THROUGH THE COACHELLA VALLEY
ENERGY COMMISSION, AND I'D TO BE
MOVING DOWN THAT PATH NOW IF.
WHAT? THE MAYOR, VICE MAYOR WAS
SAYING WAS CORRECT, THEN I'D.
AND EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD BE
SUPPORTERS TO THIS EFFORT AS
WELL. AND I'M NOT HEARING AT
LEAST GETTING A SENSE THAT
THAT'S THE CASE, I'M NOT SURE I
CAN WAIT TILL IT GETS TO THE
FLOOR. I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE
AGAINST IT, BUT I'M GOING TO LAY
OFF OF IT TODAY AND WE'LL SEE
HOW IT MOVES FORWARD. AND
HOPEFULLY, SHOULD IT MOVE OUT OF
COMMITTEE, THESE ENTITIES CAN
COME FORWARD AND KIND OF HELP
ADD A LITTLE CLARITY TO WHAT AT
LEAST CONFUSION I'M FEELING IN
THE MOMENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLDEN. ALL
RIGHT. WITH THAT, ASSEMBLYMAN Þ,
I AGREE WITH, BOTH WHAT BOTH OF
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID, YOU
KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, I'M GOING TO
ACTUALLY SUPPORT THIS TODAY, I
THINK, TO SORT OF GIVE YOU AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THE
SUPPORT THAT'S NEEDED. AND I
THINK, I'D BE INTERESTED IN WHAT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GARCIA THINKS
ABOUT THIS AS WELL, WHO ALSO
COVERS PART OF THIS REGION. AND
TO ALLOW THAT PROCESS TO HAPPEN,
I'LL VOTE FOR IT NOW, BUT
OBVIOUSLY, WE'D NEED TO SEE THAT
IF IT COMES BACK TO THE FLOOR.
ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? YEAH. THIS IS A
DISTRICT BILL, A GOOD GOVERNMENT
BILL. RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND? OH, YES. WE DID. THANK
YOU. ITEM NUMBER TEN AB 2172.
THE MOTION IS Dð PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON, I
JIM PATTERSON, I BAUER-KAHAN
OAN CALDERON CALDERON I CHEN
CHEN I CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY NOT
VOTING FRIEDMAN I FOR TODAY.
FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN. HOLDEN NOT
VOTING JOE PATTERSON I JOE
PATTERSON I REYES REYES NOT
VOTING SANTIAGO I FOR TODAY
SANTIAGO I SHIAVO TING TING I
WALLACE I WALLACE I WOULD I
WOULD I ZIPPER ZIPPER I. TAB 11
ALL RIGHT 11 ZERO THAT BILL IS
OUT AND WE WILL KEEP THE ROLL
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD
ON. OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES OUR
BILLS FOR TODAY. WE'RE GOING TO
GO AHEAD AND, GO THROUGH REOPEN
THE ROLL ON THE CONSENT ITEM TO
START. THANK YOU. THIS IS THE
CONSENT FILE. CHEN PATTERSON JIM
PATTERSON I CHEN. CHEN I
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN A
HOLDEN. I JOE PATTERSON, I JOE
PATTERSON I SANTIAGO I SANTIAGO
I TING TING I THAT'S 16 ZERO 16
ZERO THAT BILLS THE CONSENT
CALENDAR IS OUT, ITEM NUMBER TWO
AB 20 109 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CARILLO. AB 2109 PETRI JIM
PATTERSON. HI. JIM PATTERSON I
CHEN. HI CHEN I FRIEDMAN I'M
SORRY, WHICH ONE IS THIS? AB
2109 FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN I HOLDEN
I JOE PATTERSON I JOE PATTERSON
I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO I TING TING
I THAT'S 1616 ZERO I BE 21 OR 9
IS OUT. ITEM NUMBER THREE AB
2221 JIM PATTERSON I JIM
PATTERSON I CHEN I CHEN I
FRIEDMAN. GOING TO BE OUT. OKAY.
IT'S EIGHT IT'S 2221 RIGHT.
FRIEDMAN NOT VOTING HOLDEN.
HOLDEN I JOE PATTERSON I JOE
PATTERSON I SANTIAGO I SANTIAGO
I TING TING NOT VOTING. 1313
ZERO THAT BILL IS OUT. OKAY ITEM
NUMBER FOUR AB 2329 JIM
PATTERSON NOT VOTING. JIM
PATTERSON NOT VOTING. BARRY KHN
CHEN CHEN I HOLDEN HOLDEN I JOE
PATTERSON. JOE PATTERSON NOT
VOTING SANTIAGO I SANTIAGO I
TING I TING I 13 ZERO 13 ZERO.
THAT IS OUT. OOPS. I NEED
ACTUALLY IF WE CAN KEEP 2329
OPEN FOR BARRY KHN Þ AND WE
WILL KEEP AB 2329 OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON. ITEM
NUMBER FIVE AB 2487 JIM
PATTERSON VOTING. JIM PATTERSON
NOT VOTING. CHEN CHEN I HOLDEN
HOLDEN I JOE PATTERSON, I JOE
PATTERSON, I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO I
TING TING I. THAT'S 15 ZERO. AND
THAT BILL IS OUT. ALL RIGHT 15
ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM
NUMBER SIX AB 2528. JIM
PATTERSON NOT VOTING. JIM
PATTERSON NOT VOTING. BARRY KHN
CHEN CHEN I HOLDEN HOLDEN I JOE
PATTERSON, NOT VOTING. JOE
PATTERSON NOT VOTING. REYES I
REYES I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO I
WALLACE WALLACE I. THAT'S 12
ZERO BUT WE'LL KEEP IT OPEN FOR
BECKHAM 12 ZERO AND WE'LL KEEP
THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS
TO ADD ON. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AB
2661 JIM PATTERSON I JIM
PATTERSON I SHIAVO THAT'S 15
ZERO. BUT WE'LL KEEP IT OPEN FOR
SHEILA, 15 ZERO. AND WE'LL KEEP
THAT OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO
ADD ON. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT AB
2750 JIM PATTERSON. HI, JIM
PATTERSON I CHEN CHEN I HOLDEN
HOLDEN I REYES REYES I SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO I WALLACE WALLACE I.
THAT'S 16 ZERO IT'S OUT. 16
ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM
NUMBER NINE AB 3246 JIM
PATTERSON I JIM PATTERSON I CHEN
CHEN I FRIEDMAN I'M SORRY, WHICH
ONE IS IT. THIS IS ITEM NINE
3246. FRIEDMAN I SANTIAGO A SON
SANTIAGO I WALLACE WALLACE I
THAT'S 16 ZERO BILLS OUT 16 ZERO
THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM ITEM
NUMBER TEN AB 2172 BARRY KHN
SHIAVO. WE'LL KEEP THAT OPEN,
OKAY? WE'LL KEEP THAT OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON. ITEM
NUMBER 14 AB 2672 JIM PATTERSON
A JIM PATTERSON I CHEN CHEN I
SANTIAGO SANTIAGO I WALLACE
WALLACE I THAT'S 16 ZERO BILLS
16 ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT. ALL
RIGHT WE WILL, WE'LL KEEP THE
ROLL OPEN FOR FIVE MORE MINUTES.
SHOULD ABSENT MEMBERS WANT TO
RETURN AND ADD ON?
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE REOPEN
THE ROLL SO THAT OUR ABSENT
MEMBERS MAY ADD ON
.
ITEM NUMBER TEN. AB 2172 BARRY
KHN CHAU. CHAU. VÚI THAT'S 12
ZERO. WE'LL KEEP IT OPEN. 12
ZERO. WE'LL KEEP THE ROLL OPEN.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, AB. 2660 100.
I AND THAT'S 16 ZERO. THAT IS
OUT 16 ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT.
YEAH. YOU CAN. Ó ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ELISE JUST TOLD ME THAT
THEY WILL NOT MAKE IT BACK, I, I
ACTUALLY JUST. WOULD HAVE DONE
IT IF I COULD GO TO THE BATHROOM
FIRST. ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE REOPEN THE
ROLL. ITEM NUMBER FOUR, AB 2329,
BARRY KHN. THAT'S 13 ZERO THAT
BILLS OUT 13 ZERO. THAT BILL IS
OUT. ITEM NUMBER SIX AB 2528.
BAUER KHN. THAT'S 12 ZERO 12
ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT. CORRECT.
WE'RE DONE. ONE MORE. ITEM
NUMBER TEN AB 2172. BAUER KHN
12 ZERO OUT 12 ZERO. THAT BILL
IS OUT. AND THAT CONCLUDES
TODAY'S HEARING OF THE
ASSEMBLY'S COMMITTEE ON
UTILITIES AND ENERGY. WE ARE
ADJOURNED. GOOD JOB