Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Good afternoon and welcome, everybody. The hearing room is open for attendance of this hearing and it can be watched from a live stream on the Assembly's website. We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the Committee website. Note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted.

We will allow two minutes each for two primary witnesses in support and in opposition, and these witnesses must testify in person in the hearing room and know you cannot give your time to somebody else. If you're one person, you get two minutes. Two people, you each get two minutes. If you're one person, you still only get two minutes. Additional witness comments will be limited to your name, organization, and position, and those comments can either be in person or the telephone.

We'll start with the Members of the public who are here in the room, then move to the blended phone line. To use our telephone service, the number to call is 877-692-8957 and the access code is 185-1100. Finally, 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 this 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 allotted, extended discussion of matters not related to the subject of the hearing, and other disruptive acts. To address any disruptive conduct, I'll take the following steps. If an individual disrupts our hearing process, I'll direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruptions may result in removal from the building. We will document on the record the individual involved in the nature of the conduct.

We may have to recess the hearing temporarily. If the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the building. I thank you for your cooperation and with that, we will begin our hearing. We do not have a quorum at this time, so we will begin as a Subcommitee until such time as we have enough Members to actually vote on things. We're going to have seven bills on our consent calendar today.

AB 1188, AB 902 AB 1594, AB 1626, AB 1735, ACR 7 and ACR 38. Okay, we're going to hear a whole bunch of bills. We're going to start as a Subcommitee with AB 73. Tasha Boerner, please come up. Now that it's no longer a three words, I'm having trouble with it. Can I just say it the old way? You may begin when you're ready.

Section safer for bicyclists, drivers, and pedestrians by allowing bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs when approaching an intersection. Specifically, the bill would allow individuals 18 years or older to yield when approaching a stop sign at an intersection. It would also make it a six year pilot. We need CHP to have enough time to evaluate the program and give back a report. Limit the stop as yield to two lane roads. So that's one road in each direction with stop sign in all corners.

So all only stop sign controlled intersections. Add that miners who fail to stop at a stop sign will get a warning ticket for the first offense. Vehicle code 2184 already provides legal, clear definition and expectations for those required to yield at intersections. And I really want to hone in on this point. This is about yielding, not blowing through the stop sign, not rolling through a stop sign. We have lots of different names. This is yielding, which is defined in law.

And under this code section, the driver of any vehicle, including bikes, approaching an intersection with a yield sign must yield the right of way to any vehicle and pedestrians have entered the intersection. AB 73 uses this common understanding of a yield sign to allow cyclists approaching an intersection with a stop sign to slow down and yield to any cars and pedestrians already at the intersection.

If safe to do so, and only if safe to do so, cyclists can then proceed through the intersection without making a complete stop. And this is kind of counterintuitive, I recognize. I think I've spoken to most of the Members on the Committee. It's counterintuitive. But when bike behavior, safe bike behavior, becomes predictable for drivers, everybody is safer, and you have fewer bike-car collisions. A study out of Delaware showed a 23% reduction in bike car collisions once this law went into effect.

The goal of AB 73 is to make bicyclist behavior predictable for drivers when they approach an intersection. And all roads need to be safe for all road users. I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Today, I have two primary witnesses in support of the bill. They will be introducing themselves. We have Alan Wachtel, on behalf of the California Association of Bike Organizations, and Mark Vukcevich, on behalf of Streets for All. Okay, go ahead, Alan. Would you like to go first?

Thank you, Chair and Members. My name is Alan Wachtel. I'm the Legislative Director of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations, which is the Association of California's Bicycle Clubs. I've been a bicyclist all my life. I have been a transportation consultant for over 30 years, and I have even drafted some of the language that you might find in the vehicle code. On behalf of our board and members, I'm providing this comment in support of AB 73.

This change to the California vehicle code will serve to make bicycling in California more convenient, a more likely choice for travel, and safer by helping to provide predictable behavior at intersections. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Marc Vukcevich, Co-Director of State Policy for Streets for All. We're an organization that advocates statewide for safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation, and we're a proud supporter of this bill. And I'll also mention that I'm also someone who rides a bike, started back in my UCSB days. We support this bill because it decriminalizes safe biking behavior while keeping dangerous intersection behavior against the law.

I can tell you that 10 states so far have adopted this policy and the sky has not fallen, actually showing that injuries have gone down by double digits in places that have adopted this. I can also tell you that the intersection is the most dangerous part of the road, according to traffic engineers. And the longer time that I spend in the intersection because I'm trying to accelerate from a full stop, the more danger I am in.

But what I want to share with you is what this looks like on the ground. Why do bicycle riders not stop at stop signs? Is it easiness? Is it reckless abandon? Is it disregard for the law? It's about the physics frankly. Bicycles are incredibly efficient machines. From mechanical viewpoint, up to 99% of the energy delivered by the riders into the pedals is transmitted to the wheels. Compared to cars, it's about 20% of the gasoline turns into momentum in the wheels.

And according to UC Berkeley physicist Joel Fasians, completing a full stop at every stop sign is physically demanding and prohibitive. Bicycles, in an ideal world, and that's what this bill is going for, should slowly approach at intersections. When I ride my bike through an empty intersection, I'm going about seven miles per hour. When there are cars, I slow to probably even less than 2 miles per hour. I'm barely moving, but still moving.

The problem is that the current regime of the law stops people who are teaching safe riding, or even police officers, from clarifying the distinction from what a safe yield is versus what is actively blowing through a stop sign. This stops even the police officer from advising a cyclist, even a kid who knows more about riding a bike than they do, from advising what is dangerous versus what is safe.

We need enforcement to address people oftentimes on their cell phones, blowing through stop signs with abandon, potentially causing collisions. We need that enforcement but that will continue to remain in common practice if we can't offer them a practical and safe alternative like the Idaho stop. I ask for your support on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to voice their support for AB 73?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Moira Topp, on behalf of the City of San Diego, in support.

Jonathan Clay, on behalf of the City of Encinitas, in support.

Thank you. Is there anybody here to testify in opposition? Okay. Seeing none. Is there anybody wishing to come up to the mic to say you're opposed? Okay. Now we'll go to the phone lines for testimony both in favor of and opposed to AB 73. Operator, if you could open up the phone lines for AB 73.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero. And we're going to first go to line 39.

Good morning. Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Crystal Kudos on behalf of the City of Los Angeles in support. Thank you.

Now move on to line nine.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

I'd like to voice my opposition to this. The stop sign is a stop sign. It's quite clear. We have a lot of aggressive bicycles in my neighborhood.

Just name and your position, whether you're for or against it. Okay.

There is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Okay. Thank you very much. Now we will go to the Committee for any questions, comments. Yes.

Can we make a motion to move the bill or not until we get.

You can make it, but we can't take a vote right now. Well, I want to thank you so much for authoring this bill and for continuing this fight. I think this is a very important piece of policy in terms of making our streets safer for all of the users of the road. I want to thank you and your witnesses for articulating why this is counterintuitively safer for cyclists. Since Governor Newsom vetoed this bill two years ago, additional states have made this into law. Now we have nine states that have brought this policy into their states.

More importantly, NHTSA and its Director have come out in support of stop as yield as a safety benefit for cyclists and have encouraged states to pass laws like this one. The US overuses stop signs as a traffic calming measure. It's really hard for cyclists to come to a complete stop and then start again safely. And just physically, it just takes a lot of energy for the person who's riding. It's also not the safest modality for cars.

It's really easy for people to go through them, they tend to ignore them or roll them a lot. Things like roundabouts tend to work a lot better to prevent accidents while slowing traffic down. So we really need to rethink the way that we do traffic calming in this country. Also, it wasn't said. I don't think it was said, but coming to a complete stop can also lead to a cyclist being rear ended.

So there are times when you may want to keep moving because you got a car that's driving like a jerk behind you. So I really appreciate your pushing back against a multi city pilot as well, which I think would be confusing to cyclists. I think that that addresses some of the concerns that we've heard. And so I hope that as this moves forward, that the Governor signs it this year. And I would requestfully ask to be a joint author of this measure. Okay, Assembly Member Boerner, would you like to close?

I welcome you as a joint author. That means a lot to me for the Chair of Assembly Transportation to be a joint author. I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you so much.

We still do not have a quorum. When we do, we will take a vote on the bill. Thank you very much. Okay, next up we have Assembly Member Dixon. You are here with AB 256, and you can proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm here today to present on Assembly Bill 256. AB 256 will delay enforcement for driving with an expired vehicle registration for 30 days after the registration becomes delinquent. Currently, the average cost for registering a vehicle in California is $289, which is a 66 percent increase over the last six years. Vehicle registration fees and taxes increase yearly to reflect current inflation.

With inflation at a 40-year high and the cost of living only increasing, it is vital that we lessen the burden on families and individuals that are incapable to pay on time. Transportation is essential for many Californians, and living in fear of their vehicle registration costing even more due to potential enforcement on top of their late registration is potentially burdensome. This is already policy for California Highway Patrol, who leads on the issue. However, not all enforcement agencies are following this.

AB 256 will make this standard for all traffic enforcement agencies and provide a much-needed safeguard for low-income families and individuals. I do want to note today I spoke with the opposition California Highway Patrolmen. We discussed the amendments that were taken, and we will be working together to clarify that these amendments mirror their internal policy. With this, they have notified me that they will no longer be in opposition, pending confirmation that the language follows their internal policy. I would like to thank Madam Chair for her support on this bill, and I could answer any questions you have at this time.

Thank you very much. I have no one signed up to speak in support. Is there anybody in the room who wishes to testify in support of the bill? Okay, seeing none, do we have any witnesses here in opposition? Okay, would anybody like to come up to the mic to voice their opposition? Okay, we will open up the phone lines. No? Yes. I saw--nobody? Okay, we'll open up the phone lines for testimony for and against AB 256. Operator.

Madam Chair, for those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one then zero. Press one then zero only one time as pressing one than zero a second time will remove you from the queue. And Madam Chair, no one has signaled that they wish to speak.

Okay, we'll go back to the Committee. Well, I want to thank you for bringing the bill forward. These stops are unnecessary. There are a lot of times when people are just waiting for their registration to show up in the mail, or like me, they just keep forgetting to put it on their car but they've paid their registration.

I appreciate the California Highway Patrolmen's concerns about the fiscal impacts to the motor vehicle account, but I appreciate that you removed the provisions of the bill eliminating late fees for the first month. I don't believe that the policy that, as it now stands, will negatively impact the MVA because the bill is already consistent with what CHP is already doing, which is to not ticket people the first month that their registration has been expired. So I'm happy to support the bill today. When we have a quorum, we'll ask for a motion. Would you like to close?

Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you so much, and thank you, Members, and I ask you for your aye vote. I appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Assembly Member Connolly, you are up next. You're here with AB 99. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair and Members. A pleasure to present on AB 99, which would require the California Department of Transportation, better known as Caltrans, to develop and adopt a statewide policy that uses integrated pests management in cities and counties that have restricted the use of pesticides locally. This statewide policy would also prohibit the use of pesticides except in specified circumstances, such as wildfire risk, to control invasive pests, or when no other means of pest control are found to be effective.

Finally, AB 99 also requires Caltrans to make publicly available their pesticide use as well as notification of when they intend to spray pesticides 24 hours in advance. Members, the goal of this bill is to rein in pesticide use by Caltrans in areas where local governments have restricted their own use of pesticides.

Pesticides, which is an umbrella term that includes herbicides and insecticides, are substances that are meant to control pests but are quite harmful to human health and the environment. In light of the harms of pesticides, a number of local jurisdictions have adopted IPM approaches. In some locals, there are complete bans on glyphosate. Even though local government has taken such actions, they have no authority over Caltrans, who have jurisdiction over the management of state highways.

This bill would bring Caltrans' vegetation management operations in line with local action in counties and cities that have already taken action to either ban or restrict pesticide use locally. I should note that Caltrans technically do have a policy in place to use integrated pest management that prioritizes the least harmful methods, but it does not appear to have resulted in any meaningful reduction in pesticide use. As a matter of fact, on Caltrans' website, glyphosate is indicated as the primary tool used for roadside vegetation management.

This bill would add additional guidance to Caltrans on when the use of pesticides is permissible. With me to testify in support of this bill are Megan Cowen with Healthy Highways Coalition, and Sonoma Safe Ag Safe Schools, and Patty Clary with Californians for Alternatives to Toxics.

My name is Megan Cowen. I'm a civil engineer and mom of two. I come with these diverse perspectives to explain why Sonoma Safe Ag Safe Schools and the Healthy Highways Coalition support AB 99. This bill would reduce unnecessary pesticide use and its associated costs. In my community, we have borne the cost of Caltrans' heavy reliance on pesticides, costs that are not included in the state budget. Yes, there are extensive costs to human health and the environment, but there are also costs of accidental exposure.

Caltrans sprays during rush hour and on weekends with documented exposure to motorists and bicyclists. There are the costs of property damage. Caltrans sprays past property lines, damaging crops, jeopardizing organic certifications. I work with community members living along state highways with alarming levels of glyphosate in their bodies and parents who are scared to open their windows in the spring because Caltrans spraying increases their kids' asthma and rashes. In Sonoma County, Caltrans has not historically taken responsibility for these costs.

Our local cities and counties have found ways to reduce pesticides, but it seems moot when Caltrans sprays unnecessarily toxic mixtures on our roads. As an engineer, I see the downsides of Caltrans operations that specify pesticides as a primary tool. I've analyzed Caltrans spray data and I know that in Sonoma County, they use 20 to 30 times more pesticides per road mile than Sonoma County's TPW.

I know that Caltrans' pesticides use increases soil erosion that clogs culverts and leads to sinkholes, which are huge safety issues and expensive. This situation has been worsened by the increase in large storm events. The Florida DOT has done extensive testing on what they call pollinator highways that keep desirable vegetation on roads to minimize costs. These reduce maintenance costs by 30 percent while increasing ecosystem services that pollinate crops, clean air and water, and stop invasive species by $500 million annually. Thank you for this hearing today. I respectfully request an aye vote on AB 99.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of this Transportation Committee. My name is Patty Clary. I'm the Director of Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, a regional organization based in Arcada. My background in integrated pest management, or IPM, includes 21 years as a Member of California Caltrans's District One Vegetation Management and Alternatives Committee. Last year, Caltrans used 420,842 pounds of herbicide to clear vegetation adjacent to its highways. But in Humboldt and Mendocino counties, that figure was zero.

At the request of county supervisors, cities, and tribal councils, Caltrans has restrained from using herbicides in these two counties since 1989. We estimate in the 34 years since, Caltrans has applied 12 to 14 million pounds of herbicide throughout the state. In one county, with 183 miles of state highways within its borders, 14,372 pounds of herbicide were used at a rate of 92 pounds per highway mile.

In another, where the county uses IPM with very infrequent herbicides, 6,341 pounds were used along 257 miles of state highway, or 24.7 pounds per mile. In other counties, the rate was 42 pounds, or 12, or 39, or 24.7 pounds per mile. And so on. This dysfunction and unsafe management would be cured by IPM as envisioned by AB 99. Two international organizations in many US states continue to develop IPM for right of ways. Caltrans would become a leader in this effort. IPM practices are successful in Humboldt and Mendocino counties, and several were identified by the District One Caltrans Committee.

Your time is up. If you can just finish up real quick.

I urge you to vote in favor of AB 99 and the modernization of Caltrans. It would bring with a practical IPM policy. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the room who'd like to come up to the microphone to testify in support?

Christina Hildebrand, on behalf of A Voice for Choice Advocacy, we strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Paul Yoder, on behalf of the Napa County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Zach Accardi at NRDC, Natural Resources Defense Council here in support.

Ruth Butler, California Against Waste in support.

Thank you, Chair, Members. My name is Noah Whitley. On behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, we're in support.

Piper Primrose, with Non Toxic Schools in Marin County, in support.

Thank you. Is there anybody here to testify in opposition? If so, okay, are you testifying? You can come up to the microphone.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm here to clarify a position on the analysis on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District we were listed in support. Unfortunately, we do have an opposed, unless amended position which is what we registered with the Committee officially. So I just wanted to clarify that and say we have been able to work closely with the author on our suggested amendments and hope to continue to do so. Thank you.

And then if the opposition witness wants to speak, you have two minutes if you'd like to be the primary witness.

I'll be very brief. Anthony Molina. On behalf of the California Seed Association and the California Grain and Feed Association, we are in opposition. But we want to thank the Member and we plan to continue to work with them throughout the process. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify in opposition?

Good afternoon. Chris Reardon with the California Farm Bureau. We too oppose AB 99 but look forward to continued discussions with the author.

Okay, thank you. With that, we will open up the phone lines for opposition and support. Sorry. For testimony in support or opposition for AB 99. Operator, if you can open up the phone lines.

Thank you. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero at this time. Press one, then zero. We're going to go first to line 47. Your line is now open.

My name is John Bodorf with CleanEarth4Kids.org, strongly support.

Line 52. Pardon me, line 52, please press one, then zero again. Line 51.

Hello, my name is Matt Simmons from the Environmental Protection Information Center. We strongly support AB 99.

Line 52. Line 52, your line is now open.

Yes, this is Elizabeth Mosley. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, I'm Elizabeth Mosley and I'm with the North County Climate Change Alliance and I strongly support AB 99 requiring.

Line nine, your line is now open.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, I guess I'm still not. Nancy Okada, Sustainable Ross Valley in support of this bill. Thank you.

Line 15.

Suzanne Hume, CleanEarth4Kids.org, strongly support.

Line 49.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Baskins on behalf of American Pistachio Growers, Western Plant Health Association, and other Ag organizations in opposition. Thank you.

Line 56.

Joel Schulman, Poison Free Malibu located in Los Angeles County which already bans collectively on county property. In support.

Line eight.

Good afternoon. Matthew Allen with Western Growers, also in opposition.

Line five.

Good afternoon. Doug Johnson with the California Invasive Plant Council, a nonprofit environmental group. And we have concerns that we submitted in a letter but we'll continue to work with the author's office. Thank you.

Line 22, your line is now open.

Yes, this is Chance Katrana with the Resource Renewal Institute. I'm calling in strong support of AB 99. Thank you.

Line 55, your line is now open.

Good afternoon, my name is Kimberly Baker calling for the Klamath Forest Alliance and we strongly support AB 99.

Line 18, your line is open.

Good afternoon, this is Julie Royce of Pesticide Free and we are calling in strong support. Thank you.

Line seven.

I am a cancer patient calling in support of AB 99. How can I work so hard to protect my health when my taxpayer dollars are being used to harm it? Please mow rather than spraying toxic.

Okay, thank you.

Line 27.

Hi, this is Kathleen Downing, a professional landscaper and gardener along Highway 84, Highway 35, and highway one. And I'm in strong support of AB 99.

Line 44, your line is now open.

This is Larry Glass representing safe alternatives for our Forest Environment in Trinity County and the North Coast Environmental Center in Humboldt County. Strongly in support of AB 99.

Line 24.

Hello, my name is Lendry Purcell. I'm with families advocating for chemical and toxic safety. We represent children and families around the state in strong support.

Line 13.

My name is Brian Lilla. I'm a resident of Napa County and I am in favor of AB 99.

Line 42.

Kirk with drone, Audubon Society and PauLA Lane Action Network, thanking the author and the advocates in very strong support. Thank you.

Line 54.

Hello, Bill Allio for the Environmental Working Group in support.

Line 19.

Hi, my name is Theodore Rutledge, Jr. I live in rural San Mateo County and I'm calling in strong support of AB 99. Thank you, and thank you, Patricia Mayall.

Line 25, your line is now open.

Hello, I'm Patty Mayall. I'm the Director of protect our watershed. San Mateo county strongly support AB 99.

Thank you, line 53. Line 53, your line is now open.

Oh, excuse me. Thank you. My name is Lynette Vega. I live in La Honda, California. And we do not want toxics to enter our watershed. And strongly support 89.

We appreciate the enthusiasm, but please, just your name and whether you're for or against the bill, but we do appreciate the enthusiasm.

Line 57, your line is now open.

Hi, my name is Amber Jameson and I work with Environmental Protection Information Center and Nature Rights Council, and we strongly support AB 99.

Madam Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Lots of enthusiasm for that bill. Thank you. Okay, do we have any questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Kalra?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I think it's a really good bill and I joined the enthusiasm of so many others in support. I'm already a co-author and just want to appreciate in particular when so many local jurisdictions are already implementing their own plans. I think it only makes sense that Caltrans kind of joins in partnership, and that's really what this is about, is kind of being thoughtful about how we can move forward together. So thank you.

Okay. Seeing no others, I want to thank you as well for authoring this bill. And certainly I understand the concerns from some of the stakeholders who have adjacent properties, wildfires, other risks from overgrown foliage. But at the same time, we certainly don't want to be risking people's public health. We don't want pesticides getting into water supplies. And we need to think of these areas also as habitats and biodiversity. I would love to see Caltrans focus on planting a lot more natives than what they do now.

I did legislation on that a few years ago, and yet I still see Ayes plants and all manner of inappropriate plant material being planted alongside highways. So I hope that Caltrans also starts to think a little bit more globally about what they're doing on their right of way and on their property. I do think that you are really finding a good balance here. But as you can tell by the very enthusiastic phone calls, people of California have values about sustainability and about not using toxic materials. And this bill has definitely touched a nerve with them. So I will be supporting the bill today. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and really appreciate the broad coalition from around the state that has come together. We are committed to continuing the discussion with the remaining issues and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thanks. We're going to pause for a moment and establish a quorum. Can we have a roll call, please?

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have eight. Did I hear a motion from Mr. Kalra? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call, please?

AB 99 is do pass and re-referred to Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

The bill has five votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you very much. Okay, next we have Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry with AB 473. You may proceed when you're ready. Actually, as you're coming up, I'm going to ask for a motion on the consent calendar. Okay. We have many seconds and motions. Can we have a roll call, please?

[Roll Call]

Friedman. Aye. Fong. Aye. Berman. Carrillo. Aye. Davies. Aye. Gibson. Hart. Aye. Jackson. Aye. Kalra. Aye. Lowenthal. Nguyen. Sanchez. Aye. Wallis. Ward. Wicks.

We'll have Ash Kalra as the motion and Mr. Fong as the second. And with that, whenever you're ready. Thank you.

Chairman Friedman and Members. I'm here to present AB 473, which will update the rules governing the relationship between auto dealer franchisees and their manufacturing franchisors under the California's new motor vehicle franchise law. First, I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and for the Committee staff's extensive work on this bill.

We have met with your staff, the manufacturers and their association multiple times, together and separately, and will continue to do so. We recognize there are several of these complex issues that need further negotiation and refinement. AB 473 represents the latest in necessary periodic updates to the motor vehicle franchise law. To break this bill down in its simplest terms, AB 473 is about fairness.

Global manufacturer automakers are massive, multinational corporations and are in a much stronger position to negotiate terms of their agreements with local dealerships. Even as car sales fell during supply chain issues, automakers have increased their prices and profit margins. As a result, in the third quarter of 2022, domestic manufacturers reported $32 billion in profits, the most since 2016. California's car dealers are important local businesses who are wholly dependent on auto manufacturers for the supply of cars to sell and the OEM parts used in repairs.

This dependence means that our local dealers are not likely to challenge their manufacturer partners directly or through the New Motor Vehicle Board unless the situation is dire or until the list of issues has grown sufficiently to demand an industrywide update. Simply stated, to ask our dealers to work it out with manufacturers is asking them to bite the hand that feeds them or withholds them. Like any complex law governing a dynamic industry, as the Committee's analysis points out, periodic updates of the franchise law are needed to address changing behaviors and conditions and level the playing field in the relationship.

We are prepared to answer Members' questions about the bill, but given the full agenda, I will focus my opening remarks on a few provisions. The biggest issue at the heart of this bill is how auto manufacturers compensate dealers and their employees for warranty and recall work.

This work is often important for maintaining consumer safety and can only be performed by the dealer franchises. This work is done at no cost to the consumer, so claims that fair compensation for dealers and their technicians will affect consumer prices is simply a fabrication. Customer-paid work is set by the same third party time guides we propose to use for the work done by dealers and reimbursed by manufacturers.

We have offered repeatedly to find some other objective way to establish the appropriate time allowances for warranty and recall work, but those offers have been rejected, so rates for labor and parts are set thanks to previous legislation. But the manufacturers, of course, prefer the system that allows this compensation to be determined by the manufacturer. This means that dealers and their employees are compensated 30% to 40% less than they would be if an objective standard was used.

The third party time guides offer a fair, objective standard for how much the time dealers and their employees should be paid for work. In the open marketplace of non-warranty and recall work, where customers can shop for the best prices between dealers and independent shops, dealers and their technicians successfully compete at prices that appropriately reflect the time it takes for a technician to perform repair work.

If anything, this bill helps dealers take on more warranty and recall work and get consumers the fixes they need in a more timely manner. Another important provision of the bill provides needed protection for consumers by specifying that auto manufacturers can only charge consumers subscription fees for vehicle features that require ongoing work and costs of the manufacturer. That is fair.

Unfortunately, manufacturers plan to use ongoing subscription pricing for automotive features that are already built into the car, cost nothing to activate and require no additional work by the manufacturer, hiding the actual consumer cost. Members, think about it. Think about how the airline industry has evolved to charge a new fee for every aspect of travel. Luggage fees, seat fees, boarding fees, even fees to sit near your family, are a new junk fee standard.

Ongoing costs for automobiles, especially features that improve safety, should not be hidden as an á la carte items when a consumer has already paid for them as they drive off the lot. There are other provisions in this bill within the Committee's jurisdiction, such as allowing dealers to band together to install bank of electric vehicle chargers.

In the interest of time, I will not discuss those here, as they are laid out quite clearly in the Committee analysis, but I am of course happy to answer any questions respect to those issues. Thank you, Madam Chair. With me to testify in support on AB 473 is Kenton Stanhope of the California New Car Dealer's Association, Steve Hood from the California Conference of Machinists Local 1173 and Anthony Bento of CNCDA is also available to answer technical and legal questions. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members, Kenton Stanhope on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association. I think the author did a great job in summarizing the bill. So just kind of want to focus on a couple of arguments that we've been hearing from the opposition as it pertains to the warranty reimbursement provision. First, the opposition says that AB 473 will increase prices that consumers pay for non-warranty work.

We think this argument is false and unfortunately has led to some confusion on exactly what the bill is trying to accomplish. To be clear, the bill does not seek to amend any provision related to customer pay work. Rather, AB 473 simply seeks to ensure manufacturers pay the same amount as the consumer for the same job.

It's also worth noting that this same argument was used for entering AB 179 when the manufacturer said that bill would also increase customer pay work rates when we raised labor rates to the same level for warranty and recall work as we did for customer pay jobs as well. Since the enactment of that bill, there has been no evidence, nor could there be, that that bill has resulted in increased prices to consumers. We feel AB 473 is no different.

Second, I would like to address the claim that third party time guides are illegitimate and should not be used for warranty and recall work. Third party time guides are published by reputable companies like Chiltons, ALLDATA, Mitchells, that have decades long experience in publishing and standardizing auto repair manuals for all brands. These guides provide industry standards that are used in tens of millions of service repair jobs annually at dealerships and independent auto repair shops.

Importantly, the important thing to note is that dealers do not have any ownership or control over these third party time guides, and thus we cannot manipulate or change the allotments that are published in these manuals. This contrasts sharply from the time guides being used for warranty and recall work in which the OEMs are judge and jury and can change them on a whim, with no explanation to the dealer and technician as to why.

Now, while CNCDA believes using third party time guides for warranty and recall work is the most simple, objective, and fair way to determine time allowances for this type of work, we understand there may be different approaches. This is why I would like to make it abundantly clear to the Committee that CNCDA is open to identifying a different standard beyond third party time guides, so as long as that standard is objective, unlike current law. To this end, we are committed to continuing to negotiate in good faith with the manufacturers to find a compromise. CNCDA respectfully requests your aye vote, and as the author mentioned, Anthony Bento, our chief legal counsel, is here to answer any legal or technical questions. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, my name is Steve Hood. I'm here representing the California Conference of Machinist Local Union 1173, and we are in strong support of AB 473. I've been a master tech for 27 years, and I'm currently a tech and union shop steward at Antioch Auto Center, the Nissan dealership. My technician colleagues and I take pride in our service and repair work that we do every day to make these cars safer for all Californians.

In addition to taking great pride in this work, we also put in a lot of effort. We put in the same amount of effort, whether the job is warranty or recall or customer pay work. Unfortunately, the reality at dealerships everywhere is that we get paid significantly less for warranty and recall work because the manufacturers manipulate the time allowances.

When manufacturers unilaterally lower the time allowances during a recall or use time guides that are unrealistic and cannot be performed in the time allotted, technicians and their service departments suffer daily. Getting paid less for warranty and recall work has many negative impacts on technicians. Beyond getting paid less for the same work, it disincentivize the most highly skilled techs to get certified to do work on recall and warranty because they would rather do customer pay work which pays a fair wage.

To this end, we have 10 techs. Only three of us are certified to do warranty and recall. And 10 years ago, there were seven of us that were certified to do warranty and recall. It also creates unnecessary friction in the workplace, as techs that are assigned warranty and recall repairs feel cheated that they were not assigned the customer pay work.

Your time is up, so if you can just finish up, please.

We are in strong support of AB 473, and we'd like your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify in favor of the bill?

Madam Chair, Committee, my name is Thomas Brandon. I'm for the California Conference of Machinists, and we support AB 473. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Matt Broad here on behalf of the Machinists and Teamsters in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Steve Older. I'm area director of Local Lodge 1173, representing mechanics in several counties in Northern California, and we stand in support of AB 473.

Madam Chair. Brian Feely, a business representative for the Machinist Union. On behalf of the California Conference of Machinists and the technicians I represent, I strongly urge your support of AB 473. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else. Can we have the opposition up to the table, please?

Madam Chair, with the indulgence of the Committee. I'm sort of a tweener.

Why don't you go ahead and speak while they come up?

Okay. Thank you. Robert Herrell, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California. We don't have an official position on the bill. We do see some provisions in the bill that we like. For example, we're concerned from the consumer point of view that subscription items, things that consumers should reasonably assume are part of what they pay for.

We're not taking testimony, just your position.

Okay. We are concerned with certain other aspects that are not in the bill, and we would like to work with the author and sponsor on those anti-consumer provisions. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Can we hear from the opposition now?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. John Moffatt, on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. We are the trade association for the auto manufacturers and the technology providers that are responsible for about 98% of the vehicles that are on the road today. I'll start off this Committee the same way I started off the last one. I apologize. I'm sorry that you have to deal with this as Members.

You have probably seen more of us and more of those folks than you and your staff ever wanted to see in any one particular year. But we are where we are. We prefer to handle these things on a contractual basis with our business partners. But we have the bill and it is what it is. There are about a dozen challenges in the bill. I will focus on a couple of the things that the proponents of the bill focused on.

I just think it's important to start by noting that this gentleman and his colleagues don't work for us. We don't set his pay scale. His pay scale is set by the dealers. They don't work for us. They work for them. And so I certainly understand if there's a challenge that he and his colleagues are facing, but that really is an issue that the dealers can address directly. There's been a lot of attention on third party time guides.

I think the analysis does a nice job of going through how this has been discussed in California, how it's been rejected in California. It's been proposed in 22, maybe even more states this year. It has been rejected in almost every single one of those states. And almost every single one of those states has actually adopted the compromise approach that was put forward in California in 2019, which was eventually signed by Governor Newsom.

When this bill was first put forward, the argument as to why this provision was necessary was about process. The process was too cumbersome. Now, in other states where this process is in place, we're seeing about 98% of the claims are approved and get through. And these are the instances where it takes a technician more time to conduct a repair than what the time guide allows. I think as part of the last compromise, we recognize that from time to time that's going to happen and-

You're going to have to finish up.

And so we built in a process to address that. In 2019, manufacturers paid over $1 billion in warranty repair to dealers in California. This bill is going to increase that by about $250 to $400 million every year, with no new repairs to show for it, just the same amount at a higher price, which is going to play its way through the economy and higher prices to consumers. For these reasons, we're opposed to the bill.

Good afternoon, Members. Tal Eslick, I'm with Scout Motors. I appreciate the time this morning--this afternoon. Scout Motors is a new electric vehicle company looking to serve the California market. We're an independent company seeking to reintroduce an iconic American brand back to consumers, and we're excited about the California market. We have no dealers. We've not sold yet any cars as of yet. We're hoping to in 2026. We've not determined exactly how we're going to serve California consumers. As you well know, California is a leader in EV adoption and innovation.

There is a very--I would hopefully describe it as narrow--issue in this particular bill that would preclude us from bringing our product to California consumers where they are. We don't believe it's necessarily the intent of the author as it stands, the bill, as amended, would sort of force us into a non existent dealer network.

So our ask, and as indicated in our opposed unless amended bill, is to the author and the sponsors to work with us to address what we believe is an unintended consequence, but something that would send a chilling message to those seeking to bring electric vehicles to California in order to meet our aggressive EV goals that we should be proud out of, actually, despite that. So appreciate the time and we would oppose unless amended and look forward to hopefully working with the author and her team.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to speak in opposition to the bill?

Madam Chair and Members, Bret Gladfelty with the Apex Group, on behalf of Nissan, in opposition.

Good afternoon. Voleck Taing with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, in respectful opposition.

Theo Pahos, representing Ford, in opposition.

Eloy Garcia for Toyota, in opposition.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Kirk Kimmelshue, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, in opposition.

Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of TechNet, respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Amy Lilly with Mercedes-Benz, in opposition.

Good afternoon. Matt Klopfenstein, on behalf of Volkswagen Group, respectfully opposed.

Madam Chair and Members, Cliff Costa, on behalf of General Motors, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Dominic Di Mare, here on behalf of BMW, also in opposition.

Okay. We're going to go to the phone lines. I do want to remind the public who's waiting on the phone line that it's just name, anyone you're representing, and you're position. We're not taking testimony. And in addition, when the operator calls your number, you don't have to ask if we can hear you. Just start talking. Okay, with that, Operator, if you can open up the phone lines for AB 473. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one then zero. Press one then zero. We're going to go to line 37. Pardon me. Line 37, I apologize. Line 37, your line is now open.

Chair and Members, James Lombardo, on behalf of California Motorcycle Dealers Association, in support. Thank you.

And we will now move on to line 41. Line 41, your line is open.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Karen Schmelzer with Mosman, on behalf of the Motorcycle Industry Council, the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, and the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill, and we have been working closely with the author's office on our concerns. Thank you.

Line 59.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Melissa Hyzdu, on behalf of American Honda Motor Company, in opposition. Thank you.

Line 58.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Cody Boyles, on behalf of CarMax, in support. Thank you.

There is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Okay, we will bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Fong.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a question. Maybe you could shed some light in terms of to the author or to either side. The author has a reputation of being fair and transparent and open to trying to find a workable solution. This is certainly kind of a catch-all bill. I think you've and I have been in the Legislature for a while. We've dealt with other bills similar in this space.

It seems to me that listening to both sides, that everyone's pretty far apart right now. Could you shed some light on how the negotiations are going? Where is the consensus going to be on this, especially on the highly controversial stuff?

Well, a couple of things I'll add, and I'll have my staff do it--I mean my team do it as well. We've taken loads of amendments already. And I'll give you just an idea, because we've listened to the opposition. We removed accessories and other items from the protest right on allocation and that was requested by AFI. We clarified the limitations of subscription fees does not apply to features that rely on ongoing access to cellular and data networks. And we also took that from--AFI requested that we narrow that provision. We restored the ability of OEMS to--requested that by AFI, with an added protection against using them in bad faith during negotiations.

We changed the requirement that the vehicle allocation information be filed with the Motor Vehicle Board and instead required that we provided directly to dealers who requested it. Again, they requested that from us. We clarified the language prohibiting competition and sales service of vehicles does not apply to over the air software updates or using new or existing franchises to sell a new line of motor vehicles. We specified that a manufacturer pays for 50 percent of public facing charger.

The dealer agrees to pay the manufacturer 50 percent of the revenue from that station. We've clarified that the language around shared charging infrastructure applies to multiple dealerships joining together with a built in bank of chargers. We've striked a provision restricting public funding for EV chargers. We are working with them and I think we have a lot of things that we've worked together on. Can we make it better? Of course, and we know we can do that and we will continue to work with the opposition. Would you like to say something?

Yeah, thanks for the question, Vice Chairman. I think we're looking for an objective standard on the time issue. I think that's the most contentious issue. We are far apart on it, I would say right now, but I'll just echo what I said in my talking points and also what the author just said is, we want to keep going to the table and find an objective standard or way to determine time allowances that both sides can work with and live with. That's our ultimate goal.

We have the same to the opposition in terms of your view of the status of negotiations.

Yeah. Look, we offered a set of amendments. We didn't see any of these amendments that were put into the bill, and the version that you see in front of you, we did not see those before they were put into the bill, right?

And so obviously, we want to continue working with the author, we want to continue working with the proponents, but I do not want the Committee to have the impression that the amendments that were put into this bill were things that were agreed upon by the parties. They weren't. Were a lot of them discussed? Yes. Were they part of the ongoing discussions? Absolutely, they were. Did we ask, okay, we're done on that issue, go put it in the bill? No, we did not.

On this objective standard for third party time guides, there's nothing more objective than a stopwatch. There is nothing less objective than a skewed approach where you are putting into statute the ability for dealers to go to the third party time guide creator and publisher of their choosing, and putting into their hands the ability to sell more time guides to dealers. What are those publishers going to do?

That price is going to continue to go up because the more it goes up, the more dealers will buy those time guides, because under this bill, they get to charge the manufacturer more. It's the wrong kind of market incentive than what you want out there. We offered an amendment on that provision. We were told the process was cumbersome. It seems to be working in other places, but we were told the process was cumbersome.

So we offered an amendment such that if the dealer would turn in the technician's timestamps, showing that that particular repair took more time than what the time guide allowed, than it rebuttably presumed to be accurate, and they were paid. Right? No reasonableness standard, no sort of back and forth. But turn in the timestamps, show us that it took more, and it's rebuttably presumed approved, and that was rejected.

So let me just say that it sounds to me like there's going to be a lot of more intense and pretty painful negotiations. And I think that, sooner rather than later as this bill goes forward, we got to have some semblance of more substance so that we can really flesh this out. But I certainly will vote to allow this bill to move forward, but I implore to the author that we need to negotiate table quicker.

Vice Chair, to your question, as it relates to our particular item in the bill, there was an amendment that before we would not be able to sell into California, and as amended, we can do so through a dealer network of which we don't have.

Certainly, as the Chair, certainly--I won't speak for the Chair--but certainly the EV sale part probably is very concerning to the Committee, and so that is certainly something that I know the author is probably going to have to work that with, too. Thank you.

Any other Member of the Committee? Yes.

Obviously, this is actually pretty exciting to be able to get all these folks together and figure out how to make it work. That's the stuff you come up here for. Well, at least I do. Obviously, because this is just the beginning of the process, I do intend to vote for it to continue the dialogue while everyone is still talking, but obviously there are still some red flags that wouldn't--that I'm not even sure I would be comfortable with as it continues, if it stays the same way.

But obviously, there's some other hurdles that I'm hoping you guys can get past. But either way, I'm looking forward to hearing the story once all is all done.

Anyone else? Well, I think it's unfortunate that the manufacturers and the dealers are struggling with the negotiations at this point. Certainly, they're very important business partners for each other. So I think what you're hearing from the Committee--and I know I've heard from many Members myself--that Members would really like to see each side and the different parties get closer together as this moves forward. And you may not get the result that you want with the bill in this form, when it comes back.

There is definitely a desire to allow the conversation to continue, and I will be passing the bill in this--recommending that the bill pass forward in this form. But there's also a lot of uncomfortableness from Members about the current form. Personally, I think the third party guide--listen, I have no idea how long it takes to repair anything.

I don't attempt to repair anything on my own car, so I don't want to be in the position of having to try to pick a side on that. It does concern me that the third party guide, my understanding is that it says right on it that it's not to be used for warranty work because of the repetitious nature of the work. So that is a bit of a concern, and we would like to see a compromise in that position.

So we'll certainly all be watching as this moves forward. I really admire you for taking this on, Assembly Member, but you want this bill also to be in a form where it's not going to get vetoed. So I do hope that the sides can come closer together and that you continue to engage in negotiation. With that, do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Would you like to close?

I want to assure you--and I appreciate Assembly Member Fong acknowledging the fact that I really tried to compromise and work things out, and we will continue to do that. I know all of these players on either side of this, that we know that we can work together. I don't take these things personally. I take them as what's the best for our constituents, and I think we can get there. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

AB 473: 'do pass and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call].

Nine votes. The bill is out. Thank you very much. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members.

Thank you, Committee.

Good luck. So Assembly Member Quirk-Silva with AB 1012.

Good afternoon, Members and Madam Chair. I want to first begin by accepting the Committee's proposed amendments and thank the chair and Committee staff for their work on this Bill. Colleagues, this will be another Bill that does bring up questions, and I think we are best in democracy when we have questions and when we have robust discussion. AB 1012 is a pragmatic transparency measure that will result in more data to better understand clean transportation choices.

The Bill will require the California Air Resources Board to perform, as part of its environmental analysis, a greenhouse gas lifecycle analysis of the required technology before a mobile source regulation can be adopted. So I want to explain this, because typically, if you think about lifecycle analysis, you don't really think of vehicles, you think of possibly caterpillars, but think about that life cycle, a cocoon. It goes through the process. So why would we be using that for a vehicle?

And this is really to set and to kind of give you a visual, is that when we do an analysis, but we only do an analysis on one part of the vehicle, for example, the tailpipe and the emissions, that's only a part of the vehicle. So we want you to think holistically here. This requirement will allow California to better quantify the effects of climate change pollution resulting from the adoption of state policies focused on vehicle technology requirements.

This Bill does not require the Air Resources Board to mandate regulations in response to the data produced from the greenhouse gas lifecycle analysis. What this does is it is a transparency Bill that can be informative to this body, which has the responsibility to ensure that California is meeting the greenhouse gas reduction goals. It established with me today to provide testimony and answer any questions the Committee may have is Nicole Rice, President of the California Renewable Transportation alliance. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Madam Chair Members Nicole Rice, President of the California Natural. I'm sorry, California Renewable Transportation Alliance. And we are here as the sponsors of SB. I'm sorry, AB 1012. Sorry about that. Let me collect myself here. The alliance's Association of fleet Manufacturers, renewable fuel providers, renewable fuel producers, and utilities that promote the development and use of renewable transportation alternatives.

So, as Assembly Member Quirk-Silva said, AB 1012 is a simple transparency Bill that asks CARB to perform a greenhouse gas lifecycle analysis on the vehicle technology that is proposed in any future mobile source regulation. Now, a lifecycle analysis. We heard a little bit about what it is, but I'll give you a little bit more information. It's a scientific accounting methodology that measures the environmental impact of a product or service.

It's often called a well to wheel analysis because it considers the environmental impact of the vehicle from its manufacturing all the way to the disposal and the destruction. CARB already conducts a similar analysis to determine the carbon intensity of transportation fuel under the Low carbon fuel standard. However, it does not routinely provide such an analysis regarding the environmental impacts associated with the use of the vehicle.

So this Bill is narrowly tailored to apply this type of analysis only to the vehicle technology that's going to be required in any future mobile source regulation. The Bill is silent on how CARB can use that information and react to that information. But as CARB does with any environmental assessment, it has the authority to respond to that information as it Deems appropriate.

Your time is up. You can finish up.

Thank you. So with all of these benefits and according to the amendments that were accepted today in the Bill, we ask for the committee's aye vote on AB 1012. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify?

I'm Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Ryan Kenny with Clean Energy. In support.

Madam Chair, engineer Evan Edgar. On behalf of California Compost Coalition, Clean Fleets Coalition, and independent waste haulers, thank you. In support,

Madam Chair Members Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange here today on behalf of the Western Propane Gas Association, in support.

Okay. Seeing no one else, is there anyone here to testify? In opposition? You'll have two minutes.

Good afternoon, chair and Members Daniel Barad. On behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists, in respectful opposition to AB 1012, we want to thank the Committee staff, the chair, and the author's office for meeting with us and working to improve the Bill. But we still believe it is unnecessary, costly, and could delay the state's progress towards a zero emission future. The Bill is unnecessary because CARB already does a robust environmental analysis for all their regulations.

Their recent environmental analysis on the proposed advanced clean fleets rule is 176 pages long. It includes the nox, particulate matter and greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with the rules adoption, and even impacts associated with raw mineral extraction. Lifecycle analyses are complicated, time consuming, and in the end provide a number that is not entirely useful on its own.

The amendments allowing CARB to perform a lifecycle analysis on incumbent technologies are a step in the right direction as they allow CARB to present a fuller picture of the benefits of zero emission technologies. But ultimately, it still presents an additional burden on CARB to prove what we already know that we need to replace polluting transportation with zero emission technologies as soon as possible. This Bill would require the state to spend additional resources on more CARB staff or require CARB to divert existing staff, thereby delaying rulemakings.

Last week, the American Lung Association released its State of the air report, which showed that 98% of Californians live in communities with failing air quality grades and we are home to eight of the 10 most polluted cities in America in terms of particulate pollution. Carbs regulations often seek to remedy this by requiring the adoption of technologies with zero tailpipe emissions. This is where the science has told us that we need to go, and we cannot afford to delay regulations or make them more expensive. Therefore, we respectfully request your no vote on AB 1012. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify in opposition for AB 1012? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines for testimony for or against AB 1012. Operator, can you please open the phone lines?

Thank you, Madam Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to AB 1012, please press one, then zero at this time. Press one, then zero. And we have several people who have signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment, please. Going to go to line 43. Your line is open. Philip Vanderclay. Philip Vanderclay. On behalf of the Los Angeles County sanitation districts in support, line 63, will Brigger. On behalf of 350 Sacramento, in opposition. There is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Is there anybody wishing to ask questions or say anything about the Bill?

Okay, we have a motion in a second. I hope that the conversation can continue as you move forward. I actually share a lot of the concerns of the opposition in regards to the cost to CARB of executing this Bill, and in the end, what meaningful information that we don't already know will be gleamed. I appreciate you're taking the amendments.

It's very important that if we're going to do a lifestyle analysis and lifecycle analysis of any particular technology, that we have something to judge it against so that we are comparing apples to apples and know what the other technology's impacts are. But that's going to be expensive. So whether it's worth doing it in the end, I'm not 100% convinced.

But I am certainly willing to allow the Bill to pass forward today so that you can continue working on it, and I hope that you can address the opposition's concerns. We have a motion in a second, and I will be supporting the Bill today. Can we have a roll call? Would you like to close?

Please just respectfully ask for an aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay, the Bill has eight votes. The Bill is out, and we'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you.

Thank you, Members.

Thank you, Assembly Member Flora. Looks like you have the chairs and the Vice Chair also voting aye, so use your time wisely.

I will indeed. Thank you, Chair, Committee, and your staff for working with us on this Bill. I am proud to present AB 1447, which will require a two tiered system, setting up appropriate requirements and limitations for each system accordingly, which will also ensure safety. A two tier system will facilitate the use of electric scooters and therefore provide a stable, safe, environmentally friendly mode of transportation. With me to testify is John Doherty and Alex Pinelli. And we'll just use our time wisely.

That's right. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. Just here to say thank you to you and your staff and the author. And I'm here to answer questions. I'll hand it over to our one witness.

And I really did not mean to rush you. I was just. I. Now I'm feeling a little bit guilty, so feel free.

No, I've used my allotment of words. We're good.

Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, good afternoon. My name is Alex Pinelli. I'm a member of the Executive team of a company called PHAT. That's P-H-A-T. We're the manufacturer of the US's most popular two wheel, seated, single rider electric vehicle, commonly referred to as scooters. I'm here to support AB 1447, which increases the speed limit for electric scooters with seats from 15 miles per hour to 20 miles per hour, putting e-scooters on parity with class two e-bikes and treating scooters identically to bikes under the Three Feet for Safety Act.

Additionally, AB 1447 will put California on par with the vast majority of states that permit electric scooters to go 19 miles per hour or faster. The vast majority do so. This parity is also important because e-bikes are not particularly useful for Californians who cannot pedal due to physical disabilities. According to the CDC, 13.7% of the US adult population, approximately 35 million Americans, suffer from what are known as mobility or ambulatory disabilities.

This number jumps up to 18.1% for Americans between 45 and 64, and 26.9% for Americans aged 65 or over. When adjusted for income, the numbers are even more staggering. People over 45 years old and at or below the federal poverty level, over 40% of those have an ambulatory disability. Well over 35% of our customers are over the age of 50. Many of them have specifically told us that they purchase our product because they have hip and or knee issues that inhibit pedaling.

Additionally, we have several younger PHAT owners who are disabled war veterans. They also chose our product because they suffer physical injuries that precluded them from pedaling. Our goal is to provide a fair and equitable alternative to e-bikes that also offers efficient, zero emission transportation options. With this in mind, I ask for your support of AB 1447, and we'll be happy to field any questions that you may have at this time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to voice their support for the Bill? Okay. Seeing none. Is there anybody here to testify in opposition? Anyone at all? Anybody want to come up to the mic to testify in opposition? Okay. With that, we'll open up the phone lines. Operator, if you can, please open up the phone for AB 1447. Thank you.

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero. And, Madam Chair, it appears there is no one who wishes to speak.

Okay, we'll go back to the Committee. Any comments from anybody? Okay, there's a motion and a second. I want to thank you for working with the Committee to make the definition of motorized scooter consistent with the Society of Automotive Engineers definition. As we have more and more different micromobility devices, it's important that we understand the role of each of them and how they're defined under the law. And it's been unclear. And this Bill will help clarify the difference between a motorized scooter and a bicycle.

And I also do appreciate that the Bill supports vulnerable road users by requiring vehicles to change lanes or provide three feet of distance for motorized scooters. And for building on my work from AB 1909 from last year to also protect the scooter riders, I am supporting the Bill today. I believe that the more mobility options we give people, the better. And I appreciate your work to make these devices available for people that can't use a traditional or an e-bike.

So thank you and I'll be supporting the Bill. We have a motion in a second, but would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you very much. Can we have a roll call, please?

AB 1447 is do pass and re refer to Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

We have 10 votes. The Bill is out. We'll leave the roll open. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Assemblymember McCarty, you're here for AB 1504. And you can proceed whenever you're ready. And if there's opposition to this Bill registered, you're welcome to come up to the table as well.

So this bill attempts to address this and make sure there's more charging opportunities for people across California and their electric vehicles. This is a local government issue and a transportation issue. It's a hybrid. Essentially, this bill would accelerate California's ability to meet our air quality and climate challenges and our push towards 100% clean cars and making sure we have the charging infrastructure needed to get there. Specifically, this asks counties and cities to include curbside charging in their infrastructure.

So if you imagine the street poles across our cities, many times they already have electricity there. It's a perfect opportunity for public access to focus on that infrastructure and include charging opportunities for the public. So this would task our California Energy Commission to do just that, to speed up and expedite permitting throughout our California cities. We certainly need this if we're going to be a leader in this field.

We've currently stepped up, like I mentioned earlier, in offsite charging and infrastructure, and have our cities and counties really led the way on this. And this is kind of the next frontier with curbside. With me today before, I will note before we get to there, we don't have Committee amendments, but we did amend in the Local Government Committee to not remove the opposition, but I think lower the tone of their opposition and we're continuing to work with them as we go along.

With me today is a representative with FLO. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Chair and Members, Dan Cha here for FLO EV charging. FLO is a leading North American EV Charging network operator. I'm here to testify on the curbside charging piece provisions of this bill. Super appreciative for Assemblymember McCarty for authoring this bill. Curbside charging is a huge untapped charging resource that confers many benefits. Number one, they can be sited adjacent to multifamily housing based on need and income.

In fact, the City of LA did just this, resulting in over 80% of its residents living within a few minutes of a curbside charger. Sacramento and Oakland have been leaders in this space as well. Number two, they can lead to lower development costs by attaching, as you just saw, curbside chargers to utility and light poles. No trenching, significant civil engineering is involved, we should really see curbside chargers on every possible utility, light, and pole. Number three, visibility.

Even the perception of greater availability of chargers is key to greater EV adoption. And in other cities, curbside chargers have attracted more customers to adjacent businesses. As the analysis states, about 50% of Californians live in multifamily housing, yet only about a third of them can access home charging, and those with the least access are low income. This bill is squarely intended to tackle this very problem in a cost efficient and smart way. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify in support of the bill? Is there anybody in the room wishing to testify in opposition?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Damon Conklin with League of California Cities. Again, respectfully opposed unless amended. We're working with the author and appreciate the most recent iteration of the bill and look forward to working and having continued conversations around this bill as it moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no one else in the room wishing to testify. Operator, can you please open the phone lines for any testimony for or against AB 154?

So wish to speak in opposition to AB 154, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero at this time.

Operator, clarify. We do blended testimony only. So it's opposition or support.

Pardon me. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero. And Madam Chair, no one has signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you very much. Can we go back to the Committee now? Anybody have anything to say? Yes?

Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember, for carrying this bill. I just want to clarify thank you so much for the recent amendments. And I come from local government and as do you and so I just want to make sure that you'll continue to work with them so that we can come to a consensus on this.

Yes, I'm just scanning the room real quick. I think about 80% of us here came from local government, and there are 1000 cities and counties across California, and most of them have done a good job in pushing infrastructure from EV, and some of them have been a little slow. And this is an issue that we need to address as a state. So having some statewide leadership to nudge them along, I think is kind of the route we're looking at.

But we certainly will work with them like we did on the prior bill and hopefully come up with a neutral position at the end of the day.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Did we have a motion?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question. Looking at this photo here, one of my concerns would be, obviously when it's charging a car, it can take some time, is if there's businesses up here and you've got a car sitting there for so long, it's not allowing others to come and utilize the businesses.

I just want to know the concern of maybe taking up space where someone could come that would want to shop there. And now it's like, well, it's always filled.

Yeah. Maybe I can ask our witness who- They've done this in two pilots so far throughout California and across the nation. As far as how we've dealt with that issue.

Absolutely. Dan Cha again, for FLO EV charging. It's a very good question. And the bill actually has provisions requiring local jurisdictions to explore restrictions in the amount of time you can charge your vehicle, in part for some of the reasons you identified.

So we are very well aware of that, and we think that bill addresses that concern.

So in that bill, it would allow the locals to decide how much time they can actually make that themselves.

That's right.

Okay, thank you.

Just make a comment on when you said that some local jurisdictions are not very responsive or find creative ways not to comply or provide more charging stations. I think that this will actually help doing that because in my experience, there's been some local jurisdictions that are resisting to provide this infrastructure. That may be one of the reasons why we don't have enough charging stations. I say that because there's some certain parts of cities where there is more infrastructure compared to other parts of the city.

And I believe that this will actually motivate those cities that don't want to comply. So thank you for bringing this up to us. Thank you.

Okay. I'm not seeing anybody else. Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate the conversation. And if we are going to get to the future that we want: to clean our air and to tackle climate change, we need to have 100% clean cars and mobile sources is it. But if, unless we step it up with our charging infrastructure, we're going to be challenged. And that means on site, in your residence, that means at your workplace, and that means on commercial quarters like this. And this helps us get to that place. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, can we have a roll call?

AB 154 is due pass and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

We have nine votes. The bill is out. We'll leave the roll open. Thank you. Assembly Member Bonta. And if there's any opposition to the bill, you're also welcome to come up to the dais at this point. You can proceed whenever you're ready. Can you hit the microphone, please? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I would like to express my appreciation to Committee staff for their time and dedication to this Bill and issue. As the Assembly Member representing the people of Oakland, Alameda and Emeryville, it is an honor to present AB 1525. In California, we often say access to safe, reliable, and affordable transportation is a priority.

Yet in practice, it's not necessarily clear, particularly for our high need, low income communities of color, who have been systematically denied transportation investments, suffer from longer, less reliable commutes, unsafe infrastructure and bear the burden of transportation related air pollution.

In west and downtown Oakland, in my district, adjacent to heavy industry and major highways, more than 70% of the population are people of color, and air pollution has a high impact on childhood asthma, with one in two new childhood asthma cases due to traffic related air pollution. In contrast, in the Oakland Hills, where more than 70% of the population is white, only one in every five cases of childhood asthma is from air pollution. There are inevitable outcomes of systematically denied high need and low income communities of color.

Reliable and affordable transportation and community investment. AB 1525 aims to address the decades-long legacy of transportation injustice by creating a criteria and evaluation process jointly managed by the California Transportation Committee Commission, the California State Transportation Agency, and Caltrans to best direct increased investments to priority populations. AB 1525 builds upon Governor Newsom's executive order requiring state agencies to analyze their practices and to respond to disparities. Furthermore, AB 1525 advances President Biden's Justice 40 Initiative, which already directs 40% of certain federal investments to disadvantaged communities.

California spends tens of billions of dollars on transportation every year, yet there is no accounting for the amount of state and federal dollars and how they are being invested, specifically in support of priority populations or if the projects provide public benefits and avoid harm. AB 1525 creates the data for future policies, allowing us policymakers better to serve our most vulnerable communities within the context of major infrastructure investments.

Tracking how transportation projects benefit and impact communities is not just a responsible use of public dollars, it helps incentivize more suitable and sustainable transportation projects, providing benefits such as cleaner air, safer streets, creating corridors to jobs and meeting community needs. AB 1525 is supported by more than 30 organizations across the state, such as the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Policylink, Move LA, and California environmental voters.

Lastly, my office and sponsors have worked with over 50 diverse stakeholders to create and craft this legislation with a focus on delivering critical benefits to low income communities and communities of color. We received a notice of opposition late last week and we have since met with and are committed to working to address their concerns. I want to emphasize to the Committee chair and Members that this Bill is a work in progress and we are committed to working with stakeholders to build a more equitable transportation future.

With me to testify today in support are Hana Creger with the Greenlining Institute and Zak Accuardi with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. I'm Hana Creger, the Senior Program Manager of Climate Equity at the Greenlining Institute. Greenlining works towards a future where communities of color can build wealth, live in healthy places filled with economic opportunity, and will be ready to meet the challenges posed by climate change.

Access to transportation is key for people's ability to obtain economic opportunities and to have a better quality of life. However, millions of Californians do not have access to safe, reliable transportation options, which harms their ability to access education, work, and health care.

Yet, California does have a key strategy, proven strategy, to close these disparities because for 10 years our state has been implementing the California Climate Investments that directs a minimum of 35% of climate funds to priority populations, a goal that the state has now well surpassed, with 72% of cumulative investments having been directed to priority populations. AP 1525 aims to build upon this successful precedent within a more targeted transportation context.

CalSTA, Caltrans, and CTC have successfully been utilizing the California climate investment evaluation criteria to target three of their programs to priority populations. This demonstrates they already have the familiarity, the skill sets, and the tools to target funds where they are needed most. Yet, the problem is that this model of targeted investments is only required within a very small fraction of the overall billions of dollars of budget.

Setting a 60% threshold for future projects would align CalSTA, CTC and Caltrans with other state agencies like the CEC, CPUC, and CARB, who have either codified or set goals for 50% to 70% of funding pots to priority populations. And again, given the state and federal executive orders to more fairly invest funds and to close disparities, CalSTA, CTC and Caltrans are currently not in compliance. To help them comply, this Bill builds upon a long standing approach to investing in priority populations.

Yet it sets out a flexible process for the agencies to work with stakeholders to define priority populations, the evaluation criteria process, and to collect the data. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue, and we look forward to working with all stakeholders to further refine this Bill as it is still taking shape.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm Zak Accuardi at NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council. I work there as a Senior Transportation Advocate coordinating our mobility choices advocacy across the western US. I'm here to support AB 1525, which reflects the next critical step the state must take to advance our clean air, climate change, and equity goals in the context of the state's transportation infrastructure investments.

California is investing at historic levels in transportation infrastructure, yet with no assurance or accountability to ensure that these investments will advance the state's equity agenda. Adding transparent, consistent program criteria like those proposed in this Bill is critical to ensuring that, moving forward, the state's transportation investments do right by our most impacted communities, in particular those who have borne disproportionate harm from the state's previous transportation investments.

Air pollution burdens across the state disproportionately fall on disadvantaged communities, and the transportation in California is the largest source of climate pollution and an enormous contributor of hazardous air pollutants throughout the state, as you've heard in previous testimony today. Equitable investments are clean air and climate investments in the transportation sector. No disadvantaged or most impacted community would benefit from investments that pollute their air and poison their neighbors. We know there's more work to be done on this Bill with a variety of key stakeholders.

We look forward to continued discussions about how to make AB 1525 work in California. Thank you for your attention, and we ask for your supportive vote today to move this critical Bill forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify in support of AB 1525?

Sarah Olsen with the Greenlining Institute on behalf of NextGen California, the Safe Routes Partnership, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, TransForm, Active SGV, 350 Bay Area Action, Urban Habitat, Bike LA, Little Manila Rising, and the California Green New Deal Coalition. Thank you.

Marc Vukcevich, representing Streets for All, in support.

Benjamin Eichert with the Romero Institute, on our behalf and on behalf of Let's Green California, in support.

Thank you. We'll move now to opposition. You may proceed when you're ready. You need to push the button.

Now? Thank you. Chair and Committee Members, I appreciate the opportunity. It's the first time I've sat up here and used the microphone, so I wasn't sure how to push which button it was to start off this discussion. First, I apologize for the lateness of our letter, and we do believe that the letter applies to the initial version of the Bill as well as the amended version of the Bill in terms of our opposition. So, my name is Mark Watts.

I'm representing Transportation California and a coalition of allied organizations and associations ranging from labor unions to major organizations in Southern and Northern California. To start the conversation off, and I'll stay short, ma'am. At this point in time, our shop program- and I looked up the empirical data in the latest shop- is $50 billion short over the next 10 years.

Our concern with the structure of the Bill is that it will displace projects that have been coming through the pipeline in an orderly process and empirical process that has been established by the Legislature over the last decade. And when we're just ready to start delivering more projects, we will now have to test them to see about their location and if they have any co-benefits or benefits. And if they don't, they won't be able to move forward.

So we're afraid that these very important projects that are ranked highest in the asset management plan, as well as the state highway management plan, will fail to qualify and be held on the sidelines until such time as they do have enough money to pay for them to move forward. In addition, we're a little concerned about the nature of where or how the 60% amount was derived. And we've had some conversations with the proponents of the measure, and we'll continue to talk about that. And I think at this point, just complete my conversation and ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify in opposition?

Keith Dunn here. On behalf of the Self Help Counties Coalition, the District Council of Laborers. We don't have a letter in. I look forward to working with the author and staff and kind of had an opportunity beforehand to chat. We share the same goals. We look forward to working with you. We think that there's some issues with the way they've laid the Bill out, but we're willing to have a conversation. So thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members.Todd Bloomstein for the Southern California Contractors Association. We're opposed. Thank you.

Manny Leon with the California Alliance for Jobs in opposition.

Okay. Seeing no other testimony in the room, we'll open the phone lines for testimony in favor of or opposed to AB 1525.

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero. We will first go to line 71. Your line is now open.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of The Children's Partnership, in support.

We'll now move on to line 48. Line 48, your line is now open.

Yes. Eli Lipmen, on behalf of Move LA, in support.

And we'll now move on to line 68.

Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Line 69.

Good afternoon. Dana Baddie with GRID Alternatives calling in support of this Bill. Thank you very much.

Madam Chair. there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you. I'll go back to the Committee for questions, comments? Ms. Davies, did you have your hand up? I did, but go for it.

I appreciate what the author and sponsors are trying to do, but I'm concerned, as the Transportation California and the Self Help Counties coalitions express, about the long lead time of major transportation projects that take, often times, a decade to get ready to go, and that applying this new criteria to that will really be disruptive to delivering projects that all Californians benefit from. So I can't be supporting the Bill today.

Thank you, Mr. Hart. Anybody else? Ms. Davies?

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a few concerns with this. I sat on Transportation for Liga City up here, and I remember when SB 1 was being pushed through. In regards to this time, we promise, we promise that all of the funds will go to the roads.

They won't be split here and they won't be split here. Because obviously before that, there was a tax increase and they were taking the gas tax, putting it to General Fund when we had a recession. So they pass SB 1. And now my concern is obviously a promise made. This isn't a promise kept. And we have a lot of projects. I also sat on OCTA when I was on City Council. And again, when you have projects, projects can take five to ten years.

And so we have these projects already in the working. And so plus we are a Self Help County. And so we count on a lot of this funding, too, to match and to help to make sure these projects go. And I have a district where there's areas where 62% of them are in low income, and we've got a sand dump right there where it's not a pothole, but it's completely sunk, 40ft down. We have roads that need this work. This is affecting everyone.

We have certain roads, like the 78, where right now it's sitting there and it's causing so much traffic, so it affects everyone. And so I'm really concerned to go and all of a sudden it's at least 60% to make something where we were told when they voted on this, this will go to road work. And now we come back and do the same thing, and we wonder why the trust isn't there anymore. So I really have concerns with really changing this again. Thank you.

Mr. Berman.

Thank you. I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. I fully support the goals that you're trying to accomplish.

I appreciate the conversation that we had earlier today, just with some of the concerns that I have with some parts of the Bill, but appreciate all of you pretty much saying that you're planning to continue working on the details and continuing conversations with folks who have concerns and so happy to support the Bill today and look forward to keeping an eye on it as it moves through the legislative process.Thanks.

Mr. Jackson.

Thank you very much for bringing this Bill forward. When you look at the history of California communities in terms of how infrastructure used to be planned, the level of destruction that it had on communities of color that continue to affect those same communities today. And at some point we have to decide that if we believe in equity. Rquity means that we have to focus on those who have been harmed the most, which is why I believe you came up with the 60%.

But either way, we have to understand that the status quo is not acceptable. And whatever your negotiations lead to, if we truly believe in equity, equity doesn't mean convenience, which means that we have to, sometimes, some communities have to be willing to say we've benefited for decades. And so I'm willing to give up a little something so that other communities can be made whole again.

And so I applaud you on this Bill, and I hope you continue to go forth and be able to make this Bill a reality as you continue to work on it. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Nguyen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I feel the same concern some of my colleagues mentioned earlier, and I appreciate you and I having that conversation earlier. What was mentioned earlier is the 50 billion that is short. And I think those are some of the concerns I have, that we have made some promises to some communities around transportation and infrastructure and whatnot. And my concern is that these would delay some of these projects in the communities.

However, I'm a big advocate for disenfranchised communities, and you and I talked about that. I come from that community, and for over a decade, I wanted to make sure that the proper resources and services went there. And as we move along, most often those communities are the ones that are overelected. So I appreciate what you're trying to do. I really hope that you'll continue to have these conversations with all parties, as you mentioned earlier.

I'm going to support this because I really want to see this come out, but I also want to see how you're going to work with everybody to ensure that we come to some type of a consensus where maybe not everybody wins a whole lot, but there's a win for everybody in some way. And I believe that that can happen.

It's just going to take a lot of work, and I look forward to seeing how that comes out to be and how you are able to pull this joint. And I think you can do it. I think you can do it. I look forward to seeing that happen. So thank you so much.

Anybody else here? Well, I'll be supporting the Bill today. I appreciate your jumping into this very difficult and very important issue, and I appreciate your leadership.

I do think that if we're going to alter our transportation system to make it more equitable, things are going to have to change. And that's going to be uncomfortable and difficult for those who have been planning projects for a long time when maybe we weren't taking equity as much into account as we'd like to today. So I don't think that there's any way that you're going to remove all the opposition. That's been my experience working in this space.

But I think what's important is that you have a Bill that does address what you're trying to address. So as the Bill moves forward, I hope that you continue to refine it, to work on definitions, to make sure that you're writing something in such a way as to have the intended effect that you want, that we recognize that transportation projects are large. They pass through many communities.

So really what you're trying to do is to focus a benefit on one community, even if the money is spent in many communities. And that's something that I think you need to continue to refine. And in addition, because we do have CAPTI, it's important to explore how this Bill works or doesn't work in accordance with those goals. Along with the equity goals, there's climate goals that also will provide benefits to the same communities that also have to come into account.

And I hope that the Bill can also look at some of those impacts as it's looking at the impact on funding on projects in general. So this is big and difficult policy, but it's important that we have a vehicle to continue these conversations. So I will be supporting the Bill today. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Chair. And I certainly appreciate the words of wisdom and the leadership that you've had over the many years in this area.

I just want to address some of the concerns. One is, to Assemblymember Ngyuen's point, every single Bill that I've worked over the course of my time in the Legislature, we've worked really hard to be able to make sure that we've been able to address a lot of the concerns throughout.

And also, granted, there might be a space in a new way that we are moving that will require us all to be able to be consensus driven around ensuring that we have a better transportation system, a more just transportation system, that we're reducing the impacts of redlining in our communities, and that we are addressing some of the serious health, equity and climate concerns that come up about in the way that we make some of the transportation decisions that we've made so far.

I want to also just state that this Bill does not apply to any existing projects. It's a Bill intended to be very thoughtful around creating a staged process for us to first develop out and adopt an evaluation process to be able to define what priority populations are initially and what those benefits and impacts are for those communities to second, make sure that we actually have some visibility, which we haven't had, into the kind of expenditures and whether or not they have been equitably distributed.

By ensuring that we are able to submit a report from the transportation projects from the prior year to develop out a baseline, to be able to do so, and then finally to be able to have a stake in the ground around the fact that we are setting a 60% allocation of projects to go to disproportionately impacted communities.

I just want to also just recognize that the projects not only will impact the disproportionately impacted communities, but also the ways in which projects are flowing into and connecting those communities to resources and opportunities and to transit. So I think with that we will find the happy balance, I am sure, over time.

And lastly, I will say that we just want to make sure that we have an opportunity to have transparency around the way in which our transportation dollars are spent moving forward in a way that we haven't had before, and that we know that those transportation dollars are being spent to be able to not disadvantage any more communities that are disproportionately impacted by the harms created, environmental harms, health harms, and lack of access harms in that as well. So with that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

AB 1525, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

We have seven. The Bill has seven votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Mr. Fong. We have a motion in a second for AB 501. Mr. Fong, and if there's any opposition, you can also come up to the dais at this time. Thank.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I just want to take a moment to highlight the conversation we had on the previous Bill, because that's a good frame for the conversation. For this one, I would like to have a conversation about reinvesting the high-speed rail dollars that currently the state Legislature it is pushing and putting it into higher priorities. In 2008, voters were promised an efficient high speed rail that would take travelers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than 3 hours.

We were led to believe that the project's total cost would be thirt-four billion dollars. Fifteen years later, the projected cost has ballooned to one hundred twenty-eight billion dollars and nothing has been completed. There is no private investment and California taxpayers are now at risk of greater cost burdens. The project is clearly on life support. So much money has been mismanaged that the authority can no longer afford to build the first segment from Merced to Bakersfield without an infusion of billions of dollars. That doesn't exist.

Some of my colleagues may say that this is too premature to make a decision on whether to continue the Legislature's significant contributions to the project before we've seen the Federal Government and see if the Federal Government will provide billions to bail out this project. The reason why this project received cap and trade funds is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The high speed rail is no longer meeting that goal. We've given the authority 15 years to deliver, and they haven't come close.

The struggling California high speed rail is living on a mere hope that the Federal Government will grant them $8 billion after rejecting an earlier application just months ago. Even if the authority received every dollar of the federal grant money it applied for, the project would still be tens of billions of dollars short of the one hundred twenty-eight-billion-dollar price tag and billions short of the plan to run trains between Mercedes and Bakersfield. The federal lifeline for the failing project is a pipe dream.

The Federal Government has yet to bail out the project, and with public opinion waning on its viability, it's unlikely that they will inject the billions of dollars necessary to finish it. The Legislature is spending billions in cap and trade revenues with no possibility that this project will produce any meaningful carbon reductions.

As we all heard at the recent Joint Hearing on the high speed rail business plan, the peer review group said that this is not the project that the voters approved in 2008, nor a greenhouse gas project, as it will not have a dramatic effect in the context of California's climate goals. This money would be far better spent on flood protection and water storage projects like sites reservoir updating, the Delta, Mendota and Fryant Kern canals, along with countless levees that need repairs. We all know Members.

Trillions of gallons of rainfall has accumulated across our state and even more concerning, our snow pack is over 400% of average for this time of the year. The Kern river is flowing at 5600 cubic feet per second, and it is expected to increase to 7000 cubic feet per second by June. This is over four times larger than a normal flow rate. Scientists and water experts are extremely worried about the potential for even worse flooding as the days get warmer.

This is nothing short of a disaster for California, which will have widespread ramifications for the world's food and textile supply. It is time for the Legislature to reallocate the nearly $1 billion given to this project each year towards water infrastructure or any other priority. We could say mass transit, we could say railroads, so that this money can be used to save Californians livelihoods and lives. And I would argue that at this moment in time, it should go to flood protection and water infrastructure.

The flooding across the Central Valley, central Coast and eastern Sierras is significant. Homes, livelihoods and entire communities have been damaged or at risk. Large swaths of the high speed rail's own construction sites are underwater and deemed unworkable due to the flooding taking over our central valley. The widespread flooding highlights the critical need for more water infrastructure in California. AB 501 is a solution to meet this goal. The time to enact a real change is now.

We must invest this funding so that we can protect the communities that desperately need to protect their lives and properties from floodwaters and prepare for more water storage. This Bill will stop the spending going to this failed project, and it makes it available for life saving water projects across California. I respectfully ask for an.

Is there anybody here to speak in support of this Bill? Okay, do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. First, I'd like to thank the author for his dedication to finding water funding for the State of California. All of you know, his constituents know and I know that he is dedicated to that effort, and I applaud him for that. If this was baseball, he'd be in the hall of Fame because he'd be hitting 500. Unfortunately, he's dead wrong on this issue.

With regards to the high speed train, the California high speed train is a project that is being built to deliver the very changes that this Legislature and past governors, including this Governor, have demanded of the policymakers and the citizens of the State of California support. I would challenge this Legislature and this author to help the California high speed rail in supporting their application for a state federal grant of billions of dollars that's currently been submitted as of last Friday.

That money doesn't cost the State of California anything. In fact, California is a donor state. This money will help finish the Central Valley providing and again, I'm here on behalf of the Association of California Trains and the District Council of Ironworkers of the State of California. Billions of dollars. Tens of thousands of jobs have been created in the Central Valley, an area that has had historic unemployment and needs that resource. It's not a jobs program.

This is a transformative project that has had its bumps in the road. We've talked about them recently. We've talked about them for years. Projects like these are complicated and take time. Again, I applaud the effort to provide water resources. As the advocate for sites reservoir.

We need it.

We should be doing that. This is the wrong approach. We'd ask for a no vote on AB 501.

Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify in opposition?

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Beverly. On behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council, representing half a million Members statewide, we are respectfully in opposition to AB 501 for reasons that it would negatively impact a project that employs thousands of our members. We share the same concerns as in the Committee analysis that the Bill could essentially stop construction of the project in the Central Valley because GGRF funds would not be available to match the Prop one a funds as required by the Bond act.

The continued investment of the GGRF for a high speed rail is an investment in California's future with the added benefit of ready creating over 10,000 jobs, of which 73% have gone to individuals from the Central Valley, including 762 small businesses, 259 disadvantaged business enterprises, and 93 disabled veteran businesses enterprises. Notably, these are opportunities created in a part of the state where there is not many options for a path to the middle class.

Rather than contemplating a shift in GGRF funds, we encourage the Legislature to begin real discussions of an extension of the program with a continuing investment for high speed rail. We look forward to working with you all to identify and support all other potential funding sources for water and transportation needs. Respectfully ask for a no vote and look forward to working with the author on the Committee. Thank you.

Thank you. And I don't see anyone else wishing to testify on the Bill. Operator, can you please open the phone lines for testimony for or against AB 501? For those wishing to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero. We're going to go to line 48. Your line is open.

Yes. Eli Litman for move la. In opposition to the scope.

There is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak. Thank you. And I'm going to have to run out to a very quick, just do a quick phone call. So I'm going to just give my comments now. I very much respect my Vice Chair, and he and I agree on more than you would think, but we definitely don't agree on this. Even if you didn't like the high speed rail project, this would not be the way that you would want to divert funds away.

In fact, I know that natural resources does not even allow policy bills that direct greenhouse gas funds in any particular direction through a policy Bill. That's always part of a larger budget conversation. But right now, the high speed rail authority is attempting to get federal money. I'm very hopeful. I am very hopeful that they will be successful in doing that.

We certainly need to have more information about whether or not we have a federal funding partner for that project, and we also need to have a cost benefit analysis of that project in its current form. I appreciate your bringing the Bill forward, but I certainly cannot support it at this time. And I would urge others from the Committee to not try to impact this very large project that's employing thousands of people through a simple policy Bill in the Committee.

And with that, I'm going to pass the gavel to Mr. Jackson for the next few minutes.

Thank you.

Are there any other Committee Members at this time? Ms. Davies?

Thank you. I actually think this is probably one of the most common sense bills that you could actually do, and I look at it this way, is we've got a lot of safety shovel ready jobs right now. I have a rail in San Clemente that has been closed since November and just recently opened. Mainly we have Santa erosion. We've got houses that are slipping off right now, and we actually had to stop mobility.

You've got a lot of people in all areas using this transportation trying to get through. Also, we've got trades and goods that have been stopped. And when there's money sitting there, and we know that these things are safety issues. This is rail. The jobs, you would not lose jobs because you would have to have these workers to come and do these jobs that you would have taking care of flooding and the infrastructure. Same with our railroad.

I just have to question is, I understand that the voters voted for this many years ago and the price has really gone up, but that's the same as the voters voted at the ballot to keep Proposition one. And so they liked what that was. That was the gas tax. That was the infrastructure that was promising them that all the money would go to work programs or to road work. And of course, if we just looked at the past one, that completely changed it again.

So I don't know where that differs from that vote to this vote. So I just think we really need to look at where the money is right now. We're in a deficit and we've got projects that have to be done immediately. And these are safety issues when it comes to connectivity, to mobility and when the money is sitting there. And we know we can actually use the workers to go forward with it as well as these are projects that are, again, safety shovel ready right now.

I think it's a smart idea. Thank you.

Any other Members at this time?

Mr. Creo, recognizing the many challenges that we have in California, high speed being one of them, obviously. And the issue that the author brought up, the water, we just have to be able to invest in that. But I do believe that California can bring high speed rail. I've been a big proponent for a long time. I actually work in a station plant, maybe now that we have, and you've heard me talk about Brightline. Brightline starting construction hopefully this year.

And what I learned from the Joint Committee hearing we had is that other nations have been able to provide that by doing joint partnerships. Maybe this will be the way to do it. A partnership with a private investor who I understand is going to ask for federal dollars now. But it will be a waste of money if we just deciding not to continue with the project. We also heard that projects take a lot of money, a lot of investment, a lot of time.

And again, I still believe that we can deliver that here in California, and for that, I cannot support that at this time. Thank you.

Any other Members at this time? Mr.Kalra?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to second the comments from my colleague. I do believe there's no doubt that there needs to be continued vigilance in terms of oversight and ensuring that the high sea wheel project can be delivered. And obviously being able to leverage federal funds is critical. And I think a lot will be learned in that regard over the next couple of years. And water infrastructure and the resource for that is critical as well. I don't believe it's an either or Proposition.

I think it's a both and particularly in terms of the jobs being created, many of which are being created in your district. Mr. Fong. I think that those jobs are creating a quality of life that otherwise would be very hard to attain by many that live in the Central Valley that are working those jobs.

Now, a program by itself shouldn't be a jobs program, but I don't think we can ignore the fact that there are thousands of high quality jobs that are being created and will continue to be created as this critically important project moves forward. I still believe in it, although I do think that a lot of questions, I think, that are appropriate have been raised over the years.

I think ultimately, as mentioned, these megaprojects that do take many, many years in retrospect, I think we'll look back and appreciate the fact that we didn't give up on it.

Okay. Any additional Members at this time saying none. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I appreciate the comments from the Members, and I think this is a robust conversation that we need to have on a lengthier basis. Look, I am a Member that represents the region that has impacted the most from this project. I don't think anyone in this room can say that. I represent Kern county and till Larry counties. This project is impacting my community the most. And we've had nine business plans, all indicating reduction in ridership cost overruns from $34 billion to $128 billion. We've now seen delays.

This project was slated to finish in 2020. Now, there is no time that they're going to say they can tell us that when they will be constructed. If you read the peer review study, it is clear there is no private investment coming. The voters in 2008 were promised that 21% to 22% of this project would come from private investment, and that's not happening.

The only way this project is going to be completed is a bailout and a hope and a prayer that the Federal Government is going to come in that that's not going to happen. If you watch the debates, they're debating a debt ceiling and how to find cuts, not bailing out this project in California to my labor partners. I want to build stuff in California. I want to build roads. We have $50 billion in infrastructure needs and roads that can be built. We have water infrastructure needs.

Clearly, as I would argue that we need to do right now, we have massive flooding concerns in our state sites. Reservoir, the canals, the levees. This is the crisis that we're facing in the summer and energy infrastructure. We have electricity grid reliability challenges. We could say that we have a mass transit cliff. I would say, we would argue that we can move some of that money to mass transit. We have rural road needs.

This is should we be spending $1.0 billion on this project versus any of the other priorities I just listed? And so this is the argument, this is the choice that we've been made that we have to make as a Legislature. Are we going to invest $1.0 billion every single year that will not finish a project that will even be remotely utilized in California? Or should we be dealing with the crises that our constituents and Californians are facing right now?

And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

This Bill has a motion and a second.

It is AB 501. Do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. The chair is voting no. [Roll Call]

It is 3-8. Would you like a reconsideration? Okay, without objection, we are granting reconsideration. Mr. Gipson, AB 1606. And before you start, I will hand over the gavel to our Vice Chair. It's been an honor to serve.

You may proceed when you're ready, Mr. Gipson.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. Thank you for allowing me--I will be brief to the extent I can--thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1606, which authorized the Department of Motor Vehicle to establish a program to evaluate the traffic safety and other effects of renewing driving license by virtual or other remote processes. This effort stems from the executive order issued by our Governor Gavin Newsom during the pandemic, Covid-19 pandemic, that waives in person renewals for senior drivers.

Today, I accept the Committee amendments that requires the DMV to provide a report to the Legislature about the effectiveness of this program and lay out the standards on who is eligible for online renewal. As technology advance, it is time to start expanding DMV services to somewhere that is more accessible and convenient and online. For seniors and others, having to travel in person to the DMV may be an added burden on the difficulties they already face in their everyday lives.

Having online service available will save many customers the trouble of driving to the DMV, waiting long periods of time for a process that can be done quickly and easily through the Internet. This bill would not eliminate, and I want to underscore not eliminate, any of the current exams issued by the DMV. Rather, it will provide an alternative method for doing these tasks.

Drivers would have the option to remotely submit their application and vision information provided by a healthcare provider, pay their fees, and complete a knowledge test. These changes could make about 1.25 million additional driving license renewal eligible for remote processes. Not only would this benefit our seniors, but it would increase customer convenience and reduce the number of DMV visits. Here with me to provide supporting testimony, I'm honored to say--is a former Member of this House, the green carpet, the State Assembly--is former state Assembly Member Richard White, who with the senior--with the California Senior Legislature, and I'm honored that he is speaking in this House in support of this bill 1606.

Thank you, Assembly Member Gipson, for taking the lead on this bill. Thank you, Committee Members, for hearing us today. Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Richard White. I am a member of the California Senior Legislature and I'm here today to express support for AB 1606. Covid-19 brought a lot of changes to people in this country and around the world.

And for the period from October 2020 through the end of 2022, older adults were allowed to renew and complete their renewal applications online and through electronic remote means. That waiver ended the end of December and needs to be renewed, and that's the purpose of this bill. These drivers during this time were permitted to extend their renewals by email and Internet. And as of January 21, as I said, they no longer have that ability.

AB 166 would authorize the DMV, the Department of Motor Vehicles, to allow drivers over the age of 70 several options to remotely submit their applications and other documents online. This increases convenience for everyone involved and avoids trips for those folks to the DMV, and that can involve long wait lines. So for this reason, the California Senior Legislature respectfully requests your approval and support for AB 1606.

Thank you very much. We will now go to opposition. If there are any here to testify. Seeing none. We will go to public testimony for those here in the room. So for those who all want to express their support for this bill, please come forward. Seeing none. Opposition? Seeing none. We'll now go to the phones. Mr. Operator, if anyone wants to express either the support or opposition to AB 1606, please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you wish to express your support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero. And, Mr. Chair, it appears we have no one who signaled that they wish to speak.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee for any Members who have any questions. Seeing no questions, but we have a motion and a second. I will invite the author to close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. I think this pandemic has taught us all many lessons. And one of those lessons are certainly glaring right in front of us by taking care of our seniors. This is a way to go to help those seniors. Assembly Bill 1606 will make online driving license renewal and registration more convenient for so many Californians and let us take care of our community by reducing unnecessary burdens. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1606 do pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Friedman. Fong. Aye. Berman. Aye. Carrillo. Aye. Davies. Aye. Gipson. Aye. Hart. Aye. Jackson. Aye. Kalra. Aye. Lowenthal. Aye. Nguyen. Aye. Sanchez. Aye. Wallis. Ward. Wicks.

That's 11 votes. We'll leave the vote open for absent Members. We are awaiting Assemblymenberg Garcia for AB 169 and Assembly Member Gabriel for AB 1614 if they can come down to hearing to be efficient with our time. We have a number of bills we heard as a Subcommitee, so we'll move through those bills. So with file item one, AB 73, do we have a motion? Second motion and second secretary, please call.

The roll AB 73, do you pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations? [Roll Call]

Seven to three will hold the vote open. Members, we are going through the bills that were held as a Subcommitee so we're now moving to file item four, AB 256 by Assembly Member Dixon Madam Secretary, please call the roll AB two.

56 is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations [Roll Call]

That's 12 votes. Leave the vote open. We'll reopen the consent file for those who were absent Secretary, please call the.

[Roll Call]

13 - 0 we'll go down the file and let Members add on so we'll go to file item three because Mr. Gibson asked very nicely AB 99 Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call}

It's 9 to 3. We'll leave the vote open. File item 5, AB 473. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 473 do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That's 13 votes. We'll leave the vote open for absent Members. File item 7. AB 1012. Madam Secretary, please reopen the roll.

AB 1012. Due pass, as amended, and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations.[Roll Call]

It. All right. Are you sure, Mr. Berman, you're good? Okay, 100. We'll leave the vote open for Epsom Members. Moving to file item eight, AB 1447. Secretary, please reopen the roll.

AB 1447. Do pass and re refer to the Committee on appropriations. [Second Roll]

13 votes. We'll leave the vote open. The chair is back.

Thank you. Can you call the roll on Mr. Fongsville? Okay. Yeah. Can you go back through wherever you left off? Yes. Please.

File item number nine, AB 154. Do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That Bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members.

File item 11, AB 1525. File item number 11. Do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Wallace? Wallace no. Ward Ward I Wicks 9494.

That Bill is out. We'll leave the roll open. Let's do now. We'll do AB 501.

AB 501. Do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Friedman? No. Friedman no. Wallace. Wallace I Ward Ward no. Wicks.

We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Yeah, we're waiting for two authors. We will give them another few minutes before we close the roll. All right, let's do AB 166.

AB 166. Do pass as amended and re referred to the Committee on appropriations.[Roll Call].

We have 1414 votes. That Bill is out and we will leave the roll open. Okay, we're going to call the roll again for AB 256.

AB 256 is due. Pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] we have fourteen to zero that Bill is out and we will leave the roll open. Can you call AB 73, please?

AB 73, do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Nine to three that Bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Okay, we're going to open the roll for Mr. Wallace to add on to.

Bills, starting with the consent calendar. [Roll Call].

The consent calendar is adopted.

AB 99, do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]. Sorry, I had Ward it's 10 or nine to four.

Nine to four that Bill is out. We'll leave the roll open.

File item number seven, AB 473, do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Wallace Wallace I Wicks.

That Bill is out.

That was file item number five and the vote. Okay, file item number seven, AB 1012, do pass as amended and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Wallace. Wallace I Wicks.

eleven, zero. That Bill is out.

File item number eight, AB 1447. Do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] we have 14.

That Bill has 14 votes and is out. I'm going to reopen the roll for 473. Please call roll for Mr. Wallace.

Reopening the roll for AB 473. Wallace Wallace is not voting Wicks.

But he changed his vote. You have to make sure. Hey, that is thirteen - zero. That Bill is out. Okay, we're going to now hear AB 169. Mr. Garcia, you can proceed when you're ready.

Hope you all enjoyed the bonding moment. Sorry to keep you waiting. I will be brief. AB 1609 creates a new $4 fee, adjusted annually for the inflation which air districts would be able to use for the implementation of Clean Air Act projects. Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you, and two minutes for your witness.

Please press the- thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Ian MacMillan and I'm an Assistant Deputy Executive Officer for the Planning Division at South Coast AQMD. We are in strong support of AB 1609 and happy to serve as a co-sponsor of this bill. Funding from this bill will be used by air districts, cities, and counties to reduce and mitigate emissions from motor vehicles and other efforts necessary to implement the California Clean Air Act, meet state and federal air quality standards, and reduce toxic emissions.

Vehicle exhaust emissions from cars, trucks, and buses are a major contributor to unhealthy levels of ozone, particulate matter, and toxic pollution. This bill would supplement the current $4 fee for the AB 2766 program that reduces air pollution from motor vehicles. That fee has not been increased in over 30 years and has been severely devalued by inflation over time.

Additional funding is essential, especially in South Coast region, where about 17 million Californians are breathing some of the most unhealthy air in the nation and the region is home to nearly 67% of the state's disadvantaged communities.

Within the South Coast region, state law requires that AB 2766 fees be distributed as follows, 40% to cities and counties, 30% to South Coast AQMD for planning, monitoring, enforcement and research activities that reduce mobile source emissions, and 30% to the independent mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee to fund clean air activities. This bill would keep that same distribution.

The AB 2766 program also has a proven track record of providing many additional benefits, including enhancing zero emission infrastructure, increasing transportation alternatives, relieving traffic congestion, conserving energy resources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This bill will also provide sorely needed funding to help pay for recent CARB regulations that will impose billions of dollars of costs on local jurisdictions. We strongly urge your support for this important bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there another witness in support?

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Alan Abbs. I'm the legislative officer with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, also in strong support of AB 1609 and pleased to be a co sponsor.

My counterpart did a great job of providing some basic information about the 2766 program, and so I'd like to talk a little bit about the two programs in the Bay Area that utilize this funding as an exemplar of how the funding is used and how additional funding would be used. We have two programs, the county program and the Transportation Fund for Clean Air.

And combined, those two programs provide about $25 million a year in the Bay Area for emission reductions, which would then be doubled under AB 1609. The Transportation Fund for Clean Air receives 60% of the available funds and awards grants to public and private projects that include truck replacements, zero and partial zero emission vehicles, including supporting our Clean Cars for All program, hydrogen fueling stations, EV charging infrastructure, vehicle scrappage programs, last mile commuter connections, pilot trip reduction programs, bicycle parking and bikeways and infrastructure.

The county program receives the remaining 40%, and we use that to provide funding directly to the nine counties in the Bay Area region, directly for vehicle replacements for county and municipal fleets, also more EV infrastructure, school bus replacement projects, additional Carl Moyer projects, bike infrastructure and transit feeder services. All our applications from the two programs are reviewed for cost effectiveness and prioritized to occur in disadvantaged communities, or AB 617 communities in the Bay Area.

And of course, at the end of every year, we do audits of all the funding that we receive and provide through both programs to make sure that they meet the requirements and statute. So with that, I thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I look forward to answering your questions and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the room wishing to testify in support of the Bill?

Hi, my name is Tung Lee with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to testify in opposition to the bill? Is there anyone, no one in the room wanting to testify in opposition? Okay. Operator, can you please open up the phone lines for AB 1609?

Those who wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. And there is no one who signaled. Pardon me, we have at least two callers who have expressed their interest in speaking. So just a moment, please, and we will now go to line 21. Line 21, your line is now open.

Hello, this is Nicholas Paul from the Environmental Health Coalition in San Diego, California. We are in support of this bill. Thank you.

Line 29.

Good evening. This is Paula Forbis with the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District calling in support of AB 169. Thank you.

There is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Okay, I'll go back to the Committee for any questions or comments. I have a couple of questions. First of all, I want to thank the author for his leadership in this area. He's been a champion for clean air and for communities that are impacted by air quality. The Legislature provides funding from a variety of sources to help clean up the state's air, including the cap and trade revenue, and it's also levied fees for this purpose.

This bill would add another $4 charge to the vehicle registration fee in certain air districts. And the Legislature is also considering this year reauthorization of other vehicle and vessel registration fees to fund statewide vehicle replacement infrastructure and air quality improvements. I think it's important that we do think about the cumulative impact of all of these various fees.

Specific to this bill, I do think the state could benefit from additional state oversight of these funds by air districts who automatically receive the funds to make sure that they are really being used for the benefits that we're hoping that they will. I do just have a couple of quick questions for the author. I'll roll a couple of them into one question.

First, how much revenue you expect this to generate statewide and what the statewide demand is for the funds, whether the air districts have clearly demonstrated additional demand for the money that would necessitate this kind of new charge. Start with that. And while you're answering that, if you can talk about specifically what kind of projects you envision being able to fund that you're right now unable to because of lack of resources.

So $130 million is what will be generated from the $4 increase. Alan with the Bay Area Air Quality District outlined the list of projects that will be benefiting from those resources, and I'd ask Alan if he wants to elaborate on any of those particular ones.

Thank you for that. I, when I made my comment, there was a long list of projects that we fund in the Transportation Fund for Clean Air or the county program fund. And of course, you have to realize that the Bay Area Air District is one of the largest air districts in California, so we receive a pretty significant amount of funding. When you look at some of the smaller air districts, they might actually only get $100,000 or $150,000.

And so you can't really scale down what we do in the Bay Area to what some of the smaller air districts do. But I think all the same, there's significant requirements going forward for light duty purchases, which are going to affect not only private ownership but public ownership of vehicles. And so those would be eligible projects, additional Carl Moyer program funding, which is scrap and replace for heavy duty diesel vehicles, including tractors, and then EV infrastructure and other commuter benefits programs, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

So certainly wouldn't be to the extent that we can do it at the Bay Area, but they would be able to get some of those successes.

Madam Chair. And I'd just add programs of much interest to me that I've seen not receive the adequate funding are the AB 617 communities that have been identified over the course of the last few years. We've added the number of communities, but what we haven't done is increase the amount of money that we're investing into those particular communities.

Well, I do really want to commend you for your leadership on these issues. For a number of years, you brought me out to your district to see a lot of the impacts on air quality from a variety of sources. So I know this is something that you work on on behalf of your community every day. So I'm happy to support the bill today. Do we have a motion? Oh, did you want to close?

Just want to thank you for working on this bill, and my apologies to keep the Committee waiting. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

AB 169 due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call] 9-3.

Nine to three. That bill is out.

9 - 3 that Bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. And here to phase out our Committee hearing is Mr. Gabriel with AB 1614.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Members, I want to start today by accepting the Committee amendments. I want to thank you and your staff for your thoughtful feedback and assistance. Very briefly, we have a number of bills this year looking at how we might increase the electric charging infrastructure in the state. This is one, a very modest piece of that puzzle, which is to think about what we might do with our gas stations and how we might transition some of them to be electric vehicles, charging stations.

Obviously a lot of things to consider as we move towards more zero emissions vehicles, as we move towards a point where the state will no longer sell internal combustion engines and how we're going to use all these gas stations and use that land. So important things for us to start thinking about. A lot of things for us to consider. We think that doing these studies here will be an important piece of the puzzle. And with that, we respectfully request your. I vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in the room wishing to testify in support of AB 1614? Seeing none. Is there anybody here to testify in opposition to 1614? Seeing none. Operator, can you please open up the phone lines for testimony for and against AB 1614?

To wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. At this time we have line 73. Your line is now open.

Madam Chair Members, John Winger, on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience alliance we have a posing, less amended position on the Bill right now, but look forward to having conversations with the author. There's a lot of barriers to entry when it comes to ev charging for gas stations and so we want to be a part of that conversation but also want to make sure that other alternative fuels and other things can be made available as well. But appreciate the time and we look forward to talking to the author more.

There is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Does anybody in the Committee wish to speak? Seeing that? I want to thank you for working in this issue. I want to thank you for your leadership. This is a really important part of the piece of the puzzle, as you said. And thank you very much for working with the Committee and accepting the amendments. I'm very happy to support your Bill today. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully request and aye vote.

Okay. Do we have a motion, Mr. Berman? Second, and I think Mr. Creo moved. Roll call, please.

AB 1614, do pass as amended and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

11 to 4. That Bill is out.

Thank you.

Okay, let's go through the roll to allow the absent Members to add on.

Okay, this is the consent calendar.

Consent calendar is adopted.

This is AB 73. Wicks aye. 10 to three, that Bill is out.

AB 99. Wicks aye. 10 to four, that Bill is out.

AB 256. Wicks aye. 15-0 that Bill is out.

AB 473. Wicks aye. 14-0 That Bill is out.

AB 1012. Wicks aye. 12-0 that Bill is out.

AB 1447. Wicks aye. 15-0 that Bill is out.

AB 154. Wicks aye. 11-4 that Bill is out.

AB 1525. Wicks aye. 11-4 that Bill is out.

AB 169. Wicks aye. 10-4 that Bill is out.

AB 1614. You've voted on that one, I think. AB 501. Wicks, Wicks. AB 501 is Vince Fong. My apologies. That was a no. Wicks no. Four to 11 that Bill fails. Reconsideration is granted.

AB 166. Wicks aye 15 to zero, that Bill is out. That's it.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.