Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
People can buy these today. People can buy them today. They people are not generally getting interconnection agreements because it's complicated. But the this is our existing products that you can get today, and you can frankly plug in today even though you're not supposed to without an interconnection agreement. This is not some newfangled technology.
This is being deployed in other states, in other countries, and there are absolutely safety standards here. The, the analysis quotes the UL where it talks about some of the safety concerns, and that's absolutely those concerns are outlined in the UL document. But then the UL proceeded to look at those safety risks and to solve for them in the safety standards. So the safety standards issued by the UL, which will be binding on these devices to qualify. Take into account the safety risks and solve for them.
And we have with us today someone who will be here to answer questions. Pete Jackson from UL, who used to be the chief electrical inspector in the city of Bakersfield. He's here today and will be available to answer questions. The committee amendment also appropriately includes in the National Electric Code. So, these are This technology will help people lower their costs.
It will be For the first time, safety standards will be incorporated into California law and mandated for people to be able to use this bill and use these devices under this bill. There are no Those safety standards are not binding in California now. They will be binding. And so this is a big step forward for energy affordability and for people to be able to control their energy future in California. And I respectfully ask for your I vote.
With me today to testify is Bernadette Del Chiaro, the senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group, a cosponsor of SB eight sixty eight, and Bill Brooks, an electrical engineer with Brooks Engineering. And as I mentioned, Pete Jackson from UL, the former chief electrical inspector for the city of Bakersfield, is here for technical questions that people may have. I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 3
You. Allen and members of the committee. My name is Bernadette Del Quiro. I'm senior vice president with Environmental Working Group California. And I'm really pleased to be here in strong support of SB eight sixty eight.
Balcony solar just might be the simplest form of solar energy ever created. We brought a panel here today. It's stuck in the staff room waiting for permission to come into the hearing, but we wanted to show you just how these systems look and how simple they are to use. The panel we brought that's just on the other side of this wall is about the size of this gate. And it comes with two simple cables that plug into an inverter.
The inverter acts as the brains of the device, shutting off should the grid go down to protect our utility workers, and also serves as a communication tool to the consumer. So with these devices comes an app. So you can always see how much is your solar panel saving you all the time. If SB eight sixty eight passes, not only will we put in place mandatory statewide safety standards to address all of the concerns expressed by the opposition, but we will basically bring this technology to scale and bring it to consumers. We'll, in short order, be able to go to our local Home Depot, our Costco, our IKEA, and pull one of these off the shelf, bring it home.
In less than an hour, set it up, plug it in, and start saving. We estimate that consumers with a single 400 watt panel will save $250 a year on their utility bill. These devices are designed, as the senator mentioned, to be self consumption, to cover self consumption. To give you a sense of that, a 400 watt panel is about the amount of energy that a fridge, a standard fridge requires with a Wi Fi router and a few lights. The largest size system allowed under this bill, a 1,200 watt system, is about the amount of electricity that a large window AC unit requires to cool a small home or apartment.
It will run off of sunshine alone, making energy affordability, but also cooling and addressing heat concerns and heat illness issues facing many of our inland, families, affordable for people. There's an urgent need for this bill. Without it, there's just too much uncertainty and red tape, and there's an absence of statewide safety standards. So for the sake of energy affordability, for the sake of clean energy, and for the safety of these devices for consumers and for the grid and for the utility, we urge a I vote. Thank you so much.
Speaker 5
Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Bill Brooks. I'm a licensed professional engineer with over thirty eight years of experience ensuring the safety of solar energy systems. I've written numerous technical manuals and articles about solar technologies, and I'm an active participant in nearly all the product safety standards that relate to this technology. Also, sit on code making panel four of the National Electrical Code. And I've chaired the firefighter safety task group and the large scale photovoltaic electric supply station task groups for the National Fire Protection Association.
I was a technical facilitator for Rule 21 in the state of California, which is the Utility Interconnection Rules for Distributed Energy Resources. And I'm here to testify that SB eight sixty eight provides all the necessary safety precautions for consumers, utility workers, and firefighters. There's they are simple appliances that meet a customer's on-site electric load and will come with all the necessary electrical, fire, and structural protections, which are part of the UL 3,700 standard that we'll probably talk a little bit about today. And I'm happy to answer any technical questions you may have.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. Let's give folks who want to voice their support for the bill the opportunity to come to the microphone and
Speaker 8
Hi. My name is Susanna Porte, and I am from Berkeley, and I strongly support SB eight sixty eight. We are in a climate crisis locally, nationally, and internationally, and Balcony Solar can help us get out of our local crisis at Please the very support SB eight sixty eight. Thank you.
Speaker 1
We've got so many people here. We're just going to ask folks to give your name and affiliation, but I appreciate your presence.
Speaker 10
Charlene Main Woodcock from Berkeley. I strongly support SB eight sixty eight. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Morning. Allison Hilliard with the Climate Center and Vote Solar today in support.
Speaker 11
Morning. Christina Mojaveer, California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Good morning. Graciela Castillo Cranes with the Abundance Network in support.
Speaker 18
Tom Kuhnhardt from Oakland here in support for Sierra Club Bay Chapter, 20,000 members. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Laura Muether with the Lutheran Office of Public Policy and California Interfaith Power and Light, in support.
Speaker 8
Good morning. Theresa Lavoie from Somerset, which is in El Dorado County, and I support SB eight sixty eight.
Speaker 23
Carl Wolfersberger, Mill Valley, California, here in strong support of eight twenty eight.
Speaker 24
Megan Shumway from Arden Arcade Sacramento, on behalf of Climate Action California and Solar Rights Alliance, in support.
Speaker 25
Carol Kinzer from Elk Grove, California. I'm here on behalf of Lodato Deyem for Climate Healing Prayer Network, as well as three fifty Sacramento. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Doctor. Faith Boucher, retired from the University of California School of Medicine, Department of Public Health Sciences, now representing Third Act of Sacramento. We strongly support SB eight sixty eight.
Speaker 2
Elliot Appleton Sackett from Environment, California to voice our strong support.
Speaker 28
Morning. Dave Shukla on behalf of Long Beach Alliance For Clean Energy and three fifty Southland Legislative Alliance in support.
Speaker 18
I'm Tom Edwards. Berkeley, California. Strongly support SB eight sixty eight.
Speaker 29
Brian Spencer, on behalf of the Coalition for Clean Air, the Center of Biological Diversity, the Endangered Habitats League, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty,
Speaker 1
all in support. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Let's hear from folks who wanna Oh, yes.
Let's come up to the mic, but let's establish a quorum. So, assistant, please call the roll.
Speaker 30
Archoleta here. Erigine? Becker? Caballero? Dally?
Here. Dally here. Gonzales? Grove? Grove here.
Hurtado? Reyes here Richardson McNurney Richardson here McNurney here Rubio present Stern here Strickland Wahhab. Okay.
Speaker 32
Good morning, senators. My name is Osha Ashworth. I've been in the electrical industry nearly thirty years, eight years of which I worked as an electrical inspector for the city and county of San Francisco, working closely with San Francisco fire fire fire inspectors. GFCI receptacles are not designed to cut off when backfeeding, and older receptacles have an even higher rate of failure, creating a potential shock hazard for responding emergency personnel. I personally inspected well over 10,000 electrical installations from buildings that were built and wired in the late eighteen hundreds through modern times, including eras where panels like Federal Pacific and Zinsco were prevalent and remain in many dwelling units to this day.
For those who may be unfamiliar, these circuit breakers are well known to have a high failure rate. I've inspected existing knob and tube that had been overfused with insulation crispy like the top of a creme brulee, and backfeeding circuits that are not dedicated to for the use introduces additional current not protected by the overcurrent protection at the source, creating the potential for overloading conductors. This also creates a shock and fire hazard. I've had to go out and inspect dwelling units after fire, so I've seen firsthand why there's grave concern that the state of California ensure that all safety testing and appropriate regulations be established prior to authorizing a layman to feed into a building's electrical system when they may not even realize the wiring in their unit is already problematic. In San Francisco, the vast majority of the city has zero lot lines.
Buildings have no distance between each other. So when fires break out, they often spread to adjacent properties, creating more risk to firefighting personnel and and responding utility workers. The National Fire Protection Association has not approved the use of these systems. UL has not set the state safety standards for these systems. And I've also worked as an instructor at our apprenticeship teaching life safety.
It would be horrific if moving forward through this were to go through and become a basis for changes to the NEC. A lot of the codes are written in blood. This bill does not ensure safe installation, maintenance, or inspection standards, so I urge this committee not to move forward with this bill as currently written. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Mr. Chairman, Scott Witch, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers and the California Coalition of Utility Employees, This legislature has never adopted building standards through legislation. You're basically being asked to substitute your judgment for that of the Building Standards Commission. Universal Laboratories has just begun setting safety standards. It's going to be at least eighteen months.
So why the rush on the bill? The normal process is, if the legislature wants these types of devices to be looked at, would be to direct the Building Standards Commission in their process to evaluate, test, and decide. You must understand that there are a long list of devices that are allowed under that the University of Laboratories set standards for that are illegal like these products in California. Unvented gas heaters. You can get those in Europe.
Those are allowed. Those are standards in UL, not in California. Uncoiled appliances, electrical appliances. There's a standard in UL for those, but you can't use them in California. The NEC, while we believe that amendment is very helpful in improving this bill, it's the California Electrical Code that governs electrical safety standards in California.
The Building Standards Commission, on a triannual basis, takes the National Electrical Code and then updates it to meet California standards that are higher in energy efficiency and in safety. Because California has set its standards at the very we're not opposed to these products. But the precedent that this sets for substituting your judgment for that of the fire community and the building standards community and the public health community that all participate at the Building Standards Commission is reckless. And finally, I'd just like to point out that at least seven states have shut down proposals this year. Wyoming, Arizona, Georgia, Oregon, Alaska.
And in Washington and in New Mexico, they put a pause for the very arguments that I just gave you on pushing forward. There's no need to rush this. It's reckless. Please vote no.
Speaker 1
Okay. Are there other folks who wanna, join in opposition who come to the microphone?
Speaker 27
Good morning. Brandon Ebeck, Pacific Gas and Electric. Welcome to the committee, mister chair. We have an oppose on the bill in print. We look forward to reviewing the amendments and doing a lot of benchmarking with what every other state is doing.
Thank you.
Speaker 22
Hi. Margie Lee with Samson Advisors here on behalf of the Southern California Public Power Authority. In a respectful opposition, I've also been asked to give a me to an oppose for the California Municipal Utilities Association. Thanks.
Speaker 26
Morning. Laura Parr on behalf of Southern California Edison. We have oppose unless amended due to Rule 21. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Morning. Antonio Sanchez on behalf of IBW Local eleven and our 12,000 members in LA County. We oppose. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We oppose unless amended. We'd like the California Building Standards Commission to look at these issues.
Thank you.
Speaker 33
You. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric. We have an opposed position on the bill and print.
Thank you.
Speaker 23
Morning. Mike Tilden, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local twelve forty five, on behalf of our 30,000 members, standing in a strong opposition as written. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. All right. Thank you very much, everybody, for coming in. One thing to mention is that we did we've put in some amendments that are really grounded in the UL process that was referred to earlier so as to ensure that as the science continues to change, there's going to be safety that we'll continue to update the safety issues with regards to these products. But I will say that it does seem that, in some respects, the proponents in the opposition are in agreement about systems that require changes to electrical outlets and the need for electricians to install them.
That's come up a lot in the research that we've been doing. But the bill is ultimately about a future time when and if there's a solar plug in system meets UL or other national testing facility safety certification with a standard electrical outlet. It's important to know that this is not the current safety certification framework for so we've I know that we had a lot of back and forth with the author's office, but the idea is that we would allow this kind of product to move forward as long as the development of the technology meets the safety requirements of both the UL and the National Electrical Code with this kind of plug and play device in the future. I think we're all very intrigued by the possibility. It's working in certain places, but certainly we've listened carefully to the safety concerns that have been raised by the electrical workers and the firefighters and the utilities.
And we really want to make sure that the rollout of this product is very grounded in the UL certification process, their investigation, their work on examining all of the implications associated with this product. While it doesn't feed into the grid, it feeds back into the home's electrical system. I know that will continue to raise concerns for folks as long as we're And so we really don't want to replace our judgment for kind of put our judgment in replacement of others, and that's why we're really grounding the amendments and UL's analysis of these products. So I appreciate you're working with us. And I know some of it wasn't easy, but love to ask folks for questions or comments from the committee.
I know Senator Rubio had something she want to say.
Speaker 34
You know, I clearly do understand why this bill is being forward. We acknowledge the high cost of living and the unaffordability factor that we're trying to content and make sure that our families have support and help in reducing costs. But, when I did a little bit of research on this and hearing some of the concerns, there's a lot there for me. When I think back of we're talking about safety standards that many of you have expressed. You know, I I have to contend with professional firefighters having concerns, and they're the fire fire experts.
They're the professionals, so I have a lot of concern with that. But But trying to ensure that it's affordable, that cost is brought down, there's this other side of me that thinks back of when we started with electrical vehicles that it's working, and it's worked well for those that can afford it. But those that cannot afford it are still having to contend with really high prices of oil. And there's always this disparity of those that could afford it on the front end and those that cannot. And so I'm just wanting clarification on the cost shift because we know it's happened when we go with other technologies.
Can you share a little bit about how this is going to impact low income families?
Speaker 2
Yeah. Thank you for that question. This is going to help low income families lower their bills. There's no cost shift here. The the argument that there's a cost shift here would be the same argument about, oh, if you let someone purchase a low energy refrigerator or dishwasher, they're gonna use less electricity, and that will cause a cost shift.
I've never heard anyone make that argument. That would be an absurd, in my view, argument to make. This is about this is not the arguments that we see with the big solar installations where it feeds back into the grid, and there's NEM and they get credits. There's a huge argument as we all know, and this committee knows very well, arguments about cost shifts there. This is literally effectively an appliance that you can use to lower your costs.
It doesn't feed back into the grid and allows people to have lower electric bills, which is not a cost shift. It's helping people lower their electric bills. In terms of the cost, this the these devices start at like 5 or $600. You compare that to the upfront cost of putting a big solar installation or batteries, which is dramatically higher. And so, this is dramatically more affordable in terms of people being able to enter into generating solar and lowering their bills than traditional, solar.
And they will be able to recoup that about $506,100 dollars investment very quickly. And we heard testimony about that. Even with a very modest installation, they'll be able to recoup that quickly. So, this is so much more affordable for people to enter than other types of ways of bringing down their costs through clean energy. Is it gonna mean a 100% of people are gonna be able to afford that upfront cost?
No. I'm not arguing that. But way more middle income, working class, low income people will be able to make that choice and lower their cost to recoup that upfront cost, and then have long term cost savings, on their electric. And that's really what this is about. It's expanding the ability of renters, of people who own modest homes that don't support solar, to benefit from solar energy.
Speaker 34
And I'm hearing what you're saying, but when you say it's only going to be $500 as I sit here today on a single income, I would find a hard time affording the $500 I can tell you in my district, That is unaffordable. 500 is not something that people have in their banks right now just to spare. But I'm gonna put that aside. I do have a lot of like I said, the cost is still I'm still in my head. I still feel that those that can afford it will end up being able to afford it.
And the same people that are always struggling with the affordability crisis will continue to struggle. And that's the balance that I'm always trying to meet here. But on top of that, you know, when I think of, you know, what I heard here, the risks to the workers and and not going through the process of from the Building Standards Commission to to first evaluate, analyze, and see how we can make this safer. It is a concern for me because we have the firefighters that are the professionals who are saying they have concerns, how they have the breakers have a high rate of failure from those that actually install them and are exposed to potentially being harmed. And then there's the other side of me that's saying, I think someone said that it's gonna take eighteen months.
I hope I'm not wrong. Eighteen months to go through the process of evaluating, making sure that it's safe, making sure that we go through the process that we've normally gone through. Can I ask why not wait until we have all this in place?
Speaker 2
Yeah. So first of all, I do just want to I just want to say, in terms of the fire standards, we'll get to that on the safety standards because I respectfully disagree. But in terms of who's gonna be able to afford this, if we look at the percentage of Californians who can afford traditional, like rooftop solar and storage now, if that's x number, this is x times many times more. Many, many more people are going to be able to afford this. I'm not saying that a 100% of people can do it.
I'm never saying that. But many more people will be able to afford a $500 upfront cost that will quickly be recouped then are able to afford the full rooftop solar now. And there are 4444% of Californians are renters. Almost half of our state rent, they are completely, regardless of their income, they are completely boxed out of having solar now, and this will allow that 44% if they choose to be able to benefit and benefit and lower their costs. So this is absolutely a cost reducer for a large number of California families, and it is no more of a cost shift than people buying energy efficient appliances now.
We wouldn't I don't think anyone's proposing we should ban people from buying an energy efficient refrigerator because it might be a cost shift. No one is arguing that. And I know you're not arguing that. In terms of the safety, as the chair said, we, in order the these products, in order to qualify under this bill, have to comply with UL safety standards and with the National Electric Code. And so that's not going to be an immediate thing.
There the industry is going to have to conform to that, and and they will and we have a representative from UL here. I'd be happy to have him come up If the chair would like to also answer Senator Rubio's questions or anyone's question, the UL is here. I can talk about it because there's been a lot said by some of the opponents, but we actually have the UL here, and we'd be happy to bring Mr. Jackson up.
Speaker 34
Well, let me ask you on that note. I know that you said that we are meeting the National Electric Code standards. But I think I just heard right now a few mention that we are, I guess, bypassing the California standards, why not align to our California first before we move forward with something that's new and that we can again, that the professionals are cautioning, saying it can be dangerous.
Speaker 2
And there are many, many professionals who are saying that this is a good thing and it's not dangerous. I want and we heard from one of them in our in the opening testimony who testified, a contractor who says it's not dangerous. We have the UL here if people wanna hear from him saying that this is not dangerous, that we have safety standards. And I also just wanna address, yes, the opposition wants to wants to kick this to the Building Standards Commission. One of the reasons why life is so expensive in California is that sometimes this legislature, instead of solving problems, tells another agency to do it.
And that it takes three, four, five, seven years to do it. We see this happen at the CPUC all the time. It happens, no disrespect, at the Building, Standards Commission at times. And what happens is that the same opponents who were saying, kick it to the Building Standards Commission, they will spend time opposing it at the Building Standards Commission and trying to put so many conditions on it that it's unusable. I I just we've all seen this movie over and over again.
This is a simple technology. It's being deployed in other states and other countries. It has safety standards that are mandated in this bill, and it just makes sense for us, to move to move forward. And, again, the UL is here. They can speak for themselves.
Speaker 34
And I know that you say it's a simple technology, but I have actually I was doing some research and I downloaded all the potential solar panels, how they look on buildings and condos. And it's not that simple. I still have concerns on how that's gonna play out when you have HOAs, and it's just it's not that simple. Respectfully, disagree with that. It's new technology, and there's so many concerns right now that I'm hearing that are concerns of mine.
But I'm just gonna let anyone else ask questions. But I still feel that the workers have concerns, and they're the ones that install these. And when the circuits have a high rate of failure, that's a concern. And our professional firefighters are stating that they have concerns about the safety. And then I also heard the overload dangers of a system.
So I'll just leave it there. I just you know, I feel like that doesn't quite answer my concerns. But I'll I'll punt it over. Thank you, mister
Speaker 2
And senator, would you be interested in hearing from the UL? Because you you talked about the opposition. The UL is here.
Speaker 1
I think we're gonna now have questions about safety. And and and, you know, obviously, we you know, the bill significantly changed from how it was originally proposed to us. We were we the committee pushed back aggressively on on some of these safety standards. Know not to to the full satisfaction of the opposition, if our where where's the person from the UL? Okay.
Speaker 21
All right. Then ask him some direct questions. Yes. Thank you, Chair Allen and the committee. My name is Pete Jackson.
I'm the lead regulatory engineer for UL Solutions. I'm also the former Chief Electrical Inspector for the City Of Bakersfield, California, and a former member of Code Making Panels four, eight, and the Correlating Committee for the National Electrical Code. In my years as Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Bakersfield, I had the responsibility of the inspection and approval of over 70,000 rooftop solar systems. My previous experience as a journeyman electrician and a contractor brings my total experience in the electrical business to forty six years. In 2025, UL Solutions produced the white paper Interactions with Plug in PV with Protection of Existing Power Systems to identify any safety concerns and develop a technical standard, UL 3,700: An Outline of Investigation, to address the unique hazards.
The 24 page white paper can be downloaded at ul.compipv. UL Solutions is neutral on this legislation, but I'm here to provide any information that you may have regarding the UL 3,700 standard.
Speaker 35
Yeah, maybe it would help to just walk through a few of these issues. I know a bunch of members do. So, can we talk about 3,700 and that standard? We know some of the issues. They're also
Speaker 1
If you want to sit up here, you'd be welcome to, if that would be more comfortable for you.
Speaker 35
Or you can stay standing, either one. I'm good. All right. So, in terms of how The U. S.
Market's looking and the technical challenges we face here in The U. S, things like the touch safe plugs, breaker masking, bidirectional GFCIs, the kinds of things that will mitigate those issues. Are those contained in your 3700 standard?
Speaker 21
That is correct. If the white paper, the research we did identified three areas of concern: overcurrent, because we now have two sources on a branch circuit that's designed for one, possibly GFCI compatibility, because reverse current flows can mask or prevent the GFCI from doing what it needs to do And finally, touch safety. When you touch something, there should not be a shock hazard. And something that can be unplugged from a wall, you don't have the benefit of still being grounded. So there's issues there.
UL 3,700 addresses all those issues. So any system or product designed in accordance with that outline of investigation would mitigate those risks.
Speaker 35
So, under the current setup, if you're purchasing one of these systems, My understanding is that you're not able to do that without a professional electrician. But then if the product were to evolve, or the installation methods, or however it worked, to hit the new 3,700, it would be sort of, in theory, plug and play. Is that the difference? Like, under the in the current market conditions in California, you buy one of these systems, UL doesn't certify you to just simply plug that into the wall. Is that correct?
Speaker 21
That's correct. There are no current systems that have been certified TUL 3,700.
Speaker 35
And so, you're taking on your own liability, essentially, by plugging that into the wall as an apartment as a renter or something like that? You're not going to be I mean, you at least don't have that risk officially certified by the underwriter's lab.
Speaker 21
You wouldn't have a product U. Product safety standard to stand on certification.
Speaker 35
Right. And so, how, in terms of the integration of that standard, the 3,700 standard, there's been a lot of talk about German market and that there's been, you know, massive uptake there and huge success. Can you talk about some of the similarities or differences between our market and the German market that requires this sort of enhanced standard, say, in The United States or certainly in California?
Speaker 21
Absolutely. UL Solutions is a worldwide company. And something that must be recognized is that Europe's electrical systems are different than North America. They use a two wire, two twenty volt system ungrounded. We use a 120, two forty volt grounded system.
So, are distinctions. There are differences. In addition, we do have higher thresholds in this country for shock, prevention of shock, ground fault. And all the products and our electrical systems are designed and installed to align with that. So, in Europe, they have a different electrical system and different standards.
So, the products there are able to work with those systems, but that doesn't mean they automatically work here. Understood. And
Speaker 35
so in terms of how the new additional the new amendment that's being proposed by the committee in terms of alignment with the NEC, with the National Electric Code, how does that interface then with the UL standards process?
Speaker 21
We're not here to speak on the installation standard, only the product standard. Traditionally, in The United States, safety of the built environment is dependent on what we call a tripod of U. S. Product safety standards that are listed certified by nationally recognized testing labs, like UL, along with an installation code, like the NEC or the CEC, that is enforced by the local jurisdiction. Part, UL Solutions' part in that tripod, is the product safety standards.
So,
Speaker 35
in other words, your risk analysis and the mitigation, the sort of standards you're proposing deal directly with the product safety, but not necessarily with the building safety associated with that installation?
Speaker 21
The product certification standards have to align with the installation standards. So, the risks that are identified in UL 3,700 and that are mitigated recognize the risks that would be imposed by installation on existing systems. So, yes, that is considered. UL has a strong voice in production of the NEC and other installation standards. Therefore, the product safety standards that we produce will be in alignment with those requirements.
Speaker 35
Understood. And actually could help, if adopted, these news to say you're doing the proper work on breaker masking, or that you find a new way to have a touch safe plug associated with one of these devices, it could sort of ease the path to compliance for, say, the California Electric Code or building safety standards if adopted, but they're not going to sort of supplant the need for that, what you used to do. Your old job in Bakersfield, right? I mean, there's still going to be that building inspection role or not necessarily depending on how we design it here. If yeah, I'm just sort of curious.
Does the law need to specify a standard in order for there
Speaker 21
to be one, or does it sort of default to that? Inspection and permitting are a different issue, that's up to the local jurisdiction. What we're talking about is setting the standard for safe installation with a safe product. So, use of 3,700 would establish that. As a former inspector, AHJ, one of the primary requirements is to ensure that all products are installed in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements, which align with The US product safety standard.
So we looked at installation instructions for the product. And those, if it's going to be a certified product by a nationally recognized testing lab, those are not going to conflict with the installation code standards.
Speaker 35
mover. Right. Not going to conflict, but also not It shouldn't be considered to supplant the need for that kind of standard. There still are those sort of parallel building standards in addition to the product safety standard. Is that right?
Speaker 21
There are, and those that produce those standards would have to identify any additional or measures that are required. But it's quite common that there are many products that the approval process is just based on installing it per the manufacturer's installation. There's a difference between the manufactured product and what's installed in the field. And installation codes are primarily concerned with what's installed in the field, what the electrician installs, whereas the product standards are what you're attaching to that.
Speaker 35
Right. You're not going to know the status of the circuit panels in that building, or how voltage is grounded in that particular apartment or house, or even what that area is going to look like. Well,
Speaker 21
we know it's You're doing the product work. Well, we know and have to assume, and the correct assumption is that it's built in accordance with the existing standards. So, the UL 3,700 standard recognizes the existing premises wiring and the requirements that have been in place for over one hundred years as to how we do that. So, do design the standard to align with those requirements. And if you look at the white paper, we've identified any factors that may be unique because of this new situation, and those have been mitigated through the standard.
Okay.
Speaker 1
Do you think that the notification requirement is important in terms of allowing for the utility to be informed and then raise any particular unique concerns about a property or a situation in a house that
Speaker 21
No. That's beyond the scope of what we produce. The local jurisdiction, you know, responsible for enforcement or maintaining the infrastructure in a given area may have interest there. The utility certainly would. For our purposes, again, I'm only here to speak to the UL 3,700 standard that will result in a safe product that can be installed.
Speaker 2
Mr. Chairman, if I may just add one piece in that this bill is about interconnection. The bill does not stop cities from inspecting if they wish to. And so cities can set up a system where they inspect. And because there's now we have a notification requirement, that information exists, and so nothing in here stops inspections if a city desires to do so.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had an opportunity to speak with the author yesterday. I have not had an opportunity to speak to those who are voicing other concerns. Since this gentleman had an opportunity to now testify, can we now give the individuals who were also testifying an opportunity to respond?
Because there seems to be a real clear difference here to me. So, I would suggest either Mr. Wich or someone with IBEW or whatever who could clarify what seems to me I'm hearing the concerns regarding electrical codes, how that connects with the building standards. And this is pretty serious, because this can, you know, cause someone's house to catch on fire.
Speaker 18
Happy to hear everything. Mr. Chairman, Scott Witch, on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers and the California Coalition of Utility Employees. The UL witnessed an excellent job. He crystallized very clearly the differentiation between a listing entity and a model code body.
Okay? They list products. They test products, like that light bulb. And they determine if that light bulb is safe to be sold in The United States or in The EU or wherever. The National Fire Protection Association, which publishes the NEC and the California Building Standards Commission, do building standards.
So they may look, they'll take testimony from all the different folks, property owners, apartment owners, utilities, but fire safety officers, fire chiefs, firefighters, the whole community. And they'll look at issues like, well, perhaps these plug in units are appropriate to be sold for new buildings, but we're going to have to set certain installation standards for buildings older than fifty years that might have different electrical panels and more aged electrical systems. They'll put specific safety elements into the code, not relative to just the product, but relative to how you install it, how you repair it. Right. All of these things which are building standards.
This bill cuts that off and says, no, we're going to allow these things once they're listed. And again, there's a long list, I'm sure he'll tell you, of products that UL lists that are not allowed to be sold or installed in California or are restricted in certain applications in California because we take the California perspective and make sure that it's safe for Californians.
Speaker 1
But we also the amendment we did, requires the device be compliant with, the most recent updates in the national
Speaker 18
And if you change that to the California Electrical Code, then I'd probably remove my opposition because how the building standards process works, mister chairman, is the National Fire Protection Association adopts a national a worldwide code. It's the electrical code used in Indonesia. And it's used in California. The California Building Standards Commission takes that model code and, in an eighteen month amendment process, has it vetted through four different agencies that have jurisdiction over different occupancies. The fire marshal for public buildings, OSHPD for health and safety, housing and community development for housing, okay?
And stakeholders get in and they look and they decide what amendments to the electric code are needed to meet California's specific seismic needs, climatical needs, topographical needs, and safety needs. They come up with a set of amendments. And they then send those to the Building Standards Commission. The Building Standards Commission does not have the ability to pick and choose which ones they're going to take. If HCD says, this is the group of amendments we need to make sure that this is appropriate, this code's appropriate, they get adopted.
Then they take that National Electrical Code and it gets published as the California Electrical Code. Because it's different than the National Electrical Code. That's hope.
Speaker 1
Okay. I appreciate it. Yeah. But we're not ignoring national electrical code. I understand there's an additional process.
Speaker 26
Is the author open to amending to have it be to the California through the chair, asking to to the chair, is the author open to amending the bill to have it apply to the California Electrical Code?
Speaker 26
And so then, with the through the chair, then would the opposition be willing to either go neutral or support the bill? Just You
Speaker 18
I'll have to go back to my clients and look and work with the staff to see how it's drafted, but it goes a very long way to addressing our concerns, because it would then ensure that the Building Standards Commission has some review process.
Speaker 26
Okay. So, reclaiming my time, in the spirit of a good mentor of mine, who said that once, congresswoman. What I'm going to do is lay off on the bill to give the author an opportunity to amend the bill, and to give the opposition an opportunity to tell us that this is safe. I try to be open, you know, with new technology, but I do think, for my personal opinion, I always a little on the caution when you're talking about voting about safety. That's when, for me, that line gets really red.
Because now we're talking about we, as elected officials, are now saying that we think that a particular product or a particular, you know, what we're trying to do will actually be safe in people's homes. I would like to also associate my comments with the senator from Baldwin Park, I believe. And I did mention this to the author. There are substantial differences. It's one thing to say something is affordable for middle income.
It's another to say it's affordable to, you know, all residents in California. In my district, to give you an example of where this happens, not everyone in my district, for example, can upgrade their electrical panel so that they can have air condition, that they can have these larger, you know, refrigerators and so on. So, it is true that a lot of times, individuals in my community is one of them, where they don't have the opportunity. They may not they may be the runner and don't control what the electrical panel is for their system. And then you have people who come in and put things in that they're not supposed to, and then they get in trouble, and it just goes on and on and on.
So, I am equally, concerned about the impacts for all residents. There is a difference when people have $500 I have people in my district, you know, they're not spending $500 on a new energy efficient refrigerator, unfortunately. They're spending $500 on their kid is going to school and they need new tennis shoes. That's what they're spending their money on. So, I'm not going to vote no because I want to give the author an opportunity to amend his bill.
It doesn't stop at whatever the will of the committee is going to be, but at least it gives every all sides a chance to work through this. But I would strongly, urge I think it's a reasonable request that this should meet California standards, because our standards are definitely more stringent. So, with that, I'll Thank
Speaker 17
Thank you. So, listening to the arguments going back and forth, does this product back feed into the system?
Speaker 17
The ones I looked at online for Utah, I actually tried to order one because I live in a fifth wheel up here, I thought, cool would that be to not have to pay a utility bill? And they don't deliver to California because they can't without this law. So, like, Utah can have them, but no one in California haven't even if they wanted them. K? So just that point.
On the cost, I have rooftop solar. It was $68,000 to install. My ROI will probably be fifteen years. K? So I look at the gap between 500 to 68,000, roughly.
$500 is a lot less than 68,000. So the mass of Californians, maybe not all in my good colleague's district that just spoke, but millions of Californians will be able to afford 500 Now, maybe not everybody, but a lot more people will be able to afford this portable solar system, or balcony system or whatever you want to call it, then it would be that those have to pay 50,000 to $68,000 or more, I would think. Am I correct? Being
Speaker 17
Okay. All right. So there's limits in the Utah one, twelve hundred watts. Are there limits on this product?
Speaker 17
It's the exact same. Okay. That's good to know. So with SCE and the utilities, do the amendments that were taken by this committee, does that satisfy your concerns? My understanding, the chair worked with you?
Somebody, did they through the chair, mister chair, did it satisfy their concerns? They you worked
Speaker 2
with The the mister Wetz just got up and said, and we can look at the video in very clear terms, if you change it from NEC to the California Electoral Code, we will withdraw our opposition. I believe that's what I heard definitively. If you change it to CEC, we will withdraw our opposition. I then answered the senator's question and said, we are willing to do that. And then he got back up and said, well, we have to go check and then have conversations, and then it becomes a game of rope a dope, to be honest.
And so, yeah.
Speaker 17
Okay. So, I guess, and then my other questions I had that, on the California firefighters, I understand the safety issue, I really do. I get that. But I guess my question on that is that, and again, I understand from The U. L.
That the system in Europe is different than the system in California, but four hun what? 4,000,000 of these have been deployed in Europe, and they've been saving dollars, and it's $500 or whatever it is in the year in, sorry, Germany. I apologize. I looked at the number in Utah, and there's been no fires. They don't have the number of units been sold because it's only been in place since 2025, but they're they have not reported any fires.
I think our huge problem with fires is obviously lithium batteries that burn for days and days and days that hurt firefighters more and the public more than anyone. And so you do take an amendment for the NEC, right, that you're you're aligned with the NEC nationally?
Speaker 2
Yes. So we accepted a committee amendment with the NEC. I have expressed a willingness, and obviously, only if the committee agrees to it, to move to CEC, but the committee would have to sign off on that. But we've expressed that willingness. Okay.
Speaker 2
I said flip. It's fine to have both. My apologies. Our chief consultant was yeah, giving me a look, and I our our telepathic connection must
Speaker 17
be I severed do wanna make a comment before I I I don't have any more questions. Those are the questions I had, but I do wanna make a comment. Policies that come out of this building force the utilities to do things that raise cost. Some of your previous policies, I'm just being honest with you. Some of your previous policies that have been passed in this building cause utilities.
We pay for, ratepayers pay an abundance amount of stuff that utilities should have no authority over any part of it. It should come out of the general fund budget, and they shouldn't be responsible for it. The whole liability piece on the wildfire situation, all of the policies that come out of this building that negatively impact our IOUs, which increase the cost to our ratepayers, that come from people on this diocese and from you, sir, in the past. So, I'd rather do a root cause fix, like I would rather do a root cause fix and fix those situations. But, I, you know what was that old saying from some old politician?
Politics makes strange bedfellows. It's, because I'm gonna support your bill, because I think, although I know it's not gonna affect every single Californian, there'll be a lot more Californians able to, reduce the cost of their utility bill by plugging in something that you can order online and have it delivered to your house, and meet the standards that you're gonna take the amendments for, then can afford $68,000 for rooftop solar right now. And I wish we'd do a root cause analysis to fix the problems that the IOUs because we force those IOUs. This building forces the IOUs to increase cost, per kilowatt on all of our constituents. And so this is, to me, no offense, it's like a Band Aid, but it's a good Band Aid, and hopefully it will help a lot of Californians.
Speaker 18
To be clear, I made a phone call, Mr. Chairman, and if the committee amendment addresses the California Electrical Code, then we will be neutral on the bill. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Wech.
Let's go to Senator Reyes.
Speaker 36
Thank you so much. And, Mr. Wech, thank you so much for that clarification. That makes a big difference. I do want to hear from the professional firefighters.
I know they had opposed, unless amended, safety concerns regarding potential fires, and would like to know their position with the amendments that were taken, and then now with the additional amendment that the author has proposed to accept?
Speaker 6
Yeah. Thank you, Senator. We'd be happy to look at the amendments of the National Electrical Code more closely. Certainly, our letter put forth that we recommended that this is reviewed by the Building Standards Commission and the California Electrical Code. So certainly, when we see those amended drafts, I'd be happy to talk to my leadership about that.
But that was kind of the context of our oppose unless amended position that this needed to be reviewed in the context of the Building Standards Commission and the California Electrical Code in addition to the NEC. Thank you.
Speaker 36
Thank you so much. Because when I reviewed this bill, I thought, very, very similar to some of my colleagues, it's a great idea to be able to provide something that is affordable for tenants primarily. A tenant cannot decide they're going to put a solar system, even if they could afford it. They can't put a solar system on their apartment building. It's only the owner that can do that.
This provides that opportunity for them. And if the cost is 500 and they're saving $2.50 a year, in two years they will have recouped their expenses. But going through the letters of opposition from the professional firefighters and also from the workers themselves. Those are serious concerns, and I sincerely appreciate the, the author addressing both of those concerns. I look forward to receiving from the professional firefighters and the workers their neutrality or removal removal of the opposition or or perhaps even coming in favor of it because I think that we do have a responsibility to all of Californians to provide something that allows them to save on their electricity bills, utility bills, the same as somebody who can afford a $68,000 solar panel.
And this, if they have a small apartment, this may be all they need. And as I said, in two years, they'd be able to recoup this cost. I do have a question, however. As I understand it, this does not come as one piece in one piece. There are a number of different pieces.
Is that correct?
Speaker 3
Yes. It will be certified as a complete kit. So when you buy it from IKEA or Home Depot, it'll be a complete kit. And that will be three separate pieces the panel, the inverter, and then the cord that plugs into the wall.
Speaker 36
And my question was, as I understand and maybe I misread it each one is certified, but they are not certified as a complete package. That's right.
Speaker 3
Today, if you were to buy one of these, each component is certified. For example, the inverter is a certified TUL seventeen forty one that ensures there's no back feeding to the grid when the grid goes down. That certification has been in place for twenty five years and applies to the inverter. But what's special, if you will, about UL 3,700 is that it will certify the entire system as a kit. And that is different.
And that's a higher standard, a higher bar to clear. And that's why SB eight sixty eight is so important from a public safety perspective. So now the entire
Speaker 36
the three pieces together will be certified? That's right. Very good. That was my question. Thank
Speaker 37
you, Mr. Chair. So I have in front of me the high cost of electricity in California, Little Hoover Commission report that came out in October 2025. I'm gonna read a couple of items there that I think is interesting and important to have on record. It says, with the exception of Hawaii, California electricity rates are the highest in the country.
The state's residential, are twice the national average. In my district, Senate District 19, I represent both the High Desert and the Low Desert. The following is stated for these residents as many residents live in hot climate zones, do not have solar systems, homes solar systems or efficient homes and appliances, and do not qualify for energy bill assistance. As of May 2025, 2,300,000 investor owned utility customers, over 20% of the households they served, have unpaid energy bills owing an average of almost $800, $7.88, to to be be be exact. I think that because, you know, as mentioned by my colleague from Bakersfield, many of the policies that are passed through the legislature that have really put or mandated certain requirements on our electrical or our energy providers here have made electricity incredibly expensive, as mentioned by this report.
I'm gonna support your your measure today because I'm hoping that it will continue to, one, help with folks that can't afford solar panels on their homes, especially renters. I was a renter for you know, through college. My parents have, you know, for the most of their lives, have always been renters. Can't live in California because they can't afford California. And they need help.
They need assistance. We have to be able to make it more affordable to live in California. However, I do want to state on record, and I'm glad that you have publicly announced the fact that you're going to address the whole electrical requirements and standards to meet California's needs. But even on those, it was stated we do have the highest standards when it comes to electrical practices, which, good or bad, safety, we're always going to be erring on safety as well. So I'm grateful that you brought this bill forward as something that consumers in California that are financially strapped will have an ability to actually have access to something that will ease the burden of high energy cost in California.
So with that, I know that you are an author that actually works with bills really fervently. I mean, I was getting text messages from the author at, you know, I think at 05:30, you know, 06:00, eleven last night. But, I mean, someone that is actually working the bills and trying to make them better in California, trying to remedy many of the issues that we have in our state. So with that, I will be supporting the bill. I do hope that the concerns for safety will continue.
And but I do, you know, reserve my right to change my my vote, when it comes before me again if these, safety, standards have not been addressed in the bill. But with that, I will be, happy to support the bill because I do have many constituents in both in the High Desert and the Low Desert that would benefit from this. Thank you.
Speaker 9
I apologize I missed the beginning of the debate because I was presenting a bill on public safety, so I missed some of the back and forth. I appreciate the clarifications that were made. It's not often that we follow Utah in clean energy policy, but we don't have a monopoly on good ideas So if other states are doing something positive that we can model, then it's great. And again, it's not just one state. This is really happening around the world.
So it feels like the debate focused a lot on building codes. But really the bill initiative is really just about interconnection where the utilities can require anything. Is that right? Correct. Yeah.
So thank you for clarifying that. I think in that spirit, this is something that can help. It's not going to do everything for people's bills. But if it can save 10%, 20%, 30% off people's bills,
Speaker 9
positive. I appreciate it. I the author. I appreciate the discussion today.
Speaker 38
you. Can I just clarify, too, where we're at? Because this is what gets a little confusing when we negotiate back and forth. And I just want to ensure that we have the right language before we move forward and vote on this.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Right now, we would, you know, my sense is that we would pass it as amended to remember, it's going to two other committees, judiciary committee and then appropriations. Now, some commitments have been made by the author and by opposition that I would would certainly undergird the next steps of the of the bill. And but but if the author wants to speak more to it.
Speaker 2
So the we've accepted the two amendments that are outlined analysis about notifying, the utility without allow through a simple form, not allowing the utilities to fail to put the form up and thus obstruct it. And then requiring compliance with the NEC. I've indicated today that in addition to the NEC, we're willing to also say NEC and the CEC. And so I would anticipate that if it passes out of the committee today, that the CEC piece would, I assume, be an author amendment in judiciary committee. And I'm getting a thumbs up from the committee consultant.
And so that's what we've committed to do. And Mr. Wetch, and thank you to him, checked with his client and has indicated that that would cause him to withdraw their opposition. So I made that commitment today. And so if it passes today, that's how we'll proceed.
Speaker 38
Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I still feel like there's still, you know, obviously questions on the safety, and I've expressed that a bit to you. And, you know, I believe in this completely wholeheartedly, but I do think that, you know, until that gets fixed, I I don't feel as comfortable moving forward. So, I will lay off the bill today, but would love to continue engaging in the discussions on this because it is nascent technology.
We've always supported that, especially as it pertains to lowering energy costs and ensuring that there's an environmental, you know, movement in progress. But I do think that there are enough issues that cause concern there, too, that I'd like addressed. So thank you.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to clarify for the record, now that, the opposition one of the members of opposition has agreed to go neutral, I'll now support the bill and the committee so that you can go forward. However, I am going to be waiting on fire to see what they come up with as this bill progresses. And if, the firefighters do not feel that it meets the building standard codes, then I will not support it going forward.
But, they're going to consider this, from what I heard in the testimony, having the CEC be included was one of their two key issues. I heard them say the CEC and the building standards. So, as far as I'm concerned, we're still waiting. The jury is out on the building standards piece, and I'll be waiting to hear. But, it seems like the CEC was a big portion, so I'm going to support today, but reserve the right to potentially not support, going forward.
Thank you.
Speaker 26
And thank you, author, for working, being flexible, and being able to pivot on both sides. Thank you.
Speaker 39
I thank the chair, and I thank the author. I like this bill. I am a little I wanna have some clue about when this technology is gonna be available, how easy it is going to be for me to buy one and plug it into my 120 outlet. What are the prospects, and what is it going to cost for me to do that?
Speaker 2
So the cost of a unit starts at about $5.600 dollars and there's obviously a range of savings, but I think on average it's probably a few $100 a year. So you probably recoup it within about two years. And, you know, the bill does require compliance with these various standards, including UL. So it just depends on when everything is finalized. But should be sooner rather than later.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Effers. I want to again thank the chair and committee staff for working with us, on this bill, and I wanna thank the committee for the very thoughtful, conversation, today. I'm I I met it was fortuitous that we have a former San Francisco inspector here.
I represent a city of wood frame, buildings that are very, very close, together, and so we take fire safety in San Francisco very, very, very seriously. And I would not produce a bill that was gonna put my constituents at risk for fire. And I don't believe that this bill or this technology, does that. I also, represent a community, even though there is sometimes this stereotype that everyone in San Francisco is rich, and we certainly have plenty of wealthy people in San Francisco, almost a third of my constituents are on Medicaid. Almost one about one out of three San Francisco residents are on Medicaid.
We have poverty in San Francisco as well. And I represent a huge number of low income renters. These are folks who are low income, who struggle with many aspects of life, living in a very expensive city, one of the most expensive cities anywhere. And they struggle with their electric bills. And if we can give them the choice, and some will decide to use it, some won't, to have something that's going to lower their electric bill, not just for the year or two it takes to recoup the cost, but for the long run.
They should have that choice, and that's what this bill is about. Devices will be subject to strong safety standards, as you heard today, and I look forward to continuing to work on the bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Bill's been moved. Secretary, remember, this is due pass as amended to senate judiciary committee. Obviously, commitments were made.
Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 30
Becker aye. Caballero? Dally? Aye. Dally, aye.
Gonzales? Grove? Aye. Grove, I. Hurtado, McNurney?
Aye. McNurney, I. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, I.
Richardson, I. Rubio? Stern? Aye. Stern, I.
Strickland? Wahab?
Speaker 1
Okay. We'll hold that role open, for folks to add on. Thank you so much, senator. Thank you for all the discussion.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. Let's move on to item two. I see the author here, senator Padilla, is here to present s b 886.
Speaker 19
Chairman, with your permission, is it okay if my witnesses approach the table?
Speaker 19
you, Mr. Chairman and members. I'm pleased to present SB eight eighty six. I'm hoping either through my expert testimony or perhaps through the chair, I want to thank your committee staff for being amazing and for working with us diligently on a set of amendments which we will accept. And hopefully we can make those available for members of the committee because I think they directly go to a number of concerns and questions that were raised that you may see in a prior version of the bill.
As you well know, this may be a little bit of deja vu. In the last year, I presented for this committee a similar identical bill to this one, which was SB 57, which unfortunately in the other house became a study bill that was purely discretionary to the PUC and is yet to be completed on the question of whether or not there are, in fact, impacts presented to existing ratepayers and non large scale consumers because of data centers that are needed to empower the new frontier in AI technology and others. This committee supported that bill, substantially what is in front of you, but I think improved upon. During that time, since last year, much has changed. Developers across our country are seeking to build data centers at an incredible breakneck speed and rate, creating demand on generation and on infrastructure capacity and cost at an unprecedented level in the state.
You may recall or you may not know that in California, we are home to the third largest number of data centers. But mostly in the small to medium size, generally around an average of 35 megawatts in capacity. That has drastically changed. There is a lot of prospectors in areas of the state seeking large scale data centers to support the emergence of this technology. Throughout the country, we have a lot of evidence that suggests overwhelmingly that unintended consequences and costs are being realized by consumers.
A voter rebellion last November, states who had initially put forth incentives and tax credits for investment and development of these data centers are now backtracking to make sure that costs are not shifted and that existing utility rate payers are not stuck with the burden of stranded assets. Despite these assurances, we continue to have a scenario where hyperscale developers are amassing large parcels of land here in California to build projects that were heretofore unprecedented in their size. In my district alone, for example, a 700 acre, three thirty megawatt project is broken ground alongside a residential community and elementary school with zero public input. If ultimately built, this will dwarf all projects of a similar nature in the state. Other states are farther along.
But I will also note that even recently at the White House, a number of key AI developers and providers who rely on these data centers to support that technology made a public commitment to the president of The United States that they were committed to paying for their own consumption and infrastructure costs. This particular bill operationalizes that in California. It makes sure that the PUC establishes a rate structure that addresses and prevents, for large scale facilities, a cost shift to non participating customers. And has provisions that make sure we continue to incentivize the utility of renewable resources and doesn't leave consumers with stranded costs. There have been a number of amendments.
I'm going to ask one of my witnesses to summarize some of those language changes and the issues that they address. And of course, following this, we'll be happy to answer any technical questions you might have. With me today is Matt Freeman with Tern and Sam Udan with NetZero.
Speaker 41
Thank you, chair and committee members. My name is Sam Udin. I'm the co founder and managing director of Net Zero California, a nonprofit organization that develops policies to support California's climate goals. We're proud to cosponsor s b eight eight six, which provides key protections for ratepayers from data center driven load growth. No one needs to look further than the East Coast to see what happens when data center expansion is left unconstrained or unregulated.
Virginia and the entire PJM region has seen billions in cost increases to consumers in a short amount of time due to both cut the cost of building out the grid to support data centers and the increase in demand for generation. California already has significant energy affordability challenges, and we don't wanna add to that burden. And this issue will undoubtedly if we don't do something. Fortunately, because of what's been happening in other states, there's now no shortage of research and analysis that's designed to guide states and legislators. Harvard, MIT, Duke, Princeton, and Little Hoover Commission all identified just the base strategies to protect ratepayers, such as the data center should pay for their grid costs, data centers are required to load shift or participate in demand response programs, and the data center should be on the hook with termination fees if the AI bubble is diverse and they want to abandon their projects.
And these are the policies in this bill. I also just want to mention that, we recognize the important economic opportunity of data centers, and we have an effort to incentivize high quality data center projects in the state. SB eight eight seven is that bill. It's not the topic for today, but just want to express to the committee that we do have this broader perspective. SB eight eighty six is just the base to protect ratepayers.
I wanna thank the senator for its leadership in this committee and the committee staff for being fantastic to work on the amendments, and we respectfully request your aye vote.
Speaker 42
Chairman, members of the committee, Matt Friedman, on behalf of the Utility Reform Network. The impact of data centers on the electricity grid is a hot topic of conversation at the state, regional and federal level. As noted in the recent report on data centers by the Little Hoover Commission, the rapid growth of energy hungry data centers presents both serious challenges and potential opportunities for California's electricity system. I think it's notable that the Little Hoover Commission has sent in a support letter for SB eight eighty six. Forecasts of growth in new data center deployment have led to serious concerns about needed grid upgrades, the amount of electricity to be consumed by these facilities, cost shifting and potential impacts on progress towards California's zero carbon electricity objectives.
The largest projected growth in California is within the service territory of Pacific Gas and Electric. And to put this into perspective, between 2014 and 2022, PG and E reported 16 retail electric customers interconnecting that had more than four megawatts of demand. That's about 145 megawatts total between 2014 and 2022. Between 2023 and 2025, they had 43 requests for 10,000 megawatts of new demand. 93% of that load would be from data centers.
Two weeks ago, a number of the largest technology companies in The United States attended an event at the White House, and they signed a pledge to build, bring, or buy new generation resources needed to meet the electricity needs of new data centers. The State of California should be requiring at least as much from these companies as President Trump. SB eight eighty six establishes a robust framework for preventing adverse impacts from data center load growth. For investor owned utilities, the key elements are, first of all, prohibiting cost shifting to non participating customers relating to both interconnection and ongoing grid costs second, requiring data centers to prefund long term contracts through its load serving entity for new zero carbon generation that will serve at least 50% of hourly needs and function as dispatchable resources. And data centers would have an option of installing those resources on-site as an alternative method of compliance.
Third, requiring participation in new demand response programs developed by the California Public Utilities Commission that would lower rates for all customers and support load shifting, resource adequacy needs and greenhouse gas reduction objectives and then assigning all transmission facility upgrades triggered by the data center to these particular customers and limiting refunds to these customers in the event that they fail to meet initial electricity demand and consumption forecasts. And then finally, ensuring that data centers connecting directly to the transmission system would be required to contribute a reasonable share of costs to wildfire mitigation, wildfire liability, electrification and environmental programs. SB eight eighty six provides reasonable direction to the PUC while allowing flexibility with respect to implementation of many of the key details. Tern believes this approach would allow all customers to benefit from the downward pressure on rates attributable to new data center loads without being forced to absorb significant new costs necessary to serve these unique customers. We urge an I vote on SB eight eighty six and happy to answer any questions about the bill.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's ask anyone who wants to voice their support for the bill to come to them. I can just give us your name and affiliation.
Speaker 11
Michelle Kanalis with Union of Concerned Scientists. Support in concepts for reviewing the recent amendments.
Speaker 14
morning. Will Brigger, State Strategies here today for Climate Action California. We support. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Morning. Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California in support, if amended, hoping to see that procurement requirement be bumped up to 100%, not 50. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Mariella Roccia with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability and Center for Biological Diversity, in support of amended. We appreciate the author's work and, looking forward to continue to strengthen the bill.
Speaker 43
Good morning. Alexis Setterman, Bright Line Defense, support of amend. Just wanting to see stronger requirements against diesel, backup generation and more investments in zero emission infrastructure and transmission. Thanks.
Speaker 11
Rashina Mojaveer, California Environmental Voters. We have a supportive amended position due to remaining concerns about the requirements for zero emission energy, and we look forward to working with the author. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Hello. Carol Kinzer representing Lodato Dayum Prayer Network for Climate Healing in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Mr. Chair, Mark Fenstermaker on behalf of Earthjustice. We have a support if amended position aligned with many of the previous speakers.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. Let's hear from opposition folks. We'll give you an opportunity to sit up here on the dais if you like. Oh, That's okay.
Just to be fair. It's up to you. It's up to you. Okay. Whatever you prefer.
Speaker 12
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Kara Bunder, and I'm director of state policy at the Data Center Coalition. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in respectful opposition to SB eight eighty six. DCC is a national trade association serving as the voice of the data center industry.
Our members are leading data center owners and operators and companies that lease large amounts of data center capacity. I appreciate the communication that we've been able to have with committee staff and with the author's office as well. Have not yet had a chance to look at the most recent amendments through our membership, but promise that we will take a look at those and continue the collaboration with you all. Based on how the bill is framed in print, we are opposed. The data center industry is committed for paying for its full cost of service for electricity and the underlying infrastructure that it uses.
We just disagree with the approach that this bill employs, similar to the opposition that we expressed last year with SB 57 in its original form. We believe that the CPUC already possesses the expertise and transparent processes to ensure fair cost allocation. And in the world's largest data center market, Virginia, an independent study found that rates are appropriately allocated across customer classes. In addition to that, we are seeing a growing body of evidence that large load customers like data centers can help apply downward pressure on rates across the board. Aligned with sound ratemaking principles, no industry should be singled out for disparate treatment without verifiable cost based reasoning.
Unfortunately, SB eight eighty six risks creating distinctions among similar large load customers based on their end use rather than their actual impact on the grid and rates. Finally, we do have concerns regarding the mandatory demand response and backup generation requirements. Data centers are designed for 99.999% uptime, and that reliability is required to support hospitals, government units, and the varied products and services that we use in our daily lives. Mandating demand response while simultaneously restricting backup power to zero emission resources, which are not yet capable of the instantaneous response speeds required to support these critical IT loads, places the stability of our digital economy at risk. Highly regulated diesel generators remain the only viable emergency option today and the most commonly deployed option.
We urge the committee to allow the CPUC to continue its work through evidence based proceedings and to resist advancing SB eight eighty six. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 44
Chair Allen, Vice Chair Ochoa Bogue, and members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Ahmad Thomas. I'm the CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. We respectfully oppose SB eight eighty six. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is the leading business association for Silicon Valley's most innovative companies.
Our members reflect the full breadth of the region's innovation ecosystem and play a major role in supporting the state's general fund. Our opposition to SB eight eighty six is based on three core factors. First, SB eight eighty six is unnecessary. It risks undermining the CPUC's existing transparent rate making process. The legislature has already taken up this issue last year with SB 57, directing the CPUC to assess whether new data center loads cause cost shifts.
Those findings are due by 01/01/2027. Second, SB eight eighty six embeds complex policy mandates into a tariff, such as mandatory demand response participation and limits on backup generation to zero emission resources. A one size fits all demand response mandate poses real operational risk for facilities designed for 99% uptime and that support essential services in the public and private sectors, hospitals, government agencies, public safety, finance, and educational institutions. And today, diesel backup generators, heavily regulated and used only in emergencies, remain the most reliable option for critical loads. Third, the bill introduces ambiguity around who is captured by the 75 megawatt threshold, a single building, project, customer, or entire campus, which creates uncertainty and could slow responsible investment.
This is a transformational moment for our economy as new advanced technologies and industries are rapidly scaling. California's policy framework must support reliable energy and long term investment if we want to sustain that leadership. However, SB eight eighty six, as drafted, risks duplicating, complicating, and potentially destabilizing the very processes that protect ratepayers and For keep the grid these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on SB eight eighty six. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right. Let's hear. Anyone else who wants to add their names in opposition to the belly? Come on to the mic and give us your name and affiliation.
Speaker 27
Morning. Brandon Ebeck, Pacific Gas and Electric. We have an oppose on the bill in print. We certainly appreciate the author's intent and align with even the sponsor's intent about preventing cost shifts. We will look to review the amendments when they are available in print.
In particular, we still have concern with making a data center specific tariff. There is a that's discriminatory rate making potentially. We would prefer to base cost allocation based on load profiles. If you're big and using a lot of energy and causing a lot of grid upgrades in generation, you shall be treated the same. Thank you.
Speaker 46
Good morning, Chair Allen and members. John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce. Opposed to the bill in print for the level of operational control it asserts over facilities. Looking forward to seeing amendments. Still have concerns about what I'm hearing on the mandatory demand response participation, but again, need to see the amendments in print.
Thank you.
Speaker 17
Good morning. Sarah Bridges on behalf of California Manufacturers and Technology Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 47
Good morning. Danielle Garcia Hernandez with the Western States Petroleum Association. We are and oppose unless amended. However, we appreciate the author accepting the committee amendments. And once we see that bill in print, the amended language, we will reevaluate our position.
Thank you.
Speaker 40
Chairman and members, Bruce Mignani on behalf of the California Large Energy Consumers Association. We're in oppose unless amended, but with the committee amendments narrowing this to data centers, we'll be removing our opposition. Thank you to the staff and member.
Speaker 48
Good morning. Jasmine Advancola with the Calaisian Chamber in opposition. Thanks.
Speaker 49
Morning. Peter Loromunioso, Bay Area Council. Opposed, unless amended. We look forward to reviewing the amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric. We have an opposed on this amended position on the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you so much. Why don't I go folks were asking about the amendments, and they are slightly different than those in the analysis. So, me go ahead and read them, and we can give anyone who wants additional clarification more information. So first of all, the bill, as mentioned, narrows the bill to apply to only large load data centers with a peak capacity of at least 25 megawatts or greater, clarifies that the CPUC must include a transmission and distribution tariff as part of a rate structure that addresses the potential cost shift posed by new large load facilities taking transmission level service clarify that the bill applies only to those facilities for which a new transmission interconnection agreement is established after the adoption of tariffs required by the bill or a date specified by the CPUC Require the CPUC to ensure that costs assigned to transmission services can be assessed separately from items generally included in the generation component of a customer's bill.
Replace the bills behind the meter energy storage requirement with the requirement that the CPUC establish a process by which a large load customer covered by this bill can prefund a fifteen year contract for new incremental zero carbon energy resources to function as dispatchable reliability assets within the utility service territory. Modify the bill's demand response requirement to require the CPUC to establish a demand response program for data centers subject to the tariff, which must which must meet certain reliability and climate goals while ensuring that other ratepayers do not experience any new costs. And finally, exempt publicly funded research facilities, public safety facilities, national security facilities, publicly owned facilities, and other utility facilities, including facilities based telecommunications assets from the bill. We can get this in print to all the members of the committee who want to see it. And with that, let's open the floor to questions.
Let's go to Senator Becker, followed by Senator McNerney.
Speaker 9
Well, thank you. I want to first thank my colleague from San Diego for his hard work on this last year and now this year. And I just wanted to have a few comments because this is an incredibly important issue. The Little Hoover report was referenced. I've spoken for the Little Hoover Commission.
Because if we do this wrong, data centers could be a big burden on taxpayers. And of course, require care because they do use a lot of energy as well as potentially a lot of water in most cases. This obviously deals with the electricity part of it. But done right, the way our energy system is structured here in California, because we have so much excess capacity for most of the day I always talk about the Walmart parking lot analogy. We build the Walmart park you build it for the Saturday before Christmas, not the January 10.
And so our grid is like that. So we have massive excess capacity most of the day. So if we can bring on beneficial load to the grid without an increase in expenses that is borne by rate payers, then it can actually lower costs for everyone. So there are many ways to do this wrong, we're seeing that in some other states unfortunately. In California, we have the opportunity to do this right.
And again, I want to thank my colleague for this bill and working also with the committee staff. I think we have the potential to get this right. And again, very supportive of the goals. I did have a few concerns myself. I think the amendments move us very much in the right direction.
And so I guess that's just the overall point of it. I think we're moving very much in the right direction. Think it's absolutely where we need to go. We need to make sure that really two things are critical, that folks with the data centers pay upfront so that we don't risk the question of stranded assets down the load. If we down the line, if we make lots of, adjustments to the grid to get ready for data center, then load never materializes.
We have to make sure that's paid upfront, number one. And then we gotta make sure those few hours, you know, estimates between twenty and one hundred hours a year where our grid is really stressed, that these data centers will either curtail their own use or with by by curtailing use or go to their own behind the meter resources. Or if we have to procure excess capacity during that time, that they will fully pay for that. And that's really where this bill is and, again, why I'll be supportive here today. I do think there's a question about 10050%.
There's still a few things that I'm trying to work through myself, my own mind. I don't know if you would comment on that. So I think there's still a few conversations to be had going forward. But overall, just wanted to put that framework on it, the way I look at it, and why I view this bill is very important. So again, I don't know if you want to comment on the author or the witnesses on that small piece of it.
But again, really appreciate the direction we're moving here.
Speaker 19
Mr. Chairman, if I might, and thank you, Senator, for your comments and your great questions. Certainly on the criterion, particularly dealing with dispatchable resources and the service territory, dealing with both the capacity threshold and the nature of new I want to emphasize new zero carbon resources. I think Mr. Freeman has argued that's almost a gold standard here, but I'll defer to Mr.
Freeman to add any other comment, with your permission, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 42
Thank you, Senator. The bill the amendments that have been taken today require the data center customer to prefund a contract a contractual commitment of at least fifteen years in duration for at least 50% of the hourly energy needs of the facility. So the data center can go bigger. If they want to honor the commitments that were made to the President, they could go to 100% under the structure in this bill. But even if they stay at 50%, the thing to keep in mind is the other 50% of that power would be provided by their load serving entity.
And in 2030, that load serving entity has to get 60% of that power from renewable resources under the Renewable Portfolio Standard program. So just under the RPS program plus the 50% commitment that would be required in this bill, those facilities would already be at 80% clean energy and probably even larger because there's procurement happening from the utilities that goes beyond the RPS. So I think we are getting close to 100% in this bill. And certainly, we would like to see all measures taken to get those data centers to be completely clean. But this was seen as a compromise that made sense in the current environment.
And I
Speaker 9
think guess to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Because I think there's 100% in terms of getting to towards 100% clean energy. You're saying this is to get us very close in that direction. And then there's just a point about making sure that 100% of any strain caused to the grid by these data centers is mitigated by them. And that's the point I think that I'm trying to get at, which is just again, for those very few peak load hours a year, we're making sure we have a plan in place that they either curtail their use.
Or if there's additional capacity that has to be cured, they fully pay for that. So I think we're aligned on that 100%. Would you agree on that piece?
Speaker 42
Sure. I mean, there's another provision on demand response in the bill that would establish a new program specifically for data centers, the idea being that they might have unique requirements and offer unique opportunities. So the and the existing demand response programs might not be suitable for them. So the bill recognizes that to try to deal with those peak hour issues and to maximize whatever flexibility those resources have. And the contracts that they would be required to execute with nuclear energy resources would be dispatchable.
So those would be available to the grid as needed to meet peak needs.
Speaker 19
And it has a specific no new net cost exclusion as well provision Yeah. That
Speaker 9
Excellent. Well, that sounds very positive. Because I think we're still I think as a body and as a legislature, trying to get better data really about the quid itself. And I have a bill on that this year that builds on some work we tried to do last year. Because I think once we have that better data, it also helps us in this situation.
Again, the data center may require them to curtail their use. Or maybe eventually, they want to pay their neighbors on the grid a lot of money during those few hours of strain last year. We want to have flexibility here and I think that's one of maybe the misconceptions of some of the opposition. I think this bill, especially with the amendments, does build in a lot of flexibility. We really want to have really strong requirements and be very clear, which I think, this bill does.
But then allow the data centers flexibility in how to meet those requirements. So I think that's the direction we're all moving. I really appreciate all the work of the committee and the authors And look forward to supporting the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Well, of all, want to thank the author. I think everyone recognizes data center energy uses is a hot topic now. People are concerned. They're already paying very high prices for electricity in the state of California. Is this going to make my bills higher?
Is this going to cause brownouts or blackouts? And that's what I think people are concerned about. This bill does a pretty good job. And I appreciate Senator Becker's comments, very insightful, about the grid being over designed for most of the time. And yet, we still face these challenges.
One of the things that I don't understand clearly is the comment about the PUC's flexibility in rate setting. We're hearing on the one hand that the PUC is going have some flexibility. On the other hand, we want this to be as tight as possible. What kind of flexibility are we allowing the PUC? And is that the right amount?
Are people going to trust the PUC to get it right?
Speaker 19
Just generally, and I'll defer to my witness. The bill attempts to set the appropriate overarching guardrails within which, through the rule making process, PUC can achieve those outcomes through one or more means. We don't want to prescribe a regulatory process, but we want to set policy objectives that are clear and achievable and provide the reasoning as to why they can be. With that, I'll let Mr. Freeman go into a little more
Speaker 42
detail. Thank you, Senator. As Senator Padilla pointed out, the bill does have a couple of very hard guardrails where the PUC does not have flexibility. But when it comes to determining what kind of cost shifting is happening, this is fundamentally a fact based exercise that really needs to happen at the PUC. And luckily, because of the enactment of SB57 from last year, Senator Padilla's bill, the PUC is currently doing a study.
And that study is going to be released at the end of this year if the PUC completes its work on time, which is kind of a crapshoot. But the results of that study will feed into the PUC's own process if this bill is passed to ensure that the tariffs that are developed do not result in cost shifting. So I do think it provides a good balance of binding direction from the legislature with the commission's natural role in being able to do the fact finding and figure out how to ensure that the goals of the bill are operationalized.
Speaker 39
Well, as a final comment, I mean, are having a lot of trouble trusting these institutions. And I want to make sure that this is transparent, that people understand what's happening, and that it doesn't cost us more, doesn't cause additional problems. In addition to that, is there a wildfire risk that we're seeing that can be helped mitigated by this process? Excuse me. And I yield back.
Speaker 31
Thank you, senator, for bringing us forward. And I I do like the fact that the bill does include an exemption for national security in a data center. I think right now in our country, in the world, information has got to be now. And California having 31 military bases, we have to be in the know. So any data center that that is in the making, that's functioning right now, we need to keep our governor informed, no doubt.
But I also think about the rate payer who's protected here, and and the old saying, it's the cost of doing business. So those who want to operate the data centers, we welcome in California. But you've got to pay your fair share, and I think that's what this does. And so I'm going to support the bill and move it at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. So the bill's been moved. I just wanna say how much I appreciate the work we've all done together. I I know this is gonna be a lot more work. This is a long this this bill's an ambitious bill, and there's also another bill that we'll be hearing shortly on similar topic.
It's going to appropriations if it gets out as amended here today, but I'm certainly appreciate the collaborative work that we've had together and your broad based goals. And I think this is ultimately about fairness, and I agree with Senator Archuleta as to how we want to encourage this economic activity. We also want to make sure that there's equity and it's an equitable system with regards to who's paying. So with that, I'm prepared to support the bill. And would like to Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry. Senator Richardson. Senator Richardson.
Speaker 26
Senator No problem, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify for members of the public who aren't privy to all the documentation that we have, Could the author could you clarify, or through your witnesses, clarify the more stricter guardrails that you felt were necessary in order to protect the consumer? Or another way of saying it would be, you know, how does this bill fill the gap of the commission to make sure that we're you know, that we, as legislators, are ensuring that the consumers are protected, not hoping that the regulatory bodies that, unfortunately, in my opinion, have taken more of our responsibilities than what they should. If you could just, for the public, make sure they all understand that.
Speaker 19
Mr. Chairman and Senator, thank you. Excellent question, and appreciate the tee up for an opportunity. And that's fundamentally what this bill is about, Mr. Chairman and members.
It's about consumption and cost. And data centers, particularly in the aggregate, we have the third highest number in the nation, but they're smaller scale. Now we're going to begin to see hyperscale, larger scale infrastructure being proposed. And this is unique. So the answer to the question is we are faced with a unique new set of circumstances that presents new tech supporting infrastructure.
That whether you're dealing with consumption on the generation side or the demand for new infrastructure and what that costs can create incremental increases to cost to consumers who are not the ones creating that demand. And even are not able to keep up with the way we socialize those costs now. So we have a new set of circumstances that we were perspective about a year and a half ago. And we look around The United States and what do we see? We see example after example of empirical evidence and data where these have been established or are being established or have been established that create those cost shifts and leave a cost burden to ratepayers who are existing ratepayers who throughout this country and this state right now are struggling with affordability.
So I would argue that while the PUC is doing a study and that's great. And I would with all due respect to where my bill landed last year, we can always do studies to decide if the sky is blue or not. But sometimes what's right in front of your face is pretty obvious. And we have a good amount of data that suggests these are the costs. And these are the impacts.
And so what we're trying to achieve to create stricter standards is to protect rate payers. To protect rate payers from being further overburdened with unnecessary costs. And I would argue, again, the other watchword for me is we can walk and chew gum. I miss the days when the American can do spirit, the California can do spirit, everything was we've now reduced every policy discussion to a binary choice. Everything is mutually exclusive.
You can either have one or the other, but you can never have both at the same time. That's malarkey. We can support industry and innovation and tech. We can support providing infrastructure to support that tech. But we can also, as the good Senator Becker said, who's been a great leader in this space and I really appreciate your comments, Senator we can do it right.
And we can do both. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. So consumer protections within a framework. And the fundamental answer to your question, Senator, and I'll shut up, there is no standard. There is no standard to address this unique set of circumstances that is statewide.
We certainly have a rule 30 pending case of PG and E, for example, that seeks to address this. But that would only address PG and E. And this phenomenon is something that we're going to deal with on scale throughout the state. And that is also what is necessary here. Is that we establish some specific guardrails for a specific set of circumstances that are creating a specific set of adverse impacts on our ratepayers in California, potentially.
And so we need to create that framework specifically, to your question, to protect ratepayers.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Apologies for not getting to you. Okay. So do we have a motion on I'm sorry.
Senator Groff. Sorry.
Speaker 17
Thank you. I apologize that I had to step out to a meeting and do a Zoom call, but that was scheduled. Really didn't anticipate the previous bill taking almost two hours, so I apologize for scheduling something in between that. I made a comment about putting a
Speaker 17
Yes, no. I made a comment about I'll address the chair. It was not my fault that
Speaker 17
I made a comment during the last bill that we heard that we tend to, you know, require certain things on individuals and our technology, new advancing technology, which makes it more expensive. But I do understand there needs to be guardrails. But again, putting a Band Aid on something or trying to move it forward in a way that isn't like a root cause, and I'd like to consider a root cause, I know the bill's going to move forward, but I just there is technology out there that's going through CalGEM that is being approved, that has, already got a concurrence letter, and it will allow us to bring data centers online in California at six and a kilowatt energy, a thousand hours of battery storage, instantly dispatched to the grid, all in a self enclosed system underground that doesn't catch on fire like batteries do, doesn't burn for days like batteries do. Because we need to be able to offer industry a way to power these facilities, and they can be powered in these enclosed systems and all stored underground. And so, again, six in a kilowatt of energy, unless the utilities charge us a wheeling charge of 50¢ a kilowatt, and then we're all going to be in the same boat that we're in right now.
But there is a way to make this work. And I have a concern about, you know, the industry piece. And I know you're very business minded, and I appreciate that, but I can't support the bill because I think that we do curtail what industry is. And if you look at the information and the data and all the models, just bringing 50% of those data centers online, they're probably not going to come to California. Some of them might, a few of them might, but most of them are going to places where energy is a lot cheaper than it is here.
But the ones that will come online will take away depending on what model you look at, if you look at one model, it shows that if we brought them all online, there would be we would still need 18% of our capacity on the grid to take care of all the rest of Californians if all of those data centers came online because we don't have the capacity to sustain them. That's why I don't think they'll come online because we don't have the utilities here to do it. But appreciate you bringing this forward and at least looking at a solution for data centers.
Speaker 1
Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Did I hear a motion on the bill? Okay.
That was from Archuleta. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. So let's let you close.
We'll close.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to the Center's comments, no doubt tech can play a role certainly in distributable resources and to smoothing, balancing the grid. I think we would all agree that we would like to see that happen, if possible. I think this bill seeks to set guardrails that are anticipatory because we are going to have large scale applications coming online that are going to be connectable, that are going to draw on the grid and create new resource and infrastructure demands.
And that's cost. So I think it's very necessary. I would just, in closing, Mr. Chairman, say the idea that this bill is unnecessary is just not supported by the facts. Again, I referenced the Rule 30 case pending with PG and E.
In addition, our bill, unlike that petition, provides transparency provisions so that people can't break apart their projects and try to piecemeal it in a way that obfuscates what's really occurring in terms of its impact to ratepayers. So there's a lot of good reasons why this bill should move forward. Again, want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your amazing staff for working with us collaboratively on this. And I would respectfully ask for an I
Speaker 1
Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll. This is due passed amendment to Senate appropriations.
Speaker 30
Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Achobogue? No.
Achobogue, no. Archeleta? Aye. Archeleta aye. Aragine?
Aye. Aragine aye. Becker? Aye. Becker?
Caballero? Dally? No. Dally, no. Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzales, aye. Grove, no. Hurtado? McNurney?
Aye. McNurney, aye. Reyes? Richardson? Aye.
Richardson, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stern?
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. We'll leave the roll open for members to add on. Thank you, Senator. Alright.
Let's go to Senator Perez, who's here with item three. That's SB nine seventy eight. Please proceed when ready. Senator.
Speaker 50
Great. Good morning, chair and members. I'm here to present SB nine seventy eight, the Data Center Community Accountability Act. I want to begin by thanking committee staff for working with my office on this policy. We are accepting the committee amendments.
SB nine seventy eight ensures that everyday ratepayers are not forced to subsidize data centers, which are among the largest electricity users in the state. Over the past few years, we have seen increased reporting on the rapid growth of data centers, along with growing concerns from our constituents. In my own district, a recent data center proposal sparked confusion and outrage. Many of us once assumed that most data centers were concentrated in Silicon Valley, but proposals are now emerging across the state of California. Nationally, electricity demand from data centers is expected to double or even triple, by 2028.
With roughly one third of U. S. Data centers located in California, this issue is only becoming more urgent. The operational pressures created by data centers intersect with broader economic and public health concerns. Data centers pose a significant risk to ratepayers if left unchecked.
Their growing electricity demand will require major investments in transmission and distribution infrastructure. Without clear statutory guidance, these costs could be passed on to ratepayers and other commercial energy consumers, which is particularly concerning at a time when energy costs have already been rising since 2015. Another risk arises when infrastructure is planned or built to serve a data center's high energy demand only for that project to relocate or be abandoned. Once utilities begin planning or constructing transmission lines to support that load, there is currently no requirement that a data center remain in place or reimburse those costs if it moves operations, secures a better rate elsewhere, or experiences project delays. Without safeguards, these stranded infrastructure costs could ultimately fall back on ratepayers.
Beyond cost impacts, data centers can also create public health concerns due to air pollution from backup diesel generators. Statewide public health costs associated with emissions from these generators are estimated to reach up to $266,000,000 by 2028, and even modest emissions can push local air quality beyond health based limits for nearby communities. In response to these concerns, committee has suggested enabling data centers to fund net zero energy projects through the utility, which will create more reliability and decrease the likelihood of turning on backup diesel generators. SB nine seventy eight ensures that new data centers are built and operated responsibly by requiring them to recover their fair share of the infrastructure needed to support their operations. The bill requires data centers to pay up front for any new transmission or distribution infrastructure required to serve their facilities.
This up front payment requirement is essential because it prevents stranded cost if a project changes plans or relocates after utilities have already begun planning or construction. It also directs the CPUC to establish a separate rate structure to prevent costs associated with data centers from being shifted onto other electricity customers, an issue that has already emerged in other states. The bill gives the CPUC flexibility in designing the structure while clearly requiring that protections be put in place. Importantly, SB nine seventy eight prohibits refunds to data centers once they have made up their upfront infrastructure payments, ensuring those costs cannot later be shifted back onto ratepayers. The bill also recognizes the importance of strong labor standards to ensure these major infrastructure projects are built with a skilled workforce.
Ultimately, this bill strikes the right balance, protecting ratepayers while giving the CPUC the authority to manage this rapidly growing sector responsibility. With me to testify in support of the bill is Will Breacher with the Climate Action California and Lane Smith, a postdoctoral scholar with the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford University. At the appropriate time, I ask for your
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator. Why don't you come up and give us your arguments and support?
Speaker 51
Hello, and thank you to Senator Perez, Chair Allen, and the committee for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Lane Smith, and I'm a postdoctoral scholar in Stanford University's Climate and Energy Policy Program and Department of Energy Science and Engineering. I am here in my personal capacity and take a neutral stance on SB nine seventy eight. I will highlight today three concerns that I see if large electric loads, such as data centers, were to be inadequately regulated, which can adversely affect local air quality, California's energy transition, and customer affordability. First, large electric loads can lead to more air polluting backup generation, such as diesel generators and gas turbines.
California regulations help limit, but do not fully eliminate, local air pollutants released by traditional backup generators. Current non emitting resources like solar, wind, and storage cannot completely replace traditional backup generators as reliability solutions, but they can be a way to reduce the operation of backup resources. If large loads are required to install some behind the meter energy storage, which can also provide crucial demand side flexibility, that storage would be able to cover many reliability events without needing to run traditional backup generation. Second, large electric loads will strain California's grid, both in terms of available clean generating capacity and peak infrastructure headroom. This can amplify affordability concerns and work against California's energy transition, especially if new demand is interconnected faster than new, non emitting supply.
In response, many proposals have suggested that large loads be required to procure clean additional generation capacity, support the bill out of emerging clean firm generation, and fund the deployment of capacity increasing grid enhancing technologies. Finally, and third, large loads can exacerbate electricity affordability concerns if required grid upgrades are recovered by the entire customer base. Large loads should pay for the upgrades they necessitate, and additionally, their share of system wide costs. There should be safeguards against large electric loads leaving stranded grid assets for the rest of the customer race to recover.
Speaker 1
I'm so sorry. I'm going to we're getting to time constraints now. Yes. So, you could wrap up.
Speaker 51
Of course. Taken together, failing to regulate large electric loads poses a threat to Californian's public health and personal finances. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 14
Morning, Mr. Chair and members. Will Breger from State Strategies on behalf of Climate Action California. I'm pleased to speak today in support of SP nine seventy eight at a really interesting time in our history. We've got a planet that's warming faster than humans have ever experienced.
And we have a growing chasm between the haves and the have nots. SP nine seventy eight meets those challenges by looking out for people and communities. Done right, as we just heard, large loads can bring good things investments in the clean energy transition, as Doctor. Smith mentioned, big companies shouldering infrastructure costs, and good jobs in our communities. This is not an anti tech thing.
We're streaming on the Internet right now. Done wrong, we'll see the same old movie again. Big customers teaming up with the IOU to build a lot of stuff that the rest of us have to pay for eventually. So this committee is going to hear a number of different data center bills. You've already started this morning looking at different facets of this new phenomenon.
This bill is the one that looks out for people. Don't make us pay for someone else's infrastructure and bring us some good jobs to our communities. Look, electricity is the most regressive tax we've got here. The opposition's written in to say that, you know, trust the system. It's working.
Really? You might wonder, why is a climate group here talking about social justice? And the answer is, we need electricity to power our homes, our vehicles, and our industries. And we cannot ask people to do that with really pricey power. So thank you, and thank you for bringing this, Senator Perez.
Speaker 1
Thank you, sir. Okay. Anyone who wants to quickly voice their support for the bell, come to the microphone, and mention your name and affiliation.
Speaker 27
Good morning. Antonio Sanchez on behalf of IBW Local eleven in Los Angeles in support. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Mariela Racho with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability and the Center for Biological Diversity in support of amended. We are disappointed with the committee's amendments on back of generation, and we hope to continue working with the committee and the author to have some safeguards on back of generation from renewable energy sources. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Jacob Evans with Sierra California. It's worth amended also for the participant to see the backup generation requirements taken out. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Morning. Grishina Mojaveer. California environmental voters also support if amended due to the concerns about backup generation. Thank you.
Speaker 43
Hi. Alexis Setterman, Brightline Defense. Support if amend, echoing the desire for amendments to specify only clean energy backup generation. Thanks.
Speaker 12
Good morning again, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. For the record, my name is Kara Bunderer. I'm a director of state policy at the Data Center Coalition in respectful opposition to SB nine seventy eight. The Data Center Coalition is a national trade association for the data center industry.
Our members are leading data center owners and operators and companies that lease large amounts of data center capacity. We live in an era of unprecedented demand for digital services, from telehealth and online class rooms to the rapid scaling of generative AI, which cut out over $4,000,000,000,000 to the global economy, data centers are the essential infrastructure making it all possible. Again, the data center industry is committed to paying its full cost of service for electricity and the underlying infrastructure that it uses. Sound ratemaking depends on nondiscrimination. No single industry should be singled out for disparate treatment unless there is verifiable cost based reasoning.
Any rate design should reflect the actual cost of service rather than targeting a specific type of end user. The PUC already has expertise and transparent processes in place to ensure fair cost allocation across different customers. And just last year, SB57 was signed into law which specifically requires the PUC to assess data center cost impacts. We should allow that assessment to conclude to be delivered in early twenty twenty seven before layering on new potentially duplicative mandates. We appreciate the committee's work on the language surrounding backup generation.
As I highlighted earlier, backup diesel is one of the most commonly deployed sources for backup generation, and these are already highly regulated and only used in emergency situations. Diesel generators remain the most reliable and scalable technology capable of response speeds required to keep our digital economy online in cases of grid failure. California's position as a global tech leader depends on this infrastructure. We urge the committee to resist advancing SB nine seventy eight. Thanks again for your consideration.
Speaker 44
Good morning again, Chair Allen, Vice Chair Ochoa Bogue, and members. Thank you. I'm Ahmad Thomas, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and we respectfully oppose SB nine seventy eight. California's economy depends on reliable, affordable power for facilities that keep our state online, supporting telehealth, education, finance, manufacturing, government services, and the cloud tools households and businesses use every day. SB nine seventy eight directs the CPUC to create a special rate structure for large load data centers and hard codes how costs are assigned.
PG and E's Rule 30 proceeding is in its second phase right now with an interim decision already requiring prepayment of interconnection costs. California is competing with dozens of states to attract the next generation of data center investment. SVLG and our members are committed to paying the full, fair cost of service and supporting a grid that is clean, reliable, and affordable. But stacking prescriptive rate mandates and long term procurement obligations in statute, while the CPUC is actively building the regulatory framework to address these exact issues, creates a chilling effect for investment and development. We urge the committee to vote no and to allow the CPUC's ongoing proceedings to deliver the durable, evidence based framework that ratepayers and industry both need.
Thank you.
Speaker 27
Good morning. Brandon Ebeck, Pacific Gas and Electric. If I may, there's one additional very important point that's not been raised yet in in either this bill or the prior bill is applicability beyond just IOUs. And this bill and the other one only apply to IOUs. The vast majority of existing large load facilities are in a public utility territory.
Those projects have caused transmission upgrades. All utilities in California share transmission access charges. We Additionally, there are broad generation market impacts from all of this development. We need to make sure that California policy applies to all utilities, all those urban entities equally. Thank you very much.
Speaker 40
Mr. Chair and members, Bruce Mignani, on behalf of the California Large Energy Consumers Association. We had an oppose unless amended position, but with the committee's amendments limited to data centers, we'll be neutral on the bill. So thank you to the author and committee staff.
Speaker 7
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Joe Zanzi with San Diego Gas and Electric and SoCal Gas. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill in print.
Appreciate the amendments and look forward to continue working with you and the author on this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 48
Good morning. Jasmine Advancula, Cal Asian Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 47
Daniella Garcia Hernandez with the Western States Petroleum Association, and we want to thank the author for accepting the committee amendments, that would narrow the bill down to data centers only. And once we see the amended language in print, we will reevaluate our position. Thank you. Lillie McKay on behalf of Enchanted Rock. We were opposed to the pill in print, with the amendments, specifically the backup generation amendments, we will be removing our opposition.
Thank you.
Speaker 45
Good morning, Shire Members. Jose Torres on behalf of TechNet, and I was also for a tech CA in respect for opposition.
Speaker 46
Good morning, Chair Allen and members. John Kenrick on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We were very much opposed to the bill in print. Looking forward to seeing the amendments. Likely, we'll be still oppose it unless amended.
Thank you.
Speaker 49
Good morning. Peter Romanioso, the Bay Area Council. Oppose, unless amended. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Let's bring the bill to the committee for discussion, questions, thoughts. Moved by Senator Archuleta. Gotcha. Okay.
Without further questions, we'll let the Senator close.
Speaker 50
Yes. Thank you so much. You know, I think this is a big issue that us, as a legislature, needs to make movement to address. As I mentioned before, you know, this bill is really in response to community concerns that have come up around data centers. And recently, the first ever local ballot measure to ban data centers was proposed within my district.
I think local leaders are struggling to figure out how to navigate these infrastructure, especially as we see them rapidly growing in our communities. I think we have a responsibility as a legislature to provide some guidance here. We know that folks need reliable data services. And at the same time, have real cost and environmental concerns. So, I think our bill strikes the right balance of trying to address all of those things and making sure that we're providing some guidance as these projects come up for consideration in communities.
Thank you so much, and urgent I vote.
Speaker 30
Due passes amended to the Labor Public Employment and Retirement Committee. Senators Allen?
Speaker 30
Allen, aye. Achobogue? Aye. Archuleta aye. Aragine?
Aye. Aragine aye. Becker? Caballero? Dally?
No. Dally, no. Gonzalez?
Speaker 30
Gonzalez Aye. Grove? No. Grove, no. Hurtado?
McNerney? Aye. McNerney Aye. Reyes? Richardson?
Aye. Richardson, aye. Rubio? Stern? Strickland?
Wahhab?
Speaker 1
Great. Let's we'll we'll keep the roll open for folks to add on. Let's now go to Senator Becker, who's going to present item four, SB nine forty three.
Speaker 9
Thank you, chair members. This bill has a potential to achieve four good outcomes, just making too small reforms the way we charge for electricity. So industrial firms are the source of almost 20% of our state's greenhouse gases. And a similar share of air pollution that contributes to health problems like asthma. Most of these emissions are caused by generating heat, often in the form of high temperature steam that is used to run the factory, process foods, drive chemical reactions, etcetera.
State regulations are pushing these firms to transition to cleaner energy sources, and many firms are looking for cost effective options to do so. But we want to do so without putting them out of business. We can help by supporting clean energy pathways that make economic sense for these companies. Without cost effective options, the alternative if these businesses are shut down or move out of state, taking good middle class jobs with them, and nobody wants that. One of the most promising solutions for reducing pollution from industrial firms is to use electricity to make the same heat that they make today.
Unfortunately, as we know, retail electricity prices are much too high. But there are several hours every day when electricity prices on the wholesale market would make it much cheaper to use electricity than natural gas. At off peak times, we have plenty of cheap electricity, as we just discussed, that could be used for industrial firms to replace gas and save money. And they wouldn't be saving money for themselves. If we electrify heat, that would mean a lot of new off peak demand on the grid.
As long as industrial firms pay more than the incremental cost of serving that demand, every additional dollar helps pay the fixed cost of the grid. Off peak load growth is this. It's one of the best options that we have for sharing the cost of the grid across more customers and low electricity rates for all of us. Again, it has to be done right. Like we just had the data center conversation.
It can be beneficial load. So how can we do that? I'll let my witnesses discuss. But we just need to get the price right so that off peak electricity is cheap, providing a strong price signal for people to use it. With that, I'd like to bring up my witnesses, Teresa Chang, California director for Industrious Labs, and Joe Guardias, climate solutions fellow for NRDC.
Speaker 13
Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Theresa Chang, California Director of Industrious Labs. As the senator mentioned, California's manufacturing economy is made up of tens of thousands of facilities that employ over 1,200,000 people in the state. It is the backbone of our economy and, unfortunately, also a major source of climate emissions and hazardous air pollution.
Two thirds of gas fired industrial heating equipment is located in environmental justice communities, which harms the health of our most vulnerable residents. What's remarkable is that this problem is solvable today. Industrial heat pumps, electric boilers, thermal batteries, these are alternatives that are commercially available and ready to deploy today, and many of these technologies are even manufactured right here in California. Technology is not the obstacle. It's our outdated electricity rate structure.
California's industrial electricity rates are more than double the national average. Non bypassable charges and transmission charges alone cost manufacturers roughly one and a half times the equivalent price of gas. The result is that companies that want to decarbonize are doing that. They're just not doing it in California. The state has supported adoption of clean electric industrial equipment through successful programs like the CEC's INDIGO program, the FPIP program.
But even the factories that clear the capital hurdle face long term operating costs from electrification that are five to 10 times higher than staying on gas. And so no clean air regulation or cap and invest program amendment will be able to fix that. Only the CPUC can address electricity prices, and this bill is a smart way to unlock key barriers for the PUC to do that. These are smart and common sense reforms with co benefits across the board. They give manufacturers a sustainable path to operate clean electric equipment in California, keep good paying jobs here, slash emissions, improve air quality and public health, and put our curtailed renewable energy to work to drive down costs for all ratepayers.
We urge your support of this bill. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Joe, basically, this is support, support to Bill here. We've got another bill to present. So if there's something very pressing you want to add, we'd love to hear your thought. But we're trying to press through because we both have caucus.
Speaker 15
Sure. Will really briefly add. Joe Guardias with NRDC. I'll just really briefly add that we're supportive of this legislation because it reduces costs for other customers that are not participating in this program by ensuring that marginal costs or the costs to serve those customers are still recovered, plus a portion of fixed costs. And because these customers are new and they wouldn't otherwise come to the grid unless this tariff was available, that means that other customers are seeing cost savings.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right. Let's let's see if folks want to just add on support.
Speaker 40
Chair and members, Bruce Mignani with California Large Energy Consumers Association in support of the measure. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Chair and members Delaney Hunter on behalf of Antora Energy Systems manufacturing in Senator Becker's district in strong support.
Speaker 14
Mr. Chair and members, Will Breger, Climate Action California, in support.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. I don't believe there's opposition registered, but is there anyone here? Yes. Okay.
Yes, sir.
Speaker 46
Morning. John Kennerk on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce with a bit of a tweener position here. Really appreciate the fact that we're looking at a concrete path to helping California achieve its climate goals that is not adverse to business interests. So I very much appreciate it. Look forward to seeing what this bill becomes as it moves forward.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Questions, thoughts? This has moved by Senator Strickland.
You may close.
Speaker 9
Well, in the interest of time, we'll thank our witnesses and I respectfully ask for I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Let secretary, please call the roll. You are accepting the amendments is my understanding?
Speaker 1
Great. So this is now the the motion is due pass as amended to senate preparations committee with the committee amendments.
Speaker 30
Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Achobog? Aye.
Achobog? Archeleta? Aye. Archeleta? Aragine?
Aye. Becker?
Speaker 30
Dally? Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales? Grove?
Hurtado? McNurney? McNurney, I. Reyes? Richardson?
Rubio? Stern? Strickland?
Speaker 1
I. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Richard can you say Richardson I, please?
Richardson Richards I. Okay. All right. Great. Okay.
Thank you. Not that I don't want to commit a felony by voting for you. All right. Let's go to Senator Strickland. You come up to the dice right here, and we will hear the final the final bill on the agenda.
That's s b nine eighty five, item five on your agendas.
Speaker 20
Thank you, mister chair. Good morning, mister chair and senators. I wanna open up, but first accept the committee amendments and appreciate the cooperation with the chair and the committee staff. I know the staff and the chair worked very hard on this, and I wanna personally thank you for letting me bother you over the weekend. SB nine eighty five provides much needed transparency, accountability, and legislative oversight to the nine one one system.
When Californians call 911, they are connected to a dispatcher through a statewide 911 system. However, the technology is badly outdated and unable to support modern capabilities like precise cell phone location tracking, which can be the difference between life and death. That's why in 2014, the legislature directed the governor office of emergency management, or OES, to develop a plan to implement an updated next generation 911 system. However, over a decade later, the next nine eleven, project remains unfinished, plagued by a series of problems, expensive contracts, and missed deadlines. This is unacceptable, I believe, when we, in the legislature, have the obligation to oversee this process and make sure it gets completed.
Californians should never have to wonder, if they call 911, if it will work, or when they find themselves in a life or death situation. My bill, the fixed 911 act, requires OES to provide the legislature with regular quarterly reports and their progress until the 911 system project is completed. This requirement is in line with the recommendation from the LAO office. With adequate oversight, problems can be identified and fixed before they spread, and we can make sure that, the failures of the past are not gonna be done in the future, and we can be a problem solver on on this issue. And for those reasons, I ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 1
Great. Alright. Witnesses in support, folks who wanna weigh in? Anyone who wants to raise opposition or concerns about the bill? Move the bill.
I will
Speaker 1
the committee, moved by senator Archuleta. Questions? Thank you. Concerns? Thoughts?
You are accepting the amendments?
Speaker 20
Yes. And, again, chairman, I wanna really thank your staff, and I did bother you and mister Stern, although we
Speaker 1
can Yes. And and, of course, it is going to senator Stern's committee next, senate emergency management committee, but let's let's call the roll. Unless you wanna
Speaker 30
Arrigine, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero?
Dally? Aye. Dally, aye. Gonzales?
Speaker 30
Gonzales, aye. Grove? Hurtado? McNurney? Aye.
McNurney I. Reyes? Richardson? Aye. Rubio?
Stern? Aye. Strickland I. Wahhab? Aye.
Wahhab I. Okay.
Speaker 1
So let's go ahead and lift calls. We're gonna adjourn this meeting in ten minutes. So I members need to get here if they wanna vote, because we all gotta get to caucus. So let's lift calls. We're gonna lift call first on item one, s b eight sixty eight, senator Weiner.
Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 30
It passes amended to the committee on judiciary. Current vote, nine zero. Chair, vice chair voting, aye. Archuleta? Aragine?
Aye. Aragine aye. Caballero? Gonzalez? Hurtado?
Rubio? Strickland? Aye. Strickland aye. Wahab?
Aye. Wahab aye.
Speaker 1
12. Alright. Will leave that open. Is that a 1212 to 0. Okay.
We're gonna leave that open for folks to come in and vote. Please members, please come down to vote. We're gonna now go to item two, SB eight eighty six by Padilla.
Speaker 30
Do you pass as amended to appropriations? Current vote, nine three. Chair voting, aye. Vice chair voting, no. Caballero?
Hurtado? Reyes? Strickland? No. Strickland, no.
Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab, aye.
Speaker 30
Due passed as amended to Labor and Public Employment and Retirement. Current vote, six three. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Becker?
Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Hurtado? Reyes?
Rubio? Stern? Strickland? No. Strickland, no.
Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab, aye.
Speaker 30
Do you pass the amendment to appropriations current vote ten zero? Caballero, Grove, Hurtado, Reyes, Rubio, Stern, Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab, aye.
Speaker 30
Due passed as amended to Emergency Management Committee. Current vote, ten zero. Caballero, Grove, Hurtado, Reyes, Richardson
Speaker 1
Okay. Alright. We are waiting for members. Senator senators Becker and Richardson, any bills you are not yet voted?
Speaker 1
Alright. Well, you are both free to leave. I'm gonna we will we will stay here an additional six minutes for the members. I think we're waiting for mem for senator Rubio, Hurtado, Grove, and Stern and Caballero. Is that right?
And And Reyes, who has voted for a number of the bills, I think, already.
Speaker 1
Early early birds. Nice to see you. Alright. Let's let's open the roll again. This item one, eight s p eight sixty eight wiener As amended.
Speaker 30
Yes. Current vote twelve zero. Chair, vice chair voting aye. Archuleta, Caballero, Gonzalez, Hurtado, aye. Rubio?
Speaker 30
vote, 10 to four. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Caballero? Hurtado, Hurtado, aye, Reyes?
Speaker 30
Current current vote, eight to four. Chair voting aye. Vice chair voting no. Caballero? Yes.
Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado aye. Reyes? Rubio?
Aye. Rubio aye. Stern? 10 to four.
Speaker 30
Current vote, 110. Caballero, Grove, Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado aye. Reyes?
Rubio? Aye. Rubio aye. Stern?
Speaker 1
Okay. We will we will let our friends head to caucus. Members, we are you have four more minutes, so come down and vote. And we will come on down, homies. Senator Reyes is here.
Excellent. Which bills we need to do with Senator Reyes?
Speaker 1
Okay. So let's start with item two, s B886. You have to turn your mic on.
Speaker 30
Current vote, thirteen zero. Caballero, Grove, Reyes? Aye. Reyes I. Stern?
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you very much. Members, you have two more minutes to come on down. Senator Stern, good to see you. Okay.
You've already voted on Weiner, I think? Yes. And let's go to Padilla. Item two, s b eight eight six.
Speaker 1
Oh, you voted for that. Okay. SB978, Perez, three. Yeah. Executive.
Item three. We got.
Speaker 1
you. Thank you very much, senator. Okay. We are going to close the roll, but let the record reflect that senator Caballero was chairing another hearing. But we will be closing the roll.
All of these bills have passed out as amended to their respective committees. Thank you to the staff for a challenging but great start to what's gonna be a wild and woolly bill season. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.