Utilities And Energy — 2026-06-10 (partial)

. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon and welcome. I'd like to convene today's hearing of the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy. Before we move to the agenda, I have a couple of housekeeping announcements to make. As is customary, I will maintain decorum throughout today's hearing. In order to hear as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit disruptions that impede the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. Any individual who is disruptive may be removed from the room. Today we have 12 measures on the agenda Seven are on consent Please note that file item number five SB 905 has been pulled from today hearing at the request of the author Testimony is limited to two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition. Each witness will be given two minutes as testimony. And as a reminder, primary witnesses in support must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have registered a support position with the committee, and the primary witnesses in opposition must have their opposition registered with the committee. All other support in opposition can be stated at the standing microphone when called upon. And as a reminder, please simply state your name, affiliation, and position when providing Me Too testimony. If we exceed today's hearing time, please submit your testimony through the email address on the committee's website. All right, we do not have a quorum, so we'll go ahead and proceed as a subcommittee. Let's see. I think we've got our first author here. Senator McNerney, welcome. We will begin with file item number one, SB 327. Senator, welcome.

Welcome. Yes. Hi. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee. Adria Tinnin, Director of Race, Equity, and Legislative Policy for TURN, the Utility Reform Network. Here is a proud sponsor and support of SB 327. This bill prohibits utilities from abusing ratepayer dollars to work against the establishment or expansion of a municipal utility and clarifies the public advocate's office's authority to inspect the accounting of for-profit investor-owned utility companies to ensure their compliance with the law. California residents pay the highest energy rates in the continental U.S., while our investor-owned utility companies have the highest profits in the country. Many ratepayers are desperate to find a less expensive alternative to the for-profit model, such as a municipal utility. Unfortunately, for-profit investor-owned utilities spend money to fight the establishment or expansion of municipal utilities, undermining local freedom of choice to preserve their monopoly power. SB 327 ensures that ratepayer money is not used to undermine the establishment or expansion of municipal utilities. To be clear, the bill does not prohibit IOUs from fighting against municipalization. It simply prohibits they are using ratepayer dollars to do so. They are still more than welcome to use their own shareholder funding however they see fit. At a time when people across the state are suffering from skyrocketing bills, it's critical that every ratepayer dollar is used responsibly and appropriately, not against the interests of ratepayers. Lastly, SB 327 clarifies the PAO's existing authority to inspect the books of investor-owned utilities to ensure compliance with the law, and this needs to be formalized into statute. It's vital that the state's only public consumer advocate have access to the information they need to ensure that for-profit utilities are indeed complying with the law. SB 327 reaffirms and codifies the CPUC's historical statutory interpretation that the PAO has the ability to do discovery of financial accounts of utilities. This is something that utilities have long complied with, and this bill simply enshrines and clarifies the status quo. This codification is necessary as utilities are increasingly trying to push back on data requests, causing undue delays. To achieve affordability and to realize all of the great legislation that this body has moved forward in the last few years, we have to ensure accountability and transparency, and that's what SB 327 does. I urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you.

At this time, we'll move to additional testimony and support. If you'd like to testify in support of SB 327, please approach the microphone at this time. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Earth Justice in support. Will Brueger for Climate Action California in support. Ariana Montez on behalf of the Affordable Energy Campaign, representing over two dozen energy advocacy and environmental advocacy groups in support. Ruth Holton-Hunton with Third Act in support. Catherine Keeney, Sacramento, in support Charlene Woodcock, Berkeley, in support Allison Hilliard with the Climate Center, in support Chloe Ames with NextGen California, in support Andrew Rubang with the Public Advocates Alpha, in support Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, in support Michelle Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists in support. Christine Eichen from Tracy in support. Catherine Espetia from Tracy in support. Greg Spooner from Sacramento in support. Yvette DiCarlo, Sacramento in support. Susanna Porte, Berkeley, support. Eric Lerner, Alliance for Californians for Community Empowerment. We urge you to support this. Thank you. Thank you. All right, turning to witnesses in opposition. If we have primary witnesses, you can approach the dais at this time. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Joe Zanzi with SoCal Gas and San Diego Gas and Electric here in respectful opposition. I do want to start just, and I'll be brief, just thanking the committee for the analysis and the amendments, I think, for the PAO piece definitely move in the right directions. We're still taking a look internally to see how they play out, but we definitely see it as a positive direction for the bill. And then secondly, on the municipalization piece, you know, AP 1167 was passed last year. There's a lot of similarities in the two bills, And we just we want to continue to work with the author on the way 1167 was crafted and to hopefully incorporate some of those exemptions into the bill that into SB 327 dealing with things that we're required to do legally when it comes to, you know, this is a at the PUC or at local cities and things like that. So hope to continue to work with you on those issues. And that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Additional witnesses in opposition, if you'd like to testify in opposition to SB 327, please come on up. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Amanda Guelderamo with Cal Broadband. We are opposed unless amended to this bill. Thank you. Good afternoon, Yolanda Benson on behalf of U.S. Telecom, the Broadband Association, also opposed unless amended. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members, Brady Vanninglen here on behalf of Southern California Edison and opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair members. Caitlin Johnson with Political Solutions on behalf of California Water Association in Opposed and Less Amended. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Jonathan Aronbaum on behalf of CTIA, the Trade Association for the Wireless Industry, also in opposition. Hello, Valerie Trellavajo, Pacific Gas and Electric Company in Opposition. Good afternoon. John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce, Opposed and Less Amended, but it sounds like you guys are moving in the right direction. Thank you. Pam Loomis on behalf of the small telephone companies that are members of Cal com, opposed unless amended. All right. Thank you. Bringing it back to committee questions or comments. Assembly member Rogers. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Senator, for, for bringing back a SB 24 from, from last year. I think most of us in committee supported it in committee. And then on the floor, There is one substantial difference between SB24 from last year and this year, other than correcting the clerical error, and that's that you have expanded it to include telecom, which I do not believe was included in 24 last year. broadband institutions. You good? Was that intentional? Or because you went through this process last year, were you looking to include more than just our electricity and gas utility providers? Yeah, it was intentional, Samimur. I appreciate the question. we want to make sure that the utilities, including telecom, are playing by the same rules. Okay. And for me, the bill kind of reads in two different parts. The first part, which I'm very supportive of, is making sure that repair dollars aren't going towards the lobbying efforts around municipalization. I think that you've already laid out the case for that. The second part really is around access to information and the PAO's office. What I heard was that there's been an increase in pushback on data requests that is prompting some of this bill. Is that specific for PAOs or is that for the CPUC? And what's the adjudication process when the PAO asks for information that is denied by the utility provider currently? Okay, I'll let Adrienne take your question. Yeah. So I will take the first step at answering this. And then I also, we do have Annabelle Hopkins here from the PAO who can probably add a little bit more detail to this. So what has how how this has operated in reality over the last several decades the CPUC there is statute says that the CPUC its staff commissioners anybody employed by the CPUC has the authority to inspect the books of utilities And that does not mean any regulatory functions or any ability to instill fines or penalties of any sort, just simply inspection, the right to do discovery. That has always been understood to apply to the public advocate's office as well, since it's housed within the commission, even though it is independent. What we've seen recently is sort of an uptick in utilities trying to not comply with discovery. In other words, they are given a data request and there is an attempt or a pushback to not provide said data request. That's a real problem for affordability because we can't actually achieve affordability if we don't have accountability. And we can't have accountability if we don't have transparency, if we can't see what's going on. And that's all a data request functionally is, just information. So for the most part, over the last several decades, utilities have complied with that. They have been good actors and they have complied with discovery, but we have seen an increased pushback and we have seen a need to clarify the PAO specifically in addition to just the regular commission in statute. I want to, so this is not specific to any one industry. It's specific to the PAO's ability to conduct discovery. I would like to call up Annabelle to add, and I will switch out my chair. Or actually, let me just join that one. I think you did a pretty good job answering it, but if the Assemblymember wants more detail, you're certainly welcome to. Yeah, my question really is, you said that there's pushback, that you aren't getting the same information. What is the process then that the CPUC or the PAO goes through to determine whether or not the pushback is warranted? And what are some examples where in which you have seen pushback and what type of data are the utilities trying not to provide? Thank you, Assemblymember. Annabelle Hopkins with the Public Advocates Office. It's a great question. We do receive quite a lot of pushback to our data requests from utilities regulated by the CPUC. There is a formal process whereby a utility can challenge a request for information or a request to review the financial accounts of the utility. There is a formal process where the CPUC can review that challenge and determine whether or not it's appropriate. And I'm happy to follow up in writing with a formalized write-up of the process. And then also, I think in answer to the question that was raised as to what types of pushback we receive from utilities, It is across the board. It ranges on across quite a range of various reasons that we may receive from a utility, that the information that we are seeking is not something that we should have eyes on, in other words. But oftentimes we do have a formal process, as I mentioned, for the CPUC to determine if the request is appropriate. And then if I might just to the first question that was asked about broadband utilities or telephone corporations, it is our understanding that the language from SB24 from last year also included utilities outside of energy utilities. So it also included water utilities, telephone corporations, broadband companies who are regulated by the PUC. Just a couple more questions, I promise. But so in the process where in which a data request is pushed back on and it goes to this adjudication, how often are you seeing the CPUC side with industry versus side with the PAO? How much of a problem is this It a great question I personally don know an approximate percentage of the time where it approved versus rejected I be happy to follow up with you on that On average most of the time, the PUC does understand that what we are requesting is appropriate per the scope of what we're assessing or what proceeding we're participating in, whether we are reviewing the financial recovery requests that may come in through a GRC or through a memorandum account, or if this is, for example, if there's a potential merger happening, sometimes in those instances, we will also need to review some of the financial accounts at the utilities. And on average, they're generally approved. And so when they are denied the CPUC, basically what they are saying is that they feel like there's information that falls outside the scope of what the PAO is supposed to do. That would be correct. But as I mentioned, most of the time, our requests are approved. Yeah. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you. And if I may just add, the committee amendments do expressly preserve the existing procedural check that requires that a utility objection to a PAO data request will continue to be decided in writing by either the assigned commissioner or the PUC president. All right. Assemblymember Zabur. Thank you for bringing this bill. I think the goals of the bill, obviously, are good ones, obviously. You know, I had some concerns last year with the same version of the bill and also had some concerns with AB 1167, not because I disagreed with the goals of the bills, but because I thought that there wasn't adequate precision in terms of what the bills were allowing and prohibiting. I do think that it's important that the IOUs have the ability to participate in proceedings and give information about the impacts of different things that are before legislative and regulatory bodies. And I think where you draw the line between engaging in political influence and providing information and participation is one that's difficult. And I don't think I have concerns about whether or not this bill and the prior version of the bills got that right. Can you explain to me what's not what what this bill does that wasn't covered by AB 1167? because when I look at it, it seems like AB 1167 would prohibit lobbying against municipalization because when you look at that bill, it basically prohibited electric and gas corporations from using ratepayer funds on political influence activities, which are defined as for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing legislation, regulatory action, elections, public opinion, or decisions of public officials. So that would seem to me to include municipalization. On top of that, you know, the other bill preserved, at least to some extent, some bucket of activities that were related to, you know, cases where they have to participate in a regulatory or legislative function, which of course we want them to do. So can you talk about sort of what was left from 1167 that this is trying to get at? Because that's what I'm sort of confused about, why this is sort of needed given that 1167 was passed. I think for the question, I'm going to empower Adria to answer that. Thank you for the question. I'm happy to answer that is turn also sponsored 1167 So intervening in city council or county board of supervisors processes can be a gray area when it comes to sort of how lobbying is typically defined It slightly different than the state legislature. It's not always clear in the specific context of decision-making about municipalization what reaches the threshold of lobbying in 1167. And so the bill will clarify that and set important guardrails to protect rate payers to ensure that their money is not being used to thwart their freedom of choice and decision-making at the city and county level. So I still think it's sort of gray in terms of what the bill allows and doesn't allow, and what this bill does. It's different from 1167. The focus on municipalization, I mean, I clearly don't think that IOU should be lobbying against municipalization. I mean, if that's something that should be done in a sort of a balanced way based on all the information that's out there, I think they should be able to participate in a proceeding to answer questions and give pros and cons. 1167 had some guardrails in it, you know, that basically excluded activities that directly and necessarily related to appearances before regulatory and other governmental agencies, activities to respond to a request by a legislative committee, a commission or governmental agency for technical information, all of that. I don't see those things in this bill. Are you willing to continue working on it to make sure? I mean, you understand what my concern is. It's like we need to have folks that have information participating in these proceedings, and we need to draw a careful line between what is lobbying for an outcome versus participation that I think is necessary to make good informed decisions. So I just want to ask if you're willing to continue working on this set of things and obviously the guardrails that were 1167 at a minimum, I think should need to be in this bill. So first of all, I want to stress that this doesn't prohibit IOUs from opposing municipalization and lobbying. It just prohibits them from using ratepayer funds to do that. I want to make that crystal clear. And yes, we are interested in perfecting the bill. Okay. I mean, I'm going to I think the goals of the bill are laudable. And so I'm going to support the bill today. But I think that the details are important. And, you know, the reason why I didn't support the bill last year is because I thought that there was an adequate attention to making sure that that the IOUs can participate in a proceeding. and they've got a wealth of knowledge that I sort of feel I need at times to make good, informed decisions about what we're doing. And so that would be in the broader case as well as issues with respect to municipalization. So I'm going to take that as a commitment to continue working with them on this set of issues, and I would ask that you look in particular at the guardrails that were in 1167 and consider including those in this bill. If I may, Assemblymember, because I think I've got some good news for you. So this bill actually just adds municipalization opposition to the existing list of expenses that was created with 1167. So the reason that those guardrails are not prescribed specifically in the language of this bill is because it is already part of the statute that the section of code created by 1167. So by definition, all of those guardrails would apply here. Would apply here. Yes. That's great to know. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Additional questions or comments? Senator, would you like to close? Well, again, I thank the committee, the chairwoman, and the staff for working with us on this. And I appreciate the thoughtful comments. I will ask for an aye vote. All right. And some more good news. We've got a quorum. So, Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Petrie Norris. Aye. Here. Oh, not aye. Present. I'm just, I'm ready. I'm ready. Petrie Norris, present. Patterson, Berner, Calderon. Chen, Davies, Davies here, Gonzalez, Herbidion, Hart, Irwin, Irwin here, Kalra, Kalra here, Pappen, here, Pappen here, Rogers, Rogers here, Chiavo, here, Schultz, Ta, Ta here, Wallace? Wallace here. Zuber? Zuber here. Calderon? Here. Calderon here. Okay, great. So we have got a quorum. We now need a motion and a second on the measure before us, SB 327. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll. SB 327. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Petrie Norris. Aye. Petrie Norris. Aye. Patterson. Berner. Calderon. Chen. Davies. Aye. Davies. Aye. Gonzalez. Herbidion. Hart. Irwin. Aye. Irwin. Aye. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Rogers? Aye. Rogers, aye. Chiavo? Aye. Chiavo, aye. Schultz? Ta? No. Ta, no. Wallace? Not voting. Wallace, not voting. Subur? Aye. Subur, aye. 8-1, so that bill's on call, and we'll leave it open for absent members to add on. Moving to Senator McNerney, your next bill. At SB 327, vote change, TAH, from no to not voting. All right. So updated vote count eight zero and eight zero. That measure is still on call. OK, so moving to file item number 12, SB 1350 by Senator McNerney. And I believe you'll be joined by your joint author, Assemblymember Creel. Welcome. The floor is yours, gentlemen. Well, thank you, Chair Petrie-Norris, Vice Chair Patterson, and distinguished members of the committee. First of all, I want to thank the committee for moving quickly on this bill, which is moving on an expedited basis, driven by the deadline for the federal clean energy tax credits this very summer. California is committed to 100% renewable or clean energy by 2045, and this is one way to get there. The federal government unfortunately has canceled credits for clean energy projects and has canceled $1.2 billion in funding for California's proposed hydrogen hub called Arches. Hydrogen can be made from renewable sources and is a clean, safe fuel source that can help us meet our clean energy targets Hydrogen can be used to transition existing power infrastructure into clean energy infrastructure SB 1350 will help California utilize hydrogen to decarbonize our power system. SB 1350 stimulates investments in hydrogen projects by allowing power plants to get renewable portfolio standard credits, RPS credits when they use green hydrogen made from renewable sources to power turbines. By incentivizing in-state hydrogen projects, we're also creating thousands of jobs. One hydrogen production project alone in Lancaster, it's called Element, is creating 1,200 union construction jobs. I want to assure members that I have taken several amendments for the environmental community through the three Senate committees, including ensuring that there are no net increases in emissions from turbines using hydrogen. Should the bill move forward today, I am working with the Senate Natural Resources on some final amendments to address environmental concerns. However, due to timing, the chair has graciously allowed me not to take any amendments in this committee. With us today to testify is my principal co-author, Assemblymember Carrillo, Tim Karmameyer from the Green Hydrogen Coalition, and Jeremy Smith from the State Building and Construction Trade Councils. At this point, I'll turn over and empower my friend and colleague, Mr. Carrillo, to take the stand. Thank you, Senator McNerney, and thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee for an opportunity to co-present. I am a proud principal co-author of SB 1350 and have seen firsthand the benefits of hydrogen projects. Within my district, the city of Lancaster has been an early adopter of hydrogen and has seen as a worldwide leader in hydrogen investment and industry development. In December of 2024, Lancaster launched the first public hydrogen authority, otherwise known as FPH2, as California's first public hydrogen utility. FPH2 was established to revolutionize hydrogen accessibility and affordability by connecting renewable hydrogen producers with various municipalities and industrial operators through transparent marketplace. Since then, FPH2 has laid the foundation for the normalization of hydrogen as a key energy source that directly helps the city of Lancaster generate more than clean energy than it consumes. California must continue creating policies that support investment and innovation. Projects such as the Lancaster Clean Energy Center have potential to create, as the senator mentioned, more than 1,200 construction jobs while significantly reducing emissions from California's power sector. Members, for these reasons, I use your aye vote on SB 1350. All right. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Chair Petrie-Norris, members of the committee, my name is Tim Kammer, and I'm the Director of Policy for the Green Hydrogen Coalition, an educational 501c3 nonprofit focused on the thoughtful advancement of renewable and clean hydrogen. I would like to start by thanking the chair and committee staff for working with the author's office and sponsors on this bill. I also want to thank all of the members of this committee and their staff for working with us over the past two days. I know it has been a very fast 48 hours. Members, renewable hydrogen is a carbon-free fuel that can be produced in large quantities and used to ensure reliability in our power sector. It can help with emergency reserves when the choice is an outage or burning diesel And it already informally defined in the guidebook and eligible when used in linear generators and in fuel cells As we are now facing a severe energy price volatility there is need for fuel diversification and increasing our resilience within the portfolios SB 1350 is the logical extension that puts renewable hydrogen on the same footing as other renewables in the guidebook. To be clear, nothing about 1350 mandates nor requires its utilization. Instead, it provides another opportunity for load-serving entities to meet their carbon goals in using existing infrastructure. And that means we get to achieve our clean energy goals affordably. Any use of renewable hydrogen turbines will still be held to the same stringent standards that restrict emissions from power plants today. Our air quality management districts would not permit any power plant that didn't meet the world-class emission standards. Members, SB 1350 is needed because the power sector is one of the few sectors that can utilize a lot of hydrogen near-term. This level of demand is what is going to encourage development across the entire state, leading to larger production facilities driving down costs and enabling faster conversion in other hard debate sectors. Members let's be clear, in the past few years the world has changed for the renewable hydrogen industry, but the promise and the opportunity, they still exist. SB 1350 is the opportunity to take those headwinds that have been coming at us and try and pivot so that we don't lose all of the great work we've been doing. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm members of the committee. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. You might be interested to know that our lead staffer of the building trades on hydrogen is President Chris Hannon. He cannot be here today, but make no mistake, this is a very important project, not only for the work opportunities it's going to present to the members that we represent, But also for the goals that California is setting for itself for clean energy. We are very excited about hydrogen. It's one of those – projects like this are one of those projects that people talk about when they talk about a transition from current energy. This is one of those examples of a place where not only our members can go to work to use the skills they've developed in the traditional energy sector, but also to help California meet many of its goals. As Tim mentioned, we are facing some headwinds nationally when it comes to hydrogen. It would be a shame to lose the momentum we have for this particular project in Mr. Curio's district to not only provide an important project for the institution of hydrogen in the state and the job that comes with it, but also just to show for when things change maybe nationally that hydrogen can be done, can be done in a good way, in a stable way, and the jobs and economic benefit that it provides are real and effective. So we're happy to support the bill today. I want to thank the chair, your staff, your personal staff, everybody else involved in getting us here today from yesterday. We appreciate the time to be able to be here and hear the bill today so it can keep moving in an expedited fashion. Thank you. I urge your aye vote. Thank you. All right. Additional witnesses in support. Go ahead and approach the microphone. Good afternoon. Alfredo Arredondo on behalf of GeoKill, Yosemite Clean Energy, GeoAmonia, Energy Vault, and Hanwha Power all in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Alfredo Medina here on behalf of Element Resources. We'd like to thank the author and principal co-author for all the work and staff. Appreciate it. Madam Chair members Brian White on behalf of First Public Hydrogen also known as FPH2 also in support Madam Chair members Cesar Diaz here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Business Council in strong support Thank you Good afternoon. Keely Morris on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in support. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. members Hunter Stern with IBW 1245, whose members work for Northern California Power Agency, the city of Lodi and PG&E, who are engaged in a separate project in strong support. Good afternoon. Shane Levine on behalf of the Northern California Power Agency in support. Thank you. Margie Lee on behalf of the Southern California Public Power Authority in support. All right. Turning to witnesses in opposition. If you are here to testify in opposition, come on up to the dais. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker, you're on behalf of Earth Justice and respectful opposition. I want to first say we acknowledge we appreciate the amendments that the senator has taken to date. We do feel like it's moved the bill in a better direction. With that said, we still do oppose. We feel that the bill could use some more safeguards. I think the committee analysis really highlights where some of those safeguards could be put in, namely ensuring that the non-fossil-based feedstocks comply with some of the standards set out throughout the renewable portfolio standard statutes, as well as the fact that the hydrogen being produced and should actually be physically delivered to the turbines. Otherwise, we're going to end up with paper transactions. We're going to see where the facilities that are combusting and creating the energy are simply purchasing credits elsewhere outside of the state, and we're not going to actually see those climate benefits that the bill is trying to promote. So those safeguards we think would improve the bill. For us, we really take issue with the fact that we're going to be combusting gas in fossil fuel plants. That's going to continue NOx emissions. We appreciate that the bill attempts to address this issue. We don't quite see how this language is going to work, though. We don't see how individual air quality districts are going to collectively ensure that we're seeing NOx emissions decrease. Is it going to allow for NOx emissions to increase potentially in one air district basin, while in others it's decreasing, and if that's the outcome, who's actually ensuring that those two air districts are talking to each other? We don't have a state entity sort of overseeing this part of the process. You know, NOx emissions are one of the main pollutants damaging human health. And so ongoing NOx pollutions associated with these facilities that we call RPS is why we are in opposition. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Additional witnesses in opposition. If you'd like to testify in opposition, please approach the microphone at this time. Will Breger for Climate Action California, respectfully opposed. Gabriela Fossey with Sierra Club California in respectful opposition. Michelle Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists in respectful opposition. Thank you. All right, bringing it back to committee, Assemblymember Kalra. Thank you. Madam Chair, I appreciate the author and I'm very well aware of the author's diligence on these issues, as well as the sponsors. I do share some of the concerns from some of our environmental organizations. However, I also sit on the Natural Resources Committee. I know there's a lot of ongoing conversations that have been occurring and will continue to occur that are probably best suited to be resolved in the jurisdiction of that committee. And so I'll be voting for this today and look forward to continue conversation and to get updates as to as to how the conversations with stakeholders are going are going. Thank you. Assemblymember Rogers. Thank you, Chair. And I agree with my colleague. I've been working for the last year and a half on green hydrogen issues. And the state has to ramp up about seventeen hundred percent of what our current production is just to meet our existing goals and our existing roadmap towards a net zero economy. and I do know that there are some substantial concerns from folks that we have heard, and perhaps if you could talk a little bit about where you anticipate seeing this go, because some of the opposition letters do talk about a requirement that if you're going to get RPS credit, that the green hydrogen has to be produced with RPS-eligible energy sources. I think that the term was book and claim around making sure that it's not just a paper transaction, but an actual reduction in emissions. And then the other one that I'm hoping that you'll address is what percentage or how are you dictating the amount of hydrogen that comes into the project versus the amount of the energy source that can be utilized as an RPS eligible entity? Okay. Well, thank you for the question. To put a finer point on it for folks, making sure that a little bit of green hydrogen doesn't turn into all of the fuel source being considered RPS. That's a good set of questions. First of all, I want to say that in my opening remarks, I referred to the Senate Natural Resources, and I really meant to refer to the Assembly Natural Resources. And the last thing we want to do is see hydrogen used as a way to blanket emissions that would be otherwise caught. And so we have worked on some of the issues that have been discussed. And I think the issue of transportation from the source to the turbine is an important one. And I'm sure that we'll be looking at that one carefully. But I just want to say we've taken seven amendments to date to address these environmental concerns. For example, this one, the use of hydrogen results in a net increase in air pollutants. That's absolutely critical for hydrolytic hydrogen, which is using electricity to directly produce hydrogen. The operator shall demonstrate hourly matching of hydrogen production with renewable energy production. renewable energy production. These are pretty big requirements. Ensure no resource shuffling, unbundling RECs, or doubling counting. So these are being built into the process at this point. And your second question, I was going to turn it over to Tim. Thank you, Senator. Yeah, to your second question, I think we can answer two parts of the questions. The first about the concern of the blend I would note Senate Energy had similar concerns which is why they asked and we agreed to take on the amendment requiring at least a 20 capacity That was based on an NREL report, and I think it was very, you know, the author was understandably accepting it. The second one about the argument about making sure that we're not throwing 5% hydrogen and now calling it 100% clean turbine, I would point to PUC code section 399.12. I think it's subsection H. Don't quote me on that. I want to make sure I'm clear. But it actually talks about a diminutist blend. And if it's going below, it's not going to count at all. And it specifically refers to the renewable energy credits. So I think that while this bill has taken a lot of amendments, as the senators noted, we appreciate the concerns from the environmental side. But we also want to highlight there are a lot of really good guardrails in the RPS already. We're merely asking to be on the same foot for it. All right. I just want to say about the 20% minimum is that the reason that number is chosen is because below 20%, there's no improvement in emissions. So it has to be 20% or above to qualify. Got it. Thank you. Assemblymember Zabar. I want to thank the author and the witnesses on both sides of this. I'm going to be supporting the bill today in part because I know that it's necessary in order to allow this Lancaster facility to sort of move forward. And, you know, that's something that I think is exemplary in terms of what it's doing. That said, this bill applies broader than that. And so, you know, I'm very nervous about opening up the RPS in a way that undermines it. And so, you know, really appreciate the comments made by the environmental community. I think I'm glad that you are continuing to work with them. And so I encourage you to do that. And in particular with some of the comments that were made by the Natural Resources Defense Council and some of the other environmental groups, I do think there needs to be some additional improvements made in that area. But I'll be voting for the bill today and encourage you to, and, you know, appreciate the commitment to continue working with the environmental community as the bill moves forward. Assemblymember Davies. Thank you, Chair. Senator, I want to say thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. I think it's so important. We've been trying to work on hydrogen, at least since I've been here since 2020 and trying to have the governor's support. And it's great that you're continuing to push this. Obviously, we know that we need much more than one or two sources of clean energy out there to provide the grid and everything that we have in this state. And I can tell you that Orange County, part of my district, is definitely strong with hydrogen facilities, working hard in there, bringing jobs. So I would definitely be supporting this and would be happy to be a co-author. Thank you. Thank you. SMA member Papin. So I'm going to come at this from optimistic, perhaps Pollyanna. because I think we will get there as it relates to green energy and the requirements that I think some of our environmental friends will want. So my question is, is there going to come a time when these turbines can run solely on the clean hydrogen that we're going to be pumping in? Will they always need a part of natural gas to get off the ground? Then we won't have to worry about my friend from Santa Rosa and the percentage of green hydrogen that we're using to get you in the RPS category. I'm going to show my own age and quote Obama here when I say, yes, we can. It is. Okay I going to turn a little bit Sorry The room yeah it fun I want to make sure the mic can hear me Yes they are all able to be retrofitted to take over up 100 In fact, right now, I know one of the projects we talk about is ScatterGood that is going to hopefully be approved and retrofitted, and it might start at 30%, but I think the long-term goal is to get to 100%. So I sometimes hear the environmental concern about the facilities and not wanting to use natural gas facilities, but I guess I don't always consider them natural gas facilities. They're just facilities we've been using natural gas in, but we can modify them. I mean, this is the state of recycling. We can repurpose and we can make it better. If I may, Madam Chair, just all that point, because I made so many comments about the NOx emissions, and that really is a base of our concern here. I just want to point out that right now, studies are showing that even a full 100% percent deliverer of hydrogen can actually increase NOx emissions. So there is the blend where fossil gas and hydrogen can lead to more emissions, but the higher flame temperature that is necessary to burn the hydrogen can actually increase NOx emissions. Now we've heard from industry that there are retrofits, there are scrubbers. So right now, all of these are sort of future technologies. We have not seen these in practice. So just want to point that out, that a pure blend from a NOx standard could be problematic. And I'd like to follow that by saying that NOx emissions can be scrubbed. Don't dispute that, but just the fact that the technologies are not yet commercially being applied that we've seen to say that that is actually going to happen. Thank you. Assemblymember Patterson. Vice Chair Patterson. Great, thank you. I had something else to say with that. That last comment kind of made it seem like maybe your position in perpetuity is going to just be against hydrogen, even if it's totally green hydrogen. Is that your position? As it relates to this bill, as it relates to burning and combusting hydrogen in this fashion, I would think my client would stay in that position. As it relates to green hydrogen solely as a fuel source, it's just going to depend on how it's utilized. Because, I mean, I get the sense that, you know, we're looking at, in a bipartisan way, making investments somewhere, you know, in hydrogen and maybe that's pure green hydrogen or whatnot. But, you know, that might be difficult to do if the environmental community is opposing all aspects of hydrogen. I would say, again, we don't oppose all aspects of hydrogen. We've done studies and have talked about the fact that for what we determine to be green hydrogen, there are going to be some applications where it is certainly viable and appropriate. it's going to be expensive. So where we are making those investments and utilizing that fuel, we need to be really strategic about. And in this case, again, because we are combusting this through turbines, which is going to have NOx emission effects, this is an application that we don't see as the best investment. Yeah. I mean, I respectfully submit that we have kind of an energy crisis now and we have to start making investments now for things for the future now and I think if the position is going to be that hey look we need to go very slow on investments in hydrogen I mean we're never we never going to get it done you know I remember being a staff person here you know when Governor Schwarzenegger was governor and you know all the talk about the hydrogen highway and things like that And by the way I remember a lot of the environmental community behind some of those actions And now it's like, hey, you know, let's not even let's not even do big, you know, large scale hydrogen projects. I mean, it's a it is a dramatic, you know, these little nuances are actually dramatic shifts in the position of the environmental community that are very concerning because, the energy demands of this state are growing substantially. We hear it every single hearing in this building that we have here. And we actually don't have the time to take it slow and think about it. We have to make decisions now for the future. And I think this bill here is like a very, very modest step in investments in hydrogen. And I would say we need to go much further than this, but I'm pleased to support this bill today because I think we need to do something. If we're going to debate it all day long, we're never going to get things done. So I appreciate you bringing this bill forward, and I think it's a step in the right direction. And I know you've had to make some compromises in some places, and that's part of the process, too. So thanks for bringing it, and I look forward to supporting it. All right. Well, I too would like to thank you for bringing this measure forward, Senator McNerney. I am a big believer that as we work to decarbonize California's economy, we need to take an all of the above approach. And I think that hydrogen is and will continue to be an important part of that puzzle. I was really excited when my district was selected as the headquarters of Arches. As you mentioned in your opening comments, we've experienced some very serious headwinds along that journey from the federal government. But this project in Lancaster was one of the Arches projects. And as you said in your opening comments, if we can get this done, it's going to deliver $1.8 billion in federal tax credits as an infusion into the state's economy and create thousands of good-paying, high-quality union jobs. So I think that this is an important bill, and I'm happy to support it today. Would you like to close? Yes, I would. The bill will help California go green and meet our 100 percent goals. In fact, the CARB has said that we aren't going to meet our clean energy goals without hydrogen. I respectfully ask an aye vote, and I look forward to working with the Natural Resources Committee. All right. Thank you, Senator. I believe we need a motion. Okay. Motion from Assemblymember Wallace, second from Assemblymember Davies. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll? Item number 12, SB 1350. The motion is due pass to Natural Resources. Petrie Norris? Aye. Petrie Norris, aye. Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Berner? Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye. Chen? Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Harabideon? Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Pappan? Aye. Pappan, aye. Rogers? Aye. Rogers, aye. Chiavo? Aye. Chiavo, aye. Schultz? Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Wallace? Aye. Call us aye. Sabur. Aye. Sabur, aye. 14. 14-0. That bill is out, and we'll leave the roll open for absent members to add on. Thank you, Senator. Okay. Moving to file item number 4, SB 868. Welcome, Senator Weiner. The floor is yours, Senator. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm here today to present Senate Bill 868, the Plug-and-Play Solar Act, which will give Californians, particularly renters and people who can't afford upfront costs for rooftop solar, the ability to benefit from solar energy by using a plug-in solar device, which we are seeing in other parts of the world, other parts of the country, are a key way for people to be able to reduce their energy costs and to expand solar energy. I want to thank the chair and committee staff for working hard with us on the bill, and I'm happy to accept the committee's amendments, which do the following, specify that each balcony solar device outputs no more than 1,200 watts per dwelling, clarify that these systems are designed to be connected and disconnected through a receptacle, which is a technical term for an outlet, adding clarification that portable devices that do not meet the safety standards and definitions of SB 868 will not qualify for the interconnection exemptions under the bill, and allowing utilities to request make and model in addition to address and size of the device if the utility chooses to mandate registration. So we're happy to accept the committee's amendments, and we appreciate the committee's engagement. SB 868 eliminates red tape so that people in California can actually use plug-in solar. Right now, if you are a renter or a homeowner that can't afford upfront costs for solar and you want to use one of these devices, you have to enter into an interconnection agreement with your utility. Not surprisingly, very few people do that. These are devices that you plug into an outlet and you can put it on a balcony or somewhere else at a sunlight and it will generate a limited amount of solar energy that can power appliances in your home. It does not feed back into the grid. There's no NEM issue here. It's simply a way, it's sort of a vague equivalent of if you were to get a more energy efficient appliance, you simply will draw less from the grid. These devices have been used in Germany, where they're really ramping them up, I think more than a million of them so far. Utah, Virginia, and other states have adopted this approach. In Virginia, it was a key part of Governor Spanberger's affordability agenda after she took office to give people the power to reduce their bills. And we should do this in California. These are proven technology. There are built-in safety standards. In the Senate, we took amendments making very clear you have to comply with both the national and the California electric code. And this is a step that we should take in California to help people control their costs. And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me today to testify is Bernadette Del Chiaro the Senior Vice President of Environmental Working Group a co of the bill and Melvin Willis with the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment ACE And we have Bill Brooks from Brooks Engineering here as a technical witness if technical questions come up. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. And Pete Jackson with UL Solutions. Sorry. My apologies. and UL is the national certifying. Okay. And then you've got two primary witnesses. Two primary witnesses and two technical here. Your role in deep. If questions come up, yes. Okay. Madam Chair, members of the committee, my name is Bernadette Del Chiaro. I'm Senior Vice President with the Environmental Working Group and proud sponsor of AB 868 along with the Abundance Network. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. Thank you to the author for bringing this historic bill forward and thank you to the chair and staff for working with us. We really appreciate it. Balcony solar really is as simple as the senator just described. You really do just need a small patch of sunlight, a solar panel. You plug it into an inverter, you plug it into an outlet, and it immediately can save you money and power your home. If SB 868 passes, we expect to be able to buy these devices, pull them off a shelf of Home Depot and other convenience stores, and help people immediately start to save money. Speaking of, we estimate that a 400-watt system, which is about the size of this table here, will cover about 14% of a typical renter's apartment annual electricity bill, saving about $250 a year. SB868 is also a safety bill. It puts in place first-ever statewide safety standards to make sure those devices are safe for everyone to use here in the state of California. Furthermore, it caps the system size. And so doing, by design, makes these simply for self-consumption. The solar devices will rarely, if ever, export electrons beyond the dwelling. To give you an example of that, that 400-watt system would be expected to generate about the amount of electricity as a refrigerator uses, along with a modem and a Wi-Fi router. These are constant loads inside our homes and apartments. A larger system, the 1,200 watt that is the maximum under the bill, is about the amount of electricity a window air conditioner unit uses, enabling families, especially in our hotter regions, to afford to cool their home on increasingly hot days. There's a lot of urgency to passing this bill. Other states, as the senator mentioned, have adopted this same policy, but we really need California's market to bring the economies of scale. Thank you so much. We ask for your support. Thank you. Hello, members of the committee. My name is Melvin Willis. Once again, I am with ACE, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. I'm a former Richmond City Council member and also a renter who is a utilities customer, and I do have utility debt. And on behalf of ACE and the Affordable Energy Campaign, we ask you for a yes vote on SB868. Having access to balcony solar would be a game changer for many Californians, including renters. Those who are on fixed income and working class consumers like myself were faced with soaring high energy costs. Being able to have access to a portable device that I'd be able to plug into my home would mean I would instantly start to begin to save money. Lessening the stress that a lot of us feel when we go to simply cook a meal or what was already mentioned when facing extreme weather conditions trying to regulate the temperature through AC or heater Also last year myself my home and my workplace we had several blackouts that just happened in quick succession It got so bad that I stopped setting the clock on my appliances because I did not know when the next blackout was going to come. If I were to have access to a portable solar device, it means I'd be able to keep the lights on and be less stressed about when the utility companies were going to get the grid back up. As a city council member, I actually remember receiving an email from a constituent. They expressed concerns about their mother relying on an oxygen machine and if there were a blackout, what that would mean for our health. This isn't something that's just about convenience. It's about life and safety. This type of technology, a portable solar device accompanied with a battery, would mean that vulnerable populations would be able to keep their medical devices running without worrying about what's going to happen to their health if there is no power or energy. And finally, my own mother, she's disabled, on a fixed income. She needed to replace her porch lights and did not have the money for an electrician. Solar devices help save us a lot of money in the process, and we ask you to vote yes on this so many people can benefit from this technology. Thank you. All right, opening it up for additional witnesses in support. If you'd like to testify in support of SB 868, go ahead and approach the microphone. Robert Mills, San Rafael, in support. Roland Rivas, guilt-free hot water, in support. Environment California, strong support. Climate Action California, in support. Marquise Mason, Natural Resource Defense Council, in support. Also, thank you, Simran, for the shout out earlier. Really appreciate it. Rob Hawley from San Jose, in support. Alain Riviere, Eureka, on behalf of Humboldt Progressive Democrats, in strong support. Simran Carr with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Afternoon. Nathaniel Lugtu with Youth Power Climate Action in support. Good afternoon. Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association in support. Thank you. Michelle Canales with the Union of Concerned Scientists in support. Chloe Ames on behalf of NextGen California in support. David Link from Elk Grove, California, very strong supporter for Balcony Solar. Gracias, La Casilla Cranks on behalf of the Abundance Network and strong support. Susana Porti, Berkeley, support solar power to the people. Charlene Woodcock, Berkeley, very strong support. Thank you. I'm RPC Rogers from Berkeley. I strongly support SB 868. Regina Banks, Lutheran Office of Public Policy, California, California Interface Power and Light, strong support. Gabrielle Ofacio with Sierra Club California in support, also on behalf of Center for Biological Diversity in support. Chair members, Gael Dantas on behalf of the San Diego Community Power in support. Brian Glenn from Petaluma in support. June Downson from Solano County, support of SB 868. Good afternoon, Ada Welder, Earth Justice in support. Dave Rosenfeld with the Solar Rights Alliance and also on behalf of the Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy in support Donald Honda Sacramento in support of this bill Thank you Allison Hilliard with the Climate Center in support Thank you Eric Lerner, Statewide Affordable Energy Campaign. Please support this legislation. Amy Cavoto from Pacifica in support. Yvette DiCarlo, Sacramento, and I'm brightly supported. Thank you. Greg Spooner, Sacramento, California, strong support. Josh Wink, I'm a student and a renter. Please support. Thank you. Sophie Schneider, representing the Plugin Solar nonprofit Bright Saver, in strong support. Christine Eiken from Tracy, in strong support. Kathy Espitia from Tracy, strong support. Richard Bangert, Alameda, support. Paul Smith from Oakland in support. Every little bit helps. Lynn Griffith from Oakland support. Chris Dieter from San Jose. I support it. Catherine Keeney Sacramento on behalf of our children and grandchildren. Support. Ruth Holton Hudson, Third Act Sacramento in support. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. Scott Cox on behalf of Ceres in strong support. Lynn Speer Martinez in support. Heather McLeod, Oakland, California, strong support. David Riven from San Francisco. I have full support of SB 868. Cameron Routers, Hayward, California, strong support. Alan Ascarda from Sacramento in strong support. Thank you. Moira Top on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria in support. Marissa Hagerman for Vote Solar and Environmental Voters in strong support. Climate Funders Coalition and Soquel Grantmakers in strong support. Thank you. Make my day. I'm Joel Blackwell from Corte Madera, and I represent all people who need air conditioning. Excellent. Thank you all for joining us today. All right. We are going to turn it, uh, turn to witnesses in opposition. Do we have primary witnesses joining us in opposition? All right. Let's do a little musical chairs. If we just have one. Yeah. Okay. Welcome. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, our Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Sharice Blackwood, and I'm the customer generation manager at San Diego Gas and Electric, where I focus on interconnection and policy. Safety requires visibility, and SB 868 removes it. by restricting utilities' ability to review, register, or even be notified that these devices limit our ability to identify backfeed risks, protect our field crews, and manage already saturated circuits. These are not theoretical concerns. We are seeing increased backfeed incidents in the field, and even small currents can create serious hazards. SB868 would expand the risk without sufficient oversight, shifting us from proactive prevention to reacting after harm occurs. Every other generation resource undergoes consistent safety review for this reason, creating an exemption, weakens those protections. Interconnection is not a barrier at SDG. Our approvals are completed in under three days, and this is for even more complex rooftop solar systems. The current process is already streamlined. Eliminating it does not increase access. It removes critical safeguards for workers and our customers. These devices are generation resources. They are not just appliances in our home. Risks include shock, overcurrent, circuit overload increases as adoption grows, and standards are still evolving. Safety must be verified and not assumed. There is a better path. Currently, the CPUC's Rule 21 process already provides a forum to safely investigate these technologies with input from experts and stakeholders, and this bill bypasses that. In closing, we fully support expanding clean energy access to our customers, but not at the expense of safety, and for these reasons, SDG&E respectfully opposes SB 868. Thank you. Additional witnesses in opposition approach the microphone at this time. Good afternoon, Brandon Ebeck. On behalf of Pacific Gas Electric, we're in a tweener spot. We very much appreciate the work of the committee and the author. As the witness from San Diego mentioned, there's some serious safety issues we just want to make sure we work through. But we certainly do support this technology coming to the market. Just last week, we actually passed the one million mark of customers installing rooftop solar within our service territory, just more than most other utilities combined. So we look forward to getting the details right, reviewing the language, and eventually potentially getting the full support. Thank you. Thank you. And we're going to go ahead and let Mr. Eback's testimony be our second witness in opposition. So everyone else, name, affiliation, and position, please. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Alfredo Medina here on behalf of the Imperial Irrigation District and respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Hello again. Keely Morris on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, as well as Golden State Power Cooperative and respectful opposition. Thank you. Hello, Laura Parr on behalf of Southern California Edison. Opposed unless amended. We'll review the amendments. Thank you. Thank you. Margie Lee on behalf of the Southern California Public Power Authority. Appreciate the committee amendments and our reviewing. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, bringing it back to committee. Questions, comments? Mr. Calra. Thank you, Madam Chair. Move the bill if it hasn't been moved. And I appreciate the opportunity for this. This is really an effective way of democratizing solar in a way that's safe, small scale. To the concerns of safety, I think the amendments removing not just the firefighters, but the electrical workers that are the same workers that do the safety on behalf of utilities, I think it gives me a sense of comfort to know that the standards that are going to be approved are going to be ones that we can rely upon to be used by the ordinary consumer. So I appreciate the efforts done by the author and sponsors. I'd like to be out as a co-author. Thank you. Assemblymember Ziver. So how do you not support this bill? One, it's important, I think, to address the affordability issues. And obviously, plug-in solar is something that can be a lifeline to many folks that are struggling to pay their electric bills. I do think the safety issues are real. And so from my perspective, it's not whether this bill moves forward. It's just sort of how it moves forward. And so I did have one question for the witness from San Diego. And actually let do a little musical chair So we need to have one of our backup witnesses needs to let the opposition witness come on up Thank you Sorry, Assemblymember, please continue. So I sort of had, I mean, I'm going to support this bill today, but I had sort of two questions, maybe first with the witness from San Diego and then with the author. So obviously the big issue on this is that I think that you're asserting is safety. You know, I have questions just about, we were just whispering to ourselves, you know, if you can plug something into a plug, you know, and you're in an apartment building, how does the, you know, the bill states that back feeding won't occur. And for me, it's sort of, I can't figure out how, what that really means. You know, if you're in an apartment building, how do you prevent something from being back fed into the rest of the building? Those kinds of issues. I just think that they're real ones. So I think from the question I have for the San Diego witnesses, what specifically are the outstanding safety issues and what would be in the Rule 21 process at the PUC that is being, what is the benefit of the Rule 21? What are the kinds of things that would be addressed if going through the PUC through Rule 21? That's a great question. And as you mentioned, they stated it would not export, but yet the other witness said there would be minimal export. Germany does allow minimal export, where France and some of the other countries prevent the export to it. Even systems that are certified, UL certified 1741, UL 3141, that have non-export systems, we do see these systems failing, and they are backfeeding to our grid. And so for this, without that safeguard, without going through those safety processes to ensure that the device meets all the requirements that we need, and it goes through the application review, the engineering review, to determine that these are truly non-export and either they won't island or a small back feed, that's really what Electric Rule 21 focuses on. And the technical experts are in there, the engineers are in there, and that is the review process. We currently have PV battery generators that are non-export that go through all of electric rule 21. Even generators that do not operate in parallel with our grid, a backup generator, that are never intended to isolate or never intend to operate when the grid is up, still have the potential to fail. And we have seen that in our service territory. And they're required to submit an application and go through the review process. And I'm going to ask the author to respond to that in a minute. So is this a matter of having particular equipment that is part of the installation? Why does there always have to be a technical review, I guess, by the utility? There are certain standards that are set. So I know under this there is UL 3700 that is still in process and review. And once those standards get set and we have those clear standards to which these devices will adhere to, then that approval process and review is very quick. But that technical review by the industry ensures that that equipment is supposed to operate at a certain level. I'd like to go through this. Yeah I say big picture This is why we have explosively expensive energy in California because so much of it is about sort of control and not allowing people to take their energy future into their own hands And I appreciate some of our callers saying that that the we have broad opposition from the electrical workers utility workers firefighters They've withdrawn their opposition because we worked with them on amendments that require standards for this. You all stand there, the California electric code, which is very important to the to the unions. as well as the National Electric Code. You know, no disrespect to the CPUC. Once you rely on a CPUC rulemaking process, who knows how many years that will take. And there are times we have bills that we kick over to the CPUC that don't get implemented, period. And so this is a very narrow, simple thing that we're asked. I think the legislature should state the policy that this is okay. And I can't state, you know, if SDG&E really always does this within a few days, I applaud SDG&E. I don't think that's the case in many parts of California, and we've seen that with solar. It can take years to get interconnection. But Mr. Brooks, I think, can also add to this. He's also an electrical engineer. Yeah, actually, more than that, I chaired the committee that wrote Rule 21. So know a little bit about it. And Rule 21 is an important interconnection document for distributed energy resources. This is really small, very small scale. So Rule 21 covers down to typical rooftop systems, but this is a much, much smaller scale. And as Bernadette said, these small systems, 400 watts, three to 400 watts, I've done the numerical analysis on it. And those size systems do not export emphatically. As we get up to 1,200 watt systems, which is the maximum under this legislation, then the maximum export is about a half a kilowatt hour a day, which is about 17 cents of electricity. 127 kilowatt hours a year. Very small number. And when it's averaged into all the customers today that do not have any solar, you would have to get over 40% penetration of 1,200 watt systems before you would see any net export on a distribution residential circuit, utility circuit. So this is extremely small, whereas in Rule 21 we had rules that would cover systems that were 100 or even 1,000 times larger than this quite well. This is the reason that those caps are there in the bill. Okay. I just want to thank all of you. I'm supporting the bill in an enthusiastic way. I just think it's an important bill. But I also have a pause on the safety issues, and I'll be digging into them between now and the time it hits the floor and would appreciate time with both sides and IBEW as well. Because I do think that we have to make sure that, you know, the folks that are using this are safe, and that's the big issue on this one. But I want to thank you for bringing the bill. I think it's really important to want to thank all the folks in the Jewish community that are so, that looks like they have made this a Ticum alum priority for them, and want to appreciate them doing that. And, of course, we'll support the bill today. Thank you. Assemblymember Davies Thank you Madam Chair I first want to say thank you to all the California residents that showed up today It very refreshing I think for members to have your voice and make the drive I just listened to the different cities where you came from. So some of you came from a far away and some are a little bit closer, but your voice does matter. And it's refreshing to have you here. Not that we don't love our lobbyists. And yes, there's seniors that want air conditioners and there's women that have menopause that want air conditioners. So there's a lot of categories there. But anyways, I just want to say to Senator Wiener, thank you so much for this. It's always limitless with solar. You pretty much had to have a single family house. And I've had a condo for 35 years. And even though we did pass a law that by law you could put up solar if you had a condo, there are a lot of constrainments and costs and liability. So it really didn't go anywhere. But when I heard about this, and it really is an affordable offer when you look at it, having an alternative to be able to put something on your balcony that will give you that benefit. And again, I had constituents call me yesterday. I did a Zoom. they were from the North San Diego area. And one was a senior who lived in a condo and she's basically, you know, has a subsidized income. She's like, I can't afford these utility bills anymore. And I hear that from my neighbors. And she goes, this will give me the opportunity to hopefully stay in my place, not have to sell it. It's a good investment. And then I had another gentleman that owned apartments and he lived in an apartment. He said, this will help me and my family. He goes, but I'm going to put, install this into all of the apartments that I have that have the balconies so that they wouldn't have to pay as much for utilities. And I think that's an investment. And just hearing that, um, to me, you know, we talk about affordability and this is really an opportunity, um, to allow everyone to have this opportunity. And there's a lot of times where we get the heat coming in, we get that hot sun where it can go up high, but now I'm like, wow, it's actually worth having that sun because we can use it to our advantage. But I just, I'm really pleased to see this. I thank you for bringing it forward. I would be honored to co-author this as well, and I'll be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you. Assemblymember Calderon. Yes. I thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. I will be supporting the bill today, and I appreciate the no NEM issue reference. Thank you for that. I do have one question for the opposition though. Could you give us an example of a back feeding incident? Yes, we've actually had a number of them. Currently with a rooftop solar or a battery, we had a situation where our crews were out working on a line and the line was supposed to be de-energized, which means the equipment was supposed to be functioning the way it was. This was a particularly situation where there was a PV and a battery. The inverter failed and the line actually was backfed by the PV, which was supplying energy to the battery. and it was backfeeding to our grid while the utility workers were, they thankfully had did their due diligence and did the multiple checks, but the line had unintended and was being energized by the generation that was supposed to have islanded and not been backfeeding the grid at that time. So it should not have been exporting. Okay, and thank you for that because I wasn't sure exactly. That's a very good description. so I am going to Again, I think Assemblyman Zuber raised some very good concerns about safety issues, and I'll be following the bill. And I know you'll continue to work on it. Yeah. Thank you. And we are in conversations with various stakeholders, including the utilities. We want to get it right. Thank you. Because safety is our number one priority, and I know it's yours, too. Assemblymember Gonzalez. Thank you to the author for bringing this forward and the witnesses today. I represent a district that's 85% renters, and so I have a couple of technical questions. Those who have a balcony versus the ones who don't. The device itself, are there rebates for people who are low income? And I did step outside, so I apologize if I missed this piece. And then what is the cost for such device? And then are the meters measured by each of those individual apartments, and that's how they do it to make that determination? And then I just want to confirm that the tenant receives the savings, not the landlord. What's all due? I will answer some of those questions. Mr. Ms. Del Chiara can answer the rest. The wait, your first, the first question was. It was about those who don't have. Oh, yeah. So we, it's always called balcony solar. We started calling it plug-in solar because it's really not just a balcony. If you have a porch or even if you have just an area of your apartment that gets a lot of direct sunlight where you can literally open your window and just. So, you know, so there are anything that has access. sun, you can put it there. In terms of the cost, I'll let Ms. El-Chiro handle the rest. Sure. There currently are no rebates available, but maybe that's something forthcoming once we get the market off the ground. I'm sure appreciated by many low-income Californians. The cost of these systems today ranges from $500 to $25, depending on the size of the system and whether it includes a battery. But these are very high prices because the market is incredibly small. We know that once this market gets off the ground with California's help, economies of scale are going to bring those prices down 50 to 80 percent based on experience with other markets we've brought to the scale. So we should be able to see these prices come way down. The savings do accrue to the consumer for sure. And one of the cool things about these technologies is I actually went out and got one myself so I could advocate with confidence. They all come with an app and Wi-Fi connection, and you can see at every minute of every day how much your solar system is generating. And that if it plug into your outlet of your apartment or home, it is in your dwelling unit, and it's going to lower your utility bill. And so it is definitely for the right payer themselves. Yeah. And not to capitalize on the balcony piece, but obviously it's for folks who have the exposure to the sun. I just want to be mindful of the ones who don't have that opportunity because they do charge more for folks who do have a porch or have a balcony versus the ones who don't. So just want to make sure we're equal across the board on those who don't have that opportunity to consider. But I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. Assembly member Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief. Senator, good to see you again. Thank you for having me on as a principal co-author. I'm sorry I missed part of the discussion. I will go back and play the tape, but I believe in this bill and I move it at this time, Madam Chair. Assemblymember Irwin. Yeah, I really like this bill and we've talked so much about we can't make our climate goals unless people in multifamily housing have access to this technology So I would like to be a co on the bill I still trying to understand the danger of backfeeding feeding back into the grid Is there a potential problem only if there like a damaged inverter That's one question. And then the other is you had mentioned that if you have a solar device that is enough to power an air conditioner, it seems that when the air conditioner switches off that you would still potentially have a lot of, potentially have low-level energy going into the grid. So where is the danger and how do the utilities actually plan if you have low amounts of energy going into the grid? Because I've heard pretty clearly that it's not no energy. Sure. I guess the representative from SDG&E mentioned a backseat event. That would be news, information that I'm unaware of. That was not from Balcony Solar. No, and it was not from Balcony Solar. I do investigations, and I would really want to look into that one very carefully to know whether it had anything to do with the safety certifications that are involved in these. It could have been a miswire event, could have been all kinds of things. But I don't believe that that if it's a true statement that it had anything to do with products that were properly installed and according to their manufacturer's instructions and their listing. So the listing we have, I'm on every committee that the UL has for certifying these devices and the interconnection requirements, which are very stringent. And 40 years ago, we invented the anti-islanding technology for these inverters. And that technology has been flawless over the last 40 years. So it's very important to know if there's an event where something doesn't happen correctly so you can rectify it. But as I said, these certifications, the UL 3700 certification, which was published in December 12th of last year, covers the issue, these issues and backfeeding power into a dead circuit. Things like that is absolutely impossible. So so I would take issue with the idea that these things could happen because we have no documented cases of this ever happening. Okay, and then what about like low-level export into the grid? As I said, a 1,200-watt system, the maximum size, perfect orientation, no shade, could export in the spring and fall up to a half a kilowatt hour a day, which is about 17 cents worth of electricity, which is about 1% of a person's consumption. And that should not, so you're saying that would not create, Some minor export wouldn't create a safety issue. That's correct. And does it, if you have a mass uptake of these devices and everybody is exporting, you know, 1% at a time, do the utilities have to do any planning for that? You would literally have to get to a 40% penetration level. And that is astronomical and way beyond, I believe, any market analysis that you could ever get to. Thank you. All right thank you Seeing no further questions or comments from committee members Oh Assemblymember Schiavo Thank you so much for this bill I think it you know I wondered if you could talk a little bit about what happening in other countries and where like where the potential is I guess for this technology And, you know, also want to note, I appreciate you working with the IBW and utility workers and firefighters on safety issues. And I know those conversations are going to continue. But, you know, as we all are really trying to figure out how to actually, in a real way, impact affordability, which can be so challenging in this space, you know, this seems like a really accessible and practical way for people to make a difference in that, you know, in their utility rates. Yeah, absolutely. So Germany has been on the forefront, I think, more than a million. And then Utah and Virginia are—Utah was first, I think, and then Virginia just did it more recently. So it's a little newer in the States, but Ms. Del Chiaro can probably add more. Yeah, Germany actually has installed four million of these systems in four short years, so it's really taken off. And Great Britain just recently, this past March, passed legislation similar to SB 868. And their major retailer called Little is just announced that they're going to have these on their shelves in a couple of months. So it is starting to take off in Europe. And then here, in addition to Utah and Virginia, we also have Maryland, Maine, Colorado, and New York State have all passed similar legislation to SB 868. But again, California is the big enchilada when it comes to developing new markets. So everybody is kind of watching to see if SB 868 passes and we follow those other states' lead. And I guess on that point, what is the difference in terms of the size and restrictions that are being put into the bill here versus what's happening in other places? The other state legislation is almost identical to SB 868. They all have a system cap of around 1,200. And in Germany and Great Britain, I think they're similar in size. I can't actually quote what Great Britain's law is, and Germany is somewhere in that. It's hard because there's a very different electrical system, so the numbers aren't exactly equal. So you can't just compare the numbers on paper. But it's all in the same basic area. Thank you. And I don't know if there's a second. If there's not, I'm happy to second it and would love to be added as a co-author as well. Thank you. Assemblymember Berner. As one of the only renters in the legislature, I'm very happy to see this bill come forward. We do have a lot. We don't have a balcony, but we have a patio that would be perfect for. And everybody has heard on this committee me complain about my very high electric bill that I cannot reduce. So I'm happy to be a co-author. And I just want to remind people with the numbers that she quoted for Germany, Germany doesn't have sun and they're still committed. So we could do this too. All right. Thank you, members. So Senator, I too would like to thank you for bringing this measure forward. I also do really appreciate the conversation around safety issues. certainly as this bill came to the committee and we started to dig into it. I had many of the same questions and we had a lot of conversation around ensuring that we could move this forward in a way that preserves our ironclad commitment to safety And I think like you Senator like other members of the committee I took great reassurance from the fact that the utility workers the firefighters who were previously opposed to an earlier version of the bill, removed that opposition because of some of the guardrails and safeguards that the author included. So happy to support. Thank you for bringing it forward. Senator, would you like to close? It was a great conversation. I appreciate all the thoughtful feedback and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay. We have a motion from Assemblymember Caldwell, a second from Assemblymember Schultz. Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll? Item number four, SB 868. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Petrie-Norris? Aye. Petrie-Norris, aye. Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Calderon. Calderon. I Chen. Chen. I Davies. Davies. I Gonzalez. I Herbidion. I Herbidion. I heart. I Irwin. I call right. Call right. I happen happen. I Rogers. I Rogers. I Shiavo. I Shiavo. I Schultz. Ta. Ta. I Wallace. I Zabur. Zabur. I. Right. 17 zero. That bill is out and we'll leave it open for absent members to add on. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator. All right. Moving to possibly moving to the moving to the final item on today's agenda. The author of the final item just exited the building. No, we are moving to file item number 11, SB 1233. 3. Welcome, Senator Allen. All right. The floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you, Madam bill would require the disclosure of data regarding the utilities cash on hand and overall capital structures as it relates to ROE. Senator, just bring that microphone up a little. Okay. Okay. So it's a disclosure bill about cash on hand and overall capital structure as it relates to ROE to minimize the total revenue requirement. And so this is all about trying to provide some more information as we really seek the core goals of affordability that I know that all of us have been focusing so much on. It would add some provisions to an existing report to the legislature put together by the PUC to shed some more light on the authorized and actual expenses for utilities in these additional accounts. It's about trying to add some additional transparency to help to inform the rate process to better protect ratepayers. And with that, I respect for your aye vote. Thank you. All right. Are there any primary witnesses in support of this measure? Seeing none, we'll open it up for any additional witnesses in support. If you'd like to testify in support of item 11 SB 1233, you can approach the microphone at this time. Thank you. Olivia Herrera in Burnett Stone Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Watchdog in support. Thank you. Thank you. All right, turning to witnesses in opposition. Any primary witnesses in opposition to this measure? Go ahead and come on up. Welcome. Good afternoon. Hello. Oh, hey. Yes, okay. Hi. Hello. Okay. Thank you. Yes, Valerie Torella Vlahos with Pacific Gas and Electric Company testifying today in opposition to respectfully to SB 1233. PGE, as I have said before, we want what our customers want, safe, reliable, clean, and affordable electric service. PGE has reduced our combined gas and electric bills for our customers five times since January 2024. As we have discussed today, affordability needs accountability, and PGE does not oppose transparency. However, SB 1233 requests duplicative processes that take place in the cost of capital proceeding. The analysis explains the robust process of evaluating the IOU financial conditions that the CPC sets, parameters to balance funding sources for the immense capital needed on all of the tremendous work that investments that we do to maintain the grid. They land on an approach that considers many factors. The chair has a bill on transparency and how they come up with their decision. Adding an additional layer brings us concerns of delays, regulatory uncertainty, and we just step back and ask ourselves, will this improve the affordability outcomes? Same on the new language on reporting in the bill in Section 2. We have the annual SB 695 report that I believe the bill adds on to. We also have the AB 67 report. The SB 695 report shows trends, what's driving rates, how to reduce costs, recommendations, short-term, long-term. And this is done on a system-wide macro view for the legislature. And so, again, we must ask, will the new information add insights? Will it be helpful for affordability outcomes? And so I guess in just closing, I will say we are reviewing both the study language and we'll see the committee's amendments go in print and we'll review those but remain opposed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. Lourdes Ayon with San Diego Gas and Electric, also respectfully in opposition to your bill, Senator Allen. We feel that the accountability and being more open and being able to see more reporting sounds great, but honestly, the more accountability in practice means longer and more technical proceedings, more discovery about retained earnings and capital structure, and more delay getting needed safety and reliability work approved. Also PUC already engages in these types of reporting and processes We already do this in various proceedings GRC and we just feel the duplication could be costly to rate payers and believe that affordability is better addressed by reviewing the costs and benefits of state mandated programs, streamlining regulatory processes, and supporting access to low cost capital rather than duplicating efforts. Thank you. Right. Turning to additional witnesses in opposition. Go ahead and approach the microphone at this time. Catherine Borg with the Southern California Edison. Thank you. Good afternoon. John Kenner from California Chamber of Commerce currently opposed, but looking forward to seeing the amendments. Thank you. All right. And speaking of amendments, Senator, will you be accepting the committee amendments? They're discussing them, and they basically clarify, they should reduce a lot of the concerns on uncertainties because they clarify that the PUC will do regulations. So I hope that will at least address some of the uncertainty concerns. So thank you. All right. We'll be accepting that. And turning now to committee questions or comments. All right. Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close? No, I appreciate the discussion. You know, we do do transparency bills, you know, a lot. Section two, by the way, is a requirement on the PUC, not the utilities. And we worked really closely with TURN on that language to make sure that it's done carefully. But I just appreciate the collaboration with the chair. I'm certainly anxious to continue working with opposition to get this to a place which is all about just trying to create more disclosure that can assist the rate process, is make sure that it's really well-informed so as to reach the enormous affordability challenges that we have with regards to energy costs. And respect for the Australian vote. Thank you. All right. We've got a motion from Assemblymember Rogers, second from Assemblymember Berner. Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll? Item number 11, SB 1233, the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Petrie-Norris? Aye. Petrie-Norris, aye. Patterson? No. Patterson no Berner I burner I Calderon Calderon not voting Chen Chen no Davies Davies no Gonzalez Gonzalez I hear a bid you all right her bid you an eye heart heart I Irwin Irwin I cholera cholera I Pappan happen I Rogers Rogers I Shiavo. Shiavo. I Schultz. Ta. Ta not voting. Wallace. Wallace not voting. Zuber. Thank you members. Thank you. 10-3. So that fills out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members to add on. Okay. All right. Let's go ahead and dispense with the consent calendar. Can I get a motion and a second on the consent calendar? All right. Motion from Assemblymember Davies, second from Assemblymember Hart. Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll? Members, we're dispensing with the consent calendar. Members, don't make use of my gavel. All right. We are dispensing with the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Item number three, SB 742. Item number seven, SB 929. Item number eight SB 943 Item number 10 SB 1138 The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations Petrie Norris. Aye. Petrie Norris. I'm sorry. I want to regret the other bills. Take two. Item number 2, SB 667. Item number nine, SB 952. The motion is due pass to appropriations. Item number six, SB 925. The motion is due pass as amended to natural resources. Petrie Norris? Aye. Petrie Norris, aye. Patterson? Patterson, aye. Burner? Aye. Burner, aye. Calderon? Aye. Chen, aye. Davies? Davies, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Herbidion? Aye. Herbidion, aye. Hart, aye. Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Rogers? Aye. Rogers, aye. Schiavo? Aye. Schiavo, aye. Schultz? Aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Wallace? Aye. Wallace, aye. Zabir? Aye. Zabir, aye. Okay. 17-0. So the consent calendar's out. We'll leave it open for absent members to add on. And we'll do a lap through the bells so that folks that were missing can add on, starting with file item one. Item one, SB 327. Patterson? Not voting. Patterson not voting. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Calderon? Not voting. Calderon not voting. Chen? No. Chen, no. Davies? Vote change. 327, correct? Correct. Okay. I to know. Davies, I to know. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Herabitian? Aye. Herabitian, aye. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Schultz? That was changed to... Okay, 11-2. That bill is out and we'll leave the roll open for absent members to add on. Moving to file item number four, SB 868. Schultz. Okay. We're still leaving that one open. File item number 11, SB 1233, Allen. Schultz. Leaving it open. Last but not least, file item number 12, SB 1350 by McNerney. Berner. Aye. Berner, aye. Chen. Aye. Chen. aye. Herabitian? Aye. Herabitian, aye. Chiavo? That's 17-0. 17-0, that measures out, and we will leave the roll open for absent numbers to add on. File item number 12, SB 1350 by McNerney. Chiavo? Yes. Thank you. Okay, I'm sorry. All right, so members, that concludes the business of today's hearing. We're going to leave the roll open for five minutes if absent members would like to rejoin us to add on. Thank you so much Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. All right, Madam Secretary, let's reopen the roll. File item number one SB 327 Schultz Aye That 12 12 that bell out Item number four SB 868 Schultz Aye Schultz aye 18 18 That bell is out Item number 11 SB 1233 Schultz Aye Schultz aye That 11 11 That bell is out Item number 12, SB 1350, Schultz. Aye. Schultz, aye. That's 18-0. 18-0, that bill is out. And the consent calendar. Thank you. Schultz. Aye. Schultz, aye. 18-0. 18-0, the consent calendar is out. And that concludes the business of today's hearing at the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy. We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.