Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

You on Energy, Utilities and Communications will come to order. Good afternoon. More almost good evening. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service. For individuals wishing to provide public comment for today's hearing, the participant number is 877-226-8163. That's 877-226-8163. And the access code is 736-2832. That's 736-2832. We're holding our committee hearing in the Oak Street Building in room 1200. So I encourage all our committee members to come to the hearing room so we can establish a quorum as soon as possible. We have only one bill on the agenda today, so before the presentation, well, we still don't have a quorum, so we're going to start as a subcommittee. I see Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia. He's here, he's here to present AB 1373. We'll start as a subcommittee right now. So Assemblyman Garcia, you're welcome to present.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of this committee, I'm proud to present AB 1373, a measure originally put forward by the governor in January, but one that has now undergone extensive review by both the Assembly and the Senate. Compromise presented by this bill reflects the engagement of the legislature with the governor, and it is a stronger policy proposal as a result of that. I want to begin by accepting all the committee amendments outlined in pages 15 and 16 of the analysis. These include two technical changes around the terms used in the bill, as well as clarification on the intent of future budget, funding and clarification on what construction means to address an issue raised by the Longshoresmen Union. I thank the hard work of the committee in improving this bill. The core to this proposal is the creation of a central procurement entity with the Department of Water Resources, DWR. This is a topic I've advocated for years to try to bring harder to procure long lead time resources online like geothermal, and more recently the high interest in offshore wind. I have often said that our procurement needs to weigh both lease cost and best fit so we don't have gaps that lead to reliability issues. Having DWR be able to buy these resources when our utilities haven't been able to, or have chosen not to, is the cheapest and most efficient way to get these needed resources online. I view this bill, while comprehensive in scope, to be exactly what the state needs to ensure reliability for the coming decades. I'm happy to be joined today by a joint author of ours, Mr. Phil Ting, and we also have the president of the California Public Utilities Commission, Alice Reynolds, who will be testifying along with Scott Wetch, who can speak more to this proposal. And just thank you again for your attention and really appreciate the work done by this committee. If you allow our co-authors to say a few words.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also just want to thank our lead author, Member Garcia, our utilities chair. I think this proposal is much improved from what we first saw when the governor released his trailer bill. Really appreciate the governor's team as well as all the senators and legislative staff who've really worked on this bill. This bill now is a bill that's going to really help us procure future clean energy sources, help our reach our clean energy goals, but really invest in clean energy technology that perhaps the private sector wouldn't have invested in, as well as IOUs, MoUs, public power, CCAs, none of them would really be investing in this technology. So this is, I think, a perfect role for the state. It's a technology that has at least a five-year lead time, has to be clean. It really ensures that we will not be competing. One of our major concerns we saw in the proposal was, will it be competing against all the other load-serving entities' purchasing power. Whether it was natural gas or any particular kind of power, would it just be raising those prices? I think that concern has really been allayed because much of this technology is future-thinking technology. You might recall last year when we were debating around Diablo and reinstating that power plant. That community, at some point, would love to be involved in offshore wind. And I think this presents that opportunity for communities that are looking at offshore wind as a part of their future. In particular, this also has provisions around Interconnection. We know that's a major issue around Interconnection and not getting our homes, our buildings, our offices, anything you can imagine interconnected. This is really going to help streamline that, and it really provides some greater oversight by the PUC as well over different entities. So with that, really appreciate the hearing and respectfully ask for aye vote for AB 1373.

Thank you for your presentation. Consultant. Let's establish a quorum.

Bradford. Here. Bradford here. Dahle. Dally here. Ashby. Ashby here. Becker. Here. Becker here. Caballero. Caballero here. Dodd. Durazo. Eggman. Gonzalez. Gonzalez here. Grove. McGuire. Min. Newman. Newman here. Rubio. Present. Rubio present. Seyarto. Here. Seyarto here. Skinner. Stern. Wilk. Present. Wilk present.

A quorum has been established. We've heard from our lead author and a joint author on this measure. Now we'll hear from our two primary witnesses. They will have two minutes each. I think you said it was President Reynolds. And who's the other one? Scott Wetch. So as you find yourself, you can come to the podium right there, or you can take a seat here. Whatever works best.

Good afternoon, or good evening, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to AB 1373. My name is Alice Reynolds. I'm the president of the California Public Utilities Commission. As you all know, California is a global leader in addressing the climate crisis. And this is really exemplified in the state's energy sector, where we have not only codified ambitious clean energy targets, but we're actually achieving them. The next phase of our clean energy evolution, achieving the state's clean zero carbon resource electricity targets, including 100% clean energy by 2045, requires new policy tools and approaches. So to facilitate achieving these goals, the Administration originally put forward to the Legislature several proposals that are now incorporated into AB 1373. As the Assembly Member noted, this proposal includes the development of a new clean procurement mechanism. Central procurement mechanism, sorry, to procure needed diverse clean energy resources the creation of a capacity payment construct to reimburse the state's Strategic Electricity Reliability Reserve when it is relied on for reliability strengthening of our existing core energy resource, planning and procurement programs to ensure that electric retail salers are delivering on their clean energy and electric service reliability obligations and the opportunity to expedite new electric transmission projects that are truly needed to have clean electricity available when we need it and where we need it. The first two proposals that I described above are performance-based policy tools that are only triggered if the state's electric retail sellers are unable to procure and achieve a diversified portfolio of energy resources and fall short in procuring adequate resources to meet electric service reliability requirements. The third proposal improves the interplay between the state's energy resource procurement and planning programs, the Renewable Portfolio Standard Resource Adequacy Program, and the Integrated Resource Planning Program, creating fair regulatory treatment across all electric retail sellers. Finally, the last proposal is constructed to accelerate the responsible development of new electric transmission projects that are needed to meet our clean energy and electric service reliability objectives. Overall, these energy policy proposals have been publicly evaluated over the last six months and have been enhanced along the way to address stakeholder and legislative feedback and concerns. What you now have before you includes notable modifications to these proposals since they were introduced. And these modifications include a sunset date for the central procurement mechanism, a defined universe of diverse clean energy resources that may be procured through the Central Procurement Mechanism, which explicitly prohibits fossil-fueled resources, a reporting requirement on the use and outcomes of the Central Procurement Mechanism and requirements that costs associated with the Central Procurement Mechanism are tied directly to the use of this tool and the costs are fairly allocated. These changes are welcome additions and make for an improved set of state energy proposals. Together, the Administration and the Legislature can move these proposals forward and signal to the world that California is ready and working to build the reliable and clean energy infrastructure of the future. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to this proposal.

Thank you, President Reynolds. Scott Wetch.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'm member Scott Wetch on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, the California Coalition of Utility Employees, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers and EOPA. Members, we sincerely believe that this may be one of the most consequential climate bills that any of you have the opportunity to vote on during your careers. And that is not simply hyperbole. The biggest threat to us meeting our climate goals between now and 2045 are rate impacts to ratepayers. One only needs to read national news this past week about what's going on in Germany. Reuters, foreignpolicy.com, several others have commented on the "Green Lash" that's occurring in Germany because of the rate increases from their rapid increase into renewable energy. By using a centralized procurement process, well, let me just say, parenthetically, I think the committee is well aware that we have to add upwards of 55,000 megawatts of renewable power in order to meet our 2045 goals. That's going to cost a lot of money. The centralized procurement mechanism is the only way to bring down those costs on these large, complex, long lead time projects in order to minimize the rate impacts. And let me give you an example. Several years ago, my client sponsored a bill, proposed a bill that Assembly Member Garcia authored to have DWR procure a large pump storage project in Southern California. We had the investment bankers do an analysis of what the savings to ratepayers would be on that one project between having the IOUs purchase it, given their damaged credit ratings, or having DWR use all the ability of the State of California to finance it at a much lower cost and the savings over the life of that project, which was documented legislatively, was $2.8 billion. $2.8 billion savings to ratepayers on that one project. This won't be the fix for every single utility-grade project, but it will absolutely be essential to be able to bring down the costs of those projects. And if we don't pay attention to the impacts on ratepayers, we're going to have a problem come 2030 and beyond maintaining public support for what we've done here. And so that's why we would urge your support for this bill.

Thank you. Now we'll move to witnesses here in room 1200. Just simply state your name and your position.

I'm Marvin Pineda, on behalf of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, I want to thank this committee for your support in reaching agreement ensuring that the IOW continues to welcome this projects at the ports. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members. Bob Giroux, on behalf of the San Diego County Water Authority, in support of the bill. We'd like to thank the authors and the committee and the administration. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members, Brian White on behalf of Offshore Wayne, California. We also are in support of the bill and like to thank the author and administration for all their hard work and the committee staff as well. Thank you

Thank you. Good evening, committee members. My name is Diane Limon. I'm the director of Women Recruitment and Support for IBW Local Eleven, Los Angeles. We support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Shomari Davis, a business rep for IBW Local Eleven in Los Angeles. And we support an aye vote on this bill. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Jackie Waltman, a business rep for IBEW Local Eleven, and we support this bill.

Good evening. My name is Kelly Oliver, business rep for Local Eleven, IBEW. We support this bill.

Good evening. My name is Tommy Zielomski with IBEW Local Eleven Los Angeles, and we support this bill. Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Crystal Herrera. I'm with IBEW Local Eleven, and we support this bill. Thank you so much.

Hello to all. My name is Jacob Troncoza. I am IBEW Local Eleven, and for the record, I support this bill.

Good evening, honorable chair and utility committee members. My name is Al Fortier. I'm with IBEW Local Union 1245, and I rise in support of this bill. Thank you.

Good evening. Garrett Markwood, IBEW Local 1245, support this bill. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Kim Camatti, IBEW local 1245, and I also support this bill. Thank you.

Good evening. Mark Goodwin, IBEW. 1245. And I support this bill. Thank you.

Good evening. Charlotte Stevens, IBEW 1245, in support.

Good evening. Eileen Purcell, IBEW 1245, senior advisor to our business manager. Thank you for supporting this bill.

Dannika Bynum, local IBEW 1245. And I support this bill.

Good evening. I'm Seamus Carroll. I'm an El Dorado County voter, and I support this bill.

I'm Bryan Carroll, Seamus's dad, and a proud IBEW 1245 Member, and I encourage your support of this bill as well.

Hello, Lou Mennel from Local 1245. I support this bill.

Ethan Stone, cyber local 1245 in support.

Dylan Gottfried, IBEW 1245, in support of this bill.

Hi, I'm Gina Britt from IBEW Local 1245, and I support this bill. Thank you.

I'm Ray Banfield with IBEW 1245, and I support this bill. Thank you.

Good evening. Ben Contreras, IBEW 1245, in support. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Anna Rosa Valenzuela with IBEW Local 1245, and I am in support of this bill.

Good evening. My name is Dulce Jimenez, and I am here with IBEW 1245. I also support this bill. Thank you for your time.

Good evening. I'm Shelby Wadsworth from IBEW 1245, and I support this bill.

Good evening. My name is Marcia Burnett. I'm with IBEW local 1245 and I support this bill.

Hello, Francisco Ferreira, with IBEW 1245 in full support.

Good evening. Fred Aboud, IBEW Local 1245. And I support this bill.

Leah Barrows, on behalf of the Independent Energy Producers Association. First, I want to thank the committee chair and staff, authors, office and staff, and all of the powers that be that helped get the technical amendments as set forth in the analysis into fruition. We currently have an opposed unless amended position and look forward to moving to neutral once the amendments are in print. Thank you.

Good evening. Darryl Little Jr. on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in support. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members. Mike Monaghan, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, in support.

Good evening, chair and members, Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, we are in support, thank you.

Good evening, Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of Turn, in support of the bill.

Good evening, chair and members. Erin Grizard with Invenergy, one of the Central Coast leaseholders, in support.

Good evening. Tatum Ackler on behalf of Vineyard Offshore, one of the leaseholders on the Northern Coast, in strong support.

Hi. Melissa Cortez. On behalf of the California Wind Energy Association, in support.

Good evening. Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists. In support.

Good evening, chair and members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which appreciates the inclusion of language aimed at developing and funding baseline science and monitoring to help avoid and mitigate potential adverse impacts of offshore wind on California's marine, wildlife and ecosystems. Thank you.

Good evening. McKinley Thompson Morley. On behalf of Golden State Wind, a central California leaseholder, in support.

Good evening. Molly Kroll with American Clean Power Association. In strong support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California and Elected Officials Protecting America in strong support. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and senators. Rosanna Carvaco Elliott here on behalf of Equinor Wind, which is also a Central Coast leaseholder, in strong support. Thank you.

Adam Smith, Southern California Edison, Support.

Matt Klopfenstein, in a tweener position. On behalf of the Bioenergy Association of California. Our concern is only with the definition of eligible resources. We fully appreciate and understand the importance of this program for certain types of resources. We just want to ensure that moving forward, this doesn't set precedent about taking certain resources, bioenergy hydrogen off the table, those are critical to reducing methane, to avoiding ag burning, helping reduce wildfire risk. So we just want to ensure that this is not a precedent-setting term that is being used there, but again, totally understand why it's being used in this situation for these certain projects. So thank you.

Maddie Munson, on behalf of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association. Similarly in a tweener position and just align my comments with my colleague who just spoke. Thank you.

Thank you. Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the California Biomass Energy Alliance. Also a tweener. Also align our comments with the Bioenergy Association of California.

Hi, Mr. Chair. Sean McNeil, California Community Choice Association, want to thank the author and co-author for all of their hard work and their staff as well as the committee. We with the committee amendments will be able to stay neutral on the board. Thanks.

Lillian Marvis with MCE, California's first community choice aggregator. Thank you. Echoing Sean's comments to the author, co-author and committee staff for all your work on this. With the amendments, we are also maintaining a neutral position. Thank you.

Alicia Priego, on behalf of San Jose Clean Energy and with the proposed amendments, we'll move from opposed unless amended to neutral. Thank you.

Katherine Brandenberg representing Sonoma Clean Power. Again, we echo the comments of CalCCA. With the proposed amendments, we remain neutral.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Tannehill with Aaron Read and Associates on behalf of Silicon Valley Clean Energy. With the amendments, we are neutral as well. Thank you.

Dan Chaw with Clean Power Alliance, aligning with CalCCA. Thanks.

Mr. Chair, Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy and Valley Clean Energy. Echoing the previous comments, we remain neutral with the amendments. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Karen Lang, on behalf of the counties of Humboldt and San Luis, the two locations for the first set of call areas, generally very supportive of offshore wind being developed in their communities. They are concerned that this bill does not include a direct mechanism to recover the impacts that will undoubtedly happen directly to the actual local governments. There are requirements related to the community organizations, but nothing about those impacts, so we're looking for something to help them be assured there won't be damages they can't recover. So with that, thank you very much.

Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members. Eduardo Martinez on behalf of Brightline Defense Project, another tweener position. Brightline Defense is an environmental justice organization that does a lot of work on offshore wind. Similar to the previous speaker, we are pleased to see... Sure. Well, we'd like to see a little bit more work done to ensure that frontline communities are protected similar to the previous speaker. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. Alejandro Solis on behalf of the Clean Power Campaign and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in 1200 in support? Seeing none. Now let's go to opposition. Do we have primary witnesses in opposition? We'll have two primary witnesses. If not, you'll be afforded four minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't think I'll need that amount of time. Patrick Welch with the California Municipal Utilities Association. First want to say that we appreciate Assembly Member Garcia's thoughtful use of the Policy Committee process to analyze these important issues. We also appreciate his office's consideration, along with colleagues in the senate and the governor's office of CMA's concerns throughout this year. However, CMA remains opposed unless amended at this time. Our core concern is this: it is that the bill references in the provision related to the CC executive director's power to impose capacity payments on public electric utilities standards set by the California Public Utilities Commission. POUs are regulated by local elected officials and not subject to PUC regulation. CMUA thinks it is fair to measure publicly owned electric utilities against their standards and hold them accountable, but that is not reasonable to hold them to CPUC standards. It's our understanding in conversations with colleagues in the Assembly and the Governor's Office that AB 1373 is not intended to create a new authority for the PUC with respect to POUs, and we believe the bill could and should be clarified to that end. In closing, CMUA looks forward to continuing to be partners in maintaining grid reliability now and into the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition of AB 1373? If not in the room, Moderator let's go to our phone lines and see if there's individuals wishing to testify in support and or opposition to AB 1373.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen on the phones, if you would like to comment, please press one, then zero on your key pad. Now, an operator will provide you with a line number and place you in the queue. When you hear your line number called, please proceed with your comment. Once again, for comments, please press one, then zero at this time. And one moment, Mr. Chair, for us to get those line numbers gathered.

I will go first to line 15. Line 15, go ahead.

Good afternoon, this is Nancy Kirschner Rodriguez on behalf of the Business Network for Offshore Wind in support of this legislation. Thank you.

Next is line 23. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good evening, Chair Members. Michaela Elder on behalf of CALSTART and the Electric Vehicle Charging Association in support. Thank you.

Next is line 25. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Tara Diaz Andress of the Public Advocates Office, the independent branch of the PUC, in support of AB 1373. Thank you.

One last reminder. For comments by phone, press one, then zero. We'll go now to line 20. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, we have no additional callers in queue. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the committee. This is Adam Murphy on behalf of Turbo Energy, a pioneer in geothermal technology and the nation's largest leaseholder of geothermal resources. We support this bill and the central procurement of long-leaf baseload resources.

If there's no additional callers in queue, we'll bring it back to the committee for questions.

Mr. Chair, there's a lot of talk about amendments. I wonder if those could get clarified for us.

Okay. And we can do that as well. Let me state what the amendments are for Members clarification. Again, this Bill makes numerous changes to electricity policy and most notably authorizes Department of Water Resources to serve as central procurement entity to procure energy resources in order to help the state meet its renewable and zero carbon energy resources and reliability goals. The Bill also includes numerous related and separate provisions.

Those amendments are: technical clarification amendments to add the words and diverse resources to Public Utilities Code Section 454.51 D, which was inadvertently left out; secondly, to add a new Section B--Section 16, I should say--of the Bill and replace existing B and C in order to clarify intent language regarding the future funding for Coastal Commission related to permitting and to review of offshore wind energy projects.

Technical amendments to section eight of the Bill Public Utilities Code section 454.52 H 1A, replace diverse clean energy resources with eligible energy resources and update all related references throughout the Bill. And clarifying amendments to amend Section 80820 of the Water Code to define construction for the purposes of these energy resources projects so as to distinguish between construction work to build the energy resources projects and work related to loading offloading cargo from vessels and movement of cargo in the port facilities.

Those are the four amendments that we have as of today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I also want to thank the author. Well, first of all, I know when I see so many union members here, I know that this is a good thing in terms of job creation and opportunity for members of our community. But I do have a question and I know it's kind of late in the game, but it's just the question if you can help me understand. I know that there was discussion about putting specific language about the benefits to disadvantaged communities.

I think it was shared that in Massachusetts and other areas, they have specific language about how do we make sure that disadvantaged communities are not left behind. In particular, how do we engage the community, how do we make sure that they're part of the process and that the benefits directly go to these disadvantaged communities. So I'll turn it over to you and see if you can share what happened. And why don't we have specific language?

There were some amendments that were put forward by, I believe, Brightline, if I'm not mistaken, in the area of protecting community benefits. There was language that was struck where we felt that we may have met them to a certain level of what they were asking for. We're certainly open to continuing that dialogue, but we also know that we are limited on time as it relates to the legislative process.

We recently received also a letter from Leadership Council who, along the same lines, is wanting to ensure that there is stronger language to protect communities throughout California where they're concerned about specific technologies and are committed to working with them as well. I think we're crunched on time, but also those were requests that came in literally in the last 48 hours, specifically the Leadership Council. We're committed to continuing to work with them.

We have championed issues regarding environmental justice issues and making sure that we see direct benefits of these types of efforts and investments. Case in point, the work being done that you all have supported in Lithium Valley as it relates to lithium recovery, and making sure that those benefits are the direct beneficiaries. So committed to continuing to work on that particular area.

Thank you for the answer, but I think it was Eduardo Garcia and somebody else who talked about some of the impacts to the local community, how they think that there might be impacts and they'll need help in that regard, maybe recovering and helping those local communities. What would you add to that, to those people that discussed?

Yeah. That we won't leave you behind. That we will consider those perspectives that you've just shared today and in the recent days regarding this agreement that's been made by the Governor's office, the Senate, the Assembly and you know, our work has been centered around the issue of disadvantaged communities up and down the state of California. Looking at you directly and telling you that that's what we'll continue to do.

Thank you, Assembly Member. I think that's kind of all we're asking, just to make sure that the solicitation process really keeps that front of mind, just as you all and a lot of Members of this committee do. So thank you for that.

And lastly, I just want to say that this is clearly a great Bill and I want to thank you and the Governor and everyone that worked on all the amendments. I think at one point there was a lot of disagreement and the fact that everyone's come together and most people that were opposed are now neutral. It's just an indication of the hard work not only of the author, but the chair and the committee staff. So, thank you. With that I say thanks.

Thank you. Senator Becker.

Thank you. I just wanted to say a few words as co-author and thank the Assembly Members for their work. This is an extremely important Bill for clean energy and clean reliability. I've been talking to this committee since I started here the last three years, about 24/7 clean energy. And this Bill is an important step for supporting the kind of diverse clean resources we need to get there. However, many of these new technologies require large investments with long complex development times.

And it's difficult and risky for any one utility or CCA to make a large enough purchase commitment to get these projects financed and built. I know some people have been concerned about the scope of the Central Procurement Authority we're granting, and I do hear those concerns. As much as possible, we want to let utilities and CCAs make their own decisions about what to procure as long as they're meeting their RPS and RA requirements.

However, we need central procurement in limited cases to launch new technologies like offshore wind. And I believe we have struck the right balance with this Bill. It doesn't limit central procurement to specific technology, which gives the PUC flexibility, but it also provides significant guardrails. I do want to mention, as our President mentioned, we need to rapidly--of the commission--we need to rapidly expand our transmission capacity as well to deliver these new clean resources to our cities.

And this bill significantly will speed up the transmission permitting process by shortening a duplicative review by the PUC of whether a transmission line is needed and in the public interest, even after it's been approved by CAISO. So this was something originally my Bill, SB 420, and I'm glad that made it into the final version of this Bill as well.

I think, relevant to my colleague who just spoke, this Bill does make investments into clean energy resources that are paired with significant high road protections and assurances for workers throughout the entire supply chain. And it invests in environmental monitoring and identifying future mitigation for any impacts that offshore wind would have on environment, tribal communities and localities. So thank the staff, our own pro tems office, to the author, and to the committee for their thoughtful work.

We do need to move away from the dirty patchwork of solutions like ones through cooling plants as we move towards this strategic reliability reserve. This Bill is an important step. I think there's more things we need to do going forward to make that effort. But this Bill is a very important step and proud to be co-author and thank you for all your work on it.

Thank you. Senator Stern.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not currently a co-author, but in recognition of the immense effort, the diverse coalition, and all your years of marching this forward, I would love to be added as one as the committee takes amendments, if that's appropriate at this time. I think you've put a lot of pieces together, but I just want to make a comment on the record and less so, potentially about the author and maybe more so to get the administration's perspective to Senator Rubio and Senator Becker's points.

You know, there are things happening right now in energy policy that give me some pause about the efficacy of our strategy: doubling down on gas procurement right now through a $2.4 billion DWR contract, while the Clean Energy Reliability Investment Plan stalls or sits or waits. Over a billion dollars sitting there, doing nothing. SGIP sitting, waiting; microgrids sitting, waiting. Aliso Canyon being refilled before our very eyes. I want to realize this vision, and I think we can't get started quickly enough.

So time is of the essence, but I was hoping to get some perspective, I think, maybe less so from the author and more so from the Public Utilities Commission or whoever from the Administration, about your perspective on pushing the Clean Energy Reliability Investment Plan forward. Is this something that we're just going to sort of defer and kick down the road and maybe eventually get to?

Are we going to start spending dollars now, not necessarily through this procurement mechanism, but through all the other budget dollars that I see our budget share from the Assembly ably negotiated and pushed forward last year as part of our Diablo deal. How does all that fit in? Is that just work for next year? Is there a reason to be optimistic about that work? Is that possible to have the PC? Yeah, absolutely. Comment, if you're welcome. I'll preface.

What you'll hear, I think, from the CPUC is that you've outlined all of the specific reasons why we need to move faster. We use the word accelerate our efforts in the procurement of renewable technologies. This central procurement model is we're betting big on that that will allow us to do that. And so I'll now defer to the CPUC President.

Yeah, thank you, Senator, for the question. And I am in complete agreement with you on that. We need to do more. We need to act quickly, and we need to really have all hands on deck. We have added about 9000 megawatts of clean energy resources in the past three years. That's over 100 projects. We're moving quickly, trying to facilitate those--that's through COVID and through supply chain challenges--and we're not stopping there. So we're going farther and faster on clean energy procurement.

We're still seeing challenges on reliability, especially on hot summer days. Especially if there are Westwide heat waves and you saw that a little bit this summer. We certainly saw it last summer. And so we are seeing the need to use existing gas resources for reliability purposes, clearly through those heat waves, to get us through the summers. The state is, and all of the energy agencies are cooperating, working really closely together.

The PUC, the CEC, DWR, the governor's office is involved as well to make sure that we're kind of trying to cabin those dirtier resources, moving them into the strategic reserve so they're not used as much and bringing forward and relying on and increasing our clean resources. So I guess it's just a way of saying that there's a lot of attention being placed on building our clean energy resource supply. This is a forward-looking solution.

It's for those longer lead time resources, the ones that we're not easily able to procure through the normal processes. So this is a way for us to be very forward-looking, very, I think, creative and be ready for the challenge that's ahead of us getting farther and farther on our clean energy goals.

Thank you. Senator Newman.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Assembly know important issue. I'm glad to support the Bill today. I actually have two questions. First is like you to speak, if you could to the concerns voiced by Mr. Welsh on behalf of the Publicly Owned Utilities about the prospective impact of this legislation on them.

I'm going to ask the CPUC President if she wants to speak to the questions.

And the question is, what's the prospective impact on POUs, if any?

Speak to that, Senator, and maybe I'll look to the author as well to correct me if I have anything wrong, but I believe that the Bill has requirements for the POUs that are different than the IOUs and it does not give the PUC an additional or it doesn't give the PUC an oversight role of the POU. So we will be holding our jurisdictional entities to the planning reserve margins that we set for them and then the POUs have their own under separate authority.

And you don't envision that changing in the near term?

I don't envision that, no.

I think that's a good answer.

Thank you Senator.

The second question is, my understanding, is biomass and hygiene are excluded, or I guess better put, not included in the Bill and the plan and if not, why not? And is there a chance they'd be added in the future?

They're not excluded to continue to be procured through the utilities during the legislative process of this discussion and this went through Budget Sub3 Committee two or three times. Given that the proposal was in a budget trailer Bill form then it went to two policy committees, it was very clear to us that the scope of the procurement via DWR needed to be narrow. And so again it doesn't preclude the utilities from continuing to procure biomass and other technologies. But for purposes of the central procurement, it was desired to be very, very specific.

And so that was part of the deliberation and debate in the policy process and the agreement between the two houses and the governor's office.

All right. Nothing precludes at some future date, including--

It doesn't, but nothing precludes it from being procured through the utilities. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Durazo.

Yes. I do want to add a little bit more to what Senator Rubio mentioned about other ways that we need to reach out. And I'm a thousand percent confident in the author because I know you've dedicated yourself to integrating environmental justice issues, broader environmental issues. Our communities who always get left behind, always get the worst of the worst: the worst contamination, the worst jobs, the worst paid jobs. So I have full confidence in you.

I'm very proud that there is inclusion of high roads jobs in this as well. I'm really glad to see that the longshore workers and the building trades specifically would be included. And I just want to say, we have, of course, models that I know you're fully aware of, community benefits models that integrate all of those, integrate access to quality training, access to the jobs, equity in the access of those jobs.

So I'm glad this is in your hands, at least to get it through and get it signed. But I know you will continue to work on this. But it is a very critical piece that I'm glad we don't have to scratch our way up and get it included. Most of the time, that's what happens. And in this case, I know you're fully aware of it. So appreciate you and the Governor.

Thank you. Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Let me just say that there's some really good things in this Bill that I want to call out first. Thank you to everybody who showed up here today to testify. It's been a long day, and we really appreciate it. The new central procurement mechanism, I think, is really important. And there's no question that we need grid reliability. I appreciate the testimony of the President of the CPUC in regards to that grid reliability.

What we know is that we have an over dependence on energy that's produced when it's hot and when it's windy. And my biggest concern with what the Bill leaves out is it is not technology neutral. It identifies geothermal, large scale storage and offshore wind as the RPS energy sources and leaves out a lot as part of that.

And the reason I'm concerned is that in my district in the Central Valley, very similar to the Imperial Valley, we have some of the most extreme heat temperatures in the state. And my fear is when we hit a crunch and we don't have reliable energy, that that's where the electricity gets turned off because of the overuse of electrical resources. Because of air conditioners and everything else. Additionally, these projects leave out the Valley, leave out the Central Valley.

They don't include the kinds of projects that can make a huge difference for when we talk about high road jobs, I'm there 100%, but we've defined what the technology we're going to be using, and I want high road jobs for the people that live in the Central Valley as well.

I become concerned when we leave out the ability to take waste and translate it into energy, biomass, hydrogen, carbon capture, to take care of some of the projects that will improve air quality, will create high road jobs for areas that are not close to the ocean, that are not close to the ports.

I guess my concern is that we recognize that we've left out the opportunity to create a reliable source of energy for the times when we don't have the reliability issue and where we can use it when we don't have that energy available. So I'm looking out for the jobs that could be produced if we had a broader definition of what kind of investments could be made. And I'm wondering if you can address that.

Well, I think your question, framed differently, is very similar to Senator Newman's question, right? Specifically the biomass. Right? And I think that looking at the policy deliberations in our house that this Bill went through, there's no consensus on moving forward with procuring biomass in this centralized manner. That's one reason it's not there. In terms of the other technologies that you mentioned, I think they fall under the very same category.

We've fallen short in passing policies on the carbon capture and other technologies because of, again, the policy differences that remain, whether it be in this House or in ours. I'll reiterate that it was important as this deliberation on this policy was happening, that it be extremely narrow. And that was what was agreed to through that process.

As I mentioned, we intentionally, when the Governor put forward a budget trailer Bill, we dusted off a Bill from three or four years ago to run it through the policy process to ensure that we could inform the governor's team through that policy deliberation process. And this is where we've landed.

The criteria for the procurement for DWR is as follows: it has to help meet our clean energy targets not sufficiently under contract by the load-serving entities; five year development time in advance; no combustion or fossil fuel usage; limitations on the type of pump storage eligibility, was the criteria that was agreed to. And if you have a technology that falls within that purview, the DWR can actually procure that energy. But I'll reiterate it doesn't preclude the utilities from continuing to move and procuring those areas.

But I understand your point. It's well taken. And as this gets off the ground, we will look to DWR to see how else we might be able to bring the procurement process to regions of the state that one, need the power, reliability, but also can bring the co-benefits, the multiple co-benefits that the centralized procurement process is bringing when we're talking about the technologies that meet that criteria.

I appreciate your comment. Let me just say that the challenge I have is you're asking me to vote for something and I'm telling the workers, you know what, I want to be there. Right? But to a certain extent, what you're saying is SOL, right? The workers that are going to be in the interior part of the state are just not going to have the opportunity to be able to participate in being lifted up because we're going to put all our eggs in one basket.

And I guess the challenge is that if we created a definition and the definition didn't work for those technologies, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But when you separate out and say, okay, well, we don't like that, right? And we don't like it because we're not going to use good science and we're just not going to consider other alternatives because we just can't get the votes for it, then it's very exclusionary. And so I get what you're saying.

You go for what you can get the votes for. But I also think at some point we have to be honest. We have trash that we are digging holes in the ground and we're putting it in the ground and it's emitting methane, and that is bad and it creates pollution. And we're not doing anything to get rid of trash. We've got all this agricultural waste.

We've got dead trees that have burned up and we need to take them down and we need to get rid of them. If we can create a mechanism just like the country of Denmark that does no landfilling and that uses a process where you have nothing but water coming out of the smokestack and it fits the definition, why wouldn't we get rid of our waste and not try to send it to other countries and then bury it and have it polluting the earth?

So there are other solutions. Just use a definition that makes sense and you get me on it because you know what? We'll make sure that that technology has to meet that qualification and we'll start getting rid of some of the stuff that we need to get rid of ourselves within our state. So I apologize for being so long winded, but this is really important to me.

I have people 100% of who tell me, "I want a good job," and I'm going to have to tell them, "yeah, go off the coast. That's where we're going to create all these jobs and we're not going to do it in your community." I appreciate what you're working on and I appreciate the dedication you've given to this area, but I'm a little frustrated in case you haven't.

I appreciate your comments and I respect your advocacy on behalf of the people that sent you here to the Capitol. What we have in front of us is what we were able to land collectively and far beyond just getting votes. It's about trying to put some good policy forward that will help us accelerate the procurement of renewable energy.

So that the list of things that Senator Stern outlined that we are focusing on that are the opposite of what our goals and objectives are within our climate agenda and renewable agenda is that we're able to move a lot quicker. And this centralized process is something that we're betting big on to help us get there and meet the reliability issues. But I don't believe that this conversation ends here, and I certainly am willing to work with you on the issues that you've just raised moving forward.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair Bradford. And I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. Thank you, President Reynolds and your staff for all the work you've done on this. I just want to state the obvious here that we're doing this all in the context of a climate emergency that we're seeing the profound impacts of.

Thank you. Senator Min.

And while this was, I believe, again, the hottest year on record, another way to think of this is this will be seen as probably the coolest year on record in 100 years for the next century or so. So we are facing an urgent situation. We have to act. That's going to require big, bold action for us to get to zero emissions by 2045 or anywhere around that time frame.

We're going to have to have massive increases in our renewable generation, transmission, storage, and so all efforts along this line, I think, are appreciated. And so I also would like to be added as a co-author, and I'd ask to move the Bill at the appropriate time. But I would also just add that I think that I do have a question, not a question.

I'll phrase this in the form of a statement because I know we're running late here and we've been here all day, but execution is obviously going to be key here and there were concerns raised. The immediate reaction I had, and I think some of my colleagues had, was, is DWR well-equipped to handle this? This is going to be a pretty big step up in what they're asked to do on procurement, wondering if they have the capacity to do that. That's a comment, not a question.

But obviously we'll see as that plays out and we as the Legislature certainly have the ability to modify that. But that certainly is going to be something we want to keep tabs on going forward. But thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Eggman.

Thank you. And thank you all for all the work you've done in this late time of night. I was not that late, really, for intercession, but I wanted to kind of weigh in on the issues that Senator Caballero raised. But I want to also say that I understand this is just for this issue about central procurement. I also have biomass in my area. It's very hot in there.

And I wouldn't want this then to become a larger state policy because we still have the problem that we have with waste and AGS and forests and everything. Until we stop creating waste in our lives, we're always going to have that, and biomass is just a good way to take care of that. But I understand that this is not saying, speaking to larger state policies, and I think we're all on the record saying we don't want this.

Some of us may want this to be the policy forever, but there are others of us who understand that it's a very diverse state with a lot of diverse needs. This is only tackling procurement, but that we're not saying that we're not going to have other kinds of energy as we go forward.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto.

All right, so I'm not going to reiterate what all the other folks have been talking about. Some of it I am totally in alignment with their concerns. But one of the things I haven't heard addressed tonight is at the end of the day, at the end of the process, what can our ratepayers when they ask us, "what's this going to cost us?" Can they expect their utility bills to double, triple, quadruple? What do we tell them?

On the contrary, the central procurement process ought to allow us to purchase at large economies of scale and be able to reduce the cost. The cost of power isn't so much in the procurement process. It's other identified issues: inflation, supply chain disruptions, a couple of other things that I can continue to go on and on and highlight. But the goal here is to actually bring about the reliability that we need.

And without doubt, the affordability is coupled with that issue of reliability that we need to continue to focus on.

Right. I wasn't talking so much as the central procurement process is essentially being a buffer between what's really, really expensive and we don't want to unload on our ratepayers because otherwise they go like Germany and they have this backlash. So I mean there's a cost to this. And at the end of the day ratepayers are going to be absorbing it one way or the other.

What is this going to cost our ratepayers in the end? And to get our 1% difference in what we're trying to do for the world's climate? What is that going to be?

I don't have a ledger with the bottom nine number that you might be helpful to respond to that question, but I think in the larger context of this discussion, I will say again that the goal is to bring about affordability through reliability efforts. And that's the focus of the central procurement model that's before you.

Well, so we don't really have anything to tell our ratepayers, other than we're going down a process. We don't know how much it's going to cost you. Whatever we're doing so far has already cost you two or three times more than you used to pay. Is this going to help make it better or is this going to help make it worse?

Well, if you live in an area which was described earlier in terms of where reliability issues are critical and it's 115 degrees, we're going to make sure that the lights stay on. That's first and foremost, it's a public health issue. Right? It's a major public health issue. We also now are talking about this model being a mechanism to be able to do it in a much more affordable way.

So if there's a question from constituents that you may have, or anyone watching this hearing today, that should be the takeaway, is that we're trying to do this in a much more affordable way to ensure that there's also reliability in places like where I represent that get up to 125 degrees. An I said, a wind will blow down the poles down there and people don't have power or water to drink.

And so, again, if there's a question about affordability and reliability, that would be my first response to constituents, whether in your district or mine or anyone watching this hearing. Right?

Well, I actually serve a lot of the same constituents out in that region where it is exceptionally hot and always has been.

It's just without us working on these other the multitude of ways we can create not only the clean energy, but ensure using whatever energy we can to make sure the reliability is there, because when we don't have the reliability and we start having more demand than what we can supply, what does that do to our rates? It goes way up, and we feel it. Last winter, we felt it.

I think you've answered your question with that closing statement. Thank you.

Vice Chair Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have a question. I do highly respect both the authors, but I do have some comments that I want to make. I've been on the Energy Committee for some time, a long time, actually, maybe too long, and these amendments came up on the floor.

And I objected to those amendments because here we are, the last week of session, or close to the last week of session, and we have literally, I think it was 23 pages of amendments that we were dumped into this Bill. But I want to go to just a couple of parts of the Bill here. That page 23, line 38. The resource does not generate electricity using fossil fuels or fuels derived from fossil fuels.

So all of you who think there's maybe a future in hydrogen or carbon capture, that's not going to be part of this at all. On the next page, page 24. The resource does not use combustion or generation electricity unless that combustion uses ancillary and necessary to facilitate geothermal electricity only. So the only time you can use combustion is for geothermal. So, as Senator Caballero and the author talked about, it is very narrow to those things. It's wind energy and it's geothermal.

So I've been dogging the wind energy thing for a long time. We're marching forward to take care of our off-peak power on wind energy drive from our coastline with real no environmental. The federal government's given us money and we're marching towards it. We already have landing spots in Humboldt and San Diego to build all this infrastructure. And I'm happy to see the folks in the audience that are going to build it. I'm happy for you. Go build it. But I'm really disappointed in turn.

You're supposed to be looking out for the ratepayers. You're not looking out for the ratepayers. I'm sorry, I can't believe that you're not opposed to this. Because at the end of the day, this legislation, central procurement, means that every single ratepayer in California, no matter where you live, is going to pay for this. And they have the ability DWR, to take that and increase your rates after this Bill passes. That's what's going to happen. And yeah, it does. It spreads the cost.

So a little bit here goes a long ways for very high, expensive, non competitive electricity. So I want to set the record straight. I have much respect for all these legislators and the authors, but I think this is sending the wrong message. If we're really going to talk about the environment, let's talk about what is going to impacts we're going to have on our ocean. We're not we don't even know how it's going to work. We have a continental shelf.

This isn't Norway where you can just tether a windmill out there on the continental shelf, 1000ft down or 10,000ft down. So I have a lot of things I'm concerned about in this Bill. I'm very much concerned about every single ratepayer in California is going to pay. No matter what utility you belong to, you're going to pay because DWR is going to have the full authority to go in there and raise the rate to procure these high-expensive, very environmentally sensitive-type projects.

So I want to set the record straight. For me, this excludes biomass is something I'm very concerned about for not only the valley folks, but for the people that live where there's forest, because it's combustion. Carbon capture--out the door. It's not going to be used in this. Hydrogen, for those of you who care about hydrogen as an energy source, it's out. So with all due respect to all the people that are going to work, and that I think we're marching down the path.

The last time California went down this path, was Gray Davis was in office. And that's why we had the DWR procure power, because it was manipulated. This is an opportunity for a lot of manipulation to these technologies that we haven't proven yet. So for those reasons, I am 100% opposed to this Bill. And I'm standing up for the everyday ratepayer in California who's been getting raped by the decisions that have come out of the CPUC, CEC every day. The rates have never go down.

They never go down. Show me once where they went down. Never. And they're going to get more of it if they continue to allow this kind of policy to go forward without very good data.

Thank you. Any other Members wishing to comment? All right, well, let me add my two cent to this, and I want to thank both authors and all the committee Members as well, and the Administration for this proposal.

There's a lot to like here, but I have to be honest, it's a lot to not like. As you've heard expressed by my colleagues. This Bill authorizes the Department of Water Resources to serve as a central procurement entity. If the PUC identifies a procurement need and requests DWR to provide the procurement. It authorizes DWR to issue bonds if necessary, to support the procurement of eligible resources.

It limits the eligibility resources to those new resources that support the state's clean energy goals, which are laudable, has a construction and development lead time of at least five years. The PUC determines is not under contract or sufficient levels based on load-serving entity portfolios. It also establishes capacity payments on load-serving entities and publicly owned utilities who create a shortfall that results in using electricity supply strategic reliability reserve through 2027.

It also clarifies the PUC authority to enforce the integrated research planning procurement on all load-serving entities. And it includes other provisions, including those related to workforce requirements. I, too have concerns. As someone who was working for a utility during the energy crisis in 2000, 2001. I've seen this movie before, and it didn't end well. And so I want to express my concern with caution as it relates to the authority provided to DWR. Everybody's talking about how fast we want to go.

And it's a proverb that says, if you want to go fast, go by yourself. If you want to go far, go together. And we need to have a diverse power supply. And I think we have spent the last 25 years since I've been in this space. Twelve years with a utility, 13 in the Legislature, and five as chair of this Committee on the Assembly Side, and now here, of picking winners and losers. And as my colleague Senator Caballero stated, I've been to Denmark. They burn trash.

They have one of the cleanest environments in the world, but we can't do that here in California. As my colleague here stated about biomass, those things should be considered. They're reliable, they're renewable, and they're clean. But that's for another day. And while it's important for the state to plan ahead and to prepare for the future of electrification, we know that the state injecting itself into the energy market could have unintended consequences. As one referred to earlier.

My hope is that PUC and DWR will be judicious and cautious when exercising authority this proposal grants them. I'm pleased to see the safeguards put in place for electric ratepayers because ratepayers should be at the paramount, they should be at the top. Ratepayers, reliability and safety, those were always the pillars when I worked in this space. And insofar as the PUC must review any procurement by DWR to ensure that it's just and reasonable, as stated, we should be putting ratepayers first.

Nonetheless, the need to be careful when intervening in this market is paramount. As stated today, the PGC can direct electric IOUs to serve as central procurement entities and they have done so and they will continue to do so through this policy. I realize there are stakeholders who aren't supportive of that approach, but it's one that has generally served the state very well. The PUC should continue to utilize that tool as necessary, even if this new authority even as this new authority is granted, I should say.

Additionally, I agree with some of the stakeholders comments about ensuring opportunities to support a diverse workforce and development. We're more concerned about a diverse portfolio versus a diverse workforce and being in this space. I'm here to tell you, as I shared with our President of the PUC last week on our hearing, the promise of diverse jobs of Black and Brown and women, it has not happened in the last 25 years.

And so to continue to make promises on the diverse workforce that hasn't developed here is one that I'm going to hold you to. And I'm not speaking of the authors, I'm talking about the Administration and all the governmental entities that are going to be responsible for implementing this. This workforce needs to look like California and it doesn't. And so the promise of these green jobs have not evolved. They haven't impacted the communities that we're constantly using as poster childs on why we do this.

So it can't just be about the environment alone. And additionally, I agree with some of the stakeholders. I stated that and the community investments in low-income and rural communities and disadvantaged and tribal communities have to be at the forefront as well. So I remain open with this policy and I support this effort, but I support it with great caution and concern that we move forward and do it right.

I just want to apologize. Apparently I said the bad word rape and it was just in my elevated frustration. So I want to apologize to anybody that I didn't want to cause any harm by that statement. Thank you. And thank you, Senator Eggman, for saying that. I didn't even realize I said it. Thank you.

Thank you. We appreciate your apology. We have a motion by Senator Min, and again, I will state the motion. Again, it's a due pass, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator, I mean, Assembly Members, would you like to close? Garcia and Ting.

Just very quickly, appreciate all the robust debate, robust dialogue. I mean, ultimately, the main issue here that's being brought forward is to make sure that if the lights may go off, that we have backup power. And we're trying to do it in a way that is not competing with all the load-serving entities.

We don't want to be buying technology or raising prices unnecessarily by competing with all the IOUs and the MOUs and the CCAs. So that's why it's very narrow. This is a beginning, not an end. I know that myself, Senator Bradford. We're gone in a year. But for everybody who's staying, this is why the budget process is very important. This is why the oversight process is very important. This should be the first of many hearings on this issue. This should not be the last.

So this should be the beginning of this discussion. And it's really inherent on us to be watching over how this money is spent, where it's spent, what's appropriated. That's really our responsibility as a Legislature and as a legislative body. And so I think, for us, this is the idea today to make sure that we keep the lights on. We make sure that people can stay cool when it's very, very hot outside. It's absolutely critical.

And again, it's inherent on us and this legislative body to make sure that it's properly implemented. And as technologies come up, as ideas change, we as a body have that ability to go change it. So, again, this is what's brought forward today. We wanted to start narrow, make sure that we are really investing in certain clean energies for now. But again, that doesn't mean that this way is going to be forever. So with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Appreciate all the robust comments and really hope that we can continue this discussion over the next few years.

Okay. Senator Garcia.

Just want to say thank you for the robust debate, deliberation, concerns that were raised. We hear you. We look forward to continuing to work on this matter. Respectfully ask for your aye vote and appreciate all those who signed on as co-authors.

Okay, so we have a motion due pass is amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Consultant, please call the role.

Bradford? Aye. Bradford aye. Dahle? Dahle no. Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye. Becker? Aye. Becker aye. Caballero? Dodd? Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye. Dodd? Aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo aye. Eggman? Aye. Eggman aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez aye. Grove? Maguire? Aye. Maguire aye. Min? Aye. Min aye. Newman? Aye. Newman aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio aye. Seyarto? No. Seyarto no. Skinner? Aye. Skinner aye. Stern? Aye. Stern aye. Wilk? No. Wilk no.

14 to three.

That measure has 14 votes for affirmative and three no. So 14-three. The measure is out. I want to thank all the folks who testified here today, all the folks who were here in support the committee Members. This concludes our hearing on this measure. The Committee on Energy and Utility stands. Adjourned. Thank you very much.