Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

Good afternoon, everyone. The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Welcome. The hearing room is open for attendance of the hearing, and it can also be watched from a live stream on the Assembly's website. We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the Committee's website and note that any written testimony may be read into the record and is considered to be public comment. It can also be reprinted. We will allow two minutes each for two primary witnesses in support in opposition. You cannot add the time, so if you only have one witness, they still only get two minutes. And the witnesses must testify in person in the hearing room. Additional witness comments will be limited only to your name, organization and your position. And those comments can be either in person or on the telephone. To use our telephone service, the number to call is 877-692-8957, and the access code is 1850-1100. 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 discussion 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 procedure, I will direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruptions may result in removal from the building. We'll also document on the record the person involved and the nature of the conduct. And we might have to temporarily recess the hearing. And if you don't stop, we will ask you to leave the building with the assistance of the assembly sergeants, and I thank you for your cooperation. With that, we will begin our hearing. And I would like to note that Assembly Member Alvarez will be subbing today for Assemblymember Lowenthal. We don't have a quorum right now. Once we do, we will take a roll call, and we will also take up the 15 bills on our consent calendar. With that, I do see Senator Skinner here. Welcome. You may come forward and begin whenever you are ready. And this is for SB 233.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members. Pleased to present SB 233. And first, I want to convey that I will be accepting the Committee amendments, and they will be taken in the next Committee. And those amendments include limiting this to passenger vehicles and light duty trucks, so eliminating heavy duty trucks, eliminating some of the other classifications of vehicles.

The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that every Californian who buys an EV in the future has the benefit of that electric vehicle having what is known as bi directional capability. Now, some of you may have seen the advertisements by Ford for the F 150 truck, where they aggressively advertise. And these were played during the super bowl.

They were played during the playoffs, the NBA playoffs, various other things, where the truck pulls up to a mountain cabin and the driver jumps out and plugs the truck into that cabin and lights up their house that way.

Now, while I don't expect necessarily people to use their EVs on a regular basis to light their house, certainly when we are facing, for example, planned outages or blackouts due to very huge demand on our grid or when we're facing times where electricity rates the few hours a day where they're at their highest. Then a consumer could use their EV to power their home, for example. But if their EV does not have bi directional capability, they won't be able to do it.

Now, we're seeing a trend right now where the high end EVs are advertising and featuring this capability and other EVs. For example, the Chevrolet Bolt. Chevrolet has announced they're taking off the market the bolt, which is a more affordable and while I think this trend will change over time, what I don't want to see is EV manufacturers putting this capability only in high end EVs and thus benefiting only those who can afford a high end EV versus the rest of us.

And the interesting thing is, the most affordable EV on the market, which is the Nissan Leaf, has always had bi directional capability, which is a great thing. And it also proves that it doesn't add cost or make the EVs more expensive, because it always has.

But given that we're seeing this trend now of manufacturers going towards high end EVs, I just don't want California consumers to be put at a disadvantage where the only EV you can buy in a few years that has this capability would be the most expensive ones.

So what this Bill would do is help ensure that all of us are on a level playing field when we purchase an EV that by model year 2030, the electric vehicles would have this capability and those vehicles being limited to passenger vehicles and the light duty trucks. And with that, I'd like to have my witnesses in support. And that is Ellie Cohen, who is the CEO of the climate center, and Gregory Pulane from CEO of Nuvve Thank you.

And primary witnesses, you have your choice. You can either testify there, or you can come up to the table. It's up to you. Whatever you want to do. Why don't you come up to the table? That way, if there's questions, it'll be a little bit easier, and you can stay there through the hearing. And the same with opposition.

When we have the two primary opposition witnesses, we'll invite you to come up to the table, and that way you can remain there to see if there are questions from Committee Members.

Okay? Thank you. Good afternoon, chair free.

You need to press the button.

Thank you. I speak loudly, but thank you so much, Chair Friedman and Committee Members. I'm Ellie Cohen, CEO of the Climate Center. And many thanks to Senator Skinner for your pioneering leadership on this. As we face growing climate extremes, we cannot afford to continue relying on outdated and polluting technologies to keep our lights on and avoid power outages. Polluting gas, peaker plants and dirty diesel generators disproportionately harm lower income and working class communities, exacerbating environmental injustice.

We have a better option by making electric vehicles bi directional. We can use these batteries on wheels to store energy when it's plentiful, and send power back to our homes, businesses, and the grid when needed. This can benefit everyone from rural areas to cities, and help ensure that energy resilience is available to every Californian regardless of income level. SB 233 will help unlock the full potential of EVs and clean energy. It's supported by nearly 100 organizations.

Tesla is making all of its vehicles bi directional by 2025, and bi directionality is standard. As you just heard, for Nissan Leafs, making EVs bi directional is simple, inexpensive, a software upgrade and doable now as standards already exist. And bi directional charging can be managed to maintain battery life using even a tiny percentage of our growing EV capacity. We can avoid blackouts, secure a more reliable power grid, and support climate justice by providing clean power generation during peak periods. This Bill sends a critical market signal.

It helps California leverage the massive, the billions of dollars that are being invested in EVs for California now. And it helps ensure energy resilience is available for every Californian at every EV price point. We urge your aye vote to help California build the grid for the future. One that's clean, affordable, reliable, equitable, and safe. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Chairman Freeman, Assembly Committee Members, my name is Gregory Poilasne and I'm the CEO of Nuvve Holding Corporation, a proud California company and a world leader in bi directional vehicle to grid technology. I'm here to support a Senate Bill 233 and share my knowledge on vehicle to grid, or V 2G technology and adoption. Turning EV into mobile storage is critical to provide the flexibility our grid needs.

This strategy will ensure that California has the energy storage it needs to manage a grid with preeminently wind and solar based generation. Bi directional EV provide a hedge against potential supply chain challenges and other factors that may impact the scale and pace of stationary storage deployments. My company, Nuvve, has unmatched real world expertise in bi directional charging.

Today in California, we're helping 10 school districts using vehicle to grid to reduce the cost of electrifying their fleets and giving them more money for student instruction while supporting clean transportation and renewable integration. These projects include vehicle to grid integration with three different school bus manufacturers, so it can be done today in San Diego. During last year's historic 10 day heat wave, the Cahoon Valley Union School District used our V 2G platform to help keep the lights on.

Now we have three school bus fleets in San Diego, County, providing nearly 1 capacity for this summer's emergency load reduction program. Nuvve is also in the process of deploying another 1.5 megawatt of vehicle to grid in the City of Los Angeles, supporting a significant school bus certification effort. In Europe, we have been doing vehicle to grid with Nissan Leaf for nearly seven years.

Each of these vehicle has generated an average of $3,000 per year, reducing the total cost of ownership by about 40% over the life of the vehicle without impacting the battery life. We see V 2G as an essential technology to achieve EV deployment goals with keeping energy cost equitable. California must lead the bi directional charging revolution and make sure this technology is available to everyone, not just the very rich who will demand this option in the high end EV segment.

SB 233 will make sure that this technology is available to everyone, providing a more resilient, reliable, and equitable energy system. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room interested in testifying in support of the Bill? Hang on. We need to put the microphone on. And just to remind everyone, just name whoever you're representing and your position.

Rebecca Marcus, representing Cal PERG, in support.

Priscilla Quiroz, here, on behalf of the City of West Hollywood, in support.

Suzanne Hume Clean Earth for Kids. Strongly support.

Sophia Aficoa, with the Coalition for Clean Air, in support.

Lillian Marvis with MCE, California's first CCA here in support. Thank you.

Christina Scarring with the Center for Biological Diversity and Strong Support. Thanks.

Peggy Bernardi, on behalf of California's State Strong Indivisible Coalition of over 80 local indivisible groups in support of SB 233.

Margie Ferguson, representing the California Indivisible Climate Justice Work Group in support.

Cynthia Schallett, representing Indivisible Green team and Sacramento Electric Vehicle Association. In support.

Mark Saban, Sacramento Electric Vehicle Association Nation.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room? Okay, now we'll turn to our two primary witnesses in opposition. If you will, please come up to the table. And you each also will get two minutes.

Thank you very much. Perfect. Next witness.

Chair, members Orville Thomas, State Policy Director for CALSTART, California based nonprofit that serves as a clean transportation technology consortium representing the whole ecosystem of ZEV. It is unfortunate that we remain in opposition, respectfully, Senator, as we're supportive of the concept of bi-directional charging and vehicle to grid operations. But SB 233 continues to assume that the answer is mandating electric vehicles to be bi-directional, capable without studying what the best case and use strategies are and what guardrails need to be put in place. In May of 2022, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory produced a report for the United States Department of Energy titled economic Analysis of Vehicle to Grid Technology for Fleets. In the introduction, the authors write one VDG challenge is that supplemental vehicle to battery usage beyond its primary driving purpose imposes additional cycling, thus reducing battery life. Given the high price of vehicle replacement and lack of viable battery replacement options, VDG's potential costs could be substantial. And that the concern has led some major EV manufacturers to void a battery's warranty if the owner engages in vita g. These are examples of why CALSTART has maintained the need for SB 233 to be amended to keep the study provisions while eliminating the mandate. That may be premature for the market. Zero emission policy right now is constantly changing, as we have seen with the recent announcements of major auto manufacturers to the NACS charging standard, also the Tesla standard, into their plans. The speed at which ZEV policy is shifting is why CALSTART has asked for a hold on the mandate and the study to move forward in a very thoughtful and enlightened manner and respectfully asking for your no vote.

Thank you. I'm going to take a brief pause so that we can establish a quorum. Can we have a roll call, please?

Friedman, Friedman here. Fong, Fong here. Alvarez, Alvarez present. Berman, Berman here. Carrillo, Carrillo here. Davies. Gipson. Hart, Hart here. Jackson, Jackson here. Kalra. Nguyen, Nguyen here. Sanchez. Wallis. Ward. Wicks.

We have wait. We have a quorum. So anyone else in the room who wishes to testify in opposition to the Bill, please come up.

Madam Chair and members, Chris Shamoto with the California Trucking Association. Just want to thank the author, her staff and Committee staff for meeting with us on the Bill. With the proposed amendments, we'll be removing opposition. Thank you.

Yeah. Julie Malinowski-Ball, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, respectfully oppose unless amended.

Hello, Amy Lilly with Mercedes Benz, and also respectfully opposing unless amended.

Voleck Taing with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, also opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Cootsona with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer Lange here on behalf of Tesla. We are in a Tweener position. We are concerned that the bi directional-charging mandate is premature and that the bill should be focused on further studies. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Appreciate anybody else in the room wishing to testify. Thank you. And again, just your name, your organization, and what your position is. Can we please go to the phone lines now for our testimony in support or opposition of SB 233? Operator, if you could please open up the phone lines.

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to SB 233, please press 1-0. First, we will hear from line 80, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Sharon Gonzalez on behalf of the City of Santa Rosa in support thank you.

Line 69.

Hi, Stephen King with environment California in support.

Line 24.

This is Janet Cox for Climate Action California in support

line 85.

Good afternoon. Jim Lindberg, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California. In support

line 12.

Kathy Schaefer on behalf of the Los Angeles and San Fernando Valley chapters of Climate Reality in support thank you.

Line 97.

Stephen Rosenbaum, representing the Energy and Transportation Committee of Climate Action California in strong support. Thank you.

Line 11.

John Bottorff with clean earthforkids.org in strong support

line 90,

Andrea Colomina from Green Latinos in support

line 56. Line 56. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Beverly Desho, President of the Electric Vehicle Association of Central Coast. Our vehicles are only used about 10% of the time and a 15% usage in bi directional for the grid would not greatly impact the battery life and alliance.

And 13.

Elaine Lee with the Climate Reality. Project Silicon Valley chapter in support. Thank you.

Line 15

Denny Zayn with Move LA in support.

Line 55.

Robert Perry, representing the World Business Academy in support. Thank you.

Line eight,

Dr. Cynthia Mahoney, support this common sense Bill. Thank you.

Elise Kalfayan with the Glendale Environmental Coalition. In support.

Line 57

line 32.

Tupher Mathers with Actus Angira Valley in support.

Line 27.

Hi, this is Marven Norman Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, in strong support.

line 26.

This is John Smigielski with the California Alliance for Community Energy. In support.

line 81.

Vanessa Forsythe, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, and Clean Earth for Kids. In support.

line 79.

Luis Moreno public policy intern with Clean Earth 4 Kids. Strongly support.

Line 75.

Mark Jacobson, California Reform Judaism Social Action Committee. Strongly support AB 233.

Line 23

Hoai-An Truong, Mothers Out Front, Silicon Valley, in support.

Line 48.

Ariel Lopez with the Los Angeles Business Council in support. Thank you.

Line 111

Carol Weed representing both the Democrats of Rossmore and Rossmore Sustainability, in support.

And Madam Chair, there are no further comments at this time.

Thank you. We'll take it to the Committee now for questions or comments. Any Committee Member? Yes, Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the author and for the testimony from all. I want to thank the author for taking time with me during a busy time to spend some time with me, trying to really comprehend the intent. Thank you, Senator. I still am curious as to the two things that the bill is looking to accomplish. One is the study, which fully in support, and the other thing I should say is I think it's really fascinating that you're bringing this forward. I think it's an incredible potential for an energy source. What I'm wondering about is if the study is looking to do to convene the stakeholder, to examine all the things in terms of challenges, opportunities, costs, benefits and all of that. But then you do have a section at the end of the Bill, which is a 2030 requirement. Can you take me through the thinking of why are we doing a study but also doing the mandate now? Why not wait for the study to come forward, give us data and information and perhaps that leads to a mandate. Can you share with me your thinking around that?

Certainly, and I appreciate the question. So first, I am working with stakeholders now and the committee that asked for that amendment, which was an amendment from a committee to clarify that that study's purpose and focus is for those agencies to study the benefits to the grid. So for example, if we refer to the opposition's reference to a study that was fleet vehicle to grid study and fleet vehicle, I'm actually familiar with that study. They were looking at the use of fleet vehicles that would be like during a time, either daytime or whenever in a powering, in effect to building, so that in effect, the fleet itself would be being utilized to provide not only grid capacity, but those buildings and it would be quite frequent. So in other words, it would be relied on almost maybe on a daily basis because of the cost of commercial electricity rates and this being one of these benefits. Now, if you use a vehicle battery on a daily basis for powering, anything besides the car, especially for long periods of time, yes, there can be some degrading. But if we take for example, the Ford 150, which now the F 150 truck, their battery warranty and remember, they have bi directional capability and they advertise it. They let you know this is one of the features to attract you to buy it. They have an eight year battery warranty or 100,000 miles. So they do not put a caveat on that warranty regarding the use of it for the bi directional purpose. Now, let me go back to the purpose of the study from my point of view. It is to look at if, for example, every EV on the road were to be then putting their power back into the grid, which has been theoretically studied, but not studied in terms of the practicality of our grid and such. What that benefit may or may not be, what kind of belts and suspenders might need to be on it, or if there is a great benefit, what other incentives might our agencies offer? For example, EVs owners that have that capability? So for example, I think somebody referenced the very high heat days. So last September when we had those really high heat days, and we had the largest demand on our electrical grid that we have ever had in the history of the State of California. We were able to avoid blackouts because the state used its demand management, which is it pays in effect, commercial building owners and also each of us who are in certain programs to basically stop using electricity, turn it off. Well, you can imagine that in that kind of a situation, if you had an EV that could power your house, you could potentially use the EV to power the house and instead of having to completely go off the electricity, which of course would help to avoid that demand on the grid. So it's that kind of thing that we want to study because if it is something that the grid itself should be utilizing more, then there could be incentives designed for that purpose. My purpose in this bill is to not put any of our consumers at a disadvantage because we're seeing a trend now where the high end vehicles are going in this direction, even though as I opened the most affordable EV, the Nissan Leaf has always had this capability. But we don't want to see a situation where the manufacturers start opting only to put it in the highest end vehicles. And thus in order to have that, you're going to have to be paying a whole lot more that it's like one of these extra features versus that I should be able to utilize this no matter what EV I have. So that's my purpose. And if we go to, for example, why I'm willing to remove the mandate on the large the heavy duty or buses or that kind of thing for example, do the EV school bus manufacturers based in California, they are already producing all their school buses have bi directional. So they're already doing it. And I would anticipate that companies like Ups and Amazon, as they move forward and start to decide to expand the number of EVs in their fleets, they will start demanding that capability so that they can power warehouses and such. But they have a big enough market share that they have the ability to do that. You and I, just as regular consumers, have a harder time to do that, which is why I think this mandate is so important. And I hope I answered the question.

Well, let me see if we can clarify it because I think I hear you saying you believe the study is going to go in a different direction. The language before us talks about studying the cost, which I assume would mean the cost of the manufacturer.

Yes, because it's not specified. And that's why I'm going to do some of the clarification in that language of the study because it's not really clear in the language now.

So you don't expect the study then to look at the cost.

But I think it would be more the cost to, if the state wanted to utilize this feature in greater capacity for the grid.

So just to be really clear, not the cost of the manufacturer to add this technology, that would not be part of the study.

Again, we have not worked out the amendments yet, or the amendment. It's because we already know that there are manufacturers who have this capability and we already know that the most affordable EV, I don't think that that particular issue is as essential, though certainly that is still under discussion.

I would just share that I do think that's essential as someone who represents disadvantaged communities where we have seen that these electric vehicles are not making their way into these communities, additional cost of these vehicles would mean potential additional hurdles to these communities that need to see more of these vehicles. And I'm concerned about that.

I do appreciate that, but I think that and I don't mean, the manufacturers of course are entitled to their opposition and their opinion, however, as I've indicated, the most affordable EV has always had bi directional capability. And so while that cannot be assumed that of course it will be cheaper for every, we are seeing this trend right now in, well anyway, my intention is so that we are not in a situation where lower income residents are at a disadvantage and can't get the bi directional capability because it is only then promoted or featured in the higher end vehicle.

Yeah, and I definitely appreciate that intent. But being someone who's not entirely fully knowledgeable of this but interested certainly by what you're trying to accomplish in our own staff analysis, one of the main comments at the very beginning is that these requirements will need to install larger batteries. Batteries are the most expensive component of electric vehicles.

The studies so far have not shown that the batteries have to be larger for this capability. They do not.

I am fully supportive certainly of the section towards the end on the mandate for buses. Given that as you've stated and as the testimony has stated, that's certainly something that has been proven and successful and all manufacturers, as you said in your testimony, in California already do that. So I think that's very appropriate. I think I'd like to make sure that we have more information. Is there a reason why the date changed from 2027 to 2030? Was that from feedback on, manufacturers need to adjust and actually want to ask them as well they need to adjust to some of these requirements with some time, I'm assuming maybe that's why you changed the date, but I'm not sure.

Yes, to give that time, but also given the projection on how many more consumers will be purchasing EVs by then because of the different the state has many policies that are both promoting and will ultimately be mandating EVs. And also to take advantage of both the federal and the state rebates before they no longer exist, that you would have vehicles with that capability where you would still get those rebates. But yes, it was to recognize that it's going to take manufacturers who don't now do this a period of time.

Okay, well, appreciate again you taking the time obviously newest to the Committee and just learning about this issue, continue to be concerned about this report, not identifying those costs. And that's the part that gives me a lot of pause here today. So maybe we'll hear more from others. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Fong.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know we're having kind of an intense debate on a very complicated issue in a very limited time constraint, but I know that the time ran out to the opposition. So since this Bill imposes a requirement on the car manufacturers, I did want to ask specifically if I can delve a little deeper about what this mandate would mean at this very moment on cars. Different car models are being mentioned, specific unique ones. But how would this affect the broader industry, if I may ask?

Yes, Kurt Augustine with the alliance for Automotive Innovation. Our estimates are that the capability of the actual device is not all that expensive. It's a few $100. But the challenge will be either the increased battery size or the cost to cover the warranty issues. And that can be anywhere to $3,000 - $4,000. But that also is only the tip of the iceberg, because the current estimates on the bi directional charger that would have to be put in one house could be anywhere from $12,000 $5,000. In addition, there's panel rework, et cetera. So this is an expensive proposition. And when we're on the cusp of trying to get as many electric vehicles on the road as possible, between the new standards that start in 26 and last year's sales, we're going to have to double the number of EV sales and to increase the cost of every vehicle, whether a consumer chooses to use it or not. And I think that's particularly concerning to folks who live in multifamily dwellings. If your landlord chooses not to put a $15,000 bi directional charger in, you've spent several $1,000 on a capability that you will not be able to use. And that's why we believe, let the market decide this. Again, we are completely supportive of bi directional charging, but it shouldn't be required for every car. Everybody, let the consumer choose. Thank you.

I certainly appreciate to I won't speak for my colleague from San Diego. I certainly represent a rural area. We certainly have our cost challenges. I think the colleague sitting next to you has been trying to get infrastructure needs improved. And I think that's kind of I think the thrust of the concern is if you do the mandate, then and you don't have the infrastructure, there seems to be a little bit of a gap, but I wanted to give the author a chance to respond if I'm not seeing it correctly.

I want to just clarify that this reference of a requirement of a $15,000 thing at your house is inaccurate. You can go to the hardware store now and buy a simple inverter. It depends on which hardware store you go to. It can be approximately $80, which would allow you to utilize your bi directional vehicle to charge your house. And in fact, if I could turn to my witness who did this for her very own house.

I am on my third Nissan Leaf. We've never had to have batteries that are bigger to make it bi directional. They've been bi directional. And I want to be really clear that, in fact, we at my household are waiting now to buy a new bi directional charger. So, just to be clear, this Bill is not about the chargers. This Bill is only saying the EV should have the capability to be bi directional. We're not telling every person who has that that they have to do that. What we're saying is that everybody should have the option to have that. It's so simple and so inexpensive. And secondly, the actual chargers are in the range today of $3,000. Very expensive for me. I can tell you that I want to be an early adopter. But just like with Solar 10 years ago, even with EVs way back when, we know that by investing in a big scale that that will bring the cost down significantly. We expect that bi directional chargers will be much cheaper over the next few years. California expects to have 8 million EVs by 2030, and we expect that it will be much less expensive to do what I'm going to do this year by 2030.

Certainly appreciate that. Maybe one last question. Everyone's focusing on the Nissan Leaf. How many models currently on the market now have this capability? Is there an estimate? I don't hold you to every single model, but do you have kind of a range or a guesstimate?

I think it's eight or nine, roughly.

Eight or nine?

Yeah.

The conversation around a Nissan Leaf is an interesting one. Obviously, it was one of the early EVs. 2013, I believe, is when it started coming out. But in California, the Nissan Leaf comprises less than 5% of our EV population. And so when we talk about eight or nine models and we're basing policy on the Nissan Leaf, it really gets to a dangerous precedent, given that the Nissan Leaf's range for the majority of its lifetime has been under 200. So when we talk about battery usages, we are also going into this advanced clean cars, two kind of dynamic of policy regulations on the manufacturers. And then when we do talk about the actual chargers, yes, not everyone is going to buy an expensive bi directional charger, but the requirements are going to be that most people use a level one charger. So even if they wanted to have this capability, they are going to have thousands of dollars of cost incurred upon them to utilize it. And even if we're not talking about mandating the chargers, then unfortunately we are mandating that cost increase on the manufacturer side for the consumer. Also not knowing where the grid is. So PGE in your territory in Bakersfield is going through some pilot projects, and I think that's why several of those in opposition are asking just for some time, we want to make sure that those abilities to study what utilities are doing, what manufacturers cost increases would be, where the supply chain is going to be in California for any of the batteries that would need to be replaced. All of those things do play a large part in this policy. And as we've all said, we're supportive of it being on the menu of options to address California's energy future. But I think we just need to have that stakeholder group meet before coming to this kind of answer of mandating all manufacturers for light duty and school buses.

Well, I don't want my office time. I appreciate the information. I think the robust conversation, I think, shows that we probably do need to flesh this out a little bit more, maybe to my colleague from San Diego, that the study may need to be expanded a little bit.

If I may. Yes, I used a Nissan Leaf. I used it just to give you the example of the most affordable on the market. As was already referenced, Tesla is the number one selling EV in California. It will be all bi directional by 2025, and many already are. And the F 150 truck, as I mentioned also, which is more of a high end, but still it's aggressively advertising that. So that I use certain examples was not to say that this is the only or this should be by no means, but rather to give to allow us to understand that the whole range of vehicles are available with this capacity.

And certainly appreciate that. I think that's why I asked kind of the impact to the broad industry. Just trying to understand, I think, the impact broadly to consumers, but certainly appreciate the information. Thank you.

I have a question. So I understand the Ford truck being bi directional because they're advertising the capacity for people who are buying a pickup truck, maybe for work, to be able to run tools, run electric tools out of their truck, or to run a small generator, which makes a lot of sense to me. And it makes sense to me also to have the capacity in case of emergencies if you live in an area where you have a lot of power outages and you want the ability to run your stove off your vehicle. But I'm curious as to the witness, why you put one in your home. Is it that, because you're having to buy the power anyway, so you're taking the power out of the grid and you're paying a certain price. You're not getting paid any premium, you're not making money when you're powering it off of your vehicle. So what do you anticipate being the uses? Is it that you have that many power outages in your home or sort of why would you be doing it in your house?

Yes, we've had multiple power outages over the last five years, and projections are that we'll have more of them as we face more extreme and deadly events in California. And so we're looking at how do we keep the power on to keep our refrigerator going and other basic appliances in the house? So we've been able to do it already through that inverter that Senator Skinner described, but it will make it seamless when we have an actual bi directional charger.

Just to complement that, there are many programs that exist today. There's a program called the Emergency Load Direction Program that's been set up by the three hour use in California, which during those peaks, which aggregate maybe 60 hours per year, you're getting paid $2 per kilowatt hours while you are discharging during those peak events, which is what we did with the school bus last year. And this is what we are getting ready to do again. So you have some significant compensation that come through that. And I think it's a fair compensation for using your vehicle with a bi directional capability. So they are revenue opportunities. You can't just look at it as a cost aspect. There's also a revenue that can be generated by that vehicle, which is where the total cost of ownership can be reduced. And the example I gave you is in Denmark, where we have the ability to reduce the total cost of ownership by 40%, and those are Nissan Leaf, 24 kilowatt hour batteries, 10 kilowatt charging stations, so pretty small battery. And yet we are able to generate $3,000 per vehicle per year in those markets.

Okay. It's interesting. I mean, certainly not every utility does that, and not every utility is subject to as many power outages as some of the others. So I could see in certain parts of the state this being more desirable.

What wasn't referenced, and I think our witness would be able to, is the time of use rates. And everyone, all of us are subject to that. And if we look at the different proceedings before the PUC, all of our IOUS are coming forward with variances in time of use rates. And those time of use rates being that we are now, and we will be, as time goes on, charged the most during the highest demand hours. So our electricity rates per kilowatt hour at the high demand hours will be very, very expensive and much less at the low demand hours. Which then, if you have this capacity, you can charge your EV in the nighttime, when the rates are lower and then use the EV and again, depending on your circumstances, to power the home for an hour or two to get yourself to not have to pay that very high rate.

Thank you. Assemblemember Ward.

Just an interesting time, not much to add on. I'm also a third generation Leaf owner, so I came to learn through this Bill of its bi directional capabilities. So something to look into. But I think everything has been said that needed to be said. I certainly appreciate this essentially is going to be a mobile storage opportunity as well. And we're trying to encourage more storage throughout California as well. Knowing again, as a consumer and somebody that made that choice to go there. And I see what we're talking about is sort of some questions that are going to be beyond the vehicle itself, but the additional infrastructure that a homeowner or a property owner would need to install there to be able to make this an option for them to be able to use at home. I think that those are things outside of this bill's jurisdiction that will be worked on down the road. But knowing that we've got real world examples, multiple examples right now that are cost effective for consumers, this bill sets a standard for 2030, a very achievable year, seven years from right now. And so as we're heading through that stakeholder group and there are unforeseen issues that come up that are going to make it difficult for the market to be able to meet that. Legislature is certainly able to revisit that as well at a future time. But I think this is a good thing that is within conceptual reach, and I think we should go for it. And I'm sure if there's already a motion or a second, I'm happy to move the Bill.

Thank you. Anyone else want to Mr. Carrillo.

Just ne quick comment on the reference to that pickup truck commercial. The auto industry has always been able to adapt to new features of coming other vehicles. I'm sure we've all seen the Volkswagen commercial was the moment the driver sits on the seat and the music starts and the baby's happy. I can see other auto makers already adjusting to that new feature because they're going to be competitive. Not that that's the only reason why I would buy a Volkswagen. But in order to be competitive in any other industry, there has to be adaptions and coming up to what the new trends are, whatever those gauges are, because that's just what the industry is. They want to be competitive. They want to be able to provide the same amenities or features. So the auto industry will have to do that anyway. It's already doing it. So to me, that's something that it's not an issue for me. They want to sell cars. They're going to bring those features in any make or model. So just want to make that comment. The other thing is the incentives, when you buy an electric vehicle, there are incentives, there are rebates for those that take advantage of them. They can buy a charger now. I'm sure that that will be an option too, to buy that inverter, to make that vehicle capability, be able to do that. So at the end of the day, I think that the state will end up being part of those incentives because that's what we are promoting. So for me, that's something that I just don't see as an issue as far as the industry having to meet other features that other makes are doing. So thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Well, I want to thank you for bringing the Bill forward. Very important discussion certainly, and thinking about what the future of EVs and Power is and how they work with the grid is a very interesting discussion. You can see by the level of interest here from the Committee and in the room. I also appreciate your willingness to take the Committee amendments to narrow the scope of the Bill. There are definitely some unknowns that we will be watching as this Bill moves forward. Unknowns about the impact on the warranty. I think the opposition does make a good point about what the impact is on the battery life and how that would be reflective in the warranty program and whether CARB has the correct parameters to be able to account for this kind of usage and whether that does impact the eventual price of the vehicles. Once there's a mandate that I think is still an unknown what the consumer demand will be, I will tell you. My city in Glendale, we were one of the first cities to be 100% smart meter on the water and the power side and there's still absolutely no integration with people's, large uses of electricity with any of our appliances in the city. So the idea that very quickly people will be able to figure out how to use this to take advantage of the grid pricing when we don't even have an interaction with smart meter in the city, that tells me when I should be running any of my appliances, that functionality was never installed. And so we have smart meters and literally all they use them for is reading the meter. So I think a lot of our utilities have a long way to go in terms of grid management and power and demand and customer demand. And there's a huge disconnect between any communication with customers and when they're supposed to be running things and allowing the grid to run those power hungry appliances. I'd be very happy for my utility to run some of my appliances when the electricity is cheaper, but there's no ability for me to do that or even to know what the price of electricity is at any given time. So I don't say this to any of you, but maybe if anyone from Energy is listening, that would be a great thing. If we're going to have this capability, someone's going to have to know when to feed that power back into the grid because we don't know. I don't know right now. So there's still a lot of work to do on the grid side and unknowns about what it costs for people to have their house do this. Is there an extra cost that's going to be borne by people who will never use the bi directional because they're in multifamily or whatever it is. So I do think there's unknowns. However, the argument about the industry charging a premium for this capability resonates with me. I think that's of all the arguments that you have, the most powerful argument in my mind that given that there's potential for customer savings, for customer usage and the fact that it really doesn't cost anything to put these into the vehicle does say to me that there are certain things that I understand charging more money for. If I'm going to have leather seats, sure, charge me. But there's a lot of things that customers don't want to be charged extra for, like your air conditioner or maybe in this case the bi directionality should just be something that's standard. If it turns out that it's really needed by the grid and if we don't have it in 10 years down the road or five years down the road, it's something that people really do want and that the grid is now asking for. We will have had many years of selling cars without a capacity maybe that they should have had and make those cars a little bit obsolete. So I think that there are good arguments on the opposition side. There really are. And I don't discount them. And this was kind of a tough one for the Committee, but I do think it's that we should be continuing this conversation and I'm very interested to see what happens in the next Committee when it gets into energy and utilities, what they have to say. So again, I don't discount any of the arguments that were made. I think they're all the right arguments. I'm just landing right now on the side of saying, I think just for basic consumer protection, that I understand the point about making sure that people have the ability to have this and that, that they're not being upsold this feature when it really doesn't seem to cost anything to add it in. So with that, I'm recommending an aye vote. We have a motion. Did we have a second? Okay then can we have a roll call? Oh, would you like to close before we go to a roll call?

Apologies. Thank you. And I appreciate the chair's wrap up because it is I am trying to create a level playing field for the consumer. And if we look at look, we know that we've not had big takeup of EV purchase in our disadvantaged communities by our low income residents and there's many, many reasons for that. Part of that has been range and the distance to job centers to where affordable housing is. There's many, many issues. But when we look at the different programs to try to give lower income residents more ability to either benefit from an EV or purchase an EV, they have all been from either the local air districts or state policy, not from the industry. And it's sort of not again to be overly critical to the industry. The industry is looking to maximize sell vehicles that have all the bells and whistles and all the highest prices and such. And usually that's part of our job. Our job is to make sure that when we're trying to do things like move to EVs across the board, that they, in fact, are beneficial to everyone, accessible to everyone, affordable to everyone, and that all their best features are available to everyone. And that's our job. So I appreciate the chair's summary of that. And I think 2030 is a good, reasonable time for these manufacturers to meet that it sends a good market signal. And I think that, of course, the charging companies will respond also. And it's the direction that we will be going in. And I just want it to be a direction that isn't just luxury and high end. And with that, I ask for aye vote. And thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. Can we have a roll call, please?

Friedman, Friedman aye. Fong, No. Alvarez, Alvarez not voting. Berman, Berman aye. Carrillo, Carrillo aye. Davies, Davies no. Gipson. Hart, Hart aye. Jackson, Jackson not voting. Kalra. Nguyen, aye. Sanchez. Wallace. Ward, Ward aye. Wicks, Wicks aye.

Seven to one. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you all. Seven to two. Sorry, it was seven to two. Okay. We're moving now to Senator Weiner with SB 532. You might begin whenever you are ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and colleagues. I appreciate the time. Today I'm here to present Senate Bill 532, the safe, clean, and reliable Bay Area Public Transportation Emergency Act sort of wordy name which enacts a temporary bridge toll to raise desperately needed funds to prevent massive transit service cuts. In the San Francisco Bay Area while also providing funding for safety, security, cleanliness and reliability improvements so agencies can continue recovering and attracting riders.

Public transportation is in a pivotal moment, particularly across California, but especially in the Bay Area. Early in the Pandemic, transit ridership collapsed by as much as 95%. Ridership, along with fair revenue has been gradually recovering but not quickly enough for fair revenue to fully compensate for the end of Federal Emergency COVID relief. These operational revenue shortfalls, if unaddressed, will lead to truly massive service cuts in the coming years. BART faces the most extreme situation and this is sometimes presented in the press as a BART problem.

But I'm here to tell you that even though BART is in the most dire circumstance, this will affect numerous Bay Area transit agencies, some as soon as next year, including Muni, which will start eliminating entire bus lines in addition to BART potentially eliminating weekend and nighttime service or slashing an entire line. And in the next several years it'll go to Caltrain and other agencies, AC Transit as well.

Adding to the problem, we know that coming out of the Pandemic there are people who are concerned around issues of cleanliness and safety. So some people are hesitant to go back. While these issues and these problems have drawn attention, which is important and we need to work to tackle them. I want to also emphasize that our transit agencies are trying to do better.

BART, which has received the most criticism for these issues has dedicated significant resources to improve, including working and increasing their budget to hire more BART police officers and unarmed ambassadors, doubling the frequency of its deep cleaning program, of its cars and so forth. There's also a narrative that I'm sure others have heard that no one is riding transit anymore. That narrative is completely false. After ridership collapsed to to 10% of pre Pandemic ridership, it's been steadily rebounding.

Muni is currently at 66% of pre Pandemic ridership and some lines are over 100%. AC Transit is at about 70%. BART is at 43%. Despite the dramatic reduction in downtown San Francisco commutes, which is such a core part of BART's service, but apart from the current percentage is the increase. Over the past year, muni's ridership has increased by one third and BART by nearly 50%. BART currently carries between 150 and 170 thousand riders a day. BART carried 42 million passengers last year, 42 million.

Muni currently carries over 400,000 passengers per day. I say this not just to cite data, but to indicate what happens if we allow these systems to fall apart. These are people who will no longer be able to get to work, to school, to the grocery store, to the senior center, to a concert that they wanted to go to, and so forth. Allowing the systems to unravel would also profoundly harm the Bay Area. It would severely undermine our economic recovery, particularly for our downtown cores.

And relating to one of the opposition letters, there is nothing that could be more destructive to downtown San Francisco's recovery than to have transit collapse. It will upend the lives of transit dependent riders. People who do not own cars do not have the option of driving. It will harm drivers who will have to contend with many more cars on already congested Bay Area freeways and roads. Everyone benefits when we have viable transit.

Now, colleagues, some people have said to me, we've seen this a little bit in the press. Why do you need to do this Bill? We just put this big investment in the budget, in the transit. And I am deeply grateful to our leadership in both houses, to our budget chairs, and to the Governor for putting forth a budget that we passed in a bad budget year that does support transit. But I want to be very, very clear.

We keep hearing a number thrown around that we put $5.1 billion into transit this year just fixing the problem. We have just a fire hose of money going into transit. That is not accurate. Of that 5.1 billion, 4 billion is transit capital infrastructure money that was allocated last year. And in the Bay Area, it's all spoken for. It's all been allocated to critical regional infrastructure projects. And if that money were taken and used for operations, those projects would be defunct.

They'd fall apart, and we would leave many billions in federal matching funds on the table. The actual new money for transit operations in this year's budget is 1.1 billion statewide. By formula, that's 400 million for the Bay Area over four years. The Bay Area's five year operational transit deficit 2.5 billion. And we received 400 million from the state. I'm deeply grateful for that 400 million. That is approximately 16% of the Bay Area's transit deficit in the next five years.

The other 84% is for the Bay Area, unfortunately, to solve. I would love to get more state money, but I'm not holding my breath. And so right now it's about regional self help. And that's what this Bill is. I want to just acknowledge that there's diverse opinions about bridgeholes in the Bay Area. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that we have 100% kumbaya. There are differing opinions among Members of the Bay Area delegation.

I've spoken with almost every Member, sometimes repeatedly, some very robust conversations. And there are a lot of different opinions. And what I have said to everyone, to my colleagues, to organizations in the Bay Area, to anyone who's interested, that if it's not bridge holes, tell me how else we're going to solve this problem. Because it's not tenable for us to do nothing. This is a huge problem that we need to solve. This Bill is a work in progress, and I acknowledge that.

And I'm hopeful that we will be having a Bay Area caucus, I hope, next week, so that we will be able to discuss this as a caucus. But for today, I respectfully ask you to move this Bill forward to continue this conversation, a conversation that sprung up after the budget deal was cut. And that's why we rushed to put this Bill in print. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

With me today to testify in support of the Bill is Zach Deutsch Gross, the Policy Director at Transform, which is a transportation equity policy group, and Terry Brennan from SCIU California. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Friedman and honorable Members of Committee. My name is Zach Deutsche Gross, Policy Director at Transform and co sponsor of SB 532, along with Spur. Public transit is at the core of our economic recovery, our climate goals, and an equitable and thriving region. Even now, 70% of transit trips in the state are taken within the Bay Area. We are so grateful that the state stepped in to provide emergency transit funding. But as Senator Weiner said, that only provides $400 million to the Bay Area.

This is not even enough to get us to 2026, the soonest we could pass a self help regional transit funding measure. That's why SB 532 is so important and the need is so urgent. Transform's research found that cuts to transit due to the fiscal cliff would result in 735,000,000 fewer transit rides in the Bay Area and burden current and future transit riders.

With over $5 billion in increased transportation costs over the next five years, the people hit hardest by these cuts would be lower income people of color, seniors, and people with disabilities, those least able to afford alternative transportation, such as buying a car, as laid out in our report, Pricing Roads Advancing Equity. Transform evaluates equity outcomes based on three criteria affordability, access to opportunity, and community health.

Given the disproportionate impacts to low income people and BIPOC communities if transit services cut, and that 100% of these funds would go to sustaining and improving vital transit service that serves these communities. We believe this legislation is substantially positive when it comes to all three equity criteria. But we're also focused on mitigating the negative impacts to lower income folks who must drive. That's why SB 532 advances two essential criteria to further advance equity and mitigate harm.

One is to cap the existing toll evasion fine policy at $15 per fine. This is an incredibly burdensome and regressive policy to drivers.

Your time is up. Thanks.

Thank you.

You can go to your next witness.

Madam Chair Members Terry Brennan on behalf of SCIU California. 700,000 working men and women in California. Amongst them are the bulk of the workers at BART, VTA, and Santa Cruz Transit. I just want to put a face on the impact of the failure of transit. We just hired at BART hundreds of workers to clean and make the trains more secure. Part of this ridership recovery you're seeing is about the difference of getting on BART than it was two years ago.

These are the first people to go. If we don't have enough money to keep this system going, it will devastate what helped rebuild the BART system. They're reshaping when the rides go. It's no longer a work commuter system. It's a all regional transit system for shoppers, venue, goers, diners, you name it. More weekend rides, more evening rides, which requires more security, more cleanliness that my Members are diligently providing. Without some additional funding, that's going to fall apart.

And as that falls apart, you have the potential for the transit system collapsing. This is absolutely a figure it out now or pay much higher later. The cost of rebuilding a broken transit system is going to cost tenfold what it costs to keep it going now until we can recover through this endemic. Thank you all so much for your budget votes in putting a Band Aid on it.

Now we need to do the surgery necessary to keep this healthy and growing and have a potential for a real transit system that we all knew and were proud of the years before the Pandemic. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Chair Members, Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of San Francisco Mayor London breed in support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify in support of SB 532? Good afternoon.

Jim lights. On behalf of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, in support.

Laura Tolgoth, Transportation Policy Director, sponsor and support. Also supporting for NRDC on behalf of Zachardi.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California, Yimbi in support. Thank you.

Steve Wallach, on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa transit district and the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Support.

Thank you. Seeing nobody else here to testify in support, is there anyone here to testify in opposition? Okay, is there anybody outside of a primary witness here to testify in opposition? Okay, seeing none. Will go to the phone lines. Operator, can you please open up the phone lines for SB 532?

Is this my number? 37?

Yes, we can hear you. Please go ahead.

To testify in support or opposition to SB 532, please press 1 0. We have a comment from line 121. Line 121, please go ahead. Line 23. Line 23, your mic is open. Line 37. Line 37, please go ahead.

Michael Levinson. I want to be in strong support. Hopefully, this will not impact low income and disabled, but I think it's necessary strong support. Thank you. Line 30.

Adina Levin with Seamless Bay Area in support.

Line 130, line one. Sorry, please go ahead. Hello.

I'm Edward Giordano, Oakland, California.

And I'm in strong support. We have critically

Okay, please go into the next caller, folks just name and your position. Thank you.

Line 50. Bruce Nagel. Sustainable Silicon Valley and strong support.

And Madam Chair, there are no further comments.

Line 50.

Thank you. I want to thank the author for bringing the Bill forward. I stood next to him many times advocating for more funding for transportation. It's really important to our region. I think I'm the only Bay Area Member here at the moment. Right now, I want to express my strong support for the Bill. I know it's not ideal.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Ms. Wicks.

These are tough choices that we have to make, but we're also in difficult budget times. And I understand the concerns about the Bill, but letting public transportation fail is not an option. So we need these funds. I'd like to make a motion to move the Bill. Thank you, Mr. Ward. And then we'll go to the Vice Chair.

Happy to second. I'm not coming from the Bay Area. I would be generally indifferent, but really appreciate the leadership here. I understand the stress that the system is placed under. And I just had a couple of clarifying questions. Given that these are state facilities, if this were their state bridges, if the fee was raised on one hand, what might that do in the future for our ability to continue to appropriate maintenance funds or otherwise be able to keep up our core responsibilities?

Well, right now, the Bay Area Toll Authority, which I used to serve back in the day when I was in local government, operates the bridge on behalf of the state, and the maintenance happens through bridge holes. And we raised bridge tolls recently. In 2017, we authorized them to go out with the ballot measure on that. And so that is, in my experience, incredibly diligent about maintaining the bridges with the bridge holes. This is a separate piece of the bridgeholes.

If it were to pass, that would be for transit operations.

So 90% of that at least would have to go towards the transit operations bucket. If down the road, there needed to be additional adjustments to meet ongoing maintenance expenses, that would be something for both. I have to consider for a subsequent.

Its actually 100%. There's a bucket of 10% that can be used for things like transformation of transit. We want to modernize it, make it more seamless, et cetera.

Does this also then require sort of a program, a budget be put forward to try to meet the individual operators and try to maybe equilibrate the distress of one agency over another and the allocations?

Yeah, so the Bill, it runs through the MTC, which is the same as bada. And as you know, MTC is like the equivalent of SANDAG, and they will determine how to distribute it to the operators, and the Bill directs them to really take into account the need. So the operators that have the greatest need in terms of operational deficit would definitely they'd have to prioritize that. But there's a lot of flexibility for the MTC.

And there's been some discussion about I know in the Committee analysis talked about the potential of having more constraints on MTC's discretion. And that's certainly a fair topic of conversation.

Fantastic. Well, definitely things that I think have been well thought through. Appreciate your leadership on this. Definitely defer to Bay Area Caucus conversations as they come forward, but happy to be able to support this Bill.

Thank you. Vice Chair. Fong.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a real quick question, and of course it probably leads to a very lengthy answer, but there's been a lot of focus on the funding component and the amount. Certainly your colleague in the Bay Area, Mr. Glazer, has another perspective. I just wanted to kind of get your thoughts on what is the plan to sustainability, what would get BART into a more stable place?

Yeah, I think what's really important listen, I'm not going to be naive. The world is not going to go back to 2019. But the ridership has been trending up, just not as quickly as we would like. I think BART a year ago was at 30% ridership, pre pandemic ridership. It's now at 43% and it continues to go up. And that's been true for these agencies in General. Muni and AC are pushing 70%. So I think over time, again, it's not going to be the same.

And BART has a unique struggle because it is only fixed rail. So they can't pivot to emphasize it's a lot harder for them to be as flexible. But I think over time they will become more sustainable. In addition, the reason we made this temporary is the goal, and I think this is likely to happen, is that in 2026 we would have a Bay Area transit funding measure on the regional ballot for long term sustainability. And that'll be, over the next few years, a regional conversation.

Ultimately the Legislature would have to authorize the MTC to go out with that ballot measure. But the goal is to try to dovetail a little bit to get through the next few tough years as ridership continues to recover and as the region moves to a regional ballot measure.

If you don't mind, I guess, maybe ask you a different way. We had a hearing with this Committee in terms of the cliff of mass transit, and what I'm hearing from you is that it's a function of time that there needs to be more time to get the sustainability. My other colleagues on both sides of the aisle have outlined that there are other challenges within the transit system that are more structural, that need to be addressed.

That's what I'm trying to get a sense, with all this additional funding, what will be done to bring ridership back.

Sure. Absolutely. On BART in particular, which has had the biggest challenges. And by the way, I'll state for the record and thank you to the chair for helping work on this. Public transportation agencies are not eligible for state homeless funding.

So when you have an LA metro or a BART, for example, that literally have homeless people that are more or less at times living on the trains or just staying there because they have nowhere else to go, BART county has to beg its constituent counties for help with that. So we need to put funding into dealing with some of the safety and some of the cleanliness issues. And again, BART is doing that, but there's more work to do.

We need to make the systems easier to use, so more seamless, so that it's really easy to connect from one to the other and it's intuitive to people, which isn't always the case. In addition, we need to look to changing ways that people are getting around. And so for example, I mentioned on Muni, which actually even before the pandemic, Muni was 50% of the transit ridership in the entire Bay Area, far more than any other system Muni has.

Because we have certain lines that are literally over 100% of pre pandemic, Muni has been sort of focusing on the workhorse lines and that has its own becomes a virtuous circle. Muni has also created bus only lanes. So the 49 Van Ness, which used to be a very problematic line, is now going gangbusters because it has a bus only lane and it's so fast and it's so efficient.

So I think a lot of the agencies are looking and need to look to how do we adjust to the new way that people, new ways people have getting around so that the systems are meeting current need. But I will also note, in terms of work from home and all the pandemic changes, I don't think the dust has settled. We don't know what office versus work from home is going to look like in two years, three years, four years from now.

And so wouldn't it be sad if the system started to unravel before we even knew for sure what changes they needed to make? But on the basic safety, cleanliness, those kinds of issues, they're already doing that work. They need to do more of it more aggressively. And with Mr. Glazer? He and I have great relationship. I voted for his Bill last year, and I was prepared to vote for it again this year had it not been not died in Committee.

And he and I are going to be sitting down soon to talk.

Thank you for that. And I think that as someone who doesn't represent the Bay Area have visited many times, I think that the challenge for myself is just trying to understand. There's always this question and this desire for funds. I just haven't seen a lot of details in terms of what the plan is moving forward to get sustainability. And I think that's where I think there's a little bit of a disconnect between the two.

Yeah. And those plans are happening, and I think this Bill is an opportunity to push them to happen even faster. And we've seen there's a lot of work in the Bay Area happening right now. There's a whole task force regionally that's literally focused on those changes. And I don't know if you want to maybe comment on that a little bit.

Yeah. So the barrier came up with a transit transformation action plan during the pandemic, which created 27 different tasks that the Trans agencies would take on to rebuild ridership, to reimagine service, to prioritize the people who were still taking transit throughout the pandemic, and recover ridership from new riders, from choice riders, and to those who are transit dependent. And so we are still implementing those policies.

And this Bill would help further push those policies along to regrow ridership, to get to financial sustainability, and to encourage people to get back on transit.

Anyone else from the Committee?

I just want to be on the record that I also support public transit. Families depend on that to get to work, to get to school, wherever they need to be. And you answered a little bit of the question that I had as the date for December 31, 2028. I believe you said you're looking at 2026 to put a measure on the ballot. But this 2028, is that something that there's some data behind it that you think public transit will benefit based on that ballot measure? Yeah.

And like I said, this is all a work in progress. This Bill, if it were to pass, could end up being a different time frame, or there could be changes. We're hoping that there will be a ballot measure in 2026, and we're hoping that it'll pass. But this is a starting point in terms of we know that in the next five years, we have an estimate about what the shortfall is. And so we thought that this time frame made sense.

But again, it's a topic of conversation.

Okay. Seeing no one else speaking, I want to thank you for bringing this forward. I totally agree with you that we can't allow transit to fail in the transportation and mobility space, there's nothing more important than public transportation, and I wish that the state put more of its resources in that direction. In fact, I've been working for a number of years and trying to do exactly that.

But we're not allowing our transit agencies often the chance to really succeed because we under finance them and under resource them from the state. And at the same time, they also have to do a better job, often at responding to the needs and the demands of their constituents. It's not just running trains on time or buses on time that will get people into the system.

It's making sure that they adjust for changing use patterns, for cleanliness, for safety, for being as convenient for all users, people who are disabled, for older women, for women and other families with strollers and small children, and other things that often can be a huge barrier that seem to go unnoticed by our transit agencies. So I hope that they take this also as a time to really rethink a lot of what they do. I'll be supporting the Bill today.

To me, it's a district Bill, and I know that you're going to continue to work with all of the different stakeholders in your area. And getting all the agencies and all the stakeholders in an area like Bay Area together is never possible, much less easy. But I really appreciate you coming up with a solution and taking so much action and very intentional and deliberate action and loud action to make sure that we keep our transit agencies going.

So we do have a motion, and I think I heard a second as well. Do we have a second from anybody? Okay, we have a motion and a second roll call. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

SB 532. Do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Friedman. Aye. Friedman. Aye. Fong. Fong. No. Alvarez. Berman. Carillo. Carillo. Aye. Davies. Davies. No. Gibson. Heart. Aye. Jackson. Jackson aye cholera. Wynn. Wynn Aye. Sanchez. Wallace. Ward. Ward? Aye. Wicks. Wicks. Aye. Seven to two. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you. And because I failed to do it earlier, does anybody have any objections to granting reconsideration of SB 720 by unanimous consent? Okay. Hearing none. We will grant reconsideration to that bill today. Next up, we have SB 538. Portantino, you may proceed when you're ready. We have a motion and a second. You need to put your microphone on.

This is a bill that came to me and I wish I could remember the person who suggested it on Facebook that we make all of these plans for alternative transportation and active transportation, but we don't have somebody specific in Caltrans with that expertise. And this seeks to create an office, specifically a chief advisor on cycling. I believe the Prime Minister of England created a position in his cabinet just for that position, and at the appropriate time, we'd respectfully ask for an aye vote. And we have Mark here to offer expert testimony.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Mark Foxovich, co-director of state policy for Streets for All, A proud sponsor of SB 538. We have a specific goal with this bill which is to shape Caltrans to be an inclusive and representative agency of all mobility options. By having this position, there would be a position and a voice at the table to improve bike and pedestrian safety across the whole state.

Caltrans as an institution is a legacy of traffic engineers who were taught of the level of service mentality of moving cars very quickly from point A to point B. But in many ways, Caltrans is no longer that institution, especially after SB 743, Steinberg, Caltrans now needs to use VMT instead of LOS. Caltrans also has the mission, too, of thinking about all infrastructure users and their safe and efficient passage, instead of exclusively the dangerously fast movement of a single occupancy vehicle.

But the mentality of moving cars at the expense of all else is still, and including local, even sales tax revenue, persists. We continue to see Caltrans using existing internal structures that have been established for the sake of vulnerable road users, fail them. A recent example is that Caltrans is about to repave State Route Two in Los Angeles. And contrary to their own agency's executive order on complete streets, they are implementing zero new bike or walk infrastructure. Another example is in Orange County, Caltrans is putting $2 million of its $100 million project for the active transportation component on Newport Boulevard. This stretch serves as the City of Costa Mesa's deadliest corridor for both cyclists and pedestrians, deadliest in the entire city. And about 100,000 cars pass through there at freeway speeds each day.

Caltrans is recommending the placement of Class II and Class III bike lanes, which, if you're not sure what those bike lanes are by number, they are inadequate and flagrantly against Caltrans's own standards for safe bicycle infrastructure, against NACTO standards, and against FHWA standards. This reflects that level of service interest over the adequate design. We believe that Caltrans needs someone with the authority and purview to protect vulnerable road users at a time that we are at a 40-year high of pedestrian deaths.

We need someone internal to force Caltrans towards efficient and effective ethical infrastructure that can keep all road users safe, or at the very least, make the agency follow its own minimum standards and FHWA standards. We look forward to continue to work with the committee and the agency as we continue to speak to Caltrans. And I respectfully ask for everyone's aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify in support of SB 538?

Madam Chair, member of the committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none. We don't have any opposition on file, but if there's anybody who wishes to testify in opposition to the bill, please come to the microphone. Okay, seeing none. Operator, can you please open the phone lines for SB 538?

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to SB 538, please press one zero. And first, we'll go to line 135. Please go ahead. 135, your mic is open. 138. 138, Please go ahead.

Hi there. My name is Leanne Chang, speaking for myself, calling in from San Francisco, calling in support.

And line 27.

Nine to zero. That bill is out. Thank you. We're moving now to SB 710. Senator Durazo, you may begin whenever you're ready.

Hi there, Marvin Norman with Center for Community Action Environmental Justice, also in on their part of biking alliance, in strong support.

And Madam Chair, there are no further comments.

Okay, we'll go back to the Committee. Seeing no questions or comments, would you like to close?

For all of the reasons stated, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call, please?

SB 538, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Friedman. Aye. Friedman, aye. Fong. Fong, not voting. Alvarez. Berman. Carrillo. Aye. Carrillo, aye. Davies. Davies, aye. Gipson. Hart. Hart, aye. Jackson. Jackson, aye. Kalra. Nguyen. Nguyen, aye. Sanchez. Wallis. Wallis, aye. Ward. Ward, aye. Wicks. Wicks, aye.

We have a motion and a second. Does that mean I don't have to say anything? Okay, I just got to say something here. Okay, I know what the 710 terminus is very unique. Through this process, we have been working with the City of Alhambra to address their concerns. They are now in support of the Bill. The City of Los Angeles has also signed on in support of the Bill. We're going to continue to work with all of the local groups.

This is an opportunity to repair the old scars left by abandoned Keltrans project. So with that, thank you very much. Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for your support.

Perfect. Is there anyone here to testify in support of SB 710, seeing none. Is there anybody here to testify in opposition to SB 710, seeing none. Let's go to the phone lines. Operator, can you please open the role open the phone lines for SB 710.

To testify in support or opposition to SB 710, please press 1 0. And we have a comment from line 140. Please go ahead.

Hello, I tried to get 538 support. Sorry.

Okay, anyone else, operator?

Madam Chair, there are a few more comments coming through. It'll just be one moment please, while we provide them with their line number.

Thank you.

In line 87. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members, Connie Delgado on behalf of Grifols in support.

Line 139. Line 139, please go ahead.

I don't know.

Line 43.

This is Val Marquez from concerning with alterino. I'm in support of SB 710. Thank you.

Madam Chair. There are no further comments.

Okay, we'll come back to the Committee. No questions or comments. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much for an urgent aye vote.

Okay, roll call, please.

SB 710, do pass and re refer to the Committee on appropriations. Friedman.

Aye.

Friedman aye. Fong.

Aye.

Fong aye. Alvarez. Berman. Carrillo.

Aye.

Carrillo aye. Davies.

Aye.

Davies aye. Gipson. Hart.

Aye.

Hart aye. Jackson.

Aye.

Jackson aye. Kalra. Nguyen.

Aye.

Nguyen aye. Sanchez. Wallis.

Aye.

Wallis aye. Ward.

Aye.

Ward aye. Wicks.

Aye.

Wicks aye. 10 to zero. That Bill is out. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do not see Senator Archuleta. I do not see Senator Dahle. So we will go to Senator Ta. Some of them are Ta. Sorry for ACR 71. Do you have a motion and a second already?

I really appreciate that, but thank you, Madame Chair, for allowing me to present this resolution. I would also like to thank your Committee staff for working on this issue that is significant for me and my community. HR. 71 would designate a portion of Interstate Highway 45 as Little Saigon Freeway. I-45 run two Orange County Little Saigon Community wildlife Sagon Community is best known for its vibrant business district. It is much more.

Commerce Park, Westminster Garden Row, Fan Valley, Santa Ana, and is home to the luxury Vietnamese population outside Vietnam. This is the major cultural, social, and commercial Center for the Vietnamese-American community in California. This year marked the 35th anniversary of Governor Mentioned recognition of one county leadership on business district. HR 71 not only recognized this important event, but celebrated September role and importance of the Vietnamese community. After Forbes Saigon, more than 2,500,000 Vietnamese refugee and immigrants became permanent resident and US citizen, including myself.

I pled Communism for California dream when I was 19 years old. I am proud to work with the local elected official, Committee leaders and all the stakeholders to ensure that Liu Segong reached its full potential as cultural hub for the Vietnamese Committee and world class destination for the visitor and on county community. Thank you so much and I ask for your support. And I have a witness. Mr. Van Tran, former California State Assembly.

Thank you very much. We don't have anyone on file in opposition, so you're free to go ahead. Sorry, anyone here to testify in opposition but feel free to.

But feel free to good afternoon, Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chairman and Members of the Committee. I had the honor of serving in the State Assembly representing central Orange County from four to 10. It is a pleasure for me to be back in Sacramento to voice my strong support for Assembly Member Tri Ta's. ACR 71 designating a portion of Orange County's Interstate 405 that intersects to the largest Vietnamese diaspora in the world as the Little Saigon Freeway.

This designation is very much on point for so many reasons, as the burgeoning Vietnamese-American community in Orange County has contributed so much to the cultural, educational, economic, and political richness of California since resettling here nearly five decades ago. The official recognition of Lil Saigon on a short stretch of 405 I 405 running through the first and largest Vietnamese enclave in the US. Serves as a fitting tribute by the state Legislature that the Vietnamese-American community is an instrumental member of our state.

I know we have a motion in a second. I'm going to keep it really short here. So to this day, OC's Little Saigon continues to thrive, expanding to parts of four cities Westminster, Garn Grove, Santa Ana, and Fountain Valley. Tremendous growth of the district reflects the growth of the Vietnamese American community. The passage of ACR 71 should incur minimal costs, if any, to the state, as the sign will be paid for through private donations. Again, I respectfully request an aye vote from the Committee for ACR 71. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify in support of ACR 71? Okay, I don't have any witnesses on file in opposition here. Is there anybody in the room wishing to testify in opposition? Okay, let's go to the phone lines for ACR 71.

To testify in support or opposition to ACR 71, please press 10. And we have a comment from line 84. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Daisy, and I'm the current board of trustees for Rancho Santiago Community College. My district includes Garden Grove and Santa Ana, which is very heavily Vietnamese. I'm also a resident, a longtime business owner in the area, and I ask for you to support the AR 71. It benefits the community. We're not taking any more testimony. Thank you, though. Thank you for calling in.

Okay, next caller, line 34.

Can you guys hear me okay? Yes. Okay. This is Councilwoman Amy Fan west of the City of Westminster. I am a small business owner, also a communist survivor, and I live in Westminster Lo, Saigon, so I am in strong support of this ACR 71. Thank you. Thank you.

Line 62.

Hello. Terry Reigns. On behalf of many Westminster residents, we strongly oppose ACR 71 unless it is substantially amended as suggested. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no further comments.

Thank you. I'll go to the Committee for any comments. No, I appreciate you bringing this ACR forward absolutely in full support, and I think that it recognizes the rich tapestry of our community and of the many contributions of the Vietnamese community. So very much looking forward to seeing the sign on the highway one day. Thank you. Would you like to close?

I humbly ask for your aye vote and really appreciate your support.

We have a motion in a second. Roll call, please. ACR 71 to be adopted. Friedman. Aye. Friedman. aye. Fong. Fong aye. Alvarez. Yes. Alvarez? Yes. Berman. Carrillo aye. Davies David. Wallis aye. Ward. Wicks aye. we have 10, 10 to zero. That Bill is out. Thank you. I'm going to pass the gavel to my Vice Chair a few minutes. Thank you.

We're going to go to file item 11, SB 806 by Senator Archuleta. Please proceed whenever you're ready.

Madam Chair and Assembly Members, thank you so very much. Today. First off, I'm accepting the amendments by the Committee and we're going to go forward with all of them. And I would like to begin by once again thanking each and every one of you. This has been a couple of years to get this through. The Senate Bill 806 is a cleanup Bill to last year's Senate Bill 1111, the Rick Best Safety Act.

Mr. Best was involved in an accident, was killed because he came through a blind alley and ran into what we call as a dipsy dumpster. Remember we used to call those when we were kids, dipsy dumpsters. But the big trash dispensers, they ran into it and he was killed. And that is the name of the Bill, Rick Best Safety Act, which requires large trash dumpsters placed on roads or curbs to have reflective markings on each side.

Reflective markings serve as an important safety measure to prevent accidents and collisions, especially at night, down dark alleyways and Low visibility. As you know, some of these trash dumpsters are left in the middle of the road there and that's what the problem is. So without reflective marketing, large trash dumpsters placed on roadways or curbs are virtually invisible on a dark street and present hazards to the General public. Senate Bill 806 makes minor changes to ensure industry can adhere to the requirements of Senate Bill 1111.

Studies have shown the defectiveness of retroreflective markings to enhance visibility and to provide motorists with more time to brake or steer away from the potentially hazardous, and that includes bicycle riders. And this is why California utilizes reflective markings on our roads, traffic signs and emergency vehicles. And Madam Chair, I would continue to work with the industry to ensure that we comply with the amendments and make sure the Bill gets off to a good start and out of Committee. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you Senator.

I'm sorry, I'm looking at the chair and I thought it was Madam Chair. I'm so worries.

No worries. Do you have anyone testifying in support?

No, I've got the Bill.

Perfect. Any speakers in opposition? Speaker in support please come forward.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the Solid Waste Association of North America legislative task force, the California chapters. We just want to thank the Senator for his work on this Bill and we're going to be in support given the amendments and appreciate his staff time in order to comply with last year's law and ensuring that not only is the tape reflectives that are on the Bill as amended will be effective, but also cost-effective for local governments. So just appreciate that and for time for compliance. So appreciate the Senator for all his work on this. Thank you and the Committee.

Thank you very much. Anyone who wants to come forward and speak in opposition. Please come forward. We don't have anyone listed, but we'll give you the time.

Michael Caprio, Republic Service is here in support of the measure of support with Committee amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone in support? Is anyone in support? No one else? All right. Now, opposition.

Mr. Chair, I think John Moffatt, on behalf of Waste Management, I think what you're seeing is the industry. We had an opposed unless amended. Been working with the author, appreciate the amendments. And on behalf of Waste Management, we too look forward to removing our opposition once the amendments are in print. Thank you. Thank you very much.

We will now go to the phones and we'll hear from anyone in support or opposition to SB 806. Operator, please proceed.

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to SB 806, please press 10 at this time. It and we do have a comment coming through. It'll just be one moment, please, while we provide them with their line number. And now we will hear from line 76. Please, go ahead.

Mr. Chair and Members, Corey Salzillo with WPSS on behalf of 3M in support.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, there are no further comments.

Thank you, operator. We'll now bring it back to the Committee for any Members that have any questions. I just have a quick clarification question or question that you can maybe answer? Certainly. My understanding is that the Bill that was passed that established this would be enforced through code enforcement. Now, this Bill would have the Attorney General and local district attorneys enforce this new law.

We've heard from other bills and other committees that resources are stretched pretty thin when it comes to local DAs and the Attorney General. Can you kind of provide some background on why we would have the District Attorney or Attorney General, the California Attorney General, enforce or prosecute this versus just having code enforcement collect the citation?

Well, what it is is it's a fine and it's not punitive. It's $100 for the first offense as an example, and you have 14 days of cure it. So if you put the reflectors on within the 14 days, there is no fine, no punitive action, period. But if you are consistent, then the second time around, it's a $500 fine. And it goes like that. But the fines, the big question, the money goes to Accident Prevention and Road Safety Fund. And so we've kept it away from that prosecution type of thing.

I guess the question is not the fine per se. It's the entity that's enforcing it. So is local code enforcement not able to do it? I'm concerned that we want our district attorneys and the Attorney General to go after yes, criminals.

I think from the cities that we've talked to, their code enforcement would be able to notify the proprietors, whoever it is, the companies, and so they can comply with the law. And as you heard, the major ones are going to do it. Everybody's jumping in to do the right thing, and it's just simple. The tapes around the dumpsters, that's it. And once they're notified, they got 14 days to do it. So we're just trying to be punitive, if you have to be, but not necessarily because it's such a simple fix.

Okay, I appreciate the clarification. I'm just a little concerned about this having already stretched thin, Das going after companies that aren't putting reflector tape when a code enforcement is already code enforcement isn't doing their job. That's something that, I guess, another question. So I think wanted that clarified with that. No other questions. We have a motion second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 806 do pass as amended and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. Friedman. Fong no. Alvarez aye. Berman. Carrillo aye. Davies aye. Gipson. Hart aye. Jackson aye. Kalra. Nguyen aye. Sanchez. Wallis aye. Ward. Wicks aye. Eight to one.

Eight to one. We'll leave the roll open. Thank you very much, Senator.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Dahle, we'll now move to your Bill. Senator, please proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Members. I will retake the Committee amendments, and I want to first start by thanking the Committee consultant for doing a lot of work on my Bill and helping me out with the Bill. The Bill basically allows California CHP to develop a head covering for those people who have beliefs such as a turban or a paddock for their religious beliefs to be able to ride a motorcycle.

This Bill will allow the CHP in California to help companies basically develop that with their dot processes. With that, I ask for an aye vote. We do have some witnesses here today that will be just letting you know that they showed up or supporting the Bill.

Thank you, Senator. If any of the witnesses want to come forward and speak in support, please come forward. We'll certainly give you the time.

Good afternoon, honorable Chair and Committee Members. Myself, Manpreet Singh. I'm a businessman. Planning Commissioner, Selma City. And on behalf of our Sikh community, I welcome the amendments, and we are in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional individuals in the public that want to come forward and support, please come forward. Just state your name, organization, and position.

Hello, everybody. My name is Paul Vendra Mejia. I'm from Yuba City, California. I'm in support of this Bill. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Hello, everyone. My name is Andeep Singh. I'm from Jubilee City. I support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Satnam Saint from Yuba City, California. Behalf of Sikh community strongly support Bill 847 and "wahikujika kalsa wahiji pate" Disregard my crown, my turban.

Thank you. My name is Gurcharan Dugal. I'm from Castro Valley, and I'm strongly supporting this Bill.

My name is Jagtar Singh. I'm from Fresno. I'm strongly supporting the Bill.

My name is Aarti Kaushal Chopra from Irvine. I'm in support of this Bill. "Bahagujika kasa Bahagujiki faate".

Thank you.

My name is Keval Sangham from Manteca. I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you very much. Do we have anyone here in opposition? Seeing none, we'll go to the phones. Operator, please open the phone lines for anyone who wants to state their position on SB 847.

To testify in support or opposition to SB 847, please press 10. Mr. Chair, we have no comments.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. We'll bring it back to the Committee for anyone that has questions. Seeing none we have a motion and second I offer the opportunity to close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 847 is due passed and be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Friedman. Fong aye. Alvarez aye. Berman. Carrillo aye. Davies aye. Gipson aye. Hart aye. Jackson aye. Nguyen aye. Sanchez. Wallis aye. Ward. Wicks aye. Friedman aye.

10-0. We'll leave the roll open. I think we'll hand it back over to the chair for the last item.

Thank you. Our last item is SB 720. Senator Stern, you may proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members, for taking another look at this Bill. I appreciate your granting a reconsideration, and I'm hoping we've got work product before you here that feels more complete, thorough, and a lot of the outstanding questions that you all had last week have been answered. I'll just briefly go through them again. This Bill is about sustainable aviation, both an incentive program as well as reporting requirements. To get those incentives, there was a question about what airports are included or not included.

There are six that are currently included, so that does not include Sac Executive Airport and Assemblymember Nguyen's district, as well as Palo Alto and Assemblymember Berman's district. So it is just a list of six at this point, so hopefully that's clear. We also clarified and added flexibility to the reporting obligations after taking feedback from the opposition. So there is no longer a net zero requirement in the reporting. There is no longer an air district enforcement piece, which made many uncomfortable.

And there's a clear specification in the amendments that you have before you that can use off the shelf reports. So that could be third party reporting, an existing sustainability report. And in talking to many of your airports, they've got those on the shelf, so it shouldn't add burden. And then lastly, we built out the incentive framework at GoBiz that we'd heard from industry was very important to them, and so got a large group of stakeholders.

But I do want to specify right now, environmental groups are not listed amongst those, but we're very happy to consider adding them. Happy to answer any further questions you may have, but hopefully that earns your support and do appreciate the time with me. I've got NRDC here which is testifying and support Kiki Velez and that's it.

Good afternoon. Thanks for your time today. My name is Kiki Velez. I'm a clean energy advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council. SB 720 will tackle aviation emissions and position California as a leader in sustainable aviation technology, starting with airports. In some of the most communities most burdened by air pollution in the US, emissions from domestic flights alone are equivalent to each person driving an additional 1000 miles per year. So, put simply, to tackle climate change, we need to address emissions from aircraft.

Yet clean tech innovation is in very early stages for aviation, and it often falls between the cracks in terms of governments taking responsibility for finding solutions to reduce these emissions. This Bill will foster innovation and sustainable aviation technologies in California, making California companies the leaders in this emerging market to do so. This Bill asks large airports and disadvantaged communities to develop greenhouse gas emissions reporting.

And it directs GoBiz to provide technical assistance and support the development of sustainable aviation technologies to help airports reduce their emissions in part. In particular, this Bill impacts airports with some of the highest flows of private jets. Private jets produce five to 14 times more pollution per passenger than commercial planes, with the average private jet burning around 5000 gallons of fuel per hour, which is equivalent to about 400 passenger cars.

In the same time, nationally, private jets account for about a quarter of all flights taken, and this is approximately twice their pre pandemic levels. So this opulent industry is on the rise, and as it increases, its impacts on air quality and the climate are only growing. The affluent who can afford these flights don't live in disadvantaged communities, but they leave their pollution there for communities to breathe. SB 720 will begin to address air and climate emissions from aviation, starting with these most damaging flights. And I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Perfect. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify in support of SB 720? Okay, is there anyone here to testify in opposition to SB 720? If the primary opposition witnesses would come up to the table, please. You would each have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Jim Lights on behalf of two airport organizations that have airports captured by this Bill the California Airports Council and the Association of California Airports. Over the last week. Since this Bill was heard, a couple of airports have had an opportunity to provide feedback directly to the author. If I can highlight some of that.

A couple of the airports noted that the new reporting requirement actually doesn't do anything to advance their environmental or sustainability agenda, but in fact would take staff resources away from those endeavors to work on this report. And so for those reasons, we remain in opposition. I would note that for the off the shelf reports that the author mentioned, those are also on airport websites.

And so if we can access those by going to the website, we certainly think that CARB can also, and don't see why we would have them transmit a report that's already written to CARB that everyone has access to. So, again, for those reasons, we think this should be a two-year Bill.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Alberto Torrico. On behalf of Airlines for America, representing all the major airlines and freight carriers, as I stated at the previous Committee hearing, we also, unfortunately, remain opposed. We have talked to the author and his staff on numerous occasions, and your staff as well, Madam Chair, our concern lies in a couple of factors. First and foremost, much of the actually all of our emissions is required to be reported to the federal government on a very consistent basis.

And we think this Bill is a little bit duplicative. Anything that requires the airports to report emissions will in and of itself result in emissions requirement reporting requirements to the airlines. So that's one of our concerns. The second issue is that we think this is preempted anyway under federal law because of the federal requirements. Appreciate all of the efforts from the author and the staff, but we just, as Mr. Lights has stated, think it's probably a two-year Bill as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify in opposition to SB 720? Seeing none. Operator, can you please open the phone lines for witnesses in support and in opposition to Senate Bill 720?

To testify in support or opposition to SB 720, please press 10 at this time. And we do have a couple of comments coming through. It'll just be one moment, please. And first we will hear from line 10. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is Paige Corner. On behalf of the National Air Transportation Association, respectfully oppose SB 720. Line 148.

This is Roger Lynn with the Center for Biological Diversity in support of 720.

And Madam Chair, there are no further comments.

Okay with that, we'll take it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Ms. Davies?

Yes. A question for the opposition. Is San Diego International? Are they still opposing this?

They do not have their own position. They are in support of the association's position and opposition.

Anyone else? Mr. Ward.

Thank you. I want to thank the author and your staff for taking some time to talk in my office. Over the last week. Was not really compelled the last time this came before Committee to be able to support this and certainly resonated a lot of concerns that came from airports in our region that weren't really seeing what the outcome of this would be and whether or not that would sort of match the intended benefits that we do agree on.

Need to be afforded to surrounding communities that are impacted by harmful environmental toxins and fuel. One of the six. We had a robust conversation last time in this Committee about exactly how many airports were going to be affected. And I think that that might have gotten a little bit more clarity over the last week as you've really looked into this a little bit more. But still, one of those is actually in my district. It's actually in eastern San Diego, County, Gillespie Field.

So this isn't a major airport with a wide and robust staff operation that can absorb another reporting requirement. And furthermore, whether or not the threshold there of 50,000 takeoffs is somehow affected because of one of its principal operations is to serve a wide jurisdiction in all of eastern San Diego County with firefighting operations, with air and life support systems, with public safety takeoffs, with training. So it's one of the few airports that we have that provide for general aviation training as well, which is great to be able to grow.

So I want to be particularly sensitive of that being a constituent airport clearly outlined within this Bill that there is going to be something at the end of this bill's lifespan that's going to be a benefit that will not be just an exercise for them, and a costly one at that, but that actually is going to be able to achieve some kind of positive benefit to the surrounding community.

So what can you say to me to help me tell my district I'm willing to see this move forward that is going to be able to benefit my community without imposing unnecessarily tasks on this airport?

Thanks for the question and your representation of the community and Gillespie is somewhat unique amongst the remaining airports in the Bill in that there is a very high incidence of training, sort of quick touchdown takeoffs. I believe there's some military use actually at the airport, as well as CAL FIRE. So when we were thinking about the 50,000 takeoff threshold in General, we weren't thinking about firefighting or even training in particular. Right. It was commercial aviation and General aviation.

So if that's helpful to take a second look at what is an annual takeoff and what should and shouldn't be in that definition, we're open to considering some of those changes. The other thing I would just say is, talking to the airport, I haven't sat down with Gillespie yet. I sat down in detail with San Diego International. So that was really eye opening. And we made it so they could opt into the Bill if they want the incentives, so they're not excluded, but they're not required.

But with Gillespie, if it's useful to them to get, say, access to electric infrastructure upgrades, the kind of experimenting that's going on around, say, EV toll, some of the electrical vertical takeoff. If they want to be in the incentive process and it could work for them, they should take a look at these new amendments and see if those are appealing. But because of their unique circumstance, I'm open also to sort of looking at that annual takeoff definition and maybe that'll help.

And I would sincerely like that to be worked on before I could have a chance to vote on the floor. Of course, this is also coming in. Natural Resources shouldn't make it out of this Committee, of which I also sit just next week. So this does feel like you're trying to achieve something really important in an expedited timeline over the summer period. Of course, we have the summer recess to be able to work out on any final details, and I always have the right to Reserve vote on the floor at that time.

I'd like to be able to support it today going forward, but I want to hear loud and clear that because of the very specific impact that it's going to have to my district, that I want to be able to see a net benefit here for the intended goals of the Bill versus the exercise that it's requiring. And given the size and the scope of a small field that's captured by the impact of this Bill, I'm going to have to work closely with you on that too. You have my commitment there.

Thank you. You have my commitment.

Thank you. Other Committee Members, no one else. Well, I really appreciate your passion for this subject and I know that you're very interested in trying to help push the industry towards decarbonization and also to protect the air quality in the surrounding communities, many of which are heavily impacted by the airports. And I hear you also about the impact of the private jet travel and the growth of that, and I know that that's been an issue we've heard about quite a bit in Los Angeles as well.

I'll be supporting your Bill today. I know that you have a lot of stakeholders to deal with, and I do trust that you will be certainly talking with them and listening to their thoughts about what would help them and what would be something that would be unhelpful and be harmful to their efforts. And I trust that you would be doing that going forward. So I'm happy to support your Bill today. Would you like to close?

I appreciate the trust and you do have my commitment in that and I appreciate the hours the opposition has already spent with my office and we're going to keep putting in that time and see if we can land this plane with that. I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Okay. Can we have a roll call, please? We need a motion in a second. Was upon you might change your vote at this point, but we have a motion and a second.

SB 720 Do Pass as amended, and re refer to the Committee on Natural Resources. Friedman aye. Friedman. Aye Fong Fong no. Alvarez? Alvarez? Yes. Berman. Carillo. Aye Davies. Davies no. Gipson. Hart. Aye Jackson. Jackson. Aye. Kalra. Nguyen not voting. Sanchez? Sanchez? No. Wallis no. Ward? Ward. Aye. Wicks aye. Seven to four.

We're going to leave the roll open. We're going to now take a motion for the consent calendar. We have a motion in a second roll call, please.

Consent calendar. Friedman aye. Fong aye. Alvarez aye. Berman. Carrillo aye. Davies aye. Gipson aye. jackson aye. Kalra aye. Nguyen aye. Sanchez aye. Wallis aye. Ward aye. Wicks aye. 12 to zero. The consent calendar is adopted.

Can we now go back to the top and run through the roles for absent Members? You know what? We'll go ahead and call and then we can always do it again.

Starting on SB 233. Do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarez? Alvarez yes. Berman. Gipson. Kalra. Sanchez? Sanchez no. Ward? zero, we got Ward. I have eight. Wallis no, I have eight to four. Eight to four that Bill is out. We'll leave the roll open. SB 538.

Do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarez. Alvarez yes. Berman, Gipson. Sanchez, this is SB 538 not voting. 10 to zero, 10 to zero, that Bill is out. We'll leave the roll open. Moving to SB 806, due pass is amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Friedman. Aye. Friedman. aye Berman.

Which one is this? This is SB 806. Berman is an aye. Gibson Kalra. Sanchez? Sanchez no. And Ward? Did I hear Ward? Aye. 910. 11 to two that Bill is out. We'll leave the roll open. Going back to 710. Sorry, we're going back to SB 710. Do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarez? Alvarez yes. Berman. Berman. aye Gibson Kalra aye. Sanchez. Sanchez I. I have 14-0. That Bill is out. ACR 71. ACR 71 to be adopted.

Berman? Berman aye. Gipson. Kalra aye. Sanchez. Sanchez aye. Ward. Ward aye. 14 resolution is adopted. I have him. I have Wallace. Okay. SB 720 due pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Natural Resources. Berman Stern. Stern aye. Gibson. Kalra aye, that's it. Nine to four that Bill is out. Let's go back to Mr. Kalra. SB 233 Kalra aye. We have 848 to four that Bill is out. SB 532 Berman not voting. Gipson. Kalra.

I. I have 949 to four that Bill is out. SB 538. Berman? Berman aye. Kalra aye. I have 12 12-0 that Bill is out. SB 806, Gipson. Kalra aye. I have 12-2. That Bill is out. SB 847. Berman? Berman aye. Gipson aye. Kalra aye Sanchez. Okay. Ward. Ward aye. 14 to zero. That Bill is out. Okay. ACR 71. Gipson aye. 15-0. That Bill us out still. Okay.

SB 233 Gipson okay, we're past the time for questions, so it's either aye or not aye. Okay. Thank you. Aye. Okay, I have nine to four the Bill is out. Thank you. Would you yeah. Yes. You're good on 710? Yes. Wait a second.

Let's go through whatever we still need Mr. Gipson's vote on and then we can and he hasn't voted on the consent calendar either, so we'll call it your role if you're not recorded as an aye. Okay, hey, this is the last time we're doing roll, so we're going to do it now and that's it. You leave again, you're on your own. Correct. You want to start back with SB. 532. Okay.

SB 532 Gipson aye, and I think that's 10 to four that Bill is out. SB 538 Gipson aye. That one's 13-0. SB 806, I think Gipson 13-2. . SB 847 Sanchez. Sanchez aye. 15-0. We're good there. 720. SB 720. Gipson aye. we're at 10 to 4 and then consent consent consent calendar. Berman? Aye. Berman. aye. Davies. I'm sorry. Gipson aye. Kalra aye. 15-0. Okay, thank you all.

All very much. Wait, Mr. Gipson on 710 I thank you. SB 710. Gipson aye. 15-0. Okay, Thank you all very much. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.