THE SENATE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE
NUMBER TWO ON RESOURCES.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. ENERGY
WILL COME TO ORDER. AND BEFORE
WE BEGIN, LET'S ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SENATOR BECKER HERE. ALAN BLAKE
SPEAR, PRESIDENT WICKS FOR
PRESENT. DOLLY DOLLY, HERE WE,
WE HAVE A QUORUM. WE'LL BE
DISCUSSING ALL THE ISSUES LISTED
IN THE DISCUSSION SECTION OF THE
AGENDA. FOR EACH ITEM, WE WILL
HEAR FROM THE DEPARTMENT,
FOLLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE AND THE LEGISLATIVE
ACCOUNTING ANALYST OFFICE. AND
THEN MEMBERS WILL HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITIES TO ASK QUESTIONS.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH ISSUE
NUMBER EIGHT ON THE WITH THE,
DWR AND THE DIABLO CANYON LOAN,
ASK PEOPLE TO COME UP.
EXIT. THANK YOU. AND I BELIEVE
YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION, WE'LL
START WITH DWR WHEN YOU'RE READY
. YES, WE DO HAVE SOME OPENING
COMMENTS, BUT I'M GOING TO START
WITH MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION.
AND WE'LL JOIN HER RIGHT AFTER
THAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THIS
IS ON. ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING,
MY NAME IS LIZ GILL, AND I'M THE
PROGRAM MANAGER FOR THE
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS BRANCH AT
THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION, AND THIS MORNING,
I'LL BE PROVIDING SOME
BACKGROUND ON THE WHY OF THE
DIABLO CANYON EXTENSION AND
WHETHER ANYTHING HAS CHANGED
SINCE THE PASSAGE OF SB 846, SO
AGAIN, I'LL BE FOCUSED MORE ON
THE NEED AND THE WHY, AND THEN
I'LL PASS IT OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUE DELFIN, SO CLIMATE
CHANGE INDUCED EXTREME EVENTS
ARE MAKING IT MORE CHALLENGING,
AS WE KNOW, TO MAINTAIN ELECTRIC
GRID RELIABILITY. IN 2020, THE
STATE EXPERIENCED AN EXTREME
WEATHER EVENT EQUIVALENT TO A 1
IN 30 YEAR DEMAND SITUATION THAT
RESULTED IN SHORT ROTATING
OUTAGES. ON AUGUST 14TH AND
15TH, 2020. IN 2021, A WILDFIRE
IN OREGON TOOK DOWN THE
CALIFORNIA-OREGON ELECTRIC
TRANSMISSION INTERTIE, CAUSING
THE STATE TO LOSE 4000MW OF
IMPORT CAPACITY, DURING A HEAT
WAVE AT THE HOTTEST TIME OF THE
DAY AND REALLY ELEVATING THE
THREAT THAT WILDFIRES POSE TO
THE STATE'S TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
AND SYSTEM WIDE GRID RELIABILITY
. THIS LED TO AN EMERGENCY
PROCLAMATION BY THE GOVERNOR
ORDERING THE AGENCIES TO TAKE
MEASURES TO BOLSTER GRID
RELIABILITY. ADDITIONALLY,
EQUIPMENT AND MANUFACTURE,
TRAINING AND SUPPLY CHAINS WERE
HEAVILY DISRUPTED AND
SIGNIFICANTLY SLOWED DURING THE
COVID 19 PANDEMIC. MASS
FRACTURING AND THE SUPPLY CHAINS
HAVE TAKEN A LONG TIME TO
RECOVER TO PRE-PANDEMIC LEVELS.
LET ALONE RAMP UP TO MEET THE
GROWTH IN RENEWABLE AND ZERO
CARBON PROJECT DEMAND, BOTH IN
CALIFORNIA AND GLOBALLY. AT THE
SAME TIME, THE STATE WAS LOOKING
AHEAD TO THE RETIREMENT OF
SIGNIFICANT GENERATION ASSETS IN
THE 2024 TO 2026 TIME FRAME. SO
DIABLO CANYON, WHICH ACCOUNTS
FOR 9% OF THE STATE'S TOTAL
POWER GENERATION THÀNH AND ABOUT
17% OF ITS CLEAN ELECTRICITY, AS
WELL AS SEVERAL NATURAL GAS
GENERATORS. THESE EVENTS AND
PLANNED RETIREMENT OF CAPACITY
LED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
STATE NEEDED TO TAKE
EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES IN THE
NEAR TERME IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN
GRID RELIABILITY UNDER THESE
CLIMATE DRIVEN EXTREME
CONDITIONS. WHILE WE ALLOW LOAD
SERVING ENTITIES, PROCUREMENT,
RENEWABLE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TO
CATCH UP IN 2022, THE
ADMINISTRATION BROUGHT FORWARD
ANALYSIS INDICATING THAT THE
STATE MAY NEED UP TO 5000MW OF
ADDITIONAL CAPACITY WHEN
ACCOUNTING FOR THE UNPRECEDENTED
LEVELS OF PLANNED PROCUREMENT.
IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN GRID
RELIABILITY DURING EXTREME
EVENTS, SUCH AS WHAT WAS
EXPERIENCED IN 2020. AND THESE
EVENTS AGAIN GENERALLY FALL
OUTSIDE OF TYPICAL GRID PLANNING
STANDARDS. SO IN 2020, THE
ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED IN THE
LEGISLATURE PASSED BOTH AB 205,
WHICH CREATED THE STRATEGIC
RELIABILITY RESERVE AND SB 846,
WHICH PROVIDED A PATH FOR THE
LIMITED EXTENSION OF THE CLEAN
DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT TO
2030. JUST DAYS AFTER THE
LEGISLATURE PASSED SB 846, IT
BECAME EVEN MORE CLEAR THAT
THESE EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES
WERE WARRANTED. AND, AUGUST 31ST
WAS THE LAST DAY OF THE
LEGISLATIVE YEAR AND THE DAY
THAT SB 846 WAS VOTED OUT AND
WAS ALSO THE START OF A WEST
WIDE EXTREME HEAT EVENT THAT
STARTED TO STRESS THE GRID
BEYOND ITS DESIGN CAPACITY ON
SEPTEMBER 6TH, THE KYSO
TERRITORY REACHED A RECORD NEW
DEMAND OF 52,000MW, WHICH IS THE
EQUIVALENT OF A 1 IN 27 YEAR
EVENT. SO AS A PART OF SB 846,
CÁC WAS DIRECTED TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE STATE'S ELECTRIC
DEMAND FORECASTS FOR 2024
THROUGH 2030 SHOW POTENTIAL FOR
ELECTRIC GRID RELIABILITY
DEFICIENCIES. IF DIABLO CANYON
POWER PLANT OPERATIONS WERE NOT
EXTENDED BEYOND 2025, AND
WHETHER EXTENDING OPERATIONS TO
AT LEAST 2030 IS PRUDENT IN
ORDER TO ENSURE ELECTRIC GRID
RELIABILITY AND CONSISTENCY WITH
THE STATE'S GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSION REDUCTION GOALS, THE
CEC EVALUATED SCENARIOS THAT
EVALUATED SCENARIOS THAT
REFLECTED PLANNED ENERGY
PROCUREMENT AND FUTURE DEMAND
UNDER EXTREME HEAT EVENTS,
EQUIVALENT TO THOSE EXPERIENCED
IN 2020 AND 2022. WHILE
CONSIDERING RESOURCE DELAYS
CONSISTENT WITH THOSE THAT HAVE
BEEN EXPERIENCED OVER THE PAST
SEVERAL YEARS. AS WELL AS RISKS
TO ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION THAT
BRING IN CRITICAL IMPORTED
ELECTRICITY TO THE STATE. IN
FEBRUARY 2023, THE CEC COMPLETED
AN ANALYSIS THAT CONCLUDED THAT
THERE IS SIGNIFICANT RISK IN
INCREASED LIKELIHOOD OF ROTATING
POWER OUTAGES WITHOUT THE
EXTENSION OF DIABLO CANYON, AND
THAT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO
EXTEND OPERATIONS UNTIL THE
STATE CAN CONFIRM THAT THE
NECESSARY ENERGY RESOURCES ARE
ONLINE. THE ANALYSIS DETERMINED
THAT EXTENDING DIABLO CANYON
ALSO PROVIDES A DECIDED
ADVANTAGE IN THE SENSE THAT IT
IS FIRM A FIRM, LOW CARBON
RESOURCE, MEANING THAT IT'S
GENERALLY DEPENDABLE AND IT DOES
NOT EMIT GHG EMISSIONS OR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. IN
DECEMBER 2023, AND AS ORDERED BY
846, FOLLOWING A NEARLY YEAR
LONG RULEMAKING, THE CPUC
APPROVED A DECISION TO EXTEND
DIABLO CANYON'S RETIREMENT DATES
FOR UNITS ONE AND TWO TO OCTOBER
2029 AND 2030, RESPECTIVELY. SO
AGAIN, CLIMATE CHANGE INDUCED
EXTREME EVENTS ARE MAKING IT
MORE CHALLENGING TO MAINTAIN
ELECTRIC GRID RELIABILITY. THIS
HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE SB 846 WAS
PASSED, AND IN FACT, WE SAW
RECORD DEMAND DURING AN EXTREME
AND EXTENDED HEAT EVENT JUST
DAYS AFTER IT WAS PASSED IN
2022. WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT LEVELS
OF NEW CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCES,
OVER 16,000MW OF NEW NAMEPLATE
CAPACITY THAT HAVE COME ONLINE
SINCE 2020. BUT WE KNOW THAT
WE'LL CONTINUE TO NEED
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN GRID RELIABILITY AND
MEET OUR STATE'S GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTION GOALS MOVING FORWARD
TO 2045. THIS WAS TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT IN OUR ANALYSIS AND DOES
NOT CHANGE THE CURRENT OUTLOOK.
WE'RE IN A BETTER POSITION GOING
INTO THE SUMMER BECAUSE OF THE
ONGOING LOAD SERVING ENTITY
PROCUREMENT EFFORTS, THE
RESOURCES BEING OPERATIONALIZED
THROUGH THE STRATEGIC
RELIABILITY RESERVE, AND BECAUSE
OF THE EXTENSION OF EXISTING
RESOURCES, INCLUDING DIABLO
CANYON. IN FACT, THE CEC
ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT IF WE
EXPERIENCE THE SAME RANGE OF
RESOURCE DELAYS NEXT SUMMER THAT
WE'VE EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST,
THAT WE'D BE AT RISK OF
SHORTFALLS EVEN UNDER A STANDARD
PLANNING METRIC OF A 1 IN 10
YEAR EVENT WITH OUT DIABLO
CANYON, WITHOUT DIABLO CANYON,
THE STRATEGIC RELIABILITY
RESERVE WOULD ALSO NOT BE
SUFFICIENT TO MAINTAIN
RELIABILITY DURING THE
EQUIVALENT OF A SEPTEMBER 2022
EVENT. SO WE KNOW THAT THE
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE LEGISLATURE
AND THE ADMINISTRATION THÀNH
HAVE PLACED THE STATE IN A
BETTER POSITION TO AVOID
ROTATING POWER OUTAGES AS A
RESULT OF SUPPLY SHORTFALLS
DURING EXTREME EVENTS FOR THIS
SUMMER AND FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL
SUMMERS. BUT WE MUST BE VIGILANT
AND CONTINUE TO MANAGE AND PLAN
FOR ALL OF THE KNOWN AND UNKNOWN
VARIABLES THAT IMPACT OUR
COLLECTIVE ABILITY TO PROVIDE
RELIABLE, CLEAN ELECTRICITY
DURING EXTREME EVENTS, THANK
YOU, AND I'LL PASS IT TO MY
COLLEAGUE DELPHINE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I HAVE. THE
MICROPHONES DON'T LIKE TO BE
TOUCHED. THEY'RE GENERALLY VERY
SENSITIVE. ALL RIGHT. CAN
EVERYONE HEAR ME? DOESN'T KNOW
THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE. ALL
RIGHT, ONE MORE TIME. ALL RIGHT.
DOES THAT SEEM TO BE WORKING?
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APOLOGIES FOR THAT, THANK YOU TO
MY COLLEAGUE. I HAVE SOME BRIEF
OPENING COMMENTS, AND THEN WE'LL
PASS ON TO MY COLLEAGUE AT
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. SO AS
DESCRIBED BY LIZ GILL, MY
COLLEAGUE HERE, THE CURRENT
OUTLOOK HASN'T CHANGED. THE NEED
FOR DIABLO CANYON AND RETAINING
ITS BASELOAD GHG FREE GENERATION
IS PRUDENT IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND NEEDED FOR ELECTRIC
RELIABILITY. SB 846 TASKED DWR
WITH ADMINISTRATING A STATE LOAN
TO SUPPORT DIABLO CANYON'S
LICENSE EXTENSION, WHICH WAS
NEEDED IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE THE
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC PG AND
E, WHICH IS DIABLO'S OPERATOR,
WAS APPLYING FOR A LICENSE
EXTENSION IN LESS THAN THE
STANDARD FIVE YEAR REQUIREMENT
TERMS REQUIRED BY THE NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION. TO REPAY
THE LOAN, PGE APPLIED AND
QUALIFIED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY'S CIVIL, NUCLEAR CREDIT
PROGRAM, WHICH DWR IS NOT A
PARTY TO, BUT THEY HAVE SINCE
BEEN, ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY
QUALIFY FOR THAT PROGRAM. BASED
ON OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH PGE, AND
THE COMPANY NEEDS THE REMAINING
400 MILLION IN THE THIRD QUARTER
OF 2023 TO SUPPORT LICENSE
RENEWAL. FOR EXAMPLE, AS PART OF
THE LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS, THE
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REQUIRES EXTENSIVE INSPECTIONS,
WHICH PGE MUST COMPLETE UNDER A
COMPRESSED DEADLINE. KEEP IN
MIND THAT THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION RENEWAL IS A PROCESS
PG AND ACTUALLY BEGAN 15 YEARS
AGO BECAUSE IT NORMALLY IS SUCH
AN INVOLVED PROCESS. PG AND E
HALTED THAT PROCESS AT THE
STATE'S DIRECTION AND HAS NOW
RESTARTED IT AT THE STATE'S
DIRECTION AS WELL, BUT WITH AN
EVEN MORE COMPRESSED TIME FRAME.
THESE INSPECTIONS ARE TIMED TO
ALIGN WITH REGULAR MAINTENANCE
SCHEDULES AT THE POWER PLANT AND
THE FIRST OF WHICH OCCURRED IN
FALL 2023, AND THE NEXT IS
DURING RIGHT NOW SPRING 2024.
FURTHERMORE, COMMITMENTS HAVE
ALREADY BEEN MADE TO SUPPORT
ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS WITH THE
REQUISITE STAFFING, EQUIPMENT,
MATERIAL SUPPORT INCLUDING
REFUELING THROUGH 2025. SO PG
AND E HAS SECURED THESE
COMMITMENTS WITH EXPEDITED
FULFILLMENT AND DELIVERY. GIVEN
THE URGENCY OF MEETING THE
HIGHLY COMPRESSED DEADLINES
UNDER SB 846 SIX ORPHALI, THE
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
PROVIDED A WAIVER TO PGE TO
EXEMPT IT FROM ITS NORMAL
PROCESS IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE THE
LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS AND
DEVOTED ITS OWN STAFFING AND
RESOURCES, SPECIFICALLY TO
DIABLO CANYON IN ORDER TO TARGET
A LICENSE RENEWAL DECISION BY
AUGUST 2025. SO IF PGA DOES NOT
RECEIVE THE FINAL 400 MILLION IN
THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2024,
EXTENSION OPERATION MAY BE
JEOPARDIZED. PGE HAS PREVIOUSLY
STATED TO DWR THAT STATE LOAN
FUNDS AND DOE CREDIT FUNDS ARE
THE ONLY FUNDS AVAILABLE TO
PURSUE EXTENDED OPERATIONS.
BECAUSE SB 846 PROHIBITS PGE
FROM REQUESTING RECOVERY OF
EXPENSES FROM RATEPAYERS TO FUND
THE RELICENSING PROCESS FOR THIS
STATE. RELIABILITY ASSET. IF PG
NEEDS DIABLO CANYON, TIME
SENSITIVE EXTENSION FUNDING IS
DEPLETED AND THEREFORE PGE IS
UNABLE TO COMPLETE ITS LICENSE
RENEWAL WORK. THE NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION LIKELY
WOULD VOID THE TIMELY RENEWAL
EXCEPTION ORIGINALLY GRANTED.
THIS WOULD MOVE THE LICENSE
RETIREMENT DATES BACK TO ITS
CURRENT EXPIRATION DATES OF
NOVEMBER 2ND, 2024 THIS YEAR,
FOR UNIT ONE AND AUGUST 26TH,
2025 FOR UNIT TWO. IF DIABLO
CANYON DOES NOT CONTINUE TO
PURSUE A LICENSE EXTENSION, IT
WOULD ALSO NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE
FOR ANY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY'S CIVIL NUCLEAR CREDIT
AWARD AND NONE OF THE MONEY THAT
THE STATE HAS ALREADY LOANED TO
PGE COULD BE REPAID USING THOSE
FUNDS. FURTHERMORE IF DIABLO
CANYON RETIRES AT ITS CURRENT
LICENSE EXPIRATION DATES AGAIN
AS EARLY AS NOVEMBER 24TH OF
THIS YEAR FOR UNIT ONE, GRID
RELIABILITY COULD BE JEOPARDIZED
AS IT DOES PROVIDE. AS MY
COLLEAGUE MENTIONED,
APPROXIMATELY 9% OF CALIFORNIA'S
TOTAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND
REPRESENTS 17% OF THE STATE'S
CARBON FREE ELECTRICITY MIX.
ALTHOUGH CLEAN RESOURCES
CONTINUE TO BE BUILT AT AN
UNPRECEDENTED STATE,
UNPRECEDENTED PACE IN THE STATE,
THEY STILL FACE CHALLENGES
COMING ONLINE, SUCH AS SUPPLY
CHAIN DELAYS AND INTERCONNECT
LIMITATIONS. SO BASED ON DWR'S
UNDERSTANDING, THERE MAY ALSO BE
A TIGHT NEAR TÂM RESOURCE
ADEQUACY MARKET, ESPECIALLY FOR
THESE FOR NON-EMITTING RESOURCES
. SO THIS CONCLUDES MY REMARKS
AND I'LL HAND IT OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUE AT DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. GOOD MORNING, ANDREW HÌ
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
THE MOST RECENT JLBC LETTER
NOTED THE NEED FOR A VERIFIABLE
LOAN REPAYMENT SCHEDULE. WE JUST
WANTED TO NOTE THAT IT'S LIKELY
GOING TO BE SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE
THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL IS
AVAILABLE, THERE'S THREE
POTENTIAL AVENUES FOR REPAYMENT.
ALL OF WHICH HAVE SOME LEVEL OF
UNCERTAINTY. THE EARLIEST WE
WOULD KNOW HOW MUCH OF THE DOE
NUCLEAR CREDIT AWARD WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR REPAYMENT IS 2027.
FURTHER EXCESS OPERATING
REVENUES IN THE FINAL YEAR OF
OPERATIONS MAY OCCUR, AFTER
2029. FOR UNIT ONE AND 2030 FOR
UNIT TWO, BASED ON CPUC
CONDITIONALLY APPROVED EXTENSION
DATE FOR OPERATIONS. AND LASTLY,
AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T KNOW IF
THERE'S GOING TO BE OTHER FUNDS
MADE AVAILABLE OVER THE OTHER
FEDERAL FUNDS OVER THE NEXT FEW
YEARS TO HELP OFFSET THE LOAN,
WHICH WOULD ALSO IMPACT THAT
SCHEDULE, EACH OF THESE ELEMENTS
PLAY A FACTOR IN THE REPAYMENT
TIMELINE, WHICH AGAIN, ARE
UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME. OKAY.
THANK YOU. YOU HAD A QUICK
CLARIFICATION. WE'LL GO TO LAUP,
DO A QUICK CLARIFICATION ON THAT
OR. WELL, SO THIS IS THE THIS IS
THE GENERAL FUND LOAN TO PG AND
E. SO I'M SORRY IF I, IF I
MISSED THIS BUT ARE THERE ARE IS
THERE ANY KIND OF TALK ABOUT DWR
TRYING TO FORGIVE, YOU KNOW, A
PART OR ENTIRETY OF THE LOAN OR
IS AND WHAT KIND OF CONDITIONS
ARE YOU LOOKING AT TO, TO PERMIT
THAT SORT OF THING? WE'RE GOING
TO GET INTO VERY DETAILED
QUESTIONING HERE, BUT IS THAT
WHAT YOU WERE JUST MENTIONING?
THERE ARE THERE ARE FORGIVENESS
PROVISIONS IN THE LOAN. IT'S
JUST IT'S TOO EARLY TO BE ABLE
TO KNOW FOR CERTAIN WHETHER THAT
WILL BE A SCENARIO OR NOT. OKAY
OKAY. I WANT TO ASK FURTHER
ABOUT THAT. BUT YEAH, WE'LL GO
INTO VERY DETAILED DISCUSSIONS
ABOUT THIS. LET ME FIRST TURN IT
OVER TO THE STATE ACCOUNTING
OFFICE. OKAY, THANK YOU MR.
CHAIR, GOOD MORNING, SENATOR
SONIA PETAK WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE. WE DON'T HAVE
A LOT OF SUBSTANTIVE SUBS OF
COMMENTS TO ADD TO THIS
DISCUSSION, BUT WE WOULD JUST
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE LEGISLATURE
IS IN A CHALLENGING POSITION
RIGHT NOW GIVEN THE BUDGET
DEFICIT. BUT IT ALSO DID AGREE
TO PROVIDE THE LOAN OF 1.4
BILLION TO DWR FOR THE PURPOSES
OF LOANING IT TO PG AND E TO
EXTEND THE LIFE OF DIABLO CANYON
. AND AS WAS NOTED, PG AND E WAS
SUCCESSFUL IN SECURING AN AWARD
WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR
UP TO 1.1 BILLION. HOWEVER, SOME
OF THE CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED
WITH THAT FEDERAL AWARD WOULD
CREATE SOME UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT
BOTH THE AMOUNT AND TIMING OF
THE POSSIBLE LOAN REPAYMENTS. AS
NOTED BY MR. HULL FROM
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. OKAY.
THANK YOU, WELL, FIRST, I
APPRECIATE, YOU BEING HERE AS
WELL, AND DOCTOR GIL AND, AND
PRESENTING THE BACKGROUND
HELPFUL, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, I
THINK WE'RE NOT HERE TO JUST TO
DISCUSS THE, YOU KNOW, THAT
PIECE OF IT, BUT IT WAS HELPFUL.
I THINK BACKGROUND AND I THINK
CLEARLY, AS WAS MENTIONED, BEING
SUCH A LARGE PERCENT OF OUR, OF
OUR POWER LOAD AND BEING
GREENHOUSE GAS FREE, YOU KNOW,
CERTAINLY I BELIEVE THIS WAS THE
RIGHT THING TO DO. I THINK WE'RE
GOING TO TALK SPECIFICALLY,
REALLY, ABOUT THE LOAN HERE
TODAY. AND I THINK THAT'LL BE
THE FOCUS AS WE JUST STARTED
WITH, I'M GOING TO START WITH
SOME FOUNDATIONAL STUFF. SENATOR
BLAKE SPEAR, WHENEVER YOU'RE
DONE. OKAY. YEAH, YEAH. WELL,
WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD, I THINK,
YEAH, START WITH FOUNDATIONAL
THINGS. YEAH WELL, I THINK
THERE'S THINGS YOU WERE LOOKING
AT WERE PRETTY FOUNDATIONAL. SO
OKAY, SO THANK YOU FOR THE
PRESENTATION. I JUST I WANTED TO
HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT PG. AND E
REPORTED RECORD PROFITS IN 2023.
AND SO I'M REALLY JUST WONDERING
WHY CAN'T PG AND E FUND THE
DIABLO CANYON EXTENSION EFFORT
USING OTHER FUNDS THAT DON'T
COME FROM INCREASES TO
RATEPAYERS? I KNOW THAT THAT WAS
PROHIBITED. BUT YOU KNOW WHY?
WHY IS WHY IS THERE NO OPTION
FOR THAT? SO WHEN, SO THE
CURRENT DWR LOAN AGREEMENT WAS
CRAFTED BASED ON ALL THE
PROVISIONS FROM SB 46. SO
WHATEVER IS ALLOWABLE UNDER THE
LOAN IS DIRECTLY DERIVATIVE OF
WHAT IS IN SB 46. SO OBVIOUSLY
THAT'S THE CURRENT SCENARIO IS
NOT ANYTHING THAT WE COULD HAVE
NECESSARILY FORESEEN, BUT ALSO
WAS NOT EXPRESSED IN THE
LEGISLATION. SO IN TERMS OF
REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN, SB 46
ONLY DETAILED THREE MAIN
PATHWAYS, WHICH IS A THE DOE
CREDIT PROGRAM, WHICH I'LL ALSO
NOTE AT THE TIME THAT WHEN SB 46
WAS PASSED, WE WERE ONLY STILL
LEARNING ABOUT THIS DOE PROGRAM
AND PGE HAD NOT EVEN APPLIED FOR
IT. BUT THE INTENT WAS FOR PGE
TO APPLY FOR IT AND SEE IF THEY
COULD GET INTO THE PROGRAM. SO
THAT WAS THE FIRST, REPAYMENT
OPTION. THE SECOND ONE, AS MR.
HALL MENTIONED, IS REVENUES IN
ITS FINAL YEAR OF OPERATION,
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION HAS CONDITIONALLY
APPROVED AN EXTENSION TO 2029
FOR THE FIRST UNIT, 2030 FOR THE
SECOND UNIT. SO THAT WOULD BE
THE SECOND PATHWAY OF POTENTIAL,
PAYBACK TO THE LOAN. AND THEN
THE THIRD ONE WOULD BE, YOU
KNOW, ANY OTHER FUNDING THAT PGE
COULD APPLY FOR AND OUR
UNDERSTANDING FROM PGE NOT TO
SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT THEY HAVE
COMMITTED TO LOOK AT OTHER
SOURCES. IF THEY QUALIFY AND ARE
AVAILABLE. BUT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT LOAN REPAYMENT. AND WHAT
I'M REALLY ASKING ABOUT IS THE
400 MILLION REQUEST FOR A LOAN.
NOW IN THE BUDGET, CORRECT. SO
FOR THE, THE LOAN WAS, CRAFTED
IN ORDER TO PROVIDE MONIES TO
THEM FOR THIS EXTENSION, WHICH
IS ALSO UNDER SB 46, WHAT THE
STATE WOULD WANT THEM TO PURSUE.
SO THIS WAS NOT ANYTHING THAT
PGE HAD PLANNED FOR IN THE PAST.
SO NONE OF THIS WAS BUDGETED. SO
AS FAR AS WE UNDERSTAND, THIS IS
THE FUNDING THAT WILL BE
PROVIDED TO HELP THEM WITH THE
LOAN, WITH PURSUING THE LICENSE
RENEWAL. SO BASICALLY, IS IT DO
YOU ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY'RE
NOT ABLE TO DO THE WORK WITHOUT
IT FOR THE 400 MILLION? OUR
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YES, THERE
ARE COMMITMENTS MADE. SO THERE
IS A SCHEDULE THAT THEY MUST
ADHERE TO FROM THE NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION. AND THOSE
ARE THE SET INSPECTIONS, WHICH
ARE TYPICALLY DONE WHEN THE UNIT
IS ON A PLANNED OUTAGE. THEY'RE
ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, OPEN UP THE
UNIT OR MAKE UPGRADES OR HAVE
THE INSPECTORS BE ABLE TO LOOK
AT DIFFERENT THINGS. SO THOSE
ARE VERY, VERY CAREFULLY TIMED
AND CALIBRATED. THERE IS A LARGE
AMOUNT OF PREPARATION, INCLUDING
STAFFING, INCLUDING,
COORDINATING TO OBTAIN THE RIGHT
MATERIALS AND SERVICES IN ORDER
TO SUPPORT ALL THOSE
INSPECTIONS. AND THOSE
INSPECTIONS ARE HAPPENING RIGHT
NOW. SO WE HAD ONE IN FALL. WE
HAVE THE CURRENT ONE IN SPRING,
AND WE HAVE MORE COMING UP ON
THE ROTATION IN ORDER TO MEET
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION'S TIMELINE TO FOR
THEM TO TRY TO GET A FINAL
DECISION ON DIABLO CANYON
LICENSE RENEWAL BY AUGUST 2025,
WHICH IS THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION'S PROJECTED TIMELINE
FOR DIABLO CANYON. SO I THINK
EVERYONE IS TRYING TO WORK
TOGETHER TO TIME IT VERY TIGHTLY
TO MEET THOSE DEADLINES, AND
THAT'S WHY THE REMAINING 400
MILLION IS NEEDED, BECAUSE PGE
CONTINUES TO PROGRESS ALONG THE
LICENSE RENEWAL, EFFORTS. OKAY.
THANK YOU. I'LL LET SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES ASK QUESTIONS TO.
SURE. I'LL GO TO SENATOR DALLI
BEFORE I DO. I JUST WANTED TO
NOTE, FOR A MOMENT BECAUSE IT
WAS QUITE A, IT WAS QUITE A,
MOMENT THE OTHER DAY WHILE WHILE
, DO YOU, TALK ABOUT THE NEED
FOR THIS, THAT, THAT BATTERIES
BECAUSE THIS JUST HAPPENED THIS
WEEK. BATTERIES BUILT JUST IN
THE LAST THREE YEARS. WE'RE
PROVIDING THREE DIABLO CANYON'S
WORTH OF POWER, ONE NIGHT THIS
WEEK. AND WHERE THE MAIN SOURCE
FOR THE CALIFORNIA GRID. SO I DO
APPRECIATE, AND I WANT TO
RECOGNIZE ALL OF OUR EFFORTS TO
GET, LOTS OF BATTERIES, ON THE
GRID AND TO SHOW THAT THAT IS
HAVING AN EFFECT AS WELL, YOU
KNOW, WHILE THIS EXTENSION IS
GOING ON, SENATOR DALLI FIRST
AND. YEAH, SO QUESTIONS ON THIS,
I JUST, I DON'T KNOW, I, I DON'T
KNOW WHERE TO START BECAUSE I'M
THIS I'VE BEEN HERE TOO LONG. I
GUESS MAYBE FIRST I JUST WANT TO
MAKE A GENERAL COMMENT. I MEAN,
FOR MYSELF, I VOTED AGAINST
SHUTTING IT DOWN AND VOTED
AGAINST STARTING IT BACK UP
BECAUSE WE'RE QUITE FRANKLY, IN
A POSITION WHERE, SO LET ME JUST
ASK THE FIRST COUPLE QUESTIONS
AND THEN MAYBE WHAT HAPPENS IF
THE LOAN, IS NOT EXECUTED THIS
FISCAL YEAR? I'M ASSUMING, SIR,
YOU MEAN 400 MILLION? YES.
CORRECT. SAME THING THAT SENATOR
BLAKESBERG JUST TRIED TO GET AN
ANSWER FOR. OKAY, WE CAN GET IT
THIS WAY, FAIR POINT. SO LET ME
REPHRASE THIS. SO RIGHT NOW, PGE
AS WELL AS THE NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION ARE ON A
SCHEDULE TO TRY TO ALLOW FOR THE
INSPECTIONS TO CONTINUE IN ORDER
TO GET TO THAT, HOPEFULLY FINAL
RELICENSING DECISION BY AUGUST
2025. SO EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE
NOW TO START THOSE INSPECTIONS,
WHICH BEGAN FALL 2023 AND ARE
CONTINUING PART OF, THE, THE
ISSUE IS BECAUSE THE LICENSE
RENEWAL PROCESS WAS STARTED
UNDER SUCH AN EXPEDITED TIME
FRAME. TYPICALLY THERE'S IS FIVE
YEARS OR MORE TIME TO START IT
BACK UP OR TO SHUT IT BACK DOWN.
I'M SORRY. IT WAS 15 YEARS IN
THE PROCESS OF SHUTTING DOWN. NO
TEN YEARS. RIGHT? RIGHT. SO
SORRY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO
DIFFERENT PATHWAYS. SO THE 15
YEARS THAT I REFERRED TO WAS THE
FIRST TIME PGE APPROACHED THE
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO
RELICENSE. SO THAT 15 YEARS IS
IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR NUCLEAR
POWER PLANTS TO START MANY, MANY
YEARS AHEAD OF TIME. THE NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION ACTUALLY
HAS A MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS
AHEAD OF TIME. SO PGE OBVIOUSLY
WAS WELL AHEAD OF THE FIVE
YEARS. BUT WITH SB 46, WHAT
HAPPENED IS NOW THEY'RE IN THAT
FIVE YEAR WINDOW AND THAT'S NOT
ALLOWED BY THE NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION. SO IN
FACT, THE NRC ACTUALLY HAD TO
PRODUCE A WAIVER FOR PGE TO
ALLOW DIABLO CANYON TO GO
THROUGH A RELICENSING PROCESS
AND LESS THAN THE STANDARD TIME
BECAUSE THAT TIME WAS SO SHORT,
PGE DID ITS LEVEL BEST, FROM
WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, TO GO OUT
AND EXPEDITE ALL OF THE
CONTRACTS, THE STAFFING, THE
MATERIALS, THE NUCLEAR FUEL
NEEDED IN ORDER TO GO THROUGH
ALL THE INSPECTIONS WITH THE
NRC. SO NOT ONLY HAS PGD BEEN
SPENDING MONEY IN ORDER TO MEET
THESE SPECIFIC, INSPECTIONS THAT
HAVE OCCURRED IN ARE OCCURRING,
BUT THEY ALSO HAVE MADE
FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS FOR
GETTING THOSE MATERIALS UNDER AN
EXPEDITED MANNER TO SUPPORT THE
REST OF THOSE INSPECTIONS COMING
UP. SO THEREFORE, IT IS VERY
CRITICAL, FOR PGE TO GET THE
LAST 400 MILLION BECAUSE OF THE
COMMITMENTS AND BECAUSE OF THE
TIME FRAME THEY'RE UNDER FOR THE
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO
COMPLETE THIS RELICENSING. ALL
RIGHT. LET ME ASK, IS THE
RELICENSING OF DIABLO CANYON
JEOPARDY! I MEAN, AND IF SO,
WHEN IS THE DROP DEAD DATE, THAT
THE FUNDS MUST BE LOANED. SO
FROM OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THEY
ARE AT A BREAK POINT AROUND
SPRING TIME FRAME WHERE THEY
WILL BE PASSING POTENTIALLY THE
$1 BILLION MARK IN TERMS OF
FUNDING. SO FROM WHAT WE
UNDERSTAND, BASED ON THE KIND OF
THE FORECAST WE HAVE, IS THAT IN
THE THIRD QUARTER, THIRD QUARTER
OF 2024, THEY WOULD NEED THAT
REMAINING 400 MILLION. WHICH
WHICH IS THE IN NOVEMBER 2ND OF
2024 IS THE FIRST UNIT WOULD
COME OFFLINE IF THEY DON'T IF
FERC FERC DOESN'T ACT AND ALLOW
THEM TO STAY OPEN. THE NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION CORRECT.
YEAH. IT'S NOT WELL IT'S YEAH
NRC SORRY, SO LET ME GET MY MIND
AROUND THIS. THEY WERE ALLOWED
TO RAISE RATES TO DECOMMISSION
IT TO START WITH, AND THEN WE
ACCELERATE THAT. ACTUALLY, WE
SAID NO, WE'RE GOING TO THE
GOVERNOR MADE IT. HE WAS
ACTUALLY THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
THEN SAID, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE
GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE POWER
PLANT. SO THEY WERE ABLE TO PASS
THAT ON TO THE RATEPAYERS TO
DECOMMISSION. AND THERE'S ALSO A
FUND THAT'S SET ASIDE FOR
DECOMMISSIONING THAT'S ONGOING
ALL THE TIME. SO THOSE MONIES
ARE ALREADY SET ASIDE. CORRECT?
I'M SORRY, I CAN'T OPINE ON
ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE DWR
ALONE. SO LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY
. ARE THEY ABLE TO RAISE RATES
TO DO TO CONTINUE TO RUN, THEIR
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, THE DIABLO
POWER PLANT, OR THE TAXPAYERS
PAYING FOR IT? EVERYBODY'S
PAYING FOR IT THROUGH THE LOAN,
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IS, FOR
ONGOING OPERATIONS OF DIABLO
CANYON. THAT IS A TOPIC OF
DISCUSSION AT THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,
WHICH WILL GO THROUGH THEIR RATE
PROCEEDING. THE DWR LOAN, FUNDED
THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND, IS
ONLY ABOUT TRANSITIONING INTO
THAT LICENSE RENEWAL PERIOD. SO
THE GENTLEMAN EARLIER TALKED
ABOUT THAT. WE DON'T KNOW IF
THEY'RE GOING TO REPAY IT OR NOT
. WE REALLY 846 REALLY DIDN'T
SAY THERE WAS NOT THERE WAS A
LACK OF DETAIL IN HERE. AND
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE
FUTURE MONIES THAT WE'RE PUTTING
FORTH. THEY MAY NOT PAY IT BACK.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE IN 846
THAT SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO GET
OUR MONEY BACK. SO DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. SO 846 DID CLARIFY THAT
THERE WAS A THREE OPTIONS FOR
REPAYMENT, ONE OF THEM BEING THE
LOAN FORGIVENESS. WELL, NO, ONE
OF THEM BEING THE, THE ACTUAL
DOE AWARD, WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN
AWARDED UP TO 1.1 BILLION. SO UP
TO 1.1 BILLION HAS BEEN WAS DOE
HAS ALREADY, KIND OF SIGNALED IS
THE MAXIMUM AWARD THEY WOULD
GET. NOW THAT'S FROM THE FEDS.
YEAH. AND THAT'S WHAT ONE
PORTION OF WHAT PGE WOULD USE TO
REPAY BACK THE GENERAL FUND
LOAN. SO THAT'S ONE AVENUE TO
REPAY BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND
LOAN. THE OTHER IS EXCESS
REVENUE REMAINING IN THE FINAL
YEAR OF OPERATION, WHICH WOULD
BE 2029 AND 2030. AND THEN THE
THIRD BEING OTHER POTENTIAL
FEDERAL FUNDS, AND THEN, OF
COURSE, THE FOURTH BEING
POTENTIAL FORGIVENESS OF A PART
OF A LOAN, WHICH WAS PART OF
846. SO SB 846 HAD A PROVISION
THAT DWR HAD TO INCLUDE A LOAN
FORGIVENESS PROVISION IN THE
ACTUAL CONTRACT WITH PGE. SO
THAT IS AT THE DIRECTION OF SB
846. AND THAT WOULD BE THEN
TAXPAYERS OF CALIFORNIA WOULD BE
PICKING UP THE TAB. SO THE DOE
DID GIVE THEM AN INSTALLMENT, I
GUESS WE'D CALL IT OF 1.1. IT'S
UP TO 1.1. HOW MUCH DID WE GET,
SO TO SPEAK, TO THE TIMELINE?
YEAH. SO THERE'S A TIMELINE HERE
. SO IT'S ALL RETROACTIVE, THE
DOE, SO ACTUALLY I DO WANT TO
CLARIFY, DWR IS NOT A PARTY TO
THIS LOAN BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY AND PGE, SO I WILL
SPEAK ON WHAT'S COMING OUT OF
THE GENERAL FUND. THEN I'LL
SPEAK ON WHAT I UNDERSTAND. CAN
I JUMP IN HERE FOR A MOMENT?
JUST LET ME GO THROUGH MY
UNDERSTANDING OF IT, AND THEN
MAYBE YOU CAN COMMENT BACK TO
SENATOR DALI'S QUESTION. SO MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT DOE AWARD
INCLUDES 741.4 MILLION IN BASE
CREDITS. SO THAT'S MONEY. WE ARE
HIGHLY, HIGHLY, HIGHLY LIKELY TO
GET RIGHT. WE'RE BASICALLY
EXPECTED TO GET, BUT THEN
THERE'S 359 MILLION IN
INCREMENTAL TRANSITION COSTS.
AND THE LOAN AGREEMENT STATES
THAT INCREMENTAL TRANSITION
COSTS INCLUDE COSTS NOT INCLUDED
IN THE GENERAL RATE CASE THAT
RESULT FROM, QUOTE, AN
UNSCHEDULED OUTAGE OR AN
EMERGENCY OPERATING CONDITION OR
A NEW COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT NOT
REASONABLY FORESEEABLE AS OF THE
EXECUTION DATE. SO ONE OF MY
LINE OF QUESTIONING, SO JUST ON
SENATOR DALI, I THINK THE 741
MILLION, 1.4 MILLION EVERYONE
AGREES WERE PROBABLY VERY, YOU
KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO GET OR I, I
THINK THAT'S REALLY THE
EXPECTATION AND THE BASE COST.
BUT THESE INCREMENTAL TRANSITION
COSTS, DO WE, YOU KNOW, DO WE
EXPECT PGE TO INCUR COSTS?
NUMBER ONE, IS THAT MY
UNDERSTANDING? CORRECT AND THEN
ON THAT INCREMENTAL TRANSITION
COST, THEN OF COURSE, IS THE
EXCESS. WE'LL GET TO THE EXCESS
PROFITS IN A MOMENT OR THE
EXCESS REVENUES IN A MOMENT. BUT
JUST ON THIS PART OF THE
INCREMENTAL TRANSITION COSTS, DO
YOU EXPECT PGE TO INCUR COSTS
FOR UNSCHEDULED OUTAGE AND
EMERGENT OPERATING CONDITION OR
A NEW COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT NOT
REALLY FORESEEN. SO TWO
QUESTIONS. ONE. ONE IS THAT MY
UNDERSTANDING SORT OF CORRECT.
AND THEN TWO, DO WE REALLY
EXPECT TO REALLY GET ANY OF THAT
INCREMENTAL TRANSITION COSTS.
APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION, CHAIR.
SO FIRST I'LL SAY THAT DWR IS
NOT A PARTY TO THE ACTUAL CREDIT
AWARD AND PAYMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, US
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND PGE AND
FROM WHAT OUR UNDERSTANDING IS,
EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN
PROVIDED IS ALSO BASED ON AN
ESTIMATE. SO TECHNICALLY, FROM
THE READING THAT THAT OUR THAT
WE HAVE OF THE PAYMENT AGREEMENT
IS THAT THERE WILL BE AN AUDIT
THAT IS CONDUCTED. SO, PGE WILL
HAVE TO PROVIDE ACTUAL
HISTORICAL NUMBERS. LOOKING BACK
TO DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WILL THEN
AUDIT IT, SO IN TERMS OF THOSE
BASE CREDITS, YES, THAT IS WHAT
IS EXPRESSED IN THE CURRENT
AGREEMENT. HOWEVER, WE WON'T
KNOW UNTIL PGE KIND OF GOES
THROUGH ALL THAT AUDITING WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. WITH
THAT FINAL NUMBER IS AS PART OF
THAT AUDIT PROCESS, PGE CAN ALSO
PUT FORWARD ANYTHING THAT IT
FEELS WERE COST, YOU KNOW, ABOVE
AND BEYOND THE INITIAL ESTIMATE
BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
AND PGE. SO OUR UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT, YES, A, THERE'S, YOU KNOW,
NUMBERS ON THE BOOKS THAT WILL
BE AUDITED WHEN THE TIME COMES
AND THEN BE THAT PGE CAN GO BACK
TO DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WITH
ANY, YOU KNOW, CHANGE STATES OR
YOU KNOW, ANY, ANY, YOU KNOW,
DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IT
HAPPENS UPON, INCLUDING
INCREASED COSTS. SO THE AUDIT IS
REALLY FOR THE FOR THAT BASE FOR
THE 741.4. YES BUT THEN AGAIN,
JUST TO BE REALLY CLEAR, IF
THERE ARE NO QUOTE, UNSCHEDULED
OUTAGES, EMERGENT OPERATING
CONDITIONS OR NEW COMPLIANCE
REQUIREMENTS, THEN THEY WOULD
ONLY RECEIVE 741.4 MILLION. IS
THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? IF THAT
IS WHAT THE FINAL AUDIT NUMBERS
COME OUT TO BE, OKAY. SO NUMBER
ONE, HOPEFULLY, SENATOR DALI,
THAT'S THAT'S I WANT I WANT TO
JUST FOLLOW UP WITH ONE LAST
QUESTION, IF I MAY, BECAUSE I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. SO
BASICALLY WE'RE EXPECTING, THE
DOE TO BACKFILL THE HOPEFULLY A
PORTION OF THE LOAN. SO THAT'S
EVERYBODY IN AMERICA CAN PAY
THAT PAYS TAXES. AND IF THEY
DON'T THEN THE TAXPAYERS OF
CALIFORNIA, NOT THE RATEPAYERS,
BUT THE TAXPAYERS OF CALIFORNIA,
WILL PICK UP WHATEVER THAT
AMOUNT. THE DIFFERENCE IS
WHETHER IF THEY WE DON'T KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT THE TAXPAYERS OF
AMERICA ARE GOING TO PAY CORRECT
OF THE ONE POINT BECAUSE BECAUSE
THAT'S STILL OUT THERE, WE
HAVEN'T WE HAVEN'T GOT IT
REIMBURSED. WE HAVEN'T GOT
ANYTHING FROM DOE. CORRECT. SO
THE SECOND PART WOULD BE THEN
WHATEVER THE DIFFERENCE IS, WE
KNOW 400 MILLION IS FOR SURE
GOING TO LAND ON THE BACKS OF
THE GENERAL FUND OR THE OR THE
TAXPAYER OF CALIFORNIA. I DON'T
THINK WE CAN NOT THE RATEPAYER.
IT'S THE TAXPAYER BECAUSE THIS
ISN'T RIGHT. THIS ISN'T BASED
OFF OF RATE RIGHT. THE LOAN IS
NOT BASED OFF OF RATEPAYERS, BUT
BUT WE'LL CLARIFY, AS MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE EXPRESSED, THAT
THERE ARE TWO OTHER SOURCES OF
FUNDING, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW,
REVENUES IN THE LAST. AND WHAT
ARE THOSE? I'M SORRY, WHAT ARE
THE TWO OTHER SOURCES? YES. ONE
SOURCE IS OPERATING REVENUES, IN
EXCESS OF COST IN THE LAST YEAR
OF OPERATIONS. SO THAT WOULD BE
IN 2029, 2030. SO THAT WOULD BE
RATEPAYERS MONEY. IT WOULD BE,
EXCESS REVENUES AND EXCESS OF
COSTS FROM PGE. I, I DON'T KNOW
IF I WOULD CHARACTERIZE THAT AS
RATEPAYER MONEY, BUT MAYBE
THAT'S BEYOND MY SWIM LANE.
OKAY. OPINE ON AND THEN THE LAST
ONE WOULD BE ANY OTHER FEDERAL
AWARDS OR GRANTS OR CREDITS THAT
PGE, WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR AND
WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR SO THAT
THAT'S ANOTHER SOURCE THAT COULD
, COME TO REPAY THE FULL LOAN.
OKAY. THANK YOU. SOON WELL, I'M,
I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE A LOT OF THE
TERMS THAT WE WERE SOLD WITH
REGARDS TO A46 IN CONNECTION TO,
ENERGY NEEDS AND ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY THAT WE'RE ALL PART OF
THE PITCH HAVE REALLY NOT BEEN
FULFILLED BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
WE WERE ALL ASKED TO SUPPORT IT,
AND MANY OF US DIDN'T WANT TO.
AND NOW WE'RE BEING ASKED FOR
THIS LOAN WITH, YOU KNOW,
CONDITIONS THAT I'M NOT CLEAR ON
, AND I JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M, I
THINK I THINK, QUITE FRANKLY, I
WE'VE BEEN SIDEBAR ABOUT THIS. I
THINK IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE BEING
TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF HERE, QUITE
FRANKLY. AND I UNDERSTAND
THERE'S A LOT OF, BROAD NEEDS,
BUT AS AS THE AS THE CHAIR
POINTED OUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S
SOME NEW BATTERY TECHNOLOGY
THAT'S EXCEEDING THE ENERGY,
CONTRIBUTION OF DIABLO CANYON,
ON ITS OWN. SO, I JUST WANT TO
VOICE DEEP SKEPTICISM FOR THIS
ITEM. AND I REALLY HOPE THAT
THAT WE'LL PUSH BACK. AND I, YOU
KNOW, I SAY THIS WITH THIS
RESPECT. YOU'RE ALL DOING YOUR
JOBS, BUT, YOU KNOW, HAVING GONE
THROUGH THE EXPERIENCE OF BEING
KIND OF AGGRESSIVELY PUSHED INTO
A VOTE ON 846, I'M REALLY
DISSATISFIED ABOUT THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THE TERMS HAVE BEEN MET.
AND I THINK THAT THIS COMMITTEE
SHOULD BE PUSHING BACK. I
APPRECIATE THAT. I'M GOING TO
CONTINUE TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE
QUESTIONS, JUST TO CLARIFY SOME,
BUT I THINK YOU'RE HEARING SOME
OF THE CONCERNS AND, FROM FROM
THE COMMITTEE, I GUESS BACK TO
THE BASE LOAN FOR A QUESTION FOR
A MOMENT. THE BASE CREDITS, 744
FOR 741.4, IF DIABLO CANYON
GENERATED, IF THE GENERATION IN
THESE YEARS, IN 23, 24, 25, 26
FALL BELOW THE FORECASTED LEVEL,
IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
TOTAL AMOUNT COLLECTED IN THAT
YEAR, BE LESS THAN THE TOTAL
AMOUNTS ALLOCATED IN THAT YEAR
IN THE AWARD? IN OTHER WORDS,
SENSE, IF, IF GENERATION FALLS
SHORT OF FORECASTED LEVELS AND
THERE'S A SPECIFIED IN HERE WHAT
THOSE LEVELS WOULD BE, FOR
EXAMPLE, IN 2023, 190.9 MILLION,
WHICH IS WHICH WOULD BE WE WOULD
GET REIMBURSED AT AT $10.76 PER
MEGAWATT TIMES 17,745,276MW. SO
SPECIFIC LEVEL. SO AS YOU
UNDERSTAND, IF WE FALL BELOW
THAT GENERATION OR FALLS BELOW
THE GENERATION IN ANY OF THOSE
YEARS, THEN WE WOULD GET LESS
THAN THE MONEY ALLOCATED FOR
THAT YEAR FROM D¯ÚI. IS THAT IS
THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, I THINK
THAT'S DIFFICULT TO SPECULATE ON
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE AN INTERPLAY
BETWEEN THE GENERATION AND
POTENTIALLY WHAT THE MARKET
PRICE IS, AND I DON'T HAVE
VISIBILITY INTO THAT. SO I'D
HATE TO SPECULATE ON ON WHAT
THAT IS, BUT ALL ALL TOLD, PGE
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ALL
THIS INFORMATION TO DOE FOR, FOR
THE AUDIT PURPOSE. HOLD ON ONE
SECOND.
OKAY LET ME GET TO THIS ISSUE OF
EXCESS FUNDS, EXCESS OPERATING
REVENUES. SO HOW HOW CONFIDENT
IS ADMINISTRATION, HOW CONFIDENT
IS THE ADMINISTRATION THAT
DIABLO CANYON WILL HAVE EXCESS
OPERATING REVENUES IN THE, IN
THE, YOU KNOW, AND IN THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS, HAS DIABLO CANYON
GENERATED EXCESS OPERATING
REVENUES THAT, YOU KNOW, OF,
AGAIN, I HATE TO SPECULATE ON
WHAT THE MARKET PRICES COULD BE
IN 2029. AND 2030, BECAUSE IT'S
NOT JUST DIABLO CANYON, IT'S
OBVIOUSLY EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE
GRID, BUT ALSO WHERE WE'RE GOING
WITH ELECTRIFICATION. OAN I'LL
GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE IN JUST SORT
OF THE AVERAGE MARKET PRICE IN
SEPTEMBER 2022 WAS SOMEWHERE IN
THE HUNDREDS BECAUSE OF DRIVEN
LARGELY BY THE HEAT WAVE THAT WE
SAW AT THE BEGINNING OF
SEPTEMBER. WHEREAS THE AVERAGE
PRICE FOR SEPTEMBER LAST YEAR
WAS, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY A THIRD
OF THAT. SO IT REALLY IS KIND OF
DEPENDENT ON WHAT IS GOING ON IN
THE YEAR. THE CONDITIONS AND ALL
THE OTHER PLANTS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE IN THE MIX. SO
UNFORTUNATELY, I WOULDN'T BE
ABLE TO SPECULATE ON WHAT THAT
COULD BE IN THOSE OUTER YEARS.
GOT IT. BUT JUST FOR THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS, HAS DIABLO CANYON
GENERATED EXCESS? I DON'T KNOW
THE ANSWER TO THEM. HAS HAS
DIABLO CANYON GENERATED EXCESS
OPERATING REVENUES? I DO NOT
KNOW THAT. OFF OFF THE TOP OF MY
HEAD, BUT WE CAN GET BACK TO
YOU. OKAY. YEAH, WE WOULD
CERTAINLY WANT TO CIRCLE BACK ON
THAT. AND THEN WHAT IS THE
EXPECTED FINAL YEAR OF OPERATION
? JUST VERY CLEAR ON THAT. I'M
SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT WHAT IS
THE EXPECTED FINAL YEAR OF
OPERATION? SO FOR UNIT ONE RIGHT
NOW, THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
FROM THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION IS OCTOBER
31ST, 20 HÌNH. AND THEN FOR THE
SECOND UNIT IS OCTOBER 31ST,
2030. OKAY I MEAN, JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY. OH, YEAH. SURE. GO
AHEAD. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A
POINT OF ORDER. THIS IS AN
ARTICLE FROM LATE FEBRUARY, PG
KNEES PROFITS HOPPED HIGHER IN
2023, BUOYED BY ELECTRICITY AND
NATURAL GAS REVENUES AT SURGE
LAST YEAR, THE POWER COMPANY
BEHEMOTH EARNED $2.24 BILLION IN
2023, AN INCREASE OF 24.6% IN
PROFITS COMPARED WITH 22. AND I
KNOW, YOU KNOW, I, I JUST IT'S
JUST HARD TO IT'S HARD TO, TO,
YOU KNOW THE CONSTANT CRIES OF,
OF, OF, OF POVERTY AND, AND,
AND, OPPRESSION FROM US WHEN,
WHEN WE'RE CONTINUING TO OFFER
SUCH, POSITIVE TERMS FOR THEM ON
EVERY LEVEL. IT'S JUST, IT'S
JUST HARD TO TAKE. AND I, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS KIND OF BUILT UP
FRUSTRATION OVER MANY, MANY
YEARS, I SUPPOSE. AND I'M TAKING
IT ON IN THIS PARTICULAR LOAN.
BUT IT'S JUST HARD TO TAKE.
COULD YOU ADDRESS THIS? I MEAN,
THIS IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO,
BUT I'D REALLY LIKE SOME, YOU
KNOW, THERE'S THERE IS A LOT OF
MONEY AND THERE ARE A LOT OF
PLACES WHERE IT COULD BE FOUND.
AND SO COMING BACK TO US AGAIN
AND AGAIN, I MEAN, CAN YOU JUST
ADDRESS THAT, THAT NUMBER 24%
INCREASE THAT 2.2 BILLION. YEAH
32.5. THAT'S I MEAN, YOU KNOW,
WE CAN'T SPEAK TO PG AND E'S
PROFITS. AND YOU KNOW HOW THAT
WORKS, WHAT WE CAN SAY IS THIS
LOAN FOLLOWS THE STRUCTURE OF
LAW, WHICH IS SB 846. AND THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD. YOU
KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
PROPOSING THAT 400 MILLION IN
BUDGET YEAR IS REALLY TO
CONTINUE TO WHAT WAS REQUIRED IN
SB 46, BUT WE CAN'T OPINE ON PG
PROFITS AND WHAT THAT MEANS TO.
BUT WHAT THEY DO WITH THAT AND
SORRY FOR HIJACKING THIS,
SENATOR ALLEN. NO. AND TO BE
FAIR, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A THAT
WAS A KIND OF A MACRO COMMENT. I
WAS MAKING GAS COMPANIES AND ALL
THEIR OTHER STUFF. YEAH, BUT BUT
I MEAN, YOU'RE THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, SO YOU, YOU ARE ASKING
ON BEHALF OF THEM FOR THIS LOAN
FROM THE LEGISLATURE. SO I GUESS
WHEN YOU'RE READING THAT ARTICLE
AND YOU'RE ANALYZING IT, DO YOU
NOT SEE IS THERE BEEN
NEGOTIATION OR AN EFFORT TO DEAL
WITH THIS IN A DIFFERENT WAY
BESIDES JUST COMING BACK TO US
AGAIN? YEAH. THE CURRENT
PROPOSAL, BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE
IS REALLY JUST A CONTINUATION OF
SB 46, WHICH IS WHAT IS
CURRENTLY REQUIRED IN STATE LAW.
OKAY OKAY. THANK YOU. CHAIR.
WELL, I MEAN, IT IS REQUIRED,
BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION COMES
DOWN TO THE KIND OF CONDITIONS
THAT WE'RE IMPOSING, AND I DO
WANT TO KIND OF PARSE APART A
LITTLE BIT MY EARLIER QUESTION
TO YOU. CAN WE GET A KIND OF A,
A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE EXTENT
TO WHICH A, A LOAN MIGHT BE? I
YEAH, THE LOAN ITSELF, I SUPPOSE
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.
IT'S JUST THE IDEA THAT THIS IS.
SO THAT COULD, SO COULD COULD SO
EASILY BE FORGIVEN. I'D LIKE TO
GET MORE INTO THOSE DETAILS, AND
MAYBE YOU CAN SHARE WITH US HOW
THAT ANALYSIS IS GOING TO WORK
IN TERMS OF A POSSIBLE LOAN
FORGIVENESS. YEAH. ANDREW HÌ AT
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, I CAN
START AND THEN DELPHINE MIGHT BE
ABLE TO JUMP IN. I THINK WHAT
WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THE
PROVISIONS, YOU KNOW, WERE BUILT
INTO SB 846, THE FINAL TRANCHE
OF MONEY THAT'S BEING REQUESTED
IS A PART OF THAT WHERE WE ARE
NOT AWARE OF THE TIMELINE
NECESSARILY. AND THE ULTIMATE
AMOUNT THAT'S GOING TO BE
AWARDED FROM DOE. AND I THINK
THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE SEEING SOME
OF THE UNCERTAINTY, IS THAT
WE'RE LOANING THE MONEY UP
FRONT. IT'S GOING TO TAKE YEARS
BEFORE THEY DO THEIR AUDIT TO
KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU KNOW. THE
ULTIMATE LANDING PLACE IS GOING
TO BE FOR THE REPAYMENT. SO
THERE'S JUST THERE'S NOT THAT
LEVEL OF DETAIL TODAY. BUT COULD
YOU COULD YOU WHEN I ASKED YOU
EARLIER, YOU KNOW, I WAS ASKING
ABOUT THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH,
YOU KNOW, THE THAT COULD UNDER
WHICH, YOU KNOW, DWR MIGHT
FORGIVE AT LEAST PART OR THE
ENTIRETY OF THE LOAN. AND YOU
MENTIONED THERE ARE CERTAIN
CONDITIONS. CAN YOU WALK US
THROUGH WHAT THOSE ARE AND,
YEAH, YEAH, I WOULD DEFER TO DWR
. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR
THAT. I THINK IN THE KIND OF THE
HIGHEST LEVEL FORGIVENESS
PROVISIONS WERE REQUIRED UNDER
SB 46. SO WHEN THAT WAS
ENROLLED, WHEN THAT WAS
INCORPORATED INTO THE DWR LOAN
WITH PG AND E, WE LOOKED AT
FIRST, YOU KNOW, WHERE FUNDS
COULD COME FROM. AND SO AGAIN,
THE THREE THAT WE HAD
ARTICULATED, THAT WOULD BE THE
ONLY SOURCE OF PAYMENT,
REPAYMENT FOR THE LOAN. AND IF
PG AND E WERE ALSO TO ADHERE TO
THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF SB 46,
FOR EXAMPLE, THEY CONTINUE TO
PURSUE A LICENSE, RENEWAL THERE
ARE OPERATING THE POWER PLANT IN
A SAFE AND RELIABLE MANNER. SO
ALL OF THOSE OTHER CONDITIONS
THAT ALSO SB 46 REQUIRED IF THEY
ADHERE TO THOSE. BUT THE SOURCES
OF REPAYMENT WERE SHORT, THEN
THAT COULD TRIGGER A FORGIVENESS
THAT CAN TRIGGER THE FORGIVENESS
PROVISION, HOW, HOW MUCH DO WE
DO? WE, REALLY, AUDIT OR DRILL
DOWN ON THOSE ON THOSE
ASSERTIONS WHEN THOSE ARE MADE?
I MEAN, HOW MUCH IS THIS KIND OF
RELYING UPON THEIR, DECLARATIONS
AND HOW MUCH CAN WE GROUND
TRUTH? THOSE KINDS OF ASSERTIONS
THAT, OF COURSE, ARE VERY, VERY
KEY, ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE FOR
THEM TO ARGUE A CERTAIN WAY WHEN
IT COMES TO A LOAN FORGIVENESS
OF THIS SIZE. SO WE'VE DONE, DUE
DILIGENCE IN, IN SEVERAL
DIFFERENT WAYS. OBVIOUSLY ONE OF
THE FIRST AND FOREMOST
ACTIVITIES IS THAT PG CONTINUES
TO PURSUE ITS LICENSE OF RENEWAL
WITH THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION. SO NOT ONLY HAS PG
REPORTED ON THOSE PROGRESS, BUT
DWR ALSO HAS, TOUCH POINTS WITH
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION STAFF ON THEIR,
PROGRESS AND BE ABLE TO CONDUCT
THE VARIOUS INSPECTIONS AND
AUDITS THAT THAT ARE REQUIRED
UNDER THEIR PROCESS. IN
ADDITION, WE COORDINATE VERY
REGULARLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. SO
THERE'S YOU KNOW, ASPECTS AND
CONNECTIONS THERE THAT WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT PG AND E IS
MEETING, THERE'S ALSO PAPER
TRAIL THAT PG AND E PROVIDES TO
DWR, AS WE DO OUR SEMIANNUAL
CHEER UP PROCESS OF EVERY SIX
MONTHS. SO WE HAVE A PAPER TRAIL
OF THE COST THAT THEY'RE
INCURRING IN ORDER TO SUPPORT
THE LICENSE RENEWAL. AND WE ALSO
HAVE OUR COLLEAGUES AT THE,
DIABLO CANYON INDEPENDENT SAFETY
COMMISSION AND THEY OPINE ON NOT
ONLY THE SAFE AND RELIABLE
OPERATION OF DIABLO CANYON, BUT
THEY ALSO TAKE ON SEVERAL, YOU
KNOW, OTHER SALIENT QUESTIONS
WITH REGARD TO NOT ONLY THE SB
46 LOAN, BUT ALSO JUST GENERAL
OPERATIONS OF DIABLO CANYON. SO
WE DON'T ALWAYS DEFAULT TO WHAT
PG AND E TELLS US, THOUGH WE DO
HAVE MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH
THEM. BUT THERE IS SORT OF A
CONSTELLATION OF OTHER PARTIES
THAT ARE HAVE DIFFERENT ROLES
AND RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WE DO
ENGAGE WITH TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY ARE PURSUING, THE LICENSE
EXTENSION PURSUANT TO SB 46.
YEAH. OKAY LEO IS HERE. YOU'RE
YOU'RE WITH LEO. OKAY DO YOU DO
YOU HAVE YOU HAVE YOU I'M SURE
YOU'VE GIVEN THIS SOME THOUGHT.
I KNOW THIS IS A MACRO QUESTION,
BUT, YOU KNOW, KNOWING WHAT YOU
KNOW ABOUT THE, THE COMMITMENTS
MADE AND THE PROMISE IS MADE TO
THE LEGISLATURE UNDER SB 846.
ESPECIALLY WITH, YOU KNOW, SO
MUCH OF THE PIMCO'S WE'RE GOING
TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO, YOU
KNOW, TO ADDRESS RENEWABLE
ENERGY ISSUES. BUT ULTIMATELY,
THIS IS REALLY SOMETHING WE
DESPERATELY NEED BECAUSE OF,
RESILIENCY AND GRID RELIABILITY.
HOW DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD BE
THINKING BACK FROM YOUR
PERSPECTIVE ON THE SB 846 DEAL?
ON THE MACRO LEVEL. SONIA WITH
THE LAO, I RECOGNIZE WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO ASK, BUT IT'S, YOU
KNOW, THE LEGISLATURE DID PASS
SB 846, AND, YOU KNOW, THE
INTENTION IN THAT BILL WAS THAT
THE FUNDING WOULD BE PAID BACK,
IT WOULD ACHIEVE CERTAIN GOALS,
THE FUNDING WOULD BE PAID BACK,
LIKE, SET UP CERTAIN KINDS OF
TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT WE
UNDERSTAND HAVE FILTERED DOWN TO
THE CONTRACT WITH PG AND E. SO
AT THIS POINT, I WE'RE NOT
REALLY IN A POSITION TO COMMENT
ON, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT WAS A
GOOD DEAL AT THE TIME OR WHAT
CHANGES, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD
MAKE. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY
COMMENTS ABOUT IT? BECAUSE
WE'RE, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND
WE'RE FULFILLING THE TERMS OF
THE, OF SB 46 AND I THAT'S WHAT
THIS IS ABOUT. AND, YOU KNOW, WE
NEED TO FULFILL OUR COMMITMENTS.
I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND IT. BUT I
DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IF NO
ONE'S PREPARED TO KIND OF FULLY
ANSWER THE QUESTION NOW, AND I
TOTALLY UNDERSTAND, IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL AT SOME POINT FOR US TO
GET A WISE LAO STYLE ANALYSIS OF
THE, YOU KNOW, THAT BREAKS DOWN
THE PROMISES MADE AND THE EXTENT
TO WHICH THE PROMISES HAVE BEEN
KEPT SO FAR. AND I UNDERSTAND
IT'S ONLY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
SO, BUT, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF
CONSTERNATION IN THE LEGISLATURE
ABOUT A LOT OF THE COMMITMENTS
THAT WERE MADE TO US, IN THE
BUILD UP TO THE PASSAGE OF THAT
BILL. AND, I WOULD LIKE SOME I
IT WOULD BE NICE TO MOVE FROM
BEYOND FRUSTRATED CHATTER
AMONGST MEMBERS TO, TO MORE
GROUNDED DATA. FOR US TO REALLY
GROUND TRUTH A LOT OF THE, THE,
THE WILDLY DIVERGENT ASSERTIONS
BEING MADE ABOUT, ABOUT THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE COMMITMENTS
ARE BEING MET. YEAH. THANK YOU,
MR. ALLEN. LET US FOLLOW UP WITH
YOUR OFFICE AND SEE SORT OF WHAT
WHAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE. AND, YOU
KNOW, IN THE TIME FRAME THAT
MAKES SENSE. OKAY. YEAH. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, GREAT. WELL
THERE ARE STILL SOME FURTHER
DETAILED QUESTIONS I HAVE, BUT I
THINK WHAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE
HEARING THAT WE ARE FRUSTRATED.
I'M FRUSTRATED, WHEN YOU HEAR
THE, THE NUMBERS SAY ON PGA
PROFITS AT A TIME WHEN WE'RE
ASKED TO GIVE ADDITIONAL LOANS
AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, IN OTHER
AREAS OF POLICY WHERE, THE PUC
IS LIMITING DISTRIBUTED
GENERATION, FOR EXAMPLE, PARTLY
BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE
COST OF THE GRID. AND THEN YOU
SEE PROFITS AND THAT DOESN'T ADD
UP AND SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP.
SO YOU'RE HEARING SOME OF THE
FRUSTRATION IN A VARIETY OF
WAYS. JUST TO GET A COUPLE OTHER
SPECIFICS HERE, ONE, JUST TO GET
BACK TO THE BASE COST BECAUSE,
MAYBE I WAS MY INITIAL READING
WAS INCORRECT. WHERE I WAS SORT
OF SAYING THAT THAT 741.4
MILLION WAS, WAS WAS SORT OF
VERY, VERY LIKELY. I MEAN, JUST
TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE YOUR
RESPONSE SORT OF INDICATE THAT
IF, IF THE IF IT IS IF THEIR
GENERATION, SAY, IS LOWER THAN
FORECAST, THEN THEN THEY MAY GET
LESS THAN THAT AMOUNT FROM DOE.
IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? I WANT
TO CLARIFY THAT THAT WASN'T MY
INTENT. MY INTENT WAS ONLY TO
SAY THAT IT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER
IT WOULD GO UP OR DOWN. SO I
DON'T DIDN'T WANT TO SPECULATE.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THE 740 1.4
IS A CAP, RIGHT? THAT THERE'S NO
FINANCE, THERE'S NO WAY THAT
BASE COSTS WOULD GO EXCEED THAT.
IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK THAT'S
PRETTY CLEAR. WE'LL HAVE TO GO
BACK AND VERIFY, THAT WE'LL HAVE
TO VERIFY THAT. OKAY. YEAH.
BECAUSE THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT, THAT THOSE BASE COSTS
WOULD NOT GO UP. BUT WE COULD
GET LESS THAN THE 741.4 MILLION.
SO IF YOU COULD CONFIRM THAT,
THAT WOULD BE, VERY HELPFUL, AND
THEN JUST ONE LAST POINT. I KNOW
WE TALKED ABOUT THE KIND OF
EXCESS REVENUE GENERATION, BUT,
YOU KNOW, RELATIVE EXCESS
REVENUES REALLY RELATIVE TO
COST. AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM
FEASIBLE, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T
SEEM, YOU KNOW, GIVEN HISTORIC
PERFORMANCE, UNLESS, AGAIN,
YOU'LL GET BACK TO US ON WHAT
THOSE WERE, THAT THAT IS LIKELY,
I WANTED TO GET TO THIS QUESTION
OF PERFORMANCE BASED
DISBURSEMENT, BECAUSE MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IN THE
LOAN, WE GIVE PGA PERFORMANCE
BASED DISBURSEMENTS TO, I THINK,
300 MILLION OR SO TO SPEND, SO
NUMBER ONE, IS THAT CORRECT? AND
WHAT IS THIS FUNDING GOING
TOWARDS? YES. SO THAT IS
CORRECT. IT IS UP TO $300
MILLION FOR THE PERFORMANCE
BASED DISBURSEMENTS. AND PER THE
LEGISLATION THAT IS A $7 PER
MEGAWATT HOUR PAYMENT FOR EACH
MEGAWATT HOUR OF GENERATION FOR
THE DIABLO CANYON UNITS, AND
AGAIN CAPPED UP TO $300 MILLION.
SO THE PROVISIONS WITHIN SB 46,
WERE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, IT
SAID THAT SO AT THE VARIOUS
HIGHEST LEVEL, NO AMOUNT OF THE
LOAN PROCEEDS CAN BE TREATED AS
SHAREHOLDER PROFITS OR PAID OUT
AS DIVIDENDS, BUT SPECIFICALLY
FOR THE PERFORMANCE BASED
DISBURSEMENTS, THEY WOULD ONLY
BE, PAID OUT TO, PGA IF DIABLO
CANYON CONTINUED TO PURSUE AN
EXTENSION OF ITS OPERATING
PERIOD AND CONTINUED WITH SAFE
AND RELIABLE OPERATIONS OF THE
POWER PLANT. SO THOSE WERE THE
ONLY TWO PROVISIONS PROVIDED
UNDER SB 46. SO, PER SENATOR
ALLEN'S QUESTION, THAT'S, TWO
TWO MAJOR THINGS THAT DWR HAS
VERIFIED, BUT WE REALLY WENT
ABOVE AND BEYOND AND DID MORE
COLLABORATION WITH OUR
COLLEAGUES AT THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. SO
NOT ONLY DID WE TAKE THAT BASIC
REQUIREMENT FROM SB 46, BUT WE
MADE SURE IN THAT IN OUR
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CPUC THAT
WE WERE ALSO, YOU KNOW, GIVING,
STRONG INDICATION TO PGA ABOUT
WHERE THESE PERFORMANCE BASED
DISBURSEMENTS WOULD BE, YOU
KNOW, BETTER SPENT FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE STATE. SO, FOR
EXAMPLE, IN 2023, PGA IDENTIFIED
THAT THERE WERE TWO AREAS THAT
THEY THOUGHT THE PBDS COULD BE
USED TOWARDS, AND AGAIN, THIS
WAS DISCUSSED WITH CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. SO
THE FIRST ONE WAS THE REACH
PROGRAM. AND THAT'S RELIEF FOR
ENERGY ASSISTANCE THROUGH
COMMUNITY HELP, THAT IS A
PROGRAM DESIGNED TO ASSIST LOW
INCOME PERSONS WHO ARE
EXPERIENCING UNEXPECTED
FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS AND ARE AND
ARE UNABLE TO PAY ENERGY BILLS.
SO THAT WAS ONE ALLOCATION OF
THE PERFORMANCE BASED
DISBURSEMENTS. AND ANOTHER 1 IN
2023 WAS TO LOOK AT FUNDING FOR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM INSPECTION
CATEGORIES. THAT'S RELATED TO
ELECTRIC INSPECTIONS AND
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT. SO AGAIN,
WE NOT ONLY LOOKED AT THESE
CATEGORIES, BUT ALSO PGA
CONFIRMED THAT THESE COSTS WERE
NOT RECOVERABLE BY RATES,
OTHERWISE, OVERSEEN BY ENTITIES
SUCH AS PUC OR THE FEDERAL
ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. SO
WE WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND THE
ACTUAL LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENT
TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE FUNDS
WERE DIRECTED IN A WAY THAT WAS
GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL TO THE
STATE OVERALL. YOU MAY HAVE
ADDRESSED THIS, BUT JUST TO BE
CLEAR THAT THERE IS A PROHIBIT
PROHIBITION ON NOT ALLOWING
THESE PERFORMANCE BASED
DISBURSEMENTS TO BE USED TO PAY
DIVIDENDS OR FOR SHAREHOLDER
PROFITS, CORRECT. IN FACT,
THAT'S FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE
LOAN. ENTIRETY OF THE LOAN. AND
HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THAT? SO FOR
THE COSTS INCURRED FOR THE, THE
ACTUAL LICENSE RENEWAL, PGA IS
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE DWR WITH A
DETAILED SPEND THAT THEY HAVE.
AND SO DWR REVIEWS THAT ALSO IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE PUBLIC,
CALIFORNIA, WITH THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, AND
SIMILARLY WITH THE PERFORMANCE
BASED DISBURSEMENTS, ALL OF THAT
IS REVIEWED BY BOTH DWR AND IN
CONSULTATION WITH WITH PUC.
OKAY. AGAIN AND BUT FEDERAL
FUNDS CAN'T BE USED TO REPAY
THAT. THE PERFORMANCE BASED
DISBURSEMENTS. CORRECT. SO FOR
THAT SEPARATE QUESTION BUT THANK
YOU FOR THAT ANSWER, THE FEDERAL
FUNDS CAN FEDERAL FUNDS BE USED
TO REPAY THAT THE PERFORMANCE
BASED THE PBDS AS WE CALL THEM?
YES. SO I THINK WHAT IS A LITTLE
BIT CONFUSING IS THAT REALLY
WHEN WE LOOK AT IT, IT'S ALL ONE
LOAN. SO SHOULD DOE APPROVE THE
CREDITS AND THEY'RE AWARDED BACK
TO BE USED TO REPAY THE LOAN?
IT'S TO IT'S THE ENTIRETY OF THE
LOAN. SO IT'S NOT, PARSED OUT IN
DIFFERENT BUCKETS. SO IT
WOULDN'T BE ATTRIBUTED TO PBDS
OR NOT. PBDS. IT'S JUST PAYING
BACK THE ENTIRETY OF THE STATE
LOAN, SO WE CAN'T, I GUESS. IN
OTHER WORDS, IT CAN APPLY
TOWARDS PBDS. BUT AGAIN, IT'S
NOT SPECIFICALLY MY
UNDERSTANDING. I MAY AS A
CONSULTANT TO LOOK INTO THAT A
LITTLE BIT. YEAH, YEAH. OUR
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE, HEARD
DIRECTLY FROM THE COMPANY THAT
THAT FEDERAL FUNDS CAN'T BE USED
TO REPAY THE PBDS. IF THAT IS A
STIPULATION ON THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN PGA AND DOE. AGAIN, DWR
IS NOT PRIVY TO THAT AGREEMENT.
SO WHETHER DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
WANTS TO CONSIDER PERFORMANCE
BASED DISBURSEMENTS, THAT'S NOT
SOMETHING DWR WOULD BE PRIVY TO.
BUT FROM DWR'S PERSPECTIVE,
THERE ARE THREE BUCKETS OR THREE
PATHWAYS THAT THE LOAN CAN BE
REPAID, AND THERE'S NO
RESTRICTION ON HOW THE LOAN CAN
BE REPAID. SO IT'S NOT AS IF YOU
KNOW ONE ONE BUCKET OF MONEY.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE DOE FUNDS CAN
ONLY REPAY NON PBDS. FOR DWR'S
PERSPECTIVE, IT'S ALL ONE STATE
LOAN. ANY OF THOSE THREE
PATHWAYS CAN STAY CAN REPAY THE
ENTIRETY OF THE STATE LOAN.
OKAY, BUT JUST TO GET BACK TO
WHAT I SAID EARLIER, REALLY
REALLY THE DOE IS THE HAS THE
BASE CREDITS WHICH WE'VE SAID WE
MAY GET BUT MAY NOT GET THE FULL
AMOUNT OF THE 741 FOR THE 359
MILLION IN INCREMENTAL
TRANSITION COSTS, WHICH I THINK
WE CAST SOME DOUBT IN THIS
HEARING WHETHER WE WILL GET
LIKELY TO GET THOSE, THOSE ARE
REALLY THE MAIN FEDERAL BUCKETS,
RIGHT? THOSE TWO BUCKETS.
CORRECT. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
YEAH. THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT
FINANCE FROM THE 1.1 UP TO 1.1
BILLION AWARD. THOSE ARE THE TWO
MAIN BUCKETS. BUT AGAIN THERE'S
YEAH A COUPLE OTHER POTENTIAL
PATHWAYS. SO THERE'S JUST
UNCERTAINTY AT THIS POINT IN
TIME. OTHER FEDERAL FUNDING YOU
THINK MIGHT SO THAT THAT'S ONE
OF THE PATHWAYS, ACKNOWLEDGING,
YOU KNOW, THERE'S STILL A FEW
YEARS TO GO AND THERE MIGHT BE
OTHER FEDERAL FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES. AND THAT'S THE
ONE THING THAT WE'RE EXPLORING,
TO THAT THERE ARE FEDERAL
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE
BELIEVE COULD ALSO SUPPORT THIS
AND THE REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN.
THEN WE WOULD ALSO WORK WITH PGA
TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TRYING TO
MAXIMIZE AS AS MUCH AS THAT AS
POSSIBLE. OKAY. PLEDGE ABOUT
THREE MORE QUESTIONS HERE. THEN
WE'LL MOVE ON UNLESS SOMETHING
ELSE COMES UP. BUT THE I JUST
WANT TO CLEAR YOU START WITH THE
REACH PROGRAM. MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT'S TYPICALLY FUNDED BY
SHAREHOLDERS AND EMPLOYEES OF
PGA. SO IS IT IS PGA DISCLOSED
THAT THE FUNDING FOR THIS
PROGRAM HAS COME FROM CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYERS. WE'LL HAVE TO, I'LL
HAVE TO GO BACK AND, GET MORE
INFORMATION ON THAT. I DON'T
KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. OKAY.
THAT'D BE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
OKAY, THE TWO OTHER THINGS, THE
PGA STATED PUBLICLY INTENDS TO
EXTEND THE OPERATIONS OF DIABLO
CANYON IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
WILL ALLOW IT. SO I JUST WANT TO
BE CLEAR. IS IT POSSIBLE THE
LOAN WOULD BE NOT BE REPAID
UNTIL AFTER 2030? I MEAN, JUST
SAY IT GETS EXTENDED FURTHER. VÀ
IS IT POSSIBLE THE LOAN WOULDN'T
GET REPAID TILL 2030 OR PAST
2030? YEAH, I WOULD SAY THE
TIMING IS DEFINITELY UNCERTAIN.
I DON'T WE DON'T HAVE A CLEAR
SENSE YET. I THINK THE EARLIEST
IT WOULD BE 2027 ON THE ON THE
DOE NUCLEAR CREDIT WAR, BUT
THAT'S THE EARLIEST. AND SO
THERE IS STILL SOME UNCERTAINTY
ON EXACTLY WHEN THE REPAYMENT
WOULD START. OKAY. I THINK WE
SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT IF SOMEHOW
IT GETS EXTENDED BEYOND THAT,
THAT THE REPAYMENT HAPPENS ON
THE TIMELINE, THAT WE EXPECT. SO
I JUST THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT
TO, TO CLARIFY. AND FINALLY, FOR
DWR, I APPRECIATE YOU. GOING
THROUGH ALL THIS WITH US.
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A LOT OF
DETAIL HERE, BUT I THINK THERE'S
SOME FOLLOW UP THAT WE'RE GOING
TO NEED. D¯ÚI RECEIVED 7.5
MILLION FOR ADMINISTRATION COSTS
OUT OF THIS AMOUNT. HOW MUCH HIS
DEPARTMENT SPENT AND WHERE HAS
THAT FUNDING GONE? GREAT. HAPPY
TO ANSWER THAT, THUS FAR, THE
LATEST DATA THAT I HAVE IS WE
ARE IN THE REALM OF ABOUT, $2
MILLION INCURRED SINCE THE
BEGINNING OF OUR ADMINISTRATION
OF THE LOAN WITH PGA. SO THAT'S
A BREAKDOWN BETWEEN OUR STAFF AS
WELL AS CONSULTING, THE
CONSULTANTS ARE FAIRLY CRITICAL
BECAUSE I THINK, AS MOST PEOPLE
RECOGNIZE, DWR DOES NOT HAVE
INNATE NUCLEAR EXPERTISE. AND SO
WE DO RELY HEAVILY ON GETTING
THE RIGHT EXPERTS WITH THE
RELEVANT NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
EXPERIENCE, ESPECIALLY THOSE
THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH ACTUAL
RELICENSING PROCESSES. SO WE
HAVE SOME BASIS FOR BENCHMARKING
AND UNDERSTANDING, KIND OF WHERE
PGA AND DIABLO CANYON IS AS
COMPARED TO ALL THE OTHER POWER
PLANTS THAT HAVE NUCLEAR POWER
PLANTS THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH A
SIMILAR PROCESS. AND SO THOSE
ARE OUR MAJOR EXPENDITURES, AT
THIS TIME. IN WILL THIS AMOUNT
BE REPAID BY PGA, THESE
ADMINISTRATION, THESE
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS? SO THE
ENTIRETY OF THE LOAN, INCLUDING
THESE, THIS ADMINISTRATORS,
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, WHICH
COMES OUT OF THE LOAN, ARE
EXPECTED TO BE REPAID AS PART OF
THE REPAYMENT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL CERTAINLY, KEEP TRACK OF
THAT. LET ME JUST LOOK QUICKLY
THROUGH. I THINK WE COVERED A
LOT HERE. JUST SEE IF THERE'S
ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE DID NOT.
COVER WELL, WE DO HAVE A HOLD
OPEN RECOMMENDATION, SO I THINK
WE'LL PROBABLY BE COMING BACK TO
THIS ONE. SO, I APPRECIATE YOU
BEING HERE AND ANSWERING ALL OUR
QUESTIONS AND LOOK FORWARD TO,
CONTINUING TO, TO DISCUSS THIS.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE FOCUSED NOT ON
THE, THE MERITS OF DOING REALLY
JUST ON THE LOAN ITSELF AND JUST
MAKING SURE WE UNDERSTAND,
BEFORE WE DO THIS, YOU KNOW, AS
WE'RE ASKED FOR THIS ADDITIONAL
PIECE, WHAT WHAT WE MAY OR MAY
NOT BE ON, ON THE HOOK FOR,
GOING FORWARD, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE
WILL CONTINUE WITH, DWR ON THE
FLOOD MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS.
ISSUE NUMBER NINE, AS FOLKS COME
UP, I'LL JUST RESTATE AGAIN THAT
THERE WAS A BIG MOMENT FOR US
THAT THE BATTERIES JUST AGAIN,
JUST, JUST AND SO ON, JUST THE
LAST THREE YEARS, I PROVIDED
THREE CANYONS WORTH OF POWER ON
TUESDAY NIGHT AND WAS THE
LARGEST SOURCE OF POWER ON OUR
GRID. SO, KUDOS TO EVERYONE
INVOLVED IN THAT EFFORT. AND
IT'S A REAL, JUST A HUGE MOMENT
FOR CALIFORNIA. SO WORTH NOTING.
YEAH SHOWS THE PROGRESS OF,
BATTERY POWER ON THE GRID AND
FOR MEETING OUR PEAK. OKAY, NOW
WE'LL, MOVE ON TO THE FLOOD
MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS AND LOVE,
WHOEVER'S GOING TO LEAD OFF
HERE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR NEWCOMBE,
MAYBE. OR OR, YEAH. DEPUTY
DIRECTOR HOLLANDER. YEAH THIS IS
ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MY NAME
IS LAURA HOLLANDER. OVER, FLOOD
MANAGEMENT AND DAM SAFETY. AND I
BELIEVE DOV IS GOING TO START
OUR PRESENTATION. I WILL
INTRODUCE MY OTHER COLLEAGUES,
THOUGH. I HAVE JEREMY. ERIC WITH
TÊ IS THE DIVISION MANAGER OF
FLOOD MANAGEMENT. AND STEVE
ROTHERT, WHO'S THE DIVISION
MANAGER OF THE DIVISION OF
MULTI-BENEFIT INITIATIVES AND
WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. OKAY. THANK
YOU, GOOD MORNING, MEGAN LARSEN,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE INCLUDED
IN THE 2024 GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
ARE FLOOD RISK REDUCTION
INVESTMENTS SUCH AS US ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS LED URBAN
PROJECTS, REPAIR OF STORM DAMAGE
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SYSTEM WIDE
MULTI-BENEFIT PROJECTS. TWO
CRITICAL FLOOD SAFETY EFFORTS
ARE SEEN IN THE URBAN FLOOD RISK
REDUCTION AND CENTRAL VALLEY
SYSTEM WIDE FLOOD RISK
REDUCTION. BCP'S. THE URBAN
FLOOD RISK REDUCTION PROPOSAL
INCLUDES 33,000,001 TIME GENERAL
FUND TO SUPPORT NINE US ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND URBAN
FLOOD RISK REDUCTION PROJECTS
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA. THE
CENTRAL VALLEY SYSTEM WIDE FLOOD
RISK REDUCTION PROPOSAL INCLUDES
31.3 MILLION GENERAL FUND TO
SUPPORT THE CONTINUATION OF
THREE EXISTING MULTI-BENEFIT
FLOOD RISK REDUCTION PROJECTS IN
THE CENTRAL VALLEY. THESE ARE
CRITICAL INVESTMENTS THAT
SUPPORT PUBLIC SAFETY AND ALSO
HELP ADDRESS STATE LIABILITIES,
MAKING THEM A HIGH PRIORITY EVEN
WITH SIGNIFICANT BUDGET DEFICITS
. AND I CAN. DWR, OF COURSE, IS
HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND
PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ABOUT
SPECIFICS. GREAT. THANK YOU THAT
ANYTHING ELSE NOW OR FOR MORE
FOR LATER. FOR QUESTIONS. IS
THAT RIGHT? OKAY GREAT, I'D LOVE
TO TURN TO THE, LEO AND SONYA
WITH THE LAO AGAIN, I GUESS THE
FIRST THING WE WANTED TO NOTE
ABOUT THESE PROPOSALS FOR FLOOD
MANAGEMENT FUNDING IS THAT
THESE, ALONG WITH LATER WE'LL BE
TALKING ABOUT THE SALTON SEA
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. THESE ARE
SOME OF THE FEW PROPOSALS IN THE
IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET FOR NEW
GENERAL FUND SPENDING, IN LIGHT
OF THE STATE'S, SIGNIFICANT
BUDGET DEFICIT PROBLEM. AND SO
WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE
LEGISLATURE BE VERY SELECTIVE IN
WHAT IT DOES APPROVE IN TERMS OF
NEW GENERAL FUND SPENDING,
BECAUSE EVERY DOLLAR OF NEW
SPENDING COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF
SOMETHING ELSE. THERE'S NOT
EXCESS REVENUE LYING AROUND. SO
WITH THIS IN MIND, WE SUGGEST
YOU APPLY A HIGH BAR TO ANY NEW
SPENDING PROPOSALS. AND OUR
OFFICE THINKS THAT THE PROPOSAL
FOR 33 MILLION FOR URBAN FLOOD
RISK REDUCTION PROJECTS DOES
MEET THAT HIGHER BAR FOR
SPENDING. SEVERAL REASONS FOR
THIS ONE. THESE PROJECTS ARE
REALLY, PART OF THE STATE PLAN
OF FLOOD CONTROL, WHICH IS A
CORE STATE RESPONSIBILITY, AND
AN AREA WHERE THE STATE HAS SOME
LIABILITY AS WELL, THESE
PROJECTS PROVIDE CRITICAL PUBLIC
HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS IN
URBAN AREAS. THEY ALSO LEVERAGE
SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL FUNDING. WE
THINK THAT PAUSING THESE
PROJECTS, BECAUSE ALL OF ALL OF
THESE PROJECTS ARE SORT OF
MIDSTREAM AT THIS POINT. SO
PAUSING THESE PROJECTS COULD
PROVIDE OR COULD CREATE A LOT OF
DISRUPTIONS AND LEAD TO HIGHER
COSTS AND COMPLICATIONS LATER ON
, AND, YOU KNOW, JUST TO
UNDERSCORE THAT, WE THINK
PAUSING THE PROJECTS WOULD BE
HIGHLY DISRUPTIVE AND COULD
JEOPARDIZE THE FEDERAL FUNDING.
SO IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING IN
TALKING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION
THAT THE FEDERAL FUNDING, WHICH
COMES THROUGH THE US ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS, COULD BE
JEOPARDIZED IF THE STATE WERE TO
SAY, WANT TO PAUSE THE PROJECTS
NOW? SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY SAY, OKAY
, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO REDIRECT
THAT FUNDING TO OTHER STATES,
AND IT'S ALSO OUR UNDERSTANDING
THAT IT WOULD BE QUITE DIFFICULT
TO RESTART THOSE PROJECTS WITH
THE FEDERAL SUPPORT, WE ALSO
THINK THAT THERE ARE COMPELLING
REASONS TO PROCEED WITH THE
CENTRAL VALLEY SYSTEM WIDE
MULTI-BENEFIT PROJECT. CGRTS,
THESE ARE PROJECTS OR THIS
FUNDING WOULD PROVIDE SUPPORT IN
DISADVANTAGED AREAS THAT MAY NOT
BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE PROJECTS
ON THEIR OWN. A LOT OF THESE
PROJECTS ARE IN THEIR FINAL
STAGES. THEY ALSO REDUCE FLOOD
RISK IN THE DELTA, AND JUST AS
THE NAME WOULD IMPLY,
MULTI-BENEFIT, THEY DO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS BEYOND JUST
FLOOD PROTECTION IN TERMS OF
ECOSYSTEM AND HABITAT BENEFITS.
HOWEVER COMPARED TO THE URBAN
FLOOD RISK REDUCTION PROJECTS,
THE SORT OF IMMEDIATE RISK TO
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY MIGHT
BE SOMEWHAT LOWER. SO WE
SUGGEST, GIVEN THE BUDGET
CONDITIONS, THAT THE LEGISLATURE
MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT THIS
FUNDING KIND OF WAY, THIS
FUNDING AGAINST ITS OTHER
GENERAL FUND PRIORITIES THIS
YEAR, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY
COMPELLING REASONS TO APPROVE
IT, BUT IF YOU APPROVE IT, IT
COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF
SOMETHING ELSE. SO YOU MIGHT
WANT TO LOOK AT ALL OF YOUR
BUDGET PRIORITIES AND THINK
ABOUT IT THAT WAY, SO, AS YOU
PROBABLY GUESSED, WE WOULD
RECOMMEND THE LEGISLATURE
APPROVE THE FUNDING FOR THE
URBAN FLOOD RISK REDUCTION
PROJECT. THINK ABOUT, WHAT TO DO
ABOUT THE CENTRAL VALLEY SYSTEM
WIDE MULTI-BENEFIT PROJECTS IN
THE CONTEXT OF OTHER GENERAL
FUND PRIORITIES, AND THEN WE
JUST WANTED TO NOTE, AS YOU'RE
PROBABLY AWARE, THAT THE
LEGISLATURE ALREADY AGREED TO
SOME OTHER FLOOD RELATED REPAIRS
VIA THE EARLY ACTION AGREEMENT
THAT JUST WENT THROUGH. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. WELL,
CERTAINLY MANY WORTHY PROJECTS
LISTED HERE, VERY IMPORTANT
PROJECTS. I'LL START MAYBE, AND
THEN WE'LL TURN IT OVER. WHAT
FOR DWR, I GUESS SPECIFICALLY
WHAT FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED WHEN
PRIORITIZING FLOOD CONTROL
PROJECTS AND, GEOGRAPHICALLY,
WHERE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FLOOD
PROJECTS THAT YOU BELIEVE NEED
ATTENTION AND FIXING. I'LL GO
AHEAD AND START WITH THAT, IN
2007, THE LEGISLATURE PASSED THE
CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD
PROTECTION ACT OF 2008, WHICH
REQUIRED DWR TO DEVELOP A PLAN,
A CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD
PROTECTION PLAN, WHICH
PRIORITIZE REYES ALL OF OUR
PROJECTS IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY,
FROM URBAN TO SMALL COMMUNITIES
TO RURAL. BUT SOME OF THE
FACTORS THAT GO INTO THE PLAN
THAT WE THINK ABOUT AS WE DO
THAT PRIORITIZATION INCLUDE, OF
COURSE, POPULATION AT RISK,
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AT RISK,
RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND
CHANGING CONDITIONS AS POTENTIAL
FOR FEDERAL INVESTMENT AND COST
SHARE. A WHOLE VARIETY OF
FACTORS GO INTO HOW WE
PRIORITIZE THAT, AND THE PLAN IS
UPDATED EVERY FIVE YEARS. SO WE
ADJUST OUR PRIORITY PROJECTS
EVERY FIVE YEARS. OKAY. AND HOW
ARE YOU TAKING IT INTO ACCOUNT?
CLIMATE CHANGE AS PART OF THIS,
FORECAST BEING, WHO'S INVOLVED
IN THIS ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, HOW ARE
YOU WORKING WITH EVERYONE AS
PART OF THOSE EFFORTS TO MAKE
SURE? YES, SO WE'RE DOING QUITE
A LOT ON FORECASTING, EVERYTHING
WE DO WITH FORECASTING TAKES
INTO ACCOUNT CLIMATE CHANGE,
JUST IN THE LAST YEAR, WE'VE
WRITTEN A ROADMAP FOR CLIMATE
RESILIENT FORECAST FRAMEWORK,
WHICH IS HOW WE PLAN TO SORT OF
UPGRADE OUR FORECASTING TO TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT CLIMATE CHANGE AS
TOOLS AND MODELING GETS BETTER.
CAN WE GET A COPY OF I MEAN, YOU
MAY ALREADY HAVE THAT, BUT COULD
WE GET A COPY? ABSOLUTELY. WITH
YOU. ABSOLUTELY. AND
SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE ARMY
CORPS AND THE BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, WE WORK WITH THEM
DIRECTLY, IN PARTICULAR ON
FORECAST INFORMED RESERVOIR
OPERATIONS, LOOKING AT OUR
DIFFERENT WEATHER CAPABILITIES
FOR HOW WE MIGHT WANT TO OPERATE
OUR RESERVOIRS DIFFERENTLY BASED
ON WHAT THE WATER SUPPLY IS AT
THE TIME AND WHAT WE PROJECT WE
NEED DOWNSTREAM. YOU WANT TO ADD
IT OKAY. AND IS THERE A TOTAL
COST? IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS THE STATE
HAS RESPONSIBLE FOR STABILITY
FOR IS THERE IS ESTIMATED COST
TO REPAIRS. ESTIMATED COST OF
REPAIRS RIGHT NOW FOR THE ENTIRE
CENTRAL VALLEY IS 3 TO 5
BILLION. RIGHT NOW. AND THAT'S
IN OUR CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD
PROTECTION PLAN. STEVE. BETWEEN
THREE AND 5 BILLION JUST FOR
REPAIRS. JUST FOR REPAIRS.
RIGHT. AND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE
SOME OF THE DELTA REPAIRS THAT
STEVE COULD SPEAK TO. OKAY.
YEAH, SURE. I WOULD JUST ADD
THAT THE, DELTA RESILIENCY
BRANCH IN MY DIVISION MANAGES
THE DELTA LEVEES PROGRAM THAT
WORKS WITH 70 PLUS, RECLAMATION
DISTRICTS IN THE DELTA TO
MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THOSE
LEVEES. AND THEY EVERY FIVE
YEARS, DEVELOP A FIVE YEAR PLAN,
ESTIMATING THE COSTS TO BRING
THEIR LEVEES UP TO STANDARD, AND
THE MOST RECENT STUDY WAS
COMPLETED IN 2023. AND THEIR
ESTIMATE OF THE COST IS 1.4
BILLION. TO GET DELTA LEVEES UP
TO STANDARD JUST FOR THE DELTA
LEVEES. YEAH, BUT THAT'S
INCLUDED IN THE 3 TO 5. IT'S NOT
THAT THOSE ARE THOSE ARE JUST
STATE PLAN OF FLOOD CONTROL, THE
ONES THAT I, THE 3 TO 5, WHAT
HE'S TALKING ABOUT ARE LARGELY
NON WHAT WE CALL NON PROJECT
LEVEES. SO NOT PART OF THE STATE
PLAN OF FLOOD CONTROL. YEAH GOT
IT. AND THOSE COULD BE SOME OF
THESE PROJECTS. COULD BE. AND WE
TALK ABOUT A CLIMATE BOND. SOME
OF THOSE COULD BE FUNDED THROUGH
THAT KIND OF VEHICLE. ABSOLUTELY
YEP. OKAY GOOD. WELL I KNOW
WE'RE DISCUSSING BROADLY WHAT
OUR BONDING CAPACITY IS. AND
WHAT WILL ULTIMATELY BE ON THE
BALLOT. BUT, I HOPE YOU CONTINUE
TO BRING THAT BACK TO THE REST
OF THE ADMINISTRATION. YOU KNOW,
THAT THIS NEED AND HOW, YOU
KNOW, HOW BOND WOULD BE HELPFUL
FOR THESE, THESE PROJECTS. DO MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY ANYTHING ON
THIS? NO. OKAY. WE HAVE A WHOLE
OPEN RECOMMENDATION, SO WE'LL
HOLD THAT UP. AND THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. NEXT
UP IS ISSUE TEN. DOCTOR BONHAM
IS HERE
.
GEORGE BONHAM, COULD YOU SEE YOU
? AND THIS WILL BE ABOUT GOLDEN
EAGLE CONSERVATION. I THINK
SOMETHING, IMPORTANT TO ALL OF
US. SO GO AHEAD. WHEN YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU. USUALLY IT
STOPS AFTER A WHILE. IT'S JUST
KIND OF FINICKY. INITIALLY THANK
YOU. CHAIR. GOOD MORNING.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. STAFF THIS
AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS ISSUE TEN,
IS VERY SIMPLE AND
STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT IS NOT A
REQUEST FOR GENERAL FUND. IT IS
NOT A REQUEST FOR POSITIONS. AND
IT'S AN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S
RELATIVELY MODEST $2.4 MILLION.
SO SEVERAL YEARS AGO,
UNBEKNOWNST TO OUR DEPARTMENT,
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
SECTION, WHICH IS WITHIN THEIR
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES DIVISION, AND THE US
ATTORNEY IN WYOMING BROUGHT UP
PROCEEDING AGAINST A COMPANY
CALLED YSI ENERGY, WHICH IS
OWNED BY NEXTERA. THAT COMPANY
OPERATES. ABOUT 154 WIND
FACILITIES AROUND THE NATION,
AND THIS PROCEEDING THAT WAS
COMMENCED IN FEDERAL COURT IN
WYOMING WAS ABOUT ABOUT
FATALITIES OF GOLD EAGLES AT
THAT COMPANY. S FACILITIES IN
WYOMING AND NEW MEXICO. AS PART
OF THAT PROCEEDING AND THEN A
PLEA AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED
FACTS. IT TURNS OUT THE COMPANY
ALSO FOR A PERIOD OF 2011 TO 17,
HAD HAD FATALITIES OF GOLDEN
EAGLES AT THREE FACILITIES IN
CALIFORNIA. YEAH. AND THESE
FACILITIES ARE IN THE ALTAMONT
PASS AREA. SO THE DEPARTMENT
BECAME AWARE OF THIS WHEN WE
RECEIVED A CHECK IN THE MAIL.
AND WE HAD TO DO THE FORENSICS
TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CHECK WAS
FOR OR HOW IT RELATED TO OUR
FUNDS. THIS IS THE FIRST BUDGET
CYCLE FOR US TO COME TO YOU AND
ASK FOR SOMETHING THAT'S VERY,
MINISTERIAL, IF YOU WILL, THE
AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE THE FUNDS
INTO THE FISH AND GAME
PRESERVATION FUND AND THEN TURN
AROUND AND USE THEM FOR PURPOSES
OF THAT SETTLEMENT. AND THOSE
USES COULD INCLUDE THE
DEPARTMENT ASSESSING AND
UNDERSTANDING THE GOLDEN EAGLE
POPULATION DYNAMICS IN THE
ALTAMONT PASS, FILLING IN KEY
DATA GAPS, CONTRACTING WITH
EXPERTS FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY
NEEDS, DRILLING DOWN ON THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF CERTAIN MODELS
TO UNDERSTAND THE POPULATION
DYNAMICS BETWEEN FACILITIES AND
THE EAGLES. EXPLORING THE
SCIENCE AROUND ADDITIONAL
MITIGATION MEASURES BECAUSE AS
OF LAST SUMMER, WE ALSO NOW HAVE
A NEW AUTHORITY UNDER A SEPARATE
SET OF LAWS TO REQUIRE
MITIGATION THÀNH AT NGUYEN
FACILITIES TO, YOU KNOW, PREVENT
IMPACTS TO EAGLES. SO THIS
BUDGET CHANGE PROPOSAL IS
SIMPLE. IT'S DIRECT. IT'S FOR
AUTHORIZATION TO SPEND MONEY
WE'RE RECEIVING BECAUSE OF A
SETTLEMENT ENTERED INTO
ELSEWHERE. GREAT. AND THAT'S
HELPFUL. AND DO YOU BELIEVE
THEY'RE TAKING NOW THE STEPS,
THAT THEY NEED TO TAKE, TO
REDUCE THE RISK OR MINIMIZE
HARM? I AM INTENDING TO MAKE A
PHONE CALL TO THIS COMPANY.
OKAY. AND TO INTRODUCE MYSELF
PERSONALLY AND BETTER UNDERSTAND
THEIR INTENTIONS WITH THEIR
ASSETS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE
ALTAMONT PASS AREA AND WHETHER
THEY'LL BE PURSUING TAKE PERMITS
FROM US FOR THEIR EXISTING
FACILITIES. OKAY, GREAT. HELPFUL
THANKS, SENATOR. DARLING. WELL,
I JUST WANT TO SAY GOOD TO SEE
YOU, DIRECTOR BONHAM, I HAVE NO
PROBLEM WITH THIS. I THINK IT'S.
I DO WANT TO JUST USE THIS
OPPORTUNITY, THOUGH, TO TALK
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING.
OBVIOUSLY, WE DIDN'T WANT TO
MUCH AWARE OF, BUT WE FOUND OUT
FROM, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER
STUDY, I GUESS. APPARENTLY, THAT
LOOPED US IN IN CALIFORNIA, BUT
IN THE MATERIAL I HAVE AVAILABLE
TO ME, 82 GOLDEN EAGLES WERE
DOCUMENTED AT JUST THREE
FACILITIES IN ALTAMONT PASS WIND
RESOURCE AREA BETWEEN 2011 AND
2017. IN APRIL 22ND, THE YSI
ENERGY LLC ENTERED INTO THE PLEA
AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT IN WYOMING, BUT
THE GREATEST TAKE OCCURRED AT
FIVE FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA,
WITH A LOSS OF 92 GOLDEN EAGLES.
SO I WANT ALL MY FRIENDS IN THE
ENVIRONMENT AND THE WORLD THAT
THAT THINK WIND IS NOT DOING
SOMETHING. IF A FARMER KILLED A
WILD, A BALD EAGLE BECAUSE THEY
DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO A
TAKE WITHOUT, THEY WOULD BE
PENALIZED HEAVILY AND THE
SETTLEMENT WAS ONLY 2.4 MILLION
FOR THOSE 92, GOLDEN EAGLES THAT
GOT KILLED IN CALIFORNIA. SO I
THINK WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO DO
IS MAYBE TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF
OUR POLICIES AROUND WIND AND
TAKE, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE
WEREN'T AWARE WE FOUND OUT ABOUT
THIS BECAUSE THEY DID THE STUDY
AND, AND WE'RE KILLING A LOT
MORE, GOLDEN EAGLES IN
CALIFORNIA THAN THAN I WAS AWARE
OF FOR SURE, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE
THE DEPARTMENT DID KNOW, BUT I'M
ASSUMING THEY DIDN'T BECAUSE I
THINK IF THE PUBLIC KNEW THAT WE
WERE, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THE
MATTER OF SIX YEARS, 92 GOLDEN
EAGLES WERE KILLED IN CALIFORNIA
. VÀ, THAT'S TO ME. I THINK WE
NEED TO MAYBE LOOK AT THAT AT
SOME FUTURE TIME ABOUT WHAT'S
HAPPENING IN IN THE WIND ENERGY
SPACE AT THE TIME WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT PUTTING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN
12, 212 HUNDRED GIANT WIND
TURBINES OFF THE COAST OF
CALIFORNIA, TO TAKE CARE OF OUR
ENERGY PROBLEMS. SO I JUST WANT
TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT, I THINK
THERE'S ROOM FOR SOME
IMPROVEMENT HERE. DEFINITELY.
WHEN IT COMES TO WILDLIFE IN
CALIFORNIA AND THE COST TO GO
GREEN WITH WIND AND, SOLAR AND
ALL, ALL ALTERNATIVES. SO
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THOSE,
YOU KNOW, SENTIMENTS AND YOUR
EXPRESSION OF VALUES AROUND
CONSERVING WILDLIFE IN THE STATE
. THERE'S NO DOUBT ANY ENERGY
SECTOR AND DEVELOPMENT OF ANY
PARTICULAR ENERGY SOURCE WILL
HAVE IMPACT ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BECAUSE YOU'RE CITING AND
DEVELOPING A FOOTPRINT. BUT WIND
IS NO EXCEPTION. AND SO TOO IS
OIL. SO TOO IS SOLAR. AND, YOU
KNOW, IN THE LAST SEVERAL OIL
SPILLS, OUR DEPARTMENT'S
RESPONDED TO, WE'VE SEEN SIMILAR
LEVELS OF, YOU KNOW, OTHER BIRD
MORTALITY. K¾T THE REALITY IS
THE DEPARTMENT WILL BE IN THE
MIDDLE OF ALL OF THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. AND THAT IS WHY
I'M HOPEFUL THAT LAST YEAR'S
AUTHORITY FROM THE LEGISLATURE
IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE
WILL ALLOW US TO PRODUCE MORE
MITIGATION BENEFIT ON THE BIRD
FRONT FROM RENEWABLE ENERGY
SITING, WHICH IS AN AUTHORITY WE
DIDN'T PREVIOUSLY HAVE, WHICH,
BY THE WAY, THE, THE LEGISLATURE
GAVE THE AUTHORITY TO THE CEC
AND TOOK IT AWAY FROM THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. SO NOW THAT'S WHERE
IT REALLY IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN
FOR WIND IS THEY HAVE THE
ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. I
DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS A GOOD
IDEA. I LIKE LOCAL CONTROL, BUT
THE LEGISLATURE SAW FIT TO SEND
IT TO THE CEC, SO IT IS GOING TO
BE A STATEWIDE OPTION. K¾T FOR
YOUR DEPARTMENT TO WORK WITH THE
CEC ON. ON PERMITTING THESE
PROCESSES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. SO
I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR
ENGAGEMENT THERE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
FIRST, YOU ARE DOING NOW TO GO
FORWARD AND TO SPEAK TO THE
COMPANY AND SUCH AND MAKE SURE
THAT WE'RE TAKING AS, AS MUCH
STEPS AS POSSIBLE. AND AS YOU
SAY IN EVERY FOR ENERGY THERE
ARE, THERE ARE THERE CAN BE
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES. AND MAKE
SURE WE MITIGATE THOSE, I
APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK WE WILL
HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE ON THIS
ONE LATER, BUT I THANK YOU FOR,
BEING HERE, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE
ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, ISSUE 11. I
THINK YOU WILL BE HERE AS WELL
AS WELL AS SOME OTHER PEOPLE
FROM NATURAL RESOURCES ON SALTON
SEA MANAGEMENT, THE SALTON SEA
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
.
THIS ONE. WHICH ONE IS ON? OKAY
I DON'T KNOW WHO WILL BE
STARTING OFF, THE RESOURCES OR
OR OR DIRECTOR, BUT GO AHEAD.
ONE. OKAY, I'LL START OFF.
THANKS I'M SAMANTHA ARTHUR,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SALTON
SEA POLICY AT THE CALIFORNIA
NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY, AND
I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE PROPOSAL
ON BEHALF OF THE SALTON SEA
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, WHICH IS A
MULTI-AGENCY EFFORT OF THE
CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES
AGENCY, THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES, WHO'S HERE WITH US?
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE, THE SALTON SEA
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUESTS 65.2
MILLION GENERAL FUND AND 18
PERMANENT POSITIONS STARTING IN
20 2425, 3.3 MILLION GENERAL
FUND IN 2526 AND 3.3 MILLION
SALTON SEA LITHIUM FUND IN 20
2627. THE NEWSOM ADMINISTRATION
IS ADVANCING PROJECTS AT THE
SALTON SEA TO PROTECT AIR
QUALITY AND PROVIDE CRITICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL HABITAT. THIS
PROPOSED FUNDING IS NEEDED TO
MOVE FORWARD RESTORATION
PROJECTS TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON
THE STATE'S COMMITMENTS TO
COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT, AND
TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A
STATE WATER BOARD ORDER. THE
SALTON SEA IS LOCATED IN THE
SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF
CALIFORNIA AND IS THE STATE'S
LARGEST LAKE. THE SEA'S MAIN
SOURCE OF WATER IS AGRICULTURAL
RUNOFF FROM FARMS THAT GET THEIR
WATER FROM THE COLORADO RIVER.
THIS CREATES A DIRECT NEXUS
BETWEEN COLORADO RIVER
MANAGEMENT AND THE SALTON SEA,
AND FOR REFERENCE, NEARLY 20
MILLION CALIFORNIANS ARE RELIANT
IN FULL OR IN PART ON THE
COLORADO RIVER. REDUCTIONS IN
COLORADO RIVER DELIVERIES TO
AGRICULTURAL LANDS SURROUNDING
THE SEA CAN RESULT IN DECLINES
IN THE LAKE LEVEL. THE SALTON
SEA HAS BEEN DECLINING IN
ELEVATION DUE TO REDUCED INFLOWS
OVER THE PAST 20 PLUS YEARS.
THIS EXPOSES LAKEBED THAT CAN BE
EMISSIVE AND CONTRIBUTE TO AIR
QUALITY ISSUES IN THE REGION OF
THE STATE THAT IS ALREADY
BURDENED WITH POOR AIR QUALITY.
WATER LEVEL DECLINES ALSO HAVE
SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL
CONSEQUENCES AS HABITAT IS LOST
AND THE SEA BECOMES MORE SALINE.
THE STATE'S ROLE IN THE SALTON
SEA RESTORATION IS SHAPED BY
PAST LEGAL CASES AND STATE
LEGISLATION. COURT CASES. IN THE
EARLY 1960S DIVIDED UP
ALLOCATIONS OF COLORADO RIVER
WATER ACROSS STATES, GIVING
CALIFORNIA AN ALLOCATION OF 4.4
MILLION ACRE FEET IN 2003. THE
QUANTIFICATION SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT SET WATER BUDGETS FOR
CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES
RELIANT UPON COLORADO RIVER
CAPPED MITIGATION COSTS FOR
THOSE AGENCIES, AND FACILITATED
THE LARGEST AGRICULTURAL TO
URBAN WATER TRANSFER TO BRING
CALIFORNIA WITHIN ITS COLORADO
RIVER ALLOCATION. THIS TRANSFER
OF WATER OUT OF THE IMPERIAL
VALLEY TO COASTAL SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA RESULTS IN LESS
INFLOW INTO THE SALTON SEA. ALSO
IN 2003, TO IMPLEMENT THE QSA,
THE STATE ADOPTED LEGISLATION
CODIFYING THE STATE'S
RESPONSIBILITY AT THE SALTON SEA
AND THEN IN 2017, THE STATE
WATER BOARD SET ACREAGE
MILESTONES FOR THE STATE'S
RESTORATION AT THE SEA,
REQUIRING THE NATURAL RESOURCES
AGENCY TO RESTORE 29,800 ACRES
AT THE SEA BY BY 2028. WE'RE
COMING FROM BEHIND IN MEETING
THESE ACREAGE TARGETS FOR
RESTORATION, BUT THE
ADMINISTRATION IS PROUD OF OUR
PROGRESS. WE'VE COMPLETED NEARLY
2500 ACRES OF DUST SUPPRESSION,
AND WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY
APPROXIMATELY NEARLY 6000 ACRES
CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION,
INCLUDING A LARGE SCALE, 4100
ACRE AQUATIC RESTORATION PROJECT
AND 1700 ACRES OF VEGETATION
ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE
NEARING COMPLETION WITH THE
LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN CRITICAL IN
FUNDING THESE RESTORATION
PROJECTS, AND THE FUNDING
PROPOSED IN THIS BCP WILL MOVE
FORWARD. SIX PROJECTS WE HAVE IN
OUR PROJECT DELIVERY PIPELINE IN
TERMS OF LAND ACCESS AGREEMENTS,
DESIGN, PERMITTING AND
CONSTRUCTION. WE PROPOSE TO FUND
THE STAFFING NEEDED TO SUPPORT
THIS PROJECT DELIVERY, AS WELL
AS EIGHT STAFF FOR OPERATING AND
MAINTAINING PROJECTS THAT ARE
THE FIRST OF THEIR KIND THAT ARE
NEARING COMPLETION. ANY
REDUCTION OR DELAY IN STATE
FUNDING THAT PULLS BACK ON
MOMENTUM ON THESE RESTORATION
PROJECTS MAY DESTABILIZE
AGREEMENTS AROUND THE COLORADO
RIVER AND JEOPARDIZE POTENTIAL
FEDERAL FUNDING. ADDITIONALLY
ANY DELAY HERE IN FUNDING THIS
REQUEST WOULD INCREASE COSTS IN
THE FUTURE BECAUSE WE'D LOSE OUT
ON IMPORTANT EFFICIENCIES GAINED
BY HAVING CONTRACTORS AND WORK
ON ADJACENT SITES. OUR
ADMINISTRATION IS COMMITTED TO
CARRYING OUT RESTORATION
PROJECTS AT THE SALTON SEA,
ASSOCIATED WITH THE QSA AND THE
STATE WATER BOARD ORDER, AND
WE'RE EAGER TO CONTINUE TO
PARTNER WITH THE LEGISLATURE TO
IMPROVE HABITAT AND PROTECT AIR
QUALITY FOR THE COMMUNITIES OF
IMPERIAL AND EASTERN COACHELLA
VALLEY'S. THANKS. HAPPY TO TAKE
QUESTIONS. I HAVE NONE, I'VE
BEEN FOLLOWING THIS. I'M OKAY,
LET'S SEE, I DO HAVE A COUPLE,
OH, SORRY. LEO I'M SORRY. OKAY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, SONIA,
AGAIN FROM THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE. AGAIN THIS IS
ANOTHER PROPOSAL FOR NEW GENERAL
FUND SPENDING. SO WE SUGGEST YOU
BE QUITE SELECTIVE ABOUT WHAT
YOU APPROVE. AND WE HAVE A FEW
POINTS TO MAKE ABOUT THE
PARTICULAR PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF
YOU. AND THEN A COUPLE OF
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THÀNH. FIRST, WE
JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
MAINTAINING PROGRESS AT THE
SALTON SEA IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR
BOTH PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS, AND THE
STATE HAS ACCEPTED
RESPONSIBILITY. K¾T, FOR THIS
WORK, WE WOULD NOTE, HOWEVER,
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN
SENDING SOMEWHAT MIXED MESSAGES
TO THE LEGISLATURE ABOUT THE
URGENCY OF THIS FUNDING IN LAST
YEAR'S, BUDGET PROCESS, THE
GOVERNOR HAD PROPOSED REDUCING
FUNDING FOR SALTON SEA PROJECTS
BY 169 MILLION. THE FINAL BUDGET
AGREEMENT ENDED UP INCLUDING A
SMALLER YET STILL SIGNIFICANT
REDUCTION OF 119 MILLION, SO WE
WERE SOMEWHAT SURPRISED TO SEE
THE ADMINISTRATION COME BACK IN
THIS BUDGET PROCESS, TO AGAIN
REQUEST FUNDING AND ONE OF THE
REASONS WE'RE, QUESTIONING
WHETHER THE FULL 60 MILLION IS
NEEDED IN THIS BUDGET YEAR IS
BECAUSE, THE PROGRAM IS SOMEWHAT
BEHIND ON MEETING ITS ACREAGE
TARGETS TO MEET THE 2028
DEADLINE. AND IT DOESN'T APPEAR
THAT THIS IS ALL DUE TO MONEY TO
HAVING MONEY ON HAND, THERE ARE
COMPLICATED CHALLENGES
ASSOCIATED WITH GETTING THESE
PROJECTS DONE. THE LAND ACCESS
AGREEMENTS, UNDERSTANDING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS,
WORKING WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES,
BUT WHAT WE'RE NOT CLEAR ABOUT
IS WHETHER THOSE ISSUES HAVE
BEEN RESOLVED ENOUGH FOR THE
PROGRAM TO SPEND ALL 60 MILLION
IN THE UPCOMING BUDGET YEAR.
ANOTHER KEY POINT THAT WE WANTED
TO RAISE ABOUT THE REQUEST FOR
THE PROJECT FUNDING IS THAT THIS
FUNDING WOULD ESSENTIALLY
INITIATE SIX PROJECTS IN IN THE
CASE OF ONE SMALL PROJECT, IT
WOULD ALSO INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION
FUNDING. OUR CONCERN IS THAT IF
THE LEGISLATURE APPROVES THE 60
MILLION THIS YEAR, WHAT'S GOING
TO HAPPEN AFTER THOSE PROJECTS
ARE HAVE BEEN STARTED? AND IF
THE STATE DOESN'T HAVE FUNDING
TO FINISH THEM, ARE WE GOING TO
JUST LEAVE THEM SORT OF STRANDED
? AND, AND THIS ALSO THEN KIND
OF LEADS INTO THE NEXT QUESTION
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS
HOW IS THE ADMINISTRATION SORT
OF PLANNING TO FUND PROJECTS
GOING FORWARD MORE GENERALLY? SO
THERE'S THESE SIX PROJECTS, BUT
THERE'S ALSO ADDITIONAL PROJECTS
TO MEET THE STAGE, PHASE ONE,
SORRY, PHASE ONE ACREAGE TARGETS
BY 2028, AND THEN THERE WILL BE
PROJECTS IN SUBSEQUENT PHASES
FOLLOWING THAT. AND SO THERE'S A
LOT OF QUESTIONS SORT OF AROUND
HOW THE STATE'S GOING TO FUND
THOSE COSTS. SO WHAT WE WOULD
RECOMMEND FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
IS ONE, THERE'S A SMALL AMOUNT
OF FUNDING IN THE PROPOSAL, $3
MILLION TO PROVIDE THE STATE
STATE'S COST SHARE FOR A FEDERAL
FEASIBILITY STUDY THAT'S BEING
CONDUCTED WITH THE US ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS. AND WE THINK THAT
THIS MODEST INVESTMENT PROBABLY
MAKES SENSE, BECAUSE IF THE ARMY
CORPS IN THAT STUDY DETERMINES
THAT THERE ARE SOME FEASIBLE
OPTIONS IN THE SALTON SEA THAT
OPENS THE STATE UP TO DRAW DOWN
SIGNIFICANT, POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR
FUTURE SALTON SEA PROJECTS. WE
ALSO THINK IT MIGHT BE A GOOD
IDEA TO APPROVE EIGHT OF THE
REQUESTED POSITIONS, AND
SPECIFICALLY THE ONES FOR
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS OF
PROJECTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN
COMPLETED OR ARE NEARING
COMPLETION, AND THIS IS BECAUSE
THE STATE'S ALREADY INVESTED
SIGNIFICANT FUNDS AND EFFORT TO
GET THESE PROJECTS DONE. AND WE
DON'T YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO
JUST LEAVE THOSE IN THE LURCH
AND LET THEM, START
DETERIORATING. AND THEN FINALLY,
WE WOULD JUST NOTE IN TERMS OF
THE 60 MILLION FOR THE PROJECTS,
WE THINK, AGAIN, THE LEGISLATURE
IS GOING TO HAVE TO WEIGH THESE
AGAINST OTHER BUDGET PRIORITIES.
BUT THERE'S A COUPLE OF OPTIONS
YOU COULD THINK ABOUT. SO, FOR
EXAMPLE, YOU COULD CONSIDER
FUNDING PROVIDING PARTIAL
FUNDING INSTEAD OF THE FULL 60
MILLION. AND FOR EXAMPLE, YOU
COULD CONSIDER FUNDING FEWER
PROJECTS, AND OR FEWER STAFF.
YOU COULD THINK ABOUT SOME
CRITERIA TO USE TO DECIDE WHICH
PROJECTS TO FUND. YOU KNOW, YOU
COULD FUND THE ONES THAT COVER
THE MOST ACRES YOU COULD FUND,
THE ONES THAT LEAD TO THE MOST
PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFIT, WE WOULD
NOTE, IN THE CASE OF ONE OF THE
PROJECTS WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
WHICH WOULD INVOLVE 8 MILLION OF
THE 60 MILLION, THIS IS A
PROJECT THAT IS LIKELY TO
RECEIVE OF FEDERAL FUNDING IN
THE FUTURE, AND THAT FEDERAL
FUNDING DOESN'T REQUIRE A STATE
MATCH. SO THIS FUNDING, IT'S OUR
UNDERSTANDING FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION THAT THIS 8
MILLION IS SORT OF BRIDGE
FUNDING. UNTIL THE FEDERAL
FUNDING COMES IN, THE
LEGISLATURE COULD CONSIDER JUST
WAITING TO GET THE FEDERAL
FUNDING AND NOT PROVIDING THE
EIGHT, THE 8 MILLION. NOW,
ANOTHER OPTION IS YOU COULD
CONSIDER PROVIDING THE FULL
AMOUNT REQUESTED, THE 60
MILLION, BUT PROVIDE IT FOR
FEWER PROJECTS. BUT BUT TO SEE
THOSE PROJECTS THROUGH
COMPLETION, RATHER THAN JUST
STARTING UP THE PROJECTS, AND MY
FINAL POINT THAT I WOULD MAKE IS
JUST THAT THE LEGISLATURE,
PROBABLY WANTS TO BE CAUTIOUS IN
APPROVING FUNDING FOR PROJECTS
THAT DON'T HAVE THE FUTURE
FUNDING SOURCES SORT OF LINED
UP, OR A PLAN AT LEAST FOR HOW
COMPLETING THOSE PROJECTS WOULD
BE FUNDED. THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY
SEEMS TO ME, YOU KNOW,
SUPPORTING THE FUNDING THAT THAT
REQUIRES THE MATCH, FOR EXAMPLE,
THE 3 MILLION MENTIONED FOR THE
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, MAKES A
LOT OF SENSE. YOU RAISE
QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OTHER,
OBVIOUSLY A LOT TO CONSIDER HERE
IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE OTHER
EXPENSES, JUST SO JUST SO I'M
CLEAR, YOU MENTIONED EIGHT THAT
ARE IN PROCESS RIGHT NOW, THE
PROPOSAL WOULD FUND SIX, SIX
PROJECTS, BUT DO THOSE HAVE OR
THOSE YOU MENTIONED, SOME THAT
HAVE ALREADY BEEN STARTED. IS
THAT RIGHT? I THINK MOST OF THEM
ARE IN THE SORT OF PROJECT
INITIATION. CAN I JUMP? BUT I'M
GOING TO YEAH, I'M GOING TO
DEFER TO THE OKAY. SO I THINK AN
IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION HERE. SO
WE HAVE A PROJECT DELIVERY
PIPELINE RIGHT. WE NEED TO MOVE
PROJECTS FROM INITIAL SCOPING TO
GEOTECH TECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
TO THEN DESIGN AND PERMITTING,
THEN CONSTRUCTION. THEN WHEN
WE'RE WE COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND
MONITORING. SO THESE SIX
PROJECTS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED
IN OUR PROPOSAL ARE ALREADY IN
OUR PIPELINE. MANY OF THEM ARE
ALREADY SCOPED. WHAT WE'RE
ASKING FOR IS REALLY THE MINIMUM
NEEDED TO MOVE THESE PROJECTS
FORWARD. ABOUT HALF OF THEM ARE
IDENTIFIED TO TAKE TO FULL
COMPLETION AND FULLY CONSTRUCT
THE PROJECTS. THE OTHER HALF ARE
TO ADVANCE THEIR DESIGN,
PERMITTING LAND ACCESS STEPS,
AND THEN I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO RECOGNIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, SO
WE HAVE SIX, 6000 ACRES UNDER
CONSTRUCTION. WE'RE DRIVING
TOWARDS A 29,800 ACRE GOAL BY
2028. AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING
VERY HARD TO SCALE UP OUR OUR
EFFORTS, BOTH IN TERMS OF OUR
STAFFING AND OUR PROCESSES TO BE
ABLE TO SCALE UP AND DELIVER ON
THESE ACRES. SO WE NEED TO
CONTINUE THAT MOMENTUM TO CATCH
UP TO THOSE ACREAGE TARGETS AND
TO REALLY FOLLOW THROUGH ON OUR
COMMITMENTS THERE. SO WE'VE
IDENTIFIED THE FUNDING THAT'S
THE MINIMUM NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE OUR WORK BECAUSE WE
HAVE EXPENDED OUR FUNDS AND ARE
ARE ADVANCING PROJECTS RIGHT NOW
AND THEN TO SPEAK TO THE FEDERAL
FUNDING. WE'VE RECEIVED $70
MILLION AT THE END OF 2022. THAT
IS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED AND
TARGETED FOR, EXPANDING THE
SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT
PROJECT. SO IT'S LIMITED TO A
SPECIFIC PROJECT TO ACCELERATE
OUR EFFORTS ASSOCIATED WITH NEW
CONSERVATION FROM SHORT TERME,
FROM IMPERIAL IRRIGATION
DISTRICT. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT CONTEXT IS CLEAR AS WELL.
GREAT. THANK YOU, SENATOR
DONNELLY. SO I TOURED THE SALTON
SEA IN THE 90S BEFORE THE 2000.
AND SO I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU
AN OPPORTUNITY, BECAUSE I THINK
FOR THE LEGISLATURES TO
UNDERSTAND IF WE DON'T MOVE
FORWARD AND WE DON'T PUT WHAT
DOES IT LOOK LIKE IF WE WAIT?
BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE BUDGET PROBLEMS FOR SOME
TIME NOW. BUT AS FAR AS LIKE
EVAPORATION AND, AND THE THINGS
THAT ARE HAPPENING ON LAKE, CAN
YOU JUST TOUCH ON THAT A LITTLE
BIT? BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT PART OF THE DECISION
MAKING FOR THIS FUNDING UP FRONT
NOW. SO IF YOU IF YOU COULD.
YEAH THANK YOU. SO THE SEA
CONTINUES TO RECEDE FROM THE
2003 QUANTIFICATION SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT. NOT MOVING FORWARD AT
THIS TIME WOULD MEAN NOT NOT
IMPLEMENTING AND ADVANCING THESE
PROJECTS, WHICH MEANS AREAS THAT
ARE AS THE SEA CONTINUES TO
RECEDE, AREAS THAT ARE EXPOSED
CAN BE EMISSIVE, SO IT'S REALLY
AN ISSUE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE AND AN ISSUE OF
PROTECTING AIR QUALITY FOR THE
COMMUNITIES AROUND THE SEA. AND
THEN ALSO THE ECOLOGICAL
CONDITIONS. SO THESE PROJECTS
ARE ADDRESSING TWOFOLD. THEY'RE
ADDRESSING THE ECOLOGICAL
CONDITIONS AND THEY'RE
ADDRESSING AIR QUALITY. SO
THAT'S KIND OF A DIRECT
HAPPENING NOW. SO THANKS FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO. YEAH. SO I WOULD
SAY MAYBE ON A FEW OF THOSE
POSITIONS IF WE I MEAN WE NEED
TO GET YOU WHAT YOU NEED. BUT
FOR ME I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY
TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE
I THINK THE LONGER IF WE DON'T
DO IT, IT'S GOING TO BE DOUBLE
OR TRIPLE THE AMOUNT LATER ON.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE NEED
TO PUT OUR BUSINESS HAT ON AND
GO, OKAY, IF WE PUT IT OFF, IT'S
GOING TO BE DOUBLE OR TRIPLE THE
MONEY LATER ON. AND, WE MIGHT
NOT CATCH UP AT SOME POINT IF WE
DON'T, WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL
DAMAGES THAT COULD POSSIBLY
HAPPEN THERE. SO I JUST WANT TO
PUT THAT OUT FOR THOUGHT CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I THINK
OUR PANEL ADOPTS WHOLEHEARTEDLY
SENATOR DOLLY'S POINT. IF WE
WAIT, IT'S WORSE. IF WE DELAY,
WE CAN'T GET AHEAD OF IT, LET
ALONE CAUGHT UP. I APPRECIATE
THAT, THE. YEAH A LOT OF ISSUES
INVOLVED HERE. I'VE JUST, YOU
KNOW, THE NEW YORK TIMES
ACTUALLY HAD A BIG PROFILE OF
BOMBAY BEACH. I DON'T KNOW,
INTERESTING COMMUNITY AROUND THE
, KIND OF SURVIVING, MAYBE
THRIVING ON THE, ON THE, ON THE
SHORES THERE. BUT IT WAS VERY
INTERESTING. I WAS JUST KIND OF
PULLING THAT UP FOR REFERENCE,
BUT THE, WHAT WHAT ABOUT THE
EXTRACTION? LITHIUM ATTRACTION
TAX? BECAUSE WE DO HAVE, YOU
KNOW, AND PART OF THE AGREEMENT
THAT THE THAT WILL PROVIDE
REVENUE, FOR THIS, WHEN DO YOU
EXPECT LITHIUM EXTRACTION WILL
BEGIN IN THE REGION? ERIN
CARSON, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
SO BASED ON PUBLIC STATEMENTS
AND ANNOUNCEMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS
BY LITHIUM EXTRACTION COMPANIES
AND THE SCHEDULES OF THEIR
PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA, FINANCE,
EXPECTS TAX COLLECTIONS OR,
EXCUSE ME, RELATED TO LITHIUM
TAX OR LITHIUM EXTRACTION TO
BEGIN IN THE NEXT 1 TO 2 YEARS,
1 TO 2 YEARS. OKAY. AND SO THAT
COULD BE SIGNIFICANT. FOR THE
400 TO $800 PER METRIC TON OF
LITHIUM LITHIUM CARBONATE
EQUIVALENT, JUST FOR INFLATION.
AND 20% OF THE REVENUE GOES TO
THE SALTON SEA LITHIUM FUND. SO
THAT'S INTERESTING. OKAY. 1 TO 2
YEARS, IF THIS. WELL, I THINK
WE'VE KIND OF PROBABLY, PROBABLY
, COVERED THIS, FOR NOW. SO.
YEAH. OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON. WE
HAVE A WHOLE OPEN
RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU, FOR
THIS. TAKE A VERY QUICK RECESS
BEFORE WE GO FOR OUR.
OKAY. AND WE'RE BACK. WE'LL ASK,
FOLKS, FOR ISSUE NUMBER 12 FROM
THE COASTAL COMMISSION TO PLEASE
COME FORWARD.
GREAT. THANK YOU, YEAH. GO. GO
AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON. MADELINE
CAVALIERI WITH THE COASTAL
COMMISSION. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
OKAY HOW'S THAT? HOW ABOUT NOW?
ARE BETTER. OKAY. SO, MADELINE
CAVALIERI, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR WITH THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, WITH THIS BP, THE
COASTAL COMMISSION IS REQUESTING
THREE NEW PERMANENT POSITIONS TO
EXPEDITE STATE FUNDED PRIORITY
PROJECTS, INCLUDING ECOLOGICAL
RESTORATION, WILDFIRE
RESILIENCE, AND NATURE BASED
CLIMATE ADAPTATION IN THE
COASTAL ZONE. THE POSITIONS ARE
ANTICIPATED TO BE FUNDED THROUGH
FUTURE INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS
WITH CAL FIRE, STATE PARKS AND
THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY, WHICH
ARE LEADING OR FUNDING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE
PROJECTS. THE NUMBER OF STATE
FUNDED RESTORATION AND
ADAPTATION PROJECTS WILL
INCREASE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE
COMING YEARS TO PRESERVE
BIODIVERSITY, PURSUE THE 30 BY
30 INITIATIVE, AND ADAPT TO
CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL
RISE, AS REFLECTED IN THE
ASSOCIATED INCREASED SPENDING AT
THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVELS.
SINCE 2021, THE STATE HAS
INVESTED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO
SUPPORT THESE PROJECTS. WHILE
CONGRESS HAS ALSO MADE
UNPRECEDENTED INVESTMENTS IN
COASTAL RESILIENCE. WITH PASSAGE
OF THE BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE
LAW AND INFLATION REDUCTION ACT.
IF LEFT UNCHECKED, THE IMPACTS
OF CLIMATE CHANGE WILL
SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE
NUMBER AND SEVERITY OF COASTAL
FLOODS, COASTAL EROSION, AND
CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES, AND THE
COST OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO
SUCH EVENTS WILL RISE
EXPONENTIALLY. THESE PRIORITY
PROJECTS REDUCE THESE IMPACTS,
AND THE RELATED COSTS BY
ENHANCING FLOOD, MITIGATING
ECOSYSTEMS, PROTECTING
SHORELINES FROM EROSION,
INCREASING WILDFIRE RESILIENCE
AND REDUCING FIRE FUEL LOADS.
THIS PROPOSAL WOULD ULTIMATELY
SUPPORT ADDITIONAL STAFF
CAPACITY TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY
WITH PARTNER AGENCIES TO ENSURE
PROJECTS ARE PLANNED AND
DESIGNED, CONSISTENT WITH THE
COASTAL ACT, IN ORDER TO AVOID
REGULATORY DELAYS AND EXPEDITE
COASTAL PERMITS, ENSURING THE
FUNDS WILL BE USED EFFICIENTLY
AND EFFECTIVELY. PRIORITIZE
THESE PROJECTS AND GETTING THEM
THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
AND PERMITTING STAGES IN A
TIMELY MANNER WILL ALSO BETTER
POSITION STATE AND LOCAL
PARTNERS TO APPLY FOR SHOVEL
READY FEDERAL FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES. THANKS THANK YOU.
AND DO YOU THINK WE HAVE A
COUPLE OF THINGS WE WANT TO
DISCUSS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS
AND SOME TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY
TO DISCUSS A FEW OTHER RELATED
OR OR JUST GENERAL COASTAL
COMMISSION ISSUES AS WELL. DOES
THE FIRST MAYBE WE'LL TURN TO
FINANCE IS THERE ANYTHING AARON
CARSON, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE NO
COMMENT, BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. SAME FOR THE LEÓN.
GREAT, JUST IN THE ANALYSIS IN
THE AGENDA, WE TALK ABOUT THE
STATE'S INVESTED BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS, SINCE 2021, TO SUPPORT
THESE KINDS OF PROJECTS. DO YOU
HAVE A PRECISE NUMBER ON THAT? I
DON'T, I'M SORRY. OKAY. THAT'D
BE INTERESTING TO HAVE. WE CAN
CERTAINLY GET BACK TO YOU. WE
HAVE THAT SOMEWHERE. AND, AND
ESPECIALLY AS IT, YOU KNOW, WE
WE'RE ALL VERY EXCITED ABOUT
PULLING DOWN FEDERAL FUNDS, YOU
KNOW, FOR THESE ISSUES FROM THE
INFRASTRUCTURE ACT, AS YOU
MENTIONED, AND THE INFLATION
REDUCTION ACT AND JUST, YOU
KNOW, HAVING UNDERSTANDING HOW
THAT'S GOING AND WHERE WE ARE IN
THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US, AS
WE AS WE LOOK AT THAT, HOW BIG
IS THAT BACKLOG FOR TECHNICAL
REVIEW THAT IS MENTIONED. YEAH.
SO THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S
TECHNICAL REVIEW STAFF CONSISTS
OF ONE ENGINEER, ONE GEOLOGIST
AND FOUR ECOLOGISTS. THEY REVIEW
ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE
COASTAL ZONE, INCLUDING
SHORELINE ARMORING, CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS HIGHWAYS,
RAIL LINES, WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANTS, PORTS AND HARBORS, AS
WELL AS COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE
RESTORATION AND ADAPTATION WORK
THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS BCP,
THE BACKLOG FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW
INCLUDES ALL OF THESE PROJECT
TYPES, AND IT'S GENERALLY
SUBSTANTIAL, THE COMMISSION
PRIORITIZES ITEMS FOR TECHNICAL
REVIEW BASED ON THEIR REGULATORY
DEADLINES TO ENSURE ALL
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY
OBLIGATIONS ARE MET, WHICH CAN
LEAD TO A LACK OF CAPACITY TO
SUPPORT RESTORATION AND
ADAPTATION PROJECTS EARLY IN
THEIR PLANNING AND DESIGN. WHEN
INPUT REGARDING COASTAL
CONSISTENCY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE THE
EFFICIENT USE OF GOVERNMENT
FUNDING. SO THE RECENT STATE AND
FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN
RESTORATION AND ADAPTATION WORK
WILL PLACE ADDITIONAL PRESSURE
ON THESE TECHNICAL REVIEW STAFF.
BUT THE PROPOSED BCP WILL WILL
RELIEVE THE PRESSURE BY
PROVIDING TARGETED RESOURCES
SPECIFICALLY TO EXPEDITE
PERMITTING AND TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE TYPES OF PLANNING AND
COORDINATION WORK NEEDED TO
SUCCESSFULLY DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENT PROJECTS FROM THE
BEGINNING THAT ARE CONSISTENT
WITH COASTAL ACT. IN ORDER TO
UTILIZE THE FUNDING EFFICIENTLY
AND AVOID PERMITTING DELAYS.
OKAY, SO WHAT KIND OF PROJECTS
ARE IN THE BACKLOG? JUST TO,
THIS IS, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE
PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING BEFORE
THE COMMISSION. SO ALL NEW
DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL ZONE,
ALL, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL,
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
SHORELINE ARMORING, COASTAL
INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL AS THESE
NATURE BASED RESTORATION AND
ADAPTATION PROJECTS. OKAY. MAY
COME BACK TO THAT. LAST YEAR WE
DID HEAR ABOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY
PROJECTS COMMISSION NOTED IT
NEEDED ABOUT A DOZEN MORE
POSITIONS IN THIS BCP ASKED FOR
ONLY THREE. SO DOES IT NEED MORE
POSITIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, IF SO, DO YOU HAVE A
TIMELINE ON WHEN YOU MAY BE
SEEKING TO ADD THOSE POSITIONS?
WE DON'T WANT TO SLOW THESE DOWN
AND HEAR THAT NOTHING CAN GET
DONE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE
ENOUGH PEOPLE. YEAH, THIS BCP IS
SPECIFIC TO ECOLOGICAL
RESTORATION, WILDFIRE RESILIENCE
AND NATURE BASED CLIMATE
ADAPTATION PROJECTS THAT ARE IN
THE, THAT ARE COMING FORWARD
FROM RECENT FUNDING, NOT FOR
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS. OKAY.
I NEED AN ANSWER ON THAT AS
WELL, THOUGH, BECAUSE THIS IS
AARON CARSON, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, SO THE ADMINISTRATION
IS CONTINUING TO ASSESS RESOURCE
NEEDS FOR OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
RELATED RESOURCES AT A VARIETY
OF STATE ENTITIES. FOR THE 24
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET, WE DO NOT
HAVE AN UPDATE FOR SHARING THE
OUTCOMES OF THAT ASSESSMENT.
OKAY I'M GOING TO BE EXTREMELY
DISAPPOINTED IF WE ALL OF A
SUDDEN WE HEAR, HEY,
EVERYTHING'S BEING SLOWED DOWN
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
PEOPLE. SO THAT'D BE VERY
DISAPPOINTING. SO GIVEN THAT
THEY SAID THAT WE NEED A DOZEN
MORE AND THERE'S ONLY ONLY THREE
HERE NOW. SO YEAH. SO LIKE, MISS
CAVALIERI SAID THESE RESOURCES,
RESOURCES ARE SPECIFIC TO,
PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY BEING
FUNDED PRIOR TO OR SINCE THE
2122 CLIMATE PACKAGE. IT'S A
VARIETY OF PROJECTS. HOWEVER,
THESE ARE NOT RELATED TO,
RENEWABLE ENERGY OR OFFSHORE
WIND. AT THIS TIME. I UNDERSTAND
THAT I'D JUST LIKE AN ANSWER,
LIKE IN WRITING IN THE NEXT
COUPLE OF DAYS, JUST ABOUT THE
RENEWABLE ENERGY POSITIONS AS
WELL. HAPPY TO GET BACK TO YOUR
OFFICE. DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT,
BUT, RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO
THIS, YOU KNOW, SAME THING
APPLIES. SO YOU FEEL THIS IS
ENOUGH STAFF TO KIND OF GET
THROUGH THE BACKLOG, AND THIS
WILL EXPEDITE THE REVIEW OF
THESE PRIORITY PROJECTS, AND IT
WILL ENSURE THAT OUR EXISTING
BACKLOG IS NOT IMPACTED. AND SO
THAT WE CAN BECAUSE THESE ARE
PRIORITY PROJECTS THAT WE ALL
KNOW NEED TO MOVE FORWARD FOR
THEIR BENEFITS ON THE ECOSYSTEM
AND COASTAL HAZARDS, AND SO THAT
WOULD BE SEPARATE AND APART FROM
THE BACKLOG THAT WE HAVE OF
TECHNICAL REVIEW ITEMS RELATED
TO, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE OTHER
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES
BEFORE THE COMMISSION. OKAY, I
THINK WE WANT TO TAKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO A FEW OTHER,
THANKS, SENATOR BLAKE SPEAR, DO
YOU WOULD LIKE TO ANYTHING YOU
WANT TO BRING UP AROUND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT? NO, NOT AT THIS
TIME. NOT AT THIS TIME. OKAY
WELL, I'LL JUST SPEAK THEN, FOR
MY FOR MY OWN PART, I KNOW
THERE'S JUST BEEN, CONCERNS THAT
I, THAT I HEAR, AND AGAIN, MAYBE
THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WILL BE WILL
BE HELPFUL HERE, TO EXTENT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT, BUT JUST THAT,
WHEN PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO ADD IN
THE COASTAL ZONE, WHETHER IT BE
ANYTHING FROM A LOT OF THIS IN
MY DISTRICT, RIGHT, WHETHER IT
BE ANY KIND OF NEW HOUSING,
ADUS, WHATEVER IT TAKES A, A, A
LONG TIME FOR THE COASTAL
COMMISSION. AND SO WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT HOUSING BEING A PRIORITY
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION, BUT THEN WE THE
COASTAL KEPT HEARING ABOUT THE
COASTAL COMMISSION, THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, AND IT'S THAT'S,
THAT'S, YOU KNOW, CONCERNING TO,
TO US. SO ANY COMMENTS ON THAT,
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WE HAVE
WORKED VERY HARD IN THE LAST
COUPLE OF YEARS TO PRIORITIZE
RESOURCES TO, TO ADDRESS THE
NEED TO BE LOOKING AT HOUSING AS
QUICKLY AS WE CAN. WE WORK
DILIGENTLY WITH HCD ON A REGULAR
BASIS, AS WELL AS OUR ALL 76
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS UP AND DOWN
THE COAST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
PLANNING IS IN PLACE TO SMOOTH
THE WAY FOR PROJECTS, AND THEN
WE ARE, YOU KNOW, DOING OUR BEST
WITH THE RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE
IN ORDER TO, TO RESPOND TO
PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING BEFORE
US AGAIN. WE ARE, YOU KNOW, HAVE
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY
OBLIGATIONS THAT WE ARE
BALANCING AS WE ALSO, PRIORITIZE
AS BEST WE CAN. CHAIR, I
ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO SAY
SOMETHING ON THIS TOPIC. THANK
YOU, YES. SO I'M A FORMER
COASTAL MAYOR AND HAVE HAVE
SEVERAL BILLS, RELATED TO THE
COASTAL COMMISSION. AND ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT I HEAR A LOT IS
THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE STAFFING.
WE'RE NOT ABLE TO FOLLOW
TIMELINES THAT ARE FOLLOWED BY
OTHER, AGENCIES. THESE WHETHER
THEY'RE SPECIAL DISTRICTS OR
CITIES OR COUNTIES. AND SO WE
DON'T HAVE THE STAFFING AND
THINGS TAKE A LONG TIME BECAUSE
OF THAT. SO PART OF THIS
QUESTION AROUND THE BUDGET IS
YOU'RE ASKING FOR STAFFING FOR
THESE THREE POSITIONS. AND I
WONDER ABOUT THE I WANTED TO
UNDERSTAND MORE THE DECISION
MAKING AROUND WHAT STAFFING TO
ASK FOR, GIVEN THE MANY THINGS
THAT YOU DO DEAL WITH AND THAT
ARE PRIORITIES. BUT THE REALITY
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO HARMONIZE
SOME OF THE ALL OF THE POLICIES
IN THIS STATE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICIES, THE HOUSING POLICIES,
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE FUNDING
AROUND THE DEPARTMENT AREN'T
EXACTLY, YOU KNOW, THE
PRIORITIZING THAT'S HAPPENING
WHEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR FUNDING.
SO THAT THAT WAS REALLY THE KIND
OF THE HEART OF MY QUESTION
AROUND THIS. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I
MEAN, WE LIKE I SAID, WE DO OUR
BEST TO BALANCE OUR OBLIGATIONS.
WE DO FOLLOW THE PERMIT
STREAMLINING ACT AND ENSURE THAT
ALL PROJECTS ARE ARE HEARD
PURSUANT TO THAT WHICH IS
SIMILAR TO THE TO THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS. AND WE
HAVE PUT ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON
THIS ISSUE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF
YEARS WITHIN WITHIN, YOU KNOW,
THE RESOURCES THAT WE DO HAVE.
OKAY. SO WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING
IS THAT YOU ARE FOCUSED ON IT
AND THAT FOLLOWING TIMELINES IS
IMPORTANT TO YOU, BUT YOU DON'T
FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO BE ASKING
FOR MONEY FOR MORE STAFFING, FOR
POSITIONS THAT WOULD HELP
PROCESS PERMITS FROM CITIES
BETTER. YEAH. ERIN CARSON,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, WE TAKING
INTO ACCOUNT THERE WAS A LOT OF
TOUGH DECISIONS MADE IN THIS
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET. WE SUPPORT
THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE IT'S, COST
NEUTRAL AND IT MEETS THE
WORKLOAD NEEDS THAT ARE
DESCRIBED IN THE BCP. OKAY.
OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
CHAIR OKAY. WE DO I WOULD LIKE
TO ANSWER TO THAT, ABOUT THE
RURAL ENERGY PROJECTS OF FOLLOW
UP ON THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, I
GUESS RESERVE THE RIGHT, SO TO
SPEAK, TO, YOU KNOW, COME BACK
TO THE COMMISSION DIRECTLY ON,
ON PROJECTS AND JUST TO KIND OF
DIG INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE. BUT
WE DO HAVE APPROVE AS BUDGETED
RECOMMENDATIONS. SO I THINK
WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE ON
THIS TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO
OUR LAST ITEM, ISSUE 13.
ESTABLISH AN IMPLEMENTATION OF
INSTREAM FLOW OBJECTIVES IN THE
SCOTT RIVER AND SHASTA RIVER
WATERSHEDS. WILL ASK FOLKS TO
COME ON, COME ON UP
.
GOOD AFTERNOON. HI. BOTH. YEAH
HAVE BOTH ON. WELL. IT WORKS. I
DON'T KNOW THE PROBLEMATIC MIKE,
SO. YEAH, WE'LL SEE IF I CAN GET
THROUGH IT. GOOD. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR. IT'S GOOD TO.
CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? OKAY. CAN
YOU TRY THE OTHER LINK. YEAH.
TRY THE OTHER ONE AT THIS POINT.
OH, YEAH, IT'S TOO FORCEFUL.
IT'S LIKE A ZEN. ZEN. I KNOW
IT'S BATTLE WITH THE MIKES TODAY
. SURE. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. IT'S
GOOD TO BE JOINING YOU HERE
TODAY. THIS REQUEST IS FOR TWO
PERMANENT POSITIONS. $711,000 IN
CONTRACT DOLLARS FROM THE WATER
RIGHTS FUND TO BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT THE BOARD'S IMPORTANT
WORK ON ESTABLISHING LONG TERME
AND STREAM FLOWS ON THE SCOTT
AND SHASTA RIVER. AS WE KNOW,
THIS YEAR, THE SALMON FISHERY IS
CLOSED YET AGAIN, WE ARE THE
SCOTT AND THE SHASTA FEED OUR
TRIBUTARIES TO THE KLAMATH RIVER
AND ARE CRITICAL TO SEVERAL
NATIVE FISH SPECIES AND
FISHERIES AND IMPORTANTLY, TO
TRIBES AND COMMUNITIES AND HERE
THIS BOARD ITSELF HAD A HEARING
BACK LAST AUGUST DISCUSSING WHAT
TO DO. CURRENTLY WE HAVE,
EMERGENCY CURTAILMENTS IN PLACE.
EMERGENCY REGULATIONS THAT ARE
SETTING BELLY SCRAPING FLOWS IN
THE SYSTEM, BUT WE KNOW THAT WE
NEED LONGER TERMS SOLUTIONS HERE
IN THE WATERSHED. AND AGAIN,
LAST AUGUST, THE BOARD ACTUALLY
HELD AN ITEM AND PROVIDED
DIRECTION TO STAFF TO BEGIN THE
WORK OF DEVELOPING LONG TERME
INSTREAM FLOWS. THESE RESOURCES
WOULD HELP US ACCOMPLISH THAT.
AND AGAIN, AN INCREDIBLY NEEDED,
GIVEN THE BALANCING THAT NEEDS
TO BE DONE, CERTAINLY IN
SUPPORTING THE FISHERIES, BUT
ALSO BRINGING ALONG, GROWERS
AND, AND THE AGRICULTURAL
INDUSTRY IN A WAY THAT HELPS US
ACTUALLY GET TO SOLUTIONS HERE
FASTER. SO GLAD TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS FURTHER ON IT. BUT THE
CRITICALITY OF THE REQUEST IS
CLEAR TO US AT THE BOARD AND
HOPEFULLY AS WELL HERE TO THE
LEGISLATURE. YEAH CLEAR TO ME AS
WELL. I KNOW SENATOR DAWLEY HAD
SOME COMMENTS ON THIS. I'D LIKE
TO TURN IT OVER TO HIM. THANKS.
GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN, JUST
WANTED TO SO JUST KIND OF
HOLISTICALLY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY,
DURING THE DROUGHT YEARS, REAL
HEAVY DROUGHT YEARS, WE HAD SOME
YOU KNOW, JUST NON FLOW QUITE
FRANKLY, AND THAT THAT WAS AN
ISSUE. AND THEN SO I'VE BEEN
WORKING CLOSE WITH THE, YOU
KNOW, THE GROWERS UP THERE AND
THE FOLKS THAT, HAVE WATER
RIGHTS ON, ON THE RIVER. BUT CAN
YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, THE
EFFECTS THAT TAKING DOWN THE
DAMS AND THE QUALITY OF WATER IN
THE RIVER AND HOW THIS SYSTEM,
FITS IN NOW, AND WHAT IT WHAT
IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE A COUPLE
YEARS. I MEAN, WE HAD A AND
WE'VE HAD SOME REALLY
UNFORTUNATE THINGS HAPPEN, YOU
KNOW, WE HAD A 100% KILL ON THE
FISH THAT WERE LET OUT OF THE OF
THE OR RELEASED INTO THE STREAM,
FROM THE HATCHERY, JUST
RECENTLY. SO TALK, TALK A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT WHAT WE'VE SEEN SINCE
THERE. THE DAMS HAVE COME, HAVE
COME. WE'VE RELEASED THE WATER
OUT OF THE DAMS AND THE. AND HOW
THE SCOTT AND THE SHASTA FIT
INTO THAT AND THESE POSITIONS,
BECAUSE I MEAN, THE LOCALS UP
THERE ARE VERY NERVOUS ABOUT YOU
KNOW, WHAT THE FUTURE LOOKS
LIKE. AND I KNOW THE TRIBES TO,
ARE, ARE CONCERNED. I THINK
THEY'RE DEALING WITH A LOT OF
ISSUES THAT THEY WEREN'T
EXPECTING TO DEAL WITH AT THIS
TIME. SO THIS IS JUST AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE GIVE US A
LITTLE BROADER VIEW OF WHAT'S
HAPPENING. YEAH, I'M GLAD TO DO
MY PART TO ANSWER. WE ALSO HAVE
HERE STILL CHUCK BONHAM FROM THE
DIRECTOR OF FISH AND WILDLIFE.
THAT CAN HELP EXPLAIN SOME OF
THE HATCHERY ISSUES AS WELL.
GENERALLY, THE SCOTT AND THE
SHASTA ARE REALLY CRITICAL
BECAUSE THEY ARE A REARING
HOTSPOT FOR THESE SPECIES. AND
WE KNOW THE KLAMATH SYSTEM
ITSELF IS DEGRADED, HAS
CHALLENGES, AND THE DAMS THAT
HAVE BEEN REMOVED HERE ARE BEING
ACTIVELY REMOVED, HAVE IMPEDED
WHAT HAS NATURALLY BEEN, YOU
KNOW, HUNDREDS OF MILES OF
HABITAT AND SPAWNING THAT THE
SPECIES USED TO DEPEND ON. SO
THEY'VE REALLY LEARNED TO LEAN
ON THE SCOTT AND THE SHASTA,
THOSE COOL, CLEAR FLOWS THROUGH
THE SUMMER AND FALL TO BE ABLE
TO HANG ON TO THEIR EXISTENCE.
SO THE REMOVAL OF THE DAM IS
COMPLEMENTING THAT ABILITY FOR
RESTORATION OF THE WATERSHED AND
THE. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
THE WATER QUALITY IMPACTS WITH
THE DAMS AS THEY WERE EXISTING
IS FAR WORSE THAN THE WATER
QUALITY IMPACTS. EVEN THE
TEMPORARY ONES WERE HERE SEEING
CERTAINLY WITH DAM REMOVAL, AS
SEDIMENT MOVES THROUGH. BUT IN
THE LONG TERME, THE, THE DAMS
WERE NOT FOR DRINKING WATER OR
FOR AGRICULTURAL WATER. THEY
WERE JUST FOR, FOR HYDROPOWER.
BUT THEY CREATED STAGNANT,
NUTRIENT RICH WATERS THAT WERE
CREATING HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS
THAT WERE A REAL HUMAN HEALTH
THREAT. AND TO, TO, TO ALSO PETS
AND, AND OTHERS THAT, WOULD,
WOULD SUFFER. AND ALSO THE
DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS FROM THEN
THAT HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM LADEN
WATER BEING RELEASED. SO THERE
AND IMPORTANTLY AND THE AND ALL
THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE PRIOR
TO DAM REMOVAL, YOU KNOW,
SEDIMENT SAMPLES WERE TAKEN,
IMPORTANTLY, THE QUALITY OF AND
IMPACTS WERE, REALLY VIEWED AND
HERE ANTICIPATED AND ARE
TEMPORARY. AGAIN, WHEN YOU LOOK
AT THE LONG TERME IMPACTS OF
WHAT THE DAMS WERE CREATING ON,
ON THE FISHERY AND ON THE
WATERSHED, ON THE WATERSHED. BUT
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE
CONCERNS AND THESE THESE SHORT
TERME IMPACTS AS SEDIMENT MOVES
THROUGH THE SYSTEM. AND I KNOW
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK WITH
THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD, ALONG WITH,
IMPORTANTLY, THE, REMOVAL
CORPORATION AROUND ADDITIONAL
TESTING TO BUILD THAT PUBLIC
CONFIDENCE, BECAUSE WE KNOW, AS
WE'VE SEEN FROM THE EMERGENCY,
DECLARATION FROM THE COUNTY THAT
THERE IS A CONCERN AROUND PUBLIC
HEALTH. WE'VE WORKED ACTUALLY
WITH OUR OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
TO UNDERSTAND OF THE TESTING
THAT'S BEEN DONE. IF THERE IS A
THREAT TO RECREATION IN THE
RIVER AND HAVE, YOU KNOW,
AFFIRMATIVE LETTERS INDICATING
THAT AT THE LEVELS THE VARIOUS
METALS THAT FOLKS ARE HAVING
CONCERN AROUND THAT WERE FOUND
DON'T POSE HUMAN HEALTH FOR
LIMITED RECREATION CONTACT. AND
HERE IN THE, THE WINTER, THERE
MAY NOT BE AS MANY FOLKS IN THE
RIVER AS THINGS WARM UP AND
PEOPLE LOOK TO RECREATE, IT'S
GOING TO BE IMPORTANT WE
CONTINUE TO, TO DO THAT TESTING
TO ENSURE THAT TRUST IN THE
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THIS
PROJECT. AND I THINK IT'S JUST
IMPORTANT, AGAIN, TO RECOGNIZE
THE HISTORIC IMPACT OF WHAT
THOSE DAMS WERE DOING AND
ACKNOWLEDGE SHORT TERME IMPACTS.
BUT THOSE STILL, ARE OUTWEIGHED
BY THE BENEFIT ULTIMATELY TO THE
SYSTEM, LOOK OVER TO DIRECTOR
BONHAM, SENATOR, IF I MIGHT, AND
CHAIR, THANK YOU FOR THE
INDULGENCE ON THE HATCHERY
SPECIFIC DYNAMIC. A COUPLE OF
POINTS. AS YOU KNOW, OUR
DEPARTMENT RAN AND OPERATED A
VERY OLD HATCHERY AT THE BASE OF
IRON GATE DAM. IT STRUGGLED
ANNUALLY ON ITS PRODUCTION GOALS
AND ITS OTHER WATER QUALITY AND
KIND OF FISH HEALTH ISSUES. AS A
RESULT OF THIS TRANSITION IN THE
BASIN AND OUR DEPARTMENT
ACKNOWLEDGES CHANGE IS
CHALLENGING, INCLUDING FOR THE
LOCAL COMMUNITY. HERE WE HAVE A
STATE OF THE ART MODERN FACILITY
PAID FOR BY THE LICENSEE,
PACIFIC WAR ON FALL CREEK. IN
EARLY MARCH, OUR DEPARTMENT HAD
FALL RUN CHINOOK SMOLTS SO ABOUT
THE SIZE OF OUR FINGER, WE TOOK
800,000 OF THOSE FROM FALL CREEK
HATCHERY, AND WE RELEASED THEM
ABOVE IRON GATE DAM. THEY RAN
THROUGH THE OUTLET PIPE AT IRON
GATE DAM, AND THEY GOT WHAT WE
BELIEVE IS CALLED GAS BUBBLE
DISEASE, BECAUSE DOWNSTREAM, WE
PICKED UP THE VAST MAJORITY OF
THOSE FISH IN MORTALITY
EXHIBITING GAS BUBBLE DISEASE
SYMPTOMS BASICALLY BUBBLES
AROUND THEIR SKIN AND COLOR OF
THEIR TISSUE. THE REASON WHY
THAT DISEASE HAPPENED IS THEY
RAN THROUGH THE PIPE AND THE
INFRASTRUCTURE CREATED. IT'S
BASICALLY LIKE THE BINS FOR A
DIVER. THE REALITY IS THAT DAM,
THAT RESERVOIR AND THAT PIPE
WON'T BE THERE A YEAR FROM NOW.
IT'LL BE REMOVED. WE ACKNOWLEDGE
THE MISTAKE WE MADE. NO ONE. WE
CONSULTED WITH TRIBES, FEDERAL
AGENCIES, ENGINEERS WAS EXPECTED
THAT PIPE WOULD PRODUCE THAT
PROBLEM. SO HERE'S THE BETTER
NEWS. FALL CREEK HATCHERY IS
PRODUCING SO MANY MORE FISH IN
AN OPTIMAL CONDITION THAN THE
OLDER IRON GATE. WE ACTUALLY
HAVE A SURPLUS. WE'RE GOING TO
HIT ENTIRELY THE 3.25 MILLION
PRODUCTION GOAL FOR THIS YEAR.
AND JUST THIS WEEK ON MONDAY AND
TUESDAY. WAY TO AVOID THIS
PROBLEM. WE DROVE A NEXT BATCH
OF ABOUT 500,000 FISH DOWNSTREAM
OF IRON GATE, ABOUT SEVEN MILES.
AND WE'RE SUPER PLEASED TO
REPORT WE PUT 90,000 COHO IN THE
RIVER AND 400,000 FALL RUN IN
THE RIVER, AND THEY LOOK GREAT.
AND IT WENT REALLY WELL. AND
MORE IMPORTANTLY, FOR THE TWO
WEEKS PRIOR TO THIS RELEASE, WE
DID YESTERDAY AND ON MONDAY.
EXCUSE ME, TUESDAY AND MONDAY.
MY WEEK IS MIXED UP. WE PUT
SENTINEL FISH AT DIFFERENT
LOCATIONS IN THIS STRETCH OF THE
RIVER, AND WE MONITORED THEM IN
CAGES OVER 48 HOURS AND THEY ALL
SURVIVED. ALL 200. SO WE USE 200
AS KIND OF A TEST OF RIVER
CONDITION. AND THIS RIVER'S
CONDITION IS THIS WEEK WERE
OPTIMAL 51 DEGREES WATER HIGH
DISSOLVED OXYGEN LOW TURBIDITY,
CLEAR AND CLEAN. THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO IN THE
FUTURE. A FREE FLOWING RIVER FOR
YOU AND I. FISHING FOR STEELHEAD
IN THE UPPER BASIN WHEN THEY
COME BACK. SO WE KNOW THIS
CHANGE PRODUCES CHALLENGES AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL, WHICH IS WHY ON
A WEEKLY BASIS, I'M LIAISONING
BOTH WITH THE COUNTY AND THE
REMOVAL CORPORATION THÀNH TO
KEEP WORKING THROUGH PROBLEMS.
BUT EVERYTHING WE'RE SEEING IS
WITHIN THE RANGE OF IMPACTS. ALL
THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND
PERMITS PREDICTED. SO ON THE,
SEDIMENT ISSUE, I GUESS WE'LL
CALL IT THE FLUSH, MAYBE. AND SO
THE SO AFTER THAT INITIAL FLUSH
AND WE SAW, YOU KNOW, THOSE
PICTURES WERE CRAZY, RIGHT? THE
THE DRONE PICTURES OF, YOU KNOW,
YOU GOT FRESH WATER AND, AND IT
REMINDED ME OF THE YUBA UP HERE
WHERE THE GOLD MINES WERE, YOU
KNOW, USED TO BE, WHEN I, WHEN
YOU FLY THAT TODAY, YOU STILL
SEE, YOU KNOW, ON ON HEAVY RAIN
EVENTS. SO WHAT IS IT. WHAT IS A
ON A ON A THIS AVERAGE PRECIP
YEAR YEARS OUT. ARE WE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO SEE THAT THAT SILT
MOVING UP. AND IS THERE A RISK
OF YOU KNOW, FISH ISSUES IN THE
FUTURE OR DO YOU THINK IT WILL
JUST FLUSH OUT AND WE'LL IT'LL
IT'LL GO AWAY BE FINE. YES. AND
A GENERAL MATTER, HERE'S WHAT
I'D SAY. AND ALL THE FEDERAL AND
STATE ANALYSIS THAT'S BEEN
AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC FOR QUITE
SOME TIME THAT IS NOW WITHIN ALL
THE FEDERAL AND STATE PERMITS.
ACKNOWLEDGE WE'RE LOOKING AT
LIKE A YEAR OR TWO OF IMPACT AT
THE FISHERY LEVEL BECAUSE WE'VE
GOT TO MOVE 100 YEARS OF
DEGRADATION FROM BEHIND THOSE
RESERVOIRS DOWN AND OUT THE
SYSTEM. BUT WE EXPECT IT WILL BE
TEMPORARY AND NEAR FIRM WHEN
WEIGHED AGAINST THE LONG TERME
BENEFITS OF ACCESS TO 400 MILES
OF HISTORICAL HABITAT. AND,
FRANKLY, SOME OF THE BEST COLD
WATER SPRINGS THAT EXISTED IN
THE BASIN HAVE BEEN UNDERNEATH
THOSE RESERVOIRS. AND IF WE CAN
COMBINE THAT WORK WITH ALL THE
REPLANTING THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT
NOW. SO WE PUT RIPARIAN GROWTH
BACK ON THE RIVER, THE
PARTNERSHIPS WE'RE DOING, WE'RE
SPENDING $20 MILLION, AS YOU
KNOW, IN THE SCOTT AND SHASTA
WORKING WITH FARMERS DITCH THE
KARUK AND THE YUROK, HELPING THE
BOARD IN THE COLLABORATIVE
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT FLOW SETTING,
DEALING WITH THE BUREAU AND THE
UPPER BASIN. IF WE CAN DO ALL
THESE THINGS, WE CAN GET A
BETTER FUTURE IN THE KLAMATH,
AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO MY
LAST QUESTION IS BE IS, IS TO
THE ACTUAL PRODUCERS AND WHAT IS
THE, I REACHED OUT TO THE ONES I
KNOW THAT ARE PRETTY ACTIVE AND,
AND, AND WANT TO MAKE HAVE A
SOLUTION. I SHOULD SAY, THERE
ARE SOME THAT I THINK JUST ARE
STILL ON THE FIGHT MAYBE. AND I
THINK THERE'S SOME THAT ARE
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE
LONG TERME LOOKS LIKE. SO WHAT
IS YOUR ENGAGEMENT WITH THOSE
FOLKS? AND AS FAR AS, LIKE EVEN,
YOU KNOW, THEIR RIGHTS, THEIR,
THEIR WATER RIGHTS VERSUS SET
ASIDE OR CURTAILMENT OF THE LAND
, FALLOWING, KIND OF JUST GIVE
ME A BACKGROUND ON THAT. WHAT
YOU SEE IN THE FUTURE ON THAT.
YEAH, I CAN I CAN TAKE PART OF
THAT THERE. SENATOR. THE LAST
YEARS HERE STARTING IN 2021,
WHEN THE BOARD ADOPTED EMERGENCY
CURTAILMENTS, HAVE SEEN A LOT OF
PROGRESS. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
DISCUSSION WITHIN THE BASIN ON
HOW BEST TO PROTECT INSTREAM
FLOW, HOW BEST TO CREATE AND
ENSURE THAT THERE'S SOME MINIMUM
WITHIN THE WATERSHED AND WHAT
THE BOARDS EMERGENCY
CURTAILMENTS HAVE DONE IS REALLY
BRING LANDOWNERS TO THE TABLE,
PART OF OUR SUCCESS HAVE BEEN
LOCAL COOPERATIVE SOLUTIONS THAT
WERE DEVELOPED THAT, YOU KNOW,
THE WATER RIGHTS SYSTEM, AS WE
ADMINISTER IT CAN BE A BIT OF A
BLUNT TOOL. IT'S BASED ON
PRIORITY. AND YOU'RE EITHER YOU
KNOW, AT PRIORITY OR NOT. AND
WHAT THESE LOCAL COOPERATIVE
SOLUTIONS AND THE DISCUSSIONS
WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE WITH
FOLKS IS TO CREATE A SPACE WHERE
IT REGARDLESS A BIT OF PRIORITY,
EVERYONE'S CONTRIBUTING AND THE
WAY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE
WE'RE ACTUALLY MEETING THESE
MINIMUM PROTECTIONS IS BY
GETTING EVERYONE TO REALLY
CONTRIBUTE. AND YES, THE WATER
RIGHTS SYSTEM IS THERE FOR US TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO
THINGS LIKE MAINTAIN INSTREAM
FLOW. BUT WE HAVE TO ADMIT THAT
THE PRIORITY SYSTEM IS A BIT OF
A BLUNT ONE. AND HAS INEQUITIES
BECAUSE OF THE FIRST IN TIME,
FIRST IN RIGHT NATURE OF IT. SO,
YOU KNOW, THE GOAL HERE IS TO
CLEARLY ARTICULATE WHAT ARE WE
TRYING TO KEEP IN THE SYSTEM AND
REALLY UNLOCKING THE ABILITY
FOR, FOR, FOR WATER RIGHT
HOLDERS, FOR LANDOWNERS, FOR
TRIBES, FOR EVERYONE IN THE, IN
THE WATERSHED TO COME TOGETHER
AND SAY, WELL, HOW CAN WE ALL
CONTRIBUTE COLLECTIVELY AND SO
AND, AND TO HAVE THAT FLOOR
THERE TO HAVE TO, TO BE ABLE TO
HAVE SOMETHING FOR FOLKS TO AIM
TO. SO IT'S BEEN IT'S, YOU KNOW,
IT IS NOT AN UN FRAUGHT
DISCUSSION. THERE'S A LOT OF
TENSION. CERTAINLY THERE'S A LOT
OF CONCERN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE'S
WAY OF LIFE FEELING THAT, YOU
KNOW, IT'S AT JEOPARDY BECAUSE
OF THIS WORK TO ULTIMATELY
CREATE SOME EQUITY. AND THERE
ARE A LOT OF INEQUITIES WHEN WE
THINK OF THE HISTORY WITH OUR
TRIBES, THE HISTORY OF
PROTECTING THEIR FOOD SOURCE,
WHEN IT COMES TO THE NATIVE
SPECIES, AND YOU KNOW, WHAT I'VE
BEEN HEARTENED BY IS, IS JUST
THE AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION THAT'S
STARTING TO LEAD TO SOMETHING OF
A DIFFERENT VISION, WHERE FOLKS
CAN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE NEED TO
KEEP MORE IN THE SYSTEM AND, YOU
KNOW, THE NGUYEN HOW MUCH ALL OF
THAT WE'RE FORTUNATE FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
AND ALL OF OTHERS THAT ARE
PROVIDING TECHNICAL BASIS FOR
THE BOARD TO SAY, WHAT IS THAT
BALANCE? HOW DO WE DO SOMETHING
THAT IS LONG OVERDUE? AND THE
LONGER WE WAIT, IT ONLY BECOMES
MORE DIFFICULT. I'D LIKE TO SAY
THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE I THINK
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT AND I'M
SURE YOU'VE SEEN THIS NOT JUST
IN THE SCOTT BUT THROUGHOUT THE
STATE WHERE WE WHEN WE ADD
SEGMENT TO THE ISSUE AND IN
BASINS WHERE I KNOW IN THE SCOTT
THEY ACTUALLY DO RECHARGE THERE
AND THERE'S THE ABILITY TO
RECHARGE SOME PLACES WE DON'T
HAVE THAT ABILITY, BUT THERE WE
DO. AND I THINK THE CONFLICT OR
THE SIGMA VERSUS THE, THE, THE
DIVERSION RIGHTS ARE IN CONFLICT
QUITE FRANKLY. AND WHEN WE CAN
DIVERT WATER AND ACTUALLY FILL
THOSE AQUIFERS BACK UP FOR LATER
USE, I KNOW THE LAST TIME I WAS
THERE, THERE WAS, YOU KNOW,
THERE WAS SOME CONSTERNATION
ABOUT WE HAD ALL THESE FLOWS AND
IT WAS GOING RIGHT DOWN THE
PIPE, AND WE COULD HAVE PUT IT
IN THE LATERALS WHERE THEY AND
ACTUALLY FILLED UP OUR, OUR
AQUIFERS FASTER, AND SO I'M
HOPEFUL THAT THOSE THINGS WILL
BE WORKED OUT WITH THOSE. SO
EVERYBODY CAN IT'S A WIN WIN FOR
EVERYBODY. IF YOU GET THE AQUA
FULL AND WE HAVE PLENTY OF WATER
FOR THE FOR THE FISH AT THE SAME
TIME. SO JUST IN TOUCH ON, I
WANTED TO MENTION TO THE CHAIR
THAT I HAVE, I DON'T WANT TO
CHANGE A VOTE ON ON THIS ONE.
I'M GOING TO LAY OFF THIS AND,
BEFORE I HAD A NO VOTE ON IT.
BUT I WANT TO LAY OFF ON THIS
BECAUSE I GOT A LOT OF GOOD
INFORMATION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, SENATOR, THANK YOU. AND,
VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC. AND, JUST
REVIEWING AN ARTICLE LOCALLY
ABOUT THE HOW THE SALMON SEASON
CLOSURE BLOW TO THE SAN MATEO
COUNTY INDUSTRY, AS WELL AS
NOTICING IN THAT THERE'S A IT
SAID THAT THE FEDERAL DISASTER
DECLARATION LAST YEAR RESULTED
IN 20.6 MILLION IN AID FOR
CALIFORNIA FISHERS, BUT,
FRUSTRATION WITH HOW LONG IT'S
TAKING TO GET THAT MONEY OUT.
CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT AT ALL?
YES I CAN, DIRECTOR, OPEN IT UP.
I'M GLAD I STUCK AROUND. WHILE I
WISH IT HAD BEEN FASTER, IT IS
IMPORTANT TO KNOW THIS SETS A
RECORD FOR THE FASTEST. SO
CURRENTLY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, FEDERALLY, THERE ARE
COUNTLESS PENDING DISASTER
RELIEF REQUESTS THAT HAVE NOT
BEEN COMPLETED THAT HAVE GONE ON
YEARS. SO GO BACK TO APRIL OF
LAST YEAR AND ROUGHLY AT THE
SAME TIME, THE FEDERAL FISHERY
VENUE UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE
COMMERCIAL FISHING OFF
CALIFORNIA'S SHORE. WITHIN
HOURS, GOVERNOR NEWSOM AND THE
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR HAD FILED
THE APPROPRIATE REQUESTS WITH
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE. 12
MONTHS LATER, WE ARE READY TO
APPROVE THE SPIN PLAN. THAT IS
LIGHTNING RECORD TIME FOR
SEVERAL REASONS, CONGRESSMAN
HUFFMAN CHANGED THE PROCESS FOR
THESE REVIEWS AND APPROVALS AT
COMMERCE TO SHRINK THE TIMELINE
WHERE THE FIRST REQUEST THAT HAS
GONE THROUGH THE NEW PROCESS AND
OF THAT APPROXIMATE 12 MONTHS,
I'D ARGUE NINE OR MORE MONTHS
HAS BEEN ON THE FEDERAL FRONT,
BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT ABOUT 6 TO 8
MONTHS OF CONGRESS EVEN DECIDING
IF THEY'RE GOING TO APPROPRIATE
IT. THEN YOU HAVE THOSE FUNDS
GOING TO AN ENTITY IN PORTLAND,
WHICH IS A FEDERAL COMMISSION OF
WHICH I'M ABOUT ONE MEMBER. WHAT
OUR STATE DEPARTMENT HAS DONE IN
PARALLEL IS GO DO THE
CONVERSATION WITH THE AFFECTED
SECTORS AND IN PARALLEL, DEVELOP
WHAT'S CALLED THE SPEND PLAN, SO
THAT ONCE WE FINALLY GET THE
DOLLAR, WE'RE GOOD TO GO.
TOMORROW, WE'LL KNOW. ANY FINAL
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE SPIN PLAN
. WE'RE GOING TO WORK OVER THE
WEEKEND AND BY MONDAY, WE EXPECT
TO RECOMMEND TO OUR FEDERAL
COUNTERPARTS. SPIN PLAN IS FINE.
GET US THE MONEY. SO I THINK
WE'RE HOPEFULLY WEEKS AWAY FROM
PUTTING DOLLARS INTO PEOPLE'S
POCKETS. SO NOW NOW THIS YEAR,
THE FEDERAL FISHERY COUNCIL
UNANIMOUSLY VOTED FOR A SECOND
YEAR OF CLOSURE. AND THAT WAS
LAST WEDNESDAY. BY LAST THURSDAY
MORNING, A WEEK AGO, THE
GOVERNOR AND THE LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR AGAIN HAD FILED THE
APPROPRIATE LETTER. AND WE WERE.
NOW WE WILL COLLOQUIALLY BIRD
DOG. THIS REQUEST AND SEE IF WE
CAN SHRINK IT FOR EVEN LESS THAN
12 MONTHS TO GET RELIEF TO
AFFECTED CALIFORNIANS. WELL,
THAT IS GOOD TO HEAR. I
APPRECIATE IT. AND ACTUALLY,
WE'LL SEND A NOTE TO CONGRESSMAN
HUFFMAN AS WELL TO THANK HIM FOR
HIS ROLE THERE. BUT I APPRECIATE
THE, YOU KNOW, HEARING THAT AND
UNDERSTANDING HOW DILIGENT THE
GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
AND THE DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN.
AND IN GETTING THAT MONEY OUT,
YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, WE ALWAYS
WISH IT'S FASTER, BUT THIS IS
THIS, THIS IS HELPFUL TO HEAR,
AND WE HOPE THAT WE'LL HAVE
SEASON OPEN AND ALL OUR WORK IN
THIS AREA, YOU KNOW, CONTRIBUTES
TO HAVING A SALMON SEASON OPEN
NEXT YEAR. YEAH EXCELLENT. WELL,
WE WILL WE DO HAVE A PROVEN
BUDGET RECOMMENDATION FOR, FOR
THIS ONE. I THINK WE'LL HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON IT,
SHORTLY, THANK YOU ALL. THANK
YOU, SO SORRY YOU HAD A QUESTION
ON THIS POINT. WELL, SPECIFIC TO
FINANCE, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW WE
GOT TO GO, BECAUSE WE'VE, WE'VE
GOT TO DO PUBLIC COMMENT AND DO
THE VOTES, BUT I DO I WANT TO
JUST BRING UP THERE'S THIS
LETTER THAT WAS JUST SENT, FROM
FINANCE LAST NIGHT TO THE JOINT
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET COMMITTEE
INFORMING US THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO. THERE
ARE THESE PLANS TO FREEZE, ALL
OF THESE ONE TIME GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES WITH SOME
QUALIFIERS, WHICH I UNDERSTAND
IN THE CONTEXT OF ALL THE BUDGET
CHALLENGES. BUT I WAS JUST, YOU
KNOW, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO
ANSWER THIS NOW BECAUSE FOR THE
INTEREST OF TIME, I WANTED TO,
TO JUST GET A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCOPE OF
THE DIRECTIVE. YOU KNOW, WE'VE
GOT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, JUST SAY,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION BOARD PUBLISHED
THEIR AGENDA FOR THE MAY
MEETING, AND THERE'S SOMETHING
LIKE, YOU KNOW, 126, $227
MILLION IN PROJECTS. AND YOU
KNOW, THEY'VE BEEN YEARS IN THE
MAKING. A LOT OF THE MONEY'S
BEEN LEVERAGING PUBLIC, PRIVATE
AND FEDERAL FUNDS. AND SO IF THE
FREEZE, FOR EXAMPLE, EXTENDS TO
THESE PROJECTS, WE'RE LEADING A
LOT OF NON STATE MONEY ON THE
TABLE. AND SO I GUESS I YOU
KNOW, ONCE AGAIN IF YOU IF YOU
HAVE A QUICK ANSWER NOW I'D LOVE
TO HEAR IT. OTHERWISE I'D LOVE
TO FOLLOW UP WITH YOU DIRECTLY.
BUT YOU KNOW IS THIS FREEZE THAT
BLUNT OR IS IT MORE THOUGHTFUL
AND NUANCED TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE
NOT BEING PENNY WISE AND POUND
FOOLISH AND LEAVING A LOT OF NON
STATE MONEY ON THE TABLE? YEAH,
VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC
PLEASE. YES. ANDREW HÌ WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, I CAN
GIVE A REALLY HIGH LEVEL. WE
JUST GOT THIS THIS MORNING AS
WELL, BUT BASICALLY IT'S GOING
TO BE IMPACTING ANYTHING.
SECTION TWO OF BUDGETS, ACT
BUDGET ACTS 2122 AND 23, IT HAS
TO APPLY TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
JUST FROM THE GENERAL FUND, THE
APPROPRIATION IS NOT A PART OF
PROPOSITION 98 GUARANTEES. SO
THESE ARE ALL THE THINGS THAT
WOULD BE IMPACTED, THE
APPROPRIATION IS NOT FOR A
SPECIFIED STATE CAPITAL OUTLAY
PROJECT OR AN EMERGENCY RELATED
EXPENDITURE. THERE ARE REMAINING
FUNDS THAT ARE UNALLOCATED OR
UNENCUMBERED, UNENCUMBERED FROM
THE APPROPRIATION AND THE TOTAL
VALUE OF THE UNALLOCATED OR
UNENCUMBERED FUNDS IS GREATER
THAN A MILLION DOLLARS. SO
THERE'S A THERE'S A SHORT LIST
OF CRITERIA, I THINK. ANYTHING
ELSE AS FAR AS ADDITIONAL
DETAILS WE WOULD NEED TO GET
BACK TO YOU ON? OKAY. I'M
SPECIFICALLY INTERESTED IN, IN
THE LEVERAGING OF, OF NON STATE
MONEY, WE KNOW WITH A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF FEDERAL
OR PRIVATE MONEY THAT ARE PART
OF A DEAL FOR PROJECTS THAT HAVE
BEEN LONG TIME IN THE WORKS. AS
MUCH AS WE NEED TO CLAW BACK
MONEY NOW, WE COULD POTENTIALLY
BE LOSING A LOT OF MONEY BY
DOING IT TO, BLUNTLY. SO, YOU
KNOW, LOVE LOVES TO GET WHATEVER
INFORMATION YOU CAN TO ENSURE
THAT WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE'RE
JUST NOT BEING WE'RE NOT
THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE
BATHWATER OR PENNYWISE AND POUND
FOOLISH AS MY DAD USED TO SAY.
SO. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANK YOU. SENATOR, VERY
IMPORTANT POINT. SO WE'LL LOOK
FORWARD TO FOLLOWING UP ON THAT,
OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE. THANK
YOU. OH, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO
PUBLIC COMMENT. DUE TO TIME
CONSTRAINTS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO END PUBLIC COMMENT AT 115.
THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE, I
DON'T KNOW IF 115 IS GOING TO
WORK. FOR PEOPLE. SO WE'RE GONNA
ASK PEOPLE TO LIMIT COMMENTS TO
ONE MINUTE OR QUICKER IF YOU CAN
. AND FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE
A CHANCE TO SPEAK, WE'LL SEND
YOUR COMMENTS TO THE SENATE
BUDGET COMMITTEE, BUT I'M SURE
WE DO HAVE FLIGHTS AND SUCH. I
KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE
HERE, SO GO AHEAD. THANK YOU,
SENATOR AND MEMBERS, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS RICO MASTRODONATO WITH
THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS.
SENATOR ALLEN, YOU MADE MOST OF
THE COMMENTS. I WAS GOING TO
EXPRESS OUR CONCERN OVER THE
FREEZE TO EXPENDITURES. THE MAY
BOARD MEETING, FOR EXAMPLE, WE
HAVE FOUR PROJECTS RANGING FROM
SHASTA, ALL THE WAY TO LOS
ANGELES COUNTY THAT WILL GO OUT
OF CONTRACT. YOU KNOW, LAND
TRANSACTION DEALS ARE TIME
SENSITIVE. YOU'RE INVOLVING
LANDOWNERS THAT HAVE OTHER
OPTIONS. THIS IS HOW WE LOSE
LAND PERMANENTLY TO DEVELOPMENT
IS BY FALLING OUT OF CONTRACT.
AND THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT
THAT IF THE FREEZE IMPACTS THE
MAY BOARD MEETING AT THE WCB ALL
THE TIME THEY PUT INTO IT THE
STATE HAS PUT INTO IT AND US AS
THE APPLICANT. MONTHS AND MONTHS
WILL GO DOWN THE DRAIN. AND,
WILL BE PENNY WISE AND POUND
FOOLISH. YEAH, I APPRECIATE
THAT. THANK YOU. ANYTHING
POSITIVE? I DIDN'T REALIZE WE
HAD THESE CONSTRAINTS. I JUST
APOLOGIZE. I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE
BEEN WAITING. GO AHEAD. ON
BEHALF OF THE SALTON SEA
AUTHORITY, WE ARE A JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITY CONSISTING OF THE
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT,
THE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT
, THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, THE
COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, AND THE
TORRES-MARTINEZ DESERT CAHUILLA,
A TRIBAL PEOPLE THAT HAVE
INHABITED THE SALTON SEA REGION
SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL. I WANT TO
APPRECIATE SENATOR DALI'S
COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL. INVESTMENT
IN THE SALTON SEA, NOT ONLY
WOULD YOU LIKELY EXPERIENCE
HIGHER COSTS IF THAT INVESTMENT
IS DELAYED, BUT UNFORTUNATELY
THERE ARE SOME COSTS THAT YOU
WON'T BE ABLE TO UNDO IN A
BETTER BUDGET YEAR. RIGHT NOW,
THE RATE OF ASTHMA RELATED
VISITS TO EMERGENCY ROOMS AND
HOSPITALIZATIONS FOR KIDS UNDER
17 AND THE IMPERIAL VALLEY IS
TWICE THE STATE AVERAGE, THAT IS
WHAT'S AT STAKE HERE. AND
ALLOWING THESE AREAS TO CONTINUE
TO EMIT IS ONLY GOING TO IMPACT
THAT THOSE HUMAN, THOSE HEALTH
OUTCOMES EVEN MORE. AND AGAIN,
THOSE ARE NOT THINGS YOU CAN
UNDO IN A BETTER BUDGET YEAR. SO
WE URGE YOU TO PLEASE APPROVE
THE FULL INVESTMENT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
MEMBERS PAUL MASON WITH PACIFIC
FOREST TRUST. TWO ITEMS VERY
QUICKLY. ONE, I'LL DRAW YOUR
ATTENTION TO THE LETTER THAT WE
SENT, YESTERDAY REGARDING THE PG
AND E LOAN, PACIFIC FOREST TRUST
AND A NUMBER OF OTHERS URGING
YOU TO DENY THAT I APPRECIATE
THE CONVERSATION THAT WAS HAD
EARLIER. IT WAS PRETTY
UNSATISFYING IN TERMS OF THE
ANSWERS. SO THERE'S A LOT OF
OTHER THINGS WE CAN DO WITH THAT
MONEY. THE OTHER IS JUST
REINFORCING WHAT SENATOR ALLEN
AND MY COLLEAGUE MR.
MASTRODONATO SAID ABOUT THE
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD AND
THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH A BLUNT
APPROACH TO A FREEZE. WE HAVE A
HUGE $12 MILLION PROJECT WE'VE
BEEN WORKING ON FOR YEARS. AND
SENATOR MAGUIRE'S DISTRICT THAT
LEVERAGES FEDERAL MONEY THAT
WILL DISAPPEAR IF THIS IS JUST
BLUNTLY PUT OFF UNTIL 2025, 26,
WHATEVER. SO WE REALLY NEED A
MUCH MORE NUANCED APPROACH TO
WHATEVER WE END UP DOING THERE.
THANK YOU VERY IMPORTANT. BOTH
FOREIGN. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, DAVID WEISMAN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE FOR
NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, ON THE
ISSUE OF THE SB 846 LOAN. I'D
JUST LIKE TO MAKE THE REPEAT THE
SENTENCE THAT SENATOR LAIRD MADE
ON THE EVENING OF THE PASSAGE OF
THE BILL, THE 1.4 BILLION LOAN
EXPENDITURE WILL BE MATCHED WITH
1.4 BILLION IN FEDERAL REVENUE,
WHICH LIMITS THE REQUIREMENT OF
ANY RATEPAYER OR TAXPAYER MONEY
FOR THAT PURPOSE. AS YOU'VE
EXPLORED TODAY, THE NUMBERS NO
LONGER SEEM TO MATCH UP IN THAT
FASHION, AND THEREFORE WE
IMPLORE YOU TO SAFEGUARD THE
STATE'S GENERAL FUND AGAINST ANY
FURTHER LOSSES. IN THAT
INSTANCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
KIM DELFINO SPEAKING ON ISSUE
ONE ON DIABLO CANYON. JUST WANT
TO ECHO THE SAME CONCERNS
REGARDING THE LOAN FOR PG AND E
THE 400. WE AGREE. WE DON'T
THINK THE $400 MILLION SHOULD GO
OUT THIS YEAR, ISSUE 11, ON
BEHALF OF ALIANZA AND AUDUBON,
WE SUPPORT THE SALTON SEA BCP.
AND I THINK SENATOR DALI SAID IT
PERFECTLY. I'VE WORKED ON THIS
ISSUE FOR 20 YEARS. IF WE DO NOT
KEEP THAT PROJECT PIPELINE
GOING, THAT IS AN ECOLOGICAL AND
HUMAN HEALTH TRAGEDY DOWN THERE.
AND THEN ON ISSUE 12, DEFENDERS
OF WILDLIFE SUPPORTS THIS. THE
SCOTT AND SHASTA RIVER BCP. AND
FINALLY ON THE WCB ISSUE WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
FREEZE. REALLY APPRECIATE
SENATOR ALLEN ASKING THE
QUESTION. IT'S LIKELY TO LEAVE
SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINES OF $40
MILLION ON THE TABLE IF WE DO
NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT WCB
AGENDA IN MAY, THAT DEFUNDS
PROJECTS ALL OVER THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING EQUITY
PROJECTS, PARKS, ACQUISITIONS,
AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE
MEETING OUR GOALS AND WE ARE
LEAVING MONEY ON THE TABLE. AND
I THINK PENNY WISE, POUND SHORT
IS THE RIGHT WAY TO PUT IT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALEX
LOOMER WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW FOUNDATION HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF THE KARUK TRIBE AND
REALLY STRONG SUPPORT OF THE BCP
FOR THE SCOTT SHASTA FLOWS ON
ISSUE 13, THESE FISH ARE
CULTURALLY A CORNERSTONE OF THE
CULTURAL IDENTITY FOR THE KARUK.
AND WE REALLY NEED TO SEE THESE
FLOWS STAY IN THE RIVER FOR THE
BARE MINIMUM OF PROTECTING THE
CULTURAL RESOURCES FOR THE
KARUK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
NATALIE BROWN WITH THE PLANNING
AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE IN
SUPPORT OF ISSUE 13. THE SCOTT
SHASTA INSTREAM FLOWS ALSO
ECHOING SUPPORT FOR THE CITIZENS
COMMITTEE TO COMPLETE THE
REFUGE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER
AND THE NATIVE FISH SOCIETY.
THIS BCP IS IN LINE WITH
GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S SALMON
STRATEGY, BUT WE NEED MORE FUNDS
TO MITIGATE THE CLOSURE OF THE
SALMON SEASON, WHICH WAS DUE TO
THE SALMON STOCK ON THE KLAMATH,
WHICH IS A DIRECT TRIBUTARY FROM
THE SCOTT AND SHASTA. THIS IS A
REALLY IMPORTANT BILL FOR PCP,
FOR FISH, FOR TRIBES, FOR THE
PEOPLE WHO DEPEND ON THEM. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR BECKER AND MEMBERS, THIS
IS MEGAN CLEVELAND WITH THE
NATURE CONSERVANCY. WE WANT TO
ECHO THE COMMENTS ON ISSUE 13 ON
THE SCOTT SHASTA BCP. WE REALLY
APPRECIATE THE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION ON THAT. WE ALSO
APPRECIATE THE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION ON THE COASTAL
WETLANDS FUND ABOLISHMENT. AND
THEN FINALLY, JUST TO ECHO
SENATOR ALLEN'S COMMENTS, WE'RE
REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT
FREEZE. THIS WILL IMPACT
CRITICAL CONSERVATION FUNDING
THAT THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
BOARD AND OUR STATE
CONSERVANCIES ARE CURRENTLY
CONSIDERING FOR APPROVAL. THE
SENATE HAS BEEN A CHAMPION FOR
OUR STATE CONSERVANCIES AND
FUNDING FOR 30 BY 30. AND WE
REALLY ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE TO
PROTECT THIS FUNDING AND ENSURE
THAT THE FUNDING CAN BE APPROVED
DURING THE BOARD MEETINGS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. AND IF
YOU CAN REFER TO SOMEONE ELSE'S
COMMENTS, THAT'S HELPFUL. IT
MOVES FASTER. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS
ALEJANDRO SOLIS ON BEHALF OF
COMITÉ CIVICO, A KEY
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ORGANIZATION OUT OF IMPERIAL
COUNTY SERVING THE COMMUNITIES
IN AND AROUND THE SALTON SEA
REGION AND LITHIUM VALLEY.
ALTHOUGH THE STATE FACES A
SUBSTANTIAL BUDGET DEFICIT, WE
NEED THE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH SALTON SEA RESTORATION AND
PROTECT THE NEARBY COMMUNITIES
FACING ONGOING HEALTH IMPACTS IS
GREATER THAN EVER. WHILE WE ARE
HOPEFUL THAT THE LEGISLATURE AND
THE GOVERNOR WILL AGREE ON A
CLIMATE BOND AND THAT FUTURE
LITHIUM TAX REVENUES WILL BE
USED FOR SALTON SEA RESTORATION
PROJECTS, BOTH OF THESE
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FACE
SIGNIFICANT UNCERTAINTY. WE
THANK THE GOVERNOR FOR THE
INCLUSION OF THE 65 MILLION FOR
THE SSMP TO CONTINUE PROGRESS
TOWARDS SALTON SEA RESTORATION,
BUT WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THE
LEGISLATURE TO RECONSIDER THE
$119 MILLION IN REDUCTIONS TO
SALT TO SEA RESTORATION FUNDING.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. TASHA NEWMAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION, WE'D
LIKE TO ECHO ECHO THE COMMENTS
OF THE SALTON SEA AUTHORITY AND
SUPPORT OF THE APPROPRIATION FOR
RESTORATION PROJECTS THERE. WE'D
ALSO LIKE TO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF LAND
TRUSTS AND THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF RESOURCE
CONSERVATION, DISTRICTS ECHO THE
COMMENTS MADE WITH REGARD TO
POTENTIAL FUNDING FREEZES,
ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT COULD
AFFECT THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
BOARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. ANNALISA RIVERO
HERE ON BEHALF OF CAL TROUT,
TROUT UNLIMITED, FRIENDS OF THE
RIVER WATER FOUNDATION AND
CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE
IN SUPPORT OF ISSUE 13, THE
SCOTT SHASTA BCP REACTIVE
REGULATION. ONLY IN AN EMERGENCY
IS POOR POLICY. THIS BCP WILL
PROVIDE PREDICTABILITY FOR ALL
WATER USERS IN THE SCOTT SHASTA,
AND IT IS MORE COST EFFECTIVE
THAN RELYING ON ONE OFF
EMERGENCY REGULATIONS. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON
MICHAEL. JARED, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR
BIODIVERSITY IN SUPPORT OF ISSUE
12, PROVIDING FUNDING FOR THE
COASTAL COMMISSION, AND TO THANK
THE SENATE FOR ITS CHAMPIONSHIP
OF COASTAL RESILIENCE FUNDING
AND TO ASK FOR THE PRESERVATION
AS MUCH OF THAT FUNDING AS
POSSIBLE, SPECIFICALLY FOR
NATURE BASED SOLUTIONS THAT
PROVIDE MULTIPLE BENEFITS, SUCH
AS LIVING SHORELINES. AND ALSO
TO ECHO THE COMMENTS ON THE
FUNDING FREEZE. THANK YOU. YEAH,
ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN. MY NAME
IS DAN JACOBSON WITH THE
ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA FIRST.
AND I'LL KEEP THIS REALLY FAST
ON THE DIABLO STUFF. NO DON'T
KEEP SPENDING THAT MONEY.
THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO DO IT TOO,
WE CAN REPLACE THAT WITH
OFFSHORE WIND. BUT WE NEED TO
FUND AGENCIES LIKE THE COASTAL
COMMISSION TO HAVE THE STAFF TO
DO THE PERMITS. THREE THERE WAS
$45 MILLION IN LAST YEAR'S
BUDGET TO HELP WITH THE PORTS TO
BE ABLE TO DO OFFSHORE WIND. WE
HAVE TO GET THAT OUT THE DOOR.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HAPPY
BIRTHDAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS AARON WOOLLEY. ON BEHALF
OF SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA, IN
SUPPORT OF ISSUE 11 ON THE
SALTON SEA BCP FUNDING. THE
STATE HAS AN ONGOING OBLIGATION
TO MEET THE HABITAT AND DUST
SUPPRESSION PROJECTS AT THE
SALTON SEA, AND IT'S URGENTLY
NEEDED FUNDING TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ARE CONTINUING THE PROJECT
PIPELINE AND MEETING THAT 2028
GOAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
CRYSTAL STRAIT, ON BEHALF OF
AMERICAN CLEAN POWER, CALIFORNIA
, ALIGN WITH ENVIRONMENTAL
CALIFORNIA ON OUR OFFSHORE WIND
AGENDA. REALLY WANT TO
APPRECIATE THE CHAIR FOR ASKING
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ABOUT
THE POSITIONS WE ARE CONCERNED.
OFFSHORE WIND LEASES ARE ALREADY
USING THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND
HANDING OVER THEIR SURVEY
INFORMATION, AND NEED THESE
POSITIONS FOR THE PERMITTING, AS
WELL AS THE COASTAL COMMISSION
IS ALSO RUNNING THE WORK GROUP
FOR FISHING BETWEEN FISHING AND
OFFSHORE WIND. AND SO ALL OF
THAT MEANS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE THAT THESE THE STAFF FOR
THE COASTAL COMMISSION EXISTS AS
WAS IN AS WAS STATED IN AB 1373.
THANK YOU. WE'LL STAY ON TOP OF.
THANK YOU. HI, MORGAN SNYDER
WITH THE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION,
SPEAKING ON ISSUE 12. I JUST
WANT TO REITERATE WHAT THE PANEL
NOTED THAT HIGH PRIORITY
PROJECTS THAT THE STATE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD RESTORE
INCLUDE PROJECTS THAT ARE
ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL MATCHING
FUNDS, PROJECTS THAT ARE HALFWAY
COMPLETE, AND PROJECTS THAT
CENTER ON EQUITY AND JUSTICE. I
ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE
COMMITTEE'S CALL FOR FUNDING FOR
STAFFING AT THE COASTAL,
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION.
THIS IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO
GET PERMITS, GOING AND CONTINUE
THE WORK THAT THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION IS DOING, AND
I ALSO WANT TO MENTION THE
IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING, OFFSHORE
WIND STAFFING PRIORITIES. I KNOW
IT WAS ONLY MENTIONED BRIEFLY,
BUT THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING
THAT AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU.
WITH FOUR PEOPLE AND ONE MINUTE
IF WE CAN. SUPER QUICK NEIL
REPRESENTING THE IMPERIAL COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ALSO IN
SUPPORT OF THE FUNDING FOR THE
SALTON SEA, ALIGN MY COMMENTS
WITH ALL THE OTHER EXCELLENT
SPEAKERS TO THE QUESTION THAT
YOU ASK ABOUT THE LITHIUM
EXTRACTION TAX. WE NOW DON'T
ANTICIPATE THAT THAT FUNDING
WILL START TO COME IN UNTIL
2026. AND REALLY, IT'LL BE A
FAIRLY SMALL AMOUNT THEN AND
WON'T RAMP UP FOR YEARS. SO
REALLY NEED THE FUNDING NOW.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I JUST
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE NEED FOR
FUNDING THE COASTAL COMMISSION
AND ITS ENFORCEMENT BUDGET.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. THERESA COOK ON
BEHALF OF EQUINOR, ONE OF THE
CENTRAL COAST OFFSHORE WIND
LEASE HOLDERS, WANT TO ECHO THE
COMMENTS OF AMERICAN CLEAN POWER
AND DAN JACOBSON AS IT RELATES
TO COASTAL COMMISSION. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU, REBECCA MARCUS, ON
BEHALF OF UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS, VERY QUICK REJECT
THE 400 MILLION FOR PGA DIABLO
CANYON. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. APPRECIATE ALL THE
COMMENTS AND EVERYONE BEING VERY
QUICK. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO
OUR VOTE AGENDA. AND WE'LL START
WITH ISSUES ONE, TWO FOUR AND
FIVE. WOULD LOVE A MOTION ON
THOSE SENATOR JOLLY MOVES.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL BLAKE
BECKER I BECKER I ALLEN ALLEN I
BLAKE SPEAR I BLAKE SPEAR I
DOLLY DOLLY I VOTE IS 4 TO 0.
THOSE MEASURES ARE THOSE ISSUES
ARE PASSED. NOW WE'LL GO TO
ISSUE SIX AND TEN LIKE A MOTION
ON THOSE. SENATOR ALLEN, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL BECKER I BECKER I
ALLEN ALLEN I BLAKE SPEAR BLAKE
SPEAR I DOLLY. NO. DOLLY. NO.
OKAY. THE VOTE IS 3 TO 1. THOSE
ISSUES ARE ADOPTED PASSED.
ANYWAY, LET'S GO TO ISSUES
THREE, 712 AND 13. TÍNH LIKE A
MOTION. I'LL MOVE. SENATOR BLAKE
SPEAR MOVES. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. BECKER I BECKER, I ALLEN
ALLEN I BLAKE SPEAR. BLAKE SPEAR
I DOLLY. NOT VOTING. HAVE A GOOD
WEEKEND. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
THE VOTE IS 3 TO 0. THOSE ARE
OUT. AND WE WILL HOLD OPEN
ISSUES EIGHT, NINE AND 11. AND
THANK YOU EVERYONE, IF YOU
DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE A
COMMENT, YOU CAN DO SO VIA OUR
WEBSITE. I APPRECIATE EVERYONE
OF THE RICH DISCUSSION HERE
TODAY. THIS MEETING OF THE
BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE TWO IS
ADJOURNED.