ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD
AFTERNOON, AND WELCOME TO
TODAY'S HEARING OF THE
ASSEMBLY'S COMMITTEE ON
UTILITIES AND ENERGY. BEFORE WE
BEGIN, WE'LL JUST DISPENSE WITH
OUR USUAL HOUSEKEEPING
ANNOUNCEMENTS, AS IS CUSTOMARY.
WE WILL MAINTAIN DECORUM IN
TODAY'S HEARING. ANY CONDUCT
THAT DISRUPTS THE ORDERLY
PROCEEDING OF TODAY'S HEARING
WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. WE WILL
BE ALLOWING FOR, TEST, FOR
TESTIMONY, FOR OPPOSITION
TESTIMONY, AS WELL AS FOR
SUPPORT TESTIMONY FOR EACH BILL.
PRIMARY WITNESSES WILL RECEIVE
TWO MINUTES EACH FOR A TOTAL OF
FOUR MINUTES FOR BOTH THE
PRIMARY FOR BOTH THE SUPPORT
TESTIMONY AND THE OPPOSITION
TESTIMONY, WE WILL THEN OPEN IT
UP FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY IN
THE ROOM. I'LL ASK YOU TO
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. OKAY. SO WITH
THAT, WE ARE READY TO JUMP INTO
TODAY'S HEARING. WE DO NOT HAVE
A QUORUM. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND
BEGIN AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. WE DO
HAVE OUR FIRST AUTHOR,
ASSEMBLYWOMAN DAVIES. THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.
OKAY, GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE IT. I'M SURE THEY'LL
BE HAPPY TO GET ME IN
TRANSPORTATION VERY SOON. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS TODAY
I'M HERE TO PRESENT HJR 18. I
FIRST WANT TO THANK COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR WORKING WITH MY STAFF
AND STAKEHOLDERS ON THIS
MEASURE. MEMBERS. BACK IN 1998,
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS
LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO WORK WITH
STATES WHO HAD NUCLEAR
FACILITIES IN THEIR STATE TO
FIND SAFE AND SECURE PLACES TO
STORE EXCESS NUCLEAR FUEL.
CALIFORNIA, AS YOU KNOW, HAS HAD
FACILITIES IN SACRAMENTO, SAN
LUIS OBISPO, SAN DIEGO AND
HOBART COUNTIES. AFTER MORE THAN
25 YEARS, WE ARE STILL WAITING.
NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE AND OUR
COMMUNITIES ARE SUFFERING FOR
IT. AS NOTED BY THE SUPPORTERS
OF HJR 18, SINCE 2000, U.S.
TAXPAYERS HAVE HAD TO PAY $10.6
BILLION IN DAMAGES TO COST COVER
TO COVER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
ON SITE NUCLEAR STORAGE. THAT
HASN'T BEEN MOVED YET. A.J.R 18
IS QUITE SIMPLE. IT SIMPLY
IMPLORES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TO ENACT POLICIES OUTLINED IN
THE LATEST BLUE RIBBON
COMMISSION ON AMERICA'S NUCLEAR
FUTURE. AND FINALLY GETS THIS
FUEL OUT OF OUR STATE. AND TO
CONSENTED BASE SITES APPROVED BY
THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
MEMBERS. THIS RESOLUTION IS NOT
HERE TO DEBATE THE MERITS OF
NUCLEAR ENERGY. IT IS SIMPLY A
TOOL TO SHOW THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT THAT THE WORLD'S
FIFTH LARGEST ECONOMY IS READY
FOR THEM TO START ACTING AND DO
THE JOB THAT THEY HAVE BEEN
NEGLECTING FOR OVER TWO DECADES.
WITH ME HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU HAVE IS PATRICK BATTIN AND
MANUEL CAMARGO. THIS RESOLUTION
IS SUPPORTED BY MULTIPLE
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, OUR STATE
PARKS FOUNDATION, US, SAN DIEGO,
A LOCAL NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE,
AND MANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
ON AGER 18. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. I THINK YOU SAID YOU DO
HAVE WITNESSES HERE IN SUPPORT.
IF THEY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND
JOIN YOU. HERE. WELL, LET'S SEE
HERE, PAT AND BATTEN. OR MANUEL
CARMICHAEL, DO YOU HAVE. THAT'S
RIGHT. WELL, IT DOESN'T LOOK
LIKE THEY'RE HERE RIGHT NOW.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. IS THERE? SO IS THERE
ANYONE IN THE ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT? IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY
IN SUPPORT OF AGER 18, YOU MAY
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
OKAY. SEEING ALL RIGHT. THERE WE
GO. WE GOT ONE COMING. GOOD
AFTERNOON, BRENDAN EBCLC ON
BEHALF OF PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC IN SUPPORT. THANKS
THANK YOU. AND ARE THERE THERE
ARE NOT PRIMARY WITNESSES ON
OPPOSITION. I DON'T BELIEVE. ALL
RIGHT, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO Ó. WE DO
HAVE A WITNESS IN OPPOSITION.
HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP, I'M
HERE REPRESENTING EWG IN 14
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC
HEALTH GROUPS IN OPPOSITION TO
THE RESOLUTION. AGR 18 DEALS
WITH EXTRAORDINARY DIFFICULT
ISSUE, WHICH IS BEDEVILED OUR
SOCIETY SINCE 1942. IN THE FIRST
NUCLEAR WASTE WAS CREATED AND
WE'VE NEVER ESTABLISHED A
PERMANENT DISPOSAL SITE. THESE
RADIOACTIVE, RADIOACTIVE WASTES
ARE EXTRAORDINARILY HAZARD IS
DANGEROUS FOR HALF A MILLION
YEARS. THE RESOLUTION HAS VERY
GOOD ASPECTS WHICH WE SUPPORT
URGING PROMPT ACTION BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DEVELOP A
PERMANENT GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY.
BUT AS TROUBLING ASPECTS, ALSO
CREATING URGING, CREATION OF
CONSOLIDATED INTERIM STORAGE OR
CIS TO TEMPORARILY STORE THE
WASTE. THE ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMITTEE GENERALLY IS OPPOSED
TO THIS FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.
THE ANALYSIS LISTS THREE OF THE
BULLETS. THERE ACTUALLY WAS A
FOURTH. QUICKLY, WASTE WOULD
HAVE TO BE MOVED TWICE, ONCE TO
THE SURFACE AND THEN AGAIN TO A
PERMANENT. IT'S OFTEN DONE IN
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. THESE
WASTE DISPOSAL SITES. IT WOULD
TAKE DECADES AND REDUCE THE
PRESSURE FOR ESTABLISHING A
PERMANENT SITE. AND LASTLY, IT
COULD BECOME PERMANENT RATHER
THAN INTERIM AND THEN BE
ABANDONED IN ABOVE GROUND
STORAGE SITES. IT NEVER INTENDED
FOR LONG TERM DISPOSAL, WE ALSO
NOTE THAT SUPPORT OF THE
RESOLUTION COULD COME BACK TO
BITE CALIFORNIA IF SUCH, THIS
WAS ALLOWED IN THIS STATE AND
THEN ESTABLISHED HERE AND
RADIOACTIVE WASTE WOULD BE
SHIPPED TO CALIFORNIA, WE CAN
SUPPORT. THE MAIN THRUST OF THE
RESOLUTION WAS TO PUSH ON THE
FEDS FOR A PERMANENT REPOSITORY.
IF THE RESOLUTION WAS AMENDED TO
REMOVE REFERENCE TO CONSOLIDATED
INTERIM STORAGE, WE URGE THE NO
VOTE ON THE ON THIS POLICY FOR
DEALING WITH WASTE OF SUCH
EXTRAORDINARY HAZARD AND
LONGEVITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION? IF YOU'D LIKE TO
TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO H.R.
18, YOU CAN PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. AT THIS POINT, LET'S
SEE IF YOU COMING UP. JANET COX
FOR CLIMATE ACTION CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. SEEING AND HEARING, NO
FURTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION,
WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. GREAT. AND I
JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR,
OBVIOUSLY, PUBLIC SAFETY IS
NUMBER ONE, ESPECIALLY FOR NOT
JUST MY DISTRICT, BUT ALL
CALIFORNIANS. AND WE'LL
DEFINITELY WORK WITH OPPOSITION
IN REGARDS TO WHAT WE CAN MOVE
FORWARD ON AS THAT. BUT WE
REALLY NEED TO PUT SOME PRESSURE
ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GET THIS
WASTE AWAY AND MAKE SURE THAT
CALIFORNIANS ARE SAFE. ALL
RIGHT. AND I THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND WE STILL NEED ONE
ADDITIONAL MEMBER BEFORE WE CAN
ESTABLISH QUORUM. CAN I ASK A
QUESTION? OH, I'M SORRY, WE HAVE
A LATE YES, A LATE QUESTION.
COME ON. AND I'M SORRY IF I
MISSED. IF YOU ALREADY ANSWERED
THIS, BUT I'M. I'M IN TWO
COMMITTEES SIMULTANEOUSLY TODAY.
GOT IT, SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
YOU WANT TO MOVE THE WASTE INTO
A TEMPORARY FACILITY AND THEN
INTO A PERMANENT FACILITY. AND
I'M WONDERING WHY THE INTERIM
STEP, IT SEEMS. AND I'M SORRY IF
YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THIS.
NO, IT DOESN'T, IT ACTUALLY, I
HAVE MY WITNESS HERE. ADD MORE
RISK, YOU KNOW, WHY NOT JUST
WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE A PERMANENT
REPOSITORY AS OPPOSED TO MOVING
IT TWICE, MR. BENTON? YEAH HI.
MANUEL CAMARGO, I'M WITH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON AND,
WORK WITH THE COALITION HERE.
WHAT I WHAT I WOULD SAY, IS THAT
THE INTERIM STORAGE CAN BE
AVAILABLE LITERALLY DECADES
EARLIER THAN A PERMANENT DEEP
GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY. THE MOST
OPTIMISTIC TIME FRAME RIGHT NOW
FOR A PERMANENT DISPOSAL IS THE
2070. THAT'S THE OPTIMISTIC, THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IS WORKING
ON INTERIM STORAGE. AND, AND
THAT HAS A 10 TO 15 YEAR TIME
FRAME. SO EARLIER, IN TERMS OF
THE, YOU KNOW, MOVING IT, MOVING
IT TWICE, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE
IF THAT'S THE SPIRIT OF THE
QUESTION AS WELL. YES. YOU WOULD
NEED TO MOVE IT TWICE. I WOULD
TELL YOU THAT THE WE DO HAVE A
TRACK RECORD, BOTH HERE IN THE
US AND ACROSS THE WORLD IN
MOVING SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL. IT'S
A HARD CERAMIC FORMAT, THE SPENT
FUEL. AND WE'VE BEEN MOVING,
NAVY NUCLEAR FUEL FOR SINCE THE
1950S. AND IN PLACES LIKE
FRANCE, THEY MOVED, SPENT FUEL,
PRETTY MUCH EVERY DAY. SO. AND
THEN DOES HAVING THE INTERIM
STORAGE DOES THAT AT ALL SLOW
THE TIMELINE DOWN? FOR INSTANCE,
IF WE WERE TO NOT DO THAT, IS
THERE A WAY TO ACCELERATE THE
PERMANENT STORAGE FACILITY? IS
THERE A WAY TO ACCELERATE THE
PERMANENT STORAGE FACILITY? IT
DOESN'T SORT OF GIVE PEOPLE AN
EXCUSE TO JUST KIND OF THERE'S
AN ARGUMENT THAT IT MAY, I THINK
RIGHT NOW WHAT WHAT WE ARE
PUSHING FOR AND WHAT THE AND
WHAT I THINK, LAWMAKERS IN
WASHINGTON, D.C, ARE LOOKING FOR
IS A JOINT SOLUTION, AN
INTEGRATED PROGRAM THAT FIRST
CLEARS SITES LIKE, THE FOR HERE
IN CALIFORNIA OF THE SPENT FUEL,
MOVES IT TO AN INTERIM LOCATION.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU'RE
WORKING ON A PERMANENT DISPOSAL.
SO YOU REALLY NEED BOTH AND FOR
INTERIM TO BE SUCCESSFUL BY THE
WAY, ANYTIME A HOST COMMUNITY IS
PROBABLY GOING TO DEMAND THAT
YOU HAVE SOME TYPE OF ROBUST,
PERMANENT DISPOSAL FACILITY,
OTHERWISE INTERIM WOULD BECOME
HAS THE RISK OF BECOMING
PERMANENT BY DEFAULT. THANK YOU.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER
COMMENTS IN CLOSING, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, JUST RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
OKAY. AND WE'LL BE TAKING UP
THIS MEASURE WHEN WE ESTABLISH
QUORUM. OKAY MOVING ON TO, FINAL
ITEM, NUMBER TWO, SB 59. SENATOR
SKINNER.
ALL RIGHT. IT HAS JUST BEEN
BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT
APPARENTLY, WHEN I KICKED OFF
OUR PROCEEDINGS, I NEGLECTED TO
BANG THE GAVEL. SO PLEASE NOTE,
WE ARE. WE ARE HERE. OKAY THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS, SOME OF YOU MAY
HAVE RECALLED YOU MAY HAVE
RECALLED MY PRESENTING THIS LAST
YEAR, BUT REGARDLESS, YOU MAY
RECALL THE SUPER BOWL AD FROM
NOT THIS YEAR'S SUPER BOWL THE
PREVIOUS YEAR, WHERE THE FORD F
150 TRUCK COMES PULLING UP TO A
MOUNTAIN CABIN, AND THEN THE GUY
JUMPS OUT OF THE TRUCK, PLUGS
THE FORD INTO THE MOUNTAIN CABIN
, AND LIGHTS UP THE CABIN. NOW,
THE FORD 150 IS AN EV. HOW THAT
PERSON DID THAT IS BECAUSE THE
FORD 150 HAS WHAT'S CALLED BI
DIRECTIONAL CAPABILITY. EVS IN
EFFECT, CAN BE MINI POWER PLANTS
ON WHEELS. THEY'RE VERY
POWERFUL. BATTERIES CAN DO MORE
THAN JUST POWER. THE VEHICLE,
AND THEY COULD POTENTIALLY BE A
GRID ASSET AT SOME POINT. THEY
COULD ALSO BE JUST A BENEFIT TO
THE PERSON WHO OWNS THE EV, WHEN
YOU MIGHT WANT TO SAY, POWER
YOUR HOME DURING A PERIOD LIKE
NOW, WHERE DEMAND IS GOING TO BE
HIGH WITH THESE HIGH HEAT DAYS,
MIGHT HELP AVOID, A POWER OUTAGE
OR JUST HELP YOU AVOID THE
HIGHEST RATES WHEN DEMAND IS
HIGHEST, THAT'S WHEN RATES ARE
HIGHEST. ALSO SO HAVING THAT
CAPABILITY IS A GREAT ASSET FOR
A VEHICLE. THE NISSAN LEAF,
WHICH IS THE MOST AFFORDABLE EV
ON THE MARKET, HAS ALWAYS HAD
THAT BIDIRECTIONAL CAPABILITY.
NOW THE BILL WHEN I PRESENTED
LAST YEAR WOULD HAVE MANDATED
ALL EV MANUFACTURERS TO HAVE
BIDIRECTIONAL CAPABILITY FOR ANY
EV SOLD IN CALIFORNIA BY A
CERTAIN YEAR. I'VE TAKEN THAT
OUT, AND WHAT THIS BILL DOES
INSTEAD IS JUST GIVE OUR
AGENCIES A GREEN LIGHT TO
ANALYZE THE POTENTIAL FOR THIS.
THE WHAT BENEFITS MIGHT ACCRUE,
AND THEN LET THEM DETERMINE
WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE TO, TO
MAKE SOME DETERMINATION AROUND
THE USE OF THESE VEHICLES FOR A
PURPOSE OF BEYOND JUST THE
BATTERY POWERING THE VEHICLE.
I'M ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS THAT CLARIFY THE
FINDINGS AND DEFINITIONS AND
ALLOW FOR THE ENERGY COMMISSION
TO BE ABLE TO SET CERTAIN
DEFINITIONS. I'M ALSO ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW
CARB TO LOOK AT DUTY CYCLES FOR
ESSENTIAL SERVICE PROVIDERS,
WHICH IS STATED AND DESCRIBED IN
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, BUT I
WOULD LIKE NOW, AS MY MAIN
WITNESS IN SUPPORT KENDRA HARRIS
FROM THE CLIMATE CENTER. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS KENDRA
HARRIS, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
MANAGER WITH THE CLIMATE CENTER.
WE'RE SPONSORING THE MEASURE.
THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP. RIGHT NOW IN
CALIFORNIA, WE HAVE ELECTRICITY
AFFORDABILITY PROBLEM AND AN
ENERGY RESILIENCE PROBLEM.
ACCELERATION OF BIDIRECTIONAL EV
DEPLOYMENT, AS CALLED FOR IN SB
59, IS AN ELEGANT SOLUTION TO
BOTH THESE PROBLEMS. EXISTING
CALIFORNIA POLICY ALREADY CALLS
FOR ALL SALES OF NEW LIGHT DUTY
PASSENGER VEHICLES AND SCHOOL
BUSSES TO BE ZERO EMISSION BY
2035, SB 59 TAKES THE NEXT STEP
AND POINTS TOWARD A FUTURE IN
WHICH OUR CURRENT ONCE IN A
GENERATION, MULTIBILLION DOLLAR
INVESTMENTS IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES
ALSO HELP TO BUILD A MORE
RESILIENT AND RELIABLE
ELECTRICAL GRID. WE CANNOT
AFFORD TO CONTINUE RELYING ON
OUTDATED AND POLLUTING FOSSIL
TECHNOLOGIES TO KEEP OUR LIGHTS
ON AND KEEP OUR GRID FROM
FAILING, POLLUTING GAS PEAKER
PLANTS AND DIRTY DIESEL BACKUP
GENERATORS TO SUPPORT,
FORTUNATELY HARM, LOWER INCOME
AND WORKING CLASS COMMUNITIES,
EXACERBATING ENVIRONMENTAL
INJUSTICES. RIGHT NOW,
CALIFORNIA HAS ALMOST 2 MILLION
EVS. THE CEC ESTIMATES WE WILL
HAVE 8 MILLION BY 2030, AND 15
MILLION BY 2035. IF THEY ARE
BIDIRECTIONAL, JUST A TINY
FRACTION OF THESE VEHICLES COULD
HELP CHEAPLY PROVIDE A MORE
RESILIENT AND RELIABLE GRID AND
HELP US ACHIEVE OUR CLIMATE
GOALS OF 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY
BY 2045. SO FOR THESE REASONS,
WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU, ARE THERE
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO WOULD
LIKE TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY IN
SUPPORT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF SB 59, PLEASE
APPROACH MÁS WITH THE UNION OF
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS. PROUD
CO-SPONSOR AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. LARISSA
MERCADO. ON BEHALF OF CLEAN
POWER LINES AND SUPPORT, THANK
YOU. HI, ELLEN BRITTINGHAM, ON
BEHALF OF SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY
POWER IN SUPPORT. THANKS CARMEN
GUZMAN, ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT. JANET
COX FOR CLIMATE ACTION
CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO, 350 AND
THE CENTER FOR BIODIVERSITY IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
CYNTHIA CHARLOTTE, ON BEHALF OF
THE SACRAMENTO ELECTRIC VEHICLE
ASSOCIATION AND ALSO INDIVISIBLE
CALIFORNIA STATE STRONG. BARRY
VISSER, ON BEHALF OF CIVIC WELL
AND CLEAN POWER ALLIANCE.
MELISSA ROMERO CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS IN SUPPORT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, IS THERE A
PRIMARY WITNESS IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS MEASURE? I DON'T BELIEVE
SO. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, ARE
THERE ANY WITNESSES IN THE ROOM
WHO WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION? GOOD
AFTERNOON. MICHAEL CAPRIO WITH
REPUBLIC SERVICES. WE APPRECIATE
THE SENATOR ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. AND WITH
THAT, WE'LL REMOVE OUR
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. HI. KEISHA HUNT HERE WITH
NOSSAMAN. WE ARE OPPOSED, UNLESS
AMENDED, TO EXCLUDE MOTORCYCLES,
SO I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF
MOTORCYCLE INDUSTRY COUNCIL.
THANK YOU. OKAY. AT THIS TIME,
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. WE WILL,
BUT WE WILL. WHEN WE GET A
QUORUM, WE'LL TAKE YOU UP ON
THAT. MR. HART. ALL RIGHT. WELL,
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
MEASURE FORWARD. REALLY
APPRECIATE THE CREATIVITY OF THE
APPROACH. I THINK THAT THERE'S A
TON OF POTENTIAL, AND SO REALLY
HOPEFUL THAT THIS IS ONE STEP IN
HELPING CALIFORNIA AND
CALIFORNIANS REALIZE THAT
POTENTIAL. THANK YOU. SENATOR,
IF YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE. GREAT.
THANK YOU. CHAIR. AND, I LOOK
FORWARD TO YOUR GETTING A
QUORUM. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD
ASK FOR THE AYE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY, MOVING
ON IN THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER
THREE, SB 284 BY SENATOR WIENER
HAS BEEN PULLED FROM TODAY'S
AGENDA AND WILL NOT BE HEARD AT
TODAY'S HEARING, SO THAT BRINGS
US TO FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE, SB
1255. SENATOR DURAZZO, WELCOME.
OH, THERE WE GO. OH AND WE ARE
GOING TO PAUSE FOR ONE MOMENT
AND ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
PETRIE-NORRIS HERE.
PETRIE-NORRIS HERE. JIM
PATTERSON KHN CALDERON HERE.
CALDERON HERE. CHEN CHEN HERE.
FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN HERE.
FRIEDMAN, HERE. HART ART. HERE.
HOLDEN. JOE PATTERSON HERE. JOE
PATTERSON HERE. REYES SANTIAGO.
SHIAVO. HERE SCHIAVO. HERE.
TING. YEP. CHING. HERE WALLACE.
WOOD. WOOD. HERE. ZUBER THAT'S
NINE. OKAY GREAT. WE DO HAVE A
QUORUM. SENATOR. OVER TO YOU.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AND COLLEAGUES, I WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF VERY
MUCH FOR WORKING WITH US ON THIS
BILL. AND TO YOU, MADAM CHAIR,
SO BEFORE GOING ON WITH THE
ACTUAL, CRUX OF THE OF THE BILL,
I WANT TO, JUST TELL YOU A
LITTLE BIT THAT THE BILL BEFORE
YOU IS REALLY THE RESULT OF A
LOT OF DISCUSSIONS AND RESEARCH
AND THE IDEA OF A RATE
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THAT CAN BE
APPLIED AND TAKING LESSONS OVER
THE, SEVERAL YEARS OF PREVIOUS
EFFORTS, WE HAVE ENGAGED WITH A
NUMBER OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS,
STAKEHOLDERS OVER THIS YEAR TO
GET TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, TO GET
FEEDBACK, WITH EXTENDED
DISCUSSIONS ON THE MECHANICS,
HOW TO REALLY BE ABLE TO
IMPLEMENT THIS KIND OF
LEGISLATION, WE MADE CLEAR WE
WANT TO WE WANT AN AGREEMENT ON
A PATH FORWARD, AND FEEL
CONFIDENT THAT WE ARE CLOSE. WE
CAN BE WE ARE CLOSE TO REMOVE A
LOT OF THE OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. WE'VE WORKED WITH
STAKEHOLDERS IN A GOOD FAITH
EFFORT. WE'VE MADE NUMEROUS
AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES SO THAT
THIS PROGRAM IS FEASIBLE, AND WE
CAN ACTUALLY APPLY IT AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL, AND MY OFFICE AND
THE SPONSORS REMAIN COMMITTED TO
CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE
DISCUSSIONS. HOPEFULLY AS WE
MOVE TO APPROPRIATIONS, THE
ISSUE THAT THIS BILL IS TRYING
TO ADDRESS, I BELIEVE MOST, IF
NOT ALL OF US AGREE THE ISSUE IS
JUST TOO SIGNIFICANT AND THE
NEED OF FOR THIS BILL IS
DESPERATELY NEEDED. WE MUST DO
SOMETHING TO MAKE RATE
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM A REALITY.
THE NEED IS GREAT, AND THERE'S A
COMMITMENT FROM SO MANY INVOLVED
TO SEE IT HAPPEN. SB 1255 WOULD
REQUIRE WATER SUPPLIERS WITH
OVER 3300 CONNECTIONS TO PROVIDE
LOW INCOME RATEPAYER ASSISTANCE
TO LOW INCOME ELIGIBLE
RATEPAYERS THROUGH A VOLUNTARY
RATEPAYER CONTRIBUTION FUND. IT
WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THE STATE
WATER BOARD TO IDENTIFY THE COST
OF ADDRESSING AFFORDABILITY AND
SYSTEMS SMALLER THAN THE 3300
CONNECTIONS, ALTHOUGH ENSURING
ACCESS TO CLEAN AND AFFORDABLE
WATER HAS BEEN A FOCAL POINT OF
SEVERAL LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES,
CALIFORNIA IS AT THE EPICENTER
OF WATER AFFORDABILITY,
ESPECIALLY FOR COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR. MORE THAN 1.6 MILLION
HOUSEHOLDS HAVE AN AVERAGE $500
WATER AND OR SEWER UTILITY DEBT.
MORE THAN 150,000 HOUSEHOLDS
HAVE A DANGEROUSLY HIGHER DEBT
OF $1,000 OR MORE, WHILE AB 401
FROM 2015 REQUIRED THE STATE
BOARD TO PREPARE A LOW INCOME
WATER RATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM,
NO PROGRAM HAS BEEN CREATED TO
DATE. IN 2022, IN THE WATER
SUPPLY STRATEGY, GOVERNOR NEWSOM
CALLED ON THE WATER UTILITY
SECTOR TO ADDRESS THE COST
BURDENS ON LOW INCOME MEMBERS OF
OUR COMMUNITY. THIS BILL IS
TAKING THE GOVERNOR'S LEAD TO
ESTABLISH A WATER RATE,
AFFORDABLE PROGRAM FOR
CALIFORNIANS THAT ARE BEING
PRICED OUT OF THIS VITAL LIFE
RESOURCE, THIS BILL WILL NOT
REQUIRE THE USE OF ASSESSMENTS
OR FEES. CONSISTENT WITH PROP
218, AND PROVIDES LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS WITH FLEXIBILITY IN
COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS TO
ALL OF THEIR CUSTOMERS,
BENEFICIARIES AND CONTRIBUTORS
TO BE MADE AWARE OF THE PROGRAM
AND HAVE THE CLEAR ABILITY TO
OPT OUT IF THEY CHOOSE THE STATE
BASED PROGRAM WILL DIRECT
VOLUNTARILY COLLECTED FUNDS TO
HELP QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS. THOSE
WITH AN ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME
THAT IS NO GREATER THAN 200% OF
THE FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINE
LEVEL. WITH ME, I HAVE MICHAEL
RINCON RESEARCH AND POLICY
MANAGER FOR PHYSICIANS FOR
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. I ALSO
HAVE MICHAEL CLAYBURN, DIRECTING
ATTORNEY FOR LEADERSHIP COUNCIL,
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT AND HELP
WITH TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. GOOD AFTERNOON
TO THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS MICHAEL CLAIBORNE.
I'M A DIRECTING ATTORNEY WITH
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY. IT'S GOING
TO BE 105 DEGREES IN SACRAMENTO
TODAY. IT'LL BE 113 ON
WEDNESDAY. IT'LL BE 119 DEGREES
IN COACHELLA, WHERE WE WORK WITH
COMMUNITIES ON FRIDAY. THIS BILL
IS ABOUT MAINTAINING ACCESS TO
SAFE DRINKING WATER, WATER FOR
COOKING, WATER FOR COOLING, AND
FOR BASIC SANITATION. YOU'D BE
HARD PRESSED TO FIND A MORE
URGENT AND IMPACTFUL ISSUE THAN
WATER ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY.
WHEN FAMILIES CAN'T PAY THEIR
WATER BILL, THEY ARE AT RISK OF
HAVING THEIR WATER SHUT OFF
ALTOGETHER. IN FACT, RESEARCH
DURING THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC
INDICATES THAT JURISDICTIONS
WITH WATER SHUT OFF MORATORIA
HAD MEASURABLY LOWER INFECTION
AND DEATH RATES THAN
JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT THOSE SHUT
OFF. MORATORIA AS WATER SYSTEMS
MOVE BEYOND THE COVID SHUT OFF
MORATORIUM IN CALIFORNIA, LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS URGENTLY NEED
ASSISTANCE. WATER CODE 106.3
DECLARES THAT EVERY HUMAN BEING
HAS THE RIGHT TO SAFE, CLEAN AND
AFFORDABLE DRINKING WATER. BUT
THE REALITY IS THAT WATER
REMAINS UNAFFORDABLE FOR THE
MAJORITY OF LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS THROUGHOUT THE STATE,
AND MOST DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO
ANY SOCIAL SAFETY NET FOR WATER.
AN I VOTE TODAY IS A VOTE IN
FAVOR OF REALIZING THE PROMISE
OF THE CODIFIED HUMAN RIGHTS
WATER AND PROTECTING ACCESS TO
THIS LIFE SAVING SERVICE. I'LL
CLOSE BY NOTING HOW MUCH WE
APPRECIATE THE CONSTRUCTIVE AND
ONGOING AND DEDICATED ENGAGEMENT
FROM THE WATER SECTOR. SOME OF
WHICH ARE IN SUPPORT NOW BECAUSE
OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE
HAPPENED TO DATE AND SOME OF
WHOM WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH TO
TRY TO BUILD CONSENSUS. WE'VE
WORKED ON THESE ISSUES FOR
YEARS, FIRST WITH THE AB 401
PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDED MANY
WORKSHOPS ON THIS ISSUE FROM
2016 TO 2018. AT THE STATE WATER
BOARD, AND WHICH RESULTED IN
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
LEGISLATURE IN 2021. THEN, WITH
SB 222, WHICH WAS AUTHORED BY
SENATOR DODD IN 2022, WHICH MADE
IT THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE BUT
WAS VETOED FOR LACK OF A FUNDING
SOURCE. WE REACHED OUT TO, WE
REACHED OUT TO CMA IN MARCH WITH
THIS CONCEPT. CMA QUICKLY FORMED
A WORKGROUP, AND WE'VE BEEN
WORKING WITH THEM EVER SINCE. WE
REALLY APPRECIATE THE TIME TODAY
AND ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. AS MENTIONED, MY NAME
IS MICHAEL RINCON. I AM HERE ON
BEHALF OF PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY, LOS ANGELES, LOW
INCOME ANGELENOS ARE STRUGGLING
TO PAY THEIR WATER BILLS.
ACCORDING TO THE 2020 REPORT,
COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS IN LA
COUNTY, LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN
THE COUNTY FACE HIGHER WATER
COSTS RELATIVE TO THEIR INCOME,
HIGHLIGHTING THE NEED FOR
COMPREHENSIVE ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS. THE STATE RECENTLY
REPORTED THAT THE STATEWIDE
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS TO PROVIDE
CALIFORNIANS WITH SAFE TAP WATER
WILL INSIGNIFICANT PART, BE
BORNE BY LOCAL WATER SYSTEMS DUE
TO THE OVERWHELMING NEED AND
LACK OF STATE AND FEDERAL GRANT
FUNDING. SIMILARLY, THE
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT'S
NEW BUDGET WILL INCREASE RATES
IN 2025 AND 2026, BOTH ADDING TO
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIANS FINANCIAL
BURDENS. WATER UNAFFORDABILITY
WILL CONTINUE TO BE WIDESPREAD
PROBLEM THAT IS GETTING WORSE.
WE WORK ALONGSIDE RESIDENTS IN
THE GREATER LOS ANGELES REGION.
RESIDENTS SERVED BY LAUP HAD A
LOW INCOME RATE ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM, WHICH WAS RECENTLY
STRUCK DOWN FOR VIOLATION OF
PROP TWO, 18. HOWEVER, MOST OF
THE RESIDENTS I WORK WITH ARE
SERVICED BY WATER SYSTEMS THAT
ARE SMALLER THAN LA DWP IN THE
REGION, WHICH ALSO DO NOT HAVE
LOW INCOME RATE ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS, MEANING THAT THESE LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN THE REGION
AND THROUGHOUT THE STATE ARE ON
THEIR OWN. IF THEY'RE STRUGGLING
TO AFFORD THEIR BILLS. LOW
INCOME RATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR ALL
COMMUNITIES. SOUTHEAST LA FOR
EXAMPLE, HAD SOME OF THE HIGHEST
ARREARAGES FROM RESIDENTS UNABLE
TO PAY THEIR BILLS DURING THE
PANDEMIC. HOWEVER, WE DID SEE
THAT ZIP CODES SERVED BY WATER
SYSTEMS THAT DID OFFER A LOW
INCOME RATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
HAD RELATIVELY LOWER AVERAGE
TOTALS. IT IS FOR THIS REASON WE
ASK YOU TO SUPPORT SB 1255. NOT
ONLY WILL IT MAKE IT TAP WATER
AFFORDABLE, BUT IT WILL KEEP
CUSTOMER FUNDING LOCAL TO AID
LOCAL RESIDENTS, HELPING TO
REBUILD TRUST WITH CUSTOMERS AS
WELL. THE SAFER DASHBOARD SHOWS
THAT ABOUT 42% OF WATER
PURVEYORS IN THE STATE ARE AT
RISK OF FAILING TO MEET THE
HUMAN RIGHT TO WATER, WHICH IS
EXACERBATED BY HIGH WATER BILLS
AND CUSTOMER SOCIOECONOMIC
BURDENS. ON BEHALF OF THE LA
COMMUNITIES WE WORK WITH, WE ASK
THAT YOU PLEASE SUPPORT SB 1255.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY OF SUPPORT
IN THE ROOM. IF YOU'D LIKE TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB 1255.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS, LEANNE
TROUT, WITH TROUT AND PRICE
REPRESENTING WATER FOUNDATION
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. JENNIFER CLARY
OF CLEAN WATER ACTION. WE'RE
SPONSORS OF THE BILL. ALSO
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ALLIANCE AND THE LA ALLIANCE FOR
A NEW ECONOMY, BOTH IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. SORRY HI. I'M JAY
KUSHNER WITH COMMUNITY WATER
CENTER ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE
AND COALITION FOR HUMAN
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS IN SUPPORT.
ABRAHAM MENDOZA, ALSO ON BEHALF
OF COMMUNITY WATER CENTER AND
THE AGUA COALITION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. HI. MEGAN CLEVELAND
WITH THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IN
SUPPORT. MICHELLE CANLAS, ON
BEHALF OF THE UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS IN SUPPORT SAVANNAH
JORGENSEN ON BEHALF OF THE
LUTHERAN OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY
AND STRONG SUPPORT. MELISSA, YOU
ON BEHALF OF SIERRA CLUB
CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT KELLY
O'BRIEN WITH WESTERN CENTER ON
LAW AND POVERTY AND STRONG
SUPPORT KYLE JONES ON BEHALF OF
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND,
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE AND
CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE
IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
MELISSA ROMERO CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS IN SUPPORT
RAQUEL MASON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE
IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU NATALIE BROWN WITH THE
PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HI,
DEBBIE MICHAEL, EAST BAY
MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, WE
HAVE A SUPPORTIVE, AMENDED
POSITION. WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS FOR
THEIR CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TURN TO
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION AND GO
AHEAD AND COME ON UP. SHOULD WE
SCOOT DOWN? YEAH DO YOU WANT TO
COME OVER HERE MICHAEL? YEAH,
THAT'D BE WEIRD. SHE'S NICE.
YEAH I THINK IT'D BE GREAT. GOOD
AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
CINDY TUCK WITH THE ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES. WE
HAVE AN OPPOSING, LESS AMENDED
POSITION ON THE BILL. WE ARE NOT
AGAINST HAVING A LOW INCOME RATE
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM IN CALIFORNIA
, BUT WE HAVE MANY CONCERNS WITH
THIS BILL, AS IT'S PROPOSED. WE
HAVE OFFERED A DETAILED MOCKUP
WITH SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS. THOSE
HAVEN'T BEEN, YOU KNOW, SOME
EARLY WERE ACCEPTED, BUT A LOT
OF THEM WERE NOT ACCEPTED. AND
WITHOUT THOSE, WE REMAIN
OPPOSED, I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT
TWO ISSUES FOR THE COMMITTEE'S
CONSIDERATION. ONE IS THE OPT
OUT APPROACH THAT THE BILL
TAKES. IT WOULD MANDATE AN OPT
OUT. WE'RE CONCERNED THAT WATER
CUSTOMERS WOULDN'T SEE THE
NOTICE FOR THE OPT OUT. AND
MAYBE THEY'RE YOU KNOW, ON AUTO
PAY OR THEY DON'T LOOK ONLINE.
AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, THEY
WOULD THEN BE CHARGED A MANDATED
VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION. AND
UNLESS THEY OPTED OUT, THEY
WOULD BE PAYING. YOU KNOW, THAT
CHARGE. SO THAT'S ONE CONCERN.
WE THINK THAT THAT CREATES
DISTRUST. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY,
IT MAKES IT SUCH THAT IT'S
REALLY NOT VOLUNTARY. AND THAT
RUNS AGAINST PROP 218. A SECOND
ISSUE IS THE CAP IN THE BILL
THAT WOULD SAY THAT THE
REASONABLE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
HAVE TO BE LESS THAN 10% OF THE
VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS THAT
COME IN. YOU KNOW, YOU SAY, YOU
MAY SAY, WELL, THAT SOUNDS OKAY,
BUT WHEN WATER AGENCIES ARE
IMPLEMENTING THIS, LET'S SAY A
WATER AGENCY CREATED ONE
POSITION AND THAT HAD A SALARY
LIKE $70,000 PLUS THE BENEFITS
$100,000. THE VOLUNTARY
CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE
OVER A MILLION DOLLARS FOR THOSE
COSTS TO BE COVERED. AND WE'RE
VERY CONCERNED THAT THEY THE
VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS WOULDN'T
COVER THAT. A BIG CONCERN ON
THIS BILL IS THERE'S NO
CERTAINTY ON THE FUNDING FOR IT,
WITH THAT, THERE'S OTHER ISSUES,
BUT I'LL DEFER TO MISS, DANIELLE
BLESSED HAYDEN AND WE AS AQUA
RESPECTFULLY URGE A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU, MY NAME IS DANIELLE
BLESSED HAYDEN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES
ASSOCIATION. WE REPRESENT OVER
60 AGENCIES THAT PROVIDE WATER
AND WASTEWATER TO 75% OF
CALIFORNIANS. WE ALSO HAVE AN
OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED,
POSITION ON SB 1255. WE TOO
SUPPORT AN EFFECTIVE AND
IMPLEMENTABLE LOW INCOME WATER
RATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, BUT WE
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S
THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS AND THE FACT
THEY HAVE HIGHLIGHTED SOME OF
OUR FUNDAMENTAL CONCERNS WITH
THE BILL, WHICH INCLUDE THE OPT
IN, OPT OUT VERSUS OPT OUT
APPROACH AND THE CURRENT CAP ON
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. THESE
CENTRAL ISSUES REMAIN, ALONG
WITH A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES, WHICH
HIGHLIGHTS THE FACT THAT
CONSTRUCTING THIS TYPE OF
PROGRAM IS A CHALLENGING ONE. IN
THE ANALYSIS, THE COMMITTEE
OPINED THAT THE GOAL IS
LAUDABLE, BUT ENCOURAGES THE
AUTHORS, OFFICE SPONSORS AND
STAKEHOLDERS TO WORK TOGETHER TO
TRY AND FIGURE THIS ALL OUT
BEFORE INSTITUTING A STATEWIDE
MANDATED PROGRAM. AS THE BILL
STIPULATES. WE AGREE WITH THIS
ASSESSMENT. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
WITH THE SPONSORS AND THE
AUTHORS OFFICE FOR SEVERAL
MONTHS AND REALLY APPRECIATE
THAT WORK, SEVERAL ISSUES HAVE
BEEN ADDRESSED, BUT OUR
FUNDAMENTAL CONCERNS REMAIN, AS
DO A NUMBER OF PRACTICAL
CONCERNS RELATED TO ACTUALLY
MAKING THE PROGRAM EFFECTIVE FOR
ALL PARTICIPATING SYSTEMS. WE
KNOW THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT'S
BEEN, ON THE TABLE FOR A LONG
TIME. WE REALLY WANT TO SOLVE IT
AND COME TO A CONSENSUS, BUT FOR
RIGHT NOW WE ARE OPPOSED. UNLESS
AMENDED, UNLESS OUR CONCERNS ARE
ADDRESSED. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR ADDITIONAL
OPPOSITION TESTIMONY IN THE ROOM
. MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
THANKS FOR THE TIME. KURT
KIMBALL ESHOO, ON BEHALF OF THE
REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY, ALSO
IN AN OPPOSING, LESS AMENDED
POSITION. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
BETH, ALSO ON BEHALF OF
CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
AND INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES
AGENCY, ALSO OPPOSE, UNLESS
AMENDED, ECHO THE CONCERNS OF MY
COLLEAGUES AT THE TABLE. HELLO,
KYLIE MORRIS WITH EDELSTEIN,
GILBERT, ROBSON AND SMITH ON
BEHALF OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA
WATER DISTRICT OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED. HELLO, MADAM. CHAIR,
MEMBERS, ELSINORE VALLEY
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HERE
REPRESENTING THEM TODAY. THEY
HAVE A ROBUST RATEPAYER
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND OUR
OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED FOR THE
REASONS PREVIOUSLY ARTICULATED.
PILAR QUINTANA HERE FOR THE
IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT,
ALSO OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED,
EMILY PAPPAS, ON BEHALF OF
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
FOR THE SAME REASONS. AQUA
MENTIONED SARAH STEVE, THE
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF
ORANGE COUNTY OPPOSE, UNLESS
AMENDED, RAQUEL AYALA WITH
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS ON BEHALF
OF DESERT WATER AGENCY. PALMDALE
WATER DISTRICT, RUTLAND WATER
DISTRICT AND WALNUT VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT WITHOUT OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED. THANK YOU. ETHAN
NAGLER, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE, ECHOING THE COMMENTS
OF AQUA AND KI¾M UA WITH AN
OPPOSING LIST, AMENDED THANK
YOU. KEISHA HUNT HERE WITH
NOSSAMAN PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT, AS WELL AS
OLIVENHAIN WATER DISTRICT,
OPPOSE NATALIE AUGUSTINE HERE ON
BEHALF OF MESA WATER DISTRICT.
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
BRINGING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE, ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER
KHN, I WANT TO THANK THE
SENATOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL.
I WANT TO START THERE BECAUSE I
THINK, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT THAT WE
MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS THE
NECESSITIES IN LIFE AND WATER IS
TOP OF THAT LIST, AND NOT EVERY
CALIFORNIAN CURRENTLY HAS THAT.
AND NOT BEING ABLE TO PAY YOUR
WATER BILL ISN'T FUN. AND IF
ANYONE IN THIS ROOM KNOWS WHAT
IT'S LIKE TO FACE EVERY SINGLE
WATER DISTRICT, I'M YOUR GIRL,
SENATOR. AND IT'S HARD. AND SO I
THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING
TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY, BUT I
DO HAVE A CONCERN BECAUSE MY
WATER DISTRICT, EAST BAY MUD,
WHICH I THINK LEADS IN A LOT OF
WAYS AND ISN'T A SUPPORT UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION, UNLIKE MANY OF
THE WATER AGENCIES TODAY, YOU
KNOW, HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO THIS
WITHOUT HITTING RATEPAYERS. AND
I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY THE
IDEAL SCENARIO IS THAT YOU
PROVIDE SORT OF A FLOOR THAT
THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE IN THESE
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, AND THAT IF
A WATER DISTRICT CAN FIND A WAY
TO DO THAT BY, YOU KNOW, THEY DO
IT IN PART BY LEASE MONEY, THEY
MAKE OFF LEASING LANDS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT'S I
THINK, GREAT. AND WE SHOULD NOT
BE SETTING UP A PROGRAM THAT
MAKES US HIT RATEPAYERS WHERE WE
DON'T NEED TO IN COMMUNITIES
THAT HAVE SUCH ASSETS. AND SO I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BILL
IS AMENDED TO ADDRESS THAT,
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE
RATEPAYERS IN MY COMMUNITY TO
HAVE TO PAY WHERE WE'RE ALREADY
PROVIDING THIS AND THEY'RE NOT
HAVING TO PAY. SO I WAS HOPING
YOU GUYS COULD ADDRESS THAT.
OKAY. YEAH RESPOND TO THAT.
SURE. I CAN ADD THAT WE'VE BEEN
WORKING WITH EAST BAY MUNICIPAL
UTILITY ASSOCIATION OR, FOR
MONTHS. AND I THINK THAT THEY
AMEND THEY PROPOSED THAT WOULD
HELP KIND OF THIS THEIR SPECIFIC
SCENARIO MAKE SENSE TO US, AND
WE'RE WORKING WITH THEM ON THAT.
AMENDED MAKES SENSE. YEAH.
GREAT. YEAH. VERY OPEN. AND
WE'RE COMMITTED TO PERFECT. YOU
ASKED WORKING WITH THEM.
ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU SENATOR
BECAUSE I DO THINK THIS IS
IMPORTANT FOR CALIFORNIANS. SO I
APPRECIATE THE WORK. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S I WANTED TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD, I KNOW THIS IS
COMPLICATED, AND, THERE'S NOT
ANY EASY SOLUTIONS, BUT WE KNOW
PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING, ESPECIALLY
WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR WATER
BILLS AND UTILITY BILLS RIGHT
NOW. AND WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT
SOLUTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO HELP
PEOPLE WHO ARE STRUGGLING THE
MOST. SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY. I'D LIKE TO SEE WHERE
CONVERSATIONS CONTINUE TO GO. I
KNOW WITH THE OPT IN AND OPT
OUT, THERE'S A LOT OF
DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING
THERE. AND, YOU KNOW, BUT I
THINK THAT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT
HOW TO GIVE RELIEF TO FOLKS WHO
ARE REALLY STRUGGLING. AND
OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, HAVING
ACCESS TO WATER IS NOT A CHOICE.
IT'S A LIFE SUSTAINING THING
THAT EVERYBODY NEEDS, AND WE
HAVE TO BRING FORWARD SOLUTIONS
THAT ARE GOING TO HELP PEOPLE.
SO THANK YOU, ASSEMBLYMEMBER
HART. YEAH, I JUST WANT TO ECHO
THE COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES. I
WANT TO THANK, SENATOR FOR
BRINGING THIS IMPORTANT BILL
FORWARD. THIS IS A REAL ISSUE
THAT IT NEEDS AN ANSWER, BUT IT
IS COMPLICATED. AND THERE'S MANY
ISSUES THAT ARE RAISED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS THAT NEED A
LOT OF COLLABORATION AND WORK
AND LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE
PRODUCT OF THAT. ALL RIGHT. AND,
AS AS I'VE SHARED WITH YOU,
SENATOR, I TOO AM REALLY
GRATEFUL FOR THE WORK THAT
YOU'RE DOING IN THIS AREA. I
THINK THAT IT'S INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT, AS I'VE SHARED WITH
YOU, I DO HAVE SIGNIFICANT
CONCERNS ABOUT THE MECHANISM
THAT THE BILL PROPOSES. SO AS
THE OPPOSITION ARTICULATED, IT'S
FRAMED AS A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM.
BUT BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE
AUTOMATICALLY OPTED IN AND THEN
HAVE TO OPT OUT, I WORRY THAT IT
DOESN'T. IT'S NOT REALLY
VOLUNTARY AND DOESN'T REALLY
MEET THE SPIRIT OF PROP 218. SO
AS WE'VE DISCUSSED AND AS I
THINK YOU KNOW, THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSIONS THAT
THAT NEED TO CONTINUE AND I
THINK SIGNIFICANT WORK THAT'S
NEEDED. SO WHILE I, AS I'VE
SHARED WITH YOU, WON'T BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL IN COMMITTEE
TODAY, I KNOW THAT IT WAS VERY
IMPORTANT TO YOU FOR THE BILL TO
HAVE A HEARING, AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO WHATEVER THE OUTCOME
FROM TODAY CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH YOU AND WITH ADVOCATES BOTH
ON THE SUPPORT AS WELL AS
OPPOSITION SIDE. SO THAT WE CAN
FIND A SOLUTION AND REALLY
PROVIDE REAL RELIEF AND SUPPORT
TO CALIFORNIANS WHO DESPERATELY
NEED IT. SO WITH THAT, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU, I
THINK THE PART OF THIS LITTLE
CAMPAIGN TO, YOU KNOW, GET THIS
BILL PASSED HAS REALLY BEEN,
WHAT I'M MOST IMPRESSED WITH IS
THE ADVOCATES REACHING OUT AND
HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
WATER DISTRICTS AND
ORGANIZATIONS. I'M REALLY
IMPRESSED. I THINK USUALLY
THAT'S SORT OF AT THE LAST
MINUTE AND TRYING TO JUST LOOK
AT EVERYBODY AS OPPOSITION. AND
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO MOVE
FORWARD. THEY STARTED OUT
EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, STARTED
OUT SAYING WE HAVE TO, FROM THE
VERY BEGINNING, HAVE THESE
CONVERSATIONS. AND I, I THAT'S
BEEN THE MOST IMPRESSIVE. AND
WHEREVER WE CAN. AND I THINK
THEY'VE ALSO THEY'RE ALSO
BUILDING ON THE EFFORTS OF THE
PAST. SO IT'S NOT THE FIRST, YOU
KNOW, IDEA. IT'S WHAT IDEAS HAVE
BEEN PROPOSED. WHAT HAS BEEN
LEARNED FROM THOSE, PROPOSALS.
AND, YOU KNOW, SO FAR IT'S THE
BEST. WITH EVERYBODY'S
INVOLVEMENT, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO
COME UP WITH, WE'RE ALWAYS WE
ARE REMAIN VERY COMMITTED TO
OTHER IDEAS, BUT WE'VE GOT TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT THE FACT THAT
OVER A MILLION PEOPLE CANNOT
AFFORD TO PAY FOR THE WATER THAT
THEY NEED. THAT'S JUST A HUMAN
RIGHT ISSUE. SO, AGAIN,
APPRECIATE YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND
EVERYONE ELSE EVERY ALL THE
CONVERSATIONS WE'VE BEEN HAVING,
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
MADAM SECRETARY, WE'VE GOT A
MOTION AND A SECOND. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE, SB 1255. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PETRIE-NORRIS
NOT VOTING. PETRIE-NORRIS NOT
VOTING. JIM PATTERSON, KHN
CALDERON CHEN CHEN. NOT VOTING.
FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN I HEART, I
HEART I HOLDEN. JO PATTERSON
REYES. SANTIAGO ZERBO I ZERBO I
TING TING I WALLACE WALLACE. NOT
VOTING, WOULD I WOULD I ZIPPER.
THAT'S FINE. OKAY SO THAT BILL
HAS FIVE VOTES. THAT BILL IS ON
CALL, AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND
REOPEN IT WHEN ADDITIONAL
MEMBERS JOIN US. THANK YOU.
SENATOR ALL RIGHT. WE'VE GOT A
MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THESE ITEMS ARE DUE. PASS IS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. ITEM
NUMBER FOUR, SB 20, ITEM NUMBER
SIX, SB 778. ITEM 14, SB 1292.
AGAIN, THAT'S DUE. PASS IS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. THESE
ITEMS ARE DUE PASS. I'M SORRY
THAT I DID SAY DO PASS AS
AMENDED, RIGHT? YES, THESE ITEMS
ARE DUE PASSED TO APPROPRIATIONS
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, SB 934, ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT, SB 1003, ITEM
NUMBER 11, SB 1054, ITEM NUMBER
17, SB 1301, ITEM NUMBER 18 SB
1508. ITEM NUMBER 19 SB 1413.
AGAIN, THAT'S Dð PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON
BAUER-KAHAN CALDERON CHEN CHEN I
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I HEART, I
HEART I HOLDEN. JO PATTERSON
REYES SANTIAGO. SHIAVO HI CHAU
VÚI TING TING I WALLACE WALLACE
I WOULD, I WOULD IS BURR. EIGHT
ZERO ALL RIGHT. SO THE CONSENT
CALENDAR IS ON CALL. YES. WE
MAY. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER ONE,
HCR 18, MOTION FROM ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WOOD. SECOND FROM
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WALLACE. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
YES. ITEM NUMBER ONE, AGENDA 18.
THE MOTION IS Dð PASS. Þ H.J.R
18. THE MOTION IS BE ADOPTED TO
THE FLOOR. PETRIE-NORRIS. AYE.
PETRIE-NORRIS AYE. JIM
PATTERSON. B¢O KHN. CALDERON
CHEN. AYE CHEN I FRIEDMAN. HART
HART. AYE. HOLDEN JO. PATTERSON.
REYES SANTIAGO. SHIAVO AYE.
CHAU. VÚI. TING WALLACE A.
WALLACE I WOULD, I WOULD I
ZIPPER. I HAVE SIX. OKAY. ITEM
NUMBER ONE, H.R. 18. THAT IS
ALSO ON CALL 59. ALL RIGHT. AND
WE NEED A MOTION. SB 59, WE HAVE
A MOTION FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WOOD. SECOND FROM ASSEMBLY
MEMBER TANG. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. ITEM
NUMBER TWO, SB 59. THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS. AYE. JIM
PATTERSON, BAUER-KAHAN CALDERON
CHEN. CHEN NÓ FRIEDMAN. HEART A
HEART. AYE. HOLDEN. JO.
PATTERSON REYES. SANTIAGO
SCHIAVO. SCHIAVO I TING I CHING
I. WALLACE. NO WALLACE. NO.
WOOD. WOOD. I ZIPPER AND I'M AT
I FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN. I. AT SIX
TWO OKAY THAT MEASURE IS ALSO ON
CALL WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE TO
FILE ITEM NINE AND TEN. SENATOR
BECKER. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND
MOVE TO FILE ITEM 16. SENATOR
STERN, WELCOME. I KNOW RIGHT.
BUT I PROMISED THEM A LIGHTNING
ROUND PRESENTATION HERE. SO,
YEAH, I MAKE THE MOTION. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, SENATOR, YOU HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. I HATE
MOSQUITOES. I LOVE, HAVING MY
LIGHTS ON AND WORKERS PROTECTED.
I THINK THIS BILL IS GOING TO DO
BOTH. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. VANESSA CAJINA WITH
KP PUBLIC AFFAIRS, ON BEHALF OF
THE MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL
ASSOCIATION. I COULD NOT HAVE
PUT IT BETTER THAN THE SENATOR
MYSELF. WE'VE DONE SIGNIFICANT
WORK ON THIS BILL. PLEASE VOTE
AYE ON SB 1251. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, JODY HOYLMAN
WITH THE CONSOLIDATED MOSQUITO
ABATEMENT DISTRICT IN FRESNO
COUNTY, ALSO RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
MOVING IT TO ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
AND COMMITTEE. THANK YOU,
CATHERINE BORG WITH SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON. WE APPRECIATE
ALL THE WORK FROM THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE IN THE COMMITTEE GETTING
US TO A NEUTRAL POINT AND VOTE
FOR THE BILL. THANKS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. OKAY, WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION, ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? IN SUPPORT, JO SIGNS
WITH COUNTY HEALTH EXECUTIVES
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SEEING NO
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1251 QUESTIONS. COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ALL RIGHT. SO
EVERYONE APPRECIATES YOU AND
YOUR TEAM FOR THE LIGHTNING
ROUND. AND, SENATOR, CONFIRMING
THAT YOU WILL BE ACCEPTING
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. HAPPY TO
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON.
OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
BROUGH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ITEM NUMBER 16, SB 1251.
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASSES
AMENDED TO THE FLOOR ASSEMBLY
FLOOR. PETRIE-NORRIS. AYE.
PETRIE-NORRIS PATTERSON.
BARRETT. KHN. BARRETT KHN.
AYE. CALDERON. CHEN. CHEN AYE.
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN. AYE. HART
AYE. HART. AYE. HOLDEN. JO.
PATTERSON JO. PATTERSON. AYE.
REYES SANTIAGO. SHIAVO SHIAVO.
AYE. TING. TING AYE. WALLACE.
WALLACE. I WOULD, I WOULD.
ICEBERG. TEN ZERO. THAT BILL IS
OUT AND WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD
ON. NOW, SENATORS, DID I
UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOW GOING
BACK TO THERE. WE GO. SENATOR
BECKER, WELCOME. WHEN YOU'RE
READY. YEAH OKAY. THANK YOU. AND
TO BE CLEAR, WE'LL STARTING WITH
TEN HB 1018. CORRECT. OKAY
EXCELLENT. FIRST OF ALL, THANK
YOU. CHAIR, WE WILL BE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS ON THIS
BILL. SB 1018 IS FOCUSED ON
ENABLING GREEN HYDROGEN AND
ELECTRIFYING INDUSTRIAL HEAT
USING BEHIND THE METER RENEWABLE
ENERGY. ACCOMPLISHING AGAIN, A
GOAL THAT WE ALL WANT WITH, GOOD
CLEAN HYDROGEN BEHIND THE METER.
RENEWABLES ARE CHEAP, HELPING TO
MAKE HYDROGEN CHEAP ENOUGH TO BE
COST COMPETITIVE. WE ALSO KNOW
THE POWER IS CLEAN, AND IT WON'T
PUT ANY NEW STRESS ON THE GRID.
IN FACT, USING BEHIND THE METER
RENEWABLES TO PRODUCE HYDROGEN
LIKE THIS IS PART OF THE
OFFICIAL STATE PLAN. THE 2022
SCOPING PLAN ANTICIPATES TEN
GIGAWATTS OF HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO RENEWABLE
GENERATION. THE PROBLEM IS THAT
IS NOT POSSIBLE TODAY BECAUSE OF
SOMETHING CALLED THE OVER THE
FENCE RULE. THOSE OF YOU WHO'VE
BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME KNOW A
LOT ABOUT THAT. RENEWABLE ENERGY
CAN BE SUPPLIED DIRECTLY BEHIND
THE METER ONLY IF IT FALLS
WITHIN ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS
WITHIN PUC. 218 OTHERWISE
RENEWABLE GENERATOR IS TREATED
AS A UTILITY WITH A VERY HEAVY
REGULATORY BURDEN, TODAY THE
EXCEPTIONS TO THE FENCE RULE ARE
RESTRICTED TO GENERATION THAT IS
ON THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND OR AN
ADJACENT PARCEL, WHICH IS WHERE
THE OVER THE FENCE WILL NAME
COMES FROM. THAT WORKS FINE FOR
ROOFTOP SOLAR ON A HOME OR FOR
COGENERATION PLANT AT A FACTORY,
BUT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE
MEGAWATTS OF SOLAR SPREAD ACROSS
ACRES NECESSARY FOR A MODEST
HYDROGEN FACILITY OR FACTORY.
THIS BILL SOLVES THIS PROBLEM BY
CREATING A NARROW NEW EXEMPTION
THAT WOULD ALLOW LARGE SOLAR OR
WIND GENERATOR TO SELL THEIR
OUTPUT DIRECTLY TO A SINGLE
CUSTOMER, WHO WILL USE THAT
POWER FOR PRODUCING HYDROGEN OR
PROVIDING INDUSTRIAL HEAT,
PEOPLE HAVE RAISED CONCERNS OF
WHETHER THIS CHANGING THIS RULE
OPENS THE DOOR TO MC WIDESPREAD
MICROGRIDS OR UNREGULATED
UTILITIES. THIS BILL WILL NOT DO
THAT. WE'RE VERY CAREFUL TO KEEP
IT VERY NARROW AND TARGETED.
NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, WE CAN FIX,
THE STATE LAW BLOCKING THIS, BUT
LARGE PROJECTS MAY STILL BE
ENSNARED BY A SIMILAR FEDERAL
LAW THAT COULD CAUSE LARGE SOLAR
AND HYDROGEN PROJECTS TO BE
REGULATED AS A PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY, PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANIES, SINCE THEY
ARE NOT EXCLUSIVELY SELLING
THEIR POWER INTO WHOLESALE
MARKETS. SO THE SECOND PART OF
THIS BILL IS CREATING A
WORKAROUND TO THIS FEDERAL LAW.
IT'S SUPPORTING EXACTLY THE SAME
TYPE OF PROJECTS WITH BEHIND THE
METER RENEWABLES USED FOR
HYDROGEN OR INDUSTRIAL HEAT. BUT
TO GET AROUND THE FEDERAL LAW,
IT CREATES A PASS THROUGH TARIFF
IN WHICH THE GENERATOR SELLS THE
ELECTRICITY TO THE UTILITY. THEN
THE UTILITY SELLS IT BACK TO THE
END CUSTOMER, SAY THE HYDROGEN
FACILITY WITH A SMALL MARKUP TO
COVER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. THE
ELECTRICITY IS NEVER GOING TO
PASS THROUGH UTILITIES GRID.
REMEMBER, THIS IS STILL BEHIND
THE METER PROJECT AND THE
PROJECT IS PAYING ALL THE COSTS.
THERE'S NO SPECIAL TREATMENT AND
NO COST SHIFT. THE UTILITY IS
JUST ACTING AS A FINANCIAL
INTERMEDIARY. IN THIS CASE, THIS
BILL IS WILL SUPPORT THE GROWTH
OF GREEN HYDROGEN AND INDUSTRIAL
ELECTRIFICATION IN A WAY THAT
MAKES ENSURE IT MAKES USE OF
CLEAN ENERGY AND DOES NOT IMPACT
ELECTRICITY RATES OR GRID
RELIABILITY AT A TIME WHEN
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS ARE
WAITING IN MULTIYEAR QUEUES TO
GET CONNECTED TO THE GRID, THIS
WILL ALSO CREATE AN OPTION FOR
US TO GET MORE CLEAN ENERGY
BUILT SOONER AND START USING IT
UNCONNECTED TO THE GRID TO
REDUCE OUR POLLUTION. WITH THAT,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE AND I HAVE TWO WITNESSES
HERE WITH ME TODAY, STARTING
WITH JANICE LYNN REPRESENTING
THE GREEN HYDROGEN COALITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
PETRIE-NORRIS AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE TODAY. MY
NAME IS JANICE LYNN. I'M THE
FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF THE
GREEN HYDROGEN COALITION. WE'RE
AN INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL
NONPROFIT, AND OUR MISSION IS TO
ACCELERATE A CLEAN AND JUST
ENERGY TRANSITION ECONOMY WIDE.
AND THAT'S REALLY HARD TO DO
BECAUSE WE USE A LOT OF FOSSIL
FUELS AND WE LOVE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. SENATOR BECKER, FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP. IF THERE'S ONE
THING THAT CALIFORNIA HAS A LOT
OF, THAT'S SOLAR, SOLAR
RESOURCES EVERYWHERE YOU JUST
HAVE TO WALK OUTSIDE AND IT'S
SHINING DOWN. I MEAN, WE ARE
BLESSED WITH SO MUCH SOLAR. THIS
ABUNDANT SOLAR AND WIND CAN MAKE
A LOT OF RENEWABLE HYDROGEN,
WHICH IS THE KEY TO DISPLACING
FOSSIL FUELS IN EVERY SECTOR.
THINK MOLECULES AND SHIPS AND
AIRPLANES AND TRUCKS IN INDUSTRY
. THE ISSUE IS THAT THAT SOLAR
RESOURCE IS INACCESSIBLE BY
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN PRODUCERS
BECAUSE THE GRID IS CONSTRAINED.
OR YOU CAN MAKE A REALLY TINY
SOLAR SYSTEM RIGHT ON SITE. BUT
WE KNOW THAT FOR RENEWABLE
HYDROGEN TO BE ADOPTED AS AN
ALTERNATIVE FUEL TO FOSSIL
FUELS, IT HAS TO BE AVAILABLE AT
SCALE AND IT HAS TO BE COST
COMPETITIVE. AND SO THAT COST
COMPETITIVENESS IS ACHIEVED BY
MAKING BIGGER PROJECTS. BIGGER
ELECTROLYTIC PROJECTS NEED
BIGGER WIND AND SOLAR RESOURCES,
AND THIS BILL WILL ENABLE US TO
UNLOCK MUCH LARGER SCALE
PRODUCTION, AGAIN PROTECTING
CONSUMERS ONLY FOR NEW LOADS
THAT WILL DRIVE DOWN COSTS AND
TRULY HELP US TO DEEPLY
DECARBONIZE MANY, MANY SECTORS.
IT'S CRITICAL PATH. IT'S SO
IMPORTANT THAT WE THINK OF THIS
BILL AS MODEL LEGISLATION THAT,
ONCE ENACTED HERE IN CALIFORNIA,
WILL LIKELY BE FOLLOWED BY THE
REST OF THE COUNTRY AND OTHER
REGULATED MARKETS. SO WITH THAT,
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THIS IS A GAME CHANGER AND
IT'LL HELP US DEEPLY DECARBONIZE
A LOT OF SECTORS. THANK YOU.
OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
PETRIE-NORRIS AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS LAUREN
KUBIAK AND I'M A SENIOR
SCIENTIST AT THE NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL.
SPEAKING AS A SUPPORTER OF SB
1018, ONE OF CALIFORNIA'S
BIGGEST UNTAPPED CARBON EMISSION
REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES IS IN
ITS INDUSTRIAL SECTOR, WHICH
LARGELY STILL RELIES ON FOSSIL
FUEL COMBUSTION TO GENERATE
HEAT. DESPITE THE AVAILABILITY
OF CLEANER ELECTRIC
TECHNOLOGIES. ONE BARRIER TO
INDUSTRIAL HEAT ELECTRIFICATION
IS THAT PRODUCING HEAT WITH GRID
ELECTRICITY IS MORE EXPENSIVE
THAN BURNING GAS OR COAL. OFF
GRID RENEWABLES PRESENT ONE OF
THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE WAYS TO
BOTH ELECTRIFY INDUSTRIAL HEAT
AND PRODUCE GREEN HYDROGEN.
UNFORTUNATELY, CURRENT LAW
LIMITS FACILITIES THAT CAN TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPTION. SB
1018 WOULD AMEND SECTION 218 OF
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE TO
ALLOW GENERATORS TO SELL
DIRECTLY TO NEW INDUSTRIAL HEAT
OR HYDROGEN LOADS TO UNLOCK THIS
ECONOMIC EMISSION REDUCTION
OPPORTUNITY. EVEN WITH THIS
CHANGE, THOUGH, FEDERAL LAW WILL
PREVENT PROJECTS OVER 80MW FROM
UTILIZING THIS MODEL UNLESS THEY
SELL EXCLUSIVELY INTO WHOLESALE
MARKETS. SECTION TWO OF SB 1018
PROVIDES A WORKAROUND TO THIS
ISSUE, WHICH WAS DESCRIBED BY
THE SENATOR. SB 1018 WOULD
CONTRIBUTE TO MEETING
CALIFORNIA'S CLIMATE GOALS BY
PROVIDING AN OPTION FOR NEW
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES TO BE
POWERED ENTIRELY BY RENEWABLE
ENERGY, WHILE MINIMIZING
EMISSIONS AND AVOIDING IMPACTS
ON THE GRID. FURTHER, IT COULD
BRING RENEWABLES ONLINE MORE
QUICKLY BY HAVING THEM MATCH
DIRECTLY WITH LOADS, ALLOWING
THEM TO BYPASS RATHER THAN BOG
DOWN THE LENGTHY INTERCONNECTION
PROCESS. WE APPRECIATE SENATOR
BECKER'S TARGETED APPROACH TO
MAKING PROGRESS ON HYDROGEN AND
INDUSTRIAL HEAT ELECTRIFICATION,
AND WE URGE YOUR AYE VOTE ON SB
1018. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OPEN
IT UP FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY
IN SUPPORT. IF YOU'D LIKE TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB 1018.
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MARK JOSEPH. ON
BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES IN
SUPPORT, AND I WANT TO THANK THE
SENATOR AND HIS STAFF FOR
REACHING OUT TO US EARLY ON TO
HELP CRAFT THE BILL. HUNTER
STERN WITH IBEW 1245 AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THAT'S IMPRESSED WITH
ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED IN
SUPPORT. KENDRA HARRIS WITH THE
CLIMATE CENTER AND SUPPORT.
JANET COX FOR A CLIMATE ACTION
CALIFORNIA. THE 350 SACRAMENTO
350 HUMBOLDT AND THE SANTA CRUZ
CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK. THANK
YOU. HI, EMILY PAPPAS ON BEHALF
OF INTERSECT POWER AND SUPPORT.
HI THERE, MCKINLEY THOMPSON.
MORLEY ON BEHALF OF THE SOLAR
ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION
AND VENTURA IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. YOU CAN
GO AHEAD AND, COME ON UP. RIGHT.
LET'S SEE. ALL RIGHT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS ANDREW
CÁC WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON. I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE, THE AUTHOR AND THE
SUPPORTERS OF THIS LEGISLATION
FOR THEIR TIME AND FOR TAKING
THE CONSIDERATION OF OUR
CONCERNS. I THOUGHT MY PHD WAS
COMPLICATED, AND THEN I READ
THIS BILL, THIS BILL IN ESSENCE,
SB 1018 ATTEMPTS TO CIRCUMVENT
LONG ESTABLISHED REGULATORY
PROCESSES ON TWO FRONTS. SO THE
FIRST IS IN SECTION ONE. I'M
GOING TO FOCUS MY COMMENTS ON
PRIVATE TRANSMISSION BECAUSE
THIS IS THE MOST PROBLEMATIC
PART OF THE BILL. WE FORECAST
THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A
DOUBLING OF TRANSMISSION IN
ORDER TO MEET OUR GOALS HERE IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY 2045,
ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THIS
BILL IS THAT IF YOU HAVE PRIVATE
TRANSMISSION THAT'S
CRISSCROSSING THE STATE, WE'RE
COMPETING WITH THEM FOR LIMITED
RESOURCES. FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT
AWAY, WHO'S GOING TO GET RIGHT
OF WAY IS GOING TO BE THE IOUS
OR THE PRIVATE COMPANY THAT'S
TRYING TO CONNECT THESE TWO
DIFFERENT ENTITIES. SO WHY NOT
USE THE GRID? WE CAN TALK ABOUT
INTERCONNECTION, BUT THIS BILL
ENVISIONS SELLING BACK TO THE
MARKET. SO YOU'RE STILL SUBJECT
TO WENDAT INTERCONNECTION
PROCESS. WE CAN TALK ABOUT
COSTS, BUT PRIVATE LINES ARE
LIKELY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN NEW
OR UPGRADED LINES THAT ARE
INCORPORATED IN THE CAISO OR IOU
PLANNING PROCESS. IT'S MORE
EFFICIENT TO BUILD ONE LARGE
LINE THAN TWO SMALLER LINES.
IT'S ALSO MORE EFFICIENT TO
UPGRADE AN EXISTING LINE THAN TO
BUILD A NEW ONE. WE CAN TALK
ABOUT RELIABILITY, BUT THESE
INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES UNDER THIS
BILL WOULD BE ISOLATED FROM THE
GRID. SO IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S
NO BACKUP GENERATION FOR THE
CUSTOMER LOAD, GRID UPGRADES ARE
ALSO BENEFICIAL. SO IN OTHER
WORDS, WHEN YOU BRING NEW LOAD
AND GENERATION ON, YOU'RE
BENEFITING ALL THE CUSTOMERS ON
THE GRID AND YOU'RE MAKING THE
GRID, THE ENTIRE GRID STRONGER
AND MORE RELIABLE. INDIVIDUAL
PRIVATE LINES DO NOT DO THAT.
GRID CONNECTED RESOURCES CAN
ALSO PROVIDE SERVICES BACK TO
THE GRID. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE
CUSTOMER DOES NOT REQUIRE FULL
GENERATION CAPACITY, THOSE GRID
CONNECTED RESOURCES CAN USE THAT
EXTRA EXCESS CAPACITY TO SUPPORT
THE GRID. SO A BETTER SOLUTION
IN OUR MINDS IS TO JUST HAVE
BOTH THE GENERATION AND LOAD
GRID CONNECTED, LESS COSTLY,
MORE RELIABLE GRID BENEFITS FOR
ALL CUSTOMERS. SO THERE'S NO
NEED FOR DUPLICATIVE
TRANSMISSION TO CRISSCROSS OUR
STATE, AND NO NEED FOR SECTION
ONE. APPARENTLY, I'M OUT OF
TIME. IS THAT 2 MINUTES OR 4
MINUTES? CAN I CEDE MY TIME TO
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON?
WITNESS YES, YOU MAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR APPRECIATE THAT.
PG AND E SO SINCE I'M IN THE HOT
SEAT, SO I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT SECTION TWO, THE SO-CALLED
SLEEVE. ACCORDING TO THE AUTHORS
FACT SHEET, THIS IS DESIGNED IN
ORDER TO CIRCUMVENT FEDERAL
REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO GET A
SMALL GENERATOR EXEMPTION FOR
REALLY LARGE GENERATION. S¼ IS
NOT COMFORTABLE WITH BEING PARTY
TO AN ATTEMPT TO CIRCUMVENT
FEDERAL LAW. THERE'S ALSO A
SCENARIO WHEREIN WE CAN ENVISION
A COST SHIFT WHERE A TARIFF IS
CREATED IN ORDER TO SUBSIDIZE
CLEAN HYDROGEN, AND WE REALLY
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE. AND
ALSO THIS AUTHOR, RECOGNITION OF
THIS CONCERN AND WILLINGNESS TO
ADD AN AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS IT.
THANK YOU. S¼ FULLY AND FULL,
FULL HEARTEDLY. EXCUSE ME.
EMBRACES AND WORKS HARD FOR A
CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE AND THE
PROMOTION OF ON SITE HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION IS A WELCOME PART OF
THAT FUTURE. HOWEVER, THESE CAN
ALREADY BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH
EXISTING PATHWAYS. THERE'S NO
NEED TO DRAMATICALLY ALTER
ENERGY POLICY, REDUCE GRID
RELIABILITY, AND NEGATIVELY
IMPACT AFFORDABILITY FOR ALL
CUSTOMERS. AND SO THEREFORE, S¼
RESPECTFULLY ASKS FOR YOUR NO
VOTE ON SB 1018. THANK YOU. OKAY
ALL RIGHT. ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION VALERIE CHIRLA
ALEJO'S, PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY ASSOCIATE OUR
COMMENTS WITH SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. ISRAEL
SALAS WITH SAN DIEGO GAS AND
ELECTRIC ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
KARA DÍAS SANDERS, REPRESENTING
THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE'S OFFICE. WE
ARE OPPOSED TO THE BILL
CURRENTLY IN PRINT, BUT WE'RE
REVIEWING THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. BRINGING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. YES. THE
SENATOR WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. WELL, LET
ME I GUESS JUST START WITH A BIG
PICTURE QUESTION. SO, SENATOR,
CAN YOU RESPOND TO SOME OF THE
AREAS OF CONCERN THAT THE
OPPOSITION ARTICULATED? YEAH, I
THINK I RESPOND TO I THINK ARE
THE MAIN TWO. THEN MAYBE YOU'LL
PICK UP SOME OTHER PIECES AS
WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS IS
BASICALLY SAYING, YOU KNOW, WHY
NOT LET A PRIVATE COMPANY BUILD
THEIR OWN LINES IF THEY WANT TO?
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VERY, VERY
SHORT LINES. THE PROJECTS CAN
GRID CONNECT IF THEY WANT, BUT
THIS IS GIVING THEM AN OPTION
NOT TO. AND WITH THE WHOLE GOAL
OF MEETING OUR GOALS OF THE TEN
GIGAWATTS AND SPEEDING THINGS
UP. REGARDING THE SECOND THING,
WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO,
YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO
ANYTHING THAT BREAKS FEDERAL LAW
IN ANY WAY, CLEARLY. AND WE DO
APPRECIATE THE CONCERN THOSE ARE
LEGITIMATE CONCERNS RAISED.
WE'RE CERTAINLY TALKING TO, THE
IOUS ABOUT THAT LAST PIECE. WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE WE BELIEVE
THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, WORKAROUND
, AND, BUT CERTAINLY WE COMMIT
TO, TO MAKING SURE IT IS A
LEGITIMATE WORKAROUND, THOSE ARE
SORT OF THE TWO OF THE BIG ONES
OR OTHER ONES YOU WANT TO
ADDRESS, OR WE DO YOU WANT TO?
I'D LOVE TO BUILD ON THAT,
SENATOR. SO THANK YOU FOR
RAISING THOSE, VERY LEGITIMATE
CONCERNS, I WANT TO COMMENT ON
THE EXPENSIVE NATURE OF THE
PRIVATE LINES AND THE
RELIABILITY QUESTION. SO, FIRST
OF ALL, I THINK THAT THESE LINES
ARE NOT REALLY INTENDED TO
ENHANCE GRID RELIABILITY FOR ALL
CUSTOMERS. THEY ARE THERE SOLELY
TO CREATE AN OPENING TO LEVERAGE
OUR ABUNDANT RENEWABLE RESOURCES
THAT ARE ALL OVER THE STATE. AND
RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW IT
TAKES A REALLY LONG TIME TO
INTERCONNECT THOSE RESOURCES TO
THE GRID, AND SO THIS IS A WAY
TO LEAPFROG AND TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF THESE RESOURCES WHERE WE CAN,
FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF BUILDING
SCALED ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN
THAT CAN BE AVAILABLE AND COST
EFFECTIVE TO DISPLACE FOSSIL
FUELS. AND THAT IS A WORTHY
GOAL. SECONDLY, ON THE
RELIABILITY, I DON'T THINK THAT
BACKUP IS NEEDED BECAUSE
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN, IT'S A
VERY FLEXIBLE RESOURCE. IF FOR
SOME REASON THERE WASN'T ANY
PRODUCTION, LIKE LET'S SAY IT
WAS A CLOUDY DAY OR THE WIND
STOPPED BLOWING, THAT'S FINE.
THEY JUST WOULD STOP PRODUCING
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN. IT ONLY
AFFECTS THAT INDUSTRIAL USER.
AND THIS IS NEW LOAD THAT
OTHERWISE WOULD PROBABLY
WOULDN'T HAVE EXISTED AT ALL, IT
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET THE
CAPACITY AND THE ENERGY FROM THE
GRID AS WE KNOW IT, BECAUSE
THERE'S A LOT OF DEMAND. WE'VE
GOT DATA CENTERS, WE'VE GOT
ELECTRIC VEHICLES, SO THIS WOULD
REALLY OPEN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
CALIFORNIA TO LEVERAGE ITS
RENEWABLES TO MAKE A FUEL THAT'S
TOTALLY CARBON FREE AND GET RID
OF FOSSIL FUELS, AND I THINK THE
OTHER THING, I WANTED TO MENTION
IS THERE'S SOME CONCERN ABOUT
CIRCUMVENTING FEDERAL REGULATION
. AND IT SEEMS THAT THERE THE
FEDERAL REGULATION IS REAL. AND,
IT SEEMS THAT THERE MAY BE WAYS
THAT COULD ADDRESS THOSE. YOU
KNOW, I DON'T THINK ANYONE
SUGGESTING THAT ANY REGULATION
BE CIRCUMVENTED AT ALL, BUT
THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THIS SO
THAT IT COMPLY, CAN COMPLY.
WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE
UTILITIES, OF COURSE. YEAH. I
CAN QUICKLY ADDRESS THE COST
SHIFT POINT AS WELL, IN OUR
VIEW, THERE WON'T BE A COST
SHIFT BECAUSE DEPARTING LOAD IS
NOT, ELIGIBLE FOR THIS MODEL.
AND, AND ALSO THE POINT ABOUT,
ABOUT ON GRID VERSUS OFF GRID,
CURRENTLY THE ENERGY COMMISSION
IS NOT ASSUMING THAT THERE'S ANY
LOAD GROWTH, OF GRID CONNECTED
HYDROGEN, WHICH IN THAT THEN
FEEDS INTO THE IRP PROCESS AT
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S IT'S ASSUMED
THAT THERE'S NO HYDROGEN
CONNECTED TO THE GRID. AND THIS
WOULD PROVIDE A WAY FOR THAT TEN
GIGAWATTS OF HYDROGEN THAT THE
CARB SCOPING PLAN IS, IS
PROJECTING THAT WE'LL NEED TO
MEET OUR CLIMATE GOALS. THIS
WOULD PROVIDE A MODEL TO
ACTUALLY GET THAT HYDROGEN
PRODUCED. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CALDERON. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. TO WHAT SCALE IS
GREEN HYDROGEN AND INDUSTRIAL
HEAT BEING, PRODUCED CURRENTLY I
HAVE I HAVE NO IDEA. I'M JUST
CURIOUS. THERE ARE GREEN
HYDROGEN PROJECTS, SOME OF THEM
ARE. THEY'RE ALL PROPOSED. I
BELIEVE THE LARGEST ONES ARE IN,
LIKE, THE HUNDREDS OF MEGAWATTS.
NOT IN CALIFORNIA YET. WE'RE
HOPING, BUT IT'S COMING. AND
CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T,
FIRST OF ALL, ELECTROLYTIC
PRODUCTION HAS BEEN COMMERCIALLY
VIABLE FOR MANY, MANY DECADES.
AND HISTORICALLY IT WAS MADE IN
VERY SMALL SCALE, LIKE MAYBE A
MEGAWATT. NOW, THE MODULE AT
SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, SOME
OEMS, EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS,
LIKE THE STANDARD MODULE, CAN BE
AS LARGE AS 50MW. SO YOU THINK
OF A 50 MEGAWATT BUILDING BLOCK
IS VERY BIG. AND WHEN YOU THINK
ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE US
AND THE SHEER VOLUME OF FOSSIL
FUELS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
DISPLACE, WE NEED THAT SCALE. ON
THE IN WHAT'S DEPLOYED ON THE
INDUSTRIAL HEAT SIDE, ONE OF THE
BEST CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGIES FOR
THIS PARTICULAR MODEL IS THERMAL
STORAGE. AND, THE WAY THAT THIS
WORKS IS YOU CAN USE RENEWABLES
TO CHARGE BASICALLY IT CAN FULLY CHARGE IN A
MATTER OF PERFECT FOR
INTERMITTENT RENEWABLES. AND
THEN THAT, THAT HEAT CAN
DISCHARGE TO PROVIDE EITHER
INDUSTRIAL HEAT OR SOME
TECHNOLOGIES CAN DISCHARGE AND
PROVIDE ELECTRICITY OVER THE
NEXT 24 HOURS, DEPENDING ON HOW
THE TECHNOLOGY IN PARTICULAR IS
DESIGNED. AND THIS OVER THE
FENCE, RULE BARRIER HAS
PREVENTED THESE SYSTEMS FROM
BEING DEPLOYED WIDELY. THERE ARE
A COUPLE PILOT SCALE PROJECTS,
BUT THERE'S A LOT OF POTENTIAL
IN, IN PROVIDING THIS TECHNOLOGY
TO ELECTRIFY CALIFORNIA'S
INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES. SO SEEING
NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I'LL JUST I
THINK, SHARE MY PERSPECTIVE ON
THIS. AND I THINK AS OUR
OPPOSITION WITNESS, YOU OPEN
YOUR COMMENTS BY SAYING THIS IS
AN INCREDIBLY DENSE AND
COMPLICATED ISSUE, AND I
APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS THAT,
THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED. I REALLY
DO APPRECIATE THE TARGETED
APPROACH, SENATOR, THAT YOU HAVE
TAKEN WITH THIS BILL. I THINK
THE ONE THING THAT WE ALL
RECOGNIZE IS THAT IN ORDER FOR
CALIFORNIA TO DELIVER ON OUR
CLIMATE GOALS AND OUR CLEAN
ENERGY GOALS, WE NEED TO
INCREASE TRANSMISSION CAPACITY
BY 350% BY 2045. AND I WOULD
ARGUE THAT IN ORDER FOR US TO
ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THAT GOAL, WE
ARE GOING TO NEED TO TAKE SOME
NEW CREATIVE APPROACHES, AND
DEPLOY SOME NEW AND EMERGING
TECHNOLOGIES AS PART OF THAT,
AND CERTAINLY AS WE'RE DOING
THAT, WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT
THERE'S APPROPRIATE GUARDRAILS
AND SAFEGUARDS. SO WE DON'T
CREATE THE WILD WEST OF, OF THE,
OF THE ENERGY WORLD HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. BUT I DO THINK THAT
THIS BILL DOES THAT, AND I THINK
THAT FUNDAMENTALLY, WE RECOGNIZE
THAT IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY. WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE BEHIND THE
METER RESOURCES AS PART OF
DELIVERING ON THOSE INCREDIBLY
AMBITIOUS GOALS. SO THANK YOU
FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK AND DIGGING
IN AND YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS
ISSUE. WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE, THANK YOU. I
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. I THINK
YOU KIND OF JUST REALLY KIND OF
NAILED IT. APPRECIATE THE
CONCERNS AS WELL. AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUE TO WORKING
ON THEM. AND, WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
WE NEED A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? ALL RIGHT. MOTION FROM
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WALLACE, SECOND
FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER HART. ITEM
NINE, SB 1018. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PETRIE-NORRIS I
PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON,
VÀ KHN. CALDERON. CALDERON. NOT
VOTING. CHEN. CHEN. AYE.
FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN. AYE. HART.
HART. AYE HOLDEN. JO. PATTERSON.
AYE. JO. PATTERSON AYE. REYES.
AYE. REYES. AYE AYE. SANTIAGO.
SHIAVO AYE. CHAU. VÚI. TING AYE.
TING. AYE. WALLACE. WALLACE. AYE
WOULD WOULD. EISENBERG A SUBUR.
AYE HAVE A LOT OF THEM. OKAY 11
ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT AND WE
WILL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON MOVING
RIGHT ALONG WITH, SB 1374 WHEN
YOU'RE READY. SENATOR. THANK
YOU. CHAIR. I'LL GET STARTED
WHILE MY WITNESSES COME UP. I DO
WANT TO, THANK AND, I REALLY
MEAN, VERY DEEPLY. DEEPLY THANK
THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR WORKING ON THIS BILL,
AS WELL, A LOT OF COMPLICATED
ISSUES. AND AS WITH THE LAST
ONE, I THINK ALL ABOUT FINDING
THE RIGHT BALANCE. SO I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOU. AND WORKING WITH
US. AND I WILL ACCEPT THE
PROPOSED COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS,
AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OF
WHAT THOSE ARE, WE'LL, WE'LL TRY
TO ADDRESS SOME OF THEM. BUT IF
THOSE COME UP, WE'LL, WE'LL
ADDRESS THOSE AS WELL, THANK YOU
. SO THIS MEASURE, WE BELIEVE
ARRIVES AT THE MIDDLE GROUND.
WE'RE ALL TRYING TO FIND WHAT IS
THAT MIDDLE GROUND, THAT
CONSIDERS A WORLD WHERE CAISO IS
PROJECTING THAT CALIFORNIA'S
PEAK DEMAND IS GOING TO INCREASE
30 TO 50% IN THE NEXT DECADE.
AND THE CÁC AND THE PUC SAY WE
WILL NEED AT LEAST 100GW OF
SOLAR RESOURCES. AT THE SAME
TIME, WE'RE WORKING HARD TO
BRING DOWN RATEPAYER COSTS, AND
WE'RE ALL RIGHTLY CONCERNED
ABOUT RATEPAYER COSTS AND
ENSURING THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING
POLICIES THAT DISADVANTAGE ANY
PARTICULAR, POPULATIONS. WE USED
TO HAVE VERY GENEROUS INCENTIVES
, UNDER EARLY NEM TARIFFS, AS
EVERYBODY KNOWS. AND SINCE THEN
WE'VE CUT WITH THE RECENT
RULINGS, WE'VE CUT THE EXPORT
VALUE OF SOLAR, THE VALUE THAT
YOU GET FOR SELLING EXCESS SOLAR
BACK TO THE GRID. WE'VE CUT THAT
BY 75% SINCE THE EARLY NEM
TARIFFS. AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR,
THIS BILL IS NOT PROPOSING TO GO
BACK TO THAT. WE'RE ACCEPTING
THE NEW, VALUE OF, EXPORTING TO
THE GRID, THIS BILL SIMPLY
ENSURES THAT THE PUC IS
PROVIDING THE SAME BENEFIT TO
SCHOOLS, APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND
HOPEFULLY ULTIMATELY PLACES OF
FAITH AND OTHERS AS IT DOES TO
HOMEOWNERS. WHEN THE PUC CHANGED
THE NET ENERGY METERING RULES
FOR ROOFTOP SOLAR, THEY SAID
THAT IT WAS FAIR FOR THOSE
HOMEOWNERS TO CONSUME THE ENERGY
THAT THEY GENERATE ON SITE.
AGAIN, NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A
LOT TO EXPORT BACK TO THE GRID
IF IT'S NOT VALUABLE AT THAT
TIME OF THE DAY. BUT WE LET YOU
CONSUME YOUR OWN ENERGY. HOWEVER
WITHOUT ANY REAL EXPLANATION,
THEY DENIED THAT SAME RIGHT TO
NONRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS, WHETHER
IT BE SCHOOLS, APARTMENT
BUILDINGS, FARMS, PLACES OF
FAITH, NONPROFITS, AND MORE.
SELF-CONSUMPTION OCCURS WHEN A
UTILITY CUSTOMER USES THE ENERGY
THEY GENERATE THROUGH SOLAR TO
POWER THEIR OWN PROPERTY. ANY
EXCESS ENERGY IS THEN AGAIN SOLD
AT THE AVOIDED COST RATE, AND
THAT, PUC TOOK AWAY THAT
ABILITY. SELF-CONSUMED FROM ALL
PROPERTIES THAT RELY ON THIS,
WHAT WE CALL VIRTUAL NET ENERGY
METERING. THIS IS A PROBLEM
BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A SCHOOL
THAT IS GENERATING POWER ON A
SOLAR CANOPY OVER THE PARKING
LOT BEHIND ONE METER, AND THE
SCHOOL BUILDINGS ARE ARE
CONSUMING POWER BEHIND SEPARATE
METERS, THEN 100% OF THAT SOLAR
POWER IS SOLD TO THE GRID, AND
THEN SIMULTANEOUSLY, YOU HAVE TO
BUY IT BACK TO THE GRID AT FOUR
TIMES THE PRICE, WE BELIEVE THAT
IS UNFAIR. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR
CHURCHES, COMMERCIAL BUILDING,
FARMS ANYWHERE THAT SOLAR IS NOT
BUYING THE SAME METER AS THE
APPLIANCES THAT ARE REALIZING
THAT ENERGY. I REALIZE HOW
UNFAIR THESE RULES ARE. THE PC
MADE A LAST MINUTE CHANGE TO
GIVE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS AN
APARTMENT, BUILDINGS, THE SAME
ABILITY TO SELF CONSUME WITHIN
15 MINUTE INTERVALS. AS FOR
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THAT SOUNDS
FAIR, RIGHT? BUT THE NEW RULES
ARE STILL A PROBLEM BECAUSE THE
APARTMENT BUILDINGS, APARTMENT,
THERE'S STILL A PROBLEM FOR
APARTMENT TENANTS BECAUSE
BUILDING OWNERS AREN'T GETTING
THE INCENTIVE FOR
SELF-CONSUMPTION FOR ANY OF
THEIR COMMON AREAS. FOR THEIR
LIGHTS, FOR THEIR POOLS, FOR
THEIR EV CHARGERS. SO THEY WON'T
SEE ANY VALUE FOR INSTALLING
SOLAR. SO THE APARTMENT TENANTS
ARE NOT GOING TO GET THAT SB
1374 IS TELLING THE PUC TO GIVE
EVERYONE THE SAME DEAL.
AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL THAT
WE'RE TAKING ALLOW
SELF-CONSUMPTION FOR SCHOOLS AND
APARTMENT BUILDINGS, AND THEN
DIRECT THE PUC TO ESTABLISH
CRITERIA FOR SELF-CONSUMPTION
THAT ENCOMPASSES A SET OF METERS
WITHIN A REASONABLE PROXIMITY.
IF YOU GENERATE POWER IN YOUR
OWN PROPERTY, YOU CAN SELF
CONSUME IT AND AVOID PAYING THE
UTILITIES FOR IT. IF YOUR
GENERATION EXCEEDS CONSUMPTION,
THE UTILITY ONLY HAS TO PAY YOU
FOR ITS AVOIDED COSTS FOR THAT
EXCESS. THAT'S THE MIDDLE
GROUND. THE PUC REACHED FOR. FOR
HOMEOWNERS. WE BELIEVE IT SHOULD
BE FAIR FOR OTHERS. OPPONENTS
WILL CLAIM THIS BILL WILL SHIFT
COSTS FROM PARTICIPATING
CUSTOMERS TO NON PROTECTING
PARTICIPATING CUSTOMERS AS THE
LEGISLATURE EQUALLY CONCERNED
WITH RISING ELECTRICITY RATES.
THIS NARRATIVE IS IMPORTANT FOR
ME TO ADDRESS AND I KNOW THIS IS
A LONG STATEMENT. THERE'S A LOT
GOING ON, SO I JUST I DO WANT TO
ADDRESS THIS QUICKLY, FIRST,
AGAIN, WE FEEL THIS BILL IS NOT
CREATING A COST SHIFT. IT'S FOR
ONE FIXING ONE WHERE WE AGAIN,
WE FORCED PEOPLE WHO WOULD
GENERATE ENERGY TO SELL IT BACK
TO THE GRID AND BUY IT FOR FOUR
TIMES THE PRICE. BUT AGAIN, THIS
NARRATIVE OVERALL JUST ASSUMES
THAT, ELECTRIC ELECTRICITY USE
IS NOT INCREASING. AND THAT'S
NOT THE WORLD WE'RE IN. I WOULD
UNDERSTAND IF WE WERE IN A FLAT
TO DECREASE THE ENERGY USE. YOU
TAKE SOMEONE OFF THE GRID, AND
THERE MAY BE SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO
PAY FOR IT, BUT, WE ARE IN THIS
WORLD OF INCREASING ENERGY USE.
I SAW A STAT THE OTHER DAY
AROUND GENERATIVE. I SAID
GENERATIVE. I ALONE WAS GOING TO
ADD, OVER THE NEXT DECADE, THE,
THE, THE EQUIVALENT OF THE
ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION OF JAPAN
TO OUR GRID. SO THIS IS NOT A
DUELING SET OF DEMANDS, JUST A
SLOWER INCREASE. AND THAT SOLAR
IS GOING TO HELP US WHILE WE'RE
FIGURING OUT ALL THE,
TRANSMISSION ISSUES THAT THE
CHAIR MENTIONED FOR THE LAST
BILL THAT I'M CERTAINLY WORKING
VERY, VERY HARD ON, REDUCED
DEMAND FROM SELF CONSUMED SOLAR
IS ACTUALLY SIMILAR, IF YOU
THINK ABOUT IT, FROM ENERGY
EFFICIENCY. RIGHT. AND WE
WOULDN'T CALL IT A COST SHIFT IF
CUSTOMER PUT AN ENERGY
EFFICIENCY, IMPROVE THEIR
EFFICIENCY. SO WHY WOULD WE
TREAT SELF CONSUME SOLAR
DIFFERENTLY, WITH THAT I'M SURE
WE'LL GET INTO DISCUSSION LATER.
SO I JUST WILL TURN IT OVER TO
MY, MY WITNESSES AND SAY I
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR. AYE VOTE
AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS. NANCY
ESPINOSA, ON BEHALF OF THE
SCHOOL ENERGY COALITION, ONE OF
THE CO-SPONSORS OF THE BILL.
TODAY, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO RECTIFY A FUNDAMENTAL
UNFAIRNESS THAT WAS INFLICTED ON
MULTIMETER UTILITY CUSTOMERS BY
THE PUC IN ITS DECEMBER 2023 VMT
AND BTA RULING. NOT ONLY IS THIS
RULING FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR, IT
MAKES IT ECONOMICALLY INFEASIBLE
FOR SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES,
UNIVERSITIES, APARTMENT
BUILDINGS AND MANY OTHERS TO
INSTALL PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS AND
BATTERY STORAGE. CALIFORNIA
CAN'T MEET ITS RENEWABLE ENERGY
GOALS WITHOUT PROPERLY
SUPPORTING ITS OVER 10,000 K-12
SCHOOL SITES. SCHOOLS ARE NOW
MANDATED TO INSTALL PHOTOVOLTAIC
SYSTEMS ON ALL NEW BUILDINGS. IF
WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SELF
CONSUME THE ENERGY FROM THESE
SYSTEMS, THE LEGISLATURE WOULD
BE FORCING US TO TAKE ONGOING
LOSSES ON THE TECHNOLOGY. THE
STATE MANDATED US TO INSTALL
ENERGY EXPENDITURES ARE ALREADY
THE SECOND LARGEST COMPONENT OF
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGETS. SCHOOLS
PARTICULARLY IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY AND THE INLAND EMPIRE,
ARE SEEING MORE AND MORE 100
DEGREE OR GREATER DAYS. WE NEED
SELF-CONSUMPTION TO PRESERVE
EDUCATION FUNDS FOR STUDENTS
INSTEAD OF TRANSFERRING THEM TO
INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES. WE ARE
NOT BUSINESSES. WE CAN'T CHARGE
FEES TO PASS HIGHER ENERGY COSTS
ON TO OUR CUSTOMERS. THIS RULING
DIRECTLY TAKES MONEY OUT OF THE
CLASSROOM. RELIABLE SOLAR AND
STORAGE IS THE ONLY WAY TO
PREVENT DISRUPTIONS IN
EDUCATION, NUTRITION AND PAYROLL
CAUSED BY FREQUENT PUBLIC
SAFETY. POWER SHUT OFFS,
WILDFIRES AND OTHER CONDITIONS
THAT ARE BECOMING THE NEW
NORMAL. AS OUR CLIMATE CHANGES,
IT ENSURES THAT WE CAN OPERATE
AS EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND
STAGING GROUNDS FOR EMERGENCY
PERSONNEL. BUT THIS PUC RULING
PUNISHES US FOR THAT SELF
RELIANCE AND THE TIMING COULDN'T
BE WORSE. JUST WHEN THE FEDERAL
INFLATION REDUCTION ACT MAKES
UNPRECEDENTED RESOURCES
AVAILABLE TO AID IN THE
TRANSITION TO CLEAN
SELF-GENERATION, THE PUC MAKES
IT NO LONGER FINANCIALLY
FEASIBLE TO ADOPT THESE
TECHNOLOGIES. IF THE LEGISLATURE
DOESN'T REMEDY THIS SOON,
CALIFORNIA WILL LEAVE BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS ON THE TABLE. THE
LEGISLATURE CREATED NEMA AND VAM
PROGRAMS FOR GOOD REASONS, AND
TODAY WE ARE ASKING YOU TO MAKE
RIGHT THE WRONG THAT THE CE THAT
THE PUC MADE. AND WE
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR AYE VOTE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I AM AARON
NIXON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
OF SOLAR AT CITADEL ROOFING AND
SOLAR. WE ARE PROUD TO SAY THAT
WE'RE ONE OF OUR SPECIALTIES IS
INSTALLING SOLAR ON MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING, WHICH MEANS WE GET TO
HELP RENTERS PARTICIPATE IN THE
CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITION. OVER
THE YEARS, WE'VE INSTALLED OVER
25,000 PANELS, SOLAR PANELS ON
APPROXIMATELY 300 BUILDINGS, A
MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
SPECIFICALLY, HOWEVER, THE PUC S
RECENT DECISION REVERTED US TO A
POLICY THAT CREATES A SPLIT
INCENTIVE PROBLEM FOR RENTERS
AND ENERGY UPGRADES OF ALL
TYPES. TITLE 24 REQUIRES THAT
SOLAR IS INSTALLED ON ALL NEW
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, BUT THESE
INSTALLATIONS MAKE UP ONLY A
SMALL PORTION OF THE
INSTALLATIONS OCCURRING ACROSS
THE STATE. TO ENSURE THAT
RENTERS ARE RECEIVING THE
BENEFITS OF SOLAR FOR EXISTING
BUILDINGS, THE STATE MUST ENSURE
THAT THERE IS VALUE ADD FOR
THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS. THE
NONRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS AT
APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE FOR
THINGS LIKE HALLWAY LIGHTING,
OUTDOOR LIGHTING, LAUNDRY ROOMS,
AND REC ROOMS. THESE THINGS ARE
THERE FOR THE TENANTS. WHEN THEY
CONSUME POWER THAT IS GENERATED
ON SITE. IT SHOULD BE BILLED
ACCURATELY USING LESS ENERGY
FROM THE UTILITIES SHOULD MEAN
BUYING LESS ENERGY FROM THE
UTILITIES, NOT PRETENDING YOU
ARE SENDING THEM THE ENERGY AND
THEN THEY ARE SENDING IT BACK.
FINALLY, WE ALL WANT MORE ENERGY
STORAGE BATTERIES ALLOW
CUSTOMERS TO STORE SOME OF THE
ENERGY THEY GENERATE DURING THE
DAY, AND USE IT IN THE EVENING
WHEN THE GRID IS MORE STRAINED.
IF THE PUC DECISION STANDS,
CUSTOMERS WOULD RECEIVE NO
BENEFIT FROM BATTERY
INSTALLATION SINCE THEY WOULD BE
FORCED TO SEND THAT ENERGY TO
THE UTILITY INSTEAD OF CONSUMING
IT THEMSELVES. WE ASK LANDLORDS
TO MAKE INVESTMENTS THAT LEAD TO
COST SAVINGS FOR TENANTS. BUT
SOLAR IS A MAJOR INVESTMENT OF
BOTH TIME AND MONEY. IF A
PROPERTY OWNER CAN'T REDUCE
THEIR ELECTRIC BILL, ALONG WITH
THE TENANTS, THEY ARE FAR LESS
LIKELY TO INSTALL SOLAR AND
STORAGE AT ALL. IF THERE IS NO
SOLAR, THERE IS NO TENANT
BENEFIT. THANK YOU FOR
CONSIDERING MY TESTIMONY AND I
URGE YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY OF SUPPORT.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1374, GO AHEAD AND
COME ON UP. GOOD AFTERNOON,
PATTY HERRERA, ON BEHALF OF SAN
DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, ELLA CONNELLY, ON
BEHALF OF OAKLAND UNIFIED IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, BRAD
HEVNER WITH THE CALIFORNIA SOLAR
AND STORAGE ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. MARY ELLEN SHEA,
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL
HOUSING FINANCE AGENCIES IN
SUPPORT MCKINLEY THOMPSON
MORLEY, ON BEHALF OF THE SOLAR
ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION
AND THE CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE
ENERGY AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
CARMEN GUZMAN WITH ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. KENDRA
HARRIS WITH THE CLIMATE CENTER
IN SUPPORT. ALLISON HILLYARD
WITH IVY ENERGY AND 40 OTHER
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TENANT
RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS ALL IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HI, MEG
SNYDER, AXIOM ADVISORS ON BEHALF
OF REWIRING AMERICA AND PEARLEX
IN SUPPORT, SUNPOWER AND THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION ARE STILL REVIEWING
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU, JANET COX
FOR CLIMATE ACTION. CALIFORNIA,
THE CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT,
CALIFORNIA COALITION, SANTA CRUZ
CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK, 350
SACRAMENTO THE GLENDALE
ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, 350
HUMBOLDT AND SAN DIEGO 350.
THANK YOU. MELISSA, YOU, ON
BEHALF OF SIERRA CLUB
CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT. CYNTHIA
SHALIT, ON BEHALF OF THE 60
GROUPS UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE
STRONG AND ALSO THE 45 GROUPS IN
THE COALITION WITH INDIVISIBLE
GREEN TEAM AND STRONGLY IN
SUPPORT OF 1374. THANK YOU,
ANDREW DAWSON, THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING PARTNERSHIP IN SUPPORT
SASHA HOROWITZ WITH LOS ANGELES
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT IN
SUPPORT. CHARLES WATSON, ON
BEHALF OF NORTH AMERICA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU NICHOLAS.
SECOND, ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIAL
COMPASSION IN LEGISLATION, IN
SUPPORT. THAT'S IMPRESSIVE.
ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED IN
SUPPORT. ED MANNING FOR WESTERN
GROWERS. WE SUPPORT THE BILL BUT
OPPOSE REMOVING AGRICULTURE FROM
THE BILL. KEVIN JOHNSTON,
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION WE ALSO SUPPORT THE
BILL IN PRINT, BUT NOT THE
AMENDMENTS FOR EXCLUDING
AGRICULTURE UNFAIRLY. BETH LASSO
WITH THE AGRICULTURAL ENERGY
CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION ALSO
SUPPORT THE BILL IN PRINT.
REALLY? THANKS, SENATOR BECKER
FOR HIS STRONG SUPPORT OF AG,
BUT OPPOSE THE AMENDMENTS THAT
ARE PROPOSED. THANK YOU. TAYLOR
OCEAN, ON BEHALF OF WESTERN
AGRICULTURAL PROCESSORS
ASSOCIATION, I WOULD LIKE TO
ECHO THE COMMENTS OF OUR
COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU. MARGIE
LEE, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
LEAGUE OF FOOD PRODUCERS,
ECHOING THE AGRICULTURE
COMMENTS. THANK YOU. SORRY, ANA
FERREIRA ON BEHALF OF WINE
INSTITUTE. ALSO IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL, BUT FEEL AG IS BEING
TREATED DIFFERENTLY. WE'RE NOT
REALLY SURE WHY. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. GO
AHEAD AND COME ON UP. HI. YOU'VE
GOT TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MATT FRIEDMAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE UTILITY REFORM
NETWORK. I'M HERE TO TESTIFY IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1374, UNLESS
AMENDED, WE HAVE HAD
CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE AUTHOR. DO APPRECIATE THAT.
AND APPRECIATE THE NARROWING OF
THE SCOPE OF THIS BILL WITH THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
BEING ACCEPTED TODAY, AS HAS
BEEN DISCUSSED, THIS BILL WOULD
ESSENTIALLY OVERTURN A DECISION
OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION THAT WAS ADOPTED FOR
VIRTUAL NET ENERGY METERING AND
NET ENERGY METERING AGGREGATION,
AND WE OPPOSE THIS TREATMENT. WE
OPPOSE THE OVERTURNING OF THIS
DECISION BECAUSE THIS BILL, AS
DRAFTED TODAY, IS GUARANTEED TO
ACCELERATE THE PACE OF RATE
INCREASES FOR RESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMERS IN THE FUTURE. THE USE
OF RETAIL RATES TO COMPENSATE
ANY CUSTOMER FOR BEHIND THE
METER GENERATION IS EXTREMELY
COSTLY. IT'S INEQUITABLE. IT'S
UNNECESSARY, AND IT PRODUCES
SUBSTANTIAL COST SHIFTS THAT
RAISE RATES FOR ALL OTHER
CUSTOMERS. EXTENDING THIS
TREATMENT TO MULTIPLE CUSTOMERS
ON A SINGLE PARCEL, OR A
CUSTOMER WITH OPERATIONS
EXTENDING ACROSS MULTIPLE
PROPERTIES, WOULD DRAMATICALLY
RAISE THE COST OF THESE
PROGRAMS, NOW, THE AMENDMENTS
TODAY APPEAR TO LIMIT THE
BENEFICIARIES TO APARTMENT
BUILDINGS AND SCHOOLS, BUT IT
ALSO OPENS THE POSSIBILITY WITH
THE DIRECTION TO THE COMMISSION
FOR THE COMMISSION TO
DRAMATICALLY EXPAND THAT. IT'S
NOT CLEAR FROM US LOOKING AT THE
AMENDMENTS, HOW THAT PLAYS OUT,
PROVIDING BILL CREDITS AT RETAIL
RATES IS VERY EXPENSIVE. RETAIL
RATES ARE BETWEEN FIVE AND TEN
TIMES THE VALUE OF SOLAR EXPORTS
TO THE GRID, AND THE EXCESS
COMPENSATION THAT'S PROVIDED
UNDER THIS TREATMENT WOULD BE
COLLECTED FROM ALL OTHER
CUSTOMERS IN THE FORM OF RATE
INCREASES, IF THE LEGISLATURE
BELIEVES THAT GREATER
COMPENSATION IS APPROPRIATE FOR
NON RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, WE
SEE TWO OPTIONS ON THE TABLE ONE
FIND OTHER MONEY TO PAY FOR IT
BESIDES RATEPAYER MONEY. I KNOW
THAT'S EASY TO SAY AND HARD TO
DO, BUT THAT IS THE CHOICE.
THERE MIGHT BE MONEY FROM THE
GRF. I KNOW THE GENERAL FUND IS
TAPPED, BUT THAT IS THE STRATEGY
FOR DEALING WITH THIS. AND
SECOND, THE OTHER OPTION IS TO
ENSURE THAT RESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMERS ARE PROTECTED AGAINST
ANY RATE INCREASES TO KEEP THE
COST OF THIS PROGRAM WITHIN THE
CUSTOMER CLASSES THAT ARE
BENEFITING THOSE NON RESIDENTIAL
CLASSES. THOSE WOULD BE OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON BRANDON EBCLC PG AND E
ALIGN EVERYTHING WITH WHAT
TURN-TO SAID, WE APPRECIATE THE
SIGNIFICANT ATTENTION AND THE
EFFORTS BY THE COMMITTEE AND THE
AUTHOR TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS
OF THIS BILL ON NON-PRACTICING
CUSTOMERS. WE ALSO RECOGNIZE
THAT THIS IS INDEED A VERY
COMPLEX BILL, SPEAKING BROADLY
ABOUT THE POLICY, IT'S WORTH
BEING CLEAR ABOUT A FEW THINGS
WITHIN THE VM AND THE NEMA
PROGRAMS. SELF-CONSUMPTION IS
ESSENTIALLY A MYTH. THE ENTIRE
POINT OF THE PROGRAMS IS TO SET
UP A MECHANISM IN WHICH THEY'RE
COMPENSATED AS IF THEY WERE SELF
CONSUMING. WE DON'T CHALLENGE
THAT ROOFTOP SOLAR ON YOUR
TYPICAL HOME IS
SELF-CONSUMPTION. IT'S BEHIND
THE METER. ALL OF THESE
ARRANGEMENTS ARE THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE METER. YOU ARE USING. THE
GRID, AND THERE IS A COST TO
THAT. REGARDLESS OF HOW FAR THE
ELECTRONS TRAVEL. THERE'S A LOT
OF PHYSICS BEHIND THIS. THE PUC
SPENT FOUR YEARS LOOKING AT
PROPERTY WIDE, NETTING THE VALUE
OF THE GENERATION, THE ACC, AND
MADE A DECISION JUST EIGHT
MONTHS AGO THAT WE'RE BACK HERE
OVERTURNING BEFORE WE'VE EVEN
HAD A CHANCE TO IMPLEMENT IT.
THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF USING
A HIGHWAY WITHOUT PAYING ANY GAS
TAXES, WITH THE AMENDMENTS, THIS
NOW REQUIRES TWO MORE TARIFF
CHANGES, 1 IN 2025 TO UPDATE
WITH APARTMENTS AND SCHOOLS, AND
THEN POTENTIALLY ANOTHER TARIFF
UPDATE AFTER THAT TO BASED UPON
THE STUDY DETERMINATION THAT THE
PUC HAS ALREADY COMPLETED OVER
THE LAST FOUR YEARS, AND THEN
IT'S WITH SOME OF THE SCHOOLS
THAT ARE SUPPORTING. I KNOW
LAUSD IS SUPPORTING THIS BILL.
IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT PUBLIC
UTILITIES LÀ DWP DO NOT OFFER
THIS TYPE OF PROGRAM. IT'S NOT
OFFERED BROADLY ACROSS MOST OF
THE REST OF THE U.S. THEY
COMPENSATED DIFFERENTLY IF THEY
HAVE IT. SO THIS IS ANOTHER
PROGRAM THAT'S SPECIFIC TO IOUS.
SO IT WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE IOU
BILLS MORE EXPENSIVE, UNDER A
LEGISLATIVE MANDATE. SO
ULTIMATELY THIS COMES DOWN TO
SYSTEM AFFORDABILITY AND WHAT WE
SHOULD BE COMPENSATING BEFORE
THE REFORM THAT THE PSC JUST
PASSED EIGHT MONTHS AGO, THIS
WAS COSTING NONPARTICIPATING PGE
CUSTOMERS MORE THAN $220 MILLION
ANNUALLY, PROVIDING A SUBSIDY OF
MORE THAN $15,000 TO EACH
PARTICIPANT EACH YEAR, AGAIN, AS
MATT MENTIONED, THAT'S ROUGHLY
FIVE TIMES THE VALUE OF THE
ACTUAL GENERATION. WE ASK FOR A
NO VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. ISRAEL SALAS WITH SAN
DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. ANDREW CÁC WITH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON.
WE'RE OPPOSED TO THE BILL IN
PRINT. APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR AND
COMMITTEE HEARING OUR CONCERNS.
THE AMENDMENTS IMPROVE THE BILL,
BUT WE STILL NEED TO SEE THE
LANGUAGE. THANK YOU. MARK
JOSEPH, ON BEHALF OF THE
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY
EMPLOYEES, IN VERY RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION, MELISSA CORTEZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA WIND
ENERGY ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO
THE BILL IN PRINT. LOOK FORWARD
TO SEEING THE AMENDMENTS AND
REEVALUATING AT THAT TIME.
HUNTER STERN WITH IBEW 1245, IN
OPPOSITION, TARA SANDERS,
REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC
ADVOCATE'S OFFICE, WE'RE OPPOSED
TO THE BILL CURRENTLY IS IN
PRINT, BUT WE ARE REVIEWING THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU.
OKAY. BRINGING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR QUESTIONS.
COMMENTS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER
KHN, I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR THIS BECAUSE I THINK THAT
MONTH AFTER MONTH, YEAR OVER
YEAR, WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT
WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT RATEPAYERS
HAVE TO BEAR THE BURDEN AND
SHAREHOLDERS CONTINUE TO POCKET
THE PROFITS. AND I THINK THAT MY
SCHOOLS DID THIS AND THEY DID
THIS IN PART BECAUSE WE NEEDED
THERE WAS PSPS HAPPENING FOR
EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME IN OUR
SCHOOLS, BASICALLY BECAME OUR
COMMUNITY CENTERS, WHERE PEOPLE
COULD GO TO STAY COOL, TO CHARGE
THINGS, AND THEY ARE NOW
SELF-SUSTAINING WITH SOLAR AND
STORAGE, WHICH IS PHENOMENAL.
BUT THEY DON'T GET THE BENEFITS
OF THAT AS THEY SHOULD. AND OUR
SCHOOLS NEED EVERY BREAK THEY
CAN GET. AND WHEN THEY INVEST IN
SOLAR, THEY SHOULD BEAR THE
BENEFIT OF THAT PRODUCED ENERGY,
WHICH WE ALL KNOW. IF YOU'RE A
SOLAR OWNER, YOU DON'T GET IF IT
GOES ON THE GRID AND IS BOUGHT
BACK BY THE IOU. AND SO I JUST
THINK THIS IS REALLY AND I WANT
TO COMMEND THE CHAIR AS WELL,
BECAUSE I THINK SHE WAS VERY
THOUGHTFUL IN TRYING TO MEET
BOTH THE AUTHOR AND THE
OPPOSITION HERE. AND I KNOW
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'VE HEARD A TON
OF, BUT I REALLY WANT TO SAY
THAT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. AND
SO I WANT TO I WANT TO GIVE HER
CREDIT, EVEN IF THE OPPOSITION
IS NOT GOING TO. MADAM CHAIR,
BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS
THOUGHTFUL TO REALLY SAY
APARTMENTS AND SCHOOLS ARE A
PARTICULAR ENTITIES WHERE YOU
REALLY ARE IN A LOT OF WAYS
MIRRORING THE BEHIND THE METER
EXPERIENCE OF A HOME. BUT
ESPECIALLY IN AN APARTMENT,
YOU'RE LIVING THERE, MOST LIKELY
BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE
INCOME TO LIVE IN A SINGLE
FAMILY HOME. AND YOU SHOULD GET
THE SAME BENEFITS THAT THOSE IN
A SINGLE FAMILY HOME SHOULD. AND
SO I THINK THAT WAS A REALLY
GOOD ADDITION. AND OBVIOUSLY OUR
SCHOOLS BENEFIT IN THAT SAME
WAY. SO I'M EXCITED TO SUPPORT
IT. I THINK IT IS A THOUGHTFUL
STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF
MOVING US TO CONTINUE TO BE IN A
PLACE WHERE WE'RE BOTH MOVING TO
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. THESE THESE
ARE BASICALLY MICROGRIDS THAT I
THINK ARE VERY EXCITING IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. AND, THIS WILL HELP
THEM PROLIFERATE MORE. THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZUBER. SO
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THE BILL, THIS IS ONE
THAT, AND I HAD SOME
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CHAIR
THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY AND, BUT
THERE'S SORT OF I HAVE
CONFLICTING, THEY'RE SORT OF
CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES THAT I
THINK THAT THIS BILL RAISES FOR
ME, ONE IS, YOU KNOW, I'VE
THOUGHT FOR A WHILE THAT, AND
I'VE SEEN SORT OF THE DATA THAT
SHOWS THAT, THAT THERE HAS BEEN
A COST SHIFT TO RATEPAYERS
RELATED TO SOLAR INSTALLATIONS,
WHERE I THINK WE'VE, TO A
CERTAIN EXTENT OVER SUBSIDIZED
SOLAR TO THE DETRIMENT OF, OTHER
RATEPAYERS. SO I, YOU KNOW, I'M
CONVINCED BY THE, YOU KNOW, THE
INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED
THAT THIS, THAT, THAT THE BILL,
TO A CERTAIN EXTENT IS SORT OF
FURTHERING THAT COST SHIFT AND
WILL RESULT IN SOME INCREASE TO
RATEPAYERS, ON THE OTHER HAND,
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO NOT TO
BASICALLY SAY THAT THERE SHOULD
BE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT
WE'RE DOING FOR SINGLE FAMILY
HOMEOWNERS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE
SOLAR AND FOLKS THAT ARE IN
APARTMENT BUILDINGS WHO ARE
LOWER INCOME AND SO ON, THAT
PRINCIPLE. THAT'S THE REASON WHY
I THINK I'M SUPPORTING THIS BILL
TODAY. AND I THINK FOLLOWING THE
CHAIR'S LEAD ON THIS, WHICH WAS
AND I RESPECT REALLY THE SORT OF
THE THOUGHT THAT WENT INTO THAT,
I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION
ACTUALLY, WHICH SO TO ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND
IT, AND MAYBE I'M SORT OF OVER
THINKING IT IN AN OVERSIMPLISTIC
WAY, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS THAT
WHAT IS HAPPENING UNDER THE PUC,
DECISION IS THAT, GENERATORS ARE
BASICALLY, ARE SELLING, THEIR
ENERGY INTO THE GRID FOR AN
AMOUNT, THAT'S WHAT, 20 OR 25%
OF WHAT THEY WOULD ACTUALLY,
THEY'RE ACTUALLY PAYING FOR IT
IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? IS
THAT CORRECT, OR CAN I ASK.
YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. WELL WE WOULD
SAY WELL THAT IS THE FACTS,
RIGHT. YOU ARE SELLING IT AND
YOU ARE BUYING BACK AT AT FOUR
TIMES THE PRICE. AND THEY WOULD
PROBABLY COUCH IT DIFFERENTLY.
BUT AND SO WHY, WHY IS THAT. WHY
IS THERE SUCH A BIG
DIFFERENTIAL. BECAUSE IT SEEMS
LIKE IF YOU'RE GENERATING ON
YOUR OWN HOUSE RIGHT. YOU
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY PAY
SOME ADDITIONAL AMOUNT, BUT THEN
ON THE OTHER HAND, IT'S SORT OF
IF YOU'RE GENERATING, AND WHY IS
IT THAT THERE'S LIKE A, THAT
THERE'S A WHATEVER IT IS, A 20
TO 100% DIFFERENTIAL ON THAT. I
THINK WE HAVE A LONG
CONVERSATION ABOUT IT. WE AND WE
CAN IF WE WANT. I JUST SAY THIS
GETS INTO THE WEEDS OF THE
AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR AND HOW
THE PUC CALCULATED AVOIDED COST
RIGHT. SO THE QUESTION IS, YOU
KNOW, VERSUS, YOU KNOW, SAY
UTILITY SCALE GENERATION OR
INDIVIDUAL GENERATION, AND, YOU
KNOW, WE BELIEVE THAT THAT THEY
CALCULATED IT INCORRECTLY. RIGHT
AND IT WAS AN UNFAIR
CALCULATION. AND THAT'S WHY WE
THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE
TIME BEFORE IT GOES INTO EFFECT
TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE LET
THEM GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. AND
NOW WE IN THE LEGISLATURE THINK
THAT WAS THE WRONG DECISION.
WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO
FIX IT. YEAH. AND I THINK IT'S
WORTH NOTING THAT THE PROGRAM
HAS ALWAYS MECHANICALLY WORKED
THE SAME. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN SOME
COMPENSATION NETTING ON THE BACK
END TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU PAY.
PREVIOUSLY IT WAS YOU'D GET
COMPENSATED AT THE RETAIL RATE.
THEN IT WAS RETAIL RATE MINUS,
NOT BYPASSABLE CHARGES. THEN IT
WAS AVOIDED. COST CALCULATOR.
AND THEN THE PUC CAME IN AND
SAID THAT CERTAIN PROJECTS ARE
EXEMPT FROM THAT. AND THEY'RE
GOING TO BE COMPENSATED. RETAIL
RATES STILL THAT WAS NOT EVEN
OUR POSITION. WE SAID THAT WE
SHOULD CONTINUE TO COMPENSATE.
ACK THE COST CALCULATOR AND THEN
PROVIDE AN AD, OR WHEREVER THE
STATE FINDS IT PRUDENT TO
SUBSIDIZE CERTAIN TYPES OF
HOMES. SO WHAT THE PUC CAME UP
WITH WASN'T EVEN OUR PROPOSAL.
IT WAS A MIDDLE GROUND. AND NOW
WE'RE KIND OF CHANGING THE
DEFINITION OF SELF-CONSUMPTION
RATHER THAN CHANGING THE WHOLE
THING. YEAH, IT'S COMPLICATED.
YEAH. I MEAN, IT'S JUST I MEAN,
TO ME, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I
DON'T UNDERSTAND AND OBVIOUSLY
THIS IS A TIME FOR I THINK,
HOPEFULLY INFORMATIONAL HEARINGS
THAT WILL ACTUALLY HAVE AT THE
END OF THE YEAR OR BEGINNING OF
NEXT YEAR IS REALLY
UNDERSTANDING WHY, YOU KNOW, IF
YOU WERE SORT OF YOU KNOW,
INDUSTRIAL, SCALE GENERATOR, YOU
WOULD ACTUALLY BE SELLING INTO
THE GRID AT SOME AMOUNT. BUT
THEN THE RATES THAT A CONSUMER
IS PAYING IS FOUR TIMES THAT
AMOUNT. YOU KNOW, THAT'S TO ME
SORT OF THE QUANDARY THAT I
HAVE. SO YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THIS TODAY BECAUSE I,
BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT, YOU
KNOW, IF I LOOK AT THE PRINCIPLE
OF, YOU KNOW, SHOULD WE HAVE
APARTMENT DWELLERS NOT HAVING
THE SAME, BEING TREATED
DIFFERENTLY THAN SUBURBAN SINGLE
FAMILY HOMEOWNERS WHO ACTUALLY,
IN SOME SENSE HAVE A, YOU KNOW,
ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE HIGHER
INCOME? I THINK THERE'S AN
INEQUITY IF WE DON'T DO THAT,
AND OF COURSE, I THINK, YOU
KNOW, WE ALWAYS WANT TO TREAT
OUR SCHOOLS WELL, BUT TO ME, I'M
SUPPORTING IT BECAUSE IT'S
LIMITED TO THE TO THOSE TWO
ITEMS. AND I THINK WOULD LOVE TO
UNDERSTAND MORE BECAUSE WE HAVE
TO WE HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO
THE RATEPAYERS. RIGHT. AND I DO
BELIEVE THAT WHAT THE OPPONENTS
ARE SAYING, THAT SOME OF THIS IS
SHIFTING COSTS TO RATEPAYERS.
SO, I THINK FOR THOSE TWO, THOSE
TWO BUCKETS, I'M COMFORTABLE
DOING IT. BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, I'D
LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IN OTHER IN
SOME OTHER VENUES WHY THOSE COST
DIFFERENCES ARE SO BIG. YEAH.
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CALDERON. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR, AND I ALSO ALIGN MY
COMMENTS TO MY COLLEAGUE.
ASSEMBLYMAN ZUBER. BUT I HAVE A
QUESTION FOR THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TURN. WHAT WHAT WOULD THE
POTENTIAL IMPACTS BE TO
NON-SOLAR CUSTOMERS? THANK YOU
FOR THE QUESTION. THE, THE
IMPACTS ON NON-SOLAR CUSTOMERS
WOULD BE RATE INCREASES AND THE
REASON THAT WE WOULD SEE RATE
INCREASES. PERHAPS THIS IS A
LITTLE MORE, LESS AWKWARD. IS,
IS BECAUSE MOST OF THE COSTS
THAT THE UTILITIES ARE
COLLECTING AND RATES ARE
UNAFFECTED BY THE AMOUNT OF
SOLAR GENERATION THAT HAPPENS
BEHIND THE METER. SO MUCH OF THE
SPENDING THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED
IN THIS COMMITTEE, AND SOME OF
THE INFORMATIONAL HEARINGS AND
THE POLICY COMMITTEE HEARINGS
AROUND WILDFIRE MITIGATION
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPGRADES,
ALL OF THAT IS MUCH OF THAT IS
REALLY UNAFFECTED. AND UTILITIES
GET A FIXED REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
THEY THEY GET A LOCK IN ON HOW
MUCH MONEY THEY CAN COLLECT. AND
WHEN YOU SEE, CUSTOMER LOAD DROP
OFF, WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY THE UTILITY
COLLECTS DOESN'T CHANGE, BUT
EVERYBODY HAS TO KICK IN MORE ON
A USAGE BASIS TO MAKE TO SOLVE
FOR THAT NUMBER. SO ESSENTIALLY,
IF YOU'RE GIVING PEOPLE LARGER
CREDITS ON THEIR BILLS FOR
SOLAR, THE MONEY COMES FROM
OTHER CUSTOMERS, IT DOESN'T COME
FROM THE UTILITY SHAREHOLDERS.
IF IT DID, WE WOULD HAVE A
DIFFERENT POSITION ON THIS BILL,
AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THAT AMENDMENT, BUT THAT'S
CURRENTLY NOT HOW IT OPERATES.
SO THE PROBLEM IS IT'S A ZERO
SUM GAME. AND RIGHT NOW WHEN WE
SEE AN EXPLOSIVE GROWTH IN
ROOFTOP SOLAR WITH COMPENSATION
AT RETAIL RATES, WHICH IS THE
PROPOSAL HERE FOR NON
RESIDENTIAL VIRTUAL NET ENERGY
METERING, THOSE COSTS END UP
COMING OUT OF THE BASICALLY
DRIVING UP RATES FOR EVERYBODY
ELSE. THERE IS A WAY TO CONTAIN
THAT. IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THOSE
COSTS WITHIN THE NONRESIDENTIAL
CLASSES AND NOT HAVE THEM SPILL
OVER INTO THE RESIDENTIAL
CLASSES, THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN
THE BILL TODAY. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? YES.
PLEASE SAY, AND WE APPRECIATE
THE SUGGESTIONS. AND WE'LL LOOK
AT BOTH OF THOSE, INCLUDING THE
SECOND ONE, BECAUSE MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THEY'RE NOT
SUPPOSED TO SHIFT BETWEEN RATE
CLASSES AS IT IS TODAY. BUT SO
WE'LL, LOOK AT THAT. I DID WANT
TO SAY, I THINK WHERE WE HAVE A
BIT OF FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT
IS THAT IS IT A ZERO SUM GAME? I
TALKED TO MY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
THEY'RE DOING $120 MILLION BOND.
AND, SCHOOL BOND, HOPEFULLY OUR
BOND WILL PASS, BUT THEY'RE JUST
GOING AHEAD AND DOING THIS. AND
MOST OF THAT IS GOING TO THE
FACT THAT CLASSROOMS THAT, YOU
KNOW, NEVER NEEDED AIR
CONDITIONING BEFORE NOW NEED AIR
CONDITIONING. SO THEY'RE GOING
TO PUT IN HEAT PUMPS AND THEY'RE
GOING TO ELECTRIFY ALL THE
SCHOOLS. AND, AND IT'S, YOU
KNOW, 3 OR 4000 STUDENTS AND
ALSO PUT IN EV CHARGERS, WHICH
THEY NEVER HAD BEFORE. SO
THEY'RE GOING TO BE DRAMATICALLY
INCREASING THE LOAD. NOW THEY'RE
GOING TO PUT ON SOLAR. BUT
BECAUSE THE RECENT RULING,
THEY'RE GOING TO REALLY SCALE
DOWN THE SOLAR THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO PUT ON AND SO IT'S
REALLY A QUESTION OF WHERE THAT
SO, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THAT'S
THE EXAMPLE I HAVE SOLAR MY
ROOF. BUT I PAY A LOT OF MONEY
BECAUSE I PUT IN A HEAT PUMP. I
HAVE ELECTRIC HOT WATER HEATER.
WE'VE GOT A COUPLE EVS AND WE'RE
STILL PAYING A LOT OF MONEY, TO
THE UTILITY. SO THIS IS WHERE WE
THINK, I MEAN, NO ONE, YOU KNOW,
I HAD A TRANSMISSION
STREAMLINING BILL THAT THE
GOVERNOR VETOED. I SUPPORTED OR
COAUTHORED. I THINK EVERY
TRANSMISSION STREAMLINING BILL I
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT
AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DO AS MUCH
AS POSSIBLE. BUT WE STILL, I
BELIEVE, IN THIS INCREASING LOAD
SCENARIO, DO NEED THAT, THAT
SOLAR ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, THIS
SOLAR IS BENEFICIAL TO SHAVE OFF
THE LOAD. DO YOU WANT TO SAY
SOMETHING QUICKLY? YEAH, I JUST
WANT TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THE
POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. SO
FIRST OFF, SOLAR IN THE FUTURE
IS OFFSETTING LOAD INCREASES NOT
TAKING AWAY FROM EXISTING
CONSUMPTION. AND EVEN IN A GOOD
SCENARIO IN THE FUTURE, SOLAR IS
ONLY GOING TO COVER A LITTLE
MORE THAN HALF OF THE INCREASED
LOAD FROM ELECTRIFICATION, AND
UTILITY SPENDING IS GOING TO
CONTINUE TO SKYROCKET AS LONG AS
WE ARE POWERING EVS AND HEAT
PUMPS ENTIRELY FROM FAR AWAY.
PLANTS AND I ALSO WANT TO
ADDRESS A LITTLE BIT OF THE COST
SHIFT ARGUMENT, NONRESIDENTIAL
VENOM AND NEMA CUSTOMERS ALREADY
PAY BOTH FIXED CHARGE AND DEMAND
CHARGES TO COVER THEIR USE OF
THE GRID, AND NONRESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMERS ALWAYS PAY FIXED
MONTHLY CHARGES, AND ALL BUT THE
SMALLEST COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS
ALSO PAY DEMAND CHARGES. SO WE
ARE MORE THAN PAYING OUR WAY,
THE CPUC OAN LOOK BACK STUDY
FOUND THAT NOT ONLY ARE WE NOT
PRODUCING A COST SHIFT, BUT WE
ARE IN FACT SUBSIDIZING IN THE
OTHER DIRECTION. OKAY, NEXT, I
THINK WE HAVE ASSEMBLYMEMBER
FRIEDMAN. YEAH. SO FROM WHAT
I'VE BEEN HEARING AND WHAT I'VE
BEEN TOLD, A LOT OF UTILITY COST
INCREASES ARE COMING FROM OUR
FROM INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
RELATED TO BRINGING MORE
RENEWABLES ONLINE AND TO THE
TRANSMISSION, AS WAS JUST SAID,
TO MOVE THE POWER AROUND. SO
WHAT IS THE, YOU KNOW, THE END
IMPACT OF PUTTING SOLAR ON
SCHOOLS, ON FARMS, BY OFFERING
MORE, MORE RENEWABLE GENERATION,
REGARDLESS OF WHO'S USING IT.
AREN'T YOU ALSO OFFSETTING THE
THANK YOU, OFFSETTING THE NEED
FOR SOME SOME OF THIS MORE
EXPENSIVE PRODUCED ELECTRICITY?
I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF
THE COST DRIVER IS BRINGING ON
NEW RENEWABLES AND PUTTING MORE
RESOURCES INTO THE GRID, TO BE
ABLE TO MOVE THOSE THAT
ELECTRICITY AROUND, THERE'S AN
OFFSET TO WHATEVER IS BEING
PRODUCED. SO THERE IS A VALUE TO
THIS ROOFTOP SOLAR IN TERMS OF
WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO MEET YOUR
GROWING DEMAND. SO IT'S A LITTLE
HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND WHY
THIS IS NOT, IN THE END, A NET
BENEFIT FOR RATEPAYERS. SO I
JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU COULD
SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT AND
IF YOU'VE AND HOW YOU CALCULATE
THAT. YEAH, I WOULD JUST SAY I
THINK, YOU KNOW, WE NEED ALL OF
IT. RIGHT. WE NEED, WE NEED MORE
UTILITY SCALE GENERATION. WE
NEED WE NEED SOLAR GENERATION AS
WELL. WE NEED GREEN HYDROGEN,
WHICH IS WHY WE HAD THE PREVIOUS
BILL. SO I WOULD JUST SAY, I
THINK THAT WE NEED, ALL OF IT.
AND AGAIN, JUST IMPORTANT TO
MAKE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS IS
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ENERGY USED
ON THE SAME PROPERTY. AND I
THINK THAT'S SORT OF THE
DISTINCTION HERE THAT YOU'RE
ALSO KIND OF GET TO. AND THAT'S
CERTAINLY OUR POSITION IS WE
BELIEVE IT IS HELPFUL TO THE
GRID. AND THERE'S A BIT OF A
DISAGREEMENT AROUND THAT. BUT
YOU KNOW, WE COULD, YOU KNOW,
CITE LOTS OF STUDIES AS WELL,
BUT TO YOUR POINT IS THIS IS
HELPFUL TO THE GRID BECAUSE WE
ARE GROWING DEMAND RIGHT. AND WE
ALSO HAVE GOALS AROUND RENEWABLE
GENERATION THAT GO BEYOND ANY
IMPACT, ANY IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON
ELECTRICAL RATES. AND OF COURSE,
WE OF COURSE, KEEPING RATES LOW
AND LOWERING RATES IS A HUGE
IMPERATIVE. BUT ONE OF THE
REASONS THAT NEED IS CLIMBING IS
BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND
THE FACT THAT RIGHT NOW IT'S
SUPPOSED TO BE 111 DEGREES. THIS
WEEK, WE'VE GOT PARTS OF THE
STATE WHERE PEOPLE TRADITIONALLY
DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE AIR
CONDITIONING, AND THEY DO NOW,
AND THAT'S ALL BECAUSE OF
CLIMATE AND SO THERE'S THERE IS
A VALUE TO RENEWABLE ENERGY
BEYOND WHATEVER THE COST OF
ELECTRICITY IS, BECAUSE IT KEEPS
US FROM HAVING TO BURN FOSSIL
FUELS. I MEAN, I REPRESENT I
LIVE IN A CITY THAT'S ABOUT TO
BUILD A GAS PLANT BECAUSE OF A
LACK OF RENEWABLE GENERATION
WITHIN OUR CITY OR, OR
RENEWABLES THAT WE CAN ACCESS
BECAUSE OF TRANSMISSION
CONSTRAINTS. SO IF WE CAN
PREVENT CITIES LIKE MINE FROM
HAVING TO BRING NEW FOSSIL FUEL
GENERATION ONLINE, IF WE CAN
PHASE OUT FOSSIL FUEL FASTER,
THERE'S ANOTHER VALUE HERE
THAT'S NOT CAPTURED IN ANY OF
THIS DISCUSSION OR ANY ANALYSIS
THAT WE'RE SEEING, OR ANY
ANALYSIS THAT'S BEING MADE. AND,
YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY A SHAME
THAT THAT'S NOT SOMEHOW
QUANTIFIED. IT WASN'T QUANTIFIED
WITH PUC. IT'S NOT QUANTIFIED IN
ANY OF THIS. BUT THAT'S GOING TO
HIT EVERY RATEPAYER EVEN HARDER
AS CLIMATE CHANGE CONTINUES TO
DRIVE UP THE HEAT AND AS WE
CONTINUE TO SEE THOSE IMPACTS,
AND I DON'T SEE THAT ANYWHERE IN
ANY OF THIS CONVERSATION WITH
THIS BILL AND WITH OTHER BILLS
THAT WE'VE HAD ABOUT RENEWABLES,
AND CERTAINLY ABOUT ROOFTOP
SOLAR. AND IT'S A SHAME THAT WE
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO MOVE
LEGISLATION OR FIND WAYS OF
CAPTURING WHAT THAT VALUE IS AND
PUTTING THAT WITHIN THE RATE
STRUCTURE, WITHIN OUR
INCENTIVES. AND THAT WAS THE
ORIGINAL REASON THAT WE GAVE
INCENTIVES TO PEOPLE THEY KNEW
THERE WERE GOING TO BE IMPACTS,
BUT THE GOAL WAS ABOUT
INCREASING RENEWABLE GENERATION
AND I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT KIND OF
BROUGHT TO THE TABLE IN ANY OF
THIS CONVERSATION. AND I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR, BECAUSE I
THINK THAT YOU HAVE CENTERED
THIS, THAT, AND THAT'S REALLY A
BIG PART OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING
TO DO HERE. SO IT'S NOT REALLY A
QUESTION I GUESS MY QUESTION IS
JUST HOW MUCH IF THIS DOESN'T
PASS AND WE DON'T CONTINUE TO
FIND WAYS OF INCENTIVIZING AND
BRINGING BACK INCENTIVES FOR
ROOFTOP SOLAR, HOW DO WE
QUANTIFY THAT, THAT LOSS AS WE
CONTINUE TO BURN FOSSIL FUELS
AND CONTINUE TO NOT MEET OUR
RENEWABLE GOALS? YEAH, I THINK
IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AND I
THINK, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD KEEP
IN MIND THAT ALL THE FOLKS WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT WHO MAY BENEFIT IF
MY BILL PASSES, THESE ARE ALL
PEOPLE WHO CHOSE NOT TO BUILD
SOLAR. WHEN WE HAD THE OLD NEM
TWO EXPORT RATES, THE OLD NEM
ONE EXPORT RATES, THEY DIDN'T
BUILD SOLAR THEN, RIGHT? SO I
DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE
A HUGE, FLOOD. BUT I THINK MORE
SPECIFICALLY, TO YOUR POINT, I
MEAN, YOU HAVE THE PERFECT
EXAMPLE WHERE YOU SAID THAT YOUR
CITY IS CONSIDERING BUILDING A
NEW GAS PLANT, RIGHT? BECAUSE
THEY JUST CAN'T, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH,
GENERATION. AND AGAIN, I, YOU
KNOW, I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO
WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY. SO
I APPRECIATE IT. AND THEN
LASTLY, I'LL JUST SAY FOR THE
RECORD, THAT I'M SORRY TO SEE
FARMS AND AGRICULTURE TAKEN OUT
OF THIS BILL. I DON'T THINK
THAT'S NECESSARY. I THINK IT
SHOULD BE INCLUDED. AND I HOPE
THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN
BE RECONSIDERED. IF NOT IF WHEN
THE BILL MOVES FORWARD IN THE
FUTURE. WELL, THANK YOU. AND THE
BILL DOES, YOU KNOW, WITH THE
WORK THAT THE COMMITTEE PUT IN
DOES, DOES KICK IT BACK TO THE
PUC TO RELOOK AT SOME OF THAT?
SO THERE IS STILL WE'RE STILL
CERTAINLY HOPING I'M STILL
HOPING SOME OF THESE OTHER USE
CASES. I MEAN, ONE OF THE LAST
BIG ARGUMENTS IN THE IRA, IF YOU
TALK TO PEOPLE WHO WORKED ON THE
FEDERAL IRA, WAS DIRECT PAY FOR
NONPROFITS AND RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTIONS WHO DON'T HAVE
CAN'T BENEFIT FROM TAX CREDITS.
SO THAT WAS LIKE THE LAST BIG
FIGHT WAS DIRECT PAY. AND THEY
PUT DIRECT PAY IN. AND SO, YOU
KNOW, WE ULTIMATELY WANT THOSE
FOLKS TO BENEFIT AS WELL. GREAT.
I THINK MR. PATTERSON IS NEXT.
GREAT. THANK YOU. SOMETIMES WITH
SOME OF THESE THINGS, I PREFER
IF THE ANALYSIS WAS WRITTEN IN A
PICTURE BOOK SO I CAN UNDERSTAND
EXACTLY HOW IT'S WORKING, BUT
THERE. YES, TRUE. CAN CAN YOU
HELP ME UNDERSTAND ON A
MULTIFAMILY PROJECT EXACTLY HOW
THIS WOULD WORK? YOU KNOW, YOU
HAVE THE APARTMENT OWNER OR
WHATNOT GENERATING POWER. IT
GOES OUT TO THE GRID AND THEN
HOW HOW WOULD THAT BE
IMPLEMENTED INTERNALLY? HOW WITH
THE IOUS OR HOW DOES HOW DO WE
KNOW THAT THE POWER BEING BOUGHT
BACK IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME?
I'M JUST WONDERING HOW THIS HOW
THIS WOULD WORK. MAYBE WE COULD
HAVE OUR HOUSING. YEAH. SO WHEN
YOU HAVE ONE OWNER, THEY THEY
ARE GOING TO WANT TO PUT THE
BIGGEST SYSTEM POSSIBLE, THAT
OFTEN WILL, BE REPRESENT A LOT
MORE THAN WHAT THEY NEED FOR
JUST THE COMMON AREA LOADS. SO
AND THAT'S WHERE THE, THE
MECHANISM TO ALLOCATE THOSE
CHARGES TO ALL THE RESIDENTS.
AND I THINK THAT'S MENTIONED IN
THE BILL COMES INTO EFFECT WHERE
WE'RE RIGHT NOW, THE COST OF
ACTUALLY INCREASED WITH THIS NEW
LEGISLATION IS THAT IF YOU HAVE
IF YOU'RE A BUILDING, IF YOU OWN
A BUILDING THAT HAS A COMMON
AREA AND LET'S JUST SAY 50
UNITS, AND THEN YOU HAVE A
RECREATION BUILDING NEARBY, YOU
CANNOT GENERATE ELECTRICITY ON
YOUR MAIN BUILDING AND USE ANY
OF IT ON THAT OTHER BUILDING. SO
YOU HAVE TO NOW, UNLESS YOU
TRENCH FROM THAT BUILDING WHERE
THAT SOLAR IS TO THE OTHER
BUILDING, AND YOU HAVE TO NOW
RUN EXTRA WIRE AND IT'S GOING TO
SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE ALL THE
COSTS ON THE PROJECT TO, AGAIN,
THE OLD NET METERING RULES. AND
THIS NEW LEGISLATION IS GOING TO
BE ABLE TO KEEP THE COST MORE
AFFORDABLE AND INCENTIVIZE THAT
BUILDING OWNER TO MAXIMIZE THE
AMOUNT OF SOLAR THEY PUT ON
THEIR BUILDING. THAT WILL THEN
HELP ALL THE RESIDENTS EQUALLY.
SO I KIND OF I UNDERSTAND IT
FROM, YOU KNOW, IF THE BUILDING
OWNER WANTS TO BRING DOWN THE
PRICE OF MAYBE ANOTHER METER
THAT THEY HAVE ON ANOTHER
BUILDING, BUT, YOU KNOW, LET'S
SAY 100 KILOWATT HOURS IS
GENERATED IN EXCESS. A DAY AND
THERE'S 100 TENANTS IN AN
APARTMENT. WHAT DO THEY GET,
LIKE CREDIT FOR ONE KILOWATT
HOUR EACH OR HOW I DON'T
UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S GOING TO BE
WORK ON. WELL, JUST JUST SO YOU
KNOW, I MEAN, JUST AN EXAMPLE. I
MEAN, ONE OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS
LIVES IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX
THAT DOES HAVE SOLAR ON IT,
PRESUMABLY FOR THEY ALL HAVE
THEIR INDIVIDUAL METERS. SO I'M
WONDERING, HOW WOULD IT BE
IMPLEMENTED? BECAUSE THE
MEETINGS THAT I'VE HAD ON THIS
SAY HOW GREAT THIS WOULD BE FOR
HOUSING AND HOW IT WOULD MAKE,
APARTMENTS, YOU KNOW, CHEAPER
FOR THE TENANTS. AND I'M, I'M
ASKING FOR THAT TO BE
DEMONSTRATED. HOW IS THAT THE
CASE? SO I DON'T I DON'T HAVE
THE NUANCED DETAILS OF THAT. BUT
I DO KNOW THAT IN MOST CASES,
THE BUILDING YOU CANNOT THE
COMMON AREA LOADS ARE NOT THE
SIGNIFICANT LOAD. SO THEY'RE
GOING TO WANT TO COVER THEIR
COMMON AREA LOADS, THEREBY
POTENTIALLY REDUCING ANY RENTAL
AMOUNTS THAT MIGHT GO TOWARDS
THAT. AND THEN THEY ALLOCATE THE
REST TO THE TENANTS BECAUSE
ULTIMATELY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
BE UTILIZING SOLAR TO MAKE MORE
MONEY. THEY'RE GOING TO ANYTHING
THAT REDUCES THEIR COST. THEY
CAN PASS THROUGH TO THE
CONSUMER, THE TENANT. BUT BUT I
THINK WHAT YOU MEAN AND I WOULD
ACTUALLY LOVE TO HEAR FROM PG
AND E ON THIS, IS THAT WHEN
ALLOCATE TO THE RESIDENTS IS
THAT THE UTILITY WOULD ALLOCATE
IT TO THE RESIDENTS IN SOME,
SOME KIND OF CALCULATION BECAUSE
THERE'S NO CONTROL WITH THE
BUSINESS OWNER TO SAY, HEY,
LET'S ALLOCATE ONE KILOWATT HOUR
TO THIS PERSON, TWO TO THIS
PERSON, YOU KNOW, I'M VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION
ON MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND HOW
THAT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. I
WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM PG AND
E. YOU KNOW WHAT? YEAH, I MEAN,
IT'S PART OF THE AGREEMENT THAT
ALL THE TENANTS SPLIT UP THE
PORTION OF THE RESOURCE. THE
BIGGEST CHANGE HERE IS IT
INSTEAD OF COMPENSATING THE
LANDLORD, THE OWNER OF THE
BUILDING THAT THE AVOIDED COST
CALCULATOR, THEY WOULD BE
COMPENSATED AT THE RETAIL RATE.
SO THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY
INCENTIVE HERE IS FOR THE OWNER
OF THE BUILDING. ALL THE TENANTS
ARE STILL GOING TO GET THE SAME
COMPENSATION THAT THEY WOULD
WITH OR WITHOUT THIS BILL.
THAT'S KIND OF THE SAY THAT SAY
THAT ONE MORE TIME PICTURE FORM,
PLEASE. BECAUSE OF THIS REALLY
IS ONLY IMPACTING THE COMMON
AREA SPACES. THE ONLY REAL
WINNERS HERE ARE GOING TO BE THE
LANDLORD AND NOT THE TENANTS.
THE TENANTS ARE STILL GOING TO
GET COMPENSATED. RETAIL RATE
REGARDLESS, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW
THE VM PROGRAM IS SET UP. THE
DIFFERENCE IS THIS INCENTIVIZES
THE APARTMENT OWNER TO BUILD
SOLAR, BECAUSE THEY ARE THEN
GOING TO GET MORE MONEY FROM THE
GRID TO DO SO TO OFFSET THEIR
COSTS, AND THEREFORE MAKE A
PROFIT FROM THE OTHER CUSTOMERS.
THAT'S THE INCENTIVE HERE, AND
THAT'S WHY WE OPPOSE IT. AND I
THINK, YEAH, I WANT TO IF YOU
WOULDN'T MIND, I WANT TO ASK A
QUESTION ABOUT THE SCHOOLS, BY
THE WAY, BEFORE WE MOVE ON, JUST
TO FINISH ON THAT POINT. YES.
AND I DO WANT TO ALLOW THE
SENATOR TO RESPOND TO THAT. I
WOULD JUST SAY THE TENANTS ONLY
BENEFIT IF THE APARTMENT OWNER
ACTUALLY HAS INCENTIVE TO DO IT.
SO THAT'S YOU KNOW, I THINK
WE'RE AGREEING IN SOME SENSE,
WE'RE JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW,
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT
UNLESS THERE'S INCENTIVE FOR
THEM TO DO IT. AND THEN THE
TENANTS DON'T BENEFIT UNLESS
THEY ACTUALLY PUT IT ON. SO
THAT'S WHY WE'RE AND THIS HELPS
FIX THAT EQUATION. YEAH, I THINK
THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME KIND
OF, OKAY. I MEAN, SOME KIND OF I
DON'T KNOW, WHY ARE WE TRYING TO
INCENTIVIZE LOWER RATES TO THE
TENANTS, OR ARE WE TRYING TO
BUILD SOLAR SYSTEMS? I THINK,
YOU KNOW, TWO DIFFERENT
QUESTIONS, BECAUSE IF WE WANTED
TO GO BACK TO THE TENANTS,
WHICH, YOU KNOW, SOME, HONESTLY,
THE JUST THE MEETINGS THAT I'VE
HAD AND I'VE BEEN KIND OF
JUMPING AROUND TO SAY IF THIS
IT'S BEEN PITCHED AS SAVING
TENANTS AND HELPING TO BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND SOME OF
THOSE ADVOCATES HAVE BEEN HERE
TODAY TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT. AND
SO THAT AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE
HOUSING, THAT'S A VERY
INTERESTING CONCEPT TO ME. I
JUST DON'T SEE HOW THAT THIS
BILL DOESN'T NECESSARILY GO THAT
DIRECTION. BUT I AM VERY
INTERESTED IN THE SCHOOLS AS
WELL, BECAUSE, IN Dð SCHOOLS
HAVE MULTIPLE METERS OR
SOMETHING. IS THAT WHY REYES.
OKAY. YEAH. SO, IF YOU WITH YOUR
INDULGENCE BEFORE I GO TO THE
SCHOOLS QUESTION, I'D LIKE TO
PIGGYBACK ON ON YOUR PREVIOUS
QUESTION. SO THE BILLING SYSTEM
THAT THAT YOU'RE INQUIRING ABOUT
ALREADY EXISTS FOR, VMT SO WE'RE
NOT ASKING TO, TO REINVENT
ANYTHING REALLY JUST PARITY. AND
THE BILLING SYSTEM YOU'RE
REFERRING TO IS ONE THAT SAYS
THE TENANTS. THE BENEFIT IS
ALLOCATED TO THE TENANTS. THAT'S
IN VENOM. EXACTLY. EXACTLY SO
THAT THAT IS EXISTING, AND I
LOVE THIS QUESTION ABOUT WHY
SCHOOLS HAVE MULTIPLE METERS, SO
, REALLY BY DESIGN AND BY DESIGN
OF A COUPLE OF THINGS, THE
BUILDING CODE AND THE FUNDING
SYSTEM FOR SCHOOLS. SO NOW, FOR
EXAMPLE, WHEN THE NEW BUILDING
CODE IS REQUIRING US TO ADD
SOLAR TO NEW BUILDINGS, THE
MODERNIZATION FUNDING THAT WE
NEED TO CARRY OUT THOSE
PROJECTS, WE ONLY QUALIFY EVERY
25 YEARS, LITERALLY ON THE 25TH
BIRTHDAY OF THE SITE OR THE
BUILDING. SO WHEN WE ARE SPACING
THOSE PROJECTS APART 25 YEARS,
IT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE A
DIFFERENT GENERATION OF
TECHNOLOGY. AND YOU KNOW, OUR
UTILITIES WOULD NOT LIKE US.
THEY DON'T LET US FOR GOOD
REASON, PLUG IN THAT NEW
TECHNOLOGY INTO THE OLD METER.
SO WE END UP HAVING MULTIPLE
METERS. AND THEN THERE ARE SOME
ADDITIONAL THINGS LIKE, YOU
KNOW, YOUR, YOUR SPRINKLER
SYSTEM OR WHATEVER HAVE TO BE ON
THEIR OWN METER. SO IT'S DRIVEN
BY BUILDING CODE AND IT'S DRIVEN
BY THE WAY WE FUND SCHOOLS,
WHICH IS WHY SO MANY OF US, MOST
OF US END UP BEING MULTIPLE
METER NÓ. SO JUST, TO TWO MORE
CENTS ON THIS, I KIND OF
UNDERSTAND IT FROM, FROM THE
SCHOOL PERSPECTIVE IN THE SENSE
OF, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MANDATING
THIS ON SCHOOLS AND OTHER
GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, FRANKLY,
YOU KNOW, TO BUILD LARGE SCALE
SYSTEMS. AND THEY'RE GENERATING
AND KEEPING IT REALLY WITHIN
REALLY ONE CUSTOMER, TOO. AND I
THINK THAT'S A KEY, KEY POINT
THERE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE
APARTMENT SITUATION. MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING, BUT, SO THAT AND THEN
ALSO IN THE SAME VEIN, THE
AGRICULTURE ACTUALLY MADE KIND
OF SIMILAR SENSE TO ME
PERSONALLY, BECAUSE IF WE'RE
TALKING ONE CUSTOMER, YOU KNOW,
THAT MIGHT HAVE MULTIPLE METERS
FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT JUST IT
MADE MORE SENSE THAT THE
MULTIFAMILY, WHICH I'M VERY
INTERESTED IN INCENTIVIZING
MULTIFAMILY, YOU KNOW, SOLAR
SCALE SYSTEMS, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT MULTIPLE NOT ONLY METERS,
BUT MULTIPLE CUSTOMERS. AND, I'M
JUST, SO I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS
OVER THAT, BUT I'M INTERESTED IN
MORE OF THE DISCUSSION. AND
OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU WANT TO
RESPOND TO THAT, SENATOR, YOU'RE
HAPPY TO. BUT I APPRECIATE
APPRECIATE, WE I'M ALWAYS IN
FAVOR OF SOLAR BEING BUILT OUT
IN GENERAL AND PEOPLE BENEFITING
FROM THAT. I JUST, YOU KNOW,
IT'S COMPLEX. YES. THANK YOU.
THAT SUMS IT UP. BUT, YES, I
THINK WE'LL STICK WITH YOUR LAST
TWO COMMENTS. YEAH RIGHT. THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ZERBO, I WANTED TO THANK,
THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS
THIS IS ACTUALLY MY DISTRICT IS
A BIG FAN OF SOLAR, A LOT OF
PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT INVEST IN
SOLAR AND HAVE SOLAR, AND WE'VE
GOTTEN SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL
MAYBE MORE THAN ANY OTHER BILL.
THIS WHOLE, SESSION THIS YEAR.
AND, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO JUST
ECHO MY COLLEAGUE, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FRIEDMAN'S POINTS ABOUT
KIND OF TAKING A LARGER VIEW
WITH THIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
THAT'S THE WHOLE ONE OF THE BIG
POINTS. NUMBER ONE, IS TO MOVE
US AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUEL. RIGHT?
AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
SOLAR, BUT NUMBER TWO IS TO HELP
US BUILD OUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE
GENERATION THAT WE NEED. AND
CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, WHEN
INDIVIDUALS, HOMEOWNERS,
CHURCHES AND FARMS,
UNFORTUNATELY NOT NO LONGER
INCLUDED, BUT SCHOOLS, AND
APARTMENTS ARE INVESTING IN THIS
BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL INVESTING
IN THIS INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
OTHER, YOU KNOW, THAT THE
UTILITIES DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE HUGE
INVESTMENTS. IF YOU ADD IT UP
STATEWIDE THAT ARE GOING TO, YOU
KNOW, INCREASE THE GENERATION.
AND IF YOU TALK ABOUT THE COST
OF THE UTILITIES BUILDING OUT ON
THEIR OWN, THE GENERATION THAT'S
NEEDED, IT'S A IT'S A HUGE, HUGE
COST. AND ALL OF THE RATEPAYERS
PAY FOR THAT, AND SO, YOU KNOW,
I, I FEEL LIKE WE REALLY NEED TO
GET A HANDLE ON THIS LARGER
CONVERSATION ABOUT THE COST
BENEFIT OF SOLAR AND HOW THAT IS
BENEFITING, RATEPAYERS. IN THE
END, BECAUSE EVERYONE'S
INVESTING A LITTLE BIT IN THE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE
GENERATION THAT WE NEED
STATEWIDE. AND YOU HEAR ABOUT
JUST THE UPGRADES THAT ARE
NEEDED AT SCHOOLS BY BUILDING EV
CHARGERS AND YOU KNOW, AND
BUILDING, YOU KNOW, AIR
CONDITIONING WHERE THEY DIDN'T
HAVE IT, WHICH A LOT OF OUR
SCHOOLS DON'T HAVE AIR
CONDITIONING STILL, WHO EVEN
NEEDED IT ALREADY, LET ALONE THE
NEW ONES WHO NEED IT. SO, YOU
KNOW, SO THERE'S SO MUCH MORE
DEMAND. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS I
THINK, SHOULD BE SEEN AS A
BENEFIT, THAT THIS IS AN
INVESTMENT THAT IS HELPING US
GET THERE, AND SO YOU KNOW, I
THINK THAT THIS IS THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO KIND
OF GRAPPLE WITH AND GET A BETTER
HANDLE ON BECAUSE IT'S THERE IS
SO MUCH BENEFIT FROM THIS. AND
IT IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW,
WHEN THERE IS THAT INVESTMENT
THAT THEY SHOULD BENEFIT FROM,
YOU KNOW, AND SO MAKING THAT
INVESTMENT AND NOT BEING ABLE TO
BENEFIT FROM IT, IT'S HARD FOR
ME AS A HOMEOWNER TO THINK ABOUT
YOU KNOW, INVESTING TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN SOLAR
AND THEN BEING TOLD, THAT'S NOT
GOING TO BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW,
SCHOOLS AND APARTMENT, YOU KNOW,
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ARE KIND OF
FEELING THE SAME WAY, RIGHT?
WE'RE INVESTING ALL OF THIS
MONEY AND IT'S NOT REALLY GOING
TO BENEFIT US. AND IT'S
ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, GOING TO
HURT US TO MAKE THIS HUGE
INVESTMENT. SO, SO WE DON'T WANT
TO BE, YOU KNOW, MOVING IN THAT
DIRECTION WHERE WE'RE
DISINCENTIVIZING IT. AND, AND I
KNOW YOU KNOW, HOW IMPORTANT IT
IS FOR US TO BRING DOWN RATES
AND TO ADDRESS THESE INCREASES
IN THESE COSTS AROUND
GENERATION. I KNOW WE'VE BEEN
DOING A LOT AS A COMMITTEE, TO
TRY TO MOVE FORWARD. ANYTHING
THAT CAN INCREASE GENERATION AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO HELP US
MEET OUR GOALS AND OUR NEEDS FOR
ELECTRIFICATION. AND, YOU KNOW,
I SEE THIS AS A AS AN IMPORTANT
PART OF THAT. AND SO, YOU KNOW,
GOING TO SUPPORT IT TODAY AND
HOPEFUL THAT THE PUC WILL SEE
THE LIGHT AND THEN INCLUDE
OTHERS WHO WERE EXCLUDED TODAY
AS WELL. CERTAINLY. I THINK IT'S
JUST IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT THE
AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR IS AS
IT'S CALLED, IT'S AVOIDING THE
COST THAT THE CUSTOMER IS NOT
TAKING FROM THE SYSTEM. THAT IS
THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE OCC.
IT'S BEEN 20 YEARS OF
DEVELOPMENT. IT'S UPDATED EVERY
TWO YEARS. IT INCLUDES
TRANSMISSION, DISTRIBUTION,
SOCIETAL COSTS IS ABOUT TO BE
INCLUDED INTO IT. THAT'S THE
ENTIRE PURPOSE. SO WE AGREE THAT
THERE'S A BENEFIT. THE QUESTION
IS WHAT DOES THAT CALCULATION
COME OUT TO. AND IT'S ALWAYS A
WORK IN PROGRESS. SO THAT'S WE
AGREE THERE. AND THEN I THINK
IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT ONE
OF THE LARGEST POTS OF MONEY
THAT IS GOING TO UPGRADE
SCHOOLS, HVAC AND EV SYSTEMS IS
RATEPAYER FUNDED. AND UNDER THIS
BILL, THE SOLAR CUSTOMERS SOLAR
PARTICIPANTS WOULD NOT PAY INTO
THAT FUND. SO IT'S KIND OF
CUTTING BOTH WAYS. THERE THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES.
THANK YOU, I ABSOLUTELY
APPRECIATED THE COMMENTS FROM MY
COLLEAGUE, ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZABIR
EARLIER. AND I THINK THAT
SOMETIMES THERE IS EVEN WITH
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THERE IS A
CONFUSION AS TO HOW WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT A BENEFIT AND YET
THERE IS NO BENEFIT, I ALSO
APPRECIATED MY COLLEAGUE'S
COMMENTS FROM GLENDALE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FRIEDMAN THAT WE DO NEED
TO EVALUATE THE OTHER VALUE
HAVING TO DO WITH ROOFTOP,
ROOFTOP SOLAR AND RENEWABLE
ENERGY. THERE HAS TO BE A
GREATER STUDY DONE. I KEEP
HEARING THAT IN THE END, THE
RATEPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR THIS,
THE RATEPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR
THIS. BUT NOT EVERY RATEPAYER
BECAUSE SOME ARE BENEFITING
BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SOLAR, BUT
THE OTHER RATEPAYERS ARE HAVING
TO PAY TO BASICALLY SUBSIDIZE
THAT, COMMENT THAT WAS MADE WAS
WE SHOULD FIND OTHER SOURCES TO
PAY FOR THIS BESIDES THE
RATEPAYERS. PERHAPS MY QUESTION
IS VERY NAIVE, BUT WHY CAN'T THE
SHAREHOLDERS PAY A SHARE OF
THIS? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I
APPRECIATE ALL YOUR COMMENTS.
I'LL JUST SAY A COUPLE QUICK
POINTS AND THEN GET YOUR LAST
QUESTION, NUMBER ONE, AGAIN, TO
BE CLEAR, AS WAS I THINK THE
POINT WAS MADE, ALL THESE FOLKS
ALREADY PAY FIXED CHARGE AND
DEMAND CHARGE. SO NOW, YOU KNOW,
WITH THE RECENT RULINGS, ALL
RESIDENCES ARE GOING TO PAY
FIXED CHARGE TWO, BECAUSE THE
POINT IS, HEY, WE'RE ALL PAYING
TOWARDS THE UPKEEP OF THE GRID.
BUT THIS ALREADY HAPPENS WITH
THIS, CUSTOMER CLASS. THEY
ALREADY PAY, FIXED CHARGES, AND
DEMAND CHARGES. SO I THINK
THAT'S, AN IMPORTANT POINT TO
MAKE, AND I THINK YOU'RE YOUR
YOUR QUESTION IS REALLY, I GUESS
YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY. SO THERE'S
ONLY A COST. IF I PUT UP SOLAR.
ON MY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY A
COST. YOU KNOW, MY SCHOOL,
THERE'S ONLY COST TO THE EXTENT
YOU'RE STILL USING THE GRID AND
THAT'S REALLY THE ARGUMENT THAT
KIND OF WE'RE HAVING. RIGHT. AND
WE'RE SAYING, HEY, IF THERE'S A
SINGLE METER, YOU'RE NOT USING
THE GRID AT ALL. AND OUR
QUESTION IS, WELL, IF YOU'RE
REALLY A SCHOOL AND ON THE SAME
PROPERTY, ARE YOU REALLY USING
THE GRID? YOU KNOW, WE'RE
SAYING, NO, THIS IS REALLY STUFF
YOU'RE GENERATING. THIS IS NOT A
STRAIN ON THE GRID. AND THEY'RE
SAYING, WELL, YOU'RE STILL USING
THE GRID IN SOME WAY. SO THAT'S
KIND OF REALLY THE FUNDAMENTAL,
I THINK SORT OF SOMEBODY HAS TO
SOMEBODY HAS TO CONSTRUCT. YEAH.
JUST YEAH, DISCONNECT. BUT I
THINK YOUR POINT IS I THINK
WE'RE ALL PAYING FOR IT. I MEAN,
THESE CUSTOMERS ARE ALREADY
PAYING A FIXED CHARGE AND DEMAND
CHARGE. AND AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE
ACTUALLY GOING TO BE INCREASING
CONSUMPTION AS WE SAY, FOR HEAT
PUMPS AND ALL THOSE THINGS. AND
I TOOK A I ONCE I GOT A HEAT
PUMP WITH AIR CONDITIONING. I
TOOK MY BIG MOBILE UNIT AND I
GAVE IT TO, A SCHOOL DURING A
HEAT WAVE, THAT WE HAD TWO YEARS
AGO. AND THEY WERE GLAD TO HAVE
IT. BUT A DIFFERENT PARENT AND A
DIFFERENT SCHOOL TRIED TO PUT
AIR CONDITIONING UNIT IN THEIR
KIDS SCHOOL, AND THEY SAID, NO,
YOU CAN'T DO IT UNLESS EVERYBODY
IS GOING TO, UNLESS EVERYBODY
HAS THEM. RIGHT. AND NOW THEY'RE
DOING THE THAT'S WHY THEY'RE
DOING THE BOND AND DOING
EVERYTHING. SO I THINK WE'RE
GOING TO BE INCREASING USE. BUT
I THINK, YOU KNOW, TO, TO YOUR,
TO YOUR, I GUESS YOUR, YOUR
BROADER POINT, YOU KNOW,
ULTIMATELY IT'S TRYING TO FIND
THE BALANCE FOR, YOU KNOW, WHAT
IS RIGHT. AND, YOU KNOW, WE
THINK THIS HELPS EVERYBODY, AND,
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS FOR
UTILITY PROFITS. EXACTLY. BUT WE
THINK THIS HELPS EVERYONE. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN.
YEAH, I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS
BECAUSE I THINK THAT SOME HAS
BEEN SAID, AND I KNOW YOU TWO
BOTH OPPOSE, BUT MAYBE FOR
DIFFERENT REASONS. THAT'S MY
INTERPRETATION OF WHAT'S GOING
ON, ABOUT WHY PG AND E AND OTHER
IOUS, I ASSUME OTHER IOUS ARE
ALIGNED WITH PG AND E, YES, AND
I THINK THAT WHAT HASN'T BEEN
SAID HERE TODAY IS THAT WHEN
THIS INFRASTRUCTURE, AS OUR
COLLEAGUE FROM GLENDALE WAS
SAYING, IS BUILT IN OTHER WAYS,
AND ESPECIALLY BY THE IOUS,
THERE'S A GUARANTEED RATE OF
RETURN. AND SO WE ARE TAKING
AWAY THEIR GUARANTEED RATE OF
RETURN WHEN WE BUILD IT
OURSELVES. AND THAT NEEDS TO
CONTINUE TO BE SAID IN THIS
COMMITTEE OVER AND OVER AGAIN,
BECAUSE I THINK THE GUARANTEED
RATE OF RETURN ON INFRASTRUCTURE
IS DRIVING ACTIONS BY THE IOUS,
AND IT IS DRIVING UP COST ON OUR
CUSTOMERS. AND SO I'M WONDERING
IF TURN TOOK THAT INTO
CONSIDERATION WHEN LOOKING AT
THIS, BECAUSE IT'S INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT THAT THIS DOES NOT
HAVE THAT RATE OF RETURN OF
ENERGY GOING ON TO THE GRID AND
WOULD THEREFORE HAVE A POSITIVE
IMPACT. AS THE COLLEAGUE FROM
GLENDALE SAID, YES. THANK YOU
FOR THE QUESTION, WE DO THINK
ABOUT THAT A LOT, AND WE ARE
INTERESTED IN ALTERNATIVES THAT
WOULD REDUCE UTILITY PROFITS AND
CHANGE THEIR INCENTIVES AROUND
OVERBUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE. BUT
WE HAVE THE SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE
TODAY. UNLESS THAT CHANGES,
WE'RE STUCK WITH THE RULES THAT
ARE IN PLACE AS OF NOW. AND THE
AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR THAT'S
USED TO VALUE EXPORTS, THAT'S
THE BASIS FOR THIS WHOLE DEBATE.
DO WE USE AVOIDED COSTS OR DO WE
USE RETAIL RATES? THAT
CALCULATOR DOES TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT NOT ONLY THE PRICE OF
ELECTRICITY, BUT AVOIDED
INVESTMENTS IN TRANSMISSION AND
DISTRIBUTION AND AVOIDED
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND
AVOIDED INVESTMENTS IN NEW GAS
FIRED POWER PLANTS. SO IT TAKES
INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THE STUFF IN
CONSTRUCTING A VALUE. AND I
THINK WE BELIEVE THAT THAT VALUE
REPRESENTS THE BENEFITS TO ALL
CUSTOMERS. SO IF YOU WANT TO PAY
THAT VALUE, THEN WE THINK THE
REST OF THE CUSTOMERS ARE
NEUTRAL. IF YOU OVERPAY RELATIVE
TO THAT VALUE. AND RETAIL RATES
ARE MAYBE 5 OR 10 TIMES HIGHER
THAN THAT. THERE'S A BIG GAP. SO
WHO'S PAYING FOR IT? ARE THE
UTILITIES PAYING FOR IT? NO. SO
IS YOUR POSITION THAT WE SHOULD
BE GIVING THESE FOLKS THE
SCHOOLS AND APARTMENTS. THE
AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR BENEFIT
OUR PROPOSAL IS TO KEEP THE
CURRENT PC DECISION IN PLACE,
AND TO FIND ADDITIONAL MONEY TO
SUPPORT ADOPTION BY SCHOOLS AND
OTHER BENEFICIAL HOST CUSTOMERS
WITH OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING,
RATHER THAN TAKING IT FROM OTHER
RATEPAYERS. THE GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTION FUND, THE GENERAL
FUND. THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS TO
DEPLOY MONEY TO MAKE THIS STUFF
MUCH MORE COST EFFECTIVE. I KNOW
IT SOUNDS FUNNY BECAUSE THERE'S
NO MONEY, FUNNY BECAUSE OUR
BUDGET IS THERE'S NO MONEY IN
THE GENERAL FUND. SO I GET IT.
BUT THERE'S ALSO NO MONEY LEFT
FOR RATEPAYERS TO PAY. WE HAVE A
CRISIS OF AFFORDABILITY. AND HOW
MANY HEARINGS HAVE THIS
COMMITTEE HAD WHERE PEOPLE ARE
TALKING ABOUT HOW HIGH RATES
ARE, YOU KNOW, WE GOT TO FIND
WAYS TO GET A HANDLE ON THAT AND
BRING DOWN RATES. AND THERE'S NO
SINGLE SOLUTION. THERE'S MANY
DIFFERENT STRATEGIES AND RATE OF
RETURN IS A GREAT ONE THAT WE'D
LOVE TO TALK MORE ABOUT. I'M
HAPPY TO, BUT WHEN YOU'RE
MASSIVELY OVERPAYING FOR ROOFTOP
SOLAR AND TAGGING THAT BILL TO
ALL OTHER CUSTOMERS, THAT'S AN
UPWARD DRIVER OF RATES FOR
EVERYBODY. BUT WHEN YOU TALKED
ABOUT HOW RATES ARE CHARGED, YOU
TALKED ABOUT, I THINK IF I
UNDERSTOOD YOUR WHEN YOU WERE
TURNED AROUND, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU
TALKING ABOUT THE NEW FLAT RATE
PROPOSAL THAT SHOULD GO INTO
EFFECT SOMETIME. I DON'T EXACTLY
KNOW WHEN IT GOES INTO EFFECT.
IT DIDN'T SEEM YOU WERE
ANTICIPATING THAT IN YOUR
COMMENTS. UNLESS I MISUNDERSTOOD
YOU. OH. I AM, AND
UNFORTUNATELY, I'VE SPENT TOO
MUCH TIME ON THAT ISSUE, THE
FIXED CHARGE IS ONLY DESIGNED TO
COVER TWO CATEGORIES OF COSTS
FOR SERVING CUSTOMERS. IT'S THE
ACTUAL PHYSICAL COST OF
CONNECTING THE CUSTOMER TO THE
SYSTEM, MEANING THE WIRES THAT
CONNECT YOU TO THE GRID AND
PUBLIC PURPOSE PROGRAMS. NON
BYPASSABLE CHARGES. THERE'S A
WHOLE OTHER UNIVERSE OF COSTS
THAT ARE FIXED, ESSENTIALLY,
THAT AREN'T INCLUDED IN THE
FIXED CHARGE. MOST NOTABLY, ALL
THE WILDFIRE COSTS THAT DON'T
VARY BASED ON A CUSTOMER'S
USAGE. NONE OF THAT IS INCLUDED
IN THE FIXED CHARGE. SO WE'RE
NOT IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN
SAY, WELL, THE REMAINING RATES
THAT CUSTOMERS ARE BEING
CHARGED, WE CAN CREDIT THEM WITH
THAT FULL VALUE, AND EVERYBODY
ELSE IS INDIFFERENT. THE PUC
ADOPTED A COMPROMISE PROPOSAL
FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, BUT IT
DOES NOT EVEN BEGIN TO COLLECT
ALL OF THE COSTS THAT REALLY
DON'T VARY WITH USAGE. AND
THAT'S WHY THE AVOIDED COST
CALCULATOR IS WHAT HAS BEEN
ALIGNED ON. AND ACTUALLY, WE
WERE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF USING
THAT TO COMPENSATE CUSTOMERS FOR
COMMUNITY SOLAR INVESTMENTS,
WHICH THE PUC RECENTLY REJECTED
OVER OUR OBJECTIONS. SO YEAH,
WE'RE TRYING AND I THINK I MEAN,
I APPRECIATE THAT. I KNOW THAT,
PGE RECENTLY, WAS DENIED ALL THE
WILDFIRE COSTS THEY WANTED,
ESPECIALLY THE UNDERGROUNDING,
BECAUSE IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THEY
COULD ACTUALLY BUILD IT ALL,
EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO BY AN
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, THE PUC
THAT OVERRULED THAT AND GRANTED
IT ALL TO THEM, DRIVING MASSIVE
COSTS FOR PGA CONSUMERS. AND SO,
I MEAN, I THINK WE JUST HAVE
SUCH PROBLEMS WITH THIS
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS BEING
DRIVEN BY THE IOUS TO GET THAT
GUARANTEED RATE OF RETURN FOR
THEIR SHAREHOLDERS, THAT I THINK
IT'S A CONVERSATION WE NEED TO
CONTINUE TO HAVE. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, THANK YOU, MEMBERS, I
THINK AS OUR ROBUST COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION HAS CERTAINLY
HIGHLIGHTED, THERE IS, I THINK,
AN ONGOING AND KIND OF RAGING
DEBATE ABOUT CALIFORNIA'S SOLAR
POLICY AND I DO THINK, AS
OTHERS, I THINK, HAVE POINTED
OUT, I THINK IT'S DRIVEN BY THE
FACT THAT THERE IS JUST
FUNDAMENTAL AND REALLY PROFOUND
DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THE VALUE OF
SOLAR EXPORTS TO THE GRID. AND,
I DON'T THINK THAT THIS BILL IS
GOING TO BE THE LAST WORD ON
THAT. AND I THINK, AS OTHER
MEMBERS HAVE HIGHLIGHTED, IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT, I THINK THAT
WE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BROUGH USED
THE PHRASE THAT WE GET A HANDLE
ON THE COST BENEFIT. I THINK
THAT, DESPITE WHERE THE PUC HAS
LANDED, I THINK AS YOU'RE
HEARING AND I THINK THE PUC IS
HEARING, THERE ARE MANY
LEGISLATORS THAT ARE
UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT, AND
CERTAINLY MANY STAKEHOLDERS THAT
ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT. AND
UNTIL WE CAN ARRIVE AT A SHARED
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE
AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR SHOULD
BE, THE DRIVERS OF THAT ARE
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE
THESE FIGHTS AND THESE DEBATES.
AND SO THAT CERTAINLY IS GOING
TO BE A PIECE OF WORK THAT
WHILST IN THE BILL, YOU KNOW, WE
CERTAINLY HAVE ASKED THE PUC TO
DO SOME MORE WORK. I KNOW THE
SENATOR AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT,
THE FACT THAT CERTAINLY THIS
COMMITTEE, AND CERTAINLY OTHER
LEGISLATORS ON THE SENATE SIDE,
REALLY WANT TO DIG INTO SOME OF
THESE QUESTIONS AS PART OF THE
WORK THAT WE ARE DOING IN THE
FALL. SO, CERTAINLY MORE TO COME
ON THAT. AND WITH THAT, SENATOR
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? SURE.
THANK YOU. I DO APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSION. I THINK HAVING SOME
OF MY LARGEST BILL PRESENTATIONS
IN THIS COMMITTEE, BECAUSE WE
HAVE VERY ENGAGED PEOPLE
STRUGGLING WITH DIFFICULT
ISSUES. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW,
ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THE WORD
IS BALANCE, RIGHT? WE'RE TRYING
TO FIND THAT RIGHT BALANCE. YES,
WE KNOW WE OVERLY COMPENSATED
PEOPLE EARLY ON, AND THAT WAS
FOR A REASON. AND WE WANTED TO
BRING DOWN THE COST OF SOLAR,
WHICH WE DID 90% OVER TEN YEARS,
300% OVER 30 YEARS. WE BROUGHT
DOWN THE COST AND NOW WE'RE
TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, FIND THAT,
EQUILIBRIUM. AND I THINK THE
RIGHT ANSWER, IS, YOU KNOW,
SOLAR PLUS STORAGE. RIGHT. AND
AGAIN, AND THE PUC DECIDED THAT
FOR RESIDENTIAL, THEY SAID,
GREAT. YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING
TO GIVE YOU A LOT OF VALUE FOR
EXPORTS. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF
YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOLAR, WE'RE
GOING TO SEND STORAGE, AND THEY
SAID THAT IS VALUABLE. I THINK
WE DO AGREE ABOUT AVOIDED COSTS
ULTIMATELY FOR THINGS THAT ARE
REALLY EXPORTS. I THINK THE
DISAGREEMENT IS, YOU KNOW, WE
DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO CALL
SOMETHING EXPORTS WHEN IT'S BEEN
USED ON THE SAME PROPERTY. AND I
THINK THAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL
DISAGREEMENT THAT YOU'VE SORT OF
SEEN HERE BEFORE. BUT I DO
APPRECIATE ALL THE LARGER ISSUES
THAT WE'VE TOUCHED ON. I AGAIN,
I DO I VERY, VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THE CHAIR'S AND THE
COMMITTEE'S EFFORTS. AND I KNOW
YOU SPENT YOU SPENT, ALMOST AS
MUCH TIME AS I SPENT ON THIS
BILL MEETING WITH ALL THE
DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS ON ALL
SIDES. SO I'M REALLY
APPRECIATIVE OF THAT. I DO THINK
THIS STRIKES THE RIGHT BALANCE,
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, ALL RIGHT.
WE NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND
MOTION FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BAUER-KAHAN. SECOND FROM
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SHIAVO. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ITEM NUMBER TEN SB 1374. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS IS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS PETRIE-NORRIS
A PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON.
KHN. AYE BARRY KHN AYE.
CALDERON NOT. CALDERON NOT
VOTING. CHEN FRIEDMAN. HEART
HOLDEN. JOE PATTERSON REYES.
AYE. REYES. AYE. SANTIAGO
SHIAVO. SHIAVO. AYE TING A TING
AYE. WALLACE WOULD WOULD
EISENBERG A SUBUR? AYE 17. ALL
RIGHT. SEVEN ZERO. THAT BUILDS
ON CALL. MOVING ON TO, FILE ITEM
NUMBER 12, SB 1142 ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, SENATOR MENGIBAR. IT
WOULD BE THAT FOR YOU. THERE WE
GO. YOU'LL PROVIDE US WITH A
LITTLE. YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW. YEAH
MOVE THE BILL. THERE WE GO. I'M
JUST GONNA GO. REALLY QUICK. I
DIDN'T SAY, MADAM CHAIR. THIS IS
MY FIRST TIME IN YOUR COMMITTEE.
WELCOME, SENATOR. I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR WORKING WITH MY TEAM ON
THIS. AND I'LL GO REALLY
QUICKLY, AS YOUR BEAUTIFUL
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS POINTED OUT,
EVEN WITH THE RECENT UTILITY
SAVING PROGRAMS, A RECENT SURVEY
FOUND ROUGHLY A QUARTER OF
CALIFORNIANS REPORT BEING UNABLE
TO PAY ENERGY BILLS. AND YOU'VE
ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT ENOUGH IN
THE PREVIOUS BILL. SO DON'T NEED
TO DIVE MORE INTO THAT. BUT
GIVEN THE VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS
THAT MUST BE TAKEN PRIOR TO
ADDRESSING THIS MATTER. SB 1142
WOULD DIRECT THE CPUC TO
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING REGARDING
AVOIDING A SHUT OFF. WHETHER TO
DIRECT ELECTRICAL AND GAS
CORPORATIONS TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT A CUSTOMER'S ABILITY TO
PAY BEFORE TERMINATING OR
RECONNECTING SERVICES, AND
WHETHER TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRICAL
CORPORATION CAN COLLECT FOR
RECONNECTION. UP TO 20% OF THE
CUSTOMER'S OUTSTANDING BALANCE.
LASTLY, SB 1142 WOULD REQUIRE
ELECTRICAL OR GAS CORPORATIONS
TO RESTORE SERVICE TO A
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER UPON THE
CUSTOMER PAYING THEIR CARRIED
UPON AMOUNT DECIDED IN THE
AMORTIZATION AGREEMENT NOT TO
EXCEED 24 HOURS, BUT WITH THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, WE HAVE
ADJUSTED FOR SAFETY REASONS. AND
FIELD RECONNECTIONS FOR EXTREME
WEATHER AND SO FORTH. THERE ARE
NO CURRENT GUIDES FOR UTILITIES
ON HOW MUCH THEY CAN OR SHOULD
REQUEST FROM A CUSTOMER TO AVOID
A SHUT OFF OR GET RECONNECTED
AFTER A SHUT OFF, AND THIS BILL
WILL HELP CHANGE THAT AND GET ON
THE RIGHT PATH WITH ME. MADAM
CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO NOW TURN OVER
TO MY ONE WITNESS WHO WILL SPEAK
ON THIS. CONSTANCE PIERRE SLIDER
FOR THE ORGANIZING DIRECTOR AT
UTILITY REFORM NETWORK. THANK
YOU. CHAIR PETRI NORTH AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY, I'M
HERE AND I REPRESENT TURN AND
RATEPAYERS UNITED. THE RATE OF
ENERGY INCREASE IS THE NUMBER
ONE DRIVING FORCE FOR ENERGY AND
SECURITY AND ENERGY SHUTOFFS IN
CALIFORNIA. A CUSTOMER'S
INABILITY TO AFFORD THEIR
UTILITY BILL MEANS FACING THE
DECISIONS ABOUT WHICH BILL TO
PAY, REASONABLE DISCONNECTIONS
AND RECONNECTION PROTECTIONS CAN
ENSURE THAT VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS
HAVE FAIR TREATMENT AND EVERY
OPPORTUNITY TO PAY THEIR DEBT
AND REMAIN CONNECTED TO SERVICE
WITHOUT IMPACTING OTHER
CUSTOMERS BILLS. IN 2017, THIS
COMMITTEE PASSED SB 598, THE
SHUTOFFS REDUCTION ACT,
DIRECTING THE CPUC TO IMPLEMENT
DISCONNECTION PROTECTIONS FOR
UTILITY CUSTOMERS. THE CPUC
RULES HAVE HELPED CUSTOMERS,
HOWEVER, WITH THE EXORBITANT
RISE IN RATES, ADDITIONAL
PROTECTIONS ARE NECESSARY.
CURRENTLY, WHEN CUSTOMERS ARE
FACING A DISCONNECTION OR
ATTEMPTING TO ATTEMPTING TO
RECONNECT TO SERVICE, THEY ARE
AT THE MERCY OF THE UTILITY
COMPANY'S CUSTOMER SERVICE
REPRESENTATIVE TO NEGOTIATE A
REASONABLE PAYMENT AMOUNT TO
KEEP OR REINSTATE SERVICE. THIS
MEANS ONE CUSTOMER MAY BE ASKED
TO PAY 80% OF THE PAST DUE BILL,
WHILE ANOTHER CUSTOMER MAY BE
ABLE TO NEGOTIATE 10 TO 20%
PAYMENT TO REMAIN ON SERVICE.
THIS PRACTICE CREATES
UNCERTAINTY FOR CUSTOMERS AND
DEEP INEQUITY. YOU CAN BASICALLY
GET A REASONABLE PAYMENT PLAN
ONLY IF YOU ARE CONNECTED WITH
THE RIGHT CUSTOMER SERVICE
REPRESENTATIVE AND ARE ABLE TO
EFFECTIVELY ADVOCATE FOR
YOURSELF. THIS BILL REDIRECTS
THE CPUC TO CONSIDER PROTECTIONS
FOR CUSTOMERS FACING
DISCONNECTION OR SEEKING
RECONNECTION, WHICH WOULD
INCLUDE LIMITING THE AMOUNT THAT
A CUSTOMER MUST PAY TO AVOID
DISCONNECTION OR BE RECONNECTED.
BY ESTABLISHING THESE
REQUIREMENTS, THE LEGISLATURE
AND THE COMMISSION CAN ENSURE
THAT ALL CUSTOMERS ARE TREATED
EQUITABLY, REGARDLESS OF INCOME,
LANGUAGE BARRIERS, OR THE
CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE
THEY ARE CONNECTED WITH. ON THIS
DAY. AND THIS BILL REFLECTS HOW
URGENT THESE PROTECTIONS ARE
NEEDED BY REQUIRING THE CPUC TO
ACT QUICKLY WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF
PASSAGE, TURN RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
OPENING IT UP FOR ADDITIONAL
TESTIMONY FROM FOLKS IN THE
ROOM. GO AHEAD AND APPROACH THE
MIC. IF YOU'D LIKE TO TESTIFY,
IN SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, ALICIA
PRIEGO, ON BEHALF OF SAN JOSE
CLEAN ENERGY AND ALSO HOUSING
ACTION COALITION IN SUPPORT
EMILY PAPPAS, NIEMELA PAPPAS AND
ASSOCIATES IN SUPPORT ON BEHALF
OF MCE. ALL RIGHT, WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION COME ON UP. DO WE
HAVE A PRIMARY WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION? YES REMOVING Ó.
OKAY. WONDERFUL LARA PARRA WITH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND HER
STAFF WHO WORKED WITH US TO
REALLY TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUE OF
THE 24 HOUR CONNECTION. SO WITH
THAT, WE WILL BE NEUTRAL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. ISRAEL SALAS WITH SGA AND
SOCAL GAS ALSO REMOVING
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. VALERIE
CHIRLA ALEJO'S, PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY. THANK YOU TO
THE AUTHOR AND HER STAFF AND
COMMITTEE STAFF. AND WE ARE ALSO
REMOVING OUR OPPOSITION WITH THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. BRINGING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? THANK YOU. WE'RE WE'RE
VERY EXCITED. ALL RIGHT. THE
LADIES GOT Y'ALL OKAY. SORRY,
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR
AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ITEM NUMBER 12, SB 1142. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS, AS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. PETRIE-NORRIS
I PETRIE-NORRIS. AYE. JIM
PATTERSON, BAUER-KAHAN.
CALDERON. CALDERON. AYE CHEN.
FRIEDMAN HART. HOLDEN A HOLDEN.
AYE. JOE PATTERSON. REYES. AYE.
REYES. AYE SANTIAGO. SHIAVO.
TING WALLACE WOULD WOULD AYE.
ZIPPER AYE. ZIPPER AYE. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. AT SIX ZERO THAT
BILLS ON CALL. WE'VE GOT MEMBERS
IN MULTIPLE COMMITTEES TODAY.
ALL RIGHT, SENATOR, MEN, SB
1221, WHEN YOU'RE READY, ALL THE
QUESTIONS, THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I'D
LIKE TO BEGIN BY THANKING
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR YOUR HELP
AND NOTING THAT I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. IF WE'RE
GOING TO MEET OUR 2045
DECARBONIZATION GOALS, WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO EVENTUALLY
PHASE OUT OUR GAS INFRASTRUCTURE
. AND THE FIRST PLACE WE SHOULD
BE STARTING IS WITH AGING
NATURAL GAS PIPELINES, SB 1221
WOULD REQUIRE THE CPUC TO
EVALUATE ZERO EMISSIONS
ALTERNATIVES TO GAS PIPELINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECTS, ENCOURAGE
UTILITIES TO PILOT COST
EFFECTIVE ZERO EMISSION
ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS BY 2045.
CALIFORNIA'S GAS UTILITIES ARE
ESTIMATED TO SPEND BETWEEN 32 TO
$64 BILLION ON PIPELINE
REPLACEMENTS. THESE INVESTMENTS
WOULD COMMIT CALIFORNIA
RATEPAYERS TO DECADES OF
PAYMENTS IN A GAS SYSTEM THAT
WOULD, BY OUR OWN GOALS, LIKELY
BE OBSOLETE BEFORE THOSE
EXPENSES WERE PAID OFF BY
PILOTING COST EFFECTIVE ZERO
EMISSION ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS,
CALIFORNIA CAN SAVE RATEPAYERS
MONEY, REDUCE EMISSIONS AND
BETTER INFORM THE STATE'S
TRANSITION AWAY FROM NATURAL GAS
FOR INDOOR HEATING AND COOLING.
THIS BILL DESIGNATES PRIORITY
NEIGHBORHOOD DECARBONIZATION
ZONES TO ENSURE THAT LOW COST,
LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE
PRIORITIZED IN THIS TRANSITION.
HERE, TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL, I HAVE WITH ME, JOSE
TORRES, CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR AT
THE BUILDING DECARBONIZATION
COALITION, AS WELL AS ARI GOLD
PARKER, DIRECTOR AT ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS. GREAT.
GOOD EVENING. THANKS SO MUCH FOR
YOUR ATTENTION. MY NAME IS
DOCTOR ARI GOLD PARKER. I'M A
DIRECTOR AT ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS. WE'RE A
SAN FRANCISCO BASED ENERGY
CONSULTING FIRM FOCUSED ON THE
ENERGY TRANSITION. WE'VE JUST
COMPLETED A STUDY FUNDED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
FOCUSED ON ZERO EMISSION
ALTERNATIVES TO GAS PIPELINE
REPLACEMENT IN CALIFORNIA, AS
WELL AS A RELATED STUDY
SPONSORED BY THE NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL. E3
HAS NOT TAKEN A FORMAL POSITION
ON THIS BILL, BUT I'M REALLY
GLAD TO SHARE THE RESULTS OF OUR
RESEARCH WITH ALL OF YOU TODAY
IN CALIFORNIA, WE'RE
SIMULTANEOUSLY WORKING TO
TRANSITION CUSTOMERS OFF OF THE
NATURAL GAS SYSTEM WHILE
INVESTING INCREASING SUMS INTO
THE GAS SYSTEM EVERY YEAR. BASED
ON RECENT TRENDS, OUR GAS
UTILITIES ARE ON TRACK TO SPEND
32 TO $55 BILLION REPLACING GAS
DISTRIBUTION PIPELINE OVER THE
NEXT 20 YEARS. ZERO EMISSION
ALTERNATIVES REPRESENT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID GAS
PIPELINE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS
AND TO REDIRECT THOSE FUNDS TO
SUPPORT ELECTRIFICATION AND TO
REDUCE ENERGY COSTS FOR
RATEPAYERS AT SCALE. ACROSS
CALIFORNIA, WE ESTIMATE THAT
ZERO EMISSION ALTERNATIVES
PROJECTS COULD AVOID 15 TO $26
BILLION IN GAS PIPELINE
INVESTMENTS BY 2045, WHILE ONLY
AFFECTING 3 TO 4% OF TOTAL GAS
CUSTOMERS. WE ESTIMATE THAT GAS
SYSTEM SAVINGS FROM THESE
PROJECTS WOULD AVERAGE $32,000
PER AFFECTED CUSTOMER, AND WOULD
INCREASE OVER TIME IF UTILITIES
WERE TO CAPITALIZE INVESTMENTS
IN CUSTOMER ELECTRIFICATION, WE
FIND THAT, ON AVERAGE, THESE
PROJECTS COULD FULLY FUND THE
ASSOCIATED BUILDING
ELECTRIFICATION AND STILL
PROVIDE NET SAVINGS FOR
RATEPAYERS CONTINUING TO REPLACE
NATURAL GAS PIPELINES REPRESENTS
A MISSED OPPORTUNITY. ZERO
EMISSION ALTERNATIVES ARE A
MECHANISM TO SEIZE THAT
OPPORTUNITY AND TO REDIRECT
INVESTMENT TO SUPPORT OUR POLICY
GOALS OF ELECTRIFICATION AND OF
ENERGY AFFORDABILITY. THANKS FOR
YOUR TIME. I'M GLAD TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS, THANK YOU ARI,
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
PETRIE-NORRIS AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I'M JOSE TORRES WITH
THE CALIFORNIA, WITH BUILDING
DECARBONIZATION COALITION. WE'RE
AN ORGANIZATION MADE UP OF
ENERGY PROVIDERS, MANUFACTURERS,
ENVIRONMENTAL NGOS, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND OTHERS FOCUSED
ON DECARBONIZING OUR NATION'S
BUILDINGS, THANK YOU, SENATOR
MIN. MADAM CHAIR, COMMITTEE
CONSULTANT STAKEHOLDERS AND
CO-SPONSORS, NRDC AND JUSTICE
FOR WORKING WITH US ON SB 1221,
A BILL THAT WILL ALLOW UTILITIES
TO PURSUE ZERO EMISSION
ALTERNATIVE PILOT PROJECTS THAT
WORK TOWARD REMOVING THE 25% OF
EMISSIONS THAT COME FROM OUR
BUILT ENVIRONMENT. SB 1221 WILL
HELP CALIFORNIA REGULATORS AND
UTILITIES MAKE RESPONSIBLE
UTILITY INVESTMENTS AND OPEN THE
DOOR TO PILOTING ZERO EMISSION
ALTERNATIVES LIKE NEIGHBORHOOD
SCALE DECARBONIZATION IN A WAY
THAT ALIGNS WITH THE STATE'S
AFFORDABILITY, AIR QUALITY AND
CLIMATE TARGETS. POWERING HOMES
AND BUILDINGS WITH CLEAN ENERGY
WILL SAVE CONSUMERS MONEY,
IMPROVE INDOOR AND OUTDOOR AIR
QUALITY, MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES
MORE CLIMATE RESILIENT, AND CUT
EMISSIONS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO
CLIMATE CHANGE, SB 1221 OFFERS A
SMARTER AND FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE
APPROACH BY GIVING UTILITIES
PERMISSION TO CONSIDER PILOTING
ZERO EMISSION ALTERNATIVES LIKE
NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE
DECARBONIZATION, WHERE IT IS
MOST COST EFFECTIVE FOR
RATEPAYERS AND HOUSEHOLDS, THE
NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE
DECARBONIZATION ENCOURAGED. SB
1221 WILL POWER OUR HOMES IN
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES WITH CLEAN
ELECTRICITY AND EQUIP FAMILIES
WITH FREE ZERO EMISSION
APPLIANCES, WHICH PROVIDE ACCESS
TO COOLING AND RELIEF PEOPLE
FROM EXTREME HEAT. ADDITIONALLY,
NEW POLLING CONDUCTED THIS YEAR
BY FM3 FOR US SHOWS US THAT A
BROAD MAJORITY, 62% OF
CALIFORNIA VOTERS, SUPPORT A
POLICY TO PILOT A PROGRAM THAT
WOULD GIVE RESIDENTS AND
BUSINESSES THE OPPORTUNITY TO
UPGRADE THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS TO
RUN 100% CLEAN ELECTRICITY. SO
WITH THE MAJORITY OF
CALIFORNIANS IN SUPPORT OF THIS
POLICY TO PILOT NEIGHBORHOOD
SCALE DECARBONIZATION, SB 1221
EQUIPS THE STATE TO MAKE SMARTER
DECISIONS ABOUT ENERGY
INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING. FOR
THESE AND MANY OTHER REASONS,
BUILDING THE BUILDING
DECARBONIZATION COALITION IS A
PROUD SPONSOR OF SB 1221. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I URGE YOU
TO VOTE. THANK YOU. ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF THIS
MEASURE. COME ON UP. GOOD
EVENING. ANDREW KOESTER WITH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON.
REALLY JUST ELATED TO BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT SB 1221 BY SENATOR MEANT
THANK YOU. MELISSA ROMERO
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
IN SUPPORT MEG SNYDER, AXIOM
ADVISORS ON BEHALF OF REWIRING
AMERICA AND SUPPORT. THAT'S
IMPRESSIVE. ADVANCED ENERGY,
UNITED AND STRONG SUPPORT.
LAUREN KUBIAK WITH THE NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL IN
SUPPORT. MELISSA, YOU ON BEHALF
OF SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA, IN
SUPPORT JANET COX FOR CLIMATE
ACTION CALIFORNIA AND THE SANTA
CRUZ CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION, WE HAVE PRIMARY
WITNESS. WELCOME. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. JOHN KENNEDY
WITH CRC. ON BEHALF OF THE RURAL
COUNTIES WE REPRESENT 40 OF
CALIFORNIA'S 58 RURAL COUNTIES.
MANY OF WHICH HAVE SEEN DRAMATIC
REDUCTIONS IN ENERGY RELIABILITY
OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS. WE'RE
HERE TODAY TO RELUCTANTLY OPPOSE
SB 1221, WE AGREE WITH THE
AUTHORS GOAL, WE LIKE THE
CONCEPT OF DEVELOPING PILOT
PROJECTS TO EVALUATE WHETHER
THERE ARE WAYS TO ABANDON
NATURAL GAS LINES, WHERE IT
COSTS MORE TO REPLACE OR REPAIR
THOSE LINES THAN IT WOULD TO
CONVERT THOSE IMPACTED
HOUSEHOLDS AND CUSTOMERS TO
ELECTRICITY. BUT WE HAVE VERY
SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE
MECHANICS OF THE BILL. AS
DRAFTED. WE'RE CONCERNED THAT IT
COULD IMPOSE COSTS OF 10 TO
$20,000 ON EACH INDIVIDUAL
HOUSEHOLD THAT'S IMPACTED BY ONE
OF THESE PILOT PROJECTS TO
REPLACE NATURAL GAS APPLIANCES,
CUSTOMERS IMPACTED MAY HAVE TO
QUICKLY REPLACE NATURAL GAS HOT
WATER HEATERS, DRYERS, STOVES,
HEATERS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT AND
PAY FOR THE COST OF ELECTRICAL
AND PANEL UPGRADES. THESE ARE
COSTS MOST CUSTOMERS WOULD
NORMALLY CHOOSE TO, TAKE ON AND
BUDGET IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF
BUSINESS. THEY SIMPLY CAN'T
AFFORD TO DO SO, AND THE PACE
AND SCALE OUTLINED IN THE BILL.
THE BILL DOES HAVE SOME
SAFEGUARDS AND WE APPRECIATE
SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN
THERE, INCLUDING THE 67% VOTE
THRESHOLD AND THE REQUIREMENT
THAT THE UTILITY HAS TO NOTIFY
CUSTOMERS OF THE COST AND
BENEFITS OF THESE PROGRAMS. BUT
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THAT
EXPLANATION OF THE COST AND
BENEFITS WON'T REALLY PROVIDE
ANY DETAILS ON THE ACTUAL
CUSTOMER COSTS OF BEHIND THE
METER REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT, IT
COULD PENCIL OUT FOR THE UTILITY
IN TERMS OF ABANDONING THE LINE
AND ADDING NEW EQUIPMENT, BUT
NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE
CUSTOMER, THE BILL SEEKS TO
ALLOW THE USE OF NON RATEPAYER
FUNDING, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, LOW
INCOME WEATHERIZATION, POTS OF
FUNDING WHICH ARE ALL GREAT TO
HELP PAY FOR THIS PROGRAM. BUT
AGAIN, IT'S NOT CLEAR THOSE
FUNDS WILL BE ADEQUATE, WILL BE
APPROVED OR AVAILABLE TO PAY FOR
ALL CUSTOMER REPLACEMENT COSTS.
SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE
REALLY FEAR THAT UTILITIES WILL
BE ABLE TO AVOID THE COSTS OF
NATURAL GAS REPAIRS OR
REPLACEMENT AND LEAVE CUSTOMERS
WITH SOME OF THE BURDEN OF 10 TO
$20,000 IN RETROFIT COSTS. WE'RE
TRYING TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR
ON SOME AMENDS THAT WOULD MAKE
SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, AND SO
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO
WORK IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1221, MADAM
CHAIR, ISRAEL SALAS WITH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY,
I ACTUALLY WANTED TO CORRECT THE
ANALYSIS. WE DON'T HAVE A
POSITION ON THIS VERSION OF THE
BILL. WE REMOVED OUR OPPOSITION
IN THE SENATE. WE'VE ACTUALLY
HAD REALLY POSITIVE DISCUSSIONS
WITH THE SPONSORS AND THE
AUTHOR, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
ADDRESSING OUR REMAINING IDEAS
WITH AMENDMENTS IN THE FUTURE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
CLARIFYING. GOOD AFTERNOON,
THANK YOU, SEAN MCNEIL WITH THE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE
ASSOCIATION, WE ARE A TWEENER,
NOT OPPOSED, WE HAVE A SMALL BUT
IMPORTANT FIX THAT WE'RE
SEEKING. WE'VE HAD POSITIVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE AND SPONSORS AS WELL, AND
HOPING TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE, AS
SHOULD THE BILL MOVE TO
APPROPRIATIONS. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. LARA SAN MARCOS, ON
BEHALF OF CLEAN POWER ALLIANCE,
IN ALIGNMENT WITH KHALKHA. WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND THE
SPONSORS AND LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING CONVERSATIONS. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
BRINGING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?
NOT YET. ALL RIGHT. MOTION FROM
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FRIEDMAN, SECOND
FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES. I DO
WANT TO THANK THE, OPPOSITION
FOR YOUR FOCUS ON AND YOUR
CONCERN ABOUT, POTENTIAL COST
IMPACTS ON, PILOT PARTICIPANTS.
ALSO GRATEFUL TO HEAR THAT YOU
AND THE AUTHOR AND CONTINUED
DIALOG AROUND HOW TO BEST
ADDRESS THAT, SENATOR, CAN YOU
JUST ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE
CONCERNS FOR US? WE'RE WORKING
ON THE PARTICULAR LANGUAGE. AND
AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, THE EARLY
VERSION OF THIS ALLOWED FOR
RATEPAYER FUNDING TO REPLACE
THESE APPLIANCES AT NO COST TO
THE CONSUMER. THAT GOT SCALED
BACK. SO WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO
FIND, AS YOU ALLUDED TO, SOME OF
THE DIFFERENT POTS OF MONEY THAT
WILL MAKE THESE PENCIL OUT, AND
A NOTABLY, THE PROJECTS WILL
ONLY PROCEED WHEN THE RATES
WOULD BE LOWER. SO THE IDEA HERE
IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE COST OF
AGING INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT IT'S
JUST CHEAPER TO MOVE TO ZERO
EMISSIONS ALTERNATIVES THAT THAT
COST OVER TIME WILL MAKE UP AND
DO THIS. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE
A TWO THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT.
THE IDEA HERE IS TO GIVE
CONSUMERS AN INFORMED CHOICE.
IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR MONTHLY
RATE MIGHT BE $20 LESS, YOU CAN
DO THE MATH ON THAT AND
DETERMINE IF IT MAKES SENSE FOR
YOU. BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE
CONSUMER DRIVEN. IT'S OPT IN.
IT'S A PILOT PROJECT PROJECT.
AND I THINK THE TWO THIRDS
SUPERMAJORITY THRESHOLD THAT WE
TOOK IN AMENDMENTS EARLIER ON IN
THE PROCESS, I THINK WILL HELP
TO AMELIORATE THAT. BUT OF
COURSE, WE ARE, AS YOU COULD
PROBABLY GUESS, WE'RE AND SEE,
WE'VE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY
WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS HERE TO
TRY TO ADDRESS THE MANY
CONCERNS. THE FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLE OF THIS BILL, THOUGH,
I THINK IS A SOUND ONE, WHICH IS
WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO PHASE
OUT NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT'S VERY OLD AND EXPENSIVE TO
REPLACE. WE SHOULD BE DOING THAT
TO TRY TO MEET OUR 2045 GOALS,
TO TRY TO MOVE QUICKLY TO ZERO
EMISSIONS ALTERNATIVES. BUT
WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS WITH THE
CONSUMERS IN MIND, THE ECONOMIC
INTERESTS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS IN
MIND. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU,
SENATOR Ó. AND I JUST WANT TO
ADDRESS THE CASS HAD BROUGHT UP
A CONCERN. SORRY, MADAM CHAIR.
THAT'S OKAY. YES, PLEASE, THEY
HAD STATED THAT THERE'S A
CONCERN, AND THE SPECIFIC
CONCERN IS THAT THE THIS
PARTICULAR LANGUAGE MIGHT GIVE
THE CPUC THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW
CCA OR COMMUNITY CHOICE
AGGREGATOR RATES. AND I WANT TO
STATE CLEARLY, FOR THE RECORD,
THAT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS
BILL. WE ARE WORKING TO FIND
CLARIFYING LANGUAGE TO ENSURE
THAT THAT IS MADE CLEAR. THANK
YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
OKAY. SEEING NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ITEM NUMBER 15, SB 1221. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS IS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS PETRIE-NORRIS
I PETRIE-NORRIS I JIM PATTERSON
KHN. CALDERON. AYE. CALDERON
AYE. CHEN. FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN.
AYE HEART. HOLDEN. HOLDEN. AYE
JO. PATTERSON. NO. JO.
PATTERSON. NO REYES. REYES. AYE.
SANTIAGO AYE. SANTIAGO. AYE.
ZERBO TING. WALLACE WOULD.
WOULD. AYE ZIPPER. ZIPPER. AYE.
8181. OKAY. THAT BUILDS ON CALL,
AND, WE WILL REVISIT IT WHEN OUR
MEMBERS ARRIVE. THANK YOU. OKAY
WITH THAT, WE ARE MOVING TO OUR
LAST ITEM FOR TODAY, SENATOR
BRADFORD, SB 1177, THE FLOOR IS
YOURS. OH, SENATOR, YOU'VE GOT A
MOTION AND A SECOND BEFORE YOU
EVEN SIT DOWN. LOOK AT THAT. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR. I
VOTE, JUST REAL BRIEFLY, 1177
UPGRADES. CALIFORNIA UTILITY
SUPPLIER DIVERSITY LAW, BETTER
KNOWN AS JUNIOR ORDER 156, THAT
WAS AUTHORED ALMOST 40 YEARS AGO
BY THE LATE GWEN MOORE. BUT 40
YEARS AGO, UTILITIES WERE
SPENDING LESS THAN A HALF $1
MILLION WITH WOMEN OWNED
MINORITY OWNED, DISABLED,
VETERAN OWNED BUSINESSES. TODAY
THEY'RE SPENDING ALMOST 19
BILLION. BUT THE POOL OF PEOPLE
THEY'RE CONTRACTING WITH HASN'T
GROWN. THE SPIN WITH THOSE
INDIVIDUALS HAVE, BUT NOT THE
POOL. SO THIS BILL ASKS THE
UTILITIES TO, TO INCLUDE
INFORMATION OF THE NUMBER OF NEW
UNIQUE CONTRACTORS AND
SUBCONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS
THEY DO BUSINESS WITH AND THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF THOSE CONTRACTS.
AND IT WILL ALSO REQUIRE DATA TO
BE SUBMITTED ON HOW MUCH THE
WORK IS BEING PERFORMED IS DONE
IN CALIFORNIA AND ENCOURAGE
UTILITY BUSINESSES TO DIVERSIFY
TO FILE, I SHOULD SAY,
DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION
PLANS. AND SB 1117 WILL HELP
STANDARDIZE THE DATA ACROSS
UTILITIES AND MAKE IT MORE EASY
TO MEASURE THE DIVERSITY GOALS.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SENATOR, WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT, TO SB 1177,
YOU CAN APPROACH THE MIC AT THIS
POINT. SEAN MCDOWELL, CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY CHOICE ASSOCIATION AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANKS. THANK
YOU, WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION,
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO
SB 1177? ALL RIGHT. SEEING AND
HEARING NONE. BRINGING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS. QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AYE. VOTE
ALL RIGHT, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ITEM NUMBER
13, SB 1177, THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSED. APPROPRIATIONS
PETRIE-NORRIS. I PETRIE-NORRIS I
JIM PATTERSON, BAUER-KAHAN
CALDERON. AYE. CALDERON AYE.
CHEN FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN. AYE.
HEART HOLDEN. HOLDEN. AYE. JOE
PATTERSON. AYE. JOE. PATTERSON.
AYE REYES. AYE. REYES. AYE.
SANTIAGO AYE. SANTIAGO. AYE.
ZERBO TÍNH. WALLACE WOULD.
WOULD. AYE ZIPPER A ZIPPER. AYE
THAT'S 990. THAT BILL IS OUT AND
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. CHAT ON. THANK
YOU SENATOR. ALL RIGHT. SO WITH
THAT THAT CONCLUDES OUR, OUR
AGENDA WILL GO AHEAD AND REOPEN
THE ROLL FOR, WE'LL START WITH
THE CONSENT CALENDAR SO MEMBERS
CAN ADD ON. THIS IS THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. JIM PATTERSON,
BAUER-KAHAN CALDERON, I
CALDERON. AYE. HOLDEN Ã.
HOLDEN. AYE. JO. PATTERSON. JO
PATTERSON. AYE. REYES. REYES.
AYE SANTIAGO A SANTIAGO. AYE.
SUBUR ZIPPER. AYE. THANK YOU.
THAT'S 14. SO I'LL KEEP IT OPEN.
ALL RIGHT. 14, ZERO. BUT WE'LL
KEEP THE ROLL OPEN. ITEM NUMBER
ONE AJ R 18 BE ADOPTED TO THE
ASSEMBLY FLOOR. JIM PATTERSON,
BAUER-KAHAN CALDERON. AYE.
CALDERON. AYE FRIEDMAN. AYE.
THIS IS SB 59 AJ R 18. I'M NOT
VOTING OKAY. FRIEDMAN NOT VOTING
HOLDEN. HOLDEN AYE. JO.
PATTERSON. JO. PATTERSON AYE.
REYES. AYE. REYES. AYE. SANTIAGO
AYE. SANTIAGO. AYE TING TING.
NOT VOTING. ZIPPER. NOT VOTING.
ZIPPER. NOT VOTING AYE. OKAY. 11
ZERO AND WE WILL KEEP THAT ITEM
OPEN. ITEM NUMBER TWO, SB 59. DO
PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. JIM PATTERSON,
BAUER-KAHAN CALDERON. CALDERON.
AYE HOLDEN. HOLDEN AYE. JO.
PATTERSON. NO. JO. PATTERSON NO.
REYES. AYE. REYES AYE. SANTIAGO
A. SANTIAGO. AYE. ZIPPER. ZIPPER
AYE. 11 THREE. AND WE WILL KEEP
THE ROLL OPEN. ITEM NUMBER FIVE,
SB 1255 Dð PASSED
APPROPRIATIONS. JIM PATTERSON,
B¢O KHN CALDERON. AYE.
CALDERON. AYE HOLDEN. HOLDEN.
AYE. JO PATTERSON NOT. JO
PATTERSON, NOT VOTING. REYES.
AYE. REYES. AYE. SANTIAGO A
SANTIAGO. AYE. ZIPPER ZIPPER.
AYE. TEN ZERO. AND WE WILL KEEP
THAT ROLL OPEN. ITEM NUMBER
NINE, SB 1018. DO PASS IS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. JIM
PATTERSON, BAUER-KAHAN HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE. SANTIAGO. A
SANTIAGO. AYE. 13 ZERO. WE'LL
KEEP THE ROLL OPEN.
ITEM NUMBER TEN, SB 1374. DO
PASS IS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. JIM PATTERSON,
CHEN. FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN. AYE
HART. HART. AYE. HOLDEN HOLDEN.
AYE. JO. PATTERSON. NO JO.
PATTERSON. NO. SANTIAGO A
SANTIAGO. AYE. WALLACE. OKAY. 11
ONE. AND WE WILL KEEP THE ROLL
OPEN. ITEM NUMBER 12, SB 1142.
DO PASS IS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. JIM PATTERSON
BAUER-KAHAN CHEN FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN. AYE. HART. HART. AYE
JO. PATTERSON. JO. PATTERSON.
NOT VOTING. SANTIAGO A SANTIAGO.
AYE SCHIAVO. SCHIAVO. I TING
AYE. THIS IS MENGIBAR SPONSOR.
YES TING. AYE. WALLACE. 11 ZERO.
AND WE'LL KEEP THE ROLL OPEN.
ITEM NUMBER 13, SB 1177. DO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. JIM
PATTERSON, BARRY KHN CHEN,
HEART A HEART. AYE SHIAVO
SCHIAVO. SCHIAVO. AYE. TING TING
AYE. WALLACE. 12 ZERO AND WE'LL
KEEP THE ROLL OPEN. ITEM NUMBER
15 SB 1221 DO PASS IS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. JIM PATTERSON,
BARRY KHN CHEN. HART. HART. AYE
SHIAVO. SHIAVO. AYE. TING TING.
AYE. WALLACE. 11 ONE. AND WE
WILL KEEP THE ROLL OPEN. ITEM
NUMBER 16, SB 1251, DO PASS IS
AMENDED TO THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR.
JIM PATTERSON. CALDERON. AYE.
CALDERON. AYE HOLDEN. HOLDEN.
AYE REYES. REYES. AYE. SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO. AYE. ZIPPER SUBUR. AYE
. YES, I HAVE, AYE. HAVE YOU AS.
AYE. ALL RIGHT. PERFECT THAT'S
HARD TO REMEMBER WHEN I VOTE FOR
A BILL LIKE. THAT TURNS OUT
WELL. YOU ONLY SAY YES 15 ZERO.
AND THAT BILL IS OUT.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, LET'S REOPEN THOSE
ROLLS. OKAY. THIS THIS IS THE
CONSENT FILE. BARRY. KHN.
BARRY. KHN. AYE 15 ZERO. THE
CONSENT CALENDAR IS OUT. ITEM
ONE, H.R. 18. BARRY KHN. 18.
YES. NONVOTING BARRY KHN. NOT
VOTING 11 ZERO 11 ZERO. THAT
BILL IS OUT. ITEM NUMBER TWO, SB
59. BARRY KHN BARRY KHN. AYE
12 THREE. THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM
NUMBER FIVE SB 1255 BARRY KHN
BARRY KHN. AYE 11 ZERO. THAT
BILL IS OUT. ITEM NUMBER NINE SB
1018 BARRY KHN 1018 A BARRY
KHN AYE. 1414 ZERO. THAT BILL
IS OUT. ITEM NUMBER TEN SB 1374
11 ONE. OKAY, SB 1374 11 ONE.
THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM NUMBER 12
SB 1142 BARRY KHN BARRY KHN I
12 ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM
NUMBER 13 SB 1177 BARRY KHN
BARRY KHN I 13 ZERO. THAT BILL
IS OUT. ITEM NUMBER 15 SB 1221
BARRY KHN BARRY KHN I 12 112
ONE. THAT BILL IS OUT. AND
THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT
CONCLUDES THE BUSINESS OF THIS
AFTERNOON'S HEARING OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES
AND ENERGY. WITH THAT, WE ARE
ADJOURNED. THANKS, GUYS. THANKS
JIM.