Senate Standing Committee on Rules

Three weeks to go. Let's see. The Senate Committee on Rules will come to order. Good afternoon, everyone. We continue to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service. We're holding our committee hearing in the O Street building in room 2200 hundred for individuals wishing to provide public comment via the teleconference service. The participant toll free number is up on the screen. We have a toll free number and an access code. It's posted on the screen.

It's posted on our committee website, and it will I already said it'll be on the screen. It'll be on the screen a couple of times throughout this session today, but today's participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 161-8051. On behalf of our incredible court reporter Ina, I would ask all of the speakers and my colleagues as well, to speak slowly and clearly. And if we stop you, it will be so we can get your comments and make sure that you're speaking slowly and clearly.

Always good not to speak over each other as you try to answer the questions or weigh in. I know we get into good dialogue here. We're not like other committees. We have a court reporter and one person gets to talk at a time. So I will remind my Senator to the left over here, mostly not to talk over. They get in dialogue. It must be because he's a former Secretary of Natural Resources, according to the vice chair from Kern County.

So now I've said everything they need to say, they don't need to say it. Before we begin, we do need to establish a quorum vocally. So reminder. Colleagues, turn your microphones on for roll call. And every time that you speak, madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Laird here. Ochoa Bogh here. Smallwood-Cuevas here. Grove here. Atkins here. Quorum?

A quorum is present. Thank you, colleagues. We're going to dispense with some items before we get into our panels. We have two panels today, but governors appointees not required to appear. I would ask for a motion and there's been an ask to separate out one. So I'm going to ask for a motion. Follow along on item two appointees not required to appear. Ghijl and M. I understand. That is one motion I can make, and I want to. Okay. Motion made. Madam Secretary. Call the roll.

Laird aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Grove aye. Atkins aye. Five to zero.

Five to zero. Thank you, colleagues. I would ask for a motion on item two K, so move. Thank you, Senator Laird. Madam Secretary. Call the roll.

Laird aye. Ochoa bogh no. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Grove no. Atkins aye. Three to two.

Three to two. That is out. I would ask for a motion on item number three, Bill referrals. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Call the roll.

Laird aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Grove aye. Atkins aye. Five to zero.

Five to zero. Thank you. We have item number four, which is a rule waiver request by Senator Wahab to suspend the Senate rules as they relate to SJR seven. A motion so moved. Thank you, Senator. Smallwood-Cuevas. Call the roll.

Laird aye. Ochoa bogh no. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Grove no. Atkins aye. Three to two.

Three to two. Thank you, colleagues. And last but not least, we have four item four, floor acknowledgments. Oh, no, we did four. We have item five. I guess I shouldn't look at two pages at once. We have item five, floor acknowledgments, five through eight. I wasn't asked to split any of those out. Take a minute. You're good. Okay, so a motion by the Vice Chair. Please call the roll.

Laird aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Grove aye. Atkins aye. Five to zero.

Five to zero. Thank you, colleagues. So now we are going to go ahead and go back to item number one. Governor's appointees required to appear. And I'm going to invite we're going to have a B and C. Item one a, B and C. And that will be Eric Guerra. Oh, Manuel Perez. Honorable Manuel Perez. Oh, honorable Eric Gara. Sorry, I should remember these things. And Dr. Susan Shaheen. Please come up. Dr. Shaheen, I don't know if you're an elected official.

If so, I would give you that title as well. I realize the two colleagues are Mr. Perez, I did not recognize you. Okay. Well, you are not incognito here today, so welcome. It's good to see you all. What I'm going to do is and it's always interesting when we have multiple people being appointed at the same time, and this, of course, for the public benefit, is for Members of the Air Resources Board. So we have three appointees to the Air Resources Board.

And what I will do is ask to start with you, Honorable Mr. Guerra, and introduce yourself. Thank anyone you would like or acknowledge, make some opening comments if you want, and then we'll go down the line. And once everyone has had a chance to give opening comments, introduce yourself. We will go right to the committee for questions and comments. And with that, let me welcome you. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Pro Temp and Senators Eric Guerra, Vice Mayor for the city of Sacramento and CARB appointtee.

Is your mic on? Let me just ask...There we go. There it is.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. CARB appointtee to the greater Sacramento area basin here. And having grown up as a farm worker in this agricultural air basin, and in the communities out here. I look forward to the opportunity to use both not only my experience in this region that as a local Sac State Engineer from our College of Engineering there and my years of public service as Chairman for the Sacramento Air Quality Management District to continue to move our California economy forward, make sure that we focus on sustainability and more importantly, to ensure that we have clean air and a brighter future for our generation.

First, I'd like to very much thank Governor Newsom and his Administration for this appointment. I also would like to thank my team at the city, Madeleine Grigsby, who's here today, all of the amazing staff at our local Sac Metro Air District. But most importantly, I'd like to thank my greatest advisor and constructive critic, who's here with me today, which is Christina Lockhe, my wife, who has had two years of experience in and around the Legislature and has shared so much deep, loving support. Senators, I want to thank you for your time and for answering your questions, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote and my confirmation.

Thank you, Mr. Perez.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. It's been a while since I've been up here, but it's bittersweet. But I do enjoy seeing old friends, colleagues, and make new ones as well. And I am accompanied by my wife Gladys, who traveled up here with me as well, and Evan Kirschner, who's also part of CARB. He's here as backup for all three of us in support in case we have any questions and we need to lean on somebody.

So I also want to thank my staff back home for being part of a team in which it's always on the go and always trying to improve the quality of life of our folks in the Fourth District. As a supervisor for the county of Riverside, I represent close to 500,000 individuals out in the Palm Springs Coachella Valley, all the way down to North Shore, all the way down to Blythe, California, the Sound Sea area.

And it's a large area of landmass that we need to cover, and it's only grown even more after redistricting. But it is a pleasure to serve our folks, although it is a tough position, but one that is fruitful at the end of the day when you know that you are accomplishing goals.

And for me, I think that this position here, if I am to be appointed to CARB, I think would be a good one in the sense of being able to represent an area that, in my opinion, has been neglected for a very long time, especially because it is a very rural area. And as you know, many times, rural areas are areas that go unnoticed. And so with that said, I want to thank the Governor for thinking of me in this post.

His staff and all the staff that are here to support the Senate Rules Committee thank you for having me.

Thank you so much, Dr. Shaheen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, vice Chair, and Members of the Senate. My name is Susan Shaheen, and I'm a professor in civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. I also am co Director of the Transportation Sustainability Research Center. And I'm Director of the UC Institute of Transportation Studies Resilient and Innovative Mobility Initiative. I hope you might remember that because the Legislature funded that program two years ago to help facilitate evidence based research to support the Legislature.

I've been a resident of California for about 30 years. I came to the state after working in Washington, DC. To study the energy and environmental aspects of transportation, and I received my doctorate from UC Davis. I'm the daughter of an immigrant. My father is from Lebanon, and my mother grew up in a small farm in upstate New York. Because of that, I think I feel a very close connection to the environment and to education.

I'm also a first gen college graduate, and I feel a deep connection to social equity along with sustainability. I greatly value collaboration in all things that I do learning, research, teaching, and mentorship. I'm deeply motivated to bring my focus on evidence based policy and research to the Car Board. I personally really appreciate seeing the collaborative relationship between the Executive branch, the agencies, and the Legislature.

I've got to see this really firsthand in the last months, and I'm really grateful to see that collaboration in advancing the state's goals towards the environment, clean air, public health, as well as equity. I would like to thank my family, my husband who might be online, my two kids who are in school, and I think I may have a few colleagues online if you're out there, thank you for your support.

All of my mentors who brought me this far, my students, CARB staff, David Garcia has been totally amazing, my fellow board Members, for all of their support in this process. I'm really deeply humbled and grateful to the Governor for this appointment and for your consideration today. So thank you.

Thank you very much. And to Ms. Locke and to Mom, Gladys, or your spouse, Gladys, and to your parents. We always are interested to have support here. It means if you're able to have that support here, it tells us something a little extra. So thank you. And thanks to all of you who came to be supportive of these candidates. This is an incredibly hard job.

I do not know why you would want to do this job, but it is incredibly important, as you're going to tell from probably some of the comments and questions. And I think all of you were appointed six months ago or this year. So I think we're going to have a good dialogue. My colleagues are going to try to keep their questions brief, but this is an important issue. So we will do the best to be succinct and quick. But again, this is such an important job.

I'm going to start Senator Laird with you, if you would, and thank you.

Thank you very much. And she stole the words about you're crazy for wanting to do this.

In some ways I didn't say it quite like that.

Yes. But I was direct. But it's exciting and it's a real opportunity. And we had one of your colleagues here at a recent hearing and I think I want to ask one question and Madam Chair, if it's okay to ask it of all three in the order that they presented.

Thank you. I should have said that that works. And to my colleagues, you can direct a question. You can ask all three. Just tell someone to start and they'll follow suit. Thank you.

Thank you. And the question is that there's sort of dual purposes in the board. You have what was originally it about lowering emissions and pollution and dealing with some of the most impacted basins in the United States. But now there's an overlay of climate and sometimes they are at slight cross purposes. And we're also dealing with federal mandates and state mandates and trying to implement it locally. So in your duties, how do you prioritize this?

How do you make sure that you're meeting all those individual mandates? It's like, how are you going to operate in doing this? And we'll start with board Member Guerra.

Thank you very much, Senator. And I appreciate that question and I've probably come to appreciate it even much more so over the last 20 years of working in this great institution as well and understanding the complexities that every decision maker has to make. And now, particularly in this role. Some of us serve as local elected officials. We serve also as stewards of local air districts. And on top of that, we serve at the state level executing our statutory and federal requirements.

And what I've come to believe in this is that the best way to manage those conflicts is by taking the time to meet with all of the stakeholders that are impacted at each level, understanding the priorities and where and how often we can match those. Sometimes they cannot be matched. Those priorities cannot be matched.

But I think the more forward thinking that we can be in planning ahead on some of those issues and sitting down with the experts in every field will help us as decision makers being able to set a priority on one or the other of each one of our responsibilities. I know Senator Grove had expressed some concern that I do have as a local elected official when it comes to the impacts of ratepayers with some of these challenges.

And I know that at the air district level we have to manage, as I say, the retail air quality, which is the day to day of working with local emitters, local businesses, local families on those issues and at the state level it's a much more macro approach.

So the answer to your question, I believe, is taking as much of that input as we can so that we can internalize the best priority in each one of those positions because they have a different impact at every different level.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator Laird. For the know, when I was in the Legislature, I constantly had that question in my mind on an ongoing basis, meaning trying to juggle and balance the needs of well, first of all, why I ran and my purpose and what I believed in then. So as well, the community which you represent or one represents and making sure those needs are met and the district you represent, while at the same time trying to align, if possible, the needs of the state of California.

I don't think there's a right answer for this. I think that you base it on your purpose, your mission statement, what you believe in, while at the same time you try to juggle and integrate ideas and concepts that may come from others that your colleagues or even individuals that you might not agree with. But ultimately, for me, you try to base it on data and evidence and what makes good sense and how are you going to pay for it.

Too often we work on policy in which it's a great idea, but yet we don't understand where the money is going to come from. And I think that that's an area in which we need to really think through as we're talking about CARB and as I'm also a Member of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, as well as even the South Coast Air Quality Management District. So I got three air pollution districts, if you will, that I'm trying to juggle.

And they're all very different, but yet they are also very similar, I think, to the degree in which I can integrate and better understand them all their purposes. And trying to connect the dots, I think, is only going to make me a stronger policymaker when it comes to air quality concerns and issues in my neck of the woods, as well as throughout the LA basin, as well as throughout the state of California.

But I'll tell you, Senator, it's not easy and I'll be the first to tell you that it is difficult. And my speaker, our Senator Pro Tem, mentioned, I don't know why earlier on why you want to even do this. Believe me, I asked myself the same question. But we're in it for the right reasons and we are here because we want to fight the good fight.

So my hope is that I can bring something from my past, my experience, my knowledge, and what I'm learning on a daily basis, mind you, on a daily basis, especially with CARB, especially with Hqmd and Mojave Desert to the table to ensure that we do improve the quality of life of all our constituents throughout the city of California. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you.

Thank you for your question. So I think one of the most important things as we juggle criteria pollutants greenhouse gas emissions is to look for Co benefits. Where can we get leverage as we address issues in both areas at the same time? It's also very important, I think, to understand where the authorities lie in terms of federal jurisdiction and state and local jurisdiction. I, as a researcher and academic, will come at these questions from an evidence based, data based perspective.

I've already seen that we need to rely very much on subject matter experts and get a clear and thorough understanding of the models and the assumptions and the uncertainties involved in all the decisions. So I think data tools are very, very important as we balance these priorities. But I do think the future is bright. I continue to see innovation on the horizon and people embracing clean air and the environment. The students are 100% behind us in our universities and colleges.

So it's a difficult challenge because there's a lot of mandates, but I think we can leverage. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate all of you for answering that question and opening the discussion for my other colleagues with it.

Thank you, Senator. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for meeting with me yesterday. I did enjoy the conversation, and I appreciate the time that you gave me. So thank you for that. I want to start with a couple of the questions that I asked yesterday. Number one, why do we at the state of California, California Air Resources Board don't track emissions from point of origin to point of destination. If we're looking at global emissions.

Ah. In the tanker structure where oil comes to us, we only calculate it's not working. You've heard the question so far? How's that better? Is it better? Here we go. It.

How's that better? Yes. We're good. Okay. So we talked yesterday about why the California Air Resources Board does not measure carbon emissions from point of origin to point of destination and only measures the carbon emissions from fuel tankers that bring us oil in the twelve-mile coastal section off our coastline. And to me, that is not a true and just measurement of the exposure that we as Californians create by the demand of oil that we use.

And I would like to know what your thoughts are on that. And I can start in the same order that my colleague, the former Secretary of Natural Resources, did when we start this process. So, Mr. Guerra, thank you very much.

Senator, my understanding right now is that the Air Resources Board does track within, I believe it's 100 miles from the coast. But to your point in the full impact of that, I'm new to the board. I'm not familiar with all of its metrics, but I do think it's important for us to find ways to have the public know the full consequences. And I agree with your point in that it's one that I'd glad to come back and find out if there's barriers to tracking those distances and find a way for us. I think consumers nowadays want to know what are the full impacts of their products, but my understanding is we do at least track to the scope that we have the authority to track.

So my understanding, Senator Grove, is that we do track up to 100 nautical miles, and we do regulate only up to 25 offshore. But ultimately, the reason why CARB doesn't have more jurisdiction or authority is because we are preempted by the federal government.

Thank you.

And so to elaborate more on that, I would suggest that we would have to really think through how and it goes back to the first question as to how you juggle all these jurisdictions, is that we would have to figure out how we could work with our colleagues at the federal level to see what else can be done to empower, if you will, CARB to do just what you're saying, meaning, point of beginning, if you will, all the way down to where they actually do land and not only to track, but to regulate.

I do understand that we don't have the jurisdictional authority, but I think we should look at it from an ethical source, like, are we ethically sourcing our energy that we use every single day? So that's kind of the point that I'm trying to get at. But I do understand there is different jurisdictional authority.

Yeah, for sure. Well, I think you pose a very intriguing question because you're not talking about a technical aspect here. You're talking about an issue of justice, if you will, and morality, for that matter, in which not only impacts us here in California or the U.S. but impacts internationally those countries as well.

And so what if you will, if the state of California is leading the charge when it comes to greenhouse gas emission reductions, when we have folks in Ecuador or Brazil or Mexico, for that matter, that don't have these? Type of regulations or rules in the books and there's no way of tracking or regulating. At what point in time do we bring these powers together or these entities together to really get down to how are we going to better support our communities that we're trying to represent?

Thank you, sir.

And that's, as you mentioned, a higher ground.

Thank you, sir.

Senator Grove, thank you for the question. My colleagues have aptly given you the data that I'm working on the question for you in writing, but we got some speedy answers. And I will add, on the 24 nautical miles in terms of regulatory zone, it is my understanding that that is only regulating the criteria pollutants, not the GHGs. When we go 100 miles out in terms of the emissions inventory, we pick up the GHGs.

On the ethical matter, I think the question is so well taken and thank you for bringing it to our attention. So I did read articles last night about what you were speaking about in Ecuador and how the people voted to actually not allow drilling to protect the Amazon rainforest because it's a huge carbon sink. And so I think the question of ethics is so important. And I do agree with my colleague that engagement with the federal government and talking about these larger issues is very important.

I appreciate that. I was very intrigued that you were an academic and that we had another academic and a hearing. And I thought, wow, if we could just get the right information to them, they would make a decision based on science and fact and no subjective, that's kind of how your guys' brain works. And there's no subjectivity. It's like this is the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.

So I appreciate that and I appreciate your comments and I am glad that you looked at the information that I gave you yesterday. On to another question, and I beg the chair's indulgence. Recently, Kern County, my district was awarded, I believe, three out of the four carbon capture programs or programs grants that were awarded by the federal government. And carbon capture most people see as the best place to do it is in an oil field because we already have underground storage, things like that, pipelines available.

But there is some concern that the scoping plan or what you guys have jurisdictional authority over when it comes to carbon capture and air pollutants, that you're not going to include carbon capture in the Scoping Plan and that carbon capture will not be allowed for obviously enhanced oil recovery, but not be allowed at all because it is taking place in an oil industry, specifically in my district. Any thoughts on that? Who do you want to I'll start with Mr. Guerra and go down the line again.

Or I can start with Shaheen. Sorry. We'll reverse it like this.

Thank you for the question. In fact, I was going to congratulate you because I read that you got these grants from the Department of Energy and I was a consultant there, so I do a lot of work with DOE, so congratulations on that. And really exciting for your district and the community college that's even involved in this. And CSU. Bakersfield so very excited to see the academics involved in this.

So with respect to this Scoping Plan, I have been paying a lot of attention. My understanding is carbon capture is on the table. However, the point that you're raising about carbon capture on an oil field, I have not come across a reason to not include that or that level of depth in any of the briefing materials I've been part of. So I would be happy to follow up with you on that one too.

Absolutely.

I like my homework more.

I mean, I do. I think when you get the data, you'll make the right decision, Mr. Perez.

I think that's something that we need to look into Scoping Plan, though I will say that does allow us to work more closely with our local jurisdictions and figure out how we can improve the situation. When we talk about sustainable communities or even local action plans and what local jurisdictions can do. I'm not exactly sure to what degree, even though I'm a supervisor, for example, for the county of Riverside. These type of discussions don't take place.

And I'm not exactly sure if there's an appetite for it or there should be, or if there seems to be more integration, for example, with our local air quality management districts to have these type of conversations with their counties. I think it's something that's open ended right now.

Thank you.

I concur with my colleague here, Dr. Shaheen, on the need to see. What is in the Scoping plan and if there's a reason not to include it. I first would say congratulations on that, because this is a unique opportunity where it presents itself not only the necessity that we have, and it's not only reducing carbon in the atmosphere that's going to be critical. We're going to make a real dent. We're going to have to capture it.

But these types of projects, I think, provide more career opportunities, good paying jobs, and in communities where there have been very little economic investment, I think there is a lot of mutual benefits that come out of this. And at least to your question, and I will look also to the data to see if there are reasons why not to include it. But the most important thing is we have to look at every aspect of not just reducing carbons, but capturing as much if we're going to make a dent on GHG.

Thank you. I do appreciate that. I mean, I'm just going to tout my district again. My colleague is going to come uncorked when I do it. But we're the best at what we do. In 58 counties, we produce over 50% of the state's renewable energy. We're the top three food producing counties in the world.

And when it comes to carbon capture, the reason why the federal government gave us those contracts is because they know that we're going to be the best at making sure that it gets done and done right as the first in the nation. So I am very grateful we got that. The last question that I have is a touchy question. I've asked it before and I've gotten phone calls, so I'm expecting those after this question.

I have a huge issue with connectivity on the IOUs: electric forklifts, electric equipment, especially in the farming community, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, transitioning from propane or gas-powered forklifts or equipment, transportation halls, haulers, tractors, things like that. Yet we don't have connectivity. And we're three to five years out on connectivity, and that's just not right.

You can't mandate somebody do something, and when they do it, they have no ability to move millions and millions of dollars of pistachios or millions and millions of dollars of commodities, food that all of us in this room and the constituents that we represent eat. And the California Air Resources Board. Fine us or fine them. I say us because they're my people. Fine us for using gas powered generators to electrify charge our forklifts. But it's not our fault. Like, we don't have connectivity.

Are there off ramps? Are you considering off? And I just want to know your thoughts on that. We talked specifically about it yesterday, and that's the gist of my question. I can start in the middle and wrap around if that works. Mr. Perez?

Yeah, you have the same situation I do, Ms. Shannon, especially as we go further east in the county of Riverside. And I used to represent Imperial County, and I still have a soft spot for I mean, I think I mentioned to you, was it yesterday? And my wife was with me when we were driving out there. We're in Imperial County. I think we went to an event of sorts, and I took my electric vehicle with me, and we're about ready to run out of juice.

And there's only one place in Imperial County in Brawley, California, in which there happens to be, I believe, a charge point, a place where we could actually electrify our vehicle. And that's an Imperial County. It's not a big county, but it has around 200,000 people. And Riverside County alone in the Coachella Valley, I can probably count up to maybe ten or 15 locations. And there is where the majority of folks are when it comes to the 56 Assembly district.

I think we need to do a better job, quite frankly, of figuring out how we're going to get the infrastructure out there. Obviously, we talk about incentives on an ongoing basis that there's never enough. We talk about extensions, which is important as well. But I have a feeling that those extensions are going to be ongoing for a while. I'm just trying to look at this from a realistic standpoint.

Being a member of these three different entities and also now going from driving a gas-fueled vehicle to a hybrid to now an electric vehicle and seeing the differences and quite honestly, getting stranded a couple of times along the way on it. I think it's important that we ask ourselves the question. And I think I brought this up to you as well. Is what's the purpose is to create the market? Or is it to achieve these goals?

And I think there needs to be some balance between that because we are creating a market. And then you have to ask yourself creating a market for, you know, North Shore, Mecca, Oasis, Salton Sea area, Imperial County. Coachella is definitely not Santa Monica, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, even Riverside for that. So, you know, we create the market and certain people can afford the tools and the equipment and the vehicles and others can't.

And too often those that can't look like me or grew up in an area that's underserved. So I think we need to be honest with ourselves. Are we trying to achieve compliance? Are we trying to really, truly reduce greenhouse gas emissions? All right, well, then let's put up the money. Let's put the incentives up. Let's think through all that and let's be honest to ourselves about timelines because I think we could do better when we're trying to balance that with the market.

Thank you again to connectivity, sir.

Thank you very much, Senator. I am very sensitive to that particular concern and just having that experience growing up. And when I grew up in Espardo, as I mentioned to you, I remember the flood of 86 and we were stranded out in the middle of nowhere. And even when things of infrastructure collapse are well collapsed, it took, I think, four months for them to come out and dig it. Access to power is one of those same level of infrastructures that I worry about.

And now that I represent an area and I'm involved in our control council that has not only the lowlands of Yolo County and Sacramento County, but also the areas of Placer and El Dorado County where you have snow issues, access to power and connectivity is a concern. Now, the statutory authority, as you mentioned, for the Air Resources Board is limited, but we need to take that into consideration as we draft regulations because the strength of a regulation or a rule or a law statute is only as good as compliance. And particularly when we crafted the ACF, there were a number of considerations that I brought up.

Now, I knew I came in through the middle of the process, but I brought those issues up about how does somebody who lives up in Madison or in Rumsey, are they going to be able to comply? So having the infrastructure delay extensions are critical because someone can't control what a utility when or when they will actually upgrade their facility, making sure that access to the products themselves are available.

And all of those, I think, are things that I, as a board member, will engage the staff and work with our local air districts too, so that they who are working with the people on the ground can give us good feedback about the regulation. And as we come up to these benchmarks and points, that we're getting real, live, active feedback on how to make a regulation that's compliant. Because if we can't achieve compliance, then it's only as worth as the paper that it's printed on.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you for the question about connectivity. I think this is a real issue of accessibility, and we have to look at it carefully based on land use in the built environment, as I shared with you yesterday. In terms of what CARB is doing, I think having that flexibility for off ramps, so extensions and exemptions is something all of us are mentioning and looking at resources and funding to help people get grants and incentive programs in place.

Another thing that I think is really important is the role of advisory committees and speaking with industry and subject matter experts and having them on board. Yesterday, CARB had its first workshop on the Truck Regulation Advisory Committee, and I was able to be part of that. And one of the things that came up that's relevant to this question is the role of CPUCC and the utilities. So CARB staff were reporting that there's a lot of engagement with those bodies, and they hope to see even more of this in the ACF area. They were referring to, I think, a lot of work that had been done with the advanced clean trucks.

Thank you. And I do appreciate each one of your you know, I ask not only for farmers and the individuals that I serve, I empathize with the Honorable Mr. Perez. I grew up in Arvin. I had my first job in the savoyas and uvas, and I worked in the fields. And where you go to work, you can't charge anything out there.

And if you could afford an electric vehicle, if you drive around Mar District, which is not Los Angeles and not San Francisco and not even any major city people that own EVs, Teslas, they have that attachment on the back to put in a gas portable generator so they can charge their vehicle if they go longer distances up in the mountains, snow, skiing, things like that. Watt EV, very first in its nation electric charging station, should be California's golden child right off the freeway.

Charge 300 trucks at a time and get right back on the freeway to continue delivering product. There's no power, so there's a problem there. So I appreciate you guys willing to look at this. I appreciate your willingness to look at all the different angles that you have, and I really appreciate you, and I would get you I'm being honest with you. You were a solid no-vote for me.

When I read the information about you and after I talked to you yesterday, I thought, if I could get this lady the facts and the data, I think that your personal thought process or your personal opinions you would set aside based on science and data. And there are very few people in the world that can do that. So I thank you for letting me spend time with all three of you, and I look forward to your confirmation.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Good afternoon to three of you. And I'm very excited about this panel, and I'm very excited about just your responses and the life experiences that you're bringing to the table. And especially, I just want to put a little extra kudos for Supervisor Perez, because I absolutely agree with you. I think the Inland Empire has historically been unrepresented, and especially right now, as being one of the largest growing regions.

And the need that we still have to meet in those areas, especially in the rural communities in the district. I'm extremely excited to have your perspective, especially having served in such a varied capacities and what you're bringing to the table on that end. So very excited to have you on there, sir. With that, I want to talk a little bit about the recently adopted advanced Clean Fleet Rule.

And I realized that the rule is very fresh, but I do want to talk about the process, how it missed or ignored some very significant safety and operational concerns that were raised with CARB staff over the two years before its adoption. There are many small public utility districts in the state that provide electricity and water, and they use very specialized fleet. I think we kind of touched up a bit on that as far as the fleet vehicles to provide these critical services to their customers.

They have been trying for several years to highlight the impractical requirements that the ACF Rule would impose on their operations, putting their staff and their customers at risk. Because there are currently no one-for-one equivalent EV replacement vehicles to do this work, and there are no vehicles expected in the near future when the fleet purchases requirements kick in. So having said that, charging issues with the large EV trucks is something that's not going to happen right away.

And during the winter storms, we did see that the coverage, large areas of my district. We had experienced several electric school buses in Lake Arrowhead, such an example that ran out of juice and could not be refueled or used. So we can think about the different impacts that we could have on there. I understand that the ACF rule allows for CARB to make case by case exemptions.

Has CARB started to look at providing any further exemptions for specialty vehicles, especially since the purchase requirements start next year? Do you want to start with sure, we can start actually, let's start with Supervisor Perez because we always start from far right or far left. And now let's start with the center.

Currently I know that we've approved this, but it's going to take my understanding decades, at least a couple, to think through the regulations and how we're going to be monitoring and rethinking our efforts. I, like my colleagues here, came in at a time when this was discussed for the last three or four years and we came in at the time of a vote. And so I still have a lot to figure out when it comes to the ACF rules and what potentially the future looks like.

But my understanding is that there's going to be opportunity not only within the next two decades and we're not going to wait two decades to make the changes, but in between monitoring and making changes on an ongoing basis if need be. I don't see any other way, Senator. And it goes back once again to the lack of infrastructure, the needs that we have. And quite honestly, it does concern me and disturb me to hear that this happened.

You mentioned, what, school buses in an area where it's very rural and isolated and we have to think about, obviously, the public safety of our kids. So unfortunately, Senator, I don't have a direct response for you other than the fact that I understand that CARB will be working through these efforts on an ongoing basis and revisiting the rule to see where we actually stand.

And as was mentioned earlier by my colleague leaning on those committees that are being created in which you have the boots on the ground, if you will, to really tell us what's really going on on the ground. I think that voice needs to be heard and that voice needs to be valued and respected in order to provide us that type of data, that type of information, that type of knowledge for us to make better decisions moving forward. That's my response.

Wish you were in the Assembly now. The colleague, Dr. Shaheen. I mean. Sorry.

That's correct. You want to go to Dr. Shaheen? Go ahead.

Thank you. Thanks so much. And thanks for the question. And I'm delighted to be able to share with you the workshop yesterday and there were a lot of people on registered, I think 500 people registered for this first convening. It wasn't the meeting of the committee, but a brainstorming that was run by CARB staff. And I was in the background. So I'd say there's probably about 250 people online.

And there was a very deep and rich discussion about the structure of how the committee should form, which committee should be represented. And I'm looking at my notes. I like to take lots of old school notes. I'm just old school. Lots of focus on vehicle technologies and applications and the importance of understanding the differences between all of the vehicles. One association testified, the types of fleets involved are very diverse, and we have to look at differences in access to this technology as well as the infrastructure.

We have to look at the specific use cases and we have to look at the economics and the physical ability to comply. So I found that meeting as a new person to CARB, working on the implementation of a new regulation, very, very important. The idea is that this Truck Regulation Advisory Committee will be somewhere between, I think, 25 to 50 Members. They're soliciting feedback on that right now.

But what I really want to share is that I thought CARB staff did a really fantastic job of engaging industries, subject matter experts, industry associations, and I think the public showed up and gave a lot of feedback that we need to hear as regulators. So I'd love to share more of this with you, but it gave me a lot of hope. And as a new member of CARB, I'm really proud of CARB in how it's doing outreach and how it's doing engagement, and that it's open to meeting more than quarterly, even though that was what was on the books and really adapting as we need to. So that's, I think, my response for now.

Thank you.

Perfect. I have so many questions. I mean, this is just so exciting. It's a great subject matter. These folks are doing great work, and I just trying to figure out which ones do I emphasize? I think I'm going to go with the I'm going to go with the active transportation program, bikes and walking, just because that is just something that just recently we just had a meeting actually on it this morning.

So right now, as we're looking at these programs, let me just really quickly give you a little case sample. In our district, so Inland Empire, we know the issues there with air quality because of the topography for much of the region and the placement right east of the ports and how it gets stagnant there. So there's a lot of emphasis on trying to improve the quality of air in the area and also health, so keeping people physically active and so forth.

We had a project between two cities in which they wanted to do a bike lane right towards our goals, environmentally friendly and everything. Our bike lane. The bike lane. What did I say? The quality of air, the bike lane, which is part of our goals as far as creating zero emissions combined, I believe, is that what I said? In any case, so does the commission do a review of the projects funded through the active transportation program to verify if they are being used as projected to help meet the state's goal to reduce greenhouse gases? In that case, let me follow up with that in the fact that.

Can. You tell me if the active transportation program can help local projects with the mitigation funding, the environmental mitigation funding? And the reason I asked this is that you think that some of these projects would just have an easy approval and be less cost effective. But in this case, the mitigation factor for a bike lane next to the 210 corridor freeway corridor, there was going to be a four to one mitigation requirement, and the costs were exorbitant, exorbitant. And therefore, they just dropped the ball.

They said, we can't afford to be able to do this at this time. The grant funding was going to go over and so forth. And I thought it was so interesting because here we are trying to create something that would be environmentally better for community members, for their health, and improve their quality of life and so forth. And yet the cost, because of the location of the kangaroo rat was just especially I mean, to me, it was just mind-boggling.

They was right literally next to a freeway, and yet it went from three-to-one to four-to-one on the mitigation efforts and cost. So do we have any do you folks review or do you folks help with mitigating these efforts when it considers some of these projects? Who are you directing that to?

Mr. Guerra, go ahead.

Yeah, I'll just say just because yesterday we talked about active transportation in the city of Sacramento and the need to have multi year operating budgets for some of these because they are such massive projects. And what I would say is I'm new to the board so I don't know the auditing aspect of how do we look back at some of these projects.

But this is probably one of those areas where when the Air Resources Board meets with the California Transportation Commission we can work collectively to address the cost issues on these or at least discuss how these projects get put together. Unfortunately, the cost of some of these projects are pretty significant. It really requires not only a city or county local match, it requires state funding, federal funding for any kind of infrastructure project. I for one, I'm very interested in that.

I just bought an electric cargo bike rather than buying a minivan. And so not only do I get a little bit of exercise, but my kids love it too. And I do think that this is an important area because I do think the advancement of electric bikes is going to revolutionize how many people actually use bike lanes and active transportation. But this along with safe routes to school, making sure that roadways are safe, all of the costs and mitigations all have to work together.

As an Air Board Member I plan to work with when we meet with the transportation, the CTC to figure out how do we do our part. We have the science behind us and we have some of the scientists, but that mainly lies in the purview of the Transportation Commission. Doesn't mean as different agencies we don't work together.

Let me just add Senator, that very recently we passed policy and funding to put some bike lanes, and walking lanes, and even golf carts that are electrified to get from on Dylan Road off to 10 freeway in the city of Inyo Coachella Avenue 48. Have you ever been to Coachella Fest? It's just a lot of people and a lot of vehicles. But this lane will be built out in which will take you all the way to the festival and it would allow for us to have less vehicles on the road and more folks being able to use their electric bikes or what have you to get to this festival.

And that was a result of the ATP that you're referring to and entities like CVAC which have all associations of Governments and RCTC, Riverside County Transportation Commission coming together and saying that these are the type of avenues we need in order for us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while getting people safely to their destination. I think it's going to be an awesome addition moving forward. We're all excited because it'll be moving through county land, city of Coachella, city of Indio and through La Quinta. So all these jurisdictions are all coming together.

But I will say that it's important that this is where, for example, CARB and in my case AQMD as well work together and working with our AB 617 communities that are on the ground to think through what these potential avenues could look like in the future in which we are still reducing greenhouse gas emissions or we're reducing air pollution, for that matter, and at the same time being able to transport people or getting people to where their destination is.

It's important that CARB provide the technical assistance, for example, to AQMD. And AQMD provide that technical support and assistance to the AB 617 communities that are our constituents, that are providing us ideas as to what they would like to see, like more bike lanes, for example, or more green spaces and more trees, for that matter, in our communities. And so up to this point, being a member of CARB, which has only been two meetings for me, we have not had this kind of conversation yet.

But I do believe that this is a conversation that needs to be held. And especially a conversation needs to be held with our locals, because really it's the locals that we need to as we're building policy, it needs to reflect their needs and their concerns.

Thank you. Anything to add, Dr. Shaheen?

Just briefly, Senator, thank you for your question. And I am actually a really big fan of active transportation and do a lot of research on it. What I will say is that it sounds like it's an issue of exposure along that corridor which is causing the mitigation to be so high. And so CARB is working to try to clean the air criteria, pollutants and GHGs with advanced technologies, but it takes time to roll out those technologies.

This is the chicken and egg question we've been talking a lot about this afternoon. So I think a lot of this is a question with the Air District in your area alongside 617, which is part of our purview at CARB. And we do have grant opportunities and programs. But I would rely on the experts, public health experts, the people who understand the exposure, whether or not it's worth it to expose people relative to the costs and benefits. So I think that's the extent of my comment and the extent of my knowledge so far as a new board member. Thank you.

Thank you. I think I asked my two questions, right? Pretty much. I think I have one last, and I'll have one of you decide, and you folks can decide just on the vehicle miles traveled, especially when it comes to our area where the Inland Empire is very expand district, as mentioned by Supervisor Perez. Let's see, where should I go? How do you envision protecting the transportation options for low-income communities without forcing them into older and older gas-powered vehicles?

Who would like to tackle that question.

All right, as your automotive member, I'll take a bite at this one. So I think this is a very important area of work that the CARB is involved in and very concerned about, which is how do we ensure everybody has access to advanced technology, which is something I've worked on for years, I think looking at secondary market for the vehicles and ensuring that those vehicles are in good state.

So the Advanced Clean Cars Two program has warranty battery components associated with it to ensure that when you get a secondary used vehicle, the battery is intact, right? Or that there's warranties intact. So I think these things are very important. I will tell you honestly, I have two doctoral students working on EV access in low-income communities, and I make this a very high priority. We have a lot of work to do, a lot of work to get done.

And I thank you for that question. I will tell you, if we want to clean up the air and reduce vehicle miles traveled, I also think we really need to think about how to get people out of cars, active transportation, how to pool in cars and potentially use car sharing vehicles. So not necessarily having to rely on ownership, but getting access to those vehicles. So I would love to be a resource to you on this question.

Okay, perfect. Especially when it comes to the Inland Empire, we don't have a lot of public we're still working on the public transportation component within the region. And so the most impacted by these policies are our lower socioeconomic community Members who have to commute for work. So thank you very much for your time. Excited for all three of you to serve in this capacity. Look forward to working with you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas

So I feel like my colleagues have asked so many dynamic questions, and I'm so glad to get a chance to participate in this hearing. I feel like we've had a lot of CARB members come through here this year. This is my first rules, and I feel like we've got a chance to meet a good number of you. But what's always interesting is the dynasysm and what you all are bringing.

Each of your lived experience, your professional experience, really gives me great hope and excitement that we're realists, but we also know that this can get done, which is, you know, I appreciated the comment, and I wanted to say the fedora. You had me at fedora when you came in, I was like, I love that hat. We talked a little bit about rural communities, and I represent South Central Los Angeles and have worked in communities that look a lot like South LA.

In Riverside County and other areas where these were communities that know, a generation or so ago, they were the industrial muscle of so much of California, and the deindustrialization hit them the hardest. Those communities are really what I sometimes say they're dying on the vines because there was an industrial plan to really say, what do we do with these facilities, but also with these jobs and the workers and families who relied on them.

I often feel when we think about our climate resiliency, our goals in terms of clean air, environmental sustainability, we don't think enough about workforce. And I really appreciated what you said, Mr. Pastore, in terms of incentives and timelines. I don't see where the incentives and the timeline fits when it comes to the workforce.

And I'm curious how CARB is thinking about, in an aggressive way, what role, an intentional way we can ensure that we are working collaboratively and intersectionally to address the need to have the workforce to make these goals a reality. I've shared the story. We had a company come to us. They have this great fleet of electric vehicles that they paid for, but no one's able to manufacture them, right? They don't have the workers to actually manufacture the vehicles we talked about.

I'm really glad to hear about the doctoral students and electrical vehicles. I want to hear more about that. But I often know when the first ticket is issued for not driving electric vehicle. Someone who looks like me in my district in South LA. Because that infrastructure does not exist. You know, how are you accomplishing these ambitious goals but really centering workforce in your strategies? And how do we ensure and I love how you mentioned the AB 617 communities.

How are we ensuring that those experts right, most impacted these hardest hit communities in terms of the industrial shifts that they get prioritized? And then maybe I would like all of you to answer that. And just also keep in mind and I want to say the Legislature, under the Pro Tem's leadership and the Administration, we passed this amazing AB 150 that was signed by the Governor, which adds community benefits, for example, to infrastructure projects. Just even in that context, like community benefits, how are you all aggressively pushing that forward?

Who would you like to start with? We'll start with Dr. Shaheen and then. We'll work our way. Okay, Dr. Shaheen.

No problem. So thank you for your question and thank you for your focus on workforce. It's a topic that I think a lot about. And in coming to CARB, I was really curious. The questionnaire we received also asked us about this question. So followed up with CARB staff to get some more details for you on what CARB is doing. So we are collaborating closely with CEC on workforce development and training, particularly in the area of charging and fueling infrastructure.

And I think you're probably quite aware that there's many collaborations associated with the CARB Riverside facility with respect to memorandum of understanding with high schools, STEM training in air quality and climate change. I think that there's more opportunities, but this is not typically the strength or the focus or the mandate of CARB to focus on that workforce. But we do need to create a just transition and a pipeline for those jobs.

I do think universities like where you came from, because I know UCLA is where you spent quite a bit of time with the Labor Center there. I'm familiar with the New Labor Center at Irvine and also the Berkeley Labor Center. I think there's opportunities to do more. I'm struck by, I think, the importance of certificate processes because we're creating a new workforce around electrification and electrical skills. So what does that mean, to have those skills? How do we certify that?

And the other thing I spend a lot of time thinking about is what happens to the refineries that close and what are we doing about the workers? Are we just thinking that we're going to simply shift them from a refinery to electrification? How does this skill set match? And you know, probably better than I do from your work at UCLA that putting somebody into a coding job after they lose a job doesn't always pan out.

So I think we need to be doing a lot more tracking as a state. I'm not quite sure because I'm new to CARB, what role CARB might play in these interactions, but I think we need to understand what people's experiences are and how we can support and help them. So that's my response. Thank you.

Let me just add to Dr. Shaheen's response that the MOU with UC Riverside, obviously the efforts with some of the high schools in the Riverside area. But I think in my short time on CARB, this is not a discussion point that we've had while I've been there.

And like I mentioned, I've only been there a couple of times, so they might have had this discussion some time ago or maybe not, but it's definitely one that needs to be had because this creates an opportunity for folks, whether it's with our universities or with our high schools. As we're talking about the A-G requirements or for that matter, as we're talking about going back to the days and balancing out when we used to have wood shop or automotive.

Well, then why not create a renewable? Energy Academy for that matter, and really emphasize this new technology and teach students these new tools so that they can become the next leadership. As we're fighting air pollution and as we're fighting the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and making sure that that occurs.

I'd like to see labor more involved. I like to see apprenticeship programs throughout the state of California being able to provide these type of tools or expertise, experiences, knowledge, which I think maybe is happening to a degree, but maybe there isn't a connection with CARB or a connection with the local air districts. And I think maybe we can do a better job there.

I also think that our local air districts, with the support of CARB and using once again our AB 617 communities, ensuring that we're providing those mentorship programs, internship programs, fellowship programs, apprenticeship programs, whatever they are, to ensure that we are developing the next workforce. When it comes to climate change, when it comes to these efforts that we're talking about here today, I think this is an opportunity that we have not really dug into, at least I have not.

Maybe others have, but it is definitely one in which I want to get into further, especially for those that are veterans that maybe unfortunately have PTSD, but they just need a hand. And maybe they just need to be provided some sort of skill tool in order for them to take care of themselves. Or those that are formerly incarcerated, those that are coming back from being institutionalized for so many years.

And maybe they just need that 2nd, 3rd chance, get them off the street, give them a good paying job, something in which they can take care of their families and be proud of, in which they're giving back to society. Or even the high school student that doesn't want to go on a higher education doesn't know what they want to do. And maybe they just happen to come across an individual that says, look, I got the place for you.

So I think we need to do a better job of trying to figure out how we can integrate our educational systems and apprenticeship programs with this new technology that's happening right before our eyes.

Thank you, Mr. Guerra.

Thank you, Pro Tem. Senator, this is something that I have brought up in almost just about every hearing at our cardboard meetings where I completely agree with you. First, I will say though, that CARBs should not reinvent the wheel, but it must be intentional.

If there's anything that I learned in my time here when I worked with the former colleague of Assemblymember Perez Assembly Member then is how fragmented our workforce development system is between our building trades and construction trades partners, between the community colleges, between all of the certificate programs and even the division between the multiple segments of UCCSU and the private institutions.

So I worry if car becomes creates a situation where that becomes even much more convoluted and the limited dollars that we do have get diluted over segments. Now, should CARB be intentional? Absolutely. It needs to. And there are ways that I think that it could engage in better funding.

One very exciting thing I'd like to talk about is how an air district like Sacramento Metro Air District is working in a community that has the community of my own community of South Sacramento that includes Oak Park, Fruit Ridge, and the little area of Saigon. Is working with a school to do an EV retrofit of a 1964 Chevy Impala Lowrider. And these young kids are having a blast learning about how to pull out an old 350 engine and convert it into an all electric vehicle.

And that's motivating young kids to think about what the future is. Now, most of these students at this charter school is a place where even the local continuation school would not welcome them. Yet now they are being recruited to work with some of the manufacturers there with well above minimum wages. And some of them are looking at engineering careers and to me, thinking about how can we maybe with the HFIP program that we fund to electrify school buses, why aren't we including and supporting those schools to have those EV retrofit programs?

Having gone through Agshop and been very active, my FFA, that was what motivated me to become an engineer and join the Society Hispanic Professional Engineers and become an electrical engineer. And so those old ROP programs I think are critical or even in the agricultural community where you can, if we were to look at funding those programs because they're suffering, not only is it the schools in cities that are suffering with these high capital programs, but the AG programs are also suffering. And we're going to need to be able to transition in all of those communities those skills.

So a couple of things. One, I mentioned the HFIT program and supporting the air districts and encouraging them to participate as we go to electrify school buses. Why aren't we also looking at making sure that there's a curriculum at the school so that they can see, the students can see very firsthand the work that's happening? That's something I hope to push in that area. And also one meeting that I pulled together with our air district and our local plumbers and pipefitters was about the future of hydrogen.

So the issue I think for us is we have to look at opportunities with our biomass facility or the biomethane that's being produced from our regional sanitation facilities and say, can we create new opportunities for employment and using our union halls and the existing system there? But being intentional I think is going to provide opportunities.

And for one that I remember when I started went from picking oranges to the next year, taking my first year at Sac State in the engineering program and remembering the first fuel cell vehicle that was basically the back of the truck was the entire fuel cell now fits in the little console to see that evolution. And so many of my classmates who are also farm workers are now in the engineering fields.

To me, I think we have to be intentional as CARB Members in that, but we shouldn't reinvent the system. But we do can use our resources and ways to motivate them. And starting earlier I think is important. The last piece I'll point out when we brought up this is we passed a regulation on EV retrofits at some point to the concern that Senator Ochoa Bogh brought up.

There are specialty vehicles where the value of the chassis and the equipment of itself will be worth more than the motor. We don't want to discard that equipment to Senator Grove's point because that is lost carbon that was used in producing that. There may be a situation where if we train young kids like these students that are doing this EV retrofit to retrofit a specialty vehicle, there's a better outcome for that. So those are some of my thoughts about the workforce.

We have local WIBs that are engaged. We need to make sure that they're involved in that conversation for that. And to do that, what I've done regionally here with our air district is we started now. Next year will be our third year of the Climate, Jobs, justice, and Environment Summit, where we bring all those pieces together. We can't think about the environment on its own. We can't think about environmental justice on we can't think about original economy on their own. They're all interconnected with the workforce. So that's my answer with that. Senator.

Well, thank you so much, and I really appreciate the connections that were made here, and particularly around how we collaborate and coordinate, but also ensure that these are going to be good jobs that help to reach into those most impacted communities. I want to work with you on that. I think this is a solution to a lot of our challenges as we're trying to figure out housing and food subsidies.

These are the jobs of the future, and we want them to be good jobs that our communities that have been too far left behind get a chance to enjoy. So thank you for those answers, and I look forward to your confirmation.

Thank you, Senator. We have been going an hour and a half, and my colleagues have covered a lot of ground. So I think what I will do in the interest of time, because I know these are serious issues, there's complexities of how you weave all of this together. We do bills, we put more goals and more regulations in your lap to figure out.

I would just say before we go to the public, some takeaways some high-level takeaways on some of the questions that were asked and some that we didn't get to ask, that we were prepped to ask. The relationship you have with the airbornes is critical, and you made reference to that, Mr. Perez, how you do that to get the results and to work towards a common goal. These goals are certainly aggressive goals.

The Scoping Plan is also complex in terms of how you're following it to reach the goals. I'm glad someone brought up the 617 communities. We keep adding communities, and when you do, there's more complexity there. But it's important that the stakeholders you've reached, the communities that people have talked about and why. Back to my offhand comment about I don't know why you would want this job. We need you to want this job.

The unfortunate part is I don't think you have enough time, given that you have jobs and this is an extra volunteer job, to connect a lot of dots, serious policy, complicated issues that in some ways we haven't even figured out some of the technology or the metrics. So to get to the high level of what do we include and how and who do we have to get permission from to actually do even a better job. The jurisdictional stuff. So I wish you success.

I am thrilled that you want to do this. That means you're really going to do the work that you've only been in place since February. You all come with resumes that obviously in the questions that we've asked, really give us an indication of what you're thinking about and what you're diving into and the fact that, you know, you still have a lot to do.

So on some of the issues, maybe you'll bring this up in the board and you'll get a chance to talk about some more of these and you'll communicate back with us. This is one of the boards that we focus on and pay a lot of attention to, and you'll get questions. And so if you have feedback for us at some point about policy, legislation, needs what you've learned, we hope you'll give us that feedback. I know that you are governor's appointees.

We have our own representatives and appointees as well. But I really think we would value that. And with that, I'm going to go to Members of the public who have been waiting very patiently. And I'm going to start right here in room 2200 for people that would like to speak in support. I know we've been doing all the talking. I apologize. Well, it's our job, but we could have been more succinct. I totally agree with that as a group.

But your name, your organization, if any, and brief comments. And if you are talking about all 31, I see all of you. You know the drill. You've been here before. Welcome.

Thank you. Bill McGovern with the Coalition for Clean Air in support of the confirmations of Councilmember Guerra, Supervisor Perez and Dr. Shaheen. They all bring valuable experience and expertise to the board, and they participated in important decisions to reduce toxic diesel emissions from locomotives and from trucks. And to Senator Grove's question about shipping emissions, I believe that Senator Weiner's carbon disclosure Bill would require the reporting of those emissions.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Madam Chair and Members. Michael Pimentel, Executive Director of the California Transit Association, representing 220 Member organizations throughout the state of California, here today in strong support of the three appointees that are before you today. From the discussion that you just had, I think you heard very clearly that these Members will be even handed in their approach, recognizing, of course, that we need to drive our environment and our economy forward.

We also need to make sure that we are advancing regulations and programs that can be complied with by industry. We've done a lot of work as an industry with CARB. I know that we will have strong partners in these appointees before you today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness. Welcome.

Good morning, chair Members. My name is Tom Knox of Valley Clean Air Now. 'm here to speak in support of Supervisor Perez and Council Member Gara. We've been long familiar with the networks they built in their communities. They're very, very strong advocates for the most impacted Californians. We believe they'll do a fantastic job as our board Members in continuing to focus on those who need the most help. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair and Members, Chris Grogan with the Praying Mckayley on behalf of Republic Services, in support of Mr. Guerra, and also on behalf of ChargePoint, in support of Mr. Guerra and Mr. Perez. Appreciate the work that you both have done and look forward to working with you all in the future. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Senator Jim Houston, here on the path of the California Farm Bureau Federation. I would remind you that we are the only industry that sequesters carbon 24 hours a day. That's what our plants do, photosynthesis. So God bless all those plants out there. We're here in support of Eric Guerra's nomination. I've known him personally for over 20 years, but in his capacity, multiple capacities that he has had, he has always shown a willingness to understand the multiple sides of an issue.

I thought your words at the very beginning were prescient. This is a very, very hard job. And just real quick in the next, because we all live on the five. And so it's tomato season, and this is evident to your point. So we're going to pull off, people, say, 12 million metric tons, that's 26 billion pounds of just processing tomatoes in three months in about six counties.

Those are all trucked to processing facilities that need to process those and can them and get those out to retail markets across the world. Right. We produce 80% to 90% of the that's just processing tomatoes. And so I just want to remind you the challenges of how you're going to electrify those trucks, put the infrastructure in, that's a real challenge. And so I think having these folks in there that are willing to sink their teeth in I've never met you before, but you sound wonderful.

Your willingness to entertain data and make decisions, been in politics for 20 years. I agree it's hard to find folks who are willing to just look at that. So I know I took probably more time than I did, but, I mean, I sat through this and it was actually really encouraging. So God bless you and your friends. So I love you. All right, thank you.

Thank you. We learned a lot, and you just scored points. With the Vice Chair, who is from Kern County, by the way. Welcome.

Thank you, madam Pro Tem Jack Yanis, on behalf of the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, in support of three appointees here today. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Welcome. Thank you. Tiffany Fan, on behalf of General Motors. In support of all three appointees before you today.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Hi, welcome.

Good afternoon, Madam pro Tim. Members of the committee. P. Anthony Thomas, representing the California Building Industry Association, on here on behalf of my associate and here to support Councilman Guerra, not only an open-minded man, but a man who has balance with his decisions. He's fair. He's a personal friend of mine, so that makes him very good at what he does. I just want to say supporting him. And of course, he's an alumni stinger's up my brother.

And I also want to take a personal privilege to say hello to my state Senator, to say hello to her, because we run into each other in Los Angeles and we never get a chance to talk. So I will say this. Good afternoon. Thank you, madam.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Alberto Ayala. I'm the Executive Director and Air Pollution control Officer for the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. This means I know Vice Mayor Guerra very well from his current role as an active member of our board, including. Being a recent past Chair. I'm also a former Deputy Executive officer of the California Air Resources Board. That means I know the agency well and what it needs. I urge you to vote yes for Vice Mayor's Guerra's confirmation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Madam Chair Chris McCauly on behalf of the California Renewable Transportation Alliance, and we respectfully request your support of all three confirmations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Madam Chair, Members, Bret Barrow here on behalf of the United Contractors in strong support of Councilman Eric Guerra. Today, we urge your support of his confirmation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, I will go to Members of the public who may be here in room 2200 in opposition. Anyone here in opposition? Okay, seeing no one approach the microphone, I'm going to welcome and go to our teleconference moderator, ask that the number be put back up. It is 877-226-8163. Access code 1618051. Let me say welcome to the moderator and as you come online to those who wish to speak at this point, we've had a little bit of extra testimony. We will only take name, organization you represent, and your support or opposition either support or opposition of a particular conference. Moderator welcome.

Ladies and gentlemen. If you wish to show support or opposition, please press one, then zero. Now again one, then zero. For support or opposition at this time, there is no one in the queue.

Okay? Wow. We will be back with you shortly. Thank you, madam moderator okay, I am going to come back up here, ask if we can take all three at once, or if I need to separate votes. All three. Okay. Moved. Madam Vice Chair has made a motion to support all three conferees. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?

Laird aye. Laird aye. Ochoa Bog, Ochoa Bogh aye Smallwood-Quevas Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Grove aye Grove aye Atkins. aye. Atkins aye. Five to zero.

Wonderful five to zero. We will move the full confirmation onto the Senate as a whole, and I want to thank each of you for your time and answering your thoughtful answers to the questions. And it's good that we have CARB here. And now we're going to move to CTC. We are going to take a five minute break, and I promise we'll be right back. But I want to say congratulations to you. And there is a nexus between these boards, so we'll just continue the conversation.

The issue is you don't have to stay, but they've been here for the whole discussion, so congratulations with that. We will take five minutes, and we'll be right back to get going. Thank you.

I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting back to order and would like to welcome members appointed by the Governor to the Transportation Commission, the CTC. I'm sure you enjoyed listening to all of the dialogue around CARB. It will give you a general idea of possible questions to come. So let me welcome Joseph Joe Cruz, Carl Guardino, and Hilary Norton. Thank you all for taking time to be here today.

And what we will do is let's start with you, Ms. Norton, and we'll go down the line and you, I think, heard opening comments. Anyone you'd like to acknowledge? And then we'll follow suit, go down and go right to the committee for questions and comments. So welcome, and thank you all for your patience.

Thank you, Madam Chair Atkins and Vice Chair Grove and Senate Rules Committee Members for scheduling this meeting with us today. My name is Hillary Norton and I thank Governor Newsom and his Administration for first appointing me to CTC in 2019. I was his first appointee and now reappointed to the CTC in 2023. I hope my children are still listening.

One is in college working with the Martin Luther King Archives while at Stanford this summer, and my son is working at Jacobs Engineering in Seattle, also a college grad from California at LMU. And I want to thank my family, my CTC colleagues and staff, and my friends who have been part of this four-year journey with me on CTC.

I've been Vice Chair and Chair in 2020 and 2021, and as a commissioner of this term, my goals have been to help usher in a new era of transportation, planning, funding, and programming, one that prioritizes equity, economic prosperity, multimodality and sustainability. I've been a resident of California from 5th grade through 9th grade, and as an adult for the past 32 years, living in Los Angeles.

Since 2019, the Commission has allocated over 36 billion dollars, including in our August meeting, the 3.1 billion we allocated to transportation and infrastructure throughout the state, creating over 380,000 jobs since 2019.

We've created the Equity Advisory Committee; I'm very proud of that when I was Chair, and it's been in partnership with CalSTA and Caltrans, one of the national models of equity communities participating in the future guidelines, and in understanding and conveying to us the impacts we've talked about today, about every community being different and having the impacts and the ability to participate in this transformation being different. In July 12th, CAPTI celebrated its two year anniversary, and we are very proud of ushering that in. And I want to thank you, Senators, for your support of an additional one billion dollars for active transportation programs in last year's budget.

I know former CTC Vice Chair Bob Alvarado, God rest his soul, would have been very proud of our allocations last year. We are focused on keeping the commitments made when you courageously supported SB 1 and defeated Prop 6, which would have repealed SB 1. California continues to lead the world in infrastructure and innovation because of your leadership, and I look forward to our conversation today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Guardino, this is your what number of appointments, I think at this point?

If you're so kind to reappoint me, this will be my fifth four-year term.

Welcome.

Thank you. I started in junior high school. Chair Atkins, Vice Chair Grove, and Members of the Senate Rules Committee, I'm both humbled and honored to be with each of you and my colleagues, Hilary Norton, and Joe Cruz today. I thank Governor Newsom for entrusting me with the responsibility and the opportunity to serve on the California Transportation Commission. I'd also like to thank the amazing professionals of our CTC staff who serve our state and our 39 million residents every day. You may not know it.

For a state of 39 million, we have roughly 39 full time employees. Or as I like to say, each is one in a million. I'd also like to thank and recognize my wife, Leslie, and our three children for supporting my desire to continue to serve our state in this way. Our eighteen-year-old daughter, Jessica, who started at Pepperdine University last week, she was thrilled. We cried.

And I guess that's the way it goes when you're parents. Our fourteen-year-old daughter, Sienna, who we adopted at one day old, and our six-year-old son, Jake, who we foster adopted at three months old. And I thank them specifically as they support the 40 to 60 hours each month that I invest in the work of the Transportation Commission, which therefore is time I am not spending with them. I serve candidly because improving mobility options for every Californian is a labor of love.

It's fitting and kind of fun that I was first appointed in 2007 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Valentine's Day to reflect that labor of love. Mobility improvements look different for every Californian, whether they live in rural, suburban, urban, or tribal communities, which is why our nine primary funding categories help to meet the diverse needs of those who live in our 58 counties and our 482 cities.

Because Santa Cruz is different than Tulare, which is different than San Diego, which is different than Banning, which is different than Hyde Park. Should you deem me worthy, I would be honored to continue to serve our state on the Transportation Commission.

Thank you. Mr. Cruz.

Thank you, President Pro Tem, Vice Chair Grove, and Members for the opportunity to be here today. But also, I want to thank you for your service to the great state of California. I think the one thing we all share is a love for the place we call home and our desire to make it better for our children and our grandchildren moving forward. I want to thank Governor Newsom for trusting me with this appointment and his commitment to improving our state's transportation infrastructure.

I also want to thank my brothers and sisters with LIUNA, the Labors' International Union of North America. I'm the Executive Director of the California State Council of Labors. 75,000 strong, hardworking men and women who build our state's transportation system, our transit systems, airports, bridges, highways, roads and port infrastructure. Today, I stand on their shoulders.

Today, I hope to share my goals for the Commission, a little about myself and of course, to hear from you, about your transportation priorities and issues you feel are important for your constituents and for our state. First and foremost, I want you to know that I will work hard to make sure the Commission meets its primary goal, and that's ensuring a safe transportation system, safety for our commuters, our passengers, and for our workers. Now's the time to deliver big for California.

We need to continue building our economy, implementing a transportation vision aimed at creating thousands of middle class jobs, revitalizing communities that have been left behind, and allowing small, minority, veteran, and women-owned businesses to compete and win in our economy while continuing to tackle the climate crisis. Transportation infrastructure can be the catalyst, and you have my commitment.

I will work closely with each and every one of you and deliver the innovation and investment that California needs to build an environmentally friendly, financially sustainable, and world class multimodal transportation system. As a construction industry labor leader, I bring a bottom up perspective to the transportation funding and programming efforts at the CTC.

I look forward to working with our partners at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels to find solutions to our infrastructure issues while we prepare for the future of transportation at a time of great change following the pandemic. To conclude, Senator Atkins and Members, I'm eager to get to work. I'm the new CCC Commissioner with your blessing and your confirmation, and I look forward to partnering with you and the Legislature to improve the lives of all Californians and build on your success.

So thank you again for the opportunity and I look forward to any questions.

Thank you very much. Thank you. We always appreciate you acknowledging your family. As you said, it takes time away from the time you get to spend with them. And this also is one of those positions that takes a lot of time and a lot of work, and it is a volunteer position. So I thank you. With that, I'm going to turn to Senator Smallwood-Cuevas and let you start, and then we will come right down the road.

Thank you, Madam President. My question, I know you were in the audience when I asked this question, but I often ask questions really at the intersection of racial equity, economic equity, and environmental sustainability, and really trying to get at the ways in which we can ensure that the investment in transportation becomes a multiplier. This was my first freshman season in the Legislature and there was a deficit, right? And so every dollar that we are investing now, how do we see it become a greater opportunity?

And so my question sort of goes back to our focus on infrastructure, and particularly the bill package we just passed that included SB 150, which includes community benefits now in all infrastructure projects, and convenes a group to really look at how do we translate that into manufacturing and nonconstruction climate resiliency industries. I know Caltrans has had many a pilot around looking at community benefits and looking at workforce hiring programs.

In fact, part of this opportunity of SB 15 is like, we've been down this road and it's shown some results. I wonder how you plan to incorporate those kinds of projects now to scale, right, particularly in light of SB 150, to ensure that these are good careers for those communities that are hardest hit and that these opportunities reach down into our most disadvantaged communities.

And I'll start with you, Mr. Cruz, because I know from where you come and have seen firsthand, what I do liken is a silver bullet for some of this in terms of when folks get good jobs. Generational change. So I'll start with you, and then I'll invite others.

I appreciate the question, Senator, but I appreciate your passion for working people and your career work in creating opportunities. But before I start, I failed to recognize the most important person in my life, which is my wife of 29 years. And I'm proud to have her by my side. She's here today. So I failed to do that. I was a bad husband, but I'm making up for.

So, Mr. Cruz, the Vice Chair just moved to have you held, but I'm going to ignore that motion, and I think you owe somebody dinner for sure. Go ahead, answer the Senator's question.

But thank you again for the question, and I appreciate your efforts on SB 150, the high roads legislation that is, I think, going to establish that pipeline to bring people who are disadvantaged into not just jobs, but careers. The jobs associated with infrastructure investments in California are one good paying, but their pension, their health care, their vacation, they're everything that somebody needs to succeed. I take most pride in pooling individuals, women, people of color, second chancers, into the middle class.

Our investment in infrastructure, specifically transportation, does that. We're going to create--I looked at some recent numbers--70,000 new construction jobs in California in the next three years. The laborers have created 6,000 jobs for women throughout our state in the last two years, or last one year, I'm sorry, the last year. So we're excited about the possibility.

I'm hoping that we can build on success in the inner cities with the pre-apprenticeship programs--especially in the Bay Area, the Central Valley, and Los Angeles, that exposes young people who either choose not to go to college or at this point don't have the financial means to do so--to these opportunities to work in the construction industry because they are middle class jobs and a lot of times they're not aware that these opportunities exist.

So I'm working with the building trades and other crafts to do a lot of outreach and bring individuals who are willing to do the work. You got to show up on time. You got to work hard. You got to take orders. And we're poised to make that a success statewide. So thank you again for all your help.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, thank you. And thank you again for your leadership on Senate Bill 150. Like Commissioner Cruz, I think it's so vital that we have a chance not only to provide jobs, but careers, and to build our middle class in such an exciting way on a personal level, the opportunity to provide careers for people who need a second chance.

I believe I serve a God of second chances, and people make mistakes. And when they have an opportunity in their lives to have that second chance, have a career that can support them and their families and help build our state as they're building their lives back is essential. As Commissioner Cruz said, the demand for construction workers, women and men in our state is immense.

In my day job, which is focused solely on bridging the digital divide with the funds we have for broadband deployment for every unserved and underserved Californian, and that's nearly one million California households, that's also going to require tens of thousands of new people in our construction trades that we don't have. And so having careers that will attract people is going to help us to fill that gap, not only statewide, but in each region of our state where those jobs are going to be located.

I see Senate Bill 150 as one of the opportunities to help jumpstart that effort. And as Commissioner Norton, Immediate Past Chair Norton observed, we program and allocate nearly 10 billion dollars a year in nine major funding categories, and almost all of them require women and men to build and maintain those improvements. This helps us to get there.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, there's not a lot I can add to what we've talked about here, except a couple of things that we've just been talking about. And I loved how you talked about this as becoming a force multiplier.

Because the way that when we ensure that people have careers in infrastructure and we get to plan not only because of the work that has been done not only with SB 1, but now with SB 671, and talking about moving our goods movement to zero mission, but also SB 1121, both Senator Gonzalez Bills that plan a ten-year vision about our infrastructure that includes not only the infrastructure work itself, but how do we make the energy match up?

How do we look at EVs and hydrogen and what we're doing with our current systems and ensure that we have the engineers, the laborers, the designers that are taking all of this as part of the California economy as well as the manufacturing? We as a state are the world's pilot project right now. We are showing that there are so many opportunities to build new careers.

And every time we do that, the multiplier you talk about is the sales tax that then goes back to our self-help counties, the opportunities for us to then invest in new ways and new modes all the time. And then by looking at the need as Governor Newsom and you all are supporting workforce housing, and how are we building as we look in to moving more people into the middle class?

How are we creating the middle class housing that continues to feed into the communities and continues to have the people who are going to community colleges and the Cal States and the universities in California and stay here and build lives here? That multiplier is something we're very, very committed to.

We are looking at the reporting about the metrics of where those jobs are, who's got the jobs, how do we empower women to lead some of the projects, and what are we doing to make sure that we have the financial wherewithal so that small businesses and women-owned businesses are priming some of these contracts?

These are conversations we're having with CalSTA and Caltrans and we appreciate the partnerships so that this is not just about how we move, but how our economy moves and how we, again, just like we did after World War II when the WPA rebuilt the economy for generations, we have the opportunity to do that here, especially with IIJA and IRA and our federal government. How are we going to invest in that force multiplier you talk about so that we have benefits upon benefits upon benefits for generations to come?

We look forward to working with you on all of that.

Thank you for that, and I look forward to working with you as well. I remember when we looked at women in the infrastructure space; the numbers were so small you could not actually measure them in a research framework. And Black workers were under 2% on projects. And I know that the needle is moving and it's this kind of collaboration. I would want to hear a little bit more about the tracking and monitoring process and how you're pulling out from these pilots.

What are some of the lessons learned to help implement that vision? Right? Because Caltrans is such a large, I mean, it's a state unto itself in so many ways, you know. How are you actually tracking on that? That's the one thing I didn't hear. Just sort of what are you thinking are the ways to ensure that we see the multiplier and that we're taking some lessons learned where we need to make some tweaks to ensure that we're getting to those most marginalized and underrepresented workers?

And I will ask you, Ms. Norton because I feel like you were sort of getting there; and if there's someone else who has a pressing response, please jump in.

I think there are lots of things that we're very excited about in this collaboration with our equity advisory committees, but this is definitely one of those. How do we look at what a community benefit is that the community actually recognizes as a benefit? How are we meeting the needs of communities? And I think CTC, and especially with our new Executive Director Tanisha Taylor, are looking at: how do we talk about these metrics, not only as the CTC and CalSTA and Caltrans, but our regions.

When you apply to us for projects, how are you as regions and as agencies going to make sure that with all opportunities in the law, that we can have local hiring, that we can have participation in small and disadvantaged businesses? So this is part of the conversations. We haven't allocated points to it in our point systems, but we are talking about how do we at least show that we care about these things?

When you describe these in the projects, when we go out on the tours, when we are going around the state in our town halls and in our meetings, how are you showing us that you are translating this into real jobs for the people in your communities? And we want to continue to push the envelope on that.

And that's where we want to work together with the Legislature to see what can we do and the governor's office to really translate this into those career making jobs and how to have those metrics show that those career making jobs exist.

I'll briefly add, and I appreciate the question is, I have talked to Caltrans Director Tavares specifically on this issue, and I recently read a disparity study that they conducted in 2022, and there was a number of recommendations that were made that can help facilitate these contracts being awarded to some DBEs and veteran contractors. And a couple of things were just the outreach. There has to be a better job of making these outreach efforts to businesses in California who aren't aware of these opportunities.

You can look at making these contracts a little smaller, where smaller contractors can compete because of some of the bonding requirements or insurance requirements that may block them out. And then you can look at breaking these contracts, the big contracts up, so they can compete at a level that levels the playing field for a lot of these. So I'm committed to helping in that effort and creating new opportunities for contractors because ultimately they're going to add what their workforce, so you have my word that they'll continue to track this and inform you as progress is being made.

So, first of all, agreed, but Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, what I would add is timing is everything. And this December, the Transportation Commission will be starting its strategic planning process. So the timing of this question is ideal. And at the same time, Secretary Omishakin for CalSTA will be starting their strategic planning process in December as well. And these are the type of issues that we need to look at.

As Commissioner Norton shared with our Equity Advisory Committee that we formed last year that is up and running, that is adding value already in just numerous ways to our work and to our outreach to more communities throughout the state that we would not always hear from unless we're intentional about it, they will be a part of that strategic planning process as well. So I won't add more. I think my colleagues covered it well, but the timing is excellent.

Thank you so much and looking forward to your confirmation today.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And welcome, Members. I'm really excited to have you here. So I'm going to begin first with the Goods Movement question in the Inland Empire. So 40% of the goods that arrive at the ports of LA and Long Beach travel through the Inland Empire. Forty percent. Adding to the traffic congestion, and you can imagine the impact that it has on our roadways.

How do we make sure that transportation funding and policies are flexible so that local transportation agencies can implement projects that meet the needs of their communities while managing the flow of goods movement traffic?

Who would you like to start?

How about Ms. Norton? Ladies first.

Well, thank you. Appreciate that. Well, I think it's a fantastic question and we know that the Inland Empire has been really ground zero of a lot of the impacts related to Goods Movement and the opportunity.

And so we are taking seriously SB 671 about moving our goods movement corridors to zero mission and how are we addressing the infrastructure that it will take to make sure that the investments are going to track as we're going to the Inland Empire and all of our major goods movement corridors around the state. The 710 and that corridor is one of the six major corridors that are in SB 671.

And this is a process where we are working with Secretary Omishakin, we're working with Director Tavares, and we're also working with CARB and the private sector to identify some of the impacts that are happening in these communities and how we address them by moving more quickly to zero mission.

We are as a state awaiting with the CARB partner, awaiting the Hydrogen ARCHES project and the possibility of having 1.2 billion dollars in money that can go throughout the state to look at moving to hydrogen or moving to EV. We had a great presentation by Dr. Ray Wolfe about the first hydrogen locomotive engine that is happening in the Inland Empire. We again talk about this opportunity for innovation, but it can only happen in partnership with communities.

And so I think what we have really enjoyed is the opportunity to listen, to listen to communities that are saying, 'here's what's happening, here's how we're being impacted. Here are the ways in which this is a challenge for us.' We are spending so much time out in communities listening. I was there when Director Omishakin was able to give grants for the ports and look at helping to green the ports.

And now we see that SB 671 process as helping to continue the job to make sure that our goods movement networks are positive for our economy, but also positive for our sustainability and positive for our communities.

And we continue to look forward to the opportunities to work with the Legislature and our regions to address the opportunities for expansion of our Goods Movement, but to do so with the most clean and efficient ways to keep those jobs flowing, but also to look at those innovations so that we can have the community benefits occur at the same time.

Thank you.

May I?

Mr. Guardino? Yes, absolutely.

Thank you, Senator. I'm so glad you asked this question because as you said, not only do 40 percent of the goods that come into the ports of LA and Los Angeles flow through the Inland Empire, but 40 percent of all goods that come into America come in through the ports of LA and Long Beach. And that is just amazing because it then all flows on our roads or on our railroad tracks through your communities to serve our country, not just our state.

So as I look at how we can play a role working with you, the Administration, and through our state and regional agency partners, those nine major funding categories that I mentioned, several fall into how we can make sure that as we serve communities but also travel through those communities, that we are doing everything we can to strengthen those communities. So in this alone, we have our trade corridor funds, which is a major funding source of those nine.

We have our shop funds for when there's damage done to our highway system. We have our State Transportation Improvement Program funds, or STIP funds that each county receives on a formulaic basis. We have our self-help counties, and in the LA Long Beach region, pretty much every county is a self-help county. You have taxed yourselves, usually at a two thirds threshold for improvements in your area, and that also draws down state local partnership funds, both formulaic and competitive.

So we have a great opportunity to make sure we're meeting the needs of those communities that are bearing the brunt of the Goods Movement coming.

If we're really thoughtful about it, and we engage the communities, as immediate past Chair Norton said, the Commission has really changed in good ways and it's always been good. So please don't get me wrong, but 17 years ago when I came on and we would have about 72 day hearings a year, six of the seven would be in Sacramento. 39 million Californians in our hearings were all here. It's now flipped.

Six out of seven of our two day hearings every year are outside of Sacramento in the communities that we want to hear from and that we want to serve. In addition to that, we have four two-day town halls every year in even more remote and usually rural parts of our state so that we are hearing from those citizens and residents and employers and stakeholders, and going on tours to see what they need to fund to make their communities better.

I so appreciate that feedback. Thank you very much for making us as well as the public aware of those efforts. Very helpful.

Thank you.

I appreciate the question and my colleagues did a great job of sort of detailing what the Commission was working on to improve goods movement in California. I know this issue pretty well. I do believe that the goods movement sector in California is vital. I know we're creating a lot of good opportunities and jobs in the Empire, in the Central Valley, and those folks have historically driven into the LA Basin and driven into the Bay Area.

Now they have jobs that are close to home, which obviously helps with our air quality issues. In order to keep California the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world, we have to ensure that we're making the investments not just to green and clean our fleet, but also looking at congestion improvements, looking at to build on some maybe truck-only lanes that can get those goods and supply chain issues sort of worked out.

I'm totally a big proponent of building in that industry, but also I understand some of the air quality challenges that we have to address. And we do hear those in our town hall meetings, and we do take those in consideration and prioritize our investments, keeping the economy strong, but also doing our best to tackle our environmental issues to ensure that people who live in those communities are safe long term.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate those insights. So I'm debating on my active transportation question, which I posed earlier and my other, but I think I'm going to go with the other one really quick. So I've been hearing concerns about Caltrans practice of bundling several transportation projects into one and putting this mega project out to bid. While I support the idea behind the efforts to create savings in our precious transportation dollars, I'm a very frugal person both personally and professionally.

I'm concerned over how this project bundling could prevent smaller contractors, such as a disabled veteran or disadvantaged owned contractors from bidding on larger projects because they don't have the bonding capacity. So what are your thoughts on Project Bundling and the unintended effect or impact that it has in preventing smaller contractors, such as the disabled veterans or disadvantaged owned contractors, from bidding on the larger projects because they don't have that bonding capacity?

Did you direct it to someone?

Would anyone like to take the lead? How about Mr. Cruz?

Yeah, appreciate the question. And I really think you have to evaluate these sort of big projects on a project by project basis. I think there is some value in having bigger projects bundled together. If it's a design build type project, where you have one contractor who comes in and who has expertise building these type of project; if it's a bridge project or it's a large transit project, there is some value with experience.

But I am also, and I alluded to this earlier, is: if we're going to give women, minority-owned, veterans an opportunity, there has to be a set-aside for some smaller contracts that allows them to compete. Because you can only compete if you have some experience, and if you don't have the experience with one of these smaller contractors, you'll never compete for a large contractor for a large contract.

So there should be a look at some opportunities where we can break these contracts up to allow a level playing field to compete for contractors. So I agree with you, and I am frugal both professionally and personally. You can ask my wife. So I do come to the CTC with, like I said, a bottom-up approach where I really want to look at value too, because taxpayer dollars are not infinite, as we know, and the gas tax is a diminishing source of revenue.

So I bring that value with me as well in trying to get the most bang for our taxpayer dollars.

Senator, your question underscores that nuance matters. But first of all, as Commissioner Cruz said, I can identify with how you described yourself as frugal. I call myself frugal because I'm being kind to myself. My wife calls me cheap. But my philosophy is be frugal with taxpayer dollars. I can be generous with my own. And we're talking about taxpayer dollars here, and to the tune of roughly 10 billion a year.

On the specifics of your question and why nuances matter, there will be circumstances where larger projects are going to have more efficiencies of scale for the delivery of that project and the price to California taxpayers for those improvements to go forward.

But a lot of the time, as you have indicated, there are opportunities that we need to make sure that we have as a part of our process, that Caltrans has a part of their process for minority-owned businesses, women-owned businesses, veteran-owned businesses, disabled-owned businesses, et cetera. So that they also have a chance to contribute to our state and help build our economy, while they're building their business and their brand to be able to do bigger projects in the future.

One thing I've known about every large company--and I come from Silicon Valley and a background of the innovation economy--is every large employer started as a small employer.

So just to wrap up: am I to understand that there has been conversations at the board level with regards to ensuring that you give opportunities to these smaller contractors in these projects?

Yes. But not enough, is my point of view, Commissioner.

Yes. I also wanted to thank you for raising this because again, these opportunities, when you give us this feedback, this sends reverberations throughout the state about what the focus is and what we need to focus on. And beyond what Vice Chair Guardino had said about the town halls and the meetings we have, we also have workshops where we're working with CalSTA and Caltrans, and finding out the best practices for project delivery and what we can do to not only use taxpayer dollars well, but also to move towards empowering women contractors, empowering minority and small contractors, and to look at the potential for these larger bids as having apprenticeship opportunities.

How can we make sure that people are going to learn from these larger bids or break up in smaller bids so that people have this track record that they can use to grow? And so I think this is really an important opportunity and one that we should be working on for more of those workshops to start having those metrics and to look at: what's the experience with the smaller companies when we give smaller companies a chance, what are they doing? Are they hiring more people locally?

We have those opportunities. And I think that's been a great education, not only for ourselves, but post COVID more people have been able to participate in our hearings, in our workshops, because they're all public and they can do so electronically. And so we have been really educating ourselves and educating the state as to best practices and community benefits.

And this is a workshop we need to take back to our CTC and say, "let's dedicate a workshop specifically to this," and how we're going to do more and do better. I think this is a great idea and I want to thank you for raising it.

And two sentences that I would add. Leadership matters. And right now we have leader at Caltrans in Tony Tavares and at CalSTA in Toks Omishakin, where their servant leadership styles and their desire to continue to move their agencies forward for the betterment of our state are something that we should not lose sight of in terms of their willingness to champion efforts like this.

Very excited to hear your comments and your insights and your plan of action is moving forward. So thank you very much for that time.

I'm just going to plant the seed and if you would like to reach out to our office with a response--and it has to do with the active transportation bikes and whether or not the program can help local projects with the mitigation funding for the environmental mitigation issues that we may have on some of these projects in our region. So just funding the seat. But thank you very much, and thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for meeting with me yesterday. I appreciated the time that you gave me, or Monday. I think my days are running together, so I apologize for that. I do appreciate the time we had together and the questions that I was able to bring to your attention. I would be remiss if I did not start off by thanking Tony Tavares, the Director, what an incredible--I agree with you on leadership.

He's one of the first people that understood that we're just not Kern County. Right? We are a corridor of East West transportation through 58. And when 99 goes down, everybody comes over 58. And if 58 is not adequately paved, and we don't have truck climbing lanes, there is backup for miles.

And some of those semi trucks to meet their deadlines go through 178 in the canyon, which is not a good thing because they're going off the edge, into the river, because there's no capacity for lane for wider trucks there. So, again, the director's response to the flooding in my district and making sure that those isolated communities that are rural, that have one way in and one way out, they immediately got on it. And I'm not saying he prioritized us over Los Angeles or someplace else.

I just think he really understood that we pay taxes, too, even though we don't have the population and we have larger land mass. But our roads and infrastructure are key arteries to this state, and our communities are left isolated with no access to anything if some of these roads and bridges are not repaired. So I'd like to say thank you to that. I do want to focus on a couple of questions that we talked about yesterday.

One of those questions is the challenges of transitioning to just electric vehicles only. And the reason why I asked that question is because, obviously, the conversation that we had earlier with CARB, I represent an area that has charging stations connected to I-5 and 99. But when you go inland anywhere in the area: east to Ridgecrest; east to Trona; east, or west for that matter, to the coast, we have very few charging stations. And so I want to know about connectivity and charger stations and infrastructure.

And then I also want to know about vehicles mild traveled, how you anticipate that will affect mostly rural communities? Obviously, I represent rural communities, and my hugest concern is that taxes will be levied on a very small population in my district where you have adequate infrastructure and adequate public transportation in Los Angeles, San Francisco and areas like appreciate I don't want to say I'm going to limit my questions from you, Joseph. Mr. Cruz, you're pro build. You're pro infrastructure.

You want to make sure California has the strongest policies or infrastructure packages out there. You're pro economic development. You're pro business. And so I don't want to say I know what your responses are going to be and I support you, but with limited time, I'd like to focus those two questions on the other two individuals, if that's okay with you.

Fine with me.

I'm also pro transit.

Okay.

Yeah, you are pro transit, but you are definitely indebted to your wife tonight, and I haven't forgot that. Okay.

Yeah. You're going to find out that the couch isn't as comfortable as you thought.

It was, Joe, so I'll start with Mr. Garadino.

Happy to do so. Thank you. Vice Chairgrove on EV transition and very few charging stations in portions of our state. You're right, and we recently passed funds to have more charging stations in California, but it's still a challenge and we need to incentivize the placement of charging stations where we can. It's fascinating. This past year, one out of four new cars sold in California were EVs. It is a transition that is happening and we have to do our best to plan for it.

Recognizing, as you have appropriately pointed out, that the sales of those cars will probably be disproportionately in our more urban areas than in our rural areas and in some of our tribal areas as well. So how do we account for that as we do so? So, one, to be sensitive to it and to recognize it in terms of the VMT vehicle miles traveled, we were able to share with you a bit on Monday and thank you for that opportunity.

And I shared with you my father strapped a tool belt around his waist for 40 years and the day I was born, he was 2 hours away at a job site and that was a two hour truck trip with his toolbox in that truck. And there was really no choice in that profession, certainly then in many cases now to jump on transit or any other option.

And when we are looking at vehicle miles traveled, we have to be sensitive to how that falls on people in our state. At the same time, here's that balance with inflation going in one direction and our funds from gas tax going in the other direction. But our transportation needs still very real. How are we going to make a transition that is at least revenue neutral as we continue to Fund the transportation needs of 39 million very diverse Californians?

And in my written response to you all, I likened it to one of my favorite movies that I watched with my son, raiders of the Lost Ark. And that initial scene where he's going to grab the gold idol. But he has to grab it in such a way that the bag of sand in his hand is going to be the same balance or everything is going to collapse around him.

And it's similar as we make a transition from what we know by the data, is a dwindling source of revenue. But as we make a transition to new sources and I'll use plural of revenue to meet our needs, one, how are we squeezing the most of every taxpayer dollar that we can because we deserve that as Californians? And two, how do we recognize that it will have a different type of impact on Californians based on their income, their jobs and their geography?

So we have to be very careful as we make that transition in several different ways. It's. Why? In response to legislation that was passed and signed by Senator Wiener about how we make that transition, that our road charge task force is making recommendations on a pilot so that we can examine through a pilot how we best make this transition of the gold statue and the bag of sand in a way that we're not collapsing the roof on Californians.

Commissioner Norton?

Yes. Thank you. Vice Chair Guardino, I think you raise a really good point and I want to thank you for the conversation that we had about the move to electric vehicles and the concerns about the move to electric vehicles, the cobalt issues. You raised some really good points that we went and watched those documentaries, which were harrowing. Senator Bradford's resolution on the importance of having looking at the humanitarian issues as we move to make these transitions is so, so important.

As the former chair of the BizFed, which is the California Business Federation, I focus a lot on what can we do to both invest in our infrastructure, but to make sure that we are economy forward. And I think this is one of the things that, as we look at this transition and we look at the VMT fees and some of these other, that we want to still focus on the economy forward, how does this impact communities different, how does this impact rural communities differently?

We hear a lot from our Members like Jay Bradshaw and CTC, that the supercommuters are the people that are the union Members that are traveling with their trucks that are not going to be able to necessarily make all of the transition easily. But I think the other thing that we are looking at is that as we're looking at our ten year plan and thinking about where the gaps are, this is the opportunity to talk about those gaps.

That we want to make sure that if there are not enough chargers in part of the state that we fix those gaps. That as we position ourselves to make the most of the opportunities to leverage our state funds with our federal funds. How do we fix those gaps?

And so we really appreciate the conversations that we've had with you about where are the places in the states that aren't getting what is needed, that need to catch up, that need to be invested in more than some of the urban areas? Because those needs are there and the gaps are there.

So I think it's very important to look at, as Vice Chair Guardino was saying, that right now we are using our SB 1 funds and they are predominantly being paid by people who drive gas-powered vehicles. We want to have the EV sector pay its freight because our vehicles are heavier, our vehicles have more impact.

But we also need to look at what is the right way that we are balancing those payments so that we can ensure that the funds that are going through SB 1 are balancing out the needs for where the gaps are so that every part of California can make that captive transition that was envisioned by Governor Newsom and Legislature. How do we do that? Where do we do that as part of how we're going to execute SB 1121?

And we really appreciate the fact that it's a listening process, it's a gaps analysis, but it's also an investment and a leveraging opportunity that we're looking forward to doing together.

Thank you. I appreciate both of your responses. And I know we had Joe's response yesterday, Monday, which was similar. I agree. I mean, if you're a welder, you can't put a welding machine that comes off the back of your truck on a train, and then the train's not going to stop at the project--and how do you get it to the project?

So I appreciate that you understand the issues that we're facing when we see these plans come out in the Central Valley or in rural communities--let's just say everything east of San Francisco and Los Angeles, basically--we see these plans come out and we're like, that just does not work on the ground for us. So I appreciate that. I appreciate the question that I had next was what you just brought up.

I talked to you about sourcing ethical energy sources, ethical lithium, ethical cobalt, all these things that are ethical. And I appreciate the fact that you guys looked at the information that I sent you and where we source this information and looking at Senator Bradford's resolution about the basic slave labor that is going on in the Democrat Republic of the Congo and the child labor laws that are violated.

Mr. Cruz is standing here and there's no one in California that has labor protections or environmental protections like we do in our state where we as legislators oversee the process. And so I just would like your comments on the record regarding the ethical sourcing of not only our energy, but where we're going in this process for electrical vehicles and where we get our cobalt from. Yes, Joe? Excuse me, sorry. I apologize, Mr. Cruz.

No, I appreciate the question and I appreciate you bringing this up and highlighting the horrors that are going on in Africa in mining the cobalt. And I did mention to, you know, no business in California would obviously use any of those sort of work tactics. But I'm also excited, and I talked to you about this, about the lithium and geothermal extraction that can take place in California.

Because if we really want to live up to this whole idea of a just transition as we ramp down our fossil fuel consumption, these are the type of jobs that we can pivot to for a lot of folks in California. But also, you mentioned to some possibilities in Kern County doing the same thing. We have to cultivate and help develop California manufacturing of these materials. And the lithium is a good start.

And I think the work we're doing in the Salton Sea, some of the conversations that we're having in Sutter County, and then hopefully we can build on some of the success in Kern County, to create these opportunities which go back to good paying jobs--middle class jobs--but also ensuring that we do have a source of lithium to meet our EV deployment demands moving forward.

But what you showed me and what I've seen online as far as the cobalt was really surprising, shocking, and something that should never happen anywhere.

Well, I appreciate that and I appreciate you thinking about when we talk about just transitions. My position is that I believe that we are doing a transition. We're just transitioning to foreign countries to provide us the oil, which is out of your purview, I get that. But it's a transition that is taking place where we're using foreign nations to provide us the oil that we use for our transportation industries.

But I appreciate you bringing up the fact that you looked at that information, because I think that's very important. Those kids in the cobalt industry in the Republic of the Congo don't have Cal/OSHA, don't have oversight, and there's still people making money on that. And Californians purchasing those products that are coming from unethical sources is something that I really want you all to focus on, and I appreciate you doing so. Would you like to respond?

I'd love to, Senator Grove. Thank you. Harrowing was the only word I could think of when you shared with us on Monday and directed us to read Senator Bradford's SCR 24 and to watch that video. So, first of all, thank you that SCR 24 is moving because sunlight on these issues matters a lot. But as you read SCR 24, as we all know, that is non-binding. It directs the Legislature to pass laws.

It is not a law, but to pass laws that halt the importation of cobalt or any product using cobalt mined in Africa using child slave labor and to encourage the production of cobalt and other critical minerals ethically sourced from within the United States. So as a citizen of California, I will be looking forward to legislative vehicles that actually move that forward.

It's coming.

Good, because I'm a father of three children.

But even if I didn't have any children, to watch what we watched--how children on this planet are being mistreated and abused--we just cannot allow that. The good--and I think it's tremendous--that comes from cleaner emission vehicles we must pursue while concurrently not allowing--I'll just say it--evil practices to arrive at those good results. We have to do both.

Thank you.

I really couldn't add much more to my colleagues because we had a great discussion the other day. I think it's very, very important that we are looking at our complete supply chain and the complete manufacturing chain and making sure that those human elements are part of California's goal of making sure that our manufacturing sector comes back and that we don't have any element of how we're delivering our mobility that involves slave labor, that involves unethical practices.

And so I agree with Vice Chair Guardino, that as we look at SCR 24 and future legislation that we support making sure that every element of this chain, as we are moving towards a more equitable and environmentally sustainable infrastructure and transportation network and ecosystem, that it also involves the highest humanitarian labor practices.

So you have us all on the record saying that we want to support that, we want to invest in that, and to look at not only our state funds but how we can encourage federal funding to do the same. And we really appreciate that you brought this very harrowing issue up to us and gave us the opportunity to educate ourselves on those issues.

Well, thank you very much. And there is legislation coming hopefully within the next year or next year. Just on the record for me, I want you guys to know that when you talk about transitioning off of the oil industry: the oil industry provides 55% of people of color jobs. 48% of them are second chancers. They don't have to have a college degree. They make almost $80,000 a year, which is a very good wage.

And I can tell you when you transition them off of these jobs and you're not ready for them to be employed someplace else, I don't need another Dollar Tree or an Amazon in my district. No offense to those two industries. But you don't make that kind of resources. You don't have the benefits that you get with the oil industry that provide people jobs.

And so I appreciate you putting on the record my concerns with the ethical sources of our energy and I thank you very much and I look forward to your confirmation.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Laird.

thank you very much. And this has been a long discussion. And most of the things I would want to talk about have been asked. And I have one question I'll ask the three of you, but I have a couple of observations that I can't resist. And one is this: poor Commissioner Cruz. Because not even what we know in my eyesight, right behind you was your brother. He just left a little while ago. And you said in your opening comments, I would like to thank my brothers and sisters.

And I could see him puff up. And then you said 70,000 strong of Iluna and it was, here, he's coming back to comment. So that was just a wonderful moment. And the way it's going, if you need a ride home, any of us will help you. The other thing with Commissioner Guardino too. One, you and I had an ongoing exchange about Self-Help counties, because it made me crazy that one of my counties, 40 years ago did a sales tax for transit.

And then we were always shorted as not being a Self-Help county. We had to wait till we finally passed one for roads and stuff, but always an issue. But the other thing is I just wanted to call you out in a good way because in your four terms, you have taken it upon yourself to recognize that you represent the Greater South Bay Area.

And there's not a time that there's a project that is in the Santa Cruz Mountains or into the Monterey Bay where I and other elected officials don't get a text or an email from you saying, "this is on the agenda, this is coming up, do you have any comments, just highlighting you." And that is a unique form of representation, and I just want to thank you for it.

And so my question is--and I did have the opportunity to just be on a trip with Commissioner Cruz and his wife and so I felt a little more comfort about poking fun because he and I married the same person, and I would be walking home right now. And the thing is, we had a chance to talk and I think I've talked with Carl.

And here's the opportunity for the third, but when we had the atmospheric rivers earlier this year--and I apologize to my colleagues because I brought this up with the Caltrans Director and others in hearings, they've heard it. We had a problem and the transportation infrastructure was slammed, and some of it still is. I can't believe we're going to go into the next winter with the highway and Big Sur still not being reopened, but it needs to be safe.

But the real issue is that some of our infrastructure is old and it was not built with the idea of resilience in mind. And the story I keep using and talked to Commissioner Cruz about it on our trip was that when we had the 100 year storm decades ago, 75 foot redwood trees came down the river in Santa Cruz, and they battered down a bridge because all the bridges were straight across the river from the levees.

And then we, at the city, over the next ten years arched each of the four city bridges so that wouldn't happen, it didn't happen in these storms, but who didn't do it? A Caltrans that has the first bridge when you hit the city limits. And so when the first two atmospheric rivers came in, Highway 1 was closed for two days while they had cranes removing the debris and then they couldn't keep up with twelve storms, so it flooded back into a residential neighborhood.

It happened in downtown Soquel where flooded back and mudded out a mobile home park. And Capitola got all the news for the fact that they lost restaurants and their wharf went down and other things. But the flood against their bridge, also an old one that was flat across, didn't knock it out, but it structurally weakened it. We put money in the budget to work on that.

One of you mentioned, I think, Highway 37 to the north of the San Francisco Bay Area, and the estimates are between one and $2 billion. It has flooded and closed for weeks on end multiple times in recent winters on the San Rafael side. And one proposal is to have a causeway. That's why it's a billion dollar, but it's a major commute artery.

So right now, if you look at the state funding system where you approve the projects, these resilience projects to fight against storms and flooding compete against everything else--that is, highway widening or whatever. And to Caltrans' credit, there has now been a billion dollar fund to start incenting projects and not have them compete.

But as I said in one of these hearings, we have 40 Senate districts and my Senate district could use every dollar of that billion and we have 39 others that have to do it. So this infrastructure was built in another climate, but we are now living in a different climate that interacts differently with the infrastructure. How do you look through this lens in what you do? That's my one question. And I will start with Commissioner Cruz and just work our way down.

Thank you. Senator, you bring up some very important issues with regards to climate resiliency, adaptation, and the struggles a lot of our coastal communities are having during heavy rains. We even seen this more recently with SR 58 and mudslides and flooding just last week. So this problem isn't restricted to just coastal communities. It I think there's some discussion now as to how we fund these type of projects moving forward.

I think there's a real discussion on my potential climate bond that could have funding to fast-track and prioritize these type of projects where we can prevent disasters from happening further because it obviously costs a lot more money to fix a bridge than to repair a bridge and make it more climate resilient. But I think there's some flexible dollars with IAJ more recently on the federal side that we can leverage to move these type of projects.

But I also want to bring up one other issue when it comes to these type of projects. And we've seen this more recently as far as climate change is ensuring that these thoroughfares are, a lot of them are evacuation routes as well. We have to protect and strengthen these roads and highways in case of these type of emergencies. We've seen what happened in Paradise and we've seen the tragedies in Hawaii more recently when those evacuation routes weren't strengthened and improved.

So I would like to work with you to try to identify a new source of revenue, look at opportunities within SB 1 as far as the flexibility to prioritize these projects. And I also am working with some local self-help county folks to look at opportunities to generate new dollars aimed specifically at climate resiliency in the state. So I hope I answered the best I could, but very well, thank you.

Very much Senator Laird, thanks for raising this. And I'd like to form my answer with four very quick examples because the hour is late and I want to be sensitive to all your time and all that you have to do. And one is very close to you on Wharf Road near the lighthouse where the road is going right into the sea. And what do we do about that?

Well, one source of funds that we have, and it is a new funding program for the California Transportation Commission is the Local Transportation Climate Adaptation Program. Not a lot of money, 400 million. And projects were due at the end of August so that we can start considering them. But it is for climate resilience and I am eager to see which communities are seeking those funds so that we can work on climate adaptation and resilience.

Because it's not only the beautiful Wharf Road in Santa Cruz by the lighthouse, the Losan Corridor, the train, Los Angeles, San Diego, that we had to have an emergency meeting this year to allocate more funds because it's falling into the sea and you can see pictures not over centuries or decades, but just in years and months. How that's happening? And it's very real. Vice Chair Grove brought again to our attention, as Commissioner Cruz mentioned, 58 and 99.

Unfortunately, we have a wonderful federal infusion of funds to help address this, but we have to be good partners and we have to be flexible in doing so to meet the need and to meet the moment. So while there's about 400 million allocated in federal funds, thank you, Congress, for doing that. We have 25 million that we can't wait and wait to deliver. So, Senator Grove, I did my homework since Monday.

That will be on our agenda at our October CTC meeting for 25 million in state funds so that we can keep that moving. That 400 million for those improvements on 58 and 99. So that's three examples. And then I'll go to the other one, which is you mentioned State Route 37, which is above the Bay, for those of you not as familiar with the Bay Area, because by 2040, it is expected that State Route 37 is going to be underwater.

And what do we do about that? And that's why the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, another one of our stakeholder partners, has been working closely with us about how do you generate funds for those improvements.

On I think you take it from the highway 99 project. She teed it up to me privately. Keep going. Sorry to interrupt.

No, that's okay. But it's another example. How are we going to manufacture money to meet the needs that we have in just these four examples of corridors? Well, Metropolitan Transportation Commission has come up with a plan that includes adding a lane. It will be a toll lane, but keeping an HOV lane free of charge and adding transit to that HOV lane as well.

Tolling in both directions, because just tolling in one direction, as they had initially planned, would have penalized poorer community members coming from our East Bay to work for the rich folks in the Marin County area. Instead, cut the toll in half and toll in both directions so that everyone using that corridor.

Well, as a native as a native of Vallejo, which is the poor side of that, yes, if anybody from Vallejo is watching this conversation right now, my phones are going to ring off the hook. So the working class side should not be taxed the same way as Marin.

Exactly. So the less financially blessed side, just looking at the demographics, at 1.0, the toll was only going to be in that direction for those improvements because of the climate adaptation that we need.

In any event, let me thank you for your answer because we're running White and you were very complete and we appreciate it. And I don't know if you had anything that didn't get said that you wanted to make sure got in.

Just a few things. One is, I think we have to realize that these 13 atmospheric rivers that we had this year are going to be part of the future. That this is not a freak set of storms, that these are potentially, for us, a water almost harvest season. And what people don't realize is that nearly a billion dollars of our highway funds, our shop funds, go towards water issues on our freeways and getting the water off of our freeways.

And I helped organize a meeting with some of the water agencies and Caltrans and Director Tavares has really been an extraordinary leader in this regard, really understanding how to prepare for and address storms. I truly appreciate your point about the bowed rather than flat bridges and looking at design issues as well as just preparation, because as someone whose grandmother was a civil engineer and father is an electrical engineer, engineering and how we build back better is going to help us as we adapt to climate as well.

But I think something that was very well said when we had this meeting regarding what to do about the future of keeping water as an opportunity to reuse it, to use it as vegetation along our corridors as well. Mike Keever said something really brilliant, which was, Caltrans sees water as a nuisance, but the water agencies see it as a resource.

How do we do better to look at the ecosystem and work on our whole of government approach so that we can take these atmospheric river seasons and have not only be the preparation for our infrastructure, but to look at the water as a resource and start thinking about how we're spending our highway money to make sure we're preserving the water, not letting it go back into the ocean, and to see it as an opportunity to have that virtuous cycle and to keep our climate adaptation really moving together.

So I really appreciate you bringing this issue up to think about how we're going to be forward looking. And again, how do we build these into our plans for how we're going to spend our money and how we're going to bring in the whole of the state government to look at climate adaptation and readiness as we work in this new world order where we have atmospheric rivers, hurricanes named after me, hurricane Hillary.

We need to think about how these things affect our state and how we can be prepared for them. And I wanted to give you that before you teased me about it, but that's okay.

I think there's at least two Members of the committee thought it was named after another Hilary. Thank you very much. Really appreciate your thoughtful responses. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Well, I would just say a lot of ground covered. What's interesting to me is all of the effort and work we've done to create resources, money, SB 1, and obviously with IIJA, an additional 9.5 billion over the next five years. All of those things, all of that money. I never thought being in government for 22 years, City Council, local appreciate some of that money goes to the local jurisdictions. We spend all of our time trying to figure out how to make our roads better.

And I love the comment about how you're looking at water and how much you spend to get water off roads because we are not going to have enough money to do this work. And I never thought I would see the day that billions of dollars and we think we don't have enough resources. It just is mind boggling.

So if we don't figure out how to do it better, build back better, build better, if we don't figure out how to use the skill sets of engineers and others that are going to and the people who are going to build it, we're never going to keep up. I appreciate, Mr. Guardino, that you obviously mentioned our rail lawn in San Diego. We don't have high-speed rail coming all the way down to us. That is our one rail line. It is the second busiest.

We all have our talking points, second busiest in the country and yet it's very close to the edge. And what would we do if we didn't have that for goods movement, for military mission, for all the things. But I'm actually glad you mentioned 99 because when I'm not on the airplane, I take 99 and there is one stretch of 99 that I'm like, how long have I been driving back and forth? When I do drive, that needs to be fixed. So we've got lots of issues.

We've got lots of infrastructure that needs to be built better and more technologically sound and we do not have enough money. So I do think how we spend it better and get better and more efficient at these projects is going to be critical. So your tenure of your I know that when the Governor appointed you, Ms. Norton, it was I need some fresh thinking here to go along with the commitment and certainly your role. The intersection of all three of what you bring to this is critically important.

So I think it's been a really good discussion and I appreciate it and thank you for your service. And with that, we cannot leave the public out of this discussion. And I want to welcome people who are here. We're going to start right here in room 2200 for individuals in support your name, your title or organization, if any, and whether you support one, all three, please welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Pro Tem. Keith Dunn, Executive Director of the Self Help Counties Coalition, also here representing the District Council of Ironworkers. I'm here in support of all three commissioners. They all do bring a unique skill set. Pleased to support them all. I'm not going to pile on to my good friend Mr. Cruz. If you want more information, talk to me later. He did forget Noah and Sarah and not to say that piling on, but I guess I am.

I would like to say, though, from a Self Help County perspective, we are thrilled to have Santa Cruz as a Member of the Self Help Counties Coalition and thrilled to have you and your constituents as a part of us. We are funding partners. We work directly with the CTC commissioners and staff. Their staff is fantastic. That partnership brings $5 billion annually to contribute to what the CTC oversees and funds.

And that partnership is a direct reflection of the values that your communities have entrusted all of us with to deliver the infrastructure that they need. So it's a great partnership. It's one that continues. These commissioners do an excellent job of communicating back with your committee, and their staff does a great job of supporting them. And I highly encourage your support of all these nominees.

Thank you so much. Welcome here.

Madam Chair Chris McCauly. On behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, LA Metro strongly endorses all three. Ms. Norton became chair during COVID and immediately understood a lot of the complexities of the funding transportation schemes in this state. Mr. Guardino, of course, has been a transportation leader for a long time, and Mr. Cruz continues to be an excellent representative of both labor, but also a lot of the beleaguered transportation users in this state. So we encourage your support of all three of them. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good afternoon. My name is Mark Watts representing Transportation California, one of the sponsors of SB one way back when. And we're here today on behalf of all three candidates before you. Mr. Cruz has been well-indoctrinated in our industry and has collaborated with our folks for decades, it seems like. Mr. Guardino, we go back ways, don't we? So thank you for your service. And Commissioner Norton, I look forward to continue to work with you. I would add that the representative from ACEC, the engineering folks, had to leave, so he asked me to express their support as well. So it's across the board, all kinds of industries. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the committee, Manny Leon from the California Alliance for Jobs. We want to just echo the comments of Mr. Watts right in front of me. And we also want to express our strong support for Mr. Joe Cruz as well. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Hi. Welcome. Madam Chair Members. Beverly Yu on behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council of California. We are in strong support of Mr. Cruz, his reappointment to the Transportation Commission. He has demonstrated leadership in the transportation infrastructure space for many years, and he is a champion for working families. For these reasons, we urge your support for this confirmation today.

Thank you. Welcome back.

Thank you. Madam Chair, P. Anthony Thomas, senior Vice President of Government Affairs for the California Building Industry Association. On behalf of CBIA, we want to express our collective support of Joe Cruz to the California Transportation Commission. Joe has been a staunch servant for the working middle class, and I know he'll bring that same passion to the commission. A sharp young man, supports California's infrastructure and a good business partner as well. Now, I'm not sure how he's going to fare tonight with his wife.

I'm going to remove myself from that. And Joe, you're on your own. Don't be frugal tonight. But with that, Madam Chair, we also want to say to my adopted state Senator, Shannon Grove, thank you very much for your service. Really appreciate it. And we ask for your support for Joe Cruz for his nomination. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Stephanie Estrada on behalf of the California Business Properties Association and strong support to the confirmation of Joe Cruz to the California Transportation Commission. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, madam. Thank you, Madam. President Todd Blumstein, representing the Southern California Contractors Association in support of all three appointees, in particular, Mr. Joe Cruz, who represents the labor side of my client. We represent management. They're signatory to the laborers. Let me say, Mr. Cruz is an exceptional collaborator. He brings together folks from labor management, the state as well, to talk about on a regular monthly basis, to talk about enforcement and the underground economy. He'll serve the state very, very well. So we appreciate support for all three candidates, in particular, Mr. Cruz. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hi. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Senator Atkins and Committee Members. Tim Carmichael with the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. We're a coalition of very large employers and labor unions working together on environmental policy here in California. Here today to support Commissioner Cruz's appointment to the CTC. Very much appreciated and agree with Senator Grove's assessment of Mr. Cruz and for all of those reasons, think he will be a great addition to the Transportation Commission.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Madam Chair Members, Bret Barrow with the United Contractors here in strong support of the confirmation of Commissioner Cruz. He is both a colleague and a friend. He is very knowledgeable, experienced and professional. I think he would be a great addition to the CTC Commission. So for that, I urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Can you speak last? I'm sorry, she is not yet called opposition.

Very astute, Senator Grove, but Steve Cruz with Cruz Strategies. And I'm the deprived of attention, younger brother of Commissioner Cruz, but in the official capacity, representing the Southern California Association of Government and proud to support all three commissioners and their appointment reappointment. And you couldn't listen to this hearing today without really coming away.

And I think Pro Tem Atkins, you said it with a great deal of sort of confidence of the unique and different perspectives that they each bring and their ability to build and maintain our systems while doing so while uplifting workers and the environment. So it's just really talented. Incredible group of folks. And again, just on a personal note, very proud and happy for my brother.

I know that he's really put in a lot of work to get here, super dedicated to his Members, and I know he's made a lot of sacrifices and so really excited for him and proud to be here today to speak in support.

Thank you, that's very nice. Let me ask if there's anyone in room 2200 that will wish to speak in opposition. Anyone to speak in opposition? Okay, I think you're safe to go home. Tonight. I will turn to our moderator who's been waiting patiently, welcome her back and let the public know that we will take your name, your organization, if any, and your support or opposition for any of the conferris. But no extra remarks at this time in the interest of time. But Madam Moderator, will you tee people up to speak?

Thank you. If you have a comment, you may press one, then zero. We will go to line 16.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange. On behalf of CalTrain, in support of all three candidates, but in particular, our very own Carl Guardino very much appreciate you all moving his nomination forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next witness.

Hi. This is Wendy Reynolds. On behalf of California Advisors, for our client, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, we express support on behalf of all three candidates, Cruz, Guardino and Norton. And on behalf of our client, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, we want to express their support of Commissioner Guardino. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next witness, please, line 17.

Thank you very much. Well done. Next witness, line 20.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members. Michael Pimentel, Executive Director of the California Transit Association, here to show our support for the appointments of Commissioner Cruz, Guardino, and Norton and their friends of public Transit. Thank you.

Thank you. Line eleven.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Hassan Ikhrata. I express strong support for the three members and a very strong and appreciation for Hillary Norton.

Hello, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is David Grannis. I'm a private citizen and transportation consultant. And I just wanted to call in to express my strong support for my good friend, Hilary Norton.

Thank you so much. Next witness, line nine.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Victor Gordo. I'm the Mayor of the City of Pasadena, and originally I was here to support Hillary Norton and Joe Cruz. But I would say you have three very good candidates and it's a very good discussion. I thank you for your service.

Thank you so much. Other witnesses?

Thank you and Madam Chair, we have no further comments on the phone lines. Thank you so much for your service today and your patience. We greatly appreciate it.

Madam Chair, I'd move all three.

Thank you. Let me make sure I can do all three as one. Okay, the last speaker I thought that was really interesting, despite our fun and poking at each other. And Mr. Cruz, of course, I would have to say I thought it was an incredible discussion. And the last witness to say he called in support of one person and someone who has experience and yet decided he should speak in support of all three.

I think those are the kind of hearings we want to have, where there's enough information, elicited that gives people a view of who you are, who you intend to represent, and how you respond to our questions, which are not always easy to respond. Just thank you for the motion, Senator Laird. We are going to vote on all three individuals Mr. Cruz, Mr. Guardino, and Ms. Norton. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?

Laird aye. Laird. aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Grove. Aye. Grove aye. Atkins aye. Atkins aye. Five-to-zero.

Five-to-zero Thank you, and we will forward these to the full Senate, and we appreciate your service and your time and your commitment. Have a good evening. Enjoy dinner. Okay. This concludes the public portion of our agenda. I want to say thank you to all the individuals who participated in public testimony. If you weren't able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Rules Committee or visit our website for instructions.

Your comments and your suggestions are important to us. We want to make sure they're in included in the official hearing records. And with that, I want to thank everyone for your patience. The Senate Committee on Rules will now move to Executive Session.