Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications

Good morning. Chair and Members, I'd like to start by thanking you, Mister chair and the Committee staff for your work on this Bill. AB 1918 is a district Bill that addresses the application of certain CEC regulations to the Trinity Public Utility District's service territory in Trinity county.

To appreciate the need for this Bill, it's important to understand several unique aspects about TPUD. Under a federal law enacted in 1955, TPUD has a right to hydropower generated by the Trinity River Division of the Central Valley project. All power distributed by TPUD is generated by this hydropower. This hydropower is 100% carbon free.

No other utility in California delivers power to its customers which is 100% carbon free. TPUD only uses about a third of the hydropower to which it is entitled. There is no realistic scenario in which TPUD would ever exceed its entitlement. The power delivered by TPUD is among the least expensive in the state.

It is less expensive than rooftop solar. Trinity county is a poor county. Sometimes its depending on the year. Its the poorest county in the state with a population of approximately 15,000 people. Consequently, there is very little new construction in Trinity county.

Only about three new homes are built each year, and approximately one new commercial building is built every two years in the county. My Bill addresses two closely related regulatory programs that require homes and commercial buildings to be constructed with solar and battery systems.

These programs make little sense in Trinity county because TPUD already provides the cleanest power available to its customers at one of the most affordable rates in the state. This is fundamental to the rationale for AB 1918. Additionally, requirements in AB 1918 are specific to the utility district service area.

It's extremely in the extremely unlikely event that TPUD's power portfolio ever changed, they would no longer qualify for the exemption. I'd also like to note that TPUD has received two temporary three year exemptions from the CEC for these programs.

The most recent exemption took approximately 240 of TPUD's limited staff time to hours of TPUD's limited staff time at significant cost. Also, CEC is having to spend money to go through and grant this exemption as well. Here to testify and support is Paul Hauser, General manager of the Trinity Public Utility District.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for having me here. In the interest of time, I would just add on to assemblymember Wood's testimony that if we did not get this exemption, overall emissions and cost would go up for, you know, cost would go up for our constituents.

You know, money that's spent on a solar system that has a negative return can't be spent on electric vehicle or some other carbon saving technology. You know, I'd just like to point that out and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have and would love to see an aye vote as well.

Any further witnesses in support, state your name in your organization.

Good morning Mister chair and Members, Don Gilbert, on behalf of California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in room in support, those in opposition, you may come forward.

Good morning chair and Members, Kim Stone of stone advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association, in respectful opposition, tremendous respect for the author, Trinity, Hydro, all of that is great. The California Solar and Storage Association however, believes that the solar mandate is good for all of us and for California.

And even a righteous and carbon free utility like Trinity, if they make extra energy, can sell it to a different utility, and so therefore must respectfully oppose the Bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition here in the room hearing? Seeing none. Does Members have any questions as it relates to this measure? Well, we don't have a quorum yet. We're still waiting for a quorum.

Assemblymember Wood, I want to thank you for this common sense measure, and it's about time we bring some levity to what we say as our priority when it comes to the environment and energy. Hydro has been one of the most reliable, renewable and cleanest energy sources.

I remember when we started the whole RP's process, Hydro wasn't even considered because we were picking winners and losers. We were deciding that wind and solar would be the best option for cleaning. When we have shown for decades, for over 100 years, that hydro works, it's reliable, it's safe, it's clean.

So this measure makes just practical sense, and I thank you for that. And at the appropriate time we'll ask for a motion. Do we have a quorum yet? We're still one Member short of a quorum. Do you have any questions, Vice Chair, as it relates to this measure? I don't think so. Okay, Senator Wood, I mean Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you, I appreciate that very much Mister chair. This is obviously a district Bill. This power company generates only uses a third of the power that they generate carbon free.

This doesn't in any way prevent anybody from putting solar on their roof of their house if they want to, but to require somebody to do it in the face of the fact that they have already got 100% carbon free power. I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all.

So when the time is right, I respectfully ask for your eyeball. Thank you. And I'm through the chair. I'm also here to present.

Yes. Let me see if we can establish a quorum. We're still one short. There's four. That was eight. No, that's nine, isn't it? We need 10 for a quorum. You also are presenting for assemblymember Petrie Norris, right? Yes. Okay, so go right ahead. We have the measure is 27. AB 2779.

Thank you, Mister chair. First, I would like to thank the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. And we'll be accepting their amendments. I don't know what they are, but happy to accept them on behalf of the author danger, who you ask to help you out.

So AB 2779 will require the California independent system operator to report any new use of grid enhancing technologies or gets with their related costs and energy savings. Meeting California's clean energy goals will require an unprecedented amount of new transmission capacity build out that will likely be costly.

Unfortunately, the transmission planning and permitting process is lengthy and new projects can take over a decade, I would say even up to 12 years or more from conception to completion. As the state revises its permitting process to get new transmission projects up and running, interim solutions may be needed for California to deliver on its goals.

Gets encompass a suite of technologies that can be deployed on existing transmission lines to maximize our current transmission capacity in a more cost effective way for for the short term. While Caiso considers gets in its transmission planning process, there have been concerns about the lack of wider adoption of the state.

As such, AB 2779 aims to quell concerns by providing greater transparency on the frequency and best use of gets in California and having the CAISO report on the usage of gets selected in the transmission planning process. Here in support of the Bill is Laura Dehan with environment California.

On behalf of Assembly Member Petrie Norris, I respectfully ask your aye vote on AB 2779.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Laura Deehan. I'm the Director for Environment California Statewide Environmental Group. And thank you to Vice Chair Dahle and to all the Committee Members as well as Assembly Member Wood for presenting this Bill on behalf of Assembly Member Petrie Norris.

We definitely stand in strong support of this Bill and overall the opportunity presented by grid enhancing technologies and advanced reconductoring for unlocking our power grid.

Our current existing power grid has much more potential to carry power from, you know, where the power source is produced to the homes and businesses where they're being used and across the pond in Europe, they've been using these grid enhancing technologies for many years and seen many, many benefits.

But here in California, we haven't utilized to the full potential these promising technologies. And we're super excited for California to really jumpstart that and start to employ them just by really quickly and very cheaply installing sensors and other devices.

They could actually carry twice or even some estimates, quadruple the existing power carrying capacity of transmission lines, which is amazing. So huge challenge ahead of us to rewire our economy to be clean energy powered. And grid enhancing technologies offers a big solution for that.

So we support AB 2779 as an opportunity to shine a light on that process and help make it happen. So thank you.

Anyone else wishing to testify, add on as in support.

Vice Chair Members Alicia Priego here on behalf of San Jose clean energy in support.

Dan Chao, on behalf of Ava Community Energy, formerly East Bay community Energy in support.

Thank you Mister Vice Chair Members Jason Eichert, on behalf of the California Community Choice Association, also in support.

Thank you. Melissa Cortez, on behalf of the California Wind Energy Association, in support.

Anyone here wishing to speak in opposition of AB 2779? Seeing none, we will bring it back for discussion. Any Members have questions or concerns? Well, we don't have a quorum yet, so I just want to, I will just. I know this isn't your Bill, but I do want to comment on, which is something I've been following this year. We had the CEC to do reports. We ask the ISO to do reports that all gets passed on to the ratepayers.

This is going to be very small amount, but the Cal ISO, out of all the balancing authorities is the highest cost balancing authorities in California to do their business. So I just want to go on record of that. I'm going to be supporting the Bill.

I think we need that information to do a good, responsible grid transmission line. So just wanted to put that out. You may close.

Thank you, Mister Vice Chair. Obviously, when the time comes, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I think just editorializing danger is not my Bill here, but I'm here. So anything we can do to increase capacity.

In fact, the face of the fact that it takes so long to permit transmission is really, really important. So as we move forward, I think any grid enhancing technology should find a way to expedite that through the process as well. So respectfully ask for your. I vote when the time comes.

Thank you. Do we have any other authors here? Jim Patterson, if you're watching. Joe Patterson, if you're watching, we request you to be here at the interview. We'll give him an opportunity to get down here and then we'll give you that. We'll take a break, I guess, until. We get some authors here. So I stand corrected.

AB 27,687 is Joe Patterson, who is the last Bill. We have that author here for AB 2787.

You may proceed, sir.

Great. Thank you, Mister chair and Senators, appreciate the opportunity. My first Bill this year to be in the Senate, so looking forward to positive outcome. I'm here to present AB. Hopefully. I don't want to get ahead of myself.

I'm here to present AB 2787 which would provide a very temporary relief to people when they lose their homes in a wildfire.

And it would give them the opportunity to rebuild their homes without the solar building code that is currently required only in the event that they did not have solar on their house already when they lost their home. We also put measures in there to income limits and things like that, to proper protections.

And as you know, I represent areas, Placer and El Dorado counties that have had devastating fires over the last couple years. And one community adjacent to my district, and actually part of the Senators area is grizzly flats out there. And that whole entire community burned down, unfortunately.

And when that happened, I went, I took a tour and a lot of individuals are trying to make a determination on whether or not they can rebuild, but this is a very limited exemption.

And also if they happen to have insurance, which honestly, as most people, if they're able to get it, if they have insurance, then this would not apply to them because as you know, insurance requires the code upgrade coverage. So this would not apply to them.

This applies to people who legitimately cannot afford it and also do not have the code upgrade coverage. So with that, I respectfully ask for your. I vote, and happy to answer any questions.

Do you have anybody, witnesses?

We were going to have supervisor Turnboo, but we were hoping we'd be on consent. And so we told him to stay home instead of take the drive down.

Okay, so let's take a break real quick and establish a quorum.

[Roll call].

Okay, we've established the quorum. Do you have any other witnesses wish to come forward in support of AB 2787? Seeing none. Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Thank you. Good morning. Chair and Members, Kim Stone of stone advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association. We have an opposed, unless amended position. Very sympathetic to the folks in this situation. Our suggested amendment is that if funds are available through the PUC's self generation sgip. Self generation.

I can't remember what the I stands for incentive program, then. If they were able to get funding to pay for it, then they wouldn't be exempt. And that's our suggested amendment. We have an opposed, unless amended position. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee? Sure. Over here.

Yes, sir. Mister Patterson, good morning. So that seems like a reasonable amendment. How do you think about that?

Yeah, we've actually. I'm open to. I've talked with the opposition on that amendments, but I want to make sure that if there are amendments to that, and we continue to work, that the onus isn't put on the person who lost everything to actually find these grants of being available.

I think we need a little bit more clarity on exactly what being available. I mean, if the solar installer is able to secure that financing for them, that's one thing.

But an individual who's just trying to put their lives back together, just because some government grant is available somewhere that they may not even know about, it's hard for me to put that sort of on the person who's trying to rebuild.

But if the solar company themselves is able to secure that financing, or that funding for the solar customer, then I. I'm good with that. I have solar on my house. I love solar. I think that's an amazing thing.

That seems like a reasonable concern. So, Miss Stone, I'm sorry. Make you get up. How to work through the logistics on that.

I'll just say we appreciate the offer and are going to continue to engage in conversation. Don't have to do so here and now.

All right, thanks. Glad to move when appropriate.

Senator Stern, did you have a question?

I would just second my colleague's point. I appreciate the author's consideration here. I guess the only thing I would add, the reason I think that sounds like a good idea, is not to put a burden, but to deny the opportunity to have that right. If the money's sitting there.

And by the way, that sgip money has not moved historically. We wrote the legislation to make sure it was targeted in fire zones that are impacted by psps, specifically for Low income folks. So, like that money's for them. I don't want to deny them the opportunity to get that upside. So I'm just hoping going forward you can.

Yeah, love to hear. Just I get we can't do that today or how that would work, but would love to see that happen. Otherwise, I worry that money itself is going to get swept away. Right. And go towards other things if we don't use it. So it's kind of in a use it or lose it phase anyhow.

I had a lot of Low income folks in mobile homes and everything else that had their homes burned down, and we've seen mixed results on the program. The gas company was administering it down in Southern California. They didn't get it. Now finally, the electric utilities are controlling it.

So I think PG and E in your area is the main administrator. So if we can get it streamlined, I think it'd be great to add. Anyway, thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Senator. Appreciate that.

Yeah, I think to Senator Stern's point, if you can get it through PG and E, then I think being too prescriptive in this Bill could be a problem because you don't want somebody all of a sudden the county that's issuing the permits on this to say, I'm sorry you have to do this.

I'm not opposed to the amendment, but I think we got to be very careful of how that's worded.

If you want, I'm going to pass the gavel back to the chair, but I actually want to comment on the Bill. I actually tried to run this exact same Bill a few years ago and the solar industry killed it. And I'm very happy to see you bring this Bill forward.

And I would just say from somebody who has had the campfire, car fire, the Dixie fire, I mean, I can go down the list, literally 12 mega fires in my district in the last 12 years.

And you go out and talk to those folks and they're trying to rebuild and the law says they have to put solar on and they can't afford the solar because they didn't have insurance for it because, and we really need to help them out. This is, I think, a very common sense approach.

Obviously, the opposition wants to force them to buy their products. And unfortunately, these folks, you don't have time to go research to get a grant. And if that's available. As Senator Stern talked about, somebody will help them find it, but don't put that onerous on them when they're just trying to get their lives back together.

So we had a, I think he left. We had somebody that was going to make a motion, but I would be happy to move the Bill at the time.

Thank you. Senator Caballero, good morning.

Thank you very much, Mister chair.

And I apologize I missed the presentation, but the question that I had after reading the analysis, and I think it's a real issue, and it may not just be solar that we need to look at, but the higher cost requirements that come in because it's a total destruction might be appropriate as well.

But since this is solar, the question I had was the condition that the owner that would do the construction, it was based on income, percentage of the average income level of the county. And I was wondering why you landed on that as a requirement.

And the only reason I say that is that the median income and every county is different, as you know, and in one of the counties that I represent, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 some $1000. And in the neighboring Santa Clara County, the median income is $110,000.

So if you were the same individual, but you were on one side of the line, as opposed to the other side of the line, you would not be able to take advantage of the situation. So I'm just wondering if you thought about it, and I'm going to support your Bill today. But it was a concern I had.

Yeah, well, thank you for that question. Well, as a lot of us do in this building, and I'm guilty of it, I copied and pasted a great idea from a couple years ago, as Senator Dawley was talking about, but his did actually, that legislation actually had more flexibility in terms of.

It just had to be one of those. This legislation says it has to be all of those. The income coverage.

I actually do also have concerns about the income requirement, because, you know, if you've lost everything, but your income happens to be a certain level, I'm not sure that that, you know, you're just trying to rebuild your house, you don't have insurance, right? Or the upgrade coverage.

Cause if you're on the fair plan, they only cover 10% upgrade coverage, which when you're updating building codes, that could be eaten up really quickly. So personally, I would have scrapped all that. You know, this is a building of negotiations and what people and the Committee Members are comfortable with.

And so that's kind of what we ended up with. But I do think this will help people, because when you go to areas like that that have been burned down.

I mean, it really impacted me seeing this lady in her seventies, shoveling snow, living in her trailer, you know, just trying to rebuild her livelihood and didn't know, frankly, if she was going to rebuild. Hey, if I can save her, you know, 20, $30,000, that would be an amazing thing.

And I will concede obviously, that if there's a program available for them to put solar on, I'm a big proponent of that myself. I support solar in every regard, actually. I just don't want to put that particular onus on the person. That lady who's like, you know, etched in my mind.

I think about her a lot, but there's 80 other people like that in this one community. And so anyways, the income level, I think you're right. I mean, if some hopefully never does fire in a higher income place. But I don't think that should really be a consideration, to be completely honest with you.

But I take in comments from the Assembly Members and the Senators and when they have concerns and we try to work with them, and that's kind of where we ended up.

I get it. You copied Senator Dahle's Bill. And I understand completely.

I should have left it at that. Yeah, I took the king's Bill and just ran with it.

I couldn't get it done.

Thank you. You referring to Sacramento Kings? Hey, all their ideas are good, but I'm still getting over 2002, so. Senator Rubio, you know, still heartbroken from that.

Good morning everyone. Thank you, Mister chair. You know, I remember Mister Dahle's Bill and I remember I supported it back then only because, you know, as chair of insurance, you get to hear all the stories, you know, of all the devastation, how people are not able to rebuild. And you know, you're right.

I mean, sometimes we do have these sort of older generation, and you know, we would argue right now it's almost unaffordable. So everyone that does have homes are usually, and it's a broad statement, and perhaps not as accurately said, but older generation, that they've been in their home for so long.

And I get those stories and it's really heartbreaking, especially because they're single as it pertains to either their significant other passing away or their children moving away. And so it's really difficult to grapple with the fact that they're underinsured or not enough. And so I understand what you're trying to do.

I remember I support it for that reason. When Mister Dawley brought the topic, I think a few years back. But it's important that we figure this out because if there's programs, we need them too, to take advantage of that, but we need to help in any way we can. So thank you for bringing this forward.

Thank you. All right, any further questions? Comments by Members? Assemblyman Patterson, I'm sorry I missed your presentation, but I commend you for what you're doing to, you know, allow individuals to.

Number one priority after someone loses their home is getting them rehoused and not putting on extra burdens and requirements that didn't exist when they originally purchased a house or built a house. So I think this is common sense measure and it makes affordability the number one issue.

Because again, many folks can't afford to rebuild and then attack on additional requirements that you now have to have solar on a home that didn't have it for the last 50 years.

And I know we're moving to a green economy and everybody wants a clean environment, but to allow folks and make that choice that a mandating when it didn't exist when they originally built their home. And many people want like for like they're comfortable with what they had. They're familiar with what they had.

So I appreciate what you're doing and I think we have a motion by Senator Daly. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for an aye vote we. Have a do pass to the Committee on Appropriations Secretary, please call the roll on AB 2787.

[Roll call].

That measure has 15 votes. It's out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. All right, thank you very much, everybody.

Appreciate it.

Have we established the quorum now? Yeah, we have. Okay. All right. Now we're going to move back to file item one, AB 1918. We need a motion. It's been moved by Senator Dahle. We have a do pass to Senate Committee on Housing. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call] 14 to zero.

That measure has 14 votes. We'll leave the roll open for Members to add on, absent Members to add on. Now we're moving on to AB 2708 by Jim Patterson. We have a do pass to Senate Committee on Appropriations, and we need a motion. It's been moved by Senator Dahle. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call] 15 to zero.

15 to zero on consent, we'll leave the roll open for absent Members. And now moving on to file item three, AB 2779 by Petrie-Norris. We need a motion. We have a do pass as amended to Senate Committee on Appropriations. It's been moved by Senator Min. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call] 14 to zero.

The measure has 14 votes. We're going to leave the roll open for another maybe 10 minutes. We're going to ask Members to come to Room 1200, after which we will close the roll on today's agenda. Yes. Do we have Dodd outstanding on anything? Let's call. What? What? One, Senator Dodd, I think they're missing you on that. So, call the roll. AB 1918.

[Roll call] 15 to zero.

That measure has 15 votes.

All right. Secretary, please open the roll on file item one, AB 1918.

Hang on, I'm going to get my computer up.

Okay. AB 1918. Do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Housing. Chair, Vice Chair voting aye. 15-0 is the current vote. [Roll call] So, it's 17 to zero. And we're still waiting for Caballero.

AB 2708 on consent.

Okay. [Roll call]

All right, file item three, AB 2779. Do pass as amended to Senate Committee on Appropriations. I think it has 15 votes.

14 right now. Current vote, 14-0. [Roll call]

Now we'll move to file item four, AB 2787 by Assembly Member Patterson, do pass to Senate Appropriations. Current vote is.

15. 15-0.

15-0. Please call the absent Members.

[Roll call[

Sorry.

So, 17 to zero.

We can close the roll on that count with you. All right. So, we'll leave the roll over for another five minutes for absent members to add on.

Sorry. Sorry. Thank you.

It's okay. That's why I didn't call your name.

Everything's riding on you. The whole. The whole grid. The grid is on the fritz.

File item one through three. And file item four is already closed.

All right. We will reconvene the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Communications. We will not be accepting questions, so we're going to reopen the roll on items 1, 2, and 3. Item four has been closed. Madam consultant, please open the roll.

AB 1918, Assembly Member Wood, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Housing. Current vote 17-0. [Roll call] 18-0.

That Bill is out, 18 votes to zero. Item number two.

The consent calendar. [Roll call] 18 to zero.

Consent calendar is out, 18 to zero. And the last item?

AB 2779, Petrie-Norris. Current vote, 16-0. [Roll call]

And that measure is out 17 votes to zero. That completes our agenda today. And with that, tough hearing, this meeting is adjourned.