Senate Standing Committee on Insurance

Once again, the Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the Teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comments. Today's participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 570096. Please note, we will be hearing from witnesses in support and opposition before taking any public comments.

We're holding our committee hearings here in the Oath Street Building, and I ask all Members of the committee to be present. So any Member listening, please ensure that you come down so we can establish a quorum. We have eight bills on the calendar today, two of which are on consent.

Before we hear presentations on the Bill, we would like to establish a quorum. Seeing that we don't have enough Members, we will start the committee as a subhearing until we can establish the quorum. At this time.

Subcommittee. Excuse me, Subcommittee. I know that we have Katie Patrice Norris, who is on her way, so we're going to take a brief pause.

When she gets here, we'll continue the meeting. Thank you. We will continue as a Subcommittee until we are able to establish a quorum.

Yes. So today with us, we have Assembly Member Luce Rivas. Welcome.

We will begin the committee with AB 970, so when you're ready, you may proceed. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators.

I want to start by thanking Gil for her work on this analysis. AB 970 seeks to expand insurance options, especially in vulnerable and disadvantaged communities where climate risks are currently uninsured or underinsured.

This Bill establishes eight geographically distributed pilot projects where vulnerable and disadvantaged communities from the Bay Area to San Diego will receive grants upon appropriation by the Legislature from the Department of Insurance for pilot projects protecting residents from flooding and heat waves. Specifically, AB 970 will prioritize projects promoting resiliency in areas of relatively high risk and low insurance participation, with a focus on closing protection gaps, as well as demonstrating how local jurisdictions and tribes can address growing climate risks in their respective communities. Today, I have with me to provide testimony and for technical questions, Mike Peterson, Deputy Commissioner on Climate and Sustainability.

Mr. Peterson, when you're ready, you may proceed. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chair Rubio, Vice Chair Wynn and Members of the committee. I am Mike Peterson and I serve as Deputy Commissioner for the Climate and Sustainability at the California Department of Insurance.

As the sponsor of AB 970, insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara would like to thank Assembly Member Reevis for her leadership in authoring this important measure that will strengthen community resilience across our state by establishing climate insurance pilot projects in multiple areas throughout the state that improve risk communication, community risk reduction, and test new insurance concepts. As climate impacts accelerate, vulnerable communities that historically have been uninsured or uninsured will face devastating challenges from the impacts, but also from a lack of timely resources to rebound insurance plays a critical role in community resilience. But less than 2% of households have flood insurance statewide, and the impacts of heat waves and sea level rise largely lack any insurance coverage.

This means that costs fall on households and local and state governments. Without new tools for resilience, communities are likely to face escalating risks, leading to increased losses and lingering financial impacts. When those losses are largely uninsured in vulnerable communities.

This is likely to exacerbate inequity and leave communities less resilient to future climate intensified events. AV 970 will help close California's insurance protection gap by developing and establishing climate insurance pilot projects, implementing a key recommendation of Commissioner Laura's Climate Insurance Report, a first of its kind set of 40 recommendations published in 2021. The Proposed Projects and Grant Program the proposed projects proposed in AB 970 will demonstrate how local jurisdictions can reduce the insurance protection gap of their residents and integrate nature based solutions, thereby increasing community financial resilience.

The pilot projects will focus on demonstrating community insurance approaches that integrate risk reduction, especially in vulnerable and disadvantaged communities where climate risks are largely uninsured. Examples of potential pilot projects include community wide flood and extreme heat insurance approaches that combine risk reduction and quicker assistance to vulnerable residents, and ensuring nature based solutions like urban forests that provide cooling and public health benefits. California has been a global leader on climate policy, including emissions reduction and climate adaptation.

Insurance as part of climate resilience is an area where we need to continue to be a leader, developing new ways to protect our most vulnerable communities, invest in nature, and support recovery after disasters. I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 970. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Now I will go and ask for anybody in support here on room 2100.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Committee Members Jonathan Claire on behalf of the Port of San Diego, in support.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Sarah Taylor, on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation.

In support. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? In support? We will now move over to lead witnesses in opposition.

Do we have anyone present? Okay, we will now move over to witnesses in opposition here in room 2100, seeing none. We will now move over to the teleconference moderator. If you would please prompt the individuals this is in support.

You may proceed for folks on the phones to register your support of opposition for 970 plus one and zero on your phone's. Touchpad. At this time, Madam Chair, we have no callers queuing up.

Thank you very much. We will now bring it to our committee Members. Anybody wishing to speak? Okay, seeing no interest here, first of all, I want to just say thank you.

I know that the insurance commissioner has been working really diligently on these issues, and I've been a witness to all the hearings that he's had throughout our state. And thank you for partnering with him. And just want to say thank you.

We do need to ensure that we have these pilot programs in place to see if we can focus on tools that can help, especially disadvantaged communities. And with that, I will give you an opportunity to close. Thank you.

And I respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate. Thank you. Since we don't have a quorum, we're going to table this and open it up when a quorum is present.

Thank you so much. Thank you. So now I think I see Member Katie Patrice Norris.

We will now hear from Assembly Member Katie Patrice Norris. Whenever you're ready, you may proceed. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. And senators. Pleased to join you today to present AB 571, and first would like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments.

And thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to your staff for all of your hard work on this Bill. Just this past weekend, we recognized the anniversary of the Dobbs decision and the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

In the course of the last year, one in three women in America have lost access to abortion services. And that means that more and more women are coming here to California to receive reproductive health care.

Here in California, we, of course, have worked diligently to protect and expand reproductive freedom and the right to reproductive health care services. But we also recognize that those rights without real access are somewhat meaningless. And one of the major barriers that providers report right now in providing reproductive health care is the access, is the cost and availability of liability insurance for providers.

Reproductive health care providers report being charged arbitrary surcharges or even denied liability insurance altogether because they provide abortion or gender affirming care. This Bill will prohibit that discrimination and any kind of arbitrary surcharges from being levied on reproductive health care providers, while, of course, ensuring that robust actuarial analysis and data driven analysis are maintained. Now I'm pleased to welcome two witnesses.

Alexis Rodriguez from the California Medical Association and Dr. Juliana Mello joining us from the American College of Gynecologists.

You're welcome to step forward to testify. Thank you. You're welcome to come to the table if you can.

Okay. Thank you. My apologies, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for your attention to this issue today. My name is Dr. Juliana Mello. I'm an Obstetrician Gynecologist here in Sacramento and also the co chair of the Legislative Committee for the American College of Obstetricians Gynecologist district 9.

Co sponsors of AB 571. Abortion care is an integral part of my everyday practice, as is prescribing birth control, delivering babies, and doing cancer screenings. I have the privilege of providing all of this essential health care that people need.

And while I do not directly provide gender affirming care, many of my OB GYN colleagues do this Bill. And protecting this medical care affects everyone, not just those who need abortion or gender affirming care.

In a time where states across the country are banning evidence based, life saving abortion and gender affirming care, I am proud that California seeks to protect access to this care. We have made many great strides to enshrine the right to abortion in our state constitution and reduce barriers for patients to receive this care. Hand in hand with these actions, we should also find ways to reduce barriers for physicians and other healthcare providers to provide this care.

This is where AB 571 comes in. As an OBGYN, my colleagues and I already pay a lot for medical liability insurance, and according to some research, physicians may need to purchase additional costly abortion writers, which is concerning. Evidence suggests that large premiums for abortion writers are not proportional to true liability risk.

The medicine we practice is evidencebased, but as with all medicine, it is also fraught with potential risks. However, what is not risky is providing abortion or gender affirming care. Abortions are very safe procedures.

They're most commonly not performed in a hospital or operating room. The overwhelming majority of abortions are completed in the office or even at a patient's home if they choose to have a medication abortion. The current difficulty some physicians and other licensed providers have in securing professional liability insurance has impacted the number of otherwise eligible practitioners who could offer these desperately needed services.

If you need to share time, you have two minutes each. Okay?

The American College of OBGYN is proud to sponsor and ask for your support of AB 71. Thank you so much for your time and attention. Thank you. Next witness. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Alexis Rodriguez with the California Medical Association, representing 50,000 physicians and medical students across the state, proud to sponsor of AB 571. This Bill would ensure that licensed medical providers who provide abortion, contraception or gender affirming care are not denied medical malpractice insurance coverage or charged an unfair premium because they are providing care that has been outlawed in other states.

Since the Dobbs decision was issued, 20 states have enacted total or severe bans on most abortion services, making it difficult, if not impossible, for people to get health care in their own communities. This has resulted in California's physicians and other providers treating not only California's patients, but an increasing number of patients who travel to California to receive basic health care services. AB 571 is one of the future of abortion council bills and is necessary to help protect medical providers who might otherwise be denied coverage or charged a higher premium that is justified for professional liability insurance coverage they need to be able to practice medicine.

This Bill will help ensure that patients have timely access to care because a physician or other licensed medical provider won't have a barrier to obtaining and maintaining their medical practice coverage. With that, I respectfully ask for your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. I will take a brief pause so we can establish a quorum. If I may, Madam Secretary, please call the role senators.

Rubio. Present. Rubio? Present. Wynn? Here. Wynn? Here. Ashby? Here. Ashby? Here. Jones. Maguire. Nelo. Here. Neilo. Here. Portentino. You have a quorum.

Now that we have established a quorum, I will proceed to ask lead witnesses in opposition to provide testimony. Two minutes per witness. Thank you. Sure.

Chair Members. My name is Greg Burt with California Family Council. I'm not going to be talking about the abortion aspects of this Bill, but just focusing on gender affirming care.

And I can understand why medical professionals want to be protected from the lawsuits, knowing the negative effects this treatment is having on minors around the world. I'm surprised the Bill analysis didn't mention that California has two lawsuits filed against Kaiser for giving double mastectomies to two teenagers as part of gender affirming care they received when they were 13 and 15 years old. Chloe Cole is well known here in California.

The new 13 year old is Kayla Lovarda. I read through her case today, and I just wanted to kind of give you a brief overview of why she filed a lawsuit. This is from her case.

It says, the case is about a team of doctors who decided to perform a damaging imitation sex change experiment on Kayla, a twelve year old vulnerable girl struggling with a complex mental health comorbidities who needed care, attention and psychotherapy, not cross sex hormones and mutilating surgery. Kayla suffered from all kinds of mental health issues anxiety, self harm, depression. Many of these symptoms are compatible with undiagnosed, untreated bipolar disorder.

A diagnosis that Kayla's mother repeatedly told her doctors that needed attention. But in early adolescence, around eleven, Kayla was exposed to online transgender influencers, who prompted Kayla to entertain the erroneous belief that she was transgender. She came out to her parents as a boy.

Prior to her exposure to online influences, Kayla had never expressed to anyone that she was transgender. These doctors, who they referred to immediately and negligently affirmed Kayla's self diagnosis transgenderism without adequate psychological evaluation. The evaluation they did took 50.

Please wrap up your testimony a few more seconds. Sure.

The whole point is she self diagnosed herself. And if you look at other European Countries,

Your time is up. Sorry. Thank you for your testimony.

Any other witnesses in opposition? Okay. Now we will move over to those in support here in room 2100.

Hi, Karen Stout. I am representing Neighborhood pro Choice California as well as the California Nurse Advice Association. We are sponsors of the Bill and in strong support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Taylor Thompson, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunalakis. In support. Thank you. Thank you. Michael Martinez here on behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardoada in support. Thank you. Now, anybody else wishing to provide testimony and support, you may do so now. Now we will move on to anybody wishing to testify in opposition here in room 2100.

You may do so at this time. See no interest. I will now move over to our moderator. Moderator, can you please prompt the individuals wishing to testify and support an opposition of 571?

Thank you. Madam Chair, folks on the phone, please press one then zero to testify on 571 supporter opposition. We do have a couple in queue. One moment please, while we get them loaded up here. Thank you. It looks like we have our first one is ready. We're going to go to line 105. Line 105, go ahead please.

Hi, this is floor. On behalf of Teach Training and early abortion for comprehensive health care and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. And just as a reminder, you're welcome to state your name and your position.

You may proceed. And we currently have five more in queue. We'll go to line 116. 1116, go ahead please. Line 116, please go ahead. Line 116 not responding. You're welcome to press 10 to re queue if you would like. We're going to go next to line 113, line one one three.

Hi my name is Leopollock. I'm a family physician and a provider of abortion and gender affirming care at UCSF and Planned Parenthood and I'm in strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Next is line 107. 107, go ahead.

Hi, this is Dr. Conna Lawsey and I am in strong support of this Bill. I'm representing myself as well as the Maya Network, a group of primary care doctors who offer abortion. Thank you for your testimony.

Line 110, go ahead.

Hello, my name is Dr. Susan George and I am a board Member of Teach Teach, and I am in very strong support of the Bill AB 571. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Line 111, go ahead.

Hi, this is Perry Lambert, certified nurse midwife representing the California Nurse Midwife Association, who represent approximately 1300 nurse midwives in California in strong support of AB 571. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

And we'll try again line 116, go ahead, please. You might be muted on your side. Check and unmute your phone. Pleased, no response from line 116. Madam Chair. There are no further callers in queue.

Thank you. I will now bring it back to our committee. Anybody wishing to speak, you may do so. Senator Niello, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the premise of this is that insurance companies are charging additional for physicians who provide abortion care or gender affirming care. And further, the implication of the statements is that they are doing so without regard to the actual risk involved in providing the insurance.

Do I have that kind of right?

Correct. One of the providers who testified here today and others have shared that they are being charged arbitrary surcharges that are inconcerate with the level of additional risk. And so while we certainly want to ensure that actuarial practices are respected and data driven analysis is respected. I think we can all agree that we don't want arbitrary surcharges being charged for any.

I don't disagree with that. But the implication is that insurance companies are entirely pro life because they must have a problem with people performing abortions because the allegation or the implication is that the premium is in excess of what the real liability is. So there must be an ideological component to this.

I have a hard time believing that insurance companies are, if nothing else, totally risk motivated for purposes of developing the insurance rates that they charge. With regard to gender affirming care. There could be a little bit of a difference.

And there was the mention of the Kaiser suit, but all Scandinavian countries and the UK have halted gender affirming surgeries in their countries due to the experience that they've had. So there could be issues there. But I just have a hard time believing that insurance companies as a bloc are ideological with regard to these issues.

And I appreciate that question and I think the opportunity to clarify I don't think and I don't think our sponsors think that all insurers are doing this, but we certainly have heard reports of instances where it's happening and providers believe that it's happening. And so ensuring that we establish a uniform policy will keep any risk of ideological influence from coloring decisions that are made or risk based assessments that are made.

Again, just fundamentally, I have a hard time believing that. But I would also add that I am a consumer of insurance, and there have been plenty of times when I've felt that my personal risk, either me personally or end the business, was not based upon objective means, but they believe it was. I was canceled once because my son was leaving me and he had a rottweiler, and they flat canceled the insurance.

Now, the insurance company isn't ideologically opposed to rottweilers. They felt that that was an excess risk. I didn't think so.

It's not at all unusual for that perception to be the case on the part of the insured, perspective or otherwise.

Indeed. And certainly if there's a demonstration that whatever the perception might be that something is actually based on the fundamentals of risk, then I don't have a problem with that, and I assume you don't either.

Anybody else wishing to speak? Okay, thank you. I just want to say thank you for bringing this forward. I understand that this is just merely simply making sure that no one's denied professional liability insurance just based solely on the services that they provide. So I want to thank you for this. And at this point, we do have a quorum. So, Secretary, please call the role.

Do I have a motion? So we will wait until we have a full committee, and so I would hold the roll open for absent Members.

Thank you so very much, madam Chair. And thank you, Senators.

I do see. Mr. Gibson, I thought I saw him in here. Okay, so we will now invite Mr. Jones Sawyer to come and join us. My apologies. I thought I saw Mr. Gibson here. Okay.

Okay. So I didn't imagine that. Good to know. Thank you. We will now welcome Mr. Jones-Sawyer that will present AB 458, and you may proceed when you're ready. Thank you.

I chased Mr. Gipson away. Good afternoon, Chair. I would like to start by thanking the Chair and the Committee staff for working with my office, and I will be accepting the amendments that merely clean up drafting errors to the June 19th version of this bill.

Members, I present AB 458, which simply clarifies e-scooter insurance requirements in order to ensure proper interpretation of existing statute. Last year, my bill, AB 371, which extended existing e-scooter insurance protections to pedestrians, passed the Legislature with strong bipartisan support and was signed into law. In doing so, pedestrians, especially those with vision impairments and other disabilities, were afforded coverage for injuries caused at no fault of their own.

Because existing statute established by my bill does not explicitly state an aggregate limit, there has been confusion that threatens proper implementation of the insurance requirement. Though silent on the issue, the existing insurance product that AB 371 was modeled after allows for aggregate limits on third party liability insurance even when the original policy is similarly silent on aggregate limits. Without clarifying language, this will be a continued problem for providers, as the current insurance quotes are prohibitively expensive.

As such, explicit clarification in the law is warranted. With me to speak in support of this bill is Alicia Priego on behalf of Bird.

Thank you. You may proceed. Remember, two minutes per testimony. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Alicia Priego on behalf of Bird, which is a micromobility service provider that's passionate about vibrant communities that have less traffic, cleaner air, and safer streets. We are in strong support of AB 458 and thank the Assembly Member for this bill and for the Committee analysis as well which outlines the issue succinctly. We believe this legislation will help clarify existing insurance requirement laws as well as allowing shared mobility service providers to more effectively comply with the provisions laid out by last year's AB 371.

By clarifying that the required insurance is not considered a group policy and can have an aggregated limit, we'll allow companies greater access to affordable policies. For these reasons, we support the bill and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Any other wishing to speak in support and you may come forward at this time.

Michael Martinez, here on behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara in support of this measure, and thank the author's office and Committee staff for working with us on this bill.

Thank you. Do we have any lead witness in opposition wishing to speak? I don't see any at this time. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition in Room 2100? Thank you. We will now move over to the teleconference service. Moderator, can you please prompt the individuals wishing to speak?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, please press one zero if you'd like to speak on Item AB 458. Madam Chair, after that wait, we have no callers in queue.

Thank you. I will now bring it back to the Committee. Anybody wishing to ask questions? It's moved by Senator Nguyen, and I will just say thank you. I know this is just clean up from your AB 371 which we worked on a lot, and thank you for always being so flexible. At this time, I'm going to ask Madam to--I'm sorry? Move back. Oh, I'm so sorry. Yes.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Forgive me. Please call the roll.

Motion is 'do pass as amended to the Judiciary Committee.' Senators Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Ashby? Jones? McGuire? Niello? Aye. Niello, aye. Portantino? That bill is on call, three to zero.

Thank you. We have three to zero. This bill is on call for absent Members. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it. I now see the great Senator from--I think it's Carson--who will be presenting AB 844. When you're ready, Mr. Gipson, you may proceed. Thank you. Oh, Assembly Member. Excuse me.

I was going to accept the promotion, actually. Exactly. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Senators. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 844 which seeks to support the rapid development of lean heavy duty trucks. Before I begin, I want to respectfully thank the Committee and accept the Committee amendments proposed as technical in nature amendments. Through this bipartisan bill, and I want to underscore bipartisan bill, California Department of Insurance will look at availability and affordability of insurances for heavy duty vehicles.

As California goes green, we need account for these soon-to-be-owned, by these zero-emission vehicles, heavy vehicle trucks. And it will not be cheap, and we need to consider the average truck driver with families who are trying to make ends meet. And let me just stop there. My father was a truck driver for 47 years when he and my mom came to California from Texas eloping.

He worked--the Pacific Railroad was his first job, and his second job was a truck driver. 47 years and my daddy, and I still say 'my daddy' as a grown man, my daddy provided for four of us, including my mom. And it was good jobs, good paying jobs, and I'm simply here to represent not only my daddy, but also the people that I represent in my district.

I represent the ports of Los Angeles and I also Chair of the Select Committee on the Ports and Goods Movement in California. This affects my district, and we want to make sure we get it right. Assembly Bill 844 is such an important and critical piece of policy.

Specifically, California continued to work to develop rules and incentives to achieve 100 percent zero-emission trucked fleet over the next decade. This bill will ensure that truck manufacturers produce and sell and make available, affordable, zero-emissions vehicles, heavy duty truck vehicles in the State of California. New technology without long history of data, and let me underscore data.

This is an area that we're not used to being in, but we have to get it right because so many people's future depend on us getting it right. Make it available and affordable. And the history of the data and the insurance information is facing challenges in this state. Fleet-adopting, zero-emission technology may be facing a limited market for insurance which slows down development of zero-emissions heavy duty trucks. The State of California has coming a deadline for fleets to transition to new zero-emissions technology.

Insurance availability and affordability could be a factor in the speed of this transition, and again, it could be a factor, but we want to make sure that we work in a very proactive way in order to meet any kind of barriers that it may potentially brings. Barriers to obtaining insurance, data gaps that should be addressed now as we move forward and look forward.

So that's what this bill, Assembly Bill 844, seeks to address and that bill is before you today. Here with me to provide supporting testimony is a representative from our California's Insurance Commissioner, Ricardo Lara's office, Mr. Mike Peterson, who is coming on behalf of our Insurance Commissioner who will speak in support of Assembly Bill 844.

Mr. Peterson, you have two minutes. You may proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Rubio, Vice Chair Nguyen, and Members of the Committee. I am Mike Peterson and I serve as Deputy Commissioner on Climate and Sustainability at the California Department of Insurance. As the sponsor for AB 844, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara would like to thank Assembly Member Gipson for his leadership in authoring this important measure that will equip the Department with necessary data for working with the Air Resources Board to understand potential barriers to available insurance for zero-emission truck fleets.

The combination of clear zero-emission targets, existing Air Resources Board regulations, and technological advances are fueling California's goal of a net-zero carbon future. In just the past five years, the State Legislature and Governor have enacted budgets that have invested over one billion dollars in incentives to accelerate the development of zero-emission medium and heavy duty trucks.

In 2020, the Air Resources Board approved its Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, which is anticipated to result in 100,0000 zero-emission trucks by 2030 and over 300,000 by 2035. In April of this year, the Air Resources Board approved the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, which will increase the number of zero-emission vehicles at our ports and rail yards and end the sale of combustion-powered trucks in California by 2036. As with nearly all emerging technologies, there is limited data on current commercial insurance markets for heavy duty zero-emission trucks and fleets.

Specifically, AB 844 would allow the Department to collect timely and relevant information on the availability of insurance for this marketplace and the role of insurance in meeting the emissions reduction targets, including the deployment of zero-emission technologies. Commissioner Lara believes that reducing emissions from trucks and other mobile pollution sources saves lives and benefits the health of many of California's most vulnerable neighborhoods and communities living near transportation corridors, including those communities in the author's district.

Many of these communities have been impacted by poor air quality for years, and reducing heavy duty truck pollution with the deployment of zero-emission technologies is urgent for addressing public health impacts. As deployment of heavy duty truck fleets rapidly increases to meet California's goals, smaller fleets or certain technologies could face barriers to insurance accessibility. AB 844 provides a forward looking approach to identifying and addressing potential insurance barriers.

I need you to wrap up your testimony. Thank you. You're past your time.

I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 844. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in support? Seeing none, I would now move over to lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none, I will now ask anyone here in Room 2100 to step up if you have any opposition on this bill. Thank you. We will now turn it over to the teleconference. Moderator, can you please prompt the individuals wishing to speak in support and opposition of this bill?

Thank you, Madam Chair. To those both in support or opposition of AB 844, please press one then zero at this time. We have currently one in queue. We will go to line 119. 119, go ahead, please.

Good afternoon. Eddie Cabamero on behalf of CALSPAR in strong support. Thank you.

Line 109, go ahead, please.

Hi. Ashley Gerrity on behalf of the Greenlining Institute in support.

We'll have the last one in just a moment.

The Trucking Association in support.

Sorry, line 114, please say it again. You weren't open yet.

Hayden Tallman with the California Trucking Association in support.

Thank you, and Madam Chair, there are no further callers in queue at this time.

Thank you for your testimony. I will now bring it over to Members of the Committee wishing to speak.

I'll move it.

Thank you.

Moved by Senator Nguyen. Madam Secretary, please--I'm so sorry, I keep doing this. By the way, I do call my daddy 'daddy' too, so you're not the only one. So thank you. But before you move forward, I do want to just take a moment to think--again, I know that there's been a lot of collaboration with Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, which I think it's so important--you know, I think you stated it earlier that the affordability and availability of insurance may be a factor in meeting our climate goals.

So it's important that we start looking ahead, and as the Insurance Commissioner Office stated, collecting relevant data is important to see if the insurance market is ready. So with that, I say thank you and you may close.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm going to use your comments as my close. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is 'do pass as amended to the Judiciary Committee.' Senators Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Ashby? Jones? McGuire? Niello? Aye. Niello, aye. Portantino? That bill's on call with three votes.

Okay, we will place this on call. Thank you for your time. Okay, I do see we have our last.

Well, we have two more to go. I will invite Assemblymember Ortega to please join us. She will be presenting AB 917.

And when you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present AB 917 today. I will begin by accepting the committee amendments.

And thank you for working with my team. AB 917 would remove the sunset of the California Low Cost Auto Insurance Program known as CLCA, making the program permanent. California law requires that all drivers vehicles with the state maintain driver's insurance.

However, too many low-income drivers remain uninsured because of the high cost of standard insurance premiums. Instead of having uninsured drivers on the road, they can participate in this program which provides them with liability insurance at an affordable price. This program has been running for over 20 years as a pilot and has continuously been renewed.

AB 917 will remove the sunset date to ensure that California continues to provide needed auto insurance that many low-income drivers desperately need. Here to testify in support of this Bill is Mr. Keelin Loney with the Deputy Legislative Director with the California Department of insurance, and Ms. Amy Nagari, Director for the CLCA program.

Just a reminder, you have two minutes each to present. You may proceed. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Rubio, Vice Chair Nguyen. Members of the committee.

My name is Keelin Loney, Deputy Legislative Director here on behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and the California Department of insurance. As the Bill's sponsor, Commissioner Lara would like to thank Assemblymember Ortega for her leadership in authoring this important measure. Commissioner Lara is sponsoring AB 917 because the California Low Cost Auto Insurance Program has been proven for over 20 years to fill a need for low-income Californians, providing affordable, liability-only auto insurance to people who need transportation to get to work, to school, to doctors appointments and other important life activities.

Making this program permanent will ensure that this transportation will remain available. I respectfully request your aye vote on this measure at the appropriate time. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

With me is Amy, subject matter expert on the CLCA program.

Thank you. You have two minutes to present. Thank you.

I would just like to echo my colleagues word. The necessity for this program has without a doubt been shown for the past 23 years. Without it, those in low-income have gone uninsured.

And we just want to be able to offer this resource for them. And with that, I request an aye from each.

Thank you. We will now move over to those wishing to speak in opposition here in room 2100. Seeing no interest, we will now go to the teleconference.

Moderator, please prompt the individuals wishing to speak in support or opposition of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To post your support or opposition, please press one-zero at this time. And we currently have no callers in queue.

Thank you, Moderator. We'll now bring it to the Committee. Any questions? Senator Nguyen moves the Bill, but I want to just say thank you once again.

I think I was the last person who actually carried the Bill to make the extension the previous time. So I think after 23 years, it's appropriate that we make it permanent. So I thank you.

And I will add, as a co-author as well, you may close.

Thank you very much. I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Senators Rubio? Rubio aye. Nguyen? Nguyen aye. Ashby? Jones? Jones aye. McGuire? Niello? Niello aye. Portantino?

We will leave this on call for absent Members. Thank you so much. And I do see Assemblymember Valencia.

Assembly Member Valencia will be presenting AB 1578, and when you're ready, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. Muy buenas tardes. I want to start by thanking the Chair, and then also the Committee for working on AB 1578 and acknowledge our Chief of Staff, Erinn Ryberg also for her efforts on this bill thus far. AB 1578 aligns the requirements for email with that of printed documents when insurance agents and agencies send insurance correspondence.

To protect consumers, current law requires agents, brokers, and adjusters to print their license numbers on print correspondence distributed for insurance products. In 2022, this law was modernized to include email. However, as written, the bill text was confusing and has been interpreted in different ways by stakeholders.

AB 1578 would clarify that statute to require licensees to include only their individual license number on emails. With me to provide testimony is Ms. Shari McHugh on behalf of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors.

Just a reminder: two minutes. You may proceed.

Yes, I will be definitely shorter than two minutes, for sure. Good afternoon. Shari McHugh, representing the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors. We are pleased to be a co-sponsor of AB 1578, and we thank the author and his staff for working with us on this very simple clarification bill.

AB 1578 will help to ensure that consumers are not confused by multiple license numbers on electronic communications. It will also help to ensure that licensees better understand which license number to put on their electronic communications to their clients. For these reasons, we are in strong support of the bill and urgent aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in support may do so at this time. Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. Erin Norwood on behalf of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of California. We're pleased to also be a co-sponsor with our friends NAIFA of California. I want to thank the author and his staff for all the work on this clarification bill and appreciate your strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mark Sektnan, American Property Casual Insurance Association, support of the bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Allison Adey on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation, also in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody in this room wishing to speak in opposition of this bill, you may do so at this time. Seeing none, I will now move over to Moderator. Please prompt any individual wishing to speak in support or in opposition of this bill. They may do so at this time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On the phones, press one then zero to voice your support or opposition. And we have no callers queuing up.

Thank you. I will now bring it back to the Committee. Once again, my savior here, Senator Nguyen will be--Senator Nguyen moves the bill. And I just want to say thank you. I know this is just a simple common sense update, so thank you for bringing this forward. You may close.

Happy to. Appreciate your time and respectfully ask for a yes vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is 'do pass to Appropriations Committee.' Senators Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Ashby? Jones? Yes. Jones, yes. McGuire? Niello? Aye. Niello, aye. Portantino? It has four votes. It's on call.

It has four votes. We're going to put this on call. Thank you.

Thank you.

I think it's a yes. So at this point, I'm just going to ask my Colleagues that sit on the Insurance Committee to please come. We need to make sure that we move forward, but I believe we're going to need to take a recess to ensure that we have--we will do consent to allow our Members to leave.

So, consent, we have AB 451 Calderon, AB 1140, our Insurance Committee Bill. So I will ask Madam Secretary to call the role.

Senators. It was moved by Senator Nguyen. Senators Rubio? Rubio aye. Nguyen? Nguyen aye. Ashby? Jones? Jones aye. McGuire? Niello? Niello aye. Portantino?

Okay, so I'm going to open the roll for those that are now present. I'm going to go in order. I'm going to start with AB 458, Jones-Sawyer. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Current vote is three to zero. Senators Ashby? Jones? Jones aye. McGuire? Portantino? it's back on call with 4-0.

We'll leave that open. We will now move over to AB 571, Petrie-Norris. Secretary, please. I need a motion.

Okay, we will continue to leave this on call for absent Members. We will now move over to AB 844 by Mr. Gipson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The current vote is three to zero. Senators Ashby? Jones? Ashby aye, Jones aye. McGuire? Portantino? So it's five to zero, back on call.

Five to zero. This Bill was a back on call for absent Members. We will now move over to AB 917, Ortega. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The current vote is four to zero. Senators Ashby? Ashby aye. McGuire? Portantino?Five to zero, back on call.

This Bill has five-zero. We'll put it on call for absent Members. We will now move over to AB 970, Luz Rivas. Madam Secretary. Oh, we need a motion to move this Bill forward. It's moved by Senator Nguyen. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to Governance and Finance Committee. Senators Rubio? Rubio aye. Nguyen? Nguyen aye. Ashby? Ashby aye. Jones? Jones aye. McGuire? Niello? Niello aye. Portantino.

Five votes. We'll leave it on call for absent Members. We will now move over to AB 1578, Valencia. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The current vote is four to zero. Senators Ashby? Ashby aye. McGuire? Portantino?

This Bill is five to zero. We are going to have to put these on call for absent Members. And I think that's the last one that we need here.

Yes. We will now move over to AB 571. I need a motion for AB 571. Moved by Senator Ashby. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Judiciary Committee. Senators Rubio? Rubio aye. Nguyen? Ashby? Ashby aye. Jones? Jones no. McGuire? McGuire aye. Niello? Niello no. Portantino?

Three-two. This Bill will remain on call. Okay, so we will now, thank you. We will now go back to consent calendar. Consent AB 451. AB 1140. Madam Secretary, please call the role.

Senators Ashby? Ashby aye. McGuire? McGuire aye. Portantino.

This Bill is back on call for absent Members. We will now move back over to AB 458, Jones-Sawyer. Madam Secretary, please call the role.

Senators Ashby? Ashby aye. McGuire? McGuire aye.

This Bill has six-zero. We will put the Bill back on call. We will now move over to AB 571. Petrie-Norris. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Okay we will leave that Bill back on call for absent Members. We will now move over to AB 844, Mr. Gipson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Current vote is five to zero. Senator McGuire? McGuire aye.

This Bill has six-zero. It will remain on call for absent Members. We will now move over to AB 917 by Ortega. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Current vote is five to zero. Senator McGuire? McGuire aye. Portantino? Six to zero.

That has six-zero. It will remain on call. We will now move over to AB 970 by Luz Rivas. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Current vote is five to zero. Senator McGuire? McGuire aye. Portantino? Six to zero.

That Bill remains six-zero. We will leave it on call for absent Members. We will now move over to AB 1578 by Assemblymember Valencia. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

1578. The current vote is five to zero. Chair and Vice chair voting aye. Senators McGuire? McGuire aye. Portantino? Portantino aye. That Bill is out, seven-zero.

That Bill is seven-zero. That Bill is out. Welcome, Mr. Portantino.

We will now go over consent calendar. We're back to AB 451 Calderon, AB 1140, Insurance. Madam Secretary, please call the role. I'm sorry. Yes, consent. Thank you so much.

Senator Portantino? Portentino aye. The consent calendar is out, seven-zero.

The consent calendar is out, seven-zero. We will now move over to AB 458, Jones-Sawyer. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The current vote is six to zero with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Senator Portantino? Portantino aye. That's out, seven to zero.

That Bill is out, seven to zero. We will now move over to AB 571 by Petrie-Norris. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The current vote is three to two with the Chair voting aye. Senator Nguyen? Portantino? Portantino aye. It's four to two, out four to two.

Bill is out four to two. We will now move over to AB 844 by Gipson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Current vote is six to zero with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Senator Portantino? Portantino aye. That's out, seven to zero.

That Bill is out, 7-0. We will now move over to AB 917 by Assemblymember Ortega. Madam Secretary, please call the role.

That vote is six to zero. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Senator Portantino? Portantino aye.

That Bill is out, 7-0. We will now move over to AB 970 by Assemblymember Luz Rivas. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

That vote is six to zero. Chair and vice chair voting aye. Senator Portantino? Portantino aye.

That Bill is out, 7-0. We're done. Okay.

Okay. We want to thank everyone present and through the teleconference for adding their testimony.

If we didn't get to your testimony, feel free to reach out to our office to take it for the record. At this point, the Insurance Committee is adjourned. Thank you.