Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

We will allow two minutes each for two primary witnesses in support and opposition, and these witnesses must testify in person in the hearing room and know if you're one witness, you cannot have four minutes. Each person gets two. Additional witness comments will be limited only to your name, organization, and position, and that testimony can either be in person or on the telephone.

We're going to start with the members of the public who are here in the room, and then we'll move to a blended phone line. To use our telephone service today, the number to call is [877] 692-8957 and the access code is 18501100. Finally, the Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to Committee and floor proceedings in the last few years. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited.

Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening, or abusive language, speaking longer than the time allotted, extended discussions of matters not related to the subject of the hearing, and other disruptive acts. To address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps: if an individual disrupts our hearing process, I will direct them to stop and warn them that the continued disruptions may result in removal from the building.

I will also document on the record the individual involved and the nature of the conduct. I may have to recess the hearing. If the conduct doesn't stop, I'll request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the building. Thanks for your cooperation, and with that, we will begin our hearing. We do not yet have a quorum, so we're going to begin as a subcommittee and then take votes once we have a quorum. Let's see; we will begin with SB 322.

I see Senator Becker is here, so whenever you're ready, you may come and present.

Are these on here? Oh, it's on. They have it. Good afternoon, Chair Friedman and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 322, a bill that will support business development and workers in underserved communities with high paying, stable jobs as California leads the transition to a green economy.

To meet the clean energy goals outlined in SB 100, SB 1020, and the electric vehicle adoption target in CARB's scoping plans, California will need to manufacture and purchase large amounts of lithium batteries. Additionally, as California increases its use and manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles, it's imperative that state incentives supporting this industry also support high quality, equitable jobs.

Historically underserved communities and workers in the manufacturing industry are most impacted by the transition to a non fossil fuel future and would most benefit from additional high road job transition support. Battery manufacturing plants can establish equitable, good paying jobs for Californians if they adopt high road workforce and job quality standards. SB 322 will establish a ranking system to prioritize businesses who establish a workforce plan to employ individuals with employment barriers when applying for the Zero-Emission Vehicle Battery Manufacturing Grant.

By doing so, SB 322 will prioritize quality jobs for Californians as we lead the transition to a green economy. And with me today I have Tom Hinsey from the United Auto Workers Region 6 and JB Tengco from the BlueGreen Alliance.

Okay. Two minutes apiece.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Tom Hinsey. I'm an international rep with United Auto Workers Region 6. UAW is proud to sponsor SB 322 to ensure that public funding for battery manufacturing creates high quality, sustainable jobs for workers in the battery manufacturing industry in California. California has budgeted substantial funding to transition the state to EVs, including 25 million dollars in grants related to battery manufacturing. The state has the responsibility to ensure such funding offered to businesses also creates high quality jobs, labor standards, workers rights, career pathways, and community benefits.

SB 322 will link climate goals with high road jobs by conditioning eligibility for funding on complying with labor, workplace safety, anti-discrimination and leave laws, and proper classification of workers. To ensure that the development of the battery industry also protects the air, water, and soil that our communities rely on, the bill also requires applicants to submit an environmental safety plan. SB 322 amplifies the impact of public funds used to meet California's climate goals by requiring applicants to complete a workforce application.

This competitive scoring system evaluates applicants based on their payment of living wages, investments in training programs, compliance with health and safety and labor laws, and adoption of labor peace agreements. By attaching high road standards to public subsidies and prioritizing job quality, SB 322 reduces emissions while also reducing income inequality. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Hello. My name is JB Tengco, and I'm the Vice President of State Affairs for the BlueGreen Alliance. The BlueGreen Alliance was founded on the idea that we don't have to choose between creating good jobs and protecting the environment. We can and must do both.

And today BGA unites unions like UAW and the nation's largest environmental organizations at the federal level, as well as states from coast to coast, to solve today's environmental challenges in a way that creates and maintains good jobs, and SB 322 does exactly that. This bill links the state's climate goals with high road job levers, and the bill's competitive scoring ensures a race to the top as companies demonstrate investments in training programs, compliance with health, safety, and labor laws, and adoption of labor peace agreements.

In doing so, this bill ensures that new cleantech companies are high road employers while also protecting the air and water for the surrounding communities. As the nation and California builds new industries, particularly in manufacturing, the country is looking for examples of how best to onshore U.S. manufacturing, revitalize the U.S. industries, and ensure a pathway to high quality jobs. SB 322 serves as a model.

It ensures that battery manufacturers which receives public funds follows our laws, protects workers and communities, and provides family sustaining jobs which will serve as engines for economic developments in our communities. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to pause for a moment to establish a quorum. Can we have a roll call, please?

Friedman? Here. Friedman, here. Fong? Here. Fong, here. Berman? Carrillo? Here. Carrillo, here. Davies? Here. Davies, here. Gipson? Hart? Here. Hart, here. Jackson? Here. Jackson, here. Kalra? Lowenthal? Here. Lowenthal, here. Nguyen? Sanchez? Here. Sanchez, here. Wallis? Ward? Wicks? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you. Ward, here.

Okay, we have a quorum. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify in favor of the bill? Anyone wishing to testify in favor of SB 322?

Madam Chair, Members, Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Shane Gusman on behalf of the teamsters in support.

It's me again, wearing a different hat. JB Tengco on behalf of the Sierra Club and NRDC, two members of the BGA, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? Is there anybody here to testify in opposition to this bill? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines. Operator, could you please open the phone lines for testimony in favor of and in opposition to SB 322?

If you would like to provide testimony in support or opposition to SB 322, please press one zero at this time. And we have no comments.

Okay, with that, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or comments from the Members? Seeing none, I'm really glad that you brought this bill forward. I'll be supporting it today. I appreciate your making sure that we have good jobs to go along with good battery technology. With that, would you like to close?

I thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call, please?

SB 322 is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' Friedman? Aye. Friedman, aye. Fong? No. Fong, no. Berman? Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Davies? Gipson? Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. Kalra? Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. Nguyen? Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Wallis? Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wicks? She voted no.

What's the score? Okay, six to three; that bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Actually, it's not out yet, but it will be at some point. I have complete confidence.

Okay, next, we're going to go to SB 357 by Mr. Portantino. Whenever you're ready.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. SB 357 would provide doctors with more discretion to report conditions they believe will impair a patient's inability to drive, including epilepsy. I like that. Epilepsy is the fourth most common neurological disorder affecting more than 425,000 Californians, and we're trying to correct a 1957 state law that most other states have corrected.

And given the fact that there's a motion and you got a lot to do, I'm going to go right to we have a witness, Rebekkah Halliwell from the Epilepsy Foundation who can offer testimony and support, and when appropriate, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. You're welcome to come up to the table or to stay there if you want. Whichever you prefer. Two minutes, please.

Sounds good. Thank you. So, good afternoon. My name is Rebekkah Halliwell. I'm the Director of the Epilepsy Foundation, Los Angeles. I thank you to the Chair and Members for the opportunity to speak with you today. So, every person in this room likely knows someone who's had a seizure, and that may come as a surprise because people often don't like to talk about having seizures, even with their doctors.

They're afraid of losing their license, which could mean losing their jobs, their livelihoods, their independence. California is only one of the last of six states that continues to require mandatory reporting of a lapse of consciousness. Mandatory reporting doesn't make our roads any safer. The few states that have similar laws to ours have the same crash rates as those states that do not mandate physician reporting. Mandatory reporting is rooted in discrimination and perpetuates old stigma.

In 1957, the California Vehicle Code prohibited licenses from being issued to anyone, and I quote, 'who is insane or feeble-minded or an idiot, imbecile, or epileptic.' So mandatory reporting isn't right for the 400,000 individuals in California with epilepsy, especially for the nearly 70 percent of people with epilepsy who can achieve seizure control through medication, and they may have external circumstances like medication denial, missed dosage because of it, and having a breakthrough seizure.

Mandatory reporting discourages patients from being open when they have had a chance, had a change in seizure frequency, and doctors can't properly care for people in our community if there isn't open communication. SB 357 does not do away with the existing process. Doctors can and will continue to be able to report, which we support. This bill, however, allows doctors the same discretion to not report when this situation isn't warranted. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there another witness? Okay. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify in support of SB 357?

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Shane Gusman on behalf of the teamsters and the Amalgamated Transit Union in support.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Brandon Marchy with the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the room wishing to testify in opposition to SB 357? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines. Operator, if you could please open up the phone lines for testimony in support or opposition of SB 357.

If you would like to provide testimony in support or opposition to SB 357, please press one zero at this time. And that command again: one then zero. And it looks like we have a comment from line 64. Please go ahead.

Hello. Kat De Burgh with the Health Officers Association of California in support. Thank you.

And there are no further comments at this time.

Okay. We'll go back to the Committee to see if there's any questions or comments. Yes, Ms. Davies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, I want to thank you so much for bringing this up. Obviously, 1957--a lot has changed from research to treatment to education, and I just think that it should be something that someone can be out there and feel comfortable and not be in fear of losing their job, especially if they're drivers or things like that. So I support this. I know, I think we already have a motion, if there's a second, and I'd also like to be considered as a co-author. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, seeing none, I'm happy to support the bill today. Thank you for bringing it forward. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Let's have a roll call, please.

SB 357: 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.' Friedman? Aye. Friedman, aye. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. Berman? Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Gipson? Aye. Gipson, aye. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Wallis? Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wicks? We have twelve votes.

We have twelve votes; the bill is out, and we'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Next, we have SB 425: Senator Newman.

Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I am pleased to present SB 425. Before I begin, I'd like to thank the Chair and her staff for their work on this bill and accept the Committee's proposed amendments: removing medium duty vehicles from eligibility. As amended, SB 425 would enhance the consumer rebate for zero-emission pickup trucks under the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project, also known as the CVRP, to ensure hardworking Californians can and will participate in our transition to a zero-emission vehicle fleet.

As you're probably all aware, there's been an ongoing conversation about the relative role in appropriate funding for light duty hydrogen infrastructure in California, particularly in the context of terms for the extension of California's Clean Transportation Program as originally established as a provision of AB 8 which was passed in 2013.

It is fairly clear at this point that within policymaking circles to include this Legislature, the CEC, and CARB, that expectations have changed since 2013 on the role hydrogen is expected to play in the decarbonization of California's passenger car fleet as we make progress toward the state's ambitious goal of eliminating the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by the year 2035.

Having said that, with respect to the prospects for electrifying light duty transportation in California, there are still a number of so-called use cases that will continue to pose challenges with respect to adoption. These include converting drivers who live in high density areas without easy access to charging, to super-commuters who regularly traverse long distances and have concerns about battery range and charging speed, and people who use their vehicles for work and whose transit patterns consequently make using and charging a battery electric vehicle less than optimal.

It's actually a subset of these use cases drivers who use pickup trucks in the conduct of their work for which SB 425 was formulated. As of 2019, there were over 4.7 million pickup trucks on California's roads. The State of California has by far the largest pickup truck population in the country, handily surpassing Texas by over half a million vehicles, and according to data from the California New Car Dealer Association, an additional 250,000 new pickups were registered in California in 2022 alone.

SB 425 would update the state's existing market incentive, the CVRP, to make zero-emission pickup trucks more affordable for the hardworking men and women across California whose livelihoods depend upon the use of a capable and reliable truck. Specifically, SB 425 would enhance the consumer rebate provided to purchasers of a zero-emissions vehicle pickup truck by 2,500 dollars, such that most low and moderate income households would be entitled to a rebate, a total rebate of up to 10,000 dollars.

Based on amendments taken in the Senate, SB 425 makes no policy distinction between battery electric and fuel cell pickup trucks, but by directing resources and support to encourage accelerated adoption of zero-emissions pickup trucks, two fuel cell models of which are soon coming to the U.S. market, we'll also be able to meaningfully expand the number of fuel cell vehicles on California's roads which will not only support our clean transportation goals, it will strengthen the health and the viability of the fuel cell ecosystem.

Providing additional incentives to drivers of California's fleet of nearly five million pickup trucks represents a smart, high-yield approach to decarbonizing this sector while supporting the broader goals and systemic health for our clean transportation economy, and for the laborers, landscapers, contractors, and farmers who would want to participate in that clean energy transition but cannot yet afford to do so. SB 425 will increase access and affordability while encouraging the development of new zero-emission options that can better meet their daily needs.

With me to testify today are Rosanna Carvacho on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition and Chris McGlothlin on behalf of the Western Agricultural Processors Association. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

Okay, thank you. First witness.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, pleased to co-sponsor SB 425. Thank the Senator for his work on this effort. I think we're a little disappointed about the removal of medium duty vehicles, but support the additional support for fuel cell electric trucks, and as the Senator said, this is now technology-neutral. Both battery electrics and fuel cell electric trucks will be able to get this an additional incentive under the Clean Vehicle Rebate Program.

As the Senator said as well, these are a critical segment of California's workforce use pickup trucks. Everything from construction to lawn care to delivery services which have variable routes and unplanned routes which require both different payloads and towing needs and not necessarily the ability to plug in and charge overnight depending on how the vehicle is used. So for these reasons, the fuel cell technology will play a critical role in enabling the transition of these vehicles to zero-emission.

We appreciate the special consideration that SB 425 provides to create an additional incentive, and we believe this signals to automakers California's desire to ensure vehicles are decarbonized across multiple vehicle types. And for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Chris McGlothlin. I'm the Director of Technical Services on behalf of the Western Agricultural Processors Association, here to speak in support of SB 425 by Senator Newman. Western Agricultural Processors represents 160 different tree nut hullers, shellers, and processors for the four major tree nut commodities grown in California: almonds, pistachios, pecans, and walnuts.

Under the Governor's executive order and recent action from the California Air Resources Board specific to the Advanced Clean Cars II Regulation as well as the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, California has set aggressive goals for decarbonizing our state's transportation sector. This includes the requirements that in just three years, one of every three new vehicles sold in California must be zero-emission, reaching 100 percent sales requirement by 2035. SB 425 would enhance the monetary rebates for zero-emission pickup trucks vital to our industry.

The reality is there aren't enough zero-emission options available on the market today. Additionally, the few models that are available are too expensive, and we have major concerns regarding the effective and functionality of these vehicles within the industry. By updating the state's incentives to target pickup trucks, SB 425 shows automakers that California is serious about transitioning pickup trucks to zero-emission, whether they're battery, electric, or hydrogen fuel cell.

And by increasing the rebates for pickup truck buyers, SB 425 makes zero-emission vehicles more affordable for our working men and women who are buying them because they need to feed and clothe California and keep California working. The agricultural industry is committed to combating the climate crisis and doing our part to help California achieve a sustainable future.

SB 425 helps to demonstrate California's commitment to us, the millions of Californians who work and whose livelihoods depend on a capable and reliable work truck, that we too can participate in the green energy transition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify in support of SB 425?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Rachel Mueller with the Weideman Group on behalf of Air Products in support. Thank you.

Mikhael Skvarla here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Business Council in support.

Curt Augustine with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and we're in strong support. Thank you.

Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition in support.

Jack Yanos on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance in support.

Okay, seeing no other witnesses in the room to testify in support, is there anyone in the room wishing to testify in opposition? Okay, seeing none, Operator, can you please open the phone lines for SB 425?

If you would like to provide testimony in support or opposition of SB 425, please press one zero at this time. And we have no comments.

Thank you. Is there anything from the Committee? Mr. Ward.

Thanks. I want to thank Senator Newman for...

You're fine. Keep going.

Sorry. Thank you. Senator Newman, I want to thank you so much for working on this. A lot that we align on, of course, to be able to try to work on incentivizing and expanding this industry, especially as we seek to meet our goals and working on incentive programs, particularly the expansion of CVRP, I think, is particularly laudable, something we generally agree on. This bill, though, gives me a lot of heartburn, I think as it's designed, knowing that, one, we are trying to further shift a market of limited resources.

We, of course, don't have unlimited rebates, and our budget potential on this is somewhat of a finite pi, moving this now towards a more expensive model in many cases and for some a luxury model. Not all because of course, yes, there are small business owners that we are trying to be able to incentivize and help them be able to meet the needs of what is required for them to be able to do business.

I want to be able to find a mechanism to be able to support that, but knowing that today, at least the only battery electric pickup truck available, the Ford F-150 Lightning, which probably retails for at least 90,000 dollars, and many of whom are only purchasing this as a choice, but as their own kind of primary vehicle, it's a bit of a luxury.

And so I am already somewhat having concernation that we would afford a state incentive for something that is available to only some of the wealthiest or upper middle income at the least.

And rather than really shifting the benefit that we should be seeing for the CVRB program or other kinds of state incentives towards more middle or even lower middle income or lower income Californians that want to have access or want to be able to try to get these within reach, vehicles that otherwise probably would be something in the 30,000 to 50,000 dollar range that a 2,500 dollar rebate or even more would start to put that more within reach, I think, is the direction that we should be going when we're thinking about some of these financial incentives.

And then, like I said, that would just be on the natural, but the fact that this bill would actually direct an additional 2,500 dollar incentive above and beyond the normal to this class of vehicles just really puts it over the line of comfort for me. And you're welcome to maybe try to change my mind, but if that's the fundamentals that this bill does, it's just not something I feel that I could support today.

No, I appreciate that. I'll say we accepted as an amendment the inclusion of battery electric pickup trucks. I actually don't disagree with you at all about kind of the price point accessibility of those options. Now, moreover, to Ms. Carvacho's point, they're not all that useful if you're carrying a heavy payload or doing certain kinds of work.

The sort of rationale here by way of zero-emission pickup trucks, fuel cell pickup trucks, is you've got Toyota and GM both have models that I understand are coming to the U.S. market fairly soon. The price points for those models will be substantially less than what you see right now in the F-150 Lightning, and in addition, if the set of incentives are anything like fuel cell electric passenger cars, drivers can expect some really appreciable incentives that will bring the cost way down.

So, as an example, if you buy a passenger vehicle right now, either a Hyundai or a Toyota, not only do you get the federal tax credit, you get the California rebate. Depending on your income, you get either the stickers of the rebate or both, but you also get, as part of that, a 15,000 dollar preloaded debit card to offset the cost of fuel. All in, that makes the purchase price of a passenger car really attractive.

We've had, as I mentioned, broader conversation: 'is that the right use case for decarbonization through fuel cell?' Not clear. But for pickup trucks, if we had those same incentives, I think what you'd see is really rapid adoption and by people who use these for a living and who would put them to work in ways that we would hope they would do so as part of our decarbonization goals.

Hear you loud and clear on that. I also have a fundamental problem about more rapid adoption of pickup trucks as opposed to more standard-sized vehicles that could be used for average daily purposes and different families, different individuals and their consumer choices.

They might have disagreement on that, but if I'm having to make a choice, and I think this does come down to a choice giving limited resources whether we're trying to incentivize the average person's car transport systems and I'm choosing to incentivize even more towards heavier, larger vehicles that might be more likely of causing injury or causing line of sight issues, that's something that is very difficult for me to be able to support. So that's kind of where I'm at on this bill, but I want to continue to work with you generally on the broader goals that we have here.

Let me respond very quickly.

Let me just ask if he--I don't really want to have an argument back and forth. I think I heard a statement, not a question, but were you--so I'll let you in your close, you can respond.

Appreciate that, ma'am.

Thank you. Ms. Davies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. I can tell you for the last three years, probably some of the calls that we get are always especially with the price of gas, you know, how can we afford to go anywhere? Especially, I've got construction workers calling me saying, 'I'm actually sleeping in my truck because I can't afford the price of gas,' and so they're not even going home if it's an hour, two hour drive back and forth.

And listening to my Colleague here, it does sound like it's giving the opportunity though, for other dealer manufacturers to actually come up with other types of pickups that will be less expensive as well and I think that doing something like this where it's an incentive is going to be great, and not only are they using this small businesses for their work, but they also use it for their family as well.

So anytime we can give small businesses and employers and employees a lift up, especially when it comes to saving money, I think that's a great idea. So I'd actually like to be considered as a co-author as well. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Do we have any other comments or questions? Okay. Now we will allow you to close. Thank you.

Well, thank you. Just to respond real quickly to Assembly Member Ward's point, I actually don't disagree with you about the dangers posed by large vehicles and the line of sight issues. We've talked about that on the other side, I think, around a bill that you have, and I appreciate your concerns there. I also appreciate your concerns that we don't want to create choices that otherwise incentivize people to buy cars that aren't the right car.

But to Assembly Member Davies's point, this is deliberately designed for people who are going to buy pickup trucks and buy them for their work, who aren't liable to easily switch to a different mode. That's the goal here. I've been open all along to additional amendments to tighten that up, but moving forward, happy to work with you to ensure that that meets your concern because it is my concern as well.

Of the 4.7 million pickup trucks in the state, give or take half are used by people who can only use pickup trucks to do what they do, we need to make sure that if we want to hit our goals for 2035, that as many of them, and in fact, ultimately all of them switch to a zero-emission mode of travel. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you. Did we have a motion? Okay. We have a motion and a second then. I'm sorry? Yeah. Okay. Can we have a roll call please?

SB 425 is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Natural Resources.' Friedman? Aye. Friedman, aye. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. Berman? Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Gipson? Aye. Gipson, aye. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Wallis? Ward? Not voting. Ward, not voting. Wicks?

Okay, we have eleven votes; that bill is out. We'll hold the roll open.

Thank you very much. Okay, we have our last bill, SB 720 by Senator Stern. Senator, you may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Members.

Madam Chair, Members, good to be with you this afternoon. So this Bill is about the aviation sector and we're specifically looking at ways we can incentivize both our airports but also the airlines over which we typically don't make many laws or have a lot of jurisdiction. But something to say that we want to see the advancements going on in sustainable aviation technology and projects being deployed here in California. There's a lot of exciting work going on in sustainable aviation fuels and emissions reductions in that sector.

But oftentimes we import those solutions and don't have them ourselves. This Bill starts small, which is the kind of airports that need the help the most. Those like in my backyard in Van Nuys where they're trying to do right by the community even though they have a big increase in traffic, they're trying to expand in a way that's Low emissions.

And so we think as they start to put out their vision and their vision plans for being both good neighbors and innovators, that we can do more as a state to make that happen. So this Bill is an effort to say if you want to help these airports, we need to allow them some way to participate where they're able to both report emissions but also get the incentives that go along with that. That could be the Low carbon fuel standard going forward.

That's a live question right now between the California Air Resources Board and one that I hope they weigh in in a positive way on. But there are other solutions too. We know there's a lot of zero emission shuttles vehicle equipment, things like that, that the airports are already doing. And I just want to say there is still some opposition as Bill and we're not all the way there yet with our partners.

But we really hope that the amendments we offer to committee and then you all have considered in the analysis here are our attempt to say this is not just reporting for no reason. We want this to actually be an incentive framework that helps lift all boats or I should say all planes. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions and respectfully ask for your aye vote and the inimitable Bill Magavern with Coalition for Clean Air is here on my right to be our witness. Thank you.

Thanks. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members. Bill Magavern with the Coalition for Clean Air in support. California, unfortunately, still has by far the worst air pollution in the country. We're now at the beginning of summer, and I wish I could say that we weren't going to have to be breathing smog this year, but chances are very strong that we will be in violation of air quality standards for much of the summer.

For most of our inhabitants in South Coast area San Joaquin, here in Sacramento, San Diego, most of the state. And the biggest cause by far of that air pollution is transportation. And it disproportionately affects our most disadvantaged communities. Now, there are a lot of pieces, obviously, to the transportation issue. Aviation is only one, but it's a significant source and it's a growing source of the emissions that are not only making people sick, but also damaging our climate.

So this Bill, I think, and it's been refined as it goes through the process, I think it would play a role in spurring some of the innovation we need in the aviation sector to find those solutions. Using the expertise at CARB, which really does the best job in the country at reducing transportation emissions, as well as the expertise at GoBiz, where people are being very helpful in advancing zero-emission technologies. So I think this would really be a step forward for the state in reducing emissions from transportation, particularly in the aviation sector. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify in support of SB 720?

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

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, seeing none. Is there anyone here to testify in opposition of SB 720?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Jim Lites on behalf of the California Airports Council and the Association of California Airports. Each association has three airports that are captured by the language in this Bill, for a total of six. CARB has already dealt with shuttle buses as the author alluded to. They enacted a shuttle bus reg several years ago. All of the general excuse me, the ground service equipment at airports is already electric and has been for about ten years.

And of course, as individual states, we do not have the authority to regulate individual aircraft emissions. So we don't really see how the reporting requirement for six airports statewide actually helps airports and airlines move the needle on reducing aircraft emissions. Doing something in sustainable aviation fuel would. Which is why we suggest this Bill, that you hit the pause button on this Bill and give the author and us time to work through some language that we can then put forward next year. For that reason, we're opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Next opposition witness.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee. Alberto Torrico on behalf of the Airlines for America Trade Association that represents most of the major airline carriers as well as the freight carriers. Apologize for the late submission of our position letter. Did speak with the author a couple of times last week. Started to have, I think we both felt, productive conversations about how to tackle this issue.

And the airlines are committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, certainly through a number of international accords and voluntary agreements with the federal government. Our two concerns are as follows. First, much of this information is already reported by the airlines through FAA, through a form called form 41 loosely.

And the second issue is that because the emissions and FAA and other statutes and regulations cover emissions as well as airline usage and fuel usage, we believe most this is preempted under federal law from the states being able to enact legislation that's contrary or that advances even further those objectives. So for those reasons, we respectfully oppose, but look forward to ongoing conversations with the author. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify in opposition to SB 720? Okay, seeing none. Operator, can you please open the phone lines for blended testimony on SB 720?

If you would like to provide testimony in support or opposition to SB 720, please press 10 at this time. And Madam Chair, there are no comments.

Okay, thank you. We'll go back to the committee for any comments from the committee. Mr. Kalra?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. As San Jose is one of the airports that would be considered under this legislation, I think we all share the desire to reduce emissions, especially in population centers such as that that surrounds San Jose and some of the other airports listed. A couple of questions.

One, regarding looking at the staff report, it seems to be pretty clear that at least the staff doesn't necessarily believe that carbs are the appropriate place for this to go because of the federal preemption issues as well as the other issues that are detailed in the analysis, including the fact the additional fact that because of the way that the airports are determined that there are some larger airports with larger emissions that aren't necessarily quantified.

Because one of the issues I've certainly had is those quick short little trips that are taken all the time that I think have a disproportionate impact on emissions versus a larger airport like San Jose or Oakland that has longer flights and all that still an issue with emissions. But I guess I'm trying to get at how we're focusing, what the best use of our time is and energy and resources and if CARB is the appropriate venue for that. So I want to get your thoughts on that.

Yeah, thank you. Assembly Member I think amongst those in this sort of filter we put out, which is an airport that has 50,000 or more annual takeoffs, that's in a disadvantaged community. So it's you all Oakland, Van Nuys, Fresno, Gillespie in San Diego, and then Hayward, and then there's some that are adjacent to disadvantaged communities too, just to be clear. But your issue is going to be similar to say, an Oakland's issue on the preemption question.

Right now the aviation industry wants into our Low carbon fuel standard so they can start to get some of the value of the credits from that very lucrative program for those who are producing sustainable aviation fuels. In order to get access to that program and those incentives, they're going to have to do some kind of reporting to the California Resources Board on what the carbon intensity of that fuel is and what their footprint is.

I don't know exactly what that's going to look like coming out of CARB, but something, if they won into that program, there's going to have to be something back from CARB. This was my attempt to maybe not fill that gap, but find something that felt jurisdictionally appropriate that still would get that ball moving. But yeah, you can't get the incentive and then not have any kind of reporting at all.

So this was my best shot at it and we didn't want to go right at the airlines because I do agree with them that wouldn't be appropriate. But in this case, if we can sort of use their hubs in California as a way for them to improve and grow and maybe even build some of that infrastructure, I think we can make progress. I'm trying to remember. So preemption question whether CARB is the right entity. It will be if we venture into this LCFS aviation space.

One of the questions in the report, the staff analysis indicates it's unclear what findings would lead CARB to not approve an airport's net zero report and what authority CARB would have to affect change from an insufficient report. Are those still outstanding questions, or do you believe that CARB will figure that out?

Yeah, so we right now require to be scope one, two and three emissions. You're going to hear a lot about scope one, two and three emissions as Assembly Members in the weeks and months to come because there's a few Senate bills coming over on a broader reporting framework that covers all larger corporations. So this is just in the aviation sector. There's going to be a much bigger effort.

The idea is to use sort of tested protocols that are already out there that the aviation industry is actually already using. We think there's a lot of great leadership in that sector. You look at the kind of work that United's doing, or Lufthansa is doing, they've got the reporting framework, they're doing those full cycle emissions disclosures. So we think that'll work. But it's a good point and maybe worth clarifying.

If the Bill moves forward, do we want to make this as smooth as possible to the airports? I don't want to add a bunch of duplicative reporting requirements if they're already going through ground services, transportation requirements or whatever else. Let's not tack on a bunch of new reporting that they don't need. So say, in their scope one emissions. They actually may have already covered that. Maybe we could edit some of that out or tailor it. So I'm open to that, working obviously with the chair, but I'm open to making that refinement.

One last question regarding whether GoBiz is the best entity to help kind of advance the sustainable aviation projects. And what arrived you at that conclusion? Do they even want to do that?

Well, that's a good question. I'm not sure completely yet, although it is their mission, right. And we do want to build, say, we don't want to be importing Indonesian biorefined renewable jet fuel. We want it in, say, parts of LA that are having shuttered oil refineries that could be done a lot better to make renewable diesel and jet refineries. So in that sense, this was language that the industry had suggested saying Go with a GoBiz framework. They don't like the reporting side of the Bill.

But I hope I'm not speaking out of turn for them. They do like the incentive side of the Bill. They like this GoBiz framework. That's why I put it in there. They said, "Ok", that would be the best entity for us to work with. Now I've got to convince the Administration that that's the best entity to work with. So this is the dance.

And I mean, if we waited for the Administration departments to always be in line with exactly what we want to do. We'd wait a long time for a lot of our bills. So I get that we have to kind of force the issue sometimes. And I'll be supporting the Bill today because I believe your intentions are good and that you'll be continuing to work with all parties.

I agree with the underlying purpose of what you're trying to do, but just wanted to ask some questions because it does impact, obviously, a significant entity in my district, and we'll be in touch with them as well as your office as this moves forward as well.

I so appreciate the trust and just giving us some room to work. And I want to say drilling down specifically with San Jose and starting to dig in and figure out what's not in their current reporting framework, that doesn't make them comfortable with this. I think those are kinks we want to work through. I'm hungry for that engagement. So not to say you're going to vote on a Bill that's sort of an open ended commitment. It'll look radically different before the floor, but we want to try to land this plane.

It was right there. All right, thank you.

Yeah.

Mr. Carrillo.

Thank you. Just for my own clarification, I think one of the witnesses in opposition mentioned that this would be applicable only to six airports.

I'm glad you asked. There's those that are in disadvantaged communities under the calendar screen framework. So those were the ones I just ticked off to Assemblymember Kalra, but then there's a list of five others that the Airport association gave us that are adjacent to disadvantaged communities. I had understood previously that it was all eleven, but we can get back to and try to be a little more specific.

The other five that had been that are right on the edge of a disadvantaged community are Long Beach, Laverne Palo Alto, Camarillo, and then Sac Executive. So maybe CARB has discretion now as to whether adjacent are in. I think depending on how you read the Bill, I think they're reading the Bill to say it's only these six. We had wanted to make it broadly applicable to let anyone be a part of the incentive program.

That's actually the hardest part is to say we started in disadvantaged communities, but doesn't Lax or SFO want to play in this game too? They don't need as much help on the planning and technical side, maybe from GoBiz bigger established airports, so we wanted to go to the smaller ones that are in tougher areas and help them first. But yeah, right now it's a maximum of eleven, more likely six, but we can refine that if needed.

But then CARP could make the decision to include those that are in adjacent.

To, and if it's appropriate, through the chair. I'd love the perspective of the association on this one too, just so you all are very clear on what you're voting on, but I also don't want to belabor the meeting, our understanding it was eleven, it could be six. Does that help or do you want to keep things moving?

I will ask Mr. Carrillo if he feels that that would be helpful to you to hear from them.

I think that we can have that conversation one on one.

Yeah, okay, I'll follow up. But yeah, that's the full scope.

Thank you. Anybody else? So I think there's a lot of merit to what you're trying to do to decrease emissions from airports. And certainly a lot of these airports are in neighborhoods and have a big impact and a big footprint. Whether or not this Bill is achieving the goals that it wants to, I'm not sure at this point, but I do think it's a good conversation to continue having.

So I'm going to support the Bill today and I hope that you're able to continue those discussions and land in a place that makes everybody feel that this is helpful to all of those efforts and moves us forwards to an accelerated path of decarbonizing or decreasing emissions from this sector. So with that, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm willing to make a commitment to you all today in accordance with the Chair's admonition. If this Bill is still not done, if we're not clear on, say, the eleven versus the six, I'm not going to bring that to you on the floor. I'm not going to ask you for a floor vote. We'll pull that back and press the pause button as the association asked for. I'm not so desperate to get this Bill into law right now.

I'm desperate to get a conversation going in California about the aviation sector and what we can do here. So thank you in advance for those of you who are willing to support it today. And yeah, I promise to you, you will see more input from impacted airports, a more refined definition, so you know exactly which ones are covered. I still think the Bill is in good enough form, though, for you to support today. So that's why I'm respectfully asking for your aye vote and do appreciate the consideration.

Well, I want to thank you and your sponsor for your leadership in all things clean air. And I do appreciate you taking on the aviation sector has definitely been something that's very I know you represent one of these airports in your district and I know that you hear a lot from your constituents about the impacts and I think it's really appropriate that you take the leadership that you're taking in this area. So thank you for that. And with that, do we have a motion? Do we have a motion? In a second roll call, please.

SB 720 is due pass and rerefer to the Committee on Natural Resources. Friedman aye. Fong no. Berman. Carrillo aye. Davies no. Gipson aye. Hart. Jackson. Kalra aye. Lowenthal aye. Nguyen not voting. Sanchez no. Wallve. Ward no voting. Wicks.

It's five to three. We're going to leave the roll open for absent Members. We do have absent and one moment.

I didn't hear Assemblymember Hart.

Okay, so 63 so we'll leave the roll open for the absent Members, and I will ask any absent Members to try to return to vote. I'm going to have to step out to vote in another committee. I'm going to pass the gavel to Assembly Member Fong. Oh, sorry. All right, can we have a motion on the consent calendar? We have a motion in a second. Can we have roll call, please?

Friedman.

Aye.

Friedman aye. Fong.

Aye.

Fong aye. Berman. Carrillo.

Aye.

Carrillo aye. Davies. Davies on the consent. Sorry. Aye. Gipson.

Aye.

Gipson aye. Hart.

Aye.

Hart aye. Jackson.

Aye.

Jackson aye. Kalra.

Aye.

Kalra aye. Lowenthal.

Aye.

Lowenthal aye. Nguyen.

Aye.

Nguyen aye. Sanchez.

Aye.

Sanchez aye. Wallis. Ward.

Aye.

Ward aye. Wicks.

Let's just move through the file for those who are here. So we'll start with file item four, SB 322. Please call the roll for Lapse Members.

SB 322 is due pass, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman. Gipson.

Aye.

Gipson aye. Kalra.

Aye.

Kalra aye. Nguyen.

Aye.

Nguyen aye. Wallis. Wicks.

9-3, will keep the roll open for the absent Members. File item five, SB 357. Please call the roll for Absent Members.

Berman. Wallis. Wicks.

12-0, keep the roll open. File item seven, SB 425. Please call the roll for absent Members.

Berman. Wallis. Wicks.

Madam Secretary, can we open the roll for Mr. Berman? We'll start with file on four. SB 322.

SB 322 do pass and may refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman.

Aye.

Berman aye. Wallis. Wicks.

10-3, we'll keep the roll open. File item five, SB 357, please open the roll for Mr. Berman.

SB 357 is do pass and we refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Berman.

Aye.

Berman aye. Wallis. Wicks.

13-0. Leave the roll open. File item seven, SB 425, please open the roll.

SB 425, do pass and we refer to the Committee on Natural Resources. Berman.

Aye.

Berman aye. Wallis. Wicks.

That's twelve zero. We'll keep the roll open. File item ten, SB 720, please open the roll. Mr. Berman.

SB 720 is do pass and we refer to the Committee on Natural Resources Berman. Berman not voting. Wallis. Wicks.

6-3, we'll keep a consent calendar. Please open that for Mr. Berman.

Berman.

Aye.

Berman aye. Wallis. Wicks.

All right, we're going to open the roll for Mr. Wallis. We are going to start with file on four, SB 322, please open the roll for Mr. Wallis.

SB 322, do pass and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Wallis.

Aye.

Wallis aye. Wicks.

Eleven three, we'll keep the roll open. File on five, SB 357, please open the roll.

SB 357, do pass and rerefer to Judiciary. Wallis.

Aye.

Wallis is aye. Wicks.

14-0, we'll keep the roll open. File item seven, SB 425, please open the roll.

SB four, two, five. Do pass and re refer to Committee on Natural Resources. Wallis.

Aye.

Wallis aye. Wicks.

13-0, we'll keep the roll open. File item ten, SB 720, please open the roll for Mr. Wallis.

SB 720. Do pass and re refer to the Committee on Natural Resources. Wallis.

No.

Wallis no. Wicks.

6-4 we'll keep the roll open and to the consent calendar. Please open the roll.

Wallis.

Aye.

Wallis aye. Wicks.

Aye.

Wicks aye.

All right, 15-0. We'll go now for Assembly Member Wicks. File item four, SB 322, please open the roll.

Wicks.

Aye.

Wicks aye.

12-3 That Bill gets out. File five, SB three, five seven. Please open the roll.

Wicks.

Aye.

Wicks aye.

15. The Bill gets out. File item seven. SB 425, please open the roll.

Wicks.

Aye.

Wicks aye.

14-0. That Bill gets out. And then file item ten, SB 720.

Wicks.

Aye.

Wicks aye.

7-4. That Bill does not get out. And then you did consent already, so you're good.

I think we have everybody. So with that, that concludes today's hearing.