Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

These witnesses must testify in person in the hearing room. Additional witness comments will be limited to your name, organization, and position. Before we begin today, I would like to welcome--she is not here yet; I will do that shortly. We would also--let's see. Yes. We would also like to welcome a new Member to the Committee: Assembly Member Josh Hoover. Welcome. Thank you. With that, we will begin our hearing. It looks like we do not have a quorum, so we will start as an informational hearing.

There are seven bills to be discussed today. The following bills will be heard today: File Item Two, Six, Seven, Eight, 13, 14, and 16. We have File Item Two: AB 1778: Connolly, who's here. Sir, you may come, and at your convenience, begin.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Good afternoon. AB 1778 would authorize Marin County and its cities and towns to establish a voluntary pilot program prohibiting individuals under the age of 16 from operating Class 2 electric bicycles. If an ordinance or resolution is adopted, the county must submit a report to the Legislature by January 1st, 2028, that includes traffic stop and citation data.

Class 2 e-bikes are operated with a throttle feature and pedal assist, and while regulated to go no more than 20 miles per hour, too often they are being used at higher speeds with modifications. To be clear, this bill has nothing to do with regulating Class 1 pedal assist e-bikes and is narrowly tailored so youth will still have access to e-bikes.

Physicians have reported an uptick in injuries that are not just scraped knees and bruised elbows, but rather the kinds of injuries you would expect to see in crashes involving higher speed vehicles, such as internal bleeding, pelvic fractures, damage to vital organs, and brain trauma. This bill is grounded in the commitment to safeguard our youth from potential hazards associated with these bicycles in our communities.

We believe that setting an age limit for operators and collecting more data on this issue will significantly reduce crashes and help ensure that our streets remain safe for everyone. Our priority again is to strike a balance between encouraging the use of sustainable transportation and ensuring the safety of our community members, particularly our young riders. Before introducing my two witnesses, I also wanted to acknowledge some productive, ongoing discussions with Madam Chair--thank you--and Committee staff.

We have heard concerns raised by some of our local law enforcement about some of the reporting requirements, namely those that go above and beyond RIPA's standards. My understanding with the Chair is we have an agreement to eliminate Section D1G, relative to reporting on the number of persons who complete training in lieu of the fine, but we will continue to talk about D1C relating to age reporting requirements for individuals who are stopped but turn out to be over 16 years old.

The rest of the reporting in the bill is aligned with RIPA. So I will now pass it off to my witnesses, Alexis Rodriguez, Legislative Advocate for the California Medical Association, and Talia Smith, Legislative Coordinator representing the County of Marin.

Good afternoon. Alexis Rodriguez for the California Medical Association, representing 50,000 physicians and medical students across the state, in support of AB 1778. Over the last several years, e-bikes have become an increasingly popular form of transportation. Unfortunately, as e-bike riding has increased, so has the rate of injuries as a result of their accidents. Physicians, especially those working in emergency departments, are treating more and more patients with serious injuries. Head and brain traumas, as well as broken and fractured bones, are among the most common.

While this bill is limited to Marin County, AB 1778 has the potential to be the model for California and replicated in other counties. This approach would allow for local governments to analyze the data collected within their county and adopt e-bike ordinances that best serve their communities. AB 1778 would implement the necessary safeguards for Californians, especially our youth, and ensure they're protected from serious, potentially fatal injuries. I'd like to thank Assembly Member Connolly for bringing this important public health measure forward, and with that, I respectfully ask your support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Talia Smith. I am here with the County of Marin. I'm the Legislative Coordinator in the County Executive's Office. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. I'm not going to repeat any of the points that the Assembly Member and Ms. Rodriguez shared, but I just wanted to add some additional points local to Marin. So I would not be representing the county accurately if I did not share that we are a very pro-multimodal county.

We are very strong in our advocate of use of bikes as well as e-bikes, and this bill today is certainly not to discourage the use of those, but to really target what we see as an important safety implementation as it relates to Class 2 e-bikes and specifically riders under 16 that are not as familiar with the rules of the road. And specifically, these Class 2 e-bikes are the throttle operated that are not also pedal assisted, and these can go up to 20 miles per hour, and actually, many manufacturers advertise that they can be easily modified by the riders to go up to 40 miles an hour.

And so these are the bikes that we're seeing in our emergency centers and trauma centers that are having a disproportionate number of injuries that, as the Assembly Member noted, are not typical injuries with bicycles, but much more traumatic, severe injuries.

I also just wanted to share that Supervisor Mary Sackett--who really worked very closely with Assembly Member Connolly on this--and I had the chance to go to Washington, D.C. in January, and we actually met with two out of the five commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and they shared with us that this issue was very much on their radar. And they actually just this month released an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the federal space around e-bike safety and specifically for youth riders.

So we are going to be making that comment, and we also just wanted to share that knowing that this issue does have this national attention, we really feel that this bill gives an opportunity for both national and state level policymakers to use Marin as a pilot to see if the methods that we put in place do actually reduce injuries, especially for our youngest riders.

And the last thing I just wanted to share is that the Commission also noted that what we have done in Marin to start tracking in our emergency rooms and trauma centers e-bike accidents versus regular bicycles, they are actually working on a directive for hospitals nationwide to do the same. So we really do see ourselves as--oh, thank you--as out ahead on this.

Thank you. All right, moving on to public testimony for those interested in providing #MeToo comments which would be limited to name, organization, and position.

Madam Chair, good afternoon. Paul Yoder, on behalf of the City of Goleta, also in support.

Good afternoon. Kyra Ross, on behalf of the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members, all in support.

Bob Mittelstaedt, on behalf of E-Bike ACCESS, a Marin-based nonprofit. Support. Thank you.

Romeo Ignacio, trauma medical director, pediatric surgeon, on behalf of the University of California, San Diego. Support this, obviously.

Thank you. All right, now moving on to those who may be in opposition. Are there any witnesses in opposition? If you can come forward to the microphone or to the seating?

My name is Kirsten Bladh, and I'm here representing Streets For All, in opposition to AB 1778. AB 1778 is based on a study of fewer than 100 total cases in a single county over a period of just four months, and that study does not even support the bill's policies, as it showed that it's actually e-bike riders 18 and over who are getting injured and not teenagers.

The data also showed that the e-bike riders who were injured were hit by cars, which highlights the danger of cars more so than an inherent danger of e-bikes. Streets For All acknowledges the challenges associated with the increasing use of e-bikes, which is why we worked with Senator Dave Min and supported SB 381, signed into law in 2023, which mandated a comprehensive study with policy recommendations on e-bike safety.

We would like to see the results of the SB 381 e-bike study before we make any major policy decisions about who can ride an e-bike. Respectfully ask for your no vote on this bill. Thank you.

All right, moving on--thank you--moving on to public testimony in opposition, #MeToo, limited to name, organization, and position, are there any? Seeing none, moving on to Members of the Committee, if there are any questions or concerns. Hoover?

Thank you. I just was curious if there was a response to the opposition's concern regarding the study that the bill is based on and kind of some of what you're seeing in the data. I don't know, CMA or who--yeah, just curious.

Yeah, no, we can--I can certainly turn it over to CMA. We would dispute the characterization you just heard. I think it, in fact, is disproportionately youth. We support the Min overall study. We look forward to that. I think what you're perceiving now is as further data comes out, there's virtually a groundswell toward considering these type of sensible regulations. In fact, I'll note probably the two amendments we have been requested to make are to add additional communities in to this bill.

I was surprised that Streets For All did not highlight their opposition to helmet use as well. I think we would certainly differ on that aspect of the bill, while noting it's not a new requirement we made up that's currently required for Class 3 e-bikes, which are faster, pedal assist. We're amending in Class 2, which we feel--and again, CMA can talk as well--are posing heightened risk because of the throttle assist nature that--wear a helmet.

Okay, and just last question: the 40 miles per hour, I think someone mentioned in their testimony, is it illegal to modify these already under the statute? Okay. Because that is obviously very concerning.

It is, and I think there's even additional legislation. It is illegal as we speak. That having been said, I understand there is additional legislation addressing that. We're not trying to accomplish everything in one bill, and again, the approach was to be narrow and by no means as effectively as been suggested by some trying to somehow ban all youth e-bike ride.

Yeah, I'm just going to--I'm going to be laying off today. I think I completely respect what you're trying to do, and I think finding the right balance between obviously protecting our kids and keeping everyone safe versus, you know, continuing access, it's a tricky balance. So I'm going to keep an eye on the bill, and I really appreciate bringing it forward. Thank you.

All right, seeing no others, we will move--we do have a quorum now, so I'll ask the secretary to call the roll.

[Roll Call].

All right. Seeing no other comments, so thank you to the author for working with the Committee to make the amendments to the bill and make it a localized pilot as well, as the amendment noted, willing to adjust and strike the language regarding the citation as it relates to training versus payment. I appreciate the safety concerns you're raising for electric bikes and children using them. However, I do not believe that there is sufficient data to warrant a statewide approach of banning their use for people under 16.

I share your concern about these electric motorized vehicles going 50 miles per hour, but want to make it clear that the bill authorizes cities to prohibit the use of Class 2 e-bikes which have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour with the throttle. Any device that is going faster than that is already illegal for someone under 16 to use.

I will support your bill today for the purposes of collecting more data on whether such an ordinance can both address the safety concern you raise and be implemented in a manner that does not result in discriminatory stops. That's why I am continuing the dialogue on whether data needs to be reported on stops for 16-year-olds or where there was a perceived notion that someone is under the age of 16 when they're in fact over the age of 16. We do have a motion made by Lowenthal with a second by Carrillo. I'll give you an opportunity before calling for the vote to close.

Thank you, and respectfully ask for an aye vote and looking forward to the ongoing dialogue.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

All righty. We'll leave that open for additional authors to add on and then note it at that time. Thank you. All right, we'll move to items on consent. We have nine bills on consent: File Item One, Three, Four, Five, Nine, Ten, 11, 12, and 15.

That is AB-1774, Dixon. AB-1980, Grayson. AB-2147, Mathis. AB-2261, Garcia. AB-2536, Hoover. AB-3102, Hoover. AB-1937, Berman. AB-2111, Wallis. AB-2879, Vince Fong. Is there a motion on the consent file? It's been moved by Lowenthal and seconded by Ting. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, we'll hold that roll open for Members to add on and note the vote count at that time. All right, moving on. We have items 6 and 7 by Assemblymember Friedman, AB-2290 and AB-2869, at your convenience.

Thank you. Now, moving on to those in the public testimony who are in support of the Bill. This is a me-too time. Those with name, opposition. Sorry, name, organization, and position, go ahead.

Hello Madam Chair and Members. I want to thank the Committee and the Committee Staff for the excellent and thorough analysis. Traffic fatalities, particularly for our most vulnerable road users, biking and walking, are significantly increasing. Many state and local agencies adopted Vision Zero plans, but efforts have been insufficient to curb rising safety concerns. As more people, hopefully, are biking for transportation, we need to implement more protected bikeways more quickly.

ensures that state and local agencies are taking advantage of road repaving projects to build bikeways that already have community support demonstrated in their planning documents when using state transportation funds. It's just fiscally responsible to do that. First, the Bill establishes a quick build projects pilot program within the Caltrans maintenance program to demonstrate that all 12 Caltrans districts can quickly and cost-effectively implement bikeways as part of routine repaving projects.

These projects are defined in the Bill as an interim capital infrastructure project that requires minor construction activities but is built with durable, low to moderate-cost materials, and lasts from one to five years. Examples of quick-build project types include street furniture, signs, barrier elements like raised lane separators, and surface treatments like street bond paving coating.

Second, the Bill requires, when feasible, a bicycle facility identified for a street in a bicycle plan or an active transportation plan be included in a project funded by the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program. Finally, it holds that shared lane markings, or sharrows, be limited to use on streets with posted speed limits of 20 miles an hour or less, or to projects that will reduce the design speeds to 20 miles an hour for all projects funded by the active transportation program.

These bikeways do not provide a dedicated lane for bicycling, and as a result, do not necessarily provide adequate safety measures for cyclists except on low-speed, low-volume streets. Testifying on behalf of our sponsor CalBike is Jeanie Ward-Waller. AB-2290 improves the safety and quality of bikeways in California and makes good fiscal sense. I respectfully request and aye vote.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson and Members. I'm Jeanie Ward-Waller. On behalf of CalBike, the Bill sponsor, we really appreciate Assemblymember Friedman for championing better and quicker bikeways by authoring AB-2290. California State and local agencies have made great strides in planning for bike and pedestrian facilities since the Complete Streets Act was passed in 2008 and Caltrans adoption of its first Complete Streets policy. However, implementation of these projects has been too slow, and traffic fatalities for people walking and bicycling continue to rise at an alarming rate.

Over 1,300 people died walking and bicycling on California roadways in 2021, according to Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Plan, nearly 50% more than in 2013. The highest risk of traffic violence are to vulnerable road users, often older adults and those that lack access to vehicles. And they are in low-income communities of color. As we increasingly focus on uplifting mobility justice, and addressing climate change through our transportation investments by providing alternatives to driving, we need to expedite implementation of safe bikeways on our streets.

AB-2290 addresses this goal in three key ways, as Assemblymember Friedman stated, and will advance quicker and better bikeways on both state and local roadways. We respectfully request your support of AB-2290.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Keith Dunn here, on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council, the District Council of Ironworkers, as well as all 25 counties, self-help counties that are funding partners with the state. And I just would like to say we appreciate insertion of feasibility. That's a critically important component of this legislation. We support all modes of transportation. Biking is one of them.

There are many others, and we look forward to working to make sure that we're funding all modes of transportation needs to be every option considered, and we're happy to support this author on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll count you as the second witness with two minutes. Everyone else must be, me-too. Name, organization, and position.

Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League. In support of this Bill.

Kirsten Bladh from Streets For All. In support.

All right. Now, moving on. We do not have any opposition listed on file, but give an opportunity if there's any members of the public who are in opposition now would be an appropriate time to come forward, seeing none. Moving on to Members of the Committee. All right, thank you to the author. I appreciate you working with the stakeholders to make amendments that allow flexibility for locals when incorporating bicycle or pedestrian elements into a maintenance project.

With traffic fatalities on the rise and Caltrans already committing to complete street and quick-build projects, this Bill works to codify existing practice today. I will be supporting this Bill today. We have a motion made by Carrillo. A second by Papan. I'll give you an opportunity to close before the secretary calls the roll.

I just hope that you can vote aye. Thank you.

I thought you guys tied and aye gave it to Papan. Yes, so I did record it as Papan. Okay, thank you. Thank you to the author. With that secretary.

The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, we'll hold the roll open for Members to add on and we'll note the vote count at that time at your convenience for item number seven.

Yes, I am proud to present AB-2869. This is and I would like to thank the Committee and the Committee Staff for their work on this Bill. Across California, highway projects have unfortunately at times deprived communities of safe access to trails, parks, and recreational areas, particularly in underserved areas. Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of a state highway system to do any act necessary, convenient, or proper for the construction, improvement, maintenance, or use of all highways.

Many communities across the state have had access to parks and recreational space limited due to Caltrans highway systems and infrastructure projects. Without safe access or safe alternate routes, trail access can be completely cut off, leading people to take unsafe routes that can ultimately lead to injury and death.

In my Assembly District, we have in the northern part of the district a large equestrian community that's directly adjacent to the Angeles National Forest and to an area called the Hansen Dam Recreation Center, which has a network of equestrian trails. Between the neighborhoods that are the horse-keeping neighborhoods and boarding neighborhoods.

There's a highway, the 210 freeway, and the access points for people who are riding their horses into the trails that are literally designed for their recreational use means going underneath highways, passing on and off ramps. There's no real thought to creating safe passage for these people. Often Caltrans will come in and bulldoze areas that the public has been using for trail access into these areas, leading them to have to take long routes down streets that are really, really fast.

The main road in my district is a road called Foothill Boulevard that used to be a state highway. The speed limit, I believe, is 55 miles an hour. I believe it was two years ago. Two equestrians were killed when a car going over 55 miles an hour ran into their horses because they had to ride in the street to try to access the trails that are meant for them.

When you pass underneath the overpasses to get into this trail system and the place that Caltran says this is where you're going to go, you have to pass people getting off the highway who may or may not know that there's horses present. There's no signage to indicate that. And there's often mattresses and furniture that was dumped from people littering this horse trail. No one seems to know who's supposed to take care of it.

I wrote this Bill to say, look, let's assign the care of these access points to the people who operate the highway, because the cities have been saying, that's not our property. We don't have to take care of that. And the people that are paying are people that are trying to ride bikes or walk or in the most vulnerable cases, ride a thousand pound animal with a brain the size of a walnut past all this stuff. And we have seen deadly results.

This is just good common sense. Caltrans built this highway through this community. They should help get people safely into the trail system that is public land for their use. This is a District Bill, but it's going to help a lot of people across the state. I wrote this Bill after trying to deal unsuccessfully with this problem in my district for a number of years with no agency willing to take any responsibility for maintaining these access points and the public paying the price because of it.

So we are trying to get people into designated trails and recreation area, whether it's national park or a forest. And I hope that you all can see your way through. I mean, you know, two deaths is way too many. And I myself, as someone who rides horses through this area and has a horse up there, it is scary.

You know, I had my friends up there, one of the boarding stables reached out and took me on a ride to show me how far out of the way down this 55-mile-an-hour road. Caltrans forced them to ride because they bulldozed the trail that they had made to try to get into the park. They have to ride a half an hour, cross a really scary road, and then go back under the highway. So enough is enough. Let's, you know, focus on people and safety.

This is really should be a no-brainer. These are designated recreation areas for the public. Let's get them into it safely. With that, I would request an aye vote.

Thank you. So I see no witnesses in support, right? No primary witnesses support? Is it primary? Okay, go ahead. Now is the appropriate time for primary witnesses in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Keith Dunn, on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades, the District Council of Ironworkers, and Self Help Counties Coalition. I just want to say I agree with the author. This seems like a no-brainer. Our members not only build the freeway, but also have to clean up the accidents that take place afterwards. We also are, including myself, outdoorsmen and women, who access these trails and enjoy the nature found in California. So, again, seems like a no-brainer. We would ask for your support.

Thank you. All right, moving on to me-toos. Name, organization, and position.

Hi there. Jared Sanchez with CalBike. In support. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm seeing no more. Moving on to anyone who might be in opposition. We have none listed on file, but now would be an appropriate time to come forward. Seeing none. Moving to Committee. Members of the Committee. All right, no more comments then. All right. I appreciate you working with this Committee to make amends to define what type of trail this applies to. This Bill adds extra assurance that Caltrans adequately mitigates trail access when performing work on the state highway system.

Like you said, it's a District Bill that has statewide benefits. With that, I'll be supporting the Bill today. We have a motion made by Papan with a second by Ting. Would you like to close prior to Secretary calling the roll?

You can see I'm passionate about this. You know, this is just about public safety and having Caltrans just take care of people when they're crossing their property. I would request and aye vote. Thank you.

All right, Secretary.

The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations.

Thank you very much.

All right, we'll hold that roll open for Members to add on. And note the vote count at that time. With that, we're going to move on to item number eight. AB-2525, Zbur. At your convenience, sir.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm proud to present AB 2525 alongside our sponsor, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. This bill will help the City of Los Angeles and other governmental agencies within the City of Los Angeles implement housing strategies for people who are experiencing homelessness who are residing in recreational vehicles.

It will do this by streamlining the city's ability to lease property from the California Department of Transportation, Caltrans, at a reduced rate to store recreational vehicles, while the former inhabitants of those vehicles receive services to transition into temporary and permanent housing.

Data shows that nearly 6,500 people experiencing homelessness in the City of Los Angeles are living in about 4000 RVs. That number, which has grown by 40% since 2018, represents 22%. And I want to say that again, 22% of the city's total unhoused population.

Shortly after assuming office, Mayor Bass launched her signature program called Inside Safe, taking immediate citywide action to voluntarily bring people experiencing homelessness inside from tents and other encampments.

To date, the program has addressed more than 39 encampments and has brought more than 2100 Angelenos inside, where they benefit from case management, getting connected with supportive services, and receiving housing navigation services.

Just one example, in December 2023, a successful inside safe operation in the San Fernando Valley focused on a massive encampment of more than 50 RVs on Forest Lawn Drive. Roughly 31 people experiencing homelessness accepted housing and turned 20 RVs over to the city through Inside Safe.

In order to continue the success of the program, the City of Los Angeles is in dire need of additional locations to store the recreational vehicles that are surrendered off the streets as Angelenos are moved into interim housing, through this program.

AB 2525 will help streamline the provision of homelessness relief services and promote long term housing stability and safety for people currently experiencing homelessness. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today is Freddie Quintana, senior director of state affairs, representing Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Members. My name is Freddie Quintana, senior director of state affairs to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass here in sponsorship of AB 2525 by Mr. Zbur as he already made comment, the mayor came into office, created her Inside Safe program in December 2022.

We've had a lot of success behind that program, but as we recently found when we did the forest lawn operation in the San Fernando Valley, that we need a little bit more assistance.

We need a little bit more storage capacity when it comes to storing our RVs. Right now we have slightly over 300 spaces available and we're over 95% filled on those RV storage spaces within our city's capacity.

So we are looking to expand on previous legislation to expand the use of what we can go into an agreement with Caltrans for leasing properties that Caltrans owns in our jurisdiction for $1 per month.

We think with this, we can continue to do the good work that we've been doing since December 2022, and before that, and forward when it comes to getting the unhoused populations off the streets of Los Angeles. With that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any public testimony providing Me Too comments? Name, organization, and position. Seeing none. We do not have any opposition on file. But just to confirm, are there any members of the public that are in opposition to this bill? Seeing none. Moving to Members of the Committee for comments, questions or concerns. Thank you.

So I appreciate you working with the Committee to make amendments that clarify that vehicles stored as a part of the secure vehicle lot program are uninhabited and do not contain hazardous materials, except for those commonly found in vehicles.

Moving forward, I encourage the author to clarify that the secure lot program should comply with National Fire Protection Association's prescriptive guidance for managing storage under roadways. This bill helps to bolster an existing successful program for homeless persons in Los Angeles.

We commend Madam Mayor for doing the work that she's doing. I will be supporting this today. We have a motion made by Ting and second by Lowenthal. Ask the author to close before we have the secretary call the roll.

The only thing I'll say in closing is this is a very successful program in which the city really does need places to store these vehicles, and it allows the city to reach a very large percentage of the unhoused population of the City of Los Angeles. So with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, we'll leave that roll open for Members to add on, and we'll do a vote call, a vote tally at that time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, moving on to Item Number 13: AB 2678: Wallis.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I have before you today Assembly Bill 2678, which extends California's current program allowing high occupancy vehicle lane access for zero-emission vehicles for 15 months through the end of 2026. This extension is contingent on a federal reauthorization of the program which is set to expire in September of 2025. I'd like to thank the Committee staff for their work on the analysis, and I'd also like to thank the Chair for personally engaging with me on this bill.

Allowing ZEVs in HOV lanes has proven to be an incentive for Californians to make the transition to ZEVs. While California leads the country in ZEV adoption, recent reports have indicated a slower growth rate for sales, making it prudent to leave the program in place for an additional year for continued evaluation and to avoid a major disruption of adoption rates. This bill leaves in place program guardrails to make sure that ZEVs do not degrade HOV lanes by contributing to their congestion.

This extension will give us the opportunity to balance ZEV adoption with lane degradation. If access to HOV lanes is one of the most important incentives for ZEV adoption, we shouldn't risk an abrupt end of this program. I have with me today representing the sponsor of the bill, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, John Moffatt.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. John Moffatt, on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. We're the sponsors of this bill. We were the sponsors of the original bill several years ago. We have advocated for this as an incentive, a worthwhile incentive. We believe it's continues to be so. As the author noted and as the Committee knows, ZEV sales continue to increase generally speaking, here in the State of California, which is a good thing.

But I just want to remind the Committee that there's a little over 28 million registered light-duty vehicles in the State of California. Only a little over a million of those are ZEVs. So we've got a long way to go in getting ZEV adoption up there and ubiquitous on our roads in the State of California. We appreciate your consideration of this bill. There are efforts at the federal level to extend that September 2025 deadline that is mandated by the feds.

And if that's successful, making the changes allowed in this bill will allow this program to continue unabated and then come back to the Committee, to the Legislature, and revisit the policy moving forward beyond that. We, again, we appreciate the work of the Committee and the Chair, and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Moving on to public testimony--these are #MeToos--name, organization, and position.

Good afternoon. Melissa Werner, on behalf of Honda, in support. Thank you.

Hi there. Megan Mekelburg, here on behalf of CALSTART, in support.

Hello. Audra Hartmann, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, in support.

Thank you. Seeing we do not have any opposition on file, but just giving an opportunity for any members of the public who are in opposition, now would be an appropriate time to speak. Seeing there are none, moving to Members of the Committee.

Just real quick, just want to say thanks for bringing this bill forward. I think it's a great bill. If the federal government does choose to extend this, which I hope that they do, I think another follow-up legislation may be reducing the complexity of actually applying and getting this done when you purchase a vehicle. I would love to help on that if possible.

Thank you. All right. Thank you for working with the Committee to make amendments to this bill to set a sunset date. Federal law, existing law, and this bill sunset the HOV sticker program on September 30th of 2025. However, if the federal government does extend the program beyond that date, this bill gives the Legislature time in 2026 to reevaluate the program, discuss it, and maybe make it a little easier like my colleague over here said.

The ZEV market has grown substantially in recent years, and at some point, allowing too many single occupancy vehicles into the HOV lane will defeat the purpose of HOV lanes. Today, there are over 330,000 cars with active HOV stickers. That is double the amount of HOV stickers at the end of 2021. California is far ahead of the national ZEV adoption and may need to modify its program should the federal government extend the allowances for states to authorize ZEVs in HOV lanes.

I am supporting your bill today and look forward to seeing what the federal government ultimately decides on this program. We have a motion by Carrillo with a second by Wallis. No? Sorry. Hart. With a second by Hart. With that, would you like to close before the secretary calls the roll?

Just respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Madam Secretary.

The motion is 'do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call].

All right, we'll hold that roll open for Members to add on, and at that time we'll give a vote tally. Moving on to item number 14, AB 2669. Ting, at your convenience.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Happy to present AB 2669 which would make sure that we protect sidewalk access on all eight toll bridges in our entire state, whether it's for pedestrians or for bicyclists.

This extends or removed the sunset from a previous bill that became law and permanently makes sure that bikers and pedestrians can access our bridges for free forever.

I'm happy to accept the Committee Amendments, which have one caveat, that for bridges that are built after January 1, 2025 that they would be allowed to consider a sidewalk toll.

At a time when we're flighting climate change, it's absolutely critical that we have every single incentive for people to walk and bike more. I'm proud to have Jared Sanchez with Cal bike to be my primary witness.

Hi, Jared Saunders here, policy director for Cal Bike. We're a co-sponsor for AB 2669 because it's a common sense build that will promote non vehicular forms of transportation across all bridges that improve air quality, combat climate change, and ensure equitable access.

Choosing not to impose a toll has kept state bridges open and accessible to all individuals, while exemplifying California's commitment to cutting carbon emissions and fostering sustainable transportation alternatives.

Free public access to bridges across the state has also bolstered decades of work to promote public recreation by linking together a network of parks, paths and trails.

We must do all we can to replace car chips with active forms of mobility, increasing vehicle miles traveled and infrastructure throughput improvements exclusively for cars and freight continue to impede California's efforts to curb vehicle emissions and pollution and to achieve climate change and environmental goals.

We request your support for AB 2669 to incentivize active transportation across our state's bridges and encourage mode shift we desperately need to slow our transportation sector driven climate crisis. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to public testimony, Me Too's. Name, position and organization. Are there any? Seeing none. We do not have any opposition on file, but giving it open to any members of the public.

Now would be an appropriate time to speak. Seeing none, moving to Members of the Committee for any comments or concerns. Second all right, I'll give it to Hart since I messed up his name last time.

All right. Thank you for bringing this bill forward to ensure that on existing bridges with toll pedestrians, cyclists and users of micro mobility devices can cross for free.

I appreciate you working with the Committee to accept Amendments that allow the state and locals to retain the authority to set tolls for pedestrian, cyclists and micro mobility devices to cross newly constructed bridges. These tolls could be used to fund the cost of building bridges, which is extremely important.

I'll be supporting your bill today, there's been a motion made by Lowenthal, a second by Hart. I'll give you an opportunity to close before the secretary calls the roll.

No. Thanks for the Amendments and appreciate that you and the Committee for working with us. Just ask your aye vote on AB 2669.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right. We'll hold the roll open for Members to add on and note the vote tally at that time, I'd like to welcome Assemblymember Davies as our new Vice Chair. Assembly.

Yes. Let's give a round of applause for her. Assemblymember Davies replaces Assemblymember Vice Vince Fong. We would like to thank Assemblymember Fong for all of his hard work while Vice Chair of this Committee.

He served for quite some time. Can we get a round of applause for Assemblymember Fong? With that, we will be moving on to item 163138. Wilson. I will move down and hand it over. The gavel over to my lovely Vice Chair.

All right, Chair Wilson, feel free to open the bill. AB 3138.

Madam Vice Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present AB 3138 in front of this Committee today. Building upon a successful pilot program launched all the way back in 2013, AB 3138 will provide consumers with the option of purchasing GPS enabled alternative license plate. The display banner messages. When evaluating the pilot program, DMB found that the products can deliver innovative technologies to Californians in a safe and cost effective manner. Excuse me.

While recommending that the digital alternatives be fully authorized and statute for permanent use, the Bill in front of you today is about choice and protections. Under AB 3138, a consumer would have the option of purchasing a digital plate, which typically costs over $500 and requires a subscription. The consumer would also have the choice selecting whether or not they would like a GPS enabled plate.

For all GPS enabled plates sold in California, the GPS must be capable of being permanently disabled by means of a non reversible method that sees all locations functionality. And the GPS must be capable of being manually disabled by a driver of the vehicle while that driver is inside the vehicle. These protections far exceed protections in the statute for other GPS enabled devices, such as the cars themselves. Apps used inside the car are cell phones and countless other legal products available to consumers.

While GPS, like other technologies, has the ability to be abused by bad actors, the appropriate policy response is to put guardrails and protections in place, not to simply ban the technology in one product while allowing it to exist without recourse in comparable products. The Bill is also dual referred to privacy Committee, where we will continue to flesh out additional privacy concerns as they may rise.

With me today to present in support, I have Neville Boston, the co founder of Reviver, a California black owned business, as well as. Let's see if he's here. Jonathan Feldman, on behalf of the California Police Association, Police Chiefs Association. Our second witness is on his way, and hopefully he makes it in time. I think we have a difficult Vice Chair who probably won't wait for him. All right, Mister Boston, thank you.

Is this on? Okay, perfect. Good afternoon, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Neville Boston. I'm the chief strategy officer and founder of Reviver. I wanted to give kind of context around, you know, what we're doing with the technology. One of the things that I think is important is that the company's been around for 15 years. We celebrated our 15th year last month. In addition to that, it's a business that generates revenue for the state.

In 2020, we generated $1.0 million in revenue. 2021 was 5 million. 202210 and over 14 this year. And we're looking at about $25 to $30 million. What we are. What we're doing is that we're not only in California, but we're also in Arizona, California, Arizona, Michigan and Texas for commercial fleets. And we offer benefits both for consumers and commercial businesses. Our plates are operational, not only operational, but durable and secure, and we prioritize safety.

They remain functional with or without power because of the type of technology that we use. We use e ink displays, and they're utilized by law enforcement. Fort Bragg, the police station, is one of the places that they're used. Security is a top priority for us. All communications between our plates and the reviver cloud is encrypted with our plates themselves. All the ports inside the plates are disabled, so you can't hack the plates and the information is secure.

Moreover, users have complete control over their plates and their ability to disable the GPS technology within them. And for context, the majority of the plates that we have on the road don't have GPS at all. They're battery operated plates. They're only in the wired plates that are normally used for commercial vehicles, but should be accessible to all if they choose to use them.

In terms of readability, our plates excel at all readability conditions, standards for AMVA, the automobile administrators for the US and Canada, and they've been tested thoroughly over the last 10 years to make sure that they're durable. Customer feedback speaks volumes about the practical benefits of our plates, whether it's used by commercial vehicles or users. We make sure that we're always in contact and communication to make sure that we're improving what we're offering.

And more than that, when it comes to the digital license plates, the unparalleled advantages that you have from a connectivity standpoint, and then also from a usability standpoint, and the ability to grow as technology grows, I think gives us an ability to work hand in glove with dmvs across the country and here in the state.

Do you have an eta on the next witness.

There he goes.

All right. That was pretty good.

Sorry for being late one of those Mondays. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association in support. We appreciate the author and the opportunities this technology provides our agencies on a public safety perspective and look forward to seeing this technology continue to emerge across fleets throughout the state. Thank you. Respectfully asking for an aye vote.

All right. Do we have any me too in the room that would like to speak on support?

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Anthony Samson, on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association in support.

All right. I do not believe that we have any opposition witnesses, so we'll take a position. Witness, please. You have two minutes. Yeah, come have a seat. Thank you. And you have two minutes.

Samantha Corbin with the Electronic Frontier foundation respectfully in opposition to AB 3138, which we believe would turn vehicle registration product into a surveillance tracker that follows a driver everywhere they go. This is particularly problematic for domestic violence survivors, the LGBTQ community, immigrants, those seeking reproductive health care, rural communities, and communities of color more broadly. Numerous domestic violence, LGBTQ and other organizations have raised serious concerns with previous iterations of this Bill, particularly AB 984.

In 2002, that Bill proposed allowing GPS tracking devices and passenger vehicle digital license plates. AB 3138 would remove the language in that measure that was negotiated to carefully address those concerns and, in essence, removed the oppositions of those groups at the time. Adding GPS tracking to these devices would jeopardize confidentiality, increase risk of stalking, and that is why numerous domestic violence organizations joined privacy advocates to oppose AB 984 until it was prohibited to include their inclusion.

We recognize that these are conversations that will be up for debate in privacy and consumer Protection Committee rather than the Transportation Committee today, but did want to raise them. And we'll look forward to continue conversations with the author in her office. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Was any other witness for opposition seeing? None. We'll move to the floor for me to anyone in opposition. All right, move it to the committees. Questions? Members? Yes. Mister Jackson.

Thank you very much for this Bill. Can you maybe. I'm starting to get at that age where I have no idea how technology works anymore, is there. Tell me, what is the benefits of having electronic license plate?

One of the reasons that I thought it was beneficial for the product to be here was to streamline the registration process, but also be able to have kind of a safety and security device that's attached to the vehicle. If the vehicle is stolen, you could actually put stolen on the plate. We have a law enforcement liaison that actually has presented this information, both connected vehicles and digital plates, to over 35 law enforcement professionals across the country.

And how I see the technology being beneficial is that when you think about information that's on the plate, it could be a month old, depending on what part of the month the registration data or information is there. Ours is, I think, more real time because it gives the real time information as far as how the vehicle is being utilized.

And the data with which we were able to share with the DMV helps us work on being able to offer other services in a more real time manner, like specialty plates and things of that nature. So when we think about digital technology. It's about keeping things up to date and being able to update them like you update your vehicle.

And do you plan on selling this personal information that whatever data you collect?

No, that's all owned by the user of the vehicle. Just like they have the ability, if there's a GPS in the plate, to shut it off. They control all of their data and all their information. That's not how we make money. I would say think about us more like Apple than like Facebook, because we don't sell data for money. That's not our business model.

Okay, but there's nothing that prohibits you from doing so. Correct.

I would say the original Bill doesn't allow them to do it. So not. This Bill is an expansion in one particular aspect. So the original. So in the original pilot, they could not. And then when my Bill last year or 2022 allowed the pilot to go away in it, to not have a sunset, that original language prohibited that type of cause. It's still a. Even though it's a product, it still is a California license plate. And the data associated with it, it belongs to the owner of the. Of the. Of the registered vehicle.

So this. This current. This current Bill that we're seeing right now does not allow for the selling of that information.

Right. It's. And. And as it relates to. It's already in another section, prohibited by law to sell. I mean, not to sell, but to even provide data. There was a comment in regard to LGBTQ, domestic violence, reproductive. That is against the law. So even if there was someone requesting that data, they would not be forced to supply that data. Neither would the California DMV.

Got it.

But that's not in the. That language is not in the Bill. That is a separate and distinct law and not allowable.

That is definitely helpful. I mean, obviously, in transportation, I'm just trying. I'm gonna stay in my lane here. I know the other privacy issues are with the other Committee, so I'll be voting for it right now, but I'll just urge to make sure you try to take care of any other concerns on the privacy side as possible before it gets to the floor. But obviously, great information. I see why commercial users would want to use it.

I've had a fleet before when I had a real job, and I think that, you know, even when I had vehicles stolen and things like that, the ability to be able to track it down, the ability to be able to tell even people who are. Make it readily available for law enforcement to be able to understand when they are actually driving in back of a vehicle that is stolen or things like that. Definitely see the commercial aspects, of course, the personal aspects. We just got to make sure we keep that nice and clean. Thank you very much.

No problem. And just for clarification as well, we spent a year and a half working with both the ACLU EFf and I think the DV communities around information for the Bill and we will continue to do so. So this hasn't been something that was done without real consultation and communication. It's at least a year and a half. So just want to be clear about that.

Thank you Members. Mister Berman.

Thank you very much. Can you talk a little bit about, and I fully appreciate that there are concerns that are more under the purview of privacy Committee. What is the process for.

More on. These little messages that you can put under your license plate number? The process for reviewing those, the process for approving those, the process for vetting those, is there any process for vetting them to determine whether or not things are appropriate, which I know is a complicated First Amendment kind of concept. Talk a little bit about that.

So just for clarity, what we've done is that we've used tools, AI tools that are tied to the criteria that we got from California DMV, but any other DMV kind of across the country of the issues with particular types of language. And we put that in there.

So we run that algorithm, in addition to having a live person look at it and then look at all the different permutations, and then that information sent to the DMV, it's approved or not approved, and then it's placed on the plate. So each message gets approved by the process. So there is a process by which it's done.

And we've been working kind of hand in glove, not just in California, but in every state that we're in, that it's allowed to do the same thing and just improve that algorithm so it's smarter and smarter and smarter. But we also have physical eyes on it as well because mistakes can be made.

I was just going to note that that is the current process that exists with the pilot. And when we took the sunset out. Now we recognize there's constitutional issues. And so we're working with the DMV and ledge council to see what we could do to shore those up without, you know, impacting someone's constitutional. Right.

Right. Right. While also making sure that kind of what looks like a government object or a government document, if you will, doesn't have things on it that we don't want California.

We don't want hate speech. We don't want, for instance, there was an example of hash saveourchildren on the, on the face of it, that looks very much like everybody would support that.

Benign.

Yeah, yeah. But, you know, it had a particular Association with it online that made it to where maybe that's something you might not want on there.

Right.

But that's, and that's where the issue comes in, is what might look benign might have a deeper meaning. And how do we then legislate that?

Right. And did you have the ability to remove that? Is that something that.

Yes, because it can be. No, go ahead.

No, no, go ahead.

I was going to say, yes. The DMV right now has sole authority to revoke, and that power exists with DMV and not with the company.

Got it. And one of the things that I wanted to bring up, and it's an issue that is not to be adjudicated here, but just to be said, if you look at plate frames that are out there, those are permanent to a certain extent. They can have whatever they want on the plates, and it obstructs the ability for you to be able to see year and date and usually covers a portion of the bottom of the numbers.

I guess I'm making that point to say this, with the digital technology, the ability, I think why there's a huge benefit there is that if there's a mistake made, you can actually pull it back. If you send out the wrong plate with the wrong information on it, it's an act of God to get it back. So what I'm saying, when you have this type of technology, there are benefits to being able to actually revoke something that's not right. Yeah. Real time, you've got flexibility. Okay.

Okay, thanks.

Go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you to the author for bringing this Bill forward. I did. You know, I will say I'm going to see this again in privacy, so I'm probably going to lay off today few things that might make me a little more comfortable. I think the way I'm reading the Bill now, it seems like the default for these plates is where the tracking is turned on versus, you know, and then allowed to be disabled.

I almost would be more comfortable if it was the other direction, if people could opt into being tracked. I do see the value, for example, in the tracking feature, and some consumers will want that feature, but it does seem like it's something you should probably have to opt into versus opt out of. Sorry. So I don't know.

No, no, no. Listen, I agree with everything that you're saying, but just to kind of throw it is opt in. It's not opt out. So you have to opt into it. So that's the way that it is. It's constructed, it's opt in. And then another thing, just for clarification, I would say probably about 95% of the plates that are on the road have no GPS. So I think that there's kind of an argument that every plate that comes on the road has GPS, and that's not true.

We have over 50,000 on the road right now. And I would say at least 95% of them are battery operated that have no GPS whatsoever. And then if you take that number and then you shrink it down to actual consumers that actually have it, it's probably 1% of the plates that are out there. So I think that it's kind of sometimes portrayed that every single plate out there has GPS.

The reason why we went to a battery operated plate, because it operates like a metal plate, and you have the ability to self install like you would put on your own metal plate when your plate comes in the mail. So I just. I want to set the record straight as far as how it's being kind of couched that every plate out there has GPS. The vast majority of the plates have no GPS at all.

I think what we're saying is that we want the ability for a consumer to decide whether they want it or not and not to not have the ability to do that.

We'll let you finish all your.

And I think, like, so you're saying essentially, that you could opt to purchase a plate without the technology at all. Is that what you're saying?

Absolutely. Okay. Absolutely.

Got it. And that is good, too, for consumers, for sure. And then the other, only other concern was the CHP portion. Kind of this, like, taking CHP out of this process does concern me a little bit. I think that, you know, they should probably have some role in this process. And so I was gonna ask if, curious how committed you are to that section or kind of what the reasoning is behind it. But those are probably my two concerns.

And the last thing I was gonna just ask is, on the actual privacy issues of the hacking that you mentioned. What are the steps or protections against outside people looking to do harm from accessing this technology? I guess I'm kind of a layman on that.

Sure. No problem whatsoever. When it comes to the technology, everything that we have is housed in AWS, in the cloud, and we use two services, both at and T and Verizon for either plate. So they're end to end encrypted. More than that, if you get the plate of itself, we've taken it down, so there are no open ports. If you were to open the plate, to be able to access any data or any information on the plate, and we keep the plate dumb.

So the cloud is smart. Plate is dumb. So you push information down that you need to have on the plate, but no personal information other than your license plate number is attached to the plate because there's a serial number that attaches to your information that's in the cloud that has that information. So the data is really, really safe. And we did that purposely because we understood GDPR when that came out. And then also CCPA. We wanted to make sure that the data, information was always safe.

And we do, I would say, quarterly checks within our systems for any potential issues that we would have. We do that proactively. So that is something that's extremely serious for us to make sure that the data and information that is there is protected and safe.

And I was just going to note on the CHP, because it was initially a pilot program and then they were heavily involved in putting around parameters on what kind of alternative license plates there should be. We just moved it to now a single entity with consultation, so they are actively involved in a part of the process. But this came about because now it is a complete program instead of a pilot program.

And so the law still has language that in consultant with consultants in consultation with CHP, but they're just not, you don't have to get two approving approvals.

So thank you, Mister Boston, for responding all these peppered questions. I just have a question about the battery itself, and I think you said it was solar. So is there a chance of it. Going out such that you might not. Be able to identify the car? How does your tell me about your battery?

So what we did with the battery is that we wanted to keep it thin. So we actually had a specialized battery made. It is not rechargeable because rechargeable batteries can explode. So we stayed away from that. And it's got a five to seven year battery life that are thinner. So we made sure that we had the latest and greatest, best technology, tested it extensively. So the battery technology is thinner than what you would find.

And it was specially made for the plate to keep the same form factor.

And do you want to explain how they would replace how you track someone's battery dying?

Excellent. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So what happens is that half a year out, six months out, we send a notice to the user to say that the battery needs to be replaced. One of the things and points I will make is that the plate is e ink. Technology means that the. The image that's on the plate will always stay there. It takes power for it to change, so you will always be in compliance.

The battery could go out and the image is still on the plate, so you don't have anything to worry about. About the plate staying in compliance. It will always be compliant.

You just can't change it. Very important. Okay, thank you so much.

Yeah, no problem. Figure that.

I'm going to go back down here. Assembly Member Lowenthal.

Okay, first of all, I want to point out that I also sit on the privacy Committee. So, very fortunately, we'll have two bites at the apple here. I will be supporting the Bill today, and I will have further questions more germane to privacy in that Committee. I want to point out that I had a Bill that sort of died on digital license plate reader data and how long law enforcement can hold onto that data, very sensitive to various communities in the State of California.

And it's a lesson to all of us that we could not achieve consensus amongst legislators on what is a proper amount of time that law enforcement should hold on to that data. And there's a breadth of opinion as it relates to what's appropriate data governance as it relates to freedom of movement and so forth. And so I'm sure we're going to have robust conversation, Madam Chair, in the privacy Committee, and my goal here and in that Committee will be to get this Bill passed.

But in a way where we do achieve some level of consensus around all the privacy components of it and make sure that your company is successful. I do want to ask just a couple basic questions for my own understanding, to understand a little bit better. First of all, is when somebody buys the license plate, they're buying it for the vehicle. Typically speaking, when we have a vehicle now, the license plate goes with the vehicle.

So in the secondary market, when the car is sold, that license plate goes on. Can you tell me what is the process and what is going to take place when there is a sale of this vehicle? Does the digital license plate belong to the person who purchased it? Does it belong to the vehicle? If it gets transferred, what is the process, especially with the individual preferences of the specific user, how does that work?

That's an excellent question. What I will say is this is different because the plate, it's owned by the user. I mean, by the, by the person that purchased it, but they have the ability to actually sell it with the vehicle or decide to keep it. And what we will do in that if they decide to sell it with the vehicle is that that information is wiped and it has to be reprovisioned for that new, for that vehicle and for that owner.

So none of that data information is.

That in the Bill right now?

That's in the original. So this is a expanded, this is allowing the GPS technology. So that is an original Bill.

In the original Bill, when the vehicle is sold, there's an object.

Yeah, that's existing law, I should say. That's exactly. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Okay. And then my follow up is the point that you brought up on encryption, is that company policy? Is that the law?

As far as you talked about, the mechanisms that you're utilizing at and T Verizon, I think you, you pointed out specifically as the partners for encryption of data, and I don't know if that was data transmitted back and forth to Amazon, but what are the requirements as it relates to the law as far as encryption is concerned? Is that specifically for your company's policy? Could that policy change or is that locked into the the Bill language as it is right now?

I was under the impression as far as how data and information is transferred, that was part of CCPA but also a part of our previous Bill. But it's also our practice because the information and data that we have in regards to our customers is sacrosanct. And if for some reason that gets out, then we're done. So that information is vitally important and we take it extremely seriously and make sure that we have it protected for the user.

I certainly can feel your sincerity on this. You could also be selling your company tomorrow. So we would just want to make sure that these protections are guaranteed in the law that is fair. So I would love if by the time we get to privacy that that could be clarified as well. So we understand.

Yeah, we'll be able to. I see a couple of laws that were with a couple of provisions from the original Bill that addressed that. And so we'll make sure that that's laid out very clearly in privacy, but there are some languages within the existing law that do address that.

Yep.

Thank you Mister Hart. And then I'll follow by Mister Ting, if that's all right.

I just want to congratulate chair Wilson. And Mister Boston on answering these questions so comprehensively and thoroughly. Assembly Member Papan and I were sitting. Here thinking there has a little bit of a shark tank feel to this hearing. I love it. And you had me when you talked about streamlining the registration process.

Thank you, Mister Ting.

Thank you. So just, I just wanted to clarify a couple things. Really appreciate the discussion on the technology itself. Just want to go back to what's in existing law or what's in the Bill. So in terms of the GPS provision, is that in the Bill where it is an opt in or is it silent on that GPS provision?

So in the original, it was. So in the original, it was an opt in for commercial and for personal, it was not allowed. Right. And so. And the original for the commercial, and it clearly displayed that you're entering a vehicle. It had to be displayed that you're entering a vehicle that had GPS Technology attached to it.

Got it.

Now we're moving to this Bill, which expands it to personal, which allows for the. It has to have that display that you're entering in vehicle. It has to clearly indicate how you would disable GPS related to the license plate. And it would be. And it is an opt in feature for that vehicle. So the person has to, when they're doing a personal or personal use, they have to say, I want that feature in my car in order to be there.

And if they do, it clearly says on the vehicle, it clearly says that you're entering a vehicle that has GPS and the ability to disable it. And clearly, Mark, not only disable it, how you disable it.

And I was just wondering for from a company perspective, how do you imagine this opting in? Let's say I opted in as a customer and I decided after a year I wanted to opt out. In your mind, how would you be allowing me to opt in or even to opt out after the fact of.

Utilization of the plate, right? Yes. Yes. So basically it's a subscription model.

So you have it. It's a yearly subscription. You choose not to. At any point, you can opt out of having it.

Got it.

Got it.

So if you don't pay your Bill, you are opting out as well.

Got it. Of course. But I assume I could pay my Bill and I could still opt out though, right?

Absolutely. Absolutely.

And so the way the Bill was originally envisioned, it was based on fleets, but now this is sort of for everybody, is that right? No, the way the original existing law.

Was, the original Bill was based on everyone, but there was concern about DV, LGBTQ reproductive, and there was this concern about that. And so we intentionally in 2022, to alleviate that concern, but also allow for the sunset of the pilot made it exclusively for commercials. So we did that. We were the only state to do that.

Okay. And then just out of curiosity, is there, what would be the reason? Why do you, what customers have expressed reasons to get the GPS technologists, just out of curiosity.

So the. Well, one, it's about choice, right? But two, the original pilot allowed for GPS on both. And so there were no. So the original pilot. So not last year's Bill, I mean, 2022 Bill, but the original 2013 Bill allowed for GPS on both personal and commercial. And so during the pilot period, it was on both.

And more than that, I just want to add in a couple things. We've had the plates where we've had information subpoenaed on people who've committed crimes. They've been able to track it on individuals, be able to receive your property back after it was stolen based on this technology. So I think that it's been kind of looked at on one side of it, but there's a lot of benefits to being able to say, hey, my vehicle was stolen.

Can you actually track where the vehicle's gone and then be able to retrieve your property as well? So there's been a lot of benefits on that side.

And they'll have to do it quickly because now they'll know how to disable it.

Understood.

Got it. I don't want to get too far into it, but I did want to ask opposition because I am curious since it is an opt in procedure, and much of the testimony was around certain communities, and assuming the folks who didn't want to be tracked would not opt in, I'm curious why you still have opposition, even though I myself would have to opt into this tracking technology.

Sure. I think the devil's in the details. Assembly Member, there are a lot of products that may be opt in, but if you can't select an alternative to them at some point into the future, you are opting in to that product. Correct. And so on top of that, a lot of products that are linked to automobiles, the opt in is contingent upon the use and the sale. And so the devil is in those details of how do you decouple that opt in?

And at one point, how user friendly is it? Does it remove functionality of the device? I would add just that. Shortly after the most recent Bill was passed, Reviver had an enormous data breach that allowed for real time data tracking of GPS of the individuals that were using these products. And so from the perspective of reproductive health, for example, when you're looking at other states who are trying to limit people seeking LGBTQ care and reproductive health care.

It's very serious that those folks might be able to access this data and use it to penalize people who might be in the state, given that California is a sanctuary state, and so clarity around what that opt out looks like, that a traditional product otherwise would be available, how someone might utilize that, and transparency around things like data breaches and frankly, accountability around that, that's beyond a quarterly check, are all things that are significant concerns of the community that persist back to the 2022 deal as well as now.

I understand, but it's still an opt in, right? So if I don't want to be.

Tracked, I'll give you an example, sir. When I most recently bought a vehicle, and this was a few years ago, there was actually an informational hearing on data tracking in cars. And at the time, the automotive industry did make that argument that all of these tracking features are, in fact, opt in. Well, it had happened that the week prior, I bought a new vehicle, so I had to spend about 6 hours, and these are issues I know well, looking through various terms of services.

In fact, my automaker had already linked my profile to my Verizon account to share data without my consent, and my consent was the purchase of the vehicle and the terms of service book that was handed to me upon me signing off on the loan. So that's not something that I would consider personally, nor would my client. And opt in. And so really being. Yeah, and so being very clear on what opt in is and when and what.

The mechanisms to opt out is extremely important and requires a little more nuance, especially when you're talking about tracking someone's real time GPS.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Madam Chair.

Yes, if I could. Absolutely. And just to note that it is a script, ships and service, so you do pay for that additional feature to have GPS. So it is very clear, unlike bundling, like what happens with your car automatically. And then also note it, the language in this Bill requires compliance of these devices to ensure they are capable of being permanently disabled, immediately stopping all location and tracking functionality and being manually disabled and enabled by the driver while inside the vehicle.

It also clearly states that if the alternative device, meaning this license plate fails to meet these requirements, vehicle location technology shall not be included in the device. So they have that burden with DMV to be able to test to make sure that occurs. And if it can't occur, then they can't have GPS in. So no matter what we decide, if this gets chaptered into law, if that doesn't work. DMV can pull the product and not allow the vehicle location technology within there.

Got it. Okay. So I am gonna support the Bill today, sort of with our transportation hat with the hopes that some of this will get ironed out in privacy Committee. But I do share some of the concerns that have been articulated that I know sounds like you're very focused on and working on and wish you best of luck. And I think it is tricky now with so many cars. It feels like all our cars are tracked.

I mean, like, I have a car, you have GPS, it has sort of security, has all these things. Literally, I can tell on my phone where the car is. So again, I have no idea how that data is being used, what is being used, and never allowed me the feature or an option to don't be tracked. And so I think this is an issue not just for this license plate reader, but this is an issue for every auto manufacturer.

Members. Any more comments? Questions? If you could clarify for me, just kind of piggybacking off Assembly member Berman's with the messaging? Is this messaging that is like advertisement that's using a company that's actually using your digital license plate, or is that just the personal person putting a message there itself?

It's both.

Okay. And so do they opt in or opt out for that? And do they actually know if their license or digital license is being used for advertisement and do they know what it's saying?

Sorry. Just for clarity, any message, like if you own an electrical company and you wanted to put, you know, able's electronics or something like that, that message is one that you've created. So just for clarity, the only message that is put on the plate is one that's from a pre approved list that has gone through. And we, and we don't have the ability just to throw messages on your plate. We don't do that in any way, shape or form.

That is something that you decide to do when you get the vehicle. And if there is a particular message that's been approved or one that you're requesting to be approved, then you're utilizing that message on your vehicle yourself. Otherwise it'll say DMV.ca.gov dot.

Okay, so could the owner that has that message on there, is that something that an advertisement could actually pay them and they could use their license digital?

So what consumer, I mean, and basically in consumer, I can say that, you know, I want to put reviver.com and I'm going to ask Mister Boston's company to pay me $20 to always say reviver.com dot, that can happen, so to speak. But it's something that is the consumer, whoever is the owner of that vehicle, it's something that they want on their vehicle and they are seeking approval to get on their vehicle.

Whatever agreement they have with someone else to be able to put on, you know, to pay them to put that on their vehicle is up to them. But it is consumer choice with DMV approval is currently the setup.

Just an odd question as you're bringing up, and thank you. Does that mean someone could put vote for so and so?

Yes, they could.

It might be worth that $500. Yes, go ahead.

Typically, local governments prohibit mobile signage. Your mobile, these billboards. Will this prohibit local governments from not allowing or allowing?

Because it's a small section of the. So yes, local governments would not be able to govern what is on the DMV. License plate. On the license plate. It is a California approved license plate. Just. They can't prohibit right now what's on a license plate, nor can they prohibit what's on the frame that surrounds a license plate. They can not. They. But the state does prohibit the type of COVID you have on your license plate because it might interfere with reading. But there we go.

So this is how small it is here. I didn't know you had props for us. I should have brought them out earlier. So it's not. Sorry. As you can see, it's not very. It's not very big. Yes. Pass it around so folks can see.

Brought my backpack for a reason.

Okay. Do we have any more comments? All right, well, thank you very much. And would you like to close?

I would, you know, thank you for all the comments, the robust discussion. I love our Committee and I love how committed we are to, to really thoroughly vetting the legislation that comes before us. That is our role and that is our job. So I wanna say thank you to all of you. Thank you to Mister Boston and his comments. Thank you to the opponent and the representation that you have for the group.

I appreciate the concerns that you have, and I share them, and that's why it's important for me to get this right, whether it be in this Committee or the next, to ensure that we are protecting all Californians and continuing to the safeguards, all of the things that we've done in place to ensure that those who are vulnerable among us are protected and consider California a safe haven. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote as well as a motion and a second.

Have a motion. Move the Bill. Second. All right. All right, go ahead and do roll call.

This Bill is do passed to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll call].

Okay, great. Thank you very much.

All right, thank you, everyone. Thank you, madam Vice Chair. On your first opportunity to chair the Committee, moving on to consent calendar. For those Members to add on, we had nine bills on consent file items 13459101112 and 15. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out 15-0. All right, moving on to item number two, AB 1778 Connolly.

[Roll call]

That bill is out 13-0. Item number 6, 2290 Friedman.

[Roll Call]

All right, that's 11-4. That bill is out. Item number seven, 2869 Friedman.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out 12-0. Item number eight, AB 2525 Zabur.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out 11-4. Moving on to item number 13, AB 2678 Wallis.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out 15-0. Moving on to item number 14. AB 2669 Ting.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out 14-0. With that, the meeting is adjourned.