Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

We will start today as a Subcommitee right now. We have 10 bills on today's agenda. SB 83 by Senator Wiener has been pulled by the author, and we have one item on consent, SB 305 by Senator Stern. That is eligible for consent. Before we hear the bills, let's establish a quorum. We're still short.

Okay, so we'll begin as a Subcommitee, and we have Senator Archuleta who's prepared so we can start with his measure, SB 663.

Today, I represent Senate Bill 663 related to California's Renewable Portfolio Standard program, also known as RPS. I would like to start by thanking the Chair and his Committee and his staff for working with me, and I agree to accept all the Committee's suggested amendments.

SB 663 defines renewable hydrogen and adds renewable hydrogen as a renewable energy resource under the renewable portfolio standard. Senate Bill 663 defines renewable hydrogen consistent with prior RPS legislation and in a technology neutral way. Renewable hydrogen is an important, scalable, commercially ready decarbonized fuel for California that can displace fossil fuels economy wide, particularly for difficult to decarbonize sectors such as long haul trucking, maritime shipping, and aviation.

It also is critical for achieving 100% renewable in the power sector as can be used to store and later generate renewable electricity for days, weeks, even seasonal needs. California RPS was established over 20 years ago, and while hydrogen was included in the original program, no one could have predicted the advances in technology hydrogen has made ever since then. This bill recognizes that progress and modernizes our RPS code to allow newer technologies to utilize renewable hydrogen to produce electricity for the renewable portfolio standard.

In addition, Senate Bill 663 allows for the repurposing of existing natural gas power plants as hydrogen turbines with the goal of achieving clean power and an affordable and reliable 100% renewable power grid. With Senate Bill 663, California will be able to move away from our reliance on natural gas and into a clean, renewable hydrogen future. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on Senate Bill 663.

And with me today in support of the bill and to answer any questions is Janice Lin, founder and President of the Green Hydrogen Coalition.

All right, Ms. Lin, you'll have two minutes.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I'm the founder of the Green Hydrogen Coalition, an educational nonprofit that's dedicated to advancing our clean and just energy transition. We're pleased to sponsor Senate Bill 663, and we'd like to thank Senator Archuleta for authoring this important piece of legislation. We have been studying the potential for renewable hydrogen in California for more than three years, and I'm happy to report that, at scale, California can produce renewable hydrogen at prices competitive with fossil fuels.

So how do we get there? Senate Bill 663 is absolutely key. First, as Senator said, this bill establishes a technology neutral definition of renewable hydrogen. This enables us to leverage our abundant renewable resources and ensures competition and innovation. Second, the bill updates our RPS to repurpose existing infrastructure to produce long duration, zero carbon power on demand. With this, our power sector can truly achieve 100% renewables affordably and reliably.

Renewable hydrogen allows us to store our abundant renewable energy and use it when we need it. We'll minimize renewable curtailed electricity and put problematic organic waste to good use. Finally, this bill is so essential now because the power sector is an ideal application to scale renewable hydrogen. Demand at a single power plant can provide needed certainty to drive large scale production, thereby driving down cost. Lower costs can accelerate adoption in other sectors that the Senator mentioned. Maritime shipping, heavy duty trucking, even aviation.

The power sector and the changes envisioned in SB 663 are a necessary catalyst for a scaled green hydrogen economy in California. I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Before we continue, consultant, let's establish a quorum. All right. We'll continue with witnesses in support. State your name and your organization, please.

Mikhael Skvarla, here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Business Council, in support.

Mr. Chairman. Israel Salas, here on behalf of San Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California Gas, in support.

Mr. Chair. Mike Monagan, on behalf of the California State Building and Construction Trades Council, in support.

Good morning. Jordan Curley, on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, in support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in support? Now let's move to witnesses in opposition. Are there witnesses here in the room who are in opposition of this measure? Please come forward.

Christina Scaringe for the Center for Biological Diversity, in opposition.

All right. Moderator, now let's go to our phone lines and see if there's witnesses in support or opposition of SB 663.

And once again, for support or opposition of this, please press one and then zero on your phone. Once again, for support or opposition from the phones, please press one, then zero. We do have one. One moment, please. We'll go to line number 19.

Phillip Vander Klay with the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, in support, and we'll be reviewing amendment.

Thank you. We have no further in queue. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Now we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or concerns? All right. Senator Becker.

Senator Archuleta, thank you for this bill. I think overall, this is a very good idea and a lot of good stuff in this bill. So I am planning to support it today. I do think that we have to get the definition of renewable hydrogen right, and that's critical.

And if we're going to consider electricity from hydrogen renewable, it really has to be zero carbon or close to zero. And I've seen some studies that show that even using electrolytic hydrogen can cause an increase in total emissions unless we're careful about what electricity is used to make that hydrogen. So I know this is also being debated at the federal level as well as they try to figure this out. And maybe we want to consider aligning ourselves with that.

But I guess I'm concerned that the CEC Clean Hydrogen program definition proposed in the Committee's amendments. Do you know if it follows hourly matching? Because I think that's one of the key points here.

And for that, I'll bring up my technical assistant here.

Senator Becker, great question. The CEC's definition that was enshrined in AB 209 does not reference hourly matching, though this is something that's being looked at very carefully by both the hydrogen industry, the Department of Energy, international institutions, and this is something that the GHE- Our mission is to end fossil fuels and fight climate change. So the GHE, we have an extremely vested interest to make sure that renewable hydrogen, when it's produced, is truly clean.

It's just that we're in the midst of figuring that out and we don't want to get ahead of the federal legislation either.

Yeah, well, thank you for that. And like I said, I think there could be reason to just put in, hey, we'll line with whatever that comes up with. So, again, I think that's important. As you say, it's still kind of in process, but just important to get right. I mean, I think of the three principles that I'll be looking at is to, one, make sure it comes from new renewable generation. Two, comes from local renewable resources delivered to the same grid as the hydrogen production.

And then third, as we mentioned, hourly matching must be generating the same hour as electricity used to make hydrogen. Otherwise, if we're producing at night and just buying enough solar power over the course of year to cover load, then, you know, we're running gas plants at night to, to make your hydrogen. So anyway, again, I will be supporting this bill.

I think it's a really important bill and good in concept, but if ultimately we don't come up with a definition that follows those three principles, I'll have trouble supporting it going forward.

Any additional questions or comments? Senator Newman.

I mean, I just want to note, I do appreciate Senator Becker's concerns. I'm going to support the bill.

As you know, I'm a big advocate of hydrogen, but we need to have clarity around all of these issues so that as a policymaking body, we can move beyond sort of disagreements about colors of hydrogen to the more important questions about how to find the resources and create plans to actually add to our capacity there. So just want to appreciate those comments. I know you'll work with him and others to do that, and happy to support the bill today.

Thank you. Senator Eggman.

I'd just like to be clear. I'd like to echo Senator Newman's remarks. We create a lot of waste in this world, and we are part of the whole waste chain association. And so we need to make the best use of that we can and stop pretending like that's not real. So I support the bill today and look forward to supporting it when it gets to the floor.

Thank you. Any further comments? Great. Senator Archuleta, I heard you state you're taking all the Committee amendments.

Yes.

And I just will state them right now to align the definition of renewable hydrogen in this bill to the definition used by the CEC's Clean Hydrogen program. Two, to clarify the emissions requirements of power facilities that repower using hydrogen and delete the provision establishing renewable portfolio standards criteria for hydrogen procured from common carrier pipelines. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay, so at the appropriate time, when we have a quorum, we will seek a motion for this bill. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to thank the Committee Members. Here in California, everyone looks to us to go forward, especially what we're doing with the environment. And I think we're making history as we move forward. And if we turn the clock back, 20 years ago, the word hydrogen wasn't even on our radar. Now it's producing, it's there, and it is the way of the future. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I thank you.

Thank you.

At the appropriate time, we'll get a motion for that. All right. Seeing no other authors in the audience, Senator Becker, would you like to present your bill at this time? That's File Item Nine: SB 410.

Good morning, Chair Bradford and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present to SB 410. I want to be clear: we're accepting all the proposed Committee amendments in concept right now and have agreed to continue working on one last piece of the amendments with the Committee going forward.

Energization projects, which have been colloquially referred to as interconnection projects, helped ensure the distribution grid can hold sufficient electrons to power all buildings in a neighborhood. When a California decides to connect a new electric appliance, EV charger, or to connect a new housing development, these electrical grid upgrades are necessary to keep the grid functioning and stable.

As more homes and businesses are built, as they switch over to climate-friendly electric appliances, and as they install EV chargers or upgrade their panels, the upgrades needed to the electricity distribution system continue and will continue to grow. In the long run, planning for the increased electricity grid capacity will require planning and cost foresight from electrical utilities in partnership with PUC to meet our climate and housing needs now. However, Californians are experiencing delays in the time it takes utilities to complete these electrification projects.

For example, connections of EV fast chargers in PG&E territory were, on average, 70 weeks in 2022. This bill requires the PUC to plan and set guidance for how to accommodate these growing electricity grid connection requests in order to reduce the current delays that we've been hearing so much about recently in the press, and we've each heard from constituents, and to preemptively prevent future delays.

To do so, the PUC is required to set an average and maximum timeframe in which electrical utilities should connect customers to the grid. After setting these targets, the utilities are required to create a strategy to meet these targets, including ensuring sufficient workforce training and development and creating a working group and annual standards on how to improve current delays. If needed, the PUC is permitted to take remedial actions to ensure compliance.

This foresight planning will ensure that California electricity customers are provided with a timely and necessary electricity service to make sure the state meets our climate goals and our housing needs. With me today, I have Marc Joseph, on behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Employees.

All right, before we hear from Mr. Joseph, let's establish a quorum. Did he leave? All right. Mr. Joseph, you have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Marc Joseph. I'm testifying on behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Employees, whose member unions represent employees at nearly all of the investor-owned and publicly owned utilities in California.

To meet California's decarbonization goals, cars, trucks, buses, businesses, and buildings will use much more electricity. This means the distribution systems must increase their capacity and utilities must connect and upgrade customers, yet we are seeing long delays getting EV chargers, new homes, businesses, and whole communities connected. SB 410 addresses this problem in two ways.

First, it would require the utilities to do better planning to anticipate the needs that they should be able to see coming. State and local agencies are adopting electrification policies. Utilities should not be surprised by increasing requests by their customers to connect. Second, it would require the Public Utilities Commission to establish a collaborative working group of stakeholders and experts and then adopt standards for how long the utilities have to connect customers in various situations.

The utilities would have to report their performance, and if they fall short, the Commission would be required to require the utilities to take remedial actions so that they meet the standards. The utilities would have to be sure they have the trained and qualified workforce able to do the work so that we can actually accomplish what we need to accomplish. I want to say two things, particularly about costs to ratepayers.

This program does not mean the utilities would spend money that is not necessary or would otherwise not be spent. They would just have to spend it on time so that customers don't have long waits to get connected. And second, as electricity usage goes up, we can spread the infrastructure costs over more kilowatt hours. This will put downward pressure on rates. This is a pragmatic bill to ensure that we get prompt connections from our utilities. We ask for your support. Thank you.

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

Emily Pappas, on behalf of CalCCA, in support.

Alicia Priego, on behalf of the City of San Jose and San Jose Clean Energy.

Katherine Brandenburg, on behalf of Sonoma Clean Power.

Mr. Chairman, Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric, supportive of the intent, direction, and approaches outlined by the author. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers, in support.

Merrian Borgeson with Natural Resources Defense Council, in support.

Good morning. Hunter Stern with IBEW Local 1245, in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. DaVina Flemings, on behalf of PG&E. We have not adopted an official position on the bill. However, we are working very closely with the author and sponsors to address our concerns. I first want to acknowledge though, that PG&E is spending more on capacity investment than we ever have in the past, and we know that this is not enough to meet our current customer needs.

And we're doing all that we can to improve our customer engagement and to meet future needs of our customers. I want to thank again the author for his work on this bill, and we look forward to working with you as the bill moves forward. Thank you.

Oh. Also--sorry--I have Matt Ventura with me here today, who's PG&E Senior Director of Service Planning to answer any questions the Committee may have about our process and improvements that we're making. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters, in support of your bill. As you know, we're very interested in any long-term studies of the nature of this problem, and I think it's just the beginning of where we need to go. Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. P. Anthony Thomas, California Building Industry Association, CBIA. We've not taken a position on the bill as yet, but we do believe that the bill is thoughtful.

It does hold entities accountable, and it does establish a system of planning. So we plan to, in fact, speak with the author and hopefully be able to establish some type of a rapport and support the bill eventually. Do think it's a good move in the right direction, Mr. Chairman.

All right, let's move the witnesses in opposition. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition of this measure? Seeing and hearing none, Moderator, let's go to the phone lines and see if there are individuals wishing to testify either in support or opposition of SB 410.

Thank you. And you can get in queue by pressing one and then zero. We'll go to the line of 27.

Hi. John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go next to line 26.

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

Thank you. We'll go next to line 28.

Good morning. My name is Rick Thompson. I am in support.

Thank you. And we'll go next to line 31.

Hello? Can you hear me?

Hello? You can't.

We can.

We can.

Hello? Okay. Sorry. My name is Margie Ferguson, and I'm a member of the Climate Justice Subcommittee of Indivisible California, with more than 80,000 members in the state. We strongly support SB 233. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

All right. Moderator, let's pause our testimony and let's establish a quorum, please. Consultant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

A quorum has been established. We'll go back to our phone lines. Moderator, please.

And once again, it's one and then zero. One moment, please. We do have someone. One moment. We're giving them their line number. And we'll go to line number 29.

Congrats on the win yesterday.

Charlotte Stevens, in support.

Thank you. We have no further in queue.

Thank you. Now we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or concerns by Committee Members on this measure? Senator Eggman.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward, Senator Becker. I'm supporting your bill today, but many of us, especially who serve in the PG&E area, frequently have to call PG&E for projects that can't get connected. They can't get hooked up. You got projects waiting out of homeless shelters, waiting out industrial waiting.

But I feel like I have to call the PUC almost as often. So I don't know that giving them another task--and I have frequently said, I think they've got too much. And there are bills that we passed four years ago for plans that still don't have the plans. So when things need to be connected in a more rapid fashion, I don't know that waiting another four or five years to get plans to figure out how we're going to do it is the optimal way.

But I see you're working with the tools that we have before us at this point. So I'll be supporting your bill today, but I'm just saying it doesn't make me feel like, 'whoa, we're solving the problem,' that everybody sitting up on this dais has of projects in our districts that can't get connected because apparently we don't have the capacity or the power. So move the bill.

All right. Any other questions or concerns? Senator Becker, would you like to close?

Sure. Thank you, and thank you for those comments. Obviously, I hear your frustration. I feel the frustration. I had a bill two years ago on this, and that was about electric-ready homes, and a couple of parts of it passed, but sort of the timeline part didn't. So this is really our attempt to work with all stakeholders.

I hear your concerns about the PUC, and there certainly are proceedings that have taken way too long. We do have timelines in this bill, and we'll continue to work to kind of maybe harden them going forward, and then it'll partly be on me and all of us to make sure we hold them accountable. But I do hear those concerns, but with all the stakeholders that came here today to speak in support, I think we've got a powerful coalition and we can help drive this forward. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And I do understand you have accepted all the Committee amendments. I will just state them real quick. 'Require the PUC to establish a one-way balancing account with a cap on the dollar amount that can be approved, require just and reasonableness view before cost recovery is approved.'

'Delete the language in Subdivision B of Section 936, which requires distribution circuit upgrades in anticipation of applications of energization and service upgrade projects and prohibits the delay of these upgrades due to an unregulated entity to avoid the need for increased capacity, delete B and Section 937, which would authorize utilities to socialize all costs incurred for residential buildings that exceed the allowance of established in the Electric Tariff Rule 15 and Rule 16. It would be treated as common facility costs.' 'Clarify findings of this bill. Clarify language in the bill that has energization projects and capacity service upgrades instead of interconnection projects.' Is that correct?

Yes.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Eggman. We have, as stated, 'do pass to Appropriations as amended.' Consultant, please call the roll on SB 410.

[Roll Call].

That measure has ten votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Are you presenting? If you're prepared. What else? File Seven. He just said 572, so is he doing eight? So is he doing 572? All right. When you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'll be presenting this bill on behalf of Senator Stern this morning who can't make it. I'd like to start by just noting that he is accepting the amendments.

Reference on page three of the analysis, which would recast the bill to require the California Public Utilities Commission to provide a report to the Legislature by February 1, 2024 regarding any outcomes and recommendations from any CPUC investigation, including any identified by FERC. As we all know, this past December and January, natural gas utility customers were suddenly confronted with natural gas utility bills that went double and triple above normal prices.

This sudden spike in natural gas prices left many households and businesses financially unprepared, faced with a difficult choice of either paying their utility bill or paying for other necessities affecting both low income and fixed income seniors disproportionately. Several factors likely contributed to this spike in natural gas prices, and last month, the PUC initiated an official investigation looking into these issues. Energy markets are complicated here in California, and they can be manipulated, especially during times when demand is high and supplies appear to be scarce.

SB 572 would require the CPUC to report the status of its investigation early next year, and what we will all hope will result in findings, insights, and a course of action to ensure that the state is not susceptible to similar price spikes in the future. I want to turn now to my witnesses in support. Nancy Chaires Espinoza with School Energy Coalition and Sakereh Carter with Sierra Club.

Yo, you two have two minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. Nancy Chaires Espinoza on behalf of the School Energy Coalition, I'm breaking with a tradition today. We really try to stay off of bills that mandate reports or studies. But this one is particularly important to us. We just wholeheartedly agree that policymakers and regulatory agencies need a better understanding of the energy market in relation to zero net energy carbon goals and in a way that protects ratepayers from price spikes. And there are two main reasons for that.

One is that the state cannot meet its energy goals and its carbon neutral goals without taking into account the almost 11,000 school sites, which comprise about 730,000,000 square foot of buildings. And two is that price spikes have a particular effect on schools and a directly negative impact on educational services. The reason for that is because our regulatory agencies and their analyses assume that when the cost of doing business increases, that even local agencies can simply raise taxes and businesses can increase their prices.

But local educational agencies are not able to raise taxes in that manner. So when price spikes occur, and particularly price spikes that we're not able to predict or plan for, those funds come directly out of our operational budgets, which means that comes directly out of the classroom. So further, we will just ask you to support the bill, and when the report comes back, we implore you to use that information to determine how to protect all ratepayers, including schools. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Chair and Committee Members. This past winter, top executives raked in profits at the expense of everyday Californians relying on gas to heat their homes with customers seeing particularly high gas utility bills in January and February. Gas utilities did little to anticipate the price spikes, and rather than passing on sufficient warnings to customers, they simply passed on the fuel costs while continuing to collect a high rate of return for their investors.

The CPUC public inquiry on high winter natural gas prices is well timed and much needed. It can determine whether weather was actually the most significant factor in high bills. More important, it has the potential to inform state led mitigation strategies for gas price volatility to protect ratepayers from exorbitant utility bills. This bill, and requiring the CPUC to deliver a report to the Legislature on its findings, can push the CPUC to think beyond the scope of its own authority in devising solutions to a preventable affordability crisis.

Sierra Club is intervening in this investigation to make sure that gas utilities are held accountable and to ensure that we're better equipped to prevent price spikes resurgence by identifying efficacious mitigation strategies. However, our council is concerned that the CPC will continue to defer to the utilities and their self serving narratives while protecting the revenue requirements and profits. I'd like to quickly pass along a quote from Nihal Shrinath, Sierra Club attorney who is leading our intervention efforts.

The Legislature can correct the permissive attitude that the CPUC has towards utilities by indicating its intent for gas utilities to answer for the past winter bills. But it can do much more by reaffirming the CPUC's authority to levy fines against bad actors and enabling and encouraging the CPUC to pass some fuel costs onto shareholders, lower the gas utility's high rate of return, or fund electrification in low income neighborhoods, among other solutions.

Given these concerns, we encourage the Committee to remain flexible in allowing Senator Stern to add language that bolsters ratepayer protections. It is clear that high gas prices are an issue, and it's clear that the gas utilities are making record profits while customers are saddled with huge bills. So we respectfully ask for an aye on SB 572. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Just state your name and your organization, please.

Good morning. Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses here in the room. Are there witnesses in opposition of this measure? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, let's go to our phone lines. Moderators, can you go to the phone lines and let us know if there's witnesses in support or opposition of SB 572.

Thank you. And if you're in support or opposition of this, please press one and then zero. We'll go to line 26.

And this is Janet Cox for Climate Action California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go next to line 10.

Diana Weynand, on behalf of San Fernando Valley Climate Reality, in support.

Thank you. We have no further in queue at this time.

Great. Let's bring it back to the Committee. If there are any questions or concerns as it relates to this measure. Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I know you're here presenting on behalf of Mr. Stern. I know he has accepted all the Committee amendments, and I'll just state it. Delete the contents of this bill, instead require the PUC to provide a report to the Legislature by February 1, 2024 regarding any outcomes and recommendations for the PUC investigation, including any identified by FERC as well. And we have a due pass to Appropriations. Do we have a motion? It's been moved. Consultant, please call the roll.

Due passed as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That has nine votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members now. Consultant, let's approve the consent calendar. We have one item there. Do we have a motion on consent calendar? It's been moved by Senator Min, let's call the roll on consent calendar, file item six, SB 305.

[Roll call]

Measure has nine votes. We'll leave the roll open. Now, we're going to go back to file item three, Senator Archuleta's bill, 663. Do we have a motion for that bill? It's been moved by Senator Min. Please call roll. We have on that one, I should have stated, due pass as amended to the Environmental Quality Committee.

Okay. Due pass to be amended in Environmental Quality. [Roll call]

The measure has nine votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members.

So we'll take Senator Stern: 795. If you're ready, Senator Becker will appreciate you filling in for him. When you're ready, you may begin. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members. I'll be presenting SB 795 on behalf of Senator Stern today. Before I begin, I'd like to accept the amendments on page six of the analysis to narrow the required tracking systems to these documents required for HVAC tracking and lighting control.

Mr. Chair and Members, this bill promotes California's energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction goals by ensuring we take the necessary steps to develop electronic registries that would, one: track HVAC equipment sales to ensure installers comply with permit and code requirements, and two: provide a Title 24 Energy Code compliance documentation repository accessible to building officials to simplify and improve enforcement.

The CEC and CPUC have found that contractors pull HVAC replacement permits as little as ten percent of the time and that contractors comply with Title 24 quality installation requirements as little as 15 percent of the time. This lack of compliance directly results in increased energy demand. Improperly installed HVAC systems, for example, have been found to increase energy use by up to 20, 30 percent. Mine, I will say, was improperly installed in my house.

The proposals for an electronic Title 24 documentation registry and an HVAC sales tracking registry are not new. California agencies have issued numerous reports over the past 15 years calling for both of these solutions, but we still remain without even a plan for implementing these solutions. In the meantime, the global warming crisis continues to accelerate. One thing I want to make clear--Senator Stern wants to make clear--is that this bill does not impose any new requirements on builders or building officials.

Contractors are already required by law to demonstrate that they have complied with the Energy Code by filling out compliance documents and submitting those to building officials. And building officials are already required to verify these documents have been submitted. This bill provides a database needed to catch contractors who fail to pull permits and provides an electronic document verification process to ease the Energy Code enforcement burden on building officials that has resulted in lack of enforcement even when permits are pulled. With me in support are cosponsors of SB 795 with folks from the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers and NRDC.

The primary witness is here. You have two minutes, please.

Good morning. Tom Ansel, on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers. We know from recent acceptance test data that building officials are not enforcing lighting control and HVAC code compliance and acceptance test documentation requirements. Just last year, the Energy Commission held a workshop on compliance, and building officials once again testified that Energy Code enforcement was their lowest priority because of lack of resources. This bill is intended to address this. A couple of quick points.

One of the reasons we're moving forward with this bill is that Energy Commission staff indicated they are unclear they have the authority to create a database that could be accessed by building officials to verify the compliance documents have been submitted. This bill is needed to provide the Energy Commission that express authority to develop and operate these digital enforcement databases. It also directs the Energy Commission to seek federal and other funding for these databases.

The Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act allocates billions of dollars to states for innovative Energy Code compliance activities, so funding is available if the CEC is given authority to seek this funding. Finally, I'd like to address any privacy issues. As the Senator said, all of this information is already required to be collected and provided to the Building Department as part of code compliance. In addition, the Commission is already authorized and in the process of creating a central data repository for this information, but the repository will not have functionality to simplify building official enforcement without additional legislative direction and authority.

And finally, state law provides that state electronic databases have to protect personal information, such as names and addresses, and that trade secrets, such as aggregate sales data is not disclosable under the Public Disclosure Act. This bill references both those exemptions and the Public Records Act, so we're confident that we've addressed those issues. We ask you for your aye vote. Thanks.

Thank you. Next witness.

How many Members are on Public Safety?

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm Kiki Velez, a Clean Buildings Advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council. In California homes, HVAC systems account for 24 percent of electricity use and 40 percent of gas use, with households spending a significant portion of their energy bill each year on HVAC alone. To ensure that these consequential systems run efficiently and safely, California requires that HVAC installations be permitted and comply with the California Building Code's quality installation requirements.

But unfortunately today, the CEC finds that as few as ten percent of HVAC installations are permitted, with profound implications for energy affordability, health and safety, and our climate. With regards to energy affordability, as the Senator mentioned, properly installed HVAC can reduce energy use 20 to 30 percent, saving households hundreds each year on their energy bills. In addition to those direct bill savings, the energy savings from quality installation can also reduce costs for the state's electric grid, saving all customers money on their electricity bills.

Permanent enforcement can also improve health and safety in homes by ensuring HVAC systems are installed properly and by preventing leaky ducts from pulling polluted air from crawl spaces and attics into the living spaces. Quality installation also reduces emissions by preventing leakage of HVAC refrigerants, which are potent greenhouse gases with greenhouse global warming potential 1,500 to 2,000 times that of carbon dioxide. It also reduces emissions by saving energy, as mentioned earlier.

In all, SB 795 offers the most cost-effective and streamlined solution to improving permit compliance. And it's truly foundational to meeting California's urgent climate and energy affordability goals. So, respectfully, I urge your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we're just going to ask everybody else who's in support to state your name and your organization, please.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council and the State Association of Electrical Workers, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in support.

Good morning, Chair. Vince Sugrue, on behalf of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, in support.

Sakereh Carter, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Hunter Stern, on behalf of IBEW 1245, in support.

Any additional witnesses in support? Hearing and seeing none now, are there witnesses in opposition to this measure here in Room 1200? Seeing none, let's now go to our phone lines. Moderator, are there callers wishing to testify in support or opposition of SB 795?

And please get in queue by pressing one and then zero. We'll go to line 26.

This is Janet Cox for Climate Action California and 350 Sacramento, in strong support. Thank you.

We'll go next to line 10. Line 10, your line is open.

Yes. Diana Weynand, on behalf of San Fernando Valley Climate Reality Project, in support.

Thank you. We have no further in queue.

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

I know this is not your bill, but I have a question. The question is, when you replace an HVAC or you put a new HVAC in, there's a permit process that you go through to do that. Either the city or the county is permitted. You have a contractor put the HVAC system in, and the county comes and inspects it. Why do we need this extra layer of--where's the problem?

I mean, I can understand if you're forcing somebody to replace and upgrade to a different style where there's--but these have to go through a county permitting process or a city. When you replace an old one, you go through the process. So why do we need to have the CEC get involved in what--the process is already there.

Let me make a note and then I'll bring someone up. The CEC was directed to take a preliminary step in doing some of this in Senator Wolk's bill 2016, and it directed the CEC to create a plan to promote HVAC and heat pump installations compliance with building codes. However, that legislation did not provide any direction on what that plan should look like or include. And so the lack of specific direction has created paralysis. And six years later, we still don't have a plan. So those are some thoughts, but let me invite up one of the sponsors who might have a better answer.

Thank you. Just to clarify, this isn't adding any new layers of requirements. All of the acceptance, testing, and compliance documentation requirements are already required under law as part of the permit process. What's happening is that it's not being enforced. While this compliance documentation process was supposed to make this easier to enforce, for a new project, it can be 200, 300 odd pieces of paper that a building official has to go through and figure out if they have all the documents, been completely filled out, all this stuff.

What's happening is that they're not collecting the stuff at all. We're seeing this all over the state, where entire counties are never even asking for these documents, and what we're hearing from the building officials, we need to make this easier. We need to bring this to the 21st century, digitize this process.

So all this is doing is saying, 'let's take the current process, let's put into a database so people can do an automatic check so it actually works for the people on the ground.'

Is this going straight to the floor after here? Where's it going?

It's going back to Rules Committee.

Well, I don't understand the bill. I guess I'm confused on the fact that obviously the Wolk bill was, I thought was to upgrade, when you do an upgrade, which you still have to go through the process of meeting the building standard, whatever the building standard is, under the general plan of the city or the county, which has been adopted, which is typically whatever state laws passed down makes it happen. So I'm confused of what the bill actually really is attempting to do, other than reduce paper. I guess that's--

I think that's part of it. I think it's really encouraging compliance.

Yeah. So what's happening is that even though we have these requirements, they're not being followed. And the studies show that, for example, on replacement HVACs, 85 percent of them are installed incorrectly. They're getting energy efficiency 20 to 30 percent less than they're supposed to. The vast majority of people installing these don't have any training, and so if we don't have this compliance check, this acceptance test at the end, you have no way to make sure these things are functioning correctly.

Those requirements are in law, but they're not being enforced. And if they're not enforced, then we don't actually get the energy savings that the code says. So there's a gap between what the code requires and what's happening at the end and what's actually being constructed.

So, we have an enforcement problem, basically, is what you're telling me? Not a paper problem, which you told me before. We have an enforcement problem. The law is already there and it's not being adhered to at the local level.

Senator, Scott Wetch. The problem is people aren't pulling the permits. You can't do the enforcement if you don't know the work's being done. And the studies have shown that we're only getting seven percent of the folks who are installing new HVAC systems are actually pulling the building permit.

So there's a great frustration on the building inspectors, and I represent IAPMO, the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, who are the local building officials in your district that are responsible for going out and doing the inspections and signing off on the permit. But 93 percent of the people doing this work are not pulling permits. This database is going to allow building inspectors to say, 'hey, we know that these people all bought HVAC systems.' We have the database from the wholesaler. We can match that up and say, 'hey, there's no building permits,' and then we can go do enforcement.

Thank you. Finally getting what the hell the bill is supposed to do.

Yeah, that's it. It's really the deposit--

But you still have an enforcement issue. I mean, if you don't know about it, I mean, anyway--

Yeah, I think it's a document repository that Mr. Wetch mentioned combined with the sales tracking system that are going to improve compliance and enforcement by allowing building officials to access the relevant documentation and then cross check the HVAC registrations with the pulled permits.

Exactly. To reiterate, just to clarify, this is so that we can see if a contractor is buying, for example, ten HVAC appliances, but then they're only pulling one permit or no permits. It makes it easier for local code enforcement boards to see that that's happening and take action.

And really this is just such a big issue, not only for all the reasons we've mentioned already, but also because contractors who currently pull permits are being undercut and offering quicker, cheaper installations than contractors who actually are following the law. So it's just really critical that we start enforcing this and this is the cheapest, most streamlined way to do that.

Any additional questions or concerns? Senator Newman.

Real quickly, so this is interesting. I think a lot of us have learned something. Is there a provision or thought to educating the public as well on their responsibility when replacing HVAC system? Because that seems relevant here.

I'll defer that to the witness.

Yeah, and the Energy Commission and CSLB has been doing that for ten years. That was the initial step, especially after they came out with their initial proposals, and how do we address compliance. The issue isn't that contractors don't know these requirements.

I don't mean the guy, I mean the end consumer, right, who often would think, 'I need a new HVAC system.' Somebody offered to do it for me. They said, 'awesome news: no permit necessary.' Here you go. Right? How do we educate Californians as to their obligation?

Again, I think most Californians know that, that they have been doing that education part, but ultimately people are going to take the cheapest path or they're going to trust their contractors to what they need to do or don't have to do. But what we're having is that contractors are, for example, hiring acceptance testers and then telling them, 'I don't need you because this Building Department doesn't enforce it,' and it's a resource issue.

So this is trying to address that resource issue because we don't want to fine these building departments for not enforcing the Energy Commission. That just makes their resources less. We want to come up with a solution that supports them and this is the way to do that.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Any other additional questions or concerns? All right. We had some issues here because it seems like the work is getting done and just not reporting it being done. And I thought this was about energy efficiency, and if it's being done and installed, it's just collecting the data that's lacking here? So is that the correct issue here?

Yeah, as we talked about, I think it's actually a pretty elegant solution, kind of having the repository, getting the sales tracking information. It's just going to help them enforce this.

All right. Go ahead.

Sorry. I'd like to add on to that. Actually, the fact that--contractors are installing without permits, but they're also installing lower quality, which is why we see when we increase permitting and quality installation rates, you have those 20 to 30 percent energy savings. That's what the Energy Commission has found. So it's not only about collecting the right documents and seeing who's doing what, it's actually about improving the installations to make sure they're more efficient, safer, and saving customers money.

I just find that odd that you would improve your HVAC system, but you install lower quality equipment.

No. The idea is that you're ensuring that contractors who are pulling permits are required to prescribe--abide by the Energy Commission's building code and quality installation requirements. So you're getting a higher quality product.

Yeah, because the ones who are not pulling permits are using often cheaper, shoddier work.

I got it.

It's lower quality work.

All right. Thank you. Would you like to close?

Sure. Again, I think this is an elegant solution. I got in my own house, when we did some energy efficiency work, we found that the original HVAC installation was a pipe to nowhere, had not been installed correctly. So I appreciate all the comments and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a do pass to Rules Committee and to be amended, and the Committee on Judiciary. Is there a motion here on this bill? It's been moved by Senator Durazo. Consultant, please call the roll, and I'll just state the amendment: 'narrow the bill's compliance document database to HVAC and lighting controls.'

[Roll Call].

That current vote is eight to three. We'll leave the roll open for Members to add on. Now, we're seeking authors. Sorry, what do you have? Oh, yes. I'm sorry. File Item Ten: 501: Senator Newman. When you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members.Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 501. Before I begin, I'd like to thank the Chair and his staff for their work on this Bill and accept the amendments that have been recommended by Committee staff. As amended, SB 501 would direct the California Energy Commission to develop a comprehensive plan to improve the reliability, service quality, and operational uptime of California's existing network of hydrogen refueling stations.

As part of that, SB 501 would further expand the existing data collection requirements for hydrogen refueling stations as part of a consumer-first approach to increasing transparency and accountability for the thousands of fuel cell drivers who depend on them every day. As with battery electric vehicles, widespread consumer adoption of zero-emission FCEVs is contingent upon access to energy, in the case of FCEVs, of hydrogen, through a network of strategically located and reliable hydrogen refueling stations.

Despite the substantial investments to date by private sector market participants, the State of California's existing hydrogen refueling network remains suboptimal which is putting it mildly. Stations are frequently offline, either as a result of lack of fuel or from repeated and prolonged mechanical failures that station operators are often slow to fix, as evidenced in the first half of January of this year, up to 44% of the state's hydrogen refueling network was offline or non-operational at any given time.

Here in the Sacramento area, a multi-week outage across the entire Sacramento region effectively denied the approximately 550 fuel cell drivers in the Sacramento area the ability to use their vehicles during that time. As we've discussed in this Committee before, if California is to succeed in meeting its aggressive 2035 transportation decarbonization goals, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will need to be a meaningful part of the state's transportation mix, and for that to take place, the state needs to do more to improve the performance of our hydrogen fuel cell vehicle fueling infrastructure.

On the battery electric side of the ledger, there are similar issues around uptime and reliability of electric vehicle charging stations. Last year, in response, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 2061 by Assembly Member Ting, adopting data collection requirements for EV charging station operators and empowering the Energy Commission to adopt minimum uptime requirements for those operators.

These efforts recognize that the often challenged State of existing EV charging infrastructure could retard the widespread consumer adoption of battery electric vehicles while hindering California's overall progress toward decarbonization of the transportation sector. SB 501 would work in tandem with those efforts by introducing a similar set of data collection requirements for hydrogen station operators, while also directing the CEC to work collaboratively with stakeholders to identify strategies and explore recommendations for improving reliability of stations.

Equally importantly, as a way of ensuring that the practical experience of drivers themselves are taken into account, SB 501 will require the creation of an online customer feedback portal, which will offer consumers a fast and convenient way to report station issues, grade performance of stations, and flag recurring failures.

Taken together, the provisions of SB 501 endeavor to improve the experience of the roughly 15,000 current hydrogen fuel cell drivers in California who have invested and enrolled in this essential part of our green energy transition and who represent the first cohort of a larger community of approximately 70,000 fuel cell drivers projected to be on California's roads by the year 2028.

With me to testify today are Greg and Bobby Kane, proud drivers of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and the founders of the California Hydrogen Car Owners Association. I am respectfully asking for your Aye vote this morning.

Move the Bill.

Thank you. We'll give our witnesses two minutes for your presentation.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Bobbie Cane. My husband Greg, is here with me, and we are board members of the California Hydrogen Car Owners Association. When we retired three years ago, we made the decision that we would, for the good of our children and grandchildren, would dedicate our remaining years to doing what we could to address climate change. Partly to that end, we purchased a hydrogen fuel cell car in 2021 because it has no emissions.

We have driven this car extensively since purchasing it, including a trip to all nine California national parks last September. The reason for the trip was twofold. First, to bring attention to a future where fuel cell cars will be used just like gasoline and diesel cars, including the ability to refuel in about five minutes. And secondly, to support our national parks in their challenge to raise public awareness of the extreme impacts of the changing climate is having on park ecosystems.

We've talked to numerous hydrogen car drivers at the stations before, during, and after this trip. To a person, each of these drivers expressed frustration at the lack of reliable fueling stations. Very often, either the equipment had malfunctioned or the station had run out of fuel. It is mainly for this reason that the California Hydrogen Car Association was formed. We believe that the lack of reliable hydrogen fueling infrastructure in California is single-handedly thwarting the success of these cars in the state and in the United States.

With the passage of Senate Bill 501, California will go a long way toward improving the reliability, service quality, and operational uptime of hydrogen fueling stations. We therefore strongly ask that you support this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses here in support of this measure, we just ask you state your name and your organization.

Mikhael Skvarla here on behalf of California Hydrogen Coalition. We appreciate the effort that Senator Newman's making here, and we'll commit to continuing to work with him to increase the reliability and uptime of our stations and station progress in order to serve the drivers who are taking the commitment of early adoption to these fuel cell electric vehicles, which are absolutely necessary for a transition to 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2035. Thank you.

Thank you. Witnesses? Are there witnesses in opposition to this measure? Here in this room, room 1200 seeing none. Moderator, let's go to our phone lines for witnesses in support or opposition of SB 501.

And please press one then zero to get in queue for support or opposition.

We have no one in queue. Please go ahead.

Okay. We'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Senator Min.

As Senator Newman knows, I'm also an owner of a hydrogen fuel cell car.

He's Vice Chair of the, let's say, Hydrogen Car Caucus.

You appointed me that position. Thank you.

There are two of us, and I'm proud to have him as my Vice Chair.

And I will just say my own experience with the car, it drives great. I love it. Except that the fueling experience is very difficult. I will also say that the fueling experience has gotten better in the two years I've owned my Mirai. It can be a little sticky. For those of us who have hydrogen cars. It's gotten a little less sticky, some of these a little bit more reliable.

But I live in Orange County, where we have something like seven fueling stations and more on the way. That's the highest density across the state. And when I drive down to San Diego or L.A., I know it's going to be a hairy experience. Can't drive up to Northern California. There are real advantages of this technology, including the quick refueling time.

So I think as a state, this is a concept we want to get behind just to make sure we're not putting all our eggs in the EV basket. I also have an EV as well, and that has advantages and disadvantages of the hydrogen fuel cell car. So I would ask to be a co-author at the appropriate time, since I am the Vice Chair here of the Hydrogen Caucus, and would ask to move the Bill at the appropriate time.

This is appropriate time. All right, it's been moved. I just have a question as far as placing and locating these fueling stations. With the push to get off of fossil fuels and shutting down these gas stations, where will these fueling stations for hydrogen being located at?

That is to some extent, a separate conversation, which we've had, particularly in the Transportation Committee. So there's a plan. There's a roadmap for building out a network of about 200 stations across the state. To Senator Min's point, we do not yet have the density or the radius of coverage that's necessary for true sort of throughput up and down the state and also east and west. So that's a work in progress. The funding was slowed, for whatever reason between the years 2015, 2019.

So the network is actually behind schedule. That creates a set of problems that are actually not related to the broader question about the user experience. Right. So we don't have enough stations, but we also have a separate problem of those stations which are currently in place. Are overused. In many cases, the technology did not anticipate the intensive use that they're seeing.

And so data collection is really important to know what we're dealing with, particularly as we look forward and try and figure out collectively, particularly around grant-based operations, what the industry needs by way of guidance and rules, and also what the private sector should understand they need to provide to operationalize and make viable this network.

So all in the broader point, I think, is we're going to need fuel cell electric vehicles, particularly in rural areas, and this is an area where there are the fewest stations, which is unfortunate if we're going to decarbonize light, medium and heavy-duty transportation in California by 2035.

This is a step to make sure that the existing investments work, that the people who have made these initial commitments, like the Canes, are not cheated out of their investment because we don't maintain the quality of service or ensure that operators do so. And so with that, appreciate the witnesses being here. Thank you to all the coalition Members who've been supportive over time. Thank you to my Vice Chair and respectfully, ask for an Aye vote.

Senator Dallas.

Well, thank you. I just wanted to comment briefly as somebody who is in the heavy-duty use space, and we don't have one available, nor do we have the network available, but I will just want to go on record to say that we will not be able to move the goods that we need to be able to move with electricity the way we want to move them and be 100% green. And so we must use this technology in the heavy-duty space.

And so along our corridors where we move freight, obviously, we really need that long transportation freight. When I say that not the ports, the ports could do electric, but when we talk about moving freight and coming from a rural area where a lot of ag produce and forestry products need to get to the marketplaces, hydrogen is the answer. And so I will be supporting your Bill. Thank you.

Let me add, and I really do appreciate that. So as part of this conversation, there is some disagreement as to kind of the relative weighting, light duty versus heavy duty. Virtually everybody involved in this technology agrees that light duty is necessary for a bunch of reasons, not least of which it's going to drive down the cost of fuel cell technology and improve and enhance the technology innovation curve.

So that is another reason why we have to support and make sure that we render, continue, ensure the viability of the light-duty system, because it will contribute to the eventual success of heavy-duty hydrogen as well.

Thank you. Senator Grove, you have a question?

A comment or a question as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to share just a few thoughts. We learned that over the past year it's been evident, and actually documentation has been, video documentation has been available through Amnesty International and others, that cobalt fields in the Dominican Republic of the Congo is creating a slave labor market for our electric batteries. That's questioning some of those things.

The question I have about the hydrogen issue is 33% of that hydrogen is still being produced by the coal in the U.S. And there is a goal with the leadership of our country to eliminate coal mining. How does hydrogen survive? And we just don't go down a rabbit hole. I think it's a great idea. I think it's a great alternative. But how does it survive if we eliminate the coal mines?

Senator Arcuileta had a Bill earlier today to sort of redefine the standard around RPS, renewable hydrogen. That is part of that process. Right. To ensure that we are clear about where we're getting the fuel sources, in this case hydrogen, and ensuring that it is from clean and ethical sources. So this is a very complex kind of multidimensional process.

But the technology and the investment are coming line to move away from this historical, dirty ways of producing hydrogen through electrolysis, to newer ways, using either biomass or solar or wind, so that we don't need to use the old technologies, the dirty technologies, to produce hydrogen.

I appreciate that response, but the green technology sector also says that moving away from coal and those new technologies, moving to those new technologies is cost-prohibitive. And how do you afford a vehicle? I'm just trying to think down the road so that we don't invent the same situation that we're in now with electrical vehicles, with the reality that people are dying and hurting because we purchase electric vehicles and use batteries that are brought from the country.

I appreciate that, Senator Grove. These are challenging questions and they are intrinsic to the broader goals of moving from historical sources of fuel to new clean sources. It often is not a smooth process, and it's incumbent upon us as policymakers to create a roadmap that gets us to there as quickly and as kind of ethically as possible.

Thank you, sir.

Senator Dodd.

Yeah, I just think it's important, Senator Grove's point. I don't think there's anybody that is promoting hydrogen from coal. Obviously, that's a historical use. I went to the COP 27. I was in the hydrogen innovation hub for a couple of days. The investment in hydrogen worldwide is absolutely incredible. I really believe this is going to be. I think you're right to your point.

This is going to be something that's going to be able to supplement our electric vehicle production here in the State of California. To be able to meet our goals that we have to meet.

Great. Thank you. We have a motion by the Vice Chair of the Hydrogen Coalition, or caucus.

It's the Legislative Hydrogen Car Caucus.

Sorry. All right. All right. Caucus of two. Okay. The do pass as amended to the Committee on Environmental Quality. To be amended again. As amended. Well, it says as amended. So it's to be amended in that Committee?

Yes, it's to be amended.

All right. To be amended. And the Committee on Environmental Quality Consultant. Please call the role.

[Roll call].

That measure out it has 11 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Now we're at Senator Gonzalez. She's here. Senator Gonzalez, are you prepared? Can we open the roll on some of these items right now, while we have Members here, starting with file item two? No. Well, we haven't done 2. 3?

Thank you. SB 663, Archuleta, do pass to be amended in Environmental Quality. Current vote, nine. Chair voting Aye. [Roll call]. 15.

That's 15. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Next item. File item six.

It's the consent calendar. [Roll call].

That has 15 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Next is file item seven.

SB 572. Stern, do pass as amended to Appropriations. Current vote, nine zero. [Roll call]. 12 to three.

12 to three. We'll leave the roll open. Next, file item eight.

SB 795, Stern, do pass to Rules, to be amended in Judiciary Committee. Current vote, eight three. Chair voting Aye. Vice Chair voting No. [Roll call]. 11 to three.

What's the count?

11, 11 to three.

11 to three. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Next is file iem nine.

SB 410 by Senator Becker, do pass as amended to Appropriations. Current vote, 10 zero. [Roll call]. You already voted.

Which one are we on?

We're on file item nine, SB 410.

Sorry.

16 to zero.

16 zero leave the roll open for absent Members. All right, final item, Newman. Oh, well. For absent Members on SB 501.

SB 501, Newman, do pass to be amended in Environmental Quality. Current vote, 11 zero. [Roll call].

15 zero we'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Now, Senator Gonzalez, you may present your measure, SB 394.

Okay, I'll start with that. I'm also presenting for Senator Padilla, too, just FYI. Okay, we'll start with that one. So thank you, Mr. Chair and members, before I begin, I'd like to accept the Committee's recommended amendments outlined in the analysis that will push out the bill's deadlines and narrow the required inventory of facilities to instead be a representative assessment based on existing involuntary reported data. So I thank the Committee for their help on that.

And SB 395 will require that the California Energy Commission collaborate with various state agencies and education stakeholders to develop a master plan for healthy, sustainable, and climate resilient schools. California students are served by over 1000 school districts that utilize more than 10,000 school facilities, comprising of 125,000 acres of grounds and 730,000,000 sqft of facility space, which produce substantial GHG emissions and contribute to other environmental impacts.

While California has some existing programs that have taken piecemeal steps to begin this generational transition to climate-resilient facilities, there's a lack of a unified vision at the state level and a desperate need for a comprehensive roadmap and master plan. A master plan on climate resilient schools will better position California school districts to leverage the billions of dollars available under the recently passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, inflation Act, to modernize and make school facilities and buses more energy efficient.

Testifying in support today, I have Kirk Anne Taylor, Executive Director of Climate Action Pathways for Schools, Jeff Vincent, the Director of Public Infrastructure Initiatives at the Center for Cities and Schools at UC Berkeley, as well as for technical assistance if needed, Jonathan Klein with Undaunted K12. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Your two primary witnesses have two minutes.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm pleased to voice my support for SB 394. I'm Kirk Anne Taylor, Executive Director of Climate Action Pathways for Schools, a nonprofit organization that's working with school communities to reduce GHG emissions and save money while preparing students for college and their future careers. I'm also a parent and I'm concerned about the harm to children's academic progress and social-emotional development that is a result from climate-related disruptions to their schooling.

So what do we mean by climate-resilient schools? When extreme weather forces local utilities to cut power, schools remain online, powered by renewable energy that is generated and stored on-site. When wildfire smoke fouls the air, HVAC systems maintain clean air, providing respite for students and their families and when students struggle to make sense and find balance in the face of uncertainty, their school communities offer connection, competence and hope for the future.

As an example, climate action pathways for schools has been in partnership with Porterville Unified School District in Tulare County. Together, we are working with the district to reduce its GHG emissions by 80% by 2030. As a result, we've achieved over 28% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the district facilities and produced over 887,000 in energy cost savings for the district.

We need to do more to ensure that every district in our state gets on a path like Porterville to carbon neutrality and in alignment with state law that has access to technical assistance to safeguard students health and learning opportunities. The need for a master plan is great. The CEC is well positioned to lead the planning with capacity already in place from years spent administering Prop 39 and Cal Shape.

And this master plan will, as Senator Gonzalez said, help us align the national, state and local investments in school infrastructure with the state's goals for decarbonization, environmental justice, and educational equity. It will also create a roadmap for schools to help them benefit from the cost savings that come along with decarbonization while creating healthier communities. Thank you, and I respectfully ask that you vote aye on SB 394.

Thank you. Next witness, two minutes.

Thank you and hello, Senator Gonzalez, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Jeff Vincent with the Center for Cities and schools at UC Berkeley. I've studied issues of school facility infrastructure for 15 years, done so across California and nationally with partners such as the National Council on School Facilities and the National Academy of Sciences.

I was one of the lead authors on the 2023 report, a call to action climate resilient California schools that UC Berkeley researchers did with Stanford University researchers see, we do collaborate on something, and the report's central recommendation was really around what this Bill is focused on, which is that the State of California needs a master plan for climate resilient schools, and specifically one that focuses on the facility infrastructure from equity perspective, energy perspective and education perspective.

And so I'm pleased to see that SB 394 picks up on this, advances this wisdom. And thankfully, what we're seeing is leaders in California are making investments in this area, such as CalSHAPE for HVAC through CEC, the schoolyard greening investments through CalFIRE and others. But we need to make sure that these are coordinated going forward on energy infrastructure, and particularly climate justice. As been said, this infrastructure is really vast, over 10,000 schools, 730,000,000 buildings sqft It's an enormous public built environment infrastructure.

And 40% of these schools are over 50 years old. They need upgrades and a central challenge is just that, that many of these school facilities are outmoded and or they're in various states of disrepair. And these are the schools that will not be able to mitigate climate hazards and adapt. And so recent studies, including some of ours, have found real inequities in the conditions of these schools. So those climate injustices will be exacerbated in those facilities that cannot adapt to both energy and climate issues.

And many of these districts, unfortunately, do not have robust school facility plans to advance these things. And so this is where state leadership can really have a big impact, and so taking advantage of federal monies that are coming through the Infrastructure Investment Act, Inflation Reduction act, et cetera. But a statewide master plan will really position, create a broad vision, position local districts to leverage local, state and federal money as it's coming forward. So thank you very much.

Thank you. State your name and your organization, please.

Mr. Chair Members. Nancy Chaires Espinoza, on behalf of the School Energy Coalition, in support.

Norland Asbrik, on behalf of rewiring America, in support. Thank you.

Sakereh Carter, on behalf of Sierra Club California in strong support. Thank you.

Jonathan Klein from Undaunted K12 in support. Also offering a metoo comment in support from the New Buildings Institute as well as the Climate Ready Schools Coalition.

Matt Lege on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Merrian Borgeson with Natural Resources Defense Council in support.

Good morning. My name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California, in support.

Ellie Cohen with The Climate Center in support.

All right, are there witnesses here in 1200 in opposition of this measure? Seeing none. Moderator let's go to our phone lines and see if there's witnesses in support or opposition of SB 394.

And you can get in queue by pressing one and then zero. We'll go to the line 17.

Hi. Mary Creasy, on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support.

Thank you. We'll go next to line 18.

Tiffany Mok representing CFT, a proud co-sponsor, in support.

We'll go next to line 30.

Hi there. Colleen Corrigan from Children Now in support.

We'll go next to line 35.

Good morning. Jilliann Rodriguez M'Barki, on behalf of Ten Strands. In strong support of SB 394.

Go next to line 37.

Stacey Meinzen with the Climate Center in support of SB 233.

Andrea Goyan, in strong support of Cali project or the California Environmental Literacy Initiative. Project Director.

Thank you. Now we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or concerns, Senator Dodd.

Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Senator, I think this is a great Bill. I think that a master plan is absolutely incredibly important to really getting assessment what we're doing. I guess my only concern with this Bill, and I wonder if you've thought about, I'm sure you have, is we keep dumping on the CEC more and more and more and more.

And I wonder if we're at risk of just not getting the information on so many fronts that we need. And I wonder if there should be some sort of, because this is going to be something, we're going to get a master plan, then we're going to come back and mandate that all schools do x, Y and z, and then it's going to be a mandate from the state on schools. And I don't think we need to get ahead of ourselves that far.

But I guess I'm just wondering, is there a better place where we can get something like this done more efficiently and more in tune with the schools? I don't know if it's with the State Board of Education, if they would hire on staff. I mean, obviously that's going to be a budget item. But budget aside, I'll just ask that question. Sorry I went on so long on that.

That's okay. Thank you. Through the chair. I appreciate the question. So the CEC currently has conducted about four or five programs already, as mentioned. So Prop 39 Cal shape, which was an Assembly Member Ting Bill where plumbing and ventilation dollars were provided and expended. So they already have an inventory from many of these programs. So it seemed a little easier. But I understand your concern because we have legislated a lot around providing CEC with authority to be able to help us.

But I also think the Department of Energy has billions of dollars right now through the Biden Administration to expend. That also offers a bit of guidance. So I think if anything, this is the Bill to actually provide to the CEC. They already have the inventory. They're already doing the work. Let's fill the gaps. And then they'll also work with stakeholders in various agencies, with CARB, with Department of Education.

So there will be a state agency coalition, and then on top of that, a diverse stakeholder engagement as well with our local communities and the trade unions, et cetera.

Appreciate it.

Senator Becker

Yeah. I just want to say I think this is an important Bill because it seems like a win win win and health for students and teachers, climate benefits, and then also the workforce and job aspects of this. And I just also want to know, during the pandemic, I had some roundtables with the Teachers Association and feels like if we're creating filtering for wildfire smoke and also a reminder that Central Valley has some of the worst air quality in the country.

So it'll also be helpful there generally, but also if there's for any future pandemics that might occur, it's also going to help make the schools safer again, both for students and teachers and just for just General health on a day to day basis for spreading of colds and other things and flu. So I'd like to be considered as a co author. That's okay.

Love to have you.

Great. Senator Dahle.

Thank you I'm going to be supporting your Bill today, but I wanted to just maybe bring to your attention, because I know that you and I came in together in the class of 2019 into the Senate. But Senator Skinner, under Prop 39, did a piece of legislation. I don't remember the number, but we actually worked on negotiating for the money that came in from Prop 30. I think it was Prop. Was it Prop 39?

Yes.

So that to do retrofitting to help bring schools in compliance with the money that was generated by the out of state taxes that came in. And so I don't know who monitored that, but there's been some work done in this area, and I would encourage you to maybe look at that as a form of a pilot to get information on how we were able to do implementing the projects.

I know there were some just, Senator Skinner and I just had a conversation a second ago about who owned the buildings and some of those leased out buildings. Anyway, just for information, I will be supporting your Bill today, but I think we have some work done in this area already that may be helpful for your legislation.

Yes, absolutely. And I thank you both for that work. Our coalition partners at endanted k 12 have been very active on Prop 39 oversight and also Cal shape and looking at all of the different programs administered currently by the CEC that seem to be piecemeald. So that's a great addition. So thank you for that.

Thank you, Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, there's some numbers that caught my attention right now, which is that 40% of schools are over 50 years old. As a classroom teacher for 17 years, there's been situations where we don't even have regular structures. We still have bungalows, and in high, extreme weather, sometimes the air conditionings would go out and we'd have to go outside to try and teach. I mean, there's just so many situations.

So I think my comprehensive approach to really analyzing what our students are dealing with, our teachers are dealing with. I think it's time, and I think this is a really important step to move those efforts forward to ensuring that these old classrooms and bungalows and everything that's not healthy for our kids, that we take a good look at it. And I also want to join as a co author. I think it's an important step. So thank you for these efforts. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Skinner.

Thank you. I'll move the Bill. I don't believe Ms. Rubio moved it, but I'll move it. And Senator Dahle is correct. We did direct most of the funds from 29 to efficiency upgrades and improvements in our schools. And we did a lot. But in other words, there wasn't enough to do the works needed in every single school. And, of course, since then, we've learned a lot more about the need, for example, for good ventilation. It wasn't that. That was unknown.

But you want to design any for your resiliency, obviously, to respond if we have another pandemic. And then our bigger threat now with heat, extreme heat days, and how we can address those buildings without necessarily increasing their energy demand load. So I think this is really important work to do. And fortunately, there's a lot of expertise in the Energy Commission because it was the Energy Commission that oversaw all of the implementation of that Prop 29 work. So with that, I'm happy to support the Bill and move it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional comments or questions by Members hearing, seeing none, would you like to close?

Yeah, I just respectfully ask for the aye vote. We have great coalition partners, and I think in addition, this is a great Bill for both the environment and for our friends in labor. So with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. We have a do pass to be amended in the Committee on Education and I'll just state those amendments, extend the bill's deadlines for the start of stakeholder meetings and completion of master plan to March 24 and March 252025. I should say, respectfully delete the requirement that the CDC establish an inventory of K 12 buildings and instead require representatives assessments based on existing data and voluntary reported data and make other technical and conforming changes. Is that correct? All right, so, consultant, please call the roll on SB 394.

[Roll Call]

Measure has 14 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. And I believe Senator Gonzalez is going to present now SB 605 for Senator Padilla.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I'm here today to present Senator Padilla's Senate Bill 605 which would develop a strategic plan for wave and tidal energy technology, infrastructure and facilities and energy generation goals. California has set lofty and necessary climate goals, but to reach them, we need more clean, renewable energy sources. We have over 1000 miles of shoreline that represent an untapped source of clean and almost perpetual energy. Wave power is clean, consistent and predictable.

In 2021, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory concluded that even if a small portion of the potential energy from the ocean is captured, it would make significant contributions to our nation's energy needs. And the Biden Administration has already allocated tens of millions of dollars to advance the technology and there are at least a dozen companies in California currently exploring the potential of wave and tidal power generation.

SB 605 will accelerate these efforts that will help ensure grid reliability with energy generated by a clean, abundant, and renewable source. And it requires the CEC to study the potential feasibility and benefits of Wave and Tidal Energy in California. With me today, I have Dan Jacobson representing AltaSea at the Port of Los Angeles, and I also have Marcus Lehmann of CalWave. I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

We'll let you have two minutes. Primary witness. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan Jacobson, standing in for Terry Tamminen with AltaSea. He couldn't be here because of some plane problems. We need to continue to innovate the policies and the technologies and the financing of new, clean, renewable energy sources for our state if we hope to achieve our ambitious goals for clean air and a climate resilient economy. That's why we're so grateful to Senator Padilla, and today to Senator Gonzalez, to sponsor SB 605, the Wave and Tidal Energy Bill.

This important measure would set California on the path toward becoming a global leader in ocean energy and by developing untapped sources of clean, resilient, abundant and renewable energy. Wind and solar have helped the state to meet its clean energy goals, but the sun is not always shining, and the wind is not always blowing. Ocean wave and tidal energy have the potential to complement solar and wind by providing a more predictable source of energy day and night.

There's currently, as the Senator said, at least 12 companies that are demonstrating the potential here. And we've got Marcus Lehmann with CalWave, who can go into some more of the details. We'd respectfully urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? State your name and organization.

Hello. Marcus Lehmann, co-founder and CEO of CalWave Power Technology. We're an Oakland based leading technology provider of wave energy technology, founded in 2014 based on research done at UC Berkeley. I was a PI at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, hold a PhD and MBA, and we're supported by over 20 million in contracts with the Department of Energy. In 2021-22, we've demonstrated the longest continuous operating wave demonstration in San Diego in collaboration with Scripps institution of Oceanography.

The system operated for 10 months continuously, and we're now working on a DOE funded two year commercial demonstration. There are four points that really provide major benefit of wave power to California. One on the climate and resource potential, jobs- industry growth, energy security- stability, as well as ratepayer cost reduction. Wavepower can provide 30% of California and US primary electricity. We can provide power at night and wintertimes. And the IPCC has found wave power is the lowest source of clean energy from a lifecycle emission perspective.

On a job perspective, the supply chain is synergistic with offshore wind, if not identical. And so far, most of the technology for solar and wind is being imported. Wavepower can become a job creating exporting industry in California. And yeah, the big challenge towards clean hydrogen really requires baseload clean energy.

So wavepower is really the key to provide baseload clean energy to run electrolyzers 24/7 and really make sure we produce fully clean hydrogen as well as the resources are extremely energy dense and is provided to our front doors so less transmission lines will actually require it compared to other sources.

And for ratepayer costs, several studies have found offshore wind already providing significant cost reduction for ratepayers. Wave power being baseload, available at night and wintertimes, can further increase the total savings for ratepayers on the electricity price. So, yeah, in strong support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses here in room 1200 in support of this measure? SB 605. Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition of SB 605 here in room 1200? Seeing none. Moderator, let's go to our phone line to see if there's individuals wishing to testify either in support or opposition of SB 605.

Of course. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. We do have someone that has queued up. One moment while they're given their line number. And next we'll be going to line 44. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Steven King, on behalf of Environment California, and we support SB 605.

And next, we'll go to line 26. Please go ahead.

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

There's currently no one else in the queue.

Thank you. We'll bring the discussion back to the Committee. Are there any questions or concerns by Committee Members? Senator Becker?

Yeah, I'll just say that, doing clean energy investing 15 years ago, it always seemed that wave and tidal energy was one of these things in energy, it was always 10 years away. But I certainly hope the witness is right that this technology is here now and certainly supportive of this approach with pilot projects and studies to this area, and hopeful that this can be one of the technologies that can be complementary to solar and wind going forward. So I'll move the Bill when appropriate.

Thank you. Any additional questions or concerns? Senator Dahle.

I know that you're just presenting the Bill, but I do have a question for one of the witnesses. I think it was a second witness. I wanted to kind of get an idea of how the federal government progress in this area and this legislation are going to work together.

Yeah. So, Cal Wave. We're also a member of the National Hydro Association Marine Energy Council.

And currently federal Congress has assigned about 120 million annually for marine energy to the Department of Energy. And the largest resource is wave energy. So far, we've not seen a strong collaboration between federal and state. But with offshore wind and the national labs establishing a marine energy center on the West Coast for a 20 megawatt farm, we hope that there will be more state and federal collaboration going forward.

So are the pilot projects that you've been operating, are they feasible to do right now?

Yeah. We had a ten months continuous pilot, and we're currently ordering parts for the next commercial two year. We're actually going to sell power to the grid.

Thank you.

All right. Any additional questions or concerns? Hearing none. Do we have a motion? All right. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Before you leave, we have a do pass, as amended, to Natural Resources. You're accepting the Committee amendments?

Yes. My apologies. He is accepting the amendments.

The amendments are stated. Delete the requirements for a strategy as proposed by the Bill. Delete the requirements for planning goals and allow pilot projects upon appropriation by the Legislature. So those are amended. Yes, I got it. Yes. And this will be amended in Natural Resources. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

That measure has 13 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Last but definitely not least, we have Senator Skinner presenting SB 233.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Members. I will begin that I am accepting these amendments by the Committee. I'm accepting the removing the bidirectional mandate from the charging infrastructure, and I'm also adding the required CEC to analyze and make recommendations regarding specified costs, benefits, and barriers around making the EV chargers bidirectional. As I think the Committee knows, California has made some very strong commitments towards electric vehicles. We have rebates as well as the federal government.

And last week, the Biden Administration proposed new rules that will massively accelerate EV production, and with the combination of what's happening on the national level, what's happening in California, we're going to be seeing many, many more EVs on our roads. And we already have existing legislation where our TNCs like Uber and Lyft are moving to electric vehicles, for example. Uber I met with yesterday, and now ten percent of the rides that they are providing are in EVs. So there's--progress is being made.

And as the stage is set for increased EV reliance, we need to also set the stage to be able to utilize EVs to their full potential. Now, in 2010, I carried the bill that had California set a purchasing policy for utility grade batteries in order for us to be able to store the electricity when we are generating high amounts of electricity, say, from solar, so that then we could deploy it, when, for example, solar is not generating.

Now, when I introduced that bill in 2010, it was passed, but people were kind of like, 'well, it's a great idea, but it's not feasible and their technology is not available. It's very expensive.' Well, California is now the world leader in utility grade storage. We deployed on the hottest day of the year last year. We deployed in the amount of battery storage that was greater than the power that is generated by Diablo Canyon.

And we have been able to meet many of our renewable energy goals because of that energy storage. Now, I give you that example because, and it's interesting, when I used that bill, I held up our phone and I said, 'every one of us are carrying in our pocket an energy storage device. That's what this is. Now, the other device that is an energy storage device is the electric vehicle.' The batteries in our electric vehicles are more powerful.

They have more capacity than the batteries that--let's say now you might be looking at adding solar to your house, to a commercial building or to your house, and you may have your solar installer pitch to you to buy a battery pack in addition to the solar so that you can store that solar. Well, at this point, you don't necessarily need to buy an extra battery pack for your house. You could potentially use your EV. It has that capacity.

There is more power in the batteries in that EV than in the battery pack. Now, how do we do that? We only are able to do that if the EV is bidirectional. Now, all Nissan EVs are currently bidirectional, and Nissan is one of the most affordable EV models. Tesla will have 100 percent of their vehicles bidirectional within the next model year.

So we're already moving in this direction, but we need all of our vehicle manufacturers to move their EVs to bidirectional so that we have that capability, and then, we could potentially utilize the EV, say when the electricity demand is highest and rates are highest.

If you've charged your EV at night, when the rates are lower, and when demand is not as great, you could then utilize your EV to power your house for a couple of hours while those rates are the highest, and thus saving you a great deal of money and pulling off the demand, which, of course, will help us reduce power outages.

Now, with the expectation that eight million EVs will be on the roads in California by 2030, if less than ten percent of those EVs were to be utilized in this way, it would have more gigawatt capacity, again, than Diablo Canyon has today. So there's great potential here. Now, some say 'not available yet, may be expensive,' but that's why we need to make sure that our EVs, which you're going to own for a good number of years, that they have this capacity.

So when this technology is much more affordable, when the charging is much more available, and when our rates start going higher and higher as we move to electrify, we have this ability. So that's the purpose of my bill, and I really appreciate the work of the Committee, and I would like my witnesses, Ellie Cohen, who is CEO of the Climate Center, and Gregory Poilasne, who is the CEO of Nuvve.

All right. You have two minutes, so you may begin.

Okay. Thank you, Chair Bradford and Committee Members. I'm Ellie Cohen, CEO of the Climate Center, which is sponsoring SB 233. And many thanks to Senator Skinner for your leadership on this legislation. As the climate crisis rapidly worsens and we face more extremes, we'll face more power outages. The current plan to avoid blackouts is to fire up natural gas peaker plants located primarily in lower income, working class communities and to use propane and diesel generators, further polluting our neighborhoods and climate.

California can do better by using electric vehicles as batteries on wheels to keep the lights on, using EVs in our driveways, in our schoolyards and our city lots, and paying EV owners for that power. The bill is supported by over 60 organizations, including environmental and environmental justice groups, EV industry leaders, and local governmental organizations. The California Energy Commission projects will have upwards of eight million EVs--as the Senator just explained--by 2030, with a combined power of at least 60 gigawatts. So what does that mean?

That exceeds the highest electricity demand ever in California, which was 52 gigawatts last September 6th during that terrible heat wave. If we use even a tiny percentage of that EV capacity, we can secure a more resilient and reliable power grid. This bill sends a critical market signal. It helps California leverage this massive EV energy capacity, and it helps ensure energy resilience is available to every Californian at every EV price point. We urge you to vote aye in support of SB 233, a key unlock to the grid for the future, one that's clean, affordable, reliable, equitable, and safe. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next witness.

Chairman Bradford and Senate Committee Members, my name is Greg Poilasne, and I'm the CEO of Nuvve Corporation, a proud California company and world's leader of bidirectional vehicle-to-grid technology, and I'm here in support of Senate Bill 233 to share my knowledge on vehicle-to-grid technology and adoption. Turning EV into mobile storage is critical to provide the flexibility our grid needs.

This strategy complements California's stationary storage goals and is hedged against potential supply chain challenges and other factors that might affect them. My company, Nuvve, has unmatched real-world experience and expertise in bidirectional charging. Today in California, we're helping ten school districts use v-to-g to reduce the cost of electrifying their fleets and giving them more money for student instruction while supporting clean transportation and renewable penetration. These projects include v-to-g integration with three different school bus manufacturers so it can be done.

Five of our California projects are in Senate district--represented by Members of this Committee today--District 1, 14, and 26. In San Diego last year, during our historic ten-day heat wave, the Cajon Valley Unified School District used our v-to-g platform to help keep the light on. Now we have three v-to-g school bus fleets in San Diego County, providing nearly one megawatt capacity for the summer Emergency Load Reduction Program.

Nuvve is also in process of deploying another 1.5 megawatt in the LADWP territory, supporting the electrification of LAUSD school bus fleets. We see vehicle-to-grid as an essential technology in order to achieve EV deployment goals while keeping energy cost equitable. California must approach v-to-g the same way that it's treated rooftop solar or EV adoptions, with goals, incentive, and fostering stakeholder collaboration. SB 233 does all this and will help transform today's megawatts that we have already deployed into gigawatts. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Now we'll ask for witnesses here in the room, state your name, your organization, your position.

Environment California. Support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lillian Mervis with MCE, here in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sakereh Carter, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support.

Thank you.

Cynthia Shallot, on behalf of Indivisible California State Strong, in strong support of SB 233.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in 1200 in support? Seeing none now, we'll move to witnesses in opposition. Primary witness has two minutes.

Mr. Chair and Members, I'm Curt Augustine. I'm the Senior Director of Government Affairs for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which is the trade association representing all the automakers, as well as many of the technology providers for electric vehicles, as well as the batteries that go in those electric vehicles. First off, I'd like to compliment your staff's analysis on this bill.

It's a very complex issue, and I would actually encourage you to adopt fully the recommendations that are in the Committee analysis. With all due respect to Senator Skinner, I'm perplexed about the amendments that she has offered. She is exempting all the utilities, the service providers, the charging units, but yet requiring a mandate on the automakers within two and a half years to provide a technology that--while we support, and as she has actually noted--vehicles have them today.

But to require that every vehicle have that technology, one: limits consumer choice. It's unclear as to if that is the need. Again, her own new amendments eliminate the utilities. We don't even know what the plan is on that. So we would encourage, again, turning the bill into a further--to expanding on the amendments she's just taken, to study the issue further, and to make sure that we do have this vehicle to grid integration and all the benefits that we've just been hearing about.

There is also further study that is needed to be looked at, at the strain on batteries. There are many fine institutions who are saying that this could jeopardize battery life, and that puts us in conflict with the new advanced clean car regulations. So, once again, I would ask that you take your Committee's analysis and recommendations in full, and I said we respectfully oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition?

Good morning. My name is Michaela Elder. I'm here on behalf of CALSTART. CALSTART thanks Senator Skinner for the amendments on EVSE, but does feel that the mandate on vehicles is not good for the industry or California consumers. Thank you.

Next witness.

Good morning. Audra Hartmann, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition. We have a support--excuse me--oppose unless amended position on the bill.

Thank you. All right, seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we'll go to our phone lines. Moderator, please queue up witnesses wishing to speak in support or in opposition of SB 233.

Of course. Once again, ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak in support or opposition, press one then zero. We'll go to line 14. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is John Sardar. I am a general contractor and sustainable developer here in California since 1986. My work in these fields has really led me into a fairly deep expertise in renewable energy and energy storage, and I just want to state for the record that this is really the logical next step in energy storage. And as California adds millions of EVs, they can either be a strain on or--

I'm just going to ask you to state your name and your position, please.

Okay. My name is John Sardar. I am in support of the bill.

Thank you. Next witness.

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

Diana Weynand, on behalf of Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley and LA Chapters, in strong support of SB 233.

We'll go to line 26. Please go ahead.

This is Janet Cox for Climate Action California, in strong support of the bill, and thank you to Senator Skinner and the Climate Center.

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

This is Nicole Rivera, Senator Skinner constituent and California consumer, in support of the bill.

Next we'll go to line 56. Please go ahead.

Mr. Chair and Members, Roger Dickinson, on behalf of CivicWell, formerly the Local Government Commission, in support. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 52. Please go ahead. 22, your line is open.

Yes. Jan Warren, Walnut Creek, in support.

We'll go to line 55. Please go ahead.

Roger Lin with the Center for Biological Diversity, in strong support. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 61. Please go ahead.

Yes. Robert Perry, on behalf of the World Business Academy, in strong support of SB 233. Thank you.

There's currently no one else in the queue.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know this makes sense right when you say it, but there's a lot of detail that I think is lacking here. On number one, it's a mandated, and I've been very critical of us setting targets and mandating something without doing our due diligence to make sure it's going to be implemented in a way that we want it to be implemented.

Obviously, we've all seen the Ford f 150 commercial where they drive up the mountain and they park at the cabin and they plug the truck in and turn the lights on. And that's what this bill's goal is. But to get it done, I'm concerned about the ability to be able to actually make sure that the home is able to receive the power in a way that it should be received. That's a cost.

Number one, the life of a battery, which was brought up by the opposition, I think is something that we need to. My main concern is that we should look at maybe some amendments because this is a hard 2027 on one part of the industry, but there's a lot other moving pieces that have to be looked at. I'm going to lay off your Bill. I'm going to get to see it again in transportation, I believe.

And so it was hopeful that you might be able to look at some of those amendments that they were talking about to get us to a place where we don't have that drop dead date of 2027 on the manufacturer of the vehicle. When we look at the lifecycle of the battery, the cost and implementing, I think this is doable, but I think setting the hard stop and only talking about the one sector of it is an issue, for me, at least.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Senator, you made a statement at the beginning of presenting your Bill, and I just want to make sure I understood exactly what amendment you were taking, because the challenge I have with adding more requirements at this particular point in time is that I think we have rolled out our climate change efforts disproportionately and have hurt Low income communities. We've created these incentives so that people can buy an electric vehicle. And that's great. That's really excellent.

But would they have bought that vehicle anyway, number one? And number two, did it inflate the cost of the vehicle? And I'm talking Teslas here, right? I mean, did it sustain a real high price point for sale rather than incentivize for Low income people. People in my district have not taken advantage of the electric vehicle rebate. Number one, because they got to pay the money out front, and number two, because. Or tax breaks or whatever it is, they just can't afford it.

And I've talked to people who said we went to the dealers and couldn't afford to buy a new vehicle. And so before we move into creating incentives for bi directional vehicles, I want to make sure that we're really creating an opportunity. And the same thing goes for solar panels. It's a tax rebate, and you got to be middle class at least, to be able to put solar on your rooftop.

And I'm really struggling with trying to get the resources, the limited resources the state has into those communities in a way that actually helps them in their day to day life because they have to drive long distances. It's just the nature of rural California, and that means to get to work, they've got to have a vehicle that works for them. I thought I heard you say that you were eliminating the bi directional date. If you could explain, that would be helpful if the chair...

So in talking to the chair, expressed willingness to allow the Bill to, depending on the votes, of course, in the Committee, to move with the requirement on the model year 2027, but removing the mandate on the other, and the reason that. So let me first say, appreciate there's still. Look, I don't have an EV now. I don't have an EV primarily because I don't have a garage, and I have no external plug.

I'd have to add the electrical to have an external plug and such, and I'd probably have to stretch the cord to the street, but anyway, so eventually I will. And of course, it's much more attractive to me to have an EV at the point where I could potentially utilize the EV during the time when rates are highest for a couple hours a day, because I don't have air conditioning either.

And yet, with the type of heat that we're increasing in California, at some point I might need air conditioning. And then, of course, when would I be turning my air conditioner on, when rates are highest and when the demand is greatest. So wouldn't it be great if my ev could power it for those 2 hours or however long?

Now, as I mentioned, when I opened, Nissan, which is the most affordable evs available on the market, have always had bi directional capacity, so it did not hugely add to the price of that Nissan model, and it's never been an issue as our Vice Chair, I believe Mr. Dahle pointed out, Ford is already advertising their truck with that capability.

So my intent with retaining that mandate, as much as our manufacturers are saying that they don't love it, is because once you purchase an EV, if you start purchasing one, say, in 2027, you're going to have it for a long time. So why do you want to be in a situation where you own that vehicle 10 or longer years and you don't have the capability, as rates potentially go higher, especially if you're Low income, to be able to utilize it to offset when rates are highest.

Now, the greatest potential for this is probably for fleets and powering a commercial building. But again, why would we say, okay, it only has to be these evs and not others. We should really allow all evs, since they have this capacity to be bi directional, so that we, as this technology evolves and it becomes more clear when it is most practical that it's available and people can utilize it, whether again as fleet owner for commercial building or for their home or however.

So that's why I worked with the chair to recommend taking a set of the amendments, but not all. Again, if Committee is willing.

Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was in that hearing when you held up that battery phone and said, we have a battery charger charging device in our pockets. I get where you're going. I do. I've seen the same commercial that Senator Dahle has seen. So I just have a couple of questions, just out of curiosity. I have a couple of questions and then one for the manufacturers, if we could have them come back up.

Is there technology out there that will not allow the battery drainage be so much? My understanding is, based on the comments from the opposition, is that the current batteries that we use in evs will be, their life will be shortened going back and forth. And like I said, I love the commercials.

So there's debate on that question. But if we look at most vehicle owners, not all, obviously, there's exceptions, but most vehicle owners only use their vehicle for a very limited number of miles in a day, and so they are way underutilizing their battery capacity. Now, it is possible that if you are one who is utilizing, driving your vehicle 300 miles or more a day, which is rare.

But of course, obviously, in some of your districts that might be more common, you might opt not to utilize that battery for powering, say, your home, except rarely, except in the highest heat days or the highest demand. For example, when you get the text that says, please turn off your stuff so you don't want to fry in your house. So you decide, okay. I'm not going to turn everything off. I'm going to instead switch over and let my EV power. But the concern that it. Well, anyway, I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you. And I have a question for the manufacturers. If you have a current ev now with the current battery and the current plug in capacity, is there technology out there that will allow these current evs to have some type of upgrade? Maybe they could exchange the battery a different plugin, or do they have to buy a whole new car and their current ev doesn't do this bi directional process?

Mr. Chair and Senator Grove, Kurt Augustine with the auto innovators. Yes. That technology to add on can be done by aftermarket companies or by some of our manufacturers themselves. Yes.

Thank you. Which would be cheaper than buying another electric vehicle?

Almost certainly, yes.

Thank you. I just thought I'd ask that. I appreciate that that clarifies a little bit more. And then my last question is that you exempt the IOUS or the utilities on the mandate. So I guess my concern is that, just like my colleague, Senator Caballero, had mentioned of how we've rolled out this plan for green technology.

So what I face, and the reason why there was deep concern from my friends on the IOUS about other bills that came through this Committee this morning, is that in certain areas, farmers are required to have electric forklifts. So they convert to electric forklifts, they put solar, invest resources to put solar fields in, take ag land out of production, and then they still cannot get connectivity. So they're using gas powered generators, big ones, on diesel truck beds.

Big truck beds, big ones to keep their cold storage cold so that they can get their product to market, so on and so forth. The same with a lot of us. Not me, but I've had a lot of people from the ports contact me. In our ports, such as Long beach, they're required to have electric vehicles or electric forklifts in order to have their lease.

And they use gas powered generators to provide power to the electric forklifts because the buildings are so old, they can't get three phase or five phase power, whatever it is, to these buildings there, exempting the utilities to not have, or the IOUS to not have connectability or requirements to be able to adapt to this technology for this bi directional transfer. I don't understand that piece. So what was your thought process? Because they have to be able to connect it in order for this to work.

So why are we exempting them? Because they're not the best examples of connectivity lately.

Well, clearly my Bill in introduction would have required it. But I think the difference here is that there are chargers now. You can get that have this capability so they're not unavailable. So the difference with exempting them as well, it does not get us to the point where every single charger out there is going to have this capability. You can elect to have it.

And if your vehicle has it, especially by model year 2027, you don't have to go and pay extra to convert your vehicle to have it. You see? So that's one issue. The second issue is that the amendments allow the CEC to come back to us, and I'm hopeful that they will come back to us and say, look, this is very feasible. I mean, it depends.

I agreed with the Committee analysis that it is appropriate to have them look at how you would roll this out in a way that is most cost effective. Now, there's, interestingly enough, those people who are good do it yourselfers can do this now.

And there was an article in the New York Times in December about a family in New Mexico when they were facing outages and they had a Chevy Bolt, the head of the household figured out what to buy at a hardware store to convert both his charger at home and his vehicle to do this. Now, he had that capability. I don't know what his background was, whether he was an engineer or something, but not all of us do.

But certainly the point being is that there are chargers now available on the market that have this. So it's not like this is going to be unavailable to anyone without the mandate. And there is still that capacity for the do it yourself, although I certainly don't want to put that on everybody. And I'm hopeful that the CEC will come back to us soon with some information that would make us feel more confident about what the next step should be around the charging infrastructure.

Thank you. Thank you for that. My next question that you already answered was about the same thing. If you already have a charging station at your home, can that be easily converted? Obviously, if you can do it yourself, it can be easily converted. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Senator Min.

Thank you, Senator Skinner, for bringing this forward. Look, the backdrop of this, obviously, is the climate crisis that we're facing and the equity and inequities that are going to be coming with that are massive. We're already seeing those coming. So I just want to make that point just initially. But look, as policymakers, as we strive to get our economy to zero emissions. We know that the lights have to turn on, and we saw the challenges last year when we were looking at Diablo.

And we have that challenge of, how do we get to zero emissions as quickly as possible? How do we decarbonize without impacting our constituents in a negative way? And so when I first heard about this bi directional charging, this vehicles to grid idea, I thought, this is a game changer, because storage is the clear problem we're facing going forward. We know that pretty soon we'll have enough renewables online where we can meet our demands, our energy demands as a state.

And this could be a massive game changer, just because if we can imagine these batteries coming online at periods where we need them, that will provide the storage that we need. And this really could be the silver bullet that we need to get to zero emissions quickly. And I think that it's also important to think about California, not just in the context of our own state, but globally.

When Governor Newsom announced that CARB was going to enact a rule, or had enacted a rule, getting our vehicle fleet to zero emissions by the year 2035100%, that may or may not be achievable. And we could have debated at the outset, is that going to happen or not? What we saw immediately after that was all the major automakers announcing that they would have something like 100% zero fleets by 2035 or 2040.

California, as the fourth largest economy in the world, sets the market, and you see a lot of reaction to that. And the technology is there right now for these VDG chargers. But I guess the point I'd make is, if California passes this law, I think we can expect to see rapid adoption, rapid innovation. And as that happens, we'll see a lower cost, because we're seeing that happening with electric cars right now. You already mentioned that the Nissan Leaf, I think, has bi directional charging.

It also costs $27,000. And that price has continued to drop for electric vehicles as more and more supply has come online, as economies of scale have grown. So I just want to emphasize the importance of California setting the trend for the rest of the country, the rest of the world. I think this is a brilliant idea. I think it's important that we think about how we're going to get not only our state, but the rest of the world to zero emissions.

And this is going to be a critical component of that going forward. So I'll be supporting this Bill today, and I'd ask to be a co author at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Senator Ashby.

Thank you. I don't need to belabor the point because so much has already been said, and I know we're at the end of a long Committee hearing, but at the risk of sounding like a freshman, I just want to ask, is this. Going to transportation next? Okay. So then my question to the author is just, and I think I know the answer, but I just want to hear it out loud.

I know you've taken some amendments here. I know you, you're going to work really hard on this Bill. Transportation gives another opportunity for some of the folks, especially on the auto side of the deal, to continue talking to you. Right. I mean, you'll keep talking to them and figure out the best pathway forward for everybody.

All right. Very good. Thank you. I'll be supporting it.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto.

Hi. I think this technology has great promise, and I think it's being shown by some of the manufacturers incorporating it into their product and consumers that buy that product. But for me, what concerns me is we're kind of forcing people to do something that they may not want or afford. Our good Senator from Merced pointed out some of the inequities in creating vehicles that are more expensive. And it's not just the purchase part of it.

As you know, cars today are not like the cars of 2530 years ago, where I could pop the hood and figure out what's going on with the carburetor. A piece of technology goes bad on your car and it's $5,000 to get it fixed. And these are the concerns I have when we try to outrace or force technology on people that might not want that technology for themselves. And I think the market will drive this process.

I think as more and more consumers decide that this is something for them, then the demand will go up and more people will produce. And if people are only buying Nissans because nobody else is offering this, well, I'd imagine everybody else is going to step up to the plate and do it. So I just don't like the mandate part of this where we're mandating people to do things that they're not quite ready for. I understand that we have concerns about the climate and all of that.

But again, the more we mandate and push these mandates on people, I think the less cooperation you're going to get in trying to move to these cleaner technologies. And so that's my concern with the Bill, is it's awesome technology. I think it's great for people who want it, but forcing it on people would be like me forcing you to go out tomorrow and buy a $25,000 air conditioning unit, because you don't have air conditioning right now, and I think you should. Anyway, those are my comments.

They're not going to be supporting the Bill today, but we'll be interested to see how the market reacts to this kind of technology in the future.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to say thank you to Senator Skinner. I know this is going on to transportation, so we'll deal with all the equity concerns there. I know that's been sort of part of the amendments here, too, but I think it offers a lot of promise and opportunity, and I think the work is basically being done now. And you're solidifying this by ensuring that we've got labor at the table, environmental groups at the table, our automakers at the table as well.

And folks are already doing this, Nissan Lucid, I believe, Ford, quite a few automakers that are already doing this work. But I'd like to also understand that the pilot program outcomes at some certain point, which I know you'll probably be following to see how they are working in terms of the energy pushback and what folks could potentially reap from these benefits of bi directional charging. So with that, thank you, and I'll support the Bill today.

All right. It's been moved by Senator Min. Is there any further discussions? Okay Senator Dahle.

Just real quick, you made my point for needing some more amendments when you said somebody hooked up their car to their house, and that's very dangerous, by the way, for the lineman that's out there working who that charges the infrastructure. And that's why we are very nervous about people hooking up home generators without getting the right qualifications to do it.

And solar panels have the ability to put electricity onto the grid, but they also, when the grid is down and somebody's working on it, they shut off and they don't allow. So tweak a few amendments in there, and I think we can get there on this Bill. I think it's a great idea. It just needs a little bit more work. So you made the point for me. I just wanted to share that with you.

Any further discussions or debate on this item, I, too, want to thank the author for working with this Committee. Again, I think it's been stated that the technology and innovation is there. I, too, have some of the concerns that Mr. Augustine raised as it relates to the tight window timeframe for auto manufacturers. But I'm also, as Senator Dahle stated, as a former utility employee, the biggest fear when linemen and line women were out there working, were homes with generators hooked up, unbeknownst to the working crews.

And I think more and more cars online like that will put them at greater risks like that. So we need to work that out. I'm surprised utility companies are not here voicing some concerns, because that was always a concern when we had crews in the community. When you had an outage or something or repairs, who has a generator? Because this is, in essence, turning a car into a generator that will create back feed on the line.

So I will allow you to close on those at this point.

Thanks so much. First, I'd say that Nissan is the proof that this does not have to add great costs to the vehicle. Nissan is the most affordable ev and has always had this capability and has been dropping in price secondarily, on this fear that there won't be very many do it yourselfers. But still on this fear right now, we have homeowners buying the battery packs. The battery pack that you install is no different than if you utilized the vehicle.

And yet we don't have IBW coming and saying they're afraid that, and maybe I shouldn't make that specific, but rather, we do not have linemen coming and saying that due to those battery packs, they're now afraid that they're going know, be electrocuted. So that fear, I think, is a little bit potentially overstated.

And what I think this is in terms of equity, why would we be in a situation where we're promoting, and I'm not saying the state has yet been in the position of promoting, say, these battery packs, but that you would have an EV plus solar plus a battery pack. It's overkill and it's expensive.

So if we're into equity, then you could have your single vehicle that's an EV that allows you then at the times when electricity rates are the highest, to be able to switch over to that, to power for a few hours. And so that's really eventually what we're trying to achieve. And we're just trying to make sure that we aren't flooded, the market isn't flooded with vehicles that don't have this capacity. And so with that, I very much ask for your aye vote, as with the Bill, with the amendments, and I would be happy to add Mr. Min, as a co author.

Thank you. We have a do pass to be amended in the Committee on Transportation. And I'll just quickly state what those are. Delete the bi directional mandate for EV chargers and the requirement for the CDC to develop interoperable requirements. Interoperability. I should say requirements. Require the CEC to submit a report to the Governor and Legislature by January 2025 to provide recommendations regarding the following.

Cost and benefits associated with mandating bi directional capability on chargers, mechanisms for ensuring interoperability between bi directional cars and chargers, and resources needed from the electricity sector to facilitate vehicle to building and vehicle to grid operations. Is that correct?

Yes. Great. Yes. Thank you. We have a motion. We have a motion by Senator Min. Was it Min? Okay. Please call the role on SB 233.

To be amended in transportation. [Roll call].

That measure has 10 votes. You're successfully out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Now let's open the roll for any Members who still need to add on. We'll start with file item two.

SB 605, Padilla. Do pass to be amended in natural resources and water. Current vote. 13-0. [Roll call]

That measures out. Now, moving on to file item three.

SB 663. Archuleta. Do pass to be amended in environmental quality. Current vote. 15-0. [Roll call]

We'll leave the roll open for a few more minutes to see if Senator Rubio will come back and add on. Next up file item four.

SB 394. Gonzalez. Do pass to be amended in education. Current vote, 14-0. [Roll call].

That measures out. I hear Senator Wilk's not returning. Okay, I can close that one. We already had Senator Skinner, or do we have any Members need to add on? Okay, we'll open a roll on file item five, SB 233.

Do pass to be amended in transportation. Current vote. 10-1. [Roll call].

Now moving on file item six.

SB 300, and that's a consent calendar. [Roll call].

Okay, 160 measure out, 16 votes now file item seven.

SB 572. Stern do pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 12-3. [Roll call].

Measures out.

We're not waiting for Rubio. Do you want to hold that open for Rubio?

I will leave it open for Senator Rubio. I hear she's coming back.

Okay.

Item eight, we're moving on to fall.

Item eight, SB 795. Stern. Current vote, 11 to three. [Roll call].

Current votes, 12 to four. We'll leave the vote roll open for a few minutes for absent Members. Now moving on file item nine, SB.

410 by Senator Becker do pass is amended to appropriations. Current vote, 16-0. Mcguire aye. 17-0. It's out.

That bill's out. We close the roll on that one. Now moving on to file item 10, SB 501.

Newman. Do pass to be amended in environmental quality. Current vote, 5150. I Mcguire aye. 17-0.

It's out. Measures out. So, we'll leave the roll open for another five minutes for Senator Rubio to add on, and I want to thank all the Members who participated in today's hearing. That concludes our hearing, and we'll just leave the roll open for a few more minutes. Yeah. That concludes our Bill presentation, I should say.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. Yeah.

Okay, consultants, please open the roll and let our absent Members add on at this point.

File item three, SB 663. [Roll call].

That measures out. Thank you. File item five.

SB 233. [Roll call].

12 to one. That measures out.

File item six, SB 305. [Roll call].

Measures out.

File item seven, SB 572. [Roll call].

That measures out.

File item eight, SB 795. [Roll call].

Vote counts 13-4. That measures out.

And that's it.

All right, Members and audience, that concludes our hearing for today. I want to thank everybody for their participation. The Senate Committee on Energy Utilities, I should say. Language and communications is now adjourned. Thank you.