IN A BUNCH OF SUB COMMITTEE
NUMBER TWO ON RESOURCES.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ENERGY
WILL COME TO ORDER WE ARE
HOLDING OUR HEARING IN THE Ó
STREET BUILDING. WE HAVE FIVE
ISSUES ON TODAY'S AGENDA. WE
WILL FIRST DISCUSS ISSUE NUMBER
ONE, THEN TAKE A BREAK FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT AFTERWARDS. WE
WILL DISCUSS ISSUES TWO THROUGH
FIVE AND AFTER DISCUSSION WITH
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ALL OF THE, UH
OTHER ITEMS, SO WE'RE GONNA
START WITH ISSUE NUMBER ONE
COMMUNITY SOLAR. AND UH, WE'LL
FIRST HEAR FROM THE èC PU èC,
WHO PRESENT AN OVERVIEW OF THE
PROPOSED DECISION ON COMMUNITY
SOLAR.
YEAH. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
YOU GO. GO AHEAD WHEN READY.
RIGHT. THANK YOU. CHAIR BECKER,
VICE CHAIR, DOLLY. MY NAME IS
LUO TESFA, AND I'M, THE DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR ENERGY
AND CLIMATE POLICY AT THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION. I'M PLEASED TO
PRESENT TODAY ON THE PROPOSED
DECISION BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. AND
ITS COMMUNITY SOLAR PROCEEDING
AS IT RELATES TO THE PREVIOUS
$33 MILLION BUDGET ALLOCATION
THAT THE PROPOSED DECISION WOULD
ALLOCATE THROUGH A NEWLY CREATED
COMMUNITY RENEWABLE ENERGY
PROGRAM THAT IS NOT SUBSIDIZED
BY RATEPAYERS. BEFORE I PROCEED.
I SHOULD NOTE THAT THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSIONS COMMUNITY SOLAR
PROCEEDING IS STILL AN OPEN
QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDING. THE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
MANAGING THE PROCEEDING ISSUED A
PROPOSED DECISION ON MARCH 4TH.
I WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS
PROPOSAL IS STILL SUBJECT TO
DELIBERATION BEFORE A FINAL
DECISION IS ELIGIBLE TO BE VOTED
ON BY THE FULL COMMISSION. THIS
IS A PROPOSED DECISION THAT HAS
NOT YET BEEN VOTED ON. WHAT I
CAN DO IS SHARE WITH YOU.
INFORMATION FROM THE PROPOSED
DECISION, AND THE JUDGES STATED
RATIONALE AS WRITTEN IN THE
DECISION. WHICH IS BASED ON THE
RECORD OF STAKEHOLDER EVIDENCE
PROVIDED BY PARTIES IN THEIR
SWORN TESTIMONY. I CAN SPEAK TO
SOME OF THE DETAILS OF WHAT IS
OUTLINED IN THE PROPOSED
DECISION AND ANSWER FACTUAL
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS ABOUT ITS MAIN
COMPONENTS. HOWEVER AS I SAID
THE PROPOSAL IS STILL JUST THAT
A PROPOSAL AND NOT A FINAL
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION.
STAKEHOLDERS TO THE PRECEDING
HAVE UNTIL APRIL 2ND TO SUBMIT
COMMENTS AS WELL AS THEIR REPLY
COMMENTS. TO THE PROPOSED
DECISION. BEFORE I BEGIN. I'D
LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT
ABOUT SOLAR DEVELOPMENT IN
CALIFORNIA. FIRST CALIFORNIA HAS
MORE SOLAR CAPACITY ON OUR
ELECTRIC GRID THAN ANY OTHER
STATE IN THE COUNTRY. THERE ARE
THOUSANDS OF SOLAR GENERATION
PROJECTS OF ALL SCALES
INTERCONNECTED TO OUR ELECTRIC
GRID AT THE TRANSMISSION LEVEL
DISTRIBUTION LEVEL AND Ó NEAR
BUILDINGS. WE WILL HAVE
THOUSANDS MORE NEW SOLAR
PROJECTS BUILT IN CALIFORNIA
OVER THE COMING DECADES. LOAD
SERVING ENTITIES LIKE OUR
COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATORS AND
INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES ARE
SELECTING HUNDREDS OF NEW CLEAN
ENERGY PROJECTS THROUGH
COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESSES TO
SERVE THEIR CUSTOMERS. THIS
BRINGS ME TO THE PROPOSED
DECISION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
ON COMMUNITY SOLAR. OR MORE
ACCURATELY CHARACTERIZED AS
SOLAR PROJECTS INTERCONNECTED AT
THE UTILITY DISTRIBUTION LEVEL
THAT EITHER PRIMARILY EXPORT
POWER TO THE ELECTRIC GRID OR IS
PRODUCED AND CONSUMED ON SITE BY
A BUILDING. THIS TYPE OF SOLAR
PROJECT IS NOT NEW IN
CALIFORNIA. AND THE PROPOSED
DECISION FOLLOWS A LONG HISTORY
OF EXPERIENCE THAT HAS BEEN
PULLED FORWARD TO HELP GUIDE AND
SHAPE THE NEXT GENERATION OF
THIS PROPOSED COMMUNITY SOLAR
PROGRAM SO THAT IT BENEFITS ALL
CUSTOMERS ALIGNS WITH OUR SUITE
OF EXISTING SOLAR POLICIES AND
PROGRAMS AND PROVIDES GREATER
GRID IN CUSTOMER BENEFIT THAN IT
COSTS. AND WHERE THERE ARE COSTS
. WE ARE PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION
TO THE FACT THAT COSTS
ULTIMATELY ARE BORNE BY
CUSTOMERS OR RATEPAYERS. AND
TODAY THESE CUSTOMERS ARE
ACUTELY FEELING THE IMPACTS OF
HIGHER ELECTRIC RATES AND BILLS.
TURNING TO THE PROPOSED
DECISION. LET ME START BY
OUTLINING THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
FOR THE PROPOSED DECISION, WHICH
CAN BE FOUND BY THE AUTHORIZING
STATUTE. A B 20 THREE 16. A B
2316 REQUIRED THE èC PU èC TO
CARRY OUT THREE MANDATES FIRST
EVALUATE EXISTING RENEWABLE
ENERGY CUSTOMER SUBSCRIPTION
PROGRAMS AND DETERMINE IF THEY
EFFECTIVELY SERVE DISTINCT
CUSTOMER GROUPS, MINIMIZE
DUPLICATIVE OFFERINGS AND
PROMOTE ROBUST PARTICIPATION BY
LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS. SECOND TO
EITHER TERMINATE OR MODIFY ANY
EXISTING PROGRAMS THAT DO NOT
MEET THOSE CRITERIA. AND THIRD
DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S
BENEFICIAL TO RATEPAYERS TO
ESTABLISH A NEW, NON RATEPAYER
SUBSIDIZED COMMUNITY RENEWABLE
ENERGY PROGRAM CONSISTENT WITH A
NUMBER OF REQUIREMENTS IN THE
BILL. IN TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY.
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT A B
2316 REQUIRES THE èC P èC TO
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE BILL
IMPACTS OF OUR PROGRAMS ON BOTH
PARTICIPANTS AND NONPARTICIPANTS
AND ENSURE WE USE RATEPAYER
FUNDING AS EFFECTIVELY AND
EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE. AND
SPECIFICALLY FOR A NEW COMMUNITY
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM. A B 20
THREE 16 REQUIRES THAT
NONPARTICIPATING RATEPAYERS PAY
NÓ MORE THAN THEY WOULD
OTHERWISE PAY A MEASURE TO
PROTECT AGAINST BILL INCREASES
FROM THE PROGRAM. WHILE AT THE
SAME TIME DELIVERING BILL
DISCOUNTS FOR PARTICIPATING
SUBSCRIBERS, ESPECIALLY LOW
INCOME SUBSCRIBERS. NOW FOR A
BRIEF OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED
DECISION AND ITS OUTCOMES AND
REASONING. IN TERMS OF EXISTING
RENEWABLE SUBSCRIPTION PROGRAMS.
THE PROPOSED DECISION DETERMINES
THAT AN EXISTING DISCOUNT
PROGRAM FOR LOW INCOME RESIDENTS
OF DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES IS
PERFORMING WELL AND SHOULD BE
EXPANDED. IN ADDITION, THE
PROPOSED DECISION DETERMINES
THAT THE EXISTING GREEN TARIFF
PROGRAM FOR MARKET RATE
CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO
REDUCE RATE AND ENROLLMENT
VOLATILITY AND PROVIDE AN OPTION
FOR INVESTOR OWNED UTILITY
BUNDLED CUSTOMERS TO TOP UP TO
100% RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR A
SMALL PREMIUM, SIMILAR TO THE
EXISTING OPTIONS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE FOR MANY COMMUNITY
CHOICE AGGREGATOR CUSTOMERS.
ADDITIONALLY THE PROPOSED
DECISION DETERMINES THAT IT'S
BENEFICIAL TO ESTABLISH A NEW
COMMUNITY RENEWABLE ENERGY
PROGRAM CONSISTENT WITH A B
20,316 THAT IS NOT SUBSIDIZED BY
RATEPAYERS. AS DIRECTED BY A B
20,316, THE PROPOSED NEW NON
RATEPAYER SUBSIDIZED COMMUNITY
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM DOES
NOT INCREASE BILLS FOR
NONPARTICIPANTS. THE PROPOSED
DECISION SETS THE AMOUNT OF
COMPENSATION FOR SOLAR POWER
EXPORTS TO THE GRID AT
GENERATION COSTS AVOIDED BY EACH
PROJECT. IN ORDER TO ENSURE BILL
SAVINGS FOR THE LOW INCOME
CUSTOMERS WHO MUST MAKE UP AT
LEAST 51% OF EACH PROJECT'S
CAPACITY. THE PROGRAM DESIGN
INCLUDES ADDITIONAL BILL CREDITS
FOR LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS. THOSE
BILL CREDITS WOULD UTILIZE STATE
AND FEDERAL FUNDING RATHER THAN
RATEPAYER FUNDS TO AVOID ADDING
COST TO CUSTOMER ELECTRICITY
BILLS TO FUND THE SUBSIDIES. LOW
INCOME CUSTOMERS AT HIGHEST RISK
OF DISCONNECTION WILL BE
PRIORITIZED FOR OTTAWA
ENROLLMENT ENHANCING EQUITY.
THIS PROGRAM FRAMEWORK IS
COMPLIANT. ALSO WITH THE FEDERAL
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY
POLICIES ACT, OR PER NOW I WANT
TO STRESS THAT PPA IS A COMPLEX
BODY OF FEDERAL LAW. IT'S NOT
ALWAYS ENTIRELY STRAIGHTFORWARD
TO ADMINISTER, AND THERE'S BEEN
A MULTI DECADE LEARNING PROCESS
BETWEEN STATES AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. WE'VE HAD
PROCUREMENT TARIFFS CHALLENGED
IN THE PAST, MANY OF WHICH THAT
HAVE PASSED MUSTER BUT ALSO
REQUIRED EXTENSIVE LITIGATION IN
FEDERAL COURT. THROUGH ALL THAT
EXPERIENCE. WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO
DEVELOP PPA COMPLIANT TARIFFS,
WHICH WE ARE USING HERE. THIS
PROPOSAL SUPPORTS SOLAR WHILE
PRIORITIZING AFFORDABILITY. THE
PROPOSED DECISION ELECTS NOT TO
IMPLEMENT A NET VALUE BILLING
TARIFF PROPOSED BY SOLAR
DEVELOPERS. THE PROPOSED
DECISION FINDS THAT THIS
PROPOSED TARIFF FROM DEVELOPERS
WOULD RESULT IN AN $8.1 BILLION
IN COSTS FOR EACH GIGAWATT OF
SOLAR OVER 25 YEARS, TRIPLING
RATEPAYER COSTS FOR EACH
GIGAWATT OF SOLAR PROCURED. PER
THE STATUTORY DIRECTION THAT
NONPARTICIPATING RATEPAYERS PAY
NÓ MORE THAN THEY WOULD
OTHERWISE PAY. THE PROPOSED
DECISION DOES NOT ADOPT THIS
PROPOSAL. THE NEW COMMUNITY
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM
PROPOSAL IN THE PROPOSED
DECISION INCLUDES, UH RELIES ON
PPA COMPLIANT TARIFFS THAT
COMPENSATE RENEWABLE GENERATORS
AT ITS TRUE VALUE, THE WHOLESALE
AVOIDED COST OF GENERATION.
FINALLY I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT
THIS PROPOSED DECISION TAKES
VERY SERIOUSLY THE LEGISLATURE'S
DIRECTIVES TO MAXIMIZE THE
IMPACT OF NON RATEPAYER FUNDS
AND TO ENSURE BILL SAVINGS FOR
LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS. IN ORDER
TO DO SO. THE PROPOSED DECISION
CREATES A DEDICATED MECHANISM TO
ALLOCATE AND DISTRIBUTE EXTERNAL
FUNDS AS BILL DISCOUNTS IN LOW
TO LOW INCOME PARTICIPANTS. THE
$33 MILLION BUDGET ALLOCATION
THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS
AUTHORIZED FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR
WOULD BE USED IN THIS WAY TO
PROVIDE BILL CREDITS FOR LOW
INCOME PARTICIPANTS. THE
PROPOSAL WILL ALSO HELP TO
LEVERAGE AVAILABLE FEDERAL FUNDS
, INCLUDING FUNDING THROUGH THE
U S¼ EPA SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM
THAT THE STATE HAS APPLIED FOR.
THE SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM
DEFINES COMMUNITY SOLAR VERY
BROADLY AND WOULD PROVIDE
FUNDING FOR ALL TYPES OF
DISTRIBUTION CONNECTED SOLAR
PROJECTS, INCLUDING THOSE
PRIMARILY EXPORTING POWER INTO
THE GRID OR SERVING ON SITE
ELECTRIC DEMAND. DETERMINATIONS
ON SOLAR FOR ALL FUNDING ARE
EXPECTED TO BE ANNOUNCED THIS
SPRING, AND THE FUNDING WOULD
PLUG IN WELL TO THE NEW
COMMUNITY RENEWABLE ENERGY
PROGRAM THAT IS IN THE PROPOSED
DECISION. THANK YOU FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO WALK THROUGH THE
PROPOSED DECISION. WE VALUE THE
INPUT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM
STAKEHOLDERS OVER THE LAST YEAR
IN OUR PUBLIC DECISION MAKING
PROCESS, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. I THANK YOU, UH,
DEPUTY SECRETARY TO TESTIFY AND,
UM UM I DO HAVE A LOT OF
QUESTIONS ON THIS. YOU FEEL, UH,
FIND A THEME. UM UH UH, I I'M
SURE. UM BUT THAT IS, UH UM UH,
YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T DIMINISH
DIMINISH MY RESPECT FOR YOU AND
THE, UM THE PUC, BUT THIS IS A
VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC. I DO WANNA
TURN OVER TO SENATOR DOLLY.
FIRST INTEREST OF TIME. GO
AHEAD. WELL, FIRST, UH, THANK
YOU, CHAIR. GOOD TO SEE YOU. UH,
THANK YOU. CHAIR FOR, UH, GIVING
ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. WE
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE BEEN
FOCUSED ON, UM GETTING REALLY
DRILLING DOWN INTO THIS AREA,
BECAUSE, UH, THE COST SHIFT, UH,
FROM SOLAR TO NON SOAR. PEOPLE
IS SOMETHING I'VE BEEN, UH,
TRACKING VERY CLOSELY. WE KNOW
THAT, UH, IN THE IN THE RECENT
PROGRAMS THAT WE'VE HAD, UH,
THAT THE COST SHIFT IS ABOUT
6.2. TO $6.8 BILLION TO NON, UH
FOLKS WHO DON'T HAVE CAN'T
AFFORD SOLAR. QUITE FRANKLY. SO
WE'VE WE'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION
A COUPLE POINTS. I WANT TO MAKE
THAT SUB TWO IS A COMMITTEE
WHERE WE DO BUDGETING STUFF. AND
UNFORTUNATELY THERE'S A LOT OF
POLICY COMES THROUGH OUR TRAILER
BILLS. UM AND SO I THINK IT'S
UNFORTUNATE THAT WE DON'T, UH,
THAT WE DON'T HAVE POLICY
HEARINGS FOR, UH, THESE HUGE
DECISIONS THAT THE LEGISLATURE
IS MAKING. UH AND IT'S DONE
THROUGH TRAILER BILLS, WHICH IS
DOING POLICY THAT REALLY NEEDS
TO BE VETTED OUT IN THE OPEN, SO
I WANNA JUST GO ON RECORD SAYING
THAT I FIRST OF ALL, THIS WILL
BE ONE OF THE INSTANCES WHERE I
ACTUALLY WANTED TO SAY THAT YOUR
COMMENTS ON UM THE, UH N VÆ B
Tð AND THE $8 BILLION THAT'S
GONNA BE COST SHIFTED IS I THINK
YOU'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING
HERE. I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO
DO WE NEED TO LOOK AT THESE
COMMUNITY. UH UH, SOLAR PROJECTS
AND MAKE SURE THAT WE AREN'T UM
HURTING AGAIN, FOLKS THAT CAN'T,
UH, PARTICIPATE. AND SUBSIDIZING
THE PROGRAM ON AND THE SECOND
POINT I WANNA SAY IS THAT THERE
WAS THERE WAS A LETTER, UH, SENT
TO YOU BY A WHOLE BUNCH OF
LEGISLATORS THAT SIGNED FROM THE
COMMUNITY. CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITIES. UH, èC, UH, SOLAR
ASSOCIATION ON DOING EXACTLY
WHAT YOU'RE PUSHING BACK ON. SO
I WANNA SAY I IT'S UNFORTUNATE
THAT LEGISLATORS ARE WEIGHING IN
AND THIS CIRCUS. WE NEED TO HAVE
A POLICY HEARING TO WEIGH IN ON
IT. SO FOR THE FOR THOSE
REASONS, I WANNA SAY THAT I
THINK YOU I I'M SUPPORTING YOU
IN THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO.
THERE SHOULD BE A POLICY
DISCUSSION, AND WE SHOULDN'T DO
IT ON THE BACKS OF, UH NON FOLKS
WHO CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE
PROGRAM. SO, UM AND ACCORDING TO
MY MATH. THAT 8.1 BILLION OVER
25 YEARS IS $64 BILLION, THAT
WOULD BE COST SHIFTED TO
SOMEWHERE ELSE. WHETHER IT IS
SOME OF THE PROPOSALS ARE THAT
WE SHOULD TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF
THE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION
FUND, OR WE'RE GOING TO DRAW
DOWN ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS. BUT AT
THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S STILL
SOMEBODY ELSE PAYING, UM, FOR A
SUBSIDY. UH, THAT SOMEBODY ELSE
IS RECEIVING. AND SO, UH, MR
CHAIRMAN I, I IT'S UNFORTUNATE
THAT I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO
STAY, UH, TOO MUCH LONGER, BUT I
WANNA JUST LET LET YOU LET FOR
THE RECORD FOLKS KNOW THAT I'M
GONNA BE WATCHING THIS, SO I'M
GONNA BE COMMENTING WHEN THESE
TRAILER BILLS COME THROUGH, UM,
THAT THE POLICIES WE MAKE ARE
DRIVING UP THE YOUR ESTIMATES
ARE THREE TIMES THE COST OF
ELECTRICITY. AND I AND HEARING
EVERY DAY FROM FOLKS. IN MY
DISTRICT AND NOT EVEN FOLKS
OUTSIDE OF MY DISTRICT THAT
CAN'T AFFORD THEIR ELECTRICITY
RATE IN CALIFORNIA. AT THE SAME
TIME, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
INCREASE GENERATION. BY ALMOST
THREE TO DO ALL THE THINGS WE'RE
TRYING TO DO TO GET OUT OF OUR,
UH OFF OF FOSSIL FUELS AND
NATURAL GAS AND ALL THOSE THINGS
. SO THIS IS A IS AN AREA WHERE
WE REALLY NEED TO DRILL DOWN AND
FIGURE OUT WHO'S PAYING THE BILL
AT THE END OF THE DAY, BECAUSE
EVERY TIME THAT WE DO A PROGRAM
WHERE WE GIVE TAX CREDITS, OR WE
GIVE, WE TAKE MONEY FROM
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND OR
SOMEWHERE AND COST SHIFT IT
SOMEBODY'S PAYING THE BILL. AND
IN THE PAST, IT'S BEEN THOSE WHO
COULDN'T AFFORD TO GET ON TO PUT
ON A ROOFTOP SOLAR. SO I'M I
WANNA COMMEND YOU FOR REALIZING
AND THE èC P èC REALIZING WHAT
WE DID IN THE PAST DID HURT SOME
FOLKS. AND WE DON'T WANT TO DO
THAT AGAIN. SO UH, I'LL BE
WATCHING THIS. UM, AS THE
PROCESS GOES, I'LL ALSO BE AGAIN
ADVOCATING THAT WE DO A MR
CHAIRMAN, A REAL POLICY HEARING
INSTEAD OF A BUDGET HEARING
WHERE WE WHERE WE DO. WHAT WE'RE
DOING NOW IS DOING POLICY
THROUGH BUDGETING, AND I THINK
THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. WE NEED TO
HAVE ALL THE PLAYERS AT THE
TABLE THAT INCLUDE SOLAR LOW
INCOME GROUPS TURN ALL THEM AT
THE TABLE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE
LONG TERM EFFECTS OF WHAT WE'RE
DOING FOR, UM THESE HUGE SOLAR
PROJECTS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT
ARE GOING TO COST SHIFT TO
EITHER. PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD
IT OR PEOPLE WHO OR OR THE GG
FUND OR FEDERAL FUNDS, WHICH IS
ALL OF US AT THE END OF THE DAY,
SO THANK YOU UNDERSTOOD. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. JOLLY AND, UM
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS.
SOMETIMES WE AGREE. SOMETIMES WE
DISAGREE. WE DISAGREE ON THIS
ONE. I DID WANT TO GIVE YOU A
CHANCE TO SPEAK BECAUSE YOU KNOW
THERE'S SOME TIME CONSTRAINTS
AND AGAIN JUST TO CLARIFY THIS
IS INFORMATIONAL HEARING THAT IS
PERTINENT TO A BILL THAT WE
PASSED LAST YEAR UNDER GREAT,
YOU KNOW, WITH LOTS OF DIS
DISCUSSION, AND, UM AND A BUDGET
APPROPRIATION THAT WE MADE LAST
YEAR. SO UM, YOU KNOW, AND I
THINK YOU KNOW THE KIND OF
UNDERLYING ISSUE AND WE HAVE A
CHANCE TO DISCUSS IT MORE LATER.
UM I UNDERSTAND YOU DO HEAD OUT.
BUT THE, UM UM, YOU KNOW TO ME
THIS REALLY, UH YOU KNOW, IT IS
TIMELY, OBVIOUSLY GIVEN WE'RE IN
THE COMMENT PERIOD RIGHT NOW, SO
THE YOU KNOW, CONSIDER THAT SOME
OF OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS UM AND,
UM, UH AND MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES
ARE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
THIS AS WELL. UM AND CERTAINLY
AS WELL. I THINK WE'LL BEAR OUT
THE QUESTIONS. YOU BELIEVE THAT
THAT ANY NOTION OF THE COST
SHIFT HERE IS
MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE YOU
KNOW OF THE PROGRAM, AND, UM AND
SORT OF SOME OF THE UNDERLYING
CALCULATIONS, SO TO GET INTO
THAT. AND AGAIN WITH RESPECT,
UH, HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS
ON THIS. SO WHY DOES IT POSE
DECISION FIND THAT THE NET VALUE
BILL TARIFF PROPOSAL? UM THAT
THAT UNDER IT, THE COMMUNITY
SOIL PROJECT SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED WHOLESALE FACILITIES.
OH, APOLOGIES. AND SO THE
PROPOSED DECISION FINDS THAT THE
NET VALUE BILLING TARIFF
PROPOSAL FROM FROM STAKEHOLDERS
DEPICTS WHOLESALE PROCUREMENT AS
COMPARED TO WHAT WE CALL RETAIL
NET ENERGY METERING. AND THIS IS
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON SO
FIRST THE LACK OF A TRUE UP
PERIOD TO IDENTIFY NET SURPLUS
GENERATION. TWO THE PRACTICE OF
BANKING CREDITS FOR SURPLUS
ENERGY IN LIEU OF PROVIDING NET
SURPLUS ENERGY COMPENSATION. AND
THREE THE ABSENCE OF A
GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY BETWEEN THE
GENERATION AND THE SUBSCRIBER
LOAD. THESE PROJECTS AREN'T ON A
CUSTOMER'S ROOF. THE STRUCTURE
OF THE NET VALUE BILL. TARIFF
PROPOSALS REPRESENT A DEPARTURE
FROM A FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
FOR PRESIDENT IN THE CONTEXT OF
NET ENERGY METERING. SO THE
PROPOSAL, AS PUT FORTH BY THESE
ADVOCATES, YOU KNOW, SOUGHT TO
CALCULATE THE TARIFF USING THE
AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR. THAT
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION ADOPTED FOR BEHIND
THE METER STORAGE AND BEHIND THE
METER STORAGE. AND SOLAR THE
AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR
COMPENSATES ROOFTOP SOLAR
CUSTOMERS FOR AVOIDED COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH BEHIND THE METER
RESOURCES, FOR EXAMPLE, ON A
CUSTOMER'S ROOF. CUSTOMERS ARE
COMPENSATED FOR AVOIDED
TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION AND
CAPACITY COSTS BECAUSE YOU'RE
NOT TRANSPORTING THAT
ELECTRICITY TO THE CUSTOMER. THE
NET VALUE BILLING TARIFF, AS PUT
FORWARD BY THE STAKEHOLDERS
WOULD PROVIDE THE AVOIDED COST
CALCULATOR FOR SOLAR ARRAYS THAT
DO NOT AVOID ANY TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION COSTS. GIVEN HOW
THE ADVOCATE SOUGHT TO DEFINE
COMMUNITY AS AN AS ACROSS AN
INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES ENTIRE
TERRITORY NOT CLOSE TO A
CUSTOMER ON THE ROOF. WE COULD
NOT FIND THAT THESE PROJECTS
WOULD ACTUALLY AVOID
TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION
COSTS. SO TO PUT THIS IN THE
CONTEXT UNDER THE NET VALUE
BILLING TARIFFS USE OF THE
AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR AND THE
DEFINITION OF COMMUNITY PES
RATEPAYERS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
COMPENSATE A 100 ACRE SOLAR
PROJECT. BUILT IN BAKERSFIELD
THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH CUSTOMERS
IN EUREKA FOR AVOIDED
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
COSTS. AND YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE
FROM THAT EXAMPLE. WE WOULD
DEFINITELY BE USING TRANSMISSION
AND DISTRIBUTION TO BE ABLE TO
GET THAT ELECTRICITY FROM THAT
PROJECT TO THOSE CUSTOMERS.
GREAT WELL, WE'LL DIVE INTO SOME
OF THAT RATIONALE, BUT AGAIN
WITH RESPECT, I MEAN, YOU WERE
DESIGNING THE PROGRAM, SO THE
ABSENCE OF GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY
THAT'S SOMETHING YOU COULD FIX
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO IN
DESIGNING THE PROGRAM. SO UM,
WELL, WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT.
UM SO DOES THE èC P èC VIEW
THE COMMUNITY SOLAR PROGRAMS IN
22 OTHER STATES, INCLUDING NEW
YORK, MAINE, MASSACHUSETTS,
DISSIMILAR TO THE ONE PROPOSED
BY THE NET VALUE BILLING TARIFF.
UH, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE NET
VALUE BUILDING TARIFF WAS
DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO BE VERY
SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING SOLAR
PROGRAMS IN OTHER STATES SO THAT
IT WOULD NOT RAISE ANY NEW
CONCERNS. WHY THE èC P èC
INTERPRET THE TREATMENT OF THESE
COMMUNITY SOLAR FACILITIES
DIFFERENTLY THAN THOSE OTHER
STATES? SO YES, WE REALLY DO
VIEW THEM AS BEING DISSIMILAR.
SO FIRST, THE NET VALUE BILLING
TARIFF, UM MAY BE CONSIDERED
SIMILAR TO OTHER STATES
COMMUNITY SOLAR PROGRAMS IN SOME
WAYS, BUT IT'S ALSO VERY
DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE IN THE MOST
FUNDAMENTAL OF WAYS. UM AND I'LL
BE ABLE TO GO INTO A FEW MORE
DETAILS, BUT UPFRONT. I DO WANT
TO NOTE THAT OTHER STATES HAVE
NOT ADOPTED IN A VOICE VOIDED
COST CALCULATOR LIKE CALIFORNIA
CREATED. THE NET THE NET VALUE
BILLING TARIFF CONCEPT BEFORE
THE COMMISSION SOUGHT TO
UNDERPIN THE PROPOSAL WITH THESE
AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR, AND
THAT'S THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL
COMPONENT THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT
FROM THE OTHER STATES. SO THIS
INTEGRAL PART OF THE NET VALUE
BILLING TARIFF CONCEPT BEFORE
THE COMMISSION DOES NOT EVEN
EXIST IN THESE OTHER STATES. UM,
AND AS SUCH, THE PROPOSAL FOR US
IS NOT REALLY COMPARABLE TO
WHAT'S IN WHAT OTHER STATES HAVE
ADOPTED. ADDITIONALLY CALIFORNIA
STATUTE GOVERNING HOW WE
IMPLEMENT COMMUNITY SOLAR
SPECIFIES THAT NONPARTICIPANTS
ARE NOT HARMED BEYOND THE
AVOIDED COST THAT GOVERNS OUR
PROGRAM. I'M SORRY. SAY THAT
LAST PART AGAIN. SO THE
CALIFORNIA STATUTE AS YOU KNOW,
20, THREE 16 GOVERNING HOW WE
IMPLEMENT THIS COMMUNITY. SOLAR
UH, PROGRAM SPECIFIES THAT
NONPARTICIPANTS ARE NOT TO BE
HARMED BEYOND THAT AVOIDED COST
AND I CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL.
YOU KNOW, IN IN COMPARISON, I
THINK YOU MENTIONED NEW YORK,
FOR EXAMPLE. BUT BECAUSE THE
PRIMARY RATIONALE THAT'S
DIFFERENT IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THESE STATES DON'T HAVE THE
AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR THAT
CALIFORNIA CREATED AND ADOPTED.
MM OK. WELL WE GET WE'RE GONNA
GET INTO THE VOID OF COST. UH,
CALCULATION HERE. SO, UM,
THAT'LL BE GOOD. UM UM I DO WANT
TO RAISE MORE ON THIS POINT, SO
GIVEN FERC HAS NEVER ASSERTED
AUTHORITY OVER VERY SIMILAR
COMMUNITY SOLAR PROGRAMS AS
WHOLESALE MARKET PARTICIPANTS
AND, IN FACT, HAS EXPLICITLY
DECLINED TO ASSERT THAT
AUTHORITY. WHY DOES IT P èC P
èC THINK THAT FERC WOULD
REQUIRE COMMUNITY SOLAR
FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA TO BE
CONSIDERED WHOLESALE? GENERATORS
YEAH. SO FOR RETAIL GENERATORS,
FOR EXAMPLE, ON ROOFTOP ROOFTOP
SOLAR, THAT CUSTOMER IS
CONSUMING. MOST OF THAT
ELECTRICITY FOR THESE SPECIFIC
PROJECTS. 100% OF THE
ELECTRICITY IS GOING BACK ONTO
THE SYSTEM, WHICH MAKES IT A
WHOLE, A WHOLESALE PRODUCT. AND
YEAH, WE'LL CONNECT THAT TO, UM
HAVE YOU, UM CONSIDERED. THE
IMPACT THAT YOU POSE DECISION
COULD HAVE ON COMMUNITY SOLAR IN
OTHER STATES. THE DECISION THAT
WE'RE MAKING IS FOCUSED ON
CALIFORNIA AND CALIFORNIA
RATEPAYERS AND WOULD BE
RELEGATED TO THOSE CUSTOMERS
THAT ARE UNDER THE èC. P C'S
JURISDICTION. YEAH. UM BUT JUST
WANT TO RESIST YOUR YOUR
COMMENTS? I I THINK YOU'RE
SAYING THERE'S NOT COMPARABLE
EVEN THOUGH I BELIEVE IT WAS
WRITTEN TO BE EXTREMELY TO BE
VERY SIMILAR, UM, BECAUSE THEY
DON'T HAVE AN AVOIDED COST
CALCULATOR. BUT I, I BELIEVE
OTHER STATES HAVE ACTUALLY ARE
MORE FAVORABLE. SOMETHING UH,
CLOSER TO NAM IS THAT THE CASE?
SO I CAN GO INTO SOME DETAIL. UM
YOU KNOW, OUR STAFF HAVE BEEN
WORKING CLOSELY TO, UM,
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON
IN OTHER STATES. AND SO I CAN
GIVE UP A VERY GOOD COMPARISON.
I THINK WITH THE NEW YORK
TARIFF, SO UNLIKE NEW YORK'S
VALUE OF DISTRIBUTED ENERGY
RESOURCES MECHANISM, THE
FOUNDATION OF THE NET VALUE BILL
TARIFF PROPOSAL FROM
STAKEHOLDERS IS THE USE OF THE
HOURLY AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR
AS I SAID, WHICH WAS ADOPTED
ONLY IN CALIFORNIA. UM, AND
THOSE VALUES TO CALCULATE THE
RETAIL, UH, COMPENSATION, UH,
RATES. THE AVOIDED COST
CALCULATOR IS WHAT WE USE FOR
THE NET BILLING TARIFF RECENTLY
ADOPTED BY THE BY THE COMMISSION
AT THE END OF 2022. AND IS NOT
AN ACCURATE MEASURE OF VALUE FOR
THE NET VALUE BILLING TARIFF
PROPOSAL FROM STAKEHOLDERS THE
PROPOSED DECISION FINDS THAT THE
NET VALUE BILLING TARIFF
RESOURCES DO NOT AVOID
TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION AND
CAPACITY COST CATEGORIES, AS IS
IN THE AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR.
WHICH WOULD RESULT IN, UM
RATEPAYERS PAYING THAT EXCESS OF
THE VOIDED COST. SO JUST LIKE
THE EXAMPLE I GAVE EARLIER
VERSUS HAVING ROOFTOP SOLAR ON A
CUSTOMER'S BUILDING VERSUS
HAVING A COMMUNITY SOLAR PROGRAM
IN BAKERSFIELD SERVING CUSTOMERS
IN EUREKA THAT ELECTRICITY WOULD
HAVE TO WOULD HAVE TO, UH,
LEVERAGE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, WHICH HAS
COSTS NOW GETTING BACK TO NEW
YORK. UH, THEIR VALUE STOCK
COMPENSATES PROJECTS BASED ON
ENERGY. CAPACITY ENVIRONMENTAL
DEMAND REDUCTION AND LOCATIONAL
SYSTEM. UH, RELIEF VALUES NOW
THE NET VALUE BILL. TARIFF
PROPOSAL FROM STAKEHOLDERS
COMPENSATES PROJECTS BASED ON A
MIX OF THE KISO AHEAD, ENERGY
PRICING AND THE AVOIDED COST
CALCULATOR BASED VALUES THAT I
TALKED ABOUT THAT CALIFORNIA
ADOPTED SPECIFICALLY, WHICH
INCLUDES CAPACITY TRANSMISSION
AND DISTRIBUTION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES. SO IN
ADDITION TO THAT THE NEW YORK
PROGRAM OFFERS THREE
ALTERNATIVES FOR CAPACITY.
PAYMENTS BASED ON TWO OPTIONS
FOR ENERGY PAYMENTS DURING A
PEAK PERIOD. AS WELL AS A THIRD
OPTION FOR A MONTHLY CONTRACT
BASED ON A KILOWATT PER HOUR QUA
QUANTITY OF CAPACITY, WHICH IS
NOT IN THE NET VALUE BILLING
TARIFF PROPOSAL FROM
STAKEHOLDERS AND I THINK
SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY KEY.
THERE IS, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT
WHAT CALIFORNIA'S PEAK HOURS
ARE. UM, SO FOR CALIFORNIA OUR
PEAK HOURS ARE BETWEEN FOUR AND
9 P.M. THAT'S WHEN SOLAR IS
COMING OFF OF THE SYSTEM. THAT'S
WHEN WE HAVE THE MOST COSTS. UH
VERSUS LOOKING AT, UH, NEW YORK,
WHICH IS A STATE THAT HAS FAR
LESS SOLAR THAN CALIFORNIA.
THEIR PEAK IS BETWEEN. UM IT IS,
UH, STARTS AT 8 P.M. I MEAN,
STARTS AT 8 A.M. AND SO AND IT
GOES INTO THOSE DAYTIME HOURS,
WHICH MEANS THAT SOLAR HAS A
MUCH LARGER VALUE TO NEW YORK AT
THIS POINT, BECAUSE THEY DON'T
HAVE AS MUCH SOLAR ON THEIR
SYSTEM AS IN CALIFORNIA, SO
THAT'S THOSE ARE REALLY SOME KEY
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NEW YORK
PROPOSAL VERSUS WHAT WAS IN THE,
UH, NET VALUE BILLING TARIFF
PROPOSAL FROM STAKEHOLDERS. I'M
HAPPY TO LOOK AT I'M HAPPY TO
LOOK AT THAT. I'M SURE SOME
PEOPLE IN PUBLIC COMMENT WILL
COMMENT. THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE
NEW YORK PROGRAM, UH BETTER. I
BELIEVE WE'LL HAVE COMMENTS. BUT
JUST REGARDING YOUR EARLIER
POINT ABOUT, UM 100% GOING BACK
TO THE GRID, UM THE, UH, POINT
OF COMMUNITY SOLAR IS TO GO TO
THE SUBSCRIBERS. RIGHT?
SUBSCRIBE SO I WOULD ARGUE WITH
THAT, UM WITH THAT FORMULATION
AND, UM AGAIN IF THE èC B èC.
YOU DESIGNED THE PROGRAM, SO IF
YOU WANT TO POSE GEOGRAPHICAL
KI¾M, YOU COULD DO THAT RIGHT.
SO THEN TO SAY THAT IT DOESN'T
HAVE THAT, AND THEREFORE, UM, UM
EVERYTHING'S GOING TO THE GRID
IS SORT OF A STRAW MAN. I
BELIEVE THAT WAS SET UP BY THE
PU èC. UM SO, UM I DO WANT TO,
UH, GET INTO A FEW THINGS HERE.
UH, YOU MENTIONED THE AVOIDED
COST CALCULATOR AND THEN THE P
BASED AVOIDED COST METHODOLOGY.
UM SO DO YOU READ THE PPA USES A
NARROWER, NARROWER DEFINITION
OF, UM AVOIDED COST RIGHT. YOU
MENTIONED THAT AVOIDED COST
CALCULATOR IS BASED ON A WIDER
RANGE OF BENEFITS. CORRECT FOR
DISTRIBUTED RESOURCES AVOIDED
ENERGY VOIDED CAPACITY VOIDED
TRANSMISSION. DISTRIBUTION
INVESTMENTS, ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFITS CORRECT OK AND PURPA
USES THE NARROW DEFINITION.
CORRECT. UH, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY
A NARROWER DEFINITION? UM UH,
THE PUR THE AVOIDED COST
METHODOLOGY. UM SO THE PURPOSE
AVOIDED COST RATE IS SET ON THE
UTILITIES AVOIDED COSTS OF
ENERGY THAT THEY COULD OTHERWISE
BUY ELSEWHERE CURRENTLY FOR
GENERATION THE GENERATION
COMPONENT. YEAH. VERSUS THE
AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR IS ALSO
SHOWING THE, UH THE AVOIDED COST
OF. BUT FOR GENERATION THAT USES
THE RATE IS SET BASED ON THE
UTILITIES AVOIDED COST OF ENERGY
COULD BUY ELSEWHERE. CORRECT FOR
PURPOSE FOR GENERATION. UM BUT
YEAH, AND THEN THE VOIDED COST
CALCULATOR GENERALLY, IS THIS
WIDE WIDE RANGE OF BENEFITS.
CORRECT UH, WIDER RANGE OF
AVOIDED COSTS, INCLUDING
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION,
BECAUSE IF THE PROJECT IS ON THE
ROOF OF TOP OF THE CUSTOMER,
YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO PAY THE
COST OF TRANSMITTING THAT, UM,
ACROSS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, BUT SETTING
ASIDE COMMUNITY SOUL FOR A
MOMENT, DO YOU AGREE THAT
AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR
ACCURATELY, UH, CALCULATES THE
BENEFITS OF DISTRIBUTED
RESOURCES BASED ON A WIDER
RANGE, A WIDE RANGE OF WELL FOR,
FOR EXAMPLE, ROOFTOP SOLAR THAT
IS CONNECTED TO THE CUSTOMERS
BUILDING. YES RIGHT. BUT THE
VOTED COST CALCULATOR FOR
DISTRIBUTED RESOURCES YOU
BELIEVE ACCURATELY. UM FOR ROOF
CALCULATOR? YES UM, AND THAT
PURPLE HAS A NARROW DEFINITION.
UM SO A B 2316 REQUIRES A èC P
èC TO PROVIDE BILL CREDITS TO
SUBSCRIBERS OF COMMUNITY SOLAR
AND I'M QUOTING HERE, BASED ON
THE AVOIDED COST OF THE
PROGRAM'S FACILITIES, AS
DETERMINED BY THE èC PUC'S
METHODS FOR CALCULATING THE AND
AGAIN I'M QUOTING HERE FULL SET
OF BENEFITS OF DISTRIBUTED
ENERGY RESOURCES. SO THAT PRETTY
OBVIOUSLY REFERS TO THE BROADER
AVOIDED CæA CALCULATOR APPROACH
TO AVOID A COST DOES THAT SO
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT IF A
PROJECT IS, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE
ROOFTOP OF A CUSTOMER, IT'S
AVOIDING THE COST OF
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
AND HAS THAT ADDED VALUE. A
COMMUNITY SOLAR PROJECT IS NOT
REQUIRED TO BE CONNECTED TO A
CUSTOMER. AND SO AS SUCH, YOU
ARE HAVING TO PAY FOR COSTS OF
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION,
AND THAT'S WHY WE WANT. THAT'S
WHY YOU HAVE TO LEVERAGE. I GET
IT. BUT FOR RESPECT I'M READING
FROM THE BILL ITSELF. THE BILL
REQUIRES THE Dð P èC TO USE THE
FULL SET OF BENEFITS OF
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES,
WHICH WE JUST WENT THROUGH
EXACTLY SO FAR DISTRIBUTED. UH,
FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR. IT DOESN'T
HAVE THE BENEFIT OF NOT USING
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION,
SO WE'RE NOT THAT THAT'S NOT THE
POINT. THE BILL LANGUAGE SAYS
THAT YOU USE SET OF BENEFITS OF
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES, SO
I THINK THAT PRETTY OBVIOUSLY
REFERS TO THE AVOIDED COST
CALCULATOR APPROACH. UM SO YOU
ARE USING A NARROWER APPROACH?
UM IN, YOU KNOW, IN IN YOUR
OPINION, YOU'RE USING A NARROW
APPROACH. BUT THE BILL VERY
CLEARLY SAYS THAT WE WILL USE
THE FULL SET OF BENEFITS OF
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES. UM
AND WE DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT
NÓ OTHER STATE, NOT EVEN FOR
ITSELF HAS VIEWED COMMUNITY
SOLAR PROJECTS AS WHOLESALE
GENERATORS GOVERNED BY PPA. SO I
JUST WANNA MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR.
UH, FOR THE RECORD. SO UM YEAH.
SO AGAIN. I MEAN, UM I MEAN, DO
YOU? DO YOU NOT AGREE THAT 22
THREE 16 INDICATES LEGISLATURE
EXPECTED THE èC P èC TO VALUE
THE ENERGY PRODUCED ACCORDING TO
THE VOIDED COST CALCULATOR.
GIVEN WHAT I JUST READ. I DON'T
BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT
TYPES OF DISTRIBUTED ENERGY
RESOURCES. SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN
I GAVE A ROOFTOP SOLAR ON A
CUSTOMER SITE HAS A DIFFERENT
VALUE THAN A DISTRIBUTED ENERGY
RESOURCE THAT IS LOCATED
SOMEWHERE ON THE DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM THAT MIGHT BE VERY FAR
FROM A CUSTOMER. UM OK, WE'RE
GONNA WE'RE GONNA DISAGREE HERE
BECAUSE I JUST READ EXACTLY WHAT
THE BILL SAYS. AND I BELIEVE THE
PU èC SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO
ACCOUNT. UH, THE LANGUAGE OF THE
BILL. UH, JUST ALSO REFERRING TO
YOUR PREVIOUS POINT AROUND PEAK
PERIODS. UH, I BELIEVE THAT'S AN
IRRELEVANT ARGUMENT BECAUSE OF
WHAT A COST CALCULATOR DOES TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT HIGHER VALUES FOR
ENERGY DURING THE PEAK PERIOD.
UM AND AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO BE
ON THE RECORD THAT THOSE WHOLE
NOTION OF A COST SHIFT IS BASED
ON ASSUMING THAT WHOLESALE
PRICES ARE THE CORRECT VALUATION
FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR ENERGY, BUT
THE ENERGY SHOULD BE VALUED
ACCORDING TO WHAT IT COST
CALCULATOR IN THE WHOLE COST
SHIFT DISAPPEARS, AND THIS IS
REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE ARE VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT RATE SO I THINK
IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE TO THROW OUT
SOMETHING SAYING $8 BILLION, YOU
KNOW, BASED ON THE WAY YOU
CHOOSE TO COUNT, YOU KNOW,
CALCULATE IT VERSUS THE WAY THAT
22 OTHER STATES AND HAVE BEEN,
UH, CALCULATING IT AND, UM, AND
IT'S A BIG PROBLEM. I THINK IT
TIES INTO A VERY DESTRUCTIVE AND
HARMFUL NARRATIVE. UM OK, LET ME
JUST SEE WHERE WE ARE WITH SOME
OTHER QUESTIONS HERE. SO UNDER
THE CPC'S MEASURES FOR A Dð R
COST EFFECTIVENESS THE N Dð P
Tð SCORES BETTER THAN ANY OTHER
COMMUNITY RENEWABLE PROGRAM
ADMINISTERED BY THE èC P èC
SCORING A TOTAL RESOURCE COST
VALUE BETWEEN 1.2 AND 1.45.
ANYTHING OVER ONE, AS YOU KNOW,
IMPLIES A PROGRAM WILL RESULT IN
ADDITION OF RESOURCES THAT ARE
COST EFFECTIVE FOR THE SYSTEM.
AND A RAY PAIR IMPACT MEASURE OF
BETWEEN 0.81 AND 0.92. YET THE
PROPOSED DECISION FOUND THERE
WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT COST
SHIFT TO NON SUBSCRIBING RATE
PAYERS. WHAT WHAT'S THE
DISCREPANCY THERE? A DISCREPANCY
BETWEEN WHAT AND WHAT THAT THE
MB Tð SCORES BETTER THAN ANY
OTHER, UH, COMMUNITY RENEWABLES
PROGRAM ADVENTURE BY THE èC P
èC. UH, BUT, UM, YOU'RE SAYING
THERE'S GONNA BE THIS SOMEHOW A
BIG COST SHIFT? YES YEAH, I CAN
ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SO UM,
LOOKING AT HOW MAYBE DIFFERENT
RESOURCES SCORE IS NOT THE SAME
AS ACTUALLY VALUING THEM FOR
CUSTOMERS, WHICH IS WHY THIS
DECISION NEEDED TO LOOK
SPECIFICALLY AT THIS RESOURCE.
AND WHAT? UH WHAT IT'S PROVIDING
, AND SO THROUGH THE, UM UH,
PROPOSED DECISION. THE PROGRAM
THAT SET UP THERE. WE'RE LOOKING
VERY SPECIFIC AT COMMUNITY SOLAR
, NOT JUST RANKING IT AGAINST
OTHER DISTRIBUTED ENERGY
RESOURCES, BUT LOOKING
SPECIFICALLY AT THE VALUE THAT
IT'S ABLE TO PROVIDE CUSTOMERS,
WHICH IS WHY THE NEW PROGRAM WAS
CREATED AND THEN IN ADDITION TO
THAT, MAKING SURE THAT IT WAS
DESIGNED IN A WAY TO LEVERAGE
THE 30 THREE MILLION DOLLARS, UM
FROM THE LEGISLATURE IN ORDER TO
BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT ADDED,
UM DISCOUNT FOR LOW INCOME
CUSTOMERS THAT ARE SUBSCRIBING
TO THE PROGRAM WITHOUT UM
SHIFTING ADDITIONAL COST TO
OTHER CUSTOMERS GIVEN, YOU KNOW
ALL OF THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUES
WE'RE SEEING WITH BILLS. WELL
AGAIN. I BELIEVE THAT WHAT I
JUST WHAT JUST POINTED OUT, AS
WELL AS SOME OF THE OTHER
DISCUSSION MEANS THAT THE COST
SHIFT, YOU KNOW, UNDERCUTS THE
WHOLE COST SHIFT. UM ARGUMENT?
UM LET'S MOVE ON. THE STATE
ALREADY HAS A PROGRAM SIMILAR TO
WHAT IS PROPOSED BY THE PROPOSED
DECISION FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR,
THE RENEWABLE MARKET ADJUSTING
TARIFF, OR REM, WHICH IS AIMED
AT SUPPORTING SMALL SCALE
RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITIES THAT
SELL INTO WHOLESALE MARKETS. HAS
THIS BEEN A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM
THAT HAS HELPED TO SCALE UP
COMMUNITY SOLAR? UM SO I'M HAPPY
TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT
THE REMAP PROGRAM OR THE
RENEWABLE MARKET ADJUSTING
TARIFF. SO SINCE THE REMAP
PROGRAM'S INCEPTION, WHICH WAS
IN 2013, THE INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES HAVE PROCURED
CONTRACTS FOR 62 SMALL RENEWABLE
PROJECTS FOR A TOTAL OF OVER 95
MEGAWATTS OF CAPACITY. IN
DECEMBER OF 2017 NEW PROCUREMENT
UNDER THAT PROGRAM WAS SUSPENDED
AND THE PROGRAM DID NOT RESUME
UNTIL OCTOBER OF 2020, SO THERE
HAS BEEN A GAP AS SUCH, THERE
HAS BEEN NÓ ADDITIONAL
PROCUREMENT UNDER REM, UH,
BETWEEN 2018 AND 2020. IN RECENT
YEARS FROM 2021 TO 2020 THREE,
THERE HAVE BEEN AN ADDITIONAL
EIGHT REMAP PROJECTS THAT HAVE
BEEN PROCURED FOR A TOTAL OF
15.5 MEGAWATTS OF CAPACITY. UH,
THE MECHANISM AND SO, UH,
THROUGH THAT PROGRAM, WE HAVE
SEEN SOME ADDITIONAL PROCUREMENT
IN THE MORE RECENT YEARS. BUT,
UH SINCE THIS SEVEN YEARS, IT
WAS AMENDED TO ALIGN WITH PPA
HOW MANY PROJECTS HAVE BEEN
DEVELOPED UNDER THIS PROGRAM? I
THINK THAT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
TO LOOK AT THIS PROGRAM AMONG
YOU KNOW, KIND OF WHAT WE CALL A
CONSTELLATION OF THE SOLAR
PROGRAMS, MANY MANY, UH DIVERSE
SOLAR PROGRAMS THAT CALIFORNIA
ADMINISTERS IN ORDER TO INCREASE
. UM, SOLAR FOR THE STATE. SO OF
COURSE, IN RESPONSE TO THIS
LEGISLATION, THE èC PU èC HAS
FOUND THAT THE GREEN TARIFF AND
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES GREEN
TARIFF PROGRAM HAS SHOWN INITIAL
SUCCESS AND WILL BE EXTENDING
THAT PROGRAM, BUT, UH, WE CAN'T
LOOK AT THE REMAP PROGRAM IN A
VACUUM. IT'S VERY AND TO ALSO
LOOK AT THE DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES GREEN TARIFF PROGRAM
, AND FROM THAT PROGRAM OVER
23,000 CUSTOMERS HAVE BEEN
ENROLLED WITH 20 THREE PROJECTS
LAUNCHED OR THAT HAVE CONTRACTS
TO DATE WITH APPROXIMATELY 100
AND 40 MEGAWATTS TOTAL AVAILABLE
CAPACITY. YOU ALSO HAVE TO LOOK
AT THE GREEN TARIFF PROGRAM,
WHICH HAS RESULTED IN 100 AND 50
THREE MEGAWATTS OF NEW PURPOSE
BUILT SOLAR TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN
CALIFORNIA. AND THEN YOU ALSO
HAVE TO LOOK AT. OF COURSE, THE
NEW PROGRAM THAT WE'RE CREATING
THE COMMUNITY RENEWABLE ENERGY
PROGRAM. SO AGAIN, THE REMAP
PROGRAM IS A PROGRAM BUT THERE
ARE MANY PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT
SOLAR IN CALIFORNIA, AND IT'S
IMPORTANT TO SEE HOW THEY ALL
FIT TOGETHER IN ORDER TO GET THE
BIG PICTURE. UM OK, WELL, IT
SAYS THIS PROPOSED DECISION. UH
UM REALLY SETS A PROGRAM THAT IS
SIMILAR TO REMAP. I'LL ANSWER MY
OWN QUESTION, WHICH IS THAT IN
THE LAST SEVEN YEARS SINCE IT
WAS AMENDED TO ALIGN WITH PPA,
THERE HAVE BEEN FOUR PROJECTS,
UH, FOR TOTAL OF 10 MEGAWATTS OF
SOLAR AND NÓ STORAGE. SO GIVEN
THAT HISTORY, UM I JUST WAS
SKEPTICAL. THIS WOULD BE A
SUCCESSFUL MODEL FOR ENCOURAGING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY
SOLAR GOING FORWARD. UM I THINK
IT SHOWS THAT THIS MODEL
PROVIDES INSUFFICIENT
COMPENSATION, UH, FOR SMALL
SCALE RENEWABLES TO MAKE IT
ECONOMICALLY VIABLE EVEN BEFORE
THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR
COMMUNITY SOLAR PROJECTS TO
SHARE, UH, REVENUE WITH
SUBSCRIBERS, UM WOULD YOU AGREE
THAT THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT THAT
THAT MODEL DOES NOT PROVIDE
SUFFICIENT COMPENSATION. THERE'S
ONLY BEEN FOUR PROJECTS IN SEVEN
YEARS UNDER THAT MODEL. I MEAN,
THE REMAP PROGRAM IS NOT
SPECIFICALLY ALIGNED WITH THIS
PROGRAM. IT DOESN'T HAVE, FOR
EXAMPLE, ADDITIONAL FUNDING
MECHANISMS THAT ARE BUILT INTO
THE PROGRAM LIKE THE $33 MILLION
FROM THE LEGISLATURE, OR THE
ADDITIONAL FEDERAL DOLLARS THAT
WILL BE COMING IN, SO I THINK
THOSE ARE SOME FUNDAMENTAL
DIFFERENCES FOR THIS NEWLY
CONSTRUCTED PROGRAM AGAIN.
THAT'S IN THE PROPOSED DECISION
THAT YOU KNOW WE'RE STILL GOING
TO GET STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ON
BUT I THINK THOSE ADDITIONAL
FUNDING STREAMS THAT HAVE BEEN,
UM, DESIGNED TO, UH, DIRECTLY
FEED INTO THIS PROGRAM ARE GOING
TO BE A KEY PART FOR SUPPORTING
THE PROGRAM, WHICH THE REMAP
PROGRAM DOESN'T HAVE. WELL, I
THINK YOU'LL GET SOME ADDITIONAL
, UM, COMMENTS HERE. UM YOU KNOW
TODAY AS WELL ON THIS AGAIN TO
ME, THIS SHOWS THAT JUST THERE'S
JUST NOT GONNA BE SUFFICIENT
COMPENSATION. UM UH, THE PROCESS
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT COMPENSATION
UNDER PROGRAM MAY IN FACT THE
DECISION ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGES
THAT IT MAY BE INSUFFICIENT
QUOTE INSUFFICIENT TO CREATE AND
GROW INTEREST IN COMMUNITY
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM
PROJECTS. AND POINTS TOWARDS THE
$33 MILLION BUDGET ALLOCATION
APPROPRIATED TO THE COMMISSION
FOR SOLAR STORAGE. TO MAKE UP.
THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT CORRECT?
THAT'S CORRECT. SO COULD YOU
PLEASE GRAB HOW THE 33 MILLION
WOULD BE USED TO SUPPORT A
COMMUNITY SOLAR? MARKET. SO WHEN
WE WERE CREATING THIS PROGRAM,
WE WERE IN THE FORTUNATE
SITUATION OF HAVING THAT $33
MILLION IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE PROGRAM WAS SUPPORTED
WITHOUT INCREASING CUSTOMER
BILLS, SO THE PROPOSED DECISION
SETS UP THAT STRUCTURE FOR
COLLECTING MULTIPLE FUNDING
STREAMS AS I MENTIONED BEFORE.
UM AND DISTRIBUTING THEM TO
DISTINCT BENEFICIARIES. SO
PROJECT DEVELOPERS, OF COURSE,
BUT LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS AND
MARKET RATE CUSTOMERS. HOWEVER
AT THE TIME AT THIS TIME, IT IS
SOMEWHAT UNCERTAIN WHAT QUANTITY
OF NON RATEPAYER FUNDS WILL
ULTIMATELY BE AVAILABLE. SO FOR
EXAMPLE, THE SOLAR FOR ALL
FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENT HAS NOT
BEEN ISSUED YET. BUT WE DO HAVE
THE 30 THREE MILLION DOLLARS
FROM THE BUDGET. UM, SO GIVEN
THAT UNCERTAINTY, THE PROPOSED
DECISION ALSO NOTES THAT THE
PROCEEDING WILL REMAIN OPEN TO
TAKE FURTHER COMMENT. UM FROM
STAKEHOLDERS, UH, RE REGARDING
ADDITIONAL FUNDING STREAMS THAT
MAY OR MAY NOT BECOME AVAILABLE
AND THE KEY QUESTION THAT WILL
BE REQUESTING STAKEHOLDER.
FEEDBACK ON IS HOW TO BEST
STRUCTURE INCENTIVES FOR
SUBSCRIBING CUSTOMERS AND HOW TO
ALLOCATE NON RATEPAYER FUNDING
AMONG THE VARIOUS RECIPIENTS.
UM, THE COMMISSION ANTICIPATES
ISSUING A RULING IN APRIL
REQUESTING THAT FURTHER FEEDBACK
WITH THE FINAL DECISION OVER THE
SUMMER. WE SUSPECT THAT THE
TIMING IS GOING TO FIT WELL WITH
THE AWARD. WHAT IS FOR THE
OUTSTANDING FUNDING FROM THE
SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM. SO THE
BUDGET TELLS THE èC B èC TO
SPEND THE FUNDS ON COMMUNITY
SOLAR AND STORAGE BACKED
RENEWABLE GENERATION PROGRAMS.
BUT THE PROPOSED DECISIONS.
PROPOSAL DOES NOT NUMBER ONE
REQUIRES STORAGE TO PROVIDES NÓ
STORAGE INCENTIVES. THREE NÓ
REMAP PROJECTS, AS I JUST
MENTIONED TO DATE HAVE BEEN
PAIRED WITH STORAGE. SO HOW
WOULD PROJECTS ON THIS PROGRAM
EVEN BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE 33
MILLION? SO THE 33 MILLION DID
NOT REQUIRE THAT STORAGE WAS
THERE. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A RULING
COMING OUT IN APRIL. IN ORDER TO
BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THESE
ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR
PROJECTS. UM LOOK FORWARD TO
SEEING THAT, UM, THE BUDGET
ALLOWS èC P èC TO SPEND THE 30
THREE MILLION ON THE S¼ CHIP
PROGRAM. DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY
SINGLE. FAMILY, SOLAR HOMES. UM
DECK SASH PROGRAM AND THE
UTILITIES EXISTING SHARE
RENEWABLE PROGRAMS. SO WILL THE
èC P èC SPEND THE 33 MILLION
JUST FOR THE PROPOSED DECISIONS,
PROPOSED PROGRAMS OR THOSE OTHER
PROGRAMS BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE
THOSE FUNDS AS WELL. AT THIS
POINT, WE DO REALLY WANT TO
FOCUS THE DOLLARS FROM THAT 33
MILLION ON THE COMMUNITY SOLAR
PROGRAM. WE DO HAVE OTHER, UM
GENERAL FUND DOLLARS THAT HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO HELP SUPPORT
BATTERY STORAGE FROM THE S¼ CHIP
PROGRAM. AND, UH, WE HAVE A
PROPOSED DECISION ON THE AGENDA
TODAY, RIGHT NOW, ACTUALLY, UM,
TO IMPLEMENT THAT ADDITIONAL
FUNDING FROM THE LEGISLATURE,
BUT AT THIS TIME, THE 30 THREE
MILLION DOLLARS WE'RE REALLY
TRYING TO FOCUS IT ON COMMUNITY
SOLAR TO HELP SUPPORT THIS
PROGRAM. OK SO THAT THE OTHER
PROGRAMS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE. BUT
YOU WOULD WE'RE FOCUSING IT ON
PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THEY
SHOULD FOCUS ON COMMUNITY SOLAR
UM, YES, I KNOW WHAT I'VE SEEN,
SMITH SAID. A THREE MEGAWATT
SOLAR PLUS BATTERY STORAGE
SYSTEM. COULD COST SOMEWHERE IN
THE RANGE OF 12 MILLION TO 15
MILLION TO BUILD. UM EVEN IF THE
430 THREE MILLION WERE USED TO
PROVIDE COMMUNITY, RENEWABLE
ENERGY GRANTS. IT DOES NOT SOUND
LIKE THAT MONEY COULD LEAD TO
ANY MEANINGFUL SCALE OF, UH,
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. SO UH, JUST
WHEN I WANNA NOTE THAT FOR THE
RECORD, UM JUST I THINK YOU KNOW
KIND OF FURTHER POINTS TO SOME
SOME FLAWED THINKING AND HOW, UM
THIS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED URGE
YOU TO RECONSIDER. UM THE
PROPOSED DECISION ALSO NOTES
THAT EPA SOLD FOR OUR GRANT
COMPETITION. COULD YOU PLEASE
DESCRIBE THAT GRANT FUNDING AND
HOW WOULD BE USED TO SUPPORT
COMMUNITY SOLAR? SO AS I HAD
MENTIONED EARLIER, THE èC P èC
IN PARTICULAR, UH, THE PROPOSAL
THAT'S BEFORE THE COMMISSION IS
WELL POSITIONED TO COMPETE FOR
FEDERAL DOLLARS, INCLUDING THE
EPA SOLAR FOR ALL GRANT. THE
PROPOSED DECISION WILL PROVIDE A
CONDUIT FOR USING THESE FEDERAL
DOLLARS TO FUND SOLAR PROGRAMS
IN CALIFORNIA VIA UH, THE PRO
THE NEW PROGRAM AND THE PROPOSED
DECISION THAT THE PROPOSED
DECISION WOULD CREATE. THE
PROPOSED DECISION IS
COMPLEMENTARY TO OUR EFFORTS,
BUT IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE
TO BE, UM, OPERATIONAL IN ORDER
FOR CALIFORNIA TO QUALIFY FOR
THESE FEDERAL FUNDS, SO
CALIFORNIA HAS MANY SOLAR
PROGRAMS AND THE SOLAR PROGRAMS
IN THE EPA SOLAR FOR ALL
SOLICITATION ARE VERY BROAD
BEYOND COMMUNITY SOLAR, BUT
AGAIN, UH, THE APPLICATION THAT
THE èC PU èC, OR THAT THE
STATE PUT FORWARD IS FOCUSED ON
COMMUNITY SOLAR IN ORDER TO HELP
SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM. BUT WE
WILL BE COMPETING WITH OTHER
STATES FOR LIMITED POOL OF SOLAR
FOR ALL OF FUNDING. SO DO. DO
YOU BELIEVE THAT? THE PROD
DECISIONS. UH, PROPOSED
COMMUNITY RENEWABLE ENERGY
PROGRAM PUTS CALIFORNIA DO YOU
BELIEVE IT PUTS CALIFORNIA IN A
STRONG POSITION TO WIN? I THINK
IT DOES. I THINK IT DOES. UM I
THINK IF WE HAD, FOR EXAMPLE,
ONLY, YOU KNOW, LEFT THE
EXISTING PROGRAMS. PERHAPS THERE
WOULD HAVE BEEN A CONCERN. BUT
THIS PROPOSED DECISION CREATED A
PROGRAM SPECIFICALLY TO BE ABLE
TO PULL IN THESE ADDITIONAL
FUNDS AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY
COULD BE LEVERAGED, WHICH I
THINK MAKES US UNIQUELY SITUATED
, UM TO GARNER SOLAR FOR ALL
FUNDS. BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR
OPTIMISM ON THAT SCORE. I KNOW
MANY PEOPLE DON'T SHARE THAT
OPTIMISM AND OUR, UM CONCERNED
THAT THIS COULD COST OUR STATE
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
IN COMMUNITY, SO IT WAS VERY
SPECIFIC COMMUNITY SOLAR. UH,
PROGRAM, UM AND I'LL NOTE THAT
ONE OF THE EPA SCORING CRITERIA
FOR SOLO FRA IS SCALABILITY,
WHERE A STATE NEEDS TO SHOW HAS
ROBUST POLICY FRAMEWORK IN PLACE
THAT CAN SUPPORT A MARKET AFTER
A FIVE YEAR FUNDING, PERIOD. SO,
UM I, I I'M CERTAINLY CONCERNED.
AND, UH, I THINK WE SHOULD BE
CONCERNED AS A STATE THAT THE
PROPOSED PROGRAM WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT GRANT
FUNDING TO BE ECONOMICALLY
VIABLE, UM, WILL MAKE CALIFORNIA
LESS ATTRACTIVE FOR COMPETITIVE
SOLAR FOR ALL, UH, FUNDING SO
UM, I DO APPRECIATE, UM UH,
AGAIN, AND WITH GREAT RESPECT
FOR THE VARIETY OF, UH, PROGRAMS
THAT, UM, THAT èC PU èC AND
YOU YOURSELF ADMINISTER AND HAVE
BEEN HERE IN FRONT OF US ON
MANY. A PROGRAMS AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR ENGAGEMENT. UH,
I'M STILL CONCERNED. I JUST
WANNA KNOW FOR THE RECORD. MANY
OF MY COLLEAGUES, UH, ARE VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROPOSED
DECISION AND STRONGLY SUGGESTS
THE èC P èC RECONSIDER THIS
PROPOSED DECISION BEFORE TAKING
IT UP FOR A VOTE, UM SO EXTENDED
TO EXPAND THE BENEFITS OF SOLAR
TO A BROADER SET OF CUSTOMERS,
PARTICULARLY THOSE IN
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. AND
THIS IS AN AREA WHERE CALIFORNIA
HAS TRAILED, UH, THE REST OF
NATION CLEARLY IT THAT NOBODY
WOULD DISPUTE THAT, UM AND THIS
PROPOSED DECISION CREATES A
COMMUNITY SOLAR PROGRAM THAT
MANY STAKEHOLDERS VIEW IS NOT
VIABLE. NOR SUSTAINABLE, WHICH
WAS SEVERELY LIMIT THE REACH OF
COMMUNITY SOLAR. UH, PROJECTS.
UM ALSO, AS WE JUST DISCUSSED
TROUBLED BY THE POTENTIAL IMPACT
THIS PROPOSED DECISION HAS ON
THE STATE'S ABILITY TO COMPETE.
FOR SOLAR FOR ALL FUNDING. THIS
IS A ONCE IN A GENERATION
OPPORTUNITY, EXPAND COMMUNITY.
TO ALL FOUR COMMUNITY SOLAR TO
AS HIGH AS POTENTIAL. AND UM, UH
, I THINK CLEARLY WE'RE MISSING
THE MARK. AND I JUST WANNA SAY,
UM YOU KNOW, IN IN A LOT OF YOUR
REMARKS, KEEP SAYING OVER AND
OVER THIS ENERGY WOULD BE SENT
TO THE GRID. UM BUT THAT IS ONLY
TRUE IF THE LOAD IN THE AREA OF
THAT GENERATION IS INSUFFICIENT
TO CONSUME THAT GENERATION,
RIGHT COMMUNITY SOLAR IS REALLY
MEANT AND WE'VE SEEN OTHER
PLACES TO BE IN A LOCAL
COMMUNITY. SO IF WE'RE CITING
THE GENERATION CLOSER TO LOAD,
UH, EVEN IF IT'S NOT
SPECIFICALLY ON A CUSTOMER
ROOFTOP, THEN THAT GENERATION IS
AVOIDED. TRANSMISSION THAT'S WHY
IT'S CALLED COMMUNITY SOLAR. UM
AND, UM, YES IF IT WAS IN SOME
FAR FLUNG AREA. YOU KNOW, THEN
IT MIGHT NOT BE. BUT YOU CAN
ADDRESS THAT. THE P èC HAS THAT
POWER. SO OUR SUB-COMMITTEE WILL
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT
OVER THE èC P C'S BUDGET OVER
THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS, AND SHE
WILL MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT
COMMUNITY SOLAR IS A HIGH
PRIORITY. AND UH WE WILL
CONTINUE TO KEEP THE èC P èC
ACCOUNTABLE ON THIS ISSUE,
ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO
STATE CIVILITY MAXIMIZE, UH,
STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS. SO, UM
I APPRECIATE IT, I. I KNOW AND
AGAIN, SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO
COULDN'T BE HERE WANTED ME TO
RAISE THIS ISSUE AS WELL. UM I
APPRECIATE YOU COMING BEFORE US
AND AGAIN ANSWERING ALL THESE,
UH, QUESTIONS AND, UM WITH THAT,
I'M GONNA TURN TO SOME PUBLIC
COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE. GREAT
WILL NOW TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT
SPECIFICALLY ON ISSUE. UH,
NUMBER ONE. IF YOU COULD PLEASE
LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO 1 TO 2
MINUTES. AND YOU CAN, UM ANYONE
CAN GO AHEAD AND RUNNING. GOOD
MORNING. IT'S GOOD, OK? GOOD
MORNING. STEVE CAMPBELL,
REGULATORY DIRECTOR OF VOTE
SOLAR. THANK YOU, SENATOR BECKER
AND SENATOR DOLE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PROVIDE COMMENT TODAY. VOTES
ONLY STANDS WITH EVERYONE HERE
AND MANY AT HOME, CALLING FOR
THE P èC TO FIX WHAT APPEARS TO
BE A HUGE MISTAKE. FIRST AND
FOREMOST, THE SCALE OF THE NET
BE BUILDING TARIFF IS FAR
GREATER THAN THE SCALE OF THE
COMMUNITY RENEWABLES PROGRAM,
THE P Dð. THIS IS A GOOD THING
AND A PRIMARY REASON WHY VOTE SO
ARE SUPPORTED THE N VÆ P Tð IN
THE FIRST PLACE. PERHAPS THE
BEST PART OF THE TARIFF IS ITS
ABILITY TO DELIVER 100% CARBON
FREE BILL SAVINGS TO A MILLION
OR MORE INCOME QUALIFIED
CUSTOMERS WITH THIS LEGISLATURE
INTENDING FOR 51% OF EACH
PROJECT'S CAPACITY TO PRIMARILY
BENEFIT HOMES AND BUSINESSES
THAT HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO ACCESS
SOLAR TO DATE. REGARDING
AFFORDABILITY CONCERNS. ONE
THING IS CLEAR. IT WOULD BE
DIFFICULT TO ARRIVE AT
AFFORDABILITY OF THE COMMISSION
CONTINUES TO ISSUE DECISIONS
THAT PREVENT CUSTOMERS FROM
ACCESSING TARIFFS AND PROGRAMS
THAT REDUCE THEIR BILLS. THE
COMMISSION IS CONSIDERING A LOT
OF NOVEL UTILITY RAY MAKING
THESE DAYS. ELECTRIFICATION
RATES DEFAULT DYNAMIC RATES, I
GFC SUBSCRIPTION PRICING ALL
THESE ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT
HOMES AND BUSINESSES, FUEL
SWITCH AND ELECTRIFY. BUT IF IT
TAKES SOME HOUSEHOLDS, A DECADE
OF AUTO ELECTRIFY MANY OF THE
BENEFITS WILL NOT FLOW TOWARD
THOSE HOUSEHOLDS, COMMUNITIES
SOLAR AND STORAGE IS A HELPFUL
EQUALIZER. BILL SAVINGS, CLEAN
POWER, FEWER BARRIERS. THE NET
VALUE BILLION TARIFF HAS THE
POTENTIAL TO YIELD MORE THAN
EIGHT GIGAWATTS OF SOLAR AND
STORAGE RESOURCES DIRECTLY
IMPROVING GRID RELIABILITY BY
LESSENING A LOAD SERVING
ENTITY'S RESOURCE ADEQUACY
REQUIREMENTS TO FURTHER FIRM UP
RELIABILITY AND DEPENDABILITY.
AS SENATOR, BEER NOTED, THANK
YOU. LOCATIONAL SETTING REQUIRES
COULD BE USED. THESE SETTING
REQUIREMENTS WERE ACKNOWLEDGED
BY THE COMMISSION AS BEING
USEFUL IN THE PD AND THEN NOT
ADOPTED FOR NÓ REASON, GIVEN AT
THIS POINT, THERE ARE STILL
MULTIPLE MODIFICATIONS THAT THE
COMMISSION COULD ADOPT TO DEPLOY
COMMUNITY SOLAR AND STORAGE
RESOURCES TO ASSIST ASSIST THE
STATE ABATE POWER PLANT
EMISSIONS. EVERY HOUR THAT A
POWER PLANT EMITS HAZARDOUS
POLLUTANTS PRESENTS A NEW
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE STATE TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT. REGRETTABLY
THIS PITY DOES NOT DO SOMETHING
ABOUT IT. THANKFULLY THE
COMMISSION STILL HAS TIME TO
ADOPT A MODIFIED M VÆ B Tð, AND
WE'RE CALLING ON THEM TO DO
THAT. THANK YOU. THANKFULLY DOES
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS ALEXIS. I'M HERE
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE,
OR èC. HÌ HèA REPRESENTS LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES AND
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR WHO ARE
SUFFERING THE WORST IMPACTS OF
FOSSIL FUEL POLLUTION AND HAVE
THE MOST TO GAIN FROM ACCESS TO
MORE CLEAN, RELIABLE AND
AFFORDABLE ENERGY. LOCAL CLEAN
ENERGY IN OUR COMMUNITIES MEANS
LESS FOSSIL FUEL POLLUTION BY
RETIRING OUR GAS PLANTS SOONER.
THAT MEANS CLEANER AIR,
HEALTHIER LUNGS AND LESS
HOSPITAL. VISITS FOR OUR
FAMILIES. CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE
SUPPORTING THE RAPID AND ROBUST
GROWTH OF SOLAR AND STORAGE IN
OUR COMMUNITIES, PUTTING MORE
SOLAR AND STORAGE ON ROOFS,
PARKING LOTS OR INDUSTRIAL
BUILDINGS MEANS LESS HARMS TO
THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO THE LAND
AND LESS UNNECESSARY
INFRASTRUCTURE. BUILD OUT. IN
OTHER WORDS, THIS NEW
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY WOULD AVOID
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
COSTS AND CONTRARY TO WHAT THE
COMMISSION SHARED EARLIER. SOLAR
ON ROOFTOPS IS NOT THE ONLY WAY
TO AVOID COSTS. FROM VERY, UH
TRANSMISSION AND UTILITY SCALE
PROJECTS. IN OTHER WORDS, SOLAR
ON A NEARBY PARKING LOT WOULD
ALSO REACH NEARBY CUSTOMERS AND
HAVE THEM USE LESS ENERGY FROM
THE BULK SYSTEM IN REDUCING
THOSE COSTS, COMMUNITY SOLAR
PROJECTS CAN PASS ON THOSE
SAVINGS TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO
HAVE LONG NOT BEEN NOT LONG NOT
HAD ACCESS TO SOLAR SAVINGS AND
GET DIRECT CREDITS OFF THEIR
UTILITY BILLS. THIS WILL BRING
MORE ALSO BRING MORE LOCAL
WORKFORCE OPPORTUNITIES AND GOOD
PAYING JOBS, COMMUNITY SOLAR THE
WIN WIN WIN AND IT SHOULD BE
TREATED AS A VITAL TOOL IN OUR
STATE'S CLEAN ENERGY TOOL KIT
OVER 20. OTHER STATES HAVE
COMMUNITY SOLAR PROGRAMS UP AND
RUNNING, AND OUR STATE IS FAR
BEHIND FOR THE LAST SEVERAL
YEARS OF BROAD COALITION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, SOLAR
REPAIR AND LABOR ADVOCATES HAVE
BEEN CHAMPIONING THE NET VALUE
BILLING TARIFF PROPOSAL AND
RECOGNIZE THAT IT HAS OUR BEST
CHANCE TO SCALE COMMUNITY SOLAR
AND STORAGE PROJECTS IN
CALIFORNIA. OUR COALITION IS
CONFIDENT THAT THIS N BB Tð.
WELL GET US TO BUILD COMMUNITY
SOLAR AT THE SCALE AND PEACE
NECESSARY TO GET CALIFORNIA OFF
OF POLLUTING GAS PLANTS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY MAKING OUR FAMILY SICK
. UNFORTUNATELY THE COMMISSION'S
RECENT PROPOSED DECISION REJECTS
THE NBT AND PROPOSES A DIFFERENT
PROGRAM THAT RELIES ON METHODS
THAT HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD
OF FAILURE. THIS WOULD CRIPPLE
CHANCES FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR IN
CALIFORNIA, BUT IT'S NOT TOO
LATE TO CORRECT COURSE WE URGE
THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER THE
PROPOSED DECISION AND TO ISSUE
ALTERNATE THAT CAN GET US ON
TRACK TO LEAD THE NATION ON
COMMUNITY SOLAR AND BE A
CHAMPION FOR SOLAR EQUITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
UH, MISTER CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS
DIANA CASSIDY. I'M WITH THIRD
ACT SACRAMENTO, WHERE A GROUP OF
ACTIVISTS OVER 60 WHO ARE DEEPLY
COMMITTED TO ADDRESSING THE
CLIMATE CRISIS AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICES
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT WE HAVE
ABOUT 7000 MEMBERS THROUGHOUT
THE STATE AND 40,000 NATIONALLY.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION'S PROPOSED
DECISION IN A 22 5022 REGARDING
COMMUNITY SOLAR. I'M ASKING THE
COMMISSION TO PLEASE REVISIT
THIS ISSUE AN ISSUE AN
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED DECISION
THAT ADOPTS THE NET VALUE
BILLING TARIFF OR IN VÆ B Tð.
THE NT PROPOSAL IS SUPPORTED BY
A BROAD COALITION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLAR RATE PAIR,
UM, AND LABOR ADVOCATES AND
COULD HELP US MEET OUR
ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE GOALS.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOLAR EQUITY
ADVOCATES STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
NET VALUE BILLING TARIFF
PROPOSAL BECAUSE IT'S THE BEST
OPPORTUNITY CALIFORNIA HAS TO
MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A B
20,316 AND QUICKLY DEPLOY CLEAN
ENERGY AND STORAGE PROJECTS THAT
CAN BE CALLED ON WHEN THE GRID
MEETS THEM. MOST. FURTHERMORE
LOW INCOME AND ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE COMMUNITIES HAVE LONG
FACED THE DISPROPORTIONATE
IMPACTS OF AIR POLLUTION.
WILDFIRES POWER OUTAGES,
ECONOMIC INSECURITY AND OTHER
CLIMATE THREATS. MEANWHILE THESE
SAME COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN
LOCKED OUT OF ITS ACCESS AND
CLEAN AND DISTRIBUTED ENERGY AND
ITS MANY ECONOMIC, HEALTH AND
RESILIENCE BENEFITS. CALIFORNIA
IS ALREADY BEHIND ON OUR CLEAN
ENERGY AND ELECTRICITY,
RELIABILITY GOALS. WE MUST MOVE
FASTER ON REAL SOLUTIONS THAT
ARE CLEAN AND JUSTICE ORIENTED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISTER
CHAIR FOR HAVING US TODAY. I'M
DEREK CHERNOW WITH THE COALITION
FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR ACCESS. A
NUMBER OF IMPORTANT STUDIES AND
REPORTS HAVE COME OUT OVER THE
LAST FEW WEEKS, ONE FROM THE
NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LAB OR
NIL, SAID THAT AT ITS FULL
CAPACITY, THE NATIONAL POTENTIAL
FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR IS ONE
TERAWATT SERVING OVER 50 THREE
MILLION HOUSEHOLDS. IN ADDITION,
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CAME
OUT WITH A REPORT OR UPDATED
GUIDELINES SAYING BY 2025. THEY
WANT 20 GIGAWATTS OF COMMUNITY.
SOLAR SERVING 5 MILLION
HOUSEHOLDS, RESULTING IN OVER A
BILLION DOLLARS OF SAVINGS TO
SUBSCRIBERS TO OCCUR. HOWEVER
BASED ON THIS PROPOSED DECISION
WOULD MACKENZIE, WHICH IS A
LEADING CONSULTANCY FIRM IN THIS
ARENA, REVISE OR COMPLETE
OUTLOOK ON THE COMMUNITY SOLAR
MARKET. CALIFORNIA WAS EXPECTED
TO MAKE UP 19% OF THE NATIONAL
FIVE YEAR OUTLOOK FOR COMMUNITY
SOLAR. NOW BASED SOLELY ON THIS
PROPOSED DECISION. THAT OUTLOOK
HAS BEEN REVISED FOR CALIFORNIA
IS GOING TO BE PRODUCING LESS
THAN 2% OF THE NATIONAL OUTLOOK.
THAT'S A DRAMATIC SHIFT. SIMPLY
PUT. WE CANNOT GET TO OUR
NATIONAL, UH, COMMUNITY. SOLAR
GOALS WITHOUT CALIFORNIA IN
CALIFORNIA CANNOT GET THERE WITH
THIS, UH, PROPOSED DECISION.
HOWEVER IT IS TIME TO MAKE IT
RIGHT. WE DO HAVE THE NET VALUE
BILL TARIFF THAT HAS BEEN
PROPOSED AND IS OTHERS HAVE SAID
WIDELY SUPPORTED BY THE BUILDING
INDUSTRY, LABOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE, RATEPAYER ADVOCATES, WE
CAN MOVE FORWARD AND GET THIS
CORRECT AND WE ENCOURAGE THE PU
èC TO DO SO. THANK YOU. WE CAN,
INDEED. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MR CHAIR MEMBERS, BRIAN WHITE ON
BEHALF OF CYP, CYPRESS CREEK
RENEWABLES. WE ARE A COMMUNITY
SOLAR AND STORAGE DEVELOPER
BASED IN SANTA MONICA. AS NOTED
IN THE COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS, UH,
CALIFORNIA HAS A LONG HISTORY OF
THE SOLAR PROGRAM. UNFORTUNATELY
IT'S BEEN A FAILED, UM, EFFORT
OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS. WHICH IS
WHY CYPRESS CREEK BELIEVES THAT
THE NET VALUE BUILDING TARIFF
PROPOSAL MEETS THE INTENT OF A B
20 THREE 16. AS IT SEEKS TO
IMPROVE THE STATE'S COMMUNITY SO
PROGRAM WHILE ALSO BENEFITING
CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE NEVER HAD
ACCESS TO SOLAR. IN ADDITION TO
THE ADDED BENEFIT THAT WE MUST
NOT FORGET IS UNION LABOR JOBS
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS WE'RE
HIGHLY CONCERNED WITH THE L J'S
DECISION PROPOSED DECISION AND
BELIEVE THE COMMISSION IF IT
ADOPTS IT, UH, THE STATE WILL
CONTINUE TO HAVE AN ECON AN
INEFFICIENT COMMUNITY SOLAR
PROGRAM THAT WILL NOT HELP MEET
OUR INTERVIEW, LIABILITY GOALS
OR A CLIMATE CHANGE GOALS. MUST
MUST NOTE THAT COMMUNITY SOLAR
IS NOT ROOFTOP SOLAR, AND I
THINK FOLKS GET THAT CONFUSED.
IT'S NOT WHOLESALE SOLAR AT ALL.
IT'S NOT EVEN REGULATED BY FERC.
TO THAT END, WE THINK THERE HAS
BEEN SIGNIFICANT CONFUSION AND
ASSUMING THAT COMMUNITY SOLAR
PROJECTS HAVE THE SAME
CHARACTERISTICS OF THOSE AS THE
AFFIRMATION PROJECTS. AND
THEY'RE REALLY JUST MID SIZE
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES
THAT ARE THAT ARE CLOSER TO LOW.
SO IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT WE ALLOW
FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL
RESIDENTS TO ACCESS THIS SOLAR
JUST AS WELL OFF. HOMEOWNERS ARE
ABLE TO DO WITH ROOFTOP. IT WAS
DESIGNED A 2316 WAS DESIGNED TO
DEVELOP AN UPDATED COMMUNITY
SOLAR PROGRAM WE HEARD FROM THE,
UM THE èC P èC THAT WHILE A
THE A B 2316. THEY WENT THROUGH
THE PROCESS, THEY DID NOT
BELIEVE IT WAS BENEFICIAL TO USE
THE A èC èC. WE ACTUALLY
DISAGREE WITH THAT A 2316
ACTUALLY INFORMS THAT THE èC P
èC SHOULD USE THE A èC èC,
WHICH THE COMMISSION DID USE FOR
THE NET METERING UPDATE IN THREE
0.0. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT
PERPLEXING. UH, WHILE IT'S NOT
BEING USED FOR THE FOR THE
COMMUNITY SOLAR PROGRAM WE ALSO
WANT WANT TO NOTE THAT, UM, THE
$8 BILLION COST SHIFT. THAT WAS,
UH, MENTIONED WE DID NOT AGREE
WITH THAT. WE THINK IT'S A FALSE
CHOICE BETWEEN COMPARING THE NET
VALUE BILL TARIFF TO THOSE
PROJECTS THAT ARE UNREGULATED BY
PPA OR AS WHOLESALE FACILITIES.
THOSE TWO THOSE TWO JUST AREN'T
THE SAME SO THEY CAN'T TREAT
THEM THE SAME. AND THE BOTTOM
LINE IS THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD TO
LOSE THIS OPPORTUNITY. WE HAVE
POTENTIAL TO MAKE CALIFORNIA A
LEADER IN COMMUNITY SOLAR, BUT
WE WON'T DO IT AT THE RISK OF
CREATING A BAD PROGRAM. IT JUST
DOESN'T ONE PENCIL OUT FOR
COMMUNITY SOLAR DEVELOPERS. SO
RESPECTFULLY, UH, MR CHAIR, WE
APPRECIATE YOU GETTING INVOLVED
IN THIS PROCESS AND HOPE THE
LEGISLATURE DOES AS WELL WILL
STAY INVOLVED WITH THE WITH THE,
UH WITH THE Tð èC P èC WITH
THE ADMINISTRATION. WE'LL TALK
UNTIL WE GET THIS RIGHT. BUT WE
HAVE TIME TO DO IT AND LET'S UM
LET'S MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. UH, MY
NAME IS ADAM HARDEE. I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF ARCADIA, THE LARGEST
SUBSCRIPTION UH, MANAGER IN THE
COMMUNITY SOLAR INDUSTRY. THANK
YOU FOR TAKING UP THE ISSUE OF
èC PU èC S¼ COMPLIANCE WITH A
B 20 THREE 16 TODAY. UH I JUST
WANT TO ECHO THE COMMENTS THAT
WERE GIVEN ON THE N VÆ B Tð AND
THE NATURE OF THE, UH OF THE P
Dð. UH, WE DO BELIEVE THAT THE
PROPOSED DECISION GOES DIRECTLY
AGAINST THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
IN A B 2316 THE ADOPTION OF THE
P Dð S¼ P AVOIDED COST PROPOSAL
WILL NOT LEAD TO A FUNCTIONAL
PROGRAM THAT HELPS REDUCE BREAD
AND SOME ELECTRIC BILLS. THIS IS
A BUDGET ISSUE BECAUSE IT WILL
FAIL. CALIFORNIANS WHO NEED AN
ALTERNATIVE TO ROOFTOP SOLAR AND
CALIFORNIA WILL MISS OUT ON
FEDERAL FUNDS. UH, WE INTEND TO
FILE COMMENTS TO THAT EFFECT IN
THE ASKING THE PUC TO SET ASIDE
THIS P Dð AND REOPEN THE RECORD.
WE HOPE THAT THE LEGISLATURE
HOLDS THE COMMISSION TO ITS
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS CREATED BY A B
20 THREE 16 AND WOULD LIKE TO
ECHO YOUR COMMENTS AROUND THE
STRAW MAN NATURE OF THE OF THE
ARGUMENT AROUND THE PROGRAM
CONSTRUCTION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. MISTER CHAIR, DANY OFFER
FOR DIMENSION ENERGY AND, UM,
JUST WANTED TO ECHO THE COMMENTS
OF MR CHERNOW AND MR WHITE AND
URGE A PAUSE ON THIS PROPOSED
DECISION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
AND MR CHAIR. I'M THE èC E Ó
OF RENEWABLE AMERICA OF YOUR
HEADQUARTERED IN SANTA CLARA
CITY, AND, UH, WE HAVE STARTED
OUR COMPANY ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO
FOCUSING ON COMMUNITY SCALE
SOLAR. AND TODAY WE HAVE VERY
LITTLE OPTIONS. SO YOU ABOUT 20
MEGAWATT. THAT'S GOING TO BE
INCOME ONLINE THIS YEAR, MAINLY
BY COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATORS.
BUT THE HUGE OPPORTUNITY OF OUR
PIPELINE IS 20 TIMES BIGGER THAN
THAT, AND WE CAN DEPLOY A LOT OF
ENERGY STORAGE THAT IS HIGHLY
NEED FOR CALIFORNIA. AND THERE'S
COMMUNITIES SOLAR PROGRAM WITH
THE N VÆ P Tð IS THE SOLUTION.
WE ALL SHARE YOUR CONCERNS THAT
YOU JUST POINTED OUT WITH THE
AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR. IT
SEEMS IT CANNOT WORK OUT. IT'S
THE SAME THING THAT WE HAVE WITH
R IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS
EXACTLY SHOWS THE RESULT OF THAT
WITH THE LOW INCOME THEY NEED
BADLY. THIS COMMUTED SOLAR. IT'S
GONNA CREATE A GOOD AVENUE FOR
THEM TO PARTICIPATE, AND WE WILL
HAVE VERY LITTLE UPGRADE COST
BECAUSE ON ALL THE DISTRIBUTION
LINES TODAY, THERE IS A LOT OF
LEFT OUT WHICH WE HAVE BEEN
SEEING IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS
THROUGH ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WE
ARE HAVING ON THE DEVELOPMENT,
AND THAT'S THE OPPORTUNITY WHERE
WE ARE LEAVING OUT THE GROWTH
POTENTIAL TO NOT HAVE MORE
UPGRADE COSTS ON DISTRIBUTION
AND TRANSMISSION LINES AND USE
EXISTING CAPACITY TO DEPLOY
THAT. SO THANK YOU FOR
EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING. WE ARE
HOPE TO BE CONSIDERING THAT
PROPOSED DECISION AND THERE WILL
BE AN THE PATH FOR THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN BECKER. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME TODAY, DELANEY HUNTER
ON BEHALF OF THE SOLAR ENERGY
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, OR THE
NATIONAL TRADE GROUP FOR SOLAR
AND REPRESENT ONE OF EVERYTHING,
UH, ACROSS THE MARKET SEGMENT.
UM, I WANNA ECHO THE COMMENTS OF
OUR COLLEAGUES AT èC S¼ A AND
OUR MEMBER COMPANIES AND LET YOU
KNOW THAT OBVIOUSLY THIS P Dð
MISSES THE MARKET. IT WILL NOT
DRIVE NEW INVESTMENT. IT WILL
NOT DRIVE SAVINGS FOR CUSTOMERS,
AND IT WILL LEAVE FEDERAL
DOLLARS AND FRANKLY, STATE
DOLLARS UNUSED TO REALIZE OUR
CLEAN ENERGY AND CLIMATE
REDUCTION GOALS. WE KNOW WHAT WE
NEED. WE NEED ENORMOUS AMOUNTS
OF NEW RENEWABLES ON THE SYSTEM
BY 2030 2045 TO MISS COMMUNITY
SOLAR IS SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY. UM
MISSED THAT. WE WON'T ACTUALLY
MEET OUR GOALS IF WE CAN'T SORT
OF TAP EVERY ANGLE OF THE
MARKET, MOST IMPORTANTLY IN THE
COMMUNITY. WE ALSO ARE REALLY,
REALLY WORRIED THAT THIS P Dð IS
SENDING RIPPLING EFFECTS ACROSS
THE COUNTRY. THE REST OF THE
COUNTRY IS PAYING ATTENTION TO
CALIFORNIA SOMETIMES FOR THE
GOOD AND SOMETIMES FOR THE BAD.
THIS IS THE BAD, UM, LET ME JUST
TELL YOU AS A AS A REP FOR A
NATIONAL TRADE GROUP. THE NUMBER
OF CALLS WE'VE GOTTEN ABOUT WHAT
THE HECK CALIFORNIA IS DOING IS
ENORMOUS. WE'VE GOT TO FIX THIS.
WE'VE GOT TO FIX IT NOW, AND WE
HAVE TIME TO DO SO ONE FOR
CALIFORNIA, BUT TWO FOR THE
VIABILITY OF COMMUNITY SOLAR
ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND THE WAY
THAT WE'RE GOING AS A COUNTRY
DETERMINE HOW TO FIGHT CLIMATE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
ATTENTION. WE REALLY APPRECIATE.
UM YOU BRINGING THIS ISSUE
FORWARD AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET
IT RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR, IGNACIO
HERNANDEZ ON BEHALF OF, UH, TURN
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK. AND
I THANK YOU FOR THE DISCUSSION
TODAY AND FOR THE QUESTIONS THAT
WAS RIGHT ON ON POINT WITH, UM
YOU KNOW OUR VIEW, YOU KNOW TURN
BELIEVES THE PROPOSED DECISION
IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLAIN
LANGUAGE AND CLEAR INTENT OF A B
2316. WE DO URGE THE REJECTION
OF THE PROPOSED DECISION AND WE
DO SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF THE
OF A PROPOSED NET VALUE BILL
TARIFF, WHICH WE BELIEVE WOULD
PROVIDE BILL REDUCTIONS TO
SUBSCRIBERS, AT LEAST 51% OF
WHICH WOULD BE LOW INCOME
CUSTOMERS. AND OF COURSE, AS WAS
DISCUSSED TODAY, WE'LL
ACCELERATE THE DEPLOYMENT OF NEW
DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE ENERGY AND
ENERGY STORAGE PROJECTS IN
COLLIN. WHICH WE REALLY NEED. UM
TURN WILL BE FILING COMMENTS. UM
ON MONDAY, UM, ASKING FOR THE
REJECTION OF THE PROPOSED
DECISION AND ADOPTION OF THE NET
VALUE BILL TARIFF WITH SOME
MODIFICATIONS. WE'RE HAPPY TO
SHARE THAT WITH THE CHAIR AND
WITH THE COMMITTEE, UH, AT LEAST
A SUMMARY AND OR THE FILING. WE
ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE THOSE
DECISIONS NOT ONLY INCONSISTENT
WITH 2316, BUT WE ALSO BELIEVE
IT PROVIDES INSUFFICIENT
CERTAINTY TO PROJECT DEVELOPERS.
UM IT WILL NOT RESULT IN
MATERIAL SUBSCRIBER BILL SAVINGS
AND BECAUSE OF THAT WILL LIKELY
TO FAIL, SO WE DO URGE EVERYONE
TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AT
THIS TIME REGARDING THE
DECISION. THANK YOU. I LOOK
FORWARD TO SEEING THOSE
COMMENTS. GOOD MORNING, ELISE
FONDER ON BEHALF OF
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND AND A
Dð F SUPPORTED A B 20 THREE 16,
WHICH WAS PASSED TO EXPAND
ACCESS TO RENTERS AND LOW INCOME
CALIFORNIANS. WHO HAVE BEEN
UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES.
BUT THE PROPOSED DECISION FROM
THE èC P èC FALLS SHORT OF
THIS MANDATE, AND THE COMMISSION
SHOULD REJECT THE PROPOSED
DECISION AND INSTEAD ENSURE THAT
COST EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY SOLAR
IS A ACCESSIBLE AS THE
LEGISLATION INTENDED. COMMUNITY
SOLAR AND STORAGE CAN ALSO
UNLOCK ADDITIONAL LAND USE
OPPORTUNITIES THAT WHOLESALE
PROJECTS WOULD OTHERWISE RENDER,
UNABLE TO ACCESS FOR THE STATE.
AND FINALLY, WE AGREE WITH THE
CHAIR THAT THE CURRENT PROPOSED
PROGRAM UNDERMINES THE STATE'S
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE FOR
FEDERAL FUNDING. SO IT WOULD ASK
THE èC P èC TAKE THE TIME TO
ADOPT A FABLE AND SCALABLE
PROGRAM THAT ALIGNS WITH THE
SOLAR FOR ALL FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING CHAIR BECKER
AND STAFF ISABELA GONZALEZ, PART
WITH THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, Tð
N èC SIMPLY WANTS TO REITERATE
OUR SUPPORT FOR THE NET VALUE
BILLING TARIFF AND WE SUPPORT
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO HOLD
THE ISSUE AND ISSUE AN
ALTERNATIVE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, NICO MOLINA
ON BEHALF OF THE N R Dð èC
ACTION FUND REGARDING COMMUNITY
SOLAR IN OUR Dð èC HAS A STRONG
INTEREST IN THE STATE, ADOPTING
A NEW COMMUNITY RENEWABLES
PROGRAM THAT WOULD LEAD TO NEW
SOLAR AND STORAGE PROJECTS.
IMPROVE GRID RELIABILITY, LEAD
TO ROBUST PARTICIPATION AND
MEANINGFUL BILL SAVINGS FOR LOW
INCOME AND DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES AND DO SO IN A WAY
THAT MINIMIZES ANY COST SHIFT IN
OUR Dð èC BELIEVES THAT THE
ONLY PROPOSAL UNDER
CONSIDERATION THAT WOULD HAVE
ACCOMPLISHED ALL THESE GOALS IS
THE NET VALUE BILL TARIFF, WHICH
THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSED
DECISION UNFORTUNATELY REJECTS.
WE URGE RECONSIDERATION OF THIS
ISSUE AND ADOPT THE NET VALUE
BILLING TARIFF AS THE BASIS OF A
NEW COMMUNITY RENEWAL PROGRAM.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR CHARLES WATSON ON
BEHALF OF VOLTA ENERGY, A
DEVELOPER OF COMMUNITY SOLAR
PROJECTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND
HEADQUARTERED HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. ECHOING MANY OF THE
PREVIOUS COMMENTS, UM UNDER THE
CURRENT PROPOSED DECISION, AND
WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FEASIBLY
DEVELOP PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA
IF ADOPTED, AND WE, UH, STRONGLY
URGE THE èC P èC TO FURTHER
REFINE AND ADOPT THE NET VALUE
BUILDING TARIFF. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. HELLO UM MY NAME IS
MEG SNYDER AND I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
WITH CONCERNS ABOUT THE, UH,
COMMUNITY SOLAR PROPOSED
DECISION, UM, EVERY THREE YEARS,
THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
UPDATES HER BUILDING CODE AND IN
2019, THE ENERGY COMMISSION
REQUIRED AND THE BUILDING
INDUSTRY SUPPORTED, UM, OUR
SOLAR MANDATE FOR ALL NEW
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, THREE
STORIES OR LESS TO HAVE SOLAR.
UM, AS YOU MAY KNOW, MOST
MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS SIMPLY
DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ROOF SPACE TO
SUPPORT THE SYSTEMS, UM, NEEDED
AND REQUIRED BY èC STANDARDS.
UH, MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTION, AS
YOU KNOW, IS CRITICAL FOR OUR
HOUSING NEEDS, AND SO WE'D LIKE
TO SEE A NET VALUE BILLING
TARIFF AND A VIABLE COMMUNITY
SOLAR PROGRAM THAT SUPPORTS A
TITLE 24 COMPLIANCE OPTION FOR
BUILDERS OF MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS
TO BRING US CLOSER TOWARD OUR
RENEWABLE ENERGY AND OUR HOUSING
NEEDS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR. MY NAME IS
RAMIN GARCIA. I'M HERE ON BEHALF
OF èC N INCORPORATED. WE'RE A
CALIFORNIA BENEFIT CORPORATION
FOCUSED ON DEVELOPING COMMUNITY,
SOLAR AND STORAGE POWER PLANTS
AND LOWER TO MEDIUM INCOME
COMMUNITIES, SPECIFICALLY, THE
CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY. WE
ARE ONE OF THE TWO DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY FUNDED CALIFORNIA START
UPS TASKED WITH MAKING THE
COMMUNITY SOLAR VISION A REALITY
IN OUR STATE. MANY OF MY PEERS
HERE TODAY ARE REINFORCING HOW
THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSED
DECISION MISSES THE MARK ON THE
BASIC TENETS OF COMMUNITY SOLAR.
I AM NÓ DIFFERENT. HOWEVER, LET
ME ILLUSTRATE OUR EXPERIENCE.
FOR ALMOST A YEAR. WE'VE BEEN
COLLABORATING WITH THE CITY OF
FIREBALL TO DEVELOP THE FIREBALL
CLEAN ENERGY COMPLEX. THE CITY
ITSELF RANKS AT THE HIGHEST
LEVELS OF POLLUTION AND
VULNERABILITY ON BOTH STATE AND
FEDERAL INDICES. UNEMPLOYMENT
LEVEL IS AT A WHOPPING 15.
DURING MY TIME VISITING FIREBALL
. I'VE HAD THE PLEASURE OF BEING
EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE AND
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. TAKE,
FOR EXAMPLE, MARIA CHUY. WHO
SERVED MY MEAL AT THE LOCAL
BURGER JOINT. SHE'S A HARD
WORKING WOMAN LIVE THE AMERICAN
DREAM. HER HUSBAND WORKS IN THE
PRODUCE PROCESSING CENTER. HER
KIDS JOIN HER AT A WORKPLACE
AFTER SCHOOL. THE FAMILY LIVES
IN THE R VÆ AT AT THE TRAILER
PARK. LAST SUMMER. THEIR
ELECTRIC BILLS WERE $500 A
MONTH. MARIA CHUI WAS AT A LOSS,
SHE FACED A SIMPLE REALITY OF
FOREGOING THE AIR CONDITIONING
BECAUSE THEY Dð INCOME WASN'T
ENOUGH TO COVER THEIR ELECTRIC
BILL WHY THE WEATHER OUTSIDE WAS
SCORCHING. THIS REALITY WAS
SHARED BY MANY OF THE RESIDENTS.
WE MET A WHILE DISTRIBUTING
FOOD. THE ENERGY BURDEN IN THESE
AREAS IS AS HIGH AS 9. WHEREAS
THE STATE AVERAGE IS 2. AS A
DEVELOPER AND AS AN ENGINEER.
I'M BLESSED WITH THE TALENT TO
SOLVE PROBLEMS, WHETHER IT'S
FIGURING OUT HOW TO DESIGN A
SOLAR POWER PLANT IN A FLOOD
ZONE TO FIGURING OUT HOW TO
FINANCE THESE PROJECTS. FROM THE
ONSET OF THE PROPOSAL DECISION.
WE OPENLY EMBRACE THE DIRECTION
ONLY TO CLEARLY DISCOVER THAT AN
IMPACT ANALYSIS DOES NOT INFORM
THE DECISION. TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE,
ONE OF THE PROPOSED SITES FOR
THE FIRO CLEAN ENERGY COMPLEX IS
A CAP LANDFILL ADJACENT TO THE
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER. THE SITE
ITSELF IS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS
. YET A PURPLE LIKE TARIFF MUST
NOT COMPEL US TO FUND A NON
EXISTENT TRANSMISSION LINE. I
CAN APPRECIATE THE LEGAL
ARGUMENT LEADING TO A PURPLE
FOUNDATION. I AM PERPLEXED AS TO
THE INNOVATION AND HEAVY
HANDEDNESS AS SUCH ARGUMENTS IN
LIGHT OF THE BROAD
INTERPRETATIONS ACROSS FEDERAL
AND STATE ENERGY REGULATORY
ENTITIES. SECOND POINT OF
CONTENTION IS THE SECOND
SIGNIFICANT DELAY IN TIME.
FEDERAL INCENTIVES HAVE BEEN IN
PLACE FOR WELL OVER ONE YEAR AND
ARE BEING EXHAUSTED WITHOUT ANY
OPPORTUNITY TO BE CONSIDERED.
THE POWERING AFFORDABLE, CLEAN
ENERGY PROGRAM IS OFFICIALLY
CLOSED. AND THE LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES BONUS IS FULLY
SUBSCRIBED TO EVERY GRANT DOLLAR
EVERY INTEREST RATE POINT AND
EVERY TAX CREDIT SIGNIFICANTLY
IMPACTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DEVELOP COMMUNITY SOLAR FOR OUR
ALMI COMMUNITIES. THE VISION SET
FORTH BY EB 2316 IS CLEARANCE
REQUEST. èC N IS NOT
CONFIDENT. PROPOSED DECISION
FULFILLS SUCH VISION, MUCH LESS
SO IN A TIMELY MANNER. SEE FOR
THE REQUEST, THE NET VALUE
BUILDING TARIFF BE RECONSIDERED
AS A PREVAILING DECISION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. AND I THANK
EVERYONE WHO GAVE A PUBLIC
COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE, AND I
THINK WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT SO
NOT TO REPEAT OURSELVES TOO
MUCH, BUT, UM YOU KNOW, THIS IS
COMMUNITY SOLAR ESTIMATED CLOSER
TO LOAD AS PEOPLE MENTIONED.
THAT IS THE POINT. UM WE'VE
HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT UNDERMINING
OUR ABILITY TO GET FEDERAL
DOLLARS. WE'RE A CHILLING EFFECT
NATIONALLY, UM, ALONG WITH OTHER
CONCERNS, SO I'D APPRECIATE
EVERYONE. UM, WHO WEIGHED IN,
UH, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A BRIEF
RECESS. UM BEFORE WE GO TO, UH,
THE NEXT ISSUE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. EVERYONE
FOR THAT, UH, QUICK RECESS.
WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO ISSUE
NUMBER TWO CAP AND TRADE
SPENDING PLAN AND WOULD LOVE TO
HEAR FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. UH, FIRST WHO WILL
PRESENT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL.
WHEN YOU'RE READY, GO AHEAD.
RIGHT GOOD MORNING CHAIR. BECKER
BRANDON MERRITT WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. I'M HERE
TODAY TO PRESENT THE CAP AND
TRADE EXPENDITURE PLAN AS
PROPOSED IN THE 2425. GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET. THIS PLAN PRIMARILY USES
THE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION
FUND, OR GRF, TO PROTECT MANY
PREVIOUSLY GENERAL FUNDED
PRIORITY CLIMATE INVESTMENTS.
SPECIFICALLY THE PLAN SHIFTS A
TOTAL OF 1.8 BILLION IN ELIGIBLE
GENERAL FUND CLIMATE PROGRAM.
SPENDING TO GF INCLUDING 557
MILLION IN CURRENT YEAR FUNDING
PROPOSED AS EARLY ACTION. AND
1.2 BILLION AND 2425 ACROSS
VARIOUS CLIMATE PROGRAMS. IN
ADDITION TO THE PROPOSED FUND
SHIFTS, THE PLAN INCORPORATES
APPROPRIATIONS THAT WERE
PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO LAST YEAR
AT THE LEGISLATURE, WHICH
INCLUDES 250 MILLION FOR A B,
617 AND 230 MILLION FOR THE ZERO
EMISSION TRANSIT CAPITAL PROGRAM
. THE ADMINISTRATION CAN
ACCOMPLISH THE SPENDING PLAN BY
UTILIZING UPDATED REVENUE
PROJECTIONS FOR BY, UH, BUDGET
YEAR HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED
AUCTION PROCEEDS IN THE CURRENT
YEAR AND DELAYING 600 MILLION
FOR MULTIPLE PLANNED ZEV PROGRAM
INVESTMENTS. THE DELAYS FOR ZEV
PROGRAMS, UH, THE ZB PROGRAM
SHIPS PLANNED INVESTMENTS FROM,
UH 2425 TO 2728 TO ENABLE OTHER
PRIORITY CLIMATE PROGRAMS TO BE
SHIFTED ON TO GGF IN 2425. THE
ADMINISTRATION REMAINS COMMITTED
TO SUPPORTING CALIFORNIANS
ACCESS TO CLEANER TRANSPORTATION
OPTIONS AND TO PROTECT CRITICAL
INVESTMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
TRANSITION TO ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLES AS PART OF A
IDENTIFYING ZEV PACKAGE SOLUTION
TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOCUSED ON
BALANCING AND MAINTAINING
PREVIOUS INVESTMENTS ASSOCIATED
WITH BUILDING OUT CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE TO FURTHER
SUPPORT THE STATE'S GROWING ZEV
NETWORK WHILE ALSO ADDRESSING
THE PROJECTED BUDGET SHORTFALL.
ONE OF THE KEY TENANTS OF THIS
BUDGET IS KEEPING OUR
COMMITMENTS TO THE EXTENT
POSSIBLE AND HOW WE ARE ABLE TO
KEEP SOME OF OUR COMMITMENTS ON
VARIOUS CLIMATE PROGRAMS IS BY
SHIFTING THEM TO GGRF. THE
ADMINISTRATION LOOKED AT WHAT
GENERAL FUNDED CLIMATE PROGRAMS
STILL HAVE FUNDING AVAILABLE
THAT MOST ALIGN WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PRIORITIES
INCLUDING SUPPORTING EQUITY. UH
ME MEETING GF, GOALS AND THE AND
THAT HAVE ALSO BEEN PREVIOUSLY
FUNDED OUT OF GGRF. THE MIX OF
PROGRAMS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE
SHIFTED TO GAFF. MEET THESE
CONSIDERATIONS. THANK YOU, AND
I'M HAPPY TO TAKE FURTHER
QUESTIONS AS WE CONTINUE THIS
DISCUSSION ON THE 2024 25 CAP
AND TRADE EXPENDITURE PLAN.
THANK YOU LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE
L A Ó. UM, THANK YOU, SARAH
CORT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST OFFICE. SO AS AS AS WE
HEARD FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, THE GOVERNOR IS
PROPOSING A TWO POINT THREE
BILLION DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
PLAN FROM GR F. THIS IS MOSTLY
FOR FUN SHIFTS, UM, FROM GENERAL
FUND TO DO GIRAFFE FOR CLIMATE
PACKAGES, UM, AS WELL AS 557
MILLION PROPOSED FOR EARLY
ACTION IN THE CURRENT YEAR FOR
THE ZEV PACKAGE. UM, THE
PROPOSAL TOTAL COMMITS 3.5
BILLION IN OUT YOUR GF AS WELL
PRIMARILY FOR THE ZEV PACKAGE.
UM SO THE USE OF GR F FOR, UH,
TO ACHIEVE GENERAL FUND SAVINGS
HAS MERIT AND ULTIMATELY, THE
LEGISLATURE CAN CHOOSE A
DIFFERENT SET OF PRIORITIES. IF
IF YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT, UM, SET
SET OF SET OF GOALS, UM AS
COMPARED TO THE GOVERNOR. THE
RELIANCE ON OUT YOUR GF DOES
MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT STATE
PRIORITIES AND REVENUE, SO
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD
ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSIDER, UM,
IN TERMS OF MAKING THOSE
COMMITMENTS NOW, UH UH, AS AS
OPPOSED TO WAITING AND WAITING
UNTIL THAT YEAR TO DETERMINE
WHAT YOUR HIGHEST PRIORITIES
ARE. THERE IS ALSO SUBSTANTIAL
UNCERTAINTY ABOUT FUTURE
REVENUES IN GJ F. UM THIS IS DUE
TO CARBS, UH, RULE MAKING WHICH
WHICH YOU HAVE HEARD, UM, YOU'VE
HEARD DISCUSSION ABOUT
PREVIOUSLY AS WELL AS, UH, SOME
SOME, UM, UNCERTAINTY AROUND THE
EXTENSION, SO BOTH OF THOSE
FACTORS COULD REALLY IMPACT. UH
THE REVENUES THAT THE STATE WILL
BE RECEIVING IN GGF. THE
LEGISLATURE CAN ALSO REVISIT THE
STATUTORY APPROPRIATIONS IF YOUR
PRIORITIES HAVE CHANGED. 65% OF
GGF REVENUES AGAIN GOES, GOES TO
THOSE CONTINUOUS APPROPRIATIONS.
UM AND THEN WE ALSO WANT TO NOTE
THAT WHILE THE ADMINISTRATION'S
ESTIMATES FOR REVENUES ARE MORE
ACCURATE THAN THEY HAVE BEEN IN
PREVIOUS YEARS BECAUSE THE
ADMINISTRATION IS USE IS USING A
NEW METHODOLOGY, UM, THERE WILL
STILL THERE WILL STILL BE, UM
SOME ADDITIONAL REVENUE
AVAILABLE AS COMPARED TO THE
ADMINISTRATION'S ESTIMATES. THIS
IS BECAUSE THE PAST COUPLE
AUCTIONS HAVE HAVE RESULTED IN A
IN A HIGHER UM, A HIGHER YIELD
FOR GRF THAN THE GOVERNOR
EXPECTED. SO IN SOME, WE WOULD
JUST, UH, ENCOURAGE YOU TO ADOPT
A SPENDING PLAN THAT FOCUSES ON
YOUR HIGHEST PRIORITIES AND
MAXIMIZES GENERAL FUND SAVINGS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, UM OK, SO
YOU TOUCHED ON THIS A BIT FOR
THE FOR FINANCE, BUT THE THAT,
UM SOME OF THE PROGRAMS CHOSEN
TO BACKFILL WITH ENERGY. ZEV
WILDFIRE WATER STREAM HEAT. UM
CAN YOU TOUCH AGAIN? WHAT IS THE
ADMINISTRATION'S RATIONALE?
PICKING THESE PROGRAMS IN
PARTICULAR? TO BACKFILL. THE
ADMINISTRATION LOOKED AT WHAT
GENERAL FUNDED CLIMATE PROGRAMS
STILL HAVE FUNDING AVAILABLE
THAT MOST LINE WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PRIORITIES
INCLUDING SUPPORTING EQUITY,
WHICH ONES MEET GF GOALS, AND
WHICH ONES WERE PREVIOUSLY. UH I
HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN FUNDED OUT
OF Tð F THE MIX OF PROGRAMS THAT
ARE PROPOSED TO BE SHIFTED TO
GGRF MEET THESE CONSIDERATIONS.
DOES THE ADMINISTRATION. GRF IS
A FUND THAT SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON
PROJECT SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO
CLIMATE MITIGATION. UH, EG
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS, OR DOES IT
EXTEND THAT FOCUS TO CLIMATE
ADAPTATION AND EVEN GENERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS LIKE
USING G FOR Dð PR, FOR EXAMPLE.
THE ADMINISTRATION IS PROPOSING
TO ALLOCATE GDF FOR PROGRAMS
THAT ALIGN WITH CAP AND TRADE
PRIORITIES AS PRESCRIBED IN
CURRENT LAW WITHIN THE CONTEXT
OF STATUTORY OBLIGATION. THE
ADMINISTRATION THEN,
ADDITIONALLY CONSIDERS CRITICAL
AREAS OF INVESTMENT THAT MAY
EXTEND TO USING GGF, WHERE IT IS
IDENTIFIED AS AN ELIGIBLE SOURCE
OF FUNDS. THIS COULD INCLUDE
PROGRAMS SUCH AS A B 617 THAT
ALIGN WITH THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS FOR INVESTMENTS IN
PRIORITY POPULATIONS, WHICH FACE
DISPROPORTIONATE HARM FROM
POLLUTION IN THE CLIMATE CRISIS,
AS REFERENCED WITH THE PROPOSAL
TO USE GF FOR Dð PR SORRY. DPR
FITS IN THERE IN IN WHICH WAY
YOU WERE SAYING, UH, FOR, UM,
THE B èC P. THAT WAS I THINK
YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT WAS Dð PR.
SOME SUSTAINABLE FUNDING P. YOU
SAY IT FITS UNDER UNDER THE A B
617 AREA OF ACTIVITY. UM WHAT DO
WE KNOW SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE
COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE
PROGRAMS WITH REGARD TO
EMISSIONS. REDUCTIONS. I'LL NOTE
THAT THE CONSERVATION STRATEGY
GROUP PUT OUT A REPORT ANALYZING
THE COST EFFECTIVENESS WHICH, AS
YOU SPENDING FOUND THAT A SMALL
NUMBER OF PROGRAMS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE MAJORITY OF EMISSIONS.
AND THAT MOST GR FUNDED PROGRAMS
PROVIDE EMISSION REDUCTIONS AT
MORE THAN $1000. A TON, WHICH IS
PROBABLY NOT COST EFFECTIVE
RELATIVE TO MANY. WELL
UNDERSTOOD ALTERNATIVES FOR
MISSIONS REDUCTIONS. THESE
PROGRAMS PROPOSED TO BE SHIFTED
TO GRF THIS YEAR, PREDOMINANTLY
NEWER PROGRAMS FUNDED BY JIRA
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE LAST
BUDGET. SO FOR EXAMPLE, èC S¼
PROGRAMS, UM, OIL WELL, PLUG AND
ABANDONMENT, UM, EXTREME HEAT
AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCE PROGRAM
, SO WE DO NOT HAVE ANY DATA ON
MANY OF THESE NEWER PROGRAMS AND
THEREFORE CANNOT SPEAK THEIR
COST EFFECTIVENESS. THESE
AGENCIES MIGHT HAVE THEIR
ESTABLISHED COST EFFECTIVENESS
TO DATE, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THAT
INFORMATION. THE CALIFORNIA
BOARD DOES RELEASE AN ANNUAL CAP
AND TRADE CLIMATE CHANGE
INVESTMENTS REPORT, WHICH DOES
INCLUDE, UH, INFORMATION ON COST
EFFECTIVENESS FOR THE VARIOUS
PROGRAMS THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY
BEEN FUNDED OUT OF G Dð F, AND
WE CAN PROVIDE THE INFORMATION
FOR THOSE PROGRAMS. WE WOULD
ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT WHILE
COST EFFECTIVE IS AN IMPORTANT
FACTOR. IT IS NOT THE ONLY
FACTOR SO FOCUSING SOLELY ON
COST EFFECTIVENESS WOULD PROVIDE
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES TO SUPPORT
PROGRAMS THAT ALSO FOCUS ON
EQUITY AND SUPPORTING
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES, WHICH
IS ALSO AN IMPORTANT LENS AND
STATUTORY PRIORITY FOR CAP AND
TRADE FUND. MM. UM. HOW CAN WE
THINK ABOUT COST EFFECTIVENESS
FOR FUNDING? A PROGRAMS AIMED AT
ADAPTATION. HOW SHOULD WE THINK
ABOUT COST EFFECTIVENESS. UM
RATHER THAN PROGRAMS. FOCUS ON
EMISSIONS REDUCTION. HOW WOULD
YOU SUGGEST WE THING ABOUT COST
COST EFFECTIVE SHOULDN'T BE
VIEWED IN A SILO BETWEEN
ADAPTATION AND EMISSION
REDUCTION. THE ADMINISTRATION IS
PROPOSING TO ALLOCATE JUJU FOR
PROGRAMS THAT ALIGN WITH CAP AND
TRADE PRIORITIES AS PRESCRIBED
IN CURRENT LAW, WHILE ALSO
TRYING TO PROTECT CRITICAL
PROGRAMS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY
PRIORITIZED BY BOTH THE
ADMINISTRATION AND THE
LEGISLATURE OVER THE LAST FEW
BUDGET ACTS. YEAH, I JUST NOTE
THAT IT IS. IT IS CALLED THE
GREENHOUSE GAS PRODUCTION FUND,
SO I WOULD I WOULD POSIT THAT WE
REALLY DO. UM NEED TO FOCUS
PREDOMINATELY ON GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTION. UM UH, GETTING TO THE
METHODOLOGY AND THE BUDGET. UM,
CAN YOU BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE NEW
METHODOLOGY SINCE WE HAVE
DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY? THAN IN
THE PAST. RIGHT RIGHT. UH, THE
METHODOLOGY USED TO DEVELOP. THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROJECTIONS
WERE THE SAME USED, UM, FOR THE
20 THREE 24 ENACTED BUDGET. THE
METHODOLOGY USES THE AVERAGE
SETTLEMENT PRICE FROM THE
PREVIOUS FOUR AUCTIONS TO UPDATE
THE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE LAST TWO
COURT LAST TWO QUARTERS IN THE
CURRENT YEAR AND THEN WE ALSO
USE THAT SAME FOUR A OPTION
AVERAGE FOR BUDGET YEAR
PROJECTIONS WHILE ADJUSTING FOR
REDUCED ALLOWANCES PER
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. THE
ADMINISTRATION'S MAY REVISION
UPDATE WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
THE FEBRUARY 2024 AUCTION
RESULTS BUT WILL NOT INCLUDE THE
MAY AUCTION RESULT. SINCE THAT
WILL NOT OCCUR UNTIL AFTER THE
MAY REVISION HAS BEEN RELEASED.
SO FEBRUARY 24 AND THEN THE
THREE AUCTIONS. UH, PREVIOUS TO
THAT. UM JUST GET THE LAOS
INPUT. UM WHAT? WHAT IS YOUR
ASSESSMENT OF THE ESTIMATED
REVENUES AND DO YOU EXPECT
ADDITIONAL GR REVENUE FOR
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING. AFTER
THIS SO AS AS AS WE MENTIONED,
AND AS THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
CLARIFIED, THEY ARE USING A
DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY, WHICH,
UH, WE THINK WILL YIELD A MORE
ACCURATE REFLECTION OF TRUE DF
REVENUES. HOWEVER JUST THINKING
ABOUT THE RECENT FEBRUARY
AUCTION, SO THAT THE NUMBER THAT
, UM THE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION
IS USING THEY WERE ASSUMING
ABOUT $33 FOR THE ALLOWANCE
PRICES. THE FEBRUARY AUCTION
ACTUALLY RESULTED IN A IN AN
ALLOWANCE PRICE CLOSER TO $42.
SO WE KNOW ALREADY THAT THE WE
WILL RECEIVE MORTGAGE IN MORE WE
WILL. WE WILL RECEIVE MORE GGF
THAN THE ADMINISTRATION EXPECTS,
UM, PROBABLY IN THE RANGE OF A
COUPLE 100 MILLION, BUT IT'S NOT
YET CLEAR. UM, THERE'S STILL
SOME UNCERTAINTIES AND WE'RE NOT
SURE YET WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT
THEY MAY AUCTION WILL WILL YIELD
SO IT'S A BIT TOO EARLY TO TELL
FOR SURE. BUT WHAT WE CAN SAY
WITH CONFIDENCE THAT THAT THERE
WILL BE MORE THAN WHAT THE
GOVERNOR IS PLANNING FOR BASED
ON THAT FEBRUARY AUCTION. OK,
THAT'S GOOD. UM UH, THE ONLY IT
JUST TO CONTINUE ON, UM HAS
RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER
THE CONTINUOUS APPROPRIATIONS
FROM GF STILL REFLECT
LEGISLATURES PRIORITIES. WE'VE
HEARD THAT A NUMBER OF TIMES
SINCE I'VE BEEN SHARING, UM IN
YOUR P. WHAT EXTENT IS THE
LEGISLATURE BOUND BY THESE
CONTINUOUS APPROPRIATION, A
COMMITMENTS OR UM, UH. DO YOU
BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD VIEW
THEM? UH, EQUIVALENT TO ANY
OTHERS. THESE DECISIONS
EQUIVALENT TO ANY OTHER
LEGISLATURE COULD CHANGE AS PART
OF OUR BUDGET DECISIONS THIS
YEAR. SO THOSE CONTINUOUS
APPROPRIATIONS STARTED OUT OUT,
UM VIA VIA STATE. SO ABOUT 10
YEARS AGO, I BELIEVE, UM, THE
BILL WAS PASSED THAT THAT
DIRECTED THOSE APPROPRIATIONS
THAT'S ULTIMATELY STILL IT STILL
IN THE LEGISLATURE'S PURVIEW.
THESE ARE LEGISLATIVELY
APPROPRIATED FUNDS. SO UM, IF,
IF IT IS IN YOUR IF, IF, UH THE
LEGISLATURE DOES DESIRE TO TAKE
ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT THAT IS
CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT IS
WITHIN YOUR AUTHORITY TO DO AND
HOW MUCH MONEY IS ASSOCIATE WITH
THOSE CONTINUOUS APPROPRIATIONS.
SO 665 ABOUT 65% OF GJ F. UH
REVENUES GO TO THOSE CONTINUOUS
APPROPRIATIONS, SO JUST JUST FOR
A BIT OF CONTEXT, AND DO YOUR F
HAS YIELDED BETWEEN FOUR AND 5
BILLION, UM, FOR THE LAST COUPLE
OF YEARS, AND I THINK WE EXPECT
SOMETHING SIMILAR. SO 65% OF YOU
KNOW, UPWARDS 5 BILLION. UM
THAT'S THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT NUMBER. GOT IT. AND
IS THERE ANY UM WHEN YOU MEASURE
THE COST EFFECTIVE OR ANY
ESTIMATES OF THE COST
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CONTINUOUS
APPROPRIATION PROGRAMS VERSUS
THE DISCRETIONARY FUNDED
PROGRAMS. SO THE, UH THE
ADMINISTRATION DOES ESTIMATE THE
COST EFFECTIVENESS. I BELIEVE
FOR ALL DURA FUNDED PROGRAMS,
INCLUDING THE CONTINUOUS
APPROPRIATIONS, EXCEPT FOR THE
HIGH SPEED RAIL PROGRAM, UM, AND
SOMETHING THAT OUR OFFICE YOU
MAY HAVE, REMEMBER, WE'VE WE'VE
WE'VE NOTED BEFORE, UM SOME
CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
ADMINISTRATION'S METHODOLOGY FOR
ESTIMATING COST EFFECTIVENESS
JUST GENERALLY, SO THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT OUR OFFICE AND
THE STATE AUDITOR AS WELL AS
OTHER RESEARCHERS HAVE NOTED
THAT THOSE ESTIMATES, UM THERE'S
SOME UNCERTAINTY. ABOUT THEIR
RELIABILITY. UM I ALSO WOULD
JUST MAYBE NOTE ON A SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT TOPIC, BUT STILL
SOMEWHAT RELATED, UM, GRF
BECAUSE IT WAS A BECAUSE IT, UH
BECAUSE IT WAS AUTHORIZED WITH A
TWO THIRDS VOTE. THESE REVENUES
CAN BE VIEWED AS AS TAX REVENUE
SO THEORETICALLY COULD BE USED
FOR ANY PURPOSE. SO AS YOUR AS
YOU'RE IN THE MIDST OF MAKING
REALLY HARD BUDGET DECISIONS, WE
RECOMMEND THAT YOU THAT YOU
THINK ABOUT THIS REVENUE KIND OF
BROADLY FOR YOUR WHOLE, UH, LIST
OF PRIORITIES SO GR F COULD BE
USED, UM, TO, UH BACK FULL
REDUCTIONS TO CORE ONGOING
PROGRAMS THAT DON'T THAT DON'T
FIT THE HISTORICAL USE OF THE
FUND. BUT WE JUST WANNA, UM, TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT THAT IS SOMETHING
THAT IS IN YOUR IN IN YOUR TOOL
KIT DURING THIS TOUGH BUDGET
ENVIRONMENT. GOOD WELL, I DO
APPRECIATE THAT. THAT, UM
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. UM YEAH,
I'LL NOTE IT IS CALLED THE
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND.
SO UM, YOU KNOW, THIS REALLY IS
OUR REALLY OUR MONEY FOCUSED ON
ON ON THAT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I
THINK THIS COMMITTEE WE'RE GONNA
, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO LOOK
THROUGH THAT LENS, BUT I
APPRECIATE THAT, UH, LASTLY FOR
TO FINANCE. UM AS YOU KNOW, CARB
IS CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS TO THE
CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM. UH, THIS
YEAR, AND THOSE MOMENTS COULD
INFLUENCE ALLOWANCE PRICES AND
REVENUES. UH, HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION, TAKING THESE
UNCERTAINTIES INTO ACCOUNT IN
THE GGR SPENDING PLAN,
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT
OF COMMITMENT TO OUT HERE.
DOLLARS. CARB IS UNDERTAKING A
PUBLIC PROCESS TO EVALUATE
INCREASING THE STRINGENCY OF THE
CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM. THIS
ENTAILS REMOVING ALLOWANCES FROM
THE PROGRAM BEFORE THE END OF
2030, DEPENDING ON HOW MANY
ALLOWANCES ARE REMOVED, AND
ADDITIONAL FEATURES THAT MAY BE
NEEDED FOR COST CONTAINMENT. THE
AMOUNT OF ALLOWANCES SOLD AT
EACH AUCTION MAY BE REDUCED AND
PRICES ARE EXPECTED TO INCREASE
AT AUCTIONS. CARB CONTINUES TO
EVALUATE OPTIONS FOR REMOVING
ALLOWANCES AND OPTIONS TO ENSURE
COST CONTAINMENT TO MINIMIZE
COSTS TO REGULATED ENTITIES. OK
SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU BELIEVE
THAT, UM THOSE UM, SO THOSE
CHANGES COULD RESULT IN MORE
REVENUE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING? WITHIN THE, UM THE CAUSE
AND EFFECT. BOUNDS, POSSIBLY
THAT'S CERTAINLY A POSSIBILITY.
OK? UM LET'S SEE. THE
RECOGNITION IS HOLD OPEN ON ON
THIS ONE. SO WE WILL, UH, DO
THAT. UM AND, UM APPRECIATE IT
WILL. I'M SURE I KNOW I GET MY
COLLEAGUES WHO COULDN'T BE HERE
TODAY ARE VERY INTERESTED IN
THIS AS WELL AND WE'LL BE
RETURNING TO IT. THANK YOU. ARE
WE NUMBER ONE ISSUE THREE
PRESCRIBED BURNING EXCEPTIONAL
EVENTS AND, UM, WHEN READY, WE
WILL, UM I BELIEVE HERE FROM
FROM THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD
FIRST TO PRESENT THE GOVERNOR'S
UH, PROPOSAL ON PRESCRIBED
BURNING AND EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS.
THANK YOU. CHAIR BECKER AND
MEMBERS. I'M MICHAEL BENJAMIN,
CHIEF OF THE AIR QUALITY
PLANNING AND SCIENCE DIVISION AT
THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES
BOARD. ONE OF MY
RESPONSIBILITIES IS OVERSEEING
CALIFORNIA'S SMOKE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM, WHICH INCLUDES WORKING
WITH A LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS. AND
LO AND LAND MANAGERS TO REDUCE
EXPOSURE TO SMOKE WHILE
FACILITATING PRESCRIBED FIRE.
THIS MORNING. I'M GOING TO
DISCUSS OUR B èC P TO SUPPORT
PRESCRIBED BURNING AND
EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS. THE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
IS REQUESTING A TOTAL OF THREE
PERMANENT POSITIONS AND THREE
$0.8 MILLION IN GRANTS AND
CONTRACT FUNDS TO SUPPORT OR TO
CARRY OUT STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
SET FORTH IN SENATE BILL 1260.
AND DUTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
STATE'S WILDFIRE AND FOREST
RESILIENCE. ACTION PLAN AS
CODIFIED BY SENATE BILL 456,
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
DEMONSTRATING ATTAINMENT OF A
LOWER NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR
QUALITY STANDARD FOR ANNUAL FINE
PARTICULATE OR PM 2.5. THE
RESOURCES BEING REQUESTED IN
THIS B èC P WILL ALLOW FOR
SUSTAINED EXPANSION OF CARBS
PRESCRIBED BURN REPORTING AND
MONITORING GRANT PROGRAM, WHICH
PROVIDES FUNDING TO THE AIR
DISTRICTS TO SUPPORT THEIR SMOKE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. THE FUNDING
WILL ALSO PROVIDE NECESSARY
SUPPORT FOR SMOKE FORECASTING OF
PRESCRIBED BURNS AND PUBLIC
OUTREACH AND ALERTS THROUGH THE
CALIFORNIA SMOKES. SPOTTER
MOBILE APP. OVER THE PAST FIVE
YEARS, THE GRANT PROGRAM HAS
SUCCESSFULLY LED TO AN INCREASE
IN BOTH THE MONITORING OF BURNS
AND REPORTING OF PRESCRIBED FIRE
ACTIVITY THROUGH THE PRESCRIBED
FIRE INFORMATION AND REPORTING
SYSTEM OR PEERS. FOR EXAMPLE,
NORTH COAST UNIFIED AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS SEEN AN
INCREASE IN MONITORED BURNS FROM
20 TO 40 PER YEAR TO NOW OVER
300 PER YEAR. AT THE SAME TIME,
THERE HAS BEEN A THREE TO FOUR
FOLD INCREASE IN PRESCRIBED BURN
ACRES REPORTED THROUGH PIE.
THESE EFFORTS ARE CRITICAL IN
THE PLANNING OF PRESCRIBED FIRE
AND TO MINIMIZE AIR QUALITY
IMPACTS AS WE MAKE PROGRESS
TOWARDS THE GOVERNOR'S NEAR TERM
GOAL OF TREATING 400,000 ACRES
ANNUALLY WITH PRESCRIBED FIRE.
THE CURRENT GRANT PROGRAM IS
FUNDED THROUGH THIS FISCAL YEAR
ONLY AND WITHOUT CONTINUED
FUNDING, WE RISK SLOWING THE
PACE AND SCALE OF THE STATE'S
PRESCRIBED FIRE EFFORTS WHILE
ALSO SUPPORTING CULTURAL
BURNING. U S¼ EPA HAS ALSO
RECENTLY PROMULGATED A LOWER
ANNUAL PM 2.5 AIR QUALITY
STANDARD, AND THE THREE
POSITIONS WILL SUPPORT THE
EXCEPTIONAL EVENT PROCESS, WHICH
WILL BE NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE
ATTAINMENT OF THE LOWER
STANDARD. THE EXCEPTIONAL EVENT
PROCESS IS PROVIDED FOR UNDER
THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT. AS A
WAY OF EXCLUDING FROM REGULATORY
CONSIDERATION. AIR POLLUTION
FROM THOSE EVENTS THAT ARE NOT
REASONABLY CONTROLLABLE.
EXAMPLES OF EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS,
AS DEFINED BY THE CLEAN AIR ACT
INCLUDE VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS,
WILDFIRES AND PRESCRIBED BURNS.
THE EXCEPTIONAL EVENT PROCESS IS
EXTREMELY RIGOROUS, AND A
TYPICAL SUBMISSION CAN REQUIRE
UPWARDS OF 200 PAGES OF
DOCUMENTATION. CALIFORNIA IS
FACING A CHALLENGE WITH THE NEED
TO INCREASE PRESCRIBED BURNING
TO COMBAT CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES
AND IMPROVE FOREST HEALTH WHILE
AT THE SAME TIME DEMONSTRATING
ATTAINMENT OF THE NEW ANNUAL PM
2.5 STANDARD. ACHIEVING BOTH
GOALS REQUIRE SUPPORTING
DISTRICT SMOKE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS AND THE RESPONSIBLE USE
OF PRESCRIBED FIRE AS WELL AS
PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR THE
EXCEPTIONAL EVENT PROCESS, WHICH
WILL ALLOW DISTRICTS TO PURS TO
PURSUE MORE PRESCRIBED FIRE ON
THE WAY TO MEETING THE STATE'S
GOALS OF TREATING 400,000 ACRES
ANNUALLY WITH PRESCRIBED FIRE.
WHILE ALSO DEMONSTRATING
ATTAINMENT OF THE NATIONAL AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS. THE MAJORITY
OF PRESCRIBED BURNS OCCUR IN
SMALLER DISTRICTS WITH FEW
STAFFING RESOURCES. THESE
DISTRICTS WERE PREVIOUSLY IN
ATTAINMENT OF FEDERAL AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS, BUT WITH THE
NEW LOWER ANNUAL PM 2.5 STANDARD
WILL NOW BE A NON ATTAINMENT.
AND WE NEED TO RELY ON THE
EXCEPTIONAL EVENT PROCESS TO
HELP DEMONSTRATE FUTURE
ATTAINMENT OF THE STANDARD.
FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE
ATTAINMENT MAY RESULT IN THE
LOSS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF
FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDS. THIS B
èC P PROVIDES THE ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES NEEDED FOR AIR
DISTRICTS TO MORE READILY SHOW
ATTAINMENT, WHILE ALSO
INCREASING THE PACE AND SCALE OF
PRESCRIBED BURNING IN
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. I'D BE
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. I THANK YOU. DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE ANYTHING THAT YEAH.
NOTHING, DAD. THANKS. UM WE DID
REVIEW THE PROPOSAL AND WE DON'T
HAVE A CONCERNS OR COMMENTS FOR
YOU. OK UM, WE SPEND A LOT OF
TIME ON THIS. I THINK IT WAS
PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW.
UM BUT JUST BE CLEAR SO THE
PROPOSED FUNDING WE WILL SUPPORT
STREAMLINE PERMITTING FOR
PRESCRIBED BURNS. THAT'S CORRECT
A RANGE OF PROGRAMS THAT WILL
ULTIMATELY STREAMLINE THE
PERMITTING PROCESS AND ENABLE
MORE PRESCRIBED FIRE. OK, AND OF
COURSE, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO
KEEP THE PUBLIC INFORMED. YOU
MENTIONED THE SMOKE SPOTTER APP.
UH, OTHER RESOURCES AND SOME
DOLLARS, UH, ALLOCATED TO THAT
SO SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO KEEP
FOLLOWING UP ON, UH, IN THE
FUTURE, SO WE COULD, YOU KNOW,
MAYBE SEE SOME UM YOU FOR OFFICE
COULD SHE'S JUST KIND OF
EXAMPLES OF HOW THAT WORKS. AND
UH, HOW PEOPLE ARE ALERTED. JUST
SO, UH, WE CAN KEEP AN EYE ON
THAT. THAT'D BE GREAT IN THE
FUTURE. ABSOLUTELY OK. UM
RECOMMENDATION IS HOLD OPEN ON
THIS ITEM AS WELL. SO WE WILL DO
THAT. THANK YOU, UM ALL FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY. AND WE'RE GOING TO
MOVE ON TO ISSUE FOUR, WHICH IS
RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT MORE
STRINGENT, UH PM 2.5 NATIONAL
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS. I
WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU
AGAIN ON, UH, FIRST ON THAT
PROPOSAL. THANK YOU, CHAIR
BECKER AND MEMBERS. AGAIN. I'M
MICHAEL BENJAMIN, CHIEF OF THE
AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND SCIENCE
DIVISION AT THE CALIFORNIA AIR
RESOURCES BOARD. ONE OF MY
RESPONSIBILITIES IS WORKING WITH
A LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS TO DEVELOP
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS TO
DEMONSTRATE ATTAINMENT WITH THE
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS. TODAY. I'M GOING TO
BE DISCUSSING OUR PROPOSAL. FOR
RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT A MORE
STRINGENT PM 2.5 NATIONAL
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD.
THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES
BOARD IS REQUESTING $2.85
MILLION FOR 12 FULL TIME
PERMANENT POSITIONS. $1 MILLION
FOR ONE TIME, AIR MEASUREMENT
EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND $1
MILLION FOR AIR QUALITY MODELING
, COMPUTING RESOURCES AND
RESEARCH TO BE FUNDED FROM THE
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL FUND. THE
REQUESTED FUNDING IS NEEDED TO
ENSURE THAT CARB HAS ADEQUATE
RESOURCES, STAFFING AND FUNDING
FOR NEWLY DESIGNATED ATTAINMENT
AREAS IN CALIFORNIA. TO DEVELOP
PLANS TO ATTAIN THE MORE
STRINGENT FINE PARTICULATE OR PM
2.5 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARD OR NAX AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE. THE U S¼ ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY IS SETTING
THIS NEW STANDARD BECAUSE THE
HEALTH SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE
LOWER STANDARD IS NEEDED TO
PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH. ONCE THE
STANDARD IS SET, CALIFORNIA WILL
NEED TO IDENTIFY AREAS THAT DO
NOT MEET THE STANDARD WITHIN ONE
YEAR AND THEN DEVELOP PLANS
CALLED STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS OR SIPS IN THE MIDDLE OF
2027 TO ADDRESS THE NEW
STANDARD. ONCE PLANS ARE
DEVELOPED, IT WILL TAKE ONGOING
STATE OVERSIGHT TO MONITOR AND
IMPLEMENT THEM WELL BEYOND 2027.
THE 12 REQUESTED POSITIONS WILL
SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
NEW PM 2.5 NAX EFFORTS FOR
DEVELOPING SIPS, INCLUDING
RESEARCH AND MONITORING INTO THE
CAUSES OF HIGH PM 2.5 SOURCE
EMISSION INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT.
CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT.
AIR QUALITY MODELING AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT
FOR AN EXPECTED 15 NEW NON
ATTAINMENT AREAS. FURTHER THESE
POSITIONS WILL ENSURE THE LOCAL
AIR DISTRICTS HAVE THE TOOLS
NEEDED TO MEET THE NEW PM 2.5
MAX IN THEIR DISTRICT. THE ONE
TIME EQUIPMENT COSTS WILL BE
USED TO SUPPORT THE AIR QUALITY
MODELING AND CONTROL STRATEGY
DEVELOPMENT. THE FUNDING WILL BE
USED FOR COMPUTING RESOURCES AND
ONGOING RESEARCH TO ENSURE THAT
THE EMISSION INVENTORY AND AIR
QUALITY MODELING MAKE USE OF THE
MOST CURRENT AND ACCURATE SOURCE
ACTIVITY, INFORMATION AND THE
ADOPTION OF WELL TESTED EMISSION
ESTIMATION. METHODS THAT ARE
QUANTITATIVELY VALIDATED USING
OBSERVATIONAL DATA. WORKING
CLOSELY WITH THE AIR DISTRICTS,
CARB HAS SUCCESSFULLY IMPROVED
PM 2.5 AIR QUALITY ACROSS THE
STATE, WITH MANY AREAS NOW
MEETING THE OLDER PM 2.5 MAX.
THE NEW PM 2.5 MAX BRINGS MANY
MORE AREAS OF CALIFORNIA INTO
NON ATTAINMENT, INCLUDING MANY
SMALLER RURAL AIR DISTRICTS SUCH
AS SHASTA COUNTY AND GREAT BASIN
UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
DISTRICT. WHICH HAVE LIMITED
RESOURCES AND KNOWLEDGE AND
DEVELOPING AIR QUALITY PLANS. AS
THE LEAD AIR QUALITY AGENCY FOR
THE STATE, ITS CARBS
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE
SUPPORT TO THESE LOCAL AIR
DISTRICTS. THE POSITIONS,
EQUIPMENT AND CONTRACT FUNDS
WILL BE CRITICAL IN ENSURING
CARB CAN PROVIDE ADEQUATE
SUPPORT FOR ALL AIR DISTRICTS TO
CHART A PATH TO ATTAINMENT OF
THE NEW PM 2.5 STANDARD. THIS P
èC P ENSURES THAT CALIFORNIA
MEETS THE PM 2.5 MAX IN A TIMELY
MANNER AND AVOIDS THE HEALTH
EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
EXPOSURE TO PM 2.5, WHICH
INCLUDES PREMATURE DEATH,
ESPECIALLY IN PEOPLE WITH
CHRONIC HEART OR LUNG DISEASES
AND REDUCED LUNG FUNCTION GROWTH
IN CHILDREN. THANK YOU. I WOULD
BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. THANK YOU, MR BENJAMIN. UM
WAS FIRST TURNED TO IMPORTANT
FINANCE ANYTHING DOWN HERE.
NOTHING TO THANK YOU. NÓ NÓ
COMMENTS NÓ UM, WELL, YEAH, I
THINK THAT WAS COMPREHENSIVE. UM
I GUESS ANTICIPATING MY
COLLEAGUE, SENATOR DALI. YOU
COULD WHAT YOU MENTIONED SOME
NEWLY ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS,
RURAL DISTRICTS AND WHAT
CHALLENGES YOU ANTICIPATE IN
DEVELOPING UM, SIPS FOR THESE
NEWLY OUT OF ATTAINMENT AIR
DISTRICTS. WE HAVE ACTUALLY
ALREADY BEGUN WORKING WITH THE
POTENTIALLY IMPACTED AIR
DISTRICTS TO HELP THEM PREPARE
AND UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF WORK
THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED. UM
THE NEW STANDARDS WERE FINALIZED
IN FEBRUARY JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO
. AND SO WE NOW HAVE BASICALLY A
YEAR TO WORK WITH THESE LOCAL
AIR DISTRICTS. I THINK THE
CHALLENGE THAT IS GOING TO BE
FACED, UM, AGAIN IS HAVING THOSE
DISTRICTS HAVE THE TECHNICAL
EXPERTISE NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO,
UM HERMAN OR, UH, ANALYZE THE
AIR QUALITY DATA AND ASSESS
WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE TRULY A
NON ATTAINMENT RIGHT NOW, UM
WE'RE LOOKING AT CURRENT AIR
QUALITY DATA. BUT FINAL AREA
DESIGNATIONS WILL BE BASED ON
AIR QUALITY DATA THAT IS STILL
BEING COLLECTED. AND SO I THINK
THAT THE CHALLENGES ARE IN MANY
CASES TECHNICAL ON THE PART OF
THESE SMALLER DISTRICTS WHO DO
NOT HAVE THIS EXPERTISE, AND
THAT'S WHERE WITH THIS B èC P,
WE FEEL THAT WE CAN STEP IN AND
REALLY ASSIST IN THIS EFFORT. UM
WELL, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE
THAT. WE WILL THAT OPENING
AGAIN. I KNOW MIKE. MY
COLLEAGUES PARTICULARLY HAVE
COMMENTED ON THIS IN THE FUTURE,
BUT THANK YOU. UM WE'RE GOING TO
MOVE ON TO ISSUE FIVE. THAT IS
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
HEADQUARTERS, BUILDING
OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE
CONTRACTS. UM AND I BELIEVE WE
HAVE. YES, UM DIFFERENT
PRESENTER FROM CARB ON THIS
ISSUE. THIS IS I BELIEVE OUR
FINAL ISSUE. UM AND GO AHEAD
WHEN ONE. RIGHT? SO THANK YOU.
CHAIR BECKER AND MEMBERS. I'M
GRANT HARRIS I'M THE ACTING
DIVISION CHIEF OVER THE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DIVISION. I'M GOING TO DISCUSS
OUR PROPOSAL FOR CALIFORNIA AIR
RESOURCES BOARD, SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA HEADQUARTERS,
BUILDING OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE CONTRACT. CAR
REQUEST $149,000 FOR ONE
PERMANENT POSITION AND CONTRACT
FUNDING TO RENEW CARBS CURRENT
SOUTHERN HEADQUARTERS BUILDING
MAINTENANCE CONTRACT. CARQUEST
6.1 MILLION FOR 24, 25 9 MILLION
AND 2526 AND NINE POINT
4,000,026 27 AND ONGOING THE ONE
FULL TIME POSITION WILL
PRIMARILY FOCUS ON THE BUILDING
MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE
CONTRACT OVERSIGHT. CURRENTLY
SEVERAL ANALYSTS IN THE SOUTHERN
FACILITIES UNIT MANAGE VARIOUS
ASPECTS OF THE CONTRACT.
CENTRALIZING THE DUTIES WILL
ALLEVIATE THE ADDITIONAL
WORKLOAD PLACED ON THESE
ANALYSTS AND ALLOW THEM TO FOCUS
ON THEIR PRIMARY DUTIES AND
ENSURE COMPLETED STAFF WORK
WHILE COMPLETING THOSE CARB IS
CHARGED WITH PROTECTING
CALIFORNIANS FROM HARMFUL
HARMFUL EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION
AND DEVELOPING PROGRAMS AND
ACTIONS TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE
BY PROVIDING A STATE OF THE ART
MODERN LABORATORY THAT
INTEGRATES THE LATEST EMISSION,
TESTING TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT
AND PLACING EMPLOYEES IN A
FUNCTIONALLY EFFICIENT,
ACCESSIBLE AND CODE COMPLIANT
BUILDING. EMPLOYEES ARE ARE MORE
PRODUCTIVE CARBS. NEW SOUTHERN
HEADQUARTERS BUILDING PROVIDES A
SINGULAR, RELIABLE BASE OF
OPERATION FOR CARBS ACTIVITIES
IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. THE
FACILITY COMPLIES WITH EXECUTIVE
ORDER B 1812, ENSURING THAT THE
PROJECT WILL MEET OR EXCEED
STANDARDS FOR GREEN BUILDING
PRACTICES. THE BUILDING
MANAGEMENT CONTRACT WILL MANAGE
CRITICAL FACILITY SYSTEMS AND
ENSURE EQUIPMENT. WARRANTIES
REMAIN IN EFFECT TO ENSURE THE
FACILITY ACHIEVES ZERO NET
ENERGY RATING AS EXPECTED. THIS
ROLE IS CENTRAL TO THE SUCCESS
OF CARBS NEW SOUTHERN
HEADQUARTERS BUILDING, PROVIDING
A SAFE, EFFICIENT ENVIRONMENT
FOR CARB STAFF TO CONTINUE TO
BUILD ON THE IMPORTANT WORK THAT
THEY DO. THANK YOU AND I'LL BE
HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU
MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME. I THINK
YOU ARE FINANCE. UM NÓ FURTHER
COMMENT. THANK YOU. UM WE DID
REVIEW THIS PROPOSAL AND, UM,
POSE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS TO
THE ADMINISTRATION. AND
ULTIMATELY, WE, WE FIND THE
PROPOSAL TO BE JUSTIFIED AND WE
DON'T HAVE, UH, COMMENTS OR OR
CONCERNS FOR YOU TODAY. OK,
THANK YOU, UM I DID HAVE A FEW
QUESTIONS. TELL US AGAIN WHY
THIS IS NECESSARY AS AN OUTSIDE
CONTRACT. YES UM, WHEN WE
STARTED TO BRING THE FACILITY
ONLINE BACK IN 2019, WE WENT
THROUGH AN EXERCISE WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES.
AND ASSESS THE BUILDING. AND AT
THAT TIME THEY LET US KNOW THEY
DID NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY
RESOURCES OR EXPERTISE TO
MANAGE. UM, A FACILITY OF THIS
NATURE. WE ADDITIONALLY WENT
THROUGH THAT EXERCISE AGAIN? UH,
FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, I WALKED
THE FACILITY WITH Dð, G, S¼ AND
AGAIN, THEY CONFIRMED THEY STILL
DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES OR
NECESSARY EXPERTISE TO SUPPORT
SUCH A SUCH A SOPHISTICATED
FACILITY. HOW DID THE COST FOR
OUTSIDE CONTRACT WOULD COMPARE
TO IF Dð G S¼ WAS DOING IT, TOO?
UM YEAH, WE WENT THROUGH AND WE
PULLED A COUPLE, UM,
CLASSIFICATIONS AND COMPARED OUR
CURRENT CONTRACTING RATES TO
WHAT FM Dð WOULD CHARGE AND IT
IS ON PAR. SOME OF THE POSITIONS
WE PULLED WERE CUSTODIAL FM Dð
CHARGES FOR A CUSTODIAN ABOUT
$62 AN HOUR AND UP TO 86 FOR A
SUPERVISOR OR CONTRACTING RATE
CURRENTLY IS 40 TO $60 AN HOUR
FOR THOSE TWO CLASSIFICATIONS.
UH, FOR ELECTRICIANS. WE HAVE
ELECTRICIAN ONE AND TWO THROUGH
FM Dð, APPROXIMATELY 100 AND 25
AN HOUR TO 100 AND 30. WE
CURRENTLY PAY 90 THROUGH OUR
CONTRACT. UH, GROUNDSKEEPER.
SAME 84 FOR A GROUNDSKEEPER 95
FOR A LEAD THROUGH FM Dð. WE'RE
CURRENTLY PAYING 90. AND SAME
FOR ENGINEERING. UH AN
APPRENTICE ENGINEER IS 100 AND
THREE STATIONARY ENGINEER IS 100
AND 31 THROUGH FM Dð, AND WE
CURRENTLY PAY A FLAT RATE OF 145
SO ACROSS THOSE THAT WE LOOKED
AT WERE COMPARABLE, AND SOME OF
THOSE RATES ARE ALSO INCLUSIVE.
LIKE THE JANITORIAL. A LOT OF
THE EXPENDABLE SUPPLIES ARE
INCLUSIVE IN OUR CONTRACT RATES,
SO THERE ARE ADDITIONAL
BENEFITS. I MEAN, JUST FEELS
LIKE A LOT, YOU KNOW, SAY $6
MILLION OR $9 MILLION FOR REALLY
MAINTAINING THE BUILDING. RIGHT
IT'S YES, IT IS. IT'S FOR
MAINTAINING THE F-14 PLUS ACRE
SITE. THE BUILDING ITSELF IS
OVER 400,000 SQUARE FEET. IT
ENCOMPASSES ALL THIS OFFICE
SPACE, UM, VEHICLE TESTING
FACILITY AS WELL AS CHEMICAL
LABORATORIES. SO IT'S A VERY
ADVANCED FACILITY. UNLIKE
ANYTHING MOST PEOPLE HAVE SEEN
SO IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT WE KEEP
ALL THE EQUIPMENT AND OPERATING
WITHIN THE FACILITY. PERFORMING
AT THE RIGHT LEVEL IN ORDER TO
MEET OUR Z AND E RATINGS AND
SUPPORT THE MISSION OF CAR.
YEAH. I MEAN, I MEAN, WHEN YOU
MENTION THE VEHICLE TESTING OR
THE CHEMICAL SO I HAVEN'T SEEN
THAT. MAYBE I WILL. AT SOME
POINT, BUT UM AND I CAN SEE HOW
THAT COULD LEAD TO SOME
ADDITIONAL COSTS. BUT JUST YOU
KNOW, FIRST BLAH JUST SEEMED
LIKE A LOT OF MONEY FOR, UM $9
MILLION TO MAINTAIN EVEN THAT
SIZE OF A OF A BUILDING, BUT, UM
MAYBE WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO
DIVE MORE INTO THAT. UM UH,
LATER. I APPRECIATE OUR
RECOMMENDATION IS TO HOLD OPEN
ON THIS ITEM. UH, I APPRECIATE
YOUR, UM YOU'RE COMING FORWARD
TO TESTIFY BEFORE US ON ON
THESE. ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. SO
THANK YOU. ALL, UM WE WERE NOW
GOING TO MOVE TO PUBLIC. THANK
YOU. UH, EVERYONE, ARE WE GONNA
MOVE TO A PUBLIC COMMENT? ON ANY
ISSUES THAT WE DISCUSSED TODAY.
YES IT IS TWO THROUGH FIVE. WE
ALREADY TO PUBLIC COMMENT AS SHE
WON. UM AND, UH, GO AHEAD. RIGHT
MR. CHAIR THANK YOU. ALCHEMY
GRAM ON BEHALF OF CALTRAIN, THE
SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT
DISTRICT, SAN FRANCISCO
MUNICIPAL TRANSIT TRANSPORTATION
AGENCY IN SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL
TRANSIT DISTRICT ON ISSUE NUMBER
TWO. WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS
OUR SINCERE THANKS TO THE
LEGISLATURE FOR ITS SUPPORT LAST
YEAR IN PROVIDING $5.1 BILLION
IN FLEXIBLE FUNDS TO TRANSIT
AGENCIES FOR OPERATIONS AND
CAPITAL PROJECTS STATEWIDE. WE
WOULD ALSO LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR
THANKS TO SENATE LEADERSHIP FOR
SUPPORTING THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL TO MAINTAIN FUNDING FOR
Tð A R èC P IN THIS YEAR'S
BUDGET AND SUSTAINABLY SHIFT THE
EXPENDITURES FROM THE GENERAL
FUND TO THE GGRF AS OUTLINED IN
THE EARLY ACTION BUDGET PLAN. WE
UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULT REALITY
OF THE BUDGET SITUATION AND
APPRECIATE ALL OF THE TOUGH
CHOICES OF THE LEGISLATURE IS
POISED TO MAKE THIS YEAR,
HOWEVER, BECAUSE THESE FUNDS ARE
NECESSARY FOR TRANSIT AGENCIES
TO SWIFTLY DELIVER ELECTRIFIED
SERVICE AND SUPPORT STATE
CLIMATE GOALS. WE URGE YOU TO
PRESERVE THE CRITICAL $5.1
BILLION IN PUBLIC TRANSIT
FUNDING AND THE SHIFT TO THE
GGRF. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. CHAIR BACKER BILL MCGAVIN
WITH THE COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR
ON THE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION
FUND. WE KNOW THAT
TRANSPORTATION IS BY FAR THE
BIGGEST SOURCE OF GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS, SO WE NEED TO
PRIORITIZE. IN OUR OPINION, WE
SHOULD PRIORITIZE CLEANING UP
OUR HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES, THE
TRUCKS AND BUSES THAT ARE
SPEWING TOXIC DIESEL EXHAUST
INTO OUR COMMUNITIES AND ALSO
PROVIDING ACCESS TO CLEAN
MOBILITY TO OUR RESIDENTS OF
DISADVANTAGED AND LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES, AND BY FUNDING
THOSE PROGRAMS WE REDUCE BOTH
GREENHOUSE GASSES AND ALSO LOCAL
AIR POLLUTION. SO WE'RE VERY
CONCERNED THAT THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL WOULD ZERO OUT THOSE
PROGRAMS. THOSE ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLE PROGRAMS, A THREE YEAR
DELAY REALLY IS TANTAMOUNT TO A
CUT. WE HAVE NÓ REASON TO THINK
THAT MONEY WILL BE THERE IN
THREE YEARS TO FUND THESE
PROGRAMS. AND OF COURSE, AS YOU
KNOW, THERE'S AN URGENCY TO
SOLVING OUR AIR POLLUTION AND
CLIMATE CRISIS, SO WE NEED TO
SPEND OUR TRANSPORTATION DOLLARS
SMARTER. SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE
$365 MILLION IN TRANSIENT
INTERCITY RAIL A PROGRAM THAT WE
SUPPORT. THE PROPOSAL IS TO
BACKFILL IT WITH GGRF. WE ARE
PROPOSED INSTEAD, THAT SHOULD BE
BACKFILLED FROM THE STATE
HIGHWAY ACCOUNT GAS TAX FUNDING,
WHICH WOULD THEN FREE UP THE GR
F TO RESTORE THAT WOULD BE
RESTORING COULD RESTORE MORE
THAN HALF THE CUTS IN ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLES, MEDIUM HEAVY
AND LIGHT DUTY FOR TRUCKS AND
BUSES AND GREEN CARS FOR ALL AND
OTHER EQUITY PROJECTS THAT
PROVIDE CLEAN MOBILITY AND CLEAN
AIR TO DISADVANTAGE. COMMUNITIES
SO I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT,
UM, WE SUPPORT THE FUNDING FOR
COMMUNITY AIR PROTECTION, OR
8617, AND THEN ALSO ON ISSUE
FOUR. WE SUPPORT THE FUNDING FOR
CARB TO IMPLEMENT THOSE, UH,
LIFE SAVING PARTICULATE MATTER
STANDARDS. UH, THOSE STANDARDS
ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. THEY'LL
ALSO BE DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT.
SO WE NEED TO GET GOING ON THAT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CHAIR AND STAFF. GOOD TO SEE
YOU, NATE, SO OF ON BEHALF OF
THE PORT OF L A WANTED TO TALK
ABOUT GGRF FUNDING. UH, THE ZERO
EMISSION PORT FUNDING IS A
CRITICAL PIECE OF THE SUPPLY
CHAIN INVESTMENT THAT YOU ALL
MADE SEVERAL YEARS AGO. UH THE
ZERO EMISSION PORT PROGRAM WAS
DELAYED IN THE GGRF PLAN,
ORIGINALLY WAS IN THE GENERAL
FUND MOVED TO GGRF AND DELAYED
TO 2627. WHY THAT'S PROBLEMATIC
IS THAT ALL THE PORTS ARE
TRANSITIONING TO ZERO EMISSION
BY 2030. WE'RE ALSO APPLYING
THIS YEAR TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND SO IN ORDER TO
WRITE DOWN AS MUCH FEDERAL
FUNDING AS POSSIBLE. WE'RE
ASKING THAT A PORTION OF THAT
INITIAL 400 MILLION BE PUT IN
THIS YEAR'S GGRF SPENDING PLAN
SO THAT WE CAN GET THOSE STATE
DOLLARS AND HELP US TO DRAW DOWN
ADDITIONAL FEDERAL DOLLARS AS WE
TRY TO MEET OUR GOAL OF ZERO
EMISSION PORTS BY 2030. THAT'S
CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT, AND,
UH IN IN INFRASTRUCTURE. IT'S A
HUGE EXPENSE. AND WE WE'RE ALL
WORKING HARD TO GET THERE. SO I
APPRECIATE YOUR COLLABORATION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MICHAEL
PYTEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSOCIATION,
JOINING YOU TODAY ON BEHALF OF
MY MORE THAN 230 MEMBER
ORGANIZATIONS TO ADDRESS ISSUE
TWO IN TODAY'S AGENDA. LAST YEAR
, THE LEGISLATURE STEPPED UP AND
MET OUR CALL TO SAVE PUBLIC
TRANSIT FROM THE FISCAL CLIFF BY
PROVIDING $5.1 BILLION OF
TRANSIT AGENCY STATEWIDE. YOU'RE
ONE OF THIS FUNDING WILL SOON
BEGIN TO MOVE OUT THE DOOR
FOLLOWING REVIEW BY, UH Kò S¼
Tð, A WE KNOW THAT THE BUDGET
OUTLOOK IS DIRE, BUT WE URGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO MAINTAIN THIS
CRITICAL FUNDING AND TO KEEP
SERVICES RUNNING TO CONTINUE TO
ALSO BUILD OUT MAJOR CAPITAL
PROJECTS AND DRAW DOWN A
SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL
OPPORTUNITIES. UH, BROUGHT
ONLINE BY THE IIJ A. WE BELIEVE
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL,
INCLUDING THE BACKFILL OF
GENERAL FUND WITH GGRF IS
SENSIBLE AND WOULD HELP
ACCOMPLISH THESE GOALS. WE WOULD
URGE YOU TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL AS
OUTLINED WITHIN THE SENATE EARLY
ACTION PLAN, AND WE LOOK FORWARD
TO OUR ENGAGEMENT WITH YOU. IN
THE WEEKS AHEAD. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR KENDRA HARRIS OF THE
CLIMATE CENTER LIKE TO ECHO THE
COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUE FROM
THE COALITION FROM CLEAN AIR. UM
BEACON ECONOMICS. THE NEXT 10
JUST RELEASED A PERSUASIVE
REPORT THAT THE STATE IS NOT ON
TRACK TO MEET OUR 2030 REDUCTION
TARGET, THE REPORT SAYS. WE NEED
REDUCTIONS OF 4.4% WHEN OUR
ANNUAL AVERAGE IS 1.6% CURRENTLY
, THESE CUTS AND DELAYS WILL
HAMSTRING THE STATE'S ABILITY TO
MEET ITS CLIMATE GOALS AS
OUTLINED BY CARB SCOPING PLAN
INSTEAD OF CUTTING CRITICAL
CLIMATE ZERO TRANSPORTATION AND
CLEAN AIR PROGRAMS IN THE STATE
BUDGET. WE MUST ELIMINATE ALL
SUBSIDIES FOR POLLUTING
INDUSTRIES THAT ARE WORSENING
AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE.
LET'S BUILD ON THE GOVERNMENT'S
PROPOSAL TO LIMIT SUBSIDIES FOR
OIL AND GAS AND ELIMINATE ALL
SUBSIDIES AVAILABLE TO OIL AND
GAS COMPANIES IN THE BUDGET.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HØI CHAIR MARIE LÀ ROO FROM THE
AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION AND
ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT UM
THE COMMENTS MADE BY COALITION
FOR CLEAN AIR AND ALSO SAY
CALIFORNIA HAS THE MOST POLLUTED
AIR IN THE NATION. WE CAN'T
AFFORD CUTS TO, UM CLEAN AIR
PROGRAMS. WE OPPOSE THE, UH, A
PROPOSAL THAT CUTS DIFFERS OR
DELAYS, CRITICAL CLIMATE, AIR,
CLEAN AIR AND THE EMISSION
PROGRAMS THAT CALIFORNIANS
DEPEND ON TO IMPROVE LOCAL AIR
QUALITY AND CONCERNED BY THE
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGREEMENTS
RELATED TO THE ZE AND GGRF
PACKAGE. UM ALL CALIFORNIANS
DESERVE TO BREATHE CLEANER AIR,
ESPECIALLY THOSE LIVING NEAR
PORT, WHERE IT HOUSES AND OTHER
MAJOR TRAFFIC. UM AREAS WHO
WOULD, UH, BENEFIT THE MOST FROM
EQUITABLE. UM, CLEAN AIR AND
CLIMATE. UM, PROGRAMS PROGRAMS
AT THE HEART OF CLEANING
CLEANING UP POLLUTION ARE UM,
THE CLEAN, UH, CLEAN CARS FOR
ALL COMMERCIAL HARBOR CRAFT,
ZERO EMISSION PORT TRUCKS AND
EQUITABLE BUILDING
DECARBONISATION PROGRAMS, UH,
WHICH ARE FACING SERIOUS CUTS.
UM THE STATE BUDGET, UM, SHOULD
NOT BE BALANCED BY DELAYING
CLEANER INVESTMENTS, WHILE UH
POLLUTING, CAUSING INVESTMENTS
IN FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES AND
HIGHWAY. UH EXPANSION CONTINUES.
WE CANNOT CUT FUNDING. THAT
FUNDING THE PROTECTS, UM,
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES. UM IN
AIR AND, UM, PUBLIC HEALTH. UH,
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MIKE NEEDS
HERE. UM GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR
AND STAFF. UH, JEANNIE WARD
WALLER ON BEHALF OF LEADERSHIP
COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. I WANT TO URGE
THE LEGISLATURE TO RESTORE FULL
FUNDING TO CRITICAL CLIMATE,
RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE PROGRAMS SPECIFICALLY,
THE COMMUNITY RESILIENCE CENTER,
TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE
COMMUNITIES, REGIONAL CLIMATE
COLLABORATIVES AND THE EQUITABLE
, EQUITABLE BUILDING. DEAR
PROGRAM. THESE PROGRAMS ALONG
WITH INVESTMENTS IN BASIC
INFRASTRUCTURE, LIKE DRINKING
WATER, WASTE WATER. AN ACT OF
TRANSPORTATION ADDRESS. URGENT
HOUSEHOLD AND COMMUNITY NEEDS TO
CONFRONT CLIMATE CHANGE AND
DEEPENING INEQUALITY AND
SIMULTANEOUSLY BUILD THE FABRIC
FOR LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY. WE
URGE THE SENATE TO CONSIDER
FUNDING THESE PROGRAMS IN IN
WHOLE AND IN PART, ALONG WITH
CONTINUED FUNDING FOR SAFE
DRINKING WATER THROUGH THE G GR
F. THESE PROGRAMS WILL HAVE
IMMEDIATE AND LASTING BENEFITS
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IN
STARK CONTRAST, WE OPPOSE
ALLOCATION OF FUNDING FOR
LIVESTOCK METHANE, THE VAST
MAJORITY OF WHICH GOES TO DAIRY.
DIGESTERS WOULD BENEFIT A VERY
FEW WHILE EXACERBATING AIR
POLLUTION. UM, FOR RESIDENTS IN
THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION TO INFORM A
STRONG AND EQUITABLE CLIMATE
BUDGET, ALONG WITH A
COMPLIMENTARY CLIMATE BOND THAT
SAFEGUARDS THE FUTURE FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR CHAIR ROSS BUCKLEY ON BEHALF
OF SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. WE VERY
MUCH APPRECIATE THE A B 617
FUNDING BEING PROVIDED TO THE
GOVERNOR'S CAP AND TRADE
SPENDING PLAN. FOR AIR DISTRICT
IMPLEMENTATION AND INCENTIVES,
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE BUDGET
SHORTFALL. HOWEVER WE REQUEST
CONTINUED PRIORITIZATION OF THE
A B 617 FUNDING, WHICH LED
TARGET SUPPORT FOR DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES IN TERMS OF
IMPROVING AIR QUALITY AND
PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH.
CURRENTLY 8617 IS SEVERELY
UNDERFUNDED. THERE ARE NOT
ENOUGH RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THE
EXISTING COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT
THE STATE. IN PARTICULAR, THE
SOUTH COAST REGION INCLUDES
ALMOST TWO THIRDS OF THE EJ
COMMUNITIES. THESE COMMUNITIES
ARE TO HARM THE MOST BY THE
REDUCTION IN RESOURCES TO HELP
ADDRESS THIS REQUEST TO THE A B
617 FUNDING BE RESTORED TO LAST
YEAR'S LEVELS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. MISTER CHAIR, UH, BRENDAN
TU ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING THE
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS
FROM ALL 35 LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATE, UH, MIKE, UH,
COMMENTS OR, UH, WITH, UH, WITH
MY COLLEAGUE, MR BUCKLEY RELATED
TO THE A B 617 PROGRAM. UM THEN
ALSO FOR THE FARMER PROGRAM,
WHICH, AS YOU KNOW, CLEANS UP.
UH UH, DIRTY DIESEL ENGINES IN
THE AGRI WITH AGRICULTURAL
EQUIPMENT COST EFFECTIVELY DOES
THAT, UM, TO GET BOTH
SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY, UM,
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AS WELL AS
CLIMATE GHG REDUCTIONS. UM AND
WE ARE ASKING THAT THAT FUNDING
UM BE RESTORED TO THE 2022 20
THREE LEVEL BECAUSE IT ALREADY
EXPERIENCED A 15 50% CUT AND
IT'S VERY COST EFFECTIVE. SO
THAT WOULD BE 100 AND 50
MILLION. AND THEN UM, WE ALSO
BELIEVE THAT THE GGRF SHOULD BE
RESERVED FOR PROGRAMS THAT, UM
PROVIDE COST EFFECTIVELY PROVIDE
SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY AND
CLIMATE BENEFITS. LIKE THE TWO
PROGRAMS I JUST DISCUSSED. UM
ADDITIONALLY, UM, WE SUPPORT THE
, UM CARB PRESCRIBED BURNING AND
EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS PROPOSAL
OUTLINED IN ISSUE THREE, AS WELL
AS THE PROPOSAL FOR IMPLEMENTING
THE NEW PM 2.5 NATIONAL AMBIENT
AIR QUALITY STANDARD. OUTLINED
IN ISSUE FOUR AND THANK YOU. I
HOPE YOU HAVE A RESTFUL BREAK
AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO HEAR FROM
ME ON ON THESE PROGRAMS. I KNOW
I'M HERE QUITE A BIT. SO THANKS
FOR YOUR WE'RE BACK. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, ELISE
VON RICK FROM TRENTON PRICE
CONSULTING ON BEHALF OF THE
ASIAN PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL
NETWORK, WHO IS URGING THE
LEGISLATURE TO RESTORE 160
MILLION FOR THE S¼ G èC
COMMUNITY RESILIENCE CENTER
PROGRAM. THIS IS THE AMOUNT THAT
WAS PREVIOUSLY EARMARKED FOR
THIS FISCAL YEAR. UM, BUT HAS
BEEN ZEROED OUT. èC R èC S¼
ARE TRUSTED NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL
FACILITIES THAT PROVIDE YEAR
ROUND SHELTER AND RESOURCES
DURING CLIMATE AND OTHER
EMERGENCIES. AND THERE IS AN
ASTRONOMICAL DEMONSTRATED DEMAND
FOR THESE FUNDS. ROUND ONE WAS
SUBSCRIBED BY ABOUT 700% BEYOND
THEIR EXISTING FUNDING CAPACITY.
THIS BUDGET REQUEST IS AN
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PRIORITY,
AND THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT THE
PROGRAM BE FUNDED VIA GGRF
ALONGSIDE OTHER PRIORITY
PROGRAMS, INCLUDING THE
TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE
COMMUNITIES. PROGRAM AND
EQUITABLE BUILDING
DECARBONIZATION. A ADDITIONALLY
WANTS TO URGE THE LEGISLATURE TO
MOVE TO SUPPORT AN EQUITABLE AND
ROBUST CLIMATE BOND. THAT
SUPPORTS EJ PRIORITIES,
INCLUDING 420 MILLION FOR èC R
èC S¼ 420 MILLION FOR
TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE
COMMUNITIES, 400 MILLION FOR
EQUITABLE BUILDING, DEC CARB AND
80 MILLION FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR
AND STORAGE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU CERTAINLY. PUSHING FORWARD
ON A BUTTON. THANK YOU. THANKS.
YEAH WE NEED A BOND. UH, GOOD
AFTERNOON. ISABELLA GONZALEZ
POTTER WITH THE NATURE
CONSERVANCY FIRST WANT TO START
OFF BY THANKING THE CHAIR FOR
HIS COMMENTS RELATED TO THE GGF
EXPENDITURE PLAN, PARTICULARLY
REMINDING FOLKS THAT GJF DOES
STAND FOR GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTION FUND AND THAT FUND
SHOULD BE USED TO REDUCE
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. SO WE
APPRECIATE THAT. UM AS THE LE Ó
HIGHLIGHTS THE LEGISLATURE COULD
RE EVALUATE AND POTENTIALLY
MODIFY BOTH CURRENT CONTINUOUS
APPROPRIATIONS AND ONGOING
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
COMMITMENTS. BUT THIS WOULD BE
DIFFICULT IF THIS YEAR IS
PROPOSED BUDGET. RELY ON
EXTENSIVELY OUT EGGRF REVENUE.
WE URGE THE LEGISLATURE TO
EVALUATE THE SPENDING
COMMITMENTS MADE THIS YEAR AND
TO BEGIN TO CONSIDER ALLOCATING
A GREATER PORTION OF GGF FUNDS
TO PROGRAMS THAT DEMONSTRATE THE
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS. WE NEED TO
AVOID THE WORST IMPACTS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE, INCLUDING NATURE
BASED SOLUTIONS, AND THEN ON
ISSUE THREE. WE SUPPORT THE
FUNDING HIGHLIGHTED FOR
PRESCRIBED FIRE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. MR CHAIR MEMBERS
ANDREW AN HERE TODAY ON BEHALF
OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS METROLINK,
THE LARGEST COMMUTER RAIL
OPERATOR IN THE STATE, UM AND
ALSO FOR THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY, LARGEST TRANSIT
AGENCY AND BUS OPERATOR IN THE
STATE AND OPERATOR OF A
INCREASINGLY GROWING RAIL
NETWORK. INCLUDING UM, RECIPIENT
OF A FEDERAL GRANT RECENTLY. UH,
THAT'S WHY WE'RE VERY HAPPY WITH
A PACKAGE THAT THE GOVERNOR HAS
PROPOSED. AND THROUGH THE EARLY,
UH, BUDGET ACTION OF THE SENATE
SEEMS TO BE LEANING TOWARDS
SUSTAINING, WHICH IS TO TAKE THE
PRUDENT ACTION OF SHIFTING, UH,
GENERAL FUND DOLLARS TO GGRF TO
SUSTAIN THE COMMITMENT FOR THE
ZERO EMISSION TRANSIT PACKAGE
THAT WAS APPROVED AND THE Tð IR
èC P PACKAGE THAT WAS APPROVED.
UH, WE WORKED IN COALITION WITH
THE CALIFORNIA TRANSIT
ASSOCIATION, UH, TO GET THAT
PACKAGE APPROVED BY YOUR
COLLEAGUES, UH, IN BOTH HOUSES.
SUSTAINED BY THE GOVERNOR. AND
SO WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THAT. WE
UNDERSTAND. UH, A LOT RIDES ON
THE MAY REVISE, BUT WE'RE
HOPEFUL THAT, UH, THESE BUDGET
ACTIONS ARE SUSTAINED. AND WE
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR BECKER,
ALAN ABS WITH THE BAY AREA AIR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
ASSOCIATING MY COMMENTS WITH MY
COUNTERPARTS FROM CAP COA AND
SOUTH COAST BUT ALSO JUST TO
UNDERSCORE BRIEFLY, OUR OUR
SUPPORT AND, UH, HOPEFUL
AUGMENTATION OF THE A B 617
PORTION OF THE BUDGET, WHICH
SUPPORTS UH G, HÌ, G AND
CRITERIA, POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS
AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES,
INCLUDING FOUR IN THE BAY AREA.
EAST, OAKLAND, WEST OAKLAND,
RICHMOND, SAN PABLO AND BAYVIEW
HUNTERS POINT AND ALSO SUPPORT
FOR ISSUE NUMBER THREE. THE CARB
PRESCRIBED BURNING IN
EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS. UH, BUDGET
ITEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
STAFF. BETH OSO ON BE, UH, FROM
WEST COAST ADVISORS WITH A FEW
COMMENTS ON DAIRY METHANE
REDUCTION AND GGRF FUNDING. AS
YOU KNOW, CLIMATE, SCIENTISTS
AGREE ON THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE
OF METHANE REDUCTION AS A KEY
SHORT TERM STRATEGY TO
ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE AS A
RESULT, MAINTAINING GGRF SUPPORT
FOR èC Dð FA IS HIGHLY
SUCCESSFUL AND HIGHLY COST
EFFECTIVE DAIRY METHANE
REDUCTION PROGRAM SHOULD BE A
TOP PRIORITY FOR THIS YEAR'S
EXPENDITURES. MOREOVER STATE
FUNDING IS NECESSARY TO MATCH
AND LEVERAGE $85 MILLION IN
FEDERAL U S¼ Dð A CLIMATE SMART
DAIRY FUNDS BEING IMPLEMENTED AT
èC Dð FA. THESE FUNDS ARE
IMPORTANT AS WE ARE RAPIDLY
APPROACHING THE STATE'S GOALS OF
A 40% REDUCTION IN MANURE
METHANE BY 2030. AS IT STANDS
TODAY, THE DAIRY SECTOR HAS
ALREADY ACHIEVED APPROXIMATELY A
35% REDUCTION IN MANURE METHANE.
AND WITH THIS JUJU FUNDING AT
èC Dð FA WITH THE FEDERAL
DOLLARS WE WILL EXCEED THE FULL
40% REDUCTION IN THE NEXT FEW
YEARS. THIS WILL BE 3 TO 4 YEARS
AHEAD OF THE GOAL AND AS A MAJOR
MILESTONE, ESPECIALLY AS OTHER
PROGRAMS APPEAR TO BE FALLING
SHORT ON ACTUAL G HÌ G
REDUCTIONS. SECONDLY RESTORING
THE 4 $25,000,025 MILLION IN
FUNDING UNDER GJF FOR AN EARLY
ADOPTER INCENTIVE PROGRAM IS
CRITICAL. AND WE KNOW IS ON YOUR
RADAR. UM WE APPRECIATE THAT,
UH, MORE PROGRESS ON TARIC IS
ALSO VERY IMPORTANT. AND WE
EXPECT TO FINALLY HAVE F Dð A
APPROVAL ON THE FEED ADDITIVE IN
THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, AND SO
RESTORING THIS FUNDING SHOULD BE
A TOP PRIORITY. APPRECIATE YOUR
TIME TODAY. HAVE A NICE BREAK.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS DÂN.
JACOBSON SENIOR ADVISOR TO
ENVIRONMENT, CALIFORNIA AND
STAFF. ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU.
UM I WASN'T PLANNING TO TALK
ABOUT BONDS. BUT SINCE OTHER
SOME OF MY OTHER COLLEAGUES DID,
I WOULD SAY CLIMATE BOND IS
CRITICAL, BUT ALSO ADDING IN A
BILLION DOLLARS TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE PORTS CAN BE UPGRADED
FOR OFFSHORE WIND. WE CAN'T GET
TO THE 100% AND A LOT OF THE
CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTS THAT WE
HAVE. UNLESS WE'RE USING
OFFSHORE WIND. WE CAN'T DO
OFFSHORE WIND UNLESS WE HAVE THE
PORTS TO BE UPGRADED TO BE ABLE
TO DO IT. IN TERMS OF SECTION
TWO THAT YOU WERE DISCUSSING. UM
I WAS REALLY HAPPY TO HEAR YOU
TALKING ABOUT, UM AND FOCUSING
ON THE EFFICIENCY OF THE
PROJECTS. AND HOW DO WE MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE USING THEM AS
EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE. AND AS
A GENERAL POINT OF VIEW, I'D SAY
IT'S VERY INEFFICIENT TO
CONTINUE TO FUND PROGRAMS THAT
CAUSE THE CLIMATE CRISIS AT THE
SAME TIME THAT WE'RE THEN GIVING
SMALLER AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO TRY
TO SOLVE IT. SO WE SHOULD BE
LOOKING AT SOME OF THE, UM,
INCENTIVES THAT WE'RE GIVING TO
THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY OR SOME
OF THE HIGHWAY. EXPANSION
PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE THAT ARE
COSTING US NOT ONLY MONEY FROM
THE BUDGET, BUT ALSO HAVING A
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR CLIMATE
AND MOVING US BACKWARDS IN THOSE
PROJECTS. WE SHOULD CUT THOSE
PROGRAMS FIRST, BEFORE WE LOOK
AT SOME OF THE CLEAN AIR
PROJECTS THAT WE WANT TO BE
CUTTING AND THAT MY COLLEAGUE MR
MCGOVERN HAS ALREADY REFERRED
TO, BUT THERE'S CLEARLY THERE'S
THE $45 MILLION FOR THE CLEAN
CARS FOR ALL PROGRAM. THERE'S
THE $100 MILLION CUTS FOR, UM,
THE DRAINAGE PROGRAM. THAT
PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT AT THE
PORCH AND THERE'S THE $200
MILLION ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAMS. THESE ARE CRITICAL
PIECES THAT MOVE US FORWARD. AND
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EFFICIENCY,
WE CAN'T BE DELAYING THESE
PROJECTS NOW BECAUSE THEY'RE
GOING TO COST MORE AND MORE IN
THE FUTURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HAVE A GREAT BREAK. THANK YOU.
UH, MR CHAIRMAN REBECCA, MY NAME
IS MARCO LIZARRAGA, AND I'M THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF LÀ.
COPERATIVE CAMPESINA. WE'RE AN
ASSOCIATION OF FARM WORKER
PROGRAMS SERVING OVER 154,000
FARM WORKERS A YEAR. NOW, FOR
THE LAST SIX YEARS, I'VE BEEN
COMING TO ARGUE THAT WE HAVE A
BAR 800,000 FARM WORKERS AND
ABOUT 18% OF THEM OWN HOMES AND
THAT WE NEED THEM TO BE SERVED.
LOWER THEIR CARBON FOOTPRINT AT
THE SAME TIME THAT WE RAISE
THEIR DISPOSABLE INCOME BY
PROVIDING WEATHERIZATION EXCUSE
ME AND SOLAR PANEL INSTALLATIONS
. WE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT FOR
THE LAST SIX YEARS. LAST YEAR WE
DIDN'T GET AN ALLOCATION. SO
WE'RE ASKING YOU PLEASE CONSIDER
ALLOCATING FUNDS TO THE STATE
PROGRAM CALLED LIGHT WEB THAT
CARB HAS CALLED A VERY
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM AND THAT THIS
YEAR ALLOCATION BE DONE TO SERVE
OUR FARM WORKERS. THE CALIFORNIA
ON THE SINGLE FAMILY SITE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR CHAIR MARK FENSTERMAKER, HERE
FOR THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION
OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION
DISTRICTS WOULD ECHO THE COMMENT
MADE EARLIER BY THE NATURE
CONSERVANCY THAT WE NEED TO BE
INVESTING IN NATURE BASED
SOLUTIONS. WE REALLY NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT OUR NATURAL
ENVIRONMENTS ARE ACTING AS
CARBON SINKS AND NOT CARBON
SOURCES. AND SO FOR THAT REASON,
WE SUPPORT THE EARLY ACTION FOR
THE FIRE PREVENTION GRANTS
PROPOSED TODAY. WE ALSO SUPPORT
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL FOR
FUNDING TO THE REGIONAL FOREST
AND FIRE CAPACITY PROGRAM OUT OF
GJRF. WE NEED TO HAVE THE
SOURCES TO PLAN AND PUT IN PLACE
THE PROJECTS. WE NEED TO RESTORE
OUR FOREST HEALTH AND ENSURE
THAT THE FIRE THAT WE SEE ON THE
LANDSCAPE IS GOOD FIRE, NOT
EXTREME WILDFIRE THAT IS WIPING
OUT OUR FORESTS AND THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR FORESTS TO
SEQUESTER CARBON. UH, I WOULD
ALSO LIKE TO SUPPORT THE
INCLUSION OF SWEEP IN CDS BUDGET
. WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT WE
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE OUR
AGRICULTURAL PARTNERS WITH THE
TOOLS SO THAT THEY CAN REDUCE
THEIR WATER CONSUMPTION, WHICH
IN TURN REDUCES GREEN. GAS
EMISSIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OBVIOUSLY YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF
CALLS FOR NEED, WHICH MEANS WE
REALLY DO NEED THAT CLIMATE ON
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR
AMARA GER ON BEHALF OF èC. I'M
REEMPHASIZING THE FULL FUNDING
FOR S¼ B, 253 AND 261. AS YOU
KNOW, OVER 30 MAJOR BUSINESSES
SUPPORTED THESE BILLS. UM AND
THE LAWS HAVE BUILT IN FILING
FEES, MEANING ONLY A SMALL
PORTION OF FUNDING IS NEEDED FOR
THE BEGINNING STAGES OF
IMPLEMENTATION FOR THESE
CRITICAL CLIMATE BILLS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
CHAIR AND STAFF. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME TODAY. MY NAME IS KAI
COOPER ON BEHALF OF CALSTAR, A
GLOBAL NONPROFIT DEDICATED TO
ACCELERATING CLEAN
TRANSPORTATION. WE APPRECIATE
TODAY'S GGRF FUNDING
CONVERSATION AND ARE SUPPORTIVE
OF MAKING THE NECESSARY FUN
SHIFTS TO ADDRESS THIS YEAR'S
BUDGET SHORTFALL. ADDITIONALLY
WE SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL TO USE G GR FUNDING
THIS YEAR FOR ZERO EMISSIONS
SCHOOL BUSES GIVEN THE LARGE
AMOUNT OF G HÌ G S¼ THAT COME
FROM THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR.
WE HIGHLY ENCOURAGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO PRIORITIZE G GR.
FUNDING FOR CLEAN TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAMS TO ENSURE THAT ZEV
ADOPTION, INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES
FOR CLEAN MOBILITY OPTIONS.
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THOSE MOST
IN NEED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. HAVE A GOOD BREAK. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR AND STAFF. UM
NICHOLAS MAZZOTTI ON BEHALF OF
THE BUILDING DECARBONISATION
COALITION. UM, WE WERE QUÊ
REQUEST THAT THE STATE MAINTAIN
AT LEAST THE FUNDS FOR THE èC
C'S EQUITABLE BUILDING
DECARBONIZATION PROGRAM AND
URGED THE LEGISLATURE TO ENSURE
THAT THE 87 MILLION IN PROPOSED
FUND SHIFTS FROM LAST YEAR'S
GENERAL FUND ARE INCLUDED IN
THIS YEAR'S GGRF SPENDING PLAN.
UM THIS PROGRAM IS CRITICAL FOR
LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES, MAKING
THE TRANSITION TO CLEAN ENERGY
AND ALSO JUST GOT TO PLUG THE
CLIMATE BOND. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
UM, CHAIR AND STAFF REBECCA
MARCUS ON BEHALF OF THE UNION OF
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, SPEAKING
ON SEVERAL ISSUES, MUCH OF THE
STATE CONTINUES TO BE OUT OF
ATTAINMENT WITH FEDERAL AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS AND FOSSIL
FUEL USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION
SECTOR IS A HUGE REASON WHY SO
WE URGE THE LEGISLATURE TO AVOID
CUTS AND DELAYS TO VITAL ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLES, INCENTIVES AS
MUCH AS POSSIBLE FURTHER. WE
ENCOURAGE THE LEGISLATURE TO
TARGET THE FUNDING THAT IT DOES
HAVE RESERVES TO REPLACING THE
OLDEST CARS ON THE ROAD, WHERE
THE STATE CAN GET THE LARGEST
EMISSION REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
SPENT. A REPORT WE RELEASED LAST
YEAR SHOWED THAT PRE 2004
VEHICLES MAKE UP 19% OF THE CARS
ON THE ROAD, BUT EMIT 70 3% OF
THE SMOG FORMING NOX EMISSIONS.
THESE CARS ALSO DIS
DISPROPORTIONATELY ARE
CONCENTRATED AND DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES AND SHOULD BE
REPLACED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
WE'RE LATE TO COME ON THE
COMMUNITY SOLAR, BUT WE JUST
LIKE TO, UM, ALIGN OUR COMMENTS
WITH OUR COLLEAGUES AT SE HèA
AND THEN ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CLIMATE AND NETWORK.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO EXPRESS
SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SHIFT
TO CAP AND TRADE DOLLARS TO FUND
THE SWEET PROGRAM AS WELL AS THE
METH METHANE REDUCTION, BUT
SPECIFICALLY THE AMP PROGRAM.
UH, THAT IS VERY HELPFUL FOR
SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED FARMERS.
THANK YOU AND YES TO A CLIMATE
BOND. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHER BECKER, SAMANTHA SAMUELSON
ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE FOOD AND
LAND FOUNDATION, WITH REGARD TO
THE COMMENTS AND THE STAFF
ANALYSIS REGARDING THE GGRF
CONTINUOUS APPROPRIATIONS, WE
AGREE THAT IT IS TIME FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO REOPEN THIS ISSUE
AND EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS
AND MERITS OF THE ACTIVITIES
OVER THE PAST YEARS. THE PEOPLE
FOOD AND LAND FOUNDATION IS
COSPONSORING S¼ B 1135 BY
SENATOR LAMONE, WHICH WE BELIEVE
IS A MUCH BETTER USE OF
CONTINUOUS GGRF FUNDS. S¼ B 1135
PROVIDES A TAX CREDIT USING GRF
FOR COMP. UTILIZATION FOR
RANCHERS, FARMERS AND OTHER
LANDOWNERS ON NATURAL WORKING
LANDS. SPREADING COMPOST IS AN
INEXPENSIVE WAY TO REDUCE GHG
EMISSIONS AND STUDIES SHOW JUST
ONE APPLICATION CONTINUES TO
EMISSIONS FOR UP TO 85 YEARS. WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT WHEN
YOU LOOK AT THE JE JIRA YOU
CONSIDER PROVIDING 1% NOT TO
EXCEED $120 MILLION PER YEAR FOR
10 YEARS TO FUND S¼ B 1135.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
OF THIS REQUEST AND ALSO WOULD
LOVE A CLIMATE BOND. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M BACK ALCHEMY
GRAHAM ON BEHALF OF VIA
TRANSPORTATION. WE OFFER A
SOFTWARE AND PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO MORE
THAN 50 PUBLIC TRANSIT AGENCIES
IN CALIFORNIA. I'M HERE TODAY TO
VOICE OUR CONCERNS ON THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL TO DELAY
FUNDING FOR CARBS EQUITY
PROGRAMS, INCLUDING THE CLEAN
MOBILITY OPTIONS, SUSTAINABLE
TRANSPORTATION, EQUITY PROJECT
AND CLEAN MOBILITY IN SCHOOLS.
THESE FUNDS ARE CRITICAL IN
PROTECTING CLEAN, ACCESSIBLE AND
AFFORDABLE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
OPTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. AND FOR
THAT REASON, WE RESPECTFULLY
THAT THE COMMITTEE REJECT THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL TO DELAY
THIS NECESSARY FUNDING. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR BECKER FOR THIS HEARING.
I'M JANET COX FROM CLIMATE
ACTION IN CALIFORNIA. AND UM WE
SUBMITTED A LETTER FROM ABOUT 60
OTHER GROUPS ON FEBRUARY 29TH.
YES ASKING THAT, UM, THE
LEGISLATURE RESTORE THE FUNDS
THAT THE GOVERNOR LEFT OUT OF
HIS BUDGET TO FUND S¼ B 25 THREE
AND S¼ S¼ B 261. UM, WE ALSO OUR
EXPERTS LOOKED AT ALL OF THE
COST ESTIMATES FOR THOSE BILLS,
AND WE FEEL A REALLY HIGH AND SO
WE'RE HOPING THAT THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE STAFFS WILL CAREFULLY
AT THOSE ASSUMPTIONS AND THOSE
BUDGET NUMBERS BECAUSE EVEN
THOUGH IT'S STILL A TINY PIECE
OF THE BUDGET. IT SEEMS
EXAGGERATED AND UNNECESSARY TO
PUT ON AS MANY STAFF WHEN THIS
IS GONNA BE OUTSOURCED WORK, AND
IT'S GONNA PAY FOR ITSELF ONCE
THE PROGRAMS GET GOING, SO
THAT'S OUR, UM THAT'S WHY I CAME
UP HERE TODAY. BUT THE UM THE
OTHER THING I WANNA SAY IS THAT
I WE'RE UNDERSTANDING THAT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONNOLLY IS
GOING TO BE GIVING THE
COMMITTEES, UH, PROPOSAL TO END
THE WATER'S EDGE SUBSIDIES FOR
OIL AND GAS AND REFINERIES. IF
YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE PROPOSALS
ALREADY. THAT'S SOMETHING WE
THINK WE REALLY AND I MEAN,
IMAGINE HERE'S CALIFORNIA IN A
HORRIBLE BUDGET YEAR, AND WE'RE
CUTTING SUBSIDIES FOR OIL AND
GAS. THAT'S THE BEST HEADLINE WE
COULD EVER HAVE. AND THE MONEY
THAT CUTTING THOSE SUBSIDIES
WILL FREE UP IN THE BUDGET CAN
CERTAINLY FUND S¼ B. 261 AND S¼
B 253 PROGRAMS AND A LOT MORE.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANKS
FOR BEING HERE AND, UM, SHOW ME
VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THOSE BILLS,
MAKING SURE THEY GET FUNDED. SO
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
CHAIR LAST BUT NOT LEAST YOU GOT
TO BRING IT HOME LAST BUT NOT
LEAST. THANK YOU, UH, EDSON FOR
US HERE WITH ADVANCED ENERGY
UNITED. WE'RE A NATIONAL
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTING CLEAN ENERGY. CLEAN
TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES. UH, I
WANNA ECHO SOME OF THE COMMENTS
MADE BY OTHER TRADES REGARDING
THE NEED FOR SUPPORTING MEDIUM
AND HEAVY DUTY ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLES. AS I'M SURE YOU KNOW,
WE'RE WE'RE AT A PIVOTAL MOMENT
IN DETERMINING WHETHER
CALIFORNIA WILL MEET ITS
TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION
GOALS. AND WE'RE ALREADY HEARING
FROM TRUCK AND VEHICLE FLEET
OWNERS, UH, ABOUT THEM FACING
DIFFICULTIES IN PLANNING TO MEET
THESE GOALS, ESPECIALLY IN
TRYING TO MEET THE ADVANCED
GREEN FLEETS ADVANCED CLEAN
TRUCKS. AND SO WE REALLY NEED TO
SEND A STRONG SIGNAL. THIS YEAR.
THE CALIFORNIA IS PLANNING TO
INVEST IN, UH, IN IN IN MEETING
THESE GOALS AND REGULATIONS. AND
THAT MEANS INVESTING GRF FUNDS
THIS YEAR AND IN PROGRAMS TO
SUPPORT THIS, LIKE THE DAGE
TRUCKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PROGRAM, CLEAN TRUCKS AND BUSES.
UH, THE SET FUELING
INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS PROGRAM AS
WELL AS THE ZERO EMISSION SCHOOL
BUS. FUNDING PROGRAMS. SO REALLY
, UH, ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT
FOR THOSE AS THEY THEY DO. JRF
CONVERSATIONS CONTINUE. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.
WELL THANK YOU FOR LETTING
OTHERS GO IN FRONT OF YOU. AND
UH AND, UH, BRINGING US HOME. SO
UH, I APPRECIATE IT. I WANNA
THANK EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATED
IN A PUBLIC TESTIMONY. IF YOU
WERE NOT ABLE TO TESTIFY, PLEASE
SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS OR
SUGGESTIONS IN WRITING, UH OR
VISIT OUR WEBSITE COMES,
SUGGESTIONS ARE AND ARE
IMPORTANT TO US. UH I WANNA
APPRECIATE ALL THE PANELISTS
WHO, UM GREAT, UH, PEACEFULLY TO
GO OFF MY QUESTIONS AND, UH, OUR
QUESTIONS HERE TODAY AND I WANT
TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR
PATIENCE AND COOPER OPERATION. A
BUDGET SUB COMMITTEE NUMBER TWO
IS ADJOURNED.