THE PHONE LINES ARE
AVAILABLE FOR FOLKS THAT
PARTICIPANT PHONE NUMBER IS
8772268163 ACCESS CODE 8 TO
45991. SO AT SOME POINT WE WILL
BE TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER
WE HEAR FROM OUR AUTHOR AND
ARLIE WITNESSES. OF COURSE WE'RE
JUST HERE HEARING ONE BILL.
THAT'S A B 21 33. BYE. CINNAMON
BRICKWORK. THERE WILL BE THREE
MINUTES PER POSITION FOR LEAD
WITNESSES. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE
15 MINUTES OF ME, TOO, FOR FOLKS
TO ADD ON AND SUPPORT.
AFTERWARDS. LET'S GIVE CINEMA
CORKED OPPORTUNITY TO START WITH
HIS PRESENTATION OF A B 21 33.
OKAY? UM THANK YOU, SENATOR AND
MEMBERS. UM IF WE DON'T SET
AMBITIOUS GOALS, WE WON'T MEET
THEM. CALIFORNIA IS LEADING THE
WAY. AND SHOWING THE REST OF THE
COUNTRY AND THE WORLD HOW TO
MEET THESE AMBITIOUS GOALS AND
HAVE A VIBRANT ECONOMY AND HAVE
GOOD JOBS. THIS IS THE ULTIMATE
ULTIMATE CHALLENGE. OF THIS
CENTURY. I'VE BEEN WORKING ON
THIS. SINCE 1972. WE SAW. BAD
THINGS COULD HAPPEN THEN WE HAD
NO IDEA HOW BAD WE'VE BURNED FAR
LESS FOSSIL FUELS, AND WE
PROJECTED AND THE RESULTS HAVE
BEEN A LOT WORSE. WE DIDN'T
ANTICIPATE FOREST FIRES. WE
DIDN'T ANTICIPATE. THE SIERRA
SNOW'S MELTING EARLY AND AS A
RESULT, NOT HAVING AN ADEQUATE
SUPPLY OF WATER EVEN IF WE GET
ADEQUATE RAIN. WE CERTAINLY
DIDN'T LOOK AT FOREST FIRES WERE
WORRIED ABOUT HEAT. WE WERE
WORRIED ABOUT GLOBAL SEA LEVEL
RISE. IT'S ALL HAPPENING,
INCLUDING THE HEAT AND THE SEA
LEVEL RISE JUST MUCH FASTER THAN
WE EXPECTED. IF WE DON'T DO
SOMETHING, AND IF CALIFORNIA
DOESN'T SHOW THE WAY, AND WE
HAVE TO SHOW THE WAY WE ARE IN
DEEP TROUBLE. THE OPPOSITION HAS
VALID CONCERNS. WHAT'S THE
POINT? OF CALIFORNIA IF WE GO IT
ALONE. HMM AND WE LOSE THE
ECONOMY THAT'S CRAZY, AND THAT
IS NOT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND IN FACT, IT'S ALREADY AN A B
32. AND LET'S SEE HERE. I HAVE
THIS NOPE. FROM MR STERN. WHICH
I WILL NOW READ. UM, IN, UH.
MAYBE 33, IT SAYS IN THE EVENT
OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,
CATASTROPHIC EVENTS OR THREATS
OF ECONOMIC HARM. GOVERNOR MAY
ADJUST THE APPLICABLE DEADLINES
FOR INDIVIDUAL REGULATIONS OR
FOR THE STATE IN THE AGGREGATE
TO THE EARLIEST FEASIBLE DATE
AFTER THE DEADLINE, AND I'VE
TALKED WITH THE CHAIR AND WE
WILL ALSO TRY AND GET IN THERE.
JOB LOSS. SO WE'RE WORKING ON
THAT WE'RE WORKING ON
AMENDMENTS. BUT THERE IS IF WE
WILL KEEP THE ECONOMY GOING. THE
BEST EXAMPLE OF THAT IS WHAT WE
SEE THIS YEAR. WHO IS THE NUMBER
ONE ADVOCATE FOR CLOSING DIABLO
CANYON. THE GOVERNOR WHEN HE WAS
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. NOW HE'S
THE NUMBER ONE ADVOCATE FOR
KEEPING IT OPEN. WHY IS THAT
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THE
CRITICAL LAPSE. WE WILL TAKE THE
NECESSARY MEASURES TO NOT ONLY
FULFILL OUR GOALS BUT TO HAVE A
VIBRANT ECONOMY, WHICH I KNOW
PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT, AND
THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR
JOBS. AND WHAT I CAN ASSURE YOU
IS THAT YEAH. YOU KNOW, THE
POLITICS ALONE IS GOING TO
DICTATE THAT. THERE IS NO WAY
ANY GOVERNOR. ANY LEGISLATURE IS
GOING TO LET THE ECONOMY GO.
THAT IS DEFINITELY YOUR
GUARANTEE. TO EITHER FULFILLING
THESE GOALS OR FINDING ANOTHER
WAY. BUT IT IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT TO FULFILL THESE GOALS
AGAIN. I'VE BEEN STARTED ON THIS
WORK 50 YEARS AGO. IT'S JUST
MUCH WORSE THAN WE EVER THOUGHT.
AND CALIFORNIA HAS TO LEAD THE
WAY. WITH ME TODAY IS PROFESSOR
RAM RAHMAN, OFTEN FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN
DIEGO. AND WHILE I SHOULD WITH
ME ON THE PHONE AND THEN MELISSA
ROMERO FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS. THANK YOU.
THIS IS RAM RAHMAN. ICELAND
SHOULD I START? YES, PLEASE. I
AM DELIGHTED TO BE HERE. FIRST.
WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS THAT
PLANETARY WARMING IS GOING TO
CROSS. THE 1.5 DEGREE THRESHOLD
IN ABOUT 8 TO 12 YEARS. WHAT
THAT MEANS IS THAT CLIMATIC
IMPACTS WE'RE ALREADY
EXPERIENCING IS GOING TO GET
SOFTWARE'S NOT SOONER THAN WE
THINK. THIS PRODUCTION IS BASED
ON MY OWN RESEARCH, AND WHETHER
BY PCC SO WHAT IT CALLS FOR US
THAT MAY NEED WARMING CURVE
ANOTHER 15 TO 20 YEARS. TO
PREVENT CROSSING CATASTROPHIC
TWO DEGREES CELSIUS. FOR THIS TO
HAPPEN. THEIR MISSION OF
GREENHOUSE GASSES. HAS TO REDUCE
BY AT LEAST 50% WITH WHO? THE
NEXT 8 TO 12 YEARS. AS WE
ALREADY HEARD THE WORLD URGENTLY
NEED TO LEADER AND CALIFORNIA
CAN BECOME LEADER FIRST FOR
AMERICA NEXT FOR THE REST OF THE
WORLD. I'M ALSO DELIGHTED TO
INFORM YOU THAT TODAY. RE
RELEASED THE STATEMENT ON
CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND CHANGED
BY THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF
SCIENCE AT VATICAN. THAT
STATEMENT WAS ALSO THE PRESIDENT
OF THE ACADEMY, CARDINAL TURKSON
AND MYSELF. WE ANNOUNCED OF
CIVILIANS PLAN TO PROTECT
PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY VULNERABLE.
THE FIRST PILLAR FOR RESILIENCE
PLAN IS TO BEND THE WARMING
CURVE BEFORE 2015 TO REDUCE
CLIMATE WRIST WITH THIS BUILD A
B 2133 FITS PERFECTLY. IN THAT
STATEMENT RELEASED TODAY ON THE
VATICAN WEBSITE. BE INCLUDED
STATE BE INCLUDED THE STATEMENT
ON BRAZILIANS BY POPE FRANCIS,
WHERE HE IS CALLING FOR AN
ECOLOGICAL REVOLUTION. TO
PROTECT ALL OF CREATION,
INCLUDING THE WONDERFUL BILLIONS
OF PEOPLE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. LET'S GO TO YOU,
MELISSA. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS MELISSA ROMERO WITH
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
HERE IN SUPPORT OF A B 21 33.
THE EXISTENTIAL THREAT POSED BY
CLIMATE CHANGE IS WELL
DOCUMENTED, WELL KNOWN AND
RAPIDLY ACCELERATING IN PACE AND
UNLESS WE ACCELERATE ACTION TO
REDUCE EMISSIONS, OUR FUTURE IS
ON THE LINE. THE U. N SECRETARY
GENERAL DEEMED THE CLIMATE
CRISIS NOTHING LESS THAN CODE
RED FOR HUMANITY. THE
INTERNATIONAL HEALTH COMMUNITY
IS RAISING ALARM BELLS STATING
THAT NO TEMPERATURE RISE IS SAFE
AND THAT A RAPIDLY WARMING
CLIMATE POSES THE GREATEST
SINGLE THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH.
BY INCREASING THE STATE'S
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
REDUCTION TARGET TO 55% BELOW
1990 LEVELS. MAYBE 21 33 PUTS
CALIFORNIA BACK IN THE DRIVER'S
SEAT AS A WORLD CLASS CLIMATE
LEADER, BRINGING US IN LINE WITH
WHAT THE EU TARGET IS FOR 2030
AND AHEAD OF WHAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS JUST APPROVED.
FEDERAL INVESTMENTS FROM THE
INFRASTRUCTURE ACT. AND THE I. R
A HAVE THE EFFECT OF LITERALLY
DOUBLING OUR OWN STATES.
HISTORIC INVESTMENT IN CLIMATE,
THE IRA IS BRINGING HISTORIC
CLIMATE INVESTMENTS TO
CALIFORNIA THAT WILL LOWER
ENERGY COSTS FOR HOUSEHOLDS AND
BUSINESSES CREATE MANUFACTURING
JOBS FOR AMERICAN WORKERS AND
DELIVER A CLEAN, SECURE AND
HEALTHY FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN
AND GRANDCHILDREN. AND THESE
INVESTMENTS WILL ALSO ENCOURAGE
MASSIVE PRIVATE INVESTMENTS,
CREATING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF NEW JOBS, NEW BUSINESSES AND
POSITIONING CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMY
TO BENEFIT AS A GLOBAL LEADER
FOR YEARS TO COME. LET'S BE SURE
CALIFORNIA DOESN'T FALL SHORT ON
CLIMATE AMBITION, SO WE AREN'T
IN THE SAME SITUATION WISHING WE
DID MORE 10 YEARS FROM NOW. HOW
WE ACHIEVE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT DETAIL. THE
STATE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO
NOT ALLOW OUR FIGHT AGAINST
CLIMATE CHANGE TO COME AT THE
EXPENSE OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND
COMMUNITIES THAT ALREADY BEAR
THE BRUNT OF POLLUTION AND
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS. THIS
AMBITIOUS BUT ACHIEVABLE TARGET
IN A B 21 33 WILL ENSURE THAT
THE STATE IS MOVING TO REDUCE
EMISSIONS AT A RATE THAT IS
COMMENSURATE WITH THE CLIMATE
CRISIS, THE RATE RATE AND SCALE
THAT IS COMMENSURATE WITH THAT
CRISIS THAT THREATENS OUR FUTURE
A STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I
APPRECIATE IT. OKAY, UM. TO SO
RAHM USE QUITE A BIT LESS THAN
HIS TIME. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A
KEY, UM, SUPPORT MISSING FROM
THE ANALYSIS. UM I KNOW THERE'S
A LITTLE CONFUSION. VW, UM YOU
KNOW, I GUESS THERE WAS A
THOUGHT ABOUT YOU WERE GOING TO
DELIVER SOME LEAD TESTIMONY TO
ANYWAY. HOW WOULD YOU COULD YOU
TAKE ONE MINUTE, PERHAPS VERY
QUICKLY, WHICH ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS TO CALIFORNIA
COALITION OF UTILITY EMPLOYEES,
CALIFORNIA STATE PIPE TRADES
COUNCIL AND THE WESTERN STATES
COUNCIL OF SHEET METAL WORKERS.
I WISH THAT WE COULD HEAR THE
GOVERNOR'S ENTIRE PACKAGE AT
ONCE IN ONE COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE
LOOK AT IT HOLISTICALLY BECAUSE
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE IMPACT ON
OUR MEMBERS FROM THE OREGON
BORDER TO THE MEXICAN BORDER,
AND, FOR INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, WE
SUPPORT THIS BILL. WE DON'T
THINK WE COULD SUPPORT THIS BILL
IF THERE WASN'T A ROBUST CARBON
CAPTURE COMPONENT TO THE PACKAGE
BECAUSE WE THINK THAT'S KEY TO
MEETING EVEN TODAY'S 2045 GOALS
, MUCH LESS THAN 2030 GOALS
ACCELERATED. I JUST LIKE TO SAY
THAT MY COALITION OF UNIONS
SUPPORTED A B 32, PROBABLY THE
ONLY PERSON IN THE ROOM WHO
TESTIFIED IN SUPPORT OF A B 32.
WE SUPPORTED THE RPS. WHEN WE
WENT TO 33% WE SPONSORED THAT
BILL. WE SUPPORTED RPS GOING TO
50 60 AND THEN ULTIMATELY TO
100. AND YOU KNOW WHAT? EACH AND
EVERY ONE OF THOSE HEARINGS WE
HEARD THE SAME THING. THE
ECONOMY WAS GOING TO COPE.
COLLAPSE IT WAS GOING TO BE THE
END OF JOBS ACROSS THE STATE.
AND HERE WE ARE. I'M STILL HERE.
WE'RE STILL HERE. THE ECONOMY IS
STILL THRIVING. AND WE BELIEVE
IN OUR ANALYSIS. IF YOU LOOK AT
THE GOVERNOR'S PACKAGE IN
TOTALITY THAT IT WILL BE A JOB
CREATOR, NOT A JOB REMOVER, AND
FOR THAT REASON WE URGE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU APPRECIATE
THAT. OKAY LET'S GO. LET'S HEAR
FROM FOLKS WHO WANT TO EXPRESS
THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. BUT
BEFORE WE DO THAT, I OBVIOUSLY
KNOW THERE'S BEEN A REALLY TIGHT
TIMELINE AND, YOU KNOW
UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE GOT FLOOD
OF. WELL FORTUNATELY,
UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE GOT A FLOOD
OF FOLKS WHO YOU KNOW, WADE IN
AND SUPPORT OPPOSITION. NOT ALL
OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS ARE
REFLECTED IN THE ANALYSIS,
BECAUSE, UM, THERE'S ALWAYS
HAPPENED SO QUICKLY. SO I JUST
WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT ALL THE
MEMBERS DO HAVE THE UPDATED LIST
OF SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION AT
THEIR DESKS. SO THAT EVEN IF
IT'S NOT IN THE ANALYSIS, YOUR
ORGANIZATION AS LONG AS YOU GOT
YOUR LETTER IN THIS MORNING,
IT'S NOW REFLECTED IN THIS LIST
THAT EVERY MEMBER HAS BEEN GIVEN
A COPY OF SO OBVIOUSLY THAT WILL
BE INCORPORATED INTO THE FUTURE
ANALYSIS. SO WITH THAT. LET'S
LET'S ESTABLISH AQUARIUM.
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SENATOR ALLEN HERE. ALAN HERE,
SENATOR BATES HERE, SENATOR
DOLLY!SENATOR GONZALEZ SENATOR
SKINNER, SENATOR STERN, SENATOR
WIECKOWSKI HERE IN THE CORNER.
OKAY SO WE'RE GOING TO ASK
PEOPLE TO JUST ME, TOO, IS ONLY
IF YOU HAVE SUPPORT FOR THIS
BILL FOR 21 33 CAN COME UP TO
THE MICROPHONE AND EXPRESS YOUR
SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION. KAYLA
ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF SERIES AND
OUR COALITION OF OVER OVER 80
MAJOR COMPANIES ALL IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MR CHAIR MARK FINSTER MAKER ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF RESOURCE
CONSERVATION DISTRICTS,
CALIFORNIA COUNSELOR MANTRAS AND
EARTH, JUSTICE AND SUPPORT. MHM.
HI WE'RE CALLING MASON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ALLIANCE AND THE SUPPORT OF A
MAN POSITION. UM WE SUPPORT
THESE AMBITIOUS TARGETS JUST
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING
AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE HOW WE
ACHIEVE THESE TARGETS DOESN'T
HURT OUR MOST VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES ALSO REGISTERING ON
BEHALF OF THE ASIAN PACIFIC
ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK CENTER ON
RACE, POVERTY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNITIES FOR A
BETTER ENVIRONMENT AND PEOPLE
ORGANIZING TO DEMAND
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
JUSTICE. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MICHAEL CLAIBORNE
WITH LEADERSHIP COUNCIL FOR
JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, ALSO
FOR COMMUNITY WATER CENTER IN
SUPPORT OF THE MEN IN ALIGNMENT
WITH THE COMMENTS FROM
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ALLIANCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WELL ACTING WITH THE SILICON
VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT,
LET'S GO TO THE PHONE LINES,
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO EXPRESS THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. THANK YOU.
CHAIR GUARD SUPPORT OF A B 21 33
. PLEASE TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY
AND PRESS ONE, FOLLOWED BY 00.
AND WE WILL BEGIN WITH LINE 67,
YOU ARE OPEN. HELLO AMBER. HOW
ATTRACTIVE PRICE CONSULTING ON
BEHALF OF NEXT GEN POLICY AND
CLIMATE CENTER AND SUPPORT.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. 72. 72 MEMBERS
MODULE WITH PRODUCT CENTER ALSO
PUTTING IN SUPPORT FOR THIS.
THANK YOU. 40 YOU ARE OPEN THE
STANDARD CUSHION REPRESENTING
CALPERS AND SUPPORT IN LINE 64,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON
. SENATORS LUCASVARITY ON BEHALF
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF A B 21 33. THANK YOU.
WE'LL GET ONE MORE QUICK
REMINDER IN SUPPORT OF A B 21 33
AT 10 AT THIS TIME. 66 YOU'RE
UP. YEAH. HI THIS IS STEPHEN
KING. I'M THE CLEAN ENERGY
ADVOCATE WITH ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA AND WE STRONGLY
SUPPORT A B 21 33. NEXT IS ONE
WELL. WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE
IN. Q. AT THIS TIME, MR CHAIR,
THEY TOOK THEMSELVES OUT, OKAY?
LET'S GO TO OPPOSITION. NOW I
KNOW WE HAVE LEAD WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION, JEREMY SMITH AND
MICHAEL GUNNING AND YOU CAN COME
UP AND TESTIFY. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE,
JEREMY SMITH HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL,
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF OUR
NEARLY HALF A MILLION
HARDWORKING MEMBERS IN
CALIFORNIA IN 77,000 APPRENTICES
AND STRONG OPPOSITION BILL THAT
WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT EVERY
BLUE COLLAR INDUSTRY JOB AND
FAMILY IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. IN 2015. WE WORKED
COLLABORATIVELY WITH THEN
GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN TO SET
CLIMATE GOALS THAT WE THOUGHT
WERE OBTAINABLE, PRACTICAL AND
RESPONSIBLE, AND WE'VE BEEN
WORKING HARD TO REACH THOSE
GOALS BY FIGHTING FOR THE
ENTITLEMENTS AND THEN BUILDING
THE VAST UTILITY SCALE RENEWABLE
POWER GENERATION FACILITIES. I
SET THE BAR FOR THE REST OF THE
WORLD AND WE ARE FAR FROM DONE
AS WE SEEK TO EXPAND OFFSHORE
WIND, GEOTHERMAL. AND PUMPED
STORAGE POWER GENERATION IN
CALIFORNIA. BUT EVEN WITH ALL OF
THIS, THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD
RECENTLY INFORMED US THAT WE
WERE NOT GOING TO REACH THE
EXISTING 2030 GOALS. SO WE WERE
SHOCKED AT THIS PROPOSAL TO
DRAMATICALLY INCREASE THE GOALS
IN THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS. WE
CANNOT REACH THESE GOALS WITHOUT
BY CARBS. CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATES
, KILLING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF JOBS ACROSS SECTORS INCLUDING
CONSTRUCTION, MANUFACTURING,
AGRICULTURE, TRANSPORTATION,
ENERGY AND MANY OTHERS. THESE
MIGHT BE JOBS THAT SOME PEOPLE
THINK ARE EXPENDABLE, BUT TO
BLUE COLLAR FAMILY WITH THE
DIGNITY OF A LIVING WAGE OF
BENEFITS THAT AFFORD THEM A HOME
AND A MEANS TO SUPPORT THEIR
KIDS. IT IS LITERALLY
EVERYTHING. ADDITIONALLY
ACCELERATING THE GOALS IN THIS
MANNER WILL INCREASE THE COST OF
EVERY CONSUMER COMMODITY WE NEED
IN CALIFORNIA GAS, THE PUMP
POWER WHEN YOU FLIP A SWITCH
MILK IN THE GROCERY STORE AND
THE ACTUAL HOMES THAT SHELTER
OUR KIDS. ON BEHALF OF OUR
MEMBERSHIP, AND THEIR FAMILIES
WHO STRUGGLE TO AFFORD TO LIVE
IN A CALIFORNIA HAS RAPIDLY
PRICING OUT AND TURNING ITS BACK
ON BLUE COLLAR WORKERS. WE URGE
YOU TO OPPOSE THIS BILL. PLEASE
DO NOT RUSH POLICY THAT NICK
WILL NEGATIVELY INFECT. EXCUSE
ME NEGATIVELY AFFECT SO MANY AND
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH US TO MEET
THIS VERY REAL CLIMATE CRISIS IN
THE MOST AGGRESSIVE YET
PRAGMATIC WAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS, MICHAEL GUNNING HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION.
IF I MAY, JUST AS YOU GUYS ARE
AWARE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT HAS SAID THAT
DECADES OF UNDER PRODUCTION
UNDERSCORED BY EXCLUSIONARY
POLICIES HAVE LIVED HOUSING
SUPPLY FAR BEHIND THE NEED AND
COSTS ARE SOARING. AS A RESULT,
MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIANS MUST
MAKE HARD DECISIONS. ABOUT
PAYING FOR HOUSING AT THE
EXPENSE OF FOOD, HEALTHCARE.
CHILDCARE TRANSPORTATION. IN
FACT, ONE IN THREE HOUSEHOLDS IN
THE STATE DOESN'T EARN ENOUGH
MONEY TO MEET THEIR BASIC NEEDS
A HOUSING CRISIS MEMBERS MAYBE
21 33, WITH ITS REQUIRING OF A
55% GHG REDUCTION BY 2030 MAY BE
THOUGHT OF AS A FAR OFF
ASPIRATIONAL GOAL, BUT FOR OUR
MEMBERSHIP AND HOMEBUILDERS THAT
MEANS JANUARY OF 23 23 23 FOR US
. IN FACT, THIS BILL MAKES SEQUA
APPLY THE SAME 55% REDUCTION TO
OUR HOUSING PROJECTS,
UNDERSCORING THAT THE SECRET
PROCESS STARTS NEXT YEAR. NOT IN
2030. AT A MINIMUM, WE THINK THE
SPILL INCREASES HOUSING BY
$50,000 EACH $1000 INCREASE IN
THE COST OF HOME PRICES OUT
12,411 HOUSEHOLDS OUT OF THE
HOUSING MARKET. THAT'S ONLY
$1000 INCREASE. OUR MEMBERS
PROJECTS FACE CLAIMS EVERY TIME
A NEW GOAL IS SET OR A NEW
SCOPING PLAN IS ADOPTED. WE ARE
CURRENTLY FACING CLAIMS FROM SP
32 BACK IN 2016. ESTABLISHING A
40% REDUCTION BY 2030 AND THE
2017 SCOPING PLAN NEEDS TO BE
USED AS THRESHOLDS OF
SIGNIFICANCE FOR SEQUEL PURPOSES
. THESE GOALS ARE REAL. THEY
HAVE VERY DEVASTATING COSTS
IMPACTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY FELT
BY FAMILIES STRUGGLING TO STAY
IN HOUSING. IF WE DO NOT WANT TO
SEE HOUSING CRUSHED BY THIS
BILL, WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT THE
55% REDUCTION BY 2030 IS NOT
REQUIRED TO BE USED AS
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, MICHAEL. APPRECIATE
IT. OKAY LET'S GIVE FOLKS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION ORGANIZATIONAL
OPPOSITION. COME TO THE
MICROPHONE, PLEASE. MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS, ALEX TORRES, DIRECTOR
OF STATE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
FOR THE BARRIER COUNCIL, IN
REGRETTABLE OPPOSITION WITH
SPECIFIC CONCERN ON THE HOUSING
COST PRODUCTION PIECE. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON MEMBERS. ROB
SPIEGEL, CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY AND
ASSOCIATION AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR
AND MEMBERS REX W. HEIM ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION, BUILDING
OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION
IN CALIFORNIA. AND NOW
CALIFORNIA AND OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS TRICIA CALENDAR WITH
AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA ALSO RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. EXACTLY VERY ON BEHALF
OF THE WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM
ASSOCIATION STRONG OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR MEMBERS
, CARLOS GUTIERREZ ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA GROCERIES
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA CON
GENDERS AND GROWERS ASSOCIATION
AND THE WESTERN EGG PROCESSORS
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. CHRIS
KAHN, REPRESENTING THE BUILDING
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA AND OPPOSITION. MR
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS JOHN
NORWOOD ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA POOL AND SPA
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. MEMBER HAS BEEN GOLOMBEK ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE AND OPPOSITION. MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS BETH ALLAH, SO
ON BEHALF OF THE AGRICULTURAL
ENERGY CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION IN
THE CALIFORNIA POULTRY
FEDERATION AND OPPOSITION, THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON MICROBES IN
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION
, THE PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITIES
IN OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR CHAIR MEMBERS. JASON ICON ON
BEHALF OF THE GLASS PACKAGING
INSTITUTE, ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS BRUCE
MIGNONI ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CEMENT MANUFACTURERS
ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. LET'S GO
TO THE PHONE LINES, TOO, FOR
FOLKS WHO WANT TO RAISE
CONCERNS. THANKS MR CHAIR. IF
YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO, UH
MAYBE 21 33 PLEASE PRESS 101
FALL BY ZERO AT THIS TIME. WILL
BEGIN TO FIND 29. YOU ARE OPEN.
GOOD AFTERNOON, TAYLOR ROSHAN
WITH THE CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
AND OPPOSITION. 74, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS. JAMES
CALIFORNIA TAKE COUNSEL FAVORS
COMPOSITION, SAYING YOU ARE OPEN
61. THANK YOU. MR CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS ARE A TOP ON BEHALF OF
THE ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS
COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION IN 63,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS MATT
CRIMMINS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ABOUT A CONFERENCE OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS. WE ARE IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. PLEASE GO AHEAD. 65. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
NOEL KRAMER'S FROM WINE
INSTITUTE AND OPPOSITION. 32,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON
ASSAULT THE CHECKER WITH THE LOS
ANGELES AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND OPPOSITION. 58 YOU ARE OPEN.
ALOHA CHAIR AND MEMBERS. THIS IS
MITCHELL BECHTEL ON BEHALF OF
THE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF IRELAND.
RECORDS IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. YOU ARE APPLYING 52. GOOD
AFTERNOON SHARE MEMBERS. THIS IS
TYSON, BADLY REPRESENTING THE
296 MEN AND WOMEN THAT STILL
WORKERS IN STRONG OPPOSITION. 9
27, PLEASE GO AHEAD. ADAM HARPER
WITH THE CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS ASSOCIATION
IN OPPOSITION. PLEASE GO AHEAD
LINES 77 SENATOR ALLEN MEMBERS,
JACK WELCOME ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF WINE
GRAPE GROWERS AND THE CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC BALANCE IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, 9 31, YOU ARE OPEN.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS
NICK CHAMPION ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION
AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. 71. I SEE SEAN
KANSEN. 71. THIS IS AN MARIE OD,
REPRESENTING THE LOS ANGELES ARE
IN COUNTIES BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL. WE
STAND WITH THE STATE BUILDING
TRADES AND STRONG OPPOSITION TO
A B 2133. THANK YOU. 9 70,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. PASTA WITH THE
LOS ANGELES ORANGE COUNTY
BUILDING CREWS. I STAND IN
SOLIDARITY WITH THE STATE
BUILDING TRADES IN OPPOSITION TO
A B 2133. THANK YOU. FINAL
REMINDER TO TESTIFY IN
OPPOSITION AT 21 33 0 AND WE'LL
BE LIKE 53. HELLO I'M BOBBY
THOMAS. I'M A RENEWABLE ENERGY
FACILITY WORKER REPRESENT 300
WORKERS OUT HERE AND WE ARE
STRONG OPPOSITION OF A B 2133. 9
68, YOU ARE OPEN. YES, THIS IS
MARTIN RODRIGUEZ, MY WORKERS
LOCAL 4 33 AND THEN WITH STATE
BUILDINGS SONG OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU AND MINE. 81, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. HI. IS THAT ME? CAN I BE
HEARD IN? UM THE CALIFORNIA
SENATE? YES. PLEASE PLEASE
IDENTIFY YOURSELF IN YOUR
POSITION ON THE BILL. UM WELL,
I'M CALLING TO OPPOSE A B 21 33
. I'M JUST WONDERING IF I CAN
HAVE A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO
SPEAK BECAUSE DON'T USUALLY GIVE
LIKE TIME FOR WITNESSES. WE DID.
WE JUST HAD SEVERAL WITNESSES
SPEAKING OPPOSITION, BUT WE DO
APPRECIATE YOUR YOU'RE YOU'RE
JOINING US IN WEIGHING IN ON THE
BILL, THANK YOU SO MUCH. LET'S
GO ON TO THE NEXT CALLER. AND
THAT WRAPS UP QUÊ. OKAY THANK
YOU SO MUCH. LET'S LET'S BRING
IT TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
QUESTIONS STARTS IN COMMENTS.
SENATOR BEATS THANK YOU. UM.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S KIRK. YOU
STARTED YOUR CONVERSATION HERE
WITH US TO ON YOUR BILL AND
SAYING IF WE DON'T SET AMBITIOUS
SCHOOLS, WE WANT TO ACHIEVE
THEM. AND BY ALL ESTIMATES THAT
ARE DRIVEN BY SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE
B. WE ARE NOT MEETING THE 40%
REDUCTION THAT WAS SET BY SB 32
JUST SIX YEARS AGO, SO THE
CONCERN, OBVIOUSLY, WHICH ISN'T
HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSED IN DEPTH
YET. IS THAT ACCELERATING THE
GOAL BY 15? WE HAVE NO NUMBERS
ON WHAT THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF
1990 EMISSIONS NUMBER ONE. WE'RE
JUST SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT IT. UM
WE HAVE INFORMATION FROM A R B
A. AND I'D LIKE TO POINTOUT
THAT THEY ARE NOT INVESTED
INTEREST FROM THE OPPOSITION
THAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY. THEY ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL. THEY'RE
SUPPOSED TO BE GUARDING.
CERTAINLY, UM THE CLIMATE AND
PROTECTING ALL OF US. IT'S A
IT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY. IT'S YOU
KNOW, THE EXISTENTIAL THREAT OF
CLIMATE CHANGE THAT SEEMS TO BE
BARRELING FORWARD HERE. THEY'RE
PROTECTING US AGAINST THAT. THEY
ARE SAYING THAT TO REACH THIS
GOAL WE WILL SPEND OVER $100
BILLION AND LOSE OVER 300,000
JOBS. THAT DOESN'T SOUND TO ME.
LIKE SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO,
AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT SOMETHING
THEY WANT TO DO BECAUSE THEY'VE
BEEN VERY, VERY OUTSPOKEN ON
THAT IN THE DISCUSSION OF THEIR
SCOPING PLAN. SO I THINK IT'S UP
TO YOU BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD TO ANSWER A FEW
QUESTIONS AND GET MORE IN INTO
INTO THE DEPTHS OF THIS HAVING
COME SO LATE AND I HAVE TO SAY
I'M OFFENDED. WHEN I GET A VERY
LATE LIST OF OPPOSITION THAT IS
SINGLE, SPACED THREE PAGES OF
FOLKS OPPOSING IT, WHO NEVER HAD
AN OPPORTUNITY, APPARENTLY TO
HAVE THEIR VOICES HEARD, EVEN
THOUGH WE HAD A SENATE CLIMATE
CHANGE ROUNDTABLE GROUP THAT HAD
AFTER SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS SAID
THE SAME THING THAT CARBON
SAYING RB OF SAYING AND WE'RE
JUST DISCOUNTING THAT BECAUSE
ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'VE DECIDED WE
NEED TO INCREASE OUR GOAL BY 15%
SO I THINK IT'S UP TO YOU.
YOU'RE THE MESSENGER HERE TO
ANSWER A FEW QUESTIONS. SO LET
ME BEGIN. WHY ARE WE CHANGING
MIDWAY? GIVE ME THE NUMBERS
BECAUSE YOU'RE A SCIENTIST, TOO,
WERE INCREASING AT 15% OVER WHAT
WE WERE TRYING TO REACH BY 2030.
BY 1990 STANDARDS NUMBER ONE
OTHER STATES COUNTRIES AND EVEN
OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN
FOLLOWING CALIFORNIA.
RECOGNIZING THAT NOT WE ARE
CHANGING THE RULES MIDWAY. WHAT
ARE WE SAYING TO ALL OF THEM?
THE CURRENT SCOPING PLAN, BICARB
HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE EXIST
EXISTING GOALS CAN BE MET. BUT
WE'RE SAYING OKAY, CAN'T MEET
THOSE, BUT NOW WE'RE ASKING YOU
TO MEET ONE THAT'S WAY FARTHER
ALONG. UM. I AM VERY CONCERNED
WHEN WE HAVE THAT KIND OF
ECONOMIC HIT. AND WE'RE TAKING
MIDDLE AMERICA MIDDLE CLASS JOBS
AWAY FROM THEM AND SAYING, OH,
WE'RE GOING TO CREATE GREEN
JOBS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVEN
BEEN PROVEN YET THAT WE HAVE ALL
THOSE GREEN JOBS THAT ARE OUT
THERE THAT ARE GOING TO REPLACE
THE ONES WE HAVE NOW. SO I THINK
IT IS UP TO YOU JUST TO GIVE US
A MORE IN DEPTH DISCUSSION OF
WHY YOU WOULD TAKE THIS BILL.
KNOWING THAT THESE THINGS HAVE
BEEN DECLARED BY RB. IT'S ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE. WITHOUT HUGE, HUGE
IMPACTS TO PEOPLE, THEIR
LIVELIHOODS IN THE PRESENT AND
IN THE FUTURE, SO I'M JUST GONNA
TOSS IT TO YOU MIGHT NOT BE DONE
BUT GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO
CONFRONT ALL OF THOSE CONCERNS
THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THREE
PAGES WORTH HERE, OPPOSING IT
NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO DISCUSS IN
DEPTH GET ANY AT THE TABLE. THE
COMMITTEE. THAT WAS ACTUALLY, UH
INITIATED FOR THAT VERY PURPOSE
SO WE COULD DISCUSS THINGS LIKE
THIS. THEY WERE JUST SENT AWAY.
SO HOW ABOUT IT? YEAH I'M NOT
QUITE SURE WHERE TO START. JUST
QUICKLY, SENATOR. AND I KNOW YOU
HAD A CONCERN ABOUT ONE OF THE
NUMBERS. THAT WAS JUST TO BE
CLEAR ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE'RE
ASKING ABOUT THEIR THE A R B
MODEL THAT'S BEING CITED THERE
AND YOU'RE BEING ASKED ABOUT
THAT THE OPPOSITION IS QUOTED
FROM IS NOT A 55% BY 2030 MODEL
JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO THE
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS
LOST THAT CITATION IS PATENTLY
INACCURATE BECAUSE ALTERNATIVE
ONE, WHICH I BELIEVE THEY'RE
CITING FROM SCOPING PLAN IS A
CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2035 MODEL
WITH NO CCS. SO YOU DON'T ALLOW
CCS AND YOU FORCED NEUTRALITY 10
YEARS FASTER THAN WE'RE
CONTEMPLATING. THEN YOU CAN GET
INTO SOME OF THOSE SCENARIOS,
BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT
THE CARB MODEL SHOWS. IT DOESN'T
GET INTO. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
55% NOT NEUTRALITY, SO ALMOST
ABOUT HALF SO, JUST TO BE CLEAR
ABOUT WHAT CAR BIZ MODEL THAN
NOT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT. EXCUSE
ME, BUT LET ME LET ME JUST
RESPOND TO THAT. THE FACTS ARE
THAT WE CAN'T MEET 40% BY 2030.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE SAID IN IT.
YOU KNOW, WHATEVER. THE NUMBERS
WERE NOT MEETING THAT WE'RE NOT
CLOSE TO THAT. BUT NOW WE'RE
SAYING OKAY BY 2030. WE'RE GOING
TO DO 55. THOSE ARE THE FACTS
THAT ARE BEFORE US SENATOR. SO
THOSE ARE TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED
EXCEPT BY SOMEONE'S OPINION, AND
WE DON'T HAVE A SCIENTIST OUT
HERE. THIS GOING TO TALK TO US
ABOUT ALL OF THAT, BECAUSE
THAT'S WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO GO
ON. IT MIGHT HELP TO GO TO THE
LEAD WITNESS ON V. RAMANATHAN
WHO'S DONE THIS MODELING AND
MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO CLARIFY ON
THE WHAT THE 2030 MODEL LOOKS
LIKE. I THINK IT WAS THE LEAD
WITNESS. I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S
STILL ON THE LINE ON THE
PROFESSOR YOU ON THE LINE. YEAH,
I'M ON THE LINE. WERE YOU ABLE
TO HEAR THIS DISCUSSION? WE'RE
HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE
FEASIBILITY OF REACHING THE 55%
TARGET. THAT THAT'S. AN ISSUE OF
POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY, AND, UH.
I HEARD THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND
CON, BUT I LIKE TO GIVE ONE
PERSPECTIVE. YOU KNOW, UH. THE
WARMING WAS 1 DEGREES BUT THINK
OF 14, AND THAT STARTED ALL OF
THIS STUFF BE EXPERIENCING. SO
WHAT ARE WE EXPERIENCING 33
MILLION ACCURACY FOREST STADIA.
NUMBER 12 MILLION BEEN EXPOSED
WIRES LAID IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
MEGA DROUGHT. AND THAT WAS
RUMORS. MAKES OR DRYING, NOT.
AND NOW THE PROJECTION IS
WARNING IS GOING TO AMPLIFIED BY
50. FROM THE 1 DEGREES
EXPERIENCE IN 2015. ANOTHER
EIGHT YEARS. WHEN I WHEN I LOOK
AT THE URGENCY AND THE IMPACT
IT'S GOING TO HAVE ONE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING INSURANCE
INDUSTRY, PARTICULARLY FARMING
IN THE MEGA DROUGHT. AND
EVERYTHING. DEFINE. I THINK WE
JUST MY FINGERS. WE HAVE TO FIND
A WAY. HMM MEET THE TARGETS 40
TO 55. AND, OF COURSE. JUST LIKE
SOME OPPOSITION JUST CALIFORNIA
DOING? IT'S NOT, PROFESSOR. I
KNOW YOU ARTICLE WITH MR KEENAN
THAT THAT SPEAKS SPECIFIC, UH,
SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO THIS
ISSUE, AND MAYBE YOU CAN SPEAK
TO THAT ARTICLE YOU WROTE. UM
YOU KNOW THE YOU'RE YOU'RE
YOU'RE BASICALLY, UM AS FAR AS
MY RECOLLECTION OF READING THE
ARTICLE YOU KNOW, THE FOLKS THE
SCIENTISTS HAVE BEEN WORKING
WITH SAY THAT YOU KNOW THAT EVEN
HIGHER NUMBERS. EVEN 80%
REDUCTION IS NOT JUST NECESSARY
, BUT VERY POSSIBLE AND IT'S
MODELED IN THE ARTICLE. YES YEAH
, I SEE. LEAVE 50 DIFFERENT
PERCENT BY 2013 WOULD GET US THE
80% BY 2015 AND 200% SO THE
FIRST STEP IS TO REACH THAT 50%
TARGET 50 OR 55 IN THE NEXT
EIGHT YEARS. AND. I THINK IF YOU
THINK ABOUT THE SOLUTIONS, WE
HAVE NATURE BASED SOLUTIONS.
LOGICAL SOLUTION. UH, I DON'T
SEE WHY CALIFORNIA ALWAYS.
INTELLECTUAL AND FINANCIAL
HORSEPOWER. CAN'T REACH THAT.
OKAY UM, SENATOR DOLLY HAS ASKED
BECAUSE HE'S IN THE ENERGY
COMMITTEE HEARING AND WITH WITH
VICE CHAIR BASES PERMISSION, WE
ARE GOING TO GIVE SENATOR DOLLY
AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK SOME
QUESTIONS. I APPRECIATE YOUR
FORBEARANCE AND OUR BAITS.
THANKS UH, SENATORS. I
APPRECIATE IT. GOOD TO SEE YOU,
MR QUIRK, A LONG TIME. SO FIRST.
I JUST WANTED TO START OUT WITH
A COMMENT, UM BECAUSE I ACTUALLY
HAVE BEEN DOWN IN THE ENERGY
COMMITTEE WHERE WE'RE DEBATING
WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO KEEP
DIABLO OPEN OR NOT, WHICH IS
SOMETHING WE ARE. THIS
LEGISLATURE TOOK A VOTE ON, I
THINK SIX YEARS AGO. AND UH,
WHICH I OPPOSED ITS GREEN
ENERGY, AND SO THAT'S ANOTHER
WHOLE SUBJECT. BUT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT NOW, UM, EXPANDING OUR
REDUCTIONS. SOONER. IN THIS BILL
, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WE
HAD A REPORT FROM THE RB, WHICH
WHICH WAS WAS BY THE NEXT 10
FOUND THAT THE BASED ON THE
CURRENT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
REDUCTION TRAJECTORY, THE STATE
WILL MISS BOTH THE 2030 AND 2050
GOES. THIS IS BEFORE YOUR BILL
TO MEET THESE MANDATES. THE
STATE WILL NEED TO TRIPLE OR
QUADRUPLE OUR CURRENT GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS, SO
THAT'S NUMBER ONE ANOTHER, TOO.
WE JUST HEARD. I'M SORRY. I
MISSED THE DEBATE. BUT WE'VE
HEARD ABOUT FIRE. WE'VE HEARD
ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING, AND WE'VE
HEARD ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS
THAT ARE HAPPENING TO US AND HOW
WHAT THE TRAGEDY IS AND WHY WE
NEED TO MOVE SO MUCH FASTER. BUT
I WANT TO SAY RIGHT NOW WE'VE
CREATED A LOT OF THESE CRISIS
OURSELVES HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
THE FIRES WERE EXPERIENCE ARE
BECAUSE WE DIDN'T ALLOW FIRE FOR
ALMOST 100 YEARS, AND WE HAVE
MEGA FIRES NOW. NOBODY WANTS TO
TALK ABOUT THAT. THE OTHER THING
I WANT TO MAKE A POINT OF IT IS
THAT WE PRODUCE IN CALIFORNIA 1%
OF THE WORLD'S GREENHOUSE. C 02
EMISSIONS 1. WE'VE EXPORTED A
LOT OF OUR JOBS, BUT WE'RE
IMPORTING ALL THOSE MATERIALS
THAT WE NEED TO KEEP CALIFORNIA
MOVING AND THEY'RE BEING
PRODUCED IN PLACES WHERE THEY
HAVE NO REGULATORY. FRAMEWORK SO
I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF
THIS DISCUSSION, AND I WANT TO
KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET
WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO HERE
WITHOUT DRIVING UP THE COST, AND
WE ARE CREATING THESE CRISIS
THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IN THE
ENERGY COMMITTEE. AND THE OTHER
ON THE OTHER FLOOR. AND I
BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL WILL DO
EXACTLY THE SAME THING. IT WILL
DRIVE THE COST UP. WE'LL HAVE
ANOTHER CRISIS IN A FEW YEARS
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT GOING TO
WORK. WE'RE NOT EVEN MEETING
THEIR TRAJECTORY THAT WE SAID WE
WERE GOING TO MEET OUR 2020
GOALS. SO AND ESPECIALLY IF WE
PUT PROJECTS OUT THAT ARE LIKE
THE BULLET TRAIN, WHICH IS
COSTING US $4.2 BILLION. WE HAVE
NOT LAID ONE FT OF TRACK AND
IT'S NOT GOING TO REDUCE CARBON
AT ALL. SO TELL ME, MY QUESTION
IS HOW DO WE GET THERE? WHAT DO
YOU WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE THAT
PUTS CALIFORNIANS AT E TO KNOW
THAT. HEY WE'RE ACTUALLY GONNA
BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE IT. AND THESE
ARE THESE ARE THE PROCESS. WE'RE
GOING TO ACHIEVE IT BECAUSE WE
HAVEN'T ACHIEVED WHAT WE SAID.
WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE. THAT'S
WHY WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP DIABLO
OPEN BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE
GREEN RENEWABLE ENERGY TO
SUPPORT CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW.
OKAY IT'S VERY GOOD TO SEE YOU
AGAIN. WE'VE BEEN ON TIME AND I
REMEMBER WHEN WE FIRST MET, YOU
SAID, IS THIS GREENHOUSE GAS
WARMING BUSINESSES THAT GENUINE
AND I SAID YES. THAT'S THE SIDE
THAT I KNOW I'M A CLIMATE
MODELER. I'M NOT AN ECONOMIC
MODEL ER AH, UM WHAT SENATOR
STERN WAS TRYING TO GET TO WAS A
PAPER WRITTEN BY DAN KAMMEN AND
OTHERS, WHICH TALKS ABOUT
ADDITIONAL MEASURES THAT CAN BE
TAKEN THAT HAVEN'T BEEN
CONSIDERED BY THE AIR BOARD. CAN
WE MEET THIS? CAN WE MEET THE
40% GOAL? CAN WE MEET THE 55%
GOAL? WHAT THIS BILL IS TELLING
THE AIR BOARD IS TO GO BACK TO
THE DRAWING LINES. CHART TO LOOK
AT. ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES.
WHAT CAN WE DO WITH THE FEDERAL
MONEY THAT'S COMING, ETCETERA?
NOW. IF YOUR WORST FEAR AND THE
FEAR OF THE OPPOSITION IS THAT
THE ECONOMY IS GOING TO
COLLAPSE. I WOULD BE WORRIED
ABOUT THAT, TOO. THE FACT IS
POLITICALLY, THAT'S JUST NEVER
GOING TO HAPPEN, AND WE HAVE
THROUGH A B 32 THE ABILITY OF
THE GOVERNOR TO TAKE A LOOK AND
SAY THIS ISN'T WORKING AND WE'RE
GOING TO STOP. I'VE ALSO ASKED
THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE JOBS
AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S THEIR
THEIR I MEAN, EVEN THE BUILDING
TRADE SAID WE'RE BUILDING WIND.
WE'RE BUILDING SOLAR WORLD
BUILDING THIS. WE'RE BUILDING
THAT. FURTHER I AM A BIG
PROPONENT OF HYDROGEN IS AN
ALTERNATIVE FUEL. THAT'S THE WAY
TO KEEP OUR REFINERIES GOING.
CHEVRON MANY OTHERS THAT WELL,
NOT SO MUCH ANGER AND SHALL BUT
EVEN CHEVRON. THEY'RE LOOKING AT
HYDROGEN. THEY ARE LOOKING AT
GETTING THIS DONE. THERE IS
NOBODY WHO COULD DO BETTER. AND
TO ME THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A
LOT OF JOBS. SO YOU KNOW AGAIN,
I'M A CLIMATE MODELER, NOT AN
ECONOMIC MODEL ER THERE IS MORE
INFORMATION OUT THERE. WE'RE
ASKING THE BOARD TO LOOK AT IT
AGAIN. AND YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU
KNOW, RIGHT NOW AND AGAIN. I
SAID THIS EARLIER. THE GOVERNOR
WAS THE BIGGEST PROPONENT OF
SHUTTING DOWN THE OUTLOOK.
CANYON NOW IS THE BIGGEST
PROPONENT OF KEEPING IT OPEN.
YOU KNOW WE'RE GOING TO DO WHAT
WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE SURE WE
HAVE A STRONG ECONOMY AND, YES,
JOBS HAVE LEFT, BUT YOU'LL
NOTICE THERE'S STILL A HOUSING
CRISIS. THERE'S A HOUSING CRISIS
BECAUSE WE HAVE TOO MANY JOBS IN
THE STATE. IF WE DIDN'T HAVE SO
MANY JOBS, THERE WOULDN'T BE A
SHORTAGE OF HOUSING. SO ALL IN
ALL THE ECONOMY IS DOING FINE.
THE UH, EMPLOYMENT RATE IS THE
ECONOMIC UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS
GOING DOWN. AH WE'RE DOING OKAY.
AND WE HAVE TO DO OKAY, BECAUSE
IT'S NOT ONLY AND THIS GETS TO
YOUR 1% COMMENT. YEAH. IF WE DO
SOMETHING, IT'S A SMALL FACTOR.
WE'RE DOING THIS TO BE LEADERS
WERE DOING THIS TO SHOW THE REST
OF THE COUNTRY TO THINGS. NOT
ONE BUT TWO. ONE IS THAT WE CAN
REDUCE THE GREENHOUSE GASSES AND
TWO IS THAT WE HAVE A STRONG
ECONOMY. WE HAVE TO DO BOTH BOTH
A B 32. AND THE POLITICS DICTATE
THAT WELL, I THANK YOU FOR THAT
COMMENT, BUT I WOULD JUST SAY I
KNOW YOU'RE A SCIENTIST, AND I'M
A FARMER. AND I TALKED TO MY
CONSTITUENTS AND I KNOW THAT
WHAT'S WHAT'S IMPACTING
CALIFORNIA'S INFLATION. WHAT'S
IMPACTING CALIFORNIA'S THE COST
OF LIVING WAS WHAT THE COST OF
FUEL THE COST OF ELECTRICITY. WE
PAY 76% HIGHER THAN OTHER
STATES. AND I KNOW THAT OUR
GOVERNOR IS A WINE SALESMAN. AND
HE'S TALKING ABOUT NARROW,
HURRYING UP THIS FACTOR. SO IN
OUR PERSPECTIVE LIVES, THERE'S A
LOT OF DIFFERENCES HERE. YOU MAY
KNOW SCIENCE, BUT I KNOW WHAT'S
HAPPENING ON THE GROUND IN MY
BUSINESS AND WHAT'S AFFECTING MY
CONSTITUENTS AND WHAT'S
AFFECTING THEM TODAY AS THE COST
OF ENERGY AND THIS PLAN DOES NOT
TELL ME HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET
TO THESE REDUCTIONS AND KEEP THE
COST DOWN BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE
SEEN IS THE COST CONTINUES TO
RISE, AND WE'RE STILL NOT
GETTING THE REDUCTIONS. AND SO
FOR THOSE REASONS, I WILL NOT BE
SUPPORTING YOUR BILL TODAY. I'M
SORRY, AND I'M GONNA BE CRITICAL
OF THIS PROCESS ALL THE WAY
THROUGH BECAUSE I GUARANTEE YOU
THAT WE'VE BEEN ON FOR THE 10
YEARS THAT WE'VE BOTH BEEN HERE.
THERE'S NEVER BEEN A SHORTAGE OF
MONEY. THERE'S MORE MONEY THAN
CALIFORNIA THERE'S EVER BEEN
BECAUSE THE TAXES ARE HIGH AND
THE ECONOMY WAS DOING GREAT, BUT
THAT WILL CHANGE AND IT WILL
CHANGE. WHEN IT DOES. IT WILL
CHANGE FAST, AND IF WE CONTINUE
TO PUT POLICIES LIKE THIS
TOGETHER, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE
FASTER BECAUSE THE CALIFORNIANS
ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THE
HIGH COST OF ENERGY. SO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. IT'S GOOD TO
SEE YOU AGAIN. AND I HOPE THAT
YOU PUT SOME DETAIL TO YOUR PLAN
ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO
ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THESE PROJECTS
PROJECTS AND ACTUALLY GET IT
BECAUSE AS I SAID EARLIER. I
MEAN, A COMMITTEE WHERE WE'RE
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MEET
THE TODAY'S DEMAND, AND IT'S NOT
WORKING. LET ME JUST SAY I WILL
NOT BE PUTTING IN DETAILED
INFORMATION ON HOW TO REACH
THAT. I DO NOT HAVE THE
EXPERTISE. NO ONE IN THIS
BUILDING DOES. WE ARE SENDING
THIS BACK TO THE AIR BOARD.
WE'RE ASKING TO RE EXAMINE IT.
THEY DIDN'T COME UP WITH AN
ANSWER. I DON'T LIKE OR THEY MAY
COME UP WITH THE ONE I DO LIKE.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S GOING TO
BE IN THE BILL. THE BILL IS TO
SET THE GOAL. THE BILL IS TO GO
OUT THERE AND TWO THINGS. STRONG
ECONOMY AND GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTIONS. WE NEED BOTH OR DOES
IT NO GOOD AT ALL. AND THAT I
THINK WE COULD BOTH AGREE WITH
IF WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG
ECONOMY, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE
TO DO ANYTHING ELSE AND THE
SCOPING PLAN. THE CURRENT
GOVERNMENT PLAN IS ALREADY ON,
YOU KNOW, FROM CARB IS ON TRACK
FOR 47% SO AND THERE'S A LOT OF
DEBATES ABOUT THAT. BUT UM,
THANK YOU. I WILL BE, BUT THAT'S
NOT THAT'S WAY OVER 40 ANYHOW.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL SEE YOU.
ALRIGHT WE'LL LET WE'LL LET
SENATOR BATES CONTINUE AND THEN
I KNOW LOTS OF QUESTIONS REMAIN
. WE CAN EVEN BE GOING BACK AND
FORTH WITH FOLKS JUST SO WE CAN
HAVE AND REMEMBERING THAT YOU
ARE A SCIENTIST WHO DR GORKA
WILL USE THAT. BUT LET LET ME
CLOSE. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING
TO GET ANSWERS THAT I PUT OUT
THERE BECAUSE THOSE ARE
SPECIFICS, BUT YOU DID SAY IN
ONE OF YOUR REMARKS THAT IF IT'S
NOT WORKING THAN THE GOVERNOR
CAN CHANGE EVERYTHING. IT WOULD
SEEM TO ME THEN PERHAPS A BETTER
PATH HERE FOR THE BILL WOULD
HAVE OFF RAMPS IN SOME WAY TO
MEASURE THOSE IF IT IS NOT
WORKING, AND WE SEE A HUGE
DECLINE, CERTAINLY IN THE JOBS
AVAILABLE AND WHAT THAT DOES TO
THE ECONOMY BECAUSE WITHOUT
MONEY CIRCULATING PEOPLE WORKING
WILL IMMEDIATELY SEE THAT AND
THERE ARE NO OFF RAMPS DISCUSSED
AT ALL. IT'S JUST THAT WE GOT TO
GET THERE. AND IF OUR ARBOR CARB
THOUGHT IT WAS POSSIBLE, I'D
THINK THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY
DONE SOME SORT OF MODELING ON
THAT AND BEEN PREPARED. RESPOND
I THINK THIS CAME OUT OF
NOWHERE, PROBABLY TO THEM ALSO.
THAT WE HAD SEEN 15% MORE IN THE
SAME TIME FRAME THAT WE WERE
SEEKING 40% SO THOSE WOULD BE MY
CLOSING COMMENTS LIKE CAN'T
SUPPORT IT TODAY. I AM NOT A
DENIER. IN TERMS OF WHAT WE SEE
GOING ON. I THINK THERE ARE MANY
OPINIONS AND WHAT THAT'S
HAPPENING. SO ONE SCIENTIST
SPEAKING, UM YOU KNOW, IN A VERY
DIFFICULT WAY TO SPEAK TO US OR
THE FUN IS NOT CONFIDENCE THAT I
CAN PROVIDE TO MY CONSTITUENTS.
BUT CERTAINLY I KNOW THIS IS
SOMETHING YOU FEEL VERY
PASSIONATE ABOUT. AND I'M NOT
SAYING THAT NONE OF THAT THE
REST OF US DON'T BUT YOU'VE GOT
TO PROVIDE A PATHWAY AND I DON'T
SEE A PATHWAY HERE. JUST WE HAVE
THIS AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO
TO THAT. AND THERE'S ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING DISCUSSED. THAT'S MORE
THAN AN OPINION OF ONE PERSON
VERSUS ANOTHER PERSON, AND
THAT'S NOT THE WAY SOMETHING
THAT IS DRACONIAN IS THIS COULD
BE SHOULD COME BEFORE THIS
LEGISLATURE AND BE PLACED BEFORE
US AT THE NINTH HOUR WITH 3.5
PAGES OF OPPOSITION OF PEOPLE
THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN HAD A
CHANCE TO DISCUSS IT WITH. AND
THERE WAS A PROCESS THAT WAS SET
FORTH TO ALLOW THAT KIND OF
DISCUSSION TO TAKE PLACE. IT WAS
TERMINATED BECAUSE WE COULDN'T
WE COULDN'T MEET THE GOALS THAT
WERE THAT WERE BEING DISCUSSED
WITH THAT. I WON'T BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT IT TODAY, BUT DO
APPRECIATE YOU TAKING IT ON.
UNDERSTAND AND I UNDERSTAND AND
UNDERSTAND. HMM SENATOR
WIECKOWSKI. YEAH, OKAY. LET'S
START OFF EASY QUESTION. THE ONE
OF THE OPPOSITION, THE BUILDING
INDUSTRY TALKED ABOUT THE
FIFTIES 55% GOAL, UM, WILL
BECOME A THRESHOLD OF
SIGNIFICANCE AS FAR AS SEQUENCE
. CONCERN IS THAT THE INTENT OF
THE LEGISLATION UM, I'LL HAVE TO
LOOK INTO THAT. UM YOU KNOW,
PEOPLE SAY THINGS IN THAT
POSITION, AND I HAVE TO EVALUATE
THAT AND I'LL WORK ON IT WITH
THE CHAIR. OKAY, BECAUSE THAT'S
A PROCESS THAT THEY'RE THERE. WE
ALWAYS TALK ABOUT THIS
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES? SURE,
UM, UH, TURNING OUR ATTENTION TO
THE CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM
BECAUSE THE CURRENT CAP AND
TRADE PROGRAM IS NOT DESIGNED TO
EVEN MEET THE 40% GOAL THAT WE
HAVE THERE. UM I'VE BEEN AN
ADVOCATE OF HAVING THE AIR BOARD
MAKE CHANGES TO THE ALLOWANCES
OF THE OFFSET PROGRAM IN ORDER
TO ADMITTEDLY DRIVE THE PRICE
UP. UM IF THE AUCTIONS HOW MIGHT
THE DIRECTOR OF THE AIRPORT USE
THIS? ALTER THE OPERATION OR
THE, UH PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE AT
WITH THE CAP AND TREE TO HELP
ACHIEVE YOUR 50 55% COAL THEY
CAN'T THAT THAT IS SET IN LAW.
SEPARATELY I HELPED NEGOTIATE
IT. THOSE LIMITS ARE THE LIMITS.
IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT WELL,
NEITHER ONE OF US WILL BE BACK
NEXT YEAR. SOMEBODY ELSE IS
GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE IT.
THERE IS NOTHING IN HERE THAT
GIVES THE AIR BOARD MORE
AUTHORITY TO CHANGE CAP AND
TRADE. AND WE PUT THOSE LIMITS
IN THERE BECAUSE WE'RE WORRIED
ABOUT THE ECONOMY. I HELPED
NEGOTIATE THAT, ALONG WITH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BURKE,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MAZE AND MANY
OTHERS. SO IT CAN'T AND IT
SHOULDN'T BUT THEY HAVE SOME
DISCRETION DOCTOR ON THE AMOUNT
OF ALLOWANCES HAVE LIMITS,
RIGHT? BUT AND WE HAVE SET THE
LIMITS. OKAY SO WITHIN THOSE
LIMITS, THEY CAN DO MORE, BUT
THIS DOES NOT GIVE THEM ANY MORE
AUTHORITY. OKAY SO LET'S TURN
OUR ATTENTION TO THE
LEGISLATURE. WHAT BECAUSE, UM,
THERE. THERE'S NO LESS THAN
THREE BILLS THAT THE THAT THE
SENATE HAS SENT OVER TO THE
ASSEMBLY ON CARBON CAPTURE ONE
OF THE OPPOSITION HAS POINTED
OUT OR IN THE SUPPORTERS HAVE
POINTED OUT THAT THIS PILLAR OF
THE GOAL OF 55% BY 2030 SHOULD
BE SEEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE
OTHER PILLARS THAT THEY HAVE AND
ONE THE PILLARS THAT THEY SEE IS
A CARBON CAPTURE. I HAD A BILL
TO DO THREE DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS GENERALLY IN THIS
BUILDING HAVE A DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT IS A GOOD IDEA TO SEE IF
IT WORKS AND THAT WAS REJECTED
BY THE ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY HAS
REJECTED, UH, LEGISLATION TO TRY
TO DEFINE THE BOAR RESERVES AND
THE, UH, POSSIBILITIES OF DOING
CARBON CAPTURE. HOW DOES THAT
ACTION. HELP OUT OUR ABILITY TO
GET TO? YES, ON THIS BILL OUT
55% IF WE DON'T EVEN GET
HEARINGS ON CAP AND TRADE UM,
SENATOR I FEEL FOR YOU, BUT THIS
IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ANYTHING
I CAN HANDLE. ALL RIGHT? I WAS
NOT ON THOSE COMMITTEES. I
REALLY DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOUR
BILL. UM AND YOU KNOW THIS IS
IT'S THE IDEA, DOCTOR. IT'S THE
IDEA IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY
HERE'S THE SOLUTION. ONE OF US
WILL BE HERE NEXT YEAR. YOU CAN
LOBBY ANY SENATOR ANY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S YOU WANT. WE'RE
NOT GOING TO BE HERE. SOMEBODY
ELSE IS GOING TO FIGURE THIS
OUT. PUTTING ASIDE ANY PERSONAL
PROBLEMS THAT I MAY HAVE. WE'RE
TRYING TO LOOK AT THE PACKAGE
THAT YOU'RE ONE PORTION OF DO
YOU AGREE THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT
THIS AS A PACKAGE OR IS THIS
JUST A SINGLE DO THE 55% FOR
2030, AND WE SHOULDN'T LOOK AT
THESE OTHER PILLARS THAT THE
GOVERNOR HAS TALKED ABOUT.
ABSOLUTELY IT IS A SINGLE
PACKAGE, AND NOW YOU'RE NOT
TALKING ABOUT LEGISLATION. WE
DIDN'T PASS. I AM VERY HOPEFUL
THAT THE ASSEMBLY WILL IN FACT,
TAKE UP THOSE SENATE BILLS ON
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE. AND
IF THEY DON'T WE'RE IN TROUBLE
BECAUSE THIS IS ONE PACKAGE AND
IT HAS THINGS IN THERE FOR
EVERYBODY. AND FRANKLY, INCLUDES
DABBLE CANYON DIABLO CANYON, THE
FIVE PILLARS THESE OTHER BILLS
THAT COME UP ARE ALL PART OF A
PACKAGE. THEY ALL NEED TO PASS.
AND THEY ALL NEED TO PASS
BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING IN
THERE FOR, YOU KNOW,
PARTICULARLY IN THE BUILDING
TRADES THEY REALLY CARE ABOUT
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE.
THOSE ARE GOOD JOBS. SO YES, WE
NEED THAT CARBON CAPTURE AND
STORAGE BILL. WE NEED ALL OF
THOSE BILLS. AND THEY COME AS A
PACKAGE AND INCLUDES THE APPLE
CANYON. I MEAN,
ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE BEEN
TRYING TO CLOSED THE APPLE
CANYON FOR YEARS AND NOW THE
PRIME ONE OF THE PRIMARY
PROPONENTS IS TRYING TO KEEP IT
OPEN. UM THIS PACKAGE. IT'S
SOMETHING THAT PUTS BRINGS A LOT
OF INTEREST TOGETHER. THE
BUILDING TRADES THE
ENVIRONMENTALISTS. UM. AND
THAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING THE
PACKAGE. SO YES, THE WHOLE
PACKAGE HAS TO GO THROUGH. SO I
DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS INTO
YOUR MOUTH, BUT MY COLLEAGUE WAS
ASKING FOR A PATHWAY THAT THAT
WOULD HELP. UM GET THERE SO LONG
. THAT PATHWAY WOULD BE A
CONTINUATION OF DIABLO CANYON IN
ORDER TO HELP ACHIEVE THE 55%
GOAL THAT YOU HAVE IN THIS BILL
IS THAT DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT
STATEMENT? WE'LL HAVE TO SEE THE
DETAILS. THE POINT OF DIABLO
CANYON RIGHT NOW IS TO HAVE A
GREENHOUSE GAS FREE SOURCE OVER
THE NEXT 5 TO 10 YEARS AND I
DON'T KNOW WHAT PEOPLE WILL
FINALLY AGREE ON. BUT EVENTUALLY
THAT PLANT IS GOING DOWN. AND SO
IT DOESN'T HELP US. CERTAINLY
BEYOND 2035 WOULD BE THE LAST
WOULD BE OPEN AND SURE IT WOULD
HELP US TO 2030 OR 2035. BUT IN
THE END, IT'S COMING DOWN. UH
THERE ISN'T THE SUPPORT TO GO
BEYOND 2035, PERHAPS NOT BEYOND
2030. I THINK JACK BENNY SAID
TIMING IS EVERYTHING SURE IF
DIABLO CANYON DO YOU AGREE THAT
DIABLO CANYON REPRESENTS ABOUT
8% OF OUR ENERGY? HEY I WOULD
NEVER HAVE SHUT IT DOWN TO BEGIN
WITH. I'M PRO NUCLEAR POWER.
ALRIGHT I WOULD KEPT I WOULD
HAVE HAD IT EXTENDED FOR 30
YEARS, OK? THAT'S MY POSITION ON
DIABLO CANYON. FURTHERMORE WE DO
HAVE A CURE A WAY TO TREAT WASTE
. IT'S CALLED YUCCA MOUNTAIN. MY
COLLEAGUES AT LAWRENCE LIVERMORE
WORKED FOR MANY YEARS. THAT'S
WHERE NUCLEAR WASTE SHOULD BE
STORED. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT
HAPPENED. AND I LIVE WITH THE
POLITICS WE HAVE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, WHICH MEANS IT WILL
BE 5 TO 10 YEARS AND NOT 30 BACK
ON THE PATHWAY. HOW MIGHT
HYDROGEN PLAY A ROLE IN HELPING
ACHIEVE THIS GOAL OF A 55%
REDUCTION BY 2030 IS OUTLINED IN
THE BILL. OKAY SO I'M GOING TO
TALK TO YOU AS A NON EXPERT. I'M
A CLIMATE MODELER, BUT FIRST OF
ALL, I'M THIS IS YOU DO HAVE
MORE TIME FOR THIS HEARING,
RIGHT? WE CAN TALK SOME MORE
ABOUT I MEAN, IS THIS OKAY WITH
THE CHAIR? SURE. SURE. GOOD. I
AM I'M A HYDROGEN ENTHUSIAST AND
THE PRIMARY REASON I'M A
HYDROGEN ENTHUSIAST IS I LIVE IN
AN APARTMENT BUILDING. IT IS NOT
EASY TO GET A CHARGE. AH UM
ELECTRIC IS FINE, BUT FOR HALF
THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE UH,
GETTING A CHARGE OVERNIGHT. THE
EASIEST WAY TO CHARGE YOUR CAR%
IS JUST NOT AVAILABLE. YEAH,
THERE MIGHT BE ONE OR TWO
CHARGING STATIONS AMONG, YOU
KNOW, 50 PARKING SPOTS. GOOD
LUCK. AND THEN ALL SORTS OF
PEOPLE WITH SMALL HOMES. THE
ONLY ONLY STORAGE IS A GARAGE
THAT'S FULL OF STUFF, AND THEY
PARK ON THE STREET. HOW ARE THEY
GOING TO CHARGE OVERNIGHT? FOR
ME? THE ANSWER IS HYDROGEN. THE
PRICES HAVE TO COME DOWN. THERE
ARE GOOD REASONS TO BELIEVE THEY
WILL COME DOWN AND THIS WOULD BE
A MAJOR OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
BUILDING TRADES, ETCETERA. THE
OTHER THING THAT THE OTHER
REASON WE NEED HYDROGEN IS FOR
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES. IT'S GREAT
TO HAVE ALL OF THIS ELECTRICITY
AND HAVE A REMEMBER ALL THE
NUCLEAR ADVOCATES WHEN I FIRST
LOOKED AT THIS IN THE SEVENTIES
WERE SAYING WE SHOULD HAVE AN
ELECTRIC ECONOMY AND WILL BE RUN
BY NUCLEAR PLANTS, AND ALL THE
NUCLEAR ADVOCATES WERE VERY
ANXIOUS TO GET ON THE GREENHOUSE
GAS REDUCTION. UH, PATH. THE
WHAT WE'RE SEEING. NOW THERE WAS
MANY INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES WHERE
YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT WITH
ELECTRICITY. IF YOU'RE GOING TO
MAKE STEEL, YOU NEED HIGHER
TEMPERATURES. HYDROGEN IS THE
WAY TO GO, SO WE DEFINITELY
NEEDED FOR INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
. I THINK IT IS. I THINK FOR
HALF THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE, IT
WILL BE BETTER WAY TO DRIVE
THEIR CARS. AND ALL OF THIS
HELPS IN TERMS OF JOBS FOR THE
BUILDING TRADES. FOR THE
REFINERIES, ETCETERA. THERE'S
NOBODY CAN MOVE A FUEL BETTER.
THEN THE FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES
AS A MODELER. THE AIRPORT HAS
SPENT 18 MONTHS UH, WORKING ON
THE DRAFT. UH PLAN WE SOME OF US
HAVE COMMENTED ON MADE COMMENTS
. SO MANY PEOPLE HERE HAVE
COMMENTED, UM NOW IF THIS
BECOMES LAW A B 2033. WE'RE
EXPECTING THEM TO PIVOT, WHICH
IS PROBABLY WHERE THE CAPITAL P
HOW MIGHT A MODELER LIKE YOU
RESPONDED THAT? WELL, FIRST OF
ALL, I'M A CLIMATE MODELER, AND
FRANKLY, I HAVEN'T MODELED
CLIMATE PROBABLY 40 YEARS, BUT I
KNOW HOW MODELS WORK. LOOK THE
MODELS WERE TALKING ABOUT HERE
IN TERMS OF WHAT WE COULD OR
COULDN'T DO. OUR MODELS, WHICH
WILL SAY IF WE WERE TO DO X.
THIS IS HOW MUCH WE REDUCE. AND
THEN THE QUESTION IS, CAN YOU
REALLY DO ACT? AND THAT'S GOING
TO TAKE MORE THAN JUST A MODEL.
THAT'S GONNA TAKE INVESTMENT.
PARTICULARLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
HYDROGEN NOW. WE HAVE, LIKE 100
STATIONS IN THE STATE. WE NEED
1000. THAT'S GOING TO TAKE
INVESTMENT, AND WE'RE HOPING
THAT THE FEDERAL MONEY WILL HELP
THAT OUR MONEY WILL HELP. BUT
NONE OF THIS IS GOING TO WORK
UNLESS WE MAKE THE INVESTMENT
AND WE'RE PUTTING MORE MONEY
THAN EVER INTO IT RIGHT NOW.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PUTTING
MONEY INTO IT. SO THE MODELS THE
ECONOMIC MODELS, THEY CAN GUIDE
US WHERE WE NEED TO GO, THEN WE
NEED TO DO THE HARD WORK. IN
TERMS OF THE COST OF HYDROGEN
AGAIN. PEOPLE ARE WORKING TO
BRING THAT DOWN TO. IT'LL BE
HALF THE PRICE OF IT GALLON OF
GAS TODAY. UM THE PRICE OF FUEL
CELLS HAS TO COME DOWN. GM AND
MANY OTHERS. WHEN THEY SAY THEY
WERE LOOKING AT ELECTRIC
VEHICLES. THEY'RE COUNTING
HYDROGEN, AND THEY'RE LOOKING AT
FUEL CELLS, WHICH ARE BASICALLY
JUST BATTERIES. AND FUEL CELL IS
JUST A HIGH DENSITY BATTERY.
IT'S A LOT EASIER TO CHARGE THAN
ELECTRIC BATTERY, AND THAT'S THE
KIND OF PROGRESS THAT HAS TO BE
MADE. THE JAPANESE ARE MAKING
TREMENDOUS INVESTMENTS. AND THEY
MAY LEAD THE WAY UNLESS WE ALSO
MAKE THOSE INVESTMENTS. LET'S
MAKE OUR FUEL CELLS HERE AND NOT
IN JAPAN OR CHINA. MR CHAIR,
SENATOR STERN. UM DAMOS CHAIR
AND I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING
IMPATIENT TO, UM AND JUMPING IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE SENATOR BATES
HAS COMMENTS SO I DO APPRECIATE
HER, UM DEFERENCE THERE AND
YOURS AS WELL, I JUST HAVE A I
GUESS. ONE OR TWO QUICK
COMMENTS. UM THE. SO JUST TO
CLARIFY THE SOME OF THE
OPPOSITION TESTIMONY IS THAT
CARVED HAS REJECTED. 55% BY 2030
SCENARIO. UM, THAT'S NOT TRUE.
UM, THEY ALSO ALLEGED THAT CARB
HAS MODELED THE SCENARIO THAT'S
IN THIS BILL, AND IT WOULD
RESULT IN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF JOBS LOST AND SHUTTERING ALL
REFINERIES. UM THAT'S ALSO NOT
TRUE AND ALTERNATIVE WARNER AN
ALTERNATIVE TO AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER. UM THOSE ARE SCENARIOS
A THAT DON'T HAVE A CCS
COMPONENT B THAT ARE MODELING
OUT UNTIL 2035 ON CARBON
NEUTRALITY, NOT ON A 2030 BASES.
AND SO I JUST THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR MEMBERS BECAUSE
THIS INFORMATION IS GOING TO
START FLYING THAT, UM, THAT
THOSE ARE THOSE ARE NOT THE CASE
. AND AS THE ANALYSIS ITSELF
POINTS OUT THE UNDER THE SCOPING
PLAN UPDATE IN MAY OF 22 THE
PROPOSED SCENARIO AH, YOU KNOW,
PROPOSED BY THE AIR BOARD WOULD
ACHIEVE 47% SO WE'D ACTUALLY
BEAT ARE 2030 GOALS. AND THAT
DID NOT EVEN MODEL FOR CAP AND
TRADE. AH CCS OR, UM, THE CLEAN
CAR RULE THAT WAS JUST ADOPTED
YESTERDAY. SO UM, NOR DID IT
INCLUDE ANY OF THE INVESTMENTS
FROM THE INVESTMENT, THE
INFLATION REDUCTION ACT OR THE
$58 BILLION CLIMATE PACKAGE THAT
WE'RE ON THE VERGE OF PASSING.
SO, UM WE THINK WE CAN DO MORE.
THE FACT THAT CALIFORNIA IS NOW
BEHIND NOT ONLY THE EU BUT THE
NATIONAL STANDARD WHERE THEY'RE
HAVING TO COMPROMISE. UM WITH
FOLKS LIKE JOE MANCHIN AND
PLACES THAT THAT MIND FOR, UM
FOR THEIR ENERGY. UM. AND THE
FACT THAT WE'RE EVEN BEHIND THE
PRESIDENT'S GOAL RIGHT NOW TO ME
IS A DANGEROUS MOMENT FOR
CALIFORNIA'S LEADERSHIP. UM
WITHOUT THAT SIGNAL, I DON'T I'M
WORRIED THAT WE'RE GOING TO FALL
BEHIND AND MISS ALL THESE
OPPORTUNITIES. I WILL SAY THAT,
UM I APPRECIATE THAT THE CHAIR
IS GONNA LOOK INTO HOW TO USE
SOME OF THOSE EXISTING
MECHANISMS WITHIN A B 32 WITH
THE AUTHOR AROUND, UM, BOTH
MAKING SURE THE ECONOMIC
ANALYSES ARE SQUARELY FOCUSED ON
JOBS. AND THAT, UM, THAT WE
CLARIFY THAT THE GOVERNOR STILL
HAS THAT SORT OF EMERGENCY
AUTHORITY, UM, IN HIS OR MAYBE
IN THE FUTURE, HER POWER, UM SO
I THINK THOSE ARE THOSE ARE
HEALTHY. THE ONE THING I JUST
WANTED TO ALSO ASK THAT BE
CONSIDERED EITHER BY THE AUTHOR
OR THE CHAIR. I KNOW THE SUPPORT
OF AMENDED, UM, TESTIMONY WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT, UM I WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT, SORT OF
OFFSETTING, OR LINKING OUR WAY
TO A 55% GOAL. IN OTHER WORDS,
FINDING THESE EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS ALL OUTSIDE THE STATE
OR IN WAYS THAT DON'T ALSO
DELIVER DIRECT BENEFITS, SO I
KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET
INTO HOW TO SORT OF MICRO MANAGE
OUR PATH TO THAT TARGET. AS YOU
RIGHTLY NOTED, THERE IS A SORT
OF A TWO STEP HERE, AND WE'RE
NOT GOING TO SPELL OUT EXACTLY
WHAT THE PATHWAY IS. UM BUT I DO
THINK, ESPECIALLY UNDER THE A B
3 98 RULES THAT YOU HELPED
NEGOTIATE DOCTOR QUIRKE, ALONG
WITH SOME MEMBER GARCIA AND A
FEW OTHERS. UM, THAT SORT OF.
THAT FOCUS ON COMMUNITIES AND
JOBS FIRST REALLY SHOULD BE
DRIVING THIS, SO I DON'T KNOW IF
THAT'S IF IT'S A MATTER OF JUST
REFERENCING SOME OF THOSE
EXISTING NEGOTIATIONS THAT THAT
DEALT EXACTLY WITH THAT, UM OR
IF IT'S JUST CLARIFYING HOW THE
AIR BOARD IS CURRENTLY
APPROACHING IT, BUT I DO THINK
WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT
MAXIMIZING DIRECT EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS. CERTAINLY BEFORE WE
GO TO OFFSETS OUTSIDE OF OUR
JURISDICTION OR LINKING THE FACT
IS WE COULD GET TO 55% TODAY IF
WE LINKED WITH, UM ALL THE
FOREIGN NATIONS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY UNDER THE UN PROTOCOL
IF WE WERE UNDER THE QUEBEC
MODEL, AND WE HAD 25 OTHER
COUNTRIES LINKED TO OUR SYSTEM,
IT WOULD COST $0 AND WE HAVE A
FULLY LINKED PROGRAM. WE'VE
DECIDED NOT TO DO THAT, AND WE
DECIDED TO SORT OF FOCUS OUR OUR
EFFORTS INWARD. I THINK THAT'S
THE RIGHT THING TO DO, BUT I
THINK IT SHOULD BE SORT OF
UNDERSTOOD THAT WE'RE MAKING
THOSE CHOICES NOW, BUT WE DO
HAVE FLEXIBILITY IN THAT REGARD.
UM SO AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME,
I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION.
UM I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THE
BILL FORWARD AND BRINGING YOUR
UM. DOCTORAL KIND OF KNOWLEDGE.
WE DO NEED A SCIENTIST THINKING
HERE AND MODELERS THINKING, BUT
I ALSO APPRECIATE ALL THE
MEMBERS EFFORTS AND I THINK YOU
KNOW FROM MY COLLEAGUE WHO'S IN
HIS FINAL WEEK HERE OF WORKING
AT THIS I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
CENTER WIECKOWSKI AND THE
VIGILANCE AND THE OVERSIGHT THAT
HE'S INSISTED ON OF THE AIR
BOARD TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT
MEETING OUR TARGETS WITH JUST
HOT AIR. AND THAT SO, UM YOU'VE
YOU'VE BEEN A COOLING PRESENCE,
IF YOU WILL, AND I DO APPRECIATE
YOUR SCRUTINY ON ALL THESE
ISSUES, AND I HOPE THE CHAIR IN
THE AUTHOR WILL CONSIDER, YOU
KNOW, FURTHERING THAT THAT
SCRUTINY GOING FORWARD TO MAKE
SURE REAL PEOPLE ON THE FRONT
LINES BENEFIT FROM US HITTING
55. THANK YOU AUDIENCE AND MOVED
. APPRECIATE THAT, UM, I
ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH THE
SENATOR'S COMMENTS. YOU MAY
CLOSE. SO. AS I'VE SAID BEFORE,
I WAS INITIALLY LOOKING AT THIS
FOR SOME SORT OF TO PUT AN OFF
RAMP IN AS SENATOR BATES HAS
SUGGESTED IT HAS COME TO MY
ATTENTION THAT THAT IS IN A B 32
ALREADY. IF THE CHAIR THINKS WE
SHOULD MAKE A CROSS REFERENCE TO
IT AND THE COMMITMENT AS
SUGGESTED BY SENATOR STERN.
THAT'S FINE WITH ME. UM AND THEN
WE GET SOME SORT OF LANGUAGE
AGAIN TO TALK ABOUT JOBS. BUT
LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN, ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP
BY SENATOR SHIRT STERN IS THAT
WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY WORKED WITH
THE BUILDING TRADES TO SAY THAT
WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THESE
THINGS HERE IN CALIFORNIA, AND
THAT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. WE
HAVE HIGH DEAL L A, WHICH IS
TRYING TO BRING DOWN THE COST OF
GENERATING GREEN HYDROGEN
HYDROGEN FROM ELECTROLYSIS
HYDROGEN FROM GREEN SOURCES TO
LESS THAN THE COST OF A GALLON
IN TERMS OF ENERGY PRODUCED LESS
THAN THE COST OF A GALLON OF GAS
. SO WE ARE DOING THESE THINGS.
WE WILL DO THEM HERE, AND IT IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. WE DO THEM
HERE. AND SENATOR DALI SAID. WHY
DOES IT MATTER WERE 1% IN THE
ANSWER IS, AS SENATOR STERN AND
OTHERS HAVE SAID. OUR LEADERS
AGAIN. IT IS IMPORTANT TO TALK
TO THE AIR BOARD. THEY NOW HAVE
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WHAT IS IT
WE CAN DO, AND PEOPLE ARE
MODELING OUT WHAT WE CAN DO. AND
THEN WHAT INVESTMENTS WE HAVE TO
MAKE. AND HYDROGEN FOR ME IS A
BIG ONE. BUT I'M SURE THERE ARE
MANY OTHERS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
WIND. ONE THING WE HAVEN'T
TALKED ENOUGH, FRANKLY ABOUT HIS
SEASONAL STORAGE. THE FACT IS,
IT'S GREAT TO HAVE BATTERIES,
BUT THEY'RE ONLY GOOD FOR A FEW
HOURS, AND YOU CAN'T EVEN MAKE
ENOUGH BATTERIES TO GET THROUGH
THE WINTER. IF YOU'RE DEPENDING
UPON RENEWABLES, THERE ARE WAYS
TO GET AROUND THIS AND IT HAS TO
BE DONE AND IT BETTER BE DONE
NOW. SO WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO
AND I WILL BE LEAVING, BUT I'M
GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE START
THAT WE DO THAT. PLANNING THAT
WE HAVE THAT LONG TERM PLANNING
THAT WE HAVE LONG TERM STORAGE
SO WE CAN GET THROUGH THE WINTER
WHEN WIND RESOURCES ARE DOWN.
SOLAR RESOURCES ARE DOWN, BUT WE
HAVE STORAGE THAT CAN WORK FOR
WEEKS AND MONTHS. SO THERE'S
CERTAINLY A LOT MORE THAT NEEDS
TO BE DONE AGAIN. WE CAN CROSS
REFERENCE. PERHAPS THE, UH UM,
THE A B 32. WE CAN. WE CAN TALK
ABOUT WHAT WE NEED TO SAY ABOUT
JOBS. AND WE CAN ALSO MAKE SURE
THAT THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE
THAT CONTRA CONTRA DEAN'S
CONTRAVENES OUR DESIRE TO DO AS
MUCH OF THIS IN THE STATE AS
POSSIBLE. AH I'M GETTING TIRED.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALRIGHT THE
ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR
STERN SECRETARY, PLEASE.
COLORADO. ITEM NUMBER ONE A. B
21 33. BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S QUIRK
. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS. BUT
FIRST WE RE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS ALAN
BATES IS NO DOLLY DOLLY. NO
GONZALEZ GONZALEZ ICE SKINNER.
STERN STERN. I WIECKOWSKI
WIECKOWSKI. AYE. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, WE GOT OVER THE FIRST
SENATOR SKINNER. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, EVERYONE. IT'S GOOD
TO SEE YOU AGAIN, SENATOR BATES.
YEAH. ALL RIGHT. OKAY? YEAH. I
SOLD MY HOUSE.
PARTNERSHIP. EASY, BABY. SOUNDS
LIKE IT. SAY SOMETHING ABOUT
YOU. YOU KNOW? WE HAVE. DON'T WE
ALL WANT THE SAME THINGS AND
BEGINS.
YEP. LUZ RIVAS.
THIS GUY, I GUESS THAT CHARACTER
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO
A 12 HOUR DAY. SOUNDS LIKE
THERE'S NO WAY TO STORIES. YOU
GUYS KIND OF.
I GOT A PHONE CALL GOING WITH
ALSO.
YEAH. SO WHAT WE NEED YOU TO DO.
YEAH. SO WE NEED TO DO IS
SECRETARY OF THE CALL THE ROLL.
DO THE ROLE SKINNER THAT THE
VOTE IS THE 42.
PARTY SECRETARY OF THE COLLEGE.
MADAM SECRETARY, WILL YOU
CULTURAL PLEASE? YES ITEM NUMBER
ONE A B 21 33 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CORK. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS. BUT FIRST WE
RE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS VOTE IS 42 CHAIR
. VOTING I VICE CHAIR VOTING NO
SKINNER. THAT VOTE IS 42. THAT
BILL PASSES TO APPROPRIATIONS.
THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. I
DIDN'T EVEN HAVE IT. I DID IT.