Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

The Senate Committee on Energy, Communications and Utilities will come to order. Good afternoon. We're holding our Committee hearing in the O Street building. We ask all Members to be present in room 1200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. We have seven bills. We have eight bills in today's agenda.

Agenda item seven, AB 1104 by pelerin. Net Energy Metering. Net energy metering has been placed on consent. We're going to start out as a Subcommitee and when we have everyone here, we will have established requirement and we'll start out I guess in file item order with Assemblymember Aguiar Curry. You have file item one. AB59. Welcome back to the Committee.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Chair and Members. I would like to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. Reclamation District 108 provides water to nearly 48,000 acres of Farmland in southern Colusa and northern Yolo County.

Currently, RD108's authority to participate in hydropower projects is set to expire in January 1, 2026. Without this authority, RD108 will lack the certainty it needs to engage in long term infrastructure planning and projects. The district has already identified potential opportunities for future hydropower initiatives, including small hydropower facilities in its existing canals.

However, to make sure long term investments, RD108 needs assurance that it can participate in these projects over at least 35 year period. By securing long term financing, RD108 can make these projects more affordable for the district in the long run.

Because RD108's Hydropower Authority has been subject to sunset dates, the uncertainty has made it difficult to move forward with long term projects and financing. This Bill grants them permanent authority to participate in hydropower projects and includes a reporting requirement to keep the Legislature informed.

With this change, RD108 can move forward with confidence and continue investing in clean, affordable energy. With me today, I have Lewis Bair, General Manager of RD108 and Daurice Kalfsbeek Smith, Chair of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors.

Okay, you each have two minutes. Go ahead. Thank you for being here.

Thank you and good afternoon. Thank you to the Senate Committee Members. My name is Daurice Kalfsbeek Smithh, Colusa County Board of Supervisors, representing District 2. That includes RD108. I'm here today in strong support of AB59.

I first wanted to thank the author, Assembly Majority Leader Aguiar Curry, and her staff as well as the Committee Members for their work on this Bill. AB59 is an important measure that would allow RD108, the hydropower authorization, to continue to seek opportunities to develop power through hydroelectric generation.

RD108 has a close working relationship with Colusa and Yolo counties. RD108 doesn't just manage and deliver water that grows food. RD108 is an innovator and educator for floodplain management, habitat improvement and water recharge projects. Colusa County is Proud to support AB59 and the opportunity for RD108 to reduce its energy costs in an affordable and environmentally responsible way.

Thank you so much for your time.

No, thank you. We'll take the second witness.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Good afternoon. And I would like to thank the Assembly majority leader in our Assembly woman, Ms. Aguiar Curry, and the Committee today. My name is Lewis Bair. I'm the manager for RD108 and I have been for about 20 years now. And we take great pride in managing our watershed.

That's everything from the animals that live in it to the air quality to prices to our growers. And hydropower is standard for a lot of irrigation districts and other water utilities. I think because of how reclamation districts started originally with flood control. It wasn't something that was originally part of the authorities.

But in 1917, we were granted most of the irrigation district authorities. And so you've seen other reclamation districts like RD108 ask for this same authority. And you can refer to 1004, which just our neighbor to the north.

They've done this same exact thing so that they can operate a hydro facility and recover some of the energy and create that revenue to keep costs down for their growers. And we just like to have the opportunity to do the same thing.

Excellent. Thank you. We will take other folks in support.

Good afternoon. Jeff Neal representing Yolo County, also in support.

Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Jasmine Vaya on behalf of Northern California Water Association, proud sponsors in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Excellent. We will now take opposition witness. Are there any opposition witnesses? Seeing none. We will bring it back to the Committee for discussion.

I'll move the Bill when appropriate.

Okay, thank you. Any other thoughts? Questions? Okay. Well, thank you. I want to thank you for bringing this up. And thank you to the folks who came to testify here with us today. I do have an aye recommendation on the Bill. Obviously we're operating as a Subcommitee for right now, but with that, would you like to close?

You know, what I do want to share is that I don't know how many times people come in and propose their bills and it's addressing a sunset and they wait till the last minute.

RD108 is so organized that they came to me last fall so that we knew that we had plenty of time to have the discussion, a real thorough discussion and making sure that we were able to help them with the issues that they have at RDA108. It's an incredible reclamation district.

And what many of my Members have gone up to see Caloosa and see what we're doing up there, they're always amazed. Oh my gosh, I can't believe this happens in a beautiful area of northern Yolo County and Colusa. So I just wanted to thank you all and I appreciate, appreciate your vote today. Thank you.

Well, thank you Majority Leader. And we will, we'll have a motion from Senator Strickland at appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator.

Okay, next up, Member Pacheco. Thank you for being here on time, diligently waiting. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I am here to present Assembly Bill 61, and I will be accepting the Committee amendments clarifying that the request for a Bill analysis may come from Committee staff to replace the reference to chair staff.

Californians are feeling the squeeze of rising costs, and our utility bills are no exception. For our low income residents, these increases aren't just numbers. They are real decisions about how to make ends meet each month. The facts are stark. Electricity rates in California surged by about 47% from 2019 to 2023, according to the Legislative Analyst Office.

That's nearly three times higher than inflation. Occasionally, we pass well intended energy programs without fully understanding their cost impacts. For example, the California Public Utilities Commission estimates that net energy metering is adding 200 to 400 annually to bills for other IOU customers. We all want to support programs that help our constituents and advance our climate goals.

But we can't keep passing these costs on to families who are already struggling. AB 61 offers a simple solution. Before we vote on new energy mandates, let's make sure that we have the facts.

This Bill requires the Public Advocate's Office at the Public Utilities Commission to analyze the efficacy, cost impact, and overall effect of each proposed legislative mandate on electric and natural gas companies, prior to a vote in legislative policy committees. This isn't a novel concept. We already do this successfully with legislation that may impact health care affordability, through the California Health Benefits Review Program.

AB 61 will provide legislators with independent, data-driven analysis about how proposed legislation would affect California utility bills. This information will help us shape energy policy that both accelerates the state toward meeting its climate goals and keeping electric rates affordable.

And with me today in support is Lourdes Ayon, the Manager of State Government Relations for San Diego Gas and Electric.

Thank you, Assemblymember Pacheco. You have two minutes. Go ahead.

Yes, thank you. Chair and Members, I'm Lourdes Ayon. I'm—as Assemblymember Pacheco mentioned, the government—State Governmental Affairs Manager at San Diego Gas and Electric. I want to thank Assemblymember Pacheco for bringing this really important Bill forward and thank you all for hearing it today.

This is the second year that we're attempting this very simple Bill, just to ensure that utility customers know what's in the Bill, how much are—every time that there is a new proposal on energy, there's a cost. It would be great for legislators to know what the cost is going to be ultimately to utility rate payers.

Right now, ratepayers are having a hard time understanding their Bill and they can't afford the Bill. So, it would be great to be able to tell them how much it would cost before any Bill is passed and approved by this body.

It's—as Assemblymember Pacheco mentioned—a very simple concept where we can ask how will this Bill or any proposal actually help customers? How much will it cost families and are there better ways to fund these programs through General Fund or any other programs?

Because right now what we're looking at is there's a—I'm not sure if you all looked at it, but there was an editorial today that appeared in the SAC Bee that talked about why is the California energy Bill so high. And it talks about net energy metering being very high.

But it also references a really important report from Blue Sky, and it mentions that state requirements are accounting for nearly 37% of typical residential customer electric bills, so we're looking at public purpose programs that are within these the bills and within rates, at the tune of 37%.

Public purpose programs of course, wildfire mitigation, NEM, these are all making up what is in rates, aside from distribution, energy distribution, and delivery. I think that energy customers deserve to know what's in the Bill. They deserve to know how much it's going to cost.

For example, we did a quick back of the napkin kind of estimate to see how much this Bill would cost as it would be—the PAO would be running it—so it would have to be costing—just for SDG&E alone, we estimate that it would be about 48 cents a year, how much that this Bill would end up costing.

It would be so wonderful if each proposal would have some sort of cost estimate so that you all would have a better—have more data, more information, and beyond just...

Gonna ask you to wrap up. Thank you.

Sure. Beyond well intended.

Beyond the well intentions of making sure that Californians are doing well and that we're taking care of them as a state, that we also know that we're taking care of their bottom line and their pockets as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support? Okay. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we'll take it back to the Committee for discussion. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I do appreciate the Bill, and I understand where you're trying to go with it and because I think that we do have to have accountability and you know, policies that come out of this building. We very seldom think about what the cost is to put those policies in place on the ground.

I just have a couple of observations or questions. The Public Advocates Office—is that the appropriate entity that it should go to because they are ratepayer funded, so any additional cost, whether it's going to be SDG&E or Southern California Edison or any IOU? The Public Advocates Office is 100% ratepayer funded, so just curious if that's going to increase.

So, we were looking at different locations and different possibilities and this one seemed to be like the most appropriate one. But of course, we've been working on this—this is our second year working on this and so, we're always open to any ideas.

It shouldn't be that hard to get a Bill like this each year.

It shouldn't be that hard. But we've had multiple conversations with folks and so, that's why this is ending up being my second year introducing this Bill.

So, and then my other question is I didn't see a timeline in the legislation, like when's the report supposed to supposed to be finished and completed?

Well, we're actually—I don't know if my witness wants to testify as that. I don't remember.

The Bill says it establishes—requires—the...to establish by January 1st, 2027, a program to analyze the legislation.

So, it starts though, 2027?

Yes, that is my understanding.

When is it going to be completed and back to us, that's the question.

I don't think it's specified.

It has to win the reporting when the Legislature is supposed to. So, I guess I'll take it back.

If there's like a Bill that could have an impact to ratepayers, then the Chair could request that, or chair staff could request, that an analysis be done as to what the impact of the rate payer would be and then that information would go back to the Committee hearing so that the legislators could have the full information.

And I don't know if that's the time period you're asking about or?

Yeah, so I was just curious. So, it's going to be on a Bill-by-Bill basis?

Okay.

correct?

Yes, yes.

Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate that. I'll move the Bill at appropriate time.

Okay. Thank you.

Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Assemblymember. It's, it's a great Bill. And having independent office like the Public Advocates Office analyze legislation and help present us with a complete picture of the bills that we're working on, enacting these bills into law, seems to be a prudent way because all of us are trying to find a way to save money and we can take a good look at what's exactly happening because everyone right now, how do we bring those costs down?

So, I appreciate the Bill, and I thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you.

Senator Rubio.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author for this. It's something that I often express out loud. I know that when we pass bills here in the Legislature, we tend to see them in isolation. And one Bill, one great idea, may seem a good thing at the moment.

But I often talk about when we take all the bills into consideration, when we have the cost of every single bill, it really does get pushed down onto the consumer.

So, anything that we can do to ensure that we bring the cost of living down is critically important, especially during these tough times for our families that are having a hard time with high energy bills.

But I think, again, this is critically important to ensure that we are wide eyed in terms of everything that we keep putting on IOUs, which we know end up getting passed down to consumers, is important for me. So, I also want to add myself as a coauthor.

But making sure that we follow through and really analyze that information that comes to us so that we could be better informed and make better decisions for our families and make sure that when we say we're going to tackle the affordability factor, that we mean it. So, thank you for bringing this forward.

And I also, like I said, if it hasn't been moved, would like to move the Bill.

Thank you. We do have a motion from Senator Grove. I'll just say from my own standpoint, and as you mentioned, the amendments clarify the language, Chair staff, as reference to Committee staff, so thank you for clarifying that. Yeah, I do appreciate this.

I mean obviously, there's been a very focus of our Committee this year, my legislation, Senator Wahab's legislation, other legislation, to focus on why understanding why rates are—have been—going up and what goes into utility bills and all of that.

Obviously, there's lots and lots of reasons beyond NEM as a factor that was cited, but we do appreciate this effort too and that kind of transparency. We support that and I have an aye recommendation. Would you like to close?

Yes and thank you all for the opportunity to present my Bill, AB 61, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember. Welcome back. Next up on file, item 3, AB 368, by Assemblymember Ward.

Okay, thank you. We are operating as a Subcommittee, so we can't vote at this moment but when we do, we have a motion, and I expect a favorable outcome, but we'll let you know.

Thank you.

Speaking to our witnesses here. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Senators. First, I want to thank the Committee staff for their hard work on this bill.

And I do accept the Committee's amendments and pleased to present to you here AB368, which would direct the California Energy Commission to produce a one time report evaluating the use of passive house energy models currently required for passive house certification and the cost effectiveness of passive house construction compared to existing Title 20 for construction.

Now, what is passive house? Passive house construction is generally described as residential building.

Is that any kind of music? Is that passive house?

It is not that kind of passive house, Senator, but it is a new type of construction that is generally described as residential buildings characterized by design standards intended to maximize some of the building's efficiency by using the building's location envelope and other measures that optimize comfort without increasing energy consumption and ideally while decreasing energy consumption.

Now, you might think of this, I have a parallel in the vein of LEED certification, something that was really born through industry experts, those who are architects, those who do development, they were thinking about ways to be able to design and build houses that were a lot more energy efficient.

Passive house is that next level of sort of industry standard that is being widely adopted by new construction as well and deserves that careful look about whether or not that is something that we want to integrate with California opportunities, much like we do with LEED certification, if we're thinking about incentives or programs or other kind of budgetary support or best practices within our own codes.

So California, you know, has ambitious climate goals and we know we have to find ways to be able to reduce energy consumption within the residential sector. And superior energy efficient designs like those meeting passive house standards would help reduce emissions, improve indoor air quality, lower energy costs, and importantly harden homes against wildfires.

And as stated in the analysis, these elements commonly include continuous insulation, no thermal bridging, airtight construction, high performance windows and doors, and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery. So the study this bill would require will provide a full picture of the cost effectiveness of passive house construction taken as a whole in comparison to Title 24 current regulations.

For witnesses and support, I have Jonathan Cole, the transit lead with Climate Action California. And when the time is appropriate, I welcome your questions and respectfully request your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Chair Becker and Members of the Committee. I'm Jonathan Cole. I'm the transit lead for Climate Action California and an emeritus Professor of physics at Miracosta College in North San Diego. County. I participated in climate research as a visiting scholar at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Thank you. Senator Ward, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

And co authored two chapters in a Climate solutions textbook, Bending the Curve. Unfortunately, our building decarbonization subject matter experts were not available today, so I'm here to pinch hit for them. As amended, AB368 calls for comparison testing between passive house standards and and the current Title 24 code.

This would be the first study to evaluate costs for the construction and maintenance of passive houses and compare them to houses constructed under the existing code, in aholistic manner rather than just focusing. On individual housing components. Although the California Public Utilities Commission offers incentives for passive housing, current regulatory barriers disincentivize passive housing construction.

AB368 seeks to reduce these regulatory barriers and the complexity of permitting passive houses in California's code. The comparison test results from this study will potentially allow a smooth transition from current code into an alternative voluntary pathway that can achieve high performance climate smart buildings without the additional regulatory costs that are currently incurred.

As a proud sponsor of AB368 Climate Action California, thanks Assembly Member Ward for authoring thiis important legislation and urges your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Thanks for being here. Any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? We'll take it back to the Committee for discussion, Senator Archuleta.

Assembly Member, just a few questions. You know, the construction industry is always trying to do the best they can with the dollars they have and the end product to be able to make it affordable. That's the big thing right now, affordability.

And I know that a homeowner can insulate more so than someone else or at a higher level. A homeowner can design their home with airtight construction if they want. And of course, the windows that you see advertised on TV constantly, double pane, triple pane, and on and on.

My concern is the fact that we're mandating something that is going to cost the industry and the consumer so much rather than dividing it up as they see fit in one community versus another. Obviously in Barstow when you have cold weather and extreme heat is a lot different than Los Angeles County and mandating it across the board.

Explain that to me and how that would work.

Thank you. So you're right. We already have some very expensive mandates under our current codes, not just Title 20, but really across the California building code, things that we're working on together in the Legislature actively this session.

And so what passive house standards, again as an option to be studied could employ are an alternative set of building development and materials that hopefully would not be as costly to that homeowner over the lifespan of that house, maybe initially, but also, and especially throughout the utility of that house for 30 or 50 years going forward, knowing that there would be a significant amount of energy savings and the costs associated with that would.

Passive house standards that again are starting to be developed by private industry right now.

As a and employed out there, you probably have passive house developments happening in all of our neighborhoods across the state, because if you can't afford to do so, or if you've become aware of this new opportunity, you might want to elect to design your house to some of those standards and really try to achieve many of those savings.

And you have a very astute observation right now that things would vary, vary greatly by region, that things that are developed along the coastline are not necessarily the same level of insulation and other standards of development that might apply for something that is inland or in the high desert.

And so that is something that can be taken into account in such a study to see whether or not there would be a variation of intensity of some of those standards to be able to meet the climate change needs of those specific communities in those regions, but all that can be really integrated into such a study.

Again, I would really look forward to that information because if we are right or if industry experts are right, this could be a pathway to net savings for millions of Californians into the future.

So have you been working with the industry to perhaps build one? And so then we could compare that with one that isn't. oh, yeah, efficiency behavior.

There's thousands that are built out there right now. And those that have elected to be able to be those pioneers are attesting that their energy savings drops remarkably. But we need to know what those inputs are.

Energy costs drop remarkably.

You mean the energy costs dropped remarkably.

Exactly. So when you think about the cost of owning that home over the lifespan of the home, they are starting to achieve those savings in the out years. Is it more expensive on the outset?

What's that? Yeah.

And it's a great study to have with us. Right.

We believe sometimes it could be potentially as much as a wash. And so you've got to think about the cost effectiveness, effectiveness and the totality of the lifespan of the building.

Excellent. Thank you, Senator Wahab.

It'd be helpful to know.

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

Thank you. Thank you. So one, I want to appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. In SB681, we had elements of passive housing, and I do want to highlight it's not just only about energy usage. It's also just to prevent some disasters that we saw in LA and so forth. I will say that there was. You

know, passive housing versus, you know, fireproofing and some of the other concepts out there and it's debatable on the details and what it can do. But when I traveled to LA and saw the disaster from the wildfires, there was one home and it's been highly in the news as well.

But I saw it firsthand and I was very surprised by it. Left completely standing. Yeah, right. There was no damage to it. At least maybe some smoke damage that we probably don't see or you know, in the air filters or whatever the case. Maybe. But it was very fascinating to see this.

I think that these are good reviews to be able to take a look at and see what we can do.

However, I do just also want to flag just for all of our Members here, not about this bill, but when we are building and in the informational hearings regarding the wildfires and much more, the Fire Commissioner stated that homes need to be at a minimum of 20ft apart so it does not spread to each other as rapidly as it does.

We are seeing bill after bill that basically says zero setbacks, you know, in regards to how far apart. And those homes are like a matchbox. Right.

But I do just want to highlight that I think that this is good in the fact that we're having a report, doing some analysis on how we build, what we build to what do we want to see built and how we are making sure that we're kind of getting up with the technology, getting up with the standards.

And I fully support it. I plan to move the bill when ready.

Thank you Senator Archuleta. Beat you to it on the moving. But thank you for your comments. I will for my own part echo what Senator Wahab just said. Thank you for bringing this up.

I learned a lot about passive house in the context of learning about this bill and they said potentially energy savings of up to 90% in cases I will mention on the, on the point about wildfire. Actually Assembly Member Pellerin was just presenting my Bill in natural resources at 326 on zone zero. Right.

So we have new standards coming out. They've been waiting for them for a while. But we're trying to make sure now communities actually implement those, especially in the very high fire. In the very high fire zone. So. But I agree this does play in that area as well.

As well as we want to make sure that we are building for air quality too. So when there's future fires which, you know, we'll have to make sure that we do our best to protect the air quality in the home. And I believe passive house will also help for that.

So what would been fun if it was a new kind of music. We're glad that it's here as a building official standard. And we do have the one amendment which you mentioned requiring the CDC to use the cost effectiveness criteria in existing law to assess and compare passive house standards, which you've accepted.

I do have an aye recommendation. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Senator. A lot there that I think I would just echo in my close. I also want to thank Senator Wahab for underscoring the issue about home hardening. That is a nice co-benefit of this. The standard that is now more rapidly being used by industry professionals and by building experts that are out there.

And you're right, the famous now infamous picture that we saw in the LA Times is actually I kind of clipped that and put that in my fact sheet because this tragedy really struck that neighborhood. There was that one house that withstood that tragedy.

And whether or not it was because and the owners believe that it did certainly help their odds of surviving that wildfire. The complete encapsulation of that home and them being able to achieve passive house certification may well have helped them be able to home harden that home enough to be able to withstand the tragedy that community endured.

So I would love to be able to see where this goes. I can see a lot of cobenefits to future home opportunities for Californians. And when the time is right, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Okay, well, thank you for bringing attention to this and educating all of us on this in this area. And we will. We have a motion so we'll take a vote once we have a quorum. Thank you. Assembly Member Pacheco, Assembly Member Rubio. I know we had the other block. I know it's funny.

We were joking about the Josh caucus and then the Blanca caucus the other day and the other Rubio. I was looking but some of Rubio. Thank you. I was also complimented to her on her patience. Thank you for your patience as well. And you are here to present AB428. File item four. Please go ahead when ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present AB428. AB428 would permit water corporations to participate in Joint powers authorities or JPAs for pooled insurance purposes. AB428 is a reintroduction of legislation I carried last year AB2735.

This year's version addresses concerns raised by the governor's veto message by including language that would require reinsurance and liability coverage when a water corporation joins a JPA. The changes made to this year's Bill clarify that a water corporation's membership in the JPA must benefit the customers by either reducing rates or improving services.

They also require demonstrations of these cost savings through memberships of the JPA. This Bill remains fundamentally important in a time when our state is facing an insurance crisis. Across the state, AB428 protects customers from increased water rates by reducing insurance costs where available.

These savings are especially important in areas comprised of low income individuals and families and for those on a fixed income. With me today to support are Susan Allen with California Association of Mutual Water Companies and Jennifer Capitolo with California Water Association. Thank you.

Excellent. You each have two minutes. Go ahead.

Great. I'm Jennifer Capitolo. I'm the Executive Director of California Water Association. We are the statewide Association representing water utilities that are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, 84 Member companies here in California, providing service to about 15% of the state. Our Association, one of our biggest priorities this year was affordability.

And I think that really came about because you all care about it. Our regulator, the Public Utilities Commission, cares about it. The Water Board cares about it. So we put a very big emphasis this year, hosting a conference, issuing a white paper, holding webinars to try to talk about how to blunt cost increases for water utilities.

We had an excellent conference and one of the things that we've been talking about for two years now, since this is a reintroduction of a Bill last year, is the cost of insurance for water utilities. It is significantly rising.

And I just want to tell you a quick story of one of our small companies that's up in the Tahoe area, South Lake Tahoe, Lukens Brothers Water Company. When we started working on this concept of trying to get pooled insurance for regulated utilities, hurt insurance in 20 was $43,000 a year.

Seems pretty reasonable, right, for a 2000 connection water utility. If you remember, back in 2021, the Caldor Fire hit up in the Tahoe area. Fortunately, it didn't impact Lukens Brothers Water Company.

But because it was close, they had an impact on their insurance and their insurance tripled following that event, just being near them in the same geographic area. And in 2024, their insurance rate had increased to $279,000 a year. So again, 2020 they were paying 40,000. 2024, they're paying $280,000 for insurance. It's shocking how much it's increased.

So you can see why this is a priority for us to bring this bill to you to try to find a way to blunt those cost increases. And insurance is a direct pass through to customers. Whatever it costs the utility to pay, it's passed directly through.

So in that same way, any cost savings that the utility can experience in terms of insurance, that savings then gets passed directly on to the customer. So thank you for your support today.

Okay, thank you.

Hi there. My name is Susan Allen. I'm the Chief Executive Officer of California Association of Mutual Water Companies Joint Powers Risk and Insurance Management Authority, which is CalMutuals JPRIMA for short and also the Member Services Director for Cam Mutual.

We are pleased to co sponsor AB428 recognizing the critical need to expand existing law to allow investor owned utilities to participate in JPIAs for insurance purposes. These utilities face rapidly increasing insurance costs in the private market and it burdens their operating budgets and the personal budgets of the customers that they serve.

Calm Mutual's JPRIMA was established in 2016 to provide stable and affordable insurance to mutual water companies. And we're now in our 8th year and have have 600 water suppliers that we insure statewide. Including 300 mutual water companies which are like little co ops that are owned by their Members and they support about 1.3 million Californians with water.

Central to JPRIMA's mission is a commitment to small systems. And we invest a portion of our premiums into resources and support that provides small systems with help to strengthen their managerial, technical and operational foundations. We exemplify the best of what JPI APIAs can provide. Cost savings, efficiency, expanded services, regional cooperation, tailored and flexible offerings, innovation and transparency.

We've observed that growing challenges are faced by water systems, especially small systems, in the insurance landscape. With climate change wildfire, flood, aggressive litigation and outrageous increases in commercial insurance premium. We are eager to support our IOU colleagues in addressing this urgent need for stable affordable insurance options and respectfully request your aye vote for this important bill.

Excellent. Thank you. We'll go to others in support.

Mr. Chairman and Member Scott Wetch on behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Employees and the California State Pipe Trades Council. Good Bill. Great author. Urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, how about opposition? Anyone? Is there a lead opposition witness? See no one in opposition. We'll take it back to the Committee. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I want to first thank the author. I just asked our Rubio. Senator Rubio if this would come to her Committee, just because it touches a little bit of insurance and things like that, I will say I commend you for working on this Bill. I think that it's really, really a noble effort.

And I will be supporting this bill and moving the bill.

We have a motion. We'll go to our Rubio. Senator Rubio.

I've never been referred to our Rubio, but thank you for that. Well, you know, this goes to the heart of the discussion that I was having earlier with the other Blanca in the Assembly, her Bill about affordability.

And I think that's something that's critical that we have to face these days, that everything seems to be, you know, being passed on to our community consumers. And this Bill really gets to the heart of something very important. You know, I did hear the testimonial right now about 43,000 a year to 279,000 a year.

I mean, that's extreme. And so when we think of the pass through to our consumers, it's just getting really difficult to live here in California. And just in General, they're legitimate issues.

Of course, it's not being done on purpose, but trying to figure out these types of innovative ways of bringing down the cost of living for our consumers. I think it's critically important and I also appreciate the fact that everyone's thinking outside the box. It's absolutely needed, necessary. And I also like to co author it.

And being the chair of insurance, I can also attest to what's happening in the insurance market and how difficult it's been after the fires and just the State of the insurance crisis in the State of California. So I appreciate it. So thank you for bringing it forward.

And I also, like I said, would move the Bill, but I think he already did.

Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I echo our Rubio's comments on the affordability crisis. Just shows we need a good, really super good insurance Commissioner in the future that like thinks outside of the box on this. But I do have a concern. These are traditionally non public entities. Yes.

And they're putting together a risk, some of the cost of insurance and other costs that are associated with supplying water. And I guess my question is that if there is a loss and if one of them fails, does it jeopardize other risk pool organizations that will be able to participate in the State of California?

Yes. Well, to clarify, they're joining a current pool, which is a current pool.

Yes. I apologize.

Yeah, no, no. And that's the issue is because they're mutual water companies, they can't join the pool. That's why the Bill is need. So if you join a current pool, they already have kind of the structure. In fact.

We almost gave Scott a heart attack.

The other thing I was going to tell you is that the reinsurance requirement is the thing that insulates the concern that you have. So a normal pool.

That I was going to ask you. That was my narration.

If you had insurance, a normal pool, everybody pitches in and everybody pays. But the way our pool works is that the entire thing is reinsured. And so there's no joint or several.

It's like a captive insurance program. Correct. Got it. Thank you.

Okay. And there was a. And Assemblymember Rubio. I know there was a veto of a similar Bill last year by the Governor. You feel like you've addressed those veto concerns?

Yes, absolutely. So the reinsurance part of it was one of the concerns that they had. They were just more concerned about. You know, these are mutual water companies that have investors versus, you know, the public water companies. And so we have been in conversations with the governor's office, and this addresses their concern.

Okay, excellent. Well, I have a recommendation. Would you like to close?

Thank you. I wasn't going to say it, but I just had a heart attack. I got my insurance, home insurance, raised by 33%. And so, you know, in. In doing this Bill last year, I was like, oh, you know, just thinking that it was for somebody else. But I do not live in a mutual water company area.

However, I know that we're scrambling to figure out, okay, how much is that going to cost? And, you know, for a small water company or communities like that, that insurance cost is really impactful on their daily budget.

But other than that, you know, really appreciate the opportunity to present again, and hopefully you can help me get it to the finish line today. And with that, I respectfully ask for vote.

Okay, well, thank you. We do have a. And that's when that hits home. That is that 33% rate. That's. Wow. Huge. We do have a motion from Senator Wahab with strong support from Rubio. We will have again, have I recommendation. We'll have the vote once we have a full quorum. Thank you.

All right, Assemblymember Davies, you're up next. File item 5, AB 615 on power facilities. Welcome back to the Committee.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senators, today I'm here to present AB 615. I first want to thank Committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure. I will be accepting the Committee's amendments.

Under current law, Public Utilities Code 761.3 requires that each battery energy storage facility located in the state have an emergency response and emergency action plan that covers the premise of the battery energy storage facility. The plan must be developed in coordination with the local emergency agencies.

Furthermore, Public Resource Code 25520 requires an application to the California Energy Commission for the operation of an energy facility to include, amongst other things, safety and reliability information about the facility for emergency operations.

However, under both of these existing laws, a developer for a new energy facility is not required to submit as a part of their initial application to the CEC an emergency action plan.

AB 615 is a common sense public safety measure to require that not only shall an emergency action plan be submitted with the initial applications for the development of a facility, but they also must work with local first responders agencies to receive feedback on if this proposed site is in a safe area and meets national safety standards.

This information will be vital for the approving state agencies such as the Energy Commission. A lithium ion battery fire at the Moss Landing Power Plant led to an evacuation in January. Monterey County officials confirmed that the fire released a plume containing hydrogen fluoride.

This incident renewed concerns about how close energy storage facilities should be to residential, community and vegetation sites. Senators, I want to reiterate that this Bill is in no way diminishing or hurts our ability to build new clean energy facilities. I firmly believe our state needs more of them. The proof of this is in the pudding.

The Bill has no opposition and was on consent in the Assembly. My team and I have worked tirelessly with the industry leaders to ensure that this Bill, that many are already doing or have no issues complying with it. With that, I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

All right, thank you. Are the witnesses in support?

Katie Jennings, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? All right, we'll take it back to the Committee. Senator Strickland.

This is a great Bill. I'd like to add as a co author if it gets amended down the line, but I would like to move it when the time's appropriate.

Thank you.

Okay, Well, I want to first thank you and confirm you accepting the amendments. They're listed here. Delete provisions of the Bill regarding the submission of transmission data as part of the thermal power plant.

Citing application required the CC to ensure that energy storage opt in siting requirements comply with the setback requirements at least as protective standards in NFPA 855. Third, specify the bills requirements for energy storage systems applications apply to applications submitted after January 1, 2026.

And finally, clarifying the Bill alters the CPUC's authority to regulate the rates, services or safety practice of public utility or generate asset owner subject to its jurisdiction. Thank you. I thank you for, personally thank you for tackling this very important that as we roll and roll out more and more of this kind of facilities that we have this in place.

So we have an aye recommendation motion from Senator Strickland. When we have a quorum, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. Appreciate your time.

Okay. Excellent. Thank you. And we will now move on to file M6 and Assembly Member Tenjepa. Thank you. Why don't you clarify for us? I've heard a couple different interpretations, but thank you. Welcome for your first time to the Energy Utilities and Communications Committee. How would you prefer we pronounce Tangipa?

That's an easy one.

Yes. Okay. Excellent. Yes.

Okay. But my middle name is Jariustokaeutulelei, if you want to try that too.

Okay. And we work on that one.

All right. All right. Well, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Senators.

First, I want to thank you and to the Committee staff as well for their work on the analysis. Prior to being elected, I worked for Fresno County. And in 2020, our community faced a devastating wildfire known as the Creek Fire. I saw firsthand the impact that these disasters have on homeowners and entire communities.

Rebuilding after a disaster is a difficult and costly process that doesn't need to include unnecessary regulatory burdens that only make it harder for survivors to get back on their feet.

AB 738 provides a simple and practical solution by offering a limited exemption to homeowners whose properties were affected by disaster that have been declared an emergency by the Governor.

This bill allows them to rebuild their homes under the solar energy standards that were placed when their homes were originally constructed, without the added financial burden of meeting newer, more expensive regulations. This exemption is not a blanket change.

It's a narrowly focused measure that ensures that only those who have suffered, who have already suffered the traumatic effects of a disaster, can benefit from it. The goal is not to undermine California's clean energy goals, but to recognize that in a time of crisis, wildfire survivors need flexibility, not additional costs that delay their recovery.

Thank you. Welcome, Ms. Carlton. You have two minutes.

Rebuilding isn't just about restoring homes. It's about restoring communities and giving people the chance to reclaim their lives. And today I have Deborah Carlton from the Apartment Association here to testify and support. Thank you.

Thank you. And good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. We represent not only apartment owners, but. Single family rental owners as well. As you all know, since 2020, homes. Were required to have solar systems. They were not subject to these requirements if they were built prior to 2020.

So, of course, we appreciate Senate Bill 738 that would provide some financial relief for these smaller owners who are attempting. To rebuild after really devastating time in their lives. Of course, they have to fall under. The exemptions provided in the Bill, which includes that their insurance will not cover those costs as well.

So with those, we respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support.

Long walk there. Yeah.

Travis Legault with the Rural County Representatives of California in support.

Okay. Opposition? Do we have any lead opposition witness? All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Senator Wahab?

Thank you. So I understand that you want to bring this back to the standard of which the home was created, correct? Okay, so is there any safeguards or guardrails in regards to the year the home was built?

I just think the. So what do you mean by that, though?

So if the home was built in, let's say, early 1900s, very different from obviously homes being built today. Right. But the standards have also changed in roughly 100 years. If the home is built in the 1980s, I think many of us can live with, you know, hey, it's to that standard or whatever the case may be.

So are there any type of timelines associated with this?

Well, I think when it comes to building, those safety standards are still going to be in place for those homes, but this is simply just for the solar standard that's currently on the home. So I know all of those homes will be newly built to today's standards there.

This just again, provides the exemption for people just trying to get back on their feet.

Okay, and is it a blanket exemption or can they specifically ask for the exemption?

They can specifically ask for the exemption. So if they could afford and they want to go ahead and put solar on their home, they can. But this, especially with the targeted income requirements as well, you have to be under the median county income to actually even qualify for this potential exemption.

Okay. And then you also changed the date from 2029 to 2028. Is there a reason for that? Because the rebuild of these homes also most likely, you know, God forbid, you know, incidents take place, but takes a long time, not only just for the cleanup.

For example, the cleanup in LA is expected to take at least 18 months, if not longer. So what are we looking at with the dates?

I believe that was an amendment that was asked for me to accept to do that. So I am more than happy if we could extend this to make sure that we're providing the most relief for the most families.

Okay. And then do we have any clarity on why we put 2028, considering that cleanup wouldn't even potentially be done?

Yeah, that was not an amendment in our Committee.

Okay, well, I. I will move the Bill. I appreciate your work on this, especially for folks. I, I don't agree with the amendment personally, but because the cleanup of a site that is damaged would take longer. So thank you.

Senator Grove.

Yeah. I just wanted to say thank you for bringing the Bill forward. I wish again if it would cover.

I wish again that it would cover people in Palisades and other individuals, but I know their income exceeds that level that we had to put, that you had to put on the Bill to make sure that you got out and got some credit for at least those in, you know, low income standards and people that couldn't afford the solar, but if they can, they're able to put it back on or they're able to meet those standards.

I appreciate you bringing the Bill forward and it really shows me that I know it's not just for the Creek fire people, but I just spent the weekend at Huntington up there and to go through that area where those people lost their homes in our community is really disheartening. So thank you for bringing the Bill forward.

Thank you.

Well, thank you Assemblymember. For my own part, I know these exemptions can be controversial, but I've always supported them in the past, particularly in this circumstance. We know that many survivors of recent disasters are often underinsured, including some of the folks from the recent fires in Southern California.

So while certainly believe residents could benefit from solar installations and the clean air. We also recognize that for those suffering from under or complete lack of insurance, this Bill is really an attempt to help reduce the cost of rebuilding or repairing their similar sized home.

Again for those whose income falls below the area's median income who've been affected by the disasters. So, do have an aye recommendation. Would you like to close?

Yes. So Senator, I hold that same sentiment you have.

I know people that I know personally that had a 1200 square foot home and because of the requirements that were put in place for them to simply just rebuild in the Creek fire, they now have an 800 square foot home because they had to put some solar mandates on that during their rebuild because it wasn't covered insurance because they didn't have that coverage before.

So we do believe that this provides specifically help to veterans, low income family and those who need it most right now, especially in a time of crisis. And I do respectfully ask for your aye vote. So thank you.

Okay, thank you. We are still operating Subcommitee. We will we have a motion and we will vote once we have a quorum. Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Okay, so as we mentioned earlier, file item 6AB 1104 by Pellerin is now on consent.

So we're going to move to our last Bill and we ask all Members to come to the Committee so we can establish quorum and we welcome Assemblymember Irwin AB 1423 on AVCharge and we appreciate all your efforts in this area. Thank you for being here.

Thank you very much. Chair, I would like to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments. Accept, except for the cost driving amendment that requires the CEC to develop best practices to comply with contract terms and the Chair and I have already discussed that. I appreciate your willingness to have that conversation.

AB 1423 would remove the prohibition on the CEC developing payment standards until 2028. This allows the CEC to create payment methods standards prior to 2028. Credit card requirements make up 10% of the cost of a level 2 EV charger.

According to the estimates by CARB, credit card and contactless payment systems on EV chargers create $371 in upfront costs and $270 in recurring costs per charger. 91% of Americans own a smartphone and will be able to receive a charge using their preferred app.

Removing this barrier to installation will allow more widespread and rapid deployment of chargers, moving California closer to its goal of 2.1 million charging stations by 2035. This will allow charging companies to use credit card readers, but provides flexibility if they do not want to put those payment systems on their chargers.

AB 1423, along with AB 2697 which was signed into law last year, will move California one step closer to a plug and charge future similar to the Tesla experience. Thank you and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Well, thank you and we'll move to witnesses in support.

Good Afternoon Chair Becker and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you to Assemblymember Irwin and her staff and for the Committee for their work on this Bill. My name is Isabella Craddock and I work in Government Affairs for Electric Era Technologies.

We provide intelligent battery backed public EV fast charging systems that are designed to minimize grid impact, deploy quickly and be highly reliable. At Electric Era, we are committed to high reliability and uptime for all our charging stations.

This commitment is reflected in the satisfaction of the EV drivers who use our chargers and in our collective fleet uptime of 99.0 I'm here today to express electric era support for AB 1423 and my testimony today is in reference to the Bill in print.

California continues to lead the nation in the transition to zero emissions vehicles and has invested over $1.0 billion into building a network of public EV charging stations. The reality today is that charger and reliability remains an enormous source of frustration for EV drivers and a genuine impediment to EV adoption.

We encourage the enforcement of uptime, record keeping and reporting requirements for publicly funded EV charging infrastructure to ensure responsible expenditure of state funds and deliver on the promise of a robust statewide EV charging network.

It's common sense if an entity receives public funding to install public EV charging, those stations should work and they should work reliably each time an EV driver arrives to charge. We urge your aye vote on AB 1423. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support. I'll clarify one more.

Rocky Fernandez with the Center for Sustainable Energy. We administer several programs around electric vehicle infrastructure and electric vehicle rebates. The Energy Commission's report that this references in the Committee analysis was missing three key things. One was enforcement. Second was utilization data so that we can understand electrical loads and future grid needs.

And the third was level two chargers. With the proposed amendments it would address reporting requirements for level two chargers. That's why we're in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any others in support who want to add on? And then we'll go to witnesses and opposition. Opposition.

Thank you. Chair Sam Hood on behalf of ChargePoint today. While ChargePoint is opposed to the Bill in print, we will be moving to support with acceptance of Committee amendments. We're grateful to the work of Assemblymember Irwin, Chair Becker as well as Committee staff for work on this Bill.

ChargePoint appreciates the amendments to give the CEC greater flexibility in modifying payment system requirements for charging stations while also considering the cost impacts and evolving nature of payment technologies. These amendments move forward our shared goals of fostering EV charging station deployment while also maintaining affordability for consumers.

I'll note we submitted a letter earlier today requesting an additional clarification that is now moot given the accepted Committee amendments. Again, we look forward to seeing the amendments in print and appreciate all the work on this Bill. Thank you. Okay. Others in opposition?

Sure. Julie Malinowski on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, echo the comments that. You just previously heard. Hopefully moving out of this opposition position and looking to a support once we. See the amendments in print. Thank you.

Reed Addis on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association. Ditto. We were in opposition but we will be changing that position. Most likely be support once we see it in print. Thank you.

Ryan Mccarthy on behalf of Electrify America. Similar position. Appreciate the work of the author, the Committee, the staff. When the amendments are in print, we will likely be moving off our opposite position. Thank you.

Margie Lie, Samson Advisors here on behalf of the Southern California Public Power Authority. We had a tween year position, and we're working with the author. Just want to thank you for the Committee work and the Committee amendments and those resolve our concerns. Thank you.

Okay, we'll take it back to the Committee. I just want to say a few words in advance, and then we'll open up to my colleagues. First, I just want to, again, thank you for your work on this.

You passionate about improving the charging experience for all Californians, and we know that that is critical for achieving any of our goals. Right. If we're gonna. If we want people to buy electric vehicles and buy them again, they have to have a positive charging experience.

I know that hasn't always been the case for many, including you, and specific circumstances that I've heard you discuss. You know, this goes back. My experience with this goes back, being on this Committee, goes back to Assembly Phil Ting's Bill, which asked the CC to do a rulemaking.

Unfortunately, that's taken a long time, but that rulemaking is now in print as of, I guess, about 10 days ago. And, you know, from my own standpoint, you know, I've kind of brought everyone together and brought the charge, you know, asked the charging companies very directly, what are you doing on this? What are you doing on uptime?

What are you doing on reliability? And this regulation, I think, will finally be that part that I think you've been pushing for. And I know there's other pieces of the Bill that have been considered.

The focus right now is on this, which we also appreciate on this issue, of making it kind of more affordable to install chargers by looking at this requirement. So the amendments that I'm going to read out loud, since they differ from those in the analysis.

So the amendments are the number one delete provisions, but retroactivity, expanding the scope of the CC's existing reliability rulemakings and establishing fines for EV chargers. Second, modify provisions regarding EV charger payment systems to restore existing law prohibiting chargers from requiring memberships and retain existing law ensuring drivers can pay for charging with a credit card.

Third, remove limitations on the CC's ability to update payment systems requirements before January 2028 and require the CC to consider cost impacts when adopting EV charger payment requirements. So if anyone on the Committee has any questions on that, happy to go into that, but this allows the CC earlier to start a rulemaking on that point with that.

Senator Archuleta.

Mr. Chair, I just want to verify you have all the amendments you need. If you do, I'll move the Bill and I'll support it. All the amendments are in. Yes. Yes. Okay. Then I'll move the Bill.

Okay. Any? Senator Wahab.

Okay. And I apologize because I have talked to a number of people and just want to get clarity from you. I personally like using a credit card. If I were to use, like I don't want to sign up to a subscription, I don't want to give my extra information out.

I don't want to log into a new system. Like, I don't want to do any of this. Right. I just want to be able to travel, tap my card, move on with my life.

Does this allow that all the chargers that use credit cards will stay around? And certainly any company can still install chargers that have credit cards. This just adds additional chargers that are more like the Tesla experience where you can just log on to your app. It's kind of. And you don't need a credit card reader.

The credit card readers do add a lot of expense. They add a lot of ongoing expense because of the payments. And they're also very subject to vandalism.

So we just want to get as many functioning chargers out there to build out an infrastructure that can really give people confidence that they're going to be able to get from point A to point B and, and get a charging. Get a charge.

Okay. But again, just to clarify, this does not change any facts related to those chargers currently, but it does allow the CC sooner to start a rulemaking process on removing that requirement.

Okay. And I understand that the CC would have to go through rulemaking to change any of this. My concern is the commissions, and I think I talk about the CPUC the most this past year. But there is very little engagement with the public when they are engaging in this rulemaking and changing.

Like, I have a lot of frustrations with the commissions at the state level, from when we talk about appointments to accountability to, you name it. So that is my concern, is giving them more authority where need be. Because this is not a need be situation. My personal opinion, but those are my concerns with the Bill.

We could have also done it through statute, but it was thought that it would be more robust and able to. We would be able to get more public input by going through a rulemaking process. So we looked at both of those, discussed it with the Committee, and it was decided that this was the better path forward.

Okay. And I completely respect that. I just, you know, my district that does use a lot of chargers and you know, it's home to Tesla and so forth, there's still a lot of concern for the average person who is trying to buy a Plug in hybrid of some sort, or, you know, electric vehicle, which is now, you know, kind of like the trend, if you will, that they want to go into another system.

There's a huge push against, like signing up for another program. So thank you.

This just adds more optionality.

Senator Grove, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just trying to read through it really fast again. I tried to do it this morning. Obviously, coming off of a fourth of July weekend. I wasn't trying to like, limit my responsibility, but I thought I had read somewhere in there there was a, like a criminal or civil liability of the operation.

That's all been. You took that out. Okay. I think that's what I struggled with. I'm glad you took it out because, I mean, if you have an EV. I mean, people are disappointed when they go to a gas pump and it doesn't work or the price is too high or whatever. But I just.

I was floored by the fact that we would have charging station. If somebody on a homeless purpose ripped out copper wire and everything and it was non functional. How they would be charged criminally for something like that is that.

I'm not sure if there was a criminal. I don't think it was criminal. I thought it was criminal and civil.

It's not. They're both gone.

Right.

It was just. They were civil only. But it is out. Out of the way. It is out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Okay. I will be supporting the Bill. And again, I appreciate, not only working with us on this Bill, but I appreciate all your efforts. And I do feel like we've kind of turned a corner and that the new chargers going in are having more and more that.

That ability, both the reliability, but also the ability to have that. That feature where we can get better information about whether a charger is available, whether the charger is working and all of that. And I feel like we should like name some chargers after you or something.

They feel like there should be something to recognize all your work in this area. But again, I appreciate it. I know Lake community appreciates it. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote and thank you for working with me on the Bill.

Yeah. We have very close to quorum, although it is not yet. We should have one very shortly. We have a motion from Senator Archuleta at that time. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay. We asked for Members to be present here. We need one more Member for quorum so we can vote on some of these bills we've considered here today.

Hey, Mr. Chair, right before we start, can I have a point of personal privilege again? I. To introduce an individual from my district, Joshua Mangot. He is following me around for a week to see if the political life is really, really like. So thank you.

Thank you, Joshua, for being here with us today. All right, please. Establish a quorum. Okay.

[Roll Call]

Yes. Okay, we have a quorum and we are going to do some votes on bills, starting with. With file item 1, AB59 by Aguiar Curry. We have a motion for Senator Strickland. The motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll, Senators.

[Roll Call]

That one is 10 to 0. We will leave the roll open. We go to file item two, AB61 by Pacheco. We have a motion from Senator Grove do pass as amended. The Senate Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll, Senators.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that is. That was 10 to 0 as well. We will keep the roll open. Now we go to file item 3, AB368 by Assemblymember Ward. We have a motion from Senator Archuleta do pass as amended, to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll, Senators.

[Roll Call]

Okay, 10 to 0. Keep the roll open. Now we'll go to file item 4, AB428 by Assemblymember Rubio. We have a motion from Senator Wahab do pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll,

[Roll Call]

10 to 0. We'll keep the roll open. Now we go to file item 5, AB615 by Davies. We have a motion from Senator Strickland. Do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That one is 10 to zero. We'll keep the roll open. Next up, file item six, AB738 by Assembly Member Tangipa. We have a motion from Senator Wahab. Do pass the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

I move the consent calendar nine to zero. That last Bill. Yes, we will. We have a motion from Senator Archuleta on the consent calendar. We have phylum 7 on the consent calendar. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That is 10 to 0 on the consent calendar. Finally, file item 8. AB 1423 by Erwin. We got a motion from Senator Archuleta. Please call the roll. 2. Pass to be amended in transportation. That's due. Pass to be amended in transportation. Please call the roll. .

[Roll Call]

Okay, that is seven to one. We will leave the roll open. Thank you, all Members. We will take a brief recess while we wait for absent.

[Roll Call]

10 to 0. Okay, we'll come back. We'll come back. Let's start with the consent calendar. We have one item on the consent calendar. It's AB 1104 by Pellerin. Please call the absent Members on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

We will take a quick recess. Recess. And we're going to open the roll. Oh, we're going to give the TV 10 seconds if you have any questions. Do you have any questions?

Okay. We're now back from recess and we are going to open the roll. We're going to start with file item 1. AB59 by Aguiar Curry. Majority Leader Aguiar Curry. Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

All right, we are caught up. And we will take another brief recession.

And there we are. We're back. And we will open the roll, starting with file item one. Aguiar Curry. AB59. Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

All right, you're all caught up. We're going to keep. We'll go into another brief recess. Thank you.

Okay, we are going to open the roll. And starting with file n1, ab59, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

12 to 1. That Bill is out. And that is it. I want to thank everyone who participated today. If you would have additional comments, you can please go to our website with that. The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications is adjourned.