Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

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

We have 16 bills on the agenda today, so we have a full load of work before us. And in light of us lacking a quorum, we'll start as a subcommittee. I see we have our first author here, Senator Wiener. So when you're ready, you can present file item one, SB 83.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 83, and I want to just state that I am accepting the committee amendments outlined in the bill directing the CPUC no later than September 30, 2024. The analysis doesn't state that, but we had conversation with the committee.

So directing the CPUC by September 30, 2024 at the latest to set a timeline for service line extension once the project is interconnection ready, and also directing the CPUC to set a penalty amount not to exceed what we have stated in the bill, SB 83. And I think I just stated our agreement correctly, so I accept those amendments as indicated. Colleagues, this bill is actually, the politics have been complex about the bill. The bill is quite simple.

It's about whether California is going to insist on the very basic requirement that when a building is ready to be occupied, business or residential, that the electric utility serving it turns on the damn lights. And that's something that should never require a bill.

And I'm actually horrified that I had to actually introduce this bill. I'm horrified that there are actually multiple bills in the legislature, one by Senator Becker, by Assemblymember Wood, all requiring electric utilities to simply do their job and turn on the lights.

And I think most people in the street, if you ask them, should it be a fight to tell the electric utilities that they should turn the lights on, I think most people would say, why are you even spending time on that? Well, we're spending time on it because even though historically you build a building and the electric utility turns the lights on, that's how it's historically worked in California. That's how it works in this country.

But for some reason, today, in the fourth largest economy of the world, we have utilities, and particularly one utility, Pacific Gas and Electric, that doesn't just turn on the lights, and that turns it into a nightmare. So that we have a large number of homes, including a lot of affordable housing, while we have a homeless crisis on our streets that are literally sitting there empty and dark.

They can't get a certificate of occupancy because there's no electricity, because PG&E has not turned on the lights for months and months and months and months and months. We have businesses in California that can't open up because PG&E has not turned on the lights. Jobs that are on hold because they haven't turned on the lights.

We have businesses that are considering whether they should open in California as opposed to other states, because in the other states they're going to get quickly connected to the electric grid and be able to turn on the lights. But in California, they might have to wait years.

How is that an acceptable state of affairs? It is completely unacceptable. This legislature has held PG&E to such a Low standard for so many years that it almost seems like, well, that's just the way it is.

Well, that is not the way it needs to be and it's not the way it should be. And it is the responsibility of this legislature to fix it, to force PG&E and all electric utilities in this state to have basic rules, to have a timeline that you have to turn on the lights within x number of days or x number of weeks. And if you don't do so, there's a penalty and an incentive. Now, in this bill, we put eight weeks in there.

The committee did not want to state a specific number of weeks and preferred that the California Public Utility Commission, convent stakeholders, and then by next September establish the timeline and the penalties.

And even though I prefer to write that into the statute, I'm accepting the amendments so we can move forward to try to come up with a better system. I can tell you that I and a lot of people are going to hold the Public Utilities Commission to issue its rule no later than the deadline.

And the CPUC at times in the past has not done so by a deadline. And we're going to make darn sure that the CPUC acts by the deadline. And I want to see an end to articles like this. This was in Politico yesterday. Right here. Need power in California? Get in line. From the Chronicle, If PG&E can't turn the lights on for new housing, California needs to step in another headline.

San Francisco blames PG&E for $41 million in expenses and delays to affordable housing projects. My City of San Francisco, with a huge budget deficit like the state this year, which has huge needs around childcare and homelessness and housing and care for our seniors, is going to have to spend $41 million in taxpayer money to backstop the problems that PG&E has caused by not turning on the lights on affordable housing. So, colleagues, I'm appreciative of the collaborative work.

I'm appreciative that I'm not the only author working in this space. I look forward to working with my colleagues in both houses. And when our legislation session ends in September, I truly hope that we have solved this problem, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today to testify on the bill is Corey Smith, the executive director of the Housing Action Coalition, and Danny Curtin with the California Conference of Carpenters.

Thank you. Each of the primary witnesses will have two minutes for your testimony. Thank you. You may begin when ready.

Thank you, Senator. And thank you, Chair Bradford, Members of the Committee. Corey Smith, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition or the HAC for short, we are a member supported nonprofit that advocates for more homes for residents at all income levels, support of homeless housing, subsidized affordable housing, and market rate housing.

And we're proud to co sponsor Senate Bill 83 because it aims to solve a problem that has been an issue for a long time, but has, frankly gotten much worse in the last five to 10 years. After new projects go through the absolute gauntlet of entitlement and permitting, after the construction is finally complete, so many projects, including a significant number of multifamily housing projects, wait an unreasonably long time to get connected to the electrical grid.

And I want to be very clear that the entire process, from the very beginning to end, between cities and counties, the IOUs and project applicants, is completely broken, start to finish. The entire thing is an absolute mess. We have a lot of work to do in this area, but delays that occur throughout the process.

Of the delays that occur throughout the process, one that we find really inexcusable, is when that project is complete and people could move in and jobs could actually start if we were able to flip the proverbial switch. And we aim to fix that problem again at the very, very end.

And if there is additional physical work to do, it is, by definition, not ready to be connected. I also want to emphasize that the work in question is paid for directly by the applicants in advance.

This is fee for service. It is paying for a service to be done, and then that not being done in a timely fashion, solving our affordability and displacement crisis will take many actions, and Senate Bill 83 is a step in the right direction. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, Mr. Curtin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Danny Curtin, on behalf of the California Carpenters. And I'm also here for the Construction Employers Association today, the largest union contractor association in the state, with 125,000 Members and $30 billion worth of construction per year, both public and private.

I want to say I appreciate the week we had to discuss this and think it over a little bit more, Mr. Chairman. I think there was a lot of good conversation, but it's interesting we ended that here.

And I'm appreciative of the time, though you've all heard about the articles. It's costing our contractors a lot of money. It's costing public agencies a lot of money, tens of millions. But it needs to be fixed. The sooner the better. You all know about business. They hate regulation. They hate it more than anything else, except one thing. Uncertainty. They hate uncertainty.

And if they get a time certain of between one day and six months, that is an extraordinarily difficult thing to deal with in terms of investments and costs. So really, this is the issue that we're confronting here. It's a simple issue. It's a complex problem.

Some say that SB 83 does not deal with the underlying problems, and that was in the analysis, I might add. We agree completely. If we can't, there's a much bigger problem. The existential threat of climate change.

If we can't meet our basic interconnection needs now, how will we meet them in the future? You were here last week for Senator Skinner's bill on EVs. There'll be three times the amount of electric vehicles within the next 10 years who have to be connected.

They go back and forth on the batteries. That's what the bill about. It's complicated. And I know the people who work on this, from the utilities, realize how complicated it is. There'll be millions of more homes.

We've got to go from gas to electricity. All that's going to be reworked. So the real question, how will we decarbonize our electrical energy system within the next few decades, if not sooner, if we can't meet the needs of today? Getting close.

These are tough questions, but I also want to say we all, to get this job done, we all need a healthy electrical transmission industry for the future. I'm not here to cast aspersions and cast blame. There's plenty to be sent around.

But there are other things we need to talk about. If this system can't meet their core functions, we need to help them fix that problem. Senator Bradford, we've discussed this a little bit. I'd like to make a suggestion. You're a senior member in this senate. You're the Chairman of this Committee, and you have a particularly unique understanding of the issues in the utility world.

I would really like you to lead or call for a committee or a Joint Committee, even better, so that this committee can actually deeply explore the issues that are a problem here. Something that's educational, not attached to a bill. No finger pointing, no adversarial conversation. A real effort to find out how to make this system work. Because it's a pressure test.

If we can't meet the utilities putting their electricity into the grid, we have to find out why, because we can't wait to figure it out later. On behalf of the Carpenters, somewhat reluctantly, but very respectfully, accept your amendments. Look forward to further conversation on a critical dialogue. Mr. Chairman and Senator Wiener, thank you very much. Members of the Committee, please move this bill forward and let's have at it over the course of the next few months. Senator Becker's bill as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Curtin. Now, we're going to ask additional witnesses here in this room just to state your name and your organization if you're in support. And brevity is our friend today.

Laura Feinstein with SPUR here in support.

Thank you.

Chair and Members of the Committee. Jordan, perennial Carvahad, on behalf of California YIMBY, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

April Atkins, Carpenters Local 22, in support.

Hey, good afternoon, everyone. Chris Puglisi. I'm in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Rick Solis, Carpenters Local 152. Strong support.

Thank you.

Francisco Martinez, Carpenters Local 180, in support.

Thank you.

Susan Rodriguez, Local 152, Carpenters Union, in support.

Thank you.

Leonard Basoco, Carpenters Union Local 180, in support.

Good afternoon. Israela, Local 713, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Falme Lampkins, Carpenters Local 46, in support.

Good afternoon. Chuck Nower, Carpenters Local 1599, in support.

Andrew Dawson, on behalf of the California Housing Partnership, in support.

Kevin Maximin, Carpenters Local 751, in support.

Martin Espinoza Senior, Local 34, Pile Drivers, in support.

Herdia Shell Jr. Local 35, San Rafael, in support.

Tony Munoz at a Carpenters Local 713, representing Alameda County, in support.

Tim Rife, Carpenters Local 22, in full support of SB 83.

Curtis Ferreira, Sacramento, California, Carpenters Local 46. I support SB 83. Thank you.

Tony Levice, Carpenters Local 2236, in support.

Neildon JnCharles, Local 46. Part of Sacramento. I'm in strong support of SB 83.

Marco Gonzalez, Carpenters 152, in support.

Seth Howard, Carpenters Local 1789, head of South Lake Tahoe, in support.

Matt Kelly, Carpenters Local 46, Sacramento, strongly support.

Dan Watson, Local 1789, in support.

Chris Palomo, Local 180, in Vallejo, strong support.

Guillermo Molina, Drywall Lathers Local 9068 in support. Thank you.

Mario Santa Cruz. Millwrights Local 102, in support.

Noel Varela, Millwrights Local 102, strongly support.

Omar Hernandez, Local 919 in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members. James Troup with the California State Council of Labors, in strong support.

Ed Gable, Millwrights Local 102 support.

Good afternoon. Ron Roulette, Nor Cal Carpenters Union, in support.

Daniel Branton, Drywall Lathers Local 9109, in strong support.

Catherine Brandenburg, on behalf of Sonoma Clean Power, in support.

Megan Shumway from Sacramento, in support.

John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California, in support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in room 1200 in support of SB 83 hearing? Seeing none now, we're going to go to opposition. Opposition? Is there two primary witnesses? Are you?

Actually, Mr. Chairman, I'm Scott Wetch. On behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Employees and 65,000 workers, men and women, who actually put their lives at risk doing this work. We are removing our opposition with the amendments. Now that the bill defers to the Becker CPUC process, we remove. But I do have many of the men and women who do that work and put their lives in danger that are here.

And rather than take the committee's time, I just would like them to stand up and be acknowledged by the committee that they came here. Thank you.

Thank you for being here today. Okay, any additional witnesses in opposition come forward. State your name and your organization, please. You have two minutes. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee, Valerie Terrella, Lajos on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, in opposition to SB 83. I want to begin by acknowledging the dissatisfaction with customer connection timelines that our customers have expressed. In many instances, we're not satisfied with our timelines either. PG&E has already taken steps to begin fixing these issues and customers are already experiencing improvements.

We'd also like this committee to know PG&E has, in fact, spent more resources on new business connections in the last few years than we ever have. In fact, we've invested more than the authorized spend by our regulators in the general rate case also called you guys know it as the GRC.

Case in point, our actual spend has actually doubled in the last five years. And I highlight this because of the potential false assumption that somehow PG&E has not been investing in connections we have.

At the same time, PG&E has invested unparalleled financial and worker resources toward wildfire safety in recent years, which I believe we all agree that is absolutely the right thing to do for our customers and the communities we serve.

This unprecedented wildfire safety spin has come in combination with increasing load demand amidst growing electrification, EV buildout, housing, cannabis cultivation, and other economic development changes in our service territory.

So while we agree PG&E can and will get better and faster at customer connections, we do ask that you work with us and the other utilities on policy solutionss Solutions that fix the issues and aligns legislative and regulatory frameworks to meet the increased demand, and not simply setting artificial timelines and penalties that only serve to make things harder or worse. For these reasons, PG&E respectfully opposes SB 83 and requests your no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I had to flip my page. Two sided with me. I do have an expert witness, if needed, to answer questions. Matt Ventura is in the audience here today. He is our senior director of service planning. He can answer technical questions if the committee has them.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric. We have an opposed position, but pending review of the amendments, we'll reevaluate our position then. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon. Andrew Kosydar with Southern California Edison. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in room 1200 that are opposed to SB 83? Seeing none now. Moderator, let's go to our phone lines and see if there's witnesses in support and opposition of SB 83.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if you wish to speak in support or opposition of SB 83, please press one, then zero at this time. And we'll start with line 26. Please go ahead. Okay, we'll make that line 73, please go ahead.

Richard Ferocity III. 9109, support SB 83?

Thank you.

Line 87, please go ahead.

My name is Von Jones, Local Carpenters 46, Sacramento, and I'm in support of SB 83.

Line 78, please go ahead.

My name is Giovanni Adelini. I'm a member of Carpenters Local 46, and I strongly support SB 83.

Line 34, please go ahead.

Yes, my name is Marcel Moore, Carpenters Local 46. I stand in support of SB 83.

Line 93, please go ahead.

Yes, hello, I'm Jerry Santarpia. And I strongly support this bill that works.

Line 175, please go ahead. Line 175, your line is open. Please go ahead. Okay, we'll move to 179, please go ahead.

Jonathan Yeremia, Local 34 strongly support.

Line 180, please go ahead.

Stephen Shargas Pile Drivers Local 34 strongly support.

Line 193, please go ahead.

Lisa Martinez, Carpenders Union Local 701 in support of SB 83.

Line 49, please go ahead.

My name is Rod Finley, Drywall Lathers Local 9109 Sacramento. I'm in support of SB 83.

198, please go ahead.

And I strongly support SB 83.

Line 174, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Harvey McEwen, Carpenters Local 713, calling in support of this bill.

Line 216, please go ahead.

Tyler Robinson, Local 46. I am strong support of SB 83.

Line 204, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters. In support.

220, please go ahead. Line 220.

Carpenters Local 751 in Sonoma in strong support.

Line 194, please go ahead. 194, your line is open. Moving on to line 129, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Jesse Perales, member and president of Carpenter's Local 713, and we are in strong support.

Line 217, please go ahead. Line 217, I'm sorry, please go ahead.

Michael Ochoa, Drywall Lathers 9068, in support of SB 83.

Line 128, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Ed Evans of NorCal Carpenters Union Local 217 calling in support of SB 83.

Line 32, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Martin Espinoza. On behalf of NorCal Carpenters Union in strong support of SB.

Line 214, please go ahead.

Hi, Sandra Casanova. Local 180 in strong support of SB 83.

Line 182, please go ahead. 182, your line is open.

My name is Kenneth Doe. I'm with Carpenters Union Local 9144 in San Jose, and I strongly support SB 83.

Line 188, please go ahead.

Lonzo Quintana, Drywall Lathers Local 9068. I strongly support SB 83.

Line 26, please go ahead.

Hello, this is Victor Mabelli, President of Local 751. I am very strongly support this.

Line 41, please go ahead.

This is Kenny Lavender from Carpenter's Local 1109 in the Central Valley in support of SB 83.

Line 143, please go ahead.

Yes, good afternoon. My name is Doug Cheshire out of Carpenter's Local 605 in Monterey County, and I'm in strong support of SB 83.

Line 82, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Christian Ortega, member out of Carpenter's Local 701, Fresno, and I'm calling in support of SB 83. Thank you.

Moderator let's just suspend calls real quick so we can establish a quorum. Consultant, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

The quorum has been established. Moderator, we'll go back to our callers.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll start with line 51. Please go ahead.

Juan Ramirez, Norcal Carpenters Union, Local 217, Foster City, in support of SB 83. Thank you.

Line 195, please go ahead.

Antonio Vasquez, Local 1109, Vicelia, in strong support.

Line 215, please go ahead.

Chris Martinez, Carpenter's Local 1599 Redding, California, and strongly support SB 83.

Line 50, 5, 0, please go ahead.

Lee Weary, Local 919 Drywall Lathers out of Sacramento in support of SB 83.

Line 75, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, my name is Jaime Vasquez. I'm with Norcal Carpenter's Union out of Local 405 in San Jose, and I'm in support of SB 83.

Line 23, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, committee members. Peter Mendez Carpenter's Local 22 calling in support of SB 83.

Line 171, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Seth Barrish. I'm a Member of the Norcal Carpenters Union, and I'm in strong support of SB 83.

Line 224, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Armenta with the California Housing Consortium and strong support of SB 83.

Line 37, please go ahead.

Hi, Richard Cruz with Carpenters Union, Local 68L in Livermore, and I support SB 83.

Line 205, please go ahead.

Ernesto Sanchez, member of Local 968L in support of SB 83. Thank you.

Line 113, please go ahead. Line 113, your line is open. Please go ahead. Line 175, please, go ahead.

Chair and members of the committee. My name is Brian Shields. I'm a member of Local 34, pile drivers, and I am in strong support of SB 83.

Thank you. Line 136, please go ahead.

Ian Streets, Carpenter's Local 35, in strong support of SB 83.

Line 211, please, go ahead.

Good evening, my name is Rigo Gallardo. Local 9144 out of San Jose, calling to support SB 83. Thank you.

Line 185. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Benjamin Lopez, Carpenter's Local 1109 Vicelia, in support SB 83. Thank you.

Moderator, can you let us know how many more calls we still have in queue?

There's 11 remaining.

We will cut it off at that 11, so make sure those 11 will be our last.

Yes, sir. And we'll go to line 222. Please, go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. This is Rafa Sunnfeld on behalf of YIMBY Action, calling in support, on behalf of the thousands of members and dozens of chapters and partners across the state. Thank you.

Line 66, please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Guillermo Aguilar, out of Carpenter's Local 701 Fresno, in support of SB 83. Thank you.

Line 81. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Albert Lucia with Local 9144. I'm in full support of SB 83.

Line 84, please go ahead.

Robert Blunt, Carpenter's Local 9109 in support of SB 83.

Line 85, please go ahead.

Stephen Gomes, Local 9109 full support.

Line 212, please go ahead.

Sean Reese, Carpenter's Local 1599, Redding, California, in full support of SB 83.

Line 89, please go ahead.

Michelle Flores, member of Local 34, pile drivers, in support of SB 83.

Line 58, please, go ahead.

Kenneth Ware, Local 46 Carpenters, in support of SB 83.

And, Mr. Chair, we have no one else wishing to speak.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Appreciate everybody's patience. Now, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or concerns as relates to SB 83? Oh, I'm sorry. We haven't heard from opposition. No, that was for and against. Yeah, we did our phones, so we're bringing it back to committee. Any questions or concerns. It's been a motion by Senator Eggman. We have a due pass recommendation, as amended to Appropriations. Senator Becker.

I just want to say quickly, I certainly share your frustrations about interconnections and look forward to discussions going forward.

Senator Grove?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do share your frustrations. And first, I want to thank the workers that put their life on the line every day. To make sure that we at least try to make sure that we have power. Who would have thought that I would be so in support of a Scott Wiener bill? I'm from Central Valley. He's from San Francisco. just. Ideology, policy.

I don't think we've ever really agreed on much. But we do share the same frustration. And I think a lot of it is PG&E. But I think it's because they have the largest service area. I think that they have the largest rural service area. I think they have the largest metropolitan and rural areas that they have to serve. And not to mention dealing with wildfires and other things. And I'm not defending them. I'm just saying that I understand there's reasons why the connectivity is difficult.

But I also know that when people build a home, they expect to have power. I also know that when farmers switch over to solar and they need that flip switch so their solar will take place, they need connectivity. I've reached out to PG&E several times on several issues. Some of those issues they've been very helpful with. On some of them, we're still waiting.

It'll be 13 months that a house is waiting to put a mother-in-law's quarters behind the main property after the house is already built. And there's no need for anything else. Right. We're just waiting for connectivity. They've got the foundation, the floor, the walls, the carpet, the decorations, the furniture. Everything is there, you just can't reside in it because there's no power. And it's on a property that already has power. I have Southern California Edison in my district as well.

We have a brand new project out in the East Kern area. It's a green rebar area, so we can bring that production in from China. It's totally a labor organization. The company's putting in $53 million. And the county is doing the whole EIR. And we're being told that it's five years waiting. This company is not going to wait five years to put in. This big manufacturing facility would provide jobs in my district. I have a farmer that. It's like the utility connectivity.

The IOU is the number one issue that calls my office. And I'm just highlighting a few of the ones that I think are the most egregious. I realize that you have to wait some time. Know when they call and go, I've waited two weeks. Well, we got a lot longer to wait. And we tell them that. But like this farmer, three growing seasons, he put in electric forklifts. And then he was using gas-powered generators, big generators.

To power the electric forklifts because he didn't have the electricity to be able to power those forklifts. Now, these companies that are trying to go green per se, but they're not allowed to because they don't have connectivity, sit on rules. We get the CPUC commissioners in front of us and we question them. What are we going to do about the IOUS and the connectivity issue? Because we do have an issue with connectivity.

And I'm not saying that PG&E, SDG&E, they're not in my territory, but Southern California Edison. I'm not saying they're not. And I applaud Valerie from PG&E for coming up saying, we know we have a problem, we're doing our best to fix it. But if there's an issue that can help, it is the carpenters are here today. And I realize that IBEW and others do that work every single day.

But if you guys need help to get us out of this jam, there's no better organization than the carpenters if they're trained and qualified. So I just think that we need to address this issue. I appreciate the author bringing it forward so the conversation could even take place. And I supported your bill before the amendments, so I'm supporting your bill today after the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate regarding this item, Senator Wiener, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank people on both sides of this, and I particularly want to thank all the workers on both sides who are out today and here in spirit. We have carpenters and other members of the trades who are building new homes, building new buildings, putting new clean energy installations in place. We have utility workers who are working every day when it's raining and flooding, when there's wildfires, when it's extreme heat.

And they have to be out there to make sure that things are working and they are putting themselves at risk. And it's an unbelievably hard job, and they do it, and they do it well. So we have workers up and down the state who are doing the very, very best they can, whether it's building new housing or keeping the grid running. But we need to make sure that the utilities themselves are making the right choices to make sure that these interconnections can happen.

And there are a lot of corporate choices that have been made over the years, particularly with one of the utilities that have led to this situation. It has to be fixed. I'm not suggesting that it's an easy issue, but even though it's complex. It's pretty basic. We got to turn on the lights. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And I just want to state, by accepting the committee amendments, it really allows us to move forward to ensure that both bills, both yours and the related bill by Senator Becker, SB 410, work in complementary of each other and not in conflict. And I appreciate that both bills are trying to resolve what is a real issue, this energization, I'm sorry, regarding this backlog, especially when it relates to PG&E, but all utilities are suffering from it.

And I also want to state that we reserve the right to pull the bill back to the committee if it is amended in a manner that's far different than what we have passed here today. And as a former utility employee, I commend you again, this is not a unique issue of today. This has been something that has been prolonged and existing in a utility world for a number of years.

So this level of lagging and connections is truly harmful to the state in many different ways and individuals, as we've heard. So at that note, we have a motion by Senator Eggman. We have a due pass as amended to Appropriations. Consultant please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That measure has 10 votes, enough to get out, but we'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Thank you, Senator Wiener. Next up, we have Senator Alvarado-Gil. She has file item two, SB 488.

All right.

Are you ready for me, chair? All right. So, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Senate Bill 859 from 2016 directed the IOUs and the largest POUs to procure their proportionate share of 125 megawatts biomass energy. The Legislature directed that portion of the costs from the BioRAM procurements to be allocated to all customers within IOUs, community choice aggregators, or CCAs, and the energy service providers, given that they are broad social benefits that are realized from supporting wildfire mitigation.

Last year, Senate Bill 1109 by Senator Caballero extended these BioRAM contracts from five to fifteen years, but it also provided an exemption for certain contracts. Specifically, the POUs jointly entered into two contracts, an 18 megawatt contract with Loyalton and an 11 megawatt contract with Roseburg Forest Products. Under Senate Bill 1109, these contracts do not need to be extended because Loyalton filed for bankruptcy and Roseburg Forest Products are not connected with the CAISO grid.

So the result of this is that approximately 30 megawatts from the original 125 megawatts, which this Legislature expected, are still remain outstanding. Senate Bill 488 simply allows the community choice aggregators to participate in the BioRAM program to help procure the remaining 30 megawatts as intended by this Legislature. Here to testify in support of the Bill are Kristin Kolpitcke from Pioneer Community Energy and Douglas Lindgren from Mount Lassen Power.

Well, the two. You have two minutes each. The two primary witnesses.

Thank you, Kirstin Kolpitcke with Pioneer Community Energy and sponsor of SB 488. Pioneer is a community choice aggregator, or CCA, formed in 2017, which supplies approximately 1.9 million megawatt hours of electricity to over 160,000 customer accounts in Placer and El Dorado counties. We're located in the Sierra Nevada region, and our community has experienced several devastating wildfires in recent years. To help minimize wildfires, our legislative platform includes support for legislation that allows pioneer to procure biomass energy from local resources.

Although biomass is expensive, Pioneer supports procurement of biomass energy for two main reasons, the need to remove high hazard material from our forest to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and the fact that biomass is a baseload renewable energy that qualifies towards CPUC mandated, clean, firm resource requirements that also improves grid resiliency. When SB 859 passed in 2016, the cost of the BioRAM program was allocated to all customers within the IOU service territory.

This means that CCA ratepayers subsidized the 95 megawatts of biomass energy procured by the IOUs since 2016, and yet CCA's were not eligible to procure under the BioRAM program. Since the municipal utilities are no longer required to procure their proportionate share of the original 125 megawatts, CCA's would like to step in and help procure the remaining portion of approximately 30 megawatts. We are very sensitive to the costs that would be borne by ratepayers as a result of this program. We've calculated the impact to ratepayers.

Assuming all 30 megawatts were procured within PG&E's territory, and the cost of biomass is approximately $150 a megawatt, the subsidized cost to the 16 million ratepayers within PG&E's territory, including CCA customers and energy service providers, would be .056 cents a year, or half of a half of a penny per kilowatt hour. The BioRAM subsidy would reduce the cost of biomass from $150 to $110 subsidizing approximately $40. Thank you. We ask for your aye vote.

Next primary witness. Two minutes.

Good afternoon. Doug Lingren at Mount Lasson Power. Mount Lassen Power is in Westwood, in that town. It's also in Senator Dahle's district. And I had purchased that power plant that was shut down in 2021 and in hopes to get this started and be able to utilize the BioRAM program. Since then, the Dixie fire had came through those multiple counties.

And this is going to be for, using this power plant would be a great tool to use for post fire cleanup and fuel reduction work that's out there to be done in front of these fires. The jobs that it would create at Mount Lassen Power would be on the payroll of somewhere around $2 million. The indirect jobs would be over 50, and the amount of wood tons per year that would be used and consumed at this power plant would be about 200,000 tons.

Big supporters for the power plant is from the USDA Forrest Service through the fuel reductions in site prep that we have also, they have been supporters in grants. Also, CAL FIRE has been big supporters for the private sector and the private landowners for fuel reductions in site prep along with, for all the tree planting. And for the BioRAM program,

we feel that this is a very good fit for this power plant and will give us the opportunity to be able to get this put together and give an opportunity for landowners, private and federal sectors there to be able to take care of a lot of the post fire and fuel reduction. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, witnesses just state your name and your organization, your position.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members Jason Eichert, on behalf of the California Community Choice Association, also in support.

Good afternoon. Lillian Mirviss with MCE here in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Audra Hartmann, on behalf of the California Biomass Energy Alliance, in support.

Nico Molina, on behalf of the California Forestry Association, in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members Brian White, on behalf of the Forest Landowners of California and California Licensed Foresters Association, also in support.

Mr. Chair Members Paul Yoder, on behalf of the Placer County Board, in support.

Steve Baker with Aaron Read & Associates for Silicon Valley Clean Energy, in support.

John Kennedy with RCRC. Sorry we don't have a letter for you yet, but also in support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Now let's move to opposition. Witnesses in opposition. We have a primary witness. You'll have two minutes to state your opposition.

Good afternoon. Brandon Ebeck, on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric, we have an opposed position on the Bill. I think the analysis does a pretty good job. Of laying out our concerns and suggest amendments to remedy them, but my understanding is the author will not be accepting those. So there's a bit of a history lesson here on BioRam where we understand the statewide need to process additional high hazard fuels.

We are one of the largest producer of high hazard fuels and dealing with biomass in our forest, and how we can properly input it into our supply chain through energy or through gas. We're looking at a lot of solutions. The state mandated that we procure our proportionate share of the BioRam, which we have done, and the state has re-upped that authorization multiple times.

We have already paying what we viewed as the cost cap of that, which is an above market cost that our customers are bearing for this type of energy that is way more expensive than other types of comparable renewable technology. So if we're having a discussion about what it is need for firm baseload power, there's other comparable technologies that we should be looking at, rather than raising the cost for all of our customers. On another fundamental basis, we oppose,

CCAs were formed to procure local resources with local values they find beneficial, paid for by those local customers. They were not formed to make voluntary decisions and pass those costs on to IOU customers without a choice. Our contracts that we do sign go through a rigorous process of oversight at the PUC about the cost and the value of the contract. That's not necessarily the case here. So we oppose, and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition?

Catherine Borg with the Southern California Edison, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in the room in opposition to SB 488 hearing? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns with the Committee, Senator Stern?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just clarifying, the amendments, are they all being accepted? Some or part? Just want to get clarity on that.

Well, Senator Stern, I didn't want to make this about rural versus urban, but this is certainly a David versus Goliath battle. The intent of this Bill is to bring a group of CCAs that are already subsidizing BioRam to allow them to play, allow them to be in the game. And so the amendments that were proposed essentially take us out of the game, and that's not the intent of the Bill. So I cannot accept that.

Any further discussion or debate on this issue? Well, Senator, I appreciate your measure here, and I'm a strong supporter of biomass, but currently CCAs have the authority right now under statute to purchase this commodity where I have a problem with, and many folks are the continued ratepayers having to subsidize such programs. Understanding that you're not taking that amendment, I will not be supporting this measure today. So it's not fair to all these other customers that they continue to subsidize that what CCAs currently can do under statue.

And so I will not be supporting it today. Any other questions? I'm sorry. My bad. Can we go to the phone lines in support or opposition of this measure?

And if you would like to speak in support or opposition of SB 488, please press one, then zero at this time. And just a moment, Mr. Chair, while we gather line number. And we'll go to line number 190. Please go ahead.

On behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies in support.

Mr. Chair. We have no one else in queue at this time.

All right. Now we'll bring it back to the Committee for any additional discussions or debates. We have a do pass, as amended, but our author states she's not accepting the amendment. Do pass to appropriations. I'm sorry.

We're still seeking a motion.

So moved by Wilk.

Been moved by Senator Wilk. Please call the roll.

Opportunity to close, chair.

I'm sorry. Yes.

Thank you. So let's talk about fairness. So I come from a rural community where our voice is the David in the Goliath equation. When we talk about fairness, we think about paradise, and we still mourn paradise. When it comes to fairness, the Sierra foothills and the eastern sierras and the northern regions are done being victims of massive wildfires.

Today what you heard was opposition from the Goliath and support from all the Davids who continue to provide services for the best playground in California, for the second homes of California, for the ski resorts of California, for the AG community of California. Let's talk about fairness, because as a PG&E customer, I'm probably without power at least two to three times a month. And what that means for me, being a rural community resident, is I go without water because it's attached to my well.

What it means is I have to depend on propane stove for my cooking. What it means is I have to purchase cords of Wood for my heating, because what's fair in the rural communities is not what the urban communities have. So this Bill, I'm moving forward without amendments, specifically because of fairness, because the Goliath's in the energy field, and I'm speaking specifically to you, PG&E, continue to raise havoc in our backyards, continue to burn down our houses, our farmlands and our businesses.

We want to talk about fairness. In high risk fire areas, it is us who are paying the wildfire insurance, the fair plan insurance, with thousands of dollars every year. So when we talk about subsidies for the CCAs and we ask about fair share, it's budget dust compared to what us, the rural residents, are paying to take care of the land in California, the state parks, the federal parks, all those beautiful places where we love to visit.

So without bills such as this, which really do underscore the importance of the rural community in California, we are going to continue to fall victims of PG&E. And I'm not going to stand for it. We bear the cost of all the outrageous fire insurance and continue to be at the mercy of PG&E, and I will not stand for it. I believe that it's imperative that California meet the climate goals, including SB 100, which requires 100% renewable energy by 2045.

And yes, biomass is expensive, but what biomass does for Senate district one, Dahle's district, Senate district two, McGuire's district, Senate district three, Senate district four, my district, is ensure that the wildfires that continue to devour our communities, that continue to create grisly flats of my neighbors, that we bring a solution. This is the real solution. And I urge you all to move this past Committee. If we have to do more work on this, we will. But let's get it out of Committee and let's beat this Goliath.

Thank you. I urge an aye vote.

We have a motion. Consultant?

By Senator Wilk. By Senator Wilk.

I'm sorry, Senator Wilk?

Yeah, he's already made the motion.

No, I made the motion.

Thank you. Do pass to appropriations? Bradford?

No.

Bradford, no. Dahle? Ashby? Becker? Caballero? Dodd? Durazo? Eggman? Gonzalez? Grove? Grove, aye. McGuire? Min? Newman? Rubio? Seyarto? Skinner? Stern? Wilk? Wilk, aye. One to two?

One to two. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on.

Thank you. Next up, who do we have? Do we have a ...? No, we haven't. Do you want to present file item 13, Senator Min? SB 527.

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, sir.

All right.

May I proceed, sir? Thank you, Chair Bradford. Committee Members, I want to thank you and your staff, Mr. Chair, for working with my office on this measure. And I will be accepting the Committee's proposed amendments. SB 527 would establish the neighborhood decarbonization program. Today, buildings account for a quarter of California's emissions, and the equitable building decarbonization program was enacted in last year's budget to provide rebates for the installation of high efficiency appliances. This was a step in the right direction.

But we will not make any significant strides going forward in reducing building emissions by replacing just one water heater or AC unit at a time. By taking a community based approach to decarbonization, California can get closer to its goal of reducing emissions in buildings while exploring broader usage of technologies such as high efficiency heat pumps and geothermal energy networks. SB 527 would do just that. Take a community based approach to decarbonization, whether that be a school, a hospital or neighborhood block.

In targeted areas, utility customers would be provided with free high efficiency upgrades to their appliances with a focus on equity and giving preference to low income communities who often do not have the finances to upgrade their appliances outside of emergency situations. This program would be limited to cost effective projects where the cost of decarbonizing the area is less than the cost of replacing existing infrastructure. This approach would ensure rate stability for customers and does not create a need for new budget allocations.

Additionally, it would reduce emissions, improve indoor and outdoor air quality, and provide necessary upgrades to our aging energy infrastructure. My office has been working with stakeholders, including environmental groups, labor and utilities, to figure out how this program can be equitable for everyone involved. We look forward to continuing to work with the Chair and staff as this Bill moves forward. Here to testify in support of this Bill? Maybe, but maybe not.

Panama Bartholomy, Executive Director of the Building Decarbonization Coalition, and Chiara Arellano, High Road Initiatives Manager with the Rising Sun Center for Opportunity. But maybe they're not here because we jumped the gun. Maybe they are here. Okay, here we are.

So you have two primary witnesses?

I do. Panama Bartholomy and Chiara Arellano.

Each have two minutes, please. You may begin now.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee and Committee staff. Thank you for having me. My name is Panama Bartholomy. I'm the Executive Director of the Building Decarbonization Coalition and SB 527 sponsor. We are an association of manufacturers, utilities, government agencies and environmental nonprofits, all working together to eliminate pollution from buildings. As the Senator said in his remarks, California has already taken some significant steps working on eliminating pollution from buildings, and this is being emulated around the country because of that leadership.

However, if we're going to get the full economic and environmental benefits of this technology, we need to be deploying them at a much larger scale than building by building. Cost effectively retrofitting neighborhoods at a larger scale instead of the one-off approach that we currently have, is going to be crucial for our clean air and our workforce transition goals.

SB 527 will set up a purposely narrow pilot program at the CPUC that will allow utilities and communities to initiate fully funded neighborhood scale projects that will save ratepayers money, utilize strong labor agreements with the skilled and trained workforce, and prioritize low income communities to help them avoid transition costs.

I'd like to thank Senator Min for his leadership in authorizing this Bill and authoring this Bill, and also like to thank Chairman Bradford and the Committee staff for their work with Senator Min on this legislation. I'm happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon Chair Bradford and Members of the Committee. My name is Chiara Arellano and I'm the High Road Initiatives Manager at Rising Sun Center for Opportunity, a proud supporter of SB 527. Rising Sun is a nonprofit workforce development organization serving the Greater Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley.

At Rising Sun, we work daily with individuals experiencing the most significant impacts of climate change, low income communities of color. These communities are hit first and worst by climate change, face a disproportionate energy cost burden, and are often overlooked by or unable to participate in California's energy programs. They may also be excluded from or face barriers to career opportunities that offer true economic mobility or have been disappointed by green jobs that have not delivered on the universal need for good wages and benefits.

SB 527 addresses these challenges head on and in tandem, showing that a decarbonization transition, when intentionally designed, can be a catalyst for economic mobility. It prioritizes underinvested communities threatened by extreme heat and poor air quality, providing residents with zero emission appliances and retrofitting their homes without ratepayer impacts. Finally, because decarbonizing buildings at a neighborhood scale groups many projects together with a long planning horizon, it allows for greater utilization of skilled and trained labor that is paid a good wage, helping to ensure that building decarbonization delivers economic as well as environmental benefits.

Rising Sun has been leading a high road training partnership specifically focused on improving job quality in the residential decarbonization industry. SB 527 presents precisely the type of solution that Rising Sun and our community, labor and local government partners have envisioned through our collaboration and research. We thank Senator Min for putting forward this policy that allows the most affected individuals to decarbonize without shouldering any burdensome costs. I appreciate your time and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in support state your name and your organization, please.

Mr. Chair Members, Steve Baker with Aaron Read & Associates for Silicon Valley Clean Energy in support.

Thank you. Next witness.

Mr. Chair and Members Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange here today on behalf of Advanced Energy United in support, we thank the author.

Thank you. Next witness.

Hi, my name is Meg Snyder. Rewiring America in support.

Thank you.

Megan Shumway, retired nurse of California, in support.

Thank you.

Annie Hargrove, on behalf of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in support.

Thank you.

Amara Eger, voicing support from the Natural Resources Defense Council. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lillian Marvis with MCE here in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support of this measure? Seeing none now, we'll move to opposite opposition. Witnesses in opposition. Do we have two primary witnesses? At least one. Are you the primary?

Okay. Well, you have two minutes.

Just me.

Thank you. And I'll try to be brief, so thank you. Good afternoon. John Kennedy with RCRC. We have 40 rural member counties out of the state's 58 counties. We appreciate the author's objective to balance costs of gas line replacements, especially at the end of their useful lives. We appreciate the Committee amendments that really seek to ensure that customers have some sort of say in this process, because we had two really foundational concerns with the Bill.

One is the lack of any sort of agreement by local governments whose residents will be impacted by these changes, and two is the cost impact on those residents going forward. Our residents will really be left holding the bag and a giant Bill if they want to continue to receive heating and hot water, they will have no choice once the gas line is decommissioned.

And so unless they can come up with the 10 to 20 thousand plus that it may take to do the replacement of appliances and also to rewire their houses, they're going to be out of luck. And so that's why we have some major concerns with the Bill. We've worked with the author's office, with the sponsors, had a couple of conversations with them, hope that we can continue to have these discussions going forward. The Bill just isn't in a place where we can support it today and so must oppose it until these impacts on customers are really addressed. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Moderator let's go to our phone lines for witnesses in support and or opposition to SB 527.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you wish to speak in support or opposition of SB 527, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll go to line 240. Please, go ahead.

Hi, this is Eric Veium from the SLO Climate Coalition calling in support of SB 527. Thank you.

And just a moment, Mr. Chair, while we gather the next line number.

We'll go to line 206. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Lucia Munoz. I'm calling on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support of SB 527.

And Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue at this time. Please go ahead.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns as it relates to SB 527? Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Briefly again, you live in Orange County. I live in Kern. county. We have rural gas lines. We have rural housing. My husband and I ourselves, we live on 15 acres. We rely on those gas lines and propane tanks to bring us the utilities that we have. And I think that, again, this Bill I can't support because it disproportionately affects my district. And so I wish you'd consider looking at rural areas. A lot of the people in California do live in rural areas.

Not as much as you guys. I know the L.A. delegation is pretty powerful, Orange County delegation the same way. But this Bill does disproportionately affect our district with cost and cost to rewire their homes and cost to provide or eliminate the gas lines and figure out how to bring those electrical lines to our homes, especially when we can't get connectivity. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator Stern.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I've worked on this issue for a number of years here, and I appreciate the maturity now, this coalition showing such diversity across the state and between labor, manufacturing, environment, et cetera, I guess my concern, I'll be supporting the Bill, but looking through these amendments, I did want to ask the author or potentially the sponsors the limitation on this program.

So in other words, the sunset, the 2030 sunset, do I have it right here that this 15 project authorization is all, then that will be allowed between now and 2030? In other words, if projects started getting going faster, and if in Edison or PG&E or whatever territory, they saw more neighborhoods that could be eligible or were sort of opportunistic, then if you'd hit that 15 project cap, you in theory, couldn't keep going even if it was cost-effective to do so.

As far as a neighborhood decarbonization that is under this Bill were to be signed into law, my understanding. I'll let the sponsors answer this as well, but it's limited to 15%. That can be no more than 1% of the state's energy supply is my understanding. And that also requires a two-thirds vote by the community, the neighborhood that's affected. So if any particular individual household wanted to opt into the program, my understanding is they would be allowed to do that. That could go beyond 15.

But as far as neighborhood decarbonization, that is a block, a neighborhood, a school or whatnot, it would have to be capped at 15. And that was under the amendments we took. And I should also emphasize that this program, all the upfront costs, the appliances, the rewiring, I believe, are borne by the utilities. But I'll allow.

Mr. Chair? Just getting clarification. Yeah.

Thank you for the question, Senator. We're very happy with the amendments from the Chair and the Committee. It does limit it to 15 communities, pilot projects statewide. This is intended to be a pilot program to really try this technique out. And after that, the Legislature may want to consider other options moving forward.

But if projects gain traction and there are larger scale, say, block by block or region by region even, larger neighborhood de-carb efforts, those could continue, but they just wouldn't be able to be on the rate base and they wouldn't be able to sort of lose that obligation to serve in other words.

Like, there are other types of de-carb projects that could proceed other than house by house, regardless of this Bill. This wouldn't sort of obviate those abilities. It's this kind of design. Okay.

Yup. It would not be a part of this program.

Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to move the Bill.

Thank you. Any further discussions? Do we got a full line, Terry? All right, I'm losing track of all of this. All right. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

So we have a do pass as amended. You have taken all the Committee amendments. Am I correct, Senator Min?

Yes, I have.

Yes. So we have do pass to Appropriations Committee. Consultant, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

I'm sorry. I skipped over. Senator Grove. So we're going to go back to file item six, SB 15, and allow her to present her measure at this time.

Wait, six to two.

I'm sorry?

Six to two is the vote.

Six to three or six to two? Exactly. We have a six to two vote on file item 13, Min, SB 527. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on.

I do.

Senator Grove, when you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And members, before I begin, I'd like to accept the proposed committee amendment deleting the phrase of human rights organizations in the bill and just keeping it at the State Department as a source of countries with human rights abuses. Colleagues, each year, Californians consume about 1.8 million barrels of oil every day. That's roughly 522,000,000 barrels each year. But only 135,000,000, or 25%, is produced here in the State of California by Californian workers for California consumers.

The rest of the oil is imported mostly from foreign countries and transported here on huge tanker ships. The amount Californians spend on imported oil is enormous. If oil is priced at $100 a barrel, Californians can pay about $50 billion a year to import oil that they need and use every single day. And colleagues, that's just a raw cost. It doesn't calculate in the transportation from port of origin to port of destination or the refining cost.

Truly, the state's current energy policy doesn't make any sense when the supply is needed. But we're using foreign countries to produce that supply for us. With foreign oil imports, we've placed California's energy security in the hands of countries that are actively hostile to California's values when it comes to human rights, labor rights, or environmental rights.

The top five countries that we do business with, account for two-thirds of the foreign oil we import, which is, like I said, about 405,000 barrels every single day, or 148,000,000 barrels a year. These countries are Ecuador, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Brazil, and Colombia, with Brazil, Ecuador, and Colombia over the rainforest. Currently, California's number one source of foreign crude oil is Ecuador, which has been strongly criticized by environmental and indigenous groups for its practice to clear-cutting and bulldozing down the rainforest.

The Amazon rainforest, four of the top six countries that we import oil from, are actively destroying the most biodiverse ecosystem on the planet to send their oil here to Californians, because we desperately need it every day. They don't adhere to the strict environmental regulatory processes that we have here in California. One state, this state, California, imports half of its crude oil that's produced in Ecuador. That means 53% of oil produced in Ecuador comes here to this state.

California's decision to import rather than produce oil here means that we're financing more than just the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Indigenous peoples in the South America are routinely displaced by their land. It's contaminated, and the leaders are threatened or even killed. Like I said, we don't have that problem here in California because of the way that we oversee the process. Just this last February, an indigenous leader in Ecuador was murdered.

The killing is believed to be linked to the community's fight to block Ecuador state-owned oil companies from expanding its oil drilling in the regions to export more oil to California. Again, the money that we're sending to these governments directly finances this type of activity. Saudi Arabia and Iraq are annually highlighted by US State Department for the deplorable human rights violations in these two countries. We import 49 million barrels of oil every year from Saudi Arabia.

Colleagues, this is a country where being part of the LGBT community is punishable by death and we import and pay for 49 million barrels of oil every year from them. Women cannot drive in this country and they are not allowed to vote and torture is used as a punishment of crimes. All of this imported oil brought to California by 600 tanker ships a year.

The tankers spew millions of pounds of carbon into the atmosphere every year with bunker fuel they consume and the power that they need to offload this oil. What's interesting about this is that when we asked CARB for the information, we couldn't believe that the output of carbon emissions was so low. But what we found out is that CARB is not calculating and the calculation is not being calculated from point of destination or point of origin to point of destination.

It's only calculated on the 12 mile coastline of California into the California ports. So all of the emissions that are spewed across the ecosystem when you look at its point of origin are not counted toward the emission output. I understand. And we learned that again from vessel finder. If you follow these ships, they'll circle outside our 12-mile radius until they can come into the port.

And it's interesting that they bring those oil tankers into the port when the price increases and they are able to offload their oil for a higher price. I understand that many of my colleagues see the energy future way different than I do. But today and for the foreseeable future, Californians are still consuming 1.8 million of barrels of oil every single day that we desperately need.

That's not because it's used just for gas in California to put in our cars, but more than 6000 products are made from petroleum, such as shoes, phones, toothbrushes, eyeglasses, heart valves, and disposable diapers. And most plastic products have a petroleum byproduct. Members, it takes 35 gallons of oil to make the tires for a Tesla and even more to make the plastics and the wire, insulation and other parts that require oil.

Much of the oil we import could be replaced by California in-state producers providing California jobs. If we were allowed to expand oil production and I know that's something that seems so evil here, but Californians consume this oil, and we should produce it here under the policies and the environmental regulatory processes that we impose on these companies. Much of the oil that we have here, our producers that we produce here, we operate under the most stringent and strictest environmental and regulatory rules in the world.

The most devastating environmental impacts to human rights violations mentioned previously in my conversation or my presentation does not happen here in California. Oil in Kern County, in the district that I represent, is extracted from what's essentially a desert. There's no Amazon rainforest to destroy, and the jobs created in the industry average about $123,000 a year, where we employ 55%, people of color, 22% 2nd chancers, women, and veterans.

SB 15 would simply implore the legislature to prohibit the import of crude oil to California if the source of oil is a foreign nation with demonstrated human rights abuses, like Saudi Arabia, which imprisons, beats and hangs the LGBT community, and which does not even allow women to drive, or a foreign nation with environmental standards that are lower than those that we require on our oil producers here in California.

The measure would also require the Air Resources Board to report on its website the amount of particulate matter carbon released into the air from tankership emissions in an effort to highlight the air quality impacts from this state's dependence on foreign oil from point of origin to point of destination. Let me show you some quick examples of what this bill would address. I have a couple of pictures here. Let me get them out. Apologize to the delay, Mr. Chair. That's right. I got it. Thank you.

I don't. These are indigenous tribes. So this is an indigenous tribe that has conflict in Ecuador. They're constantly trying to get the government to stop producing oil there. But because California produces 50, or, excuse me, consumes 53% of Ecuador's oil, they can't stop drilling there. We don't have this issue in the State of California. This is an oil spill in the Amazon rainforest. Now, we've had oil leakages and spills in Kern County.

Obviously, we're an oil field, but we immediately process those spills and clean them up. Our oil spills don't look like this, and it definitely doesn't invade people's homes and properties. Just another oil spill. This one is in Colombia. It's invaded a river. We don't have riverbeds. We don't have rivers in the farmlands we do, but we don't have rivers in the oil fields. They're desert communities.

We have thousands of wells in the same location on the same water aquifers, and it's different than how it's produced in foreign countries. This is basically a Kern County oil field. If you haven't gone to Kern County, there's no rivers, there's no Amazon rainforests. They operate right next to farmlands, and they're all within the same distance of the same aquifer. Most oil wells are on the same aquifer that operate within the same area. It's a different process that we use here.

And I'm just asking you guys to recognize the safe and most environmental, strictest process that we have in the world that produces the oil that we need every day. With me to testify in favor of this bill is Mike Umbro, who's going to share a little bit about his expertise in this industry.

You have two minutes, please.

Thank you. Mike Umbro, Premier Resource Management, lifelong San Diego resident. Fresh data from the CEC. In 2022, Iraq was California's largest source of foreign oil, supplying over 68 million barrels to our state. Iraq's oil revenue from California exceeded $6.8 billion. SB 15 is the first of many necessary steps to ensure a level playing field for California's inelastic oil market. It's time we hold OPEC accountable.

In October 21, Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency after 25,000 gallons of crude oil leaked into the waters of Orange County. The oil was promptly cleaned up and cargo ships responsible for the spill paid a $97 million settlement. That same year, Iraq flared 630,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas, second in the world only to Russia. Five times California's annual gas production. Relative to CO2, methane is 80 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere.

This wasteful flaring equates to 12 million gallons of oil energy equivalent per day leaking into our atmosphere. The people of Iraq inhale the equivalent of 480 Orange County oil spills every single day. We need SB 15. In 2022, Iraqi Environmental Minister Hasim Al Falahi acknowledged that air pollution from this rampant flaring is the main reason for increases in local cancer rates, which are up over 20% since 2015.

Where villages are polluted with benzene, Co2, methane and black soot, the people of Iraq are dying from leukemia and other cancers linked to unmitigating flaring less than 800ft from their front doors. California banned the wasteful flaring of natural gas in 1939 and recently implemented 3200 foot setbacks. We need SB 15 to document these Iraqi oil fields, labeled modern sacrifice zones by the United Nations, voting no on SB 15 grants tacit approval to the ongoing import of these barrels without so much as a warning label.

People of Iraq and unsuspecting consumers of California.

Sean Wallentine from the California Independent Petroleum Association, representing 350 independent oil and natural gas producers, service and supply companies, and mineral rights owners in strong support of the bill, and we're proud to do the work and provide California with the crude you need.

Thank you, next witness. Just your name and your organization.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support of SB 15? Hearing and seeing none. Now we'll go to opposition. Any witnesses here in opposition? Seeing none. Moderator let's go to our phone lines for witnesses in support or in opposition of SB 15.

Mr Chair and members Paul Yoder, on behalf of the Boards of Supervisors in Kern and Fresno counties, in support of the bill, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if you wish to speak in support or opposition of this bill, please press one, then zero at this time.

And, Mr. Chair, we have no one queued up to speak at this time.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to the committee. Are there any questions or concerns in regards to this measure? Senator Stern?

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Congratulations on your baby Senator.

Thank you so much, Senator. And it's a good first day back. My question for you was about whether this bill would only apply to data about international sources or if we're also talking about, say, emissions from a Texas soil field or Pennsylvania or other places. Do you have a sense of, would the bill sort of apply everything being imported into California? We'd be tracking that air quality data or only the stuff coming in from international sources?

It's coming from international sources. I can get an expert to testify, but I don't believe we import any oil from Texas. Is that correct?

California does not import any crude oil from any other state.

Any other state?

Except Alaska, and that's a very small amount.

So Alaskan oil, though, would be included in this or excluded?

I can include that, sir. That would be a very important point. If you would like me to do that, I'd be glad to do that. We don't, when you talk about Texas or other states, California doesn't import any oil production from any other state. There's no mechanism to bring it here. We don't have pipelines. We import all of our oil that we don't produce here from foreign countries, Ecuador being the number one.

I would appreciate it if you'd consider that going forward, because I actually think there's some space here for bipartisan agreement. And I think know, especially having sort of an even-handed approach for everything beyond our borders to know what we can figure out and make some decisions actually might make some space. I think both in natural gas and in oil, there's a lot we don't know that happens beyond our borders. So thanks for that.

Thank you, sir.

All right, Senator Newman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Grove, I appreciate this bill. Clearly, there is space for bipartisan agreement because this bill passed in identical form last year, I believe, by 35 to zero.

Yes.

You have been making, I think, a very clear case for consideration of the impact of the choices that we make above and beyond what we do in this state. And I think it makes eminent sense. Right. So glad to support the bill. There are other conversations we obviously need to have about decarbonization.

But your point, which you make so compellingly, as many chances you get about oil being a fungible commodity that we get from wherever we get it, and the globe being somewhat larger than California, we are not necessarily living up to our ideals. If we're causing ancillary damage to other communities, to other environmental systems simply by not producing that oil here in California. The data, I think in support of that is important. We should collect that data and have that conversation. So glad to support the bill.

And I'd ask to be added as a co-author as you move forward.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate. All right, Senator Newman, you're making a motion. All right. We have a due pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. Senator Grove, would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, the comments that were made, like specifically banning flaring in 1939 in the State of California, that still goes on in a country that we purchase oil from. It doesn't have to be like that. California workers are ready to meet the demand for California's oil. There's more than 1400 drilling permits that are awaiting approval at CalGEM and 55 UIC permits.

And what's interesting is that Kern County oil field photo that I showed, a lot of those oil drilling permits are on that same field, that exact same field, in that exact same location where we're drilling for oil now. But we just can't get the permits, which doesn't make any sense if it's in the same location on the same water aquifer in the same field, and we could be producing that oil here.

We're about 100,000 barrels short per day that we used to produce under the previous Administration or the Brown Administration than we do now because of what's happened to our Kern County oil fields and the permit process. We are losing more workers and more oil produced here for the consumption of Californians. And we're importing more oil from, like I said, organizations and countries that have no environmental impact or have no environmental quality, regulatory environment like we have here in the State of California.

And I would just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a due pass as amended to Appropriations Committee, we have a motion by Senator Newman and amendment state delete reference to or by human rights organizations and the intent language regarding having the CDC monitor foreign countries that export oil to California. Consultant, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

That bill has 11 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Next up is file item three by Senator Padilla, SB 619.

Afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members. It's my pleasure to present SB 619, and I want to begin by accepting Committee amendments. Mr. Chairman, Members. California's independent system operator, Cal ISO, estimates that the state needs to generate more than 7000 megawatts in transmission capacity every year for the next decade. Let me repeat that again.

According to the state's energy balancing authority, we need to create an additional 7000 megawatts of new transmission capacity every year for the next decade in order to meet our rising energy demands. Unfortunately, our permitting system, which is currently exclusively vested with the CPUC, is not keeping up with demand. In fact, California's grid capacity is nowhere near where we need it to be.

The current permitting process, on average, can take over a decade to approve new projects, bottlenecking and hampering our efforts to strengthen our grid and ultimately meet our renewable energy goals. Delays in permitting can result in higher construction costs, threatens our climate goals, but most importantly, makes it increasingly difficult to keep the lights on during the summer months. We might recall in the last cycle, we were literally one text message away from a statewide blackout.

Last year, the Legislature passed AB 205 to create a permitting process through the CEC for interconnection permitting of qualified energy projects. SB 619 simply seeks to expand the authority to transmission projects by creating an alternative outlet for the backlog of applications and a faster system to process those applications.

I'd stipulate from the start that more work needs to be done on this measure to actually accomplish that goal, which is why we will be and are talking with stakeholders in the administration to design a system that can fully vet these projects in a thorough manner and in a predictable and reasonable time frame. I'd also say that I'd like to take the amendment suggested in Committee analysis to change the current prioritization language, excuse me, to an element that the CEC should consider.

Having said that, I think the CEC's process ought not be a first come, first serve process because that will incentivize incomplete and speculative applications. Instead, perhaps a readiness test should be applied to prioritizing projects that are ready to go, for instance, those with site control or a power purchase agreement.

I ask for an aye vote in order to keep this bill moving, the conversation going, and I look forward to coming back with a complete and thoughtful measure following stakeholder engagement with me today is V. John White, the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology. And following his testimony, Mr. Chairman and Members, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Mr. White, you have two minutes.

Mr. Chairman, Members. John White with a Clean Power Campaign. We thank Senator Padilla for bringing this measure forward. We also appreciate Senator Becker's efforts and the efforts of your staff to put these bills in shape. We very much concur with the Senator's conclusion that we are behind and we need to catch up. These projects are important not just for clean energy goals. They're important for reliability and for reducing our dependence on natural gas and helping reduce rates.

It's important to understand that interconnecting and building out the transmission system is going to reduce costs because the resources that are being connected are going to save money compared to the resources that we now have. So we'd ask for an aye vote, sir.

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

Hi, my name is Ellon Madill with Full Moon Strategies on behalf of San Diego Community Power in support. Thanks.

Genesis Tang on behalf of Cleaner Task Force, in strong support.

Megan Shumway on behalf of Sacramento 350 and Climate Action California, we're in support.

Cynthia Shallot, on behalf of Indivisible California State Strong.

Thank you. Next witness.

Renee Cruz Martinez with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245 in support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in support? Seeing none. Now let's move to opposition. Witnesses in opposition to SB 619, you have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Nicole Madani, Government Affairs for San Diego Gas and Electric here, as opposed unless amended and removing opposition, given that he is accepting the Committee amendments. We originally had concerns with some of the threshold language, but appreciate the comments in the Committee analysis and committed to working with the author going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Moderator, let's go to our phone lines for witnesses in support or opposition of SB 6119. Moderator?

I apologize, and if you wish to speak on this, please press one then zero at this time. Mr. Chair, we have no one queuing up at this time.

Great. We're going to bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or concerns by Committee Members as it relates to SB 619? Hearing, seeing none. We have a motion by Senator Stern. We have a do pass as amended to appropriations. Senator Padilla, would you like to close?

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. And just to state what that amendment is, it states delete, prioritize to consider in relationship to projects that have transmission projects of 250,000,000 in financing. Consultant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That measure has 10 votes. It has enough to get out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Committee Members to add on.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Next up is file item four, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Committee Members. I would like to start by saying that one. Thank you. For the Committee staff working with my team, we are accepting the amendments offered in the analysis, and we appreciate the support on this Bill. I'm pleased to present SB 823, which Wood is proposed to be amendment direct, the California Energy Commission to create a program to create new incentives for California's low and moderate income residents to switch to electric vehicles.

In essence, this is a Bill that is about us building an inclusive green future for California and for all Californians. One of the cornerstones of our fight against climate change has been the conversion of California's personal vehicles from fossil fuels to zero emission electric vehicles. Many programs exist to incentivize Californians to make this switch, including discounts offered to electric ratepayers when charging their vehicles at home. However, not all Californians have equal access to these programs.

Vehicle owners living in multi unit dwellings whose landlords don't install charging stations, or homeowners without the electrical infrastructure to support charging at their residence are being left out of the green revolution. And that is a whole lot of folks in our districts particularly in our lower income districts where we know access is critical for participation and opportunity.

So should these vehicle owners switch to EV's, and we want that to be the case, they would have to depend on public charging stations, thereby missing out on the incentive rates that would make EV's more of a reasonable investment for them. We have a responsibility to make affordable charging accessible to all Californians, and that's regardless of where they live. Okay? Particularly at a time when the burden of fossil fuel is disproportionately impacting low income communities of color.

SB 823 would seek to do this by establishing a grant program at the CEC to provide funding opportunities to EV charging discounts for low to moderate income EV drivers. I have with me today to testify in support is Ben Eichert with the Let's Green California. I welcome Ben to share his comments.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you so much, Senator, and thank you, Chair, thank you, Members of the Committee. My name is Benjamin Eichert and I am the Director of let's Green California, which is an initiative of the nonprofit Romero Institute. For several years, our organization has been conducting outreach and education in and providing technical assistance to underserved communities, helping them transition from fossil fuel power technologies to clean electric technologies.

And so we have seen firsthand the significant additional barriers to electrification faced by low income and moderate income households in underserved communities. The Senator has done a great job summarizing what this Bill is about and why it's important. I really want to emphasize that our experience on the ground says that a program like this is necessary and will really help ensure that low and moderate income households and families are at the forefront of our transition to electric vehicles.

We have a real problem if they're lagging in that transition. Not only is the gasoline burden currently high, but if they're at the back end of that transition, it's just going to get worse. And so we think this is a timely program as well. We expect from state and federal investment 250,000 new DC fast chargers to be built up through the end of 2025.

A program like this will help ensure that folks in underserved communities have affordable access to that charging infrastructure, minimizing the possibility of stranded assets, and again, helping ensure that the communities that can benefit the most from a transition to clean cars are leading that transition. I respectfully urge your aye vote. I do also want to thank the stakeholders with whom we've been having very constructive engagement and dialogue over the past several weeks and also thank the Committee's support. I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Hi, my name is Meg Snyder, on behalf of rewiring America in strong support.

Megan Shumway from Sacramento in strong support.

Cynthia Shallot with Indivisible California State Strong and Litz Green California.

Barry Vesser with The Climate Center in strong support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Hearing seeing none. Let's move the opposition. Witnesses in opposition. You have two minutes to state your position.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members Reed Addis on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, in total support in spirit of the measure. As of last week, we were in opposed because it veered very far away from the state pilot.

However, based on our read of where the Senator is going with the Committee and the amendments being suggested today, I think the Association, at the very least can go neutral. I have to have some more conversations with them to see if they can actually go to support at this point in time. Thank you again.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition, I should say, or tweeners seeing none. Moderator let's go to our phone lines for witnesses in support or in opposition of SB 823.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And you wish to speak in support or opposition of SB 823, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll go to line 242, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair Bradford and Committee Members. My name is Farah Stack and I'm calling on behalf of Community Environmental Council, Labor Network for Sustainability and Interfaith Power and Light in support of Senate Bill 823. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Line 245, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, this is Mimi Spreadbury. I'm calling from California State Strong Indivisible, and Let's Bring California Strong, in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next witness.

Line 206. Please go ahead.

Hello, Lucia from, Lucia ... from California and ... voters calling in support of SB 823.

Line 65, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, this is Emily Gartenberg calling on behalf of Jobs to Move America in strong support.

Thank you. Line 244, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair Bradford and Committee Members. My name is Noah Garcia and I'm calling on behalf of the Dolores Huerta foundation, Move LA and SoCal 350 Climate Action in support of Senate Bill 823. Thank you so much.

Line 246, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Eric Veium, chair of the SLO Climate Coalition, speaking in support of SB 823.

Mr. Chair. We have no one else in queue wishing to speak.

Thank You. We'll bring it back to the Committee any questions or concerns as it relates to SB 823? Senator Min.

This is a great Bill. Would love to co author, add to this co author at the appropriate time and move the Bill.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate regarding this measure? Hearing, seeing none. We have a do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.

I'll just state the amendment to recast the Bill to establish a grant program at the CEC to provide funding opportunities for the establishment of an EV Charging discount to low to moderate income EV drivers using publicly available chargers specified that the implementation of the grant program is continued upon the CEC receiving funding for that program. Am I correct?

Correct.

Thank you. Yes. Okay. Yes, you may close.

Well, I just want to say thank you to the Committee, and I appreciated the comments by my speaker. We don't want these communities of color, low income communities to be on the back end. As we are building this infrastructure toward a resilient California. We want to put them at the center, in the forefront. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you again. We have a do pass, as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.

Bradford? Bradford, aye. Dahle? Ashby? Becker? Caballero? Dodd? Dodd, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Eggman? Eggman, aye. Gonzalez? Grove? Grove, aye. McGuire? Min? Min, aye. Newman? Newman, aye. Rubio? Seyarto? Skinner? Skinner, aye. Stern? Stern, aye. Wilk? Becker, aye.

That measure, 10-0. It's out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Thank you.

Thank you, Senators.

Thank you. Next up is Senator Archuleta: File Item Five: SB 837.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Thank you so very much. I would like to start by thanking the Chair and his Committee staff for working with me, and I agree to accept the Committee's suggested amendments. Senate Bill 837 would further California's building energy efficiency goals by directing the California Energy Commission to simply consider--not require--simply consider allowing the installation of unvented attics in new construction and the new homes.

We are looking forward to a lot of construction going on in California, so when the Energy Commission updates its building energy efficiency standards, we want this included. California Energy Code encourages builders to construct energy efficient buildings while giving them flexibility to choose which design techniques and technologies best suit their work. Senate Bill 837 is a straightforward bill that adds another tool to their toolbox. The use of unvented attics is recognized by the International Residential Code, utilized in other jurisdictions, and proven to have sufficient energy savings.

California has a broad array of building criteria with one area of focus around maintaining a strong building thermal envelope. A strong building thermal envelope acts as a barrier preventing the transfer of heat in or out of the building and reduces the overall energy consumption. One mechanism for strengthening a thermal envelope is by using unvented attics, which have been included in the International Residential Code since 2004.

Unvented attics include the roof lines as the boundary of the envelope, acting as a seal around the top of the building, and includes heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment within the building's envelope. This is compared to vented attics, which are located at the boundary areas of the ceiling, leaving the ductwork air conditioning equipment, et cetera, outside the envelope. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, this can increase the energy needed for air conditioning and heating by ten percent.

Current standards do not include unvented attics in the definition of conditioned space, therefore missing an opportunity to maximize energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with heating and air conditioning. This bill would further incentivize builders to construct more energy efficient homes. Importantly, if the Commission includes this update, it would not create any new mandates for the builders. With me today in support of the bill and to answer any questions is Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building and Industry Association. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, you have two minutes, please. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Members, Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of California Building Industry Association, here in strong support. Want to put a fine point on something the author just said, but also what's referenced and stated in the analysis, which this bill is not a mandate.

If we were here looking at a bill that was going to actually statutorily mandate a building code, we would be here in strong opposition, and that is not what this bill does. I think everyone is very well aware that the Energy Code is getting more difficult to comply with, it is getting more expensive, and we need as many tools in our toolbox to comply with that Energy Code. CBIA has supported the last 15 years of Energy Code updates. That's five triennial updates.

We supported the solar mandate, and we need, again, options at every turn to try to comply. 49 other states allow this. We think it should be considered. So we would urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we have a motion by Senator Grove. All right, any other witnesses here in support of SB 837? Seeing none, let's go to opposition. Anyone here in opposition of SB 837?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Chris Bollinger, on behalf of the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association, the Associated Roofing Contractors of the Bay Area Counties, the National Roofing Contractors Association, North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, and the Western States Roofing Contractors Association, here in opposition to SB 837. First, want to acknowledge that our coalition was very late in taking a position, and we look forward to working with the author to address our concerns. Of those, I'm going to highlight two here today. The first is around process.

This bill is an attempt to circumvent the California Energy Commission's rulemaking process. The CEC already has the authority to make these considerations and does so on a triennial basis. The Commission has subject-matter experts that review energy efficiency standards and supporting data every day. SB 837 is duplicative, unnecessary, and sets bad precedent that undermines the CEC's regulatory authority. And second, when looking at energy efficiency, you must always take a whole building approach. SB 837 only targets a single feature of the building envelope.

Building energy use is a complicated matter requiring whole building analysis of the entire envelope and its equipment features. We should not use the building code to prescribe or promote a singular technology or design solution. The code should establish requirements that allow for flexibility based on a number of factors, including but not limited to climate, product availability, and other building design features.

We want to thank the Committee staff for their analysis, specifically the call out of and potential confusion surrounding the term 'sealed' or 'unvented attics.' We appreciate the Committee's time and consideration. Our coalition is opposed to SB 837. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Additional witnesses here in Room 1200 who are opposed to SB 837? Seeing none, let's go to the phone line for witnesses in support or in opposition of SB 837. Moderator, please.

And if you speak on SB 837 in support or opposition, please press one then zero at this time. And just a moment, Mr. Chair, while we gather the line number.

And we'll go to line 235. Please go ahead.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Brady Gertin, on behalf of the California Building Officials in support of SB 837. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller.

And Mr. Chair, have no one else in queue to speak.

Great. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any discussion or debate? Members, any discussion? It's been moved by Senator Grove. We have a do pass as amended to Appropriations. Mr. Senator Archuleta, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Consultant, please call the roll on SB 837.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That measure has 10 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add. On seeing no more authors here in the audience, I will move to Senator Becker. Are you prepared, Senator? What measure are you presenting first?

This would be SB 755.

All right, SB 755, file item 12.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Reducing carbon emissions from residential buildings is necessary to improve indoor air quality and meet the state's net zero emission targets by 2045. To ensure that California's of all incomes are able to equitably participate in the switch to electric appliances, California and the Federal Government have provided unprecedented investments, rebates, grants, and incentives to support the transition for low and middle income households.

Although California is a leader in incentives in these areas, currently they're administered through kind of a fruit salad of government bodies and partners. Despite some local and state efforts to simplify this, the various applications and relief remain scattered, burning organizations and individual households. This legislation, which we're naming clear California's layered energy application for residents, requires the CEC to create a single online application to apply for California's residential energy programs. A single one stop shop will make applying for current and future programs simpler and faster.

Moreover, legislation require the agency to receive feedback from local programs that could be added into this application as more locally administered support and rebate for electrification is created. This portal we're creating by the CC will be subject to annual review, require proactive communication to organizers in disadvantaged communities, and would complement, not replace, existing application options. This legislation was the winner of my district's Ought to Be A Law competition as the issue of disorganized energy programs is a major problem for constituents in my district.

And I faced this when I was electrifying my own home, where many of them are early adopters of clean energy appliances and EVs. Therefore, I want to emphasize the local need for simplification and streamlining of these applications to improve accessibility for all in the climate transition. With that, I have two witnesses here today include the winner of our Ought to Be A Law contest.

All right, our first witness. You'll have two minutes, please.

Hi there. I'm Jill Ferguson. I'm a PhD student at Stanford, and I submitted this idea into the Ought to Be A Law contest because a one stop shop platform is a critical infrastructure that you all need when you're on this road of upgrading 14 million homes by 2045. And that's because this is not an easy challenge, especially today.

Let's imagine that you're a mother of four and it's the middle of summer, and your hvac goes out and your kids are hot and your elderly relatives are at risk. You're just going to go with the equipment that's available to you the quickest, right? It's not at all intuitive or easy or fast to wade through all your existing programs and research all the contractors and then apply for and wait for those rebates.

And so that is why with this bill, we could have the good people of the CEC and the CPUC already know what the homes qualify for before they even send a contractor on a truck roll to a home. They could pre qualify folks.

They could auto fill the applications with every program from rebates, incentives, financing, inclusive investment, and even rate help all in one place and be able to help the contractors and the tradements know exactly what that household qualifies for it when they roll up to the home and do the upgrade. And it also has larger impact for the rest of the nation because we've officially submitted this SB 755 into the Department of Energy's request for information on the Inflation Reduction Act rebate distribution.

And so the idea that home upgrades could be made easier could become a new national standard if y'all's pilot of this goes well. So with that, thank you so much, and I'll pass it to the next witness. Thank you, Senator Becker.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Becker. My name is Ian Foche. I am a student at Stanford Law School and at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, where I am researching residential decarbonization issues. I'm here in support of SB 755, and wanted to echo my colleague Ms. Ferguson's comments. Just two quick points to add. First, I'd like to bring to the Committee's attention that there are quite a few additional residential decarbonization programs administered by the state, Federal Government, local government, utilities that could merit inclusion in this clear platform.

SB 755 preserves the flexibility for the CEC to include those programs, but I encourage the Committee to consider how those programs might be integrated into the platform, either at this stage through explicit inclusion, or in the future, to name a few. The CEC has the homeowner managing energy savings rebate and the high efficiency electric home rebate, various federal tax credits provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, which my colleague Ms. Ferguson mentioned, and then other utility programs like the Energy Savings Assistance program.

So all could be considered for inclusion in this clear platform. And then second, just want to note that the CPUC has separately moved towards a universal application system for low income rate assistance programs, including CARE as currently written. SB 755 would include those rate assistance programs, and I support that approach, which would come closest to creating the one stop shop that Senator Becker discussed.

Affordability and decarbonization can, of course, work together to make home upgrades more accessible and affordable for Californians, rather than splitting those into multiple different platforms. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Next witness, your name and your organization, please.

Sylvio Ferrari, on behalf of California Building Industry Association, in support.

Thank you.

Paul Yoder, on behalf of the Boards of Supervisors in Fresno and Kern Counties, in support.

Thank you.

Meg Snyder, on behalf of Rewiring America in support.

Kayla Robinson, on behalf of Central Coast Energy Services with the support in concept position. Thank you.

Great. Any additional witnesses in support? Hearing, seeing none. Now let's move to opposition. Are there witnesses here in 1200 who are in opposition of SB 755? Seeing none. Moderator, let's go to our phone lines. Witness in support of and or in opposition of SB 755.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if you wish to speak in support or opposition of SB 755, please press one, then zero at this time. And just a moment, Mr. Chair, while we gather the line number. And we'll go to line number 250. Please go ahead.

Nancy Haber for 350 Bay Area Action in strong support.

Thank you. Next caller.

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

Great. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Is there any questions? It's been moved. All right. We have a do pass as amended. Senator Becker, are you taking all the amendments here on this bill?

Yes, we will be accepting all amendments.

Okay. All right. Would you like to close?

Thank you for the consideration that witnesses who came up with this idea said it more eloquently than I could. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And I'll just state the amendments limit the CEC's development of online application process to only CEC administered programs and authorizes CEC to post links to non CEC programs. Require the use of online portal requires the customers consent similar to that required by SB 1208. So without any additional comments, Consultant, please call the roll on SB 755.

[Roll Call]

That measure's out ten to two. We'll leave the roll open. Okay. Ten/zero. That measure's out. Senator Eggman's graceful enough to allow you to present your second bill, so go ahead and present SB 420.

Well, thank you for that. I won't do the preamble because this is complementary to Senator Padilla's bill about the need for transmission. I'll just tell you what this bill does specifically, is it makes two changes to the transmission process to reduce green tape for transmission lines. One: it requires an agency designated by the Governor to qualify transmission projects necessary for California's reliability requirements and clean energy targets as, quote, 'environmental leadership development projects.' For these projects, the approval process will be shortened in two ways.

First, lawsuits challenging these projects' CEQA review must be ruled on 270 days after filing, and second, these projects shall receive a rebuttal presumption of its necessity in the CPUC's certification of public necessity and convenience review, subject to the ISO's board approval. This would prevent the PUC from redoing economic analysis that's already done at CAISO. These tweaks will help speed the permeating process and get us the transmission that we desperately need. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. I have Alex Jackson from American Clean Power Association.

All right, you have two minutes, please.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members. Alex Jackson with American Clean Power California. We are a multi-technology trade group representing utility scale renewable energy developers. I think, as we've heard today from Senator Becker in the conversation on SB 619, we need to get moving on transmission, and that is a multi-pronged effort, but one of the clear areas of work is regarding permitting.

I think, as Mr. Becker outlined, there are two tweaks in this bill that make common sense reforms that will speed up approvals of needed transmission projects, one: dealing with duplicative economic review currently required by the PUC and CAISO. In our view, this extra step is increasingly unnecessary given the now tighter coordination between those agencies on both resource planning and transmission planning. But shifting the burden of proof at a minimum will provide a cleaner line of sight to get projects approved.

The second is about judicial and administrative streamlining for projects by making grid decarbonization and reliability transmission lines eligible for certification as so-called environmental leadership development projects. I'll note, I think we're continuing to evaluate whether ELDP certification provides the best means to those ends or there's a better approach for transmission lines, but we certainly need to get the environmental reviews done quicker along with permitting. Members, our energy plan asks for a doubling of energy capacity in the next two decades. We're not going to get there if it takes more than a decade to add a single line. We respectfully ask for an aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional witnesses support, your name and organization, please.

Mr. Chair and Members, John White with Clean Power Campaign. We support the bill.

Genesis Tang, on behalf of Clean Air Task Force, in strong support.

Any additional witnesses support? Witnesses in opposition? You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Nicole Hernandez with San Diego Gas and Electric. We submitted an oppose unless amended letter, but want to thank the author and his staff for working with us. We agree with the problem statement. We agree with the intent and the issue of permitting. We did raise concerns with potentially duplicating or creating delays in the process, given this new approach.

The Committee analysis did raise some good points and some strong points, and we are committed to continuing to work with the author and the sponsors for some meaningful process fixes. And with that, we look forward to removing our opposition in the future. So thank you.

Great. Any additional witnesses in opposition to this measure here in Room 1200? Seeing none, Moderator, let's go to our phone lines and see if there's individuals wishing to testify in support and/or opposition of SB 420.

If you wish to speak in support or opposition of SB 420, please press one then zero at this time. And we'll go to line 251. Please go ahead. 251, your line is open. Please go ahead. Okay, we'll go to line 252. Please go ahead.

This is Nancy Haber for 350 Bay Area Action, in support.

And line 206, please go ahead.

Lucia Muñoz, on behalf of California Environmental Voters, calling in support of SB 420.

And we'll try back with line 251. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Melissa Cortez, on behalf of the California Wind Energy Association. We had submitted a letter of concern, but with the amendments taken, we will be moving into a support position.

All right. Any--

Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue.

Okay. We bring it back to the Committee. Any comments or questions as it relates to SB 420? It's been moved by Senator Min.

Make sure I was clear that I'm accepting the amendments.

You're accepting the Committee amendment, which state 'the lead reference to in consultation with Natural Resources Agency, ensure consistency with actions, and SB 847--which is a Dodd bill from last year--by moving the language related to rebuttable presumption to PUC's Code 454.53.' Is that correct?

Yes.

Thank you. We have a motion: 'do pass to Appropriations as amended.' Please, Consultant, please call the roll.

Bradford?

Oh, would you like to close?

Ask for an aye vote.

Okay. All right.

[Roll Call].

That measure has 10 votes. We'll leave the roll open for the absent Members. Thank you, Senator Becker. Now we're moving back to Senator Eggman. She has two items. First up is file item 9, SB 355. When you're ready, Senator, you may begin.

Thank you very much. So, 355 is an update to a bill I did in 2017. It's a different bill, but this has to do with SOMAH. This is a bill I did in 2015, I believe, or 2017. I did it a while ago. But having to do with $1 billion for low-income, multifamily housing so that low-income folks can also realize the dream of having their rates reduced because they have solar on the rooftop.

It was slow rolling out by the agencies involved, and so, as it's rolled out, it is still not fully used up. And so we're expanding that to also include tribal lands, new construction, and the amount of income that people have that they can qualify for that today. With me today to testify is Rocky Fernandez with the Center for Sustainable Energy and Andrew Dawson with the California Housing Partnership. And they'll be brief.

All right, you have two minutes, but you don't have to use all of them.

Fair enough. Good afternoon to the Chair, the Committee and the Committee staff. My name is Rocky Fernandez, and I'm with the Center for Sustainable Energy. We're in strong support of Senate Bill 355. As a member of the program administration team for the Solar On Multifamily Affordable Housing, or SOMAH, program, CSE has numerical and anecdotal evidence of what's working and what barriers are excluding Californians from this important program.

I'm happy to report that with thousands of active and completed applications, we are currently at 21% of the 300 megawatt goal. However, in order to meet that capacity, under current law, we estimate that we need roughly 54% of identified eligible properties in the state to take part in the program. That's a big ask.

The SOMAH program would greatly benefit from an expanded pool of eligible properties and the elimination of barriers to support the communities that the SOMAH program was designed to serve, which is what Senate Bill 355 seeks to do. Furthermore, our data regarding those who have started, then canceled or withdrew their applications because they did not meet the eligibility under the current law show that half of those projects could move forward with Senate Bill 355 in place.

Let's bring those interested parties back in and provide the same opportunity for other affordable housing properties across the state. Expanding SOMAH to an income eligibility pool that matches several other state and federal programs, along with tribal, master-metered and public housing agency properties, will help further our progress in extending the health and financial benefits of solar to our multifamily affordable housing communities and create more jobs doing this essential work. We thank Senator Eggman for this bill and urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Hi, I'm Andrew Dawson with the California Housing Partnership. The California Housing Partnership is a private nonprofit that was actually created by this state in 1988 with the public mission of increasing the supply of affordable and sustainable housing for low-income tenants. I'll keep this brief. This bill is a great bill for putting solar on affordable housing, and it aligns with some of the programs that already exist, as well as expanding the eligibility and creates some clarification among what housing can be involved. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support of this measure, SB 355, here in Room 1200? Seeing none. Now let's go to opposition. Witnesses in opposition, SB 355? Seeing none. Moderator, let's go to our phone lines and see if there's individuals wishing to testify either in support or in opposition of SB 355.

Sure. Ladies and gentlemen, if you are in support or opposition, please press one, then zero on your phone. Once again, that's for support or opposition. One, then zero. We do have somebody queuing up here. It'll be just a moment. In opposition or support. One, then zero. I apologize. They're getting their phone, their line number here. All right, so we will now go to line number 253. 253, your line is open. They took theirselves out of queue, so we don't have anybody else in the queue as of right now.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Senator Min.

I think this is a great bill. It's an important priority and want to co-author at the appropriate time, would move it.

Thank you.

All right, we have a motion. Senator Dodd?

Yeah. I just want to ask this question because I think it's something we should consider. Look, if this program really works and this helps boost it up, I'm fine, because I think it's allowing people, particularly low-income people, to be able to participate in the green transition. It's incredibly important. But I really wonder if, at the end of the day, when we're doing so much utility-grade type of solar and that's more cost effective, if there's a reason why this program is faltering in the first place, because it just doesn't perhaps pencil or the need just really isn't there. I'd like your comments on that.

Yeah. No, I think partly it took so long to roll out, the agency took forever to develop the regulations to get it. So it has only been in existence not as long as from when it was first authored. So it took a long time. And then it was just because it was limited just to multifamily incomes already constructed. So that was another barrier to it. So this expands the pool and to be able to meet the deadline within the timeline.

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

You heard it here. It's a great bill. I ask for your aye vote.

We have a motion by Senator Min. We have a do pass, as amended, to Appropriations. You are accepting the Committee amendment?

I certainly am.

Okay. Consultant, please call the roll on SB 355, file item 9.

SB 355. Bradford. Aye. Dahle. Ashby. Becker. Caballero. Dodd. Aye. Durazo. Eggman. Aye. Gonzalez. Grove. McGuire. Min. Aye. Newman. Aye. Rubio. Seyarto. Skinner. Stern. Aye. Wilk. No. 6-1.

That measure has six votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Now we'll move on to your second item. SB 746.

SB 746 is also another update to another bill I did some time back concerning the Valley Link, which is a rail system that will connect our ACE train with our BART train and relieve 100,000 people of sitting on the Altamont every day going back and forth to work. So this just simply adds hydrogen to the alternate fuels for which public agencies are authorized to enter into energy service contracts. So that's all it does.

Adds hydrogen on what people can use as counts as clean energy. And our project will be solar, so it'll be green hydrogen. This doesn't limit that to the rest of the state, but for our project, it does. And I have with me Will Ritter from the Deputy Director of the Tri Valley San Joaquin Rail Authority, who will be brief with his comments.

All right, you've been instructed to be brief.

Very good. Thank you, Chair Bradford, Members of the Committee. Again, Will Ritter, Deputy Director of the Tri Valley San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority. We thank you for your time this afternoon. This bill is significant to our agency as we look to strive to be a model of national sustainability, both from an environmental and equity as well as an economic standpoint.

And as Senator Eggman mentioned, what we're looking to do is to ensure that transit districts like ourselves are eligible kind of entities to be able to employ the powerful tools behind the energy conservation code and to ensure that hydrogen is an eligible alternative energy form as we look to use it most effectively in the transportation of the public on our trains. So thank you again for your consideration. We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Please state your name and your organization.

Mr. Chair. Mike Monaghan on behalf of the Building and Construction Trades Council in support.

Thank you. Next witness.

Gus Corey, San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council, in support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in room 1200 in support? Seeing none. Witnesses now in opposition. Witnesses in opposition to SB 746, you're in the room 1200. Seeing none. Moderator, let's go to our phone lines for witnesses in support and or opposition to SB 746.

Sure. If you are in support or opposition of SB 746, one then zero on your phone. Once again, that's support or opposition. One, then zero. It'll be in just one moment here. We do have a few queuing up. We will go to line number 255. Please go ahead.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Senators. Rosanna Charvacho Elliot, on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition.

Thank you. And we do not have any others in the queue.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns? It's been moved by Senator Grove. Senator Stern.

Thank you. Just quick question. The bill is limited to this Tri Valley Project or it applies to all transit agencies?

It applies to all transit agencies.

And the definition, it's not just limited to green hydrogen. This could be hydrogen generated from gas oil.

That is correct.

Okay. So as you move forward with the legislation, I hope we can consider maybe narrowing that or at least looking to promote green hydrogen. I know we haven't settled on a definition for that, but I don't want to sort of backdoor that process through this. So I'll be supporting it today, but hopefully you'll consider that. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Any further discussions or debate on this item? Hearing, seeing none. Senator Eggman, would you like to close?

Just thank you very much. We just found out today we got the first state money, 24 million for this project. So let's keep the trains running on time. I ask for your aye vote.

Okay. We have a do pass to Appropriations. Consultant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That measure has 10 votes. It has enough to get out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Now we'll move on to file item 14, SB 664 by Senator Stern.

So hopefully, the bill, with its remaining provisions, will still accomplish those goals while providing some expansiveness to how we look out to 2030 into 2045 as we look to achieve our SB 100 goals and the newly refined versions of those with SB 120. With me here today in support of the bill, I believe, is John White with the Clean Power Campaign as well as others. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. White, you have two minutes.

Mr. Chairman, Members. John White with the Clean Power Campaign. We support this bill, and we think it's important that California's modeling and planning be up to snuff and consider all the scenarios that we're going to be facing, particularly the extreme heat scenarios that are rare but can throw the whole system out of whack.

So we were disappointed about the amendment that the Committee insisted on because we really think it's important at some point for the SB 100 process to consider a broader range of assumptions and scenarios in light of the climate change impacts that California is experiencing. We don't want to be like Texas, where they don't consider these other wind, excuse me, these other weather related stresses on a system.

We've got to have our planning be robust enough to be able to take into consideration the scenarios that we're likely to face. But in the meantime, the bill still has merit and we'd like to see it move. So we thank you for your support and urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Next witnesses. State your name and your organization.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California. We'd like to align our comments, those with John White. We think this is still a good bill and urge an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support here in room 1200? Seeing none. Now let's move to witnesses in opposition of SB 664.

Good afternoon, Chairman, Members. Nicole Madani at San Diego Gas and Electric. I want to thank the author for accepting the Committee amendments and with that we'll be removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Patrick Welch with the California Municipal Utilities Association. Just echo my colleague from San Diego Gas and Electric, removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition here in room 1200? Seeing none. Moderator, let's go to our phone lines for witnesses in support or opposition of SB 664.

If you are in support or opposition of SB 664, it is one, then zero. Once again, that is in support or opposition, one, then zero. Mr. Chair, we do not have anybody queuing up.

All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions as it relates to this measure here?

Move the bill.

It's been moved by Senator Wilk. All right. Any further discussion or questions? And you have stated you will be taking all the Committee amendments? Okay, we have a do pass as amended to Appropriation. Senator Stern, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the testimony. And I do hope going forward that we think through the worst case scenario, and it may not be exactly what the bill had articulated of a one in 10 or a one in 20, but that we're willing to expand our thinking of what the future is going to look like and that it could get hotter or in the atmospheric river case, wetter than we've been anticipating. So we want to be brave in our modeling.

And we also hope that DWR going forward looks at procurement with this strategic reserve in a way that doesn't just default to gas. That was not the deal the Legislature struck last year, and we hope that going forward, those suggestions in the original legislation continue to be a core priority of the Legislature and hopefully seen through by this Administration. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Again, we have a do pass as amended to Appropriations. Consultant, please call the roll on SB 664.

[Roll Call]

That measure has nine votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members to add on. Now let's move on to file item 15. SB 781. Senator Stern, you may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I begin, I want to express that I'll be accepting the amendments from the committee referred to on page five of the analysis If you all are following along.

From a firmer requirement around procurement to an encouragement that the power sector transition to low methane natural gas supplies, where feasible, cost effective, and in the best interest of ratepayers. I'm loathe to move legislation typically that is in any way trying to encourage natural gas use. As you all may know, in my historic work around Lisa Canyon and other gas risks on our system.

But the fact is that we are bringing in gas from out of state and all over the country. And as we just heard with Senator Grove's legislation, where we're looking at the impacts of oil beyond our borders. We also want to make sure that there's an incentive for industry, say, in Pennsylvania, Texas, or Qatar, to be using good, low emissions work when they're either developing the gas supplies, shipping them here, and that we can finally get to these elusive fugitive emissions.

So I do appreciate the work of the committee, and I hope that this bill is one more thumb on the scale and a broader national effort to go after methane, which is the largest current threat to near term global warming that we have. Thank you.

Any witnesses in support of SB 781 here in the room. Are you a primary witness or just. All right.

I'm the primary witness.

You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The second witness will only be taking 30 seconds, so if it's okay, I can take the remainder.