Assembly Standing Committee on Utilities and Energy

Good afternoon and welcome. I would like to convene today's hearing of the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy. Before we move to the agenda, I have a few housekeeping announcements to go over. As is customary, I will maintain decorum throughout today's hearing in order to hear as much from the public.

Within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. Any individual who is disruptive may be removed from the room. Today we have 16 measures on the agenda. Nine are on consent. Testimony will be limited to four minutes in support and four minutes opposition.

As a reminder, primary witnesses in support must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have registered a support position with the Committee. And the primary witnesses in opposition must have their opposition registered with the Committee. All other support in opposition can be stated at the standing microphone when called upon to simply state name, affiliation and position.

All right. With that we do not have a quorum, so we are going to proceed as a Subcommitee. I see we've got one author here, so we are going to begin with file item number eight, Assembly Member Gonzalez. Hello, Assemblymember. Whenever you're ready it.

Get this Bill ready. And it was truly a collaborative team effort and I absolutely appreciate the staff and the chair for that. Following these amendments, I would like to encourage anyone with remaining concerns to engage with my office and provide us with any possible changes to to improve this measure.

One of the things I pride myself on is collaborative efforts and my door is always open for that. AB 1016 will increase the generating capacity of geothermal power plants that are eligible to be permitted at the local level only until 2030. I am proud to serve Assembly District 36 which encompasses Imperial county.

And like Imperial county and other regions that are rich in geothermal resources and have proven for decades that they are capable of responsibly permitting and managing clean energy development. AB 1016 further empowers these local governments who have invested in planning, community engagement and environmental stewardship to lead the way in building the clean energy infrastructure.

California urgently needs project certification at the local level. Provides the unique opportunity for an enhanced level of local input and ensures decisions are made closest to the communities they impact. Now this pilot program can immediately immediately create jobs.

Much needed relief to my community in which county's unemployment rate and this is an astonishing number 17.2% which is the highest in the state. But this has the opportunity to employ people, people of color, people that are disenfranchised immediately.

Just yesterday spreckles sugar beet factory located in my community announced they were closing, which will result in a loss of 400 families sustaining jobs with the 17.2 and the loss makes this impact significant.

The economic growth brought on by this measure would bring much needed jobs back to the region as well as serve as a revenue source for schools and local government. These are quality jobs in a region that has long sought expanded economic opportunity.

The Bill helps Imperial county transition from one of the state's most economically challenged areas into a regional hub for clean energy innovation and workforce development. Geothermal energy is clean, renewable source that can provide much needed baseload power to our energy grid.

By facilitating the development of geothermal power plants, AB 1016 supports the state's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a sustainable future. This measure is exactly how we accelerate our climate progress and bring tangible benefits to regions like Imperial county that are ready to leave.

Imperial county has the geothermal potential and local leadership ready to meet California's clean energy goals. AB 1016 clears the path for responsible community driven development that creates jobs, boosts the regional economy and strengthens climate resilience.

Joining me today to testify in support of this measure is Imperial County Supervisor Ryan Kelley and Imperial County Deputy CEO of Natural Resources Bari Bean. I look forward to addressing any questions you may have.

Thank you. You'll each have two minutes. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Thank you Senator Gonzalez and Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to address you in regards to AB 1018. My name is Ryan Kelley, I'm District 4 Supervisor of Imperial county and I'm here on behalf of the County of Imperial to express our strong support for this measure.

For over 40 years, Imperial county has been permitting geothermal plants in Imperial county and We've permitted over 20 geothermal projects, updated our renewable energy and transmission elements six times since 1977 and currently preparing a 51,000 acre specific plan and programmatic EIR to streamline clean energy and critical mineral development.

We built the expertise, the planning infrastructure, the public engagement processes to lead this work responsibly. However, under current law, any geothermal plant or project over 50 megawatts must go through a duplicative and often years long process with the California Energy Commission.

Even though counties like ours are already responsible for issuing permits for wells, pipelines, air quality on Those same projects, AB 1016 would fix this and create a more efficient process.

The Bill creates a five year pilot program for counties that have adopted a geothermal element in their General plan to fully permit projects up to 150 net megawatts, removing unnecessary bureaucracy while maintaining CEQA's full environmental protections. This change is not only practical, it's urgent.

The CPUC, the California Public Utility Commission, identified the need for 1,000 megawatts of baseload renewable power to meet California's climate and reliability goals. But without permitting reform, those megawatts will continue to be procured from neighboring states and may never realize in California. Thank you, chair.

AB 1016 empowers our county to be able to continue our proven track record. I thank you for the time and your consideration.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Bari Bean and I'm the Deputy CEO of Natural Resources for the County of Imperial. Prior to this role, I did spend two years directly working in the geothermal industry. And I'm proud to speak in strong support of AB 1016 today.

As a lifelong resident of Imperial County, I've seen firsthand the challenges and the opportunities that we face in our region. As we heard, over 17% unemployment and a 21% poverty rate that we have. Every job and every opportunity in our region is essential for our economic growth.

Recently, bhe renewables was going through the permitting process with the California Energy Commission for three geothermal projects. After 18 months, these projects have now been suspended. Those projects would have had a tremendous economic impact on our region.

In fact, if we look at the property tax allocations that would have gone to some specific areas, we would have received $460,620,000 to the Calipatria Unified School District, $51,060,000 to our healthcare district, and 94,900,000 to our Imperial Valley Community College District over the 30 cumulative years. These types of funds are literally life changing a region like ours.

I'm undoubtedly proud to support our area and the 500 megawatts that we currently produce of clean, baseload renewable geothermal energy. But our potential is so much greater than that.

Just in the Salton Sea Geothermal resource area alone, we have a capacity of over 4,000 megawatts that we could be producing exponentially more if we look at our other reservoirs. In addition to clean energy, Imperial county is uniquely positioned for critical mineral recovery from our geothermal brine.

It is directly and proportionally related to the geothermal we produce the minerals that we can recover in closing. As someone deeply rooted in this community, I'm passionate about creating opportunities for our residents and strongly support AB 1016 helping to build that for our community we call home. Thank you from Imperial county for hearing this today.

Thank you. Okay. We'll go ahead and open it up for testimony. In support, go ahead and approach the microphone.

John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California. And support. Thank you.

Leah Barrows on behalf of Independent Energy Producers. In support.

Isabel Solis, Los Amigos De La Comunidad. In support.

Good afternoon, Supervisor. District 1 from Imperial county supporting.

All right, I think that's it. Let's move to opposition testimony. Is there a primary opposition witness? Anyone testifying that? Good afternoon

Madam Chair. Member Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers and the California Coalition of Utility Employees and the State Association of Electrical Workers. We're reviewing the Committee amendments. We don't.

The basis of our opposition is that under the current structure at the CEC, if they go through these projects, go through that process, they're covered by a requirement for a skilled and trained workforce. If it reverts back to locals, that goes away. We don't have an issue with it going back to locals.

We have a good relationship with Imperial county and with the author and. And. But this issue regarding lessening of labor standards in the process is our concern, and we hope to work that out if this Bill moves on today.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and welcome any additional opposition witnesses. Please approach the microphone. Let us know your name, position, and affiliation.

Madam Chair. Mike. They're working?

I think so, yeah.

Okay. Madam Chair, Mike Monigan, on behalf of the State Building Trades. We're in opposition.

Get a little closer, Mike.

Like to align my remarks with Mr. Wetch. We've had very good conversations with the. Author and his staff and certainly with. Your staff and Supervisor Kelly's staff. So we're looking forward to continuing to. Make this a productive Bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, bringing it back to the Committee. Do we have a quorum? Not quite. Okay, we're almost there. Bringing it back to the Committee. Questions or comments from Committee Members. Assemblymember Harbadian.

Thank you, madam. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the author for bringing the Bill. Just want to be clear, based on opposition testimony, do you do have a plan or a commitment to work with Mr. Wedge, the whole coalition, opposition on the labor standards, and making sure that that gets worked out?

Absolutely. When we first met, I talked to them and I said, I want to make sure that our locals get the jobs first. That's primary. We need to take care of the people in our community first. And we want them to be skilled. We want them to be trained. We want them to know what they're doing right.

We want California trained, licensed folks in there because, as we said earlier, 17.2% unemployment. I need the people in the community working. I really do. And having this other. This sugar plant closed down with, you know, 500 to 600 jobs being lost. This just happened today, Monday.

To include the secondary and tertiary effects of that, we need to have something in place that not only gets people employed, but number two, generationally takes care of them as well with employment. So absolutely looking forward to continued work and my commitment to that.

Great. Thank you. With that commitment, happy to move the Bill and support it here today. So thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

All right. Seeing no additional questions or comments, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

You know, as. As I sit here and I'm trying to push this Bill along for jobs, I'm still struggling with the fact that there's a lot of people that just lost their jobs with the closing of a sugar beet plant. There's farmers that are losing their farms. There are families that are being impacted.

And honestly, this brings hope to a community education. Working with the community colleges, they've already got programs in place. So we're talking about significant change to. To a community that's. That's been ignored. And I just want to fight for them. I want them to know that I get it. This is a hard, hard time.

But we've got another option, and that option is right here in front of us, and we are so close. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Well, thank you, Assembly Member. And we will go ahead and establish quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay. And we will now go ahead and take a vote on AB 1016. We've got a motion from Assemblymember Harbadian. Second from Assemblymember Wallace. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, that's 10-0. So that Bill is out. And we'll leave the roll open to enable absent Members to add On. Thank you, Assembly Member. And let's see. See? No one. No Members waiting to present. I guess I can present.

Great. Yes. All right, we'll go ahead and take a vote on the consent calendar. Motion from Assemblymember Harabedian. Second from Assembly Member Wallis. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay 11-0. The consent calendar is out and we'll leave that open for absent Members to add on. And we do have another author here. Assembly Member Schiavo, would you like to present AB 1020?

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present AB 1020 today. As we know, electricity rates are increasingly unaffordable for California and the ratepayers just can't keep up. Almost one fifth of households in the state are behind on energy bills by $500 or more.

And it's even worse in the hotter regions of our state like the Central Valley. Simply put, the primary drivers of these substantial rate increases are climate change. Wildfire mitigation measures and the grid infrastructure investments needed to secure clean energy futures are sending electricity rates through the roof.

Unaffordable rate risk discouraging households from pursuing electrification and consequences derailing our state's climate goals. Recognizing this problem, investor owned utilities have increasingly sought non traditional funding such as government loans. For example, this past January, PG&E finalized a loan from the Department of Energy for $15 billion for load growth and reliability projects.

Alternative financing mechanisms such as these publicly financed loans or grants are a key recommendation from ratepayer advocates because they will lower utility borrowing costs and shareholder equity return, offering potential savings to ratepayers.

This is a welcome new strategy, but proper oversight to ensure funds are spent responsibly and accounting is transparent and that accounting is transparent is essential if ratepayers are to receive the savings that they are due. AB 1020 sets up a quarterly report structure just to do that.

This Bill would ensure that IOUs disclose to the PUC any taxpayer funded loans or grants they are pursuing or have secured and requires them to submit detailed spending plans that funding to the Commission of that funding to the Commission.

This measure also requires that the Commission promptly deliver financial benefits of these financing mechanisms to ratepayers in the form of prospectively adjusting revenue requirements and rates.

Just to be clear, this is not an attack on IOUS trying to do the right thing and limit rate hikes, but the bottom line is we want to do everything that we can to protect ratepayers and because public dollars must benefit the public, not shareholders. Here with me to testify in support is Adria Tinnin. Is that right? You'll fix it with turn.

Thank you, thank you Madam Chair and thank you Committee. My name is Adria Tinnin and I serve as Director of Race Equity and legislative policy at TURN, the Utility Reform Network here, a sponsor of AB 1020.

As the Assembly woman rightfully pointed out, electricity rates are sky high and the costs of clean energy investments on the rise for profit. Investor owned utilities or IOUS are increasingly seeking funding streams like grants and loans.

It is great to seek external funding streams to reduce the cost burden of ratepayers, but these benefits can only be realized if utilities are actually passing on the savings to ratepayers and bringing down utility bills.

AB 1020 prevents IOUS from double dipping in taxpayer and ratepayer funding sources for the same projects by requiring strict reporting to the PUC of all public grants and loans. First, IOUs will be required to submit detailed spending plans and quantify the savings expected to benefit ratepayers.

Second, they must disclose potential grants and loans in all related applications for ratepayer funding and finally, the PUC will ensure IOUs pass those savings on onto ratepayers. Current reporting is not enough.

There's currently no central reporting on regulatory mechanism or regulatory mechanism to ensure that utilities disclose all of the benefits that may come from public loans and grants. There's only an advice letter process for federal loans, nothing else. No other types of loans or grants.

Most importantly, there's no way to be sure that Ratepayers are receiving all of the benefits of taxpayer funding sources, particularly loans which significantly reduce interest costs to the utility and therefore the cost of capital. Lastly, the existing reporting on grants isn't necessarily tied to utility applications for ratepayer funding.

In other words, one hand is not talking to the other. Utilities currently file an advice letter about loans and applications are wholly separate. The utility is entirely separate. So the Commission is not able to make sure that as they are approving rates, they are taking into consideration what has already been paid for through these alternative funding mechanisms.

Given our affordability crisis, it is wrong for taxpayer funding and financing to result in profit opportunities for shareholders. And we urge an aye vote on AB 1020.

Thank you. Moving to additional support testimony. If you'd like to testify in support, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Beth Olhasso on behalf of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association in support, thank.

Good afternoon. Christina Mohabir with California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you.

Okay, moving to opposition testimony or opposition witnesses. Go ahead and come on up.

Good afternoon, chairmembers.

You can come sit over here. Welcome.

Hello. Brandon Ebeck, Pacific Gas and Electric. We had an opposed position on the initial version of the Bill. We are still reviewing the amendments that went in on Monday. To be clear, we fully agree with the intent. We are very 100% committed to transparency.

We are very committed to delivering all of the benefits of these loans and grants to customers. We have been very clear with it. At the Commission there is an existing reporting process. We have already proactively filed a cost of capital application that includes our preferred method of delivering these benefits to customers.

We don't actually believe that this Bill adds anything to the process that's not already being done. So just want to clarify like we fully agree with the intent and we. Plan to benefit customers, but this Bill is unnecessary. Thank you.

All right, thanks very much. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Will Abrams. I represent a growing group of wildfire survivors who are in opposition to this Bill. I have reached out to the author. Many of us have written letters into this Committee and the reason for opposition is quite simple.

Any funds that are non ratepayer funds that are identified through this reporting first and foremost need to go to the victims of utility caused wildfire survivors. We have not been paid. The PG&E Wildfire survivors have not been paid despite the commitments from PG&E. And they've moved on. Right. We cannot leave them hanging.

It is simply unjust to have this money go to repairs first. We've provided some simple Amendments to get this done that would include identifying the funds and having the utilities report to the Commission to say we have or we have not fully paid our victims.

If they have not paid their victims, a commensurate payment to the funds that they're getting from non ratepayer funds needs to go to those victims to get them fully compensated. We need to make sure that any legislation that comes before this Committee that identifies funds that are not rare payer funds goes to victims. This is about affordability.

Think of the Eaton fire and if Southern California Edison is found, deemed responsible, how are we going to get those folks paid? We're all on pins and needles on whether we're going to have the California Wildfire Fund available for those victims. We need to be identifying other sources of funding.

These are those other sources of funding and we need to make sure that we're taking care of the victims for the fires. Respectfully, I ask you to oppose this Bill and speak loudly and clearly for, for the victims within your district. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Additional witnesses in opposition approach the microphone. At this point seen none. Bringing it back to the Committee. Questions or comments from Committee Members. All right. Assemblymember Rogers.

Yeah, I just wanted to give the. Author a chance to respond to the comments that were made, if you wanted to. Particularly, I'm interested in hearing about categorical. Funding, grant funding, things that are for. A specific purpose and how that might. Impact if you did take these amendments.

So are you talking about the PG&E comments or.

So this would be a threshold for.

Sir. Sir, that's not. She was speaking to him.

So we, you know, we're happy. I know my staff has been in touch and had many conversations and are happy to continue that. I mean, I think, you know, at the end of the day, this is not necessarily the Bill that's going to solve all of the injustices that people are experiencing.

But you know, we think that by this, these dollars going back to ratepayers, it is actually going back to. Some of it will go back to victims. If you're a PG&E, you know, PG&E ratepayer, these dollars would also go back to PG&E ratepayers who have been experienced these horrific fires.

So, you know, I understand the frustration and the concern and I think that there's something that certainly needs to be done. I don't. I would not say that this is necessarily the legislative pathway for that.

Thank you. All right. See? No further questions. OH, Assemblymember Patterson,

between reading the Bill and some of the testimony from your witness, does this Bill require the funds to be, you know, any savings that might come from a government grant to be used in a specific manner?

It has. I mean, it's supposed to go back to ratepayers, but there's. There's flexibility in terms of how that's figured out and how that is. It needs to go through the rate paying process or the process, you know, that they already go through anyway.

And so it's not prescriptive and how exactly that happens, but it would be making sure that instead of benefiting shareholders, that it goes back to rate payers.

And a penalty is not defined in this legislation. And is there a reason for that?

So CPUC already has the ability to put penalties on utilities, and so it just allows for that existing process and at their discretion, to be able to put penalties on companies.

Okay, thank you.

All right, Assemblymember, would you like to close? Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll. Oh, we need a motion and a second motion from Assembly Members Zbur. Second Assembly Member Harabedian.

[Roll Call]

That's 8-1. So that bill's on call. We'll leave that open as other Members arrive. Thank you so much. All right, so we are going to move to File item number seven, which is AB881, which is my Bill. So I'm going to pass this off to Vice Chair Patterson. Don't let the power go to your.

Motion to close.

Teamwork makes the dream.

Thank you. Thank you. We are. We have already a motion by Assembly Member Papan and second by Assembly Member Harabedian. And this file, item seven, AB881.

Well, thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and members. Pleased to join you today to present AB881.

So, carbon capture technologies, I don't know if this is new to anyone, but carbon capture technologies are many and varied, but essentially they pull carbon dioxide from the air or from source emitters. But this carbon then needs to be stored, it also needs to be transported. And the safest way to transport carbon dioxide is through pipelines.

AB881 will establish safety standards for carbon dioxide pipelines, which will enable carbon capture and sequestration technologies to be deployed across the State of California, which really is an important and critical part of the work that we need to do to achieve our climate goals.

As I said, this is a really important part of California's strategy to deliver on our climate goals. Models published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency require removing up to 20 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year from the atmosphere in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade.

In 2022, recognizing the importance of carbon capture, California established a 20 million metric ton carbon removal target for 2030, a target that grows to 100 million metric tons of carbon removal by 2045. So we've got a lot of work to do in a very short period of time.

Thankfully, also in 2022, the Department of Energy committed $3.7 billion to finance projects to remove planet-warming carbon from the atmosphere in order to meet the nation's goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. However, complicating factors, that same year, California also passed legislation which did two things. It did permit carbon capture across the state and sequestration.

However, it also established a moratorium on carbon capture pipelines in California until the federal EPA established guidelines for safety standards for these pipelines. At the time, we anticipated that those guidelines would be created under the Biden Administration. And indeed, in January of this year, a draft of those regulations was released by the Biden Administration.

However, three days later, Donald Trump was inaugurated and that process ground to a halt. So what comes next is unclear, but I'd say that at the very best case, these regulations are going to be delayed for a very long time. And worst case, the EPA is at the risk of enacting something that's insufficiently protective for California.

So, given this new reality, it's really important for California to control our own destiny in this space. And AB8881 picks up where the Biden Administration left off and will enable the safe deployment of carbon pipelines across California.

We'll leverage billions of dollars in federal support to meet our climate goals and will create thousands of high-road green jobs.

I also just want to say that I really appreciate the ongoing commitment of AB881 sponsors to work with the communities where these pipelines are going to be located so that we ensure that we have safety standards that protect communities as well as enable this nascent technology really to flourish here in California.

So with that, I am really pleased to be joined by Laura Lewis, who is the Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer at SMUD, and by Scott Wech, who's joining us on behalf of the California Carbon Solutions Coalition. So, Ms. Lewis, thank you.

Thank you. Chair and members of the committee, I am Laura Lewis, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, also known as SMUD. We're the sixth-largest community in electric utility in terms of customer served.

We serve about 1.5 million residents in Sacramento County and small adjoining portions of Placer and Yolo counties. I am pleased to be here today in strong support of AB881, a bill critical to the advancement of carbon capture and storage technology. By establishing state regulations for the safe transportation of carbon dioxide by pipeline.

SMUD has a goal to reach zero carbon emissions in our power supply by 2030 within the guardrails of affordability and reliability. This is the most ambitious goal of any large utility in the United States. We believe proven clean technologies like hydro, solar, and wind will get us 90% of the way there.

To reach that remaining 10% while still maintaining reliable and affordable service for our customers, we need emerging technologies such as carbon capture and storage to close this gap. To this end, SMUD is partnering with Calpine Corporation to retrofit its 550 megawatt setter, natural gas plant near Yuba City, California to a carbon capture and storage facility.

SMUD will be the off-taker of the energy produced at this facility. This project will provide us with clean, dispatchable energy that is necessary for us to maintain reliability as we transition to cleaner energy sources.

Through our analysis, we also believe this is a prudent affordability initiative for our customers because it allows us to leverage existing infrastructure while reducing over 95% of the carbon emissions at the facility. To facilitate the deployment of carbon capture technology, the California Legislature passed SB905 in 2022.

SB905 included a provision prohibiting the transport of carbon dioxide via pipeline until the Federal Government updated existing safety standards. We now know it could take years to pass the federal pipeline standard, if at all. This would not only put the technology at risk, but it is jeopardizing existing and future investments in the project.

AB881 will ensure that carbon capture and storage projects can proceed in a manner that is protective of public health and safety, while also preserving existing jobs and creating new ones. This technology will help advance not only SMUD's zero carbon goals, but the state's climate goals as well.

Thank you for your time and happy to answer any questions.

Thanks. I wasn't going to cut off the chair's witness, you know. Mr. Wetch.

Mr. Chair and Member Scott Wech, on behalf of the Carbon Capture Solutions Coalition, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the State Association of Electrical Workers, we are co-sponsors of the Governor's AB905 by Senator Caballero, which was part of his clean energy package, which created this statewide framework for carbon capture and sequestration.

Because the scoping plan has a target of 100 million metric tons of carbon capture and sequestration in order to meet our 2045 goals. During the negotiations on AB905, the amendment was taken to do a moratorium on pipelines until PHMSA, the Federal Pipeline Management and Safety Commission, issued safety regulations.

But there was a recognition that the federal process could grind to a halt at some point or be too slow because we have a 10 year sunset on this program. We also have a 10 year sunset on the Biden money that's available to help make these projects economically viable.

So the AB905 was amended to state that if the state fire marshal provided a report to the Legislature by February 30th of 2023, that then the about outlining what the state fire marshal would contain in regulations and the capacity to do so, then the Legislature, if it was warranted, would consider having the state adopt standards.

The Biden Administration got standards out of PHMSA waiting to be approved, and now the Trump administration's in place, and it's come to a grinding halt while the clock is ticking. So this bill would basically take the Biden adopted standards and would put them into California law.

This is just an absolutely essential step if we're going to be able to meet the timeframe of being able to access those federal Biden dollars.

And I'd just like to point out in a very similar bill by Senator Stern was heard earlier in the week, and we absolutely are committed to working with our author on ensuring that the standards are the highest in the world.

The Biden standards already are, but if California has additional additions that need to be made, we're supportive of that. But Senator Weber made a very insightful comment about the environmental justice components of this.

And her point, which I like to take liberty to repeat, was her community and other disadvantaged communities have a disproportionate number of carbon emitting facilities, cement plants, other chemical plants and so forth, and they don't have any place to sequester carbon.

So if we don't have pipelines, we're actually creating carbon islands where some communities will be able to enjoy the benefits of capturing carbon and others won't. And so pipelines are actually essential to helping ensure that environmental justice issue. And so with that, we would urge an aye vote. Thank you.

All right, well, thank you for that. Are there any other witnesses? Name and association only, please. Thank you.

Teresa Cooke on behalf of the California Council for Environment and Economic Balance in support. Thank you.

Melanie Law here on behalf of Clean Air Task Force, in support. Thank you.

Leah Barros, on behalf of Calpine and the Independent Energy Producers Association, in support.

Virgil Welch with the California Carbon Solutions Coalition, in support.

Mike Monaghan, on behalf of the State Building Trades. In support.

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

Great, thank you. Are there main opposition witnesses to this measure? If you're a main opposition witness, you can stand right up here or sit here. Sorry, you don't have to stand. I mean, you can, but you're welcome to sit.

And I'm gonna give you 2 minutes and 30 seconds because I give the chair a long time.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Is that all right? Just kidding. All right, thank you.

Cool. Thank you. All right.

I'll just try and equity.

Thank you. Okay. Well, my name is Ileana. I'm with the Central California Environmental Justice Network, and I'm here to oppose unless amend the bill position along with CRPE and Leadership Council. First, I want to thank the committee and the author for the suggested amendments, which we agree provides clarity to the bill.

The state is looking at the build out of hundreds of miles of CO2 pipelines, many which will go through communities that we represent, which are here today. And for the purpose of this build discussion, we are very focused on the pipelines themselves and not the broader question of the use of CCUs

In the event of a leak, CO2 and risk stays in a dense cloud as it is heavier than air and can travel large distance and at lethal concentrations after rupture. Even at nonlethal levels of CO2, it can impair the use of internal combustion engines, a challenge for emergency response or evacuation efforts.

While this bill asks for the state fire marshal to build off the draft regulations that were released then withdrawn from PHMSA, those regulations never went through the full regulatory process, and therefore it lacks some important details that are necessary to make the regulations implementable and enforceable.

For example, the draft regulations only state that there must be a leak detection equipment without specifying any precision, accuracy, and reliability requirements. Similar deficiencies exist for the emergency planning and equipment requirements.

The draft regulations notably do not require the use of an odorant or colorant, like we do with natural gas, a common-sense safety requirement that is key to the detection of small releases and leaks. It is difficult and expensive to retrofit and retroactively apply safety requirements to existing pipelines.

So it is important that if we are to lift the moratorium transporting CO2 pipelines, that the initial set of regulations meet a very high standard and prioritize community protection. And I think that's my time, right? Or do I have 30 more seconds?

If you have one more thought, you can just call.

Yeah. I just want to say, all in all, we believe that the state fire marshal must be required to use the federal regulations as a baseline. But the bill must require the state fire marshal to make improvements. And we look forward to continuing the work with you.

Great. Thank you so much. Are there any other opponents? Please step up to the microphone and name an affiliation only, please.

Gloria Herrera from Delano, Kern County, and I'm the president of Delano Guardians. Thank you.

Irma Arredondo from Kern County, Delano, and I'm opposed to this bill. Belong to the Delano Guardians also

Maria Fernandez for the community of Delano and Delano Guardians. Thank you.

Hello. Ivan Ortiz. I'm a community member in Kern County, and I'm here in opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Great, thank you. Any comments from my colleagues on the dais? Yes, Assemblymember.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author for bringing the bill. I think it's an important piece of a larger puzzle that we're trying to put together. I think it's much needed. I think these delays have really hurt us, and I think by doing this, we're actually bringing more environmental justice to the table and not less.

And I think a lot of the testimony from you and the witnesses really hammered that home. And I do think that the opposition isn't far off from where you guys are. And it sounds like with these amendments, which I believe you are accepting are going to hopefully solve that problem.

I would love to be a co-author, and I'm happy to move the bill. So, thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. And yes, I am happy to accept the committee amendments.

Okay. Assemblymember. Papan?

Yeah, I would just concur. The carbon is going to be there no matter what. So I'm pleased that you are doing something to at least help us in the interim. We all like it to not be there. So that's why I move the bill. And I, too, would like to be added as a co-author. Thank you for your work.

Great. Any other comments? All right, Mr. Zbur.

So as I understand it, this is about carbon pipelines for carbon capture, right? Which are the scoping plan requires that we actually capture a certain amount of carbon within certain time periods.

So am I right to sort of understand that part of the reason for this bill is that we were supposed to have federal safety standards that have now been held up because how Trump is holding up everything. Right. Which means that what this Bill is doing is requiring the state to essentially adopt the federal standards and then.

But have independent oversight. Right. So they could, for example, consider the kinds of things that CEHA has in their set of amendments and then adopt their own standards. And the reason for that is because we don't have any assurance that the federal government will move forward with the federal standards.

So we actually have no safety standards out there. And so this is really sort of, you know, taking back the necessity to actually both meet our climate goals and protect our communities. Is that a fair way to characterize it?

That's spot on, 100%. And I think that it's just a really critical moment, as I said, for us to make sure that our destiny is in our own hands.

And then the other thing, I looked at the letter from CEHA, and it looks like there's a number of things that seem very reasonable to me. And so I just wanted to see if you have a commitment to continue working with CEHA to address some of those.

Yes, and thank you. And I know that I actually wrote down, I think one of the last things you said, which was that the initial regulations must meet a very high standard and prioritize community safety. And I could not agree more with that, and certainly appreciate the engagement. And I know that we're going to continue the conversation and continue to work together.

Thank you so much for the opportunity. And just for the record, it's CCJN, not CEHA.

Oh, it's not CCJN. Okay. I think I was reading CEHA's letter.

A lot of acronyms, I know.

Okay, got it. Okay, CCJN. Okay, well, I'm sorry. Well, CCJN, thank you, thank you. Anyway, so I think this is an incredibly important bill to meet our climate goals and would also like to be added as a co-author, and I'll be supporting it today.

Thank you.

Great. Anyone else? All right, well, appreciate the work on this. Sometimes we set goals in the Legislature many times decades ago, before any of us were here, and but oftentimes don't build the infrastructure to meet those goals.

And so I think this is a good bill to meet the goals based on or build infrastructure to meet those goals that we set. And I appreciate Mr. Wetch's testimony, by the way, because it seems like you guys were instrumental in the development of the original bill, but here we are now. Times change.

Would you like to close?

So, anyways, thanks for bringing this measure. And we had a motion in a second. And take the roll. Sorry, would you like to close? Well, sorry, just say amateur move.

That's all right.

Well, thank you. I really do believe that carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration technologies are an incredibly important part of, as Assemblymember Haribadian said, the puzzle that we need to fit together in order to deliver on our climate objectives, and certainly if we want to deliver on those in a way that is both affordable and reliable.

So appreciate the comments and support, and look forward to continuing to work with all stakeholders to make sure that we get this right and that we can make real progress all across the State of California. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. And I believe the motion is due pass natural resources with the commitment to take amends and natural resources.

Yes. And I should clarify because committee members are going to hear that phrase a couple of times during this hearing, because of the timing of spring recess and the desk closure, and the timing of our final hearing.

There's a couple times where we'll be saying bills are advancing to the Next Committee with the commitment to take the amends in that Committee.

Great. Thanks. All right, Madam Secretary.

Item number seven, AB881. The motion is do-pass to natural resources with the commitment to take amendments in natural resources.

[Roll Call]

All right, that's out. Eleven to zero. And we'll keep the roll open. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.

I think I'm up next, right? I'm up next, right? Okay, great. Let's do this. Oh, I'll sit here.

All right. We are moving on to File item number 12. AB 1156. Assemblymember Wicks.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'd like to begin by thanking you and your staff for the thoughtful work and conversations we've had around this proposed policy. Because this Bill is triple referred, I propose amendments that would be taken next week before the Agricultural Committee should it pass this body.

This afternoon, AB 1156 updates California Solar easement statute, permitting suitable lands with significant water constraints to transfer from a Williamson act contract to a solar use easement for the development of renewable energy projects.

The legislation also modernizes the eligibility criteria and easement terms, aligning our state's clean energy and water policy goals while providing farmers with new economic opportunities on agriculturally constrained lands.

Working with all three policy committees and many, many stakeholders, I've agreed to take amendments which remove all references to the California Energy Commission, clarify that every project under a solar use easement will undergo ceqa, allow local governments to non renew when an easement is at the end of the project's operating life, provide local government the option of requiring a project to include specified community benefits, and revise language around water availability.

California has ambitious goals for our environment and for our energy infrastructure. This past fall, I learned through hearings at the Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform just how long and how hard it is to permit a solar energy project in our state and was left with the inescapable conclusion that we need to do better.

This will require collaboration and compromise by all stakeholders. AB 1156 takes a critical look at the existing solar use easement program, which is intended to allow for solar development on compromised agricultural lands. It was envisioned before California's groundwater laws and before the establishment of our aggressive clean energy goals. To be blunt, the program is not working.

State data shows that only three projects. Only three projects have been permitted since 2011. My goal with this Bill is to update the framework to catalyze clean energy development on lands that for foreseeable future can no longer be farmed. This will provide an economic benefit to the community and to farmers that otherwise have very limited options.

I'm working on this issue because we have hugely ambitious renewable energy goals that aren't being met and because our lack of water means, whether this Bill passes or not, that between 500,000 and 900,000 acres of Farmland is going to be fallowed.

I want to provide an entirely voluntary choice for those impacted landowners to place solar on their property, make a healthy return during the length of the contract, and also provide more property tax revenue for local governments.

Vitally, AB 1156 does not propose that a Williamson Act contract be rescinded or canceled but merely that it be suspended for the length of the solar project. This means if water conditions change, land can be returned to production in future years. My door has always and will remain open to work with all stakeholders.

We want to respect communities in this process and that is what I believe we can do. I will let my witnesses in support self introduce themselves.

Good afternoon Madam Chair Members. My name is Shannon Eddy. I represent the Large Scale Solar Association. We are a state based trade group and our Members are responsible for developing much of the energy resource, the solar energy resource in play today.

And happy to be here to talk a little bit about this Bill which really has the dual benefit of both delivering on our climate targets, but also helping to address some of the water scarcity issues and those impacts and the fallout from that as well. We need to triple the size of our grid by 2045.

Nearly half of those energy additions will come from the solar industry or from the solar sector. That's about 60 gigawatts that needs to be added to the grid. And that's in addition to the 20 gigawatts that we have operating right now. There are a lot, and you're hearing of this every time you sit in this room.

There are a lot of issues that are facing the electricity industry and permitting, finding ways to permit and places to permit these projects is increasing among them. And so when we look at solar, it's important to note that we need about 600,000 to 700,000 acres to site that much solar.

And the desert is mostly off limits or already spoken for. So we need to look elsewhere for siting these projects. At the same time, to the Assembly Members point, we've got to meet groundwater sustainability goals by 2040, which is going to take somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 to a million acres out of Active Ag production south of the Delta in the next 15 years.

And so it makes sense to us to really think about how solar can be put on at least some of those lands. And that brings us to the Williamson act, which is just a long standing tax policy that has been designed to preserve ag land and keep it in agricultural use. It's been around since 1965.

It hasn't really been amended in that time period. There was in 2011, recognizing some of the changes, the creation of the solar use easement statute, which was designed expressly to site solar projects on non viable Williamson act land. So this Bill makes targeted updates to that.

I want to just be sure to clarify that this Bill does not accelerate farmland coming out of production. It simply takes advantage of the opportunity to put solar on lands that have lost water. Thank the Assembly Member for her leadership and your time.

Good afternoon. Alex Jackson with the American Clean Power Association. We're a trade group representing utility scale solar developers, among other technologies, pleased to speak in support of this Bill which we see as helping to unlock that potential and also provide a financial lifeline to farmers and landowners that are facing water shortages.

I just want to underline three points that we heard from the author and sponsor. First is really just the centrality of utility to scale solar to everything we're trying to do on clean energy and climate. Caiso's most recent transmission plan is calling for 30 gigawatts of solar development by 2039. That's about 40% of the plan.

And for that development to become actualized and turn into projects, we need to make more land available and connect it to those transmission zones that Caiso is planning for. So second, we see this Bill is really about alignment between our land use policies for water and clean energy.

As we heard, the solar use statute has been on the books since 2011, but it hasn't been updated and modernized since. We now have these competing challenges that we can make more integrated. And finally this to me is that type of Bill that we need.

If California is serious about, can we start to build, be it housing, energy, all the areas where we have shortages, we need to make it easier, you know, we need to reduce the fees, the barriers, the restrictions that while well intentioned, have led to only three projects, for example, being able to take advantage of a policy that was designed to spur them.

So California has been a leader on solar for decades. Last year Texas installed four times as much solar capacity as we did. We need to catch up. I think we have that opportunity and this Bill will help us. So we asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. We'll now hear from additional witnesses in support. If you'd like to testify in support, go ahead and approach the microphone.

Mckinley Thompson-Morley on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association in support, thanks.

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

Hi, good afternoon. Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors here on behalf of Invenergy in support.

Good afternoon. Madam Chair Members Cesar Diaz here on behalf of Nextera Energy in support.

Good afternoon. Erin Norwood on behalf of the Almond Alliance in support. Good afternoon. Melissa Kleu on behalf of Western Growers. In support as proposed amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Erin Nemla on behalf of Intersect Power and support.

Good afternoon. Gracia Legacy on behalf of the Abundance Network in support.

Madam Chair, Members Brian White on behalf of New Leaf Energy in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members Kristin Olsen-Cate with California Strategies on behalf of Terragen in support.

All right, let's move to opposition testimony. Do we have anyone? Go ahead and come on up.

Thank you and good afternoon. John Kennedy with RCRC representing the rural counties. We represent 40 of California's 58 counties, generally smaller population from 1100 to 500,000 people. First of all, want to thank the author for working with us. We've had a lot of really productive conversations with the author and with the sponsor.

The amends that have been suggested today or offered today do a lot to move this Bill in the right direction. From our perspective, we as rural counties have a very strong interest in the Williamson act as a land preservation tool for AG and want to make sure the solar use easement works.

I think we have a lot of the same frustrations with the solar use easement and it not being used over the years and so look forward to opportunities to fix that going forward.

As I mentioned, taking the Energy Commission out of this Bill is a game changer from our perspective and pushes us a lot further in the right direction.

We still do have a couple concerns with two pieces in the Bill, one that takes out our ability to impose mitigation requirements on projects and the other that restricts our ability to non renew.

So we want the ability to continue to protect the project from cattle that may be grazing, from children that may try to come onto the project site. And we fear that stripping this mitigation requirement would preclude our ability to do that. I don't think we're far away from the author sponsors on trying to protect that interest.

So I think we can. I'm hopeful we can land those issues in the coming weeks because we would really like to get to a place where we're supporting this Bill and putting land to productive use. So thank you. Appreciate the opportunity. We are opposed, but hopefully we can move that position in the coming weeks.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. Peter Ansel, California Farm Bureau Respectfully and opposed. We've had good conversations with the author's office and with all three committees. We'll continue to work on the issues that we have concerns with. But we remain opposed today and we'll update as the Bill progresses. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the counties of Placer and Kern, both currently opposed, but they're reviewing the amendments and will be considering changing of the position at some point.

Thank you. Okay, let's bring it back to Committee Members. Questions or comments, Assemblymember Harabedian.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the author for the Bill. And I do think that it's an important piece of work and obviously there's a lot of nuance, and I thought the analysis was excellent.

By the way, I would love to be a co author and I would love to continue to work on this issue globally. And I think that this Bill is a really good start. And I know there's going to be a lot more work, so. And I'll third the motion.

Yeah, thanks. Appreciate the Bill. I've actually received several emails on this legislation. One of the counties is a county that I represent. And you're very familiar with it.

Born and raised. Yes.

But I did have an opportunity to speak with one of the Supervisors this morning about the legislation, and I think the amendments really do move it into the right direction.

And so right now I'm going to lay off, but I told the Supervisor, I said generally, I am of the view that landowners ought to be able to, you know, use their land to what benefits them the most. So. So I think we're going to be able to get there. But I do want to give an opportunity to have more discussion with my county about it. So thank you.

All right with that. Well, I'll just say thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I think we all recognize, as you said, that if we actually want to deliver on our climate goals, we've got to do better, we've got to move faster and just appreciate the way that you've leaned into that challenge. And would you like to close?

Well, I borrowed that line from you. That's why I like it. That's so genius. And sat next to you when we were at the hearing with the Select Committee on Promoting Reform, where this came up over and over again.

And so that Select Committee has certainly served a purpose, and this is one piece of a much bigger endeavor to make it easier to build all the things we need to build in California to serve our constituents in the modern era that we are in.

And with that, I will pledge, as always, to continue to work with opposition. I hope we can get there as well and would love to have you as a co author. Anyone else as well and would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, 9-0. So that's on call. We'll leave it open for absent Members to add on. Thank you. Moving to file item 14. AB 1222. Assembly. Yeah, it's a good number. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

So much warmer in here today than it was last night. Did something right. No icebox today. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking the Committee staff for their hard work on this Bill. Really from the beginning when we started talking about this conversation. As always, today I'm proud to present AB 1222.

The Bill protects ratepayers by updating the judicial review process for CPUC decisions. I introduced this Bill for one simple reason. The judicial review process for CPUC decisions needs a little bit of an update. When IOUs don't like a CPUC decision, they challenge it. Why wouldn't they? That's what we do when we don't like things.

Win or lose, guess who pays those legal expenses? You and me and our ratepayers. AB 1222 prohibits utilities from recovering those costs of seeking judicial review from ratepayers, which hopefully will. Everything we do should be alleviating the burden on our ratepayers right now.

And part of what I want to ensure is when an agency makes a decision, as a lawyer, I think it is fundamental that you have a way to challenge that, that they aren't the ultimate arbiter. That if it doesn't seem fair or right for our constituents, there is a pathway to judicial review.

And unlike most review decisions, this one has a 30 day window, but almost all the others are 90 days. And so this aligns it with the 90 days to make that review meaningful, allow for time to see the decision and get your action into court.

And then lastly, it deals with an issue that I have just noticed over my years on the Committee, which is that there is this process by which ALJs review the record, make recommendations to the CPUC about what should and should not happen, and then the CPUC commissioners make the ultimate decision.

And there's been instances where I've seen this happen where the alj, who spends significant amount of time in the record, makes a recommendation that is changed significantly, often at the last minute with little understanding of why that is the case.

And so this would really provide some level of deference to that review by the ALJ Judge with me today is Matthew Friedman with turn.

Thank you Members. My name is Matt Friedman. I'm a Staff Attorney with the Utility Reform Network here in support of AB 1222. This Bill would limit incentives for investor owned utilities to challenge CPUC decisions and would apply additional scrutiny to last minute changes to proposed decisions that are made before adopted by the Commission.

In our view, it's simply unreasonable for ratepayers to cover the costs attributable to utility efforts to seek advantages to their shareholders by challenging PUC decisions. For example, PGE recently pursued state court challenges to the PUC's 2023 decision to enforce some oversight over the spending of volumetric fees associated with the Diablo Canyon Power Plant.

These were FEES authorized in SBA 46. All three utilities historically have challenged various PUC decisions both in step in state and federal court and occasionally in front of federal agencies. If IOUS want to challenge PUC decisions, that's their right, but these costs should be paid by shareholders rather than by ratepayers.

AB 1222 would require litigation costs to be separately tracked so they can be removed from any General rate case forecast and excluded from rate recovery. This treatment is appropriate given the ongoing conflicts between shareholder and ratepayer interests.

A second notable provision of the Bill would address concerns regarding significant last minute changes to proposed decisions made prior to final adoption and in the event of a judicial review. The Bill would place the burden on the PUC to demonstrate that any significant revisions at the last minute were required to comply with state or federal law.

This is critical to ensuring that late changes that may be the product of lobbying efforts by the utilities are subject to enhanced scrutiny by the courts.

In the case of Diablo Canyon, again, we've seen the PUC make controversial last second changes to two consecutive decisions at their business meetings with no prior notice to parties, no opportunity to submit comment. These changes both benefited PG and E shareholders to the detriment of its ratepayers. So we believe the provisions here are fair and reasonable.

They represent good common sense reforms to the existing Code sections that govern judicial review. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional witnesses here in support if you'd like to testify in support of AB 1222, approach the microphone.

Hi, good afternoon. Christina Mohabir here with California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving to opposition.

It's your glasses. I thought you were wearing a hat. I was ready for it. You just came off like a beach volleyball court or something.

Old man glasses. Kent Kauss, on behalf of San Diego Gas and Electric and SoCal Gas, we are in opposition. We certainly don't always agree with Commission decisions, but at times, certainty is a bigger issue than the issue before us. This bill simply delays those decisions.

As one example, our 2019-2022 wildfire mitigation plan, we spent $1.5 billion on wildfire mitigation expenses. To this point, the Commission has dealt with less than 300 million, leaving us 1.2 billion left in recovery. By the end of last year, the financing costs associated with that have amounted to $66 million.

Every month we accumulate additional $3 million in financing costs just to deal with the delays at the PUC. It's an ongoing problem for us. Also, the proponents noted that AB 1222 prohibits recovery of costs associated with litigation.

We totally understand that in cases where we were to lose or be denied, but in cases where we prevail, we think those costs should be subject to review by the Commission for reasonableness. At the end of the day, the Commission determines just unreasonable costs before they allow for recovery.

And a final point on the issue of ALJs, we don't believe you should be giving them that much greater weight above appointed and confirmed commissioners at the Public Utilities Commission. I was around in this building in 1996, the original expansion of judicial review through then Senator Charles Calderon.

At the time, the PUC got additional resources to make sure that at the beginning of proceedings, the time was spent to ensure that their decisions were legally sound by the end of the day to avoid judicial review. They don't want to have it either. No one does. Certainty is a bigger issue. For these reasons, we are opposed to the bill.

All right, thank you. Additional witnesses in opposition.

Thank you. Valerie Turella, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, associate my opposition comments with my colleague. Thank you.

Catherine Borg with the Southern California Edison. Same. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, bringing it back to Committee. Questions or comments? Assemblymember Calderon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want to thank the author. We had a brief conversation earlier today, and because I wasn't-- I had some questions about ALJ. Like I didn't know, are they attorneys? There's no requirement that they're attorneys. And who are they appointed? They are not appointed.

And so, you know, I'm concerned about empowering maybe an ALJ that's not an attorney, it's not appointed. In these important decisions, I just think that the commissioners should have more weight. And so I, as I told you earlier, I'll be abstaining on this bill.

Assemblymember Zbur.

I guess I-- First of all, thank you for bringing the bill. I actually do think that the cost issues are an important part of that about who bears the cost, although I do think that the cost, it makes sense to me, I think, what you're suggesting in terms of whether or not it's who's who's appealing the decision essentially.

But the other-- I'm not being very articulate today. The other set of issues that I have with this is really the changes in the standards.

And I guess I'm wondering why that would be the case because I would put more weight on what the PUC does than what the ALJ does, and actually having a presumption that what the Commission has done is arbitrary and capricious. And I just didn't like the burden changes in the bill.

It just doesn't seem to me like that necessarily is something that will result in what's best for the ratepayer. So either of you want to talk about that?

Yeah, I mean, I'll begin and then if you don't mind, turn it over to TURN. I'll say, you know, one of the things that got me thinking about this was a couple years ago there was a decision by the ALJ when PG&E went before the PUC with a wildfire plan that contained almost 1,000 miles of undergrounding.

And the ALJ had reviewed it and decided that they actually couldn't do that much. That was not a possibility, that 200 was about what was appropriate. And that was overruled by the PUC commissioners.

And they are now sitting on my rates as a PG&E customer for something that appears to, according to the person who did the really deep analysis, not even like, will they be able to build that much miles and should they wait, should they do 200 and then go back and get the next and they're not sitting on my money in the meantime.

And the fact that the person who had gone through the record and really analyzed it and spent the time was overruled. I don't know. It was surprising to me. And again, the ratepayers were the ones that were hurt there. Often the IOU is the benefit from the overruling.

I don't know that in my time watching this, I've ever seen the ratepayers benefit from the change. And it was interesting we were having a conversation when we spoke because Assemblymember Calderon, who's been in the space much longer than I have about, you know, I've been watching this for about six years, my time in the Legislature.

And in that time, I have not been impressed with the decisions that the PUC has overturned. They don't seem to be grounded. They don't seem to be explained. They seem to be often last minute.

But she was mentioning that, you know, she can think of commissioners who are real experts that she really, you know, believe were making decisions grounded in their expertise. I hope I'm representing you well, Assemblymember Calderon. And that was interesting because that has not been my experience in the last six years. But these are appointees.

These are political appointees. And, you know, I guess that's another question that we should really be grappling with, I think, a lot around the PUC and what has happened.

And I think it'll be really informative to see if the current PUC commissioners decide to give the current rate increase that the IOU's asked for just to boost the profits of their shareholders. I mean, to me, that is so egregious that it will make me lose all faith.

But that's where I'm at right now, is that I want to make sure that we have courts that are actually looking at this, that if you have six rate increases in one year, which is what PG&E customers experienced last year, that there is a way to go back and have a real record reviewed on those decisions so that ratepayers are not just getting slammed time and time again by PUC commissioners who seem to right now be just doing the bidding of IOUs.

And so that was really the thinking. I will say that in the conversation that Assemblymember Calderon and I had the opportunity to have, she had some really fabulous questions that in the last hour I did not have the chance to research or come to answers to.

So I appreciate her not asking them right now, but I think did really raise a lot of questions that I hope to continue to explore and work on. And the standard was one of them. Is there a better standard?

And I think the goal of this bill and what I hope it achieves at the end of this is meaningful judicial review. To me, that is fundamental to what all of our agencies should expect. And to be honest with you, if there was meaningful judicial review, I think agencies act better, just like judges do by the way.

Like, we all know those of us that have been court, we know that judges are better for the fact that you could appeal. So they are constantly thinking, am I going to lose this on appeal? And you know, judges are thinking that and they're trying to do it right because they don't want to be overturned.

And so the better the judicial review is, I think the better the PUC will function. I actually believe that. And so that is the goal of this bill. And so I hope it gets out of this Committee so we can move forward with that goal. Oh, but I should-- I don't know if TURN wanted to add something. I probably got some stuff wrong.

Thank you, Assemblymember. I think we're concerned about a lot of the last minute changes that involve no notice to the parties. Sometimes changes can happen to these decisions days or even hours before the Commission votes on them and sometimes even minutes before the Commission votes on them.

So if there are concerns about these changes, parties have no opportunity to express concerns to raise those with the Commission in any forum. Now, in a typical case where there's an administrative law judge, there's also an assigned commissioner. The commissioner works with the ALJ on the case. They essentially jointly produce a proposed decision.

So the Commissioner closest to the material has plenty of opportunity to work with the ALJ and decide whether changes are needed before the proposed decision is even issued. If commissioners have real concerns about the proposed decision, the correct course of action is to issue an alternate decision that would then be subject to comment.

But we see commissioners rarely do that. Instead, there's an effort to make last minute changes that are essentially happening at the very finish line of the process. And that's one of the things that we are concerned about.

And then finally, this bill also provides clear exemptions in terms of the judicial review process for changes that are need to comply with state or federal law. There was a point raised. While the judges aren't all, they aren't all lawyers. That's true.

So if the commissioners decide that they need to make a change to comply with the law, that is specifically called out as acceptable here in the statutory language that's being proposed.

So I, you know, I think the-- There seems like there would be other alternatives rather than changing the standard of review to arbitrary. It just seems like that is such a big hurdle that, and it could be used on both sides, whether it's something that benefits the ratepayer or it's something that benefits the IOU.

I've just never heard of a presumption coming out of a decision from a regulatory body where the presumption is that it's, that if you differ from an earlier version, it's arbitrary and capricious. And so that part, I just think, I have significant concerns about that.

I'm going to vote for this today because we didn't have an opportunity to talk about this at all. And I don't ever like to surprise my colleagues with staying off the vote. But, you know, I think the goals are good.

I think the goals with respect to the costs, although I think I'd like you to consider, I think what was suggested in terms of, you know, if it's the IOUs appealing, I think they should be bearing their costs.

The question of whether that's in the other direction, whether that is the case, I guess I'd like you to consider that. But my bigger issue is really the standard of review and the, you know, those issues, I just think that it's too big of a-- I worry that it's not in the best interest of the ratepayers.

Yes. And I mean, my understanding is that right now in the bill, they only bear the cost where they seek appeal. Just for clarity. But, and yes, and I'm happy to look at the standard.

You know, I mean, I really do appreciate the work of both this committee and Judiciary Committee, which is where this is going next. So standard is actually very appropriately discussed in that Committee. And so we're happy to continue working with them on that. Thank you.

Assemblymember Harabedian.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the author. Thank you to both sides of the testimony. And my first question that I have a comment is for the opposition. So the opposition makes a great deal of hay about how this would lead to further delays.

And you sort of teed that up both in the letter and here with years of delay and therefore extending this from one month to three months to actually file some sort of judicial action would somehow make this worse.

Explain to me how if we're seeing years of delay, how extending from one month to three months, which really just aligns, I agree with the author, with other administrative settings. It's really just making this, I think, coalesce with how a lot of different agencies and commissions work.

Explain to me how that's going to add to an otherwise burdensome process that takes years at this point.

Yeah, I get it. It's 60 days. But last year, for example, in our general rate case, it was due at the end of 2023.

We were told in late 2022, if I'm getting my-- at the end of '23, that it would be first quarter of '24, then it became second quarter, then became third quarter, then it was December. Once you start delaying, who knows how long it's going to take? Once you give 90 days, how long-- when does it stop?

This wildfire mitigation plan? 2022. It's now 2025. We still don't have a decision. It's the uncertainty of it. There's nothing I can point to that says it's 60 days and then it's going to be done. But the uncertainty of further delays in statute being provided could cause--

It's okay, you don't need to address that. If the ratepayers aren't-- Just so I'm totally clear, it seems like an accounting issue here. If we're not passing the costs onto the ratepayer-- So I lied, I have two questions. How are they paying?

This is just coming out of a general fund at the time the expenses are incurred and then are not going to be passed on to the ratepayers under this bill, is that correct?

Yeah. It'll come out of the over $2 billion they gave to their shareholders.

Shareholder money? Okay. So I like the bill. I'm going to support it. And I do think that having served on a board and a commission at the state level for six or seven years, to the extent that a final decision is ever materially different than a proposed decision of a ALJ, I think that's very concerning.

As our testifying witness said, commissioners and PUC commissioners are no different, work very hand in hand with ALJs throughout the process of a hearing. I know different boards and commissions are the exact same. The ALJ is doing a lot of that work.

And when they provide a proposed decision, that takes a lot of work with the Commission, with the assigned Commissioner. To the extent that any proposed decision was then material-- and we have to define what "significantly deviates" means, I don't know exactly what that means, but I think that on its face is concerning.

And I do think that there should be a presumption that goes in favor against the PUC. I don't know exactly how that presumption will play out. I do think that a presumption can always be overcome by evidence.

So this isn't a nail in the coffin, but I would say that from my experience being on a Commission and a board that is not nearly as significant or important as the PUC, that is a concerning outcome. And I do think for all the IOUs, I'm not exactly sure how that would be explained.

And so I don't have a problem with the presumption. I think the presumption should be against the PUC under those circumstances. So I think it's an important part of this bill. I continue to hope that you guys can work together on defining exactly--

And to Mr. Zbur's point, maybe it's not arbitrary and unlawful, maybe it's a different presumption. But I do think that is a concerning outcome that ratepayers are not going to have full detail into. But anyone following the process I think would agree that this needs to be addressed. So I'm happy to move the bill and support it. So thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Rogers.

Thank you so much for the discussion. So my comment, or kind of question, I suppose, is actually directly related to the bill, but it was more of what our witness from TURN mentioned around the changes happening very last minute. Obviously we're a body that operates where we have to have things in print for three days.

Wanted to ask why there isn't a standard like that for important decisions like this to give folks an opportunity to perhaps weigh in and prevent the need for some of these challenges to it. And just to suggest that if the author wanted to include that in the bill, it seems to be within the scope.

Thank you, Assemblymember. 72 hour rule for everybody. Sunshine is the greatest disinfectant.

Member Papan.

No real objections, except I would echo Assemblymember Zbur, my colleague from Southern California. Let's see what we can do in tweaking some of the language on the standard. I was a little alarmed by the standard review, recognizing that you are trying to do something about a long process that gets us to a certain point. And that's all I gotta say because I'm gonna see it in Judicial.

I felt it only fair to say something, but definitely will be supporting it today.

All right, thank you. Sounds like you're going to have a fun judiciary hearing as well. And I guess I would just say, somewhat picking up on what Assemblymember Harabedian said, I didn't quite understand, Mr.Kauss, what-- you mentioned that you have like a sort of wildfire fund where you've got $1.2 billion outstanding, $66 million in interest being paid by ratepayers. I don't understand what that has to do with the proposal before us.

It's just delays. It's another opportunity for delays and final decisions to be made.

Got it. Understood. I would say that-- And I think this is also a constant refrain that we're hearing from our investor-owned utilities. To your example, it was supposed to be Q1, then it's Q2, then it's Q3, then it's Q4.

We should have a conversation about that and we should figure out what we need to do as a legislative body to make sure the PUC is doing what they're supposed to be doing on time and in line with their commitment. So very happy to have that conversation.

I think it's a different conversation than both the problem statement and the solution before us, but we can certainly pursue that offline. Okay, thank you. With that, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank you all for the comments and the discussion and I, as always, will continue to work on the bill and take what I heard today into consideration. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you. We have a motion from Assemblymember Harabedian and a second from Assemblymember Irwin. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number 14, AB 1222. The motion is do pass to Judiciary. [Roll call]

103. That Bill is out. And we'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Okay, moving on to file item 15 AB 1260. Assembly Member Ward, welcome. Mr. Freeman is very popular today. It's back, as you're ready.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. First, I want to thank the Committee for their work on this Bill and state that I'll be accepting the Committee Members that are proposed in the analysis. California, as you know, has some of the most ambitious renewable energy goals in the world.

While our state has made gains in the Clean Energy Department, significant barriers to consumer participation remain. For, for example, 45% of all California households and 70% of low income households are renters, which in nearly any situation prevents on site solar opportunities.

One way the state can address this issue is through the use of community renewable projects which are typically smaller scale solar installations typically built on small parcels of private land.

That's why in 2022 I introduced and we passed AB 2316 which directed the PUC to establish a new community Solar and Storage program if it benefits all ratepayers compensating projects based on the full value of distributed energy resources.

In the ensuing proceeding by the PUC, Community Solar and Storage advocates introduced the Net Value Building Tariff proposal which received broad support from ratepayer advocates, environmental justice groups and others, and most closely aligned with the intent of AB 2316.

Ultimately, the PUC issued a proposed decision rejecting this proposal and instead adopting the Community Renewable Energy Program which is which was proposed by others. This program does not fairly compensate projects for the full value to the grid and ratepayers and relies entirely on external sources of funding which are in jeopardy due to an unprecedented federal Administration.

AB 1260 will make necessary changes to the Community Renewable Energy Program adopted by the PUC to ensure that it aligns with the original intent of AB 2316 specifically ensures the program will do the support the implementation of state building codes requiring solar on most new residential units, ensuring that at least 51% of its subscribers are low income customers or low income service organizations, minimizing impacts to non subscriber ratepayers and providing Bill credits to subscribers based on the avoided costs of the community renewable energy facility as determined by the PUC's Standard Method for calculating the cost effectiveness of distributed energy resources.

These changes ensure that California has robust community renewable programs that expand access to solar to all Californians while providing a valuable tool for achieving the state's ambitious energy efficiency and climate change goals, all while creating high quality and competitive jobs.

With me to speak in support is Marianne Bergerson, the California Climate and Energy Policy Director at the Nrdc and Matthew Friedman, the Renewables Attorney at the Utility Reform Network.

Good Afternoon Chair Petrie Norris My name is Merrian Borgeson . I'm the California Director for Climate and Energy at Natural Resources Defense Council. Meeting the state's climate goals, as you all know, requires a massive scale up in renewable energy electricity generation and this requires photovoltaic systems of all sizes.

To date, we've largely done this through large scale solar farms and through rooftop solar. However, there is a significant opportunity that we have not yet tapped for community scale renewable generation plus storage that can provide power and flexibility needed to decarbonize the grid and deliver clean energy during hours when the grid is the dirtiest.

This Bill would create a community solar program that ensures over 50% of the project's capacity, serves low income households and provides direct financial benefits to those participants.

As was stated, not everyone owns their home or is able to have solar on their roof and we must ensure that the state's most vulnerable households have access to these clean energy resources and the financial benefits associated with them. This program also provides electricity system cost savings to all Californians.

By locating closer to the customers themselves, community projects can bypass grid constraints and displace gas generation, which can reduce electricity prices and the need to build or expand new lines. These projects can also be completed within a year or two. Unlike transmission, new distribution upgrades, capacity increases which as we know, take way too long to build.

In addition, pairing these systems with storage allows these projects to supply electricity during peak times, reducing the capacity required for resource adequacy and lowering the cost for all customers. For these reasons I ask for your aye vote for 1260 today. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Matt Freedman on behalf of Turn, we strongly support AB 1260 in order to clean up the mess that the PUC has created in its flawed implementation of AB 2316. California needs a viable community renewable energy program as an alternative to rooftop or on site customer generation.

Many customers can't host renewable generation on their own site because they don't own their property or because their property is simply unsuitable. 45% of Californians are renters and 2/3 of low income customers in California rent.

A community program would allow less expensive deployments of clean energy and enable cost effective participation by renters, low income families and owners of new homes that are subject to the Title 24 new solar home mandate. The PUC's refusal to implement AB 2316 as intended by this Legislature represents a huge missed opportunity.

As of today, major elements of the PUC's alternative approach are unclear, require further development, and seem highly unlikely to lead to a successful program.

AB 1260 would eliminate any ambiguities in current law by requiring all community renewable generation serving subscribers to be compensated using the Commission's own Avoided Cost Calculator, which serves as the primary method for determining the value of exported electricity to the distribution system and is used already to compensate customers participating in the net billing tariff.

AB 1260 would also require all eligible projects to include four hours of energy storage at the same capacity as the renewable generation. The Puc, by the way, rejected the idea that energy storage would be important for these projects. We strongly disagree. Energy storage provides significant value to the system, they need to be included in the community program.

And then under the Title 24 Building Code, New residential construction has to include on site solar, but the code allows alternative compliance through participation in a community program. The California Building and Industries Association estimates that up to 400 megawatts a year of new community solar is needed to annually service as a compliance option.

And we'll just say that installing 1,000 megawatts of community solar under this proposal would save $7 billion over 25 years compared to installing that same amount on the rooftop as would be required Title 24. For those reasons, we think this Bill makes a lot of sense and will be a ratepayer savings measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Right. We will now move to additional support testimony.

Madam Chair Member Scott Wetch on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers and the California Coalition of Utility Employees. In support.

Madam Chair Members Derek Chernow with the Coalition for Community Solar Access. We're the Trade Association for 125 companies and nonprofit organizations across the nation. Thanking Assemblymember Ward for bringing this forward and strongly supportive AB 1260. Thank you.

Hi there. Mckinley Thompson Morley, on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association in support.

Good afternoon. Madam Chair Members Brian White on behalf of New Energy Equity, Renewable Properties and. New Leaf Energy, all in support.

Meg Snyder with acxiom on behalf of the California Building Industry Association and support.

Good afternoon. Tyler Tratten, Tratten Press consulting, on behalf. Of the Climate Center in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance in support.

Hello. Edson Perez with Advanced Energy United in support.

Good afternoon. Michelle Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Chair Members Alicia Priego on behalf of NEXAMP in support.

Good afternoon. Steve Campbell, Vote Solar support.

Good afternoon. Grisheena Mohabir, California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you.

Brandon Smithwood, Dimension Energy in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, moving to opposition testimony. Opposition witnesses, come on up.

This on. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric in opposition to the Bill. So we oppose the Bill because we think that the Bill is going to result in higher rates and higher monthly electric bills for customers that do not participate in the programs that this, this Bill is modifying.

So our opposition is not to the actual program itself. Our opposition is based primarily on the new compensation rate that the Bill is trying to codify into state law, which essentially sets aside over two years of stakeholder review and feedback as the CPUC implemented the predecessor Bill that was referred to earlier in 2316.

We believe that the Bill is also contrary to what the Legislature actually adopted with 2316. It said that the CPUC was supposed to minimize cost shifting to non participating customers and to also seek out non ratepayer sources of funding. We think the PUC has done that.

So any increase to that compensation rate is going to have an impact on what non participating customers have to pay to offset those costs. And the last thing that I would note is that customers today have more options than ever before. There are other commodity providers that provide service in our service territory.

In particular, 85% of the service is provided by community choice aggregators. They have their own green type tariffs. In fact, our local CCA offers a green tariff program that targets customers that reside within disadvantaged communities and they receive a subsidized discount participation rate for that program.

So any customer that wants more green and is willing to pay more green has access to that. And so for those reasons we oppose. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brandon Ebeck, Pacific Gas Electric. In addition to everything my colleague just said, we also feel that the Commission followed the direction of AB 2316. We were previously opposed to that Bill 23 years ago until there was language added that clarified there was no cost shift.

And to encourage going after federal funds, we think that the Commission adopted what the Legislature directed them to do. If the federal funds go away, we should not turn to customers to make up the difference. As Israel said, we have a variety of community solar programs today. They exist.

There's a variety of ways to achieve green solar through our system, whether through direct participation in programs that allocate solar towards them or other multifamily programs. And then at a macro level, there are cheaper ways to buy solar.

Even in a study from the sponsor, it identifies that these community solar projects are more capital intensive, that is cost more money than utility scale solar.

The way to bring the cost down is to, I think we need to Focus more on section E of the Bill that directs the CEC to first identify any load modifying attributes of these projects before we can actually quantify what the value is of them.

I think there's merit to broadly studying front of the meter resources, but we probably don't need this entire complicated program that will add costs. There are other ways to lower customer bills. There's other ways to get solar. We think that rather than kick this back to the Commission, we think that they did it right the first time.

We're still implementing the program that the Commission just adopted last year. For those reasons we oppose. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in opposition,

Catherine Borg from. Southern California Edison in opposition and also reminding you on the analysis shows the Public Advocates office is in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association, who are big fans of Community Solar, big fans of the author. Our position is opposed unless amended. And the suggestion is, is to use Community Solar for Title 24 compliance only when not reasonably feasible to do so on the rooftops. Thank you very much.

Okay, bringing it back to the Committee. Questions or comments? Assemblymember Patterson.

Great, thanks. You know, this is a interesting Bill with collection of supporters that have never usually don't come together on many issues. I'm conflicted on this Bill for a lot of reasons. One is because we've put requirements on home builders and developers to do certain things regarding solar.

And we have to figure out ways in which they can do that. You. Know, in a cost effective way that keeps the price of homes down, you know, because every requirement we put on building a house, the more money that house costs and so that harms the affordability in California.

That said, I am a little bit, I'm pretty cognizant and concerned about when we have a Bill coming up next week that's going to really bring up items regarding the cost shift, whatever that might be.

And I think I really want to focus on that because I want to ensure that, you know, obviously it'll be an interesting debate. So I won't talk about that too much. But I think the point is, is that I'm concerned if we do a Bill that could increase the cost for other ratepayers.

That's what concerns me with this Bill. Obviously, if you want to respond to that, obviously I'm really open to that, but I see the people living in the homes will benefit. But what about everybody else?

No, thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, for those comments. And this has come up of Course, in the context of this Bill and we' lot of other work that we're doing here in this on the subject. So a few things. One, we don't necessarily, I think, disagree on some of the close attention that we need to give to some of these requirements under title 24.

But so long as they are there, and they are there, then we want to make sure that we are making effective mechanisms for many Californians to be able to meet those requirements under an opportunity that also affords them the benefits of directly purchasing and becoming availing themselves of the opportunity to be able to go green and to be able to purchase solar.

And so with respect to the opposition, some of the other programs that are out there, most of the other programs are out there right now don't achieve that in the form of their direct ownership of these systems right now, which is why we passed AB 2316 and we wanted to be able to implement an opportunity for somebody to be able to do the very same thing that homeowners of single family homes are able to do, so long as that system, your roof, is able to support a rooftop system, that they will now have some comparable program and opportunity to be able to participate as well.

The cost shift conversation that does keep coming up around this subject area is one that we were sensitive to.

And so we actually ahead of this Bill, worked with an outside energy research firm to be able to run a report and demonstrate that the value the projects are going to have, not just for all ratepayers, but that the cost shift argument is fully based on the use of federal wholesale rates that the PUC wants to use.

It's not the rate that is used for these kinds of projects. I'd welcome either of our supporting witnesses to be able to further elaborate on the analysis. And we're happy to provide you with a copy of that report.

Thank you. Assembly Member I cannot comment on the specific analysis that he's referencing, but I can comment on the cost shift issue that I think you've raised. Assemblymember. Look, Turn was very aligned with the investor owned utilities on the issue of net energy metering reform.

And we all argued in that process that the way to measure the value of rooftop solar is using the Commission's avoided cost calculator, which is a very granular methodology. It has 8,760 hourly values that are geographically distinguished that look at what is the value of an export of electricity into the distribution grid.

Now, if you have two projects, one is on somebody's rooftop and you are compensating it and measuring its value to the grid based on the avoided cost calculator. And next door, you've got a community solar project literally next door that is putting out identical electrons into the grid. Should we measure the value differently? We don't think so.

And in the net metering context, the utilities spilled a lot of ink saying the avoided cost calculator is the way to measure indifference. That is how the Commission should look at compensation for rooftop solar. And we agreed with them.

But we also agree that that same methodology should be used to value community solar and the cost shift issue. Look, the utilities point to a different pricing metric that they say should apply. It's the one that is applicable to facilities assigned up under PURPA qualifying facilities. Okay?

So one piece of information you should understand is that under this pricing metric, the utilities have failed to develop a single new renewable energy project in the last 30 years. So if that's the measure for success, we've got a lot of work to do.

That is not a benchmark for a market price when no developer will build and can make any money and can get financing to build such a project. So we think the ACC is absolutely the right way to go. And if people have concerns about the Commission's methodology, the Commission can change it every year.

Every two years, the Commission updates this approach to ensure it reflects a cost neutral mechanism.

If I may, Madam Chair, as well, I just wanted to also underscore, note that in the Bill, this proposed revised program would also ensure that we are minimizing impacts to non subscriber ratepayers, just like AB 2316 prescribed.

Would you mind if I asked if the opponents responded to that?

Yeah, there's, there's a lot to unpack there. The Commission clearly decided that the acc, the avoided cost, which is for behind the meter resources, is not applicable to a front of the meter resource, which is what we're talking about.

That within the Bill, it narrows the amendments from the Committee, narrow it to a local responsibility area or local reliability area. These areas are hundreds of square miles. For instance, you could have a project in Fresno apply to a customer in Malibu.

They are still using the transmission system, they're still using the distribution system, they're still traveling long durations. So that's where the suggestion that, yes, the CEC should look at how these are compensated as load modifying resources. But they haven't done that. That analysis has not been completed.

So we don't really know what the value avoided is with regards to Title 24. If the regulation is not cost effective and the developers need additional help complying with the regulation. Maybe we should not look to customers to make up the difference. Maybe we should revisit the regulation.

And I forgot what else there was a lot of points, whereas there was move the Bill. Second.

All right. Any additional questions or comments? Seeing none. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I really appreciate your consideration of this. As I had said at my opening, you know, we came a long way in the work that we were doing to study the math and make sure this is something that was to work for.

But not just all rate peers, but specifically those have been left behind and out of the opportunities that other Californians are being afforded in their pursuit of going green and being able to make their own investments.

AB 1260, I think will correct some of the inaccuracies and better provide the direction so that more people will be able to achieve this outcome. And I would respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Okay, we have a motion and a second Assembly. Sorry, Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

100100. That Bill is out and we'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Thank you, Assembly Member. Okay, last Bill of the day. File item 16. AB 1410. Assembly Member Garcia, welcome. Good afternoon. Assembly Member Garcia, welcome. As you're ready and a second. Okay.

All right. Thank. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee for the Opportunity to present AB 1410. This Bill requires public utilities to automatically enroll customers and power shut off notices and to ensure that customers can easily update their preferred contact method.

My district was hit hard by the same strong winds that spread the brutal January wildfires, leading to mass power shutoffs throughout Southern California. And my district office received hundreds of complaints from constituents who had their power shut off without receiving any proper notice.

They were left without power and without any idea of how long the shutoff might last. Customers being automatically opted in to receive updates from their utility companies is a common sense practice and should be the standard. Unfortunately, some utilities are operating from a reverse approach where customers are responsible for enrolling themselves.

If they would like to receive updates, the burden should not be on the customer. If they would like to opt out of updates, that should be their choice. AB 1410 ensures that customers can regularly update their preferred contact method and better prepare for future shutoffs by automatically opting in to receive a notice.

With me, I have my Legislative Director, Natalie Shin, who's here. I assured her she's not testifying. She's just here for support. But I. But I. Let's ask some questions, though. So I appreciate the opportunity to present, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, let's see. I don't think we have any primary witnesses in support. Is there anyone in the room who would like to Testify in support? AB 1410. All right, seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1410? See none. Committee Members, questions or comments? Assemblymember Schiavo,

I just want to thank you for this Bill. Certainly many people in my district would appreciate this Bill very much and happy to come and be witnesses for you anytime. But this, you know, during the fires in January, my district, I think, was one of the hardest hit with not getting notifications and lacking information. And it made it really challenging.

We had, I think, nearly two weeks where people's power was off, completely disrupting their lives. And so I appreciate you and your leadership on this and really trying to tackle that difficult issue for communities when they're impacted so heavily. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Yeah, we think it's a simple fix that will improve communications and just lessen that frustration.

All right, thank you. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yeah. I just want to respectfully ask for an aye vote, and I thank everybody that. That. Well, that was not an opposition, I guess.

Thank you. All right, we've got a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll item number 16.

[Roll Call]

15-0. That Bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Assemblymember.

All right, so that Concludes our bills for today's hearing. We are going to go ahead and open up the rolls so absent Members can add on.

[Roll Call]

Okay140. And we will leave that open for absent Members to add on.

[Roll Call]

Okay 14-0. We are leaving that open for absent Members to add on.

[Roll Call]

12-0. We'll leave that one open for absent Members to add on. Item number 10.

[Roll Call]

13-1. And once again, we're leaving that open for absent numbers.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

150. We'll leave that open for absent Members to add on. Okay, we are going to leave the roll open until 3:50, should absent Members wish to come add on. All right, let's go ahead and reopen the roll so that absent Members may add on.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave the roll open.

[Roll Call]

Roll Call]

All right. And that concludes the business of today's hearing of the Assembly Committee on utilities and Energy. We are adjourned.