AFTERNOON EVERYONE. WE ARE JUST
WAITING FOR ONE OF OUR
COLLEAGUES. REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES, TO JOIN US SO THAT
WE MAY COMMENCE OUR HEARING. ANY
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON
AND WELCOME. I WOULD LIKE TO
CONVENE THIS AFTERNOON'S HEARING
OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON
UTILITIES AND ENERGY, SERGEANT,
IF YOU CAN, PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS BEFORE WE MOVE TO
THE AGENDA, I HAVE A COUPLE OF
HOUSEKEEPING ANNOUNCEMENTS TO
MAKE, FIRST ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BERNER WILL BE SUBSTITUTING FOR
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SCHIAVO IN
TODAY'S HEARING, THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BERNER. SECOND,
I WILL, AS IS CUSTOMARY,
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 THAT ARE
HAPPENING CONCURRENTLY, AND
MEMBERS MAY BE STEPPING AWAY TO
PRESENT THEIR BILLS. WE WILL
WORK TO KEEP THE HEARING MOVING
AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, PLEASE
NOTE THAT TESTIMONY IS LIMITED
TO, TWO WITNESSES ON THE SUPPORT
SIDE AND TWO WITNESSES ON THE
OPPOSITION SIDE, WITH A TOTAL OF
FOUR MINUTES FOR EACH FOR ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES ON A
MEASURE, PLEASE ONLY STATE YOUR
NAME, POSITION, AND AFFILIATION
IF ANY, TODAY WE HAVE EIGHT
MEASURES ON THE AGENDA. ONE IS
ON CONSENT, WE DO NOT HAVE A
QUORUM, SO WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN
AS A SUBCOMMITTEE AND WE DO NOT
HAVE ANY AUTHORS. SO TO SENATORS
WITH BILLS BEFORE THE ASSEMBLY,
UTILITIES AND ENERGY COMMITTEE,
PLEASE MAKE YOUR WAY TO ROOM 437
SO THAT WE CAN UTILIZE OUR
MEMBERS TIME EFFECTIVELY. AT
LEAST OUR STARTING FULLER THAT
WE DON'T HAVE A PARTNER. AND
THEN THAT WAY, IF YOU HAVE TO
LEAVE, I CAN SEE YOU GUYS ARE
WAITING FOR REPUBLICANS. OR
SOMETIMES, LIKE, IS THAT AN
ACTUAL RULE? YEAH, BECAUSE
SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES SIX. OH
YEAH. THEY'RE PLAYING THE
THEY'RE PLAYING THE GAME. BUT I
MEAN HE ALWAYS ASKED ME ABOUT
THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT'S THAT'D
BE ME CHRIS WORK. RICKY WELL,
SOMETIMES I JUST HAVE TO REALLY.
LIKE I NEED JUST. OH MY
GOODNESS. YEAH LIKE. I'M NOWHERE
NEAR.
IT'S CRAZY. SO TWO HOURS, YOU
KNOW. ALL RIGHT, SO WE ARE
ACTUALLY GOING TO GET STARTED.
EXCELLENT GOOD AFTERNOON,
SENATOR WAHAB, WELCOME. YES. YOU
GET THE PRIZE FOR THE FIRST
SENATOR TO ARRIVE AT OUR HEARING
, WHENEVER YOU ARE READY.
PERFECT. I AM GOING TO SAY THAT
THIS IS MY FIRST BILL IN THIS
SPACE. SO I APPRECIATE YOU
GUYS'S PATIENCE. ALL RIGHT,
CHAIR. COLLEAGUES AND MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC, MY VISION FOR SB
983, THE ALTERNATIVE FUELS
INFRASTRUCTURE TASK FORCE IS TO
PUT ALTERNATIVE FUEL OPTIONS AND
GAS STATIONS TO ENSURE ALL
CALIFORNIANS ARE ABLE TO USE
CLEAN ENERGY VEHICLES. THE
HONEST TRUTH OF THIS IS THAT I
LIVE IN A MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX. I
AM A RENTER. I LIVE IN THE EAST
BAY, AND WE CONSTANTLY TALK
ABOUT VEHICLE MILES, TRAVELED,
WE TALK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT,
WE TALK ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT
THINGS AND THE FACT THAT WE ARE
ALL HAVING TO NOW START TO
SLOWLY MOVE TOWARDS PURCHASING A
CLEAN VEHICLE. NOW I HAVE A
HYBRID. IT'S AN ELECTRIC PLUG IN
HYBRID, AND I CANNOT CHARGE MY
VEHICLE IN MY OWN HOME. THERE IS
NO OUTLET, THERE'S NO OPTION,
THERE'S NOTHING THERE FOR ME.
RIGHT, AND WE ARE NOT DOING MORE
TO BUILD OUT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE
FOR REGULAR FOLKS. AND EVEN WHEN
WE'RE SEEING FORD F-150 PICKUP
TRUCKS BECOME ALL ELECTRIC AND A
LOT OF THESE EFFORTS MOVING IN
TO, YOU KNOW, CONSUMERS, THE
INFRASTRUCTURE IS STILL NOT
THERE. AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE WE
HAVE TODAY IS BASICALLY GAS
STATIONS. AND IF WE'RE TRYING TO
BE CLEANER AND GREENER IN THE
ENVIRONMENT, WE HAVE TO USE OUR
CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE TO MOVE
FORWARD IN A WAY THAT MAKES
SENSE, RIGHT. AND I DO BELIEVE
THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE
THAT WANT TO BE AT THE TABLE TO
MAKE THAT HAPPEN, AND I THINK
THAT THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION
AND DISAGREEMENT OF WHAT THAT
LOOKS LIKE. BUT I THINK THAT
THIS IS A CLEAR PATH FORWARD. SO
HONESTLY, THIS TASK FORCE WILL
DETERMINE THE FASTEST AND MOST
COST EFFECTIVE PATH FORWARD FOR
ZERO EMISSION FUEL ALTERNATIVES
WHILE USING OUR EXISTING
GASOLINE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT
PUTTING THE FINGER ON THE
SCALES. REGARDING TECHNOLOGY OF
THE FUTURE, MANY PEOPLE ARE
DEBATING WHICH TYPE OF
TECHNOLOGY SHOULD BE THE
TECHNOLOGY THAT WE USE. BUT
THAT'S NOT A DEBATE THAT WE NEED
TO HAVE. WE NEED TO HAVE A
DEBATE REGARDING THE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOW CAN WE
MAKE THIS HAPPEN FASTER AND
CHEAPER. CURRENT INVESTMENTS
INTO ALTERNATIVE FUELING
INFRASTRUCTURE ARE ONLY HALF OF
WHAT IS NEEDED TO TRANSITION BY
2050 OR EARLIER, AND I WANT TO
BE VERY CLEAR, AS AN
ENVIRONMENTALIST, THE ACTUAL
DATE FOR A LOT OF THE THINGS
THAT WE NEED TO DO IS ACTUALLY
20, 27, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT,
YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING BACKWARDS
AND, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE OUR
ENVIRONMENT, OUR AIR AND MUCH
MORE IS CLEANER. SO EVEN THESE
DATES ARE FURTHER OUT THAN
NEEDED, SO COMPARED TO THE
SCIENCE. SO SB 983 IS A CRUCIAL
STEP TO MEET GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S
MANDATE TO TRANSITION VEHICLE
VEHICLES TO ZERO EMISSION
SOURCES BY 2035. I WOULD LIKE TO
INTRODUCE MY WITNESSES, TERESA
COOK FROM CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN
COALITION AND KEITH DUNN FROM
THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL.
THANK YOU, SENATOR TERESA COOK,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HYDROGEN COALITION, CALIFORNIA
HYDROGEN BUSINESS COUNCIL, VERY
PLEASED TO BE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW,
HYDROGEN FUELING STATIONS ARE
LOCATED AT EXISTING GAS STATIONS
AS THEIR CENTRAL REFUELING MODEL
IS THE SAME AS OUR CENTRAL
REFUELING MODEL. AND SO I REALLY
WANT TO SAY THAT WE DEEPLY
APPRECIATE THE SENATOR FOR
SHOWING SOME LEADERSHIP IN THE
CONVERSATION ON THAT. IT'S NOT
ABOUT BANNING OR DISMANTLING OR
PROHIBITING THE FUTURE BUILD OUT
OF FUELING STATIONS, BUT HOW DO
WE UTILIZE THIS EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE? THE PRIVATE
INVESTMENT THAT HAS GONE INTO
RUNNING THESE BUSINESSES AND
TRANSITION THEM INTO OUR CLEAN
TECH, CLEAN TRANSPORTATION
FUTURE AS OPPOSED TO SORT OF
DOING AWAY WITH THEM. SO, FOR
THESE REASONS, I CANNOT SAY
ENOUGH HOW PLEASED WE ARE TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL AND WOULD
APPRECIATE YOUR YES VOTE TODAY.
THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR. KEITH
DUNN, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL, WE'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR MOVING FORWARD
AND MAKING A PRIORITY ON THE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE WORKERS
THAT ARE GOING TO DELIVER US AS
WE CONFRONT OUR CHANGING CLIMATE
AND THE SWITCH FROM A PETROLEUM
BASED ECONOMY INTO MORE OF A
FRIENDLY ECONOMY MOVING FORWARD
WITH A WORKFORCE THAT IS GOING
TO BE SKILLED AND TRAINED AND
ABLE TO DELIVER THE
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE NEED
MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT, SINCE
WE HAVE NO OPPOSITION, I'LL JUST
SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO MOVING
THIS BILL FORWARD. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. AND WE'LL OH, SORRY.
WE THANK YOU. WE DON'T YET HAVE
QUORUM. IF MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO
JOIN US, THEN WE CAN MOVE THE
BILL, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT
UP FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT
TESTIMONY IN THE ROOM. IF YOU'D
LIKE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF SB
983, PLEASE APPROACH THE MIC.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JACKIE
ONIS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA FUELS AND CONVENIENCE
ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL NOW OPEN IT UP
FOR, ANY OPPOSITION TESTIMONY WE
DON'T HAVE AN OPPOSITION
WITNESS. ANYONE IN THE ROOM
WISHING TO TESTIFY IN
OPPOSITION, SEEING NONE. WE'LL
COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PATTERSON, THANKS. WAS
THE RESIDENT REPUBLICAN. I NEED
TO SAY SOMETHING, SUPPORT THIS
BILL. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY, JUST AS A NEWER MEMBER OF
THIS COMMITTEE, I DO HAVE, SOME
CONCERNS OVER THE, FUNDING
SOURCE, BUT, YOU KNOW, AND IF
YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT, THAT'S
FINE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
IT. TODAY. WE'RE BUILDING A
BUNCH OF GAS STATIONS IN MY OWN
NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SOMEDAY YOU
KNOW, WE NEED TO CREATE AN
ENVIRONMENT WHERE THOSE THINGS,
THE BUSINESS OWNERS CAN CONTINUE
TO, YOU KNOW, STAY OPEN IN SOME
OTHER NEW ENVIRONMENT. SO THANKS
FOR BRINGING THE BILL.
DEFINITELY I DO WANT TO SAY THAT
THE FUNDING SOURCE WE ARE
INVESTING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT
OF FUNDS ON WHAT DOES GOING
GREEN LOOK LIKE. AND THERE IS
EXISTING FUNDS THAT WE HAVE LIKE
SUGGESTED AND IDENTIFIED AS LIKE
A POTENTIAL SOURCE, OF COURSE,
WE ALSO HAVE HIGHLIGHTED WHO
WOULD MAKE UP THAT TASK FORCE,
INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, MEMBERS
FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND
OF COURSE, THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE SUGGESTED THAT WE HAVE
ACCEPTED, TO ENSURE THAT IT'S
THE BEST APPROACH THAT MAKES
SENSE FOR THE STATE AS WELL AS
TO THE CONSUMER AS WELL AS TO
THE BUSINESS OWNER. SO I THINK
ACROSS THE BOARD, OFTENTIMES I'M
TRYING TO LOOK FOR A REASONABLE
PATH FORWARD. THAT'S NOT COSTLY.
THAT MAKES SENSE AND IS, YOU
KNOW, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD
FOR EVERYBODY. WELL, AND I'LL
JUST SAY, APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS MEASURE FORWARD
AND THE WORK THAT THAT YOU'RE
DOING WITH YOUR SPONSORS. I
THINK IT'S SO IMPORTANT FOR US
TO CONTINUALLY, CONTINUALLY
THINK ABOUT HOW CAN WE REPURPOSE
RATHER THAN THAN HAVE TO
RECREATE. SO THANK YOU. WITH
THAT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. AND WE WILL
TAKE THAT MEASURE UP SHORTLY.
THANK YOU SENATOR. THANK YOU
GUYS. LET'S SEE, SENATOR DOLLY
PATRICK AND SENATOR DOLLY, YOUR
NEXT STEP. HE'S ON NEXT ON THE
LIST. ALL RIGHT.
HOW MANY MEMBERS CHANGE? ON THAT
FINAL ITEM OR ALL OF THEM?
UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF MINUTES ON
THE REST OF THEM, WE CAN
DISPENSE WITH TÍNH. WELL, YEAH.
I DON'T KNOW, YOU SHOULD PUT OUT
THERE STREAMLINING. I DON'T MAKE
DECISIONS. SO OKAY. OKAY HOW I
LIKE TO KEEP MY STAFF. I WILL
SAY I DEFINITELY THINK YES, I'M
PRIVACY. TRYING TO MAKE. Ó
TALKING. YEAH. I'M SO I THINK
THAT WAS NUMBER 15 YEARS. NÓ
REYES NUMBER 123 CRAIG EVERS.
YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE AN EYE LIKE
A. YEAH, YEAH. I WAS LIKE,
YOU'RE AN ENGINEER. OH, YOU
SHOULDN'T HAVE TOLD HER. THAT'S
PROBABLY COME UP WITH A BILL. I
AM OKAY, OKAY. START TALKING. I
MEAN, YEAH, IT'S INTERESTING.
YEAH I. FOUR TIMES. WHAT ABOUT.
EVERYBODY OKAY? WHOEVER WALKS IN
THAT DOOR. YEAH 45 MINUTES. I
DON'T KNOW. YEAH.
LARA. RACHEL STONE, COUNT. SHE
IS. SHE'S IN MY OFFICE RIGHT NOW
. SHE'S WRITING SOME BILLS. DO
SOME ANALYSIS. WE SHOULD GET HER
TO PRESENT HERSELF. OKAY SHE
COULD DO IT. SHE'S GOT THEIR
VOTES DOWN. YEAH, WE CAN PIMCO'S
. PUBLICIZED BEEN SO BUSY THIS
WEEK. MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE
YOU TO OLD TOWN OR DO ANY OF THE
FUN THINGS WE DO, BECAUSE SHE'S
NOT FEELING WELL, SHE'S BEEN
ALTERNATING BETWEEN EATING AND
THROWING UP. YEAH. I MEAN, SHE
SAYS SHE'S OKAY, AND THEN SHE
GETS SICK.
ALL RIGHT. GOOD. GOOD AFTERNOON.
NOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY, THANKS FOR
HEARING THIS TODAY. SB 1118, IS
A CONTINUATION OF A BILL I'VE
WORKED ON SINCE 2015. I THINK,
UNLIKE, LIKE, THE WHAT WE LIKE
TO THINK SOMETIMES THE FIRST
TIME WE PASS A BILL IS NOT
PERFECT, AND WE NEED TO GO BACK
AND MAKE SURE THAT WE GET
EVERYTHING RIGHT SO IT CAN BE
IMPLEMENTED IN THE BEST POSSIBLE
WAY, SO LAST YEAR WE MADE SOME
MORE, UPDATES ON SOMA, WHICH IS
THE MULTIFAMILY, SOLAR HOUSING,
SO THAT THE BENEFITS GO DIRECTLY
TO THOSE, OR LOW INCOME FOLKS
WHO ARE OFTENTIMES RENTERS, THIS
EXPANDS IT FOR TRIBAL LANDS AS
WELL, AND THERE'S SOME DEED
RESTRICTIONS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO
WORK THROUGH WITH ME TO TESTIFY
TODAY IS ANDREW DAWSON FROM THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP.
HELLO, I'M ANDREW DAWSON, THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP.
THE PARTNERSHIP WAS A STATE
CREATED PRIVATE NONPROFIT WHOSE
MISSION IT IS TO INCREASE THE
SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE AND
SUSTAINABLE HOMES FOR LOW INCOME
PEOPLE LIVING IN CALIFORNIA, WE
PART OF THIS WORK IS HELPING
ADMINISTER THE SOMA PROGRAM, THE
SOLAR, MULTIFAMILY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROGRAM, WHICH HAS
HELPED OVER 450 PROPERTIES FOR
LOW INCOME RESIDENTS OBTAIN
SOLAR. THIS BILL OPENS THE DOOR
FOR MORE TRIBAL PROPERTIES THAT
MEET THE INCOME RESTRICTIONS. TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM, WE
THANK SENATOR EGGMAN FOR THEIR
LEADERSHIP WITH THIS BILL, AND
WE REQUEST YOUR I VOTE. THANK
YOU, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT
UP FOR, SUPPORT TESTIMONY IN THE
ROOM. IF YOU'D LIKE TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT, GO AHEAD AND
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. MATT KLOPFENSTEIN,
ON BEHALF OF THE CENTER FOR
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. RICK
MELMASON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MICHELLE
CARNALIS, UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS IN SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A
PRIMARY WITNESS IN OPPOSITION,
WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR ANY
OPPOSITION TESTIMONY IN THE
ROOM. SEEING AND HEARING NONE,
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ALL RIGHT,
ALL RIGHT. WE ARE AWAITING ONE
MORE MEMBER TO ESTABLISH QUORUM.
BUT WITH THAT, SENATOR, THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS MEASURE
FORWARD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
AT THAT TIME WHEN YOU HAVE A
FULL COMMITTEE? I'D LOVE TO ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE AND WISH YOU
ALL A LOVELY DAY. THANK YOU.
SENATOR ALL RIGHT. ARE WE GOOD?
WAIT. ONE, 238. OH. ONE MORE.
ONE MORE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT,
MOVING ON TO FILE ITEM NUMBER
THREE, SB 1062. SENATOR DOLLY,
WELCOME. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, I'M HERE TO PRESENT
SB 1062. I WANT TO START BY
THANKING THE COMMITTEE FOR
WORKING WITH US ON THIS BILL,
AND I WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. CALIFORNIA
HAS EXPERIENCED SOME OF THE MOST
DEVASTATING WILDFIRES IN RECENT
YEARS. ONE OF THE MAJOR
CONTRIBUTING, CONTRIBUTING
FACTORS IN THESE FIRES WAS YEARS
OF FOREST MANAGEMENT AND BUILD
UP OF EXCESS WOODY BIOMASS TO
REDUCE THE THREAT OF WILDFIRE
AND PROPERLY UTILIZE THE
VALUABLE FUEL SOURCE. SB 1062
WOULD REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSERVATION TO CREATE A BIOMASS
TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION PROGRAM TO
FACILITATE IN THE CONVERSION OF
BIOMASS ENERGY GENERATION
FACILITIES THAT UTILIZE FOREST
BIOMASS TO NEWER, ADVANCED
BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES. IN
DECEMBER OF 2022, CARB PASSED A
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE 2022
CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN, IN
WHICH THE BOARD RESOLVED THAT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR NONCOMBUSTIBLE
BIOMASS SOLUTIONS NEED TO BE
PRIORITIZED. THIS BILL IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA'S
GOAL OF PRIORITIZING ALTERNATIVE
BIOMASS ENERGY GENERATION
METHODS BY CREATING A PROGRAM
THAT WOULD ASSIST PARTICIPATING
BIOMASS GENERATION FACILITIES IN
ACQUIRING THE OFTEN EXPENSIVE
ALTERNATIVE GENERATION
BIOTECHNOLOGY OR BIOENERGY
TECHNOLOGIES. THESE TECHNOLOGIES
WILL ENABLE THESE FACILITIES TO
CONTINUE USING BIOMASS AS A
VIABLE FUEL SOURCE, WHILE
REDUCING EMISSIONS AND REMAINING
CONSISTENT WITH CALIFORNIA
REGULATIONS. AS PART OF THE
PROGRAM, THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSERVATION SHALL IDENTIFY
FACILITIES THAT INTEND TO
CONVERT TO THESE NEW
TECHNOLOGIES. THE DEPARTMENT
THEN SHALL WORK WITH THE
RELEVANT LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS TO
ENSURE THAT THE FACILITIES MEET
THE APPLICABLE AIR STANDARDS,
WHICH WILL BE NEEDED TO BE
ELIGIBLE FOR THE GRANT PROGRAM.
PARTICIPATING. PARTICIPATING
FACILITIES MUST THEN DEVELOP
BUSINESS PLANS TO INCORPORATE
THE TECHNOLOGIES ONCE THEY
BECOME COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE
AND VIABLE. AS ESTIMATED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, THE
BUSINESS PLANS PROVIDED THESE
FACILITIES WITH THE FLEXIBLE
NEEDED TO PROPERLY ON BOARD THE
NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND ENSURE THAT
THE RELEVANT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS OF THEIR PACIFIC AIR
BASINS ARE MET. THIS BILL WOULD
HELP KEEP BIOMASS FACILITIES
OPEN AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH
CALIFORNIA'S REGULATIONS, AND
WOULD ENSURE THE FOREST HEALTH
AND RESILIENCE IS ONGOING
PRIORITY. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE WITH ME. I HAVE
CHRISTINA DARLINGTON OF PLACER
COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
DISTRICT AS A WITNESS. HI. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I'M CRISTIANO
DARLINGTON WITH THE PLACER
COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
DISTRICT AND WE'RE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. TODAY, OUR
AIR DISTRICT HAS BEEN FOCUSING
ON BIOMASS TO ELECTRICITY ISSUES
AND UTILIZATION OF BIOMASS IN
GENERAL, AS WELL AS FOREST
HEALTH FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
AGAIN THIS THIS BILL IS BASED ON
THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY CARB
RESOLUTION 2122 THAT ASKS FOR
COMBUSTION FACILITIES TO
TRANSITION AWAY FROM THOSE
TECHNOLOGIES. THE PROGRAM
FOCUSES ON, AT FIRST WORKING
WITH A HANDFUL OF IDLED
FACILITIES AND LOOKING HOW THOSE
FACILITIES CAN SPECIFICALLY
TRANSITION TO NEWER TECHNOLOGIES
. OVER TIME, THE DEPARTMENT WILL
GO THROUGH A VETTING PROCESS AND
IDENTIFY THE BEST CANDIDATES
THAT ARE MEANINGFULLY UNTRUSTED
AND THE TRANSITION. THE BILL
WOULD THEN SET UP A GRANT
PROGRAM IN FUTURE YEARS THAT
WOULD HELP THOSE BUSINESSES
OBTAIN NEW TECHNOLOGY AFTER
THEY'RE CHOSEN. THE BIOMASS THAT
IS DEFINED IN THE BILL IS
LIMITED TO WASTE FROM BYPRODUCT
RESIDUES FROM FOREST HEALTH.
THIS IS NOT USING TREES GROWN
FOR POWER. ALSO, THE GRANT
PROGRAM WOULD FOCUS ON MAKING
SURE THAT ALL AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS ARE MET AT THE FEDERAL
AND THE STATE LEVEL, AND IT ALSO
RESTRICTS RATEPAYER FUNDS FROM
BEING USED FROM THE GRANT
PROGRAM. THOSE WERE AMENDS THAT
WERE ACCEPTED. RIGHT. SO THE
APPROACH IS A SOUND WAY TO MOVE
CURRENT BUSINESSES TO A NEW
PARADIGM WITHOUT LOSING
ESSENTIAL SERVICES THAT THEY
CURRENTLY PROVIDE. WOOD WASTE
DISPOSAL IS CRITICAL FOR THE
STATE. WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT
TO SEE MORE OPEN PILE BURNING OF
WOOD WASTE. WE ALSO KNOW THAT WE
NEED MORE PRESCRIBED FIRE AND
TRIBAL USE OF FIRE ON WILD
LANDS. AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT,
WE NEED TO REDUCE USING FIRE AS
A WOOD WASTE DISPOSAL MECHANISM.
AND ALSO, OF COURSE, COMPOSTING
WOOD DOESN'T WORK WELL EITHER
BECAUSE IT USES A LOT OF WATER
AND EMITS METHANE. THE
CALIFORNIA COMPOST COALITION
STRONGLY URGES WOOD WASTE TO
FIND ALTERNATIVE PATHWAYS FROM
COMPOST. SO IN SUMMARY, THE AIR
DISTRICT ENCOURAGES ALL OF YOU
TO VOTE YES ON THIS BILL TO MOVE
TOWARDS THE TRANSITION OF IDLE
BIOMASS TO ELECTRICITY
FACILITIES, TO NEW ADVANCED
EMISSION CONTROL CONTROLLED
TECHNOLOGIES AND BIOENERGY
SPACE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND
OPEN IT UP FOR TESTIMONY OF
SUPPORT FROM FOLKS IN THE ROOM.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1062, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. ALL
RIGHT. SEEING NONE, DO WE HAVE A
WITNESS? IS THERE A MAIN WITNESS
IN PRIMARY WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
OKAY ANY WITNESSES IN THE ROOM
WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 1062, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. HI.
JUSTIN BOWERS WITH CLEAN EARTH
FOR KIDS. ORG. WE STRONGLY
OPPOSE IN ADDITION, THE NCCA ECO
SUSTAINABILITY PEEPS AND FACTS
ALSO STRONGLY OPPOSE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. OKAY. QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
YES, FIRST OF ALL, I THOUGHT THE
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
WAS NO. THAT WAS THE ONLY
OPPOSITION LISTED. DID I? I
BELIEVE THEY ARE OPPOSED. YES.
OKAY. THEY ARE OPPOSED. DID THEY
PULL OFF? THEY JUST DIDN'T SHOW
UP. DO WE KNOW? I BELIEVE
THEY'RE STILL I BELIEVE THEY ARE
STILL LISTED OFFICIALLY AS
OPPOSITION. THAT'S HELPFUL TO
UNDERSTAND. AND THEN, SO I GUESS
I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.
AND I ACTUALLY THINK AND I'VE
SAID IN THIS COMMITTEE BEFORE
THAT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE, THE
PURISM AROUND BIOMASS DOESN'T
MAKE A TON OF SENSE THAT WE HAVE
THESE FUELS AND WE SHOULD BE
USING THEM. AND I APPRECIATE
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE,
TO MOVE US TO EVEN A CLEANER
TECHNOLOGY THAN EXISTS TODAY, I
GUESS. AND I KNOW WE'RE NOT THE
FISCAL COMMITTEE, BUT I THINK
THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE ON US TO
DECIDE WHERE OUR LIMITED
RESOURCES ARE GOING TO GO. AND
FROM AN ENERGY PERSPECTIVE, THE
GRANT PROGRAM GIVES ME A LITTLE
BIT OF A PAUSE BECAUSE ALTHOUGH
I SUPPORT THESE THINGS, DO I
THINK THAT TAX DOLLARS SHOULD BE
GOING TO THIS AS SORT OF A
QUESTION THAT I'M GRAPPLING
WITH? SO I GUESS IF YOU COULD
EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE, AND I
REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE MAN'S AROUND
RATEPAYERS AND PROTECTING THEM
FROM THIS. SO I WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT. BUT IF YOU COULD
TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE
FISCAL, WHERE DO YOU THINK THIS
MONEY IS GOING TO COME FROM. AND
YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
THANK YOU. SO WELL, TO BE HONEST
WITH YOU, WE'VE PARED THE BILL
DOWN. WE'VE TRIED TO WE'VE TRIED
TO THREAD A NEEDLE HERE. WE HAVE
IDLE BIOMASS PLANTS THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA, AND WE HAVE, AS OF
YESTERDAY, YOU KNOW, TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF ACRES BURNING UP.
NOW, I KNOW THAT THE OPPOSITION
DOESN'T WANT TO DO ANY
COMBUSTION, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF
COMBUSTION GOING ON OUT RIGHT
THERE, RIGHT NOW, TODAY. AND
IT'S PUTTING CARBON IN THE
ATMOSPHERE. SO WHAT WE TRY TO DO
WITH THIS BILL WAS GET IT NOT TO
THE CDC, BECAUSE THE ELECTRICITY
FOLKS SHOULDN'T BE PAYING FOR
IT. EVERYTHING GOES TO CDC. SO
WE WENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSERVATION. WE DON'T HAVE A
FUNDING SOURCE. WE'RE SAYING
THAT IN IF FUNDING IS AVAILABLE,
THAT'S WHY THE BILL IS STILL
MOVING. IF IT WAS TIED TO
FUNDING, WOULD HAVE BEEN DEAD.
SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THE
POLICY IN PLACE. I'M GONNA BE
HONEST WITH YOU. THAT'S TRUE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THE
POLICY IN PLACE THAT SAYS, HEY,
IF THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE
THROUGH A GRANT PROGRAM, HOPING
I WON'T BE HERE, BUT HOPING
SOMEBODY WILL COME BACK AND
MAYBE WE COULD. I THINK GRANT
FUNDS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR
THIS. IT TO DO SOME GRANT. MONEY
THROUGH GRF. WE DO IT FOR OTHER
PROGRAMS, AND THEN IT WOULD BE
SEED MONEY TO ACTUALLY GET THESE
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES AWAY FROM
COMBUSTION, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY IS
WINNING RIGHT NOW ON THEIR ON
THEIR POLICY OF NO COMBUSTION,
WE DID SB 11. IT WAS, CARB BILL,
WHICH THEY PUT TOOK COMBUSTION
OUT. SO THAT KILLS ALL MY
BIOMASS PLANTS THAT ARE ALREADY
OUT THERE. SO WE'VE SEEN SOME
ONE OFFS. I THINK GALLAGHER IS
DOING A BILL. SO AT THE END OF
THE DAY WE'RE TRYING TO USE
THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES. WE DON'T
HAVE A FUNDING SOURCE, BUT WE'RE
JUST TRYING TO GET THE POLICY IN
PLACE. SAYS, HEY, IF THERE'S
SOME FUNDING SOURCE AVAILABLE,
WE WANT TO PROMOTE THESE NEW
TECHNOLOGIES OF BIOENERGY
CONVERSION TO BIOGAS CONVERSION
TO, YOU KNOW, HYDROGEN OR DIESEL
OR SOME OTHER SOURCE USING THESE
PLANTS THAT ARE THERE AND ALL
THIS FUEL THAT'S OUT THERE THAT
STILL NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OUT OF
THE FOREST. SO WE DON'T HAVE
WHAT WE'RE HAPPENING TODAY
BURNING UP. RIGHT? I APPRECIATE
THAT. SO I GUESS THEN THE
QUESTION IS, I MEAN, THIS AS I
READ IT, IS IT REFERRED TO
APPROPRIATIONS? I WOULD ASSUME
SO THAT IT HAS SOME COST
ASSOCIATED TO IT. RELATED TO
GOVERNMENT SETTING UP THIS
PROGRAM. RAIMES, YEAH. FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, I'M
JUST STRUGGLING WITH LIKE, IS
THIS HOW OUR LIMITED RESOURCES
SHOULD BE SPENT, GIVEN WE DON'T
EVEN HAVE A FUNDING SOURCE? BUT
THIS ISN'T THE FISCAL COMMITTEE,
SO I WILL STOP TALKING ABOUT THE
FISCAL IMPACTS OF THIS. I
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT ON THE BIOMASS FRONT. YOU
KNOW, I JUST MAYBE WE'LL GO GO
AHEAD AND THEN ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WOOD, THANK YOU. AND SENATOR
DALI, I, I REALLY APPRECIATE
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
WE LIVE IN THE SAME WORLD,
ESSENTIALLY, WHEN IT COMES TO,
WOODY BIOMASS THAT'S, NEEDS TO
HAVE A PLACE TO HAVE IT BE
DISPOSED OF, JUST IN MY
LITERALLY A FEW MILES FROM MY
HOUSE THIS WEEK, WE'VE HAD
EVACUATION ORDERS NEARBY BECAUSE
ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE IN FIRE
SEASON, AND, I APPRECIATE THAT
PEOPLE MIGHT LIKE TO TRY TO
COMPOST THIS, BUT I, I
UNDERSTAND THE CHEMISTRY, THE
BIOLOGY AS WELL, AND RECOGNIZE
THAT THAT RELEASES METHANE. THAT
DOESN'T HELP US EITHER. LEAVING
THIS IN THE FOREST DOESN'T HELP
US EITHER. THAT IS ANOTHER FUEL
SOURCE. AND SO, I THERE IS A
COST. THERE'S ALWAYS A COST TO
EVERYTHING. BUT I ALSO THINK
SOMETIMES THERE IS THERE'S A
BIGGER COST TO DOING NOTHING.
AND AT AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT
I, THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I'M
LOOKING AT IT, I THINK THAT WE
NEED TO WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING.
THIS IS A CHALLENGE. WE CANNOT
PUT THIS IN LANDFILLS. WE'RE
UNDER DIVERSION GOALS TO NOT DO
THAT KIND OF STUFF. AND EVEN IF
YOU COULD IN THE AREAS THAT THAT
WE REPRESENT, GOOD LUCK SITING A
LANDFILL. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO
GET A LANDFILL BUILT ANYWHERE.
SO, SO WHY NOT MAKE THIS A
BENEFICIAL USE EVEN THOUGH IT
MIGHT BE A MORE EXPENSIVE ENERGY
SOURCE? WHY NOT? THE OTHER
OPTION IS TO LET IT CONTINUE TO
BE A FUEL SOURCE FOR FIRES, WE
JUST THERE WAS A RECENT STUDY,
AND I AND I APPRECIATE THAT
PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT
COMES OUT OF THE STACK, SO TO
SPEAK, WHEN THESE KINDS OF
TECHNOLOGIES. BUT THERE WAS A
RECENT STUDY ABOUT THE NUMBER OF
PREMATURE DEATHS FROM, WOOD
SMOKE THAT JUST CAME OUT A
COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. IT WAS
PRETTY SHOCKING. AND FOR THOSE
OF US WHO HAVE LIVED THROUGH AND
LIVE IN THESE AREAS WHERE THERE
WHERE THERE ARE FIRES. SO I'M
VERY SUPPORTIVE OF YOUR BILL.
I'D LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A
COAUTHOR, I'D LIKE TO SEE MONEY
SOMEWHERE. I KNOW IT DOESN'T
GROW ON TREES, BUT IF IT DID,
YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT. WE
WOULDN'T WANT TO BURN THEM,
THAT'S FOR SURE. SO SO. SO I
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO, AND I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
YOUR BILL TODAY. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. AND, WE'LL JUST PAUSE FOR
A MOMENT AND TAKE A SECOND TO
ESTABLISH QUORUM. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
PETRIE-NORRIS HERE.
PETRIE-NORRIS HERE. JIM
PATTERSON. BARRY. KHN. BARRY
KHN HERE. BERNER. HERE. BERNER
HERE. CALDERON CHEN. FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN, HERE. HART. HERE.
HART. HERE. HOLDEN. HOLDEN HERE.
JOE. PATTERSON HERE. JOE.
PATTERSON. HERE. REYES HERE.
REYES. HERE. SANTIAGO. TING.
WALLACE WOOD. WOOD. HERE. ZIPPER
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS.
OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT
WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE SOMETHING
FORWARD TO MAYBE ONE DAY WHEN WE
GET SOME RESOURCES, WE CAN HAVE
SOME DIFFERENT TYPE OF OUTCOME
FROM WHAT'S HAPPENING OUT THERE.
SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS IS AMENDED TO NATURAL
RESOURCES, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. ITEM
NUMBER THREE, SB 1062, THE
MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO NATURAL RESOURCES
PETRIE-NORRIS I PETRIE-NORRIS I
JIM PATTERSON B¢O KHN BARRETT
KHN. NOT VOTING BURNER I BURNER
I CALDERON CHEN. FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN I HART. HART I HOLDEN
HOLDEN I JOE PATTERSON I JOE
PATTERSON I REYES NOT VOTING
REYES NOT VOTING SANTIAGO TING
WALLACE WOOD WOOD I ZUBER. OKAY,
SEVEN ZERO, THAT BUILDS ON CALL
AND, WE WILL REVISIT IT AND WE
HAVE A FEW MORE MEMBERS. THANK
YOU. SENATOR OKAY. ITEM NUMBER
ONE. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WOOD. SECOND. OKAY FINAL ITEM
NUMBER ONE, MOVED BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WOOD. SECOND BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER REYES. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. ITEM
NUMBER ONE SB 983, THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO TRANSPORTATION.
PETRIE-NORRIS. I PETRIE-NORRIS I
JOE JIM PATTERSON. BARBARA KHN
I BARRY KHN I BURNER I BURNER I
CALDERON CHEN. FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN I HART A HEART I HOLDEN
HOLDEN I JOE PATTERSON I JOE
PATTERSON I REYES I REYES I
SANTIAGO TING WALLACE WOOD, WOOD
I ZIPPER. WE'RE DOING ITEM
NUMBER. ONE SB 983. WE'LL COME
BACK TO HER OKAY. THAT IS THAT'S
NINE OKAY. NINE ZERO. THAT BILL
IS OUT. ALL RIGHT, MOTION AND
SECOND ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. I'M SORRY. THAT WAS WOOD.
AND REYES. OKAY THANK YOU. ITEM
NUMBER TWO, SB 1006. THE MOTION
IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS AS RECOMMENDED
CONSENT. PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON.
BARRY KHN BARRY KHN I BURNER I
BURNER I CALDERON CALDERON I
CHEN FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I HART I
HART I HOLDEN HOLDEN I JOE
PATTERSON I JOE PATTERSON I
REYES REYES I SANTIAGO TING
WALLACE WOOD, WOOD I ZIPPER.
OKAY. TEN ZERO ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A
MOTION ON FILE ITEM NUMBER FOUR
FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER REYES.
SECOND FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER
BAUER-KAHAN. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. ITEM
NUMBER FOUR, SB 1118, THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
PETRIE-NORRIS I PETRIE-NORRIS I
JIM PATTERSON. BAUER-KAHAN I
BARA KHN I BURNER. WHICH FILE
NUMBER IS THIS? THIS IS NUMBER
FOUR SB 1118 BURNER I CALDERON I
CALLED LIMON I CHEN FRIEDMAN.
WHAT WE JUST HEARD THAT THIS IS
SB 1118 FROM SENATOR EGGMAN. I
FRIEDMAN I HEART, I HEART I
HOLDEN HOLDEN I JOE PATTERSON.
REYES REYES I SANTIAGO TING
WALLACE. WOOD, WOOD I ZIPPER. I
OKAY NINE ZERO. THAT BILL IS
OUT. WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON. OKAY
AND WITH THAT, MOVING ALONG TO
FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SB 1298.
SENATOR CORTEZ, WELCOME.
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. YES, I'M HERE
TODAY TO PRESENT SB 1298, A BILL
THAT INCREASES THE THRESHOLD FOR
DATA CENTER ELIGIBILITY FOR
CONSIDERATION UNDER THE SMALL
POWER PLANT EXEMPTION PROCESS
FROM 100MW TO 150MW. THIS BILL
WILL CREATE LARGER DATA CENTER
FACILITIES THAT BETTER MEET THE
DEMANDS OF CALIFORNIA
INDUSTRIES, AND I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS TODAY. CALIFORNIA LAW
CURRENTLY ALLOWS THE CALIFORNIA
ENERGY COMMISSION, THE CEC, TO
HAVE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO
LICENSE THERMAL POWER PLANTS
THAT ARE 50MW OR LARGER. THE
SMALL POWER PLANT EXEMPTION
ALLOWS CEC TO EXEMPT FROM ITS
LICENSING AUTHORITY. THERMAL
POWER PLANTS DO NOT EXCEED
100MW. CURRENTLY, THE CEC CAN
GRANT AN EXEMPTION IF IT FINDS
THAT THE PROPOSED FACILITY WOULD
NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACT THE
ENVIRONMENT OR ENERGY RESOURCES.
IF THE EXEMPTION IS APPROVED,
THE PROJECT DEVELOPERS
RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURING ALL
LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS
TO CONSTRUCT AND SAFELY OPERATE
THE PLANT. THIS BILL AT ITS CORE
IS AN ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL. DATA CENTERS AND FIBER
NETWORKS UNDERPIN DATA CENTERS,
AND THE FIBER NETWORKS THAT
UNDERPIN THEM ARE NECESSARY AND
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY'RE
THE BACKBONE FOR THE APPS,
PLATFORMS AND SERVICES INTEGRAL
TO DAILY LIFE. CONNECTING
INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
WORLDWIDE. AS MOST OF US ARE
AWARE. HOWEVER, DESPITE THE
SIGNIFICANT STRIDES MADE IN
RECENT YEARS TO EXPAND THE DATA
CENTER CAPACITY, THE DEMAND FOR
DIGITAL SERVICES CONTINUES TO
SURGE, PARTICULARLY IN SILICON
VALLEY, WHERE THE VACANCY RATE
FOR DATA CENTERS IS A MERE 1.6.
SILICON VALLEY POWER FORECASTS
THAT THE DATA CENTER LOAD WILL
DOUBLE BY 2035, AND SIGNIFICANT
RESOURCE ADDITIONS WILL BE
NEEDED TO SUPPORT THIS INCREASE.
DATA CENTERS SUPPORT BUSINESSES
OF ALL SIZE CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ESSENTIAL
SERVICES SUCH AS 911 CALL
CENTERS, GPS NAVIGATION SYSTEMS
AND OF COURSE, OUR STATE'S TECH
INDUSTRY. AND I VOTE TODAY WILL
ENSURE THAT WE'RE MAINTAINING
THE STATE'S ECONOMIC VITALITY
AND BUILDING OUT CAPACITY FOR
FUTURE GROWTH WITH US TODAY, WE
HAVE TIM MCCRAY, THE VICE
PRESIDENT OF SUSTAINABILITY AT
THE SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP
GROUP. ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE
SCOTT, WHICH REPRESENT THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, CALIFORNIA
PIPE TRADES COUNCIL, THE WESTERN
STATES COUNCIL OF SHEET METAL
WORKERS, THANK YOU, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS TIM MCCRAY. I'M WITH
THE SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP
GROUP. WE ARE THE SPONSORS OF
THIS BILL. THIS BILL ALLOWS FOR
BUILDING LARGER DATA CENTERS
WHILE NOT WAIVING OR SKIPPING
ANY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR
THEM. DATA CENTERS ARE CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSITY,
EMERGENCY SERVICES, HOSPITAL
RECORDS, ONLINE BANKING AND
CLOUD BASED SERVICES ALL RELY ON
DATA CENTERS. DESPITE THEIR HIGH
DEMAND AND CRUCIAL FUNCTION FOR
THE ECONOMY AND SAFETY. SILICON
VALLEY IS THE NATION'S TIGHTEST
DATA CENTER MARKET, WITH A
VACANCY RATE OF JUST 1.6. CITING
DATA CENTERS NEAR TECHNOLOGY
HEADQUARTERS IS IMPORTANT FOR
COMPUTING LATENCY NEEDS. WHEN
YOU HAVE TO CALL 911, YOU WANT
THAT RESPONSE TO BE INSTANT.
BUILDING BIGGER DATA CENTERS IN
SILICON VALLEY HELPS POWER THE
SILICON VALLEY ECONOMY, WHICH IS
CRUCIAL FOR THE CALIFORNIA
ECONOMY AND A HEALTHY CALIFORNIA
BUDGET. DESPITE DATA CENTERS
PIVOTAL ROLE IN THE CALIFORNIA
ECONOMY, THE PROCESS FOR
PERMITTING CENTERS ABOVE 99MW
REQUIRES ASKING CEC FOR
PERMISSION EVERY TIME A COMPANY
NEEDS A BUILDING PERMIT OR AN
OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT. SUCH AS
CHANGING OUT A SERVER. BECAUSE
THIS IS SO ONEROUS, NO ONE
BUILDS THEM OVER 99MW. OUR BILL
WOULD ALLOW THE THEM TO BE
PERMITTED, LIKE SMALLER DATA
CENTERS ARE, THROUGH THE SMALL
POWER PLANT EXEMPTION PROCESS,
WHICH NOW APPLIES TO DATA
CENTERS BETWEEN 50 AND 99MW, AND
THAT WE PROPOSE TO ALLOW FOR
DATA CENTERS UP TO THE SIZE OF
150MW. THE OBJECTION THAT THESE
DATA CENTERS MAY SOMETIMES RUN
ON DIESEL GENERATORS IS
OVERBLOWN. DATA CENTERS RUN ON
GRID POWER AND HAVE TO RELY ON
THEIR BACKUP SOURCES OF POWER.
LESS THAN 0.07% OF THE TIME.
THAT'S SIX HOURS A YEAR. ALL OF
THE REST OF THE TIME, THEY RUN
ON THE POWER THAT THE GRID
PROVIDES, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER
HOME OR BUSINESS. 59% OF
CALIFORNIA'S POWER NOW COMES
FROM CARBON FREE SOURCES, AND
THE STATE HAS GOALS OF RUNNING
ON ZERO CARBON GENERATION OF
ENERGY BY 2045, ALL OF WHICH THE
SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP
SUPPORTED. THAT WON'T CHANGE
REGARDLESS OF THE ALLOWABLE SIZE
OF CALIFORNIA DATA CENTERS, NOR
WILL ANY ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
FOR PERMITTING. THESE DATA
CENTERS HAVE TO BE RELAXED.
MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS SCOTT,
WHICH ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS AND THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF UTILITY
EMPLOYEES AND THE CALIFORNIA
STATE PIPE TRADES COUNCIL, THE
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL OF SHEET
METAL WORKERS, WE'VE BEEN
INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAM AT THE
CEC SINCE ITS INCEPTION. THE
PROGRAM WAS CREATED DURING THE
ENERGY CRISIS. FOR THOSE OF US
THAT WERE HERE AND, IT IT WORKED
QUITE WELL IN PULLING US OUT OF
THE ENERGY CRISIS BY BEING ABLE
TO BUILD PEAKERS TO, TO MEET OUR
ENERGY NEEDS, DATA CENTERS
REPRESENT, A CRITICAL PIECE OF
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT MY MEMBERS
WORK ON. AND WE'VE FORGED A
RELATIONSHIP. THAT A DECADE AGO
WOULD HAVE PERHAPS SEEMED
IMPOSSIBLE WITH FOLKS IN THE
DATA CENTER, A BUSINESS, AND
FOLKS AT THE SILICON VALLEY
LEADERSHIP GROUP AND, AND, THIS
IS A CRITICAL PIECE OF
CONTINUING THAT, THAT
RELATIONSHIP. I THINK ONE OF THE
KEY THINGS FOR THE COMMITTEE TO
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS NOT ONLY IS
THERE NO DEGRADATION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS HERE AT
ALL, BUT THE TECHNOLOGY OF
PEAKER PLANTS HAS IMPROVED LIKE
MOST OTHER TECHNOLOGIES. AND SO
THE FOOTPRINT OF WHAT, A, 99
MEGAWATT, UNIT LOOKS LIKE. AND
TODAY, 150 MEGAWATT UNIT, IS
QUITE SMALLER, IF YOU LOOKED AT
WHAT, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY
ESTABLISHED THIS PROGRAM, YOU
KNOW, TECHNOLOGY, THE PEAKERS
WERE MUCH LARGER. THEY TOOK A
MUCH BIGGER SPACE THAN THEY DO
TODAY. AND THIS IS JUST
ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO
CONTINUING TO BE ABLE TO BUILD
OUT THESE DATA CENTER
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THAT MY
MEMBERS RELY UPON. AND SO WE
WOULD URGE AND I VOTE THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR
SUPPORT TESTIMONY IN THE ROOM.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1298, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. HI
ROBIN HAYNES WITH MICROSOFT AND
SUPPORT. TIFFANY PH¢N ON BEHALF
OF ECOLAB IN SUPPORT. CHARLES
WRIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE DATA
CENTER COALITION IN SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT, OPPOSITION WITNESSES, IF
YOU'D LIKE TO COME, APPROACH THE
DAIS.
ALL RIGHT. YOU EACH HAVE TWO
MINUTES. WELCOME. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS. BRENDAN
TÔI, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION. THÀNH, REPRESENTING
THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
OFFICERS FROM ALL 35 LOCAL AIR
DISTRICTS, TO GIVE YOU A SENSE
OF JUST HOW BIG 100MW OF DIESEL
GENERATOR POWER IS, IT'S THE
EQUIVALENT OF APPROXIMATELY 45
3000 HORSEPOWER TRAIN LOCOMOTIVE
ENGINES, ALL OPERATING AT THE
SAME TIME, LIFTING THE EXEMPTION
TO 150 WOULD GET YOU TO ABOUT
67, TRAIN LOCOMOTIVE ENGINES.
MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION AROUND
THIS BILL HAS CENTERED ON THE
NUMBER OF HOURS THESE DIESEL
GENERATORS OPERATE, WITH
ESTIMATES FROM THE CDC THAT
ASSUME BEST CASE SCENARIOS, BUT
WE BELIEVE THE FOCUS SHOULD BE
ON HEALTH RISK USING SIX BEST
CASE SCENARIOS AND LOOKING ONLY
AT TESTING AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION OF DIESEL GENERATORS
FOR THESE PROJECTS. AIR DISTRICT
HEALTH RISK THRESHOLDS ARE OFTEN
EXCEEDED, THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT
MUCH OF THE RISK CAN BE AVOIDED
BY REQUIRING TECHNOLOGY TO BE
FEASIBLE. CLEANER ALTERNATIVES
LIKE NATURAL GAS, FUEL CELLS OR
BATTERY BACKUP. AND I WILL POINT
OUT, THE BILL WAS HEADED IN THAT
DIRECTION UNTIL THE SENATE
APPROPRIATION AMENDMENTS WERE
TAKEN OUT. THE OTHER THING IS,
AND SO THE RESULT IS THAT THE
NET EFFECT OF THAT CHANGES WERE
LIKELY TO CONTINUE TO SEE MOSTLY
DIESEL PROJECTS. FURTHERMORE,
THE NEW LANGUAGE IN PRINT
APPEARS TO SHIFT BEST AVAILABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
DETERMINATIONS TO THE CEC RATHER
THAN THE LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS,
WHICH IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE
FEDERAL AND CALIFORNIA CLEAN AIR
ACTS. IT'S THE LOCAL AIR
DISTRICTS THAT MAKE BAC
DETERMINATIONS AS PART OF THE
FEDERALLY MANDATED NEW SOURCE
REVIEW PROCESS. AND WHILE WE
APPRECIATE TODAY'S AMENDMENT,
THAT IT ACKNOWLEDGES THE ISSUE,
WE MAY STILL HAVE CONCERN WITH
THE BAC PROVISIONS. WE'LL BE
TAKING A CLOSE LOOK AT THE
LANGUAGE. AND LASTLY, MEMBERS,
THIS IS BEING FRAMED AS A DATA
CENTERS OR NO DATA CENTERS
CHOICE, AND THAT'S SIMPLY NOT
THE CASE, THIS IS A CHOICE
BETWEEN PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY
FOR COMMUNITY INPUT AND CLEANER
ALTERNATIVES THROUGH CÁC
CERTIFICATION PROCESS, OR SHORT
CIRCUITING THAT PROCESS TO
FACILITATE THE INSTALLATION OF
DIRTY DIESEL. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I'M WILL BARRETT WITH
THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION,
THE COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR, THE
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
AND OTHERS ARE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSING THIS LEGISLATION
BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR THE
INCREASED DEPLOYMENT OF DIESEL
POWER PLANTS UNDER THE PROPOSED
EXPANDED PERMITTING EXEMPTIONS.
THIS IS A CLEAR CONCERN FROM A
PUBLIC HEALTH PERSPECTIVE.
DIESEL ENGINES PRODUCE
SIGNIFICANT SMOG FORMING
EMISSIONS, FINE PARTICLES AND
TOXIC DIESEL EXHAUST CONTAINING
DOZENS AND DOZENS OF
CARCINOGENS. BREATHING THESE
EMISSIONS CAN CAUSE ASTHMA
ATTACKS, HEART ATTACKS, AND
STROKE, LUNG CANCER AND
PREMATURE DEATH. THERE'S NOT A
QUESTION HERE ABOUT THE NEED FOR
BACKUP POWER, BUT THERE IS
CERTAINLY AN OPEN QUESTION ABOUT
WHY THE STATE WOULD EXEMPT EVER
LARGER DIESEL POWER PLANTS FROM
PUBLIC DISCUSSION, FROM
COMMUNITY MEMBER INPUT, OR A
THOROUGH VETTING PROCESS FOR
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES.
ULTIMATELY, THERE'S NO SAFE
LEVEL OF EXPOSURE TO DIESEL
EXHAUST, SO WE'RE VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT THE EXISTING EXEMPTION
PROCESS AT 100MW AND BELIEVE
THAT THIS EXPANSION, AS THE AIR
DISTRICT'S NOTED TO 150MW, WILL
LOCK IN ADDITIONAL DIESEL
EXPOSURES THROUGH TESTING AND
MAINTENANCE. BUT ALSO THROUGH
THE USE OF THESE PIECES OF
EQUIPMENT DURING POWER SAFETY,
PUBLIC, PUBLIC SAFETY, POWER
SHUT OFFS OR OTHER OUTAGES
OUTAGES THAT REALLY RISK
INVITING INCREASED EXPOSURE TO
TOXIC AIR THROUGH DIESEL
EXPOSURES. SO WITH THAT, WE
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR NO VOTE.
THANK YOU, OPPOSITION WITNESSES
IN THE ROOM, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. MADAM CHAIR,
MEMBERS, JOHN WHITE WITH THE
CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN. IT'S
IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL AT THIS
POINT, WE'RE JUST DOING. OKAY.
NAME, AFFILIATION AND POSITION
FOR A NO VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. CHAIR. MEMBERS ROSS
BUCKLEY, ON BEHALF OF SOUTH
COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, WERE OPPOSED TO THE
BILL IN PRINT, BUT LOOK FORWARD
TO LOOKING AT THE AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU. MICHELLE CARNALIS,
THE UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. ALAN ABBS WITH THE
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT OPPOSING US, AMENDED TO
REMOVE THE EXEMPTION FOR DIESEL
POWER PROJECTS. THANK YOU.
RICHARD MARCUSSEN FOR THE
WESTERN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION. HI.
JUSTIN BOWERS, CLEAN AIR FOR
KIDS.ORG. WE OPPOSE. IN
ADDITION, THE NCC WE'RE JUST
DOING OH I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD
CARRY ON. IN ADDITION NCCA NORTH
COUNTY EQUITY AND JUSTICE ECO
SUSTAINABILITY AND ACTIVIST SAN
DIEGO OPPOSE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU APPRECIATE IT OKAY. BRINGING
IT BACK TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN AND THEN
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES, I THINK I
MAY HAVE HEARD PARTIAL ANSWER TO
MY QUESTION THAT I CAME HERE
TODAY WITH WHICH WAS SOME DROP
OF SOME APPROPRIATIONS CHANGE.
SO THAT MAY BE THE ANSWER. BUT,
I, I MEAN, I THINK THE ANALYSIS
DOES A REALLY GOOD JOB OF LAYING
OUT THAT WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY
WITH DATA CENTERS PALES IN
COMPARISON TO WHAT THE FUTURE
LOOKS LIKE, GIVEN WHERE AI IS IN
ITS ENERGY CONSUMPTION. AND
THAT'S THE REALITY. SO I
ACTUALLY THINK THAT'S PART OF
WHY I THINK YOU'RE DOING THIS,
BILL, IS WE WILL NEED MORE DATA
CENTERS. AND SO IT'S HARD TO
LOOK AT THE DATA OF WHAT THOSE
CENTERS ARE DOING TODAY AND
UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANS IN
THE FUTURE, WHICH IS WHY I
ACTUALLY REALLY APPRECIATE THE
SUNSET, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE
HAVE A FULL GRASP OF WHERE THE
WORLD IS GOING AS IT RELATES TO
DATA CENTERS, WE DO KNOW THAT
DIESEL GENERATORS ARE NOT THE
ONLY OPTION THESE DAYS, WHICH I
THINK WAS THE COMMENTS THAT WERE
MADE SOLAR WITH BATTERIES ARE AN
INCREDIBLY CLEAN SOURCE OF
BACKUP THAT I THINK SOME
COMPANIES ARE CHOOSING TO USE
BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKING ON THEIR
OWN PROMISE TO BE CLEAN
STEWARDS. BUT I GUESS I'M JUST A
LITTLE BIT CONFUSED WHY WE'RE
DOING THIS FOR THE DIRTY
GENERATORS. I MEAN, IF YOU
WANTED TO DO A BILL THAT
STREAMLINED AND HELP PEOPLE PUT
SOLAR AND BATTERY BACKUP UP,
YOU'D HAVE ME THERE. BUT THAT'S
NOT WHAT THIS BILL DOES. SO I'M
JUST I'M STRUGGLING. BUT MAYBE I
CAUGHT SOMETHING THAT WAS
DROPPED. THAT EXPLAINS MY
PROBLEM. YEAH, THANK. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, MEMBERS. SO, FIRST OF
ALL, FOR THIS PARTICULAR USE, WE
BELIEVE DESPITE ALL OF OUR
EFFORTS AND I INCLUDE MYSELF IN
THAT TO, TO PHASE OUT DIESEL AS
QUICKLY AS WE POSSIBLY CAN IN
CALIFORNIA FOR A VARIETY OF
USES, INCLUDING LONG HAUL
TRUCKING AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS
THAT FOR THE CONTINUED USE
OPERATION OF A DATA CENTER,
ESPECIALLY IN IN THE EVENT OF A
CATASTROPHE THAT'S LASTING
BEYOND AND, WHAT BATTERY STORAGE
POWER COULD, COULD KEEP UP WITH,
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE
DIESEL GENERATORS THERE. WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STATE OF THE
ART IS, GOING TO BE, FIVE YEARS
FROM NOW. THE SUN SAID THIS
BILL, AS YOU INDICATED, OR THREE
AND A HALF YEARS FROM NOW, ARE
WHAT DEVELOPERS WILL CHOOSE AND
WHAT, THE CEC WILL, YOU KNOW,
WILL REQUIRE IN TERMS OF
MITIGATION GOING FORWARD. BUT WE
KNOW RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT A 1.6%
VACANCY. WE'VE GOT DATA CENTERS
THAT ARE CONCENTRATED IN
PARTICULAR AREAS BECAUSE THEY
FIRST WENT WHERE THEY COULD GET
CHEAP ELECTRICAL POWER IN PLACES
LIKE SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
WHICH HAS ITS OWN POWER COMPANY.
AND NOW WE'RE SEEING THEM EXPAND
TO PLACES, ELSEWHERE IN
CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING HERE, OR
WANTING TO, AND WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO IS CREATE PERHAPS
WHAT MAY BE VIEWED BETTER BY
THE, BY THE COMMITTEE AS A LAST
WINDOW FOR GETTING THIS, THIS
SMALL POWER PLANT EXEMPTION, YOU
KNOW, EXTENDED IN A WAY THAT'S
GOING TO, THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW
FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE RAPID
GROWTH TO KEEP UP WITH WITH THE
PACE THAT YOU WERE JUST
REFERRING TO. LET ME ASK IF IT'S
ALL RIGHT WITH THE CHAIR FOR MR.
MCRAE TO RESPOND TO HOW WE
HANDLE ALL THE AMENDMENTS. I
DON'T WANT THAT TO BE A MATTER
OF CONFUSION. YES, PLEASE. AND
IF I COULD JUST ASK AS WE TURN
IT OVER, THE CONTENTION IS THAT
SOLAR WITH BATTERY BACKUP IS NOT
SUFFICIENT. I GUESS THAT'S WHAT
I HEARD YOU SAY. THAT'S A
SURPRISING CONTENTION. YEAH, LET
ME KNOW IF SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS
TO ADDRESS THAT. BUT I WANTED TO
JUST TOUCH ON THAT. I WOULD JUST
POINT OUT THAT IN 2018, IN THE
SADDLEBACK FIRE IN LOS ANGELES,
LARGE PARTS OF LOS ANGELES WERE
WITHOUT POWER FOR MORE THAN
SEVEN DAYS, SO YOU COULD HAVE
MANY INSTANCES, EARTHQUAKES IN
THE BAY AREA, WILDFIRES AND
OTHERS THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW,
RENDER, SOLAR WITH BATTERY,
PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, NOT ADEQUATE
ENOUGH. I THINK THE SHORT ANSWER
IS WE DON'T KNOW OF ANY BATTERY
STORAGE. THAT WOULD LAST, 6 OR 7
DAYS. AND THE EXAMPLE THAT MR.
WELSH WAS JUST GIVING, TO, TO
SUPPLY 150 MEGAWATT OR EVEN 100
MEGAWATT, A SMALL POWER PLANT.
AND IF THE POWER PLANT GOES
DOWN, THEN YOU HAVE A WHOLE
SERIES OF OTHER PROBLEMS. I WILL
SAY, AS SOMEONE WHO HAS A DATA
CENTER, I'M SORRY. SORRY, YEAH.
AS SOMEONE WHO HAS SOLAR AND
STORAGE AND HAS BEEN IN A PSPS
FOR ALMOST A WEEK, YOUR
BATTERIES FILL BACK UP. THAT'S
THE BEAUTY OF SOLAR AND STORAGE.
THEY ACTUALLY NATURE TAKES CARE
OF THAT PROBLEM. SO, BUT YOU
CAN'T. IF I MAY, YOU CAN'T HAVE
IN THIS IN THIS PARTICULAR, IN
THIS PARTICULAR INDUSTRY AND THE
WAY THIS IS SET UP, THE DATA
CENTER CAN'T JUST GO DOWN AND
THEN COME BACK UP AGAIN. IF YOU
WERE A HOSPITAL, FOR EXAMPLE,
YOU COULD AT LEAST FOCUS THE
POWER THAT YOU DO HAVE AS, AS A
AS YOUR POWER SUPPLY IS
UNDULATING, IN EMERGENCY ROOMS
OR, OR IN ROBOTIC SURGERY THAT'S
REQUIRES, I TO HELP DRIVE IT.
THE DATA CENTERS HAS TO STAY UP
TO, TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE
SUPPORT FOR ALL OF THOSE OTHER
Ó. RIGHT. I'M NOT DISPUTING.
I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY IT CAN'T
IT CAN'T UNDULATE. I CAN'T THINK
OF A BETTER WORD FOR THAT. AND
CLEARLY, WHILE SOLAR IS CHARGING
BACK UP, EMPTYING BACK OUT BASED
ON BATTERY CAPACITY, NOW. SO,
THERE'S AT WHAT POINT DOES THAT
THAT BECOME A PROBLEM IS THE
ISSUE. AND I THINK UNTIL THAT'S
RESOLVED, MAYBE FAIRLY QUICKLY,
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS
THAT'S GOING TO TAKE OR WHEN
THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN FOR US TO
, HAVE BACKUP POWER. NOW, IT'S
DIESEL. AND SO I, I TAKE ISSUE.
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT'S, I
ACTUALLY THINK YOU DON'T NEED A
BATTERY TO EMPTY ENTIRELY FOR IT
TO FILL BACK UP. THAT'S. NO, NO
WEIRD WAY OF FRAMING IT, BUT I
WILL SAY I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
I THINK OUR STAFF DID AN
INCREDIBLE ANALYSIS HERE. AND
ACTUALLY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
THE ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTED WAS
THAT SOME COMPANIES ARE ON THEIR
OWN CHOOSING TO SEGREGATE DATA
CENTERS. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE
THAT'S AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WAS MADE THAT I
APPRECIATE YOU TAKING, WHICH DID
SAY THAT THAT DEMAND RESPONSE
NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED FIRST. SO
YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S A LOT
GOING ON HERE THAT COULD COULD
BE USED BEFORE DIESEL, SOME OF
WHICH NOW IS REQUIRED BY THE
BILL, AS AMENDED, AND SO, YOU
KNOW, I, I GUESS I JUST, I WOULD
LIKE US TO BE PUSHING CALIFORNIA
IN A CLEANER DIRECTION IN THIS
BILL DOESN'T SEEM TO BE TAKING
US THERE, BUT I KNOW OTHERS
WANTED TO WEIGH IN. SO MY ANSWER
ON THAT IS THAT IT'S A QUESTION
OF RELIABILITY, AND IT'S A
QUESTION OF SCALE. YOU CAN'T
RELY ON BACKING UP 150 OR
SEVERAL 150 MEGAWATT, SMALL
POWER PLANT, EXEMPTED FACILITY
CITIES BY CLAIMING THAT THEY'RE
ALL GOING TO BE DOING SOLAR AND
BATTERY BACKUP, THAT WE DON'T
HAVE THE SCALE TO DO THAT. RIGHT
NOW. THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO
MAKE A POINT IN CONTENTION. THIS
GENTLEMAN'S POINT WAS, HE SAID
THAT THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT OR THE AIR
STRIKES WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MAKE
THE DETERMINATION FOR WHAT IS
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY AND THE AMENDMENT
THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN IS THAT THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED PROVIDING
CLARIFYING LANGUAGE THAT
PROVIDES THE DETERMINATION OF
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY BY THE AIR DISTRICT'S
, REQUIRING THE AIR DISTRICTS TO
REPORT THEIR DETERMINATION TO
THE CC TO REVIEW THE SP
APPLICATION. SO WE ADDED FOR
THIS COMMITTEE BEST AVAILABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AS THE
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD THAT
THESE CAN NOW HAVE TO MEET. AND
THE AIR DISTRICT WOULD BE THE
ONE WHO HAVE TO DETERMINE THAT.
DO YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN? YEAH, I
WOULD SAY, BUT MADAM CHAIR, THE
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY THAT'S PART OF NEW
SOURCE REVIEW. THAT'S A VERY
TECHNICAL AREA OF THE LAW.
THERE'S A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH
WITH THE WITH THE PROJECT,
PROPONENTS AND, IT, IT, IT COULD
BE A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE IT'S A
CART BEFORE THE HORSE ISSUE
WHERE NOW WE'RE MAKING THIS
DETERMINATION AS PART OF THE SP
PROCESS, AND SO THERE THERE
COULD BE PROBLEMS WITH THAT. SO,
THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO SAY
IS IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, AND WE
NEED TO SEE THE LANGUAGE TO SEE
HOW IT'S ACTUALLY CRAFTED, AND
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, THOUGH,
THAT, THAT THERE IS AT LEAST ONE
PROJECT THAT USING NATURAL GAS
RIGHT NOW. SO, SO THE LANGUAGE
THAT WAS TAKEN OUT THAT WAS PUT
IN BY SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE SAID THE CLEANEST
TECHNOLOGY FEASIBLE. SO IF IT'S
NOT FEASIBLE, THEN IT WOULDN'T
HAVE TO BE A PART OF IT. AND
ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT THAT
WOULD JUST BE A REQUIREMENT TO
GET THE EXEMPTION. SO IF YOU
DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, THEN
YEAH, YOU CAN STILL DO IT. JUST
GO THROUGH THE FULL PROCESS IF I
MAY. THERE'S ONE THERE'S A
REASON THERE'S CALL. YEAH.
SORRY. YES GO AHEAD. THANKS, THE
REASON THAT THE ONE TECHNOLOGY
VÆ, THE ONE DATA CENTER, WHICH
IS GOING TO USE NATURAL DISC
TECHNOLOGY, IS DOING SO IS
BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO LINES THEY
NEED TO HAVE REDUNDANT LINES.
THERE ARE TWO LINES FOR NATURAL
GAS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
SITE NEAR. AND THEY CAN DO
RELIABILITY USING THAT NATURAL
GAS MICROGRID THAT WITH THOSE
TWO LINES. AND IF YOU WERE TO
REQUIRE THAT ALL OF THESE DATA
CENTERS HAVE TO BE BACK UP WITH
WITH SOMETHING THAT IS NOT
DIESEL, THEN THAT WOULD REQUIRE
THE BUILDOUT OF NATURAL GAS
INFRASTRUCTURE TO ALL OF THESE
SITES, WHICH CALIFORNIA IS NEVER
GOING TO DO. AND THAT IS
INFEASIBLE IN TERMS OF SCALING
DATA CENTERS. AND THAT GETS BACK
TO THE NEED. THE DATA CENTERS
ARE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 901
CALL CENTERS. WE NEED TO HAVE
MORE OF THESE THINGS IN SILICON
VALLEY. AND I WILL SAY THAT I
THINK THE POINT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT THE REASON I SAY
INCENTIVIZING IS NOTHING STOPS
THAT RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? I MEAN,
WHAT THIS BILL DO IS I FEEL LIKE
IT'S INCENTIVIZING A CERTAIN
TECHNOLOGY AND ONE THAT I THINK
IS MOVING US IN THE WRONG
DIRECTION. BUT THERE'S NOTHING
TO SAY. YOU COULDN'T DO. I MEAN,
AGAIN, YOU'D HAVE TO GET YOUR
APPROVALS, BUT THIS BILL DOESN'T
CHANGE THAT OTHER THAN FOR THIS
ONE PIECE. BUT I APPRECIATE
THAT. MAYBE I LIKED THE PRIOR
VERSION BETTER, AND I'LL TURN IT
BACK OVER TO THE CHAIR.
ASSEMBLY. ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES,
THANK YOU. AS I WAS LOOKING AT
THE SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION, THE
ONE PHRASE THAT JUST STUCK OUT
WAS FROM THE CALIFORNIA AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION. AND YOU, YOU SHARED
IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. BUT YOUR
LETTER SAID JUST 100MW OF BACKUP
POWER IS EQUIVALENT TO
APPROXIMATELY 670 AUTOMOBILES
OPERATING AT FULL THROTTLE AT
ONCE. I DO HAVE GREAT CONCERNS
PROVIDING AN EXEMPTION FOR
BACKUP POWER GENERATORS THAT ARE
INCREDIBLY DIRTY. I THINK MY
COLLEAGUE HAS TALKED ABOUT THAT.
I KNOW THEY'RE MEANT TO BE
BACKUP AND THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED
TO BE USED REGULARLY, BUT WE'RE
LIKELY TO HAVE MORE EXTREME
HEAT, MORE EXTREME HEAT DAYS IN
THE FUTURE. AND WE KNOW WE'RE
GOING TO BE HAVING TO USE MORE
OF THESE ENERGY INTENSIVE
INDUSTRIES, DRAW FROM THIS
BACKUP POWER TO AVOID THE
BLACKOUTS OR THE STOPPAGES. THE
AIR QUALITY ISSUES CLEARLY,
CAUSE GIVE ME PAUSE IN MOVING
FORWARD WITH THIS AND THE
ANALYSIS. I AGREE, IT'S GREAT.
ANALYSIS NOTES THAT DATA CENTERS
HAVE PROLIFERATED WITHIN SMALL,
DENSELY URBAN GEOGRAPHIC AREAS,
PRIMARILY IN SILICON VALLEY. AS
A RESULT, THIS BILL MAY
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT
CERTAIN COMMUNITIES NEAR LARGE
POPULATION CENTERS, INCREASING
LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONCERNS. I
APPRECIATE THE AMERICAN LUNG
ASSOCIATION BEING HERE AND
PROVIDING TESTIMONY TO SO HAVING
THESE LARGE SOURCES OF POLLUTION
NEAR COMMUNITIES HAS ALWAYS BEEN
OF GREAT CONCERN FOR ME FOR
DIFFERENT REASONS. BUT VERY
CLEARLY IN MY AREA, ONE QUESTION
THAT I HAVE FOR YOU IS, ARE
THERE ANY OTHER CURRENTLY ANY
BUFFER ZONES FOR DATA CENTERS
THAT HAVE THIS DIRTY DIESEL
GENERATOR? USE, WHEN THEY ARE
NEAR POPULATION CENTERS? AND IF
THERE IS NOT, IT'S CLEARLY A
MAJOR DEFICIENCY THAT I THINK
SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, BUT NOT NOT
THAT I AM AWARE OF. AT THIS
POINT, AS I INDICATED IN MY
FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE, BEING
REPRESENTING SILICON VALLEY IS
THAT IN AREAS WHERE WE HAD LOWER
PRICED ENERGY, THE DATA CENTERS
WENT THERE FIRST. CITY OF SANTA
CLARA, FOR EXAMPLE, IS BUILT OUT
NOW. THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT
THAT. YOU TALK TO ANYBODY ON THE
DEVELOPER SIDE OF THE INDUSTRY,
AND THEY'LL TELL YOU THAT THEY
THEY NEED TO START MOVING OUT.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THAT
KIND OF CONCENTRATION THAT YOU
GOT IN SANTA CLARA AND A LOT OF
PLACES, BECAUSE YOU'VE BECOME
BECAUSE THE POWER SOURCE OF
CHOICE IS ELECTRICITY. AND TO
HAVE THAT MUCH LIKE THE
DISCUSSION THAT WE JUST HAD
ABOUT NATURAL GAS, YOU'VE GOT TO
LOCATE THAT, THAT POWER, THAT
DATA CENTER IN A PLACE WHERE
YOU'VE YOU'VE GOT GRID ACCESS
AND YOU'VE GOT NOT JUST GRID
ACCESS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'RE
DOING ONE HERE. YOU'D HAVE TO
ARRANGE OR EITHER PRE LOCATE IN
A LOCATION WHERE SMUD WAS
ALREADY PROVIDING THAT POWER OR,
OR PAY FOR SMUD TO TRY TO BRING
IT IN. SO THE ECONOMIES OF SCALE
AROUND BRINGING POWER IN ARE
GOING TO, TO SPREAD OUT,
NECESSARILY ARE GOING TO SPREAD
OUT THE DATA CENTERS. NOW,
REMEMBER, PLEASE, I'M JUST
ASKING. WE HAVE DATA. WE HAVE
DATA FROM THE VERY FOLKS, YOU
KNOW, WHO HAVE, BEEN WEIGHING IN
ON THE BILL, ON THE OPPOSITION
SIDE THAT ON AVERAGE, OVER TIME,
THE LOOK BACK IS .07 PERCENT OF
THE TIME, THE DIESEL GENERATORS
COME ON. WE HAVE COMMITTED I
HAVE COMMITTED. I DID IT WHEN I
WAS CHAIR OF THE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND
SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE AIR
DISTRICT, WITH THE AIR DISTRICT,
WE COMMITTED TO, TO BEING DIESEL
FREE BY 33. I THINK IF WE COULD
HAVE BEEN DIESEL THREE BY 24, WE
WOULD HAVE MADE THAT COMMITMENT
AT THE TIME, WE HAVEN'T BEEN
ABLE TO DO THAT. AND I JUST
THINK THIS IS A LOT ABOUT, THE
ADVANCEMENTS THAT WE'RE MAKING,
NOT ALWAYS ALIGNING UP PERFECTLY
WELL, WITH, WITH WHAT'S GOING ON
ON THE GROUND, AS YOU WELL KNOW,
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT IN OTHER
CONTEXTS. WE'RE SEEING THAT
PROBLEM WITH WITH LONG HAUL
FREIGHT. I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE
THE SUBJECT. I'M GOING TO STICK
TO THE TOPIC HERE, IN IN A
PERFECT WORLD, I THINK
LEGISLATIVELY THOSE CONVERSIONS
TO EV WOULD WOULD HAVE HAPPENED
ALREADY OR WE WOULD KNOW THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO HAPPEN. WE'RE
NOW FACING THAT THE SAME KIND OF
PROBLEM THAT I'M TRYING TO
DESCRIBE HERE IS THAT TODAY WE
DON'T WANT TO STOP THE STREAM OF
COMMERCE WITH DATA CENTERS, JUST
LIKE WE DON'T WANT TO STOP THE
CHAIN OF COMMERCE. THE STREAM OF
COMMERCE WITH LONG HAUL
TRUCKING, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD
COLLAPSE THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE CALLING IT A
CRITICAL NEED. I DON'T THINK
OPPOSITION HAS ADDRESSED THAT OR
OR, YOU KNOW, RESPONDED TO OUR,
ALL THE WAY THROUGH THIS PROCESS
TO OUR ASSERTION THAT IF WE
DON'T DO THIS, WE FUNDAMENTALLY
RISK COLLAPSING THE CALIFORNIA
ECONOMY, THE ECONOMY IS
FUNDAMENTALLY TIED TO DATA
CENTER CAPACITY. NOW, WHETHER WE
LIKE IT OR NOT, DIESEL IS AN
UNFORTUNATE BACKUP GENERATION
FUEL. I'LL STIPULATE TO THAT. I
THINK WE PROBABLY ALL WOULD.
IT'S WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND
IT'S SORT OF BECOME IT'S NOT A
RED HERRING, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY
BECOME, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE
DISCUSSED ABOUT ON A BILL THAT'S
REALLY AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BILL AT THIS POINT. I DON'T KNOW
WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE IS. AND I
DIDN'T MEAN TO I DIDN'T MEAN
EARLIER TO, YOU KNOW, DISREGARD
THE POTENTIAL FOR SOLAR, BUT AS
WE'RE TRYING TO SAY, AT WHAT
POINT BATTERY CAPACITY GOES
DOWN, SOLAR DOESN'T TAKE THAT
BATTERY CAPACITY UP
INSTANTANEOUSLY. YOU'RE GOING TO
HAVE PERIODS OF UNDULATION,
WHICH THEN CREATES A PROBLEM IN
TERMS OF YOUR DATA CENTER HAVING
TO SHUT DOWN, AT LEAST
TEMPORARILY. AND THAT MEANS
EVERYTHING DOWN THE STREAM OF
COMMERCE SHUTS DOWN WITH IT, ALL
THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT THAT ARE DEPENDENT
ON THE DATA CENTERS. SO I WOULD
LOVE IT. IT WOULD MAKE THE BILL
A LOT EASIER IF WE COULD JUST
COME FORWARD AND SAY, WE ALREADY
HAVE THE ALTERNATIVE BACKUP
GENERATION, ENERGY. AND THAT
MAKES THINGS A LOT BETTER, BUT
WE DON'T. AND OF COURSE, GRID
CAPACITY IS GOING TO BE THE
OTHER BIG ISSUE THAT WE'RE
FACING HERE. I'LL STIPULATE TO
THAT AS WELL. WE DIDN'T EXTEND
DIABLO CANYON, FOR NO REASON. IT
WAS DONE BECAUSE, THE, THE
NEEDS, THE CAPACITY NEEDS OF THE
STATE ARE OUTSTRIPPED OUR
PRESENT ABILITY TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IN,
YOU KNOW, BY OTHER MEANS. SO
WE'RE TRYING TO GET THERE,
THOUGH. WE'RE ALL TRYING TO GET
THERE. THIS IS JUST SORT OF SORT
OF AN IN-BETWEEN ISSUE, RIGHT
NOW. AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE
ANYBODY IS EITHER ABUSING,
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OR TRYING TO
ADVANCE DIESEL POWER. THIS IS
THESE PLANTS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY
ELECTRICALLY POWERED. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU AND THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. OH. SORRY. GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU I DID THE
OPPOSITION WANT TO RESPOND TO
OH, I WAS ONLY, RESPECTFULLY, I
NEEDED TO CORRECT THE RECORD
THAT THAT 0.07 NUMBER THAT'S
BEING ATTRIBUTED TO THE LOCAL
AIR DISTRICT, THAT'S ACTUALLY
NOT THE LOCAL AIR DISTRICT'S
NUMBER. THAT'S A, WAS INCLUDED
IN AN ENERGY COMMISSION RESPONSE
TO THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S COMMENT
LETTER, AND SO THAT'S A CEC
CALCULATION. I JUST WANTED TO
MENTION THAT THOSE AREN'T OUR
NUMBERS. AND ALSO IN THAT
RESPONSE, THEY FAILED TO ADDRESS
CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED BY THE
BAY AREA AIR DISTRICT, RELATED
TO HEALTH RISK AND ALSO CLEANER
TECHNOLOGY. SO I JUST WANTED TO
POINT THAT OUT. THANK YOU. THE
ALTERNATIVE SOURCES ALSO THAT
WERE TALKED ABOUT, I THINK
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO
BE TO BE LOOKED AT AND, AND
RESPONDED TO AT SOME POINT, AND
I NOTED ALSO THAT ON THE
ALTHOUGH THE EXEMPTIONS HAVE
BEEN AVAILABLE SINCE 1987 FOR
THE 100 MEGAWATT, IT'S ONLY BEEN
USED 36 TIMES. IS THAT CORRECT?
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT, EXACT
NUMBER IS THE CASE, BUT LIKE, I
SAID, UP TILL NOW, THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DATA CENTERS
HAS BEEN, REALLY DRIVEN BY CHEAP
ELECTRICITY IN CERTAIN AREAS OF
THE STATE, PARTICULARLY IN, IN
AND AROUND MY DISTRICT. AND
THAT'S THAT CAPACITY IS USED UP
FROM A LAND USE STANDPOINT. IT'S
NOT THAT SANTA CLARA CAN'T
GENERATE ANY MORE POWER. THERE'S
NO MORE SITES, IT'S A DENSE
CITY, YOU KNOW, BY SUBURBAN
STANDARDS. ONE LAST QUESTION,
MADAM CHAIR. THE ANALYSIS NOTES
THAT ALL AUTHORITY TO GRANT LAND
USE ENTITLEMENTS, ISSUANCE OF
BUILDING PERMITS AND COMPLIANCE,
MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT FOR
THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT CHANGES
HANDS TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
AFTER IT GOES THROUGH THE CEC.
QUOTING FROM THE ANALYSIS, IT
SAYS. THEREFORE, THE
CONSTRUCTION LABOR PROVISION
WITHIN THIS BILL IS UNLIKELY IS
LIKELY UNENFORCEABLE BY THE CEC.
SO I KNOW YOU'RE A LABOR
CHAMPION, SO I WANT TO KNOW HOW
YOU INTEND TO ADDRESS THIS
POTENTIAL LOOPHOLE, FOR LACK OF
ANOTHER WORD. WE DON'T BELIEVE
THAT THAT'S THE CASE. BUT LET ME
ASK MR. WELCH TO RESPOND, IF
THAT'S ALL RIGHT, SINCE HE'S A
WITNESS HERE THAT'S, EXPERT ON
LABOR ISSUES. WELL THANK YOU FOR
LOOKING AFTER THAT ISSUE, SO WE
HAVE COUNSEL LOOKING AT IT, AND
WE'RE TALKING TO ALLEGED COUNSEL
. AND WE DO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT COULD BE, WITHIN
AMENDMENT TO THE BILL, COULD
COULD BE MADE TO, TO TRANSFER TO
THE LOCAL, THE LOCAL AGENCY AT
THAT POINT. SO WE'RE WORKING ON
THAT. WE DON'T SEE IT AS AN
INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEM. OKAY.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
ALL RIGHT. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BERNER. THANK YOU. I SPENT LIKE,
AN HOUR TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY
WE'RE DOING THIS. BILL NORMALLY
IN MY COMMITTEE, CNC, WE TALK
ABOUT BACKUP POWER GENERATION,
AND IT'S USUALLY RELATED TO CELL
SERVICES OR IN HEALTH. WE USED
TO TALK ABOUT IT RELATED TO
HOSPITALS, BUT NOW WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT DATA CENTERS. I UNDERSTAND
THEY USE A LOT OF ENERGY, BUT I
DO SHARE THE CONCERN FROM MY
COLLEAGUE FROM INLAND EMPIRE,
HAVING GROWN UP THERE, THAT HOW
ARE WE GOING TO GUARANTEE THAT
WE'RE NOT GOING TO
OVERPOPULATION OF THESE
EXEMPTED, DIESEL POWERED
GENERATORS, AND WE'RE NOT GOING
TO FURTHER DESTROY THE AIR
QUALITY. SO WHERE CAN WE EXPECT
THESE IN THE STATE? AND WHAT
PROVISIONS DO YOU HAVE TO ENSURE
THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO OVER
POLLUTE OUR ALREADY VULNERABLE
NEIGHBORHOODS, WHO ARE ALREADY
OVER POLLUTED? WELL, YOU'RE
GOING TO FIND THEM IN THE STATE.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, AS I WAS
SAYING, WHERE YOU HAVE 150MW OF
ELECTRICAL POWER AVAILABLE TO
THE SITE, AND THAT LIMITS
DRAMATICALLY, FROM A LAND USE
STANDPOINT, I'M JUST TALKING
ABOUT FROM A SITE LOCATION
STANDPOINT, WHICH APPLICATIONS
ARE GOING TO COME IN AND WHERE
THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. SO THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AREN'T IN A POSITION
TO, FOR EXAMPLE, SAY WE'RE GOING
TO ZONE IN GENERAL, PLAN
AGGRESSIVELY, YOU KNOW, IN A
PARTICULAR AREA OF THEIR CITY.
YOU KNOW, ABSENT A CITY LIKE
SANTA CLARA THAT HAS ITS OWN
POWER, ITS OWN, ITS OWN POWER
FACILITIES, THERE THOSE
APPLICATIONS ARE GOING TO COME
IN THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THEY'RE
GOING TO COME IN WHERE
DEVELOPERS SAY, LOOK, WE'VE GOT
THAT ELECTRICAL CAPACITY HERE.
IT'S ONE OF THE RARE SITES OR
FEW SITES WHERE WE HAVE THAT,
AND THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO BE,
THAT'S THAT'S FIRST AND FOREMOST
WHAT'S GOING TO DRIVE IT THERE
ARE THE AIR DISTRICTS HAVE,
METRICS TO, TO PREVENT, YOU
KNOW, THE OVER USAGE OF DATA
CENTERS, AND AGAIN, AS WAS
STATED EARLIER, THESE PROJECTS
HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ON
THE FRONT END. SO I DON'T KNOW
WHAT MORE WE COULD DO. ABSENT
HAVING SOME ADDITIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS TO,
TO, YOU KNOW, TO BE CONCERNED
ABOUT OR TO APPLY GOVERNMENT
REGULATION ON, YOU KNOW, ON
THESE ON THESE SITUATIONS. SO,
SO YOU MUST HAVE SOME IDEA WHERE
ALL THOSE PARAMETERS ARE SET IN
THE STATE. SO WHERE ARE THE
PARAMETERS IN THE STATE. IS IT
ONLY IN SANTA CLARA? AND IF SO,
WHY DON'T YOU JUST LIMIT TO THIS
TO ONE COUNTY. SO THE CEC
APPROVES THE EXEMPTION IN THIS
CASE BASED ON HOW THIS THIS BILL
IS, IS SET UP, ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW HAS TO OCCUR. THEN THE
LAND USE PROCESS, WHETHER THAT
STARTED CONCURRENTLY OR NOT, THE
LAND USE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS,
LIKE WE WOULD SEE FOR HOUSING OR
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OR ANYTHING
ELSE, HAS TO TAKE PLACE THAT'S
NOT DONE BY THE CEC. WELL,
YOU'RE ASKING ME, YOU'RE ASKING.
I'M SAYING WHERE IN THE STATE
ARE YOU GOING TO DO IT? AND WHAT
ARE THE SAFEGUARDS TO MAKE SURE
THAT YOU DON'T HAVE AN
OVERCONCENTRATION OF THESE LARGE
DIESEL POWER BACKUP GENERATORS
THAT ARE GOING TO FURTHER
DISADVANTAGE PEOPLE IN THE
INLAND EMPIRE OR PEOPLE IN THE
CENTRAL VALLEY? WELL, IT'S A
COMBINATION OF LOCAL LAND USE
DECISIONS AND CEQA. OKAY. SO
THAT'S NOT A SUFFICIENT ANSWER
FOR ME BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE BEING
ASKED TO DO SOMETHING WHERE THIS
COULD BE DONE. RIGHT NOW, ALL
THE DATA CENTERS CAN GO IN RIGHT
NOW. THEY WENT THROUGH THE
NORMAL CEC PROCESS. THEY COULD
GET THIS. THEY COULD GET THE
150. YOU'RE ASKING US TO DO
SOMETHING THAT STREAMLINES THESE
AT A LARGER SIZE, RIGHT. AND IF
YOU GREW UP IN THE INLAND
EMPIRE, WHEN I GREW UP IN THE
INLAND EMPIRE, AND YOU HAD
FRIENDS DIE OF ASTHMA ATTACKS
BECAUSE OF OUR AIR QUALITY, I
THINK YOU WOULD BE CONCERNED
ABOUT FURTHER, VERY, VERY CLOSE
FRIEND THAT DIED OF AN ASTHMA
ATTACK, I I'LL STIPULATE TO
THAT. AND I, I DON'T WANT IT TO
BE SET ON THE RECORD THAT I'M
INSENSITIVE TO THAT. I'M JUST
SAYING ONE OF MY CLOSEST FRIENDS
GROWING UP IN MY LIFE DIED OF AN
ASTHMA ATTACK. SO DID MINE AT
MOSS LANDING ON A BOAT WHICH IS
CONSIDERED A FAIRLY CLEAN AIR
LOCATION IN CALIFORNIA. SO I
DON'T WANT TO, IF YOU DON'T
MIND, ASSEMBLYMEMBER, GET INTO
EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT,
FATALITIES THAT OCCURRED OR
WHO'S CLOSER TO THE PEOPLE WHO
SUFFERED THOSE THINGS. I
UNDERSTAND THAT CERTAIN PARTS OF
THE STATE HAVE, HAVE WORSE AIR
QUALITY CURRENTLY THAN OTHER
PARTS OF THE STATE, I DON'T I
DON'T HAVE AN IMMEDIATE ANSWER
OTHER THAN CEQA AND LOCAL
CONTROL IN TERMS OF, OF AND AS I
SAID, THE INABILITY IN BUT A FEW
LOCATIONS IN CALIFORNIA TO
PROVIDE THAT KIND OF POWER IN
ANY CONCENTRATED WAY. SO I
DIDN'T WANT TO GO INTO AN
EMOTIONAL ARGUMENT. WHAT I THINK
THE BILL IS MISSING IS A FURTHER
SAFEGUARD ABOUT
OVERCONCENTRATION OF DIESEL
GENERATORS. RIGHT THAT IF YOU
HAVE A PLACE THAT DOES HAVE
SUFFICIENT POWER AND WE KNOW
SOMETIMES LOCAL LAND USE
DECISIONS ARE GREAT AND
SOMETIMES THEY DON'T MAKE WISE
DECISIONS. I THINK MY COLLEAGUE
FROM THE INLAND EMPIRE HAS BEEN
BATTLING A LOT OF UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES IN HER DISTRICT,
AND SO YOU COULD SEE HOW WHAT WE
THINK IS A KIND OF A BENIGN
THING. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
HAVE DATA CENTERS. WE KNOW THIS
IS THE NEXT THING COMING.
TOTALLY SEE WHY YOU WANT TO DO
THIS. THEY OBVIOUSLY WILL HAVE
SOME LABOR STANDARDS. SO WE WANT
TO HAVE GOOD JOBS. I CAN SEE ALL
THAT. BUT IF YOU HAVE A BUNCH,
GO IN TO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S
ALREADY POLLUTED. THERE ISN'T A
SAFEGUARD IN THE BILL. THERE IS.
WHERE IS THE SAFEGUARD? THE
SAFEGUARD, MADAM CHAIR, THE
SAFEGUARD IS THE SINGULAR
BIGGEST ISSUE THAT'S LOOKED AT
IN A SECRET DOCUMENT IS
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. SO THE FIRST
THING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN
WHEN YOU GO THROUGH SEQUA IS AND
THE LEAD AGENCY, WHICH IS GOING
TO BE THE LOCAL MOST LIKELY THE
LOCAL SITING AGENCY IS THEY'RE
GOING TO LOOK AT THE CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF
THIS PROPOSED PROJECT TO ALL THE
OTHER ONES THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED
HERE, AS WELL AS OTHER EMITTERS
IN OTHER INDUSTRIES? THAT IS THE
CORE OF THE SEQUA DOCUMENT. AND
SO AND SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE
USING FOR THIS PROVISION SO THAT
YOU WOULDN'T GET
OVERCONCENTRATION ON. THAT'S,
THAT'S HOW YOU'RE THAT'S HOW YOU
AND I'M JUST TRYING I'M SUBBING
IN TODAY. I DON'T USUALLY THIS
IS LOOK AT THIS STUFF.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MUCH DETAIL.
WE'RE NOT THIS BILL DOESN'T WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO SAY IS THIS BILL
DOESN'T CHANGE THAT THE BILL
DIDN'T COME IN AND SAY, LET'S
STREAMLINE THE SEQUA PROCESS.
IT'S NOT DOING THAT. THAT'S
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DIDN'T TRY TO
GO AND TRY TO WRITE A BILL TO
ADVANCE DATA CENTERS IN GENERAL,
BY BY MODIFYING, YOU KNOW, OR
WEAKENING THE SEQUA PROCESS. I
DON'T KNOW, IT'S TECHNOLOGICALLY
NEUTRAL. WE'RE NOT REQUIRING
DATA. TISO, PLEASE SPEAK ON THE
BILL IS NOT THE BILL IS NOT
REQUIRING DIESEL. IT SOUNDS LIKE
FOLKS ARE TRYING TO SAY LIKE,
OH, YOU'RE TRYING TO GIVE US
SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR DIESEL.
THE BILL IS TECHNOLOGICALLY
NEUTRAL. THE SMALL POWER PLANT
EXEMPTION IS TECHNOLOGICALLY
NEUTRAL. AND THE AMENDMENT THAT
WE INCLUDED IN THIS VERSION OF
THE BILL COMING TO THIS
COMMITTEE IS THAT IT HAS TO MEET
A BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY STANDARD, WHICH THE
AIR DISTRICTS WILL DETERMINE.
ALL RIGHT, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FRIEDMAN, THANKS. I HAVE A FEW
QUESTIONS. SO I UNDERSTAND IT
DOESN'T REQUIRE DIESEL, BUT JUST
TO BE CLEAR, HOW MANY RIGHT NOW
ARE NON DIESEL OF THE BACKUP
GENERATORS. MOST. YEAH. SO
THEY'RE GOING TO BE DIESEL AT
LEAST FOR THE FORESEEABLE
FUTURE. I JUST WANT TO BE SURE
THAT WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT THE
SAME THING. BUT AS TECHNOLOGY IN
THE FUTURE AS TECHNOLOGY
ADVANCES THEN THAT WILL AS THERE
ARE MORE RELIABLE TECHNOLOGIES,
THEN THEY WILL USE THOSE MORE
RELIABLE TECHNOLOGIES DEPENDING
ON WHAT IS DETERMINED TO BE BEST
AVAILABLE. CONTROL TECHNOLOGY BY
THE AIR DISTRICT. RIGHT. BUT FOR
THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, WHAT WE
HAVE RIGHT NOW IS IF IN THE NEXT
FIVE YEARS THESE ARE GOING TO BE
DIESEL. SO LET'S JUST BE LET'S
JUST BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT DIESEL. THAT'S
FINE, I HAVE A QUESTION, A FEW
QUESTIONS. THIS IS MAYBE A SMALL
POINT, BUT I AM CURIOUS. YOU'VE
REFERRED TO THESE DATA CENTERS
MANY TIMES AS CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT IS THERE A
DEFINITION? ISN'T IT ALL DATA
CENTERS INTO THIS BILL QUALIFY.
SO A LOT OF DATA CENTERS ARE
CRITICAL. CERTAINLY I WOULD SAY
WHAT MICROSOFT DOES. I'M SURE
YOU HAVE WITHIN YOUR DATA
CENTERS A LOT OF FUNCTIONS THAT
ARE COMPLETELY CRITICAL. BUT
THIS ALSO WOULD CAPTURE A CRYPTO
DATA CENTER, RIGHT?
CRYPTOCURRENCY WOULD CAPTURE A
GAMING DATA CENTER. I DON'T KNOW
IF SEGA HAS DATA CENTERS, BUT
LET'S SAY SEGA, THEY WOULD ALSO
BE CONSIDERED UNDER THIS. I JUST
WANT TO BE JUST GET ON THE
RECORD THAT THESE AREN'T REALLY
ALL CRITICAL. A LOT OF THEM ARE
CRITICAL, BUT I DON'T THINK I
WOULDN'T I WOULD NOT SAY THAT WE
NEED TO WAIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, MAYBE FOR CRYPTO, A NEW
CRYPTO FACILITY OR A GAMING,
DATA CENTER FACILITY. IT'S NOT
REALLY IF I MAY, IT'S NOT REALLY
HOW THE BUSINESS MODEL WORKS
WITH DATA CENTERS AND DATA
CENTERS AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN
THE PROLIFERATION, EARLY
PROLIFERATION OF THEM IN MY
COUNTY, ARE OFTENTIMES LEASED
OUT SPACE BY SPACE. RIGHT. SO
YOU'LL I UNDERSTAND THAT MANY OF
THEM ARE. AND SO, SO THE WHAT'S
CRITICAL TO THE ECONOMY AND THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FAR AS
I'M CONCERNED, IN TERMS OF TAX
REVENUE, IS THAT AS AS VENTURE
CAPITAL? IS INVESTED IN START UP
OPERATIONS THAT ARE NOT YET AT
THE POINT OF BEING ABLE TO SCALE
INTO THEIR OWN DATA CENTER, THAT
THEY'RE ABLE TO LEASE DATA
CENTER SPACE SO THAT THEY CAN
MOVE FORWARD, DO THE IPOS THAT
PROVIDE THE CAPITAL GAINS, THAT
PROVIDE THE DOLLARS FOR US IN
THIS BUDGET TO DO THINGS LIKE
THE CLIMATE PLAN THAT WE DID TWO
YEARS AGO? EVERYBODY UP HERE IS
TALKING ABOUT THE PROJECTIONS OF
REVENUE PROJECTIONS BEING,
OVERSTATED LAST YEAR IN THE
STATE BUDGET BECAUSE THERE WAS
AN EXPECTATION THAT THAT KIND OF
INVESTMENT WAS GOING TO WAS
GOING TO BE MUCH HIGHER, MUCH
MORE PROLIFIC THAN IT WAS OVER
THE LAST YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF,
IT IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF THE
ECONOMY IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THOSE CAPITAL GAINS
ARE PRODUCED BY PRIMARILY BY
TECHNOLOGY IPOS THAT ARE
PRODUCING APPS, THAT ARE
STARTUPS THAT ARE NEW, THAT ARE
IN NEED OF THIS SPACE. AND WHEN
THEY GO TO TRY TO FIND THE SPACE
RIGHT NOW SO THAT THEY CAN THEY
CAN MOVE LIKE THAT ECONOMICALLY,
THEY'RE RUNNING INTO A 1.6%
VACANCY FACTOR. AND I'M JUST
SAYING THAT'S I FEEL LIKE THAT'S
NOT WHAT THE OPPOSITION IS
ADDRESSING. WHAT'S THEIR ANSWER
TO RUNNING OUT TO HAVING ZERO
VACANCY. WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO
THAT. JUST OKAY. SO LET'S JUST
LET THE ECONOMY START SO THAT I
UNDERSTAND COOLING DOWN. YOU CAN
BUILD THE LARGER BACKUP
FACILITIES AND BUILD THE LARGER
DATA CENTERS. BUT YOU HAVE TO GO
THROUGH A MORE RIGOROUS PROCESS.
SO JUST SO THAT I UNDERSTAND HOW
MUCH TIME DOES THAT ACTUALLY
ADD. AND YOU KNOW, SOMETHING
THAT THAT THE THAT THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MICROSOFT SAID IS THAT NO
ONE'S GOING TO BUILD OVER THE 99
MEGAWATT DATA CENTER RIGHT NOW.
IS IT? ARE WE TALKING FIVE
YEARS, TEN YEARS, ONE YEAR? IT
SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY BIG
ASSERTION TO SAY THAT THIS
PROCESS IS SO RIGOROUS THAT IT
ACTUALLY IS STOPPING ANY OF THE
NEW, LARGER DATA CENTERS FROM
BEING BUILT. SO IF YOU GO
THROUGH THE PROCESS, WHICH IS
NOT THE SMALL POWER PLANT
EXEMPTION PROCESS, THEN YOU HAVE
TO ASK THE CDC FOR PERMISSION
EVERY TIME YOU WANT TO CHANGE
OUT A SERVER. THESE ARE ROOMS
WITH THOUSANDS OF SERVERS. AND
EVERY TIME THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE
MAINTENANCE CHANGES TO, TO THE
FACILITY. AND SO AS A RESULT,
PEOPLE DON'T BUILD THEM LARGER
THAN 99MW. IT IS IT'S YOU CAN
LOOK AT ALL OF THE SMALL POWER
PLANT EXEMPTIONS. NOBODY'S DOING
THEM BIGGER THAN 99MW I GUESS.
SO HOW MUCH TIME IF YOU WERE TO
BUILD A NEW ONE TODAY AND YOU
WERE GOING TO BUILD 100, 100?
AND THE REASON THE REASON IS,
WELL, IT TAKES A COUPLE OF YEARS
TO BUILD THESE THINGS. BUT THE
REASON THAT IT'S NOT DONE NOW IS
THAT YOU HAVE TO ONGOINGLY ASK
THE CDC EVERY TIME THAT
SOMETHING CHANGES. YOU MEAN IF
YOU'RE EVERY TIME THAT AS AFTER
THE THING IS BUILT, AFTER IT'S
OPERATIONAL AND THEN OOPS, A
SERVER WENT DOWN, WE NEED TO
CHANGE OUT THAT SERVER. THEN YOU
HAVE TO GO ASK THE CDC, CAN WE
GO IN THERE AND CHANGE THE
SERVER? YOU MEAN BECAUSE WHY?
WHY WOULD YOU HAVE TO? I DON'T
UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT IS THE
CURRENT LAW. WITHOUT THIS
EXEMPTION, THAT'S THE CURRENT
PROCESS THAT DATA CENTERS WOULD
NEED TO GO THROUGH. NO, WAIT.
NO. FOR A DATA CENTER IS 100MW
OR LARGER. IF YOU ARE GOING TO
GO ABOVE THAT, IF YOU ARE USING
75MW AND YOU WANT TO CHANGE A
SERVER AND YOU'RE UNDER THE 100,
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO CORRECT,
BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE GONE
THROUGH THE SMALL POWER PLANT
EXEMPTION PROCESS, WHICH
QUALIFIES FOR THE CDC REVIEW.
THAT'S CORRECT. SO WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING IS THAT YOU HAVE THESE
PLANTS RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE THESE
FACILITIES THAT ARE KIND OF
MAXED OUT AND THEY DON'T WANT TO
GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. THEY
WANT TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE
POWER. THEY WANT TO GO ABOVE
THAT 100, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO
GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, I MEAN,
YOU'VE GOT I MEAN, IT SEEMS IT'S
A LITTLE BIT I MEAN, IT'S A
LITTLE HARD TO IMAGINE THAT
YOU'VE GOT ALL OF THESE
FACILITIES THAT ARE RIGHT AT
THAT 99, 98 LEVEL. I MEAN, MAYBE
THAT'S THE CASE, THERE'S, YOU
KNOW, ONE COMPANY YOU'RE
REPRESENTING, MICROSOFT. I
REPRESENT THE SILICON VALLEY
LEADERSHIP GROUP. OKAY SO THEY
HAVE A LOT OF MEMBER COMPANIES
WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THIS, JUST
TO BE HONEST. SO. SO HOW MANY
FACILITIES RIGHT NOW ARE WE
TALKING ABOUT THAT ARE READY TO
JUST USE THE EXEMPTION AND GO TO
150? DO YOU THINK HOW MANY
FACILITIES DO YOU. I DO NOT KNOW
. I MEAN, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE
SEVERAL PROJECTS THAT PEOPLE
HAVE IN THE PIPELINE, BUT I
DON'T HAVE A NUMBER FOR THAT. SO
HOW LONG? I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU
WOULD YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE SEC
TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T GO OVER
THAT 100. BUT LET'S SAY YOU SAY,
LOOK, I'M GOING TO GO BIGGER.
HOW LONG WOULD THAT PROCESS TAKE
YOU UNDER THE CURRENT PROCESS TO
REPLACE YOUR TO REPLACE YOUR
PLANT? MAYBE I CAN HELP FRAME
MR. MCCRAY. I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND. THERE WAS A 400
MEGAWATT DATA SET. DATA CENTER
BEING, DEVELOPED. WHAT IS THE
DIFFERENCE IN CRITICAL PATH IN
IN THE TIME OF THAT DURATION OF
THAT PROJECT RELATIVE TO, THE
SMALL POWER PLANT EXEMPTION? SO
MY BEST UNDERSTANDING IS IT
WOULD TAKE LONGER IF YOU HAVE TO
BUILD SOMETHING BIGGER. BUT THE
REASON THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT DOING
, THE LARGER THAN 100 MEGAWATT
IS BECAUSE OF THE ONGOING NEED
FOR REVIEW BY THE CC. WELL, ONLY
ONGOING IF YOU'RE TRYING TO
RETROFIT AN EXISTING ALL NØ IF
YOU ARE MAKING ANY OPERATIONAL
CHANGES WITHIN THE DATA CENTER,
IF THE DATA CENTER WAS NOT PART
OF THE SMALL POWER PLANT
EXEMPTION PROCESS AND THE SMALL
POWER PLANT EXEMPTION PROCESS
NOW ONLY APPLIES TO 50 TO 99MW,
RIGHT? BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO
BUILD SOMETHING NEW AND YOU WANT
TO DO SOMETHING BIGGER, RIGHT,
YOU'RE GOING TO YOU CAN GO UP
TO, YEAH, YOU CAN GO UP TO 100.
RIGHT. BUT LET'S SAY THAT YOU
WANTED TO NOT BE EXEMPT AND YOU
WANT TO GO THROUGH THE REGULAR
PROCESS. HOW WHICH NO ONE WANTS
TO DO BECAUSE OF THE ONEROUS
NATURE OF THAT REVIEW. NOBODY
WANTS TO DO THAT. OKAY. I
APOLOGIZE IF I IF I MAY IF I MAY
, PERHAPS YOU CAN JUST CLARIFY
THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS
CORRECTLY AND THEN MAYBE I CAN
KIND OF EXPLAIN IT. SO IT'S NOT
THAT THERE IS A ONE OFF MOMENT
WHERE. SO IF I, IF I'M TRYING
TO, YOU KNOW, BUILD OUT A DATA
CENTER, IT'S NOT THAT I HAVE ONE
SINGLE POINT IN TIME WHERE I
NEED TO GET A SPECIAL APPROVAL
OR IF I, REGARDLESS OF
REGARDLESS OF THE, YOU KNOW,
DIESEL GENERATOR, NON DIESEL
GENERATOR OR ANY OF IT, IF I AM
NOT PART OF THIS SMALL POWER
PLANT EXEMPTION FOR ANY REASON,
IT MEANS THAT EVERY TIME I
CHANGE OUT A SERVER AND THAT IS
LIKE YOU KNOW, ONE LITTLE THING
IN MY IN MY DATA CENTER, WHICH
HAPPENS, I DON'T KNOW, ONCE A
WEEK, ALMOST DAILY, ALMOST
DAILY, EVERY SINGLE TIME I WANT
TO DO THAT, I HAVE TO GO TO THE
CEC TO GET AN APPROVAL FOR THAT.
IRRESPECTIVE OF IT'S NOT
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DIESEL
STUFF. SO BUT ALL THESE DATA
CENTERS, RIGHT NOW THAT ARE
UNDER 100MW, I WOULD THINK ARE
PART, AREN'T THEY ALREADY PART
OF THE EXEMPTION? CORRECT.
THEY'VE ALL GOTTEN THIS SMALL
POWER PLANT EXEMPTION. YES.
RIGHT. SO IF BUT THEY ONLY HAVE
TO GO THROUGH THIS IF THEY'RE
GOING TO BE GOING ABOVE 100MW
WITH WHAT THEY DO, THE BILL
PROPOSES TO ALLOW THE SMALL
POWER PLANT EXEMPTION TO EXTEND
TO DATA CENTERS OF UP TO 150MW,
RIGHT? SO IF YOU ARE IF YOU'RE A
DATA CENTER AND YOU HAVE A AND
YOU'RE USING 50MW AND YOU'RE
WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE
EXEMPTION AND YOU WANT TO ADD
AND YOU WANT TO DO WHAT YOU
KNOW, SWAP OUT A SERVER AND
YOU'RE GOING TO 60MW. YOU DON'T
HAVE TO GO THROUGH A CEC PROCESS
FOR THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE ALREADY
UNDER 100MW. BUT THEY'RE SAYING
IS THEY WANT TO HAVE THE LARGER
FACILITY, THEY WANT TO BE ABLE
TO ADD ON TO THEIR FACILITY. I
UNDERSTAND THAT I'M JUST I WAS
JUST SIMPLY ASKING ABOUT WHAT
THE DIFFERENCE IS IN TERMS OF
PROCESS BETWEEN THESE. WHAT
WOULD IT TAKE? LET'S SAY THEY
DECIDE, HEY, I'M AT 99MW. I WANT
TO ADD ANOTHER 20MW RIGHT NOW TO
UPGRADE WHAT THAT IF THEY GO
THROUGH THE PROCESS NOW, AS
OPPOSED TO THE STREAMLINING,
WHAT IT ADDS IN TERMS OF TIME,
THAT'S VERY GERMANE BECAUSE
THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE FOR THE
BILL. BUT IT'S NOT THE BILL IS
THEY'RE SAYING IT'S SO
INCREDIBLY ONEROUS THAT NO ONE
WANTS TO DO IT. I'M JUST ASKING
WHAT IT ACTUALLY TAKES BECAUSE
IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A
ONE TIME THING OR A ONE TIME
WINDOW. IT MEANS THAT EVERY
SINGLE DAY YOU WOULD BE
SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE
CEC TO CHANGE A SERVER, BECAUSE
YOU'RE NOT JUST CHANGING SERVERS
WHEN YOU'RE ADDING CAPACITY.
THAT'S PART OF THE REGULAR
OPERATION OF THE FACILITY. SO
THAT'S THAT IS THE CURRENT
PROCESS UNDER LAW. WITHOUT THIS
EXEMPTION. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S
SUCH A BIG DIFFERENCE ONLY IF
THEY'RE ADDING THEIR BACKUP
POWER. NO, NO NO NO NO. IT'S FOR
ANY OPERATIONAL CHANGE. SO IT'S
NOT SORT OF LIKE OH WE'RE AT 50.
WE WANT TO GO TO 60. THUS WE'LL
HAVE TO GO TO THE CC FOR MORE
PERMISSION. IT'S WE'RE AT 50 AND
A SERVER JUST WENT DOWN OKAY.
SOMEBODY CALLED THE CDC. WE'RE
AT 50 AND WE NEED TO DO SOME
MAINTENANCE ON SOMEBODY GOT TO
CALL THE CDC. SO HOW WOULD GOING
TO 150 CHANGE THAT. SO THE SMALL
POWER PLANT EXEMPTION PROCESS
MEANS THAT THOSE THE ABILITY TO
NOT HAVE TO CALL THE CEC APPLIES
. IF YOU GO THROUGH THAT SMALL
POWER PLANT EXEMPTION PROCESS
FOR, DATA CENTERS OF 50 TO 99MW,
AND WE WANT TO ALLOW THAT
PROCESS TO BE APPLIED TO DATA
CENTERS OF 50 TO 150MW. RIGHT SO
THE PROCESS WOULD BE THE SAME.
YOU CAN JUST ADD MORE. YOU CAN
ADD MORE POWER IF YOU INCREASE
IT. YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THAT.
OKAY. I'M COMPLETE I THOUGHT I
UNDERSTOOD THIS AND NOW I FEEL A
LITTLE BIT LOST. I APOLOGIZE IF
THERE'S BEEN A LACK OF CLARITY,
BUT THE BASICALLY THE BILL IS A
FAIRLY SIMPLE BILL. IT SAYS THAT
THERE'S THIS SMALL POWER PLANT
EXEMPTION PROCESS NOW THAT
APPLIES TO DATA. DATA CENTERS
BETWEEN 50 AND 99MW. WE WANT TO
ALLOW THE DATA CENTERS UP TO
150MW. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT
PROCESS. AND WHEN YOU GO THROUGH
THE SMALL POWER PLANT EXEMPTION
PROCESS, WHERE THERE'S NO
SKIPPING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW,
THAT YOU HAVE TO APPLY BEST
AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY, WE
HAVE TO CONSIDER ALL THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, INCLUDING
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, WHETHER OR
NOT YOU CAN PUT A DATA CENTER IN
A PARTICULAR PLACE. AND THIS
BILL WOULD ALLOW THAT AND ALLOW
THAT FOR DATA CENTERS OF UP TO
150MW AND HELP SUPPORT CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA AND IN THE STAY, THEN
GET THE FLEXIBILITY TO, TO MAKE
MODIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE
ONEROUS PROCESS THAT WOULD APPLY
TO WHAT WOULD THEN BE DATA
CENTERS THAT ARE OVER 150 AT
THAT POINT. SO, RIGHT. FOR THE
LARGER FLEXIBILITY. YEAH, I THE
LARGER FACILITIES, I THOUGHT WE
WERE AGREED. AND THEN I SAID, SO
IF THEY'RE ALREADY WITHIN THE
PARAMETER OF HAVING THAT
APPROVAL, IF THEY WERE ONLY 50MW
AND THEY ADDED SOMETHING AND
EVERYBODY SAID NO. SO I'M RIGHT
NOW UNDER 100 GETS THE
FLEXIBILITY RIGHT OVER 100,
DOESN'T I? WE'RE SAYING OVER
WE'RE SAYING LET'S MAKE IT TO
150MW. GETS THAT FLEXIBILITY.
K¾T THAT'S ALL WE'RE REALLY
SAYING. BUT BECAUSE ALL THESE
FACILITIES CURRENTLY ARE BACKED
UP BY DIESEL, THAT HAS ENTERED
INTO THE DISCUSSION TODAY. I
KNOW YOU'RE NOT RAISING THAT AT
THIS MOMENT, BUT THAT THAT'S
BEEN PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT
WE'VE HAD TO HAVE TODAY BECAUSE
THAT'S THE BACKUP SOURCE THAT'S
MOST COMMONLY USED TODAY. BUT
BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE
IS NOT THE ADVANCEMENT OF THAT.
WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE THE
FLEXIBILITY THAT HAS WORKED SO
WELL AT 100 OR LESS FOR THE
THESE THESE THE FOLKS IN SILICON
VALLEY ARE TESTIFYING. I GOT IT.
OKAY. SO JUST TWO OTHER
QUESTIONS. DID YOU YOU DIDN'T
TAKE ALL OF THE OF THE
SUGGESTION AMENDMENTS? I JUST I
HAVEN'T GOTTEN A LIST OF WHICH
ONES WERE ACCEPTED AND WHICH
ONES WERE NOT, I HAVE THOSE
HERE. AND, I CAN EITHER READ
THOSE. YOU HAVEN'T. I DON'T
THINK THAT CAME UP IN ANY OF THE
TESTIMONIES, BECAUSE THERE'S A
LOT OF SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS, AND
IT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR THE
COMMITTEE TO KNOW WHICH ONES
WERE ACTUALLY ACCEPTED. YES.
THANK YOU. SO THESE ARE THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, NUMBER
ONE, SINCE DETERMINATION OF,
BACK OR BACKED REQUIREMENTS IS
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF AIR
DISTRICTS AND NOT THE CEC,
CLARIFYING THAT THE CEC WILL
OBTAIN THIS DETERMINATION FROM
THE AIR DISTRICTS AND REQUIRING
THE AIR DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE
THIS DETERMINATION DURING THE
SMALL POWER PLANT EXEMPTION
PROCESS. AIR DISTRICTS CURRENTLY
DO THIS AFTER AN SP IS GRANTED
TWO TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE
EXPANDED SMALL POWER PLANT
EXEMPTION. ALSO ASKING FOR
APPLICANT TO SHOW THE COMMISSION
THAT THEY HAVE CONSIDERED ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND DEMAND RESPONSE
TOOLS, BUT NOT REQUIRE THEM TO
IMPLEMENT. THESE ARE THE ONES
YOU'RE TAKING. YES AND B TO
PROVIDE A REPORT ON THE EXPECTED
ENERGY USE OF THE FACILITY, SUCH
AS ENERGY INTENSITIES, PEAK
FACTORS, AND LOAD PROFILES IN
THREE. SUNSETTING THE EXPANSION.
I'M SORRY THAT THAT'S CORRECT.
AND SUNSETTING THE THIS
EXPANSION IN FIVE YEARS FROM
DATE OF ENACTMENT. SO AND WHICH
ONES ARE YOU NOT ACCEPTING THE.
HAD LET ME GET THAT WAS THE ONE
ABOUT POWER UTILIZATION
EFFECTIVENESS. YEAH. THERE'S
THERE WAS A THERE WAS A
SUGGESTED AMENDMENT OF.
REPORTING POWER LOAD USAGE
EFFECTIVENESS, AND I HAD A LONG
CONVERSATION WITH THE CHAIR
YESTERDAY IN TERMS OF THE
USEFULNESS OF THAT, AND WE
AGREED, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS
NOT A NECESSARY, AMENDMENT TO
TAKE, AND JUST MY VERY LAST
QUESTION, I PROMISE. I'M JUST
TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, I
APPRECIATE I DO APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSION, I REALLY DO. THANK
YOU. I'M GLAD YOU DO, SO IN
TERMS OF THE FACT THAT THIS
STILL WOULD GO THROUGH A SECRET
REVIEW, THE SAME SQL REVIEW, BUT
IT'S A LESS ONEROUS CEC REVIEW,
WHAT IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY
INPUT, TIMELINE CHANGES IN TERMS
FROM THE COMMUNITY'S PERSPECTIVE
AND THEIR ABILITY TO IMPACT
WHETHER OR NOT THE FACILITY
WOULD BE ALLOWED, THE PLACEMENT,
I MEAN, THEY'RE ALREADY THERE,
MOST OF THEM. SO WHAT WHAT WHAT
WOULD THIS CHANGE IN TERMS OF
COMMUNITY PROCESS? ANY OF THIS
SHOULD TRIGGER A LAND USE
PROCESS, A REVIEW PROCESS, EVEN
IF IT WAS JUST A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT WAS ON
THE PROPERTY. AS WE KNOW FROM
OUR BACKGROUNDS, AND THEN THAT
WHOLE ENTIRE FOR OBVIOUSLY THE
SEQUA HAS HAS PUBLIC INPUT
PROCESS, AND THEN THE LAND USE
PROCESS WOULD ALSO HAVE PUBLIC
INPUT. AND IS IT THE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD'S WITH THEIR
PROCESS THEN BE THEY WHAT WOULD
BE THEIR ROLE IN THIS? I'D HAVE
TO DEFER TO THEM. I WOULD HAVE
TO I CAN'T SAY I'M AN EXPERT ON.
I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING THEIR
REVIEW STREAMLINING, WHAT ARE WE
LOSING? BUT THERE'S A PUBLIC
ASPECT TO IT. YEAH. MAYBE I
COULD ASK THE OPPOSITE. THE
STREAM AGAIN, THE STREAMLINING
IS MORE IS LESS ON THE FRONT END
THERE. THERE'S NO UNDERCUTTING
OF PUBLIC REVIEW OR CHANGE TO
PUBLIC REVIEW OR SEQUA HERE. THE
FLEXIBILITY, THE STREAMLINING
COMES IN ONCE YOU'RE YOU HAVE
THE SMALL POWER PLANT EXEMPTION
IN THAT YOU CAN YOU CAN MAKE
CHANGES WITH ALLOWABLE CHANGES
WITHIN THAT POWER PLANT WITHOUT
HAVING TO KEEP GOING BACK TO THE
CEC CONTINUOUSLY. MAYBE IF I
HEAR FROM THEM, MAYBE IT'LL MAKE
ME MORE COMFORTABLE. YES, I FEEL
LIKE WE'RE NOT LOSING A WHOLE
LOT, SO. WELL, WE THANK YOU. WE
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT YOU
KNOW, THAT THE THAT YOU'RE NOT
DOING THE FULL PUBLIC PROCESS AS
PART OF THE CERTIFICATION
PROCESS. BUT ONCE THE PROJECT
GETS TO IF IT GETS THE EXEMPTION
AND COMES TO THE LOCAL AIR
DISTRICTS, THEN WE'RE STILL
GOING TO HAVE, YOU KNOW,
PERMITTING AUTHORITY OVER THESE,
YOU KNOW, THE GENERATORS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT WILL BE
THE NET EFFECT IS, THOUGH, WILL
BE MOSTLY WORKING WITHIN THAT,
THAT IF WE GET A PROJECT THAT'S
DIESEL MOST LIKELY, THEN WE'LL
REMAIN DIESEL. WHEREAS IF YOU AT
THE CEC LEVEL BEFORE THE
EXEMPTION IS GRANTED, IF YOU
COULD HAVE A CLEANER TECHNOLOGY
THAT'S JUST GOING TO MEAN YOU'RE
GOING TO HAVE A BETTER OUTCOME.
SO, YOU KNOW, OUR WE'LL STILL
HAVE OUR PERMIT AUTHORITY AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL, BUT THIS DOES KIND
OF, CAN MUDDY THE WATERS TOO,
WITH THE, WITH HOW BACT WOULD
WORK. AND THEY'RE MAKING BACK
DETERMINATIONS AT CEC. AND
THAT'S REALLY SOMETHING THAT NOW
HAPPENING AT AND CEC MAKING
THOSE DETERMINATIONS WITH OUR
INPUT. IS IT THAT SORT OF
COMPLICATES IT BECAUSE THAT
HAPPENS AT CEC WHEN REALLY THAT
SHOULD BE HAPPENING AT THE
DISTRICT LEVEL. SO AND THE
AMENDMENT TAKEN WAS THAT THE ACT
IS DONE BY THE IT'S A TIMING
ISSUE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER HART WELL,
THE NEWS THAT, REPLACING A
SERVER AT A DATA CENTER REQUIRES
THE CEC APPROVAL IS ASTONISHING.
AND I THINK THAT THAT PROBABLY
SHOULD BE FIXED ALL BY ITSELF.
BUT THE QUESTION I DID HAVE TO
DO IS THE ONE AMENDMENT THAT YOU
DIDN'T ACCEPT. AND I'D JUST LIKE
TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THAT.
THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS
REALLY EXCELLENT, GOES INTO A
LOT OF DESCRIPTION ABOUT HOW
WE'RE TRYING TO PREDICT POWER
USAGE IN THE FUTURE. THE DATA
CENTERS ARE INCREASINGLY USING A
LOT OF POWER, AND THAT WE NEED
TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE
DEMAND THAT ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS IS GOING TO
HAVE ON FUTURE ELECTRICITY
DEMAND. AND THE IDEA THAT WE
WOULD HAVE AN ANNUAL REPORT TO
THE CEC ON THE POWER USAGE
EFFECTIVENESS WOULD BE A GOOD
TOOL, I THINK, TO HELP TO
UNDERSTAND THE DEMAND FROM DATA
CENTERS IN THE FUTURE. AND JUST
WONDERED WHY THAT, AMENDMENT
WASN'T ACCEPTED. I'M GOING TO
I'M GOING TO DEFER AGAIN TO MR.
MCRAE IN A MOMENT AND JUST SAY
THAT, LOAD USAGE, WE DON'T
BELIEVE IS A GOOD INDICATOR OF
WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR,
PROJECTING POWER USAGE AND POWER
LOAD ON THE ON THE ENTIRE STATE
AS, AS I UNDERSTAND, I THINK WE
PROBABLY HAVE A SHARED CONCERN
ABOUT THAT, THE RESILIENCY OF
THE GRID IS YOUR CONCERN. MY
CONCERN, THAT PARTICULAR
AMENDMENT WASN'T GOING TO
PROVIDE US HELP AND
UNDERSTANDING THE RESILIENCY OF
THE GRID OR THE FUTURE DEMAND ON
THE GRID. IT WOULD IT WOULD HAVE
SHOWN THE EFFICIENCY OF THE LOAD
USAGE AT THAT DATA CENTER. AND I
SUPPOSE CUMULATIVELY, IT WOULD
HAVE GIVEN US SOME AGGREGATE
NUMBER, BUT WE JUST DIDN'T FEEL
IT WAS IT WAS A REPORT THAT JUST
WASN'T GOING TO CREATE THE
OUTCOME THAT WAS INTENDED. AND
IF THERE WERE, YOU KNOW,
SOMETHING THAT THAT REALLY WOULD
HELP US IN THIS PROCESS, YOU
KNOW, PROJECT, LONG TERM, GRID
RESILIENCY OR AT LEAST WHAT THIS
IS IMPACTING, LONG TERM GRID
RESILIENCY. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
IT WAS JUST THE LANGUAGE DIDN'T
SEEM TO GET US THERE. AND WE
TALKED ABOUT, I, I MADE THAT
POINT YESTERDAY. THE CHAIR
LISTENED TO ME. I'M NOT SURE WE,
KNOW EXACTLY, RIGHT OR WRONG ON
THAT, BUT WE AGREED TO LEAVE
THAT OUT. WELL, I APPRECIATE
THAT. AND I THINK WHAT THE POINT
OF THE, STAFF ANALYSIS WAS, IS
THAT, DEMAND USAGE FLEXIBILITY
AND THE INCENTIVE PRICING OF
THAT IS A TOOL THAT COULD BE
USED TO OFFSET DEMAND IN THE
FUTURE, TOO. AND THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE
EXPLORED. THERE ARE OTHER DATA
CENTERS THAT DO THAT AND THAT I
THINK THAT'S A TOOL THAT OUGHT
TO BE IN THE TOOLBOX. HAVING
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT
HELPS US IN CALIFORNIA. SO I
HOPE YOU CONSIDER LOOKING AT
THAT AGAIN AS THE I'M HAPPY TO
HAPPY TO KEEP LOOKING AT IT, TO
GET TO THE, YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL
INFORMATION THAT I THINK PEOPLE
ARE INTERESTED IN. WE HAVE A
HELL OF A PROBLEM IN THE STATE
OVERALL THAT'S SUBSUMES THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE. BUT
ADMITTEDLY, THIS ISSUE WILL BE
PART OF IT. WE WE'RE TRYING TO
RAPIDLY EXPAND, EV
INFRASTRUCTURE BY 2035. SO WE
DON'T, YOU KNOW, CRASH THAT
MARKET. RIGHT? WE'RE TRYING TO,
TO DO THIS. WE THIS IS THIS IS
NOT A TRY. THIS IS WHAT WE
BELIEVE IS ADDITIONAL CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S NEEDED
GOING FORWARD BASED ON THE
SHIFTING OF THE ECONOMY. ÁP ALL
THAT'S PUTTING, PRESSURE ON THE
GRID THAT WE HAVE NOT FIGURED
OUT COLLECTIVELY HERE IN
SACRAMENTO HOW TO RESOLVE. AND
IF THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT DATA
CENTERS THAT THAT CAN HELP
PROVIDE SIDE INFORMATION INTO
THAT PROCESS, BE IT THIS BILL OR
BE IT IN IN ANOTHER BILL THAT
REQUIRES SOME KIND OF REPORTING,
AGGREGATE REPORTING. I'M VERY
INTERESTED IN HELPING WITH THAT.
AND IF I MAY, TWO, TWO THINGS.
ONE IS WE TOOK THE AMENDMENT
SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT
DEMAND RESPONSE. SO IF YOU'RE
WORRIED ABOUT LOOKING AT DEMAND
RESPONSE LONG TERM, WE'RE TAKING
THAT AMENDMENT. AND THE SECOND
THING IS THAT THE WORRY IS HOW
MUCH ENERGY IS IT USING. AND
THAT IS GOING TO BE DETERMINED
BY THE APPLICATIONS SIZE. IS IT,
YOU KNOW, CAN IT BE CAPABLE OF
125MW, CAN BE CAPABLE OF 150MW.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE CC CAN USE
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
THERE'S IMPACT TO THE GRID.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES
. THANK YOU. THIS CONVERSATION
HAS BEEN VERY GOOD. ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED MYSELF
IS, IS THERE NO ALTERNATIVE TO
THIS DIRTY POWER TO THE TO THE
DIESEL, AND I THINK THE ANSWER
READING FURTHER AND I THINK
FROM, FROM THE TESTIMONY, SOME
USE NATURAL GAS. I KNOW AT LEAST
ONE THAT WAS MENTIONED. AND, IT
MAY NOT BE BETTER TO, TO MY
COLLEAGUE FROM, SHE MENTIONED MY
COLLEAGUE FROM CONTRA COSTA, BUT
NONETHELESS, I DO BELIEVE OTHER
TECHNOLOGIES SHOULD BE ABLE TO
SCALE, WHEN WE THINK OF TECH
COMPANIES, WE THINK OF TECH
COMPANIES SITTING AT THE TABLE,
TOO. THEY HAVE BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS THAT THEY CAN AFFORD TO
SPEND SO THEY CAN SPEND MORE ON
SPECIFICALLY ON CLEAN ENERGY AND
FINDING THAT CLEAN ENERGY. IF WE
ARE ABSOLUTELY STUCK ON DIESEL,
WE KNOW THAT IS ONE OF THE
DIRTIEST. BUT I I'M JUST
CONCERNED THAT WE ARE NOT
LOOKING AT OTHER, OTHER
TECHNOLOGIES. AND I, I HEAR YOU
WHEN YOU SAY IT'S TECHNOLOGY
NEUTRAL, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE ALL
OF THE EMPHASIS HERE IS, IS, IS
ON THAT. ANOTHER COMMENT THAT
WAS MADE BY MY COLLEAGUE FROM
ENCINITAS, ABOUT SEQUA. I THINK
THE RESPONSE WAS, WELL, IT'S
LOCAL CONTROL AND SEQUA I IF THE
ONLY THING THAT IS GOING TO
PREVENT THE DIRTY DIESEL IS
LOCAL CONTROL, WE HAVE SERIOUS
PROBLEMS BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU
THAT IT IS VERY EASY AND I SEE
IT IN MY COMMUNITY THAT WE GET A
SEQUEL REPORT AND THE LOCAL
CONTROL ALLOWS THEM TO OVERRIDE
THAT. SEQUA REPORT AND SAY THE
ECONOMIC BENEFIT OUTWEIGHS THE
WHATEVER PROBLEMS SEQUA SAYS,
ARE ARE HEALTH ISSUES AND THEY
WILL OVERRIDE IT AND IT'S
APPROVED AND WE'RE DONE WITH IT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE
SPECIFICALLY TO THAT REGARDING
SEQUA? I WOULD JUST SAY THAT
SEQUA HAS TO DETERMINE THAT
THERE'S NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. THEY HAVE
TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. AND
NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS NO
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT. AND I SHARE WITH YOU, I
CAN SHARE WITH YOU THAT SEQUA
WILL SAY THERE IS SIGNIFICANT,
IMPACT. AND THE LOCAL ENTITY,
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY,
WILL SIMPLY OVERRIDE IT AND SAY
THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE
COMMUNITY IS GREATER AND WE'RE
GOING TO OVERRIDE WHATEVER SEQUA
SAYS IS WRONG WITH THIS PROJECT.
WE'RE GOING TO OVERRIDE THOSE
REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT'S GOING
TO HELP OUR ECONOMY. SO WHAT IF
IT'S GOING TO HARM THE HEALTH OF
THE COMMUNITY? Kò THE ECONOMIC
BENEFIT IS TOO GREAT, BUT THAT
BUT THAT OVERRIDE WOULD HAVE TO,
IN THIS CASE WOULD HAVE TO
HAPPEN AT THE CEC, NOT AT THE AT
THE LOCAL LAND USE SIDE. THEY'RE
NOT DEALING WITH THAT THAT ISSUE
. I'VE BEEN RIGHT THERE WITH
YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER. AND I'VE
I'VE SEEN OVERRIDES I VOTED
AGAINST OVERRIDES THAT MY
COLLEAGUES VOTED FOR IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, OVERRIDING,
CUMULATIVE IMPACT AND BASICALLY
THE MITIGATION THAT THE THAT
THAT THE SECRET DOCUMENT SAID
THAT WE SHOULD BE REQUIRING
BECAUSE OF SOME URGENCY. YES,
BUT HERE THERE ARE STILL
EMISSION CAPS THAT, THE AIR
DISTRICTS CAN REQUIRE OR DO
REQUIRE ON, ON THESE ON THE, ON
THE DIESEL SIDE OF THIS
OBVIOUSLY IS WHERE THAT WOULD BE
FOCUSED. AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROCESS, AT THE LOCAL LEVEL IS I
SUPPOSE THERE'S ALWAYS THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THERE COULD BE
AN OVERRIDE THERE. I DON'T WANT
TO. LIKE I SAID, I'VE BEEN IN
THOSE ROOMS MYSELF. WHETHER THEY
WILL, WHETHER THEY'LL HAPPEN OR
NOT, I THINK IS SEPARATE AND
APART FROM FROM THIS BILL IN A
SENSE. BUT I ASSURE YOU, THEY DO
HAPPEN. AND FOR SOMEONE LIKE
MYSELF, IT IS THE SADDEST THING
TO SEE, BECAUSE IN THE END, IT'S
THE MIGHTY DOLLAR THAT'S BEING
ACCEPTED OVER THE HEALTH OF THE
COMMUNITY. AND I SEE IT OVER AND
OVER, AND IT'S SUCH A PROBLEM. I
DON'T DISAGREE THAT MY LAST
COMMENT QUESTION IS WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE REVIEW FOR,
AND THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT
THEY SEEM ONEROUS, BUT THAT'S
BECAUSE THE EXEMPTION WASN'T
CRAFTED FOR DATA CENTERS. IT WAS
DESIGNED FOR SMALL POWER PLANTS.
SO IT SEEMS THAT SOMETHING MORE
SPECIFIC TO DATA CENTERS MIGHT
BE WARRANTED RATHER THAN
INCREASING THE EXEMPTION TO
SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, IT WILL
BE CONSIDERED. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU, TO THE MEMBERS FOR
YOUR QUESTIONS AND FOR THAT
ROBUST DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, I
KNOW A LOT OF OUR CONVERSATION
DID FOCUS AROUND THE BACKUP
GENERATION ELEMENT OF THIS. AND,
YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY NONE OF US
LIKE DIESEL POWER. I THINK
EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM IS WORKING
OVERTIME, TO TRY TO ENSURE THAT
WE CAN CONTINUE TO TRANSITION
CALIFORNIA TO A CLEAN ENERGY
ECONOMY AND PHASE OUT DIESEL
GENERATION. AND I KNOW IN OUR
CONVERSATIONS, I RAISED SOME OF
THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED IN
COMMITTEE TODAY. AND I KNOW AS
WE DUG INTO THIS BILL WAS
PERSUADED THAT, WE DID NOT WAIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. WE DID NOT
WAIVE CEQA, AND THAT THIS DOES
STRIKE AN APPROPRIATE BALANCE TO
ENSURE THAT OVER THE COURSE OF
THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, AS WE
CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGIES TO GET BETTER AND
BETTER, THAT WE DO INCLUDE THE
SAFEGUARD THAT AIR DISTRICTS ARE
MAKING THE DETERMINATION THAT
FOR THE BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS, AS PART
OF THIS, WE'VE INSTITUTED A
SUNSET REVIEW AT FIVE YEARS
TIME, AND, I KNOW YOU, MR.
CORTEZ, WILL, CERTAINLY BE,
CHAMPIONING MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY
FRIENDLY BACKUP SOLUTIONS AS
PART OF THIS. BUT WE ALSO NEED
TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN CONTINUE
TO BUILD THE WORLD'S FOURTH
LARGEST ECONOMY AS PART OF THAT.
SO WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND
I FAILED THAT AT THE OUTSET
DURING MY PRESENTATION TO THANK
YOU AND THE COMMITTEE FOR, FOR
THE HARD WORK. AND I KNOW WE
HEAR THAT A LOT, BUT THAT WAS
REALLY THE CASE, VERY LITERALLY
THE CASE HERE WITH THIS BILL.
AND I THINK THE CONVERSATION
THAT WE HEARD TODAY WAS
REFLECTED IN A LOT OF HARD WORK
THAT WAS DONE GOING BACK AND
FORTH AND ALSO WITH JUST THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS ITSELF. WE
ALSO HEAR A LOT THE WORDS I
APPRECIATE THE ROBUST
DISCUSSION, BUT I APPRECIATE IT,
ESPECIALLY, COMING FROM SILICON
VALLEY BECAUSE AS THE WAY I'VE
ALWAYS COME TO LEARN,
REPRESENTING THE AREA TO DEFINE,
DEFINE INNOVATION IS, INNOVATION
IS TECHNOLOGICAL WORKAROUNDS.
IT'S WHEN PEOPLE HEAR A ROBUST
CONVERSATION LIKE THIS AND
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS
ARE OF NOT FIGURING OUT A BETTER
WAY. AND I THINK, AS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ALLUDED TO, THE INDUSTRY
WILL FIGURE OUT A CLEAN ENERGY
SOLUTION TO BACKUP AND PART OF
THE MOTIVATION FOR THAT WILL BE
WILL BE, YOU KNOW, THIS
CONVERSATION ITSELF. THIS IS
CLEARLY A CONVERSATION THAT'S
GOING TO BE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE
TREMENDOUS GRAVITAS WITH
EVERYONE INVOLVED, BECAUSE THE
STAKES ARE SO HIGH, AND I HAVE
GREAT CONFIDENCE IN THE
PROCESSES THAT ARE IN PLACE IN
TERMS OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, BUT ALSO GREAT
CONFIDENCE. IN SILICON VALLEY
INNOVATION, FIGURING OUT, YOU
KNOW, HOW TO WHETHER IT'S SOLAR
OR WHETHER IT'S A COMBINATION OF
THINGS, HOW TO HELP US GET
DIESEL OUT OF THIS PARTICULAR
SECTOR OF THE INDUSTRY AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. I THINK
THEY'VE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR
FROM THIS COMMITTEE AND PRIOR
COMMITTEES THAT THAT'S, THAT
NEEDS TO HAPPEN. AND WITH THAT,
I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE SO WE CAN CONTINUE
ON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE BILL SECOND. OKAY. MOTION
FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER WALLACE.
SECOND FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PATTERSON, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, SB
1298. THE MOTION IS Dð. PASSES
AMENDED TO LABOR PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON I
JIM PATTERSON I BAUER-KAHAN
BURNER. CALDERON I CALDERON I
CHEN CHEN I FRIEDMAN A FRIEDMAN
I HEART, I HEART I HOLDEN A
HOLDEN I JOE PATTERSON I JOE
PATTERSON I REYES. SANTIAGO TING
I TING I WALLACE WALLACE I
WOULD, I WOULD AYZENBERG. 11
ZERO THAT BILL IS OUT. WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. THANK YOU
SENATOR. SORRY ALL RIGHT. MOVING
ALONG TO FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE,
SB 1130. SENATOR BRADFORD, WHEN
YOU'RE READY THROUGH THE BILL. I
ASK FOR AYE VOTE. OKAY I'M JUST
HERE TO PRESENT 1130, WHICH
SIMPLY EXPANDS THE FAIR PROGRAM,
THE FAIR FAMILY ELECTRIC RATE
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. IT'S
WOEFULLY UNDERTAKEN RIGHT NOW.
AND WE JUST WANT TO IMPROVE,
FAMILIES HAVING ACCESS TO
DISCOUNT RATES. WE KNOW ABOUT
THE CARE PROGRAM, WHICH HAS,
IMPROVED, THE TAKE RATE OVER THE
LAST 5 TO 10 YEARS. BUT FAIR IS
STILL ABOUT 18% TAKE RATE RIGHT
NOW. AND IT'S GOING TO DEAL WITH
THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE 200 A
LARGER FAMILIES TO AFFORD,
AFFORD THEM A MORE REASONABLE
RATE. AND AS NOTED IN THE
COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS, IT'S
ESTIMATED IN 2022 PARTICIPATION
RATE FOR ELIGIBLE ENROLLEES FOR
PG AND E, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON AND SAN DIEGO GAS AND
ELECTRIC WAS 22, 12, AND 28,
RESPECTIVELY. AND IN CALIFORNIA,
ENERGY BILLS THAT WE KNOW ARE
TRENDING HIGHER AND HIGHER. AND
THIS IS JUST A WAY TO COMBAT
THOSE, RATES AND TESTIFYING IN
SUPPORT TODAY AS, K¾T. MÀ
MAZZONI, REPRESENTING THE TURN
NETWORK. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
WELCOME GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME
IS KATIE MORRISON. I'M AN
ATTORNEY WITH THE UTILITY REFORM
NETWORK. RETURN FOR OVER 50
YEARS, TURN HAS BEEN HOLDING
UTILITIES ACCOUNTABLE TO DELIVER
CALIFORNIA'S CLEAN ENERGY AT
AFFORDABLE RATES. I'M HERE TODAY
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF SB
1130. SENATOR BRADFORD'S BILL TO
REMOVE THE HOUSEHOLD SIZE
REQUIREMENT FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR
THE FEAR OF PROGRAM. IN RECENT
YEARS, THE RATES FOR THE
CALIFORNIA IOUS HAVE
SKYROCKETED, TO OVER THE LAST
DECADE, ALMOST DOUBLING OR CLOSE
TO DOUBLING ENERGY AND SECURITY
IS INCREASING ACROSS CALIFORNIA,
AND MORE UTILITY CUSTOMERS ARE
FACING A VERY REAL QUESTION OF
WHETHER TO TURN ON THEIR AC ON A
HOT DAY OR TO PAY FOR FOOD OR
PRESCRIPTIONS. TURN HAS A NUMBER
OF PROPOSALS FOR DELIVERING
AFFORDABLE RATES, BUT IN THE
MEANTIME, THE CPUC DOES MAINTAIN
RATE DISCOUNT PROGRAMS THAT HELP
LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS,
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES WHOSE
HOUSEHOLD INCOMES ARE AT OR
BELOW 200% OF THE FEDERAL
POVERTY LINE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
THE CALIFORNIA ALTERNATE RATES
FOR ENERGY PROGRAM OR CARE. AND
HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOME LEVELS
BETWEEN 200 AND 250% OF THE
FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL ARE
ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN FIRA
AND RECEIVE AN 18% DISCOUNT ON
THEIR MONTHLY ELECTRIC BILL,
WHILE CARE IS EITHER FULLY OR
CLOSE TO FULLY ENROLLED FOR EACH
OF THE IOUS, THE FAIR PROGRAM
REMAINS WELL UNDER SUBSCRIBED
AND AS NOTED BY THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS S¼ IS AT 11. ENROLLMENT
WITH PGA AND SGA, ABOUT A
QUARTER ENROLLED, AND CURRENTLY
THERE IS A HOUSEHOLD SIZE
REQUIREMENT OF THREE MEMBERS OF
THE HOUSEHOLD. THIS BILL WOULD
REMOVE THAT SIZE REQUIREMENT AND
WOULD, EXPAND THE BASE OF PEOPLE
THAT ARE ABLE TO MEET THE INCOME
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE
FAIR PROGRAM AND WOULD CERTAINLY
BENEFIT FROM THE REDUCED
ELECTRICITY RATES THAT THE
PROGRAM OFFERS. EXPANDING FERA
PROTECTS PEOPLE, THEIR HEALTH,
AND THEIR DIGNITY. IT PROVIDES
PEOPLE STRUGGLING WITH THEIR
ENERGY BILLS MORE AFFORDABLE
RATES, AND KEEPS THAT CUSTOMER
PAYING THEIR BILL AND KEEPS
THEIR, UNPAID AMOUNTS FROM BEING
, SOCIALIZED ACROSS OTHER
UTILITY CUSTOMERS. TURN IS PROUD
TO SUPPORT SB 1130 AND URGES
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, ALL
RIGHT. WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR
SUPPORT TESTIMONY IN THE ROOM.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1130, PLEASE COME
ON UP. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR. MEMBERS. CATHERINE
CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF SAN JOSE
CLEAN ENERGY AND SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHARLIE DONLON WITH
STONE ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA SOLAR AND STORAGE
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. VICTORIA
ROHM WITH NRDC IN SUPPORT. DAN
SHAW FOR AVA COMMUNITY ENERGY,
FORMERLY EAST BAY COMMUNITY
ENERGY AND SUPPORT. REBECCA
MARCUS WITH CALPIRG IN SUPPORT.
JAMIE MINER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE
ASSOCIATION AND MCE SERVING
CONSTITUENTS IN MARIN, CONTRA
COSTA, SOLANO AND NAPA COUNTIES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MARK
FENSTERMAKER FOR PENINSULA CLEAN
ENERGY AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
KELLY O'BRIEN WITH WESTERN
CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU, I
DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A WITNESS
IN OPPOSITION SEEING NONE, WE'LL
OPEN IT UP FOR ANY OPPOSITION
TESTIMONY IN THE ROOM. IF YOU'D
LIKE TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MIC. SEEING
NONE, BRINGING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS? COMMENTS
ALL RIGHT. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
THANK YOU FOR AN EASY BILL.
THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE FOR. I'M
HERE TO SERVE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WOOD. DID YOU WANT TO. NO, NO,
JUST YOU WERE GIVEN A THUMBS UP.
OKAY, GOOD. ALL RIGHT. WITH
THAT, SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE I RESPECTFULLY ASK YEA, I
VOTE THANK YOU, MADAM, WE HAVE A
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
YES. GREAT. ALL RIGHT. BEFORE I
SAT DOWN. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER
FIVE, SB 1130. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSED TO APPROPRIATIONS
PETRIE-NORRIS I PETRIE-NORRIS I
JIM PATTERSON. JIM PATTERSON, I
BAUER-KAHAN BERNARD CALDERON
CALDERON I CHEN CHEN I FRIEDMAN
I FRIEDMAN I HEART A HEART I
HOLDEN HOLDEN I JOE PATTERSON
REYES I REYES I SANTIAGO TING
WALLACE A WALLACE I WOULD, I
WOULD I ZABIR. TEN ZERO THAT
BILL IS OUT AND WE'LL LEAVE THE
ROLL OPEN FOR SOME MEMBERS.
MADAM CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. YES, SENATOR
SKINNER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR PATIENCE AND WELCOME.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, MOVE THE
BILL. SECOND. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I'LL OPEN WITH THE
AMENDMENTS, I WILL BE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS IN THE
ANALYSIS TO STRIKE CAPACITY AND
OTHER POINT OF CONNECTION
CHARGES AND TO S TO ADD
ESTIMATED TO THE SCHEDULE OF
FEES WITH THE AGREEMENT THAT THE
COMMITTEE WILL WORK WITH THE
COMMITTEE ON GUARDRAILS FOR THAT
LANGUAGE SO THAT WE, SO THAT THE
INFORMATION IS REASONABLY
ACCURATE, AND WE CAN TALK LATER
ABOUT WHY WE NEED THAT. AND I'VE
AGREED TO THE HARDSHIP EXEMPTION
BEING DEFINED AS FOR UTILITIES
HAVING UNDER 4000 CONNECTIONS,
BUT WITH WORK STILL TO BE DONE,
TO CLARIFY THE PROCEDURE FOR HOW
UTILITIES WOULD ESTABLISH A
HARDSHIP. SO WITH THAT, I IF
YOU'RE OKAY, I WILL NOW JUST
QUICKLY WIDE THE BILL, WHETHER
YOU'RE A HOMEOWNER WHO'S
BUILDING AN ADU SOMEBODY A SMALL
PROPERTY OWNER BUILDING A
FOURPLEX OR A LARGE MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPER, OF COURSE YOU WANT TO
BE YOU'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT THE COST OF YOUR PROJECT IS
GOING TO BE IN ADVANCE. AND
WHILE YOU CAN GET BIDS ON
EVERYTHING, MOST EVERYTHING, THE
ONE THING THAT YOU DON'T KNOW IN
ADVANCE, IN MANY CASES, IS WHAT
THE COST OF YOUR UTILITY HOOKUP
IS GOING TO BE AND WHAT THE
TIMELINE FOR THAT COMPLETION
WILL BE. NOW SOME OF OUR PUBLIC
WATER UTILITIES HAVE POSTED. YOU
CAN GO ONLINE RIGHT AWAY. I
MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, I AM BUILDING
AN ADU IN MY BACKYARD RIGHT NOW.
I DON'T INTEND TO RENT IT FOR A
FAMILY MEMBER, BUT LET'S SAY I
WANTED TO RENT IT. THAT MIGHT
ARGUE FOR ME TO HAVE A SEPARATE
WATER METER. HOWEVER I WAS ABLE
TO GO ONLINE TO MY LOCAL UTILITY
WATER UTILITY AND FIND OUT WHAT
THE COST OF A SEPARATE WATER
METER WOULD BE TO ME, VERSUS
WHAT THE COST OF JUST AN UPGRADE
TO MY METER WOULD BE RIGHT.
WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, AND, YOU
MIGHT NOT WANT TO KNOW JUST
EXACTLY WHAT THAT COST WAS. MINE
HAS A PARTICULARLY HIGH A NEW
METER WOULD HAVE COST ME IN THE
ORDER OVER 30,000. THE UPGRADE
COST ME 17. SO OF COURSE, I MADE
THE DECISION TO DO THE UPGRADE
VERSUS THE NEW ONE. HOWEVER,
MANY, MANY OTHER UTILITIES
SEWER, ELECTRIC, YOU NAME IT,
DON'T GIVE YOU YOU DON'T HAVE
THAT INFORMATION. YOU CAN'T MAKE
THAT IN ADVANCE. SO GIVEN THAT
WE'RE TRYING TO DEAL WITH,
MAKING PROGRESS ON OUR HOUSING
CRISIS AND, TIME IS MONEY,
HOOKUP FEES ARE MONEY. THE MORE
CLARITY WE CAN HAVE IN ADVANCE,
THE BETTER. SO THIS BILL IS
PURELY TRANSPARENCY. DOESN'T
FORCE ANYTHING OTHER THAN OUR
UTILITIES TO POST ONLINE THEIR
ESTIMATED HOOKUP FEES AND BY
HOUSING TYPE AND THEIR ESTIMATED
TIMELINE FOR THE COMPLETION OF
THOSE HOOKUPS. SO THAT'S WHAT IT
DOES. AND AS I INDICATED, THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. AND WITH
THAT, LET ME HAVE MY WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT, WE HAVE COREY SMITH
FROM THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION AND COURTNEY PAUL FROM
RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. SENATOR,
GOOD AFTERNOON, ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
AND HAPPY JUNETEENTH TO
EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS COREY
SMITH. I'M THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION. WE'RE A HOME BUILDING
INDUSTRY FUNDED NONPROFIT THAT
ADVOCATES FOR BUILDING MORE
HOMES FOR RESIDENTS AT ALL
INCOME LEVELS AND A PROUD
SPONSOR OF SB 1210, BECAUSE
WE'VE HEARD CONSISTENTLY ABOUT
THE CHALLENGES UTILITY COMPANIES
PRESENT IN THE HOME BUILDING
PROCESS. AND WHILE SB 1210 WILL
NOT BE A PANACEA, FEW THINGS
MAKE IT HARDER AND MORE
EXPENSIVE TO BUILD HOUSING THAN
INTRODUCING UNFORESEEN COSTS AND
UNPREDICTABILITY. AND THAT'S WHY
THIS GOOD GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL
WILL HELP SOLVE A PROBLEM THAT
HOME BUILDERS FACE BY REQUIRING
THE TRANSPARENCY AND TIMELINES
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS,
MÁS HOME BUILDERS WILL BE ABLE
TO BETTER PREDICT THE COSTS AND
TIMELINES ASSOCIATED WITH
BUILDING NEW HOUSING AND IN AN
ENVIRONMENT WHERE IT IS
FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE. IF WE'RE
BEING HONEST, TO BUILD HOUSING
HERE TODAY, WE NEED TO BE DOING
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAKE IT
EASIER. TO BE CLEAR, THIS BILL
IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE EVERY
SINGLE PROBLEM. BUT FOR ANYBODY
THAT'S LOOKING TO PROPOSE OR
BUILD NEW HOMES, THIS IS A STEP
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
COURTNEY POWELL AND I'M THE
POLICY MANAGER AT RESOURCES FOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, OR RCD,
AS WE'RE KNOWN IN THE FIELD. WE
ARE A NONPROFIT, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPER PROVIDING OVER
2600 RENTAL HOMES THROUGHOUT THE
BAY AREA WITH AN ADDITIONAL 1000
APARTMENTS IN PRE-DEVELOPMENT
AND CONSTRUCTION. RCD IS A PROUD
SUPPORTER OF SB 1210 BECAUSE IT
PROVIDES MUCH NEEDED
TRANSPARENCY INTO UTILITY HOOKUP
FEES AND CONNECTION TIMELINES.
THESE ARE TWO MAJOR COSTS THAT
ARE CURRENTLY OBSCURED FOR MUCH
OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. FOR
EXAMPLE, WATER AND SEWER
CONNECTION FEES. AMONG OUR
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AVERAGE $1.1
MILLION, BUT WE TYPICALLY DON'T
RECEIVE AN OFFICIAL FEE ESTIMATE
UNTIL RIGHT BEFORE PAYMENT IS
DUE, REQUIRING UTILITY AGENCIES
TO LIST THESE FEES ON THEIR
WEBSITE PROVIDES EARLIER CLARITY
REGARDING THESE LARGE COSTS.
SIMILARLY, WE DON'T RECEIVE A
UTILITY CONNECTION SCHEDULING
ESTIMATE UNTIL AFTER A
DEVELOPMENT IS READY TO BE
CONNECTED TO THE GRID. DELAYS AT
THIS JUNCTURE ARE PARTICULARLY
IMPACTFUL, AS WE HAVE LEARNED
FROM RECENT EXPERIENCE AT OUR
NEWEST AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, THE MODEL. MILLER
CHARRETTE COMMUNITY IN SOUTH
BERKELEY. THIS DEVELOPMENT IS
CURRENTLY BEING AFFECTED BY A
DELAYED ENERGIZATION TIMELINE ON
THE PART OF PGE. THIS DELAYED
TIMELINE WAS NOT KNOWN TO US AT
THE OUTSET, AND AS A RESULT,
IT'S CREATING INCREASED COSTS
AND DISRUPTION FOR THE MANY LOW
INCOME FAMILIES WHO WILL CALL
THIS BUILDING HOME. AND THEY'RE
WAITING TO MOVE IN UNDER SB
1210, PKGNAME AND OTHER UTILITY
COMPANIES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
POST THEIR CONNECTION TIMELINES
PUBLICLY ONLINE, GIVING US
ADVANCE NOTICE OF THESE TYPES OF
WORKLOAD DELAYS AND ALLOWING US
TO MITIGATE THEIR FINANCIAL HARM
. SO WE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. WHERE'S THE
CHAIR? THANK YOU SO MUCH, WE'LL
GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN THE ROOM.
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO TESTIFY TO
SUPPORT SB 1210. REBECCA MARCUS,
REPRESENTING LEADING AGE
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT DAN
CHOPPER. EVA COMMUNITY ENERGY
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
OPPOSITION WITNESSES. YOU CAN GO
AHEAD AND COME ON UP. SO THANK.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS. I KNOW
IT'S BEEN A LONG HEARING SO FAR.
BRANDON EBCLC, PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE
BILL. WE'VE BEEN OPPOSED TO THE
FOUR DIFFERENT VERSIONS. IT'S
TAKEN SO FAR, OUR OUTSTANDING
ISSUES ARE LARGELY TECHNICAL. SO
WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT
AMENDMENTS COME OUT. WE'RE OPEN
TO BEING PART OF THE
CONVERSATION, ULTIMATELY, THE
BILL COMMINGLES A LOT OF TYPES
OF UTILITIES INTO ONE BILL AND
TREATS THEM ALL THE SAME AND
THEN TREATS IOUS THE SAME AS
POOR USE. THAT'S REALLY THE
ISSUE HERE. WE DON'T HAVE
SCHEDULED FEES. WE HAVE A WHOLE
DIFFERENT PROCESS. WE JUST WANT
THAT TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE
BILL. WE ARE ENGAGING WITH THE
PUC ON TIMELINES. WE'RE OPEN TO
TRANSPARENCY. WE JUST NEED TO
HAVE A CONCRETE DISCUSSION TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE BILL WORKS ON
A TECHNICAL BASIS. AND THAT'S SO
WE LOOK FORWARD TO LOOKING AT
WHATEVER AMENDMENTS ARE, AND IF
WE CAN BE PART OF THE
CONVERSATION, THAT'D BE HELPFUL.
THANK YOU. ANDREW CÁC WITH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON. I
JUST WANT TO ALIGN MY COMMENTS
WITH MY COLLEAGUE FROM PG AND E,
WE'RE A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED
ABOUT THE TRANSPARENCY PIECE
BECAUSE OF THE ALLOWANCES THAT
ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY OF THESE
INTERCONNECTIONS, THEY CAN
EFFECTIVELY MAKE AN
INTERCONNECTION FOR A SINGLE
FAMILY HOME FREE, OR IT DOESN'T
REALLY COST ANYTHING. SO THE
ACTUAL AMOUNT THAT THE CUSTOMER
PAYS IS NOT NECESSARILY
REFLECTIVE OF WHAT'S BEING
DISCLOSED. BUT WITH THAT BEING
SAID, WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE
SENATOR, BEING WILLING TO ACCEPT
THE AMENDMENTS AND LOOK FORWARD
TO SEEING THOSE IN PRINT AND
TAKING THIS CONVERSATION
FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION COUNSEL WITH SGA ALSO
IN OPPOSITION. OKAY. BRINGING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WOOD YEAH, THANK YOU,
SENATOR, I APPRECIATE I
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
ACCOMPLISH HERE. I GUESS, I
GUESS ONE OF THE CONCERNS I
HAVE, AND MAYBE UNLESS I'M
MISUNDERSTANDING THE BILL, IS
THAT THAT WE WANT YOU WANT
TRANSPARENCY. YOU WANT TO KNOW
WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST UP
FRONT. AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT
WHAT A TYPICAL HOME IS. WELL, I
WOULD SAY IN THE COMMUNITY I
LIVE IN, THE TYPICAL HOME MIGHT
THERE IS NO DEFINITION FOR THAT.
WE HAVE YOU HAVE A HOUSE THAT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE
50S, NEXT TO A HOUSE THAT'S
BUILT IN THE IN THE 70S, AND
THEY'RE ON DIFFERENT SIZE LOTS,
SO HOW DO YOU HOW DOES A UTILITY
OR OR YOU KNOW, GIVE AN ESTIMATE
ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHEN
THEY'RE, THEY COULD BE
COMPLETELY DISSIMILAR. I CAN SEE
IN A, IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE
THE HOMES WERE ALL BUILT AROUND
THE SAME TIME AND, AND THEY'RE
ALL ROUGHLY THE SAME SIZE, BUT
THAT ISN'T REFLECTIVE, CERTAINLY
ISN'T REFLECTIVE OF A LOT OF MY
DISTRICT, AND IT IS CERTAINLY
NOT REFLECTIVE OF THE COMMUNITY
THAT I LIVE IN, SO HOW THE
AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WAS GOING TO
BE REQUIRED TO DO THAT, I
TYPICAL ISN'T GOING TO
NECESSARILY BE TYPICAL, AND ONE
SIZE ISN'T GOING TO FIT ALL. AND
SO HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU HOW DO
YOU PROPOSE THAT THEY ADDRESS
THAT. BECAUSE I, I DON'T SEE HOW
YOU DO IT AND ACCOMPLISH WHAT I
BELIEVE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU
WANT TO DO. I APPRECIATE I
REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT
BECAUSE I AS A CUSTOMER WOULD
WANT TO KNOW THAT TOO. SO I
DON'T SEE I DON'T KNOW. THE
LANGUAGE DIDN'T STATE TYPICAL
PER SE. IT STATED TYPE OF. AND
IT ALSO IS USING ESTIMATED AND
CERTAINLY WE ARE WORKING WITH
THE COMMITTEE ON YOU KNOW HOW
TO, TO DEFINE THAT, TO ADD SOME
GUARDRAILS TO THAT ESTIMATED SO
THAT CLEARLY THE, DIFFERENT
FACTORS, THAT THAT MIGHT GO INTO
WHAT, WHAT THE HOOKUP COST IS
FOR X OR Y WOULD, WOULD BE ABLE
TO BE INCLUDED, PART OF THIS IN
OTHER WORDS, THE DISCLOSURE,
WOULD THAT ESTIMATE MIGHT
INDICATE WHAT ARE THESE FACTORS
THAT WOULD AFFECT ESTIMATE X OR
ESTIMATE Y? OKAY. WELL, I'M
SORRY IF I MISSED A WORD TYPE OF
OR TYPICAL TYPE OF STILL DOESN'T
CHANGE THE MY QUESTION BECAUSE
TWO THREE BEDROOM TWO BATH
HOUSES THAT ARE DIFFERENT
GENERATIONS ON DIFFERENT SIZE
LOTS WITH DIFFERENT RUNS AND,
DIFFERENT AGES OF
INFRASTRUCTURE, ALL OF THOSE
THINGS CAN BE FACTORED IN. SO,
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M
STRUGGLING WITH I MEAN, IT, I'M
GLAD THAT IT'S AN ESTIMATE
BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU
COULD GET SOMEONE TO PIN THAT
DOWN AND BE FAIR TO ANYBODY,
QUITE FRANKLY. WELL, AND AS I'VE
INDICATED THAT I AM TAKING THAT
AMENDMENT OF THE ESTIMATED AND
CERTAINLY WILLING TO CONTINUE
THE CONVERSATION TO BECAUSE THE
POINT IS TO GET THAT
TRANSPARENCY. AND I'M SURE
THERE'S A WAY TO ACHIEVE IT.
ACTUALLY, THROUGH THE CHAIR, ALL
I WAS GOING TO SAY IS OVER A
MONTH AGO, WE PROVIDED
AMENDMENTS TO THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE TO JUST SAY THAT YOU CAN
PROVIDE A SCHEDULE, FEES OR A
DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE COSTS
MIGHT BE CREATED SO YOU CAN PUT
IN ALL THOSE FACTORS ONLINE AND
HAVE BETTER TRANSPARENCY. I KNOW
TRANSPARENCY IS A BIG THING OF
WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH 80, 50 AND
SB 410, AND WE'RE TRYING TO
REBUILD OUR WEBSITE, TRYING TO
REBUILD THE WHOLE PROCESS. SO
WE'RE OPEN TO LISTING A
DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE FEES ARE
CREATED, BUT JUST ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT WE DON'T HAVE A SCHEDULE OF
FEES. WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE A
SCHEDULE OF FEES. THAT'S NOT
GOING TO BE RELEVANT TO WHAT
WE'RE ULTIMATELY GOING TO
CHARGE. CUSTOMER THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZUBER I'M GOING
TO. SO FIRST, I WANT TO THANK
YOU. I ALWAYS BELIEVE IN MORE
TRANSPARENCY THAN LESS, BUT I DO
SHARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS. I
THINK THAT, THAT, THAT, MY
COLLEAGUE FROM NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA HAS, EXPRESSED THE
THING THAT IS HARD FOR ME IS TO
SORT OF UNDERSTAND WHETHER
YOU'RE DOING SORT OF MORE HARM
THAN GOOD BY GIVING AN ESTIMATE
WHERE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE OUTLIERS
THAT ARE GOING TO BE A LOT
HIGHER. SO SAY THE, YOU KNOW,
SAY, YOU KNOW, SO ONE WAY THING
MIGHT BE TO DO A RANGE, I GUESS,
WHICH I'D ASK YOU TO THINK
ABOUT. ANOTHER THING WOULD BE
TO, GIVE AN ESTIMATE, BUT THEN
WHAT ABOUT THOSE CASES WHERE YOU
ACTUALLY HAVE YOU KNOW, A COST
THAT IS MUCH, MUCH HIGHER AND
THEN YOU'VE GOT YOU HAVE A
CONSUMER WHO'S GOTTEN THAT
ESTIMATE THAT IS $1,000, AND IT
TURNS OUT TO BE 10,000. IT SEEMS
LIKE THAT'S ALMOST MORE HARMFUL,
YOU KNOW, I DO THINK THAT, I
DON'T WANT THIS TO MOVE IN A
DIRECTION WHERE IT BECOMES
SOMETHING WHERE THE ESTIMATE
BECOMES HARD AND FAST AND IS THE
FEE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT
PEOPLE SHOULD BE SHARING, YOU
KNOW, THAT WE SHOULD BE
AVERAGING THIS ALL OUT, I DON'T
THINK I MEAN, IF YOU'RE DOING IT
BASED ON, YOU KNOW, ON ON
ECONOMIC FACTORS THROUGH SOME
KIND OF PROGRAM, THAT WOULD BE A
DIFFERENT THING. AND I ALSO
DON'T WANT IT TO BE SOMETHING
THAT IS SORT OF BECOMES BORNE BY
THE RATEPAYER. SO YOU KNOW, I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY
BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN
WORKING VERY HARD, AND I THINK
THE CHAIR HAS BEEN WORKING HARD
WITH THE STAFF ON THIS BILL WITH
THESE ESTIMATES. BUT I DO THINK
IT NEEDS SOME WORK, TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE DON'T HAVE CONSUMERS
THAT ARE RELYING ON AN ESTIMATE
THAT IS JUST REALLY OFF, AND
THAT WE DON'T GO IN A DIRECTION
WHERE WE'RE SORT OF AVERAGING
THESE THINGS AND THAT BECOMES
THE CHARGE, SO AND CERTAINLY
ESTIMATE DOES NOT PRECLUDE RANGE
. ASSEMBLY MEMBER. OH, SORRY.
PATTERSON WELL, THANK YOU. THANK
YOU FOR THAT, ONE OF THE, ONE OF
THE OPPONENT LETTERS IS A
DISTRICT IN MY DISTRICT, EL
DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT. AND
ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE
OPPOSITION WAS, THAT THEY THINK
IT'S DUPLICATIVE IN TERMS OF
REPORTING THAT EXISTING LAW
ALREADY SAYS THEY HAVE TO PUT
THIS ON THEIR WEBSITE. AND SO I
WAS JUST, LOOKING INTERESTED IN
YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT. I HAVE A
COMMENT AFTERWARDS, BUT, YOUR
THOUGHTS ON THAT, THE, THE
LANGUAGE, FOR THOSE UTILITIES
THAT ALREADY HAVE THAT
REQUIREMENT UNDER THE LAW, IT
STATES THAT THEY JUST COMPLY
WITH THE, THE EXISTING LAW THAT
THAT HAS THAT REQUIREMENT. OKAY.
THAT'S GREAT, YEAH. I THINK, YOU
KNOW, I'M ON THE HOUSING SPACE.
I'M WORKING ON SOME BILLS
PERTAINING TO ACTUALLY FEE
DEFERRALS, AND IT'S, GOT OUT OF
THIS HOUSE AND WE'LL SEE WHAT
HAPPENS IN THE SENATE. BUT, I
THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT,
GENERALLY TO HAVE TRANSPARENCY
ON, ON WHAT THOSE FEES ARE GOING
TO BE, BECAUSE WE HAVE, YOU
KNOW, I'M MY CONCERN IS MOSTLY
FOR AGENCIES THAT ARE ALREADY
SEEMS TO BE COVERED BY LAW.
RIGHT. BUT BUT I THINK, WHEN A
PERSON'S PUTTING IN A HOUSE AND
OR DOING AN ADU OR THERE'S A
MULTIFAMILY UNIT, A LOT OF
PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE WHEN
THEY'RE GOING FROM ONE
JURISDICTION TO ANOTHER
JURISDICTION. IF IT'S NOT EASY
TO FIND JUST HOW MUCH DIFFERENT
THOSE FEES COULD ACTUALLY BE. I
MEAN, I USE THIS OPPORTUNITY
EVERY TIME THAT THERE'S A SEWER
DISTRICT IN MY DISTRICT THAT
CHARGES $15,000 CONNECTION FEE,
WHETHER YOU'RE A 1000 SQUARE
FOOT APARTMENT OR 100,000 SQUARE
FOOT, MANSION, THAT I HOPE TO
LIVE IN ONE DAY. BUT IT'S THE
SAME FEE AND SO IF YOU'RE DOING
SO, I ACTUALLY LOVE THE IDEA OF
TRANSPARENCY. SO PEOPLE CAN SEE
THAT THAT'S THAT'S CRAZY. AND
THIS LEGISLATURE, FOR ONE REASON
OR ANOTHER, HAS ALLOWED THAT
EXEMPTION FOR THOSE TYPES OF
CONNECTIONS, FEES FOR THEM TO
NOT BASE IT ON SQUARE FOOTAGE OR
WHATEVER. I NEVER REALLY, TRULY
UNDERSTOOD THAT, BUT I AM
CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT, THE,
INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES ARE
SAYING, AND I HOPE YOU CONTINUE
TO WORK ON THAT BECAUSE AS I
COULD SEE IT ACTUALLY MAKING
PEOPLE MORE CONCERNED IS THEY'RE
PUTTING IN HOUSING AND THEY'RE
GETTING THEY DON'T REALLY KNOW
WHAT THE ESTIMATES ARE GOING TO
BE, BUT I DO I WANT TO SEE THEM
BE TRANSPARENT IN THAT PROCESS
AND ESPECIALLY THE TIMELINES. I
DO GET A LOT OF PHONE CALLS ON
THAT. THE TIMELINES, I THINK, IS
GOOD. BUT, BUT IN TERMS OF HOW
THEY EXACTLY PUT THAT ON THEIR
WEBSITE AND I JUST HOPE YOU
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT, BUT
I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT TODAY AS
WELL. CERTAINLY THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER KHN. I
JUST WANT TO THANK THE SENATOR
FOR HER WORK ON THIS. LAST YEAR,
WE HEARD A BILL BY SENATOR
BECKER THAT GAVE THAT WAS
SPONSORED BY THE IOUS RELATED
TO, OR MAYBE NOT SPONSOR
SUPPORTIVE, I GUESS I DON'T
REMEMBER IF YOU SPONSORED OR NOT
THAT DEALT WITH BALANCING
ACCOUNTS. A BALANCING ACCOUNT
FOR THIS TO GIVE THEM MORE MONEY
TO DO THESE INTERCONNECTION
FEES, WHICH I HAD SERIOUS
CONCERNS AND CONTINUE TO HAVE
SERIOUS CONCERNS, WILL INCREASE
THE RATEPAYER COSTS AND SO I
REALLY APPRECIATE THIS BECAUSE I
THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT
ESPECIALLY SINCE WE ALREADY
PASSED LAW, THAT I THINK COULD
RAISE THE RATES OF CONSUMERS,
THAT WAS INTENDED TO BRING THESE
TIMELINES DOWN, THAT THERE IS
TRANSPARENCY ON WHETHER OR NOT
THAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING. AND I
THINK THAT'S PART OF WHAT THIS
DOES. AND SO I REALLY APPRECIATE
AND LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING
IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY.
SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE, DEFINITELY OPEN TO MAKING
SURE THAT LOOK, THE POINT OF THE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS TO GET
INFORMATION AND TO HAVE IT AS
ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE AND NOT TO
MISLEAD ANYONE. SO WE'LL
CONTINUE TO DO THAT WORK. I
THINK WE HAVE, WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE. WE'VE HIT SOME GOOD
SPOTS TO ACHIEVE THAT. AND WITH
THAT, I ASK YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU, THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
DID WE ALREADY GET. YEP. WE
ALREADY HAD A MOTION AND A
SECOND, MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. ITEM NUMBER SIX,
SB 1210 Dð PASSES AMENDED TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON.
JIM PATTERSON NOT VOTING
BAUER-KAHAN FARAKHAN I BURNER I
BURNER I CALDERON CALDERON I
CHEN CHEN NOT VOTING. FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN I HEART, HEART I HOLDEN
I HOLDEN I JOE PATTERSON I ON
JOE PATTERSON I REYES I REYES I
SANTIAGO TING WALLACE NØ WALLACE
NÓ WOULD I WOULD I ZIPPER ZIPPER
I. 11 ONE, THAT BILL IS OUT AND
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON. OKAY.
MOVING TO THE, OUR FINAL ITEM OF
THE HEARING ITEM FILE, ITEM
EIGHT, SB 1420. WELCOME, SENATOR
CABALLERO. BILL. GOOD AFTERNOON.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT SB 1420, WHICH PROVIDES
A PATHWAY FOR A SUSTAINABLE
TRANSITION TO A CLEAN ENERGY
ECONOMY COUPLED WITH THE
CO-BENEFITS OF BETTER AIR
QUALITY AND LOWER ENERGY COSTS
FOR ALL CONSUMERS. ALONG WITH
THE ABILITY TO CREATE HIGH ROAD
GREEN ENERGY JOBS. FIRST, I'D
LIKE TO EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE TO
THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF. WE'VE BEEN WORKING REALLY
HARD ON THIS BILL, AND IT WAS A
VERY THOROUGH AND THOUGHTFUL
ANALYSIS. AND SO I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE ANALYSIS.
CONTAINS SOME SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS, WHICH WE WILL NOT BE
DISCUSSING TODAY BECAUSE WE HAVE
OUR, OUR OWN. AMENDMENTS THAT,
AND THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE
ANALYSIS BECAUSE THE ANALYSIS
WAS PREPARED BEFORE THE CHAIR
AND I SPOKE. SO THERE'S A ONE
PAGER THAT HAS THE CHANGES. IN
ANY CASE, THE INSTEAD, THE CHAIR
AND I HAVE AGREED TO RETAIN
SECTION ONE OF THE BILL.
HOWEVER, THIS SECTION WILL BE
SIGNIFICANTLY AMENDED PURSUANT
TO TECHNICAL ADVICE PROPOSED BY
THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES
BOARD. AND I'M SORRY FOR
INTERRUPTING. JUST TO CLARIFY,
FOR MEMBERS PURPOSES, WE DID
INCLUDE THE ACTUAL AMENDMENTS SO
THAT IF MEMBERS WANT TO REFER TO
THOSE, THAT'S THAT'S GREAT. IS
THAT AN ADDENDUM TO AND THAT'S
WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO SAY. YES
OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SORRY.
THANK YOU. CARRY ON. THANK YOU
FOR CLARITY. YEAH. NO, IT'S
WE'RE SUPPOSED. OKAY. THANK YOU
FOR DOING AN AMENDMENT BECAUSE I
DIDN'T, END UP SEEING THAT
ACTUALLY. SO. SO WHAT? IT WILL
DO IS RETAIN THE CARBON
INTENSITY STANDARDS STANDARD OF
HYDROGEN, WHICH WOULD BE THE
HIGHEST IN THE WORLD AND
RESERVES THE AUTHORITY TO CARB
TO DO A REGULATORY FRAMEWORK TO
ENSURE THAT HYDROGEN PRODUCED IS
MADE WITH THE HIGHEST STANDARDS
IN THE WORLD. IT DELETES THE
DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED CLEAN
HYDROGEN AND LIMITS HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION FACILITIES AND
ASSOCIATED STORAGE AND
PROCESSING FACILITIES THAT WOULD
BE ELIGIBLE FOR AN EXPEDITED
CEQA JUDICIAL REVIEW AND
BUILDING PERMITS. STREAMLINING
FOR THOSE PROJECTS THAT HAVE
RECEIVED FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL
OR STATE GOVERNMENT. BY JANUARY
1ST, 2032, THIS IS WHERE SB 1420
COMES IN. A HYDROGEN BILL THAT
WOULD ESTABLISH, AS I SAID, THE
HIGHEST EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
HYDROGEN IN THE WORLD. IT
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS RESOURCE
SHUFFLING DURING PRODUCTION AND
REQUIRES THE ANNUAL CARBON
INTENSITY OF THE PRODUCED
HYDROGEN FUEL TO BE EQUAL TO OR
BELOW THAT OF OUR ENERGY GRID.
COLLECTIVELY THE BILL ENSURES
THE CONTINUED DECARBONIZATION OF
HYDROGEN FUEL WHILE MAINTAINING
PROTECTION AGAINST EMISSION
IMPACTS. CALIFORNIA HAS INVESTED
BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS IN
INDUSTRIES IN SUPPORT OF OUR
CLIMATE CHANGE GOALS. HOWEVER,
WE STILL REQUIRE A DIVERSE SET
OF SOLUTIONS TO ENSURE
CALIFORNIA CAN ACHIEVE OUR
CARBON REDUCTION GOALS BY 2045.
DESPITE ROBUST PUBLIC
INVESTMENT, SOME HARD TO
DECARBONIZE INDUSTRIES WILL,
WILL NEED TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE
AND DECARBONIZE IN TIME WITHOUT
NECESSARY POLICY CHANGES AND
SUPPORT THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY,
INCLUDING THE PORTS OPERATIONS,
HEAVY TRUCKING, AVIATION AND
HEAVY INDUSTRY ALL NEED
ADDITIONAL PATHWAYS TO MEET OUR
STATE'S GOAL. ADDITIONALLY, AS
WE TRANSITION TO A ZERO CARBON
ECONOMY, WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION
TO INCLUDE HIGH ROAD EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT FOR OUR STATE'S
WORKFORCE. LET'S LET'S BE CLEAR.
THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES
BOARD, AFTER MUCH RESEARCH AND
ANALYSIS, DETERMINED IN THEIR
2022 SCOPING PLAN THAT
CALIFORNIA COULD NOT ATTAIN ITS
CLIMATE GOALS TO DECARBONIZE
WITHOUT UTILIZING HYDROGEN AS A
FUEL SOURCE, CARB QUITE CLEARLY
STATES THAT CALIFORNIA CANNOT
REACH ITS EMISSION GOALS WITHOUT
EXPANDING HYDROGEN PRODUCTION BY
1700 TIMES THE PRESENT RATE OF
PRODUCTION 1700 TIMES. I JUST
WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR AND
EMPHASIZE THAT THE BILL DOES NOT
ALLOW ANY PROJECTS TO PROCEED
OUTSIDE OF CEQA, OR TO HAVE ANY
IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY
TO PROVIDE COMMENT AND INPUT ON
EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT. SB 1420
WOULD ENABLE CALIFORNIA TO MEET
ITS GOALS AND ALLOW A TRANSITION
IN THE AVIATION, HEAVY DUTY
TRUCKING AND MARITIME INDUSTRIES
AWAY FROM DIESEL AND JET FUEL TO
A CLEANER, LOCALLY PRODUCED
PRODUCT THAT WOULD NOT ONLY
DECARBONIZE THE FUEL BUT
ELIMINATE THE PRODUCTION OF AIR
POLLUTION, CONTAMINANTS SUCH AS
SULFUR OXIDES, THE SOX AND
NITRIC OXIDE, THE NOX. AND IN MY
DISTRICT, THE SOX AND THE NOX
ARE WHAT ARE CREATING THE AIR
POLLUTION THAT HAS LED TO THE
INCREDIBLE INCREASE OF BREATHING
ISSUES AND ASTHMA IN IN OUR
LOCAL COMMUNITY, IT'S THE SOX
AND THE NOX THAT CREATE THE
PROBLEMS AND DISCUSSIONS WITH
THE SCRIPPS INSTITUTE. THEY WILL
BE CHANGING THEIR MARITIME FUEL
WILL BE HYDROGEN, AND THEY'RE IN
THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THAT
OUT. AND THAT FUEL WILL CREATE
THE ABILITY FOR THE SOUTH COAST
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
TO BE ABLE TO MEASURABLY OR TO
MEASURE THE INCREDIBLE REDUCTION
IN THE USE OF DIESEL FUEL IF
THEY THEY MAKE THIS TRANSITION
AND WE EXPECT THAT THAT WILL
TRANSLATE INTO THE SAN JOAQUIN
AIR DISTRICT HAVING THE SAME
OPPORTUNITY. SB 1420 WOULD ALSO
ENABLE CALIFORNIA TO LEVERAGE
$1.2 BILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDS
FROM THE INFLATION REDUCTION
ACT, AWARDED TO THE ARCHES
COALITION FOR A HYDROGEN HUB BY
UNLOCK UNLOCKING PRIVATE
INVESTMENT, PRIVATE SECTOR
INVESTMENT ESTIMATED TO BRING
$10 BILLION INTO OUR STATE,
CREATING JOBS, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT IN UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES AND NEW ENERGY
RESOURCES. HYDROGEN IS A
CRITICAL PART OF CALIFORNIA'S
TRANSITION TO A ZERO EMISSION
TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY
SYSTEM. I AGREE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
AND THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION THAT BY EXPANDING
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION, WE CAN
BETTER DECARBONIZE INDUSTRIES,
MAKE OUR GRID MORE RELIABLE,
STABILIZE COSTS FOR CONSUMERS,
AND CREATE HIGH ROAD JOBS TO
TRANSITION WORKERS TO THE NEW
GREEN ECONOMY. IN CONCLUSION, SB
1420 WOULD ESTABLISH THE HIGHEST
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HYDROGEN
IN THE WORLD, WOULD SUPPORT
CALIFORNIA'S TRANSITION TO A
CLEANER, MORE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
FUTURE BY PROMOTING THE
DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF CLEAN
HYDROGEN AS A KEY COMPONENT OF
THE STATE'S RENEWABLE ENERGY
PORTFOLIO, BUT ALSO CREATE THOSE
HIGH ROAD JOBS, CREATE A
COMMUNITY BENEFIT PLAN, WHICH IS
REQUIRED BY THE ARCHES FRAMEWORK
, AND BRING NEW INVESTMENTS INTO
THE STATE, WITH ME TO TESTIFY
TODAY AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IS KEITH DUNN ADVOCATE FROM THE
STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA AND
TERESA COOK FROM CALIFORNIA
HYDROGEN COALITION. THANK GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR AND MEMBERS
TERESA COOK ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN COALITION. I
WANT TO SECOND THAT. THANK YOU
TO THE CHAIR AND STAFF FOR ALL
THE WORK PUT INTO THE AMENDMENTS
SET. THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY.
WE ARE PLEASED TO SUPPORT 1420
IS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED. THE
NEED TO EXPEDITE HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION FACILITIES IS NOT
LESS THAN THE NEED TO EXPEDITE
THE BUILD OUT OF WIND AND SOLAR
PROJECTS. ALL ARE CRITICAL FOR
OUR CLIMATE GOALS, AND THE TIME
TO ACT ON HYDROGEN IS NOW.
ARCHES IS A ONCE IN A GENERATION
TRANSFORMATIVE OPPORTUNITY TO
MAKE MASSIVE DECARBONIZATION
GAINS IN TRANSPORTATION AND
ENERGY. THIS LEGISLATURE HAS
AGREED TO PERMIT STREAMLINING
FROM ARENAS AND SPORTS STADIUMS.
SURELY IT CAN SEE VALUE IN
OFFERING THIS CLEAN TECHNOLOGY
THE SAME BENEFITS WHILE MY
ENVIRONMENTAL BROTHERS AND
SISTERS WILL MAKE THE ARGUMENT
THAT HYDROGEN IS JUST AN
EXTENSION OF FOSSIL, LET'S
REMEMBER WE'RE TRYING TO
EXPEDITE THE BUILD OUT OF CLEAN
HYDROGEN PROJECTS AND EFFORTS TO
BLOCK THAT PERPETUATE WHAT
THEY'RE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT.
SPEAKING TO OBJECTIONS RAISED BY
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY, WE
PROUDLY SUPPORT ALL RENEWABLE
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION PATHWAYS,
AND THAT INCLUDES THE USE OF
BIOMETHANE FROM LANDFILLS,
LIVESTOCK FACILITIES AND
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES.
THE SIMPLE FACT IS THEY EMIT
IMMENSE AMOUNTS OF METHANE. AND
IF WE ALL AGREE THOSE EMISSIONS
HAVE DEVASTATING CLIMATE
CONSEQUENCES, THERE IS NO SOUND
POLICY REASON TO OBJECT TO ITS
USE AS A FUEL FOR ZERO EMISSION
FUEL CELL CARS, TRUCKS, BUSSES,
SHIPS, TRAINS AND PLANES LOOK TO
BILLS LIKE AB 2514 BY
ASSEMBLYWOMAN AGUIAR-CURRY ON
HOW TO RESPONSIBLY USE WASTE TO
MAKE RENEWABLE HYDROGEN. DON'T
BLOCK THE USE ALTOGETHER, WHICH
DOES NOTHING BUT BLOCK OUR
METHANE REDUCTION EFFORTS. WE
ALSO SUPPORT THE USE OF
BIOMETHANE OUTSIDE THE STATE,
INJECTED INTO OUR PIPELINE
SYSTEM, AND CLAIMED HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, LIKE OUR GRID
DEPENDS ON RENEWABLE ELECTRONS
FROM WYOMING, ON OUR SHARED
ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE TO MEET
OUR RPS GOALS. WHETHER THAT
ELECTRON MAKES IT TO CALIFORNIA
OR NOT, WE TOO DEPEND ON OUT OF
STATE SOURCES FOR RENEWABLE
HYDROGEN AND WOULD ASK THIS
COMMITTEE TO INSIST THAT WE
TREAT ELECTRONS AND MOLECULES
FAIRLY. AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST,
THE EVER PRESENT DISCUSSION
AROUND THE THREE PILLARS WE WANT
TO BE DONE WITH MY TESTIMONY.
SO, THANK YOU. MORE ON THAT
LATER. TAKE IT AWAY, KEITH. I
KNOW, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
KEITH DUNN HERE, ON BEHALF OF
THE STATE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, I
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AND YOUR
STAFF FOR WORKING WITH OUR
AUTHOR TO COME TO SOME SOLUTIONS
HERE. THIS TRANSITION TO A NEW
ECONOMY NEEDS TO INCLUDE THE
WORKERS OF CALIFORNIA. ALL OF
OUR WORKERS DESERVE TO HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EARN A LIVING,
REMAIN HERE TO RAISE THEIR
CHILDREN HERE AND TO HAVE A LIFE
HERE. WE'RE VERY PLEASED THAT
WE'RE GOING TO BE IN A POSITION
TO CONTINUE TO ATTRACT FEDERAL
DOLLARS. LIKE THE ARCHES
PROGRAM. IT'S A CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT PROGRAM. AS MENTIONED
BY SENATOR CABALLERO, THAT'S
GOING TO MULTIPLY EFFECT AS THEY
START INVESTING HERE IN
CALIFORNIA IN THIS CLEAN ENERGY,
AGAIN, WE APPRECIATE THE WORK OF
STAFF AND THE AUTHOR AND THE
CHAIR AND WOULD ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY IN THE
ROOM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT OF SB 1420. THANK
YOU. MICHELLE RUBALCAVA WITH
NIELSEN MERKSAMER ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF VISALIA IN SUPPORT.
MADAM, MADAM CHAIR CHRIS
MCCAULEY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RENEWABLE
TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE AND THE
LOS ANGELES AREA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
MITCHELL BIXEL, ON BEHALF OF THE
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF IRONWORKERS
IN SUPPORT, KENT COUCH ON BEHALF
OF SGA AND SOCAL GAS IN SUPPORT.
MY NAME IS BEAU MASSETTI, TRIBAL
CHAIRMAN FROM RINCON AND OUR
TRIBE TOTALLY SUPPORTS THIS BILL
AND YOUR EFFORTS. THANK YOU.
CHRIS KHAN, REPRESENTING THE
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT.
DAN CHAU, REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT, STEVE WALLACH ON
BEHALF OF THE CENTER FOR
TRANSPORTATION AND THE
ENVIRONMENT, IN SUPPORT. I ALSO
LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE ALAMEDA,
CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT
AND FOOTHILL TRANSIT WILL BE
TAKEN SUPPORT POSITION NEXT
WEEK. THANKS HELLO, RYAN. KENNY,
ON BEHALF OF CLEAN ENERGY IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, NELLIE MCKAY. ON
BEHALF OF MONARCH BIOENERGY AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CLIFTON
WILSON, ON BEHALF OF THE FRESNO
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. YEAH
JENNIFER HAMILTON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN BUSINESS
COUNCIL IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
MCKAY CARNEY ON BEHALF OF TOYOTA
AND SUPPORT. AND MICHAEL BOJADOR
ON BEHALF OF THE AG ENERGY
CONSUMERS IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
ALL RIGHT, WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION, YOU CAN COME AND
APPROACH THE MAYBE DOWN HERE OR
MAYBE YOU WANT TO SOMEONE CAN
MOVE YOU, MISTER DUNN, IF YOU
WANT TO MOVE OVER ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF MISS COMENZÓ, I DON'T
BITE. OKAY NOT TOO HARD ANYWAY.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS SUSAN
SADAT ON BEHALF OF EARTHJUSTICE.
AND WE ARE RESPECTFULLY HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1420. CONTRARY
TO THE CHARACTERIZATION BY THE
INDUSTRY, WE DO BELIEVE HYDROGEN
CAN PLAY A ROLE IN DECARBONIZING
CALIFORNIA. BUT WE CANNOT SHY
AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT WHETHER
HYDROGEN HELPS OR HINDERS OUR
TRANSITION DEPENDS ON IT MEETING
RIGOROUS STANDARDS, EVEN WITH
THE NOMINAL RESTRICTION ON
FOSSIL FUEL HYDROGEN, SB 1420
OFFERS A ROADMAP FOR HEAVILY
POLLUTING HYDROGEN PRODUCTION TO
BE GREENWASHED AS CLEAN. FOR
EXAMPLE, IT WOULD GREENLIGHT THE
PROCESS OF TAKING GRAY HYDROGEN
MADE FROM FOSSIL FUEL, AND
THAT'S MADE IN CALIFORNIA'S
REFINERY COMMUNITIES AND MERELY
PAIRING IT WITH UNBUNDLED BIOGAS
CREDITS FROM OUT OF STATE
FACTORY FARMS OR LANDFILLS. THIS
BIOGAS OFFSET PATHWAY IS NOT
CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE TO BE DEFINED
AS RENEWABLE FOR FUELING
STATIONS. UNDER EXISTING LAW, SB
1505, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, SB 1420
WOULD WEAKEN EXISTING DIRECTIONS
FOR CARB AND ALLOW FOR THIS
PRACTICE TO QUALIFY, MAKING IT A
STEP BACKWARDS FOR OUR
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR. THE BILL
ALSO FAILS TO PREVENT RESOURCE
SHUFFLING, AS IT STATES, BY
OMITTING FUNDAMENTAL SAFEGUARDS
ON ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN
RECOGNIZED AS BEST PRACTICE BY A
WIDE ARRAY OF CLIMATE AND
ACADEMIC EXPERTS TO ENSURE THAT
THE CLEAN ENERGY USED FOR ENERGY
INTENSIVE HYDROGEN IS TRULY
ADDITIONAL DELIVERED TO
CALIFORNIA AND MATCHED HOURLY
WITHOUT THESE PROTECTIONS
COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE
THREE PILLARS, THERE IS BROAD
CLIMATE EXPERT CONSENSUS THAT
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN COULD
AMOUNT TO CUMULATIVE INCREASES
OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF TONS
OF CARBON EMISSIONS, NOT TO
MENTION INCREASED AIR POLLUTION
FROM THE INCREASED CYCLING OF
NATURAL GAS PLANTS, PRIMARILY IN
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES, AND
FURTHERMORE FAILING TO REQUIRE
PRODUCERS TO BRING ON ADDITIONAL
RENEWABLES WOULD PUT SIGNIFICANT
UPWARD PRESSURE ON RATEPAYERS.
RESEARCHERS AT PRINCETON
ESTIMATE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
THAT FAILS TO MEET THESE
STANDARDS WOULD CAUSE AN 8%
INCREASE IN RETAIL RATES IN
CALIFORNIA. THE EMISSION
STANDARD IN THIS BILL IS NOT THE
HIGHEST IN THE WORLD. INSTEAD,
IT CORRESPONDS TO THE LOWEST
TIER ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL TAX
CREDITS. CALIFORNIA HAS A PROUD
HISTORY OF BUILDING ON FEDERAL
REQUIREMENTS TO ADVANCE
LEADERSHIP, BUT THIS BILL TAKES
THE OPPOSITE APPROACH, BY
OMITTING NECESSARY GUARDRAILS
TAKEN UP BY BOTH THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION AND THE EUROPEAN
UNION. WE KNOW THERE ARE MOVING
PARTS TO THE LANGUAGE. WE'LL
REEVALUATE OUR POSITION, BUT OUR
BOTTOM LINES ARE INCLUDED IN OUR
TESTIMONY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
HELLO AGAIN. MY NAME IS KATIE
MORRISON, AND I'M AN ATTORNEY
WITH THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK.
TURN FIGHTS FOR AFFORDABLE
ENERGY COST HAND IN HAND WITH
CLEAN ENERGY POLICIES. TURN HAS
REPEATEDLY ADVOCATED THE
LEGISLATURE TO CODIFY MEANINGFUL
STANDARDS FOR CLEAN OR RENEWABLE
HYDROGEN. RESPECTFULLY, TURN
OPPOSES SB 1420. CALIFORNIA
LACKS AN ADEQUATE STATUTORY
DEFINITION OF CLEAN OR RENEWABLE
HYDROGEN THAT ENSURES RELIANCE
ON THE FUEL OR RESULT IN
SUPERIOR ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES.
AS SB 1420 FALLS SHORT OF WHAT
IS NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT GREATER
RELIANCE ON HYDROGEN RESULTS IN
NET GHG REDUCTIONS IN
CALIFORNIA. AS THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS POINTS OUT, HYDROGEN
PRODUCED FOR USE IN CALIFORNIA
IS DIRTY GRAY. EXISTING LAW
ALLOWS THAT HYDROGEN IS
CONSIDERED CLEAN EVEN IF IT IS
PRODUCED BY FOSSIL FUELS, AS
LONG IT IS AS IT IS PREPARED
WITH THE PURCHASE OF A TRADABLE
ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTE. THOSE
TRADABLE ATTRIBUTES CAN BE
SOURCED FROM FACILITIES LOCATED
THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY FROM
CALIFORNIA. THIS BILL WOULD
CONTINUE THIS APPROACH AND FAIL
TO RESULT IN REAL AND MEASURABLE
CLIMATE IMPROVEMENTS. UNDER THE
NEWLY CIRCULATED AMENDMENTS, THE
EXISTING REQUIREMENT FOR
PUBLICLY SUPPORTED HYDROGEN
FUELING STATIONS TO SUPPLY 33,
THE THIRD PERCENT FROM RENEWABLE
HYDROGEN, IS UNCHANGED, BUT THE
REVISED DEFINITION OF RENEWABLE
HYDROGEN WOULD PERMIT THE AIR
RESOURCES BOARD FROM DEVIATING
TO DEVIATE FROM THE RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO STANDARD. ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS. THIS CHANGE
APPEARS TO ALLOW THE USE OF LOW
VALUE TRADABLE CREDITS TO
DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE, TURN
SUPPORTS THE THREE PILLARS
APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN BROADLY
EMBRACED BY ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUPS, THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION
AND SOME HYDROGEN PRODUCERS. ANY
VERSION OF THIS BILL THAT DOES
NOT EXPRESSLY INCLUDE THESE
PILLARS AS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY
TO ADVANCE CLIMATE GOALS, THE
THREE PILLARS APPROACH REQUIRES
THAT CLEAN OR RENEWABLE HYDROGEN
PRODUCED BY ELECTRICITY
DEMONSTRATE ADDITIONALITY OF
CLEAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, HOURLY
MATCHING OF PRODUCTION AND
CONSUMPTION, AND DELIVERY OF
INCREMENTAL CLEAN ENERGY INTO
THE AREA WHERE THE POWER IS
CONSUMED. TURNS OPPOSE, UNLESS
AMENDED, LETTER LAYS OUT A
STRAIGHTFORWARD APPROACH TO
IMPLEMENTING THE THREE PILLARS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. IN
OPPOSITION, GO AHEAD AND
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE IF YOU'D
LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO
SB 1420. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M RAQUEL
MASON REGISTERING RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION FOR THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE,
OR SA. ALSO REGISTERING
OPPOSITION FOR THE ASIAN PACIFIC
ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK.
COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER
ENVIRONMENT THE CENTER ON RACE,
POVERTY AND THE ENVIRONMENT. THE
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,
LEADERSHIP. COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND
PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY. LOS ANGELES.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
VICTORIA ROME WITH NRDC, ALSO
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. I WONDER
IF I MIGHT HAVE TEN MORE SECONDS
JUST BECAUSE OF AMENDMENTS, NOT
BECAUSE THEN WE HAVE TO. YES.
EVEN TREATMENT FOR ALL. OKAY.
REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS. THEY
STILL OPPOSE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MELISSA ROMERO CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS IN A
SIMILAR POSITION OF REVIEWING
THE AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU.
CURRENTLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. JONATHAN COLE,
CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION,
CALIFORNIA. AND ALSO, ON BEHALF
OF 350 HUMBOLDT, IN OPPOSITION
AND HOPING TO REVIEW THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. HELLO.
JACOB EVANS WITH SIERRA CLUB
CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION, ALSO
REVIEWING AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU.
JOHN KENNEDY WITH THE RURAL,
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE AN OPPOSING,
LESS AMENDED POSITION ON THE
BILL. THE SENATOR HAS AGREED TO
ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS. THANK YOU.
AND WITH THAT, WE WILL SUPPORT
THE BILL WHEN THOSE AMENDMENTS
GO IN. THANK YOU. OKAY BRINGING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE,
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER REBECCA BAUER-KAHAN.
OKAY. I THINK I WANT TO MAKE
SURE I GOT IT RIGHT. WHAT THE
BILL'S NOW DOING. SO IF YOU
DON'T MIND INDULGING ME JUST SO
I, I THINK THAT REALLY THE
IMPORTANT PART OF THE BILL AS I
READ IT NOW IS THAT HYDROGEN
PROJECTS THAT GET ARCHES OR
OTHER STATE FUNDING CAN USE
STREAMLINING, BUT NOT THERE'S NO
SEQUEL EXEMPTION FOR THEM. IT'S
JUST A PERMIT STREAMLINING
PROCESS. DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT?
EVERYBODY OKAY. MAKING SURE I
UNDERSTAND. AND THEN I CLARIFY
JUST OH YES PLEASE. PLEASE.
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE TWO
BILLS THAT WE PASSED OUT, LAST
YEAR, ONE THAT'S AT EXPEDITED
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THE OTHER
ONE WHICH IS STREAMLINING.
RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S
MISUNDERSTOOD TO BE A SEQUA
EXEMPTION. RIGHT? IT'S NOT
RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO
CLARIFY BECAUSE THAT WAS MY
UNDERSTANDING. THANK YOU.
SENATOR, AND I GUESS A QUESTION
FOR THE CHAIR, I GOT THE SENSE
THAT NRDC MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERED
POSITION BASED ON THIS. AND
GIVEN THE CHANGE, SIGNIFICANT
CHANGE IN THE BILL, I'M
SURPRISED THE ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMUNITY HASN'T CHANGED THEIR
POSITION. SO IF WE WOULDN'T MIND
SEEING IF NRDC HAS, I'D BE
CURIOUS WHAT SHE WAS GOING TO
SAY. BUT THAT'S UP TO YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. I GUESS I WILL ALLOW IT.
RBK IS JUST GOING OFF THE SCRIPT
. I'M HOPING THE AMENDMENTS
HELP. THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO
ASK. THANK YOU, MEMBERS AND
APOLOGIES, BUT WE DO APPRECIATE
THE COMMITTEE AND AUTHOR'S
WILLINGNESS TO STRIKE THE
DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED, CLEAN
HYDROGEN. SO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT'S
A BIG CHANGE. BUT WE WANT TO
UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THE
REST OF THE AMENDMENTS, BECAUSE
THE NEW SECTION ONE STRIKES A
FAIR AMOUNT OF EXISTING LAW, SO
WE DON'T WE WANT TO JUST MORE
CAREFULLY REVIEW THAT. AND THEN
FINALLY THE JUDICIAL REVIEW
STREAMLINING OR EXPEDITED
JUDICIAL JUDICIAL REVIEW AND
CEQA STREAMLINING, WE WOULD LIKE
THAT TO BE FURTHER NARROWED TO
EXCLUDE HYDROGEN PRODUCED WITH
FOSSIL FUEL. MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE OR LIVESTOCK BIOGAS. GOT
IT. OKAY, YEAH. SO MAYBE I DON'T
UNDERSTAND. AGAIN, BACK TO WHAT
IS THE FIELD I DO, I DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND. THE SECTION ONE
STRIKES AND CHANGES CURRENT LAW.
THAT WAS NOT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD.
I'M SEEING THE CHAIR SAYING
THAT'S NOT TRUE. I SHOULD MAKE
SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY
. NO, AND I MEAN SENATOR
CABALLERO CAN SPEAK TO IT. WHAT?
SECTION ONE DOES THE CHANGES TO
SECTION ONE, BUT IT DOES NOT.
YEAH. OKAY. PERFECT. IT DOES NOT
STRIKE. SO I, YOU KNOW, I WANT
TO THANK THE SENATOR. I THINK
THAT, THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBATE
AROUND THE CLEAN HYDROGEN
DEFINITION, AND I THINK SHE'S
BROUGHT THE BILL TO A PLACE
WHERE IT REALLY DOES SOMETHING
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. ONE OF THE
ARCHES PROJECTS, IN MY COMMUNITY
WILL, YOU KNOW, IS HOPEFULLY
GOING TO BE A FUELING STATION
FOR A GREEN HYDROGEN TRAIN THAT
WE REALLY WANT TO BUILD FROM THE
CENTRAL VALLEY INTO, BART RIGHT
AT THE PLATFORM, WHICH WILL BE
GAME CHANGING FOR THE CENTRAL
VALLEY COMMUNITY THAT IT WILL,
REACH AND FOR THE AIR EMISSIONS
IN MY COMMUNITY WHERE THOSE
DRIVERS ARE GOING TODAY. AND SO,
YOU KNOW, THAT PROJECT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. AND I THINK THAT THE
MESSAGE WE SEND BY SAYING, IF
YOU SEND THESE FEDERAL DOLLARS
TO US, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE
IT'S SPEEDY. AND AS SOMEONE WHO
WORKED ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE
PACKAGE LAST YEAR, WE ENSURED
THAT IT WAS A STREAMLINING THAT
THOSE DO GO THROUGH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS, WHICH I
THINK IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT,
BUT MAKE SURE THAT THEY, YOU
KNOW, DON'T LANGUISH FOR YEARS.
SO I, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
CHANGES AND JUST WANTED TO MAKE
SURE WE HAD CLARIFICATION. THANK
YOU. SENATOR ALL RIGHT, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FRIEDMAN, THANKS. I ALSO
WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
THEIR WORK ON THIS BILL AND THE
AUTHOR FOR ACCEPTING SOME PRETTY
BIG AND FAR REACHING AMENDMENTS,
I ALSO WANT TO, TRY TO
UNDERSTAND MORE AS THE BILL
MOVES FORWARD ABOUT WHAT THE
NEWER BILL DOES. I'LL JUST SAY,
OVERALL, AS SOMEBODY WHO
BELIEVES THAT INFRASTRUCTURE
CHANGES ARE GOING TO REALLY GO A
LONG WAY TO HELPING US WITH OUR
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, HYDROGEN
HAS A LOT OF PROMISE, AND, AND
THERE'S A LOT OF HYPE OVER
TECHNOLOGIES THAT AREN'T REALLY
PROVEN YET OR CASE USES THAT
AREN'T REALLY THERE YET
TECHNOLOGICALLY. IN TERMS OF
HYDROGEN USES, THERE'S ALSO A
LOT OF CONCERN FROM THE
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY ABOUT
GREENWASHING AROUND HYDROGEN,
AROUND MODE SHIFT. THAT'S NOT
REALLY GOING TO LEAD TO
EMISSIONS, SO THERE'S A LOT OF
EXCITEMENT, THERE'S A LOT OF
INVESTMENT GOING INTO THESE
TECHNOLOGIES. I THINK A LOT OF
THEM ARE GOING TO FAIL. AND I
THINK A LOT OF THEM MAY HOLD
GREAT PROMISE, AND SOME OF THE
USES ARE GOING TO MAYBE PROVE TO
BE REALLY GAME CHANGING IN TERMS
OF OUR ABILITY TO MAKE OUR MEET
OUR CLIMATE GOALS. AND SOME OF
THEM WE MAY DECIDE MAYBE THE
ELECTRIC TRAIN IS BETTER THAN
THE HYDROGEN TRAIN. MAYBE THE
HYDROGEN TRAIN REALLY ISN'T AS
EFFICIENT. OR, YOU KNOW, MAYBE
THE TRUCK IS BETTER OR THE BUS
IS BETTER, BUT NOT THE TRUCK.
AND SO THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT
OF, OF EXAMPLES THAT JUST DON'T
PAN OUT. AND THAT'S OKAY. I
THINK THAT AS A LEADER,
CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE IN THAT
POSITION OF PUTTING SOME MONEY
OUT THERE THAT ACTUALLY WE'RE
GOING TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE SORRY
WE INVESTED IN THAT, BUT IN THE
END WE'LL HIT ON SOME THINGS.
HOPEFULLY THAT CHANGE THE WORLD.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S
OKAY. AND AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN
IT COMES TO THE GREENWASHING
SIDE OF THIS, WE HAVE TO BE
CAREFUL. SO I DO HAVE CONCERNS
STILL AROUND USING, FOR
INSTANCE, LIVESTOCK, YOU KNOW,
REFUSE IS I GET THAT WE HAVE A
LOT OF IT AND WE WANT TO USE IT
FOR GOOD THINGS, BUT DO WE END
UP PERPETUATING THINGS THAT HAVE
A HUGE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT,
LIKE GIANT DAIRIES LIKE MORE
GRAZING OF CATTLE, WHICH IS A,
YOU KNOW, TERRIBLE USE OF LAND
AND, YOU KNOW, CONTRIBUTES TO A
LOT OF HUGE CLIMATE IMPACTS THAT
OFTEN AREN'T RECOGNIZED. RIGHT.
DO WE ARE WE PERPETUATING ONE
PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, LIKE THOSE
KINDS OF AGRICULTURAL USES BY
SAYING, BUT WHAT WE HAVE AN END
RESULT, THAT'S THAT'S GOOD. I
THINK WE WANT TO SEE COMPOUNDING
GOOD, NOT JUST SORT A NET EQUAL
OF WHERE WE ARE. SO THAT'S THE
CONCERN. I DON'T EXPECT EVERY
BILL TO BE ABLE TO SOLVE ALL
THESE PROBLEMS. BUT I THINK A
WAY IF THERE'S A WAY, AS THE
BILL MOVES FORWARD, THAT I COULD
RECOGNIZE THOSE IMPACTS AND TRY
TO OFFSET THAT. SO YEAH, WE'VE
GOT A BIG LANDFILL IN MY CITY.
I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT GARBAGE PUT
TO BETTER USE THAN, YOU KNOW,
JUST HAVING METHANE BEING FLARED
AND MADE HYDROGEN IS ONE OF
THOSE USES. BUT DO WE SLOW DOWN
RECYCLING TO START FEEDING NEW
HYDROGEN. AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT
THE CONCERNS ARE AROUND. SO I
THINK THAT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO
HEAR FROM THE, YOU KNOW, FROM A
LOT OF THE EJ GROUPS AND OTHER
GROUPS IS WE WANT THOSE
GUARDRAILS, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE NOT COMPOUNDING
A PROBLEM, PARTICULARLY IN EJ
COMMUNITIES. I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. I'M
GOING TO, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO
LOOK AT IT, AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR TAKING ON THIS,
YOU KNOW, KIND OF DIFFICULT
SUBJECT. AND I'M GLAD TO SEE THE
BILL GOING IN A GOOD DIRECTION
AND HOPEFULLY IT CONTINUES TO
MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION. THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES.
THANK YOU. I KNOW OVER THE LAST
COUPLE OF YEARS, WE'VE BEEN,
ESPECIALLY HERE IN THE ASSEMBLY,
TRYING TO COME UP WITH A
DEFINITION OF GREEN HYDROGEN AND
TYING IT TO THE TO THE THREE
PILLARS, SO THAT AT THE END WE
CAN HAVE CLEAN GREEN HYDROGEN
FUEL. I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS
WITH PROVIDING THIS EXPEDITE
CODE REVIEW FOR HYDROGEN FUEL
THAT DOESN'T MEET THE CLEAN,
GREEN STANDARDS, WE KNOW THAT
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
CONSIDERING STRINGENT STANDARDS,
FOR THEIR TAX CREDITS. AND SOME
OF OUR PROGRAMS ARE ALSO
ATTEMPTED TO BE TO BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE TEXAS TAX CREDIT
STANDARDS ALSO. SO I WANTED TO
KNOW WHAT THE ADDITIONAL
BENEFITS IS TO STREAMLINE
PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY
RECEIVING PUBLIC FUNDING AND
SUBSIDIES. AND AS A SECOND PART
OF THAT, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE
PROVIDE STREAMLINING FOR OTHER
PROJECTS SO THAT APPLICANTS
DON'T BACK OUT. BUT IF THE STATE
AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE
ALREADY COMMITTING TO FUNDING
SOME OF THESE HYDROGEN PROJECTS,
SUCH AS ARCHES, AS YOU MENTIONED
EARLIER, WHAT'S THE RATIONALE
FOR THE EXPEDITED ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW? OKAY. EXCELLENT QUESTION
, AND I APPRECIATE YOU ASKING ME
THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS PART OF MY
PRESENTATION. BUT I KNEW I
NEEDED TO MAKE IT SHORTER. SO
YOU ASKED THE RIGHT. YOU'RE
LIKE, MY, MY GOOD FRIEND,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN,
SHE'S ASKING EVERYBODY TO FOLLOW
UP. SO HERE'S THE CHALLENGE, YOU
ASKED ACTUALLY, TWO, TWO ISSUES,
THE EXPEDITED, RESPONSE, THE
RESPONSE ON THE EXPEDITED ISSUE
IS THAT THE FEDERAL GRANT OF
$1.2 BILLION HAS A DUE DATE, AND
THE PROJECTS HAVE TO BE UP AND
OPERATING BY 2030. SO TODAY'S
24, IF EVERYTHING HAPPENED AND
EVERYTHING. BUT WE COULD GET
STARTED BY JANUARY OF NEXT YEAR.
THEY'D HAVE FIVE YEARS TO BUILD
ALL THE DIFFERENT PIECES. AND
THERE'S 25, 30 PARTNERS,
INCLUDING EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS, RESEARCHERS, YOU
KNOW, THE PRIVATE COMPANIES. AND
THEN THEY'VE GOT TO GO THROUGH A
PROCESS WHERE THEY PROPOSE A
PROJECT IN A COMMUNITY. THEY GET
COMMUNITY, BUY IN, AND THEY COME
UP WITH THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS
PACKAGE THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO
SHARE WITH THE COMMUNITY. IT MAY
BE A BUY IN TO OAN PART OF THE
PROJECT AS WELL. THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF POSSIBILITIES, BUT
THEY HAVE TO BE OPERATIONAL BY
2030 AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE BEEN
PRODUCING BY 2032. SO, THAT TIME
IS SO SHORT THAT IT BECAME
URGENT TO MAKE IT PART OF A
PROCESS WHERE WE RECOGNIZE THAT
THE NEED TO MOVE IT FORWARD AND
TO GET IT DONE, WHAT THE
COUNTIES WOULD LIKE IS A
OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO WEIGH IN
AS WELL. AND THAT'S PART OF THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S
COMMUNITY BUY IN, AND HAVE THEIR
BOARD ADOPT A, A LETTER OF, OF
ACCEPTANCE THAT THEY LIKE THE
PROJECT AND THEY WANT IT IN
THEIR COMMUNITY AS WELL. AND I'M
THAT'S SATISFACTORY TO ALL OF
US. ALL OF US WANT THE COUNTIES
TO WANT THESE PROJECTS IN THEIR
COMMUNITY. SO THAT'S THE REASON
FOR THE EXPEDITED PROCESS NUMBER
TWO IS, THE YOU ASKED ANOTHER
QUESTION. OH, THE THREE PILLARS.
HERE'S HERE'S WHAT'S HAPPENING.
AND I IT'S CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW
IS IN AN AWKWARD POSITION, ONE
IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HAS SAID THE, THE TAX CREDITS IN
ORDER TO HERE'S OUR PROPOSED
GUIDELINES AND WHAT CALIFORNIA
STATE OF WASHINGTON AND THE
STATE OF OREGON HAVE DONE IS
THEY'VE SENT A LETTER SAYING WE
HAVE HIGHER STANDARDS THAN THOSE
THAT ARE, EMBODIED IN THE THREE
PILLARS. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF
COMPLIANCE, THAT DOESN'T COST
EXTRA MONEY FOR US TO, TO NOW
IMPOSE A DIFFERENT SYSTEM, ON
OUR, ON OUR STATES. AND AS PART
OF THAT, SO THE GOVERNOR HAS
SIGNED OFF EACH ONE OF THE
GOVERNORS APART FROM THAT, SAYS
CPUC, CARB AND GO-BIZ HAVE BEEN
SIGNATORIES TO A LETTER THAT
SAYS THIS DOESN'T WORK WITH OUR
OUR STRUCTURE OF GOVERNANCE THAT
WE HAVE. AND WE'D HAVE TO
REORGANIZE REORG. I'M
PARAPHRASING, BUT BASICALLY
WE'RE ASKING FOR A DIFFERENT WAY
TO BE ABLE TO MEET THAT, THAT
THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND SO THE
BILL IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT,
THAT THAT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT HAS
ALREADY TAKEN, IF IT ENDS UP
THAT ALL THAT, THAT THE RULES
STAY THE SAME AND THE STATES
DECIDE TO DO WELL, I'M ASSUMING
THAT SOME CHANGE WILL HAPPEN AT
SOME POINT, IT WILL BE
CONSISTENT WITH IN OTHER WORDS,
IF THE BILL IF THE, THE FEDS SAY
THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO AND
THE GOVERNOR SAYS, YES, WE HAVE
TO DO IT TOO. AND THEN THEN
WE'LL CHANGE IT AND WE'LL FOLLOW
WHATEVER IT IS THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, WE KNOW WE NEED
PRIVATE INVESTMENT, WE HAVE HAD
VISITS FROM, TRUST FUNDS THAT
ARE INTERESTED IN MAKING MAJOR
INVESTMENTS IN CALIFORNIA, IN
HYDROGEN IN PARTICULAR, AND
THEY, THEY THEIR TIMELINE FOR
STARTING TO SEE A RETURN ON
THEIR INVESTMENT IS 3 TO 5
YEARS, AND FIVE YEARS IS THE OUT
OUT THAT'S 2030 FOR US, WE NEED
THOSE PRIVATE INVESTMENTS FOR
THESE TO MAKE SENSE AND TO GET
BACK TO WHAT, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FRIEDMAN SAID. ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
WE SOME WE NEED THAT PRIVATE
INVESTMENT HERE. WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE THAT, WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE
POISED. THEY WANT TO BE PARTNERS
WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN
THIS. AND, THE ONLY WAY WE DO IT
IS IF WE, SATISFY THE
REQUIREMENTS THAT THAT THEY HAVE
AND THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HAS AS WELL. SO I'M NOT OPPOSED
TO IT. IT'S JUST THAT AT THIS
PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME, THE
STATE IS MEANING THE GOVERNOR
HAS TAKEN A POSITION THAT I
THINK IS A REASONABLE POSITION
TO ASK OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AND, AND I THAT'S THE REASON
THAT IT'S WRITTEN THAT WAY. VERY
GOOD. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBERS,
FOR. SO I TOO WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR, FOR ALL THE HARD WORK
AND, REALLY WORKING WITH THE
WITH THE COMMITTEE AND WITH,
SOME OF THE OPPONENTS AND MAKING
THIS BILL BETTER, YOU KNOW, I'M
SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES THAT, YOU
KNOW, THAT, ALLOWING THE
HYDROGEN INDUSTRY TO, MATURE IS
SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO
MEET OUR CLIMATE GOALS, BECAUSE
THERE ARE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW,
ELECTRIFICATION, WHICH IS, I
THINK, ALWAYS THE BEST THING WE
NEED TO DO JUST AREN'T THERE. ON
THE OTHER HAND, WE NEED TO NOT
EMBED IN OUR STRATEGIES,
BASICALLY, HYDROGEN, THAT'S NOT
THE CLEANEST HYDROGEN THAT WE
HAVE OR HYDROGEN THAT BASICALLY
IS DERIVED IN WAYS THAT REALLY
HARM, VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES.
AND I KNOW YOU SHARE THOSE
VALUES AS WELL, AND SO TODAY, SO
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE, THE
CHANGES. I WOULD SORT OF URGE
YOU TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH,
WITH THE OPPONENTS ON THIS,
ESPECIALLY WITH THAT LAST BUCKET
THAT MISS ROME, RAISED AS SOME
OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE STILL
THERE. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE
BILL TODAY BECAUSE I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT IT CONTINUES TO
MOVE FORWARD. AND, JUST WANT TO
ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE
WORKING WITH THE OPPONENTS ON
SOME OF THESE, SOME OF THESE
ISSUES, BECAUSE I DO THINK SOME
OF THE SOME OF THE, THE, THE
KINDS OF HYDROGEN THAT'S
ALLOWED, I DON'T KNOW THIS AREA
WELL ENOUGH MYSELF. AND SO, BUT
BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF
WHAT WAS RAISED ABOUT THE, THE
USE OF CERTAIN KINDS OF HYDROGEN
WITH THE USE OF OUT-OF-STATE
CREDITS, AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT
IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD OCCUR.
SO MY KNOWLEDGE BASE IS NOT HIGH
ON THAT, BUT IT IS SOMETHING
THAT TRIGGERS A LEVEL OF
CONCERN. AND SO I WOULD JUST
WANT TO, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR
CONTINUING TO WORK WITH FOLKS
AND ACTUALLY MOVING THIS, THIS
BILL ALONG AND MAKING SO MANY
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHER MEMBERS WISHING
TO SPEAK, JUST VERY BRIEFLY, AS
OTHERS HAVE NOTED, HYDROGEN HAS
A LOT OF PROMISE, AND THERE ARE
ALSO SOME VERY LEGITIMATE
CONCERNS AND SOME CONSIDERATIONS
THAT WE NEED TO GUARD AGAINST AS
WE LOOK TO BUILD IN CALIFORNIA A
TRULY CLEAN HYDROGEN ECONOMY,
FOR ME, THE REASON I'M VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS BILL, SO
SUPPORTIVE AND GRATEFUL FOR,
SENATOR CABALLERO, YOUR EFFORTS
IN TAKING ON THIS VERY COMPLEX,
AND CHALLENGING TOPIC IS THAT,
AS WE HAVE SAID, I MEAN, THERE
ARE RIGHT NOW THERE'S BILLIONS
AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE
TABLE FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, REALLY TO TRY TO
SOLVE THESE FOUNDATIONAL
CHALLENGES IS BECAUSE THE
REALITY IS, LIKE THE TRULY CLEAN
HYDROGEN ECONOMY IS INCREDIBLY
NASCENT, AND WE NEED TO HAVE
SOME MASSIVE BREAKTHROUGHS AND
SOME HUGE INNOVATIONS IF WE'RE
ACTUALLY GOING TO REALIZE THE
PROMISE OF THIS CLEAN HYDROGEN
ECONOMY AND AS SENATOR
CABALLERO, YOU NOTED, IT'S NOT
JUST THAT WE GOT IT A SHORT
AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET THESE
PROJECTS BUILT BECAUSE FEDERAL
TAX DOLLARS ARE GOING TO EXPIRE.
THE TAX CREDITS ARE GOING TO
EXPIRE. WE'VE GOT A SHORT AMOUNT
OF TIME TO GET THESE THINGS DONE
BECAUSE THE PLANET NEEDS IT,
RIGHT. OUR KIDS AND OUR
GRANDKIDS NEED IT. AND SO, YOU
KNOW, I THINK THAT THIS IS
IMPORTANT, THE PROJECTS THAT ARE
GOING TO BE COMING THROUGH
ARCHES ARE REALLY IMPORTANT,
BOTH TO FUEL, THE NEXT
GENERATION OF ECONOMIC GROWTH IN
CALIFORNIA AND ALSO HOPEFULLY TO
BE THOSE BREAKTHROUGHS THAT,
REALLY ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE
COURSE OF THE WORLD. SO, WITH
THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. THIS IS I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS AND THE
COMMENTS, LET ME THANK EVERYBODY
FOR DOING THAT. LET ME JUST MAKE
IT VERY CLEAR THAT, FOSSIL FUELS
ARE EXCLUDED, THAT S BEEN IN THE
BILL FOREVER, I DON'T KNOW WHY
PEOPLE KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT,
BUT THAT'S OKAY, THE, AND I, I
HAVE LOOKED AT ANY AMENDMENTS
THAT, AND ANYBODY, ANYBODY HAS
PROPOSED. AND LET ME JUST SAY
THAT I'VE BEEN DISAPPOINTED
BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN, A
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS FROM THE
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY, THEY
WILL TALK ABOUT THE THINGS
THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT, BUT BUT
SO FAR HAVEN'T SEEN ANY
AMENDMENTS THAT, THAT ALLOW ME
TO KIND OF EVALUATE AND SEE WHAT
WHAT'S GOING ON. AT SOME POINT,
I'D LIKE TO DO A, A HAVE A
PRESENTATION ON, DAIRY FARMS.
AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S LIKE HIGH
ON YOUR LIST FOR PLANNING SOME
EXTRA TIME, BUT, BUT I, I JUST
THINK THEY, THEY GET A REALLY
BAD RAP. UNLESS YOU'VE GONE AND
YOU'VE SEEN THE EVOLUTION AND
THE CHANGES IN DAIRY FARMERS
FARMS, IF YOU BELIEVE DAIRY
FARMS HAVE GOTTEN BIGGER BECAUSE
OF METHANE AND DAIRY DIGESTER
DÍAS, YOU'VE BEEN SOLD A BILL OF
GOODS. THEY HAVE GOTTEN BIGGER
BECAUSE WE HAVE PUT SO MANY
REGULATIONS ON THEM THAT THE
SMALL FARMERS HAVE GONE OUT OF
BUSINESS, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT
FOUR AND FIVE GENERATION, FIFTH
GENERATION FARMERS WHO ARE WANT
NOTHING MORE TO DO THAN TO FARM.
AND THEY'VE GONE OUT OF BUSINESS
BECAUSE OF OUR REGULATIONS,
VALID REGULATIONS. BUT THERE ARE
REGULATIONS NONETHELESS. AND THE
ONE AREA, THE ONE INDUSTRY THAT
RECEIVES CAP AND TRADE DOLLARS
THAT HAS LIVED UP TO THEIR
METHANE REDUCTION NUMBERS ARE
DAIRY FARMS. SO I IT JUST WE'VE
GOT TO LOOK AT THAT AND BE
RATIONAL AND REASONABLE. THEY'RE
THE THEY'RE THE EARLY ADOPTERS
OF THE DAIRY DIGESTERS AND
METHANE TO BIOGAS. AND THEY'RE
FUELING, BIG RIGS AS WE SPEAK,
WHICH GO UP AND DOWN THE VALLEY
AND THAT POLLUTE, THOSE BIG RIGS
WITH RUNNING DIESEL POLLUTE, MY
AIR DISTRICT TREMENDOUSLY. AND
SO I'M REALLY HAPPY TO SEE THE
HYDROGEN THAT'S BEING THE BIOGAS
OR BIOGAS, IS BEING PRODUCED
ANYWAY, LET ME TELL YOU VERY,
VERY BRIEFLY WHY THIS IS SO
IMPORTANT IN MY DISTRICT AND WHY
IT'S BECOME A PASSION OF MINE.
IT'S THAT IT'S REALLY HOT IN THE
CENTRAL VALLEY IN THE SUMMER,
AND IT'S GETTING HOTTER AND
EXTREME HEAT DEATHS ARE ON THE
RISE IN IN, IN THE VALLEY. AND
IN ADDITION, IT'S PROJECTED WITH
SIGMA THAT BETWEEN 500,000 TO 1
MILLION ACRES OF AG LAND WILL BE
PUT OUT OF PRODUCTION. NO MORE
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. SO THE
QUESTION BECOMES, WHAT HAPPENS
TO THAT LAND, FARMWORKERS WORK
ON IT. TRUCKERS GET THEIR THEIR
PRODUCE FROM IT, WE HAVE A WHOLE
INDUSTRY IN ECOSYSTEM, INCLUDING
THE PORTS, BY THE WAY. SURVIVED
BECAUSE OF A LOT OF THE TRUCKING
THAT GOES ON. WHAT WHAT HAS
HAPPENED IS PEOPLE HAVE COME IN
AND SAID IT'S PERFECT FOR SOLAR
AND WE NEED SOLAR SO
DESPERATELY. LET'S PUT SOLAR
THERE. AND I'M A BIG PROPONENT
OF SOLAR, EXCEPT FOR INDUSTRIAL
SOLAR IN ONE REGION MEANS THAT
NOTHING ELSE CAN HAPPEN ON THAT
LAND. IT MEANS THE LAND IS, SO
GROUNDED. THE SOLAR GOES IN,
IT'S LOW WAGE JOBS. THEY'RE NOT
PERMANENT. THERE'S A CHAIN LINK
FENCE AROUND THE SOLAR, WHICH
MEANS THERE'S NO WILDLIFE
CORRIDORS LEFT. BIRDS THINK IT'S
WATER BECAUSE FROM THE AIR THAT
LOOKS LIKE IT SHIMMERS LIKE
WATER, SO WE HAVE THE BIGGEST
WETLANDS IN MY DISTRICT, WEST OF
THE MISSISSIPPI, WHICH MOST
PEOPLE JUST FLY RIGHT BY, BY ON
I-5. IT'S NEAR SANTA NELLA. IF
YOU'VE EVER STOPPED AT THE
ANDERSON PEA SOUP, THAT'S WHERE
IT IS. EVERYBODY KNOWS ANDERSON
PEA SOUP, AND, AND SO WE IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF THE OF
THE FLYWAY AND, OH, NO OTHER
SIDE. OH. WELL THAT'S, IT'S,
IT'S HARD TO KEEP THINGS OPEN
OUT THERE. YOU KNOW, I'M JUST
SAYING. BUT BUT THE POINT ABOUT
IT IS, IS THAT, IS THOSE 500,000
TO 1 MILLION ACRES, ARE SLATED
IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING, ARE
SLATED FOR SOLAR. IT WILL
ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATE FARMWORKER
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE WAY UNDER
40,000 RESIDENTS THERE. TEN AND
15,000. RESIDENTS, WHO ARE
DESPERATELY LOOKING FOR BETTER
JOBS, WANT TO BE ABLE TO BUY
THEIR OWN HOME, HAVE ALL THE
ASPIRATIONS WE HAVE, BUT IF WE
DON'T CREATE GOOD JOBS, JOBS
THAT CAN SUSTAIN THE LOCAL
ECONOMY, THAT CAN PUT PEOPLE TO
WORK, THAT PROVIDE TRAINING LONG
AS THE TRADES DO, WE'RE GOING TO
WE'RE GOING TO ABANDON THE
CENTRAL VALLEY TO AN EXISTENCE
THAT IS MARGINAL, MORE MARGINAL
THAN IT IS NOW. AND FARM WORKERS
TO, A VERY, VERY SLOW,
ELIMINATION OF THEIR LIFESTYLE
AND THEIR AND, AND, AND THEIR
HOMES THAT THEY'VE BOUGHT AND
THE BUSINESSES THAT THEY BUILT.
SO THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO
ME BECAUSE WE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BRING IN NEW
TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS INCREDIBLE
POTENTIAL. AND TO DO IT IN A WAY
THAT GETS RID OF WASTE, IT GETS
RID OF WASTE, THAT AG WASTE THAT
YOU SEE THEM LIGHTING UP DURING
THE, THE SUMMER MONTHS AND IT
GOING UP INTO THE AIR THAT AG
WASTE CAN NO LONGER BE LIT. AND
IT'S A GOOD THING BECAUSE IT
POLLUTES THE AIR. BUT WE GOT TO
DO SOMETHING WITH IT. SO, SO I'M
VERY SENSITIVE TO THE LIVESTOCK,
BIOGAS AND SOME OF THE OTHER,
STOCK. THAT'S, THAT'S WE WOULD
SEE AS WASTE. WE'VE GOT TO TAKE
OUR WASTE. WE'VE GOT TO DO
SOMETHING WITH IT. AND HYDROGEN
PROVIDES ONE OF THE
OPPORTUNITIES TO BE ABLE TO DO
SOMETHING WITH IT. AND IF WE
ONLY DEPEND ON HYDROLYTIC, WHICH
IS MADE OUT OF WATER, WE CAN'T
GET THERE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE
ENOUGH, ENOUGH WATER WE CAN USE,
WATER THAT'S NOT POTABLE. BUT,
BUT THERE'S WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
WATER IN THE VALLEY TO BEGIN
WITH. AND SO THAT'S NOT A REAL
GOOD SOLUTION. SO I REALLY
APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS, I
THINK THERE'S MORE TO COME ON
THIS. WE WANT TO BE GOOD
STEWARDS, I DON'T WANT TO DO
ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO HURT
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE SMALL
LITTLE COMMUNITIES ARE
DISADVANTAGED. AND I WANT THEM
TO BE ABLE TO MAKE CHOICES FOR
THEMSELVES. I WANT THEM TO BE
ABLE TO, WITH THE ARCHES
PROJECT, TO SAY, YES, WE WANT
THEM OR NO, WE DON'T, AND THAT'S
OKAY AND MOVE ON. SO
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
LISTENING TO ME TODAY. I REALLY
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU,
SENATOR, DO WE HAVE A OKAY, WE
HAVE A MOTION FROM ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CHEN, SECOND FROM
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN,
MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD YOU CALL
THE ROLL ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, SB
1420, THE MOTION IS Dð. PASSES
AMENDED TO NATURAL RESOURCES
PETRIE-NORRIS I PETRIE-NORRIS I
JIM PATTERSON. JIM PATTERSON I
BAUER-KAHAN PARA KHN I BERNER.
BERNER NOT VOTING. CALDERON
CALDERON I CHEN CHEN I FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN I HART. HART NOT
VOTING. HOLDEN. HOLDEN I JOE
PATTERSON I JOE PATTERSON I
REYES I REYES I SANTIAGO TING.
WALLACE WALLACE I WOULD, I WOULD
I ZIPPER ZIPPER I. KNOW WHAT IS
WHERE ARE WE. YES YOU DID
AWESOME. WHAT IS IT 12 OKAY. 12,
ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT AND WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. OKAY, OKAY. YES YEP.
OKAY OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND,
REOPEN OUR ROLLS TO LET ABSENT
MEMBERS ADD ON FILE ITEM NUMBER
ONE, SB 9883, ITEM NUMBER ONE SB
983 JIM PATTERSON. HI, JIM
PATTERSON I CALDERON. CALDERON I
CHEN CHEN I SANTIAGO I SANTIAGO
I TING TING I WALLACE I WALLACE
AYZENBERG. ZIPPER I 16 ZERO 16
ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT AT FILE
ITEM NUMBER TWO SB 21006 JIM
PATTERSON I JIM PATTERSON, I
CHEN CHEN I SANTIAGO I SANTIAGO
I TING TING I WALLACE WALLACE I
ZIPPER ZIPPER I 16 ZERO THAT
BILL IS OUT. ITEM NUMBER THREE
SB 1062 JIM PATTERSON I JIM
PATTERSON I CALDERON I CALDERON
I CHEN CHEN I SANTIAGO I
SANTIAGO I TING I TING I WALLACE
WALLACE AYZENBERG ZIPPER NOT
VOTING. I HAVE TWO ZERO 13 ZERO.
THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM FOUR.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR SB 1118 JIM
PATTERSON. I JIM PATTERSON I
CHEN CHEN I JOE PATTERSON
SANTIAGO I SANTIAGO I TING I
TING I WALLACE WALLACE I ZIPPER
ZIPPER I. 18 ZERO 15 ZERO WE
WILL LEAVE THAT OPEN IN CASE OUR
ABSENT MEMBER WANTS TO ADD ON
ITEM NUMBER FIVE SB 1130 B¢O
KHN I VÀ KHN I BURNER I BURNER
I JOE PATTERSON SANTIAGO I
SANTIAGO I TING I TING I ZIPPER
ZIPPER I. TÍNH OKAY. 15 ZERO.
WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. ITEM NUMBER
SIX SB 1210 SANTIAGO I SANTIAGO
I TING TING, I. THAT'S 13 ONE
OKAY. 13 ONE, THAT BILL IS OUT.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SB 1298 B¢O
KHN. BURNER I BURNER I REYES
REYES NOT VOTING SANTIAGO A
SANTIAGO I ZIPPER I ZIPPER I. 14
ZERO 14 TÍNH ZERO. THAT BILL IS
OUT. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT SB 1420
SANTIAGO I SANTIAGO I TING TING.
NOT VOTING. THAT'S 13 ZERO 13
ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT. WE WILL
KEEP THE ROLL OPEN FOR FIVE
MINUTES. WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR.
THEY HAVE A WONDERFUL. THANK YOU
, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, IF YOU WANT TO REOPEN
THE ROLL. ITEM NUMBER. ITEM
NUMBER. ITEM NUMBER FOUR, SB 11
1815 ZERO 15 ZERO. THAT BILL IS
OUT. ITEM NUMBER FIVE, SB 1130
15 ZERO 15 ZERO. THAT BILL IS
OUT. AND WITH THAT, THE BUSINESS
OF TODAY'S UTILITIES AND ENERGY
HEARING IS CONCLUDED AND WE ARE
ADJOURNED.