Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

So as soon as you are done with your other committees that are not as important as the Transportation Committee, you can come to 1200 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearings. So we'll continue to do that. So right now, we're going to start with Senator Allen, who is our Committee Member, but we're going to go a little out of file order here, which is file item nine, SB 473. Senator Allen on driver's license. Senator Allen, you may begin.

So much, Madam Chair. Let me just start by thanking the Chair and the Committee staff for working so closely with my office on this Bill. I'm definitely accepting the amendment that was suggesting the analysis to additionally require a study of the graduated driver license expansion proposed by this Bill. This Bill will improve the safety of California's roadways by expanding our Graduated Driver Licensing Program to include 18 to 20-year-old first-time drivers.

The GDL Program, as you know, currently requires teens under the age of 18 to progressively earn driving privileges. A young driver undergoes a six-month training period that includes 30 hours of driver education courses, 6 hours of training behind the wheel with a driving school instructor, and then 50 hours of on-the-road practice supervised by a licensed adult over the age of 25.

And after completing the training period, the driver has to then pass written and behind-the-wheel tests with the DMV and has then a one-year provisional license period during which they can drive unsupervised, but they're restricted from late-night driving and transporting young passengers. Now, the way the rules currently work, if you delay getting your license until you're 18, you bypass all of these critical training and education requirements, and that's where problems start to kick in.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the California Department of Public Health have pointed to motor vehicle collisions as a leading cause of death for teenagers and young adults. NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration crash data from 2020 indicates young drivers aged 15 to 20 accounted for nearly 9% of drivers involved in fatal crashes that year, despite making up only 5% of all drivers on the road, so nearly double their proportional rate.

Additionally, a 2013 study, also from NHTSA, found that inexperienced 18 to 20 year olds. Let's focus in on that particular group. The 18 to 20-year-old drivers were involved in fatal crashes at rates up to 60% higher than other than other age groups. So I personally waited till I was 18, till I got my license, but I did take a driver's education course. But I always remember thinking how crazy it was that just because.

I didn't suddenly became a lot more mature. This is the day I turned 18 from when I was 17. And I know what a benefit all my peers had when they took those driver training courses. And it's my feeling especially, I've had a chance to talk to some families of victims of traffic accidents whose kids might have been saved if we'd had a similar program in place earlier. It's my thought that any opportunity we have to educate young drivers is going to save lives.

There's certainly a lot of data to suggest to show that, and this Bill will do that by expanding the GDL Program to include new 18 to 20-year-old drivers. We've got some testimony in support of the Bill today. Pat Hines, founder and Executive Director of Traffic Safety Organization, Safe Moves Los Angeles, and Nora Rose Hines Foundation, and then Steve Barrow, the State Program Director for the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health. And with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Madam Chair. Mr. Vice Chair Members, I'm Cathy Barankin with the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health. And I apologize. Pat Hines and Steve Barrow are running last-minute errands and didn't know we were coming up so quickly. But I did want to indicate our very strong support for this Bill. What Pat Hines would have told you is a really sad story. Her daughter, who was helping her with Safe Moves in California, educate teenagers about the importance of being properly trained.

Her own daughter was killed at a dangerous intersection at Los Angeles by an inexperienced driver who had not had driver training. So there could not be a more important Bill, in my opinion, this session than making sure that our young drivers have the skills that they need in order to avoid being in an accident, causing an accident, being a victim of an accident. So we really encourage you to consider this Bill, and we thank Senator Allen for his work on it. Thank you.

Thank you. And I think you have other supporters. We'll take them on when they get here, if they should get here at this time. And I believe we have a quorum. So, madam consultant, if you can, please call the role.

[Roll call].

Okay, thank you. We've established a quorum. So, Senator Allen, we are on file item nine, Members. So we have Senator Allen, who is on support. Do we have anyone else in the Committee Room 1200 who'd like to come forward in support of SB 473? Okay, seeing none. So we'll move on to opposition. Doesn't look like you have any registered opposition. Anyone who'd like to come forward in room 1200 in opposition, please come forward. Okay, seeing none.

So we'll move to the teleconference line moderator if there's anyone else on the tele.

Madam Chair, I'm so sorry because we went early.

Absolutely.

If you can come right up here. If you wouldn't mind just giving her a minute.

Sure.

She's in from L.A.

Good afternoon. Sorry, I was sitting out there getting hot, so it's nice to be inside here. Thank you very much. I apologize for having to read this, but I've spoken to 30 high schools over the last 30 days, and I don't know if I can get through my story without crying. So if you would allow me, I will read my statement. My name is Pat Hines. I'm the founder and Executive Director of Safe Moves, 40-year-old nonprofit organization dedicated to educating children on traffic safety.

Since the death of my daughter, Nora Rose Hines, I've become the founder and Executive Director of the Nora Rose Hines Foundation. I look at the life of my daughter Nora, and I marvel at all she accomplished in her 19 years before she died in a collision on November 25, 2018. She did not benefit from the GDL because she was 18. She was killed by a driver who was 18, who did not benefit from the GDL. Tiana Brown was a young lady who was driving recklessly.

She was in the car with five other teenagers, not wearing seatbelts, driving on a very dangerous street. Nora was a loving daughter, a sister, and friend. She was compassionate, courageous and generous, and very talented. She was a freshman at UCLA as a musical theater major and just had gotten her first role in a Meryl Streep movie, which she was not alive to participate in. She was a humanitarian who developed a love of children. She volunteered at a Guatemalan orphanage, teaching guitar lessons.

And she also worked at my nonprofit teaching young children about traffic safety. Then, without warning, Nora was gone, and my life was changed forever. I know that losing a child is the greatest fear of any parent, but is truly unimaginable when it happens to you. Time can't fix this kind of loss. Healing, I'm learning, comes from choosing to pursue life again. A tragedy like this can be a starting place for something new. I think that the Bill will turn tragedy around for my daughter's death.

Nora did not die without a legacy and a purpose for though she left behind. I honor Nora by doing all I can to educate teens on safer choices and to improve streets and to reduce deaths and injuries. When the Legislature passed the Brady Jared Driver Safety Act in 1997, it was expected that most teenagers would get their first driver's license before they turned 18.

Things have changed now, and more than 40% of young people do not get their license until they're 18 or aged out of the GDL Program. They did not get the benefit of all this evidence-based driver education. It's estimated 500 to 700,000 young Californians do not get their first license until they age out of GDL at the age of 18. With the passing of SB 473, we can reduce injuries and deaths among first-time drivers by 40%. It's a huge number.

Nora could have been one of those who would've been.

Ma'am, I'm just going to ask you to wrap up if you don't mind.

I'm done. I just implore you to vote for 473. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We appreciate that and your testimony. Are there any other witnesses in support of this Bill? That is SB 473, please come forward.

So, my name is Steve Barrow. I'm the State Program Director for the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health. And like Pat, I'm an affected family Member. Although, unlike Pat, my son didn't die. He was struck as a pedestrian in a crosswalk by an errant, distracted young driver going 40 miles an hour. We're still rebuilding parts of his body so he can walk and get back to high school and stuff.

But this Bill has been researched for years, and I'm mostly here to answer technical questions about the Graduated Driver's License Program. Also, what the Bill will do, moving the age range up to 21, why it's different for 18, 19, and 20-year-olds, because they're already going to work and have families and school and stuff. So I will not say a whole lot more, other than I know as a paramedic.

When I was a paramedic, what it was like going to these scenes, and now as a parent, going to a scene where my own child was hit. And unlike Pat, though, our son survived, so I'll just wait for questions.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Barrow. Okay, I'll ask once again if there are any other witnesses in testimony in support of SB 473. Okay. See none. Opposition. Once again, is there anyone in opposition to SB 473 at this time? See none. So we'll take it to the teleconference line. Moderator, do we have anyone in the queue in support or opposition of SB 473, please?

Thank you. Please press one zero at this time if so. And we do have one in queue here, we'll go to line 43, please. One moment here. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. My name is Marc Vukcevish, calling on behalf of Streets For All, in strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Give me a moment here. Again, it's one zero. And we can go to line 46. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Allison Adey on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, in strong support of SB 473. Thank you.

And currently none further in queue.

Okay, thank you. Moderator so we'll take it back for any questions. Senator Newman?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Allen, I'm a believer in this Bill, and I'm glad you brought it. The analysis notes a trend in young drivers not getting their licenses and certainly getting them later, I'd argue, largely because of the cost associated with training. So, unrelated to this Bill, I think there's a very strong argument for restoring driver's ed to public schools. I know that's not part of that, but I think it's worth touching on right now. But I do have a question.

This Bill, or versions of it have been tried successive times and have failed either in Appropriations or via veto. What's different about this version of the Bill than the previous versions? 2021, 2019, and prior to that, I think 2017.

Yeah. Not a lot, I will say. I actually did a deep dive into this when I was choosing whether to do this Bill or not. And certainly experienced Legislator, it raises red flags when a Bill has failed in the past, and yet it seems that every single time there were more politics involved with the defeat of the Bill than substance. And the last time it made it out of the Legislature and went to the Governor, it was a previous Governor.

And all indications suggest that the current Governor is much more amenable to it than Governor Brown was.

What are the politics? I mean, it seems really straightforward to me.

Politics involving the legislator politics as opposed to.

I understand. Okay. About the actual?

People mad at the author, stuff like that.

That's unfortunate. Again, I think the Bill has really compelling merits, and I'm glad to support it today. So thank you for answering my question.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I believe it'll be implemented in 2027, which is the difference as well after the DMV.

That's true. That's absolutely true.

We've also added we're working on a reporting requirement as well, which I think he's agreed to take.

That's absolutely right.

To the next Committee. So with that, Senator Becker.

I should say is that as a parent of two teenagers, recently went through this with both. I'm in support of this Bill, and I'll move the Bill at appropriate time.

Thank you

Senator Dahle.

Thank you. I don't know why politics would play into this with you carrying the Bill. So I think that we got a good. I did have a question. So as somebody who, Doug had a Bill last year about driver's license getting restored, and I supported that. But as an employer, so first of all, I would like a little more statistics. So of the incidents, what is the number of incidences where they didn't do training versus ones that did training? Are you following what I mean?

Yeah, I do know, and I've got some information on that, but I think that Steve's got the most comprehensive answer. If you don't mind.

So this is a really heavily nationally and statewide study. So people that don't get their driver's license at 18, 19, and 20, and quite frankly, when you talk to them, it's all about cost and economics nowadays. It's not about ducking the GDL, but those that don't get GDL because they're aged out, they're 18, 19, or 20. They go get their regular license. They have a 40% to 60% higher fatal crash rate. Okay?

And that is incredibly high. And that has been borne out through studies by NHTSA, here, by our own DMV, CHP. They don't have the experience and the training of how to primarily not be distracted while they're learning how to drive. That's one of the big things. And so it's 40% to 60%. Their 16 to 17-year-old peers who went through GDl have 55% in California, 55% fewer fatal crashes. So it's not perfect, but we'll take that in public health. A 50% win.

Thank you. That is exactly. I'm going to be supporting your Bill. But the one thing I'm concerned about is that one of the main reasons that we see students or people is the cost. There's a cost to going through the program, and I have children as well. And it's amazing. When I turned 16, I was already through the course and couldn't wait to get my driver's license. But this generation is a little different.

Even my own children were going off to college and didn't have a driver's license. I'm like, hey, you need a driver's license so you can get around. And so we ended up having to pay for a course. So I wanted to, just a thought. There's a lot of low-income disadvantaged folks who can't afford, who aren't typically might not, they move a lot, they might not be in the system where they can get the.

So I'm going to support your Bill, but I think we need to somehow think about along the way figuring out a way to make sure that it's accessible to people who can't be accessible to. The other thing is when they turn 18, that's the time they're going to go into the workforce and they need to be able to get back and forth to work.

That's one of the things that we see in the rural areas a lot where if you don't have a driver's license, you're not going to be able to get to work. And if you can't get to work, you don't have the money to be able to get the program paid for. So those are just some thoughts. I'm going to support your Bill.

Obviously, the numbers show that we should do this, but the other thing we should focus on is how we get these younger people to be able to afford to get into the program and the programs be available.

It's a great point, Senator, the way we have it structured right now, and certainly happy to. I know this is actually an issue that the Chair cares a great deal about as well. And part of the study that the Committee added in is going to look into this issue. But the way it's structured now, the Bill requires driving schools to provide up to 12 months of financing for low-income students with no interest or fees.

That's the way it's currently structured so that there'd be literally a no cost, no fee, no interest financing system for any low-income student. But if you want something more robust, we can have that discussion.

The main point is I just don't want to leave anybody behind because they financially can't do it. That's the point. And when I was going to school, we didn't have to pay. Actually, the school did it. We had it at school. And that's to Senator Newman's point. And we all did it because we want to get our driver's license and we were a lot safer. I mean, it's a chicken and egg kind of thing.

You learn how to fix cars, too. For free, too, in school. We used to have an auto shop. Yeah, well, that's a broader problem and you know, maybe we can all work on that.

Absolutely. And thank you, Senator Dahle, because that's one of the first issues that we brought up as a Committee, so I thank the Senator for bringing that forward. I don't think there are any other questions or comments. Senator Allen, would you like to close?

No. Really appreciate the robust discussion. I got to tell you, when I first heard this Bill as a young Legislator without kids, it was meaningful to me. Now that I have a little one, these stories have just hit me so much harder. You put so much love and attention and time and investment into these little kids, and then to think that all that could be taken away in an instant because someone didn't have enough training.

Gosh, I hope we're able to get this across the finish line this year. Let's work together to make it equitable and effective. But ultimately, this is about saving lives. And I just appreciate the thoughtful discussion and ask your Aye vote.

Thank you. So, can we entertain a motion? I think we already got one by Senator Becker. So with that, madam consultant, can you please call the roll?

For file item nine, SB 473 by Senator Allen. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]. Nine.

Okay, we have nine votes so far, so we'll leave that on call. Members we're going to take up. Now that we've established a quorum, we're going to take up the consent calendar. And actually, just a first announcement. Item eight, SB 312 by Senator Wiener, and item 13, SB 689, by Senator Blakespear are off of the agenda at this time. So we'll be hearing 15 measures. Of course, we've already heard one on today's agenda, with six of those proposed for consent.

So the proposed consent items are as follows. Item four, SB 68, by Senator McGuire. Item five, SB 301 by Senator Portantino. Item seven, SB 304 by Senator Laird. Item 11, SB 606, Alvarado-Gil. Item 12, SB 617, Newman. Item 16, SCR 25 by Sarato. Can we entertain a motion?

Have a motion. Go ahead.

We have a motion, and there are no items that would be pulled from consent at this time. So, Senator Archuleta, thank you. And consultant, can we please call the roll on the consent?

For the consent calendar. [Roll call].

11 votes so far on the consent, so we'll leave that on hold as well. So next, we have author here, Senator Portantino, who will present file item six, SB 357. And I'm going to hand this off to my Vice Chair, Senator Niello, who will take over for a bit while I'm away. Thank you.

You are?

I am. I'm so sorry. Welcome. Senator Portantino. You may present.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I'd like to begin by accepting amendments that are not the ones outlined in the Committee analysis. The amendments we're accepting are sunset provision for 2029 on a voluntary reporting system, reporting requirement that the DMV to produce a report by 2027, analyzing changes in reporting patterns from doctors before and after implementation, and crash rates before and after. So those are the amendments we're accepting. And with that, I'm going to talk about SB 357 and again, thank the Committee Chair and staff, and my staff for working that out.

And the sponsors obviously, as well. SB 357 would provide doctors with more discretion to report conditions they believe will impair a patient's inability to drive, including epilepsy. Epilepsy is the fourth most common neurological disorder, affecting more than 425,000 Californians and 3.4 million Americans. In 1957, a state law was passed that mandated physicians to automatically report these drivers to the DMV, even though there is evidence drivers with epilepsy don't have meaningful higher accident rates than the broader population.

The reporting requirement has led to patients not disclosing their conditions to their doctors out of fear that they may risk their license being suspended or revoked. Not disclosing also means patients are getting less access to appropriate care and have an increased risk of seizure, injury, and even death. By giving doctors more discretion, we'll encourage individuals to get the care they need without risk of losing their ability to drive and protect the doctor-patient relationship.

This Bill will lastly update an outdated law and ensure that California joins with the other 44 states that do not mandate reporting. With me today, I have Rebekkah Halliwell from the Epilepsy Foundation of Los Angeles, and David Parker, the parent of a child with epilepsy, to testify in support.

Good afternoon. Rebekkah Halliwell, Director of the Epilepsy Foundation, Los Angeles. Thank you to the Chair and the Committee. California is only one of the last of six states in the nation that has mandatory reporting. And as you're aware, physician reports that lapse of consciousness, it makes its way to the DMV. DMV then decides, are you going to refuse to issue a license, deny a renewal, immediately suspend or revoke an individual's driver's license?

The timeline can vary, but it's not unaffordive to wait at least two months at minimum. Two months at minimum of not being able to drive to work. Two months of potential loss of income, either temporarily or indefinitely. Mandatory reporting just can be an unnecessary burden, especially for the nearly 70% of people with epilepsy who find seizure control through medication or the person who only has seizures at night. Law as it exists today, compromises the patient-doctor relationship and jeopardizes the patient from accessing care.

Because of this current law, and to avoid such a burdensome process with an unknown outcome, people have a change in seizure control, are reluctant to communicate this to their doctor. The doctor is then not able to explore why did they have that breakthrough seizure. Maybe, which happens often, did they get the wrong medication at the pharmacy? Did their insurance company suddenly just say, hey, that's not in the formulary anymore, so they're actually given a substitute?

People in the epilepsy community are also declining newer, potentially better and more beneficial treatments for the fear of a breakthrough seizure as they transition from one therapy to another. Doctors can't properly care for people in our community if there isn't honest and open communication. Uncontrolled seizures are serious and can lead to injury and death. Mortality rates for those with uncontrolled epilepsy can be four, even seven times higher than those without controlled seizures.

Ultimately, SB 357 doesn't change the existing process, but just simply allows doctors the ability to not report when the situation isn't warranted. We respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is David Parker. I'm a member of the Board of the Epilepsy Foundation, Los Angeles, and the Chair of our Public Policy Committee. I want to thank Senator Portantino for authoring this important Bill, and Chair Gonzalez and the Transportation Committee for working with us to make this legislation the best it can be. Every person in this room likely knows someone who's had a seizure. That may come as a surprise, because people often don't like to talk about their seizures, with good reason.

Outdated laws, like the one we're trying to change right now, make people with epilepsy afraid to talk about their seizures with their own doctors for fear of losing their licenses, which could mean losing their jobs, their livelihoods, their Independence. Despite its prevalence, epilepsy has been, throughout history, one of the most misunderstood and stigmatized medical conditions. Mandatory reporting not only perpetuates that stigma, its very existence is rooted in prejudice and discrimination.

The 1957 law Senator Portantino referred to requiring physicians to report immediately every person diagnosed as a case of epilepsy or similar disorders characterized by lapses of consciousness, has remained substantively intact for almost seven decades. That means that the current mandatory reporting law dates from a time when the California Vehicle Code prohibited licenses from being issued to anyone, and I quote, who is insane or feeble-minded, or an idiot, imbecile or epileptic.

The language is shameful, as is the attitude it represented, but that is the context in which mandatory reporting was introduced. To be very clear, we support physicians continuing to be able to report patients who may not be safe to drive. What we are standing up against is singling out drivers with specific conditions, including epilepsy, based not on data or evidence of an individual driver's abilities, but on outdated assumptions about certain diagnoses. I will share one piece of data.

One study estimated that .0001% of accidents are caused by a driver with epilepsy. That's one in a million. This Bill will not take any authority away from the DMV to make determinations on individual driver fitness. SB 357 will simply replace a discriminatory scheme that stigmatizes and marginalizes Californians based entirely on a diagnosis with an evidence-based, physician-driven program. It matters that people with epilepsy be able to talk about their seizures with their doctors.

It matters that people with epilepsy be able to talk about their seizures, period. My daughter is eight. She's had seizures since she was five months old. She's on the more severe end of the epilepsy spectrum. And barring any major medical advances, she's unlikely to ever drive. But a law that discriminates against one person with epilepsy discriminates against them all. We will not move past old prejudices until we change the laws built upon them. Thank you for your time and consideration.

If there are any other witnesses in support of this Bill, please come forward and identify yourself and your position and your organization.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brandon Marchy with the California Medical Association, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Shane Gusman on behalf of the Teamsters and the Amalgamated Transit Union, in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support in Room 1200? So do we have lead witnesses in opposition here in the room? Or any other witnesses in opposition here in the room? Well, we will move to the phone lines.

And thank you. Please press one, then zero for support or opposition to SB 357. Please stand by.

Thank you. Moderator, please open the lines.

One moment, please. And we do have a participant queuing up at this time, please stand by. We will go to line 44. Please go ahead, 44.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Lauren Orciuoli, and I'm calling on behalf of the American Epilepsy Society, in strong support of SB 357. Thank you.

We'll now go to line 51. Please go ahead, 51.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, so I'm just hearing, this is my first time participating, so thank you for even allowing this. And praise God I figured out how to participate because I do love following good information and these laws. And regarding this epilepsy, hearing the research that was presented shows that it was so low, and I'm a big support of freedom. So I think that there shouldn't be any discrimination about allowing them to have their license.

And I hope that even the proceedings follow a little bit more of a slower, calmer pace. I was trying to participate in 473, and I just got missed through it. And I'm going to have to follow through in writing. So I think my points have been made.

Thank you for your testimony.

If you have any questions. Thank you.

We'll go to line 42. Please go ahead.

Hi, Laura Weidner, Epilepsy Foundation of America, in support of SB 357.

Thank you. Is that the end of the testimony on the phone lines? I believe it is.

Yes.

So, Senator Portantino. Oh, excuse me. We'll bring it back to the Members if anybody would like to ask a question or make a comment? Senator Archuleta.

I want to thank you. For all of us who have family members who have illnesses, strokes, things of that nature, and it's usually one time. They're cured. With the medical treatment we have today, they should be able to get up and begin a life once again. And I'm so proud that we're going forward with this and reaching out to this community. And I thank you. And I would like to move the Bill when it's appropriate.

Any other questions or comments? The Bill. Well, Senator Portantino, you may close.

Like many of us, we have family members who have been affected by this issue and respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

The Bill has been moved by Senator Archuleta. Please call the roll.

For file item six, SB 357 by Senator Portantino. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call].

We'll keep the roll open for Members to catch up. We have going to file order. Is Senator Umberg here? He's currently chairing a meeting, I believe. A meeting where I'm supposed to be, too. It's a fun day. So do we have any authors not on the Committee in the room? Then, Senator Becker, you are up. Senator Becker, you will present file item to SB 49.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. California needs to build more than 100,000 megawatts of new solar generation, 100 gigawatts of new solar, that's three times our current amount, along with transmission, to deliver all that clean energy to our cities in order to achieve our 100% clean energy goal. SB 49 supports solar and transmission lines that avoid construction on undeveloped or agricultural land with two approaches. First, it incentivizes solar canopies over parking lots or school lunch areas, for example, by exempting those projects from sales tax,

Putting solar over parking lot could let us generate estimated 13,000 megawatts of new solar without needing any new land. And it would provide shade for all those cars so they don't get so hot. Second, the Bill directs Caltrans to develop a strategic plan for making unused land within highway right of way available for renewable energy generation and for renewable energy storage and transmission lines. Other states are already doing this.

When North Carolina analyzed its highway right of ways, they found 50,000 acres of space, though suitable for solar development, enough for 5000 to 10,000 megawatts. And Siting transmission in these right of ways can help us speed up the process by avoiding the need to cite it on private land that's owned by hundreds of separate landowners. State can also earn revenue from leasing the land in the right of way to solar developers, so this effort could even pay for itself.

With these two approaches, we can get more renewable energy built, support clean energy jobs, provide shade for cars and kids, and earn the state revenue from leasing land from solar development. The Committee analysis suggested a technical fix in adding a reporting requirement for Caltran's progress on siting transmission, and I'll be happy to work on those for the next Committee. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Today, I have Dan Jacobson from Environment California and Allie Kelly from The Ray to testify.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California. First of all, I want to thank the Senator for his hard work on this. So often we see here in California that we're setting ambitious goals for clean energy. How do we get to 100%? The state has said we need to build six or seven gigawatts every single year in order to meet that goal. And yet every single year, we seem to fall short of that by several gigawatts.

Many of the problems will be wrestled with, not necessarily in this Committee, but by other policy committees in terms of siting, in terms of transmission, in terms of where do we do the permitting on this one.

This issue is more of the low-hanging fruit this looks at where could we easily establish and put solar and storage on the land that's already been disturbed, and looking at the parking area that Senator Becker has already talked about in Los Angeles County alone, there's 100 sq mi of parking. In the State of California, if we just put this solar on half of the parking lots that we have here in the state, we could generate up to 13 gigawatts of clean energy.

This is energy that we can put on quickly here in the State of California that hopefully doesn't. We speed through so much of the permitting and other issues that we sometimes struggle with when we're looking at ways to do clean energy. The other opportunities here is that not only is this clean energy, but it also affords for good jobs here in California. And we'll hear from other folks as well.

Next, I'll cede the rest of my time over to Allie Kelly, who can talk about how this is working in terms of putting solar in the rights of way on the highways. Allie?

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Dan. Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to talk with you about Senate Bill 49. And thank you, Senator Becker, for bringing this important piece of legislation. My name is Allie Kelly. I'm Executive Director of an Atlanta-based nonprofit organization called The Ray. The Ray, as a nonprofit, facilitates infrastructure projects with transportation agencies in the public sector.

In fact, The Ray is now working in 27 states with three dozen transportation agencies, and much of our project work is focused on utilizing the rights of way for clean energy infrastructure as described in Senate Bill 49. I just want to support the comments that Senator Becker has already made. Number one, Senate Bill 49 does not create any fiscal burden as it relates to right-of-way solar and right-of-way transmission analysis for Caltrans or the State of California.

The Ray, as a nonprofit, operates a powerful GIS mapping tool that was provided to us free of charge by ESRI. We're able to input the parcel data from the transportation agencies. We're able to utilize the state's elevation and the state's surface model to find the most suitable sites in the right of way for solar development. And based on that suitability analysis, we then carry forward procurement to execution of these projects.

In fact, states who have utilized their rights of way for solar development have saved money on day one because for the life of these projects, the state is no longer responsible for the maintenance of those parcels. Mowing and other types of maintenance activities on the roadsides can be quite expensive. In my home state of Georgia, we spend some $49 million every year spraying weeds and mowing grass on the roadsides.

So each parcel that's developed into solar is automatically saving the state and the agency important funds which are directed to roadside maintenance. Also with main DOT sites recently developed in their Capital City of Augusta on I-95, facilitated by The Ray, resulted in new revenue sources for main DOT. for the 20-year period of those solar sites. Main DOT was able to leverage a fee for the land licenses that were associated with these sites.

Main DOT was also able to negotiate a power purchase agreement which will lower their energy costs. As a DOT, their energy costs lowered by millions of dollars over the 20-year project period. So money saved on roadside maintenance, money saved on DOT utility costs, and money earned simply by unleashing the productivity of the roadside land for right-of-way solar.

We also have developed a tool for analyzing the roadsides for incorporating transmission and distribution, and that infrastructure can be co-located with fiber in the roadsides, creating a layer cake of value as a potential for our roadside lands. Finally, I will just note that these types of activities have been facilitated and have been lauded by our Federal Government. Federal Highways has 2021 guidance wherein they list all of the ways in which the Federal Government will facilitate these projects. They themselves will waive their fair market value requirements.

They will essentially incorporate mansion-style permitting reform for these projects and reduce environmental reviews in order to facilitate these projects. And President Biden and the White House have recognized right-of-way transmission in their 2022 Game Changers Report as one of the 37 game changers that the United States must implement in our work to address the climate crisis. With that, again, I thank you for this opportunity.

My colleague David Peters, who came to The Ray from AASHTO, is with me to help answer any technical questions, and appreciate your time.

Thank you very much. Do we have other witnesses in the room in support, please state your name, organization and your position.

Good afternoon. Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, in support.

Good afternoon, Members. Kyler Joaquin here today on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers and the California Coalition of Utility Employees, in support. Thank you very much.

Mira Morton on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association, in support.

Good afternoon. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity, in strong support. Thank you.

Nico Molina, on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Steven King on behalf of several organizations in support. Those organizations are The Climate Center, Los Angeles Business Council, Indivisible Marin, Climate Action Mendocino, Climate Hawks Vote, Citizens Climate Lobby SoCal Tri-Counties Chapter, Progressive Zionists of California Direct Connect, and Recolte Energy. Thank you.

Hello. My name is John Jones, representing California Indivisible California State Strong, a coalition of 81 indivisible organizations representing over 80,000 constituents in the State of California with our strong support of Senate Bill 49.

Cynthia Shallit, on behalf of Sacramento Area Congregations together, in strong support.

Terry Tamminen, the President and CEO of AltaSea of the Port of Los Angeles. I'm actually rising in support of SB 49 as the former Secretary of the California EPA and one of the architects of the Million Solar Roofs Initiative. And I wanted to give you this additional piece of data that when we launched the Million Solar Roofs Initiative, 10 years later, we were able to celebrate the millionth installation of a rooftop solar in California.

We predicted when we created this initiative that it would generate about three gigawatts of clean energy. It ended up generating 8.9 gigawatts in the 10 years, and now it's well over 1.6 million. So whatever the estimates are for the potential for more renewable energy here, they're probably grossly underestimated, especially when you take into consideration.

I know much of the testimony has been about the roadsides, which I greatly appreciate, but when you take into consideration the shade structures on parking lots, one of the things that makes that less affordable is because you obviously have to build the canopy in order to put the solar on top of it. So this, I think, would take some of those economics and turn them around, especially with recent changes in the net metering laws.

So, long story short, there's a lot of opportunity here both to achieve environmental goals, our clean energy goals, and, of course, a lot of clean energy jobs. Thank you.

We will now move to any lead witnesses in opposition. Are there any here in the room?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Ben Triffo with the League of California Cities. We regretfully have to be opposed unless amended on SB 49. Cal Cties does support the goals of the Bill and the development of renewable energies. Unfortunately, California cities cannot afford any additional erosion of local tax base. So to that end, we do have some amendments that we've proposed to the author's office.

We do know our concerns are not necessarily germane to this Committee, so we'll be addressing those and continuing our conversations with the author's office as we move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in opposition? Seeing none, we will now move to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. And as a reminder to those witnesses, please tell us your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose the Bill. Moderator, if you'd please prompt individuals waiting to testify?

Thank you. To provide comment and support or opposition of SB 49, please press one then zero at this time. And we do have. Go to line 51. Please go ahead, 51.

Actually, 51 disconnected. Let's go to line 55, please. Go ahead. 55.

This is Janet Cox for Climate Action California, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll try. Back to line 51, please. Go ahead, 51.

Hello, my name is Jess Elmerz. I'm not with any association, just a citizen of Santa Clara County and I'm in strong support.

Thank you.

At this time, go to line 56. Please. Go ahead.

Representing ENGIE North America. Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hi, this is Tom. Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll now go to line 36. Please. Go ahead 36.

Hello, this is Kathy Schaeffer. On behalf of the San Fernando Valley and the Los Angeles Chapters of Climate Reality in support. Thank you.

And we will now go to line 43. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Calling from Streets for ALL. We don't have a formal position on this bill, but we do have concerns about the need for infill development within cities specifically to address both our VMT and greenhouse gas emissions and how this bill interplays. That's all we have to say at the time. Thank you.

We'll go to line 41. Please go ahead.

This is Nancy Haber with 350 Bay Area action in strong support. Thank you.

We'll now go to line 45. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon; this is Elise Fandrich from TrattenPrice Consulting on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund in support of the bill.

And at this time we have no further comments in queue.

So thanks for bringing this bill forward. I think it's a great idea to use this right away that we have, but I know this is going to geo next. So, I'm assuming the one thing that I do have a concern with on the bill is the tax. For solar-

Thank you. Moderator and thanks to everyone who testified. So let's bring it back to the Members. Questions or comments. Senator Dahle.

- counties survive, and cities survive on a tax base. You can't have a law enforcement, you can't have parks, you can't have all those things. All of those of us that came out of local government know that those sales tax and those unsecured role taxes also, and property tax help fund the services at local level. And we have typically been exempting solar from the secured role and from the taxes. So that's the part of the bill I don't like.

I think that we need to make sure that our local communities are made whole, and we should be able to do that along with being able to put these transmissions. I'm going to vote for the bill today, but I think it's going to GEO or Govern Finance, and I'm on that committee as well. And hopefully we can address the tax issue that I think needs to be addressed to make this a really great bill. Thank you.

Any other questions? Senator Dodd?

Senator Dahle, I think you bring up a good point on the tax base, but I guess the bottom line is right now, there is no tax base on that land. That's right-of-way land, presumably, which is Caltrans right-of-way land. We're trying to do this to promote more solar.

I don't really see the value, and I could certainly see the League of Cities and CSEC complaining about it, but I don't really see that as I'd need to talk to them a little bit more to see if that's really a viable concern.

Second to the author, if it's okay, Senator Becker, I think this is great, but all I keep hearing about is that we have more solar than we need right now, and we get to 05:00 at night unless you have battery storage, you're just giving it away, or it's just going away. Continuing to promote more and more solar without the battery backup to go along with mean, we've got to be asking ourselves, is this a smart policy going forward?

I don't have the answer to it, but I'd love to hear maybe your experts comment on my comment if it makes any sense or not.

Sure I will. And I'll address Senator Dahle's question in my close, but I think to your question directly: we still need more solar. I asked my team,"Do we only need 100 gigawatts?" And the reality is we are developing more storage. So there are certain days of the year where we're curtailing. So one, number one, you're absolutely right.

We need to focus on the peak, which a lot of my legislation has been focused on that peak to get to few days a year where we're curtailing solar, meaning like just dispersing it. But there are many, many more days where we still need that solar. And so we will develop solar. We will need to continue to develop batteries for storage for that peak and even long-term storage when days when it's not as sunny.

So I looked into this, and while there are still certain specific days that are very sunny, that we're curtailing solar, we still need that additional solar.

Senator Blakespear, then Senator Archuleta, thank you.

Senator Blakespear, then Senator Archuleta.

Thank you. Thank you. The way that I read this bill, it actually includes storage. And I was envisioning when I at first was reading through it, I was thinking that the issue of solar panels on the Caltrans right of way is one thing, but having battery storage on the Caltrans right of way is you would get a lot more bang for your buck. And also, if they're leasing this, that would be a revenue generator for them.

I know I was on a wastewater district where we put in a lot of battery storage, and it's a major revenue generator. I just wanted to clarify that that is what the bill does. Right?

On the right-of-way piece, yes. I think maybe Senator Dodd was talking more about the parking lots. That'll be primarily solar, but yes, absolutely. storage on the right-of-way piece.

Okay, thank you.

That helps. Senator Archuleta.

Well, for the solar parking lots, it would be solar developers. So we're trying to make it attractive to developers with the tax credit. And so I'll address maybe Senator Dahle's point then, in response to yours as well, which is we're trying to make it attractive with lots of parking lots today. Why is there not solar?

Mr. Chair, my question, Senator, is the infrastructure: Which entity from Caltrans or which entity in the municipality would be responsible for the infrastructure and the building of the solar structures?

Because it hasn't been financially attractive. And actually, with net energy metering changes, it's going to make it even less attractive. So what we're trying to do right now, if you tax zero, you get zero. So we're trying to make, with this bill, make it more attractive to put solar on the canopies on parking lots. And that'll be developers on the infrastructure piece. It will be infrastructure developers -

And I don't know if you want to comment where it is in other places, but Allie, maybe have a quick comment, but it'll be infrastructure developers.

Absolutely right of way, solar can be developed by a number of different entities. Of course, the state DoT or transportation agency can develop the infrastructure themselves. I will tell you that most transportation agencies are not trying to build energy infrastructure and expand their already burdensome ONM. What is most likely is that a solar developer or a utility will work a deal with the transportation agency to bring the infrastructure to the right of way.

One additional option and opportunity that has been blessed by the federal government is the development of proprietary solar on the right of way by private entities. So a distribution center or some kind of manufacturing center adjacent to the right of way can develop private solar on the right of way with a direct connect to their facility for resilience. And that is allowable and encouraged and facilitated by the federal government.

We just need state governments, state agencies to bring these projects forward for the feds to facilitate them.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from Members seeing none. Senator Becker, you may close.

Thanks. I appreciate the robust discussion. Look forward to continuing conversations. And again, I know this will come up in Gov and Fiance. And again, the key issue with the parking lots is if we tax zero, we get zero. And so we're trying to make it actually attractive for folks to build there. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Who was that?

Senator Newman, please call the roll.

File item two, SB 49 by Senator Becker. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Governance and Finance. [Roll Call]

11-0. We'll keep the roll open for missing members. Senator Becker, if you don't mind. You do have one more bill after this. But Senator Umberg is here, who is chairing another committee in another room. So if we could let him.

Absolutely. I would always defer to Senator Umberg.

Well, thank you.

I won't. I will understand but not forgive you. So thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator Becker, for deferring for a moment.

You will forgive me for not being at your meeting.

And I hope it's only a moment. I'm here to present SB 55 concerning the prevention of catalytic converter theft. I think everyone on this Committee, everyone in this room, knows the epidemic proportions of catalytic converter theft here in California. It has afflicted literally hundreds of thousands of Californians. It is quite prevalent. The most recent victim of catalytic converter theft was the beloved Wienermobile. I'm not actually talking about Senator Scott Wiener's vehicle.

I'm talking about the Oscar Meyer vehicle that had its catalytic converter stolen over Super Bowl weekend. This hits every community. Hits everyone. But it particularly hits low and moderate income individuals most profoundly. It can cost anywhere from $1000 to $4,000 to replace a catalytic converter. And what this bill does--this bill assists in the arrest, deterrence and prosecution of those who steal catalytic converters.

If you steal a catalytic converter and it cannot be identified with a specific vehicle, it is very difficult to prosecute the individual who was found, for example, with a truckload of catalytic converters. What this bill does is it requires that an etching be done or some sort of permanent marking of a unique identifier, like the VIN number, on a catalytic converter. This bill is a work that has been in progress now for two years. I think we have resolved most of the issues and I would urge an aye vote.

Yes, I do. Do I have a witness? I have Mr. Alexander Karkanen from Los Angeles District Attorney's Office.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Alex Karkanen. I'm a Deputy District Attorney from Los Angeles County--Los Angeles County District Attorney--we're the sponsors of the bill. I just want to talk with you briefly about the catalytic converter issue.

It's not a surprise to anybody here that this is a big problem all across Los Angeles. Not just LA, but certainly all across California. The thing is, I want to give you some updates as to what's going on recently. First off, although we've been addressing this issue for a couple of years, unfortunately, it's not getting better. This problem is actually getting worse at this point in time. And as the Senator pointed out, what we need are these numbers to be able to identify the catalytic converters.

Because until we are able to stop the people from doing this, it will continue to be a high profit, low-risk crime. And so long as they're making a ton of money doing this and there's no downside to doing it, the problem is not going to go away. On behalf of the Office of the District Attorney of LA, we're hoping that this bill is going to help us turn the corner. We need this identifying number in order to prosecute.

I've been asked to give you just a common scheme as to what happens. This happens all the time. The Senator mentioned you'll have a truck driving through your neighborhood at 02:00 a.m. Police stop the truck. And in the back of the truck, there's 20, 30, 40 catalytic converters and a SAWZALL, which is one of these battery-operated saws. We're looking at these cats, and we know they're stolen. And the guys who are there, they know that we know that they're stolen. And we can't prove it.

And so long as we can't prove it and we can't punish these people, we'll never hold them responsible. And if we can't hold them responsible, this problem is not going to go away. At this point in time, I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys might have. Otherwise, I just ask you to vote aye. Please give us the tools to deal with this problem. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, may I ask the witness for a question?

Sure.

He said he would open up the questions. Okay. How are we identifying these thieves and prosecuting when we don't have the ID mechanism in place right now?

Largely right now we're not. Here's what will happen. Very occasionally we'll catch someone actually in the act, or maybe in a very rare case, we'll catch somebody on, like a surveillance video. We actually see them in the act. But unless you have one of those specialized circumstances, there is almost nothing we can do. And what they do is they just walk right out the door to do it again the next day.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

Do you have another lead?

No other witnesses.

Are there any other witnesses in the room in support of SB 55?

Mira Morton, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Moira Topp on behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority, public agencies are also facing this theft, and we support the bill.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Anthony Samson on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association. We appreciate all the work that the author and his staff have put into this. And as of the latest amendments, we're pleased to support the measure. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Tim Chang with the Auto Club of Southern California in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Kira Ross on behalf of the City of Burbank, in support.

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

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Kirk Blackburn, on behalf of the City of La Cañada Flintridge, in support.

Gavin McHugh on behalf of the State of California Auto Dismantlers Association, want to thank Senator Umberg and his staff for working with us, and we're now in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mandy Lee on behalf of Carvana, I want to thank the author and the Chair for their work. We are neutral with the amendments.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Angie Manetti here representing Manheim Auto Auctions, who's a member of the National Auto Auction Association. We're pleased to also be neutral on this bill and thank the Committee staff and Senator Umberg and his staff for working so diligently to resolve our issues. Thank you.

Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition to the bill in the room? Do we have any witnesses in opposition in the room? Do we have somebody coming forward? No, there are appearing to be none. We'll now move to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. As a reminder, please state your name, the organization that you may be representing and whether you support or oppose the bill. Moderator, if you'd please prompt the individuals waiting to testify.

Thank you. To provide comments in support or opposition of SB 55, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll go to line 51. Please go ahead.

Hello ... in Santa Clara County. Thank you for presenting information on catalytic converters. I thought it was the first item again, this is my first time joining the Senate meeting, and I was still wanting to make another comment in regards to that 349 and the tax issue, and then this one just jumped in. I wasn't allowed to speak again. So finding this process is-

-I would recommend that you perhaps submit--since we've already heard 49--if you perhaps submit your comments in writing and the Members can review that. Do you have comments to make on this bill, SB 55?

I wanted to hear it again because this is all new to me being in Santa Clara County, I haven't heard of such a big problem. And so I couldn't fully comprehend as I was trying to take notes, hoping that I was going to be heard again for 49. So I just wanted the information presented again, please. Thank you.

All right. Well, thank you for your participation.

We'll go to line 58. Please go ahead. 58.

Good afternoon. Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica in strong support. Thank you.

And we have no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you very much, all witnesses. We'll bring it back to questions or comments by the Members. As for one, as one affected by the bill, I think the amendments make good sense, but in an abundance of caution, I will not be voting on the measure. Senator Becker and then Senator Archuleta.

I apologize if you addressed this, but I know we had a number of bills last year on this. And could you just clarify for me again, like what happened last year? And does this bill add on to it, or was this a bill that did not?

This is a bill that saw its demise in the Assembly on the floor.

Senator Archuleta-

-Thank you. I think it's a fantastic bill and I'd be honored to be a co-author. But I think what's different in this bill is that it is up to the owner of the automobile when they're purchasing the automobile, to request that the ID, the registration number, be placed on the converter. So it's up to the buyer. So we have to encourage buyers, encourage the owners of these cars to go to the dealers, go wherever they possibly can, and get those IDs on their converters. But I'd be honored to be a sponsor and I move the bill.

Thank you. May I respond?

Yes.

Senate Archuleta, that's an excellent point. One of our challenges is educating the public as to how important it is, not just on recently purchased or newly purchased vehicles, but on all vehicles. And there are a number of organizations--I know AAA and a bunch of other folks, including basically body shops in my own district--often have opportunities for folks to come in and have their catalytic converter etched for free. And that's one of our challenges, is to make sure we get the word out that the more prevalent the etching is, the fewer thefts we're going to see.

Other questions or comments from Members? Yes, Senator Cortese.

I'm very supportive of the bill, and I also would like to be considered as a co-author.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Dodd.

Yeah, I'd like to be considered as co-author as well.

I think we have a limit, Mr. Chair, on the number of co-authors. So I'm not sure if Senator Dodd has actually exceeded the limit, but I will defer to you.

Right. All right. Okay. We'll look. We'll look carefully. Okay. Other questions or comments from Members? Seeing none. Senator Umberg, you may close.

Thank you. Thank you for your support. Thank you. And I should also mention to Chair Gonzalez--her hard work on this, as well as Jacob O'Connor, who we've spent quite a bit of time trying to refine this to get to a place where we can have unanimity.

Thank you. I think we had a motion from Senator Archuleta. Is that right? So call the roll, please.

For file item 1, SB 55 by Senator Umberg. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Public Safety. Senators Gonzalez. Aye. Niello. Not voting. Allen. Archuleta. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Dahle. Aye. Dodd. Limone. Aye. McGuire. Newman. Nguyen. Aye. Seyarto. Aye. Umberg. Aye. Wahab.

Actually, I just want you to know I was just starting to have fun, so I kind of don't want to yield the chairmanship back to you.

Keep it a little interesting today.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much, Senator Niello. I appreciate you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. Okay, next we're going to head to Senator Becker. This is file item three, SB 608 child health and safety.

Good afternoon, Chair Gonzalez and members. Thank you for giving the opportunity to present this bill, which will update the kids plates license plate and give renewed support to child health and safety programs across the state. The Kids Plate Specialty Vehicle License program provides critical funding to essential local commissions and state departments committed to children's safety.

Since enacted this program, started by Jackie Spear when she was in the state Legislature, has generated over 60 million in plate sales and renewals for child safety programs, and approximately 4.5 million is deposited into the Child Health and Safety Fund each year. However, the kids plate program has not been updated since its creation in 1992 despite the needs of the community service changing and growing. The kids plate sales and renewal program pricing hasn't changed. So it's half the price of other personalized license plates.

And as a consequence, only 15 counties have successfully accessed these funds in the last two years because there's just not enough funds. This bill, which Congresswoman Spear asked me to update, will bring the sales price of the kids plate from the 1992 price of $50 up to $90, which is still only 80% of the average of the other personalized plates, which is at 109. By adjusting that, pricing will nearly double the funds available. Secondly, it will equitably distribute the funds to all counties so the dollars directly impact the communities that need it most. One of my witnesses, who you heard from earlier in a previous bill, had to leave an emergency. So we still have two witnesses, and I'll turn over the Chair to call the witnesses. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Becker. It looks like we've got California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health, as well as California life and health insurance companies.

Well, actually. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Lucas Frerichs. I'm a Yolo County supervisor, one of the primary witnesses, and I'm also a commissioner for our Yolo County First Five Commission. I'm happy to be here today in support of Senator Becker's SB 608, which would make needed enhancements to this program. It's been 30 years, as the Senator said since any updates to the program have been made and the setup price based on the specialty plate pricing back in 1992.

So bringing the plate pricing up to 2023 levels is long overdue. The kids plates funding comes from voluntary contributions made by vehicle owners from across the state wanting to support children's safety. The reforms and SB 608 both ensure all 58 counties, through their first five commissions, get their fair share of kids plates funding, including childhood injury prevention funding contributions. And the pricing increases support increase support for local children's safety programs, reaching those children and families most at risk. I'm grateful for then former Congresswoman Spear's original legislation creating the kids program over 30 years ago, and I appreciate Senator Becker's leadership now in authoring SB 608. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee. Cathy Barankin, California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health. We were the co-authors or co-sponsors, I'm sorry, of the 1992 legislation carried by Jackie Spear, and we've been very excited to have this money go out into our communities. The problem is if you are in the Central Coast, you're in the Orange County area, Los Angeles area, San Diego, San Bernardino, and I could go on and on, your counties haven't seen any of this money.

So what the senator articulately told you is that now this money will go to all 58 counties, it will go to safety organizations in those counties and allow you to have these programs as well. The other problem is that several years running, the department that puts this money out, the Department of Public Health has decided rather than put the money out at all, they would just buy equipment and pass that around to the various counties.

So once again, this ends the disparity in where the funding goes and how this funding is used. Our coalition has sponsored dozens of bills over the years, everything from crib safety, bicycle helmets, pool safety. We were responsible for putting the legislation through that had the warning label on the five-gallon buckets. So for us, it's more than just a bill that will give money to all the counties. It will see all these programs that we have for 30 years sponsored, have funding in the counties, your counties, and be implemented. So we thank you very much, Senator, for introducing this important update to the spear legislation, and we thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much. That concludes your lead witnesses in support. Do we have anyone in, and we'll take both support and opposition here in room 1200, please come forward.

Chair and members, Kathy Mossburg with the First Five Association of California, in strong support.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward on SB 608 support or opposition? See none. So we'll move to the teleconference line. Moderator, do you have anyone in the queue in support or opposition of SB 608?

And to provide comment in support or opposition of SB 608, please press one, then zero at this time. It. And we have no comments in queue at this time.

Okay, thank you. And we'll take it back here to members. Any questions or comments? Okay, see none. Can we entertain a motion for SB 608, please? Okay, Senator Limon. Thank you. And Senator Becker, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you so much. Madam Consultant, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Okay, that bill has 11 votes, enough to get out, but we'll keep it on call. Thank you, Senator Becker. All right, next we have file item 14, SB 720, which is Senator Stern. And we have Senator Limón, who will present on his behalf. That is for aviation airports report on emissions.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I'll be presenting SB 720 on behalf of Senator Stern. But before I begin, it is my understanding that Senator Stern and the Chair have agreed upon amendments to be taken in the next Committee. These amendments seek to avoid preemption, remove Caltrans who does not have jurisdiction over GHG emissions, and narrow the bill scope to only the largest airports in disadvantaged communities.

The Senator believes that it's important to- that these important changes help address these concerns, the concerns of the opposition, and make this a stronger bill. As amended, the bill would require every airport with 50,000 private flight takeoffs annually in an EJ community to report to CARB on their progress towards net zero GHG emissions and report their efforts to mitigate EJ and air quality concerns to local air quality management districts. Additionally, the bill would require CARB to consider regulations to address the issue of emissions from aviation.

The average private jet burns around 5,000 gallons of fuel per hour, the equivalent of about 400 passenger cars, at the same time. Aviations, jets and general aviation account for 1% of the state's total GHG emissions. Though this may sound insignificant, this is a massive amount of tonnage per person. Considering that in the year 2017, less than half of the US population had the opportunity to fly at all.

Private jets produce five to fourteen times more pollution per passenger than commercial planes and 50 times more pollution than high speed rail trains, while average commercial plane burns about half as much. SB 720 gives our state departments key information to identify systems and programs that are successfully reducing the negative environmental and air quality impacts of flying for disadvantaged communities. It also empowers CARB to reexamine our regulatory process in light of this information to orient our state towards long term sustainability in aviation. Here to support the bill is Bill Magavern with the Coalition for Clean Air.

Thank you very much. Bill Magavern with Coalition for Clean Air in support. As Senator Limón said, aviation is a significant and growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. I would add that the national and international bodies which are charged with reducing aviation emissions have fallen way behind in that effort.

In addition to that, we have a very disproportionate distribution of the benefits and burdens of aviation, especially when it comes to private jets, which are used almost exclusively by the very wealthy, often with very few passengers, but their emissions are going often into low income communities of color. So it's not just a climate issue. There are air quality problems being caused by the growth in aviation.

So we think that this bill is well targeted to get some data on that issue and get it to the agencies so that they can respond if they so choose. I'm also very happy to hear about the amendment clarifying the jurisdiction that it should not be in Caltrans, which is not a regulatory agency. It should be at CARB, which actually regulates engines and fuels used in transportation better than any other agency in the country. So with that, we fully support the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Magavern. And I think that concludes your lead witness in support. Do we have anyone else in room 1200 who'd like to come forward in support or opposition of SB 720? Please come forward.

Good afternoon. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward? Seeing none. So we'll move to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, can you please let us know who'd like to support or oppose SB 720?

And to provide comment and support or opposition of SB 720, please press one, then zero at this time.

We'll go to line 51. Please go ahead.

Hi, again. Giselle Mares, Santa Clara County, strong support. Dropped my cell phone.

Okay. And we have no further comments in queue at this time.

Okay. And I jumped ahead to teleconference line, but we'll ask if anyone who would like to formally oppose, please come forward. I know we have Association of California Airports.

Good afternoon. Jim Lites on behalf of the California Airports Council, which is the 31 commercial airports in the state, and the Association of California Airports, which is their general aviation airports. We got the amendments about a half hour before this hearing started, so we're trying to decipher what this means. We think that the 50,000 flight threshold will still capture some of the larger commercial airports in the state that also have a lot of general aviation activity.

One of the difficulties with the amendments, and I'm just kind of speaking off the cuff here, having had just a moment to look at them. Private flights include air ambulances. They include aerial firefighting, they include helicopters. So it could be a little bit difficult to decipher exactly what this language captures. But the real issue is that airports have been engaged in sustainability activities for well over a decade. We've been down this discussion with CARB. Federal law prevents individual states from regulating aircraft.

About six years ago, CARB adopted a shuttle bus regulation for mandating that all airports provide electric shuttles. That already includes a reporting requirement. The third source of emissions at airports are ground service equipment, the tugs that push the planes back and forth. Our largest air carrier in the state by market share is Southwest Airlines.

They converted all of their equipment, or most of it, to electric over a decade ago, and CARB has declined to pursue a reg on that topic because much of that is already electric. So what this bill does is creates a new reporting requirement for airports to report to CARB on issues that we have been in discussions with CARB for over 10 years.

And so what we would like to do is work with the author on language that would actually move the needle for airports to achieve some of the things that we're trying to do, such as boost the production of sustainable aviation fuel in the state, that will move the needle for airports. And we welcome the opportunity to work with the author and others to achieve those goals. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, we've concluded support and opposition. We'll take it back here for any questions, comments by Members. Okay. Seeing none, can we entertain a motion on SB 720? Senator Becker, thank you. So, Consultant, can you please call the roll.

For file item 14, SB 720 by Senator Stern, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Rules. [Roll Call]

Okay, that has four votes at this time. We'll leave the bill on call. Thank you, Senator Limon. All right, I don't see. Okay, so I'm up, it looks like. So I'm going to send this back to Vice Chair Niello, and I'm going to present my bill while we wait for our other author to move forward.

Senator Gonzalez. You may present SB 84.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and Members. I'm here to present SB 84, which will extend funding for California's clean transportation program and air quality improvement program until 2035. As you all know, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and harmful pollution in California. The only way we can address this and meet our ambitious goals, climate goals, is by supporting transformative programs such as the Clean Transportation program.

Since the inception in 2007, these programs have directed over a billion dollars of funding to incentivize manufacturers to develop new technology and infrastructure and to help establish markets for the millions of zero emission vehicles that are needed to meet our state's goals. The bill will also prioritize the funding to support the deployment of medium heavy duty vehicles and to fill gaps in light duty infrastructure.

SB 84 will also prioritize equity by requiring 50% of CTP funds to be spent on programs and projects that directly benefit or serve residents of disadvantaged and Low income communities. My constituents and those of my partner on this legislation, which is Assembly Member and majority leader Reyes, are overly impacted by emissions and pollution of heavy duty vehicles and have the most at stake in seeing the heavy and medium duty market jumpstarted and expanded to meet the transition.

Regarding the opposition, I understand the desire of the hydrogen industry to preserve and increase their exclusive carve out of the CTP funding, but mandating a third of the funds to be awarded to a specific industry is not in the spirit of this competitive and technology neutral program. I recognize hydrogen will be a part of the clean energy transition, and I look forward to continuing discussions with them as we have been doing.

That being said, I'm happy to continue conversations, as mentioned, to make sure that everybody is at the table. Testifying in support today, I have Orville Thomas, who is a state policy Director with CALSTART, as well as Mr. Bill Magavern policy Director for Coalition for Clean Air. Thank you both and I respectfully ask for an aye vote Mr. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez, and happy afternoon to the Committee Members. Thank you for taking time. My name is Orville Thomas, state policy director for CALSTART. As Senator described, this reauthorization of existing fees would help fund some of the state's leading zero emission transportation programs. And she did a great job summarizing it in totality. But I want to dial down a little bit deeper, if you may. Let me, to let you know what that actually means.

So the clean transportation program provides funding to build ZEV infrastructure for electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to support passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. So light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty. The Air Quality Improvement program, EQIP, supports both the demonstration and the deployment of cleaner combustion and zero emission vehicles.

An example is the Truck Loan Assistance program that helps truck owners who fall below conventional lending criteria and are unable to qualify for traditional financing, helps them get cleaner vehicles and zero emission vehicles with low interest financing. And the Enhanced Fleet Modernization program helps Low income earners retire older, higher polluting passenger vehicles and switch to cleaner transportation vehicles. We all know that the budget is going through fiscal uncertainties.

So programs like the Clean Transportation program and the others that the Senator is pushing for reauthorization to continue, is really important for our industry. It sends a signal to the clean transportation technology industry that California continues to want to show the leadership on the next rounds of innovation, and it allows our communities to invest in cleaner transportation vehicles. Thank you, respectfully asking for your aye vote.

Good afternoon. Bill Magavern with Coalition for Clean Air in strong support. I actually worked on the original bill, supported AB 118 back in 2007, which established these programs, and they've been successful. Unfortunately, the need for them has not gone away. Transportation still causes about 80% of the most important air pollutants in California, and most Californians are not able to consistently breathe clean air.

That's particularly true in our low income communities of color that are often downwinds of major freight facilities like ports and rail yards and freeways. And the funding continues to be necessary to clean up those sources of emissions. The good news is that California is really a hotbed of innovation in clean transportation technology. And this funding really helps to support those growing new engines, fuels that are the solutions to our transportation pollution.

And what we're particularly happy with in Senator Gonzalez's Bill and Assemblymember Reyes' bill is the attention to equity, the guarantee that over half the funding would go to benefit those in disadvantaged and low income communities who need it the most. So this is a really important piece of delivering healthy air to Californians, and we urge you to move the bill forward today.

Do we have other witnesses in the room in support? Please state your name, your organization, and your position.

Good afternoon. Mikayla Elder on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support. Thank you.

Melanie Morales on behalf of The Greenlining Institute, in support.

Erika Romero on behalf of Valley Clean Air Now in strong support.

Roman Vogelsang with the Aprea and Micheli on behalf of ChargePoint, in support.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in the room in opposition?

Good afternoon, Senators. Jordan Curley on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition and the California Hydrogen Business Council, who are both opposed to 84 SB 84 unless it is amended to allocate 30% of the program dollars. Want to thank the author, first of all for the conversations. We do appreciate the ongoing conversation. We hope that we can get there. But we just want to note that this request is not arbitrary.

It aligns with the 2021 hydrogen self sufficiency analysis done by CARB, which states self sufficiency can be achieved in most representative scenarios by 2030, with 300 million or less in state support beyond AB 820 the 2014 legislation. This will also create a statewide fueling network, providing access to 94% of the geographical state and 97% of disadvantaged communities.

Hydrogen is a critical part of California's transition to zero emission vehicles, whether it is the costs associated with charging only future concerns around availability of precious metals serving the 40% of residents living in multifamily dwellings. Supercommunutors hydrogen is a safe, nontoxic, nontoxic, non greenhouse gas option ready and willing to support California's energy and transportation transition. Sorry.

We look forward to continuing to work with the author and the Members of this Committee to ensure that the 2023 reauthorization of the Clean Transportation program fully funds and funds a statewide hydrogen fueling network.

Thank you. Are there other witnesses in the room in opposition? Seeing no one come forward, we will now move to the witnesses waiting to testify by teleconference, and as a reminder, please state your name and your organization and what your position is. Moderator please prompt the individuals waiting to testify.

And to provide comment in support or opposition of SB 84, please press one, then zero at this time. Please stand by. We will go to line 51. Please go ahead 51.

Hi again, Giselle Marez Santa Clara County. In regards to the opposition, I didn't really hear any of the details of what was already done. And I don't know if that also included the elderly being able to switch their vehicle, which I thought was a good goal in number 84. And there was a lot of good goals in number 84. It seemed like it covered a lot. And a personal story is I have a neighbor who is going through.

Thank you for your testimony. As I said, what we'd like is your name and the organization you represent, if any, and whether you support or oppose the bill.

Giselle Marez, Santa Clara County. I said that at the beginning. I'm sorry, you didn't hear me. My phone cut out. It's pretty old.

You still having fun Mr. Chair?

Thank you very much.

Line 39, please.

Hello. This is Mariela Ruacho with the American Lung Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we will go to line 62, please. Go ahead, 62.

Good afternoon. Madeleine Cooper with Capital Advocacy on behalf of Blink in support. Thank you.

Okay, and we have no further comments in queue at this time.

Okay. Thank you for all the witnesses that testified. We'll bring it back to the Members. Just from my perspective, there are two issues that I have with the bill that you can address in your close if you'd like, but one is that this program was developed 15 years ago, and perhaps it really needs to be significantly updated before we continue the fees.

And the other issue, the comment number seven, excuse me, number four in the Committee analysis says it's difficult to judge the effectiveness or efficiency of these investments, given the wide variety of goals and purposes of the program. In other words, we really can't measure its effectiveness. So it would seem to me, before we renew the fees, that we ought to update the program and address that particular issue. So does anybody else have- Senator Archuleta?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And my comments are to the Chair. Senator Gonzalez, first off, I want to thank you for bringing it forward and keeping an open mind. But as chair of the Select Committee on Hydrogen Energy, I do support the extending of the Clean Transportation program, but also have some concerns with the pragmatic changes proposed under the bill.

As the chair mentioned, over the last 15 years, the Clean Transportation program, the Air Quality Improvement program and the Enhanced Fleet Modernization program have proven themselves as some of the most important and transformative programs in decarbonizing California's transportation sector. This is critically important since the transportation sector represents about 40% of overall greenhouse gases emissions in California. From the very beginning of the clean transportation program, there's always been a specific reference to hydrogen fueling and funding, including station targets.

The program was established with the passage of Assembly Bill 118 back in 2007, but wasn't until Assembly Bill 8 in 2013 that California officially established a hydrogen fueling station target of 100 stations. Following the passage of AB 8, then Governor Brown further pushed our hydrogen station goals by an executive order and set the target of 200 fueling stations. Candidly, we are not close to the 200 hydrogen fueling stations and that target, but that's not due to the policy support from the Legislature.

That is because of local permitting issues and funding delays at the Energy Commission. That is the source of our problem. The Clean Transportation program is one of the only programs in existence that supports light and medium duty hydrogen fueling. However, Senate Bill 84, as it is in print, does not reestablish a hydrogen fueling station target. It instead leaves hydrogen light and medium duty fueling infrastructure and the future of such completely in the hands of the Energy Commission.

If California is going to meet its ambitious transportation goals, we will need more zero emission vehicles options than plug in alone. We've got to combine everything. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a complementary zero emissions technology and look to fill the plug in the gap. We've got to include everyone, as I said before, not just in the heavy duty space, but in the medium and light duty sector as well.

It is true that battery electric cars are far ahead of the hydrogen fuel cell batteries and vehicles, but that is mainly because the battery electric have received more state and federal funding, and hydrogen is still an emerging technology that we have to look at and take seriously. If we want technologies like hydrogen to succeed, we need to send the industry signals of support, not reestablishing a hydrogen fueling station goal in Senate Bill 84 is the wrong signal.

I plan to support the bill today because I believe in the goals of the Clean Transportation program, but I reserve my right to change my vote on the Senate Floor. I agree with the goals of the chair is trying to accomplish with this bill and look forward to working with the chair and her staff to ensure hydrogen continues to have a place at the clean transportation table and the program.

So please, Madam Chair, give us the opportunity in the State of California to reach out and bring all the energy that we can put together for our future, our children, and clean air. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Dahle.

Did you want to respond to that, or do you want me to go?

I don't think there was a question, but.

So I have a question, actually, so maybe that will help you. So a couple of years back, Senator Bradford actually did an audit of California Air Resources Board on these fees and what the reduction of GHG's was. And the audit came back saying that they had not met any of their goals with all the programs that we'd put forward with all the resources.

So can you address, why would we be moving forward with the fees when we haven't met any of the targets through the California Air Resources Board?

Well, thank you for the question first and foremost. I think clearly over the next 10 years, $1.0 billion, I would say, would be quite significant for us to continue on that path of reducing our GHG emissions. And that means ensuring, and what we, I don't think we've done fantastically great is ensuring that these dollars are actually in the places that need it the most, places like Long Beach and Southeast LA.

I'm just picking on my own district who have the worst air quality in the nation with ports, diesel trucks. We need to get those decarbonized ASAP and whoever can get to market first, whether that's, and we're not picking winners or losers in this bill, we're saying whether it's hydrogen or electric, whoever can get there first. I think the faster we can see those GHG emission reductions in some of the hardest hit communities in California. I'm sure you have them in your district as well.

But we need to ensure that these dollars are focused on the medium heavy duty sectors especially, we know that it's most emitting and especially knowing that we need to fill in the gaps with light duty infrastructure as well, and then do some reforms to ensure that we are looking at lifecycle analysis and workforce training. We'll still have that in this bill, but I look forward to additional discussions on what more we can do to lower emissions.

But I think to your point, we want to do that. We just need to be focused, a little bit more focused in this next decade.

Well, that's what the point is that we've spent, according to the audit, I was in the hearing when the auditor actually came forth and said that the California air resource with the money was available, never met the targets. Not one of the targets was even close to meet of the goal that was set for 2030. The 2030 goals, we weren't going to get there. So to continue to tax or put a fee on this is vehicle license fees.

This is those disadvantaged people that happen to pay this bill as well when they license their car, and we're not getting anywhere. So I think the frustration is, at least for me, is that we continue to set goals and we continue to raise the resources but at the end of the day, we're not getting any bang for our buck. In this legislation, what is different than what we had before? Other than we're talking about ports, which 100% agree that that's where the emissions are coming from.

But the CARB hasn't met the goals to get there. We're spending the money, but we're not reducing carbon.

I'll also let Mr. Thomas come forward with additional commentary.

Yeah, thank you, Senator Dahle. And I think part of this is, to your point, how do we get there faster? And so as a state and as a Legislature, you guys are able to appropriate the significant funding that CARB is looking for to help meet advanced clean truck, advanced clean fleet goals. On the industry perspective, this commitment to zero emission transportation investments does allow companies to invest in new fuel cell hydrogen vehicles and new technology for battery electric.

It allows companies to invest in infrastructure to make sure that we attain those goals, and it makes sure that those vehicles and technologies are cheaper for mass acceleration into the population. So to your point, yes, there are going to be areas where we can improve on. And I think to Senator Gonzalez's credit, this bill does allow us to really allocate to the problem areas when it comes to our transportation sector and decarbonization, and it will help us to get to those 2030 goals faster.

Well, we haven't demonstrated in the previous fee structure any reduction in carbon to meet the goal. That was the audit that came out that said so until we have a plan that says how we're going to get there, that actually is going to produce something, I can't justify putting a burden on those same folks, those low income folks we talk about every day here that can't afford to live in California are going to pay in their license fees.

This is extending that, and it is a tax, and it is combined is destroying the low income people we're trying to help in those disadvantaged communities because they can't afford to license their car or put fuel in their car or even convert over to a technology that is affordable. So for those reasons, I won't be able to support the bill today. It doesn't matter what kind of energy we're talking about, whether it's hydrogen, battery or Llw carbon fuel.

At the end of the day, we're not meeting the targets that we're striving for in California. And it was proven during the audit that Senator Bradford asked for and the Audit Committee, and we heard it. And so until we start meeting some of these benchmarks, it's hard to go back to our constituents and continue to tax them and see that they can't afford to live in California.

Any other- Senator Newman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate Senator Dahle's concern. I, for one, believe that the extension of the CTP is actually critically important, and I do think we're making progress. The curve hasn't been as steep as we'd like, but we believe it is getting steeper as we move forward, especially around battery electric vehicles. Senator Gonzalez, you and I have talked about my concern about the appropriate levels of funding for hydrogen, particularly around hydrogen light duty infrastructure.

I want to build on the comments, or at least align myself with the comments of Ms. Curley and Senator Archuleta. We have clearly lagged badly between 2015-2019 and this is at the CEC level of providing the funding and expediting the buildout of the light duty hydrogen fueling network. And so now we find ourselves in kind of an interesting position, which is kind of a tautological thing where people say, well, it's behind, ergo it's not going to succeed.

The reason it's behind is because we haven't made the appropriate investments or prioritized it necessarily. Moreover, when you look at the intersection between AB 8 and the governor's executive order around 2035, prohibition on internal combustion engines, we are going to need hydrogen. We are going to need fuel cell electric vehicles to meet that goal for some share of the fleet. And so we can argue about the size of that share.

But arguably, it's between 20% and 40% of California's drivers are not easy to decarbonize, for a bunch of fairly obvious reasons why long commutes, they have jobs that don't lend themselves well to recharging, or they live in areas where they don't have access to the infrastructure for electric vehicle charging. And so that's why hydrogen is so important.

So my issue here, to Ms. Curley's point, is if we do not extend the sunset and provide a specific allocation for hydrogen, particularly in light of the arrearage on the investments, I think that places into jeopardy the whole platform. And I think it's fair to ask. Again, AB 8 endeavored not to make a distinction between zero emission vehicle types or technologies. We're doing that by inference if we don't fund hydrogen to get it to self sustainability.

And if we do that, I think one of the witnesses mentioned the equity lens, which I think is very important. There are many drivers who sort of fit that characterization that are going to need fuel cell vehicles to be able to make that transition to zero emission vehicle technology. And so I'm going to stay off this today, but specifically for that reason, because I think we need to explicitly allocate funds for fuel cell electric fuel technology in the extension CTP if we can do that. I'm looking forward to working with you as we move forward.

Thank you. Exercising a privilege of the chair. I'd just like to point out that Senator Newman had probably the best ever April Fool's Day post on Twitter. Go to his feed and take a look at it. Senator Dodd.

I don't know what to say. I wasn't going to talk about this, but I think that this is obviously going to come back. I think it's going to pass today. I will support it today, but it's going to be a two thirds vote on the floor. I agree with Senator Newman and Senator Archuleta and others. I've been to COP 27. I've been a most recent trip to Denmark. I've been to a number of places. I don't know what it is about California that we are not embracing.

Certainly that technology is not as far along as the plug in vehicles, and this is not a comment against the plug in vehicles. I think we ought to continue doing that. But we absolutely have to have a diversity in the type of fuels that we're using in this state.

And I, for one, think it's just a matter of extending the amount of money that goes to hydrogen so that we can get the hydrogen highway built, send signals to the market that the Legislature feels that this technology is valid. And like the rest of the world, people are betting on this. And I think we ought to as well. Thank you.

Senator Blakespear.

Thank you. Thank you to the author. There are many important comments that have been made, and I just wanted to ask you to address one of the things that was written by the consultants in the report, which was that since 2008, that we have much more aggressive goals for zero emission vehicles and much more stringent regulations for criteria pollutants, should these goals and regulations be reflected in the programs.

And then it goes on with another of the bullet points to just say some cleanup could sharpen the statute. It does seem like there have been layers and layers that have been added over time, and maybe you can't eat an elephant in one bite. So this is the effort to make the first bite, which is really necessary at this point. But I just wanted to see if there's any. Do you have any thoughts on those points?

Yeah, absolutely. And I think this is why. And thank you very much for the question, Senator, and I think, again, this is, I will focus my energy to what we've been discussing so far, is that the focus would be medium heavy duty. Those criteria, pollutants like socks and knocks and diesel particulate matter that so many of our communities are inhaling every single day. We know those are the top emitters.

So why not focus our efforts, 50% of the dollars to low income communities focus on medium heavy duty reform, the EQIP program, so we can ensure that these dollars are getting out to the communities fast enough so we can address the emissions, and we can ensure that we are getting to the goals that we set forward, as Senator Dahle mentioned as well. But again, doing so in a way that's technology neutral, not picking the winners and losers.

I understand what my colleagues are saying on the hydrogen side. I, too, I believe in hydrogen as well, but I just think, and we have invested in it, and I would love to outline all the dollars that we've invested. It's been over $250,000,000 in fact, over the last 10 years that we've invested in hydrogen. California believes in this, but we've got to ensure that we are a little bit more focused these next 10 years. Do so in the communities that need it the most.

That need it the most. And of course, welcome any additional comments in these next few legislative sessions to be able to reform the bill.

And are there? Yes, Senator Becker.

Thank you. I just want to say, as the chair of budget sub two that are very supportive of this bill, and we know that we have much work to do in getting the penetration of, through mission vehicles underserved communities, and I appreciate the technology neutral approach as well here and be proud to support this bill today.

Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I probably could cut to the chase and associate my comments with Senator Dodd and Senator Newman particularly. I just want to say, and I don't mean to be argumentative at all, but just the research that I've done on my own, particularly since the last session, through the interim resource, literally going up and down, high five. Talking to folks who have to meet essentially what our goals are legislatively that have been established.

I'm pretty convinced that $250,000,000 that's been invested thus far is frankly kind of a pittance relative to what's going to need to be done on the hydrogen side. If indeed we're not going to somehow relax our climate goals. I don't see us doing that. At least the way this Legislature is composed, there doesn't seem to be any way.

And being from Silicon Valley, I would hope I'd be right on the cutting edge of knowing whether or not battery technology is going to get to the point where 30-40-50 ton transport is going to be available on battery vehicles. So all that just tells me we ought to err on the side of aggressiveness when it comes to funding hydrogen.

And frankly, just playing catch up on hydrogen until we get to a point where we know a little bit better what's really going to emerge, or some combination of both, is what I really suspect. That said, I know that the author has done a lot of work on this and will continue to do a lot of work on it.

And I also know that the author was previously informed that I would be supportive on this bill, and I'm going to keep my word and be an aye vote today. But in fairness, I wanted to make sure that there's an understanding that my thinking on this whole issue has been shifting and shifting and shifting over the past few months. Thank you.

Other questions or comments? Seeing none, you may close.

Well, thank you. This has been a very exciting and engaging process, and I want to thank all the Senators on both sides of the aisle for bringing forward all of these questions and comments, because this is exactly what we need in order to make this a really robust plan, again, with a goal of ensuring that we're reducing emissions, attacking the criteria air pollutants, and ensuring that the innovators out there in industry actually know that we mean business as it pertains to getting, whether it's hydrogen or electric vehicles, and the light duty infrastructure complementary out into our communities that, of course, need it the most, the most equitable opportunities that we need to focus on.

So with that, I want to thank everybody, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I look forward to more discussions with everyone. Thank you.

Do we have a motion? Moved by Senator Limón. Call the roll, please.

For file item 17, SB 84 by Senator Gonzalez. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Environmental Quality. [Roll Call]

Okay, the bill has seven votes. We'll keep that on call at this time. Thank you. And I just want to remind Members we actually have SB 580 by Senator Bradford has been put over. That is file item 10, which has been put over. So we will not be hearing that bill today. All right, last on our agenda, we have Senator Glazer, who is here. File item 17, that is SB 84 program funding. I'm sorry. My apologies. I am SB 84. File item 15.

Item 15, SB 827, San Francisco Bay Area of Rapid Transit District. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Chair Gonzalez and Members, for allowing me to present this bill. And I want to thank the Committee staff for their excellent analysis on the bill. I hope everyone had the chance to read it. This bill would apply existing statutory authority granted to our Caltrans Department of Transportation's Inspector General to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART's, Inspector General, aligns their responsibilities and duties, Caltrans to BART, the same.

Specifically, the bill proposes to equip the BART Inspector General with access to BART records and property, along with access to records, unless state law explicitly precludes access and provides a list of modest sanctions as a penalty for obstructing the work of the Inspector General. Again, same responsibilities and powers that we have with Caltrans that we've enacted, the Caltrans Inspector General.

Bay Area voters created the Inspector General in 2018 as a part of a ballot measure that also gave the regional transportation authority the power to raise bridge tolls to finance transportation improvements. So the thinking was, if we're going to ask for more taxpayer money, let's make sure that there's appropriate oversight to one of the major beneficiaries of that money, and that was BART, and that was the creation of the Office of Inspector General.

That's a crucial office that gives the public and the system riders an independent set of eyes and ears to monitor the agency's spending and operations. Current law does not grant the BART Inspector General sufficient Independence necessary to do her job. For example, most IGs and independent auditors have the ability to interview any agency employee, access any agency record and facility, allow them to be independent, independent watchdogs. This bill would give those common tools to the BART Inspector General.

Now, as BART seeks additional state and taxpayer funding to stave off what they call their fiscal cliff, it's incumbent upon the Legislature to ensure that the same systems spend public resources responsibly. Inherent in the process of maximizing efficiencies are stable structures of accountability, and the BART Inspector General position is no exception. Former BART Inspector General Harriet Richardson supports this bill, as do the Association of Local Government Auditors and the Bay Area Council.

The BART Inspector General needs these changes to fulfill the mission that the Legislature and the voters have asked them to undertake. With me to testify in support is BART Director Liz Ames and Alex Torres, the State Government Director for the Bay Area Council.

Good afternoon, Chair Gonzalez and Committee Members. I am Liz Ames and I'm one of nine of members of the BART Board of Directors. I am here today to in strong support of Senate Bill 827. As the former President of the Palo Alto Community Federal Credit Union, I know how critical it was to allow federal auditors complete access to every email and every file to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.

As a licensed professional civil engineer, I saw how important it was for city auditors to do the same for a performance audit of a street maintenance program I managed. BART has never experienced audits where they have to allow all files and emails to be disclosed for an evaluation of their performance on programs and policies. The audits they receive focus on expenditures and are not on how investments are chosen and projects are managed.

This kind of oversight and accountability is what taxpayers need in order to trust in BART. With SB 827, BART will be required to provide more information to justify their budgets and project details before expenditures are made. The public demands transparency and oversight and wants to know how BART spends their tax dollars. The best way to improve the public's trust and transparency is by having additional oversight without interference.

Since the Inspector General's Office was established in 2019, it has encountered numerous challenges in its ability to perform the work with the Independence expected, to perform the work of the Independence expected of an Inspector General, as described in the bill's analysis. I encourage you to pass this legislation to ensure that BART does not obstruct the Office of Inspector General, and I hope that you support this bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Alex Torres, Director of State Government Relations for the Bay Area Council, here today representing over 330 employer members in the nine county Bay Area, here to express support for SB 827. And the Council's a long history were closely tied with BART. We were instrumental in the creation of BART in the 1950s and have been pivotal over the years in ensuring the regional transit backbone has the resources it needs to perform to the best of its abilities.

A good example is RM 3, Regional Measure 3 in 2018, providing over 4.45 billion in transportation funding throughout the bay, a portion which BART receives for various capital investments. RM 3 has also provided funds for the creation of the Office of the Inspector General, which was established to ensure BART makes effective use of RM 3 revenue and, in general, operates efficiently and effectively. The Council was very supportive of this funding allocation in RM 3.

Since its inception, the Office of the Inspector General has not been able to perform the full scope of its anticipated role for which it was created. The recurring challenges faced by the former BART IG have been documented and distributed publicly and verbal and written reports to the Legislature and to BART's Board of Directors. This is a much needed measure and we are deeply invested in BART's success today and in the future.

We're working hard with the coalition, the Survive and Thrive Coalition, to ensure that BART survives this fiscal cliff crisis and that the system thrives moving forward. So it is important, to Senator Glazer's point, that we identify efficiencies where possible and make sure that every dollar is spent appropriately. Inherent in the process of maximizing efficiencies are strong, stable layers of accountability, and the BART IG position is no exception. For these reasons, we are proud to be in support today. Urge your support as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jim Lites on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. We are support if amended. We would like to see the criminalization provisions change to subpoena power for the IG and ensure that the scope of the IG's work does not conflict with the Office of Civil Rights at BART nor the Office of the Independent Police Auditor. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, any other witnesses in support of SB 827, please come forward. Okay, and now we'll move on to witnesses in opposition. We've got a few folks that like to come forward. SEIU, AFSCME, and ATU.

Good afternoon, Chair Gonzalez and Senate Transportation Committee Members. My name is Jesse Hunt and I am the President and Business Agent for Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1555, representing roughly 1000 mostly frontline BART workers. This bill, I'm here today to speak in opposition of Senate Bill 827. This bill is opposed by, not only the members of Amalgamated Transit Union, but also SEIU and AFSCME. Together, we represent the majority of BART workers. Legislation on this same topic was introduced and ultimately vetoed last year.

We opposed that bill largely because it did not adequately recognize worker protections and representation rights for employees being investigated and interviewed by the Inspector General. Some may argue that this new legislation does not address the Inspector General's access to employees, but this would be disingenuous. Instead of addressing the issue of representation and due process for workers this bill instead adds the threat of criminal referral, which we believe will serve to coerce workers away from their rights to representation.

Workers will be forced to choose between protecting their employment rights and the threat of criminal referral for doing so. Additionally, this proposed legislation will cause massive confusion by duplicating investigatory and audit functions and will lead ultimately to labor strife by casting doubt on decades of bargain for representation rights at BART during a time when the agency can least afford it. Also, the existing statutory language for the BART Office of the Inspector General works well, and new legislation is not necessary.

The BART OIG has successfully completed audits and produced helpful recommendations that BART is now implementing. Finally, there is a local solution to any outstanding issues that remain. BART is creating a charter to clarify the OIG's role, but with the recent resignation of the BART Inspector General, the process is understandably on hold until a replacement is appointed.

For all these reasons, we urge opposition on this proposed legislation in order to ensure that any changes to the Inspector General's Office are made in a thoughtful and deliberate manner and that takes into account the perspectives of all stakeholders involved. SEIU, AFSCME, and ATU urge opposition to this legislation, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Gonzalez, Sal Cruz, and Members of the Senate Transportation Committee. I'm the President of the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees Local 3993. I'm also speaking on behalf of AFSCME, People California. We represent supervisory and professional staff at BART. For the last several months, all of the labor unions and BART stakeholders have been meeting to develop a charter that resolves all of the issues that all of the parties have put forward, including the Inspector General.

We've met and have completed, at least in the current draft form, a charter that would adopt the majority of what the Inspector General has been seeking. Obviously, at the moment, right now, we cannot proceed because the Inspector General resigned, retired, and we're currently waiting the Governor appoint a new Inspector General so we can proceed.

We are very hopeful we can get there, but it is very important for us to make it clear to all of you that our representation rights, which were bargained for decades ago, have worked for us. We figured this out a very, very long time ago. The problem we're dealing with now is that we have an agency that's following these guidelines, and then we have the office of the Inspector General that's following different guidelines.

So we have this confusion that's happening amongst our represented workforce that we wish to resolve. We urge a no vote on this bill so all of the stakeholders can continue working towards a final resolution through a local charter. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Okay, do we have anyone else who'd like to come forward in support or opposition of SB 827?

Madam Chairman, Senators. Terry Brennand on behalf of SEIU California. We represent over 700,000 hardworking men and women in California, including the bulk of the BART employees. And I just urge you to give peace a chance. Give these guys a chance to negotiate this at local level, and hold this bill. We could do it again anytime when it needs to be done. Thank you.

John Arantes, President of BART Chapter, SEIU 1021, representing 1700 maintenance and clerical workers. I strongly oppose Senate Bill 827. I respectfully ask that you stand for workers representation rights. Thank you, Chair and Senators.

Madam Chair, Shane Gusman on behalf of the California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union in opposition.

Madam Chair and Committee Members, Christophe Mayer with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME California, in opposition.

Ryan Spallina, SEIU 1021, BART Chapter, a transit vehicle mechanic and chief steward. My Members and I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Carmen Williams, BART Chapter 1021 secretary and also I'm a floor worker at BART. Opposition of this, 827. Thank you so much.

My name is Darren Fong, represent the SEIU 1021, BART Chapter. I'm the Chief Steward and Senior Storekeeper for BART, and the members and myself holds opposition for SB 827. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Susan Amador for the SEIU 1021, BART Chapter. I am the Acting Chief Steward for the Utility Workers in opposition to Senate Bill. Thank you for supporting workers rights, Senate.

My name is Thomas Tarleton, SEIU with 1021 BART Chapter, Chief Steward, TVM, Transit Vehicle Mechanic, and we oppose this. Thank you.

Ron Amoa, SEIU 1021, Electrical Chief Steward in opposition of bill 827.

Geronimo Silva, I'm a Chief Steward for the track instructors, and myself am a track instructors, maintenance personnel. I'm in opposition of bill SB 827.

Joshua Maldonado, SEIU 1021, BART Chapter. I'm the Chief Steward for the Computer Group. Computer, I'm sorry, computer, electronic technicians and in opposition, Senate Bill SB 827.

Good afternoon, Members. Jim Ray, SEIU 1021, BART Chapter, Chief Steward for Buildings and Grounds, and my members oppose Senate Bill SB 827. Thank you, Senators, for supporting workers.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else in Room 1200 who'd like to come forward in support our opposition? Okay, seeing none. Moderator, will take it to the teleconference line for anyone who'd like to support or oppose SB 827 please.

And to provide comment in support or opposition of SB 827, please press one, then zero at this time.

Let's go to line. 51, please. Go ahead, 51.

Hello again, Giselle Morena from Santa Clara County and I strongly support number 827. And I want to furthermore, hearing the opposition like to say that it's not the first time it sounds like there's something illegal activity for profit or that's affecting income some people's jobs in the Santa Clara County or.

At this time we're just taking. Thank you. We're just taking support or opposition in the organization. And your name, please.

And we need to flag it for a release.

Okay, thank you very much. We're going to move on to the next comment. My apologies. And just name organization and whether you support or oppose SB 827, please.

Line 65, please.

I am Deborah Allen, District One Board Director for San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, and I strongly support the 827. Thank you.

We go to the next line. Let's go to line 60, please. Go ahead.

Good afternoon. Roland Tomram San Jose, no affiliation, extremely strong support. Thank you.

We go to line 53, please. Go ahead.

Thank you. This is Harriet Richardson, the recently retired Art Inspector General. I strongly support this bill to alleviate some of the challenges I faced during my tenure. Thank you.

And we will go to line 40. Please. Go ahead.

Hello, and thank you, Chair Gonzalez and committee members. I'm Anne Marie Hogan, the retired elected city auditor for the City of Berkeley, speaking on behalf of the Association of Local Government Auditors, which strongly supports this bill. We are the primary professional organization for accountability professionals in the United States and Canada, including auditors and inspectors general.

We have no further comments in queue at this time.

Ok, thank you very much. Moderator so we'll take it back to the dice. I'm going to just begin really quickly. First, I want to thank you, Senator Glazer, and for all the stakeholders who provided testimony and thoughtful conversation.

I know we've been here before, but Senator Glazer, as we discussed prior to the hearing and as articulated during the hearing, there are various outstanding concerns, including the timing of the bill, the bill's provisions related to criminal penalties an employee may incur, and questions related to adequate representation during an investigation, which I know are still outstanding. In fact, when a similar bill was proposed last year, Governor Newsom vetoed the bill.

And in his veto message, he noted, while he agreed with the legislation, he understood that there is one resolved issue regarding the notification of all represented employees of their right to representation, which still remains outstanding. So given the conversation today, it doesn't seem like the issue, as mentioned, of the right for employee representation and presentation has been addressed, and further conversations at a local level, in my opinion, are needed, especially given the fact that there's an inspector general on their way.

I think there's three names on the governor's desk as we speak to be able to be considered for this position. So for those reasons, I will personally lay off the bill today.

I think I've reiterated that to you when we spoke a few times before, and I encourage and hope that you can continue to engage with local stakeholders to ensure that we get to a place where all feel heard and all feel like we can move in a direction where responsibility, transparency, but also, more importantly, that workers rights and voices are heard, too.

So with that, can I respond, chair, or do you want me to wait?

You can respond if you'd like to. Yeah.

I'd like to make it clear that nothing in this bill affects bargaining rights. Nothing doesn't change any of the agreements that have been established between Bard and their employees. Nothing in this bill changes that. The only thing that this bill does is allow an inspector general to interview a whistleblower. Someone says, I know where there's fraud or waste or conflict of interest, as there has been. It allows the inspector general to interview that person and talk to that person.

Now, last year, because of the concern on so called worker rights, I agreed to an amendment that were referred to as wine garden rights, which means that before an inspector general can talk to an employee, they must let the employee know that they can be represented by their union if they wish. And it's that whistleblower's choice as to whether they include that person or not. And that was requested by Chair Stone, chair of the Judiciary Committee and the Assembly.

And he felt that there was nothing further that could be done to resolve that issue of whether or not worker rights are being protected. There is no stronger protection for workers anywhere in a public agency than the wine garden rights. Nobody's created any other standard to somehow protect worker rights and privacy. If you have someone who has heard about fraud, it's their choice whether they want other people to know about it.

What the union is suggesting is that they should be in the room for that interview. And that's simply completely unacceptable in terms of being able to do the work of an inspector general. So we have conceded every issue there, except for interfering in privacy rights. We don't interfere with collective bargaining. We just simply let an inspector general, just like at CalTrans, do the same thing that the bard inspector general would be able to do under this bill. Interview employees, have access to records.

That's all that this bill does.

Well, I thank you for that. I just think we're still at an impasse in terms of, I think both sides have said that they've conceded x percent, and I don't know that that's necessarily the case on either side. So we'll have to see. But here we are. And I certainly want to make sure that we can get this figured out, but I would think that at the local level would be the best opportunity to do so.

So with that, I have a few more members that have questions. Senator Newman. And then we have Senator Archuleta.

Thank you. So, Senator Gonzalez, you got to part of my question, I guess, my concern, but I'd actually like, Mr. Hunt, if you wouldn't mind, to speak to this issue specifically, like in the most layman terms, you know, explain to us or give us a scenario where one of your workers' representation rights might be compromised by an IG action in the ways that I think raise concern.

Well, I think, unfortunately, contrary to the Senator's explanation, that there is no greater protection than the wine garden rights we have actually, the parties have negotiated some greater protections than the wine garden rights advanced notification, and employees are not required to exert their wine garden rights or their right for representation. And so we have that bargained in our contracts. We expect and our workers have fought hard to have that representation. It doesn't interfere with the ability for the investigations to move forward.

It simply means that the Members have the right to representation while they're moving through those investigatory interviews. There is no intent by the parties to insert ourselves in a whistleblower. A whistleblower, that is a conversation by the whistleblower with the employer, not an employer initiated conversation. When it becomes employer initiated, that's when our protection should be kicking in that our employees have the right to notification and the opportunity for representation during that process.

Again, if you wouldn't mind, so just give me, like, a hypothetical example where one of your workers, I guess, is party to or subject to an investigation, just hypothetically. Right. And how it would play it out.

As we've seen it, an employee is called in for an investigatory interview by the inspector general. They're not afforded the notification that was in our contract, and the conversations would begin. That employee may, for example, we've had this experience convey a practice that has developed on the property that is not either covered by policy, but it's a widespread practice.

And all of a sudden, that individual, in their conversations with the Inspector General, finds themselves the target of the investigation, as opposed to simply reporting on a situation. And that can convey over to employment, to disciplinary action for that employee, which is the reason that employee should have had the opportunity for our union representation during that process.

I appreciate that, Senator Glazer, you know, but your argument is that that representation, that scenario is inconsistent with the work of the IG when done properly. Is that correct?

The IG is not the personnel department, the HR Department of BART. They're there to investigate fraud and abuse. And if there was some conduct, that employee that was in question, of course they should be afforded all their rights. This is not management and the employee, which is the outcome of the bargaining that this gentleman discussed. No interference in any of that.

This is, in the course of an investigation, being able to interview employees who may have knowledge about conflict of interest, fraud, abuse, that that IG is investigating and has investigated.

But is there something about having representation present that gets in the way of it? So why not defer to the union and allow for that element? Right. For that?

A lot of the cases, and we had Harriet Richardson on the line. I don't know if she's still there that can provide direct testimony to her work as the inspector general. But in the course of that work, you're notified, commonly by whistleblowers, people who are aware of a problem, a conflict of interest, and they then take that complaint and they investigate it. If you interview that individual and you give notification rights to the union to be present, that compromises the.

I'm sorry, if you interviewed the whistleblower or somebody who is party to the act.

No, not a party to the act whose complaint has initiated the investigation. You're working somewhere in the bar system and you see where a contract has been led out to someone who used to be an employee or is a son or daughter of an employee something that you think violates the ethics or codes of the agency.

And if I was the inspector general and I want to come talk to you about that, I would want to have a private conversation and protect your anonymity if you so wish.

I'm still confused because I think Mr. Hunt described the situation. If it's the whistleblower, the employee initiated complaint, you don't see an issue. Is that correct? That's correct. It's the response, the follow up where other employees are brought into the conversations.

Any conversation initiated by the inspector general.

Sir, would you like to come up and microphone? That would be great.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

The concern is primarily is employer or inspector general initiated conversations with additional employees after their whistleblower complaint, that's when those employees should be entitled to the reunion representation for that process.

And that has been collectively bargained?

That's correct.

Thank you.

I don't have any concerns about that. In fact, the wine garden rights that we had agreed to previously would require the inspector general to say to any employee that they're talking to, you have the right to have union representation. And I supported that last year in the bill.

But if it's true that you're saying two different things, it is also true that the unions remain opposed. Right. So you remain opposed based on your understanding of the.

That's correct. Wine garden has to be employee initiated. Under the wine garden statute, the employee must request union representation based on their reasonable belief that they may be susceptible to disciplinary action.

Appreciate it.

And just to be clear, I'm sorry. Our contract has bargained a higher standard than that wine garden standard.

You did make that clear. So thank you. And to Mr. Brennan's other points, it does seem worthwhile to work this out at the local level, given the ambiguity here that is yet to be resolved. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Newman. We appreciate the feedback as well. And, Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got to support the working families. Sounds to me that there has been something punitive that must have happened in the past that caused this bill to cause the number of representatives here of the union. Obviously, you represent hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of workers, and we think, who keeps BART moving? It's all of you. So all of you are coming together with an issue that you're concerned about. It sounds to me that something is very punitive that's underlying here.

And as the chair had mentioned, we're in the point of appointing a brand new inspector general, and you haven't had a chance to work with, meet with, or understand their philosophy, his or hers. So I see that there's some bad history here, or else this wouldn't be here. You wouldn't be here.

So I think, with all due respect to the author who I've supported over the years, I can't support this bill because it is, in my estimation, for the offense, the punishment, the fines, and maybe even termination. It is too punitive to the working families that were here today, that represent the hundreds upon hundreds of people. So I thank you for all coming to enlighten me. Certainly. And I am going to stay off this bill and vote no.

So please be aware that I hope that you can negotiate something in the future. Work with the new attorney general. And let's get this train on the road. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I'm going to go to Senator Seyarto and then off to Senator Dodd.

Okay. Having been involved in these processes with the union, representation on both the employee side and the management side, I'm struggling with how the union doesn't get representation once the whistleblower has been interviewed by the or come forward to the inspector general and had that conversation. If the inspector general is going to go out and interview anybody, this is not unlike any other large organization.

If the person that's in charge of investigating anything would contact me or any of our guys, they immediately are advised to exercise their wine garden rights, or in their case, the higher amount of rights. I don't know how that stops this from happening. They still get that, of course. I just don't understand why there's a feeling that somehow they're not going to get represented. And the only time really you should be concerned about needing representation is if something's wrong.

And that something wrong is actually why this whole thing came about in the first place. Taxpayers are putting billions of dollars into these transportation systems and things. And it's the taxpayers that need this transparency to know that they should continue to invest billions of dollars into a system. Because if it's failing, we need to fix it. So it's not.

Because if it doesn't and it continues to have issues, you will lose the support of people who pay taxes and therefore you'll lose the support of the funding that is required and there won't be any jobs. So really this is about transparency.

This is about trying to root out issues that taxpayers have always had with agencies, especially government agencies, and ensuring and showing them, because an inspector general can go through this process and find absolutely nothing's wrong and that the whistleblower had a misinterpretation of an event and that everybody was actually doing a great job. And when that's reported out, people gain more.

I think they're happier with the process and they have confidence in their agency and they have confidence in what that agency is doing and how they're taking care of their workers and how they're taking care of their passengers. But more than that, how they're taking care of the money that we're giving people to serve us. And so I'm really struggling with this concept that somehow they lose their rights once it gets past the AG, the initial consultation with a whistleblower.

Because if it is, that's a failure of leadership on the worker side to communicate with their workers, because we've always communicated in our union with our workers to ensure that they know exactly what to do exactly every step of the way, if they are approached about any investigation. So I land on the side of supporting your bill because I'd like to see it go forward.

I'd like some of these issues addressed a little as you go along and continue to work with the opposition to ensure this bill is tight. But as we go through our budget process and there's cuts on the table, but we're being asked to put $1.8 billion more in to just shore it up so it doesn't go over that fiscal cliff, folks, we need a reason to do that.

And the only way we're going to be able to be confident that we're doing the right thing is if we have the information we need and we know that the organization is tight and that's what an inspector general does. So thank you.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto. Senator Dodd.

Yeah.

I apologize that I wasn't here for the whole hearing. I had a series of meetings I had to be trying to watch it on. You know, there's a lot of history here clearly between the Senator and the different unions.

I think Senator Seyarto, I think, said it mean there is going to be a big ask from BART, there's going to be a big ask from transit all throughout the State of California for the legislature to weigh in on this, to lean in on this and provide funding. And it's important because these organizations are incredibly important. We have such a huge investment in these organizations, and in my view, we have to keep them running.

But if our consumers don't have the confidence in a program like this, all the voters don't have that confidence. It just erodes the confidence not just in BART, but all that government does. I gave the author, Senator Glazer, my commitment last night that I would support this bill, and I will. But I think because of the history between you, Senator, and the union, I just think this begs for further conversation.

It doesn't seem to me to be something that is impossible to overcome, and it's just a matter of both parties being willing to make that happen. We can't have a situation where, as I think, I can't remember who the other Senator was that made the point, but it was Senator Seyarto. You can't have a situation where.

People.

That are absolutely doing a bad job and are the subject of the investigation, not being able to be interviewed. But at the same time, frankly, I don't have any problem with having representation, and maybe I missed something in the testimony, but I'm hoping that the parties will get together before, between now and the time this gets to the assembly and make some amendments to this thing that creates a better understanding and a better trust between the parties.

Thank you, Senator. Dr. Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, have had some conversation with the author with regard to where we're at this year relative to last session. I supported the version last session, really based on a philosophy that I generally have this early in a session, especially to allow an opportunity to work things out. And I want to give the author an opportunity to respond here, if that's okay, through the chair.

But the comments that were made by the chair about, I don't want to paraphrase what she said, we all heard what she said. But about the bill's ultimate demise last year, which just seemed to hang on at the executive level on this concept that labor issues need to be resolved, we obviously have unresolved labor issues. There's been a lot of talk about who initiates an inquiry, the inspector general or the employee, and what happens with a whistleblower situation.

But the two areas of language that bother me the most, really on behalf of the workforce, which, frankly, I think are unnecessary and probably counterproductive in terms of moving the bill along, one is the misdemeanor offense.

Just based on what I read, the language is broad enough that I think if I worked there, it would scare the hell out of me that if I asserted my rights, if I asserted my rights to protect myself based on the personnel privilege, that it's not clear to me, even as an attorney, that the personnel privilege and those rights sort of Trump or supersede or preempt what this statute would say, which is, hey, if you fail to cooperate or if you interfere, and I think asserting your rights could be construed as interference, or bringing a job steward in, who says, you're not going to talk to my person or ask that question, or I'm going to instruct my employee not to respond to that question, does that become interference?

That suddenly becomes a misdemeanor? And now, all of a sudden, in the good spirit of you trying to hold the BART Administration and folks accountable for fraud and access, suddenly becomes people getting a record, a criminal record. So to me, that's just a non starter. It would just have to go away. And I don't see that happening so far based on your comments as an author. But the other issue is just records. That language. It's too broad for me.

Again, I don't want to repeat what I just said, but at what point do we have a problem here in terms of conflict of laws with regard to anyone trying to represent somebody's rights to keep what you're referring to as privacy and personnel? I would call personnel privilege and maybe other kinds of privacy besides personnel privilege out of the investigative process without bringing on that same individual the wrath of the IG and the remedies that the IG has at her disposal to just keep moving forward.

It seems to me, on the one hand, and I've had some conversations with colleagues, Senator, as well, that you look at the bill and say with some, probably some fairly sweeping changes, but with some changes, you could be very clear that there's just no circumstance where that line has ever crossed, that the personnel privilege always preempts anything in this bill.

Of course.

Anything.

I mean, now all of a sudden you start getting me interested in supporting the bill because I'm saying I can go back to the working folks here and say, what more do you want? You can assert your personnel privilege. You can assert your HIPAA rights. You can assert everything that you have right now 100% of the time. And it's not that you're guessing, it's the bill actually says that clearly and without any ambiguity.

My experience with you as an author is that you're very sophisticated in how you approach things, and I appreciate that about you. But it would take a lot of either wholesale changes or great nuanced sophistication, I think, to get to the point where people feel comfortable that they're not going neutral or dropping opposition on something that feels that threatening. I don't want to overextend my points here, but I wanted to give you a chance to respond.

My inclination is to stay off, especially with the criminal language still here. But I want to give you a chance to respond to the chair.

Thank you. Well, first, there's a long process here ahead on a bill, so lots of opportunities to make changes. Listen, the bill in its present form is there because of the governor's veto. And so rather than identifying specific functions that the IG could undertake, which was the previous version, this bill just matches it with our CalTrans inspector general. So everything that you're concerned about is what the legislature has established for ourselves. So can those things be modified?

Of course they can be modified. There's nothing that I want to do that wants to get in the middle of a personnel issue. So all the employee rights that you're discussing aren't of any interest to me that this bill would ever affect any of those worker protections. We simply, in this bill, want to have the ability of the inspector general to talk to someone who sees a problem in the agency and wants to share it with the inspector general.

That's all this bill attempts to do and to access the records so that they can be a good investigator and get the facts out. That's all this bill does. So, Senator, I think that if this bill moves forward today, that, of course, I'm interested in trying to work those issues out on the criminal penalties issue. Again, that's in our current law of California for our Inspector General, but I'm willing to take that out.

If the Governor feels that that would resolve his concerns, I don't want him to say, hey, you took criminal penalties out. So now it's a weaker bill than I would support. So I need to hear from the governor's office to make sure that that is, am I willing to do that? Representative of the BART board stood up and said, we support with amendments. He asked for three amendments. He asked that the IG not be able to interfere with the independent office of Civil Rights. I agree.

He asked that the IG not interfere with the police auditor. I agree. And he asked that the criminal penalties be removed and replaced with subpoena power. I agree. As long as the Governor doesn't say that that creates new issues for him. I agree. And as the bill moves forward, I'm happy to hopefully get that feedback and make those changes. And I think that resolves a lot of the concerns that you have.

But that means the bill needs to advance, and I'm happy to work those things out as it goes through.

Thank you, Senator Cortese. Senator Blakespear.

Thank you. Well, thank you for the robust discussion here. I was listening very intently to the exchange about what was an example of what would be violative of this.

And I think for me, it was important to read the history of this very fraught and evolving relationship from the grand jury report finding that board and management impeded the efforts to conduct independent oversight, and then all the way forward to just last month where actually the funding was increased to the amount that was asked for by the IG by 1.7 million. And the boards of BART and MTC will be taking that up later this spring, but it seems like they're likely to approve that.

And then this discussion about how many of the recommendations were taken and not taken by the IG, it seems to me that this is an environment where it makes sense to have legislative involvement if needed. And this possibly is what's needed. And I don't perceive that there is that much difference between what you're saying and what they're saying. To me,

one of the things that's most important to recognize is that there's a very big difference between an audit and an investigation. And so the issue of whether somebody is actually committing something that would lead to them being fired, like, for example, harassment, nepotism, fraud, if this is uncovered in some way, then that would go over into something like the workplace conduct unit, an HR role.

And so the auditor, the IG's role is really in a well functioning organization, which I think is what you're trying to create, ultimately, is to have policies and practices that are written down, that are clear to employees, that they can follow, so that there's an alignment of expectations and that the agency is performing at its highest level.

This question to me, this discussion right here makes it clear to me that you could find common ground, because it seems to me like the author is not actually saying that anybody should not be represented during the audit process. The issue of privacy of a whistleblower or other, saying, I don't want anyone else to know about this, but I want to be able to communicate confidentially. I mean, all of those things seem to me like they could be worked out with language.

But I am, like my colleague, very concerned about the misdemeanor penalty. To me, it seems like having a criminal element to this does have a chilling effect. That is not good. And so that concerns me. And just the fact that these have not been worked out, the fact that labor is so opposed to this and it's not codified. I mean, it's not written in a way that, for example, you can point to and say, this is why it's clear that this will or will not happen.

So I came into this hearing unclear about where I was on it. I do feel like there's more work to be done. I don't know if there's any possibility of it coming back to us. My inclination is to not vote one way or the other on it until some of these things, like the misdemeanor, are dealt with and some of this is clarified about the auditor and what would happen in certain circumstances.

It seems like things are so close that I do have hopes that you're able to get there. So those are my comments.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blakespear, Senator Becker.

Well, thank you. I so appreciate the thoughtful conversation here today. I've listened very intently and I'm very know transit is struggling, as we all know, post pandemic, and we're going to need billions of dollars of support for our transit agencies. And as Vice Chair of the Bayer caucus, I plan to fight very hard for that. And for that, we do need trust of the public, as was mentioned, and there was a lot of publicity around the last inspector general.

I'm concerned because I know we're going to need that money to make sure we prevent service cuts and prevent any layoffs. And so on one hand, I see that need for trust and transparency. So I sense what you're trying to do.

I do also have concerns, many of the same concerns that were raised, I won't belabor them, but certainly about the, well, just in general, the concerns from folks in the labor organizations that were raised here today want to just really make sure, and if it's a way to clarify very clearly that again, they have the representation rights. If, when the inspector general goes back, I think that's important, but I appreciate your comments along those lines.

And it sounds like that they are protected if the inspector general goes, then goes back to folks. So I'm a little confused by that discussion, but it sounds like we're moving the right direction. Again, it is early in the process here. I do have the concerns about misdemeanor and the criminal part of that that was raised into here. But again, because it's early and I think this is important, I'll vote to move it forward and I'd love to see you continue working and continue to.

Discuss it with you.

Any other questions or comments from Members? Okay, Senator Glazer, would you like to close?

Thank you for the thoughtful hearing, folks. A couple of things in closing. One is this isn't a new issue. It isn't a new issue. Four years ago, five years ago, the inspector general's office was created under a mutual understanding about how it could operate independently and effectively. And then it got eroded immediately. It was starved for money and the position was interfered with with interviewing an employee, access to data. So there was agreement to try to work these things out.

The inspector general was hired by BART and the Governor. This isn't my know that person. And so they said, let's create a charter to try to codify our roles and responsibilities. And so for the last years, they've worked on this charter and management says, I don't like it and the union says, I don't like it. And then they put forward a charter a couple of years ago, same thing, no agreement. This is not a new thing.

It's very alluring to say, let us keep working on this. And that's very alluring. Why move a bill? I'd say the opposite. That's a reason to move this bill if they think they can resolve these issues in the next few months.

Perfect.

Let's see if that really is to be, because for the last four years, it really hasn't happened. Folks, let's be honest about it. When this original legislation was advanced, the union didn't support it, and they've never supported anything going forward since then. Now, I'm hopeful that we could work things out. I'd like to see them be worked out, and I think the way to encourage that for this committee is to move this bill along. You'll have a chance to vote on it again on the floor.

It's likely it'll be amended over in the assembly. You'll have another chance to vote on it in August, and you can take a look and see whether progress was made. Was progress made. But here's the thing, folks. So many times we go to our voters and we ask for money for schools, money for education, money for whatever the issues are.

And I know, and you know, certainly many of the local government people here in the room know that we always add on to those questions, subject to an audit, subject to a community advisory committee, all the things that deal with what many of our voters think about, which is that I'm willing to give you the money, but let me have the trust that it's going to be spent. Right. How many times do you hear that? So we, as elected, say, okay, we got to be responsive.

Well, that's the case here. This measure allowed $4 billion to go into transit, 4 billion. Because we said we're going to create an office of inspector general to independently do their job, and now look where we are. She's not been able to do her job. The grand jury of Alameda County, not such a conservative place, says they've failed to cooperate with her. The newspapers, the Mercury News, the Contra Costa Times, they've all said BART has failed to cooperate.

And now we're back in this situation where we still have this conflict, but they say they can work it out. So I'd say my close would be, let's move this Bill along and let's check it out, and you'll have plenty of opportunities to say you didn't do enough. But we're working very hard to try to find that middle ground, and your support today would allow for that. So with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Glazer. Consultant, can you please call the roll motion? Can we entertain a motion? My apologies. Okay, Senator Dahle moves the bell.

All right, profile item 15. SB 827 by Senator Glazer. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Okay, the bill has six votes. We'll put the bill on call. Thank you. That concludes our agenda at this time. So we're going to run through items. So if any members have not voted on any of our items, please come down to room 1200, but we'll start at the top for members that are here and present. First, we'll take up the consent calendar.

Consultant, can you please call the role on the consent calendar?

For the consent calendar consisting of SB 68 by Senator Mcguire, SB 301 by Senator Portantino, SB 304 by Senator Laird, SB 606 by Alvarado-Gil. SB 617 by Senator Newman, and SCR 25 by Senator Seyarto. [Roll call]. That would be 15.

Okay, that has 15. We'll put that on call. All right, next, we have SB 55. That is file item one by Senator Umberg.

For file item one, SB 55 by Senator Umberg. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Public Safety. [Roll call]. That would be 13.

Everybody's there or no? Okay, that Bill has 13 votes. We'll leave it on call. File item two, SB 49 by Senator Becker.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Governance and Finance. [Roll call].

Okay, that Bill has 14. We'll leave it on call. File item three, SB 608. Senator Becker as well.