Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

Welcome. The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Communications will come to order. We ask all members to be present here in room 1200 in the O Street Building so we can establish a quorum. We may have a quorum. I think now we certainly have a quorum. So, why don't we take a moment and establish a quorum?

[Roll Call]

Do you want me to sit here?

Please.

Quorum is present. Welcome, everyone. This is the Committee's bill hearing for the two-year Senate bills in the 2025-'26 legislative session. We have two Senate bills here today and we will start off with Senator Perez. Welcome. Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm here to present SB 742, the Wildfire and Emergency Management Act. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments laid out in the analysis on page 7.

Last Wednesday, January 7th, marked the one year anniversary of the Eaton Fire that devastated my district, claiming the lives of 19 community members and destroying more than 9,000 homes and structures in Altadena.

Last year, engineers from the Southern California Edison suspected that an electrical charge may have jumped from active high voltage lines to an idle line that had not been live for more than 50 years, ultimately sparking the fire.

At the time, SCE's Chief Executive officer, Pedro J. Pizarro, stated that the company is investigating every possibility, including the potential involvement of SCE's equipment. While state and local fire officials have not yet released their findings on the cause of the Eaton Wildfire, the leading theory remains that an idle transmission line was responsible.

That's why I'm authoring SB 742 to strengthen California's wildfire mitigation by updating CPUC General Order 95 and requiring the removal of permanently abandoned lines. Late last month, state regulators ordered Edison to assess fire risk on 355 miles of unused transmission lines.

This directive followed Edison executives informing the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety they had no plans to remove any out of service lines between now and 2028. After SB 256, which included a similar requirement, was held in the Assembly last year, it became clear that we cannot leave these decisions solely to the hands of utilities.

The state must act. Not only will this bill require the removal of these lines, but it will also require utilities to create a plan and timeline for the removal process, so we don't face another situation like the Eaton Fires last year.

SB 742 will also require utilities to participate in emergency operations centers to streamline collaboration and communication during times of crisis. Media reports during the fires also revealed delayed response times for firefighters, raising the need for better coordination with emergency services.

NPR reported on this breakdown in communications, noting that firefighters were unable to get ahold of anyone at the IOU to tell them which lines were de energized, further delaying response to the fires. Finally, I know affordability is top of mind for all of us, especially when considering the impact on rate payers.

But when you think of all the extensive damage and loss experienced a year ago that could have been avoided by removing an abandoned line, this is an important preventative step. Addressing known risk up front helps avoid greater costs down the road, preventing ratepayers from the financial consequences of future disasters.

With me to testify today is Adria Tynan, TURN Director of Race, Equity, and Legislation. At the appropriate time, I ask for your aye vote.

Excellent. Welcome. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Committee. I'm Dr. Adria Tynan, Director of Race, Equity, and Legislative Policy for TURN and I'm proud to be here in support of SB 742. In response to horrific fires in 2015 and 16, the Legislature rightfully increased the rigor of the wildfire mitigation planning process for investor-owned utilities.

Each IOU is required to put forward a plan for wildfire prevention, including equipment safety, vegetation management, and so on. However, the current wildfire planning process has one major oversight. It does not account for abandoned facilities. Transmission facilities, even when abandoned, pose a fire risk that needs to be considered and addressed in wildfire plant mitigation planning.

SB 742 corrects this fatal flaw by effectively requiring IOUS to provide an inventory of their abandoned facilities and a plan for how to remove them and eliminate the fire threat.

The Eaton Fire, which, as the Senator pointed out, resulted in the deaths of 19 people and potentially billions of dollars in property damage, is believed to have been caused by a decommissioned abandoned transmission line. We cannot afford another Eaton. We must address the problem with abandoned facilities and for these reasons, TURN urges an aye vote on SB 742.

We cannot afford to not to do it.

Thank you. Is there any other—do you have any other lead witnesses? Okay, we'll take me too's now in support—do we have me too's in support of the bill?

Will Abrams, part of the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition, in support.

Okay, thank you. We'll now move on to opposition witnesses. Do we have opposition witnesses? We don't. Any others in the room opposed to the matter? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Who has questions on the Committee? Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing this forward. It was very touching and heartfelt this afternoon in our Senate meeting, what you did, and Senator Allen as well, who presented the names of those who were lost. And we can't put a price tag to that. There's no doubt. And we can't allow this to happen again.

And if we know how it may have happened and we have this opportunity to do something about it, this is our time to act. And so, I think that all of us here in the Committee and across the state of California, never, ever want to see this happen again. We found a flaw, let's correct it.

And I think this Bill will open up that door. And I'd like to commend you for doing this. But my question also is the time frame. And exactly what will that do, the infrastructure? Does that mean they cut the lines, remove the lines, keep the poles?

What exactly—assurances that we have that a spark won't happen again with whatever is remaining after this Bill is passed?

So, that's actually precisely what SB 742 aims to do, is to create a timeline to begin removing these decommissioned lines. And the case of the lines that are being investigated for starting the Eaton Fires, those lines went unused for about 54 years, and so they should have been taken down a very long time ago.

There are other decommissioned lines that have been de-energized and not being used for a few years. And in some cases, utilities may say that they may desire to use them again, they may need them in the future, and so, there's a reason why they have not yet taken down that equipment.

But each of these scenarios is different. I happen to represent a large portion of the San Gabriel Mountains, and unfortunately, we have de-energized lines like this all across the San Gabriel Mountains, above communities such as La Canada that are already facing high fire risk.

And so, we need the investor-owned utilities to create a plan, assess how long these lines have been sitting de energized, unused, and create a timeline for removing them. And if they're not going to remove them, why are they not going to remove them? Is it because they're anticipating using them very soon?

What is the reason behind that? And we want the CPUC to play a role in that as well. It should not just be up to the investor-owned utilities. The CPUC also needs to review this plan to make sure that it's meeting their requirements as well.

And I think this is well needed and I support the bill, and I ask to move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta. Senator Stern and then our, let's go to our vice chair first and then.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I completely—I'm glad you followed up with this with this particular Bill because I had heard and seen the potential—or the possible—correlation between, between the de-energized line being activated by an active one. So, my question, we don't—I'm not sure if we have any utility representatives here or not.

But my—I'm completely in agreement with this but I'm just kind of curious on the cost part of it because I know that there's no cost that could justify the potential fires that could happen in the future.

But I don't, I haven't heard anything with regards to the plan on the public utilities—or not public, but the private utilities, and public I guess—and their plan of action, how they address equipment that they are not using anymore. What is the plan?

In part because due to the Public Policy Institute's recent report in which energy has increased 40% in the last five years. I'm just kind of curious as to what the impact will be to the consumer to be able to actually move forward with this intent, though well intended, but what impact will it have on our consumers?

Ultimately, we're the ones that are responsible for it.

So, the impact on the consumer, if there's any—have there been any conversations as to what that would look like in real time and whether or not—there's a fine line between moving forward expeditiously to ensure that we have safety moving forward, but also, the cost impact on the consumer because when you speak to the average Californian and their utilities have gone up 40%, that's a lot of, a lot of money.

So, I'm trying to find that balance between what can be realistically implemented. How realistically can this be implemented? Because that, to me, it's about the safety, but it's also about we can pass all the well-intended bills that we want to protect our consumers, but they're the ones that are paying it and they're really struggling right now.

So, I'm just kind of curious, have there been any conversations within that, within that angle?

So, a couple of things. One, you know, I am very mindful of cost and affordability and making sure that these costs don't be passed—are not passed on to ratepayers. I know previous legislation, SB 254, which I know Senator Becker helped to author, will address some of those cost issues.

In addition to that, as I've dove more into utility issues over this past year, really as a result of these fires in my community, I've discovered that one of the biggest cost drivers for rates are these fires and the lawsuits that result from these fires and the recovery process.

And so, making sure that we are actually cutting our fire risk is so incredibly important because it's those costs, unfortunately, that are ultimately driving up rates because we have seen such huge disasters happen all across the state.

And although, you know, this time it was Southern California Edison, we've seen PG&E also be impacted by these things as well. And those costs are getting passed on to consumers. So, although this will require an investment up front, I do think it is a worthy one to prevent higher costs in the future.

Great. And I'll just mention—if I can reemphasize two points that you just made, before turning over to Senator Stern, that—and I'll mention in my close too. But I do appreciate, you know, the inclusion of this kind of mitigation in of in and out of service transmission as part of the utilities' mitigation plans.

As you said, we, right now, pay for both wildfire insurance really and through wildfire costs through the utility bill, which is really regressive way to go about it and so much of the growth in our rates recently has been from wildfire mitigation and in 254, as you—the second point I want to make, as you mentioned, does include this sort of bang for the buck framework.

So, it's going to require utilities to account for both the time proposed mitigation measures and the amount of risk reduced so that we can really look at this risk reward, you know, for the spend that we do comprehensively now with the mitigation plans, including these out of service lines.

So, I just wanted to reemphasize those two points. Senator Stern.

Took the words out of my mouth. Mr. Chair, I was just going to say that I thought this was a well-crafted bill considering that it does work within that new 254 framework where cost is considered, but not at the expense of safety, but in that really complex give and take of, you know, which lines do we go after first?

And we know we've got to go after some of them. There's 355 miles of them. That's what the analysis showed. It's uniquely an Edison challenge too. So, we've got our work cut out for us, all of us Southern Californians, you know, who have a stake in this. And I'm just wondering how it's going. Implementation can take a while.

Can you give us some insight—PUC interactions there? How's it been going so far? Do you anticipate there's an expedited way to kind of get this engaged? I mean, we go through the process, set up a law, you know, but meanwhile, wildfire mitigation plans are already taking effect.

So, there's going to be sort of a timing challenge and depending on where the most high-risk elements are, wherever these electromagnetic fields are, potentially the closest, these other 60 to 100 ft areas. Yeah, just how's it going with PUC? Can you comment on that?

Yeah. So, you know, I think a couple of things. First and foremost, you know, the investor-owned utilities know where these locations are already in terms of where they have decommissioned lines located. Right?

And this is going to really need to be a partnership between them and the CPUC to create a plan to begin identifying what's most high risk and removing it. These are conversations that have happened in the past.

The CPUC was considering, many years ago in the early 2000s, making a requirement for utilities to begin taking down those decommissioned lines. Instead of creating a requirement that they do that, there was a rule just encouraging them to get rid of them in a timely manner.

There was no deadline that was given; there was no timeline they had to produce. There was no enforcement. And as we've seen, that's resulted in nothing.

And instead, we've ended up now with two fires as a result, one both here in Northern California and now the Eaton Fire that have been caused as a result of these decommission lines. So, you know, our goal is to set out this framework to make it a requirement so we can begin doing just that.

You know, we're looking forward to engaging with the CPUC. You know, more as we move through this legislative process and talking about how we can have that timeline move quickly. I certainly know locations in my district right now that have decommissioned lines that are very close to where the Eaton Fires occurred.

Obviously have a lot of interesting questions about those locations and where they might be on the priority list, but we do need to have these hard conversations. We need to prevent the next fire from happening.

Excellent. Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for this Bill. I know we've had it before us and most of us here supported it and I also like to always take a moment to remind folks, as you're moving the Bill, to have the conversation about safety. Right? We used to think of fire season as fire season.

There is no fire season; now it's year-round. And sometimes, people become a little complacent when we do these types of bills thinking that they're going to be safe.

So, just want to highlight the fact that I want people to just remember, you know, that they need to continue to mitigate, you know, home...and everything else that's important.

And I say that as Chair of the Insurance Committee, as we know that it's become quite the issue and fires used to be, you know, more sporadic, they continue to be now more prominent.

But also, as you move forward with this, the CPUC also tends to sometimes, I would say drag their feet or perhaps, you know, we don't get the information as legislators.

And one of the biggest complaints that I, that I, myself, and I've heard other colleagues state is that sometimes we pass on the responsibility to these agencies and then we're left a little bit, you know, without having information at our fingertips.

So, I hope that we could also make sure that we encourage that the information come back to the legislators because at the end of the day, we are responsible. But I do appreciate this Bill.

I believe I was a co-author and so, I want to also add as a coauthor everything that we can do to keep families safe. You know, it's been already said there's no cost for life here. And so, thank you for that. Thank you, Chair.

All right, just a few comments before I turn to you to close. Again, thank you. And it's been an emotional day and it's very timely to have this bill right after we just had the commemoration on the floor. And thank you for that, and Senator Allen.

A couple comments. Wanted to just, again, it's important to state that a fire investigation report has not been issued yet for the Eaton Fire.

So, while we don't know the official cause, of course there's been much speculation, including by the CEO, that the ignition source may stem from this out of service transmission line that may have experienced induction from nearby lines.

I am very much supporting the bill today and your efforts to address the potential safety risks and appreciate you working with us over the next year, last year, to really zero in on this.

And as we look at this, you know, this transmission, these in-service and out-of-service lines, you know, we're mindful about balancing the safety considerations with the affordability questions and Senator Stern said it more eloquently than I did.

But the fact that we now have this 254 framework, I think is now going to help all this move forward with that bang of the buck—bang for the buck meant strategy—which is, I think is going to allow this, again, to proceed, I think in the best way.

So, I know there is still much to learn about any role the abandoned transmission facility may have played in the Eaton Fire and to learn more about whether and how induction on abandoned transmission lines might ignite fires. But certainly, I'll be supporting this monitoring as it goes through the process and hopefully, we can also get more information.

I know you'd like to as well from the CPUC and OEIS as they learn more in their parallel process of implementing SB 254 changes that may require any further changes to this bill because they're still implementing 254 right now. With that, I'd like to turn over to you for any closing comments.

I just thank you, my colleagues, for, you know, the time today and it is a very emotional time, you know, just passing the Eaton Fire anniversary, I know. You know, for my constituents, it certainly meant a lot to see, you know, this bill last year. They were quite devastated when it didn't move forward.

Some of them took the time to write, you know, their own op eds and you know, obviously I think they just, they want to see justice and accountability not just for themselves, but really to see disasters like the ones that they experience be prevented in the future. So, I respectfully ask you all for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Yeah, well said. Very well said. All right, we have a motion from Senator Archuleta. Please call the roll.

Did you want to say the motion?

Oh, I will say the, the motion, yes, which I have right here somewhere. Should I read the?

Let me read the amendments quickly as well, because you accept the amendments, but just make sure everyone has them, for the record. We change the date by which the CPUC must update the general order, January 1, 2028, at emergency to reference this to the local operations center—local emergency operations center.

Make explicit that abandoned facilities are abandoned transmission facilities so as to target transmission overhead line, not all overhead lines. Additional clarifying amendments. So, the motion is do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. We have a motion from Senator Archuleta. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill is nine to zero. We will hold it open on call. We have one more bill. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Perez. Senator McNerney, You have SB 327.

Go ahead. Good afternoon, Chairman and the Members of the Committee. I'm here today to persuade you to vote aye on Sb327. Basically, I do accept the Committee amendments. And during the past few months, SB327 was amended substantially to address the misuse of ratepayer funds by investor owned utilities.

A similar version of this bill, SB24, passed this Committee on the Senate floor last year. This version of SB327 will first provide the public Advocate's office the necessary authority to discover information and review investor owned utilities accounts. Second, it will prohibit using ratepayer money to lobby against efforts to create a public utility.

California residents do face the second highest utility rates in the nation while utility companies are making record profits. PGE, which serves my district, has seen a 41% increase in electric rates since 2022 and a 101% increase over the last 10 years. As utility bills continue to rise.

The state's investor owned utilities have been caught several times spending rate payer dollars on political expenses. For example, since 2019, Southern Calgas has used at least $36 million of its customers money for political lobbying. Last year, PGE charged ratepayers for a promotional commercial. The Public Advocate's Office Discovery Authority was instrumental in uncovering the misconduct of SoCalGas.

This highlights the need for the Advocate's office to conduct investigations and ensure ratepayers funds are being spent appropriately. Additionally, IOUS have spent large sums to stop local efforts to form public utilities, including PGE spending over $10 million against the Smuds attempt to expand into Yolo County right here.

And Southern San Diego Gas and Electric spent almost $400,000 to oppose an effort to form a public utility in San Diego. SB327 will bring increased accountability to the state's IOUS and ensure the ratepayer dollars will not be used to oppose efforts to form utilities.

And Senator Wahab is just asked to be a co author and a joint author. I accept your request. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I have two witnesses this afternoon. First is Adria Tennant, Director of Race Equity and Legislative Policy at Turn and Graceina Mohabir, Regulatory Advocate with the California Environmental Voters.

Okay, your witnesses will each have two minutes. I'm going to run and go vote in another Committee. I'm going to turn the gavel over to Senator Allen while you go.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Allen. Thank you, Committee. Again, Dr. Adria Tynan, Director of Race Equity and Legislative Policy at turn here in support and sponsorship of SB327.

This bill prohibits utilities from abusing ratepayer dollars to work against the establishment or expansion of municipal utility districts and clarifies the public Advocate's office's authority to inspect the accounting of for profit investor owned utility companies to ensure their compliance with the law.

California residents, as the Senator rightfully said, pay the highest energy rates in the continental U.S. while our investor owned utility companies have the highest profits in the country. Many ratepayers are desperate to find a less expensive alternative to the for profit model such as a municipal utility.

Unfortunately, for profit investor owned utilities spend money to fight the establishment or expansion of municipal utility districts, undermining local freedom of choice to preserve their monopoly power. SB327 ensures that ratepayer money is not used to undermine the establishment or expansion of municipal utilities. To be clear, the bill does not prohibit an IOU from opposing municipalization.

They can absolutely do that. It simply requires such activities be funded by shareholders, not ratepayers. At a time when people across the state are suffering from skyrocketing energy bills, it's critical that every ratepayer dollar is used responsibly and appropriately.

Finally, the bill clarifies the PAO's existing authority to inspect the books of IOUS to ensure compliance with the law and needs to be formalized in statute. It's vital that the state's only public consumer advocates have access to the information they need to ensure that utilities are indeed complying with the law.

Furthermore, for clarity, the bill does not expand PAO authority. They can inspect books, accounting papers, etc. But they cannot issue any fines or penalties. The bill language is very clear on that. As the Senator stated, these provisions were contained in SB24 last year and we ask for your support again this year.

On behalf of turn, I respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Next witness.

Hi. Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. Grishina Mohabir, Clean Air and Energy Regulatory Advocate with California Environmental Voters here today in support of SB327. So as we know, many Californians are feeling the pressure from the rising cost of living, and it is a widely shared sentiment that bills are too damn high.

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

But as we scrutinize what could be pruned out, it's clear that one thing that ratepayer dollars should not be used for is IOU lobbying against municipalization. There are existing restrictions on use of these funds for IOU's political activities, but SB327 serves to close key loopholes on this issue.

Moreover, this bill does not stop utilities from going forward with these activities. It merely ensures that ratepayers are getting the most mileage out of their dollars by protecting what they are used for. This bill will prevent counterproductive spending of these funds against municipalization, which is an option that could help guarantee customer savings in the long run.

To further ensure that this type of inappropriate spending is not taking place, this bill additionally clarifies the PAO's existing authority to inspect the utility's account information. We know that ratepayer dollars must be applied efficiently and appropriately for necessary investments.

Right now, things like clean energy and infrastructure build out in a time of real uncertainty about how costs are skyrocketing. We want ratepayers to be confident that when they're paying their energy bills each month, they know that their money is going into maintaining and improving their access to energy that is clean, safe, reliable and affordable.

For these reasons, we urge your aye vote on SB327 to ensure that ratepayers are not subject to to inappropriate costs at a time when affordability is top of mind for Californians. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, let's hear folks who want to just add on in their support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Beth Olasso on behalf of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association. We haven't seen the amendments, but we do trust the author and turn. But we'll reserve a little bit, but. We're still in support. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Annabelle Hopkins with the Public Advocates Office in support. Thank you.

Will Abrams from the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition in support and looking forward to further legislation to support Wildfire Survivors going forward.

Thank you very much. All right, let's hear opposition witnesses.

Good afternoon. Brandon Ebeck from Pacific Gas and Electric. We have an opposed position on the bill and print. Just for the record, our rates are down 11% from two years ago due to a lot of hard work and a lot of items coming out of rates.

We have no issue with the policy presented in the bill at large. We already Fund anything related to municipalization with shareholder funds, but we look forward to Reviewing the amendments, staff showed a draft that looks very promising.

So we look forward to having an additional conversation later this year, cleaning up the prior bill that was passed last year. There's a lot of confusing terms that we still need clarity on related to how we should implement it, given that there are automatic fines associated with it.

So if we don't know how to implement it, we need some cleanup there. But thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the Committee, Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California Gas Company, also with an opposed position today. I just want to clarify some of the statements made earlier about commentary about 30 million plus being paid for by SoCalGas ratepayers for lobbying or political activities.

Those costs were never recovered from ratepayers. And so I just wanted to clarify, clarify that for the record. With respect to the provisions in Section 1, with respect to the Public Advocates Office's authority, we don't oppose the clarity that's being sought by this Bill. We think there's a cleaner way to actually draft that.

We do believe that the bill now starts to blur the line between the role of the CPUC as our regulator and the role of the Public Advocate's office as an advocate in the interest of ratepayers.

We do think that there are potential for unintended consequences and potential due process issues with respect to our ability to contest any type of subpoena or discovery request that's made by the Pao. So we think that there's a cleaner way to write this. We've offered amendments to that effect and look forward to working with the author. Thanks.

Go ahead. Are you the second opposition witness? This is Me, too. We've had. I'm just in. Me too. Okay, great. Evanning on here. On behalf of Southern California Edison, appreciate. The work of the center staff and Committee on the potential amendments that we haven't had a chance to review yet.

But hopefully we'll have something to get back to you with and look forward to continuing to work with the office. Thank you. Okay, great.

Not just a Me too.

Valued contributors, John Kendrick, also with a Me too. On behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Opposed unless amended really appreciate the work that the author and their staff have put into this. And I think the amendments are moving. In the right direction. Thank you. Okay, great. We will take it back to the Committee.

Yes, I want to thank everyone who made comments here today. But I always say, you know, when we take these bold steps, clarity is always important.

So I do want to acknowledge some of the comments made, you know, about the clarity and making sure that we take into consideration some of the suggestions in regards to blurring the lines of who's the regulator. And again, this is an important step, but clarity is always the best way.

So we're not trying to remediate or do something in the future to fix what we do today. But I do know you've worked so hard on this and thank you for bringing everyone to the table and working with everyone. But just again, I would encourage some of the conversations to continue.

Thank you. Anyone else? Well, I want to thank you, Senator McNerney, for your passion and your leadership on this. I will read the amendments. The amendments delete the new section 748.4. Section 2. The bill is consistent again with the bill that we just passed last year.

Replace the proposed amendments to newly chapter Public Utilities Code 748.3 from AB 1167 Berman to explicitly include among the prohibited political activities efforts to oppose municipalization of electricity and gas utility service as proposed by this bill. I will be supporting the Bill today. Would you like to close? I would.

Please go ahead. Okay, thank you. This is really common sense. We need to make sure that the money that people pay for electricity isn't used for political purposes. There's a lot of anger out there. Now, I can attest, and I'm sure Members of the Committee can, toward the utility, toward the IOUS.

And if they hear that the money that is being used to pay for their rates is used for political purposes, that will just inflame the situation. So I think in my opinion, utilities should embrace this because we're actually looking out for their image and well being in the future.

So with that, I'm going to ask for an aye vote.

Exit. Do we have a motion? Motion from Senator Mohab. Motion, please. Call the roll. The motions do pass as amends to send Appropriations Committee.

[Roll call]

That is 10 to 3. We'll open the roll in a moment. Before we do so, I just want to thank everyone.

Mr. Chair, can I interject just for a moment? I know he wants to do his closing but I want to interject because I want the audience to know that today will be your potential last day here as chair. And so I wanted all of us to acknowledge your work on this Committee.

You've been an incredible chair and we want to thank you for your work. And so I do want to take a moment because I know how important this work is to thank you. Thank you on behalf of myself and I'm sure others will chime in, but it is, you know, an incredible responsibility to have this.

And I don't want to let you go without us acknowledging how incredibly important it is to have you as chair. And we're going to miss you. Thank you for allowing me to say a few words.

Thank you. Well, thank you all. That's mean a lot to me. It was a honor to chair during a really pivotal year. We got a lot of big things, a lot of big things done collectively. And I'm very excited to still be a Member of this chair.

I'll be moving on to chair two other committees, but I'm looking forward to being an active Member of this Committee under Senator Allen's leadership and continue to work on these issues. And I thank you. Thank you for that. So with that, let's open the roll on our first Bill, SB742.

[Roll Call]

All right. We will close the roll. That will Bill is out at 12 to 0. And I believe we have everyone on 327. That Bill is out 10 to 3. Thank you, thank you all. This session of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications is adjourned.