Senate Energy Utilities And Communications Committee

Okay. All right. Let's call this hearing to order of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications. We ask our colleagues to please make their way down here, our vice chair and others, so that we can start the long and arduous process toward a quorum. We've got 12 bills on today's agenda. A lot to do. I want to just announce that agenda item number seven, which is AB 2200 by Assemblymember Hart, is on consent. And so that will be voted on the consent calendar. Let's go ahead and start with our agenda.

We appreciate your – here you are. All right. To present AB 353. This is item one in your packets numbers.

Thank you. Selmy member, you're... Nope, this is a Tasha B special. All on, you're on. Okay, nobody in support or in opposition. It's a lonely, lonely bill. But so many people here to watch it. There might be some. Comments. Anyone want to weigh in support of the bill or opposition? Okay, okay, a couple friends. Or enemies, I don't know. Enemies? Enemies? What are we going to get?

Okay, there you go. Friends, friends. Friend, foe, what are we going to do? Makes me nervous. Oh, yes, yes, well.

We're happy to work with the opposition. Okay, all right. Since we just met with some of you. How about you? What's going on?

Okay. All right. Well, if this were a World Cup game, it would be two to one. Okay. Well, great. I appreciate your commitment to work with the opposition. Any questions from the members? Thoughts? Not at this moment. We'll entertain a motion when appropriate and appreciate your being here.

Thank you. All right. Great. All right. Let's go to the woman of the day, majority leader, Aguiar Curry. Lots of bills here. Lots of bills in judiciary that are causing a lot of fun. So you can present that one as well here if you like. Oh, that would be helpful. Here to present, AB 1776.

706. Sorry, 706. At this point, you know, who knows.

Good morning, Matt Diaz, President and CEO of California Forestry Association. I am here to strongly support the measure. I am really simply here to provide any assistance on technical questions that may relate to the natural resource portion of the bill. This is a missing piece in the wildfire prevention strategy that the state has been implementing now for 10 years. The state has heartily invested in wildfire prevention and recovery, and the biomass remediation efforts that are needed to fully implement those projects is clearly a missing piece in that strategy. So strongly support the measure and urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Other folks who want to weigh in and support? Morning, Chair and members. Matt Klopfenstein on behalf of the bioenergy Association of California and support thank you Morning mr. Chair mark fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation districts in support. Thank you Good morning chair members hunter stern with IBW 1245 and strong support Good morning Sean McNeil with California Community Choice Association and support Good morning Audra Hartman on behalf of the California Biomass Energy Alliance in support. Good morning Cassandra Moore on behalf of Pioneer Community Energy in support. Thank you. Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you. John Anderson with Humboldt Mendocino Redwood Company strong support. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Sarah Fitzsimons on behalf of the Independent Energy Producers Association in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Michaela Byrd on behalf of the Nature Conservancy in a supportive amended position. TNC thanks the committee and the author for their work on this bill. We have three issues we need resolved to move to support on AB 706. Committee amendments addressed one of them, and we look forward to working with the author's office and sponsors on the other. Thank you. All right. Opposition. Anyone else raise concerns about the bill? Come on up. Good morning, Chair and members. Christina Skaring with the Center for Biological Diversity. While we really appreciate the thoughtful analysis and the committee amends, we remain in respectful opposition. Biomass electricity is one of the most polluting and expensive ways to produce electricity in the state. There are other ways to address forest waste. There's other ways to address community wildfire protections with technology we currently have so we can protect communities and produce affordable, truly affordable energy without creating this highly emitting polluting energy system. It's a poor investment for the state. Thank you. Thank you. Other concerns? Jacob Evans with Sierra, California, and respectful opposition. Thank you. Marquis King Mason with Natural Resources Defense Council, and respectful opposition. Thank you. All right. Let's bring it back to the committee for questions, thoughts from members. I appreciate you accepting the amendments And you know obviously there some disagreement over the efficacy of some of this biomass work But I feel comfortable where we've gone. and happy to support the bill today. Great. Thank you very much. We'll let you close if no one else has questions. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I also have been notified by the senator that she would like to be a co-author of the bill, Senator Dolly. Great. All right. The desk will note. All right. Well, we'll take that up for a vote when appropriate. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much, Senator. Okay, let's now go to Assemblymember Rogers, who's here. He's here to present a couple bills. We've got AB 1761 followed by 2369, two electricity bills. You may start when ready. We'll start with item three in your packets. That's AB 1761. All right, well, good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here today to present AB 1761. For folks who have been around the community choice aggregator world for a while, you'll know that one of the constants since its implementation was the PCIA, also known as the exit fee, wherein which the CCAs and community energy has to compensate the investor-owned utilities for the loss of their user base. It's to make sure that we don't have stranded assets, but there is very little transparency or visibility into the calculation of the PCIA, which sometimes creates complications or creates less opportunity for CCAs and others to have an extended runway for addressing possible rate increases on our user base. This bill is very simple. It doesn't change the PCIA. It just gives greater insight for those who rely on it into what the methodology is going to be into the calculations so that they can do better planning and better calibrating for our constituents to keep rates as low as possible. With me today, we have two witnesses. We have Katie Morrisoni, who is the general counsel for CalCCA, as well as Howard Cheng, who is the CEO of AVA Community Energy.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Other folks want to wait in support of the bill?

Craig Schuller on behalf of Clean Power Alliance in support Josh Gogger on behalf of the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Santa Clara Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz in support

So in the particular example that I provided, this is related to resource adequacy data that was part of the PCI proceeding last year. the data that we actually requested was not market-protected, market-sensitive data. So it was older data that was historical data that is going beyond the protected time frame. With that said, there is data that is within a protected time frame that we are seeking as part of this process. But as part of this bill, we are wanting to and seeking to address those concerns by ensuring that market-sensitive data continues to remain protected. There are current processes to ensure that's the case with confidential consultants that we may utilize and such. So we think we've addressed those concerns, but just specifically, we are seeking data in many cases that is not market sensitive or protected. And in some cases is, and we want to make sure the right protections and controls are in place for that type of data.

In general, it would be recent data. So in some cases, if you're seeking data that say older than three years, it's sort of historical, no longer sensitive to current market conditions. And in other cases, that energy data, whether it's renewable energy data or resource adequacy related data, if it's recent, it could be considered protected in that case.

Yeah, so the CPUC does have existing privacy protections. There was a proceeding, I believe it's D06-06-066, that addressed confidentiality practices and the protection of market-sensitive data, among other things. And in that process, there was adoption of a nondisclosure agreement, a model nondisclosure agreement between the IOUs and LSEs or others that are seeking that data, as well as a process for how market-sensitive data would be protected. That proceeding established a role known as a reviewing representative. That is someone that is outside of the market participant. So in this case, the CCAs are the market participants. A reviewing representative is a lawyer or other consultant hired by the CCA that has restrictions on the role that they can play. They cannot also be representing other market participants. They also have to sign a fairly strict NDA on their use of the data. That NDA covers how the data can be used. It also covers how it should be disposed of at the end of a proceeding. It also covers the potential violations of that NDA and what could occur if they did not represent and live up to the requirements of the NDA and not protect the market-sensitive data. And so the CCAs themselves under this bill would not receive the market-sensitive information, only these third-party reviewing representatives who would be limited in how they can use that information. and also in how they're representing that information back to their clients. It has to be sufficiently rolled up and masked so that they are not providing any market-sensitive information.

I can try and address that as well. The PCIA has a lot of inputs to determining that charge. Some of them are calculated by the CPUC, the market price benchmark, and that is market cost for resource adequacy as well as for the market cost of RPS or renewable portfolio products. Also, there's information related to the different resources that are making up the fleet run by the IOU. So it could be procurement data related to what they've gone out to the market to procure and how those resources are performing. I think the thing that I would note here that's important to keep in mind is that the IOUs are passing costs of their procurement portfolio for bundled customers. on to, you know, it was, they're maintaining the indifference, but it's a charge on the LSCs, the CCAs and the ESPs. So it's IOU cost being charged to the CCAs and ESPs. There's no cost

Mr. Chairman and members, Scott Witsch, on behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Employees and the State Association of Electrical Workers in support. Thank you.

Well, I thank the author, and thank you for working with the utilities and the committee. Just my question is of concern about the metrics that are going to be used in making this analysis. How much of that analysis is actually prescribed, or how much is it going to be in the hands of the agency to decide how to measure the cost benefits or the cost of these legislative proposals?

Yes. And, I mean, there are opportunities for bias one way or the other in the results.

CCST, that's a good organization. All right, that was my question. I'll yield back to the chair.

Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing the bill up. Obviously, we're obviously working towards affordability, accountability, but it also mentions that we, the legislators, will be able to be part of this process to see why and when and how these things are happening. And do you see that as a process that was brought to you because it's necessary to go ahead and help the ratepayers?

Another layer of protection. Correct. Very good. Thank you.

How's it going on over there? Oh, we're going.

and I'd like to thank the committee staff for their work on this bill. Before going any further, I will gladly note that we will be accepting all proposed committee amendments, as described further on pages 10 and 11 in the committee analysis, which was incredibly well written. In summary, AB 1787 requires the California Public Utilities Commission to require the three investor-owned utilities to offer a dynamic rate option to customers if the CPUC has approved upgrades to the IOU's smart meter infrastructure on or after January 1, 2027. Smart meters are, of course, the enabling technology for dynamic rates. A dynamic rate option rewards customers who can be flexible with their electricity usage to reduce consumption during times of peak demand by shifting usage to times when renewable and low-carbon resources are low-cost and abundant. By making voluntary adjustments, customers on dynamic rates can reduce their own electricity bills and help all customers save money collectively by avoiding the high costs associated with meeting peak demand needs and help avert grid reliability events. I will note that dynamic pricing is not a new or novel concept. Not only has the committee heard this before, and thank you for passing it out last year, I will note that dynamic rate pricing has also been implemented in the states of Illinois, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and the European Union. In the state of Illinois, dynamic pricing has been shown to reduce electricity bills even for low-income customers. And in the Netherlands, another jurisdiction that has dynamic rate pricing, price-informed customers have been paid to charge their electric vehicles, as noted in the Wall Street Journal. Under 1787, no one would be forced to be put on a dynamic rate. I want to emphasize one more time, no one would be forced to go down this route and utilize a dynamic rate. It would simply be an option that a customer, either residential or commercial, could elect to pursue. AB 1787 provides high-level guidance to the CPUC to ensure fair implementation of dynamic rates and to prevent cost shifts. Many of the details of the tariff would be developed by the CPUC in their rate design process. I hope that the committee amendments that I have agreed to today will address the concerns of the IOUs. However, and I'd like to make this point clear, I will continue to work with opposition should the bill move forward today in hopes of resolving any outstanding or remaining concerns. With me today to speak in support of the bill is Tiffany Fan on behalf of the California Energy Demand Management Council, as well as Rebecca Lee on behalf of NRG Energy, who can also provide technical assistance. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Tiffany Fan on behalf of the California Efficiency and Demand Management Council, or SEDMEC. SEDMEC is a trade association representing a wide range of companies that provide energy efficiency and demand response services and products in California. As the author noted, demographic rates is not a new and novel issue. The Senate Office of Research documented back in 2001 in a memo that real-time pricing is widely regarded by economists and energy experts as an essential long-term solution to balancing hourly supply and demand for power in the state. The mechanism is straightforward. Customers are metered for their actual hourly consumption and charged a rate that reflects the true wholesale cost of electricity at that hour. This gives customers a direct incentive to shift usage away from peak demand periods when power is most expensive and the grid is most strained. Sedmack urges your vote, your aye vote on 1787. Thank you.

And so for many years since the rollout of the utilities' first-generation smart meters, we've seen medium and large businesses take advantage of hourly dynamic rates, and they're also known as market index rates. And it has helped them yield savings on their energy bills. And so this bill would broaden that benefit and allow more customer types to take advantage. Now, more than six months out of the year, because of the abundant renewable development in the state, we're seeing wholesale energy costs about 60% to 70% less for during the day, during times of renewable overgeneration. So if that cost deferential can be reflected on the retail rate structure, it provides a tremendous opportunity for customers to use that energy that would otherwise go to waste. With that urge, I vote.

Thank you, Assemblyman, for bringing this forward. You know, the term knowledge is power. And I think with the smart meter, as I see it, gives the consumer the ability to ascertain how that new vehicle, one, the usage in the home is working and how they would be able to participate along with utility to make the adjustments, not just utility blindly. blindly so I think this is what this bill is doing the my question is the smart meter is that a fee that will go to the consumer or is the utility going to

Well, thank you very much, Senator. I echo many of the comments that you just shared about the importance of the bill. I will answer your question, but I also want to address some of what we heard from opposition testimony about the smart meter and why we are tying it in the way that we are to that technology. For just a little bit of background, when the three IOUs proposed to upgrade their analog meters to digital meters, and this was between 2006 and 2009, those smart meters were proven to be not cost effective unless paired with programs like dynamic rates. Time of use rates, which is something we've heard discussed at great length by the IOUs, do not require digital smart meters. The CPUC approved the first-gen smart meters to eventually roll out more innovative programs like dynamic rates, and that's never happened. And I know there was a lot of discussion about pilot programs. Some of these pilot programs have been in effect since 2001, and yet we're still not making the leap that we really do in this era of affordability to give more knowledge more information to consumers and to empower consumers. The other thing I would say, and perhaps more directly on point to your question, is that the three IOUs right now are proposing to collect about $500 to $600 per customer for upgraded meters and associated IT infrastructure. So the reason why this bill is important is we need accountability on how customers can use this digital infrastructure when they make that investment. So the customer will make that investment. They will. Again, to see where they're at and to recoup the adjustment over the next five, six, seven years at $500, $300, whatever it is, I'm sure depending on the size of the home. But what is important to me is that we are talking about affordability. And if you're going to make the adjustment, you have the power to do it yourself. And if you're going to have the usage, so be it. But at least know what you're doing. And I appreciate the bill, and I'll support it and move it at the appropriate time. Thank you, Senator.

Well, I thank the author for tackling this. A couple clarifications. As you say, the rate options will only be available to applicable customer classes. Is that right?

Yeah. segments, okay, within 18 months is the time frame now with the amendments?

Yeah. Yeah, I think that's an important note around data sharing. there shouldn't be a problem, correct, with third-party devices receiving info from the meter as long as they cannot do anything to the meter itself, correct?

Yeah. Yeah, and I think the important point here is this is, you know, if we're going to be making an investment as a state to rate-base a bunch of, you know, new smart meters, then we want to make sure that customers and their suppliers have access to detailed meter data in real time I think that right And to pair your comment with that of Senator Archuleta, I think the design of the bill is, if this is an investment that you're going to ask your ratepayers to make, then let's make sure they get the benefit of their bargain, and this is a way to accomplish that. But it still gives the IOUs that discretion to make the right determination for themselves, whether to do the investment in the first place. Yeah, good. Well, I think this is smart policy. We want to have the ability to dynamic rates, which have shown other parts of the country, to be very effective, as well as to protect non-participating customers from any potential cost shifts. You have lots of things in the bill to make sure that protection is in there. And that's why I'll be happy to support the bill here today.

We'll go to Senator McNerney. I want to thank the chair. I want to thank the author. My first question is, how prevalent are smart meters in California with the IOUs? I mean, we got our smart meter from PG&E in the Bay Area a good 10 years ago. I would argue they're pretty prevalent, but I'm happy to have one of my witnesses come up with a little bit more industry knowledge and expertise, if you'd like, sir. Sure.

Okay, thank you. As I mentioned, PG&E installed a smart meter in my home years ago, and they instituted a time-of-day pricing. But the pricing differential was small enough that it didn't really add much incentive.

Is that going to change? That is what – I'm sorry, Senator, finish your thought.

So, and the last issue I have is about data.

If customers allow the utilities to take their dynamic information, I mean, that's just a lot more data that we're handing over to somebody. And the cybersecurity issue was raised, which is a big concern. Sure. And, I mean, I support the bill, but I'm very wary about the data, you know, implications here that we're going to be seeing.

Thank you again Senator for the question When this body passed the California Consumer Privacy Act it did not exempt energy usage data which means that energy usage data from the meter enjoys all the protection under the Privacy Act. And that means with the new implementing regulation, it means that consumers have both not just the right to access, but the right to delete, right to correct, verify, et cetera. And so those are evolving regulations that all industry participants, including utilities and non-utilities, now have to abide by if there are – ever touches the customer data because now there is a liability to ensure proper data governance.

And you're working with the opposition to close that issue.

I certainly won't purport to speak for them, but I would say that though the IOUs remain opposed to the bill, we've had very productive conversations. We've taken several rounds of amendments along the way, which I do believe strengthened the bill. And we look forward to, if it should advance out of committee, continuing those conversations and trying to address their concerns to the extent possible. All right. Well, thank you for your answers.

Thank you. All right. Other questions from the committee? Okay, we'll give you the opportunity to close. We don't quite have a quorum yet, I think.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you all very much. All right. Thank you, and we'll now turn to Assemblymember Zabur, who's here, to present AB 2383.

to develop statewide long-term planning to ensure protections for ratepayers as these new large load customers interconnect with the electric grid. Without proper guardrails, the cost of service to data centers can create significant risks and burdens for existing residential and commercial customers. Furthermore, California has committed to ambitious climate and energy goals in order for us to successfully meet our targets. We must ensure that electricity is affordable as that is fundamental to the state's transition to a clean energy economy. AB 2383 aims to address this by directing the CPUC to create a new electricity rate structure for data centers that will properly align costs. Specifically, it must be designed in a way that appropriately attributes cost of services, avoids cost shifts to other rate payers, and provides equitable contributions to grid efficiency and state programs. Additionally, this bill provides guidelines to further mitigate against cost shifts by requiring service contracts between the data center and the load serving entity. These are intended to avoid stranded assets such as unused procurement of large load or infrastructure investments in the electric grid. AB 2383 will ensure timely and efficient planning as the state prepares for the emergence of unprecedented demand on the electric grid and will be critical in protecting rate pairs and advancing system-wide reliability. With proper planning and strategies underway, we can move forward with an equity-based transition in California. I do want to say something about some input that you got late on Friday night from Nate Soloff from the Net Zero California. Just so you all know, we have had an open door policy the entire time I've worked on this bill in the Assembly. Never heard from Net Zero California at all. Never came into my office. And then Mr. Soloff sent emails to all of your staffs without putting a letter in, sharing any letter with me, or sharing the email. It was an underhanded attack on the bill. It is the kind of thing that we expect people with integrity to not do ever to blindsight, to try to blindsight a legislator when it's coming before a committee. And so I just wanted to, you know, many of the things that were in his letter we've addressed in the bill already. You know, he wasn't even giving us an opportunity to understand what he was saying, let alone putting it in an opposition letter. So I just want to say we've worked really carefully with the committee chair, with a number of other senators, with the committee staff. We believe that we've addressed many of the issues and we're continuing. We've made commitments to continue working with with this committee as the bill moves forward. With that, I want to ask for your support at the appropriate time. Today we have with us Daniel Harris-McCoy with the Little Hoover Coalition and Scott Wetsch with the California State Association of Electric Workers. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Daniel Harris-McCoy, and I'm a project manager with the Little Hoover Commission. The commission is an independent bipartisan oversight agency charged with investigating state operations and developing recommendations to promote efficiency, economy, and improve service. Earlier this year, we released a report that examined how the rapid growth of data centers may impact the state's electricity system, and in particular, how rates might be affected. As you know, experts are predicting significant growth in electricity demand from new data center facilities in the coming decade. This growth has important implications for grid reliability, infrastructure planning, water use, and community impacts. Our report identified four key recommendations. First, make sure that any financial burden of data centers falls on the centers, not ratepayers. Second, integrate data centers into the grid in a way that ensures the reliability of the system and does not add needless costs. Maintain the state's commitment to its clean energy goals. And finally, ensure that California regulators have access to relevant information, such as how much power is being used. This bill addresses the first of these principles head-on, ensuring that ratepayers are not burdened with costs that data centers impose on the system. Our focus was less on the exact mechanism for achieving this goal and more on the principles that data centers developers should be on the hook to cover the cost they impose. However, we did recommend the method embodied in this bill, a special rate tier for data center facilities. More specifically, we recommended requiring that large load facilities enter into long-term contracts with provisions for minimum payment obligations, and this bill does exactly that. We also recommended a requirement that such facilities contribute to broader system costs such as wildfire mitigation, grid reliability, and climate programs, which this bill also does. Given that the bill implements these recommendations, we are in support and respectfully request your aye vote. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and member Scott Wetsch on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, State Association of Electrical Workers, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the California Coalition of Utility Employees. We think that this bill may be the most important bill to California's economy this session. You know, going through the budget just recently, how important AI and data center development is to the state's economy. It is to our jobs. This bill, by eliminating any cost shift and making sure that all the costs of the grid and the transmission system is equitably distributed amongst rate payers with data centers and other large energy users paying their share is a huge improvement over the existing system that we have and will actually put downward pressure on rates over time. We can't think of a more important bill at a more important time for California, and we would urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Matt. Come on out. Others in support? Others in support. Okay. Mr. Brode. Mr. Chair of members, Matt Brode here on behalf of engineers and scientists at California in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Victoria Roam with NRDC in support. Thank you. Good morning, Hunter Stern with IBW 1245 in support. Thank you. Good morning, Brandon Ebeck on behalf of Pacific Gas Electric. We have support on the bill in print. We are reviewing the amendments and particularly the exemptions from some customers paying their fair share. So we will review our position. Thank you. Melanie Law on behalf of E2 in support. Good morning. Good morning. Tenisei Herring on behalf of the NAACP California-Hawaii State Conference in strong support. Okay. All right. We will go now to opposition witnesses. No, I thought you were sharing with me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Matt Friedman on behalf of TURN. We respectfully oppose unless amended. The legislature has to take swift action to protect ratepayers and ensure the addition of data centers is beneficial and not harmful to the achievement of the state's affordability and greenhouse gas reduction targets. Unfortunately AB 2383 falls short of the mark and just doesn rise to the challenge of this moment The bill largely restates much of the PUC existing authority and does not address concerns that have been raised by turn In April, this committee heard SB 886 by Senator Padilla that addresses the same topic but does include far more significant requirements relating to ratepayer protections and clean energy. The bill before you today, even with the committee amendments, lacks many of these provisions. Specifically, there's five missing pieces from the bill. First, the bill only applies the requirements to new data centers built after January 1, 2027. All existing data centers in the state would be exempted from all of the provisions of this bill. Second, the bill does not establish meaningful requirements relating to new commitments by data centers to fund or pre-fund the development of incremental clean energy resources. It appears to provide a voluntary option and requires data centers to pay generation rates for 10 years. This legislature should require more. Earlier this year, the data centers and technology companies went to the White House. They made a pledge to President Trump that they would pay the entire costs of all generation needed to serve them. This legislature should ask for at least that much. Third, there's no requirements for data centers to bear the full cost responsibility for all transmission facility upgrades triggered by their interconnection, specifically network upgrades that are upstream. Fourth, the bill doesn't limit the annual refunds that data center customers can receive for prepaying their upfront transmission cost contribution. Without these limits, these customers could pay zero transmission bills for many years. And finally, there are no requirements for these customers to participate in demand response programs that are critical to supporting load management across the state. Absent these changes, the provisions of AB 2383 are just insufficient to meet the various challenges posed by rising data center loads. So we urge the committee not to move the bill forward unless these issues are addressed. And we think that this is the time for the legislature to take a strong stand on aggressive policy that will protect ratepayers and support our clean energy goals. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. My name is Sam Eden. I'm the co-founder and managing director of NetSERI California. I want to apologize to the Assembly member for what may have been a process issue, but Certainly with this testimony, I'm just focusing on the policy in the bill. I want to echo the concerns raised by Matt and emphasise that this committee has already developed amendments and passed a nation-leading data sender bill in SB886. AB 2383 has multiple policy gaps compared to SB886, creating a risk of potentially significant cost shifts to ratepayers. The result is that California would have learned nothing from the carnage we're seeing in other states. With my testimony, I want to emphasise how much California voters care about this issue and have strong preferences for how it's handled. polling shows that Californians oppose data centers but shift to support with key guardrails set in law including the data centers pay for their grid connection costs participate in demand response programs are held financially responsible if they cancel their projects and buy or bring their own generation so this is the key point this set of policies is the floor it is not a wish list of what advocates might want it is by definition the set of things you need to address potential avenues of cost shifting this has now been validated in multiple studies. AB2083, as of yesterday, did not include any of these policies. And the version in print today takes on a couple of them only. But there are issues to the language, and there are key gaps. There will be no requirements for the demand response or load shifting. So data center-driven load growth is the most consequential energy issue facing the nation. We urge the committee not to backtrack on the good standards that it's already set, and not move forward the bill, at least in its current form Thank you Okay other folks want to raise opposition concerns Leslie, concerned citizen that is opposed to redundancy and special interests. Thank you. Audra Hartman on behalf of CLICA, California Large Energy Consumers Association. These are large California manufacturers. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill. We're reviewing the amendments. They appear to address our concerns, but we will change our position officially once we see it in print. Thank you. Thank you. Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. I'd like to just kind of echo Clico's concerns. We appreciate the amendments and the committee's work on this bill along with the author, but we would like to see the language in print and review that before we actually change our position. Thank you. Adrienne Tinan here on behalf of Climate Action Campaign, Opposed Unless Amended. Good morning, Daniela Garcia-Hernandez with the Western States Petroleum Association. We want to just appreciate the author's work. We have an Opposed and MS in London position, but we look forward to reevaluating our position once we see the amendments in print. Thank you. Good morning, John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce. and oppose on the bill in print, but looking forward to reviewing with our members. Thank you. Jenna Roper from Central California Asthma Collaborative, respectfully in opposition unless amended. Chloe Ames on behalf of NextGen California. While we haven't written a formal position yet letter, we would like to strongly encourage the author to adopt amendments for clean energy procurement requirements and other amendments and we look forward to working with you on this thank you mr chair mark fenstermaker for valley clean energy we had an opposed position on the version of the bill coming out of the assembly but thanks to the amendments from last week we are now neutral and submitted that letter to the portal thank you thank you okay um any other folks you want to weigh All right. Lots has been moving on this bill, and I know a lot of people are basing their positions on where things were before. Let's turn it over to Senator Becker, who was very involved in these conversations, and I'd love to give you the opportunity to speak. Sure. First, I want to thank you for engaging in conversations. I know there's been a lot of work done even the last 24 hours on this bill. to just say at the outset, you know, it's a critical topic to get right. And we did do a lot of work with Senator Padilla's bill. And I think as we said there, you know, for me, some of the key factors are, again, making sure that we fully pay up front and that the number of hours, the limited hours of a year that the grid is really constrained, that we have a way to address that. because we do have massive excess capacity most of the time in California. So for those periods of time, getting more use across our fixed costs could lower costs for everyone, but we really have to get this right. So I appreciate your trying to get this right. Just a couple pieces I want to clarify. So this is only focused on new data centers, which makes sense for all the provisions that focus on new costs. there are some provisions that bill that might make sense to apply to existing data centers. For example is there any reason we shouldn require existing data centers to pay a reasonable share of wildfire costs that are usually collected from distribution connected customers Yes so I think we as I mentioned yesterday we committed to looking at that and frankly are inclined to move in that direction and obviously would be consulting with you on that. The reason why we had limited the bill to new facilities in the assembly was because it was broader before than what it is now. So we have agreed to limit this to data centers and so because it was applied to more than data centers before the you know there were other large load users that were not data centers that we were trying to address their concerns by having it be prospective so I think with the limitation to data centers now we can address those concerns and and actually look at including some of the existing data centers as well so that's that's something that I think would be good policy and we're committed to continuing to work on. Okay, great. That's great to hear. A couple of points. The bill, you know, there's differences in the bill. So this bill defines cost of serving in a way that seems to exclude the cost of upgrading transmission and distribution to meet the needs of new data centers. But isn't that a big part of the cost that we want to make sure data centers are paying for? So I think, I mean, some of the thing that's happening is that there's a bit of a difference of philosophy between the two bills. I believe that my bill requires that, but it basically, it's handing more of that, the determinations of what's included and not included to the PUC as part of the process. And I think there's more specificity, but we're, you know, it's our intention to do that. And I think, as we mentioned yesterday, we're going to look at language to try to tighten that up and make sure that my goal is to make sure that they pay their fair share, that it's done in an equitable way, that we're not shifting costs, These cost to other ratepayers. So clearly, more specificity is something that we're agreeable to. Okay. I appreciate that. I'd certainly like to see that clarified before the bill eventually passes. So I appreciate that. It gives two more points. The bill requires data centers, and this kind of relates to the last point too, but I think the bill requires data centers to pre-fund transmission interconnection costs and any distribution costs required to energize them. is it your intent I think you just said that that those costs would include upstream transmission upgrade costs as well that are linked to serving the new data center yes okay great that is very helpful let me just great that the last piece I guess on the on the the piece around clean energy That's been a big discussion point. I know – and I didn't follow 886 all the way through the assembly energy, and I know there were discussions there as well. I think the intention was to allow data centers to have behind-the-meter energy storage to, again, help enable that kind of cost shift. And I think it was certainly the intent of Center Padilla to prohibit these fossil fuel generation. behind the meter to meet that demand. Again, I'm not fully sure what sort of happened over there with that bill when we moved to the Assembly, but does that make sense to you? Is that sort of your intention as well? Would you like to see that any behind the meter energy storage or generation used to meet that flexibility to be fossil fuel free? Yeah, I mean, I think that's an important goal that this bill was not. was intended to look at affordability. And so that was not a focus of this bill. And I know that was part of the focus of Senator Padilla's bill. This obviously we would, you know, encourage behind the meter clean energy as part of the as part of that. But I think that's a pretty complicated issue that, you know, the philosophy of the bills in the assembly was that we were each taking pieces of it. this was supposed to be the bill related to affordability and cost shift. I do think that the issue of backup generation is an important set of issues that I recognize Senator Padilla's bill addresses and that mine does not. But we're obviously, I don't think there's anything in the bill that prevents that and obviously to the extent that we could have as part of sort of the regulatory process a focus on asking the PUC to deal with these complicated issues, that's something that I'm supportive of because I do think that that's a real issue. Okay. Well, I'll turn it over to my colleagues. I appreciate discussion. I appreciate all the work on it. I have to review and see if I can support the bill today, but I appreciate your answers here today and all your work on it. Okay. Other folks with questions? I definitely encourage those who have not had the chance to review all the work that's happened over the last 24 hours to engage with the committee and get whatever clarity you need. There's still very much a work in progress. This was very complicated. A lot of issues that have been raised through the course of this process, including from folks who are raising concerns just now, have been largely addressed but still a number of things that have to be further clarified. So it's in that spirit that I'm happy to recommend that we move forward with the bill as amended. I just want to say I'm relatively frustrated by the way the process has worked, and not with this committee at all. I mean, I think the committee has made a good faith effort. But frankly, we worked very, very hard in the Assembly, worked with everyone who came to us. When we left the assembly, we were at a place where the bill had virtually no opposition. The turn never communicated with my office, never met with us. They knew the bill was moving forward and never raised a single issue. And, of course, at the last minute, we get these issues as this is coming in. And frankly, I think a lot of the things in the bill, in our bill currently, are addressed in their letter. And based on the conversations we had yesterday, some of the things that are in the letter we've discussed and we're willing to continue working with the committee to address. Well, as you know, we're two houses. There's another bill in this space. And actually, I would only respect – I have no idea about all that you've just said on the process side. But certainly, I think that their input helped to inform the conversation yesterday that I think got us to a place. Right, but it would have been respectful for that input. but the bill has been in print in various iterations, and they know that we've been working. We had issues with other large low-energy users. We had issues with the CCAs. We had issues with pretty much, and we have an open-door policy. We work with everyone. We had issues with labor. We've addressed all of those. It's just, you know, they're a sponsor of one bill. I would also point out that my bill is stronger. I mean, in some places, we address those issues. we just happen to be less specific and we've had a philosophy of turning some of the more complicated issues over to the PUC where we actually have regulatory input and the ability for stakeholders to engage In other cases we actually have things in the bill that if we started going through that on my bill that are much stronger than on the other bill You know this can't, the process is one where I'm asking you to look at the bill for what its goals are, and we've made a good faith attempt to address the concerns. We're willing to work with your committee, and as you know, yesterday, we spent hours yesterday working through these issues, And we've I thought we had reached agreement. So, you know, we're this is a good bill that's important to address the cost shifts and the risks that rate payers may are experiencing. And respectfully ask for an I vote when what you know, when you're taking action on. Yeah, well, per our discussions yesterday, I'm very happy to recommend it. I vote today, you know, recognizing that this and some of the other work in this space continue to involve some work and certainly hope that we encourage robust dialogue far in advance from all the stakeholders. So your point is taken. So we'll take it up for a vote when it's important. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Let's now go to Madam Chair. Welcome to this side of the house. And we'll – Cardi Petri Norris is here to present AB 2493. Well, good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. Pleased to join you this morning to present AB 2493. As you well know, California has incredibly ambitious and incredibly important clean energy goals. Over the course of the next 20 years, we need to grow California's transmission capacity by more than 300 percent and California's generation capacity by more than 300 percent. We truly have a monumental challenge before us. And while our clean energy future depends on connecting new power to the grid quickly and affordably, today lengthy interconnection delays are preventing shovel-ready projects from coming online. I think we've all heard horror stories from clean energy developers about delays that last years and years and years. This isn't just putting our clean energy future at risk. It's because we know time is money. It's also increasing costs for California ratepayers. So the goal of this bill really is to create accountability with teeth for interconnection timelines. And AB 2493 does that by deploying four complementary accountability mechanisms, including permitting initiation deadlines, independent audits, mandatory remedial action, and return on equity consequences. I'm happy to accept the committee amendments and appreciate the engagement of the chair and committee staff. With that, I am happy to welcome my witnesses, Alex Jackson, who is joining us from American Clean Power, and Daniel Barad, who is joining us from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Good morning, Senators. Alex Jackson with ACP. We represent a diverse set of clean energy technologies, but this is consistently the main bottleneck we hear in terms of preventing clean energy projects from getting online. We are now up to 22 gigawatts of clean energy that is dependent on upgrades that have been delayed, as the chair mentioned, often by many years. My fellow co-sponsor is going to walk through some of the specifics of the bill, but I wanted to address some issues that were raised in the analysis and by the opposition regarding why we proposing a legislative approach and why it focused on enhanced oversight over the IOUs when there are other factors that contribute to project delays First, I just want to note that while this issue has received some attention at the PUC, we have seen very little come out of it. We have not seen any substantive policy or meaningful reform since President Reynolds first sent the IOUs a letter back in 2022 raising concerns about these delays and asking for a progress report. In fact, she sent a similar letter just three years ago. In the interim, the delays have continued to pile up. So we've documented the problem. Now with billions of dollars of tax credits on the line, we really urgently need to pivot to solutions. And that's what this bill is about. However, it is not trying to take a one-size-fits-all approach. There's no prescriptive mandates. It's fundamentally about accountability and establishing generator interconnection as a priority. And the reason why we need more accountability in this space is that we don't have the benefit of competition to discipline performance. For most of these network upgrades, they are assigned to the IOUs. Under federal law, they're the only entity authorized to construct these projects. And as a result, we tend to see far less attentiveness to performance and outcomes. For the small number of competitive transmission projects, we have a much different outcome, Where competitors have to compete, they put forward incentives to make their bids more attractive, such as taking a reduction on their profit margin for every month the project is late. But in the absence of competition, we are left with regulatory tools, and as you'll hear, we think relying on the IOU's self-reporting for the reasons behind these delays has not been sufficient to drive outcomes. And while we agree we need to be sensitive to costs, relative to the cost of these delays to ratepayers, investing in a little bit more oversight we think is well worth it. Finally, I just want to note that while we agree the IOUs are not solely capable for delays, they are not on a level playing field with other parties that have a stake in the outcome. Developers pay steep penalties when they miss CODs, often liquidated damages. The IOUs really face no consequence, and that's the imbalance this bill is trying to solve for. So fundamentally, these delays are keeping a lot of clean energy on the sidelines when we urgently need it, and we respectfully ask for an aye vote. Good morning. Michelle Kanellis on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, co-sponsor of AB 2493. California's clean energy goals will require adding significant amounts of new clean energy to the grid, and the state should urgently prioritize interconnecting these projects. UCS recently released a report analyzing the time it takes for IOUs to build certain infrastructure projects. The findings revealed that the delays are widespread and lengthy. It found the self-reported data from the utilities provided limited information about why these delays were occurring and what actions were being taken to address them. AB 2493 takes a multi-pronged approach to ensure grid upgrades are built on time. First, the bill sets a one-year deadline for the large IOUs to initiate permitting for major grid upgrades. If we're building at the speed and scale needed to achieve our climate goals, it cannot take three years on average to file an application as it does today. Second, it provides for independent oversight of the root causes driving these delays by requiring the IOUs to retain a third-party auditor. Our existing processes rely on the IOU's self-reporting, which has not produced actionable information. The last two years, for example, the CPUC determined SDG&E's data was incomplete and inaccurate Third it requires the large IOUs to develop solutions aligned with the auditor findings These solutions may include facilitating advanced equipment procurement to mitigate supply chain constraints expanding opportunities for entities other than the large IOUs to complete certain upgrades, or implementing a prioritization framework to fast-track upgrades that affect 100 megawatts or more of clean energy capacity. Finally, AB 2493 includes financial incentives to drive improvements by making the IOU's progress a factor in determining their return on equity. UCS is proud to co-sponsor this bill and respectfully requests your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any members of the public who would like to express their support for AB 2493. Please come to the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your position on the bill. Hello, Vice Chair and members. Sarah Fitzsimons for the Independent Energy Producers Association in strong support of this bill. Thank you. Marquis King-Mason, Natural Resources Defense Council, in support. Thank you. McKinley-Thompson Worley on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association, in support. Thank you. Brian Garcia with Advanced Energy United, in support. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Scott Cox, on behalf of CIRES, here in strong support. Thank you. Good morning, Grishina Mojabir, California Environmental Voters, and on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, in support. Thank you. Jai Aldentes, on behalf of the San Diego Community Power, in support. Good morning, Molly Corcoran, on behalf of Fluence Energy, in support. Thank you. Good morning. David Ramirez on behalf of NG North America in support. Kara Martinson on behalf of the Large Scale Solar Association in support. Jacob Evans with Sierra, California in support. Thank you. Thank you. You all look so excited coming up and testifying the support. Feeling the excitement. All right, we'll continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to 2493. Please come to the microphone. You have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Joe Zanzi with San Diego Gaston Electric. I have an opposed position on the bill. Appreciate the work of the author on this issue and the committee analysis that laid out kind of a lot of our issues with the bill. We do want to engage with the author. We've worked with her staff and sent quite a few amendments, proposals over to hopefully to strengthen the bill, make it more targeted. One of the issues around having the IOUs provide their own auditor is costs. We're already providing a lot of information to the PUC. I think there's at least six different oversight reports and mechanisms, including the Transmission Project Review, the Transmission Development Forum, SB 1174 reporting, the TED Task Force, CAISO has an Interconnection Process reform, and then there's also the annual RPS report. So we think if we're going to look at all the information, make it in-house and at the PUC where they can maybe, if there's more information that's warranted, that we could provide that information. But another audit would just take resources away from getting projects online. Another thing on the permitting, GEO 131 recently had some updates that actually encouraged more front-end work on the application, that way there is coordination amongst different stakeholders, engineering, all that sort of stuff. So when the application was filed, then that process would go smoother and actually speed that process up. So it's kind of trying to coordinate on the front end. It might take a little bit longer, but in turn, it speeds things up on the back end through the permit process. And then one last thing just to mention for SDG, I know there is a mention of incomplete data reporting. We, after that was made or identified, we did a deep analysis of our generation air connection agreements and found that, you know, in our letter to the former Commissioner Reynolds back in January that we didn't have any delays on our behalf and everything was on track to meet those contracts so with that look forward to continue with working with the author and respectfully opposed thank you good morning brandon you back on behalf of pacific gas electric and aligned with san diego in opposition we still want to continue working with the author and her staff we as as mentioned we had provided amendments a couple months ago that we would like to review and discuss and get to the the bottom of this we are very much interested in getting these projects online both the safe harbor tax credit projects for customer affordability also these are capital projects that we're constantly being accused in this committee and others of prioritizing so it's we have a very strong interest in getting these projects built in a timely manner as Joe mentioned there are improvements that could definitely made to reporting so that we're talking squarely and not talking past each other about different causes of delays making sure that we have a full picture of what is driving delays a lot of the reforms that would need to happen to bring these projects online run counter to other state policy goals whether it's environmental protection or land rights we know that there's a lot that can happen with probably some financial support for even the developer community where there's financing hurdles we've had projects fall out because developers lose their financing that then comes together later so there's there's a litany of different solutions here there's There's no silver bullet, but we were happy to be part of the solution. But for now, we're opposed to the bill in print. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else want to raise concerns? All right. Let's go to – here we are. Lynn Trujillo with Talon Calpurno-Edison in opposition. Okay. Anyone else? Concerns, thoughts? Okay. We'll bring it to the committee for questions, concerns, issues. Senator Becker. Yeah, I'll just say that this is a really important topic, and it's been difficult, I'd say, to kind of hold the IOUs accountable to getting this done faster. And I appreciate you working on this and trying to get it done. And I hope this will be helpful. I think it will be helpful. I'd be proud to support the bill and move the bill at the appropriate time. Thank you so much. All right. Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I absolutely share the same sentiments as far as wanting to expedite the grid updates, but I do have concerns about how this bill may give contradicting directives to the IOUs use as well as how does it actually address the supply chain issues that may occur that may be delaying these projects in the long run? I really appreciate that question. So, I last week was hearing committee, and I can't recall if you were here or not, presenting, I'm going to get the bill number wrong, 2560, AB 2516. which would establish the California Grid Manufacturing Initiative, which the goal of that bill really is to target the supply chain issues that are also such an important part of this challenge. So the bill before us is really narrowly focused on the interconnection delays, and I consider it part of a broader set of initiatives that we're advancing this year and a conversation and a body of work that we're going to need to continue beyond this year. Okay, so you're looking at this as just one aspect of the whole package of bills that you're going in. That would address the supply chain issues. What about the permitting processes and the land rights disputes? That is also such an important question and an important challenge. As you know, the legislature has taken action over the last several of years really to identify opportunities for us to rationalize permitting processes both around CEQA and around CISA. And I think the approach that we want to – CISA is the Endangered Species Act. Thank you. Too many acronyms. So I think we want to continue that work. We want to find opportunities where we can move faster, move smarter, move more cost-effectively while still respecting our natural resources and the things that make California so very special. So, again, that's not the focus of this bill, but there's other pieces of work that we're doing this year and things that we'll continue to work on focused on addressing some of those permitting delays that are so important. So I would appreciate your continued engagement on that. So this is just specifically for the permitting process? This is interconnection. This is focused very specifically on the interconnection delays, which, as you heard from Mr. Jackson, who represents American Clean Power, which is a trade association representing clean energy developers across the state and across the nation, when we've talked to the clean energy developers about, you know, what's your number one issue, What is your number one concern? It's actually not permitting delays. That's on the list. But this has been their number one issue and concern. So that's why we think that this is a really, really important measure to get over the finish line this year. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Wahab. Okay. Thank you, Senator. We'll accept that when we finally have our quorum, which we're still waiting for. But thank you. Thank you, Senator. Other questions, thoughts, concerns, issues? All right, let's give you the chance to close, and then let's also ask someone in Berman on his way. But let's give you the chance to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senators. Appreciate the conversation. I think we are all working to build California's clean energy future in a way that is sustainable, affordable, and reliable for California families. this is an important part of that strategy and at the appropriate time respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Great We waiting for Assemblymember Berman Oh, Assemblymember Ransom's here. I apologize. Okay, come up. Item 11, that's AB 2543. Assemblymember Ransom is here to present. Thank you so much. You may start when ready. All right, so I have two. Which one did you want me to start with? 2543? Yeah, why don't you start with 2543? I think you just have one. Okay, awesome. Thank you for that. So thank you, good morning, Chair and members. I want to begin by thanking the committee as well as the chair for the time spent sorting through this bill and helping work on the amendments. We are going to accept the committee amends that retain Cal OES as the lead agency, including but not limited to the work on assessing exactly how emergencies and public safety power access, and that is not limited to electric vehicles and the impact and effect on public safety. Through this bill, Cal OES will assess specific aspects of transportation and fuel resources during emergencies and ultimately provide recommendation for emergency preparedness. AB 2543 is a necessary emergency preparedness because California's transportation system is rapidly changing and we see natural disasters, but emergency planning has not fully caught up. And what I mean by that is we are transitioning towards electric vehicles, And so a lot of our emergency planning in regards to evacuations is around traditional gas. And so we need to make sure that we are aware of what's happening with our technology and how that will impact our emergencies. Being a disaster-prone state, we are vulnerable to all sorts of emergencies, whether it be wildfires, earthquakes. And how we prepare and respond will make a difference between lives saved and catastrophes prevented. So as chair of the Emergency Management Committee in the Assembly, we've been committed to doing what it takes to protect our communities and to be proactive and find out what we need to do better. AB 2543 provides California with a framework to identify where the resources would be most valuable before the next disaster occurs, rather than relying on a reactive emergency response and deployments that were not part of a plan. It is not if, but when the next emergencies will happen. And so by planning ahead, we can strengthen evacuation readiness and disaster resilience. And when the time comes, I respectfully ask for your iPhone. All right, folks, you want to voice support for the bill? And you want to come up and express opposition or concerns? Good morning, Mr. Chair, committee members, and Assemblymember. My name is Scott Cox on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. We were delighted to review the amendments this morning. I want to thank committee staff and the Assembly Member for working together to refine the bill. The bill is much better aligned with the state of the clean energy – clean transportation transition and the diversity of fuels on California's roads today. We look forward to seeing the amendments in print and removing our opposition from the bill. Thank you. MS. Thank you. Thank you. Julie Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, echoing the comments from EFCA, looking forward to removing our opposition as well when we see the amendments in print. Thank you for everyone's efforts on this. Thank you Mr Chair Jack Giannis on behalf of the California Fuels Convenience Alliance Also look forward to reviewing the events and having an updated position Thank you Morning Mr Chair Megan Murray with the Weideman Group On behalf of Electrify America and Ditto we really look forward to removing our position once we review the events Thanks so much everybody Thank you. All right. Let me just take this moment to read aloud the agreement. So first of all, we removed provisions requiring emergency plans for DC fast chargers. We will require OES to submit an assessment to the relevant legislative policy committees on emergency planning needs for access to transportation and fuel resources that impact public health and safety, and require OES's assessment to include recommendations for state actions during emergencies impacting fuel and transportation resources, including resources needed for disaster evacuees. And I've certainly personally expressed to the author a willingness to continue working on this during the recess further. But with that, I'm happy to open the floor to questions and thoughts. We'll go to Senator Wahab. Senator Wahab. Thank you. I just want to, again, thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I think that we do, including with the chair's commitment, just being able to prepare more and more daily. I think that's incredibly important. One of the things that I do want to highlight is we have seen some of the disaster areas, including even in the Bay Area. There are more and more fires and things like that happening. So on all levels, we actually have to prepare further. So with that, when appropriate, I'll make the motion to move the bill. Thank you. All right. Senator Stern. Yeah, I just want to thank not just the chair of the committee but the author. What a deliberate and orderly hearing we're having here on this matter. If only the previous chair could have been this organized and deliberate in its thinking. So this is my broad mea culpa for thinking out loud with you and my appreciation of your patience, Assemblymember, for just tolerating me and moving this thing forward. I think this planning exercise is not just a plan that sits on a shelf, but I think it's actually going to be really important for emergencies. I'm committed to working with you on this going forward. I'd love to be out as a co-author. Appreciate you. And, yeah, sounds like I got emotion already. Awesome. Okay, we're still waiting for a quorum, but we appreciate it. If you want any final thoughts or – Well, I love – Oh, I'm sorry. Senator – I apologize. Senator Grove. Senator Grove. Thank you. I just want to clarify just a question. I know that in the original language, and I don't think it's in there now, but you can let me know because we just got the amendments and it was a work in progress. The bill mentions the use of backup generators. In addition to the cost of the generator, the ONI would also be subject to the environmental regulations, particularly generators for diesel. if it's not a diesel or gas generator I'm sure it's not going to be a gas one I'm sure it's going to be a diesel generator as a backup to support the electricity to keep that going so that people can still charge their vehicles you're going to need a diesel generator just like we have in this building if everything goes out in this building they fire up that big diesel generator in the basement and we will still have power here in this building is that language removed because of the amendments and I'm sorry we just got them so I apologize. Okay, so you're are you referring to the original? Okay, so let me just kind of walk you through where we are and I want to thank the chair for reading them out loud because now I'm stuck with them. No, just kidding. So what we learned is what we learned is The reason why the D.C. fast charging was removed, and it's actually thanks to the Senators Committee, is that the technology or the backup won't be able to get the D.C. fast chargers or wouldn't be able to get them. Exactly. You need a diesel generator. Yes. And so what and as we're continuing to work through the amendments, we do want to make sure that there are a variety, if you will, of options available for people to continue to access whatever their fuel source is necessary. So it may be diesel backup generators. That may be one of the options on the table. We've left as many options on the table as we possibly could because we're talking about emergency preparedness. And I know there are concerns about our climate goals when it comes to things like that, but we're talking about emergency preparedness. and sometimes that means we have to concede to the ability to be able to make people safe. No, and I appreciate that, and I appreciate you being well-rounded enough to understand that. I really do. Sometimes that just goes over people's heads, so I appreciate that thoughtfulness, and I also appreciate the fact that I would hope that you would take into consideration the permit process for a diesel generator in that plan. Like you can't just say they can get a diesel generator because then if an emergency happens and they put one out there, they're not going to be able to operate it because it's an extensive permit process to be able to operate it either with a permit, which is a portable one on the back of a truck, or if it's stationary, that takes months. so that should be calculated in there because you may, I think that where you're going with this on making sure that we're prepared for an emergency situation whether it's fire, whether it's whatever happens that creates our situation in an emergency, I think that as long as we do the thoughtful process of how it's actually going to work on the ground and I appreciate you being thoughtful in that situation but I do want to make sure that if you leave options on the table for other sources of energy backup, diesel, whatever it is, to make sure that we're all safe in this type of emergency situation. There has to be a process that allows you to have the process, if that makes sense, because you can't just say they can have a diesel generator. That doesn't work. And even though it would be a solution and it would be a good one, it doesn't work. So I appreciate you being thoughtful on that. And thank you very much for taking the amendments. Yeah. Thank you, Senator. I think you bring up a valid point, which is why we go through this exercise of planning, right, because we shouldn't have to wait until a disaster happens to start learning the lessons and, you know, start trying to figure out what the game plan is. There is still a grave concern about, you know, the ability for folks with electric vehicles. But as I mentioned, we learned in kind of sorting through the bill that the intent of the bill may not be fully realized through the backup programs that were available. So we want to make sure that as we go through the amendments and work with the administration, that we make sure that the intent matches the outcome. And so if that means that we need to have an emergency permitting process, I'm certain that we'll be able to work that through with the administration as we get through the actual implementing of the plans. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Let's give you the opportunity to close. Okay, I'll be very briefly, so I appreciate the opposition coming up and removing their opposition. This bill is to help us be thoroughly prepared to remain reliable and to be able to safely evacuate during emergencies and natural disasters And with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote Thank you All right we will hold the vote when we finally have our elusive quorum which I am now going to complicate further by going to the Elections Committee, which is your favorite subject. Why don't we ask you, however, to get started, Assemblymember? I have another bill. Did you want me to present that separately? Oh, wait, am I the wrong? Never mind, forget that. It's a different committee. Why don't you just do it here then? Yeah, sure. You promise to get it out? No, thank you. We wish you luck wherever that bill goes. But thank you, Assemblymember. Let's let you start presenting. It'll be 2313. I will pass the gavel to the vice chair. Would you have a corner? Thank you, Chair. And Senators, thank you to the committee staff for your work on this bill. I will be accepting the amendments outlined in the analysis. Gas utilities plan to spend hundreds of millions of ratepayer dollars in the coming years to replace aging gas service lines, which connect the main gas line to a single household. AB 2313 would give customers with a planned service line replacement the option, the option to instead discontinue their gas service and use a portion of those funds to electrify their home. The incentive level for electrification must be significantly less than the overall avoided cost of the service line so that the program saves money for all ratepayers regardless of if they want to electrify. By avoiding unnecessary spending that homeowners do not want, AB 2313 helps reduce long-term costs for everyone while making the transition to clean energy more affordable for California families. In addition, this bill ensures that safety priorities are not impacted by providing an exemption for emergency replacements and directs the PUC to establish timelines that do not delay or compromise necessary safety work. AB 2313 will provide long-term savings for all ratepayers, avoid stranded assets, promote public health, and expand energy choices for our constituents. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm joined today by Kiki Velez with NRDC and Colleen Corrigan with SPUR. Hi, good morning Chair and members. My name is Kiki Velez and I'm the Gas Transition Lead for the Natural Resources Defense Council. I'm here in strong support of AB 2313, the Home Energy Choice Act. Today, I want to give you a concrete example of the problem that this bill solves. Not long ago, my dad, who lives in a disadvantaged community in North Sacramento, had his gas service line replaced with virtually no warning. He was out of town, and when he came back, he saw that PG&E had dug up his yard and replaced his gas lines. Yet PG&E didn't ask whether he wanted the pipe replaced. They just replaced it. And all customers will pay that pipeline cost, plus a massive utility profit on their bills for more than five decades. Yet my dad barely uses gas. Years ago, he converted to an electric water heater using a SMUD rebate, and he almost never uses his gas stove. Instead, he uses an induction cook plate to protect his health and air quality. And when his old gas furnace burns out in a few years, he'll likely switch that to electric too. This situation represents the biggest possible utility cost shift. Someone's pipe is replaced with no notice, and then they leave the gas system within a few years, and all customers are left paying those wasted costs for decades. This is exactly what the Home Energy Choice Act solves for. This bill offers customers facing a pipe replacement the opportunity to leave the system at the exact time when it will save money for everyone else It also makes electrification an option for folks who live in DAX like my dad and it gives customers the safest option for their home which is removing the risks of gas use and gas leaks entirely by going all electric. For all these reasons and more, 73% of polled Californians support this policy, and I respectfully urge you to join them in support today with your iVote when the opportunity arises. Thank you. Colleen Corrigan, Co-Chair and Member of the Committee Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Colleen Corrigan and I'm here on behalf of SPUR and strong support of AB 2313. We are in what economists call the mid-transition, the very uncomfortable phase where electric and fossil fuel systems coexist and decisions made today lock in infrastructure for decades. Every year Californians are paying hundreds of millions of dollars for gas service line replacements while state budget volatility turns clean energy funding into a perennial casualty. Californians are already paying nearly 50% more per unit of gas than five years ago, even as the average household uses 12% less. Demand is falling, but bills are rising. Something is very wrong. AB 2313 offers a better way. In over a century of work on housing, transportation, and climate, SPUR has learned to recognize the rare bill where the economics, equity, and implantation align. This is that bill. Federally and state-required safety work will still continue, but for the defined universe of service line replacements already scheduled, utilities would offer households a real choice before the shovel hits the ground, a new gas line or a portion of that money to electrify. This is a relatively small but meaningful program. PG&E replaces less than half of a percent of customer service lines per year, and only a portion of these homes would participate. But every electrified customer is one fewer service line that can leak, ignite, or rupture in a seismic event or landscaping mishap. and it's one fewer stranded asset that we're all left paying for. We know this model works. A similar program is already underway in New York, and one Queens resident reported cutting her utility bill in half. This bill carries no mandates, costs ratepayers nothing, and would actually lower bills for both gas and electric customers. It includes enhanced incentives for disadvantaged communities, so the benefits reach those who need them the most. The path forward is clear, and I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you. We will now continue with any witnesses in support of AB 2313. Please come to the microphone, name organization, and your position on the bill, please. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Earth Justice, proud co-sponsor of the bill. I want to thank Assemblymember Berman for his leadership and also want to voice support for Westlight Energy, formerly Peninsula Clean Energy. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good morning, Catherine Brandenburg on behalf of Sonoma and Clean Power in support. Thank you. Good morning, Teresa Machado with the California Community Choice Association in support. Good morning, Vince Wermaggio with MCA in support. Good morning, Lynn Trujillo with Southern California Edison in support. Good morning Madam Chair and members, Vince McKaylee on behalf of Silicon Valley Clean Energy in support. Thank you. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the San Mateo City County Association of Governments, Stop Waste, the City and County of San Francisco, and the Moran County Board of Supervisors all in support. Thank you. Good morning Chris Lee here on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the Sonoma County Transportation and Climate Authorities both in support. Good afternoon Brandon Garcia with Advanced Energy United in support Thank you Good morning, Grishina Mojabir, California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you. Good morning, Christina Skirind with the Center for Biological Diversity in strong support. Thank you. Jai Odentes on behalf of the San Diego Community Power in support. Jenna Roper with Central California Asthma Collaborative in support Chair and members Alicia Priego on behalf of the City of San Jose and San Jose Clean Energy in support Dr. Ruth McDonald with Climate Action California in support, thank you Marquis King Mason with Natural Resources Defense Council sharing some Me Too's in support for the Climate Center Prince Comedian Legislation and Climate Action California. Thanks so much. Benjamin Liu with the American Lung Association in support. Thank you. Melanie Law on behalf of E2 in support. Alan Abs with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in support. Jacob Evans with Sierra, California in support. Michelle Canales with the Union of Concerned Scientists in support Tim Dack on behalf of Climate Future California in support Thank you. We'll now continue with any witnesses in opposition Madam Chair and members, Scott Wester on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council and the California Coalition of Utility Employees and the California State Association of Electrical Workers This is a really, really bad piece of public policy. First of all, just a few years ago, you passed SB 1221 by MEN, creating a pilot program whereby communities could elect to electrify and do away with their gas. The PUC just put out the maps. That program is just going underway, and now you have this ill-conceived proposal. Does it make sense to anybody that you would, if we're going to transition from gas to electric, that you do so on an ad hoc basis? One home over here, two homes over there, 15 homes over there. That is not an efficient way to spend ratepayer money. And lastly, this bill absolutely affects safety. The money, instead of coming out of the public purpose fund, which should go to fund new electric appliances and panel upgrades, It comes from the safety, maintenance, repair, and replacement fund that each of the gas utilities has. To give you an example, in the last general rate case, we presented data that showed that there was about $684 million worth of pipe replacement that needed to be done, and the PUC funded $99 million. Now, you don't know every pipe that may be in urgent need of repair until you open up the ground and you look at it. Most of them you do, but not all of them. This is just not the right fund to fund this program, and we would urge you no vote. Kent Kaus on behalf of SoCal Gas and SDG&E, which together provide energy services to more than 24 million Southern Californians in opposition to 2313. We share the legislature's interest in innovation and support the thoughtful use of non-pipeline alternatives where they make sense. but we must oppose AB 2313 because it creates more affordability challenges, compromises safety, and does not allow the pilot programs authorized by the MN Bill to run its course. The bill creates a new ratepayer funded program that will require gas utility ratepayers to pay other customers to leave the system. Those costs being borne by the remaining customers does not seem appropriate to us. On safety, the bill will reduce CPUC-approved pipeline safety budgets, as the prior witness testified, intended to ensure safety and reliability to our system. Despite proponent comments to the contrary, we see this bill as delaying critical safety-driven infrastructure and placements because of the review time that would be necessary. Lastly, the bill bypasses the pilot programs noted in the MN bill. The Commission is well on its way in implementing that. AB 2313 adds to the affordability challenges the state face, adds safety risks, and is premature. The prudent course is to allow 1221, the MN bill, to run its course and deliver the data that was sought when that bill was approved. We ask for your no vote. Thank you. Madam Vice Chair and members, Matt Broad here on behalf of Engineers and Scientists of California and the Utility Workers Union of America in opposition. We align our comments with Mr. Wetsch. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we'll bring the discussion back to the dais. Questions, comments? I think this needs deliberation. Senator McNerney? I'm going to just make a brief comment. I know this is controversial. You've worked hard on it. There's been push forward and push back. And my understanding is that you've made a lot of concessions that make this bill acceptable. And with that, I will be supporting the bill. Thank you, Senator. I guess – sorry, I did not see you. Please – Sorry, Madam Chair. James Thirak, on behalf of the California State Council of Labor, is also in respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you very much. okay any other comments questions Dern you look like you need to say something sure appreciate the author's hard work on this and I think I appreciate the specificity in some of the opposition's testimony to sort of start to articulate that funding source issue as we move forward. I know there are other fund sources at PUC. I think the bill's in good shape to move today, and I think this doesn't get ahead of the 1221 cart. I think that's sort of a comprehensive side, but we don't want people wasting money on assets they're not going to be using and doing dual fuel when it's not necessary. But I heard some breadcrumbs in there that lead me to think like maybe this doesn't have to just be a confrontation also down the home stretch. I think there's a way to get through all this. So I'll make a motion at the appropriate time. Am I a co-author on this? I should be. Happy to have you. Okay. Count me on board and I'll help you through the, yeah, through whatever happens next. Thank you, Senator. I have questions. Okay. Senator Chauvok. So I do want to facilitate a little bit of the conversation because I heard the passion behind some of the opposition, and I think they do have. So on the surface, on your goal, as far as logically, theoretically speaking, it sounds like a great idea to be able to not spend money on infrastructure that you not going to be planning on using instead of spending the money It sort of expensive I not sure what the cost is Do we have a cost estimate of the replacement of the gas pipe I believe PG&E in their latest rate case decided at about $15,000. Different utilities have provided different numbers, not in their rate cases, but anecdotally. So on the $15,000 to connect, if you're not planning on using it and you're planning on elective fines, such as the Witness and Support, I get that. Once again, in theory, it sounds like a great idea. It's like, why not give the credit to the, once again, theory, right? There's a theory, and then there's the practice. So in theory, it sounds like a great idea. I actually was in discussions, deliberating the bill last night with my team, and we're thinking about, you know, great, if they don't want to use it, it's an option. It's not a mandate that you have to do this. So I'm all about options and the choices. But I do want to talk a little bit about and reference the opposition's concern with regards to what does that look like in practice when we are skipping one household and just going electric, non-electric? I mean, is that really feasible and possible? Because in theory, I guess it would have to work that way with or without this bill eventually because as homeowners have the finances to be able to electrify their home, which could be as much as $50,000, $48,000, $50,000 to completely electrify your home from gas, it's incredibly expensive. So I guess not every household will be able to electrify. So it would take time before you would have all the homes electrified without the gas. So I'm trying to understand the concern behind making this a choice for a homeowner to sort of opt out of gas connection and get the credit instead. Yes, Senator. Well, first of all, any gas repairer who wants to opt out of gas can have the company come out and just cap their gas line, which does not cost $15,000. That's very inexpensive to come out and cap a gas line. My point to your question was if we're going to transition away from gas, which ostensibly that's the goal with our 2045 neutrality objectives. the way to spend the resources is to go community by community like when we installed broadband. We just didn't say, hey, Joe Q Public over here, you want broadband? We're going to give it to you. And then over here, we went through efficiently and did neighborhood by neighborhood, community by community, rather than doing it in such a scattershot way, which is extremely – If we went in and did an entire cul-de-sac worth of gas line replacement, the cost would shrink down well below $15,000 per line. That's precisely what the MN bill proposes. This is just a one-off program that I guess feels good, but it's not going to actually get us towards our goals. Can our witness have a chance to? I'm not sure to do the chair. Sure, yes. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to respond. And Senator Ochoa-Bo, I really appreciate the question. I do want to respond to these points and correct the record on several So first again Kiki Velez with NRDC we been engaged in the gas planning proceeding at the PUC for five years deep in the rate cases including PG most recent The costs are actually quite high So PG&E and other utilities replace service lines like this, typically in a bundled fashion through their distribution integrity management program. So they're going in, they identify pipes that are high risk, and they replace the main and the services typically at the same time. So that's what 1221 is going after, those bundled replacements. This bill would make it so that eligible customers, which are those that will be impacted by a planned service line replacement over the next five years, are contacted more proactively rather than just a few days in advance as is current practice. They're contacted proactively and offered the opportunity to electrify. And to correct the records, even in those bundled pipe replacement programs for PG&E, the cost was about $20,000 per service line replacement. They do other service line replacements as well that are even more costly because they're more emergent in nature. So, for example, there might be an emergency replacement, and PG&E has funding set aside for that as well that gets approved through the right case. And those costs are even higher because they're doing a one-off replacement, and those can cost $30,000 to $50,000. But as Mr. Wetch said, actually just capping the pipe is not costly. So this bill does not impede safety in any way. It does not modify any of the commission's safety requirements. It does not reduce, quote-unquote, the bucket for pipeline replacements. The way that these buckets are requested is PG&E and other utilities bring forward their planned replacements based on pipe risk factors in their rate case, and the commission approves a bucket of pipes that are high-risk and need to be replaced. What this bill would do is say, okay, now that you have that bucket of pipes that need to be replaced because they're high-risk, let's reach out to customers proactively and offer them the opportunity to electrify. And so, in fact, you may be, for the customers who say, yes, I want to electrify, you're actually addressing that pipe risk faster because you're reaching out proactively five years potentially in advance and capping that pipe, removing it from the system entirely, you know, and completely eliminating that risk of gas use, depressurizing the pipe. So I just wanted to make those points. This bill really does offer the safest possible option, and all high-risk pipes will still be addressed in one manner. manner, this bill simply gives customers a better option. Okay, let me take a moment to establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll. Senator Salen. Here. Allen here. Echobo. Archuleta. Aragene. Aragene here. Ashby. Becker. Caballero. Oh, it's just working. Caballero here. Dally. Daly here, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Hurtado here, Reyes, Richardson, Richardson here, McNerney here, Stern here, Strickland here, Waub. Okay, we have a quorum that is very exciting. Do you have any further questions? Yeah, I just wanted to – so on the – sorry, my mind is now transitioning because now I'm being rushed for another meeting, but I'm late. But I do want to make a point to understand also the notes on the opposition that have to do with, you know, as we have more folks transition – and I want to make sure that we have this on record and it's correct. as we transition more folks into the to electrify the notes that I have state that there will be less folks actually or will be the remaining customers for gas will be responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructure and making it more expensive for customers that remain on the gas systems moving forward. And I think we see that, you know, those conversations happening when we're talking about vehicles and electric vehicles versus gas vehicles. It just – it's part of what the system that has been created is going to be conducive to. But I do – I appreciate the concerns. I appreciate the witnesses addressing the concerns of the opposition. Capping, giving the option, it's not mandatory. and I see the concerns, but I also appreciate the other areas where you're working towards ensuring that it is an option, and that's where I really appreciate that it's coming. I do want to address the concern about the study that was enacted with Senator Min's bill 2100. SB 1221, SB 1221, and how it bypasses the pilot process that's currently happened. Did you want to address that, the conflict? Sure, I appreciate the question. I don't view it as a conflict. I view those bills, my bill and Senderman's bill, as complementary. This program targets individual service lines and is completely voluntary for each eligible customer. And utilities in New York, which were referenced earlier, also offer both types of programs. to target different electrification opportunities. So this bill helps homeowners electrify their home in their neighborhood if their neighborhood is being scoped for a potential zonal electrification project that ends up not being able to work. So this is just creating another option, another voluntary option for homeowners, because a lot of homeowners won't be in the pilot studies. And frankly, we're going to need multiple different strategies to accomplish our goals. So I and Fordis with the PUC see this as complementary. 1221 not not in conflict thank you members that center Richardson thank you mr. chair I'll be very brief with my comments because I know everyone's been waiting and we have subsequent meetings as well I am going to support the bill the author has a very strong reputation here in the legislature I don't think you'd bring something forward if you didn't think it would be helpful and having not done some due diligence associated with it so for that I applaud your efforts I will say though I do have some larger concerns that it's like we're marching to goals that I'm not sure we're going to be able to reach and what I mean by that is we're marching to climate various goals and I don't know if we have the electricity to support. When you talk about removing gas and access and so on, I moved into a home that wasn't connected to gas and had to pay, I think, about $30,000 to connect, even though gas was on both sides of me. So it's kind of alarming to me. I've shared my concerns with the author. He's made a commitment to look at some of these issues very carefully because not all communities have the ability to buy the Tesla, to put the charging station in their garage, and to be able to maintain the expense of the additional electrical appliances and so on. So I would go more into it, but really we don't have the time. But I have expressed them to the author. I do have broader concerns, not necessarily to this specific bill, but broader in its overall implementation, but we'll support it going forward to today. Thank you. And if I could just say thank you to the Senator, thank you for the conversations we've had. I think we share a lot of those concerns, so I know we'll keep working on those. Thank you. All right. We'll entertain a motion if anyone wants to move by Senator McNerney. I'll take your previous comments as a close. You betcha. You're telling me to. I'm doing it. Secretary, please call the roll. Do you pass as amended to appropriation? Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Echoboag. Archuleta. Aragene? Aye. Aragene, aye. Ashby. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Daly? Gonzales? Grove? Hurtado? McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Reyes? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Stern, aye. Strickland, Wahab. Okay. We'll leave the roll open for folks to add on. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll now call up for our final bill, Senator Patterson. This is AB 2700. It's item number 12 in your agenda packets. You may proceed when ready. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. Good afternoon. I thought it would be when talking points were written, so glad we didn't make it there. Here to present AB 2700 on behalf of my good friend, now Congressman James Gallagher, although I am the author now. This bill required the CPUC to prepare a report outlining ways to fully pay restitution to utility wildfire victims prior to July 12, 2019. I had the opportunity recently to go tour, well, about a year ago, Paradise. I met a lot of the people there and the victims. And so, you know, when Congressman Gallagher offered me the opportunity to present this bill, I was happy to take the mantle and the torch and run. Some wildfire victims have waited over a decade to receive restitution. Even after all that, they're not expected to receive more than 70 percent that they were promised. Monetary restitution can never make up for the suffering the wildfire victims have been through. They've lost homes, property, and even their loved ones. And no amount of money will ever fix that. However, restitution is able to help victims to begin rebuilding their lives. Delays in restitution and incomplete restitution bar families from being able to move forward. In 2019, the state created the Wildfire Fund, and we did a lot of work on that last year. Both utility committees, as you know, and I know that's a priority of this legislature in the state. And although this is an important step to help wildfire victims, it sadly does not help the thousands of wildfire victims who suffered from fires many years ago. AB 2700 is an important step to allow these changes to be made As this committee knows we are committed to working with all sides to find a way to make this bill as helpful as possible My goal is to make this study more comprehensive and clarify what should and shouldn be included And with me, I have Will Abrams on behalf of the Utility Wildfire Survivors Coalition to testify in support of the measure. Great. Good morning. Thank you very much, Chair Allen and members of the committee. Special thanks to the authors of this very important bill. My name is Will Abrams. I am a PG&E wildfire survivor and organizing advocate with the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition. Put simply and plainly, AB 2700 is desperately needed because hundreds of thousands of utility-caused wildfire survivors are suffering, including victims of the 2015 to 2018 PG&E fires. because prior legislation, such as AB 1054, did not foresee the actions of PG&E and certain institutional investors over these past five-plus years, undermining and dramatically delaying victim recovery. I welcome questions from the committee about those specific injustices, but I will now turn to the provisions of the bill. The Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition and I am here to present, and these are guided by one overarching principle. All utility wildfire survivors deserve fair, full, and timely restitution. AB 2700 is a modest but extremely important bill. It directs the CPUC to address already verified restitution shortfalls for victims of utility wildfires before July 12, 2019 with the passage of AB 1054 and directs them to identify mechanisms to address those shortfalls. Importantly, this bill insists that any fire victim restitution remedies are ratepayer neutral. The committee would also note that within a recent September 2025 ruling, the Honorable Dennis Montale presiding over the PG&E bankruptcy recognized the need for legislation like AB 2700 when he stated that PG&E fire victims should pursue, quote, other efforts before legislative or administrative bodies and stated that this was required because AB 1054 and AB 111 provided no relief for damages caused by the wildfires. We encourage this committee to work with us to strengthen this bill as it moves to the Senate floor and to the governor's desk. This is so important. We are looking to make sure that this equitable application of all mechanisms as a backstop to existing remedies that this legislature has passed. And I welcome questions. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Other folks who want to voice support for the bill? And let me just say to folks, really welcome you here. Glad you're here. This bill does enjoy the support of this committee and I don't believe we have any register opposition. So just for the interest of time, we're asking folks to give their name and affiliation. Hi, thank you. Thank you for supporting us and I'm here in support of AB 2700. My name is Simone Sennett. I am a survivor of the 2018 Campfire I a single mother and a professor at Butte College of 26 years and not only have I suffered I watched on the front line my students suffer I watched enrollment and students living in trailers and not being able to go to school I really appreciate you being here. We're just going to ask folks to give their name and affiliation. Thank you. Vincent Carbone, Paradise, Campfire Survivor, strong support of AB 2700. Thank you so much. Thank you. That's a cool shirt. Michael Snow from Paradise, California, in strong support of AB 2700, representing Bonnie Snow who is deceased in the campfire. Thank you, sir. Hi, Diane Forsman, representing Andrew Forsman, Bruce Forsman, Dylan Forsman, Maggie Landrum Forsman, and Lucy Hale, and also our deceased mother, Jean Forsman. We're in very strong support of AB 2700. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Richard Byer. I'm in strong support of this bill. And I would just like to let you guys know I haven't had a chance to speak about any of this in all these years. But I will tell you that the campfire destroyed my life. I lost two dogs and I lost everything that I owned that I'd worked for. My house was paid off. Okay. I ended up down here in Sacramento taking care of my 96-year-old mother. But I will tell you that I'm a law school graduate. it and I watched the corruption of this bill of this whole procedure and followed it carefully and my running joke about this whole thing is is that if I could write a novel about what happened during this process right I'd have to title it fiction because no one would believe it true okay sir there there is so much more to this than than I can say and I want to tell you I know I just want to be brief and I will stop in just a second sir but I will tell you we got 30 people here sir and Okay, all right. But I'll tell you that it destroyed my life, and these people have to be made accountable, EG&E, and compensate us completely. We're in strong support of this bill. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hi, I'm Sally Weber, Tubbs Fire Survivor in strong support of AB 2700 with amendments. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Eric Eddenfield, representing 12 Fire Survivors and the City of Santa Rosa and Coffee Park. I now live in your district, Senator. Cathedral City. 3,012 days since the fire. We're still going. Thank you. Good morning, Sydney Robinson, Campfire Survivor, and I'm here on behalf of all the victims that can't be here today. Please support AB 2700 and stop the years of delays that all of us have gone through. Thank you. Chris Houghton, Campfire Survivor, 2700, please. I'm Piper Houghton, and I support ABC 2700. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Appreciate it. Hello. My name is Lynn Houghton. I support AV 2700. Hello. My name is Parker Hilton, and I support AB 2700. Thank you. 2700. Thank you so much. Hi, I'm Doreen Zimmerman, and that was my daughter and son-in-law and my grandchildren. My grandchildren were three and five when they ran from the fire. It is important for you to hear their support. I am a campfire survivor. I am an expert witness in diminution in value for pre and post valuations throughout the courts and nationwide And I am an organizing advocate with Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition And I support 2700 and I would ask that you support it and also support the amendments as they come down the pipeline and reach the Senate floor. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Tina Rezler, and I'm a Campfire Survivor and Utility Wildfire Survivors Coalition. I want to thank Congressman Gallagher and Assemblyman Patterson for AB 2700. I am here today leading with love, fighting for my family, my neighbors, my community, and all utility wildfire victims throughout California. Thank you. Please strongly support AB 2700. Thank you so much. Thank you. Jerry Batson, and I am here in support of AB 2700 and its amendments. Just a quick note regarding PG&E. due to their lack of maintaining their equipment and their decision not to shut off power on a high-risk fire day. We lost lives and our community of paradise. Thank you. Thank you. Summer Hughes, campfire survivor, just wanted your strong support in this bill. It's not just one day of trauma, losing your home in a fire. It's been years of trauma. So please help us push this through. Thank you. Hi, my name is Troy Donaldson. I'm a campfire survivor. I ask you to pursue this bill as best you can. And if you haven't, try to watch some of the documentaries on the campfire. It's devastating. But thank you very much for hearing. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Connie Neal, Campfire Survivor, and I strongly support this bill and the amendments to it. Thank you. I'm Chuck Neal, representing dozens of neighbors and friends in the Paradise area, and their recovery is still struggling from the campfire. I urge you to pass this bill, move it on forward, so that they can realize the complete and finished funding that has been promised by PG&E. Thank you. I appreciate it. Listen, I'm so sorry to do this. It's just everyone's got literally 12 o'clock caucuses, and it's my understanding everyone's in support of the bill. We really appreciate everyone being here. And as someone who represents a fire zone that had devastating fires, well, I'm acutely aware of how incredibly difficult this has been for everybody. So I appreciate you being here. But we just ask for your name and affiliation. Yeah, James Carroll, Camp Fire Survivor. on behalf of many of the fire victims from the Polga, Yankee Hill, Concow, and Paradise areas. Please support this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Brianna Tamayo. I am representing myself, my husband, our three kids, my mother and siblings who are forced out of California, and my uncle who passed away. We are in support of AB 27. Thank you. Thank you so much. Hello, Mark Davis from Collin Cal, Campfire Survivor. I strongly support this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Patty Savage, Campfire Survivor, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you. Tammy Vallejo and Pam Laird, one of the only 1,800 standing buildings left in Paradise or the campfire. Please support this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Sarah Salisbury, Campfire Survivor from Crown Cow please support this bill, I know I do thank you ma'am Carrie Max, Campfire Survivor. It's been decided. We took years to figure out how much they owed us, and it got decided. I got to sit here for hours this morning listening to how PG&E still gets to play and be, and I pay them every month still. Just own it. Pay it. Be done. Move on. Take care of us so you can move on, so we can move on. Thank you. Thank you, Pam. Leslie Sawyer, Butte Women's, Republican Federated, and on behalf of a family who lost generations in the campfire, thank you. We support it, and thank you, Joe, for taking this on. Jordan Race, commentator and advocate in full support of AB 2700. Thank you. Mary Jarsky, campfire survivor, CONCAL. Please support AB 2700. Andrew Smith, ex-business owner in Paradise, California, representing my sons who lost their homes. Please support this bill. I support it very strongly. Thank you. Nikki Smith, wife to him. We lost our sons to other states. Please support. Sharon Hollinsworth, on behalf of myself and my family, please support this bill. It's badly needed. Nancy Skelly, Campfire Survivor. Please support this bill for myself and all of my family. Thank you. Jenny Allen, I'm a Campfire Survivor. I'm here today to strongly support AB 2700. I ask that you pass this bill so families like mine don't have to continue to live in limbo after being promised to be made whole. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Annette Kreeble, Paradise Campfire Survivor. And I would ask, I'm in strong support of AB 2700 and the proposed amendment. And on my, and on behalf of my fire torn town of Paradise, California, I want to thank you and have a great day. Thank you. Hello, my name is Cheryl Spradling, Paradise Campfire, and I'm in strong support of AB 2700, and I thank you all. We can't do it without you. Thank you. Hi, Susan Estes, also Paradise Campfire, and strong support for the AB 2700. Thank you. Sharon Sager from Campfire, in strong support of AB 2700 and the proposed amendments. Thank you. Thank you. Jean Michaels, Paradise, California, supporter of the AB 2700. Thank you. Brian Ayers, Camp Fire Paradise, strong supporter of AB 2700. Thank you. Jerry Roseborough, Con Cal Fire Survivor. Thank you for supporting the bill. Thank you. I don't really have anything to say except let's finish this, okay? So we can go on with our lives. I can stop crying so you know why I here and what I support Thank you Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Butte County Board of Supervisors as well as San Joaquin County Supervisor Robert Rickman all both in support Thank you, and thank you for being champion and looking out for your communities. Thank you for your time. I'm from Loma Rica, California, and knowing the grace of God saved me with my above ground pool, But I lost three neighbors and my wife's been a mess ever since the fire. And I just hope you guys see what's right and support this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Kevin Creeble and I support this bill 2700. And I thank you for all of your help. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Thank you, everybody. Anyone who wants to voice concerns about the bill or opposition or any issues? Okay. First of all, let me just thank everybody for coming down to Sacramento to express your support for the bill. I'm in very strong support of this bill. I have unfortunately represented portions of Los Angeles that burned last year. We're getting a window into all the same issues that you've all been facing. So I appreciate you being here. I want to send my thanks to Congressman Gallagher, and I want to thank you, Assemblymember, for taking up this important cause. These folks have been left in the lurch, and you're trying to remedy and help them get back on their feet. It's a difficult recovery, and it's been made only more difficult by some of the things they've been facing that you're trying to remedy here with this bill. So I just want to urge my colleagues to strongly support this bill, and I want to thank you for taking up this cause on behalf of these folks who've lost so much from that terrible calamity. So happy to open up the floor to questions or thoughts, but I'd also entertain a motion and support. But, yeah, let's go to Senator Reyes followed by Senator Ashby. I also want to thank Congressman Gallagher. Shortly after the Paradise Fire, he took a delegation of Assembly members. It's very different to hear about it, to read about it, but to be there, to see the devastation. It was like a war zone. It was an unbelievable sight, and to have him take the lead and now, Assemblymember, to have you take it over is extremely important, and for the residents of Paradise, I strongly support this as well. Senator Ashby. Yeah, as briefly as possible. I know we have to go, but I'm speaking on behalf of Senator Dolly, who is senator to most of you and is really honestly just too emotional probably right now to speak. She's crying next to me if you can't see her, and she wants to just remind everyone that 87 people, 87 of her constituents, lost their lives in this fire, and she strongly supports and would like all of us to follow suit. Thank you. Senator Grove. Yeah, just very briefly to follow up on that, I want to thank the chair. I kind of give him a bad time most of the time, but I want to thank the chair. I know rules changed the authorship, and it was referred to committee, and it was after the deadline, and I know you did your due diligence and everything, but I thank the chair for making sure that this bill got out and that not only the 87 lives but the individuals in Paradise that lost everything can have some type of restoration. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Senator Caviello. Thank you very much. I also want to thank everybody for being here today. I have cousins that were burned out in the Paradise fire, including two who were firefighters who were fighting the fire And so I heard a lot about it and I haven been up since it burned because it just too hard to go and see what they lost But your testimony is important, and I really appreciate you being here today. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you. All right, Senator Dolly has moved the bill, and we'd love to give you the opportunity to close. Sure. Well, thank you. You know, I really appreciate everybody being here today. I know it's difficult, you know, every time you have to relive, you know, the devastation that you and your community has gone through. So it means a lot. And, you know, Congressman Gallagher, you know, was always sure to take people up to see the devastation in his district. And, you know, him and Senator Dolly really appreciate their leadership on this. And I'm just happy to take up the important work that they've been doing. And I really appreciate the support of this committee. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember. Looking forward to some further work on this and other issues related to making these folks whole. And let's open the roll. Do you pass to appropriations? Senator Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Pachobo? Aye. Pachobo, aye. Archuleta? Araguin? Aye. Aragene, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Dally? Aye. Dally, aye. Gonzales? Aye. Oh, Gonzales, aye. Sorry. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Sorry. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Wahab. All right. Wahab I. Okay. 16-0. All right. That bill is unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody, for being here. I really appreciate it. All right. Let's – thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember. All right. Let's go through the roll on the other bill. So let's first start with AB 353 by Berner. We need a motion for that. Move the bill. Moved by Wahab. Secretary, please call the roll. Do pass to appropriation. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Echoboge? Archuleta? Aye. Sorry. Echoboge, aye. Archuleta? Araguin? Aye. Araguin, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Dally? No. Dally, no. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grove? Aye. I'm sorry? Aye. Grove, aye. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Or 13-2. All right. Would you know where Senator McNerney went? Okay. Please have him come because we got to get to caucus. Okay, let's now go to the next item. That's AB 706, Iger Curry will take a motion on that. So moved by Senator Wahab. Secretary, please call the roll. Okay. Do you pass as amended to appropriations? Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Echoboge? Aye. Archuleta? Arrageen? Aye. Arrageen, aye. Ashby? Becker? Aye Becker aye Caballero aye Dally aye Gonzalez Grove aye Hurtado Aye Dally aye Gonzalez Aye Gonzalez aye Grove Aye Grove aye Hurtado Aye Hurtado aye McNerney Aye McNerney aye Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Great. All right. That's 17-0. We will close the roll. Sorry? 15-0. 15. 16. 16. 15-16. Has everyone had the opportunity to vote on that one? I think they have. Well, I have to be able to hear everybody. Who do you not have? Archuleta Ashby. Ashby, aye. Where's Archuleta? Presenting a bill. Oh, for God's sake. 6-0. We're going to keep moving. So we'll leave it open for a few minutes to see if we can get here. Now let's go to AB 1761. Roger is moved by Wahab. Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll. Do you pass to appropriations? Senators Allen? Allen, aye. Echobog? Aye. Echobog, aye. Archuleta? Errageen? Aye. Errageen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Dally? Aye. Dally, aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Stern? Stern, aye. Strickland, aye. Strickland, aye. Wahab, aye. 16-0. Great. AB 2369, moved by Senator Wahab. Secretary, please call the roll. Do pass to appropriations. Senators Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Echobog. Aye. Echobog, aye. Archuleta. Barrageen. Aye. Barrageen, aye. Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker. Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Daly? Aye. Daly, aye. Gonzalez? This is 2369 Rogers. Aye. Grove, aye. I'm sorry. Gonzalez, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. 16-0. Great. Okay. We'll now go on to AB 1787 Schultz. Move the bill. Richardson, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. 11-4. We'll next go to item 21-24, Pacheco. Moved by Strickland. Secretary, please call the roll. Due pass is amended to appropriation. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Echobog? Aye. Echobog, aye. Archuleta? Arraguin? Aye. Arraguin, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Not voting. Decker not voting. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Dally? Aye. Dally, aye. Gonzalez? Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Stern? Not voting. Stern not voting. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. 13-0. Okay, we'll now go to Item 7, AB 2200. By heart, that's the consent calendar. Moved by Strickland. Secretary of Peace, call the roll. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Echobog? Aye. Echobog, aye. Archuleta? Arrageen? Aye. Arrageen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Dally? Aye. Dally, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grove? I. Grove, I. Hurtado? I. Hurtado, I. McNerney? McNerney, I. Reyes? I. Reyes, I. Richardson? I. Richardson, I. Stern? I. Sorry. I. Stern, I. Strickland? I. Strickland, I. Wahab? I. Wahab, I. 16-0. Okay. We'll now go to AB 2313. That's Berman. That's already been moved, I think, right? Yeah, okay, let's open the roll on that. Okay, do passes amended to appropriations, current vote 6-0. Chair voting aye. Echoboag? Not voting. Archuleta? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Not voting. Dally? Not voting. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grove? Not voting. Grove, not voting. Hurtado? Reyes? Reyes, aye. Strickland? Not voting. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. 10-0. Okay. We'll now go to AB 2383 Zabur. Do we need a motion on that? Yeah, we do. Move by Senator Reyes. Due pass is amended to appropriation. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Echobo? 2383 Zipper. 2383 Zipper. Echobo, no. Archuleta? Aragene? Aragene, aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Caballero, aye. Daly? No. Daly no Gonzales Gonzales aye Grove No Grove no Hurtado Aye Hurtado aye McNerney Aye McNerney aye Reyes Aye Reyes aye Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. 12-4. Okay. Let's go to AB 2493, Petrie Norris. We need a motion. Move to do. Move by Senator Reyes. Secretary, please call the roll. Do pass as amended to appropriation. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Echobog? No. Echobog, no. Archuleta? Errageen? Aye. Errageen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Daly? No. Daly, no. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Grove? No. Grove, no. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. 12-4. Okay. Well, now we'll go to AB 2543, Ransom. Need a motion. Motion by Senator Wahab. Secretary, please call the roll. Do pass the amendment to appropriations. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Echoboge? Aye. Echoboge, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Barrageen? Aye. Barrageen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Caballero, aye. Daly? Daly. Daly not voting. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grove? She did, yeah. Aye. Grove, aye. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Wahab? We'll have aye, 15-0. All right, let's open. We'll go to AB 2700 Patterson. I think most people have the chance to vote, but everyone has voted. Okay. Let's go back to the top. AB 353, Burner. I think it's Archuleta. Please call the roll. Okay, yeah. Current vote 13 chair vice chair voting aye Archuleta McNarnie What McNerney aye Okay let do AB 706 Aguirre Curry It's 16-0. We're missing Archuleta. We're missing Archuleta. Okay. Do we have any... Is McNerney on everything else? Yes. Okay. Yes. I'm coming. We do have confirmation that our child is here, because otherwise I'm going to close the roll. What am I supposed to do? Do you want me to just close the roll? You're going to have to come back to an after caucus. She's probably sitting there. Okay, okay. She was walking over just a minute ago. All right, we're going to recess. Okay. We're going to recess. We're going to recess. To reconvene the hearing on Energy Utilities and Communications Committee, we have our great august senator from Montebello. And Pico Rivera. and Pico Rivera and surrounding communities, the hardworking people of southeast L.A. County that are proudly represented by Senator Bob Archuleta, who's here to vote. So we're going to over-lift the calls on the bills. We're going to start with AB 353 by Berner. Secretary, please call the roll. Do pass to appropriations, current vote 14-2. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. 15-2. All right. Let's go to – we're going to close the roll on that. Let's go to AB 706, Aguirre Curry. Current vote 16-0. Do pass as amended to appropriations. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. 17-0. 17-0. Let's close the roll. We'll go to AB 1761, Rogers. Do pass to appropriations. Current vote 16-0. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. 17. 17. We close the roll on that Let go to AB 2369 Rogers Do pass to appropriations current vote 16 Archuleta Aye Archuleta aye 17 Okay now let go to AB 1787 Schultz Do pass as amended to appropriations, current vote 11-4, Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. 12-4. Okay, let's go to AB 2124, Pacheco. Do pass as amended to appropriations, current vote 13-0, Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. 14-0. Okay. Our consent calendar, which is AB 2200 by heart. Secretary, please call the roll. Senator Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. 17-0. 17-0. Fantastic. Now, item 8, AB 2313, Berman. Do pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 10-0. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. 11-0. Okay. Let's go to AB 2383, Zabur. Do pass as amended to Appropriations Current Vote 12-4, Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. 13-4. All right, let's go to AB 2493, Petrie Norris. Do pass as amended to Appropriations Current Vote 12-4, Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. 13-4. 13-4. That is out. We'll now go to AB 2543, Ransom. Do pass as amended to Appropriations Current Vote 15-0, Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. 16-0. 16-0. And finally, AB 2700, Patterson. Do pass to appropriations. Current vote 16-0. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. 17-0. Okay. I think that is everybody. Mr. Chair, I have some comments, if I may. I appreciate your time and effort to complete the task of the committee today and being patient with me. I appreciate it. Thank you. Well, we know you were presenting in assembly, and we appreciate your coming back. So thank you for all the hard work of the staff. It was a difficult hearing. It actually went very smoothly in spite of how much difficulty we had in advance. That's all because of the hard work you put in. So thank you to the staff. Thank you for everyone participating. Thank you for our wonderful sergeants for keeping us on track. And with that, we will adjourn this hearing. Thank you, everyone. Thank you.