GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON
AND WELCOME. I'D LIKE TO CONVENE
TODAY'S HEARING OF THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND
ENERGY. SERGEANTS, PLEASE CALL
THE ABSENT MEMBERS BEFORE WE
MOVE ON TO OUR AGENDA. I HAVE A
FEW HOUSEKEEPING ANNOUNCEMENTS
TO MAKE, AS IS CUSTOMARY, I WILL
MAINTAIN DECORUM THROUGHOUT
TODAY'S 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 HAVE OTHER
COMMITTEE MEETINGS HAPPENING
CONCURRENTLY, AND MEMBERS MAY BE
STEPPING AWAY TO PRESENT THEIR
BILLS. WE'LL WORK TO KEEP THE
HEARING MOVING AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE, PLEASE NOTE THAT
TESTIMONY IS LIMITED TO FOUR
MINUTES ON THE SUPPORT SIDE, AND
FOUR MINUTES ON THE OPPOSITION
SIDE, WE'LL HEAR FROM UP TO TWO
WITNESSES EACH. YOU EACH GET TWO
MINUTES, UP TO FOUR MINUTES IN
TOTAL. OKAY. FOR ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES ON A MEASURE, ONLY
STATE YOUR NAME, POSITION AND
AFFILIATION. IF WE EXCEED
TODAY'S HEARING TIME, PLEASE
SUBMIT YOUR TESTIMONY THROUGH
THE EMAIL ADDRESS ON OUR
WEBSITE. TODAY, WE'VE GOT 14
MEASURES ON THE AGENDA. THREE
ARE ON OUR CONSENT CALENDAR,
LOOKS LIKE A QUORUM IS NOT YET
PRESENT, SO WE WILL GO AHEAD AND
COMMENCE AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
OKAY, SO WITH THAT, WE WILL
BEGIN WITH FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO
ASSEMBLY Þ NØ FILE ITEM NUMBER
THREE, ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWENTHAL
. THANK. WONDERFUL. HELLO AND HE
WAS SECONDED, BUT HE CAN'T. SO.
OKAY. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS, I AM PLEASED TO PRESENT
AB 2212, WHICH ENACTS THE
OFFSHORE WIND WORKFORCE SAFETY
TRAINING FACILITY DEVELOPMENT
ACT. OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT
PRESENTS OUR STATE WITH A
MULTI-BENEFIT OPPORTUNITY TO
HELP US MEET OUR CLIMATE GOALS,
SUPPORT AND IMPROVE OUR
COMMUNITIES, CREATE NEW JOBS AND
STIMULATE ECONOMIC GROWTH. THE
WORKFORCE NEEDS OF THE INDUSTRY
ARE ESTIMATED TO GENERATE
THOUSANDS OF GOOD PAYING, LONG
TERME JOBS IN OUR STATE, AND WE
CERTAINLY NEED IT IN THE 69TH
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT. HOWEVER, IN
ORDER TO MEET THESE NEEDS, WE
MUST ENSURE THAT WORKERS RECEIVE
THE PROPER SAFETY TRAINING AND
CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE
INDUSTRY TO WORK ON OFFSHORE
WIND PROJECTS AND ON THE
TURBINES THEMSELVES WHEN THEY
ARE OPERATIONAL. FORTUNATELY WE
CAN DRAW FROM THE EXAMPLE AT THE
PORT OF NEW BEDFORD ON THE EAST
COAST, HOME TO OUR COUNTRY'S
FIRST OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES, AS
WELL AS THE NATIONAL OFFSHORE
WIND INSTITUTE. THE INSTITUTE
PROVIDES WORKFORCE SAFETY
TRAINING AND CERTIFICATIONS FOR
THE OFFSHORE WIND WORKERS SO
THAT THEY CAN CARRY OUT THEIR
WORK IN THE UNIQUE ENVIRONMENT
AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND ON THE
TURBINES. THE WORKFORCE SAFETY
TRAINING FACILITIES ESTABLISHED
UNDER THIS ACT WILL PROVIDE
INVALUABLE TRAINING TO THE
OFFSHORE WIND INDUSTRY'S
WORKFORCE IN ORDER TO ENSURE
THAT THEY CAN PERFORM THEIR JOBS
SAFELY. I'M PLEASED TO BE JOINED
BY DAN JACOBSON WITH ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA, THE BILL'S SPONSOR,
WHO IS HERE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2212. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. IT'S A
PLEASURE TO SEE YOU ALL.
ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA IS A
NONPROFIT, STATEWIDE
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP FOCUSED ON
CLEAN AIR, CLEAN WATER AND
PROTECTING OUR BEAUTIFUL PLACES.
WE KNOW THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO
ACCELERATE TO GET TO 100% CLEAN
ENERGY, AND WE CAN'T DO THAT
WITHOUT OFFSHORE WIND. OFFSHORE
WIND HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF
BLOWING BEST WHEN WE NEED IT THE
MOST, WHICH IS THAT AFTERNOON
TIME WHEN THE SUN GOES DOWN.
HOWEVER, IF WE'RE GOING TO
CREATE THIS NEW INDUSTRY, WE
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO IT
SAFELY. AND AS THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HAS POINTED OUT, WE HAVE
THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING ABLE TO
LEARN FROM THE EAST COAST, WHERE
THEY'VE SET UP TRAINING CENTERS
THAT MAKE SURE NOT THAT WE JUST
KNOW HOW TO USE THE DRILL OR
SORT OF USE THE PARTICULAR
PIECE. BUT THERE ARE VERY
SPECIFIC SAFETY, PRECAUTIONS
THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN FOR
OFFSHORE WIND, FOR EXAMPLE, THE,
CLASS THAT I CITED THE OTHER DAY
IS THAT IN CASE YOU'RE IN A
HELICOPTER FLYING OUT TO ONE OF
THESE OFFSHORE WIND FACILITIES
AND THE HELICOPTER GOES DOWN IN
THE OCEAN AND FLIPS OVER, THERE
ARE CLASSES THAT TEACH THE
WORKFORCE HOW TO EFFECTIVELY
ESCAPE FROM THAT KIND OF A
SITUATION. WE CAN'T LEAVE THIS
UP TO Ã. WE HOPE PEOPLE ARE
SMART ENOUGH TO FIGURE IT OUT.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
HAVE THE TRAINING. THAT'S JUST
ONE EXAMPLE, BUT THERE'S PLENTY
OF OTHER SAFETY EXAMPLES THAT WE
HAVE. THE NACELLE FOR THE
OFFSHORE WIND FACILITIES ARE
INCREDIBLY SMALL, BUT GENERATE A
LOT OF ELECTRICITY, AND THERE'S
BOUND TO BE SOME MISHAPS THAT
HAPPEN IN THERE. PEOPLE NEED THE
SAFETY AND HEALTH TRAININGS TO
BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY AND
SAFELY GET THEIR WORKFORCE OUT
ONTO HELICOPTERS AND BACK ONTO
SHORE, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, IS THERE
ANYONE? GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP
FOR TESTIMONY IN THE ROOM. IS
THERE ANYONE IN THE ROOM WISHING
TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT
OF AB 2212? ALL RIGHT. SEEING
NONE, MOVING TO OPPOSITION, I
DON'T THINK WE'VE GOT WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION. ANYONE IN THE
HEARING ROOM WISHING TO TESTIFY
IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2212, SEEING
NONE, BRINGING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS ALL RIGHT, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER REYES AND I'LL ASK THE
QUESTION NOW. WE'RE LABOR GROUPS
ON THIS, ON SAFETY, ON ON THE
BILL, BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THEM
EITHER WAY. YEAH, WE'VE BEEN
TALKING WITH THEM WITH THE
TRADES AND WITH THE OTHER FOLKS.
THERE'S SOME PIECES THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO WANT TO LOOK AT AND
SAY, HOW ARE THEY ENGAGED WITH
THE, WITH SPECIFICALLY WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRICULUM?
AND SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK
THAT OUT WITH THEM. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE,
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE UP
THAT MEASURE, AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME WHEN WE HAVE A QUORUM.
MOVING TO ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BERMAN, FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO.
INITIATING CONFERENCE RIGHT
HERE. AND READY RACING OVER. ARE
YOU? GOOD TO SEE YOU. OH, YOU'RE
THE BEST. YOU SEE YOU. AND EVERY
ALL. ALL NOW, I LOST VOTES. I
JUST LOST VOTES BY RETURNING
COMPLIMENTS. YEAH YEAH,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR. AYE VOTE.
NO, MADAM CHAIR AND
DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES, I
WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY THANKING
THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR
WORK ON THIS BILL. I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE
ANALYSIS. INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS
MAKE UP 23% OF CALIFORNIA'S
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, WHICH
IS THE SECOND LARGEST SOURCE
BEHIND TRANSPORTATION. WHILE THE
STATE CONTINUES TO BE A LEADER
IN TRANSITIONING FROM COMBUSTION
TO ZERO EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES IN
THE ELECTRICITY AND
TRANSPORTATION SECTORS,
INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS HAVE
LARGELY REMAINED UNADDRESSED. AB
2083 IS A KEY FIRST STEP FOR
CALIFORNIA TO MODERNIZE
INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING AND
PLAN FOR HOW THE INDUSTRIAL
SECTOR WILL REDUCE ITS
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. THIS
BILL WOULD TASK THE CALIFORNIA
ENERGY COMMISSION WITH
DEVELOPING A REPORT ON THE KEY
STRATEGIES THE INDUSTRIAL
MANUFACTURING SECTOR CAN
UNDERTAKE TO CUT ITS EMISSIONS
IN LINE WITH CALIFORNIA'S
EXISTING CARBON NEUTRALITY
REQUIREMENTS. I RECOGNIZE THAT
THIS TRANSITION IS NOT AS EASY
AS IT SOUNDS, AND THAT MANY
INDUSTRIES HAVE SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE OUR GOODS
AND FOOD ARE UP TO STANDARD.
THEREFORE, CALIFORNIA WILL NEED
TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS
TO HELP INDUSTRIES. BUT FIRST,
WE MUST ASSESS AND PLAN IN ORDER
TO ENSURE THAT THE INVESTMENTS
ARE SMART AND FOCUSED TO
MAXIMIZE THE HEALTH OF OUR
EARTH, OUR COMMUNITIES AND THE
INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING
BUSINESSES. DEVELOPING A REPORT
THAT ASSESSES BOTH THE
OPPORTUNITIES AND THE CHALLENGES
IN REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS IN THE INDUSTRIAL
SECTOR, WILL STRENGTHEN OUR
INDUSTRY'S SUSTAINABILITY, WHILE
ALSO HELPING CALIFORNIA ACHIEVE
ITS CLIMATE GOALS. WITHOUT A
STRATEGIC APPROACH TO
DECARBONIZING THE STATE'S
INDUSTRIAL SECTOR, WE WILL MISS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO THOUGHTFULLY
TRANSITION TO A MORE EFFICIENT
AND RESILIENT CARBON NEUTRAL
ECONOMY BY 2045. WITH ME TODAY
ARE MARK FENSTERMAKER, ON BEHALF
OF EARTHJUSTICE AND CARLA
ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF
INDUSTRIOUS LABS. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS MARK
FENSTERMAKER, ON BEHALF OF
EARTHJUSTICE, A PROUD CO-SPONSOR
OF AB 2083, CALIFORNIA'S
INDUSTRIAL SECTOR IS A CRITICAL
COMPONENT OF THE STATE'S
ECONOMY, BUT MANY INDUSTRIAL
PROCESSES RELY ON THE COMBUSTION
OF FOSSIL FUELS, EMITTING
CRITERIA, POLLUTANTS, REDUCING
AIR QUALITY, AND REPRESENTING
23% OF OUR GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS. IN 2022, THE
LEGISLATURE PASSED AB 1279,
SETTING A GOAL TO ACHIEVE
ECONOMY WIDE CARBON NEUTRALITY
BY 2045, INCLUDING AN 85%
EMISSION REDUCTION TARGET.
REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM THE
MANUFACTURING SECTOR WILL BE A
KEY COMPONENT IN ACHIEVING THESE
GOALS, AND AB 2083 IS GOING TO
ASSESS INDUSTRIES POTENTIAL TO
DO SO. THE BILL IS NOT SETTING A
NEW EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGET.
IT IS SIMPLY PROVIDING AN
ASSESSMENT OF HOW INDUSTRY CAN
HELP IN MEETING OUR AB 1279
GOALS. CARBS 2022 SCOPING PLAN
PROVIDES A START AND THINKING OF
HOW WE'RE GOING TO DECARBONIZE
THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR. BUT THE
RELATIVELY FEW PAGES DEDICATED
DO NOT ASSESS SOME OF THE
EXISTING AND NASCENT INDUSTRIAL
EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES.
ABOUT 7 OR 8 YEARS AGO, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FRIEDMAN RECOGNIZED THE
EMISSIONS EMANATING FROM OUR
BUILDING STOCK AND AUTHORED AB
3232, TASKING THE CEC TO ANALYZE
HOW BUILDINGS COULD DECARBONIZE
AGAINST OUR 2030 GOALS. AB 2083
FOLLOWS THE MODEL FROM AB 3232
AND LOOKS AT THE INDUSTRIAL
SECTOR AGAINST OUR NEW 2045
GOALS. WE KNOW THE INDUSTRY IS
GOING TO BE A VITAL PART OF
CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMY, PROVIDING
MANY WELL-PAYING JOBS AND ALSO A
VITAL PART OF MEETING THESE 2045
GOALS. AND WE WANT MANUFACTURING
TO SUSTAIN AND THRIVE IN OUR
CARBON NEUTRAL FUTURE. AND
THAT'S WHY WE'RE WORKING WITH
MR. BERMAN ON THIS BILL. WE'RE
GRATEFUL FOR HIS LEADERSHIP. AND
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR AYE
VOTE, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, CARLA ROBINSON, ON
BEHALF OF INDUSTRIOUS LABS, AN
ORGANIZATION LEADING EFFORTS TO
DECARBONIZE THE GLOBAL
INDUSTRIAL SECTOR BY 2045.
CURRENTLY, CALIFORNIA IS A
LEADER IN INDUSTRIAL
MANUFACTURING. CRITICALLY, WE
HAVE A HOST OF INDUSTRIES LIKE
FOOD MANUFACTURING, APPAREL
PRODUCTION, PAPER, GLASS AND
MORE. DESPITE THE IMPORTANT ROLE
THAT THIS SECTOR PLAYS FOR
CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMY, THE STATE
DOES NOT HAVE A PLAN ON HOW TO
STRATEGICALLY DEPLOY ZERO
EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES IN LINE
WITH OUR CURRENT CLIMATE GOALS.
HAVING A PLAN DEVELOPED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION TO
SUPPLEMENT SOME OF THE EARLY
ANALYSIS DONE BY THE STATE
SCOPING PLAN WILL BE CRITICAL TO
OFFER AN ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGY
FORWARD REPORT ON HOW TO
DECARBONIZE THIS SECTOR, FROM
INDUSTRIAL HEAT PUMPS TO
ELECTRIC OVENS AND THERMAL
STORAGE. THIS REPORT CAN HELP
LAY OUT THE MANY ZERO EMISSION
TECHNOLOGIES THAT EXIST TODAY TO
ELIMINATE LOW HANGING FRUIT
EMISSIONS AND INDUSTRIAL
MANUFACTURING. FURTHERMORE, THIS
REPORT WILL HELP IDENTIFY
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
OPPORTUNITIES AND STRATEGIES TO
OVERCOME BARRIERS FROM THIS
MULTIFACETED SECTOR, CREATING AN
ASSESSMENT FOR HOW THE STATE CAN
MODERNIZE IN DIVERSE INDUSTRIAL
MANUFACTURING PROCESSES WILL
ULTIMATELY STRENGTHEN CALIFORNIA
INDUSTRIES GLOBALLY AND BETTER
POSITION THE STATE FOR SUSTAINED
ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE SECTOR.
WITHOUT A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO
DECARBONIZING THE STATE'S
INDUSTRIAL SECTOR. CREATED
THROUGH AB 2083, WE WILL MISS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO THOUGHTFULLY
TRANSITION TO A MORE EFFICIENT
AND RESILIENT CARBON NEUTRAL
ECONOMY BY 2045. AND FOR THOSE
REASONS, RESPECTFULLY, AUDREY, I
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT IN THE
ROOM. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. SOPHIA KHÎI WITH THE
COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR,
ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA SUPPORT.
JANET COX FOR CLIMATE ACTION
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. AND IS THERE AN
OPPOSITION WITNESS I YEAH YOU
CAN GO AHEAD AND COME TO THE
DAIS.
READY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. ROB SPIEGEL
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION IN
REGRETTABLE OPPOSITION TO AB
2083. I THINK TO JUST KIND OF
LEVEL SET THIS CONVERSATION.
MEMBERS AT THE VERY CORE OF AB
23 CONTINUES TO BE A REAL
DISAGREEMENT ON THE FUEL SOURCE
AND THE TRANSITION FOR INDUSTRY.
WE USE NATURAL GAS. WE
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OUR SECTOR IS
ALSO 23% OF CALIFORNIA'S
EMISSIONS IN THE STATE, AND WE
WILL CONTINUE TO REDUCE OUR
EMISSIONS IN THE STATE, AS WE
HAVE OVER 20% OVER THE LAST 20
YEARS. THE CORE STRATEGY,
HOWEVER, OF AB 2083 IS NOT A
HYBRID SET OF TECHNOLOGIES. THE
PATHWAY FORWARD IN 2083 IS
COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY ZERO
EMISSION OR FULL ELECTRIFICATION
OF OUR INDUSTRY PROCESSES. IN
FACT, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE
BILL, PARAGRAPHS THREE, FIVE,
SIX, TEN AND 11, EACH ONE OF
THOSE ELEMENTS SPEAK TO A ZERO
EMISSION TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION
FOR OUR INDUSTRY SECTOR. NOW THE
CORE ELEMENTS OF WHAT WILL HELP
INDUSTRY GET TO A FULL
ELECTRIFICATION OR EVEN AN
ELECTRIFICATION PATHWAY, IS
GOING TO DEPEND ON LOW ENERGY
PRICES AND REGULATION OR
LEGISLATION THAT HELPS BENEFIT
THE SECTOR TO ACCOMPLISH THAT
TARGET. BUT UNFORTUNATELY,
MEMBERS CALIFORNIA'S INDUSTRIAL
ELECTRICITY RATES ARE THE
HIGHEST IN THE NATION, 148%
HIGHER THAN THE US AVERAGE.
AGAIN A FULL ELECTRIFICATION
PATHWAY FOR OUR INDUSTRY AND AS
DESCRIBED IN 2083, IS NOT
TECHNOLOGICALLY NEUTRAL OR COST
EFFECTIVE. FOR THE COMMITTEE,
INDUSTRY IS ALREADY LOOKING AT
EXAMPLES AND OPPORTUNITIES NOT
ONLY TO DECARBONIZE BUT LOOK AT
GREATER ELEMENTS OF
ELECTRIFICATION FOR OUR SECTOR.
THIS IS BECAUSE WE ACKNOWLEDGE
WHAT THE SCOPING PLAN DID, THE
CMTA, ALONG WITH OUR COALITION
MEMBERS, WERE ENGAGED IN THE
PROCESS AT CARB, WERE ENGAGED IN
THE INDIGO PROCESS AT CEC. WE'VE
BEEN ENGAGED AT THE PROCESS AT
THE CPUC REGARDING ENERGIZATION,
AND WE'VE BEEN ENGAGED AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL WITH THE US
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND
ESTABLISHING THE FOUR PILLARS
THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR INDUSTRIAL
DECARBONIZATION. BUT I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMITTEE
TO RECOGNIZE IF WE'RE GOING TO
MOVE DOWN A PATHWAY OF
ELECTRIFYING OUR INDUSTRY, A
LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION THAT
MIGHT BE HELPFUL IN THIS
DISCUSSION IS OUR MEMBERS ARE
DOING ASSESSMENTS. CURRENTLY,
TWO MEGAWATT FACILITIES, THREE
MEGAWATT FACILITIES UNDER A FULL
ELECTRIFICATION PATHWAY. OF THE
TECHNOLOGIES PRESENTED TODAY
THAT MAY BE COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABLE AND DEPLOYABLE, WE'RE
TALKING 80MW OF NEW ENERGY FOR
THESE FACILITIES. THAT'S ENOUGH
POWER TO ENERGIZE 60,000 HOMES
IN CALIFORNIA. SO THIS
PARTICULAR BILL CREATES
ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES FOR OUR
SECTOR TO BE ABLE TO MEET. NOW,
I KNOW I'M GETTING CLOSE TO
TIME, BUT ONE OF WE FOCUS ON
FOUR PILLARS OF DECARBONIZATION,
AND IT WAS PART OF THE ROADMAP
THAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. WE'RE
DEFINITELY APPRECIATIVE OF THAT.
THE FOUR PILLARS OF ENERGY
EFFICIENCY FOR INDUSTRY
ELECTRIFICATION, CARBON CAPTURE,
STORAGE, AS WELL AS THE
PROLIFERATION OF LOW CARBON
FUELS, I.E. HYDROGEN. WE DON'T
YET HAVE A PATHWAY IN EITHER,
REALLY, OF THE TWO OTHER SECTORS
TO HELP INDUSTRY ACHIEVE THE
DEEP DECARBONIZATION THAT IS
REQUIRED UNDER 2083. IT MAY BE
AN ASSESSMENT, IT MAY BE A
ROADMAP, BUT ULTIMATELY, AT THE
END OF THE DAY, WITH THAT
REPORT, THERE IS A NEW TARGET
IDENTIFIED IN THAT BILL FOR OUR
INDUSTRY, INDUSTRIAL SECTOR OF
85% BELOW 1990 LEVELS BY THE
YEAR 2045. FOR THESE REASONS,
MEMBERS CMTA IS OPPOSED AND OUR
COALITION IS OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE IN THE
ROOM WISHING TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2083 CAN
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AT THIS
POINT. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS BETH
ALONZO, ON BEHALF OF THE
AGRICULTURAL ENERGY CONSUMERS
ASSOCIATION AND THE CALIFORNIA
POULTRY FEDERATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MARGIE
LEE, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
LEAGUE OF FOOD PRODUCERS AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. AUDRA
HARTMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LARGE ENERGY
CONSUMERS, ALSO KNOWN AS CLIQUA,
IN OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
KATIE DAVEY WITH THE DAIRY
INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT. I'LL OPEN
IT UP FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
FROM THE COMMITTEE. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BAUER KHN. THANK YOU, SO
I JUST WANT TO TAKE US BACK TO
THE BILL OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY
DOES BECAUSE IT CREATES A
REQUIREMENT THAT WE ASSESS THE
POTENTIAL FOR REDUCTIONS TO AT
LEAST 85% BELOW 1990 LEVELS BY
2045. I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT IT
SAYS THE ASSESSMENT SHALL
INCLUDE CONSIDERATIONS OF ALL
THE FOLLOWING, BUT IN NO. BY NO
MEANS RESTRICTS THE ASSESSMENT
TO THE LISTED OPTIONS. SO IF
THEY WERE TO ASSESS AND FIND
THAT THESE OPTIONS COULD NOT GET
US TO THOSE TARGETS, THERE IS
NOTHING TO STOP THE ENTITIES
FROM LOOKING TO OTHER OPTIONS TO
GET TO THOSE GOALS, 20%
REDUCTION IN 20 YEARS WHEN MY
KIDS ARE INHERITING THIS PLANET,
FRANKLY, IS NOT ENOUGH. SO I
GUESS THE FACT THAT WE ARE
TRYING TO USE THE BEST AVAILABLE
DATA, WHICH IS THE LANGUAGE IN
THE BILL, TO DETERMINE HOW BEST
TO REDUCE EMISSIONS IN A SECTOR
THAT IS PRODUCING SO MANY, FEELS
LIKE BRILLIANT POLICY. HE'S NOT
PUTTING THE MANDATE ON YOU. HE'S
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN
GET THERE USING SOME METRICS,
SOME YOU MAY NOT LIKE, BUT
ALLOWING THEM TO INCLUDE OTHERS.
IF THOSE OPTIONS SEEM MORE
FEASIBLE OR BETTER. SO I GUESS
THE OPPOSITION HERE IS MIND
BOGGLING TO ME, BECAUSE I THINK
THAT ALL THIS IS DOING IS ASKING
US TO FIGURE OUT A PATH FORWARD
TO A CLEANER FUTURE FOR OUR
CHILDREN, AND WITH THAT, I'M
HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT TODAY.
THANKS ASSEMBLY MEMBER IS. MY
COLLEAGUE IS CORRECT. THIS IS
CALLING FOR REQUIRES AN
ASSESSMENT, BUT I THINK THE
BIGGER PICTURE IS THAT WE KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO
WHERE WE HAVE TO GO. AND I THINK
THAT'S THE BIGGEST DILEMMA
BECAUSE WE KNOW WHERE WE NEED TO
GO. AND WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE BRING IN THE
MANUFACTURERS. IN MY DISTRICT,
WE HAVE SO MANY MANUFACTURERS,
AND WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO
BRING THEM ALONG TO INCLUDE THEM
IN THAT DISCUSSION. AND THAT'S
WHY I APPRECIATE THAT. IT IS AN
ASSESSMENT. IT IS SO IMPORTANT
TO HAVE THE MANUFACTURING, THE
ASSOCIATION INVOLVED IN THIS
BECAUSE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S
CLEAR THAT WE WANT TO MOVE
FORWARD FOR THE CHILDREN AND THE
GRANDCHILDREN, BUT WE ALSO HAVE
TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS ISN'T
GOING TO BE AN EASY TASK. AND WE
MAY HAVE SOME, SOME GREAT GOALS
THAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE. BUT YOU
HAVE TO BE AT THE TABLE. IT'S SO
IMPORTANT. YOUR VOICE HAS TO BE
HEARD AS WE GO THROUGH THIS
PROCESS. AND YOU'RE NOT JUST
YOUR VOICE. SOME OF THE OTHERS
WHO HAVE HAVE VOICED THEIR
OPPOSITION, WE'RE NOT GOING TO
GET ANYWHERE IF WE JUST KEEP
SAYING, HERE'S WHAT WE HAVE TO
DO, AND THIS IS THE END OF IT.
WE HAVE TO BRING ALL OF THOSE
WHO ARE WHO ARE IMPACTED BY THIS
BECAUSE IT ISN'T JUST THE
INDUSTRY, IT IS THE JOBS THAT
ARE CREATED BY THE INDUSTRY. AND
MANY OF THOSE ARE IN MY
DISTRICT. SO FINDING WAYS FOR
EVERYONE TO BE INCLUDED IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. I KNOW IT'S
AN IMPORTANT IT'S AN IMPORTANT
STEP FORWARD, BUT MAKING SURE
THAT ALL PARTIES, ALL
STAKEHOLDERS ARE INVOLVED IN THE
PROCESS IS PROBABLY THE MOST
IMPORTANT PART OF THIS. AGREED
ALL RIGHT. AND I THINK I WOULD
JUST, TO ADD OR TO BUILD ON
WHAT, WHAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
SAID. I TO READ READ THIS BILL
AS AN ASSESSMENT. AND I ACTUALLY
THINK IT'S AN INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT, KIND OF STEP THAT HAS
HERETOFORE BEEN MISSING IN A LOT
OF THE GOAL SETTING EXERCISES
THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE STATE. I
THINK WE DO A HECK OF A JOB
SETTING INCREDIBLY AMBITIOUS
TARGETS AND DON'T DO A VERY GOOD
JOB OF THEN CONNECTING THE DOTS
IN TERMS OF HOW ARE WE GOING TO
ACTUALLY DELIVER ON THOSE?
WHAT'S IT GOING TO TAKE? WHAT
ARE THE REAL BARRIERS TO THAT?
WHAT ARE GOING TO BE THE
ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES? SOME OF
WHICH YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR
OPPOSITION COMMENTS? AND SO, I
ACTUALLY REALLY SUPPORT THIS
KIND OF APPROACH. AT THE SAME
TIME AS, AS YOU KNOW, I
CERTAINLY APPROACH SUPPORT AND
ALL OF THE ABOVE APPROACH TO
DELIVER ON THOSE GOALS. AND SO I
APPRECIATE YOU AUTHORING THIS
BILL. AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER, REYES
SAID, WE THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT FOR CMTA AND OTHERS TO
BE AT THE TABLE BECAUSE THAT'S
THE ONLY WAY THAT WE ARE
ACTUALLY GOING TO CRAFT REAL
SOLUTIONS. SO WITH THAT, DO YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? YEAH, I
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. I
APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS THAT
HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT THAT I'VE HAD
WITH OTHERS WHO CAME UP IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, YOU
KNOW, WE LISTENED THIS IS A BILL
WE RAN LAST YEAR THAT WAS JUST
FOCUSED ON ELECTRIFICATION, AND
WE HEARD THE CONCERNS FROM
OPPOSITION, AND THAT'S WHY WE
BROADENED IT TO A BROADER
DECARBONIZATION FOCUS, AND A AND
A LESS, KIND OF TECHNOLOGY
SPECIFIC FOCUS THIS YEAR, AND
I'LL BE TOTALLY HONEST, I THINK
AT THE END OF THIS ASSESSMENT,
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK IN
THE MIRROR AT THINGS THAT WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO DO IF WE'RE
GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THESE VERY,
YOU KNOW, LAUDATORY GOALS THAT
WE SET, AND SO THAT'S THE WHOLE
ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THIS EXERCISE.
I GET THAT IT CREATES ANXIETY,
AND I DEFINITELY WANT INDUSTRY
TO BE A PART OF THE EFFORT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO BE AS, KIND
OF INTELLECTUALLY HONEST WITH
OURSELVES AS WE NEED TO BE IF
WE'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THESE
GOALS THAT WE NEED TO FOR RBCS
KIDS. SO, WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
. ALL RIGHT. AND, WE'LL GO AHEAD
AND TAKE A MOMENT TO ESTABLISH
QUORUM SUCH THAT WE CAN VOTE ON
YOUR BILL. ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE, CALL THE ROLL
PETRIE-NORRIS. PRESIDENT
PETRIE-NORRIS PRESENT. JIM
PATTERSON HERE, JIM PATTERSON
HERE. BARRY KHN HERE. BARRY
KHN HERE. CALDERON HERE.
CALDERON HERE. CHEN CONNERLY.
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN HERE. HERE,
HERE. AND I. SPOILER ALERT.
HOLDEN. HOLDEN HERE. JOE.
PATTERSON REYES. HERE. REYES.
HERE. SANTIAGO SHIAVO. TING
TING. HERE. WALLACE WOOD. WOOD.
HERE. ZUBER OKAY, WE HAVE A
QUORUM. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON
AB 2083? OKAY, YES WE DO. WE'VE
GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ITEM NUMBER TWO, AB 2083. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS.
PETRIE-NORRIS. I PETRIE-NORRIS I
JIM PATTERSON. JIM PATTERSON NÓ.
BARRY KHN KHN I CALDERON I
CALDERON I CHEN CONNERLY.
FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN I JOE PATTERSON. REYES I
REYES I SANTIAGO SCHIAVO TING
TING I WALLACE WOULD I WOULD I
ZIPPER. EIGHT ONE SO WE WILL
KEEP THAT OPEN. THANK YOU.
CALENDAR SECOND. ALL RIGHT.
WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ITEM NUMBER ONE, AB 1834. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. ITEM NUMBER
NINE, AB 3062. THE MOTION IS Dð
PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. ITEM NUMBER 14,
AB 2368. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. PETRIE-NORRIS
I PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON.
JIM PATTERSON I BARACK HIÆN.
BARRY KHN I CALDERON I CALDERON
I CHEN CONNERLY. FRIEDMAN I
FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN. HOLDEN I JOE
PATTERSON. REYES I REYES I
SANTIAGO SHIAVO TING TING I
WALLACE WOULD WOULD I ZIPPER
OKAY SO NINE ZERO ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR AND WE'LL LEAVE THAT
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD
ON 2212. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE JUST
WE'RE JUST MOVING THROUGH IT,
MOTION AND A SECOND ON AB 2212.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ITEM NUMBER THREE AB 2212.
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON,
JIM PATTERSON, NÓ BAUER. KHN
BAUER. KHN I CALDERON I
CALDERON I CHEN. CONNOLLY.
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN I JOE. PATTERSON. REYES
I. REYES I SANTIAGO. SHIAVO TING
TING I WALLACE. WOULD WOULD I
ZIPPER OKAY. EIGHT ONE. WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND LEAVE THAT ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON,
MOVING ON. ASSEMBLY MEMBER ADAMS
FILE ITEM FOR AB 2537. BILL
SECOND.
WELL GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR.
STAFF AND ADVOCATES. TODAY I'M
HERE TO PRESENT AB 2537. AND
SINCE THERE'S A MOTION AND A
SECOND, WE WILL TRY TO BE QUICK.
I'M SURE YOU HAVE A LOT TO DO
TODAY, BUT THIS IS THE COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT IN OFFSHORE WIND
ENERGY ACT. I WANT TO THANK THE
NUMEROUS PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON THIS BILL FOR MANY
MONTHS IN AN EFFORT TO GET IT
RIGHT, AND I DO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AS YOU
KNOW, CALIFORNIA HAS ESTABLISHED
CRITICAL CLEAN ENERGY GOALS, AND
OUR PROGRESS TOWARDS THESE GOALS
BENEFITS NOT ONLY HUMAN
COMMUNITIES, BUT FRAGILE
ECOSYSTEMS AND VITAL
BIODIVERSITY ON LAND, IN THE AIR
AND IN THE OCEAN. MEETING THIS
GOALS REALLY, TRULY DOES
ENCOMPASS OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY,
WITH A GOAL OF 25GW OR ENOUGH
POWER FOR 25 MILLION HOMES
COMING FROM OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
BY 2045. PLANNING FOR OFFSHORE
WIND ENERGY IS WELL UNDERWAY
GOING BACK AS FAR AS 2016. IN
2022, THERE WERE LEASES,
PROVIDED ALONG THE NORTH COAST
IN ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOODS
DISTRICT ALONG MY COAST ON THE
CENTRAL COAST. JUNE 20TH, 23.
THE LEASES WERE EXECUTED JANUARY
2024. THE CEC RELEASED
CALIFORNIA'S OFFSHORE WIND
STRATEGIC PLAN, SO A LOT OF
MOVEMENT HAS BEEN MADE. BUT WE
ALL RECOGNIZE THAT HISTORICALLY,
COMMUNITIES THAT HOSTED LARGE
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS HAVE
BEEN BURDENED WITH HARMFUL
IMPACTS. AND WE ARE NOW WORKING
TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE WE DO
BETTER FOR THE FUTURE. AND
THAT'S ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR
OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY THAT'S
PLACED ALONG CALIFORNIA'S
PRISTINE COAST, AND SO DURING
THIS PROCESS, IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT WE UPLIFT TRIBAL AND LOCAL
COMMUNITY VOICES. AND I THINK
WE'RE TRYING TO DO THAT. BUT I
HAVE CERTAINLY HEARD LOUD AND
CLEAR FROM LOCAL COMMUNITIES
THAT THEY HAVE A GAP IN
RESOURCES PREVENTING THEM FROM
ADEQUATELY PARTICIPATING IN
OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY PLANNING,
AS WELL AS COMMUNITY BENEFITS
CONVERSATIONS. WE KNOW TO
ENGAGEMENT, NECESSITATES HAVING
IN-DEPTH KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION
AND TECHNICAL EXPERTISE. SO AB
2537 IS A SOLUTION, A STOP GAP
SOLUTION. THE COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT IN OFFSHORE WIND
ENERGY ACT, THAT WOULD CREATE A
FUND FOR COMMUNITY CAPACITY
BUILDING SO THAT TRIBES AND
COMMUNITIES CAN ENGAGE IN THESE
IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS. SO
AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK OUR
SPONSORS, THIS COMMITTEE AND OUR
STAKEHOLDER PARTNERS FOR THEIR
ENGAGEMENT. I THINK THE
AMENDMENTS MAKE THIS A BETTER
BILL. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN
IT OVER TO OUR WITNESSES, PETER
TAN FROM BRIGHTLINE DEFENSE AND
ANDRES RAMIREZ FROM THE CITY OF
MORRO BAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS PETER TAN. I REPRESENT
BRIGHTLINE DEFENSE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NONPROFIT,
AND THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL,
Ó. THANK YOU FOR THAT PIECE OF
ADVICE THERE, THIS BILL IS VERY
STRAIGHTFORWARD, IT'S SINGULAR
PURPOSE IS TO CREATE IMPORTANT
FUNDING FOR IMPACTED
COMMUNITIES, TO PREPARE FOR
OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT
THROUGH CAPACITY BUILDING AND
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY CAPACITY
BUILDING IN BRIGHTLINE'S WORK ON
THE GROUND? IT'S BEEN ABUNDANTLY
CLEAR THAT COMMUNITIES ARE
CURIOUS AND EXCITED AND WANT TO
ENGAGE AND ENGAGE IN THE
OFFSHORE WIND PROCESS. HOWEVER,
WHAT WE'VE ALSO BEEN HEARING IS
THAT LACK OF RESOURCES IS HANDS
DOWN THE BIGGEST BARRIER TO
ENGAGEMENT RIGHT NOW. THIS BILL
WOULD FILL THAT GAP BY EXPANDING
ON THE EXISTING VOLUNTARY
OFFSHORE WIND AND COASTAL
RESOURCES PROGRAM ESTABLISHED BY
AB 209 LAST YEAR. BY INCLUDING
COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING AS A
FUND ELIGIBLE ACTIVITY, THE
GRANT PROGRAM IS CURRENTLY SET
UP TO RECEIVE FEDERAL DOLLARS,
MONEY FROM THE STATE
APPROPRIATIONS AND PRIVATE
DONATIONS. THIS BILL ADDS A
REQUIREMENT THAT OFFSHORE WIND
LEASE HOLDERS PROVIDE FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE TO SET ASIDE
SPECIFICALLY FOR CAPACITY
BUILDING LOCAL, DISADVANTAGED
AND RURAL COMMUNITIES. LOCAL
TRIBES AND QUALIFIED NONPROFITS
CAN THEN APPLY FOR GRANTS FOR
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO ENABLE
COMMUNITIES TO MEANINGFULLY
ENGAGE IN THE PROCESS, WITH THAT
OVERVIEW, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS AND RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND
STAFF. ANDRES RAMIREZ,
REPRESENTING THE CITY OF MORRO
BAY, ONE OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT
IS GOING TO BE ON THE FRONT
LINES OF DEALING WITH THE
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND THE
BENEFITS OF OFFSHORE WIND
DEVELOPMENT. THE MEMBER AND
BRIGHTLINE HAVE DONE A WONDERFUL
JOB EXPLAINING THE BILL, SO I'LL
JUST KIND OF STICK TO SORT OF
THE SENTIMENTS FROM THE CITY AND
THE COMMUNITY, MORRO BAY IS
EXTREMELY SUPPORTIVE OF
ACHIEVING THE STATE'S CLIMATE
GOALS. MULTIFACETED WAYS OF
GETTING THERE, OFFSHORE WIND
DEVELOPMENT, OBVIOUSLY VERY
EXCITING. THERE'S A LOT OF
BENEFITS THAT CAN COME FROM IT
TAX REVENUES, SUPPLY CHAIN,
MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES, JOB
CREATION. THAT'S ALL STUFF.
EVERYBODY LOOKS FORWARD TO. ALSO
SOME UNKNOWNS RIGHT?
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, CHANGES
IN LOCAL WORKFORCE. WEAR AND
TEAR ON HARBORS, INFRASTRUCTURE
THINGS LIKE THAT. SO YOU KNOW AS
MENTIONED, THE COMMUNITY REALLY
DOES WANT TO BE ENGAGED. IT'S A
CONSTITUENCY THAT CARES A LOT
ABOUT THEIR COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO
SEES THE BENEFIT OF WHAT'S TO
COME, ULTIMATELY, WHAT MORRO BAY
NEEDS IS, YOU KNOW, TO BE ABLE
TO BRING ON WHETHER IT'S SUBJECT
MATTER EXPERTS OR WHAT HAVE YOU,
THAT THEY NEED TECHNICAL, THEY
NEED LEGAL, THEY NEED
ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNICATIONS
EXPERTISE IN ORDER TO FULLY
ENGAGE THEIR COMMUNITY AND THAT
CONSTITUENCY AND FIGURE OUT WHAT
ARE THE GAPS, WHAT ARE
INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS, WHAT ARE
COMMUNITY GAPS, ENVIRONMENTAL
GAPS, AND WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS
IT PROVIDES FUNDING. EXACTLY FOR
THAT, SO IN SUPPORTING THIS
BILL, WE'RE SUPPORTING OUR
CLIMATE GOALS OF CALIFORNIA.
WE'RE SUPPORTING OUR LOCAL
COMMUNITIES. AND THANK YOU. AND
WE RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL OPEN
IT UP FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY
IN SUPPORT. IF YOU'D LIKE TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF AB 2537,
PLEASE GO AHEAD AND COME UP TO
THE MIC. THANK YOU. MICHELLE
KANELLIS, ON BEHALF OF UNION OF
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS AND SUPPORT
. STEPHEN KING, ON BEHALF OF
ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
EDUARDO MARTINEZ WITH MANATT,
PHELPS AND PHILLIPS. I WAS ASKED
TO CONVEY THE SUPPORT OF 350
HUMBOLDT SLOW CLIMATE ACTION,
ELECTED OFFICIALS TO PROTECT
AMERICA, CODE BLUE AND THE
MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM. THANK YOU
. HI, MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS JORDAN
CURLEY HERE ON BEHALF OF
AMERICAN CLEAN POWER, WE HAVE A
LITTLE BIT OF A TWEENER
POSITION, BUT WE'RE JUST WANTING
TO EXPRESS OUR GRATITUDE TO THE
CHAIR, TO THE AUTHOR, TO THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR ALL THE
GREAT WORK THAT WE'VE SEEN ON
THE LANGUAGE. YOU KNOW, WE'RE
REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO
CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION. SO
THANK YOU SO MUCH. HI, JANET COX
FOR CLIMATE ACTION CALIFORNIA
AND THE CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT,
CALIFORNIA COALITION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. MOVING TO OPPOSITION.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A
PRIMARY WITNESS IN OPPOSITION.
ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE
OPPOSITION IN THE ROOM. IF YOU
WANT TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO
THE AB 2537, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MIC SEEING NONE, QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
SEEING NONE. I'LL JUST SAY, I
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON ON THIS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. AND I ALSO WANT TO
APPRECIATE, THE ENGAGEMENT OF,
OF INDUSTRY FOLKS AND THE
OFFSHORE WIND LEASE HOLDERS IN
THIS PROCESS. AS YOU WERE
TALKING, IT REMINDS ME OF
THERE'S THIS AFRICAN I THINK
IT'S AFRICAN PROVERB, THAT'S YOU
KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO GO FAST, GO
ALONE. IF YOU WANT TO GO FAR, GO
TOGETHER. AND, I KNOW THAT YOU
WANT TO GO FAR AND I KNOW THAT
YOU'RE COMMITTED TO BRINGING
EVERYONE TOGETHER AS PART OF
THAT. SO THANK YOU. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? SURE. NO, I, I
WOULD SAY AB 2537 RECOGNIZES
THAT CALIFORNIA IS ON OUR PATH
TO, MEETING IMPORTANT CLEAN
ENERGY GOALS THAT BENEFIT
HUMANS, FRAGILE ECOSYSTEMS AND
VITAL, BIODIVERSE K¾T IN THE
OCEAN, ON LAND AND IN THE AIR.
AND WE ALL ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT
THIS, ALONG THIS PATH, WE HAVE
TO UPLIFT THE VOICES OF LOCAL
TRIBAL, COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL
COMMUNITIES. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. DID WE HAVE WE
HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL
RIGHT, MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. ITEM NUMBER FOUR,
AB 2537. SORRY THE MOTION IS DO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON.
JIM PATTERSON NOT VOTING. BARRY
KHN. BARRY KHN I CALDERON I
CALDERON I CHEN CONNOLLY.
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN I JOE PATTERSON I JOE
PATTERSON I REYES REYES I
SANTIAGO XIAOBO TING I TING I
WALLACE WOOD, WOOD I SABER. OKAY
SO NINE ZERO THAT BILL IS OUT
AND WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO FILE
ITEM FIVE AB 2666. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BERNER. WHEN YOU'RE READY
. AYE. NÓ 2666. LET'S NOT INVOKE
THE DEVIL. THANK YOU. SUBMISSION
OF THE CHAIR FOR MY WITNESS.
DOES MY WITNESS WANT TO MAKE
SURE I HAVE THE RIGHT BILL?
2666. GOOD. I ACTUALLY WROTE
GOOD EVENING BECAUSE WE THOUGHT
CNC WOULD GO REALLY LONG AND
YOU'D BE HERE AT NIGHT. SO GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK
THE CHAIR AND HER AMAZING
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
ME ON THIS BILL. I ACCEPT ALL
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AND I
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
OPPOSITION. SHOULD THIS BILL
MOVE FORWARD TODAY. TODAY I'M
PRESENTING AB 2666. THIS IS MY
SECOND TASHA BE SPECIAL OF THE
DAY, WHICH WE REQUIRE THE CPUC
FOLLOWING EACH GENERAL RATE CASE
TEST YEAR TO REVIEW WHICH COSTS,
IF ANY. EACH ELECTRICAL OR GAS
CORPORATION WAS ABLE TO REDUCE
TO ACHIEVE RECORD PROFITS AND TO
ADJUST THE AUTHORIZED REVENUE
PROSPECTIVELY BASED ON ACTUAL
COSTS. AS MANY OF US HAVE
DISCUSSED BEFORE THIS HEARING,
THE AUDIT REQUEST SHOW THAT THE
CPUC IS NOT HOLDING ELECTRIC AND
GAS CORPORATIONS ACCOUNTABLE. AB
2666 PUTS IN GOOD GOVERNANCE
STANDARDS TO ADDRESS ISSUES IN
THE AUDIT, AND AT THE END OF THE
DAY, PROTECT OUR RATEPAYERS. THE
AUDIT SHOWS THAT SPECIFICALLY
SDG NE SAU RECORD PROFITS OVER
NINE OF THE LAST TEN YEARS. I
WANT TO GIVE YOU A PICTURE OF
WHAT MY CONSTITUENTS ARE DEALING
WITH. MY ELECTRICITY BILL FROM
FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR. YOU'LL
SEE $353. I LIVE IN 1500 SQUARE
FEET. IT'S A FOUR PLEX. SO WE
ONLY HAVE TWO OUTSIDE WALLS.
THERE ARE NO MORE THAN THREE
PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE AT ANY ONE
TIME. WE DIDN'T USE ANY HEAT
THIS YEAR AND WE DO NOT HAVE AIR
CONDITIONING, ACCORDING TO THE
COMPARE POWER CALCULATOR, I
LOOKED UP, MY FAMILY USES ONLY
ABOUT 70% OF THE AVERAGE FAMILY
HOME OF THIS SIZE IN SAN DIEGO
AND STATEWIDE, WHERE THE 33
PERCENTILE IN THE ENTIRE STATE.
I GUESS THAT'S WHAT YOU GET WHEN
YOU HAVE A EUROPEAN EX-HUSBAND
WHO'S OBSESSED WITH ENERGY,
FRUGALITY, AND WE TURN OFF THE
LIGHTS WHEN WE'RE NOT IN THE
ROOM. WE HAVE BASIC APPLIANCES,
LIKE MOST FAMILIES, A FRIDGE, A
STOVE, A WATER HEATER, A WASHER,
A DRYER. THIS CANNOT BE THE
BASELINE FOR SAN DIEGANS AND THE
BASELINE FOR CALIFORNIANS. WE
KNOW OUR STATE IS IN AN
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS, AND THIS
IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
HAPPENS WHEN OUR GAS RATES WERE
SO HIGH A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, A
LOT OF MEMBERS GOT CALLS ABOUT
THE GAS RATES. I GOT CALLS ABOUT
UTILITY RATES, WATER RATES,
ELECTRICITY, GAS. MY FAMILY CAN
AFFORD THIS. BUT THINK ABOUT THE
COLLEGE STUDENT, THE YOUNG
PROFESSIONAL, WORKING FAMILIES
AND SENIORS WHO CANNOT NOT GO
BELOW A BASELINE LIKE THIS. AND
FOR MOST OF THE LAST FEW YEARS,
SGA HAS HAD SOME OF THE HIGHEST
RATES IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
TODAY MORE THAN 25% OF SGA
CUSTOMERS ARE MORE THAN 30 DAYS
BEHIND ON THEIR UTILITY BILLS.
PEOPLE JUST CAN'T PAY THESE
RATES WHEN, YEAR AFTER YEAR, THE
CPUC APPROVES EVER INCREASING
RATES. WHILE SGA SHOWS
EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH PROFITS ABOVE
THE GUARANTEED RATES OF RETURN,
SOMETHING IS WRONG, AND AB 2666
IS ABOUT ADDRESSING THE ROOT
CAUSES OF THIS EGREGIOUS PRICING
BY DOING THE FOLLOWING FOUR
THINGS. IT REQUIRES THE CPUC
FILING EACH GENERAL RATE CASE
TEST YEAR TO REVIEW WHICH COSTS,
IF ANY. EACH ELECTRICAL OR GAS
CORPORATION WAS ABLE TO REDUCE
TO ACHIEVE PROFITS, AND TO
ADJUST THE AUTHORIZED REVENUE IN
SUBSEQUENT YEARS OR IN THE NEXT
GENERAL RATE CASE, AS
APPROPRIATE, BASED ON THE ACTUAL
PAST COSTS OF CORPORATE THE
CORPORATION RECORDED. THIS IS
PERSPECTIVE AND A POWER THAT THE
CPUC CURRENTLY HAS, BUT HASN'T
USED IN DECADES. THIS MEANS THAT
UNLIKE WHAT YOU MAY HAVE HEARD
FROM THE OPPOSITION REQUIRES THE
CPUC TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES FOR
ELECTRICAL AND GAS CORPORATIONS
TO CALCULATE AND REPORT THEIR
ACTUAL RATES OF RETURN TO THE
COMMISSION ANNUALLY REQUIRES
ELECTRIC AND GAS CORPORATIONS TO
REPORT THEIR ACTUAL WEIGHT.
REQUIRES CPUC TO ESTABLISH
GUIDELINES FOR THE ELECTRICAL
AND GAS CORPORATIONS TO
CALCULATE AND REPORT THEIR
ACTUAL RATES OF RETURN TO THE
COMMISSION. THEN IT REQUIRES THE
ELECTRICAL AND GAS CORPORATIONS
TO REPORT BASED ON THOSE
GUIDELINES, THE ACTUAL RATES OF
RETURN, AND REQUIRES THE CPUC TO
ADOPT CONTROLS TO ADEQUATELY
TRACK THOSE CORPORATIONS ACTUAL
RATES OF RETURN RELATIVE TO
THEIR FORECASTED COSTS, AND TO
REQUIRE THAT THOSE CORPORATIONS
TO IDENTIFY THE COST CATEGORIES
WHERE PROJECTED COSTS EXCEEDED
ACTUAL COSTS. WE HAVE TO GET TO
THE BOTTOM OF WHAT'S INCREASING
OUR RATEPAYERS RATES. YOU'LL SEE
THIS BILL IS REQUIRING MORE
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
OF BOTH THE ELECTRIC AND GAS
CORPORATIONS AND THE CPUC. SO
THAT THE EGREGIOUS PRICE GOUGING
THAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING ACROSS
SAN DIEGO AND THE STATE AND
RATEPAYERS ACROSS CALIFORNIA ARE
PROTECTED. IF THE UTILITIES ARE
NOT MAKING RECORD PROFITS ON THE
BACK OF WORKING PEOPLE, THIS
BILL WON'T DO ANYTHING BUT BRING
TO LIGHT AREAS IN WHICH
LEGITIMATE SAVINGS WERE MADE AND
ADJUST DOWN TRUE COSTS OF DOING
BUSINESS. AS YOU'LL NOTE, I
DON'T HAVE A WITNESS. SINCE THIS
IS NATASHA. BE SPECIAL. I DO
HAVE. I THINK, THE STATE AUDITOR
SOMEWHERE. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE
THERE. HE IS. SO THE STATE
AUDITOR IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY
PROCESS QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE
AUDIT ON WHICH MY BILL WAS
BASED. BEFORE I FINISH, I DO
WANT TO ADDRESS THE OBVIOUSLY
TIMING ISSUES BECAUSE WE CHANGED
THE APPROACH TO THIS BILL LAST
WEEK. THESE AMENDS FOR FIRST
AVAILABLE EVEN TO ME YESTERDAY
EVENING FOR SUCH IMPORTANT
ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY AND
GOOD GOVERNANCE MEASURE. I
REALLY APPLAUD THE COMMITTEE ON
HELPING AND THE CHAIR TO AND
HELPING ME ADDRESS THE REAL COST
OF LIVING ISSUES THAT WE HAVE IN
SAN DIEGO AND CALIFORNIA. I'LL
NOTE DESPITE REACHING OUT
SEVERAL TIMES TO OPPOSITION, I
HAVE RECEIVED NO AMENDMENTS.
THEY HAVE NOT MET WITH ME, ON MY
ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE BILL,
NOR ON THIS ONE, AS I
DEMONSTRATED FOR SIX YEARS,
ESPECIALLY ON MY TOSHIBA
SPECIALS, I'LL CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION AND ANY OF
MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE INTERESTED
IN THIS ON ANY ISSUES SHOULD
THIS BILL MOVE FORWARD TODAY
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. ALL RIGHT,
WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR ANY
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT. IF YOU'RE
IN SUPPORT, OF AB 2666, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. THANK
YOU. IGNACIO HERNANDEZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE UTILITY REFORM
NETWORK IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
IN PRINT. AND WE'RE REVIEWING
THE AMENDMENTS, BUT I'M LIKELY
REMAIN IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
TURN HELLO. YVETTE DICARLO
WITNESSED A SOARING RATES IN
SUPPORT. JANET COX FOR CLIMATE
ACTION CALIFORNIA THE CLIMATE
REALITY PROJECT CALIFORNIA
COALITION, ELDERS CLIMATE
ACTION, THE GLENDALE
ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, 350
SACRAMENTO AND 350 HUMBOLDT, ALL
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU
IS THERE A PRIMARY WITNESS WHO
WILL BE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION?
GO AHEAD AND COME ON UP.
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MADAM CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, MITCH MITCHELL, CHIEF
LEGISLATIVE OFFICER FOR THE
SEMPRA UTILITIES, SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, AND SAN
DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC. AND I
SIT HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY AND
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL, I SIT HERE NOT ONLY AS AN
EMPLOYEE OF THE SEPARATE
UTILITIES, BUT I ALSO SIT HERE
AS THE FORMER CHAIR OF THE CITY
OF FOOD BANK AND THE CURRENT
CHAIR OF THE SAN DIEGO HOUSING
COMMISSION. I HEAR THE STORIES
OF PEOPLE WHO TALK ABOUT THEIR
ELECTRIC BILL AND THE IMPACTS ON
UTILITIES OF THEIR OWN
HOUSEHOLDS. I HEAR THE STORIES
EVERY SINGLE DAY. AND FOR THAT
REASON, A LOT OF TIMES WE HAVE
OUR CONVERSATIONS UP HERE AS A
GROUP. WE TALK ABOUT WHAT CAN WE
DO TO TRULY CREATE SOLUTIONS
THAT REDUCE RATES AND REDUCE
BILLS AND REDUCE THESE IMPACTS.
SO AS WE AS WE AS WE LOOK AT
THIS SITUATION, I WANT TO SAY
THAT WE ARE ALIGNED WITH YOU,
MADAM CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE FOCUS ON
AFFORDABILITY. WHAT CAN WE DO TO
TRULY BRING BILLS DOWN FOR ALL
UTILITY CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA? NOW, WE'VE WE'VE
TAKEN A LOOK AT THE AMENDMENTS,
AND WE APPRECIATE THE NOD TOWARD
THE CONCERNS AROUND RETROACTIVE
RATE MAKING AND CREATING
UNCERTAINTY. AND THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT
TO THE UTILITIES. AND I WOULD
SAY THAT THAT WHEN YOU WHEN WE
LOOK AT THIS, OUR FOCUS IS TRULY
TRYING TO CREATE ALIGNMENT WITH
THE STATE'S POLICIES ON THE
GREEN TRANSITION. AND WE WANT TO
DO IT BOTH EFFECTIVELY,
EFFICIENTLY AND SAFELY. AND WE
REMAIN COMMITTED TO OUR
COMMERCENTRE CUSTOMERS. WE'VE
BEEN HAVING THIS CONVERSATION
ABOUT RATES FOR TEN YEARS. WHEN
WE WERE NEGOTIATING AB 327 AND
TALKING ABOUT HOW RATES, HOW
HIGH RATES WERE THEN. NOW,
BECAUSE OF THE ALIGNMENT AND ALL
THE THINGS THAT WE ARE DOING TO
TRY AND STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE STATE'S MANDATES. THAT
ANSWER DOESN'T WORK FOR OUR
CUSTOMERS. THEY DON'T WANT TO
HEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
DO ON THE ON THE GREEN, THE
GREEN GREEN TRANSITION OR
WILDFIRE MITIGATION. THEY WANT
TO KNOW WHAT WE CAN DO TO REDUCE
THEIR BILLS, I HAVE OFFERED I
WOULD SAY THIS TO THE MEMBER WE
WOULD LOVE TO DO AN ENERGY AUDIT
TO HELP YOU WITH YOUR OWN BILL,
I 80% OF OUR CUSTOMERS USE 500
KILOWATT HOURS OR MORE OR LESS A
MONTH. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT
THAT'S A PART OF THAT IS A
BYPRODUCT OF THEM BEING
CONCERNED ABOUT THE RISE IN
THEIR COST. AND SO WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE TO TRY AND REACH SOME
CONSENSUS. BUT WE REMAIN FIRMLY
IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL,
BECAUSE NOTHING IN THIS BILL IS
INTRODUCED REDUCES RATES OR
REDUCES BILLS AND THAT SHOULD BE
THE FOCUS. AND WE ARE WE ARE
COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH YOU ON
THAT. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS, SCOTT WELCH, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA COALITION OF
UTILITY EMPLOYEES, WE'RE
CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE
DIRECTION OF THE AMENDMENTS. GOT
HIM LATE LAST NIGHT, AND WE
SHARE MANY OF THE CONCERNS. I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, THOUGH, TO
SPEAK TO THE BILL, IN GENERAL,
BECAUSE THERE'S THE OBVIOUSLY
SOME VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT
IT HAVING THE OPPOSITE IMPACT
THAT IT IS INTENDED TO HAVE. YOU
KNOW, THE GENERAL RATE CASE
DETERMINES THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT
IOU CAN COLLECT FROM RATEPAYERS
TO RUN THE UTILITY FOR A FUTURE
FOUR YEAR PERIOD. THAT'S THE
REVENUE REQUIREMENT. THE CAPITAL
AND EXPENSES ARE BASED ON A
FORECAST. THE UTILITY, SUBMITS
THE FORECAST AND THE APPLICATION
PROCESS. BUT THEN THERE'S AN 18
MONTH PROCESS THAT THE PUC WITH
ALL STAKEHOLDER HOLDERS WEIGHING
IN. AND THAT FORECAST BEING
REFINED THROUGH THAT 18 MONTH
COLLABORATIVE PROCESS, ONCE THE
FORECASTED BUDGET FOR THE FIRST
FOUR YEARS, WHICH IS THE TEST
YEAR, WHICH THEN GETS ADJUSTED
FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS, WHICH
ARE THE ATTRITION YEARS FOR
INFLATION AND OTHER FACTORS. THE
FIRST YEAR BUDGET IS BASED ON
HISTORICAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
EXPENSES, FORECASTED
INFRASTRUCTURE WORK, AND FUTURE
COST PROJECTIONS. WHEN YOU HAVE
A FORECAST PROCESS, THERE IS
NECESSARILY GOING TO BE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FORECASTED
AND ACTUAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
EXPENSES. BUT THE FORECASTING
PROCESS INCENTIVES USES THE IOUS
TO FIND EFFICIENCIES. WHEN
ACTUAL EXPENSES COME IN BELOW
THE FORECAST. THE IOU BENEFITS
FROM A SHORT TERME INCREASE IN
THEIR PROFITS, BUT RATEPAYERS
BENEFIT IN THE LONGER TERME
BECAUSE THOSE IOUS EFFICIENCIES
LOWER THE HISTORIC SPEND AND
LOWER FORECAST AS INPUTS IN THE
NEXT GRC. SO THEY FIND
EFFICIENCIES. THEY GET A SHORT
TERME INCREASE IN THEIR RATE OF
RETURN, BUT RATEPAYERS BENEFIT
BECAUSE THOSE EFFICIENCIES ARE
THEN BAKED IN TO THE LOWER
FORECASTS AND INPUTS IN THE NEXT
GRC. AS A RESULT, A LOWER
REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND LESS
COLLECTED FROM RATEPAYERS IN THE
NEXT GRC. THIS BILL WOULD
REQUIRE THE CPUC TO ADJUST THE
REVENUE REQUIREMENT. AS I
UNDERSTAND THE AMENDMENTS FOR
THE THREE ATTRITION YEARS BASED
ON SPENDING IN THE TEST YEAR,
THIS WILL NOT HELP RATES. IN
FACT, IT WILL RAISE RATES. THANK
YOU. IT WILL TAKE AWAY THE
INCENTIVE, THE INCENTIVE FOR THE
IOUS TO BE MORE EFFICIENT. AND
THE IOUS WILL THEN BE
INCENTIVIZED TO SPEND EVERY
PENNY THE CPUC AUTHORIZES. IT IS
WELL INTENDED, BUT WILL HAVE THE
OPPOSITE IMPACT FOR WHICH IT IS
INTENDED. AND FOR THAT REASON,
WE'D URGE A NO, WE WOULD URGE
WE'LL LOOK AT THE AMENDMENTS.
BUT AT CURRENT IN THE CURRENT
VERSION, WE HAVE TO REMAIN
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES. YOU ALL MIGHT WANT TO
STAY BECAUSE WE. YEAH, WE
PROBABLY WILL HAVE QUESTIONS,
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THE AB 2666. GO
AHEAD AND APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR HUNTERSTON, ON BEHALF OF
IBEW LOCAL 1245, IN OPPOSITION,
PENDING REVIEW OF THE
AMENDMENTS. AND A REMINDER TO
THE COMMITTEE, THIS IS ALSO
WHERE OUR WORK COMES FROM. THANK
YOU. VALERIE CHIRLA ALEJO'S,
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
AND OPPOSITION. CATHERINE BORG
WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON.
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. ALL
RIGHT, BRINGING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS? COMMENTS.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CALDERON. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I LIKE YOUR
FLIP CHART OR YOUR CHART. IT'S
VERY CREATIVE, YOU ALWAYS DO
YOUR HOMEWORK. HAVE YOU SPOKEN
TO THE CPUC TO SEE HOW THIS
WOULD WORK WITH THE ALREADY
STAGGERED GRC CYCLE THAT'S
SUPPOSED TO ENSURE TIMELY
DECISION MAKING? SO WE GOT THE
AMENDMENTS YESTERDAY EVENING. AS
I SAID, WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE CPUC TO MAKE SURE THE
PROCESS ITSELF IS ACCURATE.
THESE ARE POWERS THAT THE CPUC
HAVE, AND THEY DON'T EXERCISE
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PUTTING IN A
PROCESS THAT GIVES A MORE
ACCURATE ABILITY TO PROPERLY
FORECAST AT THE LOWER RATES. IF
YOU LOOK AT SDC AUDIT, YOU LOOK
AT THE AUDIT BACK IN THE DAY
WHEN WE DID THE AUDIT, YOU'LL
SEE THAT BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S
TWO WAYS TO LOOK AT IT. DO YOU
INCENTIVIZE, THROUGH SAVINGS OR
DO YOU INCENTIVIZE THE MORE
ACCURATE FORECASTING THAT
RESULTS IN LOWER RATES AND SO WE
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
CPUC GOING FORWARD. BUT WE JUST
HAD THIS THESE AMENDMENTS
YESTERDAY. BUT WE'LL CONTINUE TO
DO THAT. AND I'M HAPPY TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ANYBODY
WHO HAS CONCERNS ON THE BILL.
OKAY. AND WHAT DOES THE BILL DO
THAT THE PUC IS NOT CURRENTLY
DOING IN THE PUBLIC PROCESSES IN
REGARDS TO RATE OF RETURN AND
THE COST OF CAPITAL. SO WHAT MY
BILL DOES IS SAYS YOU HAVE THESE
POWERS AND WE'RE GOING TO TELL
YOU EXACTLY HOW TO USE THEM BY
HAVING THEM HAVE GUIDELINES FOR
REPORTING, HAVING THE UTILITIES
REPORT THAT THAT TEST YOUR
IMPACT AND THEN ADJUST THE RATES
PROSPECTIVELY. THOSE ARE THINGS
THAT THEY HAVE THE POWER TO DO,
BUT THEY DON'T DO. AND WE KNOW
THAT WITH THE CPUC, SOMETIMES WE
NEED TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO THE
RIGHT THING FOR TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR OUR
RATEPAYERS. CAN I HAVE ONE MORE
QUESTION FOR I THINK THIS MIGHT
BE FOR THE OPPOSITION. THÀNH,
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SGA
Â IS IN A TEST YEAR. CAN YOU
EXPLAIN THAT? YEAH. SO
ESSENTIALLY THE SIMPLEST WAY TO
OFFER THE EXAMPLE IS THAT WHAT
THE WHAT THE MEMBER IS
MENTIONING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT
WE'RE AUTHORIZED TO SPEND, YOU
KNOW, LOOK AT IT THIS WAY, IF,
IF WHAT WE DO IS WE CREATE A
PLAN THAT ALIGNS WITH WHAT OUR
OBJECTIVES ARE AND THE MANDATES
THAT COME TO US. SO IF WE PLAN
OUT OVER FOUR YEARS, $100 IN
YEAR ONE, $100 IN YEAR, $200 IN
YEAR THREE AND 75 IN YEAR FOUR,
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE
BUILDING TOWARDS THAT PLAN. AS
MR. WEDGE MENTIONED, THERE ARE
TIMES WHEN WE FIND EFFICIENT
WAYS TO, TO, TO CONSTRUCT OR TO
DO SOMETHING. AND THERE'S A
SAVINGS AND THAT THE INCENTIVE
TO BE EFFICIENT, TO FIND A MORE
EFFICIENT WAY TO OPERATE IS
SOMETHING THAT'S GOOD. AS SCOTT
MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WE CAN
EASILY SAY WE'RE GOING TO SPEND
THE 100, 100, 175. BUT IF WE
FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO IT FOR
350 INSTEAD OF 375, THAT IS A
POSITIVE. AND SO THE, THE
CONCERN WE HAVE ABOUT THE
AMENDMENTS IS IN THE TEST YEAR,
WHEN GRCS ARE OFTEN LATE, SO
THEY'RE NOT ON SCHEDULE. AND
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BUILDING
FOR YEARS. SO RIGHT NOW WE ARE
DELAYED AND WAITING FOR A GRC
DECISION. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS
WE'VE WE'VE BEEN ORDERED TO
RESTRICT SPENDING BECAUSE WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE GRC DECISION
IS GOING TO BE. SO IN THIS THE
WAY THE BILL IS WRITTEN NOW. SO
WE THINK THAT THAT WE'RE GOING
TO SPEND 100 IN THE FIRST YEAR,
THE TEST YEAR, IF THE GRC COMES
OUT AND SAYS, WELL, YOU KNOW, OR
THE THIS BILL ARE IN PLACE AND
SAYS, LISTEN, WE FOUND THAT YOU
WERE OVER AUTHORIZED. WE'RE
GOING TO TAKE MONEY FROM YOU
BACK. WE MIGHT THEY MIGHT TAKE
IT FROM YEAR THREE AND YEAR ONE
IS HARD BECAUSE IF WE IF WE IF
WE HOLD BACK ON OUR SPENDING AND
WE INSTEAD OF SPENDING 100, WE
ONLY SPEND 70 BECAUSE WE WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE GRC
DECISION. IT'S GOING TO LOOK
LIKE WE HAD A BIG BONUS AT THE
END AND THAT WASN'T THE CASE. WE
WERE JUST BEING CAUTIOUS. SO I
THINK YOU HAVE TO. THE TEST YEAR
IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT
SETS THE TONE FOR THE REST OF
THE SPEND. BUT THAT'S THE YEAR
THAT THAT THE PUC BASES. YOU
KNOW, OUR OUR REQUEST ON. SO
OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER CONNELLY. THANK
YOU I APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR.
COMING FORWARD IN THE WITNESSES,
A COUPLE QUESTIONS. FOR THE
OPPOSITION, AND PERHAPS STARTING
WITH SDG AND E, IN MY
UNDERSTANDING, AT LEAST IN NINE
OF THE LAST TEN YEARS, SDG
KNEES, ACTUAL RATE OF RETURN WAS
HIGHER THAN ITS AUTHORIZED RATE
OF RETURN. WITH SUCH A
CONSISTENT RECORD OF
OUTPERFORMING THE PROJECTIONS,
HOW CAN WE BE CONFIDENT THAT
THOSE PROJECTIONS ARE ACCURATE?
WELL, THE STATE AUDITOR
MENTIONED THE FORECASTING ISSUE
AND THAT WE THAT THAT WE NEED TO
LOOK AT HOW WE'RE FORECASTING
AGAIN, I THINK I THINK WE TAKE
GREAT PRIDE IN THE FACT THAT,
WE'VE BEEN AT THE WILDFIRE
MITIGATION COMPONENT FOR TEN
YEARS. WE LEARNED A LOT OF
THINGS. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
2000 AND 8 AND TODAY, WE'VE
LEARNED HOW TO DO THINGS MORE
EFFICIENT, MORE EFFICIENT, AND
MORE EFFECTIVELY. AND
FORECASTING IS SOMETHING YOU'RE
TRYING TO GUESS WHAT THE COSTS
ARE GOING TO BE. BUT TECHNOLOGY
GETS INVOLVED AND SOMETIMES WHAT
YOU WHAT YOU PREDICT, YOU FIND
SOME TECHNOLOGICAL WAY TO DO IT
BETTER AND MORE EFFICIENTLY.
WITH AI COMING, THAT'S GOING TO
BE THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING
THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT FORECAST.
SO I WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS,
IS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS THE
ABILITY RIGHT NOW TO LOOK AT
EVERYTHING UNDER THE PHRASE OF
JUST AND REASONABLE. IF THEY
LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE DONE AND WHAT
WE FORECAST AND THEY FIGURE OUT,
THEY SAY, WELL, WE DON'T THINK
YOU WERE JUST IN REASONABLENESS.
THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TODAY TO
SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO WE'RE
NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THAT
BENEFIT. THIS WAS NOT JUST AND
REASONABLE. AND I THINK THAT IS
THE SAFETY NET, RIGHT. IS THAT
JUST AND REASONABLE, MR. WELCH
AND THEN I HAVE A FOLLOW UP.
MAYBE YOU CAN. SO THERE'S THIS.
YES, THERE'S THIS SORT OF
MISCONCEPTION, THÀNH, THAT THE
UTILITIES DO THE FORECASTING AND
THE AUDITOR ALLUDED MADE THE,
THE INFERENCE THAT THE UTILITIES
SET THIS, THIS BAR, ARTIFICIALLY
HIGH SO THAT THEY CAN COME IN
AND UNDERCUT IT, EACH AND EVERY
TIME, WHICH IS SIMPLY OVER TIME
IS NOT THE CASE. WHAT HAPPENS IS
THEY SUBMIT A FORECAST WHICH
THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT. THIS IS A
THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS
BEFORE AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE, WHERE YOU HAVE TO CREATE
A RECORD. THEY HAVE TO COME IN
WITH THE DATA AND THE, YOU KNOW,
EVIDENCE TO JUST TO JUSTIFY
THEIR FORECAST. THEN ALL THE
STAKEHOLDER GROUPS THAT ARE
ACCEPTED AS INTERVENORS QUÊ
BEING ONE OF THEM. AND WE NEVER
AGREE ON A GRC AS A CAPITAL PLAN
AS PROPOSED BY ANY OF THE
UTILITIES. NEITHER DOES TURN.
NEITHER DOES THE OFFICE OF
RATEPAYER ADVOCATE NOR DO THE
OTHER DOZENS OF INTERVENERS IN
EACH OF THESE GRCS. AND IT'S AN
18 MONTH PROCESS BEFORE THIS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, WHERE
THESE ISSUES AND DATA POINTS ARE
HASHED OUT, AND AT THE END OF
THIS VERY LENGTHY 18 MONTH
PROCESS, THE JUDGE THAT PRESIDES
OVER THAT THEN PUTS FORWARD A
DECISION BASED ON ALL THE DATA
AND ALL THE INPUT FROM ALL THOSE
GROUPS. SO THIS CONCEPTION THAT
THE UTILITIES SOMEHOW JUST
DICTATE THEIR OWN FORECAST IS
ILLUSIONARY, FINAL QUESTION. AND
THIS RELATES TO PG AND E, WHICH
IS NOT AT THE TABLE. SO I MIGHT
JUST HAVE TO FOLLOW UP. BUT TO
THE EXTENT, PARTICULARLY MR.
WHICH YOU MAY BE ABLE TO
COMMENT. SO IN CONTRAST, PG AND
E'S RECORD ABOUT PERFORMING ITS
EXPECTED RATE OF RETURN IS NOT
AS EXEMPLARY, SHALL WE SAY, AS
SDG AND E'S. YES BUT PG AND E
RECENTLY POSTED RECORD PROFITS
$2.2 BILLION IN 2023, UP 25%
FROM 2022. CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN TO
ME HOW EVEN WHEN A UTILITY IS
CONSISTENTLY MAKING, UNDER THEIR
AUTHORIZED RATE OF RETURN, THAT.
COMPANY CAN STILL BREAK PROFIT
RECORDS? AGAIN? MR. I DON'T I
DON'T REPRESENT PG AND E, I
REPRESENT THE WORKERS. BUT WHAT
I WILL SAY IS IBEW DOESN'T GIVE
A RAT'S WITH THAT PG. IBEW
DOESN'T GIVE A RAT'S ABOUT THE
PROFITS OF ANY OF THE UTILITIES.
WE DON'T WHAT WE CARE ABOUT IS
THAT WHEN MAKING DECISIONS IN
THIS BUILDING AFFECT THE MARKET
IN AND, AND DESTABILIZE THE
MARKET BECAUSE THAT LEADS TO
HIGHER BORROWING COSTS OF THE
UTILITIES AND IT CAUSES
PREDATORY INVESTORS TO JUMP IN,
YOU KNOW, YOU FIDDLE AROUND
ENOUGH WITH THESE THINGS WHEN
YOU DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE.
AND WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU HAVE
HEDGE FUNDS THAT COME CIRCLING
AROUND THESE ENTITIES. AND WE
WERE WE WERE THE CHAIR PEOPLE.
THE QUÊ CHAIRED THE CREDITORS
COMMITTEE IN PG BANKRUPTCY. AND
WE BARELY, ESCAPED HAVING HEDGE
FUNDS TAKE OVER THE UTILITY.
HEDGE FUNDS DON'T CARE ABOUT
CLIMATE. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT
RATEPAYERS. THEY DON'T CARE
ABOUT WORKERS. THEY GOT THEY GOT
COMPANIES. THEY BREAK UNIONS AND
THEY LEAVE TOWN. AND THAT'S WHAT
WILL HAPPEN IF WE CONTINUE TO
TRY TO TINKER, WITH THE PROCESS
THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE, IN WAYS
FOR WHICH WE'RE REALLY NOT
QUALIFIED TO DO. ALL RIGHT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN, I
THINK I JUST WANT TO START RIGHT
WHERE MR. WELCH AND I DON'T KNOW
IF MR. STERN WANTS TO ANSWER
THIS, BECAUSE ACTUALLY, IT WAS
STARTING WITH A COMMENT HE MADE.
HE SAID, I THINK AND I DON'T
WANT TO MISQUOTE YOU, MR. STERN,
BUT YOU SAID THIS IS WHERE OUR
WORK COMES FROM. AND I WAS A
LITTLE BIT CONFUSED, BUT MAYBE
YOU JUST CLARIFIED THAT, THIS
FOCUSES ON THE RATE OF RETURN,
WHICH I THINK IS JUST PROFITS TO
THE SHAREHOLDERS. SO I WAS A
LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BY HOW THIS
RELATES TO YOUR WORK. AND AGAIN,
EITHER OF YOU, I DON'T KNOW, I
THINK LOOK, ALL OF THE ALL WHAT
WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT HERE IS
THAT THE CURRENT PROCESS IS THAT
IF THE UTILITY COMES IN
UNDERNEATH THEIR RATE OF RETURN,
THAT IN THE NEXT GRC, THAT THAT
WILL THEN ADJUST THE NUMBERS
DOWN BECAUSE THE BASE WILL BE IT
WILL BE BAKED INTO THE BASE.
OKAY. IF WHAT THE BILL PROPOSES
TO DO IS THROUGH THE, THE THREE
ATTRITION YEARS TO DO THAT WHERE
THE WHERE THE FUNDS HAVE ALREADY
BEEN APPROVED THAT THAT HAS
IMPACTS ON THE UTILITY'S ABILITY
TO FINANCE WHAT THEY HAVE TO
FINANCE AND TO FINANCE IT AT AN
AFFORDABLE COST. THAT NOT ONLY
HURTS RATEPAYERS, BUT IT LEADS
TO A REDUCTION IN THE
INFRASTRUCTURE WORK THAT OUR
MEMBERS ARE EMPLOYED TO DO, AND
THAT HURTS. THAT HURTS US.
THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. I
JUST WASN'T CLEAR ON HOW THAT
ALL FIT INTO THIS CONVERSATION,
SO I JUST I WANT TO TOUCH
BRIEFLY ON WHAT YOU WERE SAYING
ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE PROCESS, BECAUSE I THINK
THAT WHAT YOU'RE HEARING, NOT
YOU, BUT WHAT THE WORLD IS
HEARING AGAIN AND AGAIN FROM
THIS COMMITTEE IS THAT WE FEEL
LIKE THE PUC IS FAILING
RATEPAYERS. AND RECENTLY THERE
IS A VERY LONG ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW PROCESS AROUND THE DESIRE
FOR PGE TO UNDERGROUND MORE THAN
THEY COULD EVER UNDERGROUND IN
THE YEARS THAT THEY INTENDED TO
DO SO. THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE DENIED THEM THE RIGHT AND
THE PUC OVERRULED IT. SO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, AFTER
THE LENGTHY PROCESS YOU
DESCRIBED, DIDN'T BELIEVE THEY
COULD ACTUALLY DO THAT, BUT THAT
DIDN'T MATTER IN THE FINAL
DETERMINATION BY THE PUC. AND
NOW THE RATEPAYERS ARE PAYING
OUT BECAUSE OF THAT. SO PART OF
WHAT YOU'RE HEARING FROM US, I
THINK, IS THAT MAYBE THERE ARE
PROCESSES AT THE PUC THAT SHOULD
WORK, AND THEY'RE NOT WORKING
THE WAY RATEPAYERS NEED THEM TO.
AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.
THERE'S ISSUES WITH THE WAY THE
GRC WORKS, THAT COULD BE
IMPROVED AND WE HAVE PROBLEMS
WITH IT. WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A
LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH IT. THE
FACT OF THE MATTER, NO MATTER
THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH IN THIS
ROOM, IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF
THE REASONS FOR THE RATES THAT
WE HAVE TODAY COME FROM THIS
BUILDING AND ACTIONS TAKEN BY
THIS LEGISLATURE, MOST
PRESUMABLY OR MOST
SIGNIFICANTLY, INVERSE
CONDEMNATION AND SPENDING
RATEPAYER MONEY, LIKE IT'S
MONOPOLY MONEY ON THINGS LIKE
NET METERING AND THAT IS JUST
THE FACT IF YOU LOOK AT THE
WHERE RATES HAVE GONE OVER THE
LAST SIX YEARS, THOSE ARE THE
THINGS THAT HAVE DRIVEN UP
RATES. AND I THINK THAT IT'S MY
OPINION AND THAT IT IS A LOT OF
THINGS. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT
SOME OF THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE
BAKED INTO RATES ARE NOT PART OF
THAT. I KNOW THAT THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS
FOCUSED ON AND WANTS TO LOOK AT
MOVING FORWARD, AND I THINK THE
CHAIR HAS SAID THAT IN HEARINGS
PRIOR TO THIS, BUT I DO THINK
THAT IT IS A VERY GENEROUS
DEPICTION OF WHAT IS HAPPENING,
TO SAY THAT THE REASON THE RATE
OF RETURN IS EXCEEDING WHAT IS
PROJECTED IS BECAUSE THEY FOUND
SAVINGS. I THINK THAT IS ONE
POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION. I THINK
THE ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION
THAT ONE COULD HOLD IS THAT THEY
ARE GOING IN AND FORECASTING
EXCESS TO RAISE THE RATE OF
RETURN, TO GIVE MORE MONEY TO
THEIR SHAREHOLDERS. AND SO I
THINK THAT WHAT THE AUTHOR IS
DOING HERE, WHICH IS ASKING THE
PUC TO LOOK AT THAT, WHICH TO
YOUR POINT, I THINK IS I THINK
THAT PROCESS AND I DO THINK
AGAIN, SHE'S HAD LESS THAN 24
HOURS WITH THIS. I THINK THE
PROCESS BY WHICH THAT HAPPENS
WILL BE A WORK IN PROGRESS, IS
WHAT I'M HEARING FROM HER, TO
MAKE SURE IT MATCHES THE PUC,
AND I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT WORK IN
PROGRESS, BUT I ACTUALLY THINK
THE THINK THE THING IN THE
AMENDMENTS THAT I LOVED THE BEST
WAS DIRECTING THE COMMISSION TO
ADJUST FUTURE AUTHORIZED REVENUE
REQUIREMENTS AS APPROPRIATE,
BASED ON THE ACTUAL PAST RECORDS
. I THINK TELLING THE PUC THEY
HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT AND THEY
HAVE TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
SO THE RATE OF RETURN IS NOT AS
EXCESSIVE AS THAT FOUND IN THE
AUDIT, IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
COULD THEY DO IT TODAY? PERHAPS.
ARE THEY DOING IT TODAY? I DON'T
BELIEVE SO. AND SO I THINK US
TELLING THEM TO DO IT AND BEING
MORE PRESCRIPTIVE IS WHAT THE
PUC NEEDS RIGHT NOW. AND SO I DO
WANT TO COMMEND THE COMMITTEE,
AND I ACTUALLY WANT TO TAKE
ISSUE WITH WHAT WAS SAID BY THE
OPPOSITION ABOUT THE EXPERTISE
THAT GOES INTO THESE BILLS,
BECAUSE I THINK THIS COMMITTEE
HAS INCREDIBLE EXPERTISE AND WE
SEE BILL AFTER BILL WHERE THEY
WORK, THAT EXPERTISE INTO THESE
BILLS AND MAKE THEM MORE
WORKABLE. AND I THINK THIS IS AN
EXAMPLE OF THAT. SO I DON'T WANT
ANYONE IN THIS ROOM TO SAY THAT
EXPERTISE IS NOT HAPPENING
THROUGH THIS LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS, BECAUSE OUR STAFF IS
INCREDIBLE AND THEY ARE PUBLIC
SERVANTS WHO WORK VERY HARD TO
MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS THE CASE,
AND I THINK THAT THIS BILL IS AN
EXAMPLE OF THAT. AND SO I AM
PLEASED TO SUPPORT THIS TODAY,
BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT, YOU
KNOW, AS A FELLOW PGE CUSTOMER
AND REPRESENTING 500,000 PGE AND
CUSTOMERS, MY CONSTITUENT ARE
LOOKING AT THEIR BILLS AND THEY
ARE LOOKING AT THE PRESS ABOUT
PGNCS PROFITS AND BONUSES, AND
THEY ARE SAYING, WHAT IS GOING
ON HERE? AND I APPRECIATE YOU
OFFERING TO DO AN AUDIT ON THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S DEPARTMENT. BUT
IF I'M CORRECT, I REMEMBER
YOU'RE A RENTER, CORRECT? YES.
AND SO YOU CANNOT DO MANY OF THE
THINGS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
DO TO DRIVE DOWN UTILITY RATES.
AND THAT IS TRUE OF THE VAST
MAJORITY OF LOW INCOME
CALIFORNIANS. AND SO I'M SORRY,
I DIDN'T ASK A QUESTION, AND SO
I JUST THINK THAT WHAT WE NEED
TO DO HERE IS PUT THEM FIRST.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS
BILL DOES. AND SO I'M PLEASED TO
SUPPORT IT TODAY. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PATTERSON.
GREAT. THANK YOU, WELL, THE MOST
IMPORTANT THING I FOUND OUT IS
THAT I DEFINITELY NEED GLASSES,
SOON. SO EVEN WITH THAT BLOWN UP
SIGN, I CAN'T READ IT, BUT, THE
ARROW. OH, YEAH. WELL, THE
ARROW. THANK YOU FOR BLOWING UP
THE 353. THAT'S VERY VISIBLE,
COULD YOU OR. OH, YEAH. THANKS.
THOSE ARE TOO THICK FOR ME,
THOUGH, COULD YOU HELP ME,
UNDERSTAND? DO YOU HAVE ALL
ELECTRIC IN YOUR. YEAH, IN THE
HOUSE WE MOVE INTO WHERE WE
WENT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY NATURAL
GAS, SO IT'S ONLY ELECTRIC, SO.
OKAY. GAS PRICES DON'T AFFECT US
IN PARTICULAR. YEAH, I JUST I
MEAN, JUST AS A GENERAL THING,
SORT OF MY CONCERN MOVING TO ALL
ELECTRIC IN THIS STATE IS, THAT
BECAUSE I WOULD SAY THAT THERE
ARE TWO THINGS PEOPLE CALL MY
OFFICE ABOUT, LIKE 90% OF THE
CALLS ELECTRICITY RATES AND
INSURANCE. I HAPPEN TO BE ON
BOTH THOSE COMMITTEES NOW
BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE THEY'RE
VERY CONCERNING TO PEOPLE IN MY
COMMUNITY, THE ONE THING I'M
SORT OF I DO LIKE, THE DIRECTION
OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, I
THINK ARE GOING THE RIGHT WAY.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, I HIGHLY
DOUBT THIS BILL STOPS HERE
TODAY, BUT I HOPE YOU KEEP
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION. BUT
THE ONE THING WE'VE KIND OF
IDENTIFIED, AND MY COLLEAGUE
OVER HERE, TO MY LEFT, HAD A
QUESTION ABOUT THE TASHA BE MADE
A STATEMENT ABOUT THE TASHA BE
SPECIAL HERE AS YOU CALLED IT.
BUT HOW IS YOUR Tê IF THE PUC
GIVING THEM MORE WORK RIGHT? I
MEAN, WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED
THESE INEFFICIENCIES. JUST IN
THE GENERAL RATE CASE IN
GENERAL, RIGHT? I MEAN, JUST HOW
LONG THAT TAKES AND WHAT MAKES
US THINK THAT GIVING THEM AN
ADDED LAYER OF REVIEW IS GOING
TO ACTUALLY RESULT IN LOWER
COSTS? WE'RE GOING TO WELL, SO
IT RESULTS IN LOWER COSTS
BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO USE
DATA FROM THE TEST YEAR OF THE
GENERAL RATE CASE TO JUST FUTURE
RATES. SO THAT'S WHERE THAT
COMES FROM. SECOND, WHAT I WOULD
SAY IS THE CPUC NEEDS DIRECTION,
RIGHT? IF WE DON'T GIVE THEM
DIRECTION, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
DO WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING FOR
OUR RATEPAYERS. SO THE BILL JUST
GIVES THEM DIRECTION TO USE MORE
ACCURATE DATA, WHICH THEY SHOULD
BE DOING ALREADY, BUT THEY'RE
NOT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE GIVING
THEM DIRECTION TO PROTECT OUR
RATEPAYERS. BECAUSE I GET THE
CALLS. THIS ISN'T, YOU KNOW,
$353. AND I HAVE TO SAY, MY YEAR
757KW USED IN THAT MONTH, THAT'S
NO HEAT, THAT'S NO AIR
CONDITIONING, THAT'S A 1500
SQUARE FOOT FOURPLEX. WE'RE NOT
TALKING. I LIVED IN SOME 3000
SQUARE FOOT BEACH HOUSE. I DON'T
I'M A RENTER. THIS IS COSTS OF
REAL CALIFORNIANS. AND THIS
WOULD AT LEAST GIVE THE PUC A
PROCESS BY WHICH WE CAN LOWER
THE RATES OVER TIME AND MAKE
THEM MORE ACCURATE, BECAUSE WHAT
THE PUC SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IS
THE RATEPAYERS. THEY SHOULD BE
LOOKING AT OUR CALIFORNIANS AND
NOT THE PROFITS. YEAH. SO I THE
BILL IS OBSCENE. I MEAN WE ARE
ALL AGREEING ON THAT. I GUESS MY
THING IS NOT SO MUCH HOW DO WE
MAKE SURE IT MAKES IT CHEAPER?
CAN THEY EVEN DO THIS
EFFICIENTLY? I GUESS, DOES IT
TAKE AWAY FROM OTHER THINGS THAT
THEY SHOULD BE DOING? THAT'S
WHAT I'M BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT AT THE END OF
THE DAY. AND WHAT MAKES YOU, YOU
KNOW, FRANKLY, WHAT MAKES YOU
THINK THAT THEY'LL ACTUALLY DO A
GOOD JOB? I DO HAVE A BILL TO
MOVE, LIKE THE BROADBAND PIECE
INTO THE OFFICE OF BROADBAND.
THAT WOULD GIVE THEM MORE FOCUS
ON THE UTILITY THING. BUT THAT
WAS THE LAST DOUBLE JOIN THEM.
DOUBLE JOIN THE BILLS, SO BUT
THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT NOW.
YEAH, I HAVE I HAVE ANOTHER ONE
AFTER THIS TO JUST BRING THEM
ALL TOGETHER THEN. YEAH SO I
MEAN BUT THAT IS A LEGITIMATE
CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS THAT I
DON'T I MEAN, THERE WAS ANOTHER
REGULATORY AGENCY AND ANOTHER
COMMITTEE THE OTHER DAY THAT I
JUST THINK IT'S GOTTEN SO HUGE.
THEY CAME IN AND OPPOSED A BILL.
WE'RE KIND OF TALKING DOWN TO
THE AUTHOR OF THAT BILL. IT
DROVE ME NUTS. YOU KNOW, THIS
BUREAUCRATIC STATE IS GETTING SO
HUGE. I MEAN, JUST
PHILOSOPHICALLY. BUT ALSO, DO
THEY CARE WHAT WE TELL THEM TO
DO OR ASK THEM TO DO? I DON'T
KNOW, AND SO, I DON'T KNOW,
GIVING THEM MORE WORK IF THEY'RE
ACTUALLY GOING TO EVEN DO THAT
IN THE FIRST PLACE. WE'RE GIVING
THEM MORE A PROCESS, WHICH I
THINK THE PUC WORKS WELL WITH.
YEAH WELL, I WOULD JUST SAY I'M
INTERESTED IN MORE OF THE
CONVERSATION WITH MY COLLEAGUES.
HAVE TO SAY, I THINK, LIKE I
SAID, THE AMENDMENTS ARE GOING
THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I, I'M NOT
SURE I FEEL TOTALLY COMFORTABLE
WITH THIS TODAY, BUT, YOU KNOW,
I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE
AMENDMENTS AND KEEPING TO WORK
ON THIS AND SEEING IF MAYBE WE
CAN. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE
OPPOSITION HAS NEVER COME INTO
MY OFFICE, OFFERED AMENDMENTS,
OR WANTED TO HAVE HIM HAVE A
CONVERSATION WITH THIS. BUT I
HAVE WORKED WHERE HE ACTUALLY
LIVES TEN MINUTES DOWN THE
STREET FROM ME, BY THE WAY, SO
HE'S MY CONSTITUENT AS WELL. SO
I JUST WANT TO SEE HIM COME DO
THAT AUDIT. CAN HE COME? CAN I
TAKE PICTURES OF THAT? COME DO
THAT. AUDIT IT. WE'D LOVE TO.
B'S HOUSE. THAT'S WHAT SHE SAYS.
WE WOULD LOVE TO HELP HER WITH
AN AUDIT. I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE
WE COULD LIVE ANY MORE
ELECTRICALLY FRUGAL WITH STILL
BEING CLEAN HUMANS, SO I'M NOT
REALLY SURE YOU COULD DO THAT,
BUT I'LL TRY. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES AND
THEN ASSEMBLY MEMBER TING,
SORRY. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I KNOW
BODY KNOWS WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER
IS GOING TO BE. WE KNOW THAT THE
WHOLE ISSUE IS SO COMPLICATED,
AND THE MORE WE TALK ABOUT IT,
THE MORE COMPLICATED IT SOUNDS.
BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP
BECAUSE YOU TRY TO TAKE A VERY
COMPLICATED ISSUE AND SAY, LET'S
UNCOMPLICATE IT. LET'S FIGURE
OUT THE BEST WAY. BECAUSE JUST
AS MY COLLEAGUE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CONNOLLY TALKED ABOUT ALL THE
RECORD PROFIT, NONE OF THAT IS
GOING TO THE RATEPAYERS. SO
ESTIMATES ARE THE COMMENTS WERE
MADE. YOU MAKE A PLAN, YOU GET
THE OKAY YOU CHART, YOU GET THE
OKAY TO CHARGE THE RATEPAYERS.
YOU DO THE JOB. BUT THEN THERE'S
A SAVINGS AND THAT SAVINGS GOES
TO THE SHAREHOLDERS. IT DOESN'T
GO TO THE RATEPAYERS. THAT HAS
ALWAYS BEEN SO FRUSTRATING FOR
ME, AND JUST AS MY COLLEAGUE
TALKED ABOUT THESE RECORD
PROFITS. YES. YOU'VE GONE
THROUGH A WHOLE PROCESS. AND IF
YOU GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE
PROCESS, WHICH IS MUCH MORE
COMPLICATED THAN I WOULD EVER BE
ABLE TO EXPLAIN, BUT YOU'VE GONE
THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS.
THERE'S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT
WHAT'S BEEN DONE, BUT THERE'S
SOMETHING WRONG WHEN WE GET TO
THE BOTTOM LINE AND THE ONES WHO
ARE PAYING THE MOST ARE THE
RATEPAYERS, AS THEY ARE THE
PEOPLE WE REPRESENT. WE WANT PG
AND E AND SZU AND EVERYBODY ELSE
TO MAKE THEIR PROFIT. BUT TO
MAKE SO MUCH AND TO THE
RATEPAYERS TO PAY SO MUCH. THERE
IS SOMETHING ABSOLUTELY WRONG
WITH THE FORMULAS BEING USED. I
SINCERELY APPRECIATE THE STATE
AUDITOR AND THE FACT THAT THE
REPORT HAD BEEN PREPARED. WE
KNOW SOMETHING BETTER CAN BE
DONE AND THE. IF WE DON'T DO
SOMETHING ALONG THESE LINES,
THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
ANSWER IS, BUT I SINCERELY
APPRECIATE THAT WE'RE MOVING. I
THINK, IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I
DO RECOMMEND THAT AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE, THAT YOU HAVE THE
CONVERSATIONS WITH, WITH, WITH,
WITH THE AUTHOR, THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT. YOU CAN TELL FROM THE
COMMENTS THAT THERE'S GREAT
SUPPORT IN DOING SOMETHING. WE
CAN'T JUST SIT BACK AND SAY, PUC
HAS TOO MUCH WORK. WE DON'T KNOW
IF WE GIVE IT TO THEM. IF
THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT, THEY
HAVE TO DO IT. AND THE HEARINGS
THAT THE INFORMATION HEARINGS
AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BE
HAVING SOON IS GOING TO ASK THEM
WHY THEY'RE NOT DOING IT, AND
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER
FOR THAT. BUT FOR US, WE
REPRESENT THE RATEPAYERS. WE
HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER TO THE
RATEPAYERS AND TELL THEM WHAT WE
HAVE DONE TO REDUCE WHAT THEY
ARE PAYING, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST
ONE OF THEM, AND YOU MAY BE ABLE
TO HELP THE AUTHOR AND REDUCE IT
A LITTLE BIT. SHE'S ONLY ONE
PERSON. WE HAVE LOTS OF PEOPLE
WE REPRESENT AND THEY ARE
FRUSTRATED. IF YOU HEAR THE
FRUSTRATION ON HERE, IMAGINE
THAT WE'RE THE LEGISLATORS AND
WE FEEL FRUSTRATED. WE FEEL
POWERLESS. IMAGINE OUR
RATEPAYERS AND THEY LOOK TO US
AND THEY CALL US AND THEY SAY,
WHAT ARE YOU DOING? AND WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT HOW COMPLICATED THIS
ENTIRE SYSTEM IS, WE CAN EITHER
SAY, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO.
WE'RE GOING TO SAY, I'M NOT
SMART ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN ALL OF
THIS, BUT WE BETTER TALK TO THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE SMARTER AND TALK
TO THE PEOPLE WHO CAN TAKE THE
TIME TO JUST DIG THROUGH ALL OF
THIS AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE
NEXT STEP IS. BUT WE REALLY NEED
FOR YOU ALL TO BE INVOLVED IN
IT. IT CANNOT BE ONE PERSON
DOING IT. YOU HAVE TO BE
INVOLVED IN THE SOLUTION.
BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NOT, THEN IT'S
GOING TO BE A11, ONE WOMAN SHOW.
FULLY UNDERSTAND REYES I WOULD
SAY THAT I DID MEET WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND HER ENERGY
ADVISOR, AND I STATED THAT
NOTHING IN THE BILL TODAY HAS
WRITTEN AS INTRODUCED, WAS GOING
TO REDUCE RATES SIGNIFICANTLY
AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
THEM. SO I HAVE MET WITH THEM. I
THINK THAT THAT AUDITS DO MAKE A
DIFFERENCE. WE DO AUDITS FOR
ANYBODY, WHETHER YOU'RE A RENTER
OR AN OWNER, BECAUSE WE CAN
SOMETIMES PEOPLE, IF YOU OWN AN
EV, YOU MIGHT BE ON THE WRONG
RATE AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT.
RATE MAKING IS COMPLICATED. AND
YOU MENTIONED THIS IS A COMPLEX
STRUCTURE. IT'S COMPLICATED.
IT'S NOT EASY FOR OUR RESIDENTS
OR OUR CUSTOMERS TO UNDERSTAND.
IT'S HARD FOR US TO EVEN EXPLAIN
IT. YOU WOULD NEVER WANT TO
WATCH AN INFOMERCIAL ABOUT RATE
MAKING IT WOULD BE THE WORST
MOMENT OF YOUR LIFE. BUT I THINK
THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING
EVERYTHING WE CAN WITH THIS
COMMITTEE. AND, MADAM CHAIR, TO
REDUCE RATES. WE HAVE BEEN
SAYING THIS FOR A DECADE, AND I
REMEMBER SAYING TO THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME
AND MONEY ON WILDFIRE MITIGATION
, A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY ON THE
GREEN, ON THE CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSITION AND WE SPENT A LOT OF
TIME AND MONEY ON OUR ON OUR ON
OUR ON OUR ON OUR EMPLOYEES, YOU
KNOW, OUR LABOR FORCE. AND I SAY
FOR JUST ONE MOMENT, THE STATE
HAS INVESTED A LOT OF MONEY ON
WILDFIRE LITIGATION. THE STATE
HAS INVESTED A LOT OF MONEY ON
EV INFRASTRUCTURE. WE HAVE
INVESTED WE REPRESENTING THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HAVE
INVESTED A LOT OF MONEY AND
WHATEVER PGA OR SGA DOES, THEY
ALWAYS PUT THEIR THEIR ESTIMATE
AND IT'S NOT THEM WHO'S PAYING
FOR IT. THEY GET THE PUC TO
AUTHORIZE IT AND THEN IT GOES TO
THE RATEPAYERS. THE RATEPAYERS
ARE PAYING FOR THIS. AND THAT'S
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THAT KEEPS
GOING UP. AND THERE ARE THERE'S
A REQUEST AFTER REQUEST AFTER
REQUEST EVERY SINGLE YEAR. IT
ISN'T JUST ONE REQUEST. AND THE
JOB IS DONE. AND THEN WE WAIT
TILL THE NEXT YEAR. WE HAVE
REQUEST AFTER REQUEST AFTER
REQUEST IN ONE YEAR. AND THE
RATEPAYERS ARE TIRED OF IT. AND
WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. AND I
WANT YOU TO BE PART OF THE
SOLUTION BECAUSE IT IS SO
COMPLICATED. YOU WILL UNDERSTAND
IT IN A WAY THAT MAYBE I'M NOT
GOING TO UNDERSTAND IT. BUT ONE
THING I UNDERSTAND FOR SURE IS
I'VE GOT TO DO MORE FOR MY
RATEPAYERS. THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER TING. THANK YOU. I GUESS
GOING GOING BACK TO MR.
CONNOLLY'S EXAMPLE. JUST JUST TO
USE AN EXAMPLE. COULD YOU WALK
US THROUGH HOW THE BILL WOULD
ACTUALLY SAVE RATEPAYERS MONEY,
GIVEN THAT EXAMPLE, IF YOU WANT
TO CHOOSE ANOTHER EXAMPLE,
THAT'S FINE. YEAH. SO THE IDEA
SO MY ORIGINAL VERSION WAS GIVE
ME MY MONEY BACK. RIGHT. I MEAN
IT TURNS OUT TO BE ILLEGAL. SO
THE ORIGINAL VERSION, YOU SHOULD
ALL REALLY THANK THE COMMITTEE
CONSULTANT FOR LOOKING AT THE
ORIGINAL VERSION. THAT'S THE
ORIGINAL VERSION IS GIVE ME MY
MONEY BACK. BECAUSE IF WE SAU IN
2022, THE AUTHORIZED RATE OF
RETURN WAS $415.5 MILLION. CDVA
MADE A PROFIT OF 290 MILLION. ON
TOP OF THAT, AND MY RATES ARE
GOING UP. EVERYBODY'S RATES ARE
GOING UP, AND WE HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING TO CONTROL THE RATE
MAKING PROCESS. SO MY ORIGINAL
VERSION WANTED TO GO BACK AND
BASELINE IT AND TAKE AWAY ALL
THEIR PROFITS AND GO BACK TO
THAT SIDE. SO YOU SHOULD ALL BE
THANKFUL THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE
DOING. WHAT WE'RE DOING OR NOT
OR NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE
FOUND OUT WE COULDN'T BE
RETROACTIVE BECAUSE I WANTED MY
MONEY BACK. BUT, SO WHAT WE'RE
DOING IS SAYING BECAUSE YOU'RE
USING THE TEST YEAR WHEN YOU SEE
THAT THEY'RE GETTING SAVINGS,
THEN YOU'RE GOING TO THEY CAN
REBASELINE AND OUT YEARS WHAT
THAT COSTS ARE. AND THAT WILL
LOWER THE RATES RATHER THAN
KEEPING THE RATES HERE, IT WILL
GO DOWN LIKE THIS. SO THAT'S SAY
IT AGAIN ONE MORE TIME. SAY IT.
SO THE IDEA IS THEY LOOK AT THE,
THE ACTUAL COST VERSUS PROJECTED
COSTS OF THE TEST YEAR. AND CPUC
IS THEN REQUIRED THROUGH THE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE
GUIDELINES THAT THEY GIVE AND
THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF
THE IOUS TO GO BACK AND LOOK AND
SAY, DO WE NEED TO READJUST IT?
IF YOU'RE IF THE FORECAST IS
ACCURATE, THERE'S NOTHING GOING
TO HAPPEN. IF YOU'RE YOU LOOK AT
SOME OF THE AUDIT, THE AUDIT
RETURNS A LOT OF THESE COMPANIES
ARE FINE. BUT LIKE YOU LOOK AT
THAT TIME AND TIME AND TIME AND
TIME AGAIN WAS FAR BELOW. WHAT
WILL HAPPEN IS YOU TAKE THE
ACTUAL OF THE OF THE TEST YEAR
AND THEN THEY COULD RESET THAT
FOR THE OUT YEARS OF THAT, BUT
THAT WILL LOWER THE RATES. BUT I
GUESS THE CHALLENGE WITH ANY
FORECAST, WE KNOW A FORECAST
WON'T. IT'S VERY RARE TO BE
ACCURATE, COMPLETELY ACCURATE.
SO IN THAT SITUATION, THÀNH HOW
DO YOU ENSURE YOUR KIND OF, THAT
THERE'S PROPER RETURN FOR THE,
FOR THE UTILITIES. BUT THEY'RE
ALSO YOU'RE FIGURING OUT
ACTUALLY WHAT WHAT THAT WHAT
THAT AMOUNT THAT SHOULD BE
RETURNED TO THE RATEPAYERS
SHOULD BE I GUESS. SO IT'S NOT
RETURNED TO THE RATEPAYERS. IT'S
LOWERING OF THE COST OF THE OUT
YEARS BASED ON THE TEST YEAR. SO
THAT'S WHAT IT IS. THERE'S NO
THERE'S NO CLAWBACK. NO. SO I
WAS I WAS GOING TO ASK THE
OPPOSITION JUST TO, JUST TO SEE
IF THEY AGREE WITH THAT
ASSESSMENT OR HOW THAT WOULD
WORK. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS.
THAT'S WHAT'S MISSING IN THIS
CONVERSATION. THIS IS WHAT
HAPPENS TODAY. THEY TAKE THE
THEY THEY THEY THEY LOOK AT THE
EXPERIENCE OVER THE FOUR YEAR
GRC AND THEY, THE PUC TAKES THE
EFFICIENCIES OR THE SAVINGS THAT
WERE DERIVED BY THE UTILITY,
WHICH THEY ENJOYED AS, ABOVE
THEIR RATE OF RETURN AND THEY
LOWER THE BASELINE, JUST LIKE
THE ASSEMBLYWOMAN JUST DESCRIBED
IN THE NEXT GRC. THIS BILL
BASICALLY TAKES THAT PROCESS AND
SAYS, NO, WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT
. DURING THE THREE ATTRITION
YEARS OF UNCERTAINTY, WHICH
CREATES UNCERTAINTY. SO THE
PROBLEM IS YOU HAVE TO GO TO
MARKET AND BORROW MONEY TO
FINANCE ALL THIS. AND YOU DON'T
FINANCE IT AS YOU GO, YOU GET
YOUR GENERAL RATE CASE, YOU GO
TO THE MARKET, YOU BORROW THE
MONEY SO YOU CAN DO ALL THIS
WORK THAT YOU'VE PLANNED. IF YOU
HAVE TO GO BACK MID STREAM, YEAR
TWO, YEAR THREE AND SAY, OH, WE
GOT TO GIVE THIS MONEY BACK, HOW
MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOAN
YOU MONEY? AND IF THEY LOAN YOU
MONEY, YOU'LL PROBABLY GET THE
SAME RATE THAT DONALD TRUMP GOT
ON HIS $175 MILLION BOND. WE
PRIDE OURSELVES ON BEING A GOOD
INVESTMENT FOR LOANING MONEY,
AND IT'S BECAUSE OF THE
CERTAINTY. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE
CERTAINTY. I MEAN, YOU GET YOU
GET CERTAINTY WITH US. AND I
THINK THAT THE HARD PART FOR,
FOR IN LISTENING TO THIS
CONVERSATION, AS THE BILL WAS
ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED, WHAT WHAT
WE WERE BEING TOLD IS WE WERE
BETTER OFF NOT BEING FINDING
EFFICIENCIES. RIGHT? BECAUSE IF
WE JUST END EXACTLY ON THE
FORECAST, WE AND WE DON'T TAKE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE THE
RATEPAYER MONEY, THAT'S BETTER
THEN YOU'RE NOT GIVING ANYBODY
ANYTHING BACK. I DON'T KNOW THAT
THAT'S OUR PHILOSOPHY AS A
COMPANY. BUT IF THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT THAT, THAT, THAT
THE MEMBER BELIEVES IS BEST,
THAT'S THAT'S HER OPINION. SO,
SO I WOULD JUST I WOULD JUST
CLARIFY ONE POINT TO THAT. SO
THE, THE WHAT THE AMENDMENTS DO
IS SAY THAT YOU'RE NOT GIVING
ANY MONEY BACK, NOR ARE YOU
ACTUALLY GOING BACK TO THE
MARKET AND SAYING THE RATE OF
RETURN IS GOING TO BE WORSE THAN
WE TOLD YOU UP FRONT? YEAH,
OKAY. IT SAYS YES. SO IF YOU GO
TO THEM AND YOU SAY I NEED TO
BORROW MONEY FOR THE NEXT FOUR
YEARS, WHAT'S CURRENTLY
HAPPENING IS, YOU KNOW, ALL OF
THE SAVINGS OVER THOSE FOUR
YEARS COMPARED TO FORECAST ARE
GOING TO THE SHAREHOLDERS. SOME
OF THAT GOING TO THE
SHAREHOLDERS MAKE SENSE, RIGHT.
THAT INCENTIVIZES THE UTILITIES
TO ACTUALLY FIND SOME OF THOSE
SAVINGS. SO THEY PASS ON THOSE
AS INCREMENTAL PROFITS TO THEIR
SHAREHOLDERS. BUT THOSE ARE
INCREMENTAL PROFITS. THAT IS NOT
WHAT YOU WENT TO THE MARKET
TELLING THEM YOU WERE GOING TO
GET. THAT'S INCREMENTAL. SO I
THINK THE REAL QUESTION BEFORE
US IS HOW DO WE ALIGN INCENTIVES
SO THAT, YES, THE UTILITIES ARE
INCENTIVIZED TO FIND SAVINGS,
THEIR SHAREHOLDERS ARE
INCENTIVIZED TO INVEST. BUT A
PIECE OF THAT GOES BACK. SO IT
FEELS TO ME LIKE AND MAYBE WHAT
I HEAR YOU SAYING IS, YOU KNOW,
JUST A ONE YEAR ASSESSMENT IS
UNREASONABLE, UNWORKABLE, ETC.
BUT HAVING FOUR YEARS WHERE ALL
OF THAT INCREMENTAL PROFIT IS
GOING TO THE SHAREHOLDERS AND
ZERO IS GOING TO LOWER THE BASE,
THAT FEELS LIKE IT DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE. RIGHT? SO IT'S HOW DO WE
GO? HOW DO WE IDENTIFY THOSE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SAVINGS AND
INTEGRATE THAT INTO THE BASE
RATE MORE QUICKLY IS, I THINK,
THE CHALLENGE BEFORE US. AND AS
YOU HEARD THE, AS YOU HEARD THE
AUTHOR SAY, THIS IS CERTAINLY A
WORK IN PROGRESS. BUT I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE NOT
GOING BACK TO THE MARKET AND
TELLING THEM THAT THEIR RATE OF
RETURN JUST GOT CRAPPIER. THAT'S
NOT TRUE. NO SO I GUESS WHAT I'M
HEARING IS THAT YOU KNOW, WE'RE
ALL WE'RE ALL SAYING WE HAVE THE
SAME OBJECTIVES. WE'RE TRYING TO
GET TO THE SAME PLACE AND
HOPEFULLY, I MEAN, I'M VOTING
FOR THIS BILL TODAY, HOPEFULLY
WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WORK TOGETHER
TO FIND A PROCESS THAT THAT
WORKS, THAT GETS YOU YOUR
CERTAINTY, THAT REALLY, ENSURES
THAT YOU CAN GO TO THE MARKET,
RAISE CAPITAL, RAISE DEBT, ETC,
BUT ALSO TRIES TO HELP US, FEEL
LIKE WE'RE HELPING MANAGE COSTS.
AND I THINK THERE IS, YOU KNOW,
AND, YOU KNOW, MISTER, MISTER
WEGG SAID THIS EARLIER. I MEAN,
YOU KNOW, WE ALL AGREE THE
PROCESS THAT THE CPUC IS FAR
FROM PERFECT. AND I THINK
SOMETIMES WE FEEL AS A
LEGISLATURE THAT WE'RE NOT BEING
LISTENED TO. AND WHEN I SAY WE
IT'S SORT OF US VIA OUR
CONSTITUENTS. IT'S NOT THAT, YOU
KNOW, WE HAVE OUR PERSONAL
OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON,
BUT WE'RE CHANNELING WHAT WE'RE
HEARING IN THE DISTRICT. AND I
FEEL OFTENTIMES THERE'S THAT
DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHAT'S
HAPPENING IN THE REGULATORY
PROCESS AND WHAT'S HAPPENING,
YOU KNOW, OUT THERE IN THE
PUBLIC. AND SO I THINK, I THINK
THE AUTHOR IS REALLY TRYING TO,
YOU KNOW, ARTICULATE, SORT OF
THE LEGISLATURE'S THOUGHT
PROCESS IN CHANNEL. IT INTO THE
REGULATORY PROCESS AND HAVE THAT
OPPORTUNITY, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE
OFTENTIMES WHEN WE ENGAGE THE
REGULATORS, WE JUST FEEL IGNORED
OR NOT LISTENED TO OR REALLY,
LIKE, THEY DON'T THEY REALLY
WOULD RATHER US NOT BE IN THAT
PROCESS. AND I THINK FOR US,
IT'S LIKE WE'RE WE'RE NOT
REPRESENTING THE LEGISLATURE,
WE'RE REPRESENTING THE STATE AND
THE PEOPLE AND REALLY TRYING TO
ARTICULATE THAT. SO I THINK
THAT'S REALLY WHERE THIS IS
TRYING TO GO. AND THEN, GREAT.
MR. ZUBER. SO I, I'M JUST REALLY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE I UNDERSTAND
AND SUPPORT. OBVIOUSLY THE
MOTIVATION BEHIND THE BILL. YOU
KNOW, I THINK WE ALL ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE RATES AS
THEY'RE GOING UP AND WHAT OUR,
WHAT OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE
SEEING, ALSO, THOUGH CONCERNED
THAT WE ARE, SORT OF MAKING
POLICY OUT OF THAT REALLY
UNDERSTANDABLE BILL, YOU KNOW,
FRUSTRATION AND CONCERN ABOUT
THE RATES GOING UP. BUT WITHOUT
I THINK, LOOKING AT SORT OF
PROCESSES THAT ARE ALREADY IN
PLACE AT THE PUC AND SO I'M
GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS BILL
TODAY, TO LET IT OUT. BUT I ALSO
JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW,
I'M JUST I'M JUST NERVOUS ABOUT
THE FACT THAT, I MEAN, I DON'T
FEEL LIKE I COULD AND I
PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD
SOME AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE WITH
THE PUC, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT
I COULD, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT SORT
OF A LOT OF TECHNICAL HELP,
COMING FROM EXPERTS IN THE AREA
PUT IN PLACE REFORMS THAT ARE
INTENDING TO DO WHAT I THINK YOU
WANT TO DO, WHICH I THINK ARE
VALID AND GOOD. AND, YOU KNOW,
AND MOTIVATED BY ALL THE RIGHT
THINGS THAT I THINK A LOT OF
PEOPLE AROUND THE, THE TABLE
HAVE TALKED ABOUT, SO, YOU KNOW,
I, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT TURN
IS ON THE BILL, I THINK GIVES ME
SOME, AMOUNT OF, IT SAYS TO ME
THAT THERE'S PROBABLY THAT WE DO
PROBABLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE
REGULATORY PROCESS AND WHAT SORT
OF HAPPENING AT THE PUC, BUT I'M
NERVOUS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
THIS IS THE RIGHT APPROACH. AND
WHEN I HEAR I ALSO BELIEVE THAT,
THE FOLKS FROM, YOU KNOW, FROM
IBEW WHO UNDERSTAND THIS PROCESS
WELL AND TELL ME THAT A LOT OF
WHAT'S HAPPENING IS DUPLICATIVE
IN THE BILL. AND SO I WOULD JUST
SORT OF ASK YOU, AS YOU MOVE
FORWARD WITH THIS, TO REALLY
SEE, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH BOTH
THE, THE LABOR UNIONS AND THE
IOUS, AND IT ASKS BOTH THE IOUS
AND THE LABOR UNIONS TO WORK
WITH THE AUTHOR, BECAUSE I THINK
WE OWE IT TO THE PUBLIC TO GET
THIS RIGHT, BUT WE ALSO OWE IT
TO THE PUBLIC FOR, YOU KNOW, TO
NOT DO WHAT I WOULD SORT OF DO
ON MY OWN, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW,
FAIRLY SIMPLISTIC. AND I'M NOT
SAYING THAT YOURS IS SIMPLISTIC.
I MEAN, I'M MINE WOULD BE
SIMPLISTIC IF I WAS DOING IT. I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE GETTING IT RIGHT AND THAT
WE'RE THINKING ABOUT WE
UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT'S
ALREADY HAPPENING AT THE PUC AND
THAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON WORKING
WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK, WHICH HAS
BEEN BUILT UP FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR
DECADES. SO WITH THAT, YOU KNOW,
I JUST WANT TO THANK BOTH THE
BOTH THE AUTHOR AS WELL AS THE
FOLKS THAT ARE TESTIFYING HERE
TODAY, BOTH IN SUPPORT AND
OPPOSITION. AND I'M GOING TO,
SUPPORT THIS TO GIVE YOU TIME TO
SORT OF CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. AND ALSO, I
THINK IN RECOGNITION OF THE
CHAIR'S AND THE STAFF'S REALLY
STRONG WORK TO TRY TO GET THIS
BILL TO A GOOD PLACE. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER REYES, I JUST WANT TO
GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE
THERE WAS A STATEMENT THAT WAS
MADE AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT THAT
WASN'T THE INTENTION. THERE WAS
A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT IF
WE GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS, WELL,
THEN MAYBE YOU ALL THE UTILITIES
AREN'T GOING TO TRY TO FIND THE
SAVINGS. I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT
YOU MEAN, BECAUSE I'M SURE
YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR THOSE
SAVINGS. WHETHER THAT MONEY GOES
BACK TO THE UTILITIES AS AN
INCENTIVE OR EVENTUALLY TO THE
RATEPAYERS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT
IS A RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS A
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY UTILITY
RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S AN ETHICAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO REVIEW THINGS
BECAUSE THE PLAN WAS MADE, THE
FORECAST WAS MADE. BUT IF THERE
ARE WAYS TO SAVE MONEY, I THINK
IT IS AN ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITY
TO FIND WAYS TO GET THOSE
SAVINGS. AND AS WE GET THE
SAVINGS AND FIGURE OUT HOW WE
TAKE CARE OF THE PROFIT FOR YOUR
SHARE SHAREHOLDERS, BUT THEN HOW
WE ALSO TAKE CARE OF THE
RATEPAYERS. I APPRECIATE THAT
MEMBER. I WHAT I SAID WAS IT'S
NOT THE PHILOSOPHY OF MY
COMPANY, OF MY COMPANIES THAT WE
DON'T LOOK FOR SAVINGS. WE'RE
ALWAYS GOING TO LOOK FOR
EFFICIENCIES. MY POINT OF THAT
WAS, IS IF WE DIDN'T FIND
EFFICIENCIES AND THERE WAS
NOTHING AND WE HIT THE NUMBER,
THERE'D BE NOTHING TO GIVE BACK,
WHICH WOULDN'T, WHICH MEANS
THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT ON THE
CUSTOMER IN TERMS OF RATES GOING
DOWN. THAT WAS MY INTENT. ALL
RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE RECORD WOULD BE
CLEAR HERE BEFORE WE ALL LEFT,
MR. HOLDEN. YEAH. THANK YOU. I
FIRST OF ALL, I APPRECIATE THE
AUTHORS ATTEMPT TO REALLY GET IN
THERE AND TRYING TO PULL THE
PIECES APART AND TRY TO PUT
TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT'S
EFFICIENT AND ADDRESSES THE
NEEDS OF AND THE ASPIRATIONS OF
RATEPAYERS TO SEE SOMEHOW THEIR
RATES START TO ADJUST DOWN.
RATES HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE FOR A
VERY LONG TIME, AND TRYING TO
FIND THAT SWEET SPOT AND TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RESTRUCTURE
OR DO SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO
ADDRESS IT. SO THAT'S FAIR. AND
EQUITY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
EQUATION. I THINK THAT THE
COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE
ARE VERY WELL PLACED ON YOUR
BILL, BUT I GOT TO GIVE YOU A
SPECIAL NOD, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT
AN EASY SUBJECT. AND, YOU KNOW,
WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU HAVE NO
SPONSORS, YOU HAVE NO ONE THAT'S
STANDING WITH YOU. YOU THINK YOU
CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF
PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE OPPONENTS,
WHO'VE MADE REFERENCE
REPRESENTATION, THAT THAT THE
PUC IS KIND OF A DOUBLE EDGED
SWORD. YOU KIND OF LIVE BY IT
AND DIE BY IT. YOU KNOW,
SOMETIMES THERE ARE BILLS THAT
COME FORWARD AND YOU SAY THAT
THE PUC HAS ALREADY THE PROCESS
IN PLACE, IT'S WORKING. AND
OTHER TIMES IT'S NOT WORKING.
AND VERY FEW RARELY DO YOU HAVE
IT CUT FAIRLY FOR THE RATEPAYER
THERE. THERE ARE A VARIETY OF
INTERESTS IN THIS MARKETPLACE.
IT'S A REALLY COMPLICATED
MARKETPLACE. IT'S A COMPLICATED
SUBJECT MATTER AND IT IS
CHANGING EVERY DAY, WHEN I
JOINED THE COMMITTEE, NEW
MARKETS WERE BEING FORMED TO TRY
TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE, TO
TRY TO ADDRESS THE CHANGES AND
THE IN THE INDUSTRIES HAVE BEEN
PART OF TRYING TO MAKE THE
SOLUTIONS WORK AS WELL. I COME
FROM A COMMUNITY THAT'S A
MUNICIPAL OWNED UTILITY, SO
THERE'S NO RATEPAYER, I'M SORRY,
THERE'S NO SHAREHOLDER PROFIT.
CGRTS TO HAVE TO DIVIDEND. IT
GOES BACK TO THE RATEPAYERS OF
PASADENA OR GLENDALE OR BURBANK
IN THE FORM OF SERVICES. SO
THERE IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO
HAPPEN. AND I DO RECOGNIZE THAT
IN THAT PROCESS, IT'S, AS WAS
POINTED OUT, I THINK THERE IS A
GENUINE EFFORT TO TRY TO MAKE
SURE THAT THERE'S A NOD,
OBVIOUSLY, TO SHAREHOLDERS, BUT
AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO FIND
SAVINGS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME
TRYING TO HAVE A REGULATORY,
INVITE THAT THAT WORKS FOR THE
RATEPAYERS. AND I THINK YOU'RE
TRYING TO CUT INTO THAT. AND I'M
EXPECTING AND HOPING THAT THOSE
WHO ARE SEEING THE ISSUE A
LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY DO FIND
SOME COMMONALITY IN WHAT YOU
SAID. I'VE HEARD THAT. AND SO
I'M HOPING THAT WHERE MAYBE YOU
WEREN'T ABLE TO GET EVERYONE
TOGETHER AT SOME POINT, I'M
HOPING THAT BETWEEN NOW AND AS
THIS PROCESS GOES TO
APPROPRIATIONS, THAT, THERE WILL
BE SOME COMMONALITY THAT CAN BE
DEVELOPED THROUGH THAT PROCESS
THAT CAN HELP GET ALL OF US TO
WHERE I THINK YOUR BILL IS
TRYING TO GET US. SO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR PRESENTING IT. AND
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT
HAVE HELPED CREATE SOME BALANCE
TO THE CONVERSATION. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES, DID YOU
HAVE A COMMENT AND BAUER-KAHAN,
I JUST WANTED TO I, I AGREE SO
WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH MY COLLEAGUE
FROM LÀ OR NØ PASADENA. EVERYONE
DOWN THERE FROM LA, WHETHER
THEY'RE FROM L.A. OR NOT. AND
THAT THIS IS A REALLY
COMPLICATED MARKETPLACE. BUT I
WANTED TO SAY ONE THING BECAUSE
THE THING THAT IS NOT
COMPLICATED IS THAT THESE IOUS
ARE MONOPOLIES. AND SO AS WE
TALK ABOUT A MARKET WORKING
THERE ARE A LOT OF INCENTIVES
FOR THESE COMPANIES TO FIND
EFFICIENCIES. AND AT THE END OF
THE DAY, LIKE ANY OTHER COMPANY,
THEY ARE INCENTIVIZED TO
MAXIMIZE SHAREHOLDER PROFIT. BUT
IN THE REGULAR MARKET, WHERE THE
MARKET WORKS IN A HEALTHY WAY,
THEY'RE ALSO MOTIVATED TO WIN
CUSTOMERS. AND SO THEY DRIVE
DOWN COST FOR CUSTOMER, WIN
THOSE CUSTOMERS. BUT WHERE WE
HAVE A MONOPOLY, THAT INCENTIVE
IS NOT THERE. AND SO THAT IS
WHAT THE PUC IS FOR. AND THAT IS
WHY THIS IS A REGULATED INDUSTRY
. AND SO I JUST THINK THAT THIS
IS AN INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING
CONVERSATION, BECAUSE IT IS
CRITICAL TO REMEMBER WHAT THE
INCENTIVES OF THE IOU IS AND
WHAT OUR INCENTIVES ARE, AND OUR
INCENTIVES SHOULD BE TO MAXIMIZE
RATEPAYER SAVINGS. AND THAT IS
THE GOAL OF THIS BILL. AND I
THINK THAT IT HAS WORK TO DO.
BUT I THINK THAT IS WHERE WE
NEED TO GO, AND WE NEED TO BE
LOOKING OUT FOR THEM. AND THE
IOUS WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK OUT
FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS. AND THAT
WILL HOPEFULLY BRING US TO A
BALANCE. OKAY. WELL, I JUST WANT
TO SAY THANK YOU TO, ALL THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THE ROBUST
DISCUSSION, I REALLY FEEL LIKE
TACKLING THE CHALLENGE OF
AFFORDABILITY IS THE SINGLE MOST
IMPORTANT THING THAT THIS
COMMITTEE IS GOING TO DO THIS
YEAR. AND IN THE NEXT SEVERAL
YEARS. I ALSO THINK IT'S THE
HARDEST THING FOR US TO DO. IT'S
NOT LIKE THERE'S SOME SECRET
SILVER BULLET. AND, YOU KNOW, WE
JUST HAVEN'T FIGURED IT OUT YET.
SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT YOU
ALL HAVE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR
THE FRUSTRATION IN THIS ROOM
ABOUT SKYROCKETING RATES, THE
FRUSTRATION ACROSS THE STATE
ABOUT SKYROCKETING RATES. I DO
WANT TO ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I
HEAR YOUR FRUSTRATION, THAT A
BIG PART OF SKYROCKETING RATES
ARE BECAUSE FOR THE LAST 20
YEARS, THE LEGISLATURE HAS COME
UP WITH MANDATE AFTER MANDATE
AFTER MANDATE, AND THAT HAS BEEN
PILED ON AND PASSED ON TO
RATEPAYERS. AND NOW WE'RE LIKE
MAD AS HELL THAT RATES ARE SO
HIGH. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT
THAT'S A PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.
AND WHILE THAT'S NOT THE TOPIC
OF THIS BILL, I DO WANT TO SAY
PUBLICLY AS PART OF THIS
HEARING, THAT IS A PART OF THE
PUZZLE THAT I AND THIS COMMITTEE
ARE. WE'RE COMMITTED. WE ARE
COMMITTED TO TACKLING THIS YEAR,
AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE REALLY
HONEST AND TRANSPARENT ABOUT
WHAT THE DRIVERS ARE OF
SKYROCKETING RATES AND
ACKNOWLEDGE THE PLACES WHERE
THEY ARE BECAUSE OF THINGS THE
LEGISLATURE IS ASKING YOU TO DO.
AND WE NEED TO TAKE A VERY GOOD
LOOK AT THOSE MANDATES AND ASK
OURSELVES, ARE THOSE THINGS THAT
WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO GO TO DO
MORE MOVING FORWARD, SO I WILL
SAY, YOU KNOW, I HEAR YOUR
CONCERNS. I'M VERY MINDFUL OF
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. AND YOU
KNOW, I KNOW THAT THE AUTHOR IS
COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO WORK
ON THIS BILL. I WOULD ASK THAT
YOU CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WITH THE
OPPOSITION. OPPOSITION, CONTINUE
TO ENGAGE WITH THE AUTHOR AND
PLEASE, YOU KNOW, INCLUDE US IN
THAT CONVERSATION SO THAT WE
FIND A PATH WHERE, AS I SAID,
INCENTIVES ARE ALIGNED, BUT
RATEPAYERS DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY
ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GETTING
LEFT OUT IN THE COLD. SO WITH
THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. AND THANK YOU EVERYBODY
FOR YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU AND
YOUR TRUST. AND WE'LL CONTINUE
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION.
OKAY. DID WE HAVE A MOTION? YES.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ITEM NUMBER
FIVE AB 2666. DO PASS IS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. PETRIE-NORRIS
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON,
BARRY KHN BARRY KHN I
CALDERON. NOT VOTING. CALDERON
NOT VOTING. CHEN. CONNELLY.
CONNELLY I FRIEDMAN. I FRIEDMAN.
I HOLDEN. HOLDEN I JOE
PATTERSON. NOT VOTING. JOE.
PATTERSON. NOT VOTING. REYES I
REYES I SANTIAGO SCHIAVO SCHIAVO
I TING I TING I WALLACE WOULD
WOULD EYES ZIPPER ZIPPER I.
OKAY, TEN ZERO WE'LL LEAVE THAT
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD
ON. AND YOU'VE GOT ONE MORE
BILL. YES AND THIS TIME I HAVE A
WITNESS BECAUSE I INTRODUCED
THIS AND REALIZED, OH, YEAH,
THERE WAS THIS OTHER INDUSTRY
THAT ACTUALLY ALSO HAS THIS
PROBLEM. SO GOOD AFTERNOON,
MADAM CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, FIRST,
I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AND
HER AMAZING STAFF FOR WORKING
WITH ME ON THIS BILL. I ACCEPT
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AND
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
OPPOSITION. SHOULD THIS BILL
MOVE FORWARD TODAY. TODAY I'M
PRESENTING AB 2683, ANOTHER
TASHA BE SPECIAL, THE THIRD OF
THE DAY AND THE FINAL ONE, WHICH
WOULD REQUIRE THE PUBLIC
ADVOCATE'S OFFICE KNOWN AS CAL
ADVOCATES TO ADVOCATE FOR LOWER
CUSTOMER RATES DURING RATE
PROCEEDINGS. CAL ADVOCATES IS
THE STATE ENTITIES TASKED WITH
REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF
THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
CUSTOMERS AND AS PART OF THIS
RESPONSIBILITY, PARTICIPATES IN
GENERAL RATE CASES. THE RATES
THAT UTILITY COMPANIES CHARGE
CUSTOMERS ARE DETERMINED DURING
GENERAL RATE CASE PROCEEDINGS.
IN THESE HEARINGS, CAL ADVOCATES
SEEK TO OBTAIN THE LOWEST
POSSIBLE RATE WHILE ENSURING
SAFE AND RELIABLE SERVICE.
HOWEVER, UTILITY RATES IN
CALIFORNIA HAVE CONTINUED TO
RISE, RESULTING IN CALIFORNIANS
PAYING SOME OF THE HIGHEST RATES
IN THE COUNTRY AND SOME RATE
PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING SMALL
LANDLINE TELEPHONE OPERATION
OPERATORS. CAL ADVOCATES
ACTUALLY ADVOCATES TO RAISE
CUSTOMER RATES EVEN WHEN THE
TELEPHONE COMPANIES ARE NOT
ASKING FOR A RATE INCREASE THAT
IS INAPPROPRIATE AND DANGEROUS.
IN THESE RURAL LANDLINE
CUSTOMERS WHO NEED THE SERVICE
AND EMERGENCY PURPOSES. I DO
WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IT'S MY
TENT FOR ADVOCATES TO STILL
ADVOCATE FOR SERVICE CONSISTENT
WITH RELIABLE AND SAFE SERVICE
LEVELS. IF THERE ARE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE
RELIABILITY OR THE SAFETY OF A
SPECIFIC SERVICE IS IN JEOPARDY,
I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE FUTURE
CHANGES TO THIS BILL TO ADDRESS
THOSE ISSUES. BUT THE CPUC MAKES
THE FINAL DECISION DURING RATE
PROCEEDINGS. ADVOCATES SHOULD
ALWAYS BE ADVOCATING FOR LOWER
CUSTOMER RATES. AND OF COURSE,
I'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ANY
OPPOSITION AND ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES
AS THEY MOVE FORWARD. WITH THAT,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE, AND I WITH ME HERE IS
PAMELA LOOMIS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNICATIONS
ASSOCIATION. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS, MY NAME
IS PAM LOOMIS, AND I AM HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF AB 2683 ON
BEHALF OF THE SMALL TELEPHONE
COMPANIES THAT MAKE UP THE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNICATIONS
ASSOCIATION. THESE SMALL
COMPANIES HAVE BEEN SERVING IN
SOME OF THE MOST REMOTE AND
RUGGED AREAS OF THE STATE FOR
OVER 100 YEARS, MOST OF THEIR
CUSTOMERS ARE MIDDLE TO LOW
INCOME BECAUSE THERE'S NO
BUSINESS CASE FOR SERVING THESE
SPARSELY POPULATED AND HISTORIC
COMMUNITIES, BOTH THE FEDERAL
AND STATE GOVERNMENT PROVIDE
SUBSIDIES TO ENSURE THE
AVAILABILITY OF RELIABLE
NETWORKS AT AFFORDABLE RATES TO
FOR CITIZENS LIVING IN THESE
HARD TO REACH AREAS. IN SPITE OF
THIS, THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE'S
OFFICE HAS BEEN ARGUING FOR
HIGHER RATES FOR OUR CUSTOMERS.
OUR STAND ALONE RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RATES ARE NOW IN THE
HIGHEST 5% OF RATES NATIONWIDE.
THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE OFFICE
POINTS TO A PHRASE IN OUR
GOVERNING STATUTE THAT DIRECTS
THE PUC TO ENSURE THAT RURAL
RATES ARE REASONABLY COMPARABLE
TO URBAN RATES, THEY SEEM TO
DISREGARD THAT IN THAT SAME
STATUTE, THE PUC IS REQUIRED TO
ENSURE RATES ARE JUST AND
REASONABLE. THE SMALL TELEPHONE
COMPANIES APPRECIATE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BERNERS. INTRODUCTION OF
AB 2683. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW
OFTEN OUR CUSTOMERS ARE SHOCKED
TO LEARN THAT THE PUBLIC
ADVOCATE'S OFFICE IS PROPOSING
HIGHER RATES THAN WE ARE, AND
OFTEN THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE'S
OFFICE IS SIMULTANEOUSLY ARGUING
AGAINST NETWORK UPGRADES THAT
SUPPORT THE MODERN NEEDS OF OUR
RURAL COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY
OUR FIRST RESPONDERS AND OUR
WILDFIRE PRONE AREAS. AND THE
MEMBERS OF CAL COMM.
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND
OPEN IT UP FOR TESTIMONY IN THE
ROOM. ANYONE WISHING TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT OF AB 2683, YOU CAN
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AT THIS
POINT, SEEING NONE. I DON'T
BELIEVE WE HAVE A PRIMARY
OPPOSITION. OH MAYBE. DO WE HAVE
A PRIMARY WITNESS IN OPPOSITION?
I DON'T BELIEVE SO. ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, ANY OPPOSITION
TESTIMONY IN THE ROOM, SEEING
NONE COMING BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOULD
THANK YOU FOR ADVOCATING FOR
SMALL RURAL COMMUNITIES, AND I'M
GOING TO GUESS TO THE TO YOUR
WITNESS THERE, THESE ARE THESE
ARE OFTEN RUGGED AREAS. SO
THEY'RE THE CELL SERVICE IS, IS
ALSO A PROBLEM. SO OR THERE IS
NO CELL SERVICE. SO THE IDEA OF
THESE THAT THAT THESE COMPANIES
CAN ACTUALLY PROVIDE SERVICE AT
A LOW RATE THAT IS CONSISTENT
AND RELIABLE FOR THE CUSTOMERS
THEY SERVE. AND THEN SOMEBODY IS
ADVOCATING FOR HIGHER RATES FOR
LORD KNOWS WHAT TO FOR WHAT FOR
PARITY THAT I DON'T I JUST FIND
THAT INAPPROPRIATE. SO I
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THE BILL
FORWARD AND, AND IT ISN'T ALWAYS
IT ISN'T OFTEN, THAT RURAL
COMMUNITIES ARE ACTUALLY LOWER
COST TO LIVE IN, BUT WE SURE AS
HECK DON'T NEED PEOPLE WORKING
HARD TO MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE
FOR US. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PATTERSON. THANK YOU.
THIS BILL CLEARLY CAME FROM A
TWEET THAT I HAD A FEW MONTHS
AGO. BUT, YOU KNOW, FROM THE
STATE AUDITOR'S AUDIT. OH, YEAH.
OKAY. THAT TOO, I WAS LOOKING AT
YOUR TWEET WAS BASED ON I WAS
LOOKING AT, THE PUC, YOU KNOW,
ALL OF US ARE KIND OF, YOU KNOW,
I MEAN, WE ALL HAVE TO PAY
UTILITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND SO I WAS LOOKING AT THE PUC
WEBSITE, AND I WAS ACTUALLY KIND
OF SHOCKED HOW HARD IT WAS TO
FIND THE IMPORTANCE OF
AFFORDABILITY, IN DECISIONS.
RIGHT. AND SO I, WE SORT OF
LIKE, NEED A RESET IN A WAY THAT
THAT'S, THAT HAS TO BE A MAJOR
COMPONENT OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
AND YES, OF COURSE, THERE ARE
SOMETIMES GOING TO BE TRADE OFFS
IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, SAFETY.
YOU KNOW, TRIMMING WILDFIRE
MITIGATION, FOR EXAMPLE, AND
THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT, YOU
KNOW, YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY
VERY CHEAP, BUT IT'S PRETTY DARN
IMPORTANT FOR DISTRICTS LIKE
MINE. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT
WE I LIKE THIS BILL BECAUSE IT
SORT OF LIKE REFOCUSES ON, HEY,
YOU KNOW, LET'S FOCUS ON
AFFORDABILITY. SO THANK YOU FOR,
FOR DOING THIS. YES. I THINK,
CAL ADVOCATES, WHO HAS PAID FOR
BY THE RATEPAYERS SHOULD BE
ADVOCATING FOR LOWER RATES FOR
OUR RATEPAYERS. ALL RIGHT.
THAT'S FROM THE STATE AUDITOR,
TOO. SO DO YOU HAVE
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS BR OKAY. I
WASN'T GOING TO MAKE THE COMMENT
BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A NUDGY
LAWYERLY COMMENT, BUT, AND I AND
I SUPPORT THE BILL, I SUPPORT
THE INTENT OF THE BILL. BUT WHEN
I'M READING THE LANGUAGE OF THE
BILL, WHEN IT SAYS THAT THE I
WAS JUST TALKING TO MY
COLLEAGUE, THAT THE THAT THE,
THE PUBLIC TAX OFFICE WILL IN
EVERY GENERAL RATE CASE ADVOCATE
FOR LOWER RATES. I JUST THINK IT
NEEDS TO BE TWEAKED SOME. SO
THAT IT'S BASED ON SOME
STANDARD, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IF
THEY HAVE TO ADVOCATE FOR LOWER
RATES, EVEN WHEN LOWER RATES,
IT'S SORT OF THE LOWEST RATE
THAT COULD BE CONSISTENT WITH
SOME STANDARD. I THINK THEY'RE
JUST GOING TO LOSE CREDIBILITY.
SO I'M JUST I JUST WOULD HOPE
THAT YOU WOULD SORT OF TWEAK
THAT LANGUAGE SOME SO THAT IT'S
A LITTLE MORE CONSISTENT WITH, I
THINK, THE INTENT OF CONSISTENT
WITH LIKE, HEALTH AND SAFETY.
AND I KNOW IT'S I KNOW IT
SOMETIMES CAN BE HARD TO KEEP
TRACK. WE ACTUALLY DID WE STRUCK
THAT. YES THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDS STRIKING THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE PIO TO
ADVOCATE AS PRESCRIBED IN EVERY
GRC. OKAY, GREAT. OKAY. YES.
THANK YOU. PERFECT. THANK YOU.
HAVE A GREAT COMMITTEE STAFF.
YOU LET ME GO AND DO WHAT I WANT
YOU I DON'T KNOW. ALL RIGHT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. OKAY, DO WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND MOTION BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOOD? SECOND BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZUBER, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ITEM NUMBER SIX, AB 2683. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. ÓRDENES
PETRIE-NORRIS I PETRIE-NORRIS I
JIM PATTERSON. BEAR KHN
CALDERON I CALDERON I CHEN.
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN. I HOLDEN. HOLDEN. I
JOE. PATTERSON. I JOE. PATTERSON
I REYES. REYES. I SANTIAGO.
SHIAVO SHIAVO I TING TING I
WALLACE WOOD, WOOD I ZUBER ZUBER
I. OKAY. 11 ZERO THAT BILL IS
OUT AND WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD
ON, MOVING TO FILE ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN AB 2697, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ERWIN.
WELL, GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY,
AND I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT AB
2697, A BILL RELATED TO ELECTRIC
VEHICLE, THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE
CHARGING EXPERIENCE, A FEW
MONTHS AGO, WE HAD A JOINT
HEARING RIGHT IN HERE WITH,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SHABO AND
PETRIE-NORRIS LOOKING AT EV
RELIABILITY AND A LOT OF WHAT
WAS BROUGHT UP, DURING THAT
MEETING IS PART OF THIS BILL. AS
AN EV DRIVER, I'M FRUSTRATED
WITH THE ALL TOO COMMON
EXPERIENCE OF TRYING AND FAILING
TO FIND A FUNCTIONING PUBLIC
CHARGER. AS A LEGISLATOR, I AM
FRUSTRATED, FRUSTRATED TO SEE
OUR TAX DOLLARS BEING WASTED
RATHER THAN FUNDING WORKING MORE
ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC CHARGERS. A
RECENT STUDY BY J.D. POWER
SHOWED THAT ONE FIFTH OF ALL
ATTEMPTS TO USE A PUBLIC CHARGER
WERE UNSUCCESSFUL, ALL ACCORDING
TO THE CEC. 41% OF OUR PUBLICLY
FUNDED EV CHARGERS ARE INSTALLED
WITH, A STATE GRANTS AND
TAXPAYER MONEY THAT AMOUNTS TO
ROUGHLY 40,000 CHARGERS ACROSS
THE STATE. THIS BILL REQUIRES
THAT STATE FUNDED CHARGERS THAT
WE'VE INSTALLED PRIOR TO 2024 BE
SUBJECT TO CEC RELIABILITY
STANDARDS THAT ARE BEING
FINALIZED THIS SUMMER AND
SUBJECT TO ROAMING AGREEMENTS SO
THAT DIFFERENT COMPANY CHARGERS
CAN TALK TO ONE ANOTHER AND
DRIVERS CAN EASILY ACCESS ALL OF
THEM. THE REQUIREMENTS IN AB
2697 ARE INTENDED TO BENEFIT
CONSUMERS, SINCE TAXPAYERS FUND
THE INFRASTRUCTURE, CALIFORNIA
HAS SPENT NEARLY $1.7 BILLION ON
EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE.
WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY, THESE
CHARGERS ARE AT RISK OF BEING
STRANDED. ASSETS WITHOUT
IMPROVING THE DRIVER EXPERIENCE
WERE JEOPARDIZING OUR CLEAN
TRANSPORTATION FUTURE, AND WITH
ME TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF PLUG
IN AMERICA IS ALEXIA MELENDEZ
MARTINEAU. THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ERWIN. AND FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU
ALL TODAY. MY NAME IS ALEXIA
MELENDEZ MARTINEAU AND I'M
PLEASED TO BE HERE ON BEHALF OF
PLUG IN AMERICA, A NATIONAL
NONPROFIT FOUNDED BY EV DRIVERS
IN CALIFORNIA WITH A MISSION TO
ACCELERATE THE TRANSITION TO
ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND CHARGING.
WE'RE HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT AB
2697, WHICH WILL IMPROVE THE EV
CHARGING EXPERIENCE FOR DRIVERS.
PLUG IN AMERICA CONDUCTS AN
ANNUAL EV DRIVER SURVEY, AND
BASED ON RESULTS FROM OUR 2023
SURVEY, PUBLIC EV CHARGING IS
CURRENTLY UNRELIABLE AND HAS
LESS CONSUMERS WANTING MORE AND
EARLY INSIGHTS FROM THIS YEAR'S
SURVEY SHOW CALIFORNIA'S NO
DIFFERENT ACCESS TO CHARGING IS
ONE OF THE BIGGEST
CONSIDERATIONS FOR CONSUMERS
WHEN TRANSITIONING TO AN
ELECTRIC VEHICLE. CURRENTLY, AS
AN EV DRIVER, WHICH I AM MYSELF
AS WELL, THERE IS A HIGH
EXPECTATION OF YOUR ABILITY AND
WILLINGNESS TO ADAPT TO THE
CURRENT EV ECOSYSTEM. THIS CAN
OFTEN MEAN HAVING TO SPEND
SEVERAL MINUTES EACH TIME YOU
CHARGE ON A NEW NETWORK.
DOWNLOADING AND SETTING UP AN
ACCOUNT ON AN AN APP TO CHARGE,
ESPECIALLY AS CALIFORNIA EMBARKS
ON MASS MARKET ADOPTION OF EVS.
WE MUST MAKE THE CHARGING
EXPERIENCE MORE USER FRIENDLY TO
REDUCE BARRIERS TO CLEAN
TRANSPORTATION. ROAMING
AGREEMENTS HELP SIMPLIFY THE
CHARGING EXPERIENCE FOR
CONSUMERS BY ALLOWING THEM TO
USE THEIR FAVORITE APP FOR OTHER
CHARGING NETWORKS. THIS EMPOWERS
DRIVERS TO CHOOSE THEIR
PREFERRED PLATFORM AND CREATES
COMPETITION AMONGST COMPANIES TO
PROVIDE THE BEST POSSIBLE USER
EXPERIENCE THROUGH PURSUING
ROAMING AGREEMENTS FOR EV
CHARGING, AB 2697 CAN HELP MAKE
PUBLIC EV CHARGING EXPERIENCE
SEAMLESS FOR EV DRIVERS.
ADDITIONALLY, AS CALIFORNIA
PURSUES A CLEAN TRANSPORTATION
FUTURE TO MEET ITS AMBITIOUS
CLIMATE GOALS, WE MUST
ACCURATELY UNDERSTAND THE
CURRENT AND FUTURE EV CHARGING,
LANDSCAPE SETTING, UPTIME,
RECORD KEEPING, AND REPORTING
STANDARDS FOR PRE 2024 CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE WILL COMPLEMENT
THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CEC IS
ALREADY CURRENTLY DEVELOPING FOR
NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. THANK YOU
AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY IN SUPPORT
OF AB 2697. THANK YOU. WE'LL
OPEN IT UP FOR ADDITIONAL
TESTIMONY IN THE ROOM. IF ANYONE
WANTS TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
THE AB 2697. GOT AN APPROACH TO
THE MIC. GOOD. GOOD AFTERNOON.
REBECCA MARKUS. ON BEHALF OF THE
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. YVETTE
DICARLO, EV OWNER IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. MOVING TO OPPOSITION.
EXCUSE ME. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, RITA ADDIS, ON
BEHALF OF THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE
CHARGING ASSOCIATION, EACH AND
EVERY YEAR, OUR ASSOCIATION IS
STRIVING TO DEVELOP NEW
TECHNOLOGY AND DEPLOY BETTER
PERFORMING AND BETTER
FUNCTIONING TECH NOLOGY AND
INSTALLING THAT THROUGHOUT THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE
REALLY MAJOR GOALS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ADOPTED, AND OUR
INDUSTRY IS TRYING TO SCALE UP
AND CREATE THAT NEW TECHNOLOGY
EACH AND EVERY YEAR AS BEST AS
WE CAN. WE WERE DOING THAT,
THOUGH, IN A SCENARIO WHERE
THERE WAS NO STANDARDS SET BY
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BUT
LUCKILY, WITH OUR SUPPORT,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER TANG, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER REYES DID PUT FORWARD A
LAW A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO TO
ESTABLISH THOSE STANDARDS BY
WHICH WE COULD, ACROSS OUR
ENTIRE INDUSTRY, WORK, THOSE
REGULATIONS ARE BEING DEVELOPED
RIGHT NOW. THE CONCERN WE HAD
WITH THE BILL ORIGINALLY THAT
THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER HAS PUT
FORWARD IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN APPLYING THE STATE OF THE
ART REGULATION. THE REGULATIONS
ARE BEING DEVELOPED FOR THE
STATE OF THE ART TECHNOLOGY
TODAY, AND THOSE WOULD BE
APPLIED TOWARDS TECHNOLOGIES IN
THE PAST. IT WOULD BE AKIN TO
TRYING TO REGULATE A FLIP PHONE.
WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW,
AN IPHONE 15. SO WE HAD A NUMBER
OF CONCERNS. HOWEVER, THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER IN THE LAST
COMMITTEE, THEY DID MAKE SOME
CHANGES TO THE BILL. WE ACTUALLY
GREATLY APPRECIATE THE NEW
DIRECTION IT ALLOWS THE CEC TO
WORK ON HOW TO APPLY THOSE
CURRENT REGULATIONS AGAINST
THOSE OLDER TECHNOLOGIES. WHILE
WE STILL HAVE A NUMBER OF
CONCERNS, I THINK WE'RE DOWN TO
THREE. WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
APPRECIATE THE APPROACH,
UNFORTUNATELY, STILL IN
OPPOSITION TODAY, THOUGH. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION, YOU CAN
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE SEEING
NONE. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
? BILL. ASSEMBLY MEMBER SCHIAFFO
I JUST WANTED TO SAY, AS THE
CHAIR OF THE ELECTRIC VEHICLES
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
APPRECIATE YOUR CONTINUED
LEADERSHIP IN THIS ISSUE. IT'S
REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT. I RUN
INTO PEOPLE ALL THE TIME WHO
TELL ME THEY'RE NOT PURCHASING
EVS BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID OF
WHAT THE CHARGING SITUATION IS
GOING TO BE FOR THEM. AND, AND
AS AN EV OWNER, I GET IT. SO I
KNOW, THOUGH, THAT THE INDUSTRY
IS ALSO WORKING REALLY HARD TO
IMPROVE THAT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY
EVERYBODY IS DEPENDING ON THIS
TO WORK. RIGHT. AND WE HAVE TO
FIGURE IT OUT, SO, SO, SO I
KNOW, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE CONVERSATIONS AND, AND
FIND A SWEET SPOT. BUT TO MAKE
SURE THAT THIS REALLY MOVES
FORWARD IN A WAY THAT MAKES A
DIFFERENCE FOR PEOPLE AND MAKES
SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE RELIABLE
CHARGERS WHEN THEY NEED THEM
AND, YOU KNOW, DON'T EXPERIENCE
THINGS LIKE ALL OF US HAVE
EXPERIENCED WHERE YOU SHOW UP
AND YOU TRY FIVE CHARGERS AND
NONE OF THEM WORK, AND YOU GO TO
THE NEXT LEVEL ON THE PARKING
STRUCTURE UNTIL YOU'RE ON THE
TOP. THAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED TO
ME. SO, SO, SO I YEAH, I GREATLY
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK AND THE
WITNESSES, PERSPECTIVE ON THIS
AND, AND, YOU KNOW, HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL. THANK YOU. AND
I, TOO, APPRECIATE YOUR FOCUS ON
ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT AND
ENSURING THAT WE'VE GOT A
NETWORK OF CHARGING STATIONS
THAT ACTUALLY WORK. WE'VE GOT
INCREDIBLY AMBITIOUS ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLE GOALS. THERE'S
NO WAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO
ACHIEVE THEM IF WE DO NOT.
ALONGSIDE THAT, ROLL OUT A
NETWORK OF CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS
FUNCTIONAL. SO THANK YOU FOR
YOUR FOCUS ON THAT. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU. JUST
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL RIGHT. WE'VE GOT A MOTION
AND A SECOND I THINK YES. OH DO
WE HAVE A MOTION. ALL RIGHT. WE
HAVE A MOTION. AND A SECOND,
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, AB
2697. THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED.
APPROPRIATIONS PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I BAUER-KAHAN
CALDERON CHEN. CONNELLY.
CONNELLY. I FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I
HOLDEN. HOLDEN I JOE. PATTERSON.
I JOE. PATTERSON. I REYES. REYES
I SANTIAGO. SHIAVO SHIAVO I TING
TING I WALLACE WOULD, I WOULD I
ZIPPER ZIPPER I. ALL RIGHT. TEN
ZERO WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON,
MOVING ON TO ITEM EIGHT AB 3256,
WELL, I'M I'M PROUD TO PRESENT
AB 3256 AND AS YOU HEARD IN THE
PREVIOUS HEARING WITH, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BERNER, WE ARE SEEING
SOME OF THE HIGHEST ELECTRIC
BILLS IN THE NATION. AND WITH
THE HELP OF THE COMMITTEE STAFF,
WE HAVE TURNED THIS INTO AN
AUDIT BILL. AND AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE FROM SGA SAID IN
THE LAST, HEARING A FEW MINUTES
AGO, AUDITS DO MAKE A
DIFFERENCE. AND SO THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. THE
PUBLIC ADVOCATE'S OFFICE HAS
IDENTIFIED OVER 14 BILLION IN
WILDFIRE AND EMERGENCY RELATED
COST RECOVERY REQUESTS SINCE
2020, BASED ON CONCERNS RAISED
BY THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE'S OFFICE,
AB 3256 AIMS TO INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
IN BALANCING AND MEMORANDUM
ACCOUNTS. INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES ARE PERMITTED TO
REQUEST COST RECOVERY THROUGH
REGULATORY ACCOUNTS, WHICH FALL
OUTSIDE OF THE GENERAL RATE
CASE, WHILE REGULATORY
REGULATORY ACCOUNTS ARE USED FOR
STATE MANDATED PROGRAMS, IN SOME
INSTANCES, THEY'RE USED TO
RECOUP WILDFIRE AND EMERGENCY
RELATED COST RECOVERY TRACKING
AND OTHER INSTANCES. BALANCING
ACCOUNTS ARE USED FOR EXPECTED,
COSTS THAT OCCUR REGULARLY,
WHILE MEMORANDUM ACCOUNTS ARE
USED FOR VOLATILE YEAR TO YEAR
COSTS. COSTS RECORDED IN
MEMORANDUM ACCOUNTS ARE SUBJECT
TO A REASONABLE REVIEW WITH
POTENTIAL FOR INCLUSION IN
RATES, BUT RECOVERY IS NOT
GUARANTEED, AND WILDFIRE AND
CATASTROPHIC CATASTROPHE RELATED
BUDGET REQUESTS ONCE EMERGENCY
EXCEPTION RUNS IN UTILITY
BUDGETS, HAVE BECOME THE NORM
AND ARE PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE EXORBITANT RATES WE'RE
SEEING. AB 3256 AIMS TO INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
BY REQUIRING THE PUC TO AUDIT
ELECTRIC CORPORATIONS BALANCING
AND MEMO ACCOUNTS TO DETERMINE
IF, NUMBER ONE, THE COSTS IN
THESE ACCOUNTS WERE AUTHORIZED.
NUMBER TWO, THE WHETHER THE
CORPORATION COMPLIED WITH THE
TERMS IDENTIFIED BY THE PUC AND
THREE, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE
RATE IMPACT TO CUSTOMERS. IF THE
PUC DETERMINES THAT ACTUAL COSTS
HAVE ALREADY BEEN AUTHORIZED AND
COLLECTED FROM CUSTOMERS, IT
SHALL DENY THE CORPORATION A
SECOND RECOVERY OF THE ACTUAL
COSTS THAT HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED
AND COLLECTED AND CLOSE THE
ACCOUNT. I WILL BE ACCEPTING ALL
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. AGAIN,
THANK THE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
US AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
CHAIR ALSO. AND, RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE, VOTE ON THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT, ANYONE WISHING TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF AB 3256
AND APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AT
THIS TIME, SEEING NONE WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION.
VALERIE CHIRLA ALEJO'S WITH
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY, WE DO HAVE AN OPPOSED
POSITION ON THE ON THE BILL IN
PRINT, I APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE'S WORK TO, NARROW, THE
SCOPE, AND, YOU KNOW, NOT HERE
TO SAY WE ARE OPPOSED TO AUDITS,
ACCOUNTABILITY OR TRANSPARENCY,
BUT I GUESS I DID WANT TO ASK
THE COMMITTEE TO THINK OF, WHAT
IS THE PERCEIVED PROBLEM HERE,
THERE'S NOTHING NEFARIOUS OR
MALICIOUS HAPPENING WHEN, THERE
ARE BALANCING ACCOUNTS THAT ARE
OUTSIDE OF THE GENERAL RATE
CASE, FOR MANDATED WORK, JUST
SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO THE,
ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS, WE WOULD SAY WE WANT
TO CONTINUE TO WORK THERE
BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT SUGGEST
THAT ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE CLOSED.
AND SOMETIMES THERE'S ONGOING,
ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH AN
ACCOUNT. SO IT SHOULD STAY OPEN.
AND THEN I WOULD JUST ALSO NOTE
THAT THERE ARE HEAVY PENALTIES
IN THE STATUTE FOR, SEEKING FOR
DOUBLE RECOVERY. DOUBLE DOUBLE
COST RECOVERY. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. DID YOU DID YOU WANT TO
STAY UP IN CASE FOLKS HAVE
QUESTIONS OR. OKAY, OKAY. ALL
RIGHT. ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION? OAN, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. HI.
CATHERINE BORG WITH SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON. WE'RE
CONTINUING TO EVALUATE THE
AMENDMENTS, AND I'M HOPING TO
GET INTO A GOOD PLACE. THANKS
HI, LOURDES. ALONG WITH SAN
DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC, WE ARE
OPPOSED TO THE BILL IN PRINT,
BUT REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS
STILL. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS JOE PATTERSON,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ASSEMBLY MEMBER
JOE PATTERSON, CAN YOU GIVE ME
AN IDEA? I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, WHAT
IS AN AUDIT LOOK LIKE FOR THE
WILDFIRE, BALANCING ACCOUNT? I
MEAN, I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THAT
HOW THEY, USE THE FUNDS, OR IS
IT, YOU KNOW, WHAT KIND OF LEVEL
OF DETAIL IS IT GETTING TO DO
YOU THINK IN YOUR MIND WHAT THAT
WOULD LOOK LIKE? WELL SO I'LL
JUST REPEAT THE THREE THINGS
THAT IT LOOKS AT, WHETHER THE
COSTS IN THE ACCOUNTS WERE
AUTHORIZED, WHETHER THE
CORPORATION COMPLIED WITH THE
TERMS IDENTIFIED BY THE PUC, AND
WHAT THE RATE IMPACT IS TO THE
CUSTOMERS. AND THE PUC HAS AN
AUDITING DIVISION. THEY ARE VERY
CAPABLE OF DOING THIS. AS A
MATTER OF FACT, THEY DO IT
OFTEN. THIS IS REQUESTING A ONCE
THROUGH AUDIT DONE BY 2025. AND
THE YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE REASONS
THAT, WE THOUGHT THIS WAS A BILL
TO LOOK AT IS THE PUBLIC
ADVOCATE PUT OUT A CHART THAT
SHOWED SINCE WE STARTED, SINCE
THESE BALANCING ACCOUNTS HAVE
STARTED, THAT THE RATES HAVE
INCREASED 120% AND 140. THE
CHARTS RUN KIND OF CONCURRENTLY
WITH WHEN THESE BALANCING
ACCOUNTS STARTED. SO WE THOUGHT
THEY BROUGHT UP A VERY GOOD
CONCERN. AND WE THINK AN AUDIT
IS A WAY TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT
ALL THE RULES ARE BEING
FOLLOWED. THANKS AND I DON'T
MEAN THAT QUESTION, YOU KNOW, IN
AN ADVERSARIAL WAY AT ALL. I
JUST, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY VÆ
RATEPAYERS IN MY DISTRICT ARE
GOING TO BE PAYING, MORE MONEY.
MAYBE IF THE PUC APPROVES FOR
WILDFIRE MITIGATION AND, YOU
KNOW, I CAN'T TELL IF SOMEBODY
IF FIVE OVERTIME CREWS WERE SENT
OUT ON A SUNDAY OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT VERSUS JUST, YOU KNOW,
MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, GENERAL
TIME. RIGHT. AND SO BUT NO
MATTER WHAT MY DISTRICT
CONSTITUENTS ARE GOING TO PAY
FOR THAT WHEN IT COMES IN FOR
COST RECOVERY OR SO. WE JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE ALSO THAT
THERE'S NO DOUBLE BILLING. THAT
WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE
PUBLIC ADVOCATES RAISED. OKAY
DID THEY IDENTIFY ANY DOUBLE
BILLING OR THIS WAS JUST FROM
THEIR REPORT? OKAY. NO, I THINK
IT WAS A CONCERN. OKAY. GREAT.
THANK YOU. YES. AND THANK YOU,
AND THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR AS
WELL, I A QUESTION FOR THE, THE
OPPOSITION. SORRY. YOU DON'T GET
OFF COMPLETELY ON THIS ONE, BUT
I'M CURIOUS BECAUSE I REMEMBER
THINKING OF BILLS IN THE PAST
LIKE LAST YEAR, WE WERE WORKING
ON BALANCING AND MEMORANDUM
ACCOUNTS. WHAT IS THE CURRENT
PROCESS? BECAUSE THERE IS SOME
SORT OF REVIEW TO SEE WHETHER OR
NOT THESE EXPENDITURES FALL INTO
CATEGORIES. SO. BUT IT'S NOT
RISING TO THE LEVEL OF AN AUDIT,
IT SOUNDS LIKE. SO WHAT WHAT
HAPPENS NOW, I THINK THAT THE
ANALYSIS DID A GREAT JOB, ON
THIS PART WHERE THE PUC IS
USING, RISK BASED APPROACHES
WHEN, FOR AUDITING, THEN THERE'S
ALSO DIFFERENT, SORT OF
DIFFERENT PROCESSES DEPENDING ON
IF IT'S A MEMORANDUM ACCOUNT OR,
OR A BALANCING ACCOUNT, AND,
AND, WE WOULD APPROACH WE WOULD
GO TO THE COMMISSION AND, YOU
KNOW, SHOW THE RECORD, THEY
REVIEW THEY'RE ALSO REVIEWING
FOR JUST AND REASONABLENESS. THE
AND, AND TO APPROVE, THE, TO
APPROVE COST RECOVERY SOMETIMES
IT'S BASED ON A FORECAST,
SOMETIMES THE FORECASTS ARE
UNPREDICTABLE, SO THE PUC HAS A
PROCESS TO REVIEW IT, THEY CAN
DETERMINE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN OUR,
YOU KNOW, IN GENERAL AND A GREAT
EXAMPLE THAT THEY, ANALYSIS GAVE
WAS FOR GENERATION. SO REMEMBER
WE HAD THE HIGH NATURAL GAS
PRICES LAST YEAR. SO THERE THAT
WAS WHERE WE HAD TO WE DID HAVE
TO COLLECT OVER THE FORECAST FOR
THAT PARTICULAR ACCOUNT, BUT
SOMETIMES YOU KNOW, THERE IS,
REFUND DUE TO THE CUSTOMER WAS
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, I
HAD ANOTHER QUESTION, AND I KIND
OF LOST IT, AS PART OF THE
AUDIT, IS IT THE POTENTIAL IS IT
INTENTION OF THE AUDIT TO LOOK
AT THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS? ALL
OF ALL OF THE BALANCING AND
MEMORANDUM ACCOUNTS OR AND I
GUESS, AND FOR ME, ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WOULD BE NICE,
BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THAT THAT
THAT WE'VE SEEN SINCE, SINCE A
LOT OF THESE BALANCING AND
MEMORANDUM ACCOUNTS HAVE
APPEARED, WE'VE SEEN RATES GOING
UP, WILL THE WILL THE AUDITS SAY
HOW MUCH IS RELATED TO THE
BALANCING ACCOUNTS, WHICH ARE
THE MEMORANDUM ACCOUNTS, WHICH
ARE, YOU KNOW, BALANCING
ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE RELATED TO
MANDATES BY THE LEGISLATURE,
CORRECT? SOME OF THEM ANYWAY.
AND IT ALSO COINCIDES WITH THE
BIG FIRES THAT WE'VE HAD. SO IT
CERTAINLY COULD ALL BE JUST.
SURE. SO, BUT I THINK WITHOUT
THE, THE INFORMATION, WE DON'T
KNOW. IT'S THE, THE NUMBER OF
ACCOUNTS THAT, THAT ARE AUDITED
IS, IS IT RELATIVELY SMALL. SO
WE'RE SAYING BY 2025 TO AUDIT AS
MANY AS YOU CAN BUT DO HIGH
RISK, THE COMMITTEE ADDED HIGH
RISK FIRST. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. WELL I'LL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY. I, I
DO I DO GO BACK TO WE HAD A BILL
EARLIER IN THE COMMITTEE, NOT
NOT THIS, NOT THIS, NOT TODAY
BUT EARLIER THAT LOOKED AT WHAT
WILL WHAT WOULD THE POTENTIAL
IMPACTS TO RATES BE WITH WITH
WITH SOME OF THE MANDATES THAT
WE ARE WE MIGHT CONSIDER, GOING
FORWARD SO THAT THAT THAT MIGHT
HELP CLARIFY SOME THINGS IN THE
FUTURE AS WELL. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NO, SO
JUST VERY QUICKLY, I THINK TO
THE QUESTION OF THE PERCEIVED
PROBLEM AND THAT THE AUTHOR
SHARED HER HER PERSPECTIVE OF,
WHEN WE WHEN THE COMMITTEE
CONDUCTED A HEARING ON
AFFORDABILITY, THE PUBLIC
ADVOCATE'S OFFICE DID HIGHLIGHT
CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROLIFERATION
OF BALANCING ACCOUNTS. AND THERE
WAS A STATE AUDIT IN 2022 THAT
FOUND THAT NEARLY 2.5 BILLION IN
WILDFIRE COSTS COULD EITHER
DUPLICATE ALREADY AUTHORIZED
COSTS OR REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTATION, IN ORDER TO
PROPERLY EVALUATE. SO, I THINK
IT IS A, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY A
WORTHWHILE AREA OF INQUIRY.
THERE HAS BEEN A HUGE
PROLIFERATION OF BALANCING
ACCOUNTS IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
I THINK I'M NOT GOING TO GET THE
NUMBERS PRECISE. BUT, YOU KNOW,
FIVE YEARS AGO, SOMETHING LIKE
90% OF STUFF WAS OF DOLLARS WERE
MOVING THROUGH THE GENERAL RATE
CASE. TODAY IT'S CLOSER TO 60.
SO I DO THINK IT'S A WORTHWHILE,
TOPIC FOR US TO DIG INTO. AND I
THINK A ONE TIME AUDIT, WILL NOT
BE OVERLY BURDENSOME FOR THE
PUC. TURN UP WHETHER THERE'S
OPPORTUNITIES, IT'S NOT SO MUCH.
AND I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
IT'S NOT SO MUCH TRYING TO EVEN
DO IT AS A GOTCHA, BUT FIGURING
OUT WHAT THINGS HAVE BEEN SET UP
AS BALANCING ACCOUNTS THAT CAN
NOW GET THAT ARE MORE
APPROPRIATELY ROLLED INTO A GRC.
SO WE DON'T WANT 40% OF STUFF
THAT'S GETTING FED INTO RATES TO
BE OUTSIDE OF THE GENERAL RATE
CASE MOVING FORWARD, WITH THAT,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
. MOVE THE BILL. ALL RIGHT,
MOTION AND A SECOND, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, AB 3256. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I VÀ KHN CALDERON
I CALDERON I CHEN CHEN. NOT
VOTING. CONNELLY CONNELLY I
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN I JOE PATTERSON I JOE
PATTERSON I REYES I REYES I
SANTIAGO SHIAVO SHIAVO I TING I
TING I WALLACE WALLACE I WOOD I
WOULD I ZIPPER ZIPPER I OKAY 12
ZERO WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
MOVING ALONG. ITEM NUMBER TEN AN
AB 3111 ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CALDERON. WHEN YOU'RE READY.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS IS THE
HOT SEAT, RIGHT? GOOD EVENING,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I WANT
TO START BY THANKING THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH US ON
THIS BILL, AND I WILL BE
ACCEPTING, ALL THE PROPOSED
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. AB 3111
REQUIRES NEW LARGE CUSTOMER
SITED SOLAR AND STORAGE PROJECTS
TO NOTIFY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION OF THE INSTALLATION
AND SCOPE OF THESE PROJECTS.
CURRENTLY, THE CEC HAS TO RELY
ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THEM
BY CAISO ENERGY PROVIDERS AND
OTHER SOURCES TO GET A SENSE OF
WHAT DISTRIBUTED ENERGY
RESOURCES ARE ON THE GROUND.
THIS BILL STREAMLINES THE CEC
INFORMATION GATHERING BY HAVING
THAT INFORMATION DIRECTLY
PROVIDED TO THEM. OUR OFFICE HAS
MET WITH MANY OF THE GROUPS IN
OPPOSITION, AND I BELIEVE THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS CLARIFY
THE BILL'S INTENT AND ADDRESS
THE OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS. THIS
BILL IS SIMPLY MEANT TO ENSURE
THAT THE CEC AND THE REST OF THE
STATE'S ENERGY AGENCIES HAVE A
COMPLETE DER DER DATA SET. HERE
WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS
SCOTT WELCH FROM THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS. AS MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, FIRST, I'D LIKE TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE AND STAFF
FOR ALL THE WORK ON ON THIS
BILL. THIS BILL IS PRETTY
SIMPLE, THE IBEW, LIKES AND
SUPPORTS MICRO GRIDS, MY MEMBERS
ON THE CONSTRUCTION SIDE ARE
BUILDING STORAGE AND ROOFTOP
SOLAR AND, AND MICRO GRIDS. THIS
BILL ADDRESSES REALLY A
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM IN THAT
OFTENTIMES THE UTILITIES
THEMSELVES, BOTH MUNICIPAL
UTILITIES AND, INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES ARE NOT NOTIFIED OF
THAT. THERE IS A MICRO GRID
STORAGE AND DER SYSTEM BEING
BUILT UNTIL THE POINT OF
INTERCONNECTION WHEN THEY GET A
CALL AND SAY, HEY, COME
INTERCONNECT US. AND OFTENTIMES
THAT'S INSUFFICIENT TIME TO PLAN
FOR WHAT NEEDS TO GO INTO
PLANNING FOR THE CIRCUIT. THAT
MAY HAVE TO BE UPDATED OR NOT
UPDATED, AS WELL AS SAFETY
ISSUES, SO WE CAN BEGIN TO
PREPARE AND BE AWARE THAT THESE
SYSTEMS ARE GOING TO COME ONLINE
ON THE CUSTOMER SIDE OF THE
METER. IT ALSO, ALLOWS FOR THE
PUBLIC WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH
LARGE SYSTEMS ON COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, WE
BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD
BE AWARE THAT THOSE SYSTEMS ARE
BEING INSTALLED AS WELL, AS WELL
AS, YOU KNOW, THE UNIONS
THEMSELVES ARE INTERESTED IN
KNOWING WHERE THESE SYSTEMS ARE
GOING. AND SO WE THINK THIS IS A
VERY MODEST AND REASONABLE,
PIECE OF LEGISLATION. AND WE
WOULD URGE YOUR AYE, VOTE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT IF YOU'D
LIKE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF AB
3111, APPROACH THE MIC. GOOD
EVENING, TRENT SMITH, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL
UTILITIES ASSOCIATION, IN
SUPPORT. GOOD EVENING, JOE ZANZI
WITH SAN DIEGO GAS ELECTRIC IN
SUPPORT. VALERIE CHIRLA ALEJO'S,
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
SUPPORT LARA WITH SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON AND SUPPORT.
HUNTER STERN, A COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES AND
SUPPORT. MOVING ON TO OPPOSITION
, THÀNH. GOOD AFTERNOON OR GOOD
EVENING. DO YOU WANT TO COME TO
THE DAIS? GOOD EVENING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS KIM STONE OF STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA SOLAR AND STORAGE
ASSOCIATION AND VERY RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION, WE DO APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AND HOPE TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR
AND THE SPONSORS SHOULD THE BILL
CONTINUE TO MOVE. KALSA TELLS ME
THAT MICROGRIDS AND VIRTUAL
POWER PLANTS ARE OFTEN BUILT AT
THE REQUEST OF ENERGY PLANNERS
AND REGULATORS, AND IN THOSE
CASES, THE CEC CAN ALREADY GET
THE INFORMATION BECAUSE THEY
KNOW ABOUT THE PROGRAMS, AND IF
NOT, THEY CAN ASK THE UTILITIES
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AND
CALIFORNIA DOES ALREADY HAVE, A
REALLY COOL DATA COLLECTION
WEBSITE CALLED DGS STATS THAT
HAS INFORMATION ON 2 MILLION
SMART ENERGY, SMART SOLAR, AND
STORAGE SYSTEMS, SIZE, LOCATION,
ZIP CODE, MAKE MODEL,
MANUFACTURER OF BATTERY A
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE DATA. KALSA AND OUR
740 MEMBER COMPANIES WANT TO
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE CLEAN ENERGY
TO THE STATE, AND THINK THAT
THAT'S, MORE USEFUL THAN
PROVIDING DUPLICATIVE,
DUPLICATIVE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS. SO ARE IN
RESPECTFUL, OPPOSED POSITION.
BUT AGAIN, SHOULD THE BILL
CONTINUE TO MOVE, WE'LL HOPE TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. DELANEY HUNTER, ON
BEHALF OF THE SOLAR ENERGY
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OR THE
NATIONAL TRADE GROUP FOR SOLAR,
WE AGREE WITH THE POSITIONS BY
OUR SISTER ORGANIZATION AT
KHALSA. WE REMAIN OPPOSED. WE DO
APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF THE
COMMITTEE TO NARROW THE BILL AND
MOST SPECIFICALLY REMOVE THE
SECTION 218 ATTESTATION.
HOWEVER, AS AS MISS STONE
REFERENCED, THERE IS ALREADY A
TON OF DATA REMITTED TO THE
UTILITY, TO THE PUC AND TO THE
CEC. IN FACT, YOU COULD SEARCH
TODAY THAT ANY PROJECT OVER ONE
MEGAWATT PROVIDES QUARTERLY
INFORMATION TO THE CEC. TODAY.
THAT'S ANY PROJECT OVER ONE
MEGAWATT QUARTERLY IS REPORTING
THAT INFORMATION TO THE CEC
TODAY, ALSO, THE PUC HAS TONS OF
INFORMATION AROUND THESE
PROJECTS BECAUSE OF EITHER
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS OR THROUGH,
OTHER PROJECTS AT THE UTILITIES.
IT'S NOT JUST THE TIME WHEN YOU
FLIP A SWITCH, ESPECIALLY FOR
LARGE BUSINESS, THE
INTERCONNECTION PROCESS, THE
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT
THE CIRCUIT NEEDS TO BE UPGRADED
OR NOT IS DONE WELL IN ADVANCE.
I CAN TELL YOU I HAVE CUSTOMERS,
THAT NEED TO TRY TO FIGURE THAT
OUT. AND SOMETIMES IT'S YEARS
BEFORE WE KNOW WHETHER WE CAN
EVEN INTERCONNECT A PROJECT, SO
I THINK THE LACK OF INFORMATION
IS ERRONEOUS, AND WE WOULD
REMAIN OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. GOOD EVENING. CHAIR
MEMBERS. KENDRA HARRIS WITH THE
CLIMATE CENTER IN OPPOSITION.
CYNTHIA SHALIT, ON BEHALF OF 62
ORGANIZATIONS THAT SIGNED A
COALITION LETTER SUBMITTED BY
INDIVISIBLE GREEN TEAM MEG
SNYDER, AXIOM ADVISORS, ON
BEHALF OF PEARLEX, OPPOSED.
THAT'S IMPRESSED ON BEHALF OF
ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED OPPOSE.
GOOD EVENING. LIZZY KUTSUNA HERE
ON BEHALF OF TESLA. IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, KIM
CRAIG, ON BEHALF OF SONOVA, IN
OPPOSITION, MATT KLÖVENSTEEN, ON
BEHALF OF THE CENTER FOR
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, IN
OPPOSITION, JANET COX FOR
CLIMATE ACTION, CALIFORNIA, THE
GLENDALE ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION
AND 350 SACRAMENTO IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING. ESPERANZA VIELMA
COALITION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
EQUITY AND ECONOMICS, 300 PLUS
MEMBERS IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON, ROGER LIN, CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN
OPPOSITION. CECILIA BLANC,
RESIDENT AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
PATTERSON'S DISTRICT FIVE, IN
OPPOSITION. TIM RYAN, CLIMATE
SOLUTION ADVOCACY INSTITUTE, IN
OPPOSITION. NATE DODD, CAFE COOP
BUSINESS INCUBATOR, STOCKTON
OPPOSED. YVETTE DICARLO, CITIZEN
ONCE AGAIN OPPOSED. OKAY,
BRINGING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER REYES. IT SEEMS
LIKE THERE WERE LOTS OF
AMENDMENTS, ON TO THE BILL. AND
I A BIG CONCERN FOR ME WAS
SHARING A PERSONAL INFORMATION,
IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WAS SOMETHING
THAT WAS REMOVED, YES. I'M GOING
TO DEFER TO. SURE, THE BILL WAS,
WITH THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS,
NO LONGER REQUIRES, MICROGRIDS
OR DERS ON RESIDENTIAL
INSTALLATIONS OR ON SMALLER
SIZED COMMERCIAL INSTALLATIONS,
BUT THE INTENT OF THE BILL AND
IT'S PRETTY CLEAR, I THINK THE
OPPOSITION MAY HAVE MISSED IT IS
TO GET THE NOTICE TO THE
UTILITIES AND TO THE ENERGY
COMMISSION AT THE EARLIEST
POSSIBLE TIME, WHICH IS WHEN THE
BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED.
BUILDING PERMITS ARE PUBLIC
INFORMATION ALREADY. I CAN GO
AND GET EVERY BUILDING PERMIT
SUBMITTED TODAY IN SACRAMENTO
AND GET THE ADDRESS AND THE NAME
OF THE HOMEOWNER AND ALL OF
THAT, BUT WE DID LIMIT IT FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THIS BILL, JUST
TO THE ONLY INFORMATION THAT
WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC
THROUGH THIS DATABASE IS FOR THE
LARGER COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
INSTALLATIONS, NOT FOR, NOT FOR
RESIDENTIAL INSTALLATIONS, EVEN
THOUGH IT IS PUBLIC INFORMATION
THROUGH THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT'S. IT SEEMED TO ME
ALSO THAT THERE WAS DUPLICATION.
IF THE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE,
THEN WE'RE NOW REQUIRING A
REPORT THAT WILL BE A
DUPLICATION OF SOMETHING ELSE.
IT'S NOT A REPORT, IT REQUIRES
THAT THEY SUBMIT THIS
INFORMATION TO THE ENERGY
COMMISSION SO IT CAN GO ONTO THE
DATABASE THAT WAS REFERENCED AT
THE. THE INTENT OF THE BILL IS
TO ENSURE THAT THE UTILITIES ARE
NOTICED AT THE EARLIEST POINT,
THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE BEING
PLANNED, WHICH IS AT THE POINT
WHEN THEY PULL THEIR BUILDING
PERMIT. OTHERWISE, WE'RE AT THE
UTILITY, WILL NOT BECOME AWARE
UNTIL THE DEVELOPER, AT THEIR
OWN DISCRETION, APPLIES FOR AN
INTERCONNECTION, WHICH IN SOME
INSTANCES MAY BE VERY EARLY, BUT
IT STILL WON'T BE AS EARLY AS
WHEN THEY GET THEIR BUILDING
PERMIT, OR IN SOME INSTANCES, IT
COULD BE VERY LATE IN THE
PROCESS. AND THERE'S, YOU KNOW.
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS WOOD AND OTHERS
HAVE WORKED QUITE A BIT ON THE
ISSUE OF SLOW INTERCONNECTION
ZONES. AND, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS
IS IF THE UTILITIES DON'T KNOW
THAT THINGS ARE BEING BUILT,
THEN THEY CAN'T DO THE PLANNING.
THAT THEN HELPS SHORTEN THOSE
TIME FRAMES. AND THAT'S WHY WE
WANT TO KNOW AS EARLY AS
POSSIBLE DUE TO THE OPPOSITION
DO THE AMENDMENTS HELP IN ANY
WAY? YES. THE AMENDMENTS ARE ARE
A TREMENDOUS IMPROVEMENT AND WE
APPRECIATE THAT, MY AND IF MY
CLIENT BELIEVED THAT THIS BILL
WOULD HELP WITH INTERCONNECTION
DELAYS, I WOULDN'T BE SITTING
HERE. I WOULD HAVE DONE A ME
TOO. IN SUPPORT. THE
INTERCONNECTION DELAYS ARE ARE
ARE REALLY PROBLEMATIC. AND MY
MEMBER ASSOCIATION DOES NOT
BELIEVE THAT PROVIDING
ADDITIONAL DATA TO THE CEC IS
GOING TO DO THAT IF THEY TURN
OUT TO BE WRONG. I THINK WE'LL
ALL BE THRILLED ABOUT THAT. BUT
THAT'S NOT THEIR OPINION AT THIS
TIME. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS. I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE
HEARD A LOT THAT THERE ARE
PROBLEMS WITH INTERCONNECTION
DELAYS, AND I DON'T SEE HOW A
BILL THAT ACTUALLY REQUIRES WAS
THAT A SIMPLE NOTICE BE PROVIDED
TO THE CEC SO THAT THE UTILITIES
KNOW WHAT'S COMING IS A BAD
THING. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S PRETTY
SIMPLE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT
GIVES THE UTILITIES AN ABILITY
TO PLAN. SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW,
WHEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY GETTING THE
BUILDING PERMIT AND WHEN THE
BUILDING IS DONE, THERE CAN BE
YEARS IN BETWEEN. AND SO THESE
QUARTERLY REPORTS THAT I THINK
WERE CITED AS A GOOD SUBSTITUTE
DOESN'T SEEM TO ME LIKE IT DOES
PROVIDE THE KIND OF NOTICE THAT
WOULD HELP WITH THESE
INTERCONNECTION DELAYS. SO I
JUST DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE
OPPOSITION BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE
THE NOTICES ARE PRETTY SIMPLE,
AND IT CAN ONLY HAVING MORE
INFORMATION CAN ONLY BE BETTER.
SO I JUST WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THE BILL.
I'D ACTUALLY LIKE MISS STONE TO
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER MY
QUESTION, BECAUSE I REALLY DO
NOT UNDERSTAND THE OPPOSITION. I
THINK THEY FEEL THAT IT'S
UNNECESSARILY UNNECESSARY AND AN
UNNECESSARY BURDEN. OKAY. I
MEAN, AND THEY ALREADY PROVIDE A
BUNCH OF OTHER INFORMATION. AND
AGAIN, IF WE DID BELIEVE THAT IT
WAS LIKE IN SERVICE OF BETTER IN
CONNECTION, IN BETTER IN
CONNECTION, THEY WOULD PROBABLY
GIVE LIKE, YOU KNOW, BEAUTIFULLY
WRITTEN ESSAYS IN POETRY. I
KNOW, I KNOW, BUT YOU'RE
APPLYING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S NOT HARD TO
ACTUALLY SUPPLY THAT, TO SUPPLY
THAT TO THE CEC. I MEAN, IT
SEEMS LIKE IT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE
NOTICE. SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR
THE FOR THE RESPONSE, I
APPRECIATE IT. I'M GOING TO BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY. OH
MR. WELCH SAID OKAY. LET ME JUST
GIVE AN EXAMPLE. SO IT'S A
LITTLE MORE AWARE OUR CREWS ARE
GOING OUT AND UPGRADE THING LIKE
IN LADWP GOING OUT AND WE HAVE,
MAINTENANCE AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE
UPDATING THE, THE GRID, THE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CONTINUALLY
VÆ, IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR US TO
GO OUT AND PERHAPS WE HAVE CREWS
OUT IN A SECTION OF THE CITY
UPGRADING A DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM,
BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT IN A YEAR
THERE'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR DER
SYSTEM AND MICRO GRID
INTERCONNECTED, AND THEN HAVE TO
GO BACK OUT AND DO ANY SORTS OF
ADJUSTMENTS TO THAT GRID TO
ACCOMMODATE THAT SYSTEM WHEN WE
WERE JUST OUT THERE. THAT'S THE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FRIEDMAN SO, YOU KNOW, I
WORRY WHEN I SEE A LONG LIST OF
OPPONENTS, LIKE A LOT OF GROUPS
THAT I WORK WITH, BUT I DO HAVE
TO WONDER AT THIS TIME WHETHER
THESE GROUPS JUST HAVEN'T HAD A
CHANCE BECAUSE OF THE
AMENDMENTS, TO REALLY KIND OF BE
UPDATED ON THE CHANGES TO THE
BILL. SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY, BUT CERTAINLY OPEN TO
HEARING MORE FROM THE OPPONENTS
AS TO WHETHER THESE ARE LEGACY
LINGERING OPPOSITION POSITIONS
BASED ON WHAT THE BILL WAS LIKE
A COUPLE OF WEEKS BACK, OR
WHETHER THERE'S STILL THE
OPPOSITION OR CONCERNS NOW. SO
I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT TODAY,
BUT CERTAINLY OPEN AS THE BILL
MOVES FORWARD TO THE FLOOR TO
UNDERSTANDING MORE ABOUT WHAT
THE PROBLEM IS AT THIS POINT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, FIRST OF
ALL, THANK YOU FOR THE BILL. AT
THIS POINT, HONESTLY, MORE
INFORMATION SOONER IS A REALLY
GOOD THING. YOU AS I UNDERSTAND
THE BILL, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE
THIS IS THIS ISN'T LOOKING AT
HOMES. SINGLE HOMES WITH
ROOFTOPS. THESE ARE THESE ARE
BIGGER, BIGGER PROJECTS. AND SO
THAT DOES REQUIRE PLANNING AND
THAT IS THAT IS A CHALLENGE. AND
I DON'T KNOW, I MEAN, I PART OF
AB 50 WE DID LAST YEAR WAS
ACTUALLY PUTTING A BURDEN ON
MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES TO
ACTUALLY, TO COMMUNICATE BETTER
WITH UTILITIES AS WELL. SO THEY
KNOW WHEN SOME OF THESE BIGGER
PROJECTS ARE COMING. AND THAT'S,
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE
PUZZLE. AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE
DOING THAT IN THE FUTURE. BUT
WHEN THAT BUILDING PERMIT IS
PULLED IS A REALLY CRITICAL
MOMENT. AND THAT'S WHEN THE
PROJECT'S REAL, REALLY REAL.
AND, AND I THINK IT'S
APPROPRIATE. AND I HAPPY TO
SUPPORT YOUR BILL TODAY. THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER PATTERSON.
YEAH. IS THERE, A QUESTION FOR
THE OPPOSITION? IS THERE SOME
KIND OF CONCERN WITH JUST, YOU
KNOW, THE ROOFTOP SOLAR IN TERMS
OF THIS PARTICULAR BILL THAT I'M
NOT UNDERSTANDING, OR ARE WE
TALKING ABOUT, THE MAJOR
PROJECTS? THIS IS LARGER
PROJECTS. OKAY. IT'S NOT
RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP. OKAY. ALL
RIGHT. JUST, JUST MAKING SURE
THAT THAT THAT WAS THE, CONCERN
THERE. AND, IS, SOME PEOPLE KNOW
I SERVED ON A CITY COUNCIL, AND
I SEE SOME CITY OPPOSITION HERE,
AS WELL, WE WELL, THE CITY AFTER
I LEFT, BUT WHEN I WAS ON, WE
APPROVED, I DON'T KNOW IF IT
MEETS THESE THRESHOLDS. I'M NOT
SMART ENOUGH FOR THAT. BUT YOU
KNOW, MAJOR PROJECTS IN OUR CITY
, OF SOLAR AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD
REALLY HAVE IMPACTED US
PROVIDING THAT NOTICE, SO I'M
DEFINITELY INTERESTED IN, YOU
KNOW, AS THIS BILL MOVES
FORWARD, LEARNING MORE ABOUT
THAT. I MEAN, I WANT TO
INCENTIVIZE SOLAR. AND I THINK
WE NEED MORE OF IT, BUT ALSO THE
GRID IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING
A LOT MORE ABOUT TRANSMISSION.
AND THIS COMMITTEE AND THINGS
LIKE THAT. SO I DON'T I DON'T
KNOW IF I TOO AM CONFUSED, I
GUESS, YOU KNOW, SO I'M
DEFINITELY INTERESTED, YOU KNOW,
SET UP A MEETING AND TALK MORE
ABOUT THAT SO I CAN I CAN BETTER
UNDERSTAND WITH THE AMENDMENTS
AND SOMETIMES THINGS LAST WEEK A
HEARING. SO I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND
THINGS GET, YOU KNOW, MOVED
FAST. THEY KNOW THE BILL WAS
AMENDED. THEY READ THE ANALYSIS.
WE STILL FEEL THAT THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS ARE UNNECESSARILY
BURDENSOME AND WOULD RATHER, YOU
KNOW, BUILD THE PROJECTS TO
PROVIDE THE ENERGY THAT THE
STATE NEEDS. OKAY. THANK YOU.
AND I WOULD JUST SAY I DON'T
THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS. I THINK MANY OF US
ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL OF DISTRIBUTED ENERGY
RESOURCES. MICROGRIDS BELIEVE
IT'S THAT CRITICAL PART OF
BUILDING OUR CLEAN ENERGY
FUTURE. I ALSO THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT FOR CÁC IOUS TO HAVE A
HOLISTIC, COMPREHENSIVE VIEW TO
ENSURE THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GET
THIS STUFF ONLINE AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE, AND SO I WOULD SAY, IF
THE CONCERN IS RELATED TO
REPORTING AND, YOU KNOW,
POTENTIAL DUPLICATION, I, YOU
KNOW, CERTAINLY TRUST THAT THE
AUTHOR WILL ENGAGE WITH YOU TO
FIND WAYS TO STREAMLINE THE WAY
IN WHICH WE GET THE INFORMATION
THAT'S NEEDED TO MOVE THIS
FORWARD. WITH THAT, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? YES. THANK YOU. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
. DO WE HAVE DO WE HAVE A MOTION
IN A SECOND? ALL RIGHT. WE'VE
GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ITEM NUMBER TEN A B 3111. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS IS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATE PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS. I BAUER-KAHAN
CALDERON I CALDERON I CHEN, CHEN
I CONNOLLY CONNOLLY I FRIEDMAN
FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN. HOLDEN I JO
PATTERSON. JO PATTERSON I REYES
REYES I SANTIAGO SCHIAVO SCHIAVO
I TING TING I WALLACE AND
WALLACE I WOULD WOOD EYES THE BR
ZUBIATE I. 12 ZERO THAT BILL IS
OUT. WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE? YES.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. NOW, I'M
GOING TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL
32, 63, 3263 WOULD STABILIZE
ELECTRIC ELECTRICITY RATE
FLUCTUATIONS BY ALLOWING AN
ELECTRIC UTILITY TO REQUEST CPUC
AUTHORIZATION TO FINANCE
WILDFIRE MITIGATION EFFORTS,
INCLUDING THEIR OPERATIONAL AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS, THROUGH
SECURITIZATION. EXISTING LAW
ALLOWS ELECTRIC UTILITIES TO
SEEK CPUC AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE
OUT BONDS AND TIE THEM TO
RATEPAYER BILLS OR SECURITIZE
THE BONDS TO PAY FOR JUST AND
REASONABLE COSTS AS DETERMINED
BY THE CPUC. WITH LONGER AND
MORE DESTRUCTIVE WILDFIRE
SEASONS, ELECTRIC UTILITIES HAVE
INCREASED THEIR WILDFIRE
MITIGATION EFFORTS, SUCH AS
THEIR VEGETATION MANAGEMENT.
THESE ASSOCIATED COSTS ARE
TYPICALLY REQUIRED TO BE
RECOVERED BY ELECTRIC UTILITIES
WITHIN 12 MONTHS, WITHOUT THE
OPTION OF STRETCHING OUT THE
RECOVERY PERIOD, WITH FINANCING
MECHANISMS LIKE A BOND. CONSTANT
WILDFIRE MITIGATION HAS LED TO
SIGNIFICANT RATE HIKES FOR
RATEPAYERS. THIS BILL IS A
REINTRODUCTION OF MY BILL LAST
YEAR, AB 1513, WHICH GOT OUT OF
THIS COMMITTEE WITH BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT AND DIDN'T HAVE ANY NO
VOTES RATE. AFFORDABILITY IS A
PRIORITY OF MINE, AND THE
PRIMARY FOCUS OF THIS BILL, AB
3263, IS SEEKING TO ENSURE THE
CPUC CONSIDER THE SHORT TUM RATE
STABILITY THAT SECURITIZATION
PROVIDES WHEN EVALUATING
SECURITIZATION APPLICATIONS.
HERE WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT IS ADAM SMITH FROM
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON.
GREAT. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, ADAM
SMITH, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON, SHARING OUR STRONG
SUPPORT FOR AB 3263 S¼ APPLAUDS
THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS COMMITTEE
ON THE ISSUE OF AFFORDABILITY.
WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR THE
COMMITTEE HEARINGS. WE'VE HEARD
THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AND
PERSPECTIVES FROM THE CHAIR AND
OTHER MEMBERS HERE. WE ARE ALL
SEEING RATES RISE AND WE'RE ALL
LOOKING FOR WAYS TO SMOOTH THE
SPIKES AND OFFER RELIEF TO
ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS. THAT'S WHY
WE THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CALDERON FOR BRINGING THIS
IMPORTANT BILL FORWARD AND
STRONGLY SUPPORT IT HERE TODAY.
AS YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE AUTHOR,
AB 3263 WOULD ALLOW ELECTRICAL
CORPORATIONS TO FILE AN
APPLICATION REQUESTING THAT THE
PUC ISSUES A FINANCING ORDER TO
US TO AUTHORIZE THE RECOVERY OF
WILDFIRE RELATED EXPENSES. OUR
WILDFIRE AND VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT WORK IS APPROVED UP
FRONT BY THE COMMISSION AND THE
OFFICE OF ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
SAFETY. IT IS NECESSARY TO KEEP
OUR SYSTEMS SAFE, BUT WE ALSO
RECOGNIZE THAT THIS WORK HAS
COSTS AND WILL CONTINUE TO IN
THE FUTURE. AB 3263 PUTS AN
IMPORTANT TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX TO
HELP SMOOTH THESE NECESSARY
COSTS OVER TIME. THE LEGISLATURE
HAS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED
SECURITIZATION AS A TOOL FOR
SPREADING OUT THE RATE IMPACT OF
OTHER UTILITY WILDFIRE COSTS,
LIKE THE 5 BILLION WE WERE
MANDATED TO SPEND AND AB 1054,
WHICH IS ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HOLDEN'S BILL. AND MANY OF YOU
WORKED ON IT AS WELL, WHICH,
INCENTIVIZE US AND SENT US OFF
TO REDUCE WILDFIRE RISK. SO
SECURITIZATION ALLOWS UTILITIES
TO ACCESS FUNDS IMMEDIATELY TO
START THIS IMPORTANT WORK. AND
THROUGH THE SALE OF BONDS, WE'RE
ABLE TO SPREAD OUT THE COST
RECOVERY OF THESE PROJECTS OVER
THE APPROVED SECURITIZATION
PERIOD. THE BILL MAINTAINS THE
PUC S DISCRETION TO DETERMINE IF
SECURITIZATION MAKES SENSE, AND
IT GIVES THE LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY TO APPROVE AN
APPLICATION. IF IT DOES, AB 3263
WILL HELP MANAGE RATE INCREASES
CAUSED BY THE IMMEDIATE NEED TO
HARDEN OUR ELECTRIC SYSTEM
AGAINST WILDFIRE AND DELIVER ON
OUR SHARED PUBLIC SAFETY AND
AFFORDABILITY GOALS. FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE STRONGLY SUPPORT
TODAY AND URGE YOUR SUPPORT AS
WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS, SCOTT,
WHICH ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF UTILITY
EMPLOYEES SECURITIZATION, HELPS
REDUCE RATES FOR RATEPAYERS FOR
IN TWO WAYS. IT SPREADS THE IT
SPREADS THE COSTS OF THAT WORK
OVER TIME, BUT BECAUSE WE'RE
ELECTRIFYING AT SUCH A RAPID
PACE, THE RATE BASE IS GROWING
EXPONENTIALLY. AND SO IT HAVING
RATEPAYERS PAY IT OFF LATER
ACTUALLY SPREADS THE COST TO A
BROADER BASE, WHICH REDUCES WHAT
EACH INDIVIDUAL RATEPAYER PAYS.
AND SO IT'S A GREAT IDEA FOR
RATEPAYERS. AND WE WOULD URGE AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS, BRUCE
MANIANI, ON BEHALF OF KALEKA,
CALIFORNIA LARGE ENERGY
CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, WE ARE
COMPRISED OF LARGE INDUSTRIAL
CUSTOMERS AND STEEL, CEMENT,
COLD STORAGE, INDUSTRIAL GASES.
THESE ARE THE LARGEST OF LARGE
CUSTOMERS OUT THERE. THEIR BILLS
CAN RANGE INTO THE MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN A MONTH. SO THESE ARE
LARGE CUSTOMERS BECAUSE OF THE
WAY THE WILDFIRE COSTS ARE
ALLOCATED, THEY ALSO PAY A HUGE
PORTION OF THOSE COSTS BECAUSE
THEIR HIGH LOAD FACTOR CUSTOMERS
. WHAT THIS BILL INTENDS TO DO
IS REVERSE A CPUC DECISION THAT
FOUND THAT THIS, SECURITIZATION
CONCEPT WAS NOT JUST AND
REASONABLE IN RATES. AND SO
LOOKING FORWARD, WHAT YOU'RE
REALLY DOING IS WHILE YOU MAY
LOWER THE COST TODAY, YOU MIGHT
YOU MIGHT NOT IT WILL DEFINITELY
BE MORE EXPENSIVE BECAUSE OF THE
COST OF CAPITAL, THE TIME VALUE
OF MONEY IN THE FUTURE. YOUR
ANALYSIS POINTS THIS OUT VERY
CLEARLY, AND SO I THINK IT'S AS
WE TALK ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, I
THINK THIS IS A REALLY, REALLY
IMPORTANT THING FOR FOLKS TO PAY
ATTENTION TO. I REALLY
APPRECIATED THE CHAIR'S
COMMENTS, EARLIER IN THIS
COMMITTEE, WHEN SHE TALKED ABOUT
ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS
THAT GO INTO RATES THAT HAVE
NOTHING TO DO WITH DELIVERY OF
ELECTRICITY TO THE CUSTOMER. SO
WE WOULD HOPE YOU WOULD LOOK
LONG AND HARD AT THIS, BECAUSE
THIS WILL RAISE RATES IN THE
FUTURE. AND IT ONLY MIGHT LOWER
RATES TODAY. SO THANK YOU.
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION SEEING NONE BRINGING
IT BACK. OH SORRY. GO AHEAD AND
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE IF YOU
WANT TO SPEAK. IN OPPOSITION
JANET COX FOR CLIMATE ACTION
CALIFORNIA IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. BRINGING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN, I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR,
DOING THIS WORK. I AM JUST
GRATEFUL, ON BEHALF OF ALL MY
CONSTITUENTS THAT WERE ALL IN ON
TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO DRIVE
RATES DOWN AND I KNOW THAT'S
YOUR INTENT OF THIS, BILL, I
GUESS I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED,
AND I KNOW THE ANALYSIS
ADDRESSES THIS A LITTLE BIT. WHY
THE CURRENT PROCESS IS
INSUFFICIENT AIN'T RIGHT. AND
I'M SPECIFICALLY FOCUSED ON THIS
SHIFT TO A PRESUMPTION THAT
THERE'S A SHORT TUM BENEFIT. I
MEAN, I THINK THAT FOR ONCE, WE
ACTUALLY CITE AN EXAMPLE WHERE
IT LOOKS LIKE THE PUC MIGHT HAVE
TAKEN THE SIDE OF RATEPAYERS,
WHICH IS SO EXCITING AND
SHOCKING TO ME BY DENYING, ONE
OF THESE, BECAUSE THEY SAID THAT
IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE IN THE LONG
TERME TO PAY THE INTEREST, AND
IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO
SHIFT THAT SO THAT THERE IS SORT
OF THIS PRESUMPTION THAT THERE'S
A SHORT TUM BENEFIT AND MAYBE
LESS, LESS OF A FOCUS ON THAT
LONG TIME INTEREST THAT WE HAVE
TO PAY THAT I KNOW THE
OPPOSITION IS CONCERNED ABOUT.
AND I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT,
BECAUSE I KNOW YOUR GOAL. I KNOW
WE SHARE THE SAME GOAL HERE.
YES, YES. DEFER TO ADAM. SURE.
I'M HAPPY. I'M HAPPY TO START. I
THINK YOU KNOW WHEN AND THIS IS
KIND OF WHY WE SUPPORT THE BILL.
YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION REGULATES
EVERYTHING WE DO, AND THEY ARE
THE ONES WHO ISSUE THE FINANCING
ORDER. WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GO
OUT AND SECURITIZE THINGS OVER
IF IT'S MORE THAN A YEAR, UNLESS
THE PUC APPROVES THAT. I THINK
WHAT THE BILL THAT ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CALDERON HAS BROUGHT
FORWARD STILL LEAVES THAT
DISCRETION FOR THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES TO WEIGH WHAT IS IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND THE
QUESTION YOU'RE TOUCHING ON IS
SORT OF THE SHORT TERME RATE
SMOOTHING BENEFITS THEY ALSO
LOOK AT. AND THIS IS WHY OUR,
YOU KNOW, OUR THAT WAS ACTUALLY
OUR REQUEST FOR SECURITIZATION
WAS DENIED. THEY ALSO LOOK AT
THE LONG TERME BENEFITS, WHICH
IS THAT I THINK WHAT THE
OPPOSITION IS TALKING ABOUT, THE
APPROACH THAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CALDERON IS BRINGING FORTH
ALLOWS THEM TO LOOK AT BOTH OF
THOSE THINGS WHEN THEY'RE
DETERMINING IF THIS IS IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND IF IT
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO RATEPAYERS
TODAY FROM A NET PRESENT VALUE
PERSPECTIVE, THEY WILL DENY IT.
AND SO I THINK THAT THAT IS WHY
WE VIEW THIS AS, YOU KNOW,
PUTTING A TOOL IN THEIR TOOLBOX
BUT NOT DIRECTLY BINDING THEIR
DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
BUT I GUESS THEY ALREADY HAVE
THIS TOOL. SO I GUESS THAT'S
WHAT CONFUSES ME ABOUT THIS IS
THEY HAVE THIS TOOL, THEY ARE
SUPPOSED TO WEIGH THOSE
BENEFITS. THEY SEEM TO BE DOING
IT RIGHT. THE ANALYSIS CITES
EXAMPLES WHERE THEY APPROVE IT
AND AN EXAMPLE WHERE THEY DON'T
APPROVE IT. SO THEY SEEM TO BE
DOING THAT. AND SO I GUESS I'M
CONFUSED WHY THE PRESUMPTION IS
NECESSARY. I DON'T KNOW IF
THAT'S BETTER. WAY TO PHRASE THE
QUESTION. YEAH, I'M KIND OF KIND
OF WORK ON THAT ON THAT VERSION
TOO. SO I THINK THE, YOU KNOW,
WHAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW IS THEY
LOOK AT THE LONG TERME RATE
IMPLICATIONS, THE SORT OF
INTERGENERATIONAL QUESTION OF
LIKE, SHOULD FUTURE GENERATIONS
BE PAYING FOR THESE COSTS? AND I
THINK, AS YOU HEARD, THERE MAY
BE SERIOUS BENEFITS TO ALLOWING
THOSE COSTS TO BE SMOOTHED OVER,
INCREASED LOAD. BUT WHAT THEY
DON'T HAVE IN THEIR POCKET RIGHT
NOW IS A KIND OF A GUIDANCE FROM
THE LEGISLATURE THAT THEY SHOULD
ALSO CONSIDER THE SHORT TERME
RATE SMOOTHING IMPACTS OF
SECURITIZATION. AND THAT'S SORT
OF LIKE, I THINK THE THRUST OF
WHAT THE BILL IS TRYING TO
CHANGE IN THE PUC CONCEPTION OF
THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY'RE
BALANCING OUT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, TRYING TO THINK NOT
JUST OF THE LONG TERME
IMPLICATIONS, BUT ALSO OF THE
SHORT TERME RATE SMOOTHING
BENEFITS. SO THE ANALYSIS
SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE CPUC
CURRENTLY WEIGHS FOR EACH IOU
APPLICATION. WHETHER BOND
FINANCE QUALIFIED SHORT TERME
AND LONG TERME ECONOMIC BENEFIT
TO RATEPAYERS. SO IT READS AS IF
THAT IS THE CURRENT. AND I'M
JUST RELYING ON OUR WONDERFUL
EXPERTS. YEAH THAT'S RIGHT,
THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT. AND
IT WILL CREATE A PRESUMPTION
RIGHT, THAT IF THERE IS YOU
KNOW, IF THE PUC DECIDES, WE
WOULD PREFER THAT THESE EXPENSES
BE RECOVERED OVER MORE THAN ONE
YEAR, THAT THE PUC HAS THEREFORE
KIND OF DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY
WOULD PREFER THESE COSTS SPREAD
OUT OVER TIME, BECAUSE JUST
COLLECTING IN ONE YEAR WOULD
CREATE A RATE. LET'S JUST USE
THE WORD RATE SPIKE FOR SURE. SO
THEY'VE KIND OF SIGNALED THERE'S
A RATE SPIKE HERE. AND SO THEY
WOULD PRESUME THAT IT WOULD
SATISFY JUST THAT ONE COMPONENT
OF THE OVERALL PUBLIC INTEREST.
IT WOULDN'T SATISFY THE LONG
TERME LONG TERME, BUT IT WOULD
SATISFY THAT THEY'VE MADE A
DECISION THAT SPREADING THESE
COSTS OUT OVER MORE THAN ONE
YEAR IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
FOR RATEPAYERS. SO THEREFORE,
THAT SHOULD SATISFY THE KIND OF
SHORT TERME BENEFITS COMPONENT
OF THE OVERALL PUBLIC INTEREST
TEST. GOT IT. DO YOU WANT TO
RESPOND? I MIGHT BE HELPFUL. I I
THINK YOU'VE GOT IT RIGHT IN
YOUR IN YOUR QUESTION. THE PUC
ALREADY HAS THE TOOLS IT NEEDS
TO JUDGE JUST AND REASONABLE.
AND THEY DETERMINED THAT O&M
SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T MEET THE
STANDARD BECAUSE YOU'RE TAKING
OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE AND
YOU'RE GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO
PUSH THOSE COSTS OUT ON FUTURE
RATEPAYERS. SECURITIZATION IS A
GREAT TOOL. I DON'T WANT TO SIT
HERE AND BE HARSH AND SAY THAT
IT'S NOT USEFUL IN ANY
SITUATION, BUT WE THINK THE PUC
ACTUALLY GOT THIS CORRECT TO THE
BENEFIT OF RATEPAYERS, AND WE'RE
HAPPY TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS. IF
THEY WANT MORE LIMITS, IF THEY
WANTED TO TALK ABOUT, SHORTER
TIME FRAMES. BUT THE CONCERN
OVER RATE AFFORDABILITY ISN'T
JUST TODAY AND JUST USING YOUR
CREDIT CARD AND PUSHING IT OUT
TO THE FUTURE, I THINK IS NOT
NECESSARILY GOOD FISCAL POLICY.
AND I THINK, AGAIN, I'M JUST
GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T
SAY IT OFTEN, BUT I THINK THE
CPUC ACTUALLY GOT THIS ONE
CORRECT. AND I THINK CHANGING
HOW, THE PUC IS ALLOWED TO MAKE
THESE JUDGMENTS IS OUR ONE OF
OUR CONCERNS IN THIS BILL. IT
TAKES AWAY WHAT THEY DO TODAY
AND IT MAKES IT A PRESUMPTION.
IT ALMOST IT ALMOST TIES THEIR
HANDS. YEAH. SO I THINK, YOU
KNOW, I, I, I THINK I HEAR WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING AND I ACTUALLY
AGREE AND I BELIEVE I VOTED FOR
THE PRIOR BILL FOR
SECURITIZATION, IF I RECALL
CORRECTLY, AND SO I DON'T
DISAGREE. I THINK THERE IT MAKES
A LOT OF SENSE WHEN IT COMES TO
RATE SPIKES, BUT I, I LIKE I
SAID, I WAS EXCITED WHEN I READ
THE ANALYSIS AND SAW A MOMENT
WHERE THE RATEPAYERS ACTUALLY
WON A FIGHT WITH THE PUC, AND I
THINK THAT TO TAKE AWAY THE
TOOLS THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT THOSE
LONG TUM BENEFITS BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW, I GET THE RATE SPIKE
ISSUE, BUT THEN IN FIVE YEARS
ARE WE PAYING THE PRICE AND
HAVING REGRETTING THE
SECURITIZATION. AND AGAIN, IT'S
AN OPTION. IT'S SOMETHING I
THINK THAT IT MAKES SENSE FOR
THE PUC TO LOOK AT. BUT I DO
THINK THEY SHOULD BE BALANCING
THOSE THINGS. SO I'M HAVING A
HARD TIME WITH THE PRESUMPTION.
BUT PERHAPS THERE'S A WAY TO
MASSAGE THIS SO THAT THEY DO
APPROPRIATELY. LOOK AT THOSE
SHORT TUM BENEFITS, BUT WEIGH
THEM AGAINST THE LONG TERME
BENEFITS. THANK YOU. SEEING NO
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I GUESS
I'LL JUST SORT OF RESPOND A
LITTLE BIT TO SOME OF YOUR
CONCERNS AND SORT OF SHARE MY
PERSPECTIVE ON ON THIS, BECAUSE
I'M CERTAINLY MINDFUL TO, THE
INTERGENERATIONAL ISSUES THAT
YOU RAISE AND THAT HAVE REALLY
KIND OF BEEN THE FRAME THROUGH
WHICH THESE DECISIONS HAVE
HISTORICALLY BEEN MADE, I'M ALSO
VERY MINDFUL THAT WE ARE NOT YOU
KNOW, I THINK YOU SAID JUST
USING OUR CREDIT CARD AND
PUSHING TODAY'S BURDENS ONTO,
YOU KNOW, OUR KIDS AND OUR
GRANDKIDS. BUT I REALLY DO FEEL
LIKE WE ARE AT A TRULY
EXTRAORDINARY AND
TRANSFORMATIONAL MOMENT FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND WE'VE
GOT IN SO MANY WAYS, WE'VE GOT
I'VE USED THIS ANALOGY BEFORE
WHERE IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE
GOT A GIANT EGG, THE SNAKE IS
SWALLOWING THIS GIANT EGG RIGHT
NOW, WHICH I BELIEVE WE ARE
ACTUALLY MAKING GENERATIONAL
INVESTMENTS IN MANY CASES. AND
THE NOTION THAT THEN WE'RE GOING
TO JUST PAY FOR THEM IN ONE
YEAR, I DON'T ACTUALLY THINK
REFLECTS THE BENEFIT, SO THAT'S
WHY THAT'S WHY I THINK WE NEED
TO CONSIDER MANY ALTERNATIVE
APPROACHES TO FINANCING. BUT
THAT'S WHY I AM SUPPORTIVE OF
THIS BILL, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S
A VERY DIFFERENT MOMENT THAN WE
HAVE HAVE BEEN IN. AND I THINK
WE'RE MAKING SOME GENERATIONAL
INVESTMENTS TODAY THAT I THINK
WARRANT COST SPREADING. OVER A
PERIOD OF TIME. ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS, ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, WELL, I
JUST LIKE TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE
FROM ORINDA FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I
APPRECIATE THEM, AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, TOO,
MADAM CHAIR. AND ALSO, AGAIN,
THE COMMITTEE'S, WORK WITH MY
STAFF. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. COULD WE HAVE A
MOTION? NO, WE NEED A MOTION. DO
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? I
KNOW WHERE YOU'RE SECOND. ALL
RIGHT. MOTION AND A SECOND,
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. ITEM NUMBER 11, AB 3263.
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN NOT VOTING.
CALDERON. I CALDERON I CHEN CHEN
I CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I FRIEDMAN.
HOLDEN JO. PATTERSON. JO.
PATTERSON I REYES. SANTIAGO.
SANTA CARGO I ZERBO. SHIAVO I
TING TING I WALLACE. WALLACE I
WOULD WOOD I ZUBER ZUBER I.
OKAY. 11 ZERO THAT BILL IS OUT
AND WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
FILE ITEM 12. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CONNOLLY.
YOU MOVED IT BACK. OKAY. YEAH.
NO CONTROVERSY ON BOEING. HE
JUST. YEAH. HE JUST. I KNOW I
SHOULD PROBABLY MENTION THAT UP
FRONT. JIM WOOD IS ABOUT TO.
THAT'S HOW YOU BECOME. I WAS
WAVING MY. YEAH. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. WITH THAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CONNOLLY. YEAH. PERHAPS SUPPORT.
SUPPORT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
PROCEED? YES. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS TO CLEAR THE
AIR. I PULLED THE BILL JUST TO
HAVE A BRIEF CONVERSATION ON
THIS IMPORTANT TOPIC. AND YOU'RE
GOING TO LOVE MY WITNESSES. SO
THANK YOU FOR BEARING WITH US,
THIS BILL HAS BEEN AMENDED FROM
ITS ORIGINAL FORM, WHICH AIMED
TO RESOLVE A KEY REGULATORY
CONSTRAINT ON MICROGRIDS. AB
3107 WOULD NOW REQUIRE THE CEC
TO STUDY THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS
THAT MICROGRIDS COULD PROVIDE
FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. A MICROGRID IS A
SYSTEM OF ENERGY RESOURCES AND
LOADS THAT CAN CONNECT TO THE
REST OF THE ELECTRICAL GRID, AS
A SINGLE ENTITY. MICROGRIDS CAN
BE ISOLATED FROM THE WIDER GRID
OR ISLANDED TO MAINTAIN
ELECTRICAL SUPPLY, EVEN IF THE
SURROUNDING GRID GOES DOWN. AS
WE AS WAS STATED IN THE THOROUGH
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, MICROGRIDS
HAVE BEEN MOST OFTEN DEVELOPED
TO SUPPORT THINGS LIKE HOSPITALS
AND OTHER CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE. MILITARY BASES,
AND RURAL COMMUNITIES THAT
FREQUENTLY EXPERIENCE GRID
RELIABILITY ISSUES. COMMUNITY
MICROGRIDS CAN SPUR THE
DEPLOYMENT OF CLEAN ENERGY
GENERATION, WHICH WE NEED TO
ACCELERATE AS WE KNOW TO REACH
OUR CLIMATE GOALS AND INCREASE
EFFICIENCY BY EMPOWERING
LOCALITIES TO DESIGN ENERGY
SYSTEMS THAT BEST FIT THEIR
NEEDS. THIS MORE TAILORED
APPROACH CAN PROVIDE AFFORDABLY
AFFORDABLE, LOCALLY SOURCED
ENERGY TO COMMUNITIES AND DRIVE
LOCAL JOB CREATION. DESPITE THE
POTENTIAL FOR THESE BENEFITS,
THERE ARE FEW MICROGRIDS
CURRENTLY OPERATING IN
CALIFORNIA, LARGELY BECAUSE OF
REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS. RECENT
EFFORTS TO DEVELOP MICROGRIDS IN
OAKLAND, LANCASTER, BERKELEY,
AND ELSEWHERE HAVE BEEN
OBSTRUCTED AND CURTAILED IN
THEIR SCOPE, LEAVING US WITH FEW
EXAMPLES OF FULLY IMPLEMENTED
COMMUNITY MICROGRIDS TO EVEN
EVALUATE AS CASE STUDIES.
THERE'S AN ONGOING CPUC
PROCEEDING ON MICROGRIDS, BUT IN
MORE THAN A HALF DECADE OF
DISCUSSION, THERE'S BEEN LITTLE
TANGIBLE MOVEMENT TO FACILITATE
MICROGRID DEVELOPMENT. FOR THAT
REASON, A CEC STUDY IS WARRANTED
AND COULD HELP PAINT A CLEARER
PICTURE OF THE ROLE OF
MICROGRIDS IN CALIFORNIA'S
ENERGY FUTURE. I WOULD NOW LIKE
TO INTRODUCE MY TWO WITNESSES
FOR THE BILL ALI DIETRICH WITH
REIMAGINE POWER AND ESPERANZA
VIELMA WITH THE COALITION FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY AND
ECONOMICS. THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, GOOD EVENING. COMMITTEE
AND CHAIR WOMAN. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. MY
NAME IS ALI TREJO AND I'M THE
CHIEF STRATEGIST FOR REIMAGINE
POWER. I'M ALSO THE SENIOR
ADVISOR FOR THE MICROGRID
RESOURCES COALITION. I'M ONE OF
THE FOREMOST EXPERTS ON
MICROGRIDS, AND I'VE WORKED ON
MICROGRID POLICY ISSUES IN MANY
STATES. I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF
WORKING WITH SENATOR STERN BACK
IN 2018 TO, IN MY PREVIOUS ROLE,
TO PASS SB 1339, THE MICROGRID
COMMERCIALIZATION BILL, AND I
SPENT THE LAST FIVE YEARS ON ITS
IMPLEMENTATION AT THE CPUC. I'VE
WRITTEN DOZENS OF COMMENTS AND
TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD LED OR
ATTENDED COUNTLESS MEETINGS WITH
STAFF. I'VE GIVEN MULTIPLE
PRESENTATIONS AND PARTICIPATED
IN EVERY SINGLE PUBLIC WORKSHOP
AND WORKING GROUP MEETING IN
THAT RULEMAKING. AND MANY OF MY
COALITION PARTNERS HAVE AS WELL,
THERE ARE WELL KNOWN POLICY AND
REGULATORY BARRIERS RESTRICTING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY
OWNED MICROGRIDS, NOTABLY
SECTION 218, THE OVER THE FENCE
RULE OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
CODE AND OTHER ANTIQUATED
REGULATIONS THAT ARE MANY
DECADES OUTDATED NEED
MODERNIZING FOR THE 21ST
CENTURY. FOR EXAMPLE, MANY
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
APPROVED TAXPAYER FUNDED GRANT
PROJECTS SUCH AS THE OAKLAND ECO
BLOCK, LANCASTER ADVANCED ENERGY
COMMUNITY, BASSETT AVOCADO
HEIGHTS IN LA, COUNTY BEAT IN
BERKELEY, AND MANY OTHERS HAVE
BEEN FACING NEEDLESS OBSTRUCTION
AND EXPENSIVE LITIGATION. YEARS
OF COSTLY DELAYS OR WERE FORCED
TO COMPLETELY REDESIGN THEIR
PROJECTS DUE TO THESE BARRIERS.
OAKLAND ECO BLOCK WAS ORIGINALLY
APPROVED BY THE CEC IN 2015, AND
IT STILL HASN'T BEEN BUILT. I
PERSONALLY KNOW OF DOZENS OF
OTHER CUSTOMER AND COMMUNITY
COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE ATTEMPTED
TO DEVELOP MICROGRIDS AND WERE
STOPPED, AND IT'S LIKELY THAT
HUNDREDS OR EVEN THOUSANDS MORE
NEVER GOT OFF THE GROUND FOR
THESE SAME REASONS, THE ORIGINAL
VERSION OF THIS BILL ATTEMPTED
TO ADDRESS THE OVER THE FENCE
BARRIER HEAD ON, AND HAD A
REALLY WIDE AND DIVERSE
COALITION OF NEARLY 300
SUPPORTERS, PUBLIC ENTITIES AND
ELECTED OFFICIALS ALL REGISTERED
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. ALL OF
THOSE ORGANIZATIONS STILL
SUPPORT THE CURRENT VERSION OF
THIS BILL, EVEN THOUGH THEY
AREN'T LISTED IN THE BILL
ANALYSIS, AND ALL OF THOSE
STAKEHOLDERS ARE DEMANDING
CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO. WE
WANT THE ENERGY COMMISSION TAKE
A MUCH CLOSER LOOK AT THE
BARRIERS TO COMMUNITY OWNED
MICROGRID DEVELOPMENT IN
CALIFORNIA. AB 3107 IS GOING TO
DIRECT THE CPUC CEC TO STUDY
THIS FURTHER. WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE, AND I'M
HERE TO ANSWER TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS AND ELABORATE ON
POLICY DETAILS. THANK YOU. OKAY.
WELL, GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS, MY NAME
IS ESPERANZA VIELMA, AND I AM
THE CO-FOUNDER OF THE COALITION
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY AND
ECONOMICS. AND I'M HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF AB 3107,
THE COALITION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
EQUITY AND ECONOMICS WAS FORMED
WITH OUR PARTNER GREEN. THE
CHURCH PASTOR CAROL, DUE TO THE
NEED FOR OUR GRASSROOTS
COALITION MEMBERS TO BE INFORMED
AND ENGAGED WITH THEIR RIGHT TO
CLEAN, SUSTAINABLE AND
AFFORDABLE ENERGY WHILE WE, OF
COURSE, SUPPORT THE BILL, AS
AMENDED, WE'RE ALSO IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE
AND ARE JOINED WITH OVER 300
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS, RENTERS
RIGHTS OR, AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
NONPROFIT CONSUMER RIGHTS
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS, AND
LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM
EVERY PART OF THE STATE
REPRESENTING THOUSANDS OF
CONSTITUENTS. YEAR AFTER YEAR.
EFFORTS BY OUR FRONT LINE
COMMUNITIES LIKE OURS HAVE MOVED
TO DIVEST FROM FOSSIL FUELS AND
EQUITABLE, EQUITABLY TRANSITION
AND INVEST IN AFFORDABLE,
RENEWABLE, RELIABLE AND LOCAL
ENERGY. BUT THAT'S BEEN STIFLED
BY PG AND E AND OTHER INVESTOR
OWNED UTILITIES. IT'S NOT LOST
ON ANY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS AND
COMMUNITY LEADERS WHO SUPPORTED
THE ORIGINAL BILL THAT THE
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, DESPITE BROAD
SUPPORT FOR IT, WAS ALSO STRUCK
AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE
LOBBYING BY THE IOUS. THE IOUS
WILL HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT THE
ONLY KIND OF RENEWABLE ENERGY IS
THAT THAT IS WORTH SUPPORTING IS
THAT OF UTILITY SCALE. WELL,
DESPITE THE CPUC RECENTLY
APPROVING A 20% RATE INCREASE
AND FURTHER CONSIDERING A
PROVISION TO CHARGE EVERY SINGLE
MOTHER WHO RENTS OR OWNS A SMALL
HOME IN MY COMMUNITY, EARNING AS
LITTLE AS $39,700 AT $24 MONTHLY
FIXED CHARGE IN HER RATE. EVEN
IF POWER IS NOT AVAILABLE, AT
WHICH HAS HAPPENED OFTEN DURING
PUBLIC SAFETY, POWER SHUT OFF
EVENTS. SO LET ME MAKE SOMETHING
CLEAR. THE QUESTION OF THE
ABILITY FOR OUR WORKFORCE TO
WORK ON MICROGRIDS. YOU CAN GO
AHEAD AND WRAP IT UP. THANK YOU.
OKAY, OKAY, GREAT, LET'S MOVE TO
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY AND
SUPPORT. IF YOU WANT TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT OF AB 3107 KIM STONE,
STONE ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA SOLAR AND STORAGE
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT ALLISON
HILLIARD WITH REIMAGINE POWER
AND CIVIC WELL AND THE 300 OTHER
SUPPORTERS IN SUPPORT OF 3107.
THANK YOU. THAT'S IMPRESSED WITH
ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED IN
SUPPORT. CYNTHIA SHALIT ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA INDIVISIBLE
STATE STRONG AND ITS 40 CHAPTERS
ACROSS THE STATE AND ITS
CALIFORNIA'S CLIMATE JUSTICE
WORK GROUP, GREEN TEAM AND ITS
60 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT
SIGNED ON TO THE COLLABORATION
LETTER AND ALSO 300
ORGANIZATIONS THAT SIGNED ON TO
THE CLIMATE JUSTICE LETTER IN
SUPPORT. CECILIA LEBLANC, MEMBER
, OR RESIDENT OF ASSEMBLY
DISTRICT FIVE, IN STRONG
SUPPORT, THANK YOU, KIM CRAIG,
ON BEHALF OF SONOVA, IN SUPPORT.
ISLA GARCIA FOR SCHNEIDER
ELECTRIC IN SUPPORT. KENDRA
HARRIS, THE CLIMATE CENTER AND
SUPPORT. YEAH. TIM RYAN,
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AS
WELL AS PROFESSOR ANTHONY
WEXLER, RENOWNED CLIMATE
SCIENTIST, AND JONATHAN
GREENBERG, HIS CO-FOUNDER AT THE
CLIMATE SOLUTIONS ADVOCACY
INSTITUTE, I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF AB 3107, I STARTED
OUT AS A VERY URGENTLY NEEDED
BILL, BUT DESPITE SUPPORT FOR
THE ORIGINAL WORDING, THE BILL
VOTED ON TODAY IS ONLY A STUDY
BILL. AS WE'VE HEARD. SO WHY
ISN'T THE ORIGINAL BILL BEING
HEARD? IT'S BECAUSE MEMBERS OF
THIS COMMITTEE OR THE CHAIR
PERHAPS DID NOT WANT TO ANGER
THE IBEW, WHOSE LOBBYISTS HAVE
CONSISTENTLY WORKED TO PROTECT
THE MONOPOLY INTERESTS OF PG AND
E UTILITIES. I'M SORRY, I'M JUST
SO FLABBERGASTED THAT I FORGOT
WE WERE LIKE, DOING. I THOUGHT,
I'M LITERALLY SO FLABBERGASTED
THAT I LIKE, FORGOT WE WERE.
THIS IS, NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION ONLY, WELL, YOU KNOW,
MAYBE I'LL JUST FINISH WHAT I
STARTED. NO, YOU WILL NOT. YOU
ARE OUT OF ORDER. PLEASE SIT
DOWN. WELL OKAY. NEXT. NOT
DEMOCRACY HERE, ROGER LYNN, ECHO
THOSE COMMENTS. CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, NATE. NOT
CAFE COOP, SMALL BUSINESS
INCUBATOR, STOCKTON, IN FAVOR OF
AB 3107. THANK YOU, JANET COX
FOR CLIMATE ACTION. CALIFORNIA
AND THE 350 SACRAMENTO IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. OH,
SORRY, OPPOSITION. MADAM
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, SCOTT,
WHICH ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF UTILITY
EMPLOYEES AND THE AFOREMENTIONED
STATE ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, IBEW, I DID NOT INTEND
TO CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THIS BILL
TODAY IN THIS COMMITTEE, WAITING
TO SEE WHAT THE AMENDMENTS AND
EXACTLY WHAT THE PARAMETERS OF
THE STUDY WOULD LOOK LIKE UNTIL
I HEARD THE PRESENTATION FROM
THE AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS, THE
ASSAULT ON SECTION 218 HAS ME
VERY, QUITE CONCERNED WITH
EXACTLY WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS
STUDY IS TO IDENTIFY BARRIERS.
WE WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE TO
OPPOSE THIS BILL THROUGHOUT THE
PROCESS, UNLESS THERE'S SOME
BALANCE BROUGHT TO WHAT THIS
STUDY WOULD LOOK LIKE. SECTION
218 IS A VERY SIMPLE SECTION. IT
BASICALLY STATES THAT IF YOU'RE
GOING TO BECOME A RETAILER
RETAIL SELLER OF ENERGY IN
CALIFORNIA, THAT YOU NEED TO BE
REGULATED. NOW, WE HAD AN
EXPERIMENT WITH DEREGULATION. I
LIVED THROUGH IT HERE AND IT
ENDED IN DISASTER. FOR IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF
PROTECTING RATEPAYERS, WORKERS,
THE INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM,
RESOURCE ADEQUACY AND
RELIABILITY THAT IF YOU'RE GOING
TO SELL AS A RETAIL SELLER, YOU
HAVE TO BE REGULATED. JUST LIKE
A UTILITY, JUST LIKE AN ENERGY
SERVICE PROVIDER THAT PROVIDES
DIRECT ACCESS. WE HAVE NO
PROBLEMS WITH WITH MICROGRIDS.
IF A LANDLORD AND A PROPERTY
OWNER, IF A IF A GROUP OF
COMMUNITY VÆ, PROPERTY OWNERS
WANT TO JOIN TOGETHER AND BUILD
AND OWN A MICROGRID, IF
LANDLORDS WANT TO BUILD A
MICROGRID WITH SOLAR AND SOLAR
AND PROVIDE IT TO THEIR TENANTS,
NO PROBLEM. BUT THE MOMENT THAT
SOMEBODY BUILDS A MICROGRID AND
BUILDS STORAGE AND SOLAR AND
THEN WANTS TO BECOME A VIRTUAL
UTILITY WITH NO REGULATION, JUST
SELLING WILLY NILLY TO PEOPLE,
THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE A HUGE
CONCERN, AND THE LEGISLATURE
SHOULD TOO. SO WE'RE GOING TO
OPPOSE THIS BILL THROUGH THE
ENTIRE PROCESS. UNLESS THERE'S
LANGUAGE PUT IN TO PROVIDE SOME
BALANCE. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, VALERIE CHIRLA
ALEJO'S, PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY, AND, CAME UP
HERE TODAY JUST TO COMMENT THAT,
LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, SPEAK
TO THE AUTHOR ABOUT CREATING A
BALANCED STUDY OF, BENEFITS, IN
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE COSTS,
IDENTIFIED COST SHIFTS, MAYBE
EVEN IDENTIFYING BEING HAVING
THE CEC IDENTIFY, FUNDING
SOURCES THAT ARE OFF THE UTILITY
BILL, AND, ALSO DOING THAT IN
COORDINATION WITH, THE CPUC AS,
IN THE CURRENT LAW AND THE STERN
BILL, CPC HAS OPEN PROCEEDINGS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION, IF
YOU'D LIKE TO TESTIFY IN
OPPOSITION TO, AB 3107, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MIC, YES. CHAIR
MEMBERS LORDS, ALONG WITH SAN
DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC. WE ALIGN
OUR COMMENTS WITH PG AND E.
THANK YOU. LARA PAR WITH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON AND
OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT. I'LL GO
AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. AND I'D BE
HAPPY TO SET THE STAGE A LITTLE
BIT MORE AND RESPOND AS WELL.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'LL MAKE A
COMMENT. SO I READ THE ANALYSIS
AS I'M WANT TO DO AND GOT SUPER
CONFUSED BY THIS PRESENTATION
BECAUSE THESE ARE AUTHOR
AMENDMENTS. THEY'RE NOT IN THE
ANALYSIS BECAUSE THEY WERE
AUTHOR AMENDMENTS. SO I DON'T
KNOW WHAT JUST HAPPENED, BUT I,
I'M FLABBERGASTED BY WHAT JUST
WENT DOWN ON A CONSENT ITEM AND
FEEL LIKE IT WAS A COMPLETE
DISRESPECT TO THE PROCESS. AND
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CALDERON. YES, I TOO WANT
TO KIND OF PIGGYBACK ON, MY
COLLEAGUES, WHAT SHE JUST SAID,
I DON'T KNOW, JUST WHAT JUST
HAPPENED, BECAUSE THIS WAS A
CONSENT ITEM, THAT AND YOU SAID
THAT YOU PULLED IT, SO I'M GOING
TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY, AND
THEN I'M GOING TO TRY AND FIGURE
OUT WHAT JUST HAPPENED. OKAY, SO
, SO I GUESS MY COMMENTS. Ó
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZABIR. I'M, YOU
KNOW, I, SORT OF THE SAME THING,
I GUESS. I WAS ACTUALLY GLAD
THAT THIS WAS MADE INTO A STUDY
BILL BECAUSE ACTUALLY, I HAD
CONCERNS ABOUT THE ORIGINAL
BILL, NOT BECAUSE I OPPOSED
MICROGRIDS. I ACTUALLY THINK
MICROGRIDS ARE A VERY, VERY GOOD
THING. BUT I HAD SIGNIFICANT
CONCERNS ABOUT MICROGRID C¢M
BEING COMPLETELY EXEMPTED FROM
THE REGULATORY AGENCY, WHICH IS
THERE TO PROTECT CONSUMERS, TO
PROTECT. I MEAN, IT'S THE WHOLE
REGULATORY PROCESS. SO I'M GOING
TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. BUT,
YOU KNOW, I, IT'S YEAH, IT'S,
YOU KNOW, IT'S A BECAUSE IT'S A
STUDY BILL. BUT I DO WANT TO SAY
THAT I SORT OF AGREE WITH THE
CONCERN ABOUT JUST EXEMPTING. I
MEAN, YOU COULD HAVE ANYONE WHO
BASICALLY PUTS SOLAR PANELS AND
BATTERY STORAGE. THESE COULD BE
HUGE THINGS THAT THAT ARE JUST
OUTSIDE THE ENTIRE REGULATORY
PROCESS THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO
PROTECT TO PROTECT CONSUMERS AND
PROTECT EVERYONE. SO I'M GOING
TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. BUT I
JUST WANT TO SAY I, I'M GLAD
THAT IT'S A STUDY BILL BECAUSE I
THINK THAT THE ORIGINAL BILL HAD
SOME PROBLEMS. RAIMES. YEAH. SO
LET ME JUST CLARIFY. VÌ, I
SUPPORTED THE CHANGE IN
DIRECTION. SO, I, I, AGREED WITH
THE COMMITTEE'S DIRECTION ON TO
MAKE THIS A STUDY BILL. THE
ISSUE ON 218. I HAVE BEEN IN
DISCUSSION WITH OPPONENTS OF THE
ORIGINAL BILL AS WELL, THE GOAL
IS TO, ESSENTIALLY NOT DO WHAT
THEY'RE SAYING COULD HAPPEN. SO
I THINK THIS WILL BE A BALANCED
STUDY, MY GOAL TODAY WAS JUST TO
KIND OF DAYLIGHT THE ISSUE A
LITTLE BIT MORE, APOLOGIES IF IT
DID GO, IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, MY INTENT
WOULD BE TO HAVE A BALANCED
STUDY. I THINK THE CEC IS THE
PLACE TO HAVE IT, OBVIOUSLY
SEEKING INPUT FROM ALL
STAKEHOLDERS ON THAT. THE GOAL
HERE IS NOT TO DEREGULATE, THE
ELECTRIC INDUSTRY. WE'RE LOOKING
AT SMALLER PROJECTS, KIND OF AS
OUTLINED IN MY ORIGINAL
STATEMENT, AND SO LOOK FORWARD
TO THE CONTINUED DISCUSSION. BUT
YEAH, IT'S NOT ANYTHING MORE
THAN IT APPEARS. SO JUST WANTED
TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD. AND I
GUESS I WOULD, I WOULD JUST SAY
THAT THESE WERE AUTHOR'S
AMENDMENTS IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO
TAKE IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO
CHANGE YOUR BILL, THEN YOU
SHOULDN'T HAVE CHANGED YOUR BILL
AS AUTHORS. AMENDMENTS I THINK
THAT WAS JUST A MASTER CLASS IN
HOW NOT TO HANDLE A CONSENT
ITEM. I THINK YOU HAVE
DISRESPECT AGED ME. I THINK
YOU'VE DISRESPECTED THE TIME OF
OUR COLLEAGUES, AND I
UNFORTUNATELY WILL NOT BE ABLE
TO SUPPORT THIS BILL TODAY. ANY
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
? OKAY, WITH THAT ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
MY APOLOGIES. I WAS NOT THE
INTENTION. THÀNH AS I SAID, I, I
SUPPORT THE DIRECTION THIS IS
GOING IN. WITH THAT, I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
TO CONTINUE THE PROCESS. IS
THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND? YES
SECOND. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ITEM NUMBER 12 AB
3107. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PETRIE-NORRIS
NOT VOTING. PATRICK NORRIS NOT
VOTING. BARRY KHN. BARRICADE
NOT VOTING. CALDERON CHEN NOT
VOTING CALDERON I CHEN CHEN NOT
VOTING. CONNOLLY I CONNOLLY I
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN I JOE. PATTERSON JO.
PATTERSON I REYES. REYES I
SANTIAGO. SANTIAGO. NOT VOTING
SHIAVO I SCHIAVO I TING TING I
WALLACE WALLACE NOT VOTING WOOD
WOOD I ZIPPER NOT VOTING. ZIPPER
NOT VOTING. ALL RIGHT. NINE
ZERO. YOUR BILL IS OUT. OKAY,
MOVING ON TO OUR LAST ITEM.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FRIEDMAN AB
2256. LET'S END WITH A WHIMPER.
NOT A BANG. I WILL BE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
DESCRIBED ON PAGE FIVE AS COMM
FIVE COMMON, FOUR AS PROPOSED TO
BE AMENDED AB 2256. I'M GOING TO
I'M JUST GOING TO SAY WOULD
REQUIRE THE CALIFORNIA PUC TO
CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT COST OF
SERVICE ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE
RECENT NEM 3.0 TARIFF, I DO HAVE
TALKING POINTS, BUT I WILL HOLD
THEM IF THERE'S NO OPPOSITION, I
WON'T READ THEM. IF OPPOSITION
COMES UP, I WILL CONTINUE. SO
WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO GO TO MY
WITNESSES TESTIFYING TODAY OR
ROGER LIN WITH THE CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND STEVE
KING WITH ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA
, I CAN GO FIRST, GOOD EVENING,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS STEPHEN KING, AND I'M THE
CLEAN ENERGY ADVOCATE WITH
ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA, WE THANK
YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER FRIEDMAN,
FOR HELPING TO KEEP ROOFTOP
SOLAR ON THE RISE IN CALIFORNIA,
SO TODAY DURING EARTH WEEK IS
JUST A GREAT TIME TO REFLECT ON
THE STEPS WE'RE TAKING TO
PROTECT OUR PLANET. WE KNOW THAT
THE MORE WE CONTINUE BURNING
FOSSIL FUELS, RATHER THAN
GENERATING OUR POWER FROM CLEAN
ENERGY, THE MORE WE JUST
EXACERBATE THE IMPACTS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE. AND IF WE WANT
TO MEET OUR STATE'S CRITICAL
CLIMATE AND CLEAN ENERGY GOALS,
BOTH IN THE NEAR TERMS AND THE
LONGER TERMS, WE NEED TO DOUBLE
DOWN ON PROVEN CLEAN ENERGY
SOLUTIONS LIKE ROOFTOP SOLAR.
AND THERE'S A REASON WHY ROOFTOP
SOLAR HAS PLAYED SUCH A PIVOTAL
ROLE IN DRIVING CALIFORNIA'S
CLEAN ENERGY SUCCESS. FIRST OF
ALL, IT CAN BE DEPLOYED QUICKLY
IN JUST A MATTER OF MONTHS
RATHER THAN WAITING YEARS OR
DECADES. ROOFTOP SOLAR PANELS
ALSO GENERATE ENERGY DIRECTLY
WHERE IT'S NEEDED, DECREASING
THE NEED FOR EXPENSIVE
TRANSMISSION BUILD OUT THAT
DAMAGES THE ENVIRONMENT, SPARKS
WILDFIRES, AND RACKS UP COSTS
FOR RATEPAYERS. IT ALSO IMPROVES
LOCAL AIR QUALITY, WATER QUALITY
AND PUBLIC HEALTH BY DISPLACING
THE NEED FOR DIRTY FOSSIL FUEL
POWER PLANTS IN CALIFORNIA'S
COMMUNITIES. YET AS OF 2022,
WE'VE ACTUALLY ONLY TAKEN
ADVANTAGE OF JUST 10% OF OUR
ROOFTOP SOLAR POTENTIAL. BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE GOING IN
THE WRONG DIRECTION NOW. ROOFTOP
SOLAR INSTALLATIONS PLUMMETED BY
80% YEAR OVER YEAR A YEAR AGO,
WHEN NEW WHEN CUTS TO INCENTIVES
WERE PUT INTO PLACE. AND THAT'S
WHY WE NEED TO PROPERLY VALUE
ROOFTOP SOLAR AS COSTS AND
BENEFITS TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN
GET SOLAR BACK ON TRACK AND MEET
OUR CLIMATE GOALS. WHILE WE'RE
DISAPPOINTED THAT THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS WEAKEN
THE BILL AND REMOVE THE STUDY OF
NON-ENERGY BENEFITS, WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FRIEDMAN TO MAKE SURE THAT
ROOFTOP SOLAR AND CLEAN ENERGY
CAN KEEP GROWING IN CALIFORNIA
FOR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, ROGER LIN WITH CENTER
FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
ENERGIZE THE FOLKS BEHIND ME,
AND I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
ADVISORY GROUP THAT ADVISES THE
STATE ON ELIMINATING THE
BARRIERS TO CLEAN ENERGY
RESOURCES IN ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE AND LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES. THERE ARE TWO
SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS. FIRST, THE
LACK OF A CONSIDERATION OF
NON-ENERGY BENEFITS PUBLIC
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
SECOND, THE PERCEIVED COST SHIFT
FABRICATED BY THE UTILITIES TO
MAXIMIZE UTILITY PROFITS AND
MINIMIZE LOCAL CLEAN ENERGY
RESOURCES. THE ENERGY COMMISSION
DEVELOPED A BARRIER STUDY THAT
INCLUDED A PRINCIPAL
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER KNOWN
ENERGY BENEFITS. THAT WAS IN
2016, THE PUC'S FAILURE TO
CONSIDER THESE CRITICAL BENEFITS
IS ONE REASON WE ARE IN
LITIGATION WITH OVER THE CPUC
GUTTING OF ROOFTOP SOLAR
CURRENTLY BEFORE THE STATE
SUPREME COURT, THE PUC IS HEADED
IN THE WRONG DIRECTION FOR
RENEWABLES. WE NEED MORE ROOFTOP
SOLAR, NOT LESS. THE AIR
RESOURCES BOARD HAS SAID THAT WE
NEED TO DOUBLE IN THEIR SCOPING
PLAN. WE NEED TO AT LEAST DOUBLE
THE AMOUNT OF ROOFTOP SOLAR TO
EVEN HAVE A SHOT AT MEETING OUR
CLIMATE TARGETS. IT'S
UNFORTUNATE THAT WE'VE TAKEN
NEBS OFF THE TABLE. THE
NON-ENERGY BENEFITS, BUT WE WANT
TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR AND THE
COMMITTEE. SO WE'RE HERE IN
SUPPORT TO MOVE THE CONVERSATION
FORWARD. AS WE MOVE FORWARD,
THOUGH, WE HAVE TO CHALLENGE
UNCHECKED ASSUMPTIONS FED TO US
BY THE UTILITIES REGARDING THE
PERCEIVED COST SHIFT. JUST ONE
EXAMPLE. THE PUC HAS EVEN
DETERMINED TWO YEARS AGO THAT
THE AMOUNT OF TRANSMISSION
SPENDING, THE MAIN CAUSE OF RATE
INCREASES AVOIDED BY ROOFTOP
SOLAR IS SIGNIFICANTLY
UNDERESTIMATED. THE CENTER
THANKS ASSEMBLY MEMBER FRIEDMAN
FOR TAKING ON THESE TOUGH
QUESTIONS, GETTING US CLOSER TO
OUR CLIMATE TARGETS, AND NOT
LEAVING BEHIND DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES IN THE CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSITION. ALL RIGHT,
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2256, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS, KENDRA HARRIS,
THE CLIMATE CENTER ALSO
REPRESENTING CLIMATE ACTION
CALIFORNIA, 350 HUMBOLDT,
GLENDALE ENVIRONMENTAL
COALITION, ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. IT'S IMPRESSIVE.
ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED IN
SUPPORT. WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
. DO WE HAVE A PRIMARY WITNESS
OR. OKAY. COME ON UP. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. ISRAEL SALAS WITH
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC. I
KNOW IT'S LATE, SO I'LL KEEP MY
COMMENTS SHORT. THE CPUC
RECENTLY AUTHORIZED AN
ASSESSMENT OF NEM 3.0. IT'S
GOING TO BE A RATEPAYER FUNDED
STUDY COLLECTED IN PUBLIC
PURPOSE PROGRAM CHARGES. WE
DON'T THINK THE BILL IS
NECESSARY. IT'S GOING TO LOOK AT
JUST ONE METRIC. HAVING SAID
THAT, WE DO APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION OF THE
BIGGER PICTURE, WITH NET
METERING GOING FORWARD AND THE
BROADER STATE CLIMATE GOALS THAT
WE ALL HAVE TO ACHIEVE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION, GOOD
EVENING, BRANDON EBCLC, PACIFIC
GAS AND ELECTRIC LINER COMMENTS
WITH SDG. LARA PALM, HALF OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. OKAY.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BAUER KHN, I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HER EFFORTS
ON CLEAN ENERGY. I THINK IT'S
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. AND I
THINK WE'VE SEEN, OVER THE YEARS
THAT IT HAS TO BE IN ALL OF THE
ABOVE APPROACH TO OUR CLEAN
ENERGY FUTURE. AND I THINK
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY IS A PART OF
THAT. AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S
NOT AS MUCH RATE OF RETURN FOR
THE IOUS AND DISTRIBUTED ENERGY,
WHICH HAS BEEN A REAL BARRIER TO
SOME OF THE POLICIES THAT WE'VE
MOVED FORWARD. BUT I THINK THAT
COMMUNITIES HAVE BENEFITED FROM
IT, AND WE KNOW THAT. AND SO
YOUR EFFORT TO CONTINUE TO MOVE
FORWARD IN UNDERSTANDING HOW TO
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT DISTRIBUTED,
CLEAN ENERGY, I THINK IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. AND I, I AM HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY TO
CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION,
BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S SOMETHING MY
CONSTITUENTS REALLY WANT. THEY
WANT MORE CLEAN ENERGY IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES. SO I APPRECIATE
YOUR EFFORTS HERE. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES. I DO WISH
THAT OUR DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES, THAT I WISH THERE
HAD BEEN MORE SPECIFICALLY ON
THE NON-ENERGY BENEFITS, AND
MAYBE NOT IN THIS BILL, BUT
SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE. I THINK
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE DO LOOK AT
THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER ATTEMPTS,
AND I THINK THAT AT SOME POINT
WE NEED TO CONSIDER THAT WHEN
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE
PICTURE, IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART
OF WHAT WE NEED TO, TO, TO LOOK
AT WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE
THESE DECISIONS. BUT I DO
APPRECIATE THAT WE'RE MOVING
FORWARD WITH IT, TO DO THE STUDY
AT LEAST. AND I THINK THAT IT
WILL HELP TO, TO, TO INFORM US
AS WE MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU.
AND I WOULD JUST ADD, I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR DATA DRIVEN
APPROACH TO DRIVING THESE
DECISIONS, AS WE'RE LOOKING TO
TACKLE OUR CLIMATE GOALS, WE'VE
GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
DOING THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING
TO DELIVER THE BIGGEST BANG FOR
OUR BUCK AND UNDERSTANDING THE
FULL PICTURE IS SUPER IMPORTANT.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
IT'S LATE. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND
A SECOND. I BELIEVE. YES. ALL
RIGHT, MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. ITEM NUMBER 13 AB
2256. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
PETRIE-NORRIS. I PETRIE-NORRIS I
B¢O KHN BAUER-KAHAN I. CALDERON
CALDERON I CHEN. CHEN. NOT
VOTING. CONNOLLY I CONNOLLY I
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN I JO. PATTERSON. JO.
PATTERSON I REYES. REYES I
SANTIAGO SANTIAGO I SCHIAVO.
SCHIAVO. EATING I TING I
WALLACE. WALLACE I WOULD, I
WOULD I ZIBA I ZIPPER I. THINK
WE'RE OKAY. 14 ZERO. THAT BILL
IS OUT. MADAM SECRETARY. LET'S
GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE ROLL TO
LET ABSENT MEMBERS ADD ON TO
PREVIOUS ITEMS. ALL RIGHT? OKAY.
THIS IS THE CONSENT FILE. CHEN
CHEN I CONNELLY. CONNELLY I JOE
PATTERSON. HI. JOE. PATTERSON I
SANTIAGO. SANTIAGO I ZERO CHAU
VÚI. WALLACE. WALLACE. EISENBERG
I SABER I THAT'S 16 ZERO 16 ZERO
THAT THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS
DISPENSED WITH. ALL RIGHT. ITEM
NUMBER TWO AB 28 2083. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHEN CHE AND NOT
VOTING. CONNELLY. CONNELLY I JOE
PATTERSON. JOE. PATTERSON NOT
VOTING. SANTIAGO SANTIAGO I.
SCHIAVO CHAU. VÚI. WALLACE.
WALLACE NOT VOTING. ZIPPER.
ZIPPER I. THAT'S 12 112 ONE.
THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM NUMBER
THREE AB 2212. CHEN CHEN I
CONNELLY. HI CONNELLY, I JOE
PATTERSON. JOE PATTERSON I
SANTIAGO. SANTIAGO I ZERBO I
CHAU VÚI WALLACE I WALLACE I
ZIPPER ZIPPER I. THAT'S 15 115
ONE. THAT BILL IS UPPED ITEM
NUMBER FOUR AB 2537 CHEN CHEN I
CONNELLY. CONNELLY I SANTIAGO I
SANTIAGO I SHIAVO SCHIAVO I
WALLACE WALLACE I ZIPPER ZIPPER
I. 15 ZERO THAT BILL IS OUT.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE AB 2666 CHEN
CHEN. NOT VOTING. SANTIAGO
SORRY. YES, I SANTA JOE I
WALLACE WALLACE. I THAT'S 12
ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM
NUMBER SIX 2683. BAUER KHN. HI
BAUER KHN I CHEN CHEN I
SANTIAGO I SANTIAGO I WALLACE I
WALLACE I 15 ZERO. THAT BILL IS
OUT. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AB 2697
BAUER KHN BARRETT. KHN I
CALDERON. CALDERON I CHEN. CHEN
I SANTIAGO. SANTIAGO I WALLACE.
WALLACE I. 15 ZERO THAT BILL IS
OUT. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT AB 3256
BAUER KHN BAUER. KHN I
SANTIAGO I SANTIAGO I. 14 ZERO
THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM NUMBER
TEN AB 3111 BAUER KHN BAUER.
KHN. I SANTIAGO. RIGHT.
SANTIAGO I. 15 ZERO. THAT BILL
IS OUT. WE'RE DOING 11. YES.
OKAY FRIEDMAN. OH. I'M SORRY.
ITEM NUMBER 11 AB 3263. FRIEDMAN
HOLDEN. REYES REYES. I. 12 ZERO
THAT BILL IS OUT. SORRY OKAY,
BUT I'LL JUST. NINE ZERO OKAY.
ITEM NUMBER 12 AB 31 0790. THAT
BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU. AND ITEM
NUMBER 13 A B 2256 14 ZERO. THAT
BILL IS OUT. YES. GO. THAT
CONCLUDES THE BUSINESS OF THIS
EVENING'S HEARING ON THE
COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND
ENERGY. WE'RE ADJOURNED. GOOD
NIGHT. GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK.
WHAT DID GOOD NIGHT. GOOD NIGHT
AND GOOD LUCK. IT WAS LIKE A
FAMOUS NEWSCAST. OKAY OKAY.
THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. YEAH, THAT'S
WHAT IT WAS. ALL RIGHT. I OKAY.
OKAY. THANKS. GOODBYE. OKAY.