Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Good morning. Welcome to the May 21, 2025 Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We have 86 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular order hearing.

We encourage the public to provide written testimony before the hearing by visiting the Committee Website at apro.assembly.ca.gov Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. The hearing room is open for attendance.

All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly website. We will accept public comment on any Bill placed on the suspense file by the Committee today and for which the author waived presentation before the close of the regular order hearing.

Testimony on any such Bill will be limited to a statement of name, organization, if any, and position on the Bill. The Committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total.

As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation which were posted outside the door. I encourage Members of the public who are in attendance to be aware of and observe those rules.

Please be aware that violations of these rules or other violations of General courtesy or decorum may subject you to removal or other enforcement processes. With that, I would love to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Great. We also have Jojo here with us in the Committee today. My daughter who is home from school today, so she is present as well. And with that I would love to take up the dispense with the consent calendar. We'll take up the consent calendar in two motions today.

The first motion is due past to consent applies to bills that enjoy unanimous support in this Committee and are eligible for the Assembly floor consent calendar consistent with the Assembly rules. Do have a motion on this? motion and a second

[Consent Calendar]

Those are out on a roll call. The second motion do pass applies to the bills that enjoy unanimous support in this Committee but are not eligible for the Assembly floor consent calendar consistent with Assembly rules. Do you have a motion on this?

[Consent Calendar]

And those bills are also out on an a roll call and with that we will go to bills being presented. I think we have Mr. Zbur up first. AB39, you can begin when you're ready. Mr. Zbur, thank you for joining us this morning. Sorry we're a little late.

Madam Chair, Members. I am proud to present AB 39 which will empower local governments to engage in planning to develop strategies for our clean energy future.

California has committed to ambitious climate and energy goals that envision conversions to electric vehicles and electric appliances and equipment in homes and businesses in which necessitate critical infrastructure upgrades throughout our communities.

Across the state, we will need roughly 1 million vehicle chargers to support the 8 million passenger electric vehicles that are anticipated to be on the road by 2030 and even more will be necessary to meet the state's 2035 electric vehicle mandate.

In the building sector, while many jurisdictions have enacted ordinances to support electrification and new construction, a greater effort must be made to help people convert to electric appliances and equipment in their existing homes and businesses. One of the barriers to convert to electric vehicles is the lack of vehicle charging infrastructure in our communities.

Renters and those who live in multi family housing do not always have the option or access to install charging and make necessary upgrades. While more people who live in single family homes can afford to install electric vehicle chargers.

We must plan ahead and assure that people who live in apartments and other multi unit housing or who may park on the street are able to charge their vehicles. In order for us to meet these targets, we must ensure our local partners are developing and implementing solutions that advance California and support our most vulnerable communities.

AB 39 aims to address this by requiring cities and counties with populations of 75,000 or more to create and adopt a plan to meet their electrification goals. This legislation recognizes the leadership that some of our local governments are undertaking in their planning processes and allows them to build on existing plans rather than developing new ones.

Additionally, AB 39 provides guidelines to ensure that plans adopted as a result of this policy focus, of this policy focus on the needs of disadvantaged communities, low income households and small businesses for equitable and prioritized investments in zero emission technologies that directly benefit these groups.

These local jurisdictions are essential partners in meeting California's climate goals because they are best positioned to assess the needs of their residents and businesses with proper planning and strategies across the straight. We ensure all community members have the resources needed to participate in the state's transition. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your.

I vote at the appropriate time. With me today in support of the bill is Brandon Wong on behalf of CalStart and the Building Decarbonization Coalition.

Thank you. You can begin.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Brandon Wong, on behalf of the joint co sponsors to AB 39, the Building Decarbonization Coalition and CalStart, both of whom are nonprofit organizations dedicated to reducing emissions from the building and transportation sectors, respectively.

On the building front, a lot of that work has been concentrated on support supporting Californians in the transition to zero emission heating and home water heating appliances. And that's mainly in the form of heat pumps and heat pump water heaters and so.

On the transportation front, a lot of that work more recently is focused on expanding access to public charging infrastructure for reasons that the assembly members already noted. We know that for people who live in multifamily homes, they are particularly reliant on public charging infrastructure, either at retail centers, at workplaces, or or along public corridors.

And so all of this work does require the support and partnership of local governments either to help plan for new charging sites or to help address and identify and resolve different local permitting, planning, or zoning barriers that can make it unnecessarily difficult for either homeowner to install a heat pump at their property or make it difficult for a developer to site a new EV charging station in places where customers really want them.

And so, for these reasons, we thank you, Sam, for introducing the bill and we urge you for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Okay. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any me toos?

Good morning, Madam Chair. I'm Sean Bellach, a legislative advocate for the California Association of Realtors. Want to thank Assemblyman Zbur for working with us on amendments. We're here in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any me toos in opposition? We will bring it back to committee. Any questions from colleagues? Okay. Do we have a motion? Motion and a second. Would you like to close, Mr. Zbur?

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. Respectfully ask for your I vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. That is out on a B roll call with Mr. Ta voting I. Thank you. Next we'll have Ms. Rodriguez up and you are presenting AB 1129. You can begin when you're ready.

Members, I am proud to present AB 1129, a measure that seeks to expand availability of an important public health tool to local health jurisdictions as we strive to better understand the health status status of our communities and that of our youngest residents who reside in them.

AB 1129 allows local health jurisdictions to make birth defects and some health conditions that occur in a child's first year of life reportable so that a county can implement monitoring and reporting.

Monitoring birth defects and related health conditions in a child's early life is a sound, reliable way of recognizing and responding to important health trends in our local districts. Every state in the country performs some type of birth defects reporting, as does California.

However, the California Birth Defects Monitoring Program has limited resources and is only funded to operate in 10 counties statewide. It's important to note that AB 1129 comes with no state costs and does not require any action by any health jurisdiction. It is an opt in measure that local health authorities can avail themselves of if they choose.

Jurisdictions that decide to do their own monitoring will be able to collect data to improve their health care services and allow for more rapid identification of potential exposures harmful to the general population. Speaking in support of AB 1129 is Martha Guerrero, Legislative Representative for Los Angeles County.

Thank you. You can begin.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Members. Martha Guerrero, representing Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, sponsor of AB 1129, and we thank Assemblymember Rodriguez for her leadership in authoring this important legislation. We agree with the committee's analysis that there is no cost to the state.

California's birth defects monitoring program is currently limited to 10 counties to monitor communicable diseases, foodborne illnesses and a narrow set of conditions. The passage of AB 1129 would allow for all local health jurisdictions, at their own expense, to monitor and report birth defects, perinatal conditions without incurring any new cost to the state. Therefore, we.

We respectfully request your I vote.

Thank you. If you have additional folks in support?

Chair and members, Kathy Mossberg with the First Five Association in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee. Any questions from colleagues? Okay. Do we have a motion?

We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, chair and members for hearing this bill today. My co author as my Assemblymember Schiavo and I represent districts near the devastation and tragedy of the LA wildfires as well as where a landfill and debris in close proximity could be impacting the health of our communities as we speak.

This legislation has taken added meaning and significance. Had it already been in effect now, we could be tracking the impacts of those wildfires and the impact to our ground and water at this moment. So we appreciate you hearing this and respectfully request an I vote.

Thank you.

That is out with Republicans not voting with Mr. Tangipa voting. I thank you. Thank you. Next up we have Mr. Ahrens. You are presenting AB 1332 and you can begin when you're ready.

Thank you so much. Madam Chair and Members, here to present AB 1332. Cannabis was first legalized in the State of California because it was recognized for its medicinal uses. As we know, cannabis has been legalized for recreational use and legal use to Marijuana for recreational uses and has grown exponentially. However, there's growing recreational market.

Some of the most in need patients who need access to medicinal Marijuana have struggled to get access to the products that they need. AB 1332 focuses on those who are in most need, the seriously ill population.

For patients within California, this population is made up of those who have exhausted every other option for treatment and who are looking for comfort and effective solution.

AB 1332 would provide a narrow authorization for cannabis outdoor cultivation micro businesses to ship medicinal cannabis products directly to the patient's home through an interstate commercial carrier only after they've received a valid medical documentation for that specific patient from their physician families and caregivers are already expending so much of their energy to care for their sick loved ones.

Having to travel for hours around California to find a product just for these patients to have some comfort is a burden for them to ease. With me today is Pam Lopez with the Society of Cannabis Clinicians who can speak to the technical aspects of this Bill.

Great.

Thank you.

Good morning. Pam Lopez, on behalf of the Society for Cannabis Clinicians as well as Jade Nectar, there is a small population, roughly 4 to 6,000 individuals in California who are very ill and work directly with medical doctors to use cannabis as their medicine.

These are pediatric patients with epilepsy or other severe genetic conditions, those who are experiencing dementia and other illnesses that plague folks as they get older. And it is very difficult for them to find their medicine because as assemblymember Ahrens shared, it's not profitable to produce very small batches of medicinally oriented cannabis in California.

The Department of Cannabis Control anticipates minor and absorbable costs on this bill because it is so narrow. This is something that we can get right for those very sick Californians. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional folks in the room? Wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in Opposition. Any additional folks wish to express opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Mr. Tangipa.

I just wanted to thank the author. I have a family Member of mine who has severe Parkinson's who cannot drive. So this would help them and thank the author for thinking about them. Thank you.

Great. Do we have any other questions? Comments to the motion? Motion a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye.

Great. That is out on an A roll call with Mr. Ta not voting. Thank you. Next up we have Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett, you are presenting AB 1056 and you can begin when you are ready.

Thank you very much Madam Chair and Members. AB 1056 will allow current gillnet fishermen to continue to fish for as long as they want, but restricts the transfer of the permits after 2027 except for a one time transfer to a family Member.

Allowing a one time family Member transfer recognizes the importance of family run fishing businesses and gives permit holders a final opportunity to pass on their livelihoods. This is a common sense gradual reform and the state costs are very minimal. With me today is Caitlin Burch from Oceana.

Thank you. Good morning Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 1056. My name is Caitlin Burch, marine scientist with Oceana. This bill proposes a gradual low cost transition away from the use of monofilament set gill nets in Southern California.

A non selective gear type that has long been under scrutiny for its ecological impacts and banned up and down the coast of California for its ecological and economic harm. From a fiscal standpoint, AB 1056 is designed to minimize impact to the state. Administrative costs to the Department of Fish and Wildlife are minor and absorbable.

While a reduction in renewal or transfer fee revenue is expected over time, it is offset by reduced workload and lower enforcement costs. The current revenue coming from active fishers will remain and continue as continue fishing as they continue fishing and renewing their permits annually along with the family Member they transfer their permit to.

We appreciate the Committee's thoughtful review of AB 1056 and respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional folks in the room wish to express support please name organization and position.

Scott Webb, Director of Advocacy with the Resource Institute. Providing a me too for Resource Institute, also Turtle Island Restoration Network, Endangered Habitats League, Nature Defense Council, Hollywood Divers, Fish on and Animal Wellness Action. Thanks so much.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members. I was asked to convey the strong support of Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Monterey Bay Whale Watch, Environment Law Society At UCI Law, Heal the Bay, Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust and the Environmental Protection Information Center. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional witnesses in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions for Mr. Bennett? Okay. Do we. We have a motion and a second. Great. Would you like to close, Mr. Bennett?

Mile long fish nets should eventually be banned in California. They are every place except a small area. Thank you very much. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Bennett, for your work on this. That is out on AB roll call. Thank you. Up Next, we have Mr. Berman, you are presenting AB408. You can begin when you're.

Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair and colleagues. AB 408 is a bill sponsored by the Medical Board of California to allow for the creation of a physician health and wellness program that allies with nationally recognized best practices for protecting patients and connecting doctors with the help they need to continue practicing safely.

While evidence shows that health and wellness programs encourage practitioners to receive care for substance use disorder and other conditions by reducing stigma and promoting treatment, the medical board has not offered a program for its licensees for nearly 18 years.

AB 408 will allow the medical board to establish a new health and wellness program that addresses issues with the prior diversion program while not changing any of the requirements for physicians referred to the program because they harmed a patient or committed malpractice. So just to reiterate, if a patient harmed a.

If a doctor harmed a patient or committed malpractice, this bill does not apply to them. Fundamentally, this bill is about protecting patients by encouraging doctors to seek and receive care before their condition impacts their practice. Most importantly for this committee, there are no state costs associated with the bill. And I respectfully ask for your I vote today.

And with me are Aaron Bone with the Medical Board and George Soares on behalf of the California Medical Association. Just for technical questions, but to introduce themselves very quickly.

Good morning, members. Aaron Bone with the Medical Board of California. Appreciate Mr. Berman's partnering with us and we're happy to answer any questions.

Good morning, chair and members. George Soares with the California Medical Association. Just really happy to support this bill and thank you to both Assemblymember Berman and the Medical Board. Happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Do we have additional folks in the room that wish to express support?

Please name organization and position.

It's Ryan Spencer on the behalf of the American College of OBGYN's District 9 and the California Society of Pathologists both in support.

Matt La Jay with SEIU California in support.

Cheryl Marcell, California Society of Addiction Medicine. Also for the California Public Protection and Physician Health Wellness Organization in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition?

Any additional folks in opposition? We will bring it back to the committee. Any questions? We have a motion. A second. Any question? Oh, Ms. Dixon.

Thank you, Mr. Berman, for bringing this bill forward. I thought it was a no brainer. However, interestingly, I received a number of communications from district residents, so I looked into this. And so I'm pleased that we're bringing this before the Appropriations Committee.

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, but this is what the constituents have been concerned about. Want these doctors to get help, but they feel they have not been getting the help because the programs have not been funded, if that is correct. So you've brought this forward and we're in the Appropriations Committee.

I hope it gets funded because this is what people need. They wanted me to oppose the bill because they didn't trust that the program would be funded. So I'm speaking on the record to encourage the funding because it is essential to protect consumers of work, patients of doctors, obviously, who may suffer from some medical addiction issues.

So, please, let's fund this bill. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. And any other questions? Okay, we have a motion. A second. Mr. Berman, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your I vote.

Well, thank you. That is out on an a roll call with Mr. Tangapa voting no. And next we will. Let's do Ms. Caloza. Yes. And Mr.

Valencia, if you are listening to us, if you could come down to present, that would be greatly appreciated. Mr. Valencia. Paging Mr. Valencia. Okay, Ms. Caloza, you can begin.

Thank you. Chair Wicks, what a pleasant surprise. We're used to going last being on the Committee, but good morning everyone and colleagues. I'm proud to present AB546, or as I like to call it, clean air for all, which would require health care service plans to provide coverage for effective portable HEPA purifiers for our most vulnerable Members.

As this background, the January wildfires in Southern California, as many of us remember, severely worsened air pollution and released dangerous pollutants like lead, asbestos and silica, all of which cause long term respiratory harm. I have experienced firsthand the health effects of wildfire smoke.

When I visited many of my constituents and surveyed the impact of the wildfires, my office and I moved with urgency for weeks, along with many of my colleagues in the Assembly, to assist a lot of our community Members.

And we delivered hundreds of water bottles masks to various shelters, businesses and senior centers and families in dire need of supplies.

And although I had my N95 mask to get me through the weeks that followed, the thought that the wildfire smoke may have pushed many of my constituents with asthma, COPD and those who are pregnant to visit the emergency room to seek additional prescribed medication due to these conditions and the air quality really troubled me.

And so I'm really proud to present this bill and Speaker Rivas is a co author as well to ensure that we continue to provide more services and support to our most vulnerable who are impacted by air pollution.

And also just wanted to note that we did accept a amendments in the Health Committee to reduce the cost of this bill .And so with me today to testify, Sophia Rafikova from the Coalition for Clean Air.

Yes, good morning Chair Wicks Committee Members Sophia Afrikoa the Coalition for Clean Air and we are statewide nonprofit working to protect public health, improve air quality and Prevent Climate Change.

AB546 is a win win for California because it incurs minimal costs on the state budget and offers the state significant public health cost savings by reducing the number of hospitalizations caused by wildfire smoke exposure. California faces more frequent and intense wildfires as a result of climate change.

Wildfires release particulate matter pollution into the atmosphere, which causes a variety of health impacts ranging from headaches and irritation to asthma, heart and lung disease. Lung cancer and can often have deadly consequences for those already struggling with respiratory cardiovascular health issues.

During a wildfire smoke is not only a significant hazard outdoors, but can also enter homes through windows, doors and ventilation Systems.

Prologuing exposure AB546 would protect Californians from exposure to particulate matter indoors by requiring health care service plans to include coverage for high efficiency particulate air purifiers for those who are pregnant or diagnosed with a respiratory disease and living in an area declared under a wildfire emergency.

By filtering out almost all traces of smoke inside homes, these heap of purifiers would help prevent hospitalizations and protect the health of most vulnerable Californians. Studies show that hospitalizations caused by wildfire smoke exposure cost our state $213,000 per day and $217 million per year in medical costs.

With General Fund costs estimated at only $49,000, AB546 could save Californians up to 4,000 times that amount per year and decrease fire hospitalizations and fewer lost work days. In order to allow those struggling to breathe to feel safe inside their homes and to provide preventative care for those caught in a wildfire emergency, we urge you to vote.

Eye on AB546. Thank you.

We've got a motion. Okay. And we have a second. Okay. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support, Any primary witnesses in opposition. Any additional witnesses in opposition, we'll bring you back to Committee. We have any questions? We have a motion. A second. Would you like to close?

Thank you, colleagues, and thank you to my witness. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much for your leadership. This is out with Republicans not voting with that Next we will have. Ms. Calderon, you are presenting on AB942 and you can begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. AB 942 makes balanced revisions to existing solar subsidy programs that will create greater energy, greater equity and energy for all. Nearly 30 years ago, California launched rooftop solar subsidies when the industry was new to spur investment.

Today, however, these subsidies have led to a cost shift onto non solar customers to ensure the grid is maintained. This cost shift amounted to an estimated $8.5 billion last year alone and is expected to increase in future years. But these are not just my numbers.

This cost shift has been identified by the CPUC Public Advocates Office, turn, the NRDC and economists. In total, the cost shifts onto non solar customers is roughly 1/4 of a non solar customer's energy bill. This bill would provide real cost savings for working families following amendments taken in policy Committee. This bill has zero cost to the public.

I will also be taking amendments on the Assembly floor to clarify that this bill only applies to to IOU customers and exempts school and agricultural solar customers from this bill. Here with me today in support is Rachel Koss with the Coalition of California Utility Employees and Scott Wech.

Madam Chair. Madam Chair.

Scott. Scott Wech on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers. 10 million IRU customers in California, 2 million have rooftop solar. 8 million do not that 80% of your constituents subsidize the 20% to the tune of $8.5 billion. And it's growing by about $1.0 billion a year. So what does this bill do?

This bill will save ratepayers 3.6 billion non solar ratepayers $3.6 billion between between now and 2045 when we need to meet our carbon goals. And it will redistribute $220 million a year in the climate credit from people who are already receiving this very rich subsidy on their rooftop solar. They really don't need the climate credit.

And so the bill would redistribute that $220 million to all of your constituents who don't have the luxury of having solar because they live in apartments, they live in shady areas, or they just can't afford to put solar on their roof. So for all those reasons of equity, we would urge, and I vote.

Good morning, Rachel Koss.

If you could turn the mic on. Good morning, Rachel Koss. On behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Employees. Electricity bills are high in California. There are two main drivers. One, wildfire production prevention and two, net energy metering.

Nearly half of PG's residential rate increase above inflation from 2018 to 2024 was because of the net energy metering subsidy half. Because of this, non Solar customers paid $8.5 billion extra in 2024 and 25% of their electricity bills went to paying the for this subsidy.

So if a customer without solar has an electricity bill of $100, $25 of that $100 bill went to pay for somebody else's rooftop solar. I mean that is astonishing. Meanwhile, solar customers get to avoid paying 82 to 91% of their share of costs.

This is because they get paid for exported energy at the retail rate which is currently about 40 to 50 cents per kilowatt hour. And they get to avoid paying the retail rate for all electricity that they self consume. Just to put this into perspective. So they avoid paying 40 to 50 cents per kilowatt hour.

Under the new tariff adopted by the Commission, solar customers are paid about $0.06 per kilowatt hour. So. So legacy customers $0.40 per kilowatt hour. New solar customers $0.06 per Kilowatt hour. This inequity hits low income customers, renters and customers in hot inland climates the hardest. This bill will help reduce that inequity.

Its two measures will save a little over three and a half $1.0 billion over the next 20 years and it won't cost the state anything. I really quickly want to address the rooftop solar industry's claim that the bill would break NEM contracts. This is 100% false.

There is no such thing as a contract for the NEM rate structure. The NEM rate structure was created by the CPUC. They have complete jurisdiction over it and they can change it at any time. Thanks.

Great. Do we have additional folks in the room? Wish to express support? Please Name, organization and position.

Kent Kous on behalf of San Diego Gas and Electric and support.

Ignacio Hernandez. On behalf of Term, the Utility Reform Network and support.

Now do we have primary witnesses in opposition? You can. Are you primary witness in opposition? Yeah. You can come sit up here if you'd like. If you could turn on the mic. Yeah. Thank you.

Brad Hevner, Executive Director of the California Solar and Storage Association. First off, this is not the story that utilities tell of wealthy Californians getting too much savings. This is working class Californians trying to save, stabilize their energy rates. They sign long term lease agreements with the expectation of savings over time.

And that is absolutely a breaking of a contract because the interconnection agreement that is signed by the utility and the customer is effectively a contract and it incorporates the NEM tariff within it. So it is a violation of federal contract law. Hopefully we don't have to Go there.

Surprising that this bill gets a designation of zero fiscal impact. This would require a detailed review by the PUC in a proceeding to work out tricky details. The bill says that when a property with solar is sold, it loses its net metering status.

So are utilities going to start receiving notice from the counties of D transfers or are they going to go by a change in the name on the utility account?

And if it's that, how are they going to know if the name change was due to something other than the sale of the property, for instance, death of a spouse or a divorce or a new tenant? And will the property automatically get transferred with the customer having to then come back and appeal that?

And will there be an enforceable timeline for the utilities to respond to such appeals? And how are we going to treat renters? All of these are difficult questions. And normally when a PUC proceeding is required to implement a bill, it gets a very high fiscal estimate, which is probably a good conservative thing to do.

This bill got opposite treatment. Even after the detailed rules are worked out by the PUC, there will be disputes that they have to resolve. And you know, the utilities currently are not in the real estate business of reviewing real estate sales of the customers or rental agreements from the customers.

Getting them involved in that gives the PUC another thing to regulate when they're already overburdened. The one big reason why we have this crisis in California of high electric rates is the PUC does not have the resources to effectively do a very difficult job of managing and reining in runaway utility rates.

Let's keep them on this that job and not throw customers under the bus with a lot of PUC regulation for this bill.

Thank you. We have additional folks in the room. Wish to express opposition. Please name organization and position.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors with the current position of opposing less amended, but with them coming out, we will be reviewing. Thank you.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the Environmental Working Group in respectful opposition.

Mckinley Thompson Morley on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association in opposition. Thank you.

Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association and Pearl X opposed.

Good morning again. Sean Belak with California Association of Realtors in opposition.

Great. And do we have any questions or comments from Members? Yes. Mr. Tangipa.

I do want to thank the author for bringing this forward with the focus on trying to reduce rates. A lot of people are thinking about this is something that my office has been inundated by constituents, cities, the county that I used to work for against the spill just because of a lot of things that are going on.

And as a realtor myself too, you know, this is an area that we've priced into homes on the appreciated value this that a lot of people would lose their appreciated value. And I look forward to working with the author as well. To the opposition too.

I do think that there are other ways like including large scale hydroelectrical facilities onto the green and renewables portfolio so that way we can all work together to reduce cost. And I am going to be opposed to this bill because of my constituents, but I look forward to working with everybody, focusing on reducing rates for everyone.

Ms. Kaluza. Thank you. Chair Wicks, thank you to the author, Assembly Member Calderon, as well as all the stakeholders who came out for and in opposition to this.

I know it took a lot of your time to get here and I know there was obviously an arduous and long process in the UNE Committee which I did watch because this is a bill that I have gotten a tremendous amount of feedback on as well in my district and it's one that has, as we know, a history.

There's been many iterations of this bill. And so maybe I can just ask the author a few questions to really clarify for folks who are watching, especially my constituents in District 52, about how this would impact us. As you know, I represent Northeast la, East LA and South Glendale.

So the service territories that I have is DWP Glendale Water and Power as well as SoCal Edison.

So for folks who are less familiar with the Alphabet soup of all the different terms that we use, can you just one just share who exactly this impacts between, you know, an iou, what that is and then who this doesn't impact, like for instance, some of the public utilities.

Yes. So just to be clear, this bill would only impact those in the IOU service territories. So Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric and PGE would have no impact on any of the MUNIS LE DWP0.

So just that portion of your district which I think you said is east la, that's Southern California Edison, those are the only ratepayers that would be affected by this bill.

Got it. Thank you for clarifying that. I mean, for me, I remember when I was and I know I say this a lot because I have to keep coming back to it.

When I was on knocking on doors in East LA in my path to get here, this was not the conversation I was having with people at the door.

It wasn't about solar, rooftop and these types of projects because they weren't Even at that point, from some of the folks that I talked to in the households I spoke to in east la, really the number one concern that I heard on the ground was how do we make living in LA more affordable?

How do we make living in California more affordable? And, and I know that was really the mandate that I came here with. And that was, I know something that as a caucus, especially our speaker really gave us a mandate for.

And so that was some of the things that I heard in the testimony was this would lower the cost of rates for non solar customers. Can you explain a little bit more about how that would happen, how this would benefit non solar customers, especially like mine in East La, who would be impacted by. By this?

Yes, I'm going to actually let Rachel explain that, but just want to say one thing. One of the reasons I brought this bill forward is because my district is completely in an IOU service territory. And I have about 14,200 solar, rooftop solar customers in my district out of 500,000 constituents.

So that means 97% of my constituents are subsidizing those with solar. And I don't know that those that are subsidizing solar even know it. I really don't. I guess that they probably don't. And then the second point I wanted to make is that care customers who are the low income, those are the low income customers.

It's a special rate in San Diego gas and electric service territory. The. The care customer's Solar subsidy is $22 a month. That's a lot of money for somebody that's supposed to be on a low income rate. So we have to have this conversation. That's why I'm bringing this bill forward.

We have to address this if we're really serious about affordability and, you know, having equity and energy. So I'm going to let Rachel answer the rest of your question.

Thank you. So right now, low income customers in hot climates have an energy burden of about 5 to 10% of their household income, which is huge. One of the biggest contributors to that huge electricity bill is net energy metering. Metering the NEM subsidy.

As I said before, in 2024 customers statewide, non solar customers statewide paid an extra $8.5 billion to cover that subsidy. And what we're trying to do with this bill is to shrink that subsidy. And so these two measures will save non solar customers about three and a half $1.0 billion.

The reason that the NEM subsidy got so large is because it is tied to retail electricity rates. As retail electricity rates go up that NEM subsidy also goes up, and that's because solar customers on the NEM tariff get paid at the retail rate for any electricity that they export to the grid.

And they also get to avoid paying that retail rate for any electricity that they generate and self consume. So they essentially avoid paying a huge amount of the cost to maintain the grid. Right now it's about 8082% of the costs they get to avoid.

And all of the costs that they avoid have to be paid by somebody and they end up being paid by everybody. Without rooftop solar.

Yes, and I finished my line. Sure. Yeah, you can finish. But I would also like to hear the opposition's response as well. But Ms. Clause, if you want to. No, go ahead.

Okay. These numbers are false. The utilities make money by building grid capacity. The more they spend on the grid, the more profit they make. So they are incentivized to spend money actually inefficiently, in addition to building things that may not be needed. And so they, they view us as competitive pressure.

Solar allows them to build less grid capacity. When you generate more locally, you need to have less grid to deliver energy from faraway sources. Utilities don't like that. And that's why they have concocted this, this, this math that blames high rates on solar customers instead of on their own runaway spending. Customers do not get paid.

The reduction in sales by utilities to rooftop solar customers are not an expense for the utilities. Nowhere is it a payment or is it on their ledgers as a cost. Solar customers do buy less energy from the utilities. We want people to buy less energy for the utilities. We've always encouraged that. We should continue to encourage that.

Utilities still have a strong job to do. There's lots to build without this. And we should appreciate the fact that solar customers have allowed the utilities to have taken weight off the grid. So less grid capacity needs to be built.

Thank you. Ms. Kalusa, did you have other questions?

I did. I mean, I'm just going to push back a little bit to the opposition. You know, I did a lot of reading on this bill and obviously it has a long history here in the Legislature.

You know, the public advocate's office, which is here to advocate for ratepayers and the public, you know, put out a report that talked about the cost of this program to non solar customers.

And so, you know, I'm not defending the supporters of this bill, but I think the public does deserve to know that, you know, these are not nonsense numbers that we just made up, but there's actual reports out there put out by the CPUC, which you referenced earlier, that really highlights the cost of this.

And really that's my focus is how do we lower the cost of what living for our constituents? Because that's what I have to go back to. And so I just want to just state that for folks who are watching at home.

And I'm not asking a question so you don't have to respond, but I did want to follow my questioning with Assemblymember Calderon and her testimony. And just really, I think the last question that I had was really around wildfire costs because that's top of mind for me.

I represent the district that's next to Assemblymember Harry Bedian, who represents Pasadena, Altadena area.

And that's something that I get asked a lot about by my constituents, is for folks who are on the NEM and MBT program who are benefiting from this, are they paying for and are they contributing to helping with fire mitigation costs that are taking a tremendous amount of know money and investment right now, taking up a lot of our time here in the Assembly.

Can you just share a little bit more about that?

So customers on the NEM tariff get to avoid paying about 80%, 76 to 82% of those of those costs. Those costs are embedded in the retail rate. And so when NEM customers avoid paying the retail rate for all of the energy they consume, they avoid paying for a large majority of those costs.

Those costs then get shifted onto non solar customers.

Thank you for sharing. You know, for me, I hear some of the points from the opposition, including from a lot of the environmentalists. You know, I support the solar rooftop industry just to make it clear and you know, want to make sure that we continue to invest in clean energy technology.

But really I know what my mandate is in coming up here to Sacramento and we have to do more to lower the cost of rates, especially utility bills. So I will be supporting this bill today and I know that and trust in the author to continue working on this bill with opponents.

And I know she referenced the amendments that she'll be making on the floor as well. So thank you.

Can I respond to the question on wildfire costs?

No, that's okay. We're, we're going to move on to any other questions that we have. Another question for Ms. Mr. Gonzalez.

Thank you. To the author. Thank you all. I sat on UN Committee and did listen to this and I want to just restate the fact that customers don't pay rates, they pay bills. So let's clarify that piece of it as well. My district is 85% renters. And this is a classic case where greedy beat the needy.

And that's what I'm seeing. So I want to know and kind of piggyback on what Ms. Kaloza said about how many non solar folks are subsidizing those with non solar. I feel that my district, which is the fifth poorest district in the state, is subsidizing those with that luxury.

The answer is zero. It's the opposite effect. That more solar reduces the need for utilities to spend money on the grid. It's an overall net savings of for non solar customers.

So we should appreciate the fact that these customers have responded to the signals from the great from the state to install those systems and reduce costs for everybody.

But. But that's for those who can. No, no.

It brings down the total cost of the whole system for all ratepayers.

If you can meet me and tell me in downtown, we can do that, I'd love to see it. But I would love to have the author respond.

Yeah, I'd like my witness to respond. Rachel?

Yeah. That theory that opposition has just stated has been completely debunked by the Public Advocate's office, by Severin Bornstein. Severin Bornstein wrote, I don't know, 15 pages debunking it. It's not up for debate. I mean, it's just ridiculous. The reality is 10 million non solar customers are subsidizing 2 million solar customers.

Other questions from Committee. Great. Do we have a motion? We have a motion. And a second. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'd like to also thank the Committee for helping my staff work on this bill. And thank you to my colleagues for your thoughtful questions and comments. I do appreciate it. You know, I know that these are hard conversations. Sometimes we have easy bills and sometimes we have hard bills.

And this is one of those that's a little bit more challenging. But, you know, I'm grateful to be able to have this discussion on behalf of all of our constituents. And, you know, I just want to say that, look, I think absolutely, solar and storage is such an important part of our clean energy future.

And, you know, one day, hopefully we'll all be able to have it and afford it. But right now we've got to figure out how we pay for that. And it shouldn't be on the shoulders of our constituents. We have to do better. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Ms. Calderon. I'll be Supporting the Bill today. I know you made a lot of amendments in the last Committee. I think you have other amendments you're looking to make. This is a controversial issue, but, you know, our job is not easy. I appreciate you diving into the space.

I do want to Reserve my right to change my vote on the floor, but I want to give you the opportunity to keep the bill moving forward so we can keep having the conversation, because I do think you're raising an important issue. But with that, as I said, I'll be supporting the bill today.

The bill is out with Republicans not voting, along with Mr. Hart, Ms. Pellerin and Mr. Arambula also not voting, with Mr. Tangopa voting no. And Mr. Ta voting aye. Did you get. Y' all get that? Okay. All right. Thank you very much. And with that, we have. Mr. Valencia is up next and he is presenting AB967.

And Mr. Valencia, you can begin when you are ready.

Thank you and good morning, Madam Chair and members. AB 967 seeks to expedite licensures for out of state physicians during a time when we were experiencing delays in the licensure process and we have a physician shortage in the state of California. With me to provide any technical question answers is Kevin Guzman with the California Medical Association.

Thank you. You can begin.

Kevin Guzman with the California Medical Association, proud sponsors of the bill. And here just answer any technical question questions.

Great. Thank you. Any folks in the room wish to express support? Name, organization? Anyone? Okay. Opposition. Are you a primary witness in opposition or a me too? Primary. Step on up to the plate.

Morning, Madam Chair and members. Aaron Bone with the Medical Board of California. The board shares the author's desire to increase the volume of qualified health care providers in California. But we are regretfully opposed to AB 967 as it will increase the board's workload without making a meaningful reduction in the application timeframes to process these applicants.

Because the board will not issue a license until all requirements are met. The key reason why an application can appear to be delayed is because the board must wait for the applicant to provide missing information or documentation needed to complete our review.

Furthermore, applications can require additional time to review if the applicant has a criminal history, administrative discipline, postgraduate training issues, or other unusual circumstances that warrant further evaluation in order to protect consumers.

Also, the authority in the bill to charge a fee to qualified applicants is unclear as the board does not follow a different process when reviewing expedited applications. We appreciate the multiple interactions with the author's office and sponsor, but we are respectfully opposed to this bill as it increases.

Our workload is not expected to make a substantial reduction in the time needed to review an application and issue a license. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, Mr. Valencia?

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill does not cost anything to the state or the general fund. Respectfully ask for this vote.

We like bills that don't cost anything. That is out on an a roll call. Thank you. Okay. I would like to dispense with the suspense calendar.

Madam Secretary, would you please read the suspense calendar?

Assembly Bill 8, 27, 53, 97, 231, 232, 245, 258, 289, 330, 353, 397, 398, 429, 461, 470, 480, 547, 557, 569, 585, 591, 601, 613, 649, 650, 654, 659, 715, 725, 782, 849, 886, 906, 944, 955, 960, 984, 986, 997, 1032, 1037, 1048, 1088, 1099, 1113, 1138, 1145, 1156, 1161, 1192, 1200, 1232, 1253, 1296, 1313, 1324, 1419, 1482, 1485, 1502, 1503 and 1530.

The suspense calendar is deemed approved. With that, we will now go to general public comment. I'd like to open up the hearing to comment by any member of the public on any bill presented to the committee today. Please be sure to limit your comments to your name, organization, if any, and your position on the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Cliff Berg here in support of AB 715, authored by Mr. Zbur, Assembly Member Addis and all the chairs of the diversity caucuses to address the rising surge of anti Semitism. Here today for JPAC the Jewish Public Affairs Committee, 30 Years After, Adat Shalom Los Angeles, Israel of California, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti Defamation League, the Nay David Judea Congregation, Beverly Hills Synagogue, California Jewish Democrats, California Teachers Association, Jewish Affairs Caucus, Congregation Beth Shalom, Democrats for Israel Orange County, Hadassah Hillel of San Diego, the Holocaust Museum of Los Angeles, JCC Federation of San Luis Obispo, JCRC of the Bay Area, JCRC of Greater Santa Barbara, JCRC of the Sacramento Region, Jewish Center for Justice, Jewish Community Action Network, Jewish Community Federation Endowment Fund, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Democratic Club of Marin.

Jewish Democratic Coalition of the Bay Area, Jewish Family and Children's Services Long Beach and Orange County, Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties, Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara, Jewish Federation of Orange County, Jewish Federation of San Diego, Jewish Federation of Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, Jewish Federation of Sacramento Region ,Jewish Free Loan Association, Jewish Long Beach, Jewish Silicon Valley, National Council of Jewish Women, San Francisco Orthodox Union, the Simon Wiesenthal Center ,Stand With Us, and Teach Coalition.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. I'll add one more. Randy Pollack in my capacity as President Mosaic Law Congregation in Sacramento in support of AB 715.

Morning, Madam Chair. Chris McKayley on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce in support of AB 1138 by Mr. Zbur, the motion picture tax credit. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Greetings and salutations. I'm Tabia Lee, a co founder of Free Black Thought, senior fellow with Do No Harm Medicine. Speaking as an individual lifelong educator here in California in support of AB 715. Thank you for your courage in acting to install some form of accountability around the rampant antisemitism and Jew hatred that has been allowed to persist in our educational system. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Karim Drissi on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, proud sponsor of AB 782 by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. We're grateful for the committee's consideration and respectfully request your I vote on this fast track housing package measure at the appropriate time. Thank you so much.

Durazo Manning on behalf of California State Treasurer Fiona Ma, proud sponsor of AB 984, proud co sponsor of AB 53 and AB 258.

Good morning. Kiara Ross on behalf of the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Stockton in support of AB 330. And the cities of San Marcos, town of Truckee, and the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members on behalf of, onto the part of AB 650. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Governments or SANDAG, in support of AB 650 by Assembly Member Papan. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Jason Weiner with the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Sacramento Region and the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California with all the organizations that Cliff named in support of AB 715. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, members. Marlon Lara with the California Restaurant Association in support of AB 649, Lowenthal. And the Chair's bill AB 671. Thank you.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Podiatric Medical Association and the California Orthopedic Association, the sponsors of AB 1048 asking for your support. Thank you.

Good morning. Cheryl Marcel California Society of Addiction Medicine here in support of AB 425 by Assembly Member Davies.

Thank you. That was a little loud. Sorry about that. With that, we are meeting adjourned.