Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

Okay, the Senate Transportation Subcommittee will come to order. Good afternoon. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service for individuals who'd like to provide public comment for today's hearing, the participant number is 877-226-8163 and access code 7362834 we are holding our committee hearings here in the O Street building, and I'll ask all members of the committee again to be present in room 1200 so we can establish a quorum.

And we have about 19 measures on today's agenda, with eight of those measures proposed for consent. So we'll move through consent once we get a quorum here, and we will begin with. Senator Allen, would you like to present your bill? I think we're going to call on Senator Allen to present his bill, which is file item eight, SB 615 vehicle traction batteries. Welcome, Senator Allen. Thank you for being here.

Members. You know that I've been spending a lot of time working on the policy area of extended producer responsibility. We obviously got the big SB 54 through last year. That creates a system for extended producer responsibility for the producers of plastic waste.

We know that this is a model that can be used in many different areas and that we've been really committed to working closely with environmental folks and people from local government, the waste hauler community and the business community and the producers to try to create more coherence in our economy when it comes to products that can and ought to be recollected and repurposed, their component parts reused, and that there ought to be a mind given toward the end use of products and circularity in products.

One of the things we've talked about quite a bit as a legislature, and certainly here in the Transportation Committee, are the challenges of electrification. And one of the many challenges that continues to be raised, including by skeptics and critics of the EV system, is the issues relating to procurement of those component parts of electric vehicle batteries. And we know that it's part of why we need to put more resources into the extraction of lithium. Down in Lithium Valley in California.

We know we are too dependent upon foreign sources for some of the component parts of electric vehicle batteries, and that there'd be real benefit not only associated with domestic production, but also having a more coherent system in place where we work with the manufacturers, we work with the auto dealers, and we work with the battery recyclers to ensure that we're collecting EV batteries at the end of life of a car and breaking those batteries down to component parts and turning them into the next generation of EV batteries.

Some of us on CFE trip recently were able to go to Montreal, where we got to see an EV battery recycler. And it was just fascinating to see the work they're already doing, breaking down the batteries to component parts, the cobalt, the lithium, various minerals, metals, and they're now able to turn those back into the next generation of EV batteries. It's inspiring. It's exciting.

We want to see that happening much more, and we've been working really closely with industry stakeholders to try to create a system where Borebai will be able to do this. And so this is the effort that's currently underway. It's a lot of work. We've convened a pretty similar stakeholder process that's substantially similar, though obviously different in scope, to what we did with the conversations over SB 54. And we're bringing together folks from the producer community, the business community, environmental voices, waste management folks, et cetera.

And that's what this bill is all about. It's all about making sure that we have real circularity with our EV batteries. So that's the bill. Madam Chair, and I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. And do you have lead witness in support?

I believe we do.

Okay. Thank you.

Madam Chair and committee members Orville Thomas from Calstart, State Policy Director. Calstart is a California-based nonprofit that's focused on clean transportation technologies and accelerating that. Happy to report that Calstart and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and New Energy Nexus was given a $25 million grant from the Energy Commission last week to recruit and retain manufacturers to come into California and do more investments in lithiumion, battery recycling, repurposing, manufacturing, asking for your support on this bill.

So Mr. Allen and his staff continue working with us and other stakeholders to get this piece of much needed legislation through. We feel like we're very close, and we have great dialogue, and I think everyone agrees to the importance of the topic. So hoping that we could continue having opportunities to discuss it.

Asking for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support?

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, we're a nonprofit that advocates for equitable and circular economy. We're proud strong support of SB 615 to ensure that all electric battery vehicles, batteries in the state are recovered, reused, repurposed, remanufactured, and recycled to the best management practices. We have done, passed many extended producer responsibilities bills, passed them, draft them, and implemented them here in California.

EV batteries are large and quickly growing waste stream and Californians are adopting the use of EVs. In 2020, over 144,000 EVs were sold in the state and we see what's coming. California has a history of allowing products to be sold in the market without an end-of-life plan, causing problems at the back end of the system. Examples include solar panels, loose batteries, marine flares, just to name a few.

When this happens, the costs are borne unfairly on the garbage ratepayers and are socialized among all ratepayers, causing frustration amongst consumers and environmental damage when there's not enough money or adequate recycling facilities to handle the waste. We're excited for this bill and what's to get ahead of this problem for ev batteries if this is passed this year? So we thank the Senator for continuing his work to achieve an equitable, circular economy and ensuring California has an end-to-life management plan for EVS.

And we continue to work with other stakeholders on making sure this is a great program. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. And before we move on with any other support witnesses, let's establish a quorum, please, Madam Consultant.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we've established a quorum. Thank you. And we'll move forward with additional witnesses in support.

Daniel Broad on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists in support. Thank you.

Erin Wooley on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support. Thank you.

Julie Malinowski-Baum on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, in support. We are thankful that the conversation continues.

Liv Butler, Californians Against Waste. In support.

John Moffatt on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. Appreciate the author inviting us to the table. Look forward to continuing conversations.

Madam Chair and members. Gavin McHugh, on behalf of the State of California, Auto Dismantlers Association. Auto dismantlers are the entity in California licensed and regulated to process end-of-life vehicles. Want to thank Senator Allen and his staff for a robust stakeholder process that's going well. We're not there yet in terms of supporting the bill, but we do want to thank the Senator and we'll continue to work. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. So we've concluded support. It doesn't look like you have any lead witnesses in opposition. Anyone else in room 1200 who'd like to oppose SB 615? Alright, seeing none. So we'll take it to the teleconference line. Moderator do you have anyone who'd like to support or oppose SB 615, please?

Thank you for in support or opposition of SB 615. You may press one and then zero. And we will go to line 59. Your line is open.

Hello, this is Kathy Schaeffer on behalf of the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles Chapters of Climate Reality Project, as well as Climate Action California in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have no further support or opposition in queue.

Okay. Thank you, Moderator. We'll take it back for any questions or comments. I see Senator Seyarto, and then we'll move on to Senator Archuleta.

Senator Allen, thank you for trying to be proactive in this, because we've had efforts in the past to do recycling, where we basically got the cart before the horse and using probably our organic waste efforts as kind of an example. How are we going to ensure that this plan has a place for the end game of all of these things before we start finding people for not collecting or not being able to find a place for that end game?

Because, like, the organic waste people were collecting, but then they had no place to take it. In fact, still, we're shipping organic waste from my region 200 miles away, which is all sorts of truck traffic and things like that. How are we going to ensure that?

Because I would imagine whenever we have a mandate, if somebody isn't following that mandate and they have an inspector come out to see if they're following the mandate and they're not able to, because we don't have a place, we don't have a manufacturer to remanufacture, how are we going to make sure that that part is in place before we start hammering people for not doing it?

So great question. And this is the fundamental difference between the extended producer responsibility approach to the 1383 organics approach, which was more of a top-down mandate. Extended producer responsibility actually brings all the stakeholders to the table, and it's actually a producer-driven process. We have kind of goals that we want to have that be met.

And, of course, we're talking to producers, and we're certainly hopeful that similar to SB 54, will all end up being together asking for a passage of this bill by the time the negotiations are done. But we're going to have strong goals.

But we actually put the producers in the driver's seat to help us address how to reach those goals, as opposed to having products pushed out onto the market and then have the folks that, whether it be the haulers or the cities, kind of stuck holding the proverbial bag, having to figure out what to do with the products.

So we're engaging the producers as part of the whole model to make sure that circularity and reuse of the component parts are going to be a part of their production system. And I got to say, this actually is a much. I mean, I think part of why we all know the plastics thing was very intense.

This actually is an easier thing because in the end of the day, all we have to do is collect the cars at the end of life, as opposed to every piece of plastic, right? Which is such a different, such a more daunting thing.

Once you collect the cards we have a system in place under this with a producer responsibility organization, and it's going to be done with industry kind of helping to drive the policies and processes, but with Cal Recycle and the agencies holding them accountable for rates and dates for recycling.

Okay, so the producers are going to have the plan. But my concern, like you said, you went and visited a remanufacturing plant. So are the producers in charge of creating the remanufacturing plant, or are we going to need people that come on board and create remanufacturing plants before this goes into effect?

Some producers have expressed interest in getting into the business themselves. Others want to contract out, or they're actually right now, investing in plants that are springing up. So every producer is going to want to do their own thing. It's ultimately going to come down to what's best for their business model and what works best for them. Right?

And if there aren't enough plants at the end of the day to take these in and remanufacture, then what? Because then we have a backup of the system. Our regulatory agencies run out there, start finding everybody, and everybody's got their hands in there because they don't know what to do.

Look, the good thing about EVs and the EV batteries is that the component parts are valuable, right? Cobalt's valuable. Lithium is valuable. So unlike with some types of plastics, where there was kind of a questionable end market, circularity market, we know there's real value here. If we can create a coherent system to collect the batteries and get them moving and then taken apart, the thought is the producers would have to step in.

If there really is a dearth of plants that threatens our ability to meet the goals, the producers would have to step in to help, to invest in plants that would help to build out the capacity. I don't think that we're hearing the sort of fear and concern from the producers that we heard on the plastic spill.

And I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they know this is, a, going to be easier to collect, and b, there's such high value in some of those minerals in the EVs that there's already kind of a built-in market that should help to allay some of the fears about future finance.

Those are going back into the remanufacturing part of this.

Yes, that's right. In fact, you can take the cobalt and the lithium and several of the minerals and run it right through into the next generation of EV batteries.

Right. If somebody is on that part of it to redo that part, not just to collect the cobalt and stuff.

Oh, yeah.

That's like they're taking out of our catalytic converters. But to be able to convert those batteries, because if I'm a manufacturer and I'm going to get hammered for not being able to get these batteries through to the recycling and they're starting to back up, I'm going to slow down on the manufacturing part, and then that's going to interfere with our ability to meet our mandates that we want everybody to have an electric car. Yeah, those are my concerns.

No, I get it.

I hear what you're trying to address it. But I'm still concerned about the third part of this.

I mean, if anything, this is going to provide a new and reliable source of those component parts which have heretofore been difficult to mean. In some respects, this bill actually builds out of Brian's, Senator Dahle's bill that sought to look at this whole question of.

We had this advisory group to develop recommendations to ensure lithiumion batteries because I think they were actually being recycled and reused, because there are a lot of real concerns about procurement and it is difficult to procure, and there are human rights issues and economic issues. The hope here is that this will provide kind of an additional avenue for sourcing of those minerals in the next generation of EV batteries.

Well, yeah. Thank you for trying to allay my fears about what's happened in the past versus what might be happening in the future. So I understand where you're coming from.

And the difference here, Senator, is that some of the previous bills I think you're referring to, they were written in a way that industry was not at the table in many respects, and they were oftentimes passed over the strenuous objection of industry. This is a much more collaborative stakeholder process. And I think you heard folks from industry talk about how they're at the table, they're engaging. It's going well so far.

Well, that's just what I'm looking for if the bill goes forward, is that we have something at the end of the day that does not do what's happened with organic. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing it forward. And I commend you. I'm really excited. I'd like to move the bill when we get to that point. But you're so futuristic. How did you gather the material over the last year or two, statistically to see what the future would look like if we didn't have this bill?

Well, I think we see it playing out in some respects. Right. We see that a lot of cars are not always getting properly collected. The batteries are just getting tossed.

They're oftentimes full of toxins. And so part of what we're trying to do here is try to create an infrastructure for them to be collected and then turn into the next generation of EV batteries. So, quite frankly, this bill comes, in some respects, comes together out of a deep concern over current practice and a sense that we need to do better.

And that was at the heart of Senator Dahle's AB 2832 and that's my point, being so proactive. But looking into the future, the more we develop, the more we have to have an end game. And I think you hit the nail on the head. So I'll definitely be supporting it. And like I said, I'd like to move it. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Dahle.

Well, I would like to just weigh in, actually. I did a bill in 2018 to actually do the study that asked, what are we going to do with all these electric battery cars? And out of that came, I think this bill really, quite frankly. So I'm in support. I think it's a great idea. And the one, I think, unique thing to put my colleagues at rest a little bit is that there is value in recycling these batteries. We need to recycle.

And my concern was that we were going to end up with them in scrap yards or places where they catch on fire, they're toxic and we don't have a collection. The industry is actually coming together and doing some of this on their own because there is a value. And I really think that your bill is on the right track. I'm not one that likes the stick more than the carrot. In this case, we actually have the carrot there.

We need to do something, obviously, for the environment, number one. And number two, there's value there. And so if we can move this in a direction where we don't have any reason to do fines, where we have a place where we collect them, we reuse them. And there's a big industry out there right now that is already doing that.

And I saw with the mandates of going to electrified vehicles by 2035 that California needed to figure out something to do with these rare minerals that we need and we need to recycle. So I'm glad you moved the bill. I think it's moving in the right direction, and I think industry is at the table. There are many entrepreneurs out there that want to recycle these batteries and break them down and reuse them again and save the environment at the same time. So I'll be voting for it.

Senator, I appreciate it. And there's no question that your mean ultimately this bill comes out of the policy options that were formulated by the group that was set up by your bill.

Great. Thank you, Senator Dahle. I see no other questions or comments. I do want to commend you and thank you, Senator Allen. I know you're no stranger to being collaborative and ensuring that all folks are at the table, so thank you. We have a motion by Senator Archuleta, consultant. Can you please call the role?

File item number eight, SB 615 by Senator Allen. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, the bill has 10 votes so far. We'll leave it on call. Senator Portantino, welcome. You have file item seven, SB 538.

Madam Chair. I want to thank Senator Skinner for letting me run up here and do this quick little bill. So thank you, Madam Chair. Today I present SB 538, which would require the Director of California Department of Transportation to appoint a chief advisor on cycling and active transportation, who will serve as the department's consultant on all issues related to bicycle transportation, safety and infrastructure.

It makes sense that as we put more resources and more planning into active transportation, we have somebody specifically within the department that is an expert who can both work with activists and the internal government structure to make sure that we have sound, alternative and active transportation policies and implementation. The prime minister of England actually created a position within his administration specifically for active transportation, and that's what this bill does.

I've met with CalTrans to talk about it, and we're hopeful that as this progresses, we'll get a signature in the end of the day, and we'll respectfully ask for an aye vote. And we have Marc Vukcevich from Streets for All, who will be our primary witness.

Good afternoon. My name is Marc Vukcevich, co-director of state policy for Streets for All, proud sponsor of SB 538. We have a specific goal with this bill, which is to shape CalTrans to be inclusive and representative of all mobility options. By having a chief advisor on bicycling and active transportation, there'd be a position that kind of a voice at the table to improve bike and pedestrian safety across the state.

CalTrans as an institution is a legacy of traffic engineers who were taught that level of service was the end all, be all, moving cars quickly from point a to point b. And CalTrans, in many ways, is no longer that institution. After SB 743 Steinberg, CalTrans now needs to use VMT instead of level of service. CalTrans also has the mission, too, of thinking about all infrastructure users and their safe and efficient passage instead of exclusively the dangerously fast movement of single occupancy vehicles.

But the mentality of moving cars at the expense of everything else, including children's lives and even local sales tax revenue, persists. And so a recent example is that CalTrans is about to repave state route 2 in Los Angeles, and contrary to their agency's own guidance, the Executive order on complete streets, they're implementing zero new bike or walk infrastructure. Another example is in Orange County.

It's putting $2 million out of 100 $1.0 million project into a stretch on Newport Boulevard, which is almost part of State Route 55, serves as Costa Mesa's deadliest corridor for both pedestrians and cyclists. About 100,000 cars pass through today per day, excuse me, at freeway speeds. CalTrans is recommending the placement of class two and class three bike lanes, and these were inadequate and flagrantly against CalTrans' own standards, against FHWA standards, and against NACTO standards.

This reflects more of an interest in level of service than actually service in the design. We believe that CalTrans needs someone to be adult in the room and the person with the authority, expertise and purview and staff needed to protect vulnerable road users. At a time that we are at a 40 year high of pedestrian fatalities.

We need someone internal to force CalTrans toward efficient and ethical infrastructure that can keep all road users safe, or at the very least, make the agency follow its own bare minimum safety standards. We look forward to continued work with the committee and the agency on this bill as it develops, and respectfully ask for your high vote as the sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And anyone else in room 1200, it doesn't look like you have any lead opposition, but I'll welcome anyone who'd like to support or oppose the Bill. SB 538, please come forward in room 1200. Okay, see? None. And we'll take it to the teleconference line. Moderator, can you queue up anyone who would like to support or oppose SB 538, please?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero again.

That is one and then zero for supporter opposition of SB 538. And, Madam Chair, we have no one in queue at this time.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll take it back to the dais. Senator Blakespear.

Yes. Thank you. Well, thank you for this bill. I'm going to support it today. I appreciate your lead witnesses examples, because my experience of CalTrans in San Diego is that, San Diego County, is that they have integrated extremely well with the complete streets requirements and actually promote an active transportation philosophy. I wanted to suggest that the areas where we have roadblocks and we need this position are CHP, Coastal Commission, other places where bicycling really does take a backseat to other priorities.

And so I fully support this. The committee consultant report does talk about whether this is basically redundant because of all the different people who are already doing this kind of thing. But I think these are really good examples. We clearly need a standard across the entire state. But I would encourage looking at the other agencies that are actually creating serious barriers to active transportation in the state. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. I'll take any other questions or comments. Vice Chair Niello.

Thank you very much. I support what you're attempting to do. I'm a bike rider myself, and I'm sensitive to the sorts of bike lanes that we have on the roads, which means I don't ride on them. But I'm concerned about the redundancy that Senator Blakespear just alluded to.

And it would seem to me perhaps a better approach would be to call for a position like this and then have CalTrans implement it on a revenue neutral basis so that we don't just add to the overhead of the Department that could be supportable, but just adding to the overhead of the Department because we want this particular position layered on top of what CalTrans is already doing in hopefully the same end goal is just going to increase costs. That's the concern that I've got.

That's why I can't support it as it is. But would alternatively.

Okay, any other questions or comments from members and Senator Blakespear, would you like to motion? Can we entertain a motion for the bill?

Okay, I'll move.

Yes, please. Thank you. Just a motion? Yes. Thank you so much. And did we take it to the teleconference line? We did. So, Senator, would you like to close?

Yes, I would. And I would point out that the San Diego County bicycle coalition is in support of the bill. And we look at this as a comprehensive position to look at all interactions with all agencies and all parts of government. And we are looking at. We've been talking directly with CalTrans about having existing resources pay for this position and not create a new position that needs to be allocated in the budget.

And so I've talked directly to CalTrans about how we can make this happen within their existing resources. But the point is, there should be one person, at least in that Department, in that agency specifically focused on active transportation. And my ultimate goal is that within each region, there would be somebody down the line providing this service on a much more localized level. But let's start with CalTrans as a whole and see how it works, and then go from there and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Blakespear. Madam Consultant, can you please call the roll.

For file item seven, SD 538, by Senator Portantino? The motion is do pass to the committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we have seven to three that bill is on call, and we'll take very quickly the consent calendar. Can we get a motion for consent? We have. Thank you, Senator Dahle. Items 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 18. Madam consultant, can you please call the role on consent.

For our consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave the bill. I'm sorry. The consent calendar on call as well. Senator Skinner, welcome. We are starting with file item two, SB 233, electric vehicles and electric vehicle supply equipment, bi directional capability.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members. I'm very pleased to present this bill. I want to first indicate that I am in this committee accepting the amendments from the Energy Committee, which removed the bi-directional mandate for charging infrastructure, but directed the CEC and CARB to analyze and make recommendations regarding the costs and benefits and barriers around making EV chargers bi-directional. So we have that information before we move forward.

As everyone on this committee knows, California has already made a strong commitment to zero emission vehicles, specifically EVs. And last week, the Biden Administration proposed new rules to massively accelerate EV production. As the stage is set for more of our vehicle owners to have EVs, we want to give them the opportunity to be able to maximize the utilization of the fact that they have an electric vehicle. Many of you have probably seen the TV ad if you're watching the NBA champion playoffs right now. Go dubs.

You see an F-150 truck driving up to a cabin, and the guy jumps out of the truck, and it's an F-150 truck, is an electric truck. And he quickly pulls out a cord and he plugs the truck into the cabin and lights the cabin up. So that is what bi-directional charging is.

The amount of electricity storage capacity in the battery of an electric vehicle or the batteries of an electric vehicle are in many cases more powerful than the Tesla battery pack that is now being marketed to many people who are buying homes and getting solar and putting that battery pack on along with solar. Now, conceivably, you will need to buy that battery pack if you have the EV.

And whether you have solar or not, at the point where electricity rates are highest, meaning you're being charged the most per kilowatt hour, you could plug in your EV to your home, power your home for those few hours, and then power your EV at night, for example, or during the time when electricity rates are really low.

Now, that not only has a benefit to the consumer in terms of reducing their costs, it has a benefit to the grid, because electricity rates are highest when demand is highest and when we have the most, because demand when it's too high could create those type of outages, and we don't want to have those outages.

But anyway, the point is that the power of the batteries of electric vehicles, given that most of us only drive a very small number of miles a day, we want to maximize a person's ability to utilize that. Now, Nissan Leaf, which is the most affordable EV on the market has always been bi directional. Tesla vehicles will be bi directional by 2025. Obviously, many Ford vehicles are. EVs are bi-directional. Point of this bill is to get all the EVs bi-directional by 2027, model 2027.

So everyone who is being able to benefit from the rebates that both the Federal Government and the State of California are giving that makes their EV more affordable can also benefit from this ability to use an EV. We don't know how long those rebates are going to stay in existence, but we want to be able to maximize. We want people to buy EVs, and we want them to be able to use those for all the things they can be useful for.

So with that, I'd like my witnesses, Nicole Rivera, who's director of government relations from the Climate Center, and Gregory Poilasne, who is CEO of NUVVE, to speak.

Good afternoon, Chair Gonzalez and committee members. I'm Nicole Rivera here with Kurt Johnson from The Climate Center, sponsor of SB 233. Many thanks to Senator Skinner and her staff for leading this key legislation. As we face the escalating threat of climate change, we cannot afford to continue relying on outdated and polluting technologies to keep the lights on. It's time for California to take bold action and embrace a cleaner, more resilient, and more equitable energy future.

Relying on polluting peaker plants and generators to keep our lights on during power outages disproportionately harms lower income and working class communities, exacerbating the environmental injustices that already plague these neighborhoods. We have a better option. By using electric vehicles as batteries on wheels, we can create a more resilient and reliable power grid while also reducing our carbon emissions. This approach has the potential to benefit everyone, rural counties to cities. It can help ensure that energy resilience is available to every californian, regardless of their income level.

SB 233 is a critical piece of legislation that would help us unlock the full potential of this approach. By making EVs bi-directional. We can use them to store energy when it's plentiful and discharge it when it's needed most. This bill is supported by over 70 organizations, including environmental and environmental justice groups, EV industry leaders, and local governmental organizations.

Making EVs bi-directional is a simple software upgrade and doable now as standards already exist and bi directionality charging can be managed to maintain battery life. If we use even a tiny percentage of our growing EV capacity, we can avoid blackouts and secure a more reliable power grid. This spell sends a critical market signal. It helps California leverage this massive EV energy capacity and it helps ensure energy resilience is available to every Californian at every EV price point.

We urge you to support this important bill and help California build a grid for the future, one that's clean, affordable, reliable, equitable and safe. The time for half measures and incremental change has passed. We need bold action now to help build and support a grid for the future. We urge you to support SB 23 and help California lead the way in the fight against climate change. Thank you for your time.

Senator Gonzalez, senate committee members. my name is Gregory Poilasne. I'm the CEO of NUVVE, a Pratt, California company and the world leader in bi-directional vehicle to grid technology. I'm here to support the Senate Bill 233 and to share my knowledge on vehicle to grid of EV 2G technology and adoption. Turning EV into mobile storage is critical to provide the flexibility grid needs and will draft stationary storage. My company, NUVVE, has unmatched real world expertise in bi-directional charging.

We have been running vehicle to grid operation with a variety of fleet vehicles for nearly seven years. Each of the Nissan Leaf that we have been using has been generating an average of $220 per month. By providing these grid services, we are measuring the battery health on a monthly basis and no battery impact has been detected as expected by the multiple simulation that had been performed. These demonstrate that bi directional evs with the appropriate service are more affordable.

Today in California, we're helping 10 school districts using vehicle to grid in order to reduce the cost of electrifying their fleets and giving them more money for student instruction while supporting clean transportation and renewable penetration. This project includes vehicle to grid integration with three different school bus manufacturers so it can be done in San Diego. During the last district 10 day heat wave in the Carhon Valley Unified School District used our vehicle to grid platform to help keep the lights on.

Now we have three vehicle to grid school bus fleets in the San Diego County, providing 1 capacity for this summer emergency load reduction program. NUVVE is also in the process of deploying another 1.5 megawatt in the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Territory supporting the LAUSD school bus fleets. We see vehicle to grid as an essential technology in order to achieve the EV deployment goals that we have while keeping energy cost equitable with standardization.

Already established bi-directional capabilities through the DC plug does not require added hardware and therefore can be achieved without increasing the cost of an EV. With the CEC currently establishing an interoperability test center, all basic bricks are here to support SB 233 rollout. California must approach vehicle to grid the same way it had treated rooftop solar and EV adoption with goals, incentive and fostering stakeholder collaboration. SB 233 does all three and will help transform today's megawatt into our tomorrow's gigawatts. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support of SB 233?

Good afternoon. Lillian Mirviss with MCE here in support. Thank you.

Daniel Broad, on behalf of the Union Of Concerned Scientists in support.

Erin Woolley, on behalf of Sierra Club California in support.

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

Jim Lindburg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Cynthia Shallit, on behalf of Indivisible California State Strong and Sacramento Electric Vehicle Association.

Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support? Okay, see? None now. We'll take it to lead opposition. Please come forward. We have the Auto Alliance in opposition.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. My name is Curt Augustine, and I'm the senior director of government affairs for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which is the trade association for the automakers and many of the technology suppliers for electric vehicles, as well as the batteries for electric vehicles. We respectfully oppose, unless amended, this bill. Our companies do make bi-directional vehicles. We or not.

Our opposition is not based on that bi-directional link, but we believe this bill is premature and should be with as your committee analysis has turned into a study bill. This issue is a huge issue. It has huge importance for California society going forward. There's no doubt about that. But we need to have a comprehensive look at this. The irony of the supporter of the bill said that we don't need half solutions yet.

The amendments just taken in this committee exempt the providers of charging stations and the utilities. So it is hard for me to ignore the irony that we need a full system when the only mandate in the bill is to require bi directional charging on automakers and their vehicles. The other issue that's of extreme importance, that this will add on cost to the electric vehicle and the cost of ownership at a time when we all know where we're headed with the mandates and we support this.

That's true. The reason, partly why these costs are the new clean car regulations that will take effect in model year 26. Because of those rules, there are increased warranty privileges for the owners of that. Our companies accept that we have not fought the rules. However, this would be a massive impact on those rules because of the way the rules are written, that is, on a mileage of the battery.

Obviously, if a vehicle is being charged and discharged while it's sitting there adding no miles, that puts additional stress on that. And our companies are going to have to raise prices to compensate for those warranty differences. We see possibly as much as $3,000 of vehicle at the very time when costs are going up on these vehicles and the mandate to make them is going up. We don't need the mandatory option. Let's have options for folks.

So, in conclusion, we would ask to be a study, and in my letter, by coincidence, I know that folks are skeptical of studies, but we have a perfect example right here. We supported Senator Dolly's bill on the electric vehicle battery recycling bill that has turned into Senator Allen's bill. We think that's a terrific model that is turning out to be a workable solution, and we would suggest the committee follow along in that and appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Augustine, please come forward. Anyone else who'd like to oppose SB 233 at this time?

Yeah. Julee Malinowski, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, specifically because of the conflict with the ACC two regulations over at the Air Resources Board, we remain opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Orville Thomas for Cal Start. Opposed unless amended.

Afternoon, Chair and member. Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Like to align our comments with Mr. Augustine. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members. Brady Van Engelen, California Chamber of Commerce. We'd like to align our comments with the previous commenters as well. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in room 1200? Okay, see? None. We'll move it to the teleconference line. Moderator, do you have anyone in support or opposition of SB 233, please?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero. For supporter opposition. We will go to line of 45, your line is open.

Hi, this is John Sarder of Decibel LLC, a California company. We are a technology provider for bi directional vehicles, and we like to express our strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 59. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. Kathy Schaefer, on behalf of San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles Chapters of Climate Reality Project, and 350 Humboldt, and Climate Action California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 55, your line is open.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Roger Dickinson, on behalf of Civic Well, formerly the Local Government Commission, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next. Line 70, your line is open.

Carol Weed, on behalf of 350 Bay Area Action and Sustainable Rossmore, in support.

Thank you. Line 69, your line is open.

Hello, this is Chelsea Lee, on behalf of Better World Group advisors in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you moderator. So we'll take it back to members, and I first want to thank you, Senator Skinner.

I know these are not very easy bills, but I know we chatted briefly last night as well. And I would just like to ask you about addressing some of the concerns, especially as it pertains to equity. It was noted that this might cause an additional $3,000 per car, but you've also noted the Nissan has been doing this for some time at a very low rate and then the start date and how you'll continue to work with the opposition, especially the Ottawa Alliance.

But overall, I know right now there are quite a few pilot programs happening. Biden dollars are happening now. So I understand the urgency. But if you can address some of those issues that I know, some of our committee members have questions on as well.

Certainly, well, the fear that it will cause every model to be more expensive. Obviously, manufacturers get to choose how to price their vehicles.

But as I noted, the most affordable EV, that has been the most affordable ev on the market from day one, the Nissan Leaf, has always been bi-directional. Now, some of the opposition's other comments were mostly regarding what they call V to G, which means using your vehicle to power the grid. Ultimately, I want EVs to be able to, for us to be able to use them as a grid resource. But right now, there are bi-directional chargers available.

Removing the mandate on bi directional chargers does not make them unavailable.

It perhaps slows down the speed at which all public chargers would be bi-directional, which then, of course, can affect how fast we can go to V to G. However, to me, at the moment, as electricity rates are projected to increase and as we are making EVs more affordable, the real benefit of the EV, of the bi-directional capability is to the consumer, or for example, to schools, the manufacturer of electric school vehicles in California. All of their school vehicles are bi-directional.

That enables then that school district or that school site to, after the bus has made its rounds, plug the bus in, for example, to the school facility, or to charge it for a period of time, and then when electricity rates are highest, even to the school, to then plug the fleet in to power some aspect of the school's electricity needs, similar to what the consumer would do and for low income consumers. And this is addressing the equity, who we are most.

This is the population that we want to make sure evs are accessible to. And of course, if they have an EV, since rates most impact them, we want them to be able to use that EV to offset their rates if they choose to. And if the models are not bi directional capable soon, then they won't be able to do that. So that's one of the issues. Now, the other issue that the opposition raised is premature.

When I introduced my bill on utility grade energy storage, and this was 2010, now we have bi directional vehicles. There was no utility grade battery storage in 2010. When I introduced that bill, there were maybe one company, two companies even anticipating it, I managed to get that bill through, even though most people thought that's just never going to happen, whatever, there was a whole thing of it. This is premature. It wasn't really taken seriously.

Within a very short period of time, California became the market leader, the world leader in utility grade battery storage. And that utility grade battery storage is what's enabled us to increase our renewable electricity generation in the state, and to do it without having to rely as much on fossil fuel powered power to offset when the renewable sources are not generating. Now, the analogy to the EV in the bi-directional, we back to equity. We don't want any more power outages. We may face them.

Do we want people investing in diesel generators or the ability to use that EV to power their home when there is that power outage? So this is why I think that. And of course, I appreciate manufacturers never like mandates. I do appreciate that. But we need to make sure that those vehicles have that capability while we are still dedicated to providing funding to our residents to purchase them. So I hope I've addressed your concerns and issues.

Yes. Thank you very much. And next, I'm going to move on to Senator Allen and then Senator Newman.

Well, thank you, Senator, for bringing this. Know something you've been talking about for quite some time in various committees where I've been, and I'm so intrigued by the idea, I think it's a great idea. My only concern really has to go with operationality. So how's this going to impact our ability to ensure that we don't add a lot of new costs onto EVs? Is this a reasonable timeline in terms of the rollout?

I understand the committee asked for a series of amends, and I think you're not taking them, but maybe, I guess you're agreeing to work together.

If I could. The amendments were taken in energy. They were a little late. So they were to remove the infrastructure and then also create the work group, but they needed to be taken in this committee.

So they're not additional trans amends. Is that.

No.

Okay. I'm sorry. I guess we were confused. Okay. Could you just give us a sense of, I'm someone who really loves the vision of this bill. How do we make sure we write it? How do we make sure we do it in a way that's going to both do what you're looking to do in terms of the real promise of grid resilience, while at the same time not harming our EV rollout and the operationally and the engineering and the technological issues.

Well, I hoped that what I had said previously would have addressed those, but let me try again. Grid reliability. So what I've already, in effect, relayed is that, well, I would love to have that V to G capacity right now, and I would like to have the charging mandate as well as the vehicle bi-directional capability mandate.

The main thing of delaying the requirement on the charging is that v to g capability because it is much harder to utilize the EV in a way that the power goes directly into the grid. Right. So you think about your home solar. Your home solar doesn't technically go into the grid per say. It is offsetting your demand of electricity. So it reduces the demand on the grid. Same thing.

If the vehicle has the bi-directional capability and you plug it into your house, then you're reducing your demand on the grid. So there's a grid benefit, but the real benefit is to you as the consumer, because it has reduced your electricity cost at that moment. Now, as I said, manufacturers have the choice to price their vehicles as they choose. But the good thing about the mandate is then they all have a level playing field. They're all going to have to have the bi directional capability.

They all want to be competitive. And already we have on the market the most affordable evEV the Nissan Leaf, and it is bi-directionally capable.

Okay. All right. I apologize if we were having a sidebar, another topic. So I apologize if you'd answer all these. So your point is the Leaf. We actually have a Leaf.

There are many other vehicles on the market that are also bi-directional, but I was trying to give that one as the economic. Yes.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Senator Newman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I want to come back to one of the witnesses, and I think Ms. Malinowski ball from Cali TC made a reference to the advanced clean car two rules. She's still here. She's here. And so would you mind. So if there's a conflict, would you mind expanding just a little bit so we understand, obviously, the ACC two rules are important, and so it'd be helpful to get some more context.

Malinowski Ball is deferred to me. Hi, again.

Curt Augustine with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and the Advanced Clean Car Two regulations which established the zero vehicle mandate through 2025 in the accompanying years, has a battery warranty provision in it that starts in model year 26. I got it. And that will say the rule is that companies must warrant for eight years or 100,000 miles. And the emphasis is on the 100,000 miles.

And so where our problem is with this mandate is that on the constant loading and uploading, the warranty is on the mileage. So let's say you only drove 50,000 miles, but there was a lot of charging on the vehicle. That warranty would come in. And that's why our companies will have to start building in that cost in model year 26.

And that's something that I'd want to address about the Nissan Leaf point that we've been hearing, and the Senator is absolutely right, it is the lowest price. But that's an unfair comparison, because these rules that we were just discussing don't start until model year 26. Those costs have not been factored in. Those older vehicles do not have to absorb those new warranty costs.

So it's not a fair comparison to say that a Nissan Leaf that rolls off to the market today at the lowest price will not be affected in model year 26 because it's a whole different set of rules.

I appreciate it. Okay, thank you. That answers that. Thank you. No, it clarified, we'd had that conversation. I didn't know what the specific reference to that conflict.

We do have a representative of a bi-directional charging that could answer how they feel that this addresses the new rules that CARB has put into effect.

From a battery perspective, when we work with OEM, and we are working with multiple OEMs, and Nissan was the first one we work with, we set up some boundaries to where we can charge or discharge the vehicle in order to do grid services versus charging the vehicle. So when we do grid services, in this case in Denmark, we never go above 95% set of charge, and we never go below 30% set of charge.

So while we work with OEMs, we have the ability to establish rules on how those vehicles can be discharged in order to provide either saving to the end customer, such as vehicle to home or vehicle to building, or in the way.

They're also providing the grid services, which we have a lot of those going on outside of the US, but also, as described earlier, for example, the emergency load reduction program, which is a California Ru program, which we discharge vehicles when they are peak consumption, about 60 hours per year. The other piece is discharging a kilowatt hour is not the same.

If you do it at 60 or 70% set of charge versus 5% set of charge, when you do it at a lower percent set of charge, you have a greater impact to the battery life than when you do it in the middle. So we say active management, right in the way you are providing those services.

In the case of school bus, because they are parked three months in a row every summer, actually, we see a potential life increase of the battery, because while they are parked three months in a row doing nothing, the ability of charging, discharging that battery, can enhance the battery life. So I think it's in the hand of the OEM in this case, to set up the boundaries that doesn't limit the ability of discharging the vehicle in certain range.

Does that answer your question?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to Vice Chair Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Skinner, this is a wonderful choice for the consumer. Now, you mentioned the F-150. That vehicle is selling literally like hotcakes.

And it is the vehicle that really brought to the attention of the marketplace the value of this feature. And we know now that there are other vehicles that do offer it and have offered it, and I would predict will offer it because it is, as I said, a great choice for the consumer, but not for this bill to mandate that every consumer has it.

Yes.

And I would suggest that the market will probably take care of itself without going through the hassle of fighting on a controversial bill.

Thank you, Senator Dahle.

So I don't think there's anybody that's not in agreement with the concept. It's a great concept. Makes sense. Buy lower cost energy, use it when it's higher cost, balance out the grid. And I brought this up in energy, and I don't see it addressed. If you did, maybe I missed it, but it's not as easy as just making the car ability to be able to be charged and then discharge, I guess, the energy. And it's not like you just run an extension cord from your house.

There has to be some stuff that has to be done. And I brought this up about the safety of when you put a home generator in or you put a solar system in, you put it in with the ability to be able to, if the grid is down, you are not charging the grid. When the grid is not able to take your energy. And we have linemen are out there working on lines, not expecting power to be on the line.

If somebody puts their car in, there's a safety issue. And there's also a mechanism that has to happen at the house to be able to take that energy and distribute it throughout the house and not charge it back on the line. So did you have some thoughts on that or you're in the process of this? You said you were going to get back to me on. Well, you actually said one of your friends made their car.

There are people that are converting, doing home conversions with their Chevy bolts and such. And it wasn't a friend of mine. And there have been many press articles. There have been press articles in the. What's the ownership group of the Mercury News? All those different. Yes. Barrier news groups had a variety of articles on people that are doing this at home.

The New York Times has around an individual in New Mexico and you know, it would be nice to not have it left just to people kind of rigging it up themselves because then maybe there is some safety issues and by making sure that the vehicles do have this capability then they're going to be doing less messing with their vehicle's internal capacities and such, which is one of my reasons for wanting to make sure that all the models and also to create that level playing field so that as we subsidize evs, we're giving everyone who buys one the opportunity to have this capacity.

Well, my point is though, if you put in a generator, you go to the county, you get a permit and they make sure that you're not charging the line. If you have the ability with an ev to electrify your home, there should be some safeguard at the home that does not allow that energy to be put onto the grid without it safely being put on the grid.

As I indicated, it's not being put onto the grid, it is powering your home.

Can I address. So you have UL standards that are addressing that. There's a UL standard called UL 1741 which is for example, all the inverters that are connected to solar are following that, which is the feature you are talking about is anti islanding, making sure that if the grid goes down, you don't push energy back to the grid. Right. Understand?

Now we have UL 1741 SA and SB that are being rolled out that are specifically related to electric vehicles and charging stations or charging station or vehicles combination have to go through that validation in terms of certification. Now in order to power your home, if the grid goes down, your first step would be to disconnect your home from the grid and then you would be able to pour your home.

But that's the same thing when you have a battery in your house today that's already there, right? Because the battery can pour your home, but you would need to make sure that the house is disconnected from the grid in order to do that. The advantage of a bill like SB 233 is actually you are making sure that anything that gets connected, people that are hiking, for example, this example of people that have done it themselves, those were not UL certified inverters.

The charging station that we used, in this case, the combination EV charging station would have to be UL 1741 SSB or SC, which is going to come up later.

Okay, so I agree. If you're putting in a solar system, you are going to go through the permitting process at the local level and you're going to make sure that you're not putting power back on the grid. If you have an EV car, your whole goal is that you don't have to put the battery.

Part of the testimony is you have to put the battery on the wall because you have the battery in the garage. True. But when you buy the car and you have a bi-directional, you don't have to go to the county to get a permit to plug your car back into your house. And each one of those systems has the ability to shut that power off through the codes or through what you call it. 17.

My point is, you're not going to have a battery in your house, you're going to have your battery in your car. And there has to be some safeguard that you don't just go in and plug it in and start putting power into your house and it get on the line, because it can. Unless you have a mechanism that shuts that off.

The car will not on its own would not be right.

What I like about SB 233 is that it's specifying on the car side, not on the infrastructure side, and therefore opens for people that can provide services, either setting the charging station or provide services to the end customer by providing them the right hardware. But the vehicle on its own will not be just pushing energy back to the grid. It will need some type of infrastructure that comes in a second step that is not defined in 233.

So it's not just as easy as plugging your car. And that's the point, is that you have to do something at your home before you can power your home.

But SB 233 is focused on getting the vehicle bi-directional, so that you create the ecosystem, and then people can make the decision on moving forward with putting infrastructure that has bi directional capabilities in their home.

Then that needs to be clear to the members who are voting on this, that understands that you're talking about the car, you're not talking about the home, you're not going to be able to just plug your home in safely. It's the same thing. It happens all the time. People fire generators up and plug them into their house and put power into their house, and it's going out on the line. And the lineman who's out there is not expecting to be energized. It's energized.

But this still only says that you're going to get bi-directional, which means that you still have to do something at your home. So those poor folks that were trying to get in the car now are going to have to get something done to their home as well to make sure, they can power their house. That needs to be known. That's what this bill is going to do.

I want to make sure Senator Skinner has a chance to weigh in. So we don't have a condition.

No, I do appreciate our experts being into it, but the person who owns the vehicle, who wants to use it in that way, would elect to have the type of charger at their home that has the capability also. And that type of charger has the type of inverter that the expert was describing, which does protect the grid in the home.

Senator Dahle, do you have any other questions?

That's what needs to be known, that it's not just running a cord and it happens. There's other things that have to happen for safety, and there's a cost to that as well.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Cortese.

Thank you. Just briefly, I'm very supportive of the bill. I do see it as, I appreciate the discussion very much here as one member, as one member of the committee, because I think all these things need to be flagged, but I don't think they're within the scope of the bill. I think the bill is basically saying, let's get the vehicles bi-directional.

And I'm very confident that local governments who have absolute ability right now to apply building code locally and have already been doing it with things like a panel capacity for ev charging and such, will come in and address these, I think, very valid concerns that Senator Dahle and other are bringing up. But it's a next step.

And I think this step has to come first to put the stake in the ground and say this is absolutely coming not just from a market standpoint or industry standpoint, but from a legislative standpoint. It's policy in the State of California now, and that should signal the markets to keep moving and the local governments to keep moving. That's just my two cent. And that's.

Appreciate those comments.

Great. Thank you, Senator Seyarto.

Thank you again. I heard this the other day, so you understand those comments that I made the other day, and I still have those. But one of the things that I'm a little concerned about is I think the gentleman touched on a little bit is how this affects battery life, because battery life isn't like when your flashlight goes bad and you just pop in a couple of new decels. Battery life for an F-150 lightning is when you're replacing the entire battery, it's $36,000.

And the really cheap EVs, it's $13,000. So if we're shortening battery life by constantly using it as a charger and the battery life is already estimated about 100,000 miles, they liken it to replacing an engine. Fortunately I've only had to replace one engine. It was when my vehicle got 280,000 miles on it. And it's expensive.

I can't imagine being able to afford to replace a battery even if it's like you lost a little of its life and it needs to be replaced at 70,000 or 60,000 miles. Because in Southern California that's a nothing. That's about five years worth. And that makes it really expensive for a lot of people. And that's why I kind of land on this. Really does. It's great technology for people who have a good use for it.

But it shouldn't be advertised as something to use all the time as a substitute for Edison or one of the other power companies powering your house because it might be cheaper at that particular moment. Because in the long run if you shorten that battery life you're in for a shock. I can't imagine spending $36,000 every 5 miles if I want to keep my car 15 years, every 5 years if I want to keep my car for 15 years.

So I like the intent of promoting and having these available to people. But I think it's too early to make it a mandate. And that's where I kind of land on it because that is a huge issue about the cost and the cost of replacing the batteries.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. Isn't the spirit of this for the emergency situation primarily? And it's the choice of the consumer and it's not to alter their electric just when they're out in the mountains or maybe something happens at home. Isn't that the spirit of it?

Yes. And perhaps I was over enthusiastic. But I'm not necessarily trying to describe encouraging consumers necessarily to use it every day, for example. But we obviously have times where, for example last September where you got a text alert that said please power down, and it was 100 and whatever, 6 degrees, 110 degrees. And depending on your circumstance that meant turning off that air conditioner, which could jeopardize the health of people in your family.

Well if at that point you could utilize the EV instead, then there's a great benefit to that. You've powered down and yet you've not lost that necessity of whatever it is that electricity service that you still need. And there's a number of other examples. And, of course, over time, as batteries change and improve, it may become to the point where the vehicles are equipped with such a battery that I might use it much more frequently. Right. Versus in less frequently.

But I think we're just trying to move to having that capability.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Well, this has been a very robust discussion, and I thank you for continuing to address the concerns of the committee and, again, the equity components. Just the immediacy of this and all of that. I don't have any other questions or comments, but we'll entertain a motion at this time. All right, moved by Senator Allen. Madam Consultant, can you please call the roll.

Profile item two, SB 233, by Senator Skinner. The motion is do pass as amended, to the committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Okay, the Bill has eight. We'll leave the Bill on call. And you have the next file item, SB 682. Senator Skinner, thank you so much.

I want to first establish that I will accept the Committee's amendments, which are establishing a guardrail, so if low carbon concrete provider fails to meet the agreement, the state agency is not at fault and can find another supplier and also clarifying what constitutes fossil-based materials. I think we in the last couple of years with various bills that have come forward, one by Senator Becker, Senator Caballero, and mine, regarding the ability to have pilot projects where we capture carbon from cement production.

We've recognized that there is a great deal of carbon that's a byproduct from cement production. Globally, it's one of the largest emitters, and it's one of the toughest industries to decarbonize. However, there's lots of technological solutions that are emerging to help us achieve cement and concrete decarbonization.

So adopting a policy that sends a clear market signal, and, in effect, I think the theme here is that many of my bills are California sending a signal to the market that we want the type of investment and research and action that results in promoting and developing and making commercially viable these types of technologies, whether it's utility grade battery storage, bi-directional EVs, or, in this case, very low carbon concrete.

So the Federal Government established recently what was called the first Movers Coalition, which is a public private partnership to commercialize clean technologies through advanced procurement agreements. Caltrans is the largest purchaser of cement in California. If Caltrans were to act to have advanced procurement agreements that specified some percent of what they purchased being this low carbon cement, then that sends the signal that this is here to stay, that it can help get the investments that will bring its costs down and bring the production up to scale.

So let me have our witnesses. I've got Simon Brandler, who's the VP of public and private policy at Brimstone, and Chris Rose on behalf of NRDC. And just to clarify, Senator Skinner, you also accepted an amendment to specify that only the 10% of the state's specified concrete must be near zero. Carbon also need to be fossil free based. Okay. Yes. Thank you very much for the clarification. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair Gonzalez, Vice Chair Niello, and Members of the Committee for the Opportunity to speak today on behalf of DC two, the decarbonized cement and concrete working group, in strong support of SB 682. My name is Simon Brandler and I serve as Vice President for Policy at Brimstone. We're an Oakland company with a breakthrough carbon-negative process for making ordinary Portland cement.

We're also one of nine members of DC two, a coalition of innovative, us based, venture-backed companies with solutions for achieving deep decarbonization of the cement and concrete sector. Passage of SB 682 would mark a significant milestone in cleaning up the cement and concrete sector and advancing California's quest for carbon neutrality by 2045. Achieving that goal depends on procuring cement and concrete with dramatically smaller carbon footprints than even the lowest carbon solutions on the market today.

SB 682 would leverage the state's power as the largest buyer of cement and concrete to bridge the current gap in the market to scale up and commercialize truly transformative low carbon technologies needed for future state projects. SB 682 would empower Caltrans and other state agencies to directly contract for low carbon cement and concrete up to 10 years in advance, mirroring the power purchase agreements used to purchase and finance clean energy. Advanced market commitments offer two benefits.

First, state agencies will be able to secure access to ultra-low-carbon materials necessary to achieve California's climate goals. And second, to obtain industrial-scale financing and scale up operations, emerging low-carbon suppliers must show proof of demand. Signed agreements from California State agencies, the most dominant buyers of cement and concrete anywhere, would unlock financing to commercialize low carbon solutions, creating jobs and economic activity in California.

We greatly appreciate Senator Skinner and her staff for this important legislation and the Committee for its consideration and feedback. We look forward to the opportunity to collaborate with you on in the weeks to come, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that would be helpful.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Chris Rose on behalf of NRDC in support of the Bill. Cement, as the Senator said, is carbon intensive. It's responsible for a total of 8% of all global emissions and it's responsible for 2% of all the State of California's emissions. So, as a result of cement's carbon problem, California previously passed a first of the nation law to eliminate emissions from cement used in state by 2045.

So how do we accomplish that? Well, to meet this ambitious goal, a suite of policies targeting emissions from cement and concrete will be required. And that's where SB 682 comes in. This Bill will help create a clear demand signal and a stable market for low carbon cement. NRDC sees this Bill as a critical lever to create a market for innovative, transformative and near-zero-emission cement technologies. California is a leader in climate action and technology innovation in electricity, buildings, transportation sectors.

Historically, however, innovation in the industrial space has lagged behind these other sectors. But this Bill can help further establish California at the forefront of creating solutions to address our climate crisis. The advanced purchase commitments portion of the Bill can turn the promise of near-zero carbon cement into a reality.

Further advanced purchase commitments can send a clear market signal today while being technology agnostic, further incentivizing innovators and investors to begin building now and deliver near-zero carbon cement to meet California's ambitious climate targets. For these reasons, NRDC is pleased to support the Bill we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who'd like to come forward and support.

So, Bruce Magnani, on behalf of the California Cement Manufacturers Environmental Coalition. Chair, Members, thank you for the opportunity. We're not supporting today. We do have concerns with the Bill, but as we've demonstrated in the past with our work with Senator Becker last year on SB 596, we're here to try and solve problems and come to agreements on how we can innovate in this industry because it is true, it is a difficult to decarbonize industry.

The analysis the Committee performed was outstanding and pointed to some of those concerns we've raised with the Senator. But she has always been very fair in how she's treated the industry, and we have a lot of confidence that we can overcome some of these outstanding issues we have. So thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who'd like to come forward. You don't have any registered opposition for support or opposition to SB 682? Oh, my apologies. Last minute opposition. I found out.

Madam Chair, Members of the. Sorry about that. Senator Skinner. I apologize for the last-minute opposition, though I have been speaking with the Senator's office. I'm Scott Governor, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association, we have the largest union signatory building contractors in the state. We have no issue with the clean element of the Bill. It's really the mechanics of the purchase agreement, as a point of clarification of the analysis, did a great job. The state doesn't actually procure concrete.

We do, and we're reimbursed for it effectively by the state. So, again, if the state wants to get into that business, we highly caution against it, because to the extent that concrete fails or isn't delivered, as the contractor, we're going to say, your problem, not ours. Again, we think that provision should be removed and just put in the specifications, which is what we've said all along. Put in the specs what you want us to buy, and we will buy it. But again, the APA thing, we just don't understand. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chairman, Members. Brett Barrow with the United Contractors, representing 500 civil and engineering contractors throughout California, doing much of the highway and bridge work in the state. And we share the concerns that CEA has expressed in that the structure of advanced procurement agreements is really unclear as to who would be responsible for meeting the specifications of the state. As he had mentioned, the state does not purchase the concrete contractors do through their contracts with suppliers.

So if there was an agreement that was 10 or 20 years out, what happens when a supplier can't supply the proper concrete? The conditions can't be met at the work site or other complications that may come into place. So for those reasons, we have concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in room 1200? Support? Opposition? See? None. So we'll move to the teleconference line. Anyone who would like to support or oppose SB 682, please.

Of course. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment in support or opposition of SB 682, please press one, then zero. We'll be going to line 48. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair. Martin Radosevich, on behalf of Heirloom Carbon Technologies, in support.

And next, we'll be going to line nine. Please go ahead.

Kathy Staffer, on behalf of Climate Action California, in support. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 58. Please go ahead. Charlie Ray with the California Construction Industrial Materials Association. Our membership includes the readymix concrete producers, and we don't have a position yet on the Bill, but we appreciate the amendments and appreciate working with the Senator's office and look forward to continuing that. Thank you. Next, we're going to line 50. Please go ahead.

Yes, good afternoon. This is Laura Berlam, Chain Planet Systems. We're a California corporation and we strongly support. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 79. Please go ahead. Hi, my name is Bryan Minor and I'm representing Scope Los Angeles, and I'm calling it strong support. Thank you.

There's currently no one else in the queue, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you. Moderator. So we'll take it back to Members. Questions or comments? SB 682. Okay, seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Given the late opposition, some of those issues were not brought to my attention, so I certainly will work with them and talk to them. Obviously, if the Bill passes today, which I hope it does, it still will go to approach, and so we can work on that. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you for addressing that and we'll entertain a motion on SB 682. Senator Dodd, Madam Consultant, can you please call the roll.

For file item three, SB 682 by Senator Skinner. The motion is do pass amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, the Bill has nine votes. We'll leave it on call. Thank you, Senator Skinner. All right, we'll move back up the file. SB 30, Senator Umberg, who is not at all busy today.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your consideration. Yes, today is a bit of a crazy day. All right, what I have before you is SB 30. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez, and Mr. Chin, for your help on this Bill. What this Bill does is it simply increases the zero emission vehicle signage. Those of us driven up and down I five or other major thoroughfares here in California, you notice that there's a sign that shows that there's gasoline available at various exits.

What this would do is simply also have a sign that says that electric charging or potential other renewables are available at certain locations. I recognize that folks that have, for example, a vehicle that is completely electric, probably they have some sort of program that tells them where ev charging is available.

But what this does is this alerts those who have some sort of range anxiety that if they should purchase a zero-emission vehicle, that there are multiple opportunities here in California to be able to charge your vehicle. And so you need not have that kind of range anxiety. It's basically letting folks know that now's the time to convert. I urge an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone who'd like to come forward in support, please?

Julee Malinowski Ball. On behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, in support, we just want to say we spent the last half hour talking about a Bill that was premature. This Bill couldn't be more better timed than right now. The Energy Commission, in fact, had a workshop today to talk about signage and other measures that would increase the visibility of where charging stations are.

They've got $1.0 million that they want to put into zero emission vehicle infrastructure signage. So once the money is out the door, then this Bill kicks in and Caltrans gets all those applications. And the Energy Commission has already put the work into what the applications need to look like and the details of it. So once that's done, this kicks in. Beautiful timing. Everything's married. We support it. Thank you. Thank you so much.

If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero for SB 30. We do have one in queue. One moment while we get their line number one.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition. Proud to be a co-sponsor. I think Julie said it all. This is technology-neutral. Appreciate that from the Senator. Want to make sure that individuals here in California have the ability to know not just about range anxiety for battery electrics, but know that there are also places that they can fill up a fuel cell electric vehicle. So we ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else who'd like to come forward in room 1200? Support or opposition? Okay, see? None. Moderator can we take it to the teleconference line for anyone who would like to support or oppose SB 30, please? Thank you.

Hi, this is Jacob Evans. On behalf of cycle California in support Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Okay, thank you, moderator. I will take it back. Questions? Comments? by Members? Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator. Great idea. Right off the bat. Thank you for including hydrogen, because you're looking futuristic down the road, where hydrogen can be a big part of California's way to go ahead and clean up our environment and everything else. And so I think this is fantastic, and I'm going to move it when it's appropriate. And thank you again.

Well, thank you. If I could just respond to that. I know that Senator Newman is opposed to using hydrogen signage, but I did basically agree with you, Senator Archuleta, that we should include hydrogen signage.

Let me correct this rebuttal just to correct the record, but I appreciate being included in this conversation. Thank you.

Could be the Newman Archuleta act of 2023. Okay, good. All right, I think we've got a motion by Senator Archuleta. Senator, would you like to close?

I urge an aye vote on behalf of Senator Newman, Senator Archuleta, and myself.

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

For file item one, SB 30 by Senator Umberg. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

I just ask that you keep the roll open in transportation till judiciary is finished. So I'll be back about 10.

I'll see you in 30 minutes or so.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Senator. All right, we'll move on to Senator Newman. SB.

My apologies, Senator Newman, if you don't mind. I know Senator Caballero has got a lot going on as well. Senator Caballero. So we'll go ahead and move on to file item 13, SB 800, Advanced Air Mobility and Aviation Electrification Committee.

Sure, that'd be great. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 800. First, I accept the Committee amendments outlined in comment seven of the Committee analysis, and I want to thank the Committee for working with me on that.

And I also want to address at this particular point in time, the equity issue that was raised in the Committee analysis as well, and tell you really that the way that I became aware of the need for this Bill was at a community event that I was invited to by an organization that is organizing nonprofits to get involved in community development in Monterey County.

And at my table was a group of women from Mujeres Unidas, which is a farmworker organization that organizes farmworker women around equity issues, about employment, violence prevention, a whole host of things. And they were really excited because a number of them had just been hired by a company that is operating in Monterey County that has created a prototype that I'm going to talk about, and they do it by hand.

And so they have hired farm worker women right out of the fields to start doing the production of the vehicle that you see here on the photo. It's what I'm going to be talking about in this Bill, and the work is very detailed with your hands. And the word that I got back from the company is that they're doing a fabulous job. They fit in very well with all the technicians and the computers and the technology that is involved.

And my point about this is that there's a real opportunity, if we do production in the State of California, which is not the point of this Bill, but it can make a tremendous difference in our communities. What SB 800 would do would be to create an Advanced Air Mobility and Aviation Electrification Committee to assess current federal and state law and any potential changes needed to facilitate the development of aerial electrified transportation and infrastructure in California. I saw this vehicle take off and land at the airport.

They're in trials right now. Urban Air Mobility, or UAM, also known as Advanced Air Mobility, is a broad concept enabling consumers access to on demand air mobility, cargo and package delivery, healthcare applications, and emergency services through an integrated, connected, multimodal transportation network. Urban air mobility is a new, innovative mode of transportation, which passengers and cargo can rely on to access underutilized aerial transit routes or routes in the airspace.

In an effort to reduce the current burden on infrastructure, reduce traffic congestion, and lower harmful emissions, this new industry will leverage innovative vehicle designs and system technologies. However, a number of challenges could impact the growth of this industry in California, such as autonomous flight, the availability of takeoff and landing infrastructure or verte ports, integration into airspace and other modes of transportation, and competition with shared automated vehicles. Current modes of transportation and goods are slow, inefficient, and create pollution.

In congested urban centers ground transportation has become increasingly difficult. The industry will also need to partner with federal, state, and local governments to effectively incorporate mobility solutions into the current transportation networks. In anticipation of future plans to test this technology in California, and I believe we're on the cutting edge, there have been calls to study any potential changes to state law that are needed to facilitate the development of this industry and create a safe and efficient regulatory system.

SB 800 addresses this issue by creating the advanced Air Mobility and Aviation Electrification Committee with experts that can advise the Legislature. With me to testify in support of the Bill and facilitating any questions you may have is JoeBen Bevirt, CEO of Joby, and Ben Tigner, CEO of Overair.

Great. Thank you, Senator. Please come forward. Welcome.

Thank you so much, Senator, and thank you very much to Chair Gonzalez and Vice Chair Niello. Very grateful to have the opportunity to speak to you. My name is Joe Ben. I'm the founder and CEO of Joby Aviation. I founded Joby here in California more than a decade ago to build a new form of transportation, vertical takeoff and landing all electric aircraft with a team of more than 1400 people.

As the Senator spoke about we're dedicated to creating sustainable air transportation solutions to serve people around the world. Our electric aircraft takes off and lands vertically, and then transitions and flies on a wing. This new form of aircraft has the potential to revolutionize transportation by providing efficient and environmentally friendly mode of travel. Unlike traditional aircraft, which burn fuel, our aircraft are powered by electricity, which reduces emissions and noise pollution.

This makes them ideal for use in urban areas where conventional aircraft are not practical due to their high emissions and noise levels. Aviation is our safest, fastest, and lowest cost mode of transportation, but unfortunately, today it is also the most harmful to our planet. It is imperative that we accelerate the development and adoption of zero emissions electric and hydrogen electric aircraft. California led the world in the environmental reform of surface transportation, and there is an opportunity to lead the same way for aviation.

Similar to the state's approach with zero emissions ground vehicles. We can accelerate the development and adoption of zero emissions aircraft through the implementation of critical policies and market signals, including regulations and funding, coupled with important market development actions and credits to accelerate these critical aviation technologies. Thank you again for evaluating how we can bring advanced aerial mobility and zero emissions aviation from wow to now in California.

Love that. Wew to now. Thank you. Please come forward in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of SB 800. My name is Ben Tigner, CEO and cofounder of Overair, a Southern California based company developing electric powered vertical lift aircraft for urban transportation, cargo logistics, and medical transport. Advanced air mobility, or AAM, using electric powered aircraft can be an economic game changer for California and beyond.

It will complement today's business and General aviation, offering a new mode of ultra quiet, safe, and affordable air transportation that will displace a portion of today's ground congestion and reduce carbon emissions in alignment with the state's decarbonization goals. Every revolution in transportation starts with innovation in propulsion. The key innovations driving AAM are all variations on the theme of electrification.

The companies represented here by myself and Joeben Bevirt, who just spoke, have each driven important propulsion advances that dramatically reduce aircraft noise, first for passengers, but even more importantly for the communities in which these aircraft will operate. Quietness is the key economic unlock, enabling air transport to enhance urban economic productivity without degrading community quality of life. California has more funded AAM developments underway than any other state, indeed, more than any other country.

As often happens, California is in a strong leadership position in this new industry, and this position is worth fighting to protect by adopting proactive policies and thoughtful legislation to cultivate progress. SB 800 provides the mechanism for crafting those measures. As you know, more than a dozen AAM companies and related trade associations, including four California based aircraft companies, have cosigned a letter strongly endorsing SB 800. This Bill is good for California's economy and it's good for her communities. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support of SB 800, please come forward.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Dean Tally with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and also on the Aerospace and Defense Alliance of California in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Stephanie Morwell, on behalf of Supernal, we're a developer in the AAM space in support of the Bill today.

Lauren Wesche, on behalf of the California Airports Council and the Association of California Airports in support. Thank you.

Christina Scaringe for the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Good afternoon, Senators. Josh Metz with Monterey Bay DART, and we're in support of the Bill. We're working with many of the community Members that the Senator spoke about in Monterey to create pathways of opportunity for our underserved communities. So we're looking forward to that.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who'd like to come forward? No registered opposition, which is great. Anyone who'd like to oppose SB 800? All right, see? None. Moderator will take it back to you. Anyone who'd like to support or oppose SB 800, please.

Thank you if you're in support or opposition of SB 800, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero. If you're in support or opposition of SB 800. One moment, we do have a few in queue. Again, that is one and then zero. If you're in support or opposition. We will go to line 71. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Transportation Committee. Jared Yoshiki, on behalf of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. I'd like to thank the author for taking our suggested amendments by adding the General Aviation community to the Committee. Really appreciate her work on this effort, and ask your. aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we go to line 86. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, Karen Huggard with the National Air Transportation Association. We represent more than 150 aviation businesses in California. We're pleased to support this Bill. This technology holds great promise to increase sustainability and lower our environmental impact. We urge your support.

Thank you. And we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Okay, thank you Moderator. So we'll take it back. I'll first start with saying, Senator Caballero, you beat me to the punch. Because this is such a great Bill. We haven't even discussed this, I believe, in any house, and I think that it certainly warrants the discussion as we have these developments 10 years in the making. I know some of them are back home in Long Beach, where I live, and it's just great, especially given the geography of your district and so many others that really need these additional resources and transportation.

So, happy to support the Bill, and I'll ask if there's any other comments or questions. Okay, we'll entertain a motion at this time. Senator Becker, would you like to motion? Okay. And would you like to close Senator Caballero?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you for your comments.

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

For file item 13, SB 800 by Senator Caballero. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Eight votes will leave the Bill on call. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, so the chair has to go take care of a few matters. Our next author, I thought was here. Yes. I don't see another. Why not? Let's do it. So, Madam Consultant, if we could reopen the roll just for the consent calendar.

When ready, please proceed.

For the consent calendar consisting of SB 506 by Senator Laird. SCR 31 by Senator Laird. SB 672 by Senator McGuire. SB 677 by Senator Blakespear. SB 708 by Senator Jones. SB 891 by the Committee on Transportation. SB 507 by Senator Gonzalez and SB 517 by Senator Gonzalez. [Roll Call]

Very good. We will keep that open. And I'm looking for Senator Durazo.

Not here.

So next, you're behind that plug set. Welcome. Okay. Please proceed when ready. And you'll be presenting SB 710.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair, interim chair, and Members of the Committee. And I want to thank the Committee staff for their very thoughtful analysis. SB 710 establishes a terminus regional planning Committee, bringing together a diverse set of stakeholders to study potential uses for the state Route 710 terminus. Caltrans will establish and administer this Committee with representatives from the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Alhambra, the El Serino Neighborhood Council, Cal State Los Angeles, La Metro, and a community based organization.

In addition to considering the issues of traffic in connection to interstate 10, they will also discuss potential land uses, including affordable housing, student housing, workforce development space, public University expansion, parks, open space, and alternative transportation. They will meet quarterly and complete and submit a report to the Legislature by December 1, 2025. SB 710 is necessary to bring together all of the communities who have a vested interest in the 710 terminus.

70 years ago, under the threat of eminent domain, the State of California began to displace families and altered our communities for a freeway expansion in Los Angeles County. In January of 2020, the Legislator declared there would be no extension for the 710, and therefore, much of this land is no longer needed by the Department and can be put to other uses. This is a very unique opportunity to repair the scars left by this abandoned project and work to make this area more complete and more connected.

The 710 terminus is at the nexus of many different communities. The City of Alhambra borders the terminus on the east, with Cal State LA to the immediate west and the neighborhood of El Serino in the City of Los Angeles to the north. Some of these groups and other local interests have invested time and effort working to propose how to best modernize and revitalize this area with a focus on traffic.

However, there's no support structure in place to help these groups work together and create an integrated plan for the region. SB 710 would bring together those communities to share their plans for the future and give everyone a seat at the table. My witness today is Mylissa Magallanes from Cal State Los Angeles.

Thank you. Thank you to the Committee for allowing me the time to speak on behalf of Cal State LA and in support of SB 710, I represent one of the thousands of the community Members that our campus serves. My name is Melissa Magayanis and I'm the Deputy Director for strategic partnerships and initiatives at Cal State LA. My work includes supporting key projects and serving the University and wider community, including the 710 North Mobility Hubs project.

As one of the 23 California State University campuses and the only CSU sitting in the heart of Los Angeles, Cal State LA serves over 26,000 students and 1700 faculty with a dedicated mission of engagement, service, and the public good. Over 55% of our students are first generation college students, a majority are low income, receive some level of financial assistance, and most of our staff, students and faculty have grown up and reside within less than 10 mile radius of our campus.

The Equality for Opportunity Project recently ranked Cal State LA number one in the nation for the upward mobility of the students we serve. Therefore, as a major anchor institution, the University serves the community beyond just as an educational facility, but also positions itself as a major hub for thousands of jobs, economic growth, and critical resources that the community relies on. Cal State LA's north of campus is situated right below Valley Boulevard where the 710 terminus is located.

We have thousands of commuters every day that come via car, bus, train, bike, or other alternative modes of transportation. While the decision not to extend the freeway was backed by many of our neighboring communities, it has left the surrounding area and this part of campus with high amounts of traffic congestion. Furthermore, Valley Boulevard corridor offers little accessibility and safety to pedestrians and cyclists or non driving commuters.

I myself am a San Gabriel Valley native and like many of our community Members, we are impacted by the heavy congestion that surrounds the 710 terminus and Valley Boulevard. The lack of public transportation connecting Pasadena to areas south and west of Valley Boulevard create large equity gaps in access to resources. An analysis performed by the Pat Brown Institute at Cal State LA and the Seli collaborative showed that communities of southeast Los Angeles experience extreme barriers that limit access to resources due to its positions

surrounded by industrial facilities and railways. These residents experience high traffic, environmental pollutants, and institutional underinvestment. Cal State LA supports Senator Durazo's goal with SB 710 to build a collaborative, regional working group that will ensure all necessary stakeholders are represented and a collective solution that benefits all communities will be produced. This project would provide all agencies the structure to work alongside one another instead of around one another, with the same goal in mind to enhance our communities and increase accessibility.

We appreciate the consideration ensuring that Cal State Lake can continue serving as a major stakeholder. We serve as a voice for our entire campus community, given our location position adjacent to the 710 terminus, it's essential that all agencies work in good faith with our campus. And Cal State LA is committed to working collaboratively with state, county, city, and nearby communities to find a multimodal solution to traffic congestion along Valley Boulevard and surrounding areas.

I'd like to thank the Committee's consideration of my testimony today, and happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you very much for your testimony. So we'll bring up anyone else who'd like to come forward in support of SB 710. Okay. And it looks like you also have opposition at this point. Cities of Alhambra. I don't know if they're here to speak in opposition. Okay.

Good afternoon, honorable chair and Members of the Transportation Committee. My name is Adele Andrade Stadler, and I'm the mayor of the City of Alhambra. I'm here today in opposition of Senate Bill 710. Since 2017, the City of Alhambra has worked with our partner agencies and neighboring jurisdictions, spent millions of dollars conducting data driven studies and building collaboration with our community and neighboring communities on a traffic solution to address the additional 58,000 cars that get off at Valley Boulevard.

Our 710 arterial project creates better mobility, less congestion, and improved air quality for Alhambra, Monterey Park, San Gabriel, Pasadena, South Pasadena, and East Los Angeles. Independently and collectively, these communities have been adversely affected by the environmental injustice issue that has been unaddressed for decades. Our communities suffer higher than normal asthma rates, and that includes our children. For Alhambra Unified School District 16 schools, our communities suffer the abnormal asthma rates with poor quality air quality, increased traffic congestion, and collisions.

Our community has suffered too long, and we need relief. We are working on this. Senate Bill 710 is a complete conflict with our progress. It starts us back at square one with new studies. This is a local issue, and we've been working with it on our neighbors. Please, I respectfully ask for a no vote on Senate Bill 710. Thank you.

Thank you, mayor. We'll ask for anybody else who'd like to come up and oppose SB 710.

Thank you. Good afternoon, honorable chair and Members of the Transportation Committee. My name is Ross Maza. I am the vice mayor of the City of Alhambra, and I'm with you this afternoon to show my opposition for SB 710. SB 710 is not in alignment with Alhambra's plan for the 710 freeway terminus area, not only within the City of Alhambra, but also with the neighboring cities.

Alhambra solution, I feel, is really best for not only the Alhambra communities but also some of our neighboring cities, such as the City of Monterey Park, City of San Gabriel, San Marino, South Pasadena, El Serino, and Pasadena. As a matter of fact, SB 710 is in complete conflict with our many years of progress, our many millions of taxpayer dollars spent on a solution.

Our 710 arterial project is in jeopardy of not only being significantly delayed, but worse yet, halted, potentially to create additional studies which we feel unnecessary. We have viable studies, plans, funding that we've been working on for a while, and I truly feel that this legislation is completely unnecessary at this point. I also feel that SB 710 singles out the City of Alhambra from all the other 710 impacted communities that have been given local control over their 710 related projects.

I think we have to understand that what we have in front of us can very detrimentally affect not only the City of Alhambra, but the entire San Gabriel Valley community with regard to traffic. I think you heard from the young lady that spoke on behalf of Cal State LA of the traffic issues that we've experienced. I know the Chair here today mentioned the City of Long Beach, so she probably understands the traffic issues already on the 710 freeway.

So I think we have a solution for the 710 terminus in the City of Alhambra. We have local support, we have the money, and we truly want to make this project happen. We're asking at this point, respectfully, for Sacramento to hopefully stay out of this local issue. Allow us the local control to continue making progress, not only for the health and safety of our residents, but also of our businesses as well, again, not only in Alhambra, but of the many local communities.

So again today, I respectfully you to vote no on SB 710, and I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who'd like to support or oppose SB 710, please come forward in room 1200. See none. Moderator will take it to the teleconference line. Anyone who'd like to support or oppose SB 710, please.

Thank you, if you are in support or opposition of SB 710, you may press one, then zero. Again, that is one, and then zero for support or opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have no one in queue at this time.

Okay, thank you. First, I want to say, I certainly understand the opposition and hear what you're saying here. I would like to ask the author how she would respond to those concerns. I know there's a lot of plans in place, but I also know that she's got a direction and she's been working very hard to make sure everybody is at the table and included.

So I would love to kick it back to you, Senator Durazo, if you have any thoughts on how you will continue to work with the opposition.

Well, community engagement is really important for us, and that's the whole point of this Bill, is to have full community engagement all connected and integrated. And that's what's missing right now. It's not fully integrated. There are communities that are not included, and there are other issues. This is not either or, this is a matter of now adding to the possibilities. There's no jeopardy. There's nothing to back up the statement that somehow funding to the City of Alhambra is jeopardized.

We reached out to Metro to make sure and to ask if our Bill would jeopardize any local funding, and their response was really clear. Metro does not believe SB 710, as amended, will have any effect on Metro's ability to review, evaluate projects for eligibility, or reallocate MIP funds. So there's nothing there. It's been repeated, but there is no proof. We have the Metro making that statement. And this is, again, not a matter of one or the other.

This is a matter of including El Serino, Cal State, LA. There's a number of communities that need to be included. There is not like only the 710 Artesia project, but there's land to be able to do other things. And this does include area and land where the City of LA, the County of Los Angeles, they all have some version, some portion of this as far as property is concerned. So again, this is not meant to shove aside anybody. In fact, it's just the opposite.

Let's bring them together under the Administration of Caltrans.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. So I appreciate the Chair's question. And just to be more specific, so the mayor and deputy mayor were talking about a planning process that's been underway for years that involves community groups, that is expensive. So I just wanted to really understand the reason that you feel that's inadequate is that it doesn't involve these other farther flung communities. Is that really the reason that their current process needs to change instead of just letting that process proceed?

Well, these are not farther flung areas. When I talk about El Serino, that's in the City of LA, it's right there. It's right at the end of this terminus. So we're talking about including everybody, some of whom have not been included, and about going beyond and in addition to transportation and I mean, traffic issues.

Like what?

Well, there's land there that could be used to expand Cal State LA. There's workforce development could be developed in the area. So there's lots of. All we're saying is park space could be developed. All we're saying is include more ideas, include more communities and put them together. We're not talking about stopping or destroying anything that's been done. That's why we reached out to make sure that we weren't making any mistake as far as funding that could be going to the 710 Artesia project.

Thank you.

Okay, Senator Dahle. And then we'll move on to Senator Newman.

Well, I'm a little bit confused, and since I've been in the Legislature now 11 years, Senator Holden or Assembly Member Holden brought a bit. We've been working on this 710 corridor, and with all due respect, I try to do what the Senator wants us to do in their district. I'm assuming this is in your district. Yes, because I'm really not that familiar with it, but unfortunately, I've been on the Transportation Committee and been dealing with it.

So I'm confused on last year you did a Bill that allowed us to give property back to, I think, the counties or the cities or somebody. Right.

Any housing.

Housing.

Houses and housing.

Yes, housing. And this Bill is now taking. Caltrans does road planning in California. They're the agency that does it. And the community didn't like the 710 going through their community, so they stopped it. And now we're going back to Caltrans and saying, you're going to now be the party that is going to be facilitating bringing all these community togethers to worry about transportation. I'm a little bit of a loss.

And we have Members from the cities saying they're opposed to this state piece of legislation that's going to require Caltrans to do the work. So I want to do the right thing, and I'm not sure what that is because I am totally confused about what's happening with this corridor that is not ever at this point, it's not going to be developed. It's been pretty much the 710 is stopping wherever it stops, and it's not going further. Correct.

It's not going further as a freeway. As a freeway. But there is the potential for this land to be used in a number of different ways. And part of it, and the original idea, of course, was to connect. Right. And cut through Pasadena, Los Angeles, South Pasadena.

Right, there's talk of tunneling. There was talk about doing a tunnel. So they didn't disturb everybody up.

So that was stopped. But the land that was bought, the issues of traffic are still there. But there is this land, the terminus, right, where there's a number of different things. I know it's hard to picture unless you have it right in front of you, but it's a lot of land. It's a lot of land. And all I'm saying is let's open up for, not to stop what's being done, but to add to the pool of ideas and present that to the Legislature.

It doesn't authorize Caltrans to do anything. It doesn't authorize anything except we want these communities to come together and share their ideas about what could be done in that area.

What is stopping them from doing that right now? That's, I think, the thing that they're saying they don't want Caltrans'involvement.

Well, Caltrans is involved because Caltrans owns some of the area. And even though Alhambra has legal jurisdiction, it's very much connected there. That's all. And the City of LA is still very much a part of this terminus also. And City of LA has not been included up until now.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Senator Newman, thank you.

And so my colleagues have covered a couple of my questions, and I'm actually looking at the map right now. And to your point, Senator Durazo, like there's a kind of a spaghetti of highway that goes sort of up to the corner of Cal State LA, and then it proceeds northward and just kind of ends right. So it's about reorienting this to provide for congestion relief and sort of dispose of the other property.

But to the City of Alhambra's opposition, the analysis indicates that they've gotten 64 and a half million dollars already for congestion. And I assume that sort of California Transportation Commission was the conduit for those funds. What happens to that money?

They still have it. Nothing changes.

Okay, if you wouldn't mind, Madam Mayor, just so I know. You've got a pretty big chunk of money that any city would strive for, but does that put you in a position where you can't use that money for.

No, we actually have plans to. If I can just kind of describe for this obvious environmental transportation group, we have plans to limit the size of the freeway to go from a six lane to a four lane. We plan on adding green space and removing as many cars as we can with our other plans that we have at the 10 freeway, which you can see on your map. So there is an actual plan in place that will actually move traffic away from that 710 terminus.

It'll make people go in another direction. We're also expanding the 10 freeway to allow for folks to stay on that 10. Where, LA, the 10 freeway and the terminus.

I'm sorry to be clear, that's the tension.

So we won't lose the money? You're right.

You won't lose the money, but the.

Plans will lose the money that we've put in place for the plans. We've put money, local dollars, local tax dollars, in place to hold until we get approval.

All right. In the event there's a different process or a different plan, does that money revert for some other purpose or would be applied to the broader plan?

That's a really good question. I'm hoping it wouldn't be the broader plan. I'm hoping that would be our broader plan that would be able to retain that funding. I don't know the answer to that question.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Should we direct that question to Senator Durazo?

To the same question. So to the extent that City of Alhambra has some moneys, they had plans for it, I assume in sort of consultation partnership with Caltrans, they're going to reorient freeways. Is the presumption that that money would then be used for kind of the broader initiative?

No.

Seek other funds?

No. Our intention is not to touch that money. That's money that's been any money that's been allocated, and we don't have the authority. And we're not asking for the authority to take any money. Right. We're just asking for the process for the remainder of what needs to be planned should not be limited to what they have put together, what they are getting funding for. There's land owned by Caltrans.

The reason this is coming within the jurisdiction of the state is that there's land owned by Caltrans on Cal State LA's the border with Cal State LA. So there's a real opportunity that that could be used just to throw something out. I'm not saying that's where it end up, but for the expansion of Cal State LA, if that were to be something that they were interested. I'm not saying they are, but there's these possibilities we're not looking to take away, jeopardize.

And that's why I quoted from the Metro letter, is that it's not going to jeopardize any of their funding. And what I'm asking for in this Bill is not the authority to do anything like that.

And then by inference, you're looking to work collaboratively with I assume with Alhambra.

Absolutely.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Seyarto.

All right. Sorry I had to miss the first part of this. So are they trying to do improvements like by Valley Boulevard, where Valley Boulevard comes over to where Cal State LA is from the 710. Because the 710 terminus goes pretty much into Valley Boulevard.

Yes, it goes into Valley Boulevard.

And the vision is to do some traffic mitigation there, not try to put through another freeway back up to the 210 freeway?

Yes.

No more.

All right.

No, I know that has been ended. This is almost throw up your hands territory here, but they want to use the money that they have to be able to do some of those traffic relief projects around Valley Boulevard so that it terminates it a little bit better than just backing up down the 710 freeway towards the 60 and past the 10.

You know a lot of work. I agree. A lot of work has been done, so we're not looking to disrupt that process.

Right. Okay, I get it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. I just want to say thank you, Senator Durazo, I know you'll continue to work with the City of Alhambra, and I know you'll continue to work with the San Gabriel Valley at large to ensure that these discussions move forward. But as someone who represents southeast LA, oftentimes they always say, we're not part of this plan and there might be plans in place, but we're not part of this plan. Can we have a seat at the table?

And I think that's the intent of what you're at least trying to do here. But of course, knowing that mayor and deputy mayor, that they'll remain at the table as well, along with you. So with that, I'll entertain a motion. Okay, Senator Limon, thank you. And if you'd like to close Senator Durazo, please.

I respectfully for your aye vote this is about more community engagement, not less.

Great. Madam Chief consultant, aye just promoted you to chief now. Sorry, Randy. Can you please call the roll.

For file item 12, SB 710 by Senator Durazo. The motion is do pass to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, the Bill has six votes. We'll leave it on call. Thank you.

Thank you, Members.

All right, we'll move on to file item four. Finally, SB 425, by the very patient Senator Newman. Thank you.

Okay, so. Had to be here anyway, so it wasn't really not that admirable. Mr. Chair. I'm sorry. Madam Chair Members, I'm pleased to present SB 425, which will offer target incentives to the owners of pickup trucks in California as part of the state's broader initiative to rapidly decarbonize our transportation fleet.

Before I begin, I'd like to thank the Chair and her staff for working with me and to accept the Committee's proposed amendments to make this Bill technology neutral and to remove the original provisions relating to the carpool lane decal and to increase the rebates proposed for ZEV pickup trucks.

As amended, SB 425 would enhance the consumer rebate for zero emission pickup trucks under the Clean Vehicle Rebate project and expand access to the clean air vehicle decal to ensure that hardworking Californians can and will participate in our transition to a zero emissions vehicle fleet. As you're all aware, in September of 2020, Governor Newsom issued an Executive order that, among other things, established a goal of eliminating the sale of internal combustion passenger vehicles by the year 2035.

On August 25 of last year, the California Air Resources Board approved the advanced clean cars two rule, which makes the requirement that at least one in three new vehicles sold in California by 2035 be zero emission vehicles. That's now the official state policy. Having a goal is, of course, different than having a plan. And over these past couple of legislative cycles, we've been having a conversation, or a series of conversations, which have deepened over the past years about how best to achieve that goal.

So, within the zero emission vehicle category, there are currently two, and only two proven technologies for powering passenger vehicles without the use of internal combustion engines. One uses batteries and the other uses something called a fuel cell. Everybody here is thoroughly familiar with how batteries operate at this point, but most people are generally less conversant on how fuel cells work. Fuel cells use hydrogen directed through a closed system to an anode, while air is fed to a cathode.

And then a catalyst at the anode separates the hydrogen molecules into protons, electrons, which then take different paths, and the electrons create a flow of electricity. So zero emission vehicles using hydrogen actually are actually electric vehicles that use hydrogen, that convert it to electricity through a catalyst, through the fuel cell. So that's the science. On the policy side, there's a fair amount of debate as to the ideal role that fuel cell vehicles should play in the overall transition to non internal combustion transportation.

On the one hand, there's a general consensus that hydrogen and fuel cells have a critical role to play in decarbonizing heavy transportation in areas where electrification may not be the right approach for things like moving heavy freight, operating construction equipment, supporting port operations, and powering marine transportation, all of which represent significant source of carbon and are drivers of climate change.

But when it comes to light duty or passenger vehicles, there's no such consensus, and there's a legitimate argument, and the chair and I have been having this discussion for quite some time about the extent to which we should subsidize fuel cell technology and hydrogen fueling infrastructure when it comes to cars.

When, not withstanding the various challenges associated with building out electric charging infrastructure, battery electric vehicles do, in fact, in many cases offer an arguably better return in the short term with respect to the prospects for electrifying light duty transportation in California. There are, however, a number of so called use cases that will continue to pose challenges to electrification.

These include converting drivers who live in high density areas without easy access to charging. Super commuters, who regularly traverse long distances and who might be concerned about battery range, and people who use their vehicles for work and whose transit patterns consequently make using and charging a battery electric vehicle suboptimal. So we have talked about that in various bills quite recently. There's a subset of these cases, and that's drivers who use pickup trucks in the conduct of their work. This is the basis for this Bill.

SB 425 essentially seeks to solve two problems at once. First, providing a set of appealing actionable incentives for a class of drivers who are unlikely to convert to a zero emission vehicle anytime soon without such incentives, and to reinforce and rebalance the state's hydrogen fuel cell sector, which is facing a series of challenges which, when you combine them, could very well threaten its viability over the long term. And so that is important for two reasons.

First, to the extent that California, under the overall framework of AB 8, committed to standing up a self sustaining network of hydrogen fueling stations to serve as a component of the broader transition to clean transportation, we still need to make good on that obligation to risk not only stranding substantial public and private investment, but undermining our ability to support the even more nascent development of the technologies and services that will decarbonize heavy transportation in California as well.

So that's where these enhanced incentives for pickup trucks provided for in SB 425 come in. SB 425 would update the state's existing market incentive, the Clean Vehicle rebate project, to make zero emission pickup trucks more affordable for the hardworking men and women across California whose livelihoods depend upon the use of a capable and reliable truck.

Specifically, SB 425 would enhance the consumer rebate provided to purchasers of a ZEV pickup truck by $2,500, such that the most Low and moderate income households would be entitled to a rebate of $9,500 in total. By directing resources and support to encourage the accelerated adoption of hydrogen fuel cell pickup trucks.

And there are two models soon coming to market, we'll be able to meaningfully expand the number of fuel cell vehicles on California's roads to not only support our clean transportation goals, but also, importantly, to strengthen the health of the fuel cell ecosystem, thereby ensuring its continued viability. As of 2019, there were over 4.7 million pickup trucks on California's roads. The State of California has by far the largest pickup truck population in the country, which it handily surpasses Texas by well over half million pickup trucks.

And according to data from the California New Cars Dealers Association, an additional 250,000 new pickups were registered in California last year alone. This is important for an additional important reason. By supporting the growth and evolution of fuel cell technology for pickup trucks in California, we'll also be ensuring the conditions for the refinement and unit cost reductions over time of the very same fuel cell technologies that we're going to need in decarbonizing heavy transportation and heavy industry in California.

This end to end symbiotic set of dynamics is critically important, if often overlooked, as part of other conversations about transportation decarbonization. Providing additional incentives to drivers of California's fleet of more than 2.6 million pickup trucks represents a smart and high yield approach to decarbonizing the sector while supporting the broader goals and systemic health of our clean transportation economy.

And for the laborers, landscapers, contractors and farmers who would want to participate in our clean energy transition but cannot yet afford to do so, SB 425 will increase access and affordability while encouraging the development of new zero emission options that can better meet their daily needs. With me today are Rosanna Carvacho, on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, and Mike Monagan, on behalf of the state Building and Construction Trades Council. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliot here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, which is proud to sponsor SB 425. As you heard from the Senator this Bill will add and provide additional support for medium duty, zero emission fuel cell electric vehicles under the state's Clean Vehicle Rebate program. Medium duty vehicles support a critical segment of California's workforce, ranging from construction to lawn care to delivery services, each that have their own unplanned and variable routes with different payloads as well as towing needs.

So for these reasons, fuel cell technology will play a critical role in enabling the transition of this vehicle class to zero emission here in California. By adding special consideration for this weight class, SB 425 will signal to automakers that California's strong desire to ensure vehicle decarbonization across all vehicle classes and segments of the economy. So with that, I would like to thank the author and the Committee for their Hard work on this measure and ask for your aye vote on SB 425. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support, please?

Madam Chair, Mike Monagan, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades. By updating the state's incentives to target pickup trucks, SB 425 shows automakers that California is serious about transitioning from pickup trucks to zero emission, whether they are battery, electric or hydrogen fuel cell, as defined. By increasing rebates for pickup trucks,

SB 425 makes zero emission vehicles more affordable for working men and women who aren't buying pickup trucks for fun, but because they need them to build California, keep California working, and ultimately, to put food on the table for their families. The building trades are committed to meeting the climate crisis and doing our part to help California build sustainable green energy projects. Thank you.

Thank you. If in support of opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero if you're in support of opposition, we will go to line 73. Your line is open.

Madam. Chair Members John Winger here for the California Fuels and Convenience alliance, pleased to be in support.

Good afternoon, chair and Members Rachel Muller with the Weitaman Group on behalf of Air Products, in support. Thank you.

Julee Malinowski-Ball, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, talk about fuel neutrality and a Bill. Again, with the amendments, we support.

Margie Lee on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association. In support.

Great. Anyone else who'd like to come forward? In support? Okay. And it doesn't look like you have any opposition at this time, or I'm sorry, there are a couple opposition that came in. Plug in America and Sierra Club. I don't know if there's still in opposition at this time. Okay, seeing none. So we'll take it to the moderator. Moderator, do you have any support or opposition for SB 425, please.

Hi, this is Jacob Evans, on behalf of the Sierra Club California. In opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 40, your line is open.

Mclaughlin, California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association and the Western Agricultural Processors Association in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Next, we'll go line 42, your line is open. Line 42, your line is open.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Dr. Matt Miyasato with First Element Fuel in support.

Thank you. And we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Okay, thank you very much. So, we've concluded support and opposition. I first, Senator Newman, want to say thank you for working with us. I know, on the technology neutral part. I think it's great as we're looking at the different markets to ensure that are penetrating these incentive programs, but ensuring that they're also getting to the folks that really need it the most.

And I thank you for putting in that workforce piece, because I do see that there is a market for that. I'm seeing now GM, Toyota, and then Chevy, I think, is about to begin their hydrogen fuel cell creation in the pickup space, which is great. So, with that, happy to support. Senator Dahle.

With all due respect, first of, I move the Bill, and I encourage an aye vote before Archuleta gets back and starts talking about hydrogen.

Good call. Thank you, Senator Dahle. All right. With that, Senator, would you like to close?

I just got a text from Senator Archuleta saying talk slowly. He's on his way back. No. So I really do appreciate the willingness of you, Madam Chair, and Committee staff to work with us. And I think we share the same broad goals, right, to figure out how we can enable this transition, but to do so in an equitable manner that is targeted as well. My goodness. Welcome back. And so with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I think we are good. So, with that, we entertained a motion by Senator Dahle, and we closed. And will take the roll, please.

For file item four, SB 425 by Senator Newman. The motion is do pass is amended to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill has eight. We'll leave it on call. Thank you, Senator Newman. All right, we'll move on to file item 15, SB 847, by Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. I bring SB 847. It's a motorcycle helmet exemption law for religious purposes. There's a large population of people who wear turbans or patkas to express their religious beliefs who also ride motorcycles. Many states exempt adults over 21 from wearing helmets while riding motorcycles. Several other states do not require helmets at all. SB 847 would simply exempt Californians who wear a turban or patka for religious reasons from wearing a helmet while operating or riding a motorcycle. This Bill is not without precedence.

Our own U. S. Military allows the wearing of turbines and patkas instead of requiring head covers. Even Canadian law exempts those who practice the sikh religion from wearing a safety helmet. California is well known for its strict laws to protect people from themselves, even when it's their choice. My hope is that this Committee will also consider protecting the freedoms for people who hold dear regarding their own diverse religious reasons in this state.

Today, I have with me Mandeep Singh, who is representing many motorcycle enthusiasts in California who want to be true to their faith.

Thank you and welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, honorable Chair, Vice Chair, and Member of Committee. My name is Mandeep Singh. I am a businessman. I have been serving as a planning Commissioner in City of Selma and I'm a social worker. First of all, thank you so much for giving an opportunity to comment on this Bill. This Bill we definitely need. We have been needing this Bill for a long time. We have been working here. We have history of more than 100 years in United States.

And the turban, when we talk about turban, it's not just a covering, it has a deep meaning behind the turban. This denotes we believe in one God. Where from the Sikhism originated, people were practicing a lot of religions, a lot of gods. But my turban denotes we believe in one God. And when we are tying this turban, we remember we have to work hard, we have to pray to God, and we have to share with others those who are in need.

And along with that, we also have desire to have some fun and we like to ride the bike. And problem is here we are not able to enjoy our right to practice our religion. Helmets. We can't put on helmets. And the day it was made mandatory by Oro 10th guru to tie turban, because this is a beginning era for making a society which is having liberty and justice for all.

So we heartedly welcome this Bill and we request you all to grant this Bill, help us enjoy like other people have been enjoying here. And we really thank you. Thanks to Mr. Brian Dahle who listened us, realized our need and he drafted this Bill. So my Committee, my community, we are all throughout the California. You talk about Long Beach, Laguna Beach, San Francisco, LA. Wherever you talk, we are there.

We have been working hard and we also want to enjoy the ride on bikes in other countries. In Canada, Britain, in India, Pakistan, people have been having the privilege to ride on bike with turbine. They are not required to be put on the helmets. So we really request you please gift us this Bill. We really support this Bill, SB 847. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, do we have anyone else who'd like to come in support of SB 847, please?

Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you. Mr. Dahle, I really appreciate your present to this Bill. It's really very important for my sikh community because we are so proud of turban. As probably you know, we are sikh community always there with people needing, even during the COVID time. We are all temple was open for people and providing what we need all them. And I'm totally supported and asking committee. I really request and support this Bill is very important for my family, for my sikh community. Thank you.

Good afternoon, all. I support for Bill 847. Thank you so much.

Hello, everybody. Good afternoon. My name is Paul Winder Mahi. I'm in support of SB 847. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support? See none. Now I see you have some opposition. AAA of Southern California, county Health Executives Association of. California. Anyone in the room who'd like to come forward in opposition?

Good afternoon, chair Members. Michelle Gibbons with the County Health Executives Association of California, representing local health departments. In a public health perspective here in respectful opposition to SB 847.

CHEAC understands that wearing turbans and patkas are deeply important expressions of their religion, and we encourage more innovation and equity in the design of helmets so that they can accommodate those head coverings. One thing that we have seen is that weakening existing helmet laws risks the safety of the riders. And in states and places where they have had exemptions or weakening of those laws, there has been less uptake in actually wearing helmets.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention really on their website, it says that weakening those legal requirements has been shown to decrease helmet use and increase injury and death from motorcycle crashes. We're concerned that the exemption may lead to unintentional disparities in related crash injuries and deaths. And because of this, we must respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in opposition to SB 847? Okay. Seeing none moderator would you please queue up anyone who would like to support or oppose SB 847 please.

Madam Chair, we have no one queuing up.

Okay, thank you very much. Well, Senator Dahle, I actually want to thank you for bringing this forward. I will hold off on the Bill today, and I'm going to explain why. But I know you and I had a brief discussion on this Bill. Right now, I don't have any data on this. We've actually contacted the province of Ontario because we do really believe, I think there's merit in this.

And I don't know why we haven't taken this up at this point. I also, in our research, we found that there are innovations through tough turbine and a few other, which is incredible to be able to create a market for these innovative designs and helmets. Right now, we know, though, that motorcycle helmet use rates are 53% higher than states with partial or no requirements and have about 30% fewer fatalities.

So that's the realm that I'm working in as Chair of Transportation to ensure that public safety on our roads is upheld. But I also know that respecting your religious beliefs is also something that we need to balance. So with that, I've offered the author at some point an opportunity for us to study this, to continue to meet.

And I would love to continue to meet and understand a bit better about the community because I agree, our sikh community is very vibrant, and you're located in every corner of our state, including Long Beach. So with that, I look forward to more discussions, and I would offer up any additional questions or comments at this time from Members. Senator Allen and then Seyarto.

Yeah, well, first of all, I want to, let me thank both the Chair and the author, because this was certainly like you, Madam Chair, not an issue that I'd contemplated before. And I've served on this Committee for quite some time. I guess after reading the analysis and you and I had a little bit of a dialogue about this. But on pages 4 and 5, as the chair correctly mentions, there's a couple interesting companies that are doing work in this space, bold helmets.

It's developed a bicycle helmet with a bulge designed to accommodate a hair knot that's covered by a patka. And then, of course, you've got Harley Davidson that's developing this open source design for a tough turbine. My thought is it seems as though these sorts of products provide a real promising path forward as we try to balance people's religious rights with the very real public safety issues that have been raised by the opposition witness. And then I know that the Committee very much shares.

So I don't know exactly where this is going in terms of these conversations, but it seems to me that ought to be where we really focus our efforts as we move forward in this area.

So if I may just first off, first, I appreciate the chair setting my Bill, which is the first thing we have to do before we can hear a Bill. But I wanted to say, so I happened to pick up in the deferred area, which was Senator Nelson's area, the largest Sikh population in the United States, which is in the Yubis Sutter area. And so I had met these gentlemen, and I gave them my word that I would carry a Bill that they had concern with.

I'm not very familiar with their beliefs and their religion, and so I've been getting educated as well. And so when I had offered up studying, and they're like, we don't cover our head with anything else but what we cover our head with. So that's where we ended up with not doing a study because basically I'm learning about their. So that's kind of where we're at today. Obviously, there's other arguments to be made.

I mean, we don't require a helmet on an electric bike that does 35 miles an hour down the sidewalk in California that I'm aware of. You can go out here and rent one, and you don't have to wear a helmet. There's no helmet available when you rent one. So there's lots of other areas where we have mobility without helmets. And for me, it's more about the religious part of it. I think 211,000, some of the data I looked up, there's like 211,000 Sikhs in California.

They claim there's about a million, and so there's a lot more. So anyway, I brought the Bill forward. Would love to get the Bill out and be able to go through the process. I know that the Chair is going to lay off, and it's very difficult to get bills out when the chair is laying off bills.

But I respectfully ask for an aye vote and we'll try to come up with something different, but I don't know what that is when it's about religion to me at the end of the day.

Okay. Senator Seyarto and then Senator Cortese.

Thank you and thank you for the Bill. And recognizing that sometimes religious freedom does trump us trying to protect people, like we say, from themselves basically. A lot of motorcycle accidents do result in fatalities. And from my experience, and a lot of it isn't from a head injury. It's from being exposed to the front grille of a truck or a car. And that's the internal injuries that helmets have nothing to do with.

So when you narrow it down to a population who has strong religious beliefs about that, and they're willing to take the responsibility for the injuries that may occur if they have an accident on a motorcycle, and then I think it's kind of hard to argue that we should force that upon them based on we're trying to protect people from themselves again. And the one motorcycle injury I do know personally was my mom, and it had nothing to do with a helmet.

Anyway, I kind of land on their side on this because a study is not going to fix the issue with their religious freedom and their religious beliefs and how important that is. Helmets are already bulky enough where there are some arguments that the helmets themselves can create issues that reduce visibility and awareness, and I can't imagine them if they create a helmet that is large enough to do that. Gosh, I would say let them try it out if they'd like to.

But for today's purposes, I think it's time for us to allow them their religious freedom and to enjoy some of the fun things that other people do if they like riding motorcycles and go out there and have at it, just be aware, if you hit your head, you're in trouble. So thanks.

Thank you. Senator Cortese.

Yeah. I would like to ask the lead witness a question, if it's possible. Senator Dahle, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, and that's why I'm asking a question. I'm one of the witnesses and actually have a question of you in terms of if you're allowed to go forward. Certainly try to keep my questions brief. I thank you very much for your testimony. We have a large Gurdwara in San Jose that you're probably very familiar with in my district.

That said, generally, in going in and out of the Gurdwara, an alternative to wearing a turban is to wear, at least on a temporary basis, to wear, I don't know what the name of it is, Punjabi, but a scarf, basically, that at least satisfies the requirement of a hair covering, even though the more formal covering like you have on right now would be most people's preference. But it's my understanding, just in terms of religious compliance.

And, of course, I'm required, even as a non Sikh, typically, to cover my head. So I know the drill, as they say. Why wouldn't that be possible if, regardless of exactly how Senator Dahle wants to try to proceed with this? But I'm just asking this basic question. Why would it not be possible to use a scarf for a less cumbersome, if you will, head covering when using a helmet, because it seems to me that that combination would work. And whatever your answer is, I respect it.

First of all, Paul, thank you so much. This is a great question. And we get a question, same. These questions are raised everywhere. So our religion is not forced. It's freedom of religion. So everyone is free to use the length of turban. The turban I wear, I tie, it's like 7 meters. And there are some people, typically we say like, handkerchief or small piece of clothes or like scarf. So we are not advocating this exemption for them because they have their choice.

Because we don't cut hair. It's a gift by God. So if God gave me hands, eyes, we respect it. We take care of them, so do we take care of the hairs. So to protect our hair, we wear the big turbines. And also, it has a deep meaning with our religion. So it is the reminder, like, on top of us is the almighty. He's the greatest. He's the greatest lord.

And normally in my religion, there are people, they are wearing on an average seven meter, eight meter, 10 meter, even 15 meters within United States. And you will see, like, once we visit the Gurdwara, we see people are coming with a handkerchief. So.

They are not practicing the religion at the most, we are practicing. For them it's easy. If they want to wear helmet, let them wear the helmet. We are not talking about a scarf or any fancy piece of cloth they are covering. We are just talking about the turban, which is like, if you see a sikh in million people, you will say, okay, that's a sikh. And if you see like 20 people with a scarf, you can't say it's sikh.

So this is typically for sikh community, those who practice the religion, those who take birth in the religion and die in the religion. So typically this is for them.

I appreciate your response. Thank you. If I can just through the chair, turn to the author. For me, the religious expression, the first amendment issue here is, on paper, paramount. Okay, what I don't understand, and in my case, I'd be willing to let you keep working on the Bill if that's your desire.

But really, on the implementation side, it seems to me there are things that need to be done and worked through with the community, because there are folks in the community, as the witness just said, who will use an alternative, a scarf. I think the point that's being made here, the first amendment point is, but if that doesn't comport with somebody's belief system within the Sikh tradition for the reasons he just stated, then shouldn't there be a carve out? The question becomes, how do you do that? Is that some kind of a certification?

Yeah. So I don't know what that, I mean, I'm trying to figure that out as I go through with this Bill. And I asked that same question because I actually went to Ubis. They have a meeting every year. I actually went to their gathering and met with many of the people who actually ride motorcycles and many ones from Canada who come into and they take the risk of getting a ticket basically because they're not going to take their head covering off and put a helmet on.

And also talk to some of the folks in CHP like, hey, when they see a group of Association Members who are riding motorcycles that are wearing a turban, they typically give them a warning and don't cite them because they understand that it is a religious practice. And so we haven't got to the point where we're trying to figure out exactly how we narrow it down. We got to get through this Committee first. And this is our first conversation to educate.

First of all, many people don't understand their religion, including the author, who is trying to understand it. And the chair did offer to do a study Bill or do something in that. But they're really the sponsors of the Bill and their constituents at the same time. And I'm learning a lot more about what their faith is. I mean, Mandeep basically told know, if you remove my head covering, you might as well cut my head off, too, because that's how they look at it.

And so that's a very strong belief. And so anyway, I would love to be able to have the opportunity to continue to work on this Bill if we can get it out of this Committee. And I would commit to you to that. Look, this is a new territory where we haven't been before. And I think it's out of respect for their community and their faith. And they're not trying to do this because they don't want to be safe.

They believe that, first of all, their one, God is going to protect them, number one. And number two, that they have a pretty good covering around their head as it is. And that's where the military came in. And we have exemptions in military for them to continue to wear their camo, but they are we able to wrap them the way they want. So those are some examples of some opportunities that we do have.

And so I would love to get this Bill out of this Committee and continue to work on the Bill. I know I got a long ways to go, but I think we do have to start and out of respect for the community, have the conversation through the chair.

I don't want to elongate the conversation. I just want to say I was looking for that, your willingness to work on those kind of details. From my standpoint, I don't pretend to be an expert on the religion per se, but true that you don't cut your hair lifetime, and depending really fundamentally what the issue becomes with a helmet is if you have a lot of hair, it isn't so much the turban itself. That's to cover the hair. It has to be covered.

But there really becomes a fundamental question of at some level, do you have to cut your hair to wear a helmet? But that said, Madam Chair, I, again, don't want to overextend the conversation, but for my purposes, I want to hear that the author was willing to try to work out nuances that might involve a lot of discussions with the DMV in terms of how to vet who gets that exemption and who doesn't, which is just an issue in and of itself.

Thank you, Senator Cortese.

Madam Chair, I move the Bill.

Okay. Vice Chair, Senator Allen.

Well, just in terms of the actions that we take, I mean, it sounds as though you want to proceed with the Bill in print. That's my understanding. If you do get the votes, I guess that's where we go. But I guess what I'd love to know is if you don't, is there a way for you to accept the amends with an understanding that you're going to keep working? Maybe you can persuade the Chair to expand out, be a little more lenient. I don't know.

I don't mean to get involved, because I do think you're touching upon a very real issue. I think you've identified a real issue that needs to be addressed one way or another. I understand the Committee is not prepared to just give a blanket exemption right now, but they certainly want to look into the issue. It looks like there's some other options that are out there. I just love to get a sense of, well, unfortunately, this is the last day of here.

My Bill got set as of last Friday, the Chair asked me if I would accept a study Bill. I said no because I basically have one more year left of this. We study it, and I'm not going to get an opportunity to help my community out. But number one, there is a First Amendment question here. There is a first amendment question in this piece of legislation, for sure, which we don't talk about very much around here.

We talk about a lot of other things, but we don't talk about our First Amendment. So that's number one. Number two, it is going to be delicate. You have to figure out who's exercising and who's taking advantage of it. Right. Because there are going to be people that take advantage. I get that. So I don't know exactly how that looks.

And I don't know if you have to carry a card around that says, I believe in this kind, kind of a faith, which I think that's on shaky ground as well. So I'm going to tell you, I don't have all the answers, but I know one thing, they do have a First Amendment right, and we haven't had the opportunity to be able to have those conversations and flush it out. So that's where we are today, unfortunately.

And I will tell you, the folks who were actually riding the motorcycles that I met were not obeying the law anyway. They were like, first, there's nothing available for them to put on. And second of all, they're not going to wear a helmet because they don't have one and then just do it. So it puts them in a position where I guess if they did get cited, they could then take their First Amendment right and exercise that in court.

But I would like to give them an ability to be able to have the freedoms that we all enjoy at the same time having their faith as a freedom. So I don't know what exactly looks like.

But yeah, again, I keep saying this. I want to thank you for bringing this issue up because again, we should have been talking about this some time ago. But again, my issue is not just, of course, the public safety issue, but respecting religious beliefs. Understanding the enforcement pieces. Senator Cortese mentioned, the enforcement with CHP, adjudicating religious beliefs and then the implementation. I mean, what does that look like at the DMV.

You know, I think we're all saying sort of the same thing, lots of questions that I think are just practical questions that need to be answered. So again, I'm going to stick with my stance on not voting on this Bill and committing to working with you on this meeting with the community and figuring out some data, because there have been jurisdictions that have not moved forward with an exemption. I believe, like Australia and Germany, have not moved forward.

We also know that there are some in the Sikh faith that have worn helmets, and that is certainly their prerogative to do that. So there are opportunities, the innovations with helmets I think there's lots of opportunities that I think that this Committee should really discuss before we move forward, but I'll leave it there. I don't know if there's any other questions or comments.

If not, I was going to hesitate, but I've got to jump in. I've served with the Montebello Police Department, and I've seen motorcycle accidents, I've seen head injuries. And I know if this came before law enforcement, they would probably say, God bless them, and honestly, the religion factors. But the law is the law, and there's the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, and we're here to adhere to the letter of the law.

And the law that we would create could endanger probably more than would help. And so I'm going to lay off of it today, with all due respect to the author and also to those in attendance, because I think there's still things that we can do, and it's just not today.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Archuleta. We do have a motion by Vice Chair Niello. Madam consultant, can you please call the roll?

Did he close? For file item 15, SB 847, by Senator Dahle. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, the Bill has four eyes, so we'll leave that on call. Next we have.

Thank you, Senator Dahle, and thank you to the community. We'll continue the conversations. All right, we have file item 14, SB 846.

Thank you, Chair and Senators. California is home to 4.6 eligible unregistered voters. SB 846 is an opportunity to welcome nearly all Californians into our democracy and make their voices heard at the ballot box. SB 846 will create a back end automatic voter registration system.

If someone brings in a form of identification that shows citizenship, like a US Passport or a birth certificate, into the DMV, their information will be sent to the Secretary of State and automatically registered to vote. The new system will also help those who are not eligible to vote.

If a person presents a form of identification that shows that they are not a us citizen, such as a green card or a foreign passport, they will not be asked if they are a citizen or if they would like to register to vote, which is a practice. Today, we are seeing the success of policies like this in states like Oregon, Colorado, Nevada, Delaware, Alaska and Massachusetts all, as well as the District of Columbia.

SB 846 ensures that voter roles reflect the population of the state, and research indicates that people of color comprise a large share of the uneligible, excuse me, of the eligible but unregistered Californians. Back end AVR registers people left out by traditional models. With me today in support of the Bill, we have Jackie Wu from California Grassroots Democracy Coalition and Shamus Hannon, application development manager at the Oregon Department of Transportation, to speak in support of the Bill.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon Chair Gonzalez and Members of the Senate Transportation Committee. My name is Jackie Wu, speaking on behalf of the coalition. I'm also a former election official from Orange County, where I worked under former registrar Neil Kelly and helped to manage elections for nearly 2 million voters. During my time, I helped implement some of California's recent major election reforms, including partial automatic voter registration vote centers, universal vote by mail, and changes in response to Covid-19.

Despite California's numerous democracy reforms to achieve its 82% voter registration rate, there are still 4.6 million eligible unregistered voters in California, which is a crisis we need to urgently address. Moreover, California suffers from a significant voter participation gap. In the 2022 General election, only 50.8% of registered voters cast a ballot and only 41.5% of eligible voters cast a ballot. In comparison, Oregon had the highest voter turnout in the entire United States with over 60%.

This can be changed by shifting time and resources currently used towards voter registration through an updated voter registration system and moving those resources towards voter education and engagement. Additionally, if voter rolls were as updated as often as DMV records, we'd see less undeliverable ballots, more ballots mailed to the correct address, and more voters receiving their ballots on time.

California has an opportunity to lead the nation in showing what an authentic democracy can look like by removing unnecessary barriers to voting and inspiring legislators and Americans in other states on how to reimagine what democracy could look like. Over 140 grassroots organizations who worked day in and out for decades and will continue to work to uplift California's most vulnerable communities agree that secure automatic voter registration can improve election Administration and increase access to voting for California's least empowered communities.

For these reasons, we strongly urge your support for SB 846. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support of SB 846?

Chair Gonzalez, Vice Chair Niello and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. My name is Shamus Hannan. I'm the application development manager for the Oregon DMV. In that position, I oversee our AVR system, previously held the same position with the Oregon Secretary of State, where I oversaw implementation of Oregon's AVR system. I'm here today to discuss Oregon's DMV's extremely positive experience with secure AVR.

The policy proposed in Senate Bill 846. Oregon implemented secure AVR in 2016, and in the seven years since then, we've registered roughly 1 million new voters while reducing DMV transaction times, secure AVR simplifies and automates voter registration at DMV. As most of you know, when you apply for a driver's license, you provide identifying documents like a passport or a green card. Oregon's DMV system, like California's, retains the type of document that a person provided during the license transaction and secure AVR leverages this information.

Under our AVR system, the DMV and the Secretary of State have identified which documents clearly establish eligibility to register to vote, like a US passport, and which documents clearly indicate ineligibility like a green card. Our DMV system is hard coded around this list. If a person's license record confirms that they provided a document on the list that establishes eligibility, our system automatically shares that data with election officials for voter registration.

By contrast, if the person provided a document that indicates ineligibility, the system is hard coded to filter them out of voter registration. DMV clerks just follow their normal routine practices, and the system is automated around them. This automated process has been highly successful in Oregon, creating an auditable, efficient system to register clearly eligible people while protecting ineligible people from risk. This system was also straightforward to implement since it relies on existing DMV procedures.

DMV startup costs were only $33,000, and the other DMV's have budgeted similar amounts. Secured AVR has also reduced transaction times at DMV, saving roughly 90 seconds per customer. When a person's identity documents clearly indicate eligibility or ineligibility, we can bypass redundant questions and automatically route them to the right workflow. In closing, ultimately, Secure AVR has created a simpler, more efficient process at Oregon DMV. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support of SB 846, please?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Tim Valderrama with the Weitaman Group on behalf of our clients, the Center for Secure and Modern Elections, Next Gen California, and SEIU. All in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Cha Vang, interim coed of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment Education Fund, part of the California Grassroots Democracy Coalition and co-sponsors of the Bill. In support our network of Asian American and Pacific Island organizations work with and in communities every day and we are firsthand field experience. The need to protect our communities and the desire to build a democracy that is inclusive of everyone is why we are co sponsoring this Bill. I urge your support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, my name is Nina Long and I'm here on behalf of the California Grassroots Democracy Coalition in support.

Good afternoon. Neal Ubriani from the Institute for Responsive Government in support.

Hello. Cynthia Gomez, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights TridLA here in support.

Hi, good afternoon. Carol Gonzalez here on behalf of Espana's Organized for Political Equality. Hope. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tasia Stevens, on behalf of Catalyst California in strong support.

Hello. Cynthia Gomez, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights TridLA here in support.

Bob Giroux, representing the National Union of Healthcare Workers in support.

Great, thank you. Seeing no other voices in support of this Bill and I believe we have any registered opposition at this time. We do. zero, there is. Okay. Please come forward. Thank you. My apologies. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Gonzalez and Committee Members. My name is Jacqueline Coto with NALEO Educational Fund, and for several decades we have been on the forefront of efforts of California to mobilize Latinos to register and vote.

In addition, we were a part of several discussions during the development and implementation of the new motor voter program. We share the authors and the supporters visions of SB 846 of a strong and inclusive democratic process. However, we do believe this legislation would essentially replace an automatic voter registration system that is generally working well with an expensive and unnecessary approach that could create new obstacles for the state, for potential new voters, and for residents.

SB 846 back end approach replaces the existing self attestation process with one where the DMV would determine a registrant's level of access to voter registration opportunities. This creates complicated and costly new responsibilities for the DMV that would normally be carried out by election officials. The legislation is also unclear about how the DMV would determine citizenship status. As my colleague will testify, SB 846 approach has a significant potential of registering noneligible residents, which could seriously jeopardize their immigration status.

A recent report from the CID revealed that current AVR system is working and indicates that new registrants and re registrants increased 16 fold between 2016 and 2020, becoming the top registration methods for Latinos, Asian Americans, and black registrants. And according to experts like the Brennan center, there is no evidence that this back end system will be more effective in increasing registration.

We are also extremely concerned about the failure of SB 846 to collect information about the language and party preference and the legislation potential to strip such information from voter registration records. The extra step of returning a postcard in the mail is simply not effective as it becomes a barrier for those residents who do not notice or return these postcards, we respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Brittany Stonesifer with ACLU California Action. Like NALEO, we share the goals of increasing registration among eligible voters and protecting non citizens. ACLU has spent many years advocating to improve the motor voter system in California, from litigation and legislative reform to serving on the state motor voter task force. It's this experience that forms the basis for our concerns about SB 846.

First, no data has shown that converting our current AVR system into a backend system will increase registration. A clear understanding of existing data is critical to determining whether the proposed overhaul would be worth the risks that such a massive technical and logistical undertaking creates. While supporters say that about half of users opt out of the DMV's current system, this has created an incorrect impression that almost that all or most of these people would benefit from a switch to back end.

But when we look at the data a little more closely, we see that less than 15% of California motor voter transactions over the last five years have been for people who opted out despite being eligible and unregistered. The remaining 85% have either resulted in new or updated registrations or have been opt outs of people that the Secretary of State has confirmed as already having current active registrations.

Also, contrary to the Bill's goals, SB 846 is likely to increase risks for the millions of non citizens who use the California DMV, despite years of work to transform the current AVR system into the success that it is today, well publicized troubles with the initial rollout show that this state's DMV is simply not equipped to build yet another, far more complicated voter registration system. It's really not a question of if California's DMV would make an error in determining citizenship, but when.

Not only would a backend system increase the consequences for wrongful registration, but it also increases the risk that non citizens are improperly registered by the DMV and may actually end up voting. It's likely that a non citizen who has automatically mailed a ballot before an election can mistakenly believe that the state is telling them that they're eligible to vote. There is no official authorization defense for unlawful voting, and California cannot protect against federal consequences. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote.

And also, the Brennan Center for Justice couldn't be here today, but they submitted a letter to the Committee yesterday and asked us to share their strong opposition as well. Thank you.

Thank you. League of Women Voters of California in respectful but very strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you so much. So we've heard from support and opposition. We'll take it to the teleconference line moderator. Is there anyone who'd like to support or oppose SB 846, please?