Assembly Standing Committee on Utilities and Energy

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, and welcome. I'd like to convene today's hearing of the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy. Before we move to the agenda, I have a couple of housekeeping announcements to make. As is customary, I will maintain decorum throughout today's hearing.

In order to hear as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit disruptions that impede the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. Any individual who is disruptive may be removed from the room. Today, we have 12 measures on the agenda. Seven are on consent. Please note that file item number five, SB 905, has been pulled from today's hearing at the request of the author.

Testimony is limited to two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition. Each witness will be given two minutes, as testimony. And as a reminder, primary witnesses in support must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have registered a support position with the committee. And the primary witnesses in opposition must have their opposition registered with the committee. All other support and opposition can be stated at the standing microphone when called upon.

And as a reminder, please simply state your name, affiliation, and position when providing me to testimony. If we exceed today's hearing time, please submit your testimony through the email address on the committee's website. Alright. We do not have a quorum, so we'll go ahead and proceed as a subcommittee. Let's see.

I think we've got our first author here. Senator McNerney, welcome. We will begin with file item number one, SB 327. Senator, welcome.

Well, thank you, chair Petrie Norris, vice chair Patterson, and distinguished members of the committee. I first wanna say that I accept the committee's proposed amendments for this Bill, SB 327. SB 327 is a rate payer protection bill that is closely modeled off SB 24, which previously passed this committee, last year, and was vetoed in the governor's office because of a clerical error only.

SB 327 will put in code a public advocates authority to discover information and review investor owned utilities accounts. And second, it will prohibit using rate payer 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 raking in make record profits. As utility bills continue to rise, utilities have been cut several times spending rate payer dollars on inappropriate expenses. Some examples can be given, which I think I'll skip this morning or this afternoon. But IOUs have spent large sums to stop local efforts to form public utility, including PG and E spending $10,000,000 against SMUD's attempt to expand in the Yolo County.

SDG and E spent almost $400,000 to oppose an effort to form a public utility in San Diego.

To remedy this, SB 327 will increase accountability of the state's IOUs and ensure rate payer dollars will not be used to oppose efforts to form public utilities. With that, I will respectfully ask for an aye vote here in support. I have, Adria Tynan, director of race equity and legislative policy at TURN, and a Gracina, Mojaveer, who is a regulatory advocate with the California environmental voters.

I also have Annabelle Hopkins, director of deputy director of government affairs of the public advocacy's office who can answer any technical questions. So I will turn this over to Adria.

Welcome, guys. Hi. Thank you, chair. Thank you, committee. Adria Tinnan, director of race equity and legislative policy for TURN, the utility reform network.

Harris proud sponsor in support of SB 327. This bill prohibits utilities from abusing rate payer dollars to work against the establishment or expansion of a municipal utility and clarifies the public advocates office's authority to inspect the accounting of for profit investor owned utility companies to ensure their compliance with the law. California residents pay the highest energy rates in the Continental US, while our investor owned utility companies have the highest profits in the country.

Many rate payers 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 utilities, undermining local freedom of choice to preserve their monopoly power.

SB 327 ensures rate payer money is not used to undermine the establishment or expansion of municipal utilities. To be clear, the bill does not prohibit IOUs from fighting against municipalization. It simply prohibits that are using rate payer dollars to do so. They are still more than welcome to use their own shareholder funding however they see fit.

At a time when people across the state are suffering from skyrocketing bills, it's critical that every rate payer dollar is used responsibly and appropriately, not against the interests of rate payers.

Lastly, SB 327 clarifies the PAO's existing authority to inspect the books of in of investor owned utilities to ensure compliance with the law, and this needs to be formalized into statute. It's vital that the state's only public consumer advocate have access to the information they need to ensure that for profit utilities are indeed complying with the law. SB 327 reaffirms and codifies the CPUC's historical statutory interpretation that the PAO has the ability to do discovery of financial accounts of utilities.

This is something that utilities have long complied with, and this bill simply enshrines and clarifies the status quo. This codification is necessary as utilities are increasingly trying to push back on data requests, causing undue delays.

To achieve affordability and to realize all of the great legislation that this body has moved forward in the last few years, we have to ensure accountability and transparency, and that's what SB 327 does. I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Grishina Mohaveer, regulatory advocate with California Environmental Voters, here today in proud support of SB 327. So as we know, many Californians are feeling the pressure from the rising cost of living. It's a widely shared sentiment that bills are too damn high, and the climate crisis is exacerbating the affordability crisis. Now more than ever with rising temperatures, we need to ensure that people can afford to keep their lights on.

When we're thinking about solutions to make utility bills more affordable, we have to ask ourselves, what are appropriate costs for rate payers 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 rate per dollar should not be used for is IOU lobbying against municipalization. There are existing restrictions on the use of these funds for IOU'S political activities, but SB 327 serves to close 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 these are used for.

This bill will prevent counterproductive spending of these funds against municipalization, which is an option that can help guarantee customer savings in the long run. To further guarantee that this in it inappropriate spending isn't taking place, this bill additionally clarifies the PAO's existing authority to inspect the utilities account information. Ratepayer dollars must be applied efficiently and appropriately for necessary investments like clean energy and infrastructure build out.

In a time of real uncertainty about skyrocketing costs, we want ratepayers to be confident that when they're paying their bills, they know their money is going into necessary things like maintaining and improving their access to energy is clean, safe, and affordable. Thank you, and I urge your aye vote on SB 327.

Thank you. At this time, we'll move to, additional testimony in support. If you'd like to testify in support of SB 327, please approach the microphone at this time.

Thank you, madam chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Earthjustice in support.

Will Breager for Climate Action California in support.

Arianna Montes on behalf of the Affordable Energy Campaign representing over two dozen energy advocacy and environmental advocacy groups in support.

Ruth Holton Hutton with Third Act in support.

Catherine Keeney, Sacramento in support.

Charlene Woodcock, Berkeley in support.

Allison Hilliard with the Climate Center in support.

Chloe Ames with NextGen California in support.

Andrew Rubang with the Public Advocates Office in support.

Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria in support.

Michelle Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Christine Eichen from Tracy in support.

Catherine Espitia from Tracy in support.

Greg Spooner from Sacramento in support.

Yvette DeCarlo, Sacramento in support.

Susanna Porte, Berkeley support.

Eric Lerner, Alliance for Californians for Community Empowerment. We urge you to support this. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Turning to witnesses in opposition. Or if we have primary witnesses, you can approach the dais at this time.

Our if

we have primary witnesses, you can approach the dais at this time.

Good Good afternoon, madam chair, members. Joe Zanze with SoCalGas and San Diego Gas and Electric, here in respectful opposition. I do wanna start just and I'll be brief just thanking the committee for the analysis and the amendments, I think, for the PAO piece, definitely move in the right direction. We're still taking a look internally, to to see how they play out, but, we we definitely see it as a positive, direction for the bill.

And then, secondly, on the municipalization piece, you know, AB 1167 was passed last year.

There's a lot of, similarities in the two bills, and we just we wanna continue to work with the author on the the way eleven sixty seven was crafted and to hopefully incorporate some of those exemptions into the the bill that into SB 327, dealing with things that we're required to do legally, when it comes to, you know, municipalization, at the PUC or at, you know, local cities and and things like that.

So hope to continue to work with you on on those issues, and, that's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in opposition. If you'd like to testify in opposition, to SB 327, please come on up.

Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Amanda Guelgromo with Cal Broadband. We are opposed unless amended to this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Yolanda Benson on behalf of US Telecom, the Broadband Association also oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam chair, members. Brady Van Engelen here on behalf of Southern California Edison in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair members. Kaitlyn Johnson with political solutions on behalf of California Water Association in oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair. Jonathan Arambel, behalf of CTIA, the trade association for the wireless industry, also in opposition.

Hello, Valerie Turella, Pacific Gas and Electric Company in opposition.

Good afternoon. John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce. Opposed unless amended, but sounds like you guys are moving in the right direction.

Pam Loomis on behalf of the small telephone companies that are members of Calcom, opposed unless amended.

Alright. Thank you. Bringing it back to committee. Questions or comments? Assembly member Rogers.

Thank you, chair. Thank you, Senator, for for bringing back SB 24 from from last year. I think most of us in committee supported it in committee and then on the floor. There is one substantial difference between s p 24 from last year and this year other than correcting the clerical error, and that's that you have expanded it to include telecom, which I do not believe was included in '24 last year. Our our broadband institutions and you good?

Was that intentional? Or because you went through this process last year, were you looking to include more than just our electricity and gas utility providers?

Yeah. It it was intentional, Assemblymember. I appreciate the question. We wanna make sure that the the utilities, including telecom, are playing by the same rules.

Okay. And for me, the the bill kind of reads in two different parts. The first part, which I'm very supportive of, is making sure that rate payer dollars aren't going towards the lobbying efforts around municipalization. I think that you've already laid out the case for that. The second part really is around, access to information and the PAO's office.

What I heard was that there's been an increase in pushback on data requests that is prompting some of this bill. Is that specific for PAOs, or is that for the CPUC? And what's the adjudication process when, the PAO asks for information that that is denied By the utility provider currently?

By the utility provider currently?

Okay. I'll let Adria take care of the question.

Yeah. So I will take the first step at at answering this. And then I also we do have Annabelle Hopkins here from the PAO who can probably add a little bit more detail to this. So what has how how this has operated, in reality over the last several decades? The CPUC, their statute says, that the CPUC, its staff, commissioners, anybody employed by the CPUC has the authority to inspect the books of utilities.

And that does not mean any regulatory functions or any ability to, you know, per like, instill fines or penalties of any sort. Just simply inspection. Right? The right to do discovery. That has always been understood to apply to the public advocate's office as well since it's housed within the commission, even though it is independent.

What we've seen recently is sort of an uptick in utilities trying to not comply with discovery. In in other words, they are given a data request, and there is an attempt or a pushback to not provide said data request. That's a real problem for affordability because we can't actually achieve affordability if we don't have accountability, and we can't have accountability if we don't have transparency, if we can't see what's going on. And that's all a data request functionally is. It's just information.

So for the most part, over the last several decades, utilities have complied with that. They have been good actors, and they have complied with discovery. But we have seen an increased pushback,

have seen a need to clarify the PAO specifically, in addition to the just the regular commission in statute. I want to to so this is not specific to any one industry. It's specific to the PAO's ability to conduct discovery. I would like to call up Annabelle, account perfect, to add, and I will switch out my Yeah. Please.

and we have seen a need to clarify the PAO specifically, in addition to the just the regular commission in statute. I want to to so this is not specific to any one industry. It's specific to the PAO's ability to conduct discovery. I would like to call up Annabelle, account perfect, to add, and I will switch out my Yeah. Please.

Yeah. Or, actually, let me just join that one. Perfect.

let me

just join that one. Perfect.

I think you did a pretty job answering it. But if the assembly member wants more detail, you're certainly welcome to

Yeah. My my question really is you've said that there's pushback that you aren't getting the same information. What is the process then that the CPUC or the PAO goes through to determine whether or not the the pushback is warranted? And what are some examples where in which you have seen pushback and what type of data are the utilities trying not to provide?

Thank you, Assemblymember. I'm Annabelle Hopkins for the Public Advocates Office. It's a great question. We do receive quite a lot of pushback to our data request from utilities regulated by the CPUC. There is a formal process whereby a utility can challenge a request for information or a request to review the financial accounts of the utility.

There is a formal process where the CPUC can review that challenge and determine whether or not it's appropriate. And I'm happy to follow-up in writing with a a formalized, write up of the process. And then also, I think an answer to the question that was raised, as to what types of pushback we receive from utilities. It it is across the board.

It ranges on across quite a range of various reasons that we may receive from a utility, that the information that we are seeking is not something that we should have eyes on, in other words.

But oftentimes, it's we do have a formal process, as I mentioned, for the CPUC to determine if the request is appropriate. And then if I might just to the first question that was asked about, broadband utilities or telephone corporations. It is our understanding that the language from SB 2, 24 from last year also included utilities outside of energy utilities. So it also included water utilities, telephone corporations, broadband companies who are regulated by the PUC.

K. Just a couple more questions, I promise. But so in the process wherein which a data request is, pushed back on and it goes to this adjudication, how often are you seeing the CPUC side with industry versus side with the PAO? How much of a problem is this?

It's a great question. You know, I I personally don't know, you know, an approximate percentage of the time where it's approved versus rejected. I'd be happy to follow-up with you on that.

On average, most of the time, the PUC does understand that what we are requesting is appropriate per the scope of what we're assessing or what, proceeding we're participating in, whether we are reviewing the financial recovery request that may come in through a GRC or through a memorandum account, or if this is, for example, if there's a potential merger happening, sometimes in those instances, we will also need to review, some of the financial accounts at the utilities. And on average, they're they're generally approved.

And so when they are denied the CPUC, basically, what they are saying is that they feel like there's information that falls outside the scope of what the PAO is supposed to do. Is that

That would be correct. But as I mentioned, most of the time, our requests are approved.

Yeah. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.

Thank you.

And if I may just add the, committee amendments to expressly preserve the existing procedural check that requires that a utility objection to a PAO data request will continue to be decided in writing by either the assigned commissioner or the PUC president. Alright. Assemblymember Zbur.

So thank you for bringing the this bill. I think the goals of the bill, obviously, are are good ones, obviously. You know, I had some concerns last year with the same version of the bill, and I also had some concerns with, AB 1167, not because I disagree with the goals of the bills, but because I thought that, there wasn't adequate precision in terms of what the bills were allowing and prohibiting.

I do think that it's important that, the, that the IOUs have the ability to, participate in proceedings and give information about the impacts of different things that are before legislative and regulatory bodies. And I think where you draw the line between engaging in political influence and providing information and participation is one that's difficult, and I don't think I have concerns about whether or not this bill and the prior version of the bills got that right.

Can you explain to me what's not what what this bill does that wasn't covered by AB 1167? Because when I look at it, it seems like AB 1167 would prohibit lobbying against municipalization. Because when you look at that bill, it basically prohibited, you know, electric and gas corporations from using rate payer funds on political influence activities, which are defined as, you know, for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing legislation, regulatory action, elections, public opinion, or decisions of public officials.

So that would seem to me to include municipalization. On top of that, you know, the other bill preserved, at least to some extent, some bucket of activities that were related to, you know, cases where they have to participate in a regulatory or legislative function, which, of course, we want them to do.

So can you talk about sort of what what was left from November that this is trying to get at? And, because that's that's what I'm sort of confused about, why this is sort of needed given that eleven sixty seven was passed. So

I think I think for the question, I'm gonna empower Adria to answer that.

Yep. Thank you for the question. I'm happy to answer that as Tern also sponsored eleven sixty seven. So intervening in city council or county board of supervisors processes can be a gray area when it comes to sort of how lobbying is typically defined. It's slightly different than the state legislature. It's not always clear in the specific context of decision making about municipalization what reaches the threshold of lobbying in November.

the question. I'm happy to answer that as Tern also sponsored eleven sixty seven. So intervening in city council or county board of supervisors processes can be a gray area when it comes to sort of how lobbying is typically defined. It's slightly different than the state legislature. It's not always clear in the specific context of decision making about municipalization what reaches the threshold of lobbying in November.

And so the bill will clarify that and set important guardrails to protect rate payers to ensure that their money is not being used to, you know, thwart their their freedom of choice and and decision making at the city and county level.

So I still think it's sort of gray in terms of what the bill allows and doesn't allow and what this bill does. It's different from 1167. You know, the focus on municipalization I mean, I I clearly don't think that IOU should be lobbying against municipalization. I mean, if that's something that's something that should be done in a sort of a balanced way based on all the information that's out there, I think they should be able to participate in a proceeding to answer questions and give pros and cons.

of what the bill allows and doesn't allow and what this bill does. It's different from eleven sixty seven. You know, the focus on municipalization I mean, I I clearly don't think that IOU should be lobbying against municipalization. I mean, if that's something that's something that should be done in a sort of a balanced way based on all the information that's out there, I think they should be able to participate in a proceeding to answer questions and give pros and cons.

terms

November had some guardrails in it, you you know, that basically excluded activities that directly and necessarily related to appearances before regulatory and other governmental agencies, activities to respond to a request by a legislative committee, a commission, or governmental agency for technical information, all of that.

I don't see that those things in this bill. Are you willing to continue working on it to make sure I mean, you understand what my concern is. It's like we need to have folks that have information participating in these proceedings, and we need to draw a careful line between what is lobbying for an outcome versus participation that we that I think is necessary to make good informed decisions.

So I just wanna, ask if you're willing to continue working on this set of things and, and, and, obviously, the guardrails that were 1167 at a minimum, I think, should need to be in this bill.

So first of all, I wanna stress that this doesn't prohibit IOUs from opposing municipalization and lobbying that just prohibits them from using rate payer funds to do that. I wanna make that crystal clear. And, yes, we are interested in perfecting the bill.

Okay. I mean, I've I've you know, I'm gonna I think the goals of the bill are laudable. And so I'm gonna support the bill today, but I I think that the details are important. And, you know, the reason why I didn't support the bill last year is because I thought that there was an adequate attention to making sure that, that the IUs can participate in a proceeding. And, you know, they've got a wealth

a wealth

of knowledge that I sort of feel I need at times to make good, informed decisions about what we're doing. And so that would be in the broader case as well as issues with respect to municipalization. So I'm gonna gonna take that as a commitment to continue working with them on this set of issues. And I would ask that you look in particular at the guardrails that were at November and consider including those in this bill.

those in

If I may, Assemblymember, because I think I've got some good news for you. So this bill actually just adds municipalization option to the existing list of expenses that, was created with November. So the reason that those guard rails are not prescribed specifically in the language of this bill is because it is already part of the statute that, the section of code created by November. So by definition, all of those guard rails would apply Would apply here. Would apply here.

this bill.

That's great. No.

That's great to know. Thank you.

you. Alright. Additional questions or comments? Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you. Alright. Additional questions or comments? Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you.

Well, again, I thank the committee, the chairwoman, and the staff for working with us on this, and appreciate the thoughtful comments. I will ask for an aye vote.

Alright. And some more good news. We've got a quorum. So madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

I see you on

Oh, no. Hi, Matt.

Present. I'm just I'm ready. I'm ready.

the line.

Present. Patterson, Berner, Calderon, Chen, Davies? Here. Davies here. Gonzales, Harabedian, Hart, Erwin?

Erwin here. Kalra? Here. Kalra here. Pappan?

Here.

Pappan here. Rogers?

Here.

Rogers here. Shiavo?

Here.

Shielvo here. Schultz? Ta?

Ta here. Wallace? Here. Wallace here. Zipper?

I'm here.

Here.

Zipper here. Calderon?

Here.

Calderon here.

Awesome. Okay. Great. So we have got a quorum. We now need a motion and a second on the measure before us, SB 327. Thank you. Alright. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Do a thank you.

Second.

Thank you. Alright. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

S B 327. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Patterson, Verner, Calderon? Chen, Davies. Aye. Davies, aye. Gonzales, Harabedian, Hart, Erwin?

Aye. Erwin, aye. Calra? Aye. Kalra, aye.

Kappen? Aye. Papen, aye, Rogers?

Rogers, aye, Schiavo, aye. Shultz? No. Todd, no. Wallace?

Aye.

Not voting. Seibert? Aye. Seibert, aye.

Eight one. So, that bill's on call, and we'll leave it open for absent members to add on. Moving to Senator McNerney, your next bill.

At

SB 327, vote change, Tah, from no to not voting.

Alright. So, updated vote count, 8-0, and 8-0, that measure is still on call. Okay. So, moving to file item number 12, SB 1350 by Senator McNerney, and I believe you'll be joined by your joint author, Assemblymember Carrillo.

Welcome. Thank you. The floor is yours, gentlemen. Thanks.

Well, thank you, Chair Petrie-Norris, Vice Chair Patterson, and distinguished members of the committee. First of all, I wanna thank the committee for moving quickly on this bill, which is moving on an expedited basis, driven by the deadline for the federal clean energy tax credits this very summer. California is committed to 100% renewable or clean energy be at 2045, and this is one way to get there.

The Federal Government, unfortunately, has canceled credits for clean energy projects and has canceled $1,200,000,000 in funding for California's proposed hydrogen hub called Arches. Hydrogen can be made from renewable sources and is a clean, safe fuel source that can help us meet our clean energy targets.

Hydrogen can be used to transition existing power infrastructure into clean energy infrastructure. SB 1350 will help California utilize hydrogen to decarbonize our power system. SB 1350 stimulates investments in hydrogen projects by allowing power plants to get renewable portfolio standard credits, RPS credits, when they use green hydrogen made from renewable sources to power turbines. By incentivizing in-state hydrogen projects, we're also creating thousands of jobs. One hydrogen project—production project—alone in Lancaster, it's called Element, is creating 1,200 union construction jobs.

I want to assure members that I have taken several amendments for the environmental community to the three Senate committees, including ensuring that there are no net increases in emissions from turbines using hydrogen. Should the bill move forward today, I am working with the Senate natural resources on some final amendments to address environmental concerns. However, due to timing, the chair has graciously allowed me not to take any amendments in this committee.

To—with us today to testify as my principal coauthor, Assemblymember Carrillo, Tim Carmemeyer, from the Green Hydrogen Coalition, and Jeremy Smith, from the State Building and Construction Trades Council. At this point, I'll turn over and empower my friend and colleague, Mr. Carrillo, to take the stand.

Thank you, Senator McNerney, and thank you, madam chair and members of the committee, for an opportunity to co-present. I am a proud principal coauthor of SB 1350, and I've seen firsthand the benefits of hydrogen projects. Within my district, the city of Lancaster has been an early adopter of hydrogen and is seen as a worldwide leader in hydrogen investment and industry development. In December of 2024, Lancaster launched the first public hydrogen authority, otherwise known as FPH2, as California's first public hydrogen utility.

FPH2 was established to revolutionize hydrogen accessibility and affordability by connecting renewable hydrogen producers with various municipalities and industrial operators through transparent marketplace.

Since then, FPH2 has laid the foundation for the normalization of hydrogen as a key energy source that directly helps the City of Lancaster generate more than clean energy that it consumes. California must continue creating policies that support investment and innovation. Projects such as the Lancaster Clean Energy Center have potential to create, as Senator mentioned, more than 1,200 construction jobs while significantly reducing emissions from California's power sector. Members, for these reasons, I use your aye vote on SB 1350.

Alright. Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Chair Petri Norris Norris, members of the committee, my name is Tim Kammer, and I'm the director of policy for the Green Hydrogen Coalition, an educational five zero one c three nonprofit focused on the thoughtful advancement of renewable and clean hydrogen. I would like to start by thanking the chair and committee staff for working with the author's office and sponsors on this bill. I also wanna thank all of the members of this, committee and their staff for working with us over the past two days.

I know it has been a very fast forty eight hours.

Members, renewable hydrogen is a carbon free fuel that can be produced in large quantities and used to ensure reliability in our power sector. It can help with emergency reserves when the choice is an outage or burning diesel. And it's already informally defined in the guidebook and eligible when used in linear generators and in fuel cells. As we are now facing a severe energy price volatility, there is need for fuel diversification and increasing our resilience within the portfolios.

SB 1350 is the logical extension that puts renewable hydrogen on the same footing as other renewables in the guidebook.

To be clear, nothing about thirteen fifty mandates nor requires its utilization. Instead, it provides another opportunity for load serving entities to meet their carbon goals and using existing infrastructure. And that means we get to achieve our clean energy goals affordably. Any use of renewable hydrogen and turbines will still be held to the same stringent standards that restrict emissions from power plants today. Our air quality management districts would not permit any power plant that didn't meet the world class emission standards.

Members, SB 1350 is needed because the power sector is one of the few sectors that can utilize a lot of hydrogen near term. This level of demand is what is going to encourage development across the entire state, leading to larger production facilities, driving down cost, and enabling faster conversion in other hard debate sectors. Members, let's be clear. In the past few years, the world has changed for the renewable hydrogen industry. But the promise and the opportunity, they still exist.

SB 1350 is the opportunity to take those headwinds that have been coming at us and try and pivot so that we don't lose all of the great work we've been doing. Thank you.

so it keep moving on

Thank you. Alright. Additional witnesses in support. Go ahead and approach the microphone.

Good afternoon. Alfredo Arredondo on behalf of GeoKilm, Yosemite Clean Energy, GeoAmmonia, Energy Vault, and Hanwha Power, all in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair members. Alfredo Medina here on behalf of LME Resources. We'd like to thank the author and principal coauthor for all the work and staff. Appreciate it.

Madam chair members, Brian White on behalf of First Pump Hydrogen, also known as FPH two, also in support.

Madam chair members, Cesar Diaz here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Business Council and trunk support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Keeley Morris on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Good afternoon, madam chair, members. Hunter Stern with IBW twelve forty five, whose members work for Northern California Power Agency, the city of Lodi, and PG and E, who are engaged in a separate project in strong support. Good afternoon. Shane Levine on behalf of the Northern California Power Agency in support. Thank you.

Alright. Turning to witnesses in opposition. If you are here to testify in opposition, come on up to the dais.

Thank you. Madam chair, Mark Fenstermaker here on behalf of Earthjustice and respectful opposition. Wanna first say, we acknowledge, we appreciate the amendments that the Senator has taken to date. We do feel like it's moved the bill in a better direction. With that said, we still do oppose. We feel that the bill could use some more safeguards.

the Senator has taken to date. We do feel like it's moved the bill in a better direction. With that said, we still do oppose. We feel that the bill could use some more safeguards.

that

I think the committee analysis really highlights where some of those safeguards could be put in, namely ensuring that the, non fossil based feedstocks comply with some of the standards set out throughout the renewable portfolio standard statutes, as well as the fact that the the hydrogen being produced and delivered should actually be physically delivered to the turbines.

Otherwise, we're gonna end up with paper transactions. We're gonna see where the the facilities that are combusting and creating the energy are simply purchasing credits elsewhere outside of the state, and we're not gonna actually see those climate benefits that the bill is trying to promote. So those safeguards we think would would improve the bill. For us, we really take issue with the fact that we're going to be combusting, gas in fossil fuel plants. That's gonna continue NOx emissions.

We appreciate that the the bill attempts to address this issue. We don't quite see how this language is going to work, though. We don't see how individual air quality districts are going to collectively ensure, that we're seeing NOx emissions decrease. Is it going to allow for NOx emissions to increase potentially in one air district basin while in others it's decreasing? And if that's the outcome, who's actually ensuring that that those two air districts are talking to each other?

We don't have a state entity sort of overseeing this part of the process. You know, NOx emissions are one of the main pollutants damaging human health. And so ongoing, NOx pollutions associated with these facilities that we call RPS is is why we are in opposition.

Alright. Thank you.

Thank you.

Additional witnesses in opposition. If you'd like to testify in opposition, please approach the microphone at this time. Thanks.

at this time. Thanks.

Will Brieger for Climate Action California. Respectfully opposed.

Brigger for Climate Action California. Respectfully opposed.

Gabriela Fazio with Sierra Club California in respectful opposition.

Michelle Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Alright. Bringing it back to committee, sAsembly member Kalra.

Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. I appreciate the the author, and I'm very well aware of the author's diligence on these issues as well as the sponsors. I I do share some of the concerns from some of our environmental organizations. However, I also sit on natural resources committee.

I know there's a lot of ongoing conversations that have been occurring and will continue to occur that that are probably best suited to be resolved in in the jurisdiction of that committee. And so I'll be voting for this today and look forward to continue conversation and to get updates as to as to how the conversations with stakeholders are going are going. Thank you.

Assemblymember Rogers.

Thank you, chair. And I I agree with my colleague. I've been working for the last year and a half on green hydrogen issues, and the state has to ramp up about 1700% of what our current production is just to meet our existing goals and our existing road map towards net zero economy. And I do know that there are some substantial concerns from folks that we have heard.

And and perhaps if you could talk a little bit about where you anticipate seeing this go, because some of the opposition letters do talk about a requirement that if you're gonna get RPS credit, that the green hydrogen has to be produced with RPS eligible energy sources.

I think that the term was booking claim around making sure that it's not just a paper transaction, but an actual reduction in in in emissions. And then the other one that I I'm hoping that you'll address is what percentage or how are you dictating the amount of hydrogen that comes into the project versus the amount of the energy source that can be utilized as an RPS eligible entity.

Okay. Well, thanks for the question.

It's to put a finer point on it for for folks, making sure that, you know, a little bit of green hydrogen doesn't turn into all of the fuel source being considered RPS?

That's that's a good set of questions. First of all, I wanna say that in my opening remarks, Aye, referred to the Senate natural resources, and I really meant to refer to the assembly natural resources. And the last thing we want to do is see a hydrogen used as a a way to blanket emissions that would be otherwise caught.

And and so we have worked on some of the issues that have been discussed, and I think the issue of transportation from the from the source to the turbine is an important one. And I'm sure that we'll be looking at that one clear carefully.

But I just wanna say we've taken a seven amendments to date, to address these environmental concerns. For example, this one, the use of hydrogen results in a net increase in air pollutants. That's absolutely critical for hydro for electrolytic hydrogen, which is using electricity to directly produce hydrogen. The operator shall demonstrate hourly matching of hydrogen production with renewable energy production. These are pretty big requirements.

Ensure new no resource shuffling, unbundling RECs, or doubling counting. So these are being built into the process at this point.

Yeah. Well, like And the second question,

I was gonna turn it over to, to Tim.

Thank you, Senator. Yeah. To to your second question, I I think we can answer two parts of the questions. The first about the concern of the blend, I would note Senate Energy had similar concerns, which is why they asked and we agreed to take on the amendment requiring at least a 20% capacity. That was based on an NREL report, and I think it was very, you know, the author was, understandably, say, accepting it.

The second one, about the argument about making sure that we're not throwing 5% hydrogen and now calling it a 100% clean turbine. I would point to PUC code section three ninety nine point one two. I think it's subsection h. Quote me on that. I wanna make sure I'm clear. But it actually talks about a dimininous blend.

I

would point to PUC code section three ninety nine point one two. I think it's subsection h. Quote me on that. I wanna make sure I'm clear. But it actually talks about a dimininous blend.

And if it's going below, it's not going to count at all. And it and it specifically refers to the renewable energy credits. So I I think that while this bill has taken a lot of amendments as the senators noted, we appreciate the concerns from the environmental side, but we also wanna highlight there are a lot of really good guardrails in the RPS already. We're merely asking to be on the same foot for it. Alright.

And I just wanna say about the 20%, minimum is it the reason that number is chosen is because below 20%, there's no, improvement in emissions. So it has to be 20% and above, to qualify.

Got it. Thank you.

Assembly member Zbur.

I wanna thank the author, and, the witnesses on on both sides of this. I'm gonna be supporting the bill today, in part because, I know that it's necessary in order to, allow the this Lancaster facility to sort of move forward. And, you know, that's something that I think is exemplary in terms of what it's doing. That said, this bill applies broader than that. And so, you know, I'm very nervous about opening up the RPS in a way that is that undermines it.

And so, you know, really, appreciate the comments made by the environmental community. I think, I'm I'm glad that you are continuing to work with them. And so, I encourage you to do that. And, in particular with some of the comments that were made by the Natural Resources Defense Council and some of the and and the other environmental groups, I do think there needs to be some additional, improvements made in that area.

But I'll be voting for the bill today and, and encourage you to and, you know, appreciate the commitment to continue working with the environmental community as the bill moves forward.

Assemblymember Davies.

Thank you, madam chair. Senator, I wanna say thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. I think it's so important. We've been trying to work on hydrogen lease since I've been here since 2020 and, trying to have the governor support. And, it's it's great that you're continuing to push this.

Obviously, we know that we need much more than one or two sources of clean energy out there to provide the grid and and everything that we have in this state. And I can tell you that Orange County, part of my district is definitely strong with hydrogen facilities, working hard in there. It's bringing jobs. So I would definitely be supporting this and would be happy to be a co author. Thank you

Thank

Thank you. Assemblymember, Pappan.

So I'm gonna come at this from optimistic, perhaps, Pollyanna, because I think we will get there as it relates to green energy and the requirements that I think some of our environmental friends will want. So my question is, is there gonna come a time when these turbines can run solely on the clean hydrogen that we're gonna be pumping in?

Will they always need a part of natural gas to be to to get off the ground if you then we won't have to worry about my friend from Santa Rosa and the percentage of green hydrogen that we're using to to get you in the RPS category.

I'm gonna I'm gonna show my own age and quote Obama here when I say, yes, we can. It is. Okay. I'm gonna turn a little bit. Sorry.

The room yeah. It's fun. I wanna just make sure the mic can hear me. Yes. They are all able to be retrofitted to take over up a 100%.

In fact, right now, I know one of the projects we talk about is Scattergood that is going to hopefully, you know, be approved and retrofitted, and it might start at 30%. But I think the long term goal is to get to a 100. You know? So I sometimes hear the environmental concern about the facilities and not wanting to use natural gas facilities, but I guess I don't always consider them natural gas facilities. They're just facilities we've been using natural gas in, but we can modify them.

I mean, this is the state of recycling. We can repurpose, and we can make it better.

If I may, madam chair, just just on that point, because I made so many comments about the NOx emissions, and that really is a a base of our concern here. I just wanna point out that right now, studies are showing that even a full 100% deliver of hydrogen can actually increase NOx emissions. So there is the the blend where fossil gas and hydrogen can lead to more emissions, but the higher flame temperature that is necessary to burn the hydrogen can actually increase NOx emissions.

Now we've heard from industry that there are retrofits, there are scrubbers. But right now, all of these are sort of future technologies. We have not seen these in practice. So just wanna point that out that a a pure blend from a NOx standard could be problematic.

We have not seen these in practice. So just wanna point that out that a a pure blend from a NOx standard could be problematic.

Well, I'd like to follow that by saying that, NOx emissions can be scrubbed.

Don't don't dispute that, but just the fact that the technologies are not yet commercially being applied that we've seen to say that that is actually going to happen.

Thank you. Assembly member Patterson. Vice chair Patterson.

Great. Thank you. I had something else to say with that. Last comment kinda made it seem like, like, maybe your position in perpetuity is gonna just be against hydrogen even if it's totally green hydrogen. Is that is that your position?

As it relates to this bill, as it relates to burning and combusting hydrogen in this fashion, I would think my client would stay in that position. As it relates to green hydrogen, solely as a fuel source. It's just going to depend on how it's utilized.

Because I I mean, I get the sense that, you know, we're we're looking at in a bipartisan way, making investments somewhere, you know, in hydrogen and maybe that's green hide you know, pure green hydrogen or whatnot. But, you know, that might be difficult to do if, the environmental community is opposing all all aspects of hydrogen?

get

the sense that, you know, we're we're looking at in a bipartisan way, making investments somewhere, you know, in hydrogen and maybe that's green hide you know, pure green hydrogen or whatnot. But, you know, that might be difficult to do if, the environmental community is opposing all all aspects of hydrogen?

I I would say, again, we don't oppose all aspects of hydrogen. I we've done studies and have talked about the fact that for what we determined to be green hydrogen, there are going to be some applications where it is certainly viable and appropriate. It's going to be expensive. So where we are making those investments and utilizing that fuel, we need to be really strategic about it.

And in this case, again, because we are combusting this through turbines, which is going to have NOx emission effects, this is an application that we don't see as the best investment.

Yeah. I I mean, I would I respectfully submit that, you know, we have kind of an energy crisis now, and we have to start making investments now for things for the future now. And I I think if the position is gonna be that, hey, look, we need to go very slow on investments in hydrogen. I mean, we're never we're never gonna get it done.

You know, I remember being a staff person here, you know, when Governor Schwarzenegger was governor and, you know, all the talk about the hydrogen highway and and things like that.

And by the way, I remember a lot of the environmental community behind some of those actions. And now it's like, hey. You know, let's not even, let's not even do big, you know, large scale hydrogen projects. I mean, it's it's a it is a dramatic, you know, these little nuances are actually dramatic shifts in the position of the environmental community that are very concerning because, you know, the the energy demands of this state are growing substantially.

We hear every single hearing in this building, you know, that we have here.

And, we don't we don't actually don't have the time to take it slow and and think about it. We have to make decisions now for the future. And, and I think this bill here is is like a very, very modest step in investments in hydrogen. And I I would say we need to go much further than this, but, but I'm pleased to support this bill today because I think we we need to do something. You know?

If we're gonna debate it all day long, we're we're never gonna get get things done. So I I appreciate you bringing this bill forward, and I think it's a step in the right direction. And, I know you've had to, you know, make some compromises on in some places, and that's part of the process too. So thanks for bringing it, and I look forward to supporting it.

Alright. Well, I too would like to thank you for bringing this measure forward, Senator McNerney. I am a big believer that as we work to decarbonize California's economy, we need to take an all of the above approach. And I think that hydrogen is and will continue to be an important part of that puzzle. I was really excited when my district was selected as the headquarters of Arches.

As you mentioned in your opening comments, we've experienced some very serious headwinds along that journey from the Federal Government. But this is this project in Lancaster was one of the Arches projects. And as you said in your opening comments, if we can get this done, it's going to deliver $1,800,000,000 in federal tax credits as an infusion into the state's economy, and create thousands of good paying, high quality union jobs. So, I think that this is an important bill, and I'm happy to support it today. Would you like to close?

Would you like to close?

Yes. I would. The bill will help California go green and meet our 100% goals. In fact, the carb has said that we aren't going to meet our clean energy goals without hydrogen. I respectfully ask that aye vote, and, I look forward to working with the, Natural Resources Committee.

Alright. Thank you, Senator. I believe we need a motion. Okay. Motion from Assemblymember Wallis, second from Assemblymember Davies.

Madam secretary, will you please call the roll?

Item number 12, SB 1350. The motion is do passed to natural resources. [Roll Call]

Patterson?

Aye.

Patterson, aye. Berner? Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye.

Chen? Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Gonzales?

Gonzales, aye. Harabedian? Hart? Aye. Hart, aye.

Aye.

Erwin? Aye. Erwin, aye. Kalra? Aye.

Kalra, aye. Papin? Aye. Pappen, aye, Rogers? Aye.

Rogers, Aye, Schiavo?

Aye.

Shultz? Ta?

Aye.

Ta, aye. Wallace?

Aye. Yeah.

Wallace, aye. Sabir? Aye. Sabir, aye.

14. 30.

14-0. That bill is out, and we'll leave the roll open for absent members to add on. Thank you, sir. Okay. Moving to file item number 4 sb868.

Welcome, Senator Wiener. The floor is yours, Senator.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

The floor is yours, Senator.

Thank you very much, Madam chair. I'm here today to present Senate Bill 868, the Plug and Play Solar Act, which will give Californians the particularly renters and people who can't afford upfront costs, for rooftop solar, the ability to benefit from solar energy. By using a plug in solar device, which we are seeing, in other parts of the world, other parts of the country are a key way for people to be able to reduce their energy costs, and to expand solar energy.

I wanna thank the chair and committee staff for working hard with us, on the bill, and I'm happy to accept the committee's amendments, which do the following specify that each balcony solar device outputs no more than 1,200 watts per dwelling, clarify that these systems are designed to be connected and disconnected through a receptacle, which is a technical term for an outlet.

Adding clarification that portable devices that do not meet the safety standards and definitions of SB 868 will not qualify for the interconnection exemptions under the bill and allowing utilities to request, make and model in addition to address and size of the device if the utility chooses to mandate registration.

So we're happy to accept the committee's amendments, and we appreciate the committee's engagement. SB 868, eliminates red tape, so that people in California can actually use plug in solar right now. You know, if you are a renter or a homeowner that can't afford upfront costs for solar and you want to use one of these devices, you have to enter into an interconnection agreement with your utility. Not surprisingly, very few people do that.

These are devices that you plug into an outlet, and it will and you can put it on a balcony or somewhere else at a sunlight, and it will generate a limited amount of solar energy that can power appliances in your home.

It does not feedback into the grid. There's no NEM issue here. It's simply a way, it's sort of a vague equivalent of, if you were to get a more energy efficient appliance, you simply will draw less from the grid. These devices have been used in Germany where they're really ramping them up, I think, more than a million of them so far. Utah, Virginia, and other states have adopted this approach in Virginia.

It was a key part of Governor Spamberger's affordability agenda after she took office to give people the power to reduce their bills, and we should do this in California. These are, it's proven technology. There are built in safety standards. In the Senate, we took amendments making very clear, you have to comply with both the national and the California electric code. And, this is a step that we should take in California to help people control their costs.

And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me today to testify is, Bernadette Del Chiaro, the senior vice president of Environmental Working Group, a cosponsor of the bill, and Melvin Willis, with the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, ACE. And we have, Bill Brooks from Brooks Engineering here as a technical witness if technical questions come up. Thank you.

And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me today to testify is, Bernadette, Delquiero, the senior vice president of environmental working group, a cosponsor of the bill, and Melvin Willis, with the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, ACE. And we have, Bill Brooks from Brooks Engineering here as a technical witness if technical questions, come up. Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry. And Pete Jackson with UL Solutions. I'm sorry. My apologies. And UL is the national certifying.

Oh, I'm sorry. And Pete Jackson with UL Solutions. I'm sorry. My apologies. And UL is the national certifying.

then you've got two primary witnesses. Two primary witnesses. And then two back ups.

Okay. And then you've got two primary witnesses.

Two primary witnesses.

And then two back ups. Roll in deep.

Roll in deep.

Come up.

Okay.

Madam chair, members of the committee, my name is Bernadette Del Chiaro. I'm Senior Vice President with the Environmental Working Group, and proud sponsor of AB 868 along with the Abundance Network. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. Thank you to the author for bringing this historic bill forward, and thank you to the chair and staff for working with us. We really appreciate it.

Balcony solar really is as simple as the Senator just described. You really do just need a small patch of sunlight, a solar panel. You plug it into an inverter. You plug it into an outlet, and it immediately can save you money and power your home.

If SB 868 passes, we expect to be able to buy these devices, pull them off a shelf of Home Depot and other convenience stores and help people immediately start to save money.

Speaking of, we estimate that a 400 watt system, which is about the size of this table here, will cover about 14% of a typical renter's apartment, annual electricity bill, saving about $250 a year.

SB 868 is also a safety bill. It puts in place first ever statewide safety standards to make sure those devices are safe for everyone to use here in the State of California. Furthermore, it caps the system size, by that way. And and so doing, despite design makes these, simply for self consumption.

And and so doing, despite design makes these, simply for self consumption.

The solar devices will rarely, if ever, export electrons beyond the dwelling. To give you an example of that, that 400 watt system would be expected to generate about the amount of electricity as a refrigerator uses along with a modem and a WiFi router. These are constant loads inside our homes and apartments.

A larger system, the 1,200 watt that is the maximum under the bill, it's about the amount of electricity a window air conditioner unit uses, enabling families, especially in our hotter regions to afford to cool their home on increasingly hot days. There's a lot of urgency to passing this bill.

Other states, as the Senator mentioned, have adopted this same policy, but we really need California's market, to bring the economies of scale. Thank you so much. We ask for your support.

Thank you.

Hello, members of the hello, members of the committee. My name is Melvin Willis. Once again, I am with ACE, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. I'm a former Richmond City Council member and also a renter who is a utilities customer, and I do have utility debt. And on behalf of ACE and the affordable energy campaign, we ask you for a yes vote on SB 868.

Having access to balcony solar would be a game changer for many Californians, including renters, those who are on fixed income, and working class consumers like myself who are faced with soaring high energy costs.

are on fixed income, and working class consumers like myself who are faced with soaring high energy costs. Being able to have access to a portable device that I'd be able to plug into my home would mean I would instantly start to begin to save money, lessening the stress that a lot of us feel when we go to simply cook a meal or what was already mentioned when facing extreme weather conditions trying to regulate the temperature through AC or heater.

those who

Being able to have access to a portable device that I'd be able to plug into my home would mean I would instantly start to begin to save money, lessening the stress that a lot of us feel when we go to simply cook a meal or what was already mentioned when facing extreme weather conditions trying to regulate the temperature through AC or heater.

Also last year, myself, my home and my workplace, we had several blackouts that just happened in quick succession. It got so bad that I stopped setting the clock on my appliances because I did not know when the next blackout was gonna come. If I were to have access to a portable solar device, it means I'd be able to keep the lights on and be less stressed about when the utility companies were gonna get the grid back up.

As a city council member, I actually remember receiving an email from a constituent. They expressed concerns about their mother relying on an oxygen machine and if there were a blackout, what that would mean for her health. This isn't something that's just about convenience. It's about life and safety.

This type of technology, a portable solar device accompanied with a battery, would mean that vulnerable populations would be able to keep their medical devices running without worrying about what's gonna happen to their health if there is no power or energy.

And finally, my own mother, she's disabled on a fixed income. She needed to replace her porch lights and did not have the money for an electrician. So our devices help save us a lot of money in the process, and we ask you to vote yes on this so many people can benefit from this technology.

Thank you. Alright. Opening it up for additional witnesses in support. If you'd like to testify in support of SB 868, go ahead and approach the microphone.

Robert Mills, San Rafael in support.

Roland Rivas, Guilt Free Hot Water in support.

Environment California, strong support.

Climate Action California, in support.

Marquis Mason, Natural Resources Defense Council, in support. Also, thank you Assemblymember Zbur for the shot earlier. Really appreciate it.

Rob Hawley from San Jose in support.

Alain Rivier, Eureka on behalf of Humboldt Progressive Democrats in strong support.

Simran Carr with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Afternoon. Nathaniel Lugtu with Youth Power Climate Action in support.

Good afternoon. Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association in support. Thank you.

Michele Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Chloe Ames on behalf of NextGen California in support.

David Link from Elk Grove, California. Very strong supporter for balcony solar.

Graciela Casio Crings on behalf of the Abundance Network in strong support.

Susanna Porte, Berkeley. Support solar power to the people.

Charlene Woodcock, Berkeley. Very strong support. Thank you.

I'm RPC Rogers from Berkeley. I strongly support SB 868.

Regina Banks, Lutheran Office of Public Policy California. California innovate power and light, strong support.

Gabriela Fazio with Sierra Club California in support, also on behalf of Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Chair member, Jael Dantes on behalf of the San Diego Community Power in support.

Brian Glenn from Petaluma in support.

June Downson from Solano County, support of SB 868.

Good afternoon. Ada Welder, EarthJustice in support.

Dave Rosenfeld with the Solar Rights Alliance and also on behalf of the Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy in support.

Donald Haddas, Sacramento in support of this bill. Thank you.

Allison Hilliard with the Climate Center in support. Thank you.

Eric Lerner, statewide affordable energy campaign. Please support this legislation.

Amy Cavoto from Pacifica in support.

Yvette DeCarlos, Sacramento, and I brightly support. Thank you.

Greg Spooner, Sacramento, California, strong support.

Josh Wink, I'm a student and a renter. Please support. Thank you.

Sophie Schneider representing the plug in solar nonprofit Bright Saver in strong support.

Christina Atkin from Tracy in strong support.

Kathy Espitia from Tracy, strong support.

Richard Bangert, Alameda, support.

Paul Smith from Oakland in support. Every little bit helps.

Lynn Griffith from Oakland, support.

Chris Didier from San Jose, I support it.

Catherine Keeney, Sacramento on behalf of our children and grandchildren. Support.

Support.

Ruth Holton-Hodson, Third Act Sacramento in support.

Good afternoon, madam chair and committee members. Scott Hawks on behalf of Ceres in strong support.

Spear Martinez in support.

Lynn Spear Martinez in support.

Heather McLeod, Oakland, California, strong support.

David Reven from San Francisco at full support of SB 868.

Cameron Rogers, Hayward California, strong support.

Alan Escarda from Sacramento in strong support. Thank you.

Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria in support.

Marissa Hagerman for Vote Solar and Environmental Voters in strong support.

Climate Funders Coalition and SoCal Grantmakers in strong support. Thank you.

Making my day. I'm Joel Blackwell from Corte Madera, and I represent old people who need air conditioning.

Excellent. Thank you all for joining us today. Alright. We are going to turn it turn to witnesses in opposition. Do we have primary witnesses joining us in opposition?

Alright. Let's do a little musical chairs. We just have one. Yeah. Okay.

Welcome.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, madam chairman, our chair, and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Sherise Blackwood and I'm the Customer Generation Manager at San Diego Gas and Electric where I focus on interconnection and policy. Safety requires visibility and SB 868 removes it.

By restricting utility's ability to review, register, or even be notified that these devices limit our ability to identify back feed risk, protect our field crews, and manage already saturated circuits. These are not theoretical concerns. We are seeing increased back feed incidents in the field, and even small currents can create serious hazards.

SB 868 would expand the risk without sufficient oversight, shifting us from proactive prevention to reacting after harm occurs. Every other generation resource undergoes consistent safety review for this reason.

Creating an exemption weakens those protections. Interconnection is not a barrier. At SDG and E, our approvals are completed in under three days, and this is for even more complex rooftop solar systems. The current process is already streamlined. Eliminating it does not increase access.

It removes critical safeguards for workers and our customers. These devices are generation resources. They are not just appliances in our home. Risks include shock, overcurrent, circuit overload increases as adoption grows, and standards are still evolving. Safety must be verified and not assumed.

There is a better path. Currently, the CPUC's rule 21 process already provides a forum to safely investigate these technologies with input from experts and stakeholders, and this bill bypasses that. In closing, we fully support expanding clean energy access to our customers, but not at the expense of safety. And for these reasons, SDG and E respectfully opposes SB 868.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in opposition approach the microphone at this time.

Good afternoon. Brandon Ebeck on behalf of Pacific Gas Electric. We're in a Tweener spot. We very much appreciate the work of the committee and the author. As the witness from San Diego mentioned, there's some serious safety issues we just wanna make sure we work through, but we certainly do support this technology coming to the market.

Just last week, we actually passed the 1,000,000 mark of customers installing rooftop solar within our service territory, just more than most other utilities combined. So we look forward to getting the details right, reviewing the language, and eventually, potentially getting the full support. Thank you.

Thank you. And we're in gonna go ahead and let Mister Ebeck's testimony be our second witness in opposition. So everyone else, name, affiliation, and position, please.

Good afternoon, chair members. Alfredo Medina here on behalf of the Imperial Irrigation District in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hello again. Keely Morris on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association as well as Golden State Power Cooperative in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Hello. Laura Parra on behalf of Southern California Edison. Opposed unless amended, we'll review the amendments. Thank you. Thank you.

Marjie Lee on behalf of the Southern California Public Power Authority, appreciate the committee amendments that are reviewing. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Bringing it back to committee. Questions, comments? Mister Kalra.

Thank you, madam chair. Move the bill if it hasn't been moved, and appreciate the opportunity for it. I think this is really an effective way of democratizing solar in a way that's safe, small scale to the concerns of safety.

I think the amendments removing not just the firefighters, but the electrical workers that are the same workers that do the safety on behalf utilities, and it gives me a sense of comfort to know that, that the standards that are gonna be approved are gonna be ones that we can rely upon to be used, by the ordinary consumers. So appreciate the efforts of the author and sponsors who would like to add as a coauthor.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Zbur.

So how do you not support this bill? One, you know, it's important, I think, to address the affordability issues. And, obviously, you know, plug in solar is something that, you know, is something that can be a, you know, a lifeline to many folks that are struggling to pay their electric bills. I do think the safety issues are real. And so it's not from my perspective, it's not whether this bill moves forward.

It's just sort of how it moves forward. And so I did have one question for the witness from San Diego, and that is

Actually, let's do a little musical chairs. So we need to have one of our backup witnesses needs to

Yeah. If one of you Let the

If one of you Let the

You're fine. You're fine.

Let the opposition witness come on up. Thank you. Sorry. Assemblymember, please continue.

sort of had I mean, I'm gonna I'm gonna support this bill today, but Aye, I had sort of two questions, maybe first with this the witness from San Diego and then with the author. So, obviously, the big issue on this is, that I think that you're starting is this is safety.

So I sort of had I mean, I'm gonna support this bill today, but I had sort of two questions, maybe first with this the witness from San Diego and then with the author. So, obviously, the big issue on this is, that I think that you're starting is this is safety.

You know, I have questions just about we were just whispering to ourselves, you know, if you can plug something into a plug, you know, and you're in an apartment building, how does the, you know, the bill states that back feeding won't occur? And for me, it's sort of I can't figure out how that what that really means. You know, if you're in an apartment building, how do you prevent something from being back fed into the rest of the building?

Those kinds of issues. I just think that they're real ones. So I think from the question I have for the San Diego witness is what specifically are the outstanding safety issues and what would be in the rule 21 process at the PUC that is being, what is the benefit of the rule 21? What are the kinds of things that would be addressed if going through the PUC through rule 21?

That's a great question. As as you mentioned, they stated it would not export, but yet the other witness said there would be minimal export. Germany does allow minimal export where France and some of the other countries prevent the export to it.

Even systems that are certified, UL certified 1741, UL 3141 that have non export systems. We do see these systems failing and they are back feeding to our grid.

And so for this, without that safeguard, without going through those safety processes to ensure that the device meets all the requirements that we need and it goes through the application review, the engineering review, to determine that these are truly non export and they will not either they won't island or a small back feed.

That's really what electric rule 21 focuses on. And the tech the technical experts are in there, the engineers are in there, and that is the review process.

We currently have EV battery, generators that are non export that go through all of electric rule 21. Even generators that do not operate in parallel with our grid, a backup generator that are never intended to isolate or never intend to operate when the grid is oh, when it's up, still have a potential to fail, and we have seen that in our service territory.

And they're required to submit an application and go through the review process.

So and I'm gonna ask the the author to respond to that in a minute. So is it, is there is this a matter of having particular equipment that is part of the installation, or just there why does there always have to be a technical review, I guess, by the utility?

There are certain standards that are set. So, I know under this, there is UL 3700 that is still in process and review. And once those standards get set and they we have those clear standards to which these devices will adhere to, then that approval process and review is very quick. But that, technical review in by this the industry ensures that equipment is supposed to operate at a certain level.

Like the

Yah. I'd say, big picture, this is why we have explosively expensive energy in California because so much of it is about sort of control and not allowing people to take their energy future into their own hands. And I appreciate some of your call resting that the we have broad opposition from the electrical workers, utility workers, firefighters. They've withdrawn their opposition because we worked with them on amendments that require standards for this.

You all stand with the California Electric Code, which is very important to the unions, as well as the National Electric Code. You know, no disrespect to the CPC.

Once you rely on the CPC rule making process, who knows how many years that will take. And there are times we have bills that we kick over to the CPC that don't get implemented, period.

And so this is a very narrow, simple thing that we're asked. I think the legislature should state the policy that this is, okay. And I can't state, you know, if SDG & E really always does this within a few days, I'm, I applaud SDG&E.

I don't think that's the case, in many parts of California, and we've seen that with solar. It can take years to get interconnection. But, Mister Brooks, I think can also, add to this. He's also an electrical engineer.

Yeah. Actually, more than that, I chaired the committee, that wrote rule 21. So, know a little bit about it. And, rule 21 is an important, interconnection document for distributed energy resources. This is really small very small scale.

So rule 21 covers down to typical rooftop systems, but this is a much smaller scale. And as, Bernadette said, these small systems 400 watts, 300 to 400 watts, I've done the the numerical analysis on it and those size systems do not export emphatically.

As you as we get up to 1,200 watt systems, which is the maximum under this legislation, then the maximum export is about a half a kilowatt hour a day, which is about 17¢of of of electricity. 127 kilowatt hours a year. Very small number.

Very small number.

And when it's averaged into all the customers today that do not have any solar, you would have to get over 40% penetration of 1,200 watt systems before you would see any net export on a distribution residential circuit, utility circuit. So this is extremely small.

Whereas in rule 21, we had rules that would cover systems that were a 100 or even a thousand times larger than this quite well. This is the reason that those caps are there in the bill.

Okay. I'm I just wanna thank all of you. I mean, I'm supporting the bill in an enthusiastic way. I just think it's an important bill. But I also have a pause on the safety issues, and I'll be digging into them between now and the time it hits the floor and would appreciate time with both sides and IBW as well.

Because I do think that we have to make sure that, you know, the folks that are using these are safe, and that's the big issue on this one. But, I wanna thank you for bringing the bill. I think it's really important to I wanna thank, all the folks in the Jewish community that are so that it looks like they've this they have made this a TKM alum, priority for them and, wanna appreciate them, doing that and, of course, we'll support the bill today.

Thank you. Assembly member Davies.

Thank you, madam chair. I first wanna say thank you to all the California residents that showed up today. It's very refreshing, I think, for members to have your voice and you know, make the drive. Like, just listen to the different cities where you came from. So some of you came from a far away and some are a little bit closer, but your voice does matter.

And it's refreshing to have you here. Not that we don't love our lobbyists, but and, yes, there's seniors that want air conditioners, and there's women that have menopause that want air conditioners. So there's a lot of categories there. But, anyways, I just wanna say to the Senator Wiener, thank you so much for this. It's always limitless with solar.

You pretty much had to have a single family house. And I've had a condo for 35 years. And even though we did pass a law that, by law, you could put up solar if you had a condo, there are a lot of constrainment and cost and liability. So it really didn't go, anywhere.

But when I heard about this, and it really is an affordable offer when you look at it, having an alternative to be able to put something on your balcony that will have give you that benefit.

And again, I had constituents call me yesterday. I did a Zoom. They were from, the North San Diego area, and one was a senior who lived in a a condo, and she's basically, you know, has a subsidized income. She's like, I can't afford these utility bills anymore. And I hear that from my neighbors, and she goes, this will give me the opportunity to hopefully stay in my place, not have to sell it.

It's a good investment. And then I had another gentleman that owned apartments. And he lived in apartment. He said, you know, this will help me and my family. He goes, but I'm going to put install this into all of the apartments that I have that have the balconies so that they wouldn't have to pay as much for utilities, and I think that's an investment.

And just hearing that, to me, you know, we talk about affordability, and this is really an opportunity to allow everyone to have this opportunity. And then there's a lot of times where we get that the heat coming in we get that hot sun where it can go up high. But now I'm like, well, it's actually worth having that sun because we can use it to our advantage. But I just I'm really pleased to see this. I thank you for bringing it forward.

I would be honored to coauthor this as well, and I'll be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly member Calderon.

Yes. I thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. I will be supporting the bill today, and I appreciate the no NEM issue reference. Thank you for that. I do have one question for the opposition though.

Could you give us an example of a back feeding incident?

Yes. We've actually had a number of them. Currently, with a rooftop solar or a battery, we had a situation where our crews were out working on a line, and the line was supposed to be de energized, which means the equipment was supposed to be functioning the way it was. This was a particularly, situation where there was a PV and a battery.

The inverter failed, and the line actually was back fed by the PV, which was supplying energy to the battery, and it was back feeding to our grid while the utility workers were they thankfully had did their due diligence and did the multiple checks, but the line had unintended and was being energized by the generation that was supposed to have islanded and not been back feeding the grid at that time.

So it should not have been exporting.

Okay. And thank you for that, because I wasn't sure exactly that that's a very good description. So I am gonna, again, I think Assemblyman Zbur raised some very good concerns about safety issues, and I'll be following the bill. And know you'll continue to work on it.

Yeah. Thank you. And we are in conversations with various stakeholders, including the utilities. We wanna, you know, we wanna get it right. So

Thank you.

Because safety is our number one priority, and I know it's yours too.

Assembly member Gonzales.

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward and the witnesses today. I represent a district that's 85% renters, and so I have a couple of technical questions. Those who have a balcony versus the ones who don't. The device itself, are there rebates for people who are low income? And I did step outside, so I apologize if I missed this piece.

And then what is the cost for such device? And then are the meters measured by each of those individual apartments, and that's how they do it to make that determination? Then I just wanna confirm that the tenant receives the savings, not the landlord. What's all due?

I will I'll answer some of those questions. Miss Del Chiaro can answer the rest. The wait. Your first the first question was

It was about those who don't have the benefit of having a balcony.

of having

Yeah. So we it's always called balcony solar. We started calling it plug in solar because it's really not just a balcony. If you have a porch or even if you have just have an area of your apartment that gets a lot of direct sunlight where you can literally open your window and just so, you know, so there anything that has access to sun, you can put it there.

Okay.

In terms of in terms of the cost, I'll let Miss Del Chiaro handle the rest.

Sure. There currently are no rebates available, but maybe that's something forthcoming once we get the market off the ground. We, I'm sure, appreciated by many low income Californians. The cost of these systems today ranges from $500 to 25 depending on the size of the system and whether it includes a battery.

Okay.

But these are very high prices because the market is incredibly small. We know that once this market gets off the ground with California's help, economies of scale are gonna bring those prices down 50 to 80% based on experience with other markets we've brought to the scale. So we should be able to see these prices come way down. The savings do accrue to the consumer for sure.

And one of the cool things about these technologies is, I actually went out and got one myself so I could advocate with confidence.

They all come with an app and WiFi connection, and you can see at every minute of every day how much your solar system is generating. And that it if it plug into your outlet of your apartment or home, it is in yours, you know, your dwelling unit, and it's gonna lower your utility bill. And so it is definitely for the rate payer themselves.

Yeah. And not to capitalize on the balcony piece, but, obviously, it's for for folks who have the exposure to the sun. I just wanna be mindful of the ones who don't have that opportunity because they do charge more for folks who do have a porch or have a balcony versus the ones who don't. So just wanna make sure we're equal across the board on those who don't have the opportunity to consider, but I just wanna thank the author for bringing this forward.

Assembly member Schultz.

Thank you, madam chair. I'll be brief. Senator, good to see you again. Thank you for having me on as a principal coauthor. I'm sorry I missed part of the discussion.

I will go back and play the tape, but I believe in this bill and I move it at this time, madam chair.

Assemblymember Irwin.

Yeah. I really like this bill, and we've talked so much about we can't make our climate goals unless people in multifamily housing have access to this technology, so I would like to be a co author on the bill. I'm still trying to understand that the danger of back feeding, feeding back into the grid. Is there is there a potential problem only if there's, like a damaged inverter? That's one question.

And then the other is you had mentioned that if you have a solar device that is enough to power an air conditioner, it seems that when the air conditioner switches off, that you would still potentially have a lot of potentially have low level energy going into the grid. So where is the danger and how do the utilities actually plan if you have low amounts of energy going into the grid? Because I've heard pretty clearly that it's not no energy.

Sure. I guess, the representative from SDG&E mentioned a a back feed event. That would be news information that I'm unaware of.

That was not from Balcony. So that was

And it was not from Balcony Solar. So

not from Balcony Solar. So

So Adaption Border

I do investigations, and and I would really wanna look into that one very carefully to know whether it had anything to do with the certification safety certifications that are involved in these. It could have been a miswire event. It could have been all kinds of things. But I don't believe that if it's a true statement that it had anything to do with products that were properly installed and according to their manufacturer's instructions and their listing.

So the listing, we have I'm on every committee that the UL has for, certifying these devices and the interconnection requirements, which are very stringent.

40 years ago, we invented the anti islanding technology for these inverters, and that technology has has been flawless over the last forty years. So, it's very important to know if there's an event where something doesn't happen correctly, so you can rectify it.

But, as it as I said, these certifications, the UL 3700 certification, which was published in December 12 last year, covers the issue these issues, and back feeding power into a dead circuit, things like that, is absolutely impossible.

So I would take issue with the idea that these things could happen because we have no documented cases of this ever happening.