Senate Energy Utilities And Communications Committee

Committee on Energy Utilities Communications to order. We're going to start as a subcommittee. We ask our colleagues to come down so we can establish a quorum. We've got five bills on the agenda today and we're going to start with item one. That's AB868 by Senator Wiener. Senator Wiener is here and you may proceed. Senator Wen, ready.

And.

Okay, you may proceed.

Thank you, Chairman Allen and members of the committee. My name is Bernadette Del Chuero. I'm senior vice president with Environmental Working Group California. And I'm really pleased to be here in strong support of SB868. Balcony Solar just might be the simplest form of solar energy ever created. We brought a panel here today. It's stuck, stuck in the staff room waiting for permission to come into the hearing. But we wanted to show you just how these systems look and how simple they are to use. The panel we brought, that's just on the other side of this wall, is about the size of this gate, and it comes with two simple cables that plug into an inverter. The inverter acts as the brains of the device, shutting off should the grid go down to protect our utility workers and also serves as a communication tool to the consumer. So with these devices comes an app, so you can always see how much is your solar pan saving you all the time. If SB868 passes, not only will we put in place mandatory statewide safety standards to address all the concerns expressed by the opposition, but we will basically bring this technology to scale and bring it to consumers. We'll in Short order, be able to go to our local Home Depot, Costco or Ikea and pull one of these off the shelf, bring it home in less than an hour, set it up, plug it in and start saving. We estimate that consumers with a circuit single 400 watt panel will save $250 a year on their utility bill. These devices are designed, as the Senator mentioned, to be self consumption, to cover self consumption. To give you a sense of that, a 400 watt panel is about the amount of energy that a fridge, a standard fridge, requires with a WI FI router and a few lights, the largest size system allowed under this bill. A 1,200 watt system is about the amount of electricity that AC unit requires to cool a small home or apartment. It will run off of sunshine alone, making energy affordability, but also cooling and addressing heat concerns and heat illness issues facing many of our inland families. Affordable for people. There's an urgent need for this bill. Without it, there's just too much uncertainty and red tape and there's an absence of statewide safety standards. So for the sake of energy affordability, for, for the sake of clean energy and for the safety of these devices for consumers and for the grid and for the utility, we urge. I vote. Thank you so much.

Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Bill Brooks. I'm a licensed professional Engineer with over 38 years of experience ensuring the safety of solar energy systems. I've written numerous technical manuals and articles about solar technologies and I'm an active participant in nearly all the product safety standards that relate to this technology. Also sit on Code Making panel four of the National Electrical Code. And I've chaired the Firefighter Safety Task Group and the large scale Photovoltaic Electric Supply Station task groups for the National Fire Protection Association. I was the technical facilitator for Rule 21 in the state of California, which is the Utility Interconnection Rules for Distributed Energy Resources. And I'm here to testify that SB868 provides all the necessary safety precautions for consumers, utility workers and firefighters. They are simple appliances that meet a customer's on site electric load and will come with all the necessary electrical, fire and structural protections which are part of the UL3700 standard that we'll probably talk a little bit about today. And I'm happy to answer any technical questions you may have.

Yeah,

Hi, my name is Susanna Porti and I'm from Berkeley and I strongly support SB868. We are in a climate crisis locally, nationally and internationally and Balcony Solar can help us get out of our local crisis. At the very least, please support SB868. Thank you.

Rob Hawley from San Jose, I support 868. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Vote Solar Today in support.

Kai Klassen with CERES and strong support.

Good morning. Environment California, strong support.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Graciela Castillo Krangs with the Abundance Network in support.

for Sierra Club Bay Chapter 20,000 members. Thank you.

Chairmember Jael Dantes on behalf of the San Diego Community Power, in support. Mick McGinnis, homeowner Placer county, in support. Hello.

Laura Muther with the Lutheran Office of Public Policy and California Interfaith Power and Light in support. Good morning.

Barbara Dubois from Mill Valley in support.

Carl Wolfersberger, Mill Valley, California here in

Megan Shumway from Arden Arcade, Sacramento, on behalf of Climate Action California and Solar Rights alliance in support.

Carol Kinser from Elk Grove, California.

In full support.

Does that make sense that this help.

Faith Boucher, retired from the University of

Health sciences, now representing third act of Sacramento.

Elliot Appleton Sackett from Environment California to

Cameron Rogers, Hayward, California, strong support. Good morning.

alliance for Clean Energy and 350Southland Legislative alliance in support.

Brian Spencer, on behalf of the Coalition

Western center on Law and Poverty, all in support.

Thank you. All right, let's hear from folks who want to. Oh, yes, let's come up to the mic, but let's establish the quorum. So assistant, please call the roll.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Okay.

Good morning, Senators. My name is Osha Ashworth. I've been in the electrical industry nearly 30 years, 8 years of which I worked as an electrical inspector for the City and County of San Francisco, working closely with San Francisco fire inspectors. GFCI receptacles are not designed to cut off when back feeding. And older receptacles have an even higher rate of failure, creating a potential shock hazard for responding emergency personnel. I personally inspected well over 10,000 electrical installations from buildings that were built and wired in the late 1800s through modern times, including eras where panels like Federal Pacific and Zinsco were prevalent and remain in many dwelling units to this day. For those who may be unfamiliar, these circuit breakers are well known to have a high failure rate. I've inspected existing knob and tube that had been over fused with insulation, crispy

Back feeding circuits that are not dedicated for the use introduces additional current not protected by the overcurrent protection at the source, creating the potential for overloading conductors. This also creates a shock and fire hazard. I've had to go out and inspect dwelling units after fire, so I've seen firsthand whether it's grave concern that the state of California ensure that all safety testing and appropriate regulations be established prior to authorizing a layman to feed into a building's electrical system when they may not even realize the wiring in their unit is already problematic. In San Francisco, the vast majority of the city has zero lot lines. Buildings have no distance between each other, so when fires break out, they often spread to adjacent properties, creating more risk to firefighting personnel and responding utility workers. The National Fire Protection association has not approved the use of these systems. UL has not set the stage safety standards for these systems. And I've also worked as an instructor at our apprenticeship teaching life safety. It would be horrific if moving forward through this were to go through and become a basis for changes to the nec. A lot of the codes are written in blood. This bill does not ensure safe installation, maintenance or inspection standards. So I urge this committee not to move forward with this bill as currently written.

Mr. Chairman. Scott Wech, on behalf of the California State association of Electrical Workers and the California Coalition of Utility Employees, this legislature has never adopted building standards through legislation. You're basically being asked to substitute your judgment for that of the Building Standards Commission. Universal Laboratories has just begun setting safety standards. It's going to be at least 18 months. So why the rush on the bill? The normal process is, if the legislature wants these types of devices to be looked at, would be to direct the Building Standards Commission in their process to evaluate, test and decide. You must understand that there are a long list of devices that are allowed under that the university laboratories set standards for that are illegal. Like these products in California. Unvented gas heaters. You can get those in Europe. Those are allowed. Those are standards in ul. Not in California. Uncoiled appliances, electrical appliances. There's a standard in UL for those, but you can't use them in California. The nec, while we believe that amendment is very helpful in improving this bill, it's the California Electrical Code that governs electrical safety standards in California. The Building Standards Commission on a triannual basis, takes the national electrical Code and then updates it to meet California standards that are higher in energy efficiency and in safety because California has set its standards at the very high. We're not opposed to these products. But the precedent that this sets for substituting your judgment for that of the fire community and the building standards community and the public health community that all participate at the Building Standards Commission is reckless. And finally, I'd just like to point out that at least seven states have shot down proposals this year. Wyoming, Arizona, Georgia, Oregon, Alaska. And in Washington and in New Mexico, they put a pause for the very arguments that I just gave you on pushing forward. There's no need to rush this. It's reckless. Please vote now.

Good morning. Brandon Ebeck, Pacific Gas and Electric. Welcome to the committee, Mr.

We have an opposed on the bill in print. We look forward to reviewing the amendments and doing a lot of Benchmarking with what every other state is doing.

I've also been asked to give a

Thanks.

Edison, we have opposing as amended due to Rule 21. Thank you.

Antonio Sanchez, on behalf of IBEW Local

Thank you. Good morning, Mr.

Members.

Thank you.

Chair.

Good morning.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much everybody for coming in. You know, one thing to mention is that we did, we've put in some amendments that are really grounded in the UL process that was referred to earlier so as to ensure that as the science continues to change, there's going to

safety, that we'll continue to update the safety issues with regards to these products. But, but you know, I will say that it does seem that in some respects the proponents of the opposition are in agreement about, you know, systems that require changes to electrical outlets and the need for electricians to install them. That's come up a lot in the research that we've been doing. But you know, the bill is ultimately about a future time when and if there's a solar plug in system that meets UL or other national testing facility safety certification with a standard electrical outlet. It's important to know that this is not the current safety certification framework for ul. But, so we've, I know that we had a lot of back and forth with the author's office, but you know, the idea is that we would allow this kind of product to move forward as long as the development of the technology meets the safety requirements of, of both the UL and the National Electrical Code with this kind of plug and play device in the future. I think we're all very intrigued by the possibility it's working in certain places, but certainly we've listened carefully to the safety concerns that have been raised by the electrical workers and the firefighters and utilities, and we really want to make sure that the rollout of this product is very grounded in the ultimate certification process. Their investigation, their work on examining all of the implications associated with this product. And you know, while it doesn't feed into the grid, it feeds back into the home's electrical system. And I know that will continue to raise concerns for folks as long as if we're, you know, and so we really don't want to replace our judgment

put our judgment in replacement of others. And that's why we're really grounding the amendments in the UL's analysis of these products. So appreciate your working with us and I know some of it wasn't easy, but love to ask folks for questions or comments from the committee. I know Senator Rubio had something she wanted to say.

Yeah, thank you for that question. This is going to help low income families lower their bills. There's no cost shift here. The argument that there's a cost shift here would be the same argument about, oh, if you let someone purchase a low energy refrigerator or dishwasher, they're going to use less electricity and that will cause a cost shift. I've never heard anyone make that argument. That would be an absurd in my view argument to make. This is about, this is not the arguments that we see with the big Stoller installations where it feeds back into the grid and there's NEM and they get credits. There's a huge argument, as we all know, and this committee knows very well, arguments about cost shifts there. This is literally effectively an appliance that you can use to lower your costs, doesn't feed back into the grid and allows people to have lower electric bills, which is not a cost shift. It's helping people lower their electric bills. In terms of the cost. These devices start at like 500 or $600. You compare that to the upfront cost of putting a big solar installation or batteries, which is dramatically higher. And so this is dramatically more affordable in terms of people being able to enter into generating solar and lowering their bills than traditional solar. And they will be able to recoup that about 5, $600 investment very quickly. And we heard testimony about that. Even with a very modest installation, they'll be able to recoup that quickly. So this is so much more affordable for people to enter than other types of, of ways of bringing down their costs through clean energy. Is it going to mean 100% of people are going to be able to afford that upfront cost? No, I'm not arguing that. But way more middle income, working class, low income people will be able to make that choice and lower their cost to recoup that upfront cost and then have long term cost savings on their electric. And that's really what this is about. It's expanding the ability of renters, of people who own modest homes that don't support solar to benefit from, from solar energy.

Yeah. So, first of all, I do just want to, I just want to say in terms of the fire standards. Well, I'll get to that on the safety standards, because I respectfully disagree. But in terms of, in terms of who's going to be able to afford this, if we look at the percentage of Californians who can afford traditional like rooftop solar and storage, now, if that's X number, this is X times, many times more, many, many more people are going to be able to afford this. I'm not saying that 100% of people can do it. I'm never saying that. But many more people will be able to afford a $500 upfront cost that will quickly be recouped than are able to afford the full rooftop Solar now. And 44% of Californians are renters, almost half of our state rent. They are completely, completely regardless of their income. They are completely boxed out of having solar now. And this will allow that 44%, if they choose to be able to benefit and benefit and lower their costs. So this is absolutely a cost reducer for a large number of California families. And it is no more of a cost shift than people buying energy efficient appliances. Now, I don't think anyone's proposing we should ban people from buying an energy efficient refrigerator because it might be a cost shift. No one is arguing that. And I know you're not arguing that. In terms of the safety, as the chair said, we in order these products in order to qualify under this bill, have to comply with UL safety standards and with the National Electric Code. And so that's not going to be an immediate. The industry is going to have to conform to that and they will. And we have a representative from UL here. I'd be happy to have him come up. If the chair would like to also answer Senator Rubio's questions or anyone's question, the UL is here and can talk about because there's been a lot said by some of the opponents, but we actually have the UL here. And we'd be happy to bring Mr. Jackson up.

And there are many, many professionals who are saying that this is a good thing and it's not dangerous. And we heard from one of them in the opening testimony who testified, a contractor who says it's not dangerous. We have the UL here. If people want to hear from him saying that this is not dangerous, that we have safety standards. And I also just want to address. Yes, the opposition wants to kick this to the Building Standards Commission. One of the reasons why life is so expensive in California is that sometimes this legislature instead of solving problems, tells another agency to do it and then it takes 3, 4, 5, 7 years to do it. We see this happen at the CPUC all the time. It happens, no disrespect at the Building Standards Commission at times. And what happens is that the same opponents who were saying just kick it to the Building Standards Commission, they will spend time opposing it at the Building Standards Commission and trying to put so many conditions on it that it's unusable. I've just, we've all seen this movie over and over again. This is a simple technology. It's being deployed in other states and other countries. It has safety standards that are mandated in this bill. And it just makes sense for us to move, to move forward. And again, the UL is here. They can speak for themselves.

Chair.

Why don't we.

perspective here that I think we're going

All right.

Senator Stern, you have a couple questions?

if you, if you want to sit up here, you'd be welcome to. If that would be more comfortable for

I'm good.

All right. So in terms of how the US Market's looking and the technical challenges we face here in the US Things like the touch safe plugs, breaker masking, BI directional gfcis, the kinds of things that will mitigate Those issues are those contained in your 3700 standard?

So under the current setup, if you're purchasing one of these systems, my understanding is that you're not able to do that without a professional electrician. But then if the product were to evolve or the installation methods or however it worked to hit the new 3700, it would be sort of in theory, plug and play. Is that the difference? Like under the. In the current market conditions in California, if you buy one of these systems, UL doesn't certify you to just simply plug that into the wall. Is that correct?

And so you're taking on your own liability essentially by plugging that into the wall. As an apartment, as a renter or something like that, you're not going to be, I mean, you at least don't have that risk officially certified by the Underwriters lab.

You wouldn't have a US Product safety standard to stand on as certification.

Absolutely. UL Solutions is a worldwide company and something that must be recognized is that Europe's electrical systems are different than North America. They use a two wire 220 volt system ungrounded. We use a 12240 volt grounded system. So there are distinctions, there are differences. In addition, we do have higher thresholds in this country for shock prevention of shock, ground fault. And all the products and our electrical systems are designed and installed to align with that so in Europe they have different, a different electrical system and different standards. So the products there are able to work with those systems, but that doesn't mean they automatically work here.

And so in terms of how the new additional, the new amendment that's being proposed by the committee in terms of alignment with the nec, with the National Electric Code, how does that interface then with the UL standards process?

what

So in other words, your risk analysis and the mitigation, the sort of standards you're proposing deal directly with the product safety, but not necessarily with the building safety associated with that installation.

Understood. And actually could help if adopted. These news to state you're doing the proper work on breaker masking or that you find a new way to have a touch safe plug associated with one of these devices. It could sort of ease the path to compliance for say the California Electric Code of Building Safety Standards, if adopted, but they're not going to sort of supplant the need for that. What you used to do your old job in Bakersfield, right? I mean, there's still going to be that building inspection role or not necessarily, depending on how we design it here. Yeah, I'm just sort of curious. Does the law, does the law need to specify a standard in order for there to be one or does it sort of default to that?

Not going to conflict, but also not. It shouldn't be considered to supplant the need for that kind of standard. There still are those sort of those parallel building standards in addition to the product safety standard, is that right?

You're not going to know the status of the circuit panels in that building or how voltage is grounded in that particular apartment or house or even what that area is going to look like when you're doing the product work.

Okay.

that we couldn't speak to the notification requirement?

No. That's beyond the scope of what we produce. The local jurisdiction, you know, responsible for enforcement or maintaining the infrastructure in a given area may have interest there. The utility certainly would for our purposes. Again, I'm only here to speak to the UL 3700 standard that will result in a safe product that can be installed.

Mr. Chairman, if I may just add one piece of that. This bill is about interconnection. The bill does not stop cities from inspecting if they wish to. And so cities can set up a system where they inspect. And because there's now we have a notification requirement that information exists. And so nothing in here stops inspections if a city desires to do so.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. I had an opportunity to speak with the author yesterday. I have not had an opportunity to speak to those who are voicing other concerns. Since this gentleman had an opportunity to now testify. Can we now give the individuals who were also testifying an opportunity to respond? Because there seems to be a real clear difference here to me. So I would suggest either Mr. Wedge or someone with IBEW or whatever who could clarify what seems to me I'm hearing the concerns regarding electrical codes, how that connects with the building standards. And this is pretty serious because this can, you know, cause someone's house to catch on fire.

But we also, the amendment we did requires that the device be compliant with the most recent updates in the National.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

You're ignoring the California Electrical Code.

Sure. Yeah.

So sweeping CEC in for nec, like between the two. Yes.

And so then through the chair, then, would the opposition be willing to either go neutral or support the bill?

Well, I'm just confirming. I'm just confirming.

Okay. So reclaiming my time in the spirit of a good mentor of mine who said that once, Congresswoman, what I'm going to do is lay off on the bill to give the author an opportunity to amend the bill and to give the opposition an opportunity to tell us that this is safe. I try to be open, you know, with new technology, but I do think, for my personal opinion, I always err a little on the caution when you're talking about voting about safety. That's when for me, that line gets really red. Because now we're talking about. We as elected officials are now saying that we think that a particular product or a particular, you know, what we're trying to do will actually be safe in people's homes. I would like to. To also associate my comments with the senator from Baldwin Park, I believe, and I did mention this to the Author. There are substantial differences. It's one thing to say something is affordable for middle income. It's another to say it's affordable to, you know, all residents in California in my district. To give you an example of where this happens, not everyone in my district, for example, can upgrade their electrical panel so that they can have air condition, that they can have these larger, you know, refrigerators and so on. So it is true that a lot of times individuals in my community is one of them where they don't have the opportunity, they may not, they may be the renter and don't get control what the electrical panel is for their system. And then you have people who come in and put things in that they're not supposed to and then they get in trouble and it just goes on and on and on. So I am equally concerned about the impacts for all residents. There is a difference. When people have $500. I have people in my district, you know, they're not spending $500 on a new energy efficient refrigerator, unfortunately, they're spending $500 on their kid is going to school and they need new tennis shoes. That's what they're spending their money on. So I'm not going to vote no because I want to give the author an opportunity to amend his bill. It doesn't stop it whatever the will of the committee is going to be, but at least it gives every all sides a chance to work through this. But I would strongly urge, I think it's a reason, reasonable request that this should meet California standards because our standards are definitely more stringent. So with that I'll thank you.

Senator Grove, thank you. So listening to the arguments going back and forth, does this product back feed into the system, into the home?

It does not backfit?

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

I fully agree.

So there's limits in the Utah one, 1200 watts. Are there limits on this product?

It's the exact same. Okay, that's good to know. So with SCE and the utilities, do the amendments that were taken by this committee, does that satisfy your concerns? My understanding the chair worked with you. Somebody did they through the chair. Mr. Chair, did it satisfy their concerns? You worked with them.

So I guess. And then my other questions, I had that on the California firefighters. I understand the safety issue. I really do. I get that. But I guess my question on that is that. And again, I understand from the UL that the system in Europe is different than the system in California, but 4 million of these have been deployed in Europe and they've been saving dollars, and it's 500 bucks or whatever it is in the year. Sorry, Germany. I apologize. I looked at the number in Utah and there's been no fires. They don't have the number of units been sold because it's only been in place since 2025. But they have not reported any fires. I think our huge problem with fires is obviously lithium batteries that burn for days and days and days that hurt firefighters and the public more than anyone. And so you did take an amendment for the nec, right, that you're. You're aligned with the nec.

Okay. And then.

I guess that's all the questions I had. Thank you.

You would add the CEC rather than.

I do want to make a comment before I don't have any more questions. Those are the questions I had, but I do want to make a comment. Policies that come out of this building force the utilities to do things that raise cost. Some of your previous policies. I'm just being honest with you. Some of your previous policies that have been passed in this building cause utilities, we pay for, ratepayers pay an abundance amount of stuff that utilities should have no authority over any part of should come out of the general fund budget and they shouldn't be responsible for it. The whole liability piece on the Wildfire situation, all of the policies that come out of this building that negative impact our IOUs, which increase the cost to our ratepayers that come from people on this diocesan. From you, sir, in the past. So I'd rather do a root cause fix like I would rather do a root cause fix than fix those situations. But I, you know, what was that old saying from some old politician? Politics makes strange bedfellows? It's because I'm going to support your bill because I think, although I know it's not going to affect every single Californian, there will be a lot more Californians able to reduce the cost of their utility bill by plugging in something that you can order online and have it delivered to your house and meet the standards that you're going to take the amendments for, then can afford $68,000 for rooftop solar right now. And I wish we would do a root cause analysis to fix the problems that the IOUs, because we force those IOUs, this building forces the IOUs to increase cost per kilowatt on all of our constituents. And so this is, to me, no offense, it's like a band aid, but it's a good band aid and hopefully it'll help a lot of California Californians.

It's okay.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. And Mr. Wech, thank you so much for that clarification. That makes a Big difference. I do want to hear from the professional firefighters. I know they had opposed unless amended, safety concerns regarding potential fires and would like to know their position with the amendments that we're taking at taken and then now with the additional amendment that the author has proposed to accept.

Thank you so much. Because when I reviewed this bill, I thought very similar to some of my colleagues. It's a great idea to be able to provide something that is affordable for tenants. Primarily, a tenant cannot decide they're going to put a solar system even if they could afford it. They can't put a solar system on their apartment building. It's only the owner that can do that. This provides that opportunity for them. If the cost is 500 and they're saving 250 a year, in two years they will have recouped their expenses. But going through the letters of opposition from the professional firefighters and also from the workers themselves, those are serious concerns. And I sincerely appreciate the the author addressing both of those concerns. I look forward to receiving from the professional firefighters and the workers their neutrality or removal of the opposition or perhaps even coming in favor of it. Because I think that we do have a responsibility to all of Californians to provide something that allows them to save on their electricity bills or utility bills, the same as somebody who can afford a $68,000 solar panel. And this, if they have a small apartment, this may be all they need. And as I said, in two years they'd be able to recoup this cost. I do have a question, however. As I understand it, this does not come as one piece. In one piece there are a number of different pieces. Is that correct?

Senator, thank you for that question. So it comes in.

Yes, it will be certified as a complete kit. So when you buy it from Ikea or Home Depot, it'll be a complete kit. And that will be three separate pieces. The panel, the inverter and Then the cord that plugs into the wall.

That's right. Today, if you were to buy one of these, each component is certified. For example, the inverter is certified to UL 1741. That ensures there's no back feeding to the grid when the grid goes down. That certification has been in place for 25 years and applies to the inverter. But what's special, if you will, about UL 3700 is that it will certify the entire system as a kit. And that is different. And that's a higher standard, a higher bar to clear. And that's why SB868 is so important from a public safety perspective.

That's right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I have in front of me the high cost of electricity in California Little Hoover Commission report that came out in October 2025. I'm going to read a couple of items there that I think is interesting and important to have on record. It says with the exception of Hawaii, California electricity rates are the highest in the country. The state's residential are twice the national average. In my District, Senate District 19, I represent both the high desert and the low desert. The following is stated for these residents as many residents live in hot climate zones, do not have solar systems, home solar systems or efficient homes and appliances and do not qualify for energy bill assistance. As Of May of 2025, 2.3 million investor owned utility customers. Over 20% of the households they served have unpaid energy bills owing an average of almost $800. 788. To be exact. I state that because, you know, as mentioned by my colleague from Bakersfield, many of the policies that are passed through the legislature that have really put or mandated certain requirements on our electrical or our energy providers here have made electricity incredibly expensive as mentioned by this report. I'm going to support your measure today because I'm hoping that it will continue to one help with folks that can't afford solar panels on their homes, especially renters. I was a renter for, you know, through college. My parents have, you know, for the most of their lives have always been renters can't live in California because they can't afford California and they need, they need help, they need assistance. We have to be able to make it more affordable to live in California. However, I do want to state on record. And I'm glad that you have publicly announced the fact that you're going to address the whole electoral goal requirements and standards to meet California's needs. But even on those, you know, it was stated we do have the highest standards when it comes to electrical practices, which good or bad, you know, I safety, we're always going to be erring on safety as well. So I'm going to I'm grateful that you brought this bill forward as something that consumers in California that are financially strapped will have an ability to actually have access to, something that will ease the burden of high energy cost in California. So with that, I know that you are an author that actually works their bills really fervently. I mean, I was getting text messages from the author at, you know, I think at 5:30, you know, 6:00', clock, 11:00 clock last night. But I mean, someone that is actually working the bills and trying to make them better in California, trying to remedy many of the issues that we have in our state. So with that, I will be supporting the bill. I do hope that the concerns for safety will continue, but I do, you know, reserve my right to change my vote when it comes before me again if these safety standards have not been addressed in the bill. But with that, I will be happy to support the bill because I do have many constituents in both in the

would benefit from this. Thank you.

Thank you. Apologies, Ms. The beginning of the debate because I was presenting a bill on public safety. So Ms. Went back and forth. I appreciate the clarifications that were made. You know, it's not often that we follow Utah in clean energy policy, but, you know, we don't have a monopoly on good ideas. So, you know, if other states are doing something positive that we can model, then it's great. And again, this is not just one state. This is really happening really around the world. So it feels like the debate focused a lot on building codes, but really the bill initially was really to about interconnection, whether utilities can require anything. Is that right?

So, yeah, thank you for clarifying that. I think, you know, in that spirit, you know, this is something that can help. It's not going to do everything for

10, 20, 30% off people's bills, that is positive. And I appreciate, I appreciate the author, appreciate the discussion today.

Senator Gonzalez,

Can I just clarify too, where we're at, because this is what gets a little confusing when we negotiate back and forth.

we have the right language before we move forward and vote on this.

So we've accepted the two amendments that are outlined in the analysis about notifying the utility without allow through a simple form, not allowing the utilities to fail to put the form up and thus obstruct it and then requiring compliance with the nec. I've indicated today that in addition to the nec, we're willing to also say NEC and the cec. And so I would anticipate that if it passes out of the committee today, that the CEC piece would, I assume, be an author amendment in Judiciary Committee. And I'm getting a thumbs up from the consultant. And so that's what we've committed to do. And Mr. Wech, and thank you to him, checked with his client and has indicated that that would cause him to withdraw their opposition. So I made that commitment today. And so if it passes today, that's how we'll proceed.

Thank you for the clarification. I still feel like there's still, you know, obviously questions on the safety, and

And, you know, I believe in this completely, wholeheartedly. But I do think that, you know, until that gets fixed, I don't feel as comfortable moving forward. So I will lay off the bill today, but would love to continue engaging

We've always supported that, especially as it pertains to lowering energy costs and ensuring that there's an environmental, you know, movement in progress. But I do think that there are enough issues that cause concern there, too, that I'd like addressed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to clarify for the record now that the opposition, one of the members of opposition, has agreed to go neutral. I'll now support the bill in the committee so that you can go forward. However, I am going to be waiting on fire to see what they come up with as this bill progresses. And if the firefighters do not feel that it meets the building standard codes, then I will not support it going forward. But they're going to consider this. From what I heard in the testimony, having the CEC be included was one of their two key issues. I heard them say the CEC and the building standards. So as far as I'm concerned, we're still waiting. The jury is out on the building standards piece and I'll be waiting to hear. But it seems like the CEC was a big portion, so I'm going to support today but reserve the right to potentially not support going forward. Thank you.

And thank you author for working, being flexible and being able to pivot on both sides. Site. Thank you.

I thank the chair and I thank the author. I like this bill. I am a little, I want to have some clue about when this technology is going to be available, how easy it is going to be for me to buy one and plug it into my 120 outlet. Well, what are the prospects and what is it going to cost for me to do that?

I'd ask if I can be a co sponsor of your bill.

Thank you. With that I'll yield.

I move the bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. I want to again thank the chair and committee staff for working with us on this bill. And I want to thank the committee for the very thoughtful conversation today. It was fortuitous that we have a former San Francisco inspector here. I represent a city of wood frame buildings that are very, very close together. And so we take fire safety in San Francisco very, very, very seriously. And I would not produce a bill that was going to put my constituents at risk for fire. And I don't believe that this bill or this technology does that. I also represent a community, even though there is sometimes this stereotype that everyone in San Francisco is rich and we certainly have plenty of wealthy people in San Francisco. Almost a third of my constituents are on Medicaid. Almost one. About one out of three San Francisco residents are on Medicaid. We have poverty in San Francisco as well. And I represent a huge number of low income renters. These are folks who are low income who struggle with many aspects of life, living in a very expensive city, one of the most expensive cities anywhere, and they struggle with their electric bills. And if we can give them the choice, and some will decide to use it, some won't, to have something that's going to lower their electric bill, not just for the year or two it takes to recoup the cost, but for the long run, they should have that choice. And that's what this bill is about. These delaces will be subject to strong safety standards, as you heard today. And I look forward to continuing to work on the bill. And I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Senator Stalin.

Alan. Aye. Ochobog.

Ochobog. Aye. Archuleta.

Becker.

Becker. Aye. Caballero. Dally. Aye. Dali. Aye. Gonzalez. Grove.

Grove, I. Hurtado. McNerney. McNerney. I. Reyes.

Reyes, I. Richardson. Aye. Richardson, I. Rubio. Stern.

Stern. Aye. Strickland. Wahab.

Thank you, colleagues, very much.

Sarah's gonna come up.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, is it okay if my witnesses approach the table?

You.

Thank you Chair and committee members. My name is Sam Udan. I'm the co founder and managing director of Net Zero California, a non profit organization that develops policies to support California's climate goals. We're Proud to co sponsor SB886 which provides key protections for ratepayers from data center driven load growth. No one needs to look further than the east coast to see what happens when data center expansion is left unconstrained or unregulated. Virginia and the entire PJM region has seen billions in cost increases to consumers in a short amount of time due to both the cost of building out the grid to support data centers and the increase in demand for generation. California already has significant energy affordability challenges and we don't want to add to that burden and this issue will undoubtedly if we don't do something. Fortunately, because of what's been happening in other states, there's now no shortage of research and analysis that's designed to guide states and legislators. Harvard, mit, Duke, Princeton and Little Hoover Commission all identified just the base strategies to protect ratepayers such as the data centers should pay for their grid costs, data centers required to load shift or participate in demand response programs and the data center should be on the hook with a termination fees if the AI bubble is to burst and they want to abandon their projects. And these are the policies in this bill. I also just want to mention that we recognise the important economic opportunity of data centers and we have an effort to incentivise high quality data center projects in the state. SB887 is that bill. It's not the topic for today, but just want to express to the committee that we do have this broader perspective. SB886 is just the base to protect ratepayers. I want to thank the Senator for his leadership in this committee and the committee staff for being fantastic to work on the amendments and we respectfully request your I vote.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Matt Friedman on behalf of the Utility Reform Network. The impact of data centers on the electricity grid is a hot topic of conversation at the state, regional and federal level. As noted in the recent report on data centers by the Little Hoover Commission, the rapid growth of energy hungry data centers presents both serious challenges and potential opportunities for California's electricity system. I think it's notable that the Little Hoover Commission has sent in a support letter for SB886. Forecasts of growth in new data center deployment have led to serious concerns about needed grid upgrades, the amount of electricity to be consumed by these facilities, cost shifting and potential impacts on progress towards California's zero carbon electricity objectives. The largest projected growth in California is within the service territory of Pacific Gas and Electric. And to put this into perspective. Between 2014 and 2022, PGE reported 16 retail electric customers interconnecting that had more than 4 megawatts of demand. That's about 145 megawatts total between 2014 and 2022. Between 2023 and 2025 they had 43 requests for 10,000 megawatts of new demand. 93% of that load would be from data centers. Two weeks ago, a number of the largest technology companies in the United States attended an event at the White House and they signed a pledge to build, bring or buy new generation resources needed to meet the electricity needs of new data centers. The State of California should be requiring at least as much from these companies as President Trump. SB886 establishes a robust framework for preventing adverse impacts from data center load growth for investor owned utilities. The key elements are first of all, prohibiting cost shifting to non participating customers relating to both interconnection and ongoing grid costs. Second, requiring data centers to pre fund long term contracts through its load serving entity for new zero carbon generation that will serve at least 50% of hourly needs and function as dispatchable resources and data centers would have an option of installing those resources on site as an alternative method of compliance. Third, requiring participation in new demand response programs developed by the California Public Utilities Commission that would lower rates for all customers and support load shifting resource adequacy needs and greenhouse gas reduction objectives and then assigning all transmission facility upgrades triggered by the data center to these particular customers and limiting refunds to these customers in the event that they fail to meet initial electricity demand and consumption forecasts and then finally, ensuring that data centers connecting directly to the transmission system would be required to contribute a reasonable share of costs to wildfire mitigation, Wildfire Liability, Electrification and environmental programs. SB886 provides reasonable direction to the PUC while allowing flexibility with respect to implementation of many of the key details. TURN believes this approach would allow all customers to benefit from the downward pressure on rates attributable to new data center loads without being forced to absorb significant new costs necessary to serve these unique customers. We urge an I vote on SB886 and happy to answer any questions about the bill.

All right, let's ask anyone who wants to voice their support for the bill to come to the MIC and just give us your name.

City of Imperial in support.

Michelle Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists. Support, Support and Concepts while reviewing the recent amendments.

Good morning Will Brigger State Strategies here today for Climate Action California we support.

Good morning.

Mariela Racho with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability and Center for Biological Biological Diversity in support of amended. We appreciate the author's work and looking forward to continue to strengthen the bill.

Good morning.

Thanks. Joe Gardias with NRDC in support. Rashina Mohabir, California Environmental Voters. We have a supportive amended position due to remaining concerns about the requirements for zero mission energy, and we look forward to working with the author. Thank you.

Carol Kinser representing Laudato Dayem Prayer Network

Thank you,

Chair.

Cameron Rogers, 350 East Bay. Support if amended. Thank you.

Whatever you prefer.

Thank you.

Chair Allen, Vice Chair Ochoa Bogue and members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Ahmad Thomas. I'm the CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. We respectfully oppose SB886. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is the leading business association for Silicon Valley's most innovative companies. Our members reflect the full breadth of the region's innovation ecosystem and play a major role in supporting the state's General Fund. Our opposition to SB886 is based on three core factors. First, SB886 is unnecessary. It risks undermining the CPUC's existing transparent rate making process. The Legislature has already taken up this issue last year with SB57 directing the CPUC to assess whether new data center loads cause cost shifts. Those findings are due by January 1, 2027. Second, SB886 embeds complex policy mandates into a tariff such as mandatory demand response participation and limits on backup generation to zero emission resources. A one size fits all demand response mandate poses real operational risk for facilities designed for 99% updates time and that support essential services in the public and private sectors. Hospitals, government agencies, public safety, finance and educational institutions and today, diesel backup generators, heavily regulated and used only in emergencies, remain the most reliable option for critical loads. Third, the bill introduces ambiguity around who is captured by the 75 megawatt threshold. A single building project, customer or entire campus, which creates uncertainty and could slow responsible investment. This is a transformational moment for our economy as new advanced technologies and industries are rapidly scaling. California's policy framework must support reliable energy and long term investment if we want to sustain that leadership. However, SB886 as drafted risks duplicating, complicating and potentially destabilizing the very processes that protect ratepayers and keep the grid reliable. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on SB886. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Brandon Ebeck, Pacific Gas and Electric we have an opposed on the bill in print. We certainly appreciate the author's intent and aligned with even the sponsor's intent about preventing cost shifts. We will look to review the amendments when they are available in print. In particular, we still have concern with making a data center specific tariff. There is a that's discriminatory rate making. Potentially we would prefer to base cost allocation based on load profiles. If you're big and using a lot of energy and causing a lot of grid upgrades and generation, we shall be treated the same.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

committee amendments and once we see that bill in print, the amended language, we will reevaluate our position.

Courtney Jensen on behalf of Tech CA in opposition.

Good morning.

Rock opposed thank you.

Thanks. Good morning. Peter Laurel Munoz of the Bay Area Council opposed unless amended. We look forward to reviewing the amendments.

Mr.

We have an opposed and less amended position on the bill.

Okay, thank you so much. Why don't I go. Folks were asking about the amendments and they are slightly different than those in the analysis. So let me go ahead and read them and we can give anyone who wants additional clarification more information. So first of all, the bill, as mentioned, narrows the bill to apply to only large load data centers with a peak capacity of at least 25 megawatts or greater. Clarifies that the CPUC must include a transmission and distribution tariff as part of a rate structure that addresses the potential cost shift posed by new large load facilities taking transmission level service. Clarify that the bill applies only to those facilities for which a new transmission interconnection agreement is established after the adoption of tariffs required by the bill or a date specified by the cpc. Require the CPUC to ensure that costs assigned to transmission services can be assessed separately from items generally included in the generation component of a customer's bill. Replace the bill's behind the meter energy storage requirement with a requirement that the CPUC establish a process by which a large load customer covered by this bill can Pre fund a 15 year contract for new incremental zero carbon energy resources to function as dispatchable reliability assets within the utility service territory. Modify the bill's demand response requirement to require the CPUC to establish a demand response program for data centers subject to the tariff which must meet certain reliability and climate goals while ensuring that other ratepayers do not experience any new costs. And finally, exempt publicly funded research facilities, public safety facilities, national security facilities, publicly owned facilities and other utility facilities, including facilities based telecommunications assets from the bill. We can get this in print to all the members of the committee who want to see it. And with that, let's open the floor to questions. Let's go to Senator Becker, followed by Senator McNerney.

Mr. Chairman, if I might. And thank you Senator, for your comments and your great question. Certainly on the criterion, particularly dealing with dispatchable resources in the service territory, dealing with both the capacity threshold and the nature of new want to emphasize new zero carbon resources, I think Mr. Freeman has argued that's almost the gold standard here. But I'll defer to Mr. Freeman to add any other comment. With your permission, Mr. Chairman.

Yeah.

Right.

Sure. I mean, there's another provision on demand response in the bill that would establish a new program specifically for Data centers, the idea being that they might have unique requirements and offer unique opportunities and the existing demand response programs might not be suitable for them. So the bill recognizes that to try to deal with those peak hour issues and to maximize whatever flexibility those resources have. And the contracts that they would be required to execute with nuclear energy resources would be dispatchable so those would be available to the grid as needed to meet peak needs.

Yeah.

Yeah. Excellent. Well, you know, that sounds very positive and you know, because I think we're still, I think as a body and as a legislature, still trying to get better data really about the grid itself. And I have a bill on that this year that builds on some work we did, you know, tried to do last year. Because I think, you know, once we have that better data, it also helps us in this situation. Again, the data center may, you know, we may, you know, they require them to curtail their use or maybe eventually they want to pay their neighbors on the grid a lot of money during those, you know, few hours of strain last year. You know, we want to, I think, have flexibility here. And I think that's one of maybe the misconceptions of some of the opposition. I think this bill, especially with the amendments, does build in a lot of flexibility. We really want to have really strong requirements and be very clear, which I think this bill does, but then allow the data center's flexibility in how to meet those requirements. So I think that's the direction we're all moving. I really appreciate all the work of the committee and the authors and look forward to of sort supporting the bill.

Well, first of all, I want to thank the author. I think everyone recognizes data center energy uses is kind of a hot topic now. People are concerned. They're already paying very high prices for electricity in the state of California. Is this going to make my bills higher? Is this going to cause brownouts or blackouts? And that's kind of what I think people are concerned about. This bill does a pretty good job and I appreciate Senator Becker's comments. Very insightful about the grid being over designed for most of the time. And yet we still face these challenges. One of the things that I don't understand clearly is the comment about the PUC's flexibility and rate setting. You know, we're hearing on the one hand that the PUC is going to have some flexibility. On the other hand, we want this to be as tight as possible. What kind of flexibility are we allowing the puc and is that the right amount? Are people going to trust the PUC to get it right?

Thank you, Senator. As Senator Padilla pointed out, the bill does have a couple of very hard guardrails where the PUC does not have flexibility. But when it comes to determining what kind of cost shifting is happening, this is fundamentally a fact based exercise that really needs to happen at the PUC. And luckily, because of the enactment of SB 57 from last year year Senator Padilla's bill, the PUC is currently doing a study and that study is going to be released at the end of this year if the PUC completes its work on time, which is kind of a crapshoot. But the results of that study will feed into the PUC's own process if this bill is passed to ensure that the tariffs that are developed do not result in cost shifting. So I do think it provides a good balance of binding direction from the legislature with the commission's natural role in being able to do the fact finding and figure out how to ensure that the goals of the bill are operationalized.

Excuse me, I'll yield back.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. And I do like the fact that the bill does include an exemption for national security in a data center. I think right now in our country, in the world, information, it's got to be now In California having 31 military bases, we have to be in the know. So any data center that that is in the making, that's functioning right now, we need to keep our governor informed. No doubt. But I also think about the ratepayer who's protected here and, and the old saying, it's the cost of doing business so those who want to operate the data centers, we welcome in California. But you've got to pay your fair share and I think that's what this does. And so I'm going to support the bill and move it at the appropriate time. Thank you.

a lot more work. This is a long.

No problem. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify for members of the public who aren't privy to all the documentation that we have, could the author, could you clarify or through your witnesses clarify the more stricter guardrails that you felt were necessary in order to protect the consumer or another way of saying it would be, you know, how does this bill fill the gap of the commission to make sure that we're, you know, that we as legislators are ensuring that the consumers are protected and not hoping that the regulation, regulatory bodies that unfortunately in my opinion, have taken more of our responsibilities than what they should. If you could just for the public, make sure they all understand that.

Thank you.

Thank you. I apologize that I had to step out to a meeting and do a zoom call, but that was scheduled. I really didn't anticipate the previous bill taking almost two hours. So I apologize for scheduling something in the. I made a comment about putting a base.

Yes, no, I made a comment about. I'll address the chair. It was not my fault. So I made a comment during the last spill that we heard that we tend to, you know, require certain things on individuals and our technology, new advancing technology which makes it more expensive and. But I do understand there needs to be guard rails. But again, putting a band aid on something or trying to move it forward in a way that isn't like a root cause. And I'd like to consider a root cause and I know the bill is going to move forward, but there is technology out there that's going through CALGEM that is being approved, that has already got a concurrence letter and it will allow us to bring data centers online in California at 6 cent a kilowatt energy, 1000 hours of battery storage instantly dispatched to the grid, all in a self enclosed system underground that doesn't catch on fire like batteries do, doesn't burn for days like batteries do because we need to be able to offer industry a way to power these facilities and they can be powered in these enclosed systems and all stored underground. And so again, six in a kilowatt of energy unless the utilities charge us a wheeling charge of 50 cents a kilowatt and then we're all going to be in the same billboard that we're in right now. But there is a way to make this work. And I have a concern about

industry piece and I know you're very business minded and I appreciate that, but I can't support the bill because I think that we do tell what industry is. And if you look at the information and the data and all the models just bringing 50% of those data centers online, they're probably not going to come to California. Some of them might, a few of them might, but most of them are going to places where energy is a lot cheaper than it is here. But the ones that will come online will take away depending on what model you look at. If you look at one model, it shows that if we brought them all online there would be, we would still need 18% of our capacity on the grid to take care of all the rest of Californians. If all of those data centers came online because we don't have the capacity to sustain them. That's why I don't think they'll come online because we don't have the utilities here to do it. But appreciate you bringing this forward and at least looking at a solution for data centers.

Okay.

That's correct, yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to the Senator's comments. No doubt tech can play a role, certainly in distributable resources and to smoothing balancing the grid. I think we would all agree that we would like to see that happen if possible. I think this bill seeks to set guardrails that are anticipatory because we are going to have large scale applications coming online that are going to be connectable, that are going to draw on the grid and create new resource and infrastructure demands. And that's cost. So I think it's very necessary. I would just in closing, Mr. Chairman, say the idea that this bill is unnecessary is just not supported by the facts. Again, I referenced the Rule 30 case pending with PGE. In addition, our bill, unlike that petition, provides transparency provisions so that people can't break apart their projects and try to piecemeal it in a way that obfuscates what's really occurring in terms of its impact to ratepayers. So there's a lot of good reasons why this bill should move forward. Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your amazing staff for working with us collaboratively on this. And I would respectfully ask for an I vote.

Senators Allen.

Alan I. Ochoa. Bogue.

Ochoa. Bogue.

Archuleta.

Archuleta. Aye. Errogeen.

Errogeen. Aye. Becker.

Becker. I. Caballero. Dali. No. Dali. No. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. I. Grove. Grove. No. Hurtado. McNerney. McNerney. I. Reyes. Richardson. Richardson. I. Rubio.

Rubio I. Stern.

Stern. Aye. Strickland. Wahab.

Good morning, Chair and members. I'm here to present SB978, the data center Community Accountability Act. I want to begin by thanking committee staff for working with my office on this policy, we are accepting the committee amendments. SB978 ensures that everyday rape payers are not forced to subsidize data centers, which are among the largest electricity users in the state. Over the past few years, we have seen increased reporting on the rapid growth of data centers, along with growing concerns from our constituents. In my own district, a recent data center proposal sparked confusion and outrage. Many of us once assumed that most data centers were concentrated in Silicon Valley, but proposals are now emerging across the state of California. Nationally, electricity demand from data centers is expected to double or even triple by 2028. With roughly 1/3 of US data centers located in California, this issue is only becoming more urgent. The operational pressures created by data centers intersect with broader economic and public health concerns. Data centers pose a significant risk to ratepayers if left unchecked, their growing electricity demand will require major investments in transmission and distribution infrastructure. Without clear statutory guidance, these costs could be passed on to ratepayers and other commercial energy consumers, which is particularly concerning at a time when energy costs have already been rising since 2015. Another risk arises when infrastructure is planned or built to serve a data center's high energy demand only for that project to relocate or be abandoned once utilities begin planning or constructing transmission lines to support that load. There is currently no requirement that a data center remain in place or reimburse those costs if it moves operations, secures a better rate elsewhere, or experiences project delays. Without safeguards, these stranded infrastructure costs could ultimately fall back on ratepayers. Beyond cost impacts, data centers can also create public health concerns due to air pollution from backup diesel generators. Statewide public health costs associated with emissions from these generators are estimated to reach up to $266 million by 2028, and even modest emissions can push local air quality beyond health based limits for nearby communities. In response to these concerns, committee has suggested enabling data centers to fund net zero energy projects through the utility, which will create more reliability and decrease the likelihood of turning on backup diesel generators. SB978 ensures that new data centers are built and operated responsibly by requiring them to recover their fair share of the infrastructure needed to support their operations. The bill requires data centers to pay up upfront for any new transmission or distribution infrastructure required to serve their facilities. This upfront payment requirement is essential because it prevents stranded cost if a project changes plans or relocates after utilities have already begun planning or construction. It also directs the CPUC to establish a separate rate structure to prevent cost associated with data centers from being shifted onto other electricity customers, an issue that has already emerged in other states. The bill gives the CPUC flexibility in designing this structure while clearly requiring that protections be put in place. Importantly, SB978 prohibits refunds to data centers once they have made up their upfront infrastructure payments, ensuring those costs cannot later be shifted back onto ratepayers. The bill also recognizes the importance of strong labor standards to ensure these major infrastructure projects are built with a skilled workforce. Ultimately, this bill strikes the right balance, protecting ratepayers while giving the CPUC the authority to manage this rapidly growing sector responsibility. With me to testify in support of the bill is Will Breger with the Climate Action California and Lane Smith, Postdoctoral Scholar with the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford University. At the appropriate time, I ask for your I vote.

Hello and thank you to Senator Perez, Chair Allen and the Committee for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Lane Smith and I'm a Postdoctoral scholar in Stanford University's Climate Energy Policy Program and Department of Energy Science and Engineering. I am here in my personal capacity and take a neutral stance on SB978. I will highlight today three concerns that I see if large electric loads such as data centers were to be inadequately regulated which can adversely affect local air quality, California's energy transition and customer affordability. First, large electric loads can lead to more air polluting backup generation such as diesel generators and gas turbines. California regulations help limit but do not fully eliminate local air pollutants released by traditional backup generators. Current non emitting resources like solar, wind and storage cannot completely replace traditional backup generators as reliability solutions, but they can be a way to reduce the operation of backup resources if large loads are required to install some behind the meter energy storage which can also provide crucial demand side flexibility. That storage would be able to cover many reliability events without needing to run traditional backup generation. Second, large electric loads will strain California's grid both in terms of available clean generating capacity and peak infrastructure headroom. This can amplify affordability concerns and work against California's energy transition, especially if new demand is interconnected faster than new non emitting supply. In response, many proposals have suggested that large loads be required to procure clean additional generation capacity, support the build out of emerging clean firm generation and fund the deployment of capacity increasing grid enhancing technologies. Finally, and third, large loads can exacerbate electricity affordability concerns if required grid upgrades are recovered by the entire customer base. Large loads should pay for the upgrades they necessitate and additionally for their share

There should be safeguards against large electric loads leaving stranded grid assets for the rest of the customer base to recover.

Of course, taken together, failing to regulate large electric loads poses a threat to California's public health and personal finances. Thank you for your time.

Okay.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members Will Brieger from State Strategies. On behalf of Climate Action California. I'm pleased to state speak today in support of SP978 at a really interesting time in our history. We've got a planet that's warming faster than humans have ever experienced. And we have a growing chasm between the haves and the have nots. SB978 meets those challenges by looking out for people and communities done right. As we just heard, large loads can bring good things. Investments in the clean energy transition. As Dr. Smith mentioned, big companies shouldering infrastructure costs and good jobs in our communities. This is not an anti tech thing we're streaming on the Internet right now. Done wrong, we'll see the same old movie again. Big customers teaming up with the IOU to build a lot of stuff that the rest of us have to pay for eventually. So this committee is going to hear a number of different data center bills you've already started this morning looking at different facets of this new phenomenon. This bill is the one that looks out for people. Don't make us pay for someone else's infrastructure and bring us some good jobs to our communities. Look, electricity is the most regressive tax we've got here. The opposition's written in to say that, you know, trust the system, it's working. Really? You might wonder why is a climate group here talking about social justice? And the answer is we need electricity to power our homes, our vehicles and our industries. And we cannot ask people to do that with really pricey power. So thank you and thank you for bringing this, Senator Perez.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Jacob Evans with Sierra California support amended also for the bridge plan to see the backup generation requirements taken out.

Good morning. Gershina Mohabir, California environmental voters also support if amended due to the concerns about backup generation. Thank you. Hi Alexis Sutterman, Brightline Defense support if

Megan Shumway on behalf of Sacramento 350 in support

Cameron Rogers 350 East Bay in support okay Opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay, we'll have other folks to win in opposition.

Thank you very much.

Chair and members.

Large Energy Consumers Association. We had an opposed unless amended position but with the committee's amendments limited to data centers will be neutral on the bill. So thank you to the author and committee staff. Thank you.

Chair.

and Electric and SoCal Gas. We have an opposed and less amended position on the bill and print. Appreciate the amendments and look forward to continue working with you and the author on this bill.

Thank you.

Daniela Garcia Hernandez with the Western States Petroleum Association.

narrow the Bill down to data centers only. And once we see the amended language

Thank you.

Lily McKay, on behalf of Enchanted Rock,

print, but with the amendment, specifically the backup generation amendments, we will be removing our opposition.

Good morning.

and I was also asked for Tech CA in respectful opposition.

Chair Allen and members John Kendrick, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, we were very much opposed to the bill in print. Looking forward to seeing the amendments. Likely will be still opposed unless amended.

Good morning.

Opposed unless amended.

Okay, let's bring the bill to the committee for discussion. Questions? Thoughts moved by Senator Archuleta.

Okay. Without further questions, we'll let the senator close.

I vote

Please call her on due passes. Amended to the Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee. Senator Zalin.

Ellen Ayachobog. Archuleta.

Archuleta. Aye. Errogeen.

Ericeen. Aye. Becker. Caballero. Daly. No. Daly. No. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez. I. Grove. Grove. No. Hurtado. McNerney. McNerney. I. Reyes. Richardson. Richardson. I. Rubio. Stern. Strickland. Wahab.

Achobog. No.

Let's. We'll keep the roll open for folks to add on. Let's now go to Senator Becker, who's going to present item 4, SB943.

Please proceed.

Thank you. Okay Joe, basically this is support to bill here. We've got another bill to present. So if there's something very pressing you want to add, we'd love to hear your thought but we are trying to, we're trying to press through because we both have caucus.

participating in this program by ensuring that

Thank you.

Bruce Mignani with California Large Energy Consumers association in support of the measure.

Thank you.

Chair and members Delaney Hunter on behalf

Becker's district and strong support.

Chair and members Will Brieger, Climate Action California in support.

Thank you.

Jonathan Young, State water contractors in support.

Thank You. I don't believe this opposition registered, but is there anyone here? Okay. Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, in the interest of time, we'll thank our witnesses and respectfully ask for our vote.

Okay.

Great. So this is now the motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee with the committee amendments.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Yeah.

Richardson Aye.

All right, Great.

I don't want to commit a felony by voting for you. All right, let's go to Senator Strickland. You come up to the dice right here and we will hear your final. The final bill on the agenda. That's SB985, item five on your agendas.

Chair.

Great.

Witnesses in support. Folks want to weigh in. Anyone who wants to raise opposition or concerns about the bill, move the bill. I will bring it to the bill. Bring it to the committee moved by Senator Archuleta. Questions? Thank you. Concerns, Thoughts? You are accepting the amendments?

And again, Chairman, I want to really thank your staff. And I did bother you and Mr. Stern over the weekend.

No, no, I'll take you guys.

I learned to be quiet when.

due Pass is amended to the Emergency Man Management Committee. Alan. Alan. I. Achoebog. Aye. Achoebog. I. Archuleta. Archuleta. I. Araguain I. Becker. Becker. I. Caballero. Dally. Dali. I. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. I. Grove. Hurtado. McNerney. McNerney. I. Reyes. Richardson. Rubio. Stern. Strickland.

Strickland. I. Waha. Wahab. Aye.

amended to the Committee on Judiciary. Current vote 9 0. Chair, Vice President, Chair. Voting aye. Archuleta. Araguain. Ericin. Aye. Caballero. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Rubio. Strickland. Strickland. I. Wahab. Wahab. Aye.

12 to 0?

Please.

Passes amended to Appropriations. Current vote 93. Chair voting aye. Vice chair voting no. Caballero, Hurtado, Reyes, Strickland.

Strickland. No. Wahab. Wahab. Aye.

to labor and Public Employment and retirement. Current vote, 6. 3. Chair voting Aye. Vice chair voting no. Becker.

Becker, aye. Caballero, Hurtado, Reyes, Rubio, Stern. Strickland. Strickland. No. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, Aye.

Passes amended to appropriations. Current vote 10 0. Caballero, Grove, Hurtado, Reyes, Rubio, Stern. Wahab. Wahab. Aye.

Passes amended to Emergency Management committee. Current vote 10. 0. Caballero, Grove, Hurtado, Reyes, Richardson. Richardson, aye. Rubio, Stern.

Okay. All right, we are waiting for members, Senators Becker and Richardson. Any bills you are not yet voted?

Did you get me on the last one?

Yes.

This.

Yes. Current vote 12 0.

Vice versa. Chair voting aye. Archuleta, Caballero, Gonzalez. Hurtado. Hurtado. Aye. Rubio. Rubio, I. 14 0.

Current vote 10 to 4. Chair voting I. Vice chair voting no. Caballero, Hurtado, hurtado, I. Reyes, 11 to 4.

Current vote eight to four. Chair voting I. Vice chair voting no. Caballero, Hurtado, Hurtado, I. Reyes, Rubio. Rubio, I. Stern, 10 to 4.

Current vote 11. 0. Caballero, Grove, Hurtado, Hurtado. Aye. Reyes, Rubio, Rubio, aye. Stern, 13 0.

Current vote 13. 0. Caballero, Grove, Reyes. Stern.

And we'll go to item five. SB985, Strickland.

Aye.

Okay, we will let our friends head to caucus. Members, we are. You have four more minutes, so come down and vote. And we will come on down. Senator Reyes is here. Excellent. Which bills we need to do with Senator Reyes? Okay, so let's start with item two, SB886. Padilla, You have to turn your mic on.

Okay, we'll go to item three, SB 978, Perez.

Item four, SB 943, Becker.

Okay.

Current vote, 13 0. Caballero Grove. Reyes. Reyes. I. Stern.

Yes.

He's already voted on.

Okay.

Yeah. Exact.

Current vote, 11 4. Caballero Stern.

Stern. I.

Current vote, 14 0. Caballero Grove. Stern.

Aye. Stern. Eye.

Current vote, 14 0. Caballero Grove. Stern.

Stern. Aye.

All right, thank you. Thank you very much, Senator. Okay, we are going to close the roll, but let the record reflect that Senator Caballero was chairing another hearing. But we will be closing the roll. All of the. These bills have passed out as amended to their respective committees. Thank you to the staff for a challenging but great start to what's going to be a wild and woolly bill. Seeds in. Thank you.