Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Committee on Communication and Conveyance. My name is Tasha Berner and I serve as the chair of this Committee. Joining me at the dais today are not yet here is Vice Chair Patterson and some of my colleagues on my Committee. I'd like to note that Assembly Member Garcia and Bonta will be out today. This speaker has appointed assembly member Schiavo and Connolly as substitutes.

We're also being joined by Emilio Perez, the Chief Consultant of the Communications Committee, and Elizabeth Delgado, of the Committee secretary. Joining us for the hearing is Daniel Ballin, consultant with the Republican Caucus policy unit. So today's agenda has four items. There are two items on proposed consent calendar, including AB 296 Rodriguez and AB 415 Rodriguez. Before we begin our Bill presentation, I'd like to take care of some logistical housekeeping.

If any Member of the public in the room would like to testify on a Bill during public comment period, I'll invite you to approach the microphone at the appropriate time. I'd like to ask the public not touch the microphone. You can exit the hearing room once you're done testifying or return to your seat. Now let's cover the ground rules for appropriate conduct. The Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to Committee and floor proceedings in the last few years.

Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited. Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening or abusive language, speaking longer than the time allocated, extended discussion of matters not related to the subject of the hearing or Bill, and any other disruptive acts. To address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps.

If an individual disrupts our hearing process, I will direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruptions may result in removal from the capitol building. I will also document on the record the individual involved and the nature of the disruptive conduct. I may also temporarily recess the hearing. If the conduct does not stop, I will request assistance from the sergeants in escorting the individual from the Capitol building. Seeing that we do not have a quorum, we will start as a Subcommitee and we will start.

Yeah. Okay. Well, we're going to start in file order with Assembly Member Holden. AB 41, Assembly Member. So today we're hearing AB 41 by Assembly Member Holden, the Digital Equity and Video Franchising act of 2023. Assembly Member Holden, you may open when ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, Members. I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 41, the Digital Equity and Video Franchising act of 2023, also known as DIVCA. I want to begin by stating I accept the Committee amendments and thank the chair and her staff for working with my office and meet me personally over the weekend.

That time was well spent and I do appreciate that AB 41 seeks to update and address persistent issues with the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition act of 2006, also known as DIVCA . DIVCA was passed to encourage competition in the cable market with the intent of benefiting consumers by lowering prices and promoting the expansion of services that include cable, phone and high speed Internet access bundles. 17 years later, it is clear that this approach, self regulatory of the industry through competition has failed.

According to the California Public Utilities Commission, there are 353,494 unserved households and 704,387 underserved households in California as of December 31, 2020. As of 2023, there are 2.3 million California residents live in single provider monopolies. According to Connect California, AB 41 seeks to leverage the state's licensing and authority over cable franchise holders, who are among the largest Internet service providers in the state.

I will rename DIVCA to Digital Equity and Video franchising act, or DIFFA, to highlight the ultimate policy goal of this Bill, equity and access to vital services. AB 41 aligns to California Public Utilities Commission authority under federal law to enforce the buildout of video and cable infrastructure. This Bill updates discrimination protections for all potential and existing customers who live within franchise holders service territories by ensuring they receive equal access to services.

By doing so, we can bring this nearly two decades old policy up to its original intentions and today's standards by extending cable, video and broadband infrastructure to Californians. With me to testify and support are Shayna Englin, Director of California Community Foundation Digital Equity Initiative, and Arnie Sowell, Executive Director, NextGen.

Thank you. Thank you, you each have two minutes.

Madam Chair Members, my name is Arnie Sowell and I'm the Executive Director of NextGen Policy. NextGen is a nonprofit that is focused on equity and justice issues, and digital equity is one of our core priorities. We are here today in strong support of AB 41 and are part of a large and diverse coalition that's in support of the Bill.

I bring a unique historical perspective to this issue, to today's deliberations, because I spent almost two decades in this building as a policy Director for five speakers, and in 2006 I was a lead staffer for Speaker Nunez on the original DIVCA Bill.

I have a clear recollection of the DIVCA negotiations, the expected outcomes, the concerns expressed, and the very heated intensity around the advocacy during that time proponents argued that DIVCA would bring more competition to the cable, voice, video and, yes, broadband marketplace, and in so doing improve access and quality, lower prices, spur innovation, and help close the digital divide. Opponents were against opening up the marketplace and argued that DIVCA would fall short when it came to its equal access, anti discrimination and customer complaint enforcement provisions.

Today, I have to attest that my work and the original DIVCA Bill are indeed in need of very serious reforms. Your Committee analysis points out many of the expected outcomes that have fallen well short of our intended original work with DIVCA. Specifically, I want to point out the anti discrimination and the equal access provisions. These were intended to try to protect low income households and, although well intentioned, were nearly not strong enough.

The donut hole issue being one manifestation of the inequities caused by the provisions that were in the original DIVCA, AB 41 corrects, reforms, updates and tackles these shortcomings. The access issue, the build out issue, the enforcement issue with a pragmatic approach that builds on the lessons that we've learned over the last 17 years, as well as the most recent lessons that we've learned during the pandemic.

NextGen policy and the AB 41 coalition want to thank the Chair, want to thank the Committee and want to thank Mr. Holden for the work that we've done on this Bill over the last several weeks and would ask the Committee for an aye vote.

Thank you, Chair Boerner, Members of the Committee, and Assembly Member Holden, for your leadership on this issue. My name is Shayna Englin. I'm the Director of the Digital Equity initiative at the California Community Foundation, a co convener of the statewide California alliance for Digital Equity, or Cade.

And I speak today on behalf of the more than 50 organizations ranging from school districts and counties to community clinics and restorative justice nonprofits that are serving communities across California and who have wholeheartedly signed on in support of this long overdue set of reforms to the state's antiquated franchise law.

We're proud to have worked tirelessly alongside the author, the chair, Committee staff and others to arrive at a Bill that, while a compromise, represents leaps and bounds in terms of progress and is a critical piece of the puzzle of closing the digital divide. I want to call out one specific area of focus in AB 41. You might have heard or read in the Bill analysis around donut holes.

And typically we talk about donut holes as geographic kind of pockets of no service that are surrounded by areas with service. But there are, in fact, myriad ways that donut holes show up.

And to highlight just one example, Cade Ally, Philip Neufeld, who is the Executive officer of enterprise infrastructure and services at Fresno Unified School District, led an analysis of 11 million data points collected from 70,000 district provided student laptops via three times daily measurements between July 2021 and continuing on through today, and found that at least 20% of the time, students who accessed the Internet from their homes in Fresno's low income neighborhoods were connecting at speeds below the bare minimum of 253 which is too slow to stay logged on to classes, to upload assignments or complete other core educational needs.

Those students should be considered unserved, and this is true despite getting their service, in many cases from the exact same franchise holder. In this case, it's Comcast as their wealthier neighbors who are able to reliably connect at faster speeds. Again, that's a donut hole. In addition, the school district participated in the education superhighway bridge to broadband program intended for school districts to partner with incumbent ISP's to bring service, in many cases paid for by the district, to the most vulnerable, disconnected student households.

In Fresno Unified, Comcast reported being unable to serve 8,365 of the district identified households. That's more than one in 10, all of them in high poverty communities, all in Comcast franchise service area that also should be understood as a donut hole. DIVCA aims in part to close the donut holes and create mechanisms for communities and community leaders like Mr. Neufeld to make these issues known to the PUC and to ensure they are addressed as part of the franchise process.

AB 41 is reasonable, responsible, necessary and overdue, and we thank you for your support of this Bill.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. And we're going to pause right there. I think we have a quorum. So with that, I'll ask the Committee secretary to call the roll.

And with that we have a quorum. Next we'll move to additional witnesses in support. Any witnesses in support in the room may approach on the mic with your name, affiliation and position only, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Jonathan Clay, on behalf of the county. Of San Diego, in support.

Good afternoon. Tracy Ryan, Royal County representatives of California in support.

Nicole Wartelman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support.

Good afternoon. Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Jeff Tartaguia an advocate in support and would like to hear some of your visions you came up with over the weekend.

Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities in strong support. Thank you.

Senator Richard Polanco, retired in support, representing the California Emerging Technology Fund.

Andrea Deveau, on behalf of CalCom in support.

Okay, seeing no further witnesses in support, we'll now move to witnesses in opposition. We have one primary witness in opposition who may approach the desk. Amanda Galdarama, legislative and regulatory Director at Cal Broadband. When you're ready, you can go ahead and start. You'll have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair Vice Chair Members Amanda Gualderama, with CalBroadBand and we are opposed to AB 41. We appreciate the conversations we've had with the author, his staff, and the Committee regarding this Bill. We share the goal of equal access to video services, but there remain unworkable provisions in AB 41. The Bill in print includes a provision of 100% buildout.

This would require franchise holders to build out access to locations within their service territory, regardless of how expensive that buildout would be and regardless of whether the video service or cable is even wanted in those areas. This sets up a franchise holder with an economically unfeasible situation and actually deters franchiseholders from expanding their service, thus preventing further buildout of infrastructure. We believe the better option is to rely on the density requirement outlined in the Bill.

This creates a balance to ensure that a franchise holder is serving all the areas in their service territory where there is sufficient demand to support the buildout and maintenance of infrastructure. Another unworkable provision in this Bill is the requirement to provide video access to 100% of all Low income residences within a service territory. Similar to the 100% build out provisions, there are economic and technical realities that may prevent a franchise holder from providing video service to specific households.

Even more troubling in that provision is the requirement that a franchise holder actively seek out the income levels of all residences within their service territory. The only publicly available information regarding income level is through the Census Bureau, which provides information based on census tracked not by residents, which would likely be deemed a privacy violation. Thus, this provision places a requirement on franchise holders that the franchise holders have no way of ensuring compliance.

Again, the density requirement does resolve this issue since it is based on objective criteria, entirely neutral with respect to residents' income level. There are a number of other provisions in this Bill that are concerning to us. The General increase in the CPUC's authority, the prolonged timeframes with regard to obtaining and maintaining a franchise, and the exorbitant increase in fines are just a few. While we are committed to continue conversations regarding this Bill at this time, the Bill is generally unfeasible and therefore we request a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And I was mistaken. You have four minutes, so if you want to take an extra two, you can. But if you're done, that's also okay. Okay, thank you for that. Moving on. Are there any additional witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? If so, you may approach the mic with your name, affiliation and position only, please.

Thank you. Madam Chair Members Yolanda Benson, representing U.S Telecom, the broadband Association. We are facility based wireline broadband providers providing broadband services in California. We are opposed. Okay.

Seeing no further witnesses in opposition, I want to thank you, and I now want to return it to the Committee for questions or comments. No questions or comments like cat's got our tongue today. And so, Assembly Member Holden, would you like to close?

Well, thank you. I appreciate that. And I do, as I said earlier, appreciate working with the Committee, and we will continue to have conversations with the opposition to better understand how the density piece works or doesn't work. But we certainly are open to conversations in that respect and also data, so we get that.

But I really appreciate the Committee's help in working with us and also the sponsors who have been very committed to this effort, not just since I've been a Member of carrying the legislation, but for many years. And their commitment and the people that they represent, all of us represent, and making sure that they are getting the full access to the Internet and video services. That's what this is all about, equity and fairness. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much Mr. Holden, for your presentation and thank you for working with us on amendments. You and I have had various conversations about this over the years, and I'm thankful that you've heard me and all the stakeholders. You've shown your commitment to continue to work on this policy and get this Bill in the best position to meet our shared objectives for connecting more households, especially our unserved and underserved. And I want to thank the sponsors of the Bill.

This isn't in my talking point, so I'm going rogue, Amelia. But I have to say, I've been on this Committee since I've got here. This is maybe the third year I've heard this Bill, and I have learned so much in the last couple of months. And so I really want to say sincerely, I've learned new aspects that I didn't learn previously. And I want to thank you for all your work. And there's more that we have to do together.

There are donut holes, and the donut holes, I think, that Ms. Englin pointed out, are different things that we have to deal with. It's not just unserved, it's underserved. There's affordability problems. There's all these aspects that we as legislators need to serve, to serve California and really close the digital divide. And I support what you're doing here. And when I think we had those first conversations, Mr. Holden, I was like, how do we both get to "yes"? And somehow we both got to,

and I really appreciate that. And it wasn't easy. I think I'll just highlight really quickly I think we consider this, the things that I'm concerned about moving forward. I'm concerned about the fact that we have all this FFA, potentially bead funding coming in in rural areas and what the 100% build out will mean for serving it with video service. Also, when it comes to low income households, I think the data thing we need to work out.

We want to make sure that people, all the providers can meet the requirements. Whether they choose to meet the requirements is different than can we measure that they've met the requirements? I think we've talked about that. And lastly, I still maintain I have concerns about the PUC and how they're behaving. And so we want to make sure we've seen them, they've struggled, and we want to make sure the language is clear on the intent of the Legislature, which is required to look at every issue carefully.

With that, I'm supporting your Bill, and aye look forward to continue working with you as this Bill moves forward. I don't have a motion yet. Do I have a motion moved by Papan, seconded by Weber. Members, there's been a motion and a second. The motion on AB 41 by Assembly Member Holden is do pass as amended and rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the secretary please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Member that Bill still needs a couple votes to get out. The Bill is on call. I don't see Ms. Aguiar-Curry in the room. So we could go ahead and move to Juan Carrillo, AB 965. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Joining me to testify in support and answer questions is Rochelle Swanson, external office manager of Crown Castle, and Peter Leroe-Munoz, Senior Vice President of tech and innovation at Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Thank you.

As you approach the desk today, we're hearing AB 965 by Assembly Member Juan Carrillo relating to local government broadband permits and application. Assembly Member Carrillo, you may open when you're ready, and each of your witnesses will have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members, thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 965. I want to start by thanking the Committee consultant and the chair for working working closely with my office on this Bill and would like to also emphasize my appreciation for the continued dialogue with the counties, cities, municipal utilities associations and other critical partners over the past weeks. Before I continue, I would like to know that I will be accepting the Committee's amendments.

AB 965 seeks to require local jurisdictions to make a decision on a group of broad brand permits within 60 to 90 days. That's two to three months to make a decision.

The decision they can make include approve, conditionally approve, or reject the permit extend the amount of time of remove certain permits from the batch as long as there is mutual agreement with the applicant, limit the number of permits they are willing to accept, make a health and safety determination to justify not allowing the permit to move forward and to provide additional flexibility. 32 states have adopted legislation to streamline the permitting of broadband infrastructure. When a broadband project is being deployed in a community,

oftentimes there are numerous locations where identical telecommunication infrastructure has been installed to provide high speed Internet. In the coming years, we're going to see a huge influx of broadband projects as a result of public and private investments. As you know, we're facing a December 2024 deadline to spend billions of federal broadband dollars at risk of losing it. Our constituents want us to shovel in ready projects in our communities so they can benefit from high speed Internet.

AB 965 implements the best practice of permit batching to streamline the approval of broadband permits around the state. It also creates a framework where broadband installers can submit a batch of nearly identical broadband permits to the local jurisdictions at the same time in order for those permits to be reviewed and acted on in a reasonable amount of time. AB 965 is critically important because it will help communities get connected to high speed Internet in months instead of years.

California's overwhelming support of this kind of government efficiency in a recent report conducted by the Bay Area Council of Economic Institute, they found that 75% of California's voters support statewide streamlining of broadband projects, while 70% support require local governments to follow a uniform, state mandated approval process for broadband projects. AB 965 also strikes the right balance between efficiency for statewide broadband deployment and local control, and I want to be clear that it will allow for local jurisdictions to still maintain full control.

As a former city planner who has dealt with these permits, I know firsthand that the processing of substantially similar broadband permits by local jurisdictions at the same time will be more efficient on the workload of local government staff. Permitting fees will still be received by local governments, but staff can more easily process routine high volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help bridge the digital divide.

Given the public's interest, increased reliance on high speed Internet, access to the importance of broadband for public safety, public health, economic growth, education, job creation, housing affordability, and emission reductions. It is in California's best interest for public and private broadband projects' permits to be processed as quickly and efficiently as possible while maintaining local control.

Thank you. And I just wanted to point out we do have a motion and a second. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Rochelle Swanson. As pointed out, as an external affairs manager for Crown Castle. I was also eight years a Council Member and a broadband advocate for the community and schools for close to 20 years. Crown Castle is the nation's largest shared communications infrastructure provider, installing, operating, and maintaining broadband for a variety of customers, including K through 12 districts, local government, universities, ISP's, and wireless cell phone providers, which is critical to connectivity, and public safety, and supporting first responders.

I'd like to thank the author and the Chair and the Committee Members for your leadership in advancing Interet connectivity in California. Crown Castle works with local jurisdictions every day in this state and across the country to deploy broadband. AB 965 reflects the best practice of permit batching. The Bill simply requires local jurisdictions to make a decision on a group of broadband permits in a reasonable amount of time of two to three months, depending upon the type of installation.

It is not intended nor designed to short circuit local government's permitting authority and duties. Here are the decisions they can make. They could approve the permit, conditionally approve the permit, extend the amount of time by mutual agreement, remove certain permits from the batch, and make a health and safety determination to justify not allowing the permit to move forward. AB 965 is needed because even though some local governments are using permit batching for broadband projects, many are not.

With constrained staffing resources, we must find efficiencies that motivate applicants to organize and bundle their projects and give staff tools so that they can more easily review and process the needed permits. In addition to the state's investment of $6 billion in broadband. The private sector has also been investing billions in the state and continues to each year.

In the coming months, there will be a large increase in broadband projects, and this Bill is critical to make sure that decisions are made in a timely manner at the local level. We value our partnership with local jurisdictions and feel that the amendments proposed by the Committee strike the right balance. They will lead to a more control, consistent, and streamlined handling of broadband permits while maintaining local control. Crown Castle is committed to work with our partners in local government to best meet the challenges before us.

In short, this Bill will ensure best practices are being used consistently throughout the state to connect communities. The public is counting on all of us, both the public and private sector, to get communities connected to high speed Internet as soon as possible. Crown Castle is a partner in this effort and we genuinely thank you for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and esteemed Committee Members. My name is Peter Leroe-Munoz and I serve as General counsel and SBP of tech policy for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a business Association representing hundreds of companies and institutions that work in the innovation economy. And similar to Rochelle, I also served in local government three terms as Mayor Pro Tem for the City of Gilroy.

The leadership group is very pleased to support AB 965 because we believe that it will accelerate the buildout of critical broadband infrastructure throughout California. Doing so will support the state's economy, grow jobs, and bridge the digital divide. The Covid-19 pandemic hastened the migration of work, education, business, and healthcare to online platforms. Those with access to high speed and reliable Internet transition quickly to the new reality of fully remote employment, online classes, or virtual doctors appointments.

Sadly, many rural, low income, and minority communities lacked the broadband architecture for sufficiently advanced Internet to keep pace with these changes. As a result, existing inequities were further exacerbated. AB 965 will increase Californian's ability to access and leverage online resources by implementing industry best practices that speed up the approval of digital infrastructure projects. At the community level, the Bill will allow for approving substantially similar broadband permit applications simultaneously avoiding duplicative and redundant red tape reviews that stymie efforts to expand critical Internet access.

And it is critical to note as well that the full power rests with the local bodies themselves to approve or deny, so no power is in any way taken from them. AB 965 will also grow the state's economy and jobs. Broadband construction, operation, and maintenance will immediately require greater numbers of workers. Enhanced Internet infrastructure will also increase the need for workers in digital industries, whether cyber, IT, data and others.

Finally, the Bill offers an opportunity for California to obligate federal coronavirus, state and local fiscal recovery funds for broadband projects by next year's deadline of December 2024. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is proud to support AB 965. Please consider us a resource as the Bill is considered. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we'll move on to additional witnesses in support in the room. You may approach the mic with your name, affiliation and position only.

Madam Chair and Members, Alex Torres with the Bay Area Council on behalf of our economic Institute as well, which the author referenced in his report in his comments in support today. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members Cameron Demetre on behalf of T Mobile, in support.

Good afternoon. Amanda Guildrama with Cal broadband in support.

Yolanda Benson, US Telecom, the broadband Association in support.

Good afternoon. Cornelius Burke with the California Building Industry Association in support of the Bill.

Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, Steve Carlson for CTIA. We're the trade Association for the Wireless Industry in support.

Good afternoon. Brady Van Engelen, California Chamber of Commerce here in support.

Chair and Members, Nate Solov, in support. On behalf of Frontier Communications, the Wireless Industry Association, and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. Thank you.

Thank you to those witnesses in support. Now we'll move to witnesses in opposition. We have one primary witness in opposition who may approach the desk. Jason Eichert, is that correct?

That's very close. That's close enough.

Is that close enough? I mean, my last name was Boerner-Horvath, so that's why I dropped Horvath? It's just Boerner. On behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, you may begin.

Thank you, madam.

Four minutes? Yes.

Excellent. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, Jason Eichert, on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, CMUA. And unfortunately, I don't need the full four minutes. We'll try and make this quick and efficient because while CMUA, whose Members are the local publicly owned power utilities serving 25% of the state, are opposed to the Bill, our opposition is actually quite simple.

But I want to start by saying that we appreciate the fact that we had an opportunity a couple of weeks ago to meet with the author's staff, with the sponsors of the Bill. And we really appreciate the good work of your Committee staff whose amendments that was worked on with the author. They do improve the Bill, in particular the fact that safety standards are going to be maintained now.

But at the end of the day, our opposition is fundamental to the fact that from CMUA's perspective and its Members'perspective, existing state and federal law already covers this issue for publicly owned utilities. We think it's duplicative. So in 2011, AB 1027 was enacted. It was an Assembly Member Buchanan Bill, and it actually governs access to our polls for wired infrastructure, and it includes shot clocks that are quite similar to what's contemplated in the Committee amendments, and it also includes batch permitting.

In addition to that, the FCC at the federal level in 2018 adopted a small cell rule that applies to wireless facilities, and that rule likewise includes shot clocks and it includes a batch permitting process. So at the end of the day, while we appreciate the author's efforts, we appreciate what he's trying to do. We don't think it's necessary to have publicly owned utilities covered by this Bill.

We think it would be more appropriate if they were exempt because they're already covered by other state and federal law.

Thank you very much. Do we have a second witness that didn't register with us?

Madam Chair and Members Greg Cook, representing Northern California Power Agency. The amendments that went in the Bill on Sunday raised some serious questions. However, yesterday I had an extraordinarily productive meeting with Mr. Carrillo's staff, and based on that meeting, I'm quite confident as this Bill goes forward, the questions that we raise will be answered, and I thank the staff and the Assembly Member for their cooperation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Moving on. Are there any additional witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? You may approach the mic, name, affiliation, and position.

Good afternoon. Tracy Rhine, Royal County representatives of California. We do not have a formal position on the Bill. However, we appreciate the work that the Committee, staff, author, sponsors have taken with us to talk about finding a compromise to address our significant concerns, and we look forward to continuing the conversation. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Damon Konka with the League of California Cities, just echoing the previous comments, appreciate the hard work of the Committee and the author and author staff on the most recent iteration. Look forward to continuing to work with you on our existing concerns. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no further opposition in the room, I'll return to the Committee for questions or comments. We have a motion by, seeing none. Do you have a question? Okay. Seeing none. Assembly Member Carrillo, would you like to close?

Yes, thank you. I just want to reassure you that I'm committed to continue working with our county, cities, and municipal utilities to provide clarity on the language and address any outstanding concerns considering their unique situations. With that, I'll respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Korea, for bringing this Bill forward. With the amendments, I will be supporting this Bill while there's clearly a need to expand broadband infrastructure across the state, especially considering all the funding that's coming through. Getting to 100% connectivity will be a challenge. And I think you're right that permitting can be a challenge and we should consider ways to make that process work better for everyone.

We took lots of amendments to this Bill to make it workable and I ultimately think we found a good balance to continue the conversation. Should this Bill pass, which I hope it does, it will be referred to local government. Next, we have a motion by Davies, second by Holden. The motion is AB 965 by Assembly Member Juan Carrillo is do pass as amended and rerefer to the Committee on Local Government. Will the Committee secretary please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Members, AB 965 has passed and we will leave the roll open so that Members can add on their votes. Thank you very much, Mr. Carrillo.

Thank you.

So we could go back to the consent calendar. Seeing no authors, I'd encourage Assembly Member Agiuar-Curry or Santiago to make their way to Committee room. So we have a proposed. So we have a composed consent calendar. Item five, AB 297, Rodriguez, Office of Emergency Services 911 Public Education campaign. The motion is do pass as amended and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. And item six, AB 415, Rodriguez, Emergency Fairgrounds Communications Grant act. Motion is do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Santiago is on his way so he will wait a few minutes and then he should be here.

Do aye have a motion moved by. Was that Patterson? Patterson, second by Davies with that Committee secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar is up, but we'll leave it open for authors to add, or Members to add on. 1So we're going to go back and Members can add on to AB 41. Holden. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. No, never mind.

There is. Mr. Santiago, thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So today we're hearing AB 1231 by Assembly Member Santiago related to telecommunications combining lifeline, federal lifeline, federal affordable connectivity program subsidies. Assembly Member Santiago, you may open. And I think we have one primary support witness. So you would have four minutes.

Sure. And we'll be as brief as possible. If that's okay with the Chair, we'd like to present a Bill, AB 1231. And, Madam Chair, thank you very much for your working Committee's work to help us to make this a better Bill. And the short of it is what we're trying to do is we're trying to allow folks to have more access to higher gigabytes in order to be able to access more information as we're moving forward. And that's the General sense of it.

And the reason what we're going about this Bill is having the ability to continue the work that was done during COVID when the PUC allowed wireline and wireless customers to stack EBB benefits with federal lifeline. Today, we want to continue that to be able to give the best service to all consumers irrespective of their income status. We have one witness, Madam Chair, if that's okay with you.

Yes. Can I just clarify if you're accepting the Committee amendments?

Yeah. And I thought I started with that, so I apologize. Yes, of course. I would say the Committee's amendments.

Hi. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Danielle Perry and I'm the Chief Compliance officer for TruConnect. I also sit on the board for the National Lifeline Association and I chair the California Regulatory and Government Affairs Committee for NALA. I'm speaking today in support of AB 1231. TruConnect is the largest lifeline provider in California and the only provider based in California. We provide connectivity and mobile broadband to California lifeline participants through an agreement with our network partner, T Mobile.

We're pleased to provide this invaluable service to Californians. We've seen a dramatic increase in the amount of data consumers use monthly. And the COVID pandemic really highlighted the need for all consumers, regardless of income, to have access to more data for school, work, telehealth, and staying connected with friends and family. Congress recognized in 2022 that the digital divide was continuing to grow and pass the affordable connectivity program to help bridge that gap.

In fact, the FCC encourages states to allow for the combining of state and federal benefits so that consumers have access to the most data possible. They recognize that the more subsidies that can be combined, the more will aid Low income consumers and help close the digital divide. AB 1231 simply would allow Low income consumers to combine state lifeline, federal lifeline and federal ACP subsidies into one plan in order to be able to obtain the most robust voice and broadband service possible.

The Bill is needed because the CPUC has prohibited California consumers from combining their California lifeline and ACP benefits to maximize the amount of data they receive. The ability for consumers to combine all three benefits will provide them with robust data access. Our industry would like to provide these consumers with the best possible plans. Low income families can't simply afford large data plans. Combining all available subsidies will provide a more robust plan that will undoubtedly help to correct this.

We stand ready to help more lifeline recipients receive better plans by allowing consumers to combine their benefits. Thank you and I ask for your aye vote and I'm available to answer any questions as needed.

Thank you so much. Next, we're going to move on to additional witnesses and support in the room. You may approach the mic with name, affiliation, and position only, please.

My name is Lewis Morton and I live at the St. Francis senior community and I am here to say that I'm in support of AB 1231. Thank you.

My name is Willie May Walker. I'm in strong support of AB 1231.

Hello. Leslie Lewis, social worker with St. Francis Manor. I'm in strong support of AB 31.

Hello, my name is Gwen Aldridge Grant. I'm a retired state and state county and schools employee and I'm in full support of this Bill. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Anita. I'm a case manager with Sacramento Self Help Housing. I am also in support. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Sophia Simonkel. I'm also a case manager with Sacramento self help housing and I support.

Catherine Gillardi, complete support of this Bill. 1231. Thank you.

Suzanne Fox with acaps in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Glenn Runyon. I'm in support of the Bill.

Joel Taylor, I'm in support of the Bill.

Natalie Craigs, case manager with SSHH in support of the Bill.

Dr. Kenneth Green, case manager with Sacramento self help housing and Executive Director for Achievers Academy consulting group. Support of the Bill.

Isaac Ramirez, resident of Sacramento county and I'm in support of Bill AB 1231. Thank you.

Sorry. Sorry. My name is Dwayne Tuley. My name is Dwayne Tuley. I'm supported this Bill because I've seen homeless people on the street needing help for communication to use the phone and they don't have it. They need help and they need their phones. I've seen too many people. They need help with their drug addiction, their problems, they need a phone to use. They have to keep continuing this because it's life or death for some of these people. They just need it. Sorry.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Henry Ortiz. I'm the lead organizer for all of us who know the Sacramento chapter. I got some of our Members here who are unhoused and are in the fight, are in the fire. And on behalf of them and the community here, that continues to increase in the unhoused. We need these services for them because every government agency that's supposed to meet their needs, they want you to go online. Now, ever since COVID there's no faces.

There's people facing housing issues and nobody's answering emails. Nobody's answering to these people. And the only thing they got to communicate is phones. Let's uplift their constitutional rights, their human rights. And as a community, let's uplift the rights of our people here. My name is Henry Ortiz. All of us are Sacramento. Thank you.

Thank you. And name, affiliation and position.

Thank you. Hello, I'm Leilani Molina, and I'm with all of us. And I'm one of the people that are homeless and have been in the situation. And I've seen many times through the years when I was in nursing and seeing how people have been treated with, like, no phones or no communications and they can't get their medications. They can't do whatever they need to do. And so it's really important for everybody just to let you guys know. Thank you so much. We appreciate it.

Hello, I'm Corinne Tenille Washington Segala. I am part of the homeless community. Everybody's out there for different reasons, but we all have the same problems. Whatever. We're out there to get off of the streets. It's extremely difficult not having access to Wi Fi. It can make the difference between somebody being able to get off of the street and having to spend the rest of their lives on the street. I'm from Sacramento chapter.

Thank you. Thank you. And I appreciate you sharing stories. At this point. Please just say your name, affiliation, and your position if it's a support or opposed.

Craig Stevens. All of us are. None of us. And I'm in support of this Bill.

Good afternoon, chair. My name is Brother Kevin Carter. I am a co chair for the National Poor People's campaign. National call for more revival. And we are all in support court. Thank you.

Rashid Sadiq. R Sadiq Consulting and strong support. AB 1231.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of turn, we do have an oppose with suggested amendments. First of all, I want to thank the Committee and the author for adopting the amendment today. We think it makes the Bill much better, moves in the right direction. Turn's concern is really two or three issues. Number one, there is a proceeding at the Commission right now. We feel confident that the Commission will, in fact, adopt a stacking protocol and requirements.

So we want to make sure that this Bill would not prohibit the Commission from taking strong action that will protect consumers, number one, but also hold providers accountable. So we want to make sure that the plans are good and important and robust. So we need some additional definition. The one thing that we have seen when there was a pilot project is that some of the providers were not complying with some of the requirements.

So we had, for example, multiple providers who were allowed to participate in the stacking pilot project on the condition that they would have their federal plans approved or the plans approved at the federal level. We had more than one provider not follow through or not provide evidence of complying with federal requirements and having their plan approved.

And as a result, the Commission had to take lengthy and costly action to recoup some of the money that they actually did not qualify for because they had not satisfied the requirements of the Commission. So we want to make sure the way this Bill is drafted, this would allow for these providers to participate without a lot of these requirements.

So either the Bill has to be stronger or it has to be clear that the Commission does have the authority to put requirements and accountability on the providers and not simply a free pass to participate in the stacking process. So for those reasons, we are opposed. We look forward. We appreciate the communication that we've had with the author's office. Have a lot of respect for the author, work with him on a number of things.

If the Bill moves forward, we will continue to work with the author on this issue.

Thank you. Moving on, are there any additional witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? You may approach the microphone. Name, affiliation and position only. Seeing none, I'll return to the Committee for questions or comments. Motion by Davies, second by Rodriguez and Assembly Member Santiago. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you for helping us with the amendments which we accept, and we expect the conversation to continue also as relates to authority or non authority of the PC moving forward. So thank you very much for your hard work.

Thank you, Mr. Santiago, for your presentation, and thank you for working with us on amendments. I agree with you that the state needs to figure out a way to maximize broadband benefits for the public, and I think we heard that very clearly in the public support of the Bill. The PUC's decision for using California lifeline funds to supplement ACP plans is overly restrictive. I agree that it has the effect of unnecessarily restricting access for Low income folks, and there's room to make an improvement.

Thank you for bringing this before. It's much needed. As the analysis notes, the solution is not simple. The amendments, we agreed to create a path for expanding access for low income households while balancing the fiscal considerations. These amendments, in our read, do not expand the PUC's rate setting authority. And we are happy to keep working with the author and the sponsors as it moves forward.

I think we can get there and I encourage you to continue working on the best balance for the state and for the lifeline participants. I will be supporting your Bill. We have a motion by Davies, second by Rodriguez. The motion is AB 1231 by Assembly Member Santiago is do pass as amended and rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the secretary please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Members, AB 1231 has passed and we'll leave the roll open so that Members can out on their votes and. Okay, I think I see Ms. Aguiar-Curry, our last Bill of the day. Today we're hearing AB 316 by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry relating to vehicles, autonomous vehicles. Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry, you may open. I will say I have to step out real quick. My Vice Chair will take over after we get this going, and then I'll be right back up.

So, Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry, you can open. And you have two witnesses each, I think with two minutes each.

I'd like to request to use a prop.

Yes.

Thank you.

I did see your Chief of Staff come in with a large pole, and I was like, what are we doing here?

Thank you. Your area. That's right. All right, let's not knock that over. All right. Thank you. Chair Boerner and Members, I would like to thank you personally and your Committee staff for working so closely with our office, and I will be accepting your recommended amendments today. Members, you undoubtedly have heard many things about this Bill. The suggestion that it is a ban on testing and deployment of autonomous trucking is an attempt by some in this industry to mischaracterize and confuse.

There is absolutely nothing about having a human being in the cab of an otherwise autonomous vehicle that prevents the testing and deployment of the autonomous trucking technology. The goal of this Bill is simple. When an autonomous vehicle over 10,000 pounds is operated on a public road, it must be accompanied by a qualified human safety operator. To date, the only fully autonomous testing and deployment of autonomous vehicle technology on California's public roads has been with light duty vehicles in San Francisco.

Over 92 incidents with autonomous vehicles have prompted city officials to ask the CPUC to rein in the deployment of driverless autonomous vehicles. You can see on this map that the incidents cover downtown San Francisco and more incidents are being reported on a weekly basis. Meanwhile, the companies deploying the technology are insisting on and lobbying for expansion over and above local elected and local public safety officials' objections. In these incidents, driverless vehicles stopped suddenly, impeding traffic and causing accidents.

In others, they have blocked emergency vehicles, driven through emergency scenes, and drove away from police officers during a vehicle stop. More recently, one company operated outside the conditions allowed in their permit, and multiple autonomous vehicles drove past police tape and into downed utility wires. To date, their permit has not been affected by this incident. I believe this technology has great potential.

I do believe that, there is absolutely no reason to believe this experience won't be repeated in testing driverless trucks, but with vehicles that weigh an extra 76,000 pounds, drive at a higher speed and present an exponentially greater threat to the public. As the Member who represents a district laying between the Capitol and Bay Area, millions of people driving from home to work and back, and thousands of trucks moving goods from ports east and goods to the ports west.

I believe it is my responsibility to be and have the Legislature be the final step in agreeing trucking without any human operation is safe. We must also address the reality that autonomous trucking could decimate the qualified workforce before we find out what the employee needs are in the future are, resulting in a severe shortage of trained and capable workers to meet the future needs.

The requirement to have a human safety operator gives companies the incentive to help train and transition our trucking workforce as opposed to eliminating one of the most common jobs in California, 500,000 of our brothers and sisters working in the trucking industry cannot be an afterthought. We have already met and will continue to meet with the experts and stakeholders in trucking and trucking employment, technology, public safety, goods movement and logistics.

This Bill is a compromise between those who would prefer to ban these technologies and those who seek, often with enormous financial incentives, to neatly deploy as an yet unproven technology. While I have great respect for our public safety officials at DMV and CHP, I believe as the persons most directly accountable to our constituents for their safety and well being, we owe it to them to be a part of determining when the threat to the public is minor enough to remove humans from California. Trucking.

Receiving the results of research and reporting under the amendments taken from the Transportation Committee will allow a robust discussion in the late Legislature, when it is complete. A hearing will allow public transparency and debate. Members, please join me and over the 20 bipartisan coauthors of this Bill, US Representative Lee, Representative Porter, Representative Schiff and the mayor of London breed the local with the most experience dealing with automated transportation on her streets in protecting public safety in our workforce.

Passing this Bill will allow companies to test and deploy automated vehicles while providing a human backstop in the event of an emergency. Thank you very much. And I have supporters here with the Bill.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and the Members of the community. Good afternoon. My name is Trinette Grant and I am a Teamsters driver from Local 439. I'm here as a strong export of the AB 316 and for the past 35 years I have been a professional driver in the transportation and logistics industry. Being a truck driver is like playing chess. We all know how to play chess. We have to strategically plan our routes. It's always changing and you always need to be one step ahead.

Maneuvering vehicles of that capacity to get in and out of hazardous way, that it all takes human instincts. You can't do that with autonomous vehicle. I've experienced firsthand different technological changes throughout my 35 year tenure. Some of the changes have made my job easier and others have made it more of a hazard. Many times the implementation of the technology is not perfect and that actually cause roadway safeties.

Until we know new technology like driverless trucks, it is critical that we have trained drivers in the vehicle to take control in an emergency, to navigate inclement weathers and to steer clear of hazards that's in the roadway. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, as a driver, I'm also a steward of the road. I'm also a first responder of the road. I see things before they happened and react to them to help keep people safe.

For an example, a stalled vehicle, a stalled big rig, that driverless vehicle would not be able to assist. I was able to, example, stop the traffic and help that driver get to safety. In that particular instincts, a driverless truck would not be able to do that. This is not a new story, but a common story of what I've done over the past 35 years, and many of my fellow truck drivers do daily. We help others because it's our responsibility to keep the road safe.

Driverless trucks without an operator will not only take away these extra set of eyes, but it will also take away from our society. It eliminates not just a job, but it takes away from our family. Being a driver is a way of life. It allows me to provide for my family, good living wages, health care. Without drivers behind the wheel, we lose that as we look forward.

As the states start to testing and deploying these trucks, we need to ensure that the safety measures in place for not only the General public, families in which the trucks impact AB 16 is needed to safely and responsibly deploy autonomous vehicles. Over 10,000 pounds. Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation. I almost should just throw away my notes after Ms. Grant spoke because she basically said everything I was going to say.

I will just start by thanking the Chair and the Committee staff and the author for their hard work on this Bill, and just say that there are over half a million more professional drivers in this state like Ms. Grant, Who every day not only keep our economy running, but make sure that our roads, our highways, our ports, our public transit routes are safe. And the great thing about AB 316, in contrast to what the opposition is going to say, is that this Bill is additive.

It is not anti technology. It is not preventing autonomous vehicles from being on our roads. But it is saying we are going to take everything drivers bring to their jobs, the experience, the expertise, the training, the compassion and the instincts, everything that keeps us safe. With professional drivers, they're going to bring that and combine it with technology so we can figure out, is there a way we can move forward, making our roads safer and making jobs better? And so that is simply what this Bill does.

It says this is a technology. It is being installed by private companies into very large vehicles, including vehicles that carry passengers, including vehicles that may be carrying children to school, in school zones. We want to make sure they're the safest that they can be. And so we are very happy that the Legislature is taking this on to say, we are going to put guardrails on this. We are going to combine the expertise of skilled workers with technology.

We are going to have a point where there is oversight and data and make decisions from there. So we think it's a great Bill. We're honored to work with the Teamsters and Miss Grant and the author, and we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I understand we have lots of people who have opinion on this Bill, so I think those who are outside. Well, anybody in the room and support, please line up. Name, affiliation, and position, which is support? Opposed only, or you can have, I guess, support if amended, opposed, unamended or no position, but anyways, support or opposed?

Madam Chair and Members, Matt Broad, here on behalf of the California Teamsters and Amalgamated Transit Union, both co sponsors of the Bill, we urge your. I vote, and thank you for all your hard work on this measure.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, Matt Cremins, here on behalf of operating engineers local three and the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Anthony Samson, here on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association, in support.

Good afternoon. Ross Buckley, on behalf of Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, in support.

Hi, my name is Mike Arazo. I'm a teamster from Hercules, California, and I support this Bill.

Go bears.

Jimmy Thieson, Teamsters Local 315. I'm here to support the Bill.

Hello, my name is Edward Barton and I support the Bill.

Sal Medina, Teamsters Local 2785. I support the Bill.

Hi, I'm Alfredo Diaz, San Francisco, and I support the Bill.

John Johnson, local 856, in support of the Bill.

Good afternoon. Steve Loon, Teamsters local 986, in support of the Bill.

DK Lee from Teamsters 439. I support the Bill.

Rocio Richards, Teamsters Local 2010. And I support the Bill.

Hi, Ezekiel Little John, Local 439. I support the Bill.

Hi. Lonnie Richardson, local 2010. And I support AB 3116.

My name is Catherine Cobb. I'm Local 2010. I support the Bill.

My name is Gilbert Gomez, Local 439, and I support the Bill. Thank you.

My name is Demetri Austin, Local 439. We support the Bill.

Good afternoon. Robert Sandoval, Teamsters Local 350. And we support the Bill.

Hi. Florencio Sanogi, Teamster 665, and we support the Bill.

Good afternoon. Sergio Aranyaga, with Teamsters Local 350. And we support this Bill.

Hey. Apollo Wallace, Teamsters Local 2785. We support the Bill.

Good afternoon. Ty Perez, Teamsters local 856, in support of the Bill.

Howard King, local 315. Martinez. I support the Bill.

Good afternoon. Michelle King, local 315. I support the Bill.

Good afternoon. Robert Maddock, Teamsters 856 from Sonoma County. I support the Bill.

Good afternoon. Philip Javier, Teamsters local 2785 and I support this Bill.

Is Sadaravalo. Support the local 2785.

Clint Curtis, local 2785 San Francisco. We support the Bill. Thank you.

John Virgin over 30 year team serve local 150. I support the Bill.

Good afternoon my name is Rosangelica Padilla. A local 856, I support the bill.

Good afternoon, my name is Irmes Cueval. I support this Bill. Thank you.

Good morning, my name is Trinidad, my local is 856 and I support the Bill.

Hello. Albert Samora, teams for local a 56. I support this Bill.

Hi, Trish Suziki Blanchard of Teamsters Joint Council seven. And I support this Bill.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. Doug Supers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support. Thank you.

Otis hall, on behalf of Teamsters Local. 948 from beautiful Modesto, California and Visalia, California. We support the Bill. Thank you.

Luis Diaz, secretary treasurer. Team serves local 948. We're here also support this Bill. On behalf of all 6000 Members. Thank you.

Teamsters 856. Manuel Rodriguez. I support this Bill.

Hi. Maria Manso. I support the Bill. 318. Hi.

Yolanda Jimenez, Teamsters Local 856. I support this Bill.

My name is Kathy Palacio, Teamster 856, and I support this Bill.

Gizon Mihia, business agent out of Local 431, Fresno, California. And I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Javier Electora, local 856, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, fellow Committee Members. Nicole Trujillo Rice, on behalf of the. California State Building Construction Trades Council, in support.

Izzy Swindler. Rashaio Antwi, representing San Francisco. Mayor London Breed. Thank you, the author, for the earlier shout out in support. Thank you.

Thank you to all of our witnesses in support. I think some of you came from very far away and sometimes it's hard to come to the Capitol. So I appreciate that. Now we'll move to witnesses in opposition. We have two primary witnesses in opposition who may approach the desk. Chris Childs, retired CHP assistant Commissioner and Jeff Farrah, Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association. You each have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Chris Childs. I'm a native Californian and a recently retired assistant commissioner with the California Highway Patrol, with nearly 28 years of service to the people of this state.

Following my certification as a collision reconstructionist through both Northwestern University and the CHP's collision reconstruction schools, I spent several years as an investigator with the CHP's multidisciplinary accident investigation team. I responded to numerous multifatal collisions and saw firsthand the devastating effects caused by traffic crashes.

I've personally sat with grieving families at hospitals, courthouses, and in their homes as they grappled with the consequences of poor human driving behavior. In 2005, I responded with a team of reconstructionist to a fiery crash that killed three UC Berkeley doctoral students.

I wish this type of senseless loss of life was an isolated incident. Tragically, it is not. Less than three weeks ago, a chain reaction crash occurred involving a drunk driver in San Joaquin County that took the lives of four individuals.

This time, there were three students, this time from UC Davis. Coincidentally, these students are classmates of my youngest child, who also studies at UC Davis. Within three days of this crash, a Caltrans contractor worker was brutally killed by another drunk driver in the same county.

Think of the devastation these families must wade through. These types of incidents continue to occur at the hands of human drivers, and California can do better.

Following law enforcement executive leadership training at the FBI Academy in Quantico, I oversaw the CHP's regulatory responsibilities toward the autonomous vehicle industry in California. My team and I personally dove deep into AV issues on behalf of the people of this state.

We visited AV companies across California and over a period of years, developed a first hand, up close understanding of these incredible transportation advances.

It is my opinion that autonomous vehicle technology is safer than human driving and will play a critical role in reducing roadway injuries and deaths. The legislature should encourage regulators to evaluate the risks and benefits to the public as soon as possible, and then approve it for use when it has demonstrated that AV technology is safer than the status quo.

This is the path the legislature chose to follow 10 years ago, and in my opinion, as one tasked with evaluating safety under the law, the system has worked. Thank you for your time.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Jeff Farrah, and I am proud to lead the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association. I'm here today in strong opposition to AB 316 and want to emphasize several important points.

First, there is an epidemic of deaths on California's roads. Fatalities, including truck crashes, keep climbing. What California has tried has failed, and doing the same thing and expecting a different result will only lead to more needless deaths.

But that is exactly what AB 316 would do by effectively banning life saving technology in the State of California. Second, AB 316 continues to be an effective ban on this life saving technology. With no realistic pathway for Californians to benefit from autonomous trucks. There is no sunset, soft or otherwise, of the human safety operator requirement.

Instead, the amendments place new burdens on AV deployment. Californians would be denied life saving technology until the California State Legislature, and not experienced regulators, approve each individual company's permit.

That is what the amendment says. Third, supporters of AB 316 have shown zero evidence that AV trucks are unsafe or will cause mass layoffs of truck drivers. This committee is being asked to take action based on nothing more than speculation.

Fourth, AB 316 will upend a deliberate democratic process established by Senator Padilla's 2012 legislation that allows the expert regulators to evaluate the technology. As a result, California companies have invested billions and headquartered their operations here.

AB 316 is premature, as there are no draft rules from DMV and CHP, and the legislature will have ample opportunity to address any concerns it has with the draft regulations. Finally, and we should be very clear about this point, AB 316 will do nothing to impact any of the safety concerns that Members of this Committee might have with Tesla.

These are fundamentally different types of technology, and this should be noted. If AB 316 passes, California will cede its position as a leader in the development of autonomous vehicles to other states that are embracing this life saving technology at a rapid pace. I urge this committee to vote against AB 316, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? You may approach the microphone with name, affiliation, and position only.

Good afternoon. Chair and Committee, Andrea Devoe, on behalf of Aurora, in opposition.

Leah Barrows, on behalf of Chamber of Progress, in opposition.

Alex Torres, Bay Area Council, in opposition.

Andrea Coa with the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Morgan Roth from Motional, in opposition. Thank you.

Lia Nitake with Technet, respectfully opposed.

Cameron Dimitri with NetChoice, in opposition.

Peter Leroe-Muñoz with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, respectfully opposed.

Dean Tally with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association respectfully opposed.

Brady Van England, California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully opposed.

Aidan Ali-Sullivan representing Waymo, opposed.

Okay, thank you. I'll now return to the committee for questions or comments. Dr. Weber.

Thank you very much for bringing this bill forward and initiating this conversation. I didn't have questions before, but now I do. So the first question is to the author. You had a diagram up indicating accidents from autonomous vehicles. Were all of those vehicles from one particular company, Tesla?

No, numerous companies, and none of them were Tesla.

Okay. And then for the opposition, you said that this would essentially ban the use of autonomous vehicles, I guess, over a certain weight. How would it do that? How would this bill do that?

Thank you very much for the question. I think the first thing to note here is that the chart that I think is being referred to, these have nothing to do with AV trucks. We're talking about very different situations. In terms of my statement that this is an effective ban, the situation that we find ourselves in is we're talking about AVs that are able to drive themselves that would now have to have a human operator in them.

This is at a moment in time where states around this country are embracing AV technology because it is life saving. You can now, in interstate commerce, go from Arizona all the way to the shores of Georgia because these states have all embraced it, and they're doing it without any requirement that there be a human driver.

And so these companies that are investing in this life saving technology have to make decisions about where it is they're going to go and where it is they're going to invest.

How is it that they're supposed to continue to pour money into California? Keep in mind, these are California based companies. When there's a situation where you have to have a human in the cab of this AB to do absolutely nothing, this is not something that is even feasible.

We have a truck driver shortage in this country of 80,000 truck drivers. That's going to double by 2031. So it's not clear where it is these human safety operators are going to come from.

California, as I said, is going to continue to cede its leadership on avs because other states realize this is life saving. It will help with supply chain challenges. It will help to create jobs. And this is something that California is unfortunately going in the wrong direction on.

Do you have any studies, any research, any data that shows that this is safe at this point today without needing a human there just in case things go awry?

Assemblymember in fact, our AV companies have been testing on public roads for more than a dozen years. They have a remarkable safety record. If you think about the fact that the overwhelming amount of crashes in this country, whether from trucks or from cars, are from human error.

Why is that? It's because people text while driving. They drive drunk, they drive on drugs. They're fatigued. They're drowsy. They're being distracted by all sorts of other things.

Autonomous vehicles do not suffer from any of those situations because they are programmed to be a model driver. They have 360 degree visibility all around the entirety of the AB. They're able to grab into their information flows things that human drivers would never be able to absolutely obtain. And so this is something where the future is very bright in terms of safety for avs.

We are a strong believer that safety is at the core of everything that the AV industry does, and we're very committed to deploying these in a safe and effective way in California.

Yeah. No, I think for me, the challenge with comparing to human drivers on the road is that right now that's all we have. So you can't really compare apples to oranges if you don't have oranges there. So my question was specific to do you have the data?

Because I agree this is where we are probably going, and I do not want to shut the door, and I do not want these technology companies to leave, and I do not want to put a requirement that is only present here in California and not anywhere else in this country, because that, I believe will hurt us in the future. But this question is specific for today. Do we have data showing that these vehicles are safe without a human driver?

We do have that data, and I think this is something where the US Department of Transportation has said that autonomous vehicles are the future because they can ultimately make these much quicker decisions that they don't suffer from.

A lot of the situations I mentioned before, in terms of texting, in terms of drunk driving and whatnot, there have been studies out there that have showed that autonomous vehicles under simulation have been able to avoid something like 88 of 91 incidents where humans failed to ultimately not have an accident.

And so there's more information that we can put on the record. I will say that the effect of AB 316 will be to put California behind the eight ball.

The reason for that is because, again, these companies need to make decisions about where it is they are investing their resources, and they cannot, in good faith, be in a situation for at least six years. They are not able to operate in the way that they are prepared to do so and then ultimately not be able to deploy because the legislature decided not to allow it after that six year period.

If you have that data, please pass that on to my staff. I don't know if the bill will get out, but if it does, I'd like to see it before we get to the floor and vote on the final bill. The other question that I have and it's in the bill.

It says, notwithstanding paragraph one, if the application seeks approval for autonomous vehicles capable of operating without the presence of a driver inside the vehicle, the department may impose additional requirements. So there's something, this paragraph right here, does this still allow for the possibility in the future of AV vehicles without drivers?

We think that's existing law.

Okay. And is that going to be the same?

Yeah, through the Chair?

Yes.

Matt Brought here on behalf of the California Teamsters. We took language from the existing statute that authorizes light duty vehicles and just mirrored that for the heavy duty. So what you're referencing right now is already existing law.

So this will allow for, in certain circumstances, these autonomous vehicles to operate without a human driver under certain conditions.

Under this bill, if it's an autonomous vehicle, over 10,000 pounds. So a heavy duty vehicle, it would have to have a human safety operator on board for public roads.

Yeah. Yeah.

Private roads are not included.

Thank you. Do the opposition want to respond? Yeah.

Could I respond really quickly? Again, Matt brought here on behalf of the California Teamsters. We echo every concern they've made about roadway safety. I think our record as an organization, the Teamsters, speaks pretty strongly in terms of us wanting to make roads safer.

Our members are on the roads all the time. I want to just clarify that this bill does require a human safety operator. And if we're committed to trying to make roads safer, why not have the benefit of autonomous, see where it goes, but also have an extra set of eyes just in case something goes wrong?

We do know we're talking about 10,000 pound vehicles all the way up to 80,000 pounds. This isn't the passenger scale vehicles. There's inclement weather, as we mentioned. There's tire blowouts.

One thing that I think is often forgot about when we're talking about trucking specifically is we have tech companies that are selling these products, getting them out on the road. They're not trucking companies.

Trucking companies, and I know this from having, working with them, is that we have whole compliance departments within the CHP to deal with trucking compliance rules, because they don't always get it perfect.

And so when you're relying on a technology that's dependent on cameras, lidar, sensors, we just don't know what the relative safety or efficacy of the technology is. This is not a bill that says you can't test these on public roads. It doesn't say you can't deploy them.

It basically says, tech companies come back to the legislature, it's incumbent on you to demonstrate that your product is safer, and then we can take a good look at the human safety operator requirement.

But in the bill, there's no sunset date.

So under the structure, and these were amendments from the committee, essentially what would happen is 2029, or five years after deployment begins, the DMV would come back. They would do a study with the labor agency to look at workforce impacts.

Caltrans to look at infrastructure, CARB to look at environmental impacts, and they would present a report on the relative efficacy of the technology and the human safety requirement, a recommendation which would trigger an informational hearing.

And then the legislature would be able to remove the requirement by legislative authorization. And we think that this is a much better approach because it allows us to look at the data. With respect to these guys, they have their data. We also have our data that says it's not safe.

And so I think you could go either way. It would be better to have a neutral government agency, look at it, make that decision, and then you, as the legislature, can weigh in.

So what is your response to the possibility that if this is a hindrance, we may not have this data here in California because they may not choose to operate these vehicles in California? Where do we get that data from?

Well, with respect to that question, I think that there is data coming in from other states that the DMV could look at. I think under this bill, nothing stops the regulation from going forward.

So if you're asking me what do we do if we think the companies are going to take California hostage and not operate here because of this requirement, that's a different question. That being said, California is the center of where ports are.

Obviously, we have a huge trucking infrastructure here, half a million truckers in the state. I'm confident that if this bill passes, they will be able to deploy autonomous trucks. We'll get a really good sense of how the technology works, and we can come back and make that assessment.

May I make a comment? It would seem very strange to me that California would rely upon getting data from Texas or Mississippi or some other state when you're trying to make decisions out here. The other thing that is important to note is that you need California specific data.

The first step in autonomous vehicles is mapping. The entire domain of where the vehicles are going to go needs to be mapped. That is the first step of all of our member companies.

And so they are going to be mapping specific spots on I5, I10, the 405, so on and so forth. And so data that's taking place outside of Jackson, Mississippi, is just not going to be as relevant. And so you are going to be in a situation where companies are going to have to make decisions.

They are going to deploy resources in the southwest and the southeast and other places because those are the places that are embracing AV Technology. You will have shoddy data here.

The DMV and CHP will not be able to make an adequate recommendation. And then you've just lost over six years of time while more deaths are continuing to accumulate on California roads.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember Papan.

I thank Dr. Weber for her insightful comments. What it left me with is, at this point in time, I think this bill strikes the balance of where we should be, and I'm going to move with the bill.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from committee? Assemblymember Rodriguez? And then Davies?

Once again, I want to thank the member for bringing the bill forward. Obviously, I'm kind of torn between both of the things because my father was a 30 year truck driver, and the Teamster truck driver, for that matter. Right.

And as a kid growing up, seeing all the unique balances as not only a driver of vehicle, but of a truck driver, how huge those vehicles are, and the need that we do have some human control, so to speak.

You talk about the safety of automation, the Teslas. We're getting there within time. Right. But sometimes I think we need to take very cautious approaches. Just a few days ago, a Tesla car hit a fire engine that was on a freeway on the 680. The driver got killed.

And it sounds like, from what I'm reading, that it was on automated pilot. Right. That's what I'm hearing. I mean, I could be wrong. I'm just saying what I'm hearing. But the fact that it occurred and injured firefighters.

So I think it's going to take some time. We're going to get there eventually, but to be that's 100% fail safe, I'm still not 100%. I can say that. Yeah, it is, because things are going to happen. Different weather patterns, different parts of states, the severe issues of the floods, the snow and everything. It's a very unique course that we take with the automation. It's going to get there.

Obviously, it will within time, but I don't think we should rush it right away just because we need to really look at big safety components. Like I said, there's still been accidents with some of these vehicles driving on automated pilot. Right. Especially when it comes to emergency vehicles.

So you can't sit here and say it's 100% when we just had a vehicle accident not too long ago. And I'm sure there's others if you look into it as well. So I'm looking forward to supporting the bill.

Thank the member for bringing it forward, and within time, I think we'll get there. But I think right now, we still got to have that human component in there as well.

Assemblymember, as I said in my opening, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with Tesla. If your issues are with Tesla safety, Tesla has nothing to do with AB 316. This is an entirely different issue. If you all have a concern about Tesla safety, maybe a hearing on that topic would be appropriate. But this is not the bill.

Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember Rodriguez. Assemblymember Davies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I saw this in transportation a couple of weeks ago, and obviously something unique. But what I do is when I go to vote, I want to also make sure that I'm voting for my district and what their perspective is.

So we actually put a survey out to our district and said, would you feel comfortable without having a human behind the wheel of a truck or bus, a larger vehicle, or would you be fine?

And it came out to 117 said they would want a human behind it at this time. And 10 people said that they'd be fine without it. And I think that right now, especially, I look at it at the mobility as well as a public safety issue.

I have the district down in South Orange County and North San Diego, and if you know that area there, you have the ocean, and then you have Camp Pendleton, and all you have is the 5 freeway.

And if something happens on that five freeway, there's no way of getting around, and especially if there's a disaster. We've had fires at Camp Pendleton.

But my concern, too, is when you have a larger vehicle, such as a truck or a bus, and something goes down, maybe a flat tire, maybe the brakes go to something, and this is blocking entire freeway, what do you do? How long does it take to actually move something like this? It's not like a vehicle that we're going to be driving.

And so mobility, to me, is important. Public safety is important. And again, I think gives us the opportunity to find out what are the glitches when we're looking at large vehicles like this. How can we fix them so they don't happen? Again, I just think mobility, and I want to thank the author.

I said one of the things was important to us is that there should be a study and reports going consistently so that we know, how long did it take the CHP, if there was an encounter, how long did it take for the CHP to actually move the vehicle?

How long were people blocked up there? Just things like this. So we actually have the information so we can make good decisions at the end. Again, we see this moving forward down the line.

But I think right now I have to, again, public safety, mobility, and I will be supporting the bill and would ask me a co-author. Thank you.

So we have a motion by Popan. Was that a second, Ms. Davies? Second by Davies? Yes, sorry. Assemblymember Hoover.

Thank you so much. And I just want to start out by saying, I know this has been a very complex bill. I have tremendous respect for what you're trying to do here, and I do have some concerns, but I wanted to ask a couple of questions.

One of the opposition and then one potentially of the proponents of the bill and the author as well. Can someone talk a little bit about the current regulatory process for the implementation of these vehicles?

And if this bill did not pass today. What does the next 5 to 10 years look like? I think that's what I'm trying to get a better idea of.

Assemblymember, thank you very much for the question. It's an excellent one. As I noted in my opening, Senator Padilla's bill from 2012 set forth a very delicate process where the expert regulators with CHP and DMV would take a look at regulations that need to be put in place.

That's something that was very thoughtful for the Legislature to do. During that time, the light duty vehicle regulations have been in place, which is why you see a lot of the deployments that are taking place in various spots in California.

Earlier this year was the very first workshop that was held related to heavy duty with AV trucks. And so there was a public stakeholder environment where people able to come and share views. Our organization participated in that. That was the very, very first step. There are no draft rules.

There has not even been an announced second workshop that has happened. So that is something where we're very eager to see that take place. If the legislature wants, after an appropriate time of looking at the draft regulations and determines that they are not adequate or there is some piece missing.

You all have time to step back in and take a look at that. You also have the opportunity, obviously, to conduct very, very rigorous oversight over CHP and DMV.

This is all part of the healthy democratic process. But AB 316 steps right in the middle of that, kicks over the card table and completely puts again California behind the eight ball as it relates to AV trucks.

To the author. Yeah, I guess I was just curious, what does the proponents or the author feel? Is that process lacking? I guess.

Sure. Thank you, Matt Brought here on behalf of the Teamsters. We do feel like the process is lacking. I think that's why the author started with the presentation and said, this is where we've seen this, not just in theory.

We have regs out there for light duty vehicles, and it's going terribly, right. I mean, by all objective standards, it's not going well. We're talking about passenger vehicles in a very small, limited deployment, mainly in San Francisco.

And so we're saying we have lost, in my opinion, at representing the Teamsters. We've lost confidence in the DMV under the current regulatory package to be looking at what they need to be looking to deploying these safely.

Like we said, there's been numerous of these incidents in which not a single license has been suspended or revoked. And I would agree that we probably do need to do oversight there as well, but separate. And aside from that, again, we didn't do this bill to affect those vehicles.

We're talking about large vehicles, up to 80,000 pounds, whole different set of safety concerns. We don't have that margin of error that we have for passenger vehicles in relatively limited settings that we are going to have with respect to trucks.

Thank you. The second question I would have is another concern that I have with the bill is the shortage of truck drivers and potentially of safety operators for this to pass.

I think one of the other benefits of autonomous vehicles, besides I think the safety benefits, and I think this committee seems to be in agreement that eventually this technology is going to be the future, is the ability to expand commerce right in California, to expand economic opportunity, which is something that I'm very passionate about.

And so one concern that I have is this workforce shortage. If there is not a safety operator available, to be in these vehicles, assuming that these vehicles continue to operate in California and the technology is deemed safe by that point, what are we to do?

How is that going to affect our economy? And I think that's a concern that I definitely.

Absolutely. And we've done quite a bit of work. One of our big frustrations with the DMV through this process is that last year we worked together with the DMV on expanding commercial driver centers because we have people who want to start working in drivers coming out of Teamster apprenticeship programs.

They can't get tested fast enough. We have four centers for the entire state. Until last year, we had two commercial driver centers. We don't think that there's a trucker shortage. We think there's a good job shortage.

Obviously, you know, we have large employers. Our employers that are successful have no problem finding people to do jobs. And so I think it's a little bit of a mix of both. But we've said strongly to the DMV that instead of trying to regulate away truck drivers, we should be encouraging more people to get into the profession, putting them through apprenticeship programs and getting them in good jobs.

And I'll close. I know we need to move on. I guess my last question before I make a final comment. What does the opposition believe the economic impact of this bill will be?

The economic impact of this bill for California is going to be devastating. Number one, as you said, assemblymember, there's a massive economic opportunity here that's going to be lost.

California, in the port of Long Beach and Los Angeles, near where I grew up, it has lost a lot of its leadership and a lot of its luster to ports in the East. That's something that's very tragic. It's very detrimental in the long run to the State of California that I care deeply about.

Autonomous trucking is a way to solve a lot of these supply chain challenges that are out there. This is something that you all should be embracing, because the reality is California is the state that is best positioned to benefit from autonomous trucks.

The national leaders in this technology are California companies, but they cannot operate their own technology within California, nor will they apparently ever be able to do it if AB 316 is to pass.

Thank you. Just to close my comments, I don't think I'm going to be able to support the bill today. I appreciate what Ms. Davies had to say. My district actually has a lot of opposition to this bill. I have local chambers in opposition to this bill.

I also have one of my county supervisors, Rich Desmond, who's also a former CHP officer, in opposition to this bill. And so what I've heard from my locals is very concerning to me.

I'm struggling with this because if the opposition is correct and this does lead to a cooling off of the technology advancements in California, I think this is actually going to have really long term harmful impacts on public safety.

Because I think, in my opinion, the most dangerous thing on the road is the human. And I think that has been shown. We have those statistics and we want to reduce those, and I think we can reduce those by embracing technology.

My fear is that this bill will harm the advancement of that technology and ultimately be actually worse for the safety of our roads in the long term. And I guess my final point would just be that I also just want to close with saying I really appreciate the proponents of this bill sitting down with me.

I know when we spoke, I mentioned a potential sunset date. I know that that has kind of been resisted up until this point. I'd be happy to reconsider my vote on this bill if that were put in place at some point. My fear is, after reading through the Committee Amendments on this, it's just not a true sunset date.

It still requires the legislature to actively introduce a bill to change this in the future, and that is really the opposite of what a sunset would do. And so I'm happy to consider changing my thoughts on this as we move forward if a sunset date was added.

But at this point, I think a permanent bill to make this a permanent policy is something I'm not going to be able to support. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Low.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you very much for the author for allowing us this conversation. I know that we've exchanged conversations about this as well.

And also a letter that I also had sent along with the chair with respect to the rulemaking process to the Governor and Administration, and that you provided us this opportunity for a conversation.

First question is to that of opposition. Specifically, you had made comments with respect to the democratic process multiple times. This is a democratic process.

It is the obligation and also the authority of the legislature to make legislative changes in absence of the engagement for the administration and the balance of power. So we are operating in the democratic process. So I just want to reaffirm that point.

But specifically, there are a number of policy considerations as I'm hearing the discussion here. One is about that of the public safety issue, and I know that that's what the author has continuously said time and time again like a broke record for her.

This is about public safety specifically. But on the issue with respect to the elephant in the room. The elephant in the room is that of the replacement of work, the loss of jobs. That is fundamentally part of this conversation.

And so the question to the opposition is, for those companies that you represent, have you engaged with those in opposition to have a meaningful conversation about the future of work and the skill sets and trying to identify and real meaningful ways to help ensure that we identify the loss of jobs and those of union workers that we very much value in the state.

Assemblymember Low, thank you very much for the question and thank you for your leadership on a host of technology issues over many years. This is something that I care deeply about.

I've been engaged at a national level having dialogue about just this very question and the impact of autonomous vehicles and workforce. This is something where our view is that autonomous trucks are going to ultimately be a great thing for America's truck drivers.

And the reason why is that if you think of the nature of truck driving, this can be a very, very difficult job. A lot of times it takes people away from their families. It oftentimes involves very long hours being within the cab of a truck.

This is something where a lot of those long hours really are things that lend to a lot of the safety issues out there in terms of people falling asleep at the wheel and having other safety issues that are there.

Autonomous trucks are going to really kind of change the paradigm in many ways. If you look at a lot of autonomous truck companies, what they are talking about doing is something that sometimes is referred to as a transfer hub model or a hub and spoke model.

Where ultimately there are going to be depots that are going to resemble, in many ways our nation's airports, where you're going to have long haul trucking that can go between many of these depots.

These are things that are going to have significant environmental impact because they'll be able to maybe go over the evening time and not be subject to additional idling and traffic and whatnot.

And so this is something where a lot of that monotonous type of trucking can no longer be done by human beings, and therefore you get a lot of the safety benefit. What that means is you create more economic opportunities around the city centers that are there. And so you have more jobs.

In addition to that, you also have jobs for fleet technicians and logistics specialists and whatnot that are going to happen at a lot of these hubs. And so this is something where we would love to dialogue more with folks in labor, because we think that this is something that is going to benefit them as well.

And as I said, I have a passion for this because I believe it's the way of the future.

Clearly, you're passionate about it, but respect, that sounds like talking points. The specific question on honing in on the specifics, this is about the loss of union jobs and the fear of the loss of jobs.

So respect to the individual that is sitting next to you has the industry engaged in meaningful and fruitful conversations and talking about how this would also, the future of work also helps uplift union workers in that of addressing the fear of the loss of jobs from teamsters.

I certainly acknowledge the fear of loss of jobs. I don't think that that is what is ultimately going to happen. I think the first point is that, as I said, we have an 80,000 truck driver shortage in this country, and so we have a massive hole to dig ourselves out of before any truck driver's job is any fear of being lost at all.

But even in the situation where we wouldn't have that, we have the situation where we can create a lot more jobs. And we would be happy to continue to have conversations.

Just to answer, the conversations have not occurred thus far, is that right? I just want to hone in on that, if I might, through the trip. Just ask specifically.

Yes, we could have a yes or no answer to it.

I met the gentleman to my right at the Assembly Transportation Committee about a month or so ago, and we had a short discussion. I'm happy to have further discussions at any time.

I think that's part of the challenge that exists in which we're also observing with specifics to the fear and the loss of jobs and what that looks like, and that is well documented across technology and AI, this is just the tip of the spear.

So in the context of the loss of jobs, good paying jobs, that is very important. And as coming from Silicon Valley, I have not seen tech companies engage in fruitful, meaningful ways.

So I just might suggest that that would be something that I know I would like to see. Similarly, I have had an opportunity to get tours, multiple occasions in Waymo, and an aura in Silicon Valley. And I think the technology is incredible and fascinating.

It's the last thing that we as policymakers want to do in seeing a loss of life or an accident under our watch in which we allow for the technology and oops, there's been a mistake.

But there has been a rulemaking process that has been established, but very slow, to say the least. And that's part of this conversation in which, in absence of the administration taking the rulemaking process seriously.

We're left to the devices of the fear that we see, and an opportunity then to say, well, let's put the onus enforcing that conversation on the tech companies. And that's what we're seeing here play out very clearly.

So I just hope you'll interpret those comments to say in a meaningful way to address that of the hardworking union members and addressing the loss of job. That's very important. And then, if I might, through the Chair to that of the support and Teamsters.

The language that I understand is that with the amendment, it would be that specifically to appropriate funding, which then goes to the DMV report to submit a report, a legislative oversight hearing, and the one year wait to issue a permit. Is that acquire?

That's correct.

And to Mr. Brought, after this concludes and the rulemaking process and the oversight hearing indicates that this technology is indeed safe with the Teamsters, be in a position to support this technology.

When we look at it, we see it's all about getting rid of labor costs. That's what it's about. And we want to have meaningful conversations with them. We haven't had those conversations.

I think we could have a meaningful conversation about what that looks like. I think a lot of what you just experienced right here is what we're experiencing, which is we're talking about a technology that they will tell you is all about safety.

When we look at it, we see it's all about getting rid of labor costs. That's what it's about. And we want to have meaningful conversations with them. We haven't had those conversations.

I think that learning more and coming back and seeing what the data tells us will inform us about what sort of conversation we need to have. Short of that, it feels premature. To Mr. Hoover's question, one of the reasons we really grappled with the sunset is how do you pick a time frame that's not arbitrary.

Is it five years? Is it 10 years? Is it 15 years? We need to see the data and be able to make that assessment, and we just haven't gotten that yet.

We're open minded. Like, look, the name Teamster, we came from driving horses. We're not opposed to technology. We didn't run a bill that said no autonomous trucks. We could have run that bill. Instead, we ran a bill that said, okay, this is happening.

The administration plans to move forward with that. We understand that. We're cognizant that the world is changing. Let's make sure that it's done safely so we can learn.

And out of that, we may find out that the nature of trucking may change, but there could still be a job there at the end of the day. We don't know. To Ms. Davies point, we don't know what vehicle retrieval is like. We don't know how long that's going to take.

We don't know if we're going to need people in a cab to protect merchandise. We don't know if these things can be hacked. There's a whole host of concerns and issues we just don't know about.

And I think this bill threads the needle of getting these things on the road, getting them with people in there, so we can make it work efficiently, and then we can come back and have that conversation.

I appreciate the answer. I would interpret and conclude that this is fundamentally a proxy. When we're talking about public safety, it's really about the loss of jobs fundamentally. And it is important then to acknowledge and address from support and opposition on what that issue really is all about.

And I would also suggest that if we look at that of the financial market currently in Silicon Valley, these companies are not making money. And money is not just completely endless.

And part of the challenge that we also face with creating an economic climate in California to support innovation is that these things will take time. And if we continue to put up barriers in this market, we may not have the opportunity to utilize and talk about those conversations with the future work and teams are because the technology will completely go under.

In fact, some of these companies have already gone close to a decade already in terms of the funding, and this is not unlimited. So part of that challenge exists of the sunset language.

And how do you find that commonality addressing that of the public safety issue, which we all agree upon, and then also the future work, loss of jobs, and then what do we hope to see with respect to innovation in the State of California. And this is perceived in the market at home as anti innovation and does not provide confidence in the market specifically.

So I think that's where we're trying to figure out how to address the commonality of public safety while also supporting the innovation economy that also exists, too.

So in any case, as is before us right now, I'm not able to support the bill, but I'm looking forward to the continued conversation that I know is in very earnest discussions with the author.

Thank you, Assemblymember Low. I think Dr. Weber had a comment.

Yeah, I just wanted to piggyback off of my colleague, Assemblymember Low. Again, I don't know what's going to happen with the bill and the committee or even on the floor, however, if it does make it through.

What I would hope and actually expect is that over these next few years, that there are discussions between the Teamsters and these varying innovative companies as to how you can transition into the future.

Because the last thing that I would want is for us to get a report in six years. Yeah. That says that this is safe and we're right back here at the same point. Right. And we have not trained the current workforce to evolve into what is coming. Not what may come, but what is coming.

So I would strongly hope that if this past, there are serious conversations about how we won't have a loss of jobs, if anything, increase in the workforce at the same pay level, if not more, and all of the compensations that people get through the unions.

But I would hate for us to be in the same position in 6-7 years where we know that these vehicles are safe. But now we're worried about a huge loss of jobs and we have this opportunity to not be there, to be in a better place where we can advance and those who have these jobs can go with it. So thank you for bringing that up, and I just wanted to echo that point.

Thank you. Do we have more people that want to speak? Assemblymember Rivas.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the author, the committee, and the Committee Chair for spending a lot of time on this bill. And I've had some concerns, mainly about changing the current process, which I know people have talked about for AV.

I was an engineer, and when I started my career as an electrical engineer, I worked in automotive electronics.

And they had just ended a project, and it was a long time ago, and they had just ended a project that was related to autonomous vehicles and had several failures, and it wasn't the right time back then. I think for this company, but just heard a lot about my colleagues.

And sometimes I think when you're in technology, I just remember the feeling you wanted it to happen right away or fast, because we get excited as people in technology and in engineering, but sometimes it's not the right time. Right. And I think that's the balance.

And I feel that in order to oppose, if I were to oppose this bill, I'd have to believe that this is life changing technology. And I wasn't convinced that this is. We don't have the data. We haven't done enough testing. Right.

We can't just say this is life saving technology. And I'd have to believe you, and right now, I don't, and it's not that I ever will. I'm definitely supporting the bill. I think if I thought when Assemblymember Davies talked about her survey, I think if I were to do the same, I think almost 100% of my constituents would want me to support this right now.

I think I'm more about technology than they are, but also because we have many workers that drive trucks in my district, maybe Teamster members and the labor concerns are an issue, too, right. On saving these jobs.

And I definitely want, because of the process changing. And I know sometimes we arbitrarily choose sunset dates. I know that we continue to work on this as it moves along the process, but I will be supporting the bill. Thank you.

Any other comments, questions from the committee? We've had a robust discussion. I thank everybody for being so open and patient with that. We have a motion by Papan, a second by Davies. Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry, would you like to close?

Sure. First of all, I want to thank the opposition on the bill, and I want to thank all my Committee Members for having this conversation. There is no doubt about it. The first thing I ever think about is, quite frankly, safety.

When a young child comes up to me and says, what's your job? And my job, safety. Whether it's lights or roads or if it's fire departments or whatever, it's all about safety. And so safety comes to mind first and foremost.

But we're talking about workforce, right? And I think it's really important, and it was really enlightening to me that we haven't had a discussion how we're going to transfer maybe our workforce or help them when and if the time comes that these autonomous vehicles are on the road.

I love technology. Everyone in this building knows I love technology. This just isn't the time for it. And I want to remind you that the legislature can act at any time to remove the requirements on this.

So if it moves along quicker, so be it. And I hope it does. But the fact of the matter is that in some of the places that are being tested, they're not testing them, thank God, in downtown San Francisco or our metropolitan areas.

They're testing them in more remote areas where the roads go straight for a longer period of time. We don't have enough data. I think we all agree with that, and the academic experts even say that we don't have enough data.

So I just think that we are going to get there. I think all of us in this room know we're going to get there, and we'll be happy to help you handhold all of us to get there. But I also don't want to lose any jobs, and I want to make sure that many of my good friends own trucking companies, and this would be detrimental to a lot of my families in my rural districts.

So with that being said, I simply ask for your aye vote, members. The times are changing. We're going to have to change with it, but we have to take incremental steps. Thank you.

So thank you, Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry, and thank you for agreeing to the amendments. I appreciate you and the sponsor's engagement on the amendments. And I think, as I've said through the entire process, I believe we're in agreement around a lot of the concerns underpinning your bill.

In the near term, these heavy duty AVs are not really ready for deployment without a human safety operator. We need rigorous testing, we need benchmarks before there's confidence in the public for this technology.

And I think that's in the interest of the AV companies as well. If I were running an AV company and I had an autonomous heavy duty vehicle that hit a car and killed a baby, we are setting back the entire AV industry in this state by decades.

And so it's in the interest of the AVs, I think, to have a human safety operator in the near term. In the long run, I think many of us agree that technology may be safer than human operated vehicles.

And again, we need the rigorous testing and verification about that technology in many scenarios. I think what we have is a midterm problem. If these technologies work, we have to ask ourselves, what is the process to prove that they're ready?

And I believe our amendments are laying out the path for eventually getting deployment.

If the technology proves to be safe in California in the midterm, there will be reporting, there'll be testing and continued assessments to address all the impacts these technologies will have on society, both on safety and if you noticed in the report on jobs. My position on AVs is generally very optimistic.

I was actually promised AVs were going to save the planet and make sure that my daughter, who's now 12 when she turns 16, never has to drive. And they're clearly not there yet.

We should all be afraid of that. Sorry, Maya. And I really want this bill to reflect the possibility that we get there. I also want to leave a future legislature because I may not be here when this report comes back.

I want to leave a future legislature with the data and the process to make an educated decision with objective data. And that is really important to me.

I think about all my new colleagues who've come in, who are going to be the ones likely that we'll be seeing and making these decisions in the future. And I want to leave them a path that is objective and independent as possible.

And so I don't believe any of us are in favor of an outright ban. And I don't believe this does that. You come back with the data, you show it's safe.

There's a path for you if we want to see these technologies tested safely as we move to potential deployment. I want to thank you again and your staff to Ms. Aguiar-Curry and the sponsors for working with the committee on this bill.

We have a motion by Papan, a second by Davies. The motion is AB 1316 by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry is do pass as amended and rereferred to the committee on appropriations. Will the secretary please call the roll?

Bernard Horbeth. Aye. Bernard Horbeth. Aye.

[Roll Call].

Members, AB 316 has passed and we leave the roll open so that Members can add on to their votes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay. Committee Members who still need to vote on bills, we're going to go back to AB 41. Secretary, do I have to repeat the motion? Okay. Please call the roll for the absent Members.

For AB 41: [Roll Call].

AB 41 is out. Ten ayes, two noes. Let's lift the call on the remaining bills. Secretary, please call the roll for the absent Members.

AB 965: [Roll Call].

Okay. That bill is still out, and we're just waiting for Ms. Schiavo, who's on her way here.

For AB 1231: [Roll Call].

Maienschein, you need to come back.

Consent calendar is AB 296 and 415. [Roll Call].

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

AB 316: [Roll Call].

AB 316 is out, ten to one.

AB 965: [Roll Call].

AB 961: 13 to zero. I'm sorry, that was AB 965, 13 to zero.

AB 1231: [Roll Call].

AB 1231: 13 to zero.

Consent calendar. This is AB 296 and AB 415. [Roll Call].

Consent calendar is out, 13 to zero. Thank you. Oh. And the hearing is adjourned.