Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Communications will come to order. Good afternoon. We hold our Committee hearing here in the O Street Building. Ask all Members of the Committee to be present in Room 1200 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing.

We will begin actually as a Subcommittee, but I still ask everyone to to be here. We have four bills on today's agenda. AB 737, Quirk-Silva. Building Decarbonization has been pulled from the agenda by the author. So, we'll hear three bills here today. Okay, so again, we're going to begin as a Subcommitee.

And we welcome Assemblymember Schiavo to present our first Bill today, AB 365.

Assemblymember, go ahead when you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I am very honored today to present AB 365, the Justin Krop Act. I'd like to thank the Committee first for their hard work on this, helping us fine tune this Bill. You know, thousands of journeymen across California are actively playing a vital role in maintaining and improving our state's infrastructure.

Their work is especially critical in ensuring the power and energy demands are consistently met, supporting both residential and commercial needs. Labor safety is a top priority for California, ensuring that journeymen have the necessary training, proactive measures, and industry standards in place to perform their job safely and effectively.

Automated External Defibrillators, or AEDs, are required in health clubs and studios, in newly constructed and modified, renovated large occupancy buildings, fitness centers and public swimming pools. However, California law does not currently require AEDs to be present on electrical work sites, like transmission and distribution lines.

The absence of AEDs can be the difference between life and death for someone who suffers an electrical contact. Each year, approximately 10,000 sudden cardiac arrests occur in the workplace. The use of the AED can increase someone's probability of survival by 70%.

In the event of a heart attack caused by electrocution, an AED is the only treatment that can save a person's life, which is why electrical linemen are trained on use of AEDs during their apprenticeships. If an AED had been present and available at the work site of IABW Local 47, Journeyman Lineman, Justin Krop, when he was electrocuted, he would still be alive today.

That's why we've named this Bill the Justin Krop Act, and as a daughter of an electrician, this is also personally important to me. I've heard far too many stories of my dad and his colleagues being electrocuted on jobs. This is not an if, but a when, in this line of work.

And so, making sure that we have AEDs available on every high voltage job to protect workers is critical. Today, joining me is Worker Rights Attorney, Kipp Mueller, and also Justin's dad, Barry Krop. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead. You each have two minutes.

Great. Mr. Chair, Senators, thank you for your time today and for your—for the opportunity to speak in support of the Justin Krop Safety Act. Justin was the son of Barry Krop, who's here with me today.

He was also a husband, he was a father, and a dedicated electrical lineman, IBEW, who died after being electrocuted on the job. And I never had the privilege of meeting Justin, but I'm proud to say I was his family's Attorney. His life could have been saved if there was an Automated External Defibrillator present, but it wasn't.

And because the closest hospital was over 15 minutes away, that was his only chance of surviving. This Bill addresses a simple but critical gap requiring AEDs on electrical work sites where the risk of fatal cardiac events from electrocution is relatively high. When someone's electrocuted, timing is everything. Brain death begins just four minutes after cardiac arrest.

Emergency services are often out of reach because they're performing this work in the desert or in the mountains. And we already have statutes requiring AEDs in gyms, near public pools. And these are statutes. Electrical work sites create far more risk of heart arrhythmia than a gym or a public pool.

So, it's long past time that we extend that same safety requirement to those doing some of the most dangerous and essential work in our state. We rely on our electrical linemen for everything that we do, for this very hearing we're having today, in the lights above us right now.

And so, this Bill is about making sure that no family has to endure what the Krop family did, losing a loved one simply because the right equipment and the obvious safety equipment wasn't present. So, let's honor Justin's life and the sacrifice of his family.

His father, Barry, his wife, Rachel, his two little boys, Decker and Jamison, by passing the Justin Krop Safety Act. I urge your support for this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Barry Krop, and I'm honored to be and extremely appreciative for the opportunity to stand here and speak before you today. Justin was involved in electrical contact with a de-energized line that was energized by way of induced voltage.

He received an electrical shock that caused his heart to beat out of rhythm, Atrial fibrillation, but prevented his heart from pumping blood and oxygen to his brain. With no available equipment, AED, on site to shock his heart back into rhythm to allow it to pump blood and oxygen efficiently, too much time had passed for any resuscitative effort to be effective.

Justin experienced one—experienced 100% brain death. Having an AED readily available that day would have shocked his heart, putting it back in rhythm to function correctly. In California, there are many contractors and subcontractors that perform work for large power providers—utilities.

Contractors and subcontractors have always had the option to provide AEDs to their employees, but there are many that do not exercise that option. The CPUC Safety Culture and Governance Section's vision is to conceptualize, develop, and implement a transparent safety knowledge base, rules, standards, and metrics that help assure a mature and effective safety culture is promoted and maintained within the utilities the CPUC regulates.

This vision is a proactive approach to safety.

The utility owners regulated by the CPUC have the ability to mandate AEDs and enforce their presence at all work sites where workers are performing high voltage electrical work, including their own employees, contractors, and subcontractors, and this Bill would ensure that it happens. Justin left behind a wife, Rachel, and two little boys, Decker and Jamison.

And he left a hole in the hearts of the family and all that knew him. Passing the Justin Krop Safety Act would significantly increase the odds of survival in the event of an electrical shock while performing high voltage electrical work, in hopes that no other family has to endure what the Krop family has had to.

I'm hopeful that you support the Justin Krop Safety Act in an effort to save others. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm sorry for your loss and thank you for being here today. We will now take others in support.

Chair and Members, Tim Madden representing the California Chapter at the American College of Cardiology in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Martin Vindual, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers and the Coalition of California Utility Employees, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Hunter Stern, on behalf of IBEW Local 1245, in strong support.

Thank you. We will now hear from witnesses in opposition. Do we have lead witnesses? Tweener? Go ahead.

Thank you. Kathryn Borg with Southern California Edison. We are prepared to do a support if amended, based on the analysis today, to have the Bill go through a regulatory process with Cal/OSHA.

We're aware that those amendments are not going to be taken, but we will look at the ones that the author has been willing to take, and we'll get back to the author. We've been continuing the dialogue with the author along the way. So, thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Tweeners? Okay, we'll bring it back now to the Committee. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing this forward. When you said, like a motorcycle, you know, it's not when but if, if or when, and so on. And our linemen that are out there working, you know, I got to turn the clock back for when perhaps some of our Senators weren't here.

We honored Caltrans and all the workers at Caltrans, and we had a big ceremony out in front of the Capitol because so many Caltrans workers had been injured or killed on the job. And we did that as a state. We did that as Members of the Senate and the Assembly.

And for the Justin family, in this case, or Justin's family, you know, I think we need to do the same because these workers are out there providing us with the transmission of electricity that we need, and we have to safeguard everything we possibly can. So, I'm glad you're bringing this forward.

I'm just hoping that we understand that this is a safety requirement that every organization and entity that pertains to working with electricity should have. And I'm hoping we go forward with this, and I will move it at the appropriate time. But again, I want to thank you for bringing it forward.

But I also want to emphasize that whatever team Members and whatever entity utilizes this equipment is well versed on it, so they can act quickly and we can save that life. And I know that Justin would appreciate that, and I know, as he's looking down on us, that we're going forward with this.

So, thank you and congratulations bringing this forward.

Thank you, sir.

Others? Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First, let me thank Barry Krop for being here today. It's a difficult, it's a difficult story to have to tell and—but know that we hear you. None of us want to lose family members because there wasn't safety equipment. So, let me ask the question here.

I did not hear whether you were going to take the amendments that were recommended by the Committee.

Yes.

And so, you will be taking them? And to include the—there is a comment—to require that Cal/OSHA incorporate the requirements for the AEDs.

Let me clarify. Maybe it'd be helpful if I clarify. There was original amendments along those lines. After discussion with the author and the Committee consultants, those amendments were not taken. There are other amendments that I will read. I could read them now.

That would be helpful.

So, just to make sure we're very clear.

At some point, we need to understand what the Bill is because we've got someone who's going to move the Bill. And so, clarity is important. And the reason that I think it's important is that it's rare that the Legislature takes away the authority of the regulatory process incorporating the elements that are necessary.

For example, that there should be a sufficient number of individuals. If he had been out there by himself, this would not have saved him. We want to make sure that there's somebody that can administer the shock treatment, that they be trained.

And I think my colleague referenced that and that there's an understanding on when it should be used and how it should be used.

So, I just want to make sure that we're following the process, which is that we allow the—Cal/OSHA's there for a reason in order to figure out how things are appropriately used, so that we don't end up with a situation where they have it but there's no training, there's no protocols, and it's misused.

So, let me clarify with the amendments that are in there now, which the opposition witness mentioned. So, after discussion, this is based on Washington state law, so, after discussion with the Committee staff and the author, these were the three amendments that are accepted, and I will read those.

Number one, require AEDs at work sites where two or more electric utility employees are performing work on electric distribution and transmission lines that exceeds 601 volts. 601 volts, that's aligned with Washington State regulations. Sounds like she's getting that pointed out very directly. Number two, expand the definition of "Utility" in the Bill to include electrical cooperatives.

Number three, clarify that electric utility or contractor or subcontractor is not civilly liable for damages from emergency use of an AED where reasonable efforts are made to comply with the requirements of Section A in this Bill. I'll give her a moment to digest that. Any other—while she's looking at that—any other questions or comments?

Okay, just give us one moment. So, I read those three, but I think she was pointing those out to you. So, again, because based on the Washington State Bill, the decision was made to move forward with those three—these three specific amendments.

Understood. I just want to make sure that we understand that there's a process. When we do building standards, we don't just decide what the building standards should be. We send them to the Building Standards Commission. And the same—the reason for the process is because we may get the voltage wrong.

What do I know about the voltage and whether it's safe or not, but.

This is based on a federal standard. So, the voltage number that we set here is based on a federal standard and it goes through a CPUC process with a hearing. So, there is a process for making the rule.

That's, that's important to me. There are times we like federal standards and times we don't like federal standards. So, I just want to be clear that there's a process that we use in the State of California.

I also checked with electricians on it.

Well, I appreciate that, but there are reasons that we do send things to agencies to make sure that we have a hearing process where everybody can agree what the details should be, in terms of utilizing equipment that is not traditionally part of the equipment they have on the trucks, right?

So, I thank you for that and I thank you for the clarification as well.

And I'll just add, before my dad passed away in March, I asked him about this Bill, and he said that he had always had AEDs on his. So, I know a number of these utilities are doing the right thing. We just want to make sure everyone is. Thank you.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you. Sorry. So, clarification on these. Just a little more detail because I think it's interesting that Senator Caballero did point out the fact that we're going through the Legislature versus letting the CPUC actually create the rule or the regulation. Kind of curious, why are we going through the legislative process and not through the CPUC system?

This allows for rulemaking in the CPUC.

Okay, so without this, they would not be able to make this possible?

I imagine they probably could, but they haven't.

Was there an effort to do it locally at the CPUC level?

I don't work at the CPUC.

I think perhaps you're...

The CPUC can open—investigate proceeding—but they have not opened a proceeding on this yet.

Yeah, but was there a request to do it? I'm just thinking because we're setting precedents here based on what Senator Caballero has stated. So, I just want to make sure that we have clarity on what we're doing here.

Yeah, we often do direct the CPUC through legislation. We often do direct the CPUC to open proceedings on and make sure they address certain topics. So, I think that is consistent.

I think this is great to know because that means that the Legislature has opportunities in other entities to be able to move forward with, require them not to increase, you know, rates or something. If the legislation can actually come back in state, you know, and oversee the regulatory process. This is great for us to know, I think especially for us that are advocating for local constituents.

So, just want to understand the precedents here on what we're doing. And then, I think the other thing that we are going to be—I know you're always inquisitive with my questioning—but the other question is, is there a?

Because, I mean, we have several people working at different sites all the time. Is there a requirement of distance between where these devices should be? Will they be at every vehicle that's being discharged or is this going to be at the actual sites?

I mean, I think the Bill says—sorry, I'm jumping into that—the Bill says present. They're typically on the vehicles and the vehicles are right there at the sites. And just to note, linemen are trained to use AEDs every year. It's a regular part of the training. They're trained through their apprenticeships. They're trained every year.

They're all prepared to use AEDs. And they were looking for an AED in the case of Justin. And the 911 calls are where's the AED? Why is there not an AED? So, they know how to use them. I think you covered the other question.

But the Public Utilities Code allows them, the CPUC to then go handle how to enforce and make decisions around, you know, AEDs being present or not present in particular situations. So, yeah.

Yeah, thanks.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? Let me—I'm going to consult with the consultant here for one moment here. Give us one second.

Mr. Chair.

Okay, thank you. One quick question.

Sure.

I'm looking at the Bill. What's the penalty if they don't abide by this law?

Requested penalty?

There's not a penalty at this point.

Okay, let's see. Is there—do a clarification on that?

And I should have, I should have clarified existing law allows for the CPUC process to go forward, so.

Yeah, I'll clarify that in my.

By the way, my Vice Chair, I, I, I concur that I think we should do more in the Legislature than we do instead of passing off to bureaucracies, personally. But what, maybe you have the answer, what are, what—what prevents someone just ignoring this law if there's no retribution or accountability?

Yeah. I appreciate it. Thank you. So, Cal/OSHA would enforce this rule, pending an investigation. And you know, my boy's case, Justin's case, they had a fatality out there. Cal/OSHA comes out and investigates. There was nothing there to enforce the standard onto the contractor that was performing work. So, they would—it's a violation.

And they vary depending on level. It could be serious if it happens more than once or more than a couple times, it then can become willful and it's hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential penalty.

So, there is an implication.

Who would be liable, though? I mean, who would be liable under that kind of scenario?

Yeah. I mean, can I call the utility or?

Yeah, we would look for the utilities in their bidding process to mandate AEDs to their contractors and subcontractors, as well as themselves.

Okay.

Once they get a contract and go out and perform work for the utility, they really, potentially the contractor is on the hook for the AED and the availability of it on the job site. And that is punishable by Cal/OSHA after the fact as a result of an incident or serious injury, so. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate you being here, by the way.

Just to add, Public Utilities Code section 2106 is a—there's a cause of action as well for violations of Public Utilities Code sections too.

Okay.

So, there's a private right of action too.

Okay. I just want to make sure that, you know, people just pass something and feel good about it, but there's no enforcement.

Additionally, additionally, I would say that most of these utilities are union, and so, there's also the opportunity for the union to enforce it and ensure that that standard is, is taken.

Okay. Seeing no further questions. Would you like to close?

I am, you know, very grateful and especially grateful to Barry Krop for being here. He traveled from Wyoming, and he has actually made his life's work, since retiring from a utility himself, to educate people on safety standards when it comes to high voltage and electrical work. And so, grateful for his leadership.

You know, all of our hearts, I know are with him for his and his family's loss. And, you know, this is a simple, really simple and very affordable way to literally save people's lives. It's had bipartisan support in the Assembly, passed on consent and respectfully request an "Aye" vote.

Well, thank you. Just a—I have a couple comments. First, thank you for coming out and turning your life's work into this mission. We appreciate it. I remember even before I ran, there was a nonprofit in my community called Racing Hearts.

And I remember the woman who started that coming talk to me is all about access to these Automated External Defibrillators, to the AED's, and educating me on this. So, getting this in these work sites feels like absolutely the right thing to do. To clarify, this will not open a formal CPUC proceeding. This would take the effect of law.

Again, it's based on, as you said, I believe it is a...it's based on the Washington state regulations. So, we aligned in the amendments that we are taking today with, with making sure there's multiple employees, as was mentioned, and that there are lines that exceed 601 volts. So, those align.

So, I want to be—kind of clarify on that. And so, we'll be supporting the Bill. And with that, I'll entertain a motion. I guess we have a motion from Senator Archuleta.

We're a Subcommittees.

We still are Subcommittee. So, we'll not take a vote at this time, but appreciate you being here presenting this Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. One more Member for quorum. So we'll put a call out to one more Member to be here. We are going to. I do see Assemblymember Boerner and we will move to AB 1017. Thank you for being here.

Of course. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members. Californians have some of the highest utility prices in the nation, paying close to double what other residential users do in the United States. Despite these already high rates, California rates have continued to grow exponentially. Many factors contribute to the rising rates. However, one of the largest contributors is IOU profits.

IOU's are allowed to make a profit on capital expenditures, including distribution.

AB 1017 would require an IOU as part of the General rate case to provide the CPUC information, including the authorized and actual rate of return and return on equity for the past 10 years and projects related to the corporation's distribution capacity that include the forecast submitted in the prior General rate case of the corporation.

AB 1017, at its heart, is a transparency Bill. It would ensure that organizations who are ratepayer advocates have more insights into one of the biggest factors in the affordability crisis in California. We should be ensuring that these groups can properly advocate on behalf of ratepayers. This Bill has no opposition. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember. Do you have any witnesses here?

No. This is a Tasha B. Special for those who think none of you are new. zero, you are new. Hello, Senator. This is Tasha B. Special. That means I write my own bills. There's no witnesses. It's just me.

Okay. How about opposition? With any opposition witnesses? See? None. We'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Any discussion here.

I'll move the Bill when it's appropriate.

Well, thank you for your work on transparency. I have a town hall later today on this exact topic about utility rates and obviously been a big topic of conversation in this Committee. I understand the Assembly as well about the increase in rates, why that's happened.

Okay. All right. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And having additional transparency would certainly be helpful. I will be supporting the Bill today. We have a motion for Senator Caballero. Again, we do not have a quorum, but we will take a vote when we do. Thank you for presenting this Bill.

Thank you.

All right, we'll take a brief recess. We have one more Bill and we are waiting for the author. Please hang on. And waiting for one more Member for quorum.

Call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, since we're waiting for Arthur, why don't we call the roll on the first two bills? Shall we do that? Let me know when you're ready. Okay. In a moment, we'll first call the roll on AB365. Schiavo. And I just wanted to clarify for the record that Edison was not here in opposition.

Edison presented as a tweener on this Bill. So I just want to make sure I clarify that.

Okay. Please call the roll. Motion by Archuleta. This do pass as amended, to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Just for one last clarification, we'll read the amendments. Require AD's at work sites where two or more electric utility employees are performing work on electric distribution and transmission lines that exceeds 601 volts. Align with Washington state regulations.

Number 2, expand the definition of utility in the Bill to include electrical cooperatives. Number three, clarify that electric utility or contractor or subcontract is not civilly liable for damages from emergency use of an ad where reasonable efforts are made to comply with requirements of section A in this Bill. Please call the roll.

AB 365 passes amended to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

That Bill is 10 to 0. We will leave it on call. Okay, now we will call the roll on AB 1017 by Boerner. The motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee the motion from Senator Caballero.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill is 11 to 0, and we will leave that on call as well. We're still awaiting our final author.

Okay, we'll ask that we open the roll on AB 365 Schiavo.

Current vote 10-0. [Roll Call]

Okay, that is now 11 to 0 and we will keep it on call.

Do we have any word from Valencia? Okay, we do have an author.

He is here. Assembly Member Valencia, please go ahead. You're going to present AB 1303.

Appreciate that, Mr. Chair. Buenos días, Senators and Committee Members. I am accepting the Committee amendments described in the analysis. I want to thank Sarah for her diligence on this bill as well. Proud to say that AB 1303 is a Latino Caucus priority, and it aims to increase participation in the California LifeLine Program by clarifying that a Social Security number is not needed to qualify.

Additionally, the bill seeks to protect program subscribers' privacy by prohibiting the CPUC and administrators from sharing any personal information with federal immigration authorities without a court issued warrant or subpoena. I think this bill is extremely timely and necessary considering everything that is going on nationally.

AB 1303 is centered on fairness, security, and accessibility, ensuring that Californians can stay connected without unnecessary hurdles or discrimination. California LifeLine is a critical telecommunications program providing discounted cell phone, home, and Internet services to eligible households.

While subscribers do not need a Social Security number to qualify for this program, the current application has deterred individuals from applying. Potential subscribers, such as those without a Social Security number, are fearful of government agencies using their personal information to harm them, even more so in light of the cruel immigration raid taking place in our state and across this nation.

However, I do want to be clear that undocumented Californians are not the only individuals who may not have a Social Security. Those fleeing domestic violence, experiencing identity theft, or the unhoused may not have a Social Security number as well and be deterred from applying to the program if they do not qualify for it. With me to provide testimony is Adria Tinnin, the Director of Race Equity and Legislative Policy at TURN.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Committee. In 2014, the CPUC issued a decision that Social Security numbers are not needed to verify identities of applicants for California LifeLine, the state program specifically. However, the Commission has not implemented the decision to date, meaning that eligible people are being denied access to the program.

Because LifeLine is funded through surcharges on all California phone lines and uses no state dollars, it's likely that many otherwise eligible people have paid to fund Lifeline but have been prevented from enrolling in the program. Furthermore, existing protections from subscriber information have exceptions that could leave customer data vulnerable to inappropriate access by federal immigration enforcement agencies.

AB 1303 offers a thoughtful solution to these problems. First, it makes clear that Social Security numbers are not required for California LifeLine, but still encouraged if available. Second, it maintains access to federal LifeLine funding for people with Social Security numbers and eligible income levels, so there's no change in access to the federal subsidy.

Third, because there will be some applications with a Social Security number and some without, the application now presents a risk to those applying with a Social Security number. And for that reason, 1303 protects subscriber data from inappropriate sharing with immigration enforcement by requiring agencies like ICE to obtain a judiciary warrant or court subpoena.

Lastly, this makes such changes to California LifeLine compliant with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 federal statute to the extent that it may apply. AB 1303 enables a diversity of vulnerable populations to access essential communication services at an affordable rate.

People fleeing domestic violence, people who are unhoused, victims of identity theft are all populations who do not have access to a Social Security number or do not find it within their safety to use or share that number. Furthermore, increasing access to essential communication services improves economic development, civic engagement, enables people to call 911 and to receive emergency notifications like evacuation instructions. Access to communication services can actually save lives. And for all of these reasons, we strongly urge an aye vote for AB 1303. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support in the room who would like to weigh in? Go ahead.

Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the Communication Workers of America, District 9 in support.

Becca Cramer-Mowder with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Electronic Frontier Foundation in support.

Thank you. Okay, do we have any witnesses in opposition to this bill? Any me toos in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Senator Archuleta.

Yeah. Thank you for bringing this forward. Are you being proactive or reactive? Because in light of what's happened this last week or so in Los Angeles, are you getting calls and that's... How did you get this bill so well timed?

You know, I always do say better lucky than good, and by no means do I mean that the situation is is lucky for anyone. But again, to the point that this bill is extremely timely considering the circumstances that we're under. The CPUC actually has the ability to already regulate this if they would like. Unfortunately, they have not done so. So I do think it's important to Legislate this into into law and codify it to ensure that the CPUC does abide by this.

I move the bill at appropriate time.

Appreciate you.

I want to thank you. To me, this is really important. Well, let me just start by the fact that we don't ask for Social Securities to ensure that we're charging only those that are getting the services. You know, we charge everyone, everyone pays equally.

And yet not everyone participates, which I find that to be a travesty because it should be accessible to everyone. On the other hand too, as a victims advocate and as, you know, my work on domestic violence, I mean, there's so many reasons why people don't have Social Security.

The fear of being exposed, those that run from unhealthy relationships and those where there is violence and they're being harmed, they don't want to be found. I mean, there's slew of reasons why they don't come forward. And I think just making sure that everyone has access and keeping people safe is critically important. I also would love to be a co-author on this, and I thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Stern.

Yeah. I want to thank the author. Appreciate the protections in here, especially on the information disclosure front. Do you have a sense just of, there's not maybe a parallel measure but a related measure from Senator Durazo in the same arena trying to build up the LifeLine Program?

We've been trying to get it not just solvent but liquid, where it's really working and money's going out the door. So just any insight you can lend on the state, like how the state versus federal piece is going to work. And, you know, any projections, maybe even from your expert in terms of how demand is going to change over time here and affect state funds? To the author.

Thank you for the question, Senator Stern. With access comes increased usage. That's the hope. To your point, there is plenty of funds in this program. As a matter of fact, the surcharge was actually reduced because there are enough funds to continue the program. So the hope is with eliminating one more access data point, we'll be able to increase the usage of this program statewide.

I would just add, I don't know. Is this on? I would just add and sort of point to the proposed decision that's sitting, waiting to be voted out by the Commission on this issue to implement this issue. So the CPUC already planned to take action on this and has budgeted accordingly. And that was reflected in the PD. They reduced the surcharge from $1.11 to 90 cents.

That included this understanding if this provision were to go through. So they've already accounted for in reducing it, that was considering and inclusive of this measure and increasing enrollment in LifeLine. I would just add that LifeLine enrollment has already increased 25% year over year, and the Commission still decided that it was possible to reduce the surcharge. So the funding is stable.

Great. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Question. Usually Social Security numbers and, you know, we haven't had conversations as far as the domestic violence and folks that are trying to cover their identity. But usually the Social Security numbers are used to prevent fraud in duplicate applications.

Is there any concerns or conversations as to what potential fraud or identities could happen in this space if we did not use the Social Security numbers and what alternatives would the companies use to in order to literally prevent fraud if there were any possible scenarios for that?

Directed to the author, unless you would like to...

Sure. Thank you. It was mentioned in my comments that Social Security number is not required to actually access the program. So we don't believe that by eliminating the potential need of a Social Security number on the application will impact that specific point. Again, it's not required now. So people already have the ability to not provide that information. It's more so a statement to say and it's used as less of a deterrent when it comes to that.

And is, and is there any... And I don't know because I'm not an expert in this space, so I'm just asking questions for for clarity. Are there any cases of fraud within this particular space?

I am not aware. That is not to say that there isn't, but it has not been a point that has been raised in terms of a concern. But maybe if I could ask my...

Yeah. So the Commission did evaluate this in 2014 before coming to that initial decision, and they determined that they are able to verify eligibility without using Social Security number through other mechanisms and to prevent duplicative applications and enrollment. So there have, there has been some fraud discovered throughout the process. They still have mechanisms and remedies to be able to detect that and prevent it and address it without collecting a Social Security number.

Okay. So it was something that was considered and discussed when removing the requirement of...

Correct. And the Commission found that the third party administrator they currently use is able to verify identity and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse without using a Social Security number.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Okay. Senator McNerney.

I thank Chair, I thank the author for bringing this forward. And access to broadband access is really almost an essential to being a productive member of society these days. And I really like your claim that this bill will increase participation. But I'd like to know what is the evidence for that claim? Do you have specific numbers or studies that can bear that out?

For the witness. Go ahead.

Can I have the question repeated? Apologies.

I think the question was, do you have, what evidence do you have that this measure would increase participation?

That's a great question. It's sort of a difficult question to answer because we don't know the full number of people out there who have not applied to LifeLine who would qualify. So what this would do is clarify that you don't need a Social Security number to apply.

So you would still need to meet the income requirements of the LifeLine program, which in California, I believe is 200% of the federal poverty line, and go through the application process. So we will have to find out how many additional applications. But we do think that this has the potential to help hundreds of thousands of people in California access affordable communications.

So there should be some outreach then to make sure that this is more effective in terms of getting more people to participate.

Yes.

Thanks. I'll yield back.

Senator Wahab.

All right, so I appreciate you bringing this forward. I have two concerns. One is the federal funding that may dissipate with the State of California. And then number two, I wanted to see if you'd be willing to take any amendment and work on this a little bit as it moves forward to also protect the data from third party databases. Because that's largely where it's sold. Obviously, not in here. but I just wanted to understand where your concept is if you are working through that.

Sure, happy to take that into consideration. Figure out a way to ensure that privacy at the forefront is at the forefront of this measure. I would also like to point out that what the federal government does is out of our control. Again, this is a California funded program that does not overlap. So I'm confident that with the modification in this capacity and the data points that the CPUC has already put out in terms of its, the liquidity that the program has, it will continue to be productive in this state.

Okay. And I want to be clear, I do want to support this bill, and I think the Chair has heard me say this a million times. I deeply care about our privacy and the fact that it is for sale and it continues to be for sale in ways that we can't even keep up with.

That is a concern. I will say the analysis does say that this will mean cutting us off from about $100 million in federal funds that would need to be made up by ratepayers. Page seven of the analysis. But my biggest concern is the privacy piece, and I bring this up with everybody. So it's not just this bill.

I just want to be very transparent about that. But I'm hoping that there can be some language that is adopted in all bills that basically say if we can identify that there's a third party, that all third parties need to also not give up data to some of these agencies. And the reason why I say that is because right now what we are learning is... Did you want to respond?

Oh, only... I mean, I'm just available.

Okay. Well, the concern is, like, even, for example, folks that are renting cars, their data is being tracked and it's also being sold to third party vendors. Right. And so I just bring this up because I'm hoping that you can, you're not required to, but I'm hoping that you continue to work on this and adopt some language that says third party vendors would also be included from not selling data.

I appreciate you raising that concern. I echo the same sentiment. It's interesting that personal data is sold in many forms. Right. So something that I will definitely take into consideration and have a conversation with your office to see how we can make that work. Absolutely.

Okay. Seeing no more questions. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just would like to state that this was supported on the Assembly floor in a bipartisan manner, and respectfully ask for yes vote.

Excellent. I'll just note again, I'll read the amendment. Usually we read the amendment at the end, but if anyone in the course of a discussion would like me to clarify anything on amendments, please let me know. In this case, amendments align the definition of lawful process in existing law regarding telephone cooperation, telephone corporation customer privacy rights to align with this bill's request requirement for court order, subpoena, or judicial warrant. With that, we have a motion from Senator Archuleta. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that vote is 9 to 1. We will keep that open on call. We'll open the roll for a couple other Members. Give us a moment here.

Great. We will first lift the call on our first item number one. AB365 by Chavo. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that is 13 to 0. Let's open the roll now on. We're going to keep that open. And we're going to open the roll on file 3. AB 1017 by Boerner.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is also 13 to 0. We will hold that one open as well. We will have a brief recess while we wait for other Members. We will reopen the roll and we will start with file item 1. AB365 by Schiavo. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is 14 to 0 and that bill's out. Okay, now we open the roll on file, item 3. File and 2 was pulled by the author. File item 3. AB 1017 by Boerner. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that vote is 14 to 0. That Bill is also out. And now we're going to go to AB 1303 by Valencia. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we're going to keep that open. That is 10 to one for right now. Thank you. We will continue to recess while we we recess again while we wait for some other Members.

The Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee will reconvene in five seconds. Okay, we will reopen the roll. And just on AB 1303. Valencia. Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 11 to 1. That Bill is out. Thank you everyone for your participation at today's hearing. The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications is now adjourned.