Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

Transportation Subcommitee will come to order. So good afternoon and welcome. The Senate welcomes the public in person and via the Teleconference service for individuals who would like to public comment on today's hearing. The Public Participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 736-2834. We're holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building, and we'll ask all the Members of the Committee to be present if you can.

We're just in Subcommitee mode now, so if we can have Members come to room 1200, we'd greatly appreciate it. So we have 15 measures on today's agenda, with 10 of those measures proposed for consent, which we'll take up later when we have a quorum. So now we'll start with our first presentation. I see Assembly Member Ward here, and he is going to present on file item three AB 251. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators here to present Assembly Bill 251 to you today. It begins like this, the Governor's Highway Safety Association projects that drivers struck and killed an estimated 7,500 pedestrians on US roadways in 2021. While pedestrian deaths have risen by 54% over the last decade, all other traffic deaths have increased by only 13%, less than one-third. At the same time, the size and weight of vehicles sold in the United States has also increased dramatically.

JD Power estimates that over 80% of new vehicles sold in 2021 were SUVs and trucks for the first time ever. While the rise in pedestrian fatalities has many causes, there's growing evidence that an increase in vehicle weight has played a key role.

In response to these alarming studies, the California Transportation Commission has included in their 2022 report to the Legislature, a recommendation requesting the authorization to convene a task force consisting of state agencies and local transportation agencies to analyze these trends and then report back to us some of their findings and policy recommendations. Specifically, the task force would study the merits of a weight-based registration fee on passenger vehicles similar to those already in place in other states.

14 other states, from the boat Dakotas in Florida to Maryland and New York, so pretty widespread across the country. And while some of those results in other states have been promising, many aspects of a weight-based fee on California requires further examination. So AB 251 will codify the Commission's recommendations, providing the Legislature with some additional tools needed to craft evidence-based policy to curb the growing crisis.

We owe it to all Californians to look into the connection between these vehicles and fatalities and utilize every available tool so that we can create an environment where everyone, including drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, feel safe on our roadways for witnesses and support. I have Bubba Fish with Streets for All. And when the time comes, I would respectfully request your Aye vote.

Thank you. Assembly Member okay, do we have Mr. Fish here with Streets for All? Is your witness on the teleconference by chance?

He is potentially on the teleconference.

Okay. Moderator, do we have Mr. Fish from Streets for All on the teleconference line?

Press star then one at this time.

Okay, I don't know if Mr. Fish is.

He might be running late for the Subcommittee, and I apologize.

Okay. No problem at all. And we'll take him if he decides to come on or if he's here in person.

Thank you.

Okay, so that was in support. So do we have any folks who would like to come forward in opposition? It looks like we have the California Taxpayer Association. Okay. All right. So we'll ask anyone else who'd like to come up front for support or opposition for this Bill. I'm sorry. AB 251.

Good afternoon. David Tran with the City of San Jose, here in support.

Good afternoon. Mikayla Elder on behalf of Calstar, in support. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and Members, Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, the City of Santa Monica, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, all in strong support of the measure. I'd also like to voice on behalf of the California City Transportation Initiative. We have a support if amended, we're seeking a very minor technical clarifying amendment. The author's office has graciously agreed to work with us on that. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in Room 1200 in support or opposition of AB 251, please come forward.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Bubba Fish, and I'm the co-director of State Policy for Transportation advocacy organization Streets for All. And we are here today as proud sponsors of AB 251. Our state is facing a pedestrian safety crisis. Pedestrian fatalities reached a four-decade high last year in the United States, and more pedestrians die on California roadways than in any other state in the country. In 2022, 504 pedestrians were killed by cars in our state in a 70% surge since 2010.

And by the way, because of the disparities in our infrastructure, black pedestrians are over twice as likely to be killed by cars and over four times as likely when they're on a bike. We can directly attribute this surge to the quantity of large vehicles now present on our roadways. In 2010, Americans bought and leased cars and trucks about equal numbers, but by 2021, nearly 80% of sales and leases were trucks. That category includes pickups, vans, and SUVs.

So automakers have resisted efforts to impose design guidelines for pedestrian safety while these SUVs and trucks have continued to grow heavier and heavier, adding 1300 pounds since 1990. And we know that heavier means deadlier. A recent study found that every 100-kilogram increase in average automobile weight corresponds with 2.4% increase in pedestrian fatalities. Pedestrians are two to three times more likely to suffer fatality when struck by an SUV, truck, or van, and that's four times more likely for children ages five to 19.

So something must be done. Last year, Washington, DC, passed higher registration fees for heavier vehicles to encourage lighter cars and, in turn, help pay for transit projects. And this Bill will study the relationship between weight and traffic violence and possible improvements to our registration fees system so that our state leaders can make informed policy decisions that will make safer streets for everyone. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Fish. I appreciate you running over here during the Subcommitee. Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward? Okay, see, none. We'll move back to the teleconference line. Moderator do we have anyone who'd like to testify in opposition or support of AB 251?

Thank you. For support or opposition of AB 251. Please press one, then zero at this time. We go to line 22. Please go ahead. One moment, please. Line 22, please go ahead.

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

Thank you. We'll go to the next line. One moment. Please. Go to line 23. Please go ahead.

Justin Behrens on behalf of the California Transportation Commission, in support.

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

Thank you. Moderator so we'll take it back for questions behind the dais here. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward. I will be supporting the Bill, but just some questions. If we're talking about the vehicle weight and safety and, of course, the infrastructure that's being damaged more and more, but we're talking about appropriate response being the weight fee. Okay. We're talking about heavier means deadlier. But is that fee going to be enough?

Walk me through when the task force comes back with data that shows that the information you have here is absolutely correct, that it is heavier, deadlier, and infrastructure is being damaged. Now, what will that report tell us to do? And what will that lead us to? And is the end of the road? Is that just the increase in the fee? What will you think we'll get out of this Bill?

Thank you for the question, Senator and it's not an end all, be all to the solutions that we need to support local governments and their efforts to make their roadways safer for all users. What it could be is, like I said, something that parallels what we see in 14 other states already across the country as an option to help augment.

And what I would like to see is something that directly supports traffic safety measures, whether that is a barrier, well, not necessarily a barrier, but systems that can help to reduce traffic speed, particularly as you're going around blind corners. We know that that's a particularly vulnerable point for road users as they are crossing the street to get across.

Because of that relationship there, and because we know from academic data and other states data that we want to see if we are having replication here in California, that there is an increase between vehicle size and collision. And when that collision occurs, there's definitely an increase almost threefold in the level of injury or even death. So the negative externalities are there when it comes to this factor when we're considering vehicle weight.

So the question for the state at that future time would be based on the information, based on the analysis, and that's all that this Bill is asking, is for that report to be concluded so that we can see what is California's data show. That's one piece of information that we can do to be able to support potential additional funding. We, of course, as a state, and distinct general funding or other resources that we have to support traffic safety measures as well.

That's something that can be augmented from a potential future source like this.

So what I'm hearing is perhaps additional signage, reducing the speeds, taking a good look at the infrastructure to handle them. And obviously that is down the road.

All those are very good options that could be a menu for local governments to decide what are the necessary safety measures to be able to ameliorate the problem.

Good. And as I said, I support the Bill. I'll be happy to move it when it's appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta. And before we move on to our next question, we're going to establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll call]. Here. Archuleta. Here. Becker. Blakespear. Blakespear. Here. Cortese? Cortese. Here. Dahle. Here. Here. Dahle. Here. Dodd. Dodd. Here. Limon. Mcguire. Newman. Here. Newman. Here. When? Here. Seyarto. Here. Say arto. Here. Umberg. Wahab.

A quorum has been established. Thank you. We'll move on to Senator and Vice Chair, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe I missed something in the write up, but I don't see anything in here about driver behavior. And I realize that anecdote does not equal evidence, however, and I would ask anybody behind the dais and anybody in the audience if they have observed a difference in driving patterns since the pandemic, because I certainly have. The behavior of some drivers on all streets is absolutely appalling.

And to entertain lowering speed limits would be a futile effort because those drivers are not observing them right now. And not only that, weaving in and out of lanes, hugging on bumpers. Frankly, what we need, in my opinion, is more enforcement. And if we're going to be studying this, we ought to take a look at that, too. And it would seem to me, based upon my observation, that would have a significantly greater impact than talking about wait fees. If you want to address that.

I'm sorry, Turner. Thank you. I wasn't sure if that was for others to comment. I'm happy to respond.

Would you like to respond now or in your close? Either way.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to respond to the senator. It's a great question. I know that some of the information that has been out there about this relationship, and it is very linear between vehicle weight and the level of injury or death that we are seeing predates the pandemic. I don't disagree with you. I have noticed the same as well, and I'll agree with you to that point. But we know that the laws of physics have remained constant between a couple of years ago and today.

Force equals mass times acceleration. So when your mass increase that force, that trauma that somebody's experiencing is also going to increase. So again, this is something that we can be able to do to look at across the entire great state. And by the way, I'd like to be able to see regional variation. Right. We know that there are parts of California that need larger vehicles for different responsibilities for different parts of their communities. So maybe that is something that can also come back.

We know and written into this Bill that electric vehicles are something that we promote as a state goal, but those batteries are heavy, that is increasing vehicle weight. So should there be a modulation when it comes to electric vehicles as well? All things that we would like to see.

But again, a study that needs to be very comprehensive in its analysis to be able to inform us about finding that sweet spot between the link and the responsibilities of larger vehicle weight and the potential opportunity for resources to be able to support traffic safety in our communities.

Okay. Thank you so much. Assembly Member. We have Senator Blakespear.

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member. You've already described your Bill extremely well, and I think it seems like a really important Bill, and I'm happy to support it.

Thank you, Senator.

Wonderful. Senator Seyarto.

So I'm struggling a little bit with the Bill because there are so many factors that go into why there are more deaths with the larger vehicles, including vehicle design. I mean, that's a huge factor in a lot of the accidents that I've had to go on, and where the bumper is located, especially in side impact collisions, that's a huge thing. So I don't think it's just the weight. I think the Senator from El Dorado County touched on it. Sacramento County. Well, it's all close. Okay.

Oh, thank you. That makes it a lot easier. But he kind of touched on it is a lot of the increase that we've had, because I stay in close communication with the CHP in my region especially, because I have freeways that are out in kind of long stretches. And the biggest thing that we're struggling with is people are going 80 miles an hour, not 70, and they're going 85 miles an hour, not 70.

Any car going that fast that gets in either a single car rollover, whether they're involved with a larger vehicle or not, it's all bad. It's kind of hard to single out whether a study says, of course, a study is going to find that the more something weighs, that's where they're saying don't step in front of a truck. That's what happens. Not a good outcome. Why we would be singling out those folks to pay more for basically behavior that is everybody's behavior?

I struggle with that a little bit because I don't think if there is a problem out there, and there is, there is a problem, and it's what the senator alluded to was people's behavior. But the problem is it's not the size of their vehicle or anything like that, it's a human behavior issue. And I don't see how this is actually going to fix anything.

Thank you. So I first want to acknowledge, I know in your time as emergency responder and a captain, you have responded to a lot of these. Chief, excuse me. Thank you. Didn't want to lower your rank. You've seen a lot. So I appreciate that. And I agree with you. As we were exploring this issue last fall, my team and advocates, there were several things.

One, the height of that grille on the front and the relationship between that and front rollover activities is also very evident, a little bit trickier to get at, because then you get into a vehicle, sort of the parameters and the physical developments of a vehicle, which NHTSA largely governs. So that was one angle we looked at.

There are some advocates out there who said they want to go from A to Z. They want a fee today, but we are lacking that data in California that can help us actually decide to what that's applied exactly to what degree that fee should be. And I want this to be a very thoughtful and evidence-based policy should we actually get to that size down the road when that report comes back in 2027.

I will say that according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, when you are going 40 miles an hour, from the traffic collisions they have analyzed, a fatality rate for a smaller vehicle, say a Corolla was 54%. But when it is a larger vehicle, like an SUV or a large truck, 100%. So that is same speed, same sort of parameters, same driver behavior, whether it's erratic or not. But the weight was the distinction that was there as well.

So it is a factor, at least it appears to be a factor worthy of a study and worthy of your support of AB 251.

And, Assembly Member, just to reiterate, this is convening a task force to study the issue.

That is correct.

We'll start there. That that's what we're doing, not to actually implement a fee.

Yes. Okay, great. So as we're moving on, I'm going to go on to Senator Newman, who is actually our CTC Commissioner. You have him right now.

That's correct.

But I will not be in 2027.

Okay.

So appreciate it, Madam Chair. Assembly Member Ward, thank you. I guess two questions. One is, and you touched on it. So NHTSA has responsibility for design, correct?

That's correct.

It seems to me it's hard to separate design from weight when we're talking about vehicle safety of larger bills of larger vehicles. And so how do you reconcile that? Weight is a big deal. Right.

But according to what some of the stuff I've read, one of the biggest problems with pedestrian safety right now is design. It's sight lines from the driver. It's the creation, as you mentioned, of these larger vehicles. But if that's out of our jurisdiction, is this the only thing we can do to get at this? And how are you thinking about that issue?

Well, the one thing that we can do is recognize that if vehicle sight lines are changing and we need to make intersections or vulnerable places safer. We're going to need a resource. We're going to need a source of funding to be able to have those improvements in our communities. So this is just one potential option down the road should they come back and convince a Legislature that there's a direct relationship.

We think there might be, but we want to see that data and what that extent of what the contributing factor is of the weight fee. Again, we're trying to model something that has been shown to have positive impact and resource for communities across the country, in red states and in blue states. And a vehicle weight fee is something that I think that California could look at through this Bill.

Okay, you got to my next question. So there's this definitional question, is it a fee? Is it a tax? And I think the gist of that is, is there a nexus? And so I guess you're making a point that logically there is a nexus here as you envision the study working its way through. Is that correct? And so you're confident that this will be, at the end of the day, a fee and not, as the opposition argues, effectively a tax?

I know we get into those semantics. Again, that would be something for both the Commission to report back to the Legislature and for us to decide if we wanted to act upon that, how we would want to design it, whether it presents itself as a fee or a tax, as we understand them, under the revenues.

And last question, relates to electric vehicles. Right. They're inherently heavier, typically, than their internal combustion counterparts. And so do you envision exempting ZEVs or will battery-powered vehicles be included and thus subject to the fee? And if so, isn't that mildly counterproductive to the transition we're trying to affect here?

You absolutely have a great question. It is built into the Bill that monitoring for electric vehicle status is something that should be factored into this calculation. And whether or not electric vehicle owners are having greater or lesser degrees of incidents on the road as well is something that they could look at.

But it is a factor that the Bill does carve out and ask them to be able to look at when they're thinking about the analysis between the relationship but also the assessment of a proposed fee that they may recommend recognizing that could run counter to our climate goals.

Last question. How confident are you that the recommendations made by the study will be definitive? Right. And as referenced, I'd point to the road charge working group that's a result of, I think, SB 361, which is actually a whole bunch of really smart people very hard at work but they're not necessarily coming to any easy answers. And how we solve for that problem?

As you're well aware, Senator, there's no easy answers for many of the things that we're trying to tackle. But I do believe because of the direct correlation that we're seeing generally across the country and through academic study, that we're going to find that replicated in a California-specific study as well.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Great questions. Thank you, Senator Cortese. My apologies. Senator Dahle.

I would yield to the great Senator, thank you for what you've answered. I don't want to be redundant, but so I want to just get right to the part of the Bill I think that needs a little bit more. So we know that physics tell us that the heavier vehicle is going to have a heavier. There's going to be more damage to some of the lighter vehicles.

So we know that already for factual. We tax now heavy-weight use vehicles for the weight because the damage to the infrastructure, quite frankly, is what we do now. But this is focusing. I want to know once we get the data back, this is going to improve intersections. Tell me what is out there that would be different than what we have right now?

Thank you. And so you're right to raise the point, we already in California do place a vehicle weight-based fee on commercial vehicles. We just don't do that for standard passenger vehicles as we are seeing that class start to grow as well.

And what the Bill is proposing is that this would be something that can be allocated toward a pool of resources for local governments to be able to have traffic safety measures that will mitigate against the evidence of where collisions are occurring, where harm is occurring.

Okay. Thank you. And then my last question, I want to just maybe springboard a little bit off of Senator Newman's. So EVs are in or out? You're counting them. They're heavy.

EVs will be evaluated, but it will be something that will be a sort of sub factor of the analysis.

I don't understand. So either you're going to look at the weight of the. Is it about public safety or is it about, we don't want to tax somebody who already has the EV.

We want to be knowledgeable that we are encouraging as a state the electrification of vehicles. And so to what degree that might actually influence the goals that we have, as that as well, is something that would want to be evaluated.

Okay. Yeah.

Are there any other questions or comments, Senator Cortese?

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Just on a little bit of a facetious note I wanted I don't know if it was a Freudian slip, but I like Senator Newman's comment that maybe we do need a fee for vehicles that are heavier bills as well. I don't know if, you know, you said that. That's a good thought, but I know it's not this Bill. So I'll get back on topic. The Chair has reminded us that this is a study and it's not about implementation.

And I know that you do generally very diligent work in terms of the bills and the thought process, and you're willing to work things through Assembly Members. So I'm going to be supporting it. I am generally somebody over the longer term of the evolution of this policy that wouldn't support a fee. I particularly wouldn't support it if I thought the cities were going to be the recipients of the dollars that came out of that bucket, only because my experience at the local level.

I suppose redevelopment was a little bit of a poster child for that, is that it's really hard to tighten up a nexus at the local level. Folks will say we need that money to cover overhead for the Parks Director, the DOT Director, the mileage reports of the City Council Members, and everybody else under the sun. It's pretty hard to control that. It doesn't feel good to me.

And then lastly, I don't know if it would end up being a disincentive to folks or not. I mean, I know most of the people in this room are big supporters of this technology and other non-fossil fuel technology going forward, or alternative energy opportunities. I don't mean to sound at all condescending or stating the obvious, but we've just had so much, some of us, more than others, push back on flipping fees and taxes and anything that has to do with people's cars, registration, gasoline.

It's not something the public typically embraces, as you know, which is all the more reason that perhaps you're doing it as a study. And all the more reason I would commend you for stepping into this and trying to attack the problem. But anything, I'm putting my comments out there because I'm hoping that they're taken in a constructive way, that maybe these are some of the issues that some of your colleagues and maybe even a few local officials would worry about.

Thank you. And like you coming from local government, I know something that we worked on over the last 10 years was recognizing part of the National Vision Zero campaign, that we have increasing injury and fatality, and that we need to do a better job responding to that. And again, not to get ahead of ourselves, should information come back to this Legislature in 2027 that provides us a decision, and at that point, there will be a future vote and a future decision.

We can certainly guarantee that and really direct that, to be very specific in its application. But knowing where our most dangerous intersections are and knowing how underfunded our cities are, to be able to respond to that, yes, SB One funds have helped a little bit. Most of that's been for road repaving. How do we do the harder work of making things safer? That's something we haven't figured out yet.

Through the Chair, I'm glad you're considering those alternatives. I think a Bill that for me would become, that would, on its face right now, be dubious in terms of my support, could become compelling if it was really bringing about public safety, if it was alerting people at intersections that a very quiet car is about to be on top of you when you step into the crosswalk, for example. And that technology exists out there.

And I know the cities struggle with finding resources for implementing that kind of technology, but to your point, that's not in the Bill yet. That might be in the study. But 2027, when it comes around, assuming I'm here to vote, I'm going to take a hard look at that. Exactly what that fee is going to be used for and how limited the discretion is on the local officials that might want to use it to cover payroll during a down year. I really concern myself with that. So thank you.

Appreciate that.

Other comments or questions? Assembly Member Ward, you may close.

Thank you. I really appreciate this robust discussion, and when the time comes, I respectfully request your Aye vote.

Do we have a motion?

Motion.

Senator Archuleta moves. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]. That Bill is on call.

The Bill is on call. We'll keep the roll open, obviously. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

And you're next.

Wow. Okay, we have another Bill, hopefully a little bit more of a nominal Bill, but I wanted to introduce to you Assembly Bill 361. I do want to start by thanking the Committee consultant for his work on the Bill. This Bill comes to you because, again, bicycle fatalities have been increasing in recent years. We've seen a 9.2% jump from the previous year.

And as city centers have become more congested with vehicle traffic and parking, using a bicycle for transportation has become a more viable and convenient way to get around. So cities have actually been investing in this infrastructure, and that's a good thing. But problems arise. A common problem is that cars are parking in the bike lanes, and this blocks travel for bicyclists and often forces them to swerve into car lane traffic or riding on sidewalks, which effectively renders a lot of this investment and utility useless.

It also creates these safety hazards. So how do we enforce the already illegal activity? Well, current law allows ticketing to be issued for bike lane parking, but the process of how tickets may be issued is inefficient, particularly for cars that only block bike lanes for a few minutes in busy commercial areas. This Bill, AB 361, would create a pilot program to be used by cities, many who are masking for this now, to efficiently ticket cars and dissuade this activity, which are blocking bike lanes.

The policy would allow the tickets to be issued using front facing cameras paired with imaging processing technology, which is already available for city parking enforcement vehicles. As our populations become denser with housing density increases and the infrastructure grows, this could be an effective tool for enforcement that ensures that all modes of transportation interact and coexist safely and efficiently to become a tool in achieving our goals. The Committee has very thoughtfully addressed several potential amendments, and I'm happy to accept sections 3 and 5.

We looked really closely at section Four outlined in the Committee analysis and recognized that while we are thinking about fairness and equity in mind, removing the DMV as the final collection mechanism for payment would work against some of these goals, and we've consulted them. The DMV maintains that they possess the filing records needed to link a vehicle owner's registration information with that required to actually collect fines. So we'd like to continue to work with the Senate as this evolves forward.

We'll be accepting amendments 3 and 5 in those sections, and I would respectfully request your I vote in support of this Bill today, in testifying, I have David Tran on behalf of the City of San Jose, and again, Bubba Fish with streets for all.

Right, thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Bubba Fish, co Director of State policy for Streets for All, in support of AB 361, talking about an issue that impacts people on bikes. Frankly, every single day across the state, cities and counties are spending millions on bike lanes to create a safe, sustainable, affordable future for our state. Inspired by climate and traffic crises, we are finally starting to see the fruits of decades of transportation advocacy.

But this infrastructure is rendered useless when it's blocked by parked cars, and worst of all, people using it are suddenly thrown into extremely dangerous situations. People that ride their bike know exactly what I'm talking about. Someone has parked in the bike lane, and within a second, or sometimes a fraction of a second, you have to decide whether to weave into traffic or come to a complete dead stop. Either way, your journey has become significantly more perilous.

At a time when bike fatalities have hit an alltime high across the country, we need to make sure our safe infrastructure is available and accessible at all times. This Legislature has already addressed this issue with bus lanes by creating automated bus lane enforcement with AB 917, a Bill our organization was proud to support in 2021. By extending this policy to bike lanes as well, we are protecting our critical investments in sustainable transportation for generations to come.

So just as AB 917 did, this Bill has all the equity and privacy provisions needed to keep this technology safe and effective. It only takes photos, keeps image records confidential, only gives access to public agencies for parking violations. It issues only warning notices for 60 days. The data is deleted after a citation is resolved, and it only allows agencies that have fee reduction or forgiveness programs to participate.

So, in closing, please strengthen our infrastructure investments by passing this Bill and ensure that this movement towards a more sustainable future can continue to flourish. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, honorable chair and Committee Members. My name is David Tran and I am the Legislative and policy lead for the San Jose Department of Transportation here today to speak in support of AB 361. Since 2015, the City of San Jose has constructed over 100 miles of Class 2 and 4 bikeways, aligning with our state's active transportation and climate goals. However, the safety and effect activeness of our bikeways rely heavily on them, remaining unobstructed.

The most common and dangerous trend that we have seen are unauthorized parking in bikeways, often causing bicyclists to veer into unsafe vehicular traffic. San Jose continues to work with our community partners to conduct education and outreach to drivers and bicyclists alike, but we also recognize the need for additional tools to shift behavior. With 200 sq. Mi to cover, San Jose has an underresourced parking compliance unit, servicing an astronomical volume of parking related requests annually.

AB 361 would be an opportunity for cities like San Jose to explore a pilot using photographic technology to further supplement parking operations in reducing bikeway obstructions. San Jose is proud to have a robust and sound digital privacy policy, and if passed, the city will put strong accountability measures to ensure the responsible and effective usage of this technology. Above all, we would ensure that such a program would align with our city's equity principles to not add financial burden on our communities of concern.

The city is looking to keep our bikeways clear and our users safe. Thank you for your time, and I ask for your. I vote on AB 361. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have others in the room in support? There we go.

Sorry, a little slow. Mr. Vice Chairman, Member Sylvia Solis Shaw here. On behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and the City of Santa Monica, all in support. Thank you.

Any others in support? Anybody in the room in opposition? Seeing no one come forward? moderator do we have anybody on the phone in support or in opposition to the Bill?

Thank you for support. Opposition. Please press 1 and 0 next to AB 361 Go to line 28. Please. Go ahead, 28.

Name, organization and possition?

My name is Eddie Torres, but I'm signed up for AB 436 in opposition.

We are not there yet.

And no further participants in queue at this time.

Thank you. Moderator bring it back to the Committee. Questions or comments? Yes, Senator Seyarto.

All right, so in this particular case, parking in a bike lane is already against the law, correct. They already can get a parking ticket?

Correct.

And if the city has capabilities to do camera operative parking already or parking ticket violations already, they can do that with this already?

Not correct.

Why not?

Because the statute does not allow them to do it for this kind of enforcement. Just like we had done in years past on monitoring for bus only lanes, the statute explicitly allows for the activity for which that enforcement can be used.

Okay. And does a local agency have the ability to enable, like towing when you have a violation of this sort? They can tow the vehicle away from there because that would be the more immediate way of taking care of an obstruction that is a public safety hazard.

For the bicyclist, of course. And as you know. Well, I'm sure, Senator, under state and local ordinance, towing regulations are very specifically defined. And while that would help to ameliorate the problem, we also get into equity issues about whether or not somebody in very, very costly towing fees is something we're trying to deter behavior. To our earlier discussion about poor driving that's out there and maybe an increase in the incidence of poor driving skills. So we're trying to deter that behavior at the local level.

Enforcement, parking enforcement infractions have been a helpful tool to that degree. Right.

But the equity issue, I don't know if that's something that weighs in here, because if a car is parked in a bicycle lane, the car is parked in a bicycle lane and it needs to be taken out of the bicycle lane so that people that are riding in it can be safe. So I'm not sure why we need, I guess, the parking enforcement by camera. I've seen that in parking lots. I've seen that, but I've also seen it in cities doing parking lot red light cameras.

And those red light cameras actually have to capture the image of the actual person driving the vehicle. Are they going to have the same problem with this? Did you research that? Are we able to. Because I know with parking. We did and should be able to do it.

That's correct. No, and I think because a moving vehicle, moving violation carries much more significant consequences under our laws. That is why isolating it to the driver is something that's been very carefully looked at here. It would be something that would go towards the owner of that vehicle per the license plate.

So if somebody lent their car out to somebody else, they wouldn't have a defense of I wasn't driving the car and I did.

That car was illegally parked.

So that car was illegally parked for.

It's a responsibility and there's no points on your license like any violation would be able.

That's a non violation. I understand that. All right. Well, those are the questions I have for this particular one, I'm not thoroughly convinced. I might just stay off it for now.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to understand the operations of this Bill a little bit better. So if a car is parked in a transit only lane, the bus is authorized to have a camera. So the bus is driving along in the transit lane and sees the car and could take a photo of the license plate, and then a ticket can be sent to that car. But in this case, a bicyclist does not have the camera on the bicycle.

Right. So the bicyclist would go around the car and there would need to be some outreach to the parking enforcement. Like in my city would have been the sheriff probably, who would say, this car is illegally parked in the bike lane. And then the sheriff would need to go out there and they could give a ticket just under the current operations of the law.

Correct?

Or they would take a photo of it and then send a ticket instead of putting it right there on the dashboard or on the window shield. But so just trying to understand, does that really help them to be able to take a photo?

So, yes, because I think the operations, what this would look like, should this be implemented, would be stationary, front facing cameras, which would then be communicated back to a local enforcement agency to be able to work with the DMV and issue those tickets. And then a city could be able to move those if they recognize that along this segment of infrastructure, we're hearing from the community an increase in these violations.

Maybe you want to deter that and know that there's technology out there to deter that activity. And then you hear about it over in this part of the city. Again, it doesn't have to be cemented to a city sidewalk, but rather it needs to be a stationary structure that could also be repurposed across the city landscape.

I see. So you envision that this is stationary?

It would have to be, yes.

Okay.

And it's photographic, not video. Right.

Okay. Because you're modeling it after what was the public transit operator. But those are not stationary, right?

That's correct. What we're modeling is the ability to use this evidence as a mechanism to be able to issue a citation.

I see. Okay. So when the Bill defines local agencies as public transit operators, they're not the ones putting something stationary up. Probably it would be local city, county, or city and county parking enforcement authorities. So that would be like the city itself or deciding to put it in their right of way where there's a bike lane that is routinely having this problem.

Thank you. I'm happy to get back to you on more specifics. There is a role that a transit local transit agency could play that they already might play in this, so we can look and see if there is an implementation point where they would have a responsibility that could benefit from the authorization under this Bill.

Okay. I mean, I'm not preoccupied by that part. I was just thinking it seems very limited. Maybe there's a bus stop and there happens to be a bike that goes by the bus stop. Excuse me, but that would be the one time when I could conceive of that, because the city and county has land use authority to put up the enforcement devices. So even the sheriff would need to have the buy in of the city and county to do that. Within the city and county bounds.

Right? Yeah. Right.

Okay. Do you want to say anything more about that? Because it seems to me like really what we're doing is we're enabling cities and counties to do this. That's what this Bill does.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments? So I have a question. The parking enforcement vehicles are operator driven and they have the ability to issue tickets.

Yes.

There's an obvious question there. What's the added benefit of the photograph? And by the way, with regard to transit vehicles, public transit bus drivers are not enforcers. So they would need the capability of taking a picture because they can't get out of the bus and issue a ticket. Sure. But the parking enforcement people can.

So that is just dependent on the staff, the level of staffing, and the ability for them to cover the areas that they want to cover while they're also doing traditional parking enforcement on red curbs or on meters, additional responsibility on them. This is just an additional tool for a city to implement, if it so chooses. And of course, again, as a pilot would report back to the Legislature with the Committee's amendment by 2028, the effectiveness on deterring activity.

Okay, now, you cited increased accidents recently with bicyclists. I think without being redundant as to my comment on the prior item, I would repeat that. I would say that I would suggest that that may be more a function of the abhorrent driving behaviors that at least I've witnessed, and you indicated you have too, since the pandemic.

But on this specific issue, do we have any statistics or information that would suggest to us that there's a significant increase or a significant incident of bicyclists becoming injured trying to avoid a car parked in a bike lane?

Respectfully, I'm going to ask if our testifier from streets for all was able to get up here, he might have more specific data. I can say anecdotally, we witnessed that out there. Not having the data in front of me, I'll see if our. Yeah.

And I would add, I ride a bike a lot, a couple thousand miles a year, and the only way I could be surprised by a car parked in a bike lane is if it happened immediately after coming around a curve. And to suggest that I've got to very quickly decide either to stop the bike or get around suggests that I'm not paying attention to the bike lane ahead. And assuming it's going to be open, which is fine, but a biker never assumes anything.

I certainly agree with that. I don't assume. You can't really assume anything. Yeah. I live on Southern California's first truly complete street in Culvert City was our first pilot program, and there's cars parked in the bike lane every single day. So I don't have empirical evidence on how often these instances are occurring. Just a lot of personal experience about every single day, having to dodge in and out of traffic, trying to get to UCLA or trying to get to. So, yeah, there you go.

And I think, Senator, what we would find from that requirement to report back on this program to the Legislature is hopefully a before and after scenario. Our city is witnessing a reduction in the incidence of violation, and I think it goes beyond.

We see some of the most egregious situations where we literally have done a hard curb, creating a class four bikeway, or even sort of the temporary little flexible bollards that are out there, and literally a car will drive up in there as if it was its own dedicated lane and park there. So it's really about deterring some of the most intense behavior that is, frankly, wiping out the investments that cities are trying to make to make our streets safer.

Okay. There being no other questions or comments, you may close.

Thank you, Senator. I again appreciate the discussion on this Bill and respectfully request your. aye vote.

Do we have a motion moved by Senator Cortez? This is do pass and do pass. And to the Judiciary Committee, please call.

The role Senators Gonzalez. Niello, No. Allan. Archuleta, aye. Becker, aye. Blakespear, aye. Cortese, aye. Dahle. Dodd, aye. Limon, aye. McGuire. Newman, aye. Nguyen, no. Seyarto. Umberg. Wahab. That bills on call.

Alvarez. Next. 436. It.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Thank you very much.

Before we take the next offer, is it okay if we do the consent calendar?

Sure. Let's vote on the consent calendar. Please call the roll

For the consent calendar. It includes file item number one. SDR 59. File item number 2, AB 250. File item number 5, AB 3544. File item number 6, AB 382. File item number 9, AB 466. File item number 10. AB 490. File item number 11, AB 75. File item number 12, AB 971. File item number 13, AB 1017, and file item number 15, AB 1735.

Senators Gonzalez. Niello, aye. Allen. Archuleta, aye. Becker, aye.

Becker, aye. Blakespear, aye. Cortese, aye. Dahle, aye. Dodd, aye. McGuire. Newman, aye. Nguyen, aye. Seyarto, aye. Umberg. Wahab.

That Bill is on call. Next up is item number eight, AB 436 Assembly person Alvares.

Good afternoon senators thank you very much for the opporunity to come before you to talk abour AB 436. Cruising is a historic and important part of culture for many communities throughout California. This bipartisan supported Bill will allow for the historic legacies of cruising to continue for many generations to come. Since the 1950s, car clubs and family Members have converted older vehicles at cars for cruising shows and competitive events.

These uniquely beautiful modified vehicles are also seen in your favorite movies and at community events that hopefully you've all had a chance to see in your community. However, for years, those cruising have done so with the fear of potentially doing so illegally due to bans that have been established throughout the state. Members, those cruising are our fellow teachers, community Members, lawyers, people within our own capital community. That's who I've heard from on this Bill throughout this process.

However, most importantly, they are proud community Members that invest in the community by hosting events, supporting our local small businesses and much more. AB 436 will highlight the role of cruising by creating community expression for love of art and bringing unity. I want to let you know that we have had bipartisan support throughout our house and throughout the communities of California.

I've heard from Members representing all parts of California that their communities are supportive and that they do so because this Lowrider community and the community of people who own these old vehicles invest a lot of time and a lot of resources in this expression of art that they engage in.

We hope that you join us in supporting this so that we can make sure that future generations of California can also enjoy this activity and that the bands are lifted throughout the state so that people can engage in this type of community activity. We have the opportunity today to hear from someone this is a Bill that actually originated in my district. Although there was an effort already happening statewide to undo these bans throughout the state in multiple cities.

And one of the three women who had a chance to meet in one of my maybe first month in office a year ago today, Aida Castaneda is here, and she is with the Executive board of the United Lowrider Coalition, who came to me and talked about this work that was happening throughout the state, even in my own backyard in the City of National City, where, by the way, their ban has been lifted.

In addition to San Jose Salinas and here in Sacramento, this Bill would lift that ban from all cities. And Aida is here to testify. Please come forward.

Good afternoon, Chairman and state Senators. As a lifelong Chican activist, I've been working with the United Lowrider Coalition since January of 2021. As a grassroots coalition, we resurrected the call that repealed the national city's no Cruising ordinance this year. We now find ourselves close to changing state law to proclaim that cruising is not a crime. Our coalition leaders come from multigenerational families in Black and brown neighborhoods throughout Assembly District 80. Our efforts highlight what must be done when government criminalizes our natural flows in our movement.

We understood firsthand that since the prohibition took effect 30 years ago, national, city and statewide leaders clearly and unfairly targeted young and mostly black and brown youth who coasted, meandered, drove or otherwise communed in their cars along their neighborhood streets as an expression of cultural pride. You can be slapped with the criminal complaint for cruising, even if you are a passenger. Violations can be punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both fine or imprisonment.

Politely or not, we have to acknowledge that the criminalization of a valid, longstanding community tradition must not and should not stand in the State of California. Our coalition proactively approached this one example as a community coming together, making legitimate and heartfelt demands and expecting their government to do the right thing through grassroots organizing and artistic expression. We worked long and hard to create better lives for those who share and love culture.

Whether promoting public health during the COVID-19 pandemic or hosting holiday events or car shows, our neighborhood advocacy has played a significant role in making this moment a reality. Some people may misconstrue our agenda as an expression of implied attempt to invalidate legitimate traffic or other laws that should be in the books. This is not so. We do not seek to encourage reckless driving, violation of posted speed limits or generalized criminality. Our legislative agenda does not include purging General and existing traffic enforcement or other laws.

Simply and more importantly, we are demanding that government not have the power to define a multigenerational activity of high cultural value as a crime. Government needs to meet community. Where it is. Where we are today is at the door to eradicate the reign of Prop 187. It is time to cruise towards a more responsible and respectful way for government to regulate and govern in a community that wants to speak for itself and by itself. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right.

Do you have any other witnesses in support,

Madam Chair we do not, but we do have some of the sponsors for technical answers, if those are required.

Okay, great. All right, so we'll move forward with anyone else who would like to come forward in support in room 1200, please come forward.

Good afternoon, chair and Members Dane Hutchings in support on behalf of the City of Santa Rosa. Thank you.

Thank you.

Cool.

Good afternoon. My name is Olivia Fonseca. I'm speaking on behalf of the Sacramento Lowrider Commission, the California Lowrider alliance, the Los Angeles Car alliance and also compadres Club here in Sacramento. We are in support of AB 436. Cruising is not a crime.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support? Okay, see none. And now we'll move on to opposition. We do have California Contract Cities Association and Peace Officers Resource Association in opposition.

Would anyone like to come forward who are from those two groups? Okay, if not, we'll bring anyone else who'd like to come forward in opposition to the Bill. AB 436. Okay, see none. Moderator will move on to the teleconference line. For anyone in support or opposition of AB 436, please.

Thank you. For support or opposition to AB 436, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll go to line 28. One moment, please. Line 30. Go to line 30, please. Go ahead. Line 30. You're open. Please. Go ahead.

Yeah, I was just calling in support of AB 436. I'm calling from Manhattan, California. My name is Jose DeSantos. Thank you.

Now we'll go to line 21. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon. This is Lorraine Quinonez. I am part of the California Lowrider alliance and Los Angeles Lowrider alliance calling in favor of AB 436. Cruising is not a crime. It is part of our culture. Mental health, artistic expression. And it's time that we get the state and local city officials behind us in real support of AB 436 and not criminalizing our culture. Let's support and pass AB 436. Thank you. This is Lorraine out of East LA, Whittier Boulevard.

And we'll go to line 16, please. Line 16, please. Go ahead now.

Hi, I'm Jerry Thompson with cruising culture of Modesto, home of George Lucas, American Graffiti. We are in support of passing this Bill. We are totally against sideshows and street racing. So in support of this Bill, we request that you also enforce, make stronger, stiffer penalties against those, because they constantly, somehow think that we're part of that and we are not. And it's also oppression of used as a form to profile against the Lowrider community unjustly. Thank you.

And we'll go to line 31, please go ahead.

Yes, this is Vicente Kenyon is out of East LA. I'm in total support of AB four, three, six. We should not be criminalizing people for driving classic cars. A lot of people are classic car enthusiasts. You should not be discriminated against because of the car you choose to drive. Also, it brings a lot of fear and doubt within the community about tickets and whatnot. Our resources should be focused on other areas. Please repeal the ordinance and support AB 436.

Thank you. We'll go to line 28, please. Go ahead.

Hello, my name is Eddie Torres, co founder of the East LA Coalition. Born and raised in East Los Angeles. Reside here. We are in opposition of AB four, three, six for the following reasons. And one, it takes away safety of a vehicle by modifying to operate illegally and perform what is known as hopping. That has been known to have vehicle malfunctions that could and has caused injury in the past.

Also, what is considered cruising or the aspect of culture. It can be misleading. In the opinion of the East Law Science Coalition, we cannot mask illegal car stunts. Driving on three wheels, doing donuts in the middle of the street, many lowriders drinking and driving, having hopping contests and creating a crowd of spectators that only want to post media on YouTube. Under the falsehood of Culture, please consider holding this Bill so that persons that are affected and oppose this Bill can be heard. Many people I have heard in opposition, but are not.

Sorry, we just want to limit discussion on. We just need the name, organization and just a quick why you oppose, but we'll take that as opposition. And I thank you very much for your comments. So we'll move to the next comment.

Okay, Madam Chair. No further comments in queue at this time.

Okay, thank you so much for everyone who called in to support or oppose this Bill. We'll take it back for any questions from Members. Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, just a quick question on this there's been a lot of talk about the style of car, with all due respect, with not profiling cars here, but this is about cruising more than it is about what kind of car you have to lowrider or what kind of car it does or what does or doesn't do. I didn't see that. Is that in the language? Yeah. So this Bill, actually, there's two sections of the vehicle code that this Bill would address.

One is on the cruising, the authorization that the state has given to locals to ban cruising. And two is the actual, and it's in item number five in your analysis, from your staff, from this Committee, which has, I'll just read, prohibits the operation of a vehicle that's been modified in a particular way. It's a paragraph long, so I won't read it all. But those are the two sections of the vehicle code which this is seeking to repeal. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.

The second question is to local control, because some of us who have come out of local government, this is statewide, we don't have a ban, but we have mainly a local ban right now. That's why there's a need. What's the need for a statewide Bill?

So the state initiated the authority to allow cities to ban this in the 1980s when this section of the vehicle code was added, and that was done so, and you heard some of that testimony, certainly from Aida Castaneda, but from others who have testified on this, that really allowed for a particular segment of our community who happen to be those who drive these vehicles and who engage in this activity, to then be legally pulled over by law enforcement.

And that only came into be about 30 years ago. And so this now repeals that. That was added in that section of the vehicle code in addition to the modified vehicles, those two sections. Thank you for the clarification. I think that's very helpful. I'm happy to know that my 67 Camaro will be eligible to be able to cruise. And so when it's time, I'd like to move the Bill.

All right, thank you. And you have a 67 Camaro. Wonderful. Okay, Rosalind. Go, Roslyn. Senator Seyarto.

Okay. Thank you for bringing your Bill and also talking about the good parts of the cruising world, because there is. There is a culture there. Some of that culture is really cool, to be honest. And when you see some of the modified vehicles and things out there, that's great. It's interesting that the speaker up there mentioned 30 years ago when the band came about, and so 40 years ago, I can tell you why the band came about.

We had a lot of cruising, not just on Whittier Boulevard, but through Crenshaw Boulevard and some of those areas. And I was a paramedic at the time, and we had an inordinate amount of public safety issues. A lot of them resulted in deaths, not from car accidents, but from altercations of people that are engaged in the cruising world that probably weren't the good citizens that were there just to show off their cars.

But it brought together a lot of people, and that was before we had Facebook. That's before we had this mass communication that we have now. Cities have to be able to deal with their public safety concerns. And my fear with the way this Bill is, is that you're taking it completely out of the city's control and telling them, hey, you're only left to enforce what happens there.

It is really hard to enforce what happens in a region or an area when you've made the call out on social media that you're having cruise night and there's no planning, there's no streets blocked off. Stores don't know that that's what's happening that night or that afternoon. It can go well into the evening and be disruptive for neighborhoods. And so those things have to be addressed.

There are ways for communities to do this in a safe manner, and that's something that those communities need to be working with, their groups that want to engage in this. We have the Rod run down in Myriad and Temecula, but it is done with permitting. So we know what's going on. We notify the people that are around there.

The businesses and the homeowners all know that they're having this is Rod run weekend and people can show off their cars and they kind of cruise around, but it's an environment that's controlled and it works for our area. I can't apply what we do in our area to other areas where I used to work. I used to work in those communities, those black and Brown communities. They had to do something to stop the mayhem. And that's why this came about.

They can choose to reengage in this cruising community. And the cruising community, if they don't like what their public officials are doing locally, they can go run against them. They can get them out of office and put somebody who will listen and do what they want to do. But that's a public process at the local level to do this at the state level and take that away from everybody. I fear that we're going to go right back to what we were doing before.

And we'll have these uncontrolled mobs of people that some people in those things become the bad actors, and we won't be able to control that. I've seen innocent kids get innocent 16 year old. I remember specifically, all he did was stop to call his grandmother to tell her he was coming over, and he got shot dead right off the boulevard. For me. I was like, you know what? That's enough of this.

We have to have a question. I just want to make sure that you have a question directed. You know what?

There wasn't really a question. My question was really, how are cities supposed to control this if you take away their ability to make a program that works for their area? How are they supposed to control this if this says people can cruise whether you have an ordinance or not? But other people have made comments also, and I expect to be able to. Thank you. You are so the question.

To respond to the question, there are still rules and laws in the books, and local jurisdictions have full control to make sure that those rules are followed. I think that to over generalize that, and particularly the comment that people are bringing weapons to these gatherings, I think is a little bit of an insult to those who engage in this community, in the Lowrider community, because these are families we're talking about. These are professionals.

These are people who spent a lot of money and time in making sure that their vehicles are the best that they can be to show off and to have people enjoy watching them. So perhaps there was some crowds in the 80s when these laws came to be. That's not what this community is today. And this law is reflective of the changes that have happened with this community.

And communities are like in the case of National City, and I know in other cities that are removing the bans, are finding ways so that these events can happen in collaboration, as you suggest should happen. And that's what we expect. And people who are part of this movement in the Lowrider community are engaging in that way. And so the rules are made in effect. You cannot break the laws, other laws. You just can't be considered essentially a criminal if you engage in cruising. That's all this Bill does.

And just to clarify, I was very specific about, there are some people that show up to these events that create the problems and make it dangerous for everybody else who are doing just like you said, who are families, just like you said. And that's the problem that we have controlling, or we had controlling back then. And our policing isn't any more, we don't have that ability to control now. Very well.

That's my concern is I need to be assured that local agencies have the control not just of the traffic laws that exist and things, but the ability to control an event just like we control any other event. That's a large gathering of people in a community, because that's what these are. These are large gatherings. How do they do that? How do they do the crowd control for a large gathering of people?

So I also come from local government, and I know that in our city, if you are going to be doing an organized event like that, there are rules. You are required to submit permits. And if you are organizing an event like that, that still remains the authority of local governments. This does not take that authority away, that if you are organizing an event of that scale and that magnitude and in that way, you're likely required to do that.

This Bill says nothing about people no longer need any permits to engage in that type of activity that you're referring to, which is more of organized activity.

But if it's an unorganized one, what happens if it's an unorganized activity of vehicles coming together or people coming together to do something? It's unorganized.

That would be like any other, regardless of this Bill, any other event that would not have permitting, local authorities would be able to enforce that. This Bill does not, from my understanding, does not take that authority away from local. We'll move on to Senator Nguyen, and then we've got Senator Dodd,

Just a comment. I'm a big supporter of allowing, making sure local government has the authority, and I know we can debate back and forth on whether they do, whether they don't. My concern is know the less they have control over on whether it's permitting or non permitting, because I have the entire coast of Orange County. Not that this is a problem for us, but it's just an encouragement where we have lots of main streets, where lots know businesses, lots of homes as well.

So I won't be supporting this today because I just think that local government should have the authority on whether they allow this type of activities or not within their cities and jurisdictions.

And perhaps in the next Committee, which is governed finance, which is also referred to, you can clarify some of those in that appropriate Committee. Senator Dodd.

I can't even believe I'm bringing this up right now because I don't really like what local governments kind of overstep. We've got my communities where they're saying you can't even do a drive through restaurant anymore because of emissions. We've got right now where they're not doing fireworks because of emissions. It seems really kind of weird to me that this topic is coming up right now when we've got emissions problems. What do you have to say to that?

Because would this allow local governments to not have cruising in my view of that night? Believe me, I did it when I was a kid. But what do you say to that?

So the Bill makes two changes to the vehicle code. One, it no longer allows cities to ban cruising in the State of California. And two, it no longer criminalizes you modifying your vehicle as it relates to events or other laws that are existing and are on the books.

None of that gets touched by the Bill. It's exclusively related to the activity of vehicles that happen to be these old vehicles. Have you had any other through the chair?

Have you had any other concerns about climate and emissions that derived from cruising?

No, I have not. These are not electric vehicles. They're not electric vehicles. That's correct. zero, my God. They could switch their engines, I assume. California. California.

They can be modified into electric vehicles.

Absolutely. Okay. Good question. Thank you, Senator Dodd.

Sure.

Senator Cortese, I support the Bill and I appreciate you bringing it forward. We had an experience in Cinco De Mayo down in San Jose just this past year where the enforcement, and I want to say this a little bit in the context of the last question as well, where the enforcement was targeted at neighborhoods, specific neighborhoods with high concentrations of Hispanic population blocking Caltrans itself.

Our Caltrans State of California was used to block off interchanges, disallowing folks to come out of those neighborhoods to cruise on that day, and then meanwhile, leaving open reciprocal interchanges that were right across the highway, that were coming from areas with white populations, frankly, that were not Hispanic census tracks or areas. I like to think that your Bill helps to put an end to that kind of targeted discriminatory action.

And I just want to say, as to the last question, I'm all for anything that needs to be done in terms of traffic control, if it's evenly applied, if you have a holiday or something like that and you want to close off all roads and have shelter in place, if that's what needs to be done for public safety, then let's hear about it. If we need to stop emissions, then stop everyone from driving on that day.

But when we come in and we target a particular community, like you're trying to assist with this Bill and say it's just that community that doesn't get to congregate it's just that community that doesn't get to cruise. And if you're going to a car show in Reno, you can do a caravan. If you're doing toys for tots and you got a bunch of old cars, you're allowed to cruise down the street and load up those cars. And many of us support those activities.

But why is it that the same basic activity, getting in a car and driving single file down the road, that happens to be dominated by a particular culture, a particular ethnicity, or a particular race, is targeted in this way? So I do think it should be banned, but that's my basis for supporting it.

I'm not saying that's the basis in your Bill or that was your idea, but my idea is that the First Amendment needs to be applied evenly across populations, not discriminately based on ethnicity or other attributes. Let's face it. I mean, the bottom line is cruising isn't one to one lined up with ethnicity on paper or in any kind of a legal document or local ordinances. But the fact of the matter is, it is. It's a Latino cultural tradition. It is in my area, at least. So I support the Bill. I'd be happy to move it. Thank you.

All right, Assembly Member, I just also want to say thank you for bringing this forward. I know this is certainly long overdue. I know you've been working on this for some time, and my apologies, Senator Archuleta. Everyone's got something to say on this.

Well, I wasn't going to say much, but I guess I've got to. I'm hoping you're working to make some amendments because you understand the concern. All of us love our classic cars families. I've got a 196, 442 that I love, and my wife and I worked hard on it for the last three years to get it look original. And I feel very proud cruising down Whittier Boulevard. But I know when to put it away and go about my life and not disrupt anyone.

And I think that most of the people that do the cruising put their cars away, get back to their families, and try and educate their children to thrive and grow in the communities and make the communities better. But I'm concerned about the fact that there's so many businesses that are concerned about the gatherings.

We've heard about that, that I'm hoping that you're working with the various merchants associations, with agencies that we're all concerned about to modify it some way, that it's once a month, every other week sometimes, so the community can be ready. We heard about housing. We heard about Merchants Associations and whatever. Are you working on that to help the rest of the community appreciate what you do?

And when I say appreciate, I really sincerely mean that some of these cars, you got 50, 60, $70,000 worth of work years upon years, generation after generation, with the same car handed down from 1950, 60 and now into the year 2023, where the great grandkids are working on them. And I see the pride, there's no doubt. But you've got to be part of the community, and the way to do that is to work with the community.

So please tell me that there's going to be some amendments to work with them, and if you can, then I'll go ahead and support it.

Thank you. And I think you just really outlined exactly why we're trying to do this. It's people from all walks of lives that have these vehicles. And while, yes, historically it was used as a way to target particularly black and brown communities in the 1980s, really today it's an art form more than anything else.

And you've laid out it's expensive, it's not an inexpensive activity. And I think that's important to recognize because it's people literally from all walks of life, from all communities in California, as far as making sure we will do whatever needs to be reaffirmed, that law enforcement continues to have authority over mean. The Bill is silent on that because we don't touch that at all. But if whatever needs to be to be reiterated, that control remains. This Bill does nothing to change that.

If someone's going to put together an organized type of activity, they have to go through processes. We all do that in our local cities. And so we'll look into what needs to be done, if anything, on that front. I believe the laws that are in place allow for that. But if something needs to be reemphasized, we will definitely look at that.

And then let me close, if I may, Madam Chair, that the associations that we're talking about, they're going to have to take on that responsibility of reaching out to everyone in the communities, whether it's the school boards, city councils, everyone, to say that it is an art form. We are trying to preserve our automobiles and our culture and everything else.

And I think it has to come together because there's nothing greater than a city that's united with their children and their seniors, their veterans, and certainly the love of automobiles. So please, I'll be looking forward to those amendments. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. I think we've ended all questions, so I just again, will reiterate, my thanks to you for bringing this forward. I know this is long overdue. As mentioned and stated clearly in the analysis, it was really great to learn about the history and why. Now you see folks in all, like you mentioned, all walks of life, all ethnicities, really participating in these incredible cruising events, but also just being able to go out there on a Sunday and cruise and enjoy a nice day.

And I think you're exactly correct. We have to eliminate this stigma that this community has, that somehow they're mayhem or they're a mob of some sort. I think that's highly offensive, quite frankly. And this is exactly what your Bill tries to do, is to eliminate that stigma, to start saying that this is a community that should not be targeted in this way. And so with that, I say thank you. You've got a lot of good support here on the dyess, and we'll ask the secretary to please call the role. And would you like to close?

Thank you. I appreciate all the feedback. Thank you very much. I respectfully ask for your support, and aye vote.

This is file item number eight with the motion. Do we have a motion? Great. Do pass and re refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance. Senators Gonzalez. Aye. Niello. Allen. Archuleta, aye. Becker. Blakespear. Cortese, aye. Dahle, aye. Dodd, aye. Limon, aye. McGuire. Newman, aye Nguyen, no. Seyarto. Umberg. Wahob.

Okay, we'll leave the Bill on call. Thank you so much. All right, Assembly Member Lowenthal, on behalf of Assemblymember Cervantes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 832 on behalf of my colleague Sabrina Cervantes. This is a simple bill that is a follow up to Assembly Member Cervantes's AB 179 from 2017. That bill was approved by this very Committee and signed into law by Governor Brown. AB 179 urged the Governor to, quote, make every effort to ensure that individuals with professional experience working in environmental justice are represented amongst the voting membership of the California Transportation Commission.

While Governor Newsom has heeded this call with the CTC appointments, there is no guarantee that future governors will follow his example, as existing law does not impose an explicit requirement on future governors to do so. AB 832 will provide this guarantee by requiring the governor to appoint at least one individual with professional experience in environmental justice as a voting member of the California Transportation Commission.

By doing so, this bill will merely upgrade the, quote, make every effort, suggested language in the existing law into a, quote, shall requirement. Why is it important to ensure environmental justice perspectives on the CTC? Well, according to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, as of 2021, 9.6 million Californians, or 24.3% of the state's population, live in census tracts that are designated as disadvantaged communities disproportionately affected by pollution.

It is vital that the CTC continues to have the perspectives of these disadvantaged communities when making important transportation policy decisions. AB 832 will make that hope a reality regardless of who occupies the governor's office. This move would not be unprecedented elsewhere in state government. AB 832 would merely align the CTC with the Air Resources Board and the California Coastal Commission in guaranteeing environmental justice representation amongst its voting members. Senators, for these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on Assembly Bill 832.

Thank you, Assembly Member Lowenthal. And do you have anyone who'd like to be a key witness?

There are no witnesses here. If there are questions by the Committee, we have staff of Assembly Member Cervantes here to answer.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay. And no opposition. So we'll ask anyone who'd like to support or oppose this bill, please come forward here in Room 1200.

Good afternoon. Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support or opposition? Okay, seeing none. Moderator will move to you for anyone who would like to testify in support or opposition of AB for 832.

Thank you. For support or opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll go to line 18. Please go ahead. Line 18.

And line 18, you're open. No response. We go to line 19. On line 19. Go ahead.

Hello.

Hello. Would you like to support or oppose AB 832?

I was line 18. I'm not sure if you guys can hear me.

Yes, we can hear you. Are you in support or opposition of AB 832?

Yes. Gabriela Facio calling on behalf of the Sierra Club California in support of AB 832. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next comment, please.

Okay, Madam Chair. No further questions or comments.

Okay, thank you. Moderator. We'll take it back for any questions or comments from Senators, Members. Okay, can we entertain a motion?

Move it.

Okay. Move the bill. Would you like to close, Assembly Member?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Archuleta. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number seven with a motion do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Niello? Allen? Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Becker? Becker, aye. Blakespear? Blakespear, aye. Cortese? Cortese, aye. Dahle? Dahle, no. Dodd? Aye. Dodd, aye. Limon? Limon, aye. McGuire? Newman? Newman, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, no. Seyarto? Seyarto, no. Umberg? Wahab? Nine to three.

Okay, nine to three. But we'll leave the bill on call. Thank you, Assemblymember. All right, next, our final bill for today, Assemblymember Irwin. We've got file item 14, AB 1349. Welcome.

Thank you very much, Senators and madam chair. I just want to let you know about my day at Burbank. Four weeks ago, I drove up in my electric vehicle, and I realized on Thursday that I was actually going to have to go to an event. So I drove to the charger, and I downloaded the app and started to try to pay with the app with a credit card. I was futzing around for about 15 minutes and finally called the helpline.

And after 10 minutes, they told me, oh, sorry, the charger is down. Yesterday, went to Burbank, thought, well, I could really use an extra charge before I get on the plane, and went through the same process and found out that that charger is down. And let me remind everybody, those chargers are all paid for. A significant portion of those chargers are paid with taxpayer dollars. California leads the nation in its investments and adoption of electric vehicles.

With the state now requiring 100% of new cars and light trucks sold, they must be zero emission by 2035. Consumer buy-in is the only way that we're going to reach these goals. However, these same consumers are telling us that they are unhappy with their charging application options. Without real-time, reliable data on EV charging stations, the state is in jeopardy of significantly delaying the transition to EVs.

How will people who live in multi-family housing be able to charge these vehicles if we do not make EV charging as easy to consumers as it is to find a gas station? Members, the federal government is investing $5 billion in taxpayer dollars to the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program, or NEVI, to accelerate the build-out of EV chargers. As such, Californians are counting on us to make sure we are attaining a level of driver satisfaction and confidence that we need to keep EVs on the road.

AB 1349 will align with the federal NEVI reporting requirements that companies already have to comply with. Furthermore, AB 1349 will raise the bar for reporting requirements to ensure that charging companies are reporting their pricing structure, their lifetime availability, the operation status of their charging machines, and a timestamp. By making this information available, all market participants and researchers will be able to have the data to build comprehensive applications that include every charger that takes taxpayer dollars. Kevin Costner said, "Build it and they will come."

And that worked for the field of dreams, but it is not going to work for EV charging infrastructure. Yes, it is important to build EV charging stations. Equally important is to make sure that EV drivers know how to locate these chargers and know whether they are in use and in operation. And I would like to address the question of privacy., as co-chair of the Assembly's Technology and Innovation Caucus and a member of the Assembly Privacy Committee, I take privacy concerns very seriously.

There has been some mention of proprietary information, and that information was also brought up to the Federal Highway Administration, while they were considering the Nevi ruling, and the federal government did decide that consumer access and interest outweighs any proprietary concerns. With me today in support is Jennifer Fearing to share her electric vehicle experience.

Thank you, Assemblymember Irwin. Jennifer Fearing, I want to clarify that today I am here as a California consumer and EV driver. I don't have a client on this. The Assemblywoman just asked me to share a recent experience. Like most people, 90% of our family driving with our 2019 Bolt is local, or well, within the range that allows us to charge exclusively at home. We don't have a lot of experience with away from home chargers and have had some close calls.

But in early February, I attempted to drive from Sacramento to Los Angeles along I-5 and back in our 2019 Chevy Bolt. One thing I did learn is that the bolt's battery isn't designed to charge as quickly as superchargers can charge. So that's on me. I will not be complaining about the time it took me, but here is a related experience that we had.

We used the website abetterrouteplanner.com as it's the only cross-cutting tool we found to enter an entire trip in and get recommendations based on your vehicle type about where to start and where to stop and what chargers are available. We made it to Santa Nella for charging stop number one. Charge point station two had a broken nozzle, but station one connected and I charged the car. We pulled into Lost Hills with 80 miles of range left at the Electrify America charges, number one and number two, would not charge.

I called the helpline on my phone. Charger number three finally got up and running after 30 minutes on the phone and many attempts. The operator at one point told me that I'd probably need to hold the charger at a certain angle for the entire charging session to make it work. Thankfully, it did not require that.

I probably could have made it the rest of the way, but I got spooked in the grapevine having only 90 miles of range, but 68 miles to Glendale. So we pulled into the Tejon Ranch rest stop, and I'm very happy to report that the free Caltrans Charger worked seamlessly on the first try. It wasn't a fast charger, but it worked reliably as promised.

On the drive home, the 10 new Electrify America charger stations at Kettleman City, two of which I tried with no luck, were down for security reasons and had been for more than 48 hours, according to the operator when I called for help. Mysteriously, two people were charging there anyway. There wasn't anything on their website or app indicating any of this, and the screens themselves just said "plug in". The operator suggested I find another charging location. Using my phone. I found another charger a half mile away, it wouldn't just take my credit card, so I had to create another account with a new app online from my phone.

But I was able to charge. I don't know what I'd do if I didn't, at that moment, have 3G service and was positioned to download an entirely new app. For the last stop, the first charger we tried at the Santa Nella Travel America location worked.

I've rented a Tesla before, and so I've experienced the seamlessness of that car software being aligned with the charger's availability and functionality. So it is definitely feeling like all non-Tesla EV drivers are massively disadvantaged and are trying to rely on a patchwork of apps, websites, crowdsourcing on Twitter and a lack of information. It's not just dangerous because folks can get stranded, but because it's tempting to be looking up more information while driving.

I am a hardcore environmentalist, as you know, and I will tolerate more risk and put up with quite a bit of inconvenience for things I believe in, but it's very hard to recommend this to others. I appreciate what Assemblymember Irwin is trying to do to draw attention to this, and thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support of AB 1349? Okay, see? None. All right, we'll move on to opposition. I think you have a few folks that are in opposition, so if you can please come forward for your testimony.

Good afternoon chair and members. Reed Addis, on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, in opposition unless amended today. The state has a number of challenges when it comes to scaling up our electric vehicle charging infrastructure. We have to meet our climate goals. We have to make sure it's affordable. We also have to make sure that there's a nice and seamless user experience.

To meet those challenges, we clearly have been partnering with the state of California and the federal government to place more chargers, to make sure those chargers are conveniently located, to make sure that they are affordable. But also, very importantly, into the Assemblymembers' interest, trying to make sure that that user experience is as seamless as possible. We have a ways to go on all of those fronts. This last point, making it user friendly.

We know the Assemblymember's intent is to fix the issue, but it's unclear that this bill is actually doing what she's intending. We understand you can't just get off the highway like you can with a gas station. It does require some planning when you're taking a longer trip. The primary way users solve that problem is through an app. There's approximately 10 applications out there that you can use to help you make that guide your trip, make your plans. We're not saying they're perfect.

They're not all integrated with your vehicle. There's improvements that can be made. However, the outcome of the policy and the words in print today actually are not going to solve those problems. You're not going to get one app to rule them all. In fact, we believe you're going to get many, many more apps. There's no conditions in the bill that suggest those apps need to be better. There's nothing that says it controls how those companies are going to use that data.

And ultimately, there's nothing in here that says if there's any price controls or other information or other controls on how the app developers need to use that information. For those reasons, we're opposed today we've been trying to work with the Assemblymember on a different approach. We don't think the words in print today get her there. But we are hopeful that maybe in working with the CEC, we can come up with a plan to resolve these issues as it relates to the user experience. Thank you very much.

Thank you Mr. Addis. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in opposition?

Thank you, Chair Gonzalez and committee, I'm Norman Hajjar. For over a decade, I've been one of the senior leaders at PlugShare, and I'm also the founder and managing director of PlugShare Research, and one of North America's largest EV driver opinion and consulting practices. PlugShare is the world's favorite EV driver app. We have over 2.3 million users in the US alone.

We nourish drivers with the data that they need to make informed decisions on where to charge in public and where to get the best charging experiences. Our app features plug scores, an industry's standard crowdsourced metric that gives drivers an unvarnished look at charging location, reliability and quality. Plug scores are also widely used by charging companies themselves to monitor the quality of the customer experience. I'm here today to respectfully oppose the bill on two fronts. First of all, at the driver level, we see it as redundant.

The reason that PlugShare became such a ubiquitous and trusted fixture in the EV community is that we already provide drivers with the same data contemplated in the bill, including real-time information that shows whether an individual station is occupied or available for use. Moreover, even without this bill, there's nothing stopping other firms from supplying drivers with the exact same data that we have today.

And numerous have, including Apple and Google. So secondly, the concern is, and it's a deep concern, that there can be damage to EV charging companies that would result by forcing them to disclose their sensitive, network wide site utilization data in a format that could be easily ingested by competitors. We see this as inherently anticompetitive, and it risks undermining the nascent EV charging industry at the exact moment it most needs to blossom, and that's ultimately bad for drivers, and that's the opposite of what PlugShare stands for.

To be clear, it's in our DNA to promote data access and transparency in a way that grows the EV market. I've dedicated the last decade of my life to that. But we believe the bill's mandates are redundant and have dangerous, unintended anti-competitive consequences. And we respectfully oppose it. That is my comment for today. I'm happy to follow up with any questions, if there are any.

Thank you for your comments. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in opposition?

Madam chair, Members of the Committee, Mark Aprea, on behalf of ChargePoint; we want to echo the comments made by Reed Addis with the EV Charging Association.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in Room 1200? Okay, see none. We'll move on moderator to the teleconference line. For anyone who'd like to support or oppose AB 1349, please.

Thank you, madam chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero at this time. Press one, then zero. Madam chair, it appears that we have. No one who wishes to speak.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll take this back for questions for members. Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. Well, thank you for the bill, and I appreciate hearing the testimony. As somebody who owns a Tesla, I frequently have driven to Northern California from my home in San Diego and have never had a problem because the information is provided in the car where we can charge and how many stations are open. And so hearing these experiences, it shows that there is a real problem.

And so I wanted to just ask the author, could you just address directly the question of whether these series of experiences that were described, which are clearly not creating a seamless user experience. So it's clearly a problem, but is it really a lack of data? And will your bill be able to, when we're providing third party software developers the opportunity to have more apps or more websites, will that address the issue of so many of these charging stations being down or you can't use your credit car? You don't know where they are.

It does seem like this is a problem that definitely needs a solution. But I just wanted to really understand from you how you think that this third party software developer specific focus will get at that problem.

Certainly, and you obviously heard from the charging companies that they like the status quo. And for us, the status quo. I mean, for a lot of EV users that are not driving Tesla's, the status quo is not good enough. Remember, for NEVI, there is already a very long list of requirements that all these EV charging companies are required to provide, but they are not providing live data on whether the stations are actually functioning or not.

And a lot of Ms. Fearing's stories are about the lack of information there. So we want to provide some additional data points that any software developer can utilize. And we think the market will eventually get to the right solution, that you will end up with an app where an app that shows all sorts of different stations and whether those charging stations are up and working or not, and actually what the timestamp is.

So whether that data has been updated recently or three weeks ago, which is another issue that we hear a lot about. So I think the market will really find the right app. There was a mention of, oh, we like the solution better to have the CEC collect the data and then have the government develop an app. We know how it works with the government developing an app. And frankly, when we have a 2035 deadline, we don't have time for that.

We really want the best market solution, and we are already starting to hear about some really exciting solutions. But these apps need to be able to tell the users whether the charging stations are up or not.

Thank you for your answer. That does address my question. Thank you.

Thank you; thank you. Senator Becker.

Thank you. First of all, sorry for both of your experiences you've gone through with here. Just first, a question on the Ting Bill from a few years ago with the CEC, are they developing a plan of uptime? And that's what they're supposed to be doing. As I understand after the bill

They are not developing currently an app.

Not an app, and I agree with you, that's probably not the answer, but an uptime reporting program or standards. The Ting Bill, I was excited about the time, says "if you receive state incentives for charging infrastructure, you have to report uptime to the city."

I am not aware of the status of that. What we did is we looked at what is in existence already, and that's the federal requirements, the NEVI requirements that are already required for any charging station that takes federal money.

So that data is already being uploaded, and we're just asking for a few additional data points so that even these small charging companies can be listed on bigger apps so we can drive traffic to them, to drive our EVs to the smaller charging stations to make sure that they survive also.

Okay, good. Well, I do want to look into the Ting Bill because I think that was sort of the intent of it. But I do appreciate what you're trying to do here today. I may stay off today. I'm looking at whether the solution here is actually going to propose here is going to solve the problem versus the concerns that have been raised. But I look forward to continuing discussions.

Okay, Senator Newman.

Thank you, madam chair. So I guess to start, I have a question for the opposition. So the gentleman from PlugShare. I don't see him.

He's here.

He's here. And just to give us a little more insight, how would wider access to charger locations and related data adversely affect the competitive position of a player in this market?

The key here is that the bill contemplates having free access to each charging company's real-time charging information. This is equivalent to playing a poker game with your hand outward. In other words, any competitor who wanted to see what you were doing as the charging company would be able to look at when people were charging at your location. Moreover, with very little reverse engineering, they could figure out your entire revenue stream. This isn't any competitive problem. This is a time when we need this the least.

Okay. The charging companies are desperately trying right now to improve the reliability of their charging locations. No question about that. And they're behind. We agree. And Ting is a solution for it, as you mentioned. But taking and exposing the internal business practices of each and every one of these organizations is not the right answer. This isn't the way to do this. This is actually what--

So, thank you. I guess I might make a distinction, as I'm sure the author might, between exposing a business practice and simply giving real-time data to which stations are operational and where--so, thank you.

If I could make one comment.

Okay.

And that's it. PlugShare does provide real-time information for availability of locations. What we don't do is provide it in a format that can be ingested by a competitor and easily create the analysis.

And so without compromising your proprietary tickets, do you do that by crowdsourcing information or do you have direct access?

No, we get it directly from the ChargePoint operators themselves.

So you've negotiated relationships with charge companies.

That's correct.

Okay. And you have how many users?

2.3 million in the United States.

How many in California?

I don't have the answer in front of me, but it'd be proportional. It'd be proportional.

My colleague just told me you would tell me, but you'd have to kill me.

I wish I didn't have that.

Okay. So, thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. To the author, I drive a hydrogen car. I have a similar problem. I'm tempted to bore everybody with my stories about how challenging it is, but one of the challenges is real-time information about where the energy is available. And I also have an electric car in my house. And so I appreciate what you're trying to do. You know, again, I have great admiration for the companies that built businesses around this. I know it's a challenging business model.

Still is trying to figure out how to fully monetize it. But for people who drive electric cars, it's a chronic problem. Right. And to be clear, you're not trying to create one app, you're trying to get enough data out in the world. So we have good apps, plural, is that correct?

Yes. The market will determine what the app is that people feel most comfortable using. And I do want to remind you, this is a company that has taken federal and state money. All these companies are taking taxpayer dollars. And if they think we are going to build a whole electric infrastructure with all these different silos, that's a big mistake. We really need everything to work together if we want to get to our goals.

We need to make sure that it's a very smooth user experience, and we're the early adopters, but we need everybody to find that this is, as I've mentioned before, as easy as going to a gas station.

So taking seriously the concerns of different participants about their proprietary positions, I'm sure you're open to figuring out how to sort of handle this data in such a way that you do the least harm to those position, is that correct?

Certainly, we are happy to continue these conversations, but I'll repeat also the vast majority of this information, they are already required to report to the federal government, and that's open for free to any third party software developer. So we're just adding a couple of additional data points.

And lastly, with respect to the Ting Bill, but to that broader question about uptime. Uptime is sort of the aggregated information about performance, right? But you're trying to get it something different, as I understand it, which is "I need energy now. Where can I go now? What's a dependable source for the data to do that?" Is that correct?

Correct.

All right, well, thank you. Thank you, madam chair.

All right, thank you so much. I, too, want to say thank you for bringing this forward. I think at first it was a little complex as to what the goal was, but knowing myself, I mean, I have an electric vehicle, too, and it is such a pain sometimes being, and I'm not on a Tesla, or now Ford is going to be in that framework as well as GM, which is great. I'm not on those networks.

So it is very cumbersome to figure out where the heck to get an electric charge, a charge that, again, when you go to the supermarket or wherever, that it's not going to be down. And I've seen where in some cases, my local supermarket, where out of 10 of them, nine of them were down. And I did not expect any of that. And everyone's just vying for that one that is up.

And I know you'll continue to work with the opposition, and we've talked about that, and I thank the opposition for coming forward on this. And I think we do have a lot of work to do in that there is a need for a streamlined approach. This is why the Tesla framework has worked. I mean, don't agree with Tesla on everything, but I think that it has worked. Ford is again getting on that framework, GM getting on that framework.

It's becoming more known that electric vehicle users want something that makes sense for them. And as you pointed out towards the end of your comments, is that we are the early adopters. We are the techies. Imagine for all of our communities that are not yet in electric vehicles that really want to feel like when they get in that vehicle, it's going to be super easy for them to understand and navigate. So thank you for bringing up that issue of equity, and we'll entertain a motion from. Okay, Senator Blakespear, thank you. Would you like to close?

Members, let's do better for our constituents and for our environment and for ourselves. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number 14 with the motion do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications. [Roll Call]

Bill has seven votes. We'll leave it on call. Thank you, Assemblymember. Okay, we're going to lift the calls. Start from the top with the consent calendar, please. Madam Secretary, please call the role.

To adopt the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Okay, consent calendar looks like it is adopted. I don't think we're waiting for anyone else at this time. Okay, we're waiting for Senator Umberg. Okay, the Bill has 13. I'm sorry, the consent calendar has 13 votes so far. We'll leave that on call. Next, we'll go on to file item three, AB 251 Ward.

The motion is do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] Okay.

Bill has eight. We'll leave that on call. File item four, AB 361. Assembly Member Ward.

The motion is do pass as amended and reaffirmed to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Okay, nine to two, we'll leave the Bill on call. File item seven, AB 832 Cervantes.

The motion is due, passed, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations, with the chair voting Aye. Senators Niello? No. Niello. No. Alan Mcguire. Mcguire. Aye. Umberg, Wahob.

Okay, the Bill has nine. Believe that. On call file item eight, AB 436, Alvarez.

The motion is due, passed, and we refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance, with the chair voting I, [Roll Call]

The Bill has 10 votes. We'll leave that on call. File item 14, AB 1349.

Assemblymember Irwin the motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications. With the chair voting aye, [Roll Call]

Okay, the Bill has 11 votes. We'll leave that on call. All right, I think we're waiting on a couple more Members. We'll take a short recess and we'll reconvene very soon. I'm sorry, we have one other Member here, Senator Allen. So we'll run through for you. Just for you, Senator. Consent. We'll start with the consent calendar for.

Senator Allen to adopt the consent calendar. [Roll Call]. 14.

Thank you. File item three, AB 251 Ward the motion is to be passed and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations, Chair. Voting aye by chair voting no. [Roll Call]. Yeah, nine to four.

Okay, nine to four. We'll leave the Bill on call. File item four, AB 361. Assembly Member Ward the motion is due.

Pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary, with the chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]. 10 to two.

Bill has 10. We'll leave that on call. File item seven, AB 832 Cervantes.

The motion is due pass for the Committee on Appropriations Chair voting Aye. Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]. Yeah, 10 to 310 to four.

Okay, 10 to four. We'll leave the Bill on call. File item eight, AB 436. Assembly Member Alvarez.

The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance, with the chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. 11 to.

111 to one, will leave the Bill on call. File item 14, AB 1349.

Assemblymember Erwin the motion is due, passed, and referred to the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications, with the chair voting Aye. [Roll Call].

Okay, 70 will leave the Bill on call.

As you can imagine, it really spicy is right. It drove out a lot of folks. Yeah, that drives out of the lunatics on my side. I'd hate. Yeah, I would hate to be on a Committee like that. That would make me crazy. Yeah. So that's the problem. They're both.

Sucks being a partner.

It's hard because, you know, a lot of my colleagues, they're just.

No problem. Well, we've got another Member. We're not sure if she'll be here yet. Assembly I'm sorry, Senator Wahab.

I'm sorry.

How much more time? Well, that was supposed to last an hour.

The rest of Jen is not that bad, though. Shouldn't be that bad.

Senator Gonzalez misses that. She's not on judiciary.

I do miss it very much. Okay, we'll start from the top. Senator Umberg, we've got the consent calendar.

Sorry, Senator. Alex, can I have you on the consent calendar one more time? I'm sorry. That's for him. I'm sorry. You can leave. Sorry about that.

We got him.

Okay.

Yes.

So it's off the consent calendar, with the chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye, Senator Umberg? Aye. Umberg. Aye. Wahab, that's 15.

We'll leave that on call. File item AB 251.

Ward, the motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Newman, Umberg, aye. Umberg, aye. Wahab.

10 to 410 to four. We'll leave the Bill on call. File item four, AB 361.

Ward, the motion is do pass, as amended, and rerefer to the Committee on Judiciary, with the chair voting aye, Vice Chair voting no, Senators Dallyrto? Umberg, aye. Umberg, aye.

Wahob, that's 11 to 211 to two. Leave the Bill on call. File item seven, AB 832. Cervantes.

The motion is due. Pass and refer to the Committee on Appropriations, with the chair voting aye, Vice Chair voting no. Senators Umberg, is this AB 832?

Yes.

Umberg. Aye. Wahab 114 will leave.

The Bill on call. File item eight, AB 436. Alvarez.

The motion is due, passed and reaffirmed. The Committee on Governance and Finance, with the chair voting Aye, Senators Niello Seyarto, Umberg, aye. Umberg, aye. Wahab?

12 to 112 to one. We'll leave the Bill on call. File item 14, AB 1349. Irwin.

The motion is due, passed, and referred to the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications, with the chair voting Aye. Senators Niello , Becker, Min, Seyarto. Umberg. Wahab, that is.

Okay, 100 will leave the Bill on call, I believe. All right, thank you, Senator. You are done for the day. Okay. Senate Transportation Committee will take a slight recess and we'll be back shortly. Start with the consent calendar, please, Madam.

Secretary, to adopt the consent calendar, with the chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting Aye, Senators Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. That's 16 to zero.

Okay, 16 to zero. The consent calendar is adopted. Move on to file item three, AB 251 award.

The motion is do pass, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriation, Senators Newman. Wahab. Wahob. Aye. That is.

Out. File item four, AB 361. Ward.

The motion is do pass as amended, and rerefer to the Committee on Judiciary. Senators Dali. Wahob aye. Wahob, aye.

That is 12 to 212 to two. That Bill is out. File item seven, AB 832. Cervantes.

The motion is due, pass and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriation. Senator Wahab? Wahab, aye.

12 to four, that Bill is out. File item eight, AB 436. Alvarez.

The motion is do pass and rear for the Committee on Governance and Finance, Senators Neelob? Wahob. Aye.13 to 113 to one.

That Bill is out. File item 14, AB 1349. Irwin.

The motion is do pass and rear for the Committee on Energy Facilities and Communications with the chair voting Aye. Senators Niello Becker. Min Siarto, Umberg, wahob Aye. Wahob, aye. That is 11 to zero.

Bill is 11 to zero. That Bill is out, and this Committee is adjourned. Thank you very much.

Thank you.