Senate Standing Committee on Rules

Okay. The Senate Committee on Rules will come to order. And let me just say good afternoon to everyone. We are holding our committee hearing in the O Street building in room 2200. And as we continue to take some precautions to manage ongoing COVID-19 risk, the Senate continues to welcome the public and has provided access to both in person and teleconference participation. For Public comment for individuals wishing to provide public comment via the Teleconference service, the participant toll free number and access code are posted on our Committee website, will be displayed on our screen also here today. So that number is 877-26-8163 and the access code is 736-2834. I will maintain decorum during our hearing, as is customary, and any individuals who are disruptive may be removed from the remote meeting service or have their connections muted. Also, let me, on behalf of our court reporter, ask all speakers, colleagues and witnesses alike to speak slowly and clearly. And since we're in the room, you'll be able to know when you need to slow down. But if you're on Teleconference, I may interrupt you to ask you to speak slowly and clearly. We really want to be able to get your testimony, so if I interrupt, it will only be for that reason. Before we begin today's agenda, we need to establish a quorum and a reminder to my colleagues, you'll need to turn on your microphones for the roll call and every time that we vote, and, of course, when you speak Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?

Laird? here. Laird here. Ochoa bogh? here. Ochoa bogh here. Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood-Cuevas here. Grove? Here. Grove? Here. Atkins? here. Atkins here.

Okay, if there are no objections, I'm going to try to dispense with some items, and I have been alerted that I need to separate out some votes. We're going to start and dispense with Item 2 Governors appointees who are not required to appear. And as I understand it, one motion I would entertain would be Item 2, FGH and I. That would be for a position for the Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers, two positions for the Building Standards Commission, and one position for the member park. State park and Recreation Commission. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Madam Secretary, will you please call the role?

Laird? aye. Laird aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa bogh aye Smallwood-Cuevas? Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Grove? aye Grove aye. Atkins? aye Atkins aye.

Thank you. Five to zero. I would entertain a motion on two J, which is the second member of the State Park and Recreation Commission.

So move.

Thank you, senator Laird. Madam Secretary, will you call the role?

Laird Aye. Ochoa Bogh? Ochoa Bogh No Smallwood-Cuevas no. Grove? No. Atkins? aye. Atkins aye.

Three to two. Thank you, colleagues. I would entertain a motion on item three, reference of bills to committee. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Madam Secretary, call the role.

Laird, aye. Laird aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Ochoa Bogh aye Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Grove. Aye. Grove aye Atkins aye. Atkins

Five to zero. Thank you, colleagues. I would entertain a motion on item four, Budget Subcommittee's proposed schedule.

So move.

Thank you, senator Laird. The Budget Chair will thank you for that. Madam Secretary, will you call the role?

Laird aye. Laird aye Ochoa Bogh aye Smallwood-Cuevas Smallwood-Cuevas aye Grove aye Grove aye Atkins aye Atkins aye.

I think that lackluster aye was because you serve on the Budget Committee and it's going to be a long arduous.

There are three of the four Budget Subcommittee members are sitting here and we are markedly unenthusiastic about Thursday.

About Thursday when it gets over at 07:00 at night or 04:00. And you drive 5 hours because there's no airline service.

There's one driver and three flyers on that committee, which is the reason for.

As the Pro-tem. Let me thank my Colleagues for their service on the Budget Committee and regretting that I asked the question. Let me go to go to item number four, which is floor acknowledgments. We have five through nine. These are requests that will come up as of Monday. Even so, a motion. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Please call the role

Laird aye. Laird. aye Ochoa Bogh. Ochoa bogh. aye Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood- Cuevas. aye Grove, aye Grove aye Atkins, aye.

Five to zero. Thank you, Madam Secretary. So now we're going to turn to governor's appointees who are required to appear. And we're going to start with item one A, and that's the appointment. Please come on forward, Mr. Reynolds. As I'm introducing you the appointment of John R. D. Reynolds, JD. As member of the Public Utilities Commission. Let me welcome you and invite you to go ahead and acknowledge or introduce anyone with you here today or that you would like to acknowledge. Make any opening comments you want to make, and then we'll go right to colleagues for questions and answers.

Thank you. And good afternoon, Madam Chair. Madam Vice Chair and Members of the Senate Rules Committee. Thank you for considering my appointment. As a member of the California Public Utilities Commission, I am honored to be appointed to this position by Governor Newsom and to appear before you today. I would like to offer particular thanks to my family for their support and encouragement, including my wonderful wife Emuye, who is here with me today, and to my mother, Nancy, who is watching remotely. Throughout my career as an attorney, both in the public sector and in the private sector, I work towards core values of integrity, careful deliberation, and open communication. This appointment is the most challenging and impactful role that I've had, and my values guide me as I serve Californians in doing this important and complex work. The PUC oversees investor owned utilities in their provision of safe, reliable and affordable service to Californians and has important responsibilities for supporting California's climate goals. Both in its own regulatory process and in partnership with other state agencies. There are real challenges to meeting these goals, but they also represent a tremendous opportunity. The PUC supporting California policy set forth by the governor and the legislature can play an important role in building a model for the world's advanced economies, demonstrating that decarbonizing the energy sector is possible as we promote safety, reliability, and access. Customer affordability can face significant challenges. Meeting these goals can require investing in additional infrastructure that customers pay for through their utility bills. This will involve making investments in utility infrastructure throughout the state. I see the role of the PUC as providing critical utility oversight that holds utilities accountable for smart, effective decision-making that we need from them in order to deliver on our ambitious goals. And we may face unexpected external challenges. Indeed, the spike in natural gas prices that we've been seeing has a profound impact on California's household budgets, even though those prices are driven by global commodities markets and not by infrastructure needs. Part of our work is being nimble and prepared enough to respond quickly to these external challenges. Before I close these introductory remarks, I would like to speak briefly about equity. We live today with the legacy of the past. The PUC has not always been attentive to the impacts of its decisions on disadvantaged communities in the state. Many burdens of pollution and climate change fall disproportionately on lower-income communities of color. And we have an opportunity as an agency to address those burdens. And we've made real progress on that front with new policies meant to center equity in our decisions. I want to help build a PUC that advances equity and hope to build on the progress the agency has already made. My goal is for all Californians to enjoy safe, reliable and affordable utility service and for all Californians to experience the benefits of our climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. Thank you again, Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair and Members of the Committee for your consideration, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much. Let me acknowledge your spouse for being here with you to support you today and certainly to your mom who's listening. I'm going to start with Madam Vice Chair and let her kick us off with questions and comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Reynolds, it was a pleasure to spend time with you in my office yesterday. I appreciated the conversation and just the openness in willing to discuss issues that deeply affect my district and I believe as Californians as a whole. For one of the examples that I gave you, we have a neighboring state, Arizona. Arizona pays roughly 7.6 cents to 9.1 cents per kilowatt, and I am in possession of a PG and E rate increase up to 22%. That would take us to $2.26 a kilowatt. What is Arizona doing or what are we doing that increases our costs that Arizona is not doing. Because if you calculated that out into my area where I have a large disproportionate farming community and lower-income workers in some areas, their $50 bill in Arizona is almost $300 a month here. What can we learn from Arizona and what do you think the differences are?

Thank you for the question. I think there are a number of differences, and every utility system is in some sense unique. And some of the cost to serve customers are going to be unique based on the geography, the terrain, and where the customers exist. I think the authority that the legislature provided last year for the PUC to consider an income based fixed charge can make a big difference in how our rates are structured. Historically, we've charged customers a volumetric rate, and the result of that is basically the more energy you use, the more you pay. If we split that same revenue into more of a fixed charge with a smaller volumetric charge, customers won't necessarily pay quite as much as they are today based on higher usage. And particularly customers, I think, who live in areas that get very hot in the summer can see some benefits from that.

Thank you. I was very impressed. I have to re-ask you questions that we discussed yesterday. We also discussed the issues that we have with some of the utilities being 30 months, 60 months, 90 months out right. For providing service. We talked about some of the ports that I had met with, the port supply companies that are in the port system of Long Beach and then also agricultural communities in my district where they're required to have electric forklifts and all of this. But there's not a mechanism for power supply. It doesn't exist. They can't get it even though they're willing. They've purchased electric forklifts. They have to have them in order to have a lease in Long Beach for that port area. But there's no three phase power that goes to those buildings. And they're using diesel or gas powered generators to make sure that they can provide power to the electric forklifts, which is required for them to have a lease at the port. You don't have to answer it. I just want to tell you that I am very, very grateful. I am very grateful to the CPUC and what they've done with that internal response team to bring awareness to this issue. Because I think that when you have a problem and you're trying to move product supply chain issues and you have somebody in the port down in Long Beach that says, I can't because I don't have power, and PG and E or another utility says, well, we're 30 months out or 60 months out, whatever the case may be. And there's no I don't say appeal process, but you guys have created a it's an internal response team, but it really is an appeal process to the problems that we have with public utilities. And I'm not knocking the public utilities. I'm just saying there has to be we need solutions and I applaud you for your staff experience. I asked you things that you would change. You had great out of the box ideas and I do applaud that. But I do want to definitely applaud you and the CPUC for bringing up this internal response team so that there's at least some sort of discussion taking place that, yes, we want to use electric items that take you off a gas production and things like that in areas. I made that point yesterday. There's no way you can ever get off oil and gas. You're not going to be able to do it. There's no factual you can't do it. We talked about power plants. They want to take the power plants off. Tell me how you're going to replace the power and we'll have a conversation, but that conversation isn't going to take place. But I do want to definitely applaud you for your internal response team, which creates at least a conversation to address the issues that people on the ground are facing to meet the needs of Californians every single day and they can't do it without power. So thank you and I look forward to your confirmation.

Thank you.

Thank you. Let me move to Senator Ohoca-Bogh

I also enjoyed our conversation we had on Monday, I believe it was Monday with regards to your vision and your scope and I was very grateful for the time that you spend with us. I do have a question, intrigued because I was listening very carefully to your introduction earlier today and I wanted you to expand a little bit more on the understanding that you made that not infrastructure needs impact pricing but that commodities do. And I understand the commodity portion of it, but I don't understand how the need for infrastructure does not have an impact on the prices for energy. So would you mind expanding a little bit more on what you meant by that?

Absolutely. And I apologize if I was a little unclear. It is certainly true that infrastructure investments also have an impact on the price of energy. The natural gas price spike that Californians have been feeling in their bills in January is not driven by our gas utilities infrastructure but rather it's driven by that commodity price. And a number of factors have played into that. But I was simply trying to indicate that some of these external factors that are not driven by infrastructure will impact overall affordability for households throughout the state.

Okay. I'm glad you made that clarification because I kind of thought that's what we have sort of understood, but based on what you had made statement, I thought we need a little more clarification on that end. Because infrastructure and the requirements that we place on the industry does have ultimately an impact on cost for consumers in California. And that's one of the points that I wanted to make sure that we had on record because we can have all these ambitions and goals. But ultimately, whether we place it on the industry we think we're placing on the industry, it directly. Has a ripple effect into the cost for the consumers in California. That end, I do have a question for you. Does the CPUC plan to review how it and the utilities handle the past gas price spike and like how it notified ratepayers of the increase and the ways they lessen the impact of it on their bills?

Yes, absolutely. As we saw spiking gas prices emerge, our staff has been engaged with energy utilities in the state and talking to them about how to communicate to customers about how they can save on their bills. We've seen messages from utilities about turning down your thermostat, turning down the temperature on your hot water heater, using colder water to wash your clothes, all tools that people can use to reduce their gas usage and reduce their bills somewhat. Certainly the prices that we've seen this month have been extraordinarily challenging for households throughout the state. And I think that in addition to those efforts to communicate with customers about what they can do, we as a commission next week actually are holding an outlook hearing where we will be discussing with the gas utilities some of the additional creative ideas that can be implemented to reduce the impacts on customers. I think that we've had a lot of amplification of messages about we as an agency have amplified messages from utilities about alternative payment plans that are available. Very fortunately, I'm seeing today that the gas prices for February have reduced very substantially. Both SoCal Gas and San Diego Gas Electric have reported that, which hopefully will bring some relief to the next bills that customers are going to see. And one other thing, I'll mention that later this week we will be considering an item on our own agenda where we as an agency are considering moving up the climate credit to Californians as early as possible in order to provide some additional money back in their pockets.

That's wonderful news. Thank you very much Mr. Reynolds. One last question. What role do you think hydrogen fuel will provide the states in the state's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

It's a great question and I think there are a lot of interesting potential prospects for hydrogen in the state. I've heard about lots of potential uses in the transportation space, particularly for medium and heavy duty vehicles. We've heard a lot about hydrogen blending as an option for gas service and that's something that I think has been explored quite a bit in states like Oregon. Something that can be considered into the future and dedicated. Hydrogen used for, used for power generation is also an application that's been under consideration. And I think hydrogen, as with other new and emerging technologies, we should certainly be considering the potential that they have to help us decarbonize manage costs and promote safety and reliability.

Thank you very much.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevos.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr. Reynolds, for our conversation earlier this week. It was very informative and was good to hear from your perspective, particularly for someone who's been in this CPUC space for many years, and to hear some of the vision and innovations that are on the horizon, particularly around engagement of ratepayers. In the process. I want to just follow up on some of the questions that my colleagues have raised. And I know we talk about the service bill shock that so many folks experienced in the last few weeks. And I understand that the PUC just announced what they are calling an inbox, which is a public workshop on this issue. Can you share the actions that you and your fellow commissioners intend to take to address these high costs? How do you investigate these kinds of spikes? And I think, more importantly, how do you engage in a conversation with ratepayers? This is a partnership, the ratepayers. It's the utilities, it's the government. We know this partnership has to work particularly with our future benchmarks for a sustainable, renewable energy source in this state. And I think this is a good example. When we have something that has such a direct impact on our communities, how are you going to address it and how do you continue to have what is the mechanism by which you'll continue to have this conversation with the ratepayers?

Thank you. So, in addition to some of the immediate term work that we are doing to amplify messages to customers throughout California about how they can reduce their own bills in addition to the climate, credit and the inbox that we'll be holding next week where we can discuss some ideas with utility leadership. I think in the longer term, we also need to look at our reliance on natural gas and how the variability in the commodity price for natural gas can have such a tremendous impact on Californians. If we can save some of our gas usage for space heating by weatherizing homes, as an example, that can insulate us somewhat, both literally and figuratively, from the prices of natural gas as a commodity.

And in your estimation, is there a way to prevent this from happening? We talked about how when I drive around my neighborhood, I can see the price of gas and I know when it's going up and I know how to correct that. I can ride share, I could carpool, I could just go half a tank. When you get a bill that's triple what you're expecting, it's a little different to budget around that. So in your estimation, how do we just prevent these kinds of spikes from happening? And it's certainly the sticker shots for the ratepayer.

It's a great point and I think there is a tremendous amount of room for utilities to grow in how they communicate with their customers really proactively when these types of spikes are happening. You're absolutely right that people have just a completely different sense of the price of gasoline driving around town than they have the price of commodity gas that ends up in their utility bill. And I think that I will be looking forward to our Ambanque and some ideas from the utilities how they can get a lot better at communicating proactively so that customers have a much stronger sense in advance of seeing that bill in the mail, that the bill is going to have just a tremendous impact on their families.

Thank you. Along those lines, we know that there were several programs put in place to address the economic hit that many of us weathered during the Pandemic, and the PUC suspended a lot of the electric and natural gas water utility disconnections. And the state Legislature also made sure that there were resources like the CARE program and CAP program to help Ratepayers through this difficult time. And we understand that the PUC is developing some pilot programs through this community-based organizational structure that can help assist consumers with their utility bills and also ways to strengthen partnership and relationship with ratepayers. But how is this working group being put together and what oversight does the PUC have to ensure that it's a balanced working group and reflective of the PUC and especially reflective of your social justice priorities?

Thank you for the question. I think there are really a couple of big thanks to the Legislature, first for the support for customer arears that had accrued during COVID I think the monies appropriated by the Legislature are very helpful to the Californians who'd had some energy debt. And in terms of engagement with community organizations, the Legislature's funding for $30 million, funding for CBO engagement is in the process of being implemented at the PUC. We are this quarter going to be taking input from stakeholders about how we can best implement that program. The goal really is to have broader and deeper engagement from CBOs that's separate from our intervener compensation program and really helps us transform how we're hearing from Californians who are uniquely impacted by the different policies that we put in place as an agency. So we'll be taking that stakeholder feedback this quarter. And my understanding is that we're on track in the first half of this year to hopefully have some final rules in place for that funding to be used.

And will that feedback and input speak to the earlier question too, about how the communication needs to happen around the rates, the spikes in rates? Is that coming directly from the community and will inform kind of the utility's next steps in how to address those issues?

It's a very good question and I will follow up and get back to you. I'm not exactly sure how it will be structured or where we might have a venue for some of the longer term thinking about utility communication with their customers. But I will follow up with you on that question.

Well, I know that in our discussion, that's something that's very important to you and that's what made me excited about you coming before us today and having this opportunity. So I look forward to that. And just one more final question in your Environmental and Social Justice Action Plan, which is sort of informing that community direct community engagement work, this plan was established to really set some very strategic goals related to health and safety, consumer protection, program benefits and enforcement. And it's been a year incoming and there are certainly some key points that were lifted up primary. And I want to lift up the promoting of high road career paths for those environmental social justice communities that we just spoke about and monitoring the PUC's efforts to evaluate how we're going to achieve these social justice goals, which it's great to have goals, but how we evaluate them, monitor and share those out is critically important. So specifically around the career pathways, what programs are you ensuring for ESJ communities? In other words, what particular tracks are you thinking about in terms of working with apprenticeship programs? And do you see utilities partnering with you on this?

It's a great question, and the short answer is yes, I do. I would point to a decision that we made last year. We have a General Order 156, which historically has been focused on supplier diversity and how the utilities procure engage in all of their procurement with diverse businesses. The goal of that program has really been to see utilities investing in businesses that really reflect the diverse California that we all live in. Last year, we made some reforms to that program, and one of those reforms, going directly to the workforce issues, asks the utilities to report on workforce diversity as well as board diversity. So that not just the procurement that the utilities are engaged in, but also their employment practices, their promotion, their executive management reflect the communities that we all live in. And I think we've seen a lot of success in the General Order 156 program in getting utilities partnered with the PUC and really the state schools to procure from diverse suppliers. And my hope is that we'll see the same sorts of success in the utility workforce.

Well, looking forward to that. I think how we move people off of cap and care is to be intentional about bringing them into the career pathway. I think people don't want to be in participating in those services, but because the ends are not meeting, the work that they're currently in isn't making it possible to pay your electric bill and buy food in some cases. And I've worked directly with those vulnerable workers, particularly in black and immigrant communities. So I really would love to be in connection with you on that and to track on how that plan will be developed and shaped. And final question, Madam Chair, and this is just the metrics of evaluation on the plan you just lifted up and others, what metrics will you be using? Or as this very transformational ESJ approach transpires? And particularly, how will you inform those EJ communities?

Great question.

Evaluation outcome?

Yes. My expectation is that we'll have different metrics depending on the nature of the program. The General Order 156 program I spoke to specifically, we'll see actual outcomes, actual numbers from utilities on their workforce and we'll be able to track those over time. I see that ESJ action plan is really an overarching vision for how we integrate equity into our decision making. And we'll have lots of different constituent parts throughout our agency's decision making that contribute to that overall vision. As one example, we have a climate adaptation rulemaking where we have directed utilities to file annual climate adaptation plans where they are directed to evaluate the equity impacts of different adaptation investments. And I think that we're going to leverage tools that exist throughout the state like ... to kind of layer what we're seeing in different utility programs, different proceedings that we run and kind of understand the impacts, the unique impacts that happen to different communities throughout California.

Wonderful. Well, thank you and I look forward to seeing some of the results of that metric. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And normally it's the chair that says that when it gets to her, everybody is asked every question. And that has mostly happened to me here. And I really appreciated our conversation yesterday. It was really helpful. And I think in an interesting twist, Senator Grove was channeling a couple of the things I wanted to ask about. So let me make one comment and then ask two questions. And the thing is, I would not be able to go home if I didn't comment on the delay in hooking up that she was referring to given the fact that we have done an accessory dwelling unit and went through this arduous process. And then they said it's going to take eight months to hook this up in the middle of a residential neighborhood. And it happened to me with somebody in agriculture that I'm close to that had a well break and dug an emergency well and was told it would take twelve months to hook up the emergency well. And it's like that's an entire growing season and more. And so the urgency with which you can make the utilities understand what happens to the average person or the average consumer would be really helpful. And we talked about that yesterday, but I just thought I would back up Senator Grove on that. And then one of the other things that she talked about, and I asked you yesterday, is that I have somebody I've known for 40 years who's now on a fixed income. And every time she gets her electricity bill, she emails me and says, how can anybody on a fixed income survive on this? And I asked you yesterday, what do I say to her about your activities and how it meets that concern?

I think I've spoken a little bit to the short term shock of gas prices, but I do think that we have longer term work. It's really our day to day bread and butter activity of reviewing utility rates where we as an agency need to do a really good job of holding utilities accountable for smart and efficient decision making that's going to ensure that Californians get good results for the money that they're paying for utility bills. I would also point to an affordability rulemaking that we have where we've developed some affordability metrics that will help us, help us get a better sense for how Californians across the state are experiencing their utility costs. And I appreciate that all these utility bills are coming from the same household budget. If you're seeing increase in electricity, increase in gas, increase in water, increase in broadband and other telecommunications, you've still got the same household budget to those from. So I'm fully committed to making sure that we're doing our work day in and day out to analyze rates and make sure that Californians get good service for what they're paying utilities.

Thank you. And she would not let that answer go. She would keep after you until you were going to make a commitment to somehow she was going to see some results. So now I have said that and I could talk to her sometime and have a clear conscience. I think the last subject, and we talked about it yesterday, is reliability. And the issue has come up in two ways and one of it has been in the storms. My district was ground zero. The damage is just incredible. And Congressman Panetta and I did a town hall meeting in the Santa Cruz Mountains with 200 people the week before last. And one of the issues that kept coming up again and again and again is the connections for broadband had an eight hour battery backup and no other way to power them. So as the grid went down in the mountains after the storm, people are getting evacuation alerts, trying to call 911, getting road conditions because there were slides that closed many of the state highways and other things in the area and they had no access to this. And they felt like, why don't they have generators? Why don't they have requirements for longer batteries? What is the regulatory scheme that is allowing them to be out of connection in the time of an extreme emergency? And we talked about it. How would you speak to that?

I think I would start by recognizing how important it is that people have access to high quality communications. And being able to access emergency services during extreme events is a prime example of that. And we're similarly seeing Californians increasing needs and reliance on high quality telecommunication service, high quality broadband for access to healthcare, access to education, as we've seen really markedly during the Pandemic, access to jobs, to economic development, access to information, entertainment. So I absolutely recognize that importance. We actually have a proceeding that's open right now which evaluates rules that we have for telecommunication service quality. Historically we have focused on landline telephone service quality and we've got rules set for that service. And if carriers fail to meet those rules and they're subject to penalties, our proceeding is going to consider whether or not to extend those rules to more modern networks, including wireless networks and broadband networks. It's a matter that will come before us. And I certainly recognize the importance of those services, but I wouldn't want to prejudge that matter.

Well, I know you don't want to prejudge it, but I'll comment anyway. And I think that the sad fact at this town hall meeting is this is the same place where a fire took 920 homes. And so here were people standing in front of us that had just rebuilt their homes, were unable to rebuild their homes, and were having at the time of the fire, all the things went down. People ran for their lives and there was no connectivity to get any single alert or to do anything to tell people to get out when it was happening. So I think they would want me to express to you just a sense of urgency because this is life and death. There were statements at this town hall meeting of people having somebody that was seriously ill and throwing them in their car. They couldn't reach anybody, there was no ambulance that was going to get to them, navigating roads where they didn't understand, some were out, power lines were down, trying to get to a hospital or do things. So there was a sense of urgency to this on both sides. And there was another piece of it on the electricity side, which is that we are trying to switch to electricity, we're trying to get off of fossil fuels. And PG and E in this very same place had these weird triggers that knocked the power system down for a day or two with no warning. And so what friends, longtime friends said to me, well, we rely on that electricity for well water. So our water is cut off. We rely on it for connectivity and the connectivity is cut off and it's done with what in their view is a certain cavalierness like oh well. And it wasn't about a public safety power shut off, it was about these weird switches just going and knocking power down for a couple of days and them feeling like they were getting no response in terms of the ability to deal with it. And so I think the net of this entire exchange is just I want to be able to go to them and say, when I voted to confirm this guy, he felt the urgency, he felt what you were in. And even though he couldn't commit to open proceedings, he is going to feel this urgency and represent it in his job whenever it's appropriate. And believe me, I can deliver about 100 people to your doorstep that could do chapter and verse. And so if you feel the urgency and act on your own, you are saving yourself a lot of time. So in any event, I just wanted to represent that and I really appreciate the conversation we had and look forward to working with you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Do you need to comment on any of that?

I simply want to say thank you. I very much appreciate the importance of the services that we regulate to Californians. And they really are life and death services, especially in times of disaster.

Thank you, Senator Laird. And thank you, Mr. Reynolds. I do actually have a couple of questions. All of what we're dealing with in California, it seems like the CPUC, the Energy Commission, Cal-ISO, the epicenter of a lot of activity. And before we adjourned at the end of last year, we had Energy Commission folks before us at a critical time when we were considering some policies around Diablo Canyon, other issues that put into conflict our climate goals versus promises we'd made to close down a plant. Other people have asked about reliability. I want to ask it in the broader context, the grid reliability. And there was a piece of legislation we passed, SB 846, that requires the CPUC and the California Energy Commission to give us a report, an analysis, I think it's called the Reliability Planning Assessment. That sounds really exciting. I know, but I don't think we've gotten an update. I think we were supposed to get it quarterly starting at the end of the year. And I know that your website has a workshop plan, but can you kind of give me an estimate of what we should expect and when we should expect to get some updated information on that overall assessment plan?

Of course. And I can first offer my apologies. I know that we are working on it closely with our colleagues in the energy space and trying to get it to you as fast as possible.

Well, we just want the information. So do you have anything you want to kind of comment on that in terms of the work or we'll be looking for the report and I know the workshop my staff will monitor, but.

Yeah, I think I wouldn't want to speak to the details of the report until it's final and ready for you. What I can mention is that in addition to the really substantial procurement that we as the PUC have ordered in the past, we had 11,500 MW following the 2020 rolling outages. We've continued working with our partners at CAL-ISO and CEC to evaluate needs for resources and on our own agenda, in our own upcoming agendas, we're going to have another very substantial procurement order for another 4000 MW coming up.

Well, along those lines, we have an incredible Legislative Analyst who to further go into that in the 2022-23 Budget Act, established a new state role in procuring resources needed for grid reliability and funding those resources. I guess I would ask, do you think the new state role could have any unintended consequences on the existing processes that we have and the markets that we use to ensure grid reliability? And then do you have any recommendations for policy changes further that we should engage in?

It's a great question and a tough one.

That's why you get to be appointed to the CPUC, because you are smarter than we are. I only speak for myself, not my colleagues.

I think we've been working very hard to build a closer relationship, closer working relationship with our partners at CAL-ISO and the Energy Commission. And I think that we've developed a lot of tools that are really useful in forecasting how much energy California's are going to need to get that ordered and to monitor the success of utilities and CCAs in going out and procuring those resources. I think that process will continue to move along. I wouldn't want to speak to a structure that I'm not necessarily familiar with that may come about in the future.

Well, thank you. The last question I would have gets to a different issue, which is our broadband infrastructure. And having been the recipients of some incredibly important federal dollars in addition to state resources, just wanted to get your overview on the status of any of the broadband projects and timeline. And are we going to run into any issues? Certainly. Also you're working with the California Department of Technology in this realm. Are we going to run into any issues around federal deadlines for use of those funds?

My understanding is that we are on track in terms of timelines. We've been working to make sure that program rules are clarified so that we're in a position to approve projects under federal funding accounts and get those out the door. We've got a lot of different accounts for funding different aspects of broadband service. And a lot of the infrastructure projects will need to have first planning resources available for some of the local agencies, tribes and companies that will be putting forth those projects. So we've got rules in place to support that aspect of the work as well. And my understanding is that we are reviewing applications as they come in, trying to move things as quickly as possible as an agency.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Well, now I'm going to go to members of the public who may want to participate in our conversation and the Rules Committee is a little different than other committees. We ask you to give your name, your title, association, if any, and yes, I support or no, I do not support. We don't engage in a lot of dialogue in the way that some of the policy committees do. It's expected that we ask those questions and do the due diligence with our staff. So, just a reminder, we're going to begin in room 2200 and we're going to start with people who are in support. If you're in support and would like to register that support, please come forward and welcome to you. If you would. Welcome, sir, give your name, organization and.

Thank you very much. Jan Smutny-Jones with the Independent Energy Producers Association. And we strongly support Mr. Reynolds confirmation. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you for being here. Yes.

Good afternoon, Faith Conley with the East Bay Community Energy in support.

Good afternoon. Jamie Minor on behalf of the California Community Choice, California Community Choice Association, Marin Clean Energy, California Energy Demand Response Council, and Intersect Power in support. Thanks so much.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. That's a lot of hats to wear, and you wear them well. Welcome.

Good afternoon, John Moffatt on behalf of NRG in support of Commissioner Reynolds confirmation.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Madam Chair members, John White with the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies. We strongly support Commissioner Reynolds confirmation. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have other people who wish to speak in support? Okay, with that, we are going to go to our incredible moderator who's standing by and the teleconference. And this would be to tee up witnesses in support. Welcome. Moderator.

Wish to speak in support, please press one, then zero at this time. Just moment while we gather the line number.

Thank you.

We'll go with line number twelve. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members. This is Victoria Rome with the Natural Resources Defense Council NRDC in support.

Thank you so much. Moderator next witness.

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

Thank you. We'll be back with you in just a minute. So I haven't heard from those in support. We'll go in the same order. Anyone in room 2200 in opposition? Anyone in opposition? Seeing no one approach the microphone, Mr. Moderator, we'll come back to you to tee up folks who may wish to speak in opposition.

Ladies and gentlemen wish to speak in opposition of this, please press one, then zero at this time. Madam Chair, we have no one in queue at this time.

Thank you so much. We'll talk with you later in our hearing. Appreciate your help. So let me bring it back to my colleagues. Madam Vice Chair moves to forward the confirmation. Madam Secretary, please call the role.

Laird Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye Grove? Aye. Grove? Aye. Atkins aye. Atkins, aye.

Five to zero. Congratulations. And we will forward this on to the full Senate for confirmation.

Thank you.

Have a great rest of your day. Should we take a few minute break? Okay, we're going to proceed forward with that. We will move to item one b, which is the appointment of Mr Matthew D. Baker as Director of the Public Advocates Office at the Public Utilities Commission. So let me welcome you, Director Baker. And as you come up and get settled, I will offer you the same opportunity to introduce yourself, acknowledge anyone you would like, make opening comments, and then we'll go right to members of this committee for questions and comments.

Thank you. Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here. I want to thank Governor Newsom and his team for appointing me. I also want to thank each of you for considering my appointment and your staff for their time and assistance. Finally, I want to thank my family who are watching remote today. My wife, Carrie, my son, Charlie, and my mom and dad. Hi, mom. I am honored to be here. And I'm honored to have served as the Director of the Public Advocates for the office for the last year. I am proud of the dedicated team at the Public Advocates Office that fights every day for affordable, safe and reliable utility services, especially for those customers who are most in need in the utility space. The challenges that we're facing right now are daunting. We have rising utility bills in electricity and water and broadband. The impacts of climate change threaten our electric and water reliability and highlight the need to transform our energy systems. Finally, the COVID crisis has highlighted the need to promote access and affordability in broadband, especially in the most underserved areas. My goals are straightforward. While we invest in the utility infrastructure that we need my office will prioritize safe and reliable service in energy, water and broadband. We'll also prioritize the transition to clean energy to meet our climate goals. And we want to do so with an overarching goal of promoting affordable and accessible utility services for everyone. I want to conclude by saying thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions that you might have at this time.

Thank you so much. Mr. Baker. Senator Smallwood-Cuevis. Let me start with you today.

Thank you, Madam President. Glad to be here with you. And I'm sorry we didn't get a chance to speak leading into this hearing. But I'm glad you're here. And what I love most about this position is the term Public Advocate Office. As an advocate myself, I know that it is extremely important to have an independent consumer advocate at the California Public Utilities Commission. And I understand that the mission is to advocate for lowest possible monthly bills for customers of California's regulated utilities that's consistent with safety, reliability, and our state's environmental goals. And I read that because so often public advocates aren't well known to the public. And your responses in some of the documents that were shared, and I really appreciated the thoroughness of your responses was that your top priorities is to make sure that these goals are realized and that communities ratepayers are kept aware of activities and recommendations, and that you see this being achieved by providing more technical assistance and education on utility issues through fact sheets and one pagers. And you also talked about dedicated resources that would ensure that information is widely disseminated into the right hands and that a priority is to build coalitions that meet with stakeholders. And I want to also say that we also should include stakeholders in those coalitions. But I just want to know how do you plan on achieving this? I appreciate it. I have some concerns about one-pagers and fact sheets for all ratepayers in order to as educational tools, and I want to come back to that. But how do you plan on accomplishing this all?

Well, Senator, first I'd like to say it would be great to sit down and talk to you because I think that your history and your work, I think is the kind of work that we would like to emulate. I began my career as a community organizer way back in the things are very different today. What I will say is one of the things that we're doing right now is we have instituted a project to actually bring, to reach out, to identify, reach out to and start to develop relationships with. The first cut of the list is about 100 community based organizations. And what we've done is we went through a number of databases and looked at community organizations that may have had energy in there or broadband or environmental health issues somewhere in their websites or were described as such in media and have developed a process where we're actually going out there and seeking to interview or work with, to reach out to and really listen to those groups and try to find where there are places where we could be helpful to those groups in their missions as they relate to energy, broadband and water issues. And we'd like to use that, really, as the starting point to develop a relationship where we're actually reaching out to those groups to elicit their support, to help us develop our positions, and then to the extent possible, given our budget, et cetera, become a resource for those groups, particularly as it relates to issues that are before the commission that they may be interested in. I think that's one part of the thing that we're doing right now and we're all ears on ways to improve on that process, engage more community based groups, work with some of the statewide coalitions around these issue areas and do a better job of helping to represent particularly low income consumers before the Commission.

I appreciate that. In the 100 CBOs, I hope we're including economic justice organizations. I think, as I mentioned earlier in the earlier confirmation, this is a partnership. The ratepayers could not be served without the utilities; the utilities could not operate without government. And I think the nature of energy work overall is extractive and the economic justice piece helps to put resources into the community that live beyond the energy consumption. And so I think that's an important sector to include. And I appreciate also the nature of relationship. Right, because those communities that you lifted up are experts in how the utilities impact day-to-day life that no one in the other sector would know as well. And in building relationships, you have to have capacity and I noticed that in your responses, you talked about a staff of engineers and auditors, economists and scientists. I'm curious how many community organizers or field outreach staff, community engagement teams are employed in your office?

That's a really good question. We have hired our first outreach staff person who's full time working in our office. We also have at least one half time paid internship person that is working on this and we are just developing this program. And so we will use what we determine in the next couple of months to see if there's more positions that we could hire. I mean, I do want to emphasize that we're funded by the ratepayers, so we really have to be very careful on how many positions that we hire in this regard. And our theory right now is that it would be easier with a relatively small nimble staff that works much more closely with community based groups. And I should say we're looking at a broad range of groups right now. And the 100 that I said was just what we think we could get through in the next six months because it's basically three meetings face to face. It's pretty intensive. So that's a long way of saying we're again open to suggestions. We want to try to do this with the resources that we have right now and we really want to try to do it in conjunction with partners who have more expertise in this area than we do.

And I appreciate that response. But one full time in a paid intern, I helped to establish California's first Black Worker Center and we have more outreach staff in that very small nonprofit than you have for the utilities commission and certainly far more resources. And so I do hope that that is scaled at a realistic capacity to actually do the engagement and direct feedback and input. This is a partnership that we need to work. We're moving into a new economy. We're moving into renewable energy. And again, this is a partnership that requires all stakeholders to be in conversation, well informed and sharing strategies that help us reach our goals. And certainly one full time staff is not appropriate for the level of the work. So I just want to say I hope to work with you and share some strategies on that. And just my final question. Does your office in your role, because I still am unclear how your role relates to the direct action of the committee, but does it allow you to put any pressure on the utilities to further engage with their customers about rates and upcoming hikes? And I say that because I appreciated some of the work that was done around looking at the solar issue and its impact on ratepayers and how do we ensure that there's fair share in that process. But what wasn't clear is what role did the utilities have in ensuring that ratepayers as well as solar energy producers were adequately resourced and served through those agreements. In addition to the data and lifting up these concerns, what is the actual authority that you have to help with the utilities to make course corrections when necessary?

So we have really two powers. One is we have discovery power, the same powers that the Commission has because we're part of the Commission. So we can ask for information on what the utility has done to and utility might be spending $50 million on outreach to its customers and so we can request information about how effective that was and what are they using it for. Is it just something that's like you know.

I want to say puff piece, but something that is more about how great the utility is or is it really important information that consumers get to know? So we have that and then the second place that we have is we have the power to make a case to the Commission and the Commission can compel the utilities to implement these. So in many ways, statutorily, we are charged with representing ratepayers and small commercial customers and representing their interests before the Commission and making pleadings to the Commission that the Commission can will judge whether or not they make sense or don't make sense. And if they do go our way, then that would compel the utility to do X, Y or Z. That's kind of what our role is in this particular issue. Did that answer your question?

It did. And just a quick follow up on that. In those instances, do you report those kinds of interventions to the public when they happen? And then just another follow up. I think it's really important for us to think about how should the public determine your success? Right? So one is communicating those kinds of interventions in real time, but how should the public think about your success and be able to measure it?

So we enter, I think, close to 800 pleadings every year. And we pretty much intervene in almost every single case. In many cases, many rate cases, particularly with some of the smaller providers, we're the only intervener in those. So we do play a very, very important role there. My personal I believe that if we can make a compelling argument to the commission, we should be able to persuade the commission, and we should be judged on our success by how often any of our recommendations are enacted in a commission decision. And we do track those in our annual report, and we are increasingly putting those up on our website. I think that we need to do more outreach to ratepayers so that they know a little bit more about what we do, but also so they know a little bit more about how the commission itself actually works. I think it's good for everybody. I think on the net energy metering, you saw us out there in the media really trying to make our case to the public as well as to the Commission. And I think you will see more of that in some of the more high-profile cases, such as the public service gas and electric rate case that's before us right now, or in some of the more high-profile rulemakings. So we have more work to do.

Appreciate that. And we'll stay in touch on the outreach and communication channels.

Yeah, love to..

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Hello, Mr. Baker. Let me just start off with the comment that I made during our conversation. And that's the mantle that you'll be wearing as an advocate for the consumers, for Californians as a whole, and that responsibility of making sure that they're protected and that they are basically protected in this space. So my question has to do with regards to programs that are available to the ratepayers, that allow them to be able to afford or pay for their utilities. And was wondering whether or not you folks evaluate on a consistent basis these programs to see which ones are actually worth their time and the effort and the monies and which ones are not. And based on that if you have a standard of evaluating those services or products and then making recommendations and changes to that effect.

I would say we look at programs really kind of in two buckets. There's a set of programs whose beneficiary the beneficiaries of which are predominantly low income ratepayers. So you have the CARE program, FERA program, you have another number of programs like those, and we really look at those on how they benefit the lowest income ratepayers. Then there are a set of programs that we look at how cost-effective they are. Programs like within the energy efficiency buckets or within the net energy metering is probably a good example of one. And so we base our you know, our first threshold is this program cost effective? And if it's cost-effective, it basically has a limited impact on up or down on how it impacts rates. And we think that's an important way to look at programs.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. Thank you, Mr. Baker, for spending time with me yesterday. I did enjoy our conversation, and I appreciate the opportunity to spend time with you before the hearing today. I'm going to follow up on a couple of things you mentioned just now. I believe you called it the energy efficiency bucket. The energy efficiency bucket. So it's my understanding that ratepayers have invested about a billion dollars, $1 billion in these energy efficiency buckets. But on the flip side, even though that ratepayers, whether you're wealthy or very poor, rates have increased whether you're a business, small or large, rates have increased to the tune of somewhere. I believe it's over to get that. Number back to you. I believe it is. Here it is 40% higher than inflation, and over the last 30 years, it's gone up with PG and E, 40% higher than inflation, Southern California Edison, 20% higher than inflation and San Diego Gas and Electric SDG and E 70% higher, respectively. After our ratepayers have come out of their pocket for a billion dollars in energy efficiencies me, as a business person in the real world would say, why is this program not working? I mean, if I made an investment or anybody I would think made an investment of a billion dollars and there was no return on their investment and cost actually went up, we would question these programs.

Can I answer that question by stepping back a little bit?

Absolutely.

Is that okay?

Absolutely.

One of the great successes in California has been our ability to increase economic productivity and reduce the amount of energy that we have been using. So that's been a really big success. Our bills have also basically tracked inflation until 2014 or 2015, and that's when we started diverging from inflation. We are also facing a lot of costs right now. I mentioned legacy. Some of the costs associated with the rooftop solar programs has been well documented. Our wildfire costs are well documented. The fact that we're going to have to build a lot of transmission, that is also well-documented. And those costs have been growing. I think right now that we need to be looking at all of our programs and see just to make sure are these programs that ratepayers should be funding. And again, I think for non-equity programs like some of the market-based energy efficiency programs, there's a lot of them that really work really, really well and they actually save ratepayers money. And we should really be focusing in on those programs. And we should be looking at programs that may not be penciling out or that may be doing or maybe being done in the Energy Commission or through the Air Resources Board or by the federal government and see if there are ways that ratepayers don't have to pay for those particular programs. We're very sympathetic. We do think it's important to start looking for the nickels under the cushion because it's important, and it also shows that we're caring about that. So I think the issues you're raising are ones that we're wanting to look into and really try to get to the bottom of.

Thank you. I know that when we talked yesterday in your responses to my colleague, Ms. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, you're an advocate, and your job is to be the bulldog, the fighter for the ratepayer. And I know you've only been in the position for a year, right, approximately a year. But I really do have huge concerns, and I believe my colleagues share those concerns. I'm not speaking for them, but I believe they share those concerns that our constituent's utility costs are going through the roof, not only PG and E, but Southern California Gas as well. Their billing glitch problem, where people haven't gotten bills for six months, and then they're going to get some outlandish bill at the end of that six months, maybe spread out over time, but that doesn't change the fact that that number has doubled and sometimes tripled in cases. So if you were saving $200 a month for your bill now, it's going to be $800 to $1,000 a month. That's a lot of money to come up with. If you work in the Central Valley and you make minimum wage or you have a household with dual minimum wage, it's a lot of money to come up with. If you are a producer and you operate on margins to produce food, like top three food-producing counties in the world or the district that I represent, and you have cost associated, whether it's labor costs, PG and E cost, air resources cost, everything. You could go through FICO federal food to the EDD workers. You go through a whole list, all of those costs, and then to add an additional what was it, 23% rate cost that you haven't built into the sale price of your product or your commodity to your customer. Where does that money come from? Where does the money come from for benefits for employees or paid holidays if these costs continue to go up? And so I throw that out there. And then I want to ask you, like I asked you yesterday, and I asked Mr. Reynolds, what is Arizona, New Mexico, our neighboring states, desert area, mountain areas, community areas? What are they doing differently when we pay almost 90% higher than they do in Arizona? It doesn't make any sense. Well, I have my theory, but I want to know what your thoughts are.

So I would answer that question this way. The commissioner said that's a very good question. I was a commissioner, a public utility commissioner in Colorado, and we also had lower rates than in here. But I would just say this. We see three big drivers for the recent rate increases. We do believe that the rooftop solar program has been a very big cost driver. I think the commission has taken a really big step to help to address that in the future. But there are previous costs that are associated with that that we also need to continue to keep in mind. Two is, unlike many of our neighbors we are having, everybody in the west has wildfire problems. I think our wildfire problems have been worse. The way our system is organized is more expensive, at least in Northern California and the PG and E system because it's so spread out in very, very inaccessible areas that serve relatively large populations compared to some of those other states, even in some of the hamlets. And then the third area is we are moving further and faster than many of our neighboring states in terms of transitioning our energy systems. Those costs actually haven't started to come in, and I think there's a lot we can do to help to ameliorate those costs. So I think those three things are what is responsible for the big increases that we have seen in the last. I'd say I have a little chart here since 2018 or so, and when it's really particularly taken off since 2021. So to answer your question, those are the things that I think are most different. We've always been a high cost state compared to our neighbors. That's not going to change. We're a richer state. We're very geographically spread out. We have pretty much every kind of population in every kind of community here. But those three pieces are something that my office is really committed to address. I should just say, obviously, I think the job that my office has to do is incredibly important, and we are the people who are in every single proceeding and who will take apart every single utility application. And I think we do a very good job there. I think we could obviously do a better job, but I believe that we can start to bend the curve on electricity rates in particular. It's going to take a lot of discipline, it's going to take a lot of focus, and it's also going to take expanding the amount of electrification that we're doing by increasing transportation electrification and ultimately increasing space conditioning via heat pumps.

I appreciate that. When you say expanding energy electrification, there's a supply issue. I mean, 30 months, 60 months. I think my colleague, the former Secretary of Natural Resources, sitting next to me, got preferential treatment because he only had to wait eight months. And I have complaints that come into my office for 30 months, 90 months, 60 months. It's ridiculous. I'm joking. I don't think you got preference, and.

I'm going to do you a favor by not giving my spouse your phone number.

But there's a supply problem. So when you talk about expanding the electrification of the system or expanding electrification of things that we use every day and those kinds of things, we already have situations that I mentioned earlier when you were in the hearing room with Mr. Reynolds that we have companies that have purchased electric forklifts to comply with either leasing requirements in the port systems or in the agricultural industry. And when you talk to Toyota dealers and things like that, it's easy to sell an electric forklift. Less maintenance, no oil. There's just benefits of it. But one of the major problem that you have is that you can't get a utility company to provide you the power to charge those. So you face fines with the Air Resources Board for using semi-truck-type generators to charge the electric forklifts that you're required to use. Now, to me, that makes no sense. Maybe to somebody else it makes a lot of sense that at least we're using electric forklifts and they can forget the fact that we're using gas or diesel generators to charge them because we don't have power. So I guess, how do we get that power? And I personally, for my constituents, I want a bulldog in that office. I want somebody who's going to fight to keep those rates low. I take calls from people that don't understand World War II veterans on a fixed income, seniors on a fixed income. They don't understand, even with care rates that are going up, they don't understand why their utility rates are so far, so far higher than any other state. I take calls from ranchers who are on the Southern California Edison where they haven't had a bill, like I said, for six months, and now they're expecting this massive bill. We are not a third-world country, and there's no reason why a public utility cannot provide a bill to their customer on a monthly basis so that you can have a budget that you operate within. I want my advocate in the Public Advocate's Office to do that. And I really feel like yesterday, after I talked to you, that you're going to be my bulldog, and when I have a problem, I'm going to call you, and you're going to go. We're working on that, and I do appreciate that very much. But those are the concerns that I have with this position. I believe I agree with my colleague, Ms. Smallwood-Cuevas, on the fact that you probably do need a little bit more staff. I would, you know, not big on staffing agencies, but I would definitely help with this situation because if this road to green energy is going to continue to go down this path, these costs are going to go way higher than anybody has ever even dreamed about. Because if somebody gets a brilliant idea, or it's what they think is a brilliant idea to shut off these gas plants, that energy and that cost has to come from someplace. I don't know, maybe I said, is there a replacement that you are aware of so that those gas plants on promises made can be shut down right now?

So a couple of questions. Well, for the last question, I think one of the things that our office is trying to do is use the policy that's created either here or in other agencies to kind of guide our advocacy on the issue of gas plants to generate electricity. Our position in general is we want to make sure that we have replacement for anything before we take it off, whether it's a battery, whether it's a gas plant, whether it's it's there got to be in there. It's got to serve that need. We do believe that the existing fleet, as we add more wind and solar batteries, geothermal, that we'll be able to run those less and less and less. So I think we're very optimistic on that front in the longer term, but we think it's important to keep the capacity itself until there is a replacement for it, even if on the way to zero. The bigger question, though, I think, is you mentioned kind of the bulldog issue. I've been an advocate all my life. I started out as a community organizer. I worked for a number of grassroots environmental groups, a couple of consumer groups, and only after 20 years or so as direct advocacy did I start doing government work. And I believe that it is absolutely essential for us to get a handle on costs that it will become very difficult to meet any number of goals if electricity gets too expensive or gas gets too expensive or telephone service gets too expensive. And our office is staffed with people who have spent their whole lives going up against utilities or other interests on behalf of the ratepayers. So I'm very confident in our ability to, and I'm confident actually in the ability of the State and the Commission to also be able to get these costs under control. And I can just assure you that it keeps me up at night, something I care deeply about. And I'd love to have more conversations with you on the hookup issue because I do believe also every utility has an obligation to serve, and we've got to figure out how to solve those problems. I think part of it is we may not have enough trained electricians and so we've got to be thinking larger than necessarily just the consumer office, but these are big issues that the State can and will address.

And I appreciate your comments, and I do know that you only operate within the policy realms that are passed out of this building. You made a comment in your remarks back to me that you want to address it before things get too expensive. Whether it's utility rates or the three things that you mentioned, I submit to you those things are already too expensive. They are already too expensive. And then, like I said, I'm in possession of that rate increase from 3% to 23% on increase based on bundlers and different regions. But I appreciate, like I said, that you're going to be the bulldog in that room. And I appreciate that you're going to communicate with me so that when I have problems on behalf of my constituents or I mean, the Long Beach Port is not in my district, but they are calling my Office for help. The leaseholders, I guess the leases or lessees of the port that operate in that area. Again, I appreciate what you said. I have grave concerns that the transition piece is going to just continue the policies that are passed in this building make your job virtually impossible because utility rates based on a new Pacific Research Institute Senior Fellow that was just released, specifically identifies, speaks to Cal-ISO, addresses those issues, and says in that new research paper, anticipates rates going up exorbitantly higher. He has some percentage that I cannot recall off the top of my head right now, but I can provide that document to you, and it will be probably four times higher than what we pay now because of the policies that this body is trying to institute without cheap, reliable energy. I realized that to get that, we're importing more oil and things like that from foreign countries. So the transition off of oil and gas and cheap, reliable energy is not happening. It's just being imported from another place into California because consumption after a billion-dollar investment for green energy globally has not dropped consumption because it's cheap, reliable energy and it's a supply and demand issue. Gas providers, right? And I'm not talking about gas you put in your car. I'm talking about air gas that we use. So gas providers are getting more money. I forget how it's measured, but they're getting more money because the supply people are demanding so much and there's so little supply because we can't harvest it here, if that makes sense. I say all that to say, all these problems are going on. Rent costs are going up, insurance costs are going up. All those things are happening and people are getting hit from every different direction. Food costs, eggs. And that has nothing to do in your purview. But all of these costs together are affecting the people that send me here to fight for them. And I'm telling them that I'm confirming you today or voting for your confirmation because you told me that you would be a bulldog and that you would help these constituents with each that little sliver of pie that is in your purview. And I thank you for that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Vice Chair. Senator Laird.

Well, it's hard to follow that. And I would say I have been totally remiss because I keep wanting to know what the agricultural output is relatively in Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo County. So I can 7th and 8th. So let me speak for the poor cousins. I think that the interesting thing. Just as a comment, and I have a couple of questions is the comment is that Senator Grove and I might not share the same analysis on how we got there, but we share the same outcome on making sure there's enough electricity for what we're trying to do. The chair referenced Senate Bill 846, and last year, as we were doing the climate package, a lot of it was goals, but it wasn't until we got to 846 that we had over a billion dollars to kick start and provide electricity because we actually are committed to that. And the fact that in response, you said you feel that urgency, it's one that I share to make sure that we do that. And so I just appreciate how it was brought up. Also appreciate the fact that we had a great talk. You mostly satisfied anything that was a concern of mine. And I thought I would ask about two, just to sort of put them on the record in public. And it's a different way of what Senator Grove was talking about, you being a bulldog. But my question was, how do you ensure that you maintain your independence? You're independent. You might have been appointed by the governor. There'll be a time when the power companies really come and try to convince you that they have the answers to everything. How do you maintain your independence in being that bulldog?

Yeah, I think I have to point to my past as an example of that. Although before I answer that, Senator, I did want to just say before Commissioner Reynolds came on, just before Commissioner Reynolds came on, the commission established a 72 hours backup program for wireless towers. So they all need 72 hours. Unfortunately, that didn't take effect for this last storm, but hopefully that will be there. But I would just say, all my life I have been an activist. I worked on community issues. I was engaged in a lot of the deregulation fights in the 90s. I've been deeply involved in all of the issues around public utilities from a consumer perspective, from a climate perspective for over 30 years. And that part of me is kind of very deeply ingrained. And I believe the Governor appointed me because of my views, not vice versa. And I do really believe the things that I think are important and that I've worked my whole life for are threatened if costs get too high. And so on issues like climate, I think that the only way we can be successful. If we can credibly, say, to the larger public, the state, the world, that we can do this in a way that is cost-effective for your family as well as for your community, then these years have been pretty tough. We were not expecting massive wildfires the way they hit us this soon, but we're California, and we'll be able to both get a handle on the challenges that we're facing right now and address those ones coming forward. So specifically, how will I guarantee my independence. I think it's a part of my personal integrity. I think the Legislature has provided plenty of tools to the office to be statutorily independent, both from the PUC and from the governor's office. I think we're in a position actually to provide you with information anytime you ask on any subject that's in our area. And I think that we're able I mean, my view is that by acting in the best interest of the ratepayers and the state, that we'll be able to advance everybody's agenda, regardless of whether they're in the executive office or whether they're in the Legislature or what political party they are.

Thank you. I really appreciate that response, and I think it speaks to what the Senator right before me was asking about as well. And then my last question is very interesting. Yesterday, because you used this word that I didn't expect to come up in our meeting, you were talking about creativity because I was asking about how are you going to use the Office to meet the goals? And you brought that up. Talk to us about how you think creativity is going to be something you're going to be able to do with all the things that we're talking to you about.

I think as a State, we're trying to do things that no one has done before, and whether it's decarbonizing or whether it's try to establish this broad race, prosperity, all of that, and doing it all at once. And the experience that I have both in other states and frankly, other countries, I did a fair amount of work in China and India around electricity and some poverty issues. I think there is an opportunity to draw from what other places are doing. And I think that we need to be looking at these challenges as a way to see are there ways that we can do business differently? And I'll just give one example, not endorsing, but the kind of things that we should be looking at. The state of New Mexico has created an energy infrastructure authority. It for now, has used private capital, but it also could have used revenue bonds. But it's basically trying to help utilities and other transmission providers get lower cost of capital to be able to build it's a public-private partnership. And that may or may not be something that we want to do here in California for a whole set of reasons. But I think looking at those examples and identifying what are the lessons, what are the costs, and what are the potential savings if we can do this, my office can be a place where we can kind of put some of those ideas out there to the legislature and to the policymakers and at least have discussions on those things.

I appreciate that very much. Thank you. I appreciate the responses to the question.

Thank you, Senator and colleagues. While my colleagues are talking about what's frustrating and hard to answer constituents on. I'll add one more to it that goes along with the conversation and what you just started to give a response to lends into what I'm going to talk about, I don't know. Well, our use of water and energy and as more efficient as we get, it doesn't lead to a lowering of rates. I have the hardest time explaining to my constituents in San Diego County we've done more related to water diversity and a diverse portfolio of water we have storage, we have desal, we're working on water reuse, we have and conservation significant. We don't have a lot of groundwater but we have all those other things. In fact, the less water we use, the more it costs and that is a very hard thing to explain to my constituents. I don't know my stats on my County related to energy efficiency as well as I do water, but same thing. Our LAO reports. Obviously, all of those costs are capital costs and fixed cost. Wildfire mitigation, reliability investments, capital expenses, energy efficiency, our aggressive climate goals, net-metering around solar. Although the PUC has certainly tried to address that issue. And that has not gone over very well, obviously. Which speaks to why these are hard solutions to get to. Because somebody is going to end up paying more. And you start to answer the question. In terms of the question, the LAO asks is should the state consider taking a different approach regarding which costs are fixed and which are linked to how much energy and or water a household uses to avoid potentially disincentivizing, frankly, our desire to even do any conservation. So I think you were along those lines when you responded to Senator Laird towards the end. But in the meantime, our constituents are not feeling very supported and I do think the sense of urgency I mean, we've had every catastrophe imaginable, not just a pandemic that you have nothing to do with, but the impacts of fires that affect our energy reliability, our water sustainability, all of those things. And we really are committed to some of those aggressive goals. But in some respects, it almost seems we need to be talking more about some of the examples you just gave. Whether it's palatable here or not. We at least need to have those issues put before us as policymakers to determine and the administration how we're going to approach those things because it's really hard to respond. And the relationship between all of the entities that impact ratepayers, what the Energy Commission does, I said it in the last hearing, what the Energy Commission does compared to what the PUC does, Cal-ISO, CARB, all of those entities are working very hard and have lots of incredible work plans and analysis. But it's really hard for us to point where we need to go to impact the absolute change that we need to and if we're going to be held accountable and I think we are. I always want to be able to explain to someone why I supported something and what it means and what they get out of it, but sometimes it's just very hard to do. And we are counting on you, frankly. I think you've just had the weight of at least only five senators put upon you. But it's real and we're feeling it very directly every single day. And it's great that we spend billions of dollars on a lot of these programs which are going to be helpful, but at what point do people start to feel it? To my colleague from Kern, at any rate, I don't really have a question in that because I think you were trying to respond to us in those questions. If you have recommendations for what we need to be looking at, we expect you should be able to give those to us, the Legislature, or at least let us know when we're really wrong as we legislate. And so I think that would be our hope.

I would just offer up I believe that the rates team that we have at the Public Advocates Office really is the best in the state. Also, all of our other teams are really excellent as well. But if you ever want any information on how any proposal may impact rates, we're there for that. We'd like to be posting more of this on our rate trackers and things like that on our website. I would just say we see our role within the confines of the policy that's set by the state. We want to drive towards the lowest rate and the lowest cost and the best deal for the ratepayers. Anytime you have anything that you need from us or any criticism of us, any ways that we could do better, we're all ears on that.

I appreciate that. I do think if we're not careful, we're going to find that our efforts on conservation are going to actually, people are going to stop because it's like, if they feel like, if I'm going to pay more now and I'm using less, why should I try? Unless, of course, obviously many people are wedded to the fact of conservation for our planet and those values. But some people just can't they don't understand why it's impacting them the way they are when they try so hard. So I appreciate that and we will call on you.

Yeah. And water is one we didn't get to talk about that much, but we.

And there's a lot of we won't go back around, but I think my Colleagues are all quite familiar with those issues because we've had to deal with them as well. I'm now going to give the public an opportunity. We have people who are waiting here, obviously. I'm going to start again in room 2200, right here where we are, and ask folks who want to come to speak in support of Director Baker to please come up. Again, your name, organization that you represent, and your position of support. Welcome back.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members. John White with the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology. I appreciate the Committee's hearing today. A lot of very good questions, lots of important issues. I couldn't be happier to be here to support my friend Matt. I think he's going to be terrific in the job, and creativity is going to be a big part of what he brings, along with his passion and his dedication. So ask for an eye vote.

Thank you very much. Next witness. Welcome.

I'm Bill Julian. I'm a retired legislative and CPUC staffer who followed these issues for many years. I'm here in strong support for Mr. Baker. I just want to say, Senator Grove, I really appreciate your characterization of a bulldog, because that's what we need in this state. We're in deep, we're in deep stuff, and that's what we need. Great appointment. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, my name is Dan Jacobson in strong support thank you.

Thank you so much. Other people in support. Okay, Mr. Moderator, we're going to come back to you and ask for you to tee up folks who may be part of the teleconference, who wish to speak in favor again, we're going to put up that number. It's 877-226-8163, and the access code is 736-2834. Welcome back. Moderator and if you wish to speak.

In favor of this, please press one, then zero, and we'll go to line twelve. Please go ahead.

I believe that's me. This is Victoria Rome again with NRDC Natural Resources defense counsel in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Rome. Next witness.

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

Thank you very much. Be back with you in a minute. Let me offer anyone who might be in the room who wants to register in opposition to Director Baker. Okay? Seeing no one approach the microphone. Mr. Moderator, we're back with you for anyone who might wish to speak in opposition.

And if you wish to speak in opposition to this, please press one, then zero. At this time. Madam Chair, we have no one in queue at this time.

Thank you so much. We will talk with you again a bit later. Let me bring this back to my colleagues and ask for a motion. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. The motion is before us. Madam Secretary, please call the role.

Ochoa Bogh, aye. Ochoa bogh, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Grove, aye. Grove, aye. Atkins, aye. Atkins.

Five to zero. Congratulations, and we will move your confirmation onto the Senate as a whole body. And thank you for your time today. We really appreciate it.

Thank you.

And with that, for the benefit of our court reporter, well, and for all of us, actually, we're going to take a five minute break and we will be right back with you.

So we'll go ahead and get started. Hi, and let me invite the next several folks who we're going to introduce here in a minute to come on up and get situated, and then I'll get us back in order. All okay. Let me thank each of you for your incredible patience. We appreciate it very much. And next, we have members for the Board of Environmental Safety, three individuals. Sushma D. Bhatia, and please correct me when I get it wrong, Jeanne Rizzo and Alexis Strauss Hacker are three individuals who are with us today. And I want to welcome each of you. And we will start with you, Ms. Bhatia, and ask you to acknowledge anyone you want, make comments, opening comments, and then we'll go down the line, and we'll let each of you do that. And then we will come back here for questions and comments. And the first question of you is I think I massacred your name, and I'm really sorry. So welcome.

You actually did a great job. All right.

You are very kind.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Senators. It's a great honor to be here in front of you today, and I look forward to sharing more about our work with you. I want to first acknowledge my husband, who's in the audience, Aja Bhatia, and my two little boys, who are in elementary school and are cheering us on virtually. After spending about a decade in public service with the Syrian county of San Francisco, specifically reducing the impacts of toxic chemicals in communities, workers, and the environment, I had the opportunity to learn strategic skills within the private sector. So since my appointment to this board last February, I've been able to bring science based decision making to my work as a Board. Specifically, I've been working on advancing the Board's operating plan, performance metrics, hazardous waste management plan, fee structure, among other topics. Like I said, I look forward to sharing more along with my colleagues about our work, and I welcome any questions you have. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Senators, it really is an honor to be here today with my fellow Board of Environmental Safety members Alexis Hacker and Sushma Bhatia. I want to thank you for your consideration of my nomination as Chair of this Board. Here with me today are my wife and co-plaintiff in the California marriage case, Dr. Pali Cooper, as well as friends and colleagues. My son, who's just about to get his PhD in clinical psychology, is watching us remotely from Arizona. There are two board members. Member Gomez. Georgette Gomez, appointed by Madam Pro-Tem, and Lizette Ruiz, appointed by the Assembly Speaker Rendon, both of whom are in Southern California, are with us remotely. This is a capstone to my careers as a nurse, business owner, environmental justice advocate, breast cancer advocate. So I've got a myriad career. This brings me, I think, to this point of privilege to lead this board to fulfill its mission to effectively oversee the implementation of DTSC reforms that were set forth in 158. We're passionate about transparency and accountability to the legislature and the public as we work to rebuild trust and ensure that the most vulnerable communities are protected. The historic toxic trespass that occurred in our state over decades, both on to individuals and tribal lands in California, require that we deliver on that promise of reform. I welcome your questions and recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Go right ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. And Senators. I'm Alexis Strauss Hacker. Since being appointed last February, my four colleagues and I have worked closely together to convene public locations in various locations, public hearings in various locations, and meet with many different organizations with a keen focus on underserved communities. As Vice Chair of the Board, I work closely with Chair Rizzo to shape our board's operations and public engagement. I believe in bringing efficiency, transparency, and effectiveness to every aspect of our public service. I've been working with Board member Ruiz to prepare a new hazardous waste facility, permit appeal regulation as mandated by SB 158, and I'm optimistic we'll soon be ready to submit our emergency rule again. Thank you for considering my nomination.

Thank you very much. Senator Laird. Let me ask you to kick off this round of questions and comments.

Thank you very much. And I met with you all together, and we are considering you all together. And sometimes we work hard that that doesn't mean the hearing takes three times as long. So we'll try to figure out how to do this in a good way. And to the Chair, congratulations on your historic moment. Some of us are very grateful for it, so I really appreciate it. Let me just ask one question that I talked about with all three of you, which is the department has real challenges, and this board was established by legislation to provide oversight and try to help with the issues going on in the department. How do you do that? As a newly constituted board facing those issues with the Department, how do you approach it and how are you sure there's going to be outcomes? And maybe I'll address that to the chair and then let the other two I'm sorry, that's what the Chair is supposed to do. .

But let me start by saying, Senator, thank you. And in fact, it's been a while since we've had multiple folks before us at the same time. I am out of practice, so I thank the good senator. Direct your question to whom you want to. If you want all three, just get the first person started and they'll go from there. So, senator. Thank you. Chairwoman, go right ahead.

Well, it's like been drinking from a fire hose since last February. I will say that to onboard and to become deeply engaged in the work of DTSC itself. So our first task was to learn everything that was going on in the department and more broadly at Cal-EPA, and what the intersects are, and to hear from the community their perceptions of how DTSC is performing. So we've had now eight or nine board meetings in different locations around the state that are all open, with a lot of dialogue and a lot of public discussion. So that we're learning from the community what their concerns are. We're learning from DTSC, what their challenges are. And so creating the infrastructure that's startup mode is what we were in for the first several months, and we're starting up this board. So understanding the expertise of each board member for me was imperative. Who are you? What do you bring? What is the best committee for you to chair? Our two members that are not with us today, for example, are the Environmental Justice Subcommittee of the board. So each board member is assigned an area to deeply focus on, to learn about, to engage with the DTSC staff, to issue reports at every board meeting. So I think our infrastructure work has served us well. And we've hired our executive officer, Swathi Sharma, who's here today, who is excellent at holding us all accountable, because we also operate within Bagley Keen. So it means there's a divide and conquer sort of an approach to it. You heard Alexis speak of the subcommittees that she owns, and there are ones that Sushma does. And then we come together in open board meetings, and we have these discussions out loud in public. And I think that has served us amazingly well.

And then let me ask you a follow up, which is you said areas are assigned that's a policy area, not a geographic area, right?

Say that again.

You said that everybody was assigned an area.

That's correct.

A policy area, not a geographic area.

No, not a geographic area. But there are for example, Lizette Ruiz is in Southern California, and she helped us set up the Southeast La tour that we were on. Georgette Gomez is from San Diego, and she's working with us as we go down there. Alexis has tremendous experience out in Senator Groves area when we went out to Button Willow, when we went out to Kettleman. So we're taking advantage of the expertise and the geography of each of our board members. But also it is policy area, and specifically the mandates. In 158, we've taken every mandate, and we make sure that somebody's in charge of it and brings it back to the board.

I think when I talked to you, the three of you, you said that there were 70 particular hazardous sites that you were dealing with. And do you find that? And I believe the reason you're constituted is because the department wasn't totally responding in the answer to the previous question. Is it basically that by having hearings in different places where people that are involved in different ones of the 70 sites come and testify that's putting it out into the public and prioritizing it and causing for action in a way that wasn't happening without the board.

Is that sort of the I believe so. I do believe that the current administration at DTSC welcomed the reform, and we're establishing a path toward it. The funding that came with 158 starting in July provided the resources that they need to implement it. But our focus in those geographic areas and our questions of the DTSC teams has just augmented that. So we're in a position to at the last board meeting, we executed on one of the 158 mandates, which was to approve the director's priorities. And that was done in public, with public comment, with board discussion. And we actually had a tremendous experience of our influence on what drove the priorities and the responsiveness of the director and the forward thinking that she has about the priorities for this next year. So we now have that document to hold DTSC accountable.

And maybe I told you that I'd only ask what we talked about, but if a door opened, I'd walk through it. So it occurs to me that when the major reforms and restructuring of the state Parks Department was done, there was a website where the employees could individually weigh in confidentially on what they thought were issues. And is there any similar process with the department here?

There is, and it's our Ombuds program. So SB 158 created it, referenced an Office of Ombuds. We have a staff person who's been hired, who is the Ombud, who receives questions, concerns, complaints, issue areas that they want the board to address. We've had over 80 comments, some of them from internal staff, others from stakeholders, community members, regulated businesses that have responded to that. So we're in the process of understanding better what the concerns are based on what comes into the Ombuds.

And then another thing that happens is that when you start something new, you sort of set aside or start the processes. And some things that might have been in the mill are pushed off a little. So you're doing the appeal processes and some of the other processes, and there might be some applications that have been ready to hear. How do you expedite it so somebody doesn't lose time by the construction of your program?

Do you want to answer that?

The legislation gave us Emergency Rulemaking Authority, and we began the process with my colleague, Liz Ruiz last July. We've had over five informal public workshops, which were really well attended by both communities, NGOs, regulated businesses, who gave us suggestions about how to shape a better appeals process going forward. We are almost there. We have a board meeting in March in San Diego. I personally am hopeful that that would be the point at which we have successfully navigated a draft hazardous waste facility permit appeal process, and that if the board were to endorse that, we could go forward to Oal and the Secretary of state, and those regs could take effect by early April. We have four staff, one of whom is our board attorney, and he would be approaching the two facilities that had last year filed an appeal to their DTSC issued permit. And if they were to refile, we would be promptly in the business of hearing those two appeals, all in a public forum.

So you're really sensitive to this in a way that somebody is not going to be disadvantaged by the fact that this was being constructed.

Right now, the two facilities that have appealed might are their names public? They are. And they may feel they're not certain when we will be ready to hear their appeals. But I feel that by the process that we seem to have designed and how we make some final adjustments at the direction of our board, I'm confident that we will be hearing appeals soon thereafter.

Okay.

And I think key to that was the legislature giving us the Emergency Rulemaking Authority. That makes a huge difference in terms of getting these ready.

Just know that when you go to the Office of Administrative Law and some of these other things, there's always these unanticipated times. And if you're one of those two people or others that are in line, they're looking at that with a jauntice die. So just as you are moving that, I think that's a concern.

I just would add to that that one of them is lighting resources and they're appealing their own permit, and there hasn't been any complaint about the delay. The second one is Cometco, who's been very involved in the process that we're having for the renewed permit appeals process, the one that is under review. So, yes, it's frustrating. It's frustrating to the facility and the appellant, but both the appellant and the facility have been engaged with us in designing the permit appeal process. So while they're not getting their permit heard or their permit modification, it's not even the whole permit, they are engaged in our process. And I think that is a little sav to the time wound, and we.

Have a limited number of time for questions. So I'm going to let my colleagues do it. But let me just ask, I was going back and forth with the Chair on most things. Do either of the other two of you have anything you'd like to add on what we were talking about that hasn't been said?

Jeannie spoke to your question about how do we address the challenges that DTSE has. Our first order of business is to collect information and truly understand the scope of the issues across all of our stakeholder groups. And we have two or three levels provided by our SB 158 mandate that allow us to influence and shape the outcomes. So specifically, Jeanne spoke about the Director's priorities, but additionally, we as a board also get to evaluate DTSC's programs and provide a report on an annual basis to the legislature. Additionally, we get to shape the KPIs and the performance metrics that DTSE adopts. So that's another mechanism we will use to drive influence and bring this reform to life.

One last postcript. I think that we can show that there can be an extraordinary level of public engagement without disrupting the flow of business. And I think that by us being as accessible in different locations around the state, it makes a big difference. For example, for the first time, under the executive orders, the caliper and DTSC tribal consultation policy, we sent out individualized tribal consultation letters to 180 tribes in California under our chair signature to let them know about our forthcoming rulemaking. So I think there are things that we bring forward because we're always operating in a public setting that help people engage and bring out comments, which in turn, with regular meetings with the senior managers of DTSC, we can help push forward things that seem to be stalled.

Okay, well, thank you. I really appreciate your responses. And I also want to thank you for your willingness to serve, because as we said in the talk, some of these issues have been somewhat intractable, and you're just getting thrown in. It hope that somehow you're the magic thing that helps deal with it. So I just appreciate your willing to serve and thank you for your answers.

Thank you very much. I'm going to give my Vice-Chair a chance to catch her breath and go to Senator Ochoa Bogh, and then we'll circle back around.

I have to say, female power team right here. With that being said, I was very impressed to see the different life experiences that all three of you are bringing forth to the table. I'm very excited to see the work that you will be doing with all of that knowledge that together will be, I think, of great benefit to this board. My question lies with, and this is something that I've had very even prior to coming to the legislature. I very concerned in the fact that California has had very high standards of environmental goals and practices. But there's a component there that worries me, and that's the fact that sometimes we ship much of our toxic materials out of state or out of the country. And so to me, that is not the ultimate goal. And I truly believe that if we're going to truly care about the environment, that it should be done within the state of California and allowing for those processes to happen within the state. So my question to you was, do you think, um, do you think the department's actions are in line with the California's environmental stewardship beliefs? And should we be handling our own hazardous waste rather than shipping it to other states? And I'll combine it with the last question, because I know it's not illegal to ship it to other states, but I think it's unethical.

It.

Let me ask you, do you want to direct your question to all three?

We can do all three and then we love to hear your perspective.

Thank you for the comment, Senator. We have heard from, even through our early board meetings, we've heard from communities that they are concerned that we're as a state, shipping hazardous waste outside of our boundaries. On the flip side, we've also heard from communities that have hazardous waste landfills within their neighborhoods and they're concerned about bringing in more hazardous waste into their neighborhoods. So I think we as a board need to first get a holistic view of all of the hazardous waste generated in the state of California. SB one five eight establishes or requires that the State Department DTSC build a hazardous waste management plan. The plan is intended to do justice, which is provide a holistic view of all of the different kinds of wastes and volumes being generated by California. And that gives us a fact base to then make decisions from in terms of how do we think about the decision framework of what waste gets managed within the state and what waste gets shipped out of the state. And we also have to think about innovative ways to manage the hazardous waste safely. But this report is due in 2025. And the way we are engaging with this is we have a subcommittee which comprises of member LizetTW Ruiz, and I working with DTSC to understand what is the science behind hazardous waste management data points we're collecting, building more public engagement so that all of our stakeholders understand the science and the outputs being generated. Eventually, of course, this report is going to come out in 2025. And that's when we start to have a public discourse on how do we manage all of this waste we generate.

Thank you. I would add to that that the Hazardous Waste Management report is due the first quarter. So we will be hearing at our March meeting from DTSC. They will have assessed a report that will be the platform for the plan. So we'll be getting that DTSC's staff assessment will be publicly reported at our March meeting. Then the Committee and the team can work in earnest on what is the plan. There are cost factors. So you have hazardous waste to dispose of and you bring it to one of the hazardous waste landfills in California. You pay X, you go a little bit farther to Utah, a little bit farther to Arizona, and you pay less. So there's a cost factor. So how do we deal with that as an interstate issue when we don't control that part of it? Or there could be a rule, a law that says all waste generated in California has to be disposed of in California. In which case, since half of the waste does leave right now, the hazardous waste, we have to have a place to put it, or we have to reduce waste. So we have a combination of a need to figure out how to reduce toxic waste, how to deal with it on site in some instances, and then also, do we have the capacity to handle all the hazardous waste that we generate in the state? And right now we don't. So that's the challenge. That is, some of it belongs to DTSC, then it goes to Caliper, then it goes to the state. So there's a lot more that will have to be done to resolve it to what we all agree it would be a goal. How do we socialize waste in California?

Anything you need to add to what they've already said, Ms. Strauss?

Going forward, we need to look more to the intellectual and research prowess in our state to come up with treatment technologies. And that can happen anywhere in the state that we can put forward different kinds of contaminants and how could we find ways to make them safe to remain in the generalized area in which the cleanups need to occur? We have tens of thousands of sites that are considered contaminated sites in addition to what Senator Laird had mentioned, the 74 sites that currently hold a hazardous waste facility permit. So the universe of permitted hazardous waste operating facilities is quite manageable. The universe of contaminated sites is very large and we just need to boost as various work groups before us have suggested, we need to boost our investment in treatment technologies.

Love all your answers.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator Smallwood-Cuevos.

Thank you. And given the last group, I am very glad to see three very capable women here before us today. And thank you, Ms. Bhatia, for the mustard-colored memo. I think we got the sunshine memo this morning. I recognize and appreciate what Senator Laird mentioned earlier, the enormous task that you have this Board of Environmental Safety, Community Engagement and DTSC oversight. Whenever I see environmental safety and community engagement, I feel very excited and grateful for this work. We talked earlier about the effects that we're in. Our planet has been warming for a long time. We know that wildfires and we know that emissions pollutants. We know that scarcity of water has profound effects on our communities and will continue to have these profound effects on our communities and particularly those most vulnerable. Those who are living next to these polluting industries and our families, particularly in my community, black community. Just a high-level disproportionate level of infant mortality rates, high levels of asthma, eczema. All of these things we are paying for and will be paying for years to come. And I am grateful that you, this board, have taken on this path to really direct policy and provide strategic guidance DTSC and to set fees and regulations and to make sure that these waste permits are heard and communities are heard in the appeals process. I also appreciated your responses earlier today to my colleagues and particularly the point of helping vulnerable communities. And so many of them, as I mentioned, are in our district. You are the face of that lifeline, and what you do matters so greatly. And so I'm a big proponent of meaningful community engagement. I know that folks who live in these communities are the experts that some PhDs, no matter how much they study, will never know the level of expertise that those most impacted and directly impacted communities know and solutions that they have. And I'm not talking about sort of CBO-arranged organized tours and the hearings that allow folks to speak out. I think those things are important. What's most important for me is the infrastructure, the ways in which information is collected, but also in which they are turned into directives, into policy, into accountability measures. And so I want to know not only how you will support people in historically neglected communities, but how do we make sure they feel that support in the process? And what infrastructure will you have for that?

Will you direct it to one person?

And I will direct it to the Chair. And if others want to thank you. I'd appreciate it.

It's a priority for DTSC this year to focus on their environmental, justice and community engagement. And that came up at the board meeting to be sure that engagement is part of every single thing that's done so that these decisions aren't made. And then you put it out for short public comment. And the public comments go somewhere. Our Board meetings are really long, and in part because there's plenty of time for public, not just comment, thank you for your comment. But engagement where they can ask questions, where DTSC staff members are present to answer questions, where we have these workshop forums which are very open dialogue. And that gives us the rich information that we need to inform how we're going to do this oversight, how are we going to hold ourselves accountable for what we've heard from the community members? So I think that's something we go back to at each board meeting, okay, we heard that. What are we going to do about it? How can we ensure that there's a response to that? And that's part of what we're developing with the Ombuds program, which is a response back from within DTSC. And then did the community member feel heard? Did they feel responded to? Did they get what they need? And sometimes it's not gettable, but we can have that conversation about why not and what can we do going forward to improve on it. So I think it's more time consuming and to have that level of engagement, but it's the only way that any of us on this board know how to work. So I think from the different perches that we've been in, whether it's Department of the Environment, EPA, the community activists, who are the other two board members, that's how we operate. So we know it's going to take more of our energy and time to do it, but we believe very strongly in that. So I think my colleagues can add to that.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevass. You asked about infrastructure. A couple of things I would make note of whenever we've had outside of our publicly noticed board meetings, whenever we've met with community groups, we've written up a summary of with whom we met and what were the main takeaway points, what are the follow up actions for ourselves and with DTSC? And we post those readily on our board website and certainly not everybody would be aware at the front end, but we feel it's very accountable of us to do so. A second example is in designing the new hazardous waste facility appeal process. For the facility permits, we've made it possible for individuals. I mean, the reg is certainly pending and has not yet been approved by the whole Board. But in the design that we've brought forward in public settings, we've made it possible for individuals and groups to file, to participate in a way that has not been possible before through amicus briefs. And we think that that allows for a greater strength of a community voice. And lastly, also from an infrastructure point of view on either side of our Board Meetings around the state, whether we were in Los Angeles, in Bakersfield, we've always designed a day of being in the field and meeting with many different individuals and community groups. And we've found those to be very rewarding and then are accountable for what happened in that, Sushma.

I think you've both covered most of it. Just one minor point I might add is because we're inaugural Board, we recognize that we have to invest some time and energy in building awareness of the fact that we exist and what our scope is and build trust across our stakeholder groups. So in that spirit, we have taken issues to the stakeholders. So one example is when building the Board's operating plan, we went and presented it to Sieb, which is a business trade association in California. We went and presented to California Resource Managers Association. This is outside of talking about the operating plan within our Board context. The idea here is to solicit input from different stakeholder groups and make sure they are all engaged and feeling heard.

No, thank you for that. And I think the Ombuds Persons Program has and will be a part of increasing that outreach and engagement. I know that that office was not funded at the level that was expected, but the program still has the responsibility to track complaints and report suggestions to the Board. This is really essential to that constituent service and I'm not sure how well it's working now given the funding question, but it sounds like the infrastructure is being built. Do you think the Ombuds Program is accomplishing its intended goal and what's needed?

I think we're in the early stages of understanding how much activity it's going to generate. As I said, in the first few months of having a person, a staff member for the Ombuds Program, we've received I think it's 84 inquiries that we're assessing, and we're working with DTSC on the other end of it. Okay. We have this inquiry. We have to be able to talk to the Project Manager, the Department Head, or whoever it is that's appropriate, get the answer the public is asking about, make sure it gets communicated. So we're assessing the time that that's going to take and how much incoming there will be before we come back and say, we need four people in this office or a second. However we need it. We're just not in a position yet to make a recommendation. But we want the infrastructure so that when we do make a recommendation, it'll be well founded on fact.

And one final question, and this has to do with how do you feel? Is this Board doing a sufficient job? It's checking DTSC. Do you feel that you're getting the responses that you need, and particularly those that are coming from communities? And lastly, does the legislation that is created by your Board give you enough independence and autonomy? Because sometimes when you have this relationship, the Board can get the autonomy and independence can be questioned. So just how is that relationship and how are you ensuring that independence of your voice as a board?

I think that's a great question, and I thought it was coming from the chair behind our mask. So I'm sorry for not looking at you during that question. I appreciate it. We were well aware in looking at the legislation that it's not a full on governance board. The the legislation is very specific areas that we work on, whether it's permit appeals, hazardous waste plan, Ombuds. We assess the programs and the performance. We're going to know a lot better after the priorities for this year, which we did approve by a vote of the Board with the amendments that Board Members and community members offered, that we will be evaluating that, and we'll do that independently. So the priorities are public now. Right. And DTSC performs to those priorities, and we assess the performance to those priorities. In that sense, I feel like we've established an independent place in a public sphere where this isn't like just a discussion with DTSC about what are you going to do, what are your priorities? They're codified, they're here, they're written, they're presented, they're public. And I think that's different. That's different than it's ever been. If we bump into areas where, for example, we have permit appeals, but we don't have permitting, but we can make recommendations about the permitting process. If, through our work on permit appeals, we see things that happen in permitting that had an influence on this ultimate appeal, is if so many permits get appealed. There's a story there. So we want to understand the story. And we want to understand whether it's misinformation or not enough public engagement or the regs that they operate under, right. The criteria they operate under. So we'll be in a position, I believe, at the end of this next year to really answer that more fully. But it is not a full on governance board, and I just always think it's important to say that out loud.

Well, I appreciate that and appreciate ensuring that those community concerns are heard and that there is always an opportunity for the board to not reflect the culture of the DTSC, but to ensure its independence in different ways of approach when communities are engaging and wanting your intervention in some of the issues that they're facing. I know that independence can be difficult at times, but the expectation is that the responsiveness and the engagement is certainly done differently and at a different level. So thank you for that.

I think the Board Meetings also give the opportunity for certain pressures that communities have expressed. SB 673 and the need to do the very difficult job of putting in place cumulative impacts analysis. Those are things that one struggles with at the national level. We struggle with getting that done here in California. By virtue of talking about that with the Director in our public Board Meetings and people having the ability to comment, I feel that those community concerns don't just go away, but they have a public forum in which to voice it. There are probably a dozen other such examples, and we know that Director Williams is focused on many of them in her priorities for herself and her team this year. The one thing that I think is a structural vulnerability is one that we as a teeny tiny Board face. We are four part-time Board Members and a full-time Chair. We're a staff of four. We're going to get a lot done this year, but we are going to have difficulty hiring engineers and scientists. At the same time, DTSC has hundreds of vacancies in scientists and engineers that are meant to staff those critical community-facing programs. So I just want to extend my concern that they are going to have hiring difficulties as we are having hiring difficulties.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. I do apologize. I've been kind of bouncing back and forth between committees and meetings. I appreciate the time that all three of you spent with me yesterday, and I appreciate your expertise and what your vision and goal is for this new position that you guys are taking with this new board for the environmental public, environmental safety, and your connection with DTSC. I do have questions. I wasn't going to ask you guys anything that I didn't ask you yesterday, but based on the comments that you provided to my colleagues, I do have a couple of questions. Madam Chair, you mentioned that we ship 50% of our hazardous waste or over 50% of our hazardous waste out of California to Arizona and Utah, right?

Yes, to other states.

To other states. So we talked yesterday a little bit about the liability issue for transporting that by truck, those kinds of things. But something that arose in my curiosity today is why do we do that?

Well, I think if it's cost, there's a choice that people make about if it's cheaper to go to Arizona with it or Utah than it is to pay the hazardous waste facilities in California. The capacity of those facilities. They have to have a certain amount of space for their existing clients. I don't know whether or not they're at complete capacity. We're going to find that out at the end of the quarter. Is there really capacity there? And you have communities that both rely on those facilities for employment. That's part of communities have grown up around these sites as we toured them. We got a sense of it. And there's also communities concerned with migration of toxics from those sites. So you're balancing and they're under permit review very shortly. So both of them are up. Button Willow and Kettleman are both in the queue for permit review. So you've got that piece of it and it's not like people are rushing in to say, hey, I want to put a hazardous waste site somewhere. And if they do, they want to put it somewhere that's going to impact vulnerable communities. So these are the balancing acts that people have played over the years. And the authority for that waste to leave the state is there. So if it's there and people feel like it's a cheaper, more accessible way for them to dispose of their waste, they may very well choose that. And so there are a lot of factors, and that's why the Hazardous Waste Management plan is so critical. And that was built into 158, but it takes quite a bit of time to arrive at that. But we can report to you on the report when it comes out in the end of the first quarter. That'll give us all a better sense of what we're up against.

Thank you.

I just want to add one more point to Jeanne's point, which is about really thinking about innovation. Ultimately, we have generated hazardous waste over many years and we're going to continue to generate hazardous waste as a state and to really think about solutions that are innovative for us to deal with and manage. The hazardous waste safely within California is the North Star Metric for all of us and it's something we're looking to work with the DTSC and perhaps even academia on.

Thank you. My next question was, are we at capacity? But we won't know that till the report comes out. That's my understanding. The next question I have is when it goes to these other areas, arizona, Utah or other states, do you know where it goes? Does it go to vulnerable populations or vulnerable communities?

In the same way that Button Willow, and Kettleman are private, licensed disposal sites for hazardous waste, and also at Kettleman for PCB waste in Utah, for example, and Texas Incinerator. There are concerns that communities have, but those concerns don't necessarily enter into the bidding process for someone doing a cleanup at a California contaminated site. And so I have, over the years heard about those concerns. The key is to ensure that those states inspect those facilities and assure those communities and us where they take California waste that they are in compliance. And so for all of us to be vigilant when waste is going out of state to know that it's going to a place that is in compliance until such time as we can manage. Our own waste.

Would you think or would you know? Either any one of the three of you, would you think or would you know if California's regulatory and environmental safety processes are more stringent or less stringent than other states?

My understanding is that they're more stringent and it's part of the decision to take them out of state. What's considered hazardous waste here might not all be considered hazardous waste somewhere else. That's part of what we've heard. But again, waiting for the full report on the state of hazardous waste in California, which again is due out by the end of the first quarter, I think we'll have a much better ability to answer specific questions and I'm happy to commit to coming back to you with that.

I appreciate that and I appreciate your commitment to continue to provide me with information. When you mentioned Button Willow or Kettleman or other 74 facilities here in California correct. When we talk about those 74 facilities who permits them to operate within the areas that they're operating in?

DTSC under State statute, issues a hazardous waste facility operating permit. There are usually at the local level other kinds of permits and authorizations. But the 74 that I referred to are those for businesses currently operating that have a hazardous waste management operation in some facet that is governed by the DTSC issued permit.

Okay. And then of those facilities, the 74, they're authorized to operate in California that have that waste management permit. And we talked about them, Miss Smallwood specifically and others that are concerned about disadvantaged communities, brown or black communities, however you want to put it. My question is that what was there first, the facility or the community?

I think that has 74 different answers going back. I mean, if one thinks about a facility that's no longer operating in Los Angeles like the Exide Battery Recycling facility facilities at the turn of the from the 1900s into the 2000s are very different than those that were to that were there a century earlier. But some of those same old industries existed and just changed ownership and function. So I think that it would be a fantastic paper for a team of students to look at. Of those 74, what I'm not including in response to Senator Laird's question is there are about 24, 25 that have closed and have a postclosure permit as well. I just didn't want to get into the weeds on that.

No, I appreciate that, and I'm not trying to catch you in a gotcha moment. I'm just trying to figure out if DTSC licensed these facilities. Do they license them to operate in vulnerable communities or were the communities come after and then a local ordinance allowed housing to be built around these facilities. So I'm just trying to determine that because somewhere in that process, obviously.

We don't want any communities involved in these areas or close to an impact area where they would be hurt. But if a business has been licensed and duly paid fines and whatever and employs people within, I don't know, several acres, one acre, two blocks, you've toured these facilities. I haven't. And they were licensed by DTSC in the middle of a downtown Los Angeles neighborhood that has a poor, low, socioeconomic disadvantaged community or area. Why would DTSC do that, is my question. So I was trying to figure out that. And if not, why did the locals authorize housing to be built around these facilities within an impact area to create this problem that we have? I guess I'm a big-picture person. Let's solve the problem without hurting the facilities. We obviously use hazardous waste. We create it here in California. And much like again, going back to oil, much like oil, we use oil every single day. 1.8 million barrels of oil. He's going to make fun of me right now for saying it again.

I'm going to do it all the time.

Okay. I heard him take a breath, so I thought it was coming. We use 1.8 million barrels of oil every day, but we are not allowed to produce it here, even though we have it here. And we bulldoze down the Amazon rainforest, affect indigenous Indians in that impact area to bring oil over our ecosystem, producing 26 million metric tons of carbon emission with these ships to bring us the oil that we use. So I'm trying to figure out in that sense, and in the area that you guys oversee, we produce hazardous waste. We have companies that deal with hazardous waste that's licensed by DTSC. How they get to these communities, whether the community comes first or the facility comes first, that's a question I would like an answer to that. But are we doing the same thing we're doing with oil? Are we producing this hazardous waste and we're shipping it to another state that doesn't have the same restrictive environmental, health and safety standards that we require here? And we're just I don't want to say willy nilly, but willy nilly sending it to another state that does not have those same and are they going to impacted areas for vulnerable communities in those states. And if so, shame on us. So those are the kind of that's what brought my something, I believe I apologize. So I believe that you perked those questions when you responded to Ms. When you responded to Ms. Smallwood-Cuevas

I'm going to attempt, love my colleagues, to jump in here. I think the question you're asking is about how do we make a decision? Does the community come first or the facility come first? And I want to answer that by saying that the science is evolving so we learn new things about, okay, now this is a hazardous chemical and these are the kinds of health impacts that chemical will cause to the communities. And in some cases, there are decisions made about a facility permit decision. Say, for example, dry cleaners. Dry cleaners use toxic chemicals and they're legally allowed to operate in California. They are probably in everyone one of your districts. But through the course of the operations, we've also learned that dry cleaning fluids can get emitted into the environment and cause contamination. And then DTSc has to then go clean up those sites and ensure that the communities are safer. So I think that's my two part answers. Facilities are legally allowed to use toxic chemicals to run the course of their business. DTSC's job, and then our Board's job as an oversight authority is to make sure they're doing it in a way that's safe and that their operations are being enforced on a regular basis to make sure that the communities are safe and the workers are safe, but also know that the science is evolving. Which is why we really need to be future-proofing our work and thinking ahead, looking at safer alternatives. So if we know that dry cleaners are using toxic chemicals, can we steer them towards a safer alternative that we know exist in the market? So that's what needs to happen as a next step.

Okay, I think that's an excellent example, if you don't mind my expanding on it. There's about 7500 active and inactive dry cleaners in the state, and 112 of them, some are in your district have a really bad-enviro-store-score. They're 75% or higher. And so they're because of their proximity to what they call sensitive receptors that's people, schools, communities. Now, when those dry cleaners were put there and everybody was using perc, nobody knew that. Now we know it. And even if somebody abandons the dry cleaner, it doesn't mean those chemicals aren't still around. So the CVCI program, which is part of what was funded in that same cycle as 158, is exploring that. They're looking at the worst of the worst and investing in the communities because we visited a dry cleaner attempting to convert to wet-cleaning, and it's $70,000 to buy the piece of equipment that wet-cleaner would need to not use chemicals. And the special training that the workers at the dry cleaners or wet cleaners would have to use. So it's a big thing to have that happen, to try to execute that. So those are the kinds of things that the Department is investigating, trying to get the best possible science and the best possible solution to that. But it's massive. And that was something that came before we knew how hazardous perc was.

That makes sense. That makes sense. It was kind of like the chicken and the egg theory I was going after. And I didn't consider the evolving new additions to hazardous waste where facilities. God, please don't ban dry cleaning. It's cleaner.

You would have to do that's.

Why she's worried.

So I was trying to figure that out. And then again, my other concern was again about how California sets certain policies which and we say transition, we say diversity, we say equity, we say all those things, but what we're really doing is just NIMBYism, right? We're not doing it in our backyard, but we're going to ship it to Arizona, Colorado, or whatever, and we're not doing it in our backyard, but we're going to get it from the Amazon and push those people out of their house. But our backyard, under this legislative body and previous legislative bodies in this building, is the safest, most environmentally protected, safety, health zone state in the world. I don't care how you look at whatever process, whether it's DTSC, Natural Resources, winds, I don't care what it's done. We are the best at what we do for those environmental practices. And to I'm looking for another word, but to say NIMBYism like, we're not in my backyard, but we'll send it to these other places is not a solution to our problem. So I am very interested about the capacity issue. And if we do have capacity, why are we not doing it here in the safest, most environmental, protective way possible? I thank you all. I didn't ask you a question. Do you want me to ask you a question? I thank you very much. I agree with Ms. Smallwood that it is very refreshing to see a panel of women before us running and heading up. The fourth person is not here, though. There's two more. So I appreciate that, and I think no offense, but I think that women have abilities to solve problems and think outside the box and come up with real solutions. And I really appreciated the conversation we had yesterday. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Well, I don't really have any questions because I think my colleagues have really covered a lot of ground. Well, maybe it is a question, but how do you envision the Board will communicate with us, the Legislature, if you identify statutory changes or some of these comments and discussions we've had today? You're a new board. I mean, there's some excitement in that, in that you get to set the tone in the direction. There's also all the work you had to do in order to. And I'm glad it really took us a while before we could schedule this, because it allowed you to actually get some real work under your belt, get it up and running. And I have to say, I did ask a question, but I really appreciate the diversity of expertise. I commend the Governor for the selection. And just to be clear, the Rules Committee appointed Ms. Gomez. I may have made the recommendation. I don't always sometimes colleagues in the legislature bring names for various boards, but she has and to Senator Smallwood, she has expertise in the EJ community, which was the entire reason that and we wanted to have someone. But it's clear to me, listening to the discussion today and to each of you and looking at your resumes and your different perspectives, that this is a pretty well-rounded group of individuals, including the speaker's appointment and our appointment. And we should feel good about that because transition does occur. And by the way, the smell of perc on clothes is not exactly great. Maybe nobody remembers that. But I just appreciate your base of knowledge and know that we have a lot of work to do, and we'll ask you how you envision getting those reports to the legislature and if you have any recommendations for what we can entertain.

Well, we did on August 3, which was pretty soon after we started, we had our first report testimony to the Joint Committee, the Assembly and Senate Committees on Environment, and that happens annually, is my understanding. We will come on request, and if there's something in particular that we feel that we want to bring before you, then we'll petition for that to happen. We'll go through the leg staff at DTSC for that, and we want to be responsive. We'd like to meet one on one. We want to understand the concerns. So now that we're more stood up and we have some staff, I think our availability and accessibility to all of you is imperative. Because you have the perspective of your constituents and of what's legislatively possible. Because we could say everything that we want, but that isn't necessarily going to fly. Having been on the other side trying to get legislation, I understand that. So if there are legislative fixes that are needed, then we will have to come to you. If it's budget, obviously we'll have to do that. We do have fee authority, and we're treating that judiciously. Just because we have it doesn't mean we should use it willy-nilly. We really need to justify and have fiscal responsibility.

It does. I think that you will find that our Policy Committees will reach out. The Senate has a unique opportunity to have these conversations with conference, and I think you see that my colleagues come with lots of questions and concerns and the desire you've set through two other appointments where we feel compelled to have to say on behalf of our constituents. So I think we feel fortunate in the Senate that we get to do this. And I just commend you for the work you've done thus far, and we look forward to the ongoing relationship. I am going to open it up to members of the public, as you've seen us do already a couple of times. I'm going to start here in room 2200 and ask people to come forward. And let me ask those who wish to speak name organization, if any, that you represent and which individual you are supporting and if all three, you certainly can say that as well. Please come on forward and welcome.

Hi. My name is Gina Solomon. I'm a clinical professor in the Division of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at UCSF. I'm also a program director at the Public Health Institute in Oakland. And I think you couldn't have a better group of people before you to serve in this extremely important role on this oversight board. DTSC has really been has great leadership, is moving in a good direction, but the board needs to hold them accountable while also being constructive and helping to find a path forward through these really tangled issues. And so I think there's a great group also. I was asked to speak on behalf of colleagues at Breast Cancer Prevention Partners who had to leave, who also wanted to register strong support, and in particular support from all of us for the chair of this board, who many of us have worked with for years. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please.

Thank you.

Madam Chair members Dawn Koepke with McHugh Koepke Padron. Pleased to be here before you in support of all three appointees on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. As you well know, CEEB is an organization founded by Governor Pat Brown that brings together a number of stakeholders in not only the regulated business community, but also public members labor with the goal of trying to find workable solutions for environmental challenges that also take into account the importance of a vibrant economy. Our experience in working not only with the legislature and the administration on the development of the provisions of Senate Bill 158 were very productive, and we're really pleased to be working with these fine appointees as part of implementation of that. We have found them to be fair, certainly responsive, and certainly equitable in terms of their interactions, engagement with all stakeholders, and certainly look forward to continuing to work with them and being a solutions oriented partner as part of how we might be able to collaborate and work together on some of these issues. So thank you. And Steve strongly urges your recommendation to full Senate to confirm these appointees. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appropriate testimony, particularly in light of a new board before the Senate Rules Committee, seeing no further speakers in support here. Physically, we're going to go back to our moderator and the teleconference line. Again, that number is 877-226-8163. The access code is 736-2834. Moderator welcome back. And would you like to tee up those who wish to speak in support?

Thank you, Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen, to comment in support over the phone, press 10. You'll be provided with a line number, and when your line number is called, please state your name and affiliation for the legislative record. Once again, to queue up for comment on this item, please press 10 at this time. One moment, Madam Chair, we do have a couple queued up. We'll get those line numbers for you shortly.

Thank you very much. And a reminder to the witnesses, your name, organization, if any, and just your support, not extra comments at this point. And if you want to register your support for all three, please say that. Or if you're calling for a specific individual appointee, go ahead and give their name. Thank you.

Our first comment comes from line 14. Line 14, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Senate Rules Committee. I'm Lizette Ruiz, Member of the Board of Environmental Safety and longtime member and board member with Communities for a Better Environment. And I would like to speak on behalf of my Board of Environmental Safety colleagues. Member Jean Drieso, estras Hacker and Sushma Bhattia. And I would like to greatly encourage you to approve and confirm their respective appointments, as every member of our board brings their own very much needed lived experience and professional expertise. And every member really completes us. And we've done so much this year, and I can't picture us with anybody else. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please.

Our next comment comes from line number 19. Line 19, go ahead, please. One moment. 19. Okay. Apologies, there was a delay in opening your line 19. You are now open. You may continue.

Okay. This is Deborah Denton. I'm a retired environmental scientist with the US. EPA, and I'm in support of all three of these wonderful board members.

Thank you so much. Other witnesses.

Next, we go to line number 16. Line 16, go ahead, please.

Hi, committee members. My name is Georgette Gomez, and I'm the Senate appointee to the BES Board. And I am in strong support of. All three fierce women. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Gomez. Next witness.

We have no other callers in the queue to address the chair.

Thank you very much. We'll be back with you momentarily. Okay, we will bring it back into the room here, 2200, to see if there's anyone who wishes to speak in opposition. Okay, seeing no one here to speak in opposition, Mr. Moderator, we'll come back to you to tee up the line for anyone who would like to speak in opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. Once again, you'd be provided with your line number. Press 10 to queue up for opposition. Madam Chair, we have no respondents in queue.

Let me thank you for your help today. We appreciate it greatly. So let me bring it back to my Senators for a motion. And Madam Vice Chair. All three.

All three.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, will you call the role?

Laird Aye. Laird Aye. Ochoa Bogh Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Grove aye. Grove aye. Atkins Aye

Unanimous. That is an incredible thing. Thank you for your conversation today. To all of your supporters and those who were here, we will forward these names onto the full Senate for full confirmation. Thank you.

Best of luck. Okay? We all do. Thank you. It was a pleasure. Okay. This is going to conclude today's public portion of the agenda. I want to thank all of the individuals who took the time to be here today and participate in public testimony, and those, of course, also on teleconference. If you weren't able to testify today, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Rules Committee or visit our website for instructions. Your comments and suggestions are very important to us, and we want to include that testimony in the official hearing record. So with that, let me say thank you, everyone, for your patience and your cooperation. The Senate Committee on Rules will now move to executive session.