Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

Well, I'm going to thank everyone for their patience. We have finally gotten the author here, so we're going to start as a Subcommitee in the next 30 seconds. Just a little housekeeping information. This is our fourth hearing for Assembly bills. There are 16 bills on the agenda. Two have been pulled by authors, author polls.

File item two, AB 1176 by Assemblymembers Zbur and file item 15, AB 3247 by Assemblymember Erwin I see we have Assemblymember Pacheco here and she's ready. So we'll start as a Subcommitee and you're doing file item 71912. Okay, when you're ready, you may begin.

Good morning Mister Chair and Members of the Committee. I am here to present Assembly Bill 1912 and I will be accepting the Committee amendments. Californians are struggling with the skyrocketing costs of goods and services, with low income customers disproportionately burdened.

For example, in San Diego Gas & Electric services territory, about 23% of average rates are attributed to legislative mandated costs. 5% of that is associated with public purpose programs such as net energy metering, which creates an added cost to people who don't have solar in their homes.

When the Legislature considers proposing new programs and requirements, we should look at how existing programs may be leveraged rather than duplicated, and consider the cost of new programs to reduce the rate impacts. AB 1912 with the Committee amendments directs the Public Advocates office to prepare a written analysis that includes relevant data on the efficacy, cost impact, and overall effect of each proposed legislative mandate prior to a vote in legislative policy committees.

This measure is modeled after the existing process of the Assembly Health Committee's review of new Bills that affect health care affordability. Known as ... AB 1912 will provide legislators with third party detailed technical and academic data about proposed legislation that will result in rate or Bill increases on electrical or natural gas bills.

Legislators will be able to use this additional information to shape energy policy that both accelerates the state toward meeting the climate goals and keeps electric rates affordable. This Bill requires IOUs to pay for this report and specifically states that large electrical corporations shall not recover the cost from its ratepayers. With me today in support is Lourdes Ayon, the Manager of State Government Relations for San Diego Gas & Electric.

Thank you. Good morning Chair and Members. Lourdes Ayon with San Diego Gas & Electric. Good morning everyone. Want to say that proudly coming out here to support this Bill, AB 1912, I think is going to provide appropriate information and background for legislators to know beyond what the cost is going to be of a particular rate or a particular measure that is passed within the Legislature, and you'll know what the cost will be beyond what it's going to cost the state, but you will also know what it's going to cost ratepayers at the end of the day. I think it's going to be an important tool so that the Legislature can make more informed decisions. Thank you. No, no jokes today. Thank you, sir.

Any more witnesses in support, please come forward at this point. Hearing and seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? There are none. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns? Senator Eggman?

Thank you. And good morning, Assemblymember. So who, who initiates the review? Would it be the, who would do that?

So I'll hand it over to my witness.

Yeah. Thank you. So the review would start when it's upon the Chair. So the Chair would review the Bills that come in, and then they would go out to the appropriate third party entity. In this case, it sounds like it's Public Advocates. And so it's very similar to the process that exists now within Health Committee. When the Bill comes in, there's a timeline associated with each measure. And that office, when they present the Bill, is given enough time to provide that Bill over to the third party review entity.

Like the ... review?

Very similar to that, yes.

Okay. And the funding will come from.

The IOUs, not the ratepayers.

Okay. Thank you.

Dahle.

So question number one is, why is it only the IOUs and not like CCAs and those other entities that provide electricity for customers?

That's a great question. For now. I think it's hard enough to get this Bill going and to have the IOUs be able to pay for it. I think there's a, something to improve upon or maybe add on in the future. I think it's good to see how this one goes. And the idea of adding additional entities that provide energy is a good one.

Okay. And then my second question is, I'm going to support the Bill today because I think that we do need some oversight. But this is a frustration that I've had the whole time been on this Committee. We have TURN, which is supposed to look out for the ratepayers, at least what I thought they were supposed to do. But unfortunately, so many times they come in and they support.

You know, policies that are, that drive up rates, green energy, these different kinds of policies, but they don't look out for the ratepayer. They don't assess that for the ratepayer. So this is separate from TURN. This is, which I, which is unfortunate that we don't have - they should be analyzing these pieces of legislation say, hey, this is what it's going to cost to the ratepayer.

I agree. And even the Public Advocates office, I think that there's, we do indeed, there's entities in place that are supposed to watch out for our ratepayers. We have PUC, we have PAO, we have TURN. And based on the last audit report that was done, there were some shortcomings from PUC, from PAO. I don't recall at this moment whether or not there was any shortcomings from TURN, but I agree with you. But because they're not in place, we have to make sure that we can create something in the meantime until we can have everyone working cohesively.

All right, well, I'll be supporting the Bill. It's been a frustration to mine all along that we don't have an analysis on legislation and how the impacts are to the actual ratepayer. It's unfortunate because the ratepayers are actually paying for them to do their job. And I mean, we pay through our rates for TURN to do that for us. That's the, the whole system is set up that way. But we don't get that information. We get, and I've pointed it out many times.

So I'll be supporting your Bill because it's not ratepayer money, number one. And hopefully we'll get some answers. So that, and I think legislation would be different, voted on different here if we knew the direct impact to the ratepayers on some of these pieces of legislation that come through. So I look forward to seeing the outcome of this Bill and hopefully we can get the rate the folks that should be doing that, that the ratepayers are already paying for to do that. So thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from Committee Members? Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And you have accepted Committee amendments. You've stated that? Yes, and I'll just read what those are. Assign a Public Advocates office to conduct the requested assessment. At large natural gas corporations and impacts to natural gas utility bills. Require the collection from shareholders to fund the assessment is collected evenly among the utilities so that each contributes the same amount.

And that last amendment is a tweak to the amendment and the analysis whereby instead of requiring an appropriations by the Legislature, the Bill will divide the cost evenly among the large electrical and gas corporations. So that's the purpose. We're still lacking a quorum. So at the appropriate time, we'll get a motion and move this measure forward.

Thank you. Next up is Assemblymember Petrie-Norris. You're doing file item four.

AB 2368.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Yes, I've got a couple. And then I'm also presenting on behalf of Assemblymember Bennett. Good morning, Mister Chair. Good morning, Members. Pleased to join you today to present AB 2368 a measure to improve California's electric system reliability.

Want to begin by accepting the committee amendments and really thanking Committee staff and you, Mister Chair, for your thoughtfulness on this measure. As we all remember, in 2020, the lights went out in California.

In 2022, the state experienced another near miss, with agency staff literally dialing for gigawatts and the Governor texting a statewide plea to California residents for conservation.

And in 2022, two weeks before the end of the legislative session, we were warned of another potential midterm reliability emergency and found ourselves scrambling to reauthorize the extension of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant beyond 2025.

At each of these moments, I think many of us found ourselves scratching our head, wondering, is this really the energy policy of the world's fifth largest economy? I would respectfully suggest that it should not be.

And I will start with the good news, which is that significant progress has been made since the lights went out in 2020, with better coordination and interagency planning processes now in place. But the bad news and the opportunity that this bill is looking to address is that there remains a gap in midterm planning.

So right now we plan for the long term. The IRP has a 10 year horizon, and we also plan for the immediate term. The current RA program looks one year out, but midterm planning two to five year outlook is not adequate and not sufficiently robust.

So AB 2368 will take a systematic and comprehensive approach to address that. The bill directs the PUC to regularly conduct a midterm assessment looking at the two to five year horizon. It adopts the transparent and industry standard for resource adequacy, a one in 10 loss of load expectation.

And further, the bill requires the use of consistent standards across all RA and IRP programs. And I do want to emphasize that the goal of this bill is cost savings. Recognize that the RA market is expensive right now, and that any impact to that market certainly raises questions about potential impacts to prices.

The bottom line is that the status quo is very expensive. Emergency procurement is very expensive. Keeping just in case resources online in the case of emergency is very expensive. And as we've all seen, true grid emergencies are very, very expensive. One event can cost the state $2 billion.

So we want to take a strategic approach to get the RA market back in check and bring down prices. We think that that that strategic approach is reflected with AB 2368. So with that, pleased to introduce Katelyn Roedner from EDF and Heidi Ratz, who is joining us from the Clean Energy Buyers Association.

Okay, you each have two minutes for your testimony. Thank you and welcome.

Good morning, Chairman and Committee Members. My name is Heidi Ratz and I'm Deputy Director of Market and Policy Innovation for the Clean Energy Buyers Association, or CEBA. CEBA is proud to sponsor AB 2368. AB 2368 will help reduce rates.

CEBA is a business association of more than 400 energy customers and partners that are pursuing market and policy solutions for a reliable carbon-free energy system. Many CEBA members are among the state's largest energy customers and contribute significantly to California's economy.

As such, our members have observed that California needs better planning for grid reliability and resource adequacy, or RA.

As our grid faces unprecedented challenges, including intense weather events made more frequent by the climate crisis, sound RA planning is necessary to ensure there are sufficient resources that will meet present and future needs in all conditions except for the most extreme. Anything less presents a threat to California's economy, public safety, and public health.

Also, as resource planning and rates are inextricably linked, we believe improved and more systematic RA planning will result in downward pressure on rates by reducing the scarcity conditions in our energy market. California's current resource planning, administered by the California Public Utilities Commission, lacks transparency, connection to industry standard reliability metrics, a midterm view, and consistency.

The inability to meet electricity demand within a sufficient margin of error has led to costly emergency procurement of new resources that could be avoided with more thoughtful programs and systems. So in recent months, we've worked closely with investor-owned utilities, organizations that represent public power and others to refine legislative language and garner broad support.

So, just to reiterate some of those things AB 2368 will do. It will align planning standards used across California's planning programs and agencies. It will provide CAISO greater visibility into procurement.

It will connect the resource adequacy program, CAISO's existing reliability obligations, and finally, it will establish that midterm check in to bridge the one year resource adequacy planning and the longer term integrated resource planning. This visibility into the pipeline of new resources will help foresee shortfalls before they occur. For these reasons, CEBA enthusiastically supports AB 2368.

Thank you. Next witness. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, I'm Katelyn Roedner Sutter with Environmental Defense Fund. We're pleased to join the Clean Energy Buyers Association in support of AB 2368. EDF is very concerned with the increasing risk to California's grid due to climate change, including more extreme heat, more catastrophic wildfires.

At the same time, we have to, of course, increase the load on the grid as we electrify more and more parts of our economy like buildings and transportation. But California, as Assemblywoman Petrie Norris just reminded us, experienced blackouts back in 2020 and has had numerous close calls since then that has resulted in really expensive emergency procurement.

But proper planning can ensure that we have greater reliability, lower costs, and less pollution. There's a clear need to reform the framework that governs the planning and procurement of electric generation in California, and this bill will help do that by providing updated guidance to the California Public Utilities Commission.

Specifically, this bill would modernize the resource adequacy program to meet the evolving needs of our grid and foster greater alignment between California's short term resource adequacy requirements and our long term greenhouse gas targets in the integrated resource plan.

This is necessary because the current lack of a midterm reliability assessment contributed to the creation of the strategic reliability reserve in the first place. This reserve in turn relies on natural gas power plants as well as necessitating the extension of Diablo Canyon, both of which are very, very expensive.

If existing reliability programs were working, we wouldn't need the taxpayer-funded reliability reserve. California can do better than the expensive and polluting stopgap measures like running diesel generators or turning on old peaker natural gas power plants. AB 2368 is an important step forward in ensuring grid reliability that is cleaner and less expensive.

So we appreciate Assemblymember Petrie-Norris' leadership on this and we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

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

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

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Marc Joseph, on behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Employees and the State Association of Electrical Workers, in support.

Good morning. Robin Hines with Microsoft, in support.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Ellen Brittingham. I'm here on behalf of San Diego Community Power. We're the second largest CCA in the state. We don't have a position that we've provided feedback to the author and the sponsor.

Just wanted to thank the Committee consultant for raising, excuse me, the issue of midterm sufficiency under the CPUC's resource adequacy program, and we look forward to reviewing the amendments and working with the author. Thanks.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Mister Chairman. My name is Dan Jacobson. Also listing support from the prime data centers, from GM Equinox, and from Salesforce.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Seeing none. Opposition. Are there witnesses in opposition? Come forward. State your name. Are you primary witnesses in opposition? You'll have two minutes. If not-- Do we have a primary?

Good morning, Chair, Members. Natalie Seitzman with the Southern California Public Power Authority. Not a position, but when this bill was first taking shape, we had concerns on unintended impacts to publicly owned utilities caused by further constraining the RA market, and we worked with the authorization to address those concerns.

However, the Committee amendments appear to perhaps unintentionally, unravel a bit of that. So we need some time to review the Committee amendments more closely. But to the extent that they inadvertently put additional strain on the already constrained RA market, we will have concerns.

So we look forward to continue to work with the author and the Committee to avoid those unintended consequences. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Mister Chairman, Members, Theo Pahos, representing the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets. This is the definition of wonky energy policy and I'm told I am now neutral with the amendments suggested in the Committee analysis. I like to thank both the author, the author staff and Committee staff for threading this needle. A very positive outcome.

Of course, we have to reserve the right after we see the actual language, but this looks very much like what we were looking for. Thank you.

Good morning. Leah Barros, on behalf of NRG and I just want to echo the comments of my colleague before me. Big thanks to Committee staff and author's office for working with us and we look forward to potentially removing opposition and going neutral after we look at the amendments.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. Valerie Turella, Lajos Pacific Gas and Electric Company. We had a concerns position, but associate with previous comments. Thank the author and her staff and the Committee and the coalition with the sponsors for having so many robust discussions with us and we think this moving in the right direction is probably addressing all of our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, any more tweeners or any? Seeing none. All right, we're going to bring it back to Committee. Any questions or concerns by Committee? No, I just want to thank the author for working with us and getting to a place that I think we have something we can all live with.

And you have accepted the Committee amendments. I appreciate that and I'll just state what those amendments are: replace reference to midterm assessment within the resource adequacy program in place in the integrated resources plan, make clarifying amendments to the role of Cal ISO so as to retain the CPUC, therefore, state authority over resource adequacy and finally, make clarifying changes to the findings and declarations and other provisions of the bill, including requiring the CPUC to determine whether mitigation measures are necessary to address ratepayer costs within the resource adequacy program. Thank you. Would you like to close?

Well, thank you again, Mister Chair and Chair Committee staff for your work with us on this bill. Respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you again. We're lacking a quorum, so at that appropriate time we will do that. You have your next measure up as file item number five. AB 2672 you may begin.

Thank you Mister chair. Pleased to join you today to present AB 2672 a Bill to allow project home key sites to receive a discount on their utility bills. As you know, the care discount applies to individual customers and applies to a customer meter.

However, these home key sites are often in converted hotels or motels where the property owner, such as a public housing agency, manages the utility Bill. As such, the care discount does not currently apply, even though this is a population that would otherwise be eligible.

AB 2672 clarifies that in these very specific circumstances, this population can be eligible for the care discount and want to also accept the Committee amendments. And thank you and your team for working with us on this Bill. Pleased to be joined today by the San Diego Housing Commission.

Thank you assemblymember. Good morning Mister chair.

My name is Seamus Garrity from Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf of the San Diego Housing Commission in collaboration with the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego, the San Diego Housing Commission has been awarded more than $105 million in state home key funds since 2020 towards the creation of 608 permanent affordable housing units with supportive services for people experiencing homelessness.

The San Diego Housing Commission's home key properties include master metered properties such as converted hotels and motels. Many of their home key participants are eligible for care discounts on their electric and gas bills if they live independently. AB 2672 will simply allow them to receive those discounts when living in a Commission owned converted hotel as well.

We strongly urge your aye vote for this important measure.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses and support, you can come forward. State your name in your organization.

Good morning, Mister chair Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric. Proud to be here in support. Thank you.

Sean McNeil, California Community Choice Association, in support. Thanks.

Dan Chauffeur, Ava Community Energy, formerly East Bay Community energy and support.

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

Any additional witnesses in support? Hearing C None. What about opposition? Do we have witnesses here in opposition? All right, no opposition. We have questions by our Committee Members.

Vice Chair Dahle, I just want to, you know, when we give a credit or a break on somebody's rate, there's a cost shift to that. Somebody has to pay for that. And so, in this case it will be other ratepayers.

At the same time, we've spent 20 billion in tax revenue in California to help get people off our streets and homeless. And actually we've increased homelessness in the time. So I'm having a real tough time with this Bill to add another chart.

I mean, I know that we have to help out the folks that are on our streets, but at the end of the day, we keep cost shifting and the rates go up for everybody else. At the same time, our taxes are going up and we're paying for, and I don't see a real bang for the buck.

So what's your thoughts on that?

So to the first question around whether or not there is a ratepayer cost, this Bill does not expand the care program. This population is already eligible for care and would already be receiving that discount were it not for the fact that they're living at a master metered project, home key site.

And I think to the broader question, as you noted, I think a lot of us have concerns about the efficacy of the billions and billions of dollars that we have spent to combat the homelessness crisis.

In the State Auditor's report from April, as we all saw, the report found that the state was doing a pretty terrible job of tracking the implementation and efficacy of these programs.

However, one little bright spot in that was actually that out of the five programs that they reviewed, Project Homekey was likely cost effective, which in the context of that audit was a resounding acclamation of success, I would argue. So I think that this is actually a program that has delivered and is delivering results and not any.

This Bill certainly would not raise costs because it's a population that's already eligible for these discounts.

But the owner of the, so let's say converted hotel, there's 1 meter for the whole hotel. So the owner actually is the person that's going to be paying that Bill or getting the rate reduction. It's not the actual individual in that home or in that room, because there's not a meter on every single one of the rooms.

So it looks like to me, so, and then the second thing that gives me kind of, there's no incentive to reduce your energy cost if you, if you're not the person that actually sees the Bill.

And so there's just some things I want to throw out there that I think are interesting about this Bill is 1 meter for converted hotel to project room key, which is the owner, not that. Not the actual person that's in the, each individual room is going to be paying that Bill. Correct.

And you're right that in many cases, the project home key sites right now are the Bill is being paid by the agency running the program. One of the reasons that we've introduced this measure is that it is unclear how much longer that arrangement will continue.

And many of the agencies that are running these programs are transitioning to individual billing. And so as part of that, want to ensure that the individuals that are going to be receiving these bills are then receiving the discounts that they are otherwise entitled to.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions by Committee Members? All right, hearing saying none. Would you like to close?

Thank you for the questions, thank you for the discussion. And would respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Okay. And again, we have a do pass as amendment to the Senate Committee on appropriations, and the amendments are just clarifying the language, including the leading references to master Meter properties. Am I correct? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. At the appropriate time, when we have a quorum, we'll move for a motion on this measure.

And now you're presenting for Assemblymember Bennett, AB 551. Thank you.

All right. And pleased to be still joining you to present Assembly Bill 551. On behalf of my colleague, assemblymember Bennett, and on behalf of the assemblymember, I want to begin by thanking Committee staff for their work and patience on this Bill and will be accepting the Committee amendments.

In the analysis, AB 551 is a Bill done in partnership with the governor's office to facilitate necessary changes to the CPUC's process for reviewing applications for transmission projects. Essentially, all actions by the CPUC are exempt from the yearlong regulatory process established in the Administrative Procedures act, except for any changes to the CPUC rules and procedures.

When the CPUC first adopted their pea guidelines, they made the decision to incorporate them into their rules and procedures. AB 551 explicitly exempts the guidelines from the APA otherwise, the CPUC could take up to a year to update them, further delaying broader revisions to the transmission review process.

We all know that the existing transmission review process needs to be updated. This Bill allows those changes to occur expeditiously without changing the underlying environmental rigor of the review process.

Finally, this Bill clarifies that a decision by an Executive Director regarding applicant permit to construct may be further appealed and gives a time certain for a final decision by the CPUC.

Put simply, AB 551 allows us to start moving quickly on updating our transmission review process so that we can get projects off the ground and meet our energy needs. With me today to testify is the public advocate's office.

You'll have two minutes.

Good morning, chair Bradford and Members of the Committee. I'm Chloe Lukens, program manager at the Public Advocate's office. I oversee the work of staff who participate in the PUC's transmission proceedings and the Kaiser's transmission planning process. The Public Advocates office supports AP 551.

The Bill will facilitate the CPUC's efforts to streamline the transmission permitting process and will help needed electrical transmission projects be evaluated more quickly while continuing to uphold the state's environmental review processes. The current permitting process involves several rules set forth in CPUC's General Order 131 D and the CPUC's rules of practice and procedures.

Currently, if the CPUC wants to make any changes to its rules of practice and procedures, those changes must be approved by the Office of Administrative Law, or OAL, which can be a lengthy process.

AB 551 would exempt the CPUC from having to seek approval from OAL specifically on changes to regulations and guidelines regarding transmission permitting and how it conducts environmental review consistent with California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.

In addition, this Bill modifies the current CPUC process involving protests of transmission related projects that have been identified as being exempt from the permitting processes.

The projects would be reviewed using the CPUC's advice letter process, and anyone who objects to the project would be able to appeal the CPUC's approval of a transmission project, after which the CPUC would have a specified amount of time to consider the appeal.

The CPUC is currently considering how to revise General Order 131 to streamline the CPUC's permitting process in a rulemaking proceeding, which has garnered broad stakeholder input. So this Bill is timely. This concludes my testimony. Happy to answer any questions, and we support AB 551. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional witnesses and support come forward. State your name. Organization. All right, seeing none witnesses in opposition, you may come forward at this time.

Good morning. Brandon Ebek from PG & E. We are reviewing the bill that recently came into print. We have had productive conversations with the governor's office and the author's office. We look forward to seeing the language that the amendments are suggesting to change.

Ultimately, we just have some hesitancy and some concerns around the language that allows the guidelines to supersede a general order. As everyone in this room is part of the general order reform, we just want to make sure that we can't overwrite that reform with simple guidelines. So appreciate it. Look forward to seeing the amendments.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in opposition, tweeners, any of that? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Are there any questions or concerns by Committee Members? No. Thank you, Assemblymember, for presenting this for Assemblymember Bennett, we do have a do pass as amended, to the Senate committee on appropriations.

And again, I'll state the amendment to clarify the exemption to the Administrative Procedure act process is strictly for successor guidelines to the CPUC, guidelines for energy project application requiring CEQA compliance, and that's a mouthful. And pre filing and proponents environmental assessments, is that correct?

Correct. All right. Again, we're lacking a quorum, but at their appropriate time, we'll seek a motion and thank you for this.

Thank you. On behalf of Assembly Member Bennett, request an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Mister chair and members.

You got it. All right, next up is Assembly Member Calderon. Sorry, were you here first? I'm sorry. Okay. All right. I based it on arrival, but. Sorry. Assembly Member. Yes, you can go right ahead. You're presenting. Let me grab it real quick. AB 2661 you may get. Maybe again.

Good morning, Chair and Members. AB 2661 will help achieve California's renewable goals by leveraging the existing capabilities of Westlands Water District to deliver new solar generation and transmission lines. To combat the impacts of climate change, California has set ambitious goals to increase the use of clean energy, aiming to achieve 60% eligible renewable energy by 2030 and 100% zero carbon energy by 2045. I'll remind you guys, we're only six years away from our first goal deadline.

To meet these goals, new renewable energy facilities and thousands of miles of new transmission lines are needed. The California Independent System Operator has already identified an opportunity to develop 30,000 megawatts of solar in the San Joaquin Valley. CAISO's identification of these potential resources is especially timely given changes occurring in the Central Valley due to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

As groundwater basins adopt sustainable groundwater management plants, many regions of the state are expected to experience as much as 20% decline in available water supply by 2030. Due to this massive change, it is estimated that between 500,000 and 900,000 acres of farmland may need to be fallowed in the San Joaquin Valley alone.

This fallowed farmland can be the key to expanding our solar generation. Westlands Water District, who is in the best position to identify suitable fallowed land in their service territory for conversion to solar generation, can help contribute to the state's renewable portfolio while making up for lost water supply revenues needed to continue serving their remaining water customers.

Unfortunately, there is not enough transmission currently planned in the Central Valley to capitalize on this opportunity. That is why AB 2661 will give Westlands Water Authority, Westlands Water District, excuse me, the authority to build, own, and operate transmission lines to connect this new generation to the grid.

This will help us achieve our climate goals while simultaneously providing an incredible opportunity for disadvantaged communities in places like West Fresno County, where the need for skilled and well paying jobs is critical. The communities of Huron, Mendota, San Joaquin, Firebaugh, and Tranquillity could be beneficiaries of this.

The projects that could be undertaken through the provisions of this bill will help these workers upskill and enter into the trades, which will uplift these communities that are often left out of the conversation when it comes to these investments. I would also just like to say on the record that they're also...

We are also working with our local partners, like the County of Fresno and many of the cities I mentioned in this area, to make sure there's a process in place for Westlands and those they contract with to engage with local partners and ensure the solar and transmission projects deliver the community benefits that we truly need in the Central Valley. With me here today to testify in support of AB 2661 is Mr. Marc Joseph, on behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Workers, as well as Elizabeth Jonasson, on behalf of Westlands Water District.

You each will have two minutes. State your name and your organization. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Elizabeth Jonasson, and I'm the Deputy General Manager for Westlands Water District. Westlands is a California water district serving 614,000 acres in Western Fresno and Kings County.

AB 2661 would provide authorities to Westlands that are crucial for allowing our district to effectively plan and provide strategic oversight of land being transitioned out of agricultural use to solar within our district. The need to transition this land has been driven by water supply reliability problems in the delta.

Over the last decade, land fallowing has varied between 120 and 220,000 acres, and now with the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, our farmers will have less groundwater available, leading to more land needing to be fallowed. Solar development has emerged as a land repurposing approach that provides a productive use of the land, providing jobs and economic activity for our communities, while at the same time helping meet renewable energy goals.

We have begun a CEQA programmatic environmental process for the long term but temporary conversion of 130,000 acres for solar generation with the hope that, at the end of the project's useful life, approximately 30 years, as appropriate, the land can be returned to irrigated agriculture. Our oversight provided through this bill would allow Westlands to favor transition of lands that are marginal, drainage impaired, or which are ideal for dual uses such as floodwater recharge, agrivoltaics, and the like.

It also allows us to manage our lands consistent with our groundwater sustainability plan, the surrounding uses and community needs, and to better preserve the agricultural heritage of the district as it makes this significant transition for the next 30 years. We appreciate Assembly Member Soria's leadership on this bill and respectfully ask for this committee's approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Marc Joseph, on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers and the Coalition of California Utility Employees, the co-sponsors of the bill. AP 2661 is an elegant solution to several well known problems. We need lots more electric transmission to deliver clean energy. We have to control electric rates.

We need to fix the meter transmission constraint that is forcing lots of solar in Southern California to be curtailed because it can't reach Northern California, which is wasting lots of money. And we need to create income for people whose farmland no longer has reliable water supply or is drainage impaired, and for the people working and living in those communities. And we need to do all of this quickly.

This bill addresses all of these problems by giving the Westlands Water District the authority to build and own transmission lines in the district, along with solar for sale into the wholesale market. As your analysis correctly identifies, lots of other types of districts have similar authority.

This bill would plug a gap in the code so that Westlands Water District can plug a gap in our transmission system. I want to stress that the bill does not hardwire any particular outcome. Nothing would happen unless the PUC finds that this would be a good deal for ratepayers.

Then, if and only if it's cost effective for ratepayers, the PUC would send the recommendation to the CAISO. And then, if and only if the CAISO selects the project and its annual transmission plan, the plan could proceed. I would also note that the district does not replace PG&E as the local electric supplier. It's not becoming a local retail electric utility. The bill prohibits the Westlands Water District from selling electricity at retail. It would just supply generation and transmission into the wholesale market. Thank you.

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

Chairman Bradford and Members, Bob Giroux on behalf of the California Dairy Institute and the E & J Gallo Family Winery in support of the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, Daniel Kim with Golden State Clean Energy in support of the bill.

Where's your Doc Martens?

He got called out. Hunter Stern with IBEW 1245. Thank you, Assembly Member Soria, for your leadership on this bill. In very strong support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Lily Mackay on behalf of San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Alejandro Solis on behalf of the Latino Equity Advocacy and Policy Institute in support. Thank you.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in support.

Cody Boyles on behalf of the Ag Energy Consumer Association as well as the American Pistachio Association in support.

Good morning. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Any additional witnesses in support? Now let's move to opposition. Witnesses in opposition, you may come forward at this time. Okay. I see you scared all the opposition away. Good job.

That's how we do it.

That's how we do it. We'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions? Senator Eggman.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward. So help me understand is, and so it goes... So after the assessment of land, ag land, that needs to be fallowed, is that land then purchased by Westlands or is it rented from the farmer? How does that relationship work?

So Westlands, to my knowledge, and Westlands, you know, the Assistant General Manager can answer this, but they already have ownership of certain lands. And I know that there's conversations about other lands, but currently there's about 130,000 acres already that have been fallowed in that area, so.

Correct. So Westlands Water Districts owns about 70,000 acres of land that would be committed to this particular project, and the rest of the 130,000 acres are under contract for a long term lease with Golden State Clean Energy.

Okay, thank you. And then all of this, because you talked about how it's going to help people in small rural communities, and is that because of the installation of the power lines or how were you talking about that? Because you can't sell at retail, right? So nobody's getting...

Yeah, so we're having conversations. One of the conversations that we've been having with the trades is that, you know, the local folks that potentially could get displaced out of work that would be trained and upskilled to be able to take some of these jobs. We know that the life of these jobs are about, you know, there's a 10 year, I think, in terms of the build out, in terms of how much solar will be built in that area.

But we're also having other conversations to see what other community benefits can be put in place as a result of this type of investment going into the community. We've been having very close conversations with our local folks and also with the county as well as with the stakeholders that are here today.

Okay, thank you. And I mean, I won't sound like a paranoid person who represents the delta region, but Westlands is always the black cat in our area. Owning all the water. Now they want to own all the water and all the power. Makes me nervous. Thank you for your bill. Thank you.

All right, any other questions or concerns? I like black cats. I am one. Anyway. Okay, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time is appropriate.

Thank you. At that time we'll seek a motion for this measure. All right, who's next? Is it... Bauer-Kahan? Well, Calderon was here, but she yielded the last time. You been here. You ready to go? We're gonna let Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan go on. She has one? Yeah, she has one bill.

You're presenting file item eight, AB 2054.

Yes. Thank you Mister Chair, and thank you to my colleague. Hopefully this will be fast. I think we now, thanks to the Committee, have little to no opposition, so hopefully this will be quick. Thank you Mister Chair and Members. First, I want to thank the Committee staff and the Committee Chair for their work on this. And I accept those amendments I just referenced. The amendments address the opposition's primary concerns by removing the allocation of overspent, balancing account costs between shareholders and ratepayers, and instead subject such overspending to additional review by the CPUC.

I think it is critically important we continue to look at the balancing accounts as a way that we are driving up costs on ratepayers and the abuse that may be happening underneath them. But importantly, the Committee has put in a lot of effort to design language that will allow us to better understand those accounts. And so I hope we'll be back in the future if we do start to understand there's abuse here that is causing harm to the ratepayers. To address this more broadly, but with me today to support the Bill is someone from TURN. Let me see who we have from TURN. Katy Morsony from TURN. Did I get that right?

Yeah, no one gets Morsony right. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Katy Morsony. I'm here on behalf of the Utility Reform Network, or TURN. TURN has been an active ratepayer advocate at the California Public Utilities Commission and at the Legislature championing affordable Bills and customer protections that will ensure that all Californians have access to safe, clean, and reliable energy. I am here today as sponsor of AB 2054.

Over the last 10 years, investor owned utility customers rates have than doubled in the last three years alone. PG&E rates have increased 64%. More and more of these increases reflect cost tracked and balancing accounts. In a general rate case, the CPUC will adopt a forecast for a utility program. In some cases, the CPUC will simultaneously adopt a balancing account for tracking cost of the program that exceeds the Commission's already approved forecast. According to the August 2023 State Auditor report, about a third of IOU revenue is tracked in these balancing accounts.

As noted in the Committee analysis, the dollars exceeding the authorized forecast and tracked in these accounts do not always undergo the same level of review that the original forecast did. The increasing reliance on these balancing accounts is creating greater rate unpredictability and increased workload for ratepayer advocates in the CPUC, but most of all, higher electricity costs for California customers. AB 2054 would clarify that the IOUs should expect that these balancing accounts could be subject to additional review by the Commission.

It would also create reporting requirements that would track the amounts above the authorized costs in the balancing accounts and scrutinize it and the scrutiny that these accounts are receiving. This information would help underscore the gravity of the problem and inform CPUC and legislative consideration of balancing accounts and reforms of these accounts moving forward. Part of addressing the problem of balancing accounts is understanding the magnitude of it. AB 2054 will shed light on the practices currently surrounding these accounts and turn respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support.

Michelle Canales, Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Brad Hebner of the California Solar and Storage Association in support.

Okay, witnesses in opposition.

Thank you, Mister chair. Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California Gas Company. With the amendments being adopted today, we are removing our opposition. Thank the committee and thank the author for working with us to address our concerns. Thank you.

Same position. Katherine Borg of Southern California Edison were removed in our opposition today. And thank you to the author and the committee for working with us to relieve our concerns.

Brandon Ebek PG and E, same as the other IUs. Appreciate the staff sharing the amendments. It's very helpful to see the language. Thank you.

So sorry, I was distracted. Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support or opposition, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions or concerns? Okay, I just want to. For the record, I will read. Senator Bradford's been reading the amendment, so I'll go ahead and read those amendments. Sure that you are agreeing to take.

Yes, I took them.

Deleted language referenced referencing shareholders as the CPUC. Cost review necessary determines whether utility costs are recoverable from ratepayers or shareholders. Narrows the requirements of the application of the cost benefit analysis to wildfire mitigation.

Capital cost requires additional information in the annual reporting by the CPUC to the legislature, including the status of balancing accounts, accounts where costs are over forecast, the number of reviews the CPUC has conducted of these costs and costs by the utilities that have been approved or denied by the CPUC. Is that correct?

I believe if it's what that took almost as long as my presentation.

Well, we get these amendments late, and I'm glad you were able to share them, so you're welcome to close.

Thank you. A few months ago, I got a call from Lynn, who's 101 in my district and has been incredibly responsible in controlling her energy usage and has never paid more than $100 for her utility bill and it went up to 300. That is what is happening to our constituents across the state.

And I just want to urge all of us to do everything we can to pay attention to California's ratepayers and drive their rates down because they are hurting right now. With that I respect, we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. When we get a quorum, we will entertain that motion. Up next, we have Assemblymember Calderon. We have two Bills. I believe we start with AB 311 or. Does that work for you? Okay, proceed, please.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members, I want to start by thanking the Committee for working with us on this Bill and I will be accepting all the proposed Committee amendments. AB 3111 requires new large customer sighted solar and storage projects to notify the California Energy Commission of the installation and scope of these projects. Currently, the CEC has to rely on information provided to them by Cal ISO, energy providers and other sources to get a sense of what distributed energy resources are on the ground. This Bill streamlines the CECs information gathering by having that information directly provided to them.

The Committee's amendments address the opposition's concerns of duplicative reporting and significantly reduces the reporting burden on the aggregated DER developers. This Bill is meant to ensure that the CEC and the rest of the state's energy agencies have a complete DER dataset. Here with me to testify in support is Alison Ramey on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers and the Coalition of California Utility Employees.

You have two minutes.

Great, thank you Chair and Members. Alison Ramey here today on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers and the California Coalition of Utility Employees. This is a turning point in our state's electric industry. We are transforming into a system with high penetration of customer sighted solar and storage.

The CEC forecasts an additional 18,000 megawatts of customer solar and 4500 megawatts of customer storage in the next 10 years alone. Microgrids and virtual power plants are proliferating, but what exactly is being installed? The CEC has difficulty accurately forecasting and reporting the impact of customer cited solar and storage in its integrated energy policy report.

This means that all of the planning that flows from that report, such as the PUC's integrated resource planning and resource adequacy requirements, is not as accurate as it needs to be. We need early and effective planning and transparency to reach our clean energy goals cost effectively, reliably and safely. We must know at the earliest possible time what the forecast is being constructed. AB 3111 solves this problem by requiring applicants of large customer sided storage and solar, aggregated solar and storage to provide early notice to the CEC of the installation and characteristics of these facilities.

The information will be housed in a consolidated electronic format to be shared with other agencies into which the public may seek access. This is a simple notice, planning and transparency Bill limited to large commercial and industrial projects, non residential, that will help the state reach its clean energy goals. It's for these reasons we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Others wishing to testify in support.

Good day, Mister Vice Chair, Members. Hunter Stern, on behalf of the IBW Local 1245. Want to add quickly that there's some safety issues that this Bill helps to address. Our members responding to outages and customer complaints. And potentially, if one of these devices behind the meter has gone bad, it can put energy back out on the grid. It's very important to understand that once any system is attached to a home that's attached to the grid, it's on the grid. Thank you for your time.

Valerie Turella of Lajos Pacific Gas and Electric Company, support.

Thank you

Laura Parra with Southern California Edison, in support.

Thank you.

Israel Salas with San Diego Gas & Electric, in support.

Thank you.

Mike Monagan for Estate Building Trades, in support.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. I'm Edson Perez. I'm a Senior Principal with Advanced Energy United. We respectfully oppose AB 3111 because the requirements included in it are duplicative and continue to be, with the proposed amendments, are duplicative, onerous, expensive and would hinder the emerging distributed energy resource industry, which is an industry that's crucial for meeting our clean energy and reliability goals.

And to be clear, we're very supportive of reasonable reporting measures to ensure proper planning of distribution grid upgrades. The AR providers are completely dependent on the distribution grid, so they have a vested interest in ensuring that it works well in the long term. And that's why they already share the information required under this Bill with utilities via existing interconnection processes, tariffs and programs, specifically through rule 21, the wholesale distribution access tariff, the net building tariff, and the self generation incentive program.

In addition, in relation to DER aggregators, they must include relevant information upon enrolling any customer into an aggregation program like the demand site grid support program. The Energy Commission manages this critical program directly, so they already have direct visibility into and release and system performance. And it's noteworthy that the PUC recently issued a new rulemaking related to the safety and reliability of distribution systems, and it didn't mention DERs at all, further showing that a lack of DER information is not a significant concern.

And we appreciate the Committee's proposed amendments, which make the reporting less burdensome for aggregators, but they still don't address the core of the issue. So if the Committee really believes that there is a data sharing and availability issue regarding DERs, the proposed policy should really look into bolstering the existing reporting requirements and existing reporting systems, rather than starting a whole new reporting process from scratch that would overwhelm an emerging and necessary industry and cost the CEC really hundreds of thousands of dollars. So for these reasons, we respectfully urge no vote on this Bill today.

Thank you.

Morning. Vice Chair and Members. Brad Hebner of the California Solar and Storage Association. The proponents of this Bill talk like we're flying blind and energy planning without any information about customers, solar and storage and other DERs. That is false. One of the proponents just said, we don't even know what's connected to the grid, and that's a safety issue. That's false information. We know exactly what's connected to the grid, and that's the data that the Energy Commission uses to do their forecasting and planning. That's actionable information. What is connected to the grid, what has been installed.

This Bill would require submission of data on permit applications and interconnection applications. Those are not useful data streams for energy planning. There are a lot of systems that apply for permits and never get built. After you put in for a permit, there's land use issues that come up. You need financing, many other things. Same for interconnection applications.

When you submit an interconnection application, the utility does an engineering review. They often come back with conditions that make the project too expensive. It would be bad planning for energy agencies to do their forecasting based on interconnection applications and permit applications. CEC does its planning based on actual interconnections, and they already have that data.

They get it directly from the utilities. They get it in a format that they've designed that is useful to them. This Bill would also require energy storage providers that aggregate systems for participating in load reduction programs to submit reports on individual systems that are participating in those programs. Again, the Bill gets it wrong on what information would be useful. If the Energy Commission wants to investigate the effectiveness of these demand reduction programs.

They don't want to know the capacity of systems enrolled, the number of customers that have signed up. They want to know what those systems are doing, how much energy was dispatched in response to program events. They can get that information directly from the entities that are running those programs. Having capacity data from individually enrolled systems would not tell them how effective the programs are. One other thing, this Bill would make sensitive information publicly available. This would discourage customers from investigating their energy options to begin with. It would drive up costs and suppress the market. We urge a no vote.

Thank you. Others. 'Me Toos'.

Hi, Meg Snyder Axiom Advisors. On behalf of Pearl X, opposed.

Mister Chair and Members. Andrew Antwih, on behalf of Tesla, opposed unless amended.

Mister Chair. Graciela Castillo-Krings, on behalf of the California Energy Storage Alliance, in opposition.

McKinley Thompson Morley on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association, in opposition.

Matt Klopfenstein, on behalf of the Center for Sustainable Energy, in opposition.

Good morning, Members. Charlie Donlin with Stone Advocacy and I have a long list of parties in opposition, so bear with me. OneSun Inc., ACIP Energy, ACR Solar, Alameda County Democratic Party, Alaska Microgrid Group, Albany Climate Action Coalition, Amy's Roofing and Solar, Aztec Solar Inc., Bay Area Clean Air Coalition, Berkeley Electrification Working Group, .. CA Dem Renters Council, Calaveras County Water District, California Interfaith Power and Light, Californians for Energy Choice, Californians for Western Wilderness, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Community Energy, Chino Valley Democratic Club, Citadel Roofing and Solar, CivicWell, cleanearth4kids.org,

Climate Action California, Climate Action Mendocino, the Climate Alliance of Santa Cruz County, the Climate Center, Climate Hawks Vote, Climate Reality Project San Diego, Climate Solutions Advocacy Institute, Collective Resilience, Consumer Watchdog, Contra Costa Move On, Custom Power Solar, Courageous Resistance of the Desert and Indivisible, Democrats of Southwest Riverside County, EC Institute, Ecology Center, Energy Coalition,

Energy Tool Base, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Equity Transit Association, forourchildren.love, Fresnans Against Fracking, Glendale Environmental Coalition, Go Get It, Great Alternatives, Grassroots Institute, Hammitt Climate Solutions, Humboldt Coalition for Clean Energy, Indivisible San Jose, Local Clean Energy Alliance, Long Beach Gray Panthers, M Cubed, Microgrid Resource Coalition, Mutual Housing California, Napa Climate Now, North Carolina Climate Change Alliance.

Can you give us an estimate of how many you're going to read off here?

There's probably 30 more.

No, we'll pass on that. We get to judge.

Thank you.

Thank you. Was that opposition? Okay. We're going to bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns by Committee Members? All right.

I wanted to hear the last 30.

Okay. Would you like to close?

Yes. You know, I just want to say that we took a lot of amendments and Assembly particularly to address the privacy concerns. And, you know, building permits are already public information and can be accessed from local permitting agencies.

And you know, this only we limited to developers who have a net worth of 6 million and have a net income of at least 2 million over the preceding two years. And so I appreciate the opposition here to address their concerns, but I think we've done a lot of work on this Bill and I think it's a good Bill. I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

I'm just trying to make sure you've taken the Committee amendment.

Yes, sir.

Okay. And it will require notices are filed at a time of the permit to install or interconnect the DRE or aggregated, I shouldn't say DRE, DER, whichever comes first, require aggregators to provide notices when programs are initiated and twice a year thereafter, and required notices are submitted in an electrical format determined by the CEC instead or requiring a PDF. Is that correct? So at the appropriate time, if we get a motion, we'll make sure that we take a vote on it. And your next one is file item 14, AB 3263. You make it right ahead.

Thank you Mister chair and Senator. Again I want to thank the committee for all your work and working with our staff on getting this bill in the chair to a good place, and I'll be accepting all the proposed committee amendments.

Assembly Bill 3263 would stabilize electricity rate fluctuations by allowing an electric utility to request CPUC authorization to finance ongoing mitigation efforts as well as costs derived from declared state of emergencies through the use of bonds.

Existing law allows electric utilities to seek CPUC authorization to take out bonds and tie them to ratepayer bills or securitize the bonds to pay for just and reasonable cost as determined by the PUC. As wildfire seasons grow longer and more destructive, electric utilities have increased their vegetation management and other forms of wildfire mitigation.

The associated costs with these efforts are typically required to be recovered by electric utilities within 12 months. Without the option of stretching out the recovery period with financing mechanisms like a bond, constant wildfire mitigation has led to significant rate hikes for ratepayers.

Additionally, the storm recovery cost from the past couple of winters will likely lead to an additional rate spike upon those costs being deemed just reasonable and incorporated within rates. AB 3263 seeks to codify the prudent use of bonds to help provide much needed rate relief on our energy bills.

Here with me to testify and support is Adam Smith from Southern California Edison.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Adam Smith, Southern California Edison sharing our strong support for AB 3260. SCE applauds the leadership of this committee on the issue of affordability. We've been here for the committee hearings. We've heard the important questions and perspectives from the chair and members. Here we see rates rising.

We're all looking for ways to smooth the spikes and offer relief to electric customers. That's why we thank Assemblymember Calderon for bringing this important bill forward and strongly support it today.

As you've heard from the author, AB 3263 would allow electrical corporations to file an application requesting the PUC issue us a financing order that authorizes the recovery of wildfire related expenses through bonds. Our wildfire and veg management work is approved upfront by the commission and also independently the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety.

It is necessary to keep our system safe, but this important work has costs and will continue to in the future. Veg management can be up to 10% of a customer's bill. Our broader wildfire mitigation plans seek to harden the grid so that can come down over time, but it's the reality we live in today.

This bill puts an important tool in the PUCs toolbox to help smooth these necessary costs out over time. The bill also maintains the PUCs discretion to determine if securitization makes sense. It gives the legislative authority to approve an application. If it does, the utilities can submit applications to securitize some of these wildfire related expenses.

If the CPUC approves that request, it will reduce the monthly bills of our customers. We believe that this bill will manage rate increases caused by the immediate need to harden our electric system against wildfire and deliver on our shared public safety and affordability goals. For those reasons we support, we urge you to support it as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional witnesses and support, your primary witness in support yes, you have two minutes.

Good morning. Brandon Ebek, Pacific Gas and Electric. I'll try not to repeat what the author Edison just said, but we are here in strong support of the bill. Matt Baker, when he was Public Advocates Director, testified in this very committee just a few months ago and was asked to suggest potential ideas to reduce rates.

One of his primary responses was exactly what this bill proposes. We should finance vegetation management costs with recovery bonds. Vegetation management, as Adam said, is one of the largest individual costs on bills today due to a lot of legislative and regulatory changes in the last six years to address significant wildfire risk.

Those costs have grown from roughly $300 million for PG&E up to $2 billion in 2022. Tree trimming is 10% of an average customer bill, about dollar 20 a month.

We think that this is one of the most prudent areas where we can spread out these costs over time, addressing intergenerational concerns about this bill that have been raised. We cut down trees, they don't grow back. The next year we are seeing maintenance reductions just simply because we remove a tree.

The next year we go back, we just have to weed whack the ground. There's reductions for decades to come, so we think this bill is prudent. They often say that the best time to plant a tree was 10 years ago. The best time to finance their cost is today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses? Me too. State your name and your organization.

Hunter Stern, on behalf of IBEW 1245 and strong support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support hearing to you? None. Witnesses in opposition. Are you the primary witness in opposition?

You have two minutes.

Yes, sir.

My name is Katy Morsony. I'm here on behalf of TURN opposing AB 3263. Securitization of utility costs is a tool that can provide relief to utility rates by packaging certain utility costs into a recovery bond financed at lower rates and paid off via a fixed you charge on utility bills. For capital projects,

The financing cost of securitizations is typically more affordable than the cost, including the cost and rates because the rate of return paid on capital is paid by the customers. This is not the case with vegetation management and other O and M costs, which are pass through costs with no rate of return associated with them.

The ability to securitize costs is not limitless. There is an upper limit of the amount that can be securitized at favorable financing rates, and securitization should be treated as an extraordinary solution and used only in extraordinary circumstances.

Despite the fact that the CPUC can already choose to securitize utility operations and maintenance costs when the utility seeks approval of those costs. This bill would allow the utilities to revisit costs that have already been addressed by the CPUC and remove certain O and M costs and rates and then securitize them as an initial matter.

As I noted, O and M is a pass through cost, and there is not the ratepayer benefit of avoiding shareholder profits associated with capital as there would be with capital cost. Second, utilities can already ask a commission to securitize O and M costs when seeking approval of these costs. The commission can determine if and when securitization is in the ratepayer interest. AB 3263 gives a second chance at the CUP. It's a misuse of administrative resources. These costs are already included in rates, and this is allowing a retroactive change to how those costs are being collected.

Vegetation management benefits current customers, but does less to help future rate payers. Not all trees are removed, most are just trimmed. For instance, SCE and its current GRC has a assumed 5% removal rate and 95% trim rate. The potential securitization also benefits current utility customers, but passes current costs onto future ratepayers.

Ratepayers from 15 years from now, my little kids will be, when they are adults, will be paying for today's vegetation management. While TURN agrees that the affordability of rates is certainly a crisis, securitizing vegetation management costs is not the solution. TURN respectfully requests your no vote.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in opposition hearing and seeing none. Bringing it back to the committee. Any questions by committee member? Vice Chair? No. All right. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yes. Respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Okay. And we have a do pass as amendment to the senate committee on appropriations. And I'll just clearly state the amendment is a change to the amendment in the analysis. Instead of deleting paragraph b, we are amending the language to authorize electrical corporations to submit applications to the CPUC for review.

This will ensure that applications are secure for securitization of vegetation management expenses continue to undergo the scrutiny of the existing CPUC review, including ensuring they are in the public's interest, just and reasonable and beneficial compared to other financial options. So. Is that correct? Thank you. So, yes. Senator Dodd?

Yeah. Sorry to be late on this. So this just sets up a procedure for the PUC to consider it? Does it mandate it? It's just a consideration.

It's permissive. It's not a mandate.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mister Senators.

Thank you. Next up, who was. Miss Wilson, you're up.

File item six, AB 1588. That work for you?

Nope. File item 6, 1588.

Sounds great. Thank you. Good morning, Mister chair. Senators. I would like to first start by thanking the chair and the committee staff for working with me and my office on this bill. We still good to go? Just making sure. Okay. No, no, no. I want to make sure we're still good to go.

I'll start off by saying I'm accepting the committee amendments. I've committed to the chair to continue to work with the stakeholders over summer recess to address broadband affordability. And as I understand it, the chair is allowing flexibility to come up with an appropriate solution with all involved.

Roughly 3.5 million Californians still lack internet access, largely due to affordability.

Funding for the affordability connectivity program, also known as ACP, expired in May, leaving millions of Californians wondering how they will be able to afford Internet, which has become a necessity for just about every aspect of people's lives, from school to work to healthcare to baking and so much more.

Congress has since declined to continue funding the ACP in spite of calls to keep Americans connected from even the White House. As Congress has failed to act and no expectation they will do so in the near future, it is incumbent that the state take immediate action to ensure we continue to close the digital divide.

The lifeline service is an existing program for essential communication. In today's era, broadband is an essential communication tool and should be an appropriate use in the lifeline service program offerings. And so the committee amends would allow expedited eligible telecommunications carrier, also known as ETC designation, for the purpose of providing standalone broadband service as a lifeline service.

The existing lifeline program does not offer a subsidy for broadband and requires an ETC designation. Like I noted at the beginning, we plan to meet with stakeholders to discuss a solution that addresses everyone's concerns, from both the proponents to the opponents.

And we commit to this committee to work on a solution that works for Californians and ensure we close the digital divide. With me today to testify is Leticia Alejandrez, the Director of policy and communications, California Emergency Technology Fund, also known as CETF.

Thank you. You'll have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning Mr. Chair and members. I am Leticia Alejandrez with the California Emerging Technology Fund, the sponsor of AB 1588. We express our deepest gratitude to assemblymember Wilson for her leadership and support for the 5.8 million households of digitally disadvantaged Californians. AB 1588 is a major missing piece of state policy required to close the digital dividend.

AB 1588 is necessary. Every legal expert has advised that legislative authority is required to expand lifeline. There is an urgency to this bill. The Affordable Connectivity Program, as Assemblymember Wilson has stated, has ended as of May '24 May 2024. This leaves 5.8 million households who are eligible or who were eligible for ACP without assurance of affordable Internet.

It's also important to note that California enrolled nearly 3 million households in the ACP. That's nearly 50%, which is 1 million more than any other state in the nation, and this was done in less than two years.

In contrast, lifeline has been in existence for more than four decades and has about 1.1 million participants, which is about 30% of eligible households. It is with this lens that CETF shares what it will take to actually reach low income households and state this intent in AB 1588 now is what we recommend. Establish goals for enrollment rates.

Accountability is important for Lifeline. Require regular reporting on progress to the California Broadband Council. Make a strategic investment in outreach and advertising to maximize enrollment by working with community and ethnic media, which is part of a larger digital equity ecosystem.

The design as lifeline is designed, we strongly encourage the 12 essential components of the digital ecosystem to be included. Remember, access delayed is access denied. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Other witnesses and support state your name and your organization.

Alejandro Solis on behalf of La Cooperativa Campesina de California, Los Amigos De La Comidad, FirstDay Foundation, and Proteus, all in support. Thank you.

Tony Anderson from the Association of Regional Center Agencies serving 400,000 people with disabilities and support.

Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you. Marvin Pineda, on behalf of Los Amigos De La Comunidad, actually, and Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice and California Human Development. Thank you.

Josh Gagger, on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support or opposition come forward now. Well, opposition. I'm sorry, we've already taken support now, opposition. Do we have primary witnesses in opposition? Are you primary? You have two minutes.

Thank you, sir. Good morning. Chair and Members, Amanda Gualderama with Cal Broadband and we are opposed to the Bill in print. We appreciate the author, her staff, and the committee for working on the amendments that create the opportunity to work on expanding lifeline to include a broadband offering during summer recess.

As noted, the Federal Affordable Connectivity Program was a subsidy program that gave consumers a dollar 30 voucher to utilize for a broadband plan of their choice and did not include onerous requirements on providers that participated, which led to a well promoted, well utilized program.

Unfortunately, Congress did not refund that program, but the ACP gives California a roadmap to develop a subsidy for broadband for low income Californians. There is still a lot of work to be done, though, over the interim. I'm sorry, over the recess, we are dedicated to working with the author and determine a few key areas.

What will the subsidy for low income Californians be? What, if any, increase in the current CPUC surcharge authority is needed? What will the requirements be of providers if they choose to participate?

What will the eligibility parameters for participants be and what guardrails on the CPUC are needed to set up and to ensure that the legislative intent is followed. We understand the loss that occurred when ACP was not refunded by Congress and are dedicated to finding a workable solution for Californians who need it. Thank you.

Good morning. Audra Hartmann, on behalf of CalCom, we have an opposed unless amended position on the current version of the bill, but with the amendments that were taken, we were removing our opposition.

We look forward to working with the author and the committee over the summer recess, and we really want to thank the committee and the committee consultant for the language on ETC. Which all of our members really like. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Yolanda Benson with US Telecom, the broadband Association. We look forward to continuing to work with the author. We've committed to her that as stakeholders we would sit down to come up with the program as outlined by Cal Broadband in their testimony, and we look forward to continuing to work on the bill.

So at this time we're opposed to the bill in print, but we'll continue to work with the author to find a solution. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair and members Jonathan Ehrenbell, on behalf of CTIA, the trade Association for the Wireless Industries, similar to the other speakers, were posted to the bill in print, but look forward to a fun summer recess and, you know, hopefully figuring it out. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister chair and members Roxanne Gould with the Wireless Infrastructure Association, I just say ditto to Cal broadband, us telecom. We look forward to working with you throughout the break.

Thank you.

Good morning. Christopher Rodriguez, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition, thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Hearing and seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or concerns by committee members? No. I'm going to thank the author for your commitment to continue the work in this area. I know how important it is.

Like I think 11 years ago I did broadband extension for wireless, both Senator Padilla and myself at the time, and we know the need and the number of people who are underserved in their wireless devices, and so we clearly understand broadband.

And again, I share the concerns about the impact of the end of the ACP on Californians who are enrolled in the program.

I support the effort to ensure that low income communities can afford Internet plans, but we need to make sure that we get the language right and to ensure that the changes to lifeline provide meaningful benefits without burdens on our ratepayers. And that's always something I'm concerned about. And I know that's something you're concerned about as well.

And we look forward to seeing the work with the author and with stakeholders. And this committee's committee is committed to work on this bill and ensure that we strike the right balance as it moves through the process. And I'll allow you to close at this point.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And on behalf of the almost 6 million people that need us to close this digital divide and come up with the, as you noted, the balanced and right solution, I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Okay. And just state again, we appreciate you willing to meet with those stakeholders over the break. And, you know, we hope it all goes well, but we'll also Reserve the right to pull the bill back.

Understood.

All right.

Assemblymember Irwin, and she will be presenting File Item 16, AB 3256. When you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair and Members, I would like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments. Today, I present AB 3256. As Californians are seeing some of the highest electric bills in the nation, simultaneously, investor owned utilities are boasting record profits.

The Public Advocates office has reviewed over 14 billion in wildfire and emergency-related cost recovery requests since 2020. Investor owned electric corporations are permitted to request cost recovery through regulatory accounts which fall outside of the general rate cases.

Balancing accounts are used for costs that are expected and occur regularly, while memorandum accounts are used for more volatile, year-to-year costs. Costs recorded in memo accounts are subject to a reasonableness review with potential for inclusion in rates, but recovery is not guaranteed.

Wildfire and catastrophic, catastrophe-related budget requests have become the norm and are partially responsible for the exorbitant rates we are seeing. AB 3256 aims to increase transparency and accountability by requiring the PUC to audit electric corporations balancing and memo accounts to determine if, number one, the costs in the accounts was authorized.

Number two, whether the corporation complied with the terms identified by the PUC. And number three, most importantly, the rate impact to customers. If the PUC determines that any actual costs have already been submitted and collected from customers, it will deny the corporation a second recovery of these same costs. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll move to witnesses and support. Do we have primary witnesses in support of this measure? Seeing none. Do we have witnesses in opposition? Do we have primary in opposition? We have. If you're a primary witness in opposition, you'll have two minutes.

Hi, Valerie Turella of Lajos Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and we are in opposition to this Bill. But we have seen and look forward to reviewing the Committee's amendments as accepted by the author and look forward to removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Chair Members. Lourdes Ayon with San Diego Gas and Electric. We have. We are reviewing the amendments. We feel that they're in concept, they're good. And so as soon as their Bill is in print, we hope to maybe remove opposition or change, reevaluate our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness. Yeah, no joke. again.

Catherine Borg, Southern California Edison, we will be removing our opposition. Thank you for working with us and thank you for the author's office and Committee. Thanks.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses and opposition, in between? Hearing, seeing none, bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns by Committee Members? Hearing, seeing none. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. And we have a do pass, as amended, to the Senate Committee on appropriations. And the amendments simply states, "delete language to require accounts to be closed." Section 2, GB 2. Am I correct? Thank you. All right, at the appropriate time, we'll look for a motion on this measure.

Do we have any other authors in the room at the time? And I saw Mister Norman here. He left out. I just want to say I'm happy to hear that his daughter's home safely and recovering, so I'm wishing her nothing but the best. So, thank you. We're waiting for authors as well as Members to establish a quorum, so we'll take a slight recess.

Well, thank you so much Chair, staff, and advocates. As you mentioned, I'm here to present Ab 2847, the Ratepayer Transparency and Accountability Act, and I do accept the Committee amendments. It's no secret that energy rates are skyrocketing, impacting real people across California.

In just three years, residential electricity rates have increased 63% for PG&E customers and 52% for SoCal Edison customers. We know that families are struggling to pay their monthly bills, and with no end in sight, we're all left wondering just how high these bills will climb, and it's absolutely time to provide relief.

Residents of our state deserve to know two things. First, what to expect when they open their monthly energy bill. And second, that all of the costs included in their bill are fair and reasonable. Having this information can in turn lower costs for everyone. So, under current law, California utility customers pay for utility infrastructure through rates.

Typically, when utilities request information or request permission to make capital project expenditures and recover costs from ratepayers, they are only required to provide information about the list priced of the asset and the impact on rates in the short term. This leaves ratepayers in the dark without important information about how these choices will impact rates in the future.

So, we do have a solution which is to shine a light on the long-term impacts of utilities' choices through AB 2487 and this bill will require utilities to provide information about the long-term costs of capital expenses upfront when requested by the PUC.

This will provide the Commission, ratepayer advocates, and hardworking Californians with information they need to determine whether utilities should be allowed to pass these costs along to customers. Joining me today to testify and support is Katy Morsony of the Utility Reform Network.

Good morning again. My name is Katy Morsony and I am here on behalf of TURN as a sponsor of AB 2847. AB 2847 would make it clear that the utility should always be prepared to provide not just the price tag of a capital project, but the cost of the project over the lifetime of the asset.

Utility capital projects, the infrastructure, and assets that seeks ratepayer recovery for, are typically paid for over the life of that that project and that asset. In this way, they're like a home mortgage.

When you sign your home mortgage, the law requires that the provider disclose to you not just the amount of your mortgage and your monthly payment, but the total amount that will be paid over the life of that mortgage because with the premiums, the total cost paid will be much more than your original mortgage amount.

Similarly, because of the cost of shareholder returns and financing, ratepayers pay much more than the list cost of a capital project. When the information is provided, it shows that ratepayers often pay multiples of the price tag. However, the utilities rarely disclose this data point.

Typically, a cost recovery application includes only the price tag of the project and the revenue requirement over the rate case period or the near term. This information is insufficient to assess the long-term impact on rates and whether the benefits of the project will ultimately outweigh its cost.

AB 2847 would create a process for the Commission to request this information when it is required for their consideration of a utility request. This bill increases the transparency of utility requests for funding, and it provides the Commission with more information when assessing the value of proposed projects. It will require reliance on estimates.

But even estimates, especially when they are paired with the inputs to those estimates, can be a helpful and illustrative data point to the Commission's deliberations.

In a time where utilities are both addressing wildfire risk and our clean energy goals and rates are increasingly unaffordable, the Commission role, considering whether proposed work is just and reasonable, is more important than ever. AB 2847 provides an important data point to help guide that determination and TURN respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Other witnesses in support.

Good morning. Thank you. Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy, in support.

Good morning, Mister Chairman. My name is Dan Jacobson for the California Public Interest Research Group in support.

Thank you. Now, witnesses in opposition. Primary witness, you have two minutes.

Thank you, Chair and members. Lourdes Ayon, again with San Diego Gas and Electric in opposition to 2847. Again, no jokes. Sorry, sir, but I will tell you, I feel a little nervous about wearing a jacket that looks like I took it out of my dad's closet. So, it's a little nervous.

It's already nerve-wracking being up here, but looking like a little kid in a big oversized jacket is even worse. Is that good? I don't know. Come to my show, it'll be better. All right, let's move on. So, we do oppose the bill.

However, the concept of the bill in terms of making sure that there's more information for the ratepayer to have or for TURN to have, so that rates, so we know exactly what's going into rates and so that in turn, we don't charge the ratepayers more than they have to. We completely agree with that. Absolutely.

In fact, as you saw earlier today, we're sponsoring AB 1912, which is Pacheco's bill, to help ensure that there's more information for legislators to have in terms of background and make good decisions on these bills to make sure that rates are not high. And we are definitely on the forefront of keeping energy affordable.

That said, I think this bill in particular is not one that we, at least the way in which it's going, it's not one that we necessarily agree.

We have different ways in looking at this and where we think that providing just a lot of estimation could actually be bad because we don't know what every year is going to be. Sometimes there's COVID. Sometimes it's hotter than other times. I mean, there's just a lot of inputs there that we can't account for, number one.

And two, this is a discussion that's already happening at the PUC, and it's a fight that is taking place at the PUC that's being brought before the Legislature. So, we feel that this is something that can be handled. They're still by they're, I mean, within the PUC.

And we also noted that in the analysis, the proponents of the bill note that uncovering long-term impact requires more funds, more rounds of discovery, and taking up resources is very expensive for them. It would be very expensive for us as well to do a lot of rounds of discovery to provide.

So, we're on the same page in terms of providing the information that they need is going to be just as expensive for us as it is for TURN. And we feel that having this discussion would be more productive within the PUC, where it belongs, rather than in the Legislature.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Additional witnesses in opposition, you can come forward at this time. All right, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns as it relates to this measure? Senator Newman?

So, I'm glad to move the bill when we finally have a quorum. So, just want the member to know that she and I were just in a hearing room that was a little bit fuller than this. You know, everybody's here, so we have multiple hearings going on at once.

So, at some point, we'll have a quorum here, and I will move this bill at that time.

Thank you. And I want to thank the author for taking the Committee amendments. And they simply state at language that requires the PUC to determine whether the added estimations required by this bill are needed to review the application for capital expenditures submitted by the electrical or gas corporations, is that correct?

Correct.

And I think you stated in your opening about certainty, we all need certainty. And this bill helps to provide that certainty to all customers. Whether it's residential, commercial, you name it. They need certainty in their bill and this helps us provide that. So, at this point, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time comes.

If we ever get a quorum, we'll see if we can.

Thank you.

Get that done. Thank you. Next up I see Assembly Member Boerner presenting file item 11. AB 2666. Floor is yours.

Thank you. Good morning Mister chair and Senators. First, I want to thank the chair and his amazing committee staff for working with me on this bill. I accept all committee amendments and look forward to working with the opposition should this bill move forward today.

Today I'm presenting AB 2666 a Tasha B special, which would require the CPUC following the approval of general rate case, each general rate case known as the GRC, to review which costs differed from the GRC forecast for each electrical or gas corporation, and to adjust authorized revenue at the next general rate case based on actual costs.

I requested an audit to show and the results show that profits are increasing. For most of the last years, SDG and E had some of the highest rates in the entire country and showed record profits far beyond their general rate case approved profits.

Today, more than 25% of SDG and E customers are more than 30 days behind on their utility bill.

If the utilities are not making rapid profits on the backs of working people, the split bill will do nothing but bring light to the areas in which legitimate savings were made and adjust down the true costs of doing business. For such an important accountability, transparency and good governance measure, I really applaud the committee on helping me address the real cost of living issues Californians and especially San Diegans are paying. As I have demonstrated for six years, I'll continue to work with the opposition and any of my colleagues on any issues should this bill move forward today. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there witnesses in support? Primary witnesses in support. Hearing seeing none. Are you in support? Yes. All right then

Brad Heavner Solar and Storage Association just wanted to state our support so witnesses and support.

Mister Chair Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy in support.

Thank you. All right, seeing all of support, witnesses in opposition, you may come forward.

Thank you Mister Chair Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California Gas Company removing our opposition based on the amendments as reflected in the. And we want to thank the author for working with us to address our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Same Catherine Borg with Southern California Edison removing our opposition today. Thank you to the sponsor and the committee for working with us. Thank you.

Thank you.

Valerie Turella Vlahos, Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Thank the author and the Committee for working with us. And we're going to review the amendments and looks like we're getting close. Thank you.

Got it. Thank you. Any other witnesses in support, opposition or in between? Okay. Are made up? No. Okay. We bring it back to the committee. Any questions? Senator Becker?

Yeah, thanks. I just want to note this. This Bill is based on the PAO recommendations, and you're really taking the time to put it to law. Make sure we do something about it. And I appreciate you.

It sounds like you had a lot of productive conversations with the opposition over the last few weeks, and thank you for taking the time. I'll remove the bill when appropriate.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions by Committee Members hearing seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yes, I want to thank the committee, and we did work on this bill. And the Assembly, if you watch that hearing, you'll see it was just me and my utility bill, because that cannot be the basis for what people have to pay in California for energy.

And so with this, I hope this brings transparency and respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we have an author, we have assemblymember Bonta, and she's presenting file item nine, AB 2239. When you're ready, you may begin.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. First, I want to start with saying I accept the Committee amendments. I acknowledge that these amendments will not be able to be adopted until after this bill is heard in Judiciary Committee later today.

Should this Bill move out of this Committee, however, I would be remiss if I didn't also say that the definition of covered entities, due to time constraints and the language that's included in the amendments and covered under this Bill is missing some key guardrails that I look forward to working on with your Committee staff to add to this Bill at a later date.

AB 2239 addresses a critical issue in our digital age, ensuring equitable access to broadband Internet services for all Californians. As you will hear from my witnesses, Californians who live in areas with predominantly low-income residents and people of color are disproportionately disconnected.

In light of the increasing reliance on digital technologies for education, work, healthcare and communication, it is imperative that we prevent digital discrimination and promote fairness and access for such a critical, essential service here in California. So AB 2239 adopts the FCC's definition of digital discrimination, which establishes a clear definition for digital discrimination of access.

This definition provides a framework for identifying and addressing discriminatory practices and broadband Internet provision.

In addition, AB 2239 expressly prohibits internet service providers and, with the amendments, also prohibits covered entities from engaging in digital discrimination of access, which is defined as policies or practices that disparately or differentially impact consumers access based on the factors such as race and ethnicity, religion or national origin.

Here to testify and support are Paul Goodman, legal counsel at the Center for Accessible Technology, and Patrick Messick, Director for Oakland Undivided.

Thank you. You each will have two minutes.

Thank you. Assemblymember Bonta, Chair Bradford, Vice Chair Dahle, and Members of the Committee. I'm Patrick Messick, Director of Oakland Undivided, a collective impact, equity-based initiative that unites the city, school district, and trusted community-based organizations in the pursuit of digital equity for Oakland's 37,000 disconnected households

We are a co-sponsor of AB 2239 alongside the California alliance for Digital Equity, California Community Foundation, NextGen California, the Children's Partnership. I'm speaking today for all of us and the millions of Californians our coalition collectively serves. As my Assemblymember shared the facts of the digital divide in California are stark.

Race and income are the best predictors of whether you're stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide. We've seen these disparities primarily in two ways, quality and pricing. Communities that are predominantly low-income and those that are predominantly non white consistently, systematically have fewer options, receive worse service, and pay more for that service.

In Oakland, we tested more than 15,000 data points and documented that connections in the highest income, whitest zip code receive service 10 times faster than in our poorest, least white, despite subscribing to and paying for similar tiers of service, a pattern mirroring redlining from the 1930s.

In fact, 75% of locations we tested didn't get the speeds fast enough to be considered served under state rules. Our partners at the Fresno Coalition for Digital Inclusion have 15 million data points collected at tens of thousands of locations over this time, documenting the same pattern.

You might assume that these wealthy communities have higher quality connections because they pay more for internet. But the opposite is true. Poor communities pay more for worse Internet. In LA, the California Community Foundation has documented that the advertised cost of internet service is systematically higher in neighborhoods with higher poverty rates.

Independent research has verified these findings at scale. A team at UC Santa Barbara studied more than 35,000 residential addresses in the City of Los Angeles and concluded that wealthier areas receive more bandwidth for less money. This isn't a phenomenon limited to LA.

You're at your two minutes.

Sorry.

You're at your two minutes.

Okay, I'll close with this. On behalf of the bill's sponsors and extensive list of supporters, I urge this Committee to see past the smoke screens, the confusing hypotheticals, and the scare mongering I've known, I've seen discussed with this Bill. This is the signal. All of the noise is.

You're at your two minutes.

The status quo is untenable and wrong, and AB 2239 is appropriate and necessary.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. I'm Paul Goodnut with the Center for Accessible Technology. I've spent over the past decade looking at the historical disparities in broadband deployment, and I want to talk about specifically the amendments to this bill. But I want to start with some historical context.

One of the most pernicious harms of segregation was that it made black and brown children feel inferior to white children.

There's a host of social sciences that say because they went to schools that weren't as good as white schools, because they lived in areas that were food deserts, and because they have subpar or nonexistent communication services, they grow up thinking they're less deserving than their white counterparts. That is shameful.

The other thing I want to note historically is the Supreme Court desegregated schools in Brown vs. Board of Education. But that desegregation was slow. So the Supreme Court came back with the Brown II decision, and they unfortunately used the term "with all deliberate speed."

And opponents of desegregation used that term deliberate to slow down or stop desegregation of schools. The eligible entities amendment is the all deliberate speed of this bill. For entities with a good faith commitment to broadband equity, that language is going to make them nervous about any potential risk.

And for bad faith entities, they will use that language to block or delay deployment. That's not acceptable. Additionally, the eligible entity's language is not consistent with the FCC order. The FCC is a regulatory agency and monitors its own rules. And therefore, it's relatively easy for the FCC to say, hey, we need to change who's an eligible entity.

And in fact, the FCC order says we're not going to decide whether to say landlords are eligible entities or not yet.

So instead, the enforcement here is going to be district attorneys and the Attorney General, and we're going to end up with a host of regulatory uncertainty because every jurisdiction will end up with its own definition of what an eligible entity is.

And I will say, for me, the most frustrating part is by giving this expansive definition of eligible entities, we are not placing the blade.

Wait for two minutes. I'm going to ask you to close.

Yeah, I'll say very quickly. In Judaism, there's a concept called Tikkun Olam. It means healing the world. The world's broken and it's our duty to try and fix it. And the most important part of that is this statement. You're not obliged to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it.

I'm asking this Committee today to continue that work and make sure that we get broadband to the communities the most needed. Thank you very much and I'm happy to answer any question.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Additional witnesses and support state your name and your organization, please.

Mr. Chairman, Horacio Gonzalez, on behalf of the California Alliance for Digital Equity and NextGen California, both co sponsors of the bill and strong support.

Dan Seaman on behalf of End Poverty in California, in strong support. Thank you. Thank you.

Paneraya Avdis. On behalf of the California Community Foundation, co-sponsor Great Public Schools Now, Alliance for a Better Community, Community Coalition of the Antelope Valley, Destination Crenshaw, Arts for LA, Communities and Schools of Los Angeles, Healing and Justice Center, Innovative Public Schools, Family in Schools, Latino Equality Alliance, Our Voice, Communities for Quality Education, Para Los Niños, Southeast Community Development Corporation, United Parents and Students, and the Angelino Project, all in support.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Next witness, Annie Chow with the California Teachers Association in support.

Thank you.

Nicole Wortleman, on behalf of The Children's Partnership, co sponsor, Fresno Coalition for Digital Inclusion and Unite LA in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Beth Malnowski to SEIU California in support.

Thank you.

Dolores Huerta, Dolores Huerta Foundation. And I just want to remind everyone that slavery in slavery days they denied an education. Denying digital access is actually doing exactly the same thing, not only denying an education, but denying people their future. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Huerta.

Next witness, Juanita Chavez from the Dolores Huerta Foundation and Justice For My Sister in support.

Thank you.

Yesenia Contreras, Dolores Huerta Foundation. My family is from Arvin, California. I grew up in Arvin, California. Small working farm town and strong support. Thank you.

Marvin Pineda, on behalf of the California Emerging Technology Fund and support. Thank you. Thank you.

Sascha Horowitz, Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Josh Gaga, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in support.

Hello, my name is Shirley Lam with Insure The Uninsured Project in support of this Bill. Also expressing support on behalf of the Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County and everyone on. Thank you.

Hi, Cynthia Diaz, Director of Community Impact with Oakland Undivided, co-sponsor of this bill, representing the following 11 Oakland organizations in support: Oakland NAACP, Hack the Hood, The Unity Council, Oakland Youth Commission, OUSD Tech Repair Program, Tech Exchange, Urban Montessori Charter School, Youth Uprising, Caper Center, and Lighthouse Community Public School. Thank you.

Thank you, Next witness.

Stella Johnson on behalf of San Francisco Unified School District in support.

Thank you.

Bella Kern, on behalf of Michelson Center for Public Policy and support.

Thank you. Any more witnesses in support? Hearing, seeing none now. Witnesses in opposition state your name, your organization. Are you the primary witness in opposition? You have two minutes.

Good morning. Chair and Members, Amanda Guadaram with Cal Broadband. While we appreciate the goal of AB 2239, we disagree with the method and must oppose the bill. It is important to note that the FCC rule to which this bill is modeled after is under litigation in federal court currently, with opening arguments beginning in September.

The disagreement between the difference in liability standards is part of this litigation, so utilizing the standard in state statute is premature. A disparate impact standard does not require any intent to discriminate and invites unintentional consequences in the marketplace. Plaintiffs could allege that failure to upgrade or deploy new technologies in all communities simultaneously has a disparate impact.

Broadband providers cannot deploy everywhere at once because the situation will increase the risk of litigation. It may undermine the willingness of providers to undertake new deployments or new providers to enter the market. We have requested an amendment to change this problematic standardization with a disparate treatment liability standard.

A disparate treatment standard is intent based and would ensure that AB 2239 creates an enforceable framework in California without relying on the disputed aspects of the FCC rule. Under a disparate treatment standard, broadband providers would have a clear understanding of their responsibilities under the law and would not fear the risk of unwarranted litigation.

Currently, California has the benefit of being the seat of investment for the technology sector, including broadband infrastructure. Policies such as imposing a disparate impact standard will have a chilling effect regarding growth, upgrades, and innovation.

Ensuring universal access to broadband infrastructure is an important issue to everyone, which is why we must oppose AB 2239 as it continues to have a disparate impact standard which will have negative, unintended consequences. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness. Primary witness in opposition. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and to the Committee. I'm Pastor Andre Chappell from the African American Empowerment Coalition. I am what you would call the boots on the ground in the hood in South-Central LA. We work in Compton, the Watts areas.

We are actually the ones that have to deal with this problem, and we lead our constituents as such. Let me be clear this morning. Ensuring that all families, especially people of color, are served quality broadband service is vital to everybody in California. The problem is this bill is not going to do that.

In fact, it's actually going to do the opposite. It's actually going to slow down deployment for broadband for all. And like, they'll probably end programs like the ones that I offer to our community in South LA. The problem with this Bill is really the definition of discrimination.

Civil rights laws have historically been designed to fix situations where the bad actors intentionally—I highlight the word intentionally—discriminate against people because of who they are. Unfortunately, this bill really tries to expand the historic standard, instead with a disparate impact standard that will likely result in broadband providers being served big lawsuits and big penalties.

This will only lead to them giving less of an investment or even supporting programs like the ones that AAC does. Under this bill, I really want to know, how do we expect a broadband provider to decide where they're going to do their upgrades?

If they do it in South LA and don't do it in Compton, will they be hit with a big lawsuit? How do we judge that?

The other question I want to know is, how does a broadband provider supposed to work with a local community group to provide discounted services to citizens if they're going to be penalized for not providing that same, that same resource to another community at the same time? Well, we all know the answer.

They cannot do that all at the same time. So what's going to be the result? And I leave you with this. This is ultimately going to be your support for this Bill, and I respect the author tremendously.

These definitions of discriminations are not clear, and they're going to cause problems where we're not going to get the support anymore that we used to get.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, witnesses of your me too's? State your name, and your organization, please.

Hi. Meg Snyder, Axiom, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, opposed.

Yolanda Benson, US Telecom, the Broadband Association, strongly opposed to 2239.

Roxanne Gould with the Wireless Infrastructure Association, in opposition.

Audra Hartmann on behalf of CalCom, also opposed.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, opposed.

Jonathan Arambel on behalf of CTIA, the Trade Association for the Wireless Industry, also opposition.

Christopher Rodriguez on behalf of the Cal Chamber of Commerce, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in the room in opposition to this measure, AB 2239? Hearing and seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee. Senator Newman.

Assemblymember, you and I have had conversations about my concerns about the difference in liability language, the standard, and I share some of the concerns about unintended consequences, but that is a legal matter, and so I'm willing at this point, as a courtesy to you, I'm going to give you an aye vote today when we have a quorum, but I Reserve my right when it comes to the floor, if it comes to the floor, to make a different vote.

But that's an important conversation I think it's important to have at Senate judiciary.

So thank you. Appreciate it, Senator.

It'd be Dodd.

Senator Dodd.

Well, I certainly respect Miss Bonta, great Assembly Member, great friend, but on this one I am more taken by the testimony of the primary speakers against this. And while I do believe this is good policy and support these type of policies all the time, the second primary, sir, I didn't remember your name. I'm sorry.

Yeah, that is the biggest concern I think, that I have in this, that it's going to cause more problems than it's going to solve. I guess I got one question to the author is, why don't you just take an amendment on the standard and let's see how that works?

Because otherwise, I think we're going to find that with a policy like this that we're not going to get anywhere anyway. So we can get the policy in place right now, but not have needless litigation going forward.

Want to address that before we continue? Secretary, let's establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Members of quorum, present, Senator, Assembly Member Bonta, you may respond.

Using two common refrains that we've heard, and on the issue of whether or not this will somehow stymie deployment or make ISP providers somehow hesitant to upgrade broadband and engage in providing infrastructure to us. That is a common refrain that has been used time and time again.

And just to be very clear, requirements that ISP providers applying for and receiving federal funding commit to offering a low income option. We heard that same thing. Requirements that ISP providers back up power for their networks for the first 72 hours of a power outage to allow continuous emergency response access.

We heard that refrain. Expanding customer service standards for phone service to avoid safety rules regarding poll attachments investments in the state's middle mile broadband initiative. I can go on net neutrality rules, federal and californian.

Federal and California is increasing the minimum speed to be considered broadband, requiring more specific reporting on services versus underserved, unserved communities, requiring more transparent customer service standards.

The refrain of the chicken little refrain of we are not going to be able to deploy and it will stymie our ability to innovate, has been used time and time again by industry.

The impact of that is that it makes good people, like the primary opposition witnessed, worry about having the ability to have a basic service, an essential service in Internet. We cannot fall for that. It is time for us to be able to apply a very high standard of disparate impact, not disparate treatment to this. In Griggs v. Dukes Power Company, Dothrid v. Rawlinson, Brown v. Board of Education, the disparate impact standardization was a standard that was used to be able to ensure that protected communities, protected classifications would have the ability to seek recourse in the event that there was a demonstrated impact and disparity in the deployment of those services. This is no different.

We are at the point now where Internet service is an essential right. Effectively, and we need to be able to maintain that higher standard.

Yeah. With all due respect, the cases you cited, a number of those were when I was in the legislature and I supported them all. What this does is this sets up a standard that creates a real problem in my mind of litigation and unintended consequences. So I guess we just. I don't think we disagree on the policy.

I think what we disagree on is what happens when there's a problem with the policy and somebody tries to bring an action, whether it's disparate versus whatever the other one is. I think you understand what I'm saying.

I do, Senator. And if I may, please.

We need to be in a position right now as public servants to ensure that we're protecting our most vulnerable communities. We've been able to do that in education, in housing and employment with the application of the disparate impact. In all of those instances, I'm sure and certain that there was an argument made around unintended consequences.

But the real life consequences today are that people in our communities, people of color, low income communities, are not receiving the kind of Internet service that they need and require to be able to live.

And so I'm worried about the unintended consequence of not providing a very explicit remedy to those communities, which this bill does to ensure that they have the ability to do that.

Thank you. Thank you for your work. I know you're very deeply, deeply passionate about this. You know, I have a few questions, and, you know, I've discussed this. We don't have to go into all of them. But, I mean, these are not a couple questions about the premise and then the implementation.

These are not monopoly providers. Right. And maybe if you wanted to apply an obligation to serve, then we need to shift to more of a utility model or such. These are not monopoly providers. And so I guess I asked you for examples where we've seen the disparate impact standard.

You gave me some in government decisions, education, zoning, housing. But are there other examples in private businesses? And then I guess in the FCC approach, they created a complaint process rather than a litigation process. And why did you choose a civil litigation process for this?

I'll address the issue around the complaint process first. So this bill actually right now includes as enforceable entities the office of the California Office of Civil Rights, as well as public attorneys.

It has no private right of action, just to be clear, because we don't want deleterious and, you know, ongoing lawsuits coming from others, I think it's fair to place the ability to issue a complaint process through the Office of Civil Rights, which this bill does, and also to be able to reserve the right to take action with our public attorneys, our Attorney General, our public, our city attorneys and public and district attorneys.

And the reason why that's important is because when they bring lawsuits or claims, they have to do so by first achieving a very high standard. To be able to provide a prima facie case. To be able to do that, they first have to identify that there's a challenging policy or practice.

They have to ensure that there's a relevant comparative population existing. They have to ensure that there is a demonstrated adverse impact on that population. And then they have to determine that the significance of the disparity is actually connected to and causally related to the specific policy or practice that's outlined.

That establishment of that criteria that's used is a very high bar for public attorneys to be able to have to meet.

They have to know that something's problematic and then they have to do their homework and bring forward a case that I'm sure after going through that would have incredible legitimacy to be able to start the conversation through action around what needs to be done. Ultimately, the remedy is an opportunity for injunctive relief.

So the ISP providers basically have to correct the harm. I think that's a fair thing for us to be able to ask of our ISP providers and others as it relates to whether or not there are kind of private individuals or entities involved in this. The disparate impact standard has been applied in workforce settings.

That's a private, that's a private banker, cabinet maker, whatever. It's a private business entity where we're essentially saying we don't want discrimination to exist. The concern is so great as a state that we need to be able to ensure that discrimination is not happening in those settings.

Whether it's in a business setting where there's discrimination against an entity because alleged, because they are discriminating against for age reasons, the state and the public does actually step into those situations to essentially say we need to protect the right.

And it's so important that we need to be able to do that and uses the disparate impact standard to be able to do that, which in some ways kind of broadens the responsibility and the onus of the public attorneys and the office of Civil Rights to establish because you have to have something that says whole communities are being impacted by this and we're using our public dollars and resources in a very conservative way because that's our directive to them to be able to do that.

So that's my response to those two questions.

No, no, no. And I think that's, you know, first, I appreciate that. I think that's helpful. And I think, you know, with, you know, trust faces in many of our city attorneys.

I think, you know, I guess, Ian, you and I have discussed this and I know your background and I served on the border one economy for over a decade. And we are flagship program was the big it home program, bring it home with Barack Obama, John McCain.

But it was really about building broadband, affordable housing departments, affordable housing projects and having training young folks there and paying them to train others. And I looked at this for a long time. I just, you know, where I come down is that, you know, these are not monopoly providers who have a regulated return.

And, and so having a lawsuit remedy for that to, you know, when there may not be clear cases of discrimination, I think is concerning. But the bigger issue for me is just, you know, we're spending $6 billion to fix this problem.

And as chair budget sub two, I've had the PUC in front of me many times on this issue and I've had ask them, what is your plan? I've tried to get clarification from them. How many people remain to be served? How many people are unserved, how many people are underserved and what is our plan?

And do we have a plan to get to zero? And I think right now the burden is on us as a state to do that. We put the money up. The feds are putting the money up. We have the money to solve this problem. And I'm certainly be open to this bill in the future.

But I think right now, if anyone should be, you know, I won't say that. If anyone's responsible right now, I'd say it is the state. We have this money. We've had this money for three years. It's our job to go out and make sure that people are served. And frankly, I'm concerned about our plan on that.

And that's a whole different topic. But right now I think we're spending the money. It's our job to make sure these people get served. So again, open to this in the future, but I will likely not be supporting this day. But I do appreciate your efforts.

Senator Eggman, only if you're asked by the Committee Members or the law there, you're not going to be weighing in. Senator Eggman.

Thank you. Thank you. And I'm sorry I wasn't here for a lot of the conversation. I, like other members, have some of the similar concerns, the impact versus intent and the maliciousness or the, you know, I don't think anyone thinks companies are acting with maliciousness.

I think, as people have pointed out, our housing policies and everything else that we've done have created the situation. But I committed to you that I was going to vote for this bill today and to help you get it to the floor, and I will.

Senator Stern, I believe is up next.

Thank you, so many women for bringing this forward. I don't share the same concerns necessarily as some of the opposition about the overall context of the legal framework you've set up here. I think we can find a way through this without sort of the burdens that intent, an intent based standard would require.

I know that some of that we'll be discussing in judiciary if this bill moves forward. But I did want to ask, you accepted the committee amendments? Okay.

Some of them mirror the, from a scope perspective, the covered entities in the FCC's order, which I know has sort of created a series of other challenges with the bill. And now there's more folks who are opposed. We're hearing from apartment owners, folks like that.

But sort of setting that additional complication aside, this idea of sort of mirroring on the FCC order, I want to see if I get your comment or maybe even your lead witnesses perspective, the kind of burden shifting framework that's more in the weeds of the FCC order as opposed to that sort of overall architecture which we mirror.

Is there a problem with trying to kind of get that granular with this framework?

In other words, to stick with your impact standard, but to get towards, like, when do you anticipate, I guess, would that be resolved through litigation under the current framework in the bill, or is that kind of the burden shifting framework and some of the details in the FCC order, do you or your sponsors think that that is better left to the courts to decide, or is there a way to add a little more of that detail here in statute so people really know what they're getting?

Ideally, no one has to go to court. Right. Because, I mean, I think that's the ideal, is that our providers do their job and we don't have to have a hammer and people start delivering.

And so the more we sort of know about what those evidentiary thresholds would be and sort of how that would roll, it just feels like kind of disentangle ourselves in this big conflict here. So maybe you have a comment or others.

Yeah, I'll comment and then ask my a lead testimony witness to speak to this as well. I want to just kind of first frame what's happening with the FCC right now and our regulatory bodies and whether or not, as opposition spoke to this is preemptive.

The FCC right now took two years to be able to put together a stakeholder process to come forward with definition of digital discrimination of access. They didn't do so lightly, willy nilly. They thought this through and they involved a broad group of individuals and entities to be able to do that.

The fact that we now have in regulation through the FCC the definition around digital discrimination of access, which this mirrors, really speaks to the fact that despite infrastructure dollars, as Senator Becker mentioned here in California, $6 billion in order to be able to kind of fix this problem, we are not at a point yet where we can guarantee or even come close to ensuring that there won't be an execution or an implementation challenge that will cause many communities to be left out.

So what we do have happening, though, is that the FCC is a regulatory body.

We've just had rulings from the Supreme Court come down that make us kind of question whether or not the FCC or any regulatory agency is really going to be able to have the force to be able to continue operating at their full strength with Chevron.

So for California to kind of step into that space right now and lead as we do and essentially say we through statute, are wanting to be able to define statutorily what digital discrimination of access is, is a very important thing to happen in this moment right now, particularly given what's going to change, to speak to the issue around kind of shifting the burden.

I think what you're getting at is what is lined out in a lot of the kind of the discriminate, disparate impact jurisprudence is around the meeting that standard of proof, essentially, I'm very open to considering including that standard of proof, if you will, as it's been laid out historically.

And we know that to be identifying the challenge relevant comparative population, demonstrating adverse impact and then demonstrating the significance of disparity and the causal linkage between the specific policy and practice and the disparate impact on community, that is already what we have used before.

I think I'm open to considering that as something that we could include in this legislation should it move forward. It is in keeping with anti discrimination jurisprudence and with the intention of this bill.

Do you mind if I ask the lead witness on just that point and. And really trying to align to the author's point, sticking with your intent here to not necessarily go to an intent based framework, but one that the business committee will know what they're getting themselves into.

And I do appreciate the one amendment there, that the disparate impact doesn't include policies and practices justified by substantial legitimate business interest.

But if that were sort of Fed into this, I guess, more granular standard of proof so that they would know is there, do you see a way to accomplish that and in a way that we wouldn't be undercut by, say, Federal litigation against the FCC's discretionary authority to pursue their orders?

Well, I would start by saying that based on my experience with providers, there's going to be legal challenges to this regardless. They have sued because the CPUC has said, we'd like to know how much of your profit is generated from telephone service and how much is from broadband service.

And they said, we don't think we should have to answer that. So that's a separate issue.

I think one of the challenges here is the FCC order has a lot of sections where they go, this is our framework, but we're reserving the right to adjust that as we need to because we don't know how things are going to play out. That's why they said, they didn't say, hey, landlords are covered entities.

They said, we're declining to declare they're not covered entities at this time. So I think it's more challenging as a legislative body because there's not necessarily as much nimbleness there. I also, I think this is related. I apologize if it's not.

But one thing that's important to understand is that when providers in California decide where they're going to build or upgrade their networks, they won't even look at places where they expect to make less than 20% return on investment. And it's usually much higher than that. It's usually 30% or above.

So there's these statements that, oh, there's going to be all sorts of horrible problems. Right. Yeah.

So I get the overall context. I guess I'm just trying to sort of pinpoint the issue, especially because provided we move forward today, we're going to be seeing this this afternoon in judiciary.

So I get that also some of this is beyond energy, but I did want to, if you would indulge me, Mister chair, just ask the lead opposition witness just about this idea of like integrating this standard of proof and if that's going to change how the opposition views this standard, if you all know what's coming your way, I get that your primary request is about the shifting to an intent standard, which is obviously going to have different standards of proof.

But how do you all view the FCC framework which you all participated in? Could that be workable to mirror here in state law?

Thank you, Senator, for the question. I think as you noted, changing the, adding in the burden shifting from the FCC rule. I'd obviously have to see, like with the language is and that kind of thing, because it significantly does not address our primary concern regarding the standard of liability being disparate impact and avoiding the unintended consequences.

And a few things I just wanted to note is that the FCC is a regulatory process so they can shift more easily when things are not working or having harder unintended consequences. And this framework, it's a litigatory framework which is not as easy to shift when things are not working.

But on the whole, you're okay with the FCC framework as it stands.

Now, we are under lawsuit right now against the FCC regarding that.

I see. So you're challenging that framework. So understood. All right. I know we'll be seeing this further today. I think that's a thread worth pulling despite the opposition's outstanding concerns there. So I just would appreciate that. Extra homework.

I think that it's a legitimate thread to pull. I think the challenge is that and certainly open to continuing to do that. I think it's a thoughtful way to be able to do that. I actually do think it very directly addresses and further defines disparate impact in a way that is helpful.

So I'm not clear on the opposition's comment, nor am I clear on, quite frankly, the moving goalposts that I've been, we've been subject to in this bill for the last 18 months as we've been moving this bill, over the last several months, as we've been moving this bill forward.

I just think industry needs to take a particular position, and that's what it's going to be. So I will continue to in good faith kind of work on the policy aspects of this, despite that.

Any other questions or comments by committee members? No. Okay. I want to thank the author for working with committee staff and myself over the last couple of days of trying to get a bill that we can continue the discussion on. It's an issue that we're all very much concerned with and we have a lot of challenges.

I appreciate you willing to take the amendments to keep the discussion moving forward on this bill. So on that note, if you would like to close, I would do that at this time.

Thank you. In the kind of 2009 to 20212 timeframe memory escapes, I had the privilege of consulting with the FCC to develop the then Obama Administration's plan for the use of broadband in education. It was back in the day when we kind of said there's this thing happening called broadband.

How in the world do we make sure to be able to use it for its most effective use in all aspects of it? The broadband plan that the FCC moved forward with, I worked on the education component was just one of several different aspects.

They focused on housing and employment and the ultimate goal of the plan at that time, and the initiative and Senator Becker worked on an aspect of this, was to ensure that this incredible asset would be used in a way to lift up our communities.

The reality right now is that we have communities who are consistently saying to us, hey, we have been left out. We are being left out.

When Covid hit it was even worse because we saw what happened with people not having the ability to access through the Internet, healthcare services, their education, job, employment, all the things that we know are needed.

Internet is now undeniably an essential service, an essential asset that every community member should be able to have the right to be able to use. What this bill does is ensure that when, despite no maliciousness, but despite practice, we have a situation where communities have been left out.

This bill, by simply offering a definition around digital discrimination of access, allows those communities a remedy and a voice to be able to have an ability to impact that for their communities. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Okay. All right, so we do have a dupass, as amended to committee on judiciary, and I'll just state what those amendments are. Delete section two of the bill. Expand the entities prohibited from engaging in digital discrimination to include covered entities as defined by the FCC order.

And finally, to clarify that digital discrimination does not include policies and practices justified by legitimate business impediments. Is that correct, Senator? Assemblywoman Bonta?

That is correct. Okay.

Secretary, please call the roll on AB 2239. We need a motion. It's been moved by Senator Ashby. Thank you. Please call the roll.

Okay, it's do passed to be amended in Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call] Nine to three, it needs one more vote.

That's currently nine to three. You need one more vote to get out. I thank you for your presentation. And do you have any other. Was that our last vote? Okay. All right, we're gonna start at the top of the roll and the file, I should say, and go through the roll. Okay? Yes.

Starting with file item one, AB 551. We need a motion. Motion by Senator Dahle. We have a do pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call] 15-0.

Our current vote's 15 to zero. Is everyone up, or we're going to leave the roll open on that? We have absent Members. We're going to leave that open. All right. Now, moving on to file item number three, 1533. We have a motion by Senator Dahle. We have a do pass as amended to Senate Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1533, consent item. Consent item. Yeah. [Roll Call]

Call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

17-0. We're missing one Member. Consent calendar is out. Now, moving on to file item four, AB 2368 by Petrie-Norris. We have a motion by Senator Dahle. We have do pass as amended to Senate Committee on Appropriations. Please call the roll.

AB 2368, Petrie-Norris. [Roll Call]

That measure's out, 17-0. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. We'll move on now to file item five, AB 2672 by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. Do we have a motion? It's been moved by Senator Eggman. Again, do pass as amended to Senate Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, call the roll.

[Roll Call] 15 to zero.

Current vote's 15-0. We'll leave the roll open. Now, moving on to file item six, AB 1588, by Assembly Member Wilson. We have a do pass is amended to Senate Committee on Appropriations. We still need a motion. She took the amendments. It's been moved by Senator Eggman. The amendment's just... Senator Eggman. Senator. Senator. Just for clarity, she'll be taking them the next committee, right? No, she took them here. Yeah. Thinking about another bill. So she took them here. Yeah. All right. You can call the roll.

AB 1588 by Wilson. [Roll Call] 14 to three.

Current vote's 14 to three. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Now, moving on to file item seven, AB 1912 by Assembly Member Pacheco. We got a motion by Senator Dahle. We have do pass as amended to Senate Committee on Appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

14-0, that measure's out. We'll leave the roll open. Now, moving to file item eight, AB 2054, by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan. We have do pass as amended to Senate Committee on Appropriations. Do I have a motion? It's been moved by Senator Dodd. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2054. [Roll Call]

14 to two, that measures out. Now, members, we're moving the file item nine. We have a motion. We have... Lifting the call for absent Members.

2239, Bonta, do pass to be amended in Judiciary Committee. Current vote, 9-3. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]

10-3.

10-3. That measure is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members if they choose to add on. Now file item 10, Soria 2661. It's been moved by Senator Dahle. We have do pass to the Floor. Secretary, you may call the roll.

[Roll calll] 17 to zero.

17-0. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Now we're moving on to. Is that file item nine we just did?

11

11 that was. Now moving to file item 11. That was 10. That was 10. Now file 11, AB 2666 by Boerner. We have a do pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. We're looking for a motion. It's been moved by Senator Caballero. Secretary, you may call the roll.

AB 2666. [Roll call] 15-2.

Current vote is15-2. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Now, we're moving on to file item 12 by Assembly Member Addis, AB 2847.

We need a motion.

Still seeking a motion on this one. I'm sorry. It's been moved by Senator Becker. Please call do pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

AB 2847. [Roll call] 15-2.

15.