Assembly Standing Committee on Utilities and Energy

As is customary, I will maintain decorum during the hearing in order to hear as much from the public within the limits of our time. We will not permit conduct that disrupts or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. Any individual who is disruptive may be removed from the room. We do have other Committee meetings happening concurrently, and Members may be stepping away to present their bills. We will work to keep the hearing moving as quickly as possible for testimony.

We will allow four minutes of support testimony and four minutes of opposition testimony. For any additional witnesses on a measure, please only state your name, position and affiliation, if any. Please note that item number 11, AB 2256 by assemblymember Friedman and item number 13, AB 20619 by assemblymember Connally have been pulled at the request of the authors and will not be heard today. Today we have 13 measures on the agenda. Three of those are on consent. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

All right, so, yes, we do not have a quorum. So we will just begin as a Subcommitee and we'll go ahead and begin. Assemblymember Carrillo, whenever you are ready. You've got two measures before the Committee today. All right, Assembly Member, as you're ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I will start by saying that I'll be accepting the amendments offered by the Committee. And I'm happy to present IB 2109, a measure that seeks to treat industrial process heat recovery as an energy efficient technology and would therefore remove the punitive departing load charge. The California cement industry must be carbon neutral by 2045, and one lever that can be utilized right now to achieve that goal is industrial process heat recovery.

However, the departmental charge is the biggest barrier as to why the industry is not already utilizing this technology. Under their normal course of business, cement and steel manufacturers produce excess heat that is currently not being captured. This measure will allow these industries to capture this heat and create carbon-free electricity without being penalized. My Bill specifically states that this electricity can only be consumed on site and cannot exceed 25% of the installing customers' peak electrical load.

This means that none of the electricity generated will go back to the grid. Today there are only seven cement kilns and one steel manufacturer left in California. This Bill seeks to help ensure these industries and the jobs they produce for so many so they can stay in the Golden State as we have seen four cement and four steel facilities closed since 2006. Additionally, and just as important, lot will be eased off today's electrical grid that had experienced issues in recent years.

In 2020 and 2022, California experienced some of the toughest times for electrical grid. It has been estimated, which my sponsors can elaborate further on, that this measure will allow a total of 45 megawatts to be generated through industrial processing recovery in all cement plants in California. This is 45 megawatts of electricity that our grid is being relieved of and can now be utilized for other consumers. As we witnessed in 2020 and 2022, the demand is there.

With me here today to testify is Audra Hartman, representing the California Large Energy Consumers Association. Please.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Audra Hartmann with California Large Energy Consumers, also known as CLECA. So I wanted to thank you all for giving me the opportunity to speak and thank the Chair and her staff for all of the work you did on this, and also the author and his staff for all the work as well. There was a lot that went into this Bill and so, excuse me, I think most of what I was planning to say was already mentioned, so I'll be very brief.

AB 2109 is, excuse me. AB 2109 is intended to facilitate decarbonization efforts in some of the hardest to decarbonize sectors of industry. And so that's why we're sponsoring the Bill. Some of these sectors, like cement, have committed to be carbon neutral in California by 2045 by, through a previous bill. This Bill will assist these companies that would like to install industrial process heat recovery technology. And you've heard a little bit about what it does and how the Bill is limited to certain sectors.

This is the capture of process heat, and there's no additional fuel used in the process for electricity. And it will be zero-carbon electricity that comes out of it and will not go to the grid. Basically, it's consumed on-site. And that's why we're supporting the Bill. It enables industry to make incremental changes to their facilities that will result in reduced emissions. And it's a small step forward in the state's efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the manufacturing sector.

And so that's why we're supporting the Bill and ask for your support as well.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and open it up for testimony in the room of support. If anyone wants to come and speak in support, you can approach the microphone.

Good afternoon Members, Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in support.

Dylan Finley on behalf of the California Nevada Cement Association, co-sponsors of the Bill, also in support.

Good afternoon. Darryl Little with NRDC in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And I don't think we have any primary witness in opposition. Seeing none. Go ahead and open it up for any statements in the room in opposition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to AB 2109? All right, seeing none. We'll bring it back to Committee Members. Questions or comments? No? All right. We do not currently have a quorum, but when we do. Yes. He did.

We did accept the amendments.

All right. But sorry. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you. I didn't get to that. And I just wanted to touch on SB 596 of 2021, which requires the cement industry to be carbon neutral by 2045. As mentioned earlier, this measure was passed with industry support, including the California Nevada Cement Association, one of the sponsors of this Bill, as mentioned. And however, that support was based on an understanding that the state would work with the industry to remove hurdles to reaching carbon neutrality.

This Bill is the first step in being a partner with the industry so we can achieve those ambitious goals. And at that time, I respect an aye vote.

Thank you. All right. And you may go ahead and continue with your next measure.

Thank you again, Madam Chair, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2221. I would also like to begin by stating that I will be accepting all of the Committee's amendments and thank the commitment for their heart, the commitment for their hard work. Madam Chair, I know we've met multiple times in the past several weeks and just want to thank you for your time and dedication to this important issue.

I look forward to continuing the work with you and the Committee staff should this Bill pass today. My staff and I have spent several months meeting with stakeholders all over the state with the intent to find a balance that will protect workers. The lengthy set of amendments address many of the concerns that opposition has raised in multiple conversations in regard to health and safety.

I want to make it clear that over the course of my career as a local city planner with 20 plus years of experience where I have conducted and approved these kind of permits, I have under no circumstance approved anything that would jeopardize the health and safety of our communities, sisters and brothers, the safety of our working men and women in our community remains my top priority, and it is the course of the work that I plan to do with this Bill and throughout the process.

Members I know we all share the common goal of closing the digital divide. We all want to connect underserved and unserved communities across our state. This Bill ensures that our constituents will have access to broadband projects in months instead of years. By requiring broadband providers and utilities to work together and utilize the best practices to reduce delays, we need to do all we can to streamline the deployment of broadband.

Since state and federal funding for California's broadband for all projects needs to be allocated by the end of this year and projects needs to be billed by the end of 2026, if we don't accomplish this, money will have to be sent back to the Federal Government.

Thank you for supporting my Bill last year, which was signed by the Governor requiring cities and counties to utilize best practices and streamline their process for broadband permits it is important to know that local governments must already comply with shot clocks and streamlining when dealing with broadband permits, but utilities currently don't have set timelines or any requirements. Some utilities in California are doing a good job of handling broadband applications, approving projects, and connecting power in reasonable amount of time.

Unfortunately, many are not and broadband projects are typically delayed by months or years due to utility delays. AB 2221 uses best practices currently in place with good actors around the state and requires a utility and broadband providers work together to reduce delays in the processing of applications. Here's how the process currently works in California. First, a broadband provider submits a power design application to a utility. The utility can take as long as they want to approve or deny the application.

Second, if a utility approves the application, the broadband provider builds the project. Third, after the project is built and the utility performs all their safety inspections, then the utility connects electricity to the power, which makes the cell tower go live. These broadband projects typically require a small amount of electricity and are often duplicated and simplistic. Think of little antennas being placed on top of existing streetlights or fiber being placed on existing utility lines, or even additional antennas being placed on cell towers.

AB 2221 still keeps all the decision making with the utility. They can approve or deny the application. It just requires that they make a decision in a reasonable amount of time, consistent with federal shut clocks and existing law for local governments. AB 2221 still keeps all of the safety requirements in place. It gives the utility as long as it wants to perform inspections to make sure the project meets all their safety standards before electricity is connected.

Once all the safety inspections are performed and the utility approves the project, it requires utility to connect power to the project. Members, this Bill strikes the right balance. It continues to give all decision making to the utilities and ensures they still perform all their safety checks. We meet to testify in support is Amanda Walderama with Karl Broadband and Yolanda Benson with Us Telecom. Thank you.

Good morning, Members. Yolanda Benson, representing us telecom, the broadband Association. We want to thank the chair. We want to thank the Committee staff. They worked tirelessly to come up with amendments that, as you heard, the author is accepting today. So we appreciate all the hard work of the Committee and the staff and certainly of the author. US Telecom is certainly very concerned about broadband deployment. With the newest money that has come from the Federal Government, we call it the federal funding account.

There were over 400 applications to build projects in California. So we are stepping up to the plate. We want to serve. We want to serve those most remote areas that we have yet to reach because they're so hard to reach. So this is truly a public private partnership. I want to reiterate kind of what the author has mentioned, that the Bill does not put broadband at the front of the line.

It does not circumvent safety inspections by the utility, nor does it tie the hands of the utility with the timelines. The timelines are there so that there would be better communication and more and better collaboration to ensure certainty when working on broadband projects. What the Bill will do is establish the guidelines for that better collaboration, and obviously builds on the current practices of some of the IOUS and POUs. They still have the ability to approve or deny the project design within 60 to 90 days.

That is the timeline, but they can still change that. But we feel like at least that communication helps to give more certainty. The safety inspections continue to be in the hands of the utilities as to when to electrify the final broadband project. And as mentioned, this is too important. We have never seen unprecedented funding like this for broadband to reach those last unserved areas of California.

If we miss these deadlines, as was mentioned, by the end of 2026, having to have projects built, we lose the ability to reach those last unserved households. So we ask for your. I vote.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Amanda Guadarrama with Cal broadband. We represent the cable broadband providers in California. I want to start again thanking the Assembly Member for his commitment to closing the digital divide, and also thank the chair and the Committee staff for all their hard work on this Bill. All stakeholders here care about closing the digital divide and deploying broadband in California.

It's going to take all of us broadband providers, local governments, utilities, and the Legislature to streamline these processes so we can build billions of dollars worth of broadband within the state with federal, state, and private funding. This is critically important because our Members are seeing utility delays of 18 months or more. Currently, local governments are required to process broadband permits in a reasonable amount of time, but utilities do not.

This Bill, as it's proposed to be amended, addresses nearly all of the opposition's concerns and simply requires utilities to work with broadband providers in a more collaborative way to avoid these delays. The Bill strikes the right balance by continuing to give utilities full control to approve or deny applications and specifies that the utility performed all of its safety inspections prior to the project being energized. Only the utility can connect electricity to the project. The utility remains in full control with regards to safety.

The SIP Bill simply requires the utility to let the broadband provider know if they're going to approve or deny the project design in a reasonable time. The amendments the author has accepted are reasonable and strike this right balance. Without this Bill, applications will continue to get delayed for years and we could see deployment associated with the federal grant money as stated, take too long to meet the federal deadlines we ask for your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move to additional support testimony in the room. Anyone wishing to provide a statement of support, please approach the microphone.

Someone tall was here. Good afternoon. Roxanne Goulde, representing the wireless infrastructure Association. We own, operate, build and develop the nation's wireless infrastructure. We advocate on behalf of responsible and timely deployment and believe this Bill goes a long way to accomplish that.

Madam Chair Member Steve Carlson for CTIA. We're the trade Association for the wireless industry and strong support.

Good afternoon. Traci Ryan, Rural County Representatives of California in support.

Good afternoon. Audra Hartmann, on behalf of Calcom, in support.

Ryan Elaine. On behalf of the California Retailers Association in support.

Chair, Members Nate Solov, on behalf of the following organizations who couldn't be here today, the California Apartment Association, Pasadena Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, San Mateo County Economic Development Association, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Thank you.

Madam Chair Members Rochelle Swanson, in support. On behalf of Crown Castle and the California Wireless Association. Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Hunter Stern. On behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Employees, we're withdrawing our opposition. We can't offer complete support yet, but we do greatly appreciate working with the authority and particularly the work of the Committee on making this a much safer and a much more viable Bill from our point of view. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we'll go ahead and move to opposition. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? I don't believe so. We'll go ahead and then move to the room or. You were going to be our.

Yeah, I just have brief comments, so.

Okay. You can come here.

Okay. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Derek Dauphin, on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, also been asked to relay comments on behalf of the California Special Districts Association. Really, we just want to say, you know, we're currently opposed to the Bill that's in print, but would like to thank the chair and the Committee staff for all the hard work that they've done on this Bill. We certainly think that the amendments go a long way to helping address our concerns.

We think there are steps in the right direction. However, we do need to review them when they're in print to actually know the extent of those amendments. Really, our main goal here is to ensure that the safety of our utility workers and our utility infrastructure, and we really do hope that the amendments do that. So with that, we're looking forward to reviewing them and hope that we can help craft those amendments.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brandon Ebek, Pacific Gas and Electric I want to echo a lot of the comments from our pump utilities. I want to thank the author and the staff for reaching out early. We have three kind of primary concerns that we've been working through. One, we don't support industry specific timelines and statute. Every application should be treated equally for the IOUS.

The leadership of AB 50 and SB 410 last year have kicked off a complex process at the PUC that will come up with timelines for all industries. We want to see that process play out. We know Crown Castle and Telecom are party to that proceeding, and ultimately we want to have a maintain a good business to business relationship. These are our customers. Ultimately, when we look at our data, broadband is responsible for 60% of the delays in their own applications.

There's a lot of work we can do on both sides. So we think sometimes a Bill can get in the way of that regular cooperation. But otherwise, we look forward to seeing the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition in the room. Go ahead and approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Andrew Kosydar with Southern California Edison really. Appreciate the author working with us on this. Unfortunately, we remain opposed to the Bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Brian White, on behalf of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, we also have an approved position from the City Council. I respectfully appreciate the amendments that the Committee has done. We still have concerns about the deemed approved language. We think that needs to be clarified or taken out of the Bill altogether, but we look forward to working with.

The author on that. And just for clarification, a lot of the comments about the GeO 95 fiscal code

Sorry, we've got to stick with name, position, thank you and affiliation. Thanks.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Kira Ross, on behalf of the City of Burbank Water and Power, we appreciate the author and the amendments. We're going to take a look at the amendments but remain opposed at this time. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City Of Rancho Cucamonga, opposed to the Bill in print, but look forward to reviewing the amendments. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric. Align our comments with PG and E. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Anthony Samson, on behalf of the Southern California Public Power Authority in opposition.

Thank you. All right, questions and comments from Committee Members. All right, seeing Miss Schiavo.

I just wanted to thank you, thank the Committee, the chair staff for the work that's been done on the Bill. Definitely none of us can really live these days without broadband. We know how important it is and certainly don't want to miss out on those federal dollars. So appreciate you really highlighting that and bringing that issue forward and making sure we have an opportunity for that. And also, as I expressed before in conversations, there's a lot of priorities that need to get energized. Right.

And so very grateful that this is going to be part of, you know, continue to be a part of that larger conversation happening in the CPUC. Thank you.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Zbur.

First of all, I have great respect for the author, and I know that the author doesn't bring things to this body without there being an issue that is real and authentic. And so I just want to thank you for that. As I think I mentioned to you, I've had concerns about the Bill, not because of the fact that it's not necessarily needed specifically, but because of the fact that it jumps one industry ahead of other areas that I think are probably equally important.

You know, making sure that we're electrifying buildings that need to be built and affordable housing and electric charging stations and that whole host of things.

And so, you know, I'm nervous about, and then on top of it, you know, I appreciate you taking the amendments, but this is sort of a complicated area where I think sort of getting into sort of this level of specificity for one industry, I'm worried about the resources it's going to take away from other things that are sort of going to be equally important.

And I do think that, you know, SB 410 and AB 50 did is requiring the PUC to look at how we expedite everything in a faster way. So with that, I've got concerns. I've got concerns about the Bill, and I but I want to just thank you for bringing it today.

Thank you, Assembly Member Reyes.

Thank you. I think one of the primary concerns now is to make sure we don't have to give back this money, that we actually use it, and that is extremely important. But my colleague is absolutely correct. This is very complicated. I'm glad to hear that you've accepted the amendment. So we deal with priority selection, safety violations, timelines. It still is complicated. And I really appreciate the committee's, the consultants work on this with your office and your work on this issue.

I also want to acknowledge that one of my cities, the City of Ranch Cucamonga, has been opposed. And I really listen to my cities, but I know that this is something you will continue to work with, and I'm sure that there's the commitment to work specifically with my little old city. I want to make sure that they're included in that conversation as we move forward with this.

Thank you. You have my commitment. Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember, we'll go ahead and pause so we can establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, you can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right. With that, we have a quorum where we are in action. Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Assemblymember, you have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

I just want to start by saying that you have my commitment. I will continue to work on are in all those continued concerns that have been expressed and yes, with the City of Rancho Guamonga and any other city that wants to come to the table so that we can find the right balance on this important measure. I also want to say that this Bill allows utilities to retain control. They decide if they approve or deny the application. They decide if the project meets their safety requirements.

This Bill is about streamlining the process so our communities can get connected to high speed Internet as quickly as possible. It's about setting up consistent processes statewide so both local governments and utilities are processing broadband applications as efficiently as possible. We don't want to send broadband funding back money. Those are billions of dollars that we would be losing, and the ones that are going to lose more are our communities that don't have access to what is the 21st century basic need.

With that, I respecfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, the motion is do pass, as amended, to communications and conveyance. Madam Secretary, please call the roll item.

Number three, AB 2221 the motion is do pass, as amended, to communications and conveyance. [Roll Call]

Alright, 8-0 so that Bill is on call.

Thank you. Thank you, Members.

All right. We have a motion and a second on the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, please call the roll item.

Number one, AB 2029 the motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations item number 12, AB 2891 the motion is do pass to appropriations item number 15. AB 2779 the motion is do pass to appropriations. Petrie Norris? Petrie Norris aye. Jim Patterson, Bauer-Kahan? Bauer-Kahan aye. Calderon? Calderon aye. Chen, Connolly? Connolly aye. Friedman, Holden, Joe Patterson, Reyes? Reyes aye. Santiago, Schiavo? Schiavo aye. Ting, Wallace? Wallace aye. Wood? Wood aye. Zbur? Zbur aye.

Okay, so 9:0, and we will leave the roll open for absent members to add on. All right, do we have a second? All right, we've got a motion and a second on AB 2109. Madam Secretary, please call the roll item.

Number two, AB 2109. The motion is do passes amended to appropriations [Roll Call]

All right, next up on our agenda is item number five, AB 2487. Assemblymember Fong.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Assembly Bill 2487 requires the deputy secretary of climate to create and maintain the California Green Jobs website. This website created a centralized hub for Californians to access information about green jobs and other educational job training opportunities. The deputy secretary of climate was established within the labor and workforce development agency and is already charged with identifying workforce transition needs, recommending strategies for training and education, and tracking clean energy jobs.

By allowing direct access to this information, this website addresses a key part of the transition to our carbon-neutral California and training workers and filling positions. But it's not just an energy transition, it's also an economic one. It must be a just transition where workers in declining industries are not left behind, where communities are not left behind, and where jobs are available to everyone, reducing social and economic inequality.

Assembly Bill 2487 requires that our deputy secretary of climate provides Californians the Green Jobs website and ensures that all Californians can connect to good green jobs. Here to testify and support is Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with the California Environmental Voters.

Hi everyone, I'm Fatima with California Environmental Voters. Hello Chair and committee members, AB 2487 represents a significant step forward in California's commitment to a greener economy. By mandating the creation of a California Green Jobs website, the state is not just focusing on environmental goals, but also on democratic principles. Sorry, I'm a little out of breath because I was running around. Sorry.

And economic and social equity by making information easily accessible. California's transition to renewable energy sources and zero carbon resources by 2045 is not just about reducing carbon emissions, but also about creating new opportunities for Californians, especially in this unique opportunity as billions of dollars in federal funding is coming down from the government to create good climate jobs. Requiring the deputy secretary of climate to maintain a website so that available green jobs are easily accessible will be a game changer for regular working people.

To obtain information on these new jobs created. AB 2487 aligns with California's efforts to phase out combustion trucks and promote zero-emission vehicles, which will not only reduce pollution but also drive the creation of a clean vehicle manufacturing industry. The state's leadership in climate technology, with the significant presence of climate tech companies, further demonstrates the potential for job creation, economic growth in the green sector.

The need for this bill stems from the realization that while California is making significant strides in transitioning its workforce and economy, there's a lack of publicly sanctioned resources for communication, coordination, and accessibility. The California Green Jobs website will bridge this gap by providing information about green job opportunities, training programs, and skill requirements. This ensures that all Californians, especially those in declining industries, have the chance to participate in and benefit from the state's green economy.

So, in essence, AB 2487 is not just about environmental policies, it's about empowering workers, promoting economic equity, and fostering a more inclusive future for all Californians. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and open it up for statements of support in the room. Anyone wishing to testify in support of maybe 2487 you can approach the microphone. All right. Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we'll open it up for questions or comments from the committee Assemblymember Zbur.

I just want to thank you. I think this is a really important bill and just want to thank you for bringing it forward and want to thank California Environmental Voters for being a part of it. So I will be obviously strongly supporting the bill. Thank you.

And yes, I would like to thank you for bringing this forward as well. As you said, we're not just in the midst of a climate transition, we're in the midst of an economic transition. And I'm personally just very excited about the opportunities for more great green jobs for Californians and think that this is going to be a really important step as part of making that vision a reality. So with that, would you like to close?

I think that's a closing statement. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, madam secretary, please call the roll.

Item number five, AB 2487. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, 10-0 that Bill is out, and we'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Thank you. All right, we are going to move to item number four. AB 2329 Assembly Member Muratsuchi.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I am here to present AB 2329 which would create the California Affordable Decarbonization Authority, a nonprofit that will administer the Climate Equity Trust Fund to promote electricity affordability and incentivize electrification. We all know that in order to meet our ambitious climate goals, that we need to make sure that we keep electricity affordable. That is the goal and intent of this Bill.

And let me turn it over to some experts that have been working on this Bill since last fall. I'd like to start with Matt Friedman, the Staff Attorney from the Utility Reform Network, and also very happy to have Scott Wetch here representing the Coalition of California Utility Employees and the California State Association of Electrical Workers in support of the measure.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Matt Friedman. I'm a Staff Attorney with the Utility Reform Network, and I'm very proud here to be here today to support AB 2329 which would establish a climate equity trust fund to address rapidly rising retail electricity rates that threaten the affordability of basic service.

As we know from hearings that this Committee has held very recently, retail electricity rates charged by the three major investor owned utilities have risen at a shocking pace in recent years. PG&E's rates have more than doubled since 2019 and are up 50% since 2022. Southern California Edison rates up 70% since 2019, and San Diego's rates up more than a third since 2019.

And these rates are likely to increase in the coming years to create massive affordability challenges unless there are other sources of funding that can be identified as one of the solutions to help put downward pressure on rising rates. The Bill establishes a new durable structure for channeling sources of external funding to offset a variety of costs that would otherwise be collected in retail rates.

And this approach is consistent with recommendations that have been made by the four major agencies, the PUC, Energy Commission, ARB, and ISO, to the Legislature and to the Governor in a September 2021 report. It's also something that's been discussed in front of the PUC in their en banc proceedings on affordability. And this topic has come up in front of this Committee. Really, we're talking about the importance of finding new approaches to paying for an array of social policy, environmental electrification, and wildfire-related costs.

The trust established by this Bill would be administered by the California Affordable Decarbonization Authority, a new nonprofit public benefit corporation, and the disbursements from the trust and all the plans for spending would be regulated and approved by the Public Utilities Commission with respect to money that flows into the IOU service territories and by the California Energy Commission for disbursements that flow to the customers of publicly owned utilities.

The money that would be administered by the trust could be used for direct credits on Ratepayer bills, supporting rebates and offsetting costs that would otherwise be collected in rates. We think this is an idea that time has come, and we ask for your support today. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Employees and the State Association of Electrical Workers, you know, the really exhaustive and comprehensive affordability hearing that this Committee held really teed up, I think this Bill. We're very interested in working with this Committee and with the author and others in exploring where appropriate, opportunities to fund things like wildfire prevention, transportation, electrification, low-income ratepayer assistance, and other expenditures through this mechanism.

We thank the author for introducing it, and we would urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Others wishing to testify in support, please approach the microphone.

Kent Kauss with San Diego Gas and Electric in support.

Michele Canales, Union of Concerned Scientists, in support.

Tony Serna, Citizens Climate Lobby California, in support.

Pam Squires, Citizens Climate Lobby, in support.

Darryl Little, NRDC, in support.

Janet Cox for Climate Action California, the Santa Cruz Climate Action Network Elders Climate Action, both Northern California and Southern California, Sacramento 350, and the Climate Reality Project Silicon Valley Chapter. Thank you.

Hello. Derek Dolfie on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, in support. Thank you.

Hello. Valerie Turella, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and not an official support, but a support in concept. And thank the author for his work in this area.

John White with the Clean Power Campaign in support.

Hunter Stern, IBW 1245 in official and strong support.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you. Any, I don't believe we have a primary witness in opposition. Seeing none. Anyone in the room wishing to testify in opposition to AB 2329? Seeing none. We'll turn it back to the Committee Members. Assembly Member Friedman.

I do have a question. I appreciate what the Bill is trying to do. So the nonprofit that it's establishing, how is it funded? Where is the funding for any of this coming from? Is it anticipating you'll be trying to get funding from ratepayers, from, I mean, from the General Fund, from GGRF? What is the funding source for all this?

I believe that the idea is that there's a startup funding that's required, but after that it would be able to use a small portion of the external funds that it's administering to fund its operations. And in fact, the Bill would require that its operational budgets would be approved by the PUC and the Energy Commission. So there would be oversight in that respect.

And the initial startup funds, is that an appropriation from the General Fund?

It could be. It's not included in the Bill, but it could be included in a separate piece of legislation in a budget vehicle.

I would also add that I've had discussions about this with the Chair. You know, given the current budget situation. We, the first, we have discussed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund as a potential source of funding for this effort.

The original concept of this Bill was proposed by the Citizens Climate lobby, which was their longstanding campaign for the carbon fee and dividend idea that if we're going to, if California consumers are bearing the higher costs of environmental and climate mitigation efforts, that there should be a dividend to help offset those costs. So that was the original concept.

Of course, we know that the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund has many commitments already made, as well as concerns about future interests that may have interest in that Fund, but that has been part of the discussion.

Assembly Member, Scott Wetch, on behalf of CCUE, I also know that some of the working groups that have been working on the climate bond have explored the idea of having a component in the climate bond to do exactly what this Bill purports to do.

Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you. So I saw that the Environmental Voters representative walked out of the room. If you're out there listening, I have a question for you cause part of my, and I had seen in the analysis that it said that it could be GGRF funding, although it's just one of the options to the point that was just made. And I guess that's concerning to me because GGRF is one of those things we keep throwing around all over the place.

And although I am dedicated, and I want to applaud the Chair for her immense efforts at driving down rates, I think it is something this Committee should be laser focused on. GGRF, which results from emissions. I think my understanding, although I wasn't here when it was passed, was intended to be used to counteract those emissions, right? Which this Bill does not purport to do.

And so I guess I would wonder why the environmental community would be supportive of GGRF being used in such a different way than as I understood it was intended. But they're not here, so I don't know if you have anything to add to that Mister Muratsuchi, you were here. And then I have other questions after that.

Thank you for that question. I think one of the things we're hoping to do with this trust fund is to use the money from sources like GGRF and other sources that are available to pay for the costs of programs that are currently collected in utility rates that promote decarbonization and clean energy. Those are costs that are currently helping to drive up rates. And finding alternative funding sources would be a way to solve for both the environmental goal that's been articulated and affordability.

And that was, I think, makes more sense to what Mister Wetch had said earlier as I read the Bill, and maybe it was my misreading, I understood the Bill to be giving money directly back to ratepayers to drive down the cost of utilities. What I heard here today was a combination, I think, of that, as well as building infrastructure on which the utilities would receive a rate of return. Hence their very enthusiastic support here today.

And I don't I get their desire for that, but I think it's something we really need to be looking at, because putting this money into the hands of the investors is not what I would like to see. And so, given the breadth of that, I'm just not sure where I am on this Bill. Thank you.

If I just might add, one of the driving costs obviously affecting ratepayers is the cost of transportation, electrification, and obviously one of the major focuses of the scoping plan at CARB. And one of the purported purposes for the GGRF is to do exactly that to accomplish transportation electrification. So we think that would be. There's synergy there.

Got it. I guess then that actually opens up a question, which is if it's building the infrastructure, will the utilities get the same rate of return as if they're investing in it? And can we clarify that in the Bill? And that would make me actually much more comfortable. If these funds are coming out of GGRF, I don't want to see the utility getting that rate of return. That makes no sense to me, but I want that to be clear.

So I don't know if the author will commit to that.

Well, if you look at the Committee analysis on the bottom of the first page that specifies that monies in the trust shall not be used for return on equity or on shareholder incentives, nor for any administrative or overhead costs incurred. Well, that's for.

Yeah, but we're seeing right now the utilities trying to lend money and still get a rate of return on money that's not theirs. So I guess I want to make sure that that is completely tight, that whatever money is coming out of this, they're not getting return on this money, but we're building infrastructure that they will get a rate of return on. So I guess maybe it is, but just making sure we're clear about that, that would make me more comfortable.

And actually, I think could drive down costs for ratepayers significantly. And so I see a benefit in that. And then the other question is for those, and maybe if there's no rate of return, we wouldn't have the same problem we have today, which is seeking to build things well beyond both capacity and need. But would the projects themselves, I assume, would still have to go through the cost benefit analysis at the PUC even if they came out of this fund.

And maybe, I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm asking just clarification to be clear.

Yeah, I don't think that as structured, the idea here is that the trust would physically invest in individuals, individual projects. It's more about providing methods of passing through money to provide credits to customers that are paying the bills. So the trust wouldn't itself be investing directly in infrastructure. If it were, I would agree with you 100% that the utilities shouldn't be allowed to double dip on that by somehow taking credit for it as if it were a shareholder investment.

But that's not the structure of the Bill as set up.

So it would go directly to ratepayers. I guess that's what I thought. And then this conversation confused me.

The Bill includes several possible ways that money could flow back to customers. One would be direct credits on the bills. The second would be a credit against revenue requirements that would otherwise be collected from the utilities, from their customers. And the third could be, they could provide.

So that, second, what? Credit on revenue investments.

So if the utility has a certain amount of money that it's seeking to collect from customers, a portion of that could be funded by the trust.

And then it wouldn't come out of the ratepayers. Okay.

And it wouldn't come from ratepayers. And the third could be that the trust could provide direct rebates to service providers or like rooftop solar incentives or other things. There's a whole universe of things that could be provided through the trust that otherwise would have been funded out of rate. So there's flexibility.

Okay, so I guess that does actually. Right. So, as designed, the utility would go to the PUC, do the cost benefit analysis to get the approval for the project. They would then need to recoup that money. And that money could be recouped through this in lieu of the general rate case. I think I'm understanding that correctly. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. I mean, I think I still sort of, I find this to be a really fascinating way to drive down rates.

And I think it is a real question that we need to grapple with as a Legislature of whether these GGRF funds should be used in this way. Although I do think we have serious need to build infrastructure.

And I guess my preference, although I'm kind of rewriting your Bill, is actually what I came to that I thought was kind of exciting, which I think is one of the most exciting ways for us to be funding this infrastructure, which is to be doing it outside of the utility, some of the transmission, et cetera, which then takes the rate of return off the table and drives down the cost of that infrastructure, which could be done through this, which I think would make more sense than allowing the rate of return, than reducing it on the ratepayers.

So I'll just put that on the table.

Yeah, let me, just on that last point. So if you look on page three of the Bill, it lists the potential uses of the Climate Equity Trust Fund. But one of them is to address the biggest cost driver of electricity rates increasing, which is the wildfire mitigation activities, rather than having the ratepayers paying that this fund can be used, directed toward that purpose.

Right. So use it directly, right? Instead of reimbursing the IOUS, is what I'm saying.

And I guess I would say a couple things. So I think, number one, I don't think, I don't, not to speak for the author, I don't think the author would assert that this is, you know, the full and final answer to anything we ever might want to do in terms of exploring alternative financing models.

I appreciate you bringing this forward because I do think we need to have a very serious conversation about how we are going to finance what is truly a transformational moment for the State of California. Like this is not incremental. Like and as we keep saying, like, this is a pivotal moment. We need a 300% increase in generation. We need a 350% increase in transmission. Alongside of that, we have a whole host of climate programs that we're excited about and want to run.

All of that stuff right now is just getting passed on to rate payers. It's being done in the least efficient way possible. It's being financed in the most expensive way possible, and it's leaving Californians at the breaking point. And so I think that clearly there's a lot that needs to be discussed and worked through. And I think this doesn't specify all the details. It sort of directs the agencies to shape this Commission.

But I want to have other conversations about alternative financing and other conversations alongside that about public financing for the transformative infrastructure that it's going to take us to achieve our climate goals and most importantly, achieve those cost effectively. So look forward to continuing that conversation. All right. Back to the Bill at hand, Assembly Member. All right. Assembly Member Wood.

Thank you. This is a fascinating discussion. So I appreciate the author for bringing this forward here. I would just note in the summary of the Bill here, one of the things it says about authorizing disbursements from the trust is reimbursement of eligible costs incurred by load-serving entities or publicly owned utilities. So I don't know, it feels like an offset to money they would be spending on activities there. Obviously, we're talking about establishing this and how everything gets spent and all that. It's going to happen later on.

You also mentioned Federal Government. Monies from the Federal Government. I have no idea what you mean by that. What federal funding are we eligible to get to put into a trust that's going to be able to help us with rates?

Well, Assembly Member, there's a tremendous amount of federal money that's been made available through the Infrastructure Act and the Inflation Reduction Act through the Biden Administration. This is a once in a generational opportunity for us to claim our share of that federal money. And so this would be eligible to claim a share of that money or to go out and seek that money to the extent it's eligible and have that money come back to customers.

There are many efforts in the State of California right now to claim federal money. And if the money is claimed and we're successful in getting it, this would be one of the disbursement structures that would be available. And there might, of course, be future opportunities with a future administration.

I guess the bigger question for me is how big do you anticipate this trust being if we're actually going to be able to do anything that's going to impact ratepayers? Remember, there's 40 million people that live in California and they all consume electricity. How big of a fund do you anticipate building here that's going to have an impact? And what are ratepayers ultimately going to see out of this? Are we just going to see that maybe the rates just don't go up a little as much?

Or are we going to see that this actually impacts rates in a positive way or a negative way or a positive way?

Well, it's an excellent question, and it really depends on how much money is made available from other sources. This Bill doesn't authorize spending from any other source. It doesn't itself create the external sources of funding. But I think it gets the conversation going in the Legislature and among the agencies about how to identify those other sources. Mister Wetch talked about the idea of climate bonds being used.

So it could be something on the ballot, it could be GGRF, it could be other money that becomes available through other sources. Now, the utility system is incredibly capital intensive. These revenue requirements are obviously quite large and more money is better. We can't say how much money is being targeted by this because that would be an impossible exercise at this point. But whatever money is available and is created could be deployed effectively to try to reduce the pressure on rates.

There are many things that need to happen to contain rate increases and to bring rates down over time. This is not a silver bullet. This is one of a portfolio of strategies that we think the state should pursue.

Thank you. And then I guess one thing I would just add is, since you talk about the, you've mentioned the Legislature multiple times, maybe you might want to consider having a representative from the Legislature be a part of this group so that the Legislature can have some input into how some of this is done.

Well, in fact, Assembly Member, the board structure for the nonprofit that would administer the trust has a member from the Governor, a member from the Speaker, and a member from the Senate, the Senate Committee on Rules. So the Legislature would have direct oversight over the Administration of this entity.

Okay.

All right. Oh, Mister Zbur and then Miss Reyes.

So first of all, I want to thank you for bringing the Bill. I think it's an important one, and I think some of it is because of some of the issues that our pro tem, Mister Wood was bringing up. One of the things that I've been nervous about, I don't know that it's not happening.

It's sort of stuff that happens above my pay grade and I think many of ours, but I've been very nervous about the fact that the State of California doesn't appear in a visible way to be capturing a lot of the federal funding that's available through the various mechanisms that have been passed at the federal level. And if one of the things this does is, and I know that GO-Biz has been working on that.

I just don't know how much of that has been with a focus of making sure that we've got the funding that we can to achieve our climate goals, the electrification that we need, the transmission that we need. Apropos of what the Chair said, we have to, we have huge goals that we have to make, and so we have to think big, and we have to take every tool that we have out there. And I think this is one, I hope this becomes a very large entity.

If it becomes a very large entity, then it's a big success because it means that it will have found ways of capturing federal funding, philanthropic dollars, other things that will really help bring down rates in the long run. But secondarily, I don't think the only measure is breaking down rates. We have to make sure that rates are fair for our constituents and we're bringing them down, but that we're meeting our climate goals. And I know that those are the dual goals of this thing.

So with that, I'm strongly in support. Want to thank the witnesses for coming today, and thank you for bringing this Bill.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Reyes.

A more basic question. Why a nonprofit?

Well, a nonprofit public benefit corporation is a structure under state law that provides some flexibility for the operation of the institution that would administer the trust. The nonprofit, as I mentioned in response to Assembly Member Wood's questions, would actually have the board composed entirely of appointees from the Governor, the Assembly, and the Senate. So right now, the California Independent System Operator, for example, is a nonprofit public benefit corporation, which is the same designation we're talking about here.

I think, because also this trust would provide funding for customers of both publicly owned utilities and the investor-owned utilities, neither of which really sort of. There's no single agency that provides that type of oversight over both. The trust would be designed and the nonprofit would be designed to serve the interests of all of those entities, but would have the approval for spending in each of the respective service territories reviewed and approved by the regulatory agencies.

So I think there's a good argument for creating a new nonprofit structure here that would be statewide in reach, could even provide rebates and other services to customers across the State of California, but would be fully regulated by the key state agencies and would have its board composed of representatives from the Legislature and the Governor.

What do you anticipate the total number of members on this board? I know it talks about appointments from the Governor, the Assembly, and the Senate. Surely it's not a board of three.

The statute, the language says seven-member board.

And then I would imagine you then have to hire staff to take care of all of the work that the board decides on. You're going to have to have. I can just imagine how, if we're talking about, we've talked about how much money is going to come into the, this fund. The bigger it is, the more you have to have. You're going to have to have your attorneys and every other profession to take care of the work of this, of this trust.

Well, it would also be the same as if we administer money through state agencies where they come in with requests for additional staff. So I'm not sure there's any way to get around this issue, but rather to say that it would be my hope that the staffing would be relatively lean for this kind of an operation. And given the amount of money involved, that this is a good investment to spend on a small amount of administrative overhead.

I would just add, Miss Reyes, I mean, you know, we talked about different potential options. I would pose the question to you. Would you prefer that the Public Utilities Commission administer this fund?

No, I don't. I don't want the Public Utilities Commission to do it, but I do have issues with setting up a separate entity to take the money from the state, from the feds, and whatever other source to then administer these funds.

I would just emphasize what Mister Friedman emphasized, that this is a nonprofit entity that would be governed by the appointees of the Governor, the Speaker, and the Senate pro tem.

Thank you.

All right, seeing no additional questions, Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. You know, I miss being on this Committee, because you have, you know, many of the smartest, most thoughtful Members of our House. And so I appreciate the discussion, but I think I would come back to the bottom line where I started, which is that the purpose of this Bill is to address the issue of electricity affordability. If electricity is not affordable, we are not going to be able to electrify our economy, to be able to achieve our climate goals.

That is the core mission of this. Appreciate the Chair of the Committee for keeping this discussion moving forward. Look forward to continuing to working with you, Madam Chair, and the Committee, as well as all the Members, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion and a second? All right, moved by Assembly Member Zbur. Second from Assembly Member Calderone. Madam Secretary, if you can please call the roll.

Item number four, AB 2329. The motion is do pass to Natural Resources. [Roll call]

Thank you very much.

9-0. That Bill is out and we'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Thank you, Assembly Member. Moving to item six, AB 2528. Assembly Member Arambula.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. AB 2528 ensures that California meets its climate goals, protects groundwater, and improves air quality by increasing the availability of renewable projects in our state. According to the CPUC, California must add 114,000 utility scale renewables onto our grid. Included within that is 70,000 MW, which will be utility scale solar. Most of these projects will happen in the Central Valley.

Also happening in the Central Valley is that many agricultural landowners are at risk of losing access to water that is essential for their ability to farm their land. To many of these landowners will be left with no viable economic alternative. This confluence of water sustainability needs and clean energy demand creates an opportunity for us to craft an approach that addresses multiple economic and environmental goals.

It is possible for us to achieve a carbon free future with good paying jobs, cleaner air and mitigation of climate change, while respecting local control and giving a lifeline to landowners. Testifying in support of AB 2528 is Shannon Eddy with the Large Scale Solar Association and Gail Delihant with the Western Growers.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Shannon Eddy with a Large Scale Solar Association. We're a state based trade group of utility scale solar owners and developers. Happy to be here and oddly, sort of happy to have this bill come to a committee that it wouldn't normally come to just because of the siting elements. And I think it's important for the state to begin to find tools to meet the very targets that we are facing.

As the member, as Assemblymember Arambula was talking about, we need to basically triple the size of our grid in 25 years or 20 years. Excuse me, it's getting away from us. 57 to 70,000. That will be solar. For context, we have about 17,000 MW online today. So for that much solar to come online, we need about 500,000 to 700,000 acres. And when you talk to developers today, they will say that most of the easy sites are taken.

In addition, because the state is so transmission constrained, a lot of these projects are required to take on some more significant transmission components, like substations, longer gen tie lines, that kind of thing.

So that means that you've got bigger.

Projects that are needed in order to shoulder those economics. Bigger projects need big contiguous land areas, preferably with low species conflicts. And that also then requires them to negotiate across multiple landowners. And so when you look at the Williamson act, which then covers a lot of these ag lands that are going to be losing water, Williamson act comprises about 50% of the ag lands in the state. And so adding a Williamson act contract cancellation to a project developers list of things to do.

You're adding cost, you're adding delay, you're adding complexity. And there are circumstances in which that complexity basically forces the developer to abandon that site. And the truth is, we're kind of running out of space and we're only just getting started with this. That's why this bill is so important to us, because it really does provide a very surgical tool for local governments to streamline the process. It gives them new findings where there's an absence of water in a compromised water basin and also to build solar.

I'm Gail Delihant with Western Growers Association. Our members grow fresh produce in California, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. Our organization is ever changing to adapt to the dynamic needs of the agricultural community. We have a long established history of looking ahead to anticipate the needs of our industry. 95% of California's 77,000 farms are family owned. Many farmers in the Central Valley have seen regulatory constraints on their water supply. And as of today, the northern Sierra snowpack is at 124% and the southern snowpack is at 107%.

Yet the Central Valley project, which delivers water to farmers south of the delta, is only going to deliver 35% of our contracted amount. Now, mind you, I have to pay for, or they have to pay for 100% of the contract, but only get 35% of the water. Many groundwater basins are also charging fees to pump on growers. Now, some of my growers are paying $50 an acre foot to $2,150 an acre foot charged by a GSA. You can't grow food on $2,100 an acre foot.

Extractions are already being limited by gsas. And so that is why western growers is here today to support AB 2528 because it streamlines the process for farmers to transition some of their fields from agricultural production to solar, thereby saving millions of dollars in Williamson act cancellation fees. We believe this is a win win for locals, farmers and the state.

Hey, thank you. If anyone else would like to testify in support, you may approach the microphone.

Madam Chair and members Erin Niemela, representing Intersect Power, also in support.

Chair and members, McKinley Thompson-Morley, on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association, in support.

Madam Chair and members, Meegen Murray with the Weideman Group, on behalf of RWE renewables and AE's Clean Energy, in strong support.

Madam Chair, Alex Jackson with the American Clean Power Association, in support.

Good afternoon. Erin Norwood, on behalf of the Allman Alliance, representing 7600 growers and over 100 processors here in the state. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Kristin Olsen here on behalf of Terra-Gen Renewable Energy, here in support.

Madam Chair, my name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California, in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. [Unintelligible] on behalf of clearway energy, in strong support.

Hunter Stern on behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Employees and the State Associated Electrical Workers, in support.

Thank you. We'll now move to opposition testimony. The opposition witnesses want to approach the dais. Thank you. Yeah.

Hi, good afternoon. I'm Alex Biering. I am a senior policy advocate for the California Farm Bureau. I'm not usually in this committee because I only do water. So there's a nexus here, which is one of the reasons I'm here. And this is my colleague Peter. What's that?

So people are talking about the Williamson act. And it's been always kind of a bright line for California Farm Bureau to protect the Williamson act. It's been one of the major tools that we've had to protect the most productive farmland probably in the world for the past 50 years. So we don't take changes to that lightly.

But we do know that there are going to be major changes in climate and the regulatory environment that are going to usher in pretty substantial land use changes over the next 20 years. I mean, I don't know if anyone else went to the Water Board yesterday, but I was there until 07:00 p.m. And so these changes are going to be happening soon in the basins. And in terms of limiting pumping. And Gail was absolutely right that these things are all happening.

So we know that there is potentially a need to maybe build in some flexibility when we talk about how the Williamson act applies in some of these agricultural lands. But at the same time, I think this isn't the bill that probably does that optimally. I think it's probably part of a longer conversation that the community needs to have, because this just really weakens the best mechanism we have for protecting those farmlands.

I think, again, as someone who focuses on water, one of my concerns is that there isn't any involvement or coordination or consistency with the groundwater sustainability agencies and their groundwater sustainability plans. You know, it seems that it's highly unlikely that most lands are going to have a zero pumping allocation, right? You might have a half an acre foot per acre, something that isn't optimal for growing things, and that's absolutely true.

But, you know, having a zero pumping allocation for the purposes of avoiding a cancellation fee for millions of dollars is one thing when you have still an allocation on the books. Otherwise. So I think it introduces some uncertainty there with the GSAs. And that's probably. I mean, that's. That's kind of one of our biggest concerns.

All right. Yeah. Thank you. And then did you have additional testimony to provide?

Yeah. Peter Ansel, California Farm Bureau. Thank you, chair and members. In addition to the issues that we have with the chaos that's potentially created with water management locally, we also have real concerns that the solar industry hasn't exhausted all the plants places where they could potentially build. In the Central Valley, the governor was just down at the San Luis Mendota Canal about two weeks ago with the Biden Administration putting Recovery act funds to work to build solar over canals and reservoirs.

And we've got thousands of miles, potentially enough places to actually site on those canals and reservoirs to meet solar's needs for its statewide energy production. When you look at the built environment in the Central Valley, you've got Costco's, you've got parking lots, you've got all sorts of places already in the existing built environment that could be cited. And we respect the fact that it's going to cost more to negotiate with a Costco than it is to be, than it will be to cancel a Williamsnat contract.

But those cancellation fees play an important role not only in keeping the landowners true with what the land is intended to do, which is be productive agricultural lands. The lands that are in the Williamson act are our class one soils. There are only five places on the planet that benefit from these type of soils. And the central valley is one of the places where there's a huge aggregation and concentration of those class one soils.

Farmers put their lands into the Williamson act because, frankly, those are the most productive lands that have the best soils. We've not seen any studies that show that there's insufficient non prime ag lands in the valley to cite these projects. And so we just feel that without an opportunity to sit down and have discussions amongst small and large farmers amongst the GSAs and local governments, that this bill is just precipitous and doesn't address all of those concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in opposition.

Hello. Michael Jarred on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, we apologize to the author and the committee for getting our letter in late and missing the deadline. But we are opposed unless amended. We believe the bill is too broad. We support solar. We've supported NEM projects and agrivoltaics in the past. We would love to work with the author and the committee to narrow the bill, but for right now, we remain opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we'll go ahead and open it back up. Committee members, questions or comments? Assemblymember Connolly.

Appreciate the author coming forward with this and frankly, an impressive coalition that you're starting to put together. A lot of folks I'm usually allied with, and I think we get the notion that a lot of these lands, as they go fallow, folks are looking at alternatives and win wins and oftentimes solar is that, I guess, where I'm landing on this and where I'm struggling and probably not going to be able to support it at this time is I'm a huge fan of the Williamson act.

I think it plays an invaluable role in our communities. It certainly has. I come from local government and have used it. So in a way I'm kind of going old school in Viro here, if you will. And I think there still are some questions about is this. I frankly found myself agreeing with some of the opposition witnesses. Is it kind of moving too broadly and quickly toward what likely will be goals over time?

So at this time I'm going to lay off, but look forward to the continued conversation.

So can you address some of the concerns around the use of the land as intended and once it's gone, we don't get it back necessarily.

I'm happy to, and I'll start just with pride that I represent a county that at times during my tenure here in the legislature has been the number one producing ag county in the state, the country and the entire world. And so it's a great amount of pride that I have to make sure that we have productive ag land in our state.

And our intent is not to go after the productive ag land, but to focus on the basins that are moderately and severely over drafted and that there is no economic viability for them to be able to produce on that land today. Those landowners will still have to go through a process of seeking approval from their local government, their boards of supervisors, which I believe really helps us to make sure that any type of siting is in collaboration with everyone who's local.

But we have to provide that opportunity to start siting now so that we can have these large scale operations come online. If we're not able to begin to cancel some of these Williamson act contracts, they're 10 years to 20 years in length, and it may be 10 to 20 years before we're then able to have these types of conversations to ensure that we're able to site these properties.

But it really is, if I can just be crystal clear, these are lands that otherwise would not be economically viable for these farmers to use. We're giving these landowners a lifeline. We're actually supporting them by having them lease these lands out to the solar companies so that they can then place their projects onto their lands.

Thank you. So do you think that then, through going through these local processes and boards, that that is, in effect, going to limit the scope of these kinds of projects? And that's why the bill does not.

Do that directly, or I'll speak for my local Board of Supervisors, who are all fans of agriculture as well. They're unlikely to cite anything that affects productive ag lent. And so if I can just overstep.

All eight of our Board of Supervisors in the Central Valley have a Republican majority, and I doubt that many of them are going to be changing the pride we have in who we are as the Central Valley and what we do, but will allow my witness to add something if she wants.

Thank you.

For the growers that already have solar on their properties now, especially down on the west side of the valley, where the groundwater is too salty and the surface water is not reliable, those solar panels are designed to come off and stay on. So it's not like if you put them on there forever, they're on there forever. So that's the way it's working right now.

Assemblymember Zbur.

I mean, just looking at, understanding a little bit about large scale solar and even some of the wind, I mean, these are not projects that physically alter the land in a way that is irreversible. I mean, it's really, these are structures that don't even generally have foundations that you can really sort of take off.

I sort of look at this as we've got to find ways of really increasing the amount of electricity that we're renewable electricity that we're producing, and also giving areas where farming is struggling, giving people in those areas opportunities for good, high paying jobs that help replace that. And so I think this is a good bill. I will support it.

And I think the only thing I would ask is there, I don't understand the Williamson's act contract framework enough to understand whether there's something that would have as a backup clause that if you ended up not using this at a period of time, that it kind of reverts back into a Williamson act contract. I don't know if that's a possibility or not. Does anyone here know that?

Yeah. Typically, the contract isn't fully canceled until the project would be permitted. So if the project didn't go through, then the contract would revert back?

No, but I'm talking about maybe 30 years out. After 20 years out, if basically the, you know, someone decided not to reinvest in that particular thing, there would be some ability to sort of put that back in, you know, assuming that there's some water, new water source now that is available.

That's right, yeah. There's nothing in the bill that precludes that.

There's nothing in the bill that precludes that. But I'm wondering if there's something you could put in the bill that actually addresses some of the concerns people are raising. That's the question.

I appreciate my colleague's comment. Just to clarify, though, we do have another bill coming up that will result in utility scale solar on prior ag lands. That's not the issue for me. It's the weakening of the Williamson act. That's what I'm concerned about.

Understood. And I, my perspective, and I appreciate the concerns that the Farm Bureau raised. I think you described the role that the Williamson act has played to, I'm quoting you protect some of the most productive farmland in the world.

I will highlight the reason I'm going to be supporting the bill today is that the bill does specify that we're talking about land that is located in a basin designated as high or medium priority and subject, already subject to various groundwater management plans, has no groundwater rights sufficient to support viable irrigated agricultural use, or does not have permanent access to sufficient water. So we're not talking about tracks that are currently the most productive. So I recognize that it's a tough moment of transition.

It's a very, very tough and painful, and I'm sure for many a family's heartbreaking moment of transition. I'm thrilled about it. Yeah. But we're at a moment of transition, and I think it's not a question of whether or not we're following productive farmlands. It's a question of whether or not non productive. How best do we utilize non productive lands? Yes. Assemblymember Wood.

I guess just a comment. This bill is double referred. It's going to Ag Committee next week.

It is, correct. And they are the Williamson act experts. I just play one on TV.

Thank you.

Okay with that. assembly member, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair and members, for the discussion here today. For us to meet our climate goals as a state, we have to have vision large enough to make sure that we're citing these projects. We have to figure out how to work through these issues with the Williamson act. So we can get upstream and begin to have these renewables come online sooner rather than later. Climate change is an existential crisis, and the sooner we begin, the better we will be as a state.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote..

Thank you. All right. Moved by Assemblymember Zbur. Second by Assemblymember Ting. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number six, AB 2528. The motion is do pass to agriculture. [Roll Call]

Seven zero, that bill's on call. Thank you. Okay, moving to item number eight, AB 2750. Assemblymember Gallagher, whenever you're ready.

Okay. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you AB 2750, a district bill that addresses an oversight in current law that affects biomass facilities, in particular, specifically one in my district in Lincoln, California. In 2022, SB 1109 extended by five years requirement in existing law that an IOU or a CCA purchased generating capacity from eligible bioenergy projects. And I know some of you were here when we did that.

It was a big, big deal for those of us that are trying to ensure that we have these more longer-term sustainable contracts, especially on the wildfire front, because a lot of these biomass facilities take in woody waste from doing forestry management activities, wildfire prevention activities. And this bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support because that BioRAM program has not only been successful in extending the life of those plants but also with this forest fuels reduction goal as well.

So, under current law, IOUs and CCAs are exempted from the purchase requirement from plants that are in a federal severe or extreme non-attainment area for particulate matter or ozone. AB 2750 clarifies that biomass facilities located in air districts that have voluntarily reclassified their ozone or particulate matter federal EPA classification to a higher, more restrictive tier are not prohibited from receiving the BioRAM power. Why are we saying that? What's the reason?

Well, in this case, the local air district actually voluntarily put themselves in a more higher category for non-attainment, even though actually, according to the standards and their ozone and their pm, they are actually not in an extreme or severe non-attainment. They did that for other reasons. But the bottom line is this is still in actual attainment for those, for both of those things, for PM and for ozone.

And this is a very much needed facility for the region, both for, as I said, woody biomass from forestry management programs, but actually also from agriculture as well. So if you were into my district today and you were driving up Interstate 5 or 99, you'd actually probably see a lot of orchards that are being pulled out right now. They're reaching the end of their, of their life, or because of, you know, right now there's a lot of stress on particularly nut trees.

So those are being pulled out right now and replanted to either other crops or maybe replanted into those, into those crops. But these are, rather than just burning those openly in the fields, we send those to these biomass facilities, of which Rio Bravo Rocklin is one of them. So this is specifically just trying to deal with this very specific, unique issue of the air district. Voluntarily reclassifying themselves will not contribute to this being a non-attainment.

They actually are still on schedule to meet their attainment goals, their regular attainment goals. So it wouldn't change any of those things. But it does allow us to continue to contract and then to get the contract with the IOU and have those longer term contracts so they can continue to keep this plant viable. So I hope I did a good job kind of explaining that it's a little bit complicated, but would certainly appreciate your support.

And here to testify on the bill also is Christiana Darlington with the Placer County Air Control District, and Julee Malinowski-Ball, who has many times testified on behalf of the biomass industry and the Biomass Energy Alliance.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Christiana Darlington. Thank you very much for having me here, Chair Petrie-Norris. I'm here on behalf of the district to report that this facility would not threaten the state implementation plan. It does not jeopardize our air district's attainment status for either the federal or the state level.

Also note that the facility is not located in a disadvantaged community, that this facility processes wood waste that would otherwise be left on the forest floor and in piles that you've probably seen on your drives to Lake Tahoe or in other places in the Sierra. Not only are those piles ugly, but they also lower the efficacy of our fuel reduction project's purpose because they can actually set off fires.

There's evidence of one such fire being triggered in Greenville, California, where a forest biomass pile exacerbated that fire. Processing forest biomass waste in a facility like Rio Bravo Rocklin is better for the environment than fire. Our district published a study in 2015 that showed that biomass to electricity is 98% cleaner in terms of pm, 65% cleaner in terms of NOx, and 15% cleaner in terms of CO2 than an open pile burn.

Wildfires, as opposed to the open pile burning, are even worse in the health risk because the smoke travels further and it contains toxic air contaminants from non-natural sources of burning. Sometimes foresters even use fire in places in the woods for cultural burning or to do prescribed fire. And pile burning actually makes it more difficult for those projects to go forward because the more smoke there is, the harder it is to manage it and it makes people sick.

So we also want to point out that compost, we cannot compost our way out of this problem. Composting Wood is water intensive and also emits methane. The California Compost Coalition strongly urges wood waste to find alternative waste pathways. Also, opposition compares exhaust stack emissions from biomass waste to electricity facilities with fossil fuel. Fossil fuel, if left in the ground, has no negative impact, while when you leave wood on the ground there is a negative impact that we just discussed. So that's very important to distinguish.

And also in California, they do not grow trees for power, which they do in the southeast other countries, that does not happen here, so wanted to make sure to point that out. Also note the RPS and the California Air Resources Board consider it to be carbon neutral in the scoping plan in their cap and trade program and the renewable portfolio standard. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the California Biomass Energy Alliance, I'll actually just truncate my comments just by quoting the US Forest Service about this program and the use of biomass facilities. So the Pacific Southwest Region 5 of the US Forest Service was managed as 32 million acres in the State of California says one of the essential tools for forest management is mechanical thinning and mechanical hazardous fuels reduction would often lead large piles of non-commercial logs and branches would have to be disposed of.

They have nowhere to go. The only consistent market for excess forest biomass over the last 10 years or more has been biomass power plants with BioRAM contracts. So in total, these facilities, types of contracts consume hundreds of thousands of tons of biomass annually from federal forest land projects that otherwise would have to be open-burned. It's simple. This program is successful, and we ask that you approve this bill.

Thank you. Other witnesses in the room in support, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of Humboldt Redwood Company and Mendocino Redwood Company, in support of the bill

Hello, I'm Katy Falkenborg. I'm the general manager of Rio Bravo Rocklin and I'm here in support of the bill.

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

Witnesses in opposition. Do we have a primary witness? I don't think so. Any witnesses in opposition in the room? You can approach the microphone at this time.

Janet Cox for Climate Action California and 350 Sacramento in opposition to the Bill. Thank you.

Theo Lacaine with the Center for Biological Diversity, also in opposition to the Bill.

Thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Assemblymember Wood, I just want to say.

Thank you, Mister, for bringing the Bill forward, recognizing this is somewhat of a local issue for you, but it is a bigger issue statewide. And while I don't think any of us want to burn anything if we don't have to, I think that this is a reasonable, positive alternative to an uncontrolled burn. As your witness said, we can't compost our way out of this. We also can't divert this waste into landfills because we don't have the space for that.

And we can't cite new landfills because it's extremely difficult. So happy to support your Bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member thank you.

All right. Oh, Assembly Member Patterson.

Thank you, Joe Patterson. Jim Patterson will be here soon. Mister Gallagher, what city do you represent? I represent several cities. This is Rio Bravo, Rockland. My district office, you know, is in Rockland too, so. Right.

I know we have this ongoing dispute about the district line. It is technically in his district, but I see it from my house. Thank you for being a co author of this legislation. Yes, yes. So I've had the opportunity to go to Rio Bravo in particular and tour the facility. And, you know, and I used to also serve on the air pollution control district in Placer County.

And we had a great partnership with Rio Bravo and just industry in General with, you know, clearance, because both of our districts, as you know, have been devastated by wildfires. And we take very seriously not only trying our best to not contribute to carbon emissions, but also the reality that our districts are in, unfortunately, annual peril because of these mega fires. And so I commend you for introducing this Bill, and thank you for always being a leader on wildfire issues in particular, but also generating electricity.

So, win-win. So, thank you very much, Assembly Member Schiavo.

I just as someone who has a landfill that is burning right now, not on purpose, the importance of keeping things out of our landfills has new significance in my life and in the life of many people in my community. And so I know that there's very different opinions when it comes to biomass. And I think that we need to have a broader conversation about this because I think it is something that we really need to grapple with and tackle.

But, you know, I've driven by many field that is burning piles of trees just out into the environment and we know that that's not helpful. So appreciate that this is small in scope, but I think an important issue and happy to support.

Thank you. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Sure. I mean, first of all, thank you for the comments and it is a big issue and that we need to continue to work on. We've done some great work. I want to recognize assemblymember Wood, this is something that I think we've worked on in a bipartisan fashion for several years.

And like I said, this program and the agreement we made in 2022 I think was a good one to help extend these contracts, keep these existing ones in place as long as they weren't in severe or extreme non attainment. And so this is very much in alignment with that policy and helps keep this much needed critical facility in my district. So thank you for your, and certainly ask for your.

I vote thank you. Do we have a motion? And the second moved by Assembly Member Barrack Cahan, seconded by Assemblymember Wood. Madam Secretary, please call the roll item.

Number eight, AB 2750. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call].

Ten - zero that pulls out believe the role.

Open mind and Assembly Member Patterson's dish.

Assembly Member Garcia, AB 3246.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and colleagues. I will be brief, as will our two witnesses. This Bill strives to enhance transmission line safety, reliability, and efficiency, resulting in what we hope will be additional capacity for our transmission infrastructure. Specifically, this will allow for conductors to use much more advanced technology to achieve those goals that I just stated. With me is Maya Leroy with the Center for Energy and Efficiency Renewable Technology, along with Duncan Callaway, researcher at UC Berkeley.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you about AB 3246. My name is Duncan Callaway. I'm a Professor of energy and resources at UC Berkeley. This Bill references advanced conductors, which have an important potential to increase California's electricity grid at Low cost. So as background transmission lines sag in an arc as they span between towers and as more power moves through them, they heat up due to resistive heating, and they sag even more.

Grid operators limit how much power moves through each transmission line to keep them from sagging too much. For over a century, most transmission lines have been constructed with aluminum, which is an excellent conductor and reinforced with the steel core to give additional strength advanced conductors use a different core material, for example, a composite like carbon fiber, and they provide more strength and less sag. And they also enable using a lower resistance aluminum.

Because they sag less, advanced conductors can move twice as much power or more than a conventional conductor. So advanced reconductor ring involves replacing conventional conductors on existing corridors with advanced conductors. And in many cases, you can use the original transmission towers on those corridors. So the conductors themselves, advanced conductors, they do cost more than a conventional conductor.

But our research indicates that the increases in transmission capacity that you can get from advanced conductoring reconductoring costs half as much or less than building new rights of way with new transmission towers, since it avoids the need to procure that land and build the new towers. So this means that the transmission owners can increase their capacity of the transmission corridor with far less investment than new transmission lines would require. Moreover, they can do it quickly.

Whereas transmission can take 10 years or more to complete a new right of way, advanced reconducturing can be done in a matter of years. Thank you.

Thanks.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm Maya Leroy here from the Center of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies. As many of you know, much of California's electrical grid is grossly outdated, lacking efficiency and resiliency, which can increase the risk for outages and wildfires. Additionally, Californians face some of the highest electricity bills in the country, but we also face hundreds of millions of dollars every year in congestion rent, which could be greatly reduced if we had increased line capacity.

Advanced reconductoring in the near term allows for a broader cost recovery at a fraction of the cost than if we were to wait for that capacity to come online from new transmission projects alone over the next 10 years or more. This would greatly reduce the burden ratepayers face who are ultimately the ones financing for these projects.

AB 3246 aims to first, define advanced conductors in California policy and second, to create a permitting incentive for utilities to use these advanced conductors when upgrading existing right of ways for the sake of a stronger, higher capacity grid. The Bill adopts the same definition used in Montana's House Bill 729 that defines an advanced conductor to be a conductor with at least a 10% reduction in electrical resistance than existing conductors on the system with similar diameter.

This Bill would expand upon an existing exemption for the placing of new conductors under the CPUC's General Order 131 d. Permit to construct section to further specify the inclusion of an advanced reconductoring project. Advanced reconducting projects would now seek PUC approval informally through the tier two advice letter process as set in General Order 96 B. So other states are already enacting legislation for these technologies, and California should certainly follow suit. If we want to maintain our position as climate and energy leaders.

And as California is awaiting these long permitting and construction timelines for new transmission projects, there are solutions that we can do now to unlock more capacity on our existing grid, and advanced conductors can offer this if we can incentivize utilities to use them more widely. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in support. You may go ahead and approach the microphone if you want to speak in support of AB 3246.

Madam Chair. John White with a clean power campaign. We support the Bill.

Madam Chair, my name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California Strong support. Chair Members Edson Perez with advanced energy united strong support.

Thank you. Melissa Cortese, on behalf of the California Wind Energy Association, in support, Shannon Eddy.

On behalf of the large scale solar Association, in support. Janet Cox for Climate Action California and 350 Sacramento in support. Thank you.

Mckinley Thompson Morley, on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association, in support. Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to this Bill? Good afternoon. Chair and Members, Kim Stone of stone advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association in a very respectful, opposed, unless amended position, CalSA's position.

We understand that the utilities have an interest in reducing the review process for reconductoring, but believe that the extremely potentially high costs of those deserve the higher scrutiny of a Commissioner vote, which and so therefore recommend an amendment to have a tier three proceedings which would require a vote rather than mere staff analysis. Thank you. Thank you. All right, bringing it back to the Committee. Members. Questions, comments? Assemblymember, thanks for bringing this Bill forward.

I am personally very, very excited about the potential of grid enhancing technologies, and I really like the approach that you're taking with this measure. So with that, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you for allowing us to take up some amendments in the next Committee. And I want to make sure that we state that for the record. We've been learning about this technology as we are working on this issue and as it's come before you. The issue of transmission development is lengthy, costly, and if we can find ways to achieve the same goal in a quicker time on the interim, we should be open to do that. Right.

And so respectfully ask for those old school envirals, the OG enviros and the youth school enviro folks, to support this measure.

All right. Do we have a motion? All right, motion from Assemblymember Calderon, second Assembly Member Zabur, Madam Secretary, please call.

The roll item number nine, AB 3246. The motion is due. Pass to appropriations. Petrie Norris.

Aye.

Petrie Norris. Aye. Jim Patterson. Barracahan. Barracahan. Aye Calderon. Calderon. Aye Chen. Connolly. Connolly. Aye Friedman. Holden. Holden. Aye. Joe Patterson. Joe Patterson. Aye. Reyes. Reyes. Aye. Santiago. Chiabo. Shiavo. Aye. Ting Ting. Aye. Wallace. Would. Would aye. Zipper. Zipper, aye.

Okay. 110 that. Bells out, we'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add. On seeing no other authors, I can go ahead and take up my bell. And perhaps if. Sergeant, if you can call the other two authors to tell them they'll be up soon. Right.

Item number 14, AB 2672 Petrie-Norris, California Alternate Rates for Energy program: public housing authority owned or administered housing facilities. Whenever you're ready, Chair.

Thank you. Members, I am here today to present Assembly Bill 2672 which will allow project Homekey sites to receive a discount on their utility bills. First off, I would like to accept the Committee amendments which clarifies that the bill only applies to project Homekey master meter properties owned by a public housing agency.

As you know, the CARE discount applies to individual customers and applies to a customer meter. However, these Homekey sites are often in converted hotels or motels that are master meter properties. As such, the CARE desk count currently is not applied, even though this is a population that would otherwise qualify. AB 2672 clarifies that in these specific circumstances, this population is eligible for the CARE discount. With that, grateful to be joined today by two witnesses who will introduce themselves as they make their comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Committee Members, good afternoon. My name is Beto Juarez. I'm with the San Diego Housing Commission. I am the Senior Vice President of Property Management and Asset Management. The San Diego Housing Commission strongly supports Assembly Bill 2672. We, as you know, we are the public agency for the City of San Diego, the second largest city in the state and the 8th largest in the nation.

We own and manage approximately 2400 rental housing units in the City of San Diego that are affordable for households with low income. Of these, more than 500 units are master meter properties that would benefit by expanding the CARE utility discount program to properties owned or administered by public housing authority. Madam Chair, thank you for authoring the bill and sponsoring the bill.

To illustrate how this bill will help some of these properties, for example, our master meter properties include two sites with 332 affordable units with supportive services that the Housing Commission created through direct property acquisitions with state Homekey funds. These properties provide crucial rental homes for households that previously were experimenting homelessness in the City of San Diego. The Housing Commission incurs the costs for utilities, our master meter properties instead of passing them along to our residents. For these two properties, for example, we have budgeted $879,000 for the year for electricity and gas utility expenses alone.

The savings from the utility discount proposed by AB 2672 would total more than $250,000 across these two properties and provide additional resources for the Housing Commission to use toward the effort to benefit our residents, such as supportive services. Our mission is to foster social and economic stability for the vulnerable populations in the City of San Diego through quality affordable housing, opportunities for financial self reliance and homelessness solutions. AB 2672 will support quality affordable housing and homelessness solutions in San Diego.

Thank you again, Chair Norris, for introducing the legislation, and thank you, the Committee, for the opportunity to speak to you today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric here in support. The bill is a very surgical fix and closes a gap in existing law that doesn't afford access to our customer care programs to publicly funded agencies that have responsibility for the utility bill. Happy to be here in support and happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. And is there any additional support witnesses in public comment? Seeing none, any main opposition? And seeing none, any public comment opposed? Okay, well, bring it back to the dais. Any questions? Great bill.

So I love the bill. I have only one question, and is that, would this cover long term care residential facilities, or could it? You know, we have a whole host of long term care facilities that are closing rapidly because they have such limited funding. I've got in another Committee, a study bill, because there's not money in the budget this year to sort of help them. But really, these facilities are one of the key things to keeping people with mental illnesses from not becoming homeless.

They generally provide housing, food and medical care for less than $1,500 per resident, and they're looking for ways of just providing resources to these folks because they're closing so rapidly. I'm just wondering if this would be available to assist them as well?

So as the bill is drafted, it would apply to master metered properties that are owned by a public housing agency. So in that case, yes, and I guess in other cases, you know, would be very open to continuing a conversation with you along those lines. I think my view is the CARE discount. I think that the theory of it is it should follow the person, regardless of the housing situation in which you find yourself.

I love the bill, irrespective of that.

But we should talk about it.

But if you'd be open to think about whether or not it could be amended to help these other facilities, I think there'd be a lot of people that'd be very grateful.

Yeah. Appreciate that. Thank you.

I also love the bill. Would be love to be a co-author, if you're taking co-authors and-- Is there a motion and a second? Fighting over moving, okay. Mr. Zbur is closest to me, so he moved it. Second? Okay, Calderon, thank you. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll?

Item number 14, AB 2672. The motion is due pass is amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]

That's out 12-0, and we'll keep the roll open. Turn it back over to you.

Assemblymember Soria, thank you.

Thank you Chair and Members, I'd like to start by accepting the amendments outlined in the analysis and thank you Chairwoman and your staff for the work on this bill. AB 2661 as proposed to be amended, will help achieve California's renewable goals by focusing the efforts of the CPUC and leveraging the existing capabilities of Westlands Water District, which is in my district to deliver new solar generation and transmission lines. To combat the impacts of climate change.

To combat the impacts of climate change California has set ambitious goals to increase the use of clean energy, aiming to achieve 60% eligible renewable energy by 2030 and 100% zero carbon energy by 2045. To meet these goals, new renewable generation facilities and thousands of miles of new transmission lines are needed. The California Independent System Operator has already identified an opportunity to develop 30,000 megawatts of solar in the San Joaquin Valley, Cal ISO's identification of these potential resources is especially timely given changes occurring in our region due to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the SGMA.

As groundwater basins adopt sustainability groundwater management plans, many regions of the state are expected to experience as much as 20% decline in available water supply by 2030. Due to this massive change, it is estimated that between 500,000- 900,000 acres of farmland may need to be fallowed in the San Joaquin Valley alone. This fallowed farmland can be the key to expanding our solar generation.

Westlands Water District, who is in the best position to identify suitable fallowed farmland in their service territory for conversion to solar generation, can help contribute to the state's renewable portfolio while making up for lost water supply revenues needed to continue serving their remaining water customers. Unfortunately, there is not enough transmission currently planned for the Central Valley to capitalize on this opportunity.

Thus, AB 2661 will require the CPUC to evaluate this potential new solar generation and gives Westlands Water District the authority to build, own and operate transmission lines to connect this new generation to the grid. In the end, this bill will help us achieve our climate goals while simultaneously providing an incredible opportunity for disadvantaged communities in places like West Fresno County where I represent, which are in need for skilled and well paying jobs in that area.

The projects that could be undertaken through the provisions of this bill will help these workers upskill and enter into the trades which will uplift these communities that are often left out of the conversation when it comes to these types of investments. With me here today to testify in support of AB 2661 is Marc Joseph on behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Workers and State Association of Electrical Workers. And then I have also Jeff Payne on behalf of Westlands Water District.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. Marc Joseph on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers. AB 2661 is an elegant solution to several well known problems. We need lots more electric transmission to deliver clean energy. We have to control electric rates. We need to fix the major transmission constraint that is forcing lots of solar in Southern California to be curtailed because it can't reach Northern California, which is wasting lots of money.

And we need to create income for people whose farmland no longer has a reliable water supply or is drainage impaired. And we need to create jobs for the people who are working and living in these communities. And we need to do all of these things quickly. This bill addresses all of these problems by doing two things. First, it gives the Westlands Water District the authority to build and own transmission lines in the district for public use.

And I would note that because it is a public district, it can use 100% debt financing, no utility profits, which will be a lower cost for ratepayers. Second, it directs the Public Utilities Commission to consider the Westland Water District's master plan. Currently in the CEQA process. That master plan would build 500 kv backbone transmission in the district to create new connections for 10 to 30,000 solar in the district and create an additional high voltage transmission connection between southern and Northern California.

I want to stress that this bill does not hardwire any particular outcome. Nothing would happen unless the Public Utilities Commission finds that this would be a good deal for ratepayers. Then if and only if it is cost effective for ratepayers, the Commission would then send the recommendation to the California independent system operator and then, if and only if the CAISO selects the project in its annual transmission plan, then the plan could proceed. Thank you.

Thank you for having me. My name is Jeff Payne with Westlands Water District and we represent 600,000 acres of land in western Fresno and Kings County. This bill would provide us the crucial authorities and powers needed to effectively plan and provide strategic oversight for a transition of lands within our borders from agriculture to stolar. The powers, I'll note are not novel to special districts.

We currently have the powers for hydropower, but lack them for solar and other special districts in California have them, such as irrigation districts already, and we're not looking to take all the powers, such as retail development. It's just simply limited to those that we need for this particular purpose. I also note that we are subject to CEQA and are proceeding with as a lead agency on an EIR under CEQA, and the project will also be regulated by FERC. The scale of this is large.

It's about 35% of our district, which has remained fallow for the past decade due to water supply reliability issues from the delta and further restrictions due to SGMA implementation. That's approximately 140 to 220,000 acres of land that has periodically been fallowed over the past decade. At present, we're planning under our CEQA process for about 130,000 acres, 50% of which is already owned by the district.

It's owned by the district because it is drainage impaired, it's causing subsidence and needed to be removed out of production or it was marginal in its condition. The value of that in terms of power is roughly 20 gigawatts. Our oversight is important as it allows for transition to be managed or that favors the inclusion of marginal lands. It allows us to look for dual uses, such as lands that could be both solar and recharge or agrivoltaics.

It also allows us to manage those lands in a comprehensive manner that's consistent with the adjacent land uses in the district.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in support. Go ahead and approach the microphone if you'd like to speak in support. On AB 2661

Gail Delihant, again for Western Growers. We support.

Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers in support.

Bob Draw, on behalf of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades in support. And we are awaiting letters in support from the E&J Gallo Winery family and from the California Dairy Institute.

Michael Boccadoro, on behalf of the Ag Energy Consumers Association, various agricultural groups in strong support.

Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in support.

Carlos Gutierrez, on behalf of the California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, Western AG Processors Association, California Citrus Mutual, and the Walnut and Avocado Commission in support.

Good afternoon again. Aaron Norwood, on behalf of the Almond Alliance in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Daniel Kim with Golden State Clean Energy, in support.

John White with Clean Power Campaign in support.

Thank you. Primary witness in opposition. I don't think we have anyone. All right. Seen none. Any witnesses who want to provide opposition testimony? You can approach the microphone.

Thank you. Melissa Cortez, on behalf of the California Wind Energy Association. We're listed in opposition. We're actually opposed unless amended. Our concerns are solely with section one of the bill, which requires the PUC to evaluate the 10 to 30 gigawatts of solar in the Central Valley.

We read this to be beyond the amount in the most recently adopted preferred system plan. More solar will certainly crowd out wind and other non solar resources. We don't object to the Legislature directing utility scale solar in the Central Valley. However, it should replace solar elsewhere in the PUC's plan. We appreciate the amendments. We will be reviewing those. However, a sensitivity study is largely duplicative of what the PUC already does, since there's virtually no limit on the amount of solar that the model can select.

Having said all that, we have no issues with section two of the bill, which relates to the transmission and the water districts. So we ask that the author look at these issues as the bill moves forward.

Thank you. All right, bringing it back to Committee. Questions or comments? Motion from Assemblymember Zbur, second from Assemblymember Calderon. Assemblymember Wallis.

Just for clarification, I guess. This is probably for the Westlands witness, but is this bill going to take any agricultural land out of production?

None that isn't already out of production due to water supply reliability issues.

Assemblymember Wood.

Thank you Assemblymember Soria, for bringing this forward. Just a couple questions. This is obviously very, as Mister Joseph, as you said, an elegant solution to a challenge. Can you give us an idea of how much time you think this might save in the construction of transmission compared to what we see with a traditional PUC plan?

We often hear that citing a new transmission line takes a decade. And given that the water district already has its master plan EIR in process and that it is the lead agency for the siting, I think we would measure the saving in many years.

I appreciate that. You also mentioned that because of the nature of the funding, the costs are going to be less because of the nature of how this would be funded. So obviously that's good potentially for ratepayers as well.

I guess what I would, I would, as you talked about the transmission, I think you also mentioned north of the Madera or the Fresno Madera area. So can you talk about, you talk about 500 kv lines where, what does all of that encompass?

So the bill requires the line to be within the boundary of the district. There would be a connection to PG and E in the north and a connection to Southern California Edison in the south. Got it, got it. Well, thank you.

I'm very happy to support this bill. I'm particularly intrigued by the possibilities that this might lead others to consider in the future. The shortened amount of time to build transmission is particularly intriguing because, because I think you were generous when you said a decade, Mister Joseph. I think we all know it's seven to 12 years.

I'm not sure how you do it in seven years quite frankly, but I know the bill is narrowed to Westlands and I know it was originally broader than that, cause I just envisioned that there are other opportunities here that could be considered. So while I know the bill is narrowed, I'd sure like us to be looking at this on a broader perspective.

Central Valley is a big place and I know that there are other areas in the Central Valley, in the north even that have water issues as well. And there may be even other water agencies throughout the state that might be able to undertake an opportunity like this. So as we are looking at reaching our climate goals, we have to shorten the time to build transmission. It is the absolute critical piece of the puzzle and for everyone.

And so that I just see that there's an opportunity here that I think we could hopefully be exploring in the future. So thank you.

Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you. I agree, it's an elegant solution. So thank you Assembly Member, for this. I have to say, this is the second bill today where we're talking about the effects of sigma on our farmland and following it. And I know you share my concern for the impact that's gonna have on your community and really on the state and to be honest, the nation, because your communities grow food for the nation.

And so I think that I just wanted to raise my real concern that we don't lead down a path of a gold rush for this land, that then we have solar farms everywhere and we lose the very vital agricultural land in our communities. And the reason I call this solution elegant is I think it does that.

I think it takes a water district that's nested in the community, that comes up with a plan to put solar on some of this farmland, find real solutions for clean energy. But I don't think it runs us into a place where we start to put our agricultural community at risk. And so I really appreciate that, cause I think it does both of those things and I think those are two things we really need to balance as we move towards more clean energy in the central valley. So thank you for this.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no.

Thank you. I wanted to second what Mister Wood was saying in terms of. I understand Doctor Wood, sorry about that. As we. Thanks for correcting me as we have a water district in my district, Placer County Water Agency that's very experienced and has a lot of water assets and has hydropower and is doing a lot of innovative things.

And if we can get more agencies that have the experience and expertise to be able to build on to transmission lines and kind of get through some of this very nice 10 year window here, I think that that's a good thing. I understand, you know, this is, we take the amendments and it's a good, I think, first bite at the apple. But as we kind of go through the next few years, I definitely would be interested in keeping it how it originally was in your bill. So. But thank you for bringing this and opening up the conversation.

Thank you, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you, Chairwoman. And I do want to say I appreciate all the comments being stated from all my colleagues. I think that there is an incredible opportunity that this can present. And so while we were hoping that it would be much broader, we understand obviously narrowing probably is a good start.

But I think that it's a good start to a conversation that we need to have as we are looking at transitioning and meeting the very ambitious climate goals that we have. I represent a community that is very distressed and poor, and I think that it provides hope for those folks that have lost jobs or many or are seeing the loss. And so we're hopeful that this will present kind of an opportunity for these local families to really benefit.

And that's my goal really, in seeing that working with Westlands Water District, that our families first locally, really see the benefits of it. And then just to your point, Assemblywoman Bauer-Kahan, about not losing the agricultural history and just, you know, what gets produced out of the valley, that's obviously my number one priority.

And I think that's why we're working very closely with Westlands and they have the expertise in terms of working in the district and making sure that they manage the lands correctly and that we do identify those lands that really are not, you know, workable because of SGMA. And so thank you again for the opportunity to present this bill. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Yeah, we had a motion in a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number seven, AB 2661 is due pass to Natural Resources. [Roll Call]

That's 14-0.

That Bill is out and we'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Okay, we are on our last item for today's hearing, Mr. Wallace. AB 2172 you've got a motion in a second.

I'd like to be quick, but I can't be, unfortunately. Yeah. All right. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm here to present AB 20312 a Bill related to electrical service in the Coachella Valley. We have a motion in a second, so I'm going to take that hint. The goal with AB 2172 is to help our region figure out the future of our electrical service. It's absolutely clear from the LAFCO study that the assessment we're asking for is critical to the.

The decision making process at the local level. With me to testify and support is La Quinta City Council Member and Riverside Life Code Commissioner Steve Sanchez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, assemblymen. Thank you, Committee Members. Steve Sanchez. I'm an eight year Marine Corps veteran and almost eight year City Council Member in the great City of La Quinta, located in the Coachella Valley. And I happen to also be on Riverside County Lafco.

I am here in support of Assemblyman Greg Wallace's legislation regarding IID and the State Auditor's ability to conduct an audit. I think it's only fair for transparency for ratepayers of both Imperial County and Riverside County to understand who owns the infrastructure and the age of the infrastructure, the aging infrastructure, and what the cost would be to replace, upgrade and fix our infrastructure out in the Coachella Valley.

There's a larger issue that we have when it comes to power out in the eastern Coachella Valley, which happens to be over 60% of IAD's ratepayers come from out of the Imperial and out of the Coachella Valley. IAD is located in Imperial County and what that means is all the voting representation is out Imperial County.

We have no voting representation when it comes to our ratepayers in the Coachella Valley, of which again make up over 60% of the ratepayers for IED's electric portion of their, of the division water. They take care of that in IAD. It has nothing to do with the Coachella Valley, nor do we want it. But this Bill is important because we need to know where do we stand with the infrastructure that we have right now.

Reading the opposition, I saw that this Bill basically is doing what the efforts of IADs are already doing. If that is true, there should be no opposition to the Bill because this Bill, if it is doing what the efforts are already in place, then we should have a unanimous support from all entities in Imperial County and Coachella for this piece of legislation. So, I would ask for your support on this piece of legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in the room wishing to provide support? Seeing none. Moving on to opposition. Witnesses in opposition.

Good afternoon Committee Members. JB Hamby, Vice President of the Imperial Irrigation District board of directors, I want to provide a little bit of background here building off of Mayor pro Tem Steve Sanchez's comments there. ID provides water and power as the public power and water provider in the imperial Valley, and the Coachella Valley has benefited from the very Low rates that IID has provided. Only a third of the neighboring investor owned utility in the Coachella Valley.

Unique situation where over time the population in the eastern Coachella Valley has grown. We have the Coachella festival going on just right now, this last weekend and coming up again this weekend to in our service area. So we have some of the highest power, reliability and affordability. But we also have this unique issue and we've tried to take a leadership position on this very unusual issue and it's not something that we feel is necessary to burden you all with.

Which is why we took the initiative to form three years ago with Mister Wallace's predecessor assemblage, the Coachella Valley Energy Commission, to bring together a wide range of stakeholders in the Coachella Valley. Six cities, four tribal nations, two counties, a county water district and the imperial irrigation district as well.

And just a couple weeks ago, we finished a two full day long session where we brought in a Sacramento based governance firm that has done work with smud for the past number of decades to bring in some experience, help facilitate these discussions at the local level. After just those two days, we finished that session with local calling that process, their feelings after it, hopeful, encouraged, optimistic. And I want to tell you another success story that came out of that process.

Over those two days, we were able to identify an issue that was a problem for one of the two options that we're identifying. Pro Tem Sanchez identified some of the challenges we've experienced in the past and we're trying to identify solutions. One is a potential Municipal Utility District, the other is a joint powers authority. The problem with that is that the County of Riverside is precluded from doing so.

The locals saw this was an issue we actually drafted legislation within our Committee or within our Commission forwarded that to Assemblyman Garcia. And after the unanimous support by all locals participating in the Commission, that Bill is now in print as of last night, and all locals support that Bill through that vote. And while that addresses all of our fundamental issues, that at least we've identified this Bill before you today is not that Bill. There's been no local agency support to date.

We've never been consulted on the local basis about moving forward in this particular direction, and it inserts a level of division and dysfunction into this process. And just in closing here.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. We'll go ahead and open it up to additional comments in opposition.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Derek Dolphin, on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, also and respectful opposition.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Bringing it back to Committee. Questions or comments, assemblymember Santiago, and just.

For clarification, maybe the author, that's okay with the chair. So if there's a current process in place that has been brought up by the opposition and there's, I'm a little bit confused as other legislation addressing the issue now we have this Bill before us that says the state should take a position of auditing. Sounds to me like there's kind of like two or three conflicting points of view here, or maybe like two.

I just kind of want to get from your perspective, then if this is one route, then why is there a need for this additional route in terms of terms of this audit or state presence in a local issue, if there's been a Commission built by regional leaders on this particular issue and what the difference is? Because I'm a little bit confused on that. Yeah.

So there's a long history here, and with the motion the second we kind of skip through my remarks on that, but basically the LAFCO agencies of Riverside and Imperial county were directed to study the district and look at long term public power opportunities for the eastern Coachella Valley in the future beyond the end of this hundred year agreement that we currently have with IID? The LAFCO report stated that they need this information. It's not clear they don't have any of this information.

So our local stakeholders aren't able to make informed decisions without getting that information. So that's all we're asking to do with this Bill.

Madam Chair, there seems to be a little bit of a conflict that's what I was trying to reconcile in my mind. If it's okay with the chair, then, maybe.

Sure, yes, go ahead and respond.

Appreciate that question. So in the LAFCO report that was commissioned a few years ago, in 2021 with AB 1021, with Assemblyman Mayes, that bill essentially turned into the Governor funding a LAFCO study to help inform these local discussions. As part of that process, the Coachella Valley Energy Commission asked for additional recommendations once that study concluded, identifying those top two solutions that I shared with you earlier, we asked them, hey, when you finish your study process, can you give us some tips on what to look at next?

They then yielded 11 individual recommendations for things to consider. One of them, the very first one, was identify a leader. And they suggested that be the consultant Valley Energy Commission that brings together all the tribal, city, municipal, county interests. One of them certainly is additional information. I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding about what the LAFCO consultants were looking for. Ultimately, that information was provided.

And throughout this process that we're looking to have wrapped up within the next 12 months, this is going to be one small component of a much larger picture where there's a lot of information that's going to have to be driven by what the locals are actually looking for to inform their policy change choices.

Okay, so can Assemblymember Wallace and or your witness, can you help us understand what's missing from the process that's underway such that this inventory is required?

Sure. Madam Chair, Committee Members, I just want to clarify a few things which will, I think, help answer some of your questions. There is a Coachella Valley Energy Commission that was put in place many years ago. I mean, this dates back to Senator Jim Batten days and Denise Duccini days, where they talked about these issues regarding IID, infrastructure, data infrastructure, auditing. All of this has been going on. It ranges back to the seventies, before I even moved out to California.

I was on the consumer Energy Consumer Commission as a Member of ECAC, as a Member of the City of La Quinta. We have a representative from each city with IADs board members, members of community. What is the difference here? When it was time for my reappointment for that committee, I was not ratified by the board member of IAD. For the many questions that the Assemblyman is asking, what is the difference? I was asking things on budget transparency.

I was asking things on bids, just things that I would do in my own city if a contract was coming up regarding infrastructure or bidding process, anything like that. I was asking, I was doing my due diligence, representing, as I'm supposed to be doing for my city, but on the commission. So these were some of the reasons why I wasn't re-ratified on that commission. Anytime we ask for information, we, when I say we, it's not the City of La Quinta.

I'm talking about the eastern Coachella Valley, the City of Indio, Coachella, La Quinta, unincorporated areas. For those that aren't familiar, the eastern Coachella Valley is a small portion of Riverside County, the easternmost part of the county, and the Coachella Valley is serviced by Edison and IAD. IAD covers the eastern, the furthest east part of the eastern Coachella Valley. And when I wasn't ratified, it was due in part because of the questions that I was asking.

Anytime we ask for information, there's resistance, and it's not really full reports on what we're asking for. And so this is the issue that we in the Coachella Valley have been facing for many years, is we don't have the transparency from IAD that IAD claims. And if they are transparent, they should have no opposition to this bill because it's doing exactly what they're saying they're doing anyway. So there's, there shouldn't be opposition to this.

Additional questions. Assemblymember Reyes?

The opposition mentioned the LAFCO report, and that as a result of that, it required there being a leader, and the leader then was Coachella Valley Energy Commission. Is that accurate?

It's not inaccurate. It doesn't call specifically out the Energy Commission. What it does is. What it did was lay out different options of who is going to take over in 10 years, nine years from now, who's going to be the provider of energy out in the area.

It's also a bit presumptuous to see that IAD is currently pursuing a 15 year plan on infrastructure when they don't even know for sure that they're going to be the energy provider in the Coachella Valley in 15 years, when our agreement ends in 10 years. It's a little presumptuous that IAD would think that, but it doesn't call out specifically who the leader would be. What it did was it provided a range of options that quite frankly, we in the Coachella Valley already had those same options.

Either we stay with IED, either the Coachella Valley entities form its own energy agency, either the cities go about it themselves, a variation of all of that. So it didn't necessarily call for the ECAC to be the lead, but it only made sense to use the ECAC because that was established. I have been actually saying.

If I could interrupt for a moment. Did I state your, did I state it correctly? Is that the way you said it, that the study did call for a leader and called for the Coachella Valley Energy Commission?

It did. That's absolutely correct, Assemblywoman. And I want to make an important clarification because I think, respectfully, Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez is conflating two different things. I think what he's talking about is the Energy Consumers Advisory Committee, which is sort of a planning Commission type body, and issues that occurred several years ago, which we're happy to have moved beyond what we're talking about that's included in the LAFCO study is the Coachella Valley Energy Commission.

That when former Assemblyman Mayes brought this up back in 2021, IID, Assemblyman Garcia and Assemblyman Mays work together to form this group that includes those six cities, the four tribes, the two counties, the water district and the irrigation district, to be able to identify what the long term solution is. And I don't think that we're being presumptuous to make long-term solutions by that collaborative group of all of the stakeholders. This is a very sensitive complex.

I think I heard the word messy back here earlier, process. I've been living it day in, day out for the last three years, and we want to have it be as smooth and functional as possible, which is why we're very supportive of the efforts and the process that Assemblyman Garcia took, which was to work until there was a local solution and consensus and not one that's sort of coming out of left field and is very disruptive.

Another comment that was made is that there is no local agency support.

That is incorrect because IAD is the only agency that's providing the power. So obviously they're not going to support something against themselves. But if you ask the cities of La Quinta, Indio, Coachella, the unincorporated communities, portions of Indian Wells, and portions of Rancho Mirage, if we're considering them agencies, you would have their support as well. But obviously we're not going to have support from its own entity opposing itself.

Assemblymember Patterson.

Yeah, to me it sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there's obviously a dispute going on within the community, but there are things that need to be addressed, and there's a, seems to be a stakeholder, the LAFCO, which I sat on, LAFCO kind of understand that process seems like there was a little bit of not really a huge desire either to have that either happen. The LaFco process and the Lassa legislation.

To me, what this bill does is it kind of adds, it doesn't really take away any of this process. It actually adds an uninterested party in determining what the assets are and things like that. And I think that's really important when there's a dispute like this. Maybe some of those cities don't agree, but we have an uninterested party bringing critical information to the process that exists already.

And I think that's great that there's a process that exists already, but I think having this uninterested information would be critical to this, to this process. And so that's why I'm supportive of this bill.

Thank you. Assemblymember Reyes.

Well, I'm looking at a document that does say, identify a leader, verify if the party's desired to continue, continue with the CDC as a leader to spearhead the effort going forward and start building awareness and support within the community. The other comment was there's no reaching out to them.

That's inaccurate. We've reached out to them many times.

For me, it seems that there are two competing interests and we're being asked to take sides here, and I feel very uncomfortable about doing that without having the input here from our colleague Assemblymember Garcia, who seems, it appears as though there is a competing interest that he is authoring related to the subject.

Yeah, I would respectfully disagree with that characterization. This is just a bill to provide more information to that local process and actually strengthen the decision makers locally. That's what we'd like to see going forward. I'm actually co authoring Assemblymember Garcia's bill in regards to this issue, but they're not related at all. This is to get more information for that process.

All right.

Any final comments before?

I think what's important here is that it's taken a lot of time to get all of these stakeholders together on this complex issue that's been around for a long time. And I think what the difference is has been in the last three years we've made a committed effort where we're working day in, day out, having a meeting every single month with all the parties. We're looking to have this wrapped up within 12 months.

Assemblyman Garcia's bill, he waited until we were able to deliver him language that 100% of the parties and stakeholders were in agreement with. This one has not, and we would prefer the ability to be engaging with the member to identify what are the locals looking for.

And I think one of the other challenges that we have with this is that it's implicit within the bill or implied that IID is not willing to provide information, which is what we've been doing for the entirety of this three year period working with all the locals. And the entire first year was spent on education and producing information alone. So we. Yes.

Thank you, Assemblymember Calderon.

Yes. Thank you. You know, I just want to echo Assemblymember Gomez Reyes' comments as we go through this discussion. I feel a little bit more and more uncomfortable about, you know, making a decision on this. But that being said, I'm going to support it today. But I, if it comes back to the floor, I'm going to revisit my support.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Any addtional? Assemblymember Holden?

I was just going to echo those same comments. Let me just say that when I look at the analysis and hearing the way this discussion is unfolding, and normally when you have a representation that there is community support, you see that reference in the analysis. When I turn to support, I don't see where that is reflected.

Now, maybe there are cities out there that have a point of view that aligns with yours, as the author. But it's hard when you don't know and having spent some time doing policy in the Chiquila Valley and understanding the dynamics, at least in the past, around IID and the community and trying to work through some of those issues, and it appears that you have, it starts sounding like a little bit of, at least in my memory, what those divisions represented in terms of a position, in this case of a bill that's saying that we need to do more to engage.

And you have a process that appears through the Coachella Valley Energy Commission and IID to be moving down that path. Now, if what the mayor, vice mayor was saying was correct, then IID and everyone else should be supporters to this effort as well. And I'm not hearing at least getting a sense that that's the case. I'm not sure I can wait till it gets to the floor.

I'm not going to vote against it, but I'm going to lay off of it today and we'll see how it moves forward. And hopefully, should it move out of Committee, these entities can come forward and kind of help add a little clarity to what at least confusion I'm feeling in the moment.

All right. Thank you, Assemblymember Holden. All right. With that.

I agree with what both of my colleagues have said. Obviously, I'm going to actually support this today, I think to sort of give you an opportunity to demonstrate the support that's needed and I think interested in what Assemblymember Garcia thinks about this as well, who also covers part of this region and to allow that process to happen. I'll vote for it. Now, obviously, we need to see that if it comes back to the floor.

Absolutely. All right. With that Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yeah. This is a district bill, a good government bill. Respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a motion in a second? Oh, yes, we did. Thank you.

Item number 10, AB 2172 the motion is do pass to appropriations. Petrie-Norris? Petrie-Norris aye. Jim Patterson? Jim Patterson aye. Bauer-Kahan? Bauer-Kahan aye. Calderon? Calderon aye. Chen? Chen aye. Connolly? Connolly, not voting. Friedman? Friedman aye. Holden? Holden, not voting. Joe Patterson? Joe Patterson aye. Reyes? Reyes, not voting. Santiago? Santiago, aye. Schiavo? Ting? Ting, aye. Wallace? Wallace, aye. Wood? Wood, aye. Zbur? Zbur, aye.

All right, 110 that Bell is out and we will keep the roll open for absent Members to add on. Okay, that concludes our bills for today. We're going to go ahead and go through, reopen the roll on the consent item to start. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. And that concludes today's hearing of the Assembly's Committee on Utilities and energy. We are adjourned.