Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

This hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Communications will come to order. We're meeting in the O street building, room 1200. We ask all members to come so we can establish a quorum. We have 11 assembly bills, and our first author is here. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, you have AB 222. Please go ahead when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators. I want to start by thanking your incredible staff for their hard work on this bill and for making it even stronger, if I could say so myself.

But I'll be accepting the committee amendments, which expand reporting requirements for data centers, remove reporting requirements for the developers, the AI developers, and direct the CPUC to analyze cost shifting due to data center development.

AB 222, the Data Center Accountability Act, allows California to plan for our energy future by requiring data centers to report their energy usage data to the Energy Commission on a biannual basis. Energy intensive data centers are being built at an unprecedented rate. The LA Times recently reported that data centers now consume 60% of Santa Clara's energy.

The math is simple. When demand for energy increases and energy supply doesn't also increase, prices for our ratepayers go up. I want to say, and I said throughout this process, but I think it's important to reiterate that I believe deeply in the promise of AI and data centers and this industry in our own backyard.

And I believe this bill is a win both for industry and for consumers and ratepayers.

Because if our grid is not robust enough to manage the increased demand the data centers are putting on the grid. The lights won't stay on for our ratepayers, but they also won't stay on for the data centers that need this power to continue to do the business that they want to do here in California.

With me today is Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities.

Go ahead. You have two minutes.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair Becker and Committee Members. My name is Melissa Sparks-Kranz. I'm the Environmental Quality Advocate with the League of California Cities, and we're pleased to support AB 222 related to data centers.

It is a growing concern among cities that we must increase the reliability and affordability of our energy grid in California and to ensure that there is transparency in the demands and management of the electrical grid. More specifically, cities, along with counties, have land use authority, and many want to attract data center development to their communities.

However, there is a recognition that California lacks specific oversight for these types of developments. Cities do not want to make land use decisions to allow greater data center development when there could be unintended consequences from those decisions on their residents and businesses with how these systems may place greater consumptive demand on the energy grid.

The California Energy Commission anticipates that data centers electricity consumption may double in the next 10 years without implementation of any efficiency measures where five of the anticipated facilities serving open AI could collectively use more electricity than 3 million households.

So to avoid these unintended impacts on the energy grid and to provide greater transparency, AB 222 would provide a thoughtful and necessary step forward to improving the understanding of data center energy consumption by requiring the CEC to compile required information and include data center energy consumption trends in their Integrated Energy Policy report.

Additionally, the bill would require the California Public Utilities Commission to analyze and minimize the potential cost shifts to ratepayers to provide protections around the escalating energy costs on residents. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 222 and we urge your I vote.

Thank you. Let's see, do we have any other witnesses in support? Either me toos or another lead witness in support.

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

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.

Dane Cha representing ABA Community Energy. We're in a support if amend position. Look forward to continuing working with the author to ensure that CCA's defense default energy providers get sufficient notice to plan for these large loads. Thank you so much.

Katie McCammon, Climate Action California in support.

Okay, let's go to opposition. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Looks like we have. Are you a tweener?

Yeah, tweener. Mr. Chair. Thank you. You recognize my tweener walk? Appreciate it. Hunter Stern, on behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Employees. With the committee's amendment, we are neutral on the bill and we appreciate working with the author and the committee.

Great. Opposition or tweener?

Yes, opposition. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Timothy Burr and I'm here on behalf of the Data Center Coalition. DCC is a national membership association for the data center industry. Our members include nearly three dozen leading data center owners and operators and companies that lease large amounts of data center capacity.

Data centers provide the digital infrastructure that supports many sectors of the 21st century economy, including government emergency and financial services, advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity, health care, AI amongst others. DCC is speaking in respectful opposition, but we want to be clear.

The proposed amendments move the bill in a positive direction and we look forward to seeing the amendments in print. The committee amendments are helpful in acknowledging how certain information raises privacy and security concerns, and we appreciate the protections outlined in the amendments.

Data centers are but one large end user of electric utilities and part of a larger portfolio driving increased demand in California. Addressing the important issues of load growth and ensuring responsible, effective grid planning would be more effectively addressed considering all drivers of increased demand.

It is also unclear how existing reporting and benchmarking requirements through the Energy Commission don't already accomplish the purpose of understanding usage and allowing the commission to evaluate usage trends. Additionally, utility providers already collect forecasting data from large end users as part of their grid planning exercises, and that extends beyond data centers.

With that, while we remain opposed, we will review the amendments in print with our membership and continue to work with the author in her office on AB 222. Thank you.

Okay, do we have others in opposition?

Yes. Good morning Mr. Chair and members. Kris Rosa in respectful opposition on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. I'd like to thank the chair, committee staff, and the author for the amendments, as Mr. Burr said, moves the bill in a much better direction.

The bill, though, still remains in a condition that increases the competitive appeal to other states, as AB 222 adds additional complexity and length to California's labyrinth of bureaucracy for the data centers, which already without AB 222 is among the environmentally strongest and strictest in the United States.

Please note that because of the latency issues of data centers, they must be housed near the sites of the companies that use them.

So therefore it's a mistake to think that we can continue to add more and more layers of bureaucracy onto the already tough standards that we have in California and think that we will remain a top economy in the world as data centers can and are very easily already being cited in other states along with the high paying careers and tax receipts with it.

Again, we thank you for the amendments and the movement of the bill into a better direction, but we nevertheless please ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Other add ons?

Good morning Chair Becker, members of the committee. John Kendrick, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Largely echo the comments from the Data Center Coalition. Have not seen the amendments yet, so looking forward to seeing them in print. Thank you.

Good morning chair and members. Andrea Devoe on behalf of TechNet and the Cal Asian Chamber. We align our position with the comments made from the Data Center Coalition. Thank the author for her continued work.

Okay, we'll bring back to the committee in honor of Senator Caballero, even though she's not here at the moment. I'll just read the amendments delete section 1 of the bill. Recast requirements section 2 to require data centers to report information regarding the data center's energy efficiency to the CEC.

Clarify the CEC may only report information prior to data centers person to this bill on an aggregate basis that does not identify a specific utility customer. Require the CEC include assessment of data centers electrical load trends and provide recommendations for mitigating grid impacts in the 2027 IPR.

And lastly, recast section 3 to require the CPUC to assess the extent to which data center growth will result in cost shifts to other utility customers. Identify opportunities to prevent or mitigate potential cost shifts. And you're accepting those amendments?

Yes.

Okay. Senator Archuleta.

Yes. I'd just like to point out that California is a bedrock of AI and our state should lead in AI development by fostering innovation and while also building strong governance. I'm concerned that this bill could have an unintended consequences of stifling progress while not delivering on its goal of affordability and efficiency.

However, I will support the bill with the amendments and but I reserve the right to change my vote on the Senate Floor. And I congratulate you for bringing it forward and taking a good look at the amendments because I think with that, I think we can be very, very positive with it.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator McNerney.

I thank the chair. I thank the author for bringing this forward. This is a very important issue, both in terms of providing the data center resources that the nation and the region needs, but also looking at how it's going to affect our national, our local grid, and indeed ultimately the national grid. We need to do these things.

Now, I have a question that I hope that you can answer, but I'm going to support the bill and I'm going to ask to move the bill at the appropriate time. How is power usage effectiveness measured? How are we going to? Is that specified in the bill?

Yeah. So that is a known quantification of the amount of energy that the technology itself is using and the overall energy used in a data center itself.

So what it tells you is, is the technology efficient such that it's pulling most of the energy, or are you using, say, half the energy for cooling for other things in the data center?

And so the closer you are to one, the better your energy efficiency is because it means almost 100% of your energy is going to the actual needs of the data center.

So is that measured by the specifications of the equipment or is there some sort of energy measurement done required to get that number? To get those numbers.

So I think that I believe a calculation needs to be done, but I can follow up with you on the exact.

Yeah, it'd be interesting to know. Okay. Thank you. I yield.

Thank you. I appreciate your support.

Okay. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Good morning, and thank you for bringing this measure forward. I'm hearing that some of the concerns that were expressed by the opposition.

I'm going to lay off the bill today in hopes that there will be continued conversations to basically address the issues that are being posed, and then I will reflect back on the bill once it comes to the Senate Floor. But I do hope that the concerns are being addressed, and here's why.

As we probably, as you probably already know, working in this space with AI, I've been following it at the federal level. And one of the concerns that they've expressed at the federal level is that there's a real concern about having every state do their own laws when it comes to AI technology and innovation.

And basically because it's going to be very difficult for the industry as a whole, whole to be able to follow all 50 states and their requirements when it comes to within this space.

And they would rather see this AI technology be regulated mostly at the federal level so that there is more uniformity and it doesn't stifle the innovation in the space and give the advantage to other countries within that, and especially in California, because we are such a very highly regulated business environment, I'm hesitant to continue creating or bringing forth regulations at the state level in a space where they're really trying to tackle it at the federal level.

And we should give them an opportunity to do that so that we do not stifle the industry as a whole in our nation and have other countries beat us out, basically, on that.

And that's why I have hesitations about regulating this particular space right now, because it's so new, and we are really at the cusp where we can lead the way, we can lead as a nation, or we can bring barriers forward and have other countries lead the way.

So because of that, I'm going to lay off, and then I will continue to monitor the language as it evolves when it comes to the Senate Floor.

Thank you, Senator.

Okay. Well, I want to thank you for your work on this issue. Certainly data centers are massive users of energy, and if not, if the planning is not done right, as we've seen in other states, it can lead to unintended consequences. It can lead to rises in costs for other ratepayers.

It can lead to a lack of energy when it's needed. You know, fortunately, I think California, you know, with this bill, others that we have this session, we are working on that planning and doing it right.

I just do want to note, just for the record that, you know, as even PGE has said, we're only using 45% of our grid on average. Right. Outside of 45 hours a year, when our grid is incredibly constrained, we're using about 45% of it. And we do have volumetric rates. Right. So we have volumetric rates.

Means we do want more load on the grid, including data centers load, as long as it's done right and we can curtail it for those 45 hours of congestion.

As long as we can plan and do that kind of load flexibility, then we do want this load on the grid in a way to actually lower costs for everyone. But again, we have to do it right. And I think that's the point of this bill and moving in the right direction.

So I will be supporting this bill today. Would you like to close?

I will take that as my close. I respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you, Senator.

Excellent. So we unfortunately do not quite have a quorum. We're very close. Republican Members are here. We call on our Democratic colleagues to get here so we can have a quorum. Thank you. We will vote on it at the appropriate time. Thank you. And I see Assemblymember Bennett, since you were here. Go ahead. Let's do.

Good morning, Chair and Members. AB443 is focused on producing us a better understanding of our system to maximize the use of renewable resources and how to best utilize those resources to produce hydrogen. Renewables account for 39% of retail electricity in California. However, we know that these renewables are subject to seasonal variability.

We have a lot of solar on a hot summer day and not enough on cool winter nights. AB443 would require the CEC to assess our grid and where curtailment is occurring, how much of that is occurring, and whether it's due to oversupply or due to transmission congestion.

Additionally, to make best use of our renewable energy and address our long term storage needs, this Bill further directs the CEC to provide recommendations as to how curtailed renewables could be used to produce hydrogen. There's much overdue.

This is a much overdue measure that will provide us with the understanding we need to make wise assessments about our grid, renewable development and clean hydrogen. Respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Excellent. Do we have witnesses? Okay. In support, anyone like to express their support, please come forward.

Hi. Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors here on behalf of Invenergy in support.

Good morning. Delilah Clay on behalf of the Independent Energy Producers Association in support.

Good morning. Vince Wiraatmadja with MCE in support.

Good morning. Katherine Eager with the Wideman Group on behalf of Prologis in support.

All right, do we have any witnesses in opposition or anyone would like to express opposition? Okay. Well, with that, we will take it back to the Committee. Anybody have any thoughts, comments? I'll move it at the appropriate time. Okay. Senator Strickland, at the appropriate time.

Seeing as my speaker's still on. I turned it off from last time. I think it's a good idea. We need to move forward with this kind of thinking to better use renewable energy when there's more than is needed by the system. And creating hydrogen is a good way to do it.

So I'll support the Bill. Thank you.

Senator Grove.

Thank you. Same thing as my third Bill I've supported of yours. But it is true that we have a substantial amount of solar energy and stuff that we export to other states and we should figure out a way to make it benefit California.

And since we're producing it, and I think this Bill goes in that direction to do that so thank you.

Great. Well, for my part, I will say I love this Bill. This is kind of a wonky Bill. I love it. This is really about identifying those constraints so that we can take make better use of this solar and wind that we're curtailing right now. So I really appreciate this. We'll certainly be supporting this Bill.

We'll have Strickland, Senator Strickland, move it when the appropriate time. Again, we do not have a requirement right now, but would you like to go ahead and close?

Yes. I just came from the hydrogen conference that is being held, and as I was speaking with them, the people at the conference, the issue for them is we have real challenges now with what's going on with the Federal Government, et cetera, in support of our hydrogen.

But for them to invest in this curtailed energy, they need to know how much of that is curtailed, oversupply, and how much of it is curtailed because of grid congestion. Because grid congestion is harder for them to plan on long term. But if we really have oversupply, that is what they want to try to take advantage of.

And so I really appreciate the support that I'm hearing from the Senators here about this measure. It will help them plan better investments in hydrogen.

Yeah. I'll just add too. I mean one of the some other efforts I have this session is identifying that congestion for other reasons too. Right. If we're going to have load flexibility, we don't want low flexibility generally, which is why we've always looked at it. We want load flexibility specifically where we have that kind of congestion.

And also tried last year with a couple bills around grid hydrogen. We want people around green hydrogen. We want green hydrogen number one during the day when we have lots of excess renewables. Right.

You identify how much we do have, you know, or we, you know, had a Bill and then Senator Rogers did that Bill again this year to allow for a slight exemption to the over defense rule with wind, solar and wind for it to produce green hydrogen because we are supposed to produce 10 gigawatts of green hydrogen and we don't really have a plan for that right now.

So that Bill has not, you know, proceeded unfortunately the last two years. But I think this is all part of the same theme and your Bill will help us with that. So I appreciate that. Thank you for your work on this and we will Senator Strickland will motion when the time comes. Thank you. Thank you very much.

All right, it looks like we are now looking for authors, so we'll put out the call. zero, we do send Member Quirk Silva. So this is filing five AB 737. Go ahead when you're ready.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. Today I'm presenting AB 737 which ensures gas utilities are treated the same as electric utilities when it comes to recording changes for energy saving home upgrades. I'd like to thank the Committee for the work on this bill and do accept their amendments.

This bill safeguards consumer transparency, protects tenants and homeowners, and supports California's climate and affordability goals. Buildings are responsible for nearly a quarter of California's greenhouse gas emissions. To accelerate decarbonization, the puc California PUC has developed Tariff on bill or ToB financing programs that allows customers to pay for energy efficiency upgrades through their utility bills.

Well, SB 1112 Becker in 2022 clarified the legal framework for electric utilities participating in these programs. At left, gas utilities in a legal gray area. AB 737 addresses this gap by clarifying that gas corporations qualify as energy suppliers under the same ToB standards that apply to electric utilities.

It also ensures that consumer transparency and property disclosure rules apply uniformly and set participation parameters for gas utilities. ToB programs that achieve measurable reductions in natural gas usage and greenhouse gas emissions.

Without this Bill, ToB pilot programs currently before the CPUC, such as SoCal's gas proposal to help customers replace outdated water heaters with more efficient models could face delays or increase cost due to regulatory uncertainty. AB 737 does not authorize the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure or exempt gas utilities from consumer protection laws if oversight is warranted.

It creates parity and avoids unintended regulatory roadblocks to efficiency programs. And to provide testimony and answer any questions, I have Israel Salas representing SoCal Gas.

Thank you. Go ahead. You have two minutes. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. As the author outlined in the interpresentation, the purpose of this bill is to give customers access to energy efficiency programs that would help them save money on their monthly utility bills.

As the analysis noted, there's a gray area that resulted from SB 1112 by the chair from a couple of years ago with respect to the intent expressed about whether electric utilities are debt collectors for purposes of offering ToB programs. That intent didn't include gas utilities. It didn't need to.

The CPUC ordered SoCalGas in a subsequent rulemaking to propose a tariff on bill pilot, which we did. It's currently under consideration at the CPUC. This bill just simply adds that notification framework for tariff on bill to law and would provide us a little bit of more clarity should the CPUC approve our current pilot.

The bill doesn't impact or influence any outcome in the pilot. It just supports a backend implementation should the CPUC approve our pilot program. With that, we ask for your support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any other support witnesses? Any opposition witnesses?

Morning. Thank you. Go ahead. You have two minutes. Good morning. Chair Becker and Committee Members. Matt Vespa, Senior Attorney for Earth Justice. We respectfully must oppose AB 737. AB 737 would give gas utilities like the bill's sponsor a new tool to lock in dependence on polluting fossil fuels.

ToB financing is a tool that can help California advance its public health and climate objectives by helping customers avoid paying up upfront for home upgrades like zero emission electric heat pumps. However, when ToB is used to finance gas appliances, California's Climate and Air quality objectives are undermined.

The Energy Commission has found that continuing to replace gas appliances with new gas appliances, even if more efficient than the gas appliance they replace, can cause California to miss its climate goals.

This is because appliances like instantaneous gas water heaters have a 20 year life and so new installations lock in fossil fuel dependency and its corresponding air and climate pollution for decades, simply requiring a measurable reduction in gas use to qualify for tob does not come close to achieving the deep reductions needed to achieve our climate goals.

As SoCalGas mentioned, it has its proposal before the PUC for tub financing for gas water heaters. It has stated to the PUC that it needs this legislative change currently contemplated under AB 737 to be able to do so.

This Committee should not support SoCalGas efforts to co opt a financing tool intended to facilitate the transition of fossil fuels to one that further entrenches the polluting status quo and forces renters to pay for decades more dependency on gas appliances and gas use that pollutes their home and our planet.

Because this is what AB 737 enables, I ask for your no vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition or add ons? Okay, we're going to take it back to the Committee.

Senator Allen, I'd love to have the author answer some of the concerns raised by the opposition. I mean it's my understanding this is, you know, while we, you know, he. I may have problems with the PUC's ruling, which quite frankly I do.

You know, this is really ultimately a small policy fix that would, you know, I think I totally hear the concern, but I also wonder whether it's more directed towards the earlier ruling. But I'd love to hear your thoughts and you know, how you think we should reconcile the concerns being raised by our folks from the environmental community.

Well, first, I appreciate the opposition. They actually only came forth very recently and we moved this through the first house without opposition recorded. And I believe this opposition just came on as of a few days ago. But I do understand, I mean there is fundamentally.

Do we want to make sure we expel any gas usage using dryers as an example that I mentioned, that definitely is a way to stop usage. This is a modest usage that people rely on.

I mean if we look at apartments particularly or single home, not everybody has transitioned and in fact they don't have the finances to transition. When we look at how you're going to transition, it's not just replacing one just say dryer in your home with another type of dryer.

You have to get some type of usually a handyman to come in. And we always think that these are going to be, you know, $100,200. This is affordability issue.

And we know that even transitioning from electric vehicles, from gas, it sounds easy, but we don't have the infrastructure or the dollars to put these systems into our homes. So whether it's apartments or single family homes. It's the same issue.

The affordability is something we need to seriously think about as we talk about affordability throughout the State of California.

Do you have any follow up?

No. Yeah, I mean I. Well, yeah, I do. Well, let me say I'm going to support the bill. You know, I do think that. I do hope that the PUC reconsider some aspects of this ruling. And I just want to say that on the record.

Good. And so therefore then this will kind of go back to the CPUC kind of with that. With that stipulation. So we. With that I'm prepared to, you know, to support the Bill. But I think as you said it probably is does merit some additional conversation going forward just to make sure. We're all aligned there with that.

Thank you. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I must have misunderstood the bill when I read the analysis. This is already offered by PG&E.

There is a pilot program right now with..

PG&E.

Yes.

and this includes Southern California Edison for the same project?

Yes.

Any IOU?

No.

Or just Southern California Edison?

Edison.

So they have the opportunity to offer this low cost loan program or free grant program to people to transition and do the things that they want to do, and that's what your bill does?

It's trying to clarify what was not put into the initial.

The initial ruling.

Yes.

Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure. Thank you.

It's not gonna. I don't know, in the words of the opposition, release all these polluters. I mean these are individuals making a choice about what they want to put in their house and this gives them an opportunity to access.

To be under the TOB.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay. Just checking. Thank you.

Okay. I'd say from my point first to the amendments, just to clarify or just be clear, they modify legislative intent language in PC section 8375 to expressly include these gas corporations.

It also clarifies that the CPUC may only direct gas corporations to file applications for tariff on bill programs that achieve measurable reductions in natural gas consumption and associated GHG emissions. So for my own part, look forward to talking more to the opposition which we, you know, as you mentioned, came in late.

We understand this bill does not create or change the CPUC's tariff on bill financing program. I do believe and understand that increasing natural gas consumption is not, is kind of antithetical to this decarbonization effort.

But my understanding is in this bill we're actually saying being clear that this existing CPUC proceeding but that we essentially put a block that if anything is done the missions have to be measurably lower pursuant to this bill. So number one, just cover. You are accepting the amendments.

Yes.

Good. And so, therefore then this will go, kinda go back to the CPUC kinda with that, with that stipulation. So, you know, with that I'm prepared to, you know, to support the bill. But I think as you said it probably is there is merit to additional conversation going forward just to make sure we're aligned there. With that, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Excellent. Well, we appreciate you being here. We are still operating as a subcommitee. We will vote on it once we have enough members. Thank you.

Thank you.

Member Rogers is here. Let's see, you have file 3 AB531. Thank you for being here and please go ahead. When ready, let's bring up your witnesses. Yeah. Yeah. Come on. I think we're, yeah, I think you, you should hear me.

Yes. Just a point of information. There is senorita bread over here for the Committee because it was early.

All set, Mr. Chair

You can influence our votes with.

Yes. Go ahead. Maroney, thank you so much for taking the time to hear. AB 531. Back in 2011, the Legislature created an Environmental Leadership Development Projects designation that applied to strategic deployment of renewable energy. Projects with this designation received expedited judicial review and streamlining to actually see these projects get built.

What AB531 does is it looks at other strategic energies that were not included in that, including geothermal projects that are under 50 megawatts. Currently, geothermal projects over 50 megawatts apply and can get this designation. So this would add in 50 and fewer.

In my district, we have a very forward leaning community choice aggregator that you'll hear from in a minute that has created what's called the geozone. It's a local partnership that enhances and furthers the delivery of innovative geothermal technologies that will be really important for California to hit its climate goals.

As all of you know, where California really struggles to have a clean portfolio is in the evening once solar is gone. And seasonally depending on solar and wind, geothermal helps to fill that gap because it's a steady source of electricity production.

It also helps answer the question about just transition for workers because oftentimes fossil fuel industry workers can slide right over into geothermal with minimal training. And so it helps keep those folks employed as we deploy this technology. So with me today is Miles Horton with Sonoma Clean Power, and I'll turn it over to him.

Thank you so much.

Yes. You have two minutes. Go ahead.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, Miles Horton with Sonoma Clean Powers. Sonoma Clean Power. Excuse me. And also on behalf of the International Union of Operating Engineers, who is co sponsoring this with us.

So Sonoma Clean Power, we're a community choice aggregator serving Sonoma and Mendocino counties. We're proud to be serving our customers about 90% clean energy today. But as the assemblymember mentioned, it's really those periods when sun and wind aren't available and batteries are empty that we're still relying on fossil fuels.

And so we identified next generation geothermal technologies as the right solution for us to get to 100% clean energy around the clock. And increasingly the state has come to the same conclusion and is now handing down procurement orders for gigawatts of new geothermal. And so the demand for geothermal is colossal.

We have the best workforce in the country because of our oil and gas workforce, and we actually have the best geology for these types of technologies too in the entire country. But because of the regulatory environment today, projects aren't getting built, threatening our climate goals.

And then when they are getting built, it's often out of state, you know, in places like Nevada and Utah, being built to serve the California market. And that's great, but this is our repair money and we think that should be reinvested here where possible and creating jobs here where possible.

So AB531 is a really exciting measure that, as the Assembly Member mentioned, is going to make it a lot easier for geothermal to use this existing process that the Legislature has already enacted to get those environmental leadership benefits and get that sort of one stop shop permitting through the Energy Commission.

So it's a process that I think is really a smart tool to get clean energy online. Again, geothermal can use it today, but we're allowing those sort of smaller, quote unquote geothermal projects to use as well because that is the more typical size of a geothermal project. Thank you.

Okay, we will talk other add ons in support.

Emily Pappas on behalf of Cal CCA in support.

Good morning. Delilah Clay on behalf of the Independent Energy Producers Association in support.

Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors on behalf of Invenergy in support.

Mr. Chair, Members Andrew Antiwh with Shaw Yoder, Antwih, Schmelzer and Lange here today on behalf of Advanced Energy United. We thank the author in support.

Good morning. Molly Kroll with American Clean Power in support.

Good morning Chair and Members Catherine Charles with the San Jose Clean Energy in support.

Good morning. Mike Monagan on behalf of State Building Trades in support.

Good morning, Chair Becker Members John Kendrick on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Good morning. Hunter Stern on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers in support. And I will note that IBEW551 and IBW Local 1245 are supportive of the geozone in Sonoma County.

Okay, I will next hear from opposition. Do we have a lead opposition witness. Go ahead.

Good morning. My name is John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California. We represent 40 of the state's 58 counties, including most of the counties with the known geothermal resource areas. And I want to start by saying we're completely aligned with the author on the goal. We want to see geothermal development.

So our counties are strong supporters of geothermal, really want to see it increased in their communities, but not by sacrificing local control. AB531 Usurps local control by allowing developers to smaller geothermal projects to bypass the local permitting process and go straight to the CEC for approval.

We've had major issues with the AB205 process in the past and continue to have serious concerns with that process. AB531 also provides an avenue for developers to have the CEC override local disapproval of these projects. Simply speaking, local governments aren't the problem here. We're not the problem in permitting these projects.

We are trying to find ways to expedite permitting of geothermal and many other types of renewable energy projects. Take Modoc county, for example. Small county, about 9,000 people up in the northeast corner of the state. We heard last week they're working very hard to permit geothermal bring more geothermal online.

They've secured several grants from the Energy Commission to develop and research geothermal projects. They're working collaboratively with unr, with the CSU, and Oregon Institute of Technology to bring a research and development campus to Modoc county for geothermal. So we are in this game. We want to see this happen.

We just don't want to be bypassed along the process. In Modoc County, we heard most of the mineral rights are owned by oil and gas companies. So this Bill would then give the oil and gas companies the authority to bypass local approval and go to the Cec. This is deeply disturbing.

The CEC admittedly does provide a few limited avenues of engagement for local governments in this permitting process. But the CEC ultimately holds the keys for project approval or disapproval and gets to override and bypass any conflicting local laws.

So we've tried to offer some amends to the author and to the sponsors that would enable us to remove our opposition and support the Bill. We want to get to yes on this. Those amends would have been as simple as conditioning eligibility for this process upon adoption of a letter of support from the local government.

We want to support these projects. This was rejected. We stand willing to find alternative solutions because, as I said, we're fundamentally in alignment on what the goal is. But since AB531 overrides local control, we have to strongly oppose the Bill today and urge your no vote. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Are there any other add ons in opposition? See none. We will bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Who would like to weigh in on this? Senator Grove.

Thank you and thank you for calling Mike Umbro this morning. You know, there is phenomenal technology out there in this space, specifically like the Modoc County project. And the issue is not local control. The issue is policies that come out of this building that stop this advancement.

And a lot of these companies like the one in Modoc and the one that I have in my district, I mean, you're talking about a thousand hours of storage, energy storage. Like we would have a thousand hours of continuous energy storage always available. It would power a data center.

It would be if they wanted to connect it to the grid. But they don't have the resources to come up here and campaign. And I don't want to go to everybody's events to convince them that this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And it is.

You don't have to worry about above ground batteries catching on fire, spewing toxins into the air. They only offer what, four or eight hours of storage. Now it uses an existing oil field which is they've got data on forever in days because everybody requires the data from the oil industry.

There's grants like the opposition said for Modoc County. I know that the Modoc County project and this project that I'm talking about at geotes has federal grants from the Biden Administration because they thought it was an incredible opportunity to advance quote, unquote clean energy and create. I'm talking 1,000 hours, not four, not eight.

And it would allow us to do that on a continuous basis. So thank you for at least talking to them and getting some information about it. And I just was curious about what your thoughts were on that conversation that you had.

Yeah, absolutely. And thank you so much for putting us in contact. So we spoke this morning. The project sounds incredible.

And if it's a simple fix and it doesn't derail what we're trying to accomplish, which we need to look at, I'm happy to see if we can include it because it does sound like it's really good for California.

Yeah, I don't want to derail what you're doing in any way, shape or form, but if there was just like one little tweak and I appreciate you looking at it, it would allow projects, because right now, these projects are stifled by agencies that are unelected, they're not accountable, and these agencies are stopping the process.

Like, they've got local permission, they've got grant permission, they've got grant dollars that came from the. Again, from the Biden Administration. And we're just waiting on, well, what, three years now, four years now for the state agencies to act, and they just won't do it.

And so if we could figure out how to navigate that and streamlight that process, I think it would help us meet our goals that California. The goals that California has regarding what they call clean energy. And again, I say this all the time. Kern, county, we got an update.

We produce 80% of the renewable solar and wind went from 53 out of 58 counties. This county does that. We have the geotest facility that's just waiting for the state's approval. We produce solar, wind, oil, gas, if we were given permits. But, you know, we're not the enemy.

We're the experts on energy production and helping reduce cost in California for all Californians. So thank you for having the conversation with Mike Umbro.

Yep. And if it works, we'll make it work. And if not, then happy to work with you to make sure that it does in the future. Bill.

Thank you. And I want to derail your Bill because I think it's a good Bill. So thank you.

Anyone else? Okay, so just want to confirm the amendments. It deletes the term geothermal development field project and replace with, quote, a project composed of multiple geothermal power plants on a single site. I want to confirm that you're accepting the amendments, and I want to thank. Your staff for working on that. Great.

Well, I just want to say, for my part, I appreciate your efforts. Since I've started here, a lot of my legislation has been focused on 247 clean energy. And as we heard from Stomach Clean Power, they're getting close to 100%, but they need technologies like geothermal to get to 24/7.

And of course, one of our other themes, as we saw yesterday with our votes in the Legislature this year, is to speed things up. Right. Make it easier to develop. Develop housing, develop energy.

I know we do take the concerns seriously, as I'm sure you do from our local counties, and I know you'll keep working with them to kind of keep them involved in this process and listen to them. But I certainly very strongly support the overall goal of this and including geothermal.

It's one of those technologies we want to bring to market faster because we need it. So thank you. With that, we'd like to close.

Yeah, absolutely. In Sonoma County right now, Sonoma, Mendocino and Lake counties are the only place in the United States that can deliver 100% renewable energy 24,7 from a locally derived source. Because of the proximity to the geothermal plants that are up there, the geysers for Calpine. We need more of this technology.

We need to be able to expand it. There is some history there where originally the approval for geothermal projects was the Cec and then it was given to locals because locals wanted control of it.

And then what they found was that oftentimes they lacked the staff and the expertise to actually be able to evaluate these projects efficiently and quickly. So just a couple of years ago, the Legislature then made it again permissive to go back to the CEC as well as the locals and pick whichever route was going to be faster.

So there is a history here of trying to expedite these projects and trying to get them deployed in our local communities. We'll continue to work with them, but our overall goal and that intent is to bring that clean energy and those jobs back to our local communities.

Excellent. Well, thank you. We are operating still as a Subcommitee. We will vote once we have a quorum. Thank you for being here. Assemblymember Schultz, you are here to present file item four, AB 734. Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To our Committee for the first time, I think.

Please go ahead and present when ready. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair and esteemed Committee Members. I'm pleased to be with you this morning to present AB 734. First, I'll provide just a little bit of background.

In 2023, the California Energy Commission amended its regulations associated with the permitting of power plants, which included restricting the public release of maps that contain biological resour.

This change in the regulations represented a significant departure regarding the scale of biological resource maps associated with the review and permitting of projects under a multitude of laws, including CEQA and the California Endangered Species Act.

As we develop projects, including energy projects, it's important that we consider the near term impacts of development on our biodiversity, fish and wildlife habitat and natural landscapes while addressing the long term impacts of climate change.

Projects must be planned, cited, developed and operated to avoid, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on biodiversity and land with known high resource value. Withholding locational information and other scientific information and data makes it impossible for the public to evaluate potential project impacts and provide informed analysis of appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, and potentially mitigate project impacts.

AB 734 will provide the public with the necessary biological resource information at a scale that will allow people to participate effectively and efficiently in the public review and comment process associated with project permitting at the California Energy Commission, including making biological survey maps available to the public for review at a scale of 1 to 6,000, which has been the standard practice for decades.

AB 734 has received bipartisan support and has no opposition. With me to speak in support of AB 734 is Kim Delfino with Earth Advocacy on behalf of our sponsor, Defenders of Wildlife.

Excellent. Thank you. Ms. Delfino, you have two minutes. Go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning. Kim Delfino, I'm representing Defenders of Wildlife, who is a sponsor here. Let me give you a little bit of context for this bill. Defenders of Wildlife has been working for the last 15 years to try to expeditiously site clean energy in a way that is low or lower conflict.

We believe we can make the transition to 100% renewable, even though it looks like it will require over a million acres of land to be converted to do so.

What that requires is information to inform decisions, information for planning, which we have been working on quite consistently with both the PUC, the CEC, renewable energy developers, utilities, CCAs, and other nonprofits, as it was pointed out by Assembly Member Schultz.

Unfortunately, in 2023, the CEC made a rule change which changed how we got biological information as part of the CEC's permitting. We tried to work through this issue with the CEC for the last two years, including an internal process by which information would be vetted, and then we would hopefully get it on the back end.

Unfortunately, as part of those permitting processes, we've had to wait over a year for some of this information, and in some cases, we're still waiting for that information. When we talked to the renewable energy companies about it, they said, we would be happy to give you this information. However, the CEC is telling us that we can't.

And so we have come here today to ask for this change, this modest change in statute. It has been pointed out there is no opposition. And trust me, usually when Defenders of Wildlife does a Bill that affects the renewable energy industry, we hear from them, and in this case, we hear nothing.

They are perfectly fine with this request, and for these reasons, because we think this will help the process in moving forward clean energy and allowing the public to have the information they need to make informed public comment. We would urge an aye vote for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We will look for others in support.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, how about opposition? Do we have anyone in opposition? As you said, no one in opposition. Okay. We'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion of AB 734. Senator Allen?

Just, I appreciate the bill, and I'll move it when appropriate. Thank you.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you. Our Vice Chair. Welcome. Member Schultz. So, a couple of questions for you. I was trying to understand as I was reading the bill, two things. One, it says that only some of the information is kept confidential to protect sensitive species. Help me understand what that statement means.

Absolutely. Senator, before I go on, would you like me to take question by question, or would you like to pose all of the questions? And then I usually. Sorry, my first time here.

Oh, it depends on the chair. Usually goes by question, I think.

Question by question. All right. With that, I'd like to defer to my technical expert to begin answering that question.

Sure. So the way. This is a little complicated, but we have something called the California Natural Diversity Database. And so a lot of times developers will input information into that database when they do biological surveys, or scientists will put that information into the database.

Then there is just the requirement when you're going through a permitting process where, say, a lead agency will ask the project applicant to do a biological survey, those data sets are treated slightly differently.

And we did make an amendment to the bill to respond to this so that the Department of Fish and Wildlife will be able to weigh in when being asked to disclose CNDDB data. And they will be able to withhold that. I'm sorry, I'm going to the acronym. So we have a lot of acronym Natural Diversity Database.

Sorry about that. Yeah, it's just a biological database that we have that the Department of Fish and Wildlife is the keeper of. And so they.

This Bill has been amended to allow the Department of Fish and Wildlife to step in and say, hey, if it's coming from this database that we're administering, we will still want to be able to say, like, you know, a nest location. We don't want to give that specific of a location.

But if it's survey data, that's that a lead agency is asking for, like the CEC that hasn't gone to the database that cdfw, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has, then that information will be released at a scale of 1 to 6,000, which has been the practice as long as I've been working, which has been 25 years with lead agencies through CEQA and even the CEC prior to this rule change.

So there's two different databases. We're treating them slightly differently, but it should, but everybody thinks it'll be protective.

And so my follow up question would be, so how do you decide and why? The purpose of creating the. Keeping confidential the information.

So for some species, particularly plants, because they can't move, you want to make sure that you're not giving absolutely site specific information so that a collector can't go and say collect Dudleya, which a lot of times people will do things like that because they'll want to resell them on the market.

Or for birds, like for golden eagle or bald eagle, they want to keep the nest data, not to be so specific so that someone can't come and collect the eggs or the feathers of the birds. Yeah. Interesting.

I had not heard that. Okay. And then finally I have another question, actually two more. One has to do with do you believe that the release of this information will cause any projects to be delayed? And lastly, I'll just do it. And then it was interesting to see why you chose June 30, 2029 to sunset the Bill.

Excellent questions. I don't believe that it will have any meaningful impact or frustration of the development of projects. This is really about information sharing and transparency and public participation. We felt that June 2029 would be a good opportunity to evaluate use of the bill.

You know, that is what we believe to be an appropriate amount of time, approximately four years out from the current time. With that, I'll just ask if my technical expert has anything to add. But I would say those are the brief answers to your questions.

Perfect, thank you. I would agree 100% with the answers given by the Assembly Member.

Okay, well, thank you for explaining the information with confidentiality. I always talk about, well, if these reports are being asked to be collected and we have a data system, and we have two data systems in this case.

I was just very intrigued by the fact this is my first year in this Committee, so there's a lot of acronyms that I'm learning and procedures as far as the agencies that are involved. And I do have a tendency to ask a lot of questions, especially in a new space for me. So thank you for those answers.

I appreciate your help.

Thank you.

Sure. Senator Grove, thank you.

That was a very interesting presentation. I, like my colleague, couldn't figure out why you would restrict data, but that makes sense that if you have a very endangered plant, that somebody would just go get it if they knew where it Was I get it. So I did that.

I did have a question on the CEC would be responsible for doing that, but they'll use IRPA or the Energy Resource Program's account and it's severely in a deficit right now. Is there a funding mechanism for this or not?

This bill, as a policy matter does not contemplate a funding mechanism.

It's not an appropriate. It's not an appropriations issue for the CEC.

For the CEC it says, well, it may be an issue, but the bill does not contemplate any particular funding stream. If my technical expert wants to add anything. But no, this is really a matter of policy and public input.

So if it goes to, if it goes into effect, is there, does it. Is it upon funding by the budget or how is it going to be funded? Is I guess my question a better question?

Sure.

So actually the cost that was assigned to this bill was 178,000, which we actually have met with the CEC to talk to them about that because we believe that currently what they're doing now is the same as what we are asking and in some ways would actually be a cost savings because they wouldn't have to go through the process that they're going through back and forth with the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

And right now the CEC does charge fees and we believe this is a sufficient fee to cover this cost. I do believe that they may be actually asking for an increase in fees at some point, but for other reasons because they have such a large workload.

But my point is that we think that these costs are already absorbed with the staffing that the CEC currently has. Okay.

Yes. That's my understanding is that this is not a new process. There are permitting fees that the CEC does already assess and that this would be part of those permitting fees. That's a much better answer. Yes.

And it does say that. It does say that. It's. The CEC incurs the cost. They have permitting fees that are there. But the account that. That goes in, the IRPA account is funded by the Electric Race payers and is currently at a structural deficit. So I was just wondering if that piece had been addressed.

I think that's why it's got an opposed recommendation. I'm not sure from. Yeah, who said that? From us. Welcome to the Senate where we have sidebar conversations on people's builds. And what's the position on cdfw? Are they reluctant to release this information? Sorry, I don't mean to keep calling you to the microphone, ma' am. Apologize.

No, I don't mind. These are good questions. So the Department of Fish and Wildlife, we have had technical conversations with them and I can't speak for their. I don't think they have an approved position. But this is. They don't see this as an issue.

Okay. Thank you for that information. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Well, thank you for answering those questions and I do appreciate you coming working to strike that balance. As we've seen again this year, one of our themes is to build things faster, build housing faster, build energy faster. And it isn't always easy to strike that balance.

And this does seem like one of those bills which is really important at striking that balance, giving us the information that we have. So we do this right. So I appreciate that.

Would you like to close? I'll just briefly say thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, for the very thoughtful questions. This is a new policy space for me as well, so I appreciated the question about the acronym. You know, you learn something new every day. And I also wanted to just thank my technical expert.

As you can see, this is. It is both a straightforward and yet a more complicated than at first surface kind of a bill. But we think that this is a net positive for California. It's building upon existing practices and it's really rooted in the concept of the more access to information that the public has.

It is fundamentally a good thing as we try to strike that right balance in approving these projects. So with that, Mr. Chair, at the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote. Well, thank you.

We are very close to having a quorum, but we do not yet so we are Subcommitee. We will vote at the appropriate time. Thank you for being here. Don't be a stranger. Welcome to the Senate Energy Committee. Thank you all very much. All right, I see Assemblymember Wilson is here.

And you are here to present file item 7 AB 1026.

Maybe that always count.

Okay. Assembly Members, welcome.

Thank you for having me.

Go ahead when ready.

Thank you, chair and Senators. I'm pleased to present AB 1026, a bill that supports California's ongoing need for housing by addressing a too often overlooked barrier: unpredictable utility connection delays--excuse me--that holds up housing projects even after they've been fully approved.

So I would like to thank the chair and the committee staff for their expert feedback on this bill and confirm that I will be accepting all committee amendments. AB 1026 brings common sense, accountability, and transparency to the energization process by requiring an investor-owned utilities to do what we already demand of our cities and counties: provide clear instructions, communicate in a timely way, and give applicants a fair process.

This bill builds on the Powering Up Californians Act--including the work of this chair--and requiring electric corporations to publicly share what's needed to approve or deny an application.

We've appreciated the opportunity to engage with the stakeholders who've raised concerns, and I'd like to take a moment to address a few of those points. To be clear, the bill codifies the timelines already set by the California Public Utilities Commission September decision and explicitly allows for their discretion if future adjustments are warranted.

Additionally, this bill requires utilities to provide a single example of a completed housing application to improve transparency for developers navigating the process. This is not about creating undue burden or prioritizing certain projects. It's about making sure that every part of our system is doing its share to meet the urgency of this moment: addressing California's housing crisis.

Now, I would like to introduce my two witnesses: Kevin Kitchingham, Director of Housing Development and Construction at Mission Housing, as well as Ali Sapirman, Advocacy and Policy Manager at Housing Action Coalition.

Okay, before we do that, I believe we have a quorum. I will ask--so please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Okay, we have a quorum. I'd also like just to read the amendments first before your witnesses going forward. We have two amendments. Number one, consistent with SB 410: Becker, AB 50 would require the CPC to make the determinations regarding the process and timelines. Number two: delete the references to specific timelines, but noting the adopted CPC decision implementing SB 410 and AB 50. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, excellent. Let's go over the witnesses. Ms. Sapirman, you have two minutes.

Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Ali Sapirman, and I'm the Advocacy and Policy Manager at the Housing Action Coalition or HAC for short. We are a statewide organization that advocates for building more infill housing for residents of all income levels and a proud sponsor of AB 1026 because it continues the Legislature's work to streamline housing development by bringing parity to the application timelines for investor-owned utility companies.

Housing development projects in the post-entitlement phase often find themselves facing unnecessarily long wait times in the permitting and review process, which leads to delays that add to a development's overall cost.

Our developer members have reported delays far exceeding an acceptable timeline, making their projects harder to finance and delaying the speed at which units can be occupied. We asked our members for examples of their experiences with these types of delays, and one instance that was shared where a project in San Francisco was delayed an extra year to get comments back from an IOU, which meant three low-income families had to wait a year longer than was necessary to have housing.

I've had other members alter and change housing projects entirely in order to avoid delays from IOU comments. AB 1026 seeks to address this by requiring IOUs to comply with timely application review standards and reinforcing timelines established by the CPUC's September decision in their energization OIR.

By setting reasonable standards and reinforcing review timelines, we're taking another step to create good government guardrails and creating consistency from start to finish which gives developers the opportunity to make their desperately needed housing projects pencil. For these reasons, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Go ahead. You also have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, chair. Good morning, committee members. Kevin Kitchingham, Director of Housing Development and Construction at Mission Housing. We're a 50-year-old community-based nonprofit in San Francisco. We have 40 units and about 4,000 residents and tenants.

We face this issue on the regular basis on one of our largest public housing rebuilds in San Francisco on the west side, which we're always trying to do these days in the high resource areas. We faced a year's delay on a decision between a subgrade transformer and an above-grade transformer in an area with really poor soil.

Pretty easy decision. Took a year. Delay, construction cost, period of interest carry those types of issues. Accessory dwelling units that we put into play--take a few garages in the Mission, turn them into units for low-income families--another six months on energization. Delay to families getting in.

That was Senator Wiener's legislation that got us into the ADU world. Excellent stuff. Way to reuse, repurpose infill developments. Years down the line, in 2022, we had 131 units done, complete, just waiting to be turned on. That's 130 families waiting to get low-income housing in San Francisco just continually waiting.

We can't predict when we can turn those buildings on because we're not being communicated with. So this legislation goes a long way to provide those timelines for us, we appreciate the amendments, and we'll appreciate your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We have other witnesses in support.

Mr. Chair and Senators, Coby Pizzotti, on behalf of the City of El Cerrito, in support.

Thank you.

Andrew Dawson, the California Housing Partnership, in support.

Good morning. Paul Shafer with the California Council for Affordable Housing, here in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras, Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of San Diego Housing Commission, Habitat for Humanity California, Fieldstead, Circulate San Diego, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, and California YIMBY, all in strong support.

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

Okay. We will now hear from witnesses in opposition. Looks like we have two. You will each have two minutes.

Hi. Catherine Borg with Southern California Edison. Thank you to the author and committee for proposing some amendments. We look forward to seeing those in print and we'll analyze them at that time. You know, we've been working with the commission on their energization OIR and we believe that that's really the appropriate place for this type of thing, and so we will look forward to seeing the amendments in print. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Good morning. Brandon Ebeck, Pacific Gas and Electric. Echo the comments from our colleague from Edison. There's, there's a lot of work going on thanks to the chair's leadership on this. We know we're still awaiting action on the balancing account mechanism associated with SB 410 to help us fund some of these projects.

We do about 10,000 of these projects every year. There's always going to be some issues here and there. In our reported timelines, the average end-to-end application is about 300 days of which the utility is currently responsible for about 150 of those.

There's a lot of issues that we can work on, issues with permitting from different state agencies and local governments and conflicts between our standards and local government standards. We've suggested those to the author's office and the sponsors, and ultimately we're not sure that the information being requested on the sample application is valuable because all types of applications are different.

An application for an ADU is going to be different than an application for a thousand unit apartment building or subdivision. Every single application is unique to the location, all of the entitlements, easements, local, what you're putting in the house, so we typically work with each customer to understand their needs, make sure their application is complete, and that's a better path forward than just looking at a sample application that really has no merit on what you're trying to build. So appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. All right, let's bring it back to the committee for discussion. Senator Grove.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions and a couple of statements. Is this for just housing applications or is it across the board for any application that's submitted?

It's across the board for any application that's submitted because it's about energization, but the focus in the testimony has been about housing because that is most impacted in terms of delays. Time is money, so not to say that our businesses aren't impacted by having a delay, but when you think about the difference between losing a couple dollars or losing the ability to be housed, big difference, and so the testimony has been centered around housing, and the intent is to ensure that our housing energization process is smoother in building upon the work that's already been done.

Thank you. I do appreciate someone and people trying to address this issue. Believe me, I'm on the IOUs constantly about, you know, PSPS shutoffs. I have, I have communities go five, six days without power, and these people are in the rural areas with water tanks where they have to have the power to pump the water to their house. So when they get a PSPS notice because the wind is blowing it three miles an hour, five miles an hour--I mean, this is--we're not a third world country, okay?

They have to fill up their bathtub so they have toilet water until the power comes back on. I went so far as to having people that were texting me and complaining about the power shutoffs in a little valley community, at a lake community, send me pictures, video of the trees outside.

The wind is barely blowing and we can't maintain power. I access the weather stations around that specific area that UC Davis and other organizations put up, and they didn't see a threat, but for some reason, it always trips the power transformers or shutoff switches or whatever they are. So, and then--so that's just one issue I have. I have a text message right here that came in yesterday: 'Back in 2019, we were promised power to upgrade within six months. However, the upgrade was just completed last week.'

'We have abandoned that project and unfortunately will not be building that capacity as it took six years for us to get power.' So I realize that we have a serious problem with our IOUs. They know I know that there's a serious problem with the IOUs. I'm not saying anything publicly I haven't said to them.

Well, I say a lot of things to them privately regarding my frustration that I won't repeat on a microphone, but I don't know--my fear is that policies that I've seen come forth--and I haven't had a chance to research yours completely--but policies that do come forth just add additional burdens to the IOUs where they can't--it limits them from functioning providing power.

So I do want a solution. I really do. I want them to be able to provide power, flip the switch, and keep the power on when it's provided. So I do want them to do that because I think that's better for all of our constituents.

I have a builder in the Central Valley who has millions of dollars of grants from the USDA regarding farm worker housing. They have housing projects that are ready. They've been sitting vacant. I have story after story of a single father with two kids that's waiting for that housing but they can't get power to the house, so I get that there is a major problem. I just don't know if this adds to the problem by making them go to a single source page.

I do agree with PG&E because I've worked through building housing before with some of my builders that a single application--like one site that we helped with is way different than another site, so I realize that every project is probably different, and to uniform, really require the IOUs to do this, I don't know if that's helpful.

I don't know if they're going to put some multimillion dollar price tag on it to fill out one form that they're not going to use anyways, so I just, I know we have a problem and I'm just trying to convey that to you that I just don't know if this is the solution, and I'm not saying that for any other reason other than I've been dealing with this problem since I got here in 2010, and I have constantly have people say businesses or individuals or people building housing, you know, we're waiting two years.

I have energy, I had a business set aside several hundred acres to put solar on and they--solar sit for three years without being energized to the plant after they invested all that stuff.

I have business owners in the Central Valley that were using gas generators to provide cold storage for their product because it has to be kept cold and they got fined by CARB, and they had had an application into one of the IOUs for four years to provide power, and they didn't, but they had to comply and keep--you know.

How do you--it's a no-win situation. I know there is a problem. I appreciate you bringing forward something to make a solution out of it. I just know that basing work on this with IOUs helping my constituents get the power that they need, every application that every--and I'm talking at least 100 people have come to me regarding stuff like this--it's all different, and so I don't know if one uniform form is going to make a difference, but--

Yeah, through the chair, I would say--and here's the thing. I worked in home building before coming here and recognized that every application that we had, even for our different subdivisions were different. What it does though, it does provide clarity up front of what's needed because part of the delay is the back and forth.

So if I, as a developer, know exactly is what needed to get me to approval early on, then I'm providing those materials early on. So it's not so much a burden, I would say on the IOUs, it's really providing clarity for the developers so they don't have wasted time.

As I said in the beginning and the first part about this applying to everyone, time is money, and so the more time I have to waste in doing all this follow-up--and I'm helping to contribute to the delays--I would love to be able to know exactly what's needed and be able to provide that so it can lead to a complete application earlier which would then cut down on the notes. PG&E noted or the testimony noted that it's on average 300 days and 150 unrelated to the IOU process.

And so how do we reduce that down? Because we're not talking about the Delta, the 150 to 300 that belongs to someone else. We're talking about the 150 for the IOU, and part of that is the back and forth between the developer, and so hopefully this will provide greater clarity so that the developer can then within themselves be able to provide the information that's needed to drive closer to a complete application sooner.

Is there a, is there a penalty process? I guess I'm just asking. So like if, if the IOU says you have to provide these ten things or whatever the process is, and then those ten things are provided but it didn't meet the requirements for the IOU to be able to energize the power because of something else, is--can they go back and continually ask for--

Well, they will have to. They will have to go back because the point is is that the IOU controls what's a complete process for energization. So there will be that back and forth, but this allows them to get as much as that information as possible, to know as much of that information as possible up front and to be able to clearly provide it so that they can expedite, so that the developer knows that they're doing their part to expedite that process.

I totally get it. If you provide certainty, people can comply with certainty. It's the unknown--I get that. I get that. I just am worried about, I don't know, I don't want to say collateral damage that doesn't work on the ground. That makes me nervous. I do feel more comfortable that you were in the building industry before.

Yeah, and I get that, and so here's the deal. You know, I work regularly with the IOUs and we discuss and collaborate. I don't consider them to be the evil bane of existence that some do, and so, yeah, so I'm not trying to make it harder.

And I do recognize that a lot of things that we do in the Legislature is theory, but what is the practical impact? What is the practical implementation? And I'm concerned about that, and that's why I think we strike a good balance with this, focusing more about not in theory we think this is great, but really through, how do you implement this? We think that we found that balance, and so--

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you very much for answering my questions and listening to my diatribe.

Thank you.

Okay, anyone else? Senator McNerney.

Well, thank you. I thank the author for this. Like the Senator from Bakersfield, I've heard plenty of stories of people waiting an inordinate amount of time to hook up to solar or businesses waiting to go. They're forced to go out of business because they can't hook up.

So this is a serious problem and I think it's a good faith attempt to find a solution. It'll make sense, I think we should implement it, and it'll help, especially if we can put the 150 days concurrently so they're happening together and reduce that 300 days down to 150, but I'll support the bill.

Thank you.

I just got a text. We have an issue with PG&E lasting two years.

Yeah. No, no, no. I think all of our, all of our offices, district offices gets lots of complaints and I'm sure their interactions with some of the IOUs is at the top of it.

Okay, well, I want to thank the author. As you know, yes. I very, very much share your concerns for ensuring that we get timely energization--by the way, I always mess that up--but timelines, and actually the very first bill I introduced when I first got to the Legislature, SB 68, included very specific timelines and some of those timelines did not fully make it through, but that was focused on electric-ready homes, and as you note, we did eventually pass SB 410 for that exact reason.

We got to find a solution and that ended up being targeted workforce, targeted resources and accountability for these projects, and many projects even from 2025 did get pulled into Q4, 2024, but we obviously still have issues regarding housing and the amendments.

I think working with you and your team will ensure that this bill's requirements are folded into the existing CPUC proceeding so as not to inadvertently undermine those efforts while at the same time ensuring that your goal to increase transparency in the application submittal process is achieved.

But the last thing we want when we put in all these resources, including public resources to build housing, including affordable housing, then to have it sit there while we are waiting for hookups, that does not make any sense. So I appreciate--I've been on that journey and I appreciate working with you on that journey to make sure we can get all this new infrastructure.

As I mentioned earlier, with volumetric rates, again, we want this new load on the grid so it can get power to these customers and also bring down--eventually that brings out the rates for everyone. So thank you for that. Would you like to close?

I would just like to thank the chair for his leadership in this space already, and like I said earlier, for your work and the staff's work in helping ensure that this bill had the appropriate amends. Thank you for the discussion with my colleagues in the Senate, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, well, now that we do have a quorum, I do not believe we have a motion yet. Do we have a motion? Senator Ochoa Bogh. Motions. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Housing Committee. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Okay, that is 720. We will keep that on call. What we're going to do, and I, no, we still have, we have a couple Assembly officers here. We're going to open up the role on previous items for our members who have been here on time. And we'll start out with file item 1.

This is AB 222 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan. Oh, yes, and we had a motion from McNerney, Senator McNerney, which is do pass as amended, to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay, that is five to one. We will keep that bill on call. We will now open up the roll on AB 443 by Assembly Member Bennett. Senator Strickland made the motion do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay, the vote there is seven to zero. We will keep that on call. We will now go to file item 3, AB 531 by Assembly Member Rogers. I do not believe we have a motion yet. Senator Ochoa Bogh, motions. Do pass as amended to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay, we will go to. Oh, sorry. I should say that is seven, yes, seven to zero. Will remain open. And next we go to file item 4, AB 734, Assembly Member Schultz. Senator Allen made the motion do pass to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee. Please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay, that vote is six to one. That bill shall remain open. And now we'll go to file item 5, AB 737 by Quirk-Silva. Do we? I don't believe we have a motion yet. Senator Ochoa Bogh, our Vice Chair, motions. Do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay, that vote is six to one, and we'll keep the roll open. All right, now we will. Thank you for waiting patiently. Welcome to the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee. Assembly Member Rodriguez, you are here to present file item 6, AB 777. Please go ahead.

Hello, everyone. Thank you, Chair and Members. I would like to start off by accepting the Committee amendments. And of course, thank you all for working on this Bill. I'm proud to present AB7, which aims to strengthen communication between utility companies and the California Department of Social Services during emergencies and disasters.

Timely, accurate data from utility companies is critical to ensure Californians can access food. Federal assistance programs such as CalFresh and Disaster CalFresh when our communities need them most. In early January, windstorms and wildfires devastated parts of Los Angeles. In my district, the Hearst fire left many households without power for days.

I'll never forget the mother who came to my district office just to warm a bottle of milk for her baby because her home had no electricity. DSS acted quickly, and many families received hot food waivers, automatic mask replacement of benefits, and access to disaster CalFresh.

However, some zip codes in my district were left out of the request to the Federal Food and Nutrition Services because they were not included in the utility outage data. This isn't just a local issue, it's a statewide vulnerability.

We saw the same breakdown happen in Santa Clara County in June 2023, when DSS's request for federal food assistance was denied due to incomplete utility data. California is no stranger to natural disasters, and with climate change, these emergencies are becoming more frequent and more severe.

AB777 ensures that utility companies and DSS establish data sharing agreements to provide timely aggregate power outage data by zip code during disasters. The bill also requires each utility to designate a point of contact helping to streamline communication and ensure that no household is left behind when a disaster strikes.

All Data shared under AB77 is subject to existing privacy laws and explicitly excludes any personally identifiable information. This bill protects privacy while making sure families get the help they need in times of crisis. Speaking in support of AB77 today are Kelly Longo Flores with the California Association of Food Banks and Andrew Shane with End Child Poverty California.

Okay, thank you. You each have two minutes. Go ahead.

Thank you so much. Kelly Longo Flores with the California Association of Food Banks. I work alongside 41 food banks across the state. Collectively serves 6 million Californians with a mission to end hunger. Proud co sponsor we know that hunger is on the rise. This year California became the fourth largest economy. Yet one in four California households has.

Children facing food insecurity and these numbers rival pandemic days. We also know and as we heard. That hunger spikes after disasters and when. Families are in the greatest need. Earlier this year as we heard about, we saw a 135% increase increase in. Demand after the fires at the LA Regional Food Bank.

Food banks are here to help in times of disasters, but they can't absorb at all. Federal nutrition programs like Disaster CalFresh are. Critical to meeting families where they are. When they need it. CAB has a long standing role as a partner with state and counties throughout. The outreach network getting word out about disaster CalFresh.

We support CDSS and scanning and flagging when there are power outages that impact food. But especially in May cases like la. We need to make sure we're not. Leaving federal dollars on the table and. That we're meeting the needs of our communities. A key component of that is the.

Information from utilities necessary for CDSs to submit that request. And we are, we were proud co sponsors of the 2017 legislation that this, this builds up. But now with so many disasters, we need this legislation to make sure the Department is fully connected to all utilities so that we can have that timely data necessary to request.

Thank you and respectfully yes for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. You also have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair, Members, Andrew Shane with End Child Poverty California. Thank you to Senator Rodriguez for this important legislation and I'll just share a couple very quick stories. Our own President and CEO Shamika Gaskins is an Altadena resident and her power went out before losing their home.

We're just so glad that they escaped with their lives. But that is the reality obviously of Californians who not only lose power, are losing everything. And we need to make sure that we are providing all of the available resources. I've also helped support some of the disaster California shotreach in Sonoma County.

And I can tell you, looking into the eyes of someone who has absolutely lost everything, to at least be able to tell them that we are maximizing the emergency food and other types of resources is the least we can do for those among us.

As has already been stated, all we're trying to do in this legislation is make sure that we have the agreements between DSS and all of the utilities. As Ms. Rodriguez already spoke to in the Los Angeles firestorms, there was also power outages in Orange County and San Diego. county. And there's massive storms in Northern California.

And federal regulations require the timely request within 10 days. And we cannot have incomplete or even late submissions and sacrifice that information. And so glad to help answer any questions that's needed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll turn to others in support.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. And also expressing support for Feeding San Diego, Food for People and Food Bank for Humboldt County, Food in Need of Distribution Food Bank, Glide, Los Angeles Regional Food Bank,

A Jewish Response to Hunger, Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County, Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Cruz County and Second Harvest of Silicon Valley.

Okay, a good list. Thank you. All right, opposition. Do we have any opposition lead witnesses? See? None. Any opposition add ons? No. Excellent. We'll bring it back to Committee. First, let me just read the amendments. First, clarify the data requests by the Department of Social Services.

DSS of utilities are limited to those in relation to addressing nutritional assistance during disasters. Second, clarify. The CPC only directs the investor owned utilities, electric, gas, water to develop agreements with dss whereas local governing boards of publicly owned utilities adopt agreements with dss. Third, clarify. The data requested can be aggregated by zip code.

And you said you're accepting the amendments? Yes, I'm accepting the amendment. Okay, excellent. Turn back to Committee. Senator Stern.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you, Senator. I haven't seen a Bill of yours in utilities yet, but I, I appreciate the creativity behind it. Worked on similar measures when it came to the IHSS and other sort of human services populations, So I think it's really smart what you're doing here.

You know, you only get so many touch points on people who are Struggling. And so if the utility has that access and they're there, the fact that one hand doesn't talk to to the other. Sometimes, especially when it comes to social services, we miss opportunities to help people. We leave people behind.

You know, not just during sort of the wildfire itself, but also during public. Safety power shut offs. And I think we've seen that as a major issue. I think your area got hit pretty hard, even if not by fires.

I know our whole part of SoCal got hammered with power shut offs and Lord knows how much food was lost during that window. So I would love to be at as co author of your measure. Really appreciate it, having to move the Bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Excellent. Anyone else? Well, I want to thank you for this legislation and it's very timely. Senator Stern has made a motion. It is do pass to be amended in the Senate Human Services Committee. Please call the roll. zero, actually, take the chance to close. Would you like to close?

No, I just. This Bill is about equity and preparedness and I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Okay, good. With that, we have the motion. We will call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, 5-0. We'll keep that open on call.

Thank you.

All right, Assembly Member Berman is next up in file order, so we will take him for AB 1167. File Item 8. Please go ahead when ready and good to have you.

Thank you, Chair Becker and Sanders. I'd like to start by thanking committee staff for their work on the bill and accept the suggested amendment in the analysis. AB 1167 would establish greater transparency and common sense guardrails for how investor owned utilities spend ratepayer money.

At a time when our constituents are struggling to pay their skyrocketing utility bills, we need to focus on affordability. AB 1167 would close loopholes and prevent IOUs from increasing customer rates to fund lobbying, promotional advertising, and activities that are for the primary benefit of shareholders, not of ratepayers.

A patchwork of rules from both the PUC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provide guidance in this area. However, recent investigations exposed efforts by IOUs to charge customers for inappropriate expenses. To be clear, there are laws on the books and some do work.

But there's more that can and should be done to prevent passing along costs that raise utility rates without benefiting customers. And we're not alone in this effort, as AB 1167 follows in the footsteps of other states such as Connecticut, Colorado, and Maine.

So at the end of the day, IOUs should not be in the business of charging their customers for expenses that are not providing, that are not directly leading to the providing safe, reliable energy. And therefore, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me today are Matt Vespa on behalf of Earthjustice and Adria Tinnin on behalf of the Utility Reform Network.

Okay, thank you. You each have two minutes. Go ahead.

Good morning. Matt Vespa, Senior attorney with Earthjustice. Earthjustice is proud to cosponsor AB 1167. There's a lot that needs to be done to reduce energy bills. Ensuring utilities do not charge customers the cost of their political influence and promotional advertising activities is a basic first step.

Utilities are not supposed to be doing this, but they've been caught doing it anyway. The problem is that under the way things work now, utilities are incentivized to see what they can get away with. Uncovering misuse of customer money takes significant time and resources. You often have to push back against utility obstruction.

And assuming you're able to do that, the utilities then just claim they made an inadvertent error, move the cost to a shareholder account, and face no other consequences. AB 1167 establishes a structure that starts to address this problem. It first clearly defines the activities utility shareholders must pay for.

It then increases transparency so misuse of customer money is much more easier to spot. This is common sense legislation that will give the people of California confidence that utilities are not slipping the costs of their political influence machines into their energy bills.

Now, contrary to utility arguments in opposition of this bill, there is nothing vague or overly broad about the activities AB 1167 requires be shareholder funded. Its definition of political influence activities post directly from existing regulatory standards utilities should already be following.

Other provisions like prohibiting utilities from charging customers for costly memberships, to trade associations that engage in lobbying follow utility accountability laws passed in other states. In fact, Maryland just became the fifth state to require utility shareholders pay these costs. These provisions of the bill simply catch California up with best practices adopted elsewhere. For these reasons, I respectful request your aye vote on 1167. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee. My name is Adria Tinnin. I'm the Director of Race Equity and Legislative Policy at TURN - The Utility Reform Network. Here's proud cosponsor of AB 1167.

AB 1167 prohibits utilities from abusing ratepayer dollars to pay for lobbying, promotional advertising, and other expenses that do not benefit, do not benefit ratepayers but benefit shareholders. California residents are facing an affordability crisis while utility rate. Excuse me.

While IOUs are raking in obscene profits. Every investor owned utility, the four large ones in this state, have made record or near record profits in the last year. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of thousands of households being disconnected for the inability to pay their bills.

Despite that stark reality, utilities have been caught inappropriately spending rate payer funds on expensive promotional advertising to boost their reputations. They've also been caught using ratepayer money to lobby against climate goals and against the well being of ratepayers. All of this adds up to the misspending of hundreds of millions of hard earned ratepayer dollars.

Currently, there is no meaningful accountability if the utilities are caught misusing funds, which creates a perverse incentive for them to continue trying the abuse. The current rules are not enough. Under the status quo, we have to trust without verifying and we cannot afford to continue taking their word for it.

AB 1167 offers a thoughtful remedy to this dynamic by providing transparency and accountability for such abuse. So the utilities are incentivized to use the proper funding for these activities in the first place. Furthermore, nothing in AB 1167 limits the amount of money a utility can spend on these activities.

It simply limits the amount of ratepayer money that can be spent. They are more than welcome to use their record breaking profits to pay for as much advertising as they would like. We respectfully ask for an aye vote for AB 1167 and hope the Senate, excuse me, ask the Senate to support AB 1167 in providing this protection for ratepayers. Thank you.

Thank you Ms. Tinnin. Okay, we will go now to other supporters of this measure. Go ahead.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, in support.

Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors, on behalf of Rewiring America, in support.

Alexis Sutterman with Brightline Defense, in support.

Chloe Ames with NextGen California, in support.

Bernadette Del Chiaro with Environmental Working Group, in strong support.

Michele Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists, in support.

Shira Spector with Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Alliance in support. Thank you.

Katie McCammon with Climate Action California, in support.

Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance, in support. Also asked to register support for Sierra Club California. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. David Azevedo with AARP California in support.

Thank you. We will now go to witnesses in opposition. Do we have any opposition witnesses, look like we have two.

Morning, Brandon Ebeck, Pacific Gas and Electric. We have an opposed position on the bill. Contrary to what the support testimony said, we do believe that the bill is a little bit too broad and does blur the line between what is clearly politics and what is just regular engagement or public safety work.

For instance, the definitions of the bill prohibit membership in any and all trade association regardless of if there's customer benefits to those trade associations. There are a lot of trade associations, some are political like chambers of commerce that constantly weigh in policy. There's other trade associations that benefit customers like safety and public education type organizations.

Those should continue to be funded by customers. Additionally, there's provisions in the bill that say that, try to regulate any outside law firms or other vendors associated with commission proceedings. Oftentimes we are directed to hire some outside firms. Oftentimes we contract with outside firms because it's more cost effective to customers than hiring new attorneys.

Internally, we have some firms on retainers. We have some that do hourly work and the bill kind of mixes it all into one bucket and says all this is political and we disagree with that as a foundational premise.

We would like to continue working with Assembly Member Berman and Senator McNerney on his bill over, it's currently over in the Assembly and respectfully oppose the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Rod Brewer with Southern California Edison. I'd like to align all of our comments that our colleague from PG&E has raised. A lot of work that we do is done in the name of education through Edison Electric Institute. That is not an Edison company.

It is an organization organized by investor owned utilities from across the nation and their sole purpose is to educate our ratepayers and also our fellow stakeholders on the stuff we do and the policies that take place on the federal level and the respective state levels to help bring some bear and some light to how everything we do is done for the benefit of the ratepayers.

And I do want to commend the author for accepting amendments that help move the needle along the process.

But for us, we got to review this latest set of amendments because there are some things that we're looking at, things that my colleague from PG&E has raised. Especially in terms of subject matter expert review attorneys, the work that they do, to help make sure that we are staying on the straight and narrow on policy issues, but also for what we do on an everyday basis. For on that note, we are opposed to AB 1167.

Thank you. Others in opposition.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California Gas Company also in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. John Kendrick, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, also in opposition.

And good. Yeah.

Good morning, Chair Members. Martin Vindiola, on behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Employees and the California State Association of Electrical Workers, we are currently opposed. However, we look forward to working with the author on a potential amendment to prevent the personal. The disclosure of personal information of workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Thank you.

Thank you. I will bring it back to the Committee. We have a few, starting with Senator Strickland. Actually, let's start with our Vice Chair. Sorry, start with the Vice Chair.

You do the Vice Chair first. The Vice Chair. Yeah, sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Such a gentleman. Okay, so I have a couple of comments and questions with regards to the Bill. And I do have some concerns on this because I feel we've had.

I feel like we've seen a couple of bills within this space that try to move that needle forward and so forth, but some of the. So here are some of the concerns that I have.

So, you know, we received, obviously, we've received several letters and here's some of the things that some of the items that actually piqued my interest. So currently, this Bill is trying to legislate issues that are already addressed by existing law and have regulatory oversight.

It says here, by disallowing OU's from using the ratepayer funds for any such communications, the Bill effectively penalizes OUs for engaging in discussions that directly affect their industry and customers. It raises concerns about whether or not this is a First Amendment and petition clause. And it also. So those are the.

That's one of the main concerns of this, of the Bill. However, let's see, one of the things that. And, you know, I've seen a lot of legislation in this building, in this body that has gone through that really does impact the cost of providing energy in our state. There's been studies on that.

You know, normally people, you know, we've had a study that came out in March that had to do with fuel prices. And, you know, the Legislature has been claiming that, you know, there's been industry efforts to basically gouge Californians as far as energy costs. And the study came out and said it's not.

It wasn't the fact that these companies were gouging Californians, but the fact that it's literally legislation that is impacting the cost of energy in our state.

And so I understand where you're going with this, but by the same token, you know, there raises serious concerns on whether or not the capacity exists for the industry to actually educate and inform legislators on their in their space in their field.

So I also have here a note that says, says that this may violate the First Amendment. A 2023 Court of Appeal decision found that the disclosure of shareholder account information to the Public Advocates office would infringe upon Southern California's or SoCalGas First Amendment rights.

So, and it says here that, you know, currently as the law stands is that the utilities are already prohibited from using ratepayer funds for political advocacy related activities.

So basically, we have a lot of concern with one, we currently have laws in place, and it is also my experience these past five years here in the Senate that we try to pass laws because we're not currently enforcing the ones we currently have.

And I'm not sure whether or not this is the case in this particular space, but the statements and the research that we have here is that we already have these laws. It may be that we're not enforcing them, but they're already in place.

And then the second concern lies in whether or not this is an infringement on their ability to actually exercise their First Amendment and their advocacy, which is, you know, a lot of what we see in this space in this building is literally groups coming in and vying for a time with the member or their team in order to advocate, educate in fields that we're not experts in.

So those are some of the concerns that I have, and therefore, I would love to hear your comments on it.

But as of right now, especially when it comes to constitutionality on various bills that we see moving through the Legislature, I'm very, very cautious about supporting and want to make sure that we really look into what that means.

Because if we're going to pick, you know, who can advocate, you know, and spend their resources in advocating here and who can't, you know, we're creating winners and losers rather than applying and saying, okay, as long as these funds are allocated in this pocket, they're used for this particular service, which obviously we already have that in place.

Then what is our intent here? Is it the fact that we're not enforcing what we currently have, or is it truly the fact that it's needed?

Thank you. Thank you for the questions and comments to the chair, if it's all right. So there's a couple of comments and concerns raised there.

One is in regards to the existing structure, and the problem with the existing structure right now is that it's extremely time and resource intensive to uncover where a utility has improperly passed costs onto customers.

And additional disclosure and reporting requirements are necessary to give Californians confidence that their energy bills don't include the costs of utility lobbying and promotional advertising. And some examples of where this has gone wrong just in the last couple of years.