Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for attending and tuning into the Committee on Communication and Conveyance's Bill hearing today. My name is Tasha Boener. I serve as the chair of this Committee. Joining me on the dais today, we have Assembly Member Laurie Davies. So we're going to be, and we're also joined by Emilio Perez, the Chief Consultant of the Communications Committee, and Elizabeth Delgado, the Committee secretary. And joining us in the hearing is Daniel Ballen, consultant with the Republican Caucus Policy Unit.

Today's agenda has seven items, and there are no items on consent. Before we begin our Bill hearing and presentation, I'd like to take care of some logistical housekeeping. If any Member of the public in the room would like to testify in a Bill during public comment period, I'll invite you to approach the microphone at the appropriate time. I'd ask that the public not touch the microphone. You can exit the hearing room once you're done testifying or return to your seat.

Now let's cover the ground rules for appropriate conduct. 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 allotted time, extended discussions of matters not related to the subject of the hearing of the Bill, and any other disruptive acts.

To address any disruptive conduct, I'll 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 capitol building. I will also document on 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 Capitol building. And so now we will start as a Subcommitee.

So with that, we are going to go to our first bill. I don't see Assemblymember Holden. So we're going to start with Assemblymember Juan Carrillo. We are hearing AB 2221 by assemblymember Juan Carrillo related to broadband projects, electric power design approval. Assemblymember Carrillo, you may open. And I understand you have two primary witnesses in attendance. I see one. I assume you're Wes. . There you go. There's a second one coming up. And each of you will have two minutes once the Assembly Member has finished.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2221 my staff and I have spent several months meeting with stakeholders all over the state with the intent to find a balance that will protect workers. I want to make it clear that over the course of my career as a local city planner with 20 plus years of experience, what I have conducted and approved these kind of permits.

I have under no circumstance approved anything that would jeopardize the health and safety of our communities and workers. The safety of our working men and women in our community remains my top priority, and it is at the core of the work that I plan to do with this Bill and throughout the process. Members, I know we all share the common goal of closing the digital divide. We all want to connect and serve in underserved communities across our state.

This Bill ensures our constituents will have access to broadband projects in months instead of years. By requiring broadband providers and utilities to work together and utilize best practices to reduce delays. We need to do all we can to streamline the deployment of broadband. Since state and federal funding for California's broadband for all needs to be allocated by the end of this year and projects needs to be built by the end of 2026.

If we don't accomplish this, money will have to be sent back to the Federal Government. AB 2221 still keeps all the decision making with the utilities. They can approve or deny the application. I just requires that they make a decision in a reasonable amount of time consistent with federal shell clocks and existing law of local governments. AB 2221 still keeps all safety requirements in place.

It gives utility as long as it wants to perform inspections to make sure the project meets all their safety standards before electricity is connected. Once all the safety inspections are performed and the utility approves the project, it requires utility to connect power to the project Members. This Bill strikes the right balance. It continues to give all decision making to the utilities and ensures they still perform all their safety checks. With me to testify in support with us telecom and west yawns with Crown Castle.

Good afternoon chair Members Yolanda Benson, representing us Telecom, the broadband Association. We're very pleased to support this Bill and we thank the chair and her Committee staff and certainly the committees prior to hearing this Bill. I know that there's been a lot of amendments put into the Bill and, and I think they're actually in print now. So if any changes need to be made, we'll hear about it, i'm sure. What the Bill does not do, it does not put broadband at the front of the line.

It does not circumvent safety inspections by the utilities. It does not tie the hands of utilities with timelines. These timelines are simply there for better communication and better certainty and better collaboration than existence today. What the Bill does do is it establishes the guidelines for better collaboration on some of the practices that some of the IOUS already do and what some of the POUs already do.

So there are some really good actors who have been partners with us in trying to ensure that projects can move forward in the broadband space. It does allow 60 to 90 days for the utility to deny or approve an application, but in that timeline, they can change it anytime. So if 90 days isn't enough, they can ask for an extension. So it is in the hands of the utility.

The safety inspections continue to be in the hands of the utilities when they do electrify the final broadband project.

With the unprecedented funding that we are receiving from the Federal Government to ensure that we're reaching the last mile for broadband in California, we need to make sure that not only do we meet the deadlines, although we're a little behind the eight ball, with not even getting the money just yet, with over 400 applications by ISP providers to ensure that they can reach that last mile, we want to make sure that by the end of 2026, we're able to build them.

I know that some of you have seen this, but there's little boxes that show every place where there is potential hurdle and barrier to deploying broadband. We just want to say that we've been working with the local governments, and it's working. And we hope that this same collaboration and understanding how to work with broadband companies in a better way would be the same. Thank you for authoring this Bill. We support it.

Thank you. Next we'll move to additional witnesses and support. You may approach. zero, sorry. I move a little too fast even for me today. Go ahead, Wes. Two minutes.

Chair Members, my name is Wes Jones. I am the Director of permitting, utilities and regulatory compliance at Crown Castle. We're the nation's leading neutral host installer of broadband, which means we install fiber, small cells, and other wireless facilities for a variety of public and private entities, including schools, libraries, local governments, law enforcement and beyond.

I want to start by thanking Assemblymember Carrillo for his commitment to closing the digital divide, and the chair and the Members of this Committee for all the work they've done to accelerate broadband deployment to unserved and underserved communities at Crown Castle. We're working every day throughout California and beyond, throughout the country as well, installing broadband facilities. We've seen a lot of progress in California as it relates to the jurisdictional piece of building out broadband.

There's been numerous legislation approved by this body, in fact, to improve the delays we're seeing through the jurisdictions, and we're looking for the same type of activity from the utility side. Our experience is it can take one to two, even three years for a utility to review and approve our applications for a broadband facility. Currently, local governments are required to process those type of permits in a reasonable amount of time. But utilities don't have those same requirements. Kind of creating an ether when we send applications, they just take forever to get to.

Utilities can stall out those applications for many months. We see that routinely across the state. This Bill simply requires utilities and broadband providers to work together in a more collaborative way to avoid those delays. The Bill strikes the perfect balance between continuing to give utilities full control to approve or deny applications, but it requires them to make a decision in a reasonable amount of time, 60 to 90 days, consistent with the jurisdictional piece.

Continuing on, the Bill also specifies that the utility must perform all its safety inspections prior to the project being energized. That's a very critical point. At the end of the day, the utility is the one who energizes the site regardless of what's built. If there's an issue with the site, they can request to take it down and not energize the site prior to that happening. This is a critical point because I understand the opposition is arguing that this Bill threatens safety. That's simply not true.

The utility still has complete control to deny the application at several phases of the process. The utility has the complete control to perform all their safety inspections as well before they energize the project.

If you can wrap up.

Yeah. In closing, we do support this Bill in its entirety, and we thank the Member for his commitment to closing the digital divide.

Thank you. So with that now we'll move to additional witnesses and support. You may approach the mic with your name, affiliation, and position only, please.

Good afternoon. Tracy Rhine, Rural County Representatives of California in support.

Nico Molina, on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Roxanne Gould, representing the Wireless Infrastructure Association in support.

Good afternoon. Amanda Goldarama with Cal Broadband in support.

Good afternoon. Audra Hartmann, on behalf of Calcom in support.

Julian Canete, on behalf of California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in support.

Rochelle Swanson, on behalf of the California Wireless Association, in support.

Ryan Allain, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in support.

Good afternoon. Jonathan Arambel, on behalf of CTIA, the trade association for the wireless industry, in support,

Chair and Members Nate Solov, on behalf of the following organizations who could be here today, the California Apartment Association, Pasadena Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, San Mateo County Economic Development Association and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Thank you.

Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? We had none registered beforehand. We have Scott Wetch. Hello, Mister Wetch. You have four minutes total. We have a second one, then you get 2 and 2.

Madam Chair Members, Scott Wetch on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers and the California Coalition of Utility Employees. You often hear about job killer bills in this building. I refer to this as the utility worker killer Bill. The amendments taken utilities Committee were a bait and switch. They were presented to us in a written form and then when they came out in print, they did not reflect the language that was given to us. This Bill contains serious safety concerns.

I'm not surprised that one of the worst actors in the industry would claim that it does not. In LA DWP territory today, Crown and Castle, since 19, since 2018, has put in approximately 900 applications for attachments. Out of those 900,754 were flagged for safety violations. Serious safety violations of Geo Order 95, which is the PUC safety order that protects utility workers. Let me share with you what many of these violations were.

Not properly grounding the systems, grossly exceeding the voltage limit per antenna, placing 40 amp antennas in violation of the 20 amp limit, which prevents safe and adequate grounding. No emergency disconnects. And the largest violation is not providing the clearance that is required of these antennas. So that utility workers who have to climb the Poles to deal with hot work, which is the high voltage work that they have to do, they don't have enough clearance. It endangers their safety, particularly in inclement weather.

So even though the utility has the ability to energize or not energize, what happens when you have multiple hundreds of these installations? They end up getting energized before all the final safety inspections happen. But even if they're not energized, if one of my crews goes out in a storm to replace a downed line.

And the antenna imposed by Crown and Castle has not provided the adequate clearance for them to climb that pole, they have to climb around the side of the pole and put their lives in danger.

Okay, cool.

Thank you.

Your two minutes are up. So if you could close.

Just one final point. There's currently over 150 unresolved installations at LADWP alone. The amendment that we requested was, if an applicant does not, has not cleared all of their safety violations, their orders to correct that this provision of this Bill should be told. They shouldn't get this expedited process until they fix their safety considerations. I hope every Member will take this issue very seriously, because it is very serious to my Members. Thank you.

Thank you. And if you. You have two minutes. But if you want to be more concise, then that would be. Be helpful. The rest of our authors, who are here for their bills, too, for sure.

I'll be more concise. Thank you, Committee. And thank you to the Assembly Member and the staff for being really respectful with their time and letting us air our concerns and hearing us out. I think I'll simply state this is Andrew Kosydar with Southern California Edison. I'll simply state that this Bill prioritizes broadband over everything else. The energizations that might be associated with hospitals, with schools, with housing, you name it, they all fall lower on the totem pole.

The main reason being that it establishes a shot clock and there are criminal penalties that are associated with non compliance. So if there are multiple applications in the pile, we will automatically put a broadband application on the top in order to comply with this Bill, as it's currently written. My colleague here kindly pointed out the safety issues that are associated with this Bill. So I won't talk about that. And finally, I'll just say that there are.

This Bill was already legislated last year, or this subject was already legislated last year with AB 50 and SB 410, which opened up proceedings over at the CPUC to look at energization timelines. And both the sponsors and also the supporters are parties to that proceedings over at CPUC. We respectfully ask for another vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, everybody's already know what's coming next. Are there any additional witnesses in opposition? You may approach the mic to identify your name, affiliation and position only, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. Brian White, on behalf of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, also opposed.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric also in opposition.

Kyra Ross. On behalf of the City of Burbank Department of Water and Power, in opposition.

Derek Dauphin on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, in opposition.

Brandon Ebeck on behalf of Pacific Gas & Electric, opposed.

Don Gilbert for San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, opposed.

Margie Lie on behalf of the Southern California Public Power Authority, opposed.

Dean Tally with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, respectfully opposed.

Meg Snyder with the California Building Industry Association, opposed.

Ethan Nageler on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Chris Kahn with the Building Industry Association of Southern California, in opposition.

Thank you to all the witnesses and bringing them back to the Committee. Before we open it up for discussion, I want to have a question of the author.

You know, what Mister Wech brought forward is something that I know when I used to work for T Mobile International, that was always a great concern is what is the safety of workers on the polls, that is, I think for most industries it's our number one thing, is you can do all the technology you need, but the safety of the workers have to come first.

When you were in UNE, and, you know, I think we should acknowledge that there was a very quick turnaround from UNE. We got the language on Monday. We didn't get any amendments from the opposition before today, so. But you have been, I think, working with the opposition. Could you, have you considered some of the safety concerns that have been raised today, specifically with the deemed approved application standard, and what is your response to those concerns?

Because I know you share the concerns for worker safety, as I do.

No, absolutely. Safety is utmost concern for myself, too, and all the workers or brothers and sisters that are doing this work. Absolutely not. Sure why not? The amendments were there, but I'll put it on the record. Again, we did accept all the amendments from the prior Committee. Safety, again, is an issue that we care a lot about. And the concerns, I believe, that were addressed at the amendments that we took at the last Committee, six amendments.

We worked with the Committee for over a month and a half, and we were trying to get to meet all of their concerns, which I believe that we did at the Last Committee when we accepted all the amendments. And again, I went on the record of the Last Committee. I accepted the amendments for clarification. If it needs to be further. I do accept all the amendments as it came out of the Last Committee.

I mean, I'm not going to require you to take the Committee because I didn't. The process is different I think the concern that was brought up by the opposition is one that I share. If they have all these outstanding violations, they haven't been remedied. You know, I think it would be something to consider moving forward when you go into appropriations, and we'd be happy to work with you on that. I do think we have to make sure that we have good actors in the field.

I do. Always. I see why we're doing the streamlining. Of course I have an ireco, but I think when we think about deemed approved. You want deemed approved, but you don't want deemed approved without the proper safety review. Right. And so you're trying to strike that balance, and I know that's your intention, but there may be more work to do as you go forward to think about what is deemed approved. What does that mean?

If there wasn't a safety review and it was just deemed to prove in a certain amount of time.

Do you want to address that?

I'm sorry. 1 second. We have a quorum. So I want to establish quorum with community secretary. Call the not, call the roll. What do you call take attendance quorum.

[Roll Call]

And with that I think maybe there were. We have a quorum. Sorry, a quorum is present. Okay, so I didn't know if any of the witnesses.

So the deemed approved is part of what's already with the local cities and counties. That's in their language as well. Deemed approved. It's never been used. It actually takes a lot to get to the deemed approved. There's so much time in between that deemed approved doesn't just happen.

It would require court proceedings and other things that ISP's don't want to go through the expense of even doing that. It's really about ensuring it's like a backstop. So just talk to us. If you tell us that you need another three months, we would say that's fine, whatever is needed by the utility. This is not meant to be a hard hammer. It's meant just to be a backstop so that it ensures that at least there's conversation.

So that brings up what you're actually trying to do is you don't want deemed approved. You want meet and confer. I think that you need a backstop. I think you need to have something. That's what I just heard. Sorry, it's aren't in my talking points.

Well, meet and confer is fine. I just think that the deemed approved is kind of our backstop.

It's about conversation, not actually deeming something approved or denying something. It's about ensuring communication.

So I don't know that meet and confer would actually make the utility meet and confer. Well, I think deemed approved doesn't require. Does it mean necessarily, because you have a shot clock on it doesn't necessarily mean the safety standards have been met. And I think there are very good actors and there are some bad actors, and what you want is strike the right balance to make sure people are protected, and then safety standards are met, and then the timelines are not too long.

So, you know, again, we don't have amendments from this Committee. I have an Ireco. I would just ask the author to continue looking at this, because I think when we read the amendments, we think it's still a little vague and could be more specific. And of course, we didn't have time to suggest amendments, so we didn't do that. We're not going to do that to you.

But if you would consider continuing to work on this, then we would be here to kind of offer our advice.

Absolutely, and we did ask for that clarification on the last amendment, the last Committee. We will continue to work on those and just to answer a couple of questions that were brought up. When an application is submitted, the agencies have to respond within the allotted time. But if an application is deemed incomplete, that's the response from the local agency, in this case the utilities, then the applicant has to make those corrections and resubmit in order to have a complete application.

The allegations that these facilities were energized, that has to do with the local jurisdiction the utilities do in the inspections. By no means should a carrier have the liberty to electrify a unit without having met the inspection. The inspection is not due up to the carrier, it's due to the agency that is issuing the permit. The application is submitted, is reviewed, permit is issued, then there are inspections that take place.

Carriers do not have the liberty to energize the Poles or the units without having it being deemed a complete process. Once the application and the process, the inspections are done, then the utilities are the only ones that can turn on the switch.

Thank you. Any other? I think Vice Chair Patterson has a question then Holden. And then, did I say something? Then assemblymeber Ngyuen.

I want to align my comments, my concerns with the chair. I do think that safety has to be very important. Thought the suggested amendment, with respect to how to make the people up on that pole safe. I think that's reasonable and ought to be seriously considered. I cannot vote for the Bill today, but I would like to try to get there if you can satisfy some of these fundamental concerns that I have, the chair has and others.

I think that's in the interest of trying to make this an area where those who have to go do the work and climb the poles and all that have confidence that they have been cared for, that they've been paid attention to, and if you will fix the Bill to that degree, I'll be glad to support it next time around.

Absolutely.

It's within the same area of concern.

Assemblymember Holden.

I guess what I want to understand, because it was expressed by the opposition, that there was language that was, I guess, expected or anticipated being one of the amendments, and it was recited, and I don't know if it's, I'm not looking to sort of make it all happen here today, but I think it's important that if there was an expectation that at least one party believed that language is structured in a certain way to address safety.

Is there a concern with what you heard in terms of what was expected to be an area that was concerned, maybe just restating what the expectation of what that amendment represented around safety and making sure that before there's expediting the process that all safety issues have been resolved?

I know that you said in some form or fashion that your expectation is that would be the outcome, and I just want to make sure that it's expressed in a way that the language in the Bill ultimately will reflect that.

Yes, the expectation is on, excuse me, on the amendments that we took at the last Committee's safety. So most important to me

Well, what I'm understanding is that the amendments, apparently, once they came out, did not necessarily go to the point that I think that the opposition was expecting them to. And I guess that's where I'm. I hear what you're saying that the Committee said, here are our amendments, and we can't really get into all of what another Committee, although I was a part of that Committee, so I'm just trying to understand that.

And maybe this is really a question to the opposition in terms of what the expectation of the previous Committee, based on an amendment that you were looking for, you thought was going to be in the Bill, was not in the Bill, and that seems to be where the disconnect is.

Thank you, Assembly Member Holden. The day before the hearing, a mock up of the Bill was circulated by the Committee, which I received, which had an amendment in it that said if a carrier, a broadband carrier, has outstanding safety correction orders that have not been rectified, that this statute would be suspended, that they wouldn't get this expedited process until they cleaned their, their stuff up. And then when it was presented in Committee, the author said he was accepting the Committee amendment.

Somewhere in between there, that language came out and it was substituted with language. And I'm not saying this was the author. Some communication with the Committee. The amendment that was put into the Bill simply says that the utility is authorized to put a corrective plan together with the broadband carrier. Well, that's existing practice today. So it's an absolutely do nothing amendment.

And right now, local 18 of the IBW and LAWP has produced a report that shows that their crews are spending 270 hours a month just correcting crown and castle safety problems. And it's not a matter of energization. I concur completely. The utility controls the energizing of the system. But in the interim months, they have 151 of these out there outstanding. Most of them are where they've crowded the antenna in violation of the spatial rules.

And so in the interim months until it gets corrected, my Members have to go and climb a pole that puts their lives in danger because they're obstructed. And that's why this is an important issue and why the amendment that was taken, the other Committee completely and wholly did not address the safety issue.

And just my completing thought on it would be, and I don't, what I'm hearing the author say is that, and maybe the specifics of how you've described it runs afoul, but it sounds like the General principle of what has been described as something that you're supportive of.

I'm supportive of, yes, absolutely. Safety is a priority. Yes.

So in terms of the language, maybe this can be reconciled between appropriations, should it get out today so that the Committee, this Committee and the utility Committee working with appropriations can.

Absolutely. I commit to continue working on this.

Working with the opposition too.

Absolutely.

Thank you. I just reviewed the language and it does not say that this shall be suspended should these outstanding violations happen. It says this should be a plan to sort it out. And therefore, if this goes forward, they'd have to have a different timeline. So there's substance to me coming from local government yourself, you understand the difference between that. So again, not our Committee amendments, and it's not really, that's the jurisdiction of Uni.

But I would say, I would strongly recommend looking at that more corrective language, because I think that is what's going to keep people safe.

Absolutely.

And that's how we differentiate, you know, the good actors from the bad actors, just the ones that don't have outstanding violations. Sorry. Assembly Member Ngyuen. Sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I understand the intent in what you're trying to do. I do have some concerns, and many of the concerns I won't repeat, because the chair raised it. But also Mister Holden asked the question, which I wasn't quite understanding, what the amendments were.

What concerns me though, is that what was agreed to, and, you know, we're not talking about amendments, but that it wasn't taken and it's come to us is kind of what I'm understanding. So I'm a little confused. Was there amendments that were agreed upon, but then didn't get taken and it changed the language, or and then is it going to get changed again before it goes to another Committee? I think the safety, as was mentioned earlier, is a huge issue. Huge, huge issue for me.

And I hope that you can work things out before it gets to the floor. Should it pass this Committee. I want to be supportive of this, but I want to be supportive of it when it comes to the floor. Should it make it to the floor so that it addresses many of the concerns and the issues that was discussed earlier.

Agree.

Assemblymember Amber Davies

Thank you - Question for you. In regards to the amendments that Mister Welch had said, are you, would you take those? I just want to. Yes or no? So I know that that's something you would be talking about.

We took the amendments as they were presented to us at the last Committee. But to answer your question, yes, we took the amendments. I don't know what happened. We are not in control of amendments. Once we agree to them with Committee, they are the ones that put the amendments together.

If I could clarify what I think happened, what we were talking about, what happened is there was agreement in principle and language. The Committee drafted the amendments. And some people don't like how the amendments were drafted. Now, that's not within the boundaries of this Committee, but within boundaries of the author to go back to that Committee and continue working with the UNE consultant to get the language where it needs to be, because there's a solution here.

And I just want to make sure what's in our jurisdiction is our jurisdiction. But I think that's what's happened. Okay.

And I think, again, we all know public safety, number one. And so I'm good with moving this forward. However, if they are not in there and there's an agreement when it comes to the floor, if it gets through appropriations, I will not be able to support it.

Thank you.

Okay. No further questions. zero, look, it's another exciting C and C hearing. So with that. Well, let me go back to what we're supposed to do. Assembly, mayor, where? Korea. Would you like to close?

Yes, I would like to do that. Well, the Bill allows utilities to retain control. They decide if they approve or deny the application. They decided the project meets their safety requirements. The Bill is about streamlining the process where communities can get connected to high speed Internet as quickly as possible. It is about setting up consistent process statewide, so both local governments and utilities are processing broadband applications as efficient as possible. We don't want to send broadband funding back to the Federal Government.

That's going to be a lot of money and a big loss for the state. But the ones that are going to lose the most are those that we represent, because we need to provide a service to them. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member, Korea. I will be supporting this day. I don't need to belabor that. There's a little bit more work to be done. And I trust you. You're a very good author, you have a very good background in planning, and you probably know his timelines and process more than most of us here. So I don't think anything's that odd with what you're being asked to do.

And I think we can craft a Bill that will get applicants more certainty around timelines without running the risk of negative safety impacts to either customers or our workers. And with that, I would need a motion move by Rivas, second by Holden. With that, the motion on AB 2221 by Assemblymember Juan Carrillo is do passed and re-referred to the Committee on appropriations. Will the secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Going to vote to move this along, stipulating that it has to meet the test that Member Davies put forward. If we don't see that on the floor with the satisfaction of the opponents, I cannot vote for it. But i will give it an aye right now.

[Roll Call]

What's that? The Bill is on call with bill's on call.

Thank you. Thank you, Members.

With that, I see we have Assembly Member. Assembly Member Holden, we skipped you at the beginning. Do you want to go now, or would you go to the ends? Because we have some other authors here. There are. I think with that, we'll go to Assembly Member Reyes. So next we're hearing AB 3020 by Assembly Member Reyes related to the 211 Infrastructure Act. When you're ready, we have a motion and a second, Assembly Member Reyes.

That is wonderful. Thank you. Well, AB 3020 will require the Office of Community Partnerships and Strategic Communications under the Office of Planning and Research to establish the state's first 211 Advisory Committee. This Committee would be responsible for laying the foundation for collaboration between 211 providers and various state efforts, initiatives, and departments to enhance community support and resources accessibility across the state. And rather than tell you everything about it, I'm going to introduce my two witnesses. I'm very proud to have them from the Inland Empire.

Here to speak in support of AB 3020 are Kim Starrs, the CEO of Inland SoCal United Way, and Alana Hitchcock, CEO of 211 California.

Thank you. You each have two minutes, but if you want, you have a motion in a second, so.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Kim Starrs, CEO of Inland SoCal United Way and 211 Plus. And I am so honored to be here with you today. Inland SoCal United Way answers about 500,000 calls annually from a region of about 5 million people. The need is incredible for the services that are provided. Most folks who call our 211 have already tried to navigate services on their own without success.

We're able to provide a helping hand 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to ensure that people are able to navigate resources at their time of greatest need. One of the things that we're very proud of is the partnership we have with different agencies in the inland region. We work with our county offices of health, public health, safety, emergency management to ensure that in times of disaster, that there is a central place for information for folks. They're already calling in and requesting that information.

And that partnership ensures that it's correct information that people know where to go. We are so proud to be in partnership here, and this Bill would help move us towards a more integrated system of service delivery for all Californians. Right now, funding really depends on the prowess of fundraising by different United Ways and 211s across the state, which ensures that it is not equitably distributed for all Californians. We respectfully ask for your aye vote for this, and thank you very much for your time.

Good afternoon. Alana Hitchcock with 211 California, representing the local providers across the State of California. I'll keep this very, very quick for your time. Appreciate all of you and being here today and Assembly Member Reyes.

What I just want to point out is that 211 is a unique social utility for our state and it has a big gap in that it is currently approved by the state at the CPUC, but there is no mechanism for ongoing coordination, communication, or funding with the state, despite the fact that 211 works to provide information about state programs, to provide public information, and to connect residents across the state to those programs.

So, we believe that this Bill will help establish that coordinating body and to the benefit of the state as well as the residents of California. Thank you.

Thank you. So next we'll move on to additional witnesses in support. You may approach the mic with your name, affiliation and position only, please.

Jose Vargas, with United Ways of California in support.

Matt Plotkin with United Way of Northern California in support.

Melissa Lovato on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, in support.

John Bebo on behalf of Orange County, in support.

Jason Mendez, United Way Bay Area in support.

Hi. Doctor Danielle Kilchenstein, resident from Riverside County, asking for your aye support.

Thank you for the witnesses in support. Moving on. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? We didn't have any registered. Okay, any additional witnesses in opposition in the room? You can come up to the mic. Name, position, affiliation and position only. Seeing none, we'll return back to the Committee for questions. No questions. Do I have a motion? Do I have a second? We have. Oh, we already have. Motion by Nguyen, second by Patterson. So, with that, Assembly Member Reyes, would you like to close?

I sincerely appreciate the support and I will tell you that my office called 211 when we had a woman who was homeless, and with the help of 211 and some of our other agencies around the county, we were able to find her housing. She is still housed, and that was over a year ago, and I'm so pleased with the collaboration and the partnership with 211. So, with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Reyes, for bringing this Bill forward. I plan to support this Bill. I wanted to flag though, a few points raised in the analysis. First, I agree that some of the work proposed by the Commission would benefit from specific timelines and also language around the Commission establishing a funding source should be given a little bit more thought moving forward. I'm sure you will. You're a very thoughtful author. So, with that, we have a motion. We have a second.

The motion on AB 3020 by Assembly Member Reyes is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the secretary please call the roll?

[Roll call]

That Bill is out, and we'll leave it open for other additional Members to add on. Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, I see that our majority leader has joined the Committee hearing room, so we'll be hearing AB 2286 by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry. Related to vehicles and autonomous vehicles. Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry, you may open when you're ready.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members, the goal of this bill is simple. Full testing and full deployment of an autonomous vehicle over 10,000 pounds can be permitted by the DMV to operate on public roads in California while we await the analysis of the safety data and recommendations to the Legislature from the Executive branch that vehicle must be accompanied by a qualified human safety operator. There is nothing about a human safety operator that prevents the autonomous trucking industry from testing and deploying autonomous vehicles anywhere in California.

The only conceivable motivation for rushing forward without a monitor in the cab is to increase profits at the risk of public safety and the livelihoods of our trained, expert trucking workforce. The rollout of light-duty autonomous vehicles in San Francisco is a perfect example why the Legislature should be involved in the final decision-making on personless 80,000-pound trucks.

Hundreds of incidents with driverless autonomous cars have prompted city public safety officials and elected officials to plead with the CPUC to rein in the deployment of driverless autonomous vehicles. Their experience and review of the data do not conclude this deployment has been safe. In these incidents, driverless vehicles stop suddenly impeding traffic, causing accidents. In others, they have blocked emergency vehicles, including preventing police from responding to a mass shooting. The vehicles have driven through emergency scenes and into downed wires.

One even drove away from police officers during a vehicle stop. We have also been seen horrific accident where a pedestrian was dragged by an autonomous vehicle and trapped under it. The company responsible did not disclose full footage to the DMV initially. Meanwhile, the companies are deploying the technology, are pulling out all the stops, lobbying for expansion over the passionate objection of local officials. Let me make it clear.

I believe this technology has great potential, which is why this bill affirmatively recognize that we should move forward with full testing and deployment of these vehicles. But there is absolutely no reason to believe the San Francisco experience won't be repeated in testing driverless trucks. Unlike San Francisco taxis, these vehicles weigh an extra 76,000 pounds, drive at significantly higher speeds, and present an exponentially greater threat to the public.

We need the data collection and reporting in AB 2286 to get a real sense of broader impacts of AV trucking technology. All this bill does is include the legislative branch of government in a more transparent process as the final decision is made to remove humans from trucking in our state, we, all of us here, answer to our constituents.

It affirmatively lays out the groundwork for companies to test and deploy autonomous trucks, and it contains a statutory trigger for legislative consideration of final approval of driverless operation based on real data analyzed by the safety experts in the Executive branch. They will then appear in a hearing to make recommendations to elected legislators at that time. With me today to testify is Matt Brodt, on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, and Louie Costa, Director of the California State Legislative Board for the smart transportation division.

Thank you.

You each have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Matt Broad here on behalf of the Teamsters. I'll make my comments quick. This bill is all about public safety. We've been very clear from the beginning that it is technology-neutral. We're not saying you cannot operate or test heavy-duty autonomous vehicles on the road. We're saying that if you do, you need to have a human safety operator on board.

I would just gently point out that it was this Committee last year in which we put and worked very hard with the Chair on a soft sunset, which basically requires agencies to come back and make a recommendation to the Legislature, specifically on the human safety operator piece.

In that case, it will be incumbent on the companies to show that their technology is ready for prime time and that it can be deployed safely up to 80,000 pounds, without causing some of the potential safety risks that the majority leader has flagged. And until then, they can continue to operate and test their heart's desire. And so with that, I would just ask for your aye vote, and thank you again.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Louie Costa with Smart Transportation Division. We represent bus operators. Our concerns are safety-related as well. Robo taxis couldn't figure out the fog in San Francisco and just stopped in the middle of the road. Now consider a big rig truck or a bus in the Central Valley doing the same thing on Highway 99. What about the public? What about the cars that are going to be behind them? What about the passengers on that vehicle? It's a safety concern for our members.

We've had Members who have had to reroute several different directions in order to get their passengers safely from one location to the next, leaving San Jose, going back to Santa Cruz washout on Highway 17, the operator has to turn the bus around, and decided to head south on 101 to Gilroy to get the passengers to Santa Cruz safely. That route was flooded because of the torrential rains. Reroute number three.

The only safe way to get them to their destination was to go all the way back up north, head over to Half Moon Bay and then back down south one to get them safely to Santa Cruz. During that trip, he stopped and got water for them and snacks because he was concerned for them in the amount of time that they're on their bus. You can't automate the human element and the compassion that are with these operators and truck drivers. It's a safety concern.

It's not ready for prime time. You need a human safety operator to be on board during this deployment, during this testing period. And we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Now we'll move to additional witnesses in support in the room. You may approach the mic. Your name, affiliation, and position only, please.

Madam and Chair Members. Mike West, on behalf of the State Building in Construction Trades Council and support.

Scott Brent, Smart Transportation Division, on behalf of, representing 36 locals here in California, 7600 Members. We are in support. Thank you.

Ryan Snow on behalf of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of the city and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Nancy Drabble on behalf of Consumer Attorneys of California, in support.

Madam Chair and Members, Ivan Fernandez on behalf of the California Labor Federation, a proud co-sponsor of the bill. Thank you.

Daniel Pearl on behalf of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in strong support.

Waleed Hojeij with the League of California Cities in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you to the witnesses in support. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? You may approach the table now.

And you'll each get two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Julian Canete, President and CEO of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. I'm here today on behalf of our 125 Hispanic and diverse chambers and Business Association members who collectively represent the interests of hundreds of thousands of Hispanic and diverse-owned businesses in California. Today, we regretfully oppose AB 2286. The Bill would block Californians from accessing the benefits of autonomous trucking technology, further setting the state back on this critical innovation and hurting diverse small businesses and consumers.

We believe that autonomous vehicles will boost our supply chain efficiency, create new, high quality career opportunities for California workers, and help small businesses keep California's economy moving. Federal government data shows our country must move 50% more freight in 2050. Californians have already been negatively impacted by the supply chain crisis at current freight levels. As consumers and small business owners, we feel the pinch with empty store shelves and soaring prices in our communities every day, particularly in lower-income communities of color.

By adding much-needed capacity to our goods movement system in California, autonomous trucks will help ease the strain on our supply chains and make goods more readily accessible for small businesses and consumers. Moreover, autonomous long-haul trucking has the potential to broadly benefit the economy by improving the efficiency of countless industries that rely on moving goods via trucks, such as ag, retail, and manufacturing.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration study, automating, long-haul trucking will spur 111 billion in aggregate investment spending across the U.S. economy and will increase total U.S. employment by close to 35,000 jobs per year on average. In California specifically, a study found that autonomous trucking technology can add 6.5 billion in economic activity to the state while bringing greater efficiency to our supply chain, spurring wage gains and job growth.

This is critical for businesses and consumers, but also vital for the state as we confront a 13 billion budget deficit this year. Thank you for you.

Thank you. Two minutes.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, my name is Renee Gibson. I'm the Director of Government Affairs for the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association. I'm testifying in strong opposition to AB 2286 alongside dozens of groups that represent thousands of California businesses and millions of your constituents. AVIA shares the safety concerns of the author. Safety is paramount to the development of AV's.

This Bill would make Californians less safe because it would halt the deployment of AV trucks by imposing a permanent ban on driverless AV trucks in California. With no articulated path for the state to approve autonomous trucks and without any demonstration of why a human operator will improve safety. Unlike in California, AV trucks have been operating on the roads in several states, not one fatality or serious injury has occurred. This Bill remains unnecessary.

Governor Newsom recognized that when he vetoed the Bill last year and explained that the Bill was unnecessary for the oversight and regulation of heavy-duty autonomous vehicle technology in California. AV trucks have been prohibited here for 13 years. The DMV has been working on rules to get this technology slowly rolled out for a better part of a decade.

And just as we get to the goal line, after billions in investment and thousands of businesses counting on it, and when Governor Newsom said they are just months away from putting out draft rules, the Bill would shut down, shut it down for a minimum of another six years with no guarantee of ever letting it happen. It is imperative that California's expert regulators be allowed to do their job.

We strongly urge no vote on the Bill, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition in the room? You may approach the microphone. Name, affiliation and position only, please.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of Tesla, in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Grace Koplin here, on behalf of the Bay Area Council in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Sam Lesh, on behalf of Waabi Innovation in opposition. Thanks.

Madam Chair, Chris Wilson with the LA County Business Federation. We are opposed.

Andrea Deveau on behalf of Aurora, Technet, and the California Asian Chamber, in opposition.

Madam Chair and Members, Timothy Burr on behalf of National Federation of Independent Business, Si Se Puede, Latin Business Association and the Central Valley Yemen Society, all in opposition. Thank you.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, respectfully opposed.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. I just do want to point out that the Bill does actually have, and it was what was negotiated in this Committee last year, a very clear path and process for data collection and bring it back to the Legislature for a future decision. So just as a clarification of what the Bill does. Sorry to the author that I felt the need to clarify that, but I don't know if you have any other. Let me ask the Committee Members.

Do you have any Committee Members? Questions? None. Motion. Moved by Nguyen? Second by Rivas. Okay, so, Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry, would you, or Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. I'll try to keep this quick. I just want to thank you for the thoughtful discussion. I really want to thank you, Madam Chair, and your team for providing us with some great amendments last time we went around and we kept those as well.

Let's not forget is that this Bill does not ban autonomous trucks, but it does ask that the human safety operator be present to monitor the technology as it is tested and deployed to respond to emergencies. This Bill has a trigger for legislative action to revisit this requirements when the real data is available. It includes a reporting and recommendation requirement that will help us answer questions about the safety of the technology and the impacts of our workforce.

I introduced this Bill because I represent a district laying between the Capitol and the Bay Area that includes Highway 5, Highway 80, and other major shipping, tourism, and commuter routes. Last year, polling on this Bill showed that 73% of Californians agreed with this policy. Meanwhile, polls by AAA showed that people are losing trust in autonomous vehicles. And that's what I'm hearing from my constituents when I talk about this Bill.

We cannot repeat the steady stream of accidents and incidents that we have seen with driverless passenger vehicles. There is just too much at risk with 80,000-pound trucks traveling on our interstates at 65 to 70 mph. Members, please join me and the 30 bipartisan co-authors of this Bill in protecting public safety in our workforce, and thank you very much for your time.

So with there, we have a motion by Nguyen, second by Rivas. The motion on AB 2286 by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the secretary please call the roll?

[Roll call]

Bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for others to add on.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Thank you. And poor Assembly Member Haney.

Assemblymember McKinnor is here, so we're going to now hear AB 2780 by Assemblymember McKinnor related to Carrier of Passengers Act of 2024. Assemblymember McKinnor, when you're ready, you may open. I understand you have two primary witnesses. They'll each have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, happy Denim day. Madam Chair and Members, I would like to start by saying I'm doing author's amendments as suggested by the Committee, and I would like to thank you guys for working with us.

AB 2780 would require carriers of passengers prior to transporting 10 or more vulnerable passengers to notify local authorities and seek authorization, among other requirements. Since April 2022, different states have contracted transportation companies to transport tens of thousands of vulnerable persons, mostly migrants from communities of color to destinations outside of their state borders. Over three dozen busloads of asylum seekers and other recent immigrants have been dumped in Los Angeles alone.

Sometimes prior notice to local authorities or nonprofit groups before discharging vulnerable passengers are not provided, and other times these notices are inconsistent, thereby endangering the passengers and overwhelming the local supportive services. AB 2780 would require carriers transporting 10 or more persons whom the driver should reasonably know will need supportive services upon disembarking embarcation to meet the following requirements. There shall be a presumption that passengers who have arrived in the United States in the previous 30 days are likely to seek supportive services.

Provide notice to the governing body of the location where they are being dropped. Local authorities must notify and provide authorization 24 hours prior to dropping them off. Moreover, in order to seek preventive relief, the Attorney General, a person being transported, and personnel for supportive services provided may bring civil action. In addition, the dumping of passengers would result in a penalty of up to $10,000 for each act of transporting a person that resulted in one or more violations of the bill.

Here to testify today is Kaylen Lohan, deputy Legislative Director at the California Department of Insurance, and Chris Baca, Director of humanitarian response and migrant assistance with the Coalition for Human Immigration Rights, CHIRLA. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair Boerner, Vice Chair Patterson, and Members of the Committee. My name is Kelan Lowney. I'm Deputy Legislative Director here on behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricaro Lara and the California Department of Insurance. Insurance Commissioner Lara is a proud co-sponsor of AB 2780. 1st Commissioner Latta would like to thank Assemblymember McKinnor for her leadership in authoring this important measure and introducing it here today. Commissioner Latta is sponsoring AB 2780 because he believes in California's ability to solve problems.

California already welcomes more migrants and asylum seekers than any other state. There is currently a robust network of public, nonprofit, and religious organizations who work together to provide basic supportive services to newly arrived migrants. We're talking water, food, clothing, medical screenings. When vulnerable people arrive in California, Californians step up. Despite the efforts of some to use these vulnerable people as political pawns. Our motivating question is, what can we do to make the situation better?

The situation is that certain other states have chosen to move thousands, likely tens of thousands, of vulnerable people into California. No or inconsistent prior notice is provided by these actors or by the bus companies that discharge vulnerable passengers at seemingly random locations at all times of the day and night. Support services then scramble to meet the buses before passengers are released onto the streets, endangering the passengers and overwhelming local supportive services.

Instead, AB 2780 would require prior notice of the anticipated date and time of arrival and would allow local governments to set the location where the buses can drop off passengers. Let us know where and when, and we will do the rest.

If you can wrap up. Thank you.

This legislation provides a heads up to local jurisdictions and nonprofits who then step up to do the real work. On behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Hello, Members. My name is Chris Baca. I'm the Director of Human Interim Response and Migrant Assistance at the Coalition for Human Reagan rights, or CHIRLA.

And I'm here to talk about AB 2780 which would require bus companies transporting more than 10 individuals seeking emergency services to notify receiving cities within 24 hour notices. So beginning in 2022, Texas began sending buses of newly arrived immigrants and migrants to democratically controlled states. At that time, the primary states receiving these were Texas and Illinois. CHIRLA felt it was unjust and inhumane to use vulnerable migrants to advance harmful anti-immigrant narratives.

And in anticipation of receiving our own buses, CHIRLA helped establish the Los Angeles Welcomes Collective, a partnership with city, county, and partner organizations to ensure we welcome newly arrived migrants with dignity and respect. In June 2023, CHIRLA and the welcomes collective received our first bus, and since then, we've received 39 buses, each with 40 to 52 individuals, each including infants, seniors, pregnant women, individuals, disabilities, families.

When we do receive notice, as my partners here have mentioned, in Los Angeles, we work to secure a site that serves as a welcome center. We also coordinate food and clothing. We mobilize volunteers. We coordinate medical screenings, preliminary legal and case management support, as well as family reunification. After 39 buses, it has become undoubtedly clear that having 24 hours notice is the best way to ensure well coordinated and trauma-informed response. In instances where we haven't received notification, oftentimes unannounced buses, we are unable to guarantee that each individual is served.

This poses many risks. To begin, individuals can end up in unhoused situations as Los Angeles is not their intended destination and they do not have the resources to purchase tickets to their final intended destination. Additionally, there is risk of them falling victims of labor abuse or scams, such as getting charged for services that are free by local service providers and in worst cases, may be vulnerable to human trafficking.

If you can wrap up. Thank you.

And, yeah, we respectfully request your approval.

Okay, there you go. I think you meant aye vote, but there you go. So do we have any other witnesses in support? You may approach the microphone now. Name, affiliation and position only, please.

Hi, Cynthia Gomez, Deputy Director of State Policy and Advocacy with CHIRLA, proud co-sponsor in strong support.

Okay. We don't have any registered primary witness in opposition. Do we have any in the room that would like to approach the table? Seeing none. Do we have any me toos in the room in opposition?

We don't. Okay. Returning it back to the Committee motion by. Did you have a question? Yeah. Assemblymember Davies. We do have a motion by Nguyen. Do we have a second by Holden? Yeah. Assemblymember Davies, you can ask a question.

Just a question for the sponsor. Looking, I know, looking at this bill, starting on page six, line 20, it says, a carrier passenger should provide a written notice and this written notice shall include all of the following.

And then under paragraph three on line 28, it says, the written notice must include the number of passengers on the motor vehicle who arrive in the United States within 30 days of embarcation. Correct. Just as part of you can clarify me. So here, if the out-of-state bus company does share a copy of the notification required by the bill, would this tell immigration authorities exactly where and when the bus is departing, how many immigration immigrants are on the board and where it is going? Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions by Committee Members? Yes. Assemblymember, Vice Chair Patterson.

Thank you. I want you to know that I'm going to support this bill. I was Mayor of Fresno, for eight years. We come from all parts of the the globe. Fresno has been a very welcoming place for a long, long time, as I've mentioned on the floor a number of times. But also recently, Fresno was the recipient of a surprise busload, and it threw our city government, our social service providers, in a bit of disarray.

And I think that prior notice, and not just driving them in and dumping them off, we need that in order, I think, to live up to what we believe Fresno is all about and the kind of things that we hold dear. And we have a huge, diverse population, as I have often mentioned. And we're the ones that say, you know what? You want to be here and you want to be our neighbors, we're going to welcome you. And so I am going to vote for this.

And I think that prior notice is really important for us to do our job, not be surprised, and be late on taking care of people, particularly moms with babies and little kiddos. So I'm with you on this one, and I appreciate you coming forward with it. I'll be an aye vote.

Thank you. And saying no other Committee Members want to speak, I wanted to make a few comments on the bill. Thank you. Assemblyember McKinnor for working with the Committee to resolve some of the interstate commerce issues that were flagged in the previous version of the spill. I think what you're doing to protect the humanity of immigrants is really, really important, especially in San Diego. We're very fluid in San Diego, and so we have a large immigrant population.

I've always wanted to support this bill, and I'm pleased that we come to a place where the bill is in a very, very strong position to move forward. We have a motion and a second, and would you like to close on this bill?

Yes, I'd like to thank all the Members for the support on this bill. This is extremely important that as people come into our state, the State of California, that we treat them in a humane way, and that is what this bill will do.

This bill will allow cities and counties to be able to welcome our brothers and sisters here to California and be ready for them and not have someone just take them and use them as a political tool and drop them off in our state. And so I thank you guys, and I urge you for an aye vote.

Thank you. The motion on AB 2780 by Assemblymember McKinnor is do pass and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out, but keep it open for other Members to add on. And Assemblymember Haney, it's your time. You were the first one here before I was even here, so we're. Well, if we ever get a vacancy, we'll ask you to sub in.

So we're hearing AB 3061 by Assembly Member Haney, related to vehicles, autonomous vehicle incident reporting. Motion by Rodriguez, a second by Nguyen. You have a motion and a second, Mister Haney.

I will be very quick. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I'm here to present AB 3061, which will enhance transparency and accountability in the testing and rollout of self-driving cars or autonomous vehicles by increasing public transparency to incident related data. It will enact statutory minimum requirements for data collection in both the testing and deployment phases, and will supplement existing regulations overseen by the DMV and PUC to ensure AV companies uphold safety standards on public roads.

We know our state is leading the nation, as you all have heard many times in this Committee on self-driving car technology serving as a prime testing location, and it is critical that we have the adequate levels of transparency and accountability for public trust and public safety. Here with me to testify in support of the Bill is Robert Harrell from the Consumer Federation of California and Saveena Takaar from the Consumer Attorneys of California.

You each have two minutes, but you do have a motion and a second.

And I will accordingly be brief. I'm Robert Harrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. We're a co-sponsor of this Bill. I want to thank the Assembly Member for his work on this issue. At its core, it's a simple Bill.

As AVs become more prevalent, as you heard in another Bill a few minutes ago, and as the industry wants them to be ubiquitous, it behooves you all as policymakers and us as consumers and safety organizations, to make sure we have factual and comprehensive information to help guide us into the future. Ultimately, this Bill is about filling data gaps. The Committee analysis actually does an excellent job of summarizing this issue on page five.

It correctly points out, quote, there is a data gap of information that ought to be available to the public that this Bill may help resolve. Unquote. Couldn't say it better myself We have undergone a number of conversations with some of the stakeholders. That will process, will continue, but ultimately, this issue is about consumer safety and consumer protection. We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Saveena Takhar with the Consumer Attorneys of California, a proud co-sponsor, along with Consumer Fed., and the Teamsters. I'll be brief, but speaking of that hole in reporting, AVs are not just being tested. They're deployed, clearly all over California, in the Bay Area, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, San Francisco County, and all throughout Los Angeles.

So, the current DMV regulations are not collecting any data on all those deployed vehicles, yet we're hearing about them in the news over and over and over again. Everyone knows about the cruise vehicle that killed a woman. There was also recent articles, as recent as last week, where seven Waymo Taxis blocked traffic in San Francisco, getting onto the on-ramp. People were actually physically getting out of their cars on the freeway to move cones to get around the cars.

Took 30 minutes for them to address that blockage. As recently as Monday, a Waymo taxicab in San Francisco was driving on the wrong side of the road, and this was reported in the SF Chronicle, and I highlight those to demonstrate that that data is not being reported to the DMV. One was a video recorded by a user on Reddit that was then confirmed by Waymo, and the other one was a video of a bicyclist that Waymo then later confirmed.

So, it's important that our governing bodies in California, like the DNB and CPUC, collect this data themselves so we can get a holistic view of how the AVs are operating for consumer safety and transparency. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Any witnesses in the room who would like to support? Name, affiliation, and position only, please.

Matt Broad with the Teamsters proud co-sponsors, the Amalgamated Transit Union and CSEA, in strong support. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Committee Members, Louie Costa with SMART Transportation Division in support.

Ryan Snow, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, strong support.

Ivan Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Jean Paul Velez with the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, support,

Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support.

Gregory Cramer on behalf of Disability Rights California in support as amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? I had none registered, so please move to the table. So, there's only one. You get four minutes.

I'm not going to take four minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Again, I'm Renee Gibson on behalf of the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, representing the world's leading autonomous vehicle companies, many of which are based here in California.

We appreciate the opportunity to work with Assembly Member Haney, who's my former colleague in Senator Simitian's office many years ago to develop an appropriate approach for AV data reporting and transparency. We also appreciate the author's amendments introduced in this Committee addressed some of our feedback. We've provided more detailed feedback directly to the author, but I want to highlight a few of our continued concerns. First, I'd like just take a moment to note that nearly 41,000 people died in traffic crashes last year.

In recent years, we've seen increases in fatalities involving large trucks, pedestrians, motorcycles, and drivers over 65 years old. Not a single one of those fatalities involved in AV. In fact, AVs have built a strong safety record over more than a dozen years. They have driven nearly 70 million miles on U.S. roads. They have done so under multiple legal frameworks that provide the public with access to data. Notably, AV companies must report crash data to NHTSA under outstanding general order.

This includes reporting minor incidents and those caused by human drivers. The details are made public on NHTSA's website for everyone to see. Also, the DMV collects crash data and disengagement data, and the PUC collects detailed data for autonomous ride-hail services, including quarterly reports on AV activities. As written, the Bill would add another reporting structure, but we believe that the terms are vague and could be construed broadly.

The Bill would also create a reporting process that gives any Member of the public the opportunity to trigger suspension of a permit, regardless of whether the report is accurate or credible. And I do appreciate the amendments that we have here in this Committee, but I think we just need more work on that language. No industry or business could operate under such unpredictable permitting approach in that language. We look forward to working with the Bill sponsors.

And in its current form, we would respectfully request a no vote, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition in the room, please approach the microphone. Name, affiliation and position only.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of Tesla with an opposed, unless amended position and apologies for missing the letter deadline. Thank you.

John Moffatt, on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. Also opposed unless amended.

Good afternoon. Andrea Devoe, on behalf of Technet, NFIB, Si Se Puede, the Latin Business Association, and Central Valley Yemen Society, all respectfully opposed.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, respectfully opposed.

Sam Lesh, Waabi Innovation, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

So I believe that there were amendments in this recent round, and hence you heard from the disability rights organizations that they're now supportive of it. And so we've been working collaboratively with them and some of the reporting now reflects the feedback that we receive from them.

Okay. I think we just need to be mindful. I think we absolutely need the, the disability access data, but mindful that passengers may not want to disclose their own disabilities. Right. And so that data point becomes difficult to collect. So inherently collecting data from this community sometimes can be automatically, can be difficult. So just as a mindful thing. And secondly, I believe strongly that the potential that AB's have to make our roads safer. However, we also have to build public trust and confidence in this technology.

And one way we build that trust is through transparency and data. And that's why I'm very happy to support this Bill. Assembly Member Haney, would you like to close?

And thank you for your leadership and this Committee's leadership. I think this is an important conversation. I agree with you on the potential of the technology and also the role that transparency and data can play to build public trust and also allow regulators, local and state, to ensure public safety and respectfully ask for eyeballs.

Thank you, Assemblymember Haney. The motion on AB 3061 by Assemblymember Haney is do pass and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. We'll leave it open for other Members to add on it. And now, Assembly Member Holden, thank you so much for your patience. We're gonna hear AB 1826 by Assembly Member Holden related to digital Equity and Video Franchising act of 2024. Assembly Member Holden, you may open. And I think you have two. You have one witness who has, I think one witness, is that correct? One witness. And then you have four minutes. The witness has four minutes. Thank you.

Well, good afternoon, chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present the AB 1826, the Digital Equity and Video Franchising act of 2024 as they say third time's a charm. I want to begin by stating I accept the Committee amendments and thank the chair and her staff for working with my office on the important this important issue.

My office has held two stakeholder meetings with California Emerging Technology Fund, California alliance for digital Equity, and Cal broadbrand to focus on sections of the Bill where there was mutual agreement. I appreciate you all for coming together, coming to the table for a meaningful discussion, and by accepting the Committee amendments. I hope it shows I'm committed to working on the public process for franchise renewals and fines. The Committee amendments will remove Section 5890 dealing with equal access and anti discrimination standards.

It's my understanding there are other legislative efforts that will ensure companies will be held accountable for any discriminatory business practices. As amended, AB 1826 will update the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition act of 2006 to create a robust public process. To allow for public to participate in a streamlined process, AB 1826 would require the Public Advocates office to review and create a report before each renewal on how well each state video franchise has met the needs of their community.

Lastly, AB 1826 will increase the fines for any customer service complaints enforced by local governments. By accepting these amendments, AB 1826 will update nearly two decade old policy to ensure there's transparency and accountability in the state video franchising process. With me to testify is Leticia Alejandrez, Director of policy and communications with California Emergency Emerging Technology Fund. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Committee Members, we're really pleased to have the opportunity to provide testimony in support of AB 1826. But first, we wish to thank and express our appreciation to Assembly Member Holden for his leadership in revisiting video franchising in this Bill. I'm Leticia Alejandres, the Director of policy and communications for the California Emerging Technology Fund. For those of you who are unfamiliar with CETF, we were directed to be established by the California Public Utilities Commission as a public benefit from corporate consolidations.

The mission of CETF is to close the digital divide, promote digital inclusion, achieve digital equity in California, and we do this by accelerating ubiquitous deployment and universal adoption of broadband Internet, especially in unserved and underserved communities. CETF supported the precursor to this Bill, which was AB 41, by again, assemblymember Holden. The governor's veto message was very instructive with the reference to the need for a stronger Bill for deployment as well as the reference to affordability.

CETF is taking this veto message as instructions for AB 1826 and the other digital equity bills. Video franchising is a powerful vehicle for closing the digital divide and achieving digital equity. We want to support assemblymember Holden and the stakeholders in getting this Bill right to secure governor's signature. This Bill would revise existing law pertaining to statewide video franchise to advance fair and transparent renewal process at the CPUC. As you already heard, the Bill is imperative for California State video franchising process.

In short, its enactment will significantly enhance transparency and accountability. It requires public participation in hearings, it grants the Public Advocates the authority to review franchises and provides oversight, and it empowers local governments to enforce customer service requirements effectively. AB 1826 is an opportunity to strengthen divca to accelerate for ubiquitous deployment and universal adoption to achieve digital equity. We urge your I vote for AB 1826. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other additional witnesses support can approach the microphone. Name, affiliation and position only, please.

Yeah, Marvin. On behalf of La Coperativa Campesina De California, the Farm Worker Institute of Education and Leadership Development, and Los Amigos De La Comidada in support. Thank you.

Okay, we have one primary witness in opposition, Amanda Guadarrama from Calbroband, and you have four minutes as well.

Good afternoon, madam chairs. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, Amanda Gualderama with Cal broadband. I'd like to first thank the author, the chair, and Committee staff for working with us on the amendments, but we do remain opposed to the Bill. We have seen this Bill before a few times. Last year, Cal Broadband was able to negotiate with the author and go neutral on AB 41 in the second house.

When the Bill came through the Assembly, multiple Members of this Committee voted no or abstained from the Bill on the floor. But when it came back on concurrence with our neutrality, no one on this Committee voted no and only one vote was not recorded. AB 41 was a compromise. No party received everything they wanted, which is usually a sign of a well negotiated piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the Governor disagreed and vetoed the Bill.

Cal Broadband has not been told by the Administration exactly what they would like to see out of a Bill amending the Divka statute. We understood the author wanted to try again and agreed to come to the table. Unfortunately, the Bill introduced this year did not start from our negotiated language that passed on concurrence last year easily. Instead, it started from where Cal broadband was opposed and multiple Members of this Committee understood the flaws. Thus, the Association is compelled to oppose AB 1826.

We understand that with the Committee amendment, certain provisions of the Bill have been taken off the table because there could not be consensus between us former sponsors and the current sponsors of the Bill, and we applaud that movement. But now the Bill entails different issues that were not vetted last year. And to be clear, divco regulates our video services or our cable entertainment services, not broadband.

The Bill proposes a public hearing process through the CPUC and an evaluation process by the Public Advocates office to be added to the renewal of our video franchise. Taking the latter edition first, the Public Advocates office is situated at the CPUC and is charged with intervening on behalf of utility rate payers in any matter within the CPUC's jurisdiction. Calling an evaluation by the Public Advocates office independent is a stretch.

It is not clear why this evaluation is needed, considering it is the CPUC's communications division's job to evaluate renewals of DivcA franchises. Already, the Public Advocates office can intervene during the renewal proceedings if they choose to do so, and adding new authority to the public advocate's office is duplicative. Speaking of duplicative, the CPUC is currently undergoing a proceeding to consider changes to its licensing and oversight of video franchises under the DivCA statute.

This proceeding contemplates modernizing Divka, the collection of granular data on locations served by franchise holders, and addressing customer service requirements and complaints. Cal broadband community advocate organizations, counties, and cities are all parties to this proceeding. At this point, it would seem that the CPUC believes it already has the statutory authority to modernize DiVcA and that changes to the statute are unnecessary for all the reasons stated. Cal broadband remains opposed to AB 1826. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition may approach the microphone. Name, affiliation, position only, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Members, Robert Moutrie for the California Chamber of Commerce also opposed. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jackie on us on behalf of direct JV, we haven't opposed and less amended position, but we're still analyzing the Committee amendments. Thank you.

Jonathan Arambel, filling in for us telecom, also opposed.

Thank you to all the witnesses bringing it back to the Committee. Are there any Members who would like to speak on this Bill? Is there a motion? A motion by Rivas, second by second by Maienschein assemblymember Holden, would you like to close?

Thank you. First of all, the Bill from last year made it out of this Committee with support of the Committee, recognizing that we still had some work to do and we stayed committed to that. I don't think at any point when it left the Committee, we understood exactly where the governor's office was. So I think we were all in the same place on that.

I think it was very clear that when it received feedback from the Senate Committee, we were very disappointed that it didn't address everything that we wanted. And I don't think I've seen yet a Bill that gets through with this process that gives you everything you want.

But when you're trying to reform a process that has been in place for a very long time and not really getting to the mark that we all wanted it to get to in terms of addressing the concerns, because I was on a City Council at a time when city councils approved these type of franchises, and we had an opportunity to weigh in and we had an opportunity to give some direction on how our community would be a part of that process.

This is what this Bill does now, and trying to expand on things that were not done under DIfCCA. It is about equity, and that's what we're trying to stay focused on. It's about increasing opportunity for participation, for communities to be able to participate in the process. We took out a very important part of this Bill on equity and anti discrimination language.

The Committee in the Senate last year gave enforcement responsibilities to CPUC that at least allowed for us to see this element introduced so that there would be some weighing in on the concerns. The Governor vetoed the Bill. So I think as we're trying this year, we see other bills that are tackling that particular subject. And so we removed that element from this Bill, hopefully making it a little clearer how we can move forward in that space.

And so I think that we're still at a place where I'm hoping that those who continue to be opposed are willing to have discussion, because I think we can still move forward and do that. The goals of what we've been trying to accomplish are still very much clear in what's in front of us today.

I thank the chair and the staff for helping articulate a position not ideal to what I wanted, but what I do believe at least keeps the important elements of this conversation moving forward. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And thank you some Member Holden, for your presentation. First, I want to thank you also for, and your staff for working constructively with me and my Committee over the last few years. This is the fourth time that this Committee has heard a Bill to reform Divka, and I think we're hopefully on a path to make changes that will benefit the public. And I appreciate your willingness to collaborate with the Committee and all the stakeholders. It has not been an easy path.

I also appreciate you accepting the Committee's proposed amendments where you're based on the discussions your staff has had with the stakeholders. I think it's a wise choice and strategy to focus the parts of DFC where there's most agreement to fix, which is the public process. Adding public hearings certainly has the potential to bring a lot of information to the surface at CPUC as the CPUC reviews franchise applications. We have a motion in second, and the motion AB 1826 by assemblymember Holden is do pass as amended.

And we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the secretary please call the roll?

Boerner? Boerner aye. Patterson. Patterson not voting. Bonta. Davies.

Not voting.

Davies not voting. Garcia. Holden. Holden aye. Hoover. Maienschein. Maienschein aye. Nguyen. Nguyen not voting. Luz Rivas. Luz Rivas aye. Rodriguez. Rodriguez aye.

Is that bill's on call.

Thank you.

And with that, I'd like to pass it over to my Vice Chair so I can present my Bill. Here you go. Oh, he has it. Okay.

All right, Members, next we're going to hear AB 2575 by our chair relating to broadband and state oversight. And, Madam Chair, you may open.

Thank you. Thank you Members, for listening with open ears as I present my Bill to establish the Department of Broadband and Digital Equity and the Broadband and Digital Equity Commission. This is probably one of the first Tasha B specials we're going to hear today. I think there are three total up in committees today. The Department would serve as a centralized state Department for broadband and digital equity activities within the state, which is currently split between the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Department of Technology.

California is one of the only states where essential broadband programs are split between the two agencies and has not necessarily led to better outcomes. In our research, we found only two other states, New Mexico and Connecticut, that do what we do. And let me be clear, this Bill is not about punishing any agency or scuttling the work that has been ongoing for several years. I appreciate the work of the staff of the CPUC and CDT in getting the state programs off the ground.

Nonetheless, despite the effort and attention, we have to acknowledge that there have been persistent challenges, not just circumstantial challenges, but persistent challenges that I believe are attributed to the structure that we have set up here in California. To solve the structural problems, we need a structural solution. And that's exactly what AB 2575 is about. Under this Bill, the state's existing broadband programs and initiatives will be consolidated under one agency beginning July 12027.

To oversee this agency, the Bill also establishes an 11 Member broadband and Digital Equity Commission that would include Members with backgrounds in broadband, digital equity, labor, industry, tribes, and community advocates. The Commission would not merely be advisory, but would have actual power and authority to make decisions about grant funding, digital discrimination, infrastructure investments, and the department's work. From what I have observed with the current structure of the broadband programs, there are three persistent difficult public participation, confusing decision making procedures and poor interagency coordination.

In tandem, these three persistent problems snowball into much larger and visible challenges, such as the so-called equity maps released by the CPUC related to FFA funding, funding delays, phasing of a middle mile project with no public input, inaccurate mapping, and a broadband plan that will fail to achieve the goal of universal broadband connectivity. While we have consistently raised these issues through legislative hearings in CNC and the budget process, the persistent challenges remain.

Unless we start thinking right now about what the next three years, five years and 10 years will look like, we may never consider an alternative, but we have the power to shape what this looks like for California and send a message of transparency and accountability. I'm committed to broadband for all, for consumer protection and the goals that I know we all share on this Committee. I respectfully ask for your support and I'll leave my presentation there. I welcome encourage any questions and discussions from Members.

Move the Bill.

Second.

Member Rodriguez, motion and 20 seconds. No other primary witnesses?

Tasha B special, it's just me.

Additional witnesses in support, please come to the microphone and stay at the position and who you're with. Are there witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. Any primary witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of TURN, based on the amendments that went into print on Thursday of last week, we do have concerns with the Bill and look forward to having conversations with the author moving forward. I'm happy to expand on that. If there are any questions. Yeah, here we go.

Any others in opposition? Back to the Committee. Any comments? Questions?

I want to thank the chair for bringing this Bill forward. I know that you've been tracking for many, many years the deficiencies in our current regulatory system for the State of California around broadband. And I very much appreciate you thoughtfully pulling together a way in which we might be able to have a Department of broadband and digital equity for the State of California. Just wanted to give you an opportunity perhaps to expand on two items.

One is I know that you've done extensive research on California's Department versus other states. If you could just give us a sense of where, you know, where we see other broadband departments in other states and some of the outcomes and kind of purview and jurisdiction of those states and where this is, the intended Department is aligned and then secondarily just to hit on some of the things that might be, sounds like probably unintended consequences that are raised by equity organizations like turn.

Sure. So in the states. So other states generally don't have the challenges that California has in terms of the amount of disparities that we have, income inequality, as well as urban, rural, and the size. So the states that are doing the best job at deploying like the FFA funding and doing this stuff have a consolidated office of broadband. What they don't often have is always a Commission.

And we have constructed that Commission specifically to ensure that you had equity in the decision making of where grant money is going. What are the programs? How are they being administered? So that was something we were very mindful of. We modeled on the CTC. All the things in this Bill, because it's a Tasha B special, are all flexible. So what we heard when we met with some of the community groups was they wanted slight changes in the board.

We were maybe more specific on who the industry was, maybe less specific on community advocates. And we said, we're suggest language. We're happy to work with you. We just modeled on the CTC initially. So those are all open for that. That was the primary opposition kind of feedback. I wouldn't even say opposition, it's the feedback that we heard. And we'll continue working with all parties to get this to a place because, you know, we do have this epic historic investment in broadband.

And what we see by the bifurcated responsibilities between Middle Mile in CDT and Last Mile in CPUC is part of the problem. Normally, you wouldn't create a middle mile without knowing where your last mile is going to be. And that's an interagency coordination problem. That's one of those persistent challenges. The other thing that's really important, and I'm not sure if any of you have ever watched a CPUC hearing related to broadband. It operates like a court. It's not a public access process.

You know, if you go and you look, you know, if you're not a party within the CPUC, you're not on the record. So you actually have become a legal party of a CPUC hearing to be on the record. That's not how public input should work on something that's so important to all of our communities. You know, I think when we look and we see how spread thin the CPUC is on broadband issues. They had 75 hearings, only two of which were presided by commissioners.

They had 75 hearings where a Commissioner was present. Only two were presided by the Commission itself. The rest was an administrative law judge. Think about anybody that is from a community that maybe doesn't have organized community advocates, and they want to go and say, hey, I'm being left out or I have a problem with it. They're not a party, they can't be heard. All that input they provide doesn't go into the public record.

So you have these really big problems that this clunky regulatory agency that was meant to regulate monopolies is now doing something that's not monopoly regulation. They're trying to do grant programs. We should put that consolidated, like other states, that we're more agile, directly under the control of the Administration, where we could give legislative direction and say, these are our priorities for our communities. That's the biggest advantage of creating an office of broadband and digital equity.

Any other Members? All right, seeing and hear none. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, call the roll, please.

The motion is due pass and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Boerner.

Aye.

Boerner, aye. Patterson?

Not voting.

Patterson, not voting. Bonta.

Aye.

Bonta, aye. Davies.

Not voting.

Davies Not voting. Garcia, Holden.

Holden. Aye. Hoover? Maienschein?

Aye

Maienschein Aye. Jim?

Aye

Jim Aye. Luz M Rivas?

Aye

Luz M Rivas Aye, Rodriguez?

Aye

Rodriguez Aye.

Has how many votes? I'm sorry. Okay, Madam Chair, that your Bill is out and we'll hold the roll open for others who may want to add on later. Thank you.

So we're gonna have the Committee second. oh, look, there's Assemblymember Garcia and I think we're missing Hoover, is that it? Assembly Member Hoover, if you can please come to Committee. Time for you to come. And we're gonna have the community secretary call the role so people can add on. First, we're gonna lift the call on AB 1826. Holden.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that bill's out. We're waiting for Assemblymember Hoover. First, we're going to lift the on-calls or call the bills that are on call, and then we'll do the add-ons. So now we do AB 2221 Corrillo. Juan Corrillo.

For AB 2221. Bonta I aligning my would have been. Comments should I have not been caught in another Committee with Assembly Members Holden around reserving my right to change my vote should the amendment related to safety concerns not be included.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

All the bills are out. We're just waiting for Assembly Member Hoover to Hoover his way over here. Okay, secretary, call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out is nine no zero. Okay, this concludes the work of the Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance today. We are adjourned.