The Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee of the California State Assembly convened on June 3, 2025, to discuss critical issues surrounding utility regulation, affordability, and wildfire mitigation strategies. The meeting focused on the implications of proposed legislation, particularly Assembly Bill 825, which has drawn significant opposition from various stakeholders.

The session began with concerns raised about the potential impact of securitization on investor-owned utilities (IOUs). A representative highlighted the historical context, referencing Governor Schwarzenegger's past efforts to securitize the state lottery during a budget crisis. The discussion emphasized the need to understand Wall Street's appetite for such financial strategies and the risks involved for utilities, which could affect the livelihoods of thousands of workers and retirees.

Kent Kaus, representing San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), voiced opposition to AB 825, citing a decade-long commitment to affordability without successful adoption of proposed relief measures. He pointed out that the bill's provisions could lead to minimal savings for customers, estimating only a dollar a year from a collective $15 billion investment by utilities without a return. Kaus also stressed the importance of addressing net energy metering as a significant cost driver.

The committee then heard from representatives of Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison, who echoed concerns about the bill's implications for utility operations and financial stability. They expressed apprehension that limiting returns on investments could disincentivize necessary undergrounding efforts, which are crucial for wildfire mitigation.

Assemblyman Rogers raised questions regarding the $15 billion figure mentioned in the bill, seeking clarity on its basis and implications for undergrounding initiatives. He emphasized the need to ensure that financial models do not hinder IOUs from investing in infrastructure that could mitigate wildfire risks.

The chair of the committee acknowledged the historic capital expenditures required by utilities to address climate-related challenges, arguing that the current financial incentives may not align with the best interests of California residents. The discussion highlighted a tension between ensuring utility profitability and the need for substantial investments in infrastructure to combat climate impacts.

As the meeting progressed, committee members expressed a commitment to refining the bill while considering the potential unintended consequences of its provisions. The session concluded with a consensus on the importance of ongoing dialogue among stakeholders to ensure that the legislative framework supports both utility stability and public safety.

Overall, the meeting underscored the complexities of balancing financial viability for utilities with the pressing need for effective wildfire mitigation strategies and affordable energy solutions for Californians. Further discussions and refinements to AB 825 are anticipated as the committee continues to navigate these critical issues.