Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities Communications will come to order. Good afternoon. We're holding our Committee here on O street, building room 1200. Again, we ask that all Committee Members arrive here so we can establish a quorum.

We will begin as a Subcommitee and we have 14 bills on today's agenda and we're going to do them in file item order. And the first one would be Senator Niello on SB51.

Excuse me. Thank you. Mr. Chair. I am presenting SB51, a timely bill. I am- I am back once again with this very timely issue. The long standing debate about standard time versus daylight saving. This bill is about that, but it's also about a few other things I hope you'll consider. First, how California can control its own destiny.

Second, how it is the healthier choice for our bodies. And third, how we can ditch the time switch, something people have long expressed in favor of. You may be thinking, didn't we already address this a few years back? And the answer is, Kinda.

In 2018, California voters approved Proposition 7, which allows the Legislature to change the rules relating to daylight saving time. Since the passage of Proposition 7, there has been a bit of confusion. Many voters actually thought they had decided the issue. But like so many bills and propositions, the devil is in the details.

Proposition 7 authorizes the Legislature to amend the provisions by a two thirds vote to change the dates and times of the daylight saving time period consistent with federal law and authorizes the Legislature to amend these provisions by a two thirds vote to provide for the application of year round daylight saving time if approved by Congress.

It literally takes an act of Congress. Currently, federal law only allows for states to authorize permanent standard time or utilize daylight savings time on a temporary basis for a portion of the year. To date, Congress has not approved a move to permanent daylight saving time and it is showing absolutely no interest in doing so, despite few efforts.

In light of the lack of action by the federal government and the desires of our constituents to ditch the switch, it is imperative California consider another option to address the issue. The only option we have is moving to permanent standard time.

A recent Gallup poll showed that the majority of Americans, 54%, say they are ready to do away with the practice of switching times every six months. The same poll also showed a- the plurality of Americans say they would prefer to have standard time the whole year, including summertime. This bill will accomplish those sentiments.

I've worked over the interim with a group of lawmakers in bordering states, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, who are all considering this issue in their respective houses to help bring consistency among the Western states. In fact, some of their bills even have language stating their laws can only take effect if California joins as well.

We have a unique opportunity to lead and partner with our bordering states.

Not only does SB51 eliminate an inconvenience for Californians switching the clocks every six months, but there are multiple health and safety implications this change would help address, which the majority of our Senate supported recently in the passage of my SCR 7 of a few weeks ago.

We are into acronyms, of course, and in my office our acronym is MISTA. Make it standard time always. So I ask for your aye vote and now I'd like to turn it over to my witnesses. We have today to begin, Dr. Feby Maria Puravath Manikat. I hope I didn't butcher that too bad.

Practicing sleep medicine physician. She completed her fellowship in the Division of Sleep Medicine at Stanford University of Medicine, currently serves as a sleep physician with Stanford Lifestyle Medicine and maintains a private sleep medicine practice.

She is also a member of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and offers expert opinions on sleep health, standard and daylight saving time and the importance of sleep priority to congressional lawmakers here and now with us in Sacramento.

Let's hear from her. Go ahead. You have two minutes.

Thank you distinguished Chair and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you, Senator Niello, for the opportunity to speak today. I commend this Committee to taking up the important issue of ending daylight saving time. My name is Dr. Feby Maria Puravath Manikat

I'm a practicing sleep medicine physician trained at Stanford, currently serving as sleep medicine physician for Stanford Lifestyle Medicine and will be soon joining APPLE to further advance sleep and wellness efforts. Most importantly, I'm the mother of two young children and a proud Californian.

I'm here today on behalf of American Academy of Sleep Medicine to urge this committee to support SB51 and eliminate the practice of daylight saving time in favor of permanent standard time. I would like to share three points with you today.

Although I could speak for hours and I have an overwhelming body of evidence, I will keep it brief to respect your time. First, the science is clear. Our bodies are wired to wake up with light and sleep with darkness. Daylight Saving time disrupts this natural circadian rhythm. Summer days are longer regardless of clock changes.

What daylight saving time is doing is artificially shifting our light towards the evening and robbing us of morning light just when we need it the most. Morning light boosts alertness, mood, performance and productivity.

When we shift the clock forward, we're forcing millions of Californians, students, workers and parents to wake up in the dark, misaligned with their biological clocks. People may say they enjoy the evening- longer evening light, but it's not real light they've gained. It's just a reallocation. And that's costing us sleep, productivity and our health.

My second point is this disruption has serious health consequences. The rates of heart attacks, strokes, heart attacks being 24%, strokes being 8% and fatal car- fatal car accidents being 20%, all increase immediately after the transition to daylight saving time. The meta analysis of 115,000 patients show an increased risk for heart attacks.

Stroke increases by 8% just two days after the shift. When you apply this to a population the size of California, the impact is massive and represents hundreds of preventable strokes. Also, when medications are timed every six to eight hours, daylight saving time disrupts those dosing schedules, increases the risk for errors especially-

I apologize. We have a packed hearing, so we only have two minutes per witness and we're at two minutes. Can you kind of wrap up your main points?

Sure. My third point is that impacts mental health and vulnerable, especially shift workers, people with Alzheimer's, children and mental health disorders. So when we have evening light, our natural body's melatonin is delayed, which forces us harder to fall asleep, stay asleep and wake up refreshed.

So this one hour change may seem insignificant, but if you compound that over 39 million Californians, its impact is massive. So as a parent, as a physician, as a Californian, and as a member of sleep medicine community, I urge you to vote in favor of SB51. Move California permanent- toward permanent standard time.

Let's stop forcing our bodies to adjust to artificial time. I urge our lawmakers to ground our laws in science and healthy practices. Let's give Californian- California the gift of consistent restorative and healthy sleep. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak and testify. I'm honored to be part of this important effort.

Thank you. Thank you. And that is most. Did you have another witness or-

With Save Standard Time. He's worked on this, frankly, throughout the country. He's been here before and he is my second witness.

Okay, we're down to one minute. So we got just you to kind of.

Okay. And I have a written document that I'd like to share with the committee members.

Great. Will share. Yeah. So just give us the highlights. Thank you.

Yes. Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for having me here. My name is Mr. Jay last name is spelled P, E, A. I'm the President of Save Standard Time and the co chair for the Coalition for Permanent Standard Time. I travel the country working on this issue.

And I'm asking for your yes vote on Senate Bill 51. When we turn the clock forward an hour, it makes your alarm clock sound an hour earlier. It makes people wake up in the dark. And people are not asking you to wake them up in the dark.

They might be asking for more summer, but that's not within your power to give them more summer. Daylight saving time costs hundreds of lives and millions of dollars every year. Passing SB51 could take effect by the end of this year and it would benefit commuters, school children, farmers, everybody who needs that morning light.

This is the opinion of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, American Academy of Neurology, National Safety Council, even Bloomberg magazine. Nevada Assembly passed this same proposal just last week. Oregon Senate passed this a month ago. Many states are looking at doing this. Please, this is the quickest, fastest, healthiest way to ditch the switch.

And I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have. Thanks for your time.

Thank you. Well done. I appreciate that.

Any other folks here today who would like to add on in support?

Kevin Guzman, California Medical Association, in support.

Thank you. Do we have opposition witnesses? Any opposition witnesses? We do. We thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Chairperson Becker, Members of the Committee, my name is Craig Kessler, speaking on behalf of the California Alliance for Golf. The California golfing community does not dispute the studies performed by the sleep disorder specialists or the sponsors of this bill.

Nor do we discount the fact that those studies ought to be part of any fully informed decision as to which is the better option to discontinue the practice of biannual- biannually flipping our clocks. Permanent standard time or permanent daylight time.

We do, however believe that before the Legislature overturns the California electorate clear decision to move year- to move to year round daylight saving time, the Legislature ought to consider all of the factors that are necessary to reach a fully informed decision on a practice that has been part of Californians lives for generations.

Factors such as the economic considerations that affect those recreational activities like golf and tourism that would be harmed, the health considerations associated with reduced time for after school sports and recreation programs, the increased crime associated with permanent standard time and the reality of looming federal preemption, among others.

It's important to note Legislative Council's caution that adopting permanent standard time may require voter approval if it's the desire of the author and the Legislature to put this issue before the voters again. We still believe more research is needed to give voters a complete understanding of the pros and cons of either choice.

We concur with the analysis regarding the suggested benefits of a measured approach that would allow for a full assessment of all the implications and interests of residents, communities, schools, businesses, neighboring states and impacts on energy systems. An approach that would consider all relevant factors as opposed to just one.

An approach made just that much wiser by the fact that the bill in question seeks to reverse a preference approved by the California electorate less than seven years ago.

For these reasons and others that are in the lengthy letter filed with the Committee, the California Alliance for Golf opposes this bill but would support the comprehensive assessment suggested in the staff analysis. Thank you for considering our views.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there others in opposition who would like to testify? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Senator Allen.

Yeah, I'm thoroughly convinced that we should not go to permanent daylight savings time. So if we're going to go to one time, I believe it should be permanent standard time.

I guess my debate, my- my own personal debates between the status quo and your proposal, I'm going through all the materials and the point that keeps being made is that, well, it would be a terrible mistake to go to pacific daylight time because it'll lead to very dark wake ups in the daylight standards time-

daylight savings time, it would be dark wake ups during the winter. So again, one of the many reasons why I would never want to go to permanent daylight savings time.

The problem I think with your proposal is that in the height of the summer you're talking about, the sunrise is going to be in like the 4am hour I looked up in my hometown, for example, in June, sunrise is going to be 5:43. That's going to be 4:43 in the morning.

So all this talk about morning light is a great thing. And I'm all for morning light, you know, starting around five or six. But you know, six. But like geez, 4:00-4:30. I don't know. So that's my challenge here.

And so I- I- I- I you know, so I just want to point that out and- and- because I- I- I totally agree that it is a this- this- this would- it would be a mistake to go to permanent daylight savings time. I just want to state that for the record.

Thank you, Senator Allen. Anyone else? I think Mr. Pea might have a comment regarding Senator Allen's comments.

I mean it's really more of it. I- I- I like circadian rhythms. I like waking up with the- with the sun and I don't want to be waking up at 4:43 in the morning. That's my- That's my problem.

Comment more than a question. I'll let you address it and you'll close.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright, with that, would you like to close?

I would love to. So a significant majority of people want to ditch the switch. We know that. So that leaves a decision as to, as I put it, which switch to ditch. And Senator Allen mentioned what the problem is with regard to permanent daylight saving time.

And we actually tried that year round back in, during the energy crisis and the 1973. I believe some of us here are old enough to remember that. And we will remember that it was adopted to take effect from for two years and it was abandoned in less than a year exactly because of the very dark mornings.

So that clearly is- would appear not to be the preference. Medical experts overwhelmingly recommend standard time as being better for our circadian clocks. As we say, one thing you can do if the light is rising too early is you can draw the drapes. When it's dark, it's dark and there's nothing you can do about it.

Relative to the testimony of the opponent. The Golfing Alliance is looking for the sun to set as late as possible. For purposes of people that play golf. I know plenty of people that would rather play golf in the morning. And therefore there's more light in the morning.

And even with that, in July, with standard time around here, the sun is still up and it's going down at about 7:30. That is not exactly early. So I would stress that a vast majority of people want to ditch the switch. We can't change it to permanent daylight saving time. It doesn't conform with federal law.

It also is the least preferred and permanent standard time is the most healthy. And we have a coalition where we very likely will be able to get western states all to agree. So we would all be on the same time. I respectfully request an aye vote when the time is right.

Well, thank you. We actually believe we have a quorum, so I'll ask committee assistant to establish quorum.

[ROLL CALL]

We have a quorum. With that, I'll entertain a motion. I'm personally more of a twilight golfer than an early morning golfer. Do not have a recommendation on the bill. I will be supporting the bill here today. Do we have a motion?

Senator Archuleta makes a motion and let me read that. It is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Let's have a vote.

[CALLING OF VOTE]

The current vote is 5 to 1. We will leave that on call.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your time.

Okay. Senator Laird, you've been somewhat patiently waiting. We- We are here to hear SB 283.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your qualified statement of my patience. I'm pleased to the Chair and Committee Members to present Senate Bill 283, which is titled the Clean Energy Safety act of 2025. It ensures safe development and operation of battery storage facilities.

As many of you know, my district was the home of the Moss Landing battery storage fire earlier this year. It was a tragedy for anybody that lived right around it and for the state. The fire burned for several days. It prompted evacuations. It raised serious concerns within the community about toxicity, smoke and ash.

So it's this comes with a change over time and quickly. In battery storage, in just 2018 or 2019, there were 500 megawatts. There's 13,300. Now there's our goal of having over 52,000 by 2045, when we are to achieve some of our most major climate goals. And yet the technology has moved fast.

But our law and policy have not kept up with the technology. The Moss Landing facility in particular was batteries stacked on one on another inside. So the so called thermal runaway really happened. Now battery storage, an overwhelming majority is outside cement pads in containers. And yet our policies haven't kept up with it.

If you are at a certain level, you have the option of being approved by the state. It's local government otherwise. And there's no guidance given. When Moss Landing was approved, it was approved 100% at the local level, with no guidance on safety, fire inspections, whether it was an enclosure, nothing.

So where we are now is, and with this bill is trying to provide that guidance, which hasn't existed. And there was an incident at this plant in 2022 that in retrospect pales because it triggered the system without there being a substantial event. Nevertheless, there were evacuation shelter in place.

And I did Senate Bill 38 in 2023 to require in effect evacuation plans or safety plans to be prepared at every individual place and submitted to either the city or the county, depending on what jurisdiction it's in.

What this bill specifically does is mandate that new battery storage facilities adhere to the National Fire Protection Association, NPFA 855 standards, which are widely recognized as the most comprehensive battery storage safety hazard mitigation standards.

It will further require that before an application is submitted to either the California Energy Commission or local jurisdiction, developers must meet with the local fire authorities to discuss facility design, gather input before facility goes online.

This bill would provide that it undergo an inspection by local fire authorities or the state fire marshal if a local agency chooses to defer and the facility owner would be responsible for covering the cost of that inspection.

The bill would also prohibit the development of battery storage facilities in indoor combustible buildings to prevent situations such as we saw earlier this year. Now, we're aware of some concerns and some necessary changes that need to be made with the bill. One is to fix a definition and deal with the limited definition of remote outdoor installation.

I commit to work with the stakeholders and try to arrive something there. And I want to clarify that this bill applies to to utility scale battery storage. This isn't about somebody's car in their garage or similar and what are this is fast developing in terms of who's supporting.

So since the analysis was out, the counties of San Luis Obispo and Monterey have come on support. The County of Monterey is the location of where the Moss Landing incident happened. And if we're going to have wind and solar in this state be effective, we need battery storage.

And if we're going to have battery storage, it needs to be safe for the people around it and for those in the state. That's what this bill is committed to do. With me to speak in support are Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters and Scott Wetch on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers.

At the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for an Aye vote..

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Awesome. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Senators. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, we're pleased to co sponsor SB283 and are in strong support of this proposal.

As the author outlined, this bill will establish important safety coordination and inspection standards for battery energy storage systems in California and we think ultimately reduce fire risk. Unfortunately, when battery storage systems are on fire, they are complex and difficult to extinguish. And we have seen not only the fire that Senator Laird spoke about.

There was a fire last year in Southern California that burned for about eight days and had firefighters on scene for more than two weeks. We think that since these fires are so dangerous and complex, they can do unique exposures for our members and also require a variety of teams to respond to these types of fires.

So this bill, by requiring project developers to engage the fire agency on the front end, require the implementation of NFPA 855 and additionally require a fire inspection on the back end, we think will reduce risk and also allow fire agencies to plan, should there be an event, the risks. We think ultimately that reduces risk to communities.

There's also unique risk for firefighters. While this was not at a utility grade battery energy storage facility facility we had a member respond to a fire in a facility that contained multiple car batteries that were being refurbished and stored. Our member in that experience unfortunately had renal failure following the incident, is currently filing for a disability retirement.

So we think that those are real, you know, real risks to our members that we need to tackle. And this bill takes a step to address that for battery energy storage facilities. And for those reasons we would ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Members. Scott Wetch on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers and the California Coalition of Utility Employees, proud to be a co sponsor with the California Professional Firefighters. The essential thing that SB283 does is really twofold. One is it applies the national standards set by the National Fire Protection Association, known as NFPA. 855.

Those of you not familiar with NFPA, NFPA is the standard body for all firefighting fire standards. NFPA also publishes the National Electrical Code, which is the code that California bases the California Electrical Code on.

Secondly, today when a utility grade battery storage facility is built, the only inspection that occurs is by the utility at the time of interconnection. And while those are my Members that go in and do that inspection, for the most part with some electrical engineers, they're not looking with an eye towards fire and life safety.

And that's what this bill essentially corrects. And there's a few modifications to the bill, but this will put California light years ahead of every other state in regards to how we regulate the safety of utility grade battery storage systems. And we would urge an Aye vote thank you.

Thank you. I see a lot of people that would like to add on. Please come to the mic when you have a moment and add your support.

Leah Barros on behalf of Independent Energy Producers and support.

Lea-Ann Tratten, Central... Jesus, I did it. Central Coast Community Energy in support.

Nicole Wardleman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and support

Hunter Stern with IBEW 1245 and strong support.

Brandon Ebeck on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric and support.

Kent Kousse, San Diego Gas and Electric and support.

Sean Bellach, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, respectfully urge your aye vote. Thanks.

Renee Cruz Martinez, IBEW Local 1245 and strong support.

Melissa Echeveria, IBEW 1245 in strong support.

Hello, My name is Cecilia Marquez. I'm a proud Member IBEW Local 465 out of San Diego and I'm here to express my support. Thank you.

Kiko Diaz, IBEW Local 465 from San Diego and Imperial counties and strong support.

Donnie Davis, IBEW 1245 and strong support. Thank you.

Josh Keaton with IBEW 1245 and strong support.

Catherine Flores, IBEW 1245 in strong support.

Hello. Kayla Jones with IBEW 1245 and strong support.

Aisha Davis, IBEW 1245 member and strong support.

Good afternoon. Tim Neal, IBEW 1245 in strong support.

Good afternoon. Alvin Deyon, a Member of IBEW Local 1245 and strong support.

Elijah Oliver, IBEW 1245 Member in strong support.

Good afternoon. Al Fortier with IBEW 1245 and strong support.

Gabriella Butler, IBEW member, IBEW 1245. I strongly support.

Good afternoon. Rick Thompson, IBEW Local 1245 Member in strong support.

Marcia Burnett, IBEW Member, strong support.

Jenny Edwards with IBEW 1245 in strong support.

Matteo Kushner, Community Water Center in support.

Sean Bunk with IBEW 1245, strong support.

Sean Canady with IBEW 1245 strong support.

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

Steve Ross with the IBEW 1245 in strong support.

Myra Vargas, IBEW 1245 member, strong support.

Good afternoon. Julia Rodriguez with IBEW 1245 in strong support.

Karina Duran with IBEW 1245 and strong support. Thank you.

Marina De La Torre, IBEW 1245 and strong support. Thank you.

Kasia Hunt with Nosman on behalf of the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors in support.

Good afternoon. Meg Snider with Axiom Advisors on behalf of Fluence with a support if amended position. Thank you.

Hello. Mario Martin, IBEW 1245, strong support.

Sean McNeil with the California Community Choice Association. We are support if amended as the Senator raised in his opening. We have an issue just with the definition used and so we're working with their office to fix that concern. Thanks.

Good afternoon. Gracia la Castillo Krings here on behalf of the California Energy Storage Alliance. Aligning my comments with my Colleague and just really appreciate all the work that the Senator and his staff have done to kind of get us to this point. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Alex Jackson with the American Clean Power Association also with a support if amended position today. The same reasons the Senator outlined a few technical fixes we like to see but appreciate the engagement of the author's office and are confident we'll get there. Thanks.

Okay, we'd like to invite up any opposition witnesses now. Are you a tweener?

Good afternoon Chair and Members. Kim Stone of Stone advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association had an official opposed unless amended position but based on the Senator's comments that the bill isn't intended to apply to behind the meter storage which is already regulated by the business the building code.

I expect we'll be changing that position later. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay. Do you have any opposition witnesses? No one in opposition.

Move the bill.

We have any discussion questions? Senator Grove?

Thank you. Mr. Chair, just a comment. I do think this bill. I'm supporting the bill. Don't want to get you riled up right away. And I do think this bill will create a higher standard of safety for these battery plants and the battery storage facilities.

But I still have a grave concern that even with the new updated technology, there's still no way to put these facilities out if the fire starts. You just have to let them burn.

And so this bill does not stop them from being in a safety sensitive environmental or human area, which is very scary because if they catch on fire, you're still going to have to evacuate. It still causes a great detrimental harm to the environment.

Because although this bill does improve the way that these battery facilities are operated, it does not change the fact that you cannot put them out once they. They go on fire. You just have to let them burn out.

And there's huge emissions, hazardous waste polluted in the air when these battery factories or battery storage facilities catch on fire. And I think that's something that still needs to be addressed by this Legislature. But this bill does take the safety piece of that further than where we are right now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, we do have a motion for Senator Strickland. I want to thank you for taking on this topic. I know it's a very important topic in your district as well as across the entire state. With a thoughtful approach. I'll be supporting the bill today and have I recommendation and we'd like to give you a chance to close.

Oh, we want one more.

I just want to thank you for mentioning the folks who've raised concerns from CCA and you know, I'm hopeful you're going to be able to work out the issues that, that are outstanding with them.

Can I add one. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry to add one more. Appreciate you taking your leadership on this, working with not just the folks they mentioned, but CISA, ACPA, everyone who wants to keep building up battery storage.

We know this stuff can be shocking and damaging in the community and it's been an awful tragedy that what's happened in your backyard.

But you know, I think of people, a giant gas peaker right now in the middle of Oxnard in a poor community right in my backyard that is trying to make a transition and wants to move, has a battery project proposed for that site to replace the gas and go to batteries.

And a lot of fear and sort of misunderstanding about how the technology work is deterring us. And so we're going to keep going back to fossil fuels. I think this kind of bill is going to give further reassurance to local governments who need to do that hard work of that permitting.

I think it's going to bring the confidence that's needed on us from a safety perspective for the public.

So I really do applaud you and you know, I'd be happy to sign on Zako and I just want to see you sort of get this over the line because I think we need to bring some stability and calm as we charge ahead here. So thank you.

Excellent.

Would you like to close Senator Laird? Yes. Thank you very much. I appreciate the witnesses and the me too.

So that's great support and a couple of comments on Committee comments and just to reiterate, I'm really committed to working out the definition and if there's any further thing to clarify the intent, this is only utility battery storage, I will do that. But I think we will work, continue to work and be able to resolve that.

I also would just say that when I said in my opening statement that the technology had developed, yes, there is always a risk.

And when I wrote an op ed that went district wide a couple of weeks after this event, I pointed out that you name an energy source and you will name something that has gone wrong at some point, but it has really gone wrong more with oil and gas, Chernobyl, a few others.

And the real issue here is that if you have container storage, yes, there's risk and yes, you may not be able to completely put it out, but it is contained. The tests show that it doesn't spread spread the way this one does. And it is a matter of safety.

And I think what we're really trying to do is align state law with the growth in the industry and the growth of knowledge about safety. So I appreciate the comments. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Well, thank you.

We have a motion from Senator Strickland. As mentioned, I'll be supporting the bills here to say thank you for your work and please call the roll.

Due pass to the local government committee. [Roll Call]

That bill is 11 to 0. We will keep the roll open. Thank you. Okay, next we'll. Let's see. Senator Durazzo is here to present SB350.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. And I want to thank the Committee for working on this legislation and we accept both of the Committee's suggested amendments. Thank you. Access to clean, safe and affordable water is a fundamental human right.

Yet rising water rates, up by more than 24% in the past five years, are placing a significant financial strain on already vulnerable households. SB350 will ensure that low income customers can maintain access to this vital source resource by providing direct financial assistance with their water bills.

In the first ever statewide low income water rate assistance program in California. There are existing programs at the local level that provide low income water rate assistance. But These programs face two challenges. One, due to Prop 218, their funding sources can be very limited.

And two, they often enroll anywhere from just 8 to 15% of eligible low income households. This Bill addresses this by creating a statewide level program and automatically enrolling eligible households using data from the existing California Alternative Alternate Rates for Energy program.

California is facing a widespread affordable issue with everyday people struggling to afford everything from housing to heating to groceries. Water is not an exception. But people need access to clean and affordable water. They have the right to that access. No family should pay $300 for water when they are living on less than $2,500 a month.

No mother should have to choose between her eating lunch and providing her children with drinking water. These are real stories from communities in both urban and rural areas. SB350 works to address this problem and ensure that all Californians, regardless of income, have access to water.

We have been regularly meeting with the Association of California Water Agencies and the California Municipal Utilities Association to develop this Bill. We appreciate their commitment to working together with me. I have two witnesses.

Michael Clayborn, Directing Attorney at Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, and Michael Lincoln, Director of Policy and Research at Physicians for Social Responsibility in Los Angeles.

Excellent. You each have two minutes. Go ahead.

Good afternoon to the Chair and the Committee. My name is Michael Clayborn. I'm a directing attorney with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. California declared access to drinking safe and affordable drinking water human right in 2012, but the reality is it's still a work in progress for communities I work alongside.

This bill would implement many of the recommendations from report to the Legislature required by AB401, which 2015 bill from Senator Dodd which set forth a plan to make water more affordable for all Californians. When a family cannot afford their water bill, they are at risk of having their water shut off, losing access to water altogether.

And unlike other essential utilities like the CARE program for Electricity. Individual low income households rarely have access to any safety net whatsoever for their water bills. This is the third effort to establish a statewide low income rate assistance program in the state. First, in SB222, Senator Dodd proposed a framework very similar to the one in SB350.

Through extensive engagement with CMUA and ACWA, we were able to substantially narrow the issues and remove some opposition, but the bill wasn't signed. Then in SB 1255 last year, Senator Durazo again took much of the framework from SB222 and proposed a local funding source. We were not able to come to consensus on that local funding source.

Now in this Bill, Senator Durazo introduces a Bill that takes into account the engagement from the water sector on both of the prior efforts and we have worked diligently with both CMUA and AQUA to address their concerns. We'll continue to do that. As one final point, most water systems throughout the state do not have affordability programs.

For those that do, there's justifiable pride in those programs and a desire to continue those programs. We support that intent and we're working with the water sector and water systems to ensure that existing programs can continue with the benefit of additional funding and the auto enrollment with CARE data that the Senator discussed.

We thank the Senator for her work on this bill and we urge an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Michael Rincon. I'm the Director of Policy and Research at Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles. California's water costs are among the highest in the country with rates far exceeding the national average.

A 2023 analysis tracking water rates found that the the average California water bill is double the national average. For low income Angelenos this makes it difficult to keep water service on.

According to the 2020 UCLA report, community water systems in Los Angeles County Low income households in the county face higher water cost relative to their income, highlighting the need for comprehensive rate assistance programs.

Last year, the state reported that the statewide infrastructure cost to provide Californians with safe tap water in large part be borne by local water systems due to overwhelming need and a lack of state and federal grant funding. Similarly, the Metropolitan Water district's budget for 2025 and 2026 increased rates, further adding to Southern California's financial burdens.

Water unaffordability will continue to be a widespread and growing problem. We work alongside residents throughout the greater Los Angeles region. Residents served by LEWP had access to a low income reassistence program which was struck down for violating Prop 218.

However, most of the residents that with are served by smaller water systems in the region which also lack low income assistance programs despite having higher water rates. This means that low income households in the region and across the state are on their own when struggling to afford water bills, disproportionately impacting low income communities of color.

From a public health perspective, water insecurity is linked to increased chronic stress in low income households leading to anxiety, sleep loss and emotional distress. The threat of shutoffs and the mental health impacts of stigma worsen health outcomes and promote social isolation.

Over time, the stress contributes to serious health issues such as high blood pressure and depression, which in turn exacerbate other conditions like cardiovascular disease. It is for this reason that we ask you to support SB350.

Not only will it help it make tap water affordable, but will also ensure customer funding stays local to support local infrastructure, but can be a stepping stone in helping rebuild trust in the system for water customers. The SAFER dashboard also shows that about 42%. Okay, thank. I need to ask you to wrap up, please. Sorry.

On behalf of the communities of Los Angeles that we work with, we respectfully ask you to support SB350. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We will now have anyone who want to add on their support for this measure, go ahead.

Hello. Melissa Romero, California environmental voters in support.

Abraham Mendoza on behalf of the Rural Community Assistance Corporation, RCAC Carbon Cycle Institute, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy and the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.

Mateo Kushner, Community Water Center, and on behalf of California Environmental Justice Alliance, Communities for a Better Environment and the Planning and Conservation League in support.

Hi. Leanne Tratton, representing Water Foundation in support.

Good afternoon, Jennifer Clary of Clean Water Action in support. Also representing the Central California Environmental Justice. Network, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Race. Poverty and the Environment and Unit of Concerned Scientists. Thanks.

Good afternoon, Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western center on Law and Poverty in support.

Good afternoon, Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support. Thank you.

Caitlin Roebner Sutter, Environmental Defense Fund in support.

Good afternoon, Roger Lin, Centre for Biological Diversity in support.

Okay, I now invite any opposition witnesses to. Looks like two. We each have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if it pleases the chair, I am timing myself for your sake. My name is Soren Nelson with the Association of California Water Agencies. And I'd like to start by saying we are not philosophically opposed to this Bill or the concept of a LIRA program.

Many of our Members have them or they have the financial flexibility to do so. Our goal in our opposing unless amended position is twofold.

One is to make the bill workable for the water agencies in your districts that will be a key partner in implementing this Bill and also to maximize the dollars that will go directly to low income households by streamlining the bill. There are a couple examples I'll give.

We submitted a lengthy letter and many of those concerns are reflected in the analysis and thanks staff for their work on that. Really pleased to hear the previous support witnesses comments about existing programs.

There are a lot of good programs around the state that just don't have the resources to hit the enrollment level that I think the author is trying to achieve and so would ask that those are allowed to continue since they're working well. I did want to point out the bill currently includes wastewater.

Not philosophically opposed, but wastewater is billed very differently, often on tax rolls in many places around the state and it is somewhere between difficult and impossible to apply a bill credit under the framework of this program.

It might be appropriate to pull it out and focus on the core component and come back and figure out a different way to do wastewater another time so we'd be in support of that. I'll close by saying this won't fix the underlying drivers of water affordability in the state.

We have one of the most intense regulatory frameworks in the country for water protection. The state and the Federal Government have both divested significantly from water infrastructure that has been picked up at the local level and that is reflected on your water bills. So we support this.

But let's just be clear that the driver isn't going to be addressed by this bill. So thank you very much and really appreciate the author and the sponsor's work and collaboration.

Okay. Thanks for staying on time. Go ahead.

Hello, Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. We technically are not opposed. We have a concerns position. We have been working with the author staff and with the sponsors pretty collaboratively and we're pleased with the progress thus far.

I just wanted to come up and express that we do have some concerns that are just echoed by what AQUA just stated in that there should be some recognition for local programs and the good work that they are doing for their communities.

We'd like to see the delineation of roles and responsibilities that we've discussed with the author's office in print and I think we're making good progress towards that. And lastly, we really need to see a funding source that is identified. I'm sure we are all looking eagerly for that.

So once those pieces are in place, we'll be in a lot better position. Just some bit more work to do to move this bill along. But we appreciate and thank the author for having us be part of the conversations and look forward to continuing those. Thank you.

Okay, any other opposition add ons I see? Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Chair, Beth Olhasso on behalf of Cucamonga Valley Water District in opposition. Thank you.

Kasha Hunt here with Nossaman on behalf of a Levenheim Municipal Water District with an opposed and less amended position. Thank you.

Audra Hartmann on behalf of Contra Costa Water District opposed less amended position.

Brenda Bass on behalf of Western Municipal Water District oppossed unless amended. Thank you.

Lily Mckay on behalf of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Share concerns expressed but thank the author for her work on this.

Okay, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Senator, I really like what you're trying to do with this bill. I really appreciate it. Bottom line is that we have not made the major investments in water quality that we should.

And quite frankly I want to add as a footnote that we keep revising the standards under which water needs to be delivered to be potable. And every time we do that, it may be for a very good reason, but it's going to cost. And we've got to figure out how we deal with that.

And maybe in the future we have to look at creating a funding source that helps us to reduce some of the costs. Two issues. One is the concern with the wastewater systems. I do agree with the opponents that's a different system and a little bit problematic.

And I'm not sure if the amendments included if you already have a system to provide or jigger your financing so that you can provide relief for low income rate payers already, whether this imposes a new process.

But if it just seems to me that if the water company is already doing this and the system is working that we shouldn't be messing with it. So that's just as a footnote and then obviously important to work with the opposition to see if there's a sweet spot in this.

And so if I can get your commitment on that, I'm going to support your bill today.

Thank you very much. With regards to the local water systems, obviously if they're working, you know, we think that's a really good, good thing. We are working with the local water systems to ensure that existing local programs are allowed to continue as long as they match or exceed the benefit and the enrollment levels of the statewide program.

So Absolutely. Thank you very much.

Okay.

Senator Archuleta. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. Obviously, we have seniors, we have disabled veterans that are always looking for some help some way. And my concern is I'm going to support the bill. As a matter of fact, I'm going to move the bill at appropriate time.

I'm just wondering, are we asking the water agencies to subsidize? Are we, the state, going to subsidize them? How does the flow come back where it's mathematically feasible to do this?

Right. And that's with the issue of the funding source that comes in. We don't have a. Right now. We have not identified a funding source, but we've been working very closely with the water agencies because the local water agencies. Exactly. To address your concern. I don't know if there's another specific response, Michael, but that's the next step.

What's the funding source? We don't have a funding source right now. We want to establish as much as we can, and then this will be subject to an appropriation.

Then I would imagine it would be from region to region, district to district.

Well, what we want as the need, we want a statewide, because right now it is up to, you know, and then whether or not they want to.

Piggyback on what the electrical electric companies are doing or the gas company may be doing.

Well, they certainly have programs. I don't know that we could piggyback on them. But do you want to respond to that particular one?

Because some programs are very successful.

Right.

We want to make sure that there's a template there that is successful across the board.

Yeah, well, we don't have a statewide program. That's what this is all about.

Okay. Just to ask.

On the funding source, I agree with Senator Durazo that that's something that obviously will need to be addressed in the bill. We look forward to working alongside the water sector once we've figured out the policy and make sure that it's workable for the water sector to identify that funding.

We've had conversations in the past about potential funding sources, including the voluntary contributions from SB 1255. Those didn't look workable for the water sector, which is why that local funding source from SB 1255 is not in this bill. We do look forward to working with the water sector to make sure that this works and the funding source is equitable and not regressive and that it makes sense.

All right, thank you. Other comments, questions? Yes, Senator McNerney.

Well, thank you, Chair. I thank the Senator for bringing this forward. I'm a co-author of the bill, so I support it, obviously. A couple of things I really like about it, the water efficiency measures. We need to move toward water efficiency use as much as possible in this state.

We need to become water self sustaining. And the technical assistance for small water systems. I mean, these are organizations or agencies that have very limited resources to serve their communities. If something goes wrong, then they're really up a steep hill. So I urge the support of this bill.

Great, thank you.

All right. Motion from Senator Archuleta. Seeing no other comments, questions. Allow you to close.

Thank you. I urge you and ask for your support. Obviously, this is a really big issue. Other utilities have support, low income support, but not water. So we really need to do something about it. First is that we've been working for two years now, and some people working for many, many more years now. We really need to get to the bottom of this. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very good. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that's six to three. We'll leave the measure on call for absent Members. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right, next up, Mr. Cabaldon, SB 371. Thank you for your patience. Members, file item four, if you're following along. And at your convenience.

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Here to present SB 371. Let me start by accepting the amendments that have been drafted by the Committee and to advance the comments that were made in the Committee analysis to provide additional information on accidents, uninsured and underinsured motorist claims, and accidents where claims are over $100,000 in its annual report. Senators, SB 371 will remove the requirement for drivers to obtain $1,000,000 in uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage and instead put that responsibility squarely on the Transportation Network Company.

This requirement comes from legislation 11 years ago, and in anticipation of that legislation, it was this Committee that held an information hearing where it discovered that there were people who drove for rideshare the rely on the income where the Committee found that there were actual people out there that used rideshare in order to get to work or to school or to other essential activities.

It was a novelty. It was brand new. Rideshare had only existed for two years when this legislation was originally put in place with the insurance requirements. And in fact, the Committee analysis from that year indicated that, given that the that rideshare had only emerged two years earlier, that any insurance coverage requirement was, quote unquote, a bit of a guess. That was the Committee's analysis from Energy and Public Utilities back in 2014. Today, rideshare is anything but a novelty.

It is an essential for all Californians. In my own community, the publicly supported rideshare company using a common carrier regulated under this statute, they are an essential way for young people to get to their after school activities and for internships. Our surveys have shown that for seniors it is the number one strategy implemented that has reduced social isolation and that for women report a 70% improvement in a sense of safety and security during their rides.

Rideshare has become a bottom line issue for both work, going to work, and for essential services and community and family, and for the drivers themselves, many of whom rely on the income to either as their primary source and many as a supplemental or secondary source.

And yet the regulations that we adopted in 2014 are helping to drive substantial increases in the cost of fares and reductions in the amount of revenue of dollars that are going to the driver. And so SB 371 is a modest step at this stage to try to tackle this issue by clarifying what is already the existing practice for most of the TNCs, which is that they are responsible for the UM/UIM coverage, not the driver.

And it's an important step to to correct for what we know now, that rideshare is a baseline issue of affordability. Not an interesting novel innovation for just a few, but an essential part of our mobility network for all. So with that, I'd like to ask for an aye vote and introduce our witnesses for the bill. First is John Finley, representing Uber. Next will be Nick Johnson, representing Lyft.

Okay, great. We're going to go two minutes each.

All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you very much. My name is John Finley, here representing Uber Technologies Incorporated in support of SB 371. In 2014, the Legislature passed AB 2293, which created the current regulatory scheme under which transportation network companies like Uber operate.

In addition to mandated limits of $1 million for third party bodily injury liability insurance, excess liability insurance, and occupational accident insurance for drivers, TNCs in California are also required to carry $1 million in uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage for accidents where the TNC driver is not at fault.

Besides TNCs, California requires no other vehicle on the road to carry UM/UIM insurance at any level. Not personal vehicles, buses, taxis, black cars, or limousines. There's no data pointing to why this policy only applies to one form of transportation, and more importantly, why it's acceptable for that to be costing Californians hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

The 2014 legislation also required either TNCs or the drivers themselves to carry this coverage. In reality, $1 million in UM/UIM coverage is not a policy that exists on the open market for drivers to purchase, so TNCs are the ones carrying it. SB 371 would clarify that drivers are not obligated to purchase this insurance themselves.

I want to be very clear on a few things. Again, we are not talking about coverage for accidents caused by a rideshare driver. In fact, while 99.99% of rideshare trips end in no incident at all, 100% of these trips are covered by the multiple types of insurance TNCs carry.

This bill will only focus on accidents caused by another driver who either has no insurance at all in violation of California law, or who does not have enough insurance to cover the damages that they caused. And second, this bill will ultimately be about affordability. In Los Angeles today, 45% of our given rideshare fare now goes to pay for insurance, largely due to this policy and the litigation abuse that it attracts. By comparison, for the same ride taken in Boston today, insurance makes up around 4%.

Californians are the ones left footing this massive, unnecessary bill each time they take a trip in this state. It's time to update this requirement. On behalf of Uber, we respectfully encourage your support of SB 371, and we thank Senator Cabaldon for bringing this important issue forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Next lead witness. Shade under two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and esteemed Members of this Committee. My name is Nick Johnson, and I represent Lyft, and I'm here speaking in favor of Senate Bill 371. SB 371 aims to clarify that uninsured motorist coverage and underinsured motorist coverage is the responsibility of transportation network companies and not the driver.

This reflects the reality that there are no options for drivers to purchase this insurance and the insurance requirements established over a decade ago during the industry's infancy need to be updated. Currently in California, during the period when a driver on a TNC platform is actively engaged In a ride, TNCs are mandated to hold a 1 million auto liability insurance policy and 1 million in uninsured underinsured motorist coverage. But these requirements have significantly increased the cost of rideshare services over time.

Lyft has calculated that, on average, approximately $6 per ride is allocated to cover insurance related costs in California, a figure that is double the national average for our company. The significant cost underscores the substantial financial impact of insurance requirements, not only to TNCs, but to the prices of rides and driver earnings. Claims data and industry developments show that these requirements are much higher than what is necessary to adequately compensate injured parties.

In addition, it is clear that TNC insurance requirements, specifically UM/UIM limits, can be modernized to right size risk appropriate levels while maintaining affordability and without sacrificing protections for rideshare users. The crisis of rising insurance costs and the litigiousness associated with these higher required limits deserve to be taken seriously.

Californians are struggling to afford a rising cost of living, and as insurance rates continue to rise, rideshare will become an affordable, unaffordable luxury for many users. More than 1/3 of Lyft rides in California start and end in a low income community, and 90% of our drivers are either students or have another job in addition to their app based work.

With SB 371, we hope to start a common sense, data driven dialogue to begin addressing rising insurance costs and work to make rideshare affordable, not only for riders, but profitable for drivers. Thank you for your time, and I respectfully request your support.

Thank you. All right, others in support. Come on up, now's your time.

Good afternoon. Kris Rosa on behalf of Silicon Valley Leadership Group in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Andrea Deveau on behalf of the following 10 organizations in support: TechNet, the NAACP California, CAL NIGHT, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, National Action Network Sacramento, California Black Chamber of Commerce, California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, Valley Industrial Claims Association, Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce, and the City Central Association of Los Angeles. Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

Brandon Knapp representing Bay Area Council in support.

Thanks.

Shane Levine on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. Just wanted to put on the record, we are neutral. We've had a number of good conversations with Uber, so thank you.

Thanks. Any other tweeners? None. Okay, we'll move on to opposition. Give you 10 seconds more than four minutes. But if you don't take it all, it's fine.

Mr. Chair and Members, Saveena Takhar on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California in opposition. The author and sponsors have made their intent very clear with this bill. They're seeking to reduce the UIM underinsured, underinsured motorist limits in statute. While this is a vehicle now, their intent has been clear in meetings with the author and sponsors.

This long standing requirement has protected passengers and drivers for nearly a decade. It ensures that when someone is hit by an underinsured or uninsured motorist, they are not left to bear the financial cost alone. Weakening this coverage would shift that burden from billion dollar corporations onto injured Californians, public hospitals, and taxpayer funded health care.

There is no independently verified data justifying any change to this law. As the Committee analysis notes, transparency into insurance costs and TNC accidents remains elusive. Despite recent calls from repeated calls from stakeholders, TNCs have not made data about accident rates, claim amounts, or the actual cost of UM/UIM coverage publicly accessible.

Without that information, it is irresponsible to reduce coverage levels. Instead of providing requested information, Uber argues anecdotally that there have been abuses in litigation. Yet they force any and all claims into arbitration, where arbitrators paid by Uber decide the merits of a claim and and all outcomes are private and confidential. There is no judicial oversight, no public transparency in arbitration.

While we appreciate the Committee's recommendation in the bill analysis to require the CPUC to provide data in their next annual report, if that is accepted in this bill, that data will come in February of next year, which is far too late if the insurance limits are seeking to be changed this year. The Legislature should not make policy decisions in the dark. Preserving statutory insurance requirements is a matter of equity and public protection. For these reasons, we oppose.

Okay, thank you. We'll look to other others in opposition.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy, on behalf of Consumer Watchdog in very respectful opposition. And then I've also been asked to convey the opposition of the Consumer Fed and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, who are in other committees that are also going. Thank you.

Okay, very good. Noted. Thank you. Seeing no others in opposition, we'll bring it back to the dais. Members, questions, comments, motions? Yes, Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the way I read this bill is that the Uber, the rideshare companies would not have that additional burden that no other automobile in the State of California has for underinsured or uninsured motorist outside of Uber. Not, I mean, or Lyft or the rideshare companies. This is an individual on the road that causes an accident that's underinsured or uninsured, and these rideshare companies are responsible now under state law to cover that full scope, plus carry additional $1.0 million of liability. Is that correct?

That is correct, Senator. I want to clarify the bill itself does not accomplish that at this stage. We are working with, as you can hear, it's a multi-party set of work. So we are trying to get to that at that point. But it is currently covered by the TNCs, and it is the only carrier for which that's required.

Okay. Again, we come from way different sides of the aisle, but when I look at this, I think it's a very fair assessment of your bill to make sure that this is equally applied to other companies as well. I mean that this protection that is offered by these TNCs, that they shouldn't be treated differently, especially in the State of California. And I think I look at the opposition's remarks where it says weakening the protection should shift the financial burden to serious accidents of billion dollar rideshare companies. But it's not the rideshare companies that cause the accident. Right. It's the other individuals that are underinsured and uninsured. Okay. I just needed to clarify that. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Grove. Senator McNerney.

Well, I thank the Chair. I thank Senator for bringing this forward. I'm going to support the bill, but I want to reserve a right to oppose it on the floor if amendments change it in a way that I disagree with.

Okay. Yep. Senator Caballero.

I'm sorry, I may have missed it. Is he taking the amendments?

Yeah. So what, he can clarify whether he's taking amendments, but I actually have instructions to read them aloud. Yes.

I didn't read them aloud. Sorry.

Would that help the Committee? Because they do differ slightly from the amendments listed in the analysis, so if you don't mind. Beg your indulgence. Okay. The amendments would require the CPUC to provide the following information regarding TNCs in the PUC's 2026 Annual Report to the Legislature.

The average annual number of TNC car accidents reported to the PUC for the years 2022 to 2024, the average annual percentage of those TNC accidents reported to the PUC resulting in uninsured and underinsured motorist claims for the years 2022 to 2024, and the average annual reporting and the average annual percentage of those auto accidents reported to the CPUC resulting in under and uninsured policy claims over $100,000 for the years 2022 to 2024.

And then the final one is a clarification that this data reporting does not impact existing confidentiality protections for TNC data and clarifies the PUC can collect this data on a company level basis, but the CPUC shall report the data in aggregate. All right. That's a motion from Senator Strickland. Any other comments, questions? Senator, allow you to close.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Just to respond briefly to some of the points made by the opposition. And, as Senator Grove noted, the current system is not sticking it to the corporations. The costs of these coverages are being borne by both riders and drivers in foregone income for the riders, the drivers, and in increased fares for the drivers, and that data is clear. We also see it in the fee that is added on. The original policy was no more in the light than this one.

This is not in the dark. We're here with you. We've been working with a lot of folks about it. But as I noted earlier, the original policy was, as the Committee described it at that time, a bit of a guess simply because they didn't know. And at that time, if you go back and look at the record, this uninsured motorist and UIM coverage was barely mentioned in the bill analyses and the floor debates or at the PUC.

The only reason that this coverage was required was because TNCs were already doing it because they had just entered the market and the biggest concern riders had was is it safe. So they overinsured at that time. And so this bill is intended to get us in the direction of solving that problem so that we can improve affordability for riders and increase earnings for drivers.

Thank you. So the motion is do pass to Senate Rules with amendments to be taken in the Senate Transportation Committee. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, 9-0. We'll leave it on call for the absent Members. Thank you. The patient Senator Richardson, you are officially up to bat. So file item five. It's SB 767.

Am I batting cleanup?

I think that's. Yeah.

Fifth? I don't know.

Oh. Oh. Uh-oh. Well, let me start off first of all by saying good afternoon. Not good evening yet, but good afternoon to the chair and standing here and Members of the Committee.

I want to start off by thanking the Committee staff that did prepare and work diligently with my team on some amendments which I have accepted today. So for the record, I'm accepting those amendments. I'm here today to talk to you about SB767.

767 seeks to provide the Legislature with a greater visibility into the status of California's aging and declining fossil fuel infrastructure, an infrastructure that continues to play a critical role in the daily lives of millions of Californians, being that the majority of Californians still do in fact drive older cars that are run on gasoline.

And we also have many people who are still using gas ranges, such as myself. Even as the state pushes for electrification and cleaner alternatives, gas stations, refineries and fuel distribution networks remain the backbone and the mobility for millions.

More specifically, this bill establishes an early warning mechanism to alert the Legislature when key pipeline systems, such as those supplying in state crude oil to refineries, are at risk of closure. So I provided for you a map so you could actually see the pipelines.

It's a little harder to read here, but you can see Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell and Plains and so on in this map that we've provided for you. A current example is San Pablo Pipeline, which delivers California crude to refineries in the Bay Area, is facing a potential shutdown.

SB 767- 767 as intended, tracks low fuel levels, low oil levels in the pipelines, and it ensures that the Legislature is informed in advance so it can respond appropriately to these developments by holding various oversight hearings or contingency plans. California no longer produces enough fuel to meet its current demands of approximately 1 million barrels of gasoline per day.

The recent announcement on Friday of additional refinery closures noted by Valero, on top of that, by what we already heard from Phillips 66. And then on top of that, back in August we had an announcement from Chevron.

All of that should be an alert to all of us that we need to make sure that the pipelines are maintained and fully operational. This trend of refinery closures is more alarming than previously anticipated.

And we've established during special sessions over the last two years that a shrinking fuel supply due to availability and maintenance places upward pressure on gasoline prices, which is exacerbated already and causing our constituents great concern.

Crude oil delivered by pipelines are typically two to $4 per barrel, less expensive than alternative delivery methods for refineries specifically designed to process California crude. Maintaining access to this resource is essential to operating at an optimal capacity.

Furthermore, domestically produced oil transported via pipeline has a significantly lower carbon footprint compared to crude oil imported from the overseas. Let me state that again. Furthermore, domestically produced oil transported via pipeline has a significantly lower carbon footprint compared to crude imported from overseas.

Aligning that more closely with our state's environmental goals, it says the picture that needs to be stated. SB 767 is what makes sense because it keeps us on alert, keeps us advised, keeps the oil moving and keeps the prices lower. Historically, this Legislature has only acted in response to gasoline price crisis, never in anticipation of them.

SB 767 seeks to change that pattern by ensuring the Legislature is informed before a pipeline supplying crude oil has an issue or a need for a shutdown. Districts throughout California like mine, and I have the gentlelady here who will also attest to the presence of oil and gas in her district.

We've been heavily impacted by these refinery closures. When you consider the price spikes and the burdens to our communities. Also we have to consider the impacts to jobs when these unexpected unscheduled maintenances occur.

Here with me today to speak on the importance of SB 767 is Scott Wetch on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council and Theo Paos- Pahos. Excuse me, sorry for butchering it there, my friend. On behalf of the California Independent Petroleum Association. With that, my two witnesses are here.

And just to clarify, accepting the committee amendments?

Yes, sir.

Okay, lead witness, two minutes.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Scott Wetch on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council.

The California State Pipe Trades Council is composed of the men and women who build and maintain our state's pipeline infrastructure and work directly on the pipelines subject to SB 767 as well as the refineries and oil production facilities that make up the transportation fuel infrastructure network. Our state is dependent upon this bill is about one thing.

Breaking the pattern of the Legislature reacting to a crisis in the energy supply chain. And they're accompanying price spikes after they happen rather than having the information in hand before they happen. Despite our long term goals, your constituents, like my members, are still dependent upon the efficient production, delivery and- and refining of oil.

California has passed the most stringent environmental standards to regulate this system. So we all have an interest in ensuring that it continues to operate while it is still needed. Several California refineries are still dependent on California produced oil.

These refineries were engineered to process California crude which is supplied via pipeline from the oil fields of Kern county to the Bay Area and Los Angeles refineries. Pipelines are the most environmentally benign and cheapest way to transport crude feedstock. It eliminates the carbon emissions of bringing crude halfway across the globe.

And it's cheaper for a refinery anywhere between $2 and $4 per barrel. The pipelines that are the arteries of the system are under strain both from the economics of having less production here in the state, but also because of their physical limitations. Each of these pipelines have a minimum throughout level that if unmet, will cause a shutdown.

Such a shutdown could cause interruptions in or a reduction of refining capacity, thereby affecting prices. Several of these pipelines have been close to their minimum throughput levels in the past year, and we have already lost several smaller pipelines.

Finally, with the closure of a quarter of our refining capacity since 2020 and the announcements that we may lose 20% or more with little discussion in the Legislature before these events unfolded, one thing is clear. The Legislature deserves and needs more information on the status of our frugal supply chain to protect Californians. With that, I'd urge and aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. And Mr. Palos, we'll give you a minute and 40.

That's probably more than I need, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, Theo Pahos representing the California Independent Petroleum Association. If you look at the map in front of you, you'll see that the point at which this begins is in Senator Grove's district here in the middle of the state.

And you can see that there are about 300,000 barrels per day that move from Kern county up to the Bay Area refineries and then approximately 310,000 barrels a day that move from Kern county down to the Los Angeles area refineries.

This map is a couple years old, so those numbers aren't accurate to the number, but it gives you a basic idea. I think the point that I'm trying to make here is that this is from oil that emanates from Kern County, not oil that comes from what you would consider the setback area, some of these urban environments.

So this is crude oil that comes from Kern. County. The reason that the pipelines are not filled is because of the lack of permitting that's happened from CalGEM to this industry over the last several years. In 2017, we had 477,000 barrels per day of Kern county production. In 2024, that dropped down to 285,000 barrels a day.

In 2015, we had 3,303 permits issued by CalGEM for production in 2024. In 2015, that dropped to 1,600. In 2024, we had only 84 permits for new oil production in this area and 4,347 permits for plugging and abandoning.

2025, although it's still young in the year, we've only had one permit for new production and 902 permits for plugging and abandoning. Certainly nothing wrong with plugging and abandoning those wells that need to be plugged and abandoning. But you get the point here. We urge your aye vote. This is imperative for maintaining affordable gas prices.

And we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

That's it. Okay. Thank you. Anyone like to add on in support? Alright, any opposition witnesses? New opposition witnesses. We'll bring it back to the committee for discussion questions.

Grove.

Senator Grove has a-

When do you support? You got to do.

There was no opposition.

Oh, no.

Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I've been shouting from the rooftops for 10 years and there's been no other district more economically impacted than my district because of poor energy policy. Hundreds of thousands of oil field workers have lost their jobs, lost their homes. Many second chancers went back to prison.

They've lost their college scholarships for their kids because they've had to move out of state or they can't afford to live here. Because even though there was an oil field replacement bill that offered some resources, they went from making a substantial wage of $100,000 more a year.

And I'm talking 55% people of color, 48% second chancers, to, you know, a job making minimum wage. And that does not pay the bills. The permit issue is- is a serious issue that has not been given any credibility because we are just not getting permits. It's a lack of due process. If you look at the map. Thank you.

That you provided. If you look at this map, every one of these pipelines except for one that you've listed here originates from Kern County, which is the 70% of the state's oil production.

So if we unleash just Kern County, we could fill those pipelines with lower priced, most environmentally friendly crude production that's available on the market or in the world, frankly. You would limit exposure to the Amazon rainforest. You would- It would be produced here by Californians for Californians, where we control the process.

And it would keep the pipeline jobs, the refinery jobs and jobs in the Central California, specifically Kern County oil industry, bring back those jobs. The governor's comments on a- on a press conference that he did says, you know, we have a year to solve this problem. I beg to differ. We don't have a year to solve this problem.

We are on a catastrophic cliff right now. PBF is in- in dire straits. Valero made the announcement, Chevron made the announcement and we're in a very poor situation. And I appreciate you bringing this bill forward and I'd be glad to be a co author if you would allow me to do so.

Absolutely.

Alright. Thank you. Senator Grove, other comments? Questions? Nope. Seeing none. I will do the unorthodox thing of agreeing with Senator Grove and also asking to be added co author to this measure. Don't smile.

And no, I honestly, I think that this kind of policy, I've been a big advocate for increasing scrutiny on the oil and gas industry and extraction practices. But we also think that, you know, Kern County is the energy capital of this country and not just this state, but the world.

And I think there is a place and Amanda's transition for oil and gas. And if it's going to be oil and gas, it should be ours. So I think the bill makes sense as a notification tool.

And I did want to note just for the co- the committee amends that you accepted, they will be moving some of those duties from CalGEM over to CEC, but you've accepted those. So without any further questions, allow you to close.

Permission to respond through the chair?

Please, yes.

I just want to say I look forward to working with this committee. This is my first step. But we have many steps to take and I concur with the comments that have been made.

I think all of us here, I grew up in LA when you could not see downtown LA and now you can. So I think we have made improvements. But to think that we can com- completely eliminate, or should we eliminate a resource that brings tremendous value is not good for California.

So I look forward to working with you all on good, sound legislation and ask for your aye vote today.

Okay. Very good. So the motion is due pass to be amended in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. Please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

So that's 8-0. We'll leave the measure on call for absent m embers. Next up, I think we're going to move to Senator McNerney here. Pilotum 6. Pilotum 6 and 7. So you've got SB 24 up first.

Thanks, Chair Becker, although he's not here, so I'll thank stand in. Chair Stern. Thank you. First of all, I want to say I accept the Committee's proposed amendments. So put that on the record. You know, California residents pay maybe the highest or second highest utility rates in the nation.

At the same time, utility companies are making record profits. PGE, which serves my district, received six rate increases in 2024. Last month, PGE asked for yet another rate increase. This time, quote, to adequately compensate investors. Our utility bills should be spent on services, not political activities or commercials.

Especially if the policies they are advocating for may not be in the interests of the ratepayer. Since 2019, SoCalGas has used at least $36 million of its customers money for political lobbying. Last year, PGE charged customers for an ad promoting the utility.

Additionally, the IOUS have spent large sums to stop local efforts to form public utilities, including municipal utilities. For example, PGE spent over $10 million against SMUD's attempt expansion into Yolo County. SDG&E gave almost $400,000 to Responsible Energy San Diego. And that organization opposed the county's effort to form a public utility in San Diego.

So SB24 will close the legal loopholes and strengthen California law to prevent IOUS from using ratepayer funds for political campaigns and political advertising. And it will prevent them from using ratepayer money to lobby against local efforts to create a public utility. Basically, this is a common sense law. The law already exists.

We just want to make sure that it's strengthened and that it's enforced. SD24 does not infringe on the IU's ability to advocate, but it just prevents these costs from being borne by ratepayers. Here to testify in support of the Bill are Adria Tinnin, Director of Race Equity and Legislative Policy at turn.

And she'll be followed by Melissa Romero, a policy advocacy Director with the California Environmental Voters.

Great. We'll have two minutes.

Great. Thank you, Chair and thank you, Committee. My name is Adria Tynan. I am the Director of Race Equity and legislative policy at turn, the Utility Reform Network here in support of SB24. SB24 prohibits utilities from abusing ratepayer dollars to pay for lobbying advertising and to work against municipalization efforts.

California residents are facing an unprecedented affordability crisis right now. While utilities rake in record or near record profits, as the Senator rightly pointed out. PG&E, for example, requested six rate increases just last year. Despite this stark reality, we also have seen thousands of households disconnected for not being able to afford these bills.

Despite the stark reality, utilities have been caught inappropriately spending ratepayer funds on expensive promotional advertising to boost their reputations. They've been caught using ratepayer money to lobby against climate goals, and they have engaged in lobbying to undermine the establishment of municipal utility districts, which eliminates people's freedom of choice in order to preserve utility monopoly power.

Currently, there are no consequences if utilities are caught misusing funds in this way, which creates a perverse incentive for them to continue this abuse. If a utility currently is caught doing these activities, all that happens is they move the spending to the proper account.

There is no consequence and therefore every incentive to continue trying to sneak these costs through to ratepayers. SB24 offers a thoughtful remedy to this abusive dynamic by providing transparency, accountability and meaningful consequences for such abuse so that utilities are improperly incentivized to use the correct funds in the first place.

At a time when people across the state are suffering from skyrocketing energy bills, it is critical that every single dollar is used responsibly and appropriately and not abused to undermine the well being of California residents. On behalf of turn, I respectfully urge an aye vote for SB24. Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much. Next lead witness. Welcome.

Hello. Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters here in support of SP24. Many Californians are feeling the pressure from rise cost of living. And it's a widely shared sentiment that energy bills are too damn high. So when we're thinking about solutions for affordability, we have to ask ourselves, what are appropriate costs for ratepayers to bear?

One thing that should definitely not be on the list of uses of ratepayer funds is utility lobbying and ads. And many, many critical programs are that are necessary or funded through rates. But as we scrutinize what needs to be trimmed out, it is clear that customers should not be paying this cost.

And we need ratepayer dollars to be applied efficiently and appropriately to necessary investments like clean energy and infrastructure buildout. In a time of uncertainty about skyrocketing costs, ratepayers should be reassured that when they pay their bills, their money is going to maintaining and improving their access to clean energy.

Prohibiting utilities use of ratepayer dollars for ads and lobbying will lead to direct savings on customer utility bills and and will prevent counterproductive spending of those funds against municipalization, which can also help guarantee customer savings in the long term. So for those reasons, we urge your support for SB24. Thanks.

Okay, thank you. Others in support.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association, in support.

Thank you. Next.

Rebecca Marcus, representing Union of Concerned Scientists, in support.

Ben Schwartz, Clean Coalition, in support.

Good afternoon. Robert Horrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California, in support. Thank you.

Hi. Dylan Hoffman, On behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, in support. Thank you.

Janet Cox for Climate Action California and the Glendale Environmental Coalition, in support.

Will Abrams, Coalition of Utility Calls Wildfires, in support. Thank you.

Travis Jabrial, Reclaim Our Power, Utility Justice Campaign. Strong support.

Ken Hale, from STOP PGE Now, a grassroots organization dedicated to lowering electrical rates statewide. Thank you, support

Emily Smet, Sacramento Chapter, Democratic Socialists of America, in support. Thank you.

Emi Yoko-Young, Reclaim Our Power, in support.

Ryan Spencer, Environmental Working Group, in support.

Dave Shukla, Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy, strong support. Thank you.

Roger Lin, Center for Biological Diversity. Strong support. Thank you.

Colin Cook Miller, Reclaim Our Power, Utility Justice Campaign and coalition. Strong support. Appreciate it. Thanks.

Cynthia Shallet, Climate Justice, Indivisible, in support.

Okay, thanks. Will turn to any witnesses in opposition. Go two minutes, two minutes. If you guys are amenable.

Good afternoon. Brandon Ebeck, Pacific Gas and Electric. We are opposed to this bill. I'd refer to our letter for a much more thorough discussion at a high level. Everything that was alluded to is already prohibited. We cannot spend money on renicization efforts. We cannot spend money on anything that's political.

This bill, as we discussed last year when it failed, conflates rate making and accounting. This Bill talks about how we book charges to certain accounts. Every charge that we ever incur goes to the Commission for cost recovery. They must determine that to be just and reasonable.

Our compliance requirements are over 20 pages of what we cannot ask customers to pay for. So it's what you consider for political activities. That's lobbying. That's my salary. That is political contributions. Out of the issues from years ago, it was already made clear from the Commission that we cannot spend money on municipalization efforts.

We can spend money if we are trying to respond to ministerial requests or implementing CCA formation or municipalization. So, like the bill lacks a lot of needed exemptions to make things clear on if something is reasonable, customers should pay for it. Any of our trade associations that are political are paid for by shareholders.

Any of our trade associations that support environmental causes, that benefit customers, that support cap and trade, that support a lot of the things the state tries to do. We should have a right to go to customers and ask for cost recovery. If they benefit customers. Same thing with litigation.

This bill lacks a lot of the nuances that are needed within this pretty complicated compliance pathway. So for those reasons, we oppose.

Mr. Chairman, Member Scott Wetch, on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers and the California Coalition of Utility Employees, we don't object to the majority of this bill. We're working with the author on this. We appreciate the language that makes it clear that it doesn't impact collectively bargained items and whatnot. I do need.

There is still some tightening. I mean, a lot of the advertising that goes on is actually around safety. That helps protect my members who work in one of the top three most deadliest professions in the United States. So we think that needs to be tightened.

They're all legitimate expenses regarding municipalization, I think that we could come to an agreement on. So we're working closely with the author. I do think that's important. For the record to point out, PGE's rates since 2018 were 40% above inflation, according to a report just published by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

That 40% above inflation was attributable to two factors, wildfire mitigation and the cost shift associated with the net metering program. The entire amount above inflation in the rate increases for PG and E, Wildfire hardening and nim. We appreciate the author's efforts, and I think we're close to coming to neutrality on this Bill. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Others in opposition. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California Gas Company in opposition. And just in response to the comment made about SDAG and E spending on municipalization efforts. Those were not ratepayer dollars. Thank you.

Just, we'll go name and affiliation. We can do some clarification if need be to look out for Senator Archuleta, too. Exactly. All right.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members Brady Van Engelen here on behalf of Southern California Edison and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. John Kendrick, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in opposition.

Thanks. Okay. Seeing no others in opposition, we'll bring it back to the dais. Members, questions? Comments? Yes, Senator Strickland,

I just have to say, sometimes it's frustrating here in the Legislature. The left hand's not talking to the right hand because there was a bill earlier that. I've only been here three weeks, so it said that it was up to the utilities and mandated the utilities.

Inform the public if you're going to turn off your energy because of potential wind and fire. But at the same Time now you're limiting their ability to communicate to people based on this bill. I just don't like there's so many different things that go cross current here.

You know, the bottom line is I think the utilities have obligation to communicate to their constituents what's going on with their energy bills. What's going on with turning off their power because of fire.

I have the history, you know, these utilities, as was stated earlier, you know, a lot of them have liability concerns and now they, the public's getting mad that they turn off the energy because fires might happen, but when the fires happen, they expose themselves in liability.

And then the follow up from this Legislature is like you can't communicate with your constituents. You can't communicate with the people who you work with, people who are your customers.

You know, I just think that I get frustrated because it seems like we have so many bills that go through this Legislature that you're wrong either way, whatever you do.

And this is another one of those bills that says, you know, on one hand, and I know a couple of you Members were here for that bill that said, you know, the utilities had to inform.

I think it was required within like 24 hours if they're going to turn off the power because of wind of potential fire and then you're going to say no, you can't use your money to communicate with those same very people.

I just think this bill is terrible and I think we need to have a bigger overall macro view on a lot of stuff we do because a lot of stuff we do here is counterproductive on one side and the other side. Take that as a comment. Yes.

Senator, I would just love to ask the author if he felt as though this was a correct characterization of the bill.

Well, thank you for allowing that. Well, there's a big distinction between informing ratepayers that there's going to be a shutoff. I've seen shut off heads up and they don't come on TV, they don't come through lobbyists, they come through social media or emails or text messages. And that's not really being covered in this.

And I think there's an important issue that there's already a law that prevents the IUs from using ratepayer money. But it's clear that that is not being followed closely.

We need a little bit tighter rules on how that money can be spent and it's an enforcement mechanism to be sure that if it is spent illegally that there's a penalty for it. Okay, very good.

Hand it over to the real chair. Any other comments or questions?

I appreciate the Senator's concern.

Sure.

I would appreciate the clarification from the author in terms of the types of communications we're focused on and that it really is about using rate payer dollars for political advocacy versus advocacy related to the ratepayers interest. So I think it's important to.

Sometimes the right hand and left hand can just be doing different things and they actually do talk to each other. They just have to. From one hand you deliver rate payer benefits and from the other hand you have to prevent, you know, those dollars from transferring and having advocacy sort of bleed its way into to ratepayer interest.

So I think it's a matter of principle. I do support the bill and I'd move it at the appropriate time. Let's call it now.

Would you like to close, Senator McNarty? Well, I think the chair, again, in my mind, this is a common sense Bill. Utility rates in California are very high. We don't need to have ratepayers paying for political advertising, especially in some cases where it could be not in the interest of the ratepayer that's being advocated or advertised.

So I urge and I vote and I thank the Senators for their comments.

Well, thank you. I'm sorry I missed some of the discussion. I do that the government affairs is part of the ratepayers today. But there's other things that we're concerned about here that you've raised. I appreciate. Thank you, Senator Stern, for filling in for me. I would like. And there's a motion for Senator Stern.

Let's call for a vote. The motion is do pass to be amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is 7 to 4. We'll keep it open for absent Members. Thank you. You have another bill to present. SB787. Go ahead.

Thank you. I'm lucky to have two bills in a row here, and I appreciate the Committee's indulgence. First of all, I want to say by—I accept the Committee's amendments, and I thank the Committee for working closely with my staff on this Bill.

SB 787 lays the groundwork for California to develop in-state supply chains for EV batteries, building decarbonization technologies and offshore wind. Now, these technologies are already in California law. There's timelines to be established and California is moving aggressively toward that goal. But we don't have the manufacturing capability here in state to meet that goal.

And that's the point of this legislation, is to get agencies to work together so that we can draw that manufacturing here into California. Basically, a 787 formalizes partnerships between state agencies, labor, environmental organizations, and clean energy industries, to create a unified approach to building out California's clean energy supply chain and workforce.

This Bill will help California meet our clean energy goals, while creating family supporting jobs, boost affordability, and advanced economic development. So, basically, we want to marry—we want to merge the clean energy goals with the workforce to make those goals realizable here in California.

With us to support the—today to testify is Samuel Appel of the United Auto Workers and Kate Gordon of the California Forward.

All right, excellent. You both have two minutes.

Great. I'll try to stick to that. Thank you, Chair Becker and Committee Members for the opportunity to testify in support of SB 787 today. My name is Sam Appel and I'm the Policy Director for the United Auto Workers in the Western United States.

When it comes to climate change, our 100,000 plus members in California, in manufacturing, higher education, state agencies, transportation, nonprofits, and other industries, have three priorities. We want to grow high quality union jobs in critical supply chains. We want affordable energy, and we want to accelerate decarbonization.

Our union wrote SB 787 with Senator McNerney to pursue this vision in three critical industries—batteries, building decarbonization, and offshore wind. Why these industries? You might ask.

Our own experience and reports from state agencies, the National Renewable Energy Lab, Building Decarbonization Coalition, and other groups show that the market in these industries isn't delivering on time for our climate goals. It's not delivering manufacturing jobs or productive capacity, at scale, and we're not translating our innovation ecosystem in California into commercial scale firms.

And for our members, the path to affordable energy—clean energy—in these industries isn't at all clear. So, SB 787 sets out some meaningful and yet incremental goals towards addressing these problems. 1. Currently, state funding to the battery building, decarb, and offshore wind industries is scattered and uncoordinated.

SB 787 requires the CEC to work with industry and agencies in an MOU, to find funding synergies and target the most strategic supply chain segments. Two, agencies and stakeholders currently don't have adequate supply chain data to inform planning, policy, and strategy. SB 787 directs the CEC to collect this data.

Three, industry stakeholders currently aren't coordinated at the statewide level to plan for vertical and horizontal industry integration. SB 787 directs the CEC to coordinate these firms. And finally, state agencies are not coordinated for sector wide planning, policy, and strategy for climate affordability and supply chain. SB 787 establishes an MOU and annual meetings within the CEC to accomplish that goal.

Okay, I need to ask you wrap up.

I'll turn it over to my co-presenter.

Okay, thank you. Go ahead.

Thanks, Chair and Members. Thanks for allowing me to testify today on behalf of SB 787. I'm Kate Gordon, CEO of California Forward, a statewide nonprofit working to build a California economy that's sustainable, resilient, and inclusive across every region of the state.

This Bill supports all of those goals, recognizing California's unique economic advantages across these three critical growth industries: building decarbonization, battery manufacturing, and offshore wind. And you might ask, why do we need this Bill? Isn't California already a clean energy leader?

But the reality is that while we lead the world on climate regulation and energy innovation, we have not yet realized our full potential to drive the energy transition. We're home to the raw materials for electric batteries, but have barely begun to build a battery manufacturing sector.

We have powerful offshore winds, but lag behind countries with smaller populations and lower wind speeds. We lead the country in building decarbonization regulation, but not in manufacturing the materials for green buildings.

To launch California as a clean energy leader, a true clean energy leader, we must go beyond innovation and installation and—to build the full supply chains for key energy industries. That kind of leadership requires vision but also coordination. California's current approach to clean energy manufacturing is fragmented.

It's dispersed across multiple agencies and levels of government, lacks a hub where different pieces of the puzzle—​infrastructure, workforce, land use, financing—​can be evaluated together in support of a coordinated and coherent energy transition strategy.

This Bill, by creating a new senior position at the CEC, an agency with the expertise and funding to drive key elements of the energy transition, takes a major step in that direction. Before taking on this role at California Forward, I was honored to serve as Senior Advisor to former U.S. Secretary, Jennifer Granholm.

While helping her implement the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act, I saw countless states come through with clear, coherent strategies for energy transition. California was not one of them. We saw, instead, from California, a series of disconnected applications and proposals from different regions of the state, sometimes contradictory proposals from within the same region.

As a proud Californian, it hurt my heart that California did not receive more of those funds from the Federal Government, at that time. SB 787 can change the story and launch California's clean energy manufacturing renaissance.

From the Salton Sea to Silicon Valley, Merced to Monterey, Humboldt to Huntington Beach, every region of the state has the opportunity to build high quality jobs and a more diversified tax base from these industries, but we need to better coordinate our approach. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Do we have any folks in support? Please come on up when you're.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, in support.

Mr. Chair, Members. Brian White, on behalf of Offshore Wind California, in support.

Dan Cha, on behalf of the Port of Long Beach, in support.

Vince Sugrue, on behalf of the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, in support.

Mitch Steiger, with CFT, also in support.

Audra Hartmann, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition. In support.

Janet Cox for Climate Action California and the Silicon Valley Chapter of the Climate Reality Project. In support. Thank you.

Victoria Rome, with NRDC, in support.

Michael Monagan, on behalf of State Building Trades, in support.

Sarah Arveson, on behalf of Jobs Move America, in strong support.

Marshall Nakatani, on behalf of UAW Local 4811, in strong support.

Jose Carmona on behalf of Comite Civico Del Valle. We're an EG organization based in the Imperial Valley, working on lithium issues. Here in support.

Ivan Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Catherine Vieira, Houston United Steelworkers District 12, in support.

Kelly Trombley with Ceres, in support.

Julia Sebastian, with California Labor for Climate Jobs, in support.

Rachel Lucine with Blue Green Alliance. We bring together environmental groups and labor unions. In strong support. Thank you.