Senate Standing Committee on Rules

All right. Good afternoon again. We are grateful that each and every one of you are here. Thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedules. It's Wednesday, April 30th. It's the Senate Rules Committee. We're going to take our first action, and that is going to be establishing a quorum.

Madam Secretary, if you can please call the roll.

Mcguire.

Here.

Mcguire. Here. Grove.

Here.

Grove. Here. Gonzalez.

Here.

Gonzalez. Here. Jones. Jones. Here. Laird. Here. Laird. Here.

Quorum quorum has been established. Ladies and gentlemen. We're going to take care of some administrative items, and we have Senator Laird that is going to have to go vote rather quickly. So I'm going to try to do a bit of a rocket round if it works for the Committee.

And we want to say welcome back to Senator Gonzalez as well. We're going to start with Governor. Appointees not required to appear. This is item 2D through E. Item 2D through E. Is there a motion? We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair. Discussion or debate? Bless you. Hearing, Seeing none. Can we please call the roll?

Mcguire, aye. Mcguire, aye. Grove, aye. Grove, aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Jones, aye. Jones, aye. Laird, aye. Laird, aye.

That's a 50 vote. That motion passes. We're closing the roll. Ladies and gentlemen, Committee. We're now going to be moving on to Bill referrals. This is item number three. Reference of bills to committees. Is there a motion to approve? We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair. Looking for discussion or debate. Last call for discussion or debate.

Hearing seen? None. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

Mcguire, aye. Mcguire, I. Grove. Grove, aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Jones. Jones, aye. Laird, Laird, aye. Bye.

It's a 50 vote. That motion passes. We're going to close the roll. We're now moving on to Select Committee appointments. Item number four. Is there a motion to approve? We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair. Discussion or debate from Committee. Last call. Discussion or debate. Hearing, Seeing none. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

Mcguire, aye. Mcguire, I. Grove. Grove, I. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, I. Jones, aye. Jones, I. Laird. Laird, I.5 to 050 vote.

That motion passes. We're going to close the roll. Thank you so much. Ladies and gentlemen. We're now on to our final item of administrative business before we get to Governor. Appointees required to appear. We're going to ask Ms. Butler to be able to come forward to the table at this time as we take this final administrative vote.

And we want to welcome Ms. Butler to Committee. This is under floor. Acknowledgments, items 5 through 11. Is there a MOT motion to approve. We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair. Is there discussion or debate from Committee? Discussion or debate Hearing? Seeing none. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

Mcguire, aye. Mcguire, aye. Grove, aye. Grove, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Jones, aye. Jones, aye. Laird. Laird, aye. Five to zero.

That's a 50 vote. Motion passes. We're closing the roll. All right, thank you all for your patience. Ms. Butler, it's really wonderful to see you. Thank you so much. We're grateful that you're here. Ms. Is here under Director to the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Let's just be honest, one of the more challenging departments.

Truly incredibly complicated. We're grateful for your service to the people of California and of course, to this state. We'd like to be able to go through a little bit of a run of show and making sure that we're all on the same page.

Madam Director, you have three minutes to be able to testify in front of Rules Committee. What we're then going to do is open it up for any questions, comments or concerns that the Committee may have. Will then open it up for public comment and of course, then take a vote during your opening testimony. We welcome you.

Say good afternoon or howdy to anyone who may be here, friends or family or watching online. And again, Madam Director, we're happy that you're here. The floor is yours and I'll give you a 30 second prompt as you get close to three minutes.

Thank you so much. Senate President Pro Tem and honorable Members of this Committee, I am honored to appear before you today. I would like to thank Governor Newsom for appointing me to this role and to Secretary Garcia for her support.

I could not serve in this capacity without the support of my husband, my two daughters, my parents and my grandparents who are watching online today. And a huge thanks and shout out to my uncles and to my cousin who is joining here in person with me today. Thank you for your support.

I really credit my family for instilling in me values that I bring to work every day. These are values of teamwork, courage, love and respect. I am so appreciative of the support of many friends and colleagues who have encouraged me throughout my career and whose experiences, perspectives motivate me every day to serve Californians.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control, or DTSC, as it is called, does have an extensive history and it does serve a critical role in protecting California communities from environmental harm. It is a Department deeply rooted in public health. And it's the department's public health mission that has always resonated with me.

I have dedicated 20 years of my life to studying and working in the public health field. My first role as an environmental consultant equipped me with invaluable experience assessing health and environmental exposures across the globe, including projects in South Korea with the U.S. army Corps of Engineers in Canada and U.S. Virgin Islands.

I spent much of my career responding to environmental disasters, including the Aliso Canyon Gas blowout, hexavalent chromium emissions in the City of Paramount, and the list goes on. I have seen firsthand the harmful consequences of hazardous emissions and the frustrations that communities face when their health and their well being are in jeopardy.

All of these experiences have prepared me to serve as the Director of dtsc. And it was the significant reforms that DTSC was undergoing just a few years ago that attracted me to come work for this Department. DTSC reform has made a tangible difference in the services that we offer.

We have made huge strides in clearing our backlog of permits, maintaining fiscal stability, and improving public engagement. I am committed to keeping this positive momentum going for the Department to build upon the improvements from reform. And we have a dedicated staff who are equally committed.

I'm eager to continue carrying out the department's mission to support a safer, healthier California. Thank you for your consideration and. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Madam Director. Thank you so much. Madam Director. What we're going to do is we're going to open it up for questions, comments, any concerns that Committee Members may have, would like to be able to look to the Committee to see who would like to kick us off. Madam Vice Chair, the floor is yours, please.

Thank you. Thank you for meeting with me yesterday. I believe is when we had an opportunity to talk. Obviously. One of the facilities that you permitted is in my district. It's one of the few permit sites where we are able to take certain types of waste. It's been a long process.

I appreciate you helping move some of these things forward through the natural process and making sure that staff responds to the facility to address the issues that have been faced over, I don't know1520 years, however long it's been. So I appreciate that. I do have a question on that specific issue.

There are only a few facilities that take this type of waste. They're managed very well. They have liners, they have a computer digital process that tells you exactly where something was buried 25 years ago or 10 years ago or whatever it was.

They can go within just inches of being able to retrieve it if something was not supposed to be buried there and so I guess my question is that if we don't do it here under the safest, most environmentally process ever, what's our backup plan?

Thank you, Senator Grove. We have two hazardous waste facilities in California responsible for accepting hazardous waste. And the department's oversight of these facilities is critical to the entire management system we have for hazardous waste in the state.

And so the Department recently published a draft plan to modernize, rethink the hazardous waste management system for the state that would include oversight, continued operation of these two facilities.

And it also reimagines more sustainable practices to facilitate management, more access to management in state through treatment facilities in state, because about half of our waste does go out of state for management.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Please. Madam Majority leader.

Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. Well, thank you so much, Ms. Butler, for being here. And I know this is not. This is a very difficult position that you're in. It's very challenging.

I happen to represent and represent the communities around the Exide Battery plant, which is, I think, one of the largest environmental justice issues that our state has faced in a number of years.

I remember having to call with many of my residents during the first Trump Administration to plead with them not to allow the Exide property owners to go into bankruptcy. Ultimately, they did, and now Californians are on the hook for about $750 million to clean up the Exide property.

Community Members now still feel that the Exide process has been going a bit slow. There's been cost overruns, and it's been a lot to manage.

So I guess first I'll ask you what the status of the cleanup is, and then also, how will you ensure that communication to residents continues to be crystal clear and transparent and that there aren't any other mismanagement issues relative to this really big environmental justice issue.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Thanks to the Governor and the Legislature, we did receive funding to facilitate the cleanup of the residential homes around the former Exide plant. We are on Track to complete 5,900 residential cleanups by the end of this year. And we have started cleanups of the parkways, which was a huge.

Is a huge milestone for dtsc. When I was at Los Angeles County almost a decade ago, we were advocating for this parkway cleanup to start, and it has, in fact, started this year. So we're making great progress. Our team managing this project now is extremely experienced in maximizing our ability to clean up properties.

This year, they actually were able to achieve a cost savings of $10 million so that we could clean up more homes with that money. So we're always looking for ways to do things more effectively, more efficiently on the Exide cleanup. But I have to credit our partnership with the communities on the Exide cleanup.

I attended the last Exide technical advisory group meeting with community leaders, and it was clear that because of the community leadership, our agency partnership, we now have a third party monitor in place that oversees the cleanup work itself and that provides us real time feedback on a daily basis how our crews can do a better job.

Well, thank you for that, and I just will continue to work with you and make sure that this is successful for the residents of Maywood and Cudahay and Vernon. They are mostly monolingual Spanish speakers.

So I appreciate the information being put out in multi, you know, multilingual, sort of different languages, Spanish and English, and just the care that the community, you know, certainly needs in this process. So thank you for that.

I know also that the California Senators, my Congressman, I think, myself, we've all asked for this site to be a Superfund site. And so I don't know what additional work you're going to be doing to be able to move forward with that.

I know we have a new Administration, so it's going to be a bit different, but what do you expect in the months to come for that?

Thank you. That is a critical piece to the success of the future cleanup of the Exide facility in the surrounding neighborhoods. We are continuing to work with our US EPA colleagues successfully towards a listing for the Exide site on the Superfund list. Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Madam Attorney. Later, Miss. Later. Any. Any items you have. And I do believe the Director's mic is a bit low. If we could just check on the mic as well, please. Thank you. Madam Director, again, grateful that you're in front of us here today.

I'd like to talk about a couple items that have come up from Senators in regards to the review of projects in the district.

There's Senator Padilla and Senator Becker in particular, two very different issues, both though very focused on dtsc, would like to be able to have some time with them, to be able to talk about some issues. One is a redevelopment issue long term in Senator Becker's district. The other is an ongoing issue in Senator Padillas.

And I'd like to better set some time up on that if that would work for you, Madam Director.

Absolutely, yes. Happy to do that.

And I think, Madam Director, you are taking on a very tough job and While you're not new to service, this is a new role.

And I think some of the challenges and please push back on me, Madam Director, is long timelines and then making sure that the agency is responsive, especially to lawmakers, as some of these issues can take well over a decade to be able to complete and finalize, sometimes two decades.

I think the information though is going to be critical between the agencies and lawmakers who often are working with local elected officials and getting updates. And I think that is a priority of yours, of improving communication between all of the stakeholders that are involved.

Because in many times these issues are highly concerning, very controversial, long term, in the long time in the making, and folks just want information. Can you talk a little bit about how you work with local elected leaders, state elected leaders, to keep them in the loop as things are moving in regards to long term cleanups?

Thank you. Yes, you're absolutely right. It does take a long time to get to cleanup on many of our sites. And as you pointed out, one of my top priorities is stronger collaboration and communication with local entities and also community partners and the regulated industry alike.

We are facing some of the most serious, complex environmental challenges and we have to work together to navigate those. And we have and we continue to strengthen our leadership team. Our Office of Legislative affairs and our Chief Deputy has extensive legislative experience.

So part of being a good leader is getting the right people on my team to make sure that we can be responsive to the inquiries that you're referring to. My experience working at the local level also equips me with understanding how important it is to have real time answers for constituents.

And so even if we don't have all the information, we have to share what we know at the time. And if that information changes, then we'll provide updates. And so my philosophy is that I don't want perfection to get in the way of communication.

No 100%.

I will speak from experience when I was on a local Board of Supervisors and working with DTSC on a specific site in our neck of the woods and just being super candid, and this was over a decade ago, at times it could be a black box and it's very difficult to even get an email or a phone call.

And that's why I want to highlight where you'd like to be able to bring strategic change to the agency is better communication with local agencies, better communication with lawmakers, and you're willing to be able to put in the time, effort and energy to make that happen.

And again, just being super candid, I think you've seen this as an area of weakness that you can improve upon. I don't want to project onto you, Madam Director, but just speaking from experience, I think this is an issue where you want to be able to improve. But please, I don't want to put words in your mouth.

When I served at LA County and was in a similar position, communicating with DTSC leadership on specific projects that were of interest to our local constituents, I experienced those frustrations that you're referring to. And so I am committed to changing.

And I think we have already made strides in the last few years to changing how we communicate more proactively. And I will continue to do that.

Thank you. Yeah. And again, I'd like to set up some time between you and Senator Becker and Senator Padilla to talk about some ongoing issues. And what we'll do is Lisa Chin will follow up with your office on that to be able to get those scheduled. Great.

We'll do.

I appreciate that. Thank you so much, Madam Director. I do not want to put Senator Laird on the hot spot, but before we open up public comments, and Laird, I wanted to be able to see for the Director of dtsc, if you have any comments or questions, please. Senator Laird. Welcome back, sir.

Well, my morning's done, so I don't know. First, thank you for meeting with me. I really appreciated it and it was a really good conversation. And I. This is when you're at a disadvantage and you have no idea what people talked about. But did the subject of lithium come up at all?

We talk about lithium a lot at the Department, so, no, no, no here in your home yet. Am I raising it? Not yet.

Well, sorry. We talked about it. Just in the fact that obviously with the battery storage fire that I had, with the things that happened in the fires in. In Los Angeles County, it's just presages how over time, batteries will live their natural life and we will have a lithium problem.

And I just want to ask you what your thoughts are on the best ways to think about that and approach that in advance.

Okay. One more time. We're going to have a problem with lithium.

Going to have a problem with lithium disposal. With lithium disposal after it's had its natural life in a battery.

It's a very short natural life.

My life is appearing very short. We want to welcome you to Rules Committee Director. So if I may. Over to you. Over to you. Don't get distracted.

It's critical to consider the entire lithium loop in a sustainable management. Lithium is a hazardous waste by characteristic. When it's no longer being used for its intended purpose.

And so our hazardous waste management plan sets forth goals and recommendations to explore ways the Department can incentivize recycling of lithium and create more opportunities for in state management of lithium at the end of life. That's going to be critical to sustainable lithium use in the long run. And it's something the Department is interested, invested in doing.

And ironically, the reason I was out of the room was to complete the vote on the battery storage safety Bill I presented about an hour ago with regard to lithium and the safety standards going into our codes for any construction.

I would just like to say I'd like to work with you and the Department over time on that. I think that we have the time to think about that and to do that before it's dramatic. The industrial battery storage essentially started in 2018 and 2019. So we still have a life to go.

Cars, it was a little earlier and those seem to have a Shorter life. So this is going to be real. And we talked about how there was a loop, but there were certain places missing in the loop now.

And I think we would like to work together over time to make sure we fill in that loop and appreciate your perspective on it.

Excellent. Thank you. Yes, yes. And I do think California is well positioned to be a leader in that space for safe solutions that are protective of communities.

Thank you so much. Before we go to public comment, we'd like to be able to see if there's any discussion, additional discussion or debate here in scene nine. What we'd like to be able to do is open it up for public comment. We welcome any and every one of you to be able to step forward.

If you could please give us your first and last name in the organization that you're with. And of course, 30 seconds, please. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Mr. Pro Tem and Members, Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, an organization founded in part by former Governor Pat Brown with the goal of seeking balance in public policymaking, ensuring we're protecting our environment, public health, as well as our status as a world economy.

We really appreciate the approach that the Director has taken thus far in her role as well as that in her prior role as direct Deputy Director of the Hazardous Waste Management Plan.

Our Members span many different sectors and our permitted hazardous waste facilities, generators of hazardous waste, also undertake site mitigation cleanup projects and certainly have impact and interest in the Safer Consumer Products Green Chemistry program. So really just appreciate the opportunity. She's always accessible, willing to dig into difficult, complex issues.

So really appreciate the opportunity to support her and apologies we didn't get a letter informally officially.

Thank you. Dawn, do you want to weigh in on the debate between the Vice Chair and Senator Laird on lithium?

We certainly support looking at a variety of technologies to be sure.

Appreciate it. Absolutely. I really appreciate you, Don. Thank you so much. It's good to see you. Good afternoon. It's good to see you. And we welcome your. Your comment on the debate as well.

Thank you. Honestly, I might Matt Klovenstein on behalf of Energy Source Minerals, one of the state's leading companies developing a lithium extraction facility down the Salton Sea.

And spent a lot of time talking with DTSC over the last two years, extensively with the NOW Director and her staff who I also want to say are also wonderful that she has helped put together true subject matter experts and willingness to really engage and dive into the details. In our experience, very responsive.

And so we have nothing but great things to say about the work that they're doing and want to strongly support confirmation. So thank you.

Thank you so much. It's good to see you. Appreciate you. Let's take a look to see if there's anyone else who would like to be able to offer a comment. We ask you to please step forward at this time. We're going to do a final call for anyone in support. Seeing no one rise.

We're now going to look to those who may be opposed. If you could please come forward at this time, do a final call for opposition. Yes, ma'am. Welcome.

Sorry, I'm not in opposition. I'm just slow. And I'm here on behalf of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners to support Katie Butler and her confirmation process. Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. Their goal is to reduce cancer by reducing exposure to the chemicals that cause the disease. And so bcpp, as they're known, works a lot with dtsc.

And I've, in my capacity as their lobbyist, I've reached out to DTSC and their ledge Department and have found them incredibly responsive. And we look forward to working with this Butler going forward. Forward.

Thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time to be here. Thank you so much. We're going to do last call. Anyone else like to be able to comment? See no one rise. We're now going to bring it back to better see if there's any final discussion or debate. We'll also welcome a motion.

We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair to the full Senate Floor. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

Mcguire Aye. Mcguire I. Grove. Grove I. Gonzalez. Jones. Jones I, Laird. Laird. Aye. Four votes.

Is there currently a 40 vote? Madam Director? We're going to keep the roll open as Madam Majority Leader is in another Committee. Next stop will be the Senate Floor. Madam Director, thank you so much.

We're going to take a 32nd recess as we are now going to have the Director of the Public Advocate's Office from the CPUC, Director Serizawa, if they could please come forward. We're going to change out the name card. 30 seconds. We'll be right back with you.

Nice to see you.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're now going to come back and we're going to welcome Director Serizawa who has dedicated literally her career to the Public Advocate's office and doing the good work on behalf of the people and the ratepayers of California. We so appreciate your time being here and it's an exciting day.

What we would like to be able to do is talk about the next steps of the run a show, same as Madam Director that just went beyond before you. We're going to provide three minutes of opening testimony. What we'll then do is open it up for discussion or debate from the Committee, any questions that they may have.

We welcome you to welcome anyone, friends, family who are watching and or in the hearing room here today. And again, we are grateful for your hard work on behalf of the State of California. The floor is yours for three minutes.

Good afternoon, President Pro Tem and Members of the Committee. I am honored to appear before you today. And I'm honored for Governor Newsom to appoint me to be Director of the Public Advocate's Office. I want to thank my family for their unflagging support throughout the years. My husband might be watching. He's at work right now.

My son, who's a teacher's assistant, is also working and my daughter, who's also pursuing a career in education, is in class. For over 35 years, I have dedicated my career to public service at the California Public Utilities Commission.

I started as an entry level Auditor and advanced to take on increasing levels of responsibility and leadership roles, including being Chief of Staff to a CPUC Commissioner during the 2000, 2001 electricity crisis.

For the last 17 years, I've been at the Public Advocate's Office where I've led efforts to tackle increasing utility spending, strengthen wildfire mitigation and other safety policies, and led advocacy efforts for equitable and affordable communications and water services.

I'd like to take a moment, just to clarify, make a clarification that while the Public Advocates Office is within the California Public Utilities Commission, by statute we are independent in fundamental ways. We set our own priorities. We conduct our own research and analysis. We develop our own policy positions. We manage our own budget and our own resources.

We participate in PUC proceedings like all other stakeholders in the same manner and we must abide by the same rules that they do, including how and when we communicate to PUC decision makers.

Furthermore, by statute, we are unique and essential in that we are the only state entity with the sole focus on advocating on behalf of customers of the privately owned utilities. And I take this role seriously. My goal is to ensure equitable access to affordable, safe and reliable utility services across energy, communications and water.

We are at a critical juncture. Households are struggling to pay their utility bills, putting enormous pressure on household budgets, threatening our progress on the state's clean energy goals.

This is why I'm sharpening our office's focus on uncovering and challenging unjustified utility spending, expanding our analysis to anticipate emerging risks to affordability and reaching out to other stakeholders so that we can collaborate on options and remedies.

We have about one minute, ma'am.

Okay, I'm wrapping up. I want to... well, I am basically done. I want to thank you for the opportunity again to testify and. And I look forward to answering your questions.

Madam Director, Again, thank you. Very grateful that you are here today and for your work. And as you said, I think it's more important than ever as we see across the state, especially with the IOUS. If I could just be so candid. So let's open it up for questions or comments from the Committee.

I know I have a couple, but would like to be able to see if there's any questions or comments, please.

Senator Laird, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much. And thank you. I really appreciated our meeting. I thought it was- we jammed a lot in a brief amount of time.

Thank you. We'll accept that motion. Madam Secretary. Any other comments, Senator Jones? Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Mcguire, Grove, aye. Grove, Aye. Gonzalez, Jones. Aye. Jones, Aye. Laird, Aye. Laird, aye. Three votes. So that's three to zero. We're going to keep that roll open for our other Members to come back. Congratulations.

I think one of the things I was interested in, and you sort of alluded to it in your opening statement, is not having lower income residents shoulder a disproportionate amount of the cost. How will that reflect, I mean, in your work, how will you actually move toward that position or act on that?

Thank you for the question. Right now, the way electric rates are designed is that all of the costs for running the system are included in what's called the volumetric rate. And the volumetric rate is tied to your usage. So the more you use, the more you pay.

And for customers who cannot shift their usage or lower their usage, if they're on ac, if they're in hot weather climate, they cannot do that for health and safety reasons.

And so a lot of those costs that are in the volumetric rate are fixed costs that have nothing to do with your usage, but that everything to do with maintaining the system in a safe and reliable way. And everybody should contribute to that.

So the idea is to pull those fixed costs out of the volumetric rate and everybody paid their fair share of those fixed costs. That will lower the volumetric rate.

So for those customers, again, who cannot shift their usage for whatever reason, and typically it's because they live in hot climate zones or have large households, it'll lower their Bill. That's something called the fixed charge. It's something that we have advocated for. The Public Utilities Commission has adopted a fixed charge.

Unfortunately, it's taking a while for the utilities to implement because they have to adjust their billing systems to do so. We're looking forward to them fully implementing a fixed charge by the end of this year or early next year.

And that's when we expect to see the bills of the less wealthy customers go down as well as customers who live in hot climate zones.

Okay. And that's just going to be something that I know is of real concern to all of us. The other thing I just thought I would ask about is we talked a little bit about public power, public safety, power shut offs. And just how will you weigh in on that from the Public Advocates Room?

Every time there's a shutoff event, the utilities must report it, including how they perform in terms of providing advanced notifications of shutoff, which is extremely important not just to residential customers but to businesses and critical facilities such as hospitals and first responders.

So we track those reports, we track the data in those reports closely to see how the utilities are performing and if they're not complying with the Commission's policies in terms of when those notices go out, we call them out on that publicly and we're tracking to see if there are patterns, are looking to see if the utilities are improving their weather forecasting so that they can, they can potentially provide those advanced notices way more in advance to provide more notification and more, allow residents and businesses to prepare more if there's going to be a shutoff event.

And I know there's a different level of, I don't know what I would call it, ability or capability among the three biggest investor owned utilities. And it seems to me San Diego has been out in front of the other two and what they're doing.

How do you sort of look at that and reflect that or is that something that, that you have a role in is like nudging Edison and PG&E to do better?

Well, you're correct. SDGE has had more of an opportunity, let's say because of the fires in 2007, more of an opportunity to advance in terms of wildfire mitigation and they have best practices, so to speak.

We are looking at, we review all the utilities wildfire mitigations plans that they submit to the Energy Safety Agency and we look to see how they're prioritizing their wildfire mitigation activities.

What we expect is that they are focusing on the high fire threat district, the areas where there's the highest threat of wildfire, that they're prioritizing their activities there and ratepayer funding accordingly. That could be a combination of undergrounding or covered conductor with fast trip.

What we think is that they need to make sure that they're prioritizing not just to reduce the wildfire risk, but to make sure that ratepayer funding is prioritized as well, to make sure that their efforts are cost effective.

Okay, thank you very much. I really appreciate those responses.

Thank you, Senator Laird. And if it's all right with the Vice Chair, if it's okay to ask a quick question, Madam Vice Chair, and as I said, Madam Director, before I have an unavoidable conflict at 2:30. But I'll be back for just two quick items.

I'd like to talk about NIM and the report that came from Office of Public Advocates because originally my understanding is that where you were was that ensuring the guarantee for 20 years. And then in the new report it's come down to 10 years.

And I'd like to be able to get a better understanding why there's been that change since it's so important for candidly folks who have deployed right. And made that incredible expense. So please.

Yes. So their net energy metering is the rooftop solar incentive program. And the original program provided incentives, certain incentives that were deemed to be in line with the benefits of the program we provide to the system, lowering costs of the grid and making it more efficient, et cetera.

And that was to, those incentives are to be provided over 20 years. Those customers are still, those customers who signed up for rooftop Solar before April 2023 are still receiving those benefits. Going forward, customers are under the reformed program.

And so our focus is on making sure that the benefits of the program, or the incentives that are provided under the program are commensurate with the benefits that the program provide. And we believe that those incentives for the legacy customers, those that installed before 2023, that they're being overcompensated for the energy they provide.

And that is because they're getting compensated at the retail rate of electricity. What you and I pay for electricity, you don't have. Now in that retail rate, there is buried costs other than providing electric service.

So go ahead. No, no, please finish your thought.

So they are if they're getting compensated at the retail rate and they're also not paying their full share of those other costs that are not directly related to providing electricity service.

I guess the concern though is the office is now advocating, and I get it, 2023, but advocating for less of a guarantee than what was originally told to some of these customers. And so it creates a very challenging and awkward dynamic.

I understand. I understand. Let me just say that our greatest concern right now is increasing electricity rates. And one of the primary drivers to that is the cost burdens that customers who do not have rooftop solar are bearing. And that's the tune of $8.5 billion a year by our estimate. We think that needs to be right sized.

And we think that part of that solution is to rebalance the incentive program to these customers. Now we're talking about some. Right now we're talking about some things that could be done that we think are just equitable.

For example, if you have rooftop solar and you sell your home, the new owner should go onto the new program and not get the incentives under the old program. So the incentives should go with the customer, not with the system.

I think the other issue that you brought up, I do think it advances some challenges just being candid, right? Because what folks thought they were guaranteed versus what is the reality has changed.

I think the other issue, and this is something that we are tackling, in fact, legislation was just recently advanced on this, an Energy Omnibus Bill, is the issue of wildfire mitigation on utilities. And I am a PG&E customer. I have significant challenges with PG&E. Grateful for the women and men that keep the lights on.

Not necessarily trust what the leadership does because it's investor driven, not driven for customers. My editorial, Madam Director, not yours.

One of the largest drivers though, when it comes to utility rates is wildfire mitigation funding within utilities and customers are paying for the lack of action that Canada Utilities should have been doing years, if not decades ago. And so your thoughts on that? Because again, you just talked about the 8 billion.

One of the largest drivers though, on individual utility bills is wildfire mitigation plans and the implementation. We think that they need to become much more efficient and effective in that. We'd like to get your opinion, please, Madam Director.

Yes, I agree. One of the things that the utilities are also doing is that they are asking for cost recovery on their wildfire mitigation plans outside of the primary budget, outside of the primary budget process called the General rate case.

General rate case happens every three to four years and sets a budget for a three to four year cycle. And the utilities are allowed to recover the cost for wildfire mitigation specifically outside of that process. That was done because welfare mitigation was new, at least for two of the three utilities.

Very new, new technology they were dealing with. Hard to forecast those costs. It's been four years, five years now. It's time for them to be able to forecast those costs appropriately.

Let's bring those the forecast of wildfire mitigation costs back into the General rate case process so that we and the Commission can look at the utilities cost for wildfire mitigation, other safety mitigation efforts and how to run their business day to day in a safe, reliable manner.

Let's look at all those costs that are bearing down on ratepayers today comprehensively so that decision makers can prioritize where ratepayer money should go to deal with the highest threats possible in the fastest way possible.

And I would say I think it's up to this Legislature to be able to mandate that candidly so that there is a lockbox about what that looks like in regards to driving down costs when it comes to wildfire mitigation, in the most efficient and effective way possible.

That's something that we're continuing to move forward with and from the belief that we're going to get across the finish line. The one thing I will say, though, is PGE's, America's largest utility, they've known the challenge that they've had and they have failed to act aggressively.

And it is only until the state has pushed them and candidly mandated them to make their system safer that they're doing in earnest. And we need to be able to not oppose the profit. But excessive profit is what is hurting customers across the state, especially within PG&E territory.

I think SDGE is a much different landscape compared to what we see within SoCal Edison, but in particular PG&E Landing. I'll let you comment on that and I'll turn it over to my next colleague. But please, Madam Director, comment.

Yes, and I just have to, at the risk of repeating myself, that is why it's so important to look at the utilities proposed spend in a comprehensive way. Right now there are seven cost recovery proceedings outside of what I'm calling the General rate case, which is again, the primary budgeting process for the utilities 7.

And of them, five are over $1.0 billion. And their requests, as soon as they're approved, go into rates immediately.

So that's why we as a public advocate's office are looking at, we're doing our best to look at those proposals, turn over every rock to make sure that they're not double recovering, that they're not asking for recovery on costs, that they got that recovery through their General rate case process.

They're not asking for it outside of that process. And what I call double recover, it's called incrementality and making sure that they are prioritizing their efforts. I mean wildfire mitigation must happen. It is a top priority.

Of course we know that it's not just about costs, but there's a way to do it where you are mitigating the highest risk areas in a cost effective way. And that's what we're pushing for.

You're absolutely right. I appreciate that very much. Madam Director, more to come on this. And again, I think we need to have legislative guarantee, which is why we're pursuing this, this legislation here this year. Madam Director, what I'm going to do is I'm going to turn it over to Madam Vice Chair for questions or comments.

Madam Vice Chair will also take on the gavel and we'll be back here in just a bit. Madam Vice Chair, thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to call on Senator Jones. That's okay. Thank you.

Thank you. I originally, in preparation for this meeting, didn't have a question. But, and so, and then typically I try to provide my questions or concerns ahead of time. So this may be on topic, it may not be on topic. It's not, the answer to this is not a factor of me supporting you or not supporting you.

It's more out of a curiosity. I had a meeting last week with my local utility. So here's the question. Does your office have a role in protecting the public against improper battery storage facility construction?

And here's the situation in my city, I recently learned only by driving by it that the local utility has just built a 10 megawatt battery storage facility next to a substation in my local community.

I called my City Council Member, who I happen to know very well, and asked him, did you know that this was does the city know that this was being built here? And the concern is that it's by authorization of the PUC within 100ft of single family homes, within 100ft of a multi unit apartment complex.

It's across the street from one of the largest high schools in my area and it's within a quarter mile of a county operated convalescent home, has permanent residents that are invalids, that are not mobile.

And after meeting with the utility and some of the city officials, found out, I didn't know this until now, that the PUC can approve these battery storage facilities without any input from the city. The utility is not even required to go to the city and indicate that they're going to build this. What's going on now?

Fortunately, in this case, the utility did communicate with the city because they have a good relationship. I'm very concerned about these battery storage facilities, especially in light of the recent fires that we've had, not just in San Diego, county, but across the state.

And then, you know, the vehicles that have been trapped on I15 and I40, that these, to me, seem to be indiscriminately located in neighborhoods.

And I'm just wondering if, is your office somebody that the public can reach out to to help advocate against these things being improperly placed, or is that not part of your purview?

The way it would be? Most directly part of our responsibility is if it's a utility that's coming to the Commission to seek recovery of the costs to build the facility, thereby charging the utilities customers for that cost, then we would intervene and we'd want to look at whether the utility was compliant with the PUC's rules, including their safety rules, and whether they haven't inflated the costs, et cetera.

So that's where we would be involved.

Okay, thank you. And I'll look more into that to find out if how they are. We didn't get into that discussion because I was concerned about the safety aspect of it. I'm convinced or would believe that my local utility complied with the PUC regulations and did everything according to that.

I'm concerned with the regulations that the PUC is advocating in these battery storage facilities, that the PUC is not properly looking at the safety record of these battery storage facilities. And I'm concerned that the PUC is approving them in places that are inappropriate.

I understand, that is, that is not necessarily something that we would get involved in.

All right, I appreciate that. Thank you.

Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Director Serizawa, for being here. And I know we've got a lot of questions for you, but I would like to align my comments as well with our pro tem in terms of obviously, our work and affordability and how you play a vital role in all of that.

And I know the questions I had had been answered through him. And just thinking about ways in which we can be even more collaborative with you in our communities would be, I think, just finding more ways. I know you come to Energy Committee to provide, you know, updates, and we do have that opportunity to ask you questions.

But we want to ensure that the Public Advocates office in many of our communities are, you know, transparent and that you're there and you're answering questions with us and especially as it pertains to raising rates and what that means for our constituents. I have a specific question, I have...

I now represent the island of Catalina and it is rural Los Angeles that no one really thinks about. And you would think it's so great to represent Catalina. And it is. It absolutely is. I am so honored to represent the 4,000 residents that live there.

But talk about energy issues, water issues, broadband issues, as well as transportation issues that will fall within the purview of the PUC. So over the last year, the vessel common carriers who ferry the passengers to and from Catalina Island.

You know, many of my residents go to Long beach or to Los Angeles to go to the doctors or to go to school. There's a lot of teachers that take the ferry, the Catalina Express.

I believe the PUC just approved their request to raise their fares within a 20% zone of rate freedom while they decide the rate setting proceeding.

This seems to be a huge burden for many of the residents on the island and they're very, very concerned as to how they're going to continue to get to their Doctor's appointments and school and teachers again, going back and forth. It's really expensive for those folks.

So would love to know how you can engage with the island residents not just on this issue, but, but on a slew of other issues to help. I feel like they haven't really had that connection. And I'm going to formally publically invite you to come to the island so you can see for yourself what they're experiencing.

But I'll just open that up for a question for you and how you envision that engagement there.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. And I welcome the invitation to visit. We do get involved. I am aware of the significant challenges to provide utility services to Catalina Island. It's particularly uniquely challenging. I would like to clarify that our advocacy is in terms of water and overall electricity that Southern California Edison provides, but the water service.

So we advocate on the part of customers for affordable, clean and reliable water services, which I understand is very challenging in terms of affordability for Catalina Island. And it can be quite a battle, I will tell you.

But we, we really do try to make sure that the rates that the water customers are charged on Catalina Island are as low as possible without jeopardizing safe and reliable service. In terms of the ferry service, that is not an area that we advocate in.

But again, I am more than happy to have broader and deeper discussions with you about the water challenges there and the affordability challenges around that.

Well, I look forward to that. Do you know when the last time a public advocate or a PUC Commissioner was on the island?

I believe it was the last General WRAE case was, I'm thinking a year and a half to a year ago. And we do go to the public participation hearings we like, especially on water cases because the issues are so localized.

We like to talk to the residents and the businesses about their experiences and their concerns and fuel use that in terms of our litigation strategy and how we put forward what we think are reasonable rates.

Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Because what we're dealing with here on the mainland, as I say, it's double, triple the issue out there in terms of affordability for those residents. So I appreciate the concern and the ongoing engagement and I look forward to seeing you there very soon. Thank you.

Senator Laird

You go ahead, I was going to talk about Brian Jones comments. Wait till he's here.

Okay, so he's going to pass until I get done. I want to follow up on the pro tems questions. You know, individuals were encouraged to put rooftop solar on their homes. They invested, whether it was 25,000 or 40,000 or whatever that was.

You know, the average cost is right in the $35,000 range, depending on the size of your home.

And there was a promise that they were going to be able to get these, this credit and this sale back to whatever is over generated back to the utilities, which is providing power to the grid, which is desperately needed because we have issues with that as well.

And so individuals that made that investment, whether they paid cash or financed those very expensive solar programs that can't go with the house because of the issues legislatively that has to be fixed. And now it's changed. And what's, I mean, how do you justify that? Just frankly, how do you justify that?

And I know you're like, it's expensive and this is, you know, where they're getting reimbursed at the, the retail rate. Well, that's what they were told they were going to get. They're going to reimburse at the retail rate for this many years, 20 years.

And if you guys do this to help get off the grid, to help save this, this is what you're going to get back.

And now you're saying, no.

thank you for that question.

I'd like to clarify that part of that 20 year incentive program was factoring in when households would pay off the cost of their system, the cost of their rooftop system, that no one at the time envisioned that customers would be able to pay off their system in three to four years under that incentive program, far shorter than was what was anticipated at the time.

So again, what was anticipated at the time and tied into the calculation of the incentive was how long it was going to take off, take for households to pay off the cost of their system. That is down to, it was down for legacy M customers is down to three to four years.

And so the question becomes, considering the burden that's shifting to customers who do not have solar, is it fair for the customers who do have solar when they pay off their systems in three to four years to continue getting overcompensated for their systems?

Okay, I just want to make sure that, you know, you're appointed, we're all elected.

And there was a deal or something that was struck that says that if you invest in solar, it was encouraging individuals to invest in solar, rooftop solar, and now it affects rooftop solar customers that invested in that and took that risk and paid for those, those solar panels on the top of their house or their shop or whatever it is.

And now it's changing. So whoever made the estimate, I mean there should be some type of accountability. Who made the estimate that it was going to take 30 years to pay it off?

It was several commissions ago.

Experts. Okay. Okay. The other thing that I wanted to ask you about is the increasing rates for utility rates. Obviously, we're the highest in the nation. I have a mayor in one of my cities every month.

He has a house local in Kern County and he has a beautiful 4,000 square foot house on the river on Arizona in Bullhead City. He, his Bullhead City house for 851 kilowatts. 851 kilowatts is $99.43 a month here in California for 220 kilowatts.

Like a quarter of what he uses in Arizona is, is, or excuse me, for 107 kilowatts, it's $220 for 107 versus 851. So you're talking one eighth of the cost and it's, or one eighth of the usage and it's... it's what, 100% more than what we pay. What we pay here. Why?

Texas, and I don't mean to interrupt you, but you go to Texas, where my kids live and their utility rates are like $49 a month and they have a three acre property with horses and automatic water and everything. So what is California doing in your eyes? What is California?

I know it's a lot of the utilities are stuck with stuff they shouldn't even have to pay for. Right. When we require them to do undergrounding, we required. They get fined $2 million for disturbing a Bush in the Wildfire area, Palisades. It's ridiculous. Some of the stuff that these utilities have to put up with.

And then we blame them for the high cost of energy. But I guess my question is, why can't we just adopt the CPUC, adopt what other states are doing that reduces rates by, you know, 100%, 90% here?

Let me just say that there was a time when our bills in California were comparable to the other Western states because our bills were low, our rates were high. Bills were low because of, you know, our fantastic energy efficiency efforts. That has changed. That has changed. Bills are high. Rates are high. And bills are high.

And what we're seeing is that's because of some primary cost drivers that are increasing our rates far beyond the other states. Wildfire mitigation is one of those cost drivers. Significant dollars are being poured into hardening the utility systems. That's not happening necessarily in other states. We saw that in Oregon, in 2020, with the massive fires there.

And so our state has done an amazing job, frankly, with wildfire mitigation, but it's costly. The other thing is there are things, I alluded to this earlier. There are things loaded into that volumetric rate that don't really have anything to do with the provision of safe and reliable service.

We are actually advocating to take those costs out of the rates. Now, they fund programs that may have great social value. We are not here to judge that. What we're saying is if they do have social value, we need to find alternative funds for those programs. Let's take it out of the rate, the electric rates.

Bring those rates down.

There is several charges that are on your PGE Bill. I'm under, I'm a PG&E customer that fund posters, outreach, things like that that are not even socially or fiscally related to my utility company. So I agree with you. I think that should be taken out.

But that's this Legislature's problem that was passed by us or whoever voted for it to impose those costs on our utilities or IOU's. I also have another understanding about the IOU's. There's a. You know, for them to provide the power that they do in the State of California.

It's my understanding that they're guaranteed a certain percentage of profit by the State of California for being an IOU Is that true?

Yes, that is. That is correct.

Okay. And then the other question that I had was, I know there's a lot of stuff to do with wildfire mitigation, undergrounding, things like that in our terrain, and different things are, you know, affect the cost of that. What's the alternative solution?

to undergrounding?

What's the alternative solution to fire mitigation if you're not undergrounding?

There are other. Let me be clear. Undergrounding is a very effective way to mitigate risk. It's also very expensive. But there are other wildfire mitigation measures that can be put in place. It's called covered conductor, which is insulating the wires to protect them from wildfires and to prevent them from igniting wildfires.

Covered conductor coupled with Fast Trip, which is an automatic system that can automatically island segments of the utility's grid if it detects potential wildfire risk. That, coupled with covered conductor, is very effective at mitigating wildfire risk. There's science behind this, and it's also cheaper.

So what we're advocating for is a combination of undergrounding and Covered Conductor plus Fast Trip.

So, I mean, just for your information, and I'd love to bring you down to my district and extend the invitation like Ms. Gonzalez did or Senator Gonzalez, all of that sounds really good at this level. You know, 100% clean air sounds really good. You know, what you're just saying about fast trip sounds really good.

But in the real world, it doesn't work because the wind blows and everybody's power gets shut off. A rainstorm comes, everybody's power gets shut off with no notice or very little notice. If you have it, then you have cities without power under a PSPS shut off, and you've got wastewater treatment plants backing up.

You've got all this, you know, cast. We have one facility, actually. I think that they finally came to an agreement through the court system that they don't do these things. Then the residents have the opportunity to file a lawsuit. They just got that.

You know, that process just happened a week ago because their power shut off in this small Mountain community 162 times in less than two weeks. And it's a continuous thing. It's ridiculous. It's outrageous how much it happens. And that's just because they're on that Fast Strip that you have. So it doesn't work.

We are such a diverse state. So diverse. It doesn't. We can't have A one size fits all. It has to be regional. We are so diverse.

I mean, the former Secretary of Natural Resources is understanding that, you know, cement is very important in the State of California, which produce in my district, which build the SOFI stadium, but without my CBM plants, you don't have that. But yet legislation and actions from this body or the regulatory body shuts down the cement plants.

What's your backup plan for cement? So I'm just saying with you, like, it sounds great, you know, for the power to automatically be shut off by a computer, it doesn't work in the real world, not in my district.

Can I just say I completely agree with you. Not only is it frustrating to have your power constantly shut off, but it's disruptive to businesses and residents and their health and safety. I completely understand that.

We are monitoring, we're looking at the data from the utilities to see how much they're using their Fast Strips, how much are they using shut offs, PSPS to see are there patterns, are there trends, and should they, instead of relying on those mechanisms that they're doing over and over again, should they be doing something else to avoid that disruption?

So I agree with you. It's not that easy. And it is localized and it does require looking at granular data, which is what we're doing.

And I just want to encourage you to work with utilities, too. They're not the enemy. I mean, contrary to what some people think, they're not the enemy. They, this particular area is losing power because of the wind, because it's a narrow canyon where people live up in the mountain.

The wind tends to go down the canyon versus above the mountaintop. Right. It's just, it's geographic issues. And the problem that we have is that it's required to have these certain. The Fast Track and these, what is it called, fiber optic lines and all these things that go through there. And that's for communications, but.

And it's not the utilities fault that this is something they're mandated to have this. It doesn't work and we have to pass legislation to fix it. So I would appreciate you working with utilities. They are not the enemy. Do you have questions, sir?

It is always hard to follow my colleague from Bakersfield. I think all I was going to do is, Senator Jones brought up the issue of battery storage and I just cut myself off.

We talked about the fact that there was an order approved by the Public Utilities Commission and part of it is enforcing some of the safety stuff. So they have taken some action, but the permitting doesn't really rely with the PUC, does it?

I mean, not to my knowledge, but it is an area that we do not; we are not involved in.

But I'm going to follow up on what Senator Jones said because it's supposed to be if it's under 200 megawatts, it's local, and if it's more than 200 megawatts, it's an option of going to the Energy Commission.

And if there's something going on that is that size that is not in that process, I'm going to be curious to know about it. So I might follow up on that.

But I'm aware we talked about the fact that the order leads to some of the safety enforcement that we do these bills and we don't think of putting a deadline in and I didn't think of putting a deadline in and then they didn't comply in the very place the fire happened.

And, and now the PUC has stepped in and with their order, they will be enforcing that. But I just wanted to circle back on that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Interim Chair.

Thank you. Good to see you. Anyone else in support? Seeing none.

Good afternoon. Chris Rosa, on behalf of NRDC, please to support the appointee.

Thank you. Senator Laird, any other comments from the dais? No. Then we'll move to support public support. Please come to the microphone. State your name and position.

We'll take anyone in opposition, please come to the microphone. Seeing none. Last call for opposition. We'll move it back to the dais.

Madam Chair, I would move our approval of Ms. Serizawa as the Director of the Public Advocate's office and forward her confirmation to the Senate Floor.

[roll call]

Thank you, we will accept that motion. Madame Secretary, any other comments Senator Jones? Madame Secretary please call the roll.

So that's 3 votes, 3-0. I'd like to keep that roll open for the other members to come back. Congratulations I'm sure they will be voting aye. And we'll see you on the full Senate Floor votes soon. Thank you, ma'am. So we're going to take about a 30 second recess so that we can exchange name tags and bring the next individual we have for confirmation up.

For being here today. The same process that we just followed with the Chair. You'll have a couple of minutes to introduce yourself and anybody that is with you that you would like to acknowledge and share why this appointment is important to you. And then we will bring it to the dais for discussion. So please go ahead.

Well, thank you, Vice Chair Grove, as well as Senate Committee Members. It's a bit bittersweet. Since my children were at my first three or four hearings. I think I've appeared before you, both of you. And now I have one soul in college who said she would be watching, so we'll see. I doubt it.

And a son who's graduating from high school. So it's a little bittersweet, but very proud of them. And let me just start by saying that I am grateful to have had spent the last 25 years serving for governors. I've been able to do really meaningful work.

I have contributed to and enjoyed it very much, the fabric of this Administration in particular, while also being able to raise a family and work with exceptional colleagues whom have become my family.

As a child who grew up with parents who worked in the fields, it was an honor to work for over 15 years and to serve as a board Member at the Agricultural Labor Relations Board.

During that time, I was able to contribute significantly to a body of law and provides certainty and fairness for both workers and employers in the agricultural industry. My most recent service as appointment secretary for Governor Newsom allowed me to support an Administration that's deeply committed to equity and representation.

Governor Newsom broke barriers to provide individuals with opportunities to serve, and I was proud to help fulfill the governor's promise to build a team that reflected the people that they serve. Now I feel like I have come full circle.

In some ways, I am eager to have the opportunity to return to a quasi judicial body, the Cannabis Control Appeals Panel.

Similar to the alrb, the panel's procedures are there to ensure due process, fairness and transparency for the parties that appear before them, and has the critical role of reviewing licensing decisions and enforcement actions, thus reinforcing trust in the state's cannabis regulatory system.

If given the opportunity, I will approach this work with impartiality, fairness and adherence to the law. And I am open to your questions. This is a new adventure for me and I'm looking forward to it.

Thank you very much. We'll go ahead and bring it back to the dais. Does anybody have any questions? Senator Laird.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your willingness to serve and sorry we didn't get a chance to meet, although you're not a stranger. One of the things about the Appeals Board is that it hasn't had much of a volume yet.

And so I was wondering if this has allowed you the ability to make observations about the process and how it's working or how it's not working. I've done legislation almost every single year since I've been here, trying to not have people do CEQA twice and just do it once on the same project and other things.

Cannabis safety, you know, testing, many other things. Have you made any observations on the system? Given the fact that you're there and appeals aren't coming your way, what are your thoughts?

Yeah, no, I appreciate that because I did ask that same question, obviously, when I joined the panel. And I think part of it is that even though it has been around for several years, it is still very much, I think, a burgeoning industry, as we all know.

And the panel has received several appeals, but they were either not appropriate for adjudication or voluntarily withdrawn. And in addition to that, we are now going to be losing the provisional license as an option. So now people will have to be able to actually get their annual license or they don't get a license.

And I think that will also probably lead to additional cases coming before the board. And there seems to be a pattern in regards to stipulated judgments.

I saw that less at the ALRB, but it seems cases seem to be resolved through stipulated judgments quite frequently, and in order to reach that, they have to agree to waive their rights to an appeal. That being said, there has been a 70% increase in cultivation since 2020 and in cannabis use as well.

It's gone up, but it's slow. And so I think the enforcement of the illicit cannabis market will continue to push people into the legal market and along with the provisional licenses in order to hopefully lead to additional cases coming from for the board that are ripe for adjudication.

Okay, that's helpful. And I know that it's a new world that you're moving into, so thank you. Appreciate it.

Senator Jones.

Thank you. I had a similar question. I kind of wanted to dig into that a little bit more. You compared the position here to the ALRB, and I'll note that not too many weeks ago, we appointed one of our former colleagues to this board, Senator Newman.

Since that time, I've learned a little bit more about this board, and I'm not that familiar with alrb, but I know that, you know, they adjudicate, you know, many things a year. Obviously been around a Little bit longer.

The concern I have about this particular position and not you personally, but the position is it's very well compensated for what appears to be not much time requirement.

If I'm correct, they've met on an average of 4 times per year and the meetings are somewhere around a half an hour long to talk about these issues that are coming forward. Is that accurate?

So between 2018 and about 2022, there were several convenings because they were having to establish a regulatory framework and then again when regulations were passed to for the automatic stay for operations as well. Right now we are meeting quarterly and it's training, it's budget, it's administrative functions.

We also have to review the legislative bills that might, that might impact us. And so that is without the being the one who did not write the Proposition. But yeah, right now they're just, I think it's a growing industry and so we're just not seeing the activity.

How many hours a week do you think is this is requiring?

I would probably say maybe 30 at the most

Every week?

But I think that's me.

Because I am, I mean, I'm, I am sure Senator Newman is doing the same thing.

Okay.

Right again, I want to be very clear that I am not criticizing any of the Members of this board. I'm not have any questions about your integrity or I'm just trying to dig into this position specifically.

Yeah, yeah. And when I met and when I met referenced, Senator, I meant I am sure, like, like me, I am trying to get up to speed. Right. Because this is a very, this is a much more complex framework than the ALRB. There are 34 classes of licenses that cover very distinct, although integrated operations.

There's a lot that. So I have been spending a lot of time really trying to understand because I don't think, when I think when the cases come, I don't want to have to spend that time on a learning curve.

Okay. I appreciate that and I think that's a fair answer from your perspective as well. You know, the concern I have is just for me, the taxpayers, you know, paying for this position and just in my mind comparing it to some of the other professional positions that come forward to this Committee at a similar pay rate.

You know, just as an example, the parole board commissioners. I know that, you know, that's not a job I'd want. I know that. So I just have some concerns about this particular panel, this particular position. Not you necessarily. Again, so thank you. I appreciate your answers.

Thank you.

Senator Gonzales. Okay, so the Senate Pro Tem had to leave and his deepest apologies, he should be back shortly. He had a meeting, he couldn't change and. But I do have questions.

I represent Kern, Tulare and Fresno counties and in 2013 you sit on the LA ALRB board and a large group of my farm workers voted to decertify a 21 year old union contract that they did not want. And you were the one of the three votes on the ALRB board that set aside their legal right to vote.

You set aside that vote. Why'd you set aside that vote?

Well, the vote was set aside because there was behavior of unfair labor practices that were, that occurred. So the judge determined there was no unfair labor practices that occurred. Okay, well we did determine that and that is why we set aside the vote as we did in other cases.

So they re voted and then the, then the Secretary, the DIR, the Department of Industrial Relations, Ms. Baker, I believe, or Christine Baker was sent down to oversee the election again so that the vote could take place again.

And the overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly the farm workers voted to support their decision to decertify a 20 year old union that had never worked on the property, never participated in the whole thing. 20 years, they came back 20 years later and said hey, by the way, 20 years ago you did this.

The workers said no, you guys voted to set aside that vote. Then the DIR went down. Christine Baker and a whole team partnered with the ALRB and the, the I think the UFW was involved as well. They took another vote and they again overwhelmingly supported it.

And the ALRB and the Governor at the time, which you were a part of, locked those ballots up. Why did that happen?

I wasn't there for the second, for the second vote.

You weren't there for the second vote. It happened in 2013 and you weren't there.

You know what, I don't recall that there being the second vote. There was the one that, the one that we, when we did lock up the ballots because of the unfair labor practices. But I don't even, I don't when was the first one? And my apologies, I don't remember all.

Of my cases in 2012. The second one was in 2013.

zero, okay. So it was right after I honestly I, whatever is in the decision is what I would go by. I did not read it again and it's been quite a number of years.

So I'm not going to speculate because that would be talking about deliberations and, and I think the decision, as it always does, has to stand for itself.

Okay, so after you guys agreed or Voted to lock up the ballots. Once they went all the way through the court process and the judge ordered you guys to count the ballots overwhelmingly again for the third time. Thousands of farm workers said no. I just was curious about why you made those decisions. And there were.

And then in that court process also, there were also findings against the UFW for the practices that they did to Detour the or to derail the vote. So the court system, looking at the same evidence that you all looked at, cited in favor of the farm worker, where you guys cited in favor of the ufw.

And I'm just curious about your decision making process specifically in that area. And the only reason is I think that we're all accountable for our votes that we take. And this was a hard fought, long battle.

Sylvia Lopez, Hispanic, indigenous, hard working farm worker, first generation immigrant to this country where she raised her kids and she was bullied beyond belief by the ALRB and the ufw. We have all the documentation.

Cyrus, whatever his name was, was part of the UFW at that time and the times that he came to her home and you guys did nothing about it. I mean, there's just all these things that happen that I have a huge issue with your thought process on how you make deliberative decisions.

Okay, well, let me start by saying that I'm not, I can't. I'm not going to get into the specifics of that case because the decision does speak for itself.

Anytime there are unfair labor practices that occur and we find that they've occurred in the prior to an election and could have and likely did have an impact on the vote, that is what we do. The vote does not happen and then they can recertify and then there can be another vote.

So I'm not going to tell you, and I understand your opinion. I stand by whatever is in that decision because that is what we found in the record. Nothing is perfect. Cyrus did not work for the board. Cyrus works for the General counsel.

I don't know anything about bullying and I don't know if there was a complaint filed or, you know, several. Yeah. With the ALRB because it would have had to have gone to a hearing, but we were separately appointed entities. General counsel doesn't work for us. So I don't.

I don't want to speak to that because I have no idea what happened on the General counsel's side. But I will tell you, we don't. Did we know? No. Do we always get it right? No. I do my best to consider. Was it biased Absolutely not. I don't make decisions based upon bias.

It's actually something that I took an oath to do. So for me, I have to follow the law. So that's what I did. In that case, great, thank you.

Are there any other comments from the dais? Yes, Ms. Gonzalez. Senator Gonzalez, I apologize.

Yes, thank you very much. Thank you for answering our questions. I just, I've got a large cannabis community in Long Beach, as you may know, and right now they're currently not accepting applications for adult use cannabis dispensaries. I think the Max is 32.

So the city staff are currently figuring out what type of ordinance to allow for an additional eight or so dispensaries to be owned exclusively by equity applicants.

So my question to you is, how are you on the panel working with cities and counties to ensure their licenses are complete at the local level and likely to be approved to the state so they are successful?

So the responsibility that's set up, the way that both the Department of Cannabis Control and then also ccap, the panel set up, is that the Department is solely responsible for the licensing.

Of course, at the local level, they get to decide first whether they're going to allow it in the number and put whatever parameters on it, and then the application is actually filed over at the Department of Cannabis Control, we would only be involved if some, if there was action taken of some sort, whether it was dismissed, revoked, fined, some sort of penalty, then we would review that.

But that's primarily the responsibility of the Department.

And are they working with them? I mean, how closely are they working to ensure that they are successful, especially with these equity applicants moving forward?

So we don't have any oversight. In fact, they're a party before us. So our discussions with them are very, are limited to very high level because there might be something that might come before the panel. It's usually around administrative or education, educational materials.

But I'm more than happy to follow up with my colleague over there to get you additional information.

Okay, well, I understand, and I, I also too, just think, you know, I would hope, I know that the other position had been brought up, and I would just hope that there are, there is focus on ensuring that if there are issues through the appeals panel that, you know, they are attended to, that's transparent, that the process seems fair.

All the things that, I think if you should be appointed, that, you know, we would expect of our, of our next Member. So with that, there's, I think, you. And yield back the time to the chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Now we're going to move to public comment, so we'll take public comment in support. You're welcome to come to this microphone right here to testify in support. Please state your name and position. See no comments in support, we can go to opposition from the public. Same microphone, same process.

State your name and position. Seeing none, we will bring it back to the dais for comments or a motion. Anybody so moved. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Moved by Senator Gonzalez. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Two ayes, two no's. Thank you. We'll keep the roll open. The Senate Pro Tem just arrived, and so the roll open, they'll do an additional roll call, and I think we'll do that now. Sir, do you want to. You want this back? zero, so how about we start in. Let's start in the beginning. Like, file item.

Just give us one second, ma'am. I'm so sorry.

So, Madam Secretary, let us lift the call on Catherine Butler, Director of Department of Toxic Substance Control.

[Roll Call] Five to zero.

Five to zero. So that roll is closed. A five to zero vote. Lift the call on Linda Sarajois. Did I do that right? Director of Public Advocates Office, California Public Utilities Commission. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call] Five to zero.

That vote is five to zero. And then, Madam Secretary, lifting the call on Catherine Rivera, JD Member, Cannabis Control Appeals Board, appeals panel. Mcguire. Mcguire. Aye. That's three to two. Three to two. That measure is out as well. Thank you, Ms. Thank you, Ms. Rivera.

I'm going to turn this back over to the Senate Pro tem, since he is here, you are in charge again.

Thank you so much. Give us 30 seconds to be able to organize our paperwork.

We'll be right back with you.

Thank you so much. Again, I want to apologize to folks in regards to having to step out for another meeting as it is a busy time. I want to take a moment to say thank you to Madam Vice Chair for taking the helm and appreciate everyone's patience and cooperation as we work through a busy calendar.

We're now going to be adjourning the public statement segment of the Senate Rules Committee, and we'll be convening Executive session in just 60 seconds. We'll take a few minutes while folks clear the room, and we'll be coming back into Executive session.

Thank you so much everyone.