THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY,
UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS
WILL NOW COME TO ORDER. GOOD
AFTERNOON EVERYBODY AS WE
CONTINUE TO TAKE SOME
PRECAUTIONS TO MANAGE THE
ONGOING COVID 19 RISKS, THE
SENATE CONTINUES TO WELCOME THE
PUBLIC AND HAS PROVIDED ACCESS
TO BOTH IN PERSON AND
TELECONFERENCE PARTICIPATION FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT. FOR INDIVIDUALS
WISHING TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
COMMENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
SERVICE. THE PARTICIPANTS WILL
FREE NUMBER AND ACCESS CODE IS
POSTED ON THE COMMITTEE WEBSITE.
IT WILL BE DISPLAYED ON THE
SCREEN. THERE IT IS. THANK YOU,
AND I WILL ANNOUNCE IT NOW,
TODAY'S PARTICIPANT NUMBER IS
187722. THERE IT IS ON THE
SCREEN VERY CLEARLY AND THE
ACCESS CODE, WHICH IS ALL
SUPPOSED TO RUN THE SCREEN VERY
CLEARLY IS 8233101. I WILL
MAINTAIN THE QUORUM DURING THE
HEARING, AS IS CUSTOMARY, AND
ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS DISRUPTED
MAY REMOVE FROM THE REMOTE
MEETING SERVICE OR HAVE THEIR
CONNECTIONS MUTED. WE'RE HOLDING
OUR COMMITTEE HERE AND HERE IN
THE O STREET BUILDING. I ASK ALL
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO BE
PRESENT ROOM 2100 SO WE CAN
ESTABLISH OUR QUORUM AND BEGIN
OUR HEARING. AH, WE HAVE ONE
BILL ON TODAY'S AGENDA IS B 3 96
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BRADFORD.
BEFORE WE HEAR THE PRESENTATION
. SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM,
I'D LIKE TO, UH, ANNOUNCED THAT
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MEETING A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE.
TO REVIEW THE TESTIMONY AND THE
PRESENTATION. BEFORE WE CAN ACT
. WE ARE GOING TO NEED A QUORUM.
SO WE WILL NOW COME TO THE
SENATOR, SENATOR BRADFORD. UH
HUH. YOU WERE SIMILAR IN A FEW
YEARS AGO. WELL IT COULD HAVE
BEEN, YOU KNOW, A MILLION
MINUTES, RIGHT? I DID CALL YOU,
SENATOR THOSE SECOND TIME. DO
YOU WANT TO PRESENT OR NOT?
WELL, YEAH. ARE YOU READY? ARE
WE GOING TO DEBATE THE BILL THIS
WAY? THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. DO YOU
WANT TO DO IT HERE FROM? UM,
YOU'RE FINE THERE. OKAY UM,
AGAIN, 396 IS AN IMPORTANT
MEASURE AND UNNECESSARY MEASURE
THAT SUPPORTS THE STATE'S
UTILITY OFFERS TO ADDRESS
VEGETATION HERE HAZARDS AROUND
UTILITY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. IT
CONTINUES TO WORK THAT MANY
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE HAVE
PUT PUT IN PLACE TO REDUCE
WILDFIRE RISK ACROSS THE STATE,
INCLUDING AND STRENGTHENING
COMPLIANCE WITH WELL FOR FIRE
MITIGATION PLANS. CURRENT LAW
MANDATES THAT ELECTRICAL
UTILITIES CLEAR HAZARDOUS
VEGETATION AROUND ELECTRICAL
FACILITIES, REGARDLESS OF THE
LAND OF LAND RIGHTS OR OWNERSHIP
. CALIFORNIA LAW ALSO IMPOSES
UNCHECKED LIABILITY UPON
UTILITIES IF THEIR EQUIPMENT IS
INVOLVED AND WILDFIRES, BUT WHEN
UTILITIES WANT TO REMOVE HOUSING
OF STREETS TO PREVENT WILDFIRES
ON PROPERTY, THEY DO NOT THAT
THEY DO NOT OWN OR WHERE THEY DO
NOT HAVE EXISTING LAND RIGHTS
SUCH AS EASEMENTS AND UTILITIES.
UH, FACED LAWSUITS. AND
LIABILITY FROM ATLANTA OR THUS,
UTILITIES MUST DECIDE TO CUT
DOWN DANGEROUS TREES AND FACE
LAWSUITS FROM LAND OWNERS OR
LEAVE DANGEROUS TREES IN PLACE
RISK WILDFIRES. THIS BILL
ESTABLISHES A PROCESS FOR
ELECTRICAL UTILITIES TO CONDUCT
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT OUTSIDE.
DO YOU TELL THE EASEMENT WERE
THE ELECTRIC CORPORATIONS IS NOT
HAVE EXISTING RIGHTS OR EXPRESS
FRONT COMMISSION OF THE LAND,
LORD OR LANDOWNER. THE PROCESS
WILL INCLUDE IMPROVING THE
NOTIFICATION PROCESS TO THE
LANDOWNER AND A PROCESS THAT
WILL ESTABLISHED BY THE PUC
WOULD PUBLIC INPUT. AND IT'S
CREATING AN AVENUE FOR A
LANDLORD. LANDOWNER SHOULD TAKE
TO HAVE THE WOOD REMOVED FROM
THEIR PROPERTY IF IT IF IT IS
COST EFFECTIVE, AND THE BEST
OPTIONS FOR AWHILE, FIRE RISK
AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND NOTICE
IS GIVEN IN A TIMELY MANNER,
CLARIFYING THE BEST PRACTICES
FOR ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT AND WORKERS SECTOR
SAFETY. THIS BILL CLARIFIES THE
GROUND RULES AND OFFERS A NARROW
FIX TO ENSURE OUR ELECTRICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE IS SAFE, UH AND
FURTHER REDUCES RISK OF
WILDFIRES. UM ALSO THIS MEASURE
SUNSETS IN 2028, ALLOWING FOR
FURTHER REVIEW OF THE PROCEDURES
HERE TO TESTIFY. US BRANDON BECK
, REPRESENTING, UM, PG AND E AND
SCOTT, WHICH ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA UTILITIES EMPLOYEES,
I RESPECT THE FBI VOTE, SO WE
WERE SEVE REQUEST FROM BRENDAN
REEBOK. WORTH PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC. AND SO WE HAVE THREE
MINUTES PER SPEAKER. SO ARE WE
GONNA HAVE TO OKAY, WELL, WE'LL
SPLIT THE TIME TO 1.5 EACH OR IF
YOU GUYS CAN MANAGE THE THREE
MINUTES ON YOUR OWN, I'LL GIVE
YOU THREE MINUTES FOR YOUR
ORGANIZED PRESENTATION. AH MR.
WHICH MR. CHAIRMAN REMEMBER
SCOTT QUESTION WOULD BE ABOUT
THE CALIFORNIA COALITION OF
UTILITY EMPLOYEES. AH! THE P G
IS GOING TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE
ABOUT LIABILITY. WE ALL
RECOGNIZE THE NEED TO CUT THESE
DANGEROUS LIMBS. LET ME PUT THE
HUMAN FACE ON WHY WE SO
DESPERATELY NEED THIS BILL.
RIGHT NOW. I'VE GOT ABOUT 5000
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT WORKERS
OUT IN THE FIELD FOR PG NI 95%
OF THAT WORKFORCE ARE NON
ENGLISH SPEAKERS. ENGLISH AS A
SECOND LANGUAGE AND A VERY LARGE
PERCENTAGE ARE UNDOCUMENTED
WORKERS. WHEN THEY GO TO A
PROPERTY THAT NEEDS TO BE
TRIMMED. THEY FACE HOSTILE
HOMEOWNERS. THEY FACE RACIAL
EPITAPH. IT'S BRANDISHING OF
WEAPONS. THEY HAVE ROCKS AND
BOTTLES THROWN AT THEM. I CAN
HAVE TIRES SLASHED. WITHOUT THIS
BILL, WE CANNOT GO TO THE LOCAL
SHERIFF. ORDER LOCAL CHP OFFICE
AND GET THEM TO COME AND
ACCOMPANY OUR WORKERS TO A
HOSTILE WORKPLACE. UM IT'S ONE
OF THE MOST DANGEROUS
PROFESSIONS IN THE LAST YEAR
THAT WAS REPORTED TO CAL OSHA.
WE HAD 11 DEATHS AND 54. SERIOUS
INJURIES THAT LED TO
HOSPITALIZATION, THANKS TO
SENATOR DODD AND HIS LEGISLATION
FROM JUST A FEW YEARS AGO. WE'VE
ENHANCED THE TRAINING AND WE'VE
INCREASED THEIR WAGES BY ABOUT
40. HAVING THE PUC ESTABLISHED A
BETTER PROCESS FOR TALKING TO
HOMEOWNERS, NOTICING THEM AND
ARRANGING TO GET THE WORK DONE
FIRST WILL ACTUALLY PROTECT HIS
WORKFORCE. SO I URGE AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU. AND NOW, BRENDAN
BEBEK. YEP GOOD AFTERNOON.
BRANDENBURG PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC
. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY
AND HAVING A SPECIAL HEARING.
THIS BILL HAS HAD A LONG,
COMPLICATED HISTORY OVER THE
LAST TWO YEARS WORKING WITH A
TON OF STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING
THE FORESTRY ASSOCIATION
COUNTIES, PRIVATE PARTNERS,
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITIES, HAS
HAD TWO SEPARATE HEARINGS INTO
SOMEBODY. NATURAL RESOURCES. UM
THE REASON IT'S IN THIS BILL
TODAY IS BECAUSE OF COVER
LIMITATIONS, AND THAT WAS A FUN
PROCESS. BUT WE'RE HERE NOW,
WITH THE FINAL PRODUCT THAT
COMPARED TO CURRENT LAW DOES
DEFINITELY STRENGTHEN THE
LANDOWNER PROTECTIONS AND
STRENGTHENS THE ABILITY FOR
LANDOWNER BE NOTIFIED ABOUT THE
TYPE OF WORK THAT'S GOING TO BE
DONE, HOW IT'S GONNA BE DONE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL
LAWS. THERE'S A LOT OF
MISINFORMATION SURROUNDING THIS
BILL RELATED PRIMARILY TO
ACTIVITIES THAT ARE NOT WITHIN
THE NARROW SCOPE OF THIS BILL.
THIS BILL SPECIFICALLY ONLY
APPLIES IN HIGH FIRE THREAT
ZONES, THEIR RESPONSIBILITY
AREAS. AND WHERE WE DO NOT HAVE
EASEMENTS. THAT IS VERY, VERY
SMALL PORTION OF THE WORK THAT
WE'RE DEALING WITH TODAY. UM SO
THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE ARGUMENTS ARE
FOCUSED ON THAT WORK IN
PARTICULAR. IF THERE ARE ISSUES
WITH HOW WE ARE NOTIFYING A
LANDOWNER. THE PUC THROUGH THE
PUBLIC PROCESS WILL DEVELOP THAT
NOTIFICATION PROCESS. THEY WILL
DEVELOP THAT. WHAT OPPORTUNITIES
THE LANDOWNER HAS TO BE HEARD?
NONE OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES
EXIST TODAY BECAUSE CURRENT LAW
THAT THIS LEGISLATURE PASSED
FOUR YEARS AGO PROVIDE THE
UTILITY THE ABILITY TO TRAVERSE
ON LAND THE ABILITY TO CUT DOWN
TREES. BUT THEY ALSO ARE WE ARE
HELD LIABLE FOR TRESPASS AND
PROPERTY DAMAGES IF THOSE TREES
ARE REMOVED, COMBINED WITH A
DIVERSE COMBINATION. WE'RE JUST
IN IRAQ AND A HARD PLACE
SITUATION WHERE WE EITHER HAVE
TO BE SUED WHEN THE TREE
ULTIMATELY FOLLOWS DOWN AND
STARTS A FIRE OR RECEDED FROM
THE LANDOWNER FOR MOVING THE
TREE, OKAY, WE NEED TO BE VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW
MOVE TO ANYONE WANTING TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS
MEASURE WILL COME TO THE ROOM
HERE. ANYONE HERE AND SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR KERRY MEMBERS
ROD BREWER FOR SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON HERE IN
SUPPORT. MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
AARON EVANS ON BEHALF OF THE
TREE CARE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,
ALSO IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS, MEGAN SUPERS ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS AND
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON CHERRY
MEMBERS, NICOLINA HERNANDEZ WITH
SENOR GAS AND ELECTRIC AND
SUPPORT OKAY. WE'LL GO TO THE
PHONE LINES WILL ASK THAT THE
MODERATOR, PLEASE QUÊ SPEAKERS
AND SUPPORTIVE SP 3 96
MODERATOR. THANK YOU. AND IF
YOU'D LIKE TO QUEUE UP AND
SUPPORT, PLEASE PRESS ONE,
FOLLOWED BY THE ZERO AT THIS
TIME. ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE PRESS
ONE FELLOW BY THE ZERO AT THIS
TIME. AND WE ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO
LIMIT THEIR TESTIMONY TO THEIR
NAME, ANY AFFILIATION AND
POSITION ON THE BILL. AND. LOOKS
LIKE FIRST WE GO TO LINE NUMBER
25, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 25 YEAR
OPEN. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
BUT ONCE AGAIN LINE 25, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. MODERATOR GO TO THE
NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. HMM. AND
WANT TO GET IT THERE ANY THAT
WILL LOOK YOU UP AND SUPPORT
EXPRESS 10. AND THERE ARE NO
FURTHER LINES IN. Q OKAY, WE'LL
GO TO AN ORGANIZED PRESENTATION
AND OPPOSITION OF THE BILL. THE
FIRST SPEAKER IS JENNIFER TENOR.
AH IF SHE'S YOUR PERSON ON THE
PHONES, YOU GET A MINUTE AND A
HALF. THERE'S ANOTHER. SPEAKER
AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION. YES
CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. PLEASE
PROCEED. THANK YOU, JENNIFER
TANNER FOR ALL 80 INDIVISIBLE
GROUPS OF INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA
STATE STRONG WE'RE HERE
CONSTANTLY. THE WORDS WILDFIRE
MITIGATION. IT STILL IS. NOT
THAT IT'S A TAKING OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY AND ALLOWING ALL THE
HORROR STORIES OF PGS ENHANCED
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT TO
CONTINUE. AND LEAVE YOUR
CONSTITUENTS AT MORE RISK OF
WILDFIRES UNLESS THEY WANT TO
PAY FOR THE CHIP AND THE SPLASH
TO BE REMOVED AND PAY FOR THE
DAMAGE PG AND E HAS DONE TO
THEIR PROPERTY AND TO THEIR
ERODED HILLS AND THEY'RE TRASHED
ROADS. YOU HAVE ALL THE FACTS.
WITHOUT A DOUBT THERE IS A
FINANCIAL BURDEN AND THERE WAS
NO OVERSIGHT CAL FIRE IT DOES
NOT HAVE THE MANPOWER FOR
OVERSIGHT. IN ADDITION, THE
GENIE'S PUBLICLY THEY DO NOT
ACKNOWLEDGE CAL FIRE'S
JURISDICTION, AND IT WILL IMPACT
NEARLY ONE MILLION ACRES OF
TREES AND WITHOUT ANY NOTICE FOR
THE NEXT 2.5 YEARS. AND HOW CAN
YOU RATIONALLY PASS THE BILL TO
GIVE PG ME ALMOST UNLIMITED
AUTHORITY WITH NO OVERSIGHT.
WHEN YOU KNOW THERE IS A BETTER
WAY OF SHOWING MY SO CAL EDISON
WHEN THEY LEAVE THE TREES AND
INSTEAD INSULATE THEIR BUYER
WIRES FOR SAFER CALIFORNIA.
RURAL COUNTIES. BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, LOCAL COMMUNITY
LEADERS, ENVIRONMENTAL
SUPERSTARS LIKE SOUTHERN SIERRA
CLUB'S CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY AND INDIVISIBLE
CALIFORNIA HAVE ALL WRITTEN TO
YOU ABOUT THE TAKING OF PROPERTY
OF TAKING A PRIVATE PROPERTY IN
THIS BILL AND THE MASS
DESTRUCTION THAT IS GOING ON NOW
AND WILL GET WORSE. RESPECTFULLY
ASK YOUR NO VOTE ON S BETWEEN 96
. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS
TANNER. NOW WE'LL GO TO THE
SECOND SPEAKER MARK. FINSTER
MAKER WITH. THE CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL OF LAND TRUST. YOU HAVE
A MINUTE AND A HALF, SIR. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR MARK
FINSTER MAKER ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF LAND
TRUSTS WERE HERE IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. CALIFORNIA IS HOME
TO MORE THAN 150 LAND TRUSTS.
NONPROFITS WHOSE MISSION IS TO
WORK WITH WILLING LANDOWNERS TO
ACQUIRE LAND. AND PROTECT
NATURAL RESOURCES AND
CONSERVATION VALUES. WE
RECOGNIZE THE WILDFIRES HAVE
REACHED A CRISIS POINT IN
CALIFORNIA AND UTILITY
MANAGEMENT OF FORCE IS A STEP
AND THE STRATEGY TO REDUCE OUR
WILDFIRE RISK. THAT SAID,
SHIELDING UTILITIES FROM
LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES FOR
CUTTING DOWN TREES THAT ARE
HEALTHY AND DO NOT POSE A HAZARD
IS NOT THE ANSWER. SEVERAL OF
OUR MEMBERS HAVE WITNESSED THIS
FIRSTHAND. THE DAMAGE THAT CAN
BE CAUSED WHEN THE UTILITY
BEGINS. FELLING NONHAZARDOUS
TREES AS PART OF THEIR
PRACTICES. 656 2ND GENERATION
REDWOOD TREES WERE CUT DOWN ON
LANDS PROTECTED BY A
CONSERVATION. THESE MEN, THE
MAJORITY OF THESE LANDS WERE
HEALTHY AND STRUCTURALLY SOUND.
UNDER SB 3 96. OUR MEMBERS WOULD
HAVE NO RECOURSE. THIS BILL
PROPOSES THAT THE FOREST
PRACTICE RULES OR COASTAL ACT
ACT AS A BACKSTOP, TRY AND
ENSURE THIS TYPE OF PRACTICE
DOESN'T HAPPEN. AND IF THOSE
RULES DO APPLY, WHAT HAPPENS, A
VIOLATION OCCURS. THE STATE
COLLECTS THE MONEY AND IT GOES
INTO THE GENERAL FUND. IF IT CAL
FIRE IS THE ONE TO DO THAT.
DOESN'T COME BACK TO OUR MEMBERS
. THEY HAVE NO RECOURSE THEY
CANNOT PURSUE LITIGATION. THEY
CANNOT BE MADE WHOLE. UNDER SB 3
96. THE UTILITIES COULD VIOLATE
THE FOREST PRACTICE RULES AND
THE LANDOWNER, WHETHER IT'S AN
INDIVIDUAL OR ONE OF THE MEMBERS
OF MY CLIENT IS LEFT HOLDING THE
BAG. THIS BILL NEEDS MORE WORK.
IT SHOULD NOT PROCEED TODAY AND
WE RESPECTFULLY URGE A NO VOTE.
OKAY THANK YOU. NOW WE GOT TWO
SPEAKERS AND OPPOSITION OF THE
BILL HERE IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM.
ANYONE PRESENT PLEASE COME UP TO
THE MIC. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR
AND MEMBERS ABIGAIL MAIL ON
BEHALF OF SAVE THE REDWOODS
LEAGUE, SEMPER VIRUS FUND AND
MID PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN
SPACE DISTRICT AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO SB 396. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN THE
COMMITTEE? NOW WE'LL GO TO THE
PHONE LINES. MODERATOR PLEASE
QUÊ AH SPEAKERS AND OPPOSITION
TO SB 3 96. IF YOU'D LIKE TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE
PRESS ONE THAN ZERO AT THIS TIME
. FIRST WE'LL GO TO LINE 32,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON
, JOHN KENNEDY WITH THE RURAL
COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES. WE
REMAIN OPPOSED. NEXT SPEAKER.
NEXT WE GO TO LINE 41, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON, DANIEL
BRAD ON BEHALF OF FEAR OF
CALIFORNIA AND OPPOSITION. AND
NEXT WE HAVE LINE 25, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
YES, WE CAN. ALRIGHT HAVE IT
RECUR IN ORANGE, CALIFORNIA AND
LIKE, UH, ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN
CALIFORNIA LIKE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA ABSENCE OF GAS AND
ELECTRIC CAF FOCUSED ON
UPGRADING THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE
IN ORDER TO PREVENT WILDFIRES
EXPRESS YOUR YOUR NAME, YOUR
AFFILIATION AND YOUR POSITION ON
THE BILL, PLEASE. I AM A KINDA
POST. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.
AND NEXT WE GO TO LINE NUMBER
30, PLEASE GO AHEAD. RICHARD
JINGER FUR FOREST RIVER OPPOSED
THANK YOU NEXT SPEAKER. NEXT
WE'RE GONNA LINE NUMBER 35 5.
JIM STEWART FROM LAKEWOOD AND
BEHALF OF ALL THREE LOVERS
OPPOSED. THANK YOU NEXT SPEAKER.
NEXT WE GO TO LINE NUMBER 19.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. THIS IS MIRANDA
EDISON AND MENDOCINO COUNTY, A
POST THANK YOU NEXT SPEAKER.
NEXT WE'RE GONNA LINE NUMBER 24,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. KAREN MACKEY
FROM DECEMBER CISCO BAY AREA ON
THE POSED. THANK YOU. WE'RE
GONNA INTERRUPT PUBLIC TESTIMONY
FOR A SECOND JUST TO ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. CLERK. CAN YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL? SENATOR HUESO
PRESIDENT. WE'RE SO PRESENT
DOLLY DOLLY HERE! BECKER BECKER
HERE, GORGEOUS. BRADFORD
BRADFORD HERE, DODD. NOT HERE,
EGGMAN GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ HERE,
GROVE HERE OVER HERE. HERZBERG
MCGUIRE. MEN MEN HERE, RUBIO.
STERN. OKAY WE HAVE AQUARIUM
WILL GO BACK TO THE PUBLIC AND
MODERATOR, CAN YOU PLEASE ACCUSE
THE REMAINING SPEAKERS IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 3 96. OF
COURSE, AND NEXT WE GO TO LINE
NUMBER 17, PLEASE GO AHEAD. YES
KEVIN CARLIN'S MARIN COUNTY.
THIS IS RANDOMLY DESTRUCTIVE.
NEXT SPEAKER. NEXT WE GO TO LINE
NUMBERS. 33, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THIS IS CYNTHIA SHALLOT. I'M
WITH CALIFORNIA STATE STRONG,
INDIVIDUAL, INDIVISIBLE GREEN
TEAM AND SACRAMENTO INDIVIDUAL
AND WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS
BILL. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. AND
NEXT WE GO TO LINE NUMBER 28,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI MY NAME IS
LIZ FROM THE BURGER FROM MARIN
COUNTY BY M. A TREE AND
LANDOWNER AND I AM OPPOSED TO
THIS BILL VERY STRONGLY. THANK
YOU NEXT SPEAKER. NEXT WE GO TO
LINE NUMBER 29, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HI THIS IS SUSAN KLEIN AND I'M
REPRESENTING MYSELF AND NUMEROUS
OF MY NEIGHBORS IN THE TOWN OF
NICK OSTEO, CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. THANK
YOU NEXT SPEAKER. NEXT WE GO TO
LINE 36, PLEASE GO AHEAD. YES
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS GRACE
ROGERS. I LIVE IN MARIN COUNTY
HAVE VINTAGE REDWOODS AND
SPOTTED OWLS AND I OPPOSED THE
BILL. RESPECTFULLY. THANK YOU
NEXT SPEAKER. NEXT WE GO TO LINE
NUMBER 31, PLEASE GO AHEAD. TROY
HUNTER, THE LOST COAST COALITION
ON BOLT COUNTY VEHEMENTLY
OPPOSED THANK YOU NEXT SPEAKER.
NEXT WE GO TO LINE NUMBER 39,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. CHECK WITH THE
L. A RESIDENT OF THE OAKLAND
HILLS AND I'M OPPOSED TO US 3
96. THANK YOU NEXT SPEAKER. NEXT
WE GO TO LINE 38, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. I AM INDEED, DAVIDSON AND
I AM OPPOSED TO BE TWEEN DECKS
AND I LIVE IN MORE INTACT. OKAY.
THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. NEXT WE
GO TO LINE NUMBER 44, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. MY NAME IS RENEE. BOSS
I'M FROM SAN ANSELMO. UH I
REPRESENT LANDOWNERS THAT HAVE
BEEN OPPOSING PG AND E. AND
CENTER ON, UM OH VALLEY, AND
I'M, A MEMBER OF THE TOWN OF SAN
SOMEONE'S OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
AND THE PANEL SENTENCE ELMO. IS
AN OPPOSITION TO SB 3 96. OKAY.
THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. AND
NEXT TO LINE NUMBER 45.
NUMBER 45. YOUR LINE IS OPEN.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. NEXT SPEAKER.
AND CURRENTLY THERE ARE NO
FURTHER LINES IN QUÊ. OKAY NOW
WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
COMMENTS. JUST MY OWN COMMENTS.
UH, THE FIRST TIME I GET TO SEE
THIS BILL ACTUALLY TODAY AND UM
, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE
WORKED ON AND I UNDERSTAND
THERE'LL BE A PROCESS AND THAT
THE BC WILL BE INVOLVED IN THE
RULEMAKING PROCESS, AND WE CAN
HOPE THAT THAT HAPPENS THROUGH
THE RED RATHER THAN LATER AND
THAT IN THE INTERIM UH, THE
UTILITY COMPANIES REALLY FOCUS
ON ADDRESSING THE MOST URGENT.
TREE REMOVAL. UH, CHALLENGES. I
UNDERSTAND YOU OFTEN HAVE TO
REMOVE A TREE TO SAVE THE
FORESTS AND REGARDS TO HOW OUR
UTILITY SYSTEM WORK IN
CALIFORNIA. WE'VE HAD FAR TOO
MANY FIRES IN CALIFORNIA RELATED
TO AH, UNSAFE TREES. AND THIS
PROBLEM PRIMARILY BEEN THE
PRINCIPLE THAT. INCENDIARY
DEVICE IN CALIFORNIA, A TREE AND
THAT'S UH BECAUSE THEY'RE OFTEN
CITED SO CLOSE TO THE POLLS. THE
POLLS ARE OFTEN NOT STRONG
ENOUGH TO WITHSTAND THE WINDS
AND BRANCHES CRASHING INTO THEM
AND WHILE YES, I AGREE THE
TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT COULD BE
UPGRADED IMPROVED, BUT UNTIL
THAT HAPPENS, WE HAVE TO TAKE
PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES. I AM
PROPOSING TODAY THAT WE NOT VOTE
ON THE BILL ITSELF AND ON ITS
MERITS. WE HAVE NO MECHANISM TO
AMEND THE BILL TODAY, AND I
THINK THERE'S ALWAYS UM, THE
PURPOSE OF THIS COMMITTEE TO
PROVIDE THE MEMBER INPUT AND TO
BE PART OF THIS, UH LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS. I WOULD LIKE THAT. THE
COMMITTEE INVOKE, UH, UNDER
SECTION 29 10 D CODE 292 OF THE
RULES AND PROCEDURES. OF THE
COMMITTEE. AND INVOKE CODE
SECTION 2 92 THAT AMENDS. THAT
THE THAT STATES THAT THE
ASSEMBLY AMENDMENTS BE TAKEN UP
FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL BE
MOVED FORWARD TO THE SENATE
FLOOR FOR CONSIDERATION AT THAT
POINT, IF THE MEMBERS WOULD LIKE
TO ADDRESS ANY UH, AMENDMENTS.
WHETHER I MEAN THAT IS YOU KNOW
UP TO NOT ONLY THE AUTHOR AND
THE ASSEMBLY AND THE LEADERSHIP
WORKING CONCURRENTLY TO MAKE
THAT HAPPEN. THAT THAT HAPPENED
AT THE SENATE FLOOR. AND I'M
ASKING MEMBERS NOT TO VOTE ON
THE MERITS OF THE BILL, IF
ANYBODY IS INTERESTED IN TAKING
THAT MOTION THAT WILL MOVE THE
BILL FORWARD IN THAT REGARD, SO
THAT WE, UH UM ADDRESS THOSE
ISSUES. ON THE SENATE FLOOR,
WORKING WITH BOTH HOUSES. TO SEE
IF WE CAN GET TO A PLACE WHERE
WE CAN SUPPORT THIS BILL ON THE
FLOOR. SO THOSE ARE THOSE ARE MY
RECOMMENDATIONS AS CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE. OF COURSE YOU MEMBERS
CAN CAN DO WHAT YOU LIKE,
INCLUDING VOTING ON THE BILL ON
ITS MERITS TODAY, OR OR, UH, OR
NOT, SO I'LL GO TO THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. IF ANYBODY LIKES TO
MAKE ANY COMMENTS, WE'LL START
WITH SISTER DODD. MR. CAN I JUST
MOVE THE CHAIRS RECOMMENDATION.
OKAY THAT YOU CAN DO THAT. IF
UNLESS THERE'S ANY COMMENTS
ALREADY. YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME
COMMENTS AND OUR GROUP? YEAH
YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AND THEN THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. I AM I, UH,
DISABILITIES A TOUGH BILL
BECAUSE I REALIZED THAT WE DO
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO
FORCE MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT POWER
LINES ARE WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION.
BUT THEY HUGE PROBLEMS THAT I
HAVE IS THAT, UM, THIS ALLOWS
YOU I USED TO GO ON EVERYBODY'S
PRIVATE PROPERTY. CUT DOWN TREES
. DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.
LEAVE. UM YOU KNOW, HALF CUT OFF
TREES OR. OR HOLD TREES TAKEN
DOWN WITHOUT THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY THERE. I KNOW THEY GET
A NOTIFICATION, BUT THEY DON'T
HAVE TO HAVE AUTHORIZATION TO
COME ON SOMEONE'S PRIVATE
PROPERTY, WHICH I HAVE ALL MY
RANCHERS AGAIN WITH ANOTHER, I O
U THAT IS HAVING PROBLEMS. I
MEAN, TO THE EXTENT THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT IS BEING CALLED ON
THE I O US WHEN THEY COME ONTO
THE PROPERTY AND LAWSUITS ARE
BEING FILED LEFT AND RIGHT. I
ALSO HAVE A PREVIOUS ISSUE WITH
PG AND E. THEY JUST HAPPENED A
FEW MONTHS AGO WHERE THEY TOOK
150 YEAR OLD PALM TREES THAT
HAVE BEEN THERE LONG BEFORE
TRANSMISSION LINES OF THE LINES
THAT WERE THERE, AND THEY JUST
WENT AND WHACKED HIM OFF. AND
THESE WERE HISTORIC IN OUR
COMMUNITY, AND THEY JUST CAME
OUT IN THE TREE TRIMMERS JUST
CHOPPED THEM OFF, RIGHT. DEAD
CENTER AND PALM TREES CAN'T GO
GROW BACK LIKE THAT. SO THAT'S
THE HUGE HEARTBURN I HAVE WITH
THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION. UM
I'M DIVIDED ON THE BILL,
BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID, WE DO NEED
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE I
O. U S HAVE ACCESS TO PROPERTY
SO THAT THEY CAN MITIGATE
WILDFIRES AND MITIGATE PROBLEMS
THAT WE HAVE WITH PS PS SHUTOFFS
AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS, BUT I
DON'T THINK THAT YOU GUYS THAT
ANYONE NOT EVEN ANYONE ON THIS
DIET SHOULD BE ABLE TO WALK ONTO
SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY AND
TAKE SOMETHING OFF OF THAT
PROPERTY OR REMOVED TREES OR OR
ANYTHING OFF OF THAT PROPERTY
WITHOUT THAT OWNER'S
AUTHORIZATION OR AT LEAST
CONSENT TO KNOW YOU'RE ON THE
PROPERTY. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR,
SENATOR MAN. I HAD A QUESTION
FOR THE CHAIR FIRST. I'M
PROCEDURALLY. I APOLOGIZE FOR
NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS. BUT WHAT
EXACTLY ARE WE BEING ASKED? WHAT
WAS YOUR RECOMMENDATION VOTERS
JUST TO SEND THE BILL TO THE
SENATE WHERE WE CAN. I MEAN,
THOSE ARE THAT'S AH, A BETTER
PLATFORM FOR US TO EITHER. UM
CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE BILL
DISCUSSED THE MERITS OF THE
BILL. MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE
BILL IF WE SEE NECESSARY HERE
WHERE YOU ARE LEGALLY PRECLUDED
FROM MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE
BILL. I MEAN, WE CAN DISCUSS THE
BILL IN ITS MERITS AND BROUGHT
IT UP AND DOWN. BUT PROCEDURALLY
HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN JUST
RECOMMENDING THAT WE VOTED? WELL
PROCEDURALLY. IT'S SIMPLY SENDS
A MESSAGE THAT NEITHER OF US
VOTED IN SUPPORT WERE IN
OPPOSITION OF THE BILL. WE JUST
SIMPLY MOVED IT FORWARD.
COMMITTEE TO HAVE THAT
DISCUSSION THERE. OKAY AND THEN
I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE AUTHOR
AND OR THE SPONSOR. I MEAN, THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS IS PRETTY
SOBER. I MEAN, IT'S UM I SEE
HERE THAT I MEAN, READING
BETWEEN THE LINES AT THAT. PG
AND E HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AS
ENGAGING IN THE PAST AND
EGREGIOUS AND RECKLESS LOGGING.
AND CERTAINLY I THINK I SHOULD
CONCERNS OF SENATOR GROVE. UM
YOU KNOW, WE DO NEED TO THIN OUT
OUR FOREST. WE DO NEED
MITIGATION, AND THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT. BUT I GUESS MY
QUESTION IS AH! WHAT DOES WHY IS
IT A B 29 11? THE FRIEDMAN BILL
THAT ALLOWS, UH PRUNING AND
REMOVING HAZARD HAZARDOUS TREES.
NOT SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS SOME
OF THE PROBLEMS WE'RE FACING.
AND THAT OKAY, OKAY. I THINK TO
SENATOR GROWS POINT. IT'S PART
OF THE ISSUE THAT WE HAD FRAMING
THIS BILL TO BEGIN WITH. WE ARE
REQUIRED OR ALLOWED TO GO ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY ALREADY. IT'S
SO THEN YOU HAVE THE MORAL
ARGUMENT OF IS IT THE PRIVATE
PROPERTY OWNERS INTEREST IN
PRESERVING A TREE? OR IS IT THE
COMMUNITY BENEFIT OF NOT HAVING
THAT TREE SORT OF FIRE? THAT
RESULTS IN NOT JUST PGD BEING
LIABLE FOR THE FIRE, BUT OUR
CUSTOMERS AS WELL, SO THERE'S A
THERE'S AN IMPACT TO THAT THAT
WE NEED TO BALANCE BECAUSE
INVERSE CONDEMNATION EXISTS IF
THERE WAS NO LIABILITY FOR THAT
PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS TREAT TO
START A FIRE THAT RESULTS IN
SOMETHING THAT WE ARE LIABLE FOR
THEN THERE WOULD NOT EVEN BE AN
INTEREST IN GOING ONTO
SOMEBODY'S PRIVATE PROPERTY.
TRIMMING THE TREE. THAT'S THAT'S
THE ROCK THAT WE'RE TRAPPED
AGAINST. THE HARD PLACE THAT IS
THAT OWNER CAN SUE US FOR GOING
ONTO THEIR PROPERTY. THAT LAW
ALLOWS US TO DO AND THE PUC
REQUIRES US TO DO IN THIS
LEGISLATURE EXPECTS US TO DO AND
WE'RE COMMITTED TO DOING BUT
THEN WE ARE STILL SUED FOR THAT.
THERE ARE THE OTHER VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED THAT ARE AH! VAGUELY
INCORRECT IN THE ANALYSIS
BECAUSE THEY'RE PRESENTED ON ONE
SIDE. THERE HAVE BEEN
ALLEGATIONS, PARTICULARLY IN
SANTA CRUZ BY THE COUNTY AND BY
SOME OF THE GROUPS THAT HAVE
BEEN COMPLAINTS THAT WERE FILED
OF THE PUC. ALL OF THAT IS FOR
WORK THAT WAS DONE WITHIN OUR
EASEMENTS. SO OUTSIDE THE SCOPE
OF THIS BILL, UM, THAT WAS WORK
THAT WAS DONE WITH BARBARA'S
PRESIDENT THAT THEY HAVEN'T
ACTUALLY NOT IDENTIFIED, WHICH
TREES WERE IN CUTTING CORRECTLY.
BUT THERE ARE ISSUES THAT WHERE
YOU ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING
WITH WITH THE BOARD OF FORESTRY
RELATED TO THE FOREST PRACTICE
RULES, THERE IS SIMPLY A
CONFLICT WITH THE BOARD FORESTRY
RULES, FORCE PRACTICE RULES AND
PC REQUIREMENTS THAT NEEDS TO BE
ADDRESSED. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO
ENGAGE THE BORDER FORESTRY
ADMINISTRATION FOR MORE THAN TWO
YEARS TO GET THEM TO WORK ON
THAT, SO HOPEFULLY THAT IS THE
PROPER VENUE. FOR ADDRESSING
OVERALL. COMPLIANCE WITH THAT
ARE EASEMENTS. BUT AGAIN, THIS
BILL JUST FOCUSES ON OUTSIDE OF
THESE MINTS WHEN YOU HAVE A 20
FT RIGHT AWAY AND THE TREES JUST
OUTSIDE OF IT, AND THAT TREE
ISN'T IDENTIFIED. HAZARD WHAT
ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THAT
TREE? DO WE LEAVE AND LET US
START A FIRE? FOR SO WE'RE
TRYING TO SET UP THE PROCESS TO
NOTIFY THE LANDOWNER TO LEASE
HAVE TO BE HEARD. SO I HOPE THAT
HELPS. ALRIGHT MR CHAIR IF I
JUST MIGHT ASK AGAIN WHAT? WHAT
WOULD BE THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WHAT MIGHT BE ADDED TO THIS
PARTICULAR BILL? OR WE JUST
SPEAKING THAT REMAINS TO BE
SEEN. OKAY THANK YOU, UH,
SENATOR DOLLY THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO I WANT TO
FRAME THE ISSUE SOMETHING THIS
IS SOMETHING I'VE WORKED ON A
LOT AND I HAVE UH, I HAVE PEOPLE
WHO SIT IN THE TREES AND STOP
PGD FROM ALLOWING TO CLEAR RIDE
A WAYS. TREE SITTERS, AND IT'S
IN THERE RIGHT AWAY. SO LET'S I
WANT TO DEFINE FIRST. THEY HAVE
THE RIGHT TO TAKE DOWN
EVERYTHING THAT IS IN THEIR
EASEMENT AND RIGHT AWAY. PERIOD
TO MAKE IT SAFE. WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT IS A TREE THAT'S
OUTSIDE OF THEIR RIGHT AWAY.
THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT. THEY'RE
LYING. AND WE'VE SEEN IN THE
CASE OF I THINK IT WAS SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON WERE UPON
BRANCH BLEW OFF OF A TREE AND
STARTED FIRE AND BURNED DOWN
HALF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE
UTILITY WAS LIABLE FOR ALL THAT
, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT IN
THEIR RIGHT AWAY. SO THE BALANCE
WE'RE TRYING TO STRIKE HERE IS
THIS TREE, A LIABILITY TO THE
UTILITY AND WHO MAKES THAT
DECISION. IT IS PRIVATE
PROPERTY, SOMETHING I CARED
DEARLY ABOUT. BUT I ALSO CARE
ABOUT GETTING ELECTRICITY TO MY
CONSTITUENTS IN A SAFE MANNER.
SO THAT IS WHERE WE'RE AT. SO UM
, I UNDERSTAND. I'D LIKE TO TALK
ABOUT B BECAUSE THE PUC IS
GOING TO ENTER. WHAT I
UNDERSTAND IN THIS LEGISLATION
IS GOING TO BE DIRECTED TO
FIGURE OUT WHO MAKES THE CALL ON
THAT TREE. WHAT THAT'S OUTSIDE
OF THE RIGHT AWAY. HE HAS THE
RIGHT AND THE FOLKS THAT ARE IN
SANTA CRUZ AREA THAT ARE NOT
HAPPY. THOSE TREES WERE IN THE
RIGHT AWAY. IT'S THE TREE THAT'S
OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT AWAY. SO
CAN SOMEBODY TALK TO ME ABOUT
WHAT THE PUC IS GOING TO DO? AH
MAKE THE DETERMINATION THIS BILL
HAS A SUNSET ON IT BECAUSE IT IS
DICEY. UM BUT THE BUT THE
QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE WHO'S
GOING TO MAKE THE CALL ON THE
TREE THAT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL AND
GREEN BUT REALLY IS A HAZARD TO
THE UTILITY AND TO THE TO THE
ENVIRONMENT THAT IT'S WHO MAKES
THAT CALL. DO YOU WANNA YOU
WANNA ANSWER THAT? I WANT TO
TAKE A STEP AT THAT. YEAH, IT'S
A FAIR QUESTION, AND THERE HAVE
BEEN PROPOSALS BEFORE TO REQUIRE
THAT EVERY SINGLE TREE IS
REVIEWED BY REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL FORRESTER OR AN
ARBORIST. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT
IS THERE'S NOT ENOUGH OF THOSE
FOLKS IN CALIFORNIA ANYWHERE IN
THE UNITED STATES. IT TAKES OVER
SEVEN YEARS TO BECOME AN RPF. UM
IT'S AN ISSUE WE RUN INTO
GENERALLY ALL OF OUR CONTRACT
AND CRUZ. AND OUR CREWS THAT ARE
OUT THERE OPERATE UNDERNEATH THE
EXPERTISE OF REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL FORRESTER, SO THEY
ARE ULTIMATELY THE ONES THAT ARE
LIABLE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER
OR NOT A TREE IS A HAZARD OR
NOT. IT'S A IT'S ART, AND IT'S A
SCIENCE AT THE SAME TIME. IT'S
PART OF THE THING THAT THE PC
CAN DEVELOP WHEN THEY ARE
CREATING THIS PROCESS TO CLARIFY
WHAT OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
ACTUALLY MEANS. BECAUSE
CURRENTLY LONGER SAYS, WE HAVE
TO PROVIDE THE LANDOWNER
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. AND I
CAN GUARANTEE THAT WE INTERPRET
THAT DIFFERENT THAN OUR OTHER
INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES, AS
WELL AS THE PUBLIC UTILITIES.
EVERYONE HAS VERY DIFFERENT
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND
STANDARDS AND PRACTICES. SO
HAVING THE PUC COME UP WITH THAT
IS VERY BENEFICIAL. I THINK TO
ALL LANDOWNERS, IT'S I DON'T
THINK IT'S EVEN WRITE THAT.
DIFFERENT LANDOWNERS SHOULD HAVE
A DIFFERENT BENEFITS BASED UPON
WHAT SERVICE TERRITORY THERE IN
, UM THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
CURRENT LAW, UH, SETS UP SO THE
PC CAN COME UP WITH SOME COMMON
FOR AMERICA OF HOW THIS IS ALL
SUPPOSED TO WORK. I THINK
EVERYONE BENEFITS FROM THAT IS
THAT REQUIRED IN THIS BILL
ACTUALLY DO IT THAT THEY ARE
DIRECTED TO COME UP WITH SOME
SORT OF A PROCESS WHERE THE
LANDOWNER SAYS I DON'T I
DISAGREE WITH YOU UTILITY AND
THERE'S SOMEBODY. THAT'S THE
JUDGE B BY. I BELIEVE IT'S
2024 HAS TO COME UP WITH THE
NOTICE THE OPPORTUNITY HEARD IN
THE TIMELINE FOR HOW THE
LANDOWNER HAS TO NOTIFY US IF
THEY WANT THE MATERIAL REMOVED
OR HOW THEY MIGHT BE TREATED.
UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
DOESN'T EXIST IN CURRENT LAW.
SOMETHING WE HAVE TO MAKE A
CHOICE. THANK YOU. GOOD BILL,
BUT NECESSARY BILL, BUT ANYWAY,
ANYONE ELSE SO WE HAVE A MOTION
BY SENATOR DODD. DID YOU WANT TO
MAKE ANY CLOSING COMMENTS? DID
YOU SPEAK UP, SIR? YEAH.
APOLOGIES FOR THE INTERRUPTION.
I JUST CAME LATE AFTER FINISHING
THE NATURAL RESEARCH AND WATER
COMMITTEE HEARING. UNFORTUNATELY
IN THESE 29 10 HEARINGS, WE
DON'T HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
DUAL REFERRALS, THOUGH I
APPRECIATE THE ENERGY COMMITTEE,
TAKING THE RESOURCE IN WATER
COMMITTEE'S COMMENTS INTO
ACCOUNT, UM. WE HEARD THIS BILL
AND ITS FIRST ITERATION AND PART
OF THE FRUSTRATION HERE IS WITH
PROCESS WHERE WE HEARD A BILL
FROM SENATOR DOLLY THAT WE MOVED
OUT AND THEN EVERYTHING CHANGED
IN THE OTHER HOUSE. AND NOW
WE'RE SEEING A VERY DIFFERENT
BILL ON THE WAY BACK. THAT
CLEARLY STILL HAS SOME ISSUES
WITH IT. UM I'M HOPING TO GET I
KNOW WE MAY NOT HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR AMENDMENTS AT
THIS POINT, BECAUSE WE'RE IN 29
10 HERE, UM BUT BUT CERTAINLY,
UM CERTAINLY THE COMMITTEE. OUR
COMMITTEE DOES HAVE SOME IDEAS
ON HOW TO RESOLVE SOME OF THESE
OUTSTANDING VAGARIES AND
EXISTING LAW AS WELL AS UNDER
THE BILL, NAMELY, I WAS
WONDERING IF THE PG AND E
REPRESENTATIVE COULD COMMENT, UM
, ON THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
AND FORCE PRACTICE ACT PIECE
THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE IN THE
ANALYSIS AND IN PARTICULAR, IT,
SAYS THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
IN THE FOREST PRACTICE ACT
APPLY. BUT UNDER THAT PGD IS
CURRENTLY CLAIMING THAT ITS
ACTIONS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
FOREST PRACTICE ACT. SO IF WE'RE
SAYING THAT A BODYOF LAW
APPLIES BUT THEN IN TURN, YOU'RE
SAYING YOU'RE NOT SUBJECT TO IT.
IT'S SORT OF A NON IT'S A IT'S A
NOTHING PHRASE IN THIS IN THIS
BILL, AND IN OTHER WORDS, YOU
WILL OPERATE. OUTSIDE OF THE
BOUNDS OF FOREST PRACTICES ACT.
CAN YOU COMMENT ON YOUR POSITION
ON THAT ISSUE AND SORT OF HOW
YOU SEE IT? PLAYING OUT IN THIS
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS? YOU WERE
JUST REFERRING TO? ABSOLUTELY
AND THE REFERENCE TO COASTAL
COMMISSION WAS IN THERE
SPECIFICALLY AT THE REQUEST OF
THE COASTAL COMMISSION, THE
REFERENCED THE FOREST PRACTICES
ACT AND RULES WAS IN THERE
SPECIFICALLY AT THE REQUEST OF
HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH
CAL FIRE. UM IT WAS MENTIONED
RIGHT BEFORE YOU WALKED IN THAT
WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO ENGAGE
THE BORDER FORESTRY OR ALMOST
THREE YEARS TO UPDATE THE FOREST
PRACTICE RULES THAT APPLY TO
UTILITIES BECAUSE THERE ARE
PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST
PRACTICE ROLES THAT ARE IN
DIRECT CONFLICT WITH B
REQUIREMENTS SINCE THEY WELL, UM
, SOMETIMES WE NEED TO TAKE A
TREE THAT MIGHT BE AN ENDANGERED
SPECIES. SO THERE'S SOME
COMPLICATED ISSUES THERE THAT WE
HAVE BEEN HOPING THAT THE BORDER
FORESTRY AND ADMINISTRATION WILL
HELP US OUT ON THERE'S SOME NEW
LEADERSHIP OVER AT CAL FIRE, SO
HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET SOME
SUCCESS ON THAT MOVEMENT. SO IT
IS A FAIR ISSUE. UM THERE ARE
THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WE
DISCUSSED INCLUDED IN THE BILL
ITSELF, BUT IT WAS DEEMED TO BE
NOT WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE HERE
TODAY BECAUSE THE GOAL OF THIS
BILL WAS TO MOVE IT AS
EXPEDIENTLY AS POSSIBLE TO GET
RID OF LIABILITY TO ALLOW US TO
GO CUT THE TREES THAT ARE THE
HAZARDS AND SIMULTANEOUSLY WORK
THROUGH THE REGULATORY PROCESS
TO RESOLVE THE BORDER FORESTRY
ISSUES, SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO
HIDE THE BALL HERE. IT'S JUST
IT'S DIFFICULT WHEN WE'RE TRYING
TO STAY RESTATE THAT EXISTING
LAW EXISTS BECAUSE IT ALWAYS
DOES. UM OF NOTE. THE CURRENT
LAW ACTUALLY HAS THE
NOTWITHSTANDING LANGUAGE IN
THERE THAT SAYS BASICALLY, NO
OTHER LAWS APPLY. EXCEPT FOR THE
WAY 40 TO 95.5 WAS WRITTEN. THE
NEW BILL GETS RID OF THAT. SO
IT'S EXTRA CLEAR MULTIPLE TIMES
WITHIN THEIR THAT EXISTING LAWS
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND COASTAL
ACT. ISSUES DO APPLY. WE DO NEED
TO CONTINUE TO WORK THROUGH THE
BORDER FORESTRY TO GET THOSE
ISSUES CORRECTED. BUT THAT'S A
REGULATORY MATTER. BUT THE
CURRENT YOUR CURRENT POSITION
BEFORE THE BOARD OF FORESTRY IS
THAT THE FORCE PRACTICE ACT DOES
NOT APPLY TO THESE ACTIONS.
THERE'S CONFLICTS BETWEEN HOW
YEAH. THE CONFLICT IS WHETHER OR
NOT WE ARE TIMBER HARVEST
OPERATOR OR NOT, WE WOULD ARGUE
THAT WE'RE NOT BECAUSE WE ARE
UTILITY AND THERE SHOULD BE NO
TREES WITHIN THE TIMBERLANDS.
THAT ISSUE IS VERY SPECIFIC TO
OUR EASEMENTS THAT IS AGAIN
OUTSIDE OF THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS
OUTSIDE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
ARGUMENT. I AM GETTING VERY FAR
OUTSIDE OF MY KNOWLEDGE HERE,
BUT GENERALLY IF THERE'S AN
EASEMENT, IT'S A RIGHT OF WAY.
IT'S NOT TIMBERLAND. THEREFORE
WE'RE NOT A TIMBER HARVEST
OPERATOR BECAUSE THERE SHOULD BE
NO TIMBER THERE. THAT'S AN ISSUE
THAT WHERE WERE YOU CONFLICTED
THE PUC. SO WE NEED TO RESOLVE
THAT AND WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT
, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE HELP
GETTING THE BOARD TO MOVE
FORWARD TO THAT ROLE MAKING, BUT
THAT'S A BIT OF A DISTRACTION
FROM THE LIABILITY PROBLEM THAT
WE'RE TRYING TO FIX THE LAW.
OKAY, UM I WISH THEY GAVE ME
MORE CLARITY, BUT IT DOESN'T GET
THAT IT'S AN ONGOING ISSUE
OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THIS
BILL, EXCEPT THAT THE BILLS
ENTIRE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY
IS PROPPED UP ON THE APPLICATION
OF FORCE PRACTICE ACT AND THE
COASTAL ACT. SO IF YOU'RE
ACTIVELY TRYING TO HAVE THAT NOT
APPLY. IN THESE CASES. IT'S A
BIT OF A MISNOMER TO SAY IT
APPLIES. UM THE OTHER ISSUE WE
HAVE IS FROM A RESOURCE
PERSPECTIVE IS OUTSIDE OF
COASTAL ZONE AND OUTSIDE OF
FORCE PRACTICE ACT SO OUTSIDE OF
TIMBERLAND AND OUTSIDE OF
COASTAL ZONES, OAK WOODLANDS
CHAPARRAL FOREST, THESE KINDS OF
AREAS. UM THERE ARE NO UM,
PROTECTIONS AFFORDED IN THIS
MEASURE IS THAT CORRECT? WELL,
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. IF
WE DO NOT FOLLOW THE VERY
SPECIFIC PROCESS OF WHAT THE PC
CREATES OR GOOD FAITH WITH THE
REVISION, ALL LIABILITY REMAINS
. THERE ARE CIVIL CODE CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE PENAL CODE
VIOLATIONS THAT WILL HOLD
ANYBODY, REGARDLESS OF UTILITY
OR PERSON LIABLE FOR GOING ONTO
SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY, CUTTING
THEIR TREE, REMOVING THEIR TREE,
DAMAGING THEIR VALUE THERE WOULD
EXIST WITH OR WITHOUT THIS BILL.
SO IF WE DO NOT FOLLOW THE BILL,
NONE OF THE PROTECTIONS EXIST,
AND CAL FIRE WILL CONTINUE TO
CITE US FOR VIOLATIONS UNTIL WE
GET THE REGULATORY ISSUE.
ADDRESS SO THAT'S NOT GOING TO
BE WAIVED WITH THIS BILL. UM I
GET THE LANDOWNER PROPERTY
ISSUES WILL STILL EXIST. THOSE
SOME OF THOSE PROTECTIONS YOU
KNOW, SORT OF BE LITIGATED DOWN
THE LINE IF YOU WILL, BUT JUST
TO BE CLEAR THERE ARE NO OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS. NOT
LANDOWNER OR PROPERTY OWNER PUC
ISSUES BUT NO OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS ON S
HABITAT OR THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES
OUTSIDE OF COASTAL ZONES AND
OUTSIDE OF TIMBERLAND, IS THAT
THAT'S I MEAN ALL OTHER LAWS
APPLY. THIS BILL DOES NOT WAIVE
ANY OTHER LAWS BY CALLING OUT
SPECIFICALLY THE FOREST PRACTICE
ACT AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
ACT. THOSE WERE PUT IN THERE TO,
UH. STAKEHOLDERS ASKED FOR THOSE
TO BE REFERENCED. IT DOESN'T
MEAN THAT ANY OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW DOES NOT
APPLY, AND THE BILL SPECIFICALLY
SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH
ALL OTHER EXISTING ENVIRONMENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS. I
BELIEVE THAT'S THE PHRASE RIGHT
AFTER IT SAYS FOREST PRACTICE
RULES UNDERSTAND. I'M JUST
LOOKING TO ANALYSIS AND JUST
LOOKING AT THE ANALYSIS, IT SAYS
OUTSIDE OF THESE AREAS LIKE AN
OAK, WOODLANDS AND CHAPERONE
FORCED THIS ON PAGE NINE.
PROTECTIONS PROVIDED BY THESE
OTHER LAWS WE JUST TALKED ABOUT
WOULD NOT APPLY. SO, UM, I THINK
WE JUST DISAGREE WITH THAT
INTERPRETATION. GOT IT FROM THE
COMMITTEE. YOU GUYS HAVE A
DIFFERENT VIEW. WELL, YES, OKAY
, AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO TALK TO
THE COMMITTEE CONSULTANT ABOUT
THAT. ALRIGHT UM, THANK YOU FOR
GIVING ME A LITTLE TIME WOULD
WITH THESE SORT OF OUTSTANDING
QUESTIONS. I CAN'T SUPPORT THE
BILL TODAY, BUT I APPRECIATE THE
PRESENTATION JUST BRIEFLY. YES.
OKAY THEN WE'LL GO TO BECCA,
SENATOR BECKER FIRST AND SENATOR
BECKER. APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS
FROM PG NAME. IT DOES SEEM LIKE
THERE'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE
DONE HERE, AND I APPRECIATE THE
UM THAT SPIRIT BUT ALSO DOES
SOUND LIKE IT FEELS LIKE THIS
SHOULD GO THROUGH A FULL VETTING
AND SHOULD GO THROUGH NATURAL
RESOURCES COMMITTEE. THERE'S A
LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
HERE. SO UM, SO I WOULD LIKELY
NOT BE SUPPORTING IT TODAY FOR
THAT REASON, BUT IT DOES FEEL
LIKE WITH A MORE FULL VETTING.
THERE WAS A DOLLY BILL THAT WE
MOVED FORWARD, UM, THAT WE CAN
GET TO A RESOLUTION IN THE
FUTURE. SENATOR GROUP. THANK YOU
, MR CHAIR. UH TWO PG. NEITHER
STATES MADE THE COMMENTS. I GET
THE FACT ON THE EASEMENT THINGS
THAT THE EASEMENT LAND WHETHER
IT'S 20 FT THIS WAY AND 20 FT.
THAT WAY THAT THAT'S NOT
CONSIDERED FOREST LAND. AND I
KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE A TOUGH JOB
IN YOUR IN BETWEEN A ROCK AND A
HARD PLACE. I GET THAT I JUST
WISH THERE WAS SOME TYPE AND I
KNOW YOU CAN STILL ONE PERSON'S
PROPERTY, BUT YOU KNOW? I DON'T
WANT TO SEE THE AVERAGE
CONSISTENT CONSTITUENT, BUT THE
AVERAGE CONSTITUENT. I THINK
THAT THAT I REPRESENT DOESN'T
UNDERSTAND WHY SOMEBODY CAN JUST
COME ON THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT
THEIR AUTHORIZATION. AND SO I
THINK IF YOU GUYS COULD WORK ON
THAT THAT WOULD BE REALLY GOOD.
BUT I DO GET THAT THIS IS A
NECESSARY IT'S NECESSARY THAT WE
DO, UM, BRUSH CLEARING TO
PREVENT FOREST FIRES, AND SO, UM
, I JUST WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND
THAT I GET THE EASEMENT RIGHT
WHERE I SEE THAT IT'S NOT
ACTUALLY AFFECTED IN THE FOREST
LANDS, PROPERTY OR THE FORCE
LANDS. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE
WILL ACCEPT THE MOTION. MADE BY
SENATOR DODD TO INVOKE, UH. RULE
2 92 AND MOVE THE FOOT BILL TO
THE SENATE FOR A FULL DISCUSSION
. AH DID YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY
CLOSING COMMENTS? SENATOR
BRADFORD. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR,
AND I APPRECIATE THE DEBATE. I'M
SOMEWHAT MIFFED AND DISAPPOINTED
THAT THIS BILL HAS BEEN
DESCRIBED AS A FREE FOR ALL TO
REMOVE TREES OR SOMEONE WHO'S
WORKED REALLY CONSERVATION CORPS
. FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, I
PROBABLY PLANTED MORE TREES THAN
EVERYBODY IN THIS LEGISLATURE.
SO I ARE ALL ABOUT PRESERVING
TREES BUT ALSO FOR SOMEONE WHO
WORKED FOR UTILITY FOR 12 YEARS
AND I KNOW THE PAINSTAKING
MEASURES THAT THEY TAKE AN URBAN
AREAS, LET ALONE IN RURAL AREAS
BEFORE ACCESSING ANYONE'S
PROPERTY TO REMOVE A TREE.
THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE PRACTICE
AND IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE
LOOKING TO REMOVE TREES. IF YOU
LOOK AT ANY OF THE UTILITIES.
THEY DON'T DESCRIBE IT AS TREE
TRIMMING. THEY DON'T DESCRIBE IT
AS TREE REMOVAL. THEY DESCRIBE
IT AS LYING CLEARANCE AND THAT'S
SIMPLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING. IT'S
CLEARING OUR LINES TO MAKE SURE
THAT DEBRIS DOES NOT CAUSE
FOREST FIRES. AND EVEN IF YOU
UPDATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
BRANCH THAT TREE CAN STEAL CAUSE
OF FOREST FIRE IS NOT THE WIRE
IN IT OF ITSELF. IT'S WHAT FLIES
INTO THAT WIRE OR FALLS INTO
THAT WIRE THAT SPARKS THE FIRE.
SO THIS IS ALL WE'RE TRYING TO
DO, SO I'M EVERYONE'S SEEN. THEY
WANT TO MAKE IT SAFER. THIS
MAKES IT SAFER AGAIN. UTILITIES
ARE NOT LOOKING TO GO CLEAR. CUT
A FORCE. OR CUT DOWN ANY TREE
UNNECESSARILY AND LIKE, SAY, I
REPRESENTED AN URBAN AREA AND I
KNOW HOW WE WOULD KNOCK ON DOORS
UNTIL WE GOT TO ANSWER BEFORE WE
EVEN TRIM THE TREE THAT WAS
CLEARLY IN OUR RIGHT AWAY. WE
CLEARLY HAD AN EASEMENT ON IT,
BUT WE DIDN'T DO IT WILLY NILLY,
AND I DON'T THINK THIS BILL WILL
AFFORD THAT. BUT I RESPECT THE
DISCUSSION THAT'S BEEN HERE
TODAY. THANK YOU. AND JUST FOR
THE RECORD, I PUT MY TREE
PLANTAIN. RECORD AGAINST YOURS
ANY DAY. YEAH. OKAY, WE HAVE
EMOTION. AH! CLARK, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. SP 396 BY SENATOR
BRADFORD AT THE ASSEMBLY
AMENDMENTS BE TAKEN UP FOR
CONSIDERATION WHISTLE BY OH I
DALI DALI I BECKER BECKER NO
GORGEOUS BRADFORD BRADFORD. I
DODD DOT I EGGMAN. EGGMAN I
GONZALES GONZALES, I GROVE
GROVE. I HERTZBERG MCGUIRE
MCGUIRE NO MEN RUBIO. STERN
STERN. NO. OKAY SO WE'LL WAIT
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO COME BACK
TO COMPLETE THE ROLE WILL HOLD
THE BILL. THE REAL COLD OPEN,
PERHAPS MEMBERS STUDY COME BACK.
WE HAVE WE HAVE WHERE THEY HAVE
A CAN YOU PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. UM,
GORGEOUS. HERTZBERG MEN IN I
RUBIO. OKAY AND WILL HOLD THE
ROLL UP AND PERHAPS SOME
MEMBERS. HE WAS, HE SAID, YOU
WERE IN THE BACK.IF YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO DO YOU WANT TO.
OKAY JUST WANNA ANNOUNCE THAT SP
3 96 GOT THE NECESSARY AMOUNT OF
VOTES TO CLEAR THIS COMMITTEE
AND MOVE FORWARD. TO THE SENATE
FLOOR, SO WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE
THE ROLE. AND ADJOURNED
COMMITTEE. AND SO, UM, I JUST
WANT TO THANK EVERYONE. THAT
PARTICIPATED TODAY IF YOUR
COMMENTS WERE NOT HEARD, PLEASE
FORWARD. THROUGH EITHER THROUGH
AN EMAIL OR A LETTER. YOUR
COMMENTS TO THE, UH. THE
COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE OR TO THE
CHAIR. UM. THANK YOU FOR TO
EVERYONE FOR YOUR PAYMENT
PATIENTS AND COOPERATIONS. WE
HAVE CONCLUDED THE AGENDA. THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON YOUTUBE,
ENERGY, UTILITIES AND
COMMUNICATIONS HAS NOW INJURED.