Multiple witnesses told the Joint Legislative Committee that wildfire risk is a major driver of costs facing California ratepayers and residents, and argued the state should consider shifting how some cap‑and‑trade (GGRF) dollars are deployed to lower overall long‑term costs.

Stanford’s Michael Wara and other witnesses illustrated that costs linked to adapting the energy system to wildfire risk — including distribution upgrades, undergrounding and other utility mitigation actions — are a major component of recent retail electricity increases. Wara suggested that GGRF could be used to “buy down” the cost of major transmission and distribution investments (for example, by reducing the equity or debt component of projects funded by investor‑owned utilities) so those capital costs produce smaller rate impacts for customers.

Panelists cautioned that some wildfire mitigation choices are expensive and urged the committee to compare the cost‑effectiveness of alternatives such as shaded fuel breaks, home hardening grants, defensible‑space programs and selective undergrounding. Wara and others said more targeted investments in home hardening and community protection in high‑risk areas could deliver better value than broad undergrounding programs.

CARB and other witnesses recounted current spending levels: testimony noted about $7 billion per year spent on utility wildfire mitigation, roughly $500 million per year from GGRF on fuels reduction, and about $50 million in home‑hardening grants (figures cited in the hearing). Lawmakers and panelists urged more cost‑effectiveness analysis and consideration of directing additional cap‑and‑trade funds to non‑utility mitigation measures in high‑risk communities.

Ending: The committee asked CARB and other agencies to coordinate analyses of how GGRF investments, utility mitigation spending and community home‑hardening programs can be prioritized to reduce both fire risk and household energy costs.