Senate Standing Committee on Rules

Thank you all for taking the time to be here with us today as I hack up. Very grateful. We have a pretty lengthy hearing. A few housekeeping items in regards to each of the commissioners for the Board of Parole. We're going to take separate votes, take separate votes for each of the commissioners today.

We'll have each of the commissioners, though, to come forward all at once, and the questioning will happen as a panel, but we'll take separate votes for each of the commissioners. We have several items that are in front of us that will be administrative.

We request a little bit of patience for the next few minutes as we get through the administrative portion of today's hearing. Before we get started, let's establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Quorum's been established and I know that Senator Caballero is on her way and she'll be here momentarily. Members, we'd like to be able to start with governor's appointees not required to appear. We'd like to be able to take two separate votes. Our first vote will be on items 2, F and I.

Our second vote will be on 2G, H, J, K so let's get started. Is there a motion for items two, F and I? We have a motion by Senator Laird. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We're going to put that Item on call. 2F&I is currently on call, and we'll bring that back up at appropriate time with Senator Cabo is in the room. Ladies and gentlemen, the Committee. We'd like to take our second vote under governor's appointees not required to appear.

Is there a motion to approve item number two, G, H, J and K? We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

As a 4-0 vote, we're going to put items two, GHJK on call, and we'll have Senator Caballero add on to that as well. We're now going to be moving on to Bill referrals. Is there a motion to approve item number three on today's agenda? We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair.

Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

4 to 0 vote. We're going to put that item on call. Ladies and gentlemen, Committee, we're now moving on to floor acknowledgments. Floor acknowledgments. This is items number 4 through 11 on today's agenda. Floor acknowledgments. Is there a motion for approval? We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair. Senator Caballero, welcome. We are on floor acknowledgements.

Madam Secretary, if you could please call the roll. Four through 11. Four through 11. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

5 to 0 Thank you so much. That motion passes. Give us one minute, please. Members, would it be all right with the Committee if we lift calls and get her done here? Under governor's appointees, item number two, current vote on. We're going to do two different motions. We're going to first take up item number two, F&I. Item number two, F&I. It is a. Madam Secretary, if you can please give the current vote tally and call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That motion passes. We're now going to be moving to items 2G, H, J, K. This is under Governor's appointees not required to appear. 2 G, H, J, K. Madam Secretary, if you could please give the current vote total and call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That's five to 0, 5-0 vote. That motion passes. We're now going to be moving on to Bill referrals. Current vote is 40. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

5-0 vote. That motion passes. And we just voted on floor acknowledgments. Ladies and gentlemen, now going to be moving back to Governor. Appointees required to appear. We're going to ask each of the four commissioners if they could please come forward at this time. If each of the commissioners can please come forward to the.

To the table, we welcome you. We're going to take this 60 second break as the commissioners get situated. Commissioners, we are really grateful that each of you are here and want to take a moment to say thank you so much for your service to the people of California.

This is a difficult job and we are grateful that you have chosen to be able to step up and take it. Would like to be able to walk through just some of the Ground rules in regards to this next portion, we're going to ask each of you to be able to provide opening statements.

We respectfully request that you keep your opening statements to three minutes or less. During your opening statement, we respectfully request that you acknowledge any individual who may be here in the room, family, friends and or watching online.

What we're going to then do is we're going to open it up for each of the Committee Members to be able to ask questions, and those questions may be directed to an individual Commissioner or en masse. But we'll start with Ms. Dobbs and then work our way down to my right.

And again, we are incredibly grateful that each and every one of you are here and for your service. Commissioner Dobbs, we welcome you to Committee. You have three minutes. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Good afternoon to the chair and all the Members of the Committee. I am grateful to be appearing before you again. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Governor for reappointing me.

I also want to thank my sister, Jacint Appleby, who's behind me here to support me, and my friend Willie Mckinney, who's also in the room, supported me. I also have sisters, Grace, Carol, Lynette, Dorette, all watching online, as well as the Members of my meditation group. I look forward to answering your questions today.

Thank you so much. Commissioner Dobbs, we're grateful that you're here. We're now going to go to the next Commissioner for the Board of Parole. We are grateful. Commissioner Garland, you are here. The floor is yours. You have three minutes.

Thank you all very much for having us here today. I am also honored to be reappointed to the board to serve another term. And I do look forward to your questions today. I joined the board in 2021 after a pretty wonderful career at the Attorney General's Office for 25 years.

I thought I knew pretty much everything about criminal justice and parole. That was a mistake, because being here and seeing it on a human level day and day out is a very different experience. You know, hearing from victims and family Members who share their loss and the impact that the crime has had on them decades after it occurred.

To hear inmates or incarcerated people, you know, talk about taking acknowledgement for that impact and really working towards change and knowing that every decision that we make as a panel in a parole hearing can have a tremendous impact, not just on the victims and the incarcerated, but on public safety as a whole. And it has.

It is a heavy responsibility. It is a challenging job. It is one That I actually just love. It is really a fantastic way to spend your day and to make a difference in people's lives. Just the reward, the satisfaction. And knowing that, like I said, making a difference is great.

I do want to take an opportunity to thank my family who are possibly watching and possibly not. I think I discourage them pretty well, but they are always here to support me no matter what. I also really appreciate the Governor trusting me with another term, and I thank all of you for. For your time and consideration today.

Commissioner, thank you so much. We're very grateful you're here. Appreciate you. We're going to now go to Commissioner Ndudim.

Thank you so much. Senator, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. First, I want to thank the Governor for the opportunity to continue to serve as Commissioner with the Board of Pro Hearings. I also want to thank my family, my wife, my three children, Kelechi, Olachi, and Ugonna.

They were here last time, and they told me, we've been through this process before. You can do this by yourself. I also want to thank my parents, because without them, I would not be here today. It's been an honor and a privilege for me to serve as a Commissioner with the Board of Parole hearings.

Not only before I became a Commissioner, I was a deputy Commissioner. I've sat through almost a thousand suitability hearings, and this job has been not only impactful, but meaningful to me in the capacity that the Governor has entrusted me and the Senate has confirmed me. Before that, I was a temporary Superior Court judge.

That also gave me a foundation on what to look for in this job. Again, I want to thank the Senate. I want to thank everybody, and I look forward to answering your question. Thank you so much.

Commissioner. Thank you. And family is always honest. So hot day, even if we like it or not. Very grateful. Thank you so much. We're now going to turn the floor over to Commissioner Sheffield. Welcome.

All right, thank you. Good afternoon. I would like to thank the Committee for consideration of my confirmation today. I also would like to thank the Governor for the appointment and for entrusting me with this great response, responsibility that comes with this role.

I am the newest Commissioner, and as forewarned, I have found that the job is very challenging, I think, in every dimension that you could imagine. But I've also found that it is incredibly meaningful work.

As my colleagues have expressed, it is hard to imagine a job that is more impactful to just directly so on a daily basis than this position. I also cannot say enough positive things about the board, about my colleagues, how Great. They've made this transition to, again, this very difficult job.

The amount of support that I've received from them is really remarkable. And then I will also take the opportunity to thank my family. I think my parents are watching online, so. Hi, mom and dad. My sister is watching as well. I will also take the chance to thank my daughters who are in school right now.

But they have really rolled with the scheduling issues that tend to arise with this job, the long hours, the unpredictable days. So I thank them for that. It really is a privilege to serve in this role. It is a privilege to be here today, and I welcome your questions. So thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner, how old are your daughters?

They are 7 and 11.

Oh, my gosh. Fun ages. Yes. Yes. Okay. Prior to. They get to teenagers.

Right. The good times.

Watch out. Yes. Thank you so much, Commissioner. What we're going to do, Commissioner, is we're going to open it up again. Senators may ask one individual or. And they'll identify if they'd like each of you to be able to answer the question. After that, we'll open it up for public comment.

We'd like to be able to see who would like to be able to kick us off for the. Please, Madam Vice Chair. Then we'll go to Senator Laird and Vice Chair. Floor is yours.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you all for being here again, I believe. Except one of you. Right? Or you're all. Yes. Yes. Okay. So thank you all for being here. I appreciate it.

In the response that you sent to the Rules Committee regarding questions that we had sent out, you, one way or another, all of you indicated the importance of rehabilitation efforts while people are incarcerated. How do you evaluate and measure the success of those programs?

And if they're working and if they aren't working, what measures can you take to make sure that we do the right programs so that people are more successful once a second chancer is out in society? I'll start with Ms. Dobbs. Sorry, Commissioner Dobbs. I apologize.

You're good.

They'll turn on the mic. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you for the question. So in evaluating whether the programs are working, we first look at the behavior that the person is displaying during their time in that prison community.

So that is the first demonstration of whether those programs are working, because it comes out in the way they interact with their community. And that is a perfect example of what will happen when they come back out into the greater community. Of course, examples of it not working are the obvious.

They're still getting rules violations, they are not interacting well with others. And so we see it show up in that way during the hearing. We spend time talking to them about what they've learned from the programs and how that's changed their lives. And that's another indication of whether those programs are working.

And so in terms of responding to how do we know when we should recommend other programs? We tend to get that from them a lot, because what we see is that when they see that there is a need, they often create those programs and have it approved through the institution. And they're often very good programs.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.

I would agree with all of that. I think that one thing that we need to keep in mind with programs, it's similar to a suitability finding, and a hearing itself is one size does not fit at all.

And so the programs, you know, when folks recognize what they need to work on and they take the programs that fit that, then there's usually success. But when they try to take programs that aren't really working on the issues that they have, we see that disconnect.

And so that's something I think that we can, like Commissioner Dobbs said, we can evaluate in the hearing just by talking through what they've learned and how it is addressing the specific issues that they have.

As far as recommendations we do have, there are a lot of programs at a lot of different institutions, and so we have pretty good knowledge of that just by hearing the incarcerated folks talk about it, tell us about them, and then we can also use that knowledge to recommend them to somebody else who could benefit from them.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Senator. I agree with Commissioner Dobbs and Commissioner, not only that, when we evaluate and take a look at the record, there's also issues, underlying issues that we may see that hasn't been fully addressed, that we can make recommendations. For example, they may not have issues with domestic violence.

We can recommend they take some programming and come back and let us know what they've learned in this program and demonstrate, just like Commissioner Gallant, Commissioner Dobbs said, the behavior is an indicator of where they are going in terms of their rehabilitation.

Thank you, ma'am.

Yes, I agree with everything that's been said. I also, I do think it's very helpful speaking to them at the hearing. They also often submit writings, and I think it's important and useful to see that they don't just. Just understand generally the program concepts, but that they apply them to themselves.

And I think that's really where the hard work is. And that's where you see the programming really working, if they can talk about what they learned and apply it to their own experiences. And then often that means processing through what happened, what they did, what risk factors they have, and then moving forward from there.

I do think, you know, they're also happy to talk about the programs, what has worked for them, what hasn't. Often people will say victim impact, you know, something like that's really useful to kind of get them thinking, get the ball going.

And so having spoken to people who've said that, if I have someone at the very beginning of working through things, I might recommend that as a way to get started. They do provide a lot of useful feedback to us as well.

Thank you. And the other question that I had is there's a recent data study that was done that indicated that recidivism rates for life term inmates released after they were granted parole is about 3%. And so does the Commission review those cases of individuals who return to prison to better inform commissioners decisions in the future?

Do you guys look at why somebody was sent back to prison after you've granted parole? Is that something you look at? I'll start with Ms. Dobbs again.

Sorry, you're first. Yes, we actually do look at people who come back and we know the reasons why they come back and on occasion they may come back to a hearing before us. And so yes, we do look at that.

We often, of course, for me, when I look at it, I look to see did I miss something. You know, we take a responsibility for the decisions that we make. And so if someone comes back, we want to make sure that we didn't miss something important. Oftentimes it isn't the case.

You know, it's just someone encounters something that they didn't expect or they thought that they were prepared, but they really weren't when the facts of life hits them. And so we do look at it and adjust when we have to.

I don't want to say I couldn't agree more, but obviously the jobs that all of you are being appointed to is a huge responsibility. If somebody is rehabilitated and an incarcerated person is able to go out and be a productive Member of society, then that's a good thing that they get granted parole.

But if you make that decision and harm comes to another one of the people that we are in charge of protecting for public safety, then that is a heavily weighted decision. And I don't think any of you take it lightly, but thank you. Does anyone have a different answer than Ms. Dobbs about reviewing Cases, sir. Yes, sir.

Senator. That's really what keeps us commissioners awake at night, that the heavy duty of this responsibility and not to make mistakes. And as the data does point out, we are doing a pretty good job of doing that. Even one incarcerated person that returns back as a result of any other additional crime, it weighs heavily on us.

And as Commissioner Dobbs says, we go back and look at what issues did we miss? Or did we miss any issue, but we can't address all of those issues. But from when we. When we look at them, we talk to them, we look at the record, that gives us a pretty good confidence that we are making the right decision at that time.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much. Madam Vice Chair. We're going to go to Senator Laird.

Thank you very much. I think Senator Grove touched on a lot of things that all of us are concerned about, which is sort of how you make decisions. And I should thank you all for meeting with me.

I really enjoyed the meeting, and I think that gave me the sense that you all are taking this very seriously. And Dianne, although I did. Do you have any brothers?

I do not.

Yeah, I wondered, you know, I only heard sisters. So a totally relevant question for a hearing. So let me just follow up on a couple of these things. And first to Commissioner Garland. We talked about the chart that we have in materials on the period of denial. And you had one that was 15 years.

And I thought it was instructive of what the decision making process is and how you explained how you got there. I thought it would be good if maybe you talked about that to the entire Committee. Sure.

I have no brothers either. Yes, I remember the 115 year denial. I was on a panel that we issued a 15 year denial, and it was not lightly taken. This particular person did not participate in the process. So one of the.

We have a kind of some guidelines that tell us, you know, to look at longer periods or Shorter periods. And one of those things is institutional misconduct. It's also just the refusal to participate in the process. And this particular person had a lengthy determinant term, very serious sex, violent sexual crimes against minors, his family.

He did not participate in the comprehensive risk assessment. He did not participate in any programming, and he did not participate in the hearing, which was a pretty strong indication that he was not interested in participating and being really considered for parole.

And so we did issue the 15 year denial with a pretty extensive discussion in the transcript that he will get a copy of to explain the petition to advance form. So anytime even if there's a 571015 year denial. Incarcerated people have a right to file a petition to advance.

And it's really important that they understand that, because even the 15 year or 10 year doesn't mean the door is shut. It just means go back to the drawing board. This is in your hands. This is in your hands. And at this point you are telling us you don't want to do anything about it.

But if you decide the petition is there and you can come back before the board, so, you know, they're difficult decisions, especially to have such a long period, but we feel good about it because of that process that gives them another chance and hopefully gives them some motivation.

Well, also, you sort of alluded in your opening statement to, I don't know how to say it, be on one side for 25 years and then be doing this and that. It, it was a totally different thing. Why don't you expand on that a little so that we could get a flavor for what that's like?

Sure, I. Being a lawyer for 25 years and working in public service, you know, I. You are always representing someone else or someone else's position or defending laws. They're not. It's not real people. It's not human lives at stake.

I mean, it may be if a law changes, but when you're sitting across from somebody who has spent 2030 years in prison, or you're listening to families that have lost loved ones because of horrible acts by the people also sitting in front of you, it's just so much more personal and real and consequential.

And I think that that has. That's been. I can't say it's a surprise. I think I went into it thinking, I know the law, I can do this. I did know the law. I just didn't know how it could affect me and how it really is impactful for public safety and for the individuals involved. So that's been the biggest difference.

Thank you. And then just maybe one other thing to Commissioner Dobbs. When we were meeting, you were asked whether, I don't know whether it was. You liked remote better than the non remote, but you talked about what the difference is. And I thought it would be good if maybe you talked about that to the whole Committee. So that a flavor of what you were thinking?

Yeah. So I think what I said was when we went remote, I thought I was not going to like it because I really enjoy having that personal contact. But I found actually the opposite.

I like it because it allows me to really focus more and What I do when I bring someone up on the teams meeting, I pin them so that their picture is the biggest picture and I laser focus on them.

Whether that's the incarcerated person or if it's a family Member giving their victim impact statements, my attention is on them. I found that I can remain very connected there without any distractions. And I actually like that better than when we were in person with alarms going off in the prisons and, you know, different things going on.

It allows me to really focus my attention on this very meaningful decision that I'm called upon to make.

Thank you. Would any of the rest of you like to comment on that?

I believe I echo what Commissioner Dobbs said that I believe the availability of remote hearing also makes. It gives the victims an opportunity to also participate. It cuts down costs, it allows them to participate, even from New York, whatever. So we recognize that that opportunity is being given to all of the parties interested in our decision making process.

Thank you. Thanks. And I'm sure somebody else have a question for you, so that's great. I just want to thank you. I sort of got the flavor when I met with you that you all were taking this very seriously and understood the gravity and understood that there's not a rote way of dealing with this.

And, and so I look forward to supporting you and thank you for your willingness to serve in this position. Thank you so much, Senator Laird. We're going to turn it over to Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the opportunity. And thank you so much for being here today and for, for the work that you do on this Commission. I'm an attorney, and when I started my law practice, I did life for hearings for a number of years because I felt like it was my community service at the time.

I got paid for eight hours of work, and that's reviewing the cfal, going in, talking to the inmate, getting them prepared for the hearing, and then showing up for the hearing. And I made 23, $24 an hour.

So it really was a labor of love at some point because I didn't make any money doing it, but I really had an opportunity to, I think for me to see the human side of incarceration. And because I was doing life for hearings, most of them were in there for murder.

And there's an impact to society that's important. So I really do appreciate the difficult tasks that you have in going through and reviewing as much of a person's life as you can in that instant and making some real tough decisions. I was wondering if Ms. Dobbs, if you could. I really appreciated your comment about the behavior of.

Looking at the behavior and. And understanding where they're coming from in terms of their incarceration, the time that they're incarcerated. I wonder if. Were you. Were you one of the individuals that talked to the inmate prior to going into a hearing, or do I have the wrong person?

Somebody mentioned that you went in and had a conversation with the inmate prior to having a hearing. None. Nobody. Okay, never mind on that question then. It may be. It doesn't use that word in our prepared documents, but if it's a consultation.

Yes, that's done a few years before parole eligibility. So we meet with individuals and talk about the parole process and then explain kind of what happens before, during, and after hearing, go over their records and give them suggestions for how to best prepare. So I'm not sure if that's what you mean or if it was something right before the hearing.

No, no, no, no. I was not. Actually, my question was around the purpose of doing that. And what is the most important thing that you believe you tell the inmate? And so if it's a few years before, that's fine. I just knew there was something that happened before they get to the hearing process.

Sure. It's a great part of the process because it really does, I think, sort of set the path, a good path that people can follow if they're willing to do that.

So we, like I said, what I usually do is I talk about, here's what to expect before, here's the timing, looking at their dates, talking about what goes on during the hearing, what to expect. You know, there could be victims and family Members there and what that would be like.

And then we go over their individual progress, institutional behavior, what kind of programming could be helpful for them based on their risk factors. And so it's just something that we all do at times, you know, throughout the year. And I think it does provide a good, like I said, a roadmap for folks to. To follow. If they're willing.

And as part of that also involved what kind of services are available at the institution where they're located. Because I think part of the challenge is the differences in institutions are pretty. Can be very, very varied.

Definitely. I think that's getting better, though, too. One of the things is sometimes people change prisons. And so if they're in a prison and they'll stay there, then we certainly can talk about those there. For me, I like to go a little broader and just kind of go into areas because a Lot of programs cover different areas.

So it may be that there's not this one at Valley State Prison, but there's one that covers, like we talked about, victim impact at most institutions. And so I'll cover an area, not necessarily a title of a program, but my colleagues might do it a little differently. Okay, sounds good.

Yeah. I would also add, you know, if they can't get into a program, because sometimes the facilities with the most programs have long waiting lists. We encourage them to do work on their tablet, to do correspondence courses. We say there's always a way for you to work on yourself in these areas.

So we always encourage them to look for alternatives, use the resources that are available.

I guess that's the benefit of the new technology, is you can do things that you couldn't do before. Right. And I appreciate that. I wonder if you can talk or anybody can talk about the different. The inmate run programs, if those have.

Do you weigh those as significantly important, either run by the particular individual you're evaluating or that they attend those kinds of programs as well? Are they as valuable as maybe some of the other programs that may be institutionally run?

Yeah, I really have been amazed by some of the programs they themselves come up with. It's usually done by someone who has taken a lot of programs already offered by the institution. And what they'll often do is pick the best parts of those programs and tailor it to their needs.

And so it's usually someone who is very invested in their own rehabilitation and someone who wants to take on the opportunity to give back to their community. And so I find that those programs are really, really very good programs.

That's great.

With the caveat, of course, that, you know, it's what you put into it. I mean, you can sit in a program all day and if you don't really take it in and apply it to yourself, then it really doesn't have much value. That's great.

That's exactly what we do. We evaluate their level of internalization of that programming, whether it's inmate run or whether it's self directed or institutionally directed.

So that's the opportunity that we have to speak to them and address the internalization of this program, which goes back to that issue of where are they in their rehabilitative journey if they still need more work?

That's how the tool we use, sdmf, allows us to take a look at the broader picture at where they are in their journey, and then we can make a decision whether they are ready or not. Keeping in mind public safety I'll add.

One thing on that as well. One of the things that we see is people who were before us have had a very antisocial attitude. That's why they're there. Putting yourself before others, mentoring things like that is a really strong sign of pro social thinking.

And so when people are willing to do that, to mentor, facilitate, do things, you know, that tells us a lot about that person. The other thing is a lot of people who were before us have never had role models, positive role models anyway.

And so I think sometimes those, you know, individually led programs and you know that they are, they are becoming that positive role model for, for somebody that has never had one. And I think it can be very impactful for people.

And they, if they, again, if the person accepts it and accepts that leadership and that role model, they can make a lot of progress with those types of programs.

That's great. I'm glad to hear you say that because it's one thing to sit in a class and not take anything out of it, but if you're going to have to teach it, then it means you need to learn it.

And if there's one thing that I've learned is that people can figure out pretty quickly if you're not walking the talk.

And that's pretty important if you're going to be a role model or you're going to be teaching somebody something and you want them to learn, they won't learn if they think that you're trying to pull the wool over their eyes. So that's really good.

And then finally, I think one of the, the issues, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the disciplinary instances that happen. They're the 115 forms that are filled out.

I saw a wide variety of infractions, if you will, some that are, that would indicate that the lesson of following rules or following orders is not being obeyed just to simple things like not making the better, brighter, you know, things that were kind of nitpicky, they didn't really show that the individual is a danger to society, for example.

And I wonder if you could talk about how you evaluate more recent or actually old stuff in the file in evaluating whether an individual is ready for parole or not or in setting the dates for that matter.

I'll go. I'm not shy, apparently. So I think when we look at it, it's always about public safety and it's about change. And so recent misconduct for something like hanging a sheet over the cell when it's not supposed to be seen may and probably won't, may not be super relevant, but it may be in certain cases, depending on what the person's risk factors are.

So if there's a pattern of disobeying the rules or trying to get around the rules or and maybe the life crime is about that, then maybe there is a concern that we should see, or if they lie about doing it or about the reasons.

There's always a little bit more to a discipline violation than just what's written on paper. And again, it's that connection to public safety, connection to change. Older 115s, you know, sometimes that's a really good sign of change because it's an older 115. It was serious.

The person was involved in gangs, was still violent, was still unable to control anger. And so you see somebody who was doing that 10 years ago, and. And then you see that they're not anymore and that they're, you know, maybe having a minor infraction, but it's a complete change from where they were.

And so all of that is taken into account. Again, it's not a one size fits all, but, you know, discipline violations are something we have to consider because it could tell us a little bit more than just what's written on the paper.

I think I'd like to add that and use your example, Commissioner Garland, with the hanging up of the curtain with some questioning, you might uncover that something else more sinister was going on. They were using drugs, they were engaged in some other more serious conduct. And so even though it's a minor rule violation, we.

We don't just look at it and not ask about it. We explore it so that we can make sure we understand everything that was going on. But in terms of if it was just you're putting up a curtain because, you know, you have difficulty getting in the bathroom and you're having a moment where you know you've had an accident, then you know that isn't suggestive of anything that is linked to current dangerousness, and we weigh it as such.

That's great. I would just add, you know, it's a good opportunity to be able to talk through their thought process as it relates to that type of decision. Do they think it was a Big deal. Do they think it was wrong? Are they kind of blowing it off?

Is this something that seems common, you know, a common way of thinking things through? I'll do it if I can get away with it. I mean, it's a good way to understand their view of rules in General of wrongdoing and also if they learn from it, because for them, it also can be an opportunity for growth.

So for example, if someone's found with a cell phone, often they'll take a cell phone course afterwards and learn why that is so problematic in the institution, and then they'll come to us and talk to us about it. So it's an opportunity for us to understand their thought process and an opportunity for growth in their areas of risk as well.

That's great. Well, thank you very much. I really appreciate the conversation and your thinking on a lot of this. And as I said, I know this is a very tough job. And so we thank you for your work as commissioners. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much. Senator, before we open it up for the public comment, please. Yeah, I was just going to check in with Senator Jones.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just hopefully just a few things on one of the recent concerns that's kind of come up in my area are sexually violent predators, which is one issue. But before even that issue in 2020, the Governor put a policy change through the Legislature actually in a budget Bill dealing with elderly parole, lowering the age from 60 to 50. I'm 56, so I take offense that 50 is considered elderly.

But specifically to when you're doing a parole hearing and somebody is claiming elderly parole, and there's unfortunately, in that policy that was passed on the last day of session in a budget Bill, many of my colleagues missed that that was in there. Some of us, actually.

I mean, it was there was some bipartisan opposition to the Bill, but it passed through with no policy Committee in the Senate, no policy discussion on the floor. We're still trying to figure out why the Governor pushed for this in the first place. So now that it's law, how do you deal with this? And I guess the question would be, number one, do you agree with the policy of lowering it from 60 to 50? Why or why not?

And then when you have somebody between the age of 50 and 60 claiming the elderly, or even 60 and 70, actually, or anybody for that matter claiming the elderly parole because there's no medical requirement from the policy for you to take into consideration, how do you do that? How do you consider that?

So 1, do you agree with it 2. How do you manage it when you're seeing these parolees come forth? And let's start on this side this time, Miss Sheffield.

Well, I would say, first of all, you know, we are tasked with determining the current dangerousness of the person sitting in front of us. So we don't really have anything to do with the background policy in terms of who that's going to be.

In terms of assessing people with elderly parole, I mean, we give it weight, but we are considering the age, we are considering the length of incarceration, and we are considering the physical conditions. So some of these people, maybe they're 55, but they were incarcerated at 17.

So that length of incarceration might be somewhat mitigating to their risk of violence. Ultimately, what we're looking at is each factor and how it plays into our analysis, whether it does mitigate the risk of violence.

In some cases, you know, maybe not as much, maybe they are younger, they're in great health, they haven't been incarcerated for a super long time. You know, in that case, it wouldn't be as relevant to us. So it really is a case by case assessment.

Senator, our role is to follow the law and public safety and in the tool that we are provided to make those decisions. I don't know whether you're familiar with sdmf. It incorporates all of those. Specifically with regards to elderly parole laws. There's also issues that mitigate some of those. For example, you have in front of you some.

Someone who's elderly, they may have some serious medical issues that may impact their risk of current dangerousness. So we incorporate, just as Commissioner Sheffield said, several factors that help us in making that determination.

I think the most impactful thing about the elderly parole law is that it brings people before the board that, that we would normally wouldn't see for maybe several years.

And like Commissioner Sheffield said, some of them may have been in prison for 30 plus years at that point, and they may be that changed person who deserves a chance to get out. And so I think that's. That's sort of, to me, you know, it can be icing on the cake for some people.

Like, they don't need that mitigating weight of being in, you know, us considering the elderly parole fact. But they do need the elderly parole law to get in the door to see us. And so I think that statistics show the recidivism rate for people, you know, over 50, even over 40, is significantly less.

The risk of violence is significantly less. And so if those people have made the change and they can come back before the board to prove that. You know, I think it's kind of a win win.

And so I'm not sure if that answers the question, but it's a little bit different way of looking at it because I don't know that those factors themselves will put somebody over the edge. And, zero, you're suitable because you're 51. That isn't enough usually.

It's usually kind of a combination of all those things once they get before the board.

And I agree with what everyone has said, the only thing I would add is what we're doing is just another factor that we're weighing.

And so when we look at the person who's coming before us, their behavior up to that point, whether they're 50 or 67, if they're still involved in violence in the prison, then that gets, you know, the behavior gets the majority of the weights in our decision making.

And so the elder parole law, as well as all the other laws that we're required to weigh are just one factor in our overall decision making.

I appreciate that. I think, you know, the concern for me, you know, basically comes down to three things. One, it was passed through a budget Bill, not a policy process. Two, you know, the age is, you know, we can consider that or not.

The victims are not, you know, before this age limit was changed, the victims were not expecting to have to deal with this for a certain period of time. And, you know, unfortunately, the rug in some cases was pulled out from underneath them.

And I think the crimes I'm most concerned about are the, you know, the sexually violent crimes. And, you know, just being able to analyze that.

Moving on to a different concern that has been raised by some of the stakeholders is in some of the parole hearings lately, some of the commissioners are reading the actual names of the victims into the record. And in one case, a Commissioner listed all of the sexual assault victims names rather than using their Jane Doe names.

I don't know who that was. My notes. Don't tell me that. Do you have a, you know, what would be your response? Do you have some training that says as a Commissioner you're not supposed to do that, reveal the victim's names?

You know, how do you personally handle that when you're, when you're dealing with that type of situation?

Senator, we are trained to be careful in terms of re. Victimizing victims. And when we do have victims appear before participating in the hearing, we give them that opportunity to either, if they want to identify themselves, however, where they are comfortable in doing that, they Want to be referred as gender? We'll do that.

I believe all of us commissioners, we are very, very careful and sensitive to that particular issue. Okay. Any different answer?

As a practice, I always ask and tell them they don't have to identify their full name. They can go by whatever they like to go. So hopefully that was a very rare occurrence. I hope so, too. Yeah, I've certainly not seen that in hearings.

I would just add that occasionally the incarcerated person might refer to the person by their name. And if we catch it, we try to put a stop to it right away.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. I think those are all the right answer. The challenge was this was brought up by some of the stakeholders. And then My final question, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Dobbs, some of the stakeholders have brought up a statement that you made in your prior confirmation hearing that I just wanted to give you an opportunity to address this afternoon. And if I don't have the quote correct, I didn't hear this. So I'm reading from a record.

All of the incarcerated people that appear before us have that same ability, referring to foster children and parents, to change their lives and to learn and to grow. And I'm just wondering if maybe if you remember making that statement, what you meant by it. I think the concern is when you say all of the incarcerated people have this ability, I just wanted to give you an opportunity to address that statement.

I don't recall making it. I probably did make that statement and probably taking it back to my background representing foster children some years back and making the connection between the trauma that those children experienced, how that impacted their lives, and then to see their ability to come back from that, to rehabilitate, to gain hope, to reconnect with others.

And I think that that would be what that kind of analogy would be made towards recognizing that everyone has within them the ability to change.

Whether they pursue that ability or not, they have the ability to do something.

I believe they do.

I think that's it.

Thank you so much, Senator Jones. All right, hearing from each of the Senators. Thank you so much. To each of you. What we're going to do now, Commissioners, is that we're going to open it up for public comment.

We're going to start with those who would like to be able to speak in support of either one of the commissioners or four of the commissioners. This is your time to be able to speak up and sound out. So we're going to have you step up to the podium at this time.

Those who would like to be able to speak in support One or all. If you could please step forward to the podium. We're looking for those in support. Seeing no one rise, we're now going to look for those who may be in opposition. If you could please come forward to the podium now.

State your first and last name along with your organization. We're looking for those in opposition, either one of the commissioners, all four. If you could please step forward at this time day bringing it back to Committee. We're going to see if there's any additional questions or comments from the Committee.

If there is not, I would like to be able to start bringing forward motions. Are there any additional questions or comments from the Committee? Hearing and seeing none, we'd like to be able to start looking for approval of the commissioners.

The only question I had.

I'm so sorry, Senator.

The only question I had is whether you wanted to take them one by one or whether. Yes, ma'am. Okay.

Yeah. And I'm sorry. I apologize. So we are going to take one by one. So we're going to start with Commissioner Sheffield. Since we started with Commissioner Dobbs. So we're going to start with Commissioner Sheffield. Is there a motion for approval? We have a motion by Senator Laird. Senator Laird, we have a motion.

Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

5-0 vote. That motion passes. Commissioner Sheffield, congratulations. Your next stop will be the Senate Floor. Thank you so much. And we're grateful for your testimony. Testimony here today. We're now going to be moving on to Commissioner Ndudim. Commissioner, thank you for appearing here today. Is there a motion to approve? We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

Mcguire, aye. Mcguire, aye. Grove. Grove, aye. Caballero, aye. Caballero, aye. Jones. Jones, aye. Laird. Laird, aye.

5 to 050 vote. Commissioner, congratulations. Next stop will be the Senate Floor, and again, thank you for your service to the people of California. We're now going to move with Commissioner Garland. Is there a motion to approve, Commissioner Garland? We have a motion by Senator Caballero on the floor.

Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll on Commissioner Garland?

[Roll Call]

That's a 5-0 vote. Thank you so much. The motion passes. Commissioner. Next up is the Senate Floor. Grateful for your work. Thank you for being here today. Ladies and gentlemen, we're now going to be moving on to our final motion under the Board of Parole Commissioners. That's Commissioner Dobbs. Is there a motion to approve? We have a motion by Senator Caballero. Motion by Senator Caballero for Commissioner Dobbs. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That's a 3-1, 3-1 vote. The motion passes. Commissioner Dobbs, congratulations. Next stop is the Senate Floor. Grateful for your work. Yeah. So what we greatly appreciate is each of you being here. Thank you for taking the questions here today and truly appreciate. Again, I want to say it one last time because absolutely mean it.

Y'all have a hard job, long hours, tough cases, and we appreciate you all stepping up once again. Thank you so much. We're going to take a brief break for a couple minutes. We're going to bring our PUC Commissioner, Mr. Baker, up. I'm sure it'll be a very light hearted conversation with Mr. Commissioner. I'm kidding.

As he's like, what the hell am I doing here? But we're going to take a two minute break. Two minute break. Thank you again to our Board of Parole Commissioners. Thank you.

All right, ladies and gentlemen; thank you again for your patience. We are coming back to Senate Rules Committee. Our final item under governor's appointees is advancing Matt Baker here to the committee who is looking to continue being a member of the Public Utilities Commission. I just want to say, Mr. Baker, I truly appreciated your conversation.

I think it was just about an hour going through the myriad of issues that you are dealing with. I know that we'll have a greater conversation here today, but I just want to say how much I appreciated the opportunity to be able to speak with you last week. Mr. Baker, I want to just go through some of the ground rules here for today. You'll have two to three minutes to be able to present your case to the committee.

What we'll do is we'll then open it up to each of the committee members to be able to ask questions, comments, and of course, you will be responding to them during these two to three minutes.

What we respectfully request is that you acknowledge any individual who may be here with you today or watching online, and I will give you a time notice when you get close. Again, want to say thank you.

You are in a tough job and know that there is a lot of frustration out there, and I think you also share some frustration. So, Mr. Member, the floor is yours and I'll give you a time prompt.

Thank you. I want to thank President Pro Tem. I'd like to thank the members of the committee for having me here today. Before I start, I also want to thank Governor Newsom for appointing me to this position. My wife and my mother and father and son are not here, but they are watching on the Internet.

And I'd like to thank them for all that they've done. I here today for the same reason that you all are here is that I think that it is very important for us to be engaged in public service. And I believe the public service is especially important in times when times are tough.

And I would argue that right now in the utility world, times are pretty tough. And the priorities that I have that I want to bring to this position are to really advocate or rule in favor of reliable, safe, accessible service that is affordable to all.

And I think it's that last point, the affordability point, is the one that is most trying right now, and that will be my top priority. I think I'm well suited for this position. I was before I came into public service. I spent 20 years as an advocate for consumer and environmental and energy issues.

I was a commissioner in another state where I had the opportunity to see their processes and procedures. And that gives me a different view on how we do things here in California. I also was Deputy Secretary at the Department of Natural Resources, where I got a lot of experience on the production side of the energy equation.

And then finally, for the last two years, I was - before I came to the commission, before I was appointed to the commission last February, I was the Director of the Public Advocate's Office, where I was essentially the chief attorney for the ratepayers, working again to keep service affordable, safe, and reliable.

I just want to close with kind of like the things that I bring to, or how I look at this and what I think the PUC can do to help get rates under control. And basically, there's kind of five buckets of things.

You know, one, it's, we need to be really clear, what should ratepayers pay for and what shouldn't they pay for? We need to figure out if there are things that we can remove from rates or things that we could, you know, that have passed their prime and we don't need to fund them or do them anymore.

We need to look at every decision to see everything that we have to do to figure out: is there a cheaper way to do it? Is there a way that can lower the cost to the ratepayers for things that we have to do that maybe get bunched up because of, like, storms and wildfires.

We need to also look at, are there ways to spread some of these costs out across generations so they're not all bunched up on one group of ratepayers? And finally, you know, how can we do things at the PUC and in the energy world and the utility world faster?

And that will help reduce the cost, but it also allows us to...it allows us to when we make a mistake, double back on our decisions and correct them really quickly. So, I just wanted to put that out. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.

Thank you so much, commissioner. We're going to open it up to questions and comments from the committee. We're going to start with Senator Laird. Senator Laird, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First, let me first, thanks for meeting. Although we were meeting two weeks before your last scheduled time, so I feel like we met during your last term and a lot of time has passed. And when I get to one question, we'll know that something major happened since then. But you raised a question in your opening statement.

I thought I would follow up on. And you talked about spreading costs over generations, and I get that the problems that might have accumulated, accumulated over generations. So - but if we're heading into a difficult time and climate and some of these catastrophic events that get loaded onto rates one way or another recur, is it prudent to load it in over generations? How do you balance that in what you do?

Yeah, so I think we need to look at what we're trying to do is to, at least as far as what climate is doing to us is create a robust system. So, something that could deal with the shocks of extreme heat or deal with the shocks of wildfire or, you know, eventually sea level rise.

And so oftentimes that requires investments up front to be able to do that. And, you know, I think we need to look at them really on a case-by-case basis, whether they should be spread out over time. Not everything should as you said; if we're going to keep seeing the same things, you know, maybe it doesn't make sense to take something that is suddenly becoming routine and securitizing that. I'll give one other example though is if you, you know, a lot of the work that we're looking to do involves electrification or energization or new load, that is, and oftentimes you have to make those investments up front and the new load really won't be there for a few years.

That is a very important, you know, spreading that out and trying to match when you're paying that back with the actual load, I think could have very big benefits for ratepayers.

And, you know, another thing that sort of came up in your response is when you look at the fact that our electrical infrastructure was built on one climate and we're in another climate, and a lot of it is private.

I mean, for some reason in the Santa Cruz Harbor, they put the electricity, the complete box and everything at sea level. So, the first major waves took it out. How do you incentivize utility companies, as you regulate them, to do this, do it over time and sort of adapt their system to what doesn't exist anymore?

Yeah, I think that's an excellent question, and that's one, as you said, that we haven't really faced before. I would say the commission has a couple of tools to do that. I think the most important ones are what we call our general orders, which are kind of the, you know, the DNA for how a utility should operate.

And to make sure that these orders are up to date and reflective of, you know, not historically what has come at us, but looking forward about what could be coming towards us. I think those are, you know, that's a very important way too.

And if you, if you bring wildfire into the equation, I mean, the line that dropped in paradise was arguably close to 100 years old. And PGE has embarked on deciding to underground. How do you in the regulatory sense decide what's fair to the ratepayer and what is like a reasonable investment?

Yes. So, my own personal framework is balancing kind of how quickly you can get protections in place or hardening in place with the permanence of that hardening. So, for example, covered conductors can be done relatively quickly. Undergrounding takes more time. Undergrounding is much more robust to what's going to be happening in the future.

Covered conductors, you know, may have a shorter lifespan. So, I think that's a very, very difficult fact, specific question to answer. But I can just tell you that I think, and I think it's one that we also need to work with policymakers on developing a statewide consensus for how we should do that.

But my own personal view is doing it as quickly as we possibly can because the risk of wildfire is with us right now.

See, you said fact based, but a lot of it, the values you bring to this position underlie those situations that are fact based. So how do you, I mean, you mentioned one value which is getting it done quickly for safety.

But what are some of the values you would bring overall to that, that you would apply to the fact-based situation?

So, the values I would look at is how quickly you could address the areas that have the most extreme wildfire danger. Because I think speed really matters. My kind of second threshold then is, you know, is the countervailing one of permanence? How much can you, if you can do something once, can you do it, you know, can you be done with it and not have to worry about it if a wildfire comes through? And that would be, you know, undergrounding.

So, I think and1 then developing kind of a cost benefit ratio for both of those that looks at, you know, the cost and benefits of doing something quickly versus the cost and benefits of doing something permanently and, you know, where possible erring towards the latter.

But I do think, you know, I believe that we really, really, our goal should be to try to keep any utility increases at or below inflation. And so, I think that would also weigh heavily on how I would think about things.

And then the major thing I'd wanted to ask you about, and this is what had changed because I think when I interviewed you, the Moss Landing battery storage fire hadn't happened yet.

Yeah, I think it happened like the next day.

The battery storage, and I don't know where there's a line here with where you have proceedings, but you have an agenda item to deal with safety. And you also - I authored a bill that actually everybody that was in the legislature here voted for safety plans and evacuation plans for battery storage that both entities at Moss Landing had fully complied with at the time that the fire happened.

And it is the PUC now that is going to review whether people have submitted those plans and is going to look at safety and even do a partial investigation. How do you view your role as commissioner in dealing with the safety and the issues with regard to battery storage?

Yeah, I think along with reliability, safety is a core piece of the economic regulation that the PUC does. The...I should check but at the proceeding I think you're referring to, I'm recused from, is that? Yeah. Okay. My lawyer nodded.

I can see the nod. Yeah. Just for those of you watching at home that didn't have the camera on the guy nodding yes.

I can talk a little bit about it though, what it, what it will do. But it's a - when I was at the Public Advocates, the Public Advocates was a party in the proceeding and argued for many of the things. But on the 13th, there will be a new set of rules that I think are super, that are very important to this particular issue that flow right out of your bill, SB 38 and SB 1383. And you know, for the first time now there's enforceable standards for the operation and maintenance of battery facilities. It also applies the standards that are common to all generators, gas, nuclear, all of them, to battery storage as such.

It, as you're well aware, requires emergency preparation and consultation with local officials. And it, you know, authorizes and sets up our Safety Enforcement Division to do inspections and audits of all those facilities. These rules will do a few other things. I do want to add this was an extraordinarily tragic fire.

It was a, you know, it was a fire that spread from one battery unit to the next battery unit and, you know, caused a great deal of pain to the surrounding community. And I think that's fully understandable and regrettable.

I do want to say that that facility was powered by a battery technology that's an older technology that has been replaced by newer chemistries that are less likely to cause runaway fires.

And there are new protocols in place that will that have been in place really kind of on an industry wide basis that will make it much more difficult to have that kind of runaway fire and I believe that the new rules that the PUC is about to establish, you know, from when I was an advocate at the public advocate's office, will also minimize that further.

And so, you know, I'm optimistic about.

I feel obligated to join you in one thing is we are having what appears to be a dispassionate discussion, but there was an unbelievable dislocation and just tragedy related to that fire. Highway 1 was closed for four days. The plume went over farms and estuaries, and people were evacuated for four days. And it just was, and with unclear public health impacts, it's there. There were times when the background values would come out, but nobody would be explaining what they meant. So if you were in the plume or you were near the plume, you did not have a full understanding of what it meant.

So, I really want to acknowledge that because this discussion, the thing about it is, is as you say, the technology has moved so fast. I mean, the first ones of these came on in the last years of the last decade, there were 500 megawatts, there's 13,300. Now we're targeted for 52,000 megawatts in 2045.

And the technology is totally different, which with the county supervisor that represents that area made him crazy because it was sort of like, you're telling me that this technology didn't - was it safe or as safe as other places? And so those are our real concerns.

And I think that the challenge for you, if you can talk about it, is that we have 25% of the battery storage that is an older technology, 75% that's newer and is arguably safer. If we start to move to phase out what is the older technology because of safety issues, this could redound to you in rate proceedings.

How would you deal with that if that, to the extent you can talk about it.

Yeah. I'll just say one thing towards about this. A lot of it will really depend on the contracts that the providers have signed with the utilities. Because there is a wholesale market in electricity. The developers, depending on what the contracts say, the developers of the facilities assume most of the that risk and not necessarily the ratepayers.

But to the extent that the ratepayers have that, I think we have to look at it like we look at, you know, wildfire. You know, right now, it is something, it is a risk, and it is, you know, we need to address it as such.

Thank you. I just appreciate the thoughtfulness. And just before I turn it back to the chair, I have colleagues that ask me periodically to ask people, if you get a phone call from a legislator, will you call them back?

I will, yeah.

Because that may sound mundane, but in my case, we have contaminated water, we have broadband, we have dam relicensing, we have a water order that we hope is listed so there's more building of affordable housing and other things. And it's just important to have that communication. Thank you very much.

Can I just add, though, you know this, I'm sure. I just want to make sure of this, but I can't talk about open proceedings because I'm a judge in those proceedings. But I can talk about issues, and I can definitely call you back.

And actually, I really do appreciate that, especially since sometimes you even have, when it's not a proceeding you have to disclose, and people know that I was talking to you. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you letting me know.

I know this has been an area of passion for you, Sir Laird, and candidly, a lot of hard work. Appreciate that. Let's go to the Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Baker, for being here today. I just want to follow up on one question because there was a bill at the end of last year that predominantly placed these battery facilities in low socioeconomic disadvantaged communities.

Do you think with the changes of technology, it's still safe enough to put these battery storage in these communities? Not only for the members of that community, but also the environment?

I mean, my personal opinion of the, and I've toured a number of the battery facilities that are outside, not in a big building containerized with, you know, where it's very, very difficult to have a runaway combustion. You know, nothing is 100% safe, but I would live by one.

Okay. I was just curious. You know, the Otay Mesa fire, the battery storage fire on the highway, and then the one that closed down 101. I think the other one was on the 80 evacuating individuals, the parts per million of life-or-death hazard emitted in the air.

You know, just those things were concerning to me, and I just was curious about your thoughts. So, thank you for saying that you would live next to one. So just kind of sarcastically, I guess, we've implemented LED lights, Energy Star appliances. We've built massive solar plants.

Specifically in my district, we provide 53% of the state solar built transmission lines. I'm talking like one plant, 2 million solar panels, 6,000 acres of what was once farmland, desert land. We don't give farmers water, but we'll convert their prime farmland to solar so they can at least save their land.

We've draped our mountainscapes with windmills going through the Tehachapi Mountains and elsewhere in the state. And our utility rates are 83% higher than the national average. And they've gone up almost 400% in the last, what, four years here in the State of California, something like that.

I have like 100%.

Okay. They've gone up 100% after implementing all this wonderful new green technology. Why is that?

Well, one, I think Kern County has done amazing things.

That's Lorelei.

Yes. And a lot of people can learn a lot from the planning Director of Kern of County. So, the question is, why have rates increased? And I think a number of - Severin Borenstein, who's an economist at Haas Business School, who tracks rates, the energy division at the Public Utilities Commission, who writes the 695 report which looks at why rates have gone up. If you open up, you know, their reports, and what Professor Borenstein has done research on the main drivers for why costs have gone up is first, wildfire and second, just kind of general inflation during the pandemic. So, since 2019, almost $30 billion, you know, more so in the PGE territory than in the other two utilities territories, have been added into the cost of service.

So, we've seen the cost of service, the cost of providing utility service go up 30% just as a result, mostly as a result of wildfire. The $30 billion is from wildfire and some storms. And so that's been the primary driver for why we have seen this rate inflation over the last four years.

Now the costs have gone up because of that, and then rates have gone up even further, mostly as a result of programs which would be mostly legacy net metering that focuses those costs on a smaller number of rate payers. And so, you know, I don't think that absolves us for what we need to do.

There's a lot that we need to do to get rates down. But I think that's the biggest reason why we've had this rate shock over the last couple years.

And I do, I want to add that, you know, I think it is, you know, the people who get hit the hardest by this are the people who live, you know, who are low income and who live in the hotter parts of the state.

And I think that's, you know, why we need to really work to get rates under control.

Thank you. I have a - he knows you're here today, so I have to ask this question, but I have a mayor who owns a house in Taft, California. And I talked to you about him.

And he also owns a probably five times larger house right on the river in Bullhead City, Arizona, where he plans to retire. In his Bullhead City House, 400 kilowatts. It's tiered, like we have tiers. So, 400 kilowatts at one rate, 410 at another. 851 total. His Bill is $99.43. I have a copy of his bill.

I get a bill copy every month. This is the most recent. Yeah. And in California, in his house that is, like I said 3, 4 times smaller than what he has in Bullhead City. 107 kilowatts and 200 kilowatts.

So, a total of 307 kilowatts, which is far less than the 851; he pays $220. So, he pays 100%, 120% more for smaller house, less usage than what he pays for his Bullhead City house. What does Arizona do differently with their rates that our constituents could benefit from?

I have the same argument with the fuel supply. We get fuel, we supply Arizona with fuel.

So brings from Iraq, Ecuador, wherever it comes from, point of origin comes to our shores, goes through our processing, our refineries, gets on the same trucks, the same process goes to the, you know, out in Needles, drops off fuel at $6.30 today, I think, or 6.20 and then crosses the river and it goes to 305.

Like, what is Arizona doing to reduce the cost to constituents where we can't follow suit?

So, I'm not sure who the Arizona supplier was. Did you say it was Salt River or did you say it was.

And they have several.

They have several. Or whether it was the IOU. But I'll just 1start with California has always had above average utility rates. We've always been on the more expensive side, but because of our climate, we've always had bills that were lower than the average state in the country.

And the reason our rates were higher, particularly for the IOUs. If you look at PG&E, PG&E's territory is about the size of Pennsylvania, like it is ginormous, you know, bigger than many states.

And the amount of power that they sell per square mile of territory is, you know, somewhere between 100 and 1,000 megawatts per square mile. If you look at LADWP, you know, they're closer to like 50,000 megawatts per square mile. So, there's a lot, you know, a lot less dense, a lot more density there. Same with SMUD.

Same with, you know, and if you look at somebody like Silicon Valley power, where the data farms are, that's 250,000 megawatt hours per square mile. And so, we start from that place.

And then you've got, and this is the fire issue is, you know, if you have an area the size, the big IOUs are much, much more exposed to wildfire. And so that, you know, so they have a higher cost of service. The cost of service then, you know, goes up further because of wildfire.

And then finally, you know, in a warming climate, we then have. We now are at the point where our bills are now above the national average. They're still not like at a place like, you know, really hot places and sweaty places like Alabama, but they're above the national average.

And I think that's something that we, particularly in the hotter areas, that's something that we need to really, really address. So, I would just say there's a structural reason it's so spread out. And then there are these costs that have been imposed, you know, almost by mother nature right now. Again, that's not saying there's is nothing that we can do. There's a lot we can do, and we should do it.

I hope so, because like I said, We're 83% above the national average. And my district is different than everybody's. I have a, you know, where the energy capital was; we were.

We got 21 permits last year, so we're not now, but we were the energy capital of the world, whether it was oil and gas and wind and solar. And then we also have some of the wealthiest, more millionaires per capita than any other place, but also more people in poverty. So, there's a wide, vast there.

Have you ever heard of GeoTest, the Geological Thermal Energy Storage Technology?

I have not. If you told me I might know what the technology is if you described it, but I haven't heard.

It's a way to use, you know, abandoned or oil wells where you heat the water up underground, which creates a steam generation. Have you heard of that?

Yep.

Okay, so we are working really hard because it will create immense, massive amount of energy. Specifically, if CRC gets the data center, it wouldn't be attached to the grid.

This is something that could help that it's in the middle of an oil field on an aquifer that has no beneficial use of water whatsoever. And we can't get the Water Board to comply with a permit. We've submitted everything since, been working it since 2020 and they've asked for the same stuff, I think 16 times.

I know you're not over the Water Board, but this was greatly benefit the PUC. Using this underground, no impact to the surface. The water's already there. You heat it up, creates steam, generates energy. It's, you know, what, do you communicate with other agencies that would benefit us as a public?

That would benefit you as a PUC?

I'd love to talk to you more about this and see what we could see whether, you know, how we could be helpful.

Okay. No, I appreciate that. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you for being here. And, and I really appreciate you spending time with me and just understanding the issues that the Central Valley has. And we have different infusion missions.

Poor people in the community that have to run an air conditioner, they can't just open their window at light like people on the coast and cool off.

It's warming on the coast.

Anyways, thank you, sir. I look forward to your confirmation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Madam Vice Chair. Let's go to Senator Jones, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had three things, but the Vice Chair's questions inspired a fourth, so. But I think, I think we can be quick.

I understand that the FBI had sent out some warnings regarding some of the security and cybersecurity threats on some of our systems and that you've been briefed on that. You know, I'm not asking you to share anything confidential here, but what kind of assurances? What have those conversations looked like?

And what assurances can you give us that we're in good shape or not in good shape?

So the, we were. This is an extraordinarily important issue. We have members on our staff at the Commission who get confidential briefings. I received a public briefing, but was also advised to be somewhat discreet about it.

And I think it is a very, very big issue. I have to say, in terms of our electric utilities and our gas utilities, I am much less concerned about it because all of them are working very closely with the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI on making sure that their control systems specifically are up to date, taken care of, and that they have appropriate protocols so that nobody can get into them.

You know, so. But I would put this in one of the things that sometimes keeps me up at night. I think some of our other smaller utilities and I think some of the more public utilities that don't necessarily have that level of infrastructure might be more concerning.

And our staff is working with utilities that we believe may have just to make sure that they are meeting with Department of Homeland Security and that they are coming forward to us if there's any infrastructure needs that they have to meet, any strictures that are placed on them by the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security.

Do you think it would be appropriate, and this is just, I'm kind of freewheeling now, you know, appropriate for your staff to communicate either through the Governor's office or directly to the Legislature on funding you might need, support you might need from, you know, other agencies and that kind of thing.

I think the, I think it's always appropriate to communicate these kinds of issues just given their gravity. I think that it's a given that we regulate the for-profit companies, the investor-owned companies, not the publics, that the responsibility for this falls wit, the utilities.

And so our job really comes down to understanding the nature of the threat and looking at the requests that the utilities have to add infrastructure into their cost structure. And so I don't, I don't think we need more, but I will get back to you if we do.

It was just brought up as a, as a kind of an aside thing. A couple years ago, I wanted to switch gears to hydrogen fuel in California. There's $1.2 billion of federal funds available for projects. A couple of years ago, the CPUC asked gas utilities to file blending pilots.

Those filings were made almost a year ago, and the CPUC has not yet issued a scoping memo setting forth the decision timeframe. Can you tell us today what action you expect from the CPUC on those blending projects? And if not, what would it mean to get back to us on this?

I can tell you I'm recused from that proceeding because I was a party to it when I was at the Public Advocate's office, but I can definitely get back to you or have someone from staff get back to you about where those proceedings are right now. I believe they're still moving.

Like, I had a tour with SoCalGas of their hydrogen house. Okay.

I think some of the stakeholders are just, you know, they want to get moving on that stuff, and they would like some direction from the CPUC. The question that was kind of generated by the previous questioning. I've been on a couple of international trips with, and bipartisan, by the way, which I think is good.

And one of the things that we looked at was small modular nuclear reactors in some of these other countries, and I'll just give some examples. France currently is 70% to 80% nuclear. I think a lot of Californians are surprised by that number. The United Kingdom, I think, was close to 50% or over 50% nuclear.

They're converting to this small modular reactor system rather than the big nuclear reactor systems. I mean, even California right now is 8% nuclear. And then another thing that Californians would be surprised by is at any given moment in the County of San Diego, there's five nuclear reactors operating around the clock.

People look at me and what do you mean? Well, they're floating in the bay and they're surrounded by gray metal. They're called Navy ships and submarines. You know, recognizing the concerns that there are of wind and solar and getting to the capacity of 100% green energy. Nuclear is the cleanest, can be argued to be the safest.

And I may be asking for a personal opinion here more than I am the CPUC's opinion, but how do you respond?

How would you respond to people that would come to you and say, hey, we need to start looking at nuclear in California and building more of it, not shutting it down or replacing what we have, you know, whatever the argument would be.

So the issue of nuclear power in California is, as a matter of statute is kind of outside of anything that we do.

Right, I think there's some bipartisan interest to maybe reform that statute.

I think, you know, assuming that there were. That there were cost, that we were able to bring the cost down, that these, some of these small modular designs are very, very interesting.

Right, Okay. I appreciate that answer. I think they're interesting also. So. Okay, final thing that I had. Sorry, Mr. Chair. The final thing I had was, I understand that the commissioners are appointed by the Governor, but there's supposed to be some independents, you know, between the Commission and the Governor's office.

I think historically it's kind of ebbed and flowed. You know, at one point in time, you know, maybe Wilson had little direct involvement with the CPUC. I think there's some concern now that the current Governor is very involved with the CPUC.

Can you just speak briefly to the Independence that you see as a Commissioner and the Commission as a whole versus, you know, the direct influence of the Governor?

I think the independence of the Commission is very, very important. And it serves everybody for us to be independent. You know, we're the ones who unfortunately sometimes, you know, rate making is a zero-sum game. Somebody's going to do better and somebody's going to do worse.

And I think it's important for everybody that the Commission act independently. In my experience, we are, you know, no one has ever asked me to vote anyway on anything.

And you know, but I also should say, you know, I share a lot of the agenda that the Governor has put forward and you know, am invested in the goals that the State of California has, particularly around climate, but also around affordability.

And I will keep my counsel and make a decision based on the record as best I possibly can.

Thank you so much, Senator Jones. So I think before assuming where the Committee goes prior to floor, I want to make sure, Mr. Commissioner, you're going to follow up or PUC will follow up on the hydrogen blending projects and Lisa Chin will follow up with your office on that as well to make sure that you have that information from PUC staff. And thank you so much, Lisa.

And then just a two-page white paper on nuclear would be great too.

That's great. Yes, absolutely. Senator Cab.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair. I want to second that. Hydrogen blending issue is very, very important. We've made some commitments to hydrogen and the market doesn't reflect it because we just can't get things moving. So time is of the essence as far as I'm concerned about that.

But I want to ask a couple of questions and I apologize if I should know this, but the notes we have indicate that you recused yourself from the PG and E rate hikes and the fixed charge proceedings. Was that required by law because of the conflict in the prior position you had?

It was. It did represent a conflict because we were a major party in both of those cases. And I've recused myself from a fair number of cases. If I could just, you know, those are rolling off and any new proceeding I'm not recused from or ones where the Public Advocates was not a major party on.

That's very helpful. I appreciate that. And then the, can you explain why it is that the Utilities haven't always utilized federal dollars that are specifically available to give payment relief for low-income ratepayers?

I thought we did, but I can get back to you on that very quickly.

All right, that would be helpful.

Yep.

And part of the challenge obviously is, and I really want to second, what my colleague from Bakersfield had to say is that, and that we agree with you entirely that low-income communities, in particular in hot climates, really pay a lion's share of the PG&E costs.

And the irony of the fact that the costs have gone up so high because of wildfires is that we don't have wildfires in our area. And so we're paying for a problem that was generated somewhere else.

And quite frankly, when you get into the politics of it, it's the higher income areas generally, and many times, not always, but many times, and we're picking up the cost for that, which is very, very irritating. The issue with high PG and E is that there's no reliability in what the monthly bill is going to look like.

And it has gone up so significantly that it's become another rent payment or house payment for many, many families. And it's unsustainable. The number of the debt, the amount of debt that's owed by companies that are providing energy, or water for that matter, is fairly significant.

And that's going to have some impact on people's bills as well as that debt gets kind of wrapped in to a new increase at some point. So obviously very, very concerned with the cost of energy in the state.

Can you talk, apart from the energy issue, can you talk a little bit about the Commission's role in the broadband action plan? The Senate's been very, very active in, particularly when we were dealing with COVID everything became internet access and the inability of some communities to act to utilize internet became the stark reality of the haves and the haves not.

So we've really focused a lot of attention on putting resources, federal resources and state resources into broadband. And it seems to have slowed down significantly. It's hard to build anything, and if we can't build it ourselves in the state, then we're in trouble. But the action plan becomes really important because it deals with affordability.

Yeah, I would say over the last year, or not even over the last year, since the middle of the summer last year, the Commission has approved almost or more than $1.0 billion in last mile grants. And these have gone to tribes, they've gone to local governments, they've gone to established Internet service providers and they have.

And as a result of these grants, over a million people will have access to better, or for the first time, internet services. All of those services have, or all of the ones with the grants that we have given out, have low-income or basic rates which help to make them affordable.

We are now getting to the point where we're looking to close that out over the next year as well. As, you know, we have given out, you know, almost getting close to half a billion or closer to $1.0 billion of federal funds for the Broadband Access and Deployment Fund, which is, you know, more on lines of infrastructure.

And then the third bucket of resources that we have is the one that I think you referred to is the California, you know, comes from the from the action plan, is the California Advanced Services Fund.

And again, you know, we've given out almost $100 million of that as well, again for the purpose of getting as much service as quickly as possible to as many underserved people, whether they're in rural areas or whether they're in urban areas.

So I think over the last six months, the Commission has really done a very good job in both catching up and beginning to exceed our goals in terms of utilizing all of these funds, federal, state, and universal service funds, to expand internet access for, again, many people.

Very good. But it's super important. I'm glad to hear you say that. And I'm going to be on the Middle Mile working group and we're trying to match up the Middle Mile with the last mile and so that's part of the trick, right? And you're in control of the last mile, so that becomes particularly important.

Let me just say that I appreciated what you outlined at the very beginning about the goals that the PUC should be looking at in terms of how to mitigate some of the increasing costs. It is unsustainable. I'll just say that.

But if there is an analysis of what the rate payers should pay for, what do we charge that's no longer needed, is there a cheaper way to do it, cost-benefit analysis. Those are the kind of things that I think we have to look at and very, very seriously.

What are the things that we should take off that we've gotten forgotten that we've put on the bill and, and the more I think that we have that analysis, the better it's going to be for us to be able to make some decisions quickly. And I thank you for being here today. Appreciate it. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much Senator Caballero. I'm very grateful. I just have a few items and these are going to be more comments. And then obviously, Commissioner, you can, we can have a conversation. So I think that as I shared with you my concerns that the Public Utilities Commission is isolated from comments, feedback, disdain from the public.

And because of that, I'll just speak. I don't want to, I'll project onto you, but I feel like you are, because of the isolation, the Commission as a whole does not understand how the average California is hurting when it comes to the utility bill each and every month.

Because if they did, I don't think we would have seen PG&E rates go up by 120% over the last nine years, 56% over the last years alone. SoCal Edison over the last nine years, 80% increase. I hear what you're saying. Need to keep it at or below inflation.

And again, I will use the term when I, when we talk. You're one of the good guys. You don't come from utilities. You've spent your career advocating for consumers. I'm grateful for that. But the Commission is tone deaf and it's simply not sustainable.

So I'd like you to comment on this because whether it is the Commission, the dedicated staff that's there, no one is keeping rates at or below inflation. It seems like the Commission simply rubber stamps a lot of what utilities come in with.

And, and we're in a lot of this mess because of the lack of investment by utilities. PG&E has been negligent in investment, modernizing their equipment. The reason why we're paying so damn much when it comes to Wildfire Safety is because they didn't do a damn thing for decades. So now consumers, not investors, are paying for it.

And if you don't feel the heat, then it's really easy to keep making the same decision over and over again. And I don't think the PUC feels the heat. Read about it. But there's no impact to you, the royal you, Mr. Commissioner, I want to have you comment on that.

So I, at our meetings, our public comment meetings, we definitely get a lot of public feedback that is extraordinarily intense especially over the last six months. So I would just say to start, you know, everybody at the PUC hears you loud and clear on this particular issue.

But I got to be honest, and again, you are one of the good guys, Mr. Commissioner, and I am grateful for that. I don't, I don't buy that. I think that the Public Utilities Commission operates in isolation.

We, consumers are paying for the negligence of utilities not upgrading their equipment, not making their equipment more fire-safe, and we're paying for their inaction. And so if that is true, we wouldn't have seen 56% increase in the PG&E territory alone over the last 36 months. 56%. Can you imagine if we had that on consumer goods?

So I didn't mean to interrupt you, but again, my frustration is all of us up here, we feel it.

And I feel it. I am an optimist. And you know, I do this because I believe that we can, you know, solve big problems like this.

I will just say, and I'm not asking for, you know, forbearance or patience or anything, but, you know, starting in 2018, 2019, where we had fires in places we never expected or we didn't expect to see fires in places of that intensity as a result of high temperatures, high winds, long droughts for a long time.

So they're so, you know, shock number one, a couple years later, we have a reliability crisis. Again, somewhat related to high temperatures, somewhat related to, you know, just, you know, kind of assumptions that didn't, didn't quite play out. In that latter one, on the reliability side, you know, we had a crisis in 2020.

The state, the Commission, the CEC, the Governor's office, CAISO, the Legislature kind of really all came together and was able to within two years really help get us out of the reliability hole that we were in.

Now, we're not wholly out of that, but that's a kind of, if we can apply that kind of thinking, like, okay, this is a crisis then, and we're all rowing the same way, we can do that. I can tell you what I would bring as a Commissioner to an application that comes before me.

Like, my personal belief is that if it doesn't have to do with safer, reliable service, you know, if it's not advancing the goals that are in statute, you know, around climate, if it doesn't expedite energizing facilities, communities, factories, charging stations, people's houses that aren't already energized.

And if it doesn't contribute to affordability, we shouldn't use ratepayers to fund it. And so that's kind of the, that's how I will look at every single utility application. There was a bill passed last year from, I forget what the number was, but it was Assemblywoman Petrie-Norris's Bill having us look at programs.

You know, I take that really seriously. We need to look at programs that aren't necessarily cost-effective, that may not be accomplishing their goals right now that don't fit into those buckets. And that's not big money. That's like looking for the nickels and the couch cushions. But we have to do that.

Like we have to find every single source of savings that we possibly can. And we need to be looking at the big things, which are. Sorry.

No, I hear that. But again, I'm going to go back to the statement you had said. Do you want to be able to keep rates at or below inflation? Does the rest of the Commission believe that?

I think that's every Commissioner's goal. I think it. I think.

But that was not my question. So my question is, does the rest of the Commission believe that? Because again, if we look at history, 56% increase over the last three years. 56%. 120% in PG&E over the last nine. And where I feel incredibly frustrated is I hear PG&E say it's because of the wildfire charge.

Well, you know why there's a wildfire charge? Because you didn't do your damn job for 30 years. And the climate has changed around you. A lot of your lines, 10,000 miles of lines is in some of the most high fire threat zones in the entire dang state.

And you haven't done a damn thing about it. But you gave some great returns to investors. And what's really difficult to be able to understand for myself and for consumers is that what the CEO is being paid, the profits that are being returned.

I get that a lot of what they're looking at, profits are now finally going back into the system. But it is incredibly difficult, difficult for folks to understand, including myself. We where you have one of the highest-paid utility CEOs in the nation, record profits. And we're still paying record utility bills. And there's this disconnect.

And I feel like the disconnect is also the Public Utilities Commission. And Commissioner Baker, I've said this to you multiple times when we were talking on the phone. I'm grateful for you. You have spent your career being an advocate for consumers. This is not directed towards you. I hope you know that. And I said that.

I think, please correct me if I'm wrong, I said that multiple times. But the frustration is real. And we're trying to figure out where the Utilities Commission is actually at. So I'm just looking for a straight answer on that because we didn't get into the rate of return that we're guaranteeing utilities as well on infrastructure projects. Please.

So I believe that the staff and the commissioners are absolutely focused on reducing the cost of service wherever possible. And I am focused on that. And I, I think there is a lot that we could do to address costs going forward.

And on a going-forward basis, I think we can meet that goal of over a certain period of time, averaging less than inflation for the first 50 years or 60 years of the California grid, when we were expanding exponentially, we were building out into these rural areas where very, very few people lived.

We were still lowering the average cost of service. And I think we could do that again here. I think there are two parts of this equation. We have to really look at costs. And I think you're raising issues around the cost of capital for investment. I think that's something that the Commission is very, very interested in.

We've been pushing that down over the last couple rate cases. We want to get to a point that is economically efficient so that, you know, that balances the risk and reward issues. I could talk more about that if you'd like.

But the other part of the equation is we are in an opportunity to expand sales through electrification and energization. And by making that bottom number bigger, the sales number bigger, that also can put downward pressure on rates. And we have to do both. And yeah.

100%. This is my last item. I think I'll bring up. And again, I'll say it one last time to you. I'm grateful for your work, I'm grateful for your dedication, that you've spent your career and I just hope that you bring this feedback back to the Commission.

The last thing I'll just say is I think people are pretty reasonable for the most part. If they see higher rates but increased service, they can make it work. The examples that I shared with you, not only are they seeing increased rates, they're seeing crappier service. I'm going to give you a couple of examples.

In Garberville, one of the poorest communities in this state, wanted to hook up their brand new hospital that they taxed themselves. Got a will-serve letter from PG&E and guess what? They weren't going to hook up the new hospital. Two.

Ferndale, Fortuna, Rio Dell, all incorporated communities, were told by PG&E that they can't hook up any new business multifamily units and it took a year and a half to get them to change their ways. Three, the Linton tribe in Sonoma County.

A will-serve letter for two years and they couldn't get power for over 100 brand new homes for tribal members. Four, there have been multiple businesses in the airport business park, all who have will-serve letters that wait years to be able to get hooked up.

So if folks are paying more and getting better service, that's one thing, but they're paying more and getting worse service. And then PG&E hides behind their bankruptcy and says that they're having cash flow challenges and scheduling out projects. So there has to be some accountability of the utilities as well. I'm going to get off my soapbox, Mr. Commissioner.

You are one of the good guys. I'm grateful for that. But the frustration level has boiled over and there has to be a change in philosophy and outlook at the Commission. And I'll give you the final word that. Please, Mr. Commissioner. Final word.

Yeah. I would just say the President has tasked me with the proceeding that's going to be, that is looking at this specific issue and it's a rulemaking and we're looking at what impacts things like PSPS's have on reliability or FAST Trip has on reliability.

And we expect specifically want to look at the places that are underserved right now in terms of have chronic problems on their grid. So I would encourage any, because I think you all hear this even before we do.

But you know, send any examples of this to me and we'll be doing hearings around the state in particularly in places where they have poorly performing circuits, number one. Number two, I honestly believe that the reason you have a utility is because of their obligation to serve.

And it is a, you know, it is a fundamental tenant that the utility has to serve load. That's why you give somebody a monopoly. And I take that really, really seriously. And I am engaged in the, you know, an open proceeding right now which is around rulemaking, around energization.

And I think there is a lot we could be doing in those areas. And I'm looking forward to bringing some of these ideas into that proceeding because I think those are two problems, poorly performing circuits and then places that have to wait to be served.

And you know that those are, you know, blinking red lights that I see and we have to do something about it.

I appreciate it, sir. Thank you so much, Commissioner. Yes, please. And we're going to go to public comment.

Madam Vice Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question. After the Pro Tem made his comments, you, in a response that you gave to him, you said you're going to push back or you want to be able to push back whenever that's possible.

Does that also including pushback on the Legislature because the Pro Tem is right about the increases not being sustainable because they're not. They're not sustainable. But I think the missed fact is the Legislature drives the majority of these costs with the policies that are passed where they're GHG policies, renewable energy, NIM, and other mandated programs.

And I got that from a state audit that was done about a year and a half ago that specifically noted that policy, a large portion of the increases are driven by policy. Do you agree with that audit statement? Does your role. So do you agree with the audit statement?

And number two, are you going to push back on us as legislatures, even in a kind way or, you know, however, I don't even know if you can right within your role. But hey, when you pass that policy, it's going to create an increase for the utilities to maintain that program, which will increase to the ratepayers.

I mean, you're a ratepayer advocate. How many policies have passed through this building that have increased ratepayer cost?

I think. No, no, no. I would like to be able to be able to quantify what the cost of a policy is.

You know, to the extent that that's a question that a Legislator has, you know, at the Commission, you know, we're, you're policymakers above us, and I believe our job is to provide you honest answers to questions that you have around policy. And then our job is to really try to implement them as quickly as possible.

If I have a wish, it would be that we look at things like whether there should be mandated cost recovery mechanisms versus handling the cost recovery of these things in a rate case, more the mechanics of how something should be implemented versus the implementation. I think that really is a little bit above our role.

As your prior role as a ratepayer advocate, did you see policy that increased cost to ratepayers that came out of this building? I'm trying to get to the audit is what I'm trying to do. The audit definitely says that.

I haven't seen the audit. Again, I think that if we were able to implement the policies, we could do and design the cost recovery and make sure that the cost recovery mechanisms align with the incentives of keeping the cost down.

We would be better able to help make cost-effective implementation of the decisions of the Legislature.

So is that something that you're able to do now?

Like if there's a bill going through the building that you as your former job and where you are now, is there a way that you have the ability to meet with me or any other Legislator that has a piece of legislation where you say, you know, if you do this, it will make it better for us as to reduce cost and ratepayers.

Because there's a lot of times I see policy go out of this building and I just use example, like the Senate Pro Tem was using examples. I have issues with connectivity as well. Everybody, I think does. But I think that there's policy that goes out of this building that has adverse effects on the ratepayer.

You know, perfect question I threw out the other day. Still don't have an answer to, which doesn't have anything to do with you. But we produce, out of 11 million tons of cement, my district produces 9.5 million. How are we going to rebuild LA without cement?

Because there was policy passed out this building that protects the Joshua Tree, which is a succulent. And I'm trying to get in a fight with my colleague here, but we haven't thought about the negative impacts of that policy.

But if somebody would have came to us said, hey, if we have a wildfire, we may not have cement or we have a fire, which we would know that was coming. But you have to look at things through a different lens now because you're going to need a whole heck of a lot of cement.

We don't have a backup plan. So my thing is with you is, do you have the ability to come to us, any one of us that's carrying a piece of legislation, and say, this will create an increase that we can't control? We can only implement. You're the policymaker.

We can only implement this, but it will make a cost increase. Do you have the ability to do that or are you restricted from doing that? Or is that not your role?

As the Commission we could vote to take a position on, I mean, I'm one Member of five people. So if a Legislator asked me my opinion on something, I would surely give it.

But if they didn't, can you still voice your opinion or contact them?

I can ask the staff if this is going to be a cost to ratepayers. Okay. We can ask the staff to make sure that our ledge liaison reaches out and says, hey, this is going to be a cost to.

Great. No, I appreciate that very much.

You know, I do want to, you know, the legislature is our Boss. I mean, it's.

I know it puts you in a position. I apologize. But I was just curious.

We're, yeah.

But we're a Jack of all trades and a master of none. I mean, the way I look at it, like, we have a lot of this depth of knowledge on several subject matters, but you're the expert in this field, so that's why I'm asking for your opinion.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you Madam Vice Chair. I think maybe we could do a bill together. We could transition the wildfire to the investors and take it off of the ratepayers.

So I think that may be a good bill that we could have a bipartisan approach on for the utilities, because I'm sure the utilities, since they've been delaying and candidly continuing to pass profits to investors, maybe we can have a bipartisan bill where we transition the cost that we've had to be able to mandate because they've been inept in their job and transition to the investor side so the consumers wouldn't have to pay for it.

I'm sure that would be a good bill for Republicans and Democrats to be able to advance. I would hope that we get agreement here today. Let's go to opening comment and public comment. So we're going to invite folks to be able to come up to the podium.

Any individual who would like to be able to speak in support. We welcome that. If you could please give your first and last name along with the organization. You have 30 seconds. We're grateful that you've been hanging with us all this time. Thank you so much. 30 seconds. The floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is John Tang. I am the President of the California Water Association, or CWA. CWA supports the confirmation of Commissioner Baker to the California Public Utilities Commission. Prior to his current appointment, we actually worked with him while he was at the Public Advocate's office on regulatory delays.

One of the items that he identified as a priority for him. And I'm happy to report that through that exercise, we were actually able to get the commissioners to recognize that there is a problem and that they are committed to working on it.

We also know that Commissioner Baker is committed to water issues, as evident by his recent membership in the Nabrook Water Committee. We are confident that he will continue to work with all of the regulated utilities to address the challenges that you've all discussed today. And we look forward to working with him to do that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Appreciate that.

Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon. Alex Jackson, Executive Director of American Clean Power California. Pleased to speak in support of Commissioner Baker's confirmation today. I think he is exceptionally well qualified to help steer the state through some difficult challenges ahead. He comes with the requisite experience, I think the right value set.

We've been very impressed with his leadership and his creativity. I think he doesn't just identify the problem, but he's shown he's very adept at bringing forward solutions.

He does the hard work to explain them, does the hard work to bring both consensus around them and has the conviction to follow where the data leads, even when the solutions may be politically contentious. He's always been accessible to us. I think he'll be a great asset. So thank you.

It's good to see you. Thank you so much for your time. Thanks for hanging with us.

Thank you very much. I'm Jan Smutny-Jones. I'm with the Independent Energy Producers Association. I think the Commissioner is an accomplished ratepayer advocate. He brings a lot of thoughtful analysis to issues that come before him. And he seems to be willing to be a real problem solver, which at a time when we need real problem-solving.

So whether this was a lapse of judgment on his part, he's volunteered for this job. So I would encourage you to move his confirmation forward. Thank you.

Appreciate you. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you. It's good to see you. Hey, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Senators. Theresa Cook here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition. I still very much remember the night that you helped us ensure that hydrogen refueling was included in Governor Newsom's zero-emissions vehicle executive order back in your CNRA days. And for those reasons, we're very happy to be supportive of your nomination. Congratulations.

Thanks again for hanging. Hey, how you doing? Good afternoon.

Hello. Sarah Brennan with the Weidman Group here. In support of the Commissioner Baker's appointment on behalf of not only our firm, but Air Products, Bloom Energy, California Water Service, Form Energy Pier West, and Toronto Wireless. We've had positive experiences working with the. Commissioner and look forward to continuing that.

Thank you so much. Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for being here.

Hi. Senator Daniel Kim. I'm one of the partners at Golden State Clean Energy. We're the master plan developers of the Valley Clean Infrastructure Plan and formerly the Westland Solar Park. I've personally had a lot of experience working with Mr. Baker.

He's shown to me to be someone who listens very carefully, understands the complex issues of especially energy transmission, finance, financing, and seeking to constantly try and figure out ways to reduce costs.

I also can attest that he's very concerned about rates and affordability, especially talks, you know, a lot about, in conversations that I've had with them, a lot about, you know, the concerns of Central Valley businesses and residents. So I'm very confident that he's going to do a great job.

Thank you so much. Mr. Kim. Hi, good afternoon. Thank you so much for hanging with us.

No problem. It's been fun. Kris Rosa, on behalf of NRDC Action Fund here in support of confirmation. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'd like to be able to see if there's anyone else who would like to be able to rise in support. We welcome anyone who would like to be able to rise in support today. We now would like to be able to welcome any individual who would like to be able to rise in opposition.

If you could please come forward. If you don't mind listening, your first and last name along with your organization. Seeing no one rise, again Mr. Commissioner, thank you so much. We are grateful that you are here today. Thank you for your service.

And as I said in the beginning of my soapbox, you are one of the good guys and have spent your career advocating for consumers and doing good and look forward to our continued work together. Let's look for a motion. We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair. Madam Secretary, if you please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That's a 5-0 vote. Congratulations, sir. The next stop is going to be the Senate Floor. Appreciate it. And then we'll work on the follow-up for Leader Jones as well. Thank you so much. If you all don't mind, give us 60 seconds. We'll be right back with you.

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, there is no Executive session here today. This concludes our agenda. To all who were here, thank you again for hanging with us. We really appreciate it burning sitting here. And thank you to the Committee as well. Rules Committee is adjourned.