Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

Okay. Alright. This hearing of energy utilities communications will come to order. We are starting as a subcommittee. We ask our colleagues to come down and join the hearing. We see Assembly member Irwin is here to present the first item on the agenda.

That's AB 710. You may come to the dias when ready. This is a micro grids bill and we welcome you, Assembly member Irwin.

Well, that's nice of you to say. Well, good morning Chair and members. I'm here today to present three bills. So we'll start with, AB 710. First, I accept the committee's proposed amendments, which align the data privacy and grid information security provisions in the bill with existing standards, and account for ongoing data sharing practices.

Communities across my district, Ventura and LA Counties, have been experiencing devastating wildfires and recurring power safety, power shut offs, PSPSs, that have left residents, businesses, and critical facilities without power. However, this challenge extends far beyond the 42nd District. According to the CPUC, 600,000 people were affected by PSPS events, which increased from approximately 244,000 in 2025, a more than, two fold increase from the previous year. This demonstrates the growing need for community resilience solutions including strategic deployment of micro grids.

However, local governments have expressed to us concerns that they do not receive the grid and certain information they need to effectively plan these projects from utilities in a timely manner.

This this inconsistent data sharing can slow the development of community resilience projects and make it more difficult to identify locations where micro grids would provide the greatest benefit. AB 710 addresses this issue by requiring investor owned utilities to identify critical circuits and provide the information necessary for local entities to evaluate and plan microgrid projects.

By improving coordination and information sharing, AB 710 will help communities better prepare for future PSPS events and other power outages while supporting the development of local resilience solutions. With me today in support of the bill are John Kennedy from the rural county represent representatives of California and Jordan Wells from CSAC.

Hi, Jordan.

Good morning, Chair and members. Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, which represents all of California's 58 counties. CSAC is in support of AB 710, and I'd like to thank Assembly Member Irwin for her leadership and the committee staff for their work. Micro grids play a critical role in improving community resilience by ensuring that essential facilities can remain powered during broader grid outages. The Redwood Coast Airport Micro Grid in Humboldt County is a perfect example of this.

It has provided reliable, safe, grid quality, renewable power to critical loads during 63 island islanding events, including a 6.4 magnitude earthquake and winter storms, covering 71.88 hours of grid outage over a 38 month period. California has spent the last several years developing the regulatory framework for community micro grids and committed 200,000,000 through the CPUC's micro grid incentive program. The micro grid project develop deployment still remains limited, and state agencies continue to identify interconnection planning and implement implementation challenges as barriers to broader adoption.

According to a 2024 report, the utility interconnection process is one of the biggest hurdles for microgrid projects to overcome. Early communication and coordination with the utility is critical.

My understanding is that some of the, existing, portals do not provide many of the distribution system details necessary to evaluate project feasibility, including feeder constraints, protection requirements, planned utility upgrades, circuit configuration, and potential interconnection costs. These factors can significantly affect whether a proposed microgrid is technically feasible and financially viable.

AB 710 would require large electrical corporations, upon request, to collaborate with local and tribal governments and community choice aggregators to provide the distribution equipment data, transmission and distribution circuit data, grid hardening plans, and other information needed to responsibly plan for these micro grids and for these reasons we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. John Kennedy with RCRC on behalf of our 40 member counties. First, I wanna apologize for being so late in getting our support letter in. But we are very pleased to be here today to support AB 710. Our communities have experienced many PSPS events and fast trip outages as the IOU seek to reduce the risk of utility cost wildfires.

While we're seeing fewer PSPS events overall, we are seeing over 2,000 fast trip outages annually in PG&E service territory alone. These events and power outages have significant impacts on critical facilities and vulnerable populations. We almost had to evacuate a jail in Butte County, and move those 600 inmates several 100 miles away, while shutting down a major freeway. We narrowly avoided that, but there are other administrative facilities, water facilities that are also vulnerable.

This is why local governments are so interested in microgrids so that we can island our critical facilities and ensure those vital public facilities remain operational and energized.

We were heavily involved as our CRC and the CPUC micro grids proceeding that provided $200,000,000 in grants for, local micro grid projects. That was an incredibly frustrating experience, not only from the development of the grant criteria, but also for many of the awardees, with changed financial, circumstances and and requirements. One of the the bright spots of that proceeding was a requirement for the IOUs to develop this information sharing portal where they could share a lot of this information with local governments.

That was intended to facilitate the development and deployment of microgrids. AB 710 builds on that process by codifying many of those data sharing requirements.

As outages change in cause nature and duration, the need for those community microgrids will remain strong for local governments. We appreciate strongly appreciate the collaborative information sharing we've, experienced with PG and E and appreciate that AB 710 will help make those information sharing relationships permanent and durable outside of the CPUC's microgrid improvement program context. For these reasons, we support AB 710 today. Thank you.

Okay. There are folks who wanna express support for the bill.

Thank you. Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support.

Great. Opposition. Anyone who wants to come voice opposition to the bill.

Good morning, Mister Chair, members of the committee. Valerie Turrilla with Pacific Gas and Electric Company, testifying on the bill in print, where we have an opposed position. And a little unclear, where the bill's going, with, from the, committee's description of it in the analysis. But, appreciate the shout out on PG&E's partnerships with communities, through the CPUC's approved Community Microgrid Enablement Program, enabled by the stern bill, as listed in the analysis.

We have, awarded, half of that, grant money approved by the commission, 40,000,000 of about, $80,000,000 to help with critical facilities, etcetera for communities.

And we work closely with those communities to in build, improve their community resilience and wildfire per preparedness. For example, and then also the shout out on improving on PSPS conditions and, how often they occur, but we do, anyway, prepare. And every year, we're always working with communities on what are your critical facilities, what do we need to help you with, because emergencies will happen. So the concern with this bill is not about expanding microgrids. We are worried that a parallel process is possibly being created.

We're worried about, as we explained in our letter, with broad access to highly sensitive, information. And, so we're gonna wanna look for amendments that, expressly exclude federally protected, physical and cyber security, infrastructure, etcetera. So, at this juncture, we are still opposed to, this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Good morning. Israel Salas with, San Diego Gas And Electric, also in opposition to the bill in print. We do appreciate the amendments, and they're just based on our understanding of of what they're trying to address. The privacy, provisions in the bill, I think, were our biggest concern, just from a high level SDG, and we have a long history with with micro grids.

One of the first, microgrids in the state that's, capable of fully islanding in the community of Brago Springs. Really proud of that project. So we definitely support our communities and our local government partners in in their efforts to be more resilient. But with the with the amendments and the analysis as we understand them, I think they could

go a long way in addressing our concerns and we'll reevaluate our position once we've had attempts to review them. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Are there folks who wanna raise concerns about the bill opposition? I will bring it back to the committee for questions, thoughts, comments. Senator Grove?

Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the opportunity. Let me just say that I really appreciate, where you're going with this bill. There is a capacity for small communities and rural communities to do micro grids but they need help. And the ability to negotiate with their partners, The electricity producing partners that currently exist is really critically important.

I had a community that, decided to do a micro grid right before the, pandemic. And, small community of 15,000 people did a micro grid for their industrial area because they were tired of the PSPS shut offs that that would decimate the community and, the, when they were happening. We're not near a wildfire zone, but when they were happening, The information was not was not correct. The wrong community was identified for the shutoff and then that didn't happen.

It was a neighboring community which really set back the businesses.

So I think you're you're you're absolutely right. I think this bill is going in the right direction and at the appropriate time, I'll make the motion. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you, Senator. Appreciate it. Okay. Senator Grove.

Okay. I'm just thank you, Mister Chair. So I too, think your bill is going in the right, the right direction. I too have, I mean, I think that, you know, it's policy out of this building that restricts the IOUs from doing their job like they should be doing their job. But they can't help it because of, you know, traditional policies that come out of this building that that don't allow them to to, do the things that they knew do either by expense or regulatory processes.

But I also think that the micro grids situation is beneficial, because we do have a lot of PSPS shut offs. We had a waste water treatment plant situation in Datchby, that where they shut off the wrong line and everything was backing up. So I do like where your bill is going. I'm interested in looking at the amendments. I was actually opposed to it till you took the amendments and I know new amendments were negotiating till just like, what, ten minutes ago.

Yeah. So I haven't been able to see that. So I'm gonna stay off the bill today. I hope it addresses the concerns that the IOUs have. What I don't wanna do is putting more regulatory burden on the IOUs, but I wanna make sure that we have the ability to, support our counties and our local communities and they have the ability to make sure that we deliver energy to our constituents.

So thank you.

Great. Okay. Well we will we'll bring it up for vote when appropriate. We'd love to give you an opportunity to close.

Sure. And and I one of our biggest concerns that we wanted to make sure was addressed were the security issues. So we are subject to all the existing privacy and grid security laws. And all of you have examples about PSPS's. And and, you know, they are absolutely critical to, to contain the wildfire risk, but, they are increasing in frequency.

And and we had, during the Palisades fire across over the hill, Thousand Oaks had city hall, shut down for, I think, five or six days. And that would be a perfect example of some place where a micro grid would be appropriate. But we have heard from cities and counties that they just don't have all the information they need to start planning. So, we just want to, facilitate, additional micro grids for these critical, the infrastructure.

So, when the time comes, so respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Okay. Alright. We'll next go to your next bill. This is SB 2182. Item two in the packet.

Alright. Thank you. First, I would like to start by accepting the committee's amendments. Many of the industrial facilities in California have been operating for decades and are excellent candidates for impact energy efficiency upgrades. These upgrade projects would reduce their electricity use and free up valuable grid capacity.

One of the tools we have available to deploy industrial upgrades is the energy efficiency program overseen by the CPUC. However, the CPUC has added layers of tedious proposal review to the program, which has excluded many promising industrial upgrades. As a result, large industrial facilities are struggling to effectively invest more in more efficient technologies even though they are paying to fund the program through electric rates. AB 2182 will restructure the industrial energy efficiency program at the CPUC in the following ways.

First, it will remove a layer of review that has blocked a significant number of projects and prevent additional roadblocks from them being created without legislative direction.

Second, it will ensure that the projects are not subsidized by other customer classes, meaning that only funds paid in by industrial customers will go to support industrial energy efficiency projects. And third, it will require that projects reduce the need for additional transmission and distribution infrastructure to be built, saving the rate payers' money. AB 2182 will reform the industrial energy efficiency program to move more quickly and effectively to support grub, grid upgrades to industrial facilities in California.

With me today to testify are Audra Hartmann and Dylan Finley representing the California Large Energy Consumers Association.

Morning, Chair and Senators. My name is Dylan Finley and I'm here representing the California Large Energy Consumers Association, sponsors of AB 2182. This bill fixes an industrial energy efficiency program that, in its current form, is broken. It is not delivering for rate payers or for the state's climate goals. The existing program is supposed to drive energy efficiency at the state's, largest, industrial manufacturing facilities.

However, in practice, it is not. The result is a program that collects money but does not produce the efficiency projects or the emissions reductions it was created to deliver and that is the core problem that this bill sets out to solve. Original goal was to move the program out of the CPUC entirely because the CPUC has routinely denied our members' applications for not meeting an impossible industry standard definition.

However, in working with the committee, we will keep that program at the CPUC with guardrails to ensure there are no cost shifts and to ensure that industrial facilities can truly utilize these funds for energy efficiency projects. We think this is a workable path, and we appreciate the committee, for their engagement in getting us here.

Thank you to the author for your leadership, and at the appropriate time, request an aye vote. The brilliant and intelligent Audra Hartman is here to answer any, technical questions that you may have about the program. Thank you.

It's hard to top that. Audra Hartmann with CLICA. I'm here to answer questions. Any concerns you might have.

Thank you. Okay. Other folks who wanna weigh in support, express support, folks who wanna express opposition, concerns. I don't think there's anything on file.

Okay. We'll bring it to the committee. Go to Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Mister chairman. First of all, I wanna applaud the author for taking leadership on not only the previous bill, but this one as well. You can tell it's very thoughtful, understanding the industry and the problems. Sometimes the bills, we get aren't as what we call fully cooked, but clearly, yours is. So I applaud you for that.

The biggest thing I wanna applaud you for is for specifying that these funds come from the industry that's actually paying into it. Because I think one of the challenges we constantly see is that rate payers end up. We may set up programs here in the legislature which are only to be translated ultimately to the rate payers paying more. And so the fact that you specifically laid that out, I think, is very key, and I applaud you for that. I just have one question.

I noticed that it said that the funds, that would be provided would not exceed 50% of that project's particular request. Does it also say somewhere in here, because I didn't see it in my quick review that, that particular, grant request wouldn't exceed x percentage of what's available in the overall pot. Does it, identify that at all?

I think we can use our technical expert right now.

We have a click, it does not say that in the bill. We just specified on the amount that each company was allowed to request in funds, and they had to have matching funds available. But we didn't say how much they could request out of the total amount.

So, this is being my second rodeo. And in that, I've lived through this experience in other areas. I would just maybe only suggest you may want, as an author, to suggest to the CPUC or whatever appropriate body, considering something like that. Because what tends to happen is then certain groups end up getting a very large portion.

Sometimes they may get 75% of what's available or 90% of what's available. And then what you were really intending of other groups to be able to play may not have, that option. So sometimes providing that direction can be helpful. But I trust, you know, the bill as I said is very well cooked, seems to meet all the criteria. So I applaud your work and I'll move the bill when the time is appropriate.

Alright. Thank you. And and we will certain that sounds like a very good suggestion. We will certainly, discuss discuss that with all the stakeholders. Yeah.

Senator Becker. I also wanna thank you for the bill. I appreciate your leadership, on this area. I think the bill originally had that user lose it clause where a company could, get a grant for up to the amount they contributed over the previous five years. Is that part still in the bill?

So there's been a lot of, amendments in the last few, days. So I don't know every line there for

So, we originally had that in the bill in the discussions with staff and and then the broader wave amendments. It's no longer in there.

Okay. Yeah.

Okay. I like that provision personally, but, I guess it's not in there. I do applaud love the other amendments. I think we're positive. Still be supporting the bill here today and I appreciate that we're kind of very used to these dollars

And thank you, you know. And and again, we will look at your suggestion.

So let me just say that I like this bill as well. I appreciate I wanna make sure that, I'm clear on part of the challenge in the energy sector is that we pass bills that say this should be part of our energy portfolio and we expedite the development of those particular projects. And I'm on a broken record I know but it's biomass, biogas, hydrogen, carbon capture, carbon sequestration.

And then what we do is in subsequent bills, we make sure that those are not applicable and we're only focusing on solar and wind.

And I said this repeatedly in my district. We're going to need to diversify the type of energy that we create. Otherwise, we're gonna end up being a barren desert with nothing but solar panels Because there won't be and there will be no jobs for people, in the community. So, first of all is I want to make sure that this includes agricultural production. And specifically, in the food processing sector because we're trying to green it obviously.

And I think at least the notes I have seem to indicate that agricultural production is included. But also, if you could address why, the bill was amended to, allow carbon capture technologies but not capture utilization and sequestration.

Hello. Audra Hartman again with PLECA. So, the way the bill is is created is that there are different tranches for the different classes of rate payers. And your first question about agriculture, they can be part of a program as well. We're not excluding them.

So that, you know, that would be a one option for them. And then, carbon capture, we did have it in the bill originally. Due to some concerns. It was taken out. So it is no longer in the bill.

Okay. And can you express what those concerns are? Because like I said, I get it. You have to take the amendments that the Chair thinks are appropriate.

But I just need to understand how we're we're eliminating certain options because that gives me an idea of what's really going on.

I don't know if I can speak fully to the concerns because they were not our concerns. Klee Ka's concerns about carbon capture. We were just informed that there are so many, other issues surrounding carbon capture and sequestration and that it wouldn't be a good fit for the bill.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. And I guess just as a footnote to that, anybody who has any concerns about carbon capture, taking it directly out of the air and utilizing it, should go to Tracy.

And I organized a trip to Tracy for legislators and staff to go. I had a handful that did. So you can see what direct air capture looks like. It's extremely clean. It's very simple technology and we're storing it permanently in cement.

So to me, to exclude that type of development doesn't make any sense. So I'm gonna continue to push on. I appreciate your expertise in this area. I really appreciate it. Thank you very much.

And I'm gonna support your bill. It's the right thing to do.

And I'll tell you, there's some exciting technology in food processing. The boilers right now are gas and there is, you know, through thermal batteries, a way to completely transition them to, electric. So, I think, this and, the MDI are all, pots of funding that could help, quicken that transition.

Well, I agree. And part of the challenge is if we don't know about it, Actually, let me rephrase that. If we don't accept that agriculture needs to be part of the solution, we overlook the opportunity to be able to make those changes and still keep the industry in our state. So thank you for that because I've heard a little bit about it and I'll do a tour so I can see how it works. Thank you.

And I will support your Bill.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Sunrider.

Okay. Just when the time comes, ask for your respectfully ask for your aye vote. And, my last bill Yeah. Twenty five years.

Should be, very simple. It's, affordability bill. And, so basically, under current law, if any federal tax law reduces the tax obligation of an investor owned utility, there are no clear requirements that those savings be returned back to rate payers. AB 2589 ensures that if utilities pay less in federal taxes because of changes in federal law, California customers receive the benefits of those savings, not utility shareholders.

This bill builds on the success of SB 1028, authored by Senator Hill in 2018, which returned more than a billion dollars in IOU federal tax savings to California rate payers.

At a time when families are facing rising costs, AB 2589 helps ensure that they receive financial benefits of the recently passed HR 1 and future federal legislation.

Great. Folks who've witnesses and support? Or no? Opposite anyone who wants to weigh in and support? Opposition?

No? Okay. This one's generated a lot of enthusiasm.

Well, no. Everybody's very enthusiastic.

Very enthusiastic.

Enthusiastic. No.

Everyone's very enthusiastic.

Self explanatory.

Yes. Alright. Questions from the committee? Alright. We'll entertain a motion when appropriate.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Let's call up on Assemblymember Gonzales who's here to present AB 2163.

That's item seven in your packet. He can. Sure. Why not?

We used to have this great discussions up here for some reason. Okay. Okay. Let's proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members and staff. I'm honored today to present AB 2163, which will establish a statewide framework to designate strategic, clean energy, and critical mineral development zones. To support large scale geothermal energy production and mineral supply chain development. California has some of the most ambitious clean energy goals in the world. However, to achieve these goals, California must expand its base load renewable energy development.

At the same time, California has some of the most abundant critical minerals in the world. Capable of meeting the supply needs of our entire country. AB 2163 is about strategically identifying and prioritizing the regions that can deliver both. This bill establishes clear criteria to identify these development zones. Such as critical mineral resource potential, base load renewable energy capacity, and transmission access.

This means that only those areas throughout the state that have the highest geothermal or mineral potential will receive such a designation. Recognizing the importance of areas that meet the, that criteria. AB 2163 requires the state to give priority consideration to projects and infrastructure investments within these zones. California stands at a critical crossroads. We possess some of the most significant geothermal and critical mineral resources in the nation.

Yet, the competition to attract investment, manufacturing, and supply chain development is accelerating rapidly. States such as Arkansas and Nevada are moving aggressively to position themselves as leaders in critical mineral production. While countries around the world continue investing heavily to secure the resources needed for energy storage, advanced manufacturing, and national security. The reality is that California, California's window to lead will not remain open indefinitely. Let me restate that.

The reality is that California's window to lead will not remain open indefinitely. If we want to remain competitive, we must be intentional about supporting the regions that are best positioned to deliver these resources responsibly and at scale. What makes California uniquely competitive is not simply the existence of critical minerals, but the way we can produce them. In places like the Salton Sea region, we have the opportunity to recover lithium and other critical minerals from geothermal brine while simultaneously generating renewable base load power.

This approach has the potential to become one of the most environmentally responsible methods of critical mineral production anywhere in the world.

Avoiding many of the impacts associated with hard rock mining and large scale evaporation ponds used elsewhere. AB 2163 recognizes that not every region is positioned to support these opportunities. The bill creates a pathway for the state to identify and prioritize strategic clean energy and critical mineral development zones where the resources, infrastructure, planning efforts, and development potential already exists. For my district specifically, AB 2163 will prove to be a vital tool as Imperial County and Lithium Valley hosts some of the world's largest lithium and geothermal deposits.

AB 2163 is about unleashing California's high energy potential.

California should not be importing opportunity when we have the resources, innovation, workforce, and natural advantages to lead. AB 2163 helps ensure California remains competitive, strengthens domestic supply chains, and fully realizes the geothermal and critical mineral opportunities that exist within our own borders. Rather than relying on resources from elsewhere, this bill creates a pathway to responsibly develop the world class base load energy and mineral resources we have right here in our home, California. Benefiting our economy, our environment, and future generations of California.

AB 2163 received broad bipartisan support in the Assembly and I respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

With me today is Gil Rebollar, Deputy CEO of geothermal, of General Services with Imperial County.

Committee, my name is Gil Reblar, Deputy CEO with the County of Imperial. I'm here on behalf of the county in support of AB 2163, which aligns state resources and planning with regions positioned to advance California's clean energy and critical mineral goals. My home in Imperial County is one of those regions.

We have more than 600 megawatts of operating geothermal generation, over 4,000 megawatts of geothermal reservoir potential, two permitted commercial lithium project and planning for an integrated clean energy and critical mineral ecosystem across a 51,000 acre lithium valley area. The county has invested years in planning environmental review, workforce development, infrastructure coordination, and community engagement.

AB 2163 connects that local work to a coordinated state approach supporting infrastructure, workforce investment, domestic supply chains, and competitiveness. With 21% poverty and 70% unemployment in my county, Lithium Valley means more than energy. An independent analysis estimates that full development could generate more than 26,000 construction jobs and nearly 8,000 permanent operational jobs over twenty years. AB 2163 recognizes a simple truth.

California's clean energy future cannot be built by asking rural communities to host a work without giving them the tools to help lead it.

Imperial County is ready, not only to power our state's future but to help build it. The County Of Imperial respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other lead witnesses? And your time is limited to two minutes. Okay. Any, other witnesses in opposition?

Please state your name, affiliation, and your position on the bill. Seeing no opposition witnesses, do we have any me too's people who'd like to come forward, state your name, your organization, and that you're in support of the bill. Support or opposition, I should say.

Hello, Vice Chair, and Members. This is Sarah Fitzsimon from the Independent Energy Producers Association, and we're here in support of AB 2163 and really, really appreciate you bringing this bill forward. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Alejandro Solis on behalf of Los Amigos de La Comida in support. Thank you.

Seeing no other witnesses who'd like to participate, we'll bring this back to the dais. Any members who'd like to speak? Let's start with Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for bringing this bill forward, Assemblymember Gonzalez. I think for far too long, California has denied its critical natural resources that we could provide here, providing domestic security, not relying on foreign countries. I have an antimony mine in my district.

We get all our antimony from, China. And it's, sad that we do that when we have antimony. I have a copper mine. You can walk out there. It's pretty interesting.

You just pick it up off the ground. There's so much copper. We don't have access to that. I have a synthetic geothermal, place in the Central Valley who is we've been working on it since 2017 to get permits to be able to provide 6¢ a kilowatt, power to, all of Californians. And it would be immediately trans transmitted to the grid.

It's a thousand hours of battery storage. It's been proven by five national labs. And, it doesn't have an ability to catch on fire like traditional batteries do because it's all stored underground in an depleted oil reservoir where we could transfer oil jobs that are being eliminated in the state to a new job. Because once solar panels are built, there's no jobs really created by it. My colleague made that statement earlier about there's zero jobs.

When you get large sales solar, it is when you create the jobs. The jobs are created when you build the project, but then there's very little jobs once the project is built. So, I appreciate you doing this. I think there's a lot of opportunity. My district also has Big Creek Power Plant, all the hydroelectric, one of the largest hydroelectric projects.

I'm glad that that got off the ground, and that hydro is very important to the state now. But, this actually is, allows a pathway forward for some of these things that we desperately need. I also have lithium. Lithium is very important in my district as a along with yours in the Salton Sea. And so thank you for bringing this forward and I look forward to moving the bill, when we have a quorum.

Thank you, madam Chair.

Yes. Thank you, Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this. I'm really excited about this because it's the future of California. And, when we get go biz involved, private industry involved, we're talking about employment and jobs. We've heard that. My colleagues just mentioned it.

But imagine what we're gonna explore, what we're gonna find, what we're gonna develop. This bill will open that door and it's exciting. And I'm just wondering how it's all going to fit because I can see the excitement as one industry is competing with the next and the next, which is good because California is a competitive state, no doubt, and we wanna maintain that.

So I think that, this going forward is a perfect thing for all of us in California and I'm so glad you brought it forward.

Thank you, madam Chair. Yes. And Senator Caballero.

Thank you so much. I also support your bill. And very similar to the question that I asked, on a previous bill is, California has created an over reliance on two industries to create energy and that's solar and wind. And while those are great and we've invested significant resources in them, they don't create the permanent long term jobs that some of our areas need. The Imperial Valley is very similar to the Central Valley.

So, while I I'm I'm all in for thermal and minerals. I also think we need to include hydrogen carbon capture carbon sequestration which is being currently being done in Senator Gross District. These are strategies to help us remove carbon from the air and to create energy in, that's green, that that can be used when there's no wind and there's no solar, and can help us during peak time.

So wanna make sure that that's out there because I don't see it in the bill if it's if it's not expressed but it it's possible. Give it a thumbs up.

I'm gonna support the bill anyway because I think this is really important. But I do wanna get out there that we need to diversify our our energy portfolio and we need to create the jobs, long term lasting jobs that are gonna make a difference in our in our communities.

Let me respond to the the the jobs piece real quick. Currently in Imperial County, there's a 20% unemployment rate. By by geothermal and and lithium, we're talking about just in the construction jobs alone is 26,000 jobs. 8,000 permanent jobs. This will impact generations to come when it comes to jobs.

With respect to the other topics, I'll let my colleague from Imperial County speak to to to your other part of that statement.

If you could please keep your comments to about thirty seconds because we have another Assembly member who's waiting and has another bill someplace else to present. So very briefly.

Yes. We are receptive. The bill is about, you know, being exclusive. And as you said earlier, diversifying. So taking advantage of California's abundant clean renewable energy.

So, yes, we would be receptive to other zero carbon or carbon neutral zero carbon resources. So that you mentioned.

Thank you. Yes, Senator Grove.

Thank you, madam Chair. I'd like to just respond to the comment that, my good colleague, Senator Caballero make. I support carbon capture. What I don't support is the 45 q tax credits that are associated with carbon capture, where you're guaranteed $85 a ton in order to sequester target, carbon.

And I think that with the the COLA increases that the Federal Government has put on that through the Biden administration, That cost is gonna cost taxpayers on the Federal Government side for all of us trillions of dollars, and there's no cap for twelve years.

And that bothers me a lot, but I do support carbon sequestration, carbon capture. I think it is clean energy. I can't it can be used. I just don't think that taxpayers should pay an abundant amount of money in exceeding of the cost of carbon capture. It's just a trillionaire stream is what it is.

Again, $85 a ton guaranteed with an increase call up for twelve years and no cap. It's a very disturbing number. So I do support what you said on carbon capture. I and for it, I just don't think tax taxpayers should have to pay 20 or 30 times more than it's actually cost to to implement it. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion and debate, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you, madam vice Chair. AB 2163 has a simple goal. To help California identify and prioritize the regions that are best positioned to advance geothermal, critical mineral development, and domestic supply chain security. This bill will help ensure that regions like Imperial County, which have invested years in planning and preparation, can be better aligned with state infrastructure, economic development, and investment priorities. California has the resources to lead.

AB 2163 creates a pathway to strategically support the regions that can help deliver that future. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and I respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

Thank you, Assemblymember. We do have a motion when appropriate by Senator Grove. However, we're still pending having our quorum. So we will certainly get to that vote shortly. Thank you.

Thank you. Nice to see you. Alright. We have Senator Carrillo who's here, been patiently waiting. Please come forward to discuss AB 2505.

Good morning, madam Chair and senators.

Good morning.

Today, I'm here to present Assembly bill 2505. Thank you, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. The this problem bill addresses, I'm sorry, the problem bill the problem this bill addresses is that hydrogen refueling stations currently cannot access dedicated utility meter or a direct service line in the same way other infrastructure can. Instead, developers are often forced into more expensive behind the meter setups, even when they are building at existing sites like truck stops that already have electrical service.

That drives up costs and slows down the development of hydrogen infrastructure that we need for heavy duty transportation.

AB 2505 fixes this by letting utilities extend a service line from the nearest point on the grid and install a dedicated master for hydrogen stations. It brings this infrastructure in line with how we typically handle utility services, and it cuts a necessary constraint cost on the front end. Here to testify in support is Teresa Cooke with the California Hydrogen Coalition.

Morning Chair and members, Teresa Cooke on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition. Very pleased to sponsor AB 2505, which addresses the unique electrical infrastructure needs of ZEV fueling infrastructure by allowing hydrogen stations to also qualify for separate meters. But under the proposed bill, the developer would carry all of the costs rather than burden rate payers with those. The bill is also limited to heavy duty stations, so we're focusing on where the problem is most intense. There is also a sunset on the bill as well. And for these reasons, we appreciate your consideration and request our support. Thank you.

Thank you. Did you have any other lead witnesses in the court?

No, madam Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Do we have do we have any witnesses in opposition? You have two minutes.

Yes. We can do me too's. Thank you. Please say your, state your name, your organization, and your position on the bill.

Thank you. Jennifer Rowe with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the California Hydrogen Business Council also in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Scott Wetch on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the State Association of Electrical Workers, and the California Coalition of Utility Employees in support.

Good morning, madam Chair. Hunter Stern with IBW 1245 in strong support.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair and members. Kehinde Ojeikere with the Weideman Group on behalf of Air Products in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, any individuals who'd like to weigh their opposition by their name, organization, and their opposition? Great. Seeing none, do we have any discussion? Yes.

Just move the bill when it's appropriate, ma'am.

Yes, Senator. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you.

You beat him.

Vice Chair.

Usually, he's first to say that.

Okay. Sorry. Go ahead.

No. No. I thought you were

She did. Go ahead, Senator Archuleta.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, madam vice Chair. I really appreciate bringing this bill forward as the Chair of the Hydrogen Energy Committee. I'm excited about this because the bill we just heard just before by Assemblymember Gonzalez, we are opening up doors and hydrogen is doing the same.

And having the ability to one day have the the meters there for refueling the stations in the future, we're opening that door as well. And it's, desperately needed and I support it 150%. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing that we've concluded all discussion and debate, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Just wanna thank you again for the opportunity and appropriate time. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you for being here. So for this bill, we have a motion by Senator Grove, which we'll take when we achieve our quorum. Thank you very much.

We now have our assemblywoman here to present, I believe, 1577. Yes?

Good morning. Thank you, Senators and Madam Chair. I'm proud to present AB 1577, the Data Center Energy Accountability Act. AB 1577 requires data centers to report various energy uses statistics to the Energy Commission on a regular basis and to report estimates of energy and water usage to local planning agencies during the permitting process. I wanna thank the committee staff for their hard work as always on this bill.

I'm accepting committee amendments which narrow the definition of data center to allow the commission to limit the definition data center, allow the commission to determine how frequently data centers are required to report, and require the commission to establish a process that accounts for trade secrets and other minor technical changes. Energy intensive data centers are being built at an unprecedented rate.

The PUC's Public Advocates Office recently wrote that interconnecting data centers to the grid poses risk for rate payers because of the enormous infrastructure cost required to serve them. The cost may ultimately be passed on to all rate payers, especially if the facilities use less energy than projected or shut down before the utility has recovered its associated interconnection costs. I am no stranger to the promise of potential of AI, and this bill is not intended to stymie the AI revolution here in California.

But we have to move forward in the AI revolution while also protecting California rate payers and our energy grid and its ability to serve Californians both in their homes, but also keep the lights on at the data centers. We need to build data centers here. We need to support our workforce, but we also need to be able to account for this new load when we're planning for the future of our grid. Powering data centers can't come at the cost of powering our homes.

Furthermore, we know from other states that more advanced data center development has revealed that the effects of data centers on communities can sometimes be hyper local. California cities and counties should be empowered to make informed decisions when approving permits for new data centers. AB 1577 gives the Energy Commission and local planning agencies critical information for protecting communities and strengthening California's grid. With me today is Ethan Rarick, Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. The Little Hoover Commission is an independent bipartisan oversight agency charged in statute with recommending policy reforms that improve state government. Earlier this year, we released a report examining the rapid growth of data centers and how that growth can impact the state's electricity system and especially rate payers.

As you know, and as the Assembly Member just discussed, experts are projecting significant growth in electricity demand from new data center facilities coming on board in the next decade. That growth has implications for grid reliability, infrastructure planning, water use, and community impacts. Our report identified four key principles.

First, make sure that the financial burden of data center development falls on the centers, not on rate payers. Second, integrate data centers into the grid in a way that ensures the reliability of the system and does not add additional costs. Third, maintain the state's commitment to clean energy goals.

And fourth, ensure that regulators have access to relevant information such as how much power is used. This bill addresses the fourth of these principles, transparency and data access. Regulators currently rely largely on aggregated electricity consumption data, which can make it difficult to understand how individual facilities interact with the grid or impact specific communities.

Better data would allow regulators to plan responsibly for the rapid expansion of data centers while protecting communities, the grid, and rate payers. Our report recommended allowing regulators to access confidentially facility level electricity use data. This bill does that, and therefore, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Did you have any other lead witnesses?

No. That was it. Thank you.

Any individuals who'd like to speak in support of this bill? Please state your name, organization, and your support.

Becca Cramer on behalf of Greenlining Institute in support.

Michele Canales on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Vincent Wiraatmadja with MCE in support.

Mandy Isaacs-Lee on behalf of Ava Community Energy. Thank the author for the conversation on amendments, and we are now in full support.

Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities in support.

Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses who'd like to speak in opposition to the bill? Please come forward. You have two minutes each.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Ahmad Thomas. I'm the CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. I wanna begin by thanking the Chair and Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan and her staff for their thoughtful work on AB 1577, and for engaging constructively with stakeholders on the issue. SVLG represents Silicon Valley's innovation ecosystem.

Our members support responsible energy planning, grid reliability, and a data driven approach to managing California's growing infrastructure needs. We share the interest of this committee and the author in ensuring California has the information it needs to plan for growing energy demand and to protect communities.

We appreciate that the committee's analysis recognizes several areas where the bill is currently drafted warrants amendment, including a definition broad enough to capture many facilities that are not data centers and a 500 kilowatt threshold that sweeps in midsize businesses, monthly reporting obligations that may exceed what the CEC needs to model load trends in the IEPR, and the absence of a trade secret protection process comparable to the existing Building Energy Benchmarking Program, which raises legitimate security and sensitive information concerns, particularly for multi tenant facilities.

We continue to believe that the state should allow the data center cost study due January 1, 2027 to be completed and evaluated so California is not building a separate duplicative reporting regime before that work informs the approach. We are encouraged that the author and committee are taking up amendments that address many of these concerns, and we look forward to seeing the bill in print. We also look, look forward to continuing to work with the author and the committee as the bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Timothy Burr on behalf of the Data Center Coalition in respectful opposition to AB 1577. We wanna begin by thanking the Chair of this committee, committee staff for the work on the bill. We look forward to seeing the full amended language in print and promptly reviewing with our membership. The data center industry is committed to paying its full cost of service for electricity, and we fully support California's goals for energy efficiency.

Our member companies continue to innovate on and invest in increasingly resource efficient technologies and take energy and water use seriously. Data centers aren't just about AI. They are the underlying facilities that support the cloud, streaming, e commerce, telehealth, e banking, emergency and government services. Data centers are the backbone of California's digital economy, supporting millions of jobs and driving billions in tax revenue.

The bill as in print would fail to provide a full understanding of load growth and address efficiency standards in a comprehensive manner, isolating one end user, data centers here. Fails to provide a holistic view of the grid. Data centers are just one of a massive demand surge that includes other technological advancements.

California already has robust mechanisms like the IEPR, CEQA aimed, and CEQA aimed at better understanding energy needs and potential impacts to environmental quality. This bill, as in print, creates a parallel conflicting track that adds cost without providing tangible benefits for long term grid planning.

To that end, we appreciate the committee amendments that seek to streamline reporting of data that the CEC already tracks, limit reporting information at least to an annual basis as specified by the CEC, and require the CEC to establish a trade secret exemption process aligned with those provided for existing benchmarking reports. We are committed to being a partner in California's energy future. We will review these amends and continue to work with the author and this committee as the bill moves forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any individuals who'd like to weigh in their opposition by their name, organization, and their position?

Good morning. Jon Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce. Currently have an oppose on the bill. Really appreciate the work of the committee staff and also the author's office. Looking forward to seeing those amends in print.

Good morning. Sara Arsenault on behalf of TechNet in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Hello. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses either in support or opposition, we'll now bring it for Member comments. Mr. Archuleta. Senator Archuleta.

Alright. Thank you. In my in my district, there's a lot of concern about the data center. And I think this bill addresses the issues that the communities need. And I don't see how the opposition could not support the amendments or can support what this bill does. It listens to the communities. They are concerned about the usage of the energy, the water, the size, the activities, everything else.

It's an oversight bill, and I think that's how you've got to present it as an oversight bill as you continue because it's a new industry. It's new, and the bill identifies who the owner is, the consumption, and the report annually. It's a great bill for this industry, and I'm glad you brought it forward. So to the communities out there, fear not. This bill 1577 will open up the doors for clarity, disclosures, and safety. And I thank you.

Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. I just wanna go over a little bit on the amendments that were negotiated like right here in front of us basically.

No. They're in the analysis.

Yeah. They are. Okay. They're in the analysis. But you know, it's we barely got, we barely got a copy of them. So I just wanna make sure you're gonna remove the provisions requiring importing of renewable energy credits, so the RECs, for behind the meter generation. Right? Yes?

Yes. I know. Well, you know, I think that what I will say to respect the Chair is that we're accepting what's in the analysis. So I just don't wanna negotiate new amendments here.

You're not. I'm reading exactly what's...

So then if I open the analysis, I can answer your questions.

So in the analysis, in the analysis, it says that you've agreed to remove provisions requiring reporting for renewable energy credits for behind the meter generation. And in the analysis, it says, replace the bill's 500 kilowatt reporting threshold with 10 megawatts threshold. And exempt the following from the bills definition of data center, a publicly funded research facility, a publicly a public safety facility, a public funded national facility.

A security facility, a publicly owned facility, and other utility facility including but not limited to a data center operated for the purposes of providing telecommunication services to the public by terrestrial facilities based telecommunication providers. Require data center owners to report information at least on an annual basis. So the monthly basis reporting that's almost impossible is gone. Right? On an annual basis.

At least once a year.

And it's specified by the CEC and it's once a year. And then include the analysis on the data center energy demands for a full IEPR every two years instead, which is the reporting data. Instead of annually, instead of instead of annually reporting this data. Correct? And they require the CEC to establish a trade secret exemption because that's something that they're concerned about. So you've agreed to take all those amendments? Are you taking those amendments in committee today or you're taking them in Judiciary?

I think they're being processed... Oh, they're being processed in Judiciary.

In Judiciary. Yeah. So I look forward to supporting this bill on the floor. I can't support it as it's in print today, which my vote would reflect. But I look forward to supporting the bill on the floor. And I appreciate the amendments that you took because I think data centers are gonna be very important.

But we need to make sure that water, the impact on the communities, and things like that are addressed. I think your bill does that. In print, it's a little overreach, I think. But I think working with the oppositions, you and the committee, you came up with a solution to those that opposition, and I appreciate that very much.

And I also appreciate your concern about the water usage. My understanding is that most of them are enclosed systems, so it's a closed loop. So they don't just lose continuous water every day. It's a it's a closed tube, but that they recycle a lot of that water. So, but it's all new technology and new information, and we don't want China to get ahead of us. So I appreciate your thoughtfulness on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

Seeing no, further discussion or debate. The only thing I'd like to ask is, you did have your lead witness from the Hoover Commission who testified due to a report that had been completed. If the author would please provide the committee a copy of the report. Because it was very helpful, and many of us, as you have heard, have similar questions in our districts about data centers and would find the material very helpful.

With that, when appropriate, do we have a motion from a Member? Senator Archuleta. Thank you. So when time is appropriate, Senator Archuleta, we have that motion ready, and we'll take up the bill. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Alright, ladies and gentlemen.

We have before us, four bills pending. Assemblymember Petrie-Norris, AB 2065 and 2516. We have Mister Gibson with 2279 and Calderon with AB 2647. If those members could please come forward to the committee, we're in Room 1200. We're ready to hear your bills. And. And, we also AB 2790 for any members of the public who might be here waiting on that one.

That bill is actually on consent. And then, finally, members of the committee, we would appreciate you coming down. We need to establish a quorum. And so, we'd like everyone here so we can vote on the bills we have and the ones coming. With that, we will be on hold momentarily.

Thank you.

The Energy Committee will reconfirm in about thirty seconds. Okay. If everyone could please take their seats. Assemblymember Petrie-Norris, you are on deck to present AB 2065 and AB 2516.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I know we're all trying to be three places at once this morning. But, pleased to join you this morning to present AB 2065. And the goal of this bill really is to strengthen accountability in the general rate case process and ensure that California tech, rate payers can trust that utility bills are accurate and reflect the true cost of service.

So the general rate case process, which is the process that utilities go through with the PUC in order to determine what charges they can pass on to rate payers are incredibly complex, can last over a period of eighteen months, involve thousands and thousands of pace of pages of submissions.

As part of this process, both the CPUC regulators as well as interveners scrutinize what's been submitted by the utilities. They make arguments about what is or is not just unreasonable, but they also sometimes identify places where the submissions include double counting. Where utilities have submitted for cost recovery on an expense that they've already gotten recovery for, Either in a balancing account, a memorandum account, or even in another, previous general rate case. So in those instances, there's absolutely no penalty.

The consequence is that that cost is simply disallowed.

As I've been joking with my staff, if this is how taxes worked with the IRS, you'd have a lot more people making, you know, little oopsies on their taxes. So what this bill is is trying to do is really simple. It is aligning the incentives of IOUs as they are submitting their general rate case filings with the incentives of of California rate payers.

So if there is a mistake made, either because of carelessness or bad accounting system or, you know, some more nefarious purpose, there is going to be a penalty assessed. And the bill would require the public utilities commission to impose a graduated financial penalty according to the severity of that conduct.

So we think that this is an important opportunity to protect rate payers by establishing real consequences, when there is an inappropriate attempt to recover costs. With that, I am pleased to be joined by Michael Campbell from the Public Advocates Office and Matt Freedman from the Utility Reform Network.

You have two minutes each.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Mike Campbell. I serve as deputy director for energy at the Public Advocates Office. The Public Advocates Office is an independent advocate established by the legislature to represent the interest of utility rate payers. We are very proud to support AB 2065.

We think utilities should have a strong interest in ensuring that their financial accounting complies with laws and regulations. One of our office's core functions is to review utility cost recovery requests. And in this work, we've uncovered numerous instances of utilities including prohibited costs and regulatory accounts that are paid for by ratepayers, such as for political activities, sporting events, jewelry, and much more.

Unfortunately, there is rarely a consequence or deterrent for utilities when we or other advocates unearth prohibited costs that are included in rate payer funded accounts that are contrary to law and in violation of CPUC approvals, approved rules, and accounting requirements. This bill would fill a critical gap in the state's regulatory oversight of privately owned utilities.

By utilizing escalating penalties, the CPUC will encourage the utilities take greater care to ensure their regulatory accounting complies with statute and as a result, protects customers for paying for things they should not have to. Otherwise, the risk for lax utility accounting falls on repairs with no meaningful risk to shareholders. We often run across these inappropriate costs inadvertently, such as when we were looking to understand energy efficiency program details and found the utility had booked over a $100,000 in baseball tickets.

Through regulatory accounting mechanisms, these costs would have automatically rolled into rates. Another example is when we found another utility have been using ratepayer money to create campaigns to lobby against California clean energy policies.

That activity violates state and federal law. As it currently stands, these 100,000 or million dollar needles are hidden in billion dollar haystacks. Sometimes we find them, but we're concerned about the ones we don't. In the case of cost recovery for baseball tickets, that utility thanked us for finding their error, asserted they deleted from the balancing account so rate payers wouldn't be harmed. But this puts the onus on identifying the errors on the wrong party.

With this legislation, we should expect the utilities internal audits and other controls to tighten up and ensure their cost recovery requests are in compliance with regulatory standards.

Please summarize.

For these reasons, we support AB 2065.

Thank you.

Matt Freedman on behalf of the Utility Reform Network. We are sponsor of the bill. This bill would direct the Public Utilities Commission to impose minimum financial penalties on any public utility subject to its jurisdiction that seeks to recover costs from its customers that are prohibited by law or regulation, are outside the scope of a particular account, or would result in double recovery.

Some types of these prohibited costs were defined in last year's AB 1167, lobbying and political influence activities, promotional advertising, contributions to trade associations that undertake those activities.

The enactment of a specific statutory direction on this topic is long overdue. Utilities have a long history of seeking to inappropriately charge rate payers for costs that are not eligible for inclusion in rates. Some of the examples cited by my colleague, Mike Campbell, included baseball tickets, charging large client representatives costs to an energy efficiency account, billing customers for the cost of advocacy activities that were in the interest of the utility.

Utilities that inappropriately record prohibited costs to rate payer accounts rarely face adverse consequences beyond being denied recovery in the event the error is found. But many errors, intentional or accidental, are never discovered.

Given the overwhelming complexity of utility accounting practices and the massive number of individual cost items collected in rates, it's extremely difficult for experienced PUC interveners like my organization and the public advocate's office to catch even more than a small portion of problematic or prohibited costs.

AB 2065 would alter the incentives for utilities by requiring shareholder penalties equal to at least the full amount of the prohibited cost unless the utility proactively corrects its accounts before the prohibited cost is discovered in the course of a PUC proceeding. If the utility has a pattern of such violations, the penalty would be at least three times the inappropriate costs.

This framework would encourage the utilities to correct mistakes before they are found by others and allow escalating penalty levels if utility practices merit a higher sanction.

Please summarize.

And for those reasons, we support AB 2065.

Thank you very much. Are there any other individuals who'd like to voice their support by their name, organization in supporting this bill?

Thank you. Mark Fenstermaker on behalf of Earthjustice in strong support.

Thank you. Any others? Alright. Do we have any, individuals who'd like to testify in opposition to the bill? You would have two minutes.

Lead opposition.

Good morning. Brandon Ebeck here on behalf of Pacific Gas & Electric. We are still reviewing the bill and the full impact of it. We very much share the the intent of making sure that we are not booking the costs inappropriately. For for PG&E and for the electric and gas corporations, we had a very robust conversation the last couple years around AB 1167.

Many of the activities that were referenced will be very much illegal under that bill. That bill does have very immediate and direct penalties, including disallowances and other penalties that are obligated for the PUC to administer. We would note that that only applies again to electric and gas corporations, does not apply to other forms of utilities that the CPUC or the PAO have oversight over.

So we wanna look forward to reviewing the various claims that have been made to make sure that they are covered by this legislation. The legislation is not overaggressive.

We also have concerns with some of the verbiage in the bill that would essentially halt a lot of our work through the general rate case. The way it's written is just far too broad. So we've been raising those concerns with staff. We look forward to those conversations. But for now, we have very significant concerns.

Thank you.

Thank you. Lead opposition witness?

Okay. No other lead opposition witnesses. Alright. Seeing none, any individuals by name, organization, that you'd like to state your opposition?

Laura Parra on behalf of Southern California Edison, in opposition. We'll review the amendments as well.

Thank you.

Audra Hartman on behalf of CalCom. These are the small, rate regulated telephone companies. We're also in opposition. We have an opposed less amended position.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses or comments, we'll bring it back behind the rail. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Vice Chair. My my my question is how are you gonna keep track? How do you audit if they've exceeded what is normally called public relations? And I would think that they have a duty to have an ability to get out to the public and and promote and so on. But when it's excessive, like what we've heard, how do we know and how do we get that information?

Well, thank you for the question, Senator. And I'll say one thing that I like about the approach that we're trying to take with this bill is it actually doesn't create any new requirements for audits or for reviews or for evaluations. These are are processes that are already happening as part of the general rate case process. So in some cases, you know, the PUC regulators themselves are identifying these costs that are ineligible and then disallowed.

In some cases, interveners like TURN, like public advocates office and others are the ones who are as part of their existing review process within the general rate case.

They're identifying these issues already. And so what this bill just says is instead of the consequences being oops. That was a mistake so it's disallowed. There's also a penalty assessed. And I think that's just a really important step to ensure that incentives are aligned, between our investor and utilities and the right payers that they serve.

Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Any other members have comments? Yes. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I'm bummed. I'm sorry. I was, in another committee. So I didn't hear all of the arguments. I apologize if I sound a bit repetitive.

So I'm absolutely in absolute support of the goal of enhancing the oversight and making sure that the rep payers are not paying the the the bill for for these expenses. I'm just a little concerned that, the bill will create, new the new penalties on there. And, especially because from what I understand that the process is very complicated in how the companies work. They have to be very flexible in what they do.

And I'm just nervous that there might be an attempt at maybe over correcting and not giving them the flexibility to be able to to do and the work that they need to do.

It's kinda hard. They explained it to me and I, not they. My my my team explained it to me. But I but I am concerned. The way that I understood it, it just I'm I'm I just wanna make sure that we're not overly overly correcting and making sure that they have the flexibility that they need to to do the work that they do, which is incredibly complicated.

I'm gonna I'm gonna wait to to see the bill, as you work through some of the amendments that I think you folks are still working with the opposition from what I understand. Is that correct?

Yes. We certainly will ensure that, you know, we, work with opposition and there's not unintended consequences to the bill. And certainly appreciate the question. And as I said, we're not trying to create any new, review process or any new auditor put any additional burden on either on, you know, the utilities or on the PC or interveners. We're simply saying, hey, if you get caught making a mistake, there's a penalty.

And I don't think you were, you know, here when I I made the comment. When you're filling in, for example, your taxes as a taxpayer, you make a little mistake. The IRS doesn't just say, oh, oops. You know, Senator Bogh, you made a mistake. They charge you a penalty.

And that penalty creates an incentive for people to be really, really careful about what they submit. And so I think it's just really important that there's some teeth attached to what is already an incredibly robust review and evaluation process.

And then, so following up on that thought. In this space and I'm not I'm not an expert in it but obviously you've been working in it. Would there be a perhaps a fair expectation of a right to cure that mistake before the penalty is assessed?

The language of the bill right now states that if a utility submits their general rate case and then upon their own review and evaluation, they identify a mistake, that certainly, they would have a right to cure that. There would be no penalty attached. But if they're going through the process and an intervener like churn or an intervener like the PAO is the one who identifies the error, the way the bill is structured right now, there is not a right to cure.

A penalty would be assessed. And I think the logic for that, I'm gonna borrow the the language, that that my witness used.

These are sometimes $100,000 needles in multi billion dollar haystacks. So when an issue and an error is identified, it's really hard to find. And I would argue that if they're finding one error, there's five more needles buried in that haystack.

And so I think one of the things that that, you know, our committees have been working on collectively has been to try to kind of streamline and rationalize some of the complexity and some of the just, you know, to make the accounting more easy, both for these the utilities and for the interveners and the regulator. A lot of the approaches that have been taken have been to try to require additional audits and additional reviews.

I kinda think this is a more elegant approach and that it aligns the incentives between the folks who are submitting, you know, the IOUs who are submitting a general rate case, and the rate payers they serve and the the interveners who are working on behalf of rate payers.

Okay. Thank you.

And thank you for the questions and look forward to continued conversation.

I'm sorry. I wish I would have been here from the from the beginning.

Seeing no further, members with questions or discussions, do we have a motion for the bill?

We do.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Archuleta, for moving the bill at the appropriate time. Assembly member, would you like to close?

Yes. Let me, before I go any further, just accept the committee amendments. Want to thank, committee staff and the Chair, for your work on this bill and for your continued partnership as we work, to bend the cost curve and lower utility rates for California families. With that, respectfully ask for your aye vote on this measure.

Thank you. The Assemblymember did just a moment ago accept the committee amendments for the record. Thank you. With that, we'll now move on onto your second bill, AB 2516.

Thank you. Excited to present AB 2516. This bill would establish the California grid manufacturing initiative in order to reduce the cost of critical grid equipment, through better coordinated purchasing, expanded in state manufacturing.

And before I go any further, let me begin by accepting the committee amendments. And once again, just thank the Chair and committee staff for your work and partnership as we've worked through this bill.

As committee members well know, Californians are paying some of the highest electricity rates in the country. We've talked a lot about some of the drivers of those rates, and collectively, we are looking for every opportunity to lower bills in the short and the long term.

But one thing we haven't talked a ton about has been the supply chain crisis that is also driving up rates. So there is a supply chain crisis for the basic physical equipment that makes the grid work. Transformers, cables, switch gear.

Since 2019, demand for these critical pieces of equipment has gone up by almost 300% and prices have spiked between 45% and 95%. Lead times have stretched from weeks to nearly three years. We have incredibly ambitious clean energy goals here in California and delivering on those goals in a timely fashion and delivering on those goals in a cost effective manner really ensure, really relies on our ability to build out the grid, efficiently and effectively.

And so, the approach that we are taking with AB 2516 is to try to transform that set of challenges into an opportunity. So, the bill would create the California grid manufacturing initiative.

We'd work with utilities to identify which components are causing delays and then determine the right form of state help from technical assistance to coordinated bulk purchasing. We really think that there is an opportunity over the next twenty five years for this initiative to save billions of dollars for California rate payers and also to create thousands, thousands of high road, high paying, union jobs.

So I think the opportunity for this spell is lower cost for rate payers, great jobs for Californians, and supply chain we need to build our clean energy future demands. With that, I'm gonna be joined by Sam Uddin from Net Zero California and Sam Appel, from UAW.

We have our two lead witnesses in support. You have two minutes each.

Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Sami Uden. I'm the Cofounder and Managing Director of Net Zero California, and we're proud to support AB 2516, which has the potential to provide billions in rate pay savings by facilitating both the joint purchasing and in state manufacturing of critical electric grid components. California has some of the highest electricity rates in the nation, and supply chain bottlenecks for equipment such as transformers and conductors have emerged as a key cost driver.

Utilities today often compete against one another for a limited supply of these components, driving up costs and delaying grid upgrades.

Given the enormous scale of investment needed to modernize and harden California's electric grid through 2045, even modest reductions in equipment costs can translate into billions in rate pay savings. AB 2516 would achieve this by authorizing the state to aggregate demand and coordinate procurement across utilities, leveraging California's purchasing power to secure lower prices and more reliable access to grid components.

The bill would also support the expansion of in state manufacturing through financing incentives, helping to further address supply constraints while creating jobs in the state.

Importantly, the bill ensures that any savings achieved through joint purchasing would flow back to consumers. So AB 2516 is a nation leading policy that will help California build the grid faster, more affordably, and more reliably while supporting economic development across the state.

I wanna thank the Assembly member for her leadership, and we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, committee members. My name is Sam Appel with UAW Region 6 representing 100,000 workers in manufacturing, higher education, state science, and other sectors. Our members want our taxpayer and rate payer dollars to go towards building a thriving manufacturing base, delivering on our climate goals, and bringing down skyrocketing utility bills.

Assemblymember Petrie Norris has brought forward a bill that delivers on all of these fronts. AB 2516 is an essential inter intervention into one of our most critical energy supply chains, electric grid equipment.

Here's the problem. The supply chain for these goods is critically bottlenecked and delays and delayed. According to analysts at Wood Mackenzie, demand for critical transformer types is up as much as 300% since 2019, and prices have doubled and tripled across key technology segments. Lead times have grown up to six years for some specialized transformers, and all of this is for standard equipment, nothing new or fancy. What does it all mean?

According to our economic modeling with academics cross country, it means that if we don't make a dent in the extraordinary inflation in this market, we'll see an extra $100,000,000,000 to $200,000,000,000 on our utility bills by 2050. 6.5 gigawatts of renewable power is also waiting to connect to the grid because of these equipment delays.

And wildfire resilience decreases as equipment ages beyond its useful life. We are a manufacturing union, and we care about manufacturing jobs. Modeling on AB 2516 shows that through the interventions proposed in the bill, approximately 5,000 direct manufacturing jobs could be created and 12,000 total in state supply chain jobs.

Everybody looking at this industry agrees that something needs to be done. Here is a common sense solution that integrates the best analysis from across the industry and a clear operating theory of change. It is a solution we need and that we cannot afford to delay. Thanks for your consideration.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses here who'd like to weigh their support by saying your name, organization, and that you support the bill? Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Adam Hatefi here on behalf of the California Coalition of Large Energy Users in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Scott Cox on behalf of Industrious Labs here to voice our strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Allison Hilliard on behalf of the Climate Center in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good day. Hunter Stern with the Coalition of California Utility Employees and IBW 1245 in strong support.

Thank you.

Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in proud support. Thank you.

Catherine Vieira Houston, United Steelworkers District 12 in support.

Thank you.

Asha Sharma on behalf of Sierra Club California in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Curtis Curtis Appel, a member of Sierra Club in strong support.

Thank you.

Julia Sebastian on behalf of California Labor for Climate Jobs in support.

Thank you.

Hello. Rachel Lucine with Blue Green Alliance here in strong support.

Thank you.

Rio Morales, San Francisco resident in strong support.

Carrie Miller, a member of UAW Local 4811 in support.

Thank you.

Taylor DeWitty, UAW Region 6 in strong support.

Abi Wong, member of UAW 4811 Region 6 in strong support.

Thank you.

Ryla Banjik Kosh, a member of UAW Region 6 and strong support.

Thank you.

Dylan Fowler, UAW Region 6, strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Elise Nickel, UAW Region 6 in strong support.

Thank you.

Angeli McNeil, Berkeley resident and with UAW Region 6 in strong support.

Thank you.

Meredith Song, member of UAW local 1148 in region six in support.

Thank you.

Swabnil Agar, UAW 4811 member. I support this bill.

Thank you very much.

Aidan Kelly, member of UAW 4811, in strong support.

Thank you.

Carlton Kong, member of UW 4811 in strong support.

Thank you.

Maya Jacobson, Oakland resident in strong support.

With your Rosie Riveter banner. Thank you.

Junie Badain, member of UAW 4811 in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Solana Glass, member of UAW 4123 in strong support.

Thank you.

Doctor Maria Satnick, UAW 4811 in strong support.

Thank you.

Joshua Baubach, UAW region 6 strong support.

David Murillo, UAW region 6 strong support.

Thank you.

Corey Copeland, climate scientist and supervisor at large for CAPS UAW 115 in strong support.

Thank you.

Melody Tehrani, Cameron Park resident, librarian, and member of CAPS UAW local 1115. Strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Alvin Deone. IBW local 1245. Strong support.

Good morning. Nicole Fraser. IBW 1245. Strong support.

Good morning. Kayla Jones, proud member of IBW 1245, and strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Norman Rogers, USW Local 675, and strong support.

Thank you. Well, I counted more than 30 witnesses who weighed in to support. So, I saw many of you waiting in line to come in. So thank you for being here to participate.

Any lead witnesses who'd like to wish their opposition to the bill?

Seeing none, any individuals who just wanna weigh in with your name and organization in opposition to the bill?

Alright. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dias. Any members who'd like to speak? Senator Becker.

Thank you.

This is a really important bill. The supply chain bottlenecks are real and they are hindering our goals. Also I Chair a a select committee here in the Senate that's about economic development and manufacturing, you know, keeping and growing manufacturing here in California. So, to me this is a real win win win bill, in terms of creating the jobs that we that were mentioned, speeding our clean energy goals and doing it in a thoughtful way. So I'd love to be added as a co author at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator. Would love to

I'll move the bill when when we can.

Thank you, Senator. Yes, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Hi. Thank you, Assemblymember. I so I have a couple of questions because, you know, my area is the Inland Empire Center near Riverside County. They used to have a lot of manufacturing. And right now, I just wanna highlight that Searls Valley Minerals is a the chemical can't speak today.

Sorry. Chemical company in Trona, California. It's just filing bankruptcy. They produce borax, Soda Ash, sodium sulfate, from the brine brine of Searls Lake using solutions and mining. And they can't afford to do business in California.

And some of the materials that they use are actually used are used for flat screen monitors and are crucial for clean energy technologies like solar panels and EV batteries. One of two companies in the nation, in the nation. And because of the cost of doing business in California, they cannot afford to do business anymore in in the state. They laid off 300 employees, just a couple of months ago, just filed for bankruptcy. And their main concerns is we can't afford to do business in California.

We can't produce these essential, products in, in our state. And they can't compete with China because of the regulatory environment of our state. And the reason I state that because I'm trying to understand how the state coming in, is going to actually address the supply chain constraint constraints and storage units. Because in order to have the materials that we need, the manufacturing, we have to have the businesses in California if they can't afford to do it.

And many of them are leaving the state. Or just closing its stores because they can't afford to do, business in California. How does this bill actually address the actual supply that we're not able to produce in our state? That's what I'm trying to get. Like, how does the state procuring these materials if we don't have them? How does it fix the issue of the supply chain?

Well and I really appreciate the question. You know, it's just devastating to hear about the closure of the business in your district on the loss of those jobs, the loss of, you know, that economic output for the State of California. And I think that there's a huge opportunity, for us as the state to be more intentional in our economic development strategy, to be more intentional about bringing, manufacturing, advanced manufacturing back to the State of California.

And I'll say, this is, you know, one, I think small piece of what should be a broader strategy. But, let me talk you through, I guess, the details of how our bill would achieve, you know, its goals.

So, so there's two complementary tracks. The energy unit will work with utilities to identify which grid components are causing delays and then determine the appropriate form of state intervention. Options would include upstream supply chain intervention, technical assistance, regulatory coordination, and then where centralized procurement is warranted, the energy unit would aggregate utility demand and conduct competitive solicitations to get components to utilities faster and at lower cost than fragmented utility by utility purchasing.

And then on the manufacturing track, the state would create an incentive structure to simulate in state manufacturing of critical electricity grid components. This would reduce California's exposure to global supply chain disruptions, create high road jobs, and can reduce long run costs.

The manufacturing track operates through financial assistance, public private joint ventures, and other tools. The initiative would be housed within the energy unit at the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development, and they would then coordinate with the PUC, the CEC, the CAISO, and the Ibank to implement the program. And as with anything, establishing this initiative really would just be the first step on a multi year journey.

And so as with any new idea and, you know, new big idea is really, I think, will be important for the legislature to be really engaged in the implementation, and in the evaluation and the oversight to ensure that the what I think are incredibly lofty and really exciting goals of the bills can be of the bill can become a reality for California, and for California workers.

Okay. So what intrigued me what you just stated on, is the coordination of the regulatory environment that could be fixed which with the utmost respect could be done right now if we were listening to the industries to the manufacturers. That and well, yeah, the manufacturers who understand what their plight is. It's sad to me that we need to create a commission to be able to have those conversations when they're speaking loud and clear as to what is happening in California.

I still I understand the goals.

I just, I'm just I was really struggling with this because, it's obvious why we struggle in California. If you're listening to our industries and our businesses, I appreciate the goal. I'm gonna lay off the bill today because I still I think a lot of what should be done at things that you're actually speaking of, we're doing right now. We should be doing right now without a commission, without this. This is part of what we do as legislators.

We're supposed to be listening to the industries, hear them out as far as, this is not working and yet we're not doing this. Anything, to actually address those. Well, I can't say we're not doing anything. I let me rephrase that. Let me rephrase that.

We're just, What's that?

Just

Please continue, Senator.

I just, I just I'm really struggling because I see how the business how. Once again, I'm gonna go back. It's the regulatory environment that is really destroying a lot of the businesses that have been providing for our communities.

And then we make ourselves feel better by passing another commission.

Well, I certainly am open to additional conversations with you on, you know, what more we can do, to incentivize manufacturing jobs in California, and encourage and and have a strategic economic development strategy. So that's something I'm broadly excited about. And, yeah, I think that the struggle always is how do you go from that very broad, very general problem to specific actions that we, as legislators, can take to tackle that problem. And I, you know, I'd pause it as with anything.

And what is the the phrase like, how do you eat an elephant one bite at a time? So look forward to continuing that conversation with you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Grove.

Thank you. I appreciate you taking the amendments. I appreciate your text message and always engaging. I am gonna lay off the bill today, but I look forward to supporting what comes to the floor because and the reason why is because if I vote aye today, it's in the bill in print, which I don't agree with a lot of the issues that are in there. But with the amendments, it made the bill much better and it can be supportable.

And so I wanna make sure that you know that. And my colleague, Senator Stern, who just walked out, who is antagonizing me at the same time, my good colleague, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Oh, he's still over there. He's waiting in the background. The peanut gallery.

Yes. The peanut gallery. So Senator Ochoa Bogh does have a point that the regulatory process, the, you know, there's no other there's no other state that requires, in country, that requires, like, California Air Resources Board emissions, allowances, things like that, a lot of manufacturers. And but I do have to I am gonna correct the,record. I deeply respect my colleague.

I love my colleague, and I think she's absolutely heartfelt, and she has a passion to make sure that businesses stay along. I do as well. And I want you to know that myself and my colleague, who is now walking back from the peanut gallery right now, fought very, very hard, Fought very, very hard, with the California Air Resources Board, particularly for this company to not lay off 420 people with the warn notice that went out. And then once they got the allowances, they filed bankruptcy.

So that is something we have to protect from happening in the future. I think the company waited far too long before it addressed it with the with the state. That's part of it. And I and I do agree wholeheartedly with my colleague that the state's arbitrary, archaic regulatory compliance issues are driving businesses out of that state out of the state.

It's not it's that's not a hyperbole. That's a fact. And it is true. We need this company and this product that they produce for Iphone screens, for telephone television screens, for stop signs, for anything solar panels. We need it for that.

Now we're gonna have to figure out how to import it. And it's not gonna be here right here where we control the process and it's California compliant. So I think driving out our reg our business businesses when we we are when I say California compliant, that definition to me is we are the most stringent, environmentally protected state requirement, allowances, mitigation, permit requirements, audits, everything that we require for our businesses. We're California compliant where other states aren't. So we're gonna and other countries obviously aren't.

So we're gonna have to figure out where to get this product that we use every single day. And so I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague that the the regulatory issues in California are overbearing and they can't survive and compete on a global market. But I am setting the record straight on the company that we worked hard to get those allowances for. And, and they did the wrong thing even. So I'm really upset about that.

So that's why my colleague

Thank you for saying that

is thanking me for saying that. And he knew that I was coming uncorked just a few minutes ago.

Thank you, Senator. Senator, would you like to close? I I begged our Chair of insurance in the Assembly to hustle over because, that was our last bill. So everyone's got a lot of committees. Senator Archuleta, please.

I I hear the, my colleagues, but at the same time, when are we going to do something about it? And that's the issue. We've gotta kick that door open and I think this bill, AB 2516, does that. It acknowledges the fact that we've been sitting on our hands too long and we've got to open those doors for labor, for manufacturing, for innovation, for discovery. We've got to do this and this is the opportunity and I think this bill does that.

And working with Go Biz and everyone else, we've got to take the next step. There's too many things that are in the horizon in the future of California and we can't hinder the production, the innovation, as I mentioned. So this bill is going to do that and I'm going to support it because it is one of many bills to come because we have to do it. And with that, I will move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta. Actually, Senator Becker did move the bill, but thank you, when the time is appropriate. Now, Assemblywoman, would you please like to close?

Thank you, madam Chair. Thank you, senators, for that robust discussion and debate. I think we are all committed to identifying and removing roadblocks to manufacturing across the state. And I think that this bill, it really is an exciting opportunity for us to look at our clean energy future and ensure that as we are building our clean energy future, we're doing it in a way that is creating great jobs for hardworking Californians and continues to create economic development opportunities for California more broadly.

So look forward to continuing to work with all of you, as I said, to make the promise of that a reality for California. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, miss. Thank you, Assemblywoman. The motion has been made and as soon as we have a quorum, which we're very close now, we'll be taking up the vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you, madam Chair.

Alright. Assemblywoman and Chair Calderon, would you please come forward to present your bill AB 2647? And for members who are watching, and their staff and teams, if you could please come down, we're ready to take a quorum. We're now only two members away. And this is our last bill.

So, we could actually knock out the votes for the quorum.

Pardon?

And also, for the bills as well. Thank you. Assembly member, please proceed.

Thank, thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. I'm pleased to present AB 2647 and I wanna thank the committee staff for working with my team and I will be taking the committee amendments. AB 2647 directs the California Energy Commission to prepare a comprehensive assessment of the potential role for advanced nuclear technology in meeting California's long-term electricity needs. Californians pay the highest electricity rates in the Continental United States.

Since 2010, the average household's bill has risen 88%, double the national average, and now stands at 1,876% a year. Statewide, that's $13 billion more than Californians would pay at the national average rate. According to the CPUC, nearly one in five California households is behind on their electricity bill. Families are being forced to choose between food, medicine, and keeping the lights on. This isn't fair for everyday Californians trying to pay their bills and feed their families.

Our businesses pay nearly triple what their counterparts pay in states like Texas, more than a 170% above the national average. Advanced manufacturers, hydrogen producers, and defense contractors are weighing California against competitor states, and California is losing. California's own energy agencies confirmed in their 2021 joint agency report that nuclear meets SB 100's definition of clean energy, yet because of the 1976 moratorium, they refrain from including it in their modeling scenarios, depriving the state of a clear understanding of its role in achieving SB 100.

AB 2647 marks an important and historic step.

In addition to mandating the CEC study, it authorizes the Energy Commission, the PUC, the independent assistant operator, and other public agencies to evaluate advanced nuclear energy's potential to meet statewide needs for new electricity resources. The CEC study will examine safety, waste management, system costs, reliability, siting, public health, job creation, and the environment, in direct comparison with other energy sources and current pathways. Momentum for advanced nuclear is building in red and blue states alike.

The six New England—New England states—are exploring a coordinated path to new nuclear. In January, Illinois governor JB Pritzker lifted his state's moratorium two years after opposing the same move, a sign of how fast the ground is shifting, and New Jersey has followed suit.

Advanced nuclear also creates thousands of well-paid, permanent jobs in construction, engineering, and operations. These are careers that sustains—sustain—families and stay in communities for decades. Here with me to testify in support are Charles Oppenheimer, Founder and Co-Executive Director of the Oppenheimer Project, and Max Ratoni, Chair of UC Berkeley's Nuclear Engineering Department.

To our lead witness, please come here to the microphone. And you have two minutes and thank you for your presence.

Okay. Thank you, Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 2647. My name is Charles Oppenheimer. I'm the Founder of Oppenheimer Energy and Oppenheimer Project, organizations dedicated to advancing the peaceful uses of nuclear science and reducing the threats from nuclear weapons.

California has set one of the most ambitious clean energy goals in the world, 100% zero carbon electricity by 2045. To achieve that, we need renewables, storage, and clear-eyed understanding of every firm, dispatchable zero carbon resource available to us. AB 2647 asked the California Energy Commission to do exactly that, assess the potential role of advanced nuclear technology, compare them against other pathways, and make recommendations based on data and research. California's grid has sixty-five years of experience with nuclear energy.

In recent decades, we have learned much about reactor durability, passive safety systems, and full carbon accounting of every resource on our grid.

Six states have already completed comparable nuclear feasibility assessments—Michigan, Florida, Georgia, New York, Illinois, and Texas. So, the CEC should be able to use those to achieve rigorous assessments in 2027. A recent PPIC poll found that for the first time in recent memory, the majority of California voters support expanding nuclear energy. This is—bill is indeed timely. I also saw all seven of the governor candidates support the expansion of—extension of Diablo Canyon.

In the 1920s, my grandfather, Robert Oppenheimer, chose Berkeley and Caltech over Harvard because California was a frontier, a place to build the future. I believe that spirit is still alive in the state and the power of science can be used for public good if we choose to. AB 2647 is a small and meaningful investment in answering the pressing question for the people of California. I ask for your yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, members of the committee. I'm Massimiliano Ratoni, professor and Chair of the Nuclear Engineering Department at the University of California, Berkeley. I spent my career researching advanced reactors and fuel cycle and I speak today in support of AB 2647. This bill is... It directs the Energy Commission to do the analysis California has never done.

It puts evidence in front of this legislature on what advanced nuclear can and cannot do on our grid. The analysis matters because California needs...dispatchable zero carbon power. Advanced nuclear delivers it. It is a path to greater liability, to energy security, to affordable electricity, and to a more fair economy that works for every Californian in this century, all while we meet our 2045 net zero goal. The bill asked the commission to compare waste across every generation source.

Welcome that comparison. Nuclear is the most contained and accountable waste stream of any energy source. Every gram of spent fuel at Diablo Canyon has produced in forty years is solid, tracked, and sitting on-site in steel and concrete. California is meanwhile deploying green batteries faster than we has built in the system to recycle and retire them, and those batteries are hazardous waste at the end of life. The rules to handle them at scale are still being written.

The bill asked for exactly this comparison. The commission should have the best science available to it. My department, the Department of Nuclear Engineering at UC Berkeley, is the only nuclear engineering department in the UC system that's ready to support this assessment with independent technical expertise. Get the facts on the table. I urge your yes vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other individuals who'd like to, by their name, organization, state their support of this bill? Yes, sir.

Mike Monaghan, on behalf of State Building Trades, in support.

Thank you.

Kendra Begley, on behalf of the city of Burbank, in support. Thank you.

Yes. Hunter Stern with the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and IBW 1245, in strong support.

Thank you.

Dylan Finley, on behalf of the California Large Energy Consumers Association and PreCon Products, in support.

Thank you.

Laura Parra, on behalf of Southern California Edison, in support.

Thank you.