GOOD AFTERNOON. THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, UTILITIES
AND COMMUNICATIONS WILL COME TO
ORDER. WE'RE HOLDING OUR
COMMITTEE HEARING IN THE Þ
STREET BUILDING IN ROOM 1200. I
WOULD ASK THAT ALL MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE MAKE THEIR WAY
OVER HERE AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE, SO WE CAN ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME
EVERYONE TO THE FOURTH BEALL
HEARING OF THIS 2024 LEGISLATIVE
SEASON, WE HAVE, 617 BILLS ON
TODAY'S AGENDA. SB 1305, BY
SENATOR STERN HAS BEEN PULLED BY
THE AUTHOR, AND WE HAVE ONE JUST
VOTE ONLY, AND WE'RE WAITING TO
ESTABLISH A QUORUM, BUT WE DON'T
HAVE ONE. IN THE ABSENCE OF A
QUORUM, I'M GOING TO LET OUR
FIRST AUTHOR PRESENT HER BILL.
SHE FILED ITEM TWO, SB 1142, BY
SENATOR MENGIBAR. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. FIRST TIME HERE IN THIS
ENERGY COMMITTEE. EXCITED TO BE
HERE. MAYBE NOT SO EXCITED. I
WILL BE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. AND WHILE IT
COMPLETELY CHANGED MY BILLS GOES
WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH IT
BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE
CONVERSATION CONTINUES, EVEN
WITH BACK DEBT FORGIVENESS,
ABOUT 2.4 MILLION UTILITY
CUSTOMERS ARE 1 IN 4.
CALIFORNIANS ARE ENERGY
INSECURE, AND JUST THE THREE. IN
JUST THE LAST THREE YEARS,
CALIFORNIA'S INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES, STANDARD RESIDENTIAL
RATES HAVE INCREASED AT AN
EXTRAORDINARY PACE. THE
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS HAS
RESULTED IN MORE AND MORE
CUSTOMERS BEING IN JEOPARDY OF
GETTING SHUT OFF. AS YOU ARE THE
EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD, I KNOW
YOU ALL HAVE HEARD THESE HIGH
LEVEL TALKING POINTS, SO SB 1142
SEEKS TO ESTABLISH A PATHWAY
TOWARDS PROTECTING CALIFORNIA'S
RATEPAYERS WHO ARE BEHIND ON
THEIR ELECTRICITY BILLS AND IN
JEOPARDY OF A SHUT OFF BY
DIRECTING THE CPUC TO REVIEW
STATUTE AND CONSIDER LIMITING
THE AMOUNT A UTILITY CAN REQUEST
FROM A CUSTOMER TO AVOID A SHUT
OFF. AND WE'RE ASKING WE'RE
REQUIRING THE SHUT OFF TO REVIEW
THE CPUC TO REVIEW THIS BY JULY
1ST OF 2025. CURRENTLY UTILITIES
HAVE NO GUIDANCE ON HOW MUCH
THEY CAN OR SHOULD REQUEST FROM
A CUSTOMER TO AVOID A SHUT OFF
OR GET RECONNECTED AFTER A SHUT
OFF. THESE UNREGULATED PRACTICES
MEANS THAT CUSTOMERS WHO ARE
ALREADY STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS
MEET AND BEING CRUSHED UNDER THE
WEIGHT OF HIGH BILLS MAY RECEIVE
A REQUEST FOR PAYMENT TO AVOID A
SHUT OFF OR RESTORE SERVICE THAT
WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR
THEM TO MAINTAIN OR SECURE
ENERGY BY DIRECTING THE CPUC TO
DEVELOP MAXIMUM PAYMENT DEPOSIT
LIMITS FOR CUSTOMERS, WE. WE ARE
SUPPORTING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
OF FAMILIES WHO ARE STRUGGLING
UNDER THE WEIGHT OF THE HIGH
BILLS AND ENSURING THAT ALL
CALIFORNIANS RATE BASE IS NOT
BEING FORCED TO PAY FOR
UNCOLLECTIBLES THAT MIGHT
OTHERWISE BE NOT BE AN ISSUE. IF
CUSTOMERS ARE ABLE TO MAKE
REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO THAT
EFFECT. MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO
NOW BRING UP MY ONE WITNESS TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
I'D LIKE TO WELCOME CONSTANCE
SLIDER PIERRE FROM WHO IS THE
ORGANIZING DIRECTOR AT TURN. OH,
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR BRADFORD
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
MY NAME IS CONSTANCE PIERRE, AND
I REPRESENT TURN A CUSTOMERS
INABILITY TO AFFORD THEIR
UTILITY BILL MEANS FACING HARD
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHICH BILL TO
PAY REASONABLE DISCONNECTION AND
RECONNECTION PROTECTIONS CAN
INSULATE VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS
FROM BECOMING DISCONNECTED
WITHOUT IMPACTING THE BOTTOM
LINE OF OTHER CUSTOMERS BILLS.
THIS COMMITTEE PASSED LANDMARK
LEGISLATION, SB 598, THE
SHUTOFFS REDUCTION ACT, IN TWO
SEVEN, 2017, DIRECTING THE CPUC
TO IMPLEMENT DISCONNECTION
PROTECTIONS FOR UTILITY
CUSTOMERS. WE HAVE LEARNED A LOT
SINCE THEN, AND WITH UTILITY
RATES RISING INTO THE
STRATOSPHERE, ADDITIONAL
REGULATIONS ARE NECESSARY.
CURRENTLY WHEN CUSTOMERS ARE
FACING A DISCONNECTION OR HAVE
BEEN DISCONNECTED, THEY ARE AT
THE MERCY OF THE UTILITY
COMPANY'S CUSTOMER SERVICE
REPRESENTATIVE TO NEGOTIATE A
REASONABLE AMOUNT TO KEEP
SERVICE OR REINSTATE SERVICE.
THIS MEANS ONE CUSTOMER MAY BE
REQUIRED TO PAY 80% OF THE PAST
DUE BILL, WHILE ANOTHER CUSTOMER
MAY BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE 10 OR
20. THIS FLEXIBILITY BENEFITS
THE UTILITY COMPANY, BUT CREATES
UNCERTAINTY FOR CUSTOMERS AND
DEEP INSTITUTIONAL INEQUITY. YOU
CAN BASICALLY GET A REASONABLE
PAYMENT PLAN ONLY IF YOU ARE
CONNECTED WITH THE RIGHT
REPRESENTATIVE AND ARE ABLE TO
EFFECTIVELY ADVOCATE FOR
YOURSELF. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I
HAVE WITNESSED THE DISPARITY IN
TREATMENT FIRSTHAND. THIS BILL
DIRECTS THE CPUC TO CONSIDER
ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR
CUSTOMERS FACING DISCONNECTION
OR SEEKING RECONNECTION, WHICH
WOULD INCLUDE LIMITING THE
AMOUNT THAT A CUSTOMER MUST PAY
TO AVOID DISCONNECTION OR BE
RECONNECTED. BY ESTABLISHING
THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE COMMISSION
CAN ENSURE THAT ALL CUSTOMERS
ARE TREATED EQUITABLY,
REGARDLESS OF INCOME. GEOGRAPHY
LANGUAGE, OR THE UTILITY
REPRESENTATIVE. THEY HAPPEN TO
CONNECT WITH ON THAT DAY. THE
BILL IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
REFLECTS HOW URGENTLY THESE
PROTECTIONS ARE NEEDED. TURN
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR
SUPPORT OF SB 1142. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF
THIS MEASURE COME FORWARD. STATE
YOUR NAME AND ORGANIZATION AND
YOUR POSITION. ALICIA PRIEGO, ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE
AND SAN JOSE CLEAN ENERGY, WHICH
IS THE LARGEST SINGLE
JURISDICTION CA AND STRONG
SUPPORT. HI THERE, MEGAN
MEKELBURG. ON BEHALF OF THE
CENTRAL COAST SERVICE ENERGY
SERVICES, THANK YOU. STEPHANIE
BARGER, THE US GREEN BUILDING
COUNCIL STRONGLY SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. NOW IT'S TIME FOR WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION. ARE YOUR LEAD
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE, YES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ISRAEL
SALAS WITH SAN DIEGO GAS AND
ELECTRIC AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
GAS, WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS
RECOMMENDED IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, WE SHOULD BE REMOVING
OUR OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. NEXT WITNESS, MR. CHAIR,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
VALERIE CHIRLA VLAHOS, PACIFIC
GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, ONE,
IN, OPPOSITION GOING TO REVIEW
THE AMENDMENTS. DEFINITELY.
THANK YOU FOR THE COMMITTEE AND
THE AUTHOR. THE AMENDMENTS ARE
MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
WITH THE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE
CPUC TO EVALUATE THESE POLICIES,
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE
UNDERSTAND IN OUR, GRATEFUL FOR
THE WIDESPREAD DISCUSSION OF
AFFORDABILITY IN IN THE
LEGISLATURE, WE DO THINK THAT,
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE,
IT'S NOT THE DISCONNECTION, BUT
WE THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A FOCUS
ON ARREARS FOR EXAMPLE, ARREARS
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS, WHICH, WILL
BE EVALUATED AT THE CPUC AND WE
HOPE WOULD CONTINUE ON LIKE
BASICALLY DEBT FORGIVENESS. SO I
APPRECIATE THE DIALOG WITH THE
AUTHOR AND WANT TO CONTINUE THAT
DIALOG, AND, AND FOCUS ON
ARREARS MANAGEMENT FOR OUR
CUSTOMERS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT WITNESS, LARA PARR, ON
BEHALF OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON, WE ARE ALSO REVIEWING
THE AMENDMENTS AND WILL CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE ON
THE AUTHOR TO THANK YOU. OUR
POSITION. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN ROOM 1200 WISHING TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION?
SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS? SENATOR MINH Þ,
MOVE THE BILL. WELL WE YET TO
ESTABLISH A QUORUM, SO. ALL
RIGHT, SENATOR EGGMAN. THANK
YOU, SO HAVE YOU. AND TO SOME OF
THE OPPOSITION, HAVE YOU THOUGHT
, ABOUT THE RECONNECTION VERSUS
ARREARS? HAVE WE LOOKED INTO
THAT AT ALL? AND DO YOU HAVE
THOUGHTS? WELL, YEAH. I MEAN,
THE BILL GOT REALLY, REALLY
TRIMMED DOWN. SO I REALLY I DO
BELIEVE AFTER THE OPPOSITION
REVIEWS ALL OF IT, THERE
SHOULDN'T BE ANY OPPOSITION, IT
DOES TWO THINGS NOW MOVING
FORWARD JUST TO HAVE THE CPUC
REVIEW TWO DIFFERENT,
APPROACHES. AND THEN ONE OF THE
AMENDMENTS WAS TO REMOVE THE 20
MONTH, 24 MONTH PAYMENT PLANS IN
REGARDS TO ARREARS, BECAUSE
THERE IS A PILOT PROGRAM RIGHT
NOW HAPPENING AND IT ENDS IN
2026. SO THEN THERE WERE REVIEW
TO SEE WHAT WORKED, WHAT DIDN'T
WORK, BUT 100. TAKING THAT INTO
CONSIDERATION, THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, SENATOR SATO. THANK YOU,
MORE OF A COMMENT THAN THIS
ISSUE IS KIND OF A, I THINK IT'S
AN EXAMPLE OF, OF WHAT WE'RE
SEEING HAPPENING. AND YOU KNOW,
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ARREARAGES
NOW, THE $2.1 BILLION, NOW
VERSUS JUST FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN
IT WAS 435, I THINK IT'S AN
EXAMPLE OF WHEN YOU HAVE AN
ENERGY POLICY, THAT IS DRIVING
THESE PRICES. SO, YOU KNOW, WE
CAN THROW AS MANY SHOT GLASSES
OF WATER AS WE WANT AT THE
PROBLEM, BUT IT'S GOING TO GET
WORSE AND WORSE. WE HAVE TO LOOK
AT THAT BIGGER POLICY FROM THE
STATE PERSPECTIVE AND DECIDE IF
THIS PATH THAT WE'RE GOING DOWN
IS ONLY GOING TO DOUBLE AND
TRIPLE ITSELF, OR IF WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR POLICIES
AND, AND KIND OF PULL BACK. WE
ARE ALREADY ONE OF THE HIGHEST,
STATES IN, IN OUR ENERGY COSTS
ARE HIGHER HERE, AND THAT'S
PASSED ON TO OUR RESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMERS, DUE TO OUR ENERGY
POLICY, AND THAT'S, THAT'S IN
THE UNITED STATES. WE'RE ONE OF
THE HIGHEST IN THE UNITED
STATES. AND THAT'S WHY PEOPLE
ARE IN THIS SITUATION IN THE
FIRST PLACE. AND DELAYING HOW
LONG IT TAKES FOR THEM TO PAY
THAT ARREARAGE FOR THE YEAR THAT
THEY'RE IN, I HOW IS THAT GOING
TO GET BETTER OVER THE YEARS?
THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE
COMPILING ON TOP AND ON TOP AND
ON TOP, SO I THINK IT'S
INCUMBENT ON US TO NOT JUST LOOK
AT, HOW MANY SHOT GLASSES WE
NEED TO THROW WATER AT A, A
LARGE FIRE, BUT HOW WE PUT THAT
FIRE OUT AND ENSURE THAT GOING
FORWARD, WE HAVE AN ENERGY
POLICY THAT MAKES SENSE AND
DOESN'T CAUSE THIS KIND OF
ASTRONOMICAL, RISE IN IN OUR
COSTS BECAUSE THIS IS PART OF
WHAT'S MAKING CALIFORNIA
UNAFFORDABLE. AND I HOPE YOU
AGREE WITH THAT, WITH WITH THE
AMENDMENTS, I THINK YOUR BILL IS
A LITTLE BIT BETTER, BUT I STILL
SEE IT AS, TRYING TO, YOU KNOW,
TRYING TO DEAL WITH A SMALL,
TINY PROBLEM. I MEAN, A PART OF
THE PROBLEM THAT IS A BIGGER
PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE CREATED. SO
THANK YOU. AND THE AMENDMENTS
TAKE A VERY SIMILAR APPROACH TO
WHAT YOU MENTIONED. RIGHT.
THEY'RE GOING TO SEE IF IT'S
THEY'RE GOING TO CONSIDER
WHETHER TO IMPLEMENT THIS OR
NOT. AND THEY'RE GOING TO
CONSIDER HOW TO STRUCTURE THE
APPROACH WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES
THAT YOU BROUGHT UP IN MIND.
THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION BY MEMBERS HERE ON
THIS COMMITTEE HEARING? SEEING
NONE, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR WORKING WITH THIS COMMITTEE.
AND TRULY, I WANT YOU TO LEAVE
HERE WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT
YOUR GOAL AND YOUR INTENTIONS
ARE NEEDED. AND AS STATED,
CALIFORNIA HAS SOME OF THE
HIGHEST ENERGY BILLS IN THE
COUNTRY, AND WE'VE SEEN DURING
THE PANDEMIC THE NEED FOR
DEFERRING AND DEFERRING A LOT OF
PAYMENTS AND SHUTOFFS. AND
THAT'S CRITICAL BECAUSE THE LAST
THING WE WANT IS FOLKS WITHOUT
THEIR LIGHTS ON OR THEIR GAS
RUNNING IN THEIR HOMES. BUT AT
THE SAME TIME, WE KNOW THE PUC
IS DOING A STUDY ON THIS. AND I
THINK INSTEAD OF JUST JUMPING IN
FRONT OF WHAT THE PUC IS TRYING
TO DO, JUST WORK IN CONCERT. AND
AGAIN, I COMMEND YOU FOR IT
BECAUSE IT'S A LOT OF
CONSTITUENTS UP AND DOWN. THE
CALIFORNIA ARE WILL BENEFIT FROM
WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO GO HERE.
BUT I THINK THIS IS A FIRST STEP
IN ADDRESSING A MUCH LARGER
PROBLEM. AS OUR SENATOR STATED
FROM, HEMET, IS THAT WHERE ZERO
OR SAY MARIETTA? MARIETTA. OKAY.
I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT I SAID HIM.
ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? NO. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
MR. CHAIR. I APPRECIATE THE
QUESTIONS, AND I WISH I COULD
SAY, YOU KNOW, I'LL COME BACK TO
YOU NEXT YEAR AND WORK WITH YOU
ON THIS, BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU
WON'T BE HERE, BUT DEFINITELY
COME BACK WITH THE COMMITTEE
NEXT YEAR AND CONTINUE TO WORK
ON THIS. WITH THAT, RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN EYE VOTE. AND YOU
TOOK THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS,
RIGHT? I DID, YES, THANK YOU, I
APPRECIATE IT. AND AGAIN, I
APPRECIATE YOUR COOPERATION AND
WORKING WITH US HERE. AND FOR
THOSE WHO JUST DON'T KNOW, I'LL
STATE THE AMENDMENTS. IF YOU
DON'T MIND, PLEASE REMOVE THE
PILOT PROGRAMS AND OTHER
REQUIREMENTS IN THE BILL THAT
COULD LIMIT THE, CPU COOK'S
DISCRETION AND ITS ACTIVITY ON
INVESTIGATING AND PAULING
PILOTING, APPROACHES TO
DISCONNECTIONS AND RECONNECTIONS
INSTEAD REQUIRE THE PUC TO MAKE
A DECISION BY JULY 1ST, 2025, ON
THE PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING
BALANCE PAYMENTS. INSTEAD OF
DIRECTING THESE DECISIONS IN
STATUTE. SO THANK YOU AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. WHEN WE HAVE A
QUORUM, WE'LL WE'LL MAKE A
MOTION ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. JUST IN
TIME. WE CAN TAKE, SB 11 1448,
FILE ITEM THREE BY SENATOR
BLAKESTER. OKAY.
WHEN YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY
BEGIN. OKAY. THANK YOU, GOOD
AFTERNOON. AND THANK YOU. CHAIR
AND COLLEAGUES, AS WE MOVE
TOWARD ELECTRIFICATION AND CLEAN
ENERGY, A CLEAR PROBLEM EXISTS
WITH THE INSTALLATION OF
MICROGRIDS AND MULTI-UNIT
HOUSING PROJECTS. WE ALL HAVE
LIVED EXPERIENCE OF GRID FAILURE
DUE TO UNFORESEEN EVENTS OR
EXTREME WEATHER. CALIFORNIANS
HAVE SEEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OUR
GRID GOES DOWN. BETWEEN 2017 AND
2019, BLACKOUTS IMPACTED THE
EQUIVALENT OF ABOUT 51 MILLION
CUSTOMERS ACROSS THE STATE. SOME
PEOPLE EXPERIENCING BLACKOUTS
MULTIPLE TIMES. AS WE ALL KNOW,
BLACKOUTS ARE MORE THAN AN
INCONVENIENCE. THEY CAN BE
DANGEROUS AND LIFE THREATENING
TO VULNERABLE CALIFORNIANS SUCH
AS THE ELDERLY. WE DON'T WANT
UNRELIABILITY IN OUR GRID AS WE
CONTINUE TO MAKE PROGRESS WITH
ELECTRIFICATION. THAT IS WHY THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR
HAVE INVESTED BILLIONS OF
TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND ALLOWED THE
UTILITIES TO RAISE RATES ON OUR
CONSTITUENTS TO BE CLEAR, THESE
INVESTMENTS HAVE PAID OFF, AND
THE CPUC ENERGY COMMISSION AND
UTILITIES CONTINUE TO WORK
DILIGENTLY ON THAT. BUT THE FACT
OF THE MATTER IS THAT WE DON'T
HAVE A TRULY RELIABLE GRID AND
CLIMATE RELATED DISASTERS WILL
ONLY THREATEN THE GRIDS
RELIABILITY. FURTHER IN THE
FUTURE. THEREFORE, IT'S CRUCIAL
THAT WE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR
PEOPLE TO SAFEGUARD THEMSELVES
FROM BLACKOUTS WITH THEIR OWN
RESILIENT BACKUP POWER SYSTEMS,
KNOWN AS MICROGRIDS. MICRO GRIDS
ARE NOT A NEW CONCEPT. THEY'VE
BEEN AROUND FOR DECADES IN
CALIFORNIA. OUR REGULATORY
SYSTEM MAKES IT RELATIVELY EASY
FOR PEOPLE IN SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES TO INSTALL MICRO GRIDS,
BUT THERE IS NO FEASIBLE PATHWAY
TO SET UP A MICRO GRID IN
MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS. MULTI-UNIT
RESIDENCES MAKE UP 33% OF THE
STATE'S HOUSING STOCK, AND GIVEN
THE STATE'S HOUSING PRIORITIES,
MULTI-UNIT RESIDENCES ARE
UNDOUBTEDLY THE STATE'S FUTURE.
SIMPLY STATED, IT'S AN EQUITY
ISSUE THAT MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS
CANNOT ACCESS MICRO GRID POWER
LIKE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES CAN.
LOW INCOME OR MORE RESOURCE
CONSTRAINED RATEPAYERS ARE MUCH
MORE LIKELY TO LIVE IN
MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS THAN SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES. MY COLLEAGUE,
SENATOR STERN, AUTHORED A BILL
PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN
2017 THAT DIRECTED THE CPUC TO
ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. THE CPUC AND
PGE TOOK THAT DIRECTION AND
DESIGNED A PROGRAM TO ADDRESS
THE ISSUE CALLED THE COMMUNITY
MICROGRID ENABLEMENT PROGRAM, OR
CMP. BUT DEVELOPERS REPORT THAT
THERE ARE LONG DELAYS, HIGH
UNCERTAINTY, AND UNNECESSARY
INEFFICIENCIES INVOLVED IN USING
THE PROGRAM. SINCE CMP'S PILOT
PROJECT WAS COMPLETED IN 2021,
NO OTHER CMP PROJECT HAS BEEN
COMPLETED, EVEN THOUGH THERE
HAVE BEEN DOZENS OF APPLICATIONS
FOR THE PROGRAM. MY BILL THIS
BILL, SB 1148, IS DESIGNED TO
TACKLE THE UNNECESSARY
INEFFICIENCIES IN CMP. BASICALLY
BECAUSE OF A 1980 STATUTE THAT
REQUIRES UNITS TO BE
INDIVIDUALLY METERED. CMP
REQUIRES EVERY UNIT IN A
MULTI-UNIT BUILDING TO HAVE ITS
OWN SEPARATE SOLAR PANEL AND
BATTERY. THIS IS COMPLEX AND
OVERLY BURDENSOME. SB 1148 WOULD
ALLOW MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS TO BE
SERVED BY ONE CONSOLIDATED PANEL
ARRAY AND BATTERY. JUST LIKE
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE. I HAVE
VARIOUS DIAGRAMS WHICH HOPEFULLY
HAVE BEEN PASSED OUT TO YOU, AND
IF NOT, WE CAN HAND THEM UP. SB
Ã. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE
DIAGRAMS AND HAVE THEM IN FRONT
OF YOU, SB 1148 WOULD ALLOW FOR
A SIMPLER, MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD
CONFIGURATION. IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT SB 1148
WILL PROVIDE ENHANCED COST
SAVINGS TO TENANTS AND LANDLORDS
, BEYOND WHAT VIRTUAL NET ENERGY
METERING ALLOWS. WHILE MY BILL
PROVIDES CLEAR BENEFITS, THERE
ARE STILL QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE
ANSWERED BEFORE THE BILL WOULD
BE PASSED. ONE QUESTION THAT HAS
BEEN RAISED IS HOW DO WE MAKE
SURE THAT THE BILLING IS STILL
ACCURATE? MY SPONSORS AND I HAVE
PROPOSED THIS SOLUTION REQUIRE
PRIVATE SUB METERS ON EACH
INDIVIDUAL UNIT. REQUIRE
LANDLORDS TO BILL TENANTS BASED
ON THEIR ELECTRICITY USE AS
DETERMINED BY THE PRIVATE SUB
METERS, AND REQUIRED LANDLORDS
TO PROVIDE ANNUAL REPORTS
COMPARING WHAT THEY CHARGE
TENANTS BASED ON WHAT THEY
CHARGE TENANTS FOR BASED ON
THEIR ELECTRICITY USAGE VERSUS
WHAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN
CHARGED WITHOUT THE MICROGRID.
ANOTHER QUESTION RAISED IS HOW
TO SHARE ENERGY USAGE DATA FROM
THE PRIVATE SUB METERS WITH THE
UTILITIES. THE SOLUTIONS TO THIS
PROBLEM INVOLVE USING TECHNOLOGY
THAT WILL COST TAXPAYER DOLLARS
TO IMPLEMENT, SO THE STATE
LIKELY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
FINANCE THEIR IMPLEMENTATION IN
THIS BUDGET YEAR. MY SPONSORS
AND I ARE EXPLORING THESE
OPTIONS AND INVESTIGATING HOW
COST EFFECTIVE AND SUCCESSFUL
THEY ARE IN THE STATES WHERE
THEY ARE CURRENTLY IN USE.
SHOULD THIS COMMITTEE PASS MY
BILL TODAY, I COMMIT TO ADDING
THE FOLLOWING TO THE BILL,
CLARIFYING THAT TENANTS IN SB
1148 BUILDINGS CAN USE THE CPUC
FORMULA FOR AN ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES TO
ADDRESS LANDLORD ELECTRICITY
BILLING VIOLATIONS REQUIRING
PRIVATE SUBMETER USAGE DATA TO
BE PROVIDED AUTOMATICALLY TO
UTILITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CARE, AND FERA SUBSIDY
ALLOCATION AND BILLING
ACCOUNTABILITY, AND REQUIRING
LANDLORDS TO PROVIDE
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS TO THEIR
TENANTS REGARDING TENANTS RIGHTS
AND LANDLORD OBLIGATIONS FOR
ELECTRICITY BILLING. FINALLY THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS ENGAGED MY
OFFICE PRIOR TO FILING
OPPOSITION TO MY BILL LAST WEEK,
MY SPONSORS AND I ARE
CONSIDERING THEIR PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS SHOULD MY BILL PASS
TODAY, I'M COMMITTED TO WORKING
WITH THEM TO ADDRESS THEIR
OPPOSITION. I WANT TO CLOSE BY
SAYING THAT HAVING ACCESS TO
BACKUP POWER SHOULD NOT BE A
SOCIOECONOMIC PRIVILEGE. ALL
CALIFORNIANS SHOULD HAVE IT,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR INCOME LEVEL
OR WHERE THEY LIVE. IT'S NOT
ONLY FAIR, BUT IT'S ALSO SAFER.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CPUC AND
UTILITIES ARE WORKING ON THIS,
BUT THEIR PROGRESS IS TOO SLOW.
MY BILL INTENDS TO OFFER FASTER
PATHWAYS TO MAKE BACKUP POWER A
REALITY FOR RESIDENTS OF
MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS. AND WITH
THAT, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE MY
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT. THERE ARE
TWO BEN SCHWARTZ, POLICY MANAGER
AT THE CLEAN COALITION, AND
CRAIG COLLINS, ASSOCIATE AT
PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE AND
ENGINEERS. THANK YOU. YOU'LL
HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS BEN SCHWARTZ
WITH THE CLEAN COALITION. WE ARE
A TECHNICAL NONPROFIT WORKING TO
ACCELERATE THE TRANSITION TO
RENEWABLE ENERGY IN A MODERN
GRID. THE CLEAN COALITION
STRONGLY SUPPORTS SB 1148, WHICH
CREATES STANDARD AND STREAMLINED
OPTIONS FOR RENEWABLES DRIVEN
BACKUP POWER OR RESILIENCE AT
MULTI-UNIT HOUSING, GOVERNMENT
FACILITIES, SCHOOLS AND PLACES
OF WORSHIP. CURRENT RULES AND
REGULATIONS PREVENT MULTIMETER
SITES FROM UNLOCKING AND
UNPARALLELED TRIFECTA OF
ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND
RESILIENCE. BENEFITS OF MORE
THAN 23,000 PROJECTS ACTIVE IN
PG AND E AND SD JEANNIE SERVICE
TERRITORIES, NONE CAN PROVIDE
BACKUP POWER. THIS MUST CHANGE
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STATE'S
ELECTRIFICATION GOALS.
RESILIENCE TAKES ON ADDED
IMPORTANCE AS RELIABILITY,
RELIABLE AS RELIANCE ON
ELECTRICITY GROWS, GRID OUTAGES
WILL INCREASINGLY RESULT IN THE
LOSS OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC
SERVICES AND POTENTIALLY EVEN
LIVES. IF NO BACKUP POWER IS
AVAILABLE. SB 1148 ADDRESSES THE
DISPARITY IN OPTIONS FOR
RESILIENCE AVAILABLE FOR SINGLE
FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
A SINGLE FAMILY HOME CAN DEPLOY
SOLAR PLUS STORAGE OR A BEHIND
THE METER MICROGRID, A STANDARD
OPTION INSTALLED IN LESS THAN A
YEAR. IN CONTRAST, NO SUCH
OPTION EXISTS FOR MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING ACROSS ALL THREE IOUS
SERVICE TERRITORIES. LET ALONE
AN OPTION THAT CAN BE DEPLOYED
IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS. THUS, A
GRID OUTAGE ALWAYS MEANS A
COMPLETE LOSS OF POWER, UNIQUELY
IMPACTING RENTERS, LOW INCOME
RESIDENTS, RETIREES, DISABLED
CALIFORNIANS, AND RENDERING KEY
CRITICAL COMMUNITY SERVICES
INEFFECTIVE. SB 1148 CREATES A
STANDARD PATH FOR RESILIENCE
WHERE NONE CURRENTLY EXISTS.
WELL-DESIGNED, RESILIENT
SOLUTIONS ARE A WIN WIN. SB 1148
REQUIRES SAVINGS FOR RENTERS AND
INCREASES RENEWABLE DEPLOYMENTS
IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.
THE BILL INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT
CONSUMER PROTECTION MEASURES
WHILE ENSURING FAIR PROFITS FOR
LANDLORDS AND DEVELOPERS.
FINALLY SB 1148 PRESERVES THE
FUNCTIONALITY OF KEY CRITICAL
FACILITIES AND EMERGENCY SHELTER
SITES. FOR THESE REASONS, WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT SB 1148. THANK
YOU. NEXT WITNESS. HELLO, MY
NAME IS CRAIG COLLINS. I WORK
FOR PA CONSULTING ENGINEERS AS
AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER DESIGNING
SOLAR AND BATTERY BASED
MICROGRID SYSTEMS FOR PROJECT
TYPES RANGING FROM CITY HALLS TO
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. CURRENTLY
I'M ENGAGED IN THE DESIGN OF A
MICROGRID FOR A GRANT FUNDED
AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
PROJECT THAT, WHEN COMPLETE,
WILL PROVIDE A PATHWAY TO
HOMEOWNERSHIP FOR LOW INCOME
RESIDENTS IN BERKELEY,
CALIFORNIA. THIS PROJECT WILL
PROVIDE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN A HIGH COST HOUSING
MARKET. I WISH I COULD SAY THE
SAME ABOUT THE ABILITY TO DEPLOY
A MICROGRID THAT SIGNIFICANTLY
REDUCES ENERGY COSTS FOR
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTS IN A HIGH
COST ENERGY MARKET. CURRENT
DESIGN OPTIONS ARE COMPLEX,
EXPENSIVE, AND OF LIMITED
BENEFIT. CALIFORNIA NEEDS A
SIMPLIFIED PATHWAY FOR MICROGRID
INTEGRATION AND MULTIFAMILY
PROPERTIES THAT PROVIDES BOTH
FULL ON SITE RESILIENCY AND REAL
ECONOMIC SAVINGS. CURRENTLY THE
VIABLE DESIGN OPTIONS FOR
MICROGRID SYSTEMS AT MULTIFAMILY
FACILITIES ARE LIMITED TO THE
FOLLOWING OPTION ONE DESIGN A
MICROGRID SYSTEM WHICH PROVIDES
RESILIENCY FOR THE FACILITY
COMMONS AND FULL ECONOMIC
BENEFIT FOR THE BUILDING
OPERATOR, BUT NO ECONOMIC
BENEFIT TO THE TENANTS. OPTION
TWO ATTEMPT TO NAVIGATE A
NONSTANDARD UTILITY
INTERCONNECTION PROCESS FOR THE
DESIGN OF A FRONT OF METER.
SINGLE SITE COMMUNITY MICROGRID
THAT WILL PROVIDE RESILIENCY TO
ALL TENANTS BUT LIMITED ECONOMIC
BENEFIT. OPTION THREE DOES NOT
CURRENTLY EXIST. SB 1148 CREATES
A STANDARD PATHWAY FOR FULL SITE
MICROGRID RESILIENCY THAT ALSO
PROVIDES FULL ECONOMIC BENEFITS
TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTS. THESE
RESIDENTS SHARE THE FULL COSTS
OF DEVELOPING THE TITLE 24
ENERGY CODE, MANDATED PV AND
BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS.
THEY DESERVE TO SHARE IN THE
LONG TIME ENERGY SAVINGS
BENEFITS. PLEASE CONSIDER THAT
MULTIFAMILY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN
HISTORICALLY DISENFRANCHIZED
WITH RESPECT TO THE ECONOMIC
BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH SOLAR
ENERGY AND BATTERY ENERGY
STORAGE SYSTEMS PACKS THIS
PROBLEM UNIVERSALLY IN NORTH
AMERICA. THROUGH ADOPTION OF SB
1148, CALIFORNIA CAN CREATE A
MODEL FOR EQUITABLE ACCESS TO
CLEAN ENERGY AND MICROGRID
RESILIENCY IRRESPECTIVE OF
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS. FOR THESE
REASONS, THE 350 ENGINEERS AND
STAFF AT PAS STRONGLY SUPPORT SB
1148. THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? STATE YOUR
NAME AND YOUR ORGANIZATION.
PLEASE GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS KIM STONE. STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA SOLAR AND STORAGE
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. HI MEG
SNYDER, AXIOM ADVISORS, ON
BEHALF OF BOTH PEARL X AND
SUNPOWER IN SUPPORT MELISSA
ROMERO, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS IN SUPPORT. CATHERINE
CHARLES ON BEHALF OF HOUSING
ACTION COALITION IN SUPPORT MARY
ELLEN SHEA, CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL HOUSING
FINANCE AGENCIES IN SUPPORT
KATIE MCCAMMON FROM 350
SACRAMENTO IN SUPPORT AS WELL AS
SUPPORT FROM CLIMATE ACTION
CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ CLIMATE
ACTION NETWORK, GLENDALE
ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION. THANK
YOU. STEPHANIE BARGER, U.S.
GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ASHTON AARON
IGALI, ENVIRONMENT, CALIFORNIA,
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CYNTHIA.
CHARLOTTE, INDIVISIBLE GREEN
TEAM. ARE ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? NOW LET'S
MOVE TO OUR WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. WE ALL HAVE TWO
PRIMARY WITNESSES. IF THERE ARE
AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. RACHEL
COSS, ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION
OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES,
WE SUPPORT MULTIFAMILY
MICROGRIDS, BUT THIS IS NOT THE
WAY TO GET THERE, THIS IS A
TOTAL JAILBREAK. IT WOULD ALLOW
MULTIPLE PROPERTIES TO BE SERVED
BY MICROGRID THAT IS OWNED,
OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY ANY
ENTITY. THE BILL IS AN END RUN,
AN END RUN AROUND THE CORE
FUNDAMENTAL SECTION OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE, SECTION
218 THAT REQUIRES ENTITIES
DISTRIBUTING AND SELLING POWER
TO CONSUMERS TO BE REGULATED BY
THE STATE FOR PUBLIC AND WORKER
SAFETY, ENERGY RELIABILITY,
ENERGY AFFORDABILITY, EQUITY,
AND STATE CLIMATE GOALS. ALL OF
THESE PROTECTIONS WOULD GO OUT
THE WINDOW WITH THIS BILL.
ENTIRE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS,
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS,
APARTMENT BUILDINGS COULD GET
THEIR POWER FROM TOTALLY
UNREGULATED ENTITIES AND
UTILITIES. UTILITY EMPLOYEES
LIVES WOULD BE AT RISK WHEN A
MICROGRID ISLANDS FROM THE GRID
AND IS THEN RECONNECTED. THERE
IS BACKFEEDING RISK, OR THE
DISTRIBUTION LINE IS PREMATURELY
ENERGIZED AFTER AN OUTAGE. CREWS
DO RESTORATION WORK TO ENSURE
THAT IT IS SAFE TO RE-ENERGIZE
THE UTILITIES GRID. UNREGULATED
THIRD PARTY MICROGRID OPERATORS
CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO DECIDE TO
ENERGIZE CUSTOMERS WHOSE
GENERATORS, GENERATION OR
STORAGE IS ACTIVELY DISCHARGING
TO THE UTILITY'S GRID, WHILE
UTILITY EMPLOYEES MAY BE WORKING
ON THAT GRID, IT MUST BE THE
UTILITY WHO IS IN COMMUNICATION
WITH THOSE EMPLOYEES TO MAKE
THAT DECISION. IT IS TOTALLY
UNACCEPTABLE FOR ANYONE ELSE TO
CONTROL THIS. THE BILL WOULD
ALSO INCREASE ELECTRIC RATES BY
ALLOWING CUSTOMERS TO NET THEIR
ENERGY AND CONSUMPTION AND
GENERATION, AVOIDING THE ACTUAL
COSTS TO SERVE THEM. THEY WON'T
PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE FOR THINGS
LIKE GRID HARDENING, WILDFIRE
PREVENTION, THE CARE SUBSIDY,
ENERGY EFFICIENCY. FINALLY, THE
PUC IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON A
MULTI CUSTOMER MICROGRID TARIFF
THAT WOULD SERVE MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCES. WE SHOULD LET THAT
PLAY OUT. IT IS A TRANSPARENT
PROCESS WITH MANY, MANY PARTIES
AND LOTS OF INFORMATION BEING
CONSIDERED. THIS BILL IS
DANGEROUS. IT WOULD RAISE
ELECTRIC RATES FOR YOUR
CONSTITUENTS. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, BEFORE WE CONTINUE,
SECRETARY, LET'S ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. BRADFORD HERE. BRADFORD
HERE. DALLI. DALLI HERE. ASHBY
BECKER. BECKER HERE. CABALLERO
DODD. DODD. HERE. DURAZZO.
DURAZZO HERE. EGGMAN. EGGMAN.
HERE. GONZALEZ. GROVE GROVE.
HERE. LEMON. MIN. MIN HERE.
NEWMAN. RUBIO. CIERTO. CIERTO
HERE. SKINNER. SKINNER. HERE.
WAHAB. WILK. A QUORUM HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED. NOW WE'LL CONTINUE
WITH OUR SECOND WITNESS AND
OPPOSITION. LEAD WITNESS. GOOD
AFTERNOON, BRANDON EBCLC. ON
BEHALF OF PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC, I DON'T WANT TO ECHO A
LOT OF THE. I WANT TO ECHO A LOT
OF THE COMMENTS THAT C¯ JUST
MADE, WITH REGARDS TO SAFETY.
AND ULTIMATELY, WE DO SHARE THE
SAME GOALS OF RESILIENCY. A LOT
OF THE PROGRAMS THAT EXIST WERE
PREVIOUSLY FOCUSED ON
COMPENSATION BENEFITS. AS WE'RE
MOVING INTO THE FUTURE, WE ARE
FOCUSING A LOT OF THOSE PROGRAMS
ONTO RESILIENCY DURING GRID
OUTAGES. AS THE AUTHOR
MENTIONED, THERE ARE TWO PRIMARY
PATHWAYS TO DO THIS TODAY. THERE
IS THE CMAP PROGRAM, WHICH WE
LAUNCHED OUR TARIFF IN LATE
2021. THERE WAS ONE APPLICATION
IN SENATOR MCGUIRE'S DISTRICT
AND THAT CAME ONLINE LAST YEAR.
THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS
THAT HAVE APPLIED THERE IN THE
C¯. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD
THROUGH THAT. THOSE PROGRAMS
OPERATE WITHIN A DEFINED
TERRITORY, AND THEY USE OUR
DISTRIBUTION GRID TO DIVIDE THE
RESOURCES DURING A GRID OUTAGE.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS THE
VIRTUAL NET ENERGY METERING
PROGRAM, WHICH AGAIN IS DESIGNED
FOR COMPENSATION BENEFITS MOSTLY
BECAUSE IT'S VIRTUAL. THEY'RE
NOT BEHIND THE METER, BUT THERE
IS A WAY THROUGH THE VIRTUAL NET
ENERGY METERING PROGRAM TO HAVE
RESILIENCY DURING OUTAGES. IT'S
ALL ABOUT THE MECHANICS OF HOW
THE SYSTEM IS BUILT. SO WE THINK
THAT THOSE TWO PROGRAMS THAT WE
ARE MAKING MODIFICATIONS FOR
SHOULD BE THE PATHWAY THAT WE
PROVIDE RESILIENCY WHILE
MAINTAINING ALL THE PROTECTIONS
TO CUSTOMERS THAT THE UTILITIES
ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR, RATHER THAN
CREATING A LANDLORD THAT IS AN
UNREGULATED UTILITY NOT SUBJECT
TO THE PUC. SO FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE OPPOSE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THERE'S NO WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION. STATE YOUR NAME
AND ORGANIZATION, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS. SCOTT, WHICH ON BEHALF
OF THE STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS AND
OPPOSITION FOR THE PREVIOUS
STATED REASONS. MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS. HUNTER STERN WITH IBEW
1245, ALSO IN OPPOSITION. AND I
WANT TO UNDERSCORE THE RISK AND
THE HARM THAT COULD COME IF THE
GEO 95 AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION
STANDARDS ARE NOT FOLLOWED. MR.
CHAIR MEMBERS ISRAEL SALAS WITH
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
KATHERINE BORG, SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE HERE IN
ROOM 1200. WE'LL MOVE IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. ANY COMMENTS?
QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? SENATOR
CARTER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I
THINK MY STAFF HAD CONTACTED
YOUR STAFF ABOUT SOME OF MY
CONCERNS, AND IT CONCERNS THE
WHOLE SUBMETERING PROCESS. ONCE
THE ELECTRICITY IS PAST THE MAIN
MASTER METER, GOING TO A
SUBMETERING, TYPE OF PROGRAM,
WHO MONITORS WHO BILLS AND WHO
CONTROLS THE SUB METER FROM THE,
FROM THE MASTER METER THROUGH
ONCE IT GETS ONTO THE PROPERTY.
YES. THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT.
AND I'M GOING TO ASK MY SPONSORS
TO COME FORWARD TO ANSWER THE
TECHNICAL SIDE OF THAT. BUT I
REALLY JUST ALSO WANT TO SAY
THAT I THINK SOME OF THE
OPPOSITION LANGUAGE, I BELIEVE,
IS FEAR MONGERING. THIS IS NOT
DESIGNED TO BE UNSAFE,
UNREGULATED. THIS THIS REALLY
WILL BE SAFE AND REGULATED. AND
THE IDEA IS TO PROVIDE MORE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WHO
LIVE IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
UNITS AND LANDLORDS WHO BUILD
THEM TO BE INCENTIVIZED TO PUT
IN THE SOLAR PANELS AND THEN THE
BATTERY BACKUP. I'LL LET MY
SPONSOR ANSWER THE QUESTION.
YES. SO THE MASTER METER WOULD
MEASURE THE INITIAL GRID USAGE
AND THE WAY WE HAVE IT WRITTEN
IN THE BILL CURRENTLY IS EVERY
TENANT WOULD HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL
SUBMETER THEY WOULD BE BILLED
MONTHLY. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF
WAYS IT COULD BE DONE. THE
LANDLORD COULD BE A BILLER, THE
MICROGRID DEVELOPER COULD DO THE
BILLING. BUT MOST COMMON, WHAT
WE SEE IN OTHER STATES AND
AROUND THE WORLD IS THEY HAVE
THIRD PARTY BILLING COMPANIES
THAT SPECIALIZE THIS IN THIS,
INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, MONTHLY
AUDITS OF EVERY BILL, VERIFYING
THAT THERE ARE LINE ITEMS IN THE
BILL SO THAT ANY LOW INCOME
SUBSIDIES ARE CLEARLY LISTED, AS
ARE ANY ANY TOTAL USAGE FOR THE
MONTH IS LISTED. AND DOING THAT
ALSO CREATES, YOU KNOW, VERY
CLEAR PAPER TRAIL SO THAT IF
THERE ARE ANY ISSUES, NOT ONLY
IS IT CLEAR TO THE LANDLORD AND
THE BILLING COMPANY, BUT IT'S
ALSO CLEAR TO THE RESIDENTS
THEMSELVES WHO WILL HAVE ACCESS
TO WHAT THEY USED AND WHAT THEY
WOULD HAVE PAID VIA THE UTILITY,
SO THAT ON A MONTHLY BASIS, IT
WILL BE VERY CLEAR THE LEVEL OF
SAVINGS THAT EACH CUSTOMER SEES
AND PLUS THAT THAT SUBMETERING
COMPANY WILL THEN CHARGE A
SERVICE FEE ON EACH ONE OF THOSE
METERS FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
SERVICING THEIR BILLING. CORRECT
SO THAT IS ONE WAY THAT IT'S
DONE, THAT'S ALSO THE WAY THAT
IT'S CURRENTLY DONE USING THE
EXISTING SOLAR PROGRAM WITH
VIRTUAL NET METERING. THERE IS A
STARTING FEE TO ADD INDIVIDUAL
METERS OR SUBTRACT THEM. BUT ON
THE WHOLE, THE KEY IS THAT THERE
WILL BE SAVINGS COMPARED TO WHAT
THEY OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE PAID.
SO THE SAVINGS FROM THE SOLAR
ENERGY AND THE RESILIENCE WILL
FLOW THROUGH TO THE INDIVIDUAL
TENANTS EACH MONTH. SO MY
COMMENT ON THAT AND THE REASON I
BRING IT UP IS BECAUSE THE
WATERING A LOT OF THE WATER
COMPANIES HAVE DONE THAT SAME
THING, AND THEY LOSE CONTROL OF
IT AS SOON AS IT HITS THE
COMPLEX. AND THEN ONCE IT GOES
IN THE COMPLEX, IT'S THE
METERING COMPANY AND THE
ASSOCIATION THAT HANDLES ALL OF
THE, BILLING PARTS OF IT AND THE
BILLING PARTS OF IT BECOME SO
CONVOLUTED THAT NOBODY HAS ANY
IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THEIR
WATER BILLS OR THEIR, IN THIS
CASE, ELECTRICITY BILLS, WHICH
IS EVEN WORSE BECAUSE NOW YOU
HAVE A COMPONENT OF PEOPLE
WORKING ON ELECTRICITY LIKE
THAT. THE OPPOSITION WAS TALKING
ABOUT AND GETTING THIS FEEDBACK
BACK INTO THE SYSTEM WHEN THEY
HAVE A POWER OUTAGE. SO, HARD
FOR ME TO SUPPORT THE BILL WITH
THE SUBMETERING PART OF IT,
UNTIL THEY CAN GET THEIR ACT
TOGETHER. I AM NOT A BIG FAN OF
EXPANDING THEIR PROGRAM FOR
THEM. THANKS THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS FROM
MEMBERS? SENATOR DALLY, I JUST
WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. I HAPPEN
TO BE AROUND WHEN THEY DID THE
DEREGULATION A LONG TIME AGO,
STEVE PIECE AND JIM BRULTE DID
THE BILL DIRECT. THIS IS SIMILAR
ALONG THOSE LINES. THIS IS
BASICALLY STARTING A UTILITY, A
SMALL MICRO UTILITY WITHIN OR
WITHOUT THE PUC BLESSING. SO FOR
THOSE REASONS, RIGHT THERE, I'M
NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT
THE BILL THE WAY IT IS TODAY.
OKAY. SENATOR BECKER. THANKS. I
JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR TACKLING THIS. IT'S AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE AND A WONKY
SUBJECT, AND I APPRECIATE YOU
GETTING INTO THE DETAILS OF IT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE, AS YOU SAID,
THERE'S A BUNCH OF WORK GOING
FORWARD THAT YOU'RE ALREADY
COMMITTED TO. AND I KNOW MY TEAM
HAD REACHED OUT AND HAS HAD A
LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M I AM I WILL
SUPPORT IT TODAY. I DO, YOU
KNOW, HAVE SOME, SOME
RESERVATIONS ABOUT HOW IT CAN
KIND OF PRACTICALLY WORK AND
ESPECIALLY THE, YOU KNOW, MAKE
SURE THE BILLING IS HANDLED IN A
FAIR WAY THAT PROTECTS TENANTS
AND PRESERVES THE ABILITY TO
PROVIDE DISCOUNTS THROUGH CARE
AND FAIR AND SOME OF THE THINGS
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. SO, LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING
DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, GOING
FORWARD WITH YOU ON IT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, SENATOR
DORADO? THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR. I ALSO
THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
SUBJECT TO BRING UP,
UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT KEEPS
HAPPENING ON THE SIDE OF GOOD
AND ENDS UP BEING SOMETHING THAT
SERIOUSLY COULD IMPACT POOR AND
LOW INCOME PEOPLE AND THAT'S
WHAT, YOU KNOW, I'M REALLY,
REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT HERE IS
HOW IT WOULD IMPACT PEOPLE WHO
JUST CAN'T AFFORD IT. AND WE, AS
WE DO BETTER SOME BETTER THINGS
ON THE ENVIRONMENT FRONT AND
CLEAN ENERGY FRONT, THEN WE'RE
AGAIN TAKING THE RISK OF HOW
THIS COULD FALL ON THE BACKS OF
LOW INCOME PEOPLE. AND THAT'S MY
BIGGEST CONCERN. MAY I ADDRESS
HER POINT HERE? OKAY THANK YOU,
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF
TENANT PROTECTIONS IN THE BILL,
AND WE'VE ADDED THEM IN BECAUSE
IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE
SAVINGS BE PASSED ALONG, THAT IT
NOT JUST BE THE LANDLORDS THAT
ARE BENEFITING FROM HAVING A
MICROGRID, AND SO THE SOLUTIONS
THAT WE'VE PROPOSED AND WHICH I
SAID, BUT I'LL JUST REPEAT THEM
REQUIRING PRIVATE SUB METERS ON
EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT, REQUIRING
LANDLORDS TO BILL TENANTS BASED
ON THEIR ELECTRICITY USE AS
DETERMINED BY THE PRIVATE SUB
METER, AND REQUIRING LANDLORDS
TO PROVIDE ANNUAL REPORTS
COMPARING WHAT THEY CHARGE
TENANTS FOR BASED ON THEIR
ELECTRICITY USE VERSUS WHAT THEY
WOULD HAVE CHARGED WITHOUT THE
MICROGRID. SO THE IDEA IS THAT
THIS IS SUPPOSED TO SAVE TENANTS
MONEY, AND IT'S ALSO SUPPOSED
IT'S WE HAVE A PROCESS WHERE
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES CAN HAVE
MICROGRIDS. SO IN THE EVENT OF
AN OUTAGE, THEY ARE ABLE TO RELY
ON THEIR BATTERY AND THEIR SOLAR
PANEL. AND THERE'S A PROCESS TO
DO THAT. AND I'D LIKE TO DIRECT
YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS PACKET
THAT YOU RECEIVED TO PAGE SIX,
WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF
PILOT PROJECTS THAT HAVE MADE IT
ALL THE WAY THROUGH. AND IT'S
JUST THE ONE PILOT PROJECT. SO
THERE WERE 11 OTHER APPLICANTS
WHO WERE PROPOSING PROJECTS, BUT
THEY'RE NOT EVEN ALMOST ALL OF
THEM HAVE HAVE FALLEN OFF BY
STEP FOUR. SO WE DON'T HAVE A
PROCESS FOR MULTIFAMILY HOMES TO
BE RESILIENT AND WHAT THAT MEANS
IS THAT APART, PEOPLE WHO LIVE
IN APARTMENTS ARE NOT ABLE TO
ACCESS ENERGY RESILIENT ENERGY.
IF THE GRID GOES DOWN. AND
THEY'RE ALSO MORE RELIANT ON THE
DIRTY ENERGY, LIKE HAVING,
HAVING GENERATORS. AND SO WE'RE
TRYING TO CREATE A GRID WHERE,
WHERE AN APARTMENT BUILDING, THE
WHOLE BUILDING COULD HAVE THE
SOLAR PANELS AND THEN THE
BATTERY, AND THAT IN THE EVENT
OF THE GRID GOING DOWN, THEY
WOULD BE ABLE TO STILL RUN THEIR
REFRIGERATOR AND THEY'D BE ABLE
TO KEEP THEIR OXYGEN MACHINE
GOING. AND SO, SO RIGHT NOW THE
PROCESS THAT WE HAVE IS JUST
FLAT, NOT WORKING. SO THIS IS
DESIGNED TO HAVE ALL THE TENANT
PROTECTIONS AND TO PROVIDE THE
RESILIENCY THAT WE DON'T
CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE SYSTEM,
SO, SO TO THE TENANT PROTECTION
PART IS A MAJOR PART OF THIS
BILL. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE
HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING
WITH DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBERS
ABOUT IN VARIOUS OFFICES THAT
CARE A LOT ABOUT THIS, AND
THAT'S WHY THERE ARE ALL THESE
TENANT PROTECTIONS INCLUDED. ANY
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, CONCERNS,
I'VE SAT DOWN WITH THE AUTHOR
AND I'VE EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS
WITH THIS. I REALLY THINK I GET
YOUR INTENTIONS, BUT TO SIT HERE
AND SAY IT'S FLAT, NOT WORKING.
IT'S A PROCESS THAT HAS NEVER
BEEN DONE. SO TO SAY THAT IT'S
NOT WORKING, IT'S NEVER BEEN
TRIED, AND IT'S A REGRESSIVE
MOVE VERSUS A PROGRESSIVE MOVE.
AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN MOVING AWAY
FROM, MASTER METERS FOR ALMOST
40 YEARS BECAUSE IT TAKES AWAY
THE TENANTS ABILITY TO INTERACT
DIRECTLY WITH THE UTILITY, AND
YOU BECOME, BEHOLDEN TO THE
LANDLORD OR THE BUILDING OWNER
WHO CHOOSES TO TAKE. IT'S THEIR
TIME. AND WHETHER PAYING THE
BILL OR HAVING YOUR POWER
RESTORED OR NOT. AND THIS IS
GOING TO HURT TENANTS MORE. SO.
SO, I'M JUST CURIOUS, ARE YOU
TAKING THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO MOVE
THIS BILL FORWARD OR NOT? WELL,
GIVEN THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE A
SUPPORT POSITION, YOU DIDN'T
OFFER AMENDMENTS. WE DID OFFER
AMENDMENTS ON WHEN WE MET ON
THURSDAY SO THAT IT BECOME A
STUDY. YES. NO. OKAY. SO AGAIN,
FOR THE 40 YEARS, CALIFORNIA HAS
REQUIRED INDIVIDUAL METERS FOR
ELECTRICITY AND GAS, UTILITY
SERVICE FOR NEW APARTMENTS,
CONDOMINIUMS AND OTHER
MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES. SO AGAIN, THIS WOULD
BE MOVING BACKWARDS AND A MASTER
MEETING HAS BEEN RIDDLED WITH
PROBLEMS. AGAIN, AS AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO WORKED FOR A
UTILITY, I REMEMBER US HAVING TO
RESPOND TO FOLKS IN APARTMENTS
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IN OUR
TRAILER PARKS ABOUT NOT HAVING
POWER AND HAVING TO GO TO THE
LANDLORD AND SAYING, WHAT ARE
YOU DOING HERE? AND WE HAD NO
POWER TO HELP THAT INDIVIDUAL,
BE IT A FAMILY OF SMALL CHILDREN
OR A SENIOR WHO NEEDED THEIR
POWER, PUT BACK ON. SO I THINK
THIS IS A MOVE BEFORE IT'S TIME
AGAIN, THE PUC IS DOING A STUDY
ON THIS CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW. SO
I WOULD THINK WE WOULD BE BETTER
SERVED FOR, THE TENANTS, THE
BUILDING OWNERS AND FOR
CALIFORNIA AS A WHOLE TO WAIT
UNTIL THAT STUDY HAS BEEN
COMPLETED BY THE PUC OR THAT
WORK HAS BEEN DONE BY THE PUC TO
MOVE US FORWARD IN THIS AREA. SO
ANYWAY, WE HAD A DO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO THE COMMITTEE ON
LABOR, BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT SHE
IS NOT TAKING THOSE AMENDMENTS.
SO I HERE FOR AMENDMENT IF
THERE'S A MOTION FOR THIS BILL.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR
BECKER. MAY I CLOSE? OH, I'M
SORRY, I'M SORRY. YES, YOU MAY
CLOSE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, SO I APPRECIATE THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE.
I THINK THE IDEA THAT MASTER
METERING IS JUST INHERENTLY A
BAD WAY TO GO IS REALLY AN
UNFAIR COMPARISON. YOU KNOW, THE
MOBILE HOME PARKS OF THE 1980S
ARE FROM 40 PLUS YEARS AGO, ARE
A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
ENVIRONMENT WHEN IT COMES TO OUR
ENERGY AND OUR REGULATION OF
ENERGY AND OUR GOALS AND OUR
CONCERNS. AND SO AT THAT TIME,
THERE WERE TENANTS WHO WERE
TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY LANDLORDS.
BUT THIS BILL INCORPORATES ALL
OF THE TENANT PROTECTIONS THAT
WE CAN CONCEIVE OF, AND WE ARE
OPEN TO MORE TENANT PROTECTIONS.
THAT'S A CORE PRINCIPLE OF THIS
BILL. BUT THE REALITY IS THAT AN
APARTMENT COMPLEX IS GOING TO
NEED SOME TYPE OF MASTER
METERING IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE
ABLE TO FUNCTION. YOU CAN'T
ENVISION THAT EVERY SINGLE
INDIVIDUAL APARTMENT HAS ITS OWN
SOLAR PANEL AND ITS OWN BATTERY,
SO THERE HAS TO BE SOME WAY FOR
THAT TO WORK. AND THE FACT THAT
OUR COLLEAGUE, SENATOR STERN,
PASSED A BILL IN 2017 INDICATES
THAT SEVEN YEARS AGO, THIS WAS
ALSO OF CONCERN. AND WHAT BUT
WHAT WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW IS A
PROLIFERATION OF GENERATORS OF
PEOPLE WHO WHICH IS DIRTY ENERGY
AS BACKUP ENERGY. AND WE ALSO
SEE THAT THERE ARE MANY
BUILDINGS AND PEOPLE WHO DO NOT
HAVE RESILIENT POWER. WHEN THE
GRID GOES DOWN. SO THIS BILL IS
AIMED AT ADDRESSING THAT
PROBLEM. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION BY SENATOR BECKER.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
DO PASS AND RE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR, PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT.
BRADFORD NØ BRADFORD NØ DELI.
DELI NÓ ASHBY. BECKER. BECKER I.
CABALLERO. DODD. DODD NØ.
DURAZZO DURAZZO. NOT VOTING.
EGGMAN GONZALEZ. GROVE GROVE.
NÓ. LIMON. MINH NEWMAN. NEWMAN.
NOT VOTING. RUBIO. CIERTO.
CIERTO NÓ. SKINNER. WAHAB. WILK.
1 TO 5. IT'S CURRENTLY 1 TO 5.
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS
SENATOR JONES. I BELIEVE HE'S
PRESENTING SB 1326.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. I AM INDEED PRESENTING
SB 1326 THE COST OF LIVING
REDUCTION ACT, WHICH WOULD
REPEAL AN UNFAIR LAW MANDATING
THAT THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
UTILITY COMMISSION TO IMPOSE AN
UNCAPPED MONTHLY FIXED CHARGE ON
ELECTRICITY BILLS IN 2022.
ASSEMBLY BILL 205 AUTHORIZED THE
CPUC TO PERMIT LARGER INCOME,
GRADUATED FIXED CHARGES ON
RESIDENTIAL RATEPAYERS. AND I
WILL ALSO POINT OUT THAT AT THAT
TIME, ASSEMBLY BILL 205 WAS A
BUDGET BILL THAT WAS PASSED AT
THE END OF SESSION WITH VERY
LITTLE DEBATE OR DISCUSSION. THE
FIXED CHARGES WERE NO LONGER SET
BY STATUTE AS THEY HAD BEEN
BEFORE, BUT RATHER BY THE WHIMS
OF THE CPUC. THE CPUC HAS
PROPOSED A $24 AND 15 CENT FIXED
CHARGE ON ENERGY CUSTOMERS. THIS
PROPOSAL MAY BE VOTED ON AS SOON
AS MAY 9TH, 2024, AND MUST BE
APPROVED NO LATER THAN JULY 1ST,
2024. WHILE THE CPUC. S DECISION
TO IMPLEMENT A FIXED CHARGE OF
$24.15 IS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER
THE UTILITIES AND OTHERS
PROPOSALS EARLIER IN THE YEAR,
WHICH WOULD HAVE ADDED A FIXED
CHARGE OF UP TO $128 AND BASED
THE CHARGE ON A RATEPAYERS
INCOME. IT STILL REMAINS
EXCESSIVELY HIGH. FAMILIES WILL
BE ON THE HOOK FOR ALMOST $300 A
YEAR IN ADDITIONAL FEES,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR ELECTRICITY
USAGE. AND THIS IS JUST WHERE IT
STARTS. UNDER THE FLAWED AB 205,
THE CPUC CAN AUTHORIZE NEW FIXED
CHARGES ANY TIME IT WANTS JUST
BY DRAFTING AND VOTING ON A NEW
PLAN. THIS MOVE NOT ONLY
CONTRADICTS THE PRINCIPLES OF
FAIR PRICING AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION, BUT ALSO DISCOURAGES
ENERGY CONSERVATION AND
SUSTAINABLE LIVING, ALLOWING THE
UTILITIES TO ISSUE MASSIVE
CHARGES REGARDLESS OF ENERGY
CONSUMPTION JUST TAKES AWAY A
MAJOR INCENTIVE FOR CONSUMERS TO
CONSERVE THEIR ENERGY USAGE. IF
CONSUMERS ARE PAYING HUNDREDS OF
DOLLARS FOR SOMETHING, WHETHER
THEY WANT TO, WHETHER THEY NEED
IT OR NOT, YOU BETTER BELIEVE
THEY'RE GOING TO USE IT MORE
FREELY. THIS BILL REVERTS
CHARGES BACK TO BEFORE AB 205
PASSED, THUS CAPPING THE FIXED
CHARGES AT $10. THIS CAP WILL
PREVENT THE CPUC FROM BEING ABLE
TO INCREASE THE FIXED CHARGE
WHENEVER IT SEES FIT. WITHOUT
PROPER GUIDANCE FROM THE
LEGISLATURE, WE MUST STOP
DEFERRING LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
TO A REGULATOR AND TAKE BACK
RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAKING
CRITICAL DECISIONS SUCH AS THIS.
22 OF OUR DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES IN
THE ASSEMBLY SIGNED ON TO A
LETTER EXPRESSING, QUOTE,
SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE
DIRECTION OF THE CPUC
IMPLEMENTATION OF AB 205 AND ITS
POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON
OUR CONSTITUENTS. END QUOTE.
ADDITIONALLY THOUSANDS OF
CALIFORNIANS HAVE SIGNED A
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THIS
MEASURE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AYE VOTE TO ENSURE FIXED CHARGES
ARE KEPT AT A REASONABLE LEVEL
AND CONSUMERS ARE PROTECTED FROM
UNFAIR CHANGES TO THEIR
ELECTRICITY BILLS. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. PRIMARY
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT, JUST.
YES, SIR. OKAY KIM STONE OAN OF
STONE ADVOCATE, YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA SOLAR AND STORAGE
ASSOCIATION AND ENTHUSIASTIC
SUPPORT. THE FIXED WITHOUT A
LIMIT ON THE FIXED CHARGE.
PEOPLE WHO USE LESS ENERGY ARE
GOING TO PAY MORE THE OVER. WE
FEAR THAT THE OVERALL BILLS WILL
NOT GO DOWN. WHEN I GO TO HOTELS
AND THERE'S A RESORT CHARGE OF
$50 ON $150 HOTEL ROOM, THEY
DON'T REDUCE THE RATE OF THE
HOTEL ROOM TO $100 AND ONLY
CHARGE ME $150. THEY CHARGE 200,
PLUS ANOTHER 24 FOR PARKING, AND
WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS EXACTLY
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO OUR
ELECTRICITY BILLS, PEOPLE WHO
USE LESS ENERGY, EITHER THROUGH
CONSERVATION OR SOLAR OR TURNING
THE LIGHTS OFF OR MAKING THEIR
KIDS WEAR SWEATSHIRTS, SHOULD BE
REWARDED BY PAYING LESS FOR THAT
ENERGY RATHER THAN HAVING TO PAY
A HIGH FIXED AMOUNT, NO MATTER
WHAT. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
NO VOTE. THANK YOU. VOTE ARE
YOU. I VOTE OR NO VOTE. I'M
SORRY. WRONG SUPPORT TO SUPPORT
THE BILL. IT'S BEEN A DAY I
APOLOGIZE. SO WHEN I SAID JUST
WHAT I MEANT WAS JUST BRIEF
COMMENTS AND SUPPORT. YES.
SORRY. THAT'S THANKS FOR THE
HELP, BUT I APPRECIATE IT.
CLEARLY NEED IT. ALL RIGHT. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES? NOT SURE
WHERE THEY ARE ON THIS BILL, ARE
IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. IT'S
BEEN A LONG DAY ALREADY SEEING
NO ONE COMING FORWARD. WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION ARE YOUR PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. YOU
WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. PLEASE
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
MATT FRIEDMAN. I'M A STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH THE UTILITY REFORM
NETWORK, SB 1326, WOULD PREVENT
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
FROM MOVING FORWARD WITH
EQUITABLE RATE REFORMS DESIGNED
TO ALIGN RETAIL RATES WITH GRID
VALUE TO FAIRLY ALLOCATE SYSTEM
COSTS TO REDUCE BILLS FOR LOW
INCOME CUSTOMERS TO LOWER
AVERAGE BILLS IN HOTTER INLAND
PARTS OF THE STATE TO REDUCE
SEASONAL VOLATILITY, BILL
VOLATILITY AND TO PROMOTE
ELECTRIFICATION OF
TRANSPORTATION AND BUILDINGS.
THE $10 CAP IN THIS BILL WOULD
BE INSUFFICIENT TO COLLECT FIXED
COSTS BEYOND A SMALL PORTION
THAT ARE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE
TO CONNECTING THE CUSTOMER TO
THE GRID, THEREBY FORCING A WIDE
ARRAY OF FIXED COSTS IN THE
SYSTEM TO BE COLLECTED
EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH VOLUMETRIC
CHARGES. SO WHAT ARE THOSE COSTS
THAT ARE WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM
THE CAP? IT WOULD INCLUDE PUBLIC
PURPOSE PROGRAMS, CLIMATE
PROGRAMS, ALL THE WILDFIRE
SPENDING THAT HAS BEEN THE TOPIC
OF A LOT OF DISCUSSION HERE,
NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING GRID
HARDENING COSTS, THE USE OF
VOLUMETRIC RATES TO COLLECT
THESE COSTS IS INEFFICIENT AND
ECONOMICALLY REGRESSIVE. OF
COLLECTING THESE FIXED COSTS
THROUGH VOLUMETRIC RATES PLACES
SIGNIFICANT BURDENS ON LOWER
INCOME CUSTOMERS AND INEQUITABLY
CHARGES. CUSTOMERS FOR SHARED
COST OBLIGATIONS. THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD NOT HAMSTRING
THE COMMISSION IN THIS RESPECT.
NOW TURN ORIGINALLY SUPPORTED
THE $10 CAP THAT WAS ENACTED AS
PART OF AB 327 THAT WAS HEARD IN
THIS COMMITTEE IN 2013, BUT
SINCE THAT TIME, THE WORLD HAS
CHANGED. CD RATES HAVE
SKYROCKETED FOR THE THREE MAJOR
UTILITIES. MUCH OF THE SPENDING
THAT HAS DRIVEN THOSE INCREASES
IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO COSTS THAT
ARE COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO
CUSTOMER USAGE. WILDFIRE
MITIGATION BEING THE NUMBER ONE
COST DRIVER TODAY, WE THINK IT'S
TIME TO REVISE THE WAY WE THINK
ABOUT COLLECTING THESE COSTS AND
RATES TO DO IT IN A MANNER
THAT'S FAIR FOR EVERYONE. AND
WHILE THIS BILL WOULD IMPOSE THE
$10 CAP FOR THE INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES, IT WOULD EXEMPT THE
PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITIES FROM
ANY SIMILAR CAP AND MOST OF THE
PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITIES IN
CALIFORNIA HAVE FIXED CHARGES
FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WELL
ABOVE $10, 20, AND $30 CHARGES
HERE IN SACRAMENTO. THE CHARGE
IS CURRENTLY $24.15 A MONTH.
IT'S NOT CLEAR WHY PUBLICLY
OWNED UTILITIES SHOULD GET
DIFFERENT TREATMENT UNDER THE
STATE LAW. SO FINALLY, JUST TO
WRAP UP, WE THINK THAT THIS BILL
IS, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE AT THIS
TIME. THE COMMISSION HAS A
PROPOSAL ON ITS AGENDA FOR A $24
FIXED CHARGE, A $6 CHARGE FOR
LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS. THIS WILL
PROVIDE WIDESPREAD BENEFITS.
IT'S A STEP FORWARD ON A NUMBER
OF FRONTS, AND WE URGE A NO VOTE
ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION STATE YOUR NAME AND
YOUR ORGANIZATION. RACHEL KOS,
ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES,
OUR CURRENT RATES, ELECTRIC
RATES ARE MOSTLY BASED ON THE
AMOUNT OF ENERGY A CUSTOMER
USES, BUT A LOT OF THE COSTS
DON'T ACTUALLY CHANGE WITH THE
AMOUNT OF ENERGY USED. A LOT OF
THEM ARE FIXED. FOR EXAMPLE,
WILDFIRE PREVENTION COSTS ARE
THE SAME REGARDLESS OF USAGE.
THE CARE SUBSIDY IS THE SAME
REGARDLESS OF USAGE. THE CURRENT
STRUCTURE MAKES ELECTRICITY FAR
MORE EXPENSIVE FOR CUSTOMERS IN
HOT INLAND AREAS WHO MUST USE
AIR CONDITIONING, THEY PAY MUCH
MORE THAN COASTAL CUSTOMERS
BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT
STRUCTURE, LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS
PAY A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THEIR
INCOME TOWARDS ELECTRICITY THAN
HIGHER EARNERS, EVEN IF THEY USE
LESS. A MEANINGFUL, WELL
STRUCTURED FIXED CHARGE LIKE THE
ONE THE PUC IS CURRENTLY
CONSIDERING, WILL HELP WITH
THESE INEQUITIES BY PULLING OUT
FIXED COSTS FROM THE VOLUMETRIC
CHARGE. THAT PORTION OF THE RATE
THAT CHANGES WITH USAGE. THIS
WILL ALSO HELP INCENTIVIZE
ELECTRIFICATION. WE NEED RATES
TO BE LOWER IF PEOPLE ARE GOING
TO SWITCH TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES
AND APPLIANCES. WE ALSO NEED
RATES TO BE LOWER IF WE'RE GOING
TO GET ALL OF THE GRID WORK
DONE. WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO
DO STILL FOR WILDFIRE
PREVENTION, AND WE HAVE A TON OF
WORK TO DO TO UPGRADE THE
SYSTEM'S CAPACITY FOR ALL OF THE
ELECTRIFICATION WORK THAT
CALIFORNIA WANTS TO DO, LOW
INCOME AND INLAND CUSTOMERS
CANNOT CARRY THAT BURDEN, AND
THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. IT MAKES
NO SENSE FOR CUSTOMERS IN THE
INLAND EMPIRE OR THE CENTRAL
VALLEY TO PAY MORE FOR WILDFIRE
PREVENTION OR UPGRADING THE
SYSTEM FOR ELECTRIFICATION, EVEN
THOUGH IT DOES NOT BENEFIT THEM
ANY MORE THAN IT BENEFITS
COASTAL CUSTOMERS. ALSO, I WANT
TO ADDRESS CONSERVATION. I'M
GOING TO NEED YOU TO RAP. THAT'S
PROBABLY YOUR TWO MINUTES. OKAY,
THIS BILL DOES NOT
DISINCENTIVIZE CONSERVATION. IT
WOULD BRING THE VOLUMETRIC
PORTION OF RATES DOWN TO 2021
LEVELS. AND NOBODY WAS
COMPLAINING THEN THAT, THERE WAS
A DISINCENTIVE TO CONSERVE
ENERGY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION STATE YOUR NAME AND
YOUR ORGANIZATION. PLEASE SCOTT
WELCH, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS AND THE
CALIFORNIA STATE PIPE TRADES
COUNCIL, IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. MARY ANN
BORGESON, WITH THE NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL IN
OPPOSITION. YEAH GOOD. CATHERINE
BORG WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON, RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE
VALERIE CHIRLA ALEJO'S, PACIFIC
GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY IN
OPPOSITION. HI. LARA SALON WITH
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION HERE IN THE ROOM?
SEEING NONE. I'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS
OR CONCERNS? SENATOR BECKER
WANTED THIS. THANK YOU. SENATOR,
I APPRECIATE YOU FOCUSING ON
THIS ISSUE. I WAS CERTAINLY VERY
CONCERNED INITIALLY WHEN, SOME
OF THE PROPOSALS WERE BEING
FLOATED AROUND AND THERE WERE
PROPOSALS BEING FLOATED AROUND
AS MUCH AS $100 PLUS FOR THE
FIXED CHARGE. AND I ACTUALLY
WROTE AN OP ED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN
MARC BERMAN ON THIS, I DO YOU
KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE, THE PUC,
I THINK TAKING THAT FEEDBACK
INTO ACCOUNT AND COMING UP WITH,
WITH THIS NUMBER, I THINK WE CAN
STILL WE CAN ARGUE A BIT ABOUT
THE NUMBER, BUT I THINK COMING
UP WITH THE SAME NUMBER THAT
SMUD USES, YOU KNOW,
SUCCESSFULLY HERE IN, IN
SACRAMENTO IS A WELL RESPECTED,
PUBLIC UTILITY, I AM GOING TO
I'M GOING TO WELL, I'M NOT SURE
I'LL ABSTAIN OR NOT, BUT NOT
SUPPORT THE BILL JUST BECAUSE,
AGAIN, I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT
THAT THEY TOOK THAT INTO ACCOUNT
AND CAME UP WITH, I THINK, A
MUCH LOWER FIXED CHARGE THAN,
HAD BEEN ANTICIPATED OR
CERTAINLY FEARED, WAS CONCERNED
ABOUT THE IF YOU HAD TWO BIG A
FIXED CHARGE, THEN, YOU KNOW, TO
THE TO LOWER THE INCENTIVES FOR
CONSERVATION. BUT AGAIN, I THINK
THEY, THEY TOOK AN ACCOUNT AND
THAT'S WHY I WON'T SUPPORT THE
BILL TODAY. BUT I DO APPRECIATE
YOU FOCUSING ON THIS ISSUE.
GREAT. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS,
CONCERNS. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY
SENATOR SEYARTO. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? SENATOR JONES? THAT
WOULD BE GREAT. I WOULD
APPRECIATE THAT. YES. JUST TO
ADDRESS A COUPLE OF, COMMENTS IN
OPPOSITION. I THINK ONE OF THE
COMMENTS THAT STRUCK ME IN THE
IN THE ORIGINAL, IN THE INITIAL
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION IS
HAMSTRING THE PUC. WELL, I
THAT'S THE EXACT POINT OF THE
BILL ACTUALLY. IS AS
LEGISLATORS, WE HAVE THE
AUTHORITY OVER THESE FIXED RATE
CHARGES. WE SHOULD BE THE ONES
LOOKING AT THAT AS IS DISPLAYED
BY THE $10 CHARGE THAT WAS
ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY THE
LEGISLATURE, AND AS FAR AS IT
BEING EQUITABLE, THE CURRENT
PROPOSALS THAT ARE FLOATING
AROUND THE STATE ARE NOT
EQUITABLE. I BELIEVE THAT THIS,
UNDOING AB 205 IS WHAT WOULD BE
MORE EQUITABLE. AND THEN TO THE
COMMENTS OF, THE PUC PICKING THE
FIXED CHARGE THAT SMUD USES.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M A
LITTLE BIT CYNICAL ABOUT THAT OR
WHAT, BUT THAT'S JUST THE CHARGE
THAT THEY'VE PICKED FOR THIS
YEAR BECAUSE THEY CAN JUSTIFY IT
BY SAYING THAT'S WHAT SMUD
CHARGES, BUT WHAT RATE ARE THEY
GOING TO PICK NEXT YEAR OR THE
YEAR AFTER THAT? AND I THINK
THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT AS
LEGISLATORS, WE MAINTAIN THIS
AUTHORITY AND BRING IT BACK TO
THE LEGISLATURE, KEEPING FIXED
CHARGES LOW AND REQUIRING
UTILITIES TO RECOVER THEIR COSTS
THROUGH VOLUMETRIC RATES WILL
PROTECT HARDWORKING CALIFORNIANS
FROM AN UNFAIR CPUC PLAN AND
PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
CONSUMPTION PRACTICES. THIS
WOULD ENSURE THAT THOSE WHO USE
THE MOST ENERGY PAY THEIR FAIR
SHARE, AND THOSE WHO ARE CAREFUL
TO CONSERVE ELECTRICITY ARE NOT
UNDULY BURDENED WITH THE SUDDEN
INCREASE IN THEIR MONTHLY
UTILITY BILLS. I ASK FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION
THÀNH BY SENATOR SATO AND IT'S A
DUE PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SECRETARY PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. BRADFORD NOT
VOTING. DALLI. DALLI AYE. ASHBY.
BECKER. CABALLERO DODD. DURAZZO
EGGMAN. GONZALEZ. GROVE GROVE.
AYE. LEMON. MIN MIT. YOU CAN
STAY WITH THAT. MIN. WITH AYE.
IF YOU WANT. NOT VOTING. YOU CAN
KEEP AN EYE ON THERE. NEWMAN
RUBIO. SATO SATO. AYE. SKINNER.
WAHAB, YOU GOT TO BE EDGY, MAN.
YOU'RE RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. YOU
GOT TO. IT'S CURRENTLY 3 TO 0.
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN
ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL TAKE SENATOR GROVE. I
BELIEVE THAT'S AN ORDER THAT WE
HAVE. YOU'LL BE PRESENTING, SB
1087.
WHEN YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY
BEGIN. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, BEFORE I BEGIN MY
PRESENTATION, I'D LIKE TO ACCEPT
THE TWO COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
PROPOSED IN THE ANALYSIS TO
ENSURE THAT THE INFORMATION
SHARED WITH THE CALIFORNIA AIR
RESOURCES BOARD MUST COMPLY WITH
THE EXISTING CONFIDENTIALITY
PROVISIONS AND THE MONITORING
DONE BY THE ENERGY COMMISSION IS
HANDLED WITH EXISTING RESOURCES.
THANK YOU, EACH YEAR,
CALIFORNIANS CONSUME 1.45
MILLION BARRELS OF OIL EVERY
SINGLE DAY. THAT'S ABOUT 530
MILLION BARRELS OF OIL EVERY
YEAR. BUT LAST YEAR, ONLY 124
MILLION BARRELS WERE PRODUCED
HERE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BY CALIFORNIA'S WORKERS. UNDER
CALIFORNIA'S ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE THAT WE HAVE IN THE
STATE TO ENSURE THE BEST ENERGY
PRODUCED, THE REST OF THAT OIL
IS IMPORTED WITH ABOUT 321
MILLION OF THOSE BARRELS COMING
FROM STATES OR FOREIGN STATES
AND COUNTRIES THAT ARE
TRANSPORTED HERE BY HUGE TANKER
SHIPS. THE AMOUNT OF
CALIFORNIANS, THE AMOUNT THAT
CALIFORNIANS SPEND ON IMPORTED
OIL IS ENORMOUS. IF OIL IS
PRODUCED AT ROUGHLY $80 A
BARREL, CALIFORNIANS WILL PAY
$26 BILLION A YEAR TO IMPORT THE
OIL THAT WE NEED AND USE EVERY
SINGLE DAY. I TRULY BELIEVE THAT
THE STATE'S ENERGY POLICY
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE WITH FOREIGN
OIL IMPORTS. WE HAVE PLACED
CALIFORNIA'S ENERGY SECURITY IN
THE HANDS OF COUNTRIES THAT ARE
ACTIVELY HOSTILE TO CALIFORNIA'S
VALUES WHEN IT COMES TO HUMAN
RIGHTS, LABOR RIGHTS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS. THE TOP
FOUR COUNTRIES WE DO BUSINESS
WITH ACCOUNT FOR TWO THIRDS OF
THE FOREIGN OIL THAT WE IMPORT.
IT'S ABOUT 589, THOUSAND BARRELS
A DAY, OR 215 MILLION BARRELS A
YEAR. THOSE COUNTRIES ARE IRAQ,
SAUDI ARABIA, BRAZIL AND
ECUADOR. CURRENTLY, CALIFORNIA'S
TOP TWO SOURCES OF FOREIGN CRUDE
OIL IS IRAQ AND SAUDI ARABIA.
THESE COUNTRIES ARE ANNUALLY
HIGHLIGHTED BY THE US STATE
DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS GROUPS ON
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AND AMNESTY
INTERNATIONAL. FOR THEIR
DEPLORABLE HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS IN THESE TWO
COUNTRIES. AND WE SEND BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS TO THESE COUNTRIES
EVERY YEAR. WE IMPORT ABOUT 60
MILLION BARRELS OF OIL EVERY
YEAR FROM IRAQ, WHICH LAST YEAR
PASSED A LAW THAT MADE IT
ILLEGAL TO USE THE WORD
HOMOSEXUAL. AND IT ALSO PROPOSED
THE DEATH PENALTY FOR
IMPRISONMENT AND ENGAGING IN
CONSENSUAL SAME SEX
RELATIONSHIPS. AGAIN COLLEAGUES
WERE SENDING MONEY TO THESE
THESE GOVERNMENTS THAT, DON'T
ALIGN WITH CALIFORNIA'S POLICIES
ON ANY TYPE OF ENERGY, BUT MUCH
LESS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
AND, THEIR RIGHTS FOR SAME SEX
MARRIAGE. THERE'S ABOUT $5.6
BILLION THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF
IRAQ GETS FROM US. AND, IT'S
DIRECTLY TO A SUPPORT POLICIES
THAT WE SEND TO THESE COUNTRIES.
THIS THESE GOVERNMENTS DIRECTLY
SUPPORT POLICIES LIKE OPEN AIR
FLAMING THAT CAUSES CANCER,
WHICH WE ABANDONED OVER THREE
DECADES AGO, THE SECOND HIGHEST
PARTNER IS SAUDI ARABIA. THE
SAME STATISTICS ARE THERE. WE
USE ABOUT $4 BILLION TO SUPPORT
THESE GOVERNMENTS AND POLICIES
THAT THESE THEY DON'T LET WOMEN
VOTE. THERE'S WOMEN'S RIGHTS
THAT ARE VIOLATED EVERY SINGLE
DAY. AND AGAIN, WE SUPPORT THESE
COUNTRIES. IN ECUADOR, WE
BULLDOZED DOWN THE RAINFOREST,
WHICH IS LIKE THE WORLD'S LUNG,
WHERE WE HAVE CLEAR CUTTING OF
THE RAINFOREST. BUT, ON ONE
STATE, THIS STATE, CALIFORNIA,
IMPORTS OVER HALF OF THE
PRODUCED CRUDE FROM ECUADOR. SO
CALIFORNIA PRODUCES OVER HALF OF
EVERYTHING THAT ECUADOR
PRODUCES. WE ALSO TRACK THINGS
LIKE ON VESSEL FINDER, AND WE
TRY TO GET THE CARBON EMISSIONS
FROM SHIPS FROM POINT OF ORIGIN
TO POINT OF DESTINATION. IT'S
ROUGHLY 126 METRIC TONS, MILLION
METRIC TONS OF CARBON EMISSION
IN ORDER TO BRING A SHIP HERE SO
WE CAN GET THE OIL OR THE CRUDE
OIL THAT WE NEED EVERY SINGLE
DAY TO MEET OUR CONSTITUENTS
NEEDS OF DEMAND, CALIFORNIA ONLY
ACCOUNTS FOR THE 12 MILES
OUTSIDE OUR COASTLINE. SO WHEN
YOU GET A REPORT THAT SAYS A
SHIP CAME FROM ECUADOR, SAUDI
ARABIA, OR ANOTHER LOCATION AND
IT SAYS WE ONLY USED 20 METRIC
TONS OF CARBON EMISSIONS, THAT'S
NOT A TRUE, ACCURATE ACCOUNT
BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY ACCOUNTING 12
MILES OFF OUR COASTLINE. IT
TAKES ABOUT 600 TANKER SHIPS
EVERY YEAR TO BRING US OVER OUR
OCEAN AND ECOSYSTEM. THE OIL
THAT WE USE EVERY SINGLE DAY, I
UNDERSTAND THAT, MY COLLEAGUES
AND I, WE SEE THE ENERGY FUTURE
DIFFERENT, AND I KNOW THAT THERE
IS A TRANSITION THAT HAS BEEN
PUT IN PLACE BY THIS LEGISLATURE
AND THIS GOVERNOR. BUT THAT
TRANSITION HAS TO BE SOMEWHAT
JUST. YOU CAN'T KEEP ELIMINATING
WHAT WE PRODUCE HERE AND BRING
IT FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES THAT,
THAT I JUST DESCRIBED THAT ARE
HOSTILE TO US. NOT ONLY IS OIL,
THE OIL THAT WE USED USED FOR
JUST OUR CARS, WE ALSO HAVE
ABOUT 6000 PRODUCTS EVERY SINGLE
DAY MADE FROM PETROLEUM LIKE
SHOES. OUR IPHONES, TOOTHPASTE,
GLASSES, THESE GLASSES,
DISPOSABLE DIAPERS. AND EVEN IT
TAKES 35 GALLONS OF OIL TO MAKE
TEST TIRES FOR A TESLA AND
INCLUDING ALL THE PLASTIC PARTS.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT
WE NEED TO DO TO ACHIEVE CARBON
NEUTRALITY. BUT THE POLICIES
THAT WE HAVE NOW ARE NOT
SOMETHING THAT ARE WORKING. THE
2045 SCOPING PLAN SAYS THAT WE
WILL REDUCE OIL CONSUMPTION HERE
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY
ROUGHLY 2% OF YEAR, BUT
RESPECTIVELY. THAT'S BEEN 9% THE
FIRST YEAR AND 10% THE SECOND
YEAR. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT
WHEN WE FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING
ON AND WE PASSED POLICIES, AND
WE FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON
AND REALIZE THAT EVERYTHING
WE'RE DOING IS ACTUALLY
INCREASING THE COST OF FUEL, IT
MIGHT BE JUST TOO LATE TO
RESTART EVERYTHING WE HAVE IN
THE STATE WHERE WE OVERSEE THE
PROCESS. WE CONTROL THE LABOR
COST, WE CONTROL, WE SET LABOR
WAGES, WE HAVE OSHA, WE HAVE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
WE HAVE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF, HOUSING. WE HAVE THE LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
THAT MAKES SURE THAT WE DO
THINGS RIGHT HERE. AND THEN WE
HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY THAT
WE PROVIDE EVERY THAT WE PROVIDE
EVERY YEAR. I'M PARTICULARLY
PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS ISSUE,
COLLEAGUES, BECAUSE 70% OF THE
STATE'S OIL COMES FROM MY
DISTRICT. I HAVE SECOND CHANCES
AT 55, PEOPLE OF COLOR AT OVER
60% THAT WORK IN THIS INDUSTRY
OR DID WORK IN THIS INDUSTRY.
AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IS THEY
WENT FROM 125 MILLION OR EXCUSE
$125,000 A YEAR, ROUGHLY ON
AVERAGE, FOR THEIR WAGES. AND
NOW WE HAVE REPLACEMENT JOBS FOR
AMAZON AND DOLLAR TREE. AND NO
OFFENSE AGAINST THOSE
INDUSTRIES, BUT I DON'T NEED
ANOTHER AMAZON AND DOLLAR TREE.
I NEED THESE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILIES
AND HAVE THE BENEFITS THAT
THEY'VE BEEN EARNING, I
RESPECTFULLY, I WILL ASK MY
WITNESS IN SUPPORT TO COME UP SO
I DON'T CONTINUE TO GO ON AND ON
ABOUT THIS. I APOLOGIZE. I'D ASK
THEO TO COME UP WITH THE
CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM
ASSOCIATION TO BE A WITNESS IN
SUPPORT. MR. PANOS, ARE YOU
HERE? HE'S NOT HERE. THEO IS NOT
HERE. IT'S PRETTY SAD WHEN I GOT
DOGGED BY MY OWN SUPPORT.
WITNESS LET'S PUT THAT ON THE
RECORD. THAT THEO PELOSI DID NOT
SHOW UP FOR THIS BILL THAT HE
WORKED ON FOR HOURS AND DULY
NOTED, SIR, THAT I WOULD
CONSIDER, I DON'T KNOW, SOME
TYPE OF REPRIMAND AND NOT HAVING
HIM COME INTO THE COMMITTEE FOR
A PERIOD OF TIME SINCE HE DIDN'T
SHOW UP. JUST SAYING, OKAY. ARE
THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? DO YOU DARE ABSENT MR.
PANOS? GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS. MR. WILK
WITH NIELSEN MERKSAMER, ON
BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATED
BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT OF SB
1087. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS,
CLIFTON WILSON, ON BEHALF OF THE
FRESNO COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE. HOW ABOUT
OPPOSITION WITNESS IS IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1087. COME
FORWARD NOW SEEING NONE. WE'RE
GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS OR
CONCERNS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
IT'S BEEN MOVED, AND IT STATES
TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. YOU
HAVE ACCEPTED THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. I HAVE, SIR, AND I
JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD. I
TOTALLY AGREE WITH SO MANY OF
THE PRODUCTS THAT WE USE ON A
DAILY BASIS ARE DERIVED FROM
OIL, WITH ONE EXCEPTION. MY
SHOES ARE ALL LEATHER. OKAY, YOU
MAY CLOSE I WOULD I HAD A
COMMENT, SIR. DO YOU HAVE A
LEATHER SOLE TOO? SIR YES. OKAY.
SORRY, I HAD ASKED A COMMENT.
SORRY SIATO. OKAY, SIR. SENATOR.
THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT THE
ABSURDITY IN A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE
DOING BECAUSE THE REST OF WHAT
WE'RE DOING TODAY IS A BYPRODUCT
OF OUR EFFORTS TO DO SOMETHING
IN THE FACE OF THIS TYPE OF
INFORMATION. SO WHAT YOUR BILL
IS DOING IS, IS, IS TRYING TO
COURSE CORRECT A LITTLE BIT TO
ENSURE THAT WE AT LEAST HAVE
ACCURATE DATA, FOR US TO MAKE
OUR DECISIONS ON. AND, AND I
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT UP
AND, AND WE'LL BE SUPPORTING
YOUR BILL TODAY. THANK YOU.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, SENATOR
SIERRA, FOR THOSE COMMENTS. BUT
I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU
KNOW, EUROPE AND OTHER COUNTRIES
AND CALIFORNIA FOLLOWED ALONG
WITH THE UNITED STATES ABOUT
GOING TO WHAT THEY CONSIDERED
GREEN TECHNOLOGY. I'M TOTALLY
NOT AGAINST GREEN TECHNOLOGY.
THERE ARE 58 COUNTIES IN THIS
STATE. MY COUNTY PRODUCES 53% OF
THE STATE'S RENEWABLE ENERGY AND
SENDS IT TO LOS ANGELES AND
OTHER MECHANISMS OR OTHER
COUNTIES VIA MECHANISMS OF
MOSTLY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON PIPELINES. THIS IS AN ALL
OF ABOVE, STATE, AND I THINK WE
SHOULD CONSIDER THAT. BUT I
DON'T THINK WE DESTROY AN
INDUSTRY THAT WE CONTROL LOCALLY
AND CONTROL THE LABOR PROCESS,
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS, MÁS
TO MAKE SURE IT'S THE MOST
QUALITY PRODUCED ENERGY THAT WE
HAVE AND THEN IMPORT IT FROM
COUNTRIES THAT DOES NOT HAVE
THAT SAME QUALITY OR THAT SAME
CHARACTERISTIC THAT WE EXPECT
HERE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
. OKAY. WE HAVE Dð PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON SB 1087.
SENATORS BRADFORD. BRADFORD.
AYE. DILLY DALLY. AYE ASHBY.
BECKER. BECKER. AYE. CABALLERO
CABALLERO. AYE. DODD. AYE. DODD.
AYE. DURAZZO DURAZZO. AYE.
EGGMAN. EGGMAN. AYE. GONZALEZ
GROVE. AYE. GROVE. AYE. LIMÓN.
MINH MINH. AYE. NEWMAN. NEWMAN.
AYE. RUBIO CIERTO. CIERTO. AYE.
SKINNER WAHAB. WILK 11 TO 0. 11
TO 0. 11 TO 0. THAT MEASURES
OUT. WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON. I
SEE WE HAVE SENATOR PADILLA.
HE'S READY. HE'S GOING TO
PRESENT FILE ITEM FIVE SB 1351.
TO YOU MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU SIR.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS, I'M
PLEASED TO PRESENT SB 1351. I
WANT TO FIRST BY THANKING THE
CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE, FOR
WORKING WITH OUR STAFF. WE WILL
BE ACCEPTING COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. BASICALLY, SB 1351
REQUIRES THE PUC, THE CEC, AND
CARB TO ADD TO THEIR JOINT
REPORT, WHICH THEY ALREADY
CONDUCT TO THE LEGISLATURE. A
CLEAN ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IN 2018. AS WE
ARE ALL MORE THAN WELL AWARE,
CALIFORNIA HAS SET A GOAL OF
100% CLEAN ENERGY BY 2045. IN
ADDITION, THERE'S BEEN
SUBSEQUENT CLEAN ENERGY GOAL
LEGISLATION SUCH AS SB 1020,
WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED. CAL ISO
HAS ESTIMATED THAT OUR STATE
NEEDS APPROXIMATELY 7000MW OF
TRANSMISSION CAPACITY, ADDED TO
THE GRID EVERY YEAR TO MEET OUR
ENERGY DEMAND AND WE ARE FAR
FROM THAT. THE PUC, CEC AND CARB
HAVE EMBARKED UPON WHAT IS
CALLED THE JOINT AGENCY REPORT,
AND THIS IS WHAT THE BILL WOULD
ADDRESS, WOULD REQUIRE A CLEAN
ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE A COMPONENT
OF THAT BEGINNING IN JANUARY
2026. AND AS PART OF THE
REPORTING THAT ALREADY IS
MANDATED THEREAFTER. SO THIS
BILL ADDS TO THAT CAL ISOS 20
YEAR TRANSMISSION OUTLOOK
ESTIMATES THE STATE WILL NEED
OVER 10.74 BILLION IN UPGRADES
TO JUST EXISTING FACILITIES AND
OVER $30 BILLION OF INVESTMENT
IN NEW TRANSMISSION CAPACITY BY
2040. SB 1351 WILL BASICALLY
COLLATE IN ONE REPORTING AND
ANALYSIS FOR USE IN PLANNING IN
ONE PLACE. THAT WHICH IS ALREADY
BEEN, INCREMENTALLY ADDRESSED BY
A NUMBER OF OTHER AD HOC GROUPS
AND INCREMENTAL PLANNING THAT
DOESN'T TAKE IN THE WHOLE
COMPREHENSIVE PICTURE. AND
THAT'S SIMPLY WHAT THE BILL
WOULD DO. AND I HAVE TO CHECK
WITH STAFF. EMILY, I DON'T THINK
THAT OUR WE. ALL RIGHT. WELL,
THAT WILL BE IT. WITH THAT, I
WOULD, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY ANYONE HERE IN THE ROOM IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1351? STATE YOUR
NAME AND YOUR ORGANIZATION,
PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON,
ALEJANDRO SOLIS. ON BEHALF OF
CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
KATIE MCCAMMON. SUPPORTING ON
BEHALF OF CLIMATE ACTION
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
HEARING AND SEEING NONE. NOW
WE'LL MOVE TO OPPOSITION. ARE
THERE ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1351? ALL
RIGHT. ANYONE JUST WANT TO BE A
ME TOO. IN OPPOSITION TO 1351
NOT SEEING ANYONE. SO WE'RE
GOING TO MOVE IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS?
SENATOR CIERTO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I HAVE A QUESTION
CONCERNING THE PLAN. ONCE THEY
DO, THE PLAN DOES IT INCLUDE A
COST ESTIMATE OR IS IT JUST
STRICTLY THE INFRASTRUCTURE
ITSELF? THE BILL DOESN'T
PRESCRIBE. IT DOES LOOSELY ASK
THAT IT BE ADDRESSED IN THE
JOINT REPORT LOOKING AT WHAT ARE
THE DEMAND SIDE NEEDS FROM, NEW
INFRASTRUCTURE, EXISTING
UPGRADES IN DANCING,
EFFECTIVENESS AND RELIABILITY.
WE ALREADY, AS YOU WELL KNOW,
SENATOR, WE ALREADY HAVE A
NUMBER OF SORT OF AD HOC EFFORTS
AND SOME OFFICIAL REPORTING
EFFORTS, BUT THEY GET IT
DISTINCT PIECES OF THAT, BUT
THEY DON'T LOOK AT IT FROM AN
INTEGRATED STANDPOINT. AND I
WOULD ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT
AS IS REFLECTED IN THE
AMENDMENTS, THIS DOESN'T
SUPPLANT OR IT DOESN'T REPLACE
EXISTING STATUTORY REPORTING BY
OTHER ELEMENTS HERE, BUT IT IS
THE ONE PLACE WHERE YOU WOULD
HAVE IT ALL TOGETHER IN A
PLANNING DOCUMENT THAT'S
SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE
TRANSMISSION GRID. RIGHT. AND I
THINK COST IS A SUPER IMPORTANT
PART OF THAT, BECAUSE THE COST
ITSELF WILL WILL DETERMINE
WHETHER SHORT TUM OR LONG TERME
OR LONGER TERME IS MORE
APPROPRIATE FOR CALIFORNIA,
ESPECIALLY IN THE ECONOMIC TIMES
THAT WE'RE IN. THANK YOU. MOVE
THE BILL. OKAY. IT'S BEEN MOVED
BY SENATOR DODD. WE HAVE A Dð
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATOR PADILLA, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. AND SENATORS, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. OKAY, SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON 1351 SENATORS.
BRADFORD. BRADFORD. AYE DALLI.
DALLI NOT VOTING. ASHBY BECKER.
CABALLERO DODD. AYE. DODD. AYE.
DURAZZO. DURAZZO AYE. EGGMAN.
EGGMAN. AYE. GONZALEZ. GROVE
LIMON. MINH MINH. AYE. NEWMAN.
NEWMAN. AYE. RUBIO CIERTO.
CIERTO. NO. SKINNER AYE.
SKINNER. AYE. WAHAB. WILK 7 TO
1. THE CURRENT VOTE IS 7 TO 1.
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. SEARCHING
FOR. OKAY. WE HAVE, SENATOR
MINH, ARE YOU READY FOR SB 1221?
YES I'M. PRESENTING FOR ALAN. DO
YOU WANT TO DO THAT ONE FIRST OR
YOURS? EITHER WAY, ALL RIGHT,
LET'S DO 1221, AND THEN WE'LL
MOVE TO SENATOR AL, THANK YOU.
CHAIR. BRADFORD. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, I WANT TO THANK YOUR
STAFF FOR. AND YOURSELF, MR.
CHAIR, FOR WORKING WITH MY
OFFICE ON THIS MEASURE. AND I'LL
JUST BE STATING THAT I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. SB 1221
WOULD REQUIRE THE CPUC TO
EVALUATE ZERO EMISSIONS
ALTERNATIVES TO GAS PIPELINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT. THIS BILL
ALSO ENCOURAGES UTILITIES TO
PILOT COST EFFECTIVE ZERO
EMISSION ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS.
THIS FEBRUARY, THE CPUC RELEASED
A GAS TRANSITION WHITE PAPER
OUTLINING HOW SEVERAL AGENCIES
COULD COLLABORATE IN CREATING A
LONG TERME PLAN TO TRANSITION
FROM NATURAL GAS TO ZERO
EMISSION SOURCES FOR HEATING,
COOLING AND OTHER ENERGY NEEDS.
CURRENTLY, THERE IS NO PROCESS
FOR THE CPUC TO CONSIDER ZERO
EMISSION ALTERNATIVES TO LONG
TERME INVESTMENTS IN THE NATURAL
GAS SYSTEM. INSTEAD DOLLAR
AMOUNTS ARE APPROVED FOR
SPENDING CATEGORIES SUCH AS
PIPELINE REPLACEMENTS THAT CAN
COST RATEPAYERS OVER $3 MILLION
PER MILE. THIS WILL LEAD TO
CALIFORNIA RATEPAYERS COMMITTING
DECADES OF PAYMENTS INTO AN
ENERGY SYSTEM THAT MAY BE
OBSOLETE BEFORE THOSE
INVESTMENTS ARE PAID OFF BY
PILOTING COST EFFECTIVE, ZERO
EMISSION ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS,
CALIFORNIA CAN SAVE RATEPAYERS
MONEY, REDUCE EMISSIONS AND
BETTER INFORM THE CPUS. SEES
LONG TERME PLANNING PROCESS THE
ENERGY TRANSITION IS MASSIVE
UNDERTAKING FOR THE STATE BUT
NECESSARY IF WE WANT TO MEET OUR
2045 ZERO EMISSIONS GOALS,
PARTICULARLY IF WE WANT TO DO
THIS IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT
LEAVE KEY STAKEHOLDER GROUPS
BEHIND. MY OFFICE HAS BEEN
WORKING WITH MANY STAKEHOLDERS,
INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS,
LABOR GROUPS AND UTILITIES, TO
FIGURE OUT HOW THIS PROGRAM CAN
BE EQUITABLE FOR EVERYONE
INVOLVED. WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THE
CHAIR AND STAFF AS THIS BILL
MOVES FORWARD TO FIND THE RIGHT
BALANCE ON KEY DETAILS SUCH AS
COST RECOVERY, RENTER
PROTECTIONS, AND THE OBLIGATION
TO SERVE AS IT RELATES TO THE
PILOT PROGRAMS HERE TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROGRAM, I
HAVE WITH ME MARIANNE BORGESON
WITH THE NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL AND JOSE TORRES
WITH THE BUILDING
DECARBONIZATION COALITION. THANK
YOU. YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES
EACH. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
BRADFORD AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MARIANNE
BORGESON WITH THE NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL,
FIRST, I DO WANT TO THANK THE
CHAIR, THE COMMITTEE CONSULTANT
AND THE PARTIES WHO HAVE
EXPRESSED CONCERNS WITH THIS
BILL FOR WORKING TO TRY TO FIND
A WAY TO HAVE THIS BILL MAKE
SOME TARGETED AND THOUGHTFUL
PROGRESS ON THE CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSITION. THERE ARE STILL
SEVERAL ISSUES TO WORK OUT, BUT
WE LOOK FORWARD TO PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATIONS ON IN THOSE AREAS.
THE FUTURE OF THE WELL, MORE
THAN 100,000 MILES OF GAS
PIPELINES IN THE STATE IS NOT A
QUESTION THAT CAN BE IGNORED FOR
FIVE, TEN, OR 20 YEARS. WE KNOW
THAT THAT WOULD PUT VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES AND THE HEALTH OF
ALL CALIFORNIANS, THE LIVELIHOOD
OF WORKERS, AND OUR ABILITY TO
MITIGATE AND ADAPT TO CLIMATE
CHANGE IN GRAVE DANGER. THE
FUTURE OF PIPELINES IN
CALIFORNIA MUST BE MANAGED WITH
GREAT CARE. WE KNOW THAT GAS USE
IS DECREASING. WE KNOW THAT
WEALTHIER CALIFORNIANS ARE
ALREADY ABANDONING THE GAS
SYSTEM FOR CLEAN ENERGY SYSTEMS
AND FOR MORE ELECTRIC USE, AND
WE KNOW THAT WE SPEND HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH
YEAR, WHICH CAN BE AROUND 15 TO
$20,000 PER HOME, JUST TO SAFELY
MAINTAIN THE EXISTING GAS
SERVICE. THAT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE.
THE PUC HAS JUST EMBARKED ON A
NEXT PHASE OF THE LONG TERME GAS
PLANNING PROCEEDING, AND WE'RE
HOPEFUL THAT PROGRESS CAN BE
MADE THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
HOWEVER, WE ALSO THINK THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT THE LEGISLATURE
PUSH THIS PROCEEDING AND
PROGRESS ON THE ISSUE IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION. WITH THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED.
THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW, NOT
REQUIRE, BUT ALLOW THE GAS
UTILITIES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A
HANDFUL OF PILOTS TO REPLACE
SMALL SEGMENTS OF THE GAS SYSTEM
WITH ZERO EMISSION ALTERNATIVES
AND REQUIRE A REPORT BACK ON THE
LESSONS LEARNED TO THE
LEGISLATURE. IT WOULD ALSO
ENSURE THAT THE UTILITIES ARE
PROVIDING THE DATA AND
INFORMATION NEEDED TO ENABLE THE
COMMISSION TO OVERSEE WORK IN
THIS AREA. THIS IS NEEDED AND
IMPORTANT PROGRESS. WE URGE YOUR
AYE VOTE TODAY ON SB 1221. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR BRADFORD
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I'M JOSE TORRES WITH THE
BUILDING DECARBONIZATION
COALITION. WE'RE AN ORGANIZATION
MADE UP OF ENERGY PROVIDERS,
MANUFACTURERS, ENVIRONMENTAL
NGOS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
OTHERS FOCUSED ON DECARBONIZING
OUR NATION'S BUILDINGS. LIKE
MARION SAID, I'D ALSO LIKE TO
THANK THE CHAIR, THE COMMITTEE,
CONSULTANTS, UTILITIES AND LABOR
FOR WORKING WITH US TO ALLOW
UTILITIES TO PILOT ZERO EMISSION
ALTERNATIVES THAT WILL HELP US
TAKE ON 20% OF EMISSIONS THAT
COME FROM THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
THROUGH A THOUGHTFUL, INCLUSIVE
AND HOLISTIC APPROACH. WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH STAKEHOLDERS. THE COMMITTEE
AND THE CHAIR ON COST RECOVERY,
RENTAL PROTECTIONS AND OTHER
DETAILS OF THE BILL, AS IS
RELATED TO THE PILOTS, SB 1221
WILL HELP CALIFORNIA REGULATORS
AND UTILITIES MAKE RESPONSIBLE
UTILITY INVESTMENTS AND OPEN THE
DOOR TO PILOTING ZERO EMISSION
ALTERNATIVES LIKE NEIGHBORHOOD
SCALE DECARBONIZATION IN A WAY
THAT ALIGNS WITH THE STATE'S
AFFORDABILITY, AIR QUALITY AND
CLIMATE TARGETS. POWERING HOMES
AND BUILDINGS WITH CLEAN ENERGY
CAN SAVE CONSUMERS MONEY,
IMPROVE INDOOR AND OUTDOOR AIR
QUALITY, MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES
MORE CLIMATE RESILIENT AND CUT
CLIMATE EMISSIONS. NEIGHBORHOOD
SCALE DECARBONIZATION CAN POWER
HOMES AND ECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITH
CLEAN ELECTRICITY AND FREE ZERO
EMISSION APPLIANCES. THIS CAN
PROVIDE ACCESS TO COOLING DURING
EXTREME HEAT AND STABILIZE
UTILITY BILLS FOR CALIFORNIANS
IN THE LONG TERME. NEW POLLING
CONDUCTED THIS YEAR BY FM3 FOR
BUILDING DECARBONIZATION ALSO
SHOWS US NOT ONLY THAT THIS
BENEFITS CALIFORNIANS, BUT
THERE'S BROAD A BROAD MAJORITY
THAT SUPPORT THIS APPROACH, THE
SURVEY ALSO SHOWED US THAT
VOTERS ARE BROADLY CONCERNED
THAT CALIFORNIA'S GAS PIPELINES
ARE AGING AND CARRY HIGH COSTS
TO MAINTAIN AND REPLACE THEM. SB
1221 WILL ENABLE THE STATE TO
MAKE SMARTER DECISIONS AROUND
ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING
AND INVEST IN A WAY THAT MAKES
ENERGY MORE AFFORDABLE FOR
CALIFORNIANS, WHILE PRIORITIZING
THE COMMUNITIES MOST IN NEED.
FOR THESE AND MANY OTHER
REASONS, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND PLEASE URGE YOU FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE ON SB 1221. THANK
YOU. ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. STATE YOUR NAME AND
YOUR ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. MARK
FENSTERMAKER FOR EARTHJUSTICE, A
CO-SPONSOR OF THE MEASURE. ECHO
THE COMMENTS TO GET THE DETAILS
ON RENTER PROTECTIONS CORRECT.
THANK YOU. MELISSA ROMERO,
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
IN SUPPORT. KATIE MCCAMMON, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA CLIMATE
ACTION AND SUPPORT. MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS EDSON PEREZ WITH
ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED IN
SUPPORT. HELLO, MEG SNYDER,
AXIOM ADVISORS ON BEHALF OF
REWIRING AMERICA AND SUPPORT.
VALERIE CHIRLA ALEJO'S, PACIFIC
GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
ASSOCIATE MY COMMENTS WITH
BUILDING DECARB COALITION, A
TRADE ASSOCIATION THAT WE ARE
MEMBERS. GABRIELA FAZIO WITH
SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA, IN
SUPPORT OF THE CURRENT VERSION
OF TILL 21. THANK YOU. STEPHANIE
BARGER US GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
NOW WE'LL MOVE TO OPPOSITION,
ARE YOU THE TWO PRIMARY IN
OPPOSITION? YES, YES. YOU HAVE
TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. ISRAEL SALAS WITH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY.
I APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE
COMMITTEE. I THINK THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB
OF UNPACKING SOME OF THE
COMPLEXITIES AND UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF ELIMINATING THE
GAS UTILITIES OBLIGATION TO
SERVE, BUT WITH THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO
REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION AND LOOK
FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO SUPPORT
THE BILL. WE DO APPRECIATE THE,
THE DIALOG WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE AND THE SPONSORS TO
ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS. SCOTT WHITTIER, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION OF UTILITY EMPLOYEES,
THE STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AND THE
CALIFORNIA STATE PIPE TRADES
COUNCIL WITH THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, WE WOULD REMOVE OUR
OPPOSITION. BUT THE SPONSORS OF
THE BILL MENTIONED THAT THERE
WAS ADDITIONAL THINGS WHICH THEY
WANTED TO TRY TO WORK OUT, AND I
JUST WANT TO NOTIFY THE
COMMITTEE THAT ONE OF THOSE
ISSUES IS HAVING THE REST OF
RATEPAYERS PICK UP THE COSTS OF
THE ELECTRIFICATION ON THE
CUSTOMER SIDE OF THE METER FOR
THOSE CUSTOMERS GIVING UP THEIR
GAS. SO THAT WOULD MEAN ALL
RATEPAYERS PAYING FOR PANEL
UPGRADES, PAYING FOR PERHAPS
APPLIANCES AND OTHER THINGS. AND
WITH THAT AMENDMENT, WE WILL BE
BACK OPPOSED TO THE BILL. BUT
FOR NOW WE'RE NEUTRAL. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION YOU CAN
COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME SEEING
NO ONE MOVE TOWARD THE
MICROPHONE. I'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS
OR CONCERNS AS IT RELATES TO
THIS MEASURE 1221. SENATOR
BECKER YEAH, JUST I APPRECIATE
THE EFFORTS OF THE AUTHOR. AND
HERE I'LL MOVE THE BILL. TIME
COMES. OKAY I SORRY, I HEARD YOU
SO, YEAH, I HAD, SENATOR
DORADO'S MOVEMENT OF THE BILLS,
BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU GUYS
CAN ARM WRESTLE FOR IT, OKAY. MY
MONEY, YOU WOULD PROBABLY WIN,
SENATOR BÀN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR.
AYE. VOTE OKAY, WE HAVE A Dð
PASS, AS AMENDED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. DO PASS TO
BE AMENDED IN LABOR PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT.
SENATORS. BRADFORD BRADFORD I.
DALLI. DALLI. NO. ASHBY. BECKER
BECKER I. CABALLERO. CABALLERO I
DODD. DODD I DURAZZO. DURAZZO I
EGGMAN. EGGMAN I GONZALEZ. GROVE
LEMON. MIN. I MEAN I NEWMAN.
RUBIO CIERTO. CIERTO. NO.
SKINNER SKINNER I WAHAB. WILK
EIGHT. GROVE. NO. 8 TO 3.
CURRENT VOTE IS 8 TO 3. WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO
BACK TO SENATOR ALLEN'S BILL.
FILE ITEM SIX SB 1470 WAR. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, ON
BEHALF OF SENATOR ALLEN, I WANT
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR
WORK ON THIS BILL AND LET YOU
KNOW THAT SENATOR ALLEN WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. THE INTERVENOR
COMPENSATION PROGRAM IS INTENDED
TO ENSURE THAT QUALIFIED PARTIES
HAVE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES
THEY NEED TO BRING THEIR
CONCERNS AND INTERESTS TO THE
COMMISSION DURING FORMAL
PROCEEDINGS. CURRENTLY, AN
INTERVENOR PLANNING TO SEEK
COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATING
IN A CPUC PROCEEDING MUST FILE A
NOTICE OF INTENT WITHIN 30 DAYS
AFTER THE PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE
IS HELD. AS AMENDED. SB 1474
WOULD ALLOW FOR AN INTERVENOR TO
INTERVENOR TO FILE THE NOTICE OF
INTENT WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER
BECOMING A PARTY TO THE
PROCEEDING, SB 1474 WILL
INCREASE ACCESS TO INTERVENOR
COMPENSATION FOR GROUPS THAT ARE
DISADVANTAGED BY A FAILURE TO BE
NOTIFIED IN A TIMELY MANNER
ABOUT AN UPCOMING PROCEEDING.
THANK YOU. AND ON BEHALF OF
SENATOR ALLEN, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. OKAY. ARE
THERE WITNESSES IN SUPPORT HERE
OF SB 1474 SEEING NONE. OKAY.
LET'S MOVE TO OPPOSITION. ARE
THERE ANY ONE HERE IN THE ROOM
OPPOSED TO 1474? ARE YOU THE TWO
PRIMARY OPPOSITIONS OR ONE? YOU
CAN HAVE TWO MINUTES. VALERIE
CHIRLA, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY, WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL IN PRINT AND LOOK
FORWARD TO SEEING THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS AND THANK
THE AUTHOR THROUGH. SENATOR
MINH, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND
ISRAEL SALAS WITH SAN DIEGO GAS
AND ELECTRIC AND SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY ALSO IN
OPPOSITION, BUT NEUTRAL WITH THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. THANK THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS, ROD BREWER FOR SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON. OUR COMMENTS
ARE ALIGNED WITH PG AND E AND
SOUTHERN SGA. AND WE WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR AND SENATOR
MINH FOR THE WORK ON THE BILL.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES,
SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION? GOING
ONCE, GOING TWICE. ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE MOVING ON. WE'LL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY
QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? SENATOR
DALLY? SO, WHO PAYS FOR THE
INTERVENOR? I DON'T KNOW THAT
IT'S NOT MY BILL. AND I. LET ME
HELP YOU. ANY WITNESS THE
RATEPAYERS PAY. OKAY, SO FOR
THAT REASON, I WON'T BE
SUPPORTING THIS BILL. SENATOR
RUBIO, THANK YOU, AND I WILL
GIVE THE AUTHOR A COURTESY OF
VOTING AS WELL. BUT YOU KNOW,
CONSIDERING THAT I SIT ON THE
INSURANCE COMMITTEE AND
INTERVENORS ARE A BIG PART OF
WHAT WE DO IN THE INSURANCE
MARKET, AND I LIKE TO CONTINUE
THE CONVERSATION WITH THE
AUTHOR. BUT HE'S NOT HERE, AND
I'LL JUST VOTE FOR IT. BUT IT
DOES, YOU KNOW, I I'M NOT GOING
TO ECHO EXACTLY WHAT THE SENATOR
SAID FROM BEAVER, BUT I WILL SAY
THAT SOMETIMES THEY DO HAVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WHERE
THE COST ENDS UP BEING ON THE
BACKS OF THOSE RATEPAYERS. AND I
HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN. SO
AGAIN, ONCE I HAVE A
CONVERSATION WITH THE AUTHOR,
I'LL, YOU KNOW, I'LL FIGURE
THOSE CONCERNS OUT. BUT FOR THE
MOMENT, I WILL VOTE FOR IT.
THANK YOU, SENATOR GIRL. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. I TOO, ECHO MY
COLLEAGUE'S COMMENTS FROM
BIEBER. BUT JUST TO ADD THAT,
YOU KNOW, RECENTLY WE'VE BEEN
COMPARING BILLS FROM CALIFORNIA
VERSUS RIGHT ACROSS THE RIVER IN
ARIZONA. AND WE HAVE AN
INDIVIDUAL. WE JUST GOT A BILL
THE OTHER DAY WHERE, THEY USED A
THREE TIMES AS MUCH AS
ELECTRICITY THAN THEY DID IN
CALIFORNIA, AND THEIR BILL WAS
ALMOST 400% LOWER. SO THE IT'S
ABSURD TO THINK THAT WE HAVE OUR
COSTS IN CALIFORNIA ARE SO
EXORBITANTLY HIGH COMPARED TO
JUST COST ACROSS THE RIVER IN
ARIZONA. AND, IT'S THIS PERSON
THAT SHARED THEIR BILL WITH US
ALSO HAS A, A HOUSE IN TAFT,
CALIFORNIA, WHERE, LIKE I SAID,
THEIR BILL WAS ALMOST $400 A
MONTH AND THEY USED JUST. AND
AGAIN, THE ONE IN ARIZONA, THEY
USED A LOT MORE ELECTRICITY IN
THEIR BILL WAS LIKE $88 A MONTH.
SO IT IS VERY CONCERNING TO ME
THAT THE CONTINUED POLICIES THAT
COME OUT OF THIS BUILDING STILL,
IMPOSE, FEES THAT GET HIKED ON
TO RATEPAYERS. AGAIN, IT'S JUST
SOMETHING PASSED ON TO THE
UTILITIES AND THEY HAVE TO
ADDRESS IT. AND THE RATEPAYER
ENDS UP PAYING FOR IT. AND
CALIFORNIA'S RATES ARE EXTENDED
EXTENSIVELY HIGHER THAN ALMOST
ANY OTHER STATE. AND
SPECIFICALLY OUR NEIGHBORING
NEIGHBORING STATES. SO I WOULD I
CAN'T SUPPORT THE BILL. THANK
YOU. OKAY. ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS OR CONCERNS? DO WE HAVE
A MOTION ON THIS MEASURE? SO
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR
D'ORAZIO, WE HAVE A Dð PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. SENATOR
BRADFORD. BRADFORD. AYE. DALLI
DALLI. NO. ASHBY. BECKER AYE.
BECKER. AYE. CABALLERO. AYE.
CABALLERO AYE. DODD. DURAZZO.
DURAZZO AYE. EGGMAN. GONZALEZ
GROVE. GROVE. NO. LEMON MIN.
MIN. AYE. NEWMAN. RUBIO RUBIO.
AYE. SATO. SATO. NO SKINNER.
SKINNER. AYE. WAHAB WILK. 7 TO
3. 7 TO 2. 7 TO 3. WE'LL LEAVE
THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS
TO ADD ON AS THEY SEE FIT. NEXT
UP WE'RE GOING TO BRING UP
SENATOR RUBIO. ARE YOU PREPARED?
YOU HAVE SB 1054. I RESISTED MY
POSITION TO PULL OUT. I DIDN'T
TALK ABOUT HER. FIRST.
SENATOR RUBIO, YOU MAY BEGIN.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE. TODAY I PRESENT
SENATE BILL 1054, WHICH AIMS TO
IMPROVE THE PUBLIC HEALTH OF LOW
INCOME AND DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES BY ESTABLISHING THE
CLIMATE POLLUTION REDUCTION AND
HOMES INITIATIVE. I WANT TO
THANK THE CHAIR AND HIS STAFF
AND ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS HAVE
WORKED ON THIS AND HAVE ENGAGED
MY OFFICE. I WILL BE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
HISTORICALLY, LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES HAVE
DISPROPORTIONALLY SHOULDERED THE
BURDENS OF POOR AIR QUALITY AND
HIGHER ENERGY COSTS. ACCORDING
TO THE AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR
ENERGY EFFICIENT ECONOMY, LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS SPEND 8.1% OF
THEIR INCOME ON ENERGY COSTS ON
AVERAGE, COMPARED TO JUST 2.3%
OF THE NON LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
. CONSIDERING THAT LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS SPEND THIS MUCH OF
THEIR MONTHLY INCOME ON ENERGY
BILLS, ANY COST SAVINGS THE
STATE CAN OFFER WITH IMPROVED
TECHNOLOGIES WILL HAVE A MAJOR
IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY. SECURITY
OF THESE HOUSEHOLDS AS
PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, POOR AIR
QUALITY POSES A DANGEROUS RISK
AS WELL. FOR EXAMPLE, 12 MILLION
CALIFORNIANS WITHOUT ACCESS TO
PROPERLY VENTILATED APPLIANCES
ARE ROUTINELY EXPOSED TO
NITROGEN DIOXIDE LEVELS IN THEIR
HOMES THAT WOULD EXCEED FEDERAL
AND STATE HEALTH BASED STANDARDS
IF FOUND OUTSIDE THE HOME. THE
BILL REQUIRES THE ENERGY
COMMISSION TO CONSULT WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
AND DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP AND
SUPERVISE A GRANT PROGRAM THAT
WOULD PROVIDE FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE TO LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PURCHASING ZERO CARBON EMITTING
APPLIANCES TO IMPROVE AIR
QUALITY WITHIN THEIR HOMES. THE
CALIFORNIA CLIMATE CREDIT WOULD
FIND THIS PROGRAM WHERE THE CPUC
WILL REQUIRE GAS CORPORATIONS TO
ANNUALLY USE UP TO 15% OF THE
REVENUES RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF
THAT ALLOCATION OF ALLOWANCES.
THE REMAINING 85% WILL BE
CREDITED DIRECTLY TO THE
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMERS OF GAS CORPORATIONS. A
GRANT PROGRAM LIKE THE ONE
IDENTIFIED IN THIS BILL ALLOWS
LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES TO BE AT
THE FOREFRONT OF CLIMATE CHANGE
BY MAKING DIRECT IMPACTS TO
REDUCE GREENHOUSE GASES IN THEIR
HOMES. TODAY WITH ME, I BELIEVE
MY WITNESSES ARE STEPHANIE
BARGER. I'M TRYING TO SAY
STEPHANIE AND REED ADDIS. OKAY,
THEY'RE BOTH HERE. WHEN YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU. WHEN YOU'RE
READY MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, REED ADDIS,
ON BEHALF OF THE CENTRAL COAST
ENERGY SERVICES, WE ARE ONE OF
MANY ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT
THE STATE PROVIDING LOW INCOME
SERVICES FOR RATEPAYERS.
SOMETIMES THAT'S DEALING WITH
THEIR BILLS. OTHER TIMES IT'S
HELPING THEM TRANSITION WITH NEW
TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIANCES.
EXTREME HEAT IS CREATING A
BIGGER PROBLEM FOR ALL OF OUR
COMMUNITIES. THOSE WHO MAYBE
HAVE AIR CONDITIONING. BUT IT'S
NOT, YOU KNOW, A GREAT SETUP OR
THEIR SYSTEMS ARE RUNNING
EFFECTIVELY. SOME OF YOU LIVE IN
COMMUNITIES WHERE WE HAVEN'T
EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT AIR
CONDITIONING BEFORE, AND NOW WE
NEED TO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE AS
THE STATE DEALS WITH THIS ISSUE
AND IS PUTTING CLIMATE FRIENDLY
TECHNOLOGY IN OUR HOMES THAT ALL
CALIFORNIANS ARE BENEFITING,
INCLUDING LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES
. THIS MEASURE HELPS DO THAT. IT
CREATES A GRANT PROGRAM
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO WORK
WITH ORGANIZATIONS LIKE OURS AND
MANY OTHERS THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA TO GO INTO HOMES AND
HELP MEET PEOPLE WHERE THEY'RE
AT, PROVIDE THE RIGHT KINDS OF
TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS FOR
THEM IN THEIR COMMUNITIES. I
DON'T WANT TO GEEK OUT, BUT SOME
OF YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT ONE OF
THESE TECHNOLOGIES, WHICH IS A
HEAT PUMP. IT'S A VERY SPECIFIC
TECHNOLOGY THAT ACTUALLY IF WE
CAN DEPLOY THOSE IN HOMES, IT
NOT ONLY SAVES YOU TIME AND
MONEY ON AIR CONDITIONING, BUT
IT ALSO HELPS HEAT YOU IN THE
WINTER. A GREAT WIN WIN FOR
CALIFORNIANS AND LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES. WE NEED FUNDING FOR
A PROGRAM LIKE THIS AND WE LOVE
THE WORK THE AUTHOR HAS DONE
WITH THIS COMMITTEE TO COME UP
WITH A GREAT SOLUTION THAT
PROVIDES ADEQUATE AND SUSTAINED
FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM, AND
THEREFORE, WE'RE IN STRONG
SUPPORT TODAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS STEPHANIE BARGER AND I
AM DIRECTOR OF THE US. BUILT
GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL, AN
ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO
ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE, HEALTHY
BUILDING PRACTICES GLOBALLY. IN
CALIFORNIA ALONE, WE HAVE OVER
27,000 LEED PROFESSIONALS, 7500
CERTIFIED BUILDINGS, AND OVER
500 MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS. TODAY,
I'M HERE TO EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT
FOR SENATE BILL 1054, THE
CLIMATE POLLUTION REDUCTION IN
HOMES INITIATIVE. THIS BILL IS A
CRITICAL STEP FORWARD IN
IMPROVING PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR
CALIFORNIA'S LOW INCOME AND
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. WHO
HAVE HISTORICALLY FACED
DISPROPORTIONATE CHALLENGES DUE
TO POOR AIR QUALITY AND HIGH
ENERGY COSTS. REITERATING WHAT
SENATOR RUBIO SAID WITH LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS SPENDING AN
AVERAGE OF 8.1, SENATE BILL 1054
ADDRESSES THIS DISPARITY BY
PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
FOR THE PURCHASE OF ZERO CARBON
EMITTING APPLIANCES, WHICH CAN
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE ENERGY
COSTS AND IMPROVE AIR QUALITY.
ADDITIONALLY, POOR VENTILATION,
AS DISCUSSED, IS HARMFUL LEVELS
OF NITROGEN DIOXIDE OFTEN
EXCEEDING HEALTH BASED STANDARDS
THAT ARE SET FOR OUTDOOR
ENVIRONMENTS. BY ENABLING THE
PURCHASE OF ZERO EMISSION
APPLIANCES. THIS BILL NOT ONLY
IMPROVES INDOOR AIR QUALITY, BUT
ALSO SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA'S
BROADER ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS. THE
INITIATIVE IS THOUGHTFULLY
DESIGNED TO BE FUNDED THROUGH
THE CALIFORNIA CLIMATE CREDIT,
WITH PROVISIONS THAT ENSURE A
SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE REVENUE
FROM GAS CORPORATIONS IS
DIRECTLY UTILIZED TO EMPOWER LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN THEIR
TRANSITION TO CLEANER
TECHNOLOGY. WHILE THE PRIMARY
FOCUS OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION IS
THE ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNDING OF
THE GRANT PROGRAM, I WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT A FUTURE
CONSIDERATION AS WE CONTINUE TO
REFINE THIS BILL. WE SEE A
VALUABLE OPPORTUNITY TO
INCORPORATE RECYCLING AND
REPURPOSING MEASURES FOR
REPLACEMENT APPLIANCE SOURCES.
THIS WOULD ENSURE A
COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY,
REDUCING WASTE AND FURTHER
SUPPORTING CALIFORNIA'S CLIMATE
GOALS. IN CLOSING, THE US GREEN
BUILDING COUNCIL IS COMMITTED,
COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING SB 1054,
RECOGNIZING ITS POTENTIAL TO
MAKE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
AND SOCIAL IMPACTS. WE ARE EAGER
TO WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE AND
STAKEHOLDERS TO ENSURE THE
SUCCESS OF THIS INITIATIVE.
THANK YOU. RESPECTFULLY SAY A
THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES HERE IN THE
ROOM IN SUPPORT OF SB 1054,
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. MARION
BORGESON, NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL IN SUPPORT.
THAT'S IMPRESSIVE. WITH ADVANCED
ENERGY UNITED IN SUPPORT.
MELISSA ROMERO CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS IN SUPPORT
MEKELBERG MEKELBERG ON BEHALF OF
THE BUILDING DECARBONIZATION
COALITION IN SUPPORT. GABRIELLA
FAZIO WITH SIERRA CLUB
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. MARK
FENSTERMAKER FOR JUSTICE AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. NOW LET'S
MOVE TO OPPOSITION. ARE THERE
WITNESSES IN THE ROOM IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1054? ALL
RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
SENATOR DODD. YEAH, APPRECIATE
WHAT THE AUTHOR IS TRYING TO DO
HERE. I GUESS I GET ASKED THE
QUESTION. SO I HAVE SO MANY
TIMES SINCE, YOU KNOW, THIS
YEAR, THIS CLIMATE, REBATE OR
WHATEVER ULTIMATELY COMES OUT OF
RATES. I JUST WONDER WHEN, YOU
KNOW, IT'S A WORTHY. BUT WHEN
ARE WE GOING TO START LOOKING AT
WHAT WE'RE DOING TO RATES
OVERALL? YOU KNOW, FROM, YOU
KNOW, FROM THIS COMMITTEE? I, I
DON'T KNOW, IT'S JUST. CAN I
RESPOND WOULD YOU LIKE TO
RESPOND. OH WAIT. WELL WE HAVE
SENATOR SKINNER UP WITH A
QUESTION. OKAY SENATOR SKINNER,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO I'M
READING THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS,
AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I
UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY. SO
THE BILL, SENATOR RUBIO, YOUR
BILL WOULD HAVE US. SO THE GHG
ALLOWANCES ON THE NATURAL GAS
ARE NOT PRESCRIBED THE WAY THAT
OUR ELECTRICITY, ELECTRICITY
ONES ARE. SO IN OTHER WORDS, OUR
, IF YOU'RE AN ELECTRICITY
RATEPAYER, YOU GET A CREDIT ON
YOUR BILL AS PART OF THE GHG
ALLOWANCE. SO IN OTHER WORDS,
THAT'S HOW YOU GET YOUR, BUT
WITH THE GAS, WE DON'T IT'S ONLY
CPUC WAS SPECIFIED IT SO FAR
WE'VE NOT PUT INTO STATUTE. SO
YOUR BILL WOULD FIRST AND
FOREMOST PUT INTO STATUTE THAT,
LEGISLATURE DIRECTING HOW THAT
GHG ALLOWANCE UNDER GAS IS USED.
AND THEN SECONDARILY SETTING UP
THIS PILOT, I'M ASSUMING IT'S
ONLY I WON'T USE PILOT. IT'S
ONLY A PILOT IF THE AMENDMENT
FOR ITS SUNSET. BUT THE ABILITY
TO USE IT TO SUPPORT, LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS BEING ABLE TO GET
THESE APPLIANCES. SO MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT RIGHT. THAT'S
CORRECT. AND I SHOULD HAVE
CLARIFIED THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE OFFERED IS A FOUR YEAR,
SUNSET AND OUR REPORT, JUST TO
SEE HOW THIS IS WORKING IN THE
INTERIM. BUT 15% OF THE REVENUES
RECEIVED ARE PART OF THE CAP AND
TRADE PROGRAM TO FUND THE
CLIMATE POLLUTION REDUCTIONS
ACT, AND THE 85% OF THE REVENUES
RECEIVED BY THE GAS CORPORATIONS
WILL BE CREDITED DIRECTLY TO
RATEPAYERS. BUT CAN I HAVE
SOMEONE UP HERE THAT CAN ANSWER
FURTHER ANALOGOUS TO HOW WE DO
IT WITH THE ELECTRICITY, YEAH.
I'M SEEING A NOD FROM THE
CONSULTANTS. SIMPLE ANSWER IS
YES, SENATOR. OKAY, SO OKAY, SO
WHAT I NOW WANT TO UNDERSTAND
IF, ASSUMING THAT THE BILL IS
AMENDED WITH THE FOUR YEAR
SUNSET, IS IT THAT THE FOUR YEAR
SUNSET IS ONLY ON THE PART THAT
SAYS HOW THE MONEY IS USED? IT
STILL ALLOWS THE LEGISLATURE TO
DIRECT, THESE GHG GAS ALLOWANCES
. OKAY, WELL, FROM WHAT I
UNDERSTAND, AND THE AMENDMENTS
OFFERED, IT WILL EXPIRE IN FOUR
YEARS AND WE WOULD RE BUT
THERE'S TWO PARTS OF THE BILL.
ONLY ONE PART EXPIRES IN THE
FOUR YEARS. TRUE. YOU KNOW WHAT?
I'M SORRY. CAN I? BECAUSE I KNOW
IT WAS CHANGED LAST MINUTE. CAN
YOU ADD TO THAT, PLEASE DO. I
WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE REFER TO.
YES JUST THE PROGRAM. RIGHT.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NOW I
UNDERSTAND IT BETTER, AND I
THINK IT IT I THINK IT MAKES
SENSE THAT WE SHOULD BE, WE
SHOULD BE. THE LEGISLATURE
SHOULD BE DIRECTING THOSE, GAS
ALLOWANCES, SO. AND I THINK IT'S
PERFECTLY LEGIT TO INITIALLY
DIRECT THEM TOWARDS SUPPORTING
LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO, YOU
KNOW, GET THE TYPE OF APPLIANCES
THAT, OTHERWISE MIGHT BE
DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO AFFORD. SO
I, I WILL SUPPORT THE BILL AND
WHATEVER IS APPROPRIATE, I COULD
MOVE IT NOW. IT'S APPROPRIATE
TIME FOR MAKING A MOTION. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU, SENATOR
SKINNER. SENATOR BECKER, THANK
YOU. CHAIR. JUST WANT TO SAY I
APPRECIATE THIS BILL, AND I'M
PLANNING TO SUPPORT IT TODAY, I
DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS RAISED. I
DON'T THINK SO. BUT JUST WANT TO
ASK IF YOU CONSIDER, DIRECTING
THE FUNDING TO AN EXISTING
PROGRAM LIKE THE EQUITABLE
BUILDING DECARBONIZATION THÀNH
PROGRAM, RATHER THAN CREATING A
NEW PROGRAM THAT WOULD SORT OF
BE MY, ASK IF YOU'VE THOUGHT
ABOUT THAT, OR WE CAN TALK ABOUT
IT GOING FORWARD. WELL, IT'S,
THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT
PROGRAMS. I MEAN, THE DIFFERENCE
IS THAT THE EQUITABLE BUILDING,
I'M SORRY, THE EQUITABLE
BUILDING DECARBONIZATION PROGRAM
IS FUNDED THROUGH THE BUDGET
PROCESS, AND THIS IS FUNDED
THROUGH THE CAP AND TRADE. AND,
THE CREDIT. SO, YEAH, WE CAN TRY
IT LATER. BUT AS IT STANDS, IT'S
FUNDED DIFFERENTLY. RIGHT NOW. I
WOULD SAY IT IS NOW, BUT I MEAN,
IT'S ALREADY STANDING UP RATHER
THAN JUST KIND OF DOING A NEW
PROGRAM TO SOMETHING TO
CONSIDER. WE CAN TALK ABOUT
THAT, BUT THANK YOU I WILL BE
YES, I WOULD THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, SENATOR DODD. I JUST WANTED
TO MAKE SURE. SO THIS THIS IS
ALREADY PART OF THE RATES. WHAT
WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE DIRECTING
THIS OR IS THIS IN ADDITION TO
THE RATES THAT ARE BEING CHARGED
TODAY FOR GAS? FROM WHAT I
UNDERSTAND, THIS IS ALREADY PART
OF, OF THE RATES THAT ARE BEING
CHARGED. AND SO THE FROM THE
REVENUES RECEIVED BY THE GAS
CORPORATIONS AND IT GETS
CREDITED BACK TO THE RATEPAYERS.
BUT YOU CAN CLARIFY THAT,
SENATOR, I WANT TO SAY THAT
THERE MAY BE A RATE IMPACT, BUT
THESE ARE NOT RATE PAYER
DOLLARS. THESE ARE FROM, AS THE
SENATOR SKINNER POINTED OUT,
SPECIAL PROGRAM. AND IT WOULD
ALLOW THIS BILL, IF IT WERE TO
PASS, WOULD ALLOW THE
LEGISLATURE FOR PORTION OF THOSE
DOLLARS TO BE SPENT ON THIS
PROGRAM. BUT THESE ARE NOT
RATEPAYER DOLLARS PER SE, SO
THEY'RE NOT CHARGED THE
RATEPAYER DOES NOT PAY THESE
DOES NOT PAY ANYTHING FOR THIS.
THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT THE
UTILITIES BENEFIT FROM. THERE
MAY BE A RATEPAYER BENEFIT FROM
THAT. BUT I THINK IT'S FAIR TO
SAY IT'S NOT PAYER BENEFIT. THAT
SOUNDS BETTER THAN A RATEPAYER
CHARGE. OKAY. IS IT YOURS? IS
THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?
SENATOR GROVE? I WANT TO ECHO MY
COLLEAGUES COMMENTS FROM NAPA. I
REALLY FEEL LIKE SOMETIMES WE
CREATE POLICY THAT INCREASES
COST TO OUR CONSTITUENTS, AND
THEN WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM THAT SUBSIDIZES THE COST
FOR THOSE CONSTITUENTS. AND IT
BECOMES MORE DEPENDENT ON
GOVERNMENT INSTEAD OF JUST
MAKING SURE WE PASS POLICY OUT.
THAT'S FAIR AND WORKS WELL FOR
OUR CONSTITUENTS, I DIDN'T
SUPPORT THE CAP AND TRADE
PROGRAM. I LIKE YOUR BILL
BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY TAKES
RESOURCES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE
TO BE APPLIED TO BENEFIT OUR
CONSTITUENTS. BUT FOR INSTANCE,
LIKE SEARLES VALLEY MINERALS AND
ORGANIZATION IN MY DISTRICT, OUT
IN THE CENTRAL IN THE OWENS
VALLEY OF TRONA, THEY HAVE OVER
A $40 MILLION CAP AND TRADE FEE
THIS YEAR BECAUSE THEY'RE A
PLANT BUILT IN THE 1860S, BUT
THEY PRODUCE THINGS THAT WE HAVE
TO HAVE IN CALIFORNIA, IT'S THE
ONLY PLANT IN THE ENTIRE WESTERN
HEMISPHERE. SO CALIFORNIA IS
BLESSED TO HAVE THIS PROVIDES
TONS OF JOBS, LABOR, JOBS, THE
WHOLE, THE WHOLE BIT. AND IT'S
GOT BORAX, BORIC ACID, SODA ASH,
SALT CAKE AND SALT. AND THEY
ALSO HAVE A RAILWAY COMPANY
THERE. AND, IF THAT COMPANY
WASN'T IN EXISTENCE AND IT'S
BEING REGULATED OUT OF EXISTENCE
, WE MISS ALL OF THAT AND HAVE
TO IMPORT THAT FROM OTHER
COUNTRIES, THAT PRODUCT THAT WE
USE EVERY DAY MAKES STOP SIGNS.
I MEAN, YOU JUST THINK ABOUT ALL
THE PLASTIC STUFF THAT WE USE,
IT MAKES ALL THOSE THINGS. WE
HAVE TO HAVE THAT PRODUCT TO DO
THAT. SO PART OF THAT $40
MILLION THAT THIS COMPANY PAYS
GOES TO THE CAP AND TRADE
PROGRAM, WHICH I'M SUPPORTING
YOUR BILL AND ALL OF THAT TO SAY
, I'M GLAD THAT THAT MONEY THAT
MY CONSTITUENTS ARE PAYING INTO
IS FINALLY GOING TO SOMETHING
GOOD, TO AT LEAST TRY TO OFFSET
SOME OF THE UTILITIES COSTS THAT
ARE CREATED, BY SOME OF THE
PROGRAMS THAT ARE PASSED OUT OF
THIS BUILDING. YEAH SENATOR
CIERTO THANK YOU. SO I STRUGGLE
WITH THE BILL BECAUSE IT DOES
EVENTUALLY INCREASE COSTS ON THE
CONSUMERS THAT ARE ACTUALLY
BENEFITING FROM THE UPFRONT COST
OF THIS. ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE
TAKING, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS
THE LOWER INCOME FOLKS, THE
PEOPLE THAT STRUGGLE THE MOST TO
PAY THEIR BILLS OFF OF A UTILITY
THAT IS ARGUABLY MUCH LESS
EXPENSIVE THAN ELECTRICITY, AND
THEN MOVING THEM INTO A UTILITY
THAT'S REALLY PRICEY. I KNOW MY
I HAVE A PRETTY MUCH A 5050 MIX
OF GAS AND ELECTRIC AT MY HOUSE,
AND MY GAS BILLS ARE MUCH LOWER,
EVEN IN THE WINTER TIME THAN MY
ELECTRICITY BILLS ARE. AND I
HAVE SOLAR, AND, AND SO ONCE YOU
START THINKING ABOUT, OKAY, SO
THEY GET THIS MONEY, THIS REBATE
MONEY TO PUT IN THEIR ELECTRIC
APPLIANCES AND REPLACE THEIR GAS
DRYER OR THEIR THEY REPLACE
THEIR GAS STOVE WITH ELECTRICITY
, THEY REPLACE THEIR FURNACE
WITH ELECTRICITY. THEY HAVE A
POOL, THEY REPLACE THEIR POOL
HEATER WITH ELECTRICITY. WELL,
NOW THEY NEED AN UPGRADE TO
THEIR ELECTRIC PANEL BECAUSE IF
THEY DON'T UPGRADE THAT PANEL,
THEY'RE THEY'RE PROBABLY HAVE A
FIRE, AND OR THEY'LL
CONSISTENTLY BE TRIPPING THE
WIRES, WHICH MEANS THE WIRES ARE
HEATING UP IN THE ATTIC, WE GET
A LOT OF ATTIC FIRES IN THE FIRE
SERVICE, AND A LOT OF IT'S
BECAUSE OF OUTDATED WIRING THAT
IS NOT CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE
LOAD THAT'S BEING PUT ON THEM.
SO HERE WE ARE, INCREASING THE
LOAD ON SOME HOUSES. AND I THINK
OF THE LITTLE OLD HOUSE I GREW
UP IN. IT WAS 700FT² IN
BALDWIN-FELTS. SO YOU'RE
FAMILIAR WITH ON BENBOW AND, AND
, AND IF I WERE TO DO THIS TO
THAT HOUSE, THAT HOUSE WOULD
BURN DOWN TO THE GROUND, OR I
WOULD HAVE TO INVEST A LOT MORE
MONEY. AND HERE COMES THE RUB IN
ALL OF THE OTHER STUFF TO
SUPPORT TRYING TO DO WHAT I'M
DOING WITH THESE NEW APPLIANCES
THAT I'M BRINGING IN. SO THAT'S
WHERE ALL OF THE CONTRACTING AND
ALL OF THE SALES FOLKS COME AT
YOU, AND THEY GET THESE PEOPLE
TO GO ON PROGRAMS THAT COST THEM
HUNDREDS, OR THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS. AND SOME OF THEM, THEY
JUST PUT IT ON THEIR TAXES SO
THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THEY'RE
PAYING THEM. AND EXCEPT WHEN
THEY TRY TO SELL THEIR HOUSE AND
THEY CAN'T. SO, YOU KNOW WHAT? I
JUST SEE THIS AS, YOU KNOW, WHEN
PEOPLE WANT TO USE ELECTRICAL
APPLIANCES IS THEY'LL USE IT. I
GREW UP IN A 700 SQUARE FOOT
HOUSE AND WE HAD GAS AND NOTHING
BECAME OF ANY OF US HEALTH WISE.
AND IT CONTINUES TO THIS DAY, I
DON'T KNOW OF ANY HEALTH
AFFECTED PEOPLE, FROM HAVING GAS
APPLIANCES IN OUR HOUSES. AND
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT ONE'S REALLY
HARD FOR ME TO, TO, TO, TO BE,
TO, TO BASE A POLICY DECISION
LIKE THIS, IT'S GOING TO COST
PEOPLE A LOT OF MONEY, SO, YOU
KNOW, THAT'S WHY I STRUGGLE WITH
THIS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
LEGISLATURE IS TRYING TO DO, BUT
IN DOING SO, THEY ARE CAUSING SO
MUCH DAMAGE. OUR POLICIES ARE
COMING SO MUCH DAMAGE TO WHAT
PEOPLE ARE TRYING. PEOPLE ARE
JUST TRYING TO LIVE THEIR LIVES
OUT THERE. AND. AND THIS ISN'T
HELPING, YOU KNOW, GIVING THEM
THE MONEY TO PUT IN STUFF THAT'S
GOING TO COST THEM A LOT OF
MONEY DOWN THE ROAD, IS NOT
HELPFUL TO PEOPLE WHO ARE
STRUGGLING TO PAY THEIR BILLS.
SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE JOINING
MY COLLEAGUES IN VOTING FOR THIS
TODAY, I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE
LOOKING OUT FOR PEOPLE, BUT I
ALSO HAVE TO LOOK FARTHER AHEAD
THAN JUST THE ACTUAL APPLIANCE
ARRIVING AT THE DOOR AND GETTING
REIMBURSED FOR THAT. IT'S ALL
THE OTHER STUFF THAT GOES WITH
IT THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR
DALLEY. THIS THANK YOU, SO I DO
HAVE A QUESTION. I KNOW THERE'S
BEEN A LOT OF COMMENTS TODAY, SO
FIRST OFF, I JUST WANT TO MAKE
A. SO I'M EXCITED THAT YOU DID
NOT GO AFTER THE CEC TO FUND THE
PROGRAM, WHICH IS WHERE I THINK
THE SENATOR FROM NAPA AND I HAVE
BEEN FOCUSED ON AT LEAST THIS
SESSION, IN TRYING TO DRIVE DOWN
THE ELECTRIC RATE. SO THIS IS
NOT GOING TO IMPACT ELECTRIC
RATEPAYERS, BUT I WANT I WANTED
TO KIND OF MAYBE SPRINGBOARD OFF
OF SENATOR BECKER'S COMMENTS. SO
WE HAVE IN PLACE RIGHT NOW, WE
HAVE THE PACE PROGRAM, WHICH IS
A PROGRAM THAT IS WHICH I
SUPPORT. IT'S WHERE LOW INCOME
FOLKS CAN, THEY THEY GET
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE TO PUT IN,
EFFICIENT, DRYERS AND WASHERS
AND THE LIKES AND AS THE RATE
GOES DOWN, THEY USE THAT MONEY
TO PAY BACK THOSE LOANS. WE HAVE
THE LOW INCOME WEATHERIZATION
PROGRAM. WE HAVE S-CHIP S-CHIP,
AND WE HAVE A LOT OF MORE
FEDERAL PROGRAMS ON TOP OF THAT.
SO FOR ME, WE'RE CREATING A
WHOLE NEW PROGRAM THAT THIS
PIECE OF LEGISLATION, ISN'T
THERE SOMEWHERE WE COULD FIT
THIS IN WITH ONE OF THOSE OTHER
PROGRAMS ALREADY, SO THAT WE
DON'T HAVE TO BE REDUNDANT WITH
THIS, WITH THIS PRODUCT. AND I
KNOW THAT IT IS GOING TO DRIVE
UP THE RATES FOR THOSE WHO HAVE
TO PAY THE CARBON OFFSETS, BUT
SO THAT'S THE QUESTION I HAVE
FOR WE HAVE A WHOLE HOST OF
PROGRAMS OUT THERE ALREADY
EXISTING, AND THIS IS GOING TO
SET UP YET ANOTHER PROGRAM THAT
THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE COST
TO DO THAT. AT THE SAME TIME, WE
WANT TO GET THOSE HEAT PUMPS FOR
THOSE LOW END Kò, LOW INCOME
PEOPLE OUT THERE TO ACTUALLY
DRIVE THEIR RATES DOWN AND KEEP
THEM WARM AND COOL IN THE
SUMMER. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I
WANT TO APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS
OF THE SENATOR FROM NAPA. AND, I
THINK MR. SERRATO LEFT. BUT, YOU
KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, I FELT GOOD
ALONGSIDE YOU EVERY SINGLE TIME
HERE ON OUR COMMITTEE. HOW YOU
KNOW, I ALSO FEEL LIKE A LOT OF
THE TIMES IT'S THE RATEPAYERS
THAT END UP CARRYING THE BURDEN.
BUT IN PARTICULAR, THIS BILL IS
VERY SPECIFICALLY TAILORED TO
THOSE THAT CAN'T AFFORD IT. IT'S
NOT A MANDATE FOR THEM TO DO IT.
BUT BUT IT DOES HELP, YOU KNOW,
THERE IS RISK FACTORS. YOU KNOW,
MR. STELLATO MENTIONED THAT
THERE ARE RISK FACTORS. AND THIS
HELPS THEM IF THEY WANT TO
CHANGE THEIR APPLIANCE. I OFTEN
FEEL THAT IN PARTICULAR, THOSE
THAT CAN'T AFFORD AT THE LOW
INCOME FAMILIES ARE LEFT BEHIND.
THIS IS JUST AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
US TO HELP THEM. BUT I WILL ASK
OUR GENTLEMAN, OUR WITNESS TO
SPEAK ON THE ISSUE TOO. YES,
AGAIN, READ ADUS WITH CENTRAL
COAST ENERGY SERVICES IS. I'LL
MAKE TWO COMMENTS. ONE TO THE
SENATOR SATO'S COMMENT THAT OUR
JOB ON THE GROUND, WORKING WITH
LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES IS TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE SCENARIO HE
LAID OUT DOESN'T OCCUR. WE ARE
ONLY WORKING WITH LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES WHERE IT MAKES SENSE
FOR THEM TO HAVE THAT TECHNOLOGY
, AND THERE'S LONG TERME COST
BENEFITS TO THEM AS IT RELATES
TO A HODGEPODGE OF DIFFERENT
PROGRAMS THAT ARE OUT THERE. I
DO THINK THE SENATOR'S REALLY
FOCUSED IN ON THE LOW INCOME
COMMUNITY, AND WHILE THERE ARE
LOTS OF PROGRAMS OUT THERE THAT
DO SUPPORT VARIOUS APPLIANCE
TECHNOLOGIES, CLIMATE BENEFICIAL
TECHNOLOGIES, NONE OF THEM ARE
FULLY FOCUSED ON LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES. THE CLOSEST, AS
SENATOR BECKER MENTIONED, IS THE
EBD PROGRAM. THEY'RE VERY WELL
COULD BE SOME A SENSE OF MAYBE
HAVING THIS BE A SUBSET OF THAT.
OR I COULD IMAGINE A SCENARIO
THEY'RE NOT SPEAKING FOR THE
AUTHOR WHERE YOU COULD DO THAT,
BUT THAT'S THE CLOSEST PROGRAM
WHERE THE STATE HAS SET UP A
SYSTEM BY WHICH YOU COULD GO IN
AND PROVIDE UTILITY, APPLIANCES.
AND THERE IS A DISCUSSION OF
FOCUS AND CRITERIA IN THERE
ABOUT LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES.
BUT THE SENATOR'S MEASURE IS
SOLELY FOCUSED ON LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES. AND THAT'S WHY WE
THINK THIS PROGRAM WOULD BE
BENEFICIAL TO PASS. OKAY. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? SENATOR
DURAZO, JUST A SMALL COMMENT
HERE. I THINK THERE ARE MANY
BENEFITS TO DOING THIS KIND OF
PROGRAM. I APPRECIATE YOU,
MOVING IT FORWARD. I THINK IT
ALSO ADDS TO OUR ECONOMY BECAUSE
APPLIANCES WILL BE BUILT. IT
WILL BE MADE MANUFACTURED,
HOPEFULLY. MAYBE THE NEXT BILL
IS ABOUT APPLIANCES MADE IN THE
US OR IN CALIFORNIA. THEN WE'D
REALLY BE ASSURED OF SOME BETTER
JOBS. BUT ANYWAY, I SUPPORT YOUR
BILL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS
HERE? SENATOR RUBIO, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? JUST THANK YOU
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. WITH
THAT, I ASKED FOR AN AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MEMBERS,
WE HAVE A DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION ON THIS? SORRY, SKINNER.
I MOVED MOVED BY SENATOR DURAZO.
OKAY. I THINK YES, YOU HAD MOVED
IT. I THINK SENATOR SKINNER HAD
ORIGINALLY MOVED IT. OKAY. WE
HAVE A MOTION BY SENATOR
SKINNER. SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON SB 1054. SENATORS.
BRADFORD. BRADFORD. AYE DALLY.
DALLY. AYE. ASHBY. BECKER AYE.
BECKER. AYE. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. DODD DODD. AYE.
DURAZZO. DURAZZO. AYE. EGGMAN
EGGMAN. AYE. GONZALEZ. GROVE.
LEMON LEE. MIN MIN. AYE. NEWMAN
NEWMAN. AYE. RUBIO. AYE. RUBIO.
AYE. SATO SKINNER. SKINNER. AYE.
WAHAB. WILK 11 TO 0. 11 TO 0.
WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. NOW WE'RE MOVING
ON TO ITEM TEN. SENATOR BECKER
.
WHEN YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY
BEGIN. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON
, CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I'D LIKE TO
FIRST START BY ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
NOTED ON PAGE FIVE OF THE
ANALYSIS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR WORK ON THIS BILL. THIS IS
A 1206 SB, 1206. SB 1206 WOULD
AUTHORIZE THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, GO-BIZ, TO CREATE A
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR A
NEXT GENERATION SOLID STATE
BATTERY TECHNOLOGY AND
MANUFACTURING INNOVATION HUB.
CALIFORNIA IS ON THE FOREFRONT
OF GLOBAL COMPETITION TO CREATE
THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE AND
EFFICIENT BATTERIES TO ELECTRIFY
THE GRID AND TRANSITION AWAY
FROM FOSSIL FUELS. THE RAPID
GROWTH OF DEMAND FOR BATTERIES
CREATES AN IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY
FOR CALIFORNIA, THE HOME TO ONE
OF THE WORLD'S LEADING LITHIUM
DEPOSITS, TO LEAD THE
DEVELOPMENT OF NEXT GENERATION
BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES. WE ALREADY
HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE POTENTIAL
OF A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
WITH ARCHES, A STATEWIDE
HYDROGEN HUB HOSTED BY THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF BUSINESS
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
SIMILAR TO HOW WE'RE LEADING
WITH ARCHES PROGRAM, WE NEED A
HOLISTIC STRATEGY FOR BATTERIES
THAT LEVERAGES OUR TECHNOLOGY
LEADERSHIP, LITHIUM RESERVES,
SKILLED WORKFORCE AND ROLE AS A
MARKET MAKER. AND I WANT TO
MENTION HERE, IN THIS EFFORT,
THAT HAVING GOOD WORKER
STANDARDS IN THIS CASE IS A
POSITIVE, BOTH IN TERMS OF THE
OVERALL JOB QUALITY AND ALSO
GETTING DOLLARS FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. SO THIS WILL
PRIORITIZE OUR ROLE IN CREATING,
NEXT GENERATION BATTERIES BY
AUTHORIZING THIS PUBLIC PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP AND PUTTING US IN A
BETTER COMPETITIVE POSITION FOR
FEDERAL FUNDING. I HAVE TWO
WITNESSES HERE TODAY ON OUR
BEHALF, MICHAEL MONAGHAN, THE
STATE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
TRADES, AND ORVILLE THOMAS FROM
CALIFORNIA MOBILITY CENTER.
THANK YOU BOTH. I HAVE TWO
MINUTES AS PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS. MIKE MONNING AND ON
BEHALF OF THE BUILDING TRADES,
WITH PROUD SPONSORS OF THIS
BILL, I'D LIKE TO SPEND A COUPLE
OF MINUTES OR LESS THAN A COUPLE
OF MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT THE
PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT THAT'S
INCLUDED IN THIS LANGUAGE, I
THINK YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH
PLAS, BUT. AND THE OBVIOUS
BENEFITS OF PLA WITH LABOR,
PEACE AND WAGES TO SUPPORT A
FAMILY. BUT THERE'S OTHER THINGS
IN PLA THAT REALLY ARE
BENEFICIAL TO THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY, I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY
TO LOOK AT A PLA FROM ITS
CURRENT NOW WITH THE PUBLIC
WATER DISTRICT AND AID THE
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES THAT
THEY REACH OUT TO DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION INCLUDE VETERANS.
AND I THINK YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR
WITH OUR HEART. EXCUSE ME.
HELMETS TO HARDHATS, HOMELESS OR
BEEN HOMELESS IN THE LAST YEAR,
FORMER FOSTER YOUTH FORMERLY
INCARCERATED AND GRADUATES OF AN
APPRENTICESHIP READINESS PROGRAM
. AND THAT'S JUST A SMALL
PORTION OF THE OUTREACH THAT WE
DO IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES. THERE'S
ONE MORE PIECE OF PLA THAT I
THINK GETS OVERLOOKED OR
IGNORED, BUT SECTION 2500 OF THE
PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE PROHIBITS
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NONUNION
CONTRACTORS. SO ANYBODY WHO'S
QUALIFIED UNION OR NONUNION CAN
PARTICIPATE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ADDITIONAL WITNESS IN
SUPPORT. THANKS, CHAIR. BRADFORD
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS ALSO,
HAPPY EARTH DAY. MY NAME IS
ORVILLE THOMAS, CEO OF THE
CALIFORNIA MOBILITY CENTER. THE
MOBILITY CENTER IS A NONPROFIT
PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN UC DAVIS,
SACRAMENTO STATE, SMUD, AND THE
GREATER ECONOMIC GREATER
SACRAMENTO ECONOMIC COUNCIL TO
DEVELOP A 25 ACRE SITE IN SOUTH
SACRAMENTO AND TURN THAT INTO A
CLEAN ENERGY, POWER AND ZERO
EMISSION INNOVATION CAMPUS. THIS
CAMPUS WOULD BE BUILT IN A
JUSTICE40 DISADVANTAGED ZONE AND
IF THIS LEGISLATION PASSES, IT
WOULD HELP DRAW DOWN FEDERAL
DOLLARS TO HELP ACCELERATE THAT
CONSTRUCTION. SB 1206 WILL BE
VITAL TO OUR GOAL AS IT BRINGS
TOGETHER VARIOUS PARTNERS IN THE
CLEAN ENERGY INDUSTRY AND
CREATES A STATEWIDE PLAN SIMILAR
TO ARCHES, FOR THE FUTURE OF
NEXT GENERATION BATTERIES. THE
UNITED STATES CURRENTLY
REPRESENTS ONLY 10% OF GLOBAL
BATTERY STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES,
ACCORDING TO LAWRENCE BERKELEY
NATIONAL LABORATORY. TO MEET THE
DEMAND AND FUEL FOR THE ENERGY
TRANSITION, TEN TIMES OF THIS
NEED WILL BE REQUIRED BY 2045,
AND THESE FUTURE BATTERIES THAT
POWER HOMES, BUSINESSES,
VEHICLES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT
NECESSARY FOR THE DEMAND SHOULD
BE BUILT IN CALIFORNIA AND SB
1206 AND THE POLICY PUSH
ACCOMPANYING IT WOULD PUT
CALIFORNIA LEADING POSITION FOR
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND
MANUFACTURING OF THOSE NEXT
GENERATIONS OF BATTERIES, AN
OPPORTUNITY VALUED AT $400
MILLION RIGHT NOW AND GROWING
INTO THE BILLIONS BY 2045. IF,
IF IMPLEMENTED, A STATEWIDE
STRATEGY AROUND BATTERIES WILL
ALLOW ORGANIZATIONS LIKE MINE TO
POTENTIALLY DRAW DOWN HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
EXISTING FEDERAL FUNDS TO
RESEARCH, DEVELOP AND
MANUFACTURE NEXT GENERATION
TECHNOLOGY AG, AND ALSO TRAINED
THE WORKFORCE THAT MANUFACTURES
AND MAINTAINS THAT TECHNOLOGY. I
ASK YOU TO SUPPORT OUR RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT, MANUFACTURING AND
WORKFORCE GOALS AND VOTE. I
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
KEITH DUNN HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
SELF-HELP COUNTIES COALITION,
THE 25 LOCAL SALES TAX COUNTIES
SUPPORT THIS MEASURE. IF WE CAN
HAVE THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY
BUILT IN CALIFORNIA, IT HELPS US
ATTAIN OUR POLICY GOALS OF CLEAN
ENERGY AND ALSO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS AND GOOD JOBS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS,
MR. CHAIR MEMBERS SARA FLOCKS,
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION, IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MEGAN MICKELBERG HERE ON BEHALF
OF CAL STAR AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. KATIE MCCAMMON IN SUPPORT
FOR CLIMATE ACTION CALIFORNIA.
AND 350 HUMBOLDT. THANK YOU. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
NOW LET'S MOVE TO OPPOSITION
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
EVENING. SENATORS RICHARD
MARKSON FOR THE WESTERN
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
ASSOCIATION, THE PROPONENTS OF
PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS
FREQUENTLY CITE A PUBLIC
CONTRACT CODES 2500 AS
PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST CONTRACTORS. WHAT THEY
NEVER TALK ABOUT IS THE FACT
THAT PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NONUNION
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND
NONUNION APPRENTICES. THE
NONUNION APPRENTICES ARE
PROHIBITED BY THE STANDARD
LANGUAGE IN PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENTS FROM BEING EMPLOYED
ON THESE PROJECTS. A NONUNION
CONTRACTOR WHO IS PERMITTED TO
BID ON THE PROJECT IS TYPICALLY
LIMITED TO ONLY 3 OR 4 OF THEIR
OWN CORE WORKERS. EVERYONE ELSE
HAS TO COME FROM THE OUT OF WORK
BOOK. IT'S NOT DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST CONTRACTORS, BUT IT'S A
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WORKERS.
WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS IT GRANTS
A NO BID, SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT
FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE LABOR TO THE
SPONSORS OF THE MEASURE, AND IT
SHOULD BE REJECTED. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? SEEING
NONE NOW TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY
QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? HEARING NONE.
OH, SENATOR GROVE, THANK YOU,
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THESE
LITHIUM ION BATTERIES, THEY'RE
GOING TO BE DEVELOPED, ARE WE
ETHICALLY SOURCING THAT LITHIUM?
LIKE, IS IT COMING FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LIKE IN THE
SALTON SEA, WHERE SENATOR
PADILLA IS AT, OR IN MY
COMMUNITY WHERE LITHIUM IS
PRODUCED AT THE BORAX LAND
PLANT, WHICH IS 100% LABOR, OR
IS IT SOURCED THERE, OR ARE YOU
GETTING IT FROM THE DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO, WHERE
CHILD SLAVE LABOR IS THERE? SO
WHERE IS THIS? I WANT TO KNOW IF
THIS ENERGY THAT WE'RE GOING TO
THAT IS IN THIS BILL THAT YOUR
COLLEAGUES ARE SUPPORTING, WHAT
IS IT ETHICALLY SOURCED,
ETHICALLY, ACQUIRED ENERGY?
WELL, I APPRECIATE YOU RAISING
THAT CONCERN. AND CERTAINLY THE
GOAL. I MEAN, AS I MENTIONED IN
THE BILL, THAT IS OUR
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE THAT WE
HAVE THE WORKFORCE, THE KNOW
HOW, BUT ALSO WE HAVE THIS
LITHIUM, THAT CAN BE THE
GREENEST IN THE WORLD AS YOU
MENTIONED. SO THE BILL IS REALLY
ABOUT THE BATTERY MANUFACTURING
HUB ITSELF. BUT I CERTAINLY
BELIEVE THAT IF WE SUCCEED IN
ESTABLISHING THIS HUB, WE WILL
BE, IT GIVES US A MUCH EASIER
DRAW TO THE CALIFORNIA SOURCE OF
LITHIUM, AND THAT I THINK THAT
WILL PREVAIL. AND I THINK IT'LL
BE SYNERGISTIC. OKAY. I WAS JUST
CURIOUS BECAUSE LIKE, YOU KNOW,
I UNDERSTAND THE HUB. I
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ON
THAT. I JUST IT JUST MAKES ME
SICK TO MY STOMACH THAT WE
CONTINUE TO BRING IN, YOU KNOW,
WHETHER IT'S LITHIUM, WHETHER
IT'S COBALT, WHETHER IT'S OIL,
WE BRING ALL THESE ENERGY
SOURCES FROM COUNTRIES AND
PLACES THAT ARE REALLY HOSTILE
TO US AND ALSO THAT HAVE
HORRIFIC HUMAN RIGHTS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY IN THESE
DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. AND SO I
JUST DIDN'T WANT TO SUPPORT ONE
MORE THING THAT HAD ANYTHING TO
DO WITH THAT, WAS THERE ANYTHING
THAT YOU WANTED TO SAY ON THE
OPPOSITION THAT SAYS THAT IT
DOESN'T DISCRIMINATE? IT'S A
CONTRACTORS, BUT IT DOESN'T
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE
EMPLOYEES BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE
A PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT, YOU
DO, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ENGAGE
IN IN THE PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENT AND KEEP YOUR OWN
EMPLOYEES. SO IS THERE AN
ARGUMENT AGAINST THAT? BECAUSE
THAT'S ACTUALLY DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST EMPLOYEES THAT REALLY
HAVE THE DESIRE TO WORK AND HAVE
THE CAPABILITY AND THE TRAINING
TO WORK THAT ARE NOT SIGNATORY?
WELL, JUST TO WRAP UP ON YOUR ON
YOUR, FIRST POINT AND AGAIN, I
WANT TO I THINK WE SHOULD
APPLAUD THEN THE BIDEN-HARRIS
ADMINISTRATION, WHERE THEY'VE
PUT ALL THE INCENTIVES IN THE
IRA ARE FOR DOMESTICALLY
PRODUCED CONTENT. SO TO YOUR
POINT, IT IS OKAY, AND AGAIN,
THAT IS THE, THE GOAL DOESN'T
EXPLICITLY SAY IT, BUT THAT'S
THE GOAL. I THINK IT'S ALL ABOUT
BUILDING THAT DOMESTIC SUPPLY
CHAIN AND BUILDING IT HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, YOU KNOW, TO YOUR
SECOND POINT, THESE ARE NEW
FACILITIES. SO THIS IS NOT A
FACILITY. SOMEONE ELSE COMING
OUT AND WE'RE COMING IN AND
TRADING OUT EMPLOYEES. SO THIS
IS REALLY TO ENCOURAGE, THIS NEW
THESE NEW FACILITIES, BUILD NEW
BATTERY MANUFACTURING HUBS,
BUILD THEM FROM THE START WITH
GOOD JOBS. I DON'T THINK
EXCLUDED. WE CAN HAVE MORE
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT IF WE'D
LIKE. BUT IT'S REALLY THIS IS
ALL ABOUT NEW, NEW EFFORTS. AND
I THINK IT WILL HELP US ACTUALLY
ACCESS THE FEDERAL DOLLARS, TOO.
BUT THESE NEW EFFORTS ARE BUILT
UNDER A PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT,
CORRECT? THAT THERE ARE POINTS,
YES, FOR THE PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION OR DEBATE ON THIS
ITEM? Þ. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY
SENATOR DURAZO. WE HAVE A Dð
PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS, AS AMENDED. YES.
DO PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SENATOR. BRADFORD. BRADFORD.
AYE. DALLY DALLY. NO. ASHBY.
BECKER. I BECKER. I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. DODD DODD I.
DURAZZO. DURAZZO. I EGGMAN.
EGGMAN I GONZALEZ. GROVE GROVE.
NØ. LIMÓN. MIN. MIN I NEWMAN.
NEWMAN I RUBIO. RUBIO I SATO.
SKINNER. SKINNER I WAHAB. WILK
10 TO 2, THAT MEASURE HAS TEN
VOTES TO TWO, WE'LL LEAVE THE
ROLL OPEN? OH, SHE MISSED THE.
NO. SHE CALLED LIMON. LET'S CALL
HER AGAIN. OH. SHE DID. OH I
CALLED. YEAH. SENATOR LIMÓN
LIMON. LIMÓN. AYE. 11 TO 2.
RIGHT QUICK. SHE DIDN'T HEAR
YOU. SHE DIDN'T HEAR YOU. I
THANK YOU, ALL RIGHT. YOU. SO
IT'S 11 TO 2. YES. ALL RIGHT.
NOW WE'RE MOVING ON TO SENATOR
BECKER'S SECOND BILL. AND THAT
IS SB 1374, THANK YOU, CHAIR
MEMBERS, WE SPEND A LITTLE BIT
MORE TIME ON THIS ONE. I KNOW
IT'S, HOURS LATE, BUT I KNOW
THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCERNS ABOUT
THIS. BILL, I WANT TO TRY TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE IN THE
STATEMENT, THIS IS SB 1374,
RESTORING SELF-CONSUMPTION FOR
DISTRIBUTED SOLAR. WHEN THE PUC
CHANGED THE RULES FOR AN ENERGY
METERING FOR HOMES AND OTHER
BUILDINGS WITH ROOFTOP SOLAR,
THEY DECIDED WHAT THEY THOUGHT
WAS A FAIR WAY TO TREAT THAT
KIND OF BEHIND THE METER
ELECTRICITY GENERATION. SB 1374
IS JUST TELLING THE PUC TO GIVE
THE SAME DEAL TO PROPERTIES THAT
WERE PART OF VIRTUAL NET ENERGY
MEETING BEFORE THE PROPERTIES,
LIKE SCHOOLS AND APARTMENTS AND
FARMS, WHERE THE SOLAR POWERS
ARE GENERATING ENERGY BEHIND A
SEPARATE METER FROM THE METERS.
MEASURING USAGE. IF YOU PUT A
SOLAR ON THE ROOF OF A HOUSE,
THEN WHEN YOU'RE USING
ELECTRICITY FOR AIR CONDITIONING
AND YOUR WASHING MACHINE AT THE
SAME TIME, THE SOLAR POWERS ARE
THE SOLAR PANELS ARE GENERATING
ELECTRICITY. YOU AVOID PAYING
THE UTILITIES HIGH RATES FOR
THAT POWER. THAT'S CALLED
SELF-CONSUMPTION. THAT'S WHAT
THE PUC, RECOGNIZED AND SAID,
OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY
SOME OF THE INCENTIVES TO SELL
BACK TO THE GRID, BUT WE'RE
GOING TO ENCOURAGE THIS KIND OF
SELF-CONSUMPTION THÀNH. AND IT
MAKES SENSE. YOU ONLY PAY THE
UTILITY FOR POWER THAT YOU TAKE
FROM THE UTILITY, AND YOU DON'T
PAY FOR POWER THAT YOU GENERATE
YOURSELF. IF I GENERATE MORE
POWER THAN I CONSUME DURING A 15
MINUTE PERIOD, THE UTILITY PAYS
ME FOR THE EXCESS POWER AT THE
UTILITY'S AVOIDED COSTS, WHICH
IS ABOUT 75% LOWER THAN THE
PRICE I'D HAVE TO PAY TO BUY
THAT SAME POWER FROM THE
UTILITY. GIVEN THAT LOW EXPORT
PRICE, LOW EXPORT PRICE. AGAIN,
IT'S IN MY INTEREST TO SELF
CONSUME THAT AS MUCH OF SOLAR AS
POSSIBLE. IN FACT, IT MAKES NO
SENSE TO INSTALL ROOFTOP SOLAR
UNLESS YOU SAVE MONEY BY SELF
CONSUMING IT TO AVOID PAYING
THOSE HIGHER RATES AGAIN.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE PUC TOOK AWAY
THAT ABILITY TO SELF CONSUME
SOLAR FROM ALL THE PROPERTIES
THAT WERE RELYING ON NET ENERGY
MEETING. SO THIS IS A PROBLEM IF
YOU HAVE A SCHOOL, FOR EXAMPLE,
THAT'S GENERATING POWER ON A
SOLAR CANOPY ON IN THE PARKING
LOT BEHIND ONE METER AND THE
SCHOOL BUILDING ARE CONSUMING
POWER BEHIND SEPARATE METERS,
THEN 100% OF THE SOLAR POWER
BEING SOLD TO IS BEING SOLD TO
THE UTILITY AT LOW VALUE, WHILE
THE SCHOOL IS SIMULTANEOUSLY
PURCHASING POWER FROM THE
UTILITY AT FOUR TIMES THE PRICE
AT THE SAME TIME ON THE SAME
PROPERTY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE
BELIEVE IS A FUNDAMENTAL
UNFAIRNESS OF THAT RULING. THE
SAME IS TRUE FOR CHURCHES.
AGAIN, WE'RE ACTUALLY WE'RE
INCENTED BY THE IRA, TO HAVE
NONPROFITS AND CHURCHES BENEFIT,
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS. FARMS ANYWHERE. THE
SOLAR IS NOT BEHIND THE SAME
METER AS THE APPLIANCES THAT ARE
USING THAT ENERGY, REALIZING HOW
UNFAIR THESE RULES ARE, THE PUC
MADE A LAST MINUTE CHANGE TO
GIVE THE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS AT
APARTMENT BUILDINGS THE SAME
ABILITY TO SELF CONSUME WITHIN
15 MINUTE INTERVALS, WHICH SEEMS
FAIR, RIGHT? BUT THE NEW RULES
ARE STILL A PROBLEM FOR
APARTMENT TENANTS, BECAUSE THE
BUILDING OWNERS WHO HAVE
COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS NOW HAVE NO
INCENTIVE TO INSTALL SOLAR
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET CREDIT
FOR SELF-CONSUMPTION FOR THEIR
USAGE, FOR THE HALLWAY LIGHTING,
FOR POOL PUMPS OR EV CHARGING TO
THE PARKING LOT. SO THEN THEY
WON'T SEE ANY VALUE IN SELLING
SOLAR. SO THERE'LL BE NO SOLAR
FOR THE FOR THEM OR FOR THE
APARTMENT TENANTS TO SHARE. SO
AGAIN, THIS BILL IS ABOUT
TELLING THE PUC TO GIVE EVERYONE
THE SAME DEAL. IF YOU GENERATE
POWER IN YOUR OWN PROPERTY, YOU
CAN SELF CONSUME IT AND AVOID
PAYING THE UTILITY FOR IT. IF
YOUR GENERATION EXCEEDS
CONSUMPTION, THEN THE UTILITY
ONLY HAS TO PAY YOU. IT'S
AVOIDED COSTS FOR THAT EXCESS.
IF THAT WAS FAIR FOR SINGLE
FAMILY'S HOMES, WHY WOULDN'T IT
BE FAIR FOR EVERYONE ELSE? NOW,
I DO WANT TO ADDRESS THIS NOTION
THAT THIS WILL CAUSE A COST
SHIFT AND RAISE RATES FOR
CONSUMERS, BECAUSE THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT POINT. AND AGAIN, THAT
WAS BEHIND THEIR THEIR NET
ENERGY MEETING, BILL, THEIR
RULING FOR RESIDENTIAL. AND IT'S
IMPORTANT YOU KNOW, RATES ARE
HIGH. NOBODY WANTS TO MAKE IT
WORSE UNDER THE NET BILLING
TARIFF RULES. PRETTY MUCH
EVERYONE AGREES THAT EXPORTED
ENERGY IS NOT BEING
OVERCOMPENSATED ANYMORE. SO THE
ONLY WAY THERE COULD BE A COST
SHIFT IS IF SELF-CONSUMPTION IS
A PROBLEM. SO THOSE CLAIMING A
COST SHIFT ARE SAYING THAT A
SCHOOL OR A FARM OR AN APARTMENT
BUILDING SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO
SELL ANY ENERGY THEY PRODUCE TO
THE UTILITY AT A VERY LOW PRICE,
AND THEN SIMULTANEOUSLY BUY IT
BACK FOR FOUR TIMES THE PRICE.
IN THEIR VIEW, ANYTHING ELSE IS
A COST SHIFT. I THINK THAT'S
SIMPLY A FLAWED WAY TO THINK
ABOUT, A COUGH SHIFT AND TO
CALCULATE. A CUSTOMER'S FAIR
SHARE OF COSTS. IT'D BE
FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR NOT TO LET
PEOPLE SELF CONSUME THE POWER
THEY GENERATE AND CONSUME ON
THEIR PROPERTY. ANOTHER PART OF
THE COST SHIFT ARGUMENT IS THE
WORRY THAT IF PEOPLE WITH SOLAR
BUY LESS ELECTRICITY FROM THE
GRID THAN THE FIXED COST OF THE
GRID WILL BE SPREAD ACROSS A
DWINDLING AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY
SALES. BUT ELECTRICITY DEMAND IS
NOT DECLINING. I THINK THAT'S
THE IMPORTANT POINT HERE. THE CC
EXPECTS ELECTRICITY DEMAND TO
DOUBLE BY 2045 AS WE SWITCH TO
EVS, AND HEAT PUMPS AND ADD DATA
CENTERS AND MORE HOUSING. AND I
JUST HEARD THIS WEEKEND AT LAST
FRIDAY'S A PC EVENT, THEY SAID
NATIONALLY, THE PROJECTION OF 5%
INCREASE IN ENERGY USE
NATIONALLY JUST IN THE NEXT
COUPLE OF YEARS, PEOPLE WHO ARE
REDUCING DEMAND BY INSTALLING
SOLAR ARE NOT ONLY PARTIALLY
OFFSETTING ALL OF THEIR INCREASE
IN DEMAND FROM OTHER USES,
THERE'S NOT A DWINDLING SET OF
DEMAND, JUST A SLOWER INCREASE.
AND THAT SLOWER INCREASE IN
DEMAND LETS US AVOID MAKING AS
MANY NEW INVESTMENTS IN THE
GRID. THAT'S HELPFUL, NOT
HARMFUL. BEALL I, I APPRECIATE
THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE
CHAIR, AND IF THIS BILL MOVES
FORWARD, I WILL CONTINUE TO WORK
ON THIS. CONCERNS RAISED BY THE
CHAIR AND STAFF. THIS BILL AGAIN
IS NOT BRINGING BACK THE OLD NEM
RULES. THAT CREATED A LOT OF
WORRIES ABOUT A COST SHIFT. IT
JUST REQUIRES THE PC TO ALLOW
EVERYONE TO SELF CONSUME POWER
GENERATED ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY,
INCLUDING FOR CASES WHERE THE
CONSUMPTION IS BEHIND SEPARATE
METERS FROM THE SAME GENERATION,
AND IT GIVES SCHOOLS AND
APARTMENT BUILDINGS THE SAME
DEAL AS WE GIVE TO SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES. TO ME, THIS SIMPLY
MATTER. THIS IS A SIMPLE MATTER
OF FAIRNESS AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. AND I
HAVE TWO WITNESSES HERE WITH US
TODAY ARE YOUR TWO PRIMARY
WITNESSES WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS,
NANCY ESPINOZA, ON BEHALF ON
BEHALF OF THE SCHOOL ENERGY
COALITION, WHO IS A CO-SPONSOR
AND ALSO DOING A ME TOO, ON
BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
FACILITY COALITION AND THE
COUNTY SCHOOL FACILITY
CONSORTIUM. TODAY, YOU HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY A
FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS THAT WAS
INFLICTED ON COMMERCIAL UTILITY
CUSTOMERS BY THE PUC AND ITS
DECEMBER 23RD VMT NBTA RULING.
THE RULING MAKES IT ECONOMICALLY
INFEASIBLE FOR SCHOOLS,
COMMUNITY COLLEGES,
UNIVERSITIES, WATER AGENCIES,
MUNICIPAL FACILITIES, FARMS,
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, AND MANY
OTHERS TO INSTALL PHOTOVOLTAIC
SYSTEMS AND BATTERY STORAGE.
MAKING CLEAN ENERGY MORE
EXPENSIVE UNDERMINES OUR ABILITY
TO MEET THE GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTION GOALS SET BY THIS
LEGISLATURE. IN AB 32,
CALIFORNIA CANNOT MEET ITS
ENERGY GOALS WITHOUT PROPERLY
SUPPORTING THE OVER ONE EXCUSE
ME, OVER 10,000 K-12 SCHOOL
SITES IN CALIFORNIA. ENERGY
EXPENDITURES ARE ALREADY THE
SECOND LARGEST COMPONENT OF
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGETS. WE NEED
SELF-GENERATION TO PRESERVE
EDUCATION FUNDS FOR STUDENTS,
INSTEAD OF HAVING TO TRANSFER
THEM TO INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES
. WE'RE NOT BUSINESSES. WE CAN'T
CHARGE FEES TO PASS HIGHER
ENERGY COSTS ON TO OUR
CUSTOMERS. THIS RULING DIRECTLY
TAKES MONEY OUT OF THE
CLASSROOM. RELIABLE SOLAR AND
STORAGE IS THE ONLY WAY TO
PREVENT DISRUPTIONS IN
EDUCATION, NUTRITION AND PAYROLL
CAUSED BY FREQUENT PUBLIC
SAFETY. POWER SHUT OFFS,
WILDFIRES AND OTHER CONDITIONS
THAT ARE BECOMING THE NEW NORMAL
. AS OUR CLIMATE CHANGES TO
ENSURE THAT WE CAN TO ENSURE
THAT WE CAN OPERATE AS EMERGENCY
SHELTERS AND STAGING GROUNDS FOR
EMERGENCY PERSONNEL. THIS RULING
PUNISHES US FOR THAT
SELF-RELIANCE AND THE TIMING
COULDN'T BE WORSE. JUST WHEN THE
FEDERAL INFLATION REDUCTION ACT
MAKES UNPRECEDENTED RESOURCES
AVAILABLE TO AID IN THE
TRANSITION TO CLEAN POWER, THE
PUC MAKES IT NO LONGER
FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE TO ADOPT
THESE TECHNOLOGIES. IF THE
LEGISLATURE DOESN'T REMEDY THIS
SOON, CALIFORNIA WILL LEAVE
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE
TABLE. THE LEGISLATURE CREATED
AN M.A. AND VM PROGRAMS FOR GOOD
REASON. JUST BECAUSE A PROPERTY
HAS MORE THAN ONE METER DOESN'T
MEAN THAT A CUSTOMER SHOULD BE
DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO
GENERATE THEIR OWN ELECTRICITY.
THE PUC MADE A BAD DECISION AND
WE NEED YOU TO SET THINGS RIGHT.
WE ARE ONLY ASKING FOR WHAT'S
FAIR. TELL THE PUC THAT
COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE
BILLED FOR THE ENERGY THEY
ACTUALLY CONSUME FROM THE GRID,
RATHER THAN PRETENDING THAT NONE
OF THE GENERATION IS CONSUMED ON
SITE. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME
IS ALI G. I'M THE CHIEF
STRATEGIST OF REIMAGINED POWER.
I WAS THE SOLE REPRESENTATIVE
ADVOCATING EXCLUSIVELY FOR
MULTIFAMILY INTERESTS, BOTH
PROPERTY OWNERS AND RENTERS, IN
THE MDMA DOCKET. THE CPUC FOR
THE LAST THREE YEARS, AS STATED
BEFORE, THE CORE VALUE
PROPOSITION FOR SINGLE AND
MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS ALIKE IS
THE ABILITY TO SELF GENERATE AND
DIRECTLY CONSUME ELECTRICITY
PRODUCED ON SITE MULTI-UNIT
BUILDINGS LIKE APARTMENTS,
SCHOOLS, FARMS, ANYONE THAT HAS
MULTIPLE METERS ON A SINGLE
PROPERTY. ALL MULTIMETER
CUSTOMERS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A
DEDICATED GENERATING ACCOUNT
WITH A PRODUCTION METER.
MEASURING EXPORTS AND BENEFITING
ACCOUNTS HAVE INDIVIDUAL METERS
THAT ONLY MEASURE CONSUMPTION.
THESE CUSTOMERS ARE PHYSICALLY
CONSUMING THEIR ELECTRICITY
DIRECTLY ON SITE PER THE LAWS OF
PHYSICS, WHICH I CAN EXPLAIN
MORE IN QUESTIONS AND NETTING IS
REQUIRED TO ACCURATELY MEASURE
ON SITE SELF CONSUMPTION AND
PROPERLY ACCOUNT FOR ITS VALUE
ON THESE PROPERTIES AND ENSURE
THAT PRODUCTION CAN BE MEASURED
AGAINST CONSUMPTION OR NETTED IN
A GIVEN TIME INTERVAL.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE CPUC DECISION
ELIMINATES THE ABILITY OF
MULTIMETER PROPERTIES TO
RECOGNIZE SELF GENERATION VALUE,
MULTIPLE HOUSING OWNERS, FOR
EXAMPLE, WHO WERE INSTALLING
SHARED SOLAR SYSTEMS ON THEIR
PROPERTIES AND SHARING THE
ELECTRIC BILL SAVINGS WITH THEIR
TENANTS ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO
REALIZE THOSE BENEFITS. MANY
PROJECTS IN DEVELOPMENT AT BOTH
EXISTING AND NEW HOUSING ARE NOW
BEING CANCELED. IF PROPERTY
OWNERS CAN'T RECOGNIZE SELF
GENERATION VALUE, THEY WON'T
INVEST IN ON SITE CLEAN ENERGY
AT ALL, AND THEIR TENANTS, WHO
ARE OVERWHELMINGLY LOW INCOME
AND OR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR,
WILL NOT SEE THE ECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS THAT THEY
WERE STARTING TO REALIZE BEFORE
THIS RULE CHANGE, ALL CUSTOMERS
HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF GENERATE
AND USE ELECTRICITY FOR THEIR
OWN USE. IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL
PROPERTY, RIGHT? UNDER STATE AND
FEDERAL LAW, THE CPUC DECISION
UNDERMINES THAT RIGHT AND
ELIMINATES THESE CUSTOMERS SELF
GENERATION VALUE IN AN ARBITRARY
AND DISCRIMINATORY MANNER. THIS
LEGISLATION SEEKS TO REMEDY THIS
PROBLEM. IT'S ESSENTIAL TO
ENSURING FAIRNESS AND EQUAL
TREATMENT BETWEEN ALL CUSTOMERS
SEEKING TO INSTALL CLEAN ENERGY
AND SUPPORT STATE POLICY GOALS
WITHOUT SWIFT CORRECTIVE ACTION
BY THE LEGISLATURE, MILLIONS OF
LOW INCOME AND MINORITY
POPULATIONS WHO RENT THEIR HOMES
OR BUSINESSES WILL BE UNJUSTLY
AND EQUITABLY LEFT BEHIND IN THE
STATE'S CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITION.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OR ELABORATE
FURTHER ON THE DETAILS, AND WE
STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES TO STATE
YOUR NAME AND YOUR ORGANIZATION.
HELLO, MEG SNYDER, AXIOM
ADVISORS, ON BEHALF OF FOUR
DIFFERENT GROUPS, REWIRING
AMERICA, PEARLEX, SUNPOWER, AND
THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. NEXT WITNESS. HELLO. MY
NAME IS SONIA WOOLLEY. ON BEHALF
OF THE DAVIS COLLEGE DEMOCRATS
IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
HI, I'M KATIE, AN ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY MAJOR AT UC DAVIS AND A
RENTER. AND I'M IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HI. MY NAME
IS SAMUEL BARFIELD. I'M ALSO OF
THE DAVIS COLLEGE DEMOCRATS, AND
I AM ALSO IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. HI. I'M ALEX WOOLF OF
THE DAVIS COLLEGE DEMOCRATS, AND
I AM ALSO STRONGLY IN SUPPORT.
SASHA HOROWITZ, LOS ANGELES
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT IN
SUPPORT. KIM STONE STONE
ADVOCACY FOR THE CALIFORNIA
SOLAR AND STORAGE ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. MCKINLEY THOMPSON
MORLEY WITH CALIFORNIA ADVISORS
ON BEHALF OF THE SOLAR ENERGY
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. GOOD EVENING, AARON
ROBERT, ON BEHALF OF THE ALMOND
ALLIANCE IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, CYNTHIA SHALIT, ON
BEHALF OF THE 60 CHAPTERS OF
INDIVISIBLE, CALIFORNIA STATE
STRONG, AND ALSO 40 OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS THAT SIGNED ON TO
THE COALITION. LETTER OF
INDIVISIBLE GREEN TEAM. KIM
CRAIG, ON BEHALF OF SONOVA IN
SUPPORT. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I AM ANA FERREIRA ON
BEHALF OF WINE INSTITUTE AND THE
1000 WINERIES AND THEIR
AFFILIATES THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
THANK YOU IN SUPPORT. ANDREW
DÍAS WITH THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP IN SUPPORT SIERRA
COOK WITH THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT IN SUPPORT. I'M
STEPHANIE SEIDMAN WITH UNDAUNTED
K-12. WE'RE A PROUD CO-SPONSOR
OF THIS BILL IN SUPPORT. ASHTON
NIGGLI WITH ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. CHAIR MEMBERS EDSON PEREZ WITH
ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED IN
SUPPORT. MARY ELLEN SHEA,
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL
HOUSING FINANCE AGENCIES AND
SUPPORT. GABRIELA HUESO WITH
SIERRA CLUB, CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. RICK BROWN, TIERRA
VERDE ENERGY IN SUPPORT. KATIE
MCCAMMON WITH 350 SACRAMENTO IN
SUPPORT AS WELL AS SUPPORT FROM
CLIMATE ACTION CALIFORNIA
CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT
CALIFORNIA 350 HUMBOLDT GLENDALE
ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION AND
SANTA CRUZ CLIMATE ACTION
NETWORK. GOOD EVENING, MR.
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS. BETH OLAZO,
ON BEHALF OF THE AGRICULTURAL
ENERGY CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION,
THE WESTERN AG PROCESSORS
ASSOCIATION AND THE CALIFORNIA
COTTON GROWERS AND GROWERS
ASSOCIATION IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. BEN SCHWARTZ WITH THE
CLEAN COALITION IN SUPPORT.
CECILIA. CECILIA LEBLANC.
CONCERNED CITIZEN IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. I THINK THAT
EXHAUSTED OUR WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT. NOW WE'RE MOVING TO
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. DO WE
HAVE PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? IF SO, YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, MATT FRIEDMAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE UTILITY REFORM
NETWORK TODAY, THE SUBSIDY FOR
NET ENERGY METERING THAT'S
COLLECTED IN UTILITY RATES IS
ABOUT SIX AND A HALF DOLLARS
BILLION PER YEAR. THESE ARE
NUMBERS CALCULATED BY THE PUBLIC
ADVOCATE'S OFFICE. WHAT DOES
THAT MEAN? IT MEANS ABOUT 15% OF
EVERY RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY
BILL IS THE SUBSIDY FOR NET
METERING TODAY. AND THAT NUMBER
IS GOING UP. THIS BILL WOULD
EXACERBATE THE LEVEL OF THE
SUBSIDY AND THE PACE OF RATE
INCREASES GOING FORWARD FOR
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS BY
OVERTURNING THE PUC S RECENT
DECISION, WHICH LIMITS THE
GENEROUS TREATMENT THAT WAS
HISTORICALLY PROVIDED FOR
MULTIFAMILY MULTI PARCEL
NONRESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, THE
USE OF RETAIL RATES TO
COMPENSATE CUSTOMERS FOR BEHIND
THE METER GENERATION IS
EXTREMELY COSTLY. IT'S
INEQUITABLE, IT'S UNNECESSARY,
AND IT WOULD PRODUCE SUBSTANTIAL
COST SHIFTS. EXTENDING THIS
TREATMENT TO MULTIPLE CUSTOMERS
IS LOCATED ON THE SAME PARCEL,
OR TO A CUSTOMER WITH OPERATIONS
EXTENDED ACROSS MULTIPLE
PROPERTIES WOULD DRAMATICALLY
INCREASE THE COST OF THESE
PROGRAMS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMERS. SMALL BUSINESSES,
SMALL AGRICULTURAL CUSTOMERS,
SCHOOLS. THE LEVEL OF
COMPENSATION PROVIDED BY RETAIL
RATES IS ABOUT 5 TO 10 TIMES THE
VALUE OF THAT SOLAR POWER BEING
PROVIDED TO THE GRID, AND THE
PROBLEM IS THAT THAT MONEY IS
COMING FROM ALL OTHER CUSTOMERS.
IT'S NOT COMING FROM THE
UTILITIES, IT'S NOT COMING FROM
THEIR SHAREHOLDERS, IT'S COMING
FROM ALL CUSTOMERS. IF THE
LEGISLATURE BELIEVES THAT MORE
GENEROUS COMPENSATION IS
APPROPRIATE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMERS, WE HAVE A PROPOSAL.
FIND ANOTHER SOURCE OF MONEY TO
PAY FOR IT. DON'T FORCE ALL
OTHER CUSTOMERS TO PAY HIGHER
BILLS TO PROVIDE THE SUBSIDY.
GET IT FROM THE GENERAL FUND,
FROM CAP AND TRADE MONEY, FROM
SOME OTHER SOURCE. GIVEN THE
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS FACING
CURRENT AND FUTURE ELECTRICITY
RATEPAYERS, THE LEGISLATURE
SHOULD TAKE ALL AVAILABLE
MEASURES. MEASURES TO AVOID
EXACERBATING THE CURRENT COST
SHIFT AND AVOID INCREASING THE
CRISIS OF AFFORDABILITY FOR
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. RACHEL RACHEL
COSS ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION
OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES,
EVERY TIME YOU HEARD SUPPORTERS
SAY BENEFITS, YOU SHOULD HAVE
HEARD THE WORD COSTS FOR OTHER
CUSTOMERS. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
IT MEANS. IF YOU CARE ABOUT
ELECTRIC RATES, YOU NEED TO VOTE
NO ON THIS BILL. THIS BILL WILL
RAISE ELECTRIC RATES FOR YOUR
CONSTITUENTS. THE PUC
EXTENSIVELY CONSIDERED PROPERTY
WIDE NETTING AND FOUND THAT IT
RAISES BILLS FOR
NONPARTICIPATING CUSTOMERS WHEN
CUSTOMERS CONSUME THEIR OWN
GENERATION AND BUY FEWER
KILOWATT HOURS FROM THE GRID,
THEY AVOID PAYING THEIR FAIR
SHARE OF FIXED SYSTEM COSTS SUCH
AS GRID HARDENING AND GRID
UPDATE UPGRADES TO SUPPORT
ELECTRIFICATION AND POLICY
PROGRAMS SUCH AS THE CARE
SUBSIDY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAMS. BUT ALL THESE COSTS
HAVE TO GET PAID. AND AS YOU
HEARD FROM MR. FRIEDMAN, THIS
SHIFTS COSTS TO NONPARTICIPATING
CUSTOMERS IN PG TERRITORY. FOR
EXAMPLE, THE PUC FOUND THE
ANNUAL COST SHIFT IS $15,300 PER
CUSTOMER FOR NONRESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMERS AND 500 FOR
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. BY
COMPARISON, THE NEM 2.0 TARIFF
HAD AN AVERAGE COST, HAS AN
AVERAGE COST SHIFT ACROSS ALL
THREE IOUS OF $3,171 PER
CUSTOMER FOR NONRESIDENTIAL, AND
1857 FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS,
WE AGREE WITH MR. FRIEDMAN. IF
THE LEGISLATURE WANTS CUSTOMERS
TO HAVE THESE SUBSIDIES, THEY
NEED TO FIND ANOTHER SOURCE.
RATEPAYERS CANNOT AFFORD IT. WE
HAVE HEARD CONCERN ABOUT
SCHOOLS. WE WOULD BE OPEN TO
LIMITING THE BILL TO SCHOOLS. IF
THAT WAS THE CASE, WE WOULD
CONSIDER REMOVING OUR OPPOSITION
. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS, HUNTER STERNE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, IN STRONG OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
BRANDON EBCLC, PACIFIC GAS
ELECTRIC. ALIGN OUR COMMENTS
WITH C¯ AND TURN. THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING, ANDREW KOZIAR WITH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
OPPOSED FOR THE COST SHIFTS.
THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION SEEING
NONE. ALL. LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. SENATOR MANN.
HI, SENATOR BECKER, THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD,
AND SO I GUESS I JUST WANT YOU
TO KNOW, IF YOU'D EXPOUND UPON
THE COST SHIFT THAT'S DESCRIBING
BECAUSE IN READING THE ANALYSIS,
IT SEEMS LIKE THE, THE COST
SHIFT THAT PEOPLE ARE DESCRIBING
WOULD OCCUR IF SOME OF THESE
DIFFERENT INDUSTRIAL AND
AGRICULTURAL CONCERNS WERE TO
INVEST MORE IN RENEWABLES AND
ALSO TO MOVE MORE OF THEIR
ENERGY USAGE DURING NON-PEAK
HOURS WHEN ENERGY PRODUCTION,
RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION IS
AT ITS HIGHEST, IS THAT IS THAT
RIGHT? IS THAT A CORRECT READ OF
WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH
THE COST SHIFT? WELL, NUMBER
ONE, I'D LIKE TO HAVE ALLIE COME
ON UP WHILE SHE'S COMING. I'D
LIKE TO ADDRESS A FEW THINGS.
THERE WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION
THROWN OUT THERE, AND A LOT OF
IT WAS, REALLY, I'D CALL IT IN
THE FUD FEAR, UNCERTAINTY AND
DOUBT BECAUSE A LOT OF WHAT WAS
THROWN IN WAS COST SHIFT BASED
ON RESIDENTIAL NEM 2.0. RIGHT?
NOT NEM 3.0, BUT I GUESS NOTHING
ELSE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I
JUST WANTED TO DRILL DOWN
BECAUSE THE WAY I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THIS, AND MAYBE I CAN
HAVE THE OPPOSITION WITNESSES
COME UP, BUT LIKE THE COST SHIFT
IS MAYBE YOU'RE DESCRIBING
BECAUSE IT REALLY WASN'T
ARTICULATED, BUT IT'S BEING
DRIVEN BY THE FACT THAT YOU'RE
EXPECTING MORE OF THESE
INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS TO GENERATE
OR INVEST IN MORE RENEWABLE
ENERGY AND MOVE MORE OF THEIR
ENERGY CONSUMPTION TO, SAY,
DAYTIME HOURS. IS THAT THE COST
SHIFT YOU'RE DESCRIBING, SO
NUMBER ONE, OKAY. OH, YOU WANT
THE OPPOSITION TO TALK ABOUT
THIS? I MEAN, THEY'RE THE
ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE PREMISE
THAT ANY COST SHIFT IS BASED
WITHOUT TRYING TO SAY ON THIS
PREMISE THAT YOU WILL SELL LOW
AND BUY HIGH, AND ANYTHING OTHER
THAN THAT IS A COST SHIFT. WELL,
PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO DO THAT.
YOU'RE NOT SCHOOLS ARE NOT GOING
TO PUT ON. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
SELL LOW AND BUY HIGH. THEY'RE
NOT GOING TO DO THAT. I'LL ASK
MY WITNESS THEN, IF YOU WANT THE
OPPOSITION TO EXPAND, YOU CAN.
YEAH. JUST TO EXPAND UPON THIS
LIKE NOTION OF COST SHIFTING.
RIGHT. SO ANY MULTIMETER
PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY MULTIFAMILY
BUILDINGS, MULTI MIXED USE
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, ANY
SORT OF SCHOOLS, FARMS ETC. WHEN
YOU HAVE MULTIPLE METERS OR
MULTIPLE CUSTOMERS BEHIND A
SINGLE SERVICE DELIVERY POINT,
IT'S ACTUALLY COST SHIFTING IN
THE OTHER DIRECTION. THOSE
CUSTOMERS ARE PAYING MORE THAN
THEIR COST OF SERVICE FOR TO THE
FOR ELECTRICITY. SO ACTUALLY,
WHEN YOU'RE INSTALLING SOLAR ON
SITE AT A MULTIMETER FACILITY,
YOU'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING COSTS
FOR ALL RATEPAYERS. YOU'RE
SERVING AT ONE SINGLE SERVICE
DELIVERY POINT, BUT YOU'RE BEING
CHARGED AS IF YOU ARE YOUR OWN
INDIVIDUAL HOUSE. WE ACTUALLY
ASKED THE CPUC TO STUDY THAT IN
MORE DETAIL, AND THEY DECLINED
TO DO SO. AND THERE ARE SEVERAL
STAKEHOLDERS HERE THAT WERE NOT
INVOLVED IN THIS SEGMENT OF THE
DOCKET TO, YOU KNOW, BACK UP ANY
OF THESE ASSERTIONS ABOUT THAT
DATA. SO JUST TO REITERATE, THE
COST SHIFT IS BEING BLOWN
COMPLETELY OUT OF PROPORTION.
AND WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
MULTIMETER FACILITIES THAT ARE
REDUCING DEMAND ON THE SYSTEM,
THAT ACTUALLY REDUCE COSTS FOR
ALL RATEPAYERS AND AGAIN, WHEN
YOU'RE SERVING MULTIPLE
CUSTOMERS IN ONE SERVICE
DELIVERY POINT, LIKE A
MULTIFAMILY BUILDING OR ANY SORT
OF SCHOOL OR FARM, ANYTHING
THAT'S MULTIMETERS ON A SINGLE
PROPERTY, YOU'RE ACTUALLY
REDUCING COSTS. GOT IT. AND
MAYBE IF YOU GUYS WANT TO COME
UP BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND, LIKE WE TALK A LOT
ABOUT THE COST SHIFT, WE'RE JUST
TRYING TO DRILL DOWN ON WHAT IS
DRIVING THAT IN YOUR MIND? WHAT
WOULD DRIVE IT, THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR THE QUESTION. WELL
THE SOLAR INDUSTRY DOESN'T
BELIEVE THERE'S A COST SHIFT,
RIGHT? THAT'S THEIR FUNDAMENTAL
PROPOSITION. WHEN THEY COME AT
ALL OF THESE ISSUES, WE DIFFER.
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
HAS ACTUALLY DEVELOPED A
SPECIFIC TOOL TO MEASURE THE
VALUE OF SOLAR ELECTRICITY AT
THE DISTRIBUTION LEVEL. IT'S
CALLED THE AVOIDED COST
CALCULATOR. AND THAT'S THE
MEASURE THAT'S BEING USED TO
DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF COST
SHIFT IS OCCURRING, MEANING THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE
THAT THAT SOLAR SYSTEM IS
PROVIDING TO THE GRID AND ALL
CUSTOMERS AS COMPARED TO THE
BILL CREDITS THAT THE CUSTOMER
GETS, WHICH ARE RETAIL RATES.
AND THOSE RETAIL RATES ARE 5 TO
10 TIMES HIGHER, TYPICALLY.
RIGHT. BUT I GUESS HERE'S MY
QUESTION. I HAVE TWO FOLLOW UP
QUESTIONS. FIRST, IF I WERE TO
GENERATE MORE ENERGY THROUGH THE
SOLAR, I'M LIKE AN AGRICULTURAL
CONCERN. THEN I USE DO I GET DO
I GET MORE MONEY BACK? CAN I,
CAN I SELL OR IS IT JUST ZERO
OUT TO ZERO, WELL IT'S
COMPLICATED, BUT CAN I ANSWER
THAT TO YOU OR. SORRY. NO. I'M
OKAY. GOOD TO THE EXTENT THAT
IT'S BEING TREATED AS AN EXPORT,
THEN YOU WOULD BE COMPENSATED AT
THE AVOIDED COST CALCULATOR. BUT
YOU COULDN'T MAKE MONEY OFF OF
THE UTILITIES, RIGHT? LIKE, AT
THE END OF THE DAY, I'M GOING TO
EITHER PAY NOTHING OR I'M GOING
TO IF I OVER INVEST IN ENERGY
PRODUCTION, I'M EITHER PAYING
NOTHING OR I GET I PAY THEM
SOMETHING RIGHT. YOU CAN
ACTUALLY GET A CHECK, BUT IT'S
AT A REDUCED VALUE. EVEN
RELATIVE TO THE EXPORT, BECAUSE
OF THE PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL LAW
AND THE AND THE TREATMENT UNDER
NET SURPLUS COMPENSATION, WHICH
IS ITS OWN ANIMAL. SO I GUESS
I'M JUST LIKE I'M WONDERING
ABOUT THIS, SENATOR BECKER,
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE LIKE WE
ALL TALK ABOUT THE NEED TO WANT
TO SHIFT MORE CONSUMPTION TO
THOSE DAYLIGHT HOURS. RIGHT. AND
IF THIS HAS THE EFFECT OF DOING
THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A
COST SHIFT PER SE, BUT THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE ARE TRYING TO
INCENTIVIZE RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE
THAT IS WHEN ENERGY PRODUCTION
IS AT ITS CHEAPEST. THAT IS WHEN
LIKE WE KNOW THAT WE'RE, YOU
KNOW, TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO
CHARGE THEIR CARS DURING THE
DAYTIME HOURS. WE'RE TRYING TO
GET PEOPLE TO INVEST IN MORE
SOLAR, MORE WIND, MORE
RENEWABLES. RIGHT? SO IF WE'RE
INVESTING IN MORE ENERGY
PRODUCTION, AT THE END OF THE
DAY, I GUESS I'M STILL KIND OF
WONDERING HOW THIS IS GOING TO
BE MORE EXPENSIVE FOR CONSUMERS.
BUT I GUESS I'LL JUST LEAVE THAT
AS AN EDITORIAL COMMENT. I WOULD
MOVE THE BILL AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. AND I'LL KIND OF JUST ONE
QUICK RESPONSE. YEAH, I'D JUST
SAY I ACTUALLY YEAH, I THINK
WE'RE ACTUALLY IN AGREEMENT
THERE. RIGHT. THAT WE ACTUALLY
ARE WITH THIS. WE WILL BE MOVING
IT TO MORE DAYTIME HOURS WHEN,
WHEN WE WANT IT TO BE RIGHT AND
AVOID THE PEAK. THAT'S WHAT
EVERYONE IS TRYING TO AVOID.
SENATOR DURAZZO. YES. SO I'M
TRYING TO, AS I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF,
OF COST SHIFT. AND IF THE AUTHOR
COULD ANSWER AS WELL AS THE
PRIMARY OPPOSITION WITNESS, DOES
IT MATTER WHEN YOU'RE DEBATING
THIS ABOUT THE COST SHIFT? DOES
IT MATTER WHAT SECTORS WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT? LIKE IS IT
DIFFERENT IF YOU'RE IN AG
BECAUSE THAT WAS MENTIONED AS,
AS ONE OF THE AREAS THAT COULD
BENEFIT FROM THIS OR MULTIFAMILY
OR SCHOOLS. AND I'M PARTICULARLY
INTERESTED WITH SCHOOLS BECAUSE
WHEN I SAW, YOU KNOW, THE, THE
POSSIBILITIES, THAT SORT OF
STUCK OUT TO ME AS Þ I WOULD BE
FOR I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE IF IT
WAS DONE IN THE SCHOOLS. I'M NOT
SO SURE ABOUT THE OTHER SECTORS,
BUT IS THERE, IS THERE A SOLID
REASON FOR WHY I FEEL THIS WAY?
YES. IF YOU COULD BOTH. YES.
YEAH, YEAH. GREAT. AND I AND
TELL ME AGAIN THE, THE FIRST
PART OF THE QUESTION AGAIN. WELL
FORGET MY FIRST COMMENTS. JUST
DOES IT MATTER IF, IF THIS IS
BEING APPLIED TO AG OR
MULTIFAMILY OR SCHOOLS OR OTHER
SECTORS? YEAH, I'LL HAVE MY
RESPONSE IN THE OPPOSITION AND
I'D LIKE TO HAVE MY WITNESS COME
BACK, PROBABLY THERE AT THE END.
THERE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE
BETWEEN RATE CLASSES. SO THIS IS
ALL NONRESIDENTIAL, RIGHT? SO
THIS IS NOT RELITIGATING
ANYTHING HAPPENED WITH
RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS THE COST
SHIFT THAT YOU'VE HEARD MOSTLY
ABOUT FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS,
YOU KNOW, THEY DECIDED ON THAT.
THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT THAT, SO
THERE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE COST
SHIFTING BETWEEN RATE CLASSES.
NOW, I THINK THE ARGUMENT THEY
WOULD MAKE IS THAT, HEY, YOU'RE
TAKING IT SEEM TO BE MAKING IS
YOU TAKE ANY LOAD OFF THE GRID
AND THAT'S LESS PEOPLE WHO ARE
PAYING IN AND THEREFORE, YOU
KNOW, SOMEBODY ELSE. SOMEONE'S
GOT TO PAY SOMEWHERE. AND IF
WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THAT
ARGUMENT TO ITS LOGICAL
CONCLUSION, WE SHOULD HAVE NO
DISTRIBUTED GENERATION AT ALL.
WE SHOULD JUST COMPLETELY GET
RID OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATION.
AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE WOULD
ARGUE THAT THAT MAKES SENSE. AS
A AS A POLICY, AND TO DESTROY
THAT ENTIRE ENERGY INDUSTRY AT A
TIME, AGAIN, WHEN WE'RE
INCREASING ENERGY USE. SO,
AGAIN, THERE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO
BE RATE SHIFTING BETWEEN
RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL.
I THINK THE ARGUMENT WOULD BE
THAT SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY, BUT
AGAIN, I DISAGREE ON A NUMBER
OF, FRONTS. ONE IS THAT WE'RE
ACTUALLY INCREASING ENERGY USE.
I MEAN, I HAVE SOLAR IN MY
HOUSE. I STILL HAVE VERY LARGE
ENERGY BILLS. I'D BE HAPPY TO,
TO SHOW YOU SO AS WE DECARBONIZE
TRANSPORTATION, AS WE
DECARBONIZE, AS PEOPLE PUT IN
HEAT PUMPS AND WE'RE PUTTING
MORE LOAD ON THE GRID. SO I
DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. I DON'T
THINK THAT WILL BE THE CASE, AND
AGAIN, IF YOU FOLLOW THAT TO
EXTREME, THEN THEN WE SHOULD
JUST HAVE NO DISTRIBUTED
GENERATION PERIOD. SO THAT'S MY
RESPONSE. I'D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR,
THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR THE
QUESTION, THERE ABSOLUTELY IS A
COST SHIFT BETWEEN
NONRESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMERS. THERE'S NO FIREWALL,
THAT ENSURES THAT COSTS THAT ARE
SPENT ON THE NONRESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMER CLASSES STAY WITHIN
THOSE CLASSES. THAT WOULD BE A
POTENTIALLY USEFUL AMENDMENT TO
THIS BILL TO ENSURE THAT
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS ARE NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE
TREATMENT PROVIDED TO
NONRESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. BUT
THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY ON THE
TABLE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S
NOT IN THE ANALYSIS, IF THE BILL
WERE LIMITED TO SCHOOLS, WHICH I
UNDERSTAND IS ONE OF THE GROUPS
OF CUSTOMERS THAT MANY PEOPLE
ARE INTERESTED IN PROTECTING, IT
WOULD CONSTRAIN THE IMPACT ON
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. BUT AS
THE BILL IS DRAFTED, IT APPLIES
TO ALL NON RESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMERS, SMALL BUSINESS, LARGE
BUSINESS, AGRICULTURE, EVERYBODY
WHO'S NOT A RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER
. AND THE UNBOUNDED NATURE OF
THAT AUTHORIZATION IS WHAT GIVES
US A LOT OF CONCERN AND MAKES US
REALLY WORRIED ABOUT HOW IT'S
GOING TO DRIVE FUTURE RATE
INCREASES FOR ALL CUSTOMERS
BECAUSE OF THE MISMATCH BETWEEN
THE VALUE THESE SYSTEMS PROVIDE
TO THE GRID AND THE LEVEL OF
COMPENSATION PROVIDED IN RETAIL
RATES. GIVEN THAT RETAIL RATES
ARE IN THE STRATOSPHERE. YEAH,
GO RIGHT AHEAD, AND IS YOUR
FOLLOW UP QUESTION DIRECTED TO
THE SENATOR? OKAY, GREAT, DID
YOU CONSIDER OR HAVE YOU
CONSIDERED LIMITING AND
NARROWING THE APPLICATION TO,
FOR EXAMPLE, SCHOOLS? YOU KNOW,
FOR US, I THINK SO TWO THINGS.
ONE, I MEAN, THIS IS A
FUNDAMENTAL A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
OF FAIRNESS. I'M PRODUCING IT. I
SHOULD BE ABLE TO SELF CONSUME.
SO TO ME, WHETHER YOU'RE A
SCHOOL, WHETHER YOU'RE AN
APARTMENT, WHICH WE ALSO IS A I
THINK A SOCIETAL BENEFIT, WE
WANT TO ENCOURAGE A CIVIC CENTER
WHERE YOU'RE PUTTING ON YOUR
CIVIC CENTER AND YOU WANT TO
HAVE SOLAR ALSO POWER THE
ATTACHED POLICE STATION, OR
WHETHER YOU'RE YOU KNOW,
APARTMENT BUILDING OR FARM. TO
ME, IT'S FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.
YOU PRODUCE. YOU SHOULD BE ABLE
TO CONSUME, IN TERMS OF THE
OTHER, AMENDMENT THAT WAS JUST
SUGGESTED. AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT
NEGOTIATING HERE FROM THE DÍAS,
I'D CERTAINLY BE OPEN TO THAT.
YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THERE IS A
REASON WE HAVE RULES FOR
DIFFERENT SET OF CUSTOMERS TO
SAY TO, YOU KNOW, PRETEND LIKE
THERE'S NO DIFFERENCES, YOU
KNOW, WOULD BE SILLY, BUT I'D
CERTAINLY BE OPEN TO CONSIDERING
THAT TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR THAT
WE WANT TO, YOU KNOW, KEEP THAT
SEPARATE BETWEEN NONRESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL, I WOULD ASK MY
WITNESSES IF YOU WANT ANOTHER
QUICK COMMENT. YEAH. JUST TO
ELABORATE ON THAT, THE CPUC IS
OAN, NEM 2.0 LOOKBACK STUDY ONE
DID NOT STUDY THE COST OF
SERVICE FOR MULTIFAMILY
BUILDINGS AT ALL, EVEN THOUGH IT
WAS ASKED WHEN IT COMES TO
SCHOOLS, COMMERCIAL ENTITIES AND
AGRICULTURE, ALL WERE FOUND TO
ACTUALLY PAY MORE THAN THEIR
COST OF SERVICE AGAIN. SO
THERE'S ACTUALLY A COST SHIFT IN
THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. SO I
JUST NOTE THAT, AS WELL,
AGRICULTURE CUSTOMERS, WHICH I
THINK ARE REALLY IMPORTANT
SEGMENT OF THE CUSTOMER SEGMENT
AS WELL, THAT SHOULD BE STILL
INVESTING IN DISTRIBUTED
GENERATION. THEY DO NOT GET ANY
RETAIL. THE SAME FULL RETAIL
CREDIT FOR EXPORTS. IT'S NOT THE
SAME SYSTEM. NEM Ã AND VIRTUAL
NET METERING ARE DIFFERENT
TARIFFS WITH THEIR DIFFERENT SET
OF RULES. AND AGAIN I WOULD
REALLY ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO BE
REMINDED THAT WHEN YOU ARE
REDUCING DEMAND ON THE SYSTEM,
YOU ARE REDUCING COSTS FOR ALL
CUSTOMERS. AND WHEN YOU HAVE
MULTIPLE CUSTOMERS OR MULTIPLE
METERS THAT ARE BEING SERVED AT
A SINGLE SERVICE DELIVERY POINT,
THEY ARE ACTUALLY PAYING MORE
THAN THEIR COST OF SERVICE AND
ARE STILL BEING CHARGED AS
THOUGH THEY ARE A SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSE. AND, THE SENATOR'S BILL
HERE IS ALSO NOT REALLY DEBATING
THE VALUE OF EXPORTS. SO AGAIN,
TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
SUBSIDIES, WE'RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT THAT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO SELF
GENERATE AND CONSUME YOUR OWN
ELECTRICITY PRODUCED ON SITE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND
STATE LAW. SENATOR GROVE, THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'M
JUST A TAD BIT CONFUSED, AND I'M
JUST GOING TO ASK A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS AND I APOLOGIZE. I
THOUGHT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE
TRANSITION AGAIN, WAS TO GET
PEOPLE ON WHAT IS CONSIDERED
GREEN ENERGY SOLAR, WIND. AND
YOUR BILL ADDRESSES SOLAR, BUT
WHAT I'M LISTENING TO THE
ARGUMENTS, AND I'M NOT
UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE THE WAY I
HEAR THE ARGUMENTS AND AGAIN, I
CAN'T GET INTO SOMEBODY'S HEAD,
BUT THE WAY I HEAR THE ARGUMENTS
IS THAT IF YOU PUT UP COMMUNITY
SOLAR AND WE'RE NOT TALKING
LARGE SCALE SOLAR OR UTILITY
SCALE SOLAR, WE DO THAT IN KERN
TO 6000 ACRES, 2 MILLION SOLAR
PLANT. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
THAT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LOCAL
COMMUNITY SOLAR. IF WE DO THAT
AND WE SELF GENERATE TO HELP THE
CAUSE AND GET OFF THE GRID, IT'S
ALMOST LIKE THERE'S A PUNISHMENT
WHETHER I MEAN, OUR SCHOOLS DO
IT. I JUST CHECKED WITH OUR
PLANNING DIRECTOR. SHE'S
APPROVED TEN OF THESE, COMMUNITY
SOLAR PLANTS, AND, SHE SAYS
THEY'RE SCHOOLS. THEY'RE
MULTIFAMILY, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
UNITS. THEY'RE FARM LOCAL
FARMERS, AND THEY ARE FACILITIES
KEEPING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND
FAMILY HANDS. AND THEN THEY ARE
ALSO LIKE I SAID, SCHOOLS AND
MULTIFAMILY UNITS. SO THEY'RE
GENERATING. SHE JUST TRIED TO
EXPLAIN IT TO ME IN A TEXT.
THEY'RE GENERATING. THEY'RE
SELF-GENERATED. THEY PAID FOR
THIS INSTALLATION, BUILT THE
PROJECTS, GOT ALL THAT. AND THEN
THEY USE THE POWER AND IT'S THEY
GENERATE THE POWER THAT THEY
USE. AND ONE SCHOOL DOES OPERATE
A COMMUNITY CENTER, WHICH
GENERATES THAT LITTLE PROJECT,
TAKES CARE OF THE COMMUNITY
CENTER AS WELL. SO THEY'RE NOT
USING TRADITIONAL, ELECTRICITY.
I GUESS THEY'RE GENERATING THEIR
OWN POWER. AND NUMBER ONE, I
THOUGHT THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF
ALL OF THIS TRANSITION. AND
GREEN ENERGY AND ALL THAT STUFF.
BUT NOW I'M GETTING THE HINT
THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUNISH THOSE
PEOPLE OR THAT THEY'RE NOT
ENTITLED TO DO THAT. WHAT'S THE
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT.
IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN THE ARGUMENT
TO ME, THE ARGUMENT ON THE OTHER
SIDE, OR THE ARGUMENT ON THEIR
SIDE, I THOUGHT WE WERE
GENERATING ELECTRICITY VIA SOLAR
OR WIND. YEAH, THAT WAS THE
PURPOSE OF ALL OF THE
LEGISLATION THAT GOES THROUGH
THIS BUILDING. BUT NOW THESE
PEOPLE IN THESE COMMUNITY
SCHOOLS ARE GENERATING THIS, BUT
YET THEY CAN'T SELF GENERATE.
YEAH. SO I'M ASKING THAT I GUESS
THAT'S MY QUESTION. WHAT'S THE
ARGUMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE IF
WE'RE REQUIRING IF WE'RE
REQUIRING A TRANSITION AND WE'RE
GOING TO TRANSITION AND PEOPLE
ARE TRANSITIONING, BUT YET WE'RE
NOT GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO
TRANSITION BECAUSE NUMBER ONE,
THEY'RE NOT SCHOOLS OR THEY'RE
JUST FARMERS OR THEY'RE JUST
MULTIFAMILY UNITS. I MEAN, I
GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT
WHAT'S THE ARGUMENT? I DON'T
UNDERSTAND IT. CAN YOU EXPLAIN
IT TO ME? I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT
VERY WELL MYSELF. SO I, I, I'D
SAY, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I THINK
YOU KNOW, AN AGREEMENT. I THINK
THE ARGUMENT IS THAT, IF, IF
SOME FOLKS ARE SELF-GENERATING
SELF CONSUMING, YOU'RE SOMEHOW
GOING TO HURT OTHER PEOPLE. AND
I THINK THE POINT OF THIS DEBATE
AND OUR WITNESS IS SAYING WE'RE
NOT HURTING OTHER PEOPLE. IN
FACT, ACTUALLY, WE'RE HELPING
OTHER PEOPLE, BUT EVENTUALLY WE
WANT EVERYBODY TO DO THIS
SELF-GENERATE OR EVENTUALLY WE
WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE. I MEAN, I
HAVE ROOFTOP SOLAR. YOU DO. I'M
ASSUMING EVERYBODY HERE ON THE
DAIS DOES, ROOFTOP SOLAR, SO OR
WHATEVER, BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT
EVENTUALLY AT SOME TIME, NOT BY
2045. REALISTICALLY, THAT'S
NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. BUT
SOMETIME MAYBE IN THE, YOU KNOW,
NEXT HUNDRED YEARS, EVERYBODY
WILL HAVE SOME TYPE OF SOLAR.
ARE WE GOING TO BE PUNISHED FOR
HAVING SOLAR? BECAUSE THAT'S
WHERE I THINK THIS CONVERSATION
IS GOING. YEAH I DON'T I DON'T
THINK WE SHOULD BE PUNISHING
PEOPLE FOR HAVING SO AND AGAIN,
I DON'T KNOW IF I DON'T THINK
EVERYONE WILL HAVE IT. I THINK
THERE'S STILL PLENTY OF ROLE FOR
I MEAN, AGAIN, THERE'S MASSIVE
DEMAND RIGHT NOW AND LOTS OF
ROLE FOR ROLE FOR UTILITY
GENERATION TO IN YOUR DISTRICT.
THANK YOU. YES BUT YOU KNOW AND
I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT AND
STREAMLINING THAT AND PERMITTING
THAT. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO BUILD
LOTS OF TRANSMISSION IS STILL
DIFFICULT. SO I THINK WE DO WANT
TO ENCOURAGE SELF-GENERATION AND
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO
WITH THIS BILL. WE'RE JUST
BASICALLY TRYING TO SAY, YEAH,
WE SHOULDN'T PUNISH OR
CONVERSELY, WE SHOULD ACTUALLY
WE WANT THAT GENERATION. THAT'S
WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. AND I
UNDERSTOOD THAT YOUR BILL
COINCIDED WITH A LETTER THAT I
WROTE TO THE CPUC JUST RECENTLY,
THAT WE PASSED SB 23, 16 AND
2022, IN A PLACE OF COMMUNITY
SOLAR AND STORAGE PROGRAMS THAT
WOULD ACTUALLY WORK AND SCALE.
AND THEN THERE WAS A CPU
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DECISION THAT OVERTURNED THAT.
AND SO I BELIEVE THAT VOTE HAS
BEEN HELD OFF TO ADDRESS SOME OF
THE CONCERNS THAT YOUR
PROPONENTS OF YOUR BILL HAVE, I
THINK IT'S BEING HELD OFF UNTIL
NEXT TIME. RIGHT. IS THAT TRUE?
SOMEBODY'S NODDING YES. SO SO, I
APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE
CPUC IS AT LEAST GOING TO LISTEN
TO YOUR, ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF
THIS, YOUR WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
OF THEIR THEIR ARGUMENTS THAT
THEY HAVE, THAT THEY DIDN'T EVEN
CONSIDER ALL THE OTHER FACTIONS.
I THINK WHETHER YOU'RE A SCHOOL,
A MULTIFAMILY, I MEAN, YOU CAN
BE A COMMUNITY CENTER. YOU COULD
BE, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER GETS
TOGETHER AND SAYS, HEY, LET'S
PULL OUR RESOURCES, GET SOLAR,
AND WE'LL SELF GENERATE AND THAT
WILL HELP, I, I DON'T I THINK
THAT'S WHAT WE'VE, WHAT'S BEEN
ADVOCATED FOR IN THIS BUILDING.
SO, AND I THINK THAT YOUR BILL
TODAY ALIGNS WITH MY LETTER THAT
I SENT TO THE CPUC TO ADDRESS
SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAD
ABOUT ELIMINATING THIS SMALL
SCALE SOLAR OR THIS, COMMUNITY
SOLAR. SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
YOUR BILL FORWARD. YEAH. THANK
YOU, I DO I AGREE THAT IT DOES
ALIGN. COMMUNITY SOLAR IS ALSO A
YOU KNOW, ALIGN THIS IS FOCUSED
ON THE MORE OF THE SINGLE METER.
YOU KNOW THAT SINGLE METER. BUT
IT'S OR SINGLE PROPERTY. BUT IT
ALIGNS VERY WELL. THANK YOU.
VICE CHAIR DALLEY. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. SO FIRST I'M JUST
GOING TO MAKE SOME GENERAL
COMMENTS. THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF
FOLKS THAT I REALLY LIKE THAT
ARE SUPPORTING THIS, OBVIOUSLY
AG, BUT I WANT TO JUST MAYBE LAY
THE TABLE FOR HOW WE GOT HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE BEEN SO
AGGRESSIVE WITH SOLAR AND WE'VE
GIVEN THEM TAX CREDITS, WHICH
EVERYBODY THAT PAYS TAXES PAID
FOR. WE'VE GIVEN THEM LOCAL
TAXES. WE DON'T WE DON'T CHARGE
THEM. COUNTIES DON'T GET THE,
THE, ACCESSORY TAX, SO AT THE
END OF THE DAY, THESE FOLKS, WE
DID WHY WHY DO WE HAVE NET
ENERGY MEETING? BECAUSE WE ARE
OVER PRODUCING POWER WHEN THE
SUN IS SHINING. PERIOD. AND WE
HAVE TO. AND SOMEBODY THAT'S NOT
IN THE PROGRAM IS PAYING FOR THE
POWER. SO SO AT THE RISK OF
TICKING OFF ALL MY FRIENDS THAT
ARE ON HERE THAT GOT A SUBSIDY,
GOT A TAX CREDIT AND HAVE COST
SHIFTED TO ALL THE POOR PEOPLE
THAT DON'T HAVE SOLAR OR A
BUSINESS THAT DOESN'T HAVE SOLAR
OR ISN'T NET METERING, THEY'RE
GOING TO PAY. SO IF YOU'RE NOT
IN THE PROGRAM, YOU'RE GOING TO
PAY FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN
THE PROGRAM. THAT'S THE EASIEST
WAY I CAN PUT IT. THIS BILL
DOESN'T SOLVE OUR PROBLEM. WE
HAVE CREATED THIS PROBLEM BY TOO
MUCH OF A GOOD THING IS TOO MUCH
OF A GOOD THING. AND QUITE
FRANKLY, WHEN THE SUN'S NOT
SHINING AND THE WIND'S NOT
BLOWING, YOU HAVE TO TURN ON THE
GAS PLANTS. AND THEY'RE
EXPENSIVE AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE
DISTRIBUTION. YOU HAVE TO GET IT
SOMEWHERE. AND WE DON'T HAVE A
GIANT BATTERY. WE HAVE SOME
SMALL BATTERIES AROUND, BUT WE
DON'T HAVE A GIANT BATTERY TO BE
ABLE TO STORE ALL THIS ENERGY SO
WE CAN USE IT AT OTHER TIMES. SO
I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS BILL, EVEN
THOUGH A LOT OF MY FRIENDS WANT
THIS BILL. BUT AT THE END OF THE
DAY, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN
THE PROGRAM AND THAT'S TYPICALLY
THE POOR PEOPLE OR THE POOR OR
THE SMALL BUSINESS THAT CAN'T
AFFORD IT IS GOING TO PAY. WE
HAVE TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT
WAY TO DO THIS, AND THIS IS NOT
THE RIGHT WAY. THE CPUC IS
TRYING TO GET THERE. AND THAT'S
WHY THEY THEY COME OUT WITH THIS
BECAUSE WE CANNOT WE'RE
OVERPRODUCING DURING THE TIME OF
THE SUN SHINING AND THE WIND'S
BLOWING. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. AND
UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO
THAT, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO
JUST PUSH IT OFF ON PEOPLE THAT
CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY IT, WHO ARE
NOT IN THE PROGRAM. THANK YOU,
SENATOR DODD. YEAH, THE IT'S
GETTING LATE. SO I JUST ALIGNED
MY CALL. I CAME IN HERE NOT
KNOWING WHICH WAY I WAS GOING TO
VOTE. I'VE LISTENED TO THE
CONVERSATION HERE TODAY AND I
ALIGNED MY COMMENTS 100% WITH
SENATOR DOLLY. SENATOR RUBIO,
THANK YOU, YOU KNOW, AND I KEEP
HEARING THESE COMMENTS LIKE,
EVERYONE'S GOING TO HAVE SOLAR
AND ALL THIS. WE'RE JUST TALKING
AMONG OURSELVES. YOU KNOW, NOT
EVERYONE HAS, YOU KNOW, ON THE
ROOFTOP SOLAR LIKE EVERYONE
ELSE. I DON'T. AND MY ARGUMENT
CONTINUES TO BE, AS I WAS
STATING, AS I WAS TRYING TO PASS
THAT BILL THAT SPECIFICALLY
HELPS, YOU KNOW, LOW INCOME
FAMILIES IS THAT NOT EVERYONE IS
GOING TO BENEFIT. AND THERE IS
THE NONPARTICIPATING CUSTOMERS
THAT WILL. AND I KNOW, YOU KNOW,
I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE THAT
IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT THEM. I
JUST KEEP THINKING THAT THE LOW
INCOME FAMILIES ARE ALWAYS BEING
LEFT BEHIND. THEY JUST DON'T
HAVE THAT ABILITY TO, TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THESE NEW
TECHNOLOGIES. AND SO I'M ALWAYS
TRYING TO FIND THAT MIDDLE
GROUND WHERE WE DON'T
DISADVANTAGE ANYONE. BUT YOU
KNOW, I DID TALK TO THE AUTHOR.
I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT FOR ME AS A TEACHER
THAT SCHOOLS GET THE BENEFIT.
WE'RE DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY
JUST, YOU KNOW, CONCERNING
SCHOOLS. BUT I ALSO WANT TO HEAR
FROM THE IF YOU DON'T MIND, I
KNOW THAT A LOT OF THE, UTILITY
EMPLOYEES ARE OPPOSED. I JUST
WANT TO HEAR FROM THEM. JUST,
YOU KNOW, GIVE ME A STATEMENT OF
WHERE YOU SIT, WHERE YOU SEE
THIS HEADED. AND I THINK SOMEONE
FROM. WHAT WAS IT? THE
ELECTRICAL WORKERS WAS HERE
EXPRESSING OPPOSITION. ARE THEY
STILL HERE? YES, YES. HI,
RACHEL. I'M SORRY. OKAY ON
BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES,
AND WE ARE QUITE OPPOSED BECAUSE
OF THE COST SHIFT, THIS WILL
RAISE RATES FOR EVERY
NONPARTICIPATING CUSTOMER. OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. BUT, YOU
KNOW, I WILL. YOU KNOW, VOTE FOR
IT TODAY. AND I SAID I WILL VOTE
FOR IT. BUT I DO HAVE THE SAME
CONCERNS. AND I OPENLY I KEEP
SAYING I JUST, YOU KNOW, I FEEL
EVERYONE JUST KEEPS SAYING
GENERALLY EVERYONE WILL GO THAT
DIRECTION, NOT IN SOME OF MY
COMMUNITIES. I ALWAYS SHARE 15
YEARS AGO OR 20 YEARS AGO WHEN I
WAS A COUNCIL MEMBER, WE BUILT
THESE EV STATIONS BECAUSE, I'M
SORRY, PARKING SPACES BECAUSE IT
WAS COMING IN THE FUTURE. AND SO
WE HAD 15 PARKING SPACES, YOU
KNOW, 15 YEARS LATER, WE HAD TO
CONVERT THEM JUST TO REGULAR
PARKING SPACES BECAUSE THERE
WERE ALWAYS EMPTY. OUR COMMUNITY
DIDN'T GO, YOU KNOW, GETTING THE
EV CARS AND CHARGING THEM. AND
SO SOME COMMUNITIES ARE NOT
THERE YET. AND THERE IS, I
THINK, DISPARITIES AS IT
PERTAINS TO HOW WE ADDRESS
THINGS HERE. BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M
GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE, BUT I
STILL HAVE CONCERNS. AND, YOU
KNOW, THE SCHOOLS ARE VERY
IMPORTANT TO ME. AND I KNOW THAT
SOME OF THE UNIONS, YOU KNOW,
OPPOSE THESE TYPES OF BILLS. BUT
I WILL BE SUPPORTIVE. BUT LET'S
GIVE IT SOME THOUGHT IN TERMS OF
THE SCHOOLS. THANK YOU. YEAH.
THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSIONS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS
ISSUE? I WANT TO THANK, SENATOR
FOR HIS INTENT TO FIX A PROBLEM,
BUT, I'M ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO
THIS BILL. AND FOR MANY OF THE
REASONS THAT ARE STATED, THERE'S
NO FREE LUNCH IN AMERICA. AND I
AM NOT OPPOSED AT ALL TO SELF
CONSUMPTION, BUT THIS IS MORE
THAN SELF-CONSUMPTION. THIS IS
ABOUT NIMH AS WELL. AND I WOULD
JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ JUST
TODAY'S ARTICLE IN THE
WASHINGTON POST, WHICH CLEARLY
STATES IN CALIFORNIA 2022,
CALIFORNIA WASTED 2.4 MILLION
MEGAWATT OF HOURS OF
ELECTRICITY, 95% OF THAT WAS
SOLAR AND THE MAJORITY OF THAT
WERE NIMH CUSTOMERS. SO WE'RE
PAYING FOR A WASTED ELECTRON
THAT NOBODY USES. AND THIS IS
ALL THIS IS GOING TO GENERATE.
WE DON'T NO ONE'S OPPOSED TO THE
SCHOOLS OR MULTI-BILLIONAIRES
USING IT, BUT THE OVER
GENERATION, THEY WILL BE
COMPENSATED FOR IT. AND SOMEONE
WILL PAY FOR IT. AGAIN, THERE'S
NO FREE LUNCH AND YOU MIGHT NOT
GET WHAT YOU PAID FOR, BUT
YOU'RE GOING TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU
GET AND POOR PEOPLE ARE
SUBSIDIZING THIS AND THIS IS MY
14TH YEAR IN THE LEGISLATURE. I
CHAIRED UTILITIES IN THE
ASSEMBLY AND I CHAIRED IT NOW IN
THE SENATE. AND MY BIGGEST
FRUSTRATION IS WE CONSTANTLY
MOVE THE MARKER BEFORE WE PROVE
SOMETHING WORKS. THE PUC TOOK A
POSITION JUST IN NOVEMBER OF
LAST YEAR DEALING WITH THIS
ISSUE. AND WE HAVEN'T LET,
DEALING WITH SELF-CONSUMPTION ON
NONRESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. WHY
DON'T WE LET THE PUC PROVE THAT
IT WORKS OR IT DOESN'T WORK
BEFORE CHANGING THE GOALPOSTS?
AND THIS IS OUR BIGGEST
FRUSTRATION. AND ALMOST 20 YEARS
OF MOVING TOWARD A RENEWABLE
ENERGY THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE
CHEAPER FOR RESIDENTS. WE ALL
PAY MORE. WE ALL PAY MORE TODAY.
AND THAT'S THE REALITY. AND ALL
THESE PROJECTS ARE ADDING
ADDITIONAL COSTS, NO MATTER HOW
WE WANT TO FRAME THEM. AND THE
PANACEA OF OH, IT'S FREE, I
CHAIR, I CHALLENGE ALL OF YOU
WHO SAY THAT YOU'RE INDEPENDENT
OF THE SYSTEM TO DETACH FROM
YOUR INVESTOR OWNED UTILITY OR
YOUR PUBLIC OWNED UTILITY AS
SOON AS YOUR POWER IS NOT
WORKING THE FIRST PLACE. WHEN
THE SUN IS NOT SHINING, THE
WIND'S NOT BLOWING, YOU'RE GOING
TO BE CALLING YOUR, YOUR LOCAL
UTILITY SAYING, WHY IS MY LIGHTS
NOT WORKING? AND THAT'S THE
REALITY. AND SO AGAIN, I GET
SELF-CONSUMPTION, BUT IT'S MORE
TO THIS BILL THAN
SELF-CONSUMPTION. AND THAT'S
WHERE I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. AND
THAT'S WHY I WON'T BE SUPPORTING
IT TODAY. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE
TO, OBVIOUSLY CLOSE, BUT COULD I
HAVE MY WITNESS MAKE A QUICK
COMMENT OR, NUMBER ONE, I JUST I
BELABORED THIS, BUT WHICH IS A
QUICK INPUT FROM THE SOLAR FOLKS
ON SCHOOLS. HOW MUCH HOW THIS
THE PUC DECISION HAS AFFECTED
SOLAR ON SCHOOLS. I DON'T IF YOU
HAVE A QUICK COMMENT ON THAT AND
THEN SUPER QUICK, I KNOW IT'S
VERY LATE. WE GOT TO WRAP UP.
BUT SO IT WAS ALREADY VERY HARD
TO GET SOLAR PROJECTS TO PENCIL
OUT. WE WERE COUNTING ON
DOWNSTREAM, ON FUTURE ENERGY
COST SAVINGS AS PART OF THE
FINANCING MECHANISM, TO
IMPLEMENT THESE PROJECTS AT THE
OUTSET, SINCE THERE IS NO
SAVINGS NOW, WE HAVE DIFFICULTY
JUST COMING UP WITH THE MONEY TO
INSTALL THE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE
FIRST PLACE. SO THERE'S AN
IMMEDIATE IMPACT. THEN THERE IS
AN ONGOING HIT TO OUR
OPERATIONAL FUNDS IN THE FORM OF
THESE ENERGY COSTS THAT WERE NOW
GOING TO PAY FOR TIMES MORE THAN
WE HAD ANTICIPATED. AND AGAIN,
FOR A SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL
FUND THAT COMES DIRECTLY OUT OF
THE CLASSROOM. OKAY. THANK YOU.
AND IF YOU HAD A SUPER QUICK,
SUPER QUICK ONE, THESE PROJECTS
AND UNDER THE NET BILLING FOR
NOT JUST SOLAR AND WIND, BY THE
WAY, THERE'S BIOMASS. THERE'S
ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF
RENEWABLES. SO I DO WANT TO JUST
NOTE THAT REALLY QUICKLY, AND AS
WELL AGAIN THIS IS WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT ALL DIFFERENT CUSTOMER
TYPES. AND IN TERMS OF, YOU
KNOW, DISCRIMINATING AGAINST
DIFFERENT CUSTOMER TYPES. AGAIN,
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALL THESE
CUSTOMERS. THEY DO HAVE THE
ABILITY TO SELF GENERATE. WE'RE
NOT TALKING ABOUT EXPORTS UNDER
THE NBT. THERE IS NO REAL VALUE
FOR EXPORTS ANYMORE. SO WE'RE
NOT TALKING ABOUT THANK YOU
ANYMORE. THANK YOU. AND THEN WHY
ASK FOR TEN IF IT'S NO VALUE?
THERE THERE WILL BE. BUT ANYWAY
CLOSE, WELL FIRST OF ALL THANK
YOU EVERYONE. I KNOW OUR IS
LATE, BUT I DO WANT TO ADDRESS A
FEW OF THE POINTS. FIRST OF ALL,
CHAIR, I RESPECT YOUR PASSION ON
THIS. YOU KNOW, I WOULD JUST
SUGGEST I THINK IT'S MISPLACED
BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF.
AND YOU'RE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT
THE COST SHIFT. AND I FEEL LIKE
CERTAINLY THE PUC TRIED TO
ADDRESS THAT WITH RESIDENTIAL.
THAT'S WHERE LIKE THE VAST
LINES, ALL THE NUMBERS THAT WERE
CITED TODAY WERE FROM, YOU KNOW,
NEM ONE ZERO OR NEM TWO ZERO,
AND I THINK WE YOU MENTIONED THE
PUC, I THINK WE ALREADY SEEN THE
IMPACT. WE'VE SEEN THE SOLAR,
INDUSTRY BE DECIMATED ALREADY.
SO I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE SEEN,
THE IMPACT, TO SENATOR
DONNELLY'S POINT, WHAT DID IT
DO? WELL, BUT WE DID INCENT
SOLAR AND IT BROUGHT DOWN THE
COST FOR EVERYONE AND FOR THE
WORLD. AND PEOPLE ARE BENEFITING
FROM THAT. AND WE HAVE GOOD.
THESE ARE ALL ABOUT, AGAIN,
NONRESIDENTIAL. SO THESE ARE
GOOD UNION JOBS BECAUSE WE
ALREADY PASSED A THING, A LAW
TWO YEARS AGO THAT SAID
EVERYTHING OVER 15KW ARE UNION
JOBS. SO THESE ARE THESE WILL BE
GOOD UNION JOBS. AND LAST WEEK
IT WAS REPORTED THAT WE HAD
THREE DIABLO CANYON'S WORTH OF
STORAGE ON THE GRID ONE NIGHT
LAST WEEK. SO WE ARE BUILDING
THE STORAGE. AND THAT IS THE
GOAL. I MEAN TO SENATOR, MY
POINT, MY VERY FIRST BILL I
INTRODUCED IN THIS WAS AROUND
24/7 CLEAN ENERGY. SO I WANT 24
OVER SEVEN CLEAN ENERGY. I'M NOT
ALL ABOUT JUST BUILDING STUFF
DURING THE DAY, BUT AGAIN, THESE
ARE THIS IS REAL COST SAVINGS
FOR SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEY'RE
BUILDING IT TO FUND THEIR OWN
SELF CONSUMPTION. SO I JUST I
RESPECT THE PASSION. I JUST
THINK THE AS MY WITNESS HAS
SAID, THIS ACTUALLY IS A COST
SAVING. THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT
A COST SHIFT, THIS IS NOT ABOUT
EXPORTING TO THE GRID AND MAKING
A LOT OF MONEY. THIS IS, I'M
USING CONSUMING MY OWN POWER
THAT I GENERATE, AND, YOU KNOW,
TO THE POINT OF RETURN, I'LL
JUST SAY HAPPY TO, YOU KNOW,
LOOK AT OTHER WAYS TO BRING DOWN
RATES. AND I THINK AS A BODY, WE
HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THAT.
WE HAD THE SENATE CLIMATE AND
EQUITY TRUST WE HAD AND EL
MURATSUCHI IS TRYING TO
RESURRECT THAT. SO I THINK WE'LL
HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO TAKE STUFF
OUT OF RATES. ALL THE WILDFIRE
COSTS, EVERYTHING WE PUT INTO
RATES, TAKE THOSE OUT OF RATES
SO WE CAN ENCOURAGE ELECTRICITY
GENERATION. BUT THIS IS NOT THE
WAY TO DO IT. THE WAY TO DIG
RATES IS NOT TO SAY WE'RE GOING
TO KILL DISTRIBUTED GENERATION.
THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT.
THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER WAYS WE
CAN HAVE AN INFRASTRUCTURE
AUTHORITY, WE CAN, YOU KNOW,
TAKE, YOU KNOW, HAVE A CLIMATE
EQUITY TRUST. WE CAN HAVE OTHER
WAYS TO TAKE STUFF OUT OF RATES.
BUT THE WAY TO DO IT IS NOT TO
SAY, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO KILL
ALL DISTRIBUTED GENERATION, AND
ONE SCHOOL CAN SAVE $3 MILLION,
AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE
OAKLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE
CLOVIS SCHOOL DISTRICT TOGETHER
ON THIS, BECAUSE ONE SCHOOL CAN
SAVE $3 MILLION A YEAR BY
PUTTING IN SOLAR. THAT'S
SIGNIFICANT. THIS BILL WILL
RESTORE THAT. WE THINK IT'S A
COMMON SENSE MEASURE. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION
ON THIS? IT'S MEN MADE THE
MOTION. YES. ALL RIGHT, MR.
CHAIR. JUST ONE INSERT PRIOR TO
THIS NEXT VOTE, I WOULD LIKE
THEO POSE, SENT OUT OF THIS ROOM
. HE FINALLY ARRIVED 2.5 HOURS
LATE. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ASK
HIM TO LEAVE THE ROOM FOR ME.
PLEASE ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON SB 1374, CHAIR. SENATOR
SKINNER, THIS DEBATE HAS BEEN
FASCINATING, I, I APPRECIATE THE
ANALYSIS. THIS BY THE COMMITTEE
INDICATING THAT THERE'S A NUMBER
OF THE ASPECTS OF THE BILL THAT
THE PUC DID, CONSIDER IN THEIR
DECISION. HOWEVER, I ALSO KNOW
THEY ALSO ARE THEY'VE OPENED UP
SOME PROCEEDINGS ON SOME ASPECTS
OF THIS. I I FEEL OUR SCHOOLS
REALLY DO NEED THE BENEFIT OF
WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING. AND I
FEEL LIKE THE CHARACTERIZATION
THAT THE OPPOSITION HAS MADE,
THOUGH I DO APPRECIATE THEY
INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT
OPPOSE IF IT WAS NARROWED TO
SCHOOLS. BUT I THINK THE
CHARACTERIZATION THAT THIS IS
THE EQUIVALENT OF, NAM UNDER THE
FULL RETAIL RATE IS, IS NOT
ACCURATE. AND BECAUSE THIS IS
HAS LIMITED, THOUGH I FEEL IT. I
WANT TO GIVE THIS TO THE SCHOOLS
, BUT I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH
THE BREADTH OF HOW THE BILL IS
CONSTRUCTED. HOWEVER IF IT
DOESN'T MOVE NOW, THERE'S NOT
THE ABILITY TO, TO, YOU KNOW,
TO, TO ADDRESS THOSE. AND I
DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE CHAIR.
YES. THAT THAT'S TRUE. WE COULD
GIVE IT RECONSIDERATION. SO I
THINK I WILL, VOTE NOW. HOWEVER
I WOULD RETAIN MY RIGHT AND
VOTING LATER, BECAUSE I DO THINK
IT SHOULD BE NARROWED. AND
AGAIN, WHETHER THERE'S
APPROPRIATE OTHER, WHETHER AG OR
SOME LEVEL OF AG IS ALSO
APPROPRIATE BECAUSE AG WAS UNDER
VERY DIFFERENT RULES, SO THEY
NEVER WERE GETTING COMPENSATED
UNDER ANY FULL RETAIL RATE. SO I
JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT, I
THINK IT'S TOO BROAD THOUGH. I
THINK THERE'S SOME CATEGORIES,
ESPECIALLY SCHOOLS THAT DO NEED
THIS. THANK YOU. SECRETARY, YOU
CAN CALL THE ROLL DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATOR
BRADFORD. NO. BRADFORD. NO.
DALLI DALLI. NO. ASHBY. BECKER I
BECKER I CABALLERO. CABALLERO I
DODD. NO. DODD NO. TERAZZO.
TERAZZO. NOT VOTING. EGGMAN.
EGGMAN I GONZALEZ. GROVE. LEMON.
LEMON I MIN MIN I NEWMAN. RUBIO
I RUBIO I CIERTO. SKINNER.
SKINNER I WAHAB WILK 7 TO 3. 7
TO 3. WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT. OH I'M SORRY. YOU
WANT TO KNOW ARE YOU GOING TO
ROLL? CALL AGAIN. YEAH. WE'RE
GOING TO ROLL CALL AGAIN. YEAH.
YOU WANT TO DO IT NOW? YEAH. ALL
RIGHT. CALL THE ROLL AGAIN,
PLEASE. EVERYBODY OKAY. LET'S
SEE. ASHBY GONZALEZ. GROVE.
GROVE AYE. NEWMAN. CIERTO WAHAB.
WILK 8 TO 3. 8 TO 3. WE'LL LEAVE
THE ROLL FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. ALL
RIGHT, NOW WE'RE MOVING TO
SENATORS. SENATOR STEARNS, BILL
1251 WHO'S PRESENTING? I THINK I
AM, YES. THANK YOU. NO. OH NO,
I'M DOING THE NEXT ONE. SORRY.
I'M DOING THIS NEXT ONE. 1508
BECKER. 1608 YEAH. I'M SORRY.
1508. OKAY. THANK YOU. CHAIR
MEMBERS, I'M PRESENTING ON
BEHALF OF SENATOR STERN. I'D
LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS REFLECTED ON THE
BOTTOM OF PAGE FIVE OF THE
ANALYSIS THAT WILL, RECAST THIS
BILL. THIS BILL FOCUSES NOW ON
ENSURING THE CPUC TAKE A CLOSER,
MORE EXPANSIVE LOOK AT THEIR
MODELING AND ASSUMPTIONS ON LONG
DURATION ENERGY STORAGE WITHIN
ITS INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN,
LONG DURATION ENERGY STORAGE,
INCLUDING MULTI-DAY ENERGY
STORAGE, HAS MANY BENEFITS AND
COMES IN A VARIETY OF
TECHNOLOGIES AND UNIQUE PROJECTS
THAT INCLUDE COMPRESSED AIR
STORAGE FLOW BATTERIES, ION AIR
BATTERIES, PUMPED HYDRO, AND
OTHERS. THESE ARE FIRM, ZERO
CARBON ENERGY RESOURCES. THEY
PROVIDE BENEFITS TO THE GRID
THAT INCLUDE GREATER AMOUNTS OF
RENEWABLE ENERGY, DISPLACING
FOSSIL FUEL GENERATION, AND
PROVIDING A WIDER ARRAY OF
ENERGY SERVICES AND BENEFITS
THAN SHORT DURATION STORAGE DO
ALONE. ULTIMATELY LONG DURATION
AND MULTI-DAY ENERGY STORAGE
TECHNOLOGIES WILL BE NEEDED FOR
THE STATE TO MEET ITS CLIMATE
AND ENERGY GOALS. THE US DOE NCC
FUNDED RESEARCH HAVE BOTH
IDENTIFIED THESE RESOURCES AS AN
IMPORTANT PART OF AN OPTIMIZED
CLEAN ENERGY GRID THAT ALIGNS
WITH SB 100 AND CARBON
NEUTRALITY GOALS, ENSURING THE
PUC IS DOING THE RIGHT MODELING
WILL BE ESSENTIAL TO OUR SUCCESS
AND WE HAVE MARK THOMPSON WITH
FORM, ENERGY AND DAN Kò ON
BEHALF OF GREEN CHEN STORAGE,
AND I'LL ASK THEM TO BE BRIEF IN
THEIR REMARKS. PLEASE THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING. CHAIR BRADFORD AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I'M
MARK THOMPSON, THE SENIOR
DIRECTOR OF STATE AFFAIRS AT
FORM ENERGY, SENATE BILL 1508
WOULD ESTABLISH DURATION OF
ENERGY STORAGE AS AN IMPORTANT
FACTOR IN THE PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSIONS RESOURCE PLANNING
PROCESSES. FORM ENERGY IS A US
BASED ENERGY STORAGE COMPANY
THAT IT'S COMMERCIALIZING A NEW
GRID SCALE IRON AIR BATTERY
CAPABLE OF DELIVERING
ELECTRICITY AT ITS FULL RATED
CAPACITY FOR 100 HOURS WITHOUT
RECHARGE. THAT'S ABOUT 25 TIMES
LONGER THAN MOST BATTERIES,
SUPPORTING THE GRID TODAY, AND
AT A COST OF ENERGY THAT IS
AROUND ONE TENTH OF THE COST
FORMS BATTERY SYSTEM WAS
ENGINEERED IN BERKELEY, AND WE
ARE COMPLETING CONSTRUCTION OF A
FULL SCALE PRODUCTION FACTORY IN
WEST VIRGINIA TO PRODUCE OUR
BATTERY UNITS, WITH DELIVERIES
TO SOME OF OUR FIRST UTILITY
CUSTOMERS LATE THIS YEAR AND
EARLY NEXT. OUR BATTERIES WILL
HELP SUPPORT A FULLY RENEWABLE
ELECTRIC GRID THAT'S RELIABLE
AND COST EFFECTIVE YEAR ROUND.
BY USING EXTENDED DURATION TO
SHIFT MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
ACROSS DAYS, WEEKS, AND EVEN
SEASONS. NUMEROUS STUDIES,
INCLUDING ONE THAT WAS RECENTLY
RELEASED BY THE ENERGY
COMMISSION EARLIER THIS YEAR AND
ANALYSIS BY THE US DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY, HAVE SHOWN THAT LONG
DURATION AND MULTI-DAY STORAGE
CAN SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE COSTS
IN AN A GRID THAT'S DECARBONIZE
THING. DESPITE ALL OF THIS
PROMISE, TECHNOLOGIES LIKE OURS
FACE CONSIDERABLE BARRIERS TO
ENTERING THE MARKET AND
ACHIEVING ECONOMIES OF SCALE.
THESE BARRIERS INCLUDE LEGACY
PLANNING PRACTICES. BECAUSE
THESE RESOURCES CAN SHIFT ENERGY
ACROSS THE BOUNDARIES OF WHAT
HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN ANALYZED,
THIS BILL WILL HELP ADDRESS
THESE BARRIERS AND SPEED UP
DELIVERING THE BENEFITS OF NEW
ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES TO
CUSTOMERS. WE HOPE YOU'LL
SUPPORT THE BILL, AND I'M HAPPY
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? MR. CHAIR MEMBERS DAN
CHAR REPRESENTING GREEN CHEN.
STORAGE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1508.
AND WE APPRECIATE SENATOR STERN
FOR HIS LEADERSHIP, AUTHORING
BILL AND SENATOR BECKER FOR
PRESENTING IT. GREEN CHEN IS A
DEVELOPING AN EIGHT HOUR, 400
MEGAWATT, LONG DURATION PUMP
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN AMADOR
AND CALAVERAS COUNTIES. THIS
PROJECT MINIMIZES ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS BY RELYING ON EXISTING
RESERVOIRS AND TRANSMISSION, AND
WILL HELP THE STATE MEET ITS
CLEAN ENERGY AND RELIABILITY
GOALS BY PUMPING WATER UPHILL
DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY.
WHEN SOLAR IS ABUNDANT AND
RELEASING IT DURING PEAK EVENING
HOURS TO OFFSET FOSSIL
GENERATION. IMPORTANTLY GREEN
JEN'S PROJECT CAN HELP SMUD, IN
PARTICULAR RETIRE GAS POWER
PLANTS, ONE OF WHICH ONE OF
WHICH IS LOCATED IN A
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY AND HAS
EXECUTED A PLA WITH THE BUILDING
TRADES. EVEN WITH THE COMMUNITY
AMENDMENTS, WE CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT THE BILL AND
CONCEPTUALLY BELIEVE SB 1508 CAN
HELP ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT IS
RIPE FOR LEGISLATIVE ENGAGEMENT.
AS NOTED BY FORM AND THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS DEVELOPERS OF
LONG DURATION STORAGE, INCLUDING
GREEN CHEN, HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO
PERSUADE THE PUC TO MORE
INCLUSIVELY MODEL RESOURCES THAT
ARE CRITICAL TO 100% CARBON FREE
GRID. IN SHORT, THEIR MODEL
SIMPLY DOES NOT CREATE A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD FOR LONG DURATION
STORAGE. FOR THESE REASONS, WE
URGE YOUR AYE VOTE ON THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS, STATE
YOUR NAME AND YOUR ORGANIZATION.
PLEASE ALEJANDRO SOLIS, ON
BEHALF OF THE GREEN POWER
CAMPAIGN AND SUPPORT, THANK YOU.
MARY ANN BORGESON WITH NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL IN
SUPPORT. THAT'S IMPRESSED WITH
ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED IN
SUPPORT. MICHELLE CANALES, UNION
OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS AND
SUPPORT. HUNTER STERN WITH IBEW
1245 IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
SEEING NONE NOW, WE'LL MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. IF YOU'RE THE
PRIMARY WITNESS IN OPPOSITION,
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING, VALERIE CHIRLA LÀ,
HOST, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE
BILL IN PRINT, THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING ON THE
BILL AND THESE AMENDMENTS. AND
THANK THE AUTHOR, THIS IS MOVING
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, AND WE
WILL REVIEW THE AMENDMENTS WHEN
THEY BECOME IN PRINT, AND I JUST
WANTED TO SAY THAT WHERE WE ARE
ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THE AUTHOR
IS BRINGING FORWARD THE
DISCUSSION OF THE VALUE OF THESE
RESOURCES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
HI. CATHERINE BORG WITH THE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON WILL
BE REMOVING OUR OPPOSITION BASED
ON THE ANALYSIS. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS, CHAIR
MEMBERS. LOURDES, I'M WITH SAN
DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC. WE ALIGN
OUR COMMENTS WITH PG AND E WILL
BE REVIEWING THE BILL AND PRINT.
AND WE FEEL IT'S MOVING IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION. THANK YOU. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION HEARING? SEEING NONE.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS OR
CONCERNS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
SEEING NONE. WHAT IT'S BEEN
MOVED BY SENATOR MANN, WE HAVE A
Dð PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS, AS
AMENDED, DO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. SECRETARY PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON 1508. OKAY
SENATORS. BRADFORD. BRADFORD.
AYE. DALLI. DALLI NO. ASHBY.
BECKER. BECKER AYE. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. DODD DODD. AYE.
DURAZZO. DURAZZO. AYE EGGMAN.
GONZALEZ. GROVE LIMON. LEMON.
AYE. MIN MIN AYE. NEWMAN.
NEWMAN. AYE. RUBIO RUBIO. AYE.
CIERTO. CIERTO. NO SKINNER.
SKINNER. AYE. WAHAB. WILK 10 TO
2. CURRENT VOTES 10 TO 2. WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR
RUSSO IS GOING TO PRESENT 1251
ON BEHALF OF SENATOR STERN.
THANK YOU. SENATOR. YOU MAY
BEGIN. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT,
BEFORE I BEGIN, ON BEHALF OF
SENATOR STERN, I WOULD LIKE TO
ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS ON PAGE
FOUR OF THE ANALYSIS AT THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CHAIR. THE
BILL BEFORE YOU TODAY, RECENTLY
PASSED THE SENATE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE AND SEEKS
TO IMPROVE THE MANY MOSQUITO
VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICTS IN
THEIR CAPACITY TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC HEALTH OF OUR
CONSTITUENTS. WITH THE GROWING
PROBLEM OF MOSQUITOES. WHILE
MANY OF US SIMPLY EXPERIENCE
SOME MOSQUITO BITE AS SOMETHING
THAT'S IRRITATING THESE TINY
PESTS CAN TRANSFER SOME VERY
SERIOUS DISEASES WITH A SINGLE
BITE THAT CAN RESULT IN SEVERE
AND DEBILITATING ILLNESSES.
MOSQUITOES CAN LAY EGGS IN VERY
SMALL AMOUNTS OF WATER.
ELECTRICAL UTILITY VAULTS ARE AN
ATTRACTIVE LOCATION FOR
MOSQUITOES. STATEWIDE
COLLABORATION BETWEEN MOSQUITO
AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICTS AND
ELECTRICAL CORPORATIONS WILL
REDUCE THE PRODUCTION OF
MOSQUITOES AND THE THREAT OF
MOSQUITO TRANSMITTED DISEASES,
WITH ME TODAY PROVIDING
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT IS VANESSA
CAJINA, REPRESENTING THE
MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL
ASSOCIATION, AND DOCTOR CHRIS
BARKER, WHO RUNS THE CAL SERVE
AT UC DAVIS. GOOD EVENING, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
JODI HOLMAN. I AM THE DISTRICT
MANAGER OF THE CONSOLIDATED
MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT, AN
INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT IN
THE CENTRAL VALLEY THAT COVERS
JUST OVER 1000MI², INCLUDING
CLOVIS, SELMA, PARLIER,
RIVERDALE AND PART OF THE CITY
OF FRESNO. I AM ALSO A MEMBER OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, AND
SERVE AS THE SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE,
PUTTING ME IN CONSISTENT
COMMUNICATION WITH DISTRICT
MANAGERS AROUND THE STATE, OUR
DISTRICT, AND MANY OTHERS IN THE
CENTRAL VALLEY AND SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA HAVE IDENTIFIED BELOW
GROUND UTILITY VAULTS AS A
SOURCE OF MOSQUITO PRODUCTION.
UTILITY VAULT LIDS ARE DESIGNED
WITH A VENT TO ALLOW AIR TO
ESCAPE. HOWEVER THESE VENTS ALSO
ALLOW WATER TO ENTER WATER FROM
PRECIPITATION EVENTS, OR MORE
COMMONLY, LAND LANDSCAPE
IRRIGATION CAN ACCUMULATE IN
VAULTS AND CREATE A PERFECT
MOSQUITO DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
A SINGLE VAULT CAN PRODUCE
HUNDREDS OF MOSQUITOES THAT CAN
EXIT THE ENCLOSURE ONTO A
RESIDENT'S FRONT LAWN. WHILE
ENCLOSURES ARE NOT INTENDED TO
HOLD WATER, MORE THAN 50% OF THE
ENCLOSURES WE'VE INSPECTED HOLD
ENOUGH WATER FOR MOSQUITO
DEVELOPMENT. OUT OF THE
APPROXIMATELY 2600 ENCLOSURES
INSPECTED IN MY DISTRICT EARLY
IN THE SEASON, 10% WERE FOUND TO
BE BREEDING MOSQUITOES. DURING
THE SUMMER MONTHS, MOSQUITO
POPULATIONS INCREASED
SIGNIFICANTLY. IF ENCLOSURES ARE
LEFT UNTREATED, THIS NUMBER
COULD RISE SIGNIFICANTLY,
THREATENING NEARBY RESIDENTS.
FROM 2014 TO 2022, WE WORKED
WITH OUR LOCAL UTILITY PROVIDER
TO SAFELY TREAT, MONITOR AND
MONITOR UTILITY OF VAULTS, BUT
CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AND LACK
OF A FORMAL PROCESS ERODED THOSE
GAINS. WE ARE NOW WITHOUT A
SYSTEMATIC PROCESS FOR FINDING
AND TREATING VAULTS THAT ARE A
SOURCE OF MOSQUITO PRODUCTION.
THIS PROBLEM IS REPLICATED ALL
OVER THE CENTRAL VALLEY AND
THROUGHOUT MUCH OF THE STATE.
THOSE MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICTS
WHO HAVE MANAGED TO GAIN SOME
LEVEL OF COOPERATION FROM
INVESTOR OWNED UTILITY COMPANIES
IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY, HAVE
FOUND THAT COMMUNICATION IS
OFTEN INCONSISTENT.
ADDITIONALLY, THE LEVEL OF
SUPPORT AND COOPERATION IN
ACHIEVING EFFICIENT ACCESS AND
TREATMENT IS ALSO INCONSISTENT.
DESPITE SIGNING A NON-DISCLOSURE
AGREEMENT TO OBTAIN UPDATED DATA
SETS ON VAULT LOCATIONS TO
ADDRESS NEWLY BUILT HOUSING TO
ADDRESS NEWLY BUILT HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS, WE CONTINUE TO
WAIT FOR THE UTILITY COMPANY TO
PROVIDE DATA THEY AGREED TO
PROVIDE. OUR DISTRICT HAS
ROUTINELY OUTLINED THE NUMBER OF
TREATMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE,
WHERE TREATMENTS NEED TO BE
MADE, AND A SCHEDULE FOR TIMELY
TREATMENT BASED ON RESOURCE
ALLOCATION. HOWEVER YEAR TO
YEAR, THESE REQUESTS ARE NOT
CONSISTENTLY ADDRESSED FOR THOSE
REASONS, HAVING A REQUIREMENT TO
DEVELOP A COOPERATIVE PLAN WITH
INVESTOR OWNED UTILITY COMPANIES
WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF A MOSQUITO
CONTROL DISTRICT REQUEST TO DO
SO IS A COMMON SENSE MEASURE TO
PREVENT WHAT COULD BE A PUBLIC
HEALTH CRISIS. AND I THANK YOU
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK
YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES?
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR,
POSITION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
CHRIS BARKER. I'M A PROFESSOR OF
EPIDEMIOLOGY, AND I'M THE
DIRECTOR OF THE PACIFIC
SOUTHWEST CENTER OF EXCELLENCE
IN VECTOR BORNE DISEASES AT UC
DAVIS, A KEY GOAL OF OUR CENTER.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO ASK YOU TO
STATE YOUR NAME AT THE LATENESS
OF THE HOUR. I'M SORRY. JUST
SORRY. CHRIS BARKER. I'M A
PROFESSOR. I MEAN, AND YOU GIVE
US A BRIEF STATEMENT, BUT PLEASE
DON'T TAKE THE WHOLE TWO
MINUTES. OH OKAY. SO OUR CENTER
BASICALLY FOCUSES ON FINDING
WAYS TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF
VECTOR BORNE DISEASES IN OUR
REGION, AND THE BASIC IDEA IS
THAT THESE UTILITY VAULTS
PRODUCE SEVERAL THREATS FROM
MOSQUITOES, ONE OF WHICH IS THE
NUISANCE YOU MENTIONED. THERE'S
ALSO THREATS FROM WEST NILE
VIRUS AND SAINT LOUIS
ENCEPHALITIS VIRUS, WHICH CAUSES
DISEASE, INCLUDING SEVERE
DISEASE AND DEATH IN OUR STATE
EVERY YEAR, I'M ALSO SO
CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROBLEM OF
INVASIVE MOSQUITOES. AND THERE'S
THE ASIAN TIGER, MOSQUITO AND
OTHER MOSQUITOES THAT HAVE
SPREAD ACROSS OUR STATE SINCE
2011. THESE UTILITY VAULTS MAKE
IT COOLER AND NICER AND SUMMER
FOR THE MOSQUITOES AND THEY ALSO
MAKE IT WARMER IN WINTER AND
PROVIDE NICE, SHELTERED HABITATS
FOR THESE INVASIVE MOSQUITOES TO
DO WELL IN OUR STATE. YOU'VE
ALREADY HEARD THEY'RE PRESENT IN
LARGE NUMBERS ACROSS
NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA, SO THEY'RE QUITE,
QUITE A PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM.
AND I THINK THIS BILL IS JUST
REALLY ABOUT ACCESS AND
COMMUNICATION THAT WOULD HELP US
TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
NOW WE'LL JUST GO TO OUR ME
TOOS, STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
ORGANIZATION. VANESSA KAHINA ON
BEHALF OF THE MOSQUITO AND
VECTOR CONTROL ASSOCIATION HERE.
FOR ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS.
HAPPY TO SPONSOR THE BILL. THANK
YOU. MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
BETSY ARMSTRONG, ON BEHALF OF
THE COUNTY HEALTH EXECUTIVES
ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING LOCAL
HEALTH DEPARTMENTS AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
NOW LET'S MOVE TO OPPOSITION
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. IF
YOU'RE THE PRIMARY WITNESS,
YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. YES
KENT KENT, COUNSEL WITH SGA. WE
DO NOT HAVE AN OPPOSED POSITION.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR, BUT WE WOULD POINT OUT
THAT MOSQUITOES DON'T KNOW THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PUBLICLY
OWNED AND AN INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITY, AND THINK IT SHOULD
APPLY TO ALL. WE'VE BEEN TALKING
TO THE AUTHOR ABOUT THAT. THANK
YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION HEARING? SEEING NONE.
LET'S BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE AND THEIR QUESTIONS OR
CONCERNS REGARDING THIS. SENATOR
EGGMAN, THANK YOU. I, I WOULD
AGREE THAT I THINK IT SHOULD BE
APPLIED TO EVERYBODY. AND AS
SOMEBODY WHO LIVES IN THE
VALLEY, THE MOSQUITOES ARE OUT.
IT IS MOSQUITO SEASON, AND I
MOVE THE BILL. THANK YOU. ANY
FURTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? WE
HAVE A MOTION. IT'S A DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATOR DURAZZO, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
STERN, WHO SAYS, I BELIEVE WITH
THE AMENDMENTS ADOPTED TODAY, WE
ARE VOTING FOR A RESPONSIBLE
SOLUTION TO THE BREEDING OF
MOSQUITOES AND UTILITY VAULTS
AND ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON 14:20 A.M. SORRY. ON
1508 12 1251 1251 Dð PASSES
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATION.
SENATORS. BRADFORD. BRADFORD I
DALLY. DALLY. NOT VOTING. ASHBY.
BECKER I. BECKER I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I DODD. DODD I DURAZZO
I DURAZZO I EGGMAN. EGGMAN I
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I GROVE.
LEMON I LEMON I MIN MIN I NEWMAN
I NEWMAN I RUBIO I RUBIO I SATO.
COR TÚI. SKINNER. SKINNER I
WAHAB WILK 13 TO 0. ALL RIGHT.
CURRENT. CURRENT VOTE IS 13 TO
0. WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. NOW WE'RE GOING
TO FILE 15. SENATOR CABALLERO SB
1420. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT SB 1420, WHICH PROVIDES
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO PROVIDE
FOR A REAL TRANSITION TO ZERO
CARBON ECONOMY COUPLED WITH THE
CO-BENEFITS OF BETTER AIR
QUALITY AND LOWER ENERGY COSTS.
FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR THEIR THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS OF
THE BILL. I WILL ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AS OUTLINED
IN THE ANALYSIS, AND I
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE WORKING
WITH THE SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ON
THE AMENDMENTS. IN ADDITION, I
COMMIT TO WORKING WITH THE
ENERGY COMMITTEE AND
STAKEHOLDERS TO CREATE A
TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL STANDARD FOR
CLEAN HYDROGEN PROJECTS THAT
DOES NOT DISADVANTAGE
ELECTROLYSIS COMPARED TO OTHER
CLEAN HYDROGEN PROJECTS. IT'S
NOT MY INTENT TO RESTRICT ACCESS
TO OUT OF STATE ELECTRIC
ELECTROLYSIS PROJECTS OR HOLD
ELECTROLYSIS TO A DIFFERENT
STANDARD THAN OTHER CLEAN
HYDROGEN PROJECTS. I COMMIT TO
ADDRESSING THIS CONCERN IN ORDER
TO HAVE A SINGLE TECHNOLOGY
NEUTRAL DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE
CLEAN HYDROGEN PROJECTS AS WELL
AS WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE ON
OTHER OUTSTANDING ISSUES.
FURTHERMORE, I WILL WORK WITH
THE COMMITTEE TO ENSURE THAT
EMERGING CLEAN ENERGY
TECHNOLOGIES AND PROJECTS ARE
NOT DISADVANTAGED AS WE ALL PUT
FORTH THE EFFORT TO ACHIEVE OUR
STATE'S CLIMATE CHANGE AND
ENERGY GOALS. THAT BEING SAID,
THE BILL WILL ENSURE HYDROGEN IS
PRODUCED IN LINE WITH
CALIFORNIA'S STRONG
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND ALIGN THE
DECARBONIZATION OF HYDROGEN FUEL
WITH THE DECARBONIZATION.
DECARBONIZATION OF CALIFORNIA'S
POWER GRID, WHILE GOING A STEP
FURTHER AND REQUIRING ELIGIBLE
HYDROGEN TO HAVE A CARBON
INTENSITY SCORE LESS THAN OR
EQUAL TO THAT OF THE GRID ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS, WHICH IS WHAT WE
WERE TRYING TO DO WHEN WE PUT IT
IN THE RPS SYSTEM, SPECIFICALLY,
SB 1420 REQUIRES THAT ON A
STATEWIDE BASIS, NO LESS THAN
60% OF THE HYDROGEN USED IN
TRANSPORTATION BE RENEWABLE BY
2030. BY 2045, IN LINE WITH OUR
CURRENT STATUTORY GOAL OF HAVING
A ZERO CARBON ECONOMY, THE
REMAINING 40% MUST BE A MIXED
MIX OF RENEWABLE AND CLEAN
HYDROGEN. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
REMOVES SECTION FOUR OF THE BILL
RELATED TO THE RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO STANDARD. SB 1420
WOULD ALSO CONSOLIDATE THE
DEFINITIONS OF HYDROGEN INTO A
SINGLE DEFINITION FOR QUALIFIED
CLEAN HYDROGEN PROJECTS,
ENSURING CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY
IN THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR
SEQUA AND PERMIT STREAMLINING. I
JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR AND
EMPHASIZE THAT THE BILL OR THE
AMENDMENTS DO NOT ALLOW ANY
PROJECT TO PROCEED OUTSIDE OF
THE SEQUA PROCESS THAT'S BEEN
TALKED. PEOPLE STATED IT AS AS
IF IT'S TRUE. IT'S NOT, THE
SEQUA IS NOT CHANGED IN ANY WAY,
JUST THE REVIEW OF A SEQUA, A
JUDICIAL REVIEW. SO THE PROJECTS
MUST GO THROUGH SEQUA AND, AND
THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE
PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO COMMENT AND
TO HAVE INPUT ON EACH ONE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS. THE AMENDED
DEFINITION EXPLICITLY INCLUDES
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN PRODUCED
FROM RPS ELIGIBLE RESOURCES,
EMPHASIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES IN
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION. THE
DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED CLEAN
HYDROGEN NOW INCORPORATES
HYDROGEN NOT DERIVED FROM FOSSIL
FUELS, AND MEET SPECIFIC
EMISSIONS REDUCTION LIMITS, AS
DETERMINED BY THE CALIFORNIA AIR
RESOURCES BOARD. ALIGNING WITH
CALIFORNIA'S ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY GOALS, THE BILL'S
GOALS FOR INCREASING THE USE OF
CLEAN HYDROGEN FOR RETAIL
HYDROGEN SALES ARE ALIGNED WITH
THE DEFINITIONS OF QUALIFIED
CLEAN HYDROGEN PRODUCTION,
ENSURING CONSISTENCY IN
PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTALLY
FRIENDLY TRANSPORTATION FUELS.
LET'S BE CLEAR THE CALIFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD, IN THEIR
2022 SCOPING PLAN, DETERMINED
QUITE CLEARLY THAT CALIFORNIA
COULD NOT ATTAIN ITS CLIMATE
GOALS TO DECARBONIZE WITHOUT
UTILIZING HYDROGEN AS A FUEL
SOURCE. CARB STATES THAT
CALIFORNIA CANNOT REACH ITS
EMISSIONS GOALS WITHOUT
EXPANDING HYDROGEN PRODUCTION BY
1700 TIMES THE PRESENT RATE OF
PRODUCTION. SB 1420 WOULD ENABLE
CALIFORNIA TO WORK MORE
DELIBERATIVELY TOWARDS THIS GOAL
AND ALLOW A TRANSITION IN THE
AVIATION, HEAVY DUTY TRUCKING
AND MARITIME INDUSTRIES AWAY
FROM DIESEL AND JET FUEL TO A
CLEANER, LOCALLY PRODUCED
PRODUCT THAT WOULD ONLY THAT
WOULD NOT ONLY DECARBONIZE THE
FUEL, BUT ELIMINATE THE
PRODUCTION OF AIR POLLUTION,
CONTAMINANTS SUCH AS SULFUR
OXIDES, THE SOX AND NITRIC OXIDE
ADDS THE NOX. SB 1420 WOULD ALSO
ENABLE CALIFORNIA TO LEVERAGE
FEDERAL FUNDS AWARDED TO THE
ARCHES COALITION FOR A HYDROGEN
HUB GRANT BY UNLOCKING PRIVATE
SECTOR INVESTMENT ESTIMATED TO
BRING IN $10 BILLION. SO NOT
ONLY DOES IT BRING IN $1.2
BILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDS, BUT
THE PRIVATE INVESTMENT AS WELL.
IN CONCLUSION WITH THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, SB 1420 WOULD
PROVIDE FOR THE FOLLOWING FOSSIL
FUEL FEEDSTOCK WOULD NOT BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ELIGIBLE FOR THE
STREAMLINED PROCESS AS
ESTABLISHED LAST YEAR IN SB 149,
IT WOULD ESTABLISH THE HIGHEST
EMISSION STANDARD FOR HYDROGEN
IN THE WORLD AND SUPPORT
CALIFORNIA'S TRANSITION TO A
CLEANER AND MORE SUSTAINABLE
ENERGY FUTURE BY PROMOTING THE
DEVELOPMENT AND THE USE OF CLEAN
HYDROGEN AS A KEY COMPONENT OF
THE STATE'S RENEWABLE ENERGY
PORTFOLIO. AS WE MAKE THE
TRANSITION AWAY FROM FOSSIL
FUELS, WE NEED TO ENSURE A
BRIDGE FOR CONTINUED HIGH ROAD
JOBS IN THE CLEAN ENERGY SECTOR
PROVIDE A SPACE FOR COMMUNITIES
TO NEGOTIATE A QUALITY LOCAL
BENEFIT PLAN AND BRING NEW
INVESTMENTS INTO THE STATE,
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ARCHES
PROJECT WOULD DO WITH ME TO
TESTIFY, IS TERESA COOK, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN
COALITION, AND DOCTOR JEFF READ,
CHIEF SCIENTIST AT UC IRVINE'S
RENEWABLE FUELS AND ENERGY
STORAGE PROGRAM, TO ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.
EXCELLENT. I WILL BE FAST.
TERESA COOK, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN COALITION,
AN ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING
HYDROGEN FUEL PRODUCERS,
DISTRIBUTORS AND MANUFACTURERS
OF ZERO EMISSION FUEL CELL
VEHICLES OF ALL CLASSES. SB 420
IS OUR ATTEMPT AT DEMONSTRATING
OUR COMMITMENT TO A CLEAN AND
RENEWABLE HYDROGEN FUELS MARKET
TO SCALE THIS INDUSTRY AT THE
RATE NECESSARY TO MEET OUR ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLE GOALS, NOT TO
MENTION OUR ABILITY TO UNLOCK
THE PARADIGM SHIFTING
OPPORTUNITY BEFORE US WITH
FUNDING FROM THE DOE 1420 ALLOWS
QUALIFIED HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
FACILITIES TO QUALIFY FOR
EXISTING PERMIT STREAMLINING
OPPORTUNITIES COMMITTEE
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD
REQUIRE 60% OF HYDROGEN SOLD FOR
TRANSPORTATION TO BE RENEWABLE,
DEFINED IN TWO WAYS. BY 2045,
YOU WILL HEAR FROM OPPOSITION
TODAY THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT GO
FAR ENOUGH, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T
INCLUDE WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE
THREE PILLARS OF ADDITIONALITY
DELIVERABILITY, AND HOURLY
MATCHING. WE AGREE WITH GOVERNOR
NEWSOM AND LEADERSHIP AT THE
CEC, CPUC, AND ARB AND GO-BIZ
THAT THESE ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION
REQUIREMENTS ARE UNNECESSARY IN
LIGHT OF OUR RPS CAP AND TRADE
AND ROBUST DEMAND AND
PROCUREMENT PLANNING PROCESS.
THIS IS A COMPLEX ISSUE AND THE
NUANCES HERE MATTER. WE
APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AS WE
CONTINUE MOVING SB 1420 FORWARD.
THANK YOU. I KNOW WE'RE LATE, SO
I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF, AS WAS
NOTED, I'M JEFF REED. I'M FROM
THE CLEAN ENERGY INSTITUTE AT UC
IRVINE, ALL OF MY WORK FOCUSES
ON OPTIMAL WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN
USE RENEWABLE AND LOW CARBON
FUELS AS PART OF OUR DEEP
DECARBONIZATION, THÀNH AND AIR
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT SOLUTIONS.
RENEWABLE AND CLEAN HYDROGEN CAN
PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN DEEPLY
DECARBONIZING OUR ECONOMY,
OFFERING SOLUTIONS FOR NUMEROUS
APPLICATIONS THAT ARE DIFFICULT
OR IMPOSSIBLE TO SERVE THROUGH
DIRECT ELECTRIFICATION.
RENEWABLE AND CLEAN HYDROGEN CAN
HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE LEAST
COST BEST FIT SOLUTIONS FOR MANY
TRANSPORTATION APPLICATIONS.
VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES AND
CAN HELP WITH THE INTEGRATION OF
VARIABLE RENEWABLE RESOURCES.
CALIFORNIA IS AT THE DOORSTEP OF
LAUNCHING AND SCALING THIS
IMPORTANT SECTOR, AND IT'S
CRITICAL TO PROVIDE THE RIGHT
SUPPORT TO FACILITATE THIS
CRITICAL STAGE IN THE EVOLUTION
OF THE INDUSTRY. SB 1420 CAN
SERVE AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN
ENSURING THAT PERMITTING DELAYS
DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE SMOOTH
TAKEOFF OF THE CLEAN HYDROGEN
SECTOR AND ENSURE FULL CAPTURE
OF BENEFITS OF THE FEDERAL
FUNDING THAT WAS JUST DISCUSSED.
THE BILL ALSO SEEKS TO STRIKE
THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN
ENSURING ACCELERATED THÀNH OF
CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY
BENEFITS, WHILE NOT IMPOSING
RESTRICTIONS THAT HINDER THE
EVOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRY.
CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THESE
VARIOUS PROGRAMS IN SUPPORT OF
HYDROGEN. SO THANK YOU AND I
LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING.
THANK YOU. NOW WE'RE MOVING TO
THE ME TO USE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
ORGANIZATION. PLEASE, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, BETH OLASO, ON
BEHALF OF THE AGRICULTURAL
ENERGY CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION AND
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
SANITATION AGENCIES AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS ALFREDO REDONDO, AND I'M
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE GREEN
HYDROGEN COALITION AS WELL AS H
CYCLE. BOTH IN SUPPORT AND
THANKFUL TO THE AUTHOR. YES.
GREG KANE, ON BEHALF OF THE
HYDROGEN CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN CAR
OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. LILY
MCKAY ON BEHALF OF MONARCH
BIOENERGY AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HERE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. FAITH CONNELLY WITH WHITMAN
GROUP ON BEHALF OF AIR PRODUCTS.
JUST WANT TO THANK THE CHAIRS OF
ALL OF HIS STAFF. I KNOW THIS
WAS A BUSY 36 HOURS. I ALSO WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
COMMITTING TO WORK WITH US ON
OUR CONCERNS MOVING FORWARD. WE
WILL WAIT ON A POSITION UNTIL
THOSE CONVERSATIONS CONTINUE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION. ARE THERE
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
ORGANIZATION. PLEASE. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, MATT FRIEDMAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE UTILITY REFORM
NETWORK, TURN, SUPPORTS EFFORTS
TO REQUIRE FUTURE HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION TO SATISFY MINIMUM
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS. BUT THE
LANGUAGE IN SB 1420 FALLS FAR
SHORT OF WHAT'S NEEDED TO ENSURE
THAT GREATER RELIANCE ON
SO-CALLED CLEAN HYDROGEN RESULTS
IN NET GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
REDUCTIONS IN CALIFORNIA AND
THROUGHOUT THE WEST. IN
PARTICULAR, WE'RE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF
RENEWABLE HYDROGEN. THE
AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL WOULD SAY
THAT ANY RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO
STANDARD ELIGIBLE RESOURCE COULD
BE USED TO POWER AN ELECTROLYZER
AND CREATE HYDROGEN. WELL,
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? WHAT'S
WRONG WITH THAT IS THAT THE
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD HAS
MORE THAN JUST A SET OF ELIGIBLE
RESOURCES. IT HAS A SET OF
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT
COME ALONG WITH IT. ONE OF THE
TYPES OF RESOURCES THAT IS
ELIGIBLE ARE TRADABLE CREDITS
PRODUCED BY EXISTING FACILITIES
ALL THROUGHOUT THE WEST. SO
YOU'RE NOT BUYING THE POWER.
YOU'RE SIMPLY BUYING AN
ATTRIBUTE THAT ACTUALLY SELLS
QUITE CHEAPLY ON THE MARKET THAT
CAN BE USED TO MAKE A GREEN
CLAIM. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THESE
TRADABLE RECS UNDER CALIFORNIA
POLICY ARE ALREADY HEAVILY
DISFAVORED. UNDER THE RPS
PROGRAM, YOU CAN'T USE MORE THAN
10% OF THEM TO MEET YOUR
COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE
INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING
PROGRAM AT THE AT THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION. THEY'RE
NOT CONSIDERED ZERO CARBON UNDER
THE POWER CONTENT LABEL THAT'S
ADMINISTERED BY THE ENERGY
COMMISSION. THESE ARE NOT ZERO
CARBON RESOURCES. THEY CAN'T BE
USED UNDER THE CAP AND TRADE
PROGRAM. BUT THIS BILL WOULD
PROPOSE TO ALLOW PRODUCERS TO
BUY TRADABLE CREDITS TO MEET
100% OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE HYDROGEN
PRODUCED IS CLEAN. WHAT WOULD
REALLY HAPPEN UNDER THAT
SCENARIO? WHAT HAPPENS IS WHAT'S
CALLED RESOURCE SHUFFLING. YOU
BUY AN EXISTING SET OF TRADABLE
CREDITS. YOU PUT NEW LOAD ON THE
GRID THAT NEW LOAD CAUSES THE
DISPATCH OF NEW FOSSIL
GENERATION COAL AND GAS. IT
INCREASES GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS. WE THINK THIS IS A
PROBLEM, BUT THERE IS A
SOLUTION. WE THINK THERE'S A WAY
TO CRAFT A STANDARD THAT WOULD
DIRECT THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION AND THE ENERGY
COMMISSION TO ENSURE THAT THE
LOAD SERVING ENTITIES PROVIDING
POWER TO THESE HYDROGEN
PRODUCERS ARE ACTUALLY GOING OUT
AND GETTING INCREMENTAL, CLEAN
RESOURCES THAT ARE PRODUCING AT
THE SAME TIME. TWO MINUTES THE
THAT THE PRODUCER THAT THE THAT
THE CONSUMER NEEDS IT. SO WE
URGE CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL
AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD ADDRESS
THESE CONCERNS. THANK YOU. NOW
WE'RE WAITING READY FOR THE ME
TO STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
ORGANIZATION. PLEASE YOU WANT TO
SPEAK YOUR PRIMARY WITNESS IN
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION? I MEAN,
GO AHEAD. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIR BRADFORD AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS ARI EISENSTADT. MY
PRONOUNS ARE HE, HIM, AND I'M
OFFERING TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ALLIANCE IN OPPOSITION
OF SB 1427. ITS MEMBERS
REPRESENT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
LOW INCOME PEOPLE OF COLOR WHO
WILL BE HARMED BY AN ENERGY
TRANSITION DONE POORLY. SB 1420
IS AN EXAMPLE OF A PROPOSAL
THAT, HOWEVER UNINTENDED, WILL
REPLICATE THE UNJUST ENERGY
SYSTEM IN PLACE TODAY AND MAKES
POOR USE OF THE STATE'S
MOTIVATION TO TACKLE CLIMATE
CHANGE. EVEN WITH THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS, THE BILL STILL
LEAVES ROOM FOR BIOGAS AS A
HYDROGEN FEEDSTOCK, WHICH WILL
GENERATE INCREASED PM 2.5
POLLUTION FOR COMMUNITIES LIVING
NEAR DAIRIES. THE BILL'S LOW,
CLEAN HYDROGEN TARGETS FOR 20,
30 AND 45 ALSO ALLOW THE 40% OF
NON-QUALIFYING HYDROGEN TO BE
FOSSIL FUEL DERIVED OR CARBON
BASED, UNDERMINING THE VERY
INTENT OF HYDROGEN AS A
DECARBONIZATION TOOL. THE BILL
WOULD DEFINE QUALIFIED, CLEAN
HYDROGEN BASED ON THE ANNUAL
AVERAGE CARBON INTENSITY OF THE
GRID, WHICH IS A MOVING TARGET.
THIS TYPE OF DEFINITION DOES NOT
OFFER PRODUCERS AND DEVELOPERS
THE TYPE OF MARKET CERTAINTY
THEY WOULD NEED AND CREATES A
MASSIVE, ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE
REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE
BURDEN TO IMPLEMENT AND TRACK.
YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD THE IDEA
THAT IMPLEMENTING STRONG
STANDARDS FOR HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION WILL STIFLE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A HYDROGEN
ECONOMY, OR THAT REGULATIONS
LIKE THE THREE PILLARS ARE
PUNITIVE, AND A STATE LIKE
CALIFORNIA SHOULD NOT HAVE TO
COMPLY. WE ASK YOU TO CONSIDER
THAT THIS BILL WOULD IMPLEMENT
WEAKER STANDARDS FOR HYDROGEN
THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
UNDOING THE DECADES OF WORK THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE HAS SPENT
TO MAKE OUR STATE A CLIMATE
LEADER. IF ANYTHING, WE SHOULD
BE HOLDING OURSELVES TO THE
HIGHEST STANDARDS POSSIBLE. THIS
MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THIS BILL
WOULD PROP UP THE USE OF FOSSIL
FUELS UNDER THE GUISE OF
DECARBONIZATION, AND WE OWE IT
TO COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE BEEN
LIVING ON THE FRONT LINES OF
THIS POLLUTION TO INVEST IN AN
ENERGY TRANSITION THAT
ELIMINATES TOXIC POLLUTION,
WHICH SB 1420 DOES NOT ACHIEVE.
AND FINALLY, THE BILL'S PROPOSAL
TO STREAMLINE HYDROGEN
PERMITTING AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
WOULD IMPLY THAT HYDROGEN
DEVELOPMENT IS URGENT, WHICH IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE REALITY OF
THE STATE'S DECISION MAKING ON
ENERGY AND AVAILABLE GRID
RESOURCES. PROCUREMENT CONDUCTED
THROUGH THE IRP SHOWS THAT THE
GRID CAN BE RELIABLE, WITH THE
90% REDUCTION IN GAS USE WITHOUT
ANY HYDROGEN. SO IN OPPOSITION
IN CLOSING, WE'RE ASKING THE
COMMITTEE TO RESPECTFULLY VOTE
NO ON SB 1420. THANK YOU. NOW
FOR OUR MEETINGS IN OPPOSITION,
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
ORGANIZATION. GABRIELLA FAZIO
WITH SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION. KAYLA KARIMI WITH
THE CENTER ON RACE, POVERTY AND
THE ENVIRONMENT IN OPPOSITION.
AND I'VE BEEN ASKED TO SUBMIT A
POSITION FOR LEADERSHIP COUNCIL,
FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
IN OPPOSE. GOOD EVENING, RICK
MELMASON. ALSO WITH S¼. I WAS
ASKED TO REGISTER OPPOSITION FOR
THE ASIAN PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL
NETWORK PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY, LOS ANGELES,
COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER
ENVIRONMENT, AND CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS, MARION
BORGESON, NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION.
MARK FENSTERMAKER FOR
EARTHJUSTICE, OPPOSED MIKE
MONAHAN FOR STATE BUILDING
TRADES OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED.
I'M SORRY, I FORGOT. I WAS
SUPPOSED TO DO A SUPPORT FOR THE
BIOENERGY ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE. WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS HERE
BY THE COMMITTEE? WE HAVE A Dð
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS. AND I WILL JUST
STATE I APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S
WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH THIS
COMMITTEE AS THIS MEASURE MOVES
FORWARD. AND I KNOW THE
DISCUSSION WILL CONTINUE BEYOND
THE DAY. AND HOWEVER, TODAY I
WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE AUTHOR
IS COMMITTED TO WORKING TO
ADDRESS CONCERNS FROM
STAKEHOLDERS REGARDING HOW OUT
OF STATE HYDROGEN MADE WITH
RENEWABLE RESOURCES CAN MEET THE
BILLS. STANDARDS FOR
TRANSITIONING RETAIL HYDROGEN TO
A CLEANER PRODUCTION METHODS. SO
YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT TO LOOK
AT THAT. AND WITH YOU, I HAVE A
MOTION BY SENATOR DODD. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR, AND I
APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT'S
BEEN DONE ON THIS. I WANT TO
REMIND EVERYBODY THAT, THIS WENT
THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE, AND WE WORKED
WITH THEM VERY EXTENSIVELY WITH
WITH YOUR STAFF TO MAKE SURE
THAT ANY OF THE COMMENTS THAT
WERE MADE AT THE HEARING WERE
INCLUDED AS PART OF THE BILL.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
I VOTE SECRETARY, A VERY QUICK
STATEMENT. I APOLOGIZE. GO
AHEAD. I JUST WANT TO SAY I
SPOKE TO THE AUTHOR AND HAD SOME
CONCERNS THAT WE'RE GOING TO
ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO
WORK FORWARD AND REALLY
APPRECIATE THAT. I JUST WANT TO
NOTE THAT AND SUPPORTING THE
BILL TODAY. THANKS. THANK YOU
MUCH. SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON. WHAT'S 1420 1420
SENATORS BRADFORD. BRADFORD.
AYE. DALLY. DALLY. AYE. ASHBY.
AYE ASHBY. AYE. BECKER. BECKER.
AYE. CABALLERO AYE. CABALLERO.
AYE. DODD. DODD. AYE. DARAZO
DARAZO. NOT VOTING. EGGMAN
EGGMAN. AYE. GONZALEZ. GROVE
LIMÓN. MIN. MIN AYE. NEWMAN.
NEWMAN AYE. RUBIO. RUBIO. AYE.
CIERTO. CIERTO AYE. SKINNER.
SKINNER. AYE. WAHAB AND WILK.
AYE. WILK. AYE THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. VERY MR. CHAIR. ALL RIGHT.
CURRENT VOTE IS 13 ZERO. THANK
YOU, SENATOR, AND WE'LL LEAVE
THE ROLL OPEN FOR A MINUTE. NOT
LONG. NEXT UP, SENATOR GONZALEZ
WITH SB 934. QUITTERS I REALLY
AM. IT'S TIME. SENATOR GONZALEZ,
WHEN YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY
PRESENT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, I'M HERE TO PRESENT
SB 934, WHICH WILL COORDINATE
THE INFRASTRUCTURE BUILDOUT
NEEDED TO TRANSITION
CALIFORNIA'S FREIGHT SECTOR TO
ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNOLOGY AS WE
KNOW, ONE OF THE MAJOR
IMPEDIMENTS HAS TO BE THE LACK
OF AVAILABLE CHARGING AND
REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE,
ESPECIALLY FOR MEDIUM AND HEAVY
DUTY VEHICLES. THE BARRIER WAS
IDENTIFIED BY THE CALIFORNIA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S
RECENTLY PUBLISHED CLEAN FREIGHT
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT, WHICH
RECOMMENDED THAT THE CREATION OF
A STATE LEVEL ENTITY TO TAKE
LEAD ON INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK
DEPLOYMENT WAS NEEDED, AND
SPECIFICALLY THE CENTRAL
DELIVERY TEAM WILL COORDINATE
ACTION AMONG DIFFERENT
STAKEHOLDERS AND AGENCIES,
IDENTIFYING AVAILABLE FUNDING
SOURCES AND DEVELOPING
STANDARDIZED STATION DEVELOPMENT
MODELS, AMONG OTHER GOALS. AND
TODAY, WE HAVE IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. TODAY I HAVE MEGAN
MECKLENBURG, REPRESENTING
CALSTART. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. I'M SORRY. YOU CAN
HAVE TWO MINUTES AS A MAIN
WITNESS. I'M SORRY. I WILL KEEP
A VERY SHORT. GOOD EVENING.
MEGAN MICKELBERG HERE ON BEHALF
OF CAL START, I WANT TO THANK
THE SENATOR FOR HER LEADERSHIP
HERE AND THE CREATION OF THE
ZERO EMISSION CENTRAL DELIVERY
TEAM WOULD CREATE COORDINATION
AMONG STATE AGENCIES AND RESULT
IN BEST PRACTICES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO EXPEDITE
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
NECESSARY TO SERVE THE STATE'S
MEDIUM AND HEAVY ZEV DUTY GOALS.
CAL START IS PROUD TO SUPPORT
THE BILL, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR
SUPPORT TODAY. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS. THANK YOU. MICHELLE
KANELLIS, ON BEHALF OF UNION OF
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS AND SUPPORT
. THANK YOU. ANY MORE WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT SEEING NONE NOW WE'RE
GOING TO MOVE TO OPPOSITION
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION NOW IS
THE TIME TO COME FORWARD AND
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
POSITION. SHE NO WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. I'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS BY
COMMITTEE ON THIS ISSUE? ON SB
934, WE HAVE A Dð PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. WE
HAVE A MOTION BY SENATOR MINH,
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SENATOR SENATORS. BRADFORD.
BRADFORD I DALLI. DALLI NOT
VOTING. ASHBY. I ASHBY. AYE.
BECKER. BECKER I. CABALLERO
CABALLERO I DODD I. DODD I.
DURAZZO DURAZZO I EGGMAN. EGGMAN
I GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I GROVE.
LEMON, LEMON I MIN MIN I NEWMAN
NEWMAN I RUBIO RUBIO I CIERTO
CIERTO NO. SKINNER. SKINNER I
WAHAB. WILK WILK. NOT VOTING 13
TO 1 OH 13 TO 113 ONE. WE'LL
LEAVE THAT OPEN PERHAPS FOR
MEMBERS. NEXT UP IS SB 1292.
AUTHORS HERE. READY. LET'S GO.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, I'M HERE TO PRESENT
1292. I'LL START BY ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
APPRECIATE THEIR WORK WITH THIS.
1290. 1292 WOULD REQUIRE THE PUC
TO REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE ON
IMPLEMENTATION OF INCOME BASED
FIXED CHARGE AND ITS IMPACTS ON
CUSTOMERS BEFORE MAKING ANY
FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS. THE REPORT
INCLUDES IMPACTS ON ALL
CUSTOMERS, PARTICULARLY THOSE
PARTICIPATING IN ENERGY RATE
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS LIKE KYARA
AND FERROR. IT CHALLENGES THE
IMPLEMENTATIONS. A SUMMARY OF
CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS, AND A LIST
OF POTENTIAL CHALLENGES WITH
FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS. CALIFORNIA
HAS ADOPTED AGGRESSIVE POLICIES
TO INCREASE THE USE OF
ELECTRICITY TO REPLACE FOSSIL
FUELS. A FIXED CHARGE HAS
POTENTIAL TO NOT ONLY
INCENTIVIZE INVESTMENTS IN
ELECTRIFICATION AND REDUCE
SEASONAL BILL VOLATILITY. IT IS
A STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO REDUCE
THE BILL FROM LOW INCOME
CUSTOMERS. REDUCE BILLS I SHOULD
SAY THE LEGISLATURE HAS AN
IMPORTANT ROLE TO ENSURE THAT
THE PUC MOVES IN A REASONABLE
DIRECTION AS REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE CONSTITUENTS, OUR
CONSTITUENTS, WE HAVE THE DUTY
TO STAY INFORMED ON THE IMPACTS
OF LEGISLATION. WE APPROVE ON
THAT NOTE, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AYE VOTE. DO YOU HAVE ANY
WITNESSES? NOT SEEING NONE.
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT
OF SB 1292? YEAH. MARY BORGESON
WITH NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHER SUPPORT, IS
THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? SEEING
NONE, WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO
THE SENATORS. ANY QUESTIONS?
ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MOVE BILL, I
HAVE A MOTION BY SENATOR WILK.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THAT'S HOW
YOU DO IT. RIGHT HERE. DO PASS,
AS AMENDED, TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS.
BRADFORD. BRADFORD. AYE. DALY.
DALY. AYE. ASHBY. AYE. ASHBY.
AYE. BECKER. BECKER. AYE.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE. DODD.
AYE DODD. AYE. DURAZZO. DURAZZO.
AYE. EGGMAN EGGMAN. AYE.
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE. GROVE
LEMON. LEMON. AYE. MIN A MIN.
AYE. NEWMAN. NEWMAN. AYE. RUBIO
AYE. RUBIO. AYE. SATO SATO. AYE.
SKINNER SKINNER. AYE. WAHAB.
WILK. WILK AYE. 16 ZERO 16 TO 0.
NOW WE'RE MOVING TO OUR FINAL.
AGENDA ITEM. AND IT'S VOTE ONLY,
AND WE'LL ASK FOR A ROLL ON SB
938. WE NEED A MOTION. WE NEED A
WELL, WE NEED A MOTION FOR VOTE
ONLY. DOUBLE IT'S BEEN MOVED BY
SENATOR DURAZZO. AND CALL THE
ROLL. OKAY DO PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. BRADFORD DALLI.
DALLI. NO ASHBY. BECKER. BECKER.
AYE. CABALLERO CABALLERO. AYE.
DODD DURAZZO. DURAZZO. AYE
EGGMAN. EGGMAN. AYE. GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ. AYE. GROVE LEMON.
LEMON. AYE. MIN MIN. AYE.
NEWMAN. NO, NO. NOT VOTING.
NEWMAN. NOT VOTING. RUBIO
CIERTO. CIERTO. NO. SKINNER AYE.
SKINNER. AYE. WAHAB. WAHAB AYE.
WILK. NO. WILK. NO 9393. OKAY.
WE HAVE BILL LEFT. WE HAVE
MENGIBAR DIDN'T GET A MOTION. NO
HE GOT IT. NO, WE NEED A MOTION
ON MENGIBAR. BILL I'M SORRY.
IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN MOVED BY
SENATOR EGGMAN. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON 1142. C DO PASS IS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
BRADFORD BRADFORD. AYE. DALLI.
DALLI. NO ASHBY. BECKER. BECKER
AYE. CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE.
DODD DODD. AYE. DURAZZO.
DURAZZO. AYE. EGGMAN EGGMAN.
AYE. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE.
GROVE LIMÓN. LIMÓN. AYE. MINH
MINH. AYE. NEWMAN. NEWMAN. AYE.
RUBIO AYE. RUBIO. AYE. CIERTO.
CIERTO NO. SKINNER. WAHAB AYE.
SKINNER. AYE WAHAB. AYE. ASHBY.
AYE. ASHBY Ó. WILK. NO WILK.
NO. ASHBY. AYE. 14 TO 3. 14 TO
3. THAT MEASURES OUT. MOVING ON
TO OUR. I'M SORRY. WE'RE MOVING
ON TO FILE ITEM THREE.
BLAKESPEAR SB 1148. NOPE. SB
1148 BLAKESPEAR CURRENT VOTE 1
TO 5. BOTH VICE CHAIR AND CHAIR
VOTING NO. ASHBY. AYE ASHBY.
AYE. CABALLERO OH, SHOOT. THAT'S
RIGHT. SORRY HOLD ON ONE SEC.
NOW, I DON'T EVEN HAVE. OKAY.
THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. SORRY.
EGGMAN GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I SAID
THAT THEY'RE NOT.
T I. OKAY LIMÓN. LIMÓN. AYE. MIN
MINH. AYE RUBIO. SKINNER WAHAB.
WAHAB AYE. WILK. NØ. WILK. NO
6666666. OKAY. THAT MEASURE
FAILS. ALL RIGHT, NOW MOVING ON
TO SENATOR JONES. FILE ITEM FOR
1326. DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CURRENT VOTE THREE ZERO. ASHBY
O. CHAIR NOT VOTING. SORRY. VICE
CHAIR. VOTING AYE. ASHBY
GONZALEZ. LIMÓN RUBIO. SKINNER
WAHAB. WILK. HI. WILK AYE. 4040.
THAT MEASURE FAILS. THE SENATOR
HAS ASKED FOR RECONSIDERATION.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO
PROVIDING, GIVING
RECONSIDERATION ON THIS MEASURE?
HEARING NONE. RECONSIDERATION IS
GRANTED, NEXT UP IS SENATOR
PADILLA FOLLOWING M FIVE SB 1351
DO PASS IS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATION. CURRENT VOTE
SEVEN ONE CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE
CHAIR NOT VOTING ASHBY Ã ASHBY.
AYE BECKER. BECKER. AYE.
CABALLERO CABALLERO. AYE.
GONZALEZ GONZALEZ. AYE. GROVE.
LIMÓN LIMON. AYE. RUBIO AYE.
RUBIO. AYE. WAHAB WAHAB. AYE.
WILK. WILK. NOT VOTING 14 TO
114. ONE. THAT MEASURES OUT.
NEXT UP IS SB 1474 BY SENATOR
ALLEN. DO PASS IS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE
SEVEN THREE CHAIR. VOTING AYE.
VICE CHAIR. VOTING NO. ASHBY.
AYE. ASHBY. AYE DODD. EGGMAN.
I'M SORRY. ALLEN 1470. EGGMAN.
AYE. GONZALES GONZALEZ. AYE.
LIMON LIMON. AYE. NEWMAN. NEWMAN
AYE. WAHAB WAHAB. AYE. WILK. NØ.
WILK. NO 13 TO 4. 13 TO 4. THAT
MEASURES OUT. NEXT UP IS SENATOR
GONZALES. 934. IS THERE ANYBODY
UP ON THAT? GROVE IN WAHAB.
OKAY, CURRENT VOTE 13 ONE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR NOT
VOTING. GROVE WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE
14 TO 114 ONE THAT MEASURES OUT
NEXT UP IS SENATOR RUBIO. 1054.
DO PASS IS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE 11
ZERO. CHAIR. VICE CHAIR. VOTING
AYE. ASHBY. Ã ASHBY. AYE.
GONZALEZ GONZALEZ. AYE. GROVE.
LEMON. LEMON AYE. SATO WAHAB.
AYE. WAHAB. AYE. WILK AYE. WILK.
AYE. 16. NO. OH, HE'S OKAY.
CIERTO. NO 16 TO 1. 16 TO 16 TO
ONE. THAT MEASURES OUT NOW WE'RE
MOVING US SB 1087 BY GROVE. DO
PASS IS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE 11
ZERO CHAIR. VICE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. ASHBY. AYE ASHBY. AYE.
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ AYE. LEMON.
LEMON. AYE. RUBIO AYE. RUBIO
AYE. SKINNER WAHAB. WILK WILK.
AYE SKINNER. AYE SKINNER. AYE 17
ZERO 17 ZERO. THAT MEASURES OUT.
NEXT UP IS SB 1260 BY SENATOR
BECKER. 1206 1206 SB 1206 DO
PASS IS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE 11
TWO CHAIR. VOTING AYE. VICE
CHAIR. VOTING NO. ASHBY. AYE
ASHBY. AYE. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ
AYE. SATO NO. SATO. NO. WAHAB
WAHAB. AYE. WILK. WILK. AYE 15
TO 3. 15 TO 3. THAT MEASURE IS
OUT AS WELL. NOW MOVING ON TO
SENATOR BECKER'S 1374, DO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE
EIGHT THREE. CHAIR AND VICE
CHAIR. VOTING NO. ASHBY. AYE.
ASHBY. AYE GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ.
AYE NEWMAN. VOTING SORRY. SATO
SATO. NØ. WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE.
WILK NO. WILK. NO. 11 TO 5 NOES.
BECKER 11 511 FIVE. THAT
MEASURES OUT. NEXT UP IS SENATOR
MINH. 1221. CURRENT VOTE EIGHT
THREE. DO PASS TO BE AMENDED IN
THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT.
CURRENT VOTE EIGHT THREE. CHAIR.
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR. VOTING
NO. ASHBY. Ã ASHBY. AYE
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE. LEMON
NEWMAN. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. NEWMAN.
AYE. LEMON. AYE RUBIO. RUBIO.
AYE. WAHAB WAHAB. AYE. WILK.
WILK. NO 14 TO 414 FOUR. THAT
MEASURES OUT NOW MOVING ON TO SB
1251 BY SENATOR STERN. DO PASS
IS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CURRENT VOTE 13 ZERO CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR. NOT
VOTING. ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE. GROVE
WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE WILK. WILK.
NOT VOTING 15 ZERO 15 ZERO 15
ZERO. THAT MEASURES. OUT NEXT IS
15 ZERO EIGHT BY SENATOR STERN.
DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE TEN
TWO. CHAIR. VOTING AYE. VICE
CHAIR. VOTING NO. ASHBY. ASHBY.
AYE. EGGMAN GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ.
AYE GROVE. WAHAB WAHAB. AYE.
WILK. NO. WILK. NO 13 TO 3. 13
TO 3. THAT MEASURES OUT NOW.
MOVING TO SB 1420 BY SENATOR
CABALLERO. THANK YOU.
EVERYBODY'S UP ON THAT, NO, DO
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE 13
ZERO. CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
VOTING AYE. GONZALEZ GROVE.
LEMON WAHAB CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. TIÂU. AYE WAHAB. AYE
14 ZERO 14 ZERO. THAT MEASURES
OUT. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, SB
1292 BRADFORD, BILL. BRADFORD.
BILL. YEAH. TO PASS AS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE
16 ZERO. GROVE, WAHAB. WAHAB.
AYE. 17 ZERO. THAT MEASURES OUT
17 ZERO. MEMBER. THAT CONCLUDES
OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY. I WANT TO
THANK EVERYBODY FOR
PARTICIPATING IN THE SENATE
ENERGY COMMITTEE. AND WE NOW
STAND ADJOURNED. I KNOW IT'S TOO
LATE