Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communication will come to order. Good morning. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide comment. For today's participation code is 877-226-8163 that's 877-226-8163 and the access code is 736-2834 again, 736-2834 we're holding our Committee hearing here in the old street building. I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in room 1200 so we can establish our quorum and begin today's hearing. We have four bills on today's agenda.

We'll be hearing presentations on the bills. Let's establish a quorum. But we are still short. Are we here? We need two more. We'll start as a subcommittee and we can't. I'm going to welcome Senator Laird. He has SB 610. You can make your presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, it's a pleasure to be here as the one Senator who is not a Member of this Committee. Senate Bill 610 will direct the chair of the California Energy Commission to appear annually before the relevant legislative committees to report on the Commission's clean energy plan and responsibilities. In 2021, an identical bill passed this Committee with bipartisan support, authored by the former Committee chair. There was no opposition in the past, and that remains true today.

The Commission's role in implementing clean energy policies has become increasingly important as the state works toward its clean energy goals. And in the last few years, we have set very important bills on that subject to the Commission, not the least of which was AB 525 in 2021 to set goals and deal with offshore wind. That is in the purview of the Commission.

And last year's SB 846 by Senator Dodd on Diablo Canyon that contained $1 billion for additional renewable energy in the state that would be prioritized by the Energy Commission. And so it makes having a report back regularly and annually to the relevant committees, of which I assume this will be one even more important. So I thank you, look forward to any questions, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Are there any principal witnesses?

No witnesses. We have a late letter from Sempra, but we have no principal in support. No principal.

Okay. Are there any witnesses here in the room who wish to testify in support of SB 610? If so, state your name.

Good morning. Nicole Fernandez with government affairs manager for San Diego Gas and Electric, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses?

Patrick Welch, California Municipal Utilities Association, also in support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Hearing and seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? There are none. Before we move any further, let's establish a quorum consultant. Please call the role.

[Roll Call].

Members of quorum is present. Before we continue on, we have to adopt the Committee rules. It's been moved by our Vice Chair without objection. Any objections? Without objection. The Committee rules have been adopted. And now we'll go back to the bill before us. SB 610. We're going to the phone lines now. Senator Caballero, you had a question?

No.

Can we go to phone lines or there are any witnesses wishing to testify in support via the teleconference?

To speak in support of this bill, press one, then zero at this time. An AT&T specialist will provide you with your line number with which you'll be identified. We will first go to line 18. Line 18, your line is open.

Laura Parra on behalf of Southern California Edison, in support.

We have another line queuing up. One moment. While we provide their line number. We will open line 21. Go ahead.

Christina Scaringe for the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Mr. Chair, we have no further lines in queue.

Thank you. Now we'll move to anyone wishing to testify in opposition. Is anyone queued for opposition?

To speak in opposition, press one, then zero at this time. And, Mr. Chairman, we have no lines queuing up.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Vice Chair Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Laird, thanks for bringing this bill forward. This has been a bill that's been tried before and not succeed, or it didn't go through. So I wanted to see your commitment on the fact that this bill is actually going to be carried all the way through and it will actually get to the governor's desk. I don't think there's been any opposition, and it's been used before for a vehicle to move to other committees and then been gutted and changed.

So I just really think this needs to happen. We need to have the CEC in front of this body, as we do with the CPUC and we do with many other agencies that need oversight. And it's an unelected body that I think the Legislature should be having the opportunity to ask questions and guide, quite frankly. So I just wanted to put.

Is that a question?

Yeah. The question is, are we going to make sure that this bill.

The answer is yes. I intend to move it all the way. In the past, it had actually mostly just not made it out of the Assembly, and so it's my commitment to try to move it all the way.

Thank you.

Any other Members with questions? Senator Caballero.

Senator Laird, it's always danger to say this is a very simple bill, because then there's a presentation of 30 minutes. But this really is a very simple bill, and when it's appropriate, I'd like to make the motion.

Thank you very much.

Are you. No further discussion. Senator Laird, would you like to close?

Yes. I hesitate to say this is a simple bill, but at this point, it is. And the support was very good. Wide ranging from the Center of Biological Diversity to Southern California Edison. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We're seeking a motion for SB 610. It's been moved by Senator Caballero, Consultant please call the roll. We have a do pass to appropriations.

SB 610. [Roll Call].

That measure has 12 votes. You're out, and we'll leave the roll open for our absent Members.

Thank you very much.

Senator Dodd. Why not? Yes, he has. SB 3. When you're ready, you may begin.

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

Chair and members. I'm presenting SB 3 pertaining to Water Shutoff Protection Act. As many of you know, I've been legislating on water affordability since elected to the Legislature in 2014. In 2018, I authored SB 998, the Water ShutOff Protection Act, which established protocols for agencies to assist their customers when they fall behind paying their water or wastewater bill. SB 998 affects water agencies with 200 or more connections.

Studies by the Water Resources Control Board have documented as many as 500,000 households have had their water shut off every year due to the inability to pay the water bill. Many of these households are served by smaller water systems with fewer than 200 connections. And most have household incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level. SB 3 simply extends the provisions of my SB 998, Water Shutoff Protection Act to these smaller systems with 15 or more service connections.

SB 3 is about how you notice a delinquent customer, how you offer them alternative payment plans. There is nothing in this bill, I want to repeat that, there is nothing in this bill that prohibits a water agency from ultimately collecting the past due amounts or shutting off water service if the customer fails to perform under the agreement. Members, we all know that under California law, access to safe and affordable drinking water is a human right.

SB 3 helps preserve that right for nearly 1 million Californians, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Here to testify in support is Michael Claiborne from the Leadership Council of Justice and Accountability.

Good morning to the Chair and the Committee. My name is Michael Claiborne, a directing attorney with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. California declared access to safe and affordable drinking water a human right in 2012, but the reality is that access to safe tap water is not universal. A conservative estimate is that more than 500,000 Californians lost access to water in their homes in 2018 and again in 2019 due to water shutoffs for nonpayment. Limiting water shutoffs is a racial justice issue.

Black families are twice as likely as white families to experience a water shutoff. Limiting water SB 3 would help by extending water shutoff protections to ensure that residents served by small public water systems receive the benefits of common sense protections enacted in SB 998 in 2018, including notice and opportunity to enroll in a payment plan.

We work closely with small water systems like Lanare Community Service District in Fresno County and Tooleville Mutual in Tulare County and have an interest in making sure that they can implement these provisions. The good news is that the State Water Board is currently and already providing technical assistance to small water systems that are struggling to comply with technical, managerial and financial capacity requirements.

And additionally, small water systems would benefit from larger water systems already implementing fully implementing the provisions of SB 998 and can borrow water shutoff policies and notice forms. As one final point, the Legislature enacted an emergency provision in response to the pandemic requiring all water systems, regardless of system size, to provide notice and payment plans. And in our experience, small water systems are already successfully implementing these provisions. This bill would simply make those provisions permanent.

We thank Senator Dodd for his continued leadership on this issue and urge the Committee's support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses here in room 1200 who wish to testify, state your name and your organization, please.

Buenos Diaz, Senator Braphon, I committe minumbre. Raquel Sanchez Iyovi one elcondo De tolare soyuna madre itambien soy membrane De Awa Sabemos Cayuna crisis De Awa as a sibling and El Estado Icomo Qualicion Supportamos Este per Poisto estevetres Vayudara La familia De Bacos ingressos anote personas Necessitamos esse derecho Como serum ecomos tamos pagandonawa contaminada, Joe and especial pido perfabor Keno Sapoyan Nsabil porcho castamos viviendo muccosra Bacadoras, El Campostan Sufriendo, Mass. Kevienn and El Futuro. Gracias.

I will be translating the remarks that were provided by our community member. Her name is Raquel Sanchez, and she's a member of the AWA coalition, a racial and environmental justice organization that advocates on behalf of safe, clean and affordable drinking water. She said that she is a mother and she's also a member of the coalition. And we understand that there is a crisis of accessibility and affordability for water in the state. And as a coalition, they support this bill.

And she said that this bill is going to help families with low incomes not have to choose between paying for rent or food instead of buying water for their families. She said that water is a human right and it's necessary for us to live. And she also made a point to mention that they are paying for contaminated water and that this would disproportionately impact and benefit farm workers right now who are dealing with these issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Hello. Mikayla Elder, on behalf of Central Coast Energy Services in support of SB 3. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Elana Muroff, here with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, here to offer strong support for California Coastkeeper Alliance.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in room 1200 wishing to testify and support? Hearing saying none. Now we'll move to opposition. Any witnesses here in opposition?

Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Karina Cervantez and I am here on behalf of the California Association of Mutual Water Companies. We proudly work with over 350 mutuals, many of them the smallest water entities in the state. We have submitted and are standing here in opposition unless amended for SB 3. We do want to thank the author of the bill and the co sponsors who met with us very early on in the process to hear our concerns.

We share in the commitment to the human right to water, but to realize this in the State of California, we must also consider the overall health of the water systems that deliver this essential resource to the community. Successfully implementing the bill's provisions while maintaining the operational health of small systems requires additional resources from the state. This bill does mirror SB 998, but the cost, burden, and implications differ for small water systems who cannot absorb the additional cost of unfunded mandates.

No doubt this proposal will strain their administrative and managerial capacities. In many cases, small systems only have one or two people to operate the system and often do so as volunteers or on a part time basis. In our experience, these systems already work with customers that may struggle to pay their water bills.

Though they may differ from the stringent requirements of SB three. Due to delayed arrears, we fear that they may have to carry additional debt and tap into their reserves, if they have reserves to pay for ongoing operations. We respectfully ask your Committee to consider the amendments to this bill that would make it clear where small systems can access technical and financial assistance from the state available to those water systems unable to comply with the complex provisions of SB 3.

We owe it to our small systems to figure it out now rather than later, when a greater number of small systems will be asking the state for assistance in continuing to deliver safe and affordable drinking water for all. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition here in the room? Hearington Moderator let's go to our phone lines now for witnesses in support of SB 3.

Thank and to speak in support, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll go to line 11. One moment, please. Technical difficulties. Line 11, your line should be open. We ask that you re queue by pressing one, then zero at this time and.

You do not have line 11 re-queuing. However, we do have another line in queue. Just one moment. While we provide their line number, we will open line 23. Go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Jennifer Clary, and on behalf of Clean Water Action and Natural Resources Defense Council, I'm in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you. Next caller.

Mr. Chair, we have no further lines in queue for support.

Okay, let's move to opposition.

To speak in opposition, press one, then zero at this time. We do have lines queuing up. One moment, please. While we provide line numbers, we'll first go to line 22. Go ahead, please. Just one moment, please. Line 22, your line is open. Go ahead.

Hello?

Yes, please. Go ahead.

I'm speaking in opposition of SB 3.

Continue. We can hear you.

I'm Dolores Herman, speaking for the Pacific View Mutual Water Company, a very small water company of 16 customers. And it would be SB three, would provide a very hard on us, since we are all volunteers. I'm speaking in opposition of SB three. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller.

Line 11. Go ahead, please. Line 11, your line is open. Go ahead.

Yeah. Am I line 11?

Yes, you are. Go ahead, please.

Oh okay. My name is Charles Coker. I am President of the Green Acres Mutual Water Company. We have 18 service connections, and I want to oppose Senate Bill 3 as currently written. I support the intent of the Bill to provide water shut-off policies to customers, but I have two issues regarding multiple languages and the $1,000 fine.

We currently have a shut-off policy that mirrors the Bill. For us to do multiple languages is not useful. We don't have other than English language-speaking people here, and the cost to us is kind of excessive to have to go out and do multiple languages every time we revise our policy. And my proposal would be for the Water Board to translate a company shut-off policy into a PDF format that the water company can then provide to its members.

The second issue I have is the fine. A $1,000 fine for a 15-member water company computes to $66 a day. Pardon?

Thank you. Appreciate it. Next witness.

Line 10. Line 10. Your line is open.

Okay. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Can you hear me now? Okay. This is Jay Azuka from the San Andreas Mutual Water Company. I oppose SB 3 as written. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Line 14.

Hello, my name is Debbie Patrick, and I'm calling from Western Heights Water Company. We are calling to oppose SB 3 as currently written. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Line 17.

Good morning. My name is Gloria Galindo, and I'm calling from Valencia Heights Water Company. We're calling to oppose SB 3 as currently written. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 12.

Yes, my name is Robert Hightower from Shadow Acres Mutual Water Company and calling to oppose SB 3 as written. Now, not all of it, because the grace period and payment schedules, we already work with our customers in that way and have a very generous 90-day period before we even attempt to notify them to shut off. And we work with them for a payment schedule of up to a year to pay their Bill.

However, the multiple languages and the fines and the other requirements of SB 3 is going to put a bigger burden on us. We already carried $40,000-$50,000 of debt from our customers. And what we think is going to happen with this Bill, it's going to allow people more not to pay their bills, but we're going to carry more debt and we're going to have to raise rates. So indirectly, SB 3 is causing the cost of water to go up because people are paying their fair share. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next caller.

Line 13.

Yes, this is Judy Pinneger, and I'm with the Willow Glen Water Company. We only have 36 neighbors who are in our company, and it's an all-volunteer board. And we think that the requesting the language. Nobody speaks any other language here. I'm in Loomis, California, and that seems to be excessive. And I also don't like the $1,000 fines. Just like the last person, I think the limit should be raised to more like 50, so apply for those for 200 to 50 and no less than that. All right, thank you.

Thank you. Next caller.

Line 19. One moment. Go ahead, please.

We don't have anybody who speaks any other language.

Line 19, your line is open.

Yes, this is Jim McConaughey with the Lower Rock Creek Mutual Water Company. We support the intent of SB 3, but oppose the proposed changes that's currently written. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller.

Mr. Chair, we have no further lines in queue.

Thank you. We're going to bring it back to the Committee. We have Senator Rubio who has a question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. Well, thank you to the author. I know that I really appreciated SB 998, which was the original one. And sometimes when I hear the comments, I reflect. I know that we all have the consumers in mind, as we should. And I do sometimes worry about those unintended consequences. Everything that we're trying to do in this Bill, I'm on board.

And especially since we've been dealing with a lot of the aftermath of the pandemic, where people still trying to find their footing. And it's difficult and we hear the stories from our constituents.

And nonetheless, I do want to encourage the author. I heard, I believe it was a speaker that stated that they have some considerations for language just to continue to sit down and see there's an opportunity for that middle ground to make sure that we take care of the consumers, but also take a look and good faith to see that we don't end up putting more on consumers in the attempt to help them. So that's all I wanted to say.

If you would consider just the conversation moving a little further and making sure that we hear all sites. Thank you.

Absolutely. Mr.. Through the Chair, that's been my MO since I've been here in my 9th year to always talk to the opposition. I think I heard some things this morning that resonated with me. I would like to point out that when I ran this Bill in 2012, excuse me, 2018, 998 for the larger ones, we were in room 112, and the opposition went all the way out the door and down the hall, and the larger ones were saying exactly the same things the smaller ones are saying.

That has really not materialized. A lot of these people that call today are already doing the great job they need to be doing to help their customers, but not everybody does. And unfortunately, in legislation, when we're trying to right wrongs, we capture some of the really great actors, whether they have 12, 16, or 20 members in their water customers in their water company. I'd suggest that we can work with them on some of these issues.

But also, as the lead witness had indicated, because the large water purveyors have already done all this, the information that they'll need to send in multiple language is already done and completed, and that will be easily available to them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Senator Dodd for bringing this Bill. A lot of these small water companies are in my district, and actually, my father-in-law actually operates a small water company. It has more than 200. But I just want to share with some of the challenges. You heard a little bit about the challenge. So there's challenges not only with.

They. Have volunteer elected boards, most of the times it's really hard to get people to even participate on the board because they're telling their customers, we have water quality standards that they have to upgrade, we have leakage issues they have to upgrade. There's a lot of things, the water reduction the states passed and how many gallons per day you can use. So those are all challenges for these very small water districts.

On top of that, we did do some great work in putting money in the budget to allow them to access some of those monies to write the things, the infrastructure needs they had. But the problem is that, as you heard, these small water districts have, and I'm just going to talk about Bieber, where I get my mail. It's a town that is very small. We have one person that runs the water district there. That's sewer and water for that district.

So that's the same person that gets the backup and goes out and fix the leaks, who is supposed to write for the grant. And they don't have the capacity to be able to do all those things. At the same time as their customer base doesn't pay, they have to try to raise the rates. You have Prop 218, which is an issue to go even be able to raise your rate. So they're in a box. They're in a box without any technical help.

And we just keep laying these requirements on them and they really just throw their hands up. At some point they're like, it's even hard to get somebody to work at the water districts in these very small water districts. So a suggestion, look, they do the same thing. They know their customers. When you have less than 200 people, you pretty much know every single one of your customers and you know their situation. You're trying to provide them water or waste as sewer and water districts do.

So a suggestion would be have some ability to be able to do these small grants in a way that's very easy for them to be able to access those funds, to be able to do the services we're requiring them to do. And a template like was suggested. Somebody asked about a template.

Those are things that have to happen because at the end of the day, if you narrow that 200 down to 150 people that are actually paying, that means the other 150 have to raise their rate to get the service. There's still electric, you have to pump the water, you have to purify the water. Those are all challenges for these very small water districts. I'm going to lay off the Bill today because I know that you're a person that is concerned about those issues as well.

And hopefully, we can come up with some of those mitigation measures that help this Bill be a Bill that will actually work and supply that clean water that we need. But at the same time, these very small districts, and you heard them, if you have 13 or 15 or 50, you're on the brink of going bankrupt as it is. And there's no ability to be able to raise rate because you just don't have enough customers.

And there's been many bills that come through about combining water companies, but when you're in a town, there's no water company next to you and you can't combine with somebody else, there's no opportunity. So I look forward to working with you on the Bill. I'm assuming this Bill will get out, but it will really be a tough Bill to be able to implement for those small water districts. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. We've had a shuffling. So in 2016, was it or 2018 that you passed the original Bill and you excluded the smaller water companies below 200? Why? And what has changed today that you feel that now they should be included instead?

I wish I had the grasp of memory prior to COVID. So clear and succinct. My witness will probably. But I think we had similar concerns. And so we felt like maybe what we should do is to move to the larger water systems first. Let's make this thing work by example. And here we are today.

Yeah, that's exactly right. So the thought in 2018 was, let the larger water systems figure out how to comply with these requirements. Develop shut-off policies, develop notices that can be used as a template for smaller water systems. That's now happened. SB 998 is fully implemented. These policies are available on websites. They're translated into multiple languages. And I'd note that the Bill hasn't been amended. There's not a requirement to automatically translate into languages. It only kicks in if somebody requests.

So if there are no languages spoken other than English in a service territory, this Bill wouldn't require that translation.

So in following up. Yeah, that is good to know. I have another question related to the cost that is now escaping me because I was discombobulated over here. I'll come back to it. Thanks.

Thank you. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to echo my colleagues' comments from Baldwin Park and from Bieber. I think it's a great idea, especially we have a witness here from Tularian area that I currently represent. I do agree with a lot of the information that's in the Bill, but I have a grave concern, the same concerns that my colleague from Baldwin Park and Bieber brought forward. You know, I hear from small water districts in my area the same that are voluntarily run.

They're elected to the water. You know, we don't have anybody with one person but we do have somebody with three people, and they're responsible for, like my colleague from Bieber said, applying for the grant, accessing, finding somebody to translate the information into different languages, when predominantly, they do serve just a one language population.

Now, in my area, it could be predominantly Spanish because we serve a large underserved population in our district that is predominantly Latino, similar to my colleague from Madera area, we have a lot of individuals that predominantly speak Spanish. So I guess I'm going to lay off again today because I think it's a very good Bill. I really do. But I think that without addressing the concerns that the small water companies have about making sure that there's funding available.

And I love the suggestion from the one caller from Los Angeles from. I believe it was from. I looked it up. It was in the Los Angeles area, the Willow Glenn Water Company, and then also the San Andreas and then western heights.

So one of those individuals mentioned the fact that, why don't we post it on the State Water Resources website, and they could just pull it down and send it to them, and then not each water company would be responsible for creating that document and sending it out. So if there was a way to post it or have it available for public use. You said all the larger water companies already have this. Is it available to the smaller companies?

Are the larger water companies providing it to them? Is it available online someplace where they just grab it, pull it down and send it out, adopt it in their policy? Or is it something that they have to create? Because I think that's the biggest issue that they have, especially with these small water companies that we're dealing with that called in today.

Thank you.

Anybody? Go ahead, sir.

Is it available? I think her questions.

Is it available someplace and where is it at?

So SB 998 did require posting of water shut-off policies on water system websites. So it is available. I like the suggestion about kind of putting that in one place. I wonder if the State Water Board could just link to those shut-off policies on its website that it already has about SB 99 compliance. I think that's a really good idea.

I think we could make them do that. Right? I'm just saying.

I think it's a good idea, too. That is something that we'll work on as this Bill moves forward. I appreciate the comments because I think they're spot on.

Thank you, sir. And you've always been somebody that works to try to solve problems and not leave anybody in the dark or left behind on trying to figure out how to fund these issues. So thank you very much.

Thank you. I'm going to move back to Senator Seyarto. His moment of clarity has returned.

Thank you. My clarity has returned. So in regards to the $1,000 fine, my big concern kind of echoes some of my colleagues in that when you have a small district like that, you have very few people to spread those costs out. $1,000 fine turns into each ratepayer having a $5 increase in their payment a month. That doesn't seem like a very good and fair treatment of those smaller things.

So there has to be some kind of funding available in order to offset because the bigger companies can absorb it. They have a lot of ratepayers to be able to absorb any increase in operational costs, but these smaller ones don't. And that can create costs that increase the water rate for the very people and exacerbate the problem that they're already having. And so those are my concerns about that. I understand if you can work on these things, that'd be awesome.

But I share those concerns because I don't want to make a worse problem than exists already with ratepayers.

Yeah. My takeaway, through the Chair, my takeaway from the comment is I think those are good comments. Although money available from the state for somebody that's disobeying the law doesn't seem like an appropriate way to do things. But I do see the point about a larger water company can handle $1,000 fine where maybe the smaller ones. And so we should be looking at the fines there to make them more appropriate. So we will look at that, Senator. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Durazo.

Well, I support it. I support your Bill very much. I think as long as we don't address the elephant in the room, which is the thousands of water systems that are out there functioning very inefficiently, we're always going to have this issue that the smaller ones cannot afford to do what is basically very good policies. I mean, giving notice and offering alternative payment plans and all that.

And in a language that they could understand is a very, very basic need, and we shouldn't even be doing requirements. But the problem comes back is that there's thousands of them. They're small, they're inefficient. And unless we tackle that fundamental problem, we're always going to be having the issue of small cannot afford to do this and cannot afford to do a lot of things. So thank you.

Thank you. Any additional questions or concerns by colleagues? Well, thank you, Senator Dodd. I, too, am a little concerned as it relates to the small operators. How do we come to the number 15? Why not maybe, as someone suggested, maybe 50 connections at least. Or how is 15 derived?

Yeah. 15 is the cut-off for public water system. So it's an existing definition. Community water system, public water system. That's the cut-off for year-round customers. So it's not a new definition. And I just note there is no fine provision in the Bill. There's no $1,000 fine. It's just the Attorney General can enforce through an injuction.

He has option, or she has the option of fining. But it's not.

Oh, no, there's no fine provision at all. It's just injunctive relief.

Got it. Okay. All right. Senator Dodd, would you like to close?

I appreciate the comments from the Committee. I think we'll be working on this. We'll make a better Bill by the time it comes to the floor. But I really appreciate the comments of my colleagues. Senator Durazo. I think those are the underlying factors of why this Bill was so necessary. Respectfully ask your Aye vote.

We have a do pass to appropriations. Is there a motion? It's been moved by Senator Durazo. Consultant? Please call the roll on SB 3.

[Roll call].

That measure has 11 votes. It's out. We'll leave the roll open for our absent Members to add-on. Now we're moving on to file item number three. Senator Min, 493. He's prepared. You may begin.

I'm not going to feign for a drone. Thank you, Chair Bradford, Members of the Committee, other than the ones harassing me right now. SB 493 would require the CEC to consult with the CPUC and CARB in order to assess the electric and hydrogen infrastructure model or infrastructure needed to support the transition of medium and heavy duty vehicles to being zero emission by the year 2045.

There are currently more than 13 million medium and heavy duty trucks and other vehicles operating in the United States, consuming more than 50 billion gallons of diesel fuel annually. While these vehicles account for only 5% of all vehicles on the road, they're responsible for almost one third of total GHG emissions resulting from onroad transportation. As such, decarbonization of this sector is critical to meeting our climate goals. However, as we know, this transition presents a unique set of challenges.

If long haul trucks were to try to be electrified today, due to the high miles traveled and battery limitations, they would require 504 terawatt hours annually. That's double California's 2021 total electric generation for all interstate trips. Apart from the enormous energy generation that will be required to support medium and heavy duty vehicle transition, the infrastructure needed is not available at this time and is at least several years away from being built out.

SB 493 tries to create some pathways here to getting to our goals of zero emission heavy duty and medium duty vehicles by the year 2045 by requiring an infrastructure assessment and directing CARB to incorporate the findings into a detailed plan for the transition of these fleets. This is in accord with President Biden's announcement earlier today that California will receive waivers to allow us to enforce the phasing out of diesel trucks and heavy duty trucks.

We're going to need tangible benchmarks and an actual plan if we want to meet our 2045 goals. We've done, I think, a good job in light duty, but the medium and heavy duty vehicle market presents unique challenges, such as the lack of sufficient energy generation and recharging infrastructure, and all this has to be taken into consideration when contemplating any emissions reduction planning. SB 493 would ensure that the unique challenges of this sector are taken into account today. I have Steve Cruz on behalf of the Port of Oakland here to testify and support. Thank you, Steve.

Thank you, Senator. Steve Cruz with Cruz Strategies on behalf of the Port of Oakland expressing strong support for SB 493 and its goal of assessing and planning for infrastructure needed to decarbonize the medium and heavy duty vehicle sector. The Port of Oakland has initiated numerous programs that are demonstrating the reliability and market competitiveness of zero emission and cargo handling, drainage, trucking, and related port equipment, and is eager to support additional opportunities to ensure wider adoption of this equipment throughout the entire freight community.

The deployment of heavy EV charging infrastructure serving seaport trucking and marine terminal users is also among the highest priorities identified by West Oakland community stakeholders, including the community leaders that have served as the chairs and co chairs of the Port's air quality planning efforts. And, finally, as a municipal power provider to many of our tenants and customers, the Port's utility department has also focused on advancing sustainable renewable energy utility infrastructure upgrades throughout the Port. For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote on SB 493.

Thank you. We're now bringing it to Room 1200. Are there any other witnesses wishing to testify in support of SB 493? State your name and organization.

Chris Shimoda, California Trucking Association. We have a support if amended position on the bill. Would like to thank the authors, staff for discussing the bill with us. In addition to supporting the assessment, there is a need to track actual projects being built, which, out of the assessments that the Energy Commission is currently doing, there is no requirement to track actual projects in the ground. So look forward to working with the author and his staff as the build moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Rachel Mueller on behalf of Air Products in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses here in Room 1200 in support? Now let's move to opposition. Is there anyone here in Room 1200 in opposition? Seeing none. Moderator will go to our phone lines now and we'll take both support and opposition of SB 493.

To speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. We do have lines queuing up. One moment while we provide their line number.

Good morning. This is Kyler Joaquin calling on behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Employees expressing our support for SB 493. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, we have no one else in queue at this time.

All right, we'll bring it back to the many. If there are any questions or concerns as it relates to this issue. Senator Durazo.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to ask of the author, an issue that has continuously come up about, especially the heavier trucks, and something that my colleague from Long Beach has raised also, is the truck, the responsibility where it lies, the financial responsibility to address replacement of trucks? With the massive misclassification problems that we have, where truck drivers are misclassified as independent contractors, their financial burden falls on them. So I just wonder, where in this could that be taken up, or should that be taken up?

I don't know if my witness has an answer to that. I don't know if that's in the scope of our particular study, but it's something we can talk with your staff about.

Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator. Caballero.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Min, I think the recommendation by the Truckers Association is really well placed. Recently, I was meeting with a group of farmers who use some of the largest equipment in their processing of food products, and the question they asked of me is, how are they going to move to new vehicles that haven't been created yet? They're half ton, ton vehicles, and there is no electrical battery that can service these engines adequately.

And so basically, we're going to be asking them to not do what they're doing right now, and I didn't have an answer for them. And so I think the more that we have the Trucking Association as part of this discussion, they're the heavy duty vehicles that are moving. Most of the produce that's grown in California goes to the ports or goes on a truck that leaves the state.

And we absolutely need to make sure that we're being practical when we're asking them to change out their equipment. And we did a really poor job of it when we had truckers that were independent contractors because we required them to get more efficient vehicles, and then we outlawed them from being independent contractors within a really short period of time. So we're putting these incredible burdens on the industry without kind of a clear view of where we need to get in 5, 10, 15 years.

So I think we need the Trucking Association at the table as well. So hopefully you'll consider that. I think this is a good bill. I'm going to support it today, but I think we need to be real careful how we move forward with the heavy duty vehicles.

Thank you, Senator Caballero.

Senator Newman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, as usual, Senator Caballero beat me to it, said it better than I would. I wanted to say the same thing. I think the Trucking Association's points are very well taken, particularly around light and medium duty work trucks. To her point, that's going to be a category that's really hard to, both electrify, but also not necessarily affordable in the near term for these users.

So I actually have a bill, SB 425, that works at catalyzing the adoption of light medium duty work trucks for fuel cell vehicles. That's a plug for my bill. It's coming up. So please do consider that as a prospective amendment. And I'd also like to be added as a co-author, if I could. Thanks.

Thank you, Senator Newman. We'll add you at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Any additional questions? Senator Grove.

I don't have a question. I just have a comment. I echo my colleagues'comments, and I really want to make sure that we all understand that, specifically in the Central Valley, where there's very limited connectivity to the electrical companies and the utilities, we have the electrification of our forklifts that are already being implemented by large and major farmers, or farmers, small farmers as well, but they're using semi-truck type natural gas generators to be able to charge those electric forklifts because they don't have connectivity.

And to add this burden onto that. Again, if you go to some of these farming areas in the area which myself and Senator Caballero and others represent, you do have people wanting to comply. You really do. Senator Eggman's district, you have people and individuals that want to comply. So they're purchasing these electric forklifts, but they don't have connectivity to charge them.

So they're bringing in semi truck gas generators, huge, massive gas generators, to charge the electric forklifts at night in order to operate them during the day and comply with the provisions under previous legislation. So I think as this body continues to move forward with decarbonization of the economy, you have to do it in a realistic way that's attainable. You can't just say, provide, just like everybody was required to provide electric forklifts, but there's no electricity to provide charging for the forklift.

So therefore, how do you charge the forklifts that you're required to use? So I think that we need to look at how people operate on the land, on the ground. The same with this bill changing the way that we send produce out. A big, huge deal. The top three food producing counties in the world are what I represent. If you take California in general, I think we have the top eight food producing counties in the world.

Right in the Central Valley, we have one, two, and three. And if you're going to change the way that they transport produce, you have to have a means and a way to be able to charge those or have sustainability on the batteries. And we also need to look at what Senator Bradford, the Chair, had brought forth on the supply chain line and where that mineral for those batteries comes from.

And are we really willing to make this a policy and knowing that it creates basically slave labor in the Dominican Republican of the Congo and child labor according to two major sites, Amnesty International and UNICEF. So I just think that we should look at things in a clear perspective when we move policy forward. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator Grove.

Thank you. Vice Chair Dahle.

I'm going to give you your close for you. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. Look, this should have been done way before we set a target on how we're going to eliminate all these heavy duty and light medium duty vehicles that we use every day and a plan set forward. So I commend you for bringing this bill forward. I support it.

I do think you should take the suggestions of the Trucking Association so we can meet those bars. At the end of the day, we have to have real good analysis of what the system is lacking, which we know we are very lacking in the ability to be able to generate the electricity. And we passed a water bond in 2014, and we put money in there for storage.

And the estimate is 2030 before we'll even get the permits to build Sites Reservoir, which has been studied for 40 years. So if we think we're going to get by 2045, think about that, 2045 is right around the corner, anywhere near meeting these targets of what the Legislature has put in place, we have to have this. So I'll be supporting your bill today.

I would encourage you to take those amendments because I think it'll strengthen your bill and it'll allow us to make good decisions on targets that are already out there on how we're going to meet this. Because at the end of the day, we're going to struggle to get there. There's no doubt about it. And you heard from many of the Members on this panel that they're talking about implementation when we don't even really know where we're headed. So this should have been done first. This is good policy, but it's behind the target. So good job. Thank you. I support your bill. I'll move it, by the way.

Thank you. Any further discussion, questions by Committee Members? Seeing none. We have a do pass to Environmental Quality. Senator Min, would you like to close?

Thank you, Chair Bradford, and thank you, fellow Members, for your comments. Just want to reiterate that we will continue to work closely with all stakeholders, including California Trucking Association, to try to make this bill better as we move it forward. And also to reiterate, this does not change policy. What we're trying to do is create benchmarks and a real roadmap for how we get to this ambitious goal. It's an important goal because we do need to decarbonize our economy.

At the end of the day, we do face a climate crisis, but trying to balance that in ways that reflect economic reality while trying to actually meet these goals is the goal of this bill. So thank you very much. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a do pass to Environmental Quality by Senator Dahle. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, we have to take our call in, so. My bad. Are there witnesses in support or opposition on the phone lines that would like to participate in the discussion?

He already did that.

If you would like to participate, please press one, then zero.

Because there's a couple of people...

And, at this time, no one is queueing up.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the Consultant. Again, we have a do pass to Environmental Quality. We have a motion by Senator Dahle. Consultant, please call the roll on SB 493.

[Roll Call]

The measure has 15 votes. It's out. We'll leave the roll open for our absent Members. Now we're moving to our last bill, Members. Members, we're moving to our last bill, SB 507 by Senator Gonzalez. She's prepared. You may begin your presentation.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here to present SB 507, which will require the CEC to assess EV charging infrastructure needed to support the levels of electric vehicle adoption required to meet the state's goals through 2035. Very similar to Senator Min's bills, but on the light duty side. Specifically, my bill will require the CEC to assess the deployment of charging infrastructure to low income community members, rural communities, car sharing and ride sharing drivers, and residents of multifamily housing facilities.

If the CEC finds that these groups are not on track to meet the 2035 EV goals in their assessment, the bill will also require the Commission to identify the barriers that exist and develop solutions. Testifying in support of this measure today, I have Cory Bullis from FLO EV Charging and Marquis Mason from the California Environmental Voters. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote of SB 507.

Thank you. Lead witness.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Cory Bullis on behalf of FLO EV Charging. We are an EV charging station manufacturer and network operator founded in 2009. To date, we have over 80,000 charging stations deployed across North America. As the Senator noted, the state has been projecting infrastructure needs across the state out to 2030 for a few years now.

But really, it's kind of time to take that analysis to the next level, or to take it down a level, in the sense of figuring out what are the infrastructure needs for various underserved driver segments. The work to date has been very helpful in figuring out what types of charging infrastructure do we need, where do we need it? Are we on track to meet those goals?

And now we want to make sure we're doing that as well for the various underserved driver segments notated by the Senator. And these are typically groups that have the most trouble accessing charging infrastructure. These are many driver segments that we, as a company, are focused on. And if we're going to be fully electrifying transportation, we need to make sure we are deploying chargers everywhere where drivers go by making sure all communities are accessing charging infrastructure. And we think this bill will help kind of create that roadmap to make sure we're on track. So for those reasons, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support? State your name and organization.

Hey there. My name is Marquis King Mason. I'm with California Environmental Voters. Yeah, and so, news this weekend broke that the world is losing its chance to avert catastrophic warming above 1.5 degrees celsius. And we know that transportation emissions are one of the largest pieces of that puzzle, but also one of the most straightforward to reduce. With this reminder of impending climate collapse, there will be renewed calls to swiftly move away from carbon in transportation, as there should be. However, we can do that equitably if we are not laser focused on the barriers that specifically impact frontline and underserved communities. We already know that renters and those living in apartments and condos face greater barriers to having an electric vehicle.

But we still don't have as clear a picture as we should. We know things like the racial homeownership gap directly contribute to the unequal electric vehicle access playing field where people of color are 30% less likely to own a home than their white counterparts. We know that communities of color reliance on rideshare economy directly impacts their day to day lives, with California having the highest number of rideshare drivers, approaching 300,000.

But we don't know all these things and how much will we need to upgrade electric panels for low income households proportional to the rate that we need to electrify as stated under current statutes. SB 507 is needed to assess just how uneven the charging infrastructure playing field is. In the 2022 budget, you all worked really hard alongside advocates to make sure that we had unprecedented numbers of investments for low income people in ZEV vehicles, but we don't have a full picture of what's going on.

SB 507 will help ensure that we are spending every dollar strategically as possible, while not contributing and relegating underserved communities to delayed exposure to air pollution and lesser options to engage in the green economy that we are building up. SB 507 fits perfectly into the policy container that bills like AB 2127 and SB 1000 have built, alongside helping to achieve the goals that years of executive orders affirm that we are wholly shifting away from fossil power vehicles. We all understand the idea that we can't deal with what we can't define, and that's why California Environmental Voters strongly urge you your support on SB 507.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in Room 1200 who wish to testify in support of SB 507? Just state your name and your organization, please.

Good morning. Leigh Kammerich with the Rural County Representatives of California in support.

Good morning. Margie Lie on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association in support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses? Hearing and seeing none. Now, witnesses in opposition. Are there any witnesses in opposition here in Room 1200? All right, seeing none. Let's move to our phone lines. Moderator, we're looking for witnesses in support or opposition of SB 507.

If you would like to make a comment, please press one, then zero. We'll first go to line number 20. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Kyler Joaquin calling on behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Employees expressing our support for SB 507. Thank you.

Next we'll go to line number 16. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Kathy Schaeffer on behalf of the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles chapters of the Climate Reality Project in support. Thank you.

Next we'll go to line number 28. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Christina Scaringe for the Center for Biological Diversity in support of SB 507.

And at this time, there are no further lines in queue.

Thank you. We'll now bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or concerns? Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is equally a good bill as Mr. Min's bill, and I want to be added as a co-author. And I think this is an issue that I've grappled with for a little while in terms of trying to reach our goals, but we continue to, in my opinion, miss the mark in terms of really understanding the needs of low income communities and what we need to do to make sure that they're coming along because they're most often being left out of the conversation. And I hear that from my community, as I'm sure the great Senator from Long Beach does as well.

So I just think it's an Important bill to really understand the needs and tackle the issues. How do we get our underserved and low income families to want to participate? And so I appreciate you doing this. I think it's important. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much. Appreciate this bill as well. I just want to make sure that we're doing as thorough a needs assessment as possible and raise some issues that I think have discriminated against the Valley. One is, if you put the charging stations on Highway 5, you're benefiting the traveling public that's going the fastest they can through the Central Valley, but are totally unaccessible to residents that live in the Central Valley. And if you put them on 99, then you're putting them where people live, more generally. There's a denser population. There's a real need to differentiate between the types of charging devices.

And if you're going to put them in, I really think we have to look where we should deploy them, whether they should be commercial centers, business centers, or residential. Quite frankly, I think the commercial and the residential went over, I mean, the commercial and the business win over the residential because the residential then end up getting assigned to one or two people as opposed to the more heavily traveled sites. So for that reason, I think we need the fast charging devices.

Otherwise, people don't have 8 hours to sit around and wait for their vehicles to charge. I also think we need to have a very frank discussion about PG&E accessibility. And the issue that was raised by my good friend from Bakersfield is really true. PG&E is having real problems with making connections. And we can move to all electric vehicles, but if then PG&E can't hook anybody up, and we have to use diesel charging devices, that defeats the whole purpose.

And then I absolutely think we have to have uniform charging ports. This whole idea that we can pepper them with specialty ports and then we can't access them when we need them doesn't make any sense to me. So I really appreciate the reflection on disadvantaged communities, but it's really broader than that. We need to create a system that is accessible to everyone, and right now that just doesn't exist.

If you stop on Highway 5 at the Santa Nella stop, Tesla's got a million charging devices, and they're always empty, and it's just not accessible for people. So those are my comments. I'm going to support your bill today.

Thank you. Any additional questions? Senator Dahle.

I got to get his attention and I sit right next to him. Thanks for bringing this bill forward. I have a question. One of the things that, I think we talk about the underserved and disadvantaged community, and you get a charging station there, but is there any... I didn't actually look at the language of the bill. I just looked at the report. But is there any ability to be able to, we talk about those low income folks and disadvantaged communities.

Has anybody did an analysis or does this bill do the analysis on the ability to be able to first, afford the EV in the first place if there's a charging station available, and then the cost to actually charge it once you have the vehicle?

I know that in my district, where we've been attempting to try to incentivize and help put in stations strategically throughout this very rural area, but the people that are able to buy the EV or the low and disadvantaged community can't afford the EV, and then at the same time, there's a cost to charging that. So will this bill analyze that data? I think that's really critical. When we talk about the disadvantaged folks, are they going to be able to actually get the vehicle in the first place, and then are they going to be able to afford to charge the vehicle?

Yeah. Thank you very much. Through the Chair, Senator Dahle, this just talks about the infrastructure, but to your point, very much understand what you're saying. I think vehicles, as the analysis points out, I think the vehicle part, of course, we want to make sure that we're tackling as well in unison. I think what we have in our data is that in 2024 through 2029, we should get cost parity with cars going down as low as maybe $30,000. But there's still equity issues.

There's still barriers to that. Of course, we know that. But the infrastructure needs to be put in place first in order for folks to feel like they're being invested in in this EV space. So this is why the infrastructure piece here in assessing not just disadvantaged communities but rural communities, I think I take note to what Senator Caballero is saying with the commercial and businesses, but also the cost of charging, all of that.

And those are going to be developed in this bill through the CEC to assess everything, map it out, and then provide solutions. And I would hope to, again, continue to explicitly put more in this bill to make it even better for that.

Well, just to add on, I think really what really needs to happen is if we need to look at what the annual income is of a person who's disadvantaged and then do the math to figure out even if a car is 30,000, and then if the infrastructure is put in place, which is going to be a cost, and the rising cost of electricity. Electricity is not going to go down, when we need all this production of electricity is not going to go down.

It's going to go up. Because we have to build all that infrastructure. So I know this is along the same lines as Senator Min's bill, and we need to put all the information in so we can really target the people we're trying to target, which is those low income disadvantaged communities that are typically places where the air quality is really the worst.

So I would encourage you to look at that piece of it, because at the end of the day, to make a really good decision on, not just siting them, but the ability for those people to access these EV vehicles is going to be critical in the future.

And we did much of that work last year too, waiving the sales tax, clean cars for all in all air quality districts. We have a lot more work to do. So I look forward to working with you on that. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Durazo.

Thank you. And I just want to echo what my colleague just said about the information that's needed. I have a bill that would require more of a socioeconomic analysis. We shouldn't be afraid of getting the information that you're talking about and other information, especially economic impact. And that's what usually is missing because it's about environmental impact, which is great, but what about economic impact? So I really appreciate that you're digging in on that piece in this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussions, questions? Well, I, too, want to thank the author for this bill, but I do have the same concerns that Senator Caballero and Senator Dahle raised as to, I think we're taking the chicken or the egg approach of what comes first, and when poor folks can't afford the chicken or the egg right now. And I participated in a hearing a couple years back in the Central Valley, and individuals testified that, one, they couldn't afford an electric car.

So if you can't afford an electric car, then I see no need of charging stations in that community. But individuals said, even if I could afford electric car, they're not big enough to meet my need. The individual said, I'm a farm worker, my wife's a domestic worker, and I have four kids that play soccer. I could never haul my equipment and all those things. So those are some of the challenges that we have to come to the realization some folks just will never own electric cars.

So having infrastructure is important, but I think we have to be a little bit more strategic. And I know that's what you're trying to get to at the end of the day, of making sure they're in the neighborhoods that people eventually will want to own one. But a lot of folks, as Senator Dahle says, can't afford it. So I appreciate what you're doing here. Would you like to close?

I would just say, I hear everything you're saying loud and clear. We're going to continue working on the vehicle side. I think this provides market signals to private capital as well, to be able to help us out with some of these important needs that we have across the state. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a do pass to Transportation. Is there a motion? It's been moved by Senator Eggman. Consultant, please call the roll on SB 507.

[Roll Call]

That measure has 15 votes. It's out. We'll leave the roll open for our absent Members. Members, that was our last bill, so we're going to open the roll for those Members who were absent so they can add on at this time. We'll start with file item one.

Okay. SB 610, do pass to appropriations. Current vote 12-0. Eggman?

Aye.

Eggman Aye. Gonzalez?

Aye.

Gonzalez Aye. McGuire?

Skinner?

Aye

Skinner Aye. Wilk?

Aye

Wilk Aye.

16.

That measure has 16 votes. We'll still leave the roll open. We'll go on to the next file. Item two, SB3.

SB 3, do pass to appropriations. Current vote, 11-0 Dahle. Becker?

Aye

Becker Aye. Grove? Seyarto? Skinner?

Aye.

Skinner Aye. Wilk?

Aye.

Wilk Aye.

Oh no, I'm sorry. Not voting.

Okay. That's right. Okay.

I try to get to yes.

13.

That's half. 13 votes. We'll leave the roll open. Or have we logged all our members on that one?

Yes.

Okay. Can we close the roll on that one?

Yes.

Okay, we'll close the roll on file item two, SB three. Now we're moving to file item three, SB 493. We'll call the absent members.

Do pass to environmental quality. Current vote, 15-0. Becker?

Becker Aye. Skinner?

Aye.

Aye.

Skinner Aye.

That measure has 17 votes. We'll close the roll on SB 493 and our last item, file item four, SB 507. Call the absent members, please.

Do pass to transportation. Current vote, 15-0. Durazo? McGuire?

Aye

McGuire Aye. Stern?

We'll leave the roll open for our absent member to hopefully come back and add on. For those members who are present, I think you're on board on everything.

Okay. We'll open file item one for Senator McGuire.

Yeah.

SB 610. McGuire?

Aye.

McGuire Aye.

17-0.

File item one, SB 610. 17 votes. That measures out. We'll close the roll on that. And we still have open as file item two and file item three for absent members. We'll leave the file open for another 10 minutes, hoping that absent members can come and add on.

Did everybody else not vote?

We just missed you. On two, or which one?

507.

I'm saying I left when everybody else left.

Yeah. So we're going to open up the roll on our file item four, SB 507. Please call the absent members.

Do pass to appropriations. Current vote, 16-0. Durazo?

Yes.

Durazo Aye.

Alright. No problems. That measure has 17 votes. Close the roll. Members and audience, I want to thank all the individuals who participated in testimony today. If you were not able to testify today, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important, and we want to include your testimony in our official hearing records. And I want to thank you and we appreciate your participation today.

I want to thank everybody, both members, staff, and audience, who participated, and for your patience and cooperation. We have concluded our agenda for today's Senate Committee on energy, utilities and communications. We stand adjourned.