THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY,
UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS
WILL COME TO ORDER. WE ARE GOING
TO START AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
THERE'S A LOT GOING ON IN THE
CAPITOL TODAY, BUT WE DO HAVE AN
AUTHOR HERE. WE WANT TO HONOR
HER TIME. SO WE'RE GOING TO ASK
HER TO COME UP AND PRESENT TO US
SB 636 EARLY BIRD GETS THE WORM.
ALL RIGHT. MR. CHAIR,
COLLEAGUES, FIRST, I WANT TO
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH
WORKING WITH ME VERY CLOSELY ON
THIS BILL, UNDERSTANDING WHERE I
WAS COMING FROM AND ALLOWING US
TO GET TO A COMMON PLACE. SO I
WILL BE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. WE'VE SEEN TIME AND
TIME AGAIN VARIOUS HEADLINES
TALKING ABOUT CALIFORNIA'S
ELECTRICITY RATES HAVING
SKYROCKETED BY 47% FROM 2019 UP
TO 2023. WE'RE SEEING THE
INCREASES OUTPACE INFLATION.
WE'RE SEEING THAT WE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, NEARLY WE PAY NEARLY
DOUBLE THE NATIONAL RATE FOR
ELECTRICITY, SECOND ONLY TO
HAWAII. SO A COUPLE SCENARIOS AS
TO WHAT MADE ME THINK OF
INTRODUCING THIS KIND OF BILL.
IMAGINE A SINGLE PARENT WORKING
TWO JOBS TO MAKE ENDS MEET.
THEIR ENERGY BILL HAS ALREADY
TRIPLED OVER FIVE YEARS. THEN
THEIR CHILD FALLS ILL AND THEY
HAVE TO STOP WORKING TO CARE FOR
THAT CHILD THAT PERHAPS HAS
COMPLEX NEEDS, MEDICAL NEEDS.
SUDDENLY THEY'RE FACING MEDICAL
BILLS, LOST WAGES AND INCREASED
MONTHLY UTILITY BILLS. OR WHAT
ABOUT SOMEONE WHO LOST THEIR JOB
DURING THE RECENT FIRES AND IS
STRUGGLING TO PAY THEIR BILLS ON
TOP OF THE RENT WITHOUT HAVING A
JOB? THESE ARE THE EXAMPLES
BEHIND WHY I INTRODUCED SB 636
TO PROHIBIT US FROM
DISCONNECTING RATEPAYERS WHO
HAVE CLAIMED HARDSHIPS DUE TO A
DEATH IN THE FAMILY, OR SOMEONE
LIVING WITHIN THE SAME PLACE, A
LOSS OF FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT
WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE HARDSHIP,
MEDICAL CARE FOR THEMSELVES OR A
FAMILY MEMBER WHO LIVES WITHIN
THE SAME HOME. THE CUSTOMER'S
RESIDENCE. EMPLOYMENT OR
EDUCATION BEING IMPACTED BY
NATURAL DISASTER DECLARED BY THE
GOVERNOR TO BE AN EMERGENCY. AND
AS THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOTED,
WE ARE LOOKING TO HAVE ELIGIBLE
RATEPAYERS DEFER PAYMENTS UP TO
THREE MONTHS THROUGH A CPUC
ESTABLISHED APPLICATION AND
VALIDATION PROCESS, MAKING CLEAR
THAT WE HAVE TAKEN THE
SELF-ATTESTATION PART OUT OF THE
BILL AND ARE LOOKING TO CPUC TO
DETERMINE WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED
TO BE DEEMED ELIGIBLE TO PROVE
THAT YOU'RE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS.
THIS BILL IS NOT A FREE FOR ALL,
AND ONLY AIMS TO PROVIDE A
SAFETY NET FOR CUSTOMERS WHO
HAVE AN UNEXPECTED LIFE EVENT
THAT IS AT NO FAULT TO THEIR OWN
MEANING. THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY
IT BACK AND THEY CAN ONLY APPLY
FOR DEFERMENT ONCE EVERY 18
MONTHS, NOT EVERY 18 MONTHS, BUT
ONLY ONCE WITHIN AN 18 MONTH
PERIOD. THIS BILL WILL NOT
RESULT IN COST SHIFTING TO OTHER
RATEPAYERS BECAUSE AT THE
CONCLUSION, LIKE I MENTIONED, OF
THE DEFERMENT PERIOD, THEY WOULD
HAVE TO PAY IT BACK. WE JUST
WANT THEM TO GET BACK ON THEIR
FEET TO BE ABLE TO PAY BACK AND
NOT HAVE THEIR UTILITIES BE SHUT
OFF. MR. CHAIR, I'D NOW LIKE TO
TURN OVER TO MY WITNESS HERE WHO
WILL TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. ONE
WITNESS OR TWO? ONE. ONE PRIMARY
WITNESS. OKAY, GREAT. YOU HAVE
UP TO FOUR MINUTES. THANKS.
GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
CHAIR BECKER AND MEMBERS, MY
NAME IS CONSTANCE PIERRE. I'M
THE ORGANIZING DIRECTOR AT THE
UTILITY REFORM NETWORK. RETURN.
I DON'T NEED TO TELL ANYONE
ABOUT THE ENERGY AFFORDABILITY
CRISIS HERE IN CALIFORNIA. WE'VE
ALL SEEN IT. YEAR AFTER YEAR,
THE INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES
CONTINUE TO RAISE THE RATES,
SQUEEZING FAMILIES WHO ARE
ALREADY STRUGGLING. FOR 31% OF
CALIFORNIANS WHO ARE ALREADY
LIVING NEAR THE POVERTY LINE.
THE INCREASED RATES ARE
DEVASTATING. AND IT'S NOT JUST
LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. MIDDLE
INCOME FAMILIES ARE STRUGGLING
NOW UNDER THE STRAIN OF THESE
RISING COSTS. IMAGINE IF YOU'RE
ALREADY LIVING PAYCHECK TO
PAYCHECK AND THEN THE UNEXPECTED
HAPPENS THE JOB LOSS, THE
MEDICAL EMERGENCY, THE PASSING
OF A LOVED ONE IN THE FUNERAL,
EXPENSES THAT GO ALONG WITH IT.
OR MAYBE YOUR HOME IS DAMAGED IN
A WILDFIRE. IN THAT MOMENT, THE
WHOLE WORLD SHIFTS AND YOU'RE
FOCUSED ON GRIEVING, SURVIVING.
THE LAST THING YOU NEED TO BE
WORRIED ABOUT IS WHETHER OR NOT
YOUR POWER IS GOING TO STAY ON.
BUT FOR TOO MANY CALIFORNIANS,
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING.
AND FOR RENTERS WHO MAKE UP 44%
OF HOUSEHOLDS IN THIS STATE
AMIDST UTILITY BILL AND LOSING
THEIR ELECTRICITY COULD MEAN
HOMELESSNESS. THIS IS WHERE SB
636 COMES IN. IT PROVIDES THE
THREE MONTHS HARDSHIP DEFERMENT
FOR PEOPLE FACING MAJOR LIFE
CRISES, AND IT ENSURES THAT
PEOPLE HAVE THE TIME TO RECOVER
FROM THIS TYPE OF INCIDENT
WITHOUT LOSING THEIR POWER AT
TURN. WE HEAR THE STORIES EVERY
DAY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE SUDDENLY
FACED WITH A CRISIS, AND
CURRENTLY THERE IS NO SYSTEM TO
OFFER. OFFER THEM A SAFETY NET.
WHILE SOME CUSTOMERS QUALIFY FOR
LOW INCOME DISCOUNT PROGRAMS
LIKE CARE AND FAIR, IT'S NOT
ENOUGH WHEN MAJOR CATASTROPHE
HAPPENS AND OTHER CUSTOMERS WHO
ARE JUST ABOVE OR THE
QUALIFICATIONS FOR A PROGRAM
THAT WOULD PROVIDE A DISCOUNT,
THEY HAVE NO RECOURSE AT ALL.
THIS ISN'T JUST AN ECONOMIC
ISSUE. IT'S A PUBLIC HEALTH AND
HOUSING CRISIS ISSUE. WHEN
PEOPLE LOSE POWER, THEY LOSE
ACCESS TO REFRIGERATION FOR FOOD
AND MEDICINE. THEY CAN'T HEAT OR
COOL THEIR HOMES DURING EXTREME
WEATHER. FOR FAMILIES ALREADY
STRUGGLING, A UTILITY SHUT OFF
REALLY COULD BE THE TIPPING
POINT INTO HOMELESSNESS. SO SB
636 ENSURES THE TEMPORARY
HARDSHIP DOESN'T SPIRAL INTO A
PERMANENT CATASTROPHE. IT MEANS
THAT WHEN LIFE THROWS PEOPLE
INTO CRISIS, WE JUST DON'T LET
THEM FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS. WE
URGE AN AYE VOTE ON SB 636 TO
MAKE SURE THAT WHEN CALIFORNIANS
FACE HARDSHIP, WE ARE HERE TO
LIFT THEM UP AND NOT JUST SHUT
THEM OFF. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE OTHER
SUPPORTERS IN THE ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO ADD ON? IF SO, PLEASE
COME TO THE MIC NOW. I DON'T
KNOW, JUST START. HI ADRIN, I'M
THE DIRECTOR OF RACE EQUITY AND
LEGISLATIVE POLICY WITH TURN
HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF
SMART JUSTICE. SMART JUSTICE IS
IN STRONG SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL
AND ALSO SEES THE DIRE NEED FOR
HARDSHIP ASSISTANCE FOR
CUSTOMERS. THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANK YOU. WE WOULD NOW LIKE TO
INVITE UP WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. DO WE
HAVE TWO? YOU HAVE ONE. AT LEAST
1 OR 2. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, ISRAEL
SALAS WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
GAS COMPANY AND SAN DIEGO GAS
AND ELECTRIC IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL, STILL REVIEWING THE
AMENDMENTS. WE DO APPRECIATE THE
COMMUNICATION WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE AND THE STAFF. I, I GUESS
I'LL START WITH THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB
OF OUTLINING THE AT LEAST DOZEN
DIFFERENT INITIATIVES THAT HAVE
BEEN IMPLEMENTED, EITHER THROUGH
THE CPUC OR THAT THE UTILITIES
THEMSELVES HAVE OFFERED
CUSTOMERS THAT ARE FACING
HARDSHIP THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO
CUSTOMERS, WHETHER THEY ARE LOW
INCOME OR NOT. SO WE ARE DOING A
LOT OF WORK IN THAT SPACE. AND
THERE IS AN OPEN PROCEEDING AT
THE CPUC STILL EXAMINING THIS
VERY ISSUE. I WOULD SAY THAT
DISCONNECTION FOR NONPAYMENT IS
NOT THE FIRST, SECOND, THIRD,
FOURTH OR FIFTH OPTION. IT'S
REALLY THE 10TH OPTION FOR US.
IN SOME CASES, IT WILL TAKE US
ABOUT A YEAR TO EVEN REACH THE
POINT OF DISCONNECTING A
CUSTOMER. IT'S A VERY EXPENSIVE
ENDEAVOR. AND SO I GUESS I'LL
JUST CONCLUDE BY SAYING THAT WE
AGREE THAT THERE IS AN
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. WE THINK
THAT WE SHOULD BE EXAMINING THE
ROOT CAUSES OF THOSE CHALLENGES,
AND WE DON'T THINK THAT THIS
BILL IS REALLY DOING THAT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
LARA BARBARA WITH SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON, ALSO IN
OPPOSITION, BUT DO WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE FOR THE AMENDMENTS
WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE, AS WELL AS A
HARDSHIP DISCUSSION IN THE THREE
POINTS THAT SHE'S TRYING TO
ADDRESS. SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO
THOSE CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU.
OKAY. ANYONE ADDING ON IN
OPPOSITION SEEING NONE. WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR QUESTIONS. SENATOR
ARCHULETA. YES, THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD, ESPECIALLY AT THIS TIME
AND OUR GREAT STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, WHEN EVERYTHING IS
ON THE EDGE, FROM THE NEWS
COMING ACROSS FROM WASHINGTON,
WE DON'T KNOW. A LOT OF FAMILIES
ARE ON THE EDGE, AND THEY'RE
WAITING TO SEE SOME THAT WE
HEARD MAY LOSE THEIR JOB, HAVE
ALREADY LOST THEIR JOB, MAY BE
PUT ON UNEMPLOYMENT, GOD KNOWS
WHAT. BUT BUT I JUST WANT TO
VERIFY. AND AGAIN THIS IS TO
DEFER THE PAYMENT NOT TO
ELIMINATE THE BALANCE. SO THAT'S
VERY, VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE
UTILITIES OBVIOUSLY ARE
CONCERNED THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
LOSE MONEY. THEY ARE JUST GOING
TO HAVE TO WAIT FOR THEIR MONEY.
AND WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A
HANDOUT. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A
HAND UP. AND THAT I THINK IS A
GREAT THING. AND I THINK THAT MY
QUESTION IS CERTIFYING THE LOW
INCOME VERSUS SOMEONE STATING
THEIR INCOME. HOW ARE YOU GOING
TO WORK THAT OUT? SO WE OPEN THE
DOOR FOR A WIDER PARTICIPATION.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, SENATOR, I'M
DEFINITELY GOING TO USE THE HAND
UP TALKING POINT WHEN I SPEAK ON
THIS ON THE FLOOR. BUT TO YOUR
SECOND QUESTION, WE STRUCK OUT
OUR INTERPRETATION OF HOW AN
INDIVIDUAL WAS GOING TO DEEM TO
BE ELIGIBLE. AND WE HAVE PUT NOW
WITH THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
THAT CPUC WILL HAVE TO DETERMINE
WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE ELIGIBLE
OR WHAT DOCUMENTS WOULD BE
REQUIRED, WHAT APPROACH THEY
NEED TO TAKE TO CLAIM THAT THEY
QUALIFY UNDER THIS BILL. SO NONE
MY BILL NO LONGER HAS ANY
INFORMATION ON GUIDANCE ON THAT,
AND THE CPUC WILL HAVE FULL
CONTROL ON WHAT THAT APPLICATION
PROCESS WILL LOOK LIKE. AND THE
APPLICATION, I'M SURE, WOULD GO
DIRECTLY TO THE UTILITIES AND
NOT TO A CITY TO VERIFY IN ANY
WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. SO THE CPUC
WOULD HAVE TO DETERMINE, LIKE
THEY DO OTHER PROGRAMS, YOU
KNOW, AND OTHER PROGRAMS. THE
CPUC ACTUALLY DETERMINED THAT A
SELF ATTESTATION WAS ENOUGH
PROOF TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR OTHER
PROGRAMS. I DON'T KNOW IF
THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THE SAME
APPROACH ON THIS, BUT IT WOULD
BE UP TO THEM. AND I'D LIKE TO
ADD ONE OTHER THING. THERE ARE
LANDLORDS THAT ARE GOOD, DECENT,
HARDWORKING LANDLORDS THAT ARE
TRYING TO HELP THOSE IN NEED,
AND IN SOME CASES THE RENT
INCLUDES UTILITIES. HOW WOULD
THEY BE ABLE TO FALL IN THIS
CATEGORY? BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING
TO NEED SOME HELP TOO, BECAUSE
IT DOES COME DOWN. SO IF WE'RE
HELPING THAT LANDLORD, THAT MOM
AND POP TO HELP THEIR TENANTS,
WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A MECHANISM TO
INCLUDE THEM. AND MAYBE SOMEBODY
THAT YOU'VE BROUGHT TOGETHER
TODAY THAT CAN GIVE US SOME
INSIGHT. OR YOU JUST MIGHT ADD
THAT IN THE FUTURE. THAT IS A
PHENOMENAL QUESTION. AND
SENATOR, IN MY THREE YEARS, THIS
IS THE FIRST TIME I DO NOT HAVE
AN ANSWER FOR A QUESTION THAT
WAS GIVEN TO ME. SO I'D LIKE TO
ACTUALLY TURN TO MY WITNESS TO
SEE IF THIS IS SOMETHING. WELL,
IF WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER NOW,
MAYBE WE CAN LOOK INTO IT IN THE
FUTURE. OR MAYBE WE DO HAVE AN
ANSWER. LOOKS LIKE WE DO HAVE.
YEAH. PLEASE GO AHEAD. WITNESS.
FEEL FREE TO RESPOND THIS TIME.
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF TURN, I
BELIEVE YOU'RE I APOLOGIZE,
SENATOR, IF YOU WOULD MIND
REPEATING THE QUESTION FOR MY
CLARITY. I BELIEVE I DO HAVE AN
ANSWER FOR YOU. YEAH, THE. BUT
IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE NOW WE'RE
HOUSING PEOPLE AS OFTEN AS WE
CAN, AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. AND
SOME OF THE HOTELS THAT WE'RE
PUTTING PEOPLE IN TEMPORARILY OR
SOME OF THE FACILITIES, WE'RE
PUTTING THEM. OF COURSE, THE
UTILITIES ARE INCLUDED IN
WHATEVER SUBSIDIES WE GIVE AND
SO ON. SO WE SHOULD HAVE A
MECHANISM WHERE THEY TOO CAN GO
TO THE UTILITIES AND SAY
TEMPORARILY, WE NEED HELP SO WE
CAN HELP. SO I BELIEVE THE
QUESTION IS, IS, SAY ESPECIALLY
A MOM AND POP LANDLORD, ARE THEY
KIND OF AFFECTED BY THIS OR IS
THERE A MECHANISM FOR THEM TO
ALSO, IF THAT MONEY IS COMING TO
THEM, THEN TO FOR THEM TO
APPEAL? WE DO NOT HAVE A
MECHANISM FOR THAT AT THIS TIME,
BUT THAT IS SOMETHING WE COULD
EXPLORE AT THE COMMISSION. OR IF
THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
FURTHER, THEN MAYBE THE
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF AND THE
REASON TO HELP, I THINK WOULD
HELP. SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
THE BILL AND I'D LIKE TO MOVE IT
AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK
YOU, SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THAT
UP. SENATOR RUBIO, THANK YOU. I
REALLY DO APPRECIATE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU, SENATOR MENGIBAR. I
MEAN, AS WE'RE DEALING WITH THE
UNAFFORDABILITY CRISIS HERE IN
OUR STATE, I THINK THAT PROGRAMS
LIKE THESE ARE IMPORTANT. AND I
OFTEN, YOU KNOW, PAY ATTENTION
TO WHAT YOU PUSH FORWARD. AND
IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT MAKING SURE
THAT WE CAPTURE THOSE THAT ARE
REALLY STRUGGLING AT THIS TIME
AND SO ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THIS
BILL. AND, YOU KNOW, I WOULD
LIKE TO BE A COAUTHOR AND HELP
YOU MOVE THIS FORWARD. AND, AND
WE HAVE TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX
SOMETIMES TO SEE HOW WE CAPTURE
THOSE THAT ARE MOST IN NEED AT
THIS TIME. AND WITH THAT, I WILL
ALSO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR BEING MY BIGGEST
FAN. SENATOR, I AM OKAY. I WOULD
LIKE TO TAKE THIS MOMENT TO
SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ESTABLISH QUORUM. I WILL ASK THE
COMMITTEE ASSISTANT TO PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. BECKER. HERE.
BECKER HERE. OCHOA. BOGUE.
ALLEN. ARCHULETA. HERE.
ARCHULETA HERE. URGING. ASHBY.
HERE. ASHBY. HERE. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. HERE. DALLEY. DALLEY.
HERE. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ HERE.
GROVE. HURTADO. LIMÓN. MCNERNEY.
MCNERNEY. HERE. RUBIO. RUBIO.
HERE. STERN. STERN. HERE.
STRICKLAND. WILL HOP. WE HAVE A
QUORUM. OKAY. WE WILL BE ABLE TO
VOTE AND TAKE SENATOR
ARCHULETA'S MOTION WHEN READY.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS HERE ON SB 636
MENGIBAR. OKAY. WE DO HAVE A
MOTION WHICH IS DO PASS AS
AMENDED. THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. I'LL
ASK THE COMMITTEE TO PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. OH, SORRY. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AGAIN. THANK YOU TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH ME ON
THIS, TO FINDING A COMMON
GROUND. I APPRECIATE THE
SENATOR'S POINT OF BRINGING IT
UP, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE
THOSE CONVERSATIONS. AND WITH
THE OPPOSITION, LIKE YOU'VE
HEARD, WE ARE IN OPEN DIALOG
WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE HELPING. AND A HAND UP,
LIKE YOU MENTIONED, SENATOR
ARCHULETA, FOR THE INDIVIDUALS
OR IN THE MOST VULNERABLE
SITUATION. YES. AND I APPRECIATE
I WILL SAY FOR MY OWN PART, I
APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP ON
THIS, YOUR COMPASSION HERE AND
WORKING TO FIND THE RIGHT
SOLUTION. THE HAND UP. I THINK
THAT IS THE RIGHT, THE RIGHT
WORDS NOW FOR THIS BILL. AND I
REALLY APPRECIATE YOU TAKING
THIS ON. AND I HAVE AN I RECO.
THANK YOU. SENATOR. PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. SENATORS. BECKER.
BECKER. AYE. OCHOA. BOGH. ALLEN.
ARCHULETA. HART. ARCHULETA I
ARAGON. ASHBY I ASHBY I.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO I DALLI.
DALLI. NO. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I
GROVE. HURTADO. LIMÓN MCNERNEY.
MCNERNEY I. RUBIO I RUBIO I
STERN, A STERN I STRICKLAND.
WAHAB. SO. EIGHT ONE OKAY THE
BILL IS THE VOTE SO FAR IS 8 TO
1. AND WE WILL KEEP IT ON CALL
FOR OTHER MEMBERS. THANK YOU,
SENATOR MENGIBAR. ALL RIGHT. I
SEE SENATOR WIENER. LET'S GO
AHEAD. WE YOU HAVE A FINAL ITEM,
THREE SB 282.
GO AHEAD. ONE READY? THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND
THANK YOU FOR HEARING THIS BILL
TODAY. I'M HERE TO PRESENT
SENATE BILL 282, THE HEAT PUMP
ACCESS ACT, WHICH WILL MAKE COST
SAVING HEAT PUMP, WATER HEATER
AND HVAC INSTALLATIONS FASTER,
SIMPLER AND MORE AFFORDABLE TO
INSTALL BY STREAMLINING THE
PERMITTING PROCESS. AS I THINK
YOU KNOW, HEAT PUMPS ARE A
HIGHLY EFFICIENT ZERO POLLUTION
OPTION FOR HVAC SYSTEMS AND
WATER HEATERS THAT MAKE HEATING
AND COOLING HOMES CLEANER,
SAFER, AND MORE AFFORDABLE.
BECAUSE THEY ARE SO ENERGY
EFFICIENT, THEY CAN REDUCE
ELECTRICITY USE FOR HEATING BY
UP TO 75%. SO LOWERING ENERGY
BILLS. MANY CUSTOMERS ACROSS THE
STATE COULD BENEFIT. WE KNOW
THAT REPLACING A FOSSIL FUEL,
HVAC OR WATER PUMP SYSTEM WITH A
HEAT PUMP ALSO ELIMINATES
HARMFUL POLLUTANTS THAT CAN BE
RELEASED INTO THE HOME,
IMPROVING HEALTH. IT'S CRITICAL
THAT WE STREAMLINE THE
PERMITTING FOR HEAT PUMPS. THE
GOVERNOR HAS SET A GOAL OF
INSTALLING 6 MILLION HEAT PUMPS
BY 2030, AND ACHIEVING CARBON
NEUTRALITY BY 2045. JUST UNDER 2
MILLION HEAT PUMPS HAVE BEEN
INSTALLED, SO WE'RE A LITTLE BIT
BEHIND AND WE NEED TO CATCH UP.
AND SO LET'S EXPEDITE THE
PERMITTING PROCESS TO MAKE THAT
HAPPEN. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN I VOTE. I DO WANT TO NOTE
THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH THE SHEET METAL WORKERS AND
OTHERS IN LABOR, AND I'M
OPTIMISTIC THAT WE'RE GOING TO
COME TO A RESOLUTION. I WANT TO
THANK THEM FOR WORKING WITH US,
WITH ME TODAY TO TESTIFY OR SAM
FISHMAN WITH SPUR, OR CO-SPONSOR
OF SB 282 AND LARRY WATERS WITH
ELECTRIFY MY HOME. OKAY, MR.
FISHMAN, GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS SAM FISHMAN
AND I WORK WITH SPUR, A
NONPROFIT IN THE BAY AREA KNOWN
FOR ITS NONPARTISAN PUBLIC
POLICY RESEARCH. WE WORK ON
DECARBONIZING THE REGION'S
BUILDINGS AND OUR COSPONSORING
SB 282 TO HELP CALIFORNIANS
SMOOTHLY AND AFFORDABLY REPLACE
HEALTH HARMING, CLIMATE WARMING
GAS APPLIANCES WITH HIGH
EFFICIENCY HEAT PUMPS.
UNFORTUNATELY, PERMITTING AND
INSPECTING HEAT PUMPS IN
CALIFORNIA IS OFTEN A TIME
CONSUMING AND COSTLY PROCESS FOR
CONTRACTORS AND HOMEOWNERS. SPUR
SPURS WORK HAS IDENTIFIED
WIDESPREAD ISSUES. CALIFORNIA'S
MUNICIPALITIES IMPOSE WIDELY
VARYING REQUIREMENTS ON HEAT
PUMP INSTALLERS, EVEN WITHIN A
SINGLE MUNICIPALITY. CONTRACTORS
SOMETIMES DISCOVER CONTRADICTORY
REQUIREMENTS THAT CAN LEAD TO
COSTLY BACK AND FORTHS WITH CITY
STAFF. LOCAL ESTHETIC AND NOISE
REQUIREMENTS OFTEN RESTRICT
WHERE HOMEOWNER CAN PLACE HEAT
PUMPS AND CAN LEAD TO COSTLY
EQUIPMENT RELOCATIONS. AN
INSTALLER MAY ALSO HAVE TO SEEK
MULTIPLE PERMITS FOR A SINGLE
HEAT PUMP OR HEAT PUMP. WATER
HEATER PERMITTING, APPLICATIONS
CAN REQUIRE CONTRACTORS TO
PROVIDE PLANNING DOCUMENTS LIKE
SITE PLANS, WHICH SOMETIMES COST
INSTALLERS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
IN ARCHITECTURAL SUBCONTRACTING,
AND THESE. THESE REQUIREMENTS
CAN LEAD TO LONG DELAYS BEFORE A
CONTRACTOR CAN EVEN PROCEED WITH
WORK. MOST HEAT PUMPS ARE
INSTALLED WHEN AN OLD GAS
EQUIPMENT OR OLD EQUIPMENT OF
ANY OTHER HEATING EQUIPMENT
BURNS OUT OR FAILS, AND WHERE
DELAYS CAN CAUSE A RESIDENT TO
GO WITHOUT ESSENTIALS LIKE HOT
WATER AND HEATING. SB 282
ADDRESSES THESE CHALLENGES BY
STANDARDIZING PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS, STREAMLINING
PERMITTING PROCESSES, AND
PROVIDING NEEDED CONSISTENCY FOR
INSTALLERS AND CONSUMERS. STATE
ACTION ON PERMITTING FOR HOME
ENERGY AND ELECTRIFICATION IS
NOT NEW. THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE HAS ALREADY PASSED
PERMIT STREAMLINING LEGISLATION
FOR SOLAR PV AND FOR EV
CHARGERS, BUT TO DATE, NO ACTION
HAS BEEN TAKEN TO GUIDE
PERMITTING FOR HEAT PUMPS.
DESPITE THEIR CENTRALITY TO THE
CLEAN HEATING TRANSITION, SB 282
WOULD TAKE THAT ACTION AND
ENSURE CALIFORNIA IS READY TO
PERMIT AND INSTALL HEAT PUMPS
QUICKLY AND WITHOUT UNNECESSARY
ADDITIONAL COSTS TO CONSUMERS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. THANK
YOU, MR. WALTERS. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I'M HONORED TO BE HERE IN FRONT
OF YOU GUYS TODAY. THIS IS
REALLY A SPECIAL OCCASION FOR
ME. MY NAME IS LARRY WATERS, AND
I'M THE OWNER AND FOUNDER OF A
COMPANY CALLED ELECTRIFY MY
HOME. AND ALL WE DO IS INSTALL
HEAT PUMPS. WE'VE INSTALLED
AROUND 700 HEAT PUMPS IN THE
LAST THREE YEARS. I CURRENTLY
EMPLOY ABOUT 25 PEOPLE. SO WE
WE'RE ON THE FRONT LINES OF
SEEING THESE PROBLEMS HAPPEN.
AND WE ARE HERE. WE ARE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF 282, AS WE BELIEVE
THIS WILL BE A GAME CHANGER TO
SIMPLIFYING THE ACTIVITIES,
REDUCING THE COST TO OUR OUR
CUSTOMERS AND YOUR CONSTITUENTS
AND THAT THAT ARE LOOKING INTO
INVESTING A LOT OF MONEY INTO
GETTING THESE PROJECTS DONE ON
THEIR HOMES. WE'RE ON THE FRONT
LINE OF DEALING WITH THESE HEAT
PUMP PERMITTING ISSUES. EVERY
PROJECT WE DO INCLUDES AT LEAST
ONE HEAT PUMP, AND OFTENTIMES WE
HAVE TO PULL MULTIPLE PERMITS TO
GET A SINGLE PROJECT THROUGH. WE
CURRENTLY DO MOST OF OUR WORK IN
THE BAY AREA CITIES AND DAVIS
AND NAPA. IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR
US TO SPEND 5 TO 6 HOURS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE TIME SECURING A
PERMIT, EVEN FOR A RELATIVELY
SIMPLE PROJECT. DIFFERENT CITIES
HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS, AND
IT'S A BURDEN THIS TIME IS HAS
TO BE ADDED TO THE CUSTOMER'S
COST. SO OUR OUR CUSTOMERS ARE
ACTUALLY PAYING FOR THIS
ADDITIONAL HOOPS THAT WE NEED TO
JUMP THROUGH. SO IT SEEMS TO
HAVE BECOME STATUS QUO IN
CALIFORNIA CITIES TO REQUIRE
MORE AND MORE ARDUOUS HOOPS TO
HEAT PUMPS JUST TO OBTAIN WHAT
USED TO BE A SIMPLE COUNTER
PERMIT. IT IS NOW COMMONPLACE TO
HAVE TO SUBMIT. DETAILED SITE
PLANS INCLUDE MULTIPLE PAGES
THAT ARE OFTEN REJECTED FOR NOT
HAVING ENOUGH DETAIL FOR EVEN
THE SIMPLEST REPLACEMENTS, OFTEN
HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
ACTUAL PROJECT BEING SUBMITTED.
THIS CAN PUT A CUSTOMER'S
TIMELINE OUT TO MULTIPLE WEEKS,
MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR US
TO SCHEDULE OUR CUSTOMER'S
PROJECTS IN AN EFFICIENT WAY AND
THEREBY MAKING THEIR JOBS MORE
EXPENSIVE. WHEN THE INSPECTOR
ARRIVES AT THE HOUSE, HE HAS
NONE OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE
SUBMITTED IN HIS POSSESSION TO
VERIFY ANYTHING. SO WE GO
THROUGH ALL THESE HOOPS, AND
THEN WHEN THEY ACTUALLY COME AND
DO THE INSPECTION, THE GUY HAS
NOTHING THERE. THEY'RE BASICALLY
LOOKING FOR THE SAME FIVE THINGS
ON ALL JOBS AND CAUSING A GREAT
DEAL OF. SO THE COST OF THE
PERMITS IS NOT TO ASK YOU TO
START TO WRAP UP. OKAY. THE COST
OF THESE PERMITS ARE NOT FULLY
KNOWN IN ADVANCE, AND THAT
CAUSES UNNECESSARY BURDENS TO
THE CUSTOMERS, BECAUSE THE
CITIES DON'T HAVE A CLEAR WAY
FOR US TO DETERMINE WHAT THE
PERMITS COSTS ARE GOING TO BE.
OFTEN THOSE PERMITS ARE WELL
OVER $1,000, AND THAT DOESN'T
COME IN UNTIL THE OTHER END OF
THE JOB. SO IT'S OFTEN REQUIRED
FOR US TO BE ON SITE FOR THE
PERMIT INSPECTIONS. AND THAT
COULD BE A 1 TO 4 HOUR WINDOW
THAT WE HAVE TO PUT SOMEBODY OUT
IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE WAITING
FOR AN INSPECTOR TO GET THERE.
AND I JUST HAD MY ONE OF MY GUYS
TEXTED ME JUST NOW AT 3:00. WE
HAD A NO CALL, NO SHOW BY AN
INSPECTOR WHERE I HAD A GUY
SITTING THERE INCONVENIENCE TO
THE CUSTOMER. THIS HAPPENS ONCE
IN A WHILE. THAT'S NOT THE
BIGGEST THING THAT HAPPENS. BUT
SO I UNDERSTAND THROUGH
CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR INDUSTRY
PEERS THAT THIS IS UNNECESSARILY
BURDENSOME. AND IT'S CAUSED A
LOT OF COMPANIES TO GO
UNDERGROUND AND NOT PULL
PERMITS. THAT'S A HUGE PROBLEM,
BECAUSE THE CITIES DON'T HAVE A
GOOD INVENTORY OF WHAT'S GOING
ON WHEN PERMITS AREN'T PULLED.
IT'S ESTIMATED THAT ONLY ABOUT
10% OF THE SYSTEMS OUT THERE ARE
GETTING PERMITS PULLED ON THEM.
AND I THINK ANYTHING THAT WE CAN
DO TO MAKE THAT PROCESS EASIER
WILL MAKE EVEN THE SMALLER
COMPANIES THAT CAN'T AFFORD TO
HAVE EXTRA ADMIN ON STAFF BE
ABLE TO AFFORD TO DO PERMITS. Tð
THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I SEE SOME FOLKS WOULD
LIKE TO ADD ON. PLEASE GO AHEAD
AND ADD ON YOUR SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MARK STIERS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. DYLAN
HOFFMAN ON BEHALF OF STOPWASTE
IN SUPPORT. HI, MEG SNYDER WITH
AXIOM ADVISORS HERE ON BEHALF OF
REWIRING AMERICA AND SUPPORT.
ADA WELDER WITH EARTHJUSTICE AND
SUPPORT. MATT KLOPFENSTEIN ON
BEHALF OF THE CENTER FOR
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND SUPPORT.
ALLEN EPPS WITH THE BAY AREA AIR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
CO-SPONSOR OF SB 282, IN
SUPPORT. BRANDON HALL, ON BEHALF
OF THE BUILDING DECARBONIZATION
COALITION, CO-SPONSOR ALSO IN
SUPPORT. EXCELLENT. WE'LL NOW
HEAR FROM ANY OPPOSITION
WITNESSES, ANY OPPOSITION IN THE
ROOM. WIENER. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS SCOTT
WHITE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE PIPE TRADES
COUNCIL, WHERE WIENER WE'RE
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR, WILL
APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK AND WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I SEE NO
ONE ELSE WILL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. DOES ANYONE HAVE
ANY? SENATOR RUBIO THANK YOU.
YEAH. THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IT'S
YOU KNOW, WE HEAR IT ALL THE
TIME. I USED TO BE A FORMER
COUNCIL MEMBER. AND IT'S
SOMETHING THAT KEPT COMING UP
THROUGH CITY CONSTITUENTS. BUT
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I YOU
KNOW, I THINK I ADVOCATED FOR,
YOU KNOW, JUST STREAMLINING I
UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT. THE BURDENSOME COST OF
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND JUST
DELAYING PROJECTS. BUT IN MY
IDEAL WORLD, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
SOME KIND OF TIERED PROGRAM
WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE
COMPLICATED, REALLY BIG PROJECTS
ARE, YOU KNOW, DO GO THROUGH A
PROCESS BECAUSE YOU ALSO HAVE TO
LOOK OUT ON THE OTHER SIDE WHERE
YOU MAY. BY NO MEANS AM I
INSINUATING ANYONE WOULD HERE,
BUT THERE COULD BE THOSE BAD
ACTORS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU
DON'T HAVE THE CITY INVOLVED OR
PERMITTING INVOLVED, THAT YOU
JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE
GOING TO GET. AND BUT AGAIN, SO
I THINK, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT IT. AND I THINK IT'S A
GOOD BILL IN TERMS OF GETTING
WHAT WE NEED TO BUILD AND
STREAMLINE. BUT AGAIN, IN MY
IDEAL WORLD, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE
TO KEEP AN EYE ON THAT BECAUSE
WE DON'T KNOW IF WE JUST LEAVE
IT UP TO PEOPLE TO COME IN AND
FAST TRACK IT, THEN YOU MAY
LEAVE IT SOME KIND OF THE
CONSUMER EXPOSED TO MAYBE
SOMEONE COMING IN AND NOT DOING
THE RIGHT THING. BUT AGAIN, I'VE
HAD PROJECTS IN THE CITY WHERE
VERY SIMPLE AND YET TAKES, YOU
KNOW, SIX MONTHS AND BUT THEN
THERE'S OTHER COMPLICATED
PROJECTS THAT I LIKE TO SEE
LOOKED INTO. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU COULD EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.
I'M NOT ADVOCATING ONE WAY OR
THE OTHER. I'M JUST SAYING, YOU
KNOW, WE HAVE TO LOOK OUT FOR
THAT CONSUMER THAT'S SORT OF
LEFT EXPOSED. IS THERE ANYTHING
THAT YOU CAN TELL ME? SO THIS
BILL DOES NOT ELIMINATE
PERMITTING OR CITY INVOLVEMENT.
IT THE GOAL IS TO SIMPLIFY IT.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THE CAC WILL
PUT TOGETHER THE CHECKLIST OF
WHAT'S NEEDED FOR A PERMIT. AND
IT'S LIMITED TO ONE PERMIT.
THERE ARE CITIES THAT SOMETIMES
REQUIRE MULTIPLE PERMITS FOR AN
APPARATUS THAT THAT, FRANKLY, IS
NOT A ROCKET SCIENCE KIND OF
SITUATION. LIKE WE DON'T WE
DON'T REQUIRE PERMITS FOR LIKE
INSTALLING A DISHWASHER OR A
WASHING MACHINE AND DRYER. IF
YOU THINK OF ALL THE DIFFERENT
APPLIANCES THAT WE INSTALL THAT,
YOU KNOW, OFTEN, YOU KNOW, DON'T
REQUIRE A PERMIT. AND THE
TECHNOLOGY HERE HAS GOTTEN
REALLY ADVANCED. BUT WITH THAT
SAID, THE BILL DOES NOT
ELIMINATE STANDARDS OR
PERMITTING. IT'S JUST TRYING TO
MAKE IT STREAMLINED AND SIMPLE
AND CAP THE FEES AND NOT HAVE
THESE SITUATIONS LIKE YOU'VE
HEARD. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF
THESE SORT OF HORROR STORIES
WE'RE GOING TO DRAG ON FOR WEEKS
OR MONTHS, AND IT JUST INCREASES
COSTS, NOT IN A WAY THAT
INCREASES SAFETY, BUT THAT IS
JUST NOT ALWAYS AS COORDINATED
AS IT SHOULD BE. SO WE'RE JUST
TRYING TO SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS.
THANK YOU. AND I ALSO DID HEAR
THAT IT DOES ADD A LOT OF COST
TO THE CONSUMER. WELL IF WE
STREAMLINE IT MAYBE WE CAN MAKE
IT LESS EXPENSIVE FOR THE
CONSUMER. BUT BUT YOU KNOW THIS
IS JUST A SHOUT OUT TO ALL THE
CITIES. I THINK IN GENERAL
CITIES HAVE TO DO BETTER. IT IS
INCREDIBLY DISTRESSING TO SEE
PEOPLE WAIT MONTHS. IT'S JUST A
PROBLEM, NOT JUST ON THIS ISSUE,
JUST EVERYTHING THEY DO. SO I
HOPE CITIES REALLY TAKE THIS
ISSUE ON AND START STREAMLINING
EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO. BECAUSE
YOU DON'T NEED THREE PERMITS OR
FIVE PERMITS OR THREE DIFFERENT
DEPARTMENTS. WE JUST NEED TO GET
THE WHATEVER IT IS DONE. SO WITH
THAT THANK YOU. AND I'LL BE
MOVING THE BILL FORWARD WHEN
APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU. OKAY.
SENATOR GROVES, DID YOU HAVE A I
DID THANK YOU. SO I DID I HAVE
TWO QUESTIONS OR ACTUALLY THREE
I THINK READING IT, I UNDERSTAND
THAT IT'S A STATEWIDE LIKE A
STATEWIDE PRACTICE SO THAT
EVERYTHING IS THE SAME. DO YOU
THINK THAT THAT LIMITS AND
CREATES A COTTAGE INDUSTRY WHERE
JUST A FEW PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE
TO PERFORM THAT? NO, THIS WILL
ACTUALLY, I THINK, EXPAND THE
ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO
PARTICIPATE, BECAUSE WHAT
HAPPENS NOW WHEN THINGS GET SO
COMPLICATED AND CONVOLUTED AND
YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE LIKE
THE, THE, THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT SAYS, HERE'S YOUR SIX
HOUR WINDOW FOR WHEN THE
INSPECTOR MIGHT COME. AND SO
THEN THE CONTRACTOR HAS TO SIT
THERE FOR SIX HOURS, WHICH IS
EXPENSIVE. IT MEANS THEY CAN'T
WORK ON A DIFFERENT JOB. THAT
LIMITS WHO CAN WORK ON THESE
JOBS. AND SO OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE
IT SO THAT MORE PEOPLE CAN DO
IT, BECAUSE WE NEED MILLIONS
MORE OF THESE. AND THAT ONLY
HAPPENS IF YOU HAVE THE
CONTRACTOR CAPACITY TO BE ABLE
TO DELIVER IT. OKAY, I WAS
READING JUST SOME INFORMATION ON
THE OPPOSITION, WHICH IS THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFFICIALS.
AND THEIR CONCERN ALSO IS THAT
THEY'RE SWORN OFFICERS TO ENSURE
THAT PUBLIC SAFETY IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES. BUT IT'S GOING TO
BE A SELF PERMITTING, LIKE A
AUTOMATED PERMIT PERMITTING,
THEY THINK IS TROUBLESOME
BECAUSE IT GIVES NO OVERSIGHT
FOR THESE TRAINED PROFESSIONALS
THAT ARE THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE SAFETY OF THE
INSPECTIONS. YES. SO WE ARE
THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT THE PIECE
THAT WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON IS
THE SELF-CERTIFICATION PIECE.
THE BILL IN PRINT DOES ALLOW
THEM TO DO THE SPOT CHECKING,
WHICH, YOU KNOW, I THINK CAN GET
YOU WHERE YOU'RE GOING. BUT
THAT'S THE PIECE THAT WE'RE
CONTINUING TO WORK ON AND
LOOKING FOR. YOU KNOW, IS IT
POSSIBLE TO HAVE THE INSPECTION
HAPPEN, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE
CONTRACTOR IS AVAILABLE REMOTELY
SO THEY CAN WORK ON OTHER JOBS
INSTEAD OF HAVING TO DO A SIX
HOUR WINDOW? SO WE'RE LOOKING AT
DIFFERENT IDEAS. BUT THAT'S THE
PIECE OF THE BILL THAT'S STILL
UNDER DISCUSSION. AND THEN MY
FINAL QUESTION THANK YOU FOR
THAT. IT DID CLEAR UP WHAT I HAD
QUESTIONS ON. BUT ON MY FINAL
QUESTIONS MR. WHICH WAS UP HERE
IN OPPOSITION OR NOT IN
OPPOSITION AS A TWEENER, AND
YOU'RE CONTINUING TO WORK ON
HIM? WHAT IS THAT ISSUE? YOU'RE
WORKING THE SAME THE SAME ISSUE,
I THINK WITH ALL OF THEM IT'S
SORT OF THE SAME ISSUE. SAME
ISSUE. YEAH. OKAY. AND YOU ARE
GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
THEM. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. BECAUSE
I DO AGAIN, THE COTTAGE INDUSTRY
THING BOTHERS ME. AND THEN NOT
HAVING THE OVERSIGHT. AND, YOU
KNOW, PART OF IT IS, IS THAT WE
ELIMINATE GAS GAS APPLIANCES,
GAS, HVAC UNITS. WE MAKE THEM
ALL ELECTRIC AND WE REQUIRE HEAT
PUMPS. AND THEN NOW WE'RE GOING
TO REGULATE THE HEAT PUMP PART.
AND I JUST THINK IT INCREASES
COST. JUST JUST TO BE CLEAR,
THIS IS NOT INCREASING
REGULATION ON ON HEAT PUMPS.
THIS IS MAKING IT EASIER FOR
PEOPLE TO GET PERMITS ON HEAT
PUMPS. SO THIS IS THIS IS NOT I
WOULD IF THIS BILL WERE
INCREASING WHAT WAS REQUIRED TO
GET A HEAT PUMP. I WOULD DROP
THE BILL TOMORROW BECAUSE MY,
YOU KNOW, MY WHETHER IT'S
HOUSING OR OR ANY OTHER KINDS OF
THINGS, MY GOAL IS ALWAYS TO
MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO GET
PERMITS AND TO MAKE IT LESS
EXPENSIVE AND FASTER. AND THAT'S
WHAT THIS BILL DOES. OKAY. THANK
YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU. OKAY. SENATOR
CABALLERO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS. I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL
TODAY, BUT I HAVE COMMUNITIES
THAT ARE SMALL. THEY'RE THEY MAY
OR MAY NOT BE UNDER 5000
RESIDENTS, BUT THEY HAVE NO
BUILDING DEPARTMENT, AND THEY
DON'T HAVE ENGINEERS AND THEY
DON'T HAVE INSPECTORS. THEY HAVE
TO HIRE PEOPLE TO COME IN AND DO
THE WORK. AND SO I'M ALWAYS
LOOKING FOR THE ABILITY FOR. FOR
THE COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO
PIGGYBACK OFF OF, OF WHAT OTHER
COMMUNITIES ARE DOING. AND IF
YOU DO IT THAT WAY, THEN IT'S IT
WORKS IN YOUR COMMUNITY AS WELL.
AND WHEN I WAS ON THE CITY
COUNCIL, WE USED TO WE WERE FROM
A BIGGER CITY AND WE WOULD
CONTRACT WITH THOSE CITIES TO
SEND BUILDING INSPECTORS DOWN
AND DO SOME OF THE WORK. SO I WE
MAY NEED TO LOOK AT THAT,
BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE, THE
EXEMPTION FOR FEWER THAN 5000
RESIDENTS FOR A CITY, IT MAY BE
TOO LOW BECAUSE I HAVE SOME
CITIES THAT THAT ARE A LITTLE
BIT BIGGER THAN THAT, THAT JUST
WON'T WON'T HAVE THE STAFF TO BE
ABLE TO ACTUALLY DO THE WORK.
THEY HAVE TO CONTRACT FOR IT,
AND THAT COSTS THEM MONEY AND
THEY HAVE TO PASS IT ON. SO
ANYWAY, YEAH, ALTHOUGH AND I
APPRECIATE THAT. AND BY THE WAY,
THAT WHEN WE A FEW YEARS AGO
WHEN THIS COMMITTEE PASSED AND
LEGISLATURE PASSED SB 379, WHICH
WAS TO CREATE THE AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATED APP BASED PERMITTING
FOR SOLAR AND STORAGE, WE WENT
THROUGH THESE ISSUES AS WELL.
BUT IN THAT SITUATION, IT
REQUIRED CITIES TO ADOPT THESE
APPS HERE. I THINK THIS ACTUALLY
MAKES IT SIMPLER FOR CITIES. SO
I DON'T THINK THAT ANYTHING IN
THIS BILL INCREASES THE BURDENS
ON CITIES. I THINK WE EXEMPTED
THE UNDER 5000 BECAUSE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT CITIES THAT ARE,
YOU KNOW, TRULY SO TINY THEY MAY
NOT EVEN HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE OR
DON'T HAVE. BUT I THINK THIS
THIS SHOULD MAKE THINGS EASIER
FOR CITIES. IT STANDARDIZES
THINGS. AND SO BUT WE'RE HAPPY
TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. BUT
OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE IT EASIER
FOR EVERYONE. OKAY. WELL I JUST
BRING THAT UP AND I CAN TAKE A
LOOK AT IT AGAIN. AND THEN I
THINK TIMING, THE TIMING IS THE
ISSUE. AND THAT'S A TECHNICAL
ISSUE. IT'S PRETTY HARD FOR ANY
DEPARTMENT TO GET ANYTHING DONE
WITHIN A ONE YEAR PERIOD. SO I'M
JUST CONCERNED THAT WE SET A
DATE. IT MAY NOT WORK FOR THE
CÁC. I JUST HAVE MY NOTES.
THERE'S ONLY ONE YEAR AND I
THINK IT'S NEXT YEAR. YEAH, I
THINK IT WAS NOTED IN THE
ANALYSIS. OKAY. I'M, I, I ON ON
ONE LEVEL I AGREE. I AGREE WITH
YOU WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN
TERMS OF YOU'RE MAKING AN
OBSERVATION ABOUT THE STATE OF
EXISTENCE IN CALIFORNIA, BUT I
WILL I DO WANT TO ADD SOME
COMMENTARY TO THAT, THAT I THINK
WHEN IT ROUTINELY TAKES 2 TO 3
YEARS FOR CALIFORNIA AGENCIES TO
ADOPT REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT
LAWS THAT WE PASS, I FIND THAT
TO BE COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE,
AND I FIND IT TO BE SORT OF ONE
OF THE REASONS WHY PEOPLE LOSE
FAITH IN GOVERNMENT WHEN
PEOPLE'S ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
PASS A LAW, THE GOVERNOR SIGNS
IT, AND THEN IT TAKES 2 OR 3
YEARS TO IMPLEMENT IT. IT SHOULD
NOT BE THAT WAY. SO YOUR
OBSERVATION, SENATOR, I AGREE
WITH YOUR YOU'RE BEING VERY
ACCURATE. BUT I FOR SOMETHING
THIS STRAIGHTFORWARD, I THINK
THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO
EASILY DO IT WITHIN A YEAR. LET
ME LET ME JUST BE REAL CLEAR
ABOUT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, IS
THAT IF YOU FOLLOW THE APA, IT
IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET SOMETHING
DONE IN A YEAR BECAUSE OF THE
HEARING REQUIREMENTS. YOU HAVE
TO GIVE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
PUT THEIR THOUGHTS ON PAPER, AND
THEN YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THEM
AND WRITE IT UP AND RESPOND. AND
THEN SO. SO IT 18 MONTHS IS NOT
IS REALLY NORMAL. AND I AGREE
WITH YOU. 2 OR 3 YEARS IS
RIDICULOUS. I JUST YOU MADE IT A
YEAR. AND SO I JUST CAUTION
BECAUSE THEN WHAT WE OUGHT TO
PUT IN THIS STATUTE AND I'VE,
I'M DETERMINED NOT TO SUPPORT IT
ANYMORE. OUR EMERGENCY
REGULATIONS. THIS MAY BE ONE OF
THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE EMERGENCY
REGULATIONS WORK AND EMERGENCY
REGULATIONS ALLOW YOU TO IGNORE
MOST OF THE PUBLIC PROCESS AND
GO STRAIGHT TO, TO GO AND NOT
PASS JAIL OR WHATEVER THAT THING
IS. AND SO MAYBE A YEAR WORKS,
BUT I IT'S, IT'S IMPORTANT TO,
TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE TWO. SO AND I AGREE
WITH YOU, I AGREE WITH YOU. AND
I THINK I THINK IT IS STILL AN
INDICTMENT OF THE SYSTEM. AND
THE APA NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.
I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THIS
REGULATION, A CLIMATE
REGULATION, WILL ALSO HAVE TO
UNDERGO CEQA, AS FAR AS I KNOW.
SO WE AND THERE ARE OTHER
REQUIREMENTS. AND SO WE ACTUALLY
INCAPACITATE OUR AGENCIES FROM
DOING THEIR JOB. AND I KNOW YOU
AND I TEND TO BE ALIGNED ON
THESE ON THESE ISSUES. I AGREE
WITH YOU 100%. THERE'S A WHOLE
BUNCH OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO
TAKE THROUGH CEQA THAT DON'T
MAKE ANY SENSE ANYMORE, BUT
THAT'S ANOTHER SUBJECT. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. OKAY. SENATOR STERN,
YEAH. HAS BILL BEEN MOVED
ALREADY? IS THERE A MOTION,
SENATOR RUBIO OKAY. WELL, I'LL
JUST SAY THANKS ON THIS. WE'VE
BEEN WORKING ON TRYING TO GET Â
PERMITTING OR OTHER SORT OF FAST
TRACK PERMITTING, NOT JUST FOR
HEAT PUMPS, BUT FOR ALL COOLING
AND HEATING EQUIPMENT. AND, YOU
KNOW, THE FACT IS, I THINK
THERE'S ALSO A PRO CONSUMER BILL
BECAUSE TO THE GENTLEMAN WHO
RUNS HIS SMALL BUSINESS, WHEN
YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE HAVING TO RUN
BASICALLY A SHADOW ECONOMY OF
DOING PERMANENT PROJECTS,
UNPERMITTED AND ESPECIALLY
PEOPLE IN VERY HOT AREAS WHEN
THEIR HVAC BREAKS AND THEY WANT
IT TO GO FAST, YOU DON'T WANT TO
WAIT THREE MONTHS, LET ALONE,
YOU KNOW, ONE DAY. SO I'M REALLY
HOPING YOU CAN HAVE THE SAME
SUCCESS HERE THAT YOU'VE HAD ON
SOLAR AND STORAGE TO PUSH THIS
AHEAD. AND ON THIS CASE, I DO
AGREE WITH YOU ON ALL THE OTHER
STREAMLINING ON APA AND SEQUEL
AND THE REST. SO GODSPEED ON
THIS. EXCELLENT. SENATOR
MCNERNEY. WELL, THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. CHAIRMAN. HEY, THIS THING
JUST SEEMS LIKE COMMON SENSE.
YOU KNOW, THE HIGH COST OF
LIVING AND HOUSING AND ENERGY,
THE NEED TO REDUCE EMISSIONS,
STREAMLINING, PERMITTING WITHOUT
RELAXING ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS AND WITHOUT RELAXING
STANDARDS, I THINK JUST KIND OF
GETS TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE. SO
ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE NOT IF WE'RE
WILLING TO WORK WITH LABOR TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE PLUMBERS ARE
HAPPY WITH THIS, THEN I THINK IT
SOUNDS REALLY GOOD. I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT YOU. THANK YOU.
EXCELLENT. SEEING NONE, I'LL
JUST SAY FOR MY PART, I HAVE A
HEAT PUMP. BEFORE THAT, WE
DIDN'T NEED AIR CONDITIONING
WHERE I LIVE. WHEN I FIRST MOVED
THERE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS HOT FIVE
DAYS AND THEN TEN DAYS, AND THEN
REALLY 30 DAYS, REALLY
OPPRESSIVELY HOT. AND WE GOT A
HEAT PUMP. WE GOT AIR
CONDITIONING AS WELL. AND SO I
APPRECIATE IT. WAS GOOD TO HEAR
FROM THE, YOU KNOW, THE BUSINESS
OWNERS. ALWAYS HELPFUL TO HEAR
FROM FOLKS ON THE FRONT LINES
WHAT THEY ARE GOING THROUGH. I
KNOW YOU ARE A BIG FAN OF THE
ABUNDANCE YOU KNOW OF. HOW CAN
WE DO THINGS FASTER? SO I
APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS AND I
APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE WORKING
WITH THE OPPOSITION ON ON
IRONING OUT THOSE ISSUES. WE
HAVE A MOTION BY SENATOR RUBIO.
I HAVE A I RICA WOULD YOU LIKE
TO MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT, A
GREAT CONVERSATION, RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. OKAY.
COMMITTEE ASSISTANT, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. DO YOU WANT TO DO
THIS? I THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
TO THE SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE. SENATORS BECKER A
BECKER I ECHO BOGUE ALLEN.
ARCHULETA A ARCHULETA I ARAGON.
ASHBY. ASHBY I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I DALY. GONZALEZ.
GROVE. HURTADO. LIMON. MCNERNEY.
MCNERNEY I. RUBIO I RUBIO I.
STERN. STERN I. STRICKLAND. WILL
HAVE. SO RIGHT. OKAY. THAT'S 7
TO 0. WE'LL KEEP THAT ON CALL.
I. I APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY. WE
HAVE THREE BILLS FROM MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. SENATOR GROVE IS
FIRST. SO WE WILL INVITE YOU UP
FOR SB 13. THANK YOU. IS IT.
SENATOR GROVE WHEN READY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
COLLEAGUES, I'D LIKE TO START BY
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO REDUCE
THE NUMBER OF REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS IN THE BILL TO
CONSOLIDATE THE EMISSIONS
REPORTING TO CARB, THE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD.
THANK YOU. LAST YEAR,
CALIFORNIANS CONSUMED 1.4
MILLION BARRELS OF OIL EVERY
DAY, ABOUT 510 MILLION BARRELS
OVER A YEAR, BUT ONLY 118
MILLION BARRELS FOR THAT YEAR
WERE PRODUCED IN STATE BY
CALIFORNIA WORKERS. FOR
CALIFORNIANS AND THEIR
CONSUMPTION, WITH REDUCED
PERMITS IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY
AND KERN COUNTY, THAT NUMBER
WILL DROP DRASTICALLY NEXT YEAR.
THE REST OF THE OIL THAT WE GET,
392 MILLION BARRELS, IS
IMPORTED, WITH 324 MILLION
BARRELS COMING FROM FOREIGN
COUNTRIES TRANSPORTED HERE ON
HUGE OIL TANKER SHIPS, WHICH
SPEW ROUGHLY 126 MILLION METRIC
TONS OF CARBON EMISSIONS AND
HAZARDOUS WASTE ON THEIR JOURNEY
FROM POINT OF ORIGIN TO POINT OF
DESTINATION. THE AMOUNT OF
CALIFORNIANS SPEND ON IMPORTED
OIL IS ENORMOUS. WE ARE THE
FIFTH LARGEST ECONOMY, AND I
SUBMIT TO YOU THAT WE SHOULD USE
OUR MONEY FOR GOOD. IF OIL IS
PRODUCED AT APPROXIMATELY $80 A
BARREL. CALIFORNIANS IN FOREIGN
COUNTRIES $26 BILLION A YEAR TO
IMPORT THE OIL THAT WE USE AND
NEED EVERY SINGLE DAY. TRULY,
THE STATE'S CURRENTLY CURRENT
ENERGY POLICIES MAKE NO SENSE.
WE'VE PLACED CALIFORNIA'S ENERGY
SECURITY INTO THE HANDS OF
COUNTRIES THAT ACTIVELY ARE
HOSTILE TO CALIFORNIANS VALUES
WHEN IT COMES TO HUMAN RIGHTS,
LABOR RIGHTS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RIGHTS. THE TOP FOUR COUNTRIES
THAT WE DO BUSINESS WITH FOR
THIS IS ACCOUNT FOR 70% OF THE
FOREIGN OIL. WE IMPORT ABOUT
589,000 BARRELS A DAY, OR 221
MILLION BARRELS A YEAR COMES
FROM IRAQ, BRAZIL, GUYANA AND
ECUADOR. CURRENTLY, CALIFORNIA'S
TOP SOURCE FOR FOREIGN CRUDE OIL
IS IRAQ. THIS COUNTRY IS
ANNUALLY HIGHLIGHTED BY THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT, BUT HIGHLIGHTED BY
THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT, AS
WELL AS GROUPS LIKE HUMAN RIGHTS
WATCH AND AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
FOR DEPLORABLE HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS. AS THE FIFTH FIFTH
LARGEST ECONOMY, AS I SAID, WE
SHOULD USE OUR MONEY FOR GOOD.
WE IMPORT ABOUT 68 MILLION
BARRELS OF OIL FROM IRAQ, WHICH
LAST YEAR PASSED A LAW TO MAKE
IT ILLEGAL TO USE THE WORD
HOMOSEXUAL IN THE STATE AND IN
THE PRESS, AND PUTS PEOPLE TO
DEATH FOR CLAIMING TO BE PART OF
THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY. AND JUST
RECENTLY, LAST YEAR PASSED A
PIECE OF LEGISLATION BY THE
IRAQI PARLIAMENT THAT SAYS ANY
GROWN MAN CAN MARRY A NINE YEAR
OLD CHILD THAT'S SUPPORTING A
COUNTRY THAT CONSTITUTES AND
VALUES RAPING OF A CHILD NINE
YEARS OLD AND YOUNG, NINE YEARS
OLD AND OLDER. THE STATE'S
ENERGY POLICY RESULTED IN ABOUT
$5.5 BILLION BEING SENT TO THAT
GOVERNMENT THAT ENCOURAGES CHILD
RAPE. IT'S JUST UNACCEPTABLE TO
THINK THAT WE WOULD DO THAT.
MEMBERS. THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE
COUNTRY THAT CALIFORNIA BUYS,
BUYS ITS OIL FROM. WHY ARE WE
DOING THAT WHEN WE COULD PRODUCE
IT HERE FOR CALIFORNIANS BY
CALIFORNIANS, THREE OF THE TOP
COUNTRIES THAT WE IMPORT OIL
FROM WERE ACTIVELY DESTROYING
THE MOST BIODIVERSE ECO
ECOSYSTEM ON THE PLANET. TO GET
CALIFORNIA OIL HERE. TWO OF MY
COLLEAGUES ON THIS DAIS WORK
WITH THOSE COUNTRIES, AND THEY
WORK WITH AMAZONIANS, AND THEY
KNOW THAT WE ARE DISPLACING
AMAZONIAN FAMILIES. WE KNOW THAT
WE'RE BUYING, WE'RE BULLDOZING
DOWN THE RAINFOREST, WHICH IS
THE LARGEST BIO ECO ECOSYSTEM IN
THE ENTIRE UNITED OR, EXCUSE ME,
THE COUNTRY, IT'S CALLED THE
WORLD'S LUNG. AND WE'RE ACTIVELY
BULLDOZING DOWN THAT NATURAL
SEQUESTRATION OF PLACE. ECUADOR
HAS BEEN STRONGLY CRITICIZED BY
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INDIGENOUS
GROUPS FOR THE PRACTICE OF
CLEARCUTTING AND BULLDOZING DOWN
THE AMAZON RAINFOREST. ONE
STATE, THIS STATE, CALIFORNIA.
CALIFORNIA, IMPORTS OVER HALF OF
ITS CRUDE OIL FROM ECUADOR. I
HAVE SOMETHING THAT I'VE ASKED
THE SERGEANTS TO PASS OUT TO
YOU. IT'S ACTUALLY INFORMATION
REGARDING WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS
IN THESE FOREIGN COUNTRIES. AND
IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE
PHOTOGRAPHS IT WILL DESCRIBE, OR
YOU WILL HAVE A PICTURE WHERE
OIL IS ACTUALLY RELEASED INTO
THE RIVERS AND INTO THE
WATERWAYS, INDIGENOUS
POPULATIONS ARE WASHING THEIR
CLOTHES, AND OIL IS ATTACHING
ITSELF TO THESE CLOTHINGS THAT
THEY PUT IN. THEIR WATER IS
BEING COMPLETELY CONTAMINATED
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HARVEST OIL
THE RIGHT WAY. THEY DON'T
HARVEST OIL IN KERN COUNTY, WE
BRING OIL AND WATER UP FROM THE
GROUND. WE TAKE THE OIL, WE
CAPTURE THE GAS, WE RECYCLE THE
GAS TO RUN THE GENERATORS AND
THINGS ON SITE. WE TAKE THE
WATER, WE RUN IT THROUGH A
FILTRATION SYSTEM AND GIVE IT TO
FARMERS WITH A REDUCED 0.05
PARTS PER MILLION, WHICH EQUATES
TO EXCEPTIONAL WATER USE FOR
AGRICULTURE. THERE'S SO MANY
THINGS THAT WE DO RIGHT HERE IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BUT WE
CONTINUE TO SEND OUR RESOURCES
TO COUNTRIES WHO DON'T DO IT
RIGHT. CALIFORNIA'S DECISION TO
IMPORT, RATHER THAN TO PRODUCE
OIL HERE MEANS THAT WE'RE
FINANCING MORE OF THESE. THE
DESTRUCTION OF THE AMAZON
RAINFOREST. AGAIN, THE MONEY
THAT WE'RE SENDING THESE
GOVERNMENTS DIRECTLY FINANCES
THIS ACTIVITY. ALL OF THIS
IMPORTED OIL BROUGHT TO US IN
CALIFORNIA BY 600 TANKER SHIPS
IN A YEAR. THESE TANKERS SPEW
MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF CARBON
EMISSION INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
AND WHAT WE FOUND OUT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
IS THEY DON'T MEASURE THE CARBON
EMISSION OUTPUT FROM POINT OF
ORIGIN TO POINT OF DESTINATION.
THEY MEASURE IT BY SELF
CERTIFICATION BY THE FOREIGN
OPERATOR OF THE SHIP. SO SOME
FOREIGN OPERATOR FROM A
DIFFERENT COUNTRY SAYS I USE 12
CARBON EMISSIONS, AND THEY ONLY
REQUIRE THESE FOREIGN OPERATORS
TO COUNT THE CARBON EMISSIONS 12
MILES OFF OUR COASTLINE. THAT'S
IT. NOT FROM SAUDI ARABIA, IRAQ,
ALL THE WAY TO CALIFORNIA AND
LONG BEACH, 12 MILES OFF OUR
COASTLINE. OIL TODAY IS USED
MORE THAN JUST IN GAS FOR
CALIFORNIANS THAT THEY PUT IN
THEIR CAR. THERE'S 6000 PRODUCTS
EVERY SINGLE SINGLE DAY THAT WE
USE FROM PETROLEUM SUCH AS
SHOES, PHONES, TOOTHBRUSHES,
EYEGLASSES, HEART VALVES,
DISPOSABLE DIAPERS. ALMOST
ANYTHING THAT YOU GET IN A
HOSPITAL MADE OF PLASTIC IS A
PETROLEUM BYPRODUCT FOR PEOPLE
THAT SAY THEY HATE OIL, AND OIL
SHOULDN'T BE HERE. I LOOK AT THE
GLASSES THE CHAIR IS WEARING,
THE CONSULTANT IS WEARING. IT'S
ALL AN OIL BY PRODUCT. IF YOU
LOOK AT THE SHOES THAT HAVE THE
RUBBER SOLES, IT'S AN OIL
BYPRODUCT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE
NAME PLAQUES ON OUR THE NAMES
THAT ARE IN FRONT OF YOU, THOSE
ARE PART OF A PETROLEUM
BYPRODUCT. ALMOST EVERYTHING
THAT WE USE IS A PETROLEUM
BYPRODUCT. AND I JUST THINK THAT
WE AS CALIFORNIANS SHOULD
CONTROL THE PROCESS. WE ARE IN A
DESPERATE SITUATION WHERE WE
DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CRUDE GOING
THROUGH PIPELINES TO SUSTAIN OUR
REFINERIES BECAUSE WE'RE
IMPORTING THIS OIL. WE COULD
PRODUCE OIL HERE FOR
CALIFORNIANS AND BY
CALIFORNIANS, AND WE COULD SOLVE
THAT PROBLEM. IF WE LOSE ONE
MORE REFINERY, WE ARE GOING TO
BE IN A WORLD OF HURT, AND IT'S
GOING TO COST US A LOT OF MONEY,
ESPECIALLY AT THE PUMP.
CALIFORNIA'S 22, 2022 SCOPING
PLAN FOR ACHIEVING CARBON
NEUTRALITY ADMITS THAT THE
COMPLETE PHASE OUT OF OIL
EXTRACTION IN THE REFINING IS
NOT POSSIBLE BY 2045. IT WAS A
LOFTY GOAL TO SEE IF WE COULD
MAKE IT. WE CAN'T MAKE IT AND WE
HAVE TO ADJUST COURSE OR WE ARE
GOING TO BE IN A WORLD OF HURT.
THE PLAN ENVISIONS A GRADUAL
PHASE DOWN IN OIL AND GAS
EXTRACTION EXTRACTION, BUT THE
STATE HAS BEEN AGGRESSIVELY
SHUTTING DOWN DOMESTIC OIL
PRODUCTION SINCE 2019. OVER THE
PAST FEW YEARS, PRODUCTION IS
DOWN 23%, AND OVER THE PAST YEAR
ALONE, IT'S 9.5%. OFFSETTING
THAT IS THE IMPORTS OF FOREIGN
OIL PRODUCTION IN CALIFORNIA IS
NOT SEEN AS A COMPATIBLE DECLINE
OVER CONSUMPTION. OVER THE PAST
THREE YEARS, CALIFORNIA OIL
PRODUCTION HAS DROPPED BY 17
MILLION BARRELS, WHILE FOREIGN
IMPORTS HAVE INCREASED BY 13
MILLION BARRELS. TRANSITION OFF
OF FOSSIL FUELS IS NOT WHAT WE
ARE PORTRAYING TO THE PUBLIC.
TRANSITION IS LEAVING AND
TRANSITIONING OFF OF OUR
DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED OIL TO
TRANSITION TO FOREIGN OR NON
DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED OIL. I
COULD GO ON AND ON AND CONTINUE
TO WORK, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT
AND CONTINUE TO SHARE THIS. I'VE
BEEN BEATING THIS DRUM SINCE
2010, I REALLY HAVE. I'VE BEEN
BEATING THIS DRUM SINCE 2010.
AND YOU GUYS, WE ARE IN A
SITUATION WHERE WE'VE LOST OUR
REFINERY CAPACITY, WE'RE GETTING
READY TO LOSE MORE, AND WE ARE
GOING TO RELY ON FOREIGN
COUNTRIES, SOME THAT ARE HOSTILE
TO US, TO BRING US THE VITAL
FUEL THAT WE NEED EVERY SINGLE
DAY TO MAKE LIFE NOT BE A THIRD
WORLD COUNTRY. IN CALIFORNIA, SB
13 WOULD SIMPLY IMPLORE THE
LEGISLATURE TO PROHIBIT IMPORT
OF CRUDE OIL INTO CALIFORNIA IF
THE SOURCE OF THE OIL OF FOREIGN
NATION IS DEMONSTRATED, HUMAN
RIGHTS ABUSES OR ENVIRONMENTAL
STANDARDS THAT ARE LOWER THAN
WHAT CALIFORNIA REQUIRES. THE
MEASURE WOULD ALSO APPRECIATE
YOUR PASSION IF WE COULD START
TO WRAP UP. THANK YOU. SORRY.
THE MEASURE WOULD ALSO REQUIRE
THAT YOU PROVIDE CLARITY ON
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
CONSEQUENCES FOR IMPORTING SO
MUCH OIL. THE AIR RESOURCES
BOARD TO REPORT ON ITS WEBSITE
THE ANNUAL PARTICULATE MATTER.
AND WHEN I SAY THE AIR RESOURCES
BOARD, I MEAN THE ENTIRE AMOUNT
FROM POINT OF ORIGIN TO POINT OF
DESTINATION AND THE FUEL THAT
THESE SHIPS USE, THEY NOT ONLY
SPEW CARBON EMISSIONS, BUT THEY
SPEW HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS AND
HAZARDOUS WASTE BECAUSE THEY USE
BUNKER FUEL, WHICH IS JUST A
LEVEL BELOW CRUDE. RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE HERE WITH ME
TO SUPPORT SB 13 IS SEAN
WALLENTINE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
INDEPENDENT OIL PRODUCERS.
SORRY. GREAT. THANK YOU. YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES? YES. I'M NOT
SURE WHY I'M HERE. THAT WAS
AMAZING. YEAH, IT KIND OF HIT IT
OFF, BUT YES. GO AHEAD. SEAN
WALLENTINE, CALIFORNIA
INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. THIS BILL WOULD TAKE AN
HONEST LOOK AT THE TRUE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND
ECONOMIC COSTS OF IMPORTING
FOREIGN CRUDE OIL. AS THE AUTHOR
NOTED, CALIFORNIANS USE 1.8
MILLION BARRELS OF CRUDE PER
DAY. AND IT'S NOT GOING DOWN.
IT'S GOING UP. DEMAND IS NOT
REDUCING. IT'S INCREASING. AND
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
TRANSITION, WHAT I NOTICED ABOUT
THE BROWN ADMINISTRATION IS THEY
WERE TRYING TO REDUCE DEMAND
USING CREATIVE WAYS. NOW WE'RE
ATTACKING SUPPLY WHICH IS
CAUSING MAJOR PROBLEMS. OUR
CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION IN
CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN CUT IN HALF
SINCE GOVERNOR NEWSOM WAS SWORN
INTO OFFICE. WE'VE GONE FROM
500,000 BARRELS OF CRUDE
PRODUCTION PER DAY IN CALIFORNIA
TO ABOUT 250,000 BARRELS PER
DAY. WE HAVE INDEPENDENT OIL
PRODUCERS RIGHT NOW THAT ARE ON
THE EDGE OF BANKRUPTCY. YOU
CAN'T CONTRACT BY 50% AND
SURVIVE, OKAY? AND THAT'S WHERE
WE ARE RIGHT NOW. SO WE WANT TO
BE THE OIL PRODUCERS UNDER THE
REGIME THAT THIS LEGISLATURE HAS
CREATED IN CALIFORNIA. WITH
RESPONSIBLE OIL PRODUCTION, WE
CAN SHOW THE WORLD HOW IT'S DONE
IF WE'RE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.
RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
ASKING FOR. WE'RE ASKING FOR AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE MORE
CRUDE OIL HERE. INSTEAD OF
SHIFTING OUR WEALTH FROM CENTRAL
VALLEY OIL FAMILIES, BUT TO THE
TUNE OF BILLIONS TO SAUDI
ARABIA, IRAQ AND ECUADOR. AND BY
THE WAY, I DO WANT TO MAKE A
POINT ABOUT ECUADOR. THE REASON
ECUADOR HAS BECOME THE FOCUS
OVER THE LAST 5 TO 6 YEARS IS
BECAUSE THE PERMITS FOR OUR OIL
WELLS HAVE GONE DOWN SO
PRECIPITOUSLY, THE REFINERIES IN
CALIFORNIA HAVE TO GO TO SOUTH
AMERICA TO GET THE SIMILAR
WEIGHTED CRUDE THAT IS UNDER THE
GROUND RIGHT HERE. THAT'S WHY
THEY'RE HAVING TO GO THERE. IT'S
CALIFORNIA'S FAULT THAT
ECUADOR'S RAINFOREST IS BEING
DESTROYED. AND SIP HAS BEEN
SAYING THIS FOR YEARS NOW AND
TELLING YOU, HEY, WE'RE NOT IN
SUPPORT OF TEARING DOWN THE
RAINFOREST FOR OIL. WE'RE IN
SUPPORT OF THE 1700 PERMITS. TWO
YEARS OLD. HOW ABOUT EIGHT YEARS
OLD AT CAL? JIM, WE'VE GOT 1700
PERMITS. WE'RE READY TO DRILL
TOMORROW IF YOU GIVE US THE
ABILITY TO DO THAT. SO WE'RE
HOPING WE CAN DRILL MORE HERE
RESPONSIBLY, UNDER THE WATCHFUL
EYE OF THE LAYER CAKE OF
FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL
AGENCIES THAT WE OPERATE
COOPERATIVELY UNDER. WE WANT TO
PROVIDE THE CRUDE OIL THAT
CALIFORNIA NEEDS. WE SUPPORT THE
BILL. AND WE HOPE YOU'LL YOU'LL
VOTE FOR IT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ADD
ONS IN SUPPORT? MR. REPRESENTING
ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND
CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'LL
SEE IF WE HAVE ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION. DO WE HAVE ANY
OPPOSITION LEAD OPPOSITION
WITNESSES? NO. ANY OPPOSITION B
TWOS OKAY. WE'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. MR. CHAIR.
SENATOR GROVES, SO THIS IS
PRIMARILY AN INVESTIGATIVE
REPORT. SO WE COULD ALL SEE THE
DIFFERENCE. AND BUT WE HEAR IT
ALL THE TIME. IF WE HAVE THE
OIL, WHY DON'T WE GO AFTER IT?
AND I HEAR FROM THE INDUSTRY,
IT'S JUST TOO EXPENSIVE THAT
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO
IT BECAUSE IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO
REPORT TO SAY OR OR THE INDUSTRY
IS GOING TO SAY, THE REPORT IS
HERE. WE'RE READY TO GO TO WORK,
AS WAS JUST SAID. SO, SIR, I
DON'T KNOW WHO YOU'RE TALKING
TO. IN THE INDUSTRY. I REPRESENT
A 70% OF THE STATE'S OIL
INDUSTRY, AND THE REASON WE
CAN'T GO AFTER THE OIL HERE IS
BECAUSE WE HAVE NO PERMITS TO
AUTHORIZE US TO HARVEST THE OIL
HERE IN A CONTROLLED
ENVIRONMENT, WHICH WE CONTROL
THE PROCESS. WE GO THROUGH CEQA,
WE GO THROUGH WATER FOR WATER,
AQUIFER EXEMPTIONS. WE DO WATER
FOR AIR, WATER, AQUIFER TESTING,
AIR QUALITY TESTING. WE CAPTURE.
WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE OPEN
AIR FLAMING ANYMORE. SINCE THE
1950S. WE HAVE TO PAY A CERTAIN
WAGE. WE HAVE TO PROVIDE
BENEFITS TO OUR EMPLOYEES. WE
PROVIDE 55% OF SECOND CHANCES
WITH JOBS THAT COME OUT OF THE
PRISON INDUSTRY, WHERE THEY HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO, YOU KNOW,
HAVE A BE ABLE TO BUY HOMES. AND
I THINK THAT IS THE NUMBER ONE
CATASTROPHIC NOT TO GO DOWN A
RABBIT HOLE. PEOPLE SAY THEY
SHOULD BE A MASSIVE LAWSUIT. AND
THE OIL COMPANIES KNOW EVERY
SINGLE WORKER THAT HAS LOST
THEIR HOME, LOST THEIR CAR,
PULLED THEIR KID OUT OF COLLEGE
BECAUSE THEY WENT FROM MAKING
WENT BACK TO PRISON, YOU KNOW,
$125,000 A YEAR, DOWN TO $15 AN
HOUR REPLACEMENT OR NOW $17 AN
HOUR REPLACEMENT UNDER THE OIL
FIELD WORKER DISPLACEMENT
PROGRAM AT AN AMAZON OR AN
AUTOZONE. THAT'S THE BIGGEST
CATASTROPHE THAT WE FACE. BUT I
DON'T KNOW WHO YOU'RE TALKING
TO. IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO TALK TO
THEM, I WOULD. WE CANNOT DRILL
FOR OIL BECAUSE WE CANNOT GET
PERMITS. THAT'S THE ONLY THING
WE CANNOT DRILL. THEY SIT ON CAL
JIM'S DESK. THERE IS NO DUE
PROCESS. THEY THEY PUT THE
INFORMATION INTO, WELL, STAR TO
GET A PERMIT. AND THE CODE
SECTION, I THINK IT'S UNDER 5403
SAYS THAT THEY HAVE TO RESPOND
WITHIN TEN DAYS OR THE PERMIT IS
GUARANTEED, YOU KNOW, APPROVED.
SO WHAT THEY DO IS THEY SEND AN
EMAIL WITHIN TEN DAYS THAT SAYS,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMISSION OR
SOME ARBITRARY THING LIKE THAT.
AND THEN THEY WAIT YEARS TO EVEN
WORK WITH THE WITH THE
INDIVIDUAL PRODUCER TO BE ABLE
TO EXTRACT THE OIL THAT WE SIT
ON IN OUR CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
AREA AND THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
BUT IT IS NOT BECAUSE WE THINK
IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE. I WILL TELL
YOU THAT IT IS MUCH CHEAPER TO
GO TO GUYANA. IT IS MUCH CHEAPER
TO PAY SOMEBODY $22 A DAY
INSTEAD OF $35 AN HOUR. IT IS
CHEAPER TO JUST DUMP YOUR YOUR
OIL INTO THE RIVER OR WATER
STREAM INSTEAD OF MAKING SURE
IT'S CAPTURED CORRECTLY, STORED
CORRECTLY, TRANSPORTED
CORRECTLY. I MEAN, IT IS CHEAPER
TO PRODUCE IN A DIFFERENT
COUNTRY BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE
THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AND THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL
RULES. BUT I SUPPORT THOSE RULES
BECAUSE THEY KEEP OUR COMMUNITY
AND OUR AQUIFERS SAFE. AND SO IT
IS CHEAPER. BUT I THINK WE
SHOULD STILL PRODUCE IT HERE BY
CALIFORNIANS, FOR CALIFORNIANS.
WHAT'S THE TIMELINE ON THIS
REPORT THAT WILL SHOW US EXACTLY
WHERE WE ARE? WELL, I'VE BEEN
TRYING TO GET IT PASSED SINCE
2012 AND WE'RE STILL IN THE
DISCOVERY PROCESS. WE'D LIKE IT
BY THE END OF NEXT YEAR. OKAY.
THANK YOU, SENATOR STERN. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. YEAH. 15 YEARS
OF ADVOCACY. YOU DON'T NEED
NOTES, I GET IT, AND YOU ARE
MAKING A DENT IN AND DENT IN
YOUR ISSUE. NO, I THINK REALLY
THERE ARE SERIOUS CHALLENGES
THAT I THINK WE NEED TO
ACKNOWLEDGE. AND I THINK WE NEED
TO HAVE A SERIOUS CONVERSATION
ABOUT ABOUT PERMITTING IN KERN
COUNTY. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE
A LOT OF LAWS. WE'VE GOT TO
PROTECT COMMUNITIES WITH
SETBACKS AND THINGS THAT ARE
RIGHT NEAR THEIR HOMES AND
GROUNDWATER TESTING AND A LOT OF
OTHER STANDARDS THAT I'VE HELPED
WRITE OVER THE YEARS, INCLUDING
OUR FRACKING LAWS AND A NUMBER
OF OTHERS. SO I, I DO AGREE WITH
SOME PARTS OF YOUR PREMISE. I
DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE
NECESSARILY COMPLICIT FOR THE
CRIMES OF MULTINATIONAL
CORPORATIONS. AND IN SOME OF
THESE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, BUT
I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO DEEP
DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE. I GUESS
MY MAIN THING IS IF WE'RE GOING
TO MAKE THIS WORK, AND I DO
THINK THERE ARE GAPS IN THE
EMISSIONS REPORTING, THE END TO
END ISSUE. WE HAD A CONVERSATION
BEFORE COMMITTEE, BUT I'M REALLY
TRYING TO I DON'T WANT TO STAND
UP A WHOLE NEW REPORTING REGIME
OR A NEW SORT OF BUREAUCRACY IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO TRACK
THINGS THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A
LOT OF LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT,
IN THEORY, SHOULD DO THIS. AND
RIGHT NOW CARB, FOR EXAMPLE, IS
IMPLEMENTING A CLIMATE EMISSIONS
DISCLOSURE LAW THAT WE THINK CAN
GET TO SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
THERE'S OTHER STANDARDS THAT
THEY'RE ENFORCING THAT IN
THEORY, IF THEY COULD JUST
ENFORCE THEM BETTER, WE WOULDN'T
HAVE TO STAND UP A WHOLE NEW
ARCHITECTURE. I GET THAT THERE
MAY BE A TIMING GAP, BUT I JUST
WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, BEFORE I
CAN SORT OF JUMP OUT ON THE LIMB
AND SUPPORT THIS, I WANT TO GET
A SENSE OF YOUR COMMITMENT TO
TRYING TO WORK THROUGH TAKING
FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE EXISTING
DATA SOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES
TO SORT OF TIGHTEN UP THOSE DATA
SOURCES. SO IF WE'RE FULLY
IMPLEMENTING SB 253, FOR
EXAMPLE, OR, OR THE LOW CARBON
FUEL STANDARDS DELIVERING SOME
OF THIS INFORMATION, IS THAT
SOMETHING YOU'RE WILLING TO
CONSIDER GOING FORWARD TO, TO
MAKE YOUR BILL MORE EFFICIENT
AND SORT OF MAKE IT WORK WITHOUT
HAVING TO BUILD A WHOLE NEW, YOU
KNOW, REPORTING REGIME? SO, LIKE
I SAID, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON
THIS SINCE 2010. IT'S BEEN
ROUGHLY THE SAME LANGUAGE WITH A
LOT OF UPDATES BASED ON
INCREASED PRODUCTION IN GUYANA
AND BRAZIL. LIKE IT WENT UP 3%.
CALIFORNIA'S OIL PRODUCTION WENT
UP 3%, WHICH AGAIN DESTROYED
THAT PART OF THE RAINFOREST,
ANOTHER 3%. SO IT'S BEEN THE
SAME LANGUAGE WITHOUT EXCEPT FOR
WE CHANGED THE NUMBERS BECAUSE
THE NUMBERS DO CHANGE EVERY YEAR
DEPENDING ON WHAT PERMITS WE
GET. SO THAT HAS NEVER BEEN
BROUGHT UP TO ME. YOU SENT ME A
TEXT THIS MORNING. I WAS VERY
INTRIGUED BY THE TEXT. I RAN IT
UP THE FLAGPOLE OF THE PEOPLE WE
WORK WITH, AND I JUST HAVEN'T
HAD ENOUGH TIME. BUT WHAT THEY
WANT TO DO IS LOOK THROUGH THOSE
PREVIOUS PIECES OF LEGISLATION,
SEE WHAT MATCHES, SEE WHAT
DOESN'T, AND THEN SEE WHERE WE
CAN CONSOLIDATE THE OVERSIGHT.
AND I'D BE DEFINITELY WILLING TO
DO THAT. THE POINT IS, IS THAT
I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS OBVIOUSLY
KERN COUNTY. I REPRESENT 70% OF
THE STATE'S OIL AND GAS AND 53%
OF THE STATE'S RENEWABLE ENERGY
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AT A
58 COUNTIES. AND THIS IS VERY
IMPORTANT TO THE JOBS IN MY
DISTRICT. AND THERE'S NO IT
MAKES NO SENSE TO ME THAT WE
WOULD IMPORT OIL FROM FOREIGN
COUNTRIES VERSUS PRODUCE IT
HERE, WHERE WE CONTROL THE
PROCESS. I'VE MADE THAT VERY
CLEAR. BUT IF THERE IS A SIMPLER
WAY TO DO THIS, TO GET THE
INFORMATION THAT WE NEED WITHOUT
COSTING THE STATE A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF MONEY, I'M ALL IN. AND
SO AS SOON AS I GET AN ANSWER
BACK, I'LL WORK WITH YOU AND THE
CHAIR OR THE COMMITTEE TO SEE IF
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD
WORK OUT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY.
WITH THAT, I HAVE TO GO TO
ANOTHER COMMITTEE. I'M GOING TO
TURN THE GAVEL OVER TO SENATOR
STERN. WE'VE GOT MCNERNEY,
RUBIO, AND WE'LL START THERE.
SENATOR MCNERNEY. I THANK THE
CHAIRMAN, AND I THANK THE
SENATOR FOR HER. BILL. I THINK
YOU'RE MAKING A LEGITIMATE
ARGUMENT. IT'S FAR BETTER TO
PRODUCE ENERGY HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, ESPECIALLY IF THE
FOREIGN SOURCES ARE DIRTY, WHICH
THEY ARE. AND THERE'S SOME OF
THEM ARE ANYWAY. AND USING HUMAN
RIGHTS ABUSES. AND SO THAT'S
GOOD. BUT I'M GOING TO FOLLOW UP
ON SENATOR STERN'S COMMENTS. I
WOULD ENSURE THAT CALIFORNIA
DOMESTIC PRODUCERS USE KNOWN
HIGH STANDARDS FOR FRACKING THAT
PREVENT GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION, A VERY SERIOUS
CONCERN IN CALIFORNIA. WE ALL
LIVE WITH LIMITED WATER
SUPPLIES. FRACKING ALSO CAUSES
SEISMIC ACTIVITY, WHICH IS A
CONCERN. THEY'VE SEEN THAT IN
OKLAHOMA. AND IN GENERAL,
DRILLING CAUSES HARM IS NO WAY
TO IGNORE THAT. BUT IF WE'RE
GOING TO MOVE AHEAD, THEN WITH
CALIFORNIA DOMESTIC PRODUCTION,
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE IT'S DONE
RIGHT AND THERE'S HIGH
STANDARDS. I'VE, I'VE. PUT OUT
SOME SOME STANDARD IDEAS IN
EARLIER LIFE AND SOME OF THOSE
MIGHT BE LEGITIMATE, BUT I WOULD
LIKE TO LOOK CAREFULLY AT WHAT
THE STANDARDS FOR FRACKING ARE
AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE
THEY'RE SAFE AND THEY'RE GOING
TO BE PROTECTING OUR
GROUNDWATER. THANK YOU, SIR. AND
I CAN TELL YOU THAT CALIFORNIA'S
STANDARDS ARE HIGHER THAN ANY
OTHER STANDARDS IN THE ENTIRE
WORLD. I CAN SHOW YOU THIS,
WHICH IS ON A DOCUMENT THAT I
GAVE YOU. THIS IS A KERN COUNTY
OIL FIELD. OUR OIL FIELDS DO NOT
LOOK LIKE A DECORATED PALM TREE
IN THE MIDDLE OF SOMEONE'S PALM.
THEIR PARKING LOT DOESN'T LOOK
LIKE A, I DON'T KNOW, A BUILDING
OR A TOWER. IT'S A FULL,
COMPLETE OIL FIELD ON THE SAME
WATER AQUIFER WITH THE SAME
WATER AQUIFER EXEMPTIONS, THE
SAME SEQUA THAT GOES THROUGH.
AND IT'S THEY A LOT OF TIMES OIL
POLICY OUT OF THIS BUILDING IS
BROUGHT FORTH. AND IT'S A
STATEWIDE POLICY THAT THAT THAT
NEGATIVELY IMPACTS WHERE WE HAVE
THE MAJOR FACTORY FLOOR OF
IMPACTING OR PRODUCING OIL,
BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE IN LONG
BEACH OR NEWPORT BEACH OR OTHER
PARTS OF THE STATES WHERE
THERE'S ONE, WELL, A DIFFERENT
WATER AQUIFER AND, AND DIFFERENT
PROCESS, A DIFFERENT ECOLOGICAL
SYSTEMS UNDERGROUND TO BE ABLE
TO PRODUCE THAT OIL. THIS IS ALL
DONE IN KERN COUNTY IN A FIELD.
THERE IS NO BENEFICIAL USE FOR
THIS FIELD EXCEPT FOR TO PRODUCE
OIL. IT'S THE LARGEST OIL
RESERVES ALMOST IN THE ENTIRE
UNITED STATES. WE JUST DON'T
HAVE ACCESS TO IT BECAUSE WE
CAN'T GET PERMITS. BUT WHEN YOU
DO HAVE TO DO SOME FRACKING AND
SOME INJECTION WELLS BECAUSE
IT'S REAL THICK AND HEAVY AND
YOU HAVE TO LOOSEN IT UP, BUT
IT'S NOT AROUND. IT'S IN THE
MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, SIR. THE
BELRIDGE AND THE MIDWAY-SUNSET
FIELD ARE THE LARGEST FIELDS, I
THINK, IN, IN, IN THE COUNTY.
KERN COUNTY PRODUCES MORE. IF WE
HAD THE PERMITS IN ANY OTHER
COUNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. SO
IT'S A DIFFERENT PLACE, IF
THAT'S WHAT I'M IF I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF
ISSUES WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO
HAVE THOSE PROBLEMS THAT YOU
WOULD HAVE IF YOU WERE DRILLING
IN A SUPERMARKET PROPERTY DOWN
IN LOS ANGELES. WELL, KERN
COUNTY HAS, AND I'M NOT KERN
COUNTY HAS SIGNIFICANT
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES. WE DO
HAVE SIGNIFICANT GROUNDWATER
RESOURCES, AND WE WORK WITH OUR
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES. AND WE DO
LIKE THE KHÎI LÀ WATER DISTRICT.
WE HAVE AN APPROVED BLENDING
PROCESS WHERE WE CAN TAKE
FRACKED WATER, FILTER IT OUT AND
MAKE WATER FOR AGRICULTURE AND
PROVIDE WATER FOR OUR FARMERS.
WE HAVE A PROCESS IN ANOTHER
PART OF THE COUNTY WHERE WE DO
THE SAME THING, ONLY IT'S RUN
THROUGH LIKE A REVERSE OSMOSIS
SYSTEM, WHICH IS THE BEST WAY TO
EXPLAIN IT WITHOUT GETTING REAL
TECHNICAL. AND IT ACTUALLY
EXCEEDS THE 0.5 PARTS PER
MILLION FOR OUR AGRICULTURE
WATER. SO IN DROUGHT YEARS, WHEN
WE HAVE A HUGE ISSUE WITH WATER
COMING TO THE CENTRAL VALLEY,
THE TOP THREE FOOD PRODUCING
COUNTIES IN THE WORLD, WE
ACTUALLY USE PRODUCE WATER
CLEANED UP. IT'S ALMOST ELIGIBLE
FOR DRINKING. I THINK IT HAS TO
BE ONE PART PER MILLION FOR
DRINKING, FIVE PARTS PER MILLION
FOR AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION. AND
WE MEET THOSE STANDARDS TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE CAN STILL GROW THE
FOOD THAT WE USE TO. SO YOU SAID
THAT THE, THE, THE LAND DOESN'T
HAVE ANY OTHER POTENTIAL USES.
NOT THIS LAND, SIR. THE KERN
COUNTY AREA, THERE'S A LOT OF
AGRICULTURAL LAND. THERE'S A LOT
OF BUILDING DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S. BUT WHERE THESE FIELDS
ARE. NO, SIR. THERE'S NOT A LOT
OF BENEFICIAL USES OUT THERE.
OKAY, I, I'M NOT SURE I BUY
THAT, BUT. OKAY. YOU SHOULD COME
VISIT MY DISTRICT, SIR. I MIGHT
IF I HAVE TO. ALL RIGHT. THANKS.
I'M GOING TO YIELD BACK. OKAY.
THANK YOU, SENATOR RUBIO. THANK
YOU, ASSISTANT CHAIR, I SUPPOSE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOU KNOW,
I'VE BEEN HEARING THE DISCUSSION
AND THE INFORMATION THAT WAS
SHARED. IT'S ALL TRUE. AND I
APPRECIATE MR. MCNERNEY'S
COMMENT AND SENATOR STEARNS, BUT
THERE'S SOMETHING THAT FOR ME IS
REALLY CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. I
KNOW I HEARD THAT, YOU KNOW, WE
MAY NOT BE COMPLICIT IN WHAT
HAPPENS IN OTHER COUNTRIES, BUT,
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE
$26 BILLION THAT WE SPENT A DAY
TO BRING OIL FROM, FROM OTHER
COUNTRIES THAT ARE REALLY
VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS AND, AND
JUST THE STANDARDS ARE NOT
EQUITABLE TO WHAT WE DO HERE. I
THINK WE ARE COMPLICIT IN SO
MANY WAYS. YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN
SOME OF THE PICTURES OF CHILDREN
AND JUST WHAT HAPPENS IN THESE
OTHER COUNTRIES. YOU KNOW, YOU
TALKED ABOUT THE OPEN FIRE THAT
THEY USE IN OTHER COUNTRIES,
OPEN FLAMES THAT CAUSE CANCER.
AND IF WE ARE BUYING FROM THEM,
I THINK WE ARE COMPLICIT. AND I
THINK THAT NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE
HIGHER STANDARDS HERE, BUT ALSO
WE NEED TO PROVIDE JOBS FOR
CALIFORNIANS, WHICH IS WHAT
WE'RE LACKING. I KNOW MY HEART
BREAKS EVERY TIME I THINK OF THE
REFINERY THAT'S CLOSING IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, WHICH I THINK
600 PEOPLE STAND TO LOSE THEIR
JOBS RIGHT NOW AT A TIME WHERE
PEOPLE NEED SECURITY, STABILITY
AND A PAYCHECK. YOU KNOW, WE
HAVE TO DO BETTER AND FIND THAT
MIDDLE GROUND WHERE WE'RE TAKING
CARE OF PEOPLE, THEIR JOBS, BUT
ALSO UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF
WHAT'S HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, IN
OUR SOCIETY AS IT PERTAINS TO
CLIMATE CHANGE. AND I THINK
THERE IS A PLACE THERE IN THE
MIDDLE SOMEWHERE, AND I
APPRECIATE THAT. I GUESS WE'RE
ALL VERY OPEN MINDED AND
UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE TO
FIGURE THIS OUT. I WOULD PREFER
THAT WE PROVIDE THE JOBS HERE
AND THAT WE'RE NOT ABUSING, YOU
KNOW, LOW WAGES IN OTHER
COUNTRIES. I WOULD PREFER THAT
WE USE OUR HIGH STANDARDS HERE
IN THIS COUNTRY, IN CALIFORNIA,
AND NOT LEAVE IT TO THE NURSE
WHO ARE REALLY JUST NOT CARING
FOR WHAT THEY DO TO OUR, YOU
KNOW, TO, TO HUMANITY. SO I JUST
THINK THAT THERE'S A
CONVERSATION TO BE HAD WHERE WE
CAN FIND THAT MIDDLE GROUND.
AND, AND I DO BELIEVE WE'RE
COMPLICIT. AND I THINK WE HAVE
TO DO BETTER AND NOT EXPLOITING
OTHER, YOU KNOW, CHEAP LABOR IN
OTHER COUNTRIES OR HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
BECAUSE IF WE USE OUR OIL, WE
ARE COMPLICIT. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. OKAY. SENATOR ALLEN,
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, APPRECIATE
THE CONVERSATION VERY MUCH. AND
I YOU KNOW, YOU AND I HAVE
TALKED ABOUT THIS EXTENSIVELY,
SENATOR, YOU BROUGHT THIS
BEFORE. THIS IS AN ARGUMENT
YOU'VE BEEN BRINGING UP FOR A
LOT FOR A LONG TIME. AND I THINK
IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, YOU
KNOW, GIVEN GIVEN THE CHALLENGES
THAT EXIST ELSEWHERE. I GUESS I
JUST WANT TO I'M COMFORTABLE
VOTING FOR THE BILL WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU'RE GOING
TO DO SOME FOLLOW UP ON THE
REQUEST OF SENATOR STERN. WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE OBVIOUSLY, WE
PASS SB 253. YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR
OR TWO YEARS AGO, WHATEVER IT
WAS. AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT AS WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE
REPORTING THAT WE'RE NOT
CREATING, YOU KNOW, UNNECESSARY
REDUNDANCIES THAT WILL MAKE IT
MORE DIFFICULT FOR EITHER THE
GOVERNMENT OR PEOPLE WITHIN THE
OIL SUPPLY CHAIN TO DO ALL THE
REPORTING THAT'S ALREADY
REQUIRED UNDER THE PREVIOUS
LEGISLATION. SO ASSUMING THAT,
YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE
YOU'RE I DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO
BE REDUNDANT. I DON'T WANT
ANYTHING TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE. I
HAVE A REPORT HERE THAT I WAS
GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU GUYS
LATER, BUT SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP
THAT COMMENT, THIS IS A COST
SHEET FROM CAL. JIM ON
ABANDONING WELLS BECAUSE WE ARE
NOW ABANDONING MORE WELLS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH WE
NEED TO. AND IT'S THE INDUSTRY
THAT'S EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD
THAT'S BEEN ABANDONING WELLS
FOREVER. CAN DO IT FOR 45 OR
$50,000. AND CAL JIM IS DOING IT
FOR $568,000, 1 MILLION,
$34,000. IT'S COMPLETELY
RIDICULOUS HOW THAT'S HAPPENING.
AND IT'S ALL REDUNDANCY AND
ADDITIONAL STUFF THAT THAT IS
BEING PAID FOR. IT SHOULDN'T BE
DONE THAT WAY. I WOULD NEVER
WANT TO EXPAND GOVERNMENT IN
THAT WAY. AND I GOT THE I GOT
THE CHAIR, THE ACTING CHAIRS
TEXT THIS MORNING, AND I
COULDN'T DO A LOT ABOUT IT
DURING FLOOR SESSION. AND, YOU
KNOW, A FEW MINUTES BEFORE THE
HEARING, BUT PROMISED TO WORK ON
IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THAT
REDUNDANCY EITHER. I DO WANT TO
POINT OUT THAT LORELEI OVIATT,
WHO'S DEEPLY RESPECTED IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR
COUNTYWIDE AYERS, WHETHER IT'S
WHETHER IT'S SOLAR AND WIND AND
WHETHER IT'S I MEAN, SHE'S
DEEPLY RESPECTED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION. THEY CALL ON HER
FOR STUFF. THE CDC DEEPLY
RESPECTS HER. SHE'S THE ONLY ONE
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HAS
DONE AN RNA IMPACT STUDY ON THE
AIR FROM THE WELL BORE OUT AND
ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT THAT SHOULD BE THROUGH
THE COURT PROCESS BY, I THINK,
IN A YEAR. BUT SHE'S THE ONLY
ONE IN THE STATE THAT'S DONE IT,
AND SHE'S DEEPLY RESPECTED. SO
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS,
SHE'S THE PERSON TO CONTACT AND
HAS CREDIBILITY TO GET YOU THE
INFORMATION. GREAT. WELL, I LOOK
FORWARD TO AND I KNOW YOU WILL
DILIGENTLY REPORT BACK TO US ON
THE FLOOR, WHEREVER EVERY DAY,
SIR. SO I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT
WITH THAT. THANK YOU SIR. OKAY.
FURTHER QUESTIONS. SEEING NONE,
I THINK WE WOULD NEED A MOTION
TO AMEND THE BILL. AND I NEEDED
SOME SPECIFICITY ON THAT, JUST
BECAUSE THEY'RE SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT FROM THE AMENDMENTS
LISTED IN THE ANALYSIS. SO WE'D
ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS
POINT. I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. AS
LONG AS WE DO CLOSE BEFORE
MOTION. ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN
CLOSE. JUST RESPECTFULLY ASK
YOUR FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. I KNOW
THAT THERE WAS A DEEP DISCUSSION
AND IT'S PROBABLY PRETTY MUCH, I
DON'T WANT TO SAY IRRELEVANT,
BUT WE DO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
BUYING POWER. AND WHERE
CALIFORNIA SPENDS ITS MONEY, WE
SHOULD BE CONSCIOUS OF THAT
BECAUSE WE DO IMPACT COUNTRIES.
WE SPENT 5 MILLION, $5 BILLION
WITH RUSSIA SARCASTICALLY. YOU
CAN'T SAY. I MEAN, YOU COULD SAY
THAT RUSSIA BUILT FOOD BANKS AND
PARKS, BUT THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT
HAPPENED WITH THE MONEY WE SENT
THEM. WE SPENT MONEY TO IRAQ. WE
SENT MONEY TO IRAQ. IT'S OUR
BIGGEST OIL SUPPLIER. AND
THERE'S NO DOUBT IN ANYBODY'S
MIND THAT THEY WERE COMPLICIT IN
WHAT'S GOING ON AND IN THE
MIDDLE EAST RIGHT NOW. AND SO I
JUST THINK THAT OUR BUYING POWER
DOES HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON
GLOBAL ISSUES. AND I THINK WE
NEED TO BE CONSCIOUS OF WHERE WE
SEND OUR MONEY, RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. OKAY. THAT'S
THE CLOSE. WE WOULD ENTERTAIN A
MOTION, MOVE THE BILL. SO MOTION
FROM SENATOR CABALLERO. MR.
CHAIR, I'VE GOT A QUESTION. YOU
MENTIONED AMENDMENTS. YES. SO
LET ME READ THEM OUT TO YOU.
WHAT WHAT IS IN THE MOTION. SO
THE AMENDMENTS WOULD THEY WOULD
SHIFT FROM FROM THE CDC TO CARB.
THE REPORTING ON AIR QUALITY
IMPACTS FROM SHIPPING 5 TO 10%
OF IMPORTED OIL. AND THEN THEY
WOULD DELETE THE REMAINING
PROVISIONS IN SECTIONS THREE AND
FOUR OF THE BILL THAT
ESSENTIALLY PUT SOME OF THOSE
AND OTHER REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
ON THE CDC. SO THIS BILL WOULD
NOW JUST SOLELY BE A CARB
REPORTING BILL WITH SOME DATA
SHARING BETWEEN CDC AND CAR, IS
MY UNDERSTANDING. YEAH. OKAY. SO
IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN
THE ANALYSIS THOUGH BECAUSE OF
WHAT HAPPENED LATER ON THAT
EVENING, I APOLOGIZE. YES IT'S
OKAY. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL
CONTINUE TO EVOLVE. AND WE CAN
WE CAN LAND SOMETHING HERE. SO.
MOTION. YEAH. MOTION AS AMENDED
TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SYSTEM
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. TO PASS AS
AMENDED TO BE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
BECKER. OCHOA. ALLEN I ALLEN I,
ARCHULETA I. ARCHULETA I ARAGON.
ASHBY. CABALLERO. CABALLERO I
DALLI. DALLI I GONZALEZ. GROVE.
I. GROVE I. HURTADO. LIMON.
MCNERNEY. MCNERNEY I RUBIO.
STERN. STERN I STRICKLAND. WAHAB
SEVEN. OKAY, THAT'S SEVEN ZERO.
WE WILL LEAVE THAT MEASURE ON
CALL FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, SENATOR. WE HAVE
SENATOR HURTADO HERE WITH ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN, SB 593. COME ON
UP. WILL YOU? AND WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. OKAY. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MISTER CHAIR. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, I WANT TO
BEGIN BY THANKING THE CHAIR AND
THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR
ASSISTANCE ON THIS BILL. I WILL
BE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE OUTLINED ON
THE ANALYSIS. I'M HERE TO
PRESENT SB 593, THE VOLT ACT,
WHICH I'M RUNNING AS A RESULT OF
REPEATED, COSTLY AND OFTEN
DANGEROUS POWER SURGES
EXPERIENCED BY MANY INDIVIDUALS
AND UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
LIKE THE COMMUNITY OF
ALLENSWORTH IN MY DISTRICT, AND
PERSONALLY, BECAUSE I'VE ALSO
EXPERIENCED A SITUATION MYSELF
AS WELL. LAST YEAR DURING A HEAT
WAVE, MY POWER WENT OUT. WHEN IT
CAME BACK ON, MY AC UNIT WAS
TECHNICALLY RUNNING, BUT IT
WASN'T COOLING. THAT NIGHT I HAD
TO PACK A BAG AND I LEFT MY HOME
FOR A HOTEL BECAUSE IT WAS A
VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION TO BE
IN INSIDE THE HOME WITHOUT THE
AC ON. AND SO THE FOLLOWING DAY
I ENDED UP SCRAMBLING FOR WINDOW
UNITS, AND IT WASN'T UNTIL DAYS
LATER THAT AN INSURANCE ADJUSTER
CAME OUT, AND THEIR VERDICT WAS
THAT A POWER SURGE HAD FRIED A
COMPONENT OF MY AC SYSTEM, AND
IT WAS REALLY THE HEART OF THE
HVAC SYSTEM THAT THAT THAT IT
KILLED THE COST TO REPLACE. AS
YOU KNOW, MANY OF YOU KNOW, THE
COST TO REPLACE AN HVAC SYSTEM
IS OVER $10,000. IT'S REALLY
IT'S REALLY PRICEY. AND IN
REGIONS LIKE THE CENTRAL VALLEY,
IT CAN BE A MATTER OF LIFE AND
DEATH FOR SOME FOLKS. SO NOW
IMAGINE THAT HAPPENING TO A
SENIOR ON A FIXED INCOME OR A
YOUNG FAMILY ALREADY STRUGGLING
WITH RISING RENTS OR A SMALL
BUSINESS. YOU KNOW, POWER SURGES
STRIKE WITHOUT WARNING. THEY
DAMAGE APPLIANCES, FRY
ELECTRONICS AND BURN THROUGH
HOME SYSTEMS. THEY AREN'T JUST
MINOR INCONVENIENCES. THEY LEAVE
FAMILIES WITH COSTLY REPAIRS OR
REPLACEMENTS THAT CAN DESTROY
CRITICAL COOLING SYSTEMS DURING
DEADLY HEAT, AND THEY PILE ON
TOP OF ALREADY RISING COST OF
LIVING. IN LONG BEACH, FOR
EXAMPLE, SMALL BUSINESSES LOST
THOUSANDS IN FOOD AND SOME HAD
TO SHUT DOWN DUE TO OUTAGES AND
UNADDRESSED SURGE DAMAGE. THEY
GOT NO WARNINGS, NO ANSWERS, AND
NO COMPENSATION. FROM WHAT I AM
AWARE. SO YOU KNOW, SB 593
REALLY IS LOOKING TO BRIDGE THE
GAP ON SOME OF THE EXISTING
POLICY THAT'S WITHIN THE CPUC
ALREADY. THE VOLT ACT
SPECIFICALLY WILL DIRECT THE
CPUC BY JULY 1ST, 2026 TO
REQUIRE UTILITIES TO ADJUST
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS TO BETTER
GUARD AGAINST VOLTAGE SURGES,
DAMAGE EQUIPMENT AND APPLIANCES.
AND IT WOULD REQUIRE PUBLIC
OWNED UTILITIES TO ADOPT
POLICIES TO ADDRESS POWER SURGE
EVENTS AND PUBLISH THIS
INFORMATION ON THEIR WEBSITES.
SO WITH ME HERE TODAY, I HAVE
TWO WITNESSES, TAKUYA KODERA, A
RESIDENT OF UNINCORPORATED
COMMUNITY OF ALLENSWORTH, AND
EDDIE OCAMPO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
AFFAIRS FOR SELF-HELP
ENTERPRISES. OKAY, GREAT. WE
WILL GO WITH WHOEVER YOU WANT TO
GO FIRST. WE'LL DO TWO MINUTES
EACH. GREETINGS. HONORABLE CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS TAKUYA KODAMA FROM
ALLENSWORTH, CALIFORNIA, IN
RURAL TULARE COUNTY. I'M
SPEAKING AS A RESIDENT AND AS A
MEMBER OF THE ALLENSWORTH
PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION. I'M
PLEASED TO SUPPORT SENATOR
HURTADO'S SB FIVE 93 VOLT ACT.
THIS BILL WILL BRING MUCH NEEDED
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REQUIRE
PUBLIC UTILITIES TO INSTALL
EQUIPMENT TO DETECT POWER SURGES
AND OUTAGES, NOTIFY RESIDENTS OR
CUSTOMERS WITHIN FIVE MINUTES OF
THESE OUTAGES OR SURGES, AND
OFFER REASONABLE COMPENSATION
FOR DAMAGES AFFECTED BY THE
SURGES. IT'S ALREADY HARD FOR
OUR RESIDENTS BEING LOW INCOME
TO HAVE TO CONSTANTLY BE
REPLACING SOME OF, LIKE THE
SENATOR SAID, AIR CONDITIONING
UNITS, REFRIGERATORS AND OTHER
HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES. MOST
RECENTLY, I BOUGHT AN IN-HOME
GARDEN KIT FOR MY PARENTS, AND
IN LESS THAN THREE MONTHS BEFORE
OUR FIRST HARVEST, IT HAD
ALREADY SHORTED OUT. WITH THIS,
I THINK IT'S I'M THANKFUL FOR
PEOPLE LIKE MY FATHER THAT HAS
THE KNOW HOW AND THE
UNDERSTANDING OF ASKING THE
RIGHT QUESTIONS AND SEEKING
ANSWERS, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH
THE REASON THAT I'M HERE TODAY,
BECAUSE HE'S FOUND WAYS TO CALL
THE UTILITY COMPANIES AND BE
ABLE TO FIND SOME KIND OF.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR MAYBE A FIFTH
OF THE COST OF A REFRIGERATOR
THAT HE LOST, WHICH I DON'T FEEL
AND THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T FEEL
IS REALLY SUFFICIENT. BUT IN
CLOSING, I SUPPORT THIS BILL
BECAUSE AS A AS A PAYING
CUSTOMER, I'M HELD ACCOUNTABLE
FOR MY DELINQUENCIES. IF I DON'T
PAY MY BILLS ON TIME, AND I FEEL
LIKE THIS BILL WILL HELP HOLD
THESE POWER COMPANIES
RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR.
THEIR LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE OR
LACK OF IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE
IN RURAL COMMUNITIES LIKE
ALLENSWORTH AND SURROUNDING
AREAS. OKAY, THANKS SO MUCH. ARE
THERE ANY OTHER LEAD WITNESSES?
THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS EDDIE
OCAMPO. I'M WITH SELF-HELP
ENTERPRISES. SINCE 1965,
ENTERPRISES HAS WORKED WITH LOW
INCOME FAMILIES TO BUILD AND
SUSTAIN HEALTHY HOMES AND
COMMUNITIES. OUR EFFORTS HAVE
TOUCHED THE LIVES OF OVER 65,000
FAMILIES. OUR SERVICE AREA
CONSISTS OF NINE COUNTIES
FRESNO, KERN, KINGS, MADERA,
MARIPOSA, MERCED, SAN JOAQUIN,
STANISLAUS, AND TULARE COUNTY IN
THE HEART OF THE SAN JOAQUIN.
THE WORLD'S MOST PRODUCTIVE
AGRICULTURAL LAND. ORGANIZATIONS
HELP FAMILIES BUILD THEIR OWN
HOMES, REHABILITATE UNSAFE
HOUSES, DEVELOP UNITS OF
AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING, AND
HAS PROVIDED TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE FOR RELIABLE ACCESS
TO SAFE DRINKING WATER AND
SANITARY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR MORE
THAN 160 SMALL COMMUNITIES, A
MAJOR COMPONENT OF PROVIDING
AFFORDABLE AND SUSTAINABLE
HOUSING AND ACCESS TO DRINKING
WATER AND SANITATION IS ALSO
ENSURING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE,
SAFE AND RELIABLE CLEAN ENERGY.
TODAY, I'M HERE TO SUPPORT SB
FIVE NINE THREE VOLT ACT, THE
VOLTAGE OVERSIGHT AND
TRANSPARENCY LEGISLATION WHOSE
NEED IS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE
FREQUENT AND COSTLY POWER
OUTAGES IN UNINCORPORATED
COMMUNITIES LIKE ALLENSWORTH,
WHERE THESE OUTAGES HAVE
RESULTED IN DAMAGES TO HARD TO
COME BY HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND
DISTRICT EQUIPMENT, THE VOLT ACT
WOULD ENSURE THAT UTILITIES TAKE
THE NECESSARY STEPS TO PREVENT
THAT THESE OUTAGES OCCUR, OR AT
LEAST NOTIFY FOLKS WHEN THESE
OUTAGES DO OCCUR AND PROVIDE
ADEQUATE COMPENSATION FOR FOLKS
WHO ARE IMPACTED BY. MANY OF
THESE FOLKS ARE ON VERY LIMITED
INCOME. MANY OF THESE FOLKS ARE
ELDERLY, PARTICULARLY
VULNERABLE, PARTICULARLY DURING
THESE VERY DIFFICULT SUMMERS,
REALLY HOT SUMMERS, AND WOULD
BENEFIT FROM HAVING THIS SAFETY
NET OF LEGISLATION. I URGE THE
COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIR TO
CONSIDER A VOTE ON THIS
LEGISLATION. AND THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? GENERAL
SUPPORT, TESTIMONY, SEEING NONE,
DO WE HAVE ANY LEAD OPPOSITION
WITNESSES HERE? I'M SEEING TWO.
SO WE'LL GO TWO MINUTES EACH.
JUST ONE OKAY. YOU CAN TAKE FULL
FOUR IF YOU WANT OR KEEP IT TO
IF YOU WANT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS. WE ARE
BRANDON BECK FROM PACIFIC GAS
AND ELECTRIC. WE ARE OPPOSED TO
THE BILL IN PRINT AND WILL
REVIEW THE AMENDMENTS. I BELIEVE
THE AUTHOR IS ACCEPTING. JUST
WANTED TO PROVIDE A COUPLE NOTES
SPECIFIC TO ALLENSWORTH. THAT
WAS AN AREA OF OUR SERVICE
TERRITORY WHERE WE SERVE THE
COMMUNITY, THE HOMES. THAT'S
RIGHT ON OUR SERVICE AREA
BOUNDARY. AND EDISON SERVES THE
WELL THAT PROVIDES COMMUNITY
POWER. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT
COMPLICATED. THAT AREA DURING
THE TULARE LAKE FLOODING EVENT,
WHICH HAPPENED LAST OVER THE
LAST TWO YEARS, WE HAD TO
REROUTE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WAS
IN THE FLOODED AREA AND PROVIDE
THAT COMMUNITY WITH SERVICE IN
AN UNTRADITIONAL ABNORMAL
CONFIGURATION. WE ARE NOT AWARE
OF ANY POWER SURGES THAT
OCCURRED DURING THAT
RECONFIGURATION, BUT WE ARE
AWARE THAT THERE WAS A BUNCH OF
TEMPORARY MOMENTARY OUTAGES.
LIGHTS FLICKER OFF AND ON
BECAUSE THE CIRCUIT WAS NOT
DESIGNED TO HANDLE THE LOAD THAT
IT WAS TEMPORARILY PICKING UP.
WE REPLACED THAT CIRCUIT TO
NORMAL CONFIGURATION IN
SEPTEMBER. WE'RE NOT AWARE OF
ANY OTHER OUTAGES IN THAT AREA
SINCE, SO I THINK JUST WANT TO
BE CLEAR THAT THERE ARE NO
IDENTIFIED POWER SURGES IN THE
AREA. AND THEN WITH REGARDS TO
OUR CLAIMS PROCESS, ANY CUSTOMER
THAT HAS A POWER SURGE OR ANY
CLAIM FOR ANYTHING COULD BE VEG
MANAGEMENT GONE WRONG. THEY CAN
SUBMIT A CLAIM. OUR CLAIMS
DEPARTMENT MAKES EVERY EFFORT TO
REVIEW THOSE CLAIMS WITHIN 30
DAYS. WE PROVIDE FAIR MARKET
VALUE OR HONESTLY, A LOT OF
TIMES WE'LL TRY TO GO ABOVE AND
BEYOND FAIR MARKET VALUE. JUST
BEING A GOOD PARTNER WITH OUR
HOMETOWNS. WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
OF ALLENSWORTH, WE HAD ONE
SINGLE APPLICATION OR CLAIM MADE
FOR THE POWER OUTAGES IN THE
TIME IN QUESTION. WE'VE BEEN
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE
TO IDENTIFY ANY OTHER COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHO MAY HAVE HAD DAMAGED
EQUIPMENT. WE STAND READY TO
LOOK AT THOSE CLAIMS AND HELP
ANYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY FILL
OUT A CLAIM. IF THERE IS
EQUIPMENT BEHIND THE METER THAT
WAS DAMAGED. BUT FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE'RE NOT SURE THAT
THERE IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR
THE BILL. BUT ASK FOR A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. HI, MEMBERS.
JERELYN TRUJILLO WITH SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON IN OPPOSITION
OF 593. WE ARE STILL REVIEWING
THE AMENDMENTS, AND WE WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR WORKING
ON THE AMENDMENTS. AND WE
CONTINUE TO WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE. THANK YOU.
OKAY. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHAIR MEMBERS ALONG WITH SAN
DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC ALSO
ECHOING SOCAL EDISON'S REMARKS,
WILL BE REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS
AND GETTING BACK TO THE AUTHOR.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE'RE WE'RE
OPPOSED TO THE BILL IN PRINT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY. VERY
GOOD. SEEING OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION. WE WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE DÍAS MEMBERS.
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? YES,
SENATOR ARCHULETA, YES. THANK
YOU, SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. OBVIOUSLY, IN YOUR
DISTRICT WITH THE HEAT WAVES
THAT TAKE PLACE THAT WE'RE ALL
AWARE OF, IT'S AMAZING THAT A
POWER SURGE. THE QUESTION IS,
CAN THE UTILITIES NOTIFY WHEN
IT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN? IS THERE
ANY MECHANISM THEY CAN? I KNOW
THE BILL LOOKS TO NOTIFY AND
GIVE INFORMATION OF MAYBE WHY IT
HAPPENED. AND I'M HOPING THAT
THEY WILL TELL YOU IT WILL LAST
FOR SO LONG THAT YOU'LL BE
WITHOUT POWER IN YOUR CASE, TEN
HOURS OR OR EVEN TEN DAYS,
WHATEVER IT IS. BUT I THINK THE
CONSTITUENTS, YOURS AND OURS
WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHEN WILL
IT GO BACK ON. AND OF COURSE,
THERE'S TIMES WHERE THERE'S NOT
A MOBILE ACCIDENT. THE POLE
COMES DOWN AND, YOU KNOW, AND
THERE'S THE POWER SURGE. THERE'S
THINGS THAT ARE BEYOND THEIR
CONTROL, GRANTED. BUT
NOTIFICATION PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW
THE, THE, THE UTILITIES, ALL OF
THEM. DO YOU THINK THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU A
PRE-WARNING AS FAR AS LETTING
YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH LONGER HAVE
YOU GOTTEN THAT TOGETHER WITH
THEM? THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION. THAT'S REALLY IN PART
WHY WE'RE ACCEPTING AMENDMENTS
IN TERMS OF LETTING THE CPUC
WORK WITH UTILITIES TO FIGURE
THAT PIECE OUT, BECAUSE THEY'RE
GOING TO THEY'RE GOING TO FIGURE
OUT THE BEST WAY TO MAKE THAT
HAPPEN, RIGHT? THAT THAT IS THE
MOST REASONABLE APPROACH. BUT,
YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT
WHEN THERE IS AN INCIDENT, FOR
EXAMPLE, THAT AND IT IT
ULTIMATELY ENDS UP BEING DAMAGE
OR PROPERTY DAMAGE OF OVER
$50,000. THE UTILITIES ARE
REQUIRED TO, FROM MY
UNDERSTANDING, REPORT TO THE
CPUC OF THAT DAMAGE. SO THERE IS
LIKE A LIST THAT I, YOU KNOW,
CAME ACROSS OF THESE INCIDENTS
THAT OCCUR. BUT GRANTED, THEY'RE
OVER 50,000. IF THEY GOT A
LITTLE BIT OF MEDIA ATTENTION,
THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF
WHAT RESULTED IN, IN, IN, IN
THAT REPORTING, I DON'T KNOW
WHAT THE INTERNAL MECHANISMS ARE
FOR EACH UTILITY THAT WOULD
TRIGGER THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S
SOMETHING THAT DEFINITELY I
THINK WE, WE NEED TO LOOK INTO
AND FIGURE OUT FOR CONSUMERS
ACROSS THE STATE, BECAUSE IT'S
SOMETHING THAT HAS HAPPENED IN
MY DISTRICT. BUT I'M, YOU KNOW,
CONFIDENT THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED
ALSO ACROSS THE STATE IN OTHER
PARTS. AND I WOULD IMAGINE
$50,000 WOULD PERTAIN TO A FARM
OF FARMING EQUIPMENT THAT WAS ON
COMPUTERIZED, YOU KNOW, OF
COURSE, OUR COWS OR WHATEVER IT
MIGHT BE IN A HOME LIKE YOU HAD
JUST MENTIONED, $10,000 FOR AN
AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM, WHICH
COULD ALMOST CAUSE A YOUNG
FAMILY, AS YOU MENTIONED, OR A
SENIOR, TO EVEN GO BANKRUPT,
WHERE A COMPANY AT 50 OR 60,000
MIGHT BE IN THE SAME BOAT. SO I
THINK THE BILL HAS SOME MERIT.
AND, AND IT'S, IT'S PERFECTLY
TIMED BECAUSE AS WE'RE EVOLVING
INTO THE CONSTRUCTION IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, WE ALSO
NEED TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
AND I KNOW IN YOUR DISTRICT IT'S
A LOT TOUGHER BECAUSE OF THE
HEAT WAVES THAT YOU HAVE. SO I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT THE BILL AND
I'LL MOVE IT AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'LL
TREAT THAT AS A MOTION. ARE
THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? YES. SENATOR MCNERNEY,
I THANK THE VICE CHAIR. I THANK
THE SENATOR FOR YOUR BILL. I
HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT
I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND. THE
FIVE MINUTE DETECTING POWER
SURGE AND NOTIFICATION IN.
THAT'S PART OF THE BILL, RIGHT?
THERE'S A FIVE MINUTE
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR THE
POWER SURGE WAS AMENDED
OUTRIGHT. IT WAS AMENDED OUT.
THAT'S NO LONGER NO, THAT'S NO
LONGER BECAUSE I MEAN, IT DIDN'T
MAKE SENSE BECAUSE I MEAN, THE
DAMAGE HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. SO
ANOTHER QUESTION REQUIRING
UTILITIES TO INSTALL AND
MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT CAPABLE OF
DETECTING POWER SURGES. WHAT'S
THE TIMING ON THAT? I MEAN, HOW
MUCH TIME ARE YOU GOING TO BE
GIVING THE UTILITY COMPANIES TO
DO THAT? AND I DON'T I DON'T
INTERRUPT, BUT I BELIEVE AND I
CAN READ THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS
IF IT'S HELPFUL. BUT I BELIEVE
THAT ONE WAS ALSO STRICKEN WHEN
WE REMOVED THE SPECIFIC
NOTIFICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. AND THEN IF.
COMPENSATION FOR POWER SURGES
RELATED FROM UTILITY EQUIPMENT
FAILURE AND NEGLIGENCE EQUIPMENT
FAILURE. NOW SOMETIMES IT'S DUE
TO POOR MAINTENANCE, IN WHICH
CASE, YES, THEY SHOULD BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE IF IT'S DUE TO OTHER
CAUSES. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING
THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.
THERE'S OTHER LEGITIMATE CAUSES
OF EQUIPMENT FAILURE. AND THEN
ALSO THE BILL IS SUPPOSED TO
TAKE PLACE IMMEDIATELY. AGAIN,
IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THIS KIND
OF AN ONEROUS REQUIREMENT, THEN
THE UTILITIES ARE GOING TO NEED
TO HAVE TIME TO IMPLEMENT THESE
CHANGES. THAT'S THAT'S SO WITH
THOSE COMMENTS, I'M GOING TO
JUST NOT VOTE ON THIS ONE AND
MAKE SURE THAT I'M HAPPY WITH
THE RESULT BEFORE I SUPPORT IT.
OKAY. MAYBE THE AUTHOR, DO WE
HAVE OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS? NO. MAYBE IN YOUR
CLOTHES YOU WANT TO ADDRESS SOME
OF THAT, BUT I, I AM. DOES IT
HELP YOU TO READ THE AMENDMENTS
NOW WHAT THEY ARE. YEAH. IF YOU
DON'T. OKAY. CAN I RUN THROUGH
THAT JUST FOR THE COMMITTEE. SO
YOU KNOW YES IT IS NOTED IN THE
ANALYSIS, BUT THE AMENDMENTS
WOULD RECAST THE BILL TO REMOVE
SPECIFIC NOTIFICATIONS AND
TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS. IT
WOULD REPLACE THE REQUIREMENT ON
THE PUC AND ANY EXISTING OR
PROCEEDING, NEW OR EXISTING
PROCEEDING TO EVALUATE CONSUMER
PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS ON
ELECTRIC USE ASSOCIATED WITH
POWER SURGES, AND DETERMINE
WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO
STRENGTHEN THESE PROTECTIONS,
AND THEN REPLACE WITH
REQUIREMENTS ON THE POE ELECTRIC
POWER USE TO DEVELOP THEIR OWN
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS RELATED TO
POWER SURGES, AND POST THESE ON
THEIR WEBSITES. SO THE BILL'S
LANGUAGE, IN OTHER WORDS, IS
BEING RECAST, BUT REMAINS
CONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHOR'S
INTENT, WE BELIEVE, TO ADDRESS
THE IMPACT OF POWER SURGES ON
CUSTOMERS. SO THAT'S A LITTLE
SUMMARY IF YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE.
I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE A MOTION
FROM SENATOR ARCHULETA. YES.
OKAY. YES. THANK YOU. THROUGH
THE CHAIR. I APPRECIATE THE
COMMENTS AND THE QUESTIONS HERE
TODAY. AND, YOU KNOW, REALLY,
I'M LOOKING TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS THAT MY, MY
CONSTITUENTS AND EVEN MYSELF
THAT I'VE COME ACROSS. RIGHT.
AND I DON'T WANT TO CREATE AN
EXTRA BURDEN OR ANY LIKE ADD ANY
ADDITIONAL STEPS. BUT I DO THINK
THAT THERE'S ALREADY A MECHANISM
IN PLACE THAT REALLY WOULDN'T
REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, ANY A WHOLE
LOT OF WORK OR, OR OR FUNDING.
THERE'S ALREADY INVESTIGATIONS
THAT TAKE PLACE FOR INCIDENTS.
ALL I'M LOOKING IS TO HAVE A
FAIR PROCESS IN PLACE BECAUSE
WHEN THE POWER GOES OUT, THERE'S
NOTIFICATIONS. YOU CAN SEE THAT
ONLINE. IT'S VERY TRANSPARENT.
BUT IF THE POWER IF THERE'S A
POWER SURGE OR IF YOU'RE OR IF
YOU'RE. APPLIANCES ARE GO OUT
DUE TO A POWER SURGE, THERE'S NO
REAL PROTECTIONS OR TRANSPARENCY
INVOLVED WHEN IT COMES TO THAT.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MANY
INDIVIDUALS THAT CAN'T AFFORD
THAT KIND OF COST. AND, YOU
KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY IT'S A IT'S
ALSO A MATTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
SO WITH THAT, I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. OKAY. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WITH THE
CHAIR RECOMMENDING. AYE.
COMMITTEES ASSISTANCE. YOU'D
LIKE TO CALL THE ROLL. BECKER.
ACHO B¢O ALLEN. ARCHULETA. Ã.
ARCHULETA. AYE. ARAGON. ASHBY.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE.
DALLY. NO. DALLY. NO. GONZALEZ.
GROVE. HURTADO. HURTADO. AYE.
LIMÓN. MCNERNEY. RUBIO. STERN.
STERN. AYE. STRICKLAND. WAHAB.
THAT MEASURES 4 TO 1. AND WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. NEXT UP, SENATOR
CABALLERO, FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX.
THAT IS SB 298. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. ALTERNATIVE CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. ALTERNATIVE CHAIR.
I'M HERE TO PRESENT SB 298 TO
ENSURE THAT CALIFORNIANS
CALIFORNIA'S SEAPORTS REMAIN
OPERATIONAL AND COMPETITIVE, AND
THAT THEY MEET CALIFORNIA'S
CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY GOALS.
CALIFORNIA HAS LONG BEEN A
LEADER IN CLIMATE SOLUTIONS, YET
WE LACK A CLEAR REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK TO TRANSITION THE
MARITIME INDUSTRY AWAY FROM
DIESEL DEPENDANCE. SB 298 WILL
BEGIN TO FILL THIS GAP.
CALIFORNIA PORTS HANDLE 60% OF
ALL INBOUND U.S. CONTAINERS, YET
WE LACK THE NECESSARY
INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT CLEAN
ALTERNATIVE FUELS IN THIS HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL SECTOR. GLOBAL
COMPETITORS ARE ADVANCING
MULTIFUEL OPERATIONS IN
CALIFORNIA RISKS FALLING BEHIND
IN THE TRANSITION TO A CLEANER
INDUSTRY. BARRIERS SUCH AS
INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE,
LENGTHY PERMITTING PROCESSES,
FINANCING OBSTACLES, AND
REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY CONTINUE
TO HINDER INVESTMENT IN CLEANER
FUEL TECHNOLOGIES. THIS BILL
WILL CREATE A COLLABORATIVE PLAN
BY 2030 TO DEVELOP
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE STORAGE
AND FUELING OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS
AT CALIFORNIA'S SEAPORTS. THE
PLAN WILL BE FUEL AGNOSTIC. IT
WILL REMAIN INCLUSIVE OF
EMERGING CLEAN FUEL TECHNOLOGIES
AS THEY DEVELOP BY ENSURING
CALIFORNIA PORTS REMAIN AT THE
FOREFRONT OF CLEAN ENERGY
INNOVATION, WE CAN REDUCE
POLLUTING EMISSIONS AND MAINTAIN
OUR ECONOMIC COMPETITIVE
COMPETITIVENESS, REDUCING DIESEL
EMISSIONS AT OUR PORTS WILL LEAD
TO CLEANER AIR FOR MILLIONS OF
CALIFORNIANS, PARTICULARLY IN
COMMUNITIES DISPROPORTIONATELY
IMPACTED BY POLLUTION, WHO
SUFFER THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF AIR
CONTAMINANTS. THIS IS A UNIQUE
OPPORTUNITY FOR CALIFORNIA TO
LEAD THE NATION AND THE WORLD IN
CLEAN MARITIME TECHNOLOGY. I
WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIR
AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR WORK ON THIS BILL AND
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDS, AND
I ALSO WANT TO CONFIRM THAT WE
WILL WORK WITH THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S UNION TO ADDRESS
CONCERNS THAT THEY'VE RAISED AS
WELL. I URGE THE COMMITTEE
SUPPORT FOR SB 298 TO ENSURE OUR
PORTS ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT
ARE AT THE FOREFRONT OF OUR
CLEAN ENERGY COMMITMENT. WE NEED
TO ACT NOW TO ENSURE THAT
CALIFORNIA'S PORTS REMAIN
COMPETITIVE, CLEAN AND FUTURE.
READY WITH ME TODAY TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL IS MIKE
JACOB WITH PACIFIC MERCHANT
SHIPPING ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU,
MR. JACOB. GO AHEAD. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS. MIKE JACOB PMSA. WE
REPRESENT OCEAN CARES MARINE
TERMINAL OPERATORS. THANK THAT
THE SENATOR FOR AUTHORING THE
BILL. WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS
OPPORTUNITY TO START INVESTING
IN TRANSITION TO ALTERNATIVE
FUELS IN THE STATE. WE HAVE A
GLOBAL FLEET THAT HAS A
COMMITMENT UNDER THE
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME
ORGANIZATION'S ADOPTED POLICIES
OF TRANSITIONING TO NET ZERO
CARBON BY 2050. SO OF THE
WORLD'S CONTAINER FLEET THAT
SAILING RIGHT NOW, 4% OF THEM
ARE EQUIPPED WITH ALTERNATIVE
FUEL TECHNOLOGY. BUT OF ALL THE
SHIPS WE HAVE ON ORDER RIGHT
NOW, WE'RE SPENDING OUR MEMBERS
SPEND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO
ALWAYS REPLACE OUR SHIPS. WE'RE
ALWAYS MOVING THROUGH OR MOVING
TO BIGGER AND BIGGER SHIPS. 83%
OF THOSE ARE ALTERNATIVE FUEL
CAPABLE. RIGHT NOW. OUR BIGGEST
CONSTRAINT IN THE FUTURE IS NOT
GOING TO BE THE VESSELS WE'RE
ALREADY MOVING TOWARDS, THAT
IT'S GOING TO BE CAN WE ACTUALLY
PROVIDE THE FUEL TO ACTUALLY
DECARBONIZE? IF YOU DON'T? THESE
VESSELS ARE EQUIPPED WITH DUAL
FUELING SYSTEMS. IF WE DON'T
HAVE ALTERNATIVE FUELS, WE'LL
JUST KEEP USING DIESEL. SO WE
COME INTO CALIFORNIA, FUEL UP
THE SHIP. IF YOU DON'T HAVE
METHANOL, LNG, LPG, AMMONIA,
HYDROGEN AVAILABLE FOR US, WE'LL
USE DIESEL. WE'LL KEEP MOVING.
BUT IF YOU DON'T INVEST IN THIS
AND START A PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT
SB 298 DOES, START THE PLANNING
PROCESS FOR HOW YOU'RE GOING TO
ACTUALLY CREATE SUPPLY HERE. HOW
ARE YOU GOING TO ACTUALLY CREATE
THE ACTUAL FUEL? WHERE IS IT
GOING TO BE STORED? HOW IS IT
GOING TO BE DISTRIBUTED AND THEN
DELIVERED TO THE PORT? WE WILL
NOT BE USING THAT FUEL HERE.
WE'RE BEHIND OTHER FOLKS. SO AS
SENATOR POINTED OUT, WE'RE AHEAD
IN A LOT OF RESPECTS WITH
RESPECT TO DECARBONIZATION AND
SUPPLY CHAIN AND IN OUR PORTS.
WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THAT. WE'VE
REDUCED OUR EMISSIONS AT THE
PORTS GREATER THAN ANYWHERE ELSE
IN THE WORLD WITH RESPECT TO
PARTICULATE MATTER, DPM, SOX AND
NOX. BUT WITH RESPECT TO WHAT
COMES NEXT WITH RESPECT TO
DECARBONIZATION, WE'RE BEHIND ON
THE INFRASTRUCTURE. WE NEED TO
DO THAT. WE'RE BEHIND EUROPE,
WE'RE BEHIND ASIA, WE'RE BEHIND
THE REST OF THE UNITED STATES.
SO WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE
PLANNING. THANK YOU FOR THE
ASSISTANCE WITH THE AMENDMENTS
TODAY. AND WE WORK AS WE WORK
FORWARD. WE'D LIKE TO CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE AND
THE REST OF THE LEGISLATURE ON
MAKING THIS A REALLY SUCCINCT
AND WORKABLE PLAN THAT CREATES A
DOCUMENT THAT WE CAN TURN AROUND
AND START BUILDING
INFRASTRUCTURE FROM. THANK YOU.
EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. DO ANY
OTHERS IN SUPPORT? HELLO. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MEG SNYDER WITH AXIOM
ADVISORS HERE ON BEHALF OF
INVENERGY AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY
OPPOSITION? NO OPPOSITION. OKAY.
SEEING NONE, WE'LL TAKE IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. KEEP GOING.
YOU KNOW, I'M SO HAPPY YOU
BROUGHT THIS FORWARD. I'VE
ALWAYS SAID THIS, THAT IN
CALIFORNIA WE HAVE A TREASURE
CHEST OF ENERGY. AND WE'VE GOT
TO INCLUDE EVERYTHING, WHETHER
IT BE HYDROGEN, CLEAN DIESEL,
THE WIND, SOLAR, EVERYTHING HAS
GOT TO BE USED. AND OUR PORTS. I
REPRESENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYTHING IS BROUGHT INTO PLAY.
SO I'M HOPING THAT HYDROGEN IS
PART OF THIS IN THE FUTURE,
BECAUSE IT WILL BE ONE OF THE
CORNERSTONES THAT WILL MAINTAIN
OUR CLEAN AIR IN THE FUTURE. SO
I LOVE THE BILL. I THINK WE
SHOULD MOVE IT FORWARD AND I
WILL DO THAT AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. YOU ARE ON A ROLL, SENATOR
ARCHULETA. ANYONE ELSE?
EXCELLENT. WELL, I APPRECIATE
YOU WORKING WITH US. I
APPRECIATE YOU TAKING ON THIS
TOPIC. WE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION
LAST NIGHT. I'M IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. I AM GOING TO READ THE
AMENDMENTS ALOUD, AND THEN I'LL
GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO CLOSE TO
MODIFY THE PLAN REQUIRED BY THE
BILL, TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO
PERMITTING FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE
OUTSIDE PORT FACILITIES, SPECIFY
THE CCS PLAN SHOULD IDENTIFY
BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
THE DEPLOYMENT OF ALTERNATIVE
FUELS AT SEAPORTS. REQUIRE THE
PLAN TO INCLUDE A FORECAST OF
THE DEMAND AND SUPPLY FOR FUELS
THAT ENABLE OCEANGOING VESSELS
TO ACHIEVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS.
CLARIFY THE CCS MAY INCLUDE CÁC
MAY INCLUDE TIMELINES AND COSTS
FOR FUEL TRANSITIONS TO THE
EXTENT FEASIBLE. REQUIRE CARB TO
WORK WITH THE CC TO PROVIDE THE
CC WITH INFORMATION ON THE TYPES
OF FUELS THAT MEET CARB
REQUIREMENTS FOR OCEANGOING
VESSELS, AND FINALLY, MODIFY THE
MEMBERSHIP OF THE BILL'S WORKING
GROUP TO INCLUDE THE STATE LANDS
COMMISSION. WITH THAT, I HAVE AN
I RECO. AND DO YOU HAVE A
CLOSING STATEMENT? THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. I APPRECIATE THAT YOU
MISSED, BUT I DID SAY THAT I WAS
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS AND THAT I
APPRECIATED THE WORK OF THE
COMMITTEE AND YOURSELF AND IN
HELPING TO MAKE THIS A BETTER
BILL. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. OKAY. WE HAVE A
MOTION FROM SENATOR ARCHULETA TO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE SENATE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL BECKER I,
BECKER I, OCHOA BOGH ALLEN
ARCHULETA I ARCHULETA I ARAGON.
ASHBY CABALLERO I CABALLERO I
DALLI. GONZALEZ. GROVE. GROVE. I
HURTADO. LIMÓN MCNERNEY.
MCNERNEY I. RUBIO. STERN I
STERN. I. STRICKLAND. WAHAB.
OKAY. THE VOTE IS SIX TO
NOTHING. WE WILL HOLD THE ROLL
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. OKAY.
WE WILL GO TO SENATOR MCNERNEY.
YOU HAVE FILED EIGHT SB 698. GO
AHEAD. ONE READY? THANKS. WELL,
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, FOR
BRINGING MY BILL UP. AND I WANT
TO START BY SAYING THAT I'M
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. THE PASSAGE I'M JUST
GIVING A LITTLE HISTORY HERE.
THE PASSAGE OF CALIFORNIA SOLAR
INITIATIVE IN 2006 HAD THE CC
ESTABLISHED THE SOLAR ENERGY
EQUIPMENT LIST TO SET ENERGY
STANDARDS, TO SET STANDARDS FOR
SOLAR EQUIPMENT, AND TO CERTIFY
THAT EQUIPMENT HAS MET THOSE
STANDARDS. WHILE THE CALIFORNIA
SOLAR INITIATIVE PROGRAM HAS A
SUNSET, THE CEC CONTINUES TO
CREATE STANDARDS AND CERTIFY
THOSE STANDARDS, AND THAT IS A
KEY RESOURCE. BASICALLY,
INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS FROM
CALIFORNIA AND AROUND THE
COUNTRY HAVE RELIED ON THOSE
STANDARDS ON AN ONGOING BASIS.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ALSO RELY ON
THOSE STANDARDS TO MAKE SURE
THEY'RE BUYING EQUIPMENT THAT IS
QUALITY AND HAS A LONGEVITY. BUT
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THIS PROGRAM
HAS SUNSET. AND WHAT SB 698 DOES
IS BASICALLY REAUTHORIZES THE
PROGRAM SO THAT THE CEC CAN
CONTINUE TO DO THIS.
CERTIFICATION STANDARDS CREATING
AND CERTIFICATION FOR GOOD
EQUIPMENT. AND I HERE, IN ORDER
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL, IS BRAD HEAVNER FROM THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA SOLAR AND STORAGE
ASSOCIATION. BRETT. THANK YOU.
YEAH. GO AHEAD, MISTER CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT BILL. IT'S
STRAIGHTFORWARD. SHOULD HAVE
BEEN DONE LONG AGO. I REALLY
APPLAUD SENATOR MCNERNEY FOR
PUTTING IT FORWARD. OUR
EQUIPMENT UNDERGOES EXTENSIVE
SAFETY TESTING THROUGH THE
CERTIFIED TESTING LABS TO MAKE
SURE IT MEETS SAFETY AND
RELIABILITY STANDARDS. AND THEN
THE ENERGY COMMISSION HAS TO
LOOK AT THOSE TEST REPORTS AND
JUST CREATE A LIST TO SAY, YES,
THIS COMPLIES THIS. THIS
CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND LAWS
THAT WE HAVE HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
MAINTAIN A LIST THAT IS VERY
USEFUL FOR UTILITIES, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND OTHERS TO MAKE
SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT GETS
INSTALLED HAS UNDERGONE THE
SAFETY TESTING AND THE RESULTS
ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH OUR
STANDARDS. IT WAS CREATED LONG
AGO UNDER, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE HAD
A SUBSIDY PROGRAM AND THE STATE
SAID, IF WE'RE GOING TO
SUBSIDIZE THE STUFF, WE'RE GOING
TO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
RIGHT STUFF IS GETTING
INSTALLED. AND SO THE ENERGY IT
MADE SENSE FOR THE ENERGY
COMMISSION TO STEP UP AND
MAINTAIN THAT LIST. BUT THAT
PROGRAM ENDED IN 2012. WE, YOU
KNOW, OUR STATE SUBSIDY PROGRAM
NO LONGER EXISTS FOR THE PAST 13
YEARS. AND THEN BUT THE
AUTHORITY STILL RESTS UNDER THAT
PROGRAM. AND WE IN 2018, WHEN IT
WAS SEEN THAT WE NEEDED A
SIMILAR LIST FOR ENERGY STORAGE,
THE ENERGY COMMISSION HAD TO HAD
TO REALLY REWRITE THE RULES OF
THE SUBSIDY PROGRAM THAT NO
LONGER EXISTED IN ORDER TO MAKE
IT WORK FOR THEM TO DO THIS
PROGRAM, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE
AUTHORITY THAT HAD GIVEN THEM.
AND THEY DID THAT, AND THEY
REISSUED THE SB1 GUIDELINES,
TOOK SOME WORK, AND THEN THEY,
YOU KNOW, THEY CONTINUED TO DO
THIS USEFUL. SERVICE FOR THE
REST OF US. AND THIS CAME UP
AGAIN THIS PAST YEAR WHEN THERE
NEEDED TO BE A AN ADJUSTMENT TO
THE LIST FOR POWER CONTROL
SYSTEMS. NOW THAT WE'RE
OPERATING FLEETS OF BATTERIES
AND ABLE TO RESPOND TO COMMANDS,
WE NEED TO TEST TO MAKE SURE
THAT WHEN YOU SEND A COMMAND,
THE DEVICE DOES THE RIGHT THING,
AND THAT IS INCREASINGLY USED.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE
SPECIFIC TESTING FOR IT. AND THE
TESTING, THE TEST METHOD FOR
THAT WAS RECENTLY IMPROVED. IT
WAS CHANGED FROM PART OF UL
1741, PART OF UL 3141. SO WE HAD
TO GET TOGETHER WITH THE ENERGY
COMMISSION TO JUST REDO THEIR
LISTS A LITTLE BIT AND MAKE SURE
THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE TEST
REPORTS THE RIGHT WAY. THEY KNOW
WHAT TO LOOK FOR, AND THEY'RE
REPORTING ON THE RIGHT STUFF ON
THEIR LISTS. AND IT SHOULD BE
STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT ENDED UP,
YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO GET THEIR
LAWYERS INVOLVED TO SAY, OKAY,
DO WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER
THIS, THIS OLD LAW, UNDER THIS
OLD PROGRAM TO DO THIS NEW THING
THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY
A CONTINUATION OF THE STUFF
WE'RE DOING, AND IT'S MORE
COMPLICATED FOR THEM THAN IT
SHOULD BE. WE SHOULD REALLY JUST
UNTETHER THIS PROGRAM FROM A
VERY OLD LAW AND GIVE THEM THE
AUTHORITY SO THEY CAN JUST DO
WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING GOING
FORWARD. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? CHAIR MEMBERS, MATT
KLOPFENSTEIN, ON BEHALF OF THE
CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU TO ANYONE IN OPPOSITION.
ANYONE IN OPPOSITION HERE? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, WE'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. I'LL MOVE THE
BILL. OKAY. MOVE THE BILL.
SENATOR STERN MOVES THE BILL. I
WOULD SAY THAT I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP. VERY
PRACTICAL BILL, THANK YOU FOR
OUR WITNESS. WE HAVE AN AI
RECOMMENDATION. AND WOULD YOU
LIKE A CLOSING STATEMENT? SURE.
I'M JUST GOING TO ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE AND ADD THAT IT INCLUDES
BIDIRECTIONAL CHARGING AS AN
ADDITIONAL FEATURE IN THIS SET
OF ITEMS. GOOD. THANK YOU. A
VERY IMPORTANT ADD FOR THAT
TREMENDOUS POTENTIAL THERE. SO
THANK YOU. WITH THAT I'LL ASK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL I'M GOING
TO SAVE THE MOTION. MOTION DO
PASS AS AMENDED TO THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. BECKER
A BECKER I ECHO BOGUE ALLAN
ARCHULETA A ARCHULETA I ARAGON.
ASHBY. CABALLERO. A CABALLERO I
DALLI. DALLI NO. GONZALEZ.
GROVE. HURTADO. Ó. GROVE.
GROVE. NO. HURTADO. LIMÓN
MCNERNEY A, MCNERNEY I RUBIO.
STERN. SORRY. STERN. STERN I.
STRICKLAND, WAHAB. THE VOTE IS 5
TO 2. WE WILL KEEP THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU. I
KNOW THAT SENATOR PADILLA IS ON
HIS WAY. SHOULD BE HERE VERY
SHORTLY. SO I ASK PEOPLE TO HANG
IN THERE AND WE WILL GET TO HIS
TWO BILLS. AND THOSE WILL BE THE
LAST TWO BILLS OF THE OF THE
HEARING.
DO YOU WANT TO RESET?
SENATOR PADILLA IS HERE. HE'S
GOT TWO VERY IMPORTANT BILLS IN
FRONT OF US TODAY. AND WE'LL
START OUT WITH SB 57 ON DATA
CENTERS AND GO AHEAD WHEN YOU
ARE READY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. HAPPY TO
PRESENT SB 57, WHICH WOULD
CREATE THE RATEPAYER AND
TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
PROTECTION ACT, WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE THE PUC TO ESTABLISH
SPECIAL TARIFF FOR DATA CENTERS
TO PREVENT COST SHIFTS TO
EXISTING RATEPAYERS. AND AS WE
TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT FIRST,
LET ME JUST SAY BY THANKS, THE
COMMITTEE, FOR WORKING WITH MY
STAFF, I'LL ACCEPT COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, ONE OF WHICH
MODIFIES THE SPECIFIC ALLUSION
TO DATA CENTERS AND REPLACES
THAT WITH A SLIGHTLY BROADER
DEFINITION FOR ELIGIBLE
CUSTOMERS. AND THESE ARE ANY
KIND OF PARTICULAR
INFRASTRUCTURE OR TECHNOLOGICAL
DRAW THAT WOULD DRAW HEAVY LOAD
BEYOND A CERTAIN THRESHOLD,
WOULD BE ELIGIBLE. SO WOULDN'T
JUST BE DATA CENTERS, ALTHOUGH
THEY DO ACCOUNT FOR A PRIMARY
DRIVER OF THIS PARTICULAR
CONCERN. CALIFORNIA, AS YOU
KNOW, IS UNDERGOING ON THAT
TOPIC AN AI REVOLUTION, WHICH IS
POWERED BY DATA CENTERS, CONSUME
LARGE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY AND
WATER, PUTTING ENORMOUS STRAIN
ON THE ELECTRICAL GRID,
REQUIRING MASSIVE INVESTMENTS
INTO GRID INFRASTRUCTURE AND
INCREASING THE STATE'S RELIANCE
ON FOSSIL FUELS. IN
PENNSYLVANIA, FOR EXAMPLE,
MICROSOFT SIGNED THE LARGEST
EVER POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO
REOPEN THREE MILE ISLAND TO
POWER THE COMPANY'S DATA CENTERS
IN TEXAS. CHEVRON EXXONMOBIL
PLAN TO OFFER ELECTRICITY FOR
THE FIRST TIME, OPERATING FOSSIL
FUEL POWER PLANTS TO POWER DATA
CENTERS TO ALLOW SUCH AGREEMENTS
HERE IN CALIFORNIA WOULD GO
AGAINST OUR OWN CLEAN AIR
STANDARDS AND GOALS. TO
UNDERSTAND THE SCALE OF THESE
DATA CENTER ENERGY USE, THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REPORTS
THAT DATA CENTERS ARE EXPECTED
TO CONSUME 12% OF TOTAL U.S.
ELECTRICITY BY 2028, NEARLY
THREE TIMES THEIR 2023
ELECTRICITY DEMAND, OR 4.4%.
ANALYSTS WARN THAT THIS RAPID
BUILD OUT OF DATA CENTERS MAY BE
OUTPACING DEMAND, AND WITH
INNOVATIONS IN ENERGY AND
COMPUTING, SOME OF THESE DATA
CENTERS MAY CLOSE EARLIER THAN
EXPECTED OR USE LESS ENERGY THAN
INITIALLY PROJECTED, CLOSING
THEIR CONTRACT TERMS TO PUT AN
END EARLY WOULD PUT RATEPAYERS
AT RISK OF FOOTING THE BILL FOR
TRANSMISSION AND
INTERCONNECTION, INFRASTRUCTURE
AND COSTS, FINANCING COSTS.
THEY'RE ALREADY STRUGGLING, AS
YOU KNOW, WITH AFFORDABILITY AND
SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO PAY FOR
STRANDED COSTS. THE COST OF
CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING
STRANDED ASSETS. OTHER STATES
SUCH AS OHIO, GEORGIA, ILLINOIS,
NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA,
WEST VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY HAVE
ALREADY TAKEN STEPS TO PROTECT
THEIR RATEPAYERS FROM FOOTING
THE COST OF THESE CENTERS.
TRANSMISSION INVESTMENTS. THESE
STATES HAVE NEGOTIATED EXIT
FEES, MINIMUM CONTRACT TERMS,
DEMAND REQUIREMENTS AND UPFRONT
PAYMENTS. FOR EXAMPLE,
CALIFORNIA HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
DO THE SAME TO ENSURE ELECTRICAL
GRID INVESTMENTS FOR DATA
CENTERS AND OTHER LARGE DEMAND.
CONSUMERS ARE FULLY RECOVERED TO
ENSURE EXISTING RATEPAYERS ARE
NOT SHACKLED WITH THEIR
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS. AND TODAY,
I BELIEVE I HAVE MATT FRIEDMAN
WITH TURN. MR. FRIEDMAN WELCOME.
GO AHEAD WHEN READY. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS MATT
FRIEDMAN. I'M A STAFF ATTORNEY
WITH THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK.
AND I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF
SENATE BILL 57. I WANT TO THANK
SENATOR PADILLA FOR INTRODUCING
THIS BILL. WE SUPPORTED THE
ORIGINAL BILL, AND WE ARE
MAINTAINING OUR SUPPORT. AFTER
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, THE
FORECAST OF GROWTH IN NEW DATA
CENTER DEPLOYMENT HAVE LED TO
CONCERNS ABOUT NEED FOR GRID
UPGRADES, THE AMOUNT OF
ELECTRICITY TO BE CONSUMED BY
THESE FACILITIES, COST SHIFTING
AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON
CALIFORNIA'S PROGRESS TOWARDS
MEETING ITS ZERO CARBON
ELECTRICITY OBJECTIVES. WE THINK
SB 57 ADDRESSES THESE CONCERNS
IN A MANNER THAT FAIRLY BALANCES
THE INTERESTS OF BOTH DATA
CENTERS AND NONPARTICIPATING
CUSTOMERS. DATA CENTERS ARE NOT
LIKE OTHER CUSTOMER LOADS, A
LARGE COSTCO OR A WALMART MIGHT
HAVE A LOAD OF THREE MEGAWATTS,
BUT LARGE DATA CENTERS ARE
TRANSMISSION LEVEL CUSTOMERS
WITH LOADS THAT CAN RANGE FROM
TEN MEGAWATTS TO UP TO 800MW,
WITH CLOSE TO 100% LOAD FACTOR
OPERATING 24 HOURS A DAY. MAJOR
NEW GRID INVESTMENTS ARE NEEDED
TO INTERCONNECT NEW DATA CENTER
CUSTOMERS, AND THESE INVESTMENTS
COULD BECOME STRANDED IF A DATA
CENTER FAILS TO REACH COMMERCIAL
OPERATIONS, DOESN'T CONSUME AS
MUCH ELECTRICITY AS FORECAST, OR
RELOCATES IN FUTURE YEARS, AND
MAJOR NEW INVESTMENTS IN ZERO
CARBON RESOURCES ARE GOING TO BE
NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT DATA
CENTERS DON'T DRIVE AN INCREASE
IN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. IN
CALIFORNIA, DATA CENTERS ALSO
TYPICALLY HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF
BACKUP GENERATION ON SITE. WILL
THIS RESULT IN HUGE AMOUNTS OF
NEW DIESEL GENERATION BEING
DEPLOYED, OR WILL THEY USE CLEAN
GENERATION AND BATTERY STORAGE?
THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY
THE LEGISLATURE WILL LARGELY
DETERMINE WHAT TYPE OF ON SITE
GENERATION IS USED BY THESE DATA
CENTERS, AND THEN DATA CENTERS
ARE ABLE TO LEAVE THE SYSTEM
WITH GREATER EASE THAN OTHER
LARGE CUSTOMERS. AND THIS
HIGHLIGHTS THE NEED FOR
PROTECTING NONPARTICIPATING
CUSTOMERS. SO WE SUPPORT A
NUMBER OF THE KEY ELEMENTS OF
THE BILL, INCLUDING THE
PROHIBITION ON ANY COST SHIFTING
TO NONPARTICIPATING CUSTOMERS
RELATING TO INTERCONNECTION
COSTS AND FUTURE DATA CENTER
LOADS FALLING SHORT OF INITIAL
PROJECTIONS, ALLOWING THE PUC TO
DETERMINE THAT A PORTION OF ON
SITE GENERATION SHOULD COME FROM
ENERGY STORAGE, AND ENSURING
THAT DATA CENTERS CONNECTING TO
THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM WILL BE
REQUIRED TO PAY A FAIR SHARE OF
COSTS RELATING TO WILDFIRE
MITIGATION, WILDFIRE LIABILITY,
ELECTRIFICATION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS, ALL OF
WHICH ARE COLLECTED IN
DISTRIBUTION RATES, WHICH WOULD
BE AVOIDED BY THE DATA CENTER
CONNECTING AT DISTRIBUTION,
TRANSMISSION, AND THEN FINALLY
AUTHORIZING THE PUC TO SET CLEAN
ENERGY TARGETS SPECIFICALLY FOR
DATA CENTER LOADS. BECAUSE THEY
ARE UNIQUE ANIMALS IN THIS IN
THIS ENVIRONMENT. AND WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT NEW GENERATION IS
BUILT TO SERVE THESE FACILITIES.
SO WE APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT'S
BEEN DONE BY THE AUTHOR AND THE
COMMITTEE. WE'RE HAPPY TO BE
HERE TO SUPPORT IT, AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO THE BILL MOVING
FORWARD, HOPEFULLY AFTER TODAY'S
HEARING. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? GOOD AFTERNOON, BRANDON
EBCLC, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC.
WE DO NOT HAVE A POSITION ON THE
BILL, BUT WE HAVE BEEN HAVING
MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
AUTHOR AND ALL THE CUSTOMER
GROUPS AND ALL STAKEHOLDERS
INVOLVED. WE ARE KEENLY IN THE
MIDDLE OF THIS CONVERSATION.
MOST OF THE DATA CENTERS IN
CALIFORNIA WILL BE SITED IN
SANTA CLARA, ALAMEDA COUNTY,
EITHER IN OUR SERVICE AREA OR
SILICON VALLEY POWER. WE SUPPORT
THE SAME GOALS AS JUST MENTIONED
AND THE AUTHOR MENTIONED. WE
WANT TO BRING ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT TO CALIFORNIA. WE
WANT TO DO SO IN A WAY THAT
PROTECTS CUSTOMERS AND THE
ENVIRONMENT. WE WANT TO LEVERAGE
OUR EXISTING CLEAN GRID. WE JUST
NEED TO FIND A BALANCE BETWEEN
WHAT CAN ATTRACT CUSTOMERS TO
CALIFORNIA AND WHAT WILL PUSH
THEM AWAY. AND THAT'S WHERE WE
THINK THIS BILL IS DEFINITELY ON
THE RIGHT PATH. SO NO POSITION,
BUT IT'S GOING THE RIGHT WAY.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT? ANYONE IN OPPOSITION?
ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS KARA
BUNDER. SPEAKING IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO SB 57 ON BEHALF OF
THE DATA CENTER COALITION, I
JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. I'M
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL IN PRINT. DCC IS THE
NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATION
FOR THE DATA CENTER INDUSTRY.
OUR MEMBERS INCLUDE ABOUT THREE
DOZEN LEADING DATA CENTER OWNERS
AND OPERATORS, IN ADDITION TO
COMPANIES THAT LEASE LARGE
AMOUNTS OF DATA CENTER CAPACITY.
DATA CENTERS PROVIDE THE DIGITAL
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT SUPPORTS
MANY SECTORS OF THE 21ST CENTURY
ECONOMY, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT,
EMERGENCY AND FINANCIAL
SERVICES, ADVANCED
MANUFACTURING, CYBERSECURITY,
HEALTH CARE, ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE, AMONG OTHERS. TO
BE CLEAR, WE SUPPORT THE INTENT
BEHIND SB 57. INDUSTRY IS
COMMITTED TO PAYING ITS FULL
COST OF SERVICE FOR ELECTRICITY.
WE BELIEVE THE PROPOSED
COMMITTEE AMENDS, MOVE THIS IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND
APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS ACCEPTING
OF THOSE AMENDMENTS. GIVEN THE
VARIATION ACROSS OUR MEMBERS, WE
NEED MORE TIME TO REVIEW AMONG
THEM AND UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS
OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS. WE
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO
WORK WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE
AND VERY MUCH APPRECIATE OUR
ONGOING DIALOG. AS WRITTEN, OUR
CONCERNS WITH THE BILL ARE
TWOFOLD. FIRST, WE BELIEVE THE
CPUC IS BEST SUITED TO ENSURE
APPROPRIATE COST ALLOCATION
THROUGH PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS THAT
ARE EVIDENCE BASED, TRANSPARENT,
AND OPEN TO STAKEHOLDER
PARTICIPATION. AND SECOND,
ALIGNED WITH SOUND RATEMAKING
PRINCIPLES. NO CUSTOMER,
INDUSTRY OR CLASS SHOULD BE
SINGLED OUT FOR DIFFERENTIAL OR
DISPARATE TREATMENT UNLESS SUCH
DISTINCTIONS ARE BACKED BY
VERIFIABLE, COST BASED
REASONING. DATA CENTERS ARE BUT
ONE LARGE END USER OF ELECTRIC
UTILITIES AND PART OF A LARGER
PORTFOLIO, DRIVING INCREASED
DEMAND. CALIFORNIA'S POSITION AS
A GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY LEADER
DEPENDS ON THE VITAL
INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDED BY DATA
CENTERS, AND UNDERSCORES THE
NEED FOR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION
OF LEGISLATION THAT COULD IMPACT
THIS CRITICAL INDUSTRY. I
APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE THAT.
ANY OTHER FOLKS IN OPPOSITION?
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION.
I'VE GOT A QUESTION. IF YOU GO
AHEAD, YOU'RE ON A ROLL. AND
THEN AFTER THAT TARIFFS. WHAT DO
WE HAVE SOME IDEA OF WHAT WHAT
THAT COST IS GOING TO BE TO THAT
PROPRIETOR WHO MAY WANT TO COME
INTO CALIFORNIA TO START THIS
BUSINESS THERE, THAT HE'S
LOOKING AT A TARIFF THAT HE
WASN'T THINKING ABOUT TRYING TO
GET SOME FIGURE OF WHAT THAT
MIGHT BE. DO WE KNOW YET, MR.
CHAIRMAN? SENATOR, TO THE
ACTUALLY IRONICALLY TO THE LAST
WITNESSES TESTIMONY THAT WOULD
BE YOU KNOW, THE BILL, YOU KNOW,
DIRECTS THE PUC TO ESTABLISH THE
REGIMEN THAT IS SPECIFICALLY
DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE SHIFTING
OF COSTS FROM OTHER END USERS
BECAUSE OF THE HIGH DEMAND THAT
WOULD SUDDENLY BE PLACED ON THE
GRID, AND THAT ITSELF IS SUBJECT
TO THE REGULATORY PROCESS. SO
IT'S JUST NOT QUANTIFIED RIGHT
NOW. BUT IT IS IT IS A DIRECTIVE
THAT WOULD AGAIN PREVENT COST
SHIFTING. AND WE'VE TIGHTENED
THE LANGUAGE UP IN THE
LEGISLATION TO BE VERY, VERY
SPECIFIC AND DISCRETE ABOUT
THAT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU,
SENATOR GROVE. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. WITHOUT SOUNDING CATTY, I
WISH I COULD EXEMPT KERN COUNTY
FROM ALL THE BILLS THAT MOST OF
THEM THAT GO THROUGH THIS
COMMITTEE. THE REASON WHY I SAY
THAT IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WITH
THE LACK OF PERMITS BEING ISSUED
AND THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON
IN OUR, OUR DISTRICT REGARDING
OIL AND OIL PRODUCTION,
INNOVATION IS TAKING PLACE THAT
PUSHES OIL COMPANIES TO DO
THINGS DIFFERENTLY. SO WE WERE
RECENTLY IN CRC, I'LL JUST NAME
THE COMPANY WAS RECENTLY GIVEN A
FAIRLY LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY
FROM THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IN
ORDER FOR TO IT WAS THE FIRST, I
BELIEVE, CARBON CAPTURE,
CAPTURE, SEQUESTRATION SITE IN
THE NATION TO BE ISSUED THOSE
RESOURCES UNDER JEOPARDY NOW.
BUT MOVING FORWARD, LOOKING AT
DIFFERENT THINGS, THEY WERE
USING CARBON CAPTURE
SEQUESTRATION TO MITIGATE THE
CARBON EMISSIONS THAT WOULD BE
AVAILABLE AT THE DATA CENTER.
THERE WAS A BIG MEETING ON IT.
THEY CAN GENERATE ENOUGH POWER
TO POWER A DATA CENTER AND KEEP
IT OFF THE GRID, BUT THEY CAN'T
SELL THE POWER TO THE DATA
CENTER BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A
UTILITY, WHICH IS ANOTHER PIECE
OF LEGISLATION THAT HAS TO BE
ADJUSTED. SO WHEN YOU GO THROUGH
THIS WHOLE PROCESS TO MAKE
CALIFORNIA A BETTER STATE AND
MORE ACCESSIBLE AND MOVE ON TO
THE NEXT THING THAT WE'RE ALL
LOOKING, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY IS
LOOKING FOR AND THE TECHNOLOGY
THAT'S BEING, YOU KNOW, JUST
WITH EXPERTS, THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION JUST THROWS THAT
WHOLE SIX MONTH, YOU KNOW, ISSUE
IN THE TOILET BECAUSE THEY, YOU
KNOW, HAVE TRIED TO DESIGN THIS
SO THAT THEY COULD USE AND
PRODUCE POWER ON SITE TO
IMMEDIATELY TRANSMIT TO A DATA
CENTER ON SITE AND TAKE THAT
DATA CENTER OFF THE GRID, BUT
NOT TO ALLOW A DATA CENTER TO
EXIST LIKE THAT UNDER THIS PIECE
OF LEGISLATION AND REQUIRE
TARIFFS, WOULD REQUIRE DATA
CENTERS NOT TO WANT TO INVEST IN
CALIFORNIA. SO IT'S LIKE IT'S
LIKE I FEEL LIKE I HAVE TO GO
UNDER CURRENT, WELL, SCRAP
ANOTHER ONE OFF THE TABLE THAT
WE TRIED TO HELP CALIFORNIA
WITH. SO I GUESS I DON'T KNOW IF
I IT'S NOT I DON'T REALLY HAVE A
QUESTION. I'M LIKE, I JUST THINK
THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS
GOING ON IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF
THE STATES OTHER THAN WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING. AND I GET WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING. IF YOU PUT A DATA
CENTER ON THE GRID AND SOMETHING
HAPPENS, THAT DATA CENTER IS
GOING TO DRAW DOWN MORE POWER ON
THE GRID THAT IS ALREADY
UNSUSTAINABLE AND DOESN'T
PROVIDE POWER AND HAS PSPS
SHUTOFFS. AND GOD KNOWS ALL
THESE OTHER THINGS. BUT THIS
EXEMPTS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO
IN IN KERN COUNTY WITH CRC, WITH
THE RE. AND IT'S JUST ONE MORE
REASON FOR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO CONTINUE TO PULL
THOSE RESOURCES, BECAUSE THEY
CAN PUT A DATA CENTER IN TEXAS
AND BE ABLE TO USE THOSE
RESOURCES. SO I IT'S JUST
FRUSTRATING. AND I JUST WANT TO
LET YOU KNOW THAT IT'S
FRUSTRATING. OKAY. GOT THAT OFF
YOUR SAY, SENATOR MCNERNEY. I
THINK CHAIR. OH, SORRY. DID YOU
NAZARIAN IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND
TO THAT QUESTION, I CAN SURE
PROVIDE SOME CLARITY. GO AHEAD,
GO AHEAD. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY
THAT THAT APPLICATION FROM CRC
IS FOR GAS SERVICE. IT'S NOT AN
ELECTRIC APPLICATION THAT WOULD
BE UNDER THIS BILL. AND I KNOW
THAT THAT APPLICATION IS. BUT
THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS AT
CRC WITH THE CSP AND OTHER OTHER
AGENCIES TO BE ABLE TO GENERATE
BECAUSE IT WAS KIND OF LIKE A
SIDE BYPRODUCT, AND THEY WERE
ABLE TO GENERATE THAT THROUGH
CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND USE
CARBON SEQUESTRATION FOR THE
DATA CENTER AND SUPPLY THAT
ENERGY. THERE'S ALSO, MIKE UMBRO
HAS ANOTHER PRODUCT THAT IS
ALLOWING THAT STEAM GENERATION
UNDERGROUND TO A VERY SMALL
FOOTPRINT ABOVE GROUND, AND
THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF
GETTING THAT PERMITTED. AND THAT
WOULD ALSO PROVIDE ENERGY AS
WELL, SEPARATE FROM THE GRID. SO
IT'S JUST A FRUSTRATING PIECE.
LIKE I SAID, WHEN YOU MOVE
FORWARD WITH GOOD IDEAS TO HELP,
YOU KNOW, CHANGE THE
ENVIRONMENT, I GUESS. OKAY. HE
CAME TO MY. NO, I THINK THAT'S
YEAH. ANY COMMENTS ON THAT OR I
CAN MR. CHAIRMAN I CAN INCLUDE
IT IN MY CLOSING CLOSE. OKAY.
SENATOR MCNERNEY. WELL, THANK
YOU, CHAIRMAN. AND THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD. I OBVIOUSLY LIKE IT.
I'M A COAUTHOR. WHEN YOU PUT BIG
LOADS ON THE SYSTEM LIKE THIS,
IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE WAY THE
SYSTEM OPERATES. WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE WAY
THE CUSTOMERS ARE PAYING THEIR
BILLS. IT DOESN'T WANT THEIR
RATES, THEIR RELIABILITY. I
THINK THAT'S A CHALLENGE AND I'M
GLAD THAT WE'RE BRINGING THIS
UP. SO I SUPPORT THE BILL. OKAY,
I NEED TO GO VOTE IN OTHER
COMMITTEE AND HAND OVER THE
MIKE. DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER
OKAY, LET'S GO TO SENATOR
CABALLERO. SO I JUST DON'T KNOW
WHAT THE AMENDS ARE. AND I AND I
JUST HAVE TO EXPRESS FRUSTRATION
AT HAVING A COMPLICATED ISSUE IN
FRONT OF US. BUT I'M JUST NOT
SURE WHAT THE AMENDS FINALLY
DID. YES. THANK YOU. WE DID SEND
THEM AROUND, BUT IT WAS LATE IN
THE DAY AS WE WERE DISCUSSING.
SO I WILL ASK SENATOR STERN TO
READ OFF THE AMENDS. OKAY. TO
CLARIFY AND AGAIN, FOR MY OWN
PART, HOPEFULLY I'LL BE BACK BY
THE TIME WE VOTE. BUT I JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT. BALANCES, I
THINK, IS THE KEY WORD HERE. WE
WANT THESE DATA CENTERS. WE WANT
THEM ON OUR GRID. WE WANT THEM
THAT WILL BRING DOWN THE COST
FOR EVERYONE ELSE. BUT WE HAVE
TO DO IT IN A WAY, AS YOU SAY,
THAT DOESN'T CREATE STRANDED
ASSETS OR REQUIRE. WE DO LOTS OF
INVESTMENT. THEN THAT THEN GETS
LOST OR HURTS HURTS
NONPARTICIPATING CUSTOMERS IN
ANY WAY. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE
THE BALANCE THAT'S BEING STRUCK
HERE. I'LL ASK SENATOR STERN TO
TAKE OVER. I'LL BE RIGHT BACK.
OKAY, SO PER THE CHAIR, THE
AMENDMENTS WOULD FIRST LIMIT THE
TARIFF TO TRANSMISSION AND
DISTRIBUTION COSTS. IT WOULD
SHIFT ELIGIBILITY. DO YOU HAVE
THAT IN FRONT OF YOU? YOU WANT
TO CHECK? OKAY. LET ME KEEP
GOING OKAY. THEY WOULD SHIFT
ELIGIBILITY FOR THE TARIFF FROM
ONLY DATA CENTERS TO ANY
CUSTOMERS FOR FROM ONLY DATA
CENTERS TO ANY CUSTOMERS
INTERCONNECTING AT TRANSMISSION
LEVEL VOLTAGES WITH 50MW OR MORE
OF DEMAND. THAT WOULD CLARIFY
THAT THE TARIFF MUST PREVENT
COST SHIFTS TO NONPARTICIPATING
CUSTOMERS. THEY WOULD ELIMINATE
DUPLICATIVE TERMS. THEY WOULD
ALSO DELETE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE TARIFF TO MANDATE BEHIND THE
ENERGY, BEHIND THE METER, ENERGY
STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTED
GENERATION, AND INSTEAD
AUTHORIZE CPUC TO SET
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY STORAGE AND
BACKUP POWER REQUIREMENTS THAT
HELP ACHIEVE THE STATE TO MEET
ITS EMISSIONS REDUCTION GOALS.
AND THEN THEY WOULD ALSO REPLACE
THE MANDATORY ACCELERATED
PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS WITH AN
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CPUC TO
SET ZERO CARBON PROCUREMENT
REQUIREMENTS FOR TARIFFED
CUSTOMERS. SO HERE WAS MY
QUESTION, AND I'LL GET THE
LANGUAGE ALL ALL MESSED UP. BUT
MY CONCERN WAS REQUIRING THE
ACCELERATION OF THE MOVE TO ZERO
EMISSION ENERGY BEYOND WHAT WE
HAVE CURRENTLY. SO THAT THAT WAS
ONE OF MY CONCERNS. AND THEN
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THAT
WERE JUST EXPLAINED BY THE
CHAIR, ACTING CHAIR. STERN. SO
COULD YOU ADDRESS THAT ISSUE?
BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT. THAT I'M, I'M VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT IS, IS ANY TIME
WE ACCELERATE THINGS, IT COSTS
MORE IT. MR. CHAIR, MR. CHAIRMAN
AND SENATOR, GREAT QUESTION. AND
THE AMENDMENTS DO MAKE AND IT'S
VERY AND YOU KNOW THIS YOU CAN
RELATE VERY LAWYERLY SKILLED
MODIFICATION WHICH BUT IT DOES
MAKE IT TECHNICALLY
DISCRETIONARY AT MINIMUM
STANDARDS. IT INDICATES THAT THE
COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH
STANDARDS FOR PROCUREMENT AT
ZERO EMISSION PROCUREMENT. BUT
IT ISN'T PRESCRIPTIVE, AND IT
DOESN'T NECESSARILY CONTRAVENE
THE EXISTING TIMETABLE, BUT IT
MAKES IT CIRCUMSTANTIALLY
POSSIBLE. BUT IT ISN'T A
MANDATE. SO THE LANGUAGE IN THE
AMENDMENT IS A LITTLE MORE
FLEXIBLE. AND THAT WAS
INTENTIONAL. OKAY, I APPRECIATE
THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
THAT EXPLANATION. RIGHT NOW, I'M
NOT GOING TO SUPPORT ANYTHING
THAT'S GOING TO GO. IT'S GOING
TO ACCELERATE THE TRANSITION
UNLESS IT'S. WELL AND LET ME
EXPLAIN WHY. BECAUSE WHAT'S
HAPPENING IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY
IS THIS ACCELERATION OF SOLAR IN
PLACE OF AGRICULTURE. AND I'VE
HAD THIS DISCUSSION MANY TIMES
PUBLICLY ABOUT THE FACT THAT
THEY DON'T PAY. YOU DON'T PAY
TAXES ON SOLAR. YOUR YOUR
PUTTING A CHAIN LINK FENCE
AROUND THE FACILITY, WHICH MEANS
THAT YOU'RE DISRUPTING WILDLIFE
CORRIDORS. THERE'S JUST THIS
TERRIBLE IMPACT ON AN AREA WHERE
BLOWING DUST IS REALLY BAD. AND
BEFORE WE MOVE TOWARDS MORE
SOLAR AND I'M ALL FOR SOLAR, WE
LOOK AT OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT
ACTUALLY CREATE JOBS. AND I WANT
TO SECOND WHAT MY FELLOW SENATOR
FROM THE CENTRAL VALLEY SAYS IS
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN
SEQUESTER CARBON THAT PROVIDES
JOBS AND WE NEED TO DO IT. SO I
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I MAY
SUPPORT IT IN THE FUTURE, BUT
RIGHT NOW I'M JUST NOT WILLING
TO DO IT. OKAY. SIR. SURE. I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND
HAPPY TO MOVE THE BILL AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. FOOD FOR
THOUGHT. I'M A COAUTHOR OF THE
MEASURE, SO I THINK I THINK, YOU
KNOW, I'M ALREADY I'M PREACHING
TO MYSELF. BUT I DO THINK MAYBE
AS WE MOVE FORWARD, LOOKING AT
THAT ZERO CARBON PROCUREMENT
REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW FOR THE
BROADEST POSSIBLE RANGE OF TECH,
TECHNOLOGICAL FLEXIBILITY, LIKE
TECH TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS TO SORT
OF SAY, OKAY, THIS ISN'T JUST A
SOLAR BATTERY RANGE OF OPTIONS
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ZERO CARBON
THAT, YOU KNOW, AS ADVANCES
EMERGE IN EVERYTHING FROM
NUCLEAR FUSION TO, YOU KNOW, ALL
THE CARBON CAPTURE STUFF. SO
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO THINK
IT THROUGH. BUT I DO APPRECIATE
THE AUTHOR'S HARD WORK ON THE
MEASURE AND WOULD MOVE THE BILL.
OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? A VERY QUICK
COMMENT, MR. CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO
THANK THE SENATOR FROM NEWBURY
PARK. IS THAT YOU? ARE YOU LIVE
ON YOUR MIC? SAY AGAIN? YES. I'D
LIKE TO THANK THE SENATOR
FORMERLY FROM MALIBU, NOW
NEWBURY PARK. IS THAT WHERE
YOU'RE FROM? SHERMAN OAKS.
SHERMAN OAKS? YES. HER BAD.
YEAH. AND THAT THANK YOU FOR
THAT COMMENT. I THINK WE NEED TO
LOOK AT ALL TYPES OF TECHNOLOGY
ESPECIALLY. IT'S EMERGING. AND I
APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE
CENTRAL VALLEY'S COMMENTS ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, DESTROYING AG LAND FOR
SOLAR AND TAKING IT OUT OF TAX
PRODUCTION AND FOOD PRODUCTION.
SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.
APPRECIATE THAT. ALL RIGHT. A
LOT OF KUDOS HERE. OKAY. WE
WILL. WE READ THE AMENDMENTS AND
A LOT GOING ON HERE WITH
JUGGLING COMMITTEES HERE TODAY.
WE READ THE AMENDMENTS. WE HAVE
A MOTION FROM SENATOR STERN.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE BRIEFLY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD
JUST SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
FOCUS OF THE BILL IS TO VERY
DISCREETLY AND VERY SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESSED COST SHIFTS. OUR
RATEPAYERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE,
CONSUMERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE
ARE STRUGGLING WITH
AFFORDABILITY ON A VARIETY OF
FRONTS. THIS IS A MECHANISM THAT
CAN PREVENT THOSE UNNECESSARILY
BEING SHIFTED TO RATEPAYERS. SO
THIS IS AN AFFORDABILITY
MEASURE. IT IS ALSO ONE THAT I
THINK IS FLEXIBLE, REASONABLE
AND FLEXIBLE TO ENCOURAGE BOTH
ON SITE DISTRIBUTED SOURCING OR
STORAGE IN A WAY THAT IS
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE AS
PRACTICABLE AND ALSO IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE'S GHG
REDUCTION GOALS, THEREFORE, AND
SEEKS TO ACHIEVE THIS IN A WAY
THAT STRIKES A BALANCE BETWEEN
PREVENTING THE COST SHIFT TO
CONSUMERS, MAINTAINING
ALLEGIANCE TO OUR RENEWABLE
GOALS AND CLEAN ENERGY GOALS,
AND AT THE SAME TIME PROVIDING
HOPEFULLY AN ATMOSPHERE WHERE WE
WILL HAVE INVESTMENT IN THE
STATE AND WE WILL BE A HOME TO
MANY OF THESE CENTERS AND OTHER
LARGE CONSUMERS AS WE RAPIDLY
DEVELOP NEW TECHNOLOGY. AND WITH
THAT, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR A VOTE. EXCELLENT. WELL, I
ALREADY STATED EARLIER, I
APPRECIATE THE BALANCE HERE, AND
I THINK THIS IS GOING TO FORWARD
THINKING THAT CALIFORNIA IS
KNOWN FOR, AS WE WANT THESE DATA
CENTERS HERE, BUT WE WANT TO
HAVE THE PROTECTIONS. I
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK. THAT
MOTION IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SENATOR. SENATORS BECKER A
BECKER. AYE. ACHO. NO. OKOBOJI.
NO ALLEN. ARCHULETA A ARCHULETA
I ARAGON. ARAGON I ASHBY.
CABALLERO. DALLEY. DALI. NO.
GONZALEZ. GROVE. GROVE. NO.
HURTADO. LEMON. LEMON I
MCNERNEY. MCNERNEY I. RUBIO.
STERN. STERN I STRICKLAND. WILL.
HOPPE. SO 6 TO 3 VOTE IS 6 TO 3
AND WE'LL LEAVE THAT THAT THAT
BILL OPEN THE ROLL OPEN WITH
YOUR INDULGENCE. SENATOR
PADILLA, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE
ROLL ON A COUPLE OTHER ITEMS
BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME FOLKS WHO
ARE JUGGLING COMMITTEES. SO I
WILL ASK THE OUR COMMITTEE
ASSISTANT TO START WITH THE TOP
OF THE LIST. OKAY. SO DID YOU
WANT TO GO DOWN LIKE THIS
BECAUSE HE DID THIS ONE AND
THEN. YES. SO. SB 282, SENATOR
WIENER, THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. CURRENT VOTE SEVEN
ZERO CHAIR VOTING AYE. NOT
VOTING A CHOBOQ NOT VOTING.
ALLEN. ERGENE. ERGENE. AYE.
DALLEY. GONZALEZ. GROVE.
HURTADO. LEMON A LEMON I
STRICKLAND. WAHAB. SO IT HAS
ENOUGH VOTES. DO YOU WANT TO
LEAVE IT OPEN FOR I THINK WHAT
CHÁVEZ. YES, WE WILL CONTINUE TO
LEAVE THAT OPEN. BUT THIS 9 TO
0. OKAY. AND THE NEXT ONE IS. IS
OKAY. SB 636 OF OUR MOTION IS TO
PASS, AS AMENDED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
CURRENT VOTE EIGHT ONE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. CHO. VOTE NO. CHO.
VOGUE. NO. ALLEN. ARAGON.
ARAGON. AYE. GROVE. GROVE. NO.
HURTADO. LEMON A LEMON I.
STRICKLAND. WAHAB. OKAY. THAT IS
A VOTE IS 10 TO 3. WE WILL LEAVE
THAT ROLL OPEN. OKAY? SB 13,
GROVE Dð PASS IS AMENDED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
CURRENT VOTE SEVEN ZERO. BECKER.
BECKER I AKOBO. AKOBO I ARAGON.
ARAGON I ASHBY. GONZALEZ.
HURTADO. LEMON. LEMON I RUBIO.
STRICKLAND. WAHAB. THAT IS 11 TO
0. WE WILL KEEP THAT ROLL OPEN.
98. FILE ITEM SIX SB 298
CABALLERO DO PASS IS AMENDED TO
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE.
CURRENT VOTE SIX ZERO BECKER
CHAIR VOTING AYE. A CHOBO
VOTING, NOT VOTING ALLEN ARAGON.
ARAGON I ASHBY. DALLEY. GONZALEZ.
HURTADO. LEMON. LEMON I RUBIO.
STRICKLAND. WAHAB. THAT IS 8 TO
0. KEEP THAT. WE'LL KEEP THAT
OPEN. FILE ITEM SEVEN SB 593.
HURTADO. CURRENT VOTE FOUR ONE
DO PASS AS AMENDED AND REFERRED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY.
BECKER I, BECKER I ACHO BOGUE
NO. AKOBO. NO. ALLEN. ARAGON.
ARAGON I ASHBY. GONZALEZ. GROVE.
LEMON. LEMON I MCNERNEY. NO.
THIS IS ONE I DIDN'T. OKAY.
OKAY. MCNERNEY. NOT VOTING.
RUBIO. STRICKLAND. WAHAB. THAT
BILL IS 7 TO 2. WE WILL LEAVE
THAT ROLL OPEN. ONE MORE. LET'S
SEE. WE HAVE ONE MORE. SB 698
MCNERNEY DO PASSES AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE
FIVE TWO. CHAIR. VOTING AYE.
ACHO BOGUE. SORRY. THAT'S OVER.
SEVEN IS EIGHT. SORRY. NO. ACHO
BOGUE. NO. ALLEN ARAGON. ARAGON
I ASHBY. GONZALEZ. HURTADO.
LEMON A LEMON I RUBIO.
STRICKLAND. WAHAB. SEVEN THREE.
THAT IS SEVEN THREE. WE WILL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN ON THAT
BILL. EXCELLENT. WELL, THANK YOU
FOR THOSE WHO ADDED ON, WE WILL
NOW GO TO SENATOR PADILLA FOR
YOUR SECOND BILL. FILE ITEM TWO
SB 473. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIRMAN. AND MEMBERS, I'M
PLEASED TO PRESENT THE BILL.
IT'S A BILL FOCUSED ON WATER
RATE, AFFORDABILITY AND
CONSERVATION. IT'S A FOLLOW UP
TO SB 1469 BY SENATOR BRADFORD,
WHICH WAS PASSED AND SIGNED INTO
LAW IN 2022. IT AMENDS THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE TO PROVIDE
THE CPUC HAVE MECHANISMS IN
PLACE THAT ENSURE THAT WATER
UTILITIES DO NOT OVER COLLECT OR
UNDER COLLECT FROM RATEPAYERS.
THE CPUC CURRENTLY HAS THIS
AUTHORITY FOR ENERGY UTILITIES
AND WE ARE ADDING THIS TO WATER
UTILITIES. HOW THIS HAS BEEN
DONE HISTORICALLY IS THROUGH THE
USE OF REVENUE DECOUPLING, WHERE
YOU'RE LITERALLY DECOUPLING HOW
MUCH A UTILITY MAKES FROM HOW
MUCH THEY SELL. THIS REMOVES THE
INCENTIVE TO SELL AS MUCH WATER
AS POSSIBLE, AND INSTEAD ALLOWS
THE STATE AND THE UTILITY TO
PROMOTE CONSERVATION AND
EFFICIENCY. 2008 THE CPUC
AUTHORIZED THE START OF A PILOT
PROGRAM TO ALLOW WATER UTILITIES
TO DECOUPLE THEIR REVENUES IN
HOPES OF ENCOURAGING WATER
CONSERVATION. THE DOCUMENTATION
FROM THAT TRIAL INDICATES THAT
UTILITIES THAT IMPLEMENTED
DECOUPLING AVERAGING 29%
DECREASE IN CUSTOMER WATER USE
FROM 2009 TO 2021, WHILE THOSE
THAT DID NOT DECOUPLE
EXPERIENCED ONLY A 24% DECREASE,
A DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT 11 BILLION
GALLONS OF WATER. IN ADDITION,
UTILITIES THAT IMPLEMENT
DECOUPLING MECHANISMS CAN KEEP
WATER RATES LOWER THAN OTHER
RATE MECHANISMS. THIS IS
ACCOMPLISHED BY CREATING TIERS
FOR WATER USE THAT THOSE THAT
USE LESS PAY LESS PER UNIT.
THOSE THAT PAY USE MORE, PAY
MORE. DATA SHOWS THAT LOWER USE
HOUSEHOLDS ARE TYPICALLY LOWER
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, WHILE HIGHER
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS USE MORE AS
THEY HAVE TYPICALLY LARGER
PROPERTY HOLDINGS. BY CREATING
TIERED RATE STRUCTURES, WATER
UTILITIES ARE ABLE TO SHIFT MORE
OF THEIR COSTS TO HIGHER USE,
HIGHER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. IN THE
YEARS SINCE THAT, THE WATER
UTILITY COLLECTS MORE REVENUE
THAN PROJECTED, THE UTILITY WILL
ISSUE A CREDIT BACK TO THE
CUSTOMER. THIS HAS BEEN DONE
NUMEROUS TIMES SINCE THE PROGRAM
BEGAN, TO THE TUNE OF 37
MILLION. CONVERSELY, IN YEARS
THAT THE WATER UNDER COLLECTS
REVENUE, THE UTILITY CAN USE
PROPORTIONAL SURCHARGE TO ENSURE
THAT THE UTILITY CAN RECOVER
COSTS WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER
RATEMAKING STRATEGIES.
DECOUPLING ALLOWS FOR LOWER
WATER RATES FOR LOWER USE AND
MEDIUM USE CUSTOMERS. FOR
EXAMPLE, IN THE AREAS OF
CALIPATRIA AND NILAND IN MY
DISTRICT IN IMPERIAL COUNTY,
WHERE DECOUPLING HAS NOW BEEN
DENIED BY THE CPUC, WATER RATES
FOR THE BOTTOM TIERS OF WATER
USERS HAVE GONE UP BY AS MUCH AS
116%, WHILE THE TOP TIERS WATER
USERS ARE SEEING BILL REDUCTIONS
OF UP TO 17.9%. THIS IS SENDING
THE EXACT OPPOSITE MESSAGE THAT
THE STATE IS TRYING TO SEND ON
BOTH AFFORDABILITY AND ON WATER
CONSERVATION. UTILITIES NEED
DEPENDABLE FUNDING FOR NECESSARY
INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND
UPGRADES THAT ENABLE THEM TO
CONTINUE DELIVERING SAFELY TO
CUSTOMERS, AND DECOUPLING HELPS
PROVIDE DEPENDABLE RESOURCES TO
INVEST IN THOSE PROJECTS. SB 473
WILL ENSURE STEADY FUNDING FOR
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, SO WATER
SUPPLIERS CAN INVEST IN A SAFE,
RELIABLE WATER SYSTEMS AND FIX
LEAKING PIPES, UPDATE UPDATE
HYDRANTS AND STRENGTHEN WATER
QUALITY CHECKS WITHOUT PUTTING
CUSTOMERS ON THE HOOK. WITH ME
TODAY I HAVE PAUL ROWLEY FROM
THE GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY
AND LINDA B¢O WITH CALIFORNIA
WATER EFFICIENCY PARTNERSHIP.
OKAY. THANK YOU. EACH HAVE TWO
MINUTES, MR. ROWLEY. GO AHEAD
WHEN YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU.
CHAIR BECKER AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS PAUL ROWLEY
WITH GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY.
JUST A BRIEF HISTORY OF GOLDEN
STATE WATER COMPANY. WE PROVIDE
SERVICE TO 66,000 CUSTOMERS IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
INCLUDING THE SENATORS DISTRICT
OF CALIPATRIA. WE RECENTLY HAD A
NEW RATE FILING, WHICH WE HAD TO
IMPLEMENT THE RATES WITHOUT
DECOUPLING. AND TO THE SENATOR'S
POINT THAT HE MADE ABOUT
CALIPATRIA, A VERY POOR
COMMUNITY IN THE IMPERIAL
VALLEY, WE HAD TO SHIFT THE
REVENUE SIDE TO THE SERVICE
CHARGE AWAY FROM THE COMMODITY
RATE. WITH DECOUPLING, WE CAN
ACTUALLY GET REVENUE FROM THE
ACTUAL WATER USAGE SIDE. WITHOUT
DECOUPLING, WE HAD TO INCREASE
THE SERVICE CHARGE. AS THE
SENATOR POINTED OUT, WE HAVE
CUSTOMERS NOW IN LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES, AND LOW WATER USERS
IN GENERAL HAVE A MUCH HIGHER
WATER BILL, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE
SERVICE CHARGE IS MUCH HIGHER
NOW THAN THE WATER USAGE RATE.
WE HAD TO DO THAT TO HAVE A
STABLE REVENUE COMING IN TO
AGAIN, TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN
AND IMPROVE OUR WATER SYSTEMS.
WITH DECOUPLING, WE'RE ALLOWED
TO HAVE A RATE THAT ACTUALLY
GENERATED INCOME FROM THE ACTUAL
WATER USAGE SIDE, AND YOU CAN
HAVE A LOWER SURCHARGE OR
SERVICE CHARGE. AND AGAIN, WATER
USERS THAT USE MORE WATER PAID
MORE FOR THE WATER USE WATER USE
THAT USE LESS, HAD LOWER WATER
BILLS AND PAID LESS FOR THE
OVERALL REVENUE REQUIREMENT, BUT
AGAIN APPROVED BY THE PUC. SO
AGAIN, WE APPRECIATE THE
SENATOR'S UNDERSTANDING OF THAT
CONCEPT. THE OTHER PIECE THAT
THE SENATOR POINTED OUT IS ALL
WATER UTILITIES, WHETHER YOU'RE
INVESTOR OWNED OR PUBLICLY
MANAGED WATER UTILITIES, WE NEED
STABILITY IN OUR INCOME. WE HAVE
LONG TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS. WE HAVE
REGULATORY ISSUES THAT COME UP
AND DEMAND TO HAVE A STABLE,
RESOURCE, STABLE FINANCIAL
PLATFORM TO ALLOW US TO PLAN FOR
THESE LONG TERM PROJECTS. IT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE JUST DON'T
THINK ABOUT AND CAN DEPLOY
WITHIN A COUPLE OF MONTHS. WE
NEED REVENUE TO MAINTAIN THESE
LONG TERM PLANS, TO IMPROVE, TO
MAINTAIN AND TO ADD THE CAPITAL
NEEDED TO MAINTAIN THE WATER
QUALITY REQUIREMENTS PUT FORTH,
BY THE WAY, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OR THE STATE WITHOUT
DECOUPLING. WE ARE AT THIS
REVENUE VOLATILITY KIND OF
SITUATION. PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT
FOLLOW PROP 18 PROCESS, THEY
HAVE SOLVED THE REVENUE
VOLATILITY PIECE BY APPROVING
RESERVE FUNDS, PART OF THEIR
RATE, THEIR RATE FILING PROCESS.
THEY HAVE THESE RESERVE FUNDS
THAT ARE APPROVED IN THEIR RATE
SETTING PROCESS THAT BASICALLY
PARKS MONEY OFF TO THE SIDE,
THAT DEALS WITH VOLATILITY
RELATED TO SALES DECLINES. IF
SALES ARE LOW ONE YEAR, THEY CAN
PULL FROM THESE RESERVES AND
ACTUALLY CONTINUE THEIR PROCESS
OF BUILDING AND IMPROVING THEIR
INFRASTRUCTURE. THE PUC DOES NOT
ALLOW US TO HAVE ANY KIND OF
RESERVE FUNDS. WHAT WE CHARGE ON
THE BILL IS THE ONLY RESOURCE WE
HAVE TO FUND THE OPERATION AND
THE MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS
OF OUR WATER SYSTEM. SO THE
SENATORS SB 473, WE APPRECIATE
HIM BRINGING THIS FORWARD. WE
SUPPORT IT. IT WILL RESTORE US
BACK TO A DECOUPLED ENVIRONMENT,
WHICH ALLOWS US TO HAVE A LOWER
SERVICE CHARGE AND GENERATE
REVENUE FROM THE ACTUAL WATER
USAGE. IT REWARDS THOSE LOW
WATER USERS. IT ALSO ENABLES
THOSE CUSTOMERS IN OUR LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES TO BE ABLE TO
HAVE A LOWER WATER BILL AND
CONTROL THEIR WATER BILL, SO WE
ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE SENATOR
SENATOR PADILLA PUT THIS BILL
FORWARD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. THANK YOU. HAVE YOUR
SECOND WITNESS. I'M SORRY. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR BECKER AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
LINDA VÚI, AND I'M THE SENIOR
POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGER WITH
THE CALIFORNIA WATER EFFICIENCY
PARTNERSHIP, ALSO KNOWN AS CAL
CO-OP, IS A NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO
MAXIMIZING WATER EFFICIENCY. WE
ARE A STATE CHAPTER OF THE
ALLIANCE FOR WATER EFFICIENCY
AND HAVE OVER 220 MEMBER
ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING INVESTOR
OWNED WATER UTILITIES. WE ARE IN
SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 473. OUR
CLIMATE IS CHANGING AND DROUGHTS
ARE BECOMING OUR NEW NORMAL. IN
RESPONSE TO A PREVIOUS SEVERE
DROUGHT, WHICH LASTED FROM 2012
TO 2016, THE LEGISLATURE PASSED
TWO BILLS IN 2018, AB 1668 AND
SB 606, DEDICATED TO MAKING
WATER CONSERVATION A WAY OF LIFE
THROUGHOUT THE STATE IN ORDER TO
REACH THE STATE'S WATER
CONSERVATION GOALS, MEANINGFUL
ACTIONS AND EFFECTIVE TOOLS ARE
NEEDED. WITHOUT SB 473, WATER
SUPPLIERS WILL BE DETACHED FROM
CALIFORNIA'S WATER CONSERVATION
GOALS AND HAVE A PERVERSE
INCENTIVE TO SELL AS MUCH WATER
AS POSSIBLE. SB 473 WILL
ENCOURAGE WATER UTILITIES
REGULATED BY THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TO
PURSUE ROBUST WATER CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS AND MEASURES. THE BILL
ACHIEVES THIS BY ENSURING THAT
THE PUC PERMITS WATER UTILITIES
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A TOOL
KNOWN AS DECOUPLING, WHICH CUTS
THE LINKS BETWEEN A UTILITY'S
REVENUES AND ITS SALES. AS A
RESULT, WATER UTILITIES WILL NOT
BE INCENTIVIZED TO SELL AS MUCH
WATER AS POSSIBLE IN ORDER TO
MAKE A PROFIT, AND WILL STILL BE
ABLE TO COVER THE COSTS OF
PROVIDING SAFE AND AFFORDABLE
DRINKING WATER. ADDITIONALLY, SB
473 WILL CREATE PARITY BETWEEN
INVESTOR OWNED ELECTRIC
UTILITIES AND WATER UTILITIES
REGULATED BY THE PUC. CURRENTLY,
ONLY ELECTRIC UTILITIES CAN
UTILIZE THE MECHANISM OF
DECOUPLING. THIS WAS PUT INTO
PLACE DECADES AGO WHEN REDUCING
ENERGY DEMAND WAS IMPERATIVE FOR
CALIFORNIA. IT IS NOW TIME WE DO
THE SAME FOR INVESTOR OWNED
WATER UTILITIES. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE OTHERS IN SUPPORT IN
THE ROOM? MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS, SCOTT WELSH, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE PIPE
TRADES COUNCIL AND THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF UTILITY
EMPLOYEES IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. JENNIFER CAPETILLO
WITH THE CALIFORNIA WATER
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. SARAH BRENNAN WITH WHITMAN
GROUP, ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
WATER SERVICE AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, CHRIS ANDERSON, CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR
MEMBERS DANNY MURPHY WITH THE
WALKER GROUP ON BEHALF OF SAN
JOSE WATER AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. MELISSA SPARKS WITH THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN
SUPPORT. EXCELLENT. OKAY.
OPPOSITION MAY HAVE I BELIEVE WE
DO HAVE A LEAD OPPOSITION
WITNESS. IS THAT CORRECT? NO. DO
NOT SEE THE OPPOSITION HERE IN
THE ROOM. AND SO WE'LL TAKE IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR
DISCUSSION. MOVE THAT BILL.
SENATOR ARCHULETA. SENATOR RUBIO
HAS A COMMENT. YEAH. JUST REAL
QUICK. I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT'S JUST BEEN NEEDED FOR SO
VERY LONG. YOU KNOW, I THINK IT
REALLY DOES INCENTIVIZE THAT
CONSERVATION PIECE. BUT BUT ALSO
JUST BEING ABLE TO ENSURE THAT
THOSE THAT CAN'T NOT AFFORD IT
COULD, YOU KNOW, PLAN AHEAD, AS
I BELIEVE YOU MENTIONED, IN
TERMS OF BUDGETING, BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW, I'M ONE OF THOSE THAT
NEVER USES HARDLY ANYTHING. AND
I CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, WHERE IT
WOULD HELP SOMEONE WITH LOWER
MEANS. AND SO I THINK FAMILIES
NEED THAT EXTRA HELP. AND
WHATEVER WE CAN DO NOW,
ESPECIALLY WITH THE HOW MUCH THE
COST OF LIVING IS, I THINK THIS
IS JUST A RIGHTEOUS BILL. AND SO
I WOULD LIKE TO BE A COAUTHOR,
IF I MAY, AND MOVE THE BILL. I'M
SORRY IT WAS ALREADY MOVED, BUT
THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER. WELL
EXCELLENT I WELL, FIRST DO YOU
HAVE A AND DO YOU ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS. DID YOU. I DID, YES,
SIR. EXCELLENT. WE WILL ACCEPT
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AND I
WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. I WAS I WAS
A JOINT AUTHOR OF THE BRADFORD
BILL THAT PRECEDED THIS. I
APPRECIATE YOU PICKING UP THE
MANTLE OF THIS EFFORT. AND, YOU
KNOW, IT MAKES ITS COMMON SENSE
TO ME. AND I HAVE AN AYE
RECOMMENDATION. I WILL ASK THE
COMMITTEE ASSISTANT TO CALL THE
ROLL. THE MOTION IS TO DO PASS,
AS AMENDED, TO THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
SENATOR. BECKER. BECKER. AYE. AT
OKOBOJI. AYE. ALLEN. ARCHULETA.
ARCHULETA. AYE. ARAGON. ARAGON.
AYE. ASHBY. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. DALLY. AYE.
DALLY. AYE. GONZALEZ. GROVE.
GROVE. AYE. HURTADO. LEMON.
LEMON. AYE. MCNERNEY. MCNERNEY.
AYE. RUBIO. STERNE. RUBIO. AYE.
SORRY. STERN. STERN. AYE.
STRICKLAND. WAHAB. OKAY. THAT IS
11 TO 0. WE WILL KEEP THE ROLL
OPEN. THANK YOU, SENATOR
PADILLA. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS. OKAY. WE
WILL. YEAH. I THINK YOU WERE ON
EVERYTHING. WE HAVE A FEW OTHERS
THAT WE'LL NEED TO ADD ON. MR.
MISTER CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO
CHANGE A VOTE. FROM NOVO TO AYE
ON SB 593. MR. HERE WE GO. YES.
YEAH, I KNOW, SORRY. NO, IT'S
OKAY. I KNOW I'VE BEEN TEXTING
HER, BUT I ALSO. THINK. OKAY,
I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE ROLL ON
593. SO. SB 593 CURRENT VOTE 72
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING NO. ALLEN. ASHBY. AYE.
ASHBY. AYE. GONZALEZ. GROVE.
GROVE. NO. MCNERNEY. MCNERNEY.
AYE. RUBIO. RUBIO. AYE.
STRICKLAND. WAHAB. THAT BILL IS
10 TO 3. WE'LL KEEP THE ROLL
OPEN. OKAY. CAN I TURN THIS
OVER? STERN VOTE. ABSOLUTELY. OR
DO YOU WANT TO OPEN ALL THE ROLL
CALLS? YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. LET'S
SEE. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE'LL START
FROM THE BEGINNING. YES OKAY.
YES. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN
THE ROLL FOR FILE NUMBER ONE SB
57. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL OKAY. SO WHEN I'M DONE
TAKING A ROLL. SHE SAID RIGHT
NOW. CAN YOU, CAN YOU DO THEM
RIGHT NOW AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE
HER. OKAY. SB 57 CURRENT VOTE
SIX THREE. BECKER VOTING AYE.
CHOBOQ VOTING NO. ALLEN. ALLEN I
ASHBY. ASHBY I CABALLERO.
GONZALEZ. HURTADO I. HURTADO I.
RUBIO I. RUBIO I. STRICKLAND.
WAHAB. SO CURRENTLY IS 10 TO 3.
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THAT OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBER OKAY. NOW FOR
73. WE'LL NOW MOVE FORWARD WITH
FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO SB 473.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL OKAY. CURRENT VOTE 11 ZERO.
CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
ALLEN. ALLEN. AYE. ASHBY. ASHBY.
AYE. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE.
HURTADO. HURTADO. AYE.
STRICKLAND. WAHAB. ALL RIGHT.
THAT VOTE IS 15 TO 0. LEAVE THAT
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBER. WE'LL
NOW CONTINUE WITH FILE NUMBER.
FILE ITEM NUMBER THREE SB 282.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. CURRENT VOTE NINE ZERO SB
282 BY WIENER CHAIR VOTING AYE
ALLEN. ALLEN. AYE. DALLI.
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE.
HURTADO. HURTADO. AYE.
STRICKLAND. WAHAB. ALL RIGHT.
THAT IS 12 TO 0. WE ARE GOING TO
LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS WILL NOW CONTINUE WITH
FILE ITEM NUMBER FOUR SB 636.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. CURRENT VOTE TEN THREE.
CHAIR. VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR.
VOTING NO. ALLEN. ALLEN. AYE.
HURTADO. HURTADO. AYE.
STRICKLAND. WAHAB. OKAY. THAT IS
12 TO 3. WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. WE'LL
CONTINUE WITH FILE ITEM NUMBER
FIVE, SB 13. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. CURRENT
VOTE 11 ZERO. BOTH CHAIR AND
VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE. ASHBY.
AYE. ASHBY. AYE. GONZALEZ. I
JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. SHE TOOK
AMENDMENTS. YES. YES OKAY. I
GONZALEZ. AYE. HURTADO. HURTADO.
AYE. RUBIO. RUBIO. AYE.
STRICKLAND. WAHAB OKAY. THAT IS
15 TO 0. WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. WE'LL
CONTINUE WITH FILE ITEM NUMBER
SIX SB 298. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. CURRENT
VOTE EIGHT ZERO. CHAIR VOTING
AYE. ALLEN. ALLEN. AYE. ASHBY.
ASHBY. AYE. ALI. GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ. AYE. HURTADO. HURTADO.
AYE. RUBIO I. RUBIO. AYE.
STRICKLAND. WAHAB. ALL RIGHT.
THAT IS 13 TO 0. WE'LL LEAVE
THAT OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBER.
WE'LL CONTINUE NOW WITH FILE
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SB 593.
CURRENT VOTE TEN THREE. CHAIR.
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR. VOTING
NO. ALLEN. ALLEN. AYE. GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ. AYE. STRICKLAND. WAHAB
OKAY. THAT IS 12 TO 3. WE'LL
WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS WILL NOW CONTINUE WITH
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT SB 698.
CURRENT VOTE SEVEN THREE. CHAIR.
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR. VOTING
NO. ALLEN. ALLEN. AYE. ASHBY.
AYE. ASHBY. AYE. GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ. AYE. HURTADO. HURTADO.
AYE. RUBIO I. RUBIO. AYE.
STRICKLAND. WAHAB. OKAY. THAT IS
12 TO 3. WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE
THAT OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS AND
THAT'S IT. RIGHT. Ó IS ON HER
WAY. SO WE'LL HAVE TO DO THIS
ALL OVER AGAIN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO WAIT FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. ONE MORE. I
THINK THAT'S THE LAST ONE. I
NEED TO HAVE TO HAVE A VICE
CHAIR. OKAY, WE WILL GO AHEAD
AND GO BACK TO FILE ITEM NUMBER
ONE AND SB FIVE SEVEN. OKAY.
CURRENT VOTE TEN THREE.
CABALLERO. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I.
STRICKLAND. WAHAB OKAY. WE'LL
LEAVE THAT OPEN. THAT'S 11 TO 3.
WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. GREAT.
OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE
ROLL STARTING WITH SB 57.
PADILLA. ABSENT MEMBERS. CURRENT
VOTE 11 TO 3. WAHAB. AYE. WAHAB.
AYE. VOTE IS 12 TO 3. THAT BILL
IS OUT NOW. WE'LL GO TO SB 473.
PADILLA. CURRENT VOTE 15 TO 0.
WAHAB. FOR 73. WILL HAVE NOT
VOTING. OKAY OKAY. THE VOTE THEN
IS 15 TO 0. THAT BILL IS OUT
OKAY. 282. OKAY OKAY. SO SB 282
WIENER CURRENT VOTE 12 TO 0
ABSENT MEMBERS. WAHAB. WAHAB AYE
13 TO 0. THAT BILL IS OUT. WE'LL
NOW GO ON FILE FOR SB 636
MENGIBAR. CURRENT VOTE 12 TO 3.
WAHAB. AYE. WAHAB. AYE 13 TO 3.
THAT BILL IS OUT AND WE'LL GO TO
SB 13 FILE ON FIVE. GROVE
CURRENT VOTE 15 ZERO. WAHAB.
WAHAB. AYE, 16 TO 0. THAT BILL
IS OUT. FILE SIX, SB 298.
CABALLERO. CURRENT VOTE 13 ZERO
WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE, THAT IS 14 TO
0. THAT BILL IS OUT. AND THEN
WE'LL GO TO FILE ITEM SEVEN SB
593. HURTADO CURRENT VOTE 12 TO
3. WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE. VOTE IS 13
TO 3. THAT BILL IS OUT AND
FINALLY FILE EIGHT SB 698
MCNERNEY. CURRENT VOTE 12 THREE
WAHAB WAHAB. AYE. THE 13 TO 3.
THAT BILL IS OUT. THANK THANK
YOU. THAT CONCLUDES OUR HEARING
TODAY. WE APPRECIATE EVERYONE
WHO WEIGHED IN. AND WITH THAT,
THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY,
UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS IS
ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.