Senate Energy Utilities And Communications Committee

This is a microgrid spill, and we welcome you, Assemblymember Irwin. That's nice of you to say. Well, good morning, Chair and members. I'm here today to present three bills. We'll start with AB 710. First, I accept the committee's proposed amendments, which align the data privacy and grid information security provisions in the bill with existing standards and account for ongoing data sharing practices. Communities across my district, Ventura and L.A. counties, have been experiencing devastating wildfires and recurring power safety power shutoffs, PSPSs, that have left residents, businesses, and critical facilities without power. However, this challenge extends far beyond the 42nd District. According to the CPUC, 600,000 people were affected by PSPS events, which increased from approximately 244,000 in 2025, a more than two-fold increase from the previous year. This demonstrates the growing need for community-resilience solutions, including strategic deployment of microgrids. However, local governments have expressed to us concerns that they do not receive the grid and circuit information they need to effectively plan these projects from utilities in a timely manner. This inconsistent data sharing can slow the development of community resilience projects and make it more difficult to identify locations where microgrids would provide the greatest benefit. AB 710 addresses this issue by requiring investor-owned utilities to identify critical circuits and provide the information necessary for local entities to evaluate and plan microgrid projects. By improving coordination and information sharing, AB 710 will help communities better prepare for future PSPS events and other power outages while supporting the development of local resilience solutions. With me today in support of the bill are John Kennedy from the rural county representatives of California and Jordan Wells from CSAC. Hi, Jordan.

Good morning. John Kennedy with RCRC on behalf of our 40 member counties. First, I want to apologize for being so late in getting our support letter in, but we are very pleased to be here today to support AB 710. Our communities have experienced many PSPS events and fast trip outages as the IOUs seek to reduce the risk of utility-caused wildfires. While we're seeing fewer PSPS events overall, we are seeing over 2,000 fast trip outages annually in PG&E service territory alone. These events and power outages have significant impacts on critical facilities and vulnerable populations. We almost had to evacuate a jail in Butte County and move those 600 inmates several hundred miles away while shutting down a major freeway. We narrowly avoided that, but there are other administrative facilities, water facilities that are also vulnerable. This is why local governments are so interested in microgrids, so that we can island our critical facilities and ensure those vital public facilities remain operational and energized. We were heavily involved as our CRC and the CPUC microgrids proceeding that provided $200 million in grants for local microgrid projects. That was an incredibly frustrating experience, not only from the development of the grant criteria, but also for many of the awardees with changed financial circumstances and requirements. One of the bright spots of that proceeding was a requirement for the IOUs to develop this information sharing portal where they could share a lot of this information with local governments. that was intended to facilitate the development and deployment of microgrids. AB 710 builds on that process by codifying many of those data sharing requirements. As outages change and cause nature and duration, the need for those community microgrids will remain strong for local governments. We strongly appreciate the collaborative information sharing we've experienced with PG&E and appreciate that AB 710 will help make those information sharing relationships permanent and durable outside of the CPUC's microgrid improvement program context. For these reasons, we support AB 710 today. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric also in opposition to the bill in print. We do appreciate the amendments. And just based on our understanding of what they're trying to address, the privacy provisions in the bill, I think were our biggest concern. Just from a high-level SDG, we have a long history with microgrids. One of the first microgrids in the state that's capable of fully islanding in the community of Borrego Springs. Really proud of that project. So we definitely support our communities and our local government partners in their efforts to be more resilient. But with the amendments and the analysis, as we understand them, I think they could go a long way in addressing our concerns. And we'll reevaluate our position once we've had a chance to review them. Thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity. Let me just say that I really appreciate where you're going with this bill. There is the capacity for small communities and rural communities to do microgrids but they need help And the ability to negotiate with their partners the electricity producing partners that currently exist is really critically important. I had a community that decided to do a microgrid right before the pandemic, and a small community of 15,000 people did a microgrid for their industrial area because they were tired of the PSPS shutoffs that would decimate the community. And when they were happening, we're not near a wildfire zone, but when they were happening, the information was not correct. The wrong community was identified for the shutoff, and then that didn't happen. It was a neighboring community, which really set back the businesses. So I think you're absolutely right. I think this bill is going in the right direction, and at the appropriate time, I'll make the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So I, too, think your bill is going in the right direction. I, too, have. I mean, I think that, you know, it's policy at this building that restricts the IOUs from doing their job like they should be doing their job, but they can't help it because of traditional policies that come out of this building that don't allow them to do the things that they do either by expense or regulatory processes. But I also think that the microgrid situation is beneficial because we do have a lot of PSPS shutoffs. We had a wastewater treatment plant situation in Tatchby where they shut off the wrong line and everything was backing up. So I do like where your bill is going. I'm interested in looking at the amendments. I was actually opposed to it until you took the amendments, and I know amendments were negotiating until just like, what, 10 minutes ago. So I haven't been able to see that. So I'm going to stay off the bill today. I hope it addresses the concerns that the IOUs have. What I don't want to do is put any more regulatory burden on the IOUs, but I want to make sure that we have the ability to support our counties and our local communities, and they have the ability to make sure that we deliver energy to our constituents. So thank you.

And one of our biggest concerns that we wanted to make sure was addressed were the security issues. So we are subject to all the existing privacy and grid security laws, And all of you have examples about PSPSs, and they are absolutely critical to contain the wildfire risk, but they are increasing in frequency. And we had, during the Palisades fire across over the hill, Thousand Oaks had City Hall shut down for, I think, five or six days. And that would be a perfect example of someplace where a microgrid would be appropriate. but we have heard from cities and counties that they just don't have all the information they need to start planning. So we just want to facilitate additional microgrids for these critical infrastructures. So when the time comes, respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. So first, I would like to start by accepting the committee's amendments. Many of the industrial facilities in California have been operating for decades and are excellent candidates. for impact energy efficiency upgrades. These upgrade projects would reduce their electricity use and free up valuable grid capacity. One of the tools we have available to deploy industrial upgrades is the energy efficiency program overseen by the CPUC. However, the CPUC has added layers of tedious proposal review to the program, which has excluded many promising industrial upgrades. As a result, large industrial facilities are struggling to effectively invest in more efficient technologies, even though they are paying to fund the program through electric rates. AB 2182 will restructure the industrial energy efficiency program at the CPUC in the following ways. First, it will remove a layer of review that has blocked a significant number of projects and prevent additional roadblocks from them being created without legislative direction. Second, it will ensure that the projects are not subsidized by other customer classes, meaning that only funds paid in by industrial customers will go to support industrial energy efficiency projects. And third, it will require that projects reduce the need for additional transmission and distribution infrastructure to be built, saving the ratepayers' money. AB 2182 will reform the industrial energy efficiency program to move more quickly and effectively to support grid upgrades to industrial facilities in California. With me today to testify are Audra Hartman and Dylan Finley, representing the California Large Energy Consumers Association.

It's hard to top that. Audra Hartman with CLIKA. I'm here to answer questions, any concerns you might have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to applaud the author for taking leadership on not only the previous bill but this one as well. You can tell it's very thoughtful, understanding the industry and the problems. Sometimes the bills we get aren as what we call fully cooked but clearly yours is So I applaud you for that The biggest thing I want to applaud you for is for specifying that these funds come from the industry that actually paying into it Because I think one of the challenges we constantly see is that rate payers end up, we may set up programs here in the legislature which are only to be translated ultimately to the rate payers paying more. And so the fact that you specifically laid that out I think is very key. and I applaud you for that. I just have one question. I noticed that it said that the funds that would be provided would not exceed 50% of that project's particular request. Does it also say somewhere in here, because I didn't see it in my quick review, that that particular grant request wouldn't exceed X percentage of what's available in the overall pot? Does it identify that at all? I think we can use our technical expert right now.

So I applaud your work, and I'll move the bill when the time is appropriate.

And we will certainly, that sounds like a very good suggestion, we will certainly discuss that with all the stakeholders.

I also want to thank you for the bill. I appreciate your leadership on this area. I think the bill originally had that user loser clause where a company could get a grant for up to the amount that contributed over the previous five years. Is that part still in the bill? So there's been a lot of amendments in the last few days, so I don't know every line there. So we originally had that in the bill in the discussions with staff and then the broad array of amendments. it's no longer in there.

I like that provision personally, but I guess that's not in there. I do apply a lot of the other amendments. I think we're positive. Still be supporting the bill here today, and I appreciate that we're trying to get better use of these dollars. And thank you. And, again, we will look at your suggestion.

Second, I'll get in. So let me just say that I like this bill as well. I want to make sure that I'm clear on part of the challenge in the energy sector is that we pass bills that say this should be part of our energy portfolio and we expedite the development of those particular projects and I on a broken record I know but it biomass biogas hydrogen carbon capture carbon sequestration And then what we do is in subsequent bills, we make sure that those are not applicable, and we're only focusing on solar and wind. And I said this repeatedly in my district, we're going to need to diversify the type of energy that we create. Otherwise, we're going to end up being a barren desert with nothing but solar panels because there won't be and there will be no jobs for people in the community. So first of all is I want to make sure that this includes agricultural production, specifically in the food processing sector because we're trying to green it, obviously. And I think at least the notes I have seem to indicate that ag production is included. But also if you could address why the bill was amended to allow carbon capture technologies but not capture utilization and sequestration. You want to?

Okay, and can you express what those concerns are? Because like I said, I get it. You have to amend the way it – you have to take the amendments that the chair thinks are appropriate. But I just need to understand how we're doing – how we're eliminating certain options because that gives me an idea of what's really going on. I don't know if I can speak fully to the concerns because they were not our concerns,

Thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. And I guess just as a footnote to that, anybody who has any concerns about carbon capture, taking it directly out of the air and utilizing it should go to Tracy. And I organized a trip to Tracy for legislators and staff to go. I had a handful that did. So you can see what direct air capture looks like. It's extremely clean. It's very simple technology, and we're storing it permanently in cement. So to me, to exclude that type of development doesn't make any sense. So I'm going to continue to push on. I appreciate your expertise in this area. I really appreciate it. Thank you very much. And I'm going to support your bill. It's the right thing to do. And I'll tell you, there's some very exciting technology in food processing. The boilers right now are gas, and there is, through thermal batteries, is a way to completely transition them to electric. So I think this and the MDI are all pots of funding that could help quicken that transition Well I agree And part of the challenge is if we don know about it actually let me rephrase that If we don accept that agriculture needs to be part of the solution we overlook the opportunity to be able to make those changes and still keep the industry in our state. So thank you for that because I've heard a little bit about it, and I'll do a tour so I can see how it works. Thank you. And I will support you, Bill.

Okay. Just when the time comes, respectfully ask for your aye vote. And my last bill should be very simple. It's an affordability bill. And so basically under current law, if any federal tax law reduces the tax obligation of an investor-owned utility, there are no clear requirements that those savings be returned back to ratepayers. AB 2589 ensures that if utilities pay less in federal taxes because of changes in federal law, California customers receive the benefits of those savings, not utility shareholders. This bill builds on the success of SB 1028, authored by Senator Hill in 2018, which returned more than a billion dollars in IOU federal tax savings to California ratepayers. At a time when families are facing rising costs, AB 2589 helps ensure that they receive financial benefits of the recently passed H.R. 1 and future federal legislation.

Thank you so much.

Members and staff, I'm honored today to present AB 2163, which will establish a statewide framework to designate strategic clean energy and critical mineral development zones to support large-scale geothermal energy production and mineral supply chain development. California has some of the most ambitious clean energy goals in the world. However, to achieve these goals, California must expand its baseload renewable energy development. At the same time, California has some of the most abundant critical minerals in the world, capable of meeting the supply needs of our entire country. AB 2163 is about strategically identifying and prioritizing the regions that can deliver both. This bill establishes clear criteria to identify these developments. zones, such as critical mineral resource potential, baseload renewable energy capacity, and transmission access. This means that only those areas throughout the state that have the highest geothermal or mineral potential will receive such a designation, recognizing the importance of areas that meet that criteria. AB 2163 requires the state to give priority consideration to projects and infrastructure investments within these zones. California stands at a critical crossroads. We possess some of the most significant geothermal and critical mineral resources in the nation. Yet, the competition to attract investment, manufacturing, and supply chain development is accelerating rapidly. States such as Arkansas and Nevada are moving aggressively to position themselves as leaders in critical mineral production, while countries around the world continue investing heavily to secure the resources needed for energy storage, advanced manufacturing, and national security. The reality is that California's window to lead will not remain open indefinitely. Let me restate that. The reality is that California's window to lead will not remain open indefinitely. If we want to remain competitive, we must be intentional about supporting the regions that are best positioned to deliver these resources responsibly and at scale. What makes California uniquely competitive is not simply the existence of critical minerals, but the way we can produce them. In places like the Salton Sea region, we have the opportunity to recover lithium and other critical minerals from geothermal brine while simultaneously generating renewable baseload power. However, this approach has the potential to become one of the most environmentally responsible methods of critical mineral production anywhere in the world, avoiding many of the impacts associated with hard rock mining and large-scale evaporation ponds used elsewhere. AB 2163 recognizes that not every region is positioned to support these opportunities. The bill creates a pathway for the state to identify and prioritize strategic clean energy and critical mineral development zones where the resources, infrastructure, planning efforts, and development potential already exist. For my district specifically, AB 2163 will prove to be a vital tool as Imperial County and Lithium Valley host some of the world's largest lithium and geothermal deposits. AB 2163 is about unleashing California's high energy potential. California should not be importing opportunity when we have the resources, innovation, workforce, and natural advantages to lead. AB 2163 helps ensure California remains competitive, strengthens domestic supply chains, and fully realizes the geothermal and critical mineral opportunities that exist within our own borders. Rather than relying on resources from elsewhere, this bill creates a pathway to responsibly develop the world baseload energy and mineral resources we have right here in our home California Benefiting our economy our environment and future generations of California AB 2163 received broad bipartisan support in the Assembly and I respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate. With me today is Gil Rebilar, Deputy CEO of General Services with Imperial County.

Thank you. Are there any other lead witnesses? And your time is limited to two minutes. Okay. Any other witnesses in opposition? Please state your name, affiliation, and your position on the bill. Seeing no opposition witnesses, do we have any Me Too's people who'd like to come forward, state your name, your organization, and that you're in support of the bill? Support or opposition, I should say.

Seeing no other witnesses who'd like to participate, we'll bring this back to the dais. Any members who'd like to speak, let's start with Senator Grove. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, thank you. Senator Archuleta.

Yes, and Senator Caballero. Thank you so much.

If you could please keep your comments to about 30 seconds because we have another Assembly member who's waiting and has another bill someplace else to present.

The bill is about, you know, being exclusive and, as you said earlier, diversifying. So taking advantage of California's abundant clean and renewable energy. So, yes, we would be receptive to other zero carbon or carbon neutral, zero carbon resources. So that you mentioned.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

if they've exceeded what is normally called public relations? And I would think that they have a duty to have an ability to get out to the public and promote and so on. But when it's excessive, like what we've heard, how do we know and how do we get that information? Well, thank you for the question, Senator. And I'll say one thing that I like about the approach that we're trying to take with this bill is it actually doesn't create any new requirements for audits or for reviews or for evaluations. These are processes that are already happening as part of the general rate case process. So in some cases, you know, the PUC regulators themselves are identifying these costs that are ineligible and then disallowed. In some cases, interveners like TURN, like the Public Advocates Office, and others are the ones who are, as part of their existing review process within the general rate case, they're identifying these issues already. And so what this bill just says is instead of the consequences being, oops, that was a mistake, so it's disallowed, there's also a penalty assessed. And I think that's just a really important step. to ensure that incentives are aligned between our investor-owned utilities and the rate payers that they serve. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, we certainly will ensure that we work with opposition and there's not unintended consequences to the bill. And certainly appreciate the question. And as I said, we're not trying to create any new review process or any new auditor, put any additional burden on the utilities or on the PC or interveners We simply saying hey if you get caught making a mistake there a penalty And I don think you were here when I made the comment When you're filling in, for example, your taxes as a taxpayer, if you make a little mistake, the IRS doesn't just say, oh, oops, you know, Senator Bowe, you made a mistake. They charge you a penalty, and that penalty creates an incentive for people to be really, really careful about what they submit. And so I think it's just really important that there's some teeth attached to what is already an incredibly robust review and evaluation process. And then so following up on that thought, in this space, and I'm not an expert in it, but obviously you've been working in it, would there be perhaps a fair expectation of a right to cure that mistake before the penalty is assessed? The language of the bill right now states that if a utility submits their general rate case and then upon their own review and evaluation they identify a mistake, that certainly they would have a right to cure that. There would be no penalty attached. But if they're going through the process and an intervener like CHURN or an intervener like the PAO is the one who identifies the error, the way the bill is structured right now, there is not a right to cure. A penalty would be assessed. And I think the logic for that, I'm going to borrow the language that my witness used. These are sometimes $100,000 needles in multibillion-dollar haystacks. So when an issue and an error is identified, it's really hard to find. And I would argue that if they're finding one error, there's five more needles buried in that haystack. And so I think one of the things that our committees have been working on collectively has been to try to streamline and rationalize some of the complexity and some of the just to make the accounting more easy. both for the utilities and for the interveners and the regulator. A lot of the approaches that have been taken have been to try to require additional audits and additional reviews. I kind of think this is a more elegant approach in that it aligns the incentives between the folks who are submitting, the IOUs who are submitting a general rate case and the ratepayers they serve and the interveners who are working on behalf of ratepayers. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for the questions and look forward to a continued conversation.

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

With that we now move on to your second bill AB 2516 Thank you Excited to present AB 2516 This bill would establish the California Grid Manufacturing Initiative in order to reduce the cost of critical grid equipment through better coordinated purchasing expanded in manufacturing And before I go any further, let me begin by accepting the committee amendments. And once again, just thank the chair and committee staff for your work in partnership as we've worked through this bill. As committee members well know, Californians are paying some of the highest electricity rates in the country. We've talked a lot about some of the drivers of those rates, and collectively we are looking for every opportunity to lower bills in the short and the long term. But one thing we haven't talked a ton about has been the supply chain crisis that is also driving up rates. So there is a supply chain crisis for the basic physical equipment that makes the grid work. Transformers, cables, switchgear. Since 2019, demand for these critical pieces of equipment has gone up by almost 300 percent, and prices have spiked between 45 and 95 percent. Lead times have stretched from weeks to nearly three years. We have incredibly ambitious clean energy goals here in California, and delivering on those goals in a timely fashion and delivering on those goals in a cost-effective manner really relies on our ability to build out the grid efficiently and effectively. And so the approach that we are taking with AB2516 is to try to transform that set of challenges into an opportunity. So the bill would create the California Grid Manufacturing Initiative. We'd work with utilities to identify which components are causing delays and then determine the right form of state help, from technical assistance to coordinated bulk purchasing. We really think that there is an opportunity over the next 25 years for this initiative to save billions of dollars for California rate payers and also to create thousands, thousands of high-road, high-paying union jobs. So I think the opportunity for this bill is lower cost for ratepayers, great jobs for Californians, and the supply chain we need to build our clean energy future demands. With that, I'm going to be joined by Sam Udin from Net Zero California and Sam Appel from UAW. We have our two lead witnesses in support. You have two minutes each.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses here who would like to weigh their support by saying your name, organization, and that you support the bill? Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Adam Hadafi here on behalf of the California Coalition of Large Energy Users in support. Thank you. Good morning. Scott Cox on behalf of Industrious Labs here to voice our strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Alison Hilliard on behalf of the Climate Center in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Good day, Hunter Stern with the Coalition of California Utility Employees and IBW 1245 in strong support. Thank you. Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in proud support. Thank you. Catherine Vieira-Houston, United Steelworkers District 12 in support. Thank you. Asha Sharma on behalf of Sierra Club California in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Curtis Appel, member of Sierra Club in strong support. Thank you. Julia Sebastian on behalf of California Labor for Climate Jobs in support Thank you Hello Rachel Lucene with Blue Green Alliance here in strong support Thank you Rio Morales San Francisco resident in strong support Curia Miller, member of UAW Local 4811 in support. Thank you. Taylor DeWody, UAW Region 6 in strong support. Aave Wong, member of UAW 4811, Region 6, in strong support. Thank you. Rila Banji Kosh, member of UAW Region 6, in strong support. Thank you. Dylan Fowler, UAW Region 6, strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Lise Nickel, UAW Region 6, in strong support. Thank you. Anjali McNeil, Berkeley resident and with UAW Region 6 in strong support. Thank you. Meredith Song, member of UAW Local 4811 and Region 6 in support. Thank you. Swapnil Agarag, UAW 4811 member, I support this bill. Thank you very much. Aidan Kelly, member of UAW 4011 in strong support. Thank you. Kautzen Kong, member of UAW 4811, in strong support. Thank you. Maya Jacobson, Oakland resident, in strong support. With your Rosie Riveter banner. Thank you. Junie Bedain, member of UAW 4811, in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Solana Glass, member of UAW 4123, in strong support. Thank you. Dr. Maria Satnik, UAW 4811, in strong support. Thank you. Joshua Baulbeck, UAW Region 6, strong support. David Murillo, UAW Region 6, strong support. Thank you. Corey Copeland, climate scientist and supervisor at large for CAPS UAW 1115, in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Kayla Jones, proud member of IBW 1245 in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Norman Rogers, USW Local 675 in strong support. Thank you. Well, I counted more than 30 witnesses who went in to support. So I saw many of you waiting in line to come in. So thank you for being here to participate. Any lead witnesses who'd like to wish their opposition to the bill? Seeing none, any individuals who just want to weigh in with your name and organization in opposition to the bill? All right. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any members who'd like to speak? Senator Becker. Thank you. This is a really important bill. The supply chain bottlenecks are real, and they are hindering our goals. Also I chair a select committee here in the Senate that about economic development and manufacturing you know keeping and growing manufacturing here in California So to me this is a real win bill in terms of creating the jobs that were mentioned speeding our clean energy goals, and doing it in a thoughtful way. So I'd love to be added as a co-author at the appropriate time. Thank you, Senator. I'll move the bill when we can. Thank you, Senator. Yes, Senator Atalbo. Hi. Thank you, Member. So I have a couple of questions because, you know, my area is the Inland Empire, San Bernardino Riverside County. They used to have a lot of manufacturing. And right now I just want to highlight that Searles Valley Minerals is a chemical company in Trona, California. it's just filing bankruptcy. They produce borax, soda ash, sodium sulfate from the brine of Searles Lake using solutions and mining, and they can't afford to do business in California. And some of the materials that they use are actually used for flat screen monitors and are crucial for clean energy technologies like solar panels and EV batteries. One of two companies in the nation, in the nation, and because of the cost of doing business in California, they cannot afford to do business anymore in the state. They laid off 300 employees just a couple of months ago, just filed for bankruptcy, and their main concern is we can't afford to do business in California. We can't produce these essential products in our state, and they can't compete with China because of the regulatory environment of our state. And the reason I state that, because I'm trying to understand how the state coming in is going to actually address the supply chain constraints and storage units, because in order to have the materials that we need to manufacture, we have to have the businesses in California if they can't afford to do it, and many of them are leaving the state or just closing its doors because they can't afford to do business in California. How does this bill actually address the actual supply that we're not able to produce in our state? That's what I'm trying to get. How does the state procuring these materials, if we don't have them, how does it fix the issue of the supply chain?

Okay, so what intrigued me, what you just stated on, is the coordination of the regulatory environment that could be fixed, which with the utmost respect could be done right now if we were listening to the industries, to the manufacturers. Well, yeah, the manufacturers who understand what their plight is. it's sad to me that we need to create a commission to be able to have those conversations when they're speaking loud and clear as to what is happening in California. I still, I understand the goals. I just, I'm just, I'm just really struggling with this because it's obvious why we struggle in California. If you're listening to our industries and our businesses, I appreciate the goal I'm going to lay off the bill today because I still I think a lot of what should be done and things that you're actually speaking of we're doing right now we should be doing right now without a commission without this this is part of what we do as legislators we're supposed to be listening to the industries hear them out as far as this is not working and yet we're not doing this anything to actually address those.

You're going to give Shannon that. Just... No, go ahead. I just... No, no, no.

I just... I'm really struggling because I see how the business... How, once again, I'm going to go back. It's the regulatory environment that is really destroying a lot of the businesses that have been providing for our communities have And we make ourselves feel better by passing another commission.

Senator Grob. Thank you. I appreciate you taking the amendments. I appreciate your text message and always engaging. I am going to lay off the bill today, but I look forward to supporting it when it comes to the floor. And the reason why is because if I vote aye today, it's the bill in print, which I don't agree with a lot of the issues that are in there. But with the amendments, it made the bill much better, and it can be supportable. And so I want to make sure that you know that. And my colleague, Senator Stern, who just walked out, who was antagonizing me at the same time, my good colleague, Senator Ochoa Bogue. Oh, he's still over there. He's waiting in the background. The peanut gallery. Yes, the peanut gallery. So Senator Ochoa Bogue does have a point that the regulatory process, there's no other state and country that requires California Resources Board emissions, allowances, things like that, a lot of manufacturers. But I am going to correct the record. I deeply respect my colleague. I love my colleague, and I think she's absolutely heartfelt, and she has a passion to make sure that businesses stay along. I do as well. And I want you to know that myself and my colleague, who is now walking back from the peanut gallery right now, fought very, very hard, fought very, very hard with the California Air Resources Board, particularly for this company to not lay off 420 people with the war notice that went out. And then once they got the allowances, they filed bankruptcy. So that is something we have to protect from happening in the future. I think the company waited far too long before it addressed it with the state. That's part of it. And I do agree wholeheartedly with my colleague that the state's arbitrary, archaic, regulatory compliance issues are driving businesses out of the state. That's not a hyperbole. That's a fact. And it is true. We need this company and this product that they produce for iPhone screens, for television screens, for stop signs, for anything, solar panels. We need it for that. Now we're going to have to figure out how to import it. And it's not going to be here, right here where we control the process, and it's California compliant. So I think driving out our businesses when we are, when I say California compliant, that definition to me is we are the most stringent, environmentally protected state requirement allowances, mitigation, permit requirements, audits, everything that we require for our businesses. We California compliant where other states aren and other countries obviously aren So we going to figure out where to get this product that we use every single day And so I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague that the regulatory issues in California are overbearing and they can't survive and compete on a global market. But I am setting the record straight on the company that we worked hard to get those allowances for, and they did the wrong thing even. So I'm really upset about that. So that's why my colleague is thanking me for saying that, and he knew that I was coming uncorked just a few minutes ago. Thank you, Senator. Senator, would you like to close? I begged our chair of insurance in the assembly to hustle over because that was our last bill, so everyone's got a lot of committees. Senator Archuleta, please. I hear my colleagues, but at the same time, when are we going to do something about it? And that's the issue. We've got to kick that door open, and I think this bill, AB 2516, does that. It acknowledges the fact that we've been sitting on our hands too long, and we've got to open those doors for labor, for manufacturing, for innovation, for discovery. We've got to do this, and this is the opportunity, and I think this bill does that. And working with GOBIZ and everyone else, we've got to take the next step. There's too many things that are on the horizon in the future of California, and we can't hinder the production, the innovation, as I mentioned. So this bill is going to do that, and I'm going to support it because it is one of many bills to come because we have to do it. And with that, I will move it at the appropriate time. Thank you, Senator Archuleta. Actually, Senator Becker did move the bill, but thank you, when the time is appropriate. But now, Assemblywoman, would you please like to close? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senators, for that robust discussion and debate. I think we are all committed to identifying and removing roadblocks to manufacturing across the state. and I think that this bill, it really is an exciting opportunity for us to look at our clean energy future and ensure that as we're building our clean energy future, we're doing it in a way that is creating great jobs for hardworking Californians and continues to create economic development opportunities for California more broadly. So I look forward to continuing to work with all of you, as I said, to make the promise of that a reality for California. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Assemblywoman. The motion has been made, and as soon as we have a quorum, which we're very close now, we'll be taking up the vote. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right. Assemblywoman and Chair Calderon, would you please come forward to present your bill, AB 2647? And for members who are watching and their staff and teams, if you would please come down. We're ready to take a quorum. We're now only two members away, and this is our last bill, so we could actually knock out the votes for the quorum. Pardon? And also for the bills as well. Thank you. Assemblymember, please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. I pleased to present AB 2647 and I want to thank the committee staff for working with my team and I will be taking the committee amendments AB 2647 directs the California Energy Commission to prepare a comprehensive assessment of the potential role for advanced nuclear technology in meeting California's long-term electricity needs. Californians pay the highest electricity rates in the continental United States. Since 2010, the average households bill has risen 88 percent, double the national average, and now stands at $1,876 a year. Statewide, that's $13 billion more than Californians would pay at the national average rate. According to the CPUC, nearly one in five California households is behind on their electricity bill. Families are being forced to choose between food, medicine, and keeping the lights on. This isn't fair for everyday Californians trying to pay their bills and feed their families. Our businesses pay nearly triple what their counterparts pay in states like Texas, more than 170% above the national average. Advanced manufacturers, hydrogen producers, and defense contractors are weighing California against competitor states, and California is losing. California's own energy agencies confirmed in their 2021 joint agency report that nuclear meets SB100's definition of clean energy. Yet because of the 1976 moratorium, they refrained from including it in their modeling scenarios, depriving the state of a clear understanding of its role in achieving SB 100. AB 2647 marks an important and historic step. In addition to mandating the CEC study, it authorizes the Energy Commission, the PUC, the Independent Assistant Operator, and other public agencies to evaluate advanced nuclear energy's potential to meet statewide needs for new electricity resources. The CEC study will examine safety, waste management, system costs, reliability, siting, public health, job creation, and the environment in direct comparison with other energy sources and current pathways. Momentum for advanced nuclear is building in red and blue states alike. The six New England states are exploring a coordinated path to new nuclear. In January, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker lifted his state's moratorium two years after opposing the same move, a sign of how fast the ground is shifting, and New Jersey has followed suit. Advanced nuclear also creates thousands of well-paid permanent jobs in construction, engineering, and operations. These are careers to sustain families and stay in communities for decades. Here with me to testify and support are Charles Oppenheimer, founder and co-executive director of the Oppenheimer Project, and Max Ratoni, chair of UC Berkeley's nuclear engineering department. To our lead witness, please come here to the microphone. And you have two minutes, and thank you for your presence. Okay. Thank you, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 2647. My name is Charles Oppenheimer. I'm the founder of Oppenheimer Energy and Oppenheimer Project, organizations dedicated to advancing the peaceful uses of nuclear science and reducing the threats from nuclear weapons. California has set one of the most ambitious clean energy goals in the world, 100% zero carbon electricity by 2045. To achieve that we need renewables storage and clear understanding of every firm dispatchable zero resource available to us AB 2647 asked the California Energy Commission to do exactly that assess the potential role of advanced nuclear technology compare them against other pathways, and make recommendations based on data and research. California's grid has 65 years of experience with nuclear energy. In recent decades, we have learned much about reactor durability, passive safety systems, and full carbon accounting of every resource on our grid. Six states have already completed comparable nuclear feasibility assessments, Michigan, Florida, Georgia, New York, Illinois, and Texas. So the CEC should be able to use those to achieve rigorous assessments in 2027. A recent PPIC poll found that for the first time in recent memory, a majority of California voters support expanding nuclear energy. This bill is indeed timely. I also saw all seven of the governor candidates support the extension of Diablo Canyon. In the 1920s, my grandfather Robert Oppenheimer chose Berkeley and Caltech over Harvard because California was a frontier, a place to build the future. I believe that spirit is still alive in this state, and the power of science can be used for public good if we choose to. AB 2647 is a small and meaningful investment in answering the pressing question for the people of California. I ask for your yes vote. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair, members of the committee. I'm Massimo Liano-Flatoni, Professor and Chair of the Nuclear Engineering Department at the University of California, Berkeley. I spent my career researching advanced reactors and fuel cycle, and I speak today in support of AB 2647. This bill builds nothing. It directs the Energy Commission to do the analysis California has never done. It puts evidence in front of this legislature on what advanced nuclear can and cannot do on our grid. The analysis matters because California needs fear-dispatchable zero-carbon power. Advanced nuclear delivers it. It is a path to great reliability, to energy security, to affordable electricity, and to a more fair economy that works for every Californian in this century, all while we meet our 2045 net zero goal. The bill asked the Commission to compare waste across every generation source. Welcome that comparison. Nuclear is the most contained and accountable waste stream of any energy source. Every gram of spent fuel the W Canyon has produced in 40 years is solid, tracked, and sitting on site in steel and concrete. California is meanwhile deploying green batteries faster than it has built in the system to recycle and retire them. And those batteries are hazardous waste at the end of life. The rules to handle them at scale are still being written. The bill asks for exactly this comparison. The commission should have the best science available to it. My department, the Department of Nuclear Engineering at UC Berkeley, is the only nuclear engineering department in the UC system stands ready to support this assessment with independent technical expertise. Get the facts on the table. I urge your yes vote. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other individuals who'd like to, by their name, organization, state their support of this bill? Yes, sir. Mike Monaghan on behalf of State Building Trades in support. Thank you. Kendra Bagley on behalf of the City of Burbank in support. Thank you. Yes, Hunter Stern with the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and IBW 1245 in strong support. Thank you. Dylan Finley on behalf of the California Large Energy Consumers Association and Precon Products in support. Thank you. Laura Parr on behalf of Southern California Edison in support. Nathan Pancholi, Mountain View resident, in strong support. Thank you. Stephan Johnson, a junior at St. Francis High School, on behalf of the Santa Clara County Democratic Party, in support. Thank you. Ryan Pickering, representing Native Nuclear, Generation Atomic, and Mothers for Nuclear, in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no others, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Please come forward and you have two minutes each. Members, please hang in there. We have a couple more people who are on their way down, and we will immediately take a quorum and vote on the bills. Thank you. Yes, sir. Hello, Chair, members, staff. Good to be with you today. My name is Hoken Williams. I'm the Executive Director of Committee to Bridge the Gap, a nonprofit that since 1970 has been dedicated to cleaning up and preventing the toxic messes left by the nuclear industry. As you on this committee continue navigating the state's clean energy transition, I understand wanting to survey all the available options. My message to you is, if we're going to do a study on nuclear energy, let's do it right. This bill, as written, does not set the Energy Commission up to do the study right, and indeed could turn into a whitewash of Trump administration industry boosterism. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the federal agency tasked with preventing nuclear reactor accidents. Senators, we are living right now through the most severe deregulation of that agency in its history. Last year, President Trump issued executive orders sweeping away decades of essential nuclear protections. Now the agency is in the process of doing what the president ordered, revising 100 percent of its regulations, including, for instance, an expected increase of allowable radiation exposures to the public by five to 100 times. our own California Attorney General Bonta has had to step in twice already, joining AGs from eight other states to oppose weak reactor licensing pathways that violate numerous federal laws. In that context, potential nuclear development needs more scrutiny, not less. AB 2647, as written, reads like it was written by boosters to achieve predetermined conclusions and leaves out important considerations Californians would expect us to study. This study would not consider the potentially severe economic liability to our state from reactor accidents, which can cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Please summarize. The study would not include consideration of impacts on water use, emergency planning, or environmental justice. Ratepayer impacts, one of the big major themes of this session. It matters what specifically you direct the Energy Commission to study, especially when that study could begin a process that invites a dangerously unregulated industry into our state. I look forward to seeing committee amendments, but I worry they're insufficient. I respectfully urge you to not let this bill pass without amendments to study economic liability protection, impacts on water, emergency planning, environmental justice, and ratepayers. Thank you. Thank you. Sir with all due respect I sorry we got multiple members on multiple committees presenting multiple bills I going to have to pause for a moment to call for a quorum Okay So if you like to be seated it take us just a couple minutes All right, members, we have several bills before us that we've heard now today. We're going to establish a quorum. Assistant, would you please call the roll? Senators Allen, Echobog. Echobog here. Archuleta. Archuleta here. Araguin. Becker. Becker here. Caballero. Dally. Dally here. Gonzalez. Here. Gonzalez here. Grove. Hurtado. Here. Hurtado here. Reyes. Richardson. Here. Richardson here. McNerney. Rubio. Stern. Here. Stern here. Strickland. Strickland here. Wahab. Assistant, we have a quorum? Yes. Okay. Thank you. With that, we're actually going to take the vote on the bills that we've heard thus far in order to maintain our quorum. We have. All right. Members, if you would please hang in there. We've just got this one final opposition witness and then the me tos and then we can vote on all the bills. Thank you for your patience. OK, sir. John Giesemann on behalf of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. We were opposed unless amended on the bill. We appreciate the committee's recognition of the need to amend the bill. Appreciate the author's willingness to accept the committee amendments. We'll take a look at the amendments and see where to go from here. Thank you very much. Thank you. Having heard from the two lead opposition witnesses, Do we have any other individuals who'd like to voice their opposition? If so, please just come forward and state your name, organization, and your opposition. Good morning, military members. Jacob Evans, Sierra, California. An opposition less amended. I'm registering the same position for Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles and San Francisco, public watchdogs, Indivisible 49, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, and that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Hearing all discussion, do we have any members who'd like to speak to the bill? Senator Becker. I want to thank you for being willing to tackle tough issues like this. I know this has been a very controversial topic in the legislature for many years, but the reality is getting to 100% clean energy is going to take a lot of clean, firm power. So looking at the role that nuclear can play is very important. And I appreciate you passing this through, working through to get to where it is today. And, you know, I'm already a co-author of the bill, but I just wanted to, again, thank you and congratulate you for working on this tough topic because it is something we need to look at. And you're leading the way on it. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Yes. Thank you so much, Assemblymember. I also sort of echo those sentiments as well from Senator Becker about needing to get the whole context of our clean energy sort of direction. And I don't dismiss what the opposition is stating because I do absolutely believe there's a lot of concern, you know, from past incidents. And obviously we've continued Diablo Canyon. But what does this mean for the next steps in terms of nuclear where Senator Stern had a bill SB SB that has also kind of looked at this through the CEC lens But I've met with some constituents back home in L.A. who are concerned, but I've told them I would address these concerns with you. And I am a co-author as well, because I do believe we need to get the information and the data before we figure out next steps. But specifically with the disposal and waste, obviously, That's not a new concern for you, but how do you address that, and what would you say to folks back home that are asking if this would be included in the study specifically? Yes. Thank you, Senator. That's a very good question. So that will be part of the study. I mean, I think that this is going to take a comprehensive look at what are the issues and solutions for storage, emissions, What's the effect on the rate payer? All of it. And like one of my witnesses said, you know, we look forward to having, as a result of this study, some good data on which to decide how we move forward. And I don't know if one of my witnesses wants to respond to that. Mr. Oppenheimer? So my history was not actually very in support of nuclear energy. had received a large negative bias in our family goal is to stop nuclear war. So when I looked at nuclear energy, both on the energy side and the waste side, I was really surprised on what I actually saw. And one of the things that I'd urge the committee and California citizens to become familiar with is that our biases told us nuclear waste is unbelievably dangerous and it's toxic sludge and it's hurt a lot of people. But the facts of it are very easy to track down, that there hasn't been a single injury in 60 years of running nuclear plants all over the world from nuclear waste. So at a certain point when you're doing industrial-level work and you haven't ever had an injury of it, even though we've heard over and over the fear of it and the worry about it, you can start looking at the facts. I do think this study is the right way when so many people have absorbed and decided that, you know, nuclear energy is terrible in the United States, that you need to use science, you need to do a study, and so this is a good first step. And your constituents should be concerned, but this is the right first step towards it. Absolutely. Thank you. Please read the chair. If I can add that. Just for a few seconds. Yeah, a few seconds. Unfortunately, I think there is no energy source that is free of waste. And a comparison between all the sources and the impact of the different sources, I think it is an important assessment to make. Absolutely. And I would say, too, that, you know, we haven't had a really robust discussion since the 70s, right? So this is like an issue for us to now sort of re-engage more comprehensively and ensure that we're getting all the facts right. And I agree on the waste, but, you know, it needs to be detailed in here. So thank you for taking this on. Absolutely. Thank you, Madam. Senator Hurtado. Senator. I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward and would like to be at it as a co-author as well if she's okay with it. Thank you. Senator Archuleta. We talked about opening doors all morning with things that California has to be innovative about, But you know obviously this bill has the element of a comprehensive assessment and study to bring a little peace and calm to those that are concerned And I think that the portion of the bill that I really excited about that we are going to be able to discover how to use it, how to benefit California with it because of the safety factors that you're going to implement. And I appreciate what you're doing. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, do we have a motion to move the bill, please? So moved. Motion by Senator Stearns. With that, we will actually, I believe we can take the vote on this one now. Okay, we have a motion on this bill. Our assistant, could you please call the roll? I'm sorry, we're closing this. Thank you. This bill has been moved by Senator Stern. The motion is to move the bill. And from there, the assistant, it's now closed, and the assistant, would you please call the roll? She needs a motion. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And thank you for the thoughtful questions. They're very important, and I'm hopeful that we'll get a lot of good data out of this study. Thank you. and excuse my rush, but I was trying to make sure we get your vote for your bill and the others before everyone leaves. Thank you, Assemblymember. With that, Assistant, would you please call the roll? Due pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Allen? Echobog? Aye. Echobog, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Araguin? Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Daly? Aye. Daly, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grove? Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney, Reyes, Richardson, aye. Richardson, aye. Rubio, aye. Rubio, aye. Stern, aye. Stern, aye. Strickland, aye. Strickland, aye. Wahab. 9-0. That vote is 9-A's and 0-No's. And so with that, we will put the bill on call because we have a couple members who are missing.

Thank you, Assemblywoman. Assemblymember Gibson, we're going to run through the other bills, but we'll be with you in just a moment. I'd like to move the consent calendar. Yes, thank you, sir. We have a motion to move the consent calendar by Senator Strickland. Would the assistant please call the roll? File item 11. Senators Allen, Echobo. Consent. Consent. Echobo, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Araguin? Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Daly? Aye. Daly, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grove? Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Wahab? 11 to 0. That bill is out. with 11 ayes and zero noes. With that, we're going to go to the top, which is AB 710. With that, we already do have a motion. The assistant, would you please call the roll? Do pass to be amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators Allen, Echobog, Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Arrageen, Becker. Aye. Becker aye, Caballero. Dally. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grove. Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Rubio. Aye. Rubio, aye. Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. Strickland. 8-0. Still needs one more vote. That bill is now going to be put on call because it has eight ayes and I believe no nos. Okay. We still need one more on that one. Let's go to AB 2182. Okay. Moved by Senator Richardson. Do pass to be amended in the Environmental Quality Committee. Senators Allen. Echobog? Aye. Echobog, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Arrigan? Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Daly? Aye. Daly, aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Grove? Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Wahab? 11-0. Thank you. That bill, AB 2182, is out. Do we have any members we need to keep it on call? Yes. Okay. We'll put that bill on call for other members to vote. Now we'll go to AB 2589. We need a motion on that one. I'm sorry. Did I call that it was 11 to 0? Yes. Okay. All right. With that, we're going to go to AB 2589. We did already have a motion that was left to be when appropriate. I don't recall who actually. I don't have it. Okay. Could we get a motion for, thank you, Senator Strickland, for AB 2589. Assistant, would you please call the roll? Do pass to be amended to appropriations. Senators Allen? Echobog? Aye. Echobog, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Aye. Arrageen. Becker. Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero. Dally. Aye. Dally, aye. Gonzales. Aye. Gonzales, aye. Grove. Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Rubio. Rubio, aye. Stern, aye. Strickland. Aye. Strickland, aye. Wahab. is on call with 11 ayes and no votes, but we'll leave it on call for open members. We'll now go to AB 1577. I believe we had a motion on that. Archuleta. That was by Senator Archuleta. Assistant, would you please call the roll? Do pass to be amended in Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators Allen? Echobog? Aye. Echobog, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Aragon. Becker. Becker. Aye. Caballero. Daly. No. Daly. No. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Grove. Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado. Aye. McNerney. Reyes. Aye. Reyes. Aye. Richardson. Aye. Richardson. Aye. Rubio. Aye. Rubio. Aye. Stern. Aye. Stern. Aye. Strickland. No. Strickland. No. Wahab. 9 That bill will remain on call with 9 ayes and 2 nos We now go to AB 2065 and we did have a motion when appropriate Okay we take a motion by Senator Reyes for AB 2065 Assistant, would you please call the roll? Thank you. Do pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Allen, Echobog? No. Echobog, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Araguin? Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero. Daly. Aye. Daly, aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grove. Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Rubio. Aye. Rubio, aye. Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. Strickland. No. Strickland, no. Wahab. Nine to two. That bill will remain on call with nine ayes and two zeros. Can I get a motion for AB 2516, please? Becker. That motion is by Senator Stern. Becker. Oh. He earlier. Is it valid if we didn't have a quorum? Yes. We'll take it. We'll take Senator Becker's original motion. Thank you, though, Senator Stern. Assistant, would you please call the roll for AB 2516? Due pass to be amended in Business, Professions, and Economic Development. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Wahab? 8 to 2. That bill will remain on call with 8 ayes and 2 nos. We'll now go to AB 2163. Do we have a motion on file? Grove. Senator Grove made that original motion. With that, the assistant, would you please call the roll for 2163? Do pass to business, professions, and economic development. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Wahab? 12 to 0. That bill will remain on call at 12 to 0. 12 ayes and no zeros, or no nays, I should say. With that, we're going to go to the Carrillo bill, which is AB 2505. Do we have a motion on file? Senator Grove had made that motion, which we'll accept. Assistant would you please call the roll Aye Strickland Aye Richardson aye Rubio Aye Rubio aye Stern Aye Stern aye Strickland Aye Strickland aye Wahab 11 That bill, 2505, will remain on call with 11, did you say? Yes. 11 ayes and 0 nays? Yes. Okay, that bill will remain on call. We voted on already item number 10, which was 2647. Were there any members who are now here who didn't get a chance to vote? Okay, we'll bring that one back forward. Assistant, would you call the members absent? AB 2647, current vote 10-0. Allen, Araguin, Caballero, Grove, McNerney. McNerney, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Aye. Wahab. 12-0. That bill will remain on call at 12 ayes and 0 nays. We also voted on the consent calendar, which was 2790. Are there any members present who missed that bill? Would you please call the roll? File item 11, consent calendar. Senators Allen, Arrageen, Caballero, Grove, McNerney. McNerney, aye. We'll hop. So 12-0. Okay, that bill is also on call with 12 ayes and 0 nays. We'll put that on call for any remaining members. Members, I'd ask if we could please remain to hear the bill of Mr. Gibson, AB 2279, and when he completes, we'll do a final vote of any votes that members missed. I'm also going to, I have a meeting with Governor's staff. I was going to pass to our most. Okay. Rosa Lisi. Pardon? We did the consent. Okay. Hey, B. Hey. Okay. Okay. Good morning, Assemblymember Gibson. Welcome. You'll be presenting file item number 8, AB 2279. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. My name is Liliana de Monge. I'm here today on the behalf of Unite LA in strong support of AB 2279, the Regional Broadband Consortium Empowerment Act of 2026. Thank you to Assemblymember Gibson for drafting this legislation. Unite LA is a nonprofit organization that has served as a convener of the LA Digital Action League, the regional broadband consortia for Los Angeles County since 2021. Our work is grounded in a clear vision that the Los Angeles County has a diverse and inclusive rising workforce that experiences equitable economic mobility and well-being, resulting in a thriving region and a thriving state. We advance this mission through collaboration, strengthening systems, policies, and high-quality education and career pathways. Expanding broadband access is essential to achieving this vision. Today, Internet access is essential for education, workforce participation, health care, and civic engagement. Yet too many communities remain on the wrong side of the digital divide. AB 2279 is a timely and practical solution that strengthens regional broadband consortia like ours so that we can better serve communities. The bill does three key things. First, it expands the authority of the consortia to support all aspects of broadband from deployment to adoption, creating a more comprehensive approach to digital equity. Second, it establishes performance-based funding tied to measurable outcomes, improving accountability and impact. Third, it gives the Public Utilities Commission flexibility to partner with experienced nonprofit organizations to better coordinate regional efforts. Importantly, this bill strengthens an existing program without impacting the general fund. AB 2279 ensures that all Californians, regardless of where they live, can access opportunity, connection, and economic mobility. We respectfully urge you your aye vote. Thank you very much for consideration.

Good morning, committee members. My name is Navrit Handal. I'm here on behalf of Valley Vision, which manages the Connected Capital Area Broadband Consortium, which represents Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties. For more than a decade, Valley Vision has worked alongside local government, community organizations, education partners, and residents to advance broadband across our region. Today, our role convening We Prosper Together, the Capital Region's California Jobs First Initiative, we see every day how broadband access is connected to workforce development, education, health care, and economic opportunity. While significant progress has been made on deployment, our communities need support navigating adoption programs, identifying local connectivity needs, coordinating partners, and ensuring residents can fully benefit from these investments. The challenge is that this current statute limits how much of technical assistance regional consortiums can provide, even though local partners look to us for help on both deployment and adoption. Communities do not experience these issues separately. For them, success means having reliable Internet access and the ability to use it to access jobs, education, health care, and essential services. Our local partners continue to look to regional consortia for guidance, coordination, and technical assistance across both deployment and adoption because those efforts are interconnected at the community level. AB 2279 recognizes that reality and modernizes the consortium model and allows trusted regional partners to better align local needs with state investments for the Broadband for All Goals. For these reasons, Valley Vision respectfully urges your support with AB 2279. Thank you.

Good morning, Josh Goger on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors

Okay. By the way, before we move on, I want to just clarify the amendments that you've agreed to and get your verbal assent. So we're going to retain the clause providing each consortium with an annual minimum $200,000 grant, remove the $500,000 cap on annual grants, clarify that the The $200,000 base grant does not preclude a consortium from receiving additional grants in a given year and require annual financial reports to detail how ratepayer funds were used for consortium activities. And that, I think, is in compliance with both your negotiation with the committee over the last few days plus the language that you sent this morning to the committee.

So you agreed. We can now hear from opposition folks who want to raise concerns about the bill. Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee for discussion. We'll go to Senator Reyes.

Great. Okay. Moves by Senator Reyes. Any other comments, questions? Senator Rubio.

But we're still here five years later, and it's a reality for so many of our families. And my heart goes out to students. As an educator, I know that that was my biggest issue, just understanding that as we mandate that we move forward in society, with technology, we forget that we're still leaving so many families behind. So I also want to be a co-author to this and just thank you. Our low-income families deserve for us to continue to explore this issue. It continues to push our families behind just in technology and opportunities to move forward in life. So thank you for this. And, again, I want to be at it as a co-author, as I've already stated. Appreciate you. Great. Thank you. Other questions, comments from the committee? All right, so it's been moved by Senator Reyes. We'll give you the opportunity to close. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes, Senator, what's up about Ms. Madam Vice Chair?

I think what we're proposing is that the fiscal sponsor of the consortia submit audits versus the actual project. So the project is like $200,000, but the fiscal sponsor is the larger organization that does the convening. We're going to submit audits for the larger organization. That way you don't have double audits. I believe that's what we're proposing. So with the bigger one submitting the audit report they would not have to highlight the expenditures Oh yeah No Yeah I mean once you submit an audit it includes everything Expenditures and the grant proceeds that are received

Right. Right. The consortium. Not the consortium, but the physical sponsor wants to submit an annual audit of expenditures and revenue.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. Because when an organization like Unite LA submits its annual audit, it's a million-dollar audit versus the project that's in the $200,000. So it's inclusive of everything.

Yeah, so currently every RBC receives $200,000. It doesn't matter what the RBC looks like. There are certain RBCs that represent three to four counties, just like the Valley Vision. They represent multiple counties. LA County has one county. Right now, everybody is treated exactly the same way. And so we propose that there would be some kind of funding metric that would allow us to take into account other factors. And that's something that the PUC is then going to go ahead and formulate so that everyone receives minimum $200,000. and then depending on the people that live in each RBC, whether they're low-income people or they're unserved people, then there would be an adjustment based on that.

Right. So rural counties tend to have a higher percentage of unserved people, so that would qualify them for additional funding.

It's a whole percentage.

Oh, we want it to be a percentage.

Correct.

Yes. And so this legislation was put together by all the RBCs, and we have dense RBCs, and then we have rural RBCs. So we all came together with this scheme, with this plan to make sure that it was equitable for all RBCs.

The framework, exactly.

Yeah, the framework.

The framework.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want to close with Senator Reyes and also Senator Rubio's comments. I think they will align with my comments, and certainly thank Senator Rubio for adding on as a co-author. I'm honored that she would want to be a co-author and respectfully ask when I vote.