Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

We have seven bills on today's agenda and we still can't establish a quorum, but we will hear from our first author. I see Assembly Member Zbur, and he has AB 3. So when you're ready, you may begin your testimony.

Chair Bradford, Members, thank you for having me today. I'd like to start by thanking your Committee staff for their hard work and wanted to let you know that I accept the suggested amendments by the Committee.

I'm proud to present AB 3, legislation that's sponsored by Environment California that's aimed at shaping the upcoming decisions the state will make regarding offshore wind while assuring that we protect our sensitive marine and coastal environments, cultural resources, and at the same time bring into California the maximum high wage, high-skilled jobs that will be created by this emerging industry. Bringing offshore wind online is critical to the state's ability to meet our climate goals.

California has adopted ambitious goals for offshore wind, five gigawatts by 2030, 25 gigawatts by 2045, and the federal government has since issued the first leases off the California coast for floating offshore wind turbines. Offshore wind has the potential to bring tens of thousands, tens of thousands of high-paying jobs and high-skilled jobs each year over 20 years to the state, including in disadvantaged communities surrounding the state's ports and shipping hubs and throughout California.

Meeting our climate and clean energy goals requires multibillion dollar investments in new and expanded port facilities and transmission, and the state will need to develop this necessary infrastructure in a very short amount of time. Meanwhile, ports must also be cited and expanded and designed and entitled in a way that minimizes impacts to precious cultural resources and sensitive marine and coastal habitats and species.

With thorough planning and timeline accountability, California can meet its offshore wind goals in a way that maximizes good-paying and high-skilled jobs by bringing not only assembly and maintenance, but also the turbine and equipment manufacturing to California while assuring the strongest protections for cultural and natural resources.

AB 3 requires the California Energy Commission to conduct a second phase analysis of port alternatives with detailed criteria to guide their analysis to support offshore wind activities and provide specific recommendations to the Legislature and the Administration on the best next steps for port development that minimizes impacts to the environment and cultural resources, maximizes jobs, achieves environmental justice goals, and assures that ratepayers are protected.

AB 3 also requires the CEC to assess the feasibility of imposing specific instate job requirements or targets for both manufacturing and assembling offshore wind parts and to assess the impacts on economic growth on our tax base, jobs, workforce development, and impacts to ratepayers and give recommendations to both the Governor and the Legislature about how to retain the maximum job benefits for Californians, especially underserved Californians.

The bill enjoys broad support of the key stakeholders, including a coalition of environmental groups, labor groups, the California Building Trades and the California State Association of Electrical Workers, major ports across the state, and environmental justice advocates. With me here today are Dan Jacobson of Environment California, a sponsor of the bill, and Marvin Pineda, representing the International Longshore and Warehouse Union to provide additional information and assist with questions. I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. We will afford the primary witnesses two minutes, and you can begin your testimony.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California and also speaking in strong support of the bill are the Environmental Voters. This bill and offshore wind is a win-win situation. Supporting offshore wind port studies and local manufacturing in California can accelerate the state's transition to 100 percent clean energy sources. Offshore wind has tremendous potential for generating clean and sustainable electricity.

By investing in offshore wind port studies, California can identify suitable areas for offshore wind farms and also develop the necessary infrastructure to support their installation and maintenance. Local manufacturing of wind turbines, components, and related equipment further enhances the state's renewable energy sector, reduces reliance on fossil fuels, and helps us to achieve our ambitious, renewable energy targets. In addition, the offshore wind studies in local manufacturing can stimulate job creation and economic growth in California.

The development of offshore wind projects requires a range of skilled workers, including engineers, technicians, project managers, and construction workers. By establishing local manufacturing facilities, California can generate additional employment opportunities across the supply chain, from manufacturing and assembly to maintenance and operations. These industries can attract investment, create a skilled workforce, and contribute to the growth of local businesses, resulting in a positive, economic impact for the state, and finally, offshore wind energy is a crucial tool to mitigating climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

California has been a leader in environmental initiatives and has set ambitious climate goals. Offshore wind power is a clean, renewable energy source that produces no direct emissions or air pollution. By harnessing the power of the wind, California can reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. For these and several other reasons, thank you for the Assembly Member and urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness. Next witness, you have two minutes as well.

Mr. Chair and Members, Marvin Pineda on behalf of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in support of AB 3. We thank Assembly Member Zbur for putting this important policy forward. We thank him for having organized labor at the table. The bill requires recommendations for workforce development to meet the workforce needs. It includes all labor unions, so we thank them for that. The ILWU, as you know, we operate at all ports. We welcome offshore wind projects as this is a historic opportunity.

It's a historic opportunity to create jobs, and as we lose jobs to automation, this is a way to transition some of those workers. We often hear about power going out near the ports because of the high temperatures. A lot of times what we do is then we have to plug in ships back to--some would say dirty fuel. This will create an opportunity to always have clean energy being used, and again, it's an opportunity, and we think Mr. Bradford has provales in his district. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there additional witnesses here in support? State your name and your organization, please.

Rebecca Marcus representing CALPIRG in support.

Mr. Chair, Mike Monahan on behalf of the State Building Trades in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Jonathan--yeah, if I touch this thing, it's usually--oh, there we go. Jonathan Clay on behalf of the Port of San Diego in support.

Bill Allayaud, Environmental Working Group, supports. Thank you.

Are there any additional witnesses in support here in Room 1200? Hearing and seeing none, now we'll go to primary witnesses in opposition. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Hearing and seeing none, are there any witnesses in opposition here in Room 1200? Seeing none, Moderator, now let's go to our phone lines for witnesses both in support and opposition of AB 3.

Thank you. To speak in support or opposition, press one then zero on your telephone keypad. An AT&T specialist will provide you with your line number by which you'll be identified. First caller will be from line number 21. Go ahead.

Mr. Chair and Members, Michael Pimental here on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association in support. Urge your aye vote today. Thank you.

We'll go next to line 29. Go ahead.

Morning, Chair and Members. Markey Sieger on behalf of the LA County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

We have no further telephone lines in queue.

Thank you. Hearing no other ones, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or concern? Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you, Assembly Member. I will be supporting your bill today. I have some concerns with offshore wind, but this is actually, I think, the right move to do the studies at the port so we can figure out where we're headed. So with that, I would be happy to move the bill, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you. Once we establish a quorum. Any other additional questions or concerns? Well, let me first commend the author for this measure, but as an individual who has now chaired utilities both in the Assembly and the Democrat, I mean Assembly and the Senate, and also work for a utility company, the promises of a diverse workforce has yet to develop in this green economy. So what assurances do we have that this workforce will be as diverse as been promised for the last 20 years because I've been on numerous renewable sites and I've yet to see someone that looks like me working on any of them.

Yes, that's a very, very good question. One of the reasons why I brought this bill and why that second phase port study was put in place was because we had a bunch of studies that were done by AB 525, but there weren't any standards in place.

So, essentially what this requires is that the CEC look at the port alternatives that are out there from the studies and actually make recommendations with a bunch of standards that they have to look at, and one of the key standards is making sure that we have a diverse workforce that is basically that we've got workforce development, that we meet economic environmental justice criterion, and that the workforce is actually helping all of the people in California.

But absent to CEC, is labor committed to this? Are the companies that's doing the hiring committed to this? I mean, it really needs real commitment, not just words on paper, because again, the promise of diverse jobs have yet to materialize in this space.

I agree with that. I think without the bill, what would likely happen is that you would have a number of competing port alternatives that would be advanced throughout the state for different kinds of things. And essentially what this does is it basically requires the state to look at the ports and actually the manufacturing, both pieces of that with criterion about what is best for the state and which alternatives meet standards.

And one of those standards is basically a diverse workforce, which frankly is probably likely to happen if the two key port alternatives now are Long Beach and Humboldt Bay, and then it's likely that there would be accelerate ports in other major metropolitan areas. Those are likely to be areas with diverse workforces and actually, the bill requires recommendations on workforce and how we meet the workforce needs and meeting diverse workforce needs and serving environmental justice communities.

Well, okay. I hope it's some sincere, real recruitment in these communities because, again, I worked for a utility company and supplier diversity was one of the biggest commitments under General Order 156 that the late Gwen Moore started, and we are still fighting to make sure that women, minority-owned businesses, our disabled veterans have a seat at the table, and the same is being seen here in this green space and this renewable energy space.

So I'm going to support it today, but I really need to see some real change in this industry. Senator Gonzalez.

Sorry about that. Thank you so much, and thank you for bringing this forward, Assembly Member. I just have a question on--I know you're currently working with the Longshore Union on additional amendments, so I just wanted to confirm that you are continuing to work and discuss, and I know that there's a lot of opportunity with workforce, as we've just been talking about.

Yes, we've worked with them. We've accepted their amendments, and they actually testified in support this morning.

Okay. I'm late to the game, so thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we're one short of quorum. Okay. Is there any other questions? Would you like to close?

Just, I agree with your focus, Mr. Chair. That is actually one of the reasons why we're bringing this bill so that there are some standards in place as these decisions are made and that is among one of the key standards there. I think many times as we've done these kinds of projects, we think about protecting the environment and cultural resources, and we don't think about the jobs benefit and making sure that the jobs are available to all of our communities.

And if you look at this, in some ways, this is more of a jobs bill than it is even an environmental bill, although it has strong protections for the environment and that's a key component. We've been working with all the stakeholders. I actually am really honored that we have no real opposition. I think we've had all the stakeholders at the table.

We've worked hard with the ports, we've worked hard with the environmental groups, with the environmental justice groups, with all the labor unions, with the labor unions that represent manufacturing and the building trades, and we have strong support across the board.

Thank you. We're still lacking a quorum, so at the appropriate time, we'll seek a motion on this measure.

Thank you. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Assembly Member Wood, AB 2816. Assembly Member Wood, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments and thank the Committee consultant, Sarah, for working with us to make this a better Bill. The Committee's amendments furthered the goal of AB 286 by ensuring that we are gathering more data points to inform broadband policy decisions. Two years ago, I authored a Bill that was the first major step in updating California's interactive broadband map. Last year, I authored a Bill that strengthened the data that informs the state's broadband map.

To that end, AB 286 will ensure public feedback is an available data set on our state's broadband map. It promotes greater transparency and strengthens the voices of those who continue to struggle with the digital divide. There is a fundamental problem in the way we shape broadband policy. If we devote resources to obtaining public feedback yet not incorporating the data into our baseline maps, who has a better understanding of what broadband looks like at an address than the person who lives there?

Opposition to this Bill has cited concerns about the validity of the data submitted by users. The Committee's amendments resolve that concern by assuring that the unverified data is not used in a rulemaking process. I'm pursuing crowdsourced data through existing CalSPEED because it's quite literally a means of verifying the data that the ISPs provide to the CPUC. Without the updates outlined in AB 286, our map will continue to be data submitted only by incumbent providers, unverified by the households they serve.

This will result in overlooking specific communities that suffer from the incumbent provider's incentive to overstate broadband access. Here to testify in support of the Bill is Kami Peer with Common Sense Media, and when the time comes, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Your lead witness. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Kami Peer, California policy manager with Common Sense Media. I'd like to thank the Committee for providing the opportunity to address you in support of AB 286, especially on behalf of the California Alliance for Digital Equity, or CADE. Access to the Internet is a fundamental requirement to engage in today's world. However, publicly available broadband maps fail to fully illustrate the digital divide, preventing millions of Californians from receiving broadband.

This is because existing providers have an incentive to sometimes overrepresent the depths and breadth of their service territories. We know Californians are not fully represented in our broadband maps today, from households in rural farmlands to mountainous forests to our urban hubs. At the FCC, the CPUC, and other states, there are important efforts underway to map the digital divide, identifying the areas where public dollars will go to ensure access to fast, reliable, and affordable service.

All of these maps rely almost entirely on information provided from the largest internet service providers, or ISPs. It is sometimes in their interest to overreport their service to maintain their control over territories because admitting service gaps will mean another company, or perhaps local government, may get funding to fill them. AB 286 changes the status quo. Bad data will produce bad maps, and that's what the CPUC and the FCC have been consistently getting from ISPs.

So no longer will our broadband data and mapping efforts rely solely on ISP data. But information can be collected straight from consumers. California households will be empowered and will have the ability to submit speed tests, disclose how much they pay, share maximum speeds they should be receiving on their plans. All of these are pieces of information that, at such a granular level, can address major mapping difficulties at both the state and federal levels. Thank you for consideration.

Thank you. Before we continue our testimony. Consultant, let's establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. A quorum has been established. We'll continue. Is this one of your primary witnesses?

In support of the Bill?

All right, well just state your name and your organization.

No, I'd like to have my two minutes, please. You have two.

If you're not a primary witness, no. I'm sorry.

It's first come, first serve. We heard from the Committee. I'm here. I'd like to speak two minutes on the Bill, please.

It's only for the primary witnesses.

Primary? Who was the primary witness?

He establishes his primary witnesses. You weren't.

Would you like another primary witness, sir?

Through the rules of the Committee, we'd already established that.

Just one?

We did, yeah.

Oh I'm sorry to hear that. One suggestion. My name is Paul McGavin, Wire California. There's really good data available for Microsoft Corporation because every Windows 10, 8, 10, 11 computer phones home. And you have reliable information on what are people's upload and download speeds. And you can get that from them tomorrow with a phone call.

They've already published one independent study that will solve many of your mapping problems. I suggest you look into it. Thank you.

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

Chao Jun Liu. Electronic Frontier Foundation, in support. Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of The Children's Partnership, in support.

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

Erica Hoffman, on behalf of the California School Boards Association, in support.

Are there any additional witnesses in support of this measure? Seeing none. Now let's move to opposition. Witnesses in opposition or primary witnesses in opposition? We have one. All right. You may begin your testimony.

Good morning. Amanda Guelderama with Cal Broadband. We'd like to thank the author, his staff and Committee staff for working with us on this Bill. We've been opposed unless amended, and while we are completing our review of the amendments taken today, we are encouraged by our brief reading of them and look forward to circling back with the author. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition? Hearing and seeing none here in 1200. Moderator let's go to our phone lines for witnesses in support and in opposition of AB 286. Moderator?

Thank you. Thank you. If you would like to speak in support or opposition, press one, then zero on your telephone keypad.

We do have a line queuing up. One moment, please. While we provide their line number, we will first open up line 36. One moment. Line 36, your line is open. Go ahead.

Hello. I'm opposing 965, and I'm opposing AB 1065. My name is Sarah Amenoff.

Wrong bill. Next call moderator. Is there additional callers?

Line 11, your line is open. Go ahead.

My name is Cecilia Doucet, the Director of Massachusetts for Safe Technology calling in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have no further lines in queue. Okay. Hearing from no other callers wishing to testify and support opposition, I'm going to bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions by the Committee, Senator Becker?

Thank you. I had a question, or I guess maybe a concern about the self reported data. So obviously that gets us more data points, but we'll sort of have the impriment tour of the CPUC of the state that this is you. How do you sort of reconcile that?

Well, there are a lot of sources of opportunities for submitting data. There are in other states, this data is being considered for mapping. I guess from my perspective, more is better than less. For years, we have been struggling with incumbent provider presented data where a provider would say a census block was served when maybe there's only one person served there. So at the end of the day, how could this be any worse? Quite frankly, I don't see that at all.

I see it as additional data points that could be really helpful. And I think over time, we're starting to see more and more opportunities to have more and more data come forward. More data is important that we get the best possible picture of what's going on in areas. It helps us draw down federal resources to help build out. And at the end of the day, what we're trying to do is close the digital divide.

Yeah. Well, I certainly support your goals, and I'll support the Bill today. I do want to maybe look into some of those other examples of other states and such and continue to discuss with you going forward. Thanks.

Appreciate that.

Thank you, Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to just say that I really like this Bill. It's another way to get around to information. What we know is that our broadband regulatory process is insufficient. They report based on census tract, not based on who actually has service within that census tract. I think this is really important as a first itty bitty step.

The second itty bitty step is that we need to take that self reported information and verify it so that then we can use it in a regulatory process, because we have given the broadband companies a franchise that allows them to do essentially whatever they want to do within their service area, with the exception of discriminate against disadvantaged communities. They're not supposed to discriminate.

And what the data suggests, if you compare it to the data that the FCC gets from the telco companies, is that there is significant discrimination going on. It's where you can make the most money, is where you put your service. So there are whole communities that don't have service at all. So I'm going to support your Bill. I think it's a really important, itty bitty step.

We tried to tackle it all in one big chunk and then spent the entire year battling the telco companies and broadband companies. But I want to thank you for doing it this way. And maybe we'll get to a point at one point where we can really see where we need to deploy our resources using the resources we put out there in the federal resources and the state resources. So thank you for this, and I'll make a motion when the time is appropriate.

Time is appropriate now. So it's moved by Senator Caballero, any additional questions or concerns? Senate Member, I commend you for this measure and wanting to get more data. As we all agree, more data is good, more information is good. But I'm a little leery as to how will the consumer know to respond to this. How will the outreach work for them to know that they need to respond? Because I know if it's a Bill insert, most throw that away. They don't even know what's in there.

I know I work for a utility company. I know many times when we've asked consumers to respond to something, they throw it away. We can look at CCAS now. You can ask, 90% of the folks who are part of a CCA have no idea they are part of a CCA. So how do we educate the public to know, to respond, to provide this needed data?

Well, that's always the challenge with a lot of the work we do here. I certainly know in our district we have coalitions that are working on trying to get broadband access to people, and they, at a granular level, make a lot of outreach to communities. And sometimes, maybe it is an insert, maybe it's conversations, but I think, as Senator Capillaro said, these are all steps in the right direction.

This is the third Bill on mapping that I have run, trying to get closer and closer and closer. And you're right. How will we get people to do that? I think there will need to be some sort of a campaign. But I think a lot of that's going to happen locally with those people who are the least served and the most impacted by the policies of the past.

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

Thank you very much for the questions. And I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion by Senator Caballero. We have a do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations Consultant, please call the role.

Bradford, Aye. Bradford. Aye. Dahle. Dahle. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Becker. Aye. Caballero. Caballero. Aye. Dodd. Aye. Dodd. Aye. Durazo. Eggman. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. Aye Grove. Grove. Aye. Mcguire. Min. Aye. Min. Aye. Newman. Rubio. Rubio. Aye. Cierto. Cierto. Aye. Skinner. Stern. Wilk. Wilk. Aye. Wilk. Aye. 12 - 0.

That has 12 votes. We'll leave the roll open for Member sad on a later date. Congratulations. Your Bill is out. Consultant, do I need to go back to file item 1, AB 3 I failed to mention do pass is amended to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. So just want to be on record stating that. Let's call roll on that again. So again on AB 3, it's do pass, as amended to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. zero, we did not vote on that.

That's right. I'm sorry, we haven't. Okay, I moved it, but it wasn't.

Yeah, you'll move it again. Bradford, aye. Bradford Aye. Dahle. Dahle. Ashby. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Becker. I. Cabiero. Dodd. Dodd. I. Durazo. Eggman. Gonzalez. Grove. Grove. I. Mcguire. Men. Newman. Rubio. Rubio. I. Siarto. Siarto. I. Skinner. Stern. Wilk. Aye. Wilk. Aye has nine.

The measure has 9 votes. We'll leave the measure open for Members to add on. Now we're moving to file item 3, AB 414, by Assembly Member Reyes. You may begin when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators, I present AB 414, which would make it the principle of the state that all Californians have access to broadband that is sufficient, equitable, accessible, affordable, reliable and ubiquitous. It will make it the policy that the State of the state that broadband Internet subscribers benefit from equal access within the service area of a broadband provider. COVID-19 highlighted how wide the digital divide is in California and how crucial broadband infrastructure has become to modern life.

We saw working class families in both urban and rural counties struggle when their children had to learn over Zoom because of a lack of affordable and reliable Internet service. It is clear that Internet service is a defining trait of the digital age and that digital access is a 21st century necessity. Here to testify in support of this Bill today are Marvin Pinata with the California Emerging Technology Fund and Erica Hoffman with the California School Boards Association.

You have two minutes. Your primary witness. Go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members Marvin Pineda, on behalf of the California Emerging Technology Fund, the California Emerging Technology Fund is honored to sponsor AB 4114. So the State of California will be the first state in the nation to establish this groundbreaking policy. We thank Senate Member Reyes for all her effort in this area. This Bill is very important, as we saw that Internet is an essential service that everyone needs for daily living and public safety.

Nothing made this clearer than COVID-19 which eliminated the gap in access. We saw the disturbing images of young children having to do their homework outside of a fast food restaurant in order to access the Internet. In the health sector, Internet access is being recognized as a social determinant of health. During COVID-19 during the pandemic, Californians who lack internet had difficulty accessing their healthcare providers virtually. This was not only dangerous, but also unjust.

We see that in farm worker communities, we see that in urban communities, and a lot of times it's people of color that are negatively impacted. Digital equity is necessary for civic and cultural participation in employment, lifelong learning, as well as access to essential services. For 15 years, CETF has been at the forefront of closing the digital Dubai by being deeply entrenched as partner with community organizations throughout the State of California to get digitally disadvantaged Low income households connected to the Internet.

With your leadership in this historic and groundbreaking Bill, the same is true. As California goes, so goes the nation. We ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is this a primary witness in support?

Yes, sir.

Right ahead.

Erica Hoffman, on behalf of the California School Boards Association here in support of AB 4114. Internet access is something that many of us took for granted. Until the pandemic, living through COVID-19 laid bare the unaddressed digital inequities in education, exposing California's worsening economic divide and underscoring the impact of persistent poverty on students. The digital divide has become a digital chasm for a lot of students. Limited or no, access to affordable, high speed Internet is leaving behind far too many Californians in their communities.

AB 4114 would establish a set of critical principles that will lead to all Californians being connected to stable, high quality Internet services, which will enable them to afford to participate in education programs, health care, employment access, government services, and even life saving measures. For these reasons, CSBA strongly supports AB 4114 urges your aye vote. Thank you very much.

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

Nicole Wardlman. On behalf of the Children's Partnership and support. Thank you. Paul McGavin, on behalf of Wire California in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Hearing seeing none. Witnesses in opposition. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Any opposition in General? Hearing seeing none. Moderator let's go to our phone lines and see if there's witnesses wishing to testify either in support or opposition of AB 414.

Thank you. To speak in support or opposition, press one, then zero at this time. Mr. Chairman, we do have people queuing up. One moment while we provide line numbers to them. We'll first go to line 31. Go ahead.

Yeah. Good morning. Kim Lewis, representing the Corporation for Education Network initiatives in California, in support. Thank you. We'll go next to line 11. Cecilia Ducette, Director of Massachusetts for Safe Technology, in support.

Line 25. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members. Dennis Cuevas Romero with the California Health Plus advocates advocacy affiliate for the California Primary Care Association in support of the Bill. Next we'll go to line 24. Line 24, your line is open. Go ahead.

Hi, Jody Nelson from Californian for Safe Technology. I am agreement with this Bill.

And we'll go next to line 4. Line 4, your line is open. Go ahead. Yeah. Kevin Moddes for speed requirements for real high speed broadband rather than insufficient wireless. Next witness. We have one more line in queue. That will come from line 38. Line 38. Go ahead. Hi, I'm Sarah Amenoff. I'm in agreement with this Bill.

We have no further lines in queue. Mr. Chair. Thank you. Having exhausted all our callers, now we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or concerns as it relates to AB 4114? Sorry, Senator Rubio.

Just real quickly, I wanted just to thank the author. And I know that sometimes it's just important to get it on paper. It's just a statement of our values. And so I want to be a co author to this Bill and I'll move the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. So we have a motion by Senator Rubio. Any further discussions? Hearing seeing none. Assembly Member Reyes, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Consultant please call a roll on file item three, AB 414.

The motion is due, passed to and rereferred to Committee on Appropriations. Bradford Bradford. Aye. Dahle, Ashby, Ashby Aye. Becker, Caballero Dodd Dodd Aye. Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez Grove Grove Aye. Mcguire, Min. Newman, Rubio Rubio Aye. Seyarto, Skinner, Stern, Wilk. Aye. Wilk. Aye 6.

The measure has 6 votes. We'll leave the roll open for Members to add on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Next up is file item four, AB 965, by Assembly Member Carillo. When you're ready, you may begin.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 965. But before I begin, I would like to thank the local government groups, California State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities, Rural Counties, and the California Municipal Utilities Association for working with my staff and I and working out the amendments that removes their opposition. AB 965 will seek to help broadband permits get processed more efficiently so our constituents can more quickly benefit from high speed internet.

The shot clocks and dimaprived language in the Bill for batch permit processing only applies to wireless broadband projects. As you know, wireless broadband permits are already subject to state and federal shell clocks, which is 60 to 90 days when a broadband project is being deployed in a community. Oftentimes there are numerous locations where identical telecommunication infrastructure has been installed to provide high speed Internet. They are very simple and very similar.

This Bill ensures that groups of nearly identical broadband permits can be processed together in a batch. The Bill authorizes local agencies to set reasonable limits on the number of projects batch into a single permit in two ways. Number one, cities without population less than 50,000 people in counties with a population of 150,000 people may batch no less than 25 sites. Cities and counties with populations greater than 50,150 thousand people may batch no less than 50 sites.

Locals will have the flexibility to approve or reject the permits or extend the amount of time needed for review. They can also make a health and safety finding if they have concerns with one or more permits. It also makes it clear that broadband applicants can work with the local jurisdictions to assist with resource issues to help process the permits. Permit fees will be received by the local governments, but staff can more easily process routine high bowling broadband permits as a group instead of individually.

We're also quickly approaching a deadline of December 2024 to spend $6 billion of federal broadband dollars, or risk of losing it. These findings will get us connected in months instead of years. I know firsthand how these permits work. I used to process this as a planner for about 20 years in the cities of Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, and the City of Palmdale.

If this Bill was in place at a time when I was a planner, it would have been decreased my workload in having to approve every single permit one by one, and would have allowed me to use my time in other areas of need, such as in housing entitlements, as you know, for the housing crisis we have.

And joining me to testify in support and answer questions is Rochelle Swanson, external affairs managers of Crown Castle, and Sarah Whitford, Director of advocacy and policy of Los Angeles County Business Federation.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Bradford and Committee Members. I'm Rochelle Swanson, external affairs manager for Crown Castle, the nation's largest shared infrastructure telecommunications company. And we do installing, operating, maintaining broadband for a variety of customers, including K through 12, school district, local governments, universities, ISPs, wireless cell phone providers, which is all critical to connectivity and public safety, and first responders. This Bill is based on experience, knowledge and a desire to get communities connected.

Crowncastle works with local jurisdictions every day in this state and across the country to play broadband AB 965 reflects the best practices of permit batching. The Bill does not require local agencies to approve the permit. However, it does require decision within the existing shot clocks. This will reduce delays and create a more consistent permitting process throughout the state instead of the current patchwork that exists.

AB 965 is needed because even though some local governments are using permit batching for broadband projects, many are not. With constrained staffing resources, we must find efficiencies that motivate applicants to organize and unbundle their projects and give staff tools so they can more easily review and process needed permits. In addition to the state and federal investments in broadband infrastructure, the private sector has also been investing billions in the state and continues to each year.

In the coming months, there will be a large increase in broadband projects, and the Bill is critical to make sure the decisions are made in a timely manner. We genuinely appreciate all the work done by the author and his staff to negotiate and find compromise between industry and local government, including cities, counties and the municipalities who have all removed their opposition.

In short, this Bill will ensure best practices are being used consistently by both the industry and the cities and counties in which we do business throughout the state to connect communities in a timely manner. Crown Castle is an enthusiastic partner in this effort and we thank you for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses?

Good morning chair and Members. My name is Sarah Wiltfong, Director of policy and advocacy for the Los Angeles County Business Federation and on behalf of our 240 business organizations who represent 420,000 employers with 5 million employees throughout Southern California, we ask you to support AB 965. This Bill will strengthen California's economy because it will create a more consistent broadband permitting processes, allowing projects to be built quicker. 75% of California voters support this.

Voters, businesses and employees all want streamlined permit processes for broadband projects because we all benefit from telehealth to education, public safety to job creation, housing affordability through remote work and the associated emission reductions. All of this is made possible through high speed Internet access. In the coming years, we are going to see a huge influx of broadband projects as a result of public private partnerships. We are facing a December 2024 deadline to spend billions of federal broadband dollars or risk losing it.

AB 965 creates a framework where broadband installers can submit a batch of nearly identical broadband permits to the local jurisdiction at the same time in order for those permits to be reviewed and acted on in a reasonable amount of time. This Bill strikes the right balance with local jurisdictions and retains local control. And I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Marvin Pinera on behalf of the California Emerging Technology Fund and support. Thank you. Next ordinance Amanda Guelderama with Cal Broadband and support. Good morning.

Yolanda Benson, on behalf of US Telecom, the Broadband Association, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, the Los Angeles Latino Chamber of Commerce, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and the Hispanic Chambers of Commerce of San Francisco and several others that I won't name.

Thank you. Next witness. Good morning. Roxanne Gould Representing the Wireless Infrastructure Association. Just the one in support. Thank you. Good morning. Peter Lare Munoz for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Proud to support.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair and Members Jason Ikerd on behalf of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, not in support, but wanted to express our quick appreciation to the author for the June 7 Amendments which removed our opposition to the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair and Members Nate Solo, on behalf of the following organizations in Support Bay Area Council, Cal Chamber, California Apartment Association, California Building Industry Association, California Business Properties Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Wireless Association, Consolidated Communications, CTIA Frontier Communications, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, San Mateo County Economic Development Association, thank you for your support.

Thank you. Nick Trudeness. Morning Chair and Members Damon Conklin, on behalf of the League California cities as well as RCRC and CSAC want to thank the author and the sponsors for their hard work and negotiations for the amendments that address our concerns. Thank you again.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Hearing seeing none now, let's move to witnesses in opposition.

Thank you Chair Bradford and Committee Members. My name is Paul McGavin, founder of Wire California. In our California government of, by and for the People, we the people are offering to take over sponsorship of AB Nine, 65 and fix it with five strong amendments that you can read@wireCalifornia.org. We can finally stop over 30 years of lies and establish universal access to all fiber optics for the last mile broadband providers.

Doing just that means California will not waste billions of public money to unnecessarily install 4000 miles of redundant fiber just because the CPC is unwilling to face the detailed evidence in the public record for AB 965 that was given to the author Juan Career and to every Member of this Committee. In AB 965, this Committee could amend the Bill to grant last mile wired broadband providers universal access to the entire fiber optic backbone, including these 4000 miles, via regulated pricing.

So you have the authority to do so. The MozilLA decision for 2019 lets you do it. Why are California's telecommunications subject matter expert? We understand the digital divide, quote Unquote is a term coined in 1994 to perpetrate a long running con on Californians and its legislators by the telecom incumbents and their agents, the very entities that extract obscene profits, repeatedly steal public money, and falsely claim that fiber optic cables financed with ratepayer funds or installed in the public rights away are private assets.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Look no further than the 2022 book by Bruce Kushnick, the Book of Violations and Egregious Acts $1.0 trillion broadband scandal and the contracts provided that prove that the precursors to AT and T and Verizon committed to replace copper phone lines with fiber optics to 80% of homes by the year 2000. They collected over $16 billion to do so and never did it. Never delivered the fiber bait and switch repeatedly over 30 years.

The evidence you have proves a massive accounting and tax evasion scandal by telecom comments Substantial fiber optics to the premises FTTP didn't happen in 2000, didn't happen in 2010, not in 2020, and will not again in 2030 until you, the Members of this Committee, finally stopped playing starring roles in visual divide theater.

Thank you. Two minutes very much. Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition, state your name and your position. Just your name and your position at this time. He had his two minutes.

Second opposition primary speaker.

Two minutes, then.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members, good morning. Mark Graham on behalf of Keep Cell antennas away. Please ask me questions when I'm done. This Bill is inconsistent with the Telecommunications act of 1996. The conference report from that said, it is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests or to subject the request to any but the generally applicable timeframes for zoning decision.

This is a direct conflict they've had about five years to get all the permits they wanted in any city in California. You cannot blame the cities. Cities and counties can already do batch processing. Batch processing should only be required in areas where it is needed. It is not needed in at least 90% of the state. If you give telecom more power, but no requirement to provide broadband internet access to the underserved, they will not provide it.

They will use this Bill to overwhelm local planning departments in order to circumvent local zoning codes. Let me give you a principle, Members. If something is planned well, it will work out well if you let it. But if you change course in the middle, you find out that you wish you had stuck with your original plan. What is California's original plan for broadband Internet access? It is a mix of wired and wireless Internet access with an emphasis on Wired.

The NTIA of the Federal Government is administering the federal grants on the bead funds to the states, and the NTIA says Wired broadband is the way to go. Two years ago, this California passed SB 156 on broadband Internet access service. It was passed unanimously in both houses in July of 2021. It created the Department of Technology and the Office of Broadband and Digital Literacy and allocated $2 billion for this, the CPUC and the Department of Technology and so on.

They are all working on this. So why would you undermine their efforts? And why would you sabotage their work? The CPUC Decision 220-4055 said application criteria consistent with federal rules the ACR proposed that approved projects must deliver upon project completion. Service that reliably meets or exceeds symmetrical upload and download speeds of 100 cannot meet this with wireless. Please stay the course. Don't get distracted, and please don't get fooled again.

Thank you. Any other witnesses here in opposition to state your name and your organization.

Bill Allio, Environmental Working Group opposed.

Thank you. Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in 1200? Seeing none now. Moderator. Let's go to our phone lines for witnesses, support and or opposition of this measure.

To speak in support or opposition, press one, then zero at this time. We'll go first to line 27. Go ahead. One moment, please. Line 27 has taken themselves out of queue. We'll go next to. Pardon me. Line 27 has re queued. Your line is open. Go ahead.

This is Dr. Deborah Davis with Environmental Health Trust. And I'm in opposition. Line 40. This is Patrick Welch with the California Municipal Utilities Association. We have removed our opposition, and I. Want to thank the author for taking amendments. Line 19. This is Roland Wall street with the California Brain Tumor Association in opposition.

Line 4. Line 4, your line is open. Okay. This is Kevin modest, medical social worker. I oppose 965 because it will injure people unnecessarily. I oppose.

CPUC wants fiber to the premise over wireless as do the Fed's infrastructure funding guidelines. Thank you. Name your organization. Thank you. Next caller. Line 11.

Cecilia Dusette, Massachusetts, for safe technology in strong opposition to anything but fiber to and through the Premises. Thank you. Line 34. Catherine Dodd, alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments and opposition.

Line 32, Vicki Sievers. EMF Safety Network and hundreds of other California residents in opposition. Line 30, Jess Lerner, in opposition. This will not close the digital divide. Thank you.

Line 24. Line 24, your line is open. Can you hear me? Yes, you can. Go ahead. Okay. Jody Nelson from Californians for Safe Technology and 22 others. We oppose this Bill. Thank you. Line 38. Line 38, your line is open.

Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Go ahead, please. Sarah Aminov. I'm voting no because this sidelines California energy goals and is a fire risk. Line 41. Dick Hoag. Hoag Actuarial Consulting absolutely opposed. CPUC wants fiber to the premise over wireless as does the Fed's infrastructure funding guidelines.

Mr. Chair, we have no further lines in queue. Thank you. If there's no further witnesses wishing to testify in opposition or support we'll bring it back to the Committee. Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, let me be the first one to wish you a happy, early birthday.

Thank you, sir.

Birthdays on Friday. And two, I like it when people bring their real world experience prior to the Legislature here. As you mentioned in your comments, 20 year planner. This is a common sense reform that's long overdue. I'm going to be supporting it today and move the Bill when appropriate.

It's appropriate. Now, if you're moving it, have a motion. All right. Any other questions or concerns? Senator Durazo?

Thank you.

I also will be supporting the Bill today, just offline. Want to have conversations about issues that have been brought up by the communities in my district. So we'll get through it.

Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the author. And I know that you've worked really hard to sit down with the opposition. I know on, I think it was June 7 that you were able to sit down with the League of Cities and other organizations that were opposed to the Bill. So thank you. I always appreciate when that hard work happens before it comes to us.

But as my colleague from Los Angeles stated, there's some concerns and maybe misunderstood, but continue to talk to the community organizations because they're expressing some concerns. Again, it's about making sure they have the information and that you continue to work on it, but I'm also happy to support it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions?

Senator Eggman, thank you, and I'm sorry I missed your initial presentation and thank you for bringing your common sense approach forward. But I also just have some concerns about the movement, especially, I think, as we've seen during the pandemic and the digital divide that still continues to exist. Oftentimes wireless is just not enough for folks to do like telemedicine or things like that that are really in the outer areas. So want to really be, I think, very careful on taking away the fiber diverting from that.

So with caution and concern, I want to support this today, but look forward to for myself learning more about this before I vote for it on the floor. But thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none. We have a motion by Senator Wilk Assemblyman. Would you like to close?

Well, I'd just like to thank you for your time. I request an eye vote, but be assured that we will continue those conversations. As a city planner myself in 20 years, I do have the experience in knowing how this become repetitive, how it really slows down the process to minimize the digital divide. Rural communities are a great example of that. Working with big counties like LA County can be cumbersome because of the amount of time that these permits take one at a time.

I do believe that this will expedite that process. And the intent is not to undermine the broadband. That's a different process. They can still continue to do that. This will simply just expedite the digital divide. And like I said on my comments, I think that planners will have more free time to process more land use entitlements such as housing multifamily. And I just want to thank you and ask for your aye vote expediting closing the digital divide.

Yes, correct. Expediting closing digital divide.

Make sure we have a do pass to the Committee on Governance. Finance consultant, please call the role on AB 965.

Bradford, Aye. Bradford Aye. Dahle. Dahle. Ashby. Ashby Aye. Becker. Cabiero. Dodd. Dodd Aye. Durazo. Durazo. Aye. Eggman. Eggman. Aye. Gonzalez. Grove. Mcguire. Min. Newman. Rubio. Aye. Rubio. Aye. Seyarto. Seyarto. Aye. Skinner. Stern. Wilk, Aye. Wilk, Aye. 9.

That measure has 9 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on it as they arrive. Thank you. Now we're moving on to file item number 5. We have assembling person Connolly and have AB 998.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Senators, good morning. I want to begin by accepting the proposed Committee amendments and thank the chair as well as his staff for working on improving this Bill. I'm pleased to present AB 998, which will task the California Energy Commission with developing a report on modernizing biomass combustion facilities, many of which are over three decades old.

We all know that California continues to depend on biomass technology to manage forest materials, especially in recent years as the vegetation management has increased and the state has entered into new agreements with the Federal Government to thin millions of acres of land. While biomass technology has improved in recent years by developing methods of electrical conversion and reduce emissions, we still rely on many older combustion facilities that were developed decades ago.

According to a report by Placer County Air Pollution Control District, these facilities can emit greater levels of pollutants, are limited in their use, and experience higher costs of energy production, creating uncertainty about the viability of their long term operation. AB 998 is a critical step towards developing a strategic assessment of the state's biomass infrastructure and its ability to process Wood waste and mitigate wildfire risk.

By requiring the CEC to issue a report assessing these combustion facilities, identifying opportunities for modernization, as well as creating contingency plans to take care of rural communities. In the event these facilities cease operation, AB 998 will establish a first of its kind study of our biomass and Wood processing infrastructure. Uniquely, this Bill is supported by both the biomass industry and environmental groups.

AB 998 has no opposition, and with me to testify in support is John Kennedy from Rural County representatives and Lillian Mervis from Moraine Clean Energy. Mr. Kennedy, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. John Kennedy with RCRC. We represent 40 rural counties in the state. Many of our counties are heavily forested in high fire risk areas and have borne the brunt of the state's catastrophic wildfires. We're pleased to be here today to support AB 998.

Wildfires burned over 4 million acres in 2022 and a half million acres in 2021, causing countless lives lost, structures damaged or destroyed, and eroded many of the state's GHG reductions that had taken place. So biomass facilities, as the author mentioned, play a vital role in managing forest waste and helping the state to achieve its forest health and wildfire risk reduction targets.

They provide a pathway for the removal of those materials from the forest, materials that would otherwise be left in place to be burned through open burning or to fuel new fires. If a fire breaks out before the open burning can occur, they're also vital. From the local perspective, this is especially important because it's very difficult to transport biomass over long distances. So you need to have a lot of facilities and a lot of smaller and larger facilities so you can get the material out.

So why we like AB 998 because it requires the state to look at the existing biomass facilities that are out there, evaluate the role they play in achieving the state's objectives, and then also look at the role of each facility, because it's not just in the aggregate what this fleet of facilities does, it's each individual facility. Also especially important looking at those shuttered facilities that have ceased operation over the last few decades.

Thank you. Next Witness.

They play a very vital role from a local economic development perspective and from a fuels reduction perspective, and potentially even energy reliability. And we appreciate the author for also weaving in Local Engagement, both from the communities and the local governments in which those facilities are located. So AB 998 really recognized the magnitude and diversity of benefits that accrue to the state and to local governments from biomass facilities. And for that reason, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Bradford and Members of the Committee. My name is Lillian Mervis. I'm a senior legislative manager with MCE. MCE is California's first community choice aggregator, and we provide clean electricity and cutting edge energy programs to over 1.5 million residents and businesses in 37 Member communities in Napa, Marin, Solano, and Contra Costa counties. Several MCE Member communities are interested in biomass generation, in particular as a way to make productive use of byproducts of sustainable forest management and wildfire mitigation efforts.

MCE is already talking to several of our Members about how to be a supportive partner in their efforts, and we know that for many, mitigating wildfire risk is a key concern and motivating factor. AB 998 will help reduce the emissions impacts from biomass generation, which will in turn help MCE and other load serving entities fill the gaps between solar and wind with reliable, renewable energy, energy that is as close to emissions free as possible.

Additionally, biomass electricity is renewable baseload power, which means it can be generated 24/7 this can help support grid reliability and reduce California's dependence on fossil fuel gas plants. Lastly, MCE supports AB 998 because it aligns with our principles on responsible biomass electricity development. These principles prioritize procuring biomass electricity from facilities with the lowest emissions, facilities that take proactive steps to minimize local air quality impacts, and those that use feedstock from sustainable forest management and wildfire mitigation efforts.

The guidelines also preclude MCE from procuring biomass electricity from facilities located in Calendaro screen disadvantaged communities. AB 998 will help both MCE and the state maximize the benefits of biomass electricity while minimizing the risks. For these reasons, MCE supports AB 998, and we respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Chris McKayley, on behalf of Pioneer Community Energy, ACCA, primarily out of El Dorado and Placer counties. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness. Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Senators Adam Quinones, on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, also in support. Thank you.

Izzy Swindler with Shaw Yoder, Antoine Schmelzer Lang, on behalf of the San Joaquin and Napa Board of Supervisors, in Support. Thank you.

Thank you, chair Members. My name is Noah Whitley, speaking on behalf of the Compost Coalition. We are in support.

Thank you. Now let's move to our witnesses in opposition. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition hearing? Seeing none. Are there witnesses in General in opposition to this measure? Seeing none. Let's go to our phone lines moderator for witnesses either in support or opposition of AB 998.

Thank you. To speak in support or opposition, press one, then zero on your telephone keypad at this time.

Mr. Chair. We have no one queuing up at this time.

Great. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions by Committee? Vice Chair Dahle

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much for bringing this Bill forward. Over the years, biomass has been something I've worked on for my entire career as elected, even at the local level. When I was a Board of Supervisors, we did the Bioram, which was a Bill long before you were here.

We worked, Senator Dodd did SB 901, which basically forced the utilities to buy biomass. The challenge we face with biomass is not the same in all the state. If you're in the San Joaquin, where you are in an impaired air district, you have a harder time even keeping. We lost some of the original plants that were there because of their old technology.

If you're in a non attainment area, such as most of my district, where we have primarily good air, we can still continue to run those plants. So I'm hopeful that this Bill will actually take a look. The CEC will actually take a look at the air basins and have the ability to keep these plants that are over 30 years old running. The challenge is the cost. The cost to the ratepayers is where we typically have the conflict.

It's not that we don't want to use these facilities, but it's a higher rate for renewables when you compare it to solar or wind, except I think that the offshore wind will be extremely expensive and we may be able to compete against offshore. So I'll move the Bill. Be happy to move the Bill. Look forward to seeing how this Bill works out.

And the one thing I do want to comment, though, at the end is that versus open burn, no matter where you're at, if you're in the San Joaquin or if you're in my district where we have heavily forested areas, any plant that's available today will be less emissions than open burn. And so I think that's the goal is to look at the open burn versus putting it in a facility and getting renewables and doing good work in the forest.

So we know that the public benefit for biomass not only helps thin the forest and the brush and areas, which helps the wildlife, which helps water quality, which helps all those things. So we shouldn't just look at the cost of energy because the public benefit is even broader than that to the environment. So thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I appreciate you coming alongside those of us who've been here a long time working on this issue.

All right, Senator Eggman,

thank you very much. And thank you, some of them, for bringing this forward. Like my good friend of the Senator from the north state, I also worked in this space a little bit, had been long interested in people who represent ag areas and farm areas. Mountain areas generally are the ones who do bills like this and have an interest. So I wondered, when I saw you get up like you're from Marin County, like, what are you doing here doing this?

But then I see your CCA gets up, and so it makes sense to me. And so I just want to thank you for know, when I first heard it again, you were in, so I'm suspicious, but you're trying to shut them all. It's, it's just, I think, untendable to think about that. And to echo my colleagues point, those of us who live in an impacted area, open burns and the fog just combine to make air we can see and our kids are breathing.

So as we take into evaluation that cost benefit analysis of impacted areas, as Senator said, it's always going to be better to use that waste in a good, productive way than to just to make open burns and hurt people. So thank you for doing this. I'll still keep my eye out if you're trying to shut them down. But I want to support this piece of legislation going forward, and I thank you.

Thank you. Any additional, Senator Grove?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the Bill. I echo both my colleagues'comments from Stockton and also up in the, you know, I have renewable in my district and I also have, obviously, I'm the energy capital of the state with all of the above when you think about it.

But the biomass, the three facilities that we do have, it is very difficult to make the error situation there, but we have eliminated a tremendous amount of open burns, which is, or all of it, I guess, and it's made a huge impact on our communities. But it is getting very expensive to continue to operate these biomass facilities, especially when I hear from individuals like Crimson Resources that employ a significant number of people that are struggling with some of this.

So I appreciate the Bill and thank you for bringing it forward.

Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to thank you for including in this report the impacts on vulnerable communities and disadvantaged communities, health impacts and other impacts. We're usually trying to beat that into whoever makes a proposal like this, and you've done it on your own. So I just want to acknowledge that and thank you.

Thank you, Senator Dodd.

Yeah. To be brief, I just want to associate my comments with Senator DeRazzo and certainly Senator Eggman and Senator Dahle. This is something we have spent billions in this state on reducing fuels, and we're running out of places to put these fuels, and we're talking about open burns in many of the agricultural areas. And even at some point in time, maybe that's a cost, that's subsidizing power rates is a cost of clearing fuels in these high fire prone areas.

So I really appreciate this because most of the time biomass is just completely excluded from the conversation because of the cost, what's a necessary item. And I think your Bill really touches a way for us to perhaps advance it going forward. And thanks to MCE for stepping up on this issue.

Thank you. Any additional comments or questions by Committee Members? Hearing and seeing none. I too just want to thank the author for what is a common sense measure, and I won't say whose time has come.

It's time had already been here, and we ignored it 20 years ago when we start picking winners or losers and selling technology over efficiency. If we had counted not only biowaste and biomass and hydro, we would be well along our way to over 50%, closer to 100% renewable. But we've spent the last 15 to 20 years selling technology over efficiency and what is already there.

We can only go to Europe and see where biowaste and biomass is being used on a regular basis and they have some of the cleanest environments around. So we need to again open up our eyes and realize that this is a technology that's here. It's going to also, as stated, help manage our forest. I mean, the reason why we have forest fires that are burning 3 and 4 weeks at a time is not because of climate change. It's the fact that we don't manage it anymore.

And if we managed it, we would have the fuel source to run these plants. I've been up to weed and other facilities in Northern California where these plants are ready to go and they're waiting for feedstock. So I commend the author for this and that their support to measure we're seeking a motion for this Bill. zero, it's been moved by Senator Dahle. We have a do pass as amended, to the Committee on our Appropriations. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote and thank you for all your comments. Consultant Please call the roll on AB 998.

Bradford Bradford aye. Dahle Dahle Ashby aye. Becker Caballero Dodd Dodd aye Durazo Durazo aye. Eggman Eggman aye Gonzalez Grove Mcguire Min. Newman Rubio Rubio aye Seyarto Seyarto aye Skinner Stern Wilk Aye. Wilk aye 9 to 0.

That measure has nine votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Next up is. Congratulations. Next is AB 1065 by Assemblymember Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present the Bill. We as legislators and the State of California, we really have the shared goal of connecting as many households as possible with broadband internet. To achieve this goal, the state has secured, as we know, billions of dollars from the Federal Government to provide grants for broadband deployment.

But unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of homes remain unserved or underserved by broadband service, in part because the CPUC continues to fail at meeting both the state and federal timeline requirements that may even risk those funds. AB 1065 will allow, permit, if the CPUC so chose to meet these deadlines, by allowing wireless broadband service providers to apply for that grant funding.

Under the right conditions, fixed wireless can provide high-speed broadband connections fast, inexpensively, efficiently, and close so many of the difficult, unserved areas that fiber simply cannot reach. To be clear, wireless would be required to meet the same service standards as fiber optic technology. And this Bill has enjoyed bipartisan support, has received no no votes, and here to testify in support of AB 1065 and to provide any answers to some of the technical questions you might have is Linda Thomas with CalNet, internet, and phone.

Ms. Thomas, you have two minutes, but don't feel obligated to use them all.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Linda Thomas, and I'm the Vice President of Community Outreach and Government Affairs for Cal Net. And I'm here today in strong support of AB 1065. AB 1065 permits the CPUC to consider project applications for the federal funding account that employ fixed wireless technology.

This technology is a vital tool for providers, especially in rural areas of California, such as the Central Valley on the west side, desert areas, and mountain areas where over 2 million people live, and where last-mile broadband infrastructure is mainly nonexistent. Please consider the following facts. First, as Toronto Wireless has amply shown in their many demonstrations, current off-the-shelf wireless technology can meet and exceed the speed standards mandated by the FFA guidelines of 100 symmetrical.

Second, the $2 billion FFA cannot conceivably meet the goal of connecting as many unserved and underserved households as possible with fiber. Fiber optic technology is exorbitantly expensive, with highly variable costs depending on local terrain conditions. According to the NTIA, the cost to connect all unserved households in California with fiber could exceed $8.5 billion. In general, installation, and this is my third point, installation of fixed wireless technology takes an average of one-quarter of the time that fiber installation takes.

Even though the CPUC has been given an extension to meet the federal guideline, the time needed to deploy fiber to out-of-the-way rural areas far exceeds this new 2026 December deadline. In conclusion, it's important to note that AB 1065 will hold fixed wireless to the same service standards as fiber for approvable grant projects, as Assemblymember Patterson noted.

The intent of this Bill is to instill a rational stance for FFA grant project evaluations, allowing the most suitable solution to be utilized for any given area in our state. Without this option, those in rural areas of our state that have gone without internet service will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. We urge an Aye vote on AB 1065. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support of this measure here in room 1200? Please come to the microphones. State your name and your organization.

Thank you, Chair Bradford. Carl Guardino, Toronto Wireless, in support of AB 1065.

Thank you. Now let's move to witnesses in opposition. Are there witnesses in opposition? Are these the primary witnesses? We have two. You have two minutes each.

Hi. Bill Allayaud for Environmental Working Group. We oppose the Bill. Basically, wireless technology, 5G is inferior to fiber optic. It's slower.

And I want to point out how you don't have a choice if 5G is put in your neighborhood with a small cell wireless. In my backyard, there's a series of telephone poles that run down. There's a fiber optic cable there. It didn't have to be laid underground. It's connected to my house at about one gig, 1000 megabytes a second, which is extremely fast. Small cell wireless runs 40 to 50 megabytes.

And frankly, I don't want to be bombarded with a new form of wireless, a sub-millimeter 5G, without my permission or liking. I have fiber optic. I don't want that 5G which will come into my house whether I subscribe to it or not. And you have to place it every 400 to 5000, 1000ft down a row of street lights or telephone poles to make 5G work adequately. So we have technology. The staff analysis correctly points out this wireless is inferior technology to wired broadband.

And so the promise of that has not been met. The goal has been shifted forward and forward. If you pass this Bill and it occurs, you'll again defer the goal of getting hardwired cable to everyone, which is the best, and it may not be possible everywhere in the state, but by putting this Bill into law, you're going to encourage 5G wireless when it doesn't have to be. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you. Good morning. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of The Utility Reform Network, in opposition. Also on behalf of the Communication Workers of America, District Nine, we put in a letter late last week, so we're not reflected on the analysis. First of all, I do understand the goal of the author, and I do commend the author for the commitment and a number of legislators who've been focused on trying to address access in rural areas and hard-to-reach areas.

But we have to keep in mind that what we're really looking at right now is this federal funding. One, per the feds, it's supposed to be prioritized for fiber optic number one. Number two, it's also supposed to be for projects that are future-proof. And what we have seen thus far is that there have been a number of problems with fixed wireless. The service quality is not the same, even if on the front end it is promised to be.

There have been projects that have not lived up to that, and the FCC has had to pull back some of the funding in the past. So right now we need to focus on technology that is future-proof, technology that is proven, and technology that we will not have to continually maintain and ultimately realize is not going to provide the same access as we wish. Right now, that is a problem. It may be more affordable right now.

It may be quicker to get in right now, but that's a bit short-sighted. With these federal funds, we need to think long-term. There are funds available for fixed wireless, and that should be sufficient for now. But the funds that we're addressing, the federal funds that are at stake right now, we need every dollar to hit every part of the state in every way we can with fiber optic. So for those reasons, we are opposed. I will mention line of sight obstruction, and weather disruptions.

I mean, so many of these issues have come up with fixed wireless, we know that there are going to continue to be problems. So while we understand the goal, we cannot support the Bill.

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

Paul McGavin, Wire California. A wired broadband is efficient without pollution. Wireless broadband will get you speeds with massive pollution. The idea is not to pollute. Just give them the speeds. Thank you.

Thank you. Just show witnesses in opposition. Name and opposition, organization I should say.

Yes. Mark Graham, on behalf of Keep Cell Antennas Away. It is simply not true that putting in fiber optic cables is exorbitantly expensive. It can run from telephone poles. The radiation from wireless antennas is a health hazard. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further opposition here in room 1200? Hearing seeing none. Moderator let's go to our phone lines and see if there's witnesses in support and or opposition to AB 1065.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you wish to speak in support or opposition of AB 1065, you may press one and then zero at this time. Our first line number is line nine. I'm sorry. Line 24, your line is open. Please go ahead. Line 24, your line is open.

Can you hear me? I apologize. Nobody told me. My name is Jody Nelson. We have 23 people that oppose this Bill, 1065. So we strongly oppose 1065. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller.

Line four, your line is open.

Kevin Bonus, medical social worker, opposed. These are funds earmarked for fiber and cable, not wireless. Do not support more slow energy-wasting, low capacity, unsafe wireless. Wireless cannot meet real speed requirements.

Thank you, next caller.

Line 11, your line is open.

Cecilia Ducette, Massachusetts for Safe Technology. The retired President of Microsoft Canada has indicated wireless is no longer advanced technology. Please invest only in fiber to and through the premises. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller.

Line 32, your line is open.

Vicky Sievers, Education Outreach Arm of the EMF Safety Network. Legislators should be promoting wired technology, not the dinosaur wireless.

Thank you. Next caller.

Line 34, your line is open.

Alliance and Nurses for Healthy Environments, we oppose this Bill and believe that the Feds want us to do future-proof technology, not ancient.

Thank you. Next caller.

Line 20, your line is open. Line 20, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Sydney Cox, representing EMF Safety Network. Wireless is an energy hog using four to 10 times more energy. Please oppose. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dick Hoag. Hoag Actuarial Consulting opposed to 1065. The CPUC wants fiber to the premise over wireless, as does the Fed's infrastructure funding guidelines. Very much opposed to this.

Line 41, your line is open.

Thank you. Next caller,

Roland Mossery, California Brain Tumor Association. NTIA and CPUC clearly favor fiber all the way to the end user, opposed.

Line 19, your line is open.

Line 38, your line is open. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Let's go. Yes. Hi. Sarah Amadoff. I oppose this Bill. Funds are earmarked for fiber. I agree about the need for future proof technology such as fiber. Thank you. Next caller.

Line 30, your line is open. Line 30, your line is open. Please go ahead and we'll move on to line 27. Line 27, your line is open. This is Dr. Deborah Davis. We oppose on behalf of Environmental Health Trust. The science is very clear that the wireless radiation that will become with 5G is a health hazard to human health and to the environment, as particularly to pollinating insects, which have not been considered at all.

This would have a huge negative effect on agriculture as well as public health. And we oppose. There are no further lines in queue.

Thank you. We're going to bring it back to Committee. Are there any questions or concerns on the Committee? Vice Chair Dahle?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So just want to clarify. I've been working on trying to get any kind of communication available to my district. Let's just put it that way. And look, we all know that there is wireless, some hazards to it. We've heard that. I have a big constituency in my district that is opposed to wireless.

But at the end of the day, we need to have the middle mile in fiber and then those areas that we can't afford or don't have the opportunity for fixed wireless to the home. I think this Bill will give us the opportunity to be able to actually serve those communities, which I have numerous communities in my district that are unserved or not served at all.

And when we talk about the capacity of the amount of speed that you want, I would take the worst speed you have in San Francisco, in my district, would be something to actually use. There are a lot of my constituents, including schools, hospitals, libraries, and communities that don't have any access to the world, quite frankly. And so for those reasons, I'll be supporting your Bill. And I do recognize the opposition and their take on where we're at.

But at the end of the day, there's a health hazard when you're not able to be connected to the world, and many places in California are not connected at all. So I thank you for bringing the Bill forward, and I would move the Bill at the appropriate time. Mr. Chairman.

Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Assemblymember Patterson. You know, we share a district in the Central Valley, and a lot of our communities in these rural mountain communities don't have access to any type of Internet or connection to the world. And so I appreciate you bringing this Bill forward, and I look forward to supporting this Bill.

Thank you. Senator Ashby?

Yeah. I have a question. I'm not sure if this is for the author, maybe, or our staff, but I've gone back and forth in my mind on this Bill because I think, as staff rightfully points out, it's really not questioned that fiber optics would be better. The only question is, can fiber optics get everywhere? And the answer is, obviously no.

But I didn't see where this Bill specified a difference, meaning that you would use fiber where that's possible and then use the funding for rural projects when fiber is not possible.

Speak to that.

Happy to answer that. And the answer is yes, we lay fiber. So currently, right now, we're working with the Shingle Springs Band of Mewalk Indians. Wait, hold on really quick. My question is about the Bill itself. Does the Bill Distinguish, does the Bill lay out a priority that in rural areas where fiber is not possible, then you could use five G? I understand that you would install both, but I want to know if this Bill specifically prioritizes. It does not. Right.

That's the way I read it, too, is that there might be areas where you could use fiber or 5G, and then you could apply to use these funds for 5G. And I think I could support a Bill where you would only be able to use 5G when you can't use fiber. But that's not how I read this, unless I missed something. Well, the Bill does leave it up to the CPUC's discretion to accept or deny the application based on their opinion. Understood.

But previously there were categories, and the categories were rural Opportunity Fund and then the other. So I'm going to lay off of the Bill today for that reason. But if it distinguished a difference, or if that change gets made before it comes forward another time, then I probably would support it, because I have a lot of sympathy for communities that don't have access, but in a San Francisco situation, they deserve to have fiber when they can have it.

And I think there should be a clearer distinction on the Bill.

May I respond?

Right ahead.

This is permissive to the CPUC and the specified guidelines by the PUC in its scoring when it looks at the applications, favors fiber. So the basic concern you have, we believe, is addressed with the PUC, its scoring and a determination. The Bill doesn't make that the distinction you wish, because the PUC has the ability and the expertise to make that distinction.

So the decision making process is with the PUC, number one and number two, fiber, when the applications may compete, are scored favorably and give, certainly a recommendation when and where it's absolutely possible. And so the discretion here is with the PUC, the option becomes, can we finish with fiber, or do we need to use wireless? And I predict that fiber is going to be obviously what is out there, as Senator Dali suggested.

But there's going to be circumstances in which having this option and requiring it to have the technical ability of fiber could very well complete an area that would be incomplete if we did not have this option. And so I think the concerns you have are, I think, satisfied by the PUC's preference over fiber by their scoring, and wireless does not get any of that preferential scoring. So I would hope that you would have confidence in the PUC and how they make that decision.

I appreciate. I don't want to belabor the point. I haven't been here a long time, but I've heard plenty of bills come that give a little bit stronger direction to the PUC, and I would have just rather seen that included in here rather than leaving it to their discretion. I think maybe that's the distinction.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Durazo

Thank you. On the issue of funding, there is funding for wireless now. Right? Okay, so this is opening up more. Sources of funding. Is that what this is all about?

I'm sorry. The current funding for wireless is very limited, and it has to do with public housing only. It is not the federal funding account that could be used to do last mile broadband infrastructure for large areas where homes aren't located in traditional neighborhoods.

Okay, we got it. It's two funding sources. Got it. Senator Durazo, you have another question? No? Okay. All right.

Any other questions by Committee Members hearing and seeing Senator Stern?

I'm sorry, Chair. I just. I want to get some clarification on the exchange from Senator Ashby because I appreciated her question. So your assertion is the Bill is or is not technology neutral?

All this does is provide the PUC an option where fiber cannot reach or is so expensive that it's impossible. What we're really trying to do here is to have this alternative in areas that maybe the middle mile can be fiber. But, my goodness, I represent a district that goes from Fresno across the Sierra Nevada to the 395 border all the way to Sonora. And with the experiences of these areas, so many of those who are left out are left out because they can't get fiber there.

As much as you wish and as much as people say, well, we want fiber, there are physical impediments. There are geographic impediments. There are a lot of.

I appreciate those impediments. I don't have such an issue with the deployment in those cases. It's just more trying to understand what the Bill does. It says they're awarding the grants on a technology neutral basis in section L of section one of the Bill, 28 281 L says technology neutral basis. So just to understand what these tweaks to the grant systems on FFA and Casif would do, it is tech neutral. You're saying there's another policy at the PUC that sort of weighs towards that broadband first.

But then in this bill's case, just the way these grants would be administered is tech neutral.

In the grant process. The PUC will. If there is a fiber application and a wireless application, there will be a preference. They will be scored and therefore more eligible and likely to get the grant. What we're trying to do here is simply provide an alternative that will deliver where it is geographically and financially impossible to do. Let's not leave those folks out when we have a technology that can close that divide. So I respectfully ask for you to consider the PUC, what the Bill actually does.

And hopefully, all due respect, I was.

Actually prepared to vote for the Bill. Now, I'm a little confused about what the Bill does, so I'll let this play out a second. I understood this as a tech neutral grant program anyway. Maybe the sponsors or any of the supporters can help clarify in the interim. But I'll take another read while you're getting your final votes together. Thank you, Senator Dodd.

Yes. Look, we have situations in this rural state that we have here where this technology is incredibly important for people to get the service they need. Not every place can be served with fiber. It's just totally impractical. And I really applaud the author for bringing this Bill forward. I think it's a common sense solution that gives some opportunities to folks that can't get connected sooner rather than later. So I'll be supporting the Bill.

Thank you, Senator Grove.

Thank you. Just a follow up question for my colleague that's seated next to me. You are the former mayor of Fresno, eloquent speaker. You have broadcast radio shows, and I think my colleague is being difficult when you think about that, just the simple yes, that it's neutral would work for him. And so just a simple yes, that the Bill is neutral would work for him.

Yeah. Okay, then, yes, the Bill is neutral.

Thank you.

Because what it does, it hands it to the PUC and lets them make a decision. And they favor fiber whenever possible. This is an option, as Senator Dodd suggested.

Other questions or concerns, some of them, thank you for this measure as clearly been articulated. One size doesn't fit all. And even in urban areas, you have access issues that don't afford you the ability to put fiber in. And options are always a good thing. And this Bill provides that option. I think it provides it in a common sense measure. It's still a grant process, as you stated, that will be scored by the PUC.

But I think, more importantly, it gives us options, and that's what it's all about. Because, again, this is not just addressing the gaps in rural areas. Again, you have urban areas that are not connected because of access to fiber. So would you like to close?

Yeah, I appreciate the discussion. We tried to thread that needle. We think we have done that, especially by certainly recognizing that the PUC has a favorable scoring preference with respect to fiber. But that preference oftentimes cannot turn itself into reality. So I'm hopeful that you can support the Bill anticipating that there will be people in places served that would otherwise not be served because fiber could not get there.

Or the PUC decided that because there was no service, that maybe there was service that could be done in a different way. And so these are the goals we're trying to achieve. And I hope at the end of the day that your considerations will be positive in this. And we'll hand it to the PUC. They have specific methodologies, and we'll get fiber where it can be put and we can have this option where it is impossible. I ask for your aye vote. Please.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Dahle. It's a dupast to Committee on Appropriations consultant. Please call a roll on AB 1065.

Bradford. Bradford. Aye. Dahle. Dahle. Ashby. Becker. Caballero. Dodd. Dodd. Aye. Durazo. Not voting. Eggman. Eggman. Aye. Gonzalez. Grove. Grove. Aye. Mcguire. Min. Newman. Rubio. Rubio. Aye. Seyarto. Seyarto. Aye. Skinner. Stern. Wilk, Aye. Wilk, Aye.

That measure has 8 votes. We'll leave the roll open for our absent Members. Thank you. Thank you, Members. We've reached our last Bill. So I'm going to ask those Members who are not in Committee right now in Room 1200 to make their way to the Committee room so we can close out those outstanding measures. And now we're going to bring up our final author. Presenting file item 7. AB 1172. Assembly person called the roll.

Chair. And Members, I'd like to start by thanking the Committee staff for working with us on this Bill. And I will be accepting all the Committee amendments. Assembly Bill 1172 requires the California Energy Commission to evaluate the use of fusion energy as a reliable source of clean energy. In the 2025 edition of the Integrated Energy Policy Report.

In 2022, Governor Newsom outlined targets to accelerate the state's climate goals to reach carbon neutrality no later than 2045, today's clean energy sources meet only 59% of the state's energy's needs. With a growing need for electricity, the state must continue investing in existing and emergency in emerging industries seeking to offer clean energy solutions. Several milestones have been achieved highlighting the promising progress of the fusion industry.

In December 2022, scientists at California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory conducted a historic fusion experiment where the amount of energy created was more than the amount required to start the reaction between the atoms. In May, Microsoft signed an agreement to purchase electricity from a Washington based fusion company by 2028, with the goal of generating at least 50 MW. AB 1172 is California's first step in supporting an energy portfolio that includes fusion. With me in support of AB 1172 is John Winger, representing TAE Technologies.

Mr. Winger, you have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members John Winger here on behalf of TaE Technologies and first want to thank the chair and the staff for their work on the amendments. We believe the proposed amendments strike an appropriate balance of ensuring all fusion systems are evaluated and considered without favoring any particular technology. So I'm sure Senator Stern will be happy that this is technology neutral. So therefore, we're here pleased to support AB 1172 and thank Assembly Member Calderon for her leadership on bringing forth this legislation.

As a way of background, TAE Technologies is a California based company. We're one of the world's largest leading private commercial fusion companies based right here in Orange County. Founded out of UC Irvine in 1998, TaE Technologies has been proudly here for 25 years and has been granted nearly 1200 patents, driven by the work of more than 600 employees and backed by some of the world's leading energy experts.

Last year, California took the first step in advancing fusion energy by providing a calcompetes grant to TAE for the development of its 6th Generation Experimental fusion device named Copernicus, which is expected to demonstrate net energy by the mid decade and is expected to deliver 100% clean fusion power to the grid by the early 2030 s. To be clear, the legislation is not just about one company.

The intent is to benefit all forms of fusion energy, as well as the larger fusion supply chain that will create thousands of high paying jobs. The fusion industry as a whole has seen increasing support from the Federal Government, which convened the first ever White House Summit on fusion Energy last year and resulted in a historic? 1 billion budget request for the pathway to commercial fusion and created a new program to move this technology from lab to market.

Despite the recent advancements in fusion energy, the industry still faces barriers to deployment from lack of public awareness to outdated statutes that confuse fusion with unrelated nuclear fission which could create administrative hurdles arising from a lack of definitional clarity in statute. And so AB 1172 is an important first step in addressing these adoption challenges to ensuring fusion energy can be accounted for in statute and can also be accounted for in our long term planning goals.

In two minutes.

Reasons we're in support. Thanks.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support here in the room? In room 1200? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition here in Room 1200? Now let's go to the phone lines for witnesses in support or in opposition of AB 1172.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if you would like to speak in support or opposition of AB 1172, you may press one and then zero. Line four, your line is open. Please go ahead

Kevin. Modest, opposed? Haven't we learned our lessons from three mile an island, the catastrophe in Japan, Chernobyl and one of the largest nuclear accidents that actually happened in the San Fernando Valley. That's never talked about. We haven't solved those problems. Thank you. Next, move forward with what's supposed to.

There are no further lines in queue at this time.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or concerns regarding this measure? Hearing none. I really had a question for Mr. Winger regarding fusion and golf, but I'm going to leave that alone. Assembly person, would you like to close?

Yes.

Oh, it's Senator Stern. Yes. Just want to thank the author and I'd be happy to move the Bill at the appropriate time. The one thing I would just ask going forward, hopefully at some point the CEC engages and we'd start to collaborate on how implementing IPER is the chosen pathway for this Bill. Using that report as the way to start looking at this. But there's a lot of other planning R D other functions going on within CEC.

So I think you've laid a really good place setting here to now say to the know, come on board, let's start to engage together with Department of Energy and make California just send those signals to the Federal Government that if we're willing to do the uncomfortable part of nuclear, which was extending Diablo where there's all kinds of baggage and history.

If we're willing to do that hard work, why would we deny ourselves the opportunity to do the really exciting work where the environmental benefits are so much clearer, where the risks are so much less, and where the potential is infinite? So I appreciate you being brave and trying to thread that needle and kind of get this issue into a place where it's serious. And it's amazing to even be talking about this in a serious way and not just be saying, back to the future here.

So I'll move the Bill at the appropriate time. Any other questions or concerns regarding this measure? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yes. Again, I just want to thank the Committee staff for their work on this. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I believe we have a motion by Senator Stern. Am I correct? Yes. And we have a do pass, as amended, to the Committee and appropriations. And let me be clear on the amendment to delete definition of a neutronic fusion and incorporate process into the definition of fusion with additional clarifying amendments. Is that correct?

Yes.

Is that correct? Okay.

Correct.

Consultant, please call the roll on AB 1172.

Bradford. Aye. Bradford Aye. Dahle. Dahle. Ashby. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Caballero. Dodd. Dodd. Aye Durazo. Durazo. Aye. Eggman. Eggman. Aye. Gonzalez. Grove. Grove. Aye. Mcguire Min. Newman. Rubio. Rubio. Aye Seyarto. Seyarto. Aye. Skinner. Stern. Stern. Aye. Wilk. Wilk. Aye. 11 - 0. Aye'm sorry, 11 - 0.

All right, the measure has 11 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Congratulations.

Thank you, Senator.

All right, now we're going to ask that all Members report to room 1200 so we can start lifting a call. Why don't we lift a call for those Members who are here that have missed votes? And starting with file item 1.

AB 3, do pass is amended to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. Current vote is 9 - 0. Both chair and Vice Chair voting. Aye, Caballero. Durazo. Durazo Aye. Eggman. Eggman. Aye. Gonzalez. Mcguire Min. Newman. Skinner. Stern. Stern.

I'll hold that. We'll hold the roll open on that. Moving on. File item two, AB 286 by Wood. And that is the motion is do pass as amended.

And we referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Please call the roll.

Current vote 12 - 0. Both chair and Vice Chair voting Aye Durazo. Durazo. Aye. Eggman, aye. Eggman, aye. Mcguire. Newman. Skinner. Stern. Stern. Aye.

15 - 0 leave it on call. Leave it on call. We'll still have some Members out, but what? I would encourage all Members to come down to room 1200 for the energy Committee so we can close out the role now. Moving on to AB 965 414 Reyes Communication Digital Equity Bill of Rights. And the motion is...

Do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations.

Please call the roll.

Current vote, 6 - 0. Chair voting Aye. Becker, Caballero, Durazo. Aye Durazo, aye Eggman. Aye Eggman, aye. Gonzalez, Mcguire, Min. Newman, Sayarto, Skinner, Stern Stern aye that's 9 - 0.

We're going to hold that open. Moving on to file item four, AB 965, by Assembly Member Carillo. The motion is do pass and re.

Refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance. Current vote, 9 - 0.

Please call the roll.

Both chair and Vice Chair voting Aye. Becker, Caballero, Gonzalez Grove Aye Grove aye Mcguire, Min. Newman, Skinner, Stern, Stern. Aye.

11 - 0 will hold that roll open. Moving on to file item five, AB 998, by Assemblymember Conley and the motion is.

Due pass is amended and re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote, 9 - 0. Both chair and Vice Chair voting Aye.

Please call the roll.

Thank you. Becker, Caballero, Gonzalez Grove Grove aye Mcguire, Min. Newman, Skinner, Stern, Stern. Aye.

11 - 0. Leave that roll open. Moving on to file item six, AB 1065, by Assembly Member Patterson. The motion is, do you pass?

And rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

Current vote, 8 - 0. Both Chair and Vice Chair voting aye Becker, Caballero, Gonzalez, Mcguire, Min. Newman, Skinner, Stern.

8 - 0 we'll hold that roll open. Moving on to file item seven, AB 1172 Calderon and the motion is.

Do pass is amended and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 11 - 0.

Please call the roll.

Both Chair and Vice Chair voting Aye Becker, Caballero, Gonzalez, Mcguire, Min Newman, Skinner.

11 - 0. We'll hold that open just another minute. We understand some Members are in a meeting right now. We're encouraging them all to be able to take a break and come on down so we can close the rolls on this Committee.

Thank you. They're walking down right now and then Newman's on his way. Thank you. Senator, you have to go back. I was asking on my. Waiting for.

Yeah, that's new.

Mission. Please. You're never gonna say that often. Okay, so we're going to go ahead and call the roll again with our two Members that just arrived. We're going to start with AB three or file item one, AB three. The vote is 120. Both chair. Vice Chair voting aye. Please call the roll. Thank you. Caballero, Caballero, I. Gonzalez Gonzalez I. Sorry. Mcguire, Mcguire, I men. Newman, Skinner, windmill Min. I AB three.

Yeah.

16 - 0. We still have two more Members. Okay, we'll hold the roll open. For two more Members, file item 2, AB 286 Wood the vote count is currently, sorry, 15 - 0 Chair and Vice Chair voting I please call the absent Members Mcguire Mcguire Aye Newman Skinner 16 - 0. Okay, that's 16 - 0. That Bill is out, but we will hold it open for additional votes for people to add on file item three. AB 414 Assembly Member Reyes. The vote count is currently 9 - 0.

Please call the absent Members Chair voting aye Becker Becker aye Caballero Sorry. Caballero aye Gonzalez Gonzalez aye Mcguire Mcguire aye Min aye Newman Skinner how much? I'm sorry 14 - 0. Will hold the roll open for absent Members, passing it back to the chair. We're on file item four. AB 965 Assembly Member Carillo. Please give us the vote count. Current vote, 11 - 0 Chair and Vice Chair Voting Aye Becker Caballero Caballero Aye Gonzalez Gonzalez Aye Mcguire, Mcguire Aye. Min. Aye Newman Skinner 15 - 0.

We'll leave the roll open for a few more minutes.

Okay.

Is next up? Five AB 998.

Current Vote, 11 - 0 Becker Becker Aye Caballero Caballero Aye Gonzalez Gonzalez Aye Mcguire Mcguire Aye Min Min. Aye Newman Skinner 16 - 0.

What's the count? 16 - 0. we'll leave the roll open for our absent Members. Nexus file item 6.

AB 1065 Current vote, 8 - 0. Both Chair Vice Chair Voting aye Becker Becker aye Caballero Caballero not voting Gonzalez Gonzalez not voting Mcguire Min aye Newman Newman aye Skinner AB 1016 Stern aye.

Which is fun.

You want me to call the absent Members again? You want me call the absent Members again?

Yeah, it's call the absent Members again on file item 6 AB 1065 okay.

Mcguire Skinner Skinner Aye 13 - 0.

What is the vote? 13 - 0. Mcguire, you're not voting on this, okay? Just want to make sure. Can we close the roll on that or do we need to still have.

Absent yeah.

We're closing a roll on file item 6. Now we're moving on to file item seven. AB 1172. Please call absent Members.

Current vote, 11 - 0. Both Chair and Vice Chair voting aye on AB 1172 Calderon Becker. Becker. Not voting Caballero Caballero aye Gonzalez Gonzalez aye Mcguire Mcguire aye Min Min Min. Aye Newman Newman aye Skinner Skinner. Not voting. 16 - 0 of all the Members.

Vote count is 16 - 0. We can close the roll on that item. Members, we're going to going back to the top of the file one more time. We're calling absent Members. We're starting again with file item 1, AB 3.

Current vote, 16 - 0 Both chair Vice Chair Voting Aye Newman Newman Aye Skinner Skinner. Aye.

18 - 0 would close the roll on that next fall. Item two AB 286.

Current vote, 16 - 0. Both chair. Vice Chair Voting Aye Newman Newman Aye Skinner Skinner Aye 18 - 0 measures out 18 - 0.

Next item is file item 34 AB 4114.

Current vote 14 - 0. Chair Voting Aye Newman Newman Aye Skinner Skinner Aye 16 - 0.

That measure is out 16 - 0. Now file item four, AB 965.

Current vote, 15 - 0. Both chair. Vice Chair Voting Aye Becker Newman Newman Aye Skinner Skinner Aye 17 - 0.

That measures out 17 - 0. Now the file item 6 AB 1065.

Current vote 13 - 0. Chair Vice Chair Voting Aye let's see. Yeah, we can close it. Everybody's.

We can close that. Okay, 13 - 0.

Yeah, we just did that. Right.

It's item number 5. Okay, we're at item 5 AB 998.

Current vote, 16 - 0 Newman Newman Aye Skinner.

Skinner Aye that measures out 18 - 0. We'll close the roll on that. So, is anything still open? Outstanding. That being the case, thank everyone for your participation today's hearing. And the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications. We now stand adjourned. Thank you very much.