THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY,
UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS
WILL COME TO ORDER. GOOD
MORNING. WE'RE HOLDING THE
COMMITTEE HEARING AND Ó STREET
BUILDING. WE'RE IN ROOM 1200. WE
WOULD ASK ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS
TO REPORT TO ROOM 1200 AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE. I WOULD LIKE TO
WELCOME EVERYBODY TO OUR THIRD
ENERGY HEARING THIS YEAR. AND WE
HAVE 14 BILLS ON OUR AGENDA
TODAY. SB 1221 BY SENATOR MANN
HAS BEEN PULLED BY THE AUTHOR.
AND BEFORE WE HEAR THE
PRESENTATION, WE HAVE TO
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. BUT WE'RE
LACKING AT THIS TIME. SO WE'RE
GOING TO START AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. I SEE WE HAVE OUR
FIRST AUTHOR, SENATOR PADILLA.
SO IF YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY
BEGIN
.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND
MEMBERS. PLEASED TO PRESENT SB
TEN ZERO SIX ON RECONNECTING AND
GRID ENHANCING TECHNOLOGY. I
FIRST WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
OUR STAFF AND INDICATE THAT WE
WILL ACCEPT COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
. SB 1006 WOULD REQUIRE
UTILITIES TO PREPARE GRID
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC
PLAN TO COST EFFECTIVELY AN
INCREASE TRANSMISSION CAPACITY.
AS YOU KNOW, CAL ISO ESTIMATES
THAT WE NEED MORE THAN 7000MW OF
NEW TRANSMISSION CAPACITY EVERY
YEAR FOR THE NEXT DECADE TO MEET
CALIFORNIA'S ENERGY DEMAND AND
AS IMPORTANTLY, TO MEET OUR GHG
REDUCTION GOALS THAT WE LEAD THE
NATION ON. BY THE WAY, WE ARE
FAR FROM ACHIEVING THIS
ESTIMATE, AND IT THREATENS THOSE
GOALS. GRID ENHANCING
TECHNOLOGIES CAN INCREASE
CAPACITY. WE DECREASE
CONGESTION, IMPROVE RELIABILITY
IN A COST EFFECTIVE WAY, SUCH AS
REDIRECTING ENERGY AWAY FROM
OVERLOADED LINES AND ONTO
UNDERUTILIZED, UNDERUTILIZED
LINES, WHICH CAN ENHANCE THE
EXISTING GRID. A STUDY BY RMI
FINDS THAT GETS ARE
SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER THAN
DEFAULT NETWORK UPGRADES, AND
CAN BE APPLIED TO ENABLE BETTER
UTILIZATION IN RECONNECTING WITH
ADVANCED CONDUCTORS. REPLACES
EXISTING WIRES WITH CONDUCTORS,
WHICH CAN HANDLE HIGHER
TEMPERATURES AND CAN HOLD
ROUGHLY TWICE TWICE AS MUCH
ENERGY AS CONVENTIONAL
CONDUCTORS. A STUDY BY UC
BERKELEY STATES RECONNECTING CAN
HELP MEET OVER 80% OF THE NEW
INTER-ZONAL TRANSMISSION NEEDED
TO REACH OVER 90% CLEAN ENERGY
BY 2035. THIS BILL REQUIRES
TRANSMISSION UTILITIES TO
COMPLETE A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR
GRID ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES, AND
TO CONTINUE EVALUATION OF WHAT
LINES CAN BE RECONNECTED IN A
COST EFFECTIVE WAY. EVERY FOUR
YEARS, CALIFORNIA SHOULD TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THESE NEW
TECHNOLOGIES AND UPGRADE
EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES TO
EXPAND CAPACITY AND DELIVER
RELIABLE ENERGY AT LOWER COSTS.
WITH ME TODAY, I HAVE JULIA
SEPULCHURE WITH GRID STRATEGIES
AND MR. SCOTT WELCH AND I WOULD
LIKE TO WELCOME THEM AT THIS
TIME. ARE YOUR TWO PRIMARY
WITNESSES WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES
EACH. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF THE GRID
MODERNIZATION AND ENHANCEMENT
ACT. I'M JULIA SELKER. I'M THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
WORKING FOR ADVANCED
TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES, OR
WAT COALITION, LIKE THE SENATOR
SAID, CALIFORNIA IS GOING TO BE
BUILDING A LOT OF TRANSMISSION
OVER THE NEXT DECADE, BUT WE
CAN'T BUILD EVERYTHING WE NEED,
AND WE CERTAINLY CAN'T BUILD IT
FAST ENOUGH, THIS BILL WOULD
REQUIRE THE UTILITIES TO MAKE
PLANS TO USE THESE COST
EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES TO GET
MORE CAPACITY OUT OF EXISTING
POLES AND WIRES AND SUBSTATIONS
AND RIGHTS OF WAY. AND AS A
CALIFORNIA RATEPAYER, I DO WANT
TO GET THE BIGGEST RETURN ON THE
INVESTMENT THAT I'VE MADE
THROUGH MY RATES. THESE
TECHNOLOGIES ARE IN AN AWKWARD
REGULATORY LIMBO WHERE THEY'RE
NOT FITTING INTO THE BUSINESS
MODEL OF THE UTILITIES OR THE
EXISTING REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS,
AND CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED
STATES HAVE FALLEN BEHIND OTHER
COUNTRIES IN DEPLOYING THESE
TECHNOLOGIES. THERE'S A REPORT
FROM ALEJO'S, WHICH IS A UTILITY
AND A RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPER
IN CALIFORNIA. WELL, A RENEWABLE
ENERGY DEVELOPER IN CALIFORNIA
AND UTILITY IN OHIO AND INDIANA.
THAT GETS OUR UNDER DEPLOYED IN
THE US POWER GRID RELATIVE TO
THEIR ESTABLISHED TECHNICAL
POTENTIAL. THAT CAME OUT ON
FRIDAY, SO GRID ENHANCING
TECHNOLOGY IS HAVE BEEN DEPLOYED
IN THE UNITED STATES JUST IN THE
LAST YEAR, WE HAD THE FIRST
MARKET INTEGRATED DEPLOYMENT FOR
$250,000 IN PENNSYLVANIA. IT
SAVED RATEPAYERS $60 MILLION IN
ONE YEAR. AND WE THINK THAT THE
POTENTIAL OF GRID ENHANCING
TECHNOLOGIES IN CALIFORNIA TO
SAVE MONEY ON GRID CONGESTION IS
UP TO $680 MILLION. IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN IN 2022. BUT THE STORY
IS BIGGER THAN CONGESTION COSTS.
GRID CONSTRAINTS ARE BLOCKING
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN
CALIFORNIA, BLOCKING RENEWABLE
ENERGY AND WILL HELP US
INTEGRATE NEW LARGE LOADS. SO A
HUGE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
CALIFORNIA ECONOMY AND THE
DECARBONIZATION GOALS. THANK YOU
. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS, SCOTT
WHITMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF UTILITY
EMPLOYEES AND THE STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT
OF SB 1006, WHICH WOULD
ESTABLISH PROCESSES TO HELP
ENSURE THAT GRID ENHANCING
TECHNOLOGIES AND ADVANCED
CONDUCTORS WILL BE EVALUATED AND
INSTALLED WHEN AND WHERE THEY
ARE COST EFFECTIVE. AS WE ALL
KNOW, WE MUST DRAMATICALLY
INCREASE OUR TRANSMISSION
CAPACITY TO THE SYSTEM IN ORDER
TO MEET ALL OF OUR CLEAN ENERGY
AND CARBON NEUTRALITY GOALS.
CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, QUÊ
IS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF BUILDING
EVERYTHING AT ANY COST. WE
BELIEVE THAT GRID ENHANCING
TECHNOLOGIES, THE HARDWARE AND
SOFTWARE ARE THAT MONITOR AND
CONTROL ENERGY FLOWS AND
TRANSMISSION CAPACITY ON
EXISTING LINES ARE VERY COST
EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE. WAY TO
MANAGE OUR TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS.
AND I WOULD JUST IN CONCLUSION,
LIKE TO POINT OUT ONE,
CHARACTERISTIC THAT GRID
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES BRING
WITH THEM IS A REDUCED FIRE RISK
AT A MUCH REDUCED COST. THEY
DON'T SOLVE THE ENTIRE PROBLEM,
BUT THEY'RE VERY IMPORTANT
COMPONENT TO MANAGING WILDFIRE
RISK. SO WE WOULD URGE AND I
VOTE THANK YOU. STATE YOUR NAME
AND YOUR ORGANIZATION. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. MY NAME
IS DAN JACOBSON WITH ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MELISSA
CORTEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA WIND ENERGY
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THAT'S
IMPRESSED WITH ADVANCED ENERGY,
UNITED AND STRONG SUPPORT. JOHN
WHITE WITH THE CLEAN POWER
CAMPAIGN IN STRONG SUPPORT.
MICHELLE CANALES, UNION OF
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS AND SUPPORT
. ELLEN BRITTINGHAM HERE ON
BEHALF OF SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY
POWER, UNABLE TO GET A LETTER IN
BEFORE THE DEADLINE BUT WANTED
TO BE HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. MARY ANN BORGESON
WITH NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL AND SUPPORT. NOW
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION ARE
THEIR WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
IF SO, COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME
, SEEING NONE, WE'LL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY
QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS BY
SENATORS? I'D LIKE TO MOVE THE
BILL AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
WHEN A QUORUM IS ESTABLISHED, WE
WILL DO SO. SO MR. CHAIR. YES,
SEN. I MAY HAVE MISSED, I
BELIEVE, ON THIS ONE. I'M
LOOKING THERE ARE AMENDMENTS
THAT ARE PROPOSED. THAT'S
CORRECT. AND WE ACCEPT THOSE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YES. THANK YOU. OKAY SO THAT'S
APPROPRIATE TIME. WE WILL SEEK A
MOTION. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE,
SENATOR PADILLA? I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK THE
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
SENATOR SENATOR CORTEZ
.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND
SENATORS. TODAY, MAY I PROCEED?
I THINK TODAY I'M HERE TO
PRESENT SB 1298, A BILL THAT
INCREASES THE THRESHOLD FOR DATA
CENTER ELIGIBILITY FOR
CONSIDERATION UNDER THE SMALL
POWER PLANT EXEMPTION, UNDER
THAT PROCESS, THE INCREASE, AS
NOTED IN THE BILL IN PRINT, IS
FROM 100MW TO 200MW. THIS BILL
WILL CREATE LARGER DATA CENTER
FACILITIES THAT BETTER MEET THE
DEMANDS OF CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIES
. CALIFORNIA LAW CURRENTLY
ALLOWS THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION TO HAVE EXCLUSIVE
AUTHORITY TO LICENSE THERMAL
POWER PLANTS THAT ARE 50MW OR
LARGER, THE SMALLER POWER PLANT
EXEMPTION PROGRAM ALLOWS CEC TO
EXEMPT FROM ITS LICENSING
AUTHORITY THERMAL POWER PLANTS
THAT DO NOT EXCEED 100MW. THE
CEC CAN GRANT AN EXEMPTION IF IT
FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED FACILITY
WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACT
THE ENVIRONMENT OR ENERGY
RESOURCES. IF THE EXEMPTION IS
APPROVED, THE PROJECT DEVELOPER
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURING ALL
LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS
TO CONSTRUCT AND SAFELY OPERATE
THE PLANT. THIS BILL AT ITS
CORE, IS AN ECONOMIC
INFRASTRUCTURE BILL, DATA
CENTERS, AND THE FIBER NETWORKS
UNDERPINNING THEM ARE NECESSARY
AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
THEY'RE THE BACKBONE FOR APPS,
PLATFORMS AND SERVICE INTEGRAL
TO DAILY LIFE. CONNECTING
INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
WORLDWIDE, NOT TO MENTION HEALTH
CARE AND MANY OTHER ACTIVITIES.
HOWEVER, DESPITE THE SIGNIFICANT
STRIDES MADE IN RECENT YEARS TO
EXPAND THE DATA CENTER CAPACITY,
THE DEMAND FOR DIGITAL SERVICES
CONTINUES TO SURGE, PARTICULARLY
IN SILICON VALLEY, WHERE THE
VACANCY RATE FOR DATA CENTERS IS
A MERE 1.6. SILICON VALLEY POWER
FORECASTS THAT THE DATA CENTER
LOAD WILL DOUBLE BY 2035, AND
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE ADDITIONS
WILL BE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THIS
INCREASE. DATA CENTERS SUPPORT
BUSINESSES OF ALL SIZES,
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE,
ESSENTIAL SERVICES 911 CALL
CENTERS GPS NAVIGATION SYSTEMS.
OUR HOSPITAL INDUSTRY, OUR
STATE'S TECH INDUSTRY AND I VOTE
TODAY WILL ENSURE THAT WE'RE
MAINTAINING THE STATE'S ECONOMIC
VITALITY AND BUILDING OUT
CAPACITY FOR FUTURE GROWTH. WITH
US TODAY, WE HAVE TIM MCCRAY,
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF
SUSTAINABILITY FROM THE SILICON
VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP. AND
ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE DAN DIORIO
, DIRECTOR OF THE STATE POLICY
AT THE DATA CENTER COALITION.
AND AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, MR.
CHAIR, I'D RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. ARE THESE YOUR
TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES? THEY ARE
ALL RIGHT. YOU'LL HAVE TWO
MINUTES EACH. THANK YOU. MY NAME
IS TIM MCCRAY WITH THE SILICON
VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP. THIS
BILL ALLOWS FOR BUILDING LARGER
DATA CENTERS, WHICH ARE A
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
NECESSITY. EMERGENCY SERVICES,
HOSPITAL RECORDS, ONLINE
BANKING, AND CLOUD BASED
SERVICES ALL RELY ON DATA
CENTERS DESPITE THEIR HIGH
DEMAND AND CRUCIAL FUNCTION FOR
THE ECONOMY AND SAFETY, SILICON
VALLEY IS THE NATION'S TIGHTEST
DATA CENTER MARKET, WITH A
VACANCY RATE OF JUST 1.6. CITING
DATA CENTERS NEAR TECHNOLOGY
HEADQUARTERS IS IMPORTANT FOR
COMPUTING LATENCY NEEDS. WHEN
YOU CALL 911, YOU WANT THE
RESPONSE TO BE INSTANT. BUILDING
BIGGER DATA CENTERS IN SILICON
VALLEY HELPS POWER THE SILICON
VALLEY ECONOMY, WHICH IS CRUCIAL
FOR THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY AND
THE CALIFORNIA BUDGET. YOU WILL
HEAR THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO
OBJECT TO THESE DATA CENTERS
BECAUSE THEY MAY RUN SOMETIMES
ON DIESEL BACKUP GENERATORS.
THAT CONCERN IN OUR MINDS IS
OVERBLOWN. THE BILL DOES NOT
CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR DATA CENTERS,
THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
AND THE LOCAL AIR DISTRICT AND
PERMITTING DATA CENTERS OF ALL
SIZES WOULD STILL HAVE TO SHOW
NO SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON
THE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PROPOSED
DATA CENTER. ADDITIONALLY, DATA
CENTERS RUN ON GRID POWER AND
HAVE TO RELY ON THEIR BACKUP
SOURCES OF POWER. LESS THAN
0.07% OF THE TIME. THAT'S LESS
THAN SEVEN HOURS A YEAR. ALL THE
REST OF THE TIME, THEY RUN ON
THE POWER THAT THE GRID
PROVIDES, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER
HOME OR BUSINESS. 59% OF
CALIFORNIA'S POWER NOW COMES
FROM CARBON FREE SOURCES, AND
THE STATE HAS RUN HAS GOALS OF
RUNNING ON ZERO CARBON
GENERATION OF ENERGY BY 2045.
THAT WON'T CHANGE REGARDLESS OF
THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF DATA
CENTERS. AND CALIFORNIA'S CLEAN
GRID IS AN ADDITIONAL REASON TO
CITE THESE DATA CENTERS HERE, AS
OPPOSED TO ELSEWHERE IN THE
COUNTRY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I'M
DAN DEORI, I'M DIRECTOR OF STATE
POLICY FOR THE DATA CENTER
COALITION, A MEMBERSHIP
ASSOCIATION OF LEADING DATA
CENTER OWNER OPERATORS. MANY
MANY, MANY OF OUR MEMBERS HAVE
FACILITIES, TEAMS OR PROJECTS
UNDERWAY IN CALIFORNIA. DATA
CENTERS ARE THE BACKBONE OF THE
MODERN ECONOMY. BUSINESSES ARE
INVESTING TENS OF BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN CAPITAL AND NEW DATA
CENTER FACILITIES ACROSS THE
COUNTRY TO MEET UNPRECEDENTED
DEMAND FOR DIGITAL SERVICES AND
CRITICAL DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
THESE ARE CENTRAL TO OUR LIVES,
INCLUDING TELEHEALTH, FINANCIAL
SERVICES, VIDEO CONFERENCING,
E-COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT SERVICES
AND ENTERTAINMENT DATA CENTERS
CATALYZE SUPPLY CHAIN AND
SERVICE ECOSYSTEMS IN LOCAL
COMMUNITIES. THEY CREATE JOBS
FOR THOUSANDS OF CONSTRUCTION
PROFESSIONALS AS FACILITIES ARE
BUILT, AND THEY PROVIDE QUALITY,
HIGH WAGE JOBS TO SUPPORT
ONGOING OPERATIONS. EVERY DATA
CENTER COMES WITH YEARS OF
RELIABLE SUPPORT FOR LOCAL
ECONOMIES BY PROMOTING JOB
CREATION AT FIBER AND HVAC
INSTALLERS, STEEL FABRICATOR,
RESTAURANTS AND MANY OTHER
BUSINESSES. A STUDY CONDUCTED BY
PWC DETERMINED THAT FOR EVERY
ONE JOB IN A DATA CENTER, SIX
JOBS ARE SUPPORTED ELSEWHERE IN
THE ECONOMY. CURRENTLY
CALIFORNIA LAW PROVIDES FOR A
CAP OF 100MW, AND THE
ELIGIBILITY FOR THE SMALL POWER
PLANT EXEMPTION. THIS LIMITS THE
BACKUP GENERATION CAPACITY FOR A
DATA CENTER, EFFECTIVELY CAPPING
THE SIZE AND CAPACITY OF
FACILITIES IN THE STATE. THIS
CAN IMPAIR THE COMPETITIVENESS
OF CALIFORNIA'S DATA CENTERS AND
THE BROADER NATIONAL MARKET. SB
1298 WOULD INCREASE THE CAP FOR
ELIGIBILITY TO 200MW.
IMPORTANTLY, IT PRESERVES ALL
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL AND LOCAL
REVIEW PROCESSES WITHIN THE SP.
IT WOULD ALLOW DATA CENTERS TO
BE BUILT TO A CONTEMPORARY SIZE
AND THUS KEEP DATA CENTERS IN
CALIFORNIA. I URGE MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE TO VOTE IN SUPPORT
OF SB 1298 TO ENSURE CALIFORNIA
REMAINS A COMPETITIVE STATE FOR
DATA CENTER AND DIGITAL
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. NOW IT'S TIME
FOR ANY FOLKS WHO ARE IN SUPPORT
IN OUR ME TOOS STATE YOUR NAME
AND YOUR ORGANIZATION. MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS SCOTT WELCH ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE PIPE TRADES
COUNCIL, THE WESTERN STATES
COUNCIL OF SHEET METAL WORKERS,
THE STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF UTILITY
EMPLOYEES, AND STRONG SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. CHARLES WATSON, ON
BEHALF OF STACK INFRASTRUCTURE
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ROBIN
HINES WITH MICROSOFT AND SUPPORT
. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS. HUNTER STERN WITH THE
IBEW 1245 WHO REPRESENT THE
WORKERS AT PGE AND AT THE CITY
OF SANTA CLARA, SILICON VALLEY
POWER IN STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, TIFFANY PHªN ON BEHALF
OF ECOLAB IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT HEARING
SEEING NOW IT'S TIME FOR
OPPOSITION WITH OUR WITNESSES.
PRIMARY WITNESSES IS THERE 1 OR
2 IN OPPOSITION? THERE ARE TWO.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR BRADFORD AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS ALAN ABS WITH THE BAY
AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, THE NINE COUNTY
REGIONAL AGENCY SURROUNDING THE
SAN FRANCISCO BAY. WITH RESPECT
TO SENATOR CORTEZ, WE HAVE AN
OPPOSING, LESS AMENDED POSITION,
AND OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO
ALLOW THE INCREASED EXEMPTION
DISCRETION GIVEN TO THE CEC, BUT
APPLY THAT DISCRETION ONLY TO
POWER PLANTS NOT USING DIESEL
ENGINES. AS THE ANALYSIS NOTES,
THE CEC ROUTINELY GRANTS
EXEMPTIONS FOR DATA CENTER POWER
PLANTS UNDER 100MW, EVEN THOUGH
THE PROJECTS ALMOST ALWAYS
CONSIST OF BANKS OF 30 TO 50
LARGE DIESEL ENGINES, RATHER
THAN CLEANER NATURAL GAS OR FUEL
CELL ENGINES. WHEN YOU WALK TO
THE SWING SPACE ON THE WEST
SIDE, YOU'LL SEE THAT PIPE
STICKING OUT OF THE SIDE OF THE
BUILDING, WHICH IS A DIESEL
GENERATOR FOR THIS BUILDING,
IMAGINE 30 TO 50 OF THOSE PIPES
COMING OUT OF A SINGLE BUILDING,
ALL PRODUCING POWER, ALL
EMITTING DIESEL PARTICULATE
MATTER. AND THAT'S WHAT THESE
WHAT THESE HUNDRED MEGAWATT DATA
CENTER POWER PLANTS REALLY ARE,
THE DISTRICT ROUTINELY COMMENTS
ON THESE PROJECTS WHEN THE CEC
PROPOSES TO GIVE THE EXEMPTION
AND WE SPECIFICALLY NOTE THE
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE
SIGNIFICANT FOR THE LOCAL
POPULATIONS SURROUNDING THESE
POWER PLANTS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN
THAT THESE POWER PLANTS ARE
SITED NEAR OTHER POWER PLANTS
AND LARGE SOURCES. AS OUR
LETTERS NOTE, THE HEALTH RISKS
DUE TO THE CUMULATIVE BURDENS ON
PEOPLE LIVING NEARBY ARE NEVER
CONSIDERED BY THE CEC, AND WE
HAVE DOCUMENTS FROM THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS OF COMMENTS WE'VE
SUBMITTED TO THE CEC ABOUT
PROPOSED PROJECTS. THIS BILL IS
BEING FRAMED AS A DATA CENTER
VERSUS NØ DATA CENTER ISSUE. BUT
REALLY, THE CEC COULD COULD GIVE
A POWER PLANT PERMIT TO A DATA
CENTER LARGER THAN 100MW. THEY
JUST HAVE TO GO THROUGH A
DIFFERENT PROCESS. THEY WOULDN'T
NECESSARILY GET TO INSTALL THE
BANKS OF DIESEL ENGINES TO DO
THAT. AND SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO
DO IS, IS HAVE THE COMMITTEE
CONSIDER THE CURRENT PROCESS.
AND IF THEY WANT TO GIVE THAT
EXEMPTION TO 200MW, MAKE THAT
ALLOWABLE FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE
THINGS LIKE NATURAL GAS OR FUEL
CELLS, SO WITH THAT, I'D
ENCOURAGE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER OUR
PROPOSAL AND RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR NO VOTE ON THIS
BILL AS WRITTEN. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
BRENDAN TUG ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. THAT'S THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL OFFICERS FROM ALL 35
LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS. WE ECHO THE
BAY AREA AQMD CONCERNS ABOUT THE
HEALTH IMPACT DIESEL GENERATORS
HAVE ON COMMUNITIES. DIESEL
GENERATORS EMIT DIESEL
PARTICULATE MATTER, A CANCER
CAUSING TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT,
AS WELL AS CRITERIA AIR
POLLUTANTS AND GREENHOUSE GASES.
WE'RE ALREADY CONCERNED WITH THE
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE CURRENT EXEMPTION, AND
NOW THIS BILL PROPOSES TO DOUBLE
THAT. MUCH OF THE RISK TO PUBLIC
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT CAN
BE AVOIDED BY REQUIRING CLEANER
TECHNOLOGY SUCH AS FUEL CELLS,
BATTERY STORAGE OPTIONS AND NON
DIESEL FIRE GENERATORS. CÁC
CERTIFICATE PROCESS INCLUDES
SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC OUTREACH TO
ENCOURAGE AWARENESS OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT AND OBTAIN
NECESSARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION,
WHICH INCLUDES HOLDING PUBLIC
WORKSHOPS SO INTERVENORS
INCLUDING CLEAN TECHNOLOGY
VENDORS, AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN
MEET THE CEC AND MEET WITH THE
CEC AND APPLICANT TO DISCUSS
CLARIFYING. INFORM PERTINENT
ISSUES LIKE CLEAN ENERGY
ALTERNATIVES. THIS ROBUST
PROCESS HELPS TO INFORM ALL
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF DATA CENTER
PROJECTS, WHICH CAN HAVE
SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY AND
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, ESPECIALLY
THOSE LOCATED IN OR NEAR
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE ALREADY
OVERBURDENED WITH POLLUTION.
EXEMPTING DATA CENTERS FROM THE
CEC CERTIFICATION PROCESS.
SHORTCUTS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,
WHICH EXACERBATES EQUITY ISSUES
AS IT DOES NOT GIVE EFFECTIVE
AFFECTED COMMUNITIES. THE SAME
OPPORTUNITIES TO VOICE THEIR
CONCERNS AND SEEKS FULL
CERTIFICATION PROCESS CAN HELP
TO IDENTIFY AND INCLUDE
REQUIREMENTS TO MITIGATE THEM.
IDENTIFY HIGH IMPACTS DATA
CENTERS ARE BEING FRAMED BY THE
SPONSORS AS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
INFRASTRUCTURE. WE WOULD
ADVOCATE THAT AS WITH ANY
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT DATA
CENTERS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO
THOROUGH, ROBUST REVIEW, SUCH AS
THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS, WHICH
ALLOWS FOR MEANINGFUL PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION AND MORE
OPPORTUNITY TO IDENTIFY AND
MITIGATE. GOING TO ASK YOU TO
WRAP UP, THAT'S YEAH, I'LL WRAP
UP ALL WE WOULD ASK, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU. IS JUST THAT WE THINK
THAT THE CURRENT 100 MEGAWATT
EXEMPTION SHOULD BE LOOKED AT
AND REVIEWED AND POSSIBLY
LOWERED OR REMOVED ALTOGETHER
BASED ON PUBLIC HEALTH. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. NOW, ARE THERE
ANY METOOS ON THIS MEASURE?
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
ORGANIZATION. MICHELLE CANLAS,
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
AND RESPECT THE OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THAT'S IN OPPOSITION
OR IN SUPPORT? OPPOSITION.
OPPOSITION. OKAY. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
ALL RIGHT. VICE CHAIR DALI. SO
FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO GIVE
THE AUTHOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO
MAYBE TALK ABOUT WHY, WE'RE NOT
USING, YOU KNOW, BATTERY
TECHNOLOGY OR SOME OTHER
SOMETHING OTHER THAN DIESEL IS,
FIRST OF ALL, THE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THROUGH THE CHAIR,
THE BILL IS TECHNOLOGY,
TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL. IF THE CEC
AND THROUGH THE SEQUA PROCESS
FINDS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LEAST
CUMULATIVE EFFECT THAT'S
FEASIBLE IS SOME OTHER
TECHNOLOGY, SO BE IT. BUT THE
STATE OF THE ART RIGHT NOW, MUCH
LIKE IT IS WITH TRUCKING AND SO
MANY THINGS THAT ARE OUT THERE
THAT ARE IN TRANSITION IS DIESEL
AND THE STATE HAS A POLICY OF,
OF ELIMINATING DIESEL IN THE
FUTURE. I WAS AS CHAIRMAN OF THE
BAY AREA MPO, THE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, THE
VERY FIRST MEMBER TO STEP UP AND
, AT THE REQUEST OF THE AIR
DISTRICT, ONE OF THE OPPOSITION,
THE BAY AREA AIR DISTRICT,
SIGNED A PLEDGE TO COMMIT TO
DIESEL FREE BY 3333, NOT 24.
OKAY, SO TO ME TO COME IN AND
SAY, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO TALK
ABOUT DIESEL ON ON A BILL THAT'S
JUST TRYING TO EXPAND
INFRASTRUCTURE UNDER THE CURRENT
RULES WITH CEQA REVIEW IS A
LITTLE DISINGENUOUS. IF YOU WANT
DIESEL FREE BY 24, YOU NEED TO
ASK FOR DIESEL FREE BY 24, NOT
33, BUT TO CRIPPLE
INFRASTRUCTURE, SHUT DOWN THE
ECONOMY. TO ME IT WOULD BE
TANTAMOUNT OF SHUTTING DOWN THE
TRUCKING INDUSTRY TODAY AND ALL
COMMERCE ON HIGHWAY FIVE BECAUSE
WE DON'T LIKE DIESEL, WE DON'T
LIKE IT. BUT WHAT'S THE
ALTERNATIVE? THAT'S THE PROBLEM
HERE WITH THE DIESEL GENERATORS.
THEY ONLY COME INTO PLAY
ACCORDING TO OUR NUMBERS. LESS
THAN 0.07% OF THE TIME, BECAUSE
OBVIOUSLY IT'S THE MEGAWATTS
WE'RE LOOKING FOR TO POWER THESE
FACILITIES. THANK YOU. I I, JUST
WANT TO SAY I'M 100% FOR YOUR
BILL, AND I THINK THAT WE WANT
THE PERFECT TO GET AWAY. THE
GOOD WAY TOO OFTEN AROUND HERE,
WE KNOW THAT THE TECHNOLOGY
ISN'T THERE AVAILABLE TO KEEP
THESE DATA CENTERS RUNNING,
WHICH WE DESPERATELY NEED. IF A
DATA CENTER WENT DOWN, YOU WANT
TO TALK ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH
PROBLEMS. WHEN WE CRASH THE
ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO
COMMUNICATE EVEN DURING TIMES OF
WHEN WE HAVE A NATURAL DISASTER.
AND THAT'S REALLY WHEN THOSE
GENERATORS ARE GOING TO BE
TURNED ON, AND I DON'T WANT A
BATTERY BACKUP THAT I CAN'T
CHARGE, WHEN WE HAVE THOSE
DISASTERS. AND SO FOR MANY
REASONS, THERE'S, THIS EXEMPTION
NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED. AND, AND I
DON'T THINK WE EVER TALK ABOUT
THE PUBLIC HEALTH IF WE LOST A
HOSPITAL OR IF WE LOST A 911
SYSTEM, OR IF WE DON'T HAVE THE
ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE IN REAL
TIME, BECAUSE OUR DATA CENTERS
ARE DOWN. AND SO FOR THOSE
REASONS, I THINK WE SHOULD
SUPPORT THIS BILL, ALLOW OUR,
OUR TECHNOLOGIES TO BE ABLE TO
GROW IN CALIFORNIA AND ACTUALLY
GIVE A SERVICE THAT DOES NOT
THAT IS RELIABLE ALL THE TIME.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, WHEN WE
WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE, I WILL
MOVE THE BILL. THANK YOU.
SENATOR EGGMAN, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. CHAIR, I FREQUENTLY
AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE
NORTH, BUT I DISAGREE WITH HIM
ON THIS ISSUE. BECAUSE I ALSO
DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY. I MEAN, I
GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT
DATA, BUT THEN THE PROCESS AND
I'LL SAY, JUST FOR THE PROCESS,
I AM CONCERNED THIS IS ONLY
REFERRED TO THIS COMMITTEE, AND
IT'S NOT GOING TO C¯ IT'S NOT
GOING TO IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE
ELSE. AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU
GOT ALL THE AIR QUALITY PEOPLE
SAYING IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. SO
I HAVE CONCERN THAT IT'S ONLY
GOING TO THIS COMMITTEE. AND SO
THAT'S WHY I'M GOING TO I'M NOT
GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY. I ALSO THINK THE
EXEMPTION WITHOUT ANY KIND OF
REVIEW IS TOO MUCH, AND JUST AN
EXAMPLE OF HOW ANTI DIESEL WE
ARE FOR THE EVERYDAY CONSUMER. I
HAVE MY IN-LAWS LIVE UP IN THE,
IN THE NORTH STATE WHO HAVE BEEN
IMPACTED BY FIRES MULTIPLE
TIMES. THEY'VE HAD TO GET A FULL
HOUSE GENERATOR DIESEL FOR
BACKUP DURING TIMES. BUT THEY
THEY GET NOTHING BUT
PENALIZATION FROM THE STATE FOR
THAT. RIGHT JUST FOLKS TRYING TO
BE ABLE TO STAY ALIVE. BUT HERE
WE'RE GOING TO GRANT THIS
MASSIVE EXEMPTION FOR DATA
CENTERS. AND WE'RE NOT
PRIORITIZING. WE'RE NOT SAYING
IS IT HOSPITAL? IS IT IS IT
PUBLIC HEALTH DATA OR IS IT JUST
WHAT KIND OF PIZZA I ORDERED
LAST TIME? DATA AND THERE'S NO
KIND OF DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN
ANY OF THOSE THINGS. SO I HAVE A
LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT WHY DO WE
HAVE TO GET THAT BIG EXEMPTION,
WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE WITHOUT
REVIEW? AND THEN YOU LEAVE IT TO
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO HAVE TO
MITIGATE THAT. SO FOR THAT AND A
LOT OF OTHER, OTHER REASONS, I,
I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS TODAY, BUT
I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS
ABOUT LIKE, WHY AND WHY CAN'T WE
SAY IF IT'S GOING TO BE EXPANDED
TO THAT DEGREE? I MEAN, THE ONE
THING THE BAY AREA HAS BESIDES
ALL THE JOBS IS GREAT AIR, THOSE
DATA CENTERS CAN BE ELSEWHERE IN
THE STATE TOO, JUST TO MAYBE
AVOID SOME OF THAT IMPACT. BUT,
WHY SO MUCH SO SOON, IF I MAY.
THIS THIS IS NOT A DISTRICT,
BILL. FIRST OF ALL, IN TERMS OF
THE BAY AREA, BUT THE CEC
REVIEWS THESE SMALL POWER PLANT
EXEMPTIONS UNDER SEQUA NOW. SO
THE NOTION I'M NOT SURE IF WE'RE
WORKING OFF OF TWO DIFFERENT
PAGES HERE, BUT THE SECRET
REVIEW IS STILL IN PLACE, YOU
KNOW, UNDER TITLE 20. SO AS THE
LEAD AGENCY, EVEN UNDER THESE
SMALL POWER PLANT EXEMPTIONS,
THE CDC PREPARES AN APPROPRIATE
CEQA DOCUMENT FOR THE PROJECT,
THAT COULD BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT. IT'S THE NORMAL
SEQUA PROCESS. SO IT STILL HAS
TO IT STILL HAS TO COMPLY WITH
SEQUA. THAT'S, THE PREMISE THAT
WE'RE OPERATING UNDER, YOU KNOW,
ON THIS BILL, AS YOU KNOW, AND I
KNOW WE'VE BEEN AROUND SEQUA FOR
YEARS AND YEARS, THERE'S THE
OPPORTUNITY THERE TO DEMONSTRATE
ALTERNATIVES IN THAT REPORT TO
SHOW THAT THAT WOULD MITIGATE
ANY SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE
EFFECT THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED
HERE. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE
ON THE OTHER ISSUE, THE REALITY
OF, THE REALITY OF WHAT THESE
DATA CENTERS ARE ACTUALLY BEING
USED FOR IS EXACTLY WHAT'S
FUELING THE STATE ECONOMY AND
GIVING US THE ABILITY TO MAKE
MASSIVE CLIMATE INVESTMENTS. WE
KNOW THAT. WE KNOW THAT IN OUR
CAUCUSES, WE KNOW THAT IN OUR
BUDGET DISCUSSIONS THAT THE IPOS
THAT ARE COMING ALONG, WHICH IN
THEIR EARLY STAGES ARE DEPENDENT
ON LEASING SPACE FROM DATA
CENTERS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T
AFFORD TO BUILD THEIR OWN DATA
CENTERS. SO THEY GOT TO GO RENT
SPACE, YOU KNOW, THEY GOT TO GO
TELL THE VC GUYS, I'VE GOT SPACE
FOR MY DATA CENTER. NOW I'M
GOING TO START DOING MY ROBOTIC
SURGERY, IPO OR WE'RE GOING TO,
YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING READY TO
GO PUBLIC WHEN THEY GO PUBLIC.
OF COURSE, THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE
ALL KNOW, THAT CAPITAL GAINS IS
WHAT FUELS THE STATE'S ECONOMY.
SO AND THAT IN TURN, ALLOWS US
TO MITIGATE CLIMATE ISSUES
BEYOND ANY OTHER STATE IN THE
UNION. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S
WISE TO SHUT DOWN THAT KIND OF
ECONOMIC GROWTH WHILE WE'RE
COMMITTED. ALL OF US, TO
ERADICATING DIESEL FROM
CALIFORNIA AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
WE JUST CAN'T ERADICATE DIESEL
IN TIME TO FREE UP DATA CENTER
SPACE. THERE'S NOT A WAY TO DO
THAT RIGHT NOW. THAT'S THE
ISSUE. SO IT'S I GUESS WE BOTH
HAVE DIFFERENT COST BENEFIT
ANALYSIS. SO I GET IT. THAT'S
UNDERSTANDABLE. SENATOR DODD,
YES, I'D LIKE TO THANK, SENATOR
CORTESE FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
TO US TODAY. I MEAN, I, I REALLY
BELIEVE IN HIS FIRST SET OF
COMMENTS, HE REALLY SPOKE
DIRECTLY TO THIS. I DID SERVE
WITH HIM ON THE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WHEN
THE MPO THAT HE REFERRED TO AND,
SENATOR CORTEZ IS, IS ONE OF THE
MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY DIRECTED
SENATORS, I BELIEVE WE HAVE. AND
I, I THINK THIS THIS AND SENATOR
DAWLEY ALSO ADDRESSED THIS THIS
MAKING THE PERFECT BE THE ENEMY
OF THE GOOD IS NOT GOING TO WORK
IN OUR STATE GOING FORWARD. ALL
IT'S GOING TO DO IS INCREASE
COST, IT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE
COST OF DOING BUSINESS. OR IT
MAY CAUSE SOME OF THESE PEOPLE
TO LEAVE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND TAKE THEIR INVESTMENT
ELSEWHERE. THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR
OUR STATE. IT'S INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT FOR THE REGION. AND,
YOU KNOW, WHILE I RESPECT THE,
YOU KNOW, THE AIR BOARDS, I
THINK, YOU KNOW, WE WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT, YOU GUYS COME OUT
AGAINST ANYTHING, ANYTHING LIKE
THIS. AND I REALLY BELIEVE THAT,
AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'VE GOT
TO ALLOW FOR SOME TIME FOR THESE
PEOPLE TO HAVE THESE INVESTMENTS
IN THESE DIESEL GENERATORS. AND
AS THE SENATOR HIMSELF SAID, IF
THERE'S A NEW REGULATION AT SOME
POINT IN TIME THAT SUGGEST THAT
IT'S DONE BEFORE 33, SO BE IT
THAT'S NOT INVOLVED IN THIS, YOU
KNOW, IN THIS BILL AT ALL. BUT I
DO BELIEVE IT'S DE MINIMIS,
FRANKLY, IN TERMS OF, AIR
QUALITY ISSUES IN THE LONG RUN
BECAUSE OF HOW, INFREQUENTLY
THESE GENERATORS ARE USED,
THEY'RE BACKUP GENERATORS. THANK
YOU. SENATOR STERN, THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, I APPRECIATE WHAT
WHAT YOU'RE DOING FOR YOUR
COMMUNITY. I MEAN, THE OBVIOUSLY
THE EPICENTER OF ALL THIS IS
RIGHT IN YOUR BACKYARD. SO NO
ONE'S GOING TO FEEL THE TENSIONS
AROUND THIS LIKE YOU ARE
LOCALLY, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU HAVE TO GIVE VOICE TO WHAT
THE DEMANDS OF THE COMMUNITY
ARE. AND IN TURN, YOUR POINT
ABOUT THIS BEING AN ECONOMIC
ENGINE FOR THE STATE ALL VALID.
I GUESS MY DISAPPOINTMENT IS
LESS SO WITH WITH YOUR EFFORTS
HERE AS AN AUTHOR, BUT MORE SO
IN THE IN THE SUPPORTERS AND
FOLKS. I, I LOOK TO AS LEADERS
IN THIS ENERGY ARENA.
DISAPPOINTED TO SEE, YOU KNOW,
FOLKS I'VE WORKED WITH ON MICRO
GRIDS ON CLIMATE DISCLOSURE,
TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE
BIGGEST COMPANIES IN THE WHOLE
WORLD. I MEAN, TO SEE OUR
FRIENDS IN MICROSOFT UP THERE,
SEEKING OUT DIESEL WHILE BEING
PROBABLY THE MOST FORWARD
LOOKING CLIMATE TECHNOLOGY
COMPANY IN THE WORLD, IT JUST I
DON'T I DON'T GET IT. SAME WITH
THE SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP
GROUP. WE LOOK TO YOU ALL FOR
INNOVATION. AND I JUST THAT'S MY
PROBLEM HERE, IS THAT THERE'S
NOTHING IN THIS THAT SAYS
INNOVATION. IT SAYS WE'LL JUST
LEAVE THE LOWEST COMMON
DENOMINATOR AVAILABLE AND MY
MAIN QUESTION, I'M TRYING TO
GIVE MYSELF SOME SOLACE TO HELP
YOU KEEP MOVING OR WORKING ON
THIS BILL. I DON'T I DON'T WANT,
I DON'T WANT TO STOP THE
CONVERSATION IN ITS TRACKS, BUT
I ONE THING THAT WOULD HELP IS
TO UNDERSTAND THE AMENDMENT FROM
THE COMMITTEE, MAYBE, AND HOW
FOR YOU ARE ARE YOU TAKING THE
AMENDS IS THE MOTION TO AS
AMENDED OR. I WANT TO GET
CLARITY ON THAT. I WOULD
APPRECIATE YOU THE CHAIR OR
SOMEBODY READING THE AMENDMENT
TO ME. I DID NOT I WASN'T AWARE
THE COMMITTEE WAS REQUIRING AN
AMENDMENT UNTIL WHILE WE WERE IN
SESSION YESTERDAY. I HAVE A
SIMILAR WHILE WE WERE IN SESSION
YESTERDAY. WE WORKED ON THIS
BILL FOR WEEKS. FAIR ENOUGH. SO
BE CLEAR. I'LL BE MORE THAN
HAPPY TO READ THE AMENDMENT.
IT'S TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
DATA CENTER BACKUP POWER
ELIGIBLE FOR SMALL POWER PLANT
EXEMPTIONS FROM 200 TO 150W.
THAT'S WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS.
MEGAWATTS YEAH. AND, MR. CHAIR,
I WILL UNDER GREAT
DISAPPOINTMENT, ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE
ASKING ME TO DO BECAUSE OF MY
RESPECT FOR THE CHAIR, THAT SAID
, I'M DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN OPPORTUNE FOR US
TO MEASURE WHAT A 50% REDUCTION
IN WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS
GOING TO DO IN TERMS OF THE
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THIS. AND WE
JUST NEVER HAD THAT CHANCE, YOU
KNOW, TO I DON'T BLAME YOU FOR
THAT. BUT THE PROCESS DIDN'T
LEAD US TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO VET
THIS REDUCTION FROM 200 TO 150
AT ALL. AND WE'VE GOT WE DO HAVE
PEOPLE LIKE MICROSOFT AND OTHERS
WHO HAVE BEEN, WORKING AND
MAKING CALLS AND PROVIDING US,
ASSISTANCE ON THIS BILL ALL THE
WAY. AND NONE OF US GOT A CHANCE
TO, YOU KNOW, TO CRUNCH THOSE
NUMBERS. SO I'M HERE. WE NEED TO
KEEP THE BILL MOVING AND, YOU
KNOW, I WOULD SAY IF NATURAL GAS
WAS AVAILABLE, I'M PRETTY SURE
MR. WELCH AND THE PLUMBERS AND
PIPEFITTERS WOULD NOT BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL. THEY'D BE
SUPPORTING A BILL THAT BROUGHT
MORE NATURAL GAS TO THESE
FACILITIES. IT'S NOT AVAILABLE.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT
OPPORTUNITY RIGHT NOW. SO, I
APPRECIATE THAT. JUST HOLD THE
THOUGHT. WE'RE GOING TO
ESTABLISH A QUORUM REAL QUICK.
THANK YOU. SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. BRADFORD.
BRADFORD. HERE. DELI DELI. HERE.
ASHBY. BECKER. CABALLERO
CABALLERO. HERE. DODD. DODD.
HERE. DURAZZO DURAZZO. HERE.
EGGMAN. YES. EGGMAN. HERE
GONZALEZ. GROVE. LIMÓN. AYE
LIMON. HERE. MINH. PRESIDENT.
MEN PRESENT. NEWMAN. RUBIO. SATO
SKINNER. STERN. HERE. STERN
HERE. WILK. PRESENT. WILK.
PRESENT. THANK YOU ALL RIGHT. WE
HAVE A QUORUM ESTABLISHED, YOU
CAN CONTINUE WITH YOUR QUESTIONS
, SENATOR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
JUST WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION
THERE, BECAUSE THERE'S A THE
AMENDMENT IS ON I THINK IT'S ON
PAGE FIVE OF THE ANALYSIS, BUT
THE WAY YOU READ IT, IT JUST
SAID TO DROP IT TO 150, BUT THE
OTHER PIECES OF IT ARE THAT THE
CEC MUST MAKE A FINDING THAT NO
LOWER EMISSIONS BACKUP POWER
SYSTEMS ARE TECHNOLOGICALLY
FEASIBLE, AND THAT THE
CONSTRUCTION OPERATION WOULD NOT
RESULT IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL
ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY
RESOURCES. IS THAT PART OF THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENT, OR IS
THAT PIECE NOT BEING INCLUDED?
THAT PIECE IS NOT BEING
INCLUDED. OKAY, WHAT IS PLEASE
STATE SORRY. THE THIRD OF THAT
SENTENCE, ONE.
HEAVY CONSTRUCTION OPERATION.
PART OF THE TECHNOLOGY? YEAH,
IT'S PART OF EXISTING LAW
ALREADY. SO OKAY, THAT'S THAT'S
MY CENTRAL CONCERN. IT'S THE
BACK HALF OF THAT AMENDMENT THAT
I ACTUALLY LIKED AND I THOUGHT
GAVE SPACE TO THIS. KICK THE
TIRES. SEE WHAT'S OUT THERE,
MAYBE IT'S GAS. MAYBE IT'S FUEL
CELL, MAYBE IT'S HYDROGEN. MAYBE
IT'S YOU KNOW, ALL THIS STUFF
OUT THERE. SO I LIKE THAT, NO
LOWER EMISSION TECHNOLOGICAL
FEASIBILITY PIECE. LET'S SEE HOW
THE VOTES GO. BUT THAT'S THE
REASON I CAN'T BE ON THERE. I
THOUGHT THAT ACTUALLY, WHEN I
READ THE ANALYSIS A FEW DAYS AGO
THAT ROUNDED OUT THE BILL. BUT
ANYHOW, SORRY FOR ALL THE LAST
MINUTE, SENATOR. IT'S THROUGH
THE CHAIR. IT'S WHAT THE CEC
ALREADY DOES THAT'S THE ISSUE.
BUT IT'S REALLY WOULD BE THE
MOST REDUNDANT AMENDMENT. THAT'S
WHY IT'S HARD TO TELL THEM TO DO
WHAT THEY ALREADY DO, MR. CHAIR.
SENATOR WILK, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. IF I COULD HAVE THE, BAY
AREA AIR QUALITY METRO DISTRICT
PERSON COME UP, HAVE A QUESTION
FOR HIM. HE'S RECOMMENDING IT,
BUT THEY'RE NOT RECOMMENDING IT.
SO, LISTENING TO THE TESTIMONY
OF THE PROPONENTS, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM THE SILICON VALLEY
LEADERSHIP GROUP SAID THAT ONLY
SEVEN HOURS PER YEAR ON AVERAGE,
THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO USE GAS
GENERATORS. AND I'M ASSUMING
THAT YOU CONCUR WITH THAT
BECAUSE IN YOUR OWN REPORT, ON
BACKUP GENERATORS IN APPENDIX B,
PAGE B, B TEN, YOUR IT SAYS IN
THE REPORT BACKUP GENERATORS
ONLY RUN 0.07% OF THE TIME,
WHICH EQUATES TO SEVEN HOURS A
YEAR. SO YOU REALLY WILLING TO
SHUT DOWN OUR ECONOMY FOR, FOR
SEVEN HOURS A YEAR? I MEAN, I
JUST I THINK IT FEEDS INTO THE
ARGUMENTS MADE BY SENATOR
DASCHLE AND SENATOR DODD. I
CONSIDER THESE DATA DATA CENTERS
BRAINS IS LIKE PULLING THE LIKE
PULLING THE PLUG ON A PERSON AND
SHUTTING IT ALL DOWN. IS SEVEN
HOURS A YEAR REALLY THAT
DETRIMENTAL TO THE WORLD'S
ENVIRONMENT? SO THANKS FOR THE
QUESTION, SENATOR. SO BEFORE I
ANSWER, SO IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU
WERE SAYING THAT THE AIR
DISTRICT AGREED WITH THAT 0.07.
IT'S IN YOUR OWN REPORT. SO I'M
ASSUMING WHICH WHICH REPORT IS
THAT? IT IS THE ON BACKUP
GENERATORS APPENDIX B PAGE B
TEN. WHAT. AND SO WHAT DOCUMENT
IS THAT THOUGH I SEEN A REPORT
ON YOUR BACKUP GENERATORS I
DON'T KNOW OKAY. BECAUSE BECAUSE
WHAT I WOULD. AND SO AS PART OF
THE COMMENT PROCESS WHERE WE'VE
SENT LETTERS TO THE CEC ABOUT
PROPOSED PROJECT S, IN MOST OF
THE LETTERS TO THE CEC, WE'VE
INCLUDED SOME DATA FROM A FROM A
, INFORMATION REQUEST WE SENT TO
EXISTING OPERATING DATA CENTERS
AND ROUTINELY, WHAT WE SAW IN
THOSE DATA REQUESTS WAS THAT FOR
HOURS OF OPERATION, DUE TO NON
TESTING AND NON MAINTENANCE
EXCEEDED, WELL OVER THAT SEVEN
HOURS A YEAR, WHICH I THINK IS
JUST OPERATIONAL TESTING AND
MAINTENANCE. AND SO IN SOME
CASES WE HAVE WE HAVE THESE
DIESEL GENERATORS OPERATING 35
40 HOURS A YEAR. AND THAT WAS
PRE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE
LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WHERE WE
HAD MAJOR POWER OUTAGES. SO BUT
I WOULD, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT
THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE
REFERENCING. GREAT. SO 40 HOURS
A YEAR, THAT'S, THAT'S THAT'S
THAT'S TOO HIGH. TWO, WE'RE
WILLING TO SHUT DOWN THE
ECONOMY, YEAH. SO THIS IS THIS
IS NOT AN ISSUE ABOUT SHUTTING
DOWN THE ECONOMY. AS I
MENTIONED, IF YOU CAN'T ACCESS
THE DATA, IT'S GOING TO AFFECT
HEALTH. IT'S GOING TO AFFECT
TRANSPORTATION. IT'S GOING TO
AFFECT ALL ASPECTS OF OUR OF OUR
CONSTITUENTS LIVES. AND THIS IS
NOT A DISTRICT ISSUE. THIS IS AN
ISSUE FOR THE STATE. IT'S GOING
TO TAKE AWAY OUR
COMPETITIVENESS, BECAUSE, PLENTY
OF COMPANIES ARE LEAVING THE
STATE ALREADY. I KNOW A LOT OF
PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO ADMIT THAT,
BUT IN FACT, IT'S TRUE. IF YOU
LOOK AT THE DATA, JUST PULL UP
U-HAUL AND BOOK A ONE WAY TRUCK
AND YOU'LL SEE PEOPLE ARE
FLEEING. BUT AGAIN, I THINK IT'S
THIS PURSUIT OF PERFECTION AND,
AND AT THE, AT THE EXPENSE OF
THE GOOD. AND IT'S JUST REALLY
FRUSTRATING. YOU KNOW, I DON'T
WANT TO DEBATE YOU. YOU'RE DOING
YOUR JOB. I'M FINE WITH THAT.
BUT IT'S REALLY FRUSTRATING THAT
I DON'T THINK WE'RE DOING WHAT'S
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL
CALIFORNIANS. I'LL JUST LEAVE IT
AT THAT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBERS FOR
QUESTIONS, SENATOR CABALLERO?
WELL, AT THE RISK OF, CONTINUING
KIND OF THE DEBATE, I JUST WANT
TO WEIGH IN BECAUSE I THINK I
WANT TO, SUPPORT I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT YOUR BILL TODAY. WE
ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO GET OUT OF
THE WAY IF WE WANT TO DEVELOP
THE INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO
BRING ON ALTERNATIVE FUELS. AND
THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE, IS THAT
IF PEOPLE CAN'T GET ELECTRICITY,
THEY GO TO DIESEL ENGINES. THEY
JUST DO. AND, IF WE WANT TO GET
AWAY FROM DIESEL, THEN WE HAVE
TO HAVE ALTERNATIVES. THE CARB
SCOPING PLAN VERY CLEARLY SAYS
THERE HAVE TO BE ALTERNATIVES,
AND, WE JUST HAVE TO WE HAVE TO
LIKE, I SAID, GET OUT OF THE
WAY. THESE DATA CENTERS ARE ARE
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. AND I
CAN'T EMPHASIZE HOW MANY PEOPLE
I HAVE HAD COME INTO MY OFFICE
AND TALK TO ME ABOUT THE NEED
FOR DATA CENTERS AND INCLUDING
THE UNIVERSITY Kò FOR QUANTUM
PHYSICS, THE ABILITY TO ACCESS
ENERGY TO BE ABLE TO DO SOME OF
THE TESTING. IF CALIFORNIA WANTS
TO STAY AS THE FOURTH LARGEST
ECONOMY IN THE WORLD, AND NOT
SLIP TO FIFTH AND NOT SLIP TO
SIXTH, THEN WE'VE GOT TO HAVE
ENERGY AND THAT HYDROGEN,
BIOGAS, BIOMASS, ALTERNATIVE
FUELS, DIESEL BLENDS AND SO, THE
MORE THAT WE CAN HAVE THINGS ON
THE TABLE AND I JUST SAW THE
RISE AGAIN OF, OF NUCLEAR, WHICH
NOBODY REALLY WANTS TO SEE
HAPPEN, IN OTHER COUNTRIES,
EUROPE IS, IS GOING BIG WITH
NUCLEAR, IT'S CLEAN, IT'S GREEN.
SO WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT WHAT
WE'RE WILLING TO DO TO PUT ON
THE TABLE SO WE CAN GET AWAY
FROM DIESEL. BECAUSE I AGREE,
DIESEL IS TERRIBLE. WE NEED TO
MOVE AWAY FROM IT. BUT WE ALSO
NEED THESE CENTERS TO CONTINUE
TO OPERATE, TO CONTINUE TO
OPERATE AND TO EXPAND HERE. SO
I'M I'M IN SUPPORT OF YOUR BILL.
DON'T LIKE DON'T LIKE DIESEL.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'VE THERE'S
SOME WE WE'VE GOT TO DO. WE'VE
GOT TO TAKE INTERIM STEPS THAT
WILL GET US THERE. THANK YOU.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? WELL, SENATOR
CORTEZ, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
THIS MEASURE. I THINK IT'S A
COMMON SENSE MEASURE. AND, I
THINK OUR VICE CHAIR STATED, WE
SOMETIMES LET THE PERFECT BE THE
ENEMY OF THE GOOD, WHEN YOU
CONSIDER HOW INFREQUENT THESE
BACKUP GENERATORS THIS IS NOT
BASELOAD POWER WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
GENERATORS RUNNING 24 HOURS A
DAY. WE'RE SEEING, AT BEST, 24
HOURS A YEAR. ONE DIESEL TRUCK
EMITS MORE EMISSIONS IN A DAY
THAN ALL OF THESE GENERATORS
RUN, EMIT ON A ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS. AND SO THAT'S WHY EVERY
HOSPITAL IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA HAS A BACKUP
GENERATOR THAT'S RUN ON DIESEL.
AND I DON'T THINK A SINGLE
PERSON WANTS TO GO TO A HOSPITAL
AND NOT HAVE THAT BACKUP
GENERATION THERE. SO THIS IS
COMMON SENSE. IT'S USED VERY
INFREQUENTLY. SO I THINK IT'S A
MEASURE THAT WE'VE COMPROMISED
ON THE GROWTH OF IT. I KNOW YOU
WOULD LIKE TO SEE 200MW, BUT WE
SETTLED ON 150. SO I HOPE IT'S
BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR DALLI, WE
HAVE A Dð PASS AS A MINUTE TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATOR CORTEZ, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH
THE COMMITTEE'S ENGAGEMENT, THE
FULL COMMITTEE, INCLUDING STAFF.
I APPRECIATE THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE, BEING SO ENGAGED IN
THE ISSUE, EITHER WAY,
REGARDLESS OF YOUR VOTE, THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, FOR YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE,
WHICH YOU JUST ARTICULATE. AND
IT'S VERY MUCH APPRECIATED BY BY
ME. AND, OF COURSE, BY THE
SPONSORS AS WELL. NOT ONLY AS
ARE THOSE HOSPITALS, BACKED UP
BY DIESEL GENERATORS FOR THEIR
OWN, OPERATIONS AND TO KEEP THE
LIGHTS ON. BUT IF YOU'RE
INVOLVED IN ROBOTIC SURGERY IN
THE BACKUP GENERATOR GOES ON SO
THAT THERE'S POWER. BUT THE DATA
CENTER NEXT DOOR GOES DOWN
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A BACKUP
GENERATOR, YOU'RE IN BIG
TROUBLE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO AVOID, THOSE KIND OF
THINGS. AND WITH THAT, I'D
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR. AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY SENATOR DALLI AGAIN,
DO PASS AS AMENDED, TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SENATOR BRADFORD. BRADFORD. AYE.
DALLI. DALLI I. ASHBY. BECKER.
CABALLERO. AYE. CABALLERO. AYE.
DODD DURAZZO. DURAZZO. AYE
EGGMAN. GONZALEZ. GROVE LEMON.
LEMON. AYE. MIN MIN AYE. NEWMAN.
RUBIO SATO. SKINNER. STERN. WILK
AYE. WILK. I CAN'T VOTE SEVEN
ZERO. NEEDS THREE MORE. CURRENT
VOTE IS 7 TO 0. WE'LL LEAVE THAT
ON CALL FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO
ADD ON. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE
ANOTHER OUT THERE AVAILABLE? WHY
DON'T YOU? OKAY, SENATOR NILO.
GOOD JOB. AND MEMBERS AND
AUDIENCE. WE HAVE JUST BEEN
INFORMED BY SENATOR BLAKE SPEER
THAT SHE'S PULLING FILE ITEM
TWO, SB 1148, FROM TODAY'S
HEARING. GOOD MORNING. HOW ARE
YOU, SIR? GOOD Þ. SENATOR NILO,
WHEN YOU'RE READY, SB 1413, MR.
CHAIR, I WAS BORN READY. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. AYE, AYE. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SB
1413. AND I'LL START BY SAYING
THAT I WILL ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
THIS SB 1413 IS A POLICY DEBATE
THAT SOME MIGHT SAY IS AS OLD AS
TIME ITSELF. WELL, MAYBE NOT
QUITE THAT OLD, BUT IT IS A LONG
STANDING DEBATE ABOUT HOW WE IN
CALIFORNIA CAN CONTROL OUR OWN
DESTINY. AND ONCE AND FOR ALL DO
THE SWITCH TO THE TIME CHANGE,
IT IS A MAJORITY OPINION THAT WE
DO DITCH THE SWITCH. THE ONLY
QUESTION IS TO WHICH SWITCH TO
DITCH. IN 2018, CALIFORNIA
VOTERS APPROVED PROPOSITION
SEVEN, WHICH ALLOWS THE
LEGISLATURE TO CHANGE RULES
RELATING TO DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
. SINCE THE PASSAGE OF PROP
SEVEN, THERE'S BEEN A GREAT DEAL
OF CONFUSION. MANY VOTERS
ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT THEY HAD
DECIDED THIS ISSUE. BUT LIKE SO
MANY BILLS AND PROPOSITIONS, THE
DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.
PROPOSITION SEVEN AUTHORIZES THE
LEGISLATURE TO AMEND THESE
PROVISIONS BY A TWO THIRDS VOTE.
TWO THIRDS VOTE IN OUR
INSTITUTION TO CHANGE THE DATES
AND TIMES OF THE DAYLIGHT SAVING
TIME PERIOD CONSISTENT WITH
FEDERAL LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE
APPLICATION OF YEAR ROUND
DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IF
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS. THAT'S
AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.
CURRENTLY FEDERAL LAW ONLY
ALLOWS STATES TO AUTHORIZE
PERMANENT STANDARD TIME OR
UTILIZE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME ON
A TEMPORARY BASIS DURING THE
YEAR. AS WE CURRENTLY DO. TO
DATE, CONGRESS HAS NOT APPROVED
A MOVE TO PERMANENT DAYLIGHT
SAVING TIME AND SO FAR SHOWS NO
INCLINATION TO DO SO IN LIGHT OF
THE LACK OF ACTION BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT IS
IMPORTANT, GIVEN THE WIDESPREAD
OPINION THAT WE DO STOP
SWITCHING EVERY SIX MONTHS, THAT
CALIFORNIA CONSIDER ANOTHER
OPTION TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE BY
MOVING TO PERMANENT STANDARD
TIME. A MAJORITY OF CALIFORNIANS
AGREE THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO
KEEP SWITCHING BACK AND FORTH.
I'VE WORKED OVER THE INTERIM
WITH A GROUP OF LAWMAKERS IN
BORDERING STATES WASHINGTON,
OREGON, IDAHO AND UTAH WHO ARE
ALL CONSIDERING THE SAME THING
IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HOUSES SO
THAT WE WOULD HAVE CONSISTENCY.
THèC NOT ONLY DOES SB 1413
ELIMINATE AN INCONVENIENCE FOR
CALIFORNIANS, BUT THERE ARE
MULTIPLE HEALTH AND SAFETY
IMPLICATIONS. THIS CHANGE WOULD
HELP TO ADDRESS MEDICAL EXPERTS
SUCH AS THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
SLEEP MEDICINE, STATE THAT
PERMANENT STANDARD TIME ALIGNS
WITH OUR BODY'S INTERNAL CLOCK
AND PROVIDES A, QUOTE, BETTER
OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE RIGHT
DURATION OF HIGH QUALITY,
RESTFUL SLEEP ON A REGULAR
BASIS, WHICH IMPROVES OUR
COGNITION, MOOD, CARDIOVASCULAR
HEALTH, AND OVERALL WELL-BEING.
THE CALIFORNIA SLEEP SOCIETY
ALSO SUPPORTS MOVING TO
PERMANENT STANDARD TIME, CITING
INCREASED RISK OF ACCIDENTS,
OBESITY, CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE,
MOOD DISORDERS, COGNITIVE
IMPAIRMENT, DECREASED IMMUNITY,
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF
NEUROLOGIC DEGENERATION DUE TO
SLEEP DEPRIVATION. ASSOCIATE
WITH SWITCHING TO DAYLIGHT
SAVING TIME. ANOTHER STUDY SHOWS
TRAFFIC FATALITIES HAVE AN
INCREASE OF 6% DURING THE
DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME TRANSITION.
THÀNH, THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL
CLINICAL MEDICINE, ALSO REPORTS
A 5.6% INCREASE IN HEART ATTACKS
FOLLOWING THE SWITCH TO DAYLIGHT
SAVING TIME AND TO ADD JUST A
BIT MORE STROKE RATES. ALSO
INCREASE UNDER DAYLIGHT SAVING
TIME. A STUDY IN FINLAND,
RESEARCHERS FOUND THAT THE
OVERALL RATE OF ISCHEMIC STROKE
WAS 8% HIGHER DURING THE FIRST
FEW DAYS AFTER DAYLIGHT SAVING
TIME TRANSITION. I'D NOW LIKE TO
CALL ON MY TWO WITNESSES, FIRST
WE HAVE MR. JP WITH THE
NONPROFIT STANDARD, SAVE
STANDARD TIME, AND I'LL
INTRODUCE THE SECOND WITNESS
WHEN JAY CONCLUDES. JAY, YOU'LL
HAVE TWO MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR
PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. SIR.
HI CHAIR. BRADFORD, VICE CHAIR.
DARLEY, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JP. LAST
NAME IS SPELLED PAPA ALPHA, I AM
THE PRESIDENT OF SAFE STANDARD
TIME. I'M ALSO THE GREAT
GRANDSON OF FARMERS. I'M AN
AMATEUR ASTRONOMER. I'M A
SOFTWARE ENGINEER. AND I'M
ASKING FOR YOUR YES. VOTE ON SB
1413. AND THANK YOU TO SENATOR
NILO FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD. THIS BILL CAN DITCH THE
SWITCH IN THE FASTEST AND SAFEST
WAY POSSIBLE. STANDARD TIME IS
THE NATURAL TIME SET TO THE SUN,
WHERE 12 P.M. CORRESPONDS TO
HIGH NOON. THIS BALANCES THE
LIGHT OVER THE MORNING AND THE
EVENING, WHICH CORRESPONDS TO
BETTER SLEEP, MOOD, HEALTH,
SAFETY, EDUCATION, AND EVEN THE
ECONOMY. VÆ. THIS IS ESPECIALLY
IMPORTANT FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN,
FOR COMMUTERS, FOR FARMERS,
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND EVEN
PERSONS OF LOWER INCOME LEVELS.
THIS IS THE OPINION OF THE
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.
THE CALIFORNIA SLEEP SOCIETY,
THE AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL SAFETY
COUNCIL, EVEN THE EDITORS OF
BLOOMBERG, THIS, THIS
INFORMATION IS BASED ON HUNDREDS
OF STUDIES AND DECADES OF
HISTORY, PERMIT STANDARD TIME
HAS LONG BEEN OBSERVED IN
ARIZONA AND HAWAII, THE FIVE US
TERRITORIES, MOST NATIONS ON
EARTH. MEXICO JUST LAST YEAR
RESTORED PERMANENT STANDARD
TIME, SO THIS WOULD IMPROVE OUR
TRADING RELATIONSHIP. MORE
STATES THAN EVER NOW HAVE BILLS
FOR PERMANENT STANDARD TIME.
NOW, I KNOW SOME PEOPLE MIGHT
THINK, WHAT ABOUT PERMANENT
DAYLIGHT TIME? AND I WOULD WARN
AGAINST THAT DAYLIGHT SAVING
TIME FORCES EARLY WAKING AND
PERMANENT DAYLIGHT TIME WOULD
FORCE US TO GO TO SCHOOL OR WORK
IN THE DARK IN THE WINTER, HERE
IN SACRAMENTO. SO THE SUNRISE
WOULD COME UP AFTER EIGHT IN THE
MORNING FOR TWO AND A HALF
MONTHS UNDER PERMANENT DAYLIGHT
TIME, AS LATE AS 830, WHEN WE
TRIED IT IN 1974, IT LITERALLY
COST LIVES. AND THAT IS WHY IT
IS FEDERALLY PROHIBITED.
REGARDING ENERGY, THERE HAVE
BEEN MANY STUDIES ABOUT THIS.
DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME DOES NOT
SAVE ENERGY. IT'S OFTEN A WASH
OR IN SOME CASES IT INCREASES
ENERGY WASTE. EVEN IF IT WERE A
POLICY TO DECREASE ENERGY, I
WOULD IMPLORE YOU TO LOOK TO THE
STRONG SCIENCE SHOWING THAT THE
STANDARD TIME IS BETTER FOR
HEALTH AND SAFETY, THE DAYS WILL
ALWAYS BE LONGER IN THE SUMMER
BY NATURE, NOT BY GOVERNMENT,
MOST PEOPLE WANT US TO DITCH THE
SWITCH. AND AGAIN, PERMANENT
STANDARD TIME IS THE QUICKEST
AND SAFEST WAY POSSIBLE. PLEASE
VOTE YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? OH, YOU HAVE ANOTHER
BACK. LET ME INTRODUCE MY NEXT
WITNESS. PLEASE DO NOT HOLD THE
INTRODUCTION AGAINST HER TIME
BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
YOU GET THE FULL PORTION OF HER
EXPERTISE. NEXT WE HAVE DOCTOR
AARON FLYNN EVANS. DOCTOR FLYNN
EVANS IS A SLEEP AND CIRCADIAN
RHYTHM RESEARCHER, AND SHE IS A
REPRESENTATIVE AT THE AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF SLEEP MEDICINE.
DOCTOR FLYNN EVANS HAS EXTENSIVE
RESEARCH EXPERIENCE EXAMINING
THE SHORT AND LONG TERME EFFECTS
OF SLEEP LOSS AND CIRCADIAN
DYSSYNCHRONY IN OCCUPATIONAL
SETTINGS, INCLUDING AMONG
ASTRONAUTS, AIRLINE PILOTS,
PHYSICIANS, AND OTHER SHIFT
WORKERS. CURRENTLY, SHE IS A
DIRECT SLEEP RESEARCHER FOR A
LARGE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATION. DOCTOR FLYNN
EVANS, DOCTOR, YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. THANK YOU, CHAIR
BRADFORD. AND THANK YOU, I'D
LIKE TO CERTAINLY THANK SENATOR
NILO FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL, AS YOU JUST
HEARD, I'M A CIRCADIAN
PHYSIOLOGIST. I'VE WORKED IN
SLEEP MEDICINE FOR OVER 20
YEARS. I'M ALSO TO A MOTHER, TO
TWO TEENAGERS WHO I'VE BROUGHT
WITH ME FOR A CIVICS LESSON
TODAY, I ALSO COAUTHORED THE
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF SLEEP
MEDICINE'S POSITION STATEMENTS
ON THIS ISSUE IN 2020, AND 2024.
I RECOMMEND THE ELIMINATION OF
DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN FAVOR OF
PERMANENT STANDARD TIME, AS A
RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA AND A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AASM,
THERE ARE TWO PRIMARY REASONS TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL. FIRST,
STANDARD TIME IS BETTER ALIGNED
WITH OUR INTERNAL CLOCK.
DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME SETS OUR
SOCIAL CLOCK ONE HOUR EARLIER
THAN STANDARD TIME, AND WHEN I
SAY SOCIAL CLOCK, I MEAN THE
CLOCK ON THE WALL. THAT'S THE
CLOCK THAT DETERMINES WHEN WE
HAVE TO GO TO WORK, WHEN WE HAVE
TO GO TO SCHOOL, AND WHEN WE
HAVE TO DO OTHER ACTIVITIES.
THIS DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
CREATES A MISMATCH BETWEEN OUR
INTERNAL CLOCK AND OUR SOCIAL
CLOCK, REQUIRING US ALL TO WAKE
UP EARLIER THAN IS NATURAL FOR
OUR BODIES. WHY DOES THIS
HAPPEN? BECAUSE DAYLIGHT SAVING
TIME RESULTS IN LATER MORNING
DARKNESS AND LATER EVENING
LIGHT. LIGHT IS THE PRIMARY
STIMULUS FOR THE CIRCADIAN
RHYTHM, OR INTERNAL CLOCK, AND
EVENING LIGHT SHIFTS THE DRIVE
TO SLEEP AND WAKE LATER.
THEREFORE, PEOPLE ARE UNABLE TO
NATURALLY FEEL SLEEPY UNTIL
LATER IN THE NIGHT. DURING
DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME, TOGETHER
WITH THE UNCHANGED DEMANDS OF
HAVING TO GET UP EARLY WHEN WE
SET OUR CLOCKS. THAT DAYLIGHT
SAVING TIME FORCES WE LOSE SLEEP
EACH NIGHT DURING THE SEASON OF
DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME. WE DO NOT
GET USED TO CHRONIC SLEEP
DEPRIVATION. WE FEEL LIKE WE DO,
BUT WE DO NOT. IT CONTINUES TO
BUILD, AFFECTING OUR ALERTNESS,
PERFORMANCE, AND OUR MOOD. OUR
TEENAGERS ARE PARTICULARLY
VULNERABLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A
NATURAL TENDENCY TO BE NIGHT
OWLS, AND ARE MORE SENSITIVE TO
EVENING LIGHT. THIS HAS
CONSEQUENCES FOR THEIR HEALTH,
AND STUDIES HAVE ALSO SHOWN THAT
IT HAS CONSEQUENCES FOR THEIR
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, SO BY
CHANGING THE CLOCKS TWICE PER
YEAR RESULTS IN A NUMBER OF
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES.
SPECIFICALLY, THE TRANSITION TO
DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN THE
SPRING RESULTS IN MANY OF THE
THINGS THAT WE HEARD FROM DOCTOR
NILA OR MR. NILA, IN, I SENATOR,
DOCTOR, WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU
TO WRAP UP YOUR TWO MINUTES, AN
INCREASED RATE OF INDUSTRIAL
ACCIDENTS, MOTOR VEHICLE
CRASHES, INCREASED RISK FOR
HEART ATTACKS AND STROKES. IT'S
THE SAFER AND SIMPLER CHOICE TO
ADOPT PERMANENT STANDARD TIME.
THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF SLEEP
MEDICINE AND MANY OTHER
PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL
ORGANIZATIONS AGREE PERMANENT
STANDARD TIME IS BETTER ALIGNED
WITH OUR NATURAL BODY CLOCKS BY
VOTING YES ON SB 1413,
CALIFORNIANS WILL STOP ALTERING
OUR BIOLOGICAL CLOCKS TWICE A
YEAR AND BENEFIT FROM BETTER
SLEEP, HEALTH, AND WELL-BEING.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK
YOU. NOW, ARE THERE ANY MEETINGS
TO THIS MEASURE? NOW IS THE TIME
TO COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME
AND ORGANIZATION. SEEING NONE.
INDIVIDUALS IN OPPOSITION. IT'S
TIME TO COME FORWARD. SEEING
NONE HERE IN THE CHAMBER. BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
SENATOR DODD, CAN I ASK? I THINK
YOU DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING
THAT, BUT, COULD YOU WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN IF IT WAS DAYLIGHT
SAVINGS TIME ALL YEAR ROUND? I
GUESS IT'S LIGHT SO LONG THAT
AND YOU DIDN'T YOU DIDN'T
CHANGE. SO IF WE HAD DAYLIGHT
SAVING TIME YEAR ROUND, THAT
WOULD OBVIOUSLY STOP THIS
CHANGING THAT WE DO TWICE A
YEAR. BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT IN
THE WINTER IT WOULD BE DARK IN
THE MORNING WE WOULD ALL BE
GETTING UP IN THE DARK BECAUSE
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SHIFT THE
TIMING OF OUR WORK AND
ACTIVITIES LATER TO ACCOMMODATE
THE LATER SUNRISE. THAT COMES
WITH A LATER SORT OF SHIFT IN
THE CLOCKS IN THE WINTER. AND SO
JUST MY TEENAGERS WILL SUFFER A
LOT IF WE ADOPT PERMANENT
DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME. IT'LL UNDO
EVERYTHING THAT WE DID TO START
SCHOOL LATER. AND AS THE
HONORARY DOCTOR HERE, I WOULD
ADD TO THAT THAT WE HAVE
EXPERIENCE WITH PERMANENT
DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME. SOME OF US
ARE OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THE
ENERGY CRISIS IN THE EARLY 70S,
AND WE WENT TO A TWO YEAR PILOT
FOR DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME, AND WE
ABANDONED IT AFTER LESS THAN A
YEAR BECAUSE IT WAS SO
UNPOPULAR, TOO DARK. THANK YOU,
SENATOR WILK. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO IN YOUR
OPENING COMMENTS, YOU MENTIONED
THAT YOU WERE BORN READY, BUT I
WAS ON WIKIPEDIA AND YOU WERE
BORN ON JUNE 2ND, WHICH IS
DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME. SO YOU
WERE ACTUALLY BORN TOO SOON.
THANK YOU. HAVING SAID THAT, I
THINK I THINK THIS IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT MEASURE. I MEAN, I
CARE ABOUT MY DOGS, NOT SO MUCH
PEOPLE, BUT MY DOGS, MY DOGS.
THIS THIS MESSES UP MY DOGS AS
WELL. AND THIS BODY FOR A COUPLE
OF YEARS AGO PASSED A BILL TO
START, HIGH SCHOOL AND MIDDLE
SCHOOL LATER BECAUSE THE NEED
FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TO SLEEP. SO
AGAIN, GOD AND MOTHER NATURE
CREATED ONE RHYTHM. AND US BEING
MAN TRYING, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO
CHANGE IT AND JUST GOING BACK TO
THE WAY IT OUGHT TO BE, AGAIN,
SUPPORTED BY SOUND SCIENCE MAKES
SENSE. SO I SALUTE YOU FOR THIS,
BILL AND HAPPY TO MOVE IT WHEN
APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU. ANY
ADDITIONAL SENATOR MAN, THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD. I HATE THE SWITCH AS
WELL, BUT I DID JUST WANT TO I
FIRST, I WANTED TO MENTION YOU
ARE A DOCTOR OF TIME, AND I
THINK THAT IS LIKE A DOCTOR WHO
REFERENCE. RIGHT, OF COURSE.
THERE WE GO, A TIME LORD, I
THINK IS ANOTHER TITLE FOR YOU,
BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, YOU
KNOW, I KNOW THAT I BELIEVE THAT
THERE WAS A PREVIOUS ITERATION
OF THIS BILL THAT WE TRIED TO
MOVE FORWARD, AND ONE OF THE
CONCERNS AROUND WAS AROUND IT
WAS AROUND THE ECONOMIC COSTS
THAT THIS WOULD CREATE FOR THE
STATE. AND I GUESS I WAS
WONDERING IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO
WHAT THIS MIGHT DO AS FAR AS THE
COST TO CALIFORNIA AND HAS
ANYONE DONE A COMPARISON BETWEEN
THE EFFECTS OF, SAY, DAYLIGHT
SAVINGS TIME PERMANENTLY VERSUS
STANDARD TIME, PERMANENTLY
VERSUS THE STATUS QUO AND WHAT
THAT LOOKS LIKE AS FAR AS THE
COST BENEFIT FOR THE STATE, I'LL
ASK THE REAL DOCTOR TO ADDRESS
THAT POINT. I ASSUME. OR OR
PERHAPS MR. P, I'VE BEEN
NOMINATED. WHEN WE WHEN WE WERE
ON DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME, WE ARE
SLEEPING LESS, I BELIEVE IT'S AN
AVERAGE OF 19 MINUTES LESS EVERY
SINGLE NIGHT. THE FIRST WHEN WE
SPRING THE CLOCKS FORWARD, WE
GET 40 MINUTES LESS SLEEP. BUT
EVERY EVERY NIGHT THEREAFTER,
WE'RE STILL GETTING LESS SLEEP
BECAUSE WE ARE STILL GETTING UP
EARLY AND OVER THE LONG TERME
THAT CHRONICALLY REDUCES OUR
PRODUCTIVITY AND THAT HAS A WEAR
AND TEAR ON THE ECONOMY, THERE
WAS A STUDY THAT FOUND IT COULD
DECREASE WAGES BY 1 TO 3. EVEN
SO, DAYLIGHT TIME IS WORSE FOR
THE GENERAL ECONOMY AND STANDARD
TIME WOULD BE BETTER. I GUESS
I'M THINKING SPECIFICALLY, I
KNOW THE GOLF, THE GOLF,
WHATEVER CLUBS ASSOCIATION
OPPOSED THIS BECAUSE OF THEY
WANTED THE LATER SUN IN CERTAIN
TIMES OF THE YEAR. AND I'M ALSO
WONDERING LIKE, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S PROBABLY COSTS OF US IF
WE'RE THE ONLY STATE TO DO THIS,
THERE'S PROBABLY SOME COSTS
INCURRED FROM, YOU KNOW,
AIRPLANES COMING IN AT DIFFERENT
TIMES AND, YOU KNOW, CHANGING
THE WAY THAT WE'RE LABELED. AND
I KNOW WE HAVE ARIZONA AS AN
EXAMPLE. BUT LIKE WHAT HAPPENED
THERE? DID THEY HAVE TO INCUR
COSTS? WOULD WE HAVE NOT JUST
THE ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY
ISSUES, BUT LIKE WOULD THERE BE
EFFECTS ON THE STATE THAT WOULD
IMPACT OUR BUDGET? THAT'S WHY I
WAS ATTRACTED TO THIS. I WAS
ACTUALLY CONTACTED BY STATE
SENATORS IN WASHINGTON AND
OREGON ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THEY
HAVE THE SAME CONCERN THEY ARE
PURSUING BILLS IN THEIR
INSTITUTION FOR PERMANENT
STANDARD TIME. ALSO, OREGON,
APPROVED A MOVE TO PERMANENT
STANDARD TIME SUBJECT TO
CALIFORNIA DOING IT.
INTERESTINGLY, WASHINGTON DID
NOT HEAR THE BILL, BUT THEY WILL
NEXT YEAR. THE CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE DID NOT WANT TO. THAT
CHAIR IS TERMED OUT. THEY'RE
ANTICIPATING THAT NEXT YEAR UTAH
AND IDAHO ARE SIMILARLY
CONSIDERING THAT AND SO WE
SHOULD HAVE, UNANIMITY AMONG
STATES CLOSED END AND MEXICO,
THE NORTHERN PORTION ALREADY IS
ON DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME. I'M NOT
AWARE OF ANY STUDIES OF THE
ECONOMIC IMPACT. THERE CERTAINLY
ISN'T ANY. JUST BY VIRTUE OF
DOING THE SWITCH. YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT ANCILLARY EFFECTS BECAUSE
OF ADJUSTMENTS, I HAVE A HARD
TIME BELIEVING THAT THAT WOULD
BE A PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING
THING, I JUST TRAVELED ACROSS
THE COUNTRY THIS WEEKEND, AND,
EVERYTHING I'VE GOT
AUTOMATICALLY ADJUSTED ME TO THE
TO THE NEW TIME THAT HAPPENS
ROUTINELY BY, YOU KNOW, TIME
ZONE CHANGES, SO I HAVE A HARD
TIME BELIEVING THAT THERE WOULD
BE SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC EFFECTS.
BUT THE ISSUE, BOTH FROM AN
ENERGY PERSPECTIVE AS WELL AS A
HEALTH PERSPECTIVE, HAS BEEN
STUDIED TO DEATH, PARDON THE PUN
, THE ENERGY IMPACT HAS BEEN
LONG SINCE DEBUNKED, AND THE
NEGATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS YOU HAVE
HEARD ABOUT, THEY ARE WELL
ESTABLISHED. BOTH OF THOSE
ISSUES WITH MANY STUDIES. THANK
YOU, SENATOR DURAZO, MR. CHAIR,
IF YOU COULD CLARIFY WHAT WHAT
IS THIS? THE BILL IS ACTUALLY
ASKING FOR? BECAUSE I'D HEARD
THAT THERE WERE POTENTIAL
AMENDMENTS. YES, SO I JUST WANT
TO BE THE AMENDMENT CLEARLY
STATES THAT REQUIRE THE CDC BY
FEBRUARY 1ST TO CONDUCT AN
ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACTS OF
CALIFORNIA'S ENERGY RELIABILITY
OF MOVING TO YEAR ROUND STANDARD
TIME, WITH A FOCUS ON LATE
SUMMER EARLY FALL. THAT'S THE
EXTENT OF THE OKAY, SO IT'S AN
ASSESSMENT. YES. IT'S NOT THE
ACTUAL REPEAL, BUT THE POLICY IS
STILL THE POLICY. THE BILL IS TO
, MOVE TO PERMANENT STANDARD
TIME. OKAY. I'M NOT SURE I
UNDERSTAND THAT THEN. SO IF IT'S
WITH THE GOAL OF MOVING TO
PERMANENT STANDARD TIME, THAT'S
DIFFERENT THAN. BUT THE STUDY
WOULD MOVE. IN OTHER WORDS,
WE'RE MAKING THE DECISION TODAY
TO MOVE TO STANDARD TIME. OKAY.
YEAH. OKAY ANY ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS HEARING
NONE. SENATOR NEIL, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? YES, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, THERE IS MULTIPLE,
SURVEYS HAVE SHOWN THAT MOST
PEOPLE WANT TO DITCH THE SWITCH.
AS I SAID EARLIER, WHEN MY CHIEF
OF STAFF TOLD ME I WAS LISTENING
TO, TOO MUCH DOCTOR SEUSS, THE
ISSUE ISN'T WHETHER WE DITCH THE
SWITCH. THE ISSUE IS TO WHICH
SWITCH WE DITCH. AND THE
QUICKEST WAY TO DO THAT IS TO
SWITCH TO PERMANENT STANDARD
TIME, BECAUSE WE CAN'T MOVE TO
PERMANENT DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME.
IT IS CONTRARY TO FEDERAL
POLICY. AND AS I SAID BEFORE,
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOWS NO
INCLINATION TO APPROVE THAT. AND
WE HAD THAT FAILED EXPERIENCE,
50 YEARS AGO. AND I WOULD
EMPHASIZE THAT IT IS A HIGH BAR
OF APPROVAL IN ON THE FLOOR,
BOTH IN THE SENATE AS WELL AS
THE ASSEMBLY. IT HAS TO PASS BY
A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY. SO IF YOU
HAVE A PERSONAL PREFERENCE FOR
PERMANENT DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME,
I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU LET
THIS MOVE FORWARD. AND IF IT
PASSES ON A SUPERMAJORITY, TO,
TO HONOR THAT SUPERMAJORITY, FOR
PERMANENT STANDARD TIME. SO WITH
THAT, I REQUEST AN AYE VOTE.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR MEN,
WE HAVE A DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE SENATE FLOOR. SECRETARY,
PLEASE RATE. SENATOR BRADFORD.
BRADFORD. AYE. DALLI. DALLI I
ASHBY. BECKER. CABALLERO. DODD
DODD I. DURAZO. SLEEP. EGGMAN
EGGMAN I GONZALEZ. GROSS LEMON.
LEMON I MEN I MEN I NEWMAN.
RUBIO. CIERTO SKINNER. STERN.
WILK I WILK I70. THAT MEASURE
HAS SEVEN VOTES. WE'LL LEAVE THE
ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO
ADD ON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU SENATOR. THANK YOU
ALL. DO YOU WANT TO BRING UP THE
PADILLA BILL? TI¾N. OH, YES.
MOVE THE BILL. IT WAS MOVED. WE
HAVE SB 1006 BY SENATOR PADILLA
WAS MOVED BY WILK. IT WAS MOVED
BY WILK, AS AMENDED, I DON'T
REMEMBER GETTING A STATEMENT,
HIM ACCEPTING IT, BUT HE HE
ACCEPTED IT. OKAY. GOT IT. THANK
YOU. SO WE HAVE THAT. SO WE HAVE
A MOTION BY SENATOR WILK.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON SB 1006. SENATORS BRADFORD.
BRADFORD. AYE. DELI. DELI. AYE.
ASHBY BECKER. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. DODD DODD. AYE.
DURAZZO. DURAZZO. AYE EGGMAN.
EGGMAN. AYE. GONZALEZ. GROVE
LEMON. LEMON. AYE. MIN. MIN AYE.
NEWMAN. RUBIO. SATO. SKINNER
STERN. WILK. AYE. WILK. AYE.
990. NEEDS ONE MORE. SORRY. NINE
ZERO. NEEDS ONE MORE. YOU WANT
TO CALL THE ROLL AGAIN ON THAT
ONE? WE HAVE SENATOR ASHFORD
WHO'S HERE NOW. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU WANT ME. TO. GUESS NOT.
LET'S MOVE ON TO SENATOR. MEN,
SB 938. OOPS. THANK YOU. CHAIR.
BRADFORD. COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
BEFORE I START, I JUST WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR EXCELLENT WORK ON THIS
BILL. AND WANT TO STATE THAT WE
WILL BE ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. SB 938
WOULD PREVENT, INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES FROM USING RATEPAYER
DOLLARS TO FUND POLITICAL
ACTIVITIES, PROMOTIONAL
PROMOTIONAL ADVERTISEMENTS AND
MEMBERSHIP DUES OF TRADE
ASSOCIATIONS THAT ARE ENGAGED IN
LOBBYING. CALIFORNIANS ARE ONLY
SUPPOSED TO PAY THEIR UTILITIES
TO PROVIDE THEM WITH SAFE AND
RELIABLE SERVICES. HOWEVER
ALONGSIDE THE COSTS OF METERING
PIPES AND WIRES, UTILITIES HAVE
BEEN SNEAKING THE COST OF THEIR
POLITICAL INFLUENCE INTO
CUSTOMER BILLS. AS REPORTED LAST
YEAR IN A GROUNDBREAKING
SACRAMENTO BEE STORY, SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA GAS BOOKED AT LEAST
$36 MILLION TO ITS CUSTOMERS FOR
POLITICAL LOBBYING. IN ONE
EXAMPLE, A SECRET CONTRACT
SHOWED HOW SOCAL GAS HAD USED
CUSTOMER MONEY TO PAY THE
BUSINESS FEDERATION OF LOS
ANGELES TO RECRUIT SPEAKERS
AGAINST ELECTRIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS, EVEN DRIVING THEM
TO CPUC MEETINGS. SB 938 WOULD
ADDRESS THESE ABUSES BY CLEARLY
DEFINING THE POLITICAL AND
ADVERTISING ACTIVITIES WHICH
UTILITY SHAREHOLDERS AND NOT
RATEPAYERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
FUNDING. IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT
LOBBYING OR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
BY THE UTILITIES. IT JUST SIMPLY
STATES THAT THEY CANNOT USE
RATEPAYER MONEY TO DO SO.
BUILDING ON FEDERAL PROHIBITIONS
ON LOBBYING FOR THOSE PURPOSES
ALREADY. THIS CREATES STRONG
TRANSPARENCY AND PENALTY
PROVISIONS TO DETER
NONCOMPLIANCE, AND PROHIBITS
UTILITIES FROM CHARGING
RATEPAYERS FOR COSTLY
MEMBERSHIPS TO TRADE GROUPS THAT
ARE ENGAGED IN POLITICAL
INFLUENCE ACTIVITIES. I HAVE
WITH ME TODAY, MATT VESPA WITH
EARTHJUSTICE AND MARK TONY WITH
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. PLEASE THANK YOU,
CHAIRMAN BRADFORD AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I'M MATT VESPA, A
SENIOR ATTORNEY AT EARTHJUSTICE.
EARTHJUSTICE IS PROUD TO
CO-SPONSOR SB 938. I HAVE SPENT
OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS
PRACTICING BEFORE THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION, WHERE I
HAVE WORKED TO UNCOVER UTILITY
MISUSE OF CUSTOMER MONEY ON
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, SB 938 IS
CRITICAL LEGISLATION THAT WILL
PROTECT CALIFORNIANS BY KEEPING
UTILITY LOBBYING COSTS OUT OF
THEIR BILLS. WHILE UTILITIES ARE
NOT SUPPOSED TO CHARGE CUSTOMERS
FOR THEIR LOBBYING COSTS, THIS
SYSTEM CURRENTLY INCENTIVIZES
THEM TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN GET
AWAY WITH. AND THAT'S BECAUSE
UTILITY COSTS ARE TYPICALLY
REVIEWED EVERY FOUR YEARS. IN A
GENERAL RATE CASE, THERE ARE A
MASSIVE NUMBER OF EXPENDITURES
THAT FORM THE BASIS FOR REVENUE
REQUESTS AND HUNDREDS OF
DIFFERENT COST CATEGORIES.
PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN RATE
CASES DO NOT HAVE ANYWHERE NEAR
THE TIME OR THE RESOURCES TO
CONDUCT THE TYPE OF DETAILED
REVIEW REQUIRED TO CATCH ALL, OR
EVEN MOST ACCOUNTING ERRORS.
EVEN INVESTIGATING A SINGLE
EXPENSE IS SIGNIFICANT WORK THAT
OFTEN REQUIRES OVERCOMING
UTILITY OBSTRUCTION, THÀNH AND
WHEN YOU DO AND FINALLY CATCH
THEM CHARGING RATEPAYERS FOR
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, THEY CLAIM
INADVERTENT ERROR. MOVE THE COST
TO A SHAREHOLDER ACCOUNT AND
FACE NO OTHER CONSEQUENCES. THIS
HAS HAPPENED REPEATEDLY. IF YOU
ROB A BANK AND THE ONLY THING
YOU HAVE TO DO IS RETURN THE
MONEY. IF YOU HAPPEN TO GET
CAUGHT, YOU ARE INCENTIVIZED TO
KEEP DOING IT. THIS IS WHAT SB
938 IS DESIGNED TO STOP. IT
ESTABLISHES CLEAR DEFINITIONS ON
THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE
ACTIVITIES. UTILITY SHAREHOLDERS
MUST PAY FOR. AND THEN IT MAKES
CLEAR THAT IMPROPERLY RECORDING
THESE COSTS TO RATEPAYER
ACCOUNTS ARE VIOLATIONS SUBJECT
TO PENALTIES. SB 938 INCENTIVE
RISES UTILITIES TO GET IT RIGHT,
NOT SEE WHAT THEY CAN GET AWAY
WITH. IN DOING SO, IT GIVES
CALIFORNIANS MUCH GREATER
CONFIDENCE THAT THE COSTS OF
UTILITIES POLITICAL INFLUENCE
MACHINES ARE NOT BEING SLIPPED
INTO THEIR BILLS. I WANT TO
THANK SENATOR MIN FOR
AUTHORIZING OR AUTHORING THIS
IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION,
AND I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE, THE CHAIR AND STAFF
FOR WORKING WITH WORKING WITH US
ON THIS BILL. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE ON SB 938.
THANK YOU, MR. TONY. I MARK
TONEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
TURN, THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
CHAIR, BRADFORD VICE CHAIR,
DARLEY, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
TURN IS PROUD TO CO-SPONSOR SB
938 BECAUSE IT OFFERS RATEPAYER
RELIEF BY HOLDING SHAREHOLDERS
ACCOUNTABLE TO FOOT THE BILL FOR
LOBBYING ACTIVITIES THAT AREN'T
SUPPOSED TO BE CHARGED TO
RATEPAYERS AND FOR PUBLIC
RELATIONS THAT BENEFIT THEIR
BOTTOM LINE. SB 938 OFFERS
RATEPAYER RELIEF BECAUSE IT PUTS
AN END TO THE PRACTICE OF
SPENDING UNTOLD MILLIONS OF
RATEPAYER DOLLARS FOR PGE AND
OTHER UTILITY BILLS FOR
TELEVISION COMMERCIALS DURING
WARRIOR BASKETBALL GAMES. FOR
ONE AND OTHER SPORTING EVENTS.
SB 938 PROMOTES ACCOUNTABILITY
BECAUSE IT REQUIRES TRUTH IN
ADVERTISING DISCLOSURE MEASURE.
IT WOULD REQUIRE EVERY PIECE OF
UTILITY ADVERTISING TO SPELL OUT
FOR THE WORLD TO SEE WHETHER IT
WAS PAID BY RATEPAYERS OR PAID
BY SHAREHOLDERS. YOUR YES VOTE
ON SB 938 WILL LET YOU LOUDLY
PROCLAIM TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS
BACK HOME THAT YOU ARE HOLDING
UTILITY SHAREHOLDERS ACCOUNTABLE
AND DOING SOMETHING CONCRETE TO
PROVIDE THEM RELIEF FROM RECORD
BREAKING MONTHLY BILLS. THANK
YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? STATE YOUR NAME AND
YOUR ORGANIZATION. MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, KENDRA HARRIS, THE
CLIMATE CENTER IN STRONG SUPPORT
. ISABELLA CARINO ON BEHALF OF
THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE AND
SUPPORT. MICHELLE KANELLIS, ON
BEHALF OF UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS AND SUPPORT. DOCTOR
BRIANNA JAMES, ON BEHALF OF TÂM
AND RATE PAYERS UNITED IN STRONG
SUPPORT. CYNTHIA SHALIT ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA TO STATE.
STRONG, INDIVISIBLE AND AT 60
GROUPS ACROSS THE STATE AND ALSO
WITH THE 40 GROUPS THAT SIGNED
ON TO THE COALITION. LETTER
PREPARED BY INDIVISIBLE GREEN
TEAM. THANK YOU. WE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF 938. HELLO, MY NAME
IS KAREEM. I AM A MEMBER OF TURN
AND RATEPAYERS UNITED. I LIVE IN
BELL GARDENS, CALIFORNIA AND I
STRONGLY SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, RAQUEL
MASON, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ALLIANCE AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. ELISE
FREDERICK FROM TRENTON PRICE
CONSULTING HERE ON BEHALF OF
ENVIRO VOTERS IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. HELLO. I'M JANET COX FOR
SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
FOR CLIMATE ACTION CALIFORNIA.
THE CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT,
CALIFORNIA COALITION 350 BAY
AREA ACTION AND THE GLENDALE
ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. SAVANNAH
JORGENSEN WITH THE LUTHERAN
OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY,
CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS JAMES TH¤U, ACTOR
WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE
COUNCIL OF LABORERS. PROUD TO BE
IN SUPPORT. GABRIELA WITH SIERRA
CLUB, CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT,
MISTER CHAIR MARK FENSTERMAKER
ASKED TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC INTEREST
RESEARCH GROUP CALPIRG IN
SUPPORT. MY NAME IS REVEREND
JONES AND I'M FROM OAKLAND,
CALIFORNIA, AND I'M HERE WITH
TARYN AND WITH RATEPAYERS UNITED
, AND ALSO WITH THE GOOD HOPE
MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, GOOD
HOPE RESOURCE CENTER, BAY CITY
BAPTIST MINISTRIES, AND FALCON
THREE RESOURCE CENTER. AND WE
URGE A STRONG YES. GOOD MORNING,
KIM CRAIG, ON BEHALF OF SONOVA
AND SUPPORT. KEVIN LUO, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA SOLAR
AND STORAGE ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. BUENOS DIAS. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS MAYRA YANEZ.
MY NAME IS MAYRA YANEZ. APOYO A
LA A TRUMP. I'M A MEMBER OF TURN
A UNION, THE BELL GARDENS UNION,
THE VECINOS OF BELL GARDENS.
THAT'S UNION OF NEIGHBORS, OF
BELL GARDENS, NEIGHBORHOOD
WATCH, NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH
ASSOCIATION DE CAMPEONES, THE
ASSOCIATION OF CHAPLAINS, COMO
LATINA HISPANA, ESTOY AQUI EN
NOMBRE DE TODOS DICIENDO SI. AND
IN NAME OF ALL THE HISPANIC
COMMUNITY IN BELL GARDENS I
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
BEN SCHWARTZ WITH THE CLEAN
COALITION IN SUPPORT. BUENOS
DIAS. MY NAME IS MAYRA
RODRIGUEZ. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS MAYRA RODRIGUEZ. SOY DE LA
COMUNIDAD DE BELL GARDENS. I AM
HERE FROM BELL GARDENS,
CALIFORNIA. SO THE LA UNION DE
VECINOS DE BELL GARDENS. SHE'S
ALSO A MEMBER OF THE UNION OF
BUSINESS OF BELL GARDENS.
NEIGHBORS OF BELL GARDENS, THE
BEST SA VISTA IN ACTION. IBA MH
ACTION. YES REPRESENTANDO
ATTORNEY. SHE'S A MEMBER OF TURN
AND SHE'S IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
CHAIRMAN BRADFORD. DISTINGUISHED
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS IRINEO DOMINGO DURAN.
I'M FROM ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA.
I'M THE PUBLIC POLICY DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC POLICY EXCHANGE. I'M
ALSO WITH THE UTILITY REFORM
NETWORK AND RATEPAYERS UNITED IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS SALVADOR DIAZ AND I'M FROM
WOODLAND PARK, CALIFORNIA. I'M
WITH TURN AND PACIFIC ENGAGEMENT
PROJECT AND A STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS AMANDA LEE FROM WEST
SACRAMENTO. I'M REPRESENTING
TURN AND RATEPAYERS UNITED AND
I'M IN SUPPORT AS WELL. THANK
YOU. HELLO. MY NAME IS BRENDA
PIERRE AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING
TURN AND RATEPAYERS UNITED
PILGRIM COMMUNITY CHURCH, UNITED
CHURCH OF CHRIST IN SAN
FRANCISCO IT BOOKMAN COMMUNITY
CENTER IN SAN FRANCISCO. SENIORS
HELLO, DOCTOR. HAROLD PIERRE,
PASTOR OF PILGRIM COMMUNITY
CHURCH SERVING THE SAN FRANCISCO
BAY AREA FOR THE PAST 135 YEARS,
AND THE UNITED, UNITED CHURCH OF
CHRIST IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.
VÀ. AND ON BEHALF OF TURN, I AM
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HELLO,
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
ALISON HILLIARD WITH REIMAGINE
POWER IN SUPPORT TODAY. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
MARCUS WALKER OF BERKELEY,
CALIFORNIA, AND I'M REPRESENTING
TURN AND RATEPAYERS UNITED AND
ALSO THE ORPHALI BROWN
SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION AND THE
ACTS OF GRACE MINISTRIES. AND I
STRONGLY URGE YOUR SUPPORT IN
THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL. THANK
YOU FOR THIS TIME. THANK YOU.
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? SEEING NONE NOW IT'S
TIME FOR OPPOSITION. DO WE HAVE
TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES
EACH. MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS,
SCOTT WATSON, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF UTILITY
EMPLOYEES AND THE STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, OUR OPPOSITION TO SB
938 IS THAT IT IMPINGES ON THE
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF MY
MEMBERS BY PREEMPTING PROVISIONS
THAT ARE COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED
UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT AND UNDER THE
NATIONAL LABOR MANAGEMENT ACT.
IT'S VERY COMMON WITHIN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
FOR THERE TO BE Kò, PROVISIONS
THAT PROVIDE FOR INSTANCE, FOR
RELEASE TIME, SO THAT MY MEMBERS
CAN PARTICIPATE IN UNION
ACTIVITIES, CAN PARTICIPATE IN
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY, COULD GO
OUT AND PARTICIPATE IN ANY
NUMBER OF FIRST AMENDMENT TYPE
OF ACTIVITIES, IT'S ALSO VERY
COMMON THROUGH THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PROCESS FOR MONIES TO
BE AGREED TO BE SPENT ON THROUGH
A JOINT LABOR MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE ON ALL KINDS OF
DIFFERENT ISSUES, FROM SAFETY,
TO ADD EFFICACY TO DIFFERENT
ACTIVITIES. BECAUSE THIS BILL,
SLOPPILY WRITTEN LANGUAGE, IN
ITS DEFINITIONS OF POLITICAL
ACTIVITIES AND HIS DEFINITIONS
OF ABOVE LINE ACCOUNTS,
INFRINGES ON MY MEMBERS RIGHTS
THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. I
MEAN, IF THIS BILL IS TO GO INTO
EFFECT TOMORROW, WE WOULD
ABSOLUTELY LITIGATE ON THOSE
BASES OF BEING PREEMPTED BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
SIMILAR LEGISLATION WAS PROPOSED
AND PASSED IN RIGHT AROUND 2012
BY SENATOR MARK LENO PROHIBITING
UTILITIES FROM USING MARKETING
FUNDS TO OPPOSE THE CREATION OF
COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
DISTRICTS AND AMENDMENT S WERE
PUT INTO THE BILL BY THIS
COMMITTEE TO ENSURE THAT MY
MEMBERS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
RIGHTS ARE NOT INFRINGED. SO FOR
THAT REASON, WE'RE OPPOSED AND
URGE A NO VOTE. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS, GOOD MORNING, BRANDON
EBCLC ON BEHALF OF PACIFIC GAS
AND ELECTRIC, WE OPPOSE BECAUSE,
TO BE CLEAR, WE DO NOT USE ANY
RATEPAYER DOLLARS FOR LOBBYING.
THAT'S ALL SHAREHOLDER FUNDED.
THIS BILL ULTIMATELY JUST TAKES
AWAY PUC DISCRETION TO GO INTO
EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL COST
AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
IT'S A JUST OR REASONABLE COST
THAT SHOULD BE PAID FOR BY
CUSTOMERS, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
TWO SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF THE
BILL. ONE, WITH REGARDS TO TRADE
ASSOCIATIONS. WE ARE MEMBERS OF
A LOT OF TRADE ASSOCIATIONS,
INCLUDING ONES THAT SUPPORT
CLIMATE BILLS, INCLUDING. THERE
WAS A PRIOR BILL THAT GOT PULLED
FROM THIS COMMITTEE. WE ARE A
MEMBER OF THAT TRADE ASSOCIATION
THAT ADVANCES DECARBONIZATION
GOALS. WE GO TO THE PUC, WE
PRESENT ALL THE TRADE
ASSOCIATIONS AND THEY MAKE A
DETERMINATION OF IF THERE SHOULD
BE ANY RATEPAYER FUNDS USED
TOWARDS THAT. THE BIGGEST ONES,
EDISON ELECTRIC, EDISON ELECTRIC
INSTITUTE AND THE AMERICAN GAS
ASSOCIATION, THE SPONSORS HAVE
CALLED FOR US TO PULL OUT FROM
THOSE ASSOCIATIONS ENTIRELY.
THEY DON'T AGREE WITH THE
NATIONAL SITUATION. WE ARE THE
LARGEST MEMBERS, LARGEST
UTILITY, LARGEST MEMBERS OF
THOSE ASSOCIATION. WE USE
ASSOCIATION TO EMERGENCY
RESPONSE, MUTUAL AID, WILDFIRE
TRAINING AND COORDINATION TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE UTILITIES ARE
SHARING INFORMATION ACROSS THE
NATION. WHEN THERE WAS THE
CRISIS IN UKRAINE FIRST BROKE
OUT, EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE
USED THE MECHANISM THERE TO
REACH OUT AND SAY, DO WE HAVE
ANY SURPLUS EQUIPMENT WE COULD
PROVIDE TO UKRAINE? THERE'S A
LOT OF BENEFITS TO CUSTOMERS,
AND WE ARGUE THAT BEFORE THE
PUC, TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THOSE
SPLITS ARE BETWEEN SHAREHOLDERS
AND CUSTOMERS WITH REGARDS TO
ADVERTISING, IF THERE IS BRAND
ADVERTISING THAT IS SHAREHOLDER
FUNDED, THE BULK OF OUR,
UNDERGROUNDING PROGRAM IS
SHAREHOLDER FUNDED. THERE ARE
SOME COMMERCIALS THAT ALSO DEAL
WITH WILDFIRE SAFETY. WE HAVE
PROPOSED THAT SOME OF THOSE ARE
CUSTOMER FUNDED, BECAUSE
CUSTOMERS WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE
ARE DOING WITH THE 2 TO $3
BILLION A YEAR IN WILDFIRE
MITIGATION. SO ULTIMATELY, THIS
BILL JUST TAKES AWAY PC
DISCRETION, WE ASK FOR A NO
VOTE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ASK ANY
QUESTIONS. THIS IS PRETTY
COMPLICATED. THANK YOU.
ADDITIONAL OPPOSITION STATE YOUR
NAME AND YOUR ORGANIZATION. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR, AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. ISRAEL SALAS
WITH SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC
AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
COMPANY IN OPPOSITION AS WELL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, ANDREW KOSAR WITH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. HI, MEG
SNYDER, ON BEHALF OF THE
INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENTAL
ADVOCATES, OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION HEARING THE ROOM?
SEEING NONE. I'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS
OR CONCERNS BY COMMITTEE?
SENATOR DODD, YOU COULD ONE OF
THE WITNESSES, IN SUPPORT OF
THIS, ENLIGHTENED THE COMMITTEE
ON HOW MUCH MONEY YOU THINK THIS
AMOUNTS TO PER YEAR. THAT'S A
VERY GOOD QUESTION. AND WE ONLY
HAVE A PARTIAL ANSWER BECAUSE.
BECAUSE THE UTILITIES ARE VERY
GOOD AT HIDING EXPENSES. AND
WHEN YOU HEAR ABOUT TELEVISION
COMMERCIALS, YOU MAY HAVE SEEN
SOME OF THE SAME ONES I SEE ON
THE WARRIOR BASKETBALL GAMES
THAT THAT WHEN THE CEO OF PG AND
E PUTS ON A HARD HAT AND SAYS
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
UNDERGROUND FOR SAFETY, THAT
GETS CATEGORIZED AS A SAFETY
MESSAGE AND CHARGE TO
RATEPAYERS. THOSE ARE VERY
EXPENSIVE ADS, AND THOSE ARE THE
TYPES OF ADS. THAT A SINGLE AD
THAT WE HAD ASKED FOR
INFORMATION ON HOW MUCH DID IT
COST TO PRODUCE AND TO RUN IT
WITH $6 MILLION? OKAY. THERE ARE
MULTIPLE ADS. THAT'S PART OF WHY
THIS BILL HAS A REQUIREMENT,
JUST LIKE A POLITICAL
ADVERTISEMENT PAID FOR BY THE
CANDIDATE OR PAID FOR BY AN
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE
COMMITTEE. OKAY. PAID FOR BY
RATEPAYERS OR PAID FOR BY
SHAREHOLDERS. THAT WILL MAKE IT
CLEAR TO EVERYBODY WHO WHO IS
PAYING FOR WHAT. AND IT IS
ABSOLUTELY THE MOST IMPORTANT,
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL. SO MR.
CHAIR, YES. YOU DIDN'T GIVE ME A
NUMBER. I MEAN, EVEN IF IT'S 40
MILLION, LISTEN, EVEN IF IT'S
$40 MILLION A YEAR, LOOK, I'M
PROBABLY GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS
BILL BECAUSE I'VE GOT SO MANY
PEOPLE IN MY, YOU KNOW, DISTRICT
WITH PG AND E AND THE FIRES AND
EVERYTHING. BUT SO OFTEN WHAT WE
DO HERE IS WE CREATE PROGRAMS
LIKE THIS, AND WE WE'LL GET THE
HEADLINES. IT'LL PROBABLY SAVE A
DOLLAR A MONTH. IF I COULD JUST
JUST HANG ON A SECOND. A DOLLAR
A MONTH IS. AND IT MAY BE NOT
NOT EVEN THAT. AND SO WE GET ALL
THE HEADLINES FOR THIS. BUT AT
THE SAME TIME, HOW MUCH MONEY IS
PUT IN THESE RATES THAT WE'VE
GOT NOW THAT THIS, THAT THIS
COMMITTEE AND THE LEGISLATURE
HAS PUT FORWARD OVER THE YEARS,
ALL FOR THE RIGHT REASONS. SO
NOW WE'RE COMING IN FOR THIS
PARTICULAR REASON HERE AND DOING
THIS. BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN US
REALLY GO BACK THROUGH AND LOOK
AT WHAT'S IN OUR RATE BASE THAT
WE COULD PERHAPS BE GIVING OUR
CUSTOMERS A BREAK ON. AND IF I
COULD JUST RESPOND AS WELL.
AGAIN, AS I NOTED IN THE OUTSET,
THE SACRAMENTO BEE UNCOVERED $36
MILLION IN ONE INSTANCE FROM
SOCAL GAS. BUT AS I THINK THE
OTHER WITNESS NOTED, THIS IS
KIND OF A GAME WHERE YOU ONLY
KNOW HOW MUCH HAS BEEN SPENT
USING RATEPAYER MONEY WHEN YOU
CATCH THEM, AND THAT'S ONE OF
THE CHALLENGES OF THE STATUS QUO
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IS
MORE TRANSPARENCY, MORE
REPORTING, SO THAT IT'S NOT JUST
A THING WHERE WE CATCH THEM AND
WE SAY, OKAY, 36 MILLION, WHICH
MAY NOT SEE LIKE A LOT OF MONEY.
YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU AND I HAVE
TALKED, SENATOR, ABOUT HOW THAT
AGGREGATES OUT TO A VERY SMALL
AMOUNT PER CUSTOMER. BUT AGAIN,
THAT'S JUST ONE INSTANCE WHERE
THEY WERE CAUGHT. WE DON'T
ACTUALLY HAVE A SENSE OF HOW
MUCH IS BEING SPENT OR RATEPAYER
MONEY BECAUSE IT GETS
CATEGORIZED AS EDUCATION OR ALL
THESE OTHER ACTIVITIES. AND
THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL IS TRYING
TO ADDRESS. SO I HEAR YOUR
POINT, AND I GUESS I JUST ADD ON
TOP OF THAT, I THINK THERE'S A
GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT AS
REGULATED MONOPOLIES, THEY
SHOULDN'T BE USING OUR MONEY,
OUR RATEPAYER MONEY, WHEN THEY
HAVE HUGE POTS OF SHAREHOLDER
MONEY THEY CAN USE FOR THAT
PURPOSE. AND OF COURSE, WE KNOW
THE SAGA OF PG AND E, WHICH FOR
MANY YEARS SPENT MONEY TO TRY TO
LOBBY AGAINST SAFETY RULES. AND
LOOK WHERE THAT GOT US. SO I
THINK THERE'S ALSO THE PRINCIPLE
OF THE THING AS REGULATED
MONOPOLIES. SENATOR OSO, DID YOU
DID YOU WANT HIM TO. I'M WAIT.
HANG ON. SO, SENATOR DODD, DID
YOU WANT. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. I
JUST WANT TO GET GET DONE WITH
THIS PART OF THIS. OKAY. NO
PROBLEM. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD. I
JUST WANT TO PUT IN CONTEXT.
YES, IT'S $6 MILLION OVER THREE
YEARS. THAT'S $2 MILLION A YEAR.
THAT'S LESS THAN A 10TH OF A
PERCENT OF OUR ENTIRE WILDFIRE
MITIGATION PLAN. THAT'S LESS
THAN WE SPEND ON INTERVENOR
COMPENSATION. THAT GOES TO THE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO USE
RATEPAYER DOLLARS TO LOBBY THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES. CSEA'S
INTERVENORS CAN ALL USE CUSTOMER
DOLLARS TODAY TO LOBBY. WE DO
NOT JUST WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE
RECORD. OKAY. SENATOR DURAZO.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
IF I COULD. YEAH. THANK YOU. I
HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE AUTHOR
ABOUT THE ISSUE. IT DID GET MY
ATTENTION, ABOUT HOW THIS MIGHT
AFFECT EMPLOYEES OF THE,
UTILITIES AND WANT TO MAKE SURE,
THAT WHILE WE'RE ADDRESSING THE
ISSUE OF CUSTOMERS NOT PAYING
FOR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, THAT
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
EMPLOYEES ALSO ARE NOT SUCKED
INTO THAT CATEGORY. SO I'M VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT, THAT. AND SO I
WOULD ASK THE AUTHOR WILL
SUPPORT, WITH AN AMENDMENT, SOME
VERSION OF AN AMENDMENT THAT
ADDRESSES FUNDS THAT ARE PAID
IN, THROUGH A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT, LANGUAGE
HAS BEEN WON AT THE NEGOTIATION
TABLE OR PURSUANT TO THE
NATIONAL LABOR MANAGEMENT ACT.
SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THAT ISSUE
DOESN'T GET LOST IN THE BIGGER,
I THINK, FAR MORE IMPORTANT
ISSUE OF RATEPAYERS PAYING FOR
THESE KINDS OF ACTIVITIES. SO
FIRST, AGAIN, I WANT TO JUST
THANK STAFF AGAIN FOR THEIR HARD
WORK ON THIS BILL. AND OF
COURSE, LIKE ALL BILLS, WE'RE
GOING TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO
REVISE IT AND MAKE IT BETTER,
BUT MY BELIEF AT THIS POINT IN
TIME IS THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT
CONCERNS RAISED BY ONE OF THE
OPPOSITION WITNESS IS, ARE ARE
NOT PROBABLY APPLICABLE HERE.
BUT IF THERE IS A REAL CONCERN
ABOUT CBA NEGOTIATED BENEFITS OR
NLRA PROVISIONS POTENTIALLY
HAVING SOME INTERACTION, WE ARE
GOING TO TALK CLOSELY WITH
COUNSEL AGAIN AND DETERMINE THAT
IF THAT IS THE CASE, WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PROMOTE
HARD FOUGHT CBAS THAT WE'RE
GOING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW,
INCLUDING THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT AND, OF COURSE,
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION. BUT TO THE EXTENT
THAT THAT ANY OF THOSE CONCERNS
RAISED ARE HAVE ANY VALIDITY, WE
WILL, OF COURSE, TRY TO ADDRESS
THOSE. AND YOU HAVE MY
COMMITMENT ON THAT, SENATOR
RUSSO. OKAY. THANK YOU. SENATOR
STERN, THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE
THE AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEE'S
WORK ON THIS, ESPECIALLY, I WISH
THIS BILL WEREN'T NECESSARY. I
KIND OF WISH WE WEREN'T EVEN
HAVING TO TAKE THIS VOTE TODAY.
IT'S AN UNCOMFORTABLE
CONVERSATION. IT'S ALSO, AS YOU
NOTED, THERE ARE THIS SORT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL OVERLAYS THAT
THAT. YEAH. COURT IS NEVER THE
RIGHT PLACE TO END UP. I'M
HOPING THAT THE COMMITTEE AMENDS
AVERT SOME OF THAT, THAT RISK AS
WELL AS THE SORT OF PLACEMENT OF
THIS PROCESS WITHIN THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION. BUT I
DON'T THINK WE'D HAVE TO BE
GOING DOWN THIS ROAD IF THE
REALLY PUBLIC INSTANCES OF THAT
ADVOCACY, ALIGNED BETTER WITH
OUR WORK HERE IN CALIFORNIA AND
THE PARTS OF THE IOUS THAT WE
ACTUALLY, WE THINK ARE FORWARD
LEANING AND THE BEST UTILITIES
IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY AND THE
BEST LABOR FORCE IN THE WHOLE
COUNTRY. BUT THEN WHEN THE
POSITIONS OUT OF, SAY, THE
AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION, OR EEI
ARE UNDERCUTTING PRESIDENT
BIDEN'S CLEAN AIR ACT PLANS OR
ARE PUSHING BACK ON EFFORTS TO
ADVANCE CLIMATE POLICY AT A
FEDERAL LEVEL. LET ALONE AT A
STATE LEVEL. IT MAKES IT REALLY
HARD TO DEFEND THOSE MEMBERSHIPS
AND THAT WORK BECAUSE IT DOESN'T
LOOK TO BE IN RATEPAYERS
INTEREST, HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS
WITH, WITH OUR STAKEHOLDERS AND
I YEAH. AGAIN, I, I WISH IT
WEREN'T NECESSARY, BUT I REALLY
DO THINK IT IS TO PUSH THE
ENVELOPE HERE. AND I APPRECIATE
WHAT YOU'RE DOING. AND, AND I
THINK YOU'VE THREADED THE NEEDLE
HERE NOW WITH ENERGY COMMITTEE.
THERE MAY BE OTHER DETAILS THAT
HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT, BUT I
THINK THIS IS A NECESSARY
MEASURE AT THIS TIME, IF THINGS
CHANGED FEDERALLY AND THE
ADVOCACY CHANGED AND THE LOOK
CHANGED, THEN I'D RECONSIDER.
BUT, WITH THAT, I'D MAKE A
MOTION AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, SENATOR
ASHBY. THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH
SO MANY COMMENTS HERE FROM MY
COLLEAGUES ON. OBVIOUSLY WE WANT
TO SIDE WITH RATEPAYERS, BUT I
AGREE WITH SENATOR DODD'S
CONCERNS ON QUESTIONING THAT AND
HOW FAR THIS THIS GETS US. I
THINK SENATOR STERN BRINGS UP
REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT
HOW THIS BILL INTERPLAYS WITH
CLIMATE POLICY WORK THAT'S SO
IMPORTANT TO SO MANY OF US. AND
THEN I KNOW YOU DON'T FEEL THAT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS
VALID, BUT I DO, AND I'M
SOMEWHAT, PERPLEXED BY WHY THE
BILL DIDN'T GET DOUBLE REFERRED
TO BOTH HERE AND JUDICIARY. I
THINK THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN ME A
LEVEL OF COMFORT TO HAVE IT GO
THROUGH JUDICIARY STAFF,
POTENTIALLY TO LOOK AT SOME OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND
ISSUES, JUST JUST TO MAKE SURE I
THINK I FALL A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT FROM MY COLLEAGUES IN
THE SENSE THAT I DON'T WANT TO
VOTE AGAINST IT, BUT I'M NOT
READY TO VOTE FOR IT EITHER. SO
I THINK WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS
LAY OFF OF THE BILL TODAY AND
WATCH CAREFULLY TO SEE HOW YOU
ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES AS YOU MOVE
FORWARD. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE
THE VOTES, AND, YOU KNOW, IF, IF
WE WHEN WE SEE IT AGAIN, THEN
I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT CHANGES
YOU'VE MADE. THANK YOU. AND,
SENATOR ASHBY, I YOU HAVE MY
COMMITMENT. WE'LL TRY TO
OBVIOUSLY TRY TO ADDRESS ANY
POTENTIAL. I DID NOT SAY FOR THE
RECORD THAT THAT THEY WERE NOT
VALID. JUST MY BELIEF IS THAT
THEY THE WAY THIS BILL IS
WRITTEN, THEY MAY NOT BE
APPLICABLE. SO BUT THAT IS
SOMETHING WE'LL LOOK INTO. OF
COURSE WE WANT TO HAVE A BILL
THAT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE
CONSTITUTION, WITH FEDERAL LAW
AND WHICH IS THOUGHTFUL. I WILL
ALSO JUST POINT OUT THAT NOTHING
IN THIS BILL PREVENTS PEOPLE ON
THEIR OWN FREE TIME, OR
SHAREHOLDERS OR MANAGEMENT USING
SHAREHOLDER FUNDS FROM ENGAGING
IN ALL THE ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING
THOSE THAT ARE PROHIBITED RIGHT
NOW UNDER FEDERAL LAW FOR
LOBBYING USING RATEPAYER MONEY.
THIS IS SIMPLY ABOUT SILOING OUT
RATEPAYER MONEY. AND AGAIN,
THESE ARE UNIQUE INSTITUTIONS
THAT THEY'RE MONOPOLIES THAT ARE
HEAVILY REGULATED, WE DON'T HAVE
A CHOICE WHEN IT COMES TO WHO
PROVIDES OUR GAS OR ELECTRICITY.
BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY'RE
UNIQUELY REGULATED. IT ALSO
CREATES A PROBLEM OF POTENTIALLY
MORAL HAZARD, WHERE THEY'RE
USING OUR MONEY TO LOBBY FOR
THINGS THAT ARE NOT IN OUR
INTEREST. AND SO IT'S NOT JUST
CLIMATE NÓ WILDFIRE POLICY. AND
YOU ARE CLEARLY. I LORD, YOUR
EFFORT HERE TO THREAD THE
NEEDLE. IT'S A TOUGH ONE. IT'S
THIS IS A TOUGH ONE. AND YOU'RE
TAKING IT ON. GOOD ON YOU. I
JUST NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME AND
SOME MORE INFORMATION. I'M SURE
WE'LL GET. AND I KNOW YOU'LL
WORK HARD ON THE BILL. ALL
RIGHT, SENATOR RUBIO. YES. THANK
YOU. AND I'M SORRY. JUST THE
NATURE OF THE WORK WE DO, WE
HAVE TO RUN AROUND FROM
COMMITTEE TO COMMITTEE, AND I
CATCH LITTLE PIECES. BUT I THINK
I CAUGHT A LITTLE PIECE OF WELSH
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE UNION.
CAN I ASK HIM TO COME BACK SO I
CAN JUST ASK HIM TO CLARIFY
SOMETHING FOR ME? YES DID I HEAR
YOU SAY THAT? THAT'S ALREADY
BEEN SORT OF TRIED BEFORE AND
CHALLENGED. I'M SORRY. AND I
CAUGHT THE TAIL END. YOU SAID
SOMETHING ABOUT, YOU'LL GO TO
COURT. IT'S BEEN TRIED BEFORE.
CAN YOU REITERATE THAT POINT?
YES, SENATOR. THANK YOU, SCOTT,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION OF UTILITY EMPLOYEES
ON YOUR ANALYSIS, UNDER THE
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION, YOU'LL SEE
THAT THE CONSULTANT, NOTED THAT
THIS COMMITTEE PASSED SB 790 BY
THEN SENATOR MARK LENO, THE LAST
SECTION OF THAT BILL, BECAUSE
THIS ISSUE WAS, LOOKED AT AND
CONSIDERED TO BE, SIGNIFICANT,
SAYS NOTHING IN THE DIVISION
PROHIBITS PAYMENTS PURSUANT TO
AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZED BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OR
PAYMENTS PERMITTED BY THE
FEDERAL LABOR MANAGEMENT
COOPERATION ACT. NOTHING IN THIS
DIVISION RESTRICTS ANY USE
PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW OR
MONEY PAID PURSUANT TO THESE
ACTS. AND THOSE BELT, THAT BELT
AND SUSPENDER LANGUAGE WAS
INCLUDED TO ENSURE BEING THAT
EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR THAT FLOWS
TO MY MEMBERS THROUGH THEIR
UNION AND THROUGH THEIR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
IS A RATEPAYER FUND. AND DURING
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, WE WILL
AGREE TO HAVE MONEY PUT INTO A
JOINT LABOR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
FOR ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT
PURPOSES SO THAT MY MEMBERS CAN
HAVE A VOICE AND CAN AND CAN BE
ADVOCATES, CAN GO OUT AND DO ALL
KINDS OF DIFFERENT TRAININGS AND
WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE
LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL DOESN'T
PROHIBIT THAT INADVERTENTLY OR
PURPOSEFULLY. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU FOR THAT. THE OTHER CONCERN
THAT I HAVE, AND BECAUSE I'VE
BEEN DOING SO MUCH WORK ON THIS
BILL, AND I WANT TO JUST ALSO
REITERATE THAT EVERY SINGLE
PERSON UP HERE, OF COURSE, IS
GOING TO SIDE ON THIS SIDE OF
RATEPAYERS. THAT'S WHY WE'RE
HERE, AND SOMEONE THAT SPEAKS
OFTEN ON POLICIES THAT WE BRING
ON A DAILY BASIS. AND I ALWAYS
SAY IT'S GOING TO ADD COST TO
OUR RATEPAYERS, AND THEN WE GO
AHEAD AND DO IT, AND WE KEEP
COMPOUNDING WHAT OUR RATEPAYERS
HAVE TO PAY. I'M CONSTANTLY
FIGHTING THAT COMING FROM A LOW
INCOME COMMUNITY, BUT I WANT TO
JUST, SORT OF DISSECT A LITTLE
BIT. AND AGAIN, THIS IS NOT MY
AREA OF EXPERTISE, BUT WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT LOBBYING EFFORTS AND
I'M NOT SURE SOMEONE CAN COME
AND EXPLAIN THIS TO ME, WE ALSO
INVEST LIKE COMMERCIALS FOR
LIKE, NOT COMMERCIALS, I'M
SORRY. INVEST AND TRYING TO
PREPARE FOR LIKE DISASTERS,
CYBERSECURITY, TELL ME, HOW DO
WE DIFFERENTIATE WHAT WE'RE
USING IN TERMS OF, LIKE, TRYING
TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES? YOU
KNOW, THEY INVEST MONEY ON ON
PREPAREDNESS FOR, I'VE HEARD
THINGS AND AGAIN, I'VE MET WITH
A LOT OF PEOPLE. CYBERSECURITY
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS, WILDFIRE
MITIGATION, SOMETIMES COMMERCIAL
AND RESPOND TO MUTUAL AID. AND I
MEAN, I KNOW THAT I YOU KNOW,
I'M THE CHAIR OF THE INSURANCE
COMMITTEE, AND I KNOW WE'RE
DEALING WITH A LOT OF WILDFIRES.
SO SOMEONE EXPLAINED TO ME, HOW
DO WE DIFFERENTIATE WHAT'S BEING
USED IN TERMS OF THAT TYPE OF
SAFETY PREPAREDNESS VERSUS
POLITICAL, I APPRECIATE THE
QUESTION. AND YOU HAD TWO. SO
I'LL JUST NOTE THAT I THINK THE
FIRST QUESTION YOU HAD,
DOVETAILED WITH THE QUESTION
THAT SENATOR DURAZO HAD AROUND
CBAS AND, AND THE NLRA AND THE
FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE THAT, THAT
THE OPPOSITION WITNESS RAISED.
AND AGAIN, YOU HAVE MY
COMMITMENT THAT WE'LL TRY TO
ADDRESS THESE. I'M NOT SURE THAT
THIS BILL FALLS OUTSIDE OF THOSE
PROVISIONS, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING
WE'LL LOOK INTO. THAT'S NOT
SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN RAISED
TO US BY COUNSEL. I'LL JUST PUT
IT THAT WAY. SO WE'LL TAKE A
CLOSE LOOK. AND I'LL ALSO NOTE,
BY THE WAY, THAT THIS WOULD NOT
BE THE FIRST BILL OF ITS KIND TO
PASS INTO LAW IN THE UNITED
STATES. I THINK CONNECTICUT AND
COLORADO HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS.
I THINK THERE'S A FEW OTHER
STATES THAT ARE CONSIDERING IT
RIGHT NOW, AND, YOU KNOW, OF
COURSE, ALL OF THESE ARE GOING
TO HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH
FEDERAL LAW AND THE US
CONSTITUTION. TO YOUR SECOND
QUESTION, WE EXPLICITLY TRY TO
DEFINE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN
THIS BILL AS ANY ACTIVITY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY INFLUENCING,
INFLUENCING THE POSSIBLE
ADOPTION OF FEDERAL, STATE, OR
LOCAL LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS,
OR ORDINANCES. THE POSSIBLE
REPEAL OR MODIFICATIONS OF
FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS OR
ORDINANCES. ANY ACTIVITY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY INFLUENCING ELECTIONS
OR REFERENDA OR APPOINTMENTS OF
PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AND ON AND ON.
SO THERE'S A FEW OTHER SECTIONS
LIKE THAT, BUT IT'S VERY, VERY
NARROW LANGUAGE. NOW, OBVIOUSLY,
THE COURTS WILL HAVE TO
INTERPRET WHAT THAT MEANS. AND
THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF CASE
LAW OUT THERE. BUT THIS IS LIKE
ANY DEFINITION THAT WE TRY TO
COME UP WITH. AND I THINK THE
PROBLEM IT'S TRYING TO SOLVE IS
THAT LOBBYING ITSELF BECAME TOO
NARROW. AND OBVIOUSLY, THE FOLKS
BEHIND ME FIGURED OUT A LOT OF
WAYS TO FIND LOOPHOLES IN THAT.
AND THEY EFFECTIVELY WERE ABLE
TO LOBBY US. THEY WERE ABLE TO
LOBBY LOCAL OFFICIALS. THEY WERE
ABLE TO USE RATEPAYER MONEY TO
INFLUENCE ELECTIONS WITHOUT
DIRECTLY VIOLATING THE FEDERAL
PROHIBITION. SO THIS IS JUST
TRYING TO BASICALLY EXPAND THE
DEFINITION A LITTLE BIT TO TRY
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
CAPTURING THE INTENT OF THE
FEDERAL PROHIBITIONS ON
RATEPAYER MONEY FOR POLITICAL
PURPOSES. THANK YOU. AND I ALSO
WANT TO SEE AND AGAIN, SO, SO
MANY CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD
THAT I HAVE A LOT OF PENDING
QUESTIONS IN MY MIND, BUT RIGHT
NOW, AS IT STANDS, THEY HAVE TO
GO BEFORE THE CPUC TO DETERMINE
SORT OF A COURT RIGHT WHERE THEY
LAY OUT THE EVIDENCE. AND THIS
IS WHAT WE'RE USING THE
RATEPAYER MONEY FOR, DON'T WE
HAVE THAT THROUGH THE CPUC WHERE
THEY ALREADY ASSESSED THE
INFORMATION BEFORE THEM, WHERE
THEY MAKE THE DETERMINATION
WHETHER OR NOT THE MONEY IS
BEING MISUSED? CAN SOMEONE
CLARIFY THAT FOR ME? SO I THINK
WHEN YOU WERE GONE, ONE OF MY
WITNESSES FROM EARTH JUSTICE,
ACTUALLY HAD A VERY GOOD ANSWER
ON ON WHY THE CPUC PROCESS IS
FLAWED. SO I'LL JUST HAVE HIM
COME BACK UP AND YEAH, JUST FOR
THE RECORD, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR
THE OPPOSITION AND SOMEONE.
SURE, SURE, MATT VESPA FROM
EARTHJUSTICE AND I SPOKE TO
THEM, EXCUSE ME IN MY OPENING
STATEMENT, BUT THE ISSUE IS THAT
THERE ARE WHEN THESE GO THROUGH
THE GENERAL RATE CASE FOR
REVIEW, THERE ARE ANY TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF INDIVIDUAL EXPENSES
AND HUNDREDS OF COST CATEGORIES.
AND IT'S LEFT TO PARTIES WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANT TIME AND CERTAINLY
NOT THE RESOURCES TO GO OVER
EVERY SINGLE ONE. AND EVEN ONE
EXPENSE IS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
TIME YOU DEAL WITH UTILITY
OBSTRUCTION ALL THE TIME TO GET
TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT THE
EXPENSE WAS. ABOUT ONE TIME I
HAD TO DO A MOTION TO COMPEL TO
GET AN ANSWER, AND ONLY THEN DID
THE UTILITY ADMIT IT WAS AN
ERROR. IT WAS AN INADVERTENT
ERROR THAT THEY BOOKED IT TO
CUSTOMERS. SO ALL OF THAT FOR
ONE EXPENSE. AND SO WHAT THE
BILL IS TRYING TO DO IS SORT OF
SHIFT THE STRUCTURE FROM, CAN I
GET AWAY WITH THIS? AND IF I'M
CAUGHT, THERE REALLY ISN'T A
CONSEQUENCE TO SAYING DO IT
RIGHT THE FIRST TIME WHEN YOU
BOOK. SO WHEN WE GET TO THE RATE
CASE, WE DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH
THIS ANYMORE. WE CAN SPEND OUR
TIME LOOKING INTO THE
REASONABLENESS OF LEGITIMATE
EXPENSES ON YOUR OPERATIONS, AND
NOT WASTE ALL THIS TIME TRYING
TO PICK THROUGH ALL OF THESE
THINGS, BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE
INCENTIVIZED TO PROPERLY BOOK
THESE ACCOUNTS TO SHAREHOLDERS
AND NOT SLIP THEM INTO
RATEPAYERS. SO IT'S LEFT TO US
WITH WHICH IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO
AUDIT ALL OF THESE THINGS. IT'S
JUST NOT GIVING THE SHEER
VOLUME. THANK YOU, CAN I HAVE
SOMEONE FROM THE OTHER SIDE
EXPLAIN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE?
YEAH I THINK THIS BILL
ULTIMATELY CONFLATES THE
PRACTICE OF ACCOUNTING AND THE
PRACTICE OF RATE MAKING. JUST
BECAUSE SOMETHING IS BOOKED TO
AN ACCOUNT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT
IS, OR EVER WILL BE CHARGED TO A
CUSTOMER. WE BOOK THINGS INTO
ACCOUNT. THEY SIT THERE. WE
MIGHT FIND THROUGH. WE HAVE
MANDATED QUARTERLY AUDITS AND
ANNUAL AUDITS. WE GO THROUGH. AT
THAT POINT, AN AUDITOR OR
INTERNAL STAFF WILL MOVE AN
ACCOUNT THAT WAS IMPROPERLY
BOOKED. HUMAN ERROR OR SOMETHING
COULD BE SUBJECT TO LITIGATION.
WE CHARGE ABOVE THE LINE ACCOUNT
LATER. THERE'S SOME DIFFERENT
SETTLEMENT. YOU MOVE IT TO BELOW
THE LINE ACCOUNT. SO THAT'S
THERE'S AND THEN ULTIMATELY WE
PACKAGE UP THOSE COSTS. THE PUC
WILL GO THROUGH AND MAKE JUST
AND REASONABLE DETERMINATIONS.
YOU COULD HAVE SMALL COSTS A
COUPLE THOUSAND DOLLARS. YOU
COULD HAVE LARGE MULTI HUNDRED
MILLION DOLLAR EXPENSES. DEPENDS
ON WHAT WE'RE DOING. THIS BILL
APPLIES A BROAD BRUSH BRUSH TO
ALL OF IT. AND THEN WITHIN THE
DEFINITIONS OF THE BILL IT IS
VERY BROAD. IT SAYS POSSIBLE
INFLUENCE. WHAT IS POSSIBLE
INFLUENCE MEANS IT COULD BE ANY
COMMERCIAL RUN. THERE IS AN
EXEMPTION FOR SAFETY.
ADVERTISEMENT AND FOR MANDATED
COMMERCIALS. BUT THEN IT SAYS IF
ANY PORTION OF ANY COMMERCIALS
SAYS IT'S BRAND ADVERTISING,
DOES THAT MEAN IF THERE'S A PG
AND E TRUCK OR SOMEBODY FROM
IBEW OR SOMEBODY WHO WORKS FOR
US IN A COMMERCIAL IS THAT BRAND
ADVERTISING, THEN THAT MEANS
THAT EVEN IF WE'RE DOING 811
CALL BEFORE YOU DID COMMERCIAL,
THAT THAT HAS TO BE SHAREHOLDER
FUNDED. THAT'S ALL OF THIS
CURRENTLY EXISTS BEFORE THE PUC.
THEY BALANCE ALL OF THESE
EQUATIONS, AND THEN THEY COME UP
WITH A DETERMINATION THAT
PROTECTS THE CUSTOMER. SO WE
DON'T THINK THAT THE BILL IS
EVEN NECESSARY. SO SENATOR, IF I
COULD JUST INTERJECT JUST TO
ILLUSTRATE THE COMPLICATED
NATURE OF THESE BALANCE SHEETS
AND THIS WHOLE PROCESS AND TO
ADD TO THE POINT OF THE ATTORNEY
FROM EARTHJUSTICE, WE WERE
WONDERING WHETHER A PARTICULAR
COMMERCIAL, WHICH WAS CLEARLY
FOR POLITICAL ADVERTISING
PURPOSES, WAS CHARGED TO
RATEPAYERS OR SHAREHOLDERS, AND
WE DID NOT KNOW AFTER
RESEARCHING, IT WAS ONLY AFTER
MY STAFF ASKED PG AND E DID WE
GET A RESPONSE THAT YES, THIS
WAS RATEPAYER MONEY. AND SO
THAT'S HOW DIFFICULT THIS IS TO
DETERMINE. SO IT'S REALLY HARD
FOR OUTSIDERS TO FIGURE THIS
OUT. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF
ITEMS THAT GET CATEGORIZED. AND,
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE
OPPOSITION'S TESTIMONY JUST
ILLUSTRATED HOW COMPLICATED THIS
IS AND HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO
UNDERSTAND AND TO SAY,
BASICALLY, THIS IS RATEPAYER
MONEY AND THIS SHOULD NOT BE
USED FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE.
SO RIGHT NOW, THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THIS IS HAPHAZARD. AND AS WAS
TESTIFIED TO EARLIER, IT'S ONLY
IF YOU'RE CAUGHT ARE THERE ANY
CONSEQUENCES. AND THE
CONSEQUENCES ARE ONLY THAT YOU
MOVE IT DOWN TO THE SHAREHOLDERS
. AND SO I THINK THE ANALOGY WAS
USED BEFORE THAT. THIS IS LIKE
IF THE PENALTY FOR ROBBING A
BANK WAS JUST THAT, YOU HAD TO
RETURN THE MONEY. OBVIOUSLY THE
INCENTIVES WOULD BE TO KEEP
ROBBING THE BANKS IF. THANK YOU.
I FEEL A LITTLE BIT CONFLICTED
ON THIS ONE. LIKE I SAID,
BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HAVING
CONVERSATIONS ON BOTH SIDES. AND
AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR
BECAUSE THE CONVERSATION ALWAYS
COMES OUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU
SUPPORT RATEPAYERS 100. EVERYONE
IS ON THE SIDE OF RATEPAYERS.
AND AGAIN, SINCE I FIGHT A LOT
ON EVERY TIME WE PASS POLICIES,
I KEEP SAYING IT'S GOING TO COST
MORE TO RATEPAYERS, BUT WE STILL
GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR IT AND IT
ADDS TO THE RATEPAYERS. SO WE
HAVE TO BE MINDFUL THAT, YOU
KNOW, THAT WE'RE ADDING COST
RATEPAYERS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER
THROUGH OUR POLICIES HERE, THAT
WE MOVE FORWARD. BUT I'M
CONFLICTED BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I
THINK WHAT SCOTT WEDGE SAID,
IT'S PENDING IN MY MIND IN TERMS
OF THE INTERPRETATION. I THINK I
HEARD YOU SAY, SENATOR AS WELL,
THAT, YOU KNOW, A COURT MAY HAVE
TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. SO I'D
LIKE TO JUST LIKE I THINK US
SENATOR ASHBY STATED, IT'S ONE
OF THESE THAT THIS COMMITTEE
JUST SEEMS TO BE FOR ME, NOT
EQUIPPED TO MAKE THOSE LEGAL
DETERMINATIONS. AND I'M A LITTLE
UNCOMFORTABLE WITH A VARIETY OF
THINGS. SO I FEEL THE SAME WAY.
AND I'M CONFLICTED AND I, I
HAVEN'T MADE A DETERMINATION. I
JUST NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT FOR
A SECOND. THANK YOU. GREAT. ANY
ADDITIONAL MEMBERS? SENATOR
DAHLE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS, I AM GOING TO TAKE
MAYBE A WHOLE DIFFERENT OUTLOOK
TO THIS BILL. FIRST, I WANT TO
SAY, I'VE SAID ON THE ENERGY
COMMITTEE AND THE ASSEMBLY, I'VE
BEEN THE VICE CHAIR SINCE I GOT
TO THE SENATE, AND I'M REALLY
DISAPPOINTED IN TURN. AND, YOU
KNOW, YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT
RATEPAYER FUNDED. WE THEY'RE
FUNDED BY RATEPAYERS AND I CAN'T
TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES THEY'VE
SUPPORTED LEGISLATION THAT DOES
SOMETHING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
THROUGH ENERGY BUT DRIVES THE
COST OF RATES UP AND DOESN'T
SAY, HEY, THIS IS GOING TO DRIVE
THE COST OF RATES UP. SO SO AND
THAT'S THEIR JOB IS TO BE GOING
AND FINDING OUT WHAT'S HAPPENING
WITH OUR RATEPAYER FUNDED
MONIES. AND I THINK THEY'VE
DROPPED THE BALL. AND SO I JUST
WANT TO FOR THE RECORD TO SHOW
THAT, YOU KNOW, I IF YOU WANT TO
TALK ABOUT RATEPAYERS, THERE'S
BEEN A LOT OF LEGISLATION THAT'S
COME THROUGH HERE THAT JUST
DRIVES UP THE COST OF RATES AND
IT GETS PASSED THROUGH WITH
THEIR SUPPORT, AND THE WE HAVE
THE PUC FOR A REASON AND THEY'RE
THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO THEIR
JOB. YES. IT IS COMPLICATED, BUT
THIS BILL IS I THINK, LACKS A
LOT OF DETAIL THAT WE REALLY
NEED TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS
AT THE FIRST PLACE. AND I'M
REALLY FRUSTRATED. THAT TURNS A
SPONSOR OF IT, AND I MIGHT.
RATEPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR THAT.
TO SPONSOR LEGISLATION LIKE THIS
THAT IS IN MY MIND NOT HELPFUL.
SO I'LL BE OPPOSING THE BILL
TODAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OR CONCERNS? I'M GOING
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THIS,
BUT I TOO HAVE REAL CONCERNS
REGARDING THIS MEASURE, AGAIN,
IT'S A REAL SLIPPERY SLOPE WHEN
YOU CAN SAY ACCOUNTING IF YOU
BOOK SOMETHING ABOVE THE LINE OR
BELOW THE LINE AND, IT COULD BE
AN ERROR. IT COULD. IT'S NOT
NECESSARILY INTENTIONAL. AND SO
THAT'S WHY A GRACE PERIOD HAS
BEEN ADDED IN THIS BILL. BUT
IT'S, IT'S REAL STILL CONCERNS,
AS ALL OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE
STATED AS IT RELATES TO THIS
MEASURE. AND, IT IS ONE THAT I
THINK, YOU KNOW, COULD USE SOME
BETTER VETTING AND A FURTHER
DISCUSSION, BUT WE DO HAVE A
RECOMMENDATION OF I WOULD DO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? YEAH. YOU HAVE MY
COMMITMENT THAT WE'LL CONTINUE
TO TRY TO WORK ON THIS BILL TO
MAKE IT BETTER AND TO ADDRESS
SOME OF THE MANY OF THE CONCERNS
RAISED SHOULD IT GET OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE AND SECRETARY,
WILL YOU CLEARLY ARTICULATE
THOSE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE
ASKED FOR? CONSULTANT IT'S
PRESERVED THE ABILITY OR I'LL
LET YOU READ IT. SB 938 MEN
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS ARE TO
PRESERVE THE ABILITY OF THE PUC
TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE
PENALTY AMOUNT FOR VIOLATIONS IN
CONNECTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED IN THE BILL. SECONDLY,
TO AUTHORIZE A GRACE PERIOD OF
25 DAYS THAT PROVIDES, IF AN IOU
ADJUSTED LINE ITEM, EXPENSE THAT
IT'S BOOK TO, THAT THERE WOULD
BE NO PENALTY BECAUSE OF SUCH AN
ADJUSTMENT. THIRD TO REQUIRE
THAT ANY MONIES COLLECTED BY
FINES AND PENALTIES ARE
DEPOSITED INTO THE STATE'S
GENERAL FUND. THAT'S CONSISTENT
WITH THE CPUC FINES AND
PENALTIES, AS IS CUSTOMARY. AND
IN THE LAST ONE IS SOME
ADDITIONAL CLARIFYING CHANGES.
IS THAT CORRECT, SENATOR? WOULD
YOU AGREE TO IS THERE A MOTION
FOR THIS BILL? STERN STERN.
STERN MADE THE MOTION. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY SENATOR STERN.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SB 938 MEN DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO APPROPRIATIONS. SENATOR
BRADFORD DALLY NÓ. DALLY NØ
ASHBY. BECKER. BECKER. AYE.
CABALLERO DODD. GIARRUSSO
GIARRUSSO. AYE. EGGMAN. EGGMAN.
AYE. GONZALEZ GROVE. LIMON.
LIMON. AYE MIN. MIN AYE. NEWMAN.
RUBIO SATO. SKINNER. STERN
STERN. AYE. WILK. 6 TO 1. 6 TO 1
WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. SAT ON. OUR NEXT
BILL WE HAVE, SENATOR, IS
SENATOR BECKER. YEAH, WE HAVE US
NINE, THREE, NINE. I MEAN, 993.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. FIRST, I
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
US. AND I WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TODAY, 993
IS A FIRST OF A TWO BILLS. I'LL
BE PRESENTING, THAT ARE BOTH
TRYING TO ACCELERATE OUR
PROGRESS ON MAKING GREEN
HYDROGEN AND USING ELECTRICITY
TO REDUCE POLLUTION FROM
INDUSTRIAL SOURCES. SO FIRST,
LET ME TALK ABOUT WHY THESE ARE
IMPORTANT GOALS. AND I'LL GO
OVER THESE VERY QUICKLY IN
INTEREST OF TIME. FIRST OF ALL,
WE ALL I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE
IN THIS COMMITTEE AGREE THAT
HYDROGEN IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL
FOR ACHIEVING OUR CLIMATE GOALS.
AND IT MAKES SENSE TO ALIGN OUR
STATE POLICY TO SUPPORT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF LOW CARBON
HYDROGEN AS PART OF OUR CLIMATE
STRATEGY, AS THIS BILL WILL HELP
DO, I JUST WANT TO SAY,
IMPORTANTLY, AND PEOPLE MAY NOT
HAVE FOCUSED AS MUCH ON THIS, IS
THAT, AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR
POLICY IS HELPING INDUSTRIES
SWITCH AWAY FROM BURNING FUELS
FOR HEAT, TO LESS POLLUTING
ALTERNATIVES. SO WHAT? WE'VE
DONE A LOT ON ELECTRIC VEHICLES
AND ON BUILDINGS IS, 23% OF
GREENHOUSE GASES NATIONALLY
COMES FROM BURNING FOSSIL FUELS
FOR FACTORIES, 23% IS BURNING
FOSSIL FUELS FOR FACTORIES. AND
THAT'S AN AREA WE'VE MADE ALMOST
ZERO PROGRESS IN. AND WHAT BOTH
GREEN HYDROGEN, ELECTRIFIED AND
INDUSTRIAL HEAT HAVE IN COMMON
IS THAT THEY'RE ECONOMICALLY
COMPETITIVE ONLY IF THEY HAVE
ACCESS TO INEXPENSIVE
ELECTRICITY. AND THEY ARE ONLY
GOOD CLIMATE SOLUTIONS IF THEY
RELY ON CLEAN ELECTRICITY. THE
GOOD NEWS IS THAT ELECTRICITY IN
CALIFORNIA IS CLEAN AND
INEXPENSIVE AT CERTAIN TIMES OF
DAY. WE JUST REALLY NEED TO SEND
THE RIGHT PRICE SIGNALS, AND
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS BILL
DOES. IT CREATES NEW PRICE
SIGNALS AND PRICE STRUCTURES FOR
GREEN HYDROGEN PRODUCTION AND
FOR INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS
SWITCHING AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS
TO ELECTRICITY FOR THEIR HEAT.
AND WITH ME, I HAVE TWO
WITNESSES HERE TODAY, CHAIR
JANICE LYNN, REPRESENTING THE
GREEN HYDROGEN COALITION AND
MARION BORGESON FROM NRDC. ALL
RIGHT. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR
YOUR PRESENTATION. YOU MAY BEGIN
. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
BRADFORD. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JANICE
LYNN, AND I'M THE FOUNDER AND
PRESIDENT OF THE GREEN HYDROGEN
COALITION, OR GHG. WE'RE AN
INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL
NONPROFIT WHOSE MISSION IS TO
ACCELERATE THE REALIZATION OF
GREEN HYDROGEN PROJECTS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE TO ACHIEVE
ECONOMY WIDE DECARBONIZATION
AND, IMPORTANTLY, DISPLACE
FOSSIL FUEL END USE AS FAST AS
POSSIBLE. I'D LIKE TO THANK
SENATOR BECKER FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP IN INTRODUCING SENATE
BILL 993. LET'S FACE IT, WE ARE
AT A CRITICAL JUNCTURE IN OUR
ENERGY TRANSITION, AND THIS BILL
APPROPRIATELY RECOGNIZES THE
ROLE OF CLEAN HYDROGEN WILL PLAY
IF WE SET THE APPROPRIATE PRICE
SIGNALS AND PRODUCTION
MECHANISMS TO DO SO. IT'S ALL
ABOUT SCALE AND COST REDUCTION,
AS WE HAVE SEEN IN SO MANY OTHER
TECHNOLOGIES. APPROPRIATE CLEAN
ELECTRICITY PRICE SIGNALS THAT
OPTIMIZE OUR ELECTRIC SECTOR ARE
CRITICAL TO ACCELERATING
RENEWABLE HYDROGEN AT SCALE.
THIS WILL HELP US DIRECTLY
REDUCE OUR FOSSIL FUEL USE
ECONOMY WIDE. HOW DOES THIS WORK
, REALLY? SIMPLY TWO WAYS ONE BY
MAKING CLEAN, LOW, AFFORDABLE
ELECTRICITY AVAILABLE THROUGH
THE GRID, YOU CAN IMPROVE THE
CAPACITY FACTOR OR THE
UTILIZATION OF ELECTROLYSIS
EQUIPMENT. WHEN YOU DO THAT, THE
COST COMES DOWN. SECONDLY, WE
HAVE ABUNDANT RENEWABLE
ELECTRICITY, AND THIS PRICE
SIGNAL WILL PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE
TO DEVELOP INDUSTRIAL HEAT LOAD,
ELECTRICAL ELECTROLYTIC
HYDROGEN. SO, IT WILL HELP US
MAKE USE OF THAT CURTAILED
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY. SENATE
BILL 993 WILL ALSO DIRECTLY
SUPPORT ARCHES AND THE STATE'S
EFFORTS TO SECURE FEDERAL
FUNDING BY ENABLING MORE COST,
COMPETITIVE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION,
ACCORDING TO ARCHES. THE STATE'S
BUILDOUT WILL RESULT IN A LOT OF
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN, OF WHICH
ABOUT 12% OF THE POWER NEEDED
WILL COME FROM THE GRID. THE
MORE CLEAN, AFFORDABLE HYDROGEN
WE CAN PRODUCE, THE MORE FOSSIL
FUELS WE CAN DISPLACE. ECONOMY
WIDE, ALL WHILE CREATING FAMILY
SUSTAINING GREEN JOBS. WE
BELIEVE SENATE BILL 993, IF
ENACTED, WILL BECOME AN
IMPORTANT PIECE OF MODEL
LEGISLATION FOR ALL OTHER STATES
TO FOLLOW. FOR THESE REASONS,
THE GHC RESPECTFULLY URGES YOUR
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT WITNESS. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
BRADFORD AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MARION
BORGESON. I'M THE CALIFORNIA
DIRECTOR FOR CLIMATE AND ENERGY
AT THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL. WE HAVE ADVOCATED FOR
THE PRODUCTION OF TRULY CLEAN
AND GREEN HYDROGEN AT BOTH THE
FEDERAL AND STATE LEVELS. IT'S A
PRIORITY FOR US TO ENSURE THAT
CALIFORNIA MOVES AWAY FROM
TODAY'S HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
METHODS, WHICH BURN FOSSIL FUELS
AND HARM LOCAL COMMUNITIES WITH
NOX AND OTHER AIR POLLUTION.
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN WITH CLEAN
ENERGY AND THE APPROPRIATE
GUARDRAILS IS THE PRIMARY
PATHWAY TO PRODUCE ZERO
EMISSIONS HYDROGEN. BUT YOU
CAN'T JUST PLUG IN ELECTROLYZER
INTO THE GRID AND CALL THAT
HYDROGEN CLEAN. IT'S WORTH
NOTING THAT HYDROGEN PRODUCED
WITH CALIFORNIA'S CURRENT
AVERAGE ELECTRICITY MIX WOULD BE
MORE THAN TWICE AS CARBON
INTENSIVE AS STEAM METHANE
REFORMATION USED WITH FOSSIL GAS
TO PRODUCE HYDROGEN. SO IT'S NOT
JUST PLUG AND PLAY IN TERMS OF
THE GREEN HYDROGEN. IN OUR VIEW,
THIS BILL IS A SMART APPROACH TO
PROVIDING ACCESS TO GRID FOR
SPECIFIC TARGETED USES. AND WITH
THE INCENTIVES TO ENSURE THAT
HYDROGEN PRODUCERS AND
INDUSTRIAL USERS ARE RESPONSIBLE
GRID CITIZENS AND ADD TO THE
FLEXIBILITY AND RESILIENCE OF
THE GRID RATHER THAN THREATEN
IT. SO WE APPRECIATE BECKER'S
SENATOR BECKER'S THOUGHTFUL AND
VERY TARGETED APPROACH TO MAKING
PROGRESS ON HYDROGEN THIS
SESSION, AND WE URGE YOUR I VOTE
ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
HERE IN THE ROOM IN SUPPORT?
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
ORGANIZATION, PLEASE, JOHN
COSTANTINO, ON BEHALF OF RONDO
ENERGY ON THE INDUSTRIAL DECARB
SIDE. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THE
SUPPORT. MCKINLEY THOMPSON.
MORLEY, ON BEHALF OF THE SOLAR
ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. ELISE VONDRAK FROM
TRENTON PRICING CONSULTING HERE
ON BEHALF OF EDF IN SUPPORT. HI.
SAMANTHA SAMUELSON, ON BEHALF OF
INDUSTRIOUS LABS IN SUPPORT.
GABRIELA FAZIO WITH SIERRA CLUB
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. JANET COX
FOR CLIMATE ACTION CALIFORNIA,
THE SANTA CRUZ CLIMATE ACTION
NETWORK AND 350 SACRAMENTO IN
SUPPORT. THANKS, SENATOR BECKER.
TIFFANY FAN ON BEHALF OF THE
INTERSECT POWER AND SUPPORT.
HUNTER STERN ON BEHALF OF THE
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY
EMPLOYEES, THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AND THE CALIFORNIA
STATE PIPE TRADES IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS TERESA COOK, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN
COALITION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. NOW WE'RE MOVING TO
OPPOSITION WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. ARE YOU THE PRIMARY
WITNESS IN OPPOSITION OR. YES,
YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES, THANK
YOU, GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
VALERIE TIRELLA WITH PACIFIC GAS
AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND,
REGRETTABLY, WE, AND WITH ALL
DUE RESPECT TO THE AUTHOR, WE
ARE IN OPPOSITION, AND, AND A
LOT OF WHAT THE SUPPORT SAID,
WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
THE TRANSITION THAT WE'RE IN,
THE FACT THAT WE'RE GOING TO
NEED DIVERSE SETS OF FUELS, AND
ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO BE
HYDROGEN. I THINK THERE'S A BILL
COMING INTO THIS COMMITTEE
AUTHORED BY SENATOR CABALLERO,
AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT IS GREEN
AND HOW CAN WE GET THERE, ONE OF
THE WAYS THAT PGE WANTS TO BE
CAREFUL ABOUT IN GETTING THERE
IS THINKING ABOUT COST SHIFTS,
WE APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S
COST SHIFTS TO OTHER CUSTOMERS,
TO GET TO WHERE WE NEED TO GO.
SO THAT MEANS EXTRA EXPENSE TO
ANOTHER CUSTOMER, DUE TO
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL. NOW, WE
APPRECIATE WHAT THE COMMITTEE
HAS DONE IN TRYING TO LIMIT
THIS, WE WILL, WANT TO TAKE A
CAREFUL LOOK AT THAT AND
CONTINUE OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE AUTHOR. WE KNOW THAT FINDING
THESE PATHWAYS, THESE ECONOMICAL
PATHWAYS, ARE GOING TO BE
CHALLENGING. WE WANT TO BE AT
THE TABLE, WE ALSO WANT TO SAY,
LET'S NOT FORGET ABOUT
NON-UTILITY RESOURCES. I'M GLAD
TO HEAR, OBVIOUSLY, ABOUT HOW
WE'RE ALL VERY EXCITED ABOUT
STATE FEDERAL MONEY COMING IN.
SO WITH THAT, WE ARE OPPOSED
TODAY AND DO WANT TO CONTINUE
OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
AUTHOR. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, OPPOSITION
. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS.
ALONG WITH SAN DIEGO GAS AND
ELECTRIC, ALSO IN OPPOSITION TO,
SENATOR BECKER'S BILL, SB
998993, WE FEEL THAT THIS IS
ALSO A BILL. DEFINITELY AGREE
WITH THE SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL
AND AGREE WITH WHAT VAL FROM PG
AND E JUST SAID AS WELL, ADDING
TO THAT IS THAT IT'S JUST A
PIECEMEAL TO AFFORDABILITY, TO,
SOLUTIONS. I FEEL LIKE IT'S
IMPORTANT TO COME TOGETHER AND,
AND PROVIDE SOLUTIONS THAT WILL
NOT CREATE A COST SHIFT FOR, FOR
OUR RATEPAYERS. WE'RE VERY
SENSITIVE TO THAT AT THE MOMENT.
SO WE APPRECIATE, NOT SUPPORTING
THIS BILL TODAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION HEARING
SEEING NONE, I'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS
OR CONCERNS BY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS? SENATOR DALLY, SO, IS
THIS GOING TO. I KNOW WE'RE
TRYING TO GET HYDROGEN, AS PART
OF OUR ANOTHER BUCKET FOR OUR
SOLUTION, BUT WHAT IS THIS? IS
IT WHAT'S THE COST SHIFT TO
OTHER RATEPAYERS, WITH THIS
PIECE OF LEGISLATION, WE DON'T
BELIEVE THERE IS A COST SHIFT.
THAT'S WHY THAT'S KIND OF THE
WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS WE WANT
TO ENCOURAGE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
DURING THE DAY WHEN THERE'S LOTS
OF CLEAN RENEWABLES ON THE GRID.
AND MANY WERE ACTUALLY
CURTAILING, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF
RENEWABLES IN MANY CASES NOW.
AND SO THAT'S REALLY THE WHOLE
IDEA. IT'S REALLY IT'S KIND OF
LIKE TIME OF USE PRICING FOR
INDIVIDUALS. AND WE'RE
INSTITUTING THIS NOW FOR THIS
KIND OF PRODUCTION. BUT THERE'S
A TAX CREDIT ALSO AVAILABLE TO
IT FOR IT AS WELL. RIGHT. WHICH
THAT MEANS THE TAXPAYER WOULD BE
PICKING UP PART OF THE I DON'T
BELIEVE OUR BILL GETS INTO TAX
RATE WITNESS. OR THE TARIFF
RATES. YEAH. THERE ARE FEDERAL
INCENTIVES PROPOSED UNDER THE
INFLATION REDUCTION ACT THAT ARE
BEING IMPLEMENTED NOW. SO
ANYTHING THAT WE DID HERE WOULD
BE COMPLEMENTED BY THOSE FEDERAL
TAX CREDITS. SO THEY'RE THEY'RE
ALREADY AVAILABLE UNDERNEATH THE
SO THEY WOULD BE THIS THIS BILL
WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BE ELIGIBLE
TO GET THOSE TARIFFS FROM THE,
REDUCTION RECOVERY ACT, THOSE,
SO THIS THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW
FOR OPTIMIZATION OF THE ELECTRIC
SYSTEM HERE FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF HYDROGEN, RIGHT THROUGH A
PRICE SIGNAL. ANY PRODUCTION OF
HYDROGEN HERE, IF THEY MET THE
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE
IRS, WOULD ALSO BENEFIT FROM A
FEDERAL TAX CREDIT. BUT THAT'S A
SEPARATE SWIM LANE. AND, THOSE
TAX CREDITS ARE ALSO SUPER
IMPORTANT TO ACHIEVING SCALED,
AFFORDABLE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION.
THANK YOU. SENATOR DODD. YEAH,
THIS IS A BILL THAT, YOU KNOW, I
THE POSITIVES ABOUT THE BILL. WE
HEARD YOU KNOW, FROM THE
SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL, THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT'S, REALLY
IMPORTANT TO ME. I REALLY DO
BELIEVE IN THE HYDROGEN, THE
FUTURE OF HYDROGEN IN THIS STATE
AND HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS TO US
AT THE OTHER, AT ON THE OTHER
HAND, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT COST
SHIFTS. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE
BILL TODAY BECAUSE I THINK, YOU
KNOW, THE BASICS OF THE BILL ARE
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT, BUT I AM
GOING TO RESERVE THE RIGHT YOU
KNOW, IF MORE INFORMATION IS
SHED ON THE, YOU KNOW, RATE SHED
, YOU KNOW, TO, TO OTHER
RATEPAYERS, YOU KNOW, THE
ABILITY TO NOT SUPPORT IT ON THE
FLOOR, BUT FOR TODAY, I'LL
SUPPORT THE BILL. THANK YOU.
GREAT. SENATOR STERN, WANT TO
MAKE A MOTION AND A BRIEF
COMMENT, THAT I APPRECIATE. THE
COALITION THAT'S BEEN WORKING ON
THIS BILL. I THINK IT'S A UNIQUE
MOMENT. I TRY TO CHALLENGE BOTH
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY TO
STEP UP AND FIND THOSE
OPPORTUNITIES WHERE THEY CAN SAY
YES, AND TO WORK WITH LABOR, TO
WORK WITH THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
AND BUSINESS. AND I THINK YOU
PUT A REALLY SOLID COALITION
HERE. SO I APPRECIATE THAT WORK.
AND I THINK THE MATH WILL BEAR
ITSELF OUT. I KNOW YOU'RE GOING
TO KEEP WORKING TO PROVE OUT
THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE BOTH
COST EFFECTIVE AND INNOVATIVE.
SO WITH THAT, I'D MAKE A MOTION.
THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION OR DEBATE, SENATOR
BECKER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
SURE. I APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSION JUST FOR SURE,
SENATOR DODD, I JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS, NUMBER
ONE, THE BILL EXPLICITLY
PROHIBITS A COST SHIFT BETWEEN
CUSTOMER CLASSES. SO BETWEEN
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS TO
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. SO NUMBER
ONE, IF THERE EVEN WAS
SOMETHING, IT WOULD ONLY BE
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS. BUT
SECONDLY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE
CLEAR THAT THE TARIFF IS ONLY
AVAILABLE FOR NEW LOAD. SO IT'S
NOT ALLOWING CUSTOMERS WITH
EXISTING LOAD TO SWITCH ON TO
THIS, THIS TARIFF. SO, IT'S
REALLY ABOUT, IT SORT OF COVERS
ONLY NEW LOAD WHERE UTILITIES
HAVE NOT YET MADE INVESTMENTS.
SO THERE'S NO EXISTING
INVESTMENTS. THESE NEW CUSTOMERS
WOULD BE NO LONGER HELPING TO
PAY FOR. SO BUT I'M HAPPY TO
CONTINUE WORKING WITH YOU ON
THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT. YEAH,
THAT WE ADDRESS THAT. AND WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. SO YOU'VE
ACCEPTED THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. AND
SECRETARY, PLEASE STATE THOSE
AMENDMENTS, IF YOU DON'T MIND,
PLEASE. THANK.
SB 993. BECKER. MOTION IS Dð
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
AMENDMENTS WOULD CAP THE TOTAL
LOAD ELIGIBLE FOR A TARIFF
ESTABLISHED UNDER THIS BILL TO
NO MORE THAN 5000MW. CLARIFY VÌ
THAT THE CPUC SHALL CONSIDER
TARIFF CUSTOMERS INTERRUPTIBLE
LOAD WHEN DETERMINING A LOAD
SERVING ENTITIES RESOURCE
ADEQUACY REQUIREMENTS. DELETE
PROVISIONS REQUIRING REGARDING
THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH OTHER
LOAD SERVING ENTITIES MAY ADOPT
TARIFFS SIMILAR TO THE TARIFF
ESTABLISHED UNDER THIS BILL, AND
DELETE PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING
THE CPUC TO CONSIDER ADOPTING AN
HOURLY TIME MATCHING REQUIREMENT
FOR LOAD SERVING ENTITIES.
CORRECT. SENATOR BECKER? YES.
THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. SO,
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON SB 993. DO PASS IS AMENDED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATOR BRADFORD. BRADFORD. AYE.
DALLI ASHBY. AYE. ASHBY. AYE.
BECKER AYE. BECKER. AYE.
CABALLERO. DODD DODD. AYE.
DURAZZO. DURAZZO. AYE. EGGMAN
GONZALEZ. GROVE LEMON. LEMON I
MEAN AYE. MINH. AYE. NEUMANN.
RUBIO. SATO SKINNER. STERN.
STERN AYE. WILK. AYE. WILK. AYE.
9 TO 0. THAT MEASURE HAS NINE
VOTES. WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON,
NEXT UP IS YOUR MEASURE. SB
1018. OKAY. THANK YOU, THIS IS
MY SECOND BILL AIMED AT
SUPPORTING GREEN HYDROGEN AND
ELECTRIFYING INDUSTRIAL HEAT, AS
WELL AS CREATING EXCELLENT GREEN
JOBS, I'M GOING TO SPEND A
LITTLE MORE TIME ON THIS. I KNOW
THEY'RE BOTH PRETTY WONKY, BUT I
KNOW THERE WERE SOME MORE
CONCERNS ABOUT THIS ONE. SO 993
WAS LOOKING AT PROJECTS THAT ARE
DRAWING POWER FROM THE GRID. THE
OTHER WAY TO SUPPLY POWER FOR
THESE KINDS OF PROJECTS, THESE
HYDROGEN AND ELECTRIFYING
INDUSTRIAL HEAT PROJECTS IS TO
HAVE THEM POWERED BY SOLAR OR
WIND TO DIRECTLY SUPPLY TO THE
HYDROGEN FACILITY OR FACTORY. IN
THAT CASE, WE KNOW IT'S CLEAN,
AND WE KNOW IT ISN'T PUTTING ANY
NEW STRESS ON THE GRID. USING
OFF GRID RENEWABLES TO PRODUCE
HYDROGEN LIKE THIS IS ACTUALLY
PART OF THE STATE'S OFFICIAL
PLAN. THE 2022 SCOPING PLAN
ANTICIPATES TEN GIGAWATTS AGAIN,
TEN GIGAWATTS OF HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO
RENEWABLE GENERATION. THE
PROBLEM IS THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE
TODAY. THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE
TODAY BECAUSE OF WHAT IS KNOWN
AS THE OVER THE FENCE RULE.
RENEWABLE ENERGY CAN BE SUPPLIED
DIRECTLY BEHIND THE METER ONLY
IF IT FALLS WITHIN ONE OF THE
EXCEPTIONS WITHIN PUC 218 THE
SO-CALLED OVER THE FENCE RULE.
OTHERWISE THE RENEWABLE
GENERATOR IS TREATED AS A
UTILITY WITH A VERY HEAVY
REGULATORY BURDEN. TODAY, THE
EXCEPTION, THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE
OVER THE FENCE RULE ARE
RESTRICTED TO GENERATION THAT IS
ON THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND, OR
AN ADJACENT PARCEL THAT'S WHERE
THE OVER THE FENCE RULE NAME
COMES FROM. THAT WORKS FINE FOR
ROOFTOP SOLAR ON A HOME, BUT
IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE
MEGAWATTS OF SOLAR SPREAD ACROSS
MANY ACRES OF LAND THAT WE'RE
GOING TO NEED, FOR A MODEST
HYDROGEN FACILITY OR FACTORY.
THIS BILL, SB 1018, SOLVES THIS
PROBLEM BY CREATING A NARROW NEW
EXEMPTION THAT WOULD ALLOW LARGE
SOLAR OR WIND GENERATOR TO SELL
THEIR OUTPUT DIRECTLY TO A
SINGLE CUSTOMER WHO WILL USE
THAT POWER FOR PRODUCING
HYDROGEN OR PROVIDING INDUSTRIAL
HEAT. NOW, PEOPLE HAVE RAISED
CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER CHANGING
THIS OVER THE FENCE RULE OPENS A
DOOR FOR UNREGULATED UTILITIES.
AND VERY CLEARLY THIS BILL WILL
NOT DO THAT. WE ARE VERY CAREFUL
TO KEEP IT NARROW AND TARGETED,
AND IT ALLOWS A GENERATOR TO
SUPPLY POWER TO A SINGLE
CUSTOMER, NOT ONE TO MANY, LIKE
AN UNREGULATED UTILITY WOULD DO.
SO IT'S ONLY TO A SINGLE
CUSTOMER. IT'S ACTUALLY VERY
SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING
EXCEPTIONS FOR ROOFTOP SOLAR OR
FOR ON SITE COGENERATION PLANTS.
THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IS THAT
YOU CANNOT PUT ENOUGH GENERATION
FOR A HYDROGEN FACILITY OR
FACTORY ON THE ROOF, OR EVEN ON
A SINGLE NEIGHBORING PARCEL OF
LAND. THEY JUST TAKE UP TOO MUCH
SPACE. SO THIS CHANGE WILL ALLOW
THE EQUIVALENT KIND OF BEHIND
THE METER GENERATION AND
SELF-CONSUMPTION IS JUST SPREAD
OVER A LARGER AREA. AND UNLIKE
ROOFTOP SOLAR OR COGENERATION,
THIS IS ONLY ALLOWED FOR NEW
LOAD NOT DEPARTING LOAD. SO
THERE'S NO PROBLEM OF EXISTING
CUSTOMERS USING THIS TO REDUCE
THEIR ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
AND SHIFT GRID TO OTHER
CUSTOMERS. SHIFT GRID COSTS TO
OTHER CUSTOMERS. STAKEHOLDERS
HAVE ALSO RAISED A CONCERN ABOUT
WHETHER THE YOU KNOW, PRIVATE
ELECTRICAL LINES CONNECTING THE
RENEWABLE GENERATION TO THE
CUSTOMERS HYDROGEN FACILITY OR
FACTORY WILL CREATE NEW SAFETY
CONCERNS. SINCE MOST OF OUR
SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR
TRANSMITTING POWER ARE BASED ON
THE REGULATION OF ELECTRICITY
CORPORATIONS, THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT QUESTION. BUT ONE THAT
CAN BE RESOLVED RIGHT NOW.
DEVELOPERS OF SOLAR AND WIND
FARMS BUILD MANY MILES OF
PRIVATE ELECTRICAL LINES WITHIN
THEIR FACILITIES TO CONNECT ALL
THE TURBINES OR PANELS TO THE
TRANSFORMER AT THE FACILITIES
EXIT. I DON'T THINK ANYONE VIEWS
THOSE PRIVATE LINES AS A SAFETY
CONCERN TODAY. THOSE PROJECTS
ARE TYPICALLY BUILT. THOSE
PROJECTS ALSO TYPICALLY BUILD
THE TRANSMISSION LINES CALLED
GEN TIE LINES, THAT CONNECT THE
FACILITIES TO A UTILITY
SUBSTATION. THEY HAVE TO BUILD
THOSE LINES TO THE PUC SAFETY
STANDARDS UNDER GENERAL ORDER
95, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT
UTILITIES THEMSELVES. THOSE
LINES ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THE
KINDS OF SHORT TRANSMISSION
SEGMENTS THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED TO
CONNECT RENEWABLE GENERATION TO
A NEARBY FACTORY. THERE ARE ALSO
LONG DISTANCE TRANSMISSION LINES
THAT ARE OWNED AND OPERATED BY
ENTITIES WHO ARE NOT ELECTRICAL
CORPORATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, LADWP
OWNS A TRANSMISSION LINE THAT
GOES ALL THE WAY TO UTAH, AND
THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT AN IOU.
THE GENERAL ORDER 95 FROM THE
PUC VERY EXPLICITLY SAYS IT
GOVERNS ALL ELECTRICITY, ALL
ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES,
INCLUDING FACILITIES THAT BELONG
TO NON-ELECTRIC UTILITIES. IF
THERE'S ANY DOUBT ABOUT WHETHER
THE PRIVATE ELECTRIC LINES
ENABLED BY THIS BILL WOULD BE
UNDER THE PUC JURISDICTION, I
WILL COMMIT TO CLARIFYING IT IN
THE BILL. I WILL WORK WITH THE
PUC TO SEE IF A CLARIFICATION IS
NECESSARY. Kò I KNOW THE CHAIR
HAD SOME CONCERNS AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUE TO WORKING
WITH HIM AND OTHERS, BUT IT'S
IMPORTANT TO MOVE THIS BILL
TODAY. IT WILL SUPPORT THE
GROWTH OF GREEN HYDROGEN AND
INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIFICATION IN A
WAY THAT WILL ENSURE IT MAKES
USE OF CLEAN ENERGY AND DOES NOT
IMPACT ELECTRICITY RATES OR GRID
RELIABILITY, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR I VOTE AND I HAVE THE SAME
TWO WITNESSES HERE ON THIS BILL
AS WELL. THANK YOU. TWO MINUTES
APIECE. THANK YOU, SENATOR
BECKER. COMMITTEE MEMBERS JANICE
LANIGAN FROM THE GREEN HYDROGEN
COALITION, CALIFORNIA IS TRULY
BLESSED WITH A LOT OF RENEWABLE
ELECTRICITY RESOURCE LITERALLY
ALL OVER OUR STATE. THE ISSUE IS
THAT THIS RESOURCE IS NOT IS
ONLY ACCESSIBLE TO ELECTROLYTIC
HYDROGEN PRODUCERS IF IT'S ON
SITE OR IF IT'S THROUGH THE
GRID. AND BECAUSE OF THE SHEER
SIZE OF SOME OF THE PROJECTS
THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED.
REMEMBER EARLIER I SAID IT'S ALL
ABOUT SCALE AND COST REDUCTION?
SOME OF THESE PROJECTS WILL FIND
IT VERY DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE
THAT SCALE WITHOUT SB 18. I'LL
GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF A PROJECT
THAT'S BEING PROPOSED NOW. IT'S
THE DARDEN CLEAN ENERGY PROJECT
BEING PROPOSED FOR FRESNO
COUNTY. IT'S ON 9500 ACRES,
INCLUDES 1.15GW OF SOLAR, 4.5GW
OF BATTERY STORAGE, 1.15GW OF
ELECTROLYSIS WITH STEP UP
SUBSTATION, 10 TO 15 MILES OF
THE CHEN TÚI THAT SENATOR BECKER
MENTIONED AND A UTILITY
SWITCHING STATION, AS I
MENTIONED EARLIER, DISPLACING
FOSSIL FUELS REQUIRES SCALE.
THIS KIND OF SCALE, WHICH WILL
ACHIEVE COST REDUCTION. THE
DARDEN PROJECT IS VERY BIG AND
HAS A LOT OF LAND. SB 18 WOULD
ENABLE OTHER PROJECTS THAT
AREN'T SO BLESSED WITH 9500
ACRES TO PROCURE SCALED
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY RESOURCES
AND IF WE WANT TO SCALE,
RENEWABLE HYDROGEN, WE HAVE TO
SCALE THESE OFF GRID RESOURCES.
AND THAT REQUIRES FIXING THIS
OVER THE FENCE RULE. SO FOR
THESE REASONS, THE GHC
RECOMMENDS AND RESPECTFULLY
URGES YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS. GOOD
MORNING AGAIN. MY NAME IS MARION
BORGESON. I'M THE CALIFORNIA
DIRECTOR FOR CLIMATE AND ENERGY
AT THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL. BASED ON OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE GREEN
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION LANDSCAPE
BOTH IN THE US AND ABROAD, OFF
GRID RENEWABLES PAIRED WITH
ELECTROLYZERS ARE POISED TO BE
ONE OF THE MOST ECONOMIC MEANS
OF PRODUCING GREEN HYDROGEN. WE
ALSO ANTICIPATE THAT OFF GRID
RENEWABLES WILL BE ONE OF THE
MOST COST EFFECTIVE WAYS TO
POWER CARBON FREE INDUSTRIAL
HEAT PROCESSES, SO THIS BILL
WOULD BE PROVIDING AN OPTION FOR
NEW INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES TO
BE POWERED ENTIRELY BY RENEWABLE
ENERGY, WHILE MINIMIZING
EMISSIONS AND AVOIDING IMPACTS
ON THE GRID. FURTHER, IT WOULD
BRING RENEWABLES ONLINE MORE
QUICKLY BY HAVING THE MATCH
DIRECTLY WITH THOSE LOADS AND
ALLOWING THEM TO BYPASS THE
RATHER BYPASS RATHER THAN BOG
DOWN THE CURRENT VERY SLOW
INTERCONNECTION PROCESS AS WITH
993. WE JUST WANT TO APPRECIATE
SENATOR BECKER'S TARGETED
APPROACH TO MAKING PROGRESS ON
HYDROGEN WHERE WE CAN THIS
LEGISLATIVE SESSION. AND WE URGE
YOUR AYE VOTE ON 1018. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. OTHERS WISHING
TO ADD ON AS A SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, SENATOR TERESA COOK, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HYDROGEN COALITION. OUR THANKS
TO THE AUTHOR FOR TAKING AN
INCENTIVE BASED APPROACH AS
OPPOSED TO A HEAVY HANDED, YOU
KNOW, MANDATORY APPROACH AS DONE
IN THE ASSEMBLY. THESE ARE VERY
COMPLEX ISSUES. AS THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS RAISED IN BOTH THIS AND
993, WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
THROUGH IT. THANK YOU. NAME AND
AFFILIATION. PLEASE SAMANTHA
SAMUELSON, ON BEHALF OF
INDUSTRIOUS LABS IN SUPPORT.
MCKINLEY THOMPSON MOORLACH ON
BEHALF OF THE SOLAR ENERGY
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JOHN
COSENTINO ON BEHALF OF RONDEAU
ENERGY AND STRONG SUPPORT.
HUNTER STERN, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF UTILITY
EMPLOYEES, THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AND THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF THE PIPE
TRADES. GABRIELA FAZIO WITH
SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. JANET COX FOR CLIMATE
ACTION CALIFORNIA IN THE SANTA
CRUZ CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK AND
350 SACRAMENTO IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. TIFFANY PHAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE INTERSECT POWER
AND SUPPORT, WE ARE THE
DEVELOPER OF THAT DÂN PROJECT
THAT JANICE MENTIONED EARLIER.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS WISHING TO
ADD ON AS IN SUPPORT? HEARING
THOSE? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO TO
THE OPPOSITION. HELLO, MR.
CHAIR. VICE CHAIR. COMMITTED.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
VALERIE CHIRLA ALEJO'S WITH
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY. AND REGRETTABLY, WE ARE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1018. SAME
AS MY PRIOR COMMENTS, EXCEPT
I'LL SAY AGAIN, THE WIDESPREAD
EXCITEMENT. WE ARE VERY
ENCOURAGED BY AND OUR, ALSO
EXCITED ABOUT ABOUT, WHAT
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION CAN BRING TO
OUR ENERGY TRANSITION. EXCITED
ABOUT THE, CONVERSATION ALSO
HAPPENING IN THE SENATE WITH
SENATOR CABALLERO'S BILL, ON
THIS PARTICULAR, ISSUE, WE DON'T
SEE IT AS RIGHT OVER THE FENCE,
AND WHICH, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AN
ADJACENT PARTIAL. WE THINK THAT,
THE PROTECTIONS ARE NOT THERE,
IT'S UNCLEAR HOW LONG, THIS, IF
YOU WANT TO CALL IT A GENTE, A
LINE, THIS ELECTRICAL LINE WOULD
BE. AND SO WE ARE VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT, THE PROTECTIONS THAT ARE
NOT THERE. THIS EXEMPTION, TO
PUBLIC UTILITY CODE 218
BASICALLY, THE CONCERNS AS LAID
OUT IN THE ANALYSIS, IT'S, IT'S
UNCLEAR IF THERE COULD BE SOME
ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS PROPOSED,
BUT AT THIS TIME WE ARE OPPOSED
TO THIS BILL. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE IN OPPOSITION? CHAIR.
MEMBERS. HI, JOHN. AGAIN WITH
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC, ALSO
IN OPPOSITION. OUR CONCERNS IN
PARTICULAR LIE WITH, UNDERMINING
GRID PLANNING, SAFETY AND
RELIABILITY OF DEREGULATING THIS
PARTICULAR PIECE. AND AGAIN, THE
AGREE WITH THE WITH THE
CONSULTANT AND THE ANALYSIS.
THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX PROCESS.
AND I THINK THE DEREGULATION
WOULD BE, SOMETHING THAT WE'RE
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE. WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE DÍAS.
COMMENTS. CONCERNS BY MEMBERS.
MOVE THE BILL. HAVE A MOTION BY
SENATOR. STERN, I DO HAVE A
QUESTION, YEAH. SO WHAT IS THE
DISTANCE? I THINK THIS I THINK
THE REALLY FOR THE FOR THE BILL,
THE OVER THE FENCE IS HOW FAR IS
IT STATED IN HERE? HOW FAR YOU
CAN CAN YOU BE OVER THE FENCE
THREE MILES. CAN YOU BE JUST
OVER THE FENCE A MILE, 100FT OR
HOW FAR IS IT, LET ME ASK MY
WITNESS TO COME UP AND ADDRESS
IT, I'LL JUST SAY QUICKLY, WHILE
SHE'S DOING THAT, THE BILL
DOESN'T CONTAIN A LIMIT ON THE
DISTANCE, BUT THE COST OF
ACQUIRING LAND EASEMENTS AND
BUILDING A PRIVATE TRANSMISSION
LINE FROM LOCATION OF
GENERATION, LOCATION OF USAGE
WILL LIMIT THE PRACTICAL
DISTANCE THAT WOULD MAKE ANY
KIND OF ECONOMIC SENSE. SO, WE
DON'T WANT TO PREJUDGE WHAT THIS
PRACTICAL LIMIT WOULD BE BY
PUTTING ARBITRARY LIMIT IN. BUT
ANY QUICK COMMENTS ON THAT? THAT
WAS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO
SAY, THAT THE LIMIT WOULD BE
DICTATED BY WHAT IS COST
EFFECTIVE AND FEASIBLE, GIVEN
THE RESOURCE THAT YOU HAVE AND
THE LOCATION OF THE NEW LOAD AND
THE SINGLE CUSTOMER. WELL, I
WOULD JUST SAY THAT, THAT MIGHT
BE THE CASE IF YOU'RE IN SAN
FRANCISCO, BUT IF YOU'RE IN MY
DISTRICT, YOU CAN YOU CAN GO
MILES WITHOUT HAVING ANY BUDDY
IN THE WAY. AND PEOPLE WOULD BE
INCENTIVIZED TO. AND THEN
THERE'S THE SAFETY PART OF THAT
THAT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH AS
WELL. SO I JUST I THINK THERE
NEEDS TO BE SOME LIMIT ON HOW
FAR THAT CAN BE. IT'S THERE IS
THERE IS NO LIMIT. IT'S
BASICALLY SAYING IF THEY CAN DO
IT, THEY CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT COST MIGHT DO
IT, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT RIGHT
NOW. YEAH. OR YOU'RE SAYING THAT
THERE MAY BE, HARD BE DIFFICULT
TO GET THE PERMITS TO BUILD THE
TRANSMISSION LINE. SO YEAH, I, I
HEAR THE CONCERN THIS IS
OBVIOUSLY THE FIRST COMMITTEE
HEARING, SO I'M HAPPY TO IS IT
REFERRED TO OR IS IT GOING AFTER
THIS A PROCESS. SO THIS IS THE
LAST COMMITTEE POLICY. YEAH. BUT
I'M HAPPY TO WE HAVEN'T HEARD
THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE ABOUT A
SPECIFIC LIMIT. I'M HAPPY TO,
YOU KNOW, CONTINUE THOSE
DISCUSSIONS. BUT CERTAINLY
SAFETY IS A PARAMOUNT. AND WE DO
BELIEVE THAT THESE OTHER
EXAMPLES THAT WE'VE MENTIONED,
SHOW CASES WHERE, AGAIN, THIS
WILL BE REGULATED BY THE PUC.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T BELIEVE
SAFETY IS A CONCERN, BUT HAPPY
TO CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS. OKAY WE
HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS.
SEEING NONE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY
SENATOR STERN. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YEAH. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR
THE DISCUSSION, COMMITMENT TO
SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT FOR US IN
THIS, I DO AGAIN WITH THESE BOTH
THESE BILLS AGAIN, 23% OF OUR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WERE
NOT ADDRESSING RIGHT NOW. AND
THIS IS A CHANCE FOR US TO
ENCOURAGE A LOT MORE OF THIS
PRODUCTION AND LOTS OF GREAT
GREEN JOBS. AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. SO I WANT
TO STATE THAT THAT THE BILL HAS
A IS A DUE PASS TO APPROPRIATE
OR APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATIONS.
AND WHAT WERE THE AMENDMENTS?
THERE ARE NO AMENDMENTS OKAY.
CALL THE ROLL PLEASE DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS
BRADFORD. DALLY. NO. DALLY. NO.
ASHBY. BECKER I. BECKER I
CABALLERO. CABALLERO I DODD.
DODD I DURAZO. DURAZO I EGGMAN.
GONZALEZ GROVE LIMÓN LIMON I
MINH I MEAN I NEWMAN RUBIO.
SATO. SKINNER. STERN STERN I
WILK NO WILK WILK NO. ASHBY I 8
TO 2 AND BILL HAS EIGHT VOTES.
WE'LL LEAVE IT ON CALL FOR THE
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU. OKAY.
SEEING WE HAVE SET, I WE'LL GO
WITH TO SENATOR STERN ON SB
1237. SORRY LET'S GO AHEAD AND
GO TO ANOTHER MEETING WHERE?
CAN I CLARIFY, MR. CHAIR?
ACTUALLY, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO
BE PULLING THAT FILE. ITEM 11.
GOT A OKAY. YEAH. GOT A VERY
LATE NOTE, LAST NIGHT. SO YOU
HAVE TWO OTHERS AND SB ONE CHAIR
WAS OPPOSED AND. YEAH, EXACTLY.
SO FOUND OUT ABOUT CHAIR
OPPOSITION VERY LATE LAST NIGHT
AND HAVE HAD TO REACT ON THE FLY
AS MANY OTHER MEMBERS HAVE TODAY
, LET'S, LET'S MOVE TO 1301 IF
WE COULD. YES, FILE ITEM 12. SO
THIS BILL IS REALLY JUST TRYING
TO DO BETTER RULEMAKING AT THE
CPUC AND MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE
DATA NEEDED TO DO BOTH LONG
TERME GAS SYSTEM PLANNING, AS
WELL AS NEAR TERME DECISION
MAKING. THERE IS CURRENTLY A
PROCEEDING UNDERWAY FOR PUC ON
LONG TERME GAS TRANSMISSION
PLANNING, AS WELL AS A GENERAL
ORDER. THEY THEY UNDERTOOK FOR
MAJOR EXPANSIONS OF THE GAS
SYSTEM. WE THINK THAT THERE'S
SOME GOOD WORK GOING ON AMONGST
THE STATE'S IOUS ON THIS FRONT
AND ACTUALLY, A COLLABORATIVE
PROCESS. AND WE ALSO THINK THERE
ARE PLACES WHERE, THERE'S JUST A
LACK OF DATA AND ACUITY TO KNOW
WHERE BEST TO INVEST OUR DOLLARS
. SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT,
STRANDED ASSETS, LIKE EVERYONE
ELSE IS. AND I THINK THIS IS
THIS IS A SMART POLICY THAT WILL
SAVE RATEPAYERS DOLLARS,
DECARBONIZE OUR GRID, AND
HOPEFULLY BUILD A MORE RELIABLE
SYSTEM. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
DO YOU HAVE ANY WITNESSES I MAY
I THOSE WHO WISH TO MAIN
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. YEAH I
BELIEVE JANET COX WITH CLIMATE
ACTION CALIFORNIA. THAT'S ME
VERY MUCH. HANG ON A SECOND. ARE
YOU ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS FOR
THE COMMITTEE? YES, YES. OKAY.
GO AHEAD MA'AM. THANK YOU. I'M
JANET COX FROM CLIMATE ACTION
CALIFORNIA. CALIFORNIA'S CLEAN
ENERGY TRANSITION REQUIRES US TO
SHUT DOWN OUR NATURAL GAS
NETWORK OVER THE COMING DECADES.
THIS WILL LIKELY BE DONE BY
FIRST SHUTTING DOWN PARTS OF THE
GAS NETWORK, SERVING CONSUMERS
THAT CAN MORE EASILY MOVE TO
ELECTRIFIED ALTERNATIVES,
DETERMINING WHICH PARTS OF THE
GAS NETWORK CAN BE SHUT DOWN,
AND WHEN AND WHEN REQUIRES
DETAILED UNDERSTANDING AND
MODELING OF THE OPERATION OF THE
GAS NETWORK. OUR STATE AGENCIES
CANNOT PLAN AND GUIDE THESE
EFFORTS WITHOUT THE DATA SHOWING
HOW THE GAS NETWORK IS OPERATING
NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.
TRANSITIONING CALIFORNIA AWAY
FROM THE USE OF NATURAL GAS WILL
BE A HUGE ACCOMPLISHMENT IN THE
PURSUIT OF OUR CLIMATE GOALS,
AND IT WILL ALSO SHOW THE WORLD
THAT THIS CAN BE DONE. WE NEED
CALIFORNIA TO LEAD THE WORLD
ONCE AGAIN IN TACKLING THE MOST
DIFFICULT ASPECT OF THE CLEAN
ENERGY TRANSITION, ENABLING OUR
STATE AGENCIES TO LEAD THE WAY.
AS YOU'RE DOING WITH SB 1301, IS
CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF OUR
ENERGY TRANSITION AND MEETING
OUR CLIMATE GOALS. THANK YOU,
SENATOR STERN. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
HELLO, ELISE FRIEDRICH, ON
BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
FUND AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HI.
SAMANTHA SAMUELSON, ON BEHALF OF
THE BUILDING DECARBONIZATION
COALITION SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? WE
HAVE NO FORMAL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. WE WILL BRING IT BACK, ANY
QUESTIONS BY SENATORS? SEEING
NONE, WE WILL ENTERTAIN A
MOTION. SENATOR ASHBY, SENATOR
STERN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
FULLER ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK
YOU. WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL SB 1301 DO PASS. IS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS
BRADFORD AND GALLEY. A GALLEY.
AYE. ASHBY. AYE ASHBY. AYE
BECKER. CABALLERO. CABALLERO.
AYE DODD. DODD. AYE. DURAZZO.
DURAZZO AYE. EGGMAN. GONZALEZ.
GROVE LEMON. MIN. MIN. AYE
NEWMAN. RUBIO. SATO. SKINNER
STERN A STERN. AYE. WILK A WILK.
AYE 8080 WILL KEEP THAT BILL ON
CALL FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. SENATOR
STERN, WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE UP
SB 1311? YES. 1311 IS A REDUX OF
A BILL FROM LAST YEAR. THIS THIS
COMMITTEE WAS GENEROUS ENOUGH TO
VOTE OUT, AS WAS OUR, OUR
LEGISLATURE WHERE IT WAS VETOED
BY THE GOVERNOR. BUT WE'VE BEEN
WORKING ON WAYS TO LAND THIS
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION. WE
THINK THEY'VE ACTUALLY MADE
GREAT PROGRESS IN LAUNCHING
THINGS LIKE BUILD CA.GOV AND
APPRECIATE WHAT THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE HAS BEEN DOING TO
COORDINATE THAT BETTER ON OUR
ENERGY DEPLOYMENT, BOTH FOR
PURPOSES OF RELIABILITY AND
ACCOMPLISHING CLEAN ENERGY GOALS
, THE PLANNING PIECE OF THIS IS
STILL, ONE THAT SHOULD BE OF
GREAT CONCERN TO MEMBERS ON BOTH
SIDES OF THE AISLE AND AROUND
THE STATE, WE'RE LOOKING AT
MULTI-DAY EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS
THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT SETS OF
DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS DRIVING
PLANNING AT THE CEC VERSUS THE
PUC VERSUS THE ISO. AND THIS IS
A RECOMMENDATION WE SAW OUT OF
THE JOINT RELIABILITY PLANNING
ASSESSMENT TO SAY WE NEED A
COMMON SET OF PRESUMPTIONS. WE
NEED TO A COMMON SET OF
UNDERSTANDING OF HOW DEMAND
WORKS, HOW HOT IT COULD GET ON
AN EVENING IN SEPTEMBER, AND
THAT THE PLANNING AROUND
TRANSMISSION ON GENERATION, AS
WELL AS THE OVERALL GRID
RELIABILITY HAS GOT TO BE
INTEGRATED. SO HOPEFULLY THIS,
THIS DRIVES THAT FORWARD. AND WE
THINK THE CEC HAS BEEN DOING,
YEOMAN'S WORK ON IT. WE JUST
NEED A LITTLE MORE NUDGING, TO
GET EVERYONE ON THE SAME PAGE,
WITH ME HERE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT IS VÆ JOHN WHITE WITH
THE CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN. MR.
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS JOHN WHITE
WITH THE CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN,
WE SUPPORT THIS BILL BECAUSE OF
THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY AND
CLARITY ABOUT THE ASSUMPTIONS
THAT WE'RE USING IN OUR ENERGY
PLANNING PROCESS, THREE YEARS
AGO, WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO
HAVE A HUGE DEFICIT IN OUR
ENERGY PLANNING. AND IN FACT, WE
TURNED OUT THOSE ASSUMPTIONS
WERE WRONG. NOT BECAUSE THERE
WASN'T A RISK, BUT BECAUSE WE
MADE GREAT PROGRESS IN
IMPLEMENTING A SUPPLY CHAIN
ISSUES, BATTERIES AND SO FORTH.
SO WE THINK THAT THIS BILL IS IN
THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE
CURRENT APPROACH, BUT IT
PROVIDES MORE TRANSPARENCY AND
DIRECTION AND ENSURES GREATER
COORDINATION BETWEEN AND AMONG
THE AGENCIES. SO WE ASK FOR YOUR
I VOTE. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
WISHING TO, SPEAK IN SUPPORT
PLEASE NAME AND AFFILIATION.
PLEASE HELLO, ELISE HEINRICH,
AGAIN ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE FUND IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. I DON'T THINK I HAVE
OPPOSITION, JANET COX AGAIN FOR
350 SILICON VALLEY, CLIMATE
REALITY PROJECT, SILICON VALLEY,
THE GLENDALE ENVIRONMENTAL
COALITION, THE SANTA CRUZ
CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK, AND
CLIMATE ACTION CALIFORNIA.
THANKS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION, SEEING NONE, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO ENTERTAIN A
MOTION SO MOVED BY COLBY. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, SENATOR
STERN? THANK YOU. MAYOR.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A VOTE.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. SB 1311
STERN, DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS.
BRADFORD. DALLY, Ã. DALLY. AYE.
ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE. BECKER
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE. DODD.
DODD AYE. DURAZZO. DURAZZO. AYE.
EGGMAN GONZALEZ. GROVE. LIMÓN
MINH. NEWMAN. RUBIO. CIERTO
SKINNER. STERN. STERN AYE. WILK.
AYE. WILK. AYE. 7 TO 0 7 TO 0
SEVEN ZERO. WE'LL KEEP THAT ON
CALL. MEMBERS, I'VE BEEN IT'S
BEEN REQUESTED BY MANY OF THE
DEMOCRAT SENATORS THAT WE TAKE A
BREAK UNTIL AFTER CAUCUS. ALL
RIGHT, WE I'M PREPARED TO GO IF
WE CAN'T. OKAY. SENATOR DURAZZO,
YOU'RE UP. THANK. WE CAN WE CAN
TALK ABOUT A REAL QUICK IF
YOU'RE IF WE WANT. WE WANT TO
GET THROUGH BILL. SENATOR RUSSO,
MR. CHAIR AND FELLOW MEMBERS, I
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
ON PAGE SEVEN OF THE ANALYSIS
PIECE, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. ANYONE WISH TO
SUPPORT AND SUPPORT QUICKLY?
PLEASE LET'S GO. I THOUGHT,
RIGHT, YOU'RE NOT. YOU'RE NOT.
HEY, SORRY. ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION IN
SUPPORT. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK
IN OPPOSITION, AMANDA. AMANDA
GWILHUM WITH CAL BROADBAND.
ALSO, US TELECOM, WE ARE IN
OPPOSITION. WE WERE IN
OPPOSITION. WE ARE REVIEWING THE
AMENDMENTS. WE BELIEVE IT'S
GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND
COMMITTEE STAFF. THANK YOU. I
HAVE A MOTION. OKAY. SEEING NO
ONE ELSE. BRING IT BACK. I HAVE
A MOTION FROM SENATOR. MINH.
THANK YOU. IT IS Dð PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. DO YOU ACCEPT
THE AMENDMENTS? I'LL DO IT. I'LL
DO IT. I'LL DO IT. ARE WE READY?
YES. IT'S Dð. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? ASK FOR YOUR. I VOTE.
THANK YOU. MOTION. MOTION IS. GO
AHEAD. MOTION IS Dð PASS TO BE
AMENDED IN THE LABOR, PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT
COMMITTEE. SENATORS BRADFORD
VALLEY. DALLI. I'M SORRY. NO
ALLEY. TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE.
DALLI. NO. ASHBY AYE. ASHBY.
AYE. BECKER. CABALLERO
CABALLERO. AYE. DODD. DODD. AYE
DURAZZO I. DURAZZO. AYE. EGGMAN.
GONZALEZ GROVE. LIMÓN. MINH
MINH. AYE. NEWMAN. RUBIO. SATO
SKINNER. STERN. WILK STERN. AYE.
WILK. NO. WILK. NO CURRENT VOTE
SIX TWO. CURRENT VOTE IS 6 TO 2
AND WE'LL PUT IT ON CALL FOR THE
ABSENT MEMBERS. AND THEN WE'LL
RECESS AND CONVENE AFTER WE'RE
GOING TO DO ONE MORE. ARE WE
GOING TO DO ONE? WE'RE DOING
OKAY. GO FOR IT. LET'S DO IT
OKAY. THANK YOU. MEMBERS. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO
TAKE UP THE NEXT BILL WILL TAKE
UP IS SENATOR DALI'S SB 1062.
THANK YOU MEMBERS, I APPRECIATE
YOU HANGING AROUND. SB 1062 IS
VERY SIMPLE. WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO IS PROMOTE BIOMASS ON
FACILITIES THAT ARE NOT UP AND
RUNNING. AND THIS BILL WILL HELP
DO THAT. I WILL ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS. I DO WANT TO KEEP IT
AT THE SEA OR AT THIS, NOT AT
THE CEC. I WANT TO GO TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. I
TALKED TO THE CHAIR ABOUT THAT,
AND WE THINK WE'RE IN GOOD SHAPE
FOR THAT. SO FOR WITH I HAVE
ALSO HAVE WITNESSES HERE THAT
DROVE ALL THE WAY UP FROM THE
NORTH STATE. BUT IF YOU NEED TO
ASK THEM A QUESTION, WE CAN DO
THAT. IF NOT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. PLEASE COME FORWARD. YOU
CAN GO AHEAD AND STATE FOR THE
RECORD. OKAY. MY NAME IS
CHRISTIANA DARLINGTON AND I'M
WITH THE PLACER COUNTY AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT.
WE'RE WORKING ON THIS BILL TO
HELP TRANSITION DIRECT
COMBUSTION BIOMASS FACILITIES TO
NEW BIOENERGY ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY THAT'S CLEANER. WE
HAVE WORKED WITH MANY DIFFERENT
FOLKS FROM THE STATE AS WELL AS
FEDERAL GROUPS, TO TALK ABOUT
HOW TO DO THIS MOST EFFICIENTLY.
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSERVATION HAS EXPERIENCE
DOING THIS WITH THEIR BIOFUELS
PROGRAM. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE
LOOKING TO THAT DEPARTMENT TO
WORK ON THIS TRANSITION FROM
DIRECT COMBUSTION TO BIOENERGY.
I CAN TALK MORE ABOUT IT IF YOU
HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. GREAT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE'LL SEE IF
WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THOSE IN
FAVOR? YEAH THOSE IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, GREG COOK REPRESENTING
GOLDEN STATE POWER COOPERATIVE
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT IS THERE ANYBODY IN
OPPOSITION? I'D LIKE TO WELCOME
YOU TO COME FORWARD. MARGIE
SAMSON, ADVISORS ON BEHALF OF
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
POWER AUTHORITY AND A CURRENT
OPPOSED POSITION, WE LOOK
FORWARD TO REVIEWING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS ONCE
THEY'RE IN PRINT AND LOOK
FORWARD TO REMOVING OUR
OPPOSITION. VERY GOOD. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION,
SEEING NO ONE IN OPPOSITION WILL
TURN IT BACK TO THE CHAIR AND
SEE IF THE COMMITTEE HAS ANY
QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. HAPPY TO MOVE
THE BILL. IT'S BEEN MOVED. I MR.
DEBATE ON THIS, SENATOR BECKER.
YEAH, I'LL JUST SAY QUICKLY, I
KNOW THIS IS A CONTROVERSIAL
AREA, BUT I THINK THAT, TRYING
TO CLEAN UP THESE OLD PLANTS AND
CONVERT THEM TO A MORE USEFUL
AND, IS A WORTHY GOAL. SO I'LL
BE SUPPORTING THE BILL. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE
A Dð PASS TO BE AMENDED IN THE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY AND THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE
SUCH. DELETE THE ENERGY
PROCUREMENT MANDATE IN THE BILL
SECTION TWO AND ITS REFERENCE IN
SECTION ONE. AMEND THE
ADMINISTRATION ON THE BIOMASS
BIOMASS TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
PROGRAM TO THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION AND CLARIFY INCENTIVE
GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE BIOMASS
FACILITY. SENATOR, FOR BRADFORD,
WE WANT TO KEEP THAT IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, NOT
AT THE CÁC. THEY'RE ALREADY
OVERLOADED AND IT'S A COST SHIFT
TO THE RATEPAYERS. SO CAN THAT
CAN THAT BE ADJUSTED HERE AT
THIS POINT, OR DOES IT HAVE TO
BE ADDRESSED?
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL AGREE TO THAT.
THANK YOU I APPRECIATE IT.
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. SO
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
DO PASS TO BE AMENDED IN
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE.
SENATORS. BRADFORD. BRADFORD.
AYE. DALLI. AYE DALLI. AYE.
ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE. BECKER AYE.
BECKER. AYE. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. DODD DODD. AYE.
DURAZZO. DURAZZO. AYE. EGGMAN
EGGMAN. AYE. GONZALEZ. GROVE
LIMON. MIN. MIN. AYE. NEWMAN
RUBIO. SATO. SKINNER STERN.
STERN. AYE. WILK. Ã. WILK AYE.
11 TO 1. THAT BILL HAS 11 VOTES.
YOU WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. OH, I HAVE
ONE. SHOULD WE TRY? DO YOU WANT.
DO YOU WANT TO TRY TO DO YOURS
REAL QUICK? OH, YEAH. ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR EGGMAN, SB MÁS IT HERE,
MR. CHAIR, SB 1118. GO RIGHT
AHEAD. 1118. THANK YOU. I'M
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS. LAST
YEAR, WE MADE IMPROVEMENTS TO A
PROGRAM THAT I WORKED ON WAY
BACK IN 2015, SOMA. THAT WAS SB
355. THIS JUST PROVIDES THE
PROCESS FOR TRIBAL GROUNDS TO BE
ABLE TO BE INCLUDED. I HAVE WITH
ME, ROCKY FERNANDEZ FROM CENTER
ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND ANDREW
DAWSON FROM CAL PARK HOUSING
PARTNERSHIPS. AND THEY WILL BE
VERY BRIEF. I'LL BE VERY BRIEF.
GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR, COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, ROCKY FERNANDEZ WITH
CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY.
WE'RE PART OF THE PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATION TEAM FOR SOMA. WE
CAME BACK FROM SB 355 LAST YEAR
WITH ONE MORE FIX AROUND TRIBAL
ELIGIBILITY. WE THINK IT'S A
GREAT BILL AND URGE, AND I VOTE
AND THANKS TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
WORKING WITH US ON UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES. THANK YOU. GOOD
JOB. GOOD JOB. ANDREW DAWSON,
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
SUPPORT URGENT VOTE. THANK YOU.
MICHELLE KANELLIS, UNION OF
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU JANET COX FOR CLIMATE
ACTION CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
THANKS KEVIN LUO FROM THE
CALIFORNIA SOLAR AND STORAGE
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. MARION
BORGESON WITH NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL IN SUPPORT. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES HERE IN THE
ROOM IN SUPPORT. HEARING AND
SEEING. NONE. NOW LET'S MOVE TO
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. ARE
THERE WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION OF
SB 1118? SEEING NONE, I'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. ARE
THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS
IN REGARDS TO THIS MEASURE? IT'S
BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR STERN. WE
HAVE A Dð PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
REQUIRED IN THE AMENDMENTS ARE A
FOLLOW. REQUIRE TRIBAL PROJECTS
THAT ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE DEED
RESTRICTION TO CONTINUE TO MEET
THE INCOME REQUIREMENTS OF SOMA
PROGRAM LIMITS TRIBAL PROJECTS
THAT ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE DEED
RESTRICTION TO THOSE PROJECTS
THAT RECEIVE PUBLIC FINANCING TO
FUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FROM THE
US. HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT INDIAN HOUSING BLOCK
GRANT, US BUREAU OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS OR NATIVE AMERICAN
HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND
SELF-DETERMINATION ACT. IS THAT
CORRECT? YES. THAT OKAY. ALL
RIGHT. SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON SB 1118. SENATORS
BRADFORD, I BRADFORD I DALLI.
DALLI NØ ASHBY I ASHBY. AYE.
BECKER. BECKER I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I. DODD. DURAZZO
DURAZZO I. EGGMAN. EGGMAN I
GONZALEZ. GROVE. LIMÓN. MINH
MINH I NEWMAN. RUBIO I RUBIO I
SATO. SKINNER. STERN I STERN I
WILK. NØ. WILK. NØ 9 TO 2. 9 TO
2. DO WE HAVE TIME TO OPEN THE
ROLL FOR ABSENT MEMBERS? I THINK
SO, LET'S DO THAT REAL QUICK,
AND THEN WE'LL RECESS FOR CAUCUS
. THANK YOU. WELL, WHAT CAN YOU
DO? LET'S SEE. OKAY.
THIS IS A IT'S A SHORT. ARE WE
READY, YES. DO YOU WANT ME TO
JUST. WE'RE STARTING WITH FILE
ITEM ONE, SB 1006. PADILLA,
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
CURRENT VOTE NINE ZERO. BOTH
CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE. BECKER.
BECKER AYE. GONZALEZ. GROVE
NEWMAN. RUBIO RUBIO. AYE. SATO.
SKINNER STERN. STERN. AYE. 13 TO
0 WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. THAT ON, FILE
ITEM TWO HAS BEEN PULLED. SO
WE'RE MOVING ON TO FILE ITEM
THREE. SB 1298. PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS. CURRENT VOTE
SEVEN ZERO. BOTH. CHAIR. VICE
CHAIR. VOTING AYE. ASHBY. AYE.
ASHBY. AYE. BECKER AYE. BECKER.
AYE. DODD EGGMAN. GONZALEZ.
GROVE NEWMAN. RUBIO SATO.
SKINNER STERN. RUBIO. AYE TEN
ZERO. THE MEASURE HAS TEN VOTES.
WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON. MOVING
ON NOW TO FILE ITEM FIVE FIVE ON
FOUR, SB 1413 BY SENIOR SENATOR
NEIL. PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS. CURRENT VOTE SEVEN
ZERO. BOTH CHAIR. VICE CHAIR.
VOTING AYE. ASHBY BECKER.
BECKER. AYE CABALLERO. DURAZO
GONZALEZ. GROVE. NEWMAN RUBIO.
SATO SKINNER. STERN EIGHT ZERO.
THE BILL HAS EIGHT VOTES. WILL
LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN NOW MOVING
ON TO FILE ITEM FIVE. SB 9839.
SORRY, 938, CURRENT VOTE SIX
ONE. SB 938 BRADFORD ASHBY.
CABALLERO DODD GONZALEZ. GROVE
NEWMAN. RUBIO. SATO SKINNER.
WILK. NØ WILK. NØ SIX TWO.
CURRENT VOTE IS 6 TO 2. WILL
LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. NOW MOVING ON TO ITEM
SEVEN. SB 993 BY BECKER. CURRENT
VOTE NINE ZERO CHAIR VOTING AYE.
DALLI CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE.
EGGMAN EGGMAN. AYE. GONZALEZ.
GROVE. NOON SEN. RUBIO. RUBIO.
AYE SATO. SKINNER 12 ZERO 12 TO
0. WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON. NOW
FILE ITEM EIGHT SB 1018. CURRENT
VOTE 8 TO 2. VICE CHAIR VOTING
NO. BRADFORD EGGMAN. EGGMAN.
AYE. GONZALEZ. GROVE. NEWMAN
RUBIO. SATO. SKINNER. NINE TWO 9
TO 2. WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL UP
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS, NEXT IS ITEM
NINE, SB 1062. DID WE JUST GET
EVERYBODY ON THAT OR, LET ME SEE
. IT'S 11 TO 0. GROVE LIMON
NEWMAN. RUBIO. SHE JUST LEFT.
YEAH. SO EVERYBODY WHO'S HERE,
WE HAVE ON IT AND EGGMAN IS OUR
LAST BILL WITH THE REST OF THEM.
STILL HAVEN'T HEARD YET, RIGHT?
NO WE'VE HEARD WE'VE HEARD THEM
ALL. WE'VE HEARD EVERYTHING.
HEARD EVERYTHING. I DID NOT I
DID NOT KNOW THAT. OKAY FILE
ITEM 11, SB 1237. THAT WAS
PULLED? THAT WAS PULLED BY THE
AUTHOR. IT WAS PULLED. OKAY SB
1301 STERN. CURRENT VOTE EIGHT
ZERO VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
BRADFORD I BRADFORD I BECKER I
BECKER I EGGMAN. GONZALEZ. GROVE
LIMÓN. NEWMAN. RUBIO SATO.
SKINNER TEN ZERO EGGMAN I 11 TO
0 11 ZERO. THAT MEASURES OUT
NOW. MOVING ON TO SB 1311.
CURRENT VOTE SEVEN ZERO. VICE
CHAIR VOTING I BRADFORD A,
BRADFORD I BECKER. BECKER I
EGGMAN. EGGMAN I GONZALEZ.
GROVE. LIMON MIN. NEWMAN. RUBIO
SATO. SKINNER 1010 ZERO TEN
ZERO. THAT MEASURE IS OUT. WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. AND OUR FINAL ITEM AS
FILE 14, SB 1460. CURRENT VOTE
SIX TWO. VICE CHAIR VOTING NO.
BRADFORD HÌNH. BRADFORD. AYE.
BECKER. BECKER AYE. EGGMAN.
EGGMAN. AYE. GONZALEZ. GROVE
LIMON. NEWMAN. RUBIO SATO.
SKINNER. 9 TO 2. 9 TO 2, WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN. AND SO NOW,
MEMBERS, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A
RECESS FOR LUNCH, AND WE'LL
RETURN AFTER LUNCH TO RESUME OUR
HEARING. THANK YOU
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY,
UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATION.
WE'RE HOPING THAT ALL MEMBERS
WILL REPORT BACK TO ROOM 1200.
AND WE'RE GOING TO START BY
LIFTING THE CALLS ON THOSE
OUTSTANDING ITEMS. AND WE'LL
START WITH FILE ITEM ONE. SB
1006 BY SENATOR PADILLA. DO PASS
AS AMENDED, TO THE RULES
COMMITTEE. CURRENT VOTE 13 ZERO.
BOTH CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. SENATORS GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ. AYE. GROVE. SHE'S
RIGHT THERE. NEWMAN NEWMAN. AYE.
CIERTO. CIERTO AYE. SKINNER.
SKINNER. AYE. HI. HI. SORRY.
IT'S OKAY. GROVE. AYE IT HAS ALL
THE MEMBERS ON IT. IT HAS ALL
THE MEMBERS 18 TO 0 18 ZERO.
THAT MEASURES OUT. ALL RIGHT.
NOW MOVING ON TO FALL. ITEM
THREE, SB 1298 BY SENATOR
CORTESE. PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE TEN
ZERO. CHAIR. VICE CHAIR. VOTING
AYE. DODD. DODD. AYE. EGGMAN
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE. GROVE
NEWMAN. NEWMAN. AYE. SATO SATO.
AYE. SKINNER SKINNER. NOT
VOTING. STERN. 14 TO 14 TO ZERO.
14 TO 0. WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR
A FEW MORE MINUTES TO SEE IF
THERE WILL BE COMING BACK TO
COMMITTEE. NEXT IS FILE ITEM FOR
SB 1413 BY SENATOR NILO. DO
PASS, AS AMENDED TO THE SENATE
FLOOR. CURRENT VOTE EIGHT ZERO.
CHAIR VICE CHAIR. VOTING AYE.
ASHBY CABALLERO. DURAZO
GONZALEZ. GROVE GROVE. AYE.
NEWMAN. NEWMAN AYE. RUBIO. SATO
I. SATO. AYE. SKINNER. SKINNER
AYE. STERN 12 ZERO. Þ. GONZALEZ
AYE. 13 ZERO 13 ZERO. AGAIN
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR A
FEW MORE MINUTES TO SEE IF THESE
MEMBERS ARE COMING BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. NEXT IS FOWLER. ITEM
FIVE SB 938 BY SENATOR MINH DO
PASS AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATION. CURRENT VOTE SIX
TWO. VICE CHAIR VOTING NO.
BRADFORD ASHBY. CABALLERO DODD.
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE. GROVE
GROVE. NO. NEWMAN RUBIO. CIERTO.
NO. SATO. NO. SKINNER SKINNER.
AYE 8 TO 4. IT NEEDS TWO MORE. 8
TO 4. OKAY. WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL
OPEN FOR ANY ABSENT MEMBERS. NOW
MOVING ON TO FALL. ITEM SEVEN SB
993. BECKER DO PASS, AS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE
12 ZERO. CHAIR. VOTING AYE. DALY
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE. GROVE
GROVE. NO. NEWMAN NEWMAN. AYE.
CIERTO. CIERTO. NO SKINNER.
SKINNER. AYE. 15 TO 2. CURRENT
VOTE IS 15 TO 2. NOW MOVING ON
TO FALL. ITEM EIGHT SB 1018 BY
SENATOR BECKER. DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE
NINE TWO. VICE CHAIR. VOTING NO.
BRADFORD HIGH. BRADFORD. AYE.
GONZALEZ GONZALEZ. AYE. GROVE
NEWMAN. NEWMAN. AYE. RUBIO
RUBIO. AYE. CIERTO. CIERTO. NOS
SKINNER. SKINNER. AYE. 14 TO 3.
THAT'S 14 TO 3. MEASURES OUT
NOW. MOVING ON TO FALL. ITEM
NINE SB 1062 BY SENATOR DOWLING.
DO PASS TO BE AMENDED IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE.
CURRENT VOTE 11 ZERO. CHAIR.
VICE CHAIR. VOTING AYE. GONZALEZ
GROVE. FOREST. GROVE. AYE.
LIMÓN. LIMÓN. AYE NEWMAN.
NEWMAN. AYE. RUBIO. RUBIO AYE.
CIERTO. CIERTO AYE. SKINNER YES.
YES. YES SKINNER. AYE 17 TO 0.
CURRENT VOTE 17 TO 0 WILL LEAVE
THE ROLE OPEN NOW. MOVING ON TO
FALL. ITEM TEN MÀ SB 1118 BY
SENATOR EGGMAN. DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CURRENT VOTE NINE TWO. CHAIR.
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR. VOTING
NO. DODD. DODD. AYE GONZALEZ.
GROVE GROVE. AYE. LIMÓN. LIMÓN.
AYE NEWMAN. NEWMAN. AYE. CIERTO
SATO. NOT VOTING. SKINNER.
SKINNER AYE. 14 TO 2. CURRENT
VOTES 14 TO 2. NOW MOVING ON TO
FALL. ITEM 11, SB 1237. NO. THAT
WAS PULLED. THAT WAS PULLED, SO
NOW MOVING ON TO 1213 TEN WAS
PULLED RIGHT. NØ 11 FILE ITEM 11
BY SENATOR STERN WAS PULLED. Þ
CðC. SORRY, SORRY. SO IT'S 1237
NECK UPHOLD. CORRECT? YES. OKAY.
GREAT SO NOW WE'RE ON 13 FILE
ITEM 12 1301. PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS. 1301 SENATOR
STERN, DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE 11
ZERO CHAIR. VICE CHAIR. VOTING
AYE. GONZALEZ GROVE. IS THIS THE
SECOND STERN BILL? CORRECT?
YEAH. I GROVE I LEMON LEMON I
NEWMAN NEWMAN I RUBIO RUBIO I
CIERTO CIERTO I SKINNER. SKINNER
I 17 TO 0. ALL RIGHT. CURRENT
VOTE 17 TO 0. AND NOW WE'RE
MOVING ON TO FALL ITEM 13. SB
1311 BY SENATOR STERN. DO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE
TEN ZERO. CHAIR. VICE CHAIR.
VOTING AYE. GONZALEZ GROVE.
GROVE II LIMON LIMON. I'M IN
1313 MIN I NEWMAN. NEWMAN I
RUBIO. RUBIO I CIERTO CIERTO I
SKINNER. SKINNER O COR TO NOT
VOTING SORRY. THERE'S SOME
COMMOTION GOING ON. SORRY,
THAT'S 16 TO 0. THAT'S OUT 16 TO
0, WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN.
TEMPORARY TEMPORARILY. AND NOW
WE'RE MOVING TO FILE ITEM 14, SB
1460 BY SENATOR DURAZO. DO PASS
TO BE AMENDED IN LABOR, PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT.
CURRENT VOTE NINE TWO. CHAIR.
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR. VOTING
NO. GONZALEZ. GROVE GROVE. NO.
LEMON I LEMON I NEWMAN I NEWMAN
I RUBIO. RUBIO I SATO. SATO. NO.
SKINNER SKINNER I. 13 TO 4, 13
TO 4. SO WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE
THE ROLL OPEN FOR WHAT? GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ STEPPED OUT. SO I DON'T
KNOW HOW LONG. I MEAN I YEAH
WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THE ROLL
OPEN FOR ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES.
SO WE'RE GOING TO ASK ALL THOSE
MEMBERS WHO ARE ABSENT THAT'S
STILL OUTSTANDING TO MAKE THEIR
WAY TO ROOM 1200. I'M GOING TO
.
LET'S LIFT A ROW FOR SENATOR
GONZALEZ. PLEASE OPEN OUR ROLL.
I SHOULD SAY. STARTING WITH FILE
ITEM ONE. IS SHE ON? SHE'S ON
ONE. OKAY WHAT IS SHE MISSING?
FILE A FILE ITEM SIX HAS BEEN
PULLED. YEAH, SORRY. THAT'S ON
LATE MINUTES LAST NIGHT. I THINK
THREE.
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO OPEN
UP WITH FILE ITEM NINE. SB 1062
BY SENATOR DALLI. PLEASE CALL
THE ABSENT MEMBERS. GONZALEZ.
I'M STAYING OFF. OKAY. ALL ITEM
NINE. YOU'RE STAYING OFF. ALL
RIGHT, SO 17 ZERO THURMOND IS
OUT 17 TO 0. AND THEN FILE ITEM
TEN. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE LOOKING TO
CALL AND FILE ITEM TEN SB 1118
BY SENATOR EGGMAN. PLEASE CALL
THE ABSENT MEMBERS. CURRENT VOTE
14 TWO. GONZALEZ GONZALEZ. AYE.
15 TO 2. 15 TO 2. THAT MEASURES
OUT NEXT UP IS 1301 1301. FILE
ITEM 12 1301 BY SENATOR STERN.
CURRENT VOTE 17 ZERO. GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ I 18 ZERO. THE MEASURES
OUT 18 TO 0. THEN 1311. NEXT UP
FOLLOW ON 13 SB 1311 BY SENATOR
STERN. CURRENT VOTE 16 ZERO.
GONZALEZ GONZALEZ I 17 ZERO. ON
THAT MEASURE AND LAST BUT NOT
LEAST, VOLUME 14 SB 1460 BY
DURAZZO. CURRENT VOTE 13 FOR
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I 14 FOR 14
FOR YES. YOU VOTED YEA. YOU
VOTED ON THAT ONE. YEA. OKAY, SO
WE'RE WE'RE GOOD, WE'RE GOOD.
ALL RIGHT. MEMBERS THAT
CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS FOR
TODAY. WE'RE GOING TO GRANT
RECONSIDERATION OKAY. WE'RE
GOING TO GRANT RECONSIDERATION
TO SENATOR MEN ON SB 938. AND I
WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR
COMING TO THE COMMITTEE TODAY
AND FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION HERE
IN THE SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE
HEARING. THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY, UTILITIES AND
COMMUNICATIONS IS NOW ADJOURNED