Assembly Standing Committee on Utilities and Energy

Good afternoon and welcome. I would like to convene today's hearing of the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy. Sergeants, if you could please alert the absent Members as well as the authors. Before we move to the agenda, I have a few housekeeping announcements to make.

As is customary, I will maintain decorum throughout today's hearing in order to hear as much from the public. Within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. Any individual who is disruptive may be removed from the room. Today we have seven measures on the agenda.

Five of those are on consent. As a reminder for primary testimony, we will allow for two witnesses from both the support and opposition and each witness will be allowed two minutes. All other support and opposition can be stated at the appropriate time. As a reminder to simply state name, affiliation and position.

If you are offering MeToo testimony with that, I think we do not have a quorum, so we are going to go ahead and begin as a Subcommitee. We will begin with file Item number one, SB24. Senator McNerney, welcome. The floor is yours.

Well, good afternoon, Chairwoman and Members of the Committee. I'm pleased to be here to present SB24. This is a common sense bill really that will close legal loopholes and strengthen California law to prevent IOUS, the investor owned utilities, from using ratepayer funds to pay for political campaigns and political advertising.

And from using ratepayer money to lobby against local efforts to create public utilities such as SMUD trying to acquire parts of Yolo County. California residents face the second highest utility rates in the nation. At the same time, utility companies are making record profits. PGE, which serves my district, received six rate changes in 2024.

And earlier this year, PG&EE asked for another rate change increase. This time to adequately compensate investors. Okay, Our utility bills should be spent on services, not on political activities and commercials. Especially if these policies are they're advocating for may not be in the best interests of the ratepayers.

Since 2019, Southern Calgas used at least $36 million of its customers money for political lobbying. And last year, PG&E charged ratepayers for an ad promoting the company. Additionally, the IOUS have spent large sums to stop local efforts from forming a public utility. PG and e spent over $10 million against Smudd's attempt to expand into Yolo County.

Southern San Diego Gas and Electric gave almost 400,000 to responsible energy San Diego, who opposed an effort to form a public utility in San Diego. SB24 does not, I repeat, does not infringe on the IOU's ability to advocate, but ensures that these are costs are not borne by ratepayers.

Here to testify in support of the bill are Adria Tinnan.

That's me.

That's you? Yes. Not very good with names. Director of Race, Equity and Legislative Policy at turn and Graceina Mohammad, a regulatory advocate with California Environmental Voters. And I respectfully asked for an aye vote and turn it over to Adria.

Hello. Thank you Madam Chair. And thank you Committee Members. My name is Adria Tynan. I'm the Director of Race, Equity and Legislative Policy at TURM, The Utility Reform Network here as sponsor and support for SB24. SB24 prohibits utilities from abusing ratepayer dollars to pay for lobbying advertising and to work against municipalization efforts.

California residents, as the Senator rightly said, are facing an affordability crisis while utilities rake in obscene profits. Record setting profits in many cases. Meanwhile, thousands of households were disconnected because they could not afford to pay their utility bills. Over 100,000 folks were disconnected last year.

Despite the stark reality, utilities have been repeatedly caught inappropriately spending ratepayer funds on expensive promotional advertising to boost their reputations. As was noted, PGE spent millions of customer dollars running primetime ads during Golden State warriors games to boost their brand promotion.

Utilities like so called GAS have also been spent been caught spending millions of ratepayer dollars to lobby against air quality rules at South Coast aqmd. Lastly, for profit utilities engage in lobbying to undermine the establishment of municipal utility districts which eliminates people's freedom of choice in order to preserve utility monopoly power.

Currently, there are no consequences to the utilities if they are caught in misusing funds, which creates a perverse incentive to continue this abuse. If the utility is caught under current rules, which the rules do state, they should not be doing this spending.

But if they are caught because we lack transparency rules, all that happens under the status quo is that they move the spending to the proper account and say whoops, there is no consequence and therefore every incentive to continue to try sneaking through these costs to ratepayers.

SB24 offers a thoughtful remedy to this abusive dynamic by providing transparency, accountability and meaningful consequences for such abuse. So the utilities are incentivized to do the proper accounting and use shareholder funding to cover these costs at a time when people across the state are suffering. We urge an aye vote for SB24. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the Committee. Grishina Mohavir, Clean Air and Energy Regulatory Advocate with California Environmental Voters here today in support of SB24. As we know, many Californians are feeling the pressure from the rising costs of living. It's a widely shared sentiment that bills are too darn high.

When we're thinking about solutions to make utility bills more affordable, we have to ask ourselves, what are appropriate costs for ratepayers to bear? There are many critical and necessary programs that are funded through rates.

But as we scrutinize what should perhaps be pruned out, it's clear that one thing that ratepayer dollars should not be used for is utility lobbying and ads. There are already existing restrictions on this behavior, but SB24 serves to close loopholes on this. Moreover, this bill does not stop utilities from going forward with these activities.

It just ensures that ratepayers are getting the most mileage out of their dollars by protecting what said dollars are used for. This bill will also prevent counterproductive spending of these funds against municipalization, an option which can also help guarantee customer savings in the long run. We need ratepayer dollars to be applied efficiently and appropriately for necessary investment.

Things like clean energy and infrastructure build out in a time of real uncertainty about skyrocketing costs. We want ratepayers to be confident that when they pay their bills, their money is going into maintaining and improving their access to energy that is clean, safe, and reliable.

For these reasons, Enviro urges your aye vote on SB24 to ensure that ratepayers are not subject to inappropriate costs at a time of an energy affordability crisis. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we will open it up for additional support testimony in the room. If you'd like to testify in support of this measure, please approach the microphone. Welcome.

Hello, Madam Chair and Committee Members.

Thank you so much. My name is Allison Hilliard in support of SB24 with the Climate Center. Thank you so much.

Hello. Shira Specter, intern for Stone Advocacy in support on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association. Thank you.

Hello. Michelle Canales, Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Good afternoon. Ada Welder with Earth Justice in support.

Thank you. All right. We will now turn to testimony from the opposition.

Madam Chair, Members, Kent Cow on behalf of San Diego Gas and Electric and SoCal Gas. We are in opposition to the bill, but we are not opposed to the premise of the bill. And we would question whether or not people really believe the PUC would authorize political activity to be funded by ratepayer dollars.

At the outset, the analysis notes frustration with the fact that SoCalGas was not fined or penalized for activity. I would note that the activity that we were engaged in was never sought for ratepayer recovery. It was an accounting issue. We had booked it in one way, but there was never any accounting or attempt to recover those costs.

Our first concern with the SB 24 relates to First Amendment rights issues about shareholder funding and what we can do with those dollars. This has been settled by the courts related to above the line and below the line activity.

If the focus is on the appropriate use of ratepayer funds, then the bill should be limited to those above the line cost, not below the line accounting issues which are shareholder funded. Secondly, we believe the bill will handicap our ability to retain outside legal counsel for complex regulatory matters.

We're involved in almost every PUC proceeding relating to energy or natural gas and we do not retain legal experts. In every possible case that we get involved in, we'd like to resolve that issue. Ultimately, all costs that are sought for recovery go to the PUC for a reasonableness test.

We cannot get recovery unless the PUC determines those costs to be reasonable. Finally, we'd raise the potential for unintended consequences. We appreciate the amendments on 811 call before you dig, but we are concerned about other unintended consequences such as communications on care, low income programs, energy efficiency programs and wildfire issues.

Not necessarily undergrounding, but the broader communications that we communicate to customers relating to PSPs. So we'd like to see that addressed. And finally, we remain committed to working with the author to address the concerns. We support the direction of it. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brandon Ebeck, Pacific Gas & Electric. Agree with everything my colleague just said. There's a couple factual errors made by the support witness to make it very clear. We are not allowed to spend any customer dollars on municipalization. Municipalization. That just doesn't happen.

The vast majority of our advertising is shareholder funded and those will continue to happen with shareholder dollars with or without this bill because, as Kent said, we have First Amendment ability to use shareholder dollars to engage in advocacy.

Any ad and any budget for advertising that is ever to be sought from customers is submitted in either the General rate case or review of a balancing account or memorandum account. And the Commission will make a determination whether or not that is just and reasonable.

So ultimately, this is an exercise in the difference between accounting and rate making. There's, as Kent said, we've been trying. We are committed to working with Senator McNerney and Assemblymember Berman, who has a compatible bill providing amendments. We think the if the bill just did what it stated to do, we would be fine with it.

But it just goes way too above and beyond that. For instance, including provisions on any fee for attorney or outside work has to be capped at the intervener compensation rate. That's just. We have to pursue expert witnesses and expert testimony in basic utility operations. And sometimes those people require a certain level of compensation.

And ultimately the Commission will make a determination whether or not that compensation is just and reasonable. Just last week there was a LA Times article about how LA DWP, which is exempt from this bill, is obtained an attorney for $800 an hour. That's not applicable here. Other public utilities can and do spend public dollars on advertising.

SMUD has about a $40 million advertising budget, all paid for by customers, not shareholders. So we're committed to trying to work through these issues, but they're complicated.

Thank you. Turning to additional witnesses in opposition, if you'd like to testify in opposition to SB24, you can approach the microphone at this time.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Brady Van England here on behalf of Southern California Edison in opposition.

Good afternoon. Chair Petrie-Norris and Members, John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce. And opposition is currently constructed. Thank you.

All right, bringing it back to Committee Members. Questions or comments? Vice Chair Patterson.

Great, thank you. I feel like deja vu from a couple months ago, so I won't say exactly the same thing, but a couple concerns which why I won't be able to support the bill today.

First of all, I agree with when it comes to political contributions and political influence activities, I don't really have an issue of ratepayers not paying for that. If I wish there was a bill that, I mean, even though maybe it's already law already, but I wish there was a bill that just did that.

I think it would probably fly through this, this Legislature on consent and have no issues. But I do have a lot of concerns is when I was mayor of Rockland in 2019, I actually proposed before it was cool, that Rockland should pursue hooking up to Roseville Electricity and creating municipal utility.

And you know, PGE at the time, obviously, you know, I'm not aware of spending any kind of money or anything like that against that effort. And so, you know, but again, I think the, what you're trying to do is a good thing. But on the legal fees, I think that could be a concern.

I also have a concern about what if there's actually a piece. When the solar bill came through, I received hundreds of emails from constituents that, you know, and I think that that's great. That's amazing. That entity was able to communicate with me about what that would do with my utility bill.

But what if there's a piece of legislation coming through the Legislature that might actually save ratepayers money? And I think it's in some of these issues we're only going to hear from one side. One side.

And I want to be educated as a consumer on the issues and feel free to, you know, obviously respond to this, but not that I don't really trust the information that anybody gives me with, you know, with a particular view on something when you got to take in all sides.

But the solar issue is one of those prime examples where you could only really hear from one side of the equation unless you happen to be a Legislator. So, you know, feel free to address that. I think what you're trying to get to, in my view, is the right thing.

I understand what you're trying to do, but I think it's kind of overly broad right now. And feel free to respond to that, obviously. But those are my concerns at this particular moment.

To the chair, I thank you for your comments, Vice Chair. And I agree that it's important that utility companies don't use ratepayer money to advertise for things that might ultimately end in ratepayer rates increase. But in my mind, there's two kinds of rates. There's two kinds of communication.

One would be political advertising, and the other is public service communication. And you certainly shouldn't use ratepayer money for political communication. And in my opinion, strongly reflected in the bill to advertise against munis forming. And so there's already, as you mentioned, there's already legal constraints on that, but they're too broad and too easy to circumvent.

And then when there's violations, utility companies don't get a slap on the wrist. They just apologize and get it over with. So I think it's important to clamp down and make that law a little bit more, a little bit more responsible, a little bit more responding to the situation.

I hope that answers your question. No, I think that's great. Again, I understand what you're trying to do, and I think if you did a bill that was focused on that and who knows what'll happen through as this goes through the process.

But if you did a bill that focused on political contributions and political activities, sign me up and I would support the bill. Like I said, I think it's a little too broad right now. Legal expenses and all those sorts of things. But. But I like what you're trying to do. Ultimately.

I know you come in good faith on that. But I'll just kind of Reserve, I'm not going to oppose it. I'm just going to lay off today. So thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Zbur.

Thank you, Senator, for, for bringing the bill. You know, I, I share the concerns from the Vice Chair. You know, obviously support, I think the goal of the bill. I mean obviously we shouldn't you be using rate payer funds for any kind of political communications.

We shouldn't be using ratepayer funds for things that are merely promoting the company. But we rate fair funds should be able to be used for things that are related to making sure that folks in the regulatory process, people in the public, legislators understand the impact on, on the provision of power to our, to our communities.

And so I'm really nervous about this thing going way too broad in the other direction. In particular the impact that it would have on the IOUS.

Being able to secure lawyers that are necessary for them to provide the necessary legal work that they need that often is something that's important to making sure that liabilities and risks are being contained for ratepayers and basically limiting their ability to get the counsel they need is something that I just think this bill should not be doing and it doesn't.

It's something that benefits the ratepayers more often than it, than it them advocating for something that is higher rates. I've never seen the IOUS in my time advocating for higher rates.

Generally what they've done when I've seen them out in the community and when they've done things even in trade associations is they're educating what the impacts of particular actions are. And I think those are appropriate things for them to be doing. They know best.

It's not that there are other perspectives that should be part of that and other perspectives are not valid. But if you can't hear from the entities that know the most about the impacts of what a regulatory or legislative matter might do, I think we're, we're harming ratepayers in the long run.

So I have, I have concerns about the bill. I have concerns in particular about the impacts on lawyers and would urge that you tighten it up pretty significantly.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate the comment. And basically I'll say I'm willing to work on the consultant fee, including attorneys, but there is a concern that that would lead to abuse. And so if we want to move forward on that, then we have to be careful in how we word that process.

But I'm certainly open to working with, with, with you on that.

All right, thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments from Committee Members, Senator, would you like to close?

Sure. I mean, nobody likes to see ads on. On TV that's coming out of your pocket that you know is may not be in your interest. And I don't think it's in the interest of the IOUS to do that if they are. And so this is really common sense.

If you're an IOU and you have a good bottom line, you know, why would you be using ratepayer money to advertise in your benefit? It just doesn't make sense to me. And so I'm going to ask for an aye vote here.

And again, I'm going to continue to think about how we could tighten up that consultant fee without inviting abuse to the system.

Thank you, Senator. And just to confirm, will you be accepting the Committee amendments?

Yes. I'm sorry I didn't mention that earlier. Thank you.

All right, well, thank you. And I believe we can now establish a quorum, so let's go ahead and do that. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Petrie.

[Roll call]

All right, and then we had a motion from Assemblymember Rogers. Do we have a second on this measure? Second. From Assemblymember Hart. The motion is due. Pass as amended, to Appropriations. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Zibur. Not voting. Okay. Seven. Zero. So that bill is on call, and we will leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Moving to File item number three. SB283. Senator Lair.

Welcome, Senator.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I'd like to begin on Senate Bill 283 by accepting the Committee amendments and thanking the Committee staff for their work on this. It was very helpful. This Bill, the Clean Energy Safety Act of 2025 ensures the safe development and operation of battery storage facilities.

As many of you may know, my district in Moss Landing was the scene of a very large and tragic battery storage fire earlier this year. There were some previous incidents, that weren't at this level, that are described very clearly in the analysis. The fire burned for several days. It prompted evacuations.

Highway 1 was closed for a series of days. It raised serious concerns with the community about the toxicity, the smoke, and the ash. The plume was fairly dramatic. And this comes as a change in battery storage.

And for those—it's interesting because I don't think people were familiar with industrial battery storage in California and to the level they are now after this fire.

If we really want to meet our goals of renewable energy, wind doesn't work and sun—solar—doesn't work unless we have storage for the times when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, and that will provide reliability to the grid. And it has grown rather dramatically. And in 2018-2019, I think there were 500 megawatts of battery storage. Currently, there's between 13,000 and 14,000.

We target and hope for 52,000 at the time of 2045 and trying to get to the, to the carbon neutral time. And yet, the technologies move fast, but the policy and the operations have not moved fast with it.

The Moss Landing Facility was one of the very first and its technology was old and old in the sense that a different configuration of the batteries. There were heavy metals with the lithium, manganese, cobalt, nickel, that were part of the emissions and that is not standard now. Heavy metals are not there with the lithium-ion batteries.

And at the same time, it was built in an enclosure, it was built into the old fossil fuel plant. If you go through Moss Landing, there's still the two smoke towers and batteries were just stacked on each other inside the enclosed space. Well, that is not very smart.

And it led to what is known in the euphemistically as a thermal runaway. And that fire really ripped through the front two buildings of the Vistra side, the PG&E side did not ignite. It was on the other side of the wall. They just shut it down. They're proposing to re-energize it.

And in the previous incidents, the one that was—got a lot of notice prior to this one, was in 2022 when something triggered the suppression system. Even though there wasn't a fire, it triggered it, and they closed Highway 1. They asked for people to shelter in place.

They said something about a toxic cloud, which really alarmed most of the residents around.

And the next year, in 2023, I did a Bill, a Senate Bill 38, that provided for safety plans that were required for any industrial strength battery storage and to be submitted, if it's an unincorporated area, to the county, if it's an incorporated area, to the city.

And much to our consternation, neither Vistra nor PG&E had satisfactorily met the requirements of that Bill at the time of the fire this year. So, part of the response has come from the California Public Utilities Commission, which approved a safety order and at the same time, will note where people are complying with this Bill.

So, there is a method of either enforcement or monitoring that is now included. The interesting thing is that when Moss Landing was approved, it was 100% locally permitted. And when it was locally permitted, the Board of Supervisors or the Planning Commission, it's not like they are schooled in this. And so, and that's an interesting thing.

There's a real debate over local control or not, and yet, this was permitted entirely under local control.

And what this Bill does is try to provide some standards and guidance, whether it's the bigger ones that could conceivably be approved by the state or the smaller ones by local government, which really would say that the National Fire Protection Association standards on lithium batteries, or lithium, widely recognized as the most comprehensive safety and storage mitigation, would basically be included in building codes and incorporated as a result of this.

And due to one of the amendments that, that we took on this, it clarifies that that that's a floor, not a ceiling. So, if a local government wishes to go further, now, under this Bill, they have the opportunity to do it.

The Bill requires fire authority consultation and inspection at various stages, such as during the application project and before it goes online. It says that the developer will pay the cost of that inspection. It also prohibits the development of battery storage in indoor combustible facilities to prevent what we saw this last year in Moss Landing.

And I think that the amendments I'm taking today address the main concerns raised by the opposition, but I will continue to work with stakeholders if there are other issues. And this has just been a progression and a progression in any of a number of ways.

The Energy Commission is looking at the battery storage because in the evolution of safety and the evolution of how battery storage is constructed, 75% of the battery storage now in California is different than what was in Moss Landing. It's different in the content in the lithium batteries.

But it is now almost entirely outside on cement slabs, in containers, which is totally different than what happened with this incident. The Bill received strong bipartisan support in the Senate. It got off the floor with 38 of the 40 votes.

It is supported by all three coastal counties in my district, as well as local governments, emergency responders, energy developers, energy providers. And if we're going to keep with our climate goals, we have to do this in a much safer fashion. And that's what this Bill does.

It is co-sponsored by the California Professional Firefighters and the State Association of Electrical Workers. There's a minor hearing going on at the Budget Committee right now that I stepped out of to come over here that seems to have every electrical worker in the state attending.

And so, maybe Mr. Wech will show up, but it's only because that hearing has progressed, but here with me is Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. At the appropriate time, I'd request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We're pleased to co-sponsor and support SB 283. For all the reasons the author outlined, this measure represents progress to improve fire safety coordination and inspection standards for battery energy storage systems that are covered by the scope of the Bill.

Firefighters are increasingly coming into contact with batteries in all different types of uses and applications. And as noted by the Senator, when these batteries are on fire, they are difficult to extinguish and manage.

In addition to the fire at Moss Landing, there was a fire in a battery energy storage facility in Southern California that burned for eight days and had fire crews on for more than two weeks.

It required not only the fire agency, but additional specialty teams related to hazardous materials and other sources and was an incredibly complex fire to extinguish. So, that is one of the reasons that this proposal is so critical.

This will ensure that project developers are engaging fire agencies and designing projects to the most recent NFPA standard and the Building Code, including the Fire Code and the Electrical Code, and will ensure that steps can be taken to mitigate and plan for risk.

The Fire Department inspections, we think, will additionally be beneficial in identifying any issues and hopefully planning for that risk in advance. Establishing policies such as SB 283 will reduce risk for and improve safety for communities and for firefighters. In Orange County, there was a fire several years ago at a facility that was restoring and refurbishing vehicle batteries.

The Orange County firefighters, in response, unfortunately, one of the members was exposed to significant levels of lithium and other heavy metals, unfortunately went into renal failure and now is pursuing a disability retirement, because of that risk, and for those reasons, due to the risk and the need for fire agency engagement, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we will open it up for additional testimony from the room if you'd like to testify in support of this measure.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Brandon Ebek, Pacific Gas and Electric. We proudly supported SB 38 and this Bill, too. Thank you.

Mary Krieski, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, in support.

Jamie Miner, on behalf of the California Community Choice Association, pleased to support and appreciate the Committee amendments. Thank you.

Constance Hovis, on behalf of NG North America, in support.

Damon Conklin with League of California Cities and the Rural County Representatives of California and the California City Association of Counties, in support and thank the author for the recent amendments.

Kasha Hunt, with Nossaman, on behalf of the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors, in support.

Good afternoon. Jared Mossenbach, on behalf of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Jeff Neil, representing the Orange County Fire Authority, also in support.

Joe Zanzi, with San Diego Gas Electric, in support.

Molly Corcoran, on behalf of Fluence. Appreciate the amendments. We're reviewing them. We're in a support if amended position. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Charlotte Stevens, IBEW 1245, in support.

Good afternoon. Rick Thompson, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, in support.

Kathryn Borg, on behalf of Southern California Edison, in support.

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

Graciela Castillo-Krings, here on behalf of California—the California Energy Storage Alliance. We have a support if amended position, but with the amendments in the analysis, I hope that we should change our position soon. I really want to say thank you to the Senator, his staff, and the Committee for helping us get there. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, turning now to opposition testimony. I don't believe that there's a primary witness. I don't see anyone. All right. Is there anyone wishing to provide me too testimony in opposition? Seeing none. All right, we'll bring it back to Committee. Questions or comments? Assemblymember Rogers.

Thank you so much, and thank you, Senator, for bringing the Bill forward. I know one of the groups that had been support if amended had raised a concern about the definition of a battery storage system. I didn't see, in the latest amendments, did you?

I thought we had...taken care of that.

Okay, great. And then I did notice that you took the other amendments that some of the other groups were offering, and I appreciate that. And so with that, thank you.

And I think the amendments were really for clarification in a way that it's really clear. And, and there's the one I mentioned, too. I'm very grateful for them. They really helped the Bill.

All right, thank you. Assemblymember Schiavo.

Thank you. Thank you. I'm so grateful for you bringing this forward—firefighters support on this and IBW. This has become a huge issue in my community. There somehow approved battery storage right in the middle of Santa Clarita next to a childcare facility, next to a mobile home park and senior housing, and right on the bank of our river that supplies water to our whole community.

And so, I, you know, I'm grateful for these standards being brought forward. I think also we need to really get serious about zoning and where we're allowing these folks. I know I spoke with firefighters who went into that facility after it had already been built.

And so, they really were kind of in a situation of feeling like their hands were tied. And I'm grateful that this is going to give, you know, more tools to them. But they mentioned to the owners of this location, we can't believe that you got permitted here. And the owners were just as shocked as the firefighters were.

And so, you know, I am, I'm really concerned about generally, this issue. Certainly, I'm a fan of wind and solar and making sure we're getting to our goals. But, you know, this location is a total nightmare.

And if there is, you know, the worst-case scenario, it could, you know, it could, it could mean our water supply is, you know, is compromised for years and years and years, and obviously, the millions of dollars that it costs to clean up water tables. So, so, just very grateful for your leadership.

I know your community has already suffered from this, and I am really hoping that ours does not suffer from some really terrible decision making at the local level. But, but think that this is really, you know, something very important we have to move forward. So, thank you.

Thank you. Well, and I, too, Senator, will just thank you for your work on this. It's absolutely critical that as we are siting these facilities in our communities, that our residents and our community members can be assured that they're safe.

And so, it's incredibly important that we establish, I think, a framework that's followed both, as you said, when we're permitting this at the state level and also very importantly when locals and counties are permitting these, these sites. So, we apparently do have another question. Assemblymember Davies.

I apologize my lateness—I'm coming from another Committee. I want to thank you, Senator, so much, for bringing this forward. We're dealing with that in our district...right now. And it's so important, especially when we have these safety tools in front of us.

This needs to be looked at before a permit is given to the owner to actually move forward. So, that's a Bill that we have moving forward as well. But safety comes first and including our fire authority is so important. So, I definitely say thank you for bringing this and I'll be supporting it.

All right. With that, Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you. I appreciate the comments. And just to respond briefly, one of the tragedies of this fire is that I think everybody has concluded that any battery storage that is proposed is in the same configuration of what happened in this fire. Probably before this Bill, it would still be tough to permit something of that configuration.

Now, after this Bill, providing it goes all the way and gets signed, that would not be possible. And yet, people look at the newer technology and just conflate it and think there's a real reason to be concerned. There is. It is never totally safe.

But if you have compartmentalized the tests show that any fire there is contained in a way that it wouldn't be the so-called thermal runaway that was here, and the real desire is to make sure the firefighters are at the table.

And I have to be honest, when I did SB 38, I did not set a deadline for the plans. And PG&E and Vistra did not satisfy that Bill prior to this incident in Moss Landing. And that's why the Public Utilities Commission has now taken upon themselves, with their safety order, to make sure people are complying.

Because it's exactly in the instance that was mentioned. The idea was is they do a complete safety plan and then there's an iterative process with whatever the governing board is for local government in the region so that people know they have a discussion.

Fire departments and firefighters are at the table, and you know that, that people are fully aware of this. And so, I think this is a major step forward, given the circumstances, and obviously, had to do something in 2023. There's this.

We will stay on this in a way that if there are any permutations, or any issues that come up, or any enforcement issues, I want to make sure that, that the public knows that we are pursuing this, that we are getting out there, that they will have a seat at the table. So, I appreciate the discussion.

Thank you for hearing this Bill. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. We've got—yes, we've got a motion and a second.

[Roll Call]

Aye. All right, 16- 0 that bills out and we'll leave the roll open for absent members to add on. Let's go ahead and dispense with the consent calendar. Can we get a motion in a second? All right, there we go. Motion from Assembly Member Harabedian and second from Assembly Member Schiavo. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number two, SB80. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Item number four, SB 491. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Item number five, SB 593. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Item number six, SB804. The motion is do pass as amended to emergency management, Item number seven, SCR25.

Roll Call

All right 16-0. The consent calendar is dispensed with. We'll leave that open for absent members to add on. Let's reopen the roll on file. Item one. SB24.

Roll Call

10- 1. So that measure is out and we will leave the roll open for absent members to add on. That does conclude the business of today's hearing. We are going to go ahead and hold the roll open for 5 minutes until 2:30 should absent members wish to join us to add on. Thank you members.

Secretary, could I get a request. For a co-author with the Senator? Laird SB 283.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

And Chen, prepare.

All right, Madam Secretary, let's reopen the rolls.

Roll Call

17. All right. And we will leave the roll open for Mr. Chen. Thank you. Mr. Chen is. Mr. Chen said he's presenting, so he better be on his television screen somewhere doing just that. All right, thank you, Assembly. All right, Mr. Chen, we will go ahead and reopen these rolls. File item 1, SB24.

Chen not voting.

Chen not voting. That's 11-1.

11-1. That Bill is out.

Item number 3, SB283. Chen, Chen I 18-0.

18-0. That measures out consent file.

Chen, Chen I. That's 18-0.

18-0. The consent calendar is out. And that concludes the business of today's hearing of the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy. We are adjourned.