Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

We're going to recess. Assembly's still in session.

Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications will come to order. Good afternoon. We are holding our committee hearing in the O Street Building. I ask all members of the committee to be present in Room 1200 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing.

I'd like to welcome everyone to the second bill hearing of the Assembly bills for the committee in 2024. We are going to start as a subcommittee. We have--Senator Becker is going to present Assembly Member Ting's AB 619. You may--691.

You may proceed, Senator.

Thank you, Members. I am presenting 691 on behalf of Assembly Member Ting. This bill would require the California Energy Commission on or before January 1st,2026, to submit a report to the Legislature regarding the impacts and effects of inefficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, or HVAC systems at schools.

In the report, the CEC will evaluate future needs and policy recommendations of schools to ensure California schools are energy efficient and have safe ventilation. Schools often have HVAC systems and plumbing fixtures that are unhealthy for students and use excessive amounts of water and energy.

The California School's Healthy Air Plumbing and Efficiency, or CalSHAPE program was established through Assembly Member Ting's previous bill, AB 841, in 2020, that provides funding to public schools so they can upgrade HVAC systems and replace non-compliant or water-inefficient plumbing fixtures.

As this program is to sunset in 2026, December 1 of 2026, it is critical that the CEC continue to evaluate the impacts of inefficient HVAC system and provide policy recommendations that help the Legislature support our schools HVAC and energy systems. In terms of witnesses, I don't know if we have any.

Okay. Do we have any primary witnesses? Seeing none. We have any witnesses in support of AB 691? Seeing none. Do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 691? Seeing none. We'll bring it back for questions, not make a motion until we get a quorum. But.

I just commit to making a motion when we get a quorum. Thank you.

Good Bill. You may close.

Thank you. I respectfully, on behalf of Assembly Member Ting, ask for aye vote on this bill that will improve health as well as energy and water use in our schools. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. We will leave. We will take that bill up when we get a quorum. I also wanted to note that we have 11 bills on our agenda today. Two bills have been pulled from the agenda.

File Item Number Two: AB 1176: Zbur: general plans, and File Item Number Three: AB 1533: energies and utilities, and File Item Number Ten: AB 2239: Bonta: digital discrimination access prohibition.

We will recess till we get members, authors and members.

But we do have an author. We have Assemblymember Petrie-Norris, and she has two measures, AB 2292 and 2815. You're going to begin with 2292? The floor is yours.

Well, good afternoon, Senators, and thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 2292. This is a simple measure which will repeal the requirement that the California Public Utilities Commission consider alternatives to prospective transmission projects before issuing a permitting approval. The reason for that is that that is an entirely duplicative requirement.

So today, transmission projects are reviewed twice to determine if they are needed, once under the California independent system operators' transmission planning process, and then once again under the CPUC's Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity permit. I know that we are all working to find responsible ways to accelerate the pace of clean energy deployment. This is a modest change, but one which we hope will lead to that acceleration. With that, I am pleased to welcome Jan Smutny-Jones with Independent Energy Producers, and Michael Colvin, who represents the Environmental Defense Fund.

We'll let you sit down, Smutney. I know you probably can't stand up long.

I'm not that old. Thank you very much.

Jones, you have two minutes.

Thank you very much. I'm Jan Smutny-Jones with the Independent Energy Producers, and we support this bill. We all need to be moving transmission projects along a little faster than we have been. This bill does remove an archaic, some archaic language that's not only duplicative but it's been in the code section for a long time before we've developed our current system. So the current system right now is developed out of the California Public Utilities Commission integrated resource plan, the IRP.

There's all kinds of other programs they look at in putting the IRP together, and that is used then by the ISO to come up with a transmission plan. When the ISO is proposing basically a transmission plan, it is the process they use. They do consider alternatives to building that transmission. So in other words, if someone can come forward with, we're going to build, you know, some storage facilities in where the line is rather than the line itself, and that'll solve a problem, then that's already considered. So that's why we're supporting this bill.

It's, you know, it's a very small thing, but, you know, we're, we're coming up on deadlines pretty quick, and if we don't start building the transmission in order to get to those deadlines, we're not going to make it. And I just want to point out one more thing. This is removing a code section that only applies a transmission, not distribution. So I know that just to not confuse things, it's the larger projects that we're talking about. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support?

Good afternoon. Michael Colvin with Environmental Defense Fund. Just to keep things really brief, I think one, I really appreciate hitting the delete key on a bill. It's really helpful. Rather than adding a whole lot of new language, I want to emphasize that by removing this redundancy, we're saving both time and money for customers.

And I think that's really important. I also just want to recognize that there are still plenty of opportunities to be able to do the evaluation, to consider a non-wires alternative. This just doesn't need to be done multiple times and it's just unnecessary. If there's any opposition out there that says, oh, well, we're confused about the process. There's still lots of onramps to be able to do this analysis. We just don't need to do it this time in this place. And with that, EDF. Thanks. We are available for any questions.

Thank you. Now for our me-toos in support of 2292.

Mr. Chairman and members, John White with the Clean Power Campaign. We're in support of the bill.

Good afternoon. Andrew Kosydar with Southern California Edison in support.

Valerie Turella, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, support.

Joe Zanze, San Diego Gas and Electric, support.

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

Thank you. Any more witnesses in support? Seeing none now. Opposition. Witnesses in opposition. Are you the primary witness in opposition? You have two minutes.

I believe we're the only opposition. My name is Kevin Johnston. I'm here on behalf of the California Farm Bureau Federation. Our opposition to AB 2292 comes as landowners and ratepayers. First, as landowners who already support a significant amount of utility infrastructure, we believe every opportunity should be used to explore full range alternatives and determine whether a project is absolutely necessary before taking private property.

Once utility infrastructure is in place, not only does the land's value decrease, but limitations on usage around the infrastructure can significantly alter or diminish an operation. Second, as ratepayers, I don't think I need to remind this committee of the number of hearings you've had about affordability.

And at the end of all of those hearings, the trend line has still been going upward. Transmission costs money. It's going to be about 30 billion, which I think is probably a low estimate over the next 20 years. Any argument of speed creating some kind of cost savings assumes that a project would actually be necessary.

The Public Utilities Commission is tasked with setting rates and managing affordability, but also demand response, which is one of the primary alternatives. Among other things, that is not CaISO's mission. They are not subject to 1002.3 in the bill analysis. The arguments in support lament that the PUC would reach a different conclusion to CaISO.

To me, that seems like the system's working. This is not simply a duplicative review. The PUC brings a different lens, different expertise, and should do its job of ensuring that before we dig deeper into ratepayers' pockets, a project must absolutely be necessary and have no viable alternatives. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition? You can come forward now seeing none. Bringing it back to the committee. Any questions or concerns by committee members? Seeing none. Well, we're short of quorum yet. I said you have a question. I'm sorry. Senator Eggman.

Can you respond a little bit to the Farm Bureau's opposition?

Yes, and thank you, Senator, for that. Certainly, we want to ensure that there is an opportunity for robust participation at every stage, but we also want to ensure that we are not being duplicative in the planning process.

So the CaISO transmission planning process does create lots of opportunities with workshops and public comment filings, for stakeholders, including non-energy industry stakeholders, to engage and provide comments and feedback. So AB 2292 only repeals the CPUC review for transmission projects. It does not alter the commission's underlying licensing authority nor its environmental review responsibilities.

And there's no eminent domain or anything as any part of this?

No.

Thank you.

Senator Becker.

Thank you for working on this. I certainly support the idea of getting rid of duplicative analysis. Just had a question. So, if CaISO has already looked at this then it will be mostly duplicatives for the PUC. We did have kind of a concern about deleting the section requiring the consideration of non-wire alternatives. And I guess the question is, is it always the case? Does this apply only to situations where the CaISO has made that determination?

Yes. Exactly. So the reason that you would not need the PUC to consider a non-wire alternative is that the CaISO's planning process has already weighed that alternative and determined that, in fact, wires are needed.

Great. Just want to confirm those intent of the bill. Thank you.

Vice Chair Dahle.

So I just want to ask again, Senator Eggman brought up eminent domain. Utilities have the power to do eminent domain. So if they're putting in a new line, they have the ability to use eminent domain as a vehicle to put that transmission in.

And thank you for clarifying that. But this bill does not change or enhance or expand any of that. It does not touch on that question.

Right. So the reason the Farm Bureau is in opposition is because they can just come in and take your land and put power lines across it. This bill is giving the power to the Cal ISO, but it's still a transmission company has the power to take eminent domain. So as to be clear, that's the reason why the farmer is opposing. Or correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they do have the power.

It's not that the utilities can just come in and take imminent domain. It is after a robust regulatory and review process that would then, that would continue to be conducted by CaISO that determines that this is necessary, needed, and required. So it would not change or expand any of that authority.

Right. But you said it didn't have the power. It does have. The utilities have the power for eminent domain, which means if that right of way was deemed necessary and met all the public processes, they can take your land.

So as is the case today. So this building.

You're saying that is current law?

Yes.

And it takes away one of the levels of review, which is why the Farm Bureau is opposed because they'd like all the levels to be able to speak.

Right. Yes. Thank you.

Any additional questions or concerns by committee members? Again, we're still like in a quorum. Assemblywoman, would you like to close?

Thank you for the discussion and debate. I would respectfully ask for aye vote.

Your next item is 2815.

So, thank you once again, Mister Chair and Members. AB 2815 will help California to modernize existing EV charging stations and improve the EV consumer experience by expanding eligible funding to repair or replace older and inoperable EV charging stations such that they meet today's standards.

I want to thank the Chair and committee staff for working with my team on the spill, and I will be accepting committee amendments. California has led the nation when it comes to the transition from internal combustion vehicles to zero-emission vehicles. Today, California has approximately 94,000 public charging stations.

We need to build 2.1 million public and shared light-duty chargers by 2035 to meet the increasing demand for charging services. AB 2815 will enable the CEC to allocate a portion of existing funds to modernize legacy charging stations that are more than five years old.

With me today is Megan Mekelberg with the Electric Vehicle Charging Association to provide additional testimony.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Chair and Members, my name is Megan Mekelberg and I represent the EV Charging Association known as EVCA. The Association is proud to sponsor AB 2815 which will support the modernization of inoperable EV chargers that are in need of repairs or replacement. The Association, or.

Since the introduction of the mass market of electric vehicles in 2010, California has been an unequivocal leader in supporting the deployment of widespread spread charging network. Over a decade into the vehicle transition, many public EV chargers are nearing the end of their useful life.

At the same time, EV charging technology has advanced rapidly in recent years and many legacy chargers do not have the same performance that EV drivers have come to expect with today's technology. Additionally, the Federal Government and the state have instituted a number of new regulations in recent years, including standards for payment, electricity delivery, reliability, connectors, and more.

AB 2815 represents an opportunity to incentivize the repair and replacement of existing infrastructure to meet today's standards, which will increase the number of operational chargers and enhance the reliability of the existing fleet of infrastructure. By incentivizing this, it will make more chargers available.

And importantly, the funds do have to be matched by any owner and operator, and 50% of the funds do need to go to disadvantaged and low-income communities. For these reasons, we are happy to sponsor AB 2815. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support of 20815? State your name and organization. Thank you.

Julee Malinowski-Ball, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition in support. We need to maintain what we've got today, including building new, which is why we support this bill.

Hello. Michelle Canales, Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Edson Perez with Advanced Energy United in strong support.

Mister Chair, Members, Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy in support.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Chris Grogan on behalf of ChargePoint in support.

Thank you.

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

Looks like all of our witnesses in support. Now let's go to witness in opposition. Are there witnesses here in the room opposed to 2815? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns by Committee Members? Senator Durazo?

Yeah. Could you explain who's going to get the funding that you're proposing? I mean, who. You know, there's a whole web here of who makes the charging who makes the charges? Who builds the charges? And then they get, you know, put somewhere and then there's maintenance.

And so where does this funding come in and who's it going to help?

So, the CEC has funding allocated.

You know, we have allocated funding to the CEC for a number of grant programs in order to accelerate the build-out of the EV charging network that is, or, you know, the ZEV charging network that is so, so critical for us to actually enable Californians to charge vehicles, feel confident buying these vehicles.

And so, it would not change who's eligible for these grants under the CEC. It would simply say that a portion of the funding can be used in addition to building out new charging stations to upgrade charging stations that are more than five years old, that are operating under obsolete technology, and are often broken and in disrepair.

The logic being that it's cheaper to upgrade those existing sites rather than end up with a stranded asset. So, it doesn't change who's eligible for that application. It simply says that a portion of the funds can be used to upgrade and update legacy infrastructure.

Yeah, I'm just, I'm trying to figure out here who's going to apply, who's applying for this funding, and who's getting the funding. I thought there was some measure of responsibility by the manufacturers of the chargers or by whoever owns the land where the chargers are actually put on is who is the applicant who asked for the money.

And in some cases, that is local governments who are installing the charging infrastructure as part of community resources. And in some cases, it is in line with the other existing grant programs.

It is private entities who are leveraging these funds to more quickly accelerate their build out of this infrastructure.

And there's no commitment or responsibility to upgrade and maintain and service these chargers by anyone when they're put in. Is that like?

And that's. And I appreciate you making that point because I know that, you know, certainly in the Assembly and I know in the Senate as well, I'm sure you've had hearings about just the frustrations people feel when they go to, you know, these charging stations and find that the infrastructure is not working.

And we have, as the Legislature in the last several years, I think, taken a number of important steps to ensure that there's really robust accountability attached to the expenditure of these dollars.

That was my last question.

I think that the reality is when some of this money was first going out the door five years ago, 10 years ago, there wasn't sufficient accountability attached with that.

The reason that we are restricting these upgrade funds to projects that were built more than five years ago is because we want to make sure that it's in legitimate need of an upgrade, if that makes sense.

So, it's not infrastructure that was installed a couple of years ago and has just been allowed to deteriorate and hasn't been maintained, and now we're going to give them more money.

It is infrastructure that was installed five years ago where we really do need to upgrade the technology in order for those stations to be viable on a going forward basis. And it will have the same robust accountability measures that we're now building into any dollar that's attached to those.

Yeah, and thank you for highlighting that.

Thank you. Before we go to any more questions by Members, Secretary, let's call the roll and establish a quorum.

Okay. [Roll call]

A quorum is established. Are there any more questions by members here in the Committee?

Right here.

Senator Dahle.

I like your bill. Thank you for bringing it forward. All right, we need to entertain a motion. Thank you. Would you like to close?

Yes, I would. Well, thank you. Senators, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Clerk, call the roll, please.

Do pass as amended to Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Okay. Yes. Do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call] 10.

All right. Thank you, Senator.

10-0. We'll leave it on call for add-ons. Thank you.

Do you want to open the roll on the other bills?

Yes. Real quick, let's open the roll on the other bills we had. So let's start out with Number One: AB 691: Ting.

Move the bill.

Thank you. We have a motion.

Yeah. Okay, let's see. Do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. AB 691: Ting. [Roll Call]. Seven to two.

Seven/two. We'll leave that bill on call for add-ons. We have now Item Four: AB 2292, which is--we need a motion. I have a motion by Eggman, and it is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Call the roll, please.

[Roll Call].

Seven/zero. We'll leave that bill on call. Members, we had two, three items that were pulled: Item Number Two, Item Number Three, and Item Number Ten. Just to let you know. We'll take up Item Number Six: Assembly Member Holden: AB 1826. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to present the AB 1826, the Digital Equity and Video Franchising Act of 2024. I want to first begin by thanking the committee and the staff, and I will accept the committee amendments and look forward to any additional conversations that we need to have going forward.

What this bill does is that AB 1826 will update the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 to create a robust public process to allow for the public to participate in a once streamlined process. As you may know, I've worked on revising DIVCA for the past three years because I believe it's one of the tools available to tackle the digital divide.

Compared to AB 41, this bill does not contain the equal access provisions of safe harbor deletions, but would increase fines for violations of certain customer service rules and gives greater opportunities for groups and individuals to engage in cable franchise applications and renewals, as stated on page six of the committee analysis.

AB 1826 would also require the CPUC to include in its annual DIVCA report a performance assessment for each franchise. The veto message by the Governor on AB 41 highlights the historic investments the state has made to increase digital equity and emphasizes that we must build on these efforts and consider strategic reforms to the policy tools at our disposal. AB 1826 focuses on utilizing tools available to the state through the DIVCA statute.

Before DIVCA, cable franchising was done at the local level to ensure the community's needs are met as a condition of holding a franchise. AB 1826 would align DIVCA with federal law by establishing a renewal process that authorizes the CPUC to initiate a proceeding to receive public input and complete a performance evaluation for each franchise holder.

Lastly, AB 1826 will increase the fines for any customer service complaints enforced by local governments. With me to testify in support is Leticia Alejandrez, Director of Policy and Communications with the California Emerging Technology Fund.

Welcome. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chair and Members. Leticia Alejandrez, Director of Policy and Communications with the California Emerging Technology Fund. First, we'd like to begin by expressing our appreciation to Assembly Member Holden for his leadership in revisiting video franchising in this bill.

The California Emerging Technology Fund's mission is to close the digital divide, promote digital inclusion, and achieve digital equity in California. CETF supported the precursor to this bill, AB 41, by Assembly Member Holden, and again, the Governor's veto message was very instructive with the reference to the need for a stronger bill for deployment as well as a reference to affordability.

CETF is taking the veto message as instructions for AB 1826 and the other digital equity bills that will be coming before you. CETF appreciates the wisdom of revisiting video franchising as a powerful vehicle for closing the digital divide, promoting digital inclusion, and achieving digital equity. We want to support Assembly Member Holden and stakeholders in getting this bill right to secure the Governor's signature.

The bill would revise existing law pertaining to statewide video franchises to advance a fair and transparent renewal process at the California Public Utilities Commission. This bill is imperative for California's state video franchising process, and there are key provisions that we so appreciate with regard to transparency and accountability, public participation in hearings, guarantees of franchisors upholding their commitments and delivering on their promise, and it empowers local governments to enforce customer service requirements effectively.

AB 1826 is an opportunity to strengthen DIVCA to accelerate progress on ubiquitous deployment and universal adoption to achieve digital equity. We urge your support for AB 1826. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support here in Room 1200? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Amanda Gualderama with CalBroadband. I'd first like to thank the author, Chair and committee staff for their work on AB 1826, but we remain opposed. To be clear, DIVCA does not regulate broadband, only traditional cable entertainment video services, as the analysis notes.

We've seen this bill in different forms for a few years now. Last year, CalBroadband was able to negotiate with the author and go neutral on AB 41 before the Senate Floor. AB 41 was a compromise. No party received everything they wanted, but that is usually the sign of a well-negotiated piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the Governor disagreed and vetoed the bill. CalBroadband has not been told by the administration exactly what they would like to see out of a bill amending the DIVCA statute.

AB 1826, as introduced, did not start from our negotiated language in AB 41; instead started from a position where CalBroadband was opposed. Thus, the association is compelled to oppose AB 1826. We are still reviewing the committee amendments, but believe they take the bill in the right direction, similar to what this committee did last year with AB 41, and we again applaud that movement.

What is different this year is that the CPUC is currently undergoing a proceeding to consider changes to its licensing and oversight of video franchises under the DIVCA statute. The proceeding contemplates modernizing DIVCA, the collection of granular data on locations served by franchise holders, and addressing customer service requirements and complaints.

CalBroadband, our members, community advocates, counties, and cities are all parties to this proceeding. At this point, it would seem that the CPUC believes it already has the statutory authority to modernize DIVCA and that changes to the statute are unnecessary. For all the reasons stated, CalBroadband remains opposed to 1826. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others wishing to add on as--in opposition?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Yolanda Benson, on behalf of USTelecom, the Broadband Association, and the California Chamber of Commerce, in opposition to AB 1826.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses, we'll bring it back for discussion. Any questions? Concerns? Seeing none, would you--would you like to entertain a motion? Oh, you have a question?

I do apologize. The notes that I have indicate that there were amendments proposed. Were they accepted?

Yes, and I have them here. I'll just read them out for members to know: reduce the number of public hearings required for a franchise renewal to two hearings, one of which may be conducted virtually or telephonically, move requirements for the CPUC evaluation of each cable franchise from the application process to the CPUC existing annual report on DIVCA.

Yes.

Restore existing law for provisions of the bill regarding franchise fees, the CPUC's ability to to tariff cable franchises and information the CPUC can require as part of an approval franchise application. And it makes other technical, conforming changes. That's what I have on Senator Bradford's notes here. Any other questions? Yes.

Yeah, I just appreciate you fruiting that out. I understood there were committee amendments and they were taking my head in a chance to review them. I thought maybe that would remove opposition. Obviously it hasn't. I'm going to support the bill today.

I do want to take the opportunity afterwards to read the amendments and kind of reserve the right on the Senate Floor, but I will be supporting the bill today and I appreciate all your work. I know you've been working on this for many years.

Okay, no further comments. Then we will entertain a motion. Senator, you have a question?

Yeah, I just associate my comments with Senator Becker there, and hopefully you can work some of those things out. Appreciate it.

Okay. Now we will entertain a motion. Moved by--Yes. You may close.

First of all, I want to thank the committee not only this year, but last year. I think it was always our intention to try to find a way, a pathway to address the opposition's concerns, and I think we did. As you recall last year, by accepting those amendments, we lost our supporters to the bill, and I don't know what impact that had ultimately on the veto, but clearly we wanted to start this year with an understanding of how we could strengthen the transparency components and make DIVCA better.

We are hopeful that we can continue our conversations going forward. The amendments are fresh for all of us at this moment, but we had a chance to read through them and we do support them and we'll continue to architect different approaches along the way to see if we can get it to where it was last year, where the opposition has pulled back. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. It's been moved by Senator Stern. It's a do pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Would you please call the roll?

Do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]. Seven to two.

Seven to two. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you. I do not see--do we have an author? Oh, there he is, hiding behind the pillar there. We have Assembly Member Garcia. He has three bills. Which one would you like to start with, sir?

File order.

Okay.

AB 1834.

1834. Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. This bill is an important clarification to AB 1373. It's the central procurement bill that did come through this Committee. The clarifications ensure that reliability provisions of that bill can be implemented fairly without increasing administrative burdens for publicly owned utilities. We have two individuals who will speak to the bill. Greg Cook on behalf of the Northern California Power Agency and Natalie Seitzman, Southern California Public Power Authority.

Mr. Chairman, Members. Greg Cook representing Northern California Power Agency. The Assemblyman has explained the bill. He provided great leadership last year in the development of AB 1373. This is a good bill for implementation. We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Chair and Members, thank you. Natalie Seitzman for Southern California Public Power Authority. Like the Assemblyman said, this bill makes clarifications to AB 1373 to improve implementation, to make that go smoother. I'm available to answer any questions the Committee may have on those clarifications. Thank you. Urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Others here wishing to add on in support?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Derek Dolfie on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Ellen Brittingham. I'm here in support on behalf of San Diego Community Power. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Mandy Isaacs-Lee here on behalf of Ava Community Energy, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no more support, how about opposition to AB 1834? Seeing none, we will bring it back. Questions by Members? Senator Stern.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator, for your leadership on this. I'm not sure if it's at the heart of your bill, which I know is really sort of an adjustment around POU participation. But in terms of the strategic reliability reserves, its operation in general.

I don't know if it's you or your bill sponsors or lead supporters. But I do have a concern about the current operation there. My understanding is that the contract that all these fees would fund. It's like a $2.2 billion gas contract. And I was wondering, before we sort of sign off on the funding mechanism here.

If we can get an update on the status of that contract. I know it's a tight budget year. And I think we put $400 million more towards the Diablo piece. But I just was wondering about the gas piece of the contract.

I don't have that information, Senator, with me. We'll have to get back to you on that.

Is that something that the supporters might have?

I'm looking in that direction.

Has that money been spent?

This bill doesn't make any changes to how that money will be spent.

It doesn't? Well, it makes changes for how the money would go in to fund that contract. Right?

So in the case that a capacity payment would be owed. Which is not the normal funding mechanism for the Strategic Reliability Reserve. It's a funding mechanism in the case that a load serving entity, or POU, is short on their resource adequacy capacity. So it's like a kind of secondary funding source. So it would make clarifications into how that would work. But it doesn't change the fundamental funding of the Strategic Reliability Reserve.

So this is. But it's still. The funds from the payments authorized in this legislation would, in theory, offset the cost of that contract?

The theory would be if the utility is short and uses capacity from the Strategic Liability Reserve as like, what should have been their resource adequacy capacity that this is them reimbursing that fund.

Right. I guess I'm just trying to get a sense because we just cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of the Clean Energy Reliability Investment Plan in this year's budget cut, DSGS cut DEBA. How much of the like are we going to keep relying on the General Fund, I guess, to fund that large gas contract versus, say, the payments authorized in this legislation? Maybe we could follow up on that item.

We'd like to.

Okay.

Do you have further questions, Senator? Okay. Any other questions by Members? We would entertain a motion.

Senator Caballero.

I really appreciate the questions that were asked, because it's a little bit opaque in terms of exactly how the Fund, at least to me, how the Fund is reimbursed, if you will, and who's the primary and the secondary, the primary and the secondary payments that are made.

And so suffice it to say that I'll be supporting the bill today, but looking very carefully at it as we look at Appropriations, because given the State of our budget, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me for our General Fund to be funding something that we just can't afford right now. And we did make some changes, so I'll support it today. Want to look at it a little bit more critically. So if we could get the information, that would be much appreciated.

Okay.

So I will move the bill.

Okay, now I have a follow up comment or question. So this Fund is basically available for make sure we have power when we have big swings in the events, and if we don't have that backup, we have outages. And I think that's what needs to be focused on here.

I know that there's obviously some that are concerned about what kind of power we're getting at those times, but we need that power. So I'll be supporting your bill today. I know it may not be perfect, but at the end of the day, if we have big heat events and we need that power, we need to make sure we keep the lights on.

Who said it's not perfect? We just got clarification. In your analysis, it points out to the actual cost that was allocated, how much has been drawn down, and it's been confirmed that the bill doesn't have an impact on that overall budget.

So I think we answered, or she answered the Senator's question, and we won't have a need to meet with him on that specific issue, but I'm happy to hang out with him anytime if he wants to get together.

I think the point I was trying to make is that we need this process so that we have power when there's swings in our power supply. So I'll be supporting it. So we have a motion by Senator Caballero, and it is do pass to Appropriations. Would you like to close?

Thank you for entertaining the bill and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That measure has 11 votes. It's out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Now we're gonna move on to AB 3238.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And speaking along the lines of needing power and the issue of reliability, I bring this bill forward, which accelerates the build out of our electrical transmission to meet our ambitious climate goals.

Achieving these goals will require unprecedented construction of this infrastructure to provide reliable, renewable energy to electrify our homes, commercial buildings, transportation, and that's going to require some bold moves in the policy space.

This bill contains provisions consistent with the 18 party settlement agreement before the CPUC that would modify existing permitting processes at the CPUC to streamline and accelerate electrical infrastructure development. This bill will remove duplication and ensure the CPUC's timeline to permit transmission projects is expedited while still ensuring the opportunity for environmental review.

This bill also contains a narrowly tailored CEQA exemption that would exempt the acquisition of an expansion of right of way for electric transmission infrastructure on state owned land, while still requiring final sign off from the landowner and full CEQA review of construction of property projects by the CPUC.

Senators, this bill has gone through three policy committees, and I would count four because the Appropriations took a policy stab at it as well. So four reviews in the Assembly, as well as four robust stakeholder meetings where we attempted to address those concerns from a large group of individuals wanting to have this discussion.

So it certainly has been vetted quite a bit on the other side of this building. This bill has and will, I hope, allow us to achieve, as I mentioned, the opening statements, our climate and renewable energy goals.

I'm convinced that there are just a few more areas that we might be able to refine this bill in order to ensure that balance between achieving our goals, protecting the environment, and being able to, again stay on track with our 2045 deadlines.

I'm hopeful that we can have a good, open, honest conversation in this Committee and in the following Committee in order to, again get this bill before the governor's desk and put some good public policy before us. And once again, thank you for your attention on this bill.

Okay. You have witnesses in support?

We do.

Is this your primary witness?

Yes.

You have two minutes, please.

Hi. Good afternoon. Erica Martin. I'm the director of environmental services for San Diego Gas and Electric. Very happy to be with you in support of AB 3238. SDG&E is so encouraged by the growing acknowledgement and consensus throughout our state that we must build electric transmission, renewable generation, and other electric infrastructure at an unprecedented rate and scale.

If we are truly in a climate crisis, then we need to behave as if we are in one. The existing process for approval to construct electric infrastructure is duplicative, lengthy, and costly.

By the time a bill gets to the CPUC for authority to build it, it has already undergone a significant forecasting and planning process with the CEC, with the CPUC, and significantly at the CAISO, our grid operator, and we can no longer afford an additional five to 10 years of permitting an environmental review on top of that, followed by years of construction before the projects come online.

If we preserve the status quo of process and procedure, we will not be able to move the clean energy transition forward at the pace that we need to in order order to protect the environment from a warming climate.

AB 3238 is a measured proposal that focuses on the places where we've seen the most significant obstacles to permitting and approval of these projects. The CPUC's rules for permitting and environmental review are a focus of the bill, and there is an open proceeding at the CPUC where this is actively being considered.

However, the Legislature's leadership is desperately needed here. The most recent staff proposal put forward in that proceeding fails to modify permitting rules in a way that provides the meaningful review needed to accelerate permitting and instead adopts a business as usual approach with some non binding promises to move forward more quickly.

AB 32308's proposed reforms do not eliminate CPUC oversight or the application of CEQA for projects that require a permit to construct at that agency. Among other things, the bill would apply a nine month timeline for the CPUC's review and would also leverage the significant transmission planning process that you heard some more about earlier today in reference to 2292. It would leverage the CAISO's review and process so that the CPUC doesn't have to redo and duplicate that work again.

In addition, the bill contains a narrowly tailored CEQA exemption for circumstances where a utility needs to expand its existing right of way for electric infrastructure so that we can co-locate facilities, for example, when necessary.

There are significant conditions that were amended into the bill as it went through the Assembly to limit the places and times where that can be applied. There are similar CEQA exemptions that exist, for example, on infill exemptions in construction projects involving housing.

This would not exempt the construction of the project itself from CEQA review. That would occur at the CPUC where the entire linear project or electric infrastructure siting would be reviewed for environmental impacts. That concludes my testimony I'm happy to answer any additional questions and appreciate your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in support of this measure? State your name and your organization, please.

Mr. Chairman and Members, John White with the Clean Power Campaign. We think this is an urgent priority, this bill to accelerate the timeline and eliminate duplicative review. We think it's a modest proposal, but we also think it's necessary because of the scale of the build out of transmission that we absolutely have to have. So we would ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Valerie Turella-Vlahos, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, in support.

Thank you.

Hi, Ellen Brittingham, on behalf of San Diego Community Power, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Andrew Kosydar, with Southern California Edison, in support. Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Edson Perez with Advanced Energy United, in support.

Thank you.

Leah Barrows, on behalf of Independent Energy Producers, in support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support here in room 1200? Seeing none, let's look at move to witnesses in opposition. Are there witnesses in opposition? State your name and your organization, please.

Good afternoon. There are two witnesses in opposition. So do we each get two minutes? Okay, great. Good afternoon. My name is Kim Delfino, and I'm here representing Defenders of Wildlife and the California Native Plant Society. Let me start out by saying that my clients support efficiencies to bring on transmission quickly.

We know how imperative it is for our state and planet to transition to clean energy as quickly as possible. However, efficiencies should not equal weakening core environmental protections. While AB 3238 has been amended along the way, and we appreciate the authors taking those amendments.

And there are parts of the bill that embody smart policy, such as using the draft CEQA document instead of a proponents environmental assessment. There are still provisions in this bill that we can core environmental protections.

In fact, and based on my 15 years of working on transmission and energy projects, I believe that some of these proposed changes run the risk of making projects more controversial, more costly, and more time consuming because they promote a head in the sand approach to project development.

Specifically, AB 3238 will exempt the expansion of any existing right of ways, utilities, gas, broadband, on all state lands, state parks, state wildlife areas, state lands, commissioned lands. The Committee analysis made note of this and proposed perhaps narrowing it, but I would say even existing transmission lines in state parks alone.

That's a 275 miles of transmission alone just in state parks for existing transmission. AB 3238 would change the PUC's CEQA process to deliberately constrain the review by trustee agencies from analyzing the full extent of project's impacts on natural resources.

It also puts in place a rebuttable presumption that the PUC can use a statement of overriding considerations, which means that when the developer starts their CEQA process, they already have this presumption that they can override significant impacts. They don't even have to put in substantial evidence otherwise. For these reasons, we urge that this bill is amended to address these concerns and thank you, and right now urge a no vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Bri Fordem. I'm the executive director of Anza-Borrego Foundation, the official partner to Anza-Borrego Desert State park. I'd like to first acknowledge the Assemblymember for his awareness of the delicate balance between our needs and the environment.

I really appreciate that and I do hope that we can come to a meeting place on this. I'd like to ask how many of you attended 6th grade camp, enjoyed camping with your parents, or today take your own families to visit the incredible protected natural landscapes of California?

Now, how many of you recall these life changing memories being under the eerie hum of a transmission tower, the height of a 20 story building? If AB 3238 passes, as is, the unadulterated nature experiences you have had access to will unnecessarily be put at risk of being destroyed.

As the bill is written today, the expansion of existing rights of way are exempt from CEQA. In Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, hundreds of miles of existing rights of ways will become the path of least resistance for hundreds of 200 foot towers, permanently scarring our campgrounds, our hiking trails, our sacred cultural preserves, endangered wildlife habitat, dark night skies, and more. Nothing will be protected. This is not hypothetical.

CAISO has approved a 500 KV line set to cut directly through the largest, most biodiverse designated wilderness park land in the state. Now, without meaningful environmental or cumulative impact review. We set aside wilderness in perpetuity for our unborn generations. Perpetuity is a long time.

It should never be sacrificed because it is the way of the quickest, most direct or least expensive. There is another way. There are technologies that allow for less impact to the environment and in less time, while still meeting the needs as offered in our materials as submitted and supported by AB 3246 and SB 1006.

I thank you for listening and considering the risks that 3238 poses to the decades of environmental protection we have intentionally put in place. We also thank the author staff for hearing our concerns and we hope this bill can be amended further to exclude parks from the CEQA exemption. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition, state your name in your organization.

Hello. Jacob Evans, on behalf of Sierra Club, California National Resources Defense Council Planning and Conservation League, Surf Writer and Center for Biological Diversity and in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Alex Loomer, on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, in a respectful, opposed unless amended position. Unless the Bill is amended to be consistent with the solely consistent with the terms of the multiparty settlement agreement, CPUC. Thank you.

Mister Chair and members Kalief Fossegai, on behalf of the Borrego Springs Chamber of Commerce, Borrego Springs Community Resource Center, Borrego Springs Mall, Borrego Springs Youth and Senior Center, Borrego Village Association, and nine other businesses and 37 individuals from the Brego Springs community. Opposition unless amended.

Thank you. Any other opposition here in the room? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns by Committee Members?

Senator Stern, thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. My question is not about Borrego Springs, although I know we heard from Borrego Springs because the Bill sunsets in, I think, 2030, I think, the way it's designed. I wanted to get a sense of what things could look like in Southern California Edison territory.

I know we heard a lot from SDG&E, and I'm sort of taking from some of the opposition that there's sensitivity or conflict around that, I guess, Borrego park area.

But is there, do we have a sense yet, either from what ISO's approved or from what Edison's proposed, how this could work on state lands in their territory? That's not something you can answer. Maybe I'm going to ask ourselves to come up and answer specific question.

So, as you noted, I am from SDG&E. I think we would. So we're not immediately familiar with projects that are currently planned in Southern California Edison's territory.

I think one thing that's important to know is the prospective nature of the exemption for future projects and that the Caiso transmission planning process will approve new projects every year.

So it's very difficult to predict that as far as existing projects, since it's not currently applicable, and I'm not familiar with those projects, I don't think I can give you a specific answer there, but perhaps we can work with our colleagues at Southern California Edison and provide additional.

They're here, though.

Yeah. I'm sorry.

Yeah. Maybe you want to hear from them. No offense. No, yeah, no problem. I don't know, Andrew, I don't want to put you on the spot here, but I'm going to put you on the spot. Just wondering what's planned because this would apply to prospective projects, including those that ISO's already approved. Right. Yeah.

I appreciate the question, Senator.

I'm going to have to get back to you with that information. I don't have it at this time. Thank you.

Sorry. That's all right. Yeah, but we'll work on it and get it to you. Okay. All right. I've actually, I've already put in the question and I hope. Great. Thank you so much. No, thank you.

Okay.

All right. Senator Becker, thank you. Thank you for your work on this. Would just love to hear your, do you have any thoughts on sort of the kind of opposition testimony and corresponding the need for this Bill?

Well, it's been said that maybe we should focus just on the settlement agreement. Right. And nothing more. The settlement agreement put out a draft two weeks ago and what was agreed to put forward in the settlement agreement by a handful of folks.

And the draft that rolled out, my understanding, is not reflective of the agreement that was put forward at the CPUC. And so even if we went in that direction, it doesn't do what folks expected the CPUC to act on. And so someone used the word the status quo earlier.

The status quo will not allow us to move expeditiously to meet our 2045 goals and objectives. And if we remain on that same path, then we should just start talking about the fact that we are not going to meet those goals and begin adjusting our policies and our efforts in that particular manner. Right.

It's kind of a false narrative to talk about, you know, California's ambitious goals in our energy space and our climate goals and all of this great thing work that we're doing in communities of color and the transition. And, you know. Right.

It's not happening unless we are far more aggressive with building out this infrastructure to be able to procure the renewable energy that we're talking about.

The options that we have to this particular conversation is we can move forward and create these types of exemptions with existing right of way that we've already vetted through and there still has to be some kind of environmental review there.

Or we can talk about knew right away and that creates a whole other conversation that that's not the question at hand. I mentioned to you in my comments, we have gone through four policy committees.

And if you look at where we started with the Bill, where we're at today, I've described some of the arguments that are being made today as ideological and we're not going to be able to craft policy and amend it into a Bill to address ideological and philosophical issues.

We're at a crossroad where you, me, us, including stakeholders, have to make a decision. Are we real about wanting to achieve these goals and objectives? And so we have a potential path here.

And I'm not trying to, you know, create a situation, as it was described by our friends at Borrego, to ruin, you know, the memories of childhood visitations to these state parks. We're trying to improve the quality of life for future generations as it relates to this existential threat that we refer to as climate change.

That's really the question at hand. And if there is a different and a better way of going about it, I'm happy to hear how we go about doing that.

And we've had four stakeholder meetings and happy to have four more if you've got some policy recommendations, if there are additional rail guards, safety guards to put in the Bill as it relates to this existing right of way CEQA conversation that we're having, I want to hear about it.

There'll be hopefully another opportunity, another Committee to have this discussion. I hope we will be accepting the Committee amendments that also add some more, you know, opportunities to create some certainty to protect the environment, but also keep us on the path of acceleration. We use the word acceleration when it comes to procuring our energy.

We need to accelerate the build out of our infrastructure as well to meet those objectives. So, Senator Becker, we're doing everything that we can to take a balanced approach.

Hope that the reputation of the work here and my tenure in the Legislature speaks to our desire to push good public policy in the environmental space, but also at the same time be pragmatic when it comes to getting from point a to point b and making sure that it's done in a way in which we are keeping in mind the communities that are most impacted from this issue of climate.

Well, I'd say that that reputation does mean a lot to me. And I know you've worked hard, and myself, Senator Padilla, others have been working on this, finding the right balance around the streamlining and permitting so we get things built while protect the environment.

So I know you've been working hard to find that balance, and I will be supporting this Bill today and support you as you go ahead and again, keep working on finding that balance. Thank you. Any other questions or concerns by Members?

No, I just want to thank the author directly because I went through this experience firsthand over 15 years ago working for Southern California Edison and trying to build the Tri Tip, the diatropy power lines, and a project that our environmental friends advocated for. But when it came down, the building, the transmission lines, they were absolutely opposed.

Regardless of where they did, where we planned on putting them, they were saying no. The same thing happened with San Diego Gas and electric on the Sunrise power line. Both of those projects were delayed almost five years and added billions of dollars to the cost.

At the same time, we set all these arbitrary goals of when we're going to have this renewable power, but we're failing to build the infrastructure that's necessary to deliver the power to where it's needed. So this protects the environment. I'm very clear about what the intentions are. It has all those checkpoints.

All this does is streamlines the process. And we use these same processes to build football stadiums and arenas in California every day we truncate CEQA processes, and this is all that this Bill does. It has all the safeguards that we concerned about with the environment, and I think it's a common sense measure.

And I thank you for your leadership here in this area. Thank you.

Would you like to close? Just to say that we continue the lines of communication with both the proponents and opponents of the Bill. And I sincerely mean that we want to get this right, and I hope that we're able to get an I vote here and get this Bill to the next Committee and continue these discussions respectfully.

Ask for your support.

Thank you. It's been moved by Senator Newman. We have a do pass that's amended to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. The state amendments clarify that the eligibility is for projects that are within the utilities right of way. This is no new area in the current right of ways.

And make clear that the proposal does not apply to projects related to the construction and operation of offshore wind energy projects and transmission facilities needed for those projects located in the coastal zone and subject to the requirements of SB 286 by pro Tem Mcguire last year, where the State Lands Commission is the lead and lead agency on those projects.

So it's no conflict there. So we have a motion by Senator Newman. Secretary, please call the row. Amended as stated. Amended to the Senate Committee on Environmental quality.

Due pass two B. Amended in environmental quality. [Roll Call]

That measure has 11 votes. It's out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members to add on. Now your final item, AB 3246.

Thank you. On transmission, theme of the day. This actually without having to build transmission, which is very costly, timely. This utilizes technologies to be able to enhance the ability to maximize existing lines. This is technology that is used in other parts of the country, increasing reliability, safety and efficiency, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is Mister John White your?

Members, John White with Clean Power Campaign. Advanced reconducting allows us to get more power flowing through the existing right of way.

And this is a Bill that puts a definition of advanced reconductor into state law based on success in other states such as Montana, as well as provide a regulatory incentive through a tier three advice letter for the PUC to expedite the approval of these projects, which will cost more upfront, but save money over the life and the operation.

We ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in support?

Thank you, Mister Chairman. My name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California in strong support of this bill. It will save rates, it will save the ratepayer money and increase reliability to the grid, and allow us to bring more renewables on faster. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Ellen Brittingham, I'm here in support on behalf of San Diego Community Power. Our letter came in after the deadline, but wanted to voice our support. Thank you.

Chair and Members Edson Perez with Advanced Energy United in strong support.

Thank you. Next witness.

Leah Barrows, on behalf of Independent Energy Producers in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Aaron Coons with California Advisors on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association, in support.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Alicia Priego, on behalf of San Jose Clean Energy in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good evening. Rebecca Marcus, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Thank you.

Hello, good evening. Valerie Turella-Lajos, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. We do not have a position on the bill, but wanted to respectfully just go on record that we've been having active conversations with the author about an issue on page seven of the analysis that was raised there.

As we just discussed in the previous bill, there's an active proceeding going on on these topics and we are hoping that we can come to an agreement to have more date alignment on the conclusion of the CPUC's work. And the conversations we've had with the author have been productive and we hope to resolve that issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more witnesses in support or opposition here in Room 1200. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns as it relates to this? We have a motion by Senator Eggman. We have a do pass to Senate Committee on Appropriations. Assemblyman, would you like to close?

I'm done. Thank you. Respectfully ask your aye vote.

He's done. Secretary, call the roll.

[Roll call] 10-0.

That measure has ten votes. It's out. Congratulations. We'll leave the roll open for absent members to add on. Now, Members, we're gonna go back to the top of the agenda, and we're gonna start out with File Item--AB--File Item One: AB 691. We seeking a motion on that measure?

No. We, um--

Whoa. She's not here yet.

No.

Do we have a motion on File Item One?

It's already been done.

Oh, it's already been done? All right, all right, all right. I was gone. You said you didn't--we'll open the roll for absent members at this time to add on to File Item One. Please call the absent members.

If you leave, we'd be done.

Hold on one sec. Okay. AB 691. [Roll Call]. Ten/three.

Ten/three. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Now moving on to File Item Four. Open the roll for absent members.

AB 2292: Petrie-Norris. Current vote: seven/zero. [Roll Call]. Ten to zero.

That measure has ten votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Now we'll move to File Item Five: AB 2815.

Okay. Do pass as amended to Appropriations. Current vote: ten/zero. [Roll Call]. 13/zero.

Okay. Measure has 13 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Now moving on to File Item Six: AB 1826.

Do pass as amended to Appropriations. Current vote: seven/two. [Roll Call]. Nine/three.

Nine/three and AB 1834: File Item Seven by Garcia.

1834 by Assembly Member Garcia: do pass as amended to Appropriations. Current vote: 11/zero. [Roll Call]. 13/zero.

13/zero. Now moving on to File Item Eight: AB 3238.

Do pass to be amended in Environmental Quality. Current vote: 11/zero. [Roll Call]. 12/zero.

12/zero. Now File Item Nine: AB 3246.

Do pass to Appropriations. Current vote: ten/zero. [Roll Call].

Eleven zero. All right, we'll leave the roll open now. We're going to move out. File item 11, AB 2537 by Assemblymember Addis. Thank you for your patience. You may begin when ready.

Well, thank you and good afternoon, Chair, staff, and supporters that are here today. I'm here to present AB 2537, the Community Engagement in Offshore Wind Energy Act. And I want to thank the numerous people who have been working on this bill for months in an effort to get it right.

I do accept the Committee amendments and believe they will be taken in Senate Natural Resources and Water. So, as you know, California has established clean energy goals, and our progress towards these goals benefits not only human communities, but fragile ecosystems and vital biodiversity on the land, in the air, and in the ocean.

Among these goals is the requirement to transition to 100% renewable and zero carbon energy resources by 2045, with 25 gigawatts, or enough power for about 25 million homes, coming from offshore wind energy. Planning for offshore wind energy is well underway in California starting as far back as 2016.

In 2022, the federal government awarded five leases in federal waters off the coast of our state, two along Northern California and three along the central coast. In June 2023, the offshore wind energy leases were executed, and in January 2024, the CEC released California's offshore wind strategic plan.

Leaseholders are currently moving into the surveying, planning, and permitting stages of development. So as offshore wind energy moves forward in waters along the north and central coasts and my district specifically extensive input from an interaction with local tribes and communities is needed.

Historically, we know that communities that have hosted large infrastructure projects have been burdened with harmful impacts. And so today we look to do better. For offshore wind energy projects placed along California's pristine and fragile coastline, we all agree that uplifting tribal and community voices is critical both during the planning and community benefits agreements processes.

So with that said, I've heard loud and clear from local communities such as small tribes and cities that there is a gap in resources preventing them from adequately participating in offshore wind energy planning and community benefit conversations.

And I'll just say this, I think we've all experienced these situations that true engagement often necessitates possessing in-depth knowledge, information, and technical expertise, especially when you're dealing with new and complex subjects and projects, such as in the case of offshore wind energy development.

So AB 2537, the Community Engagement and Offshore Wind Energy Act, creates a solution by establishing an offshore wind energy community capacity funding grant account that will provide grants to local tribes and communities.

These grants will enhance the ability to actively participate in the planning as well as community benefits processes so that local tribes and communities are more secure in their ability to have their voices heard and come to fair agreements. I want to thank our sponsors, this Committee, and our stakeholder partners for their engagement. And joining me to testify in support is Alexis Sutterman from Brightline Defense Project.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Good evening, Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Alexis Sutterman with Brightline Defense. We are an environmental justice organization that has been deeply engaged in the offshore wind development process, and we see it as an important tool to support a cleaner, healthier, and more reliable grid and also importantly, to lift the pollution burden off of low income and frontline communities.

In our work, we have heard directly from community and tribal leaders living near proposed offshore wind projects that they are curious, excited, and interested in engaging in and shaping development, but also that they lack the resources and the technical expertise to engage. This is a huge problem.

The Energy Commission's 525 offshore wind strategic plan highlights that community engagement is critical for offshore wind development. Absent resources for meaningful engagement, California runs the risk of encountering issues, delays, or otherwise irresponsible development.

To address this, AB 2537 would unlock much needed resources for local communities and tribes to meaningfully engage in the offshore wind project planning and development process. For example, a community member could use these resources to attend a workshop or a meeting, respond to a technical comment opportunity, and participate in key decision making processes.

This funding would come from a financial contribution from California offshore wind leaseholders for three years after the leases are signed. Important to note, leaseholders are supportive of this required contribution, reflecting how important it is to have a community led and community resource process for the success of offshore wind. In sum up, AEB 2537 would put California a major step ahead on equitable and just clean energy development. Therefore, Brightline is a proud sponsor and we urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses and support, please state your name and your organization, please.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Carmen Guzman, on behalf of Environment California.

Jacob Evans, with Sierra Club California, in support. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in support.

Jordan Curley, on behalf of American Clean Power California, in support.

Environment California and NRDC, in support.

Mandy Isaacs-Lee, here for a Cal Chamber, in support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Now let's move to opposition. Witnesses in opposition to this measure? All right, seeing none, now we're going to bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns by Committee Members? Senator Dahle, you have a question?

If I may, I'm just a little bit confused. So the leaseholders, we're going to tax the leaseholders and that money is going to go to engage the community that's going to be impacted by offshore wind. That's what this bill basically does?

Well, it sets up a required fund so that communities can better engage in the conversation and the planning processes around projects that will directly affect their communities, so that they can better be partners in going through this conversation. So it would set up a required fund for that.

And typically the funds would come for when they do a CEQA or NEPA project. Those applicants would pay, they would be required to mitigate if there was impacts. But because we passed legislation that says we're just going to go do wind generation on the ocean, there is no applicant, basically these leaseholders. So this is required tax on those leaseholders to actually help engage the community on the impacts.

Not necessarily on the impacts, but on the planning process so that they have more capacity to engage in that conversation. So it's not an exchange, not a community benefits, not a mitigation. It's to help build capacity so that smaller tribes and local communities feel like they can engage in the conversation.

This is just a process I've not seen before. Typically you have an applicant, does a CEQA, required law through CEQA, whatever those impacts are, are mitigated or not mitigated? One of the two.

So anyway, okay, I'm just trying to figure out exactly how it's going to work so that, and there, and then this will eventually get passed on to the ratepayers. At some point, somebody that has to pay for the bill, which will be the ratepayers, I'm assuming. At the end of the day.

Think it's too early to say that piece of it. I mean, we're really in the very, very beginning stages where local communities have these, really, for lack of a better word, ginormous projects. They're new projects.

They want to be able to engage in the conversation, engage in the planning, be thinking about what they might want to ask for in a community benefits conversation, but feel like, and in reality, don't always have the capacity to know how to do that or have the expertise to know how to do that. And so the required fund for the time limited required fund would help them have the resources to do that.

So I'll get to see this bill again, and it's called in Natural Resources, I believe. Right. So I'll do a little more work on it. I just want to, you know, this has been my criticism of the wind, is that this is huge impacts. You're right, very huge impacts for some very narrow communities.

San Diego Port and Humboldt Port, for sure, and then the communities along the coast. And I brought that out when we did the legislation. I think it was McGuire's 286 bill that said, we're just going to go do this and we're going to figure it out, which is not typically how we do things for the environment.

And it's really interesting to see the environmental folks just come and say, yeah, let's do this. Well, there's a reason because we don't have, the process is backwards, and so we have to have the money to find out what's going on. So I'm a little confused.

I'll read a little bit more on your bill, get to see it. I'm going to lay off it today, and hopefully understand how we're going to do this huge, huge, 25 gigawatts. That's 25,000 megawatts coming off the ocean, which is huge to two ports, mainly in California.

So I'm glad to see that there's somebody concerned about how it's going to work with all the impacts at those two sites and then for the rest of California transmission issues, which we've been dealing with today. So thank you.

And if I may just clarify, this is really for the offshore wind call areas. So this bill doesn't really address the port side of things.

They need to be addressed, though.

Thank you. Any additional questions or concerns by Members? I think we had a motion by Senator Newman. Would you like to close?

Just I would say that AB 2537 does recognize that California is on a path to clean energy goals. And we also recognize that along this path, we do need to uplift voices of local communities, voices of tribes, and make sure that they have the capacity to engage in these conversations in a meaningful way. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. We have do pass to be amended in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water. And I'll just clarify those four amendments. Clarify that the CEC must develop the guidelines via a public process with public workshops, clarify the language related to tribal participation, clarify the funding collected as proposed by this bill is subject to the donation reporting requirements, and add a date by when the CDC must annually report to the Legislature. And you agree to all?

Correct.

All right. We have a motion. Please call the roll on AB 2537.

[Roll Call]

That vote has 11 votes in favor, one opposed. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Now, Members will go back to the top of the agenda again for APPCN Member stat on at this point. And hopefully those other Members will make their way to the Committee because we'll be gaveling out shortly.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that you wanted me to start. AB 691 Ting. Do pass two. Appropriations current vote 10 - 3. [Second Roll]. 11- 4.

Give the roll open for a few more minutes and file item four.

AB 2292 by Petrie Norris. Due pass to appropriations, current vote, 10 - 0. [Second Roll]. Skinner, 11 - 0.

Current votes, 11 - 0. Now moving on to file item five.

AB 20815. Petri Norris. Do passes them into appropriations current vote. 13 - 0. [Second Roll]15 - 0 we'll leave the roll open. Perhaps the Members. Moving on to file item six. AB 1826.

Current vote 9 - 3, do pass as amended to appropriations chair. [Second Roll]

Current vote. 10 - 4. Moving on to filing seven AB 1834.

Do pass to appropriations, current vote, 13 - 0. [Second Roll]

I'm sorry.

Seyarto, aye. Skinner. 15 - 0.

Current vote's 15 - 0. And now move on file item eight. AB 3238.

Due pass to be amended in environmental quality. Current vote, 12 - 0 [Second Roll]I 13 - 0.

Current vote's 13 - 0. Moving on to file item nine. 3246.

Current vote 11 - 0 [Second Roll]

Current vote's 13 - 0. That's our Europe on Addis. So, we're just waiting for Skinner, Gonzalez. Who are both on their way. Senator Skinner is on the way.

Gonzalez also, just.

Where do I have that one?. Now walking out of my staff.

Yes. Guess what.

Do you have in the right.

May I begin, madam Skinner?

No problem.

All right, we're going to open the roll for our absent Members. We're going to start with file item one, AB 691. Please call absent members.

Do you pass to appropriations current vote? [Second Roll]13 to 4.

That measure is closed. It is out. File item four, AB 2292.

Do pass to appropriations current vote, [Second Roll].

13 - 0 that measures out and we close it. Close that item now. File item five, AB 20815 due.

Passes amended to appropriations current vote, 15 - 0. [Second Roll]

17 - 0, that measures out. Next up is file item 93246. Did I, did I, did I miss.

One file item six.

I'm at file. I'm sorry, file m six. AB 1826.

Due passes amended to appropriations current vote, 10 - 4. [Second Roll]. 12 - 4.

That measures out. Next item. File item seven, AB 1834.

Due pass to appropriations current votes, 15 - 0. [Second Roll]17 - 0.

17 - 0, that measures out now follow item eight, AB 3238.

Due pass two b amended in environmental quality current vote, 13 - 0. Gonzalez not voting. Okay. Skinner not voting Skinner not voting 13 - 0.

That measures out. File item nine, AB 3246.

Due pass to appropriations current vote, 13 - 0 [Second Roll].15 - 0.

That measures out our last item. File item 11 by Addis AB 25.

37 do pass to be amended in natural resources and Water Committee current vote 11 - 1 Gonzalez aye. Skinner.

Skinner, aye 13 - 1 that measure out. The measure's out. Member, thank you for everyone for participating in today's hearing. The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and communications is now adjourned. Thank you, staff. Thank you.