Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the Committee website. Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. We will allow 2 minutes for each of the two primary witnesses in support and opposition. Additional witnesses comments will be limited to name, organization, and position. Finally, the Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to Committee and floor proceedings in the last few years.

Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited. Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening or abusive language, speaking longer than the time allotted, extended discussions of matters not related to the subject of the hearing, and other disruptive acts. To address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps.

If an individual disrupts our hearing process, I will direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruptions may result in removal from the building. I will also document on the record the individual involved and the nature of the disruptive conduct. I may temporarily recess the hearing. If the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the building. Thank you all for your cooperation.

Please note that assemblymember Ting will not be present in today's hearing and does not have a replacement. With that, we will begin our hearing. Secretary, please call the role to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Today we have two items on our consent calendar. File item number four, SCR 59. File item number five, SCR 74. It's been moved by Vice Chair Fong and second by Assembly Member Wicks, SCR. 59 and SCR 74. The action is to be adopted to the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

I thank you. I'll hold the roll open for Members to add on. The following bills will be heard today. AB 501. Vince Fong. AB 627. Jackson. AB 637 Jackson. Like to invite because I don't see Jackson. zero, sorry. My apologies. Well, we can go in order if that's all right. So I was thinking you'd be down there, but I forgot you're up here. My apologize. My apologies. Vice Chair Fong.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. In 2008, voters were promised a high speed rail project that would take travelers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than 3 hours. We were led to believe that the project's total cost would be $34,000,000,000.15 years later, the projected cost has ballooned to $128,000,000,000 and nothing has been completed. There is no private investment and California taxpayers are now at risk of greater cost burdens. The project is on life support.

So much money has been mismanaged that the authority can no longer afford to build the first segment without an infusion of billions of dollars. It is no longer too premature to make a decision on whether to continue the Legislature's significant contributions to the project. The Federal Government has already granted billions of dollars to bail out this project, and yet the $3.7 billion that the Federal Government recently decided to award the authority doesn't change anything about the viability of the project.

This is just a drop in the bucket. California taxpayers remain on the hook for the vast majority of project costs. The reason why this project received cap and trade funds is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The high speed rail project currently before us is no longer meeting that goal. We've given the authority 15 years to deliver, and they haven't come close. The authority is still $7 billion short of being able to Fund only the Merced to Bakersfield line.

This contribution is less than what they need to meet their budget projections, compounded by the impending $68 billion state budget deficit. The Legislature is spending billions of dollars in cap and trade revenues with no possibility that this project will produce any meaningful carbon reductions.

The peer review group said that this is not the project that the voters approved in 2008, nor a greenhouse gas reduction project, as it will not have a dramatic effect in the context of California's climate goals to make a meaningful impact on the lives of Californians. This money would be far better spent on rural road safety infrastructure projects. The risk of dying in a crash is 62% higher on a rural road than an urban road for the same trip length.

California has 11,385 miles of publicly maintained rural roads, and many of them do not have adequate shoulders, passing lanes or barriers. While California is home to beautiful vistas accessed by our state highway system, the risk of death on these roads is exponentially higher than the risk of death on an urban road.

It is time for the Legislature to reallocate the nearly $1 billion given to high speed rail each year toward rural road safety infrastructure so that this money can be used to save californian lives and livelihoods. Californians across the state use our rural road system and deserve to have access to safe, reliable roads that connect our communities. The state owes it to the taxpayers to develop and implement safety plans to help curb this rural road safety epidemic. The time to enact meaningful change is now.

We must invest this funding so that we can safeguard the communities that desperately need to protect their lives through enhanced and proven rural road safety measures. AB 501 will stop the spending going to the failed high speed rail project and make it available for the life saving road projects across California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Vice Chair Fong, do you have any witnesses in support of opposition? All right, thank you. I will turn to the Members of the public to see if there's any Members of the public who are in support of the Bill. AB 501. Now, are there any Members who are opposed? Any Members of the public who are opposed to AB 501? As a reminder, limit your testimony to name organization and position.

For California high Speed rail and the District Council of Iron Workers. The State of California vicinity here in opposition to 501. Let me start with what I agree with the Assembly Member on that is that we do need additional resources to go to our rural roads. SB one went a long way, but we can always do more. And I'm happy to talk to him and any of you about opportunities to look at new funding to make sure that everyone in our state is safe.

Now with that, I have to oppose AB 501 and disagree with the statements that were made about the progress on the project. We just did not receive a bailout, received a funding investment from the Federal Government for the first in the nation, high speed rail. It does take a number of years to get these things built and we are making progress. I will tell you that we do not have an option of additional in state air flights. The airports are impacted.

We have the highways in the sky that have no more room or capacity, high speed rail is the future for transportation, not only for California. We're going to be the first, but also for our nation. It takes time, it takes investment, it takes commitment. I can tell you on behalf of the Iron Workers union, we show up every day. It makes a difference in their lives. It's not a jobs program, it's a transportation system, but it's changing lives with those that are there working.

It's going to change the Central Valley and how we commute and get into Silicon Valley for work. It's going to open up opportunities for Low income housing for people to live in the Central Valley, one of the last few places in addition to the Antelope Valley, where there's Low cost housing available outside of the heart urban cores of LA and San Francisco Bay Area. So this is a long term investment not only from the state but also from the Federal Government.

And again, $3.1 billion, the state and federal partnership continues to move this program forward. It's good for the state, it's good for the environment. And for that I have to ask for your opposition to AB 501. Thank you.

Thank you. You were recognized as the primary witness in opposition, allowing for 2 minutes. So the rest, I'm going to ask that you limit your testimony to name, organization and position for opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, Members James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Laborers, in respectful opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members Matt Cremens, on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, in strong opposition.

Good afternoon, Chairman, Members Mike West, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no more, I'll bring it back to Members to see if you have any questions or comments. Assembly Member Ward, thank you.

I appreciate you bringing forward this idea. I understand that there would be some significant trade offs through this proposal. I'm wondering if you support or do not support the jobs that are created through the high speed rail project.

Certainly I understand the arguments from the opposition. The jobs numbers probably have always been evolving. They used to be jobs and now it's job hours. So what actually has been projected in terms of that hasn't really materialized to the level that what the Central Valley was told.

Do you acknowledge that the people in your district are working because of this project?

I acknowledge that this project has been oversold in my community. And I would just say this. Amongst the Members on this Committee, I'm the only Member that represents the Central Valley. This project is actually dividing my community. Like cutting it in half, eliminating farmland, impacting our housing ability impacting our ability to function. And so I would just respectfully say that while I understand the arguments you have to look at the data, I would agree with my fellow colleague who talked about infrastructure projects.

I would love to have these laborers work on rural road safety projects. We're not disputing the fact that we need infrastructure projects in the Central Valley and that we want those jobs to stay in the Central Valley. My argument is that amongst the trade offs, I would think that these jobs could be used to construct and produce a tremendous amount of rural road safety projects in the Central Valley that would create jobs, make critical investments in the Central Valley, and save people's lives.

Of course. And of course, the state has done more to be able to support road infrastructure. Have you supported, or do you reject the state's use of SB 1 funds in your district for rural road safety projects?

Look, SB 1 was passed and jammed through the Legislature. I was the one that led the opposition to SB 1. I had an alternative. The alternative actually would have put more money into road safety projects and projects in General across the State of California. I would have dedicated more of the General Fund into road safety projects and to road projects in General without raising the gas tax. So I would happily have that argument with anybody. Actually, I think my Bill that I introduced in the Legislature when I first came in in 2016 was actually a better approach.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Member Carrillo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do recognize the many challenges that we have in California, and transportation is one of them. And I cannot support this Bill. Since the beginning of construction has been real, has been able to make significant progress, including near completion of its first construction package that is composed of the southern San Joaquin Valley region and would include a station in the outskirts of my district. So the project does go to my district, too. Goes through the City of Palmdale.

It goes right through the middle of the city. I wouldn't say that it's cutting the city. I would say that it's actually connecting the high desert with a potential effective way to get people from the high desert to the La region, where most of the jobs are in the LA area. So I do support this high speed rail. I'm opposed to this Bill.

There is also an opportunity to have that public private partnership with Brightline being a private entity that is going to start construction in California soon. That has been proven to be effective in Florida. I believe that this will actually create a healthy competition between a state project and a private project that will be starting construction in California. Soon.

I believe that once ... gets seen in construction, more jobs will be created, more opportunities, more people will be moving up to the high desert because housing is more affordable there and just the number of jobs, as it was indicated, it's also an important factor to take into consideration when we are looking at this mega project. So with that, I respectfully ask the Members to oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Certainly appreciate the comments from my colleague from the Valley. I would just tell the Committee and ask the Committee to compare the Brightline project to this one that has tremendous private investment to one that doesn't have any. And I would hope that you are correct in some ways that it gets to Palmdale, but there isn't enough money to get the first leg constructed, which is from Merced to Bakersfield, which is my district.

So it's never going to get to Palmdale if it never gets to Bakersfield. So if you look at the data, this project isn't even close to getting finished. The first segment, your community is affected by the second or third or fourth segment, and I don't know if it gets there.

Well, I would also say that with the recent $3.1 billion that was already mentioned by one of the speakers, Brightline also received federal money for that project itself, too. So realizing that, I think that the Federal Government is actually looking at these mega projects to become a reality in the US, because, let's face it, we're behind European countries that already have had these systems for decades.

And I think that we're behind it in the United States and California being the one that was going to be built first. I think that that's a really good message to send to the rest of the nation and to the Federal Government because we need to have these competitive transportation systems in the US and California will lead the way.

Seeing no other Members wish to comment, I invite the author to close.

Certainly appreciate the back and forth. As I mentioned before, I want more projects, infrastructure to be built. I just want ones that actually are needed and actually will get the job done and will save people's lives. You got to look at the data. And I asked the Committee to look at the data, and I believe that we need to change course to best utilize precious taxpayer dollars. In a year with significant budget deficit, this Legislature must prioritize these types of investments.

Taxpayers should not be bearing the burden for this failing project. This project is still under. The first leg is $7 billion short. $7 billion short. It doesn't have enough money to complete the first leg. And of course, it doesn't have enough money to complete the project as envisioned, and the project that was envisioned is no longer a greenhouse gas project and is no longer what was promised to the voters.

And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote for AB 501 because I believe it takes the resources that we currently are spending and puts it into more infrastructure, structure projects that will create jobs, invest in the Central Valley, and save people's lives.

Thank you, Vice Chair Fong, for bringing this Bill forward. As you know, I am very supportive of high speed rail, and I believe building it is essential for future generations. This Bill would essentially stop the project. I know the project faces significant funding challenges that raise questions for some about its viability and whether we should go forward with the project while we still need a permanent funding partner like we had for the state highway system. The project recently received, as was noted earlier, significant federal funding.

I think it's premature to take any actions that would jeopardize the progress of the project. And even if you don't support high speed rail, diverting resources is not the way to make a decision about whether this project goes forward. I have great respect for you as my colleague, and you have been involved with this project for a very long time, but I will not be able to support your Bill today. With that, I look to Members. If there's a motion, is there a second?

There's a motion made by Assembly Member Walis, second made by Assemblymember Davies. As it was noted, the chair is in opposition. Secretary, call the roll.

AB 501 do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, we'll hold that open for Members to add on. With that, we'll move on to Assembly Member Jackson, who will be presenting on AB 627, as well as AB 637. Whenever you're ready, sir.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Appreciate it. I would like to start by accepting the Committee's amendment and thank the Committee and staff for working with my office on this measure. AB 627 requires the implementation of a reimbursable voucher for some of our hardest working Californians, which is our truckers. This voucher program will allow the owners of our heavy duty truck fleets additional opportunities to convert their fleets to sustainable and cleaner burning fuels.

This Bill prioritizes fleets, five or fewer for those vouchers and would direct the California Air Resource Board to be in charge of their distribution. Additionally, AB 627 places a priority to convert or replace drayage trucks, which are the most common vehicles used to transport goods from California ports to our warehouses, in which most cases ends up in my region of the Inland Empire, which also has some of the worst air quality in the nation. AB 627 also adds clarifying language that seeks to specify that the HVIP program is not limited to dreidge trucks. So with that, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Assembly Member Jackson, do you have any witnesses here to testify in support?

I do not.

All right, I will note. Are there any witnesses here to testify in opposition? I invite you to come to the. You can come to the table or wherever you see fit.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Mark Apraa. I'm here on behalf of Republic Services, and we commend Assemblymember Jackson for looking to address a problem that is particular to his district. Regrettably, we do have to oppose the measure for the reasons stated in our letter. They are three.

We believe that enactment of AB 627, as currently before the Committee will limit the ARB's flexibility in allocating funds as necessary, and that changes will occur in the marketplace and changes will occur in terms of need from time to time, and that therefore, this measure, being placed in statute, would limit that flexibility.

We recognize that you have still given ARB flexibility, but when you prioritize a particular type of vehicle for a particular type of purpose, it sets up the situation where failing to provide what would be deemed as priority funding would subject the ARB to rightful criticism, which we don't think is due, given that they are very diligently trying to address this issue with a finite amount of money. And we recognize that there is needs for additional funds all across the transportation sector.

Unfortunately, by prioritizing one, we deprioritize the other. We also believe that this invites further initiatives like this that would tend to cannibalize this funding, placing money in priorities that limit or take away the ability for CARB to be responsive. Again, I know the Bill specifies that CARB has the flexibility, but if money runs out, that flexibility just simply goes away. And so, again, from the standpoint of addressing these issues, drayage trucks, as you'll note, have already received over $1.0 billion of funding.

We think that this is certainly an important issue, but there are other transportation sectors, as well as other communities who would benefit from this funding, and we believe that the ARB is best suited to allocate those funds and to do so in a timely fashion. And for those reasons, we must respectfully oppose the measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving to public testimony, this is an opportunity for Members of the public to weigh in, stating your name and your organization and position. So I'd ask for those for it. To begin with, those in support of the Bill, this is AB 627.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Chris Shimoto with the California Trucking Association. I just want to thank the author and Committee for their work on this Bill. With the taking of the Committee amendments, we are removing opposition and are neutral in the measure.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members. Brady Van England, California Chamber of Commerce, echoing the comments of my colleague from California Trucking Association, just like to thank Dr. Jackson, his staff and Committee staff for the hard work in putting together this Bill. We were previously opposed and we'll be removing our opposition and moving to neutral. Thanks.

Thank you. Moving to those Members of the public who are in opposition to the Bill now be appropriate time to come forward. All right, seeing none, I'll move to Members of the Committee if there are any questions or concerns. All right, seeing none. It already enjoys a motion and a second, if I recall who. Motion by Berman and second by Lowenthal. With that, I just want to thank you, Assembly Member Jackson, for bringing the Bill forward.

I appreciate you taking the amendments to ensure that this program continues to be a useful tool to incentivize the adoption of zero emission, medium and heavy duty vehicles and assist fleet owners in this transition. Ultimately, a successful incentive program will improve the air quality for residents that are disproportionately impacted by freight movement. I'll be supporting your Bill today. With that, I ask the secretary to.

Call the role AB 627. Do pass as amended and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you. We'll hold that roll open for. Is everybody here? Yeah. Okay. All right, that one is out 14-0. But I did forget to ask you if you wanted to close, and I know there was opposition given, so I want to give you the opportunity for the record, if you wanted to speak to any of that. And provide any closing remarks on your Bill?

Well, I would just say that this Bill has morphed into all kinds of things since the beginning, which is why it was a two year Bill in the first place. But we have probably one of the most inclusive processes for that. So we're more than happy to include them in that process as we continue on with the Bill. But I love the discussion, love the back and forth about it. I think we can have a Bill we can all be proud of. Thank you.

Great. All right, the floor is yours. Assembly Member Jackson for AB 637.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, AB 637 seeks to encourage fleets subject to advanced clean fleet regulation to rent zero emission vehicle trucks over diesel trucks. As you may know, the ACF, adopted by the California Air Resource Board last year requires fleets of a specific size to procure zev trucks. The ACF also captures and requires the compliance of certain companies that rent trucks. However, these companies aren't traditional fleets. They are not the end users of their trucks, but rather their customers.

While the ACF incentives fleet lease a zev truck for a year or longer, it does not do the same for rentals of lease less than a year. AB 637 seeks to address this gap by incentivizing regulated fleets to rent a zev truck and get credit under ACF, helping lower California's emissions. Joining me to testify in support of AB 637 is Benjamin Palmer with enterprise Mobility, who is the Bill sponsor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Benjamin Palmer, Director of government and public affairs for Enterprise Mobility, like to thank the author chair Committee staff for the time they spent on the Bill we're pleased to bring forward on behalf of our customers. We all know the road towards adoption of zero emission technologies, including especially medium and heavy duty trucks, face numerous challenges, including lack of infrastructure, demand, increased costs, availability, and we are seeing kind of minimal demand at this time. Rental companies are in the middle.

Fundamentally, we are in the business of meeting our customers mobility needs. It's our customers that drive enterprise vehicles. It's our customers that decide the type of truck they want to rent on a particular day. With regards to zero emission vehicles, we want to be thoughtful, ensure that vehicles that we have to purchase are driven and not sitting idle in a parking lot.

It's for those reasons that we're proud to sponsor AB 637, an idea that came from our customers, including local governments, and the need for additional flexibility in how to acquire zero emission trucks to meet the obligations under the ACF. Under the ACF, purchases and leases for a year or longer of zero emission trucks count towards compliance. But the regulation does not give credit to fleets that choose to rent a zero emission truck for less than a year.

AB 637 seeks to fill that gap by ensuring that customers that rent zero emission trucks get credit for making the choice to rent a zero emission vehicle over its internal combustion counterpart and the resulting reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. With this modest chains, our customers are able to get credit towards compliance obligation every time they make that choice to rent a zero emission truck incident. Incentivizing that choice is consistent with California's greenhouse reduction goals, including the ACF. With that, and respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you. I see there's no opposition registered on file, but just to ensure that there's no one who wanted to speak in opposition as a primary witness, seeing none, I'll move to Members of the public. This is an opportunity for Members of the public. If there's a too where you say your name, organization and position that are in support of the Bill, go ahead. Hi.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Trisha Dello Iacono. I'm the head of policy for Calstart. And we are here to show our support for AB 637. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Chris Shimoto with the California Trucking Association. We apologize. We got our letter in late, but we are in support of the measure. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities want to thank Dr. Jackson for introduction of this Bill. Proud supporter of the Bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Anthony Tannehill with California Special Districts Association, echoing the sentiments of my colleague from the League of Cities.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. My name is Mark Neuburger with the California State Association of Counties. We all are also in support of this measure and we want to thank the author and sponsors.

Thank you. All right, are there any Members of the public who are in opposition of the Bill? Seeing none. Moving to Members of the Committee. If there's any questions or concerns or comments, move the Bill. All right. Moved by Aguiar-Curry, second by Walis. With that, I'd give an opportunity for Senator Jackson to close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Jackson, for bringing this Bill forward. I support creative solutions to help ease compliance for entities that are leading the way in our state's ambitious transition to zero emission vehicles. I understand that moving forward there may be more work needed to clarify the Bill as was stated and ensure that it does what the author intended. And with that, I'll be supporting your Bill today. Ask the secretary to call the role.

AB 637 do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Moving back to consent for those Members who are available to add on. We had two bills on consent, SCR 59 and SCR 74. That's secretary call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is 4-10, so it fails. That should be it. Right. Okay. All right. Mary did. Okay. Motion to adjourn. Aguiara Curry moved and Fong seconded. All right, that's it. There we go.