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
they're not here to testify. So I don't want speak on their behalf, but we haven't heard any pushback from them.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you, Senator. Other questions, thoughts? Okay. Will entertain a motion.
This certainly enjoys a do pass recommendation from the chair.
Thank you.
And but when we have a quorum, we'll entertain a motion. If Great. You'd to close or
Speaker 2
Well, thank you. Senator McNerney, thank you for your excellent questions. If you'd like, we can get back to you on that on those two points. Actually, it's good research for me to be familiar with anyways. And Mr.
Chair, thank you for the due passed recommendation, and we look forward to affirmative action on this bill when everybody gets here.
Speaker 1
Appreciate it. Thank you. Appreciate your support for affirmative action. And we will now go to our friend Roger Nilo, who is here to present a bill. Roger is here with SB eleven ninety seven on Permanent Standard Time.
You may proceed when ready. Well,
Speaker 5
thank you, Mr. Chair. And as my as my colleague formerly said, on time members. We'll have to talk about that at caucus lunch. Yes, of course.
Thanks for the opportunity to present SB eleven ninety seven dealing with a very timely issue, our longstanding debate about ditching the switch of time that is, and which switch to ditch. That's my own little Doctor. Seuss quote. Now, you've heard this before. I think this is my third or fourth attempt at that, and I think it must be the charm, but the difference is that I have a new proposal that I think strikes a good balance.
The bill is about how California can control our own destiny regarding time, how standard time is the healthier choice for our bodies, and how we can finally ditch the time switch, something our constituents have long expressed to be in favor of. In 2018 voters approved Proposition seven which allows legislature to change the rules relating to time. Since the passage of Proposition seven there's been, some confusion. Many voters actually thought they had decided this issue but like so many bills and propositions the devil is in the details. So Proposition seven actually authorizes the legislature to implement full time daylight saving time by a two thirds majority if authorized by Congress.
The proponents which of that proposition which included the author also stated in the ballot statement that the proposition could be used for going to permanent standard time also. Currently, federal law only allows for states to authorize permanent standard time or to utilize daylight saving time for part of the year, which is what we are currently doing. We switched our clocks a couple of weeks ago, and I think I might be used to the time change somewhere around Halloween. So, considering the lack of action by the federal government and the desires of our constituents clearly to ditch the switch, I think it's imperative for California to consider another option to address the issue. The only option we have currently is moving to permanent standard time.
Now a recent Gallup poll nationwide admittedly, but it shows that a majority of Americans say they are ready to do away with the practice. Obviously California voters said that, but the same poll also showed a plurality of Americans say they would prefer to have standard time the whole year, including summer. This bill will accomplish those sentiments as it will move California to standard time and if Congress ever approves permanent daylight saving time, then we would move to that federal standard at that time. I've worked with lawmakers in bordering states. I've been chatting with them for a couple of years now, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, even Utah and Idaho.
And we've been working on hopefully moving in the same direction so we'd have Western states on the same time, which I think is important. So not only does SB eleven ninety seven eliminate the inconvenience for Californians, but there are multiple health and safety implications as we all approved in my SCR seven of, I think, last week or the week before, and that is the issue to which my witness will speak. We have Doctor. Ken Yoon, an adjunct associate professor at Stanford and UCSF, who is a sleep medical physician and has been for over twenty five years in the Bay Area.
Speaker 6
Thank you so much for the chance to speak. I want to thank the chair, the committee, and also of course Senator Nilo for the chance to support SB eleven ninety seven. As mentioned, I've been a sleep medicine physician for well over two and a half decades, and I learned from my medical training and those of my patients how wreaking havoc daylight saving time can be with that one hour's time change. And I was also one of the cosponsors for the position paper for American Academy Sleep Medicine to support permanent standard time. I want to point out three facts.
Number one is that going to sleep an hour earlier is unnatural. Try it. It's really hard, and typically it takes us a while to adapt, as Senator Nilo had pointed out. In particular, our teenagers are most effective because their internal clocks are longer than twenty four hours. And as the way it stands, they lose about thirty two minutes of sleep per night during the March.
Their parents also lose sleep on top of that. Secondly, those that are under the lower economic strata, particularly in the Bay Area, in the Oakland area, lose more sleep. A third of Americans have reported they lost sleep. In addition, in Oakland areas, we report to be about forty, forty one percent. So, those that do not have flexible schedules are severely affected by this change in addition to sleep loss that they have accumulated.
Speaker 14
Some never recover. I know it says a joke, but some do not recover during the eight months when daylight saving time is in effect. Lastly, it's the simpler and safer way to go simply because we know that by ending daylight saving time we are reducing the risk for heart attacks, strokes, arrhythmias, lessening the burden for obesity and insulin resistance in our general population. Therefore, I urge that you say yes to SB1197 so that we can help both the patients and myself achieve better physical health, mental health, as well as better sleep. Thank you for your attention.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you so much, Doctor. I appreciate it. Other folks who want to come to the mic and express their support for the bill? Folks who want to raise opposition or concerns?
Yes, sir. Come to the microphone.
Speaker 10
Morning, chair members. Morris Thomas with the Southern California Golf Association and representing the California Alliance for Golf. The California community golfing community fully respects the scientific studies cited by the sleep disorder specialists sponsoring this bill. Those studies ought to be part of a fully informed decision as to which is the better option for ditching the switch permanent standard time or permanent daylight saving time. However, before overturning the California electorate's clear 2018 decision to move to year round daylight saving, we urge the legislature to consider all of the relevant factors necessary to reach a fully informed decision on a practice that has been a part of Californians' lives for generations.
Speaker 7
This means looking beyond sleep studies to include, one, economic impacts on active outdoor recreational activities like golf and tourism, public health considerations associated with reduced time for and after school sports and recreation programs and three, public safety concerns due to increased crime and increased traffic accidents. We want to highlight the caution in the bill analysis that adopting permanent daylight that adopting permanent standard time likely requires voter approval because it may not be consistent with the passage of Proposition seven in 2018. We also concur with the recommendation that regarding the benefits of a measured approach that would allow for a full assessment of all the implications and interests of residents, communities, schools, businesses, and neighboring states, public safety and impacts on energy systems, considering all relevant factors as opposed to just one. The voters who approved Prop seven deserve a careful analysis before reversing their decision. For these reasons and others that are in the lengthy letter filed with the committee, the California Alliance for Goff opposes the bill but would support the informed analysis that the staff analyst suggests would be the prudent course before making changes whose full implications have been fully vetted.
Thank you for considering our views.
Speaker 8
Good morning, Chair and members. Nicole Quinones registering opposition for the following organizations who couldn't be here today: the Southern California PGA, the Golf California Golf Course Owners Association, Northern California Golf Association, Northern California PGA, San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, High Low Desert Golf Course Superintendents Association, and the Latino Golfers Association. Thank you.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Why don't we give the author just a quick opportunity to answer this question of whether this would require a return to the voters for a vote, because I'm not sure that Proposition seven was as clear as it was just announced, you know, in terms of support for permanent daylight savings time.
Speaker 5
I will quote from the argument in favor of that proposition in the voter pamphlet at the time. This was signed by Assembly Member Chu, Assemblywoman Gonzales, now Senator Gonzales, and a Doctor. Sion Roy, all signing the argument in favor. And I quote from their statement, A yes vote on Proposition seven allows California to consider making daylight saving time or standard time our year round time. That's a clear indication that Proposition seven allowed for either one.
And the problem with the former is that we cannot go to permanent daylight saving time unless and until the federal government authorizes that.
Speaker 1
Yeah, okay. That's my understanding, too. Okay. We don't have a quorum yet. I'm going to just tell I'm going to lay off the bill.
Speaker 18
You know, I absolutely agree that if we ditch the switch, we should do a permanent standard time. I've become convinced of that from the sleep scientists. The concern I have is that getting rid of the status quo will move us toward a situation where we're going to have some times of the year, the sun coming up, you know, before in the four hour, 04:45 in the morning, and other times of the year, it's going to come up at 08:15. And I just I don't know that people have fully grappled with what that entails. And what we with our current system allows for sunrise to happen pretty much within the 06:30 to 07:15 range, depending on where you are in the state, consistently through the year.
Speaker 1
And that's one of my concerns about making a change, though I understand that a lot of people hate the time change. Everybody hates the time change, especially when you lose an hour of sleep. But I'm not asking the members to vote against this or lay off. I think that everyone's got a strong opinion about this, and I'm happy to have the bill pass out to committee if that's the members' will. Yes, to Senator Reyes.
And then Senator Richardson.
Speaker 9
Thank you, and thank you for bringing the bill. I was in the assembly when then assembly member Kansen Chew attempted this bill almost every year, and brought forward the sleep study experts, brought forward safety experts to talk about the increased accidents, traffic accidents, a number of things. And we would get it out of the assembly and then it would get stuck somewhere.
Speaker 9
But I do appreciate that you brought it. I think that I hear from my son. I hear from my constituents how tired they are of this change over and over again. I did see the legislative analyst's comments regarding having to take it back to the voters. I agree with your interpretation.
Of course, we will have to see exactly what will happen. My question was whether it had to have congressional approval, and your interpretation is that that is only if we go to daylight savings time?
Speaker 5
Yes. Congress has authorized states to go to permanent standard time, but has only authorized states to recognize daylight saving time limited time during the year. They specify up to six months or seven months, something like that. I think we're at five months, but not permanent daylight saving time. There have been proposals in Congress to do that, and they haven't moved out of the House where it originated, which was the Senate.
So there doesn't a scene, there does not appear to be any, near term, legislative momentum, in Washington DC, to settle this other than for us to go to permanent standard time at this point.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nilo, I applaud your persistence and diligence. I always respect that in someone.
Unfortunately in this particular case I'm actually one who prefers more daylight savings time so I'm not going to vote yes for the bill but I won't vote no either. I'll lay off just so your record is a little clear there and hopefully you'll you'll have enough to get there. But I have spoken to you about this. I have said what my preference is and you have shared an openness either way but the congressional issue you know seems to be the challenge with daylight savings time. So maybe you can work with the administration, and he might be open to your thoughts, and with that, just wanted to share my comments.
Thank you.
Speaker 5
Well, our President at differing times has stated that he's in favor in one or the other, so the administration hasn't given any clear direction either, but still it would have to originate in Congress and there doesn't appear to be any consensus there.
Speaker 3
Well, want to thank the author for bringing this, but also clearing up the misconception I had that the voters of California settled this a while back, and why that
Speaker 5
That is a consistent confusion among a lot of voters also, but that was an advisory proposition.
Speaker 3
Well, I've supported this bill in the past. The change is disruptive for different reasons, once in the fall and once in the spring, So I'll be supporting this, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Okay. Great. Thank you, Senator. We still don't have a quorum. It's such a big committee, happy to have you close and respond to any Yes.
Speaker 5
A few things. The opposition to this proposal is entirely from the golfing community. But I'd like to add that I have a lot of friends who are golfers. They're retired, and they golf a few times a week, and they are frustrated when we change the clocks to daylight saving time, and they can't tee off early because the sun's not up. So that argument, quite frankly, cuts both ways.
And that I was looking at a note that I made. They are calling for a study, and I would point out that in the legislative process the best way to avoid doing something is to call for a study. But essentially, the debate in the golfing community is the one stated here and the one that's not stated here, and that is more light in the morning versus more light in the evening. And basically that's where people come down on what they prefer. And I always like to point out that with regard to the morning light, yes, the sun rises earlier under standard time, but we went to permanent daylight saving time in the early '70s.
It was intended to be for two or three years and it was abandoned after about ten months because it was dark when kids were going to school in November, December and January. It was dangerous. That is a bigger downside than a little bit more light in the morning, number one. And number two, even in the summertime, it's light until almost 08:00. That's hardly the sun dropping into the horizon prematurely early.
So the point of my measure is that voters want to stop switching time two times a year. We can do that, but we can only do it by virtue of going to permanent standard time. Now if the federal government acts, and the proposal there has been that the nation would go to permanent daylight saving time, and at that time we would go to permanent daylight saving time. I think we'd have to, because the federal government, mandated it, but this bill specifically states it so that there isn't any confusion that that's what we'd do if congress so acted. So in the interest of ditching the switch and making the decision now as to which switch we ditch, I request an I vote.
Speaker 1
Well, you, Doctor. Susnillo. We will absolutely entertain Senator McNerney's motion when there's a quorum. Thank you. Thank you.
Unless
Speaker 1
When he officially makes it. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Alright.
Let's go to Senator Padilla, who is here to present item number two in your packets. Members, that's SB eleven thirty eight.
Speaker 12
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members. I'm here and pleased to present SB eleven thirty eight. I'm going to begin by accepting committee amendments, which I hope you have before you, and I'm thanking committee staff and the chairman for your diligent work with my office on this matter. It is no secret that California is experiencing energy bill affordability crisis.
We have heard it from our constituents who are struggling to get back as they deal with some of the highest bills in the nation. What we've learned over the last few years as we've worked to tackle energy bill affordability is that there is no silver bullet. Much of these cost increases are driven by the need to increase or upgrade transmission infrastructure and distribution infrastructure to supply the growing demand, vegetation management, grid hardening, reducing wildfire risks, investments to the grid to meet our clean energy goals. Eliminating these costs are not entirely avoidable. But we can also take a look at the fact that we've learned in recent years that we can push practical consumer focused solutions that can bring down costs while still achieving our goals and maintaining reliability.
That's what I'm bringing you today in the form of SB eleven thirty eight. For the past four years as many of you know the CPUC has been working on reforms to the resource adequacy or RA program. One of those reforms that was first implemented last calendar year requires the investor owned utilities, CCAs and direct access providers, any load serving entity to procure enough energy capacity to meet each hour of the peak day in each month, otherwise known as the slice of day framework as referenced in your analysis. This is a deviation from previous compliance requirement, which set a monthly requirement based on the peak day of that month. The purpose was to make RA procurement more accurate and to better ensure grid reliability.
While the program appears to be on the right path for reliability purposes, unfortunately leads often to excessive and unnecessary procurement of resources. As a result, customers are often paying for something they don't need. Additionally, these excessive purchases are also creating artificial market scarcity and driving up prices that these require. This bill proposes to address the problem by allowing load serving entities to trade their hourly obligations to prevent these over purchases and do so in a manner that is not a threat to grid reliability. This is a common sense solution that would have saved rate payers, for example, approximately $180,000,000 in 2025, and a solution that should have been adopted when a new hourly compliance program went into effect last year.
I'm pleased to state that with me today are Lauren Carr, senior manager of regulatory affairs and market policy for the California Community Choice Association and Ted Bardacki, CEO of Clean Power Alliance, as many of you know, a CCA aggregator that provides services across Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.
Speaker 5
Good morning, chair and members. I'm Lauren Carr, senior manager of regulatory affairs at the California Community Choice Association. CalCCA is proud to sponsor SB eleven thirty eight and thank Senator Padilla for authoring this important legislation. The state's 25 community choice aggregators are nonprofit local government agencies that procure energy for over 15,000,000 Californians. California's resource adequacy program ensures sufficient electricity supply to meet customer demand.
Speaker 13
The California Public Utilities Commission recently implemented a new slice of day compliance framework, which better aligns the system the RA program with system reliability needs. However, under current rules, RA products must transact monthly, even though the obligations are unique to each hour. This forces LSEs to purchase more RA than needed and unnecessarily drives up RA prices. This inefficiency largely explains why RA resources achieved a 23% reserve margin in September 2025 when the requirement was only 17%. The cost of unnecessary RA purchases fall directly on California rate payers totaling tens of millions of dollars annually.
SB eleven thirty eight supports energy affordability by allowing LSEs to transact RA load obligations hourly to align with the granularity of the requirements, reducing the need to purchase additional RA beyond what is needed to meet the requirements set by the CPUC. In 2025, hourly trading could have saved ratepayers approximately $180,000,000 At a time of rapidly rising costs, policymakers should provide LSEs maximum flexibility in how they contribute their fair share to system reliability. These reforms could save tens of millions of dollars each year, lowering customer costs while maintaining reliability and supporting California's clean energy goals. Cal CCA respectfully requests your I vote on SB eleven thirty eight. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Good morning, Chair and Senators. Thanks for having me. My name is Ted Bartoki. I'm CEO of Clean Power Alliance. We are the largest CCA in the state, the number one green energy provider in the country, and serving over 3,000,000 residents and businesses across 38 communities in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.
Last year, resource adequacy comprised about one quarter of our energy costs, to the tune of $287,000,000 Lowering the costs in this area would have real world impact on our customers. Under the new slice of day resource adequacy program, we have to demonstrate that we have enough energy capacity to meet the peak forecasted demand in each hour of the peak day of each month. The problem is that energy capacity is not tradable in those one hour increments. Currently, with few exceptions, the smallest increments we can trade is monthly. That's just a mismatch, and this mismatch forces us to procure more, spend more than we need to meet that forecasted peak hour.
There is a solution to this problem. We are a big state with a diverse climate. So for example, in San Francisco, the peak is in the winter because of a lot of homes have electric heat. In L. A, the peak is in the summer because of air conditioning.
Allowing us to trade those obligations among different load serving entities would be more efficient, while still having while still ensuring the system has enough capacity to maintain reliability throughout the year. Last, we already have systems in place to make these trades. There are requests for offers. There are bilateral negotiations. There are transactions through brokers.
Speaker 16
These are well developed platforms to make the trades. We would just be doing it at a more granular level. So last year, we at Clean Power Alliance estimate we could have saved between 10,000,000 and $13,000,000 in RA costs if this program had been in place. This is almost equal to the total amount of we dedicate to our customer programs, which serves currently assisting over 16,000 households to lower their energy bills, and increase their resiliency through rebates and incentives for home hardening, backup batteries, and efficient AC units for low income multifamily renters. This is real money that could be invested if we could just be more efficient.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. Fantastic. Other folks who want to express their support for the bill?
Speaker 15
Morning, Chair and Senators. Will Breger, State Strategies for Climate Action California, we support.
Speaker 16
Good morning to the committee and chair. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the City of Belmont and the Town of Hillsborough in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Good morning. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Cruz County Board Of Supervisors in support.
Speaker 17
Good morning. Andrea DeVoe on behalf of Cal Choice Energy Authority in support.
Speaker 19
Good morning, members. Jason Eichert on behalf of Clean Power SF who are very strong supporters of the bill. Appreciate the author bringing it forward.
Speaker 20
Vanessa Flores representing San Diego Community Powers in support and also asked to provide a Me Too for Clean Energy Alliance.
Speaker 21
Morning. Mr. Chair, Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy and Valley Clean Energy in strong support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right. Opposition, folks who want to raise concerns about the bill? Okay, seeing none, we will go to the committee. Let's go to you, Senator Richardson.
And then followed by Senator Becker after Senator Richardson.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm in support of this bill and would be prepared to make the motion when deemed appropriate. I do, though, have a question from my colleague, Achooa Bogh, for the author, and I agreed to ask the question for her, but I am in support of the bill as it is. Her question was, How would you address the concerns that the CPUC expressed regarding the limited evidence of need, uncertain benefits, and heightened implementation risks?
Specifically, is it appropriate to pass this bill when the CPUC has stated that this framework needs time to mature and that the potential gains don't outweigh the complexity and risk of unintended consequences. Her staff is here to listen to the answer, but thank you, author.
Speaker 4
Mr. Chairman and Senator, thank you for the question and for my esteemed colleague who requested the question, I would say twofold. One, before you, the amendments address that by providing flexibility for the CPUC to suspend this option if it can be demonstrated that it undermines the RA schematic and does not achieve those goals that are obviously important for grid stability and reliability. Secondly, I think I would note, just refer you to page four of the and refer the center to page four of the committee analysis, which clearly indicates sort of the some of the critiques about the PUC's report and that if permission to cite your own analysis, Mr. Chairman, and I quote, at the end of the first paragraph, staff reports focus on ability rather than the cost to comply.
Speaker 12
A state and they state that the report materially understates the avoided excess procuring and associated cost savings. So, again, I think I would concur in their argument and critique of the report by the PUC, and I think we've addressed it in the amendment.
Speaker 23
thank the author, Anne. I think we've been in touch with your team and look to be added as a coauthor. As we moving to hourly RA requirements, it kind of makes sense that we allow it to be contracted for hourly rather than well, in hourly chunks. And I think it's pretty clear anything we can do to meet these requirements more efficiently will get passed on to ratepayers. So grateful for the bill.
Speaker 3
Well, I thank the Senator, and I think it's a great find to find this. I have a couple of questions, comments. First of all, we talked about all the savings that are going to be coming forth. I just want to make sure those savings go to the rate payers and not to investors or other sorts of pockets. Do you have a comment on that?
Speaker 12
Mr. Chairman, Senator, I think I would also refer both to the testimony of my witness, but based on the schematic and how we regulate the rate case per se, there are elements that deal with satisfying of these requirements under RA, and these are long demonstrated passed directly on as a component to the consumer on the consumer end, on the ratepayer end. So if you can reduce the over purchasing of unnecessary resource, you're not having to capture that. So that's an extra capture that's not passed on to the ratepayer. So there is, I think, ample evidence that demonstrates this achieved savings for the ratepayer.
Speaker 8
My other question is concerned with the technical aspects of this. Where does the ISO fit in? I mean, this has got to go through ISO in one way or another if you're trading. And does I mean, do the I think one of your witness said the systems are in place, but for hourly trading, do they have the capability to keep up with that? Are we putting ourselves would we be putting ourselves at risk for system issues, like when Enron took over back in the just a little concern I have about system stability trading at that frequency.
Speaker 12
Mr. Chairman, Senator, thank you for that word. My God. I don't want to ever hear that word again ever in my career. But thank you, sir.
You might recall that in the early 2000s, when the legislature responded by establishing the RA requirements and framework, was a direct response to the energy crisis that we suffered, I think a lot of us miserably, at that time. And as you know, the CAL ISO and even some of the component of the federal regulatory oversight had to make sure that we were in compliance and alignment when we established the program. So the program provides for those parameters to begin with. And again, I would just refer you to the amendments that we're accepting here, which gives some flexibility for that determination if it is made. It has to be demonstrated.
That's the standard in the amendments, the committee amendments that we're accepting.
Speaker 24
Thank you for your answers, and always bringing your diligence to this Senator. I appreciate your efforts here, and the sort of the push to drive down costs the best we can. I think the amendment makes sense, just to add some more flexibility. I guess my central question is maybe more of a local one, so it might not be about the entire framework, but in my backyard, your lead witness represents, and maybe I could even bug him to come back up, but my central concern is that we're relying right now on a gas peaker to meet a lot of local reliability. We are the softest part of the Southern California grid in the Moorpark sub area, and that community in Oxnard has been suffering for too long, and I'm just worried about under procurement in that region, so, I mean, might be, again, more of a regional question, but I don't want to see us in a place where we sort of, you know, we squeeze as much efficiency as we can out the RA market, and then we don't have our CCAs buying any local generation capacity.
We're desperate for getting batteries sited in that area. Unfortunately, one of our cities just rejected a couple 100 megawatts of batteries. It's been a slog to get the peaker replaced with batteries, and I know Ms. And I have had many conversations over the years about wanting to install more generation capacity because we're the PSPS heartland of Southern California as well. So maybe if you don't mind for the witness?
Speaker 24
Senator. Yeah, please. So I just want to get some clarification from you on the record. Do you anticipate this reducing the amount of local generation you're going to be procuring if we went forward in this framework?
Speaker 14
So on the generation side, and on the storage side, no. We know that there's a lot of value for relieving congestion, for increasing in that area. The RA program in the local capacity is actually centrally procured by the IOUs for the in those local subregions. So what we're talking here about is trading on the system level across the state. So there's going to be this would not impact those that local capacity framework, if Lauren wants to get into sort of how the there's three R.
A. Products. There's system. There's flex, and then there's local, and the local was given to the IOUs to centrally procure, I don't know, three, four years ago, something like that. So we're we don't see this as any disincentive to increasing our battery regeneration.
Speaker 24
Right, but there's not a sort of local benefit to the system in the flex already markets, in any way?
Speaker 14
Well, it's not how we look at it when we make our procurement decisions. We can offer additional resources to the central procurement entity, and that's, you know, but they're often over they're often well procured, and don't need it from us, so I really see this as more of a statewide thing than a local capacity.
Speaker 24
On the monthly basis, not on the hourly, but I mean, I'm just thinking about, yeah, around the Goleta substation, around the Moorpark substations, all these areas that have been left in the dark during fire events, it's been really bad, and relying on fossil fuels to back that up just is a problem. So, you don't see any sort of any impact on that? I mean, if you were bidding in if you were offering, say, to Edison more if you actually wanted to do a battery project that was significant. I know you've done small, little, you know, couple kilowatts here, a megawatt there, some community centers, but I'm talking about, like, real generation capacity locally, not just paper and renewables. I appreciate that you're the biggest green energy provider in the country, but that green energy means much less to us when it's on paper, and when it's not in our backyard, and so I just want some assurance that if supporting this bill, that I'm not going to do anything to diminish your motivation to go further, and to do more locally?
Speaker 14
No, not at all. We do have significant batteries in L. A. County, and generation capacity. You know, if we can squeeze every dollar out of new capacity by trading it, that only incentivizes to us to, you know, deal with that excess, can eventually lower our costs.
Speaker 24
Well, with that understanding, I'll support the bill today, but I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this issue. Thank you for letting me do that here, Senator Padilla. Appreciate it. Yield back.
Speaker 1
Of course. Okay. I think we've been able to ask a lot of questions. Thank you so much, Senator, for your for bringing this bill forward. We'll entertain a motion when we have a quorum, but we'd love to give you the opportunity to close.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. Thank you for the great questions. Just reinforcing again, this promotes cost savings and efficiency. It better aligns with where our current RA framework is at.
We need to do everything we can to achieve savings for our ratepayers, and at the appropriate time when you have a quorum with Respectfully ask for an eye bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you, members. Thank you. Okay.
Let's now go to Senator Becker, who's going to present SB nine thirteen.
Speaker 23
Morning, mister chair and members. This morning, I'm presenting SB nine one three, the Clean Local Power Act. This bill seeks to create an improved pathway for customers' sited resources to compete fairly to offer low cost reserves, we say capacity, for the reliability of our electric grid. For the past few decades, electricity demand has remained fairly stable. However, the CC projects that trend is set to change dramatically, increasing between 4261% over the next two decades.
You often hear me talk about how the grid only reaches its maximum capacity a few hours few hours on the hottest days of the year and comparing it to the our grid to the superstore parking lot. They have to build that parking lot big enough to handle the crowds on the Saturday before Christmas, which means it's less than half full most of the rest of the year. Same with our grid. As demand on the grid grows overall, it also tends to make the higher peaks highest. Mean, that happens with two choices.
We build more power lines and power plants and transmission lines just to handle those few hours a year when we need to meet higher demand or we could use devices already installed in our homes and businesses to shift demand away from those peaks and save a lot of money. The CPUC reports we already have about three gigawatts of customer side of batteries already installed across the street. These are customer side of just batteries alone. And a 100 megawatts of new customer side of batteries are installed every month. So that's enough new capacity every month to replace effectively replace a peaker plant.
Speaker 24
The problem is that most of these customer side of resources are currently on the sidelines. That's because of the rules currently in place. The rules for entry and participation in the RA program, which you heard a little about, the resource adequacy program, and Kaiser's energy markets have not evolved with the development of these new technologies. This bill asks the CPUC to update these rules to align more closely to those that have enabled the CEC's highly successful DSGS or demand side grid support program to sign up more than a thousand megawatts and one gigawatt of these customer set resources. The bill levels the playing field by ensuring rules will allow customers to enroll multiple devices, allow performance to be measured at the device level, and allow customers to export energy back to the grid.
Speaker 23
And it ensures that rules won't create barriers to customer enrollment. The bill also directs the CPC to work with CAISO to ensure the new rules are aligned with the existing CAISO market mechanisms. The bill is not mandating more use of these devices or subsidizing them in any way. It's just allowing these devices to compete fairly with new utility scale generation to see which resources can meet the grid's needs at the lowest cost. Not letting customer decide devices compete would be a wasted opportunity to save ratepayers money.
Again, these devices already exist behind the meter today. I'm happy to accept the committee's amendments today, clarify that procurement requirements reflect the attributes needed to serve the electrical system. We know that demand for electricity is growing. We're also grappling with the impact that wildfire mitigation's had on our rates. It's becoming more and more clear, that we have to use our grid more efficiently.
This is a way to do that. With that, today I have Dan Jacobsen, the senior policy advisor for Environment California, and Eric Lyon, energy regulatory manager for New Home, is my primary witnesses in support.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon, Chair Allen and committee members. My name is Caleb Weiss. I'm standing in for Dan Jacobson, who you all know, I'm sure. And I'm the clean energy associate at Environment California. I'm here today to thank the senator for authoring this bill and also voice express our strong support for s b nine thirteen, the Clean Local Power Act.
Speaker 25
According to a report by Environment California Research and Policy Center, California is leading the nation in the adoption of clean distributed energy capacity resources like home batteries, smart thermostats, heat pumps, and electric vehicles. For example, we have over a quarter of a million batteries home batteries in our state and over 2,000,000 electric vehicles. Furthermore, according to the California Public Utilities Commission, California's Californians are installing over 2,000 additional home batteries per week. And none of these statistics include the commercial and public sector customers, which have also installed and are continuing to install these technologies at scale. The existence of these resources presents an incredible opportunity to improve energy affordability in California and to accelerate California's transition to 100% clean energy if we take decisive steps now to harness these abundant clean energy resources so that they not only provide energy for their owners, but also for their communities.
We now have the technology to aggregate these resources in our homes and throughout our state so that they can provide clean, local energy to our communities during times of high energy demand. However, right now, these aggregated distributed capacity resources are restricted from fully participating in California's energy market. This bill will allow those resources to more fully participate in California's energy market and provide energy to California communities, including your constituents, when they're the most affordable energy resource and therefore reducing energy cost for all and not only for those who already have these technologies in their home or business. The more that we use this clean local energy, the less that the utilities need to pay for expensive, often dirtier energy to serve Californians at times of high energy demand. For that reason, we are strongly in support of this bill and respectfully request your I vote.
Thank you.
Speaker 21
Good morning. Chair, committee members, special thanks to Senator Becker. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Eric Lyon, Energy Regulatory Manager for California and The Western U. S.
With Renew Home. Renew Home is an aggregator of residential distributed energy resources with active participation in California's energy markets and utility programs. California has spent decades investing in customer located solar, storage, smart thermostats, and other flexible appliances and devices but has not been able to fully unlock the value of these resources. When these distributed capacity resources are aggregated, they can offset traditional power plants, and hundreds of thousands of these resources have already been deployed at homes and businesses. At a time when the state desperately needs affordable, clean, and reliable energy solutions, legislators should be looking to innovative solutions that support reliability while driving down costs and emissions.
SB nine thirteen is a bill that can do both. This bill would help address energy affordability by allowing cost competitive and dependable aggregated distributed capacity resources to compete in the resource adequacy market. Allowing these resources to compete will allow the state to harness hundreds of megawatts of existing capacity without the need to build out expensive infrastructure. It's worth noting that nothing in this bill supposes, presupposes any outcome. It simply directs the CPUC to make changes that will create a more fair market pathway.
Speaker 17
Our industry is confident that we can compete in the market with traditional generation, and this bill simply gives us a fair shot to do so. Aggregators like us would still be required to ensure that our capacity can deliver, that it is cost effective, and that it is clean. If our resources are chosen in this competitive market, all ratepayers will benefit from the cost savings, which in turn helps drive down total energy costs. For the reasons I discussed, Renew Home is in strong support of SB nine thirteen. Thank you for your time, and I am open to any questions you might have.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right. Other folks who want to voice their support for the bill, come to the mic and give us your name and affiliation.
Speaker 26
Hello. John Hart with the California Solar and Storage Association. On behalf of over 600 member companies, we strongly support the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Morning, Chair and members of the Committee. Brandon Garcia on behalf of Advanced Energy United in trunk support. Thanks to the other.
Speaker 10
Emily Pappas on behalf of the California Efficiency and Demand Management Council in support.
Speaker 15
Good morning, Chair and Committee members. My name is Allison Hilliard with the Climate Center in support on behalf of NextGen California Climate Action Campaign, Derapi, USGBC California, EV. ENERGY, and Friends Community on Legislation of California. Thank you so much.
Speaker 10
I'm McKinley Thompson Morley on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association in support.
Speaker 18
Good morning, members. My name is Puja Agarwal with the Climate Center, one of the cosponsors of this bill in strong support, along with Environmental Working Group, CalPURG, three fifty Humboldt, and the Center for Environmental Health. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Good morning. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the City of Mountain View in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Good morning, Chair and members. Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting, registering support on behalf of Vote Solar. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Adam Hodafi here on behalf of Generac Power Systems and DCO B Smart Thermostats in strong support.
Speaker 25
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members. Scott Cox on behalf of Seres here in strong support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right. Let's go to opposition, folks who want to raise concerns about the bill. No? Okay.
Seeing no one. No, anyone come to the mic? All right. Let's go to the let's bring it back to the committee. We'll go to Senator Stern.
Speaker 24
Yeah. Thank you for the back to back RA discussion here. It's actually I'm excited about this bill, and I think we can actually unlock a lot of the local capacity that I was actually just talking about if we opened up if we opened up the market this way and allowed DERs to aggregate more. So, I'm excited about the measure. I think it makes a lot of sense.
I'd love to be added as a co whenever opportunity presents itself. Maybe it sounds like you're making one amendment, so perhaps even now, but, yeah, I think this is actually going to reduce our demand for local fossil fuel generation as resource, and instead empower people in their homes to provide that power, so thank you. I'll move the bill at the whenever we get a quorum.
Speaker 8
Good morning, Senator Becker. So, I have a couple of questions for you. The first one has to do with the types of in home distributed energy resources. Are they reliable enough to include in the RA capacity? And number two, what happens if the DER, such as a Tesla battery wall, isn't fully charged when the LSC I sound I'm going to go back to my definitions here.
The load serving entities need to call on that resource.
Speaker 8
And I'm trying to, like, go back and forth because I don't know them in my heart, so I'm trying to look at my notes, but
Speaker 8
so Yeah, for the purpose of the public, I think it's important to note all of the acronyms in place.
Speaker 23
Yeah. So I think that's really the point of this bill, is to say that these distributed resources are now critical infrastructure. And we've seen this not just in our state, but we've seen now in other states that are recognizing this. Virginia just passed a law. Maryland's passing one right now.
To recognize that and say that this moment is here, The technology has evolved enough that we can count on these resources as critical infrastructure. So I think that's your first part of your question. In terms of the second part of the question, I mean, you don't get paid if you don't have the resource, but I'll ask one of my experts maybe to weigh in. But if the, you know, if your battery's not charged at all, then you don't get paid. But is there a more sophisticated answer to that question?
Speaker 26
Yes. I'm John Hart with the California Solar and Storage Association. So to your question, what happens if a battery is not fully charged for the event? So a couple of things. One is one of the huge benefits of aggregations is you're not relying on one home.
It's not going to make or break the grid. You're relying on, in aggregations, tens of thousands. So that's one. If one site is not fully ready, you plan for this in advance, contingency that other sites can make up the difference. So that's one scenario.
Also, goes a lot into our member companies that are doing this invest a lot into the software in preparation that you're forecasting in advance what the weather is going to be, what the home patterns will be, and that allows you to prepare. You know typically in advance at least twenty four hours if you're going be called in an event the way that you participate in the market. So you have that time to prepare. There's going to be an event tomorrow at four p. M, and we prepare and charge for that.
So you have the ability to prepare, and again, if one home is not completely ready, you have the rest of the aggregation that can really make up the difference for that.
Speaker 8
So there's a way and I'm sorry, through the chair. So there's a way to exclude the homes that are not fully prepared. Is this so is there a responsibility by the homeowner to be informed and be prepared to ensure that they're charging their batteries in order to be ready for the time that they are needed to be addressed? This is going to take initiative on the homeowner.
Speaker 26
Great question. So the first one, you would not necessarily exclude a home, let's say, a battery was not charged completely to where it was expected. You could still call on that battery, but maybe just not as much and you would call on another one more to make up the difference. So you don't need to just completely exclude a home. On the second part, homeowners and businesses, it's very hands off for them.
Speaker 13
They agree, you can use the technologies I have here, and then the companies that typically the aggregator is able to operate and send signals, and even that is not a manual process with software, and again, across tens of thousands of sites, it's able to optimize the best way to meet that across all the loads. So for the homeowner itself or for the business owner, they are very hands off after they agree to use these resources in these aggregations.
Speaker 8
So is this an opt in program for people who have these type of batteries installed in their homes?
Speaker 26
They would sign to agree to this, yes. It's not happening without their permission.
Speaker 23
And I do have there are a couple of our colleagues who were participating in the DSGS program before we well, I guess it's still going, but unfortunately we didn't allocate really sufficient funds in last year's budget, but I could put you in touch with some folks who have been participating.
Speaker 8
Who have opted into this program. Yeah. So it is an opt in I mean, the vision is to have an opt in program.
Speaker 26
Yes, yes. And the rules as they're set up, and these are rules we're not proposing to change, requires that every site sign agreeing to what they're doing. So the either the homeowner business, they are aware that they are being enrolled in this program, that their resources are being used in this way, they sign to them.
Speaker 8
Okay. And then for security purposes, I mean, I'm assuming you folks don't suck the life out of the battery per se, right? You only have like a certain percentage that you utilize for each battery?
Speaker 26
Yes, and it will it's different across sites. Typically how it works is the customer can select an amount that they want reserved at all times. You could say never go past this point, and that's respected across the aggregation.
Speaker 8
Okay. And then my last question. So the homeowners or the businesses have paid for the installation, the maintenance, and the use and use of these behind the meter technologies, devices to reduce their consumption, and hopefully reduce their electric bills. Are they then compensated?
Speaker 26
Yes. If you're participating in this program, there's compensation from, you mentioned the load serving entity, which that compensation goes to the aggregator, and then the aggregator would have a deal with the individual customers that they're compensated. And what that looks like will differ amongst aggregators, but the individual homeowner or business, they receive compensation for participating.
Speaker 8
Okay. So they do. Are compensated for their costs. Yes, absolutely. And so forth.
I think that is all for me. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3
I thank Senator Beck for bringing this forward. It's very futuristic. It's something we've been thinking about for a long time. My caution is that there's going be kinks when this is deployed, And I'm following up on Senator Joe Bogues, Vice Chair Joe Bogues comments. Suppose I've got an EV, planning to go from the Bay Area to Santa Barbara tomorrow morning.
I hop in the car and it's only half charged. I can only get halfway. I'm going be late for my meetings. I mean, there's going to be kinks and unintended consequences. It's just a caution.
I can see that's going to happen. We need to move forward with this kind of thinking and get those kinks out, but it's going to take a while.
Speaker 23
Yeah, I will say, so this is where these are customer side of batteries. These are batteries in the home right now. Right. Actually, we do look forward to a day when we'll be able to tap into the those car batteries as well with bidirectional charging. But I will say, this builds on the success.
Mean, of the reasons you'll hear many of us talk about DSGS, DSGS, and here over in the assembly as well is because it was working very successfully. We finally actually have the infrastructure. And you will hear a push in the legislature to make sure we have that continued funding for this DSGS program that referred to the demand side grid support program, which was successful, but we see that as a bridge. That program really is a bridge to something like this, where you really have more of a market based where all these customers say batteries are again considered critical infrastructure and can bid into the market. So again, it's been working, and it's been working in other states.
You know, when you hear about VPPs, virtual power plants, I mean, that's the same thing here, right? We're just tapping into these resources already in folks' homes. But I, you know, I understand that, I mean, we will have to certainly watch things as we move along, too.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. Well, I'm very supportive of your bill, and we still don't have a quorum. But, you know, we've got to reduce the number of people on this committee, I think. But I'd love to hear your close, and we'll certainly
Speaker 23
Yeah, think was already a good discussion. Respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Let's now go to Senator Richardson.
We're gonna go a little out of order. The senator, our vice chair, graciously agreed to let Senator Richardson present, her next two bills because she's gotta go present somewhere else. This is SB 11 sorry, twelve sixty five, which is item six in your packets, members. You may proceed when ready.
Speaker 10
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. Good morning. The California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority, or otherwise known as the Go Green Program, partners with public and private entities to provide financing that helps California industries reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Go Green supports the development of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and advanced transportation and manufacturing technologies, while simultaneously reducing air pollution, conserving energy, and creating jobs.
Funding the Go Green program comes from investor owned utility ratepayers to provide financing and partnerships within the IOU service areas. Over the last fifteen years, the Go Green program was carried out through the Treasurer's Office and has expanded rapidly to become a one stop entry point for Californians seeking financing for clean energy projects. Currently, according to the treasurer's office, the Go Green program is oversubscribed, and due to the immense popularity and support that its services provides, the need for this legislation has come forward. However, despite the immense success that the program has achieved, it is not protected in statute to continue past the current treasurer's tenure. SB1265 simply codifies this program into law and allows for future state treasurers to use and expand the program.
Here with me today to speak in support of the bill is the Deputy Treasurer Morton, on behalf of Fiona Ma, our Treasurer, California State Treasurer, alongside Christina Sarone, here to provide some technical support.
Speaker 21
Deputy Treasurer Martin. You, Mr. Chair. As said, Deputy Treasurer Connie Morton, on behalf of State Treasurer Fiona Ma, the sponsor of SB1265, Energy Capacity as Chair of the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority, known as CATFA. Go Green financing is one of those initiatives, as Senator Richardson mentioned, increasing accessibility for financing for home and business energy saving improvements by using its state funded loss reserve to reimburse lenders.
Speaker 29
Through minimizing lender risk, it provides below market interest rates, extended payback terms and broader loan approval for borrowers. Go Green currently relies on IOU ratepayer funds and public purchase program surcharges. While helpful, as the Senator noted, these funding sources limit where the program can operate because IOU funds are restricted to specific service areas. The program can then only serve customers within those regions. This limits expansion and reduces access for Californians outside those areas and weakens the overall statewide impact.
Without broader funding, Go Green cannot grow, reach more people or maximize greenhouse gas reductions. This change is necessary to allow the program to continue to prioritize the state's environmental goals and support as many businesses as possible. SB1265 creates the Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Expansion Fund, giving that authority to CAFO to receive the ongoing funding and codifying the program within statute. This would help Go Green financing programs under CATFUC to secure new funding and partnerships, well beyond, as was mentioned, the current treasurer's term to continue to serve Californians. Addressing this structural limitation would improve equity and allow the program to better align with statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals and expanding access beyond IOU boundaries and continue this program.
Go Green is an important economic development tool for the state and is proven to effectively marry the state's economic and environmental goals. The treasurer is proud to sponsor SB1265 and respectfully request your I vote. And additionally, as was mentioned with me, we have Cristina Soran, is Executive Director of CAPEFA, to help with any technical questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. So just note that she's available. Let's anyone who wants to weigh in support of the bill? I see you.
Speaker 14
Chair of Senators, Dean Grafiel with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of the California Life Sciences in support of SB1265. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. All right. Opposition concerns? I know there's no registered opposition. Just want to make you have accepted the amendments?
Speaker 1
Yes, that's right. Okay. Great. Questions, thoughts? We'll go to Senator Archuleta.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Senator, for bringing the bill. My question is, the fund and creating the fund, does that mean our state treasurer has sole authority, and who would benefit with this flexibility and to be able to expedite the funding? Can you give me an example of some of the recipients?
Speaker 10
Sure. I'll have the staff actually answer the question, but I will summarize. Essentially, we've had really, frankly, an excellent treasurer who this is my second year now that I brought forward a bill where she has had a program and has worked to maximize the outreach, and so hence these programs, they're utilizing the money and people are very excited about them. So to my understanding, the treasurer has been, for the most part, I believe, under her direction of the program. But I'll let the staff clarify further.
Speaker 3
Good morning. My name is Christina Serrano. I'm the Executive Director for CAPEFA. And what we're seeking is to create the fund is the ability to seek funding from outside sources. Currently, we receive funding from all of the IOUs, and that money is through a contract, and we're able to get that, and we use it specific to the contract, but it can only go to the IOU territory.
Speaker 30
We want to be able to seek partnerships with areas in rural communities and areas like that. And in order to be able to take those funds in, we have to have a fund that we have and be able to get that money into our and use it for those communities.
Speaker 10
But to clarify the question, the question was who actually determines and administers, and it's my understanding that's out of the Treasurer's Office.
Speaker 29
Yeah, it is out of the thank you for that. It is out of the Treasurer's Office, but also CAFA has a board on it which contains members from the PUC Energy Commission, Department the of Finance's Governor's Representative, as well as the Treasurer's Office. So staff brings forward suggestions, the Board approves those, but it always is done, you know, trying to maintain the intent that the legislature authorizes with the program.
Speaker 30
California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority. Thank you.
Speaker 11
And the reason I asked, Senator, is because I know Fianna Ma and her desire to help the community. And I've seen her do this, and she's asking, how can I help? How can I help? Because her office and her department has resources and can actually help communities across the state. And I'm so excited that this is coming forward because it will give her the flexibility she needs.
Speaker 2
But I just wanted to double check that it was going to the communities that need it the most and that she has the ability to expedite the funding when they request it.
Speaker 29
Correct. Thank you for that, sir. It is really about making sure that we are expanding access to reach more communities through this program.
Speaker 10
And the other significant if I might, through the chair. The other significant point is that by codifying this, it gives future treasurers the ability to continue to build upon the program, and that's really what their hope is today. Thank you. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB1265. Thank
Speaker 1
you to our friends from the Treasurer's Office as well. Let's let you now go ahead so obviously we will entertain the motion likely from Senator Archuleta, given his enthusiasm, when the moment is appropriate. So, let's now go to SB 1337.
Speaker 10
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, members. Let me begin by painting a picture. I grew up in Los Angeles, and over the last thirty years, I remember as a little girl going to school, my mom dropping me off at the bus stop, and you would look across the city, and you could not see the city skyline.
Yeah. It was very covered with smog, and this would go on from the morning till the end of the day. But fortunately, over the last thirty years, California has really pioneered in climate and air quality policies that have been critical to us protecting our community's health and our environment. Policies like the introduction of the cleanest gasoline in the world started in 1996 has led to countless air quality, health and life improvements. Californians climate and air quality policies have supported more recently the adoption of highly fuel efficient conventional vehicles and zero emissions vehicles.
Due to the petroleum markets evolving quickly amongst the state, and dare I say right now, the world, this the volatility and the understanding of transitioning between some of the newer technologies and our existing technologies leads us to the importance of having groups work together that are making these future policies. With that in mind, currently the analysis indicates that in light of several refineries that have closed, even the CEC has noted that the current pace and what is occurring is difficult and could prove to be problematic to Californians. With that being said, successfully managing the introduction and use of new technologies while simultaneously maintaining fuel production, that coordination, the actions, the strategic alignment between state, regional and local jurisdictions is desperately needed. You might wonder where this idea came from, the need from the legislation. It actually comes directly from the letter that Mr.
Speaker 23
Gunda with the CEC had noted that we really needed to approach these policies in a more holistic manner. So, this legislation was brought forward to address his recommendation. What we are working on to have this working group that would be established of stakeholders that were brought together largely out of the work that we did last year in SB237, the key objectives would be to develop priority policies and programs informed by the fuel transition plan. It would strengthen coordination and establish clear lines of communication to prioritize critical energy regarding policies and regulations. And finally, the bill and forming this working group would propose opportunities for partnerships between the governor's office, state agencies, boards, commissions, offices, independent consumer fuel advisory committees, and other industries as necessary, and the legislature to advance solutions to strategically align regulations and permitting processes across all levels of government that could best support the achievement of state policy goals.
Speaker 10
That was a little bit of a run on sentence, but just to summarize, essentially what the group is intended to do is to pull all the levels of government together to make sure that they're discussing future policies, and to make sure they're consistent with the overall objectives that we're trying to achieve, that we have successfully achieved in the past, and we hope to achieve going forward. With that in mind, here to speak in support of the bill, we have Mr. Paul Dayrow from WISPA, Western States Petroleum Association.
Speaker 1
All right, Paul, give me a second. Let's establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 31
Alan? Here. Alan here. Ochobog? Here.
Ochobog here. Archuleta? Here. Archuleta here. Arrigine Becker Caballero.
Dally. Gonzales? Here. Gonzales here. Grove.
Hurtado. Reyes? Here. Reyes here. Richardson?
Here. Richardson here. McNurney?
Speaker 1
All right, we have a quorum. You will have the great honor of being the first bill to be voted on this morning in this committee. Paul, you may proceed.
Speaker 4
Mr. Chairman and members, Paul DeGero representing the Western States Petroleum Association. Your committee analysis, as well as the author's opening remarks, took all of my talking points. So as a reminder, with the passage of SB two thirty seven, sort of was the beginning of trying to address a gasoline supply shortage or problem. And the effort was to stabilize that and take a longer look at that.
SB two thirty seven requires the Energy Commission to do an assessment, which was due at the March, so that's pending. And there will be many more recommendations coming from the Energy Commission and the administration. We believe this coordinated approach is moving in the right direction, looking at all levels of government, state, local, and regional. Thank you. We support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thanks, Paul. Other folks want to wait in support or in opposition or raise concerns? And you are clarifying you're accepting the amendments?
Speaker 22
good. Mr. Chair, members, Mike Monaghan on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades in strong support.
Speaker 1
Thanks, Mike. Thank you. Any other anyone else want to come? Either pro or support opposition? Okay.
Seeing none, we'll bring it to the committee for questions, thoughts, comments. Senator McNerney, followed by Senator Reyes, followed by Senator Ochobo.
Speaker 3
Well, think, Senator, we're in the midst of a transition, and it's going to have some bumps, as we've seen. This is an important effort in that to smooth those out and make sure the transition is good. I'm looking forward to the SB two thirty seven report that's coming up. I think it's in July, and that ought to be that ought clarify some of these issues that we're looking at. So thank you for bringing this I'll move the bill when it's appropriate.
Speaker 11
Thank you. I think having an interagency commissioner or group is extremely important. My concern is going back to SB two thirty seven and also SBX one two by then Senator Skinner, who called for an independent consumer fuels advisory committee, trying to coordinate with all of those. So there isn't duplicative work being done. So we don't have competing groups putting together reports, and we then have to review everything to determine which one is providing the information we actually need.
Speaker 9
You are right. We need to figure out the volatility of petroleum of the petroleum market here nationally and internationally. It's extremely important, but I am concerned about this coordination on because it has become such a big issue, not just now, but it had become a big issue. And so these commissions, these groups had been formed. How will you figure out how to coordinate with the others?
Speaker 10
Permission through the chair. Thank you, Senator Reyes, for that question, and that's a very important question and one we've gotten a couple times, So I'm glad that you asked me to clarify. Essentially, the difference is this, as the witness presented, this one is specifically more to the fuel supply. You know, some of the other groups are into the different overall policies and, you know, whether we're using more zero emissions or how can we transition and all of that. This one is very directly related to the refineries, what they're producing, how are they transitioning.
For example, two have closed in my district. One is now providing SAF, which is actually sustainable fuel for airplanes. So it's really more directed, very specific to the fuel aspect, which is what February was about. The other part is we have actually when I originally brought this legislation forward, I brought it before we introduced it to the CEC. And so, as we work through the bill and the process, if we need to more clearly delineate the difference between this group, or how this group can work with the other groups, we're more than happy to do so.
But it was our understanding that through February, that was a unique way that the enviro groups, the refining groups, all these different groups actually really came together specifically talking about the fuel supply. And we wanted to keep that group going, keep it going together, and wanted to make sure, more importantly, which is what I was going to add on to Mr. McNerney's comment, that today, right now, local air quality districts are making decisions based upon what's impacting having related to fuel. And those conversations are not always happening with the CEC. So you have the CEC that's meeting and doing their policies.
We're meeting, talking about policies, local districts, and so no one is really pulling specifically regarding our fuel, fuel transitioning, and all of that, having that specific discussion. So that's what the working group is intended to do. However, through the process, I commit to working with all the bodies to make sure that it is not duplicative, that it is working with all the other appropriate groups so we can get, you know, one report, one answer, and really more importantly, one direction that is right for California.
Speaker 8
And thank you. Question, I guess you've kind of answered it though, so I'm just going to might just be a little redundant, and I apologize for that, but I appreciated the angle that you said why, because I think I would be backing on Senator Reyes' question with regards to we have all of these groups coordinating, but I think it's specific. But the question is, is the CDC not already coordinating, communicating with other boards and agencies to strategize ineffective policies, and I think you addressed it by saying this will be specific to the oil industries, the refineries.
Speaker 10
Correct, and this the individuals identified not individuals, organizations identified in the bill were specifically those that were formed during the review of SB two thirty seven. So it's really intended to build upon that group that not everyone walked away, you know, perfectly happy, but that's the sign actually of a good compromise. And so it's really trying to keep that group together that was formed during SB two thirty seven. But again, I do commit to working with the CEC as this bill progresses. If there are any duplicates or ways that this group should form with another and, you know, give a more clear direction, we'll be happy to incorporate that, and I commit to coming back to the committee and sharing with you if we make any of those changes.
Speaker 1
Seeing no other questions, it's been moved by Senator McNerney. You may close.
Speaker 10
As a good senator should say, I respectfully ask for your I vote on SB thirteen thirty seven.
Speaker 31
SB thirteen thirty seven Richardson do pass as amended to appropriations. Allen?
Speaker 31
Allen, I. Achobog? Aye. Achobog, I. Archuleta?
Aye. Archuleta, I. Aragine, Becker, Caballero, Dally, Gonzalez? Gonzalez, I. Grove, Hurtado, McNerney, I.
Reyes, Aye. Reyes aye. Richardson aye. Rubio? Stern?
Strickland?
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. We'll keep the roll open for members to add on. Let's go to you, Senator Ochoa Bogh, who is now here to present item five. That's SB eleven ninety one.
Let's do this first. Or do you want to
Speaker 1
Yeah, do too. So we just do you want to just okay, we can let's we can vote if that's yeah, just to make sure that
Speaker 1
Of course, you're going have to come back for this one, too, though. All right. Let's just go ahead and present, we can
Speaker 8
All right. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Grateful to be here. Senate Bill eleven ninety one extends the sunset date for California high cost Fund A and B programs by five years to 01/01/2033.
Speaker 22
These two universal programs are essential in ensuring that residents in rural and high cost areas of the state have access to affordable, basic telephone services through reliable networks. These networks provide a critical connection between residents and emergency responders during natural disasters and other emergencies, as well as connectivity that's important to daily life. Due to the high cost of serving areas with sparse populations, tough terrain, and extreme weather, the high cost fund programs continue to be necessary for rural communities. California has a long standing commitment to affordable universal service, and these programs have been a key part of the effort since they were first established in statute in 1987, and reauthorized multiple times by the legislature. Joining me today is Eric Votel and VARCOM, and Yolanda Benson with U.
Speaker 6
Eric No, you did fine. Thank you, and I appreciate your help today. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Eric Votaw. I'm the CEO and principal owner of Varcom and DuCor Telephone Company, a California High Cost Fund A recipient and member of Calcom.
Speaker 32
We are in strong support of SB eleven ninety one by Senator Chua Bulk. At its core, this bill is about one thing: making sure that every California, no matter where they live, can access essential telecommunications services. Nucor Telephone Company serves rural communities in Tulare and Tehama Counties, where geography and economics make telecommunications service a challenge to provide. 100% of the children in my DuCor exchange are receiving free lunch. The average median income in DuCor is $73,635 in comparison to the statewide median household income of $99,000 DuCor Telephone Company serves the working poor, those unforgotten who put food on everyone's table.
In my Kennedy Meadows Exchange, which is at 7,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, there is no commercial power. We are the only lifeline to the community to make sure emergency calls go out and the community is able to reach the world. The California High Cost Fund A makes it possible for us to provide access to telecommunication services at rates that are affordable and comparable to what urban customers pay. This program ensures that our customers have access to something fundamental: the ability to dial 911. SB eleven ninety one extends this critical program through 01/01/2033, giving carriers like Duques Telephone Company the regulatory certainty that we need to maintain and invest in the infrastructure that our communities depend upon.
No Californian should be unreachable in crisis because of where they live. We urge you a strong eye, vote on SB eleven ninety one, and thank you very much.
Speaker 17
Good morning, Chair and members. Yolanda Benson here on behalf of U. S. Telecom, the Broadband Association. I represent some of the largest as well as some of the smallest telecommunications companies here in California.
I want to thank the author for carrying this bill. It's very, very, very important. Building on the previous testimony, I can't enough the lack of economies of scale in rural California. Within two miles of network in Downtown L. A, that can serve tens tens to 10,000 people.
Speaker 12
However, in the high desert of the Eastern San Bernardino County and Senator Ochoa Bogue's district, two miles of network might serve one or two customers. To cover the costs of providing service in such remote areas, customers would have to pay $100 or even $200 just for basic service for this kind of service. The California High Cost Fund A and B help to defray the costs for rural Californians so that they have affordable telephone service. While the High Cost Fund programs are focused on helping rural residents, they truly benefit the entire state by assure ensuring that all Californians, both rural and urban alike, are connected. We urge your I vote.
Speaker 30
Pam Loomis on behalf of California's Independent Telephone Companies in support.
Speaker 2
David Good morning. David Nelson on behalf of California Communications Association in strong support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right. Folks who want to raise concerns, opposition about the bill? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee for questions. We'll go to Senator Strickland like to move the bill when appropriate.
We see Senator Reyes.
Speaker 9
I think it's important that everybody have access. This is a subsidized program by the state? What is the cost to the state?
Speaker 17
Thank you. Yolanda Benson, U. S. Telecom, the Broadband Association. The way that it's paid is through a surcharge.
If you look at your telephone bill, it says California High Cost Fund A and B. On mine, it's about $02 as a surcharge. However, the fund itself has not really grown. It's actually gotten smaller. So the fund is not growing Because these companies are very, very good at ensuring that they're doing exactly what they say they're going to do with that subsidy from that is administered by the PUC.
Speaker 9
It isn't something that comes out of the general fund to subsidize them?
Speaker 17
Actually, I don't know I don't believe so, no, because it is the surcharge on your telephone bill. It is not a general fund issue.
Speaker 1
Did I see Senator Archulett had a question? No. Okay. Issue's been clarified. Bill's been moved by Senator Strickland.
Let's let you close, Senator.
Speaker 8
Thank you. SB eleven ninety one extends or states longstanding policy of supporting the availability of affordable, basic telephone service to Californian's rural communities. I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 31
Allen, aye. Achovogue? Aye. Achovogue? Aye.
Archuleta, aye. Arrigine? Becker?
Speaker 31
Becker, aye. Caballero? Dally? Gonzalez? Aye.
Gonzalez I. Grove? Hurtado? McNerney? Aye.
McNerney Aye. Reyes Aye. Richardson? Rubio? Stern?
Strickland Aye. Strickland Aye. Wahab Aye. Wahab Aye.
Speaker 1
Great. All right. Let's go to let's start lifting calls. Well, sorry, I actually have to take some motions. Let's start with SB nine twenty nine.
That's item one. Senator Jones?
Speaker 31
Alan, I. Achobog? Aye. Achobog, I. Archuleta?
Aye. Archuleta, I. Aragine? Becker?
Speaker 31
Becker, I. Caballero? Dally? Gonzalez Groh Gonzalez I, sorry Grove? Hurtado?
McNerney? Aye. McNerney I. Reyes?
Speaker 1
Okay. We'll now go we'll leave that open. Item two SB eleven thirty eight, that's Padilla's bill. Moved by Senator Reyes.
Speaker 31
Oh, Richardson. Okay. Do pass as amended to appropriations. Allen? Aye.
Allen, I. Achoboag Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta. Aye.
Aragine. Becker?
Speaker 31
Becker? Aye. Caballero? Dally? Gonzalez?
Aye. Grove? Hurtado, McNerney, McNerney I, Reyes I, Richardson, Rubio, Stern, Strickland, Wahhab Wahhab I.
Speaker 1
Okay. Next, we'll go to item three SB eleven ninety seven, nine Nilo. Moved by Senator Strickland? Secretary Do
Speaker 31
Becker, Aye. Caballero? Dally? Gonzalez? Aye.
Gonzalez, Aye. Grove? Hurtado, McNerney, McNerney I, Reyes I, Richardson, Rubio, Stern, Strickland I, Wahab I,
Speaker 1
Okay. We'll leave that open. Let's now go to, item four. It's SB nine thirteen by Becker. Move by Senator Reyes.
Speaker 31
Due pass as amended to the Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protections. Allen?
Speaker 31
Becker, aye. Caballero? Dally? Gonzalez? Aye.
Gonzalez, aye. Grove? Hurtado? McNerney?
Speaker 1
Okay. Let's now go to Ochoa I'm sorry, yeah. Ochoa Bogue, item five, SB eleven ninety one.
Speaker 31
Do you pass to appropriations? Current vote, nine zero. Chair, Vice Chair, voting aye. Aragine Caballero? Aye.
Caballero, aye. Dally, Grove, Hurtado? Richardson? Rubio?
Speaker 1
front? Yeah. I'm sorry. You're right. You're right.
What we need to entertain a
Speaker 1
That's correct. I did. That's true. So, item six, SB twelve sixty five by the volunteered Archuleta.
Speaker 31
Hurtado? McNurney? Aye. McNurney I. Reyes?
Reyes I. Richardson? Rubio? Aye. Rubio I.
Stern? No. Strickland?
Speaker 31
Due passes amended to appropriations current vote nine zero chair vice chair voting aye. Aragine. Aye. Aragine. Aye.
Becker. Aye. Becker. Aye. Caballero.
Aye. Caballero. Aye. Caballero. Aye.
Sorry. Grove. Hurtado. Rubio? Aye.
Rubio, I. Stern?
Speaker 1
Okay. Let's go to the top of the order for folks to add on. Jones, SB nine twenty nine.
Speaker 31
Do pass to appropriations? Current vote, nine zero. Chair, Vice Chair, voting aye. Aragine? Aragine?
Aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Grove?
Hurtado? Richardson? Rubio?
Speaker 31
Do pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote, seven-zero. Chair voting, aye. Achoo Bogue? Aragine?
Aye. Aragine, aye. Caballero?
Speaker 31
Caballero, aye. Grove, Hurtado, Richardson, Rubio? Aye. Rubio, I. Stern, Strickland.
Speaker 1
All right, we're now going to go to item three, SB eleven ninety seven, Nilo.
Speaker 20
Do you pass to appropriations current vote, eight-zero? Vice Chair voting, Aye. Allen? Aragine? Caballero, Dally, Grove, Hurtado, Richardson, Rubio, Stern.
Speaker 1
that's great. We'll leave that open. We'll now go to item four, SB nine thirteen, Becker.
Speaker 31
Do pass as amended to privacy, digital technology, and consumer protections. Current vote, ten-zero. Chair vice chair voting, aye. Arrigine? Aye.
Arrigine, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Grove?
Hurtado? Richardson? Stern?
Speaker 1
Okay. Just for everyone to know, by the way, all the amends were accepted for every bill, so for those that were offered. Okay, let's go to item five, SB eleven ninety one Ochoa Boat.
Speaker 31
Excuse me. Do pass to appropriations current vote eleven zero, Chair. Vice Chair voting aye. Arrigine? Aye.
Arrigine, aye. Grove, Hurtado, Richardson, Stern.
Speaker 31
Do pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote, nine-one. Chair and vice chair voting aye. Excuse me. Archuleta, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Richardson, Stern.
Speaker 31
Do you pass as amended to appropriations? Current vote, thirteen-zero, Chair. Vice Chair voting, I. Grove, Hurtado, Stern.
Speaker 1
Okay. We're going to call a recess. I'm going go over to elections. Our Vice Chair has agreed to stay. Thank you, thankfully.
And we'll give opportunity for members to come back and vote as they come.
Speaker 8
Good morning. This is the Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Communications coming back from RECIS. We're going to take the vote for file item number three, SB eleven ninety seven. Senator Nilo, Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 8
Nine zero. And we'll place this bill on call for our absent members. We'll go back to RECIST. Good morning. This is the Committee on Energy Utilities and Communications.
We're coming back from recess. We're going to be lifting call on our bills, starting with file number one, SB nine twenty nine, Jones.
Speaker 8
File item number two, SB eleven thirty eight, Padilla. Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 31
Due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote, ten-zero. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye.
Speaker 8
File item number three, SB eleven ninety seven. Senator Nilo, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 31
Do pass to appropriations. Current vote, nine-zero. Richardson? Not voting. Richardson, not voting.
Speaker 8
File number four, SB nine thirteen. Senator Becker, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 31
Due pass as amended to privacy, digital technology, and consumer protections. Current vote twelve-zero. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye.
Speaker 8
File item number five, SB1191. Senator Rucho Abogue. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 8
Thank you. File item number six, SB1265. Senator Richardson, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 31
Do pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote, nine-one. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye.
Speaker 8
File item number seven, SB 13 sorry. Oh, she must have been this one. Okay, so we're good. All right. We're to go back on RECIS.
This is the Committee on Energy Utilities and Communications. We're going to be lifting calls on bills. We'll start with file item number one, SB nine twenty nine, by Senator Jones. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 31
Do you pass to appropriations current vote thirteen-zero? Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. Stern?
Speaker 8
Oh, wait. We're going to okay, that bill is Goodreau: out. 15 to zero. 15 through To zero. To We'll continue with file item number two, SB1138 by Senator Padilla.
Speaker 31
Due passes amended to appropriations. Current vote, eleven-zero. Echobogue? Hurtado, I, Stern,
Speaker 8
And that bill is out thirteen, zero. We'll continue with file item number three, SB eleven ninety seven by Senator Nilo. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 31
Do pass to appropriations. Current vote, nine-zero. Hurtado? Hurtado, I? Stern?
No. Stern, no. 10 to one.
Speaker 8
Okay, that bill is out, 10 to one. We'll continue with file item number four, SB nine thirteen, by Senator Becker. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 31
Due pass as amended to the Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Current Vote thirteen-zero. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. Stern?
Aye. Stern, aye. Fifteen-zero.
Speaker 8
And that bill is out, thirteen-zero? 15. Fifteen-zero. File item number five, SB eleven ninety one. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 31
1191 Achobogue, due pass to appropriations. Current vote, thirteen, zero. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye.
Stern?
Speaker 8
Speaker: that bill is out, fifteen-zero. File item number six, SB1265 by Senator Richardson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 31
Female Do pass, submitted to appropriations. Current vote, ten-one. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye.
Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Twelve-one.
Speaker 8
And that bill is at twelve-one. File item number seven, SB1337, by Senator Richardson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 31
Due pass as amended to appropriations, current vote thirteen-zero. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. Stern?
Aye. Stern, aye. Fifteen-zero.
Speaker 8
And that bill is out with fifteen-zero. We will now adjourn this committee hearing.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.