Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications will come to order. Good afternoon. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person via the teleconference service. For individuals wishing to provide public comments today's participant number is 877-226-8163 that's 877-226-8163 and the access code is 736-2834 that's 736-2834. We're holding our committee hearings here in the O Street building. I would ask all members of the committee to be present in room 1200 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing.

We have 12 bills on our agenda today. One item is on consent by an author by the name of Bradford, SB 860. So that's a little suspect before we hear presentation of the bill. Well, we still can't establish a quorum, but we will hear from our first author. And was that Senator Laird? Obviously it is. He has SB 38. So, Senator, when you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. I want to thank the committee staff for working with my office on this measure. I'll be accepting the committee amendments that are noted in the committee analysis. Last fall, shortly after we adjourned, we had 10 of the hottest days continuously in modern times. During that time, there was a period of hours where battery storage power actually helped get us through that time.

Battery storage is increasingly part of all of the above energy solution, and this bill will ensure battery storage facilities have emergency response and evacuation plans in the event an emergency arises. While the analysis states battery energy storage facilities are subject to Cal/OSHA requirements to provide a safe environment for workers, I believe the current standard should be specific for battery storage facilities due to the high-risk nature of facilities and how lithium-ion batteries are extremely sensitive to high temperatures and are inherently flammable.

I've authored this bill in response to incidents that have happened at battery storage facilities in my district. Last fall, a fire at a battery storage facility in Moss Landing caused road closures and residents were ordered to shelter in place for hours. In response to concerns raised by the community regarding these facilities, Monterey County will be holding a town hall to provide information and hear from the community. Due to the winter storms, the town hall has been postponed and a new date has not been set.

Additionally, there's a proposed battery storage facility in Morro Bay, and residents have shared safety concerns about the facility that could be built in their community. This bill will not only help keep those within the premises of the facility safe, but give peace of mind to those living or working near the facility. As the state transitions to zero carbon future batteries will be and are an important piece of the puzzle. I do not have any witnesses with me today, but would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any lead witnesses in support of this measure? Here in 1200? Hearing and seeing none. Okay. Is there witnesses in opposition here in the room to this measure? Hearing and seeing none. Moderator now let's go to the phone lines. For anyone wishing to testify in support or in opposition of SB 38, we just want your name, your organization and your position. Moderator please.

If you'd like to comment in opposition or support of this bill, you may press 1 and 0 at this time. At this time, there's no one in queue.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. Is there any questions or concerns regarding this measure? Okay. When it's appropriate, when we establish a quorum, we're still lacking that. So, Senator, would you like to close? Oh, Senator Dahle.

Thank you for bringing the bill. I just wanted to, so when these fires. I was reading just to cover, the fire starts, what about the toxic emissions that come off of those? Is that something that will be addressed with this legislation as well?

Hopefully, with regard to the safety and evacuation plans. And you see there's a bunch of nuances that the analysis addresses, which is there's safety for inside the gate, there's concerns for outside the gate. In some cases, there have been multiple incidents, and one incident was not a fire. It was a false release of water on the batteries because of the system. In other cases, there have been fires.

Fortunately, at this point, not major, but they refer to clouds coming out, and that's what they notified the community of when they said they should shelter in place. So it's really about sort of a higher level of safety with regard to the employees, evacuation and safety for the communities, and some level of confidence that people can expect that they will know what's going on and have people inform them.

So the local permitting process right now does not provide for this safety level.

It's interesting you should say that because I have a staffer in the Monterey office that is on the County Planning Commission who said this did not come up in the process of permitting one of these facilities because it was believed that state law would deal with the local. And we just try to, through this bill, are trying to make sure that there are safety plans and our ability to have safety knowledge distributed at the appropriate time.

Okay. So I didn't read the actual language of your bill. So what I'm trying to get out is if one of these does spontaneously combust for some reason, if the wind is blowing a certain way, shelter in place is not what you want to do there. You want to get out of the way of the plume at that point, is that going to be,

Well, if you have a health and safety plan and evacuation plan, it tries to address those issues in different ways. And this bill still needs a little work and what you just described is our goal.

Okay.

So as we get feedback, we will try to.

Senator Seyarto

Senator Dahle got me thinking.

That's dangerous.

Yeah, it is. It is a dangerous thing. I can tell you basically, batteries are a hazardous materials issue, and most fire agencies are responsible for ensuring that any companies that come into their region are being inspected and have these type of plans. Did you check with the fire authorities to make sure that this isn't already essentially in place with them?

It's not totally in place with them, and they really have a desire to have clarity on this issue. And also, this is a harbor. There is a harbor adjacent to one of these. And the harbor commissioners came and visited with me and said they still have not had clarity on some of the impacts out of this one particular incident. Right.

Because they are responsible for,

In that case, if there's water that's put on a fire and it could theoretically leak into the bay, it's an issue.

Absolutely. No, I've done inspections with hazardous materials, buildings, buildings that contain a lot of hazardous materials, and all of those elements are actually part of the plan that they have to put together. So when we do respond out there, we know to start with damning indictment.

Well, you would think that in some cases this is a required thing. When I was in the Assembly, I did the safety and evacuation plans for flood control out of incidents that were in the north state and were part of the flood package. So I think we are filling in, in places in the state.

Yeah, I could see this would probably just induce them to make sure that they're doing something that they should probably already be doing. So anyway, thank you.

Thank you, Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It seemed like it would be a good time to make sure that there's specific Cal/OSHA requirements for the employees of the place.

Well, Cal/OSHA has some specific requirements now, but the question is, are these at an elevated level of seriousness that you want to put a special light on it? And that is, I think, part of the issue we're trying to address.

Any additional comments or questions by committee members? Hearing and seeing none, Senator Laird, would you like to close?

I appreciate the debate, and at the appropriate time, I would request an aye vote.

Thank you. Now we're SB 506.

Thank you very much. And I want to thank the Committee staff for working with my office on this measure, and I will be accepting the Committee amendments. This Bill directs the California Public Utilities Commission to develop and implement a colored pavement markings pilot project at one or more highway railroad crossings by January 1, 2026.

It also requires the PUC to report the findings to the Legislature no later than one year after project completion to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of the safety enhancements in influencing pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers to stop at railroad crossings to avoid incidents resulting in injury or death. California has over 10,000 at grade railway crossings where roadways directly intersect railroad tracks. Between 2008 and 2017, almost 1400 highway rail accidents resulted in over 300 deaths and over 750 injuries in our state alone.

The Federal Railroad Administration indicates that highway user inattentiveness and highway user misjudgment are significant contributing factors to these incidents. The addition of these safety enhancements in other places reduced the number of vehicles that stopped within the dynamic envelope. The pilot project will provide additional data to help the state understand the effectiveness of colored pavement markings in reducing safety incidents and will expand our understanding to the effect of dynamic envelope pavement markings.

I do not have a main witness with me today, but the Bill is supported by the Teamsters and Teamsters Rail and the sheep, metal, air, rail and transportation workers. Smart. And a late letter of support was received from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainment. The Bill has no registered opposition. I would ask for an iPhone.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in room 1200 who wishes to testify in support? Please state your name and your organization.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee Members Louie Costa with the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers Transportation Division in support.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Board Members Ryan Snow with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and trainmen hardly support one of the most dangerous issues when. It comes to railroad with the General public are crossing incidents that happen daily. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness. Mr. Chair Member Shane Gusman, on behalf of. The teamsters in support. Okay. Any additional witnesses in support hearing? See none. Are there witnesses here in opposition hearing? Seeing none. Moderators, let's go to our phone lines now and see if there's anyone wishing to testify either in support or opposition of SB 506.

Ladies, gentlemen, if you like to testify in support or opposition, you may press 1 and 0 at this time, and we have no one in queue.

Thank you. Now we're going to bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns by Committee Members? No hearing? Seeing none. Okay. Senator Laird, would you like to close.

At the appropriate time? I would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And now you're presenting for Senator Caballero?

That's correct. I'm presenting file item number three on SB 306 on behalf of Senator Caballero. This Bill seeks to address extreme heat climate impacts through both direct mitigation and strategic planning measures. On behalf of Senator Caballero, I'd like to thank the Committee for their work on the Bill and accept the Committee amendments. Research has indicated for years that heat kills more Americans than any other extreme weather event, including floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Without proper mitigation, exposure to heat can cause existing health problems to become worse.

In April 2022, the state released a report titled Protecting Californians from Extreme Heat, a State Action Plan. The report outlined a multi-agency approach to mitigate the health, economic, cultural, ecological, and social impacts of increasing temperatures and heat waves. The strategies outlined will put California in the path to protect our residents. This Bill codifies the Extreme Heat Action Plan and requires the Natural Resources Agency and the Office of Planning and Research to update the plan every three years.

Each agency identified in the Extreme Heat Action Plan would also be required to collaborate on its implementation and make the status of its implementation available to the public online. It also seeks to provide guidance on the state-funded Direct Install Program. In last year's budget, 1.1 billion was allocated to establish the Equitable Building Decarbonization Program at the California Energy Commission, which includes the Direct Install Program to provide minimal to no-cost energy efficiency upgrades for low to moderate-income residents.

It seeks to establish priorities and guardrails on the newly funded Direct Install Program. It will have a direct impact on the residents' bill, the quality of their lives, and their homes, and ensure state strategies for long-term heat mitigation are continually updated and made accessible. On behalf of Senator Caballero, I would ask for an Aye vote.

State for the record. That's file item three.

Yes, that's correct.

I mean file item eight. File item eight.

I'm sorry, it said three on my.

Yeah, it's file item eight.

Okay.

All right. Are there witnesses here in the room in support? Are you the primary witness?

Yes, I am.

Okay. Please state your name and organization. You may begin. You have two minutes.

Okay. Good afternoon, Michael Jarred on behalf of Climate Resolve. Climate Resolve is a nonprofit based in Los Angeles that builds collaboration to champion equitable climate solutions. We are proud to support Senator Caballero's SB 306, which would require the Office of Planning Research and the Natural Resources Agency to update the state's Extreme Heat Action Plan every three years, in alignment with the state's climate adaptation strategy.

One of Climate Resolve's areas of focus is extreme heat, because we believe it's a silent killer that disproportionately impacts the elderly, children, low-income individuals, and those with preexisting medical conditions, and communities of color. According to the 2021 Los Angeles Times article, between 2010 and 2019, the hottest decade on record, California's official data showed the deaths of 599 people due to heat exposure. That same analysis actually found the true death toll was six times higher and that the actual deaths were 3,900.

The Extreme Heat Action Plan that was released in April 2022 had several recommendations and asked numerous state agencies to act on extreme heat. One of those recommendations asked the Department of Public Health to develop a syndromic surveillance system to gain a better understanding of heat-related illnesses and deaths caused by extreme heat. And funding was secured for that system, and the system is currently being developed. The last report on extreme heat was in 2013. The state cannot afford to go nine years between plans.

SB 306 will put the Extreme Heat Action Plan into statute, require its regular update, and ensure it includes legislative priorities, such as additional measures to protect pupils and students from the impacts of extreme heat while on school campuses. For all these reasons, Climate Resolve asks for your Aye vote on SB 306. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here state your name and your organization, please.

Yes, I am Max Wei. I'm a staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and I've led technology development and modeling teams for over 20 years. I'm here today as a technical resource to the Committee on this issue of extreme heat adaptation. I just want to be clear that my testimony is my own and that my remarks do not represent the views of the Department of Energy, the University of California, or Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The Laboratory does not endorse or oppose policy legislation.

Extreme heat waves are becoming more intense, frequent, and longer duration, with disproportionate impacts to residents in underresourced hot areas of the state, such as the Central Valley. There were 69 days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in Fresno County in 2021, which is above the median climate projections for 2040.

With support from the Strategic Growth Council and Energy Commission, I worked with community members in Fresno, including the West Fresno Family Resource Center and the Fresno Economic Opportunities Commission, to develop a toolkit of resources that can help vulnerable communities develop affordable mitigation strategies to better cope with high heat. Many homes in Fresno and the Central Valley lack adequate cooling.

And both passive measures such as cool surfaces, lighter colored walls and roofs, for example, and active measures such as ceiling fans and more energy-efficient air conditioners can sharply reduce the public health and safety risks during heat waves. The state's Extreme Heat Action Plan and the investments that the Governor and the Legislature have dedicated to addressing this growing threat through the equitable building decarbonization program can be very helpful in addressing challenges raised in our study.

This Bill makes important contributions to improve heat resilience and equity and to improve the basic livability of residents in underresourced areas. Thank you.

Any additional witnesses? Just state your name and your organization, please.

Good afternoon. Lillian Marvis with MCE here in support of SB 306. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support? Hearing and seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Before we go on, consultant, let's establish a quorum.

[Roll call].

Quorum is present. We have a quorum, so thank you. Now we'll move to witnesses in opposition here in the room. Are there any witnesses in opposition to SB 306? Seeing none. Yes, we're on file item eight right now. Now we'll move to our phone lines. Moderators, are there anyone wishing to testify either in support or opposition of SB 306?

If you'd like to testify in support or opposition. You may press one then zero at this time. First, we'll go to line 13, please go ahead.

This is Janet Cox for Climate Action California, in support of this Bill. Thank you.

At this time, there's no one else in queue. Back to you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or concerns by Members in regards to SB 306? Hearing and seeing none. Is there a motion? All right, it's a do pass as amended to Rules. Senator.

I request and Aye vote. Thank you very much.

Request an Aye vote. Consultant, please call the roll on file item eight. SB 306 with a do pass, as amended to Rules.

[Roll call].

That measure has 11 votes. It's out. We'll leave the roll open for the absent Members. Thank you, Senator Laird, for your two presentations and the one for Senator Caballero. Before we take our next author, can we get a motion on the consent calendar? We have one item on consent. SB 860. It's been moved by Senator Eggman. Consultant. Please call the roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Consent calendar has 12 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Now we'll move on to file item four. Senator Alvarado, Gill, when you're ready, you may begin your presentation. Before you start, let's circle back and let's call the roll on file item one, SB 38. We have a do pass as amended to appropriations. We're looking for a motion. It's been moved by Senator Durazo. Consultant. You may call the role on file.

item one, SB 38, do pass, is amended to appropriations. [Roll Call] That measure has 12 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on now we're moving to file item two, SB 506. Consultant, please call. We need a motion. It's been moved by Vice Chair Dahle. We have a do pass, as amended to. Transportation consultant, you may call the role.

[Roll Call]

The measure has 12 votes. Again, we'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Now we're on file item for Senator Alvarado-Gil. You may begin your presentation on SB 754.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honorable Members of the Senate Committee. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments and thanking the Committee's staff for their hard work on this Bill. And thank you to the Members who offered their friendly advice as well. SB 74 will reverse the CPUC decision. That has proven contrary to the Legislator's goal of connecting rural Californians to high speed broadband by restoring the prior rate making methodology to allocate state support to rural telephone companies.

In its recent rate case decisions, the CPUC cut a total of $3 million annually of high cost Fund support for three small telephone companies. While the dollar figure may seem small, I can tell you that it has an outsized impact in the remote rural communities served by these companies.

I can't emphasize enough that the lack of economies of scale in rural California, where 2 miles of network in downtown LA can serve tens of thousands of customers, 2 miles of network in my district serves only a few customers. Every dollar of the high cost funday continues to be vital for ensuring that the small rural telephone companies can continue to upgrade their networks to support customer access to critical emergency services and high speed broadband.

I would also like to respond to the last minute opposition that my Bill would result in excessive Afund support at the expense of consumers. That simply is not true. The CPUC's policies save consumers two cent on a $25 phone Bill. So actually, two cent savings is not worth undermining the state's universal service goals. For rural Californians, SB 754 makes explicit what has always been implied. The CPUC can only use regulated revenues to meet a company's revenue requirement.

I have chosen to author this Bill to represent the 16 counties affected in rural California, including seven in my Senate district. Here to testify in support of the Bill are Eric Votal, chair of Qualcomm and CEO of Vaultcom, and Sarah Bridge from the Association of California Healthcare Districts.

Thank you. You each will have two minutes. So who's going first? Go right ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you, chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on SB 754, and thank you to the Senator for her support. My name is Eric Votaw, and I am the chair of CalCom, which is an Association representing 11 rural rate regulated telephone companies in the hardest to reach and most expensive areas in the state. I am also the owner and CEO of Ducore Telephone Company.

I am the first Mexican American in the United States to own and operate an incumbent local exchange company. I take pride in the fact of my ownership and my position with the company that I uplift my community by providing jobs and supporting the communities that we serve with reasonable and affordable broadband services. Ducor is the second smallest telephone company in the state, and we're located in Kern, Telari and Tahema counties, serving around 900 customers.

Agriculture is a large part of our territory and most of our customers are Latino farm workers. Over 50% of our customers are eligible for lifeline and in the town of Ducor, 100% of our students are on the free lunch program. Ducor Telephone Company serves the working poor of rural California. In my exchanges alone in Tahema county and Tulare County, the poverty rate is 45%. Ducor telephone company and other companies like mine make broadband and telephone service affordable.

Ducor and the other world telephone companies like mine also build networks that serve our communities. Our communities rely upon these networks so that they have access to 911 and that we keep our businesses, our schools, our hospitals and our clinics connected to the world. We provide jobs to our community and we build high speed networks with these high speed networks, companies like mine provide jobs.

My company takes kids from the fields and we provide jobs and opportunities so that they haven't become technicians, customer service representatives and managers. As the Senator stated, this Bill will restore prior rate making and rate design methodology applied to small telephone companies and ensure that funding continues to cover the cost of our services and give us the necessary funding that we need to continue this build out.

Without SB 754, Ducor and the 10 Calcom companies will not be able to provide affordable service and build the networks that are critical and crucial to our communities. For these reasons, I'm in strong support of SB 754 and humbly ask for your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Member Sarah Bridge on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts here in proud support of SB 754. ACHD represents the 77 healthcare districts throughout the State of California. They operate clinics, skilled nursing facilities, hospitals, and provide care to millions of Californians. They service the states primarily the state's vulnerable and underserved populations, including the most rural and remote areas of the state. The Covid-19 pandemic has underscored a number of flaws in California's Internet and infrastructure and access.

During the pandemic, healthcare providers were able to expand healthcare access to thousands of Californians because of telehealth. However, we need better connectivity to ensure that these folks remain connected and can expand access to care. Healthcare districts have utilized telehealth and virtual care options to increase access to both primary and specialty care to California's residents. However, for the folks that I represent in the most rural areas, connectivity still remains strained.

There are limited providers willing to service broadband in these areas with limited resources to update existing infrastructure to meet speed requirements. SB 784, as mentioned by the author, restores prior rate making decisions and design methodology preventing reductions for these small telephone companies and their state support for state support based on the revenues of their nonregulated ISP affiliates. Healthcare districts understand firsthand the importance of supporting industries that are already willing to provide services in rural areas where others are not.

SB 784 is about connectivity, but it's also about access to care. Before we begin to preserve and expand access to care through virtual modalities, we must ensure basic connectivity is preserved and expanded. SB 784 is one piece of a much larger broadband framework addressing connectivity and affordability in rural areas. For this reason, we support SB 784 and respectfully urge your ivote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses here in room 1200 in support of SB seven? Five, four. State your name, your organization, please.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members Pam Loomis, on behalf of California's independent telecommunications companies requesting your support of this Bill and thank you to the author.

Thank you.

Next witness, Yolanda Benson, representing US Telecom the broadband Association, also in support of SB 754.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kim Lewis, representing Scenic in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Hearing and seeing none. And now let's go to opposition. Is there any witnesses? Shall we see Mr. Hernandez?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the Utility Reform Network, return in respectful opposition. I want to thank the author. I do understand the big picture and I think we have similar goals as far as getting access to broadband. Our concern with this Bill is really two or threefold. One is this is an issue that was debated at the CPUC pretty vigorously, in turn was involved and supports the decision that was made by the Commission.

It was also appealed to the Court of Appeals. A recent decision supported the conclusion of the CPUC, and I believe it has now been appealed to the California Supreme Court. We think we should allow that to play out before a Bill like this should go forward.

We also want to highlight that what's really at stake is whether or not the Commission can look at the revenue and the profits of a broadband affiliate of these small telephone companies when determining whether or not to allow access to these funds and whether or not to allow a surcharge on customers.

Oftentimes you heard a lot about broadband, but what's being asked in this Bill is that the CPUC not look at the revenue or the profits of the broadband affiliate when considering whether to tap these surcharges on customers. And that's where we have concern. We think that we should only tap into those funds after the Commission can look at the totality of the financial revenues of these broadband affiliates in particular. Oftentimes these companies. What we've heard, sometimes the bills are shared.

Sometimes you can only get the broadband service if you also get the telephone service. Oftentimes it's the same board or same staff. So there's a lot of interaction between these. They may be separate companies on paper, but because they are broadband affiliates, we think it is important for the Commission to look at the overall revenue in determining whether or not to impose a surcharge, no matter how small or how large, on the customers. And so we support the CPC decision right now.

We also know that there is broadband money that would be available otherwise. We know the Legislature has passed a ton of money out there and that there are a lot of ways to get money for broadband development. So we think that we should look at those as opposed to imposing this surcharge. And keep in mind, even if this Bill is defeated and we stick with what the Commission is doing now, they could still access these funds.

It's just there's an additional factor to consider that as a profit from the affiliate. So thank you for those reasons. Who are opposed?

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition of SB 754? Hearing? Seeing none in the room now, moderator will go to the phone lines. If there's witnesses in support or opposition of SB 754.

If you would to comment in support or opposition, you may press 1 and 0 at this time. Just a moment.

Yes. My name is Cesar Alvarado. I am General Counsel for Mount Diablo Unified School District. Access to reliable fast Internet access is critical for us as educators to fulfill our educational mandate, but it is critical and important for our students for their well-being and their educational growth. The Federal Communications Committee tells us that over 40% of our rural students do not have access to fast Internet, whereas only 3% of our urban students do not. The disparity is just glaring.

We support this Bill, and we support any Bill that really would increase the access for our students to access to Internet in our rural areas. We think that a CPU decision that takes into account ranges.

We just need your name and organization. Thank you.

Yes. Cesar Alvarado for Mount Diablo Unifico district.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

At this time, there's no others in queue.

I guess we have no more. So we're going to bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns? We have a motion by Vice Chair Dahle. Any questions or concerns from Committee Members? Senator Durazo.

Thank you. I do want to thank the author for raising the issue of getting our rural areas, every area, especially areas with poor people. But can you respond to the issue of that some of these companies are actually more joined than they are separate. The statement was made about being separate companies on paper, sharing boards or operational staff, and the other sources of funds that are available.

I think it was last year, we did $6 billion, set aside $6 billion for over several years for broadband support, especially for our poor areas. So if you can just respond to those two issues. Thank you.

Sure. Thank you. So I want to talk about the law. So simply, the law restores, this Bill would restore the prior rate-making methodology that was used until 2021, when the CPUC reversed that. The reason that it was reversed was because of the interpretation of the legislative intent. So we are making explicit what was already implied. So we're essentially fixing something that allowed a loophole. So the goal is to restore the support to small local telephone companies.

They may or may not be affiliated with third parties, but they function independently of those third parties. So as a consumer, Volcano Telephone Company, it is more difficult to install equipment and maintenance and upgraded services as required by the Federal Government in rural communities, in high wildfire areas, in mountainous regions.

And the intent of the Legislature was to ensure that there was cost equity between large urban debt areas like Los Angeles, as well as some of the rural communities, that we would have equity for this utility. So what this Bill simply does is it allows us to be explicit about the Legislature's intent and allow for that money that's already set aside for this service to be released to those small, independent telephone companies.

Are there any of these issues that you believe that you could sort out and maybe resolve as far as differences, or do you think you're pretty much. They're not issues that you can resolve with?

Yeah, I think one thing that I would note is I was made aware of the opposition kind of last minute. And in reviewing the letter, it was really written in haste to the point where even Chair Bradford was getting credit for authoring my Bill.

So I looked at the opposition and considered what was noted in there and felt very confident after meeting with 12 of the telephone companies at length with their representatives and with their attorney and with their consumers, to ensure that I was doing my due diligence to author a solid Bill.

Okay, you're fine with that, Senator Durazo? All right. Any other questions or concerns? No. We have a motion by Senator Dahle. Do pass as amended to Appropriations. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask for your Aye votes today.

Thank you. Consultant, please call the roll on file item four, SB 754.

[Roll call]. 11.

That measure has 11 votes. It's out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next up, Senator Padilla. He has file item three, SB 68. When you're ready, you may begin.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. It's my pleasure to present SB 688. I want to start by accepting the Committee amendments suggested and appreciate you and the staff working collaboratively with us on this. SB 688 would create a pilot program to study the most effective locations and crops most viable for agrovoltaic use in the State of California. Agrovoltaics is a simultaneous use of land for both solar power generation and agricultural uses.

In this context, it refers to the practice of using land for both agriculture and solar panels by setting the panels six or more feet above the crops below, partially shading them through the day. This practice has been proven successful in many other parts of the world. The crops below keep temperatures down for solar panels, which maximizes the efficacy of the panels. It is not just beneficial for the panels and production of energy, but for agricultural crops as well, and also improves working conditions for farm workers.

Solar energy can help provide farmers with an additional source of income and reduce their energy costs, and the shade of the solar panels again can protect the workers. Agrovoltaic practices have the potential to become a vital tool in California as we seek to continue to diversify our clean energy production means. California continues to be an agricultural world leader in clean energy and some of the most aggressive climate practices and challenges in the world.

In order to sustain a high level of agricultural production for the world and also progress toward our goal of 100% renewable energy by 2045, innovative and not incremental steps must be taken. With me today I have Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the American Farmland Trust.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members Rebecca Marcus with American Farmland Trust. We enthusiastically support SB 688. As the nation's leading agricultural producer, California should be leading the nation when it comes to integrating renewable energy projects and diversified climate-smart agriculture. Across the country in states like Colorado, Arizona, Massachusetts, and Maine, Clean Energy Associations, farm advocates, solar developers, and researchers are already partnering up with state governments to explore applications for dual use and novel agrovoltaics.

AFT sees SB 688 as a critical first step in establishing standards and incentives for agrovoltaics in the state. The U.S. Department of Energy projects that 10 million acres of ground-mounted utility solar will be needed to decarbonize the nation's electrical grid by 2045, with 90% of the solar capacity expected to be located in rural communities.

Given that solar developers often prefer flat, open, well-drained landscapes near existing electrical infrastructure for their arrays, some of our most productive and versatile farmlands, including potentially hundreds of thousands of acres in California, could be at risk of conversion to solar energy production. We recognize that innovative policies are needed to address the potential conflict between solar energy infrastructure and conservation of California's nationally significant farmland. In response to these tensions, AFT developed smart solar principles to help shape solar development across America.

One of our principles is growing agrovoltaics for agricultural production and solar energy. Done right, agrovoltaics has the potential to help California reach ambitious climate goals and protect the most productive farmland, reduce irrigation demand, and safeguard healthy soils. Importantly, agrovoltaics can also offer economic opportunities for farmers, including historically underserved producers, through the combination of solar lease payments and continued agricultural production. Building on agrovoltaics initiatives in other states and research conducted by the Department of Energy, we support funding for research and policy recommendations as envisioned in SB 688.

We encourage an assessment of farmer interest and strategies for overcoming identified market barriers effective market alignment and incentives for agrovoltaics, including consideration of agrovoltaics's preferred siding for qualifying solar projects, will accelerate innovation and adoption of agriculturally beneficial MW scale solar applications. We urge an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support of this measure here in Room 1200, please state your name and your organization.

Michael Jarred on behalf of the Community Alliance With Family Farmers. We're actually support if amended, and we provided amendments to the Committee and to the author's office. And we noticed that the Committee analysis takes care of some of our issues. And we like to thank the Committee and we'd like to thank the author's office and look forward to looking at the language and hopefully moving to a full support position.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here?

Rebecca Marcus, also in support of the union. On behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in support.

Thank you. All right, now let's move to opposition. Are there any witnesses here in Room 1200 who are opposed to SB 68? All right. Hearing and seeing none. Moderator let's go to our phone lines now and see if there's witnesses either in support or opposition of SB 688.

If you'd like to testify in support and opposition. You may press one then zero at this time. We'll go to line 13. Please go ahead.

This is Janet Cox for Climate Action California, in support of this Bill. Thank you.

At this time, there's no others in queue. Back to you, Mr. Chair.

All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns as it relates to this measure? Senator Eggman?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Peadilla, for bringing this forward. Can you? So including photovoltaic under the Williamson Act, does it need to be on ground that has dual use, like some of it still in AG and some of it in solar, or can it just be all photovoltaic?

Mr. Chairman, Senator, in answer to that, we do have been in dialogue with stakeholders with respect to potential impacts on Williamson and the question of whether it's necessary to add amendments to the Act. And we'll be addressing those in the Committee on Agriculture.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any additional questions or concerns? Hearing and seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Just respectfully request an I vote.

We have a do pass amendment as amended, with the understanding that you will be taking the amendments in Senate Agriculture.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

All right, so, consultant, please call the roll on file item three, SB 68. Yes, we're still looking for a motion. I'm sorry. It's been moved by Senator Ashby. Okay, we can now call the roll.

[Roll call].

That measure has 11 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Congratulations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All right. Now we're moving on to Senator Becker. He has two items, file item 6 and 7. Senator Becker, when you're ready, you may begin with file item six, SB 48.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Pleased to first present SB 48. Commercial buildings are responsible for almost 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually, so that's about 5% of our state's total emissions. Thus, this is a critical area for us to address. This Bill is about improving the efficiency of our largest buildings, which can help by reducing utility bills, reducing energy use, and reducing greenhouse gases, all while improving the comfort of these buildings.

So strong building codes have already improved the efficiency of new buildings, but the state also needs a policy for improving its older buildings. This Bill directs the Energy Commission develop a strategy for leveraging benchmarking data to help achieve the state's target for efficiency improvements and emissions reductions.

And we can follow the example of other cities and states, including Washington state, Maryland, and Colorado, as well as New York City, Washington, DC, and the City of ChuLA Vista here in California, who have enacted building form and standards leveraging benchmarking data to improve efficiency in older buildings. We have a head start because the state already has a benchmarking program for energy usage in large commercial and residential buildings. The benchmarking program has always included very large buildings, those over 50,000 feet.

And also at least 17, well, some of our others have also included residential buildings with over 17 units. I'm accepting the Committee's amendments to clarify this Bill will continue to only apply to buildings that large for commercial buildings. Those buildings, about 6.3% of all commercial buildings, but 53% of total space and a similar share of energy usage and GHG emissions. Owners of large buildings are also usually professional real estate companies, and they're more able to make their own plans and have the capital for the needed improvement.

I want to note this is also a great opportunity for job creation, for creating good union jobs. New York City estimates that their building performance standard will create $20 billion of economic impact. We don't have an estimate yet for our state, but you can imagine it'll be larger than that. So again, we accept the Committee's amendment around 50,000 square feet.

One of the trickiest problems around building performance for residential buildings is to make sure that tenants see gains in comfort and utility bill savings without causing large increases in rent or displacement.

We've gotten a lot of helpful input from housing advocates on these issues which we've incorporated into this Bill, both in terms of creating an inclusive stakeholder process to work out the details of the strategy and including some provisions specifically aimed at ensuring that these standards will not cause low income tenants to face increased overall costs or new reasons for eviction.

However, I do understand the sensitivity of many folks on this issue, so I'm accepting the Committee's amendments that will allow the CC to develop a strategy for commercial and residential building performance standards, but only move forward with the strategy on the commercial side initially. Implementing the strategy on the residential side will require a future Bill, so the Legislature will have a chance to see the proposed strategy and to vote on that.

So again, so accepting the recommendations there. Drought is a long term challenge for our state, and the same kind of benchmarking and efficiency standards can also be used to help us save lots of water and to make California more resilient to future droughts. The water utilities have raised some concerns about this Bill. I believe there's some misunderstandings and it's really not as big an issue as they have claimed, and given more time, I think we could have hopefully worked through them.

However, I have decided to accept the chair's desire to keep the Bill simpler and to focus only on energy and so with the Committee's help, we will amend the Bill to remove water from the Bill going forward. Again, focusing the Bill on energy as most as the building performance standards in other states have been.

So, in conclusion, I think that I believe certainly that a strategy that encourages investment, older buildings can create job opportunities, strengthen climate resilience, result in healthier, more durable, less expensive spaces to live, and begin to make a serious dent in the 20 million metric tons of emissions coming from large buildings. So this will be an important first step by starting an inclusive process to develop a strategy for cleaner, more efficient buildings. I respectfully ask for an I vote.

We have two witnesses, Joe Desmond from the California Efficiency and Demand Management Council and Andrew Kosadar from Southern California Edison.

Thank you. Each of you will have two minutes, so state your name and your organization. You may begin.

Chair Bradford and members of the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee. My name is Joseph Desmond. I'm the Executive Director for the California Efficiency and Demand Management Council, testifying in support of Senate Bill 48. The council is the premier statewide nonutility trade Association, whose Members design, implement, maintain and evaluate energy efficiency, demand response, distributed energy resources and data analytics services and products.

We work to unlock energy efficiency and demand management resources that are vital to lower utility bills, cleaner energy, reliable power, and equitable access to clean energy technologies. California leadership has reduced customers electricity demand by nearly 20% sorry, 20%, saving California's roughly $90 billion on their bills over the last 50 years. Despite these successes, there are still opportunities to further, opportunities to further energy and financial savings, helping relieve grid stress, reducing the likelihood of summer blackouts, and cutting energy related emissions.

Senate Bill 48 will advance energy efficiency savings for Californians throughout the state by using a statewide strategy. Using energy usage data can be effective to help improve energy and grid reliability, expand energy equity, ease Bill impacts, further integrate clean energy technologies and reduce greenhouse gases. The council is supportive of a regulatory process that considers a broad range of stakeholder input on how to advance efficiency to further these savings and emissions reductions, including through a building performance standard.

There are many components of a building performance standard that would be beneficial, that would benefit from a thoughtful stakeholder dialogue. We applaud Senator Becker and his staff for their focus on furthering efficiency measures as an important component of advancing the state's ambitious climate and clean energy goals. For these reasons, the council supports SB 48 and encourages your I vote. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak in support of SB 40.

Thank you. Our next witness.

Good afternoon chair members, Andrew Kosydar with Southern California Edison. Reducing carbon emissions from existing buildings is a critical component of achieving California's bold decarbonization goals. Building performance standards are an effective tool for achieving these goals. Importantly, building performance standards are nothing new. Currently, there are three states, nine cities, and the District of Columbia have all enacted building performance standard laws, including ChuLA Vista here in California. California has set bold goals for reducing greenhouse gases, and achieving those reductions necessitates decarbonizing existing buildings.

SB 48 sets out a path forward for being able to tackle these laudable and critically important goals. SCE supports this Bill and respectfully urges your I vote. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in support of this measure? State your name and your organization, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California. In addition to ourselves, I just want to add in the Sierra Club, Friends Committee on Legislation, Climate Action Campaign, the Rocky Mountain Institute, and that's it. Thank you, urge an I vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon. My name is Rebecca Mentem with the Building Decarbonization Coalition. I have to be on tiptoe here to get to the mic, and we would urge your support of this Bill today.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon. Anthony Sampson, on behalf of A.O. Smith Corporation, in support.

Thank you. Next witness.

Cynthia Shallot, on behalf of the 80 groups of indivisible California State Strong, in support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Hearing seeing none, now we'll go to opposition. Are there witnesses here in the room that are opposing SB 48? All right. Seeing none. Moderator let's go to the phone lines and see if there's individuals wishing to testify either in support or opposition of SB 48.

Gentlemen, if you'd like to testify in support or opposition, press 1 and 0 at this time. And first we go to line 29. Please go ahead. Line 29. Your line is open.

All right, we'll move on to.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Silvia Solis Shaw here, on behalf of the City of West Hollywood, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 13. Please go ahead.

Hello, this is Janet Cox for Climate Action California, in strong support of SB 48. Thank you, Senator Becker.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 31. Please go ahead.

Hi, there. This is Sandra Cushion representing CALPIRG, in support.

All right.

Go to line 28. Please go ahead.

This is Nancy Haber with 350 Bay Area Action, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Next, we'll go to line 15. Please, go ahead.

Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Karim Drissi on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. It's our understanding from the author's opening remarks that he is accepting the Committee recommendation contained in yellow in the analysis. Based on that understanding, we will be removing our opposition once those amendments are in print and wish to sincerely thank both the author and the Committee for their work on this Bill. We very much appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next witness.

Next, we go to line 17. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies. We had a position of opposed unless amended, although it sounds like the pending amendments will address those concerns. And we appreciate the consideration of those concerns and look forward to seeing the amended version in the Bill. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line nine. Please go ahead.

Rebecca Price with the U.S. Green Building Council, testifying in support.

And next, we'll go to line 30. Please go ahead.

Vanessa Tillis calling for Indivisible California State Strong and Indivisible East Bay, in strong support.

Next, we'll go to line 34. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is Raj Faye with Change Begins With Me and we're calling in strong support of SB 48. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 37. Please go ahead.

Did you say line 37?

Yes. Line 37. Go ahead.

Sorry. Jessica Craven, elected Member of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. Just calling to say support.

At this time, there's no one else in queue. Back to you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Now we're going to bring it back to the Committee Members, are there questions or concerns as it relates to this measure? Senator Dahle?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So it's very difficult as a Member of the Committee to follow what's happening when I don't have all the damn amendments to be able to read until, like, seconds ago. So I'm just going to say that. Not to you, but I'm frustrated because this Bill is very important Bill, and I think that it needs some work, quite frankly. And there obviously it needed some work or we would have had amendments before now.

So I want to just start by saying that as somebody who is in business and has been regulated by the California Air Resources Board and the Legislature to implement something years out makes a difference. And so you've taken some amendments to this Bill is going to go to the C. This is going to give power to the CEC eventually to regulate on an existing structure that's 50,000ft or larger.

I don't know exactly what the Bill does because I'm trying to learn on the fly right now because we haven't seen the amendments. Is that true? 50,000 square foot and larger in 15 years, those people are going to have to retrofit and the CEC is going to have the power to do that? We're delegating our power as a Legislature.

Is this on? Is the mic on? Okay.

Now it is. Go ahead.

It's a stakeholder process, but led by the CEC.

Right. Okay. And then how many units as residential units is it? 16 or 17 or what is the number? Because the realtors just said 16, but I think I read 17. So I want to clarify what actually the Bill does with the amendments that were taken a few minutes ago.

Sure. The amendments are threefold. So one is just clarifying it's over 50,000 sqft, number one. Number two, originally it's 50,000 sqft commercial or residential. And the residential was defined as 50,000 least 17 units. But with the Committee amendments, what we're doing is basically moving forward with commercial, residential is going to go to basically a study process and they'll come up with a plan and then come back to us. And the Legislature would have to approve that plan going forward.

So in the past, the thought process in California, if you built a home or you built a building that you were going to occupy, that whatever the building standards of the day, you met those obligations and you were able to build them and you got certified. And then if you remodel, you bring it up to the standard of whatever the laws have changed since the day you built. This Bill is going to go in and in 15 years it's going to force people that have met the law, the time they built their 50,000 square foot building or bigger or if they have a combined over 50,000 sqft study is going to the CC for their residential.

So how is this not a takings you're forcing somebody to do something when they met the law at the time when they built the building. And how is it not going to be a burden on the millions of square feet that is in California? 50,000 sqft sounds like a big number if you live in an 800-square-foot home, but it's not when you talk about commercial buildings. Go right out here to Amazon and there's probably a million square feet under one roof.

I think the reason people have liked this and gravitated this process is it starts out with benchmarking. Right? Let's benchmark and gather all that data so we know 100,000 square foot building in this area because again, we have all that utilities have all that information we heard. We can even get here from one of our witnesses, SoCal Edison, so we can gather this data and so we know what the building should be on average, right?

We have the range and then we set clear standards in the future and we give people plenty of time to get there. And that's why people have, this has passed in a number of jurisdictions and why people are supportive of that process, they say, hey, we know we got to work on large buildings. This is a good way to go about it.

And our Bill is kind of the middle ground between requiring the CEC to present a strategy with no authorization to do anything and giving them complete authority. So this is really, I think, a middle ground if you look at it. But I think for building owners, it sets a timeframe. It's clear what the standard is, sets a time frame in the future. And ultimately these buildings are going to be cheaper to operate and create jobs, as we mentioned, and will support our overall goals.

Well, I would just, I'm not going to support your Bill all the way through. I think it's unfortunate that we as legislators regulate in a fashion where, let me just put it to you this way. And this actually happened to me. So we did AB 32, which was Pavli Bill, by 2020, we're going to retrofit all these trucks. And I'll put it to you this way. The truck can actually be retrofitted to the standard.

So if this building isn't retrofitted to the standard, it'd be like me telling you, hey, we're going to upgrade your home that you built, paid for and was met the law of the day. And when you go and say, hey, you know what, you have to do all these things to it. Well, the process doesn't work to do it. You'd have to tear your home down and rebuild a new one.

That's basically what they did in the transportation industry with CARB is that the truck would never made it, so we had to replace it, which was a cost to me even though I bought it. It was legal the day I bought it. This Bill has the opportunity to do the same exact thing to somebody that owns a building over 50,000 sqft. If you can't retrofit it because it wasn't built in the way to get to the retrofit, you're going to have to tear the building down.

And that's what happened with CARB under transportation. And it's a cost, a huge cost to businesses. And you're giving the power to the CEC for those reasons. Mr. Chairman, I will not be supporting the Bill today, and I'll be happy to look at the amendments. I don't know where it's going after this. Is it double-referred?

It's going to Environmental Quality.

Oh, good. I'll get to see it again. Awesome.

All right. Thank you. Senator Dodd.

Yes, I have some of the similar concerns. Just the first question. You have 15 years in this, and that brings it out to the year 2038. We're looking at a lot of state goals and everything out to 2045. When you've got these bigger buildings, you need to have financing. I just think there's a lot there and I'm going to do it differently. I'm going to support your Bill today, but I'd like to see you work on some of these things.

The staff analysis addressing affordability proceed with caution. Integrating decarbonization strategies is generally more cost-effective in new building construction, we know that, compared to existing. The challenge to transition existing buildings is complicated by occupancy, lack of inertia, limited consumer knowledge, but most importantly, costs. And I guess we're going to get, my concern is that we get out 15 years from now. That's not very long at all. I'd like to see you looking at that.

I don't know if there's any of the stakeholders on either side that are concerned about those numbers. And I don't know if the Friedman Bill from 2018 was instructive at all in putting this Bill together, which really sought to get information to make something like this a little bit less complex. I will tell you, I am appreciative of the amendments that you did take to get here, and I think that was an important step to supporting this Bill today.

I'll say two things. One is it is a stakeholder process mentioned. So this is going to give interest groups a chance to weigh in. So that's why I'd say it's the middle ground to Senator Dahle's question. I'd like to ask my witnesses, either Joe or Andrew, to comment on either the. Because there's 15 years, actually, a long time, there's so many new technologies that are coming to make buildings more efficient. I don't know. Maybe you can comment on that or any other questions.

This is Joe Desmond with the council. Yes, there are always improvements as we go through different types of technologies over time. I would say, I think legitimate concerns that I think could be addressed by thinking about how things are done in the code development process, where there's a methodology that identifies what these benefits are and what the requirements are. So those are opportunities to do that.

And I would suggest also that, and this is what I'm looking for, is for stakeholder engagement to identify some of these other things. Other things like how do you finance these projects? Who's going to provide that? And the example I would give you, the parallel would be the power purchase agreement for a solar panel. That was before we had solar leases, but that had somebody purchasing the benefit of that.

And you could apply some of those same ideas or concepts into efficiency measures where someone is paying for it. Now, the challenge, of course, is how long? How are you going to measure that? But those are manageable things that you can do. So my recommendation here to you, Senator, again, is that to let the process, at least from our perspective, continue to get additional feedback and input.

Great. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Just to follow up on that. I get that. And if that's all the Bill did, I wouldn't have been commenting at all if that's all the Bill did. But what we're doing here today, or you're asking us to do, is to vote on a Bill that takes step one, which is a very important step, and then also acknowledging, acknowledging that they've got 15 years to complete what we don't even know yet.

I just think there needs to be some work as this thing moves on in that regard. That would be helpful to me when it gets to the floor, and I will Reserve the right to determine how my vote will be there. But again, I'll vote on it today.

Yeah. If I could just point that on, Senator Dodd, to your point. You know, oftentimes California is leading and we're sort of creating all this ourselves. In this case, we're actually following. So these issues are being worked on right now in New York. So New York City was two or three years ahead of us. Washington state I mentioned passed it when building standards build and actually made it apply to us, to smaller buildings, I think 25,000 bigger. So these issues are being worked on.

And the point is that this is, and our state has joined the building performance, the white ash actually created a building performance standard committee, basically, and our state has now signed on to that. Our Governor has signed on. So I think people have recognized that we have to with large buildings. It's such a huge part of our emissions. And I think people have gravitated to this as the solution to do it right and we can mandate something sooner.

The Friedman Bill, I think was important, but that was more of a report by the CEC on how to reduce buildings. So I think it helps sort of set the stage for something like this. And it's also 15 years from when the standard is set, not 15 years from right now. So I wanted to clarify that as well. So 15 years when the standards are set. So it does give you a little more time. Listen, it is a big deal. That's why I'm doing this.

I will say, actually, this is a bit of a two-year Bill. We spent last year meeting with environmental justice groups and in sort of preparation for this. So I get that this is a big topic and it's certainly an important one if it's 20 million metric tons of emissions. That's why we pursue it this way. But happy to keep the conversations going.

Great. Senator Eggman.

Thank you. I just like to voice some of the same concerns and also coming from a farming family and having my family, having two trucks that can't be used, can't get registered, can't do anything with them any more except thousands of dollars just sitting there and have to replace them on top of that. So as we go forward, and also someone who lives in 100 plus-year old home. Right. So I just know that standards are more difficult to reach.

So I just want to respect what you're trying to do here and the goal that we're all trying to get to. But I think there just needs to be consideration for cost factors and the technology and if it exists, if it doesn't exist and how it integrates with what we currently have. So I'll be supporting you today, but interesting area and keep on working.

Thank you. And that's important. And maybe next we'll come back with also examples because the hope is that people actually, they save money over time. Right? And we've seen that in many other areas. So that actually by doing this work, they'll actually save money and we can come up with financing mechanisms, as Joe Desmond mentioned. But anyway, I do appreciate your input and I understand it's a big area.

Senator Ashby.

Thank you. Coming from a local perspective, I just want to share with you that a big building project like this could take a really long time just to get through the Building Department and then the funding. I've never seen funding as short of a term as 15 years on a large-scale project at a local level. So I'm going to support this today, too. But from an academic standpoint, what you're trying to do makes perfect sense to me and is noble.

But from an implementation standpoint, from a local level, my concern is that the time frame that you're looking at doesn't line up with how city or county governance works for establishing and working with buildings on retrofits like this, nor does it line up with my experience in terms of funding. And I've done some really large-scale projects in this region. And so I just would encourage you to maybe include some of the. It concerned me that Aqua, for example, wasn't favorable.

I see you've done the hard work it takes to move them out of opposition, and I think that was really good work. But they do have a very good understanding of what the local governances have to go through in order to retrofit something to a new standard. I think you're on the right track. You're right, it's a big and important goal, and so I'm absolutely going to support it today.

But I would just encourage you to maybe bring on some of those local government agencies, too, and ask them how this might wed up with their process through community developments.

Great. We just want to comment on time frame at all?

You can certainly extend those time frames, and you can also segregate types of buildings like fenestration or the heating and cooling system over time. There are different ways of looking at all of those opportunities, but fundamentally, you start with data collection, which is what California has been doing for a very long time, and then you start thinking about benchmarking, and then you go to energy audits, which identify the range of potential savings and costs, and then you start looking at building performance standards.

So there is a lot that if you talk about that, you have to think of the metrics that you're going to have here to determine what success is. You also have to think about the target, what's the goal of the reduction or the emissions avoidance. And in this case, it's going to be by building type. Different buildings have different performance. They're also in different climate zones.

And so those are the same things that are taken into account when we talk about new codes, new energy codes, specifically in title six of, I mean, Title 24, Part Six. That's the energy code. And then lastly, I would say, what's the pathway? And that pathway is really, how can I finance this? What are the opportunities there? But getting people to provide that input as part of the CEC strategy is going to inform what certainly building owners are going to be asking about.

Yeah. So I think that gets to the stakeholder process that we'll embark on here. But thank you for that. Thank you for your comment, Senator Ashby.

Senator Rubio.

My voice is gone today, so I just want to go on record and I will echo Senator Eggman's comments. Thank you.

All right. Any further additional comments, questions, concerns on this measure? Hearing seeing none. Senator Becker, would you like to close?

Yeah, thanks. I think we already discussed that I really appreciate everyone's input. I understand that this is a big area and a big undertaking and look forward to continuing the discussions. And I appreciate support moving this forward today.

And let me just go on record, I appreciate your willingness to meet with me and discuss those concerns that we had as it relates to this issue. And it's my understanding now that the amendments will remove again the impacts on residential housing units. So we're clear on that. And the additional amendment will, the author and I have agreed to one additional amendment to delete all references to water usage and related provisions. Am I correct on that?

Yes.

So we have an understanding, and I appreciate your willingness to work with us on that. We have a do pass, as amended, to environmental quality Committee, where those amendments will be taken. Is there a motion for this Bill? It's been moved by Senator Gonzalez. Consultant, please call the roll on SB 48.

[Roll call].

That Bill has nine votes. We'll leave the roll open for additional Members to add on. Now we're going to move on to file item seven, Senator Becker, and it's SB 322. When you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Thank you for opportunity to present 322. A Bill will support business development and workers in underserved communities with high paying, stable jobs as California leads the transition to a green economy. To meet the clean energy goals outlined, SB 100, SB 1020, and the EV adoption targets and the scoping plan, California will need to manufacture and purchase large amounts of lithium batteries.

Additionally, as California increases its use in manufacturing of zero emission vehicles, it's imperative that state incentives supporting this industry also support high quality, equitable jobs. Historically underserved communities and workers in the manufacturing industry are most impacted by the transition towards a non fossil fuel future and would most benefit from additional high road job transition support. Battery manufacturing plants can establish equitable, good paying jobs for Californians as if they adopt high road workforce and job quality standards.

This Bill will establish a ranking system to prioritize businesses who establish a workforce plan to employ individual to employment barriers when applying for zero emission vehicle battery manufacturing grant. And I want to thank the Committee for working with us on that definition of individuals employment barriers. By doing this, SB 322 will prioritize quality jobs for Californians as we lead the transition to a green economy. And today I have two witnesses joining me. Tom Hincy from UAW region six and Victor Quiroz from Assistant Director of UAW region six and former President of Local 230.

Each have 2 minutes, so you may begin.

Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Thomas Hincy I'm an international representative with the United Auto Workers. UAW proudly supports SB 322 to ensure that public funding for electric battery manufacturers creates high quality, sustainable jobs for workers in the battery manufacturing industry in California. California has budgeted substantial funding to transition the state to EVs, including $25 million in grants related to battery manufacturing.

The state has the responsibility to ensure such financial support offered to businesses also creates durable, high quality jobs, labor standards, workers rights, career pathways, and community benefits. SB 322 will link climate goals with high road jobs by conditioning eligibility for funding on complying with labor, workplace safety and antidiscrimination and leave laws and proper classification of workers to ensure that the development of the battery industry also protects the air, soil and water that our communities rely on.

The Bill also requires applicants to submit an environmental safety plan. SB 322 amplifies the impact of public funds used to meet California's climate goals by requiring applicants to complete a workforce application. This competitive scoring system evaluates applicants based on payment of living wages, investments in training programs, compliance with health and safety and labor laws, and adoption of labor peace agreements. By attaching high road standards to public subsidies and prioritizing quality jobs, SB 322 reduces emissions while also reducing income inequality. So for these reasons, UAW is proud to support this Bill and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, next witness.

Good afternoon, Committee. Thank you for allowing us to speak. And thank you, Senator Becker, for carrying this for us. My name is Victor Quiroz. I am with UAW. I've been a proud Member of UAW for 35 years, Member in good standing. And I also have at least some knowledge regarding the battery manufacturing process, because as a Teamster Local 4951 of the very first jobs I had was in the battery manufacturing.

So over the decades, we've seen how the development of new strategies, the development of new efficiencies, along also with ways of how the health and safety actually does work. But in essence, the auto industry is in a cornerstone of manufacturing jobs in the United States, employing nearly 20,000 people in California in manufacturing and services, both in parts manufacturing and also independent part suppliers, and hundreds of thousands of people nationally.

But job quality in the auto industry has been compromised by offshoring, reliance on temporary workers, attacks on workers freedoms of association, and weakened health and safety enforcement, as well as in continued opposition to environmental protections. With that, UAW Members are fighting for a just transition to ensure that changes in the US automotive industry result in quality jobs that benefit workers and their communities.

California's investments in EV and battery manufacturing offer a critical opportunity to revitalize us industry and transition workers who build ICE vehicles or those jobs in the ICE supply chain to quality jobs in the EV supply chains that promote economic and racial justice. UAW members know that the transition to zero emission vehicles presents an opportunity to preserve and grow high quality jobs in the EV supply chain, including a battery manufacturing

SB 322, Becker capitalizes on this opportunity by ensuring the battery manufacturers receiving public funds follow our laws, protect the safety of workers, and provide family sustaining jobs for workers that serve as engines of economic development for their communities. These policies will encourage high road employment practices in highly strategic sectors of California's economy, as well as strong financial investments to every city and county within the state, thus ensuring strong financial support for services, including public safety, education, and the ongoing need to repair or expand our infrastructure. So for these reasons, UAW supports this Bill and we urge your aye vote on that one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any additional witnesses here in the room and support state your name and your organization, please.

Mr. Chairman and Member, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers who represent workers in battery manufacturing facilities across the United States. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members and staff, Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation, also in support.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. JB Tengco with the Blue Green Alliance. We bring labor environmental groups together. UAW is a Member. Many of the other labor partners that are Members and I register our support and on behalf of our environmental Members, NRDC, Sierra Club and California Environmental Donors. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Mr. Chair. And Member Shane Gusman. On behalf of the Teamsters, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no additional witnesses in support now we'll move to opposition. Are there witnesses here in room 1200 opposed to this measure? SB 322. Hearing, seeing none now let's go to the phone lines. Moderator. Are there witnesses wishing to testify in support or in opposition of SB 322?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero again. That is 1 and 0. If you're in opposition or support. And we will go to. Line 24. Your line is open.

Hello, this is Victoria Rome with NRDC, Natural Resources Defense Council in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we go. Line 27, your line is open.

This is Santiago Rodriguez with California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you. Next. Go. Line 20, your line is open.

Good afternoon. This is Emily Gartenberg. I'm calling on behalf of Jobs To Move America in strong support.

Thank you. Next, with a line 13. Your line is open.

This is Janet Cox for Climate Action California, in support.

Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there questions or concerns by Committee on this issue? It's been moved by Senator Durazo. Let's be clear, Senator Becker. You are taking Committee amendments, am I correct?

Yes.

Great. And I just also want to thank you for this measure. And as you well know, I've authored SB. I mean, no SCR 24. And it recognizes the need for California, as well as the United States, to end our reliance on exploitative foreign minerals and parts for batteries that we use in this country.

And I look forward to continued discussion and dialogue as we create high paying jobs here in California and the standards and to increase our development of our own in state battery components as well as final products. So I hope you will join us in that effort as well. Thank you. Yes. We have a motion by Senator Durazo. And we have a do pass, as amended, to the Labor and Public Employment and Retirement Committee. Please call the roll. I'm sorry. Would you like to close?

No. Appreciate that. Again, appreciate the Committee, you and the Committee working with us on the definitions and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Please call the roll now.

[Roll Call].

Measure asks seven votes yes. Three in opposition. We'll leave the roll open for additional Members to add on. Now, we're moving on to file item nine by Senator Gonzalez SB 529.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here to present SB 529, which will expand electric vehicle access for California's affordable housing residents. SB 529, as we know, the electric vehicles for All act is specifically intended to address the inequities that we see in the EV eco system.

In 2020, the Los Angeles Clean Tech Incubator and the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles launched an electric vehicle car share program at Rencho San Pedro Public housing complex with two electric vehicles and chargers. This program increased zero emission vehicle access in this historically underserved community while also reducing carbon emissions. And to date, the program has been a resounding success by enabling San Pedro housing residents to commute for work, medical appointments, errands, or visit family and friends.

SB 529 builds off of that success of Lacey's San Pedro car share program by creating a statewide grant program to deploy similar electric car share programs at 100 affordable housing locations throughout the state. This program will allow for the acquisition of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, education, outreach that is culturally competent, data collection, technical assistance, et cetera.

I accept the Energy Committee amendments, and I thank the Committee for their Thoughtfulness in considering the Bill and all the clarifying amendments to testify in support today, I have Karla Velasco with the Housing Authority for the City of Los Angeles, as well as Ruben Arce Hernandez, a resident of the Rancho San Pedro Affordable Housing Complex, and respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 529.

All right, you will have 2 minutes for your testimony, please.

Good afternoon, chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Karla Velasco and I'm a community relations specialist for the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, one of the nation's largest housing authorities that provide affordable housing through our rental assistance programs. I manage nine community coaches at Rancho San Pedro, where residents have been disproportionately affected by pollution caused by the nearby highways and Port of Los Angeles. The community coaches are residents who become ambassadors for the electric vehicle car share program.

These residents have taken the initiative to receive training on how to use the electric vehicles, and then they become trainers by sharing their first hand experiences with their neighbors. In addition, they helped us with the community outreach by handing out flyers in the community, encouraging new users to sign up for the program, and relaying the feedback they received on the ground to the partners.

We quickly found out that word of mouth is very important for increasing participation, especially when trying to gain trust from the community over time. The car share service was a resounding success, and many of the residents were utilizing the program. Through this experience, we learned that resident involvement was key to getting buy in from the community to use the service.

The electric vehicle car sharing program is available exclusively to our Rancho San Pedro residents, which consists of 475 families, and we have a total of 87 registered users. There are two electric vehicles available for booking at an hourly rate of $5 an hour. Many of the residents prefer the electric vehicle car share service over public transit. It is cheaper, more convenient, and quicker than other transportation options.

In my work at the Rancho San Pedro housing complex, I witnessed firsthand how the electric vehicle car share service benefited the affordable housing residents. Before the car share service, many of the residents lacked a reliable, affordable transportation option, which made it harder for people to get to work, take their kids to school, run errands, visit friends and family, complete medical appointments, and go to job interviews. The electric car share service gave residents more freedom and opportunity, and it improved their quality of life.

I strongly support SB 529 because it has been a resounding success in this community, and I believe it can improve the quality of life for our state's most underresourced, disadvantaged populations. I'd like to thank Senator Gonzalez for presenting this legislation and would respectfully ask for the Committee's aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, next primary witness.

[Speaking Spanish]

We're going to ask you to wrap as soon as possible. We're exceeded 2 minutes, so we're going to ask you to wrap your presentation. You can finish.

[Speaking Spanish]

All right. Any additional witnesses here in the room in support of SB 529?

Mr. Chairman and Members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Employees and the State Association of Electrical Workers in strong support of 529.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Yeah. Julie Melanowski Ball, behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lillian Marvis with MCE here in support of SB 529. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support? Seeing none. Opposition? Are there witnesses here in room 1200 who wish to testify in opposition of 529? Hearing see none. Moderator. Let's now go to our phone lines for witnesses either in support or opposition of SB 529.

If you would like to speak in support or opposition of SB 529, you may press 10 at this time to go to line 24. Please go ahead.

Victoria Rome with NRDC in support.

We'll go to line 38. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Kelly Brooks, on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Next, we'll go to line 10. Please go ahead.

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

Next, we'll go to line 39. Please go ahead.

Ruben Aronin with the California Business Alliance for a Clean Economy in strong support.

And we'll go to line 40. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chairman, Members. Madeline Cooper from Capital Advocacy on behalf of Blink in support. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 13. Please go ahead.

Did you say 13? This is Janet Cox for Climate Action California, in support.

At this time, there's no others in queue. Back to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or concerns? Senator Durazo?

Thank you. I want to thank the author. I was at a presentation that was made to community by those Members, such as a gentleman who spoke on the use of these electric vehicles in their community, which for the most part is poor working class, the working poor.

And to hear them as such, as the gentleman said today, about what it feels like to learn how to drive these electric vehicles and how much more efficient and just getting around in a place like Los Angeles, how much more difficult it is the current public transportation. But I'm really glad to hear further testimony. I think it's great and I hope it'll help people. I wish I had it in my community to make me less fearful of driving these cars around. So just thank the author. I support.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto?

I just have a kind of a concerned question about the liability. Who does the liability exist with if there is an accident, if somebody that is impaired takes out one of these vehicles and creates problem? Because I know the schools have a similar program. They have a lot of EV, or not necessarily EV vehicles, but pool vehicles for the students to use.

But the school can financially absorb that kind of liability hit if there's a large lawsuit attached to an accident, because by the very nature of being in an affordable complex, these people do not have deep pockets. And so somebody seeking to recover damages in an accident or something of that nature would most likely be going after either whoever the corporation is that put this out or the grant program itself. But how do they cover the liability part? Is it attached to the grant?

Yeah. Thank you for the question, Senator. Currently, there's similar program, Clean Mobility, that's run by CARB right now. Very similar program, but there are some differences. But it would be the housing authority, the housing complex, that would actually hold the liability, but every car would be insured. We want to make sure that everything was on the up and up to ensure that people were as safe as possible. But I don't know if Carla has additional. Okay.

And each individual driver has to go through a process where their license is checked, their liability. They carry insurance for themselves, personal liability for driving.

Absolutely.

All of that is on record so that we don't have it go out.

And I believe they have an app at the program in Rancho San Pedro that basically know, you upload your license, you upload all of your information or your ID to be able to drive the car. Thank you.

Any other additional questions or concerns? Hearing, seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

I just want to thank Carla. [Speaking Spanish] I want to thank the folks that have come forward, because this is a really great program. I would love to be able to socialize this, as Senator Durazo mentioned, to make sure that more folks have access to EVs. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I just want to go on record. The California Association of Realtors opposes this Bill unless it's amended to align with the definition of affordable housing facility to the one existing law. The proposed amendments would amend that and address those concerns.

That's correct. We took those amendments to clarify that.

Thank you. So we have a do pass, as amended, to the Transportation Committee. Is there a motion to move? It's moved by Senator Eggman. We have a do pass, as amended, to Transportation. Consultant, please call a roll on SB 529.

[Roll Call]

That measure has 13 votes. It's out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Now we're moving on to file item 10.

SB 705, which seeks to protect frontline utility workers. I'd like to thank the Committee consultants for their help. They worked hard on this Bill with us, and I will gladly be accepting the Committee's amendments. In order to combat recent public harassment and violence towards utility workers, SB 705 would require the Public Utilities Commission to create and implement a public education campaign on the increased frequency of aggression and violence towards utility workers. Utility workers are essential to dependable, secure electric and gas service for all of Californians.

However, over the last few years, utility workers have been the target of intense public anger towards utility companies. Even though these workers have nothing to do with the company's decisions, their work can often be hazardous. Working around gas pipelines and live electrical wires, all while putting in extremely long hours, often away from their families for extended periods of time.

And on top of their already dangerous job, workers have experienced harassment, aggression and violence, including verbal threats, physical assaults, and in some instances, even being shot at with guns. By educating the public on the essential role utility workers play, SB 705 will help protect workers and create a better relationship and understanding within their community, improving working conditions and making their jobs safer so they can return home to their loved ones after making sure the people of California have access to essential services.

I have two witnesses with me today, Chairman. The first is Chris Phaling, who is a journeyman cable splicer for PG&E and a Member of IBEW 1245. And the other is Scott Wetch on behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Employees.

All right, you each will have 2 minutes. I see Mr. Wetch is up first.

Mr. Chairman and Members, before I invite our Member, Mr. Failing up on behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Employees. Historically, utility workers have been a welcome sight during power outages. I think we all witnessed the heroics just in the last storms. But since the catastrophic wildfires in 2017 and 2018 and the utility public safety power shutoffs in 2019, utility workers have been the target of intense public anger towards utility companies. Even as the author stated, the frontline workers don't make the company decisions.

We for a number of years have chronicled a long list of assaults, both verbal and physical, trucks being attacked, having debris, rocks, bricks thrown at them, and multiple incidents of gunshots that have been well chronicled in the media. In addition, utility workers oftentimes work at night in the dark. It can be a very dangerous job.

Utility workers need to go into homes, often after hours, to help restore pilot lights, sometimes to do disconnections, if it's a case where there's a disconnection, and they encounter not only sometimes hostile ratepayers customers, but also criminals who have come to appreciate that they carry very expensive toolboxes, computers and other equipment, rather than trying to pursue any sorts of enhancements or things of that nature.

The approach that we have taken is that we want to direct the PUC to create a public awareness campaign of the existing penalties that would be accrued for assaulting or attacking a utility worker, similar to some of the public service announcements that Caltrans runs to protect workers out on the highways and the freeways.

Just to put a finer point on this, this situation in the Bay Area has become so severe, the PG&E has undertaken a pilot program of outfitting my members in certain areas, doing certain work with ballistic vests, believe it or not. And so, we think this is a reasonable approach. I'm going to invite up a few Members to talk about Mr. Failing, to talk about his personal experience, and then we would urge, and I vote thank you.

Thank you. You have 2 minutes. Please.

Mr. Chair and Committee, thank you for allowing me to speak in front of you. My name is Christopher failing. I've been an IBW electrical worker for PG and E for the last 10 years, splitting my time between San Francisco and Oakland. The past four years I've worked as a journeyman in Oakland, and that entails having a lot of responsibilities. Number one, keeping myself and the crew safe. We have always been there to help the customers.

Customers used to be happy to see us when we show up because we're there to get the power on. Now, due to fires, court proceedings, and the current political climate, we are viewed as the problem and have become the target for customers to release these frustrations upon. A young apprentice that I've worked with in the middle of the night was sucker punched from behind and had to call our company nurse and get recommendations on how to treat the situation.

A coworker that I also work with in my Oakland yard was shot in a company vehicle and is now paralyzed. And personally, more times than I could count, I have had threats of physical violence, including someone reaching into their waistband. Just because they don't like where I have my truck parked. Trying to get the power and the lights back on just because of my truck's location isn't reason enough for me to be having these interactions with customers when I'm there to help.

My job is highly hazardous, but I can mitigate these hazards by following safe work procedures, by putting out cones, barricades and safety tailboarding the crew that I'm working with about the hazards that we have in the job we're about to perform. But I have no control over the customers actions or thoughts that are happening around me. In Oakland, we are piloting a program, as stated, to wear bulletproof vests when we feel the situation merits. I am not in the military, I never have been.

I'm not in law enforcement, and I should not have to wear a bulletproof vest to go work in the community I'm supporting. Utility workers in the field are the face of the company to customers 80% of the time. We are your friends, your family and your community Members. We care and we are here to help. Senators, please help us in moving forward Senate Bill 705 and protecting our utility workers. I respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time comes. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional witnesses, state your name and your organization, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senators, hunters turn with IBW 1245 and strong support. Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Ashley Johnson on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. As they've said, over the last several years, we've seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats and violent attacks against our coworkers in the field. As they said, rocks being thrown at trucks, stabbings, death threats, and death and murder attempts. PG and E's stance is that everything and everyone will always be safe.

And it is for that reason that we are grateful for the Senator and for Committee staff for their work on this Bill. And we thank you very much. Strong support of SB 705.

Thank you, thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon. Nicolina Hernandez, government affairs manager for San Diego Gas and electric and Southern California Gas Company in support.

Thank you, thank you. Next witness. Good afternoon.

Andrew Cozydar with Southern California Edison in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Brandon Fossilman, IBW 1245 in support.

Good afternoon. Michelle Bissett with IBEW local 1245 in support. Good afternoon, I'm Kayla Jones with IBEW 1245 in support.

Good afternoon, I'm Gordon Young, IBW 1245 and Phil support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Ralphie Olbergles, IBW 1245 Member, asking you for support for my brothers and sisters in the field. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Member Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Engineers and scientists of California and the Utility Workers Union of America in support. Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in room 1200 in support of this measure hearing seeing none now let's go to opposition. Is there anyone here in the room posing SB 705 hearing seeing none moderator let's go to our phone lines. See if there's witnesses wishing to testify in support or opposition of SB 705. Like to testify in support or opposition of SB 705.

You may press 1 and 0 at this time. At this time, there's no one in queue. Thank you. Now we're going to bring it back to the Committee. Are there questions or concerns as it relates to this? Seyarto?

Thank you.

Well, first of all, thank you for bringing a Bill to protect people that apparently need protection. And it's a sad State of affairs that people that are just out there trying to do good things and help the public are being attacked for whatever reasons. Shouldn't need an education campaign to tell somebody that it's not right to throw a brick through somebody's window. But unfortunately, it is.

And I noticed in the background of this that this Bill differs from past legislation because it focuses on public education instead of increasing criminal penalties, which is a lot of what we're trying to do. So every year this is going to have an evaluation period to see if this is even making a dent in the problem.

Yes, that is the intent. Yes.

Okay. And if it's not, are we going to react to that? Because you know what? I think five years is a long time for people to put up with having bricks thrown at them and being hit.

Senator, I think that's fair, but that's why we're doing the annual analysis. So, yes, I would think if we came back with analysis in the first year or second year that showed, hey, we need to do a little bit more that we would then entertain that conversation. But there have been other campaigns you probably all are very familiar with, some of the Caltrans ones that say, be careful. My mom works here, my dad works here, and those have been very successful.

So it's a good place to start.

Caltrans is an accident. What's happening to these folks is not an accident. This is people with no consequences going out and acting out on their rage. That's terrible. Anyway, well, thank you for bringing this forward. I plan to support this, but I also plan on listening to see if this is effective at all.

And if it isn't, I hope Members of this body will take a quick and immediate action to increase what we're doing to deter people and hold them responsible for doing these acts against these poor workers.

That's fair. Senator, thank you thank you, Senator Skinner. I'll move the Bill.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate?

Senator Durazo, I just want to thank all the working men and women who came here to share your story. Without you sharing the stories, it would just be words on a piece of paper. So thank you all very much and for the risks that you take on our behalf.

And I, too, want to thank the Senator. I carried a similar measure a year ago. I believe so. I think this is critically important. We saw what happened during the pandemic. Number of frontline workers who were harassed and attacked. So it's a common sense measure. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. And we have dupas, as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.

Can I close? Really?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes, please. That's all right. I just want to thank my colleagues for their comments, especially Senator Derazzo for thanking the workers for being here. And I would also just like to thank Ashley Johnson. This Bill, SB 705, is her hard work. This is about her caring about the employees. So I appreciate her very much, and I urge an I vote consultant.

You may call the roll on SB 705.

SB 705 do passes amended to appropriations? [Roll Call]

That measure has 13 votes. It's out. We'll leave the roll open for Members to add on. I would also ask that Members who have yet to vote or are still awake to come to the Committee room. We're nearing the end. We have two more bills that we need to hear, so we would love for you to be here. So when we list the call, next up is file item five by Senator Archuleta. He's presenting SB 757. You may begin when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I began with pointing out that I thank you for meeting with my staff and yours, and we are accepting the Committee amendments today. I'm presenting Senate Bill 757 to ensure that all rail workers who are transported between work sites by a third party contractor are transported with proper licensing, permitting and insurance by the individuals who provide that transportation. This Bill will help keep workers safe and ensure that vital rail workers are taken care of in case of transportation accidents.

Specifically, this Bill would define the term contract crew transportation vehicle as a motor vehicle primarily used by third parties under contract with the railroad corporation to transport railroad crews. This Bill would prohibit the operation of any of. I'm sorry. This Bill would prohibit the operation of a contract crew transportation vehicle without a Z permit and prohibit Z permit holder from subcontracting to someone that does not have or operate the Z permit. So, in reference, what is the Z permit? It's a permit holders are specialists.

These are people who are the third parties. The Z permit holders are specialized carriers who do not serve the general public. Say again? They do not serve the general public. They provide services under contract with industrial and business firms, governmental agencies, and private schools, as well as to transport agricultural workers. To ensure that these companies all operate under a Z permit will allow the uniform permitting and licensing to end the practice of all rail workers being transported by under regulated vehicles. Under regulated vehicles.

Just as important, Senate Bill 757 would specify minimum insurance standards for operating a contract crew transportation vehicle. The insurance requirements under this Bill would be $5 million in combined single limit coverage by bodily injury and property damage liability coverage, as well as a $1 million uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. Rail workers are the backbone on which our economy runs. They work long hours to ensure our stores and shelves are full of groceries and what have you.

Goods are moved and people will always have food to eat because of our rail workers. It is not a surprise that anyone that works in the railroad industry. Railroad industry, it's a dangerous job. We all know that, however, that the general public does not know that its transportation and vans from one site to another is actually one of the most dangerous parts of the job.

Because of the potential of accidents, it is extremely important for California to adopt standards to ensure that the transportation of workers is done in a safe manner and that there is adequate insurance in case of an accident. With me today to testify to answer some of the technical questions is Louie Costa, the Director of California State Legislative Board of Sheet Metal, Air Rail and Transportation Workers Transportation Division, and Ryan Snow, the Chairman of the California State Legislative Board of Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I believe he's here now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee Members Louie Costa with the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers. Railroading is a dangerous job. As the Senator said, one of the most dangerous aspects is being transported in these contract crew transportation vehicles. With few exceptions, rail workers are transported from one location to another using contracted third parties. These trips can be a few miles or a few hundred miles.

I will give each primary witness 2 minutes for your presentation. Thank you.

While the activities of railroads and their workers are regulated in many instances by the federal regulation, transportation and crew transportation vehicles offers little, if any protection. There needs to be additional oversight of these third party contractors, who are often underinsured. SB 757 creates a much needed safety baseline and imposes minimum insurance requirements on these third party crew transportation operators. Railroad employees are not covered by workman's compensation. They work under the Federal Employees Liability Act, which is a fault based system.

Under the FELA, workers can only recover damages for lost or past or future wages, past or future medical bills, incapacity of future work, and so on. If they can prove that the railroad, its contractors, or its agents were responsible for the accident. They have no health insurance guarantee or wage protection coverage.

If an accident is caused by an entity or an individual unassociated with either the employee railroad or the crew transportation operator, like a drunk driver or a distracted driver, rerendering them or broadsided them, which happens on a somewhat regular basis for railroad workers across the country and in California, legislation is needed to cover this gap. SB 757 creates seeks to remedy the shortfall by ensuring safe equipment, minimal insurance covers, and the use of safe drivers when transporting these workers.

We want to thank Senator Archuleta and his staff. We want to thank Mr. Chairman, this Committee and your staff for the opportunity to address this Committee, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Ryan Snow with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainman IBT Rail Teamster. And we want to thank the Senator for bringing this Bill, authoring this Bill. Committee Members, I don't want to say anything that brother Costa or the Senator had already said, but one thing to understand is railroaders don't work by a clock. We work all hours, day and night, weather. And these drivers, these contract carriers also work the same hours that we do. This is just a minuscule ask to protect our Members. It's a safety Bill and it's protecting us for financial loss for our families and ourselves. We thank you and we ask for an aye vote thank you.

Additional witnesses in support here in the room. State your name and your organization, please.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters and our rail division in support.

Jamie Pocket, locomotive engineer with smart transportation plugged by BNSF. We support this Bill.

Scott Brent with the Smart Transportation division, local 121. I'm a conductor based out of Stockton, California, and support this. And thank you very much.

Mitch Tiger with the California Labor Federation, also in support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support here in 1200? Seeing none now, we'll go to opposition. Are there witnesses in opposition here? You have 2 minutes. State your name, your organization, and you have 2 minutes.

Good afternoon, chair Members of the Committee. My name is Downtran Young. I'm the Director of crew management services operations for Union Pacific, and I've worked for the company for 10 years. I appreciate the opportunity to provide Union Pacific's input on this Bill. Operating a safe and efficient railroad is Union Pacific's top priority. Maintaining the safety of our employees, the public and our customers is at the core of everything we do. In fact, rail industry has lower employee injury rates than most of the other sectors, including trucking, airlines, manufacturing and construction. Daily job safety briefings are required prior to any performance of work, so there is communication on the actions to be completed. This keeps train employees aligned with each other, ensuring a safety first culture and mentality. If the plans change, another safety briefing is required. There are thousands of daily activities required for operations on our network. Using our resources efficiently to leverage and flex network capacity allows us to reduce the number of work events employees are required to perform. Railroads hire both charter party and exempt carriers for crew transport. It is vitally important to allow railroad employees the ability to transport one another without limitation. For instance, having craft employees and management employees of railroads provide transportation services. These activities cannot be limited to employees without compensation and outside of work hours. Railroads operate 24 hours, seven days a week, and urgent transportation needs can occur at any time. Flexibility in rail to employee transportation is important to keep the rail network fluid, meet customer expectations, and to get our employees to terminals or homes, hotels for time off duty so they can get their federally reguLated hours of rest. A specific example of this would be in times of service interruptions. A local administrative manager from Sacramento or LA may volunteer to provide transportation services. With that, we would like to see a striking of the compensation and outside work hours language in subsection D2 in order to provide safe and efficient employee transportation. Thank you. And I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next witness.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, good evening. Don Matty, representing BNSF Railway. I agree with Senator Archuleta. Railroad workers are the backbone of the workers in this country. We have some amendments we'd like to see in the Bill. A couple things. First, I'd like to state is we're a little slightly confused about the purposes of this Bill, and the reason for that is that there's already regulation for charter party carriers. This has been in regulation for many, many years. And Senator Bradford, I know you carried a Bill dealing with charter party carriers on the Avis matter. So we disagree with the premise of the Bill and the fact that, as the Bill analysis points out in support arguments, and they also stated today that contractors are currently not regulated or they're poorly regulated. The CPUC regulates the contractors that we use now. They're charter party carriers by definition. The definitions that the Senator is proposing to put into the Bill, I mean, put into statute now, are additional, which makes it, I guess, clearer, which is okay, it's clear that crew transportation would be involved. But the current definition is anybody who moves somebody around for hire in these vans is already covered by regulation. Second, although many employees, not just rail crew, are transported by third party contractors, I know there's a huge contract with the same carrier that we use as transporting Silicon Valley folks from more affordable areas into the Silicon Valley. It limits only railroad crew operators to a Z permit. We have operators that use a P permit. The difference in the P and the Z has nothing to do with safety requirements. They're the same. The PUC requires the same requirements for Z or P, but the P is for those carriers that only have vans that are of a size of 15 occupants. The Z allows you to have more than 15. So our biggest, we actually only have one contractor that we use. BNSF uses Hawcon, and Hawcon has a P permit. And so we like to have the Bill expanded to at least allow the P permit. Unless there's going to be some discussion about why the safety requirements are more, we don't see it. Also, just of note, Hawkon drivers have a collective bargaining agreement. So I'm kind of curious to how that works out when you have, the drivers have a collective bargaining agreement and the workers have a collective bargaining agreement. Further, and I appreciate the amendments, you've taken the amendments because I think that what we were talking about when it comes to the exceptions for car pools and for railroad workers to transport their fellow workers, that's a good amendment. I appreciate that. And finally, on the liability insurance requirements, it's not for all carriers that these liability insurance requirements are being changed. It's only for workers. Only for railroad workers are being carried in the van. There is General Order CPUC, General Order 115 has very specific requirements based on the occupancy size of the van. So yes, there's higher requirements for larger vans, smaller for smaller vans, but this has been in general order for many years. So those requirements are already in the general orders. So we would prefer if you went to a proceeding to deal with those insurance requirements so that all the evidence could be brought forward as to what the impacts would be, what the market is for that type of insurance. I'm going to close there unless you want to talk some more about the insurance requirements. The workers comp was raised up. We have FELA, railroad workers have always been under the federal Employers Liability act. The good part about the federal Employers Liability act is you can sue for punitive damages, you can sue for pain and suffering. Workers comp doesn't do that. So there's advantages. There's disadvantages. It's no fault versus fault. So there's advantage and disadvantages. We also have, which has been worked out in collective bargaining. Okay, one more moment. Also worked out in collective bargaining, we have off track vehicle accident benefits where workers can get up to $1,000 a week for three years. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions or concerns by Committee Members? No. Okay, Senator Archuleta, would you like to close?

Yes, Mr. Chair. This is a Bill about safety. This is a Bill about human life. This is a Bill about our workers that run our trains, our trains that go from one area to the other, and they've got to be transported in a vehicle. And sometimes that vehicle will drive 5 miles, 20 miles to get to the next load. So the entire crew is put in these vehicles, and this is about their safety, and this is about raising the insurance levels and with that. Do we have a question?

I'm sorry. Your clothes was premature. I'm sorry. My fault. We still haven't taken our phone line, so we're going to.

Oh, I'm sorry.

No, it's my fault. Support and opposition moderator, please queue up our callers who wish to testify either in support or opposition of this measure.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to testify in support or opposition, you may press 1-0 at this time. At this time, there's no one in queue.

Okay. And we'll go back to Committee Members if there's none. Did you finish your close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I mentioned, this Bill is about safety, human life, and it's transporting the crews from one location to the other. Most of us don't understand about the rail systems. And I've gotten more information. And one crew will go from point a to point b via the transportation unit in between. And it turns out that the accident have happened. They've not had the adequate insurance, nor is that driver subject to some of the requirements, the resting and so on. So that's the purpose of the Bill. And I ask for an aye vote.

And I just want to be clear. The Committee has submitted proposed amendments and they will address some of the railroad roads concerns, but not all of them completely. So I hope there's opportunity to continue working if this Bill moves forward today. So we're seeking a due pass, as amended, to transportation a motion. It's been moved by Senator Dodd consultant, please call a roll on SB 757.

Bradford. Bradford. aye. Dahle. Dahle. No. Ashby. Ashby. aye. Becker. Becker. aye. Caballero, Dodd. Dodd. aye. Durazo. Durazo. aye. Eggman, Eggman. aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. aye. Grove. Mcguire. Mcguire. aye. Men. Men. aye. Newman. Newman. aye. Rubio. Seyarto. Seyarto. No. Skinner. Skinner. aye. Stern. Wilk. Wilk. No.

That measure has 11 votes and 3 no's. We'll leave the roll open for any absent Member that needs to add on. Now, we're on our final measure. File item 12. And I thank you, Senator.

We are here to hear SB 429. First, did you accept the Committee amendments?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you

I believe. All right, just real quick. Thank you, Members. And thank you, Mr. Chair. Last winter, California saw their natural gas bills double and in some cases triple from what they usually expected due to many compounding factors, including colder temperatures and the supply chain bottlenecks. Residential and commercial customers were surprised by the severe gas bills. Every spring and fall, Californians receive credits that reduce their electric and natural gas bills. Call to California climate credit. Acting on emergency motion from the Public Advocates office, the Puc ordered utilities to provide this credit to customers sooner, rather than waiting until the scheduled month of April. SB 429 simply codifies this accelerated time frame and ensures, I should say, that the credit coincides with the highest usage of gas on their utility Bill for the year. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Do you have any witnesses?

I have none. They all left.

All right, in that case, anyone wishing to speak in support? Seeing none. Anybody wish to speak in opposition of SB 429? Seeing none. We will go to the phone lines. Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition or support? Moderator.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak in opposition or support, press 1 and 0. At this time, we have no one in queue.

Thank you. We will close public comment and bring it back to the dais for Senator Becker.

Thank you. Reading the Bill, my concern is that there's a part about changing the date, but it also seems like it requires 100% of the money to be refunded.

Is that the case?

That's correct.

So this money has been used for things like 50 million for the build program that Senator Stern helped with, which was very positive. It's been used for heat pumps. It's been used for energy efficiency measures. And my understanding is, like I said, is it true that on the electric side, 85% is designated to return and 15% is set aside for the PUC to do for decarb efforts?

Yeah. Energy efficient programs such as ijs.

Yeah. So why not do the same on the gas side?

Because, again, ratepayers are taking a hit in their pocket, and I think at some point they should be entitled to the 100% of overcharge. So this is what we want to do here. We think we have enough programs already in place to help compensate and expand those energy efficiency programs.

Okay, I understand that. I'm just personally going to stay off just because, again, this has been used in the past for very productive uses, like the build program and heat pump. So I'll stay off today.

Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to comment? Hearing none. We'll entertain a motion, and then we'd like you to close.

Senator Brad, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Will the call the roll, please?

Sure. SB 429, due pass to appropriations. Bradford aye. Bradford aye. Dahle. Dahle aye. Ashby. Becker. Caballero Dodd. Dodd aye. Durazozo aye. Eggman. Eggman aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez aye Grove Mcguire Mcguire aye men men aye Newman Newman aye Rubio Rubio aye Seyarto Seyarto aye Skinner Skinner aye Stern Wilk. Wilk aye.

Bill has 13 votes. It's out, and we will leave it on call for Members to add on.

Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Members, that concludes our agenda. Now we're going to lift the calls on all our outstanding items. We'll start with file item one. We'll ask the Members that have not had opportunity to either be in Committee now or now is the time to add on. Consultant, please start with file item one.

SB 38 do pass as amended to Appropriations. Current vote 12 to 0. [Roll Call]. okay. 15 to zero. That's all.

Measures out 150.

SB 506 Laird, current action is do pass as amended to Transportation. Current vote 12 to 0. [Roll Call]. 15.

That measures out 15 to 0.

SB 688 Padilla do pass to be amended in Agriculture Committee, current vote 11 to 0. [Roll Call]. 15.

15 to 0, that measure is up.

SB 754, Alvarado-Gil do pass as amended to Appropriations. Current vote 11 to 0. [Roll Call]. 15.

That measures out 15 to 0.

SB 757 Archuleta do pass as amended to Transportation. Current vote 11 to 3. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]. Rubio Rubio I McGuire was here. Okay. 12 to 3.

That measures out 12 to 3.

SB 48 Becker do pass as amended to Environmental Quality Committee, current vote 9 to 2. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]. 12 to 3.

That measures out. 12 to 3.

SB 322, Becker do pass as amended to Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement. Current vote, 7 to 3. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]. 11 to 3.

That measures out. 11 to 3.

SB 306, Caballero do pass as amended to Rules. Current vote 11 to 0. [Roll Call]. Okay. 14 to 0.

Measures out 14 to 0.

SB 529 Gonzalez do pass as amended to Transportation Committee. Current vote 13 to 0. [Roll Cal].

That measures out 15 to 0.

SB 705 Ashby do pass as amended to Appropriations current vote. 13 to 0. [Roll Call]. 15.

That measures out 15 to 0.

SB 429 Bradford do pass to Appropriations. Current vote 13 to 0. [Roll Call]. 14 to 0.

That measures out 14 to 0. Final item, item 12.

SB 860, the consent calendar. Current vote 12 to 0. [Roll Call].

That measure measures out 15 to 0. Remember that concludes our agenda for the day. I want to thank all those individuals who participated. Both in person and telephonically. The Senate Committee on Energy, utilities and communications is now adjourned. Thank you.