Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications will come to order. That means you, Senator Newman. Good morning. We're holding our committees hearing today in the old street building in room 1200. We would ask all Members to report as soon as possible.

I would like to welcome everyone to the second hearing of the Assembly bills for the Committee for 2024. We have 11 bills on the agenda today to have been put on consent. File item nine, AB 2905 by Assemblymember Lowe and file item 11, AB 3062 by Assemblymember Bauer Kahan.

Before we hear the presentation, we yet to have a quorum, so we're going to start as a Subcommitee. I see we have our first author here. We have Assembly Member Carrillo, so if he's prepared, you may start with your item AB 2109.

Good morning Mister chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2109. I am happy to present this Bill 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 departing load 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 a 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 can stay in the golden state. As we have seen, four cement and four steel facilities closed since 2006. Additionally, and just as important, load will be east of today's electrical grid that has experienced issues in recent years.

In 2020 and 2022, California experienced some of the toughest times for our electric grid. It's been estimated, which my sponsors can elaborate further on, that this measure will allow a total of 45 be generated through industrial process recovery in all cement plants in California.

This is a 45 megawatt of electricity that our grid is being relieved of and can be utilized for other consumers as we witnessed in 2020 and 2022. The demand is. Here with me to testify today is Bruce Magnani, representative, California Nevada Cement Association.

Your primary witness will have two minutes in support. You may begin.

Thank you, Mister chair Members Bruce Magnani, on behalf of the California Large Energy Consumers Association and the California Nevada Cement Association, co sponsors of this legislation. As the Member said, this is one lever that can be pulled to help large industries stay in California and decarbonize difficult to decarbonize industries, specifically cement and steel. It appears that we've been able to manage to address the concerns of those that reached out to us. So I'm here to answer any technical questions if you have them. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses?

No, sir. Okay.

All right, if we have Metoos, you can come up at this time.

Good morning. Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support. Thank you. Thank you, chair Members.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, strong support.

Thank you. Now we'll move to witnesses in opposition. Are there witnesses in opposition? You the primary witness in opposition? No. If not just. All right, I'm just making sure. I was going to give you two.

Minutes, Mister chair Members. Beth Olasso, on behalf of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association. I think we, you know, we are concerned that the amendments in the Assembly would basically make Ag all non residential or small commercial customers, which would be AG, pay for any cost shift of this Bill. I think we have an amendment that is going to be taken in appropriations. If that is the case, will remove our opposition. But that's kind of where we are. The cost shift to AG is the big concern. So I think we can get there and look forward to removing our opposition if that amendment is taken in Appropriations. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses wishing to testify either in support or opposition hearing seen? None. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or concerns by Committee Members? Senator Becker?

Yes, I think the author. I know something. My team has spent a lot of time working with the cement industry and have talked about this issue now for several years. So I appreciate you taking this on and when we have a quorum, I'll move the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Sir. Thank you, Vice Chair Dahle.

So just want to. I like the Bill, but I'm also concerned about the AG folks that. So you're going to take amendments that will satisfy them in Appropriations?

I'm willing to continue the conversation, yes. If that's something that has been expressed, we'll continue to work with them and commit to.

All right, I'll be laying off the Bill till we see those amendments. I think that we need to be included in there. So appreciate it. Thanks.

Thank you, sir.

Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mister chair. Thank you. I again have comments, like my colleague from Bieber, that representing the top three food producing counties in the world, the ag industry was understanding from you. I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, that they were in, then they were out. They were in. And it's kind of gone back and forth on a shift. And so I just want confirmation and a verbal confirmation from you that you are going to put them back in the Bill with amendments in appropriations.

I commit to that. Again, I need to just sit down with them again, see what their concerns are. But yet we had those initial conversations. We were able to address most of their concerns, but I commit to do that from now on. Yes.

Senator Ciarto. All right. Any other questions or concerns by Committee Members hearing, seeing none. Senator Carrillo. Assemblyman, would you like to close?

Okay. Thank you,

Yes. In closing, I just want to touch on SB 596, which in 2021 required the cement industry to be carbon neutral by 2045. This measure was passed with industry support, including the California Cement Association, as you know, one of the sponsors of the Bill. And with that, I choose respectfully, as reiable when the appropriate time comes in.

Thank you. We're still shy of quorums. At the appropriate time, we'll seek a motion for thank you. Support. Thank you. Thank you.

We have an author. We have Assembly Member Pellerin. You are here for 2765. You may begin when ready. Fabulous.

Good morning. Okay. Thank you. Chair and Members, I accept the Committee's amendments, which clarify that the CPUC can report violations on an aggregated basis by company. In 2021, the Legislature passed a requirement for the CPUC to require telecommunications service providers to take action to ensure services be maintained in the event of an emergency.

In 2022, the Mill Fire swept across Siskiyou County, destroying 118 structures and eventually leading to the death of two individuals. The fire subsequently resulted in the loss of communication lines, equipment, and infrastructure belonging to a telecommunications provider in the area.

The ability to communicate in the event of an emergency can be the difference between life and and death. AB 2765 will require that the CPUC's annual report to the Legislature includes information about backup power rule violations and the CPUC's actions taken to address those violations.

With this information, we can better hold accountable those providers who are not complying with their power resiliency requirements. In order to ensure all California citizens can use phones during an emergency, I'm hoping in the room with me to testify and support today is Ignacio Hernandez, who is representing the Utility Reform Network, and he's running in.

You're the best. Thank you.

Is he your primary witness in support?

Yes, indeed.

Mister Hernandez, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister chair Members. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the Utility Reform Network, we are the sponsors of this measure. There's been a lot of discussion about having backup power for telecommunications services in California. There's been legislation and action at the CPUC.

The one component that we think is absolutely necessary is to ensure that there is being review of the backup power plans and that they're actually being carried out. There is information that that is being done now, but that information is not available or made public.

So we are unaware whether or not there is actual compliance, the extent of which there is compliance, and the extent to which any remedial action was taken or needs to be taken.

So we think that with these reports that are included in this Bill, it would be critical so that we can have confidence that your constituents and Californians can feel safe that backup power will be there in the event that they need it to continue telecommunications. So for those reasons, we ask for support and available for any questions.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in support of this measure? AB 2765. All right, seeing none, opposition. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I'm going to bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns by Committee Members? We're short of a quorum, so at the appropriate time. At the appropriate time, we will consider that motion.

Senator Durazo, you have a question? Two more.

Too many. Similarly. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your. I vote when it's appropriate.

Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate your presentation.

Thank you so much. Have a great day.

Next up, Assembly Member Papan. Are you prepared? Are you prepared? Yes. When you're ready, you may present AB 1921.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. AB 1921 is a simple Bill that will include linear generators in our specifications. Specifically, the Bill updates and clarifies the definition of a renewable electrical generation facility to include linear generators using RPS eligible fuels. Linear generators are cutting edge technology that offers a tremendous opportunity to have renewable power at the flip of a switch. They can run on any number of - the thing I love about them, actually, is they can run on any number of different fuels, not unlike fuel cells, which are already included in RPS.

If linear generators remain excluded from RPS, the state will have a sorely lacking portfolio of on demand power as we approach our 2045 deadline. AB 1921 will establish technological parity and help meet the state's renewable energy goals. Here to testify with me today is Julia Levin and Kent Lee. Julia Levin is with the Bioenergy Association, and Kent Lee is with Mainspring.

All right, your two primary witnesses will have two minutes apiece.

Good morning, Mister Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm here to speak on behalf of the linear generator. As the assemblywoman said, it's a unique technology that can run on any of the RPS eligible fuels, and it's future proof so that it can run on hydrogen once there's an established standard for hydrogen as well, and be zero emission and near zero emission with any biofuel and ultimately net negative, and it can aid in reducing greenhouse gases.

And it's very a crucial role in speed to power in many technologies, example - data centers and charging infrastructure, where they are being told that the utilities will take years to get them power, they can do, we can do projects and get power in under a year. And there's a prime example right now, charging 100 trucks a day at the port of LA when they had been told it would take four years to get power to be able to charge that many trucks at one time, 100 trucks at one time, 300 a day. I stand corrected. So thank you for your time, sir.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. Julia Levin. On behalf of the Bioenergy Association of California. We have about 100 Members in California, including local governments, tribal members, private companies, and others, that are working to convert organic waste to energy to meet the state's short lived climate pollutant reduction, wildfire reduction, and air quality laws.

When you convert organic waste to biogas, biomethane, or hydrogen, by far the most beneficial thing you can do with those renewable gases is then convert it to energy without combustion. And that's what linear generators can do. It is a great opportunity to capture biomass and convert it to renewable gases or biogas from landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, et cetera, and convert it to the cleanest possible form of energy, which is non combustion electricity, and that electricity can provide clean, firm power. Also increasing energy reliability. So for climate reasons, air quality reasons, and energy reliability reasons, we urge this Committee to pass AB 1921. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support of this measure? You can come forward at this time? Seeing none, let's move to opposition. Are there witnesses in opposition of AB 1921? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns by Committee Members? Senator Caballero?

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. I really like this Bill, and I'd like to join you as a co author. I've done that very rarely this year, for obvious reasons, but I think this is really important. I have a question in regards to the language of the Bill and that it is limited RPS eligible hydrogen. Excuse me, RPS eligible hydro. I happen to have a number of larger hydro facilities that have been deemed not green because they're too big. It was a way the RPS system was set up a number of years ago. And I'm. You know, I'm. I'm persistent.

If nothing else. They were excluded because if they were included in the RPS system, we would have met our climate goals way early. And it was a way to exclude PG&E from the calculation to force them to do other things like wind and solar. Great. Except for that San Francisco gets to count their hydro as part of the RPS system, while Modesto and Turlock, that are located in much more conservative parts of the state, have been excluded from utilizing their power as part of the RPS system.

What that has resulted in is because they aren't green, they have to build solar panels and produce energy that they don't need because their hydro produces energy. So as we start to build a new system of accountability, I'd like us to consider that hydro power is green power no matter who produces it and when it's produced.

And that that should also go into this system, even if it's not part of the RPS. We ought to be counting it as part of the system and allow it to be utilized as the energy that gets the system started and going. It's green no matter what. So that's just my two cents worth. Do with it what you will, but I think this is a really good Bill and I'm going to support it today.

All right, thank you. Secretary, can we establish the quorum?

[Roll Call].

A quorum is established. Okay. If you want to respond to that, or have an answer. Okay, Senator Becker.

Just a quick comment as well. Thank you. I've been talking to the industry on this and this is an exciting technology, and I think that this clarification is worthy and important. So thank you.

All right, Senator, I mean Assemblymember. Would you like to close?

I'll take any title. Thank you, Senator Caballero, happy to add you as a co author. Respectfully request an aye vote. This is amazing technology. And linear generators, they can take any kind of fuel. They're definitely the way to go. Appreciate an aye vote.

We're seeking a motion for due passed the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. It's been moved by Vice Chair Dahle. Secretary. Please call the roll on AB 1921.

Due passed and re referred to the Committee on Environmental Quality. [Roll Call]. Eight.

That measure is on call. We'll allow absent Members to add on later on in the committee. Thank you for your presentation.

Hey, Members, we have two items on consent. Is there a motion for the consent calendar? It's been moved by Senator Dahle. Please call a roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

That measure has seven votes. We'll leave it on call for absent Members to add on at a later time. We're still waiting for authors so we can go back. We've had testimony and presentation already on file item three by Assembly Member Carrillo, 2109. Is there a motion for that? It's been moved by Senator Newman. We have a do pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Please call the roll on 2109.

[Roll Call]

That measure has five votes. We'll leave it open, put it on call for absent Members to add on.

All right, and we'll move back to file item seven, AB 2765 by Assembly Member Pellerin. Is there a motion for that measure?

I will motion.

There is a motion by Senator Becker. We, what do we have here? We have do pass as amended, to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The amendment states, clarify that the PUC shall report any violations on an aggregated basis by company. Secretary, please call the roll on file item seven.

[Roll Call]

That measure has six votes. We'll leave, put the measure on call for absent Members to add on at a later time. I see we have an author. We have Assembly Member Calderon. Are you prepared prepared for your presentation? So we have... What do we have here. We have AB 2462.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to thank the committee for your work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. Assembly Bill 2462 builds upon the recommendations within the CPUC's annual SB 695 report. The SB 695 report currently requires CPUC to publish recommendations for the next year to limit California's IOU cost and rate increases while remaining consistent with the state's energy and environmental goals. This bill would add recommendations that could be achieved beyond a one year time frame, increasing the number of measures an IOU could implement.

AB 2462 would also require the report to factor in current trends and their impact on energy costs and rates. For example, the report could include a cost benefit analysis on increased vehicle, home, and building electrification. AB 2462 seeks to identify more ways to alleviate California's high utility bills. This bill has received unanimous support thus far, and there is no opposition. And I have here with me to testify in support Laura Parra from Southern California Edison.

Thank you. You may proceed. Two minutes.

Hi. Good morning, Chair and Members. Laura Parra on behalf of Southern California Edison. We believe this is a good measure to look at the holistic energy transition here for customers and see the overall customer wallet as they start transitioning electrification. We believe, as those measures start taking place, we could see customers save about 10% by 2030 and 40% by 2045. But this report that's annually written should include those type of measures to be looked at, and we hope we can count on your support for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to add me too or support?

Good morning. Valerie Turella Vlahos, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kayla Robinson on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition in support. Thanks.

Anyone else wishing to testify in support? Seeing none. Do we have any opposition? Seeing no opposition. We'll bring it back. Do we have any questions by Members? I have a motion. Would you like to close?

Yes. I respectfully ask for an aye vote when it's appropriate.

It's appropriate. Would you... We have a motion. Do pass to Appropriations, Is it?

Do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

It's 5-0. We'll leave that bill on call for when Members come back. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

All right. Do we have any other... Seeing no Members. We will wait until somebody shows up.

Assembly Member, we're waiting on you.

We have AB 2083. Have an author. We're ready to roll. Wherever you want to go, we'll take you. If you want to sit down, stand up. We don't care.

I'd like to make an entrance. Chair Dahle, Senators, good morning. I would like to begin by thanking the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. I will be accepting the Committee's amendments described in the analysis. Industrial emissions make up 23% of California's greenhouse gas emissions, which is the second largest source behind transportation.

While the state continues to be a leader in transitioning from the combustion to zero emission technologies in the electricity and transportation sectors, industrial emissions have largely remained unaddressed. AB 2083 is a key first step for California to modernize industrial manufacturing and plan for how this industrial sector will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

With the Committee's amendments, this Bill would task the California Air Resources Board, as a part of the next update of their scoping plan, to assess the key strategies the industrial manufacturing sector can undertake to cut its emissions in line with California's existing carbon neutrality requirements. Additionally, it would require the California Energy Commission to evaluate the potential to electrify certain industrial heat processes and require CARB to incorporate that evaluation into its assessment.

Developing a report that assesses both the opportunities and the challenges in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the industrial sector will strengthen our industry's sustainability while also helping California achieve its climate goals. Without a strategic approach to decarbonizing the state's industrial sector, we will miss the opportunity to thoughtfully transition to a more efficient and resilient carbon neutral economy by 2045. With me today are Mark Fenstermaker, on behalf of Earth Justice, and and Kayla Robinson, on behalf of Industrious Labs, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. First witness, two minutes.

Thank you and good morning, Mister Chair and Committee Members. Mark Fenstermaker, on behalf of Earth Justice, a proud cosponsor of AB 2083. California's industrial sector is a critical component of the state's economy, but many industrial processes rely on the combustion of fossil fuels, emitting criteria, pollutants, and reducing air quality, as well as contributing to our greenhouse gas emissions.

Thanks to Assemblymember Muratsuchi's, AB 1279 from 2022, the state has set a goal to achieve economy wide carbon neutrality by 2045, with an 85% emission reduction target as the main component of hitting that neutrality goal. Reducing emissions from the manufacturing sector will be a key component in achieving these goals, and AB 2083 is going to hone in on industry's potential to do so. The Bill is not setting a new emissions reduction target for the industrial sector. Again, it is simply an assessment.

We appreciate the work by the Committee to find a 'yes and' approach that continues CARB in the lead with its scoping plan identifying strategies on reducing GHGs, but also tasking the Energy Commission with going deep on exploring the potential for electrification solutions to industrial emissions, and that this evaluation will nest into the scoping plan.

The 2022 Scoping plan provides an initial overview of decarbonization strategies, but only dedicates several pages to this important sector. In those few pages, the scoping plan highlights that reducing industrial emissions will largely result from displacing fossil gas with electricity. Bringing the CEC into the fold will ensure there is a thorough analysis of electrification opportunities for manufacturing.

But as the analysis points out, the scoping plan also identifies that potential cost and time barriers exist to realizing the electrification we want to see. And tackling these barriers is an important critical pathway to electrification. And these electrification benefits are not only for greenhouse gas emissions, but also for non combustion reductions to our air quality and criteria pollutants. We know industry is vital part of California's economy, providing many well paying jobs, and we want manufacturing to stay in and thrive in our carbon neutral future. And that is why we're working with Mister Berman on this Bill. We're grateful for his leadership, and we respectfully request an aye vote on AB 2083. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning Chair and Members. Kayla Robinson on behalf of Industrious Labs, an organization leading efforts to decarbonize the global industrial sector by 2045. Currently, California is a leader in industrial manufacturing. Critically, we have a host of industries like food manufacturing, apparel production, paper, glass, and more. Despite the important role that this sector plays for California's economy, the state does not have a robust plan on how to strategically deploy zero emission technologies in line with our climate goals.

Having a plan developed by the by, CARB and CEC to factor into the state's coping plan will be critical to offering an energy forward report on how to decarbonize this sector. From industrial heat pumps to electric ovens and thermal storage. This analysis can help lay out many zero emission technologies that exist today to eliminate low hanging fruit emissions and industrial manufacturing.

The sector has an unfair reputation as hard to decarbonize when the truth is we just haven't invested the time and creative policy making that other sectors have received. There's no doubt we can make progress, and this report will help identify strategies to tackle and overcome barriers across this multifaceted sector, ultimately strengthening California's industries globally and better positioning the state for sustained economic growth.

Without a strategic approach to decarbonizing the sector creating created through AB 2083, we will miss an opportunity thoughtfully transition to a more efficient and resilient carbon neutral economy by 2045. For those reasons, respectively ask for your aye vote thanks.

Thank you. Those wishing to speak in support, 'Me Toos'.

Good morning. Jacob Evans of Sierra California in support. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no other folks in support, lead witnesses in opposition. I see at least one.

Good morning, Vice Chair Members. Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. AB 2083 directs the California Energy Commission to devise a strategy reducing industrial sector emissions by 85% below 1990 levels by 2045. Our objections to this measure stem from the fact that the Bill muddies the water as to who controls emissions regulations, greenhouse gases in the state, which has always been done through CARB. It then layers into it a pathway for industry to reduce emissions in a way that is not technologically neutral.

It only considers a zero emission or 100% electrification strategy for all industry processes and provides little, if any, substance to costs on industry impacts, on rates, or even technological feasibility for industry to comply. What's important about a statewide study or an assessment or a report is to holistically get all the data that is required, and in this case, choosing one.

Technology is not a complete solution for things such as hydrogen fuels that are constantly touted by folks as being a solution for industry or energy efficiency type programs like the ones that are utilized through FPIP and through INDIGO. Those are two grant programs made available to industry at the CEC and even things like carbon capture storage and CDR. These are all tools we as industry must utilize.

But this report left all of that out, which is unacceptable if we want a truly effective assessment of where industry needs to be and how California wants to accomplish it. Now I want to thank this Committee and staff for their great work on this Bill. The concerns that we have raised, the complexities, the lack of optionality for industry that this Bill provides, were well heard by Members and staff and aptly addressed in the Committee analysis.

Now, I haven't seen the Committee amendments yet in print today, but from what I understand, it moves the Bill in the right direction and certainly warrants a conversation with our coalition, but puts the Bill in a much more workable place and likely gets us to neutral. Until we can work that out, we remain opposed and must ask for your no vote. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Anyone else wishing to comment in opposition?

Good morning. Chair and Members. Martin Vindiola, on behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Employees, California State Association of Electrical Workers, we are waiting for the amendments in print. We also thank the author and the Committee for moving this Bill in the right direction, and we believe this will get us to a neutral position. Thank you.

Michael Boccadoro, on behalf of the Ag Energy Consumers Association, representing a number of food processors in the state, align our comments with CMTA.

Thank you Chair and Members. Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association and the Western Ag Processors Association. Also looking forward to removing our opposition once we see the amendments in print. Thank you.

Katie Little with the California League of Food Producers. Align our comments with CMTA. Thank you.

George Coventa with the Almond alliance. Also align our comments with the CMTA. Thank you.

Good morning. Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, also aligning with CMTA. Hope to remove opposition. Thanks.

Thank you. Seeing no other opposition or support, we will bring it back to the Committee. Senator Becker.

First, I appreciate the author bringing this up. I'd like to be added as a co author of this Bill. We made a lot of progress reducing emissions in the electricity sector, and we have a good understanding, I think, of the policies that we need to do to reduce emissions from buildings and transportation. We have to do them, but I think we have a good understanding. In Contra, we made very little progress in the industrial sector, and we need to know what are the best paths for reducing emissions. And then we need to put supportive policies in place to help industries make that transition.

So, you know, I would just say to the opposition, the reduction over the 20 years is not optional. The question is, how can we do it? We can't help you unless we have a better understanding of what are the most impactful and cost effective paths so that we can prioritize putting policies in place and supporting those most promising pathways. I'm trying one this year on industrial decarbonization, on supporting the use of thermal storage powered by behind the meter, cheap renewable energy.

This Bill does not focus just on electrification, is my understanding. It calls for assessment of all the available pathways for reducing emissions, with electrification as just one pathway that'll be, I think, helpful in some cases. So I think this is an important Bill. Again, I think it's going to help us figure out what are those pathways that can help reduce industrial emissions. And I encourage you to continue to work forward with folks to get the best outcome. But I encourage you, everyone, to support this Bill.

Thank you.

Senator Newman.

Morning. We're not picking on you. We just happen to be sitting together. This little cluster. I actually, I appreciate CMT and others concern about the sort of assignment of jurisdiction to CEC versus CARB. This has traditionally been CARB's area of jurisdiction. So are you working with them to consider that or to actually apply that amendment?

Yes.

Let me just jump in and I can read the amendments the Chair has here, so maybe.

No, that'd be helpful.

So amendments: reassign the responsibility for leading this bill's industrial decarbonization assessment from the CEC to CARB. Requires the assessment to be completed as part of CARB's next update to the scoping plan. Deletes the bill's workforce assessment. Requires CARB to incorporate an evaluation from the CEC of the potential to electrification, certain industrial heat processes as part of the assessment.

And provide an analysis of the potential sector wide emission reduction that would result from the electrification. Requires CARB to work with the CEC and CPUC to incorporate an estimate of the potential load growth and rate impacts associated with a high electrification scenario for the industrial decarbonization into the assessment. Are you agreeing to those amendments?

Yes.

Okay. So there you go.

Okay. Thank you. I think that's a good start. So, you know, CARB has actually, in my view, done a very good job over time looking at sort of the bigger picture, and I think that's a helpful amendment. So thank you.

Thank you.

Any. Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Appreciate you taking the amendment. I think it's, I think it's going to resolve some of the issues. I want to second what my colleague here had to say about the CMTA concerns and everyone who has a 'Me Too'. I'm very concerned about that. Let me ask you where the 85% below 1990 levels by January 1, 2045 came from.

I'm sorry, give me that question one more time.

Yes, there is, there is a date here that's used and a percentage and I'm wondering where that came from.

85% below 1990 levels. So our carbon neutrality target requires that emissions be reduced 85% below 1990 levels. And so what our Bill does is ask CEC/CARB to assess industry's ability to meet that 85% target so that we can understand what role the sector will play in the overall goal of meeting that target.

Okay. In other words, it's already a target.

Yes.

We've set, okay. Good. That was my only question and I'm going to support it today, but it really depends on whether the coalition, if you will, is satisfied that the amendments go far enough, because this is really critically important in agriculture as you heard. It is one of the last manufacturing sectors in the State of California and critically important to rural California.

So I want to make sure that we're not setting up something that's so unrealistic that it becomes impossible to achieve despite the fact that dairy digesters have proven to be extremely successful in reducing methane. And they're the only industry that we support through the cap and trade in terms of. Well, they're the only industry that's met their numbers. There's still controversy and bills that keep coming forward to try to get rid of our commitment to the dairy industry makes no sense.

And so if we're going to look at good science, we ought to be looking at good science and making sure it works and when it works, and we ought to be supportive of it. And so I want to make sure that we're taking care of the industry that produce for us in the state. So appreciate this Bill moving forward.

Thank you.

All right, any further questions? Senator Eggman.

I would just like to weigh in with my colleague in the Ag area. I was here when we did some work to try to get the money for the dairy digesters and now all of a sudden that's a bad thing. I mean, we all need to eat. We need a thriving economy. Agriculture is one of the ways. And so I just would be in concurrence with. We need to not continue to put especially the smaller farmers out of business and making it all go to the bigger guys who can afford to do everything that we ask. So sometimes we just have to say, enough with, I mean, we all appreciate the green air, but we also appreciate the milk and the ability to eat. Thank you.

I know I do.

Any further comments, questions by Committee Members? Hearing and seeing none. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you to my - to Senators for all of their comments and feedback. And I completely agree. The whole goal here is to figure out what are the easiest pathways, and I've said this in other committees. Most importantly, what are the obstacles.

And then we as government need to look in the mirror and figure out how are we going to help? What are we going to, you know, what financial incentives and assistance are we going to provide, what policy changes are we going to make to help the industry, help all of us. So that's what the goal of the Bill is. Appreciate the comments. Continuing to work with opposition respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I believe Vice Chair Dahle read all the amendments and you agreed to them.

Indeed. And thank you. Yes, absolutely. And thank you to you and your team for those.

So we have a due passed as amended to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. Is there a motion for this? It's been moved by Senator Ashby. Please call the roll on file item two, AB 2083.

[Roll Call].

Alright, that Bill has seven votes ... We'll leave - put the measure on call and allow absent Members to add on at the appropriate time. Thank you, Senator. Assemblyman Berman. Next up we have Assemblymember McKinnor. Am I correct? That's the order in which she arrived and she has file item eight, AB 2780.

When you're ready, you may begin.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I would like to start by saying that I accept the committee amendments. Since April 2022, different states have contracted transportation companies to transport tens of thousands of vulnerable persons, mostly migrants, from communities of color to destinations outside of their state borders.

Sometimes prior notices to local authorities or nonprofit groups before discharging vulnerable passengers are not provided, and other times these notices are inconsistent, thereby endangering the passengers and overwhelming local supportive services. AB 2780 will require carriers of passengers prior to transporting 10 or more vulnerable passengers to notify local authorities and seek authorization, among other requirements.

Moreover, in order to seek preventative relief, the Attorney General, a person being transported, and a person from supportive services providers may bring civil action. In addition, the dumping of passengers would result in penalties up to $10,000 for each act of transporting a person that results in one or more violation of this bill. Here to testify today in support is Kelan Lowney, Deputy Legislative Director with the California Department of Insurance, and Chris Baca, Director of Humanitarian Response and Migrant Assistance with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. Thank you.

Your two primary witnesses will have two minutes to make their presentation. You may begin.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Bradford, Vice Chair Dahle, and Members of the Committee. My name is Kelan Lowney, Deputy Legislative Director here on behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and the California Department of Insurance. Insurance Commissioner Lara is a proud co-sponsor of this measure because he believes in California's ability to solve problems.

California welcomes more migrants and asylum seakers than any other state. There's currently a robust network of public, nonprofit, and religious organizations who work together to provide basic supportive services to newly arrived migrants. We're talking water, food, clothing, and medical screenings. When vulnerable people arrive in California, Californians step up. Despite the efforts of some to use vulnerable people as political pawns, our question is, what can we do to make the situation better?

The situation is that certain other states have chosen to move thousands, tens of thousands of vulnerable people into California. Inconsistent notice, at best, is provided by these actors or by the bus companies that discharge vulnerable passengers at seemingly random locations at all times of the day and night.

Supportive services then scramble to meet the buses before passengers are released onto the streets, endangering the passengers and overwhelming local supportive services. Instead, AB 2780 would require prior notice of the anticipated date and time of arrival and would allow local governments to set the location where the buses can drop off passengers. Let us know where and when, and we will do the rest. This is an important piece of legislation to ensure that California has the ability to welcome migrants in a humane manner with the dignity and respect that all humans deserve. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Chris Baca, and I'm the Director of Humanitarian Response and Migrant Assistance at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA. And I'm here to talk about AB 2780 which would require bus companies transporting more than 10 individuals for emergency services to notify receiving cities with 24 hours notice. Like the Member mentioned, in 2022, Texas began sending migrant buses to sanctuary cities, notably Chicago and New York.

At the time, we at CHIRLA felt it was inhumane to use newly arrived migrants to push anti immigrant narratives. In anticipation of receiving our own buses, we helped establish the Los Angeles Welcomes Collective. Our collective is a collaboration comprised of city, county, clergy, and nonprofit organizations.

In June 2023, CHIRLA and the collective received our first migrant bus from Texas and have since welcomed 39 buses with 40 to 50 individuals each. These include infants, seniors, pregnant women, individuals with disabilities, and families. When we receive notice that a bus is coming to Los Angeles, we work to secure a site to serve as a welcome center, coordinate food and clothing, mobilize volunteers, coordinate medical screenings, preliminary legal and case management support, as well as family reunification.

After 39 buses, it has become clear that having 24 hours notice is the best way to ensure a well coordinated and trauma informed response. In instances where we haven't received notification, we are unable to guarantee that everyone is assisted, which poses many risks. To begin, individuals can end up in unhoused situations, as many do not have Los Angeles listed as their final destination, and many do not have the money or the resources to get to the final destination.

Additionally, there is a risk of them falling victims of labor abuse or scams, such as getting charged for services that are free by local providers or in the worst of cases, may be vulnerable to human trafficking. AB 2780 would ensure we have sufficient time to coordinate support for migrants who have endured long journeys in search of new life in the United States and is in alignment with our values as a state, one that is inclusive of immigrants. Thank you for your consideration of this bill, and we ask for your support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support of this measure, come forward at this time.

Good morning. My name is Cecily, Emergency Migrant Program Manager at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, in strong support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support?

Good morning. My name is Suzuki Figueroa. I am the humanitarian assistant, and I'm in strong support ...

Thank you. All right, now let's move to opposition. Witnesses in opposition. Now is your time. Hearing and seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns? Senator Durazo.

Thank you to the author. It's a simple but very powerful message that needs to be sent that no one will be subject to exploitation and inhumane treatment within our borders. So I really appreciate what you're doing. And it's too bad also that this kind of inhumane treatment is in the middle, is happening in the middle of a very anti immigrant narrative. So we need to stop the anti immigrant narrative and stop this kind of treatment. So thank you very much. And I move the Bill.

Thank you, Senator Eggman.

Good morning. Assemblymember Mckinnor. I appreciate your addressing this issue, and it's terrible that this happens, but I guess I'm confused about why we're giving it to the CPUC if they don't have any enforcement over it.

So can I hand this to my experts?

We plan on taking Committee amendments to move this to civil code instead of PUC because of that precise reason.

And we'll do some cleanup in the Judic. This is double referred, so we'll do some more cleanup to make it tighter once we get over to Judic.

And then my other question is how? I mean, if they're coming in from somewhere else, how do we regulate? How does the CPUC, and then who's bringing, so then who would bring the.

The carriers that the bus. And we're working with the charter buses as well. The carriers will be the ones that have to give the notification.

Okay.

It's moving to the civil code because there's a civil enforcement mechanism. So a case can be brought by the Attorney General or someone who is on one of the buses as a civil matter, not a criminal one.

And is that to the driver of the bus or to the company?

The company, the charter bus company.

Okay. And if that charter is chartered in Texas, let's say, and then coming into California, how is that enforced? Just if they get caught, then they were going to get sued. And how do they know about California law?

Well, the charter, but we're going to tighten, we're going to work on. I would say that, Senator, that we're going to work on tightening those up in judicial because we do have a couple of things that needs tightened up.

Okay. Yeah. Because, I mean, this is a terrible problem.

It is a terrible problem.

It is a terrible problem. But I don't. I don't see this as a solution, but I'm interested, like, I'll be interested to see what it comes to the floor, because if it's just going to be either the driver or the charter company who lives in Texas, and how do they know about the laws here? And how then does somebody find out who they were, if they dropped them off and left to be able to bring the civil charges? I guess those are my. Just those practical, like, on the ground kind of questions.

Absolutely. And we'll have those tightened up by the time. By the time it gets to the floor. Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Thank you.

Vice Chair Dahle.

So I'd like to just maybe expand on a little bit of what the Senator from Stockton was talking about. So $10,000 fine for a company that's not used to doing this. So this is gonna be. This is gonna fall on the company. And then what about the rights of the passengers? They have to get their information to find out if they're immigrants or not immigrants. And some of them could be immigrants. Some of them could not be immigrants. Who. How's that all gonna get sorted?

This is. We know that these buses are dropping off immigrants. They're dropping off busloads of immigrants, as one of the witnesses stated, 30 to 40 at a time are coming into different parts of California, and we know that that is happening.

So this is not a chartered bus that someone goes and buys a ticket to get on a bus to come to California. These are the chartered buses taking immigrants that are illegal immigrants or that just came along.

I'm sorry if I've used the wrong undocumented folks and they're bringing them over to different states and dropping them off without giving us any notification. And we're saying that this is not a humane way to do business, that California. We're accepting folks, but we're just saying we need notifications so that we could be prepared to have them. But we know that these are not ticket buying passengers.

All right, well, I know this is going to Judic, and I know that there's interstate commerce rules that we have that are. And I think this is, first of all, I find it really fascinating that our insurance commissioners focused on this instead of getting lower rates for insurance in California.

That's, first off, I think, is something that's concerning to me. Second of all, this Bill has a lot of, I think, constitutional issues which I hope will be flushed out. And I looked at my colleagues in the Assembly and the Republicans are all over the place. There's some voted yes, some voted no, some laid off.

I'm going to lay off on the Bill today until we see what comes out of, of Judiciary. I think there's a lot of issues with this Bill on who's liable for what actions and how do they know they're even going to be liable for those actions. I think that's number one. And then I think two, constitutionality of those individuals who are on the bus having to find out information from them is an issue as well. So hopefully they'll flush those out in Judic and we'll see it when it gets out of there.

Yeah. And you know, the Bill is seeking to increase the welfare of immigrant people being transported. The, the purpose language on notifications to local governments provided detailed information, may outweigh the benefits of transporting and protecting vulnerable persons.

It can have effects outside California, which are these protections. As the Harvard Law Review deemed the dormant comrades clause is factually neutral constitutional framework that is in term of this discussed regulation may empower states to leverage the dormant clause to advance our values.

Furthermore, in the event of the law being tested with the ... balance test, the test may not be judicially workable because a court cannot meaningfully compare of weigh economic costs against non economic benefits. And so we are going to work on this because we know there's some constitutional review on this. And so we're going to work on this in Judic. But I do think it will help. We do have to start working on this. And I do think insurance commissioners should look at this as well. We could do more than one thing in this state.

What do you want to do with insurance?

The humane way of just dropping people off in the middle of a city. We're all working on lots of issues with children, with women. And so we want to make sure that people are safe no matter where they came from. So when we drop them in California, we want to send a message that in California we treat people like human beings. That is the message we want to send to the rest of the country. And we hope that the rest of the country also will start to treat people like human beings. We can't just transport people, drop them off. The cities and counties don't know if they're coming. We have human trafficking issues here in the State of California. We don't want to see that happen to anyone, no matter where they're from.

Well, I just want to say I agree with all those statements that, yes, the counties and cities don't know, but we've said to the whole United States, come here, we are welcoming you here. So like I said again, I'll be interested to see how it comes out of Judic. There's lots of, I think, some concerns and we'll see what happens.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Let me just give some context to this because I think it's important, and the fact that it's going to Judic is really important. I sit on Judic and we'll make sure that a lot of these issues get taken care of. These are immigrants that have been allowed to come into this country because they fit a criteria.

And what's happening is the immigration services and/or the authorities from wherever they are allowed in, whether that be Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, or even in California, put these immigrants that have been allowed entrance into charter vehicles and they take them to cities to start their immigration process.

And many times what they do is they leave them in the middle of town at 02:00 in the morning without any information about where they are, who they should look up, what services are available for them. Many of these are families that have young children, babes in arms.

And so the question becomes, how do we treat people once our country has allowed them in to process an application, whatever kind of application is, how are they treated and what do our cities do to prepare themselves? And so this is a really important Bill. I had never thought about dealing with it from the transportation angle.

And I think the point that the Senator from Stockton made is really important because while we want to get a handle on who's bringing them and leaving them off, we also want to know how do we, how do we deal with them? What do we do with a busload of immigrants left in downtown San Diego or downtown LA or wherever in the middle of the night?

And so having more eyes on the situation is going to be critically important. And we do have resources. We've put out resources for some of the asylum seekers and other immigrants that are coming. So I really appreciate you taking this on. It's not an easy task because we're trying to thread a needle here and going to Judic should start to kind of, I think, clarify where it should go, who should be responsible and how, what kind of information is going to be necessary in order to keep, this is not, this is not a Bill to keep immigrants out.

This is, they're coming, now that they're coming, what are we going to do and how can we prepare and how can we insist that the buses that the companies who are separate from the drivers, are responsive to our request, which is that we want to make sure that we can be prepared for these. So I really appreciate this and I look forward to seeing it in Judic.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Senator Ashby.

Yeah, thanks. I just associate my comments with Senator Caballero, I was a little confused as to why we were hearing it here, but I do serve on Judic and I think that makes a lot more sense. And I think there will be some clarity brought to what you're trying to achieve, which is going to be really fun to get to work on with you. So let's see what we can do when we get over there.

Thank you.

Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I had the same kind of comments that I, or that my colleague from Beaver had, but there were a couple that I'd like to follow up for my colleague from Stockton. And again, I'm not sure why energy is like, we're hearing the Bill here when it's a charter bus operator immigration issue.

So that may have been clarified when I was over in another Committee in Agriculture. I apologize. I'm doing double duty today. But I understand that it's, my colleague mentioned from Beaver. That's a $10,000 fine, but it's $10,000 for each act. Up to 10 people on the bus. Right.

So potentially, if there's 10 people on the bus, it would be $100,000 penalty because it's per person. Correct. So it's per person to the charter bus operators. The company. From Texas, wherever they're coming from, or even inside of California, I would guess. You know, I don't know.

And it says, but there's also, it says the, it's presumed in the Bill, but there's no written place in the Bill that needs to be tightened up. Agreed. When it goes to Judic of the acknowledgement of the location to demonstrate compliance and the acknowledgement that the individual person wants to go to that location. So if they're in the middle of the desert in Texas, they go, hey, you want to go to San Diego?

And they're like, yes. And they put them on a bus to come to San Diego. It doesn't say, is there a form that's going to be created or can they just get a signed document from Steve who says, yes, I want to come to San Diego? Or does it need to be in their native language? Or like, what's, what's the process? Because the charter bus operator or the charter bus company go, look, I was paid to bring these people here. They were, you know, it. So I guess there's like a lot of, it's like very, very broad, like, I guess, sure. Anybody just curious?

I'll say, yeah, I think that's a good point. I think it does have to be rolled out very intentionally because sometimes people are coarse to sign things that they don't know about. Our own Executive Director was doing an intake once and the family expressed that they were about to purchase their ticket to get to the final destination of the East Coast when someone from the company actually stopped and was like, oh, no, just get on this bus that it's for free.

Suddenly they found themselves on the opposite coast. And then we, as the local NGO's are the ones that are there to have to help them get to that final destination. So I think it is good to write it in there, but I think it has to be very intentional, especially with language access, just because we can.

Where is that at in the Bill? Where does that say that that's the process?

No, no, I'm saying if that's a suggestion that's made, it would just have to be very fleshed out and intentional just because then they could just give them a form to sign, which could happen.

There's no process in the Bill. Again, when we get to Judic, we've already taken amendments here and then we know we have to work on the Bill tighten to tighten up the language a little bit more. So by the time you see it on the floor again, Senator, you'll see the amendments from Judic.

Okay. And so are you assuming that the amendments from Judic will identify the responsible party, make sure it doesn't violate interstate commerce clause, is not a violation of the constitution and that.

The responsible party is the charter buses. That it. We do, it does say the who. The responsible party. It's the charter buses.

And then I guess like, like it was just stated that somebody's buying a ticket to go the East Coast and then they find themselves on the West Coast. I agree with everybody.

That's what's happening. These people don't, half the time don't even know that they're where they are when they get to California. They're being dumped on the bus. This is why we have to, we're figuring out how to try and solve this problem because they're being dumped on buses and they actually don't know where they're going. When they get to California at 02:00 in the morning. They're here. Nobody's here to wait for them.

And they sometimes dumped off of that bus with nowhere to go, nobody to talk with, language barriers, things like that. And so we want to tighten up the language so that we can make sure that we define drop off spaces for the charter buses to see drop off spaces and basically drop off spaces and what time they could be dropped off and notification 24 hours before.

So it also says in the language that the response party, which is the drop off space or whatever this place is in California, must respond before the embarkation of those passengers coming here. So if they don't spawn, do they just stay where they're at even though they want to be here, or.

I'm just, you know, California passed laws to make it open. Like my colleague from Modesto said, they're coming. They're coming. So I guess my question is, is it? Well, I'll just look at it. I'm going to lay off. I'll wait till it gets to the floor. I'll join my colleague from Beaver.

But I just see a lot of problems, some that I've identified, some that I haven't identified. We haven't had time to go through it all. I mean, I have, but I just, as far as, like, the Committee hearing and stuff. But there has to be some. Is there a form? Does it have to be in languages? Who's responsible for that? The state agency putting them on the charter bus or the state agency?

It's not a state agency putting them on the charter bus at all. It's, we don't know who's putting them on the charter, but actually it's being, it's a political, this is a political maneuver.

What happens if we find out it's like the cartel or.

Right now, we don't know who's putting it on. Putting them on the charter bus at this point, we don't know. So we don't know that part. So what we're responsible. What we're reacting to is what happens once they get here, not who's putting them on the bus, but once they get into the State of California, what happens to them?

They're coming and being dropped off again at 02:00 in the morning. 03:00 in the morning. So things are, and bad things are happening. We know that bad things are happening to them. Example, like sex trafficking. We know that these things are happening and so we are not. We really can't. I would say that we can't regulate what's going to happen. Who's putting them on the bus. We know it's not agencies putting them on the bus. So we don't know who's actually doing it.

I mean, I agree with you that there's a problem, especially with young kids. I mean, there's 400,000 kids are missing. Missing. Nobody knows where they're at. Okay. So I get it. I understand. I do what you're trying to do and trying to make it safer. I just don't know how you get there, if that makes sense, because like I said, it says that they have to have a document or they have to get agreement. Well, is that a verbal agreement? Is that a written agreement?

I'd definitely love to work with you, too, on those amendments because I know how passionate you are on some of these subjects. And so we want to make sure that we're protecting everybody no matter where they come from. That is the message we want to send across the country, is that we will not allow anyone to come into the State of California and not be treated humanely. We will not allow any child to come in California and be sex trafficked. We are. This is what this the intent of this Bill. And so we're going to move on to Judic and tighten up the language so that we can get to the intent, because that is the intent.

I appreciate that, because I understand your intent. I do. And your intent is very good. I do get that 100%. I just had questions on, like, how do you make it work on the ground is where I'm at, I guess, if that makes sense. So thank you for responding. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Senator.

Just a final.

Senator Durazo.

Thank you. Just a final comment. I appreciate that you're trying to deal with something that's just been created by others. We don't have the experience of doing this. The closest has been when patients are taken across town and dumped somewhere, and it's just terrible. What do you do about that? We have to make people take responsibility.

And so this is similar. They're being taken into these buses and just left out there. There was no law. There was no way of dealing with it because it was never an issue. It was just created. So this process, a humane process, is what we're trying to respond. So I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right. Any other further questions or concerns here? I, too, want to commend the author for moving this measure forward, but I have to scratch my head and saying, why is it in Energy? As stated, much of the issues that are being addressed here have to do with public safety or transportation.

But, and that's why we amended the Bill to remove the PUC's responsibility for oversight, because we just saw no nexus here. So there is still a lot of unanswered questions. Again, we understand what the intentions are, and they're well intended and should be supported by this legislative body. But I still think we need to hone it in as to who's responsible. On that note, I will allow you to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. We have a due passed to be amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Is there a motion? It's been moved by Senator Caballero. Please call the roll on file item eight. AB 2780.

[Roll Call]. Six to zero.

That Bill has six votes. We'll leave it on call for absent Members. Thank you. We next have up Assemblymember Gallagher. AB 2750. Bradford told me that Gallagher was up next. He's taken them in order that they're here. Sorry, that's what he told me. Unless the. Would you want to yield to the Assemblywoman. Atta boy.

All right, we'll take up. Take up AB 2697. I think the Senator wanted to be here for your Bill, but.

I'm not sure.

Maybe today's your lucky day.

Maybe today is my lucky day. Good morning, Vice Chair and Members. I'm presenting AB 2697 a Bill that is needed to improve the EV charging experience. I will be accepting all the Committee's amendments. As an EV driver, I have been frustrated with the all too common experience of trying and failing to find a functioning public charger.

If we're serious about - serious about hitting our EV and climate goals, we need to make it easier to find EV chargers. This Bill requires that publicly available chargers be subject to roaming agreements so that drivers can easily locate and access a working EV charger, regardless of what company operates it. With the amendments taken in Committee today, EFCCA, ChargePoint and Electrify America have removed their opposition. With me to testify today in support of the Bill is Alexia Melendez Martineau with Plug in America.

Okay, first witness. Is that your only witness? We have a couple minutes.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Alexia Melendez Martineau. I'm pleased to be here on behalf of Plug in America, a national nonprofit founded by EV drivers here in California with a mission to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles and charging. We're here today to support AB 2697 which will improve the EV charging experience for drivers.

Plug In American conducts an annual EV driver survey, and based on the results from our 2023 survey and early insights from this year's California survey, public EV charging is currently unreliable and has left consumers wanting more. Access to charging is one of the biggest considerations for consumers when transitioning to an electric vehicle.

Currently, as an EV driver, which I am myself, there is a high expectation of your ability and willingness to adapt to the current EV ecosystem. This can often mean having to spend several minutes each time you charge on a new network, downloading and setting up an account on an app to charge. Especially as California embarks on mass market adoption of EV's, we must make the charging experience more user friendly to reduce barriers to clean transportation. Roaming agreements help simplify the charging experience for consumers by allowing them to use their favorite app for other charging networks.

This can empower drivers to choose their preferred platform and creates competition amongst companies to provide the best possible user experience. Through pursuing roaming agreements for EV charging, AB 2697 can help make the public charging experience seamless for EV drivers. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today in support of AB 2697.

Okay, witnesses in support.

Thank you. Any others in support?

A little bit of a tweener. Megan Meckleberg, on behalf of the EV Charging Association, EVCA, I just want to thank the author for her work with us, and we're going neutral. Thank you.

Hi, Meegan Murray, on behalf of Electrify America, we really appreciate the authors work and the Committee's work on this Bill. We did have an opposed position. We've moved to neutral. We just look forward to working with the Committee and the author on roaming and kind of what that means for folks, but happy that the Bill's moving in a great direction. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Any more support? In between? How about opposition? You got two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Cory Bullis, on behalf of FLO EV Charging with an opposed unless amended position on AB 2697. We have - we're having very productive conversations with the author and hope to continue that. We hope to be able to move to a support position, but as of today, have some remaining unresolved concerns.

In short, a roaming agreement is a type of contract. It's a type of business relationship of which the details are negotiated between two companies that are committed to improving the EV charging experience. We often customize these agreements between each other to better support our respective customers as they roam between networks.

AB 2697 would give the Energy Commission the authority to require roaming agreements, but it does not provide sufficient guardrails that respect these business to business relationships, including how we operationalize the contracts and the model that we use to roam with one another. The resulting effect could be that the Commission gets to pick winners and losers, including the business model used for us to roam with one another.

This could hamstring innovative approaches that help improve the EV charging experience, which we, of course, share that goal with the author, and ultimately it could pass on costs to EV drivers that they do not have to bear today. So for these reasons, we're respectfully opposed as of now, look forward to continuing to work with the author to resolve these concerns. Thank you.

Next witness.

Thank you. Michael Daft, Government Affairs Manager with Blink Charging. We align ourselves with the comments made by FLO and we look forward to continuing the conversations with the author. They've been very productive so far. And thank you to you, and thank you to the Committee as well.

Anyone else wishing to add on as a 'Me Too' in opposition?

Thank you, Chair and Members. Chris Scroggin with the ... company, on behalf of ChargePoint. As the author stated, we have removed our opposition in light of the amendments. Want to thank the Chair of the Committee and the Committee staff for their work on this. And of course, if there are any amendments in the future, we do reserve our right to change our position but are grateful for this and have removed our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else, we'll bring it back for questions. Senator Becker.

I want to thank the author. I know you're very passionate about this and have worked hard on this, and it's a critical issue. If we're going to have folks transition to EV's, have to have reliable charging, maybe you could. I'm just trying to understand, make sure I understand the amendments. Maybe you could walk.

Maybe let me just read them since they're here, if that's okay. Amendments delete section two of the Bill. Recast roaming requirements to clarify that the prospective roaming requirements that the CEC adopts pursuant to its existing authority shall only apply to major EV charging network operators, which shall be defined as those networks that do both of the following. Number one, maintain a customer facing web based application. Number two, operate at least 100 publicly available chargers within California. Authorize the CEC to raise the threshold of publicly available chargers. A network must operate before triggering roaming requirements. And you've agreed to take those amendments.

Did you want to finish your.

Well, just. Yeah, love your take on those amendments. And does it still go back?

So the part that was struck with in the Committee amendments is the part that goes back to do accountability for the chargers that previously were installed. I would still eventually like to see those work better because we've all heard the horror stories, people going to chargers and getting stuck someplace because the chargers don't work.

But specifically, that's all out of the Bill right now. Right now we're just talking about roaming agreements. And because the language is relatively new, we still have some people that have moved from support to opposition. We have already discussed amendments with them. We are completely in support of those amendments and are planning on taking them in Transportation.

Got it. Got it. That would. And again, the roaming agreement. So the major point is still thrust this around the uptime and reliability.

It's just that so that these chargers would be available on apps. So, yeah, it's being able to do billing and it's just being able to see what uptime is. It's sharing the information basically to really create more of an ecosystem around these EV chargers as opposed to each individual charger running its own business.

Good, good. We'll look forward to seeing the totality of the amendments, but I will be supporting today and appreciate your work on this issue.

Senator Durazo.

Yes. Just a question, if you could respond to the issue of - that the opposition witness spoke of how this could interfere with business ability to come up with the best models.

Yeah. What he, they, I think, in concept are in support of roaming agreements. They just want guardrails to make sure that it doesn't negatively affect their companies. And we have already, like I said, the language, the amendments are new, and so we are going to take additional amendments in transportation that will alleviate the concerns they have.

Okay. Thank you.

Senator Rubio. Hang on. Rubio, then Grove.

Thank you. Well, first of all, I just want to say, I know this is a very complicated topic in that it seems fairly new. And I know that people had concerns about the retroactiveness and other things, but I have to commend you, if you don't start the conversation, it doesn't happen. And I have heard the horror stories. And so I'm thankful for the opposition and you coming together because we have to get it right, you know where we're headed. Right. And so I really just want to say thank you for being so innovative in your thoughts and moving this forward because I think it's necessary.

But, you know, with the understanding that everyone comes together at the table, including the opposition, to make sure we have to get this right. This is just my only thought that, and I think I heard you say, right, that everyone's sitting down at the table. And I'm glad for that because we've had a lot of concerns. But I think you addressed all the concerns that I also had. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Grove.

I, too appreciate because we do hear the horror stories of being stranded, carrying a generator on the back of your car to charge your electric vehicle, I've seen pictures of that. I mean, I have in the mountain communities in the district. So I realize that there's a problem. I guess my thing on the agreements, if it does, I mean, obviously the opposition doesn't think government is the best person responsible for making business to business, business agreements with other business. You know, I agree 100%.

I think businesses should be allowed to be able to negotiate and do what's best for their industries and for the consumer. And I think making the CEC or government involved in that is, you know, telling them that the government knows how to plan a business roaming and a business agreement versus the business themselves is not something I would support. But I appreciate where you're going with this. But I also have a question.

When you talk about the roaming devices or the roaming apps and the upload in the immediate technology for the recordkeeping upload, recordkeeping. Are there apps out there for that, or do those apps have to be. And I'm technology challenged. Are there apps out there can immediately be applied, or is this something that has to be developed by the industry?

First, I want to respond to your first concern about private business. Most of these chargers have been paid with partially at least or fully by taxpayer monies. And so I think it is completely within our purview to hold them accountable for working since we have, as taxpayers, supported them. So there are already roaming agreements between companies.

So those apps exist. And roaming agreements in some ways are similar to like ATM's. They use roaming agreements also sharing information, sharing information so you can use other banks, ATM. So it's. That's one way to really look at it, is that you are able to use these publicly available chargers wherever you go, but you need to have that information shared.

Okay. I appreciate that you just solidified what I said in agricultural community about subsidization. We pass a policy that regulates something, that mandates something, and then we have to subsidize it to make it work. And then we go back after him for making a profit and making it work.

It's just the system, the whole system of the California government and how we operate here. But I get where you're trying to go. I do have constituents that drive EV's in the Central Valley and they are concerned. I had somebody coming from Sacramento to meet with a group of individuals from the Administration. And I'm like, hey, you're late. You're late. And I was calling. He had to stop in Fresno and charge his car for 2 hours because there wasn't a charging station between, you know, that he had access to. So I get it. I get that EV users need to be able to have a charging station.

It needs to have connectivity from whoever's going to provide the power. Because sometimes that's the issue. There's no connectivity from the IOUS. And so I do appreciate you, like my colleague said, starting the conversation. Starting the conversation. But I do have a real problem with the business to business thing. Being a business owner for 30 years in the state, I think that business makes better decisions than the state does most of the time. So. But I appreciate you at least starting conversation and looking at this.

Thank you.

Okay. Seeing no other Members on my list, we have a motion by Senator Caballero. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. The motion is due passed to Transportation with the amendments. And you are taking the amendments, correct?

Okay, call the roll.

Yes.

Okay. The motion is due passed to be amended in the Transportation Committee. [Roll Call]. Six to zero.

Six to zero. We'll leave that Bill on call for absent Members. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

What happened to Gallagher? See, we could go. Oh, there he is. Thank you assemblymember, for being so courteous to the assemblywoman.

Always happy to oblige the gentle lady from Thousand Oaks. Thank you Mister chair. Good morning. I'm happy to present. This may be your guys last Bill. I want to end on a, hopefully on a, you know, just a district, non controversial Bill that hopefully we can get your support for today.

So AB 2750 is really focused on the Rio Bravo biomass plant in Placer County in my district. And I think, as many know, the Vice Chair and I worked on these issues for many years. These biomass plants are very important, especially to combating wildfire.

A lot of the fuels that we're taking out of our forests to make them healthier, to make them more fire resilient, go through these plants. So it's a big deal when one of them is affected. SB 1109, as you guys remember, extended bio ram for another five years.

One of the components of that legislation said that they have to be, or that they don't have to contract if they're in severe extreme non attainment areas for air quality. Now, I want to be very clear. The Rio Bravo plant actually is entertainment. When you look at the, the actual emissions and the measurements of the emissions.

It is an attainment this area does not exceed and get into the severe extreme. But the regional air quality board put themselves in non attainment voluntarily for reasons that don't have anything to do with emissions. It's more about getting additional time to meet other requirements, regulatory requirements. So they put themselves voluntarily into that zone.

It's not because of emissions. And I think that's the key point here, is that Rio Bravo obviously would still like to be qualified for the bio ram program and have contracts going forward, but because of the regional board putting themselves in non attainment, that is at risk.

And so this Bill would simply just clarify if the air district voluntarily put themselves into the non attainment, that wouldn't affect their eligibility for getting the bioram contract extensions under 1109. So again, I mean, this is an important plant in our district.

It takes 80% of its feedstock from high fire hazard and very high fire hazard severity zones in the surrounding community, and they support 28 direct employees and hundreds of indirect contractors that are associated with Rio Bravo.

Also in the Ag sector, we have less and less ability to, when we take out an orchard or when we have byproducts from agriculture to take them to a biomass facility where they can be burned and its actually much less emission.

Our other alternative is to open burn them, which is actually going to be not as good of a situation from emissions standpoint. I hope that we can get your support for this.

I do have with us two witnesses, Eric White with the Placer County Air Pollution Control district, who can help give some more details on what exactly happened there. And then Julie Malinowski ball with the California Biomass alliance. Each of your witnesses, I have two minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Eric White and I'm the Director of the Placer County Air Pollution Control District. It's my pleasure to be here today to testify in support of AB 2750.

This important Bill will help ensure that a regionally critical biomass plant will remain in operation for at least an additional five years, providing an important destination for forest biomass as generated from the state and federal forest reduction and resiliency operations in Placer County, fully one half of the county is forested lands.

In this landscape, we have seen significant tree mortality from invasive beetles and drought. This has resulted in significant swaths of forests that are vulnerable to wildfire, as was seen less than two years ago with the mosquito fire. To address this, there is a significant effort underfoot to reduce wildfire risk through landscape scale treatment of public lands.

But with this work comes the production of large quantities of forest biomass waste and slash. Historically, because there are no viable Wood utilization alternatives, we have seen that much of this material is simply pile burned in an uncontrolled fashion in the forest, resulting in significant emissions of oxides of nitrogens and particulate matter.

However, biomass facilities such as the one covered by AB 2750 are equipped with the best available control technology. Through the use of such advanced control technology, we see that emissions from such facilities are significantly less when compared against open pile burning, a 99% reduction in particulate matter emissions, and up to a 70% reduction in nox emissions.

Currently, the facility in Placer county that is covered by AB 2750 receives at least 80% of its feedstock from high hazard forest areas, predominantly in placer and El Dorado counties. Without this facility, this is material that would otherwise be pile burned in the forest, which would actually result in an emission increase from what we see today.

Additionally, although the district does not currently meet federal air quality standards, our modeling shows that even with the continued operation of this facility, the district is on track to attain both the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards.

In closing, the district strongly supports AB 2750 as it will help ensure that a critical force biomass uptake facility remains in service. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you. Julie Malinowski Ball on behalf of the California Biomass Energy Alliance, I am here to report that the bioram program is actually functioning exactly how this body envisioned it to function.

Governor Brown actually asked the PUC to set up the program, design the program, but it was the California State Legislature that put all the bookends that this program needed to be to be as most efficient and targeted as possible.

So the facilities, including the facility targeted in this Bill, is taking the waste material out of the forest that no one else is going to take. It's the harder to get, it's the more expensive, but it's the most environmentally beneficial material to remove from the forest and put to a beneficial reuse project like bioenergy.

So this Bill makes the Bio Ram Program whole. And for that reason, that is why we are in support of this Bill and ask for your. I vote.

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

Good morning. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies in support. Also providing support today for the independent energy producers. Thank you.

Morning. Kevin Johnston, California Farm Bureau Federation, in support.

Good morning. Katie Falkenborg, General manager of Rio Bravo Rockland, in support.

Now let's move to witnesses in opposition. Are there witnesses in opposition? Okay, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns about the Committee? Senator Rubio, I was just going to.

Say, you know, it's district specific, but thank you for all the information. I was going to move the Bill when appropriate. Thank you. It's appropriate. I will move the Bill. Thank you, Vice Chairman.

Mister Chairman, I apologize for not wearing a tie to your Committee.

Yeah, you're lucky if you get out of combat.

I'm trying to remedy that here, actually in real time. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this Bill forward. I just want to real quick, I have biomass plants in my district, which you just saw yesterday on social media, the fires that broke out.

You look at all those emissions going out when you take that fuel and put it into a power plant, make green energy, reduce the nioxide emissions by 70% to 97%. Makes good sense. Happy to support the Bill.

Senator Becker.

Thank you. Just to clarify, so the local Air Quality Management District had voluntarily asked to be reclassified.

Is that the regional one? Yeah. So placer is part of a regional air quality district and the regional one voluntarily reclassified themselves? Yes. Leads to this? Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Senator Caballaro.

I love this Bill. I'll be voting yes today.

Thank you, Senator. All right, any further questions or concerns, I, too want to just add my support. It's a common sense measure.

I would hope that my colleagues who have not had a chance to visit your area understand that we have these facilities here, many of them sitting idle, because we choose to ignore the fact that they are reliable, they're dispatchable, they're in many ways renewable as well. We have the feedstock there and it's being able to utilize it.

So I appreciate your effort here in this space, and we'd like to close.

Go right ahead. Thank you, Senator. And yeah, I'm informed that my tie has just arrived, so I did try to rectify that. Anyways, thank you for your support and Senators, several here who have been very supportive of these measures and helping to ensure that we have this needed tool.

So thank you for your support and ask for your. I vote thank you.

Is that from Bernie Orosco? Is that one of his ties? This is even one that's got ducks on it.

Okay, Mallard, ducks on. It's very appropriate.

We have. We have a motion by Senator Rubio. We have a do pass to the Committee on appropriations. Secretary, please call the row.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that measure has 11 votes. You just got out by the skin of your tie. I will leave the roll open for AFC Members to add on. So thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair.

Members. Add on. We'll start with.

Okay, our last item is Assemblyman Zbur, who has graced us with his presence, and he's presenting AB 3006.

When you're ready, you may begin. Thank you, Mister chair Members. I'm proud to present AB 3006, which promotes collaboration and thoughtful planning of the state's offshore wind economy. California has some of the best offshore wind resources in the country that can provide clean energy as the sun sets and will be critical to the state's ability to meet its clean energy goals.

Offshore wind also has the potential to bring a significant number of high paying jobs to the state, especially in communities surrounding the state's ports and shipping hubs. However, the sheer scale and size of the technology means that the state will need to build specialized port facilities in a very short amount of time.

The California Energy Commission, in its draft AB 525 offshore wind strategy plan, estimated that between 11 and $12 billion is needed to upgrade existing port infrastructure, and in fact, that number has been modified recently to be at least $12 billion.

With thorough planning and timeline accountability, California can build these developments in a way that supports a robust offshore wind economy in the state and creates valuable manufacturing and Assembly jobs for many Californians. AB 3006 prioritizes planning for offshore wind development by including an evaluation of funding needs for offshore wind infrastructure in the governor's five year infrastructure plan.

This Bill will help ensure that the industry is ready and funded to meet our clean energy goals despite ongoing budget constraints. With me today is Brian White, representing Offshore Wind California, the sponsor of the Bill to provide additional information and assist with questions.

Thank you Mister chair and Members of the Committee. Brian White, on behalf of Offshore Wind California, we are the sponsors of AB 3006 and we represent technology companies, developers, port representatives and others who are in the support category of responsible development of floating offshore wind.

We know from various state agency reports that offshore wind will become a critical resource in the state's ability to meet our renewable energy goals by 2045, and it will help address states grid reliability issues and also result in the thousands of family wage jobs.

With the enactment of the AB 525, 3 years ago, and now with the central procurement Bill that passed last year, with Senator Garcia's support and Administration support, right now the most critical issue we need to face is how are we going to get these projects built, and that is through offshore wind planning for ports.

Right now, the most immediate concern is funding for ports, and as noted by some Members of Burr, there is going to take significant amounts of funding to get these things built. CEC noted that at least $12 billion will be needed for infrastructure needs.

What we need to have right now is an immediate discussion about simply requiring how does offshore wind fit in the larger infrastructure planning process? The Governor does a five year planning process every five years through the budget.

All we're simply trying to do is include port infrastructure planning in that five year planning process and that will have us get ready for these huge infrastructure projects that are going to take massive amounts of infrastructure to be built.

We know there are private financing as well as local financing and federal financing that we part of this discussion. But the state needs to take the lead. And at the end of the day, failure to plan for these infrastructure projects will become and ultimately a plan for failure if we don't get them started right now. And with that, we appreciate some Members of Burr's leadership in this effort, and we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Martin Vindiola. On behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Employees and the California State Association of Electrical Workers. And support.

Dan Chom. On behalf of the Port of Long beach, strong support.

Jordan Curley. On behalf of American Clean Power California. And support.

Good morning. Jacqueline Moore. The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association here in full support.

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

Alejandro Solis. On behalf of the Clean Power Campaign in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now let's move to witnesses in opposition. All right. Seeing none here in the room, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns on this measure? Move Bill? It's been moved by Senator Becker. We. What do we have here? We have. They do pass the Senate Committee on government organizations. Okay, we have a motion by Becker. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for your. I vote. Okay. Secretary, please call the roll on file item 10. AB 3006.

[Roll Call]

That measure has 10 to two. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you, Assembly Member. Now, Members, we're going to open a row. We're going to start at the top of the file and allow those apps and Members to add on. We'll start. We'll file. Item one, AB 1921. Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

All right, moving on to follow. Item two. AB 2083 by Berman.

[Roll Call]

All right, the current measures. 12 to three, we'll leave the world open. Moving on. File item 321. 09.

[Roll Call]

Current votes, 12 to zero. Leave the world open. Moving on to file item four. AB2462.

[Roll Call]

All right, what's going on? 16 to 16 to zero. Okay, now moving on to file item five. AB2697.

[Roll Call]

13-0, 15-0 now moving on to follow item six. AB 2750.

[Roll Call]

14 to 14-0 we'll leave that... Perhaps the Members. Moving on to file item seven. AB 2765 current vote.

[Roll Call]

16-0 all right, moving on to file item eight. AB 2780.

[Roll Call]

113 to one. We'll leave the roll open one more time for that measure. And now, moving on, file item nine, which is a consent. And file item 11, which is our consent on consent. Please call the roll on a consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Consent is out, and our final measure. File item 10. AB 3006. Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

That measures 15 to two. It's out. All right, Members, we're going to go through the roll one last time for those absent Members. And we're going to close the roll on those items, as we call them. So back up to the top of the agenda, file item 1, 1921.

[Roll Call]

17- 0 that measures out file item 2, 2083.

[Roll Call]

14-0 that measures out now. Moving on to filing 42462.

[Roll Call]

14-0 that measures out now. AB 2750.

[Roll Call]

17-0 that measures out. Next up, file item 82780.

[Roll Call]

14 to one. That measure is out now. File item. I mean, we did consent, right? Everybody's up on consent. And last one is file item 10. Zbur 3306 current vote 15-2. Everybody's up. Okay, Members, that concludes our business for today. And Senate Committee on energy, utilities and communications. If you weren't able to lend your voice or testify today, please submit a writing or an email to any concerns to the Committee, and we'll be happy to oblige you. Members. We stand adjourned.