Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

The Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development will come to order. Good morning. We continue to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service. And now the important numbers. If you wish to provide public comment, you need two sets of numbers. The participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 13508 621-350-8624. Committee Members floating around the building somewhere.

We're holding our hearing in our 1021 O Street location, and I'd ask you to come on down to room 2100 so we can establish a quorum. We have seven bills on the calendar today. There's one measure proposed for consent. It's file item number two, Assembly Bill 834 physicians and surgeons and doctors of podiatric medicine. At such time as we get a quorum, we will take up the consent calendar, but in the meantime, we will act as a Subcommitee and begin hearing bills.

The first measure up is file item number one by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry. It is Assembly Bill 282, psychologist licensure.

Well, good morning.

Here we are, July 3. Who would have thought? Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. First, I want to thank the Committee staff for their continued work with my office. AB 282 will streamline the licensure process for psychologists by allowing applicants for psychology licensure to take required examinations at any time after completing qualified coursework. Today, applicants for licensure have to submit information to the Board of Psychology multiple times and experience significant wait times at each step in the licensing process.

Good morning.

Each sequential step in the licensure process typically takes two to four months to process for a total wait time often lasting a year. As a result, this wait time often delays when applicants can start credentialed positions. In a 2022 California Psychological Association member survey, 60% of the respondents reported that delays created financial hardship, and over 80% reported that delays caused interruptions in patient care.

While this is not a study, it is certainly a fair indication that large numbers of mental health professionals feel they're not only losing opportunities to serve patients in distress, they are concerned it's affecting mental health care in our state. Meanwhile, our communities are in the midst of a mental health crisis, and we are in dire need of mental health professionals who can provide the care and support our constituents deserve.

I recently had a heart wrenching conversation with constituents who tragically lost their son due to the actions of someone who has now been declared mentally incompetent to stand trial. They asked me what I am doing to prevent such devastating incidents, and I proudly shared my commitment to getting healthcare providers into the profession faster.

This bill aims to address these challenges head on by allowing applicants to take the required licensure examinations immediately after completing their academic coursework and reducing the number of times an applicant has to submit information to the board. These changes do not affect the valuable information available to the Board. But with this bill, we can significantly reduce the process-related wait times slowing our licensing system by enabling aspiring psychologists to take their qualifications recognized sooner...

We are directly contributing to the well being of our communities and taking concrete steps to prevent future tragedies. I am joined today by my two witnesses. Jennifer Alley, Director of Governmental Affairs for the California Psychological Association, and John Drebinger, I believe is here, Senior Advocate of Policy and Legislative Affairs for the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies. Thank you.

Please proceed.

Good morning. I'm Jennifer Alley, Legislative Director for the California Psychological Association, and thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important bill intended to remove bureaucratic barriers in the psychologist licensing process. First, I would like to be clear that AB 282 does not diminish nor reduce the qualifications to become a psychologist in California. However, it would allow pre-licensees individuals with doctorate degrees in psychology, to self-determine their readiness to complete expensive exams required for their desired profession.

This bill was drafted in response to concerns raised by many psychology trainees and their supervisors about extended wait times for the licensing process of applications at the Board of Psychology. This bill will help to eliminate unnecessary delays in entry to the profession by streamlining the licensure process, which currently requires multiple applications to the Board of Psychology. So with each application, there's a wait time and a pause in that process.

And so, by allowing our applicants to self-determine their readiness once they've completed their coursework, then they have the opportunity to move to take job opportunities required to complete their clinical training. Thank you, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, ma'am. Next, please.

Thank you, Chairman and Members of the Committee and Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry for your leadership on this important issue. I'm John Drebinger, Senior Advocate with the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies, CBHA. Our nonprofit member agencies provide critical mental health and substance use services to over 1 million Californians, many of whom are Medi-Cal beneficiaries. As you know, California faces significant shortages of behavioral health professionals, worsened by licensure barriers that prolong the hiring process.

The current licensing process can take months, which poses unique challenges for practitioners and behavioral health agencies. As a result of delayed licensure approval, many of CBHA's member agencies struggle hiring new graduates. If they choose to hire someone who is still in the licensure process, they can't bill for the full array of services. This creates an undue fiscal burden on nonprofits that are already working within incredibly tight margins and preset medical reimbursement rates.

AB 282 can alleviate this by permitting professionals to apply for licensure exams sooner. The bill doesn't lower our rigorous standards, it streamlines them, ensuring our safety net doesn't lose talented professionals over lengthy waiting periods. These delays also adversely impact Medi-Cal patients, restricting their access to essential services. The passage of AB 282 would allow us to hire more staff sooner, thereby enhancing access for these patients. We respectfully request the Committee to support AB 282. This crucial legislation can make our behavioral health safety net more robust and better equipped to serve California's vulnerable populations. Help us ensure that no one has to wait for critical behavioral health care. Thank you.

Thank you. Now let's move to any other witnesses in support in room 2100. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Let's move to witnesses in opposition, lead or otherwise. First lead witness.

Good morning, Members. I am Antonette Sorrick with the Board of Psychology and the board is opposed unless amended. We're suggesting the language say as specified by the board, and in doing so, we want to spell out each step of the process to make it a very transparent process for the applicant as well as the licensing analysts that are working on the application. I think we're all on the same page as far as allowing the applicants to take exams earlier.

We have a national exam which in 2026 will be two parts, a knowledge-based exam and a skills-based exam. And the skills-based exam, according to this bill, would have the individual apply for taking that skills-based exam before their supervised professional experience takes place. And we just don't want an unintended consequence of a lower passage rate on that.

So we do agree that the knowledge-based exam should be offered after the coursework is completed, as well as the law and ethics exam prior to seeing patients. So I think we're on the same page. It's just a slight tweak of as specified by the board so we can ensure that the skills-based exam is offered after the experience takes place. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Any other witnesses in opposition in room 2100? Seeing none. Let's move to the teleconference service. Moderator, if you would please prompt any individuals waiting to testify either in support or in opposition to AB 282, we'll take them now.

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 282, please press one, zero at this time. And Mr. Chair, there are no comments.

Thank you, sir. Turn the matter back to the deus and my colleagues for any questions or comments. Any questions, colleagues? It's been moved by... Well, we don't have a quorum yet, but when we do, I'll put you down. Senator Archuletta is making the motion. Let me just ask one question of the author. Any response to the opposition by the board?

Well, right now, the Board of Psychology requires applicants to complete their coursework and 1500 clinical hours before taking the exam. And this bill allow applicants to take the exam once their coursework is done, in line with the recommendations of test of the testing organization. So we have a big gap here. And so my fear is that we're trying to work on mental health, and we need to close this gap. So I think that we'll continue to work with the opposition on the bill, and I'm fully confident we'll come to a good conclusion.

I'm also confident that you'll continue talking to the board, in particular on that change in the exam with the practical as opposed to the academic piece, and I'm sure you'll figure it out. Would you like to close?

Sure. Members, I took this bill on for a good reason, for many good reasons, because my office is inundated, like many of our offices are. They've gotten calls on these, the licensed applicants who have lost out on job opportunities because the licensure process takes too long. In the meanwhile, I've heard directly from my constituents about the challenges of finding certified mental health care professionals in our communities. This bill will help solve both of these problems by streamlining the certification process.

I am very comfortable with the legislation asking the board to improve the process during the universally recognized mental health crisis in this state, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote when it's appropriate.

Thank you very much, ma'am.

Thank you.

The quorum will vote.

Thank you.

Next item up is item number three, Assembly Bill 1207. Assembly Member Irwin, cannabis labeling and advertising.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I would like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments listed on page 16 of the Committee analysis and thanking the Committee staff for their hard work on this bill. I'm here today to present AB 1207. When Prop 64 was passed in 2016, there was a distinct promise to the voters that legalization of recreational cannabis would not come at the expense of our children. But in reality, the very opposite has occurred.

Poison control centers, due to pediatric cannabis exposures, have skyrocketed since 2016, and they will only continue to increase as time passes. In 2021, California had 793 cannabis exposure calls to poison control centers for children five years of age and under. Every week, it seems like we read another news story article with the same story. Children at school are transported to the emergency room because they and their peers have consumed cannabis products that they confused with traditional foods due to packaging that was attractive to children.

Members, this is happening in our own districts. While the illicit cannabis market is no doubt responsible for a number of these exposures, a simple look at California's legal cannabis products shows that they are not without blame. We cannot continue to allow California's legal cannabis market to manufacture, package, and advertise products with features that are attractive to children. AB 1207 addresses this ever increasing pediatric cannabis exposure epidemic by codifying and strengthening regulations on what makes a cannabis product attractive to children.

In addition, it explicitly adds to statute prohibitions on the manufacture, sale, and advertising of cannabis products that are attractive to children. With me today to testify in support of this bill is Lynn Silver representing the Public Health Institute and a representative from Youth Forward.

Please proceed. Yes, they've changed the rules on us.

Thank you. May I start?

Yes, ma'am. Please proceed.

Members, I'm Dr. Lynn Silver, pediatrician, Senior Advisor at the Public Health Institute, and Professor at UCSF. AB 1207, albeit weakened, is before you with support from California's pediatricians, ER docs, Cal PTA, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, San Diego, and Marin Counties, CHEAC, and over 40 other organizations because of two severe and growing problems. Poisonings of young children from cannabis products have skyrocketed nationally. In California, at Rady Children's the average age is just two, and one in 10 require intensive care.

Edibles like gummies, candies, nachos with packaging blatantly imitating foods commonly marketed to children is a big part of the problem. Yes, parental responsibility matters, but so too does product design. Several states in Canada require entirely plain packaging of these psychoactive products. The second and massive product is increases in cannabis use by teens and youth. Cannabis vaping by 12th graders tripled from 5 to 15% since 2017.

Daily use by young adults has also tripled. Turbocharged concentrates with flour, pictures of skittles, cartoons, toys, or imitations of junk food hook kids. Use in youth adversely impacts cognitive and academic outcomes, disrupts schools, and is associated with increases in dependencies, psychosis, schizophrenia, and car crashes according to the National Academies of Science. Little is worse than a young life thrown off course by cannabis triggered psychosis. Cannabis has valid medical uses, but is not a wellness product.

AB 1207 will strengthen the definition of attractiveness to children in manufacturing, sales, marketing, and advertising. Also, consultant Silva's meticulous analysis asked, should it address advertisers or licensees? The answer is both. States have had to rewrite cannabis laws to address advertising skirting rules through third parties. She asks, Is this an illicit market problem? This is a problem of the legal, as you see in the handout, the illicit, and the hemp markets all need addressing. The illicit market is not a valid reason to fail to build a safer future legal market. We respectfully ask for your aye vote for this critical step to protect children. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Are there any other supporters in room 2100? Oh, I'm sorry.

No problem. Good morning, Senator Roth and Members. Thank you for hearing me today. My name is Adwoa Akyianu. I'm a Policy Advocate with Youth Forward. Youth Forward is a Sacramento-based nonprofit organization that works on youth substance use prevention and mental health here in Sacramento. We also support a network of about 350 youth serving organizations around the state that organize on cannabis policy and youth prevention.

A continuous part of my work includes informing other nonprofit and tribal organizations of the four state agency grants that are funded through cannabis tax revenues. In 2017, our organization played a key role in working with state agencies to develop these grant programs which fund youth substance abuse and use prevention. I believe that our state government created such grant programs because they realized the unique risk a legalized cannabis industry would pose for our youth.

It is of great importance that our local government follow a similar approach to protect young people. Here in Sacramento, I have reported over a dozen billboards to the DCC that feature young people, cartoon images, and even one that spelled out the word dank and gummy worms. I am 24 years old, and this kind of marketing appeals to folks like myself and folks that are even younger.

High THC level products are legally sold with packaging that has cartoon images and even animated foods such as blueberries, strawberries, and chocolate cake, as well as as you have before you overwhelming likeness to well known brands that don't have THC and are otherwise not harmful in the same way.

Our organization also has staff that work in our local high schools, and they're seeing a widespread use of flavored candy edibles as well as flavored vaping products among young people. As well as young people self diagnosing and using cannabis to combat stress and depression because they believe that it is a safe and that it's a wellness product. This is due to flawed marketing. Vape concentrates are legally sold products with dangerously high levels of THC that are currently being used by our youth and young people.

It is very clear from everything that I have shared, as well as Dr. Silver, that the cannabis industry is marketing to young people and not being intentional about keeping them safe. For these reasons, I strongly encourage an aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now, any other support witnesses? Name, affiliation, position on the measure, please?

Thank you. Chairman Members, Tim Madden, representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, in support.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of the County of San Diego and the City of Encinitas in support.

Izzy Swindler with the County of Marin Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

John Skoglund with the County of Los Angeles in support.

Thanks.

Good morning. Elizabeth Espinosa, on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California, as well as the Boards of Supervisors in the counties of Santa Clara and Santa Barbara. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Victoria Rodriguez on behalf of the City of Chula Vista, in support.

Thank you.

Laurie Dubin on behalf of Be the Influence, the California nonprofit in Marin County. I support.

Kelsey Fernandez with Marin Healthy Youth Partnerships in support.

Thank you. Any other supporters?

Mr. Chair. Pamela Lopez with K Street Consulting on behalf of STIIIZY. I'm a bit of a tweener. Is there an appropriate time to come up and express a neutral position? STIIIZY thought that it was incredibly important to prevent a new prohibition on 25% of all legal products in the market. And with a statutory prohibition removed from AB 20... 1207 on 25% of all cannabis products, we will be, in exchange, dropping our opposition on the rest of the bill.

Thank you very much. Before we move to opposition, I'm going to ask that the role be called let's establish a quorum.

Roth? Here. Roth, here. Nguyen? Alvarado-Gil? Here. Alvarado-Gil, here. Archuleta? Here. Archuleta, here. Ashby? Becker? Becker, here. Dodd? Eggman? Glazer? Niello? Here. Niello, here. Smallwood-Cuevas? Smallwood-Cuevas, here. Wahab? Wahab, here. Wilk? Wilk, here.

We have a quorum. Now let's turn to opposition, lead or otherwise. Lead first.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Amy Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association. I want to begin by expressing our organization's gratitude to the Committee and to the author for accepting amendments which address some of our concerns. We think this is a much improved bill with the proposed changes. Unfortunately, we do continue to oppose the legislation. While we share the author's goals of protecting public health and safety, particularly youth access to cannabis, we continue to find some of the elements in this bill problematic.

For instance, we find the prohibition from using fictional or human characters and fictional animals or creatures in our labeling and advertisements unreasonable. For instance, numerous legal cannabis businesses use images of humans in very sophisticated ways specifically to communicate important consumer information about the appropriate use of our products. By imposing such a blanket statutory prohibition, AB 1207 eliminates any discretion by the Department of Cannabis Control to evaluate whether the use of humans, for example, may be beneficial and could ultimately exacerbate public health concerns.

We also do continue to maintain that this bill does punish good actors and have a different approach that we are pursuing. While we do recognize an uptick based on data in emergency room visits, we feel that there's been a failure to demonstrate that these are legal products that are getting children sick. Access to legal cannabis is fiercely age-gated.

A study published in 2022 in the peer reviewed Journal of Safety and Research found that 100% of licensed California cannabis retailers checked IDs to avoid selling to underage consumers. If youth are getting access to legal cannabis products from legal retailers, that is not a product problem. It is an enforcement problem. And I do want to note the flyer that was distributed. A lot of our existing regulations that are already on the books actually ban those images.

So Cocoa Puffs, for example, which many of you know, I've already filed a complaint against Cocoa Puffs. That is a legal product. It's already in violation. Some of the cartoon images on that flyer, Purple Smurf, for example. I'm not sure that's a legal product. It may be also a violation of our existing regulations. So we need to be focused on bolstering enforcement.

And lastly, I'll just note that this Committee passed a bill earlier this year, SB 540, that established a very comprehensive review of our packaging and labeling requirements using informed science. And that is our recommended solution to trying to address this problem on an ongoing basis that re-review would occur every five years. So for these reasons, we want to reiterate our appreciation for the changes that must respectfully continue to oppose. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Mark Smith on behalf of Origins Council. We are the statewide advocacy organization representing 800 cannabis operators, most of whom are small outdoor cannabis farmers in rural areas of California. We support thoughtful regulation to prohibit the marketing of cannabis products to children. However, we believe AB 1207, as written, will not meaningfully address this issue and would target naturalistic imagery used by small farmers who cultivate cannabis in rural areas.

Images of candies, cartoons, and other products attractive to children are already addressed in existing DCC regulation. However, AB 1207's prohibition would be much, much broader than this. Specifically, 1207 would prohibit images of humans, fruits, vegetables, and fictional animals from use in packaging, labeling, and advertising. You've been given two different sheets. Ours is the black and white one.

But it demonstrates to you some of these labels that our farmers are currently using, including products from the farm because they grow fruits and vegetables in addition to cannabis. Depictions of human and or animals on those labels. I think you can judge for yourself whether those labels, as you see them in front of you, are attractive to children or designed to be attractive to children.

The scope and the breadth of this bill would immediately ban every label that you have on that piece of paper in front of you. So there is a concern that we have, particularly as small farmers, we're not vertically integrated. We do not have a lot of money. Many of us are struggling to survive in the current Prop 64 framework and get to full licensure. These labels are created with one time personal funds.

It's not quite as simple as just going out, redoing your label to comply to the standards of a bill like this, particularly when DCC already has banned the vast majority, if not all, of the examples given to you by the proponents of this bill. We would further stipulate that those products cannot be found in a legal marketplace in California. We have repeatedly asked for examples of where those products were purchased and if they are available. We have mentioned that we are seeking remedies against them.

But the vast majority of the products you see there are not legally available at a dispensary. And go four blocks over here, go look at the shelf they have and see if you can find any of those products. I challenge you to do that. So we are confused why AB 1207 is as broad as it is. Carrots, radishes, and broccoli are typically not considered products attractive to children.

Similarly, there's nothing inherent in images of humans, such as farmers, that are attractive to children. Because we don't have this access and investment to capital, again, we consider this bill to be particularly challenging and, as written, would prohibit dozens of small farmer brands that utilize imagery of farms and farmers with devastating effects to these businesses. We ask for your no vote on this measure.

Thank you, sir. Any other opposition witnesses? Name, affiliation, and position on the measure, please.

Mr. Chair and Members. Rand Martin, on behalf of the Parent Company. We also appreciate the amendments that were taken by the author and the Committee, but we still remain opposed based on the images prohibition in the bill. I encourage you to vote no on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Mr. Chairman. Members George Miller on behalf of Weedmaps. We were previously opposed. With the recent amendments, though we are neutral. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please. Any other opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Let's turn to the teleconference service. Moderator, if you would please prompt any individuals waiting to testify either in support or in opposition to AB 1207, we will take them now.

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 1207, please press 1, 0 at this time. And first we will hear from line 36.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, in support.

Thank you. Next please.

Line 25.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Here on behalf of the Cities San Marcos and Solana Beach in support of the bill.

Thank you. Next please.

Line 53.

Hi. This is Heidi Swan, Hermosa Coalition for Drug Free Kids. I am in strong support of this bill.

Thank you. Next please.

Line 30.

Good morning. Jonatan Cvetko, Executive Director of the United Cannabis Business Association. On behalf of UCBA, the Long Beach Collective Association, the Coachella Valley Cannabis Alliance Network, the California Minority Alliance, Angeles Emeralds, Silicon Valley Cannabis Alliance, Social Equity LA, and San Francisco Cannabis Retailers Alliance, in support If amended, position recommending clear definitions around cartoon and the use of real and fictional humans. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Line 38.

Sandy Logan... A nonprofit here... San Fernando Valley. No one should go to jail for cannabis, but no child should go to the hospital either. After eight with AB 1207 the Cannabis Candy Child Safety Act.

Next please.

Safer cannabis market...

Line 34.

Just a reminder, name, affiliation and position on the measure, please.

Yes. Chair and Members, Alicia Priego on behalf of the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association and Kiva Confections, in opposition.

Thank you. Next please.

Line 63.

This is Michelle Leopold. I am the mom to a son who has passed away in part because of his cannabis-use disorder, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you, ma'am, we're sorry for your loss. Next please.

Line 21. Line 21, please. Go ahead.

Next please.

Line 14.

Yes, hello, Committee. This is Michael Katz, Executive Director for the Mendocino Cannabis Alliance, representing over 100 small licensed cannabis businesses in Mendocino County in strong opposition to this bill.

Thank you. Next please.

Line 40.

Mr. Chair and Members. Eddie Franco, Director of Policy for Nabis, remaining in opposition for reasons previously stated around advertising. Thank you.

Thank you, next.

Line 57. Line 57, please. Go ahead.

Next.

Line 61.

Monique Ramirez, Mendocino County, Specialty Cottage Equity Operator in strong opposition to AB 1207. Thank you.

Thank you, next please.

Line 46.

This is Elizabeth O'Donnell, I'm representing Marin Residents for Public Health Cannabis Policy, and we are in strong support of AB 1207.

Thank you, next.

Line 44.

This is Barb Gordon, Coalition for Health Educators, and in strongly support AB 1207. Thank you.

Thank you, next please.

Line 59. Line 59, please go ahead. Line 8.

Hello, Russell Perrin, Perrin Family Farm. I own a 2500 square foot medical cannabis garden in Mendocino County, and I oppose. This bill is too broad and doesn't take into consideration that a lot of us aren't creating edibles, and pure flour on its own does not cause overdoses.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, next please.

Line 18.

Hi, I'm currently a square foot indoor farmer with a 10,000 square foot outdoor in the works. My farm brand would be banned by this bill, and I'm very strong opposition.

Thank you. Thank you, next.

Line 19.

Hello. My name is Casey String. I'm the Executive Director with the San Marcos Prevention Coalition, a coalition of churches, law enforcement, parents, and youth preventing drug use. And we strongly support 1207.

Thank you. Next please.

Line 47. Line 47, please go ahead.

This is Adrian Keys from the Trinity County Agriculture Alliance, representing nearly 100 family farms in Trinity County. We strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you, next.

Line 58.

Hello, this is Erica Leary with the North Coastal Prevention Coalition in support.

Thank you, next please.

Line 29.

Hi, my name is Bart Bright in Benicia, California, and my son started with gummies, and he also had many episodes of cannabis-induced psychosis. So so my wife and I support this bill.

Line 24. Line 24, please go ahead.

Thank you, sir. Next please.

Next.

Line 22.

Line 22, please go ahead.

Next.

Line 43.

Hello. My name is Michaela Sweatt. I'm Chief Operating Officer at ALG Strategies, representing approximately 80 licensed and compliant cannabis clients in strong opposition to AB 1207.

Thank you. Next please.

Line 45.

Lee Stewart Marine Residence for Public Health cannabis Policy and strong support.

Thank you. Next.

Line 26.

Good morning, Susan Tibben Policy Committee Mendocino Cannabis Alliance. Our farm brands of Latino women and indigenous farmers in traditional dress would be banned. Strongly oppose AB 1207.

Thank you. Next please.

Line 38. Line 38, please go ahead.

Next.

Line 33. Line 33, please go ahead.

Next.

Line 69.

Hi, this is Allie Bear for Marin Residents for Public Health Cannabis Policies, and I am very strongly in support of this. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Next please.

Line 66.

Good morning, this is Judy Strang, a legislative Vice President for Coastal Communities PTA, and we are in strong support of AB 1207.

Thank you, ma'am. Next please.

Line 54.

Hello, this is Judith Wetterer from Sausalito and I strongly support AB 1207. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Line 70.

Hi, I'm Indy Riggs, owner of Galactic Farms in Humboldt County, a small craft cannabis farm, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you, sir. Next please.

Line 35. Line 35, please go ahead.

Next.

And Mr. Chair, there are no further comments.

Thank you. Moderator, let's bring the matter back to the deus and my colleagues for questions or comments. Senator Wahab, followed by Senator Niello.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward. Given the opposition and some of the commentary and you've already made amendments, do you feel that there's anything else you would be willing to do?

We are certainly happy to continue the discussions with the opposition. We took significant amendments in BNP, and I just want to clarify some of what is said. Fruits are allowed on packaging as long as they represent the flavors inside the packaging. So talking about broccoli or carrots is sort of irrelevant.

These sellers would also be able to use real animals and flowers, but not cartoon animals such as unicorns. So it's really trying to thread a needle. But every time we take amendments and people say they'll remove their opposition, some remove their opposition and then some continue. I think the biggest issue that a lot of the industry was concerned about was the vapes. And although all our supporters really wanted to keep the vapes issue as part of the Bill, we did remove that in this Committee.

So it'll be an ongoing conversation. But when you're talking about looking at showing all the different packaging that you already use and say, well, we would like to have humans, maybe we will look at that. But certainly that is something that humans could be used to market to children if you put Hannah Montana or some social media influencer on the package. So if we really want to talk about zero, you want to put farmers we will look at putting farmers on the packaging.

So, like I said, this is really something that's about threading the needle. The other thing I want to address a couple of things is, first of all, we have sent pictures that were collected by Dr. Silver. Most of you should have those, and those were from legal distributors. If everybody is complying already know there are already regulations. What we're doing is codifying and strengthening them. If the legal market is complying with them, then they shouldn't be that concerned with this Bill.

And then finally, I sent most of you a graph that showed the poisonings of young children. Coincide, the huge increase of poisonings coincided exactly with when the market became legal. So, yes, some of it could be illicit and some of it could be legal, but I think it is really to be safer in this instance. As we've said many times, Prop 64 promised that we wouldn't be marketing to children. And I think it's very important that we strengthen the legal market, that we make sure that we do enforcement.

So I do appreciate that. No, I appreciate the intent of this Bill, right. Obviously to protect children and make sure that we are not catering to interests of kids, if you will, in regards to the fancy labeling and so forth.

I do have a couple of cannabis dispensaries in my district, throughout the district, in fact, one of them, obviously being Cookies, that the name itself is very much interesting to children, right? So we have strict in that particular city, we have strict guidelines. For example, if you were to purchase a product, the bag has to be completely opaque and not see through the windows, have to be a certain way of the building and so much more. Right?

And I think that there is, to your point, threading the needle of marketing and advertising and being nice looking versus also protecting the interest of kids and making sure that this product is not in the hands of kids. So I do appreciate it. I do want to highlight that I think that people want to be able to market how they want to market. And we do have a tough job in making sure that we're fair to all sides. So when appropriate, I will move the Bill. And I do thank you for at least talking to the opposition and trying to figure out where that line is. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm beginning to think that the Senate, maybe the Assembly too, should establish a separate Committee just to hear cannabis bills. A third of our hearing items today relate to cannabis. I don't think that I've attended a BNP or Judiciary Committee meeting yet that didn't have at least one cannabis Bill on it. We continue to chase our tail to try to make a horrible Proposition better.

And all along the way the illegal market gets stronger and the legal market gets weaker. So it's it's very hard. The appearance of not supporting this Bill would seem to be that one's favor is in favor of marketing to children. That couldn't be further from the truth, because existing law prohibits packages attractive to or marketing to children. And I'll come back to that in a moment.

But you indicate that the increase in the incidence of children reporting to emergency rooms happened with the passage of Prop 64. Now, I didn't know that that was the case, and I'll accept it at face value. But there could be a different reason for that. The illegal market was strong before 64. 64 was passed. Anybody in the illegal market that didn't want to be part of the legal market would have to assess their marketing strategy.

I mean, these are smart folks, and they have continued to become stronger as we have since Prop 64 was passed, and the legal market continues to be weaker. Could it be that the illegal market decided that that was a market that they wanted to go after because they could see that the regulations prohibited, supposedly, the illegal market from pursuing that?

So I don't know that you could say with any degree of certainty that the emergency room visits are because of the legal vendors as opposed to the illegal vendors. And I'd suggest, as the Committee analysis says, the illegal market definitely goes after that market. The legal market isn't supposed to. Now, these images, most of them by the language of the requirement in existing law, Prop 64 and existing law, are illegal. Now, why are they being marketed? It's because we're not enforcing it.

Now, will this be improved by more specifically defining what is illegal packaging or through better enforcement? And I would suggest that a lot of the problem with it is not, as people have said, it's too broad, but because it's too specific in that which it doesn't allow. And that creates confusion. The mere phrase, "do not market products directly to children and products that would appear to be attractive to children". I fail to see what the problem with that is, that it needs to be further defined.

So I find it very difficult to support this, even though, as I said, just looking at a vote, a non yes vote, whether it's abstain or no, would appear that that individual doesn't have a problem with marketing to children. Nothing can be further from the truth. Existing law provides that. And as is witnessed by a lot of the opposition, I think this Bill actually further confuses things.

Thank you, Senator Niello. Senator Ashby.

Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for bringing this Bill forward, Assembly. And I think it's really important. I, for the record, would have supported leaving the vapes in we banned flavored vapes in the City of Sacramento. And like my colleague, Senator Wahab, I think maybe because we come from the local we're really accustomed to dealing with Marijuana related issues right now.

It's really dominated the dialogue at the local level too for the last several years about what can be marketed, how do we market, and I would just answer the question why does it need further explanation or further restriction is pretty clear. So I appreciate that you brought it forward. I could see where there might still be some room to talk around the human issue.

Maybe some adults, maybe farmers, something like that, or family Members if they have that's not unusual for marketing that somebody has the likeness of a family Member or the farmer or whatever. I could see where there might still be some discussion there for you. But otherwise I think this is a very important solid Bill. Look, it's a whole new industry. We're trying to work our way through it. I'm sure for years to come that the Legislature will grapple with trying to find exactly the right balance.

But I am married to an emergency room trauma nurse and there are far too many children who ingest these products because they looked like gummy bears or a brownie and it looked like it was packaged for a kiddo and they didn't know any different and they get really sick. So I think we have to do everything we can to protect kids and to guide the industry in a way that they can be successful without there being casualties to their success.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Becker.

I just want to thank the author as well for bringing this forward and working on this topic. I think it is very very important and as you said, there is a line and I appreciate you and you put a lot of thought and a lot of discussion about what that line is. Senator Wahab said it sounds like there's some openness going forward, but I just want to thank you for working on this and I'll be supporting the Bill today.

Thank you, Senator.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member Irwin, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion on AB 1207. The Bill has been moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Please call the roll.

Aye.

Roth.

Roth aye. Nguyen. Alvarado-GIl. Archuleta.

Archuleta aye. Ashby.

Aye.

Aye.

Ashby aye. Becker.

Becker aye. Dodd. Eggman. Glazer. Niello.

Aye.

No.

Niello no. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wahab.

Aye.

Wahab aye. Wilk.

Aye.

Wilk aye.

Current vote is six to one. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Item number 4. Assembly Member Papan, AB 893 personal vehicle sharing programs. And before you start, Assembly Member, I just want to thank you for working so diligently with Committee staff on this Bill.

Thank you, chair. It's a pleasure to be with you here this morning. I want to start by accepting the Committee amendments that further clarify customer facility charges that airports charge and they will be such that they will be related to the extent to which a vehicle sharing program uses the infrastructure that are the customer facilities at individual airports. So this Bill is simply about requiring businesses to respect governing authorities and contribute to the public infrastructure from which they make a profit.

Over the past 15 years, new businesses have emerged as disruptors, forcing change and adaptation in the car rental space. Peer to peer platforms are a new avenue for car owners to rent their private vehicles to consumers. While the transactions are somewhat different than that of a traditional rental car company, the end result is the same a consumer ends up renting a car.

In fact, the California Court of Appeals held in a recent case involving Turo, the main company in this space, they said as follows. There is no dispute that Turo's entire business consists of enabling the public to rent motor vehicles. Unlike traditional car rental companies, peer to peer rentals do not currently adhere to airport regulation.

Unpermitted sharing of personal vehicle platforms at airports has led to a myriad of issues, including vehicles left abandoned or waiting at terminal areas for lengthy period of time, increased traffic congestion, and a loss of revenue. Revenue which is critical to ensure that public airports don't drain taxpayers. Everything costs money. Terminals, tarmacs, you name it. You and I, the taxpayer pay to keep airports going. And this isn't a new issue. Ride sharing with companies such as Uber and Lyft charted a similar course almost a decade ago.

Rather than abide by airport authority, they allowed their hosts to continue airport operations and just absorbed the tickets and the fines that airports were giving out. They did so until they were compelled to obtain a formal airport permit. History repeats itself, and we're here again. Some peer to peer operators are absorbing the airport fines and post on their hosts rather than obtaining an airport permit. This is unacceptable behavior that can no longer go unaddressed.

Here, I would like to highlight that all of the other commercial actors are required to have a permit, from the flower shop to the rental car to the coffee shop to Uber to Lyft to taxis. Everybody gets a permit from an airport. It's a public facility from which they profit. And before I introduce my witness, I want to be clear about what the Bill does and doesn't do. AB 893 will require peer to peer platforms to obtain an airport permit prior to July 1, 2024.

So we're extending out the time to comply to about a year from now. AB 893 does not require mandatory customer facility charges. As I mentioned at the beginning, it will be based on the proportionate use. AB 893 will require peer to peer platforms contribute to California's tourism marketing programs from which they benefit. And AB 893 does not regulate neighborhood operations of peer to peer platforms.

AB 893 ensures that the California Legislature is not picking winners and losers in an industry through applying regulations to one business and not another. So with me today I have Jim Lights, who is from the California Airports Council, or representing the California Airports Council as my first witness.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. First I want to thank the Committee for their work on this Bill on behalf of the California Airports Council, comprised of the 31 commercial airports in the state, this Bill will finally move peer to peer car sharing towards having permits at all airports in California where they operate. We are in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next witness. In support.

I have Mitch Steiger of the Labor Fed.

Mr. Steiger, please proceed.

Thank you. Mr. Chair Members and staff Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation also in support of the Bill for all the reasons stated by the author and previous witness but also wanted to really focus on from the worker perspective our belief that this Bill is really about fairness.

That for our Members in this industry, of which I used to be when I used to clean rental cars as a Member of Teamsters 117, when we would go to negotiate with our employer over our wages, benefits and working conditions to try to win back more of the wealth that we created. There's less of it there for us because our employer had to pay for things like sales tax, as they should have to support the infrastructure. That allows this industry to continue.

That pays for the roads and the utilities and the buildings and the safety and everything that they rely on.

And while this Bill doesn't go all the way towards leveling the playing field, we think it takes a major step in the right direction by requiring the question to be asked, by requiring that certification to happen so that we do make sure that this industry does kind of move in that direction and that the one that does succeed is the one that does the best job of providing the service rather than the one that has found the way to avoid as many responsibilities as possible, like paying sales tax.

And for those reasons, we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name, affiliation, position on the measure, please.

Chair and members, Nick Roma on behalf of the San Diego Airport. In support.

Thank you. Next please.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support in room 2100? Now let's turn to witnesses in opposition, lead or otherwise, if any.

Good morning. John Moffatt on behalf of Enterprise in support.

Good morning, chair and Members, Larissa Sespidez representing Turo. We want to thank the author and her staff, the chair and the Committee Members and their staff. We will be removing our opposition from the Bill with the amendments that were suggested by this Committee on Behalf of the 19,000 hosts that share their vehicle on their platform. We look forward to getting more of the just six permits that we have at airports.

As you know, our Hosts also have other duties, including having to carry three times insurance, having to pay sales tax and vehicle tax on their vehicles. And we think that this Bill represents a modest compromise for us. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other opposition? Witnesses seeing none. Let's turn to the teleconference service moderator. If you would please prompt anyone waiting on the teleconference service to testify either in support or in opposition to Assembly Bill 893 will take them now.

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 893, please press 10 at this time. And first we will hear from line 60. Please go ahead.

Amelia Zamani, California Travel Association in strong support. Thank you.

And next we will hear from line 20. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Next please.

Leah Newtaka with Pecnet. We've removed our opposition and are now neutral based on amendments taken to address our concerns. I'd like to thank the author and her staff for their tireless work on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Mr. Chair, there are no further comments at this time.

Great. Let's bring the matter back to the dais for any questions or comments by my colleague, Senator Wahab.

Thank you. So, Assembly Member. I do appreciate this. I served on our airport Committee when I was in local government. And one of the things that a lot of people don't realize is that airports and their funding structure is completely isolated. They are unable to bring in more money from whether it's general funds or move money out. They have a lot of upkeep. It has to be held at a very high standard for the Feds and so forth. So it's very complicated.

And a lot of people don't realize that these funds are actually usually in a deficit. Right. And I know that we pulled our airport out of that deficit through some modernization, if you will. Right. And I think that your Bill here also helps in regards to not only helping the consumer being able to move appropriately, but also ensuring that there is some type of funding source that is evolving for these airports and so forth.

So I'm very happy to move the Bill and I appreciate your hard work on this. Thank you.

Any other questions and comments? Actually, Senator Archuletta beat you to the motion, but seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you. Chair just respectfully request an I vote.

We have a motion moved by Senator Archuletta. The motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Please call the roll.

Roth, aye. Nguyen, not present. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuletta, aye. Ashby, aye. Becker, aye. Dodd, not present. Eggman, not present. Glazer, not present. Niello, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wahab, aye. Wilk, aye.

Bill has nine votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. Now, lest you thought we would not return to cannabis in this Committee, we're returning to cannabis with item number five, AB 1171, Assemblymember Rubio, Cannabis private right of action.

Thank you, Mr. Senator, Mr. Chair and members. I am here to present another cannabis bill, AB 1171, which would empower the licensed cannabis market to seek injunctive relief against unlicensed operators. I want to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments and thank the chair and his staff for their assistance in ensuring the measure meets its intended goal. Over the years, myself and many authors present here have sponsored, supported and advocated for additional enforcement against illicit operators in the cannabis market. Unfortunately, the illicit market has continued to grow despite the additional enforcement steps we have taken in the past years. There are several clear indicators of the toll that it's taking on licensed operators. Currently, four out of five cannabis purchases made in California are made to on the illicit market. In May 2022, there were close to 1500 brands in the market. Less than a year later, only about 1000 remain. This has led to the largest multistate operators characterizing California's operating conditions as, quote, brutal and the investment climate as, quote, hostile. This, in turn, devastates the unionized workforce of licensed operators and reduces the opportunities for workers in this space as the legal businesses leave the state. As such, it is clear unique steps must be taken to further empower the legal market. AB 1171 provides that unique support by simply empowering licensed operators to seek injunctive relief against nonlicensed operators. As you know, or many of you do not know, I personally do not take this type of legislation lightly. And I'm not sure that I've ever even supported a bill with this method of enforcement. However, over the years, it's become abundantly clear that the pressures our existing enforcement mechanisms put on the illicit market are not sufficient. This measure is simply another tool to impose additional pressure on illicit operators while either encouraging them to seek a license or leave the market to legal operators. Amendments taken today ensure this process is not abused while still retaining a significant penalty to deter bad actors. AB 1171 is a unique solution to an incredibly complex problem and as such, has no opposition, even garnering bipartisan support in the Assembly. I would like to also make a comment on Senator Niello's comment. I know you were just this morning I was having that conversation about what we're doing is really not working. One policy measure at a time doesn't help. We need to come up with a comprehensive group, if you will, with multiple avenues to support the legal market. With me today to testify in support is Alberto Torico on behalf of the San Diego Imperial County Joint Labor Management Committee. Thank you.

Mr. Torico. Please proceed. Welcome.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. Alberto Torrico, on behalf of the author, mentioned the Joint Labor Management Committee for cannabis in San Diego and Imperial County, and also on behalf of , both sponsors of the Bill, as mentioned by Senator Rubio and earlier by Senator Niello, my former colleague. The illicit market is overrunning, the legal market, and there are things that need to be done. Senator Roth, you and I have had the same conversation as well with your staff and other Members of the Committee. The problem from our perspective is that the illicit operators don't pay taxes, they don't get licensed, they don't follow the rules. And that has a terribly detrimental impact on the licensed operators. And if you take into account license operators that are unionized, that pay higher wages, offer more benefits, it's even harder. So we think this is a very streamlined approach. The Bill has changed from when it was introduced, as all bills do, but I think it's in a very good place today. There's varied number of factors that have to be met. First of all, the litigation can only be filed by a licensed operator. They have to show actual harm. The purpose is to have a tool in the toolbox whereby a license operator can go to court and say, there's an unlicensed operator near me, they need to be shut down. It gives that operator the standing and do that, and gives the court the power to give an immediate injunction to shut down that business. We think that's good public policy. The amendments also clarify and limit the scope significantly. This is not a traditional PAGA bill. This doesn't do that. And I think the amendments certainly reflect that intent. It was never our intent in any case. We think this is a very narrow, important measure. By no means is it the solution, but it's another step, hopefully, in encouraging the unlicensed operators to become licensed. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.

Any other supporters?

Good morning, Elizabeth Espinosa on behalf of the Board of Supervisors and the County of Santa Barbara in support thank you.

Thank you. Any other supporters in room 2100? Now let's move to witnesses in opposition, lead or otherwise, in room 2100. Seeing no opposition witnesses, let's now move to the teleconference service moderator. If you would, please prompt any individuals waiting to testify either in support or in opposition to this measure, AB 1171 will take them now.

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 1171, please. 1-0 at this time.

And, Mr. Chair, there are no comments.

Fine. Let's move the conversation back to the dais and my colleagues for questions or comments. Senator Niello. Did I see Senator Eggman? Oh, Senator Wahab. Senator Niello first, followed by Senator Wahab.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is another example of the dismal lack of regulatory enforcement. The people passed a bill, admittedly a faulty bill, I think on false pretenses, but nonetheless passed a bill. And in the face of, as I said before, an extremely strong illegal market to begin a nascent legal market. The former continues to win and the latter continues to lose. And a lot of that has to do with lack of enforcement. And we spend a lot of time here trying to deal with that. It is beginning to seem to me like an utter waste of time. Here, we're authorizing entities with diminishing and little resources to sue in court entities with significant resources.

You tell me who's going to win that battle unless an attorney takes these strictly on contingencies, which can happen. But again, I'm doubtful. I don't feel as strongly about this bill as I did the other bill, but I'm doubtful that it can make all that much of a difference given the fundamental dysfunction we're dealing with here.

Thank you, sir. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember Rubio. I really do appreciate you bringing this. I think more and more we're having a lot of conversations on cannabis in particular. But I also want to say that to former Assemblymember Torrico's comments, I will move the bill and appreciate your hard work on this.

Thank you, Senator. Any other? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

I just agree with my colleague from the Bay Area on this, and mainly because this is a new industry and we're trying to make sure that it's one that's high road, it's one that is regulated, and it becomes part of the job sales tax community sustainability generator that we need it to be. And that means we've got to deal with the illicit market, which is still putting far too many of our folks in jail. So I just want to say I support this bill, and I support what you're trying to do with it. And I'm glad that this is something you've decided to do at this point in your career. So with that, I support the bill as well.

Thank you, Senator. Any other questions or comments? Senator Glazer.

Thank you, Chair Roth, and I did have the opportunity to listen to the testimony remotely prior to my arrival here in the hearing room. And first, I want to associate myself with the comments made earlier by the Senator from Fair Oaks about the need to really spend some time in the space. I hate these one-off bills. We've been having them for years now. It's a dysfunctional market. I'm not happy of the situation that we find ourselves in.

And so, reluctantly, I am going to support this bill, even though it's not the practice I think we should follow in government to have private action in these spaces. It should be us doing our job correctly and we just seem to not be able to get in front of this problem on a whole range of places, including what your bill seeks to try to accomplish. And with that I'll support it today. But I hope that Chair Roth and others can try to find a way to comprehensively look at this whole problem and have the discussion necessary to forge a better path.

Thank you, Senator, any other questions or comments? Well, I'll make one. Unfortunately and frankly, it's inexcusable, that the state has failed to fund and resource the enforcement activity that is necessary in this space up and down the state. And it's unfortunate that the California State Senate or the California State Assembly or the two, as a state Legislature can't seem to drive enough money through the budget, because it, of course, takes three to tango in this state.

Drive enough money through the budget to get the enforcement level ramped up to the level that it needs to in order to tamp out this illegal or illicit market. So we resort to vigilante operations, which is how I sort of view this. But I guess it's necessary and hopefully, it will succeed. It's going to be difficult in a cash-based business where people don't necessarily operate from places that they want to be found, but we'll see how this works. I will be supporting the bill. It's been moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is do pass to Senate Judiciary. Please call the roll.

Roth. Aye. Roth, aye. Nguyen. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker. Aye. Becker, aye. Dodd. Eggman. Aye. Eggman, aye. Glazer. Aye. Glazer, aye. Niello. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Wilk. Aye. Wilk, aye.

Bill has 10 votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent members.

Thank you.

Next is item number six, Assembly Member Haney AB 1286. Welcome sir.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. I first want to start by accepting the Committee amendments, including the amendment that strikes the ability for a pharmacist on duty to close the pharmacy due to insufficient staffing. And I want to thank the chair and the Committee staff for working with my office on the language. We accepted all of the Committee amendments. So many of the issues that were brought up in the analysis I believe were addressed by these amendments. And thank you for working with us on that. We all can agree that chain pharmacies and the pharmacists who work for them are instrumental in delivering care to Californians. However, alarming medication errors in this setting have recently been made public, including errors that have led to hospitalization or death. There are many conditions in a pharmacy that can lead to medication errors. Some of these conditions include insufficient staffing, unsanitary conditions, or an unsafe work environment. And while significant time and research has been dedicated to evaluating medication errors occurring in inpatient settings like hospitals, similar research and information sharing does not exist in the community pharmacy setting. Unfortunately, there is no requirement under current law for pharmacies to track medication errors or to consider the pharmacy working conditions that lead to medication errors. Therefore, medication errors are widely underreported and unknown while having detrimental effects on patients. AB 1286 will help address the root causes of medication errors and ensure our community chain pharmacists are providing their patients with the best possible care. It does so by requiring community chain pharmacies to report medication errors and requires these pharmacies to maintain adequate staffing and provides a clear pathway to close the pharmacy if there is a serious threat to patients or workers. No one should be providing clinical care in unsafe, unsanitary work environments, and patients should not be receiving care in these conditions. I want to note that we amended the bill before Committee to address the opposition's concerns around pharmacy closures, and it is my understanding that the amended language, as well as the Committee's proposed amendment today on closure, should resolve the opposition's concerns on the closures. And I want to thank them, the opposition as well, for working so collaboratively with our office and the sponsors. Here to testify in support today is Jesse Crowley, the Vice President of the California State Board of Pharmacy, and Dr. Veronica Bandy, a Professor at the University of Pacific and a community pharmacist. We also have Ms. Sodergren from the Board of Pharmacy who's available for technical questions.

Thank you, sir. Please proceed.

Good morning chairperson Roth and Members of the Committee. On behalf of the California State Board of Pharmacy, I sincerely thank Assembly Member Haney for authoring this important public health measure in the Committee and its staff for its consideration of this measure today. My name is Jesse Crowley. I'm the Vice President of the Board of Pharmacy. By statute, the Board is a consumer protection agency charged with regulating the practice of pharmacy. Explicitly stated in pharmacy law, whenever the protection of the public is inconsistent with other interests sought to be promoted, the protection of the public shall be paramount. Consistent with this legislative mandate, the Board is sponsoring AB 1286, one of the most significant patient safety measures ever sponsored by the Board. As part of the Board's Sunset Review Committee, the Oversight Committee has asked the Board if there were opportunities for statutory revision that would potentially reduce the frequency of medication errors resulting in patient harm. In the Board's response to this very important issue, the Board acknowledged that issue of medication errors must be addressed to improve public health. The Board noted at the time, consideration should be given to determine if the Board or another entity should receive medication error reports. The Board also committed to conducting a survey to determine if working conditions are a contributing factor. I am testifying before you today because the Board dedicated significant time to evaluate this issue and has identified necessary changes in pharmacy law to protect consumers. Assembly Bill 1286 incorporates the findings of a yearlong effort, learning from experts and evaluating actions taken in other jurisdictions. As time is short, I will finish my comments by noting that good public policy and the Board's consumer protection mandate demand that the Board take action to prevent future medication errors. I thank you for your time and consideration of AB 1286, and your assistance for helping the Board protect California consumers. Thank you.

Thank you for joining us. Dr. Bandy.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I'm Dr. Veronica Bandy. I'm a faculty at the University of the Pacific School of Pharmacy, as well as a practicing community pharmacist here in California. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today in support of AB 1286. I want to thank the Legislature for addressing workforce issues over the past, as well as continue to address these issues in corporate owned pharmacies for the past several years. The primary goal is to ensure patient safety. In 2018, SB 1442 was signed into law, which requires community pharmacies to have another employee available to assist the pharmacist at all times. Unfortunately, there are still some corporate owned pharmacies skirting their attendance of the law by only having a front end or store cashier available, not pharmacy professionals. Store cashiers, in some cases, are neither trained nor legally authorized to be able to provide the assistance needed in a pharmacy. One of the major struggles we continue to face in working pharmacies is that we are, in some cases, significantly understaffed. It has been reported that understaffing is a contributing factor to medication errors. Requiring all pharmacies to report medication errors is good policy, but also doesn't address the root cause of the issue. On average, California schools of pharmacy will graduate between 801,000 pharmacists every single year. There is currently no shortage of pharmacists within our state. Requiring a chain community pharmacy to be staffed with at least one pharmacy clerk or a pharmacy technician is not unreasonable, especially when the Bill could have required additional pharmacists to be hired. As healthcare providers. Pharmacists are legally and ethically bound to advise our patients, physicians, and other healthcare providers on the selection, dosage, indications, side effects regarding medications and other disease states. In order for us as pharmacists to appropriately provide care and to have a minimum staffing of the pharmacy is paramount. AB 1286 is a fair Bill and will help improve patient safety. I respectfully request your support.

Thank you very much, Doctor. Any other support? Witnesses here in room 2100? Seeing none, let's turn to opposition witnesses, lead or otherwise. First, the leads.

Good morning, Chairman Roth and Members of the Committee. My name is Rob Geddes. I'm here on behalf of Albertson's Companies. We appreciate Senate Member Haney and his office working very diligently with us to remediate some of the issues that we had with the closure language in the Bill and we thank him for the amendments that were offered and accepted on that as well as the Committee amendments that were accepted today. We still have additional concerns with this Bill, one primarily being the minimum staffing floor that is established by the Bill. For Albertsons, we do operate many low volume pharmacies in Southern California and Northern California. And we do view that this and based on our analysis, this will be a Bill that will likely cause permanent closure of pharmacies in those scenarios. We have submitted an amendment to the author related to inserting a threshold that would allow for the very low volume pharmacies to continue to operate with an exception to the minimum staffing floor. We view that as a fair amendment that would allow us to continue to operate those and continue to preserve patient access in those areas. The original closure language helps, to the amendments, help to prevent intermittent closure. We think that the amendments that we've offered on this aspect of the Bill will help to prevent permanent closure, which will help benefit and prevent additional pharmacy deserts being multiplied and growing in the State of California. This really comes down to multiple faceted issues that are affecting pharmacy today related to reimbursement that prevent us from being able to operate pharmacies profitably. This is a very challenging and complex topic and we appreciate the Committee's concerns and as well as your attentiveness to the issue and ask that the Committee would continue to work with the author's office to recommend that further amendments are accepted on this Bill so that we can get to a neutral position. And with that, I'd stand for any questions if there are any. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Next please.

Hi, Jennifer Snyder. On behalf of the California Retailers Association, their community pharmacy coalition, Rob Geddes did a very nice job of reiterating kind of what our main remaining concerns are. I first want to really thank the author for working with us and the Committee's attention to this issue. There's many aspects of the Bill and so a lot of content that we've had to work through, and we really do have a goal of getting to a place where both of our goals related to patient safety can be achieved. So we very much thank all of that time and effort by him and his staff. I just want to add two important points. First, respectfully, I have to take issue with the Board of Pharmacy's workplace survey that they seem to cite a fair amount both in their testimony and in the information that they share. The survey was done right in the middle of Heart of COVID, it was actually a monkey, one of those monkey surveys. I could have filled it out. There was no monitoring or any type of follow up on that survey. And they cite that continually as to how they're generating and determining policy, and this Bill in and of itself. So we have encouraged in our dialogue, both with the board and with the author, that we really look at a survey that can be verified and a survey that can be done, maybe not during the pandemic, where many of us were very much stressed during the pandemic and all of us had a really hard time, especially in our healthcare settings. Second, last, I just want to touch on what we consider both all of our members and our pharmacy members as part of the pharmacy coalition, see as probably the remaining concern that needs to be addressed, that both the Legislature Administration and the board of pharmacy have not touched. And that's that California has the most restrictive pharmacist to pharmacy technician ratio in the country. We have a requirement that only one pharmacy technician can be supervised by one pharmacist. 25 other states in California have an unlimited ratio. Most states, if they don't have an unlimited ratio, it's at least one to three or one to four. We require here in the State of California, only one pharmacy technician to one pharmacist. And we wonder why we have a problem with concerns about staffing or flexibility. If you have one pharmacy technician that doesn't show up for work that day, you have no pharmacy technicians. And so we believe that addressing that pharmacy to pharmacist to pharmacy technician ratio would probably solve many of the issues that the board of pharmacy has raised and that they've asked the author to try to address through his Bill 1286. So we are encouraged by the discussions we're continuing to have with the author and very much appreciate again the Committee's attention to this issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Other opposition witnesses, name, affiliation, position on the measure?

Mr. Chair and Members, Trent Smith on behalf of Rite Aid Pharmacies, associate my comments with the previous witness.

Thank you. Next, please.

Mr. Chair and Members, Peter Kellison on behalf of Walgreens, which is a member of the Community Pharmacy Coalition, also in opposition, but appreciate the steps that have been taken.

Thank you. Any other opposition witnesses in room 2100? Seeing none. Let's move to the teleconference service moderator, please prompt anyone waiting to testify either in support or in opposition to the measure AB 1286, and we'll take them now.

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 1286, please press 1-0 at this time.

And Mr. Chair, there are no comments.

Thank you. Let's bring the matter back to the dais and my colleagues for questions or comments. Senator Niello, followed by Senator Wahab and Senator Ashby.

A question, Assemblymember Haney. The opposition stated the very severe ratio of pharmacist technicians. Given that if one wants to increase staffing, one would presumably have to increase it by two at any time you want to increase staffing, given that ratio, how do you answer that?

So, and I also would ask the Director of the Board of Pharmacy, who can answer some of the technical questions. I know that there are concerns about the ratio. This bill and other bills have tried to address that. This bill is not getting into the question of the ratio. It's creating, I think, a very reasonable achievable minimum staffing requirement, which would be either a pharmacy tech or a clerk which is fully dedicated to performing pharmacy-related services.

The example that you heard from one of the witnesses is what we're trying to address here, which is you can't have somebody who's really operating a cash register has no connection or relationship or training or sole dedication to pharmacy-related services meeting this requirement to assist the pharmacy with the staffing force. So we're trying to address that aspect of it. We don't say it has to be a pharmacy tech, but I'll let the expert speak on that technical question as to why we did it this way rather than a ratio.

Yeah. Thank you. So there are provisions in the bill that would increase the staffing base and the pharmacy technician pieces that would increase that ratio. When we talk about ratio in general, and I'll keep it pretty high level, in California, you can have an unlimited number of clerk typists in a pharmacy. And in a lot of other jurisdictions, those individuals are regulated as pharmacy technicians. In California, they're not. And so you can have an unlimited number of those. It's not necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison because the scope of practice and how they're regulated in other jurisdictions varies.

What was the term for the unregulated position or the position not regulated by staffing ratios?

Clerk typist is what we call them in California, they're unlicensed individuals that can do things like, you know, type up the labels and those kinds of things. In other jurisdictions, you're licensed as a pharmacy technician to perform those functions.

But we're dealing with issues of customer service that relate to customer safety. That would seem to me, by definition, to deal with physicians that were knowledgeable of and handled specifically prescriptions. That particular position doesn't have anything to do with the doesn't sound to me anything to do with the filling of a prescription. So it just seems to me that if there's a staffing problem, it would almost have to be that is, dealing with customer safety. It would almost have to deal with pharmacists or pharmacist technicians. And to add one of those you've got to add two of them, and particularly since a pharmacist presumably is paid quite a bit more, that can add disproportionately to the overhead. What am I misunderstanding there?

The clerk typist is very much involved with prescriptions and can assist in those sort of things. So they definitely would have a role with situations that could lead to medication error. If a pharmacist was having to process that themselves and didn't have the clerk there, that lack of staffing support can lead to medication error. The clerk definitely has a role with how the prescriptions.

I understand your point. Well, I am interrupting, but I don't mean to rudely. So the typist is going to be typing up prescriptions based upon the input from the person that filled the prescription. It seemed to me if there's going to be an error, that's where the error is most likely going to be because just transcribing is not a particularly skilled job. Go ahead.

Yeah. Although a clerk typist is not licensed by the Board, they operate under the direct supervision and control of the pharmacist, as does the pharmacy technician. So they do not have any independent autonomy. So any work that is done by those personnel must be reviewed and approved. Approved is the wrong word, but deemed appropriate by the pharmacist.

So the pharmacist is doing all of that as well as doing all of the functions that require clinical judgment, doing your medication reviews to make sure that it's appropriate for you that there's no contraindications, and all of those kinds of things. So when we talk about the staffing within the pharmacy, there's those that are regulated and those that are unregulated or not licensed by the Board and those that are licensed by the Board, there is the ratio, but all of those additional individuals are not included in the ratio.

Do you believe that the one-to-one ratio, given what other states do, just that in and of itself is a bit restrictive?

So I will say that the Board of Pharmacy has considered ratio and the legislative bodies have considered the ratio, and the law has remained the same. What we are seeking to do here, specific to medication errors, is looking at what is happening, trying to get our arms around it. The board did include in the proposal in 1286, there is provisions that allow that expand what a pharmacy technician can do, because those were things that could be taken off of the pharmacist plate. And where they're doing that, actually it does increase the number of pharmacy technicians to two, so that second technician can be doing those additional authorities established in 1286, while the other one remains there to assist the pharmacist.

Relating to the duties of the pharmacist technician. If I understand it correctly, a portion of the bill also gives the pharmacist the ability to judge whether or not a pharmacist technician has the competency to do certain jobs. Since the licensure already specifies that, why does the bill have that component in it?

So from a consumer protection standpoint, a lot of these duties, they are required to have training. But from a practical standpoint, as a pharmacist, you are responsible for all of the functions that those individuals are taking, and you don't necessarily always have control over or know who you're working with at the time. So having the pharmacist in charge and making that determination is intended to be sure that the pharmacist that's there working on that day that is assigned to a pharmacy technician has confidence that they have completed that additional training and have been deemed safe to do so in terms of administering the vaccines or those kind of things.

So a pharmacist cannot, of certainty rely upon the skills that a pharmacist technician has by virtue of the licensure?

For these enhanced duties, because typically the certification process or the pathways to licensure do not cover these enhanced duties that are being established in 1286. Some of these functions have been done through the COVID pandemic under the PREP Act or the DCA director's waivers, but it was not contemplated as part of the minimum requirements for licensure as a pharmacy technician initially.

So it's for the pharmacist to assign to the pharmacist technician skills and above and beyond that which the licensure covers. The bill doesn't make that maybe I'm missing something, but the bill doesn't make that particularly clear. Thank you.

Ma'am, let me just ask one question before I turn to my colleagues, because they're up first, but I just want to follow on Senator Niello's point. So if a pharmacist has to make a determination of competency with regard to an already licensed person licensed by the board, if the pharmacist makes a mistake or misses something in that competency determination, is the pharmacist then subject to disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct? Does that question make sense?

I think so. I'm going to try.

In other words, we're putting an obligation on a pharmacist to determine competency of a subordinate licensed person. If the pharmacist messes up, doesn't properly assess competence, and there's an issue, is the pharmacist then subject to discipline for failure to do so?

In the bill, excuse me. Sorry, I'm nervous.

Don't be nervous. We're all nervous.

It's the pharmacist in charge who's that individual that's responsible for operational compliance with the pharmacy is the one that would be designating that. So the pharmacist that's there can rely on that determination that's been made by the pharmacist in charge that that individual can in fact administer the immunization safely for example.

Senator Niello, I apologize. So I know we took a number of committee amendments. One of the amendments was asking us so that if the texts are performing tasks which they are licensed, the author may wish to strike reference in Section Four that allows a pharmacist in charge to deem a PT competent to perform the additional task. We took that amendment as well. So some of this is also.

Probably addresses the issue then, right?

Addresses that specific issue. Thank you. So we took that out of the bill. We took all of the suggestions of the amendments. Suggestions in the analysis we took as amendments.

Thanks for clarifying. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. So I just wanted to ask a couple of questions, and if you can clarify, I think it's best. Number one, in regards to this particular bill, basically, when you're talking about staffing levels and so forth, you can hire as many staff that's not necessarily licensed, correct? As needed.

Yes.

Okay. And then some of the other positions besides a pharmacist, the tech, and I believe there was another one, I want to say clerk typist, they are not necessarily licensed under the board, right?

Correct.

Okay. And you can hire 10 of them, right?

Correct.

Unlimited number if need be, right? And the goal is to ensure accountability and much more for not only the patient, ensuring that they have the right medication, and also service to individuals that come into pharmacies, correct?

Yes.

Okay. And I personally will just know I have aging parents, obviously, and they have a lot of health care concerns, and going to a pharmacy takes forever. Number one, there is a lack of support there, including in Bay Area cities. I don't think that this bill is harmful in that regard. I actually think it's very beneficial to consumers. And again, there's a lot of accountability, and we are dealing with medication being provided to people, right?

And it's of the utmost importance to ensure that that medication is not only accurate, but also that patients and family members of patients can have questions answered, clarity on the medication, and much more. And you believe that this bill will also help in some regard to that level of care, correct?

Yes, absolutely.

Okay. With all of that, I move the bill. I appreciate your hard work. I appreciate everybody commenting, and I'm sure that we can address other issues as they come up. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Ashby.

Yeah. First of all, I mean, this is an ambitious bill. It does so many things. So reading it, it's sort of like a checklist, right? It reminds me of the BMP bills that he has to carry, you know, deal with the whole industry. So I appreciate that you were ambitious in taking it all on, but for a community like mine in Sacramento, this group that got up in opposition, that's an important group because that's where most people are getting their medications from here.

And so I just need to know what you're doing to talk to them about those ratios and making sure that I know it's not desirable in some areas for chains to be the only one, but here that would be when you have Rite Aid, Safeway getting up and talking, that would be extremely problematic. There are hundreds of thousands of my constituents where that's the only place they would be getting their medicine.

So tell me how this doesn't trade out one really noble and important thing to do in access in other areas, from creating a barrier to access in other areas, or how you can address that ratio issue with that community. I am inclined to support your bill, but I want to know how you're going to address that because honestly, I just don't want the bill to move forward without addressing that. It's too important for regions like mine.

Absolutely. And we've been working very closely with the opposition throughout this process. When I was in the Assembly, the main issue we had around was this question of the autonomy that a pharmacist has if there's a really serious threat to somebody's safety or to even death or illness, and the autonomy that that pharmacist has to be able to temporarily shut a part of the pharmacy down. We've worked very closely with them on that, and we've addressed that and come to an agreement on amendments there.

I'm happy to continue to talk to them about the staffing part of this bill. This bill came forward from the board of pharmacy, who is within statute to protect patients and consumers and make sure that we ensure broad access, but also safe access to medication. It's supported by the pharmacists. And so these folks are also, as you are and as I know, the community chain pharmacies are committed to making sure that we have broad access to medication and also to make sure that we do the things to keep folks safe. And I think this does strike a right balance.

The issue of the ratio is a very prickly one, and both and I are relatively new here, but it's been contested and fought along for some amount of time, and we didn't go there in this bill, but I think that where we ended up on staffing is a fair way to do it. Minimum staffing. That means you just have to have one more person there, either a tech or a clerk who's fully dedicated to assisting that pharmacist.

I think for those of us who have rely on these pharmacies and who ourselves have family members who rely on them, that feels fair to us. But I will continue to talk to them if there are ways that we can. I recognize there was a question or an idea about pharmacies of certain sizes, and maybe there's a way to think about it in that way without having to dig into the ratio because if we dug into the ratio, a lot of other issues come out. And this bill, I think, can address these safety issues without addressing the ratio.

Well, kudos to you for not being afraid of stepping in some of the prickly spots, or maybe you did it on accident, I don't know. But I resemble that remark myself, so I understand. But I do need you to keep working on that piece with them. And maybe there is something with the chains because they are sort of by nature encompassed in the larger business with lots of other people on site.

Maybe there's another way to address that, but I need you to keep working on that. I'm going to vote for it today, but going to reserve the right to take another look when it comes to the floor just because I see what you're trying to solve for and I know we need to find that balance. But in my community, it would be a major hit for us to lose them or for them to feel like they couldn't provide those services or pharmaceutical services in some of their areas anymore. In some of the communities in my district that there's already food insecure areas and some of those food insecure areas have just one grocery and that grocery is where there is the one pharmacy.

And it would be impossible for me to get a small pharmacy into those communities and I cannot let them lose the pharmacy piece of an already temperamental grocery store that is going to need additional cuts. So for me, I'm looking at this through the optic of some of these neighborhoods that it's hard to even get a store to open up in there and they become an island. And I just need to make sure that they have as much access inside of that store as possible.

Absolutely. And you have my commitment to continue to work on this. I think there are strong feelings on both sides of the ratio piece and there may be another way for us to deal with it. I think for us, for a place like Walgreens or Rite Aid, we of course want to keep them open. We also think it's reasonable to expect that if there's a pharmacist there, there's at least one other person who's dedicated to assist that person to ensure patient safety.

You'll figure it out.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas followed by Senator Nguyen.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward and appreciate the comments of my colleagues. And I think one of the things that I've seen in my local pharmacy is that these are in some ways becoming clinics. One pharmacist, one tech, and the one pharmacy that we have in our community. And I remember one afternoon stepping in, a gentleman had burned himself and was trying to figure out, asking the pharmacist to take a look. Another person was coming in and had issues with their insurance card. And we're asking, can you help me figure out why my insurance is not being accepted? And then the traditional work of filling prescriptions. So I think the issue of ratios is a real one.

And I appreciate your work on this and commitment to continuing to work on it and just know that our pharmacists are overburdened and in some communities, these pharmacies are makeshift clinics on any given time of the day and being asked to go well beyond and above what's required. So I support this bill moving forward.

I think we need to do all that we can to certainly keep the pharmacies open, but also making sure that folks are not harmed because we don't have the right capacity to do the staffing and the work that's necessary and that the community is often deserving and needing because of the lack of healthcare access. And these stores being so proliferated across communities, we need to make sure that there's adequate service and support. So I'm excited to support this bill moving forward as a first step in that direction.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to echo some of the concerns my colleagues have, whether it's the staffing ratio, it's more of just making sure that these pharmacies don't end up shutting down for the day. Because in any business, like even ours, and that goes with hospitals too, staff shortage is all over the place, especially in the medical field. And second is that people do call in sick.

And when they do call in sick, do we shut down the whole pharmacy for the day and then nobody else gets the medication? And these medications for some folks don't need it immediately, but others do need it immediately. Where do they go? And so I appreciate your commitment, mentioning to my colleagues that you move forward. I'm going to reserve. As you continue, please keep that in mind. And I know my district is Orange County, but doesn't mean that it's available every corner. So there are areas, particularly in those, that needs more ethnic staffers or staffing and specific language. It gets more difficult to find that extra staff or two to replace them for the day to keep that store open.

All right.

Thank you.

I appreciate that. And I think initially with the bill, part of what we were trying to deal with was there were situations where a pharmacist who themselves is liable for their conditions and any errors that occur, were having situations like rodent infestations or severe situations for health and safety, temperature issues. And we wanted them to have the authority to, in a very temporary basis, close a part of a pharmacy to protect the health and safety.

We took that specific part out of the bill because we didn't want to ever have a situation where we were restricting access to people who needed medication. So under the amendments, the pharmacist will not be able to close the pharmacist and instead, they would notify the management. Then the store has 24 hours to abate. And if it's not abated, the pharmacist can notify the board of pharmacies who then can do an evaluation. We think that's the right way to actually address these issues rather than have situations where, because of staffing or other issues, there's any restriction of access. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Senator. Assemblymember. Senator Glazer, followed by Senator Eggman.

Thank you, Chair Roth. I appreciate the amendments that you've taken on the bill and I know that a lot of work went into negotiating that. For my colleague's benefit, there was a bill on staffing ratio 2019 authored by me. I stepped in it and it was to allow a three-to-one ratio past this committee. So we did our work past this committee, but unfortunately fell on the wayside as it progressed for some, in my view, political reasons, not health reasons, but politics that swirl around these issues and appreciate why it's not in this bill.

But I do want to reinforce some of the comments that have made by the Senator from Sacramento and others that while this bill focused on closure, it seems like the staffing pieces kind of was in there. And now it's become to the forefront because the closure issue has kind of been resolved, and I don't think it's necessarily resolved properly in your bill.

I think the concern that was raised about a rural pharmacy where the pharmacists themselves have the time to go ahead and close out an account. And so I would hope that that would be something you could address today or continue to work on in the bill because I just think that it's kind of become a casualty of your resolution on the closure issue and I don't think that's a fair one.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Eggman.

Thank you. And thank you to the Assembly member. I'm going to support this today and I'm going to align some of my comments with Senator Ashby. I just want you to continue to working on this and working on the opposition. And I guess I feel like one of those people who's old, I'm going to start shaking my finger and saying, we created this and to the opposition, we created this, right? We had all these nice little mom-and-pop pharmacies, 49er pharmacies.

I was there all the time. Ladies worked there for 50 years. 100 year old pharmacy. We shut all that shit down, right? It's all gone. All we have now is CVS and all this. And now we're fighting about different things. But it really is about how do we provide care to people, right? If we can just get back to that, how do we stop fighting and provide care to people? Make sure people get what they want. People are stressed. They are working hard. When they want to go to the pharmacy, they want to make sure they can get what they need. So let's just keep working on this.

Thank you, Senator Eggman. This is a popular subject. Senator Archuleta.

Yes, thank you, Assemblymember, and I really appreciate what you're doing and from what I'm getting here, that you're still working with this and this is not the end of it. And of course, we'll see it again, my concern is what we've heard, the community, the people. We have Spanish-speaking individuals who walk into a pharmacist and would like to be able to communicate. We have other ethnic groups who would like to communicate.

There's so many issues that are there to have the right staff, the number of people, qualified staff, well-trained, cross-trained, whatever it's going to take to continue serving the public. So I'm glad that you're going forward with the spirit of working together. So I will go ahead and vote aye on it at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Assemblymember Haney. Well, you've done a great job. I will say know we spend a lot of time both in this house and in your house, talking about now rural hospitals and trying to keep healthcare options available for folks who live in these rural areas. And we all know that pharmacies, and pharmacists in particular, at many times the point of the spear in delivering healthcare services. So as this bill moves forward, as I'm confident it will, I will be supporting it.

Hopefully, you will take a look at that threshold issue with respect to these low-volume pharmacies, particularly in rural areas or perhaps nonrural areas where we don't have the pharmacy support that we should have, and see if there's something you can work out as the bill moves forward. Now, would you like to close?

Well, I appreciate the conversation, and something tells me that these issues will continue to come in front of this committee. And it's great to have so much interest and knowledge. And I look forward to partnering with all of you to make sure we address these issues both in access and pharmacy safety. I believe this bill is a step forward. I hear from Chair and everyone that this particular issues of these lower volume pharmacies, the staffing there, you want us to continue to work on these issues of staffing, and I will do that. And you and your staff were fantastic. These amendments make the bill better. They clarify it, and they address a lot of the questions that came forward. And with that, appreciate the conversation, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Well, let us know if we can help going forward. The bill has been moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is do pass to Senate Judiciary. Please call the roll.

Roth. Aye. Roth, aye. Nguyen. No. Nguyen, no. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker. Dodd. Eggman. Aye. Eggman, aye. Glazer. Aye. Glazer, aye. Niello. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Wilk. No. Wilk, no.

Vote is seven to two. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. Final item, item number seven. Assembly member Gabriel AB 1659. Please proceed when ready, sir.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. I am pleased today to present AB 1659, which would reduce electronic waste, protect our environment, and protect consumers by establishing a universal charging interface for small electronic devices. Most Californians are no stranger to the junk drawer full of miscellaneous chargers and cables which often find their way into our landfills. Many of us have also found ourselves frustrated when we grab a charger that does not match our device, or when we have to spend extra to purchase an unnecessary cable that we don't need. The EOS produced by these unnecessary charging cables and secondary adapters has led to harmful and toxic materials polluting our environment. Recently, the European Union and India took action to address these issues by establishing USBC as a universal charging interface for small electronic devices. AB 1659 seeks to follow their lead on this issue by adopting USBC as a universal standard for charging interfaces on new small devices. First sold and manufactured after 2026. This modest common sense consumer protection is supported by California Environmental Voters, the California Product Stewardship Council, Californians Against Waste, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, among others. We've also worked closely with stakeholders to address concerns from Apple, Garmin, HP, the California Manufacturing and Technology Association, and the Consumer Technology Association, and have pushed back the implementation date for both laptops and small devices. And we are committed to continuing these conversations. By making these changes, we can protect consumers and our environment and avoid market fragmentation and hopefully eliminate the junk drawer. With me today to testify in support of the Bill is Doug Kobold, the Executive Director of the California Product Stewardship Council. Thank you and respectfully request your I vote.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Assembly Member Gabriel. Chair Roth and Committee Members. CPSE is very much in strongest support of this Bill. We commend Assembly Member Gabriel for bringing this Bill forward because it gets to one of our core principles, which is actually to stop the production of waste to begin with. That's called source reduction. And so that's what this is doing, is because, as was mentioned by the Assembly Member, we all have a bunch of cables in our drawers from our old devices that no longer work. And so this is really getting to that core issue. I've asked the Sergeant at Arms to hand out a packet to you, and so I'll go over that real quick, knowing that we're long into the end of the day already. So one thing to note right away is there's a lot of cables out there, a lot of different cables. But one thing that's come as the evolution of these cables is how fast they are. So I want to point out that when USB cables were created, they were real slow, about 12 gigabits or megabits per second. They're now up to 20 gigabits per second. So that's over 1600 time increase in the speed of the devices or of the cables, the capabilities of them. So any kind of innovation is not being curbed because those USB C handle that speed, and that's what they're designed to do. There are five different B types. There's one C type, which is good. That's where we're trying to go get to that one, b type or C type. And then there's also the Lightning cable, which is a proprietary Apple product that can be costly. That's on the first page. So on your second diagram there where we got about I have the universal compatibility. I just wanted to point this out. So here is a device that is able to handle multiple monitors, multiple devices connected to it, and channel it through one cable. And it can channel it through a USB C connection. So there is no limitation on what these cables can do, what this connection can do. So I don't buy the arguments that, well, you need a different kind of connection in order to handle this. Now, even this company had their own proprietary connection into their device that went to a USBA type of connection. And in their latest version, which is at the bottom of that second page, they went to the USBC. So here's a producer, a manufacturer who has already seen the light, and they're already moving that direction. But unfortunately, not all the producers are doing that same thing. They're not all saying, gee, we can just go to this one cable and make it easier on the consumers. And so, I wanted to show that there is movement in this and there is no limitations on the speed of the cables. And then, finally, what I wanted to talk about was just the pricing. And this is where it hurts the consumers. If we have proprietary connections, that means we're buying more connections, we're buying different cables. And just as an example, the Lightning cable by Apple is typically twice the cost or even quadruple the cost of a simple USB cable that can handle the same capacity. And so with that, I'd like to just close my comments and say, for all the reasons I've said, CPSC is in full support, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, sir. Any other witnesses in support?

Izzy Swindler on behalf of Stop Waste and National Stewardship Action Council and California Product Stewardship Council in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other support witnesses?

Liv Butler, Californians Against Waste in support.

Thank you, ma'am. Any other support? Witnesses in room 2100. Seeing none, let's turn to witnesses in opposition. Lead or otherwise, please step forward.

Good afternoon, Chairman. Members. Stephanie Morwell here on behalf of the Consumer Technology Association. We are opposed to AB 1659. So, as you heard, AB 1659 would mandate that by January 1, 2026, virtually all small electronic devices be equipped with a USBC receptacle. Adopting this single charging standard as the best and only path forward ignores innovation as a key component of our industry. We believe that AB 1659 will curb innovation as manufacturers will be locked into using USBC technology, thus not investing as much in research and development for new technologies that may be more energy efficient. If AB 1659 passes, newer, more efficient technologies could not be deployed in the California marketplace absent a legislative change. Electronic manufacturers have listened to the market and have coalesced around three common type chargers, which is a far cry from the roughly 30 back in 2009. Further, force consolidation is not necessary. If the bill is trying to curb electronic waste from entering our waste stream, be believe that AB 1659 could have the opposite effect and increase electronic waste. Not all USBC type chargers are the same and can vary in charging capacities and capabilities, meaning that until a consumer finds their perfect charge, they will continue to buy and try new chargers. AB 1659 will likely not lead to an overly dramatic reduction in the number of chargers consumers purchase, as many consumers will still be purchasing multiple chargers for their devices to keep in their homes, their cars, their offices, while they travel, et cetera. California consumers have already invested in accessories that are compatible with their current products, and AB 1659 would mean that for millions, the state has determined that these investments have a forced expiration date. Lastly, AB 1659 is modeled after a European Union directive that largely becomes effective at the end of 2024. This approach includes regulatory oversight for the continuous monitoring of the rollout and impacts of the USBC mandate, along with the production of regular reports. We believe that it makes more sense to revisit this approach at a later date in order for California to evaluate the effectiveness of the EU proposal and potentially make necessary changes to state law that address shortfalls and any additional problems identified by the EU implementation process. For these reasons and others, we are opposed to AB 1659. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other opposition witnesses in room 2100? Seeing none. Let's turn to the teleconference service moderator. Please prompt any individuals waiting to testify either in support or in opposition to this measure. We'll take them now.

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 1659, please press 1-0. Mr. Chair, there are no comments.

Okay, let's bring the matter back to the deus and questions or comments by my colleagues. Okay, Senator Niello has a question or a comment. Senator Wahab has moved the Bill. Any other hands up? Senator Glazer will follow Senator Niello. Anyone else? Senator Niello, take the floor is yours.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. So many charging devices has now whittled down to just three, and seems to me there's two factors that has and will continue to drive, in the absence of your Bill, charger development. One is competition. It's been stated in the analysis that a charger will keep a person in their product ecosystem, which is a competitive strategy that makes sense, but also technology. The chargers today are much better than those of 10 years ago. So you solve both of these things, you stop the competition, and everybody becomes part of the same product ecosystem if you will, but you also stop innovation. So there's no way that anybody's going to try to improve on this charger that you have selected been many times in the past when we've had different products available for the same thing. We all remember the Beta tapes and the VHS tapes and the market settled that one. We had floppy disks and then compact disks and USB drives and the marketplace has kind of settled that one as technology has developed. I would suspect the same thing would happen here, but by doing this, you eliminate any motivation anyway for technological advancement.

Senator Glazer

Well, the Senator from Fair Oaks was more articulate than obviously there's spies in my closet and they know all these cables that are sitting there. I haven't sent them to the landfill, so they're just sitting there. But I know the intentions are good. But I do share the concerns about innovation, thinking that this is it. But hey, technology has a way of proving all of us wrong pretty quickly and forward to the response to the author on that point.

Yeah, absolutely, and I appreciate the thought. I mean, I could just respectfully push back on the point that this is going to stifle innovation. I think the overwhelming majority of innovation we're going to see in the charging space is going to be wireless technology, and that is not subject to this Bill. So all of the ways that we now charge devices, when you put it down on something or I can put it down in my car and it will charge, all of that innovation is going to be allowed to continue and blossom and go forward. So this is looking at, and I think in a lot of ways, the market has already coalesced here, and you have the EU and India that have all moved in this direction. So this is just talking about for those situations where you have these cables that we're going to go ahead and pick one because what we have, the situation we have right now is we have a lot of environmental waste and we have a lot of cost to consumers. And I think one of the fallacies underlying the Bill is that and underlying the arguments from the opposition is that these different cables are somehow necessarily better. I think a lot of what this is, is that they found out that they can make more money by selling you a different cable included in their project and they're forcing you to buy a different cable that's proprietary to their device. Oftentimes I think maybe not any better or worse than the other cables, worse than USBC. So I think we're still allowing for a lot of innovation in this space, particularly in the wireless charging space where I think this is all heading. We're simply trying to have a little bit of common sense consumer protection and also to protect our environment.

Assembly member, that sounds like your close, but you may close.

I would just say thank you. If you look at the single remaining opposition, which is the Consumer Technology Association, if you look at their letter, I think we've addressed the majority of the things that they've raised in the amendments that we authored as author amendments committed to continuing the conversation. But we think this is a common sense consumer protection right up there with junk fees and right to repair and allowing folks to cancel within 24 hours. So with that, we'd respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. The Bill has been moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is due, passed to Senate Judiciary. Please call the roll.

Roth, Roth aye. Nguyen, Nguyen no. Alvarado-Gill, Alvarado-Gill aye. Archuleta, Archuleta aye. Ashby, Ashby aye Becker. Dodd. Eggman, Eggman aye. Glazer. Niello, Niello no. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wahab, Wahab aye. Wilk, Wilk aye.

Current vote is eight to two. We'll hold the row open for absent Members. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I'll take a motion on the consent calendar. Hang on. It's file item number 2, AB 834. Who made the motion? Okay, Senator Wahab. Please call the roll.

Roth? Roth aye. Nguyen? Nguyen aye. Alvarado-Gil? Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta? Archuleta aye. Ashby? Ashby aye. Becker? Dodd? Eggman? Eggman aye. Glazer? Glazer aye. Niello? Niello aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wahab? Wahab aye. Wilk? Wilk aye. Becker? Becker aye.

Vote is 12-0. The consent calendar is out. Let's take up file item number 1, AB 282. I think Senator Archuleta actually did the motion, so we're going to give it to him. The motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations. Call the roll on AB 282.

Roth? Roth aye. Nguyen? Nguyen aye. Alvardo-Gil? Alvardo-Gil aye. Archuleta? Archuleta aye. Ashby? Ashby aye. Becker? Becker aye. Dodd? Eggman? Eggman aye. Glazer? Glazer aye. Niello? Niello aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wahab? Wahab aye. Wilk? Wilk aye.

Vote is 12-0. That matter is out. Call the roll on item number 3. It is AB 1207. Current vote is six to one. Chair voting aye.

Nguyen? Nguyen aye. Alvarado-Gil? Dodd? Eggman? Eggman aye. Glazer? Glazer aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Smallwood-Cuevas aye.

No. Eggman. Hold on. No, I had already voted.

Eggman. Aye to no.

Okay, let's, let's.

Smallwood-Cuevas. You said aye. Aye to no. You didn't vote for it.

Let's clarify this. This is.

I said aye already.

So you you want to abstain on AB 282? Okay.

I abstained.

This is 1207.

Right. 1207. Okay, we're going to treat it as an abstention, but we need to make sure we have the vote count right. So why don't you take a few minutes and minute and do that.

Eight to two.

That's mine too, because we. That's mine too, because we have Senator Eggman abstaining and Senator Smallwood-Cuevas abstaining.

Right, I didn't count you to begin.

My problem is I counted people as ayes. Okay. Current vote is eight to two. That Bill is out. Let's take item number 4. Make sure it says AB 893, Assemblymember Papan. And the current vote is nine to zero. Chair voting aye.

Nguyen? Nguyen aye. Dodd? Eggman? Eggman aye. Glazer? Glazer aye.

Current vote is 12-0. That matter is out. Let's take up item number 5, Assemblymember Rubio, AB 1171. The current vote is 10-0. Chair voting aye.

Nguyen? Nguyen aye. Dodd? Niello?

This is number 5. Current vote is 11 to zero. That Bill is out. Next item is item number 6. Let's see. This is AB 1286. Current vote is seven to two. Chair voting aye. Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil? Becker? Becker aye. Dodd? Niello? Niello no.

Current vote is eight to three. That measure is out. Item number 7, AB 1659. Current vote is eight to two. Chair voting aye.

Becker? Becker aye. Dodd? Glazer?

Current vote is nine to two. That Bill is out. And with that, we have concluded today's agenda of the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee. Thank you, everyone, for participating. We are adjourned.