Energy — 2026-06-16 (stale)

Hello. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee. Dr. Adria Tinnin, Director of Race Equity and Legislative Policy at Tern. Here I'm proud to sponsor AB 1715. As you all know, California is in an affordability crisis. Our skyrocketing energy utility bills have nearly doubled over the last 10 years. To improve affordability while still building up the grid to meet future need and doing what's necessary to prevent wildfires, we've seen an uptick in alternative sources of funding. This is a great thing. PG&E received a $15 billion DOE loan, a commitment for reliability and clean energy projects. And just last year, this legislature approved $6 billion of wildfire mitigation spending to be securitized. These alternative funding streams have the potential to save ratepayers billions of dollars, but right now we have no way to effectively track those savings and ensure ratepayers receive the full benefit. AB 1715 provides critical transparency and accountability by directing the CPC to establish a searchable database of utility advice letters which inform the public of rate changes. For each advice letter, there will be a link to the associated protest letters and resolutions filed in response. Currently, you have to be on a specific e-mail listserv to be made aware of these documents despite them being a matter of public record. Added transparency will allow advocates and the general public to better track and understand rate increases. AB 1715 also includes utilities reporting of state, federal grants, loans, and bonds to the CPUC in a few ways. It centralizes utility reporting for all public funding being sought or secured. It requires utilities to report this information in each application where it is seeking ratepayer money, funding, With this information, the CPUC will be able to ensure ratepayers receive the savings from alternative financing and utilities don't double recover. Lastly, the bill requires utilities to quantify potential cost reductions and deliver those savings to ratepayers. I know you are all committed to achieving affordability, but that cannot be achieved without accountability and transparency. Many of the provisions in this bill likely look familiar to you as it was passed through this committee in AB 1020 last year, And we strongly urge you for another aye vote. Thank you.

Mr. Wetsch. Mr. Chairman and members, Scott Wetch on behalf of the California Coalition Utility Employees with the proposed committee amendments I believe that will remove our opposition I would just like to note that the IBW International played a key role with the Biden administration in securing that $15 billion loan, and it should be applauded because it helps reduce rates, and that type of behavior should be encouraged, not criticized. Thank you.

Good morning. I have a couple of questions for the author. I'm missing my binder, so I apologize. I don't have the background analysis. Just a couple of quick questions. One, what are the actual penalties that would be imposed? If you could, it says that it authorizes the CPUC to impose penalties for noncompliance. So what would those penalties be? Have they been identified?

So no monetary amount has been identified thus far? No.

Okay, and then my second question is, which leads to the amendment that was accepted, requires utilities to promptly pass the financial benefits of federal funding onto rate payers. has there been a determination of how much that would be, or are we expecting through this legislation that the entire money that they would receive would go to rate payers? Because I could see how that would be difficult if something was provided, for example, for a project, and it's going towards the project. How would that translate to them providing it directly to the rate payers?

Yeah, thank you. So it's really about ensuring that alternative sources of funding are replacing rate payer funding rather than just adding to it. So we're not paying twice through taxes and rates for the same project. An example is the $15 billion DOE loan that I mentioned, which absolutely should be applauded. It's fantastic. PG&E purports that it will save ratepayers a billion dollars in savings. So what this bill would require is that that is demonstrated how it saves the billion dollars and then that we mark that to the CPUC in each of the proceedings where money is being requested for that project to make sure that ratepayers are indeed receiving the billion dollars in savings.

I think so. If I may, I think the amendment actually gets to the concern that you're raising. So with taking promptly out, it means that the CPUC can find the appropriate timing and process to make sure that any refunds to the rate payers happens in a timely way that makes sense for their process and for the economics of the company as well.

Okay.

We just want that to be incorporated into the analysis and transparent.

That clarification isn't in the bill itself.

Yeah, and we'll take another look at it.

Okay. This has been moved. Senator Stern.

that would be the process that would be that would be occurring at the cpus at the puc they'll determine what the quote-unquote financial benefits correct the utilities would demonstrate you know this is how much savings we think here's where it's coming from and they would reflect that in their applications to the commission. We received this money from the DOE, so we have calculated that to be this amount of savings that we no longer need from ratepayers on this project here. So it doesn't necessarily, the intent isn't to imply that it's the identical benefit, it's the identical total amount of federal funding received. Correct. That's why, so the $15 billion loan is a great example. $15 billion that PG&E has calculated, and that was one of the impetuses for this bill calculated and announced widely this would be over a billion dollars in customer savings. So we don't have any mechanism right now to actually see where the billion dollars is saved and to pinpoint what proceedings is this money sort of relevant to so that we can be sure that we're not double dipping.

So that's the process that this sets up.

Okay. Thank you. Senator Grove has left. Anyone else? I don't know is it okay if we she our next author is here let's see Yeah, can we just move on? I'm sorry. Sorry, I can't see my phone. Senator Grove. So I just want to follow up with my good colleague asked those questions. So you said it would be a refund to ratepayers but the witness said there no refund to ratepayers Well it would be it would be taken out of the total package package of the funding that the utility needs right So in effect it not drawing down from rate payers dollars that needs to fund projects. So let's just take the, it's $15 billion for PG&E, right, that was asked or granted from

And when you separate it out so that none of that money is used, you said none of that money goes where? Because some of that money, that $15 billion, could go to contracts, could go securing equipment, could go to a variety of things that would help set up that project that could be, let's say, $100 billion, where the employees would get to work that, we get to build a project, and then a total project would reduce ratepayers' expense at the end. How do you expect them to identify the $15 billion if maybe, I mean, it could go as low as somebody needing a stapler on their desk and they use that money? I mean, I know that's a silly analogy, but you're not going to spend $15 billion in one place. It's going to either go to hiring more employees, existing contracts, engineering, CEQA, everything else that has to be complied with. And so how do you say that that doesn't get spent or go back to the rate or, or else it has to go back to the rate payers?

Without the $15 billion, the project would cease to exist. But they have the $15 billion because they got it already over here from the federal government. Right.

Okay, so I think we just look at things differently, and I won't focus on that piece. because if there's, like I said, if the project needs $100 billion and they secured a $15 billion loan to advanced infrastructure, do underground line work or whatever the project is. It can be for whatever. It can be for whatever. It's just the big dollar amount. But what I'm saying is that if a contractor needs $100 billion and $15 billion comes from the federal government or some other place, that project still cost $100 billion and in the meantime they have let's just say it's undergrounding and we're putting lines underground which California is kind of requiring because of fires and things like that so they're doing all this undergrounding work the project still cost $100 billion they just got a credit from the federal government in order to do the project to complete it to comply with California law which would not necessarily I don't know that it would reduce rates. I think it would mitigate wildfires and maybe there's a cost savings there. I just don't see how you track the $15 billion. I all for transparency and I trying to help I just trying to figure out Maybe my witness can help I not saying this clearly I just don see a refund going back Yeah I guess I a little bit perplexed

Right? Right. No, I see what you're saying. The project was $100 million. Yeah.

I know everything has to be approved by the CPUC, and I understand that. I'm just trying to say that if you have a $100 billion project, and again, sticking to undergrounding, And that's what it costs the utility to do it. If that's what they call the utility to do it, the jobs are there. Everything is there. It's a requirement. So a lot of times California policy exceeds anything that's done in any other state. And so if they can get help from other places like the federal government, we get help from the federal government to pay for Medi-Cal rates. We get help from the federal government. So basically, if you switch this to something else that's not in the energy department, because we get billions of dollars for people that need Medi-Cal, you're saying that if the state passes a piece of legislation or does something that Medi-Cal is a higher rate, that this money can't be credited and has to go back to the provider or back to the federal government who gave us the money in the first place. I don't know enough about Medi-Cal to follow that one. But if this was in using your same scenario, the 15 billion dollars came from Medicare from the federal government for Medi-Cal. And then you're saying the doctor provided services and got reimbursed at 50 percent. You wouldn't be able to give the doctor the 75 percent that he deserves because we got the money from the federal government. I know it's trying to I guess I shouldn't have gone down that road. It's too confusing. I'm sorry. I just am trying to understand how you think that getting $15 billion from the federal government on a $100 billion project is a cost savings.

Okay. Yeah. It's like saying if you're buying a car. Yes. Right? Mr. Nilo, if I'm buying a car, follow this. Exactly. Follow this. That's okay.

So use your car example.

Go ahead. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So they don't actually get to keep that money. They have to pay it back. Right, right. Well, it's like a second mortgage, right? It's kind of like a second mortgage. But they still have to pay back the loan. Right, they do. They do. Okay. Well, maybe PG&E wants to come up and talk about how it worked.

I mean, if you're getting a loan for $15 billion from the federal government, you obviously have to pay it back. But now you're going to pay back the loan and credit $15 billion to the rate payer, which I think is great. I just don't think you can do that.

So it's just creating the transparency. For state, for federal loans as well, and grants.

And just, you know, I just couldn't follow. So, I mean, if you get a loan, like I said, I couldn't follow the fact that if you get a loan from the federal government that you have to pay back, and this bill is going to require you to give that same amount of money back to the rate payer, that's what we call double dipping. That's double dipping on another side that the utility has to take care of.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for trying to answer my question. It's all good. Senator Neela.

Thank you, Steve.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you for the conversation. You know, I mean, at the end of the day, we're trying to protect rate payers, trying to make sure that there is transparency and accountability. and we welcome when IOUs can find more cost savings, especially when it can benefit ratepayers as well. And so that is, at the end of the day, the goal of this bill, and respectfully request an aye vote when you have a quorum.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, members. I am pleased to join you to present AB 1301. This is a public utilities and resources code cleanup bill. Happy to accept the committee's amendments. Thank you and your team for your work on this measure. This bill incorporates requests from the CPUC, PAO, CEC, CAISO, as well as representatives of electric co-ops to remove from statute defunct entities, align reporting deadlines, eliminate duplicative requirements, and clarify existing provisions. Some of the highlights of the bill include removing references to the Power Exchange and Electricity Oversight Board, both of which have been defunct since the early 2000s. The bill extends the sunset of the Energy Conservation Assistance Act. It clarifies that electric co-ops are not to be considered electrical corporations by default. In sum, AB 1301 addresses needed code cleanup provisions, perhaps not the sexiest bill on the docket for this year's Senate Energy Committee, but an important government housekeeping measure nonetheless. I am joined, I think, we've got Anthony. Annabelle Hopkins with the Public Advocates Office to offer, I think, a couple of brief comments and support and then answer any technical questions that may arise.

Great. Thank you. Other folks who want to speak in support?

Other folks who want to weigh in support? Anyone who wants to express opposition concerns? All right. A motion went appropriate by my colleague. Any other questions or thoughts from the committee? Things that people want to raise? All right. We'll give you the opportunity to – we'll take it up for a vote when we have –

And now I think you've got AB 2463. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate it. Anyone wants to voice support for the bill? I think we've got, oh yes, I think I'm joined by Michael Colvin from EDF. Thank you for being here. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Michael Colvin with Environmental Defense Fund. EDF has been participating in the determinations of the authorized return on equity and overall capital structure of the utilities for the last several cycles. and I've personally been involved in these cases for, I'm dating myself 15, 16 years now. And I would like to emphasize what Assemblymember Pete Jr. has indicated, that this is a little bit of a black box, and having some of this transparency is going to both help us as advocates, but also help the legislature for sort of the next steps of what is going to be needed for making additional changes for the return on equity. I did want to call your attention to subsection F of the bill, which has, which directs the PUC to open a new rulemaking specifically to think about from now through 2045 what load growth would look like for the electric utilities and what the changes to the gas system investments would look like over that same time frame So that way we are making smart decisions about how we make future investments in our infrastructure that better align with our longer term state goals. And doing that in sort of that rulemaking fashion makes sense that way you're not arguing out in one particular determination but you're sort of having a more planned approach for this. Stepping aside from all of this, I recognize cost of capital and return on equity is not the easiest of topics to understand. And so having a little bit more of transparency here is going to be extraordinarily helpful. And it's going to be helpful for both ensuring more affordability for our bills, but also making certain that we are making the right investments into our capital infrastructure that get us to where we need to be in the long term. And so with that, EDF is very proud to support this bill and we ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Will Abrams with the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition, and we're taking a support if amended position on the bill. Certainly appreciate the motivation behind the bill and the intent of the legislation on transparency. We're just really hoping that this takes a few more steps further to really take action around this. We know that ROE is not aligned with our public interest outcomes. We understand that ROE is up here and how the utilities are performing on wildfire safety, paying their victims. Affordability is down here. And so we just support the author's intent here with the transparency. We encourage further steps so that ROE is not at odds with our public interest outcomes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Other concerns from members of the We'll go to the committee, Senator Becker. I just want to thank the author for this bill. Appreciate the transparency, and I'll move the bill at the appropriate time. Thank you, Senator. Senator Weiss. I remember when I was first elected and was on utilities and energy in the Assembly, this was the one thing that I could not understand, how you could get a guarantee of a return on your investment. And I am so glad that now as chair in Assembly of Utilities and Energy that this is one of your package to have this transparency, and I really appreciate it. I will be supporting it without a doubt. Thanks. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. The bill's been moved when we have a quorum, and we'll give you the chance to close. All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. I appreciate your work on this. Thank you. Okay, all right, let's go now to Assemblymember Ward, all the way here from San Diego. And we appreciate your patience. Not too far from Santa Monica. That's right. Divided by baseball teams, though. All right. You may proceed when ready. This is AB 1813. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Here to present AB 1813, I want to thank the committee and their staff for their hard work on the bill and state I will be accepting the committee amendments that are outlined in the analysis. So the back story is in 2022, the legislature passed AB 2316, and that directed the PUC to establish a new community solar and storage program if it benefits all ratepayers compensating projects based on the full value of distributed energy resources. In the ensuing proceedings, which I attended by the PUC, they adopted the community renewable energy program But unfortunately that decision contains serious flaws that ultimately rendered the program unworkable and will lead to no new projects being built Specifically, the program does not fairly compensate projects for their full value to the grid and ratepayers and relies entirely on external sources of funding, which have largely been canceled out by the federal administration. This bill, AB 1813, makes needed changes to the Community Renewable Energy Program to ensure that California has robust community renewable programs that expands access to solar to all Californians while providing a valuable tool for achieving the state's ambitious energy efficiency and climate change goals, all while creating high-quality and competitive jobs. With me in support, I have Patrick Welch with San Diego Community Power and Matthew Friedman with the Utility Reform Network. And if the time is appropriate, I welcome your questions and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Patrick Welch with San Diego Community Power. Community Choice Aggregator serving over 969,000 customer accounts throughout San Diego County. Our mission is to deliver on affordable, reliable, 100% renewable energy by 2035 or sooner. As part of that mission, we have established, our board has established a goal of building 300 megawatts of locally sited distributed resources, and we see community solar as a tool in our toolkit to achieve that goal. Building locally is generally more complex than it is and more difficult than it is building the larger utility scale systems. This bill puts forward solutions to the PUC's community solar design. It does it in a way that we think really balances the costs with also the grid benefits. And in particular, we appreciate the bill's approach to the load modification protocols in the legislation. Under the legislation, there's a California Energy Commission process called load modification, where the projects would essentially be determined to have a grid benefit and lower the demand profile of a load serving entity like San Diego Community Power. We have experience with this process through our residential solar battery savings program. It is a verifiable, trustworthy process that determines that these types of assets actually have a grid benefit. This bill takes that existing process and applies it to the community solar program at the Public Utilities Commission. And we think that really helps elevate these projects and makes them more economically viable when paired with the new compensation regime as well. So in closing, just want to mention that San Diego Community Power believes that AB 1813 will support affordability with direct bill savings that customers can see while enabling the deployment of reliable local clean energy resources, and we urge your aye vote today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, Matt Friedman on behalf of the Utility Reform Network. AB 1813 would jumpstart the deployment of distribution-connected renewable energy projects paired with significant amounts of energy storage. Many customers today cannot benefit from behind-the-meter solar because they don't own their property or because their property is unsuitable for solar. Net metering is a policy for homeowners, but 45% of Californians are renters and two-thirds of low-income customers rent. Community solar would allow these customers to subscribe to shared facilities and receive benefits. In 2022, TURN worked cooperatively with the community solar industry and with Assemblymember Ward to support the enactment of AB 1813. The bill directed the PUC to establish a community renewable energy program And our support was based on the recognition that the longstanding voluntary renewable energy programs administered by the utilities were neither successful nor scalable. And by the opportunity to use a community solar program as an alternative compliance option for the new solar home mandate under Title 24, the building code. And despite the clear directives in that bill, the PUC issued one decision in 2024 and another last week, both of which embrace a completely non-viable community energy program that's inconsistent with the plain language of the prior bill and is frankly designed to fail. Due to the extended delays at the PUC in implementing AB 2316, key sources of federal and state funding are now no longer available. and the refusal by the commission to implement this bill and its outright hostility to the net value billing tariff supported by TURN and other stakeholders represents a huge missed opportunity and a failure of state leadership. AB 1813 would redirect the PUC to make changes to its flawed program that will unlock the development of substantial quantities of new local solar and storage that can place downward pressure on rates and the use of this program to provide alternative compliance for the new solar home mandate could result in billions of dollars of savings for all customers. The legislature now has a chance to require the PUC to do the right thing and to create a real viable program that benefits the grid and all customers. We ask for your aye vote. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Let's ask anyone else who wants to express their support for the bill. Yeah, come on. Yeah, me too. Good morning. Isabella Bobadio with the Nature Conservancy in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair members. Tyler Tratton on behalf of both solar in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy in support. Good morning. McKinley Thompson-Morley with the Solar Energy Industries Association in support. Jeff Neal representing the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors also in support. Good morning. James McGarry on behalf of the Coalition for Community Solar Access. Support. Hello. Derek Chernow with Californians for Local Affordable Solar Storage. We're the bill sponsor. Thank you for assembly member Ward for carrying this once again. I appreciate your support. Chair and members, Alicia Priego on behalf of Nexamp in support. Sabrina Gleitz with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in support. Brandon Garcia with Advanced Energy United in support. Thanks. Allison Hilliard with the Climate Center in support. Brandon Smithwood, Dimension Energy and Support. Thank you. All right. Someone rushing to the mic. Sabrina Glides again with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the California Business Properties Association. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Let's hear from opposition. Thank you Mr. Chair and members. My name is Shelley Leiser and I'm a senior rates manager at the Public Advocates Office which is respectfully opposed to AP 1813 The Public Advocates Office is an independent advocate established by the legislature to represent the interest of utility rate payers Over the last three years our office has been engaged in discussions at CPUC on how to support the development of community solar in a way that avoids raising rates for customers who cannot participate. The term community solar can be misleading. These projects are often cited far from the customers they serve, relying on the utilities distribution system and incurring costs that should not fall on non-participating customers. Last Thursday, the CPC voted out a decision that we believe will protect non-participating customers from increased rates and higher electricity costs. As currently written, AB 1813 unwinds the CPC's decision, a decision which was arrived at after consideration of 23 months of input from numerous parties, including our office. Instead, AB 1813 would impose an alternative program that will result in increased electricity rates. AB 1813 would revisit the very issues that CPUC has already thoroughly examined and resolved. We should allow this recently adopted framework to be implemented and evaluated before changing it. AB 1813 would also create a cost shift from one small subset of ratepayers to all other ratepayers, and this is something the CPUC has spent years trying to avoid. The CPUC's most recent decision was specifically designed to limit cost impacts on non-participating customers. This bill puts forward an alternative proposal that will well result in increased rates for those who are unable to participate in community solar programs. And before I close, I want to note that our office has proposed bill amendments, which we believe would ensure that this bill does not result in cost increases. So at a time when Californians are already struggling with some of the highest electricity costs in the nation, our focus should be on actions that reduce electricity costs for all ratepayers, not on lowering costs to a subset of customers, which will result in increased costs to all other ratepayers. We encourage you to vote no on proposals such as AB 1813. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Allen and members. Catherine Borg on behalf of Southern California Edison, respectfully in opposition of 1813. At its core, AB 1813 raises significant affordability concerns for California ratepayers. The bill allows compensation above avoided costs, weakening longstanding safeguards, and creating a cost shift to non-participating ratepayers, those who ultimately bear the burden of higher electricity bills. Ensuring that non-participating ratepayers are protected from these cost shifts has been a foundation principle in California energy policy, and this bill moves away from that standard. The bill does so in part by miscalculating or misclassifying front-of-the-meter utility scale generation as a load-modifying resource. These resource types are fundamentally different. Load-modifying resources reduce customer demand, while the generation contemplated here supplies energy to the grid. Applying the same framework results in overcompensation relative to the value provided, increasing cost system-wide. AB 1813 also undermines the community renewable energy program established under AB 2316, which was specifically designed to expand access to clean energy while maintaining affordability protections. Several members here voted for that protection. This bill weakens those protections and risks shifting costs in a way that is inconsistent with the program's intent. Finally, the bill disrupts the PUC's ongoing proceeding to thoughtfully balance renewable access with affordability. That was just voted on last Thursday. Rather than allowing that process to continue AB 1813 imposes a framework that risks higher costs without corresponding benefits We support expanding access to clean energy but it must be done in a way that is fair sustainable and protects all customers State laws and mandates already add 37% to the average electricity bill for customers of investor-owned utilities, including Southern California Edison, PG&E, and San Diego Gas and Electric. Don't let AB 1813 add to that average. For these reasons, Southern California Edison respectfully urges a no vote. I've had passed out here a copy of the local reliability area. This would be your new definition of community solar. So I would say that the Big Creek to Santa Barbara would be a five-and-a-half-hour drive, and that would be your new definition of community. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric also in opposition. And based on the map that was provided, the entire SDG&E service territory would be one community. Thank you. Good morning. Brandon Ebeck on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric and very strong opposition. Thank you. Okay. Other folks who want to raise concerns? All right. We'll bring it to the committee. You know, I want to just appreciate some of the comments that were just made. You know, I think we all want to make sure that, you know, I mean, this committee has certainly been very supportive of a lot of the clean energy work that is at the heart of the coalition that's come behind this. And we also certainly want to make sure that, you know, renters are able to participate as well. and I think that the idea is that a really strong community solar program can support the avoided costs of new transmission and distribution while also at the same time reducing load on the electric grid during peak times. I think Lois Wolk did SB43 a while over, I don't know, was it 12 years ago or something And that was all about creating this community solar program within the IOU's service territory. But we've seen additional efforts stymied at the PUC as folks have tried to develop various community solar programs. So obviously I understand that the agency just adopted this decision. I think it was on Thursday. I know that there's been a lot of frustrations and many awaiting a decision that ensures these projects can actually come to fruition. I certainly appreciate some of the concerns that have been raised by the opposition. I'm also heartened to see such diverse support for the bill, ratepayer groups, organized labor, building industry, environmental organizations. So I support the bill. I think it's really important to support these clean energy efforts and make sure that we can roll them out around the state. I do want to just encourage the author and the sponsors as well to remain open to some of the adjustments that might help to alleviate some of the concerns that have been raised by the opposition. I'd love your response to that, Assemblymember. I think in particular, as the bill moves forward, assuming it's going to pass today, it would be helpful to consider locating projects as close as possible to the customers actually subscribing to the programs to make sure that these clean energy projects are actually delivering on the avoided costs And I just wanted to get your thoughts on that issue and several of the others that were raised by the opposition Thank you Mr Chair I'm happy to respond to that, but I think I may just want to take a step back to that 30,000-foot level and everything and be much more transparent about what happened and didn't happen over the last four years. So we had agreed this would be a wonderful addition to the solar opportunity that we want to be able to see, especially as rooftop solar is not only starting to to a degree saturate but also is being stymied by certain decisions that were there that were making those opportunities a little bit economically unworkable but also recognizing that the green tariff program was failing and that we weren't having an opportunity for more than half of Californians to be able to participate in the purchase and the benefits from new solar systems as well. And so the idea of community solar and storage programs, nothing new, nothing that California is specifically inventing because we are seeing these proliferate in other states across the country. Working on AB 2316, we operated in great faith that we were going to be flexible and consistent with how we often provide this framework and the guidance to the PUC to be able to develop a new program with specific flexibility around those guardrails and let them do their thing that they need to do during the rate-making process. but with a suspicion in mind that, you know, things may not go well there, that certain voices, certain guidance would lead a program and certain decision-making to be essentially not math out, right, not workable economically, and ultimately lead the systems to, or lead the program to fail, leave no systems to be created, no new opportunities, no new jobs to be created. And honestly and frankly, in the last four years, that's what's happened, right? Probably not the only person in this room that gets royally frustrated by a state agency or a state entity that is overly bureaucratic and is overly missing the mark on its responsibilities to be able to deliver on what the legislature is asking them to do, which is actually to have something workable. And so when you look back, and we actually did a deep dive through an oversight hearing this year in the Assembly with all respect to the Senate, we actually looked at what happened over those last couple of years through many of those proceedings. And what we found was the PUC did not even go through its normal course of process and its normal course of analysis when deciding the decision around this very important new program. And so central to that, of course, is using the avoidable cost calculator, other things that we were asking to the community networks that you were talking about, environmental organizations, obviously green energy advocates, the labor advocates, the array of interests that were there saying this is the way that you should be framing up the math of how you're going to be able to get this program to actually implement. And, of course, they didn't go with that idea. They went with this other idea. And what you're looking at right now is the proverbial train that is literally heading to the bridge that is no longer there. This is going off of the tracks and is absolutely going to crash. So our job here through AB13 is to really come back in and say we gave you a chance, PUC. We gave you that flexibility. we need to narrow and better define these parameters because this is what's going to make that program work. You know, for my fellow California elected officials, 12 other states in the last four years have adopted and gone through their regulatory process to make community solar and storage programs work. So this is another very big example of how California is not actually making things work that we largely agree need to actually move forward, not just because we want to be able to meet our green energy goals. this would go a long way to be able to do that, but because these would produce a lot of really good jobs, and we are seeing growing interest actually since the enactment of maybe 2316 from our Central Valley communities that are looking for new job opportunities, new ways to be able to use their land a little bit more effectively. There are multiple wins here, if we can get this right, and AB 1813 is really trained to be headed in that direction. I will say that we just received the Public Advocates Office recommendations for proposed amendments under consideration just last week. Of course, I'm open to a lot of these recommendations. Their voice is very critical in trying to make these programs work. So we'll continue to be able to look at those if and as this bill is able to move forward, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let me just take the opportunity to establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll. Senators Allen. Here. Allen here. Echobog. Here. Echobog here. Archuleta. Aragene. Becker. Here. Becker here. Caballero. Nilo. Here. Nilo here. Gonzales. Grove. Here. Grove here. Hurtado. Reyes. Here. Reyes here. Richardson. Here. Richardson here. McNerney, Rubio, Stern. Here. Stern here. Strickland? Here. Strickland here. Wahab? Here. Wahab here. Okay. Thank you. We've got a quorum. Thank you, members. Let's go to Senator Becker. Thank you. I know it's incredibly frustrating for you and certainly for me as well. Four years after your first bill, we have a negligible community solar here in this state. And community solar is valuable for the reasons we've heard, particularly for people who are renters or cannot put solar in their own homes to be able to buy into community solar and have that serve their community. That's why other states have figured it out. In Florida, they built 3.8 gigawatts of community solar. In New York, 2.4 gigawatts of community solar. Minnesota, 932 megawatts of community solar. Maine, in fact, has more community solar than California has. And I think it's just a real shame we've not been able to figure this out. And I think it's very interesting that we've been asked to trust the PUC on this one. I was chair of our budget sub two on resources and energy. And when we were asked to implement your bill and the PUC came before us and turned others, argued that their methodology was not the right approach and would not lead to any community solar. They're treating community solar as if it was coming the same, you know, the electrons as if they were coming from, you know, thousands of miles away and anywhere across our state, let's just say. And we argued that would kind of negate the intent of the community solar program. And certainly that's been the case. We have very negligible community solar here today. So I'm going to trust you. And I know that you've been working on this issue. I really appreciate that and urge us to support this bill moving forward today so we can have a real community solar program here. in California. Thank you for your work. Thank you. Senator Reyes. I want to echo my colleagues' comments. I want to trust you on this. I do trust you on this because in 22, in the Assembly, we voted for the community solar that you were proposing, and it was well put together, well thought out. It's unfortunate that we get a decision from the PUC at the 11th hour and having to deal with how that might affect or might not affect But the comments from the public advocate of course are extremely important And I do appreciate that they did offer some amendments And their comment was that those amendments would probably remove their opposition And I think I know how thoughtful you are on your bills and trying to reach the right balance. So I know that that's something that you will be working on, just as you have mentioned here. earlier there were comments about the cost savings for some and not for all and I think you've always been clear in 22 as you are here that you want cost savings for all of the rate payers and trying to find that balance I know that as the initial author and now as the author of this follow-up bill you are the right person to do that so I absolutely will be supporting Thank you Senator Thank you I apologize. I just arrived. I was in another committee. Curious. It's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that on June 11th, the CPUC adopted a decision establishing a process to implement the customer community renewable energy tariff that was established in a 2024 decision. What are your thoughts about this bill, or how would this bill interfere with that implementation of that recently adopted decision? So they, of course, always are subservient to what the legislature is putting in statute as far as where we want to see a program ultimately designed. I will say that that timeline has absolutely been moved. In fact, at one point we weren't ever sure when they were going to get around to having a decision. How convenient that they decided to go ahead and expedite that and get that a week before this committee hearing that is going to be able to potentially, like, you know, be injected into the conversation that we're having here. It doesn't negate the deep concern that I, advocates, and others that want to see this program actually workable, that the underpinnings of some of that decision are still rendering this program to be economically viable. If it's okay with you and the chair, I'd like to actually ask Mr. Freeman to be able to come up to talk about the very specific math that is at the heart of what we're talking here because we still have a time to be able to get this train back on the correct track and make sure that the end goal are products that are going to be able to produce the energy that we are directing them to do, produce the jobs that we want to be able to see and really make a workable program. If the chair would allow, I would love to hear, you know, how this bill interacts with the decision. So the chair, he wouldn't mind. Thank you, Senator. the decision that the PUC adopted last week, really what they adopted is a sham program that is not going to work. Everybody knows in the proceeding that the program is not going to work. And in fact, the PUC's own decision acknowledges that the program itself cannot move forward unless this legislature appropriates a significant sum of money either from the general fund or through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to pay the savings that customers would realize who subscribe to these projects. So understand, the program cannot move forward without a supplemental appropriation. The PUC's decision even tells the utilities, don't spend any time or money implementing this program until the legislature takes action to appropriate new money, knowing full well that that's not going to happen. The PUC decision links the compensation for the community solar project to the price that is currently paid under what is called the REMAT program the Renewable Energy Market Adjusting Tariff for small projects This price is essentially non-financeable for the type of community solar projects that we're talking about, especially community solar projects that include energy storage, which is extremely valuable to the grid. And in fact, under the existing REMAT program, since 2017, only two solar projects have been successfully built, and they were only built because of the federal investment tax credit that has now gone away. There is no path forward for the viability of projects under this new program. So the question is, how does this bill affect the PUC's decision? It does affect the decision. It requires the PUC to do what AB 1813, what the original bill that Assemblymember Ward authored several years ago, told the PUC to do, which is to use the avoided cost calculator to calculate the compensation for community solar projects. That was the understanding of all the people who worked on the original bill. In fact, the analysis from this committee when it was up four years ago explained that the language would require the PUC to use this methodology. It was understood by the governor's office and other folks. The PUC simply ignored that understanding to adopt an alternative proposal that was made by Southern California Edison at the very end of the proceeding. The avoided cost calculator is what is used to compensate solar exports under the net metering program for the new net billing tariff. And in fact, when you hear the public advocate's office and the utility say, talk about a cost shift, we've heard a lot of cost shift conversations around the net energy metering program. From their perspective and from TURN's perspective, there's no cost shift if we use the avoided cost calculator to measure the value of rooftop solar. So you have one customer with a rooftop solar system that is exporting a kilowatt hour onto the system. They're getting compensated today under the new program, the net billing tariff program, using the avoided cost calculator. The bill that Assemblymember Ward authored and that was adopted said use the same methodology for these community solar projects. A kilowatt hour exported from one project to the distribution system should be the same as the value for another one. The PUC has basically adopted a very different approach that treats those two kilowatt hours completely differently and therefore significantly disadvantages the community solar project and makes it impossible to move forward. So the current program is designed to fail because the PUC doesn't want such a program to exist. That's how you have to read between the lines and understand why the PUC took this action. They are not interested in a viable program. This bill would ensure that the PUC actually develops a program that's going to work and provide benefits, including the most important benefit is to provide alternative compliance for the state's new solar home mandate, which requires rooftop solar for new residential construction, but provides an alternative compliance method for the community solar program. This community solar program, it was estimated in the PUC proceeding under the avoided cost calculator approach that's in this bill, could provide $7 to $8 billion of savings for every 1,000 megawatts of community solar as an alternative to rooftop solar because the community solar program is so much cheaper. No party rebutted that analysis in the PUC proceeding, and the PUC itself completely ignored this argument in its decision. So the PUC process is just quite faulty. I could go on but I know I just wanted to give you a flavor for some of the critiques that we raised and why the PUC decision is not going to work and requires a correction from this legislature to affirm that it meant what it said when it passed the original bill several years ago Mr. Chair, do you mind if I respond to that? Very briefly, please. Thank you. Yeah, it's misleading to equate these types of community solar models with rooftop solar that's located on a building. These projects can be hundreds of miles away, so they should not get identical compensation for their exports. We're talking about the ACC here, the cost calculator. And in the original legislation, AB 2316, there was a very important consumer protection that we supported, saying that any community solar program should not force costs onto non-participating customers. And that ended up being a lot of the crux of the CPC's decision, was that it could not find and that it said it was not, that it's not possible to show that these types of facilities avoid distribution and transmission costs, and they do not avoid generation capacity costs. So compensating them using the avoided cost calculator, which provides these benefits, would be overcompensating them. And our initial analysis has shown that at the public advocate's office, excuse me, has shown that the avoided cost calculator is about four times more expensive than the wholesale rate. So it would be a pretty extreme overcompensation scenario. In terms of the analysis that Mr. Friedman was referencing, we did dig into some of the assumptions in that analysis, and it seemed that the authors were assuming optimal siting for the resources to be in the areas that would decrease costs the most, which I think is very overgenerous and not quite realistic. Thank you. So I guess my final question would probably be your response, your thoughts on the concerns that they have about using the same cost calculator, the avoidance cost calculator, which doesn't really reflect the long distances that the energy has to travel in being equitable in comparison to the rooftop solar? So I think that, you know, there continues to be a back and forth between what is and is not going to be able to work in practice right now. And I would candidly say that I think there is some perspective by many commissioners as well about what is or is not actually workable when we're thinking about the valuation of a lot of this. We've seen what some horrible decisions have been done to the industry to support rooftop solar right now. So let's just sort of put that over here. But as an underpinning, you know, it sort of guides, you know, sort of what their overall ethos is towards the decision making with regard to solar opportunities. What we're missing here, because I think of all that same philosophy, and because of the lack of consideration for calculations that they already had been using for other programs historically, but failed to use for the consideration of this program is an intentional outcome that is going to render a program economically inviolable. And so that is the deep concern, is that we need to be more specific as a legislature about what our expectations are, about what they should be bidding. And Senator, it would be consistent with exactly how they've calculated the rate making and the valuation for previous programs that the PUC has considered over the decades. So I think that is something that is going to be probably an ongoing consideration for further proceedings that we would actively engage in as well. Like I said, you probably walked in just after and mentioned that the Public Advocates Office had submitted to us just last week a list of recommendations that they would like to be able to see. Last week, we are looking at those. We want to be able to incorporate everything that we can to try to be able to meet some of those terms. And so that's my commitment as an author is this bill, if it has to build and move forward. Thank you, Member Ward. I think what I'm going to personally, I think it's encouraging to see that you are working with the opposition with regards to some of the concerns and the items that they would like to see, especially as a public advocate. I think I have a little bias towards making sure that I heed their counsel. So I'm going to hold off, but I'm going to wait to see what your bill looks like when it comes before. I'm assuming it's going to go. Where does it go next? Appropriations. Appropriations? Yep. Okay. And then to the floor. It's just appropriation and then to the floor. I'm going to wait to see how the final bill looks like before we vote on it on the Senate floor, and then I'll revisit what the outcome was and what the concerns or what has been addressed by the opposition before I do support the bill. But I appreciate the work that you've been doing, especially because you have history on this front, and I respect the knowledge that you've acquired on that. So I look forward to seeing what the bill looks like moving forward. And with that, I will be abstaining, but look forward to see the final language when it comes before me and this and that floor. Thank you, Senator. I hope you'll be pleased with the progress that we're going to make by the time it comes to the floor and everything. And I'll give you a glimmer of hope in that I had mentioned earlier that we see a lot of interest coming out of the Central Valley for landholders there that see this as a major opportunity for economic development and for a new purpose for a lot of land that's otherwise been fallowed. Another area of the state that's also seeing a lot of potential high opportunity for this kind of model is the high desert. I know. I'm excited. I like the principle. I love what you're looking into. I just want to make sure that the concerns are addressed. But I am excited to see where you're going. I mean, of course, where the desert. We're looking for it. Absolutely. So my district would definitely benefit. Thank you. Okay. All right. Anything else you want to say to close? No, Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you very much. I'm certainly happy to support the bill. I know you have a lot. You certainly have some more work to do, but important goals. Let's call the roll. Is there a motion? Is there a motion? So moved. Moved by Senator Stern. Do pass as amended to appropriation. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Echoa Bogue? Not voting. Archuleta? Araguin? Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Gonzales, Grove Hurtado McNerney, Nilo Reyes Did you just call my name? Yes. No. Nilo, no Reyes Richardson, Rubio Stern Stern, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no Wahab Okay, we'll leave the roll open for folks to add on Thank you very much. Let's go to Senator Pappin Sorry, Assemblymember Pappin She's been waiting a while. Let's go to AB2111. You may proceed when ready. Thank you, Chair and members. I'm delighted to present AB2111. California's transmission planning process relies on a single forecast, and when that forecast misses, ratepayers pay the price. This bill premise is if you build it with room you be able to cost accommodate our energy needs AB 2111 requires the CPUC to plan for multiple demand and resource scenarios instead of just one Right now, planning is based on a single set of assumptions about load, growth, electrification, and future generation. But demand is already exceeding those assumptions, driven by things like electric vehicles, data centers, and broader electrification across the economy. When planning falls behind reality, the grid becomes very constrained. In the most recent interconnection cycle, over 10 gigawatts of proposed capacity wasn't able to move forward, in part due to transmission limitations and upgrade costs. These bottlenecks limit where projects can be built, reduce competition, increase costs for ratepayers, and create reliability risks during periods of high demand. By identifying upgrades across a range of plausible futures, AB 2111 helps identify transmission needs earlier, reducing bottlenecks, and supporting a more competitive and reliable grid with lots of energy generation possibilities. With me today to testify on behalf of this bill is Myles Horton from Sonoma Clean Power. Take it away, Myles. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, and thank you to the author for her leadership. I'm Miles Horton with Sonoma Clean Power. We are a community-owned power provider serving Sonoma and Mendocino counties. And we really got into this space because as we were going out to try to buy newer, cheaper, clean resources to serve our customers, we were finding that we couldn't get our hands on them due to lack of transmission. And this is an issue that's happening all around the state. And so what's happening is these resources that we need to meet our climate goals, to save our customers money, to maintain reliability, just increasingly are not available because the transmission is not in place. And that has a lot of really negative impacts for the whole system. AB 2111 is a really kind of common sense approach, actually, that basically says, like the author mentioned, let's look at a range of plausible scenarios and build transmission so that we're ready for whatever can happen. and we can still accomplish our goals in terms of climate, in terms of ratepayer affordability, in terms of reliability, across that range of scenarios. We're not going to be caught flat-footed if something happens that we didn't predict and then not have enough transmission to get where we need to go. So we're very supportive of this. We just thank the author for taking this on and happy to take any questions. All right, others who want to voice support for the bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy, a proud co-sponsor of AB 2111. I want to thank our Assembly Member for her leadership on this issue. Thank you. Want to voice opposition? Concerns? No? You just like to stand there? Good morning, Kiara Ross, on behalf of the cities of Belmont, Redwood City, San Mateo, and the town of Hillsboro, all in support of the bill. Thank you. You had second thoughts. Okay. Good morning. Melanie Law on behalf of Clean Air Task Force in support. Chair members, Yael Dentes on behalf of San Diego Community Power in support. Good morning. Kate Brandenburg on behalf of Abundance Network in support. Thank you. Melissa Cortez on behalf of the California Wind Energy Association in support. Sean McNeil, California Community Choice Association in support. Great. Thank you. All right. Opposition concerns We bring it to the committee Thoughts concerns motions Senator Becker Yeah I very much appreciate this bill folks on long planning I'd love to be added as a co-author, and I'll move the bill at the appropriate time. Okay. Yes, sir? Oh, sorry, I was just getting ready in case there was questions. Questions, okay. All right, so moved. No other questions? Why don't we give you the chance to close? I will proudly add you, Senator Becker. Thank you for the support. It's just all about planning. And if we fail to plan appropriately, we won't be able to accommodate our needs. So I appreciate it and respectfully request an aye vote. Okay. Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll. Do pass to appropriation. Senator Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Echobog? Aye. Echobog, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Errigine? Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Gonzalez. Grove. Grove, aye. Hurtado. McNerney. Nilo. Aye. Nilo, aye. Reyes. Richardson. Rubio. Stern. Strickland. Aye. Strickland, aye. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We'll let other folks add on. While we're waiting for the next author, let's lift calls. Let's start with AB 1301. We're not just lifting calls. We're going to be starting some votes. AB 1301, Petrie Norris. Do pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Echoboge? Aye. Echoboge, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Aragene? Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Gonzalez? Grove? Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Hurtado? McNerney? Nilo Aye Nilo, aye Reyes Richardson Rubio Stern Strickland Aye Strickland, aye Wahab Okay, let's go on to AB 2463, Petrie Norris Due pass to appropriations Senators Allen Aye Allen, aye Echobog Aye Echobog, aye Archuleta Aye Archuleta, aye Arrigine Becker Aye Becker, aye Caballero Aye. Caballero, aye. Gonzalez, Grove. Aye. Grove, aye. Hurtado, McNerney, Nilo. Aye. Nilo, aye. Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Stern, Strickland. Aye. Strickland, aye. Wahaw. All right. We'll go to AB 1715, Schiavo. Due pass is amended to appropriations. Senators Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Echobog. No. Echobog, no. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Arrigan, Becker, aye. Becker, aye. Caballero, aye. Caballero, aye. Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, McNerney, Nilo, aye. Nilo, aye. Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Stern, Strickland, no. Strickland, no. Wahab, Richardson, aye. Okay, let's go to AB 1813, Ward. Due pass as amended to appropriations, current vote 3-2. Chair voting aye. Vice-chair not voting. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Araguin? Aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Gonzalez? Grove? Hurtado McNerney Reyes Richardson Rubio Wahab Okay, we'll go to AB, everyone voted on AB, let's go to AB 211, 111, Pappen, 2111. Do pass to appropriations. Current vote 9-0. Chair, Vice Chair voting aye. Arrageen, Gonzalez, Hurtado, McNerney, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Stern. Richardson aye. Richardson aye. Okay, I see. Let's do the consent calendar quickly. Who wants to move the consent calendar? Moved by Vice Chair. Mr. Schultz, you can come to the dais. Let's do the consent calendar. Quick vote. AB 2175. Garcia. Senators Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Echobog. Consent. Yes, aye. Sorry. Echobog, aye. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Araguin. Becker. Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Gonzales, Grove, Aye. Hurtado, McNerney, Nilo, Aye. Nilo, Aye. Reyes, Richardson, Aye. Richardson, Aye. Rubio, Stern, Strickland, Aye. Strickland, Aye. Wahab. Okay. Let's let Assemblymember proceed with AB 2266. Well, good morning and thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'm pleased to present AB 2266 this morning, and I want to thank the committee for their hard work on the bill. Before I go on, I'd like to note that I'll be accepting the suggested committee amendments further described on page 7 of the committee analysis. AB 2266 makes three process improvements at the California Public Utilities Commission to increase the state's confidence in maintaining grid reliability while decarbonizing the grid. First, it would consolidate the compliance reporting for three separately enacted but interrelated CPUC programs affecting the same electrical grid. Specifically, AB 2266 would give the CPUC almost four years to consolidate the compliance review work stream to ensure data consistency and increase transparency of the state's progress towards our clean energy and reliability goals. Second, the bill requires that the agency use the same math to measure the reliability value of a resource regardless of whether we're looking at short, mid, or long-term reliability. Currently, the resource adequacy and integrated resource planning programs use different math for assessing the reliability value of a resource, even when looking at the exact same electron from the same power plant. This divergence is a result of regulatory paperwork, not the physical reality of a power plant's ability to produce electricity during peak demand. AB 2266 does not impose one mathematical calculation over another. Instead, it directs the CPUC to reconcile its own internal inconsistency and converge on one method for compliance review. Nothing in AB 2266 restricts the CPUC from using different methods for the purpose of stress testing different assumptions or scenarios. And finally, if backstop procurement is used by the California Independent System Operator to maintain reliability, AB 2266 would require the CPUC to do an evaluation for the purpose of considering program improvements to reduce future reliance on backstop procurement. In short, AB 2266 is a good governance bill aimed to increase public transparency and promote continuous improvement of program administration. administration, all with the goal of keeping costs low for Californians. With me today to speak in support of AB 2266 is John Newton on behalf of AVA Community Energy, as well as Rebecca Lee, Director of Western U.S. Energy Market Policy with NRG Energy, who can provide further technical assistance. And at the appropriate time, Mr. Chair, I'll respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay. Let's hear from you. Chair Allen? Vice Chair Ochoa Bog? And committee members, thank you. My name is John Newton, Director of Regulatory Affairs for AVA Community Energy. We serve over 2 million customers across Alameda and San Joaquin counties, and we strongly support AB 2266. This bill addresses a critical challenge in California's reliability planning. Today, the state's long-term procurement and near-term resource adequacy programs evaluate the reliability contribution of the same resource differently, as you just heard. That creates uncertainty about whether the resources we build today will satisfy our grid needs tomorrow. For example, in the long-term context, hybrid solar plus storage projects can have a combined reliability value greater than their standalone parts. Something like 120 megawatts of hybrid capacity can satisfy a 100 megawatt need 10 years in the future. When that asset comes online, the near-term resource adequacy program sees that hybrid resource as only 70 megawatts. Now the system is short, 30, pushing us into emergency short-term procurement. Imagine how that inefficiency compounds as California builds gigawatts of new capacity each year to reach our long-term goals. Without aligning our resource counting between long-term and near-term programs, we risk discovering too late that resources counted in long-term planning do not satisfy reliability needs when they come due. That uncertainty carries real, expensive costs for our customers. AB 2266 establishes a common-sense fix, consistent measurement across programs. This helps avoid duplicative procurement or emergency backstops while preserving the Commission's authority over technical implementation. At a time when California is working to better align planning across state entities, AB 2266 advances that same goal by promoting consistency within the CPUC's own reliability programs. For these reasons, Ava Community Energy respectfully supports AB 2266 and asks for your aye vote. Great. Thank you. Rebecca.

Great. Thank you. Other folks who want to voice support for the bill? Sean, you're in support?

Great. Opposition.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, questions from the others who want to voice opposition or concerns? Questions from the committee? Senator Rubio followed by Senator Cavallaro. Thank you for this. I just want a little bit of clarification only because at the end of the day, we always speak about these bills in terms of how it helps our communities, how it lowers cost. And I just heard, I think, the opponents say something that struck me. And I know that when I talk to the proponents, it's about utilities avoiding over-procurement so that would reduce costs. And then I just heard the opponents say that there a risk of under as a risk to cost So there some disconnect there So I wanted to see if you can just put a fine point on that and see if you can help me understand. We're saying the same thing, but in different ways. Just giving you a chance to explain further. Well, thank you very much, Senator. I agree. I think that we are actually very close on this bill. I think it's just a fundamental difference in approach. With your permission, I'd like to bring up one of my witnesses to further elaborate why we feel that cutting back the red tape and streamlining this process will lead to lower costs for consumers. So Ms. Lee will come up at this time.

Well, that helps understand. It was very strange for me to hear the same sort of structure sentence thrown at us as a risk for cost to the consumer. So I still think that there's a little bit of disconnect in the way it was framed. But let me ask you another thing, and I know that I'm just trying to understand the processes for the CPUC. Aren't they currently working on this? How does this come from? Is there a conflict with the CPUC in the work that they're doing right now? Tell me a little bit about that. Absolutely, Senator. I don't believe there to be, but again, I would refer to one of my technical experts to come up and answer that question with your permission, of course. Sure. Thank you.

So it sounds really interesting, again, the framing of everything. But, you know, what I'm hearing is we're building for the future of tomorrow, and I think all of us want to go there, right, reliability and making sure that we're in a good position to plan for the future. But I still continue to have some concerns of planning for the future, pushing the cost to consumers now. So I'm just going to keep an eye on it. And I just wanted to point that out, that I still, my current position is always, you know, the current status of where we're living, the cost of living, what consumers are having to deal with right now. And it's very clear our consumers are having a hard time with bills and the cost of energy. I just, you know, like I said, I just want to put caution there that I still have to be, I'm going to do a little bit more research because I'm afraid that, again, it's very clear we're building for the future. But usually when we bill for the future, it means that current consumers may pay the cost for that future. And right now it's just such a bad time. But I'll leave it there. I'm just going to do a little bit more research, and I will be supporting the bill. I just want to make sure that we're always mindful of that cost in today's, you know, high cost of living. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Senator Coillietta, followed by Senator Stern.

We've enjoyed this. This is the Senate's first hearing of assembly bill, so it's good. We're kicking the tires on all this legislation. I think it's a healthy conversation. I appreciate it. I think you win wonkiest bill of the hearing award. Wonkiest bill yet. So I appreciate the depth of the conversation.

Senator, if I might. Yeah. The answer, of course, is that it's a bit complicated, but as mentioned from the opposition witness, the IRP proceeding is considering in its Renewable Clean Power Procurement Program, or RCPPP, analysis, a range of possible accounting methodologies. It's a combination of long-term, other, near-term, and it's a blend of things potentially. This permutations in the RCPPP could take a combination of things. It could steer one way or another. We've advocated, AVA specifically as well as coalition members, for a consistent methodology. That is not yet clear that that's where the commission is going. The near-term reliability program is going, if I may use the phrase, whole hog in a different direction, or towards a single reliability counting methodology So as I mentioned earlier there is something of a divergence between long and near programs Right so I mean the analysis says that the desire for uniform methodology is understandable and it something that the PUC and CAISO are considering in relevant proceedings. Do you agree with that? It is true that they are considering them. It is not clear that they are going that way. Right, but they may adopt those. They may end up landing there. Yes. So in theory this bill is sort of a way to shape that conversation. Maybe it passed and becomes law, but under existing law, the PUC or the ISO could adopt a uniform methodology. They don't need a change in law necessarily to go that route? In theory, yes, but in practice, I would caution that that's unlikely

Well, Senator, I would respectfully disagree. I think that we would, as an LSE, but also as a state, we would derive tremendous benefit from having a directed single-resource reliability counting methodology, certainly with the CPC's programs. When we consider AVA, our long-term resource needs, we are having to reverse engineer the way that that resource and the portfolio that we build will operate in the long-term place and then compare to how it operates in the near-term place because there are regulatory programmatic rule differences. It creates a lot of friction in how we are evaluating and how we are orienting our investments. I understand that, and I know we have a vehicle on your side from the Senate looking at even RA trading for you all to do compliance, and the RA market's expensive.

We would love to have more investment from the NRGs out there. So we'd love a climate where that works, but yeah. If I may. Yeah, please. Just briefly, we echo your same concerns. Ava, as one of several CCAs that is very proud to serve the Central Valley, in fact, in 2026, we expanded into San Joaquin County largely. in addition to Stockton previously. This bill is focused on ensuring that we are able to align our investments to serve reliability both at the state and local levels. We are very eager to make sure that this works well, and we think that this would go a long ways in accomplishing that in order to serve our communities.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Stern. I will now continue with Senator Becker.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Becker. Do we have any other comments, questions? Sorry. Senator Rubio. Sorry, and I know that I already had the opportunity to speak, but one of the things that I realized that in the process I want to bring the opposition up only because I know that we've been hearing, and, again, my comments started with what I heard with the opposition, And I want to just give you a last opportunity to share your thoughts on the discussion so far. Is there anything that you want to add to this?

just share that I do think that what you're saying is also valid, and I know that this was mostly procedure and how do we get to that one consistent methodology. But I still think, like I said, I just want to say that it is valid, and I hope that, you know, to the author that this is not as simple as it seems and just to really ensure that you're sitting down and taking into consideration what's being said here. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So any other comments, questions?

Member Schultz, with that, would you like to close?

Yeah. So we have a motion by Senator Stern. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Due passes amended to appropriation. Senator Allen, Echobog? Aye. Echobog, aye. Archuleta? Arraguin? Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Archuleta, aye. Becker, aye. Caballero, Gonzales, Grove, Hurtado, McNerney, Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Reyes, Richardson?

Richardson, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Wahab? So with that, we'll place the bill on call for absent members.

Wonderful.

We have member Connolly with file item number 9, AB 2618. Welcome, sir.

Welcome sir Thank you Good morning Madam Chair and members Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of TURN in support of the bill You know over the years the legislature has taken numerous actions to enhance the regulatory independence of the commissioners and the commission to really ensure that the commission is effective and, whether intended or not, are protected from kind of undue influence of the entities which they're regulating. There have been bills to prevent the ex parte communication with commissioners, for example, that I know Turner's worked on with the legislature over the years and a number of other bills that we've moved forward to ensure really the integrity of what happens at the commission. What this bill does is ensure that when a regulator is sitting in the regulator's chair, they are not looking ahead, intentionally or not, on what their employment may be, and especially in particular from the entities that they're regulating. It's a very specialized expertise that these commissioners have, especially once they've served a number of years. And so it's very natural that they may be candidates for jobs with the regulated entities. Creating this two-year revolving door will help keep the commissioner's eyes focused explicitly and specifically and only on regulating while they're in those chairs and not looking ahead in short-term employment afterwards. So for those reasons, we ask for your support. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy, in support on behalf of Consumer Watchdog.

Thank you.

Yes. Thank you. for bringing it forward, and most state-elected individuals have one year. You're advocating for two years. Would you kind of go over the expertise that is in danger of going over sooner than later?

Thank you, Senator Schiller. Any other comments, questions? Senator Rubio?

Okay. In elections, voting, sorry. Other questions, thoughts from the committee? No. It's been moved? Okay. I apologize. Yeah. All right. Great. We'll give you the opportunity to close.

Great. All right. Secretary, please call the roll. Do pass to appropriations. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Echobo. Aye. Echobo, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Araguin? Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Hurtado, McNerney, Nilo. Aye. Nilo, aye. Reyes, Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Rubio. Aye. Rubio, aye. Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. Strickland. Aye. Strickland, aye.