Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation

Anything you want to. Good afternoon. Thanks for your patience. We're all trying to squeeze lots of things in here today. Welcome to Assembly budget sub four. Today's the Subcommittee's last hearing, and our hearing will be structured differently than previous hearings. No specific Department or agency will present on items.

Instead, this is an opportunity for Members to ask questions and share their priorities as we enter final negotiations of this year's budget. After all the items are heard, we'll take public comment.

For Members of the public who wish to provide public comment, you'll have 1 minute to speak to ensure we can accommodate everyone, but I encourage the public to submit letters as well. Before we start, I'd like to extend and my deepest thanks to the Legislative Analyst Office.

Your thoughtfulness and diligence are absolutely critical to building a budget that is both balanced and reflective of the legislative priorities. And I sincerely mean that. We've said that a number of times, but it is in many ways a challenging role to be close, but not in the decision making role, but just constantly making recommendations.

So we really appreciate the professionalism. In total, sub four has met 10 times to evaluate the transportation climate, natural resource issues in the proposed 2024 budget. Prioritizing transparency and exclusivity has been of utmost importance to me and as a sub Chair throughout this process process.

I appreciate the standing Committee Members that have been here and the Members outside the sub-commitee who have joined us from time to time. I welcome Assembly Members Zbur here today, and Assembly Member Conley, a standing Committee Member who's back again, and the Members of the public and stakeholders who have engaged and helped us craft our Assembly priorities.

In this final push, I will continue to fight for maintaining and restoring funding for wildfire preservation, water resilience, sustainable agriculture and environmental justice within the bounds of the budget constraints that we have. As you all know, that's not an easy task given this budget shortfall.

In our current fiscal reality, for every dollar we try to restore, we have to cut somewhere else. However, even in a deficit, I'm proud to fight alongside each of you who advocate for these programs and have spent your time fighting to protect our environment and the community's hardest hit by the impacts of climate change.

I'll now turn to the other Members of the Subcommitee to make any initial comments and begin with their questions. Subcommitee Members, then Subcommitee Members, I have about 10 questions. I don't want to dominate the floor. If you have any questions that you want to make, all right, great.

You want me to do them afterwards or you're going to do yours afterwards? Yeah. Great. There we go. Good. So staff has given you the total of about two minutes advance notice of the questions that I'm getting ready to ask. So I'm sure you'll be very complete and thorough in your answers.

But my first question starts with ports, goods, and whoever is the person that could answer on the ports and goods movement part of the budget. Thank you. Alrighty. And some witnesses will be on Webex, which is always an adventure its own. I'm going to apologize in advance. I have 10 questions.

That probably means 10 different times we're going to change people up here, and my questions are usually pretty short, so probably a lot of walking for a little bit of speaking, but we'll see. Although please be as generous with your answers as, as you can be on the ports goods.

I know that that funding increased significantly when we had the supply chain challenges and the ports were getting all bottled up. And so I know a significant portion of that money is going for expanding roads, trying to help with the movement of the actual vehicles in and out of the ports.

What percentage of it is also on the greening of the ports? The spending that is going to make the ports have a lower impact either on the immediate neighborhood or on their overall climate change emissions. Can you help me with that and give me examples?

Good afternoon. Keith Duncan, Caltrans budgets. Thank you for the question chair. While of all awarded projects, there are no specific projects dedicated to just, we'll say, greening aspects, but there are various components for each of the projects that do have greening aspects.

Some of them are providing or renewing port infrastructure, and they have specific zero emission port machinery, we'll call it for unloading and loading cargo. So we can provide you a better listing when it comes to all the projects and those specific components and the dollar values of that.

But I don't have it off the top of my head.

I'm sorry, after two minutes, you don't have that list?

I'm trying to do my calculator. My brain is just not that quick.

But. So the money is not just for streets, it is also for cargo handling. And to the extent that the cargo handling equipment is newer and have less admissions, and then to the extent that the port has a policy of trying to be zero admissions, it's more likely that that spending would go. Yes.

Just in your professional judgment, would you say that the money spent on the roads, streets, that kind of infrastructure that probably doesn't have any direct impact versus machinery loading, etcetera, would the machinery loading and that be in the 10% category, the 30% category, or. I don't know. You don't have a professional judgment.

LAO, do you have one since you just showed up?

Good afternoon. Rachel Ehlers with LAO. I just wanted to flag that outside of the transportation infrastructure package, there was also funding within the zero emission vehicle package, climate package specifically for ports under the mayor revision that is proposed to be delayed to a future year. So it hasn't gone out yet, but, and I think was also reduced.

But there is some funding specifically for ports within the zero emission vehicle package, which may get at some of the activities you're talking about.

Great. And I'd appreciate you staying up here so you don't have to walk back and forth for all of these. But I am aware that we've slowed down the ZEV package. My question was on the port infrastructure itself was there, so. All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciate it. Highways to boulevards. You guys did wonderful. All right. Oh, go ahead. Give it a try and we'll find out.

Under California Energy Commission, it notes that the $45 million that was previously allocated for offshore wind infrastructure has been, has been reduced to 20 by 20 million to 25. And then it reallocates that to a number of things. And are you all the folks to deal with this?

One of the things I was nervous about was the fact that I thought that the 45 million was in part to sort of help the ports, the Port of Long Beach, Port of Humboldt, to other ports to engage in the environmental review related to offshore wind. And now it looks like what's left.

One, the 45 million was cut to 20 million and that there's nothing in there for the nearest term environmental review that needs to take place. There's environmental review for the Coastal Commission, for the Ocean Protection Council, for the, for the State Lands Commission.

There's 6.7 million in CEC for offshore wind port infrastructure funding, but there's nothing for the environmental review. And these are, you know, separate government agencies. The Port of Long Beach, the Port of Humboldt. So I'm just wondering why. I mean, that's the nearest thing that needs to be, that needs to happen.

So I'm just very concerned that not only was the cutback so much, but then some of the nearest funding isn't allocated to the folks that need the funding.

Steve Wells, Department of Finance. Just. You have that right. We did take the 45 million and allocate 16 million of it to several natural resources agencies that you know, the Coastal Commission, others, that, and that that's meant to accelerate the permitting process and to start the environmental process there.

And we left the 6.5 million there for the, you know, on the CEC sides for the port, for port infrastructure. But that includes sort of all aspects of the port infrastructure process.

So that's, that's meant to be a three year plan to do, you know, the things that we can get done in the near term and to sort of streamline and be as comprehensive as we can.

I guess the question is why? The nearest term environmental review that's already starting is at the ports. So we retain money for environmental review, these agencies that don't have anything pending, but we've actually eliminated it for the near term environmental review projects.

Hi, good afternoon. Liz Erie, Department of Finance. So the Administration took a very strategic approach to addressing our offshore wind energy needs. As part of that, we have provided a $16 million, very concise consolidated streamlined package, which does include environmental review functions at the State Lands Commission, CEC and Coastal Commission.

But why not the ports the ports have to go through? I mean, that's the nearest term environmental review that's taking place.

Perhaps one of our colleagues online may be able to help directly address question.

And we don't have to belabor this, but I just blow out a flag that I think that's a big mistake. I think that they need funding. That's the nearest term funding that's out there. I don't object to the other funding. All of them need funding.

But cutting it out from the Port of Long Beach, Port of Humboldt, and some of the other ports that are engaging in some of the review.

Now, when I look at the offshore wind, the thing that I'm most worried about is the fact that we don't have the port piece is the first thing that sort of has to happen. And so anything that's delaying that is something that I get very nervous about.

The entire offshore wind trajectory in terms of what we're doing, do we have.

Anybody online ready to address Assembly Member Zbur's question? And I'll tell you while you're getting organized, when you come online, we'll take you, but we'll go back and ask the questions. Any other questions on this topic, Mister Zbur? No, that's it. Great. So I'll bring back the highways to boulevards, folks. Thank you for staying close. Right.

And if anybody from the Administration staff let me know, how will they let us know? Will they just show up on the screen? Administration representative, you said somebody may show up on the screen. How will we know that, that somebody in the Administration wants to participate? Got any, any help for us on that?

Yeah. Good afternoon, Debra. Can you hear me? This is Damien Mimnaugh, the chief financial officer at the Energy Commission.

Great. Mister Zbur has been asking a question about why not funding for to the ports directly to help them subsidize the cost and move along on the Eirs for the wind projects.

That's a great question. So I have with me Elizabeth Huber. The Director of our siting division here. But at a high level, the ports. Have the authority to do their own environmental impact reviews. And I'll pass it on to Elizabeth if there are additional questions from the Member. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Elizabeth Huber. I'm the sighting transmission Environmental Protection division Director, Director at the California Energy Commission. For the record and to answer your questions. Good to see you again Assembly Member Zbur. Is that Humboldt is already underway.

The Legislature did grant in 21-22 a $11 million award specific to the work up at the Humboldt harbor district. And so that environmental work is well underway almost two years later.

And with the streamlined budgeting, the funds that are available, we're looking at doing a competitive process that will again support the site assessment, design assessment through the environmental reviews that ports need to do with the funding still available.

So with the 6.7 million that's listed, would that be available for, for example, for the port of Long Beach to continue with the environmental review of that port wind project?

Absolutely. If they apply to the solicitation for one of the grants, it definitely could contribute to their work on their environmental review work there.

I don't want to take more time than this, but I would appreciate maybe if we offline understand sort of the dollar figures in terms of how they're allocated. My focus, as I know yours is as well, is really not doing anything that slows down offshore wind and making sure we're getting money to the nearest term needs.

And I have questions about whether the 25 million that's left and how it was allocated, whether or not those are actually at the nearest term needs for environmental review that has to happen.

Absolutely. I'll follow up with your office.

Thank you so much. It was really nice to see you.

Yeah, thank you very much. And I'm impressed. We can get a lot of different people answering questions, and nobody knows who's going to get what questions. So, I mean, it is a pretty effective way. I mean, think 25 years ago you certainly couldn't be having a hearing like this. So appreciate it. Highways to boulevards.

What's the chance of getting, getting federal dollars if we have funding in that program?

Keith Duncan, Caltrans budgets. Thank you for the question. Based on discussions with our contacts within the Federal Highway Administration, quite high. The initial intent as part of the pilot overall, was to set these projects up so we can try to leverage any available federal funds as discretionary programs.

What kind of match are we talking about? About percentage match, doubling, tripling.

That's most of the grants come in. They come in with it. We'd have to provide a non federal or state match. So that's where we would be.

So 100% match. We put in 20. They put in 20. Yeah. Great. Thank you very much. All righty. Broadband last mile.

Good afternoon, Chair Bennett. Rachel Pearson with the CPUC here.

Great. Nice to have you here, Rachel. We also have a representative of the Administration step forward also. And you are?

Steve Wells, Department of Finance.

All right, great. And so my question is, we've had Assembly Member suggest that we delay the spending of the state money on broadband last mile so that we use all the federal money first. And the reason for that is the federal money comes with strings attached.

And that way, if we have problems, et cetera, with projects that we can't Fund with federal money, we still have state money, whereas if we spend the state money early, then we wouldn't be able to use federal money if it had a restriction to it.

Thank you, Chair. It's a very wise strategy and one that we're actually already planning to implement. So our rollout has always been planning to use the 540 million in federal special projects Fund first, because you're right, that is the set of funds that has a sharper, sooner dead.

Wanted to just get the take of both the view of the value of that strategy. We'll start with you, Rachel. You outranking?

Great. Thank you. Anything Department of Finance?

Just to put to note on the record, we did, as part of the May revision proposal, reduce the amount that we propose to be available in budget year and budget year plus one from 300 million to 100 million.

You know, to the extent that that additional 100 million can be, you know, moved out, that that would be, you know, if that would be per whatever, per the plan for how they're moving forward, whether or not that would have any impact.

All right. Thank you very much. Methane satellites. And on deck would be the strategic Reserve, the OTC plants. So the question on the methane satellites is that we already have some and there is this proposal to expand them. And the question is how much marginal gain do we get for this expense?

It's an issue that's been raised a number of times. I'm going to give you one last shot on this one.

Sure. Good morning. Brandon Merritt, Department of Finance. So the RFP will be used to contract with a vendor to build and launch satellites that the State of California will then be able. Well, then purchase publicly available data from the state, can request specific in depth observations from the satellites, such as, for example, from a specific oil field.

So in other words, methane sat, which is the name of the organization that California would be working with for this project, can pinpoint individual plumes of methane. And so this pinpoint capability is not currently offered by other existing methane satellites.

And Chair Bennett, Christian Beltran with the Department of Finance. I also wanted to just add a couple of additional points here. So this was approved in last year's budget act. So this is not a Governor's Budget proposal. This was approved last year.

Also, want to kind of emphasize that the importance of this is that you refer to some already existing satellites that are out there. Those particular satellites are not currently contracted with the state. That's a separate nonprofit that has the ability to use the satellites for their purposes.

We may benefit from some of the data that they're collecting, but it's not the specific amount of data that we are looking for as a state. As my colleague had mentioned, this particular data that we would be gathering is much more granular.

It has a much bigger use for the state, and we would also be able to partner, partner with different states and other kind of entities to help release some of this data. So there is somewhat of a benefit to that as well.

But also want to give an opportunity for our colleagues from the Air Resources Board to add any comments, if they have any additional ones.

And I have further questions as they're adding comments, and that is, who will actually control the satellite? You talked about this. You're saying we don't control the satellites right now that we're purchasing data from. And a further question is, if we don't control these satellites, I've heard you say we're going to contract to get the data.

Does this mean we have to build into the budget money to get the data also, or is this money take care of data for the next five years, or?

The money takes care of the data purchase.

For how long?

I believe it's over the next five years, but I want to defer to CARB for that if they are on the line and wish to speak.

So I want to be clear, are these satellites already up there, and we're just spending money to try to get the data.

They are not.

Or if without our funding, will the satellites still go up and we just won't have access to the data, or the money is to need our funding for the satellites to go.

Yeah, the funding is to build and launch the satellites, and then included in that appropriation is the purchase of data from those satellites.

Chair Becker, if I can also clarify, the satellites that are at our question right now don't currently exist. The money that was appropriated in last year's budget creates a market for building these satellites.

And so therefore, the two satellites that already exist from the nonprofit organization that's currently out there is specifically out there operating independently of the states contracting needs. The RFP that we are releasing, or that was released currently, is to create an opportunity for vendors to bid on providing data to the state but operate their own satellites.

So the vendor themselves would have to operate and build these satellites. And I think that's kind of a prudent approach from the state because we don't have any kind of NASA agency or anything to operate satellites.

So the vendors would be responsible for operating and building these satellites, but providing the data as requested by the state when we would like it and how we would like it. So we would own the data and get the data from them, and we would control when, what pictures they're taking and where pictures are taken. Okay.

I'm not sure. I think there are a number of people that think that the Legislature's out in space a lot. When you said we don't have a NASA component there, but what enforcement will be done as to the other, what enforcement will be done after we have the data?

What's the data going to give us that would, what would change if we get this data?

Well, I think the goal is to just, first off, utilize the data to really identify where plumes of methane are really leaking throughout the state. In terms of enforcement, enforcement wasn't part of the proposal last year.

This is really just to create more data and have the data accessible across, within the state, but also across to different partners.

The enforcement mechanism that would follow would be something that would be subject to negotiation, not negotiations, but rather further conversations with the Legislature and within the Administration to see how that data can be utilized across the different programs that go and specifically look for bad actors in terms of methane emissions.

Thank you. And is anybody on the screen that wants to jump in?

Yes. David Garcia, Legislative Director for CARB.

So, as Christian mentioned, the sensors on the satellites will be providing data to the states that will have incredible spatial resolution that will allow us to see individual forms of methane emanating from specific and identifiable infrastructure on the ground, such as as an oil rig, a pipeline, or a particular location in a landfill.

And so with that, we can use it as a mitigation tool to better support our, and enforce our regulations.

Recent amendments to the GHG emissions standards for oil and gas facilities include a satellite based remote detection provision within the requirements for facility operators to fix leaks after being notified of a plume detection by card through the satellite data. And similar provisions are being workshopped or in the early stages of considerations for the landfill methane regulations.

So we can't do that today with our current setup?

No, we don't have any satellite data to date that would allow us to see the kind.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Your Welcome.

All right, we're going to go to a strategic Reserve and on deck ascendant, central procurement. All right. If central procurement wants to move down and sit in the front row so that you can move quickly, we'd appreciate it. All right.

So in the strategic Reserve, we have 75 million left. And what would happen if the 75 million wasn't available?

Megan Larsen, Department of Finance. I would pass it to our colleagues at the Department of Water Resources to speak specifically.

Thank you, sir. Oh, that Department of Honor.

All right. Do we have someone from DWR on the line?

We do. I apologize. I'm trying to reconfigure my camera. Can you hear me at least?

Yes, we can.

Okay, fantastic. I apologize. I have to roll back a little bit. And as far as I'm concerned, I'm aware of a $55 million HUD. Could I maybe, perhaps get some clarification on that? I apologize. My name is Delphine Poe, Deputy Director of statewide energy at DWR.

Yeah. The data I have in front of me shows that 75 million has not been appropriated yet. That's in the 25-26 budget. And I have another thing, another thing that identifies 20 billion, 20 billion. 20 million, I'm sorry. Is still available in 24-25 but I'm looking at the 25-26, 75 million. And if it is. There we go.

All right. All right. What do you have? Can we tell them what this document is? This their document? This is your document. So I'll try to help you page wise if you want. Do you have the line item? It is the second item on DWR.

On the document that says climate and opportunity budget in millions 2024 May. Revision amount maintained. So it's on the second to the last page. I'm sorry, the third to the last page. Two items down.

Excuse me, Chair. Megan Larson, Department of Finance. Just to clarify, I think some of the confusion is about a delay that was proposed at Governor's Budget and then a solution that was proposed at May revision. So there was a $55 million delay from 2024-25 to 2025-26 at Governor's Budget.

In the May revision, we've proposed a solution of 55 million from that 2025-26. So at May revision, what would remain in 2025-26 is 20 million.

Okay. All right. So you delayed 55. Right. Anyway, whether it's 95 million or 55 million or 75 million, what happens if we cut it?

I would. I can take.

Thank you. Raven again, Dilphine Hou, Deputy Director at statewide water and energy at DWR. So the dollars do matter. When we were originally looking at a $55 million shift, that is quite manageable because we do have several multi year contracts. If we're talking about a cut, we do feel like the 55 million is also manageable.

But the way in which we would manage that is we would really focus on our current contracts and that we have to prioritize those above anything else, like, such as new pursuits within the Reserve so we can refocus that, look at our current contracts and make sure we can execute on those in the out years.

However, above that amount, I think that is really going to start to affect our current contract. And again, we signed the legally binding contract with our counterparties for performance for multiple years throughout the Reserve. So we really want to preserve that flexibility, especially in the out years as we go through our contracts.

So is it accurate to say that if we cut more than 55 million, it would affect current contracts, but the other 55 million would just mean you couldn't pursue other contracts to supplement the strategic Reserve, is that correct?

That's correct. That's correct. That's how we view it. We were hoping to. I apologize.

No, go ahead.

One of the objectives of the Reserve is to look at clean energy resources or battery storage resources, and with the budget, that would really reduce our capability to do so. But I think for now, a $55 million cut, that would still enable us to focus on our current contracts.

Thank you. And LAO, always feel free to jump in if you have something. So my final question is, what's the total amount of dollars needed just for the current contracts?

Right now, our. The entirety of our budget is. I don't have the exact number, but it is over $2 billion.

So we are looking at almost the entirety of the Reserve allocation that we have, have from our funds, from the various funding sources, and with also some contingency to make sure that we can weather through variability with our counterparties.

So the current contracts are about $2 billion roughly, right, so that.

Right, exactly. So you had mentioned the ones through cooling resources. But again, we do have other assets within the Reserve. So the totality of those assets, as well as the funds that we have spent for other activities earlier in the funding cycle for things like imports.

Great, thank you. We're on to central procurement, and we'll welcome Assembly Member Petrie-Norris, who has joined us also. And I have four more questions left, and then Assembly Member Connolly has some questions, and then we'll be open to any questions you have. And so many Members of our jump whenever you'd like in that process.

Central procurement and with the central procurement process, CPUC will need the CPUC on the help with this. They haven't determined what entity is going to do the central procurement so far. My question is, do we need, do we need immediate funding or can we take more time?

Because we haven't even identified who's going to do the central procurement.

Chair Bennett. Rachel Peterson with the CPUC. I can speak to timing on our process. So we held a workshop in early May and for our process.

Comments and reply comments are coming in over the next couple of months, and we will, we are pushing out a decision in September on the entity that will be responsible for central procurement.

So we won't know the entity until December, September, September. Thank you. All right. Anything you want to add here, Administration?

Andrew Hull with Department of Finance. We would just note that that deadline was always built into the funding. It's why it hasn't been encumbered yet, but it's closely approaching.

Thank you very much. Community solar and on deck voluntary agreements. Given the decisions that the CPUC made about what the rates and rate reimbursements are going to be for solar, if this money was not cut, how would it be spent?

The rate is Low enough that not likely that most people are going to see a financial benefit in terms of installing solar. So how would the Department be spending this money?

Steve Wells, Department of Finance so for Community Solar, the may revise proposal, we've got $33 million currently appropriated for community solar, and the May revision proposes an additional 50 million in GGRF funding in budget year plus one and budget year plus four.

So this is actually, and this is sort of an offset to the proposed reductions in the residential solar program. So, but this is, this proposes to increase the budget from 33 million to 83 million.

But how will it be effective given that we have very Low reimbursement rates for solar now, based on the CPUC decision, we were trying to help Low income people put solar on, but if after they put solar on, their rate doesn't really change because it is only the avoided cost that they get in terms of the value of the solar being on, there's not a financial improvement for Low income people to engage in the solar.

So if that's the case, and the same thing true with community solar. So I'm trying to knock both of those out at the same time. I don't know what you'd spend millions of dollars on if people would sit there and scratch their head and say, why would a Low income family make the decision to also. Or if it's.

I think I'm going to need some additional information from Rachel, I can hop in?

Yes. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks. Chair Bennett. Yeah. First, just as to process the CPUC, we do have a proposed decision out in public, but we actually, the commissioners have not actually acted on it yet. And so I can't really get out ahead of that Chair.

And in addition, we know the requirements under the law, and we are definitely going to look at how best to use the funds that, in the ways that you're speaking about. But the commissioners are the ones who will act on that and act again in the future on those questions.

Sure. I'm not trying in this hearing to debate what this Commissioner should do, et cetera, but I'm saying if the draft proposal is. That's the best data that I have. Whatever you have out there, if it is that, it seems like there's a dramatic drop in the solar that is going to be installed.

And so I wonder, what will these millions of dollars be used for? But I think I'll leave that question and go on to voluntary agreement now. Thank you. And then the final on deck is data research. So, super short question. Did the voluntary agreements get signed?

Yes, sir. Drag out of Department of Finance. So state, federal and dozens of local agencies are working to advance a transformational watershed wide approach to increase river flows and restore ecosystem systems in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river watersheds, and also strengthen water supply reliability across the state. There has been an MOU that has been signed.

The agreements are not in effect yet. They are actually currently going through the Water Board's regulatory process. Water Board is considering these agreements as a potential pathway as it works through update the Bay Delta water quality control plan.

So we don't have contracts signed yet. We have some MOU's. Are the contracts designed primarily for droughts during periods of droughts in terms of the benefits of the public that come from the contract?

So actually, we have some folks from the agency and departments online who could probably better speak to those details. All right. Thank you.

Welcome, Assemblymember Wilson. We'll be to your questions shortly. I have just one more question after this.

James Newcomb, Deputy Director of Department of Water Resources over integrated watershed management. Happy to answer this question, but I want to first pause for a second and yield to any other California natural Resource agency representatives who want to take an initial shot.

Okay. And the question was specific to the water year types that we're targeting for these contracts. And the answer to that is that we're looking at all water year types. So really trying to achieve better flow conditions across all water year types.

But the question is a good one, because a big critical piece to that are the critically dry ear water type square. We need to meet minimum water quality conditions.

So I could see the benefits to the people who want to take the water during high flow times, and this would be to allow them to more easily and, take more water in exchange for making sure that they supply more water during the drought periods of times. Essentially correct on the concept?

There is a balancing concept to that. Correct.

And is there a reason why the contracts haven't been signed yet? We've been after this process for quite some time.

Yeah so, really it just stems from the amount of coordination and modeling that has to happen as you integrate all these different flow actions into one sort of comprehensive model to determine what the environmental outcomes might be, and then transmitting that information over to the Water Board has taken a long time, and the Water Board is currently sitting with that information and reviewing it.

Do you have a target time when you believe the contracts will be signed?

So I believe that the Water Board will issue a decision somewhere around the early part of 2025.

And is there a need for the funding before the contracts are signed? As long as the fund, you know, this funding is going to be there, it's just, does the funding have to be there in 24-25?

There's a significant amount of planning work that has to happen, and we have to start working on these contract agreements now. And the short answer to that question is yes, the funding is needed for. But I could provide a more substantial answer after this meeting as to why that is.

My question isn't... you need to have certainty that funding is coming for the contracts, but we're not going to be paying anybody on the contracts until after we have signed contracts, correct?

I don't have the specific answer on that. I'll have to follow up exactly what the sequence will be.

Okay. And I know that part of why I'm asking, and what's a little confusing is we have DWR, habitat restoration money, we also have the large scale habitat money, and all of that's blended in in terms of these voluntary agreements.

So we're still trying to wrestle and make sure we understand what the funding is needed for, for the voluntary agreements. Is it needed for the studies by the Department so that they can sign the proper agreements, or is it needed for funding after the contracts are signed to carry out the terms of the contract?

And so if you could, the sooner you could get that information to us, the more we appreciate it. All right, thank you. And then we're on to data research, that whole category of data research.

When we tried to pull the data on this, it just said various projects. If you can help us with more detail than various projects, we'd appreciate it.

Andrew Hull with Department of Finance. I want to make sure we're talking about the same category, because we have data research for a few different areas. Is this DWR in particular?

This is data research and communications. It says various here, but...

Liz Erie, Department of Finance, I can take this. This is a $600,000 investment at the resources, Natural Resources Agency.

No, I'm talking about $127,000,000 that's leftover funding from 2022-2023.

We might have to get back to you on which category we're talking about on this one.

Okay, you have any more clarification, clarifying data on which category this is?

It's called data research and communications, and under Department it says various. So we're trying to figure out, I think it's primarily to DWR, but we're not sure, and so we're trying to understand where it went.

And are you looking for a status on the implementation of these funds? We can follow up with that.

Yeah, for that, since it covers multiple departments, we might need to circle back.

Let me help you identify, because I do have some research on what those departments are, and they are... Here we go. And they were CDFA, CNRA. That's the 600,000 you were talking about, DWR and SWRCB. Right. So State Water Board, DWR, and the other two.

And so it's just unclear for us what's happening at each of those agencies with these funds.

Sure. If I may, for the CNRA component, May revision did propose the $600,000 as a General Fund solution. However, we have since determined that that funding is not available as a solution. It was utilized to support a limited-term position for three years.

Okay, so it's off the table. 91 million for DWR. Anybody at DWR want to try to answer that one?

This is Andrew Hull with Department of Finance. I can say that DWR received $91 million in 2122. They're showing right now an available uncommitted balance of 9.4 million. I would defer to the Department on more details for that, of how quickly they are going to be able to encumber that.

And then while we're at it, the Water Board was given, looks like $3.5 million. They have since fully committed that. And so there's a zero balance there.

All right, so 9 million left in DWR and then CDF. Do you have what's left in CDF?

Christian Beltran, I'm with the Department of Finance. Mr. Chair, I believe we'll have to probably either get back to you on the specific encumbrance of those dollars or if a colleague from CDFA on the line has those numbers, happy to turn it to them to provide that information.

All right, LAO, your drought chart has 202 million appropriated for data, research, and communications. What do you think remains?

Yeah, again, Mr. Chair, Rachel Ehlers from the LAO. We'll have to get back to you in some of these charts because some of these single appropriations were so small they end up getting rolled up. So your chart doesn't span 15 pages. So we'll work with your staff to kind of break that out.

And the Administration has provided a recent update on expenditure so we can work on that.

Thank you very much. All right, and we will now turn to Assemblymembers with questions. And Assemblymember Connolly, you indicated you had some.

Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. You covered a lot of good ground. I'm gonna try not to be duplicative. So if we can start with Department of Food and Ag. Welcome. And we've covered this in prior hearings, but really wanted to put a finer point on a couple of programs that have effectively are being fully cut.

One is the farm-to-community food hubs program cuts of 14.4 million of 15 million. And then the California Nutrition Incentive program, or CNIP, which funds market match cuts of 33.2 million are being cut.

So I guess again, and we've kind of discussed this, but concerns that why these programs and not others that have higher costs and aren't directly focused on helping vulnerable residents, why these ones are taking such a big hit?

Has the Administration verified the financial health of small farmers that have asked for this relief and will not receive it? So just kind of generally, where are things at at this point, given our ongoing discussion?

Julianne Rolf with the Department of Finance. So I'll defer to CDFA regarding your last question regarding the health of small farmers. But overall cuts were made on programs where the money hadn't gone out.

And so the CNIP, for example, was one of those where there's a small portion of funds remaining for administrative costs to help with for that program, as well as the farm-to-community hubs.

But there are other farm programs that are helping the local farmers in the state so that there are funds like the farm to school, for example, that are helping sustain farmers across the state to provide more context.

Christian Belcher with the Department of Finance Again, just to kind of underscore that the Administration has engaged with a group of stakeholders pertaining to these two particular programs and are aware of their concerns. So definitely had an opportunity to discuss these difficult decisions with them, completely understanding the impacts that it may have to them and their organizations.

Would also note that the CNET program in particular, the administration's understanding is that this is a particular program that has historically had some investments from the state in the past and really was an opportunity for them to get ongoing funding at this point.

However, given the current budget situation that we're in, this is one of those particular programs that was not really viewed in the scope of being a core program that the state traditionally provides as part of a program delivery. And therefore we had to make the difficult decision to cut the funds related to that program.

Well, here's another concern with CNIP, and stakeholders have shared this, my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, the state has already lost access to a $15 million federal match to CNIP in 2024 due to the proposed cuts, given the timing of the federal match program. So first of all, do you disagree with that?

In your view, what level of funding do we need to maintain to draw down on federal funds? And is there an argument to be made that we should prioritize maintaining programs that can draw in such federal investments? I would argue the answer is yes.

So I believe it's 12 million in federal funds. That would be from the drawdown, but, yeah. So the timing is, we've passed that. May 14 was the deadline, so unfortunately, we did miss out on that. But in terms of future federal funds, I believe CDFA is better equipped to answer that question.

Okay, well, I would be interested in an answer to that.

Yeah, we'll be happy to work with them to provide that if they're not on that.

Was it on Ag, resources agency, I just really have just one point. It's probably not worth coming up unless you need to. And Chair, I appreciate you concurring on this point at our last hearing, and that is concerning the $2 million cut to the marine mammal center. It's getting completely eliminated.

This center is in my district, but has very important significance to the region and frankly, the whole state, given the type of work and study that they do. So, again, why in the scope of the large budget issues we have something this small would be targeted.

Sure. Liz Erie, Department of Finance thank you for the question. As we understand from public testimony made in last week's hearing, we believe that the Marine Mammal Center's overall budget is $35 million, of which the state has recently supported, with an additional $2 million.

As part of our approach to the May revision, we really emphasized maintaining core state operations, and from our perspective, the marine mammal center does not meet that criteria.

All right. Well, I would, I would join the Chair in advocating that we keep that $2 million. I think it is vital. That was it for that topic.

Had a quick note on home hardening, and maybe I can pontificate a little bit while you're walking up, noting that through AB 38 in 2019, Assemblymember Wood, the LAO says it has, quote, faced various implementation challenges and as such, roughly $25 million of General Fund that has not yet been committed to this.

From this program, from allocations, we know that home hardening is a key cornerstone of our wildfire prevention strategies, certainly in my district, but throughout the state, so very concerning that we see the slow implementation of programs by departments as the reasoning behind suggested budget cuts.

Certainly in this case, we're seeing that repeatedly in a number of the areas we're covering. So in our analysis, the LAO suggests cutting the home hardening grant program because of implementation issues and the fact that uncommitted funds remain. So my question is why? Why has this program lagged even though it was created in 2019?

Why do you feel it's justified to have $12 million cut from it when it hasn't even been properly implemented yet? And particularly given the heightened level of concern that folks have in this space.

Sure thing. Happy to comment on that. My name is Tess Scherkenback with the Department of Finance. So I'll just give a quick overview of kind of where things stand, given the May revision and the Governor's Budget proposal from the Administration.

So this program was intended to provide grants to homeowners for retrofitting projects, and it was allocated 50 million total across the 2021 and the 2022 climate budgets.

So the General Fund solution proposed by the Administration at Governor's Budget would result in a total of $12 million, or 24%, being reduced from this program, maintaining 38 million, or 76% of the total original allocation.

Understand that the LAO had a different analysis that they provided earlier in the year, which I'm sure they can kind of clarify their reasoning for suggesting, but the Administration does find significant value in this program, which is why we propose to maintain 76% of the original appropriation.

I know that we have some representatives potentially on the line from Cal Fire that can talk specifically about the struggles the program had at the beginning.

But I'll just comment by saying that it's difficult to stand-up programs from the onset, completely new program took time to develop and get it stood up, and they have made progress in allocations. Cal OES specifically has worked with two communities. For the remaining 13 million, the Administration proposes to continue to, you know, provide.

And they have two communities slated in Siskiyou County and Riverside County that they're working to get, you know, to get that funding out the door. And so that's why we proposed maintaining that funding.

If I could just add, Steven Benson with Department of Finance. So it certainly took some time for the departments to stand up the new programs. But I do want to emphasize that the significant portion of the delay is this program works with the FEMA to draw down matching funds.

And a significant portion, in fact, the majority of the funding that goes to the overall projects is coming from FEMA. Most of the delay is getting projects submitted to FEMA and then waiting for FEMA to approve those. So that's where a lot of the delay comes in.

And I think where we're at right now is there's a number of projects have been approved and are starting to move forward. And we have a number of years where those we built out, because this particular funding had not yet been sort of committed to projects in specific communities yet, the availability of it and the severity of the budget situation is the reason why we're proposing to cut it.

So if Cal Trans is available and wants to weigh in. Excuse me, Cal Fire. Caltrans is next. Just on deck.

Before Cal Fire weighs in. Would just like to offer this because I'd like to see what their thoughts are about it, if you don't mind, on the same topic.

And that is that, you know, from my perspective, when you're trying to roll out a new program, you can go fast or you can go, you can go fast or slow, but if you go fast, the odds that you're going to roll it out really efficiently and properly are slim.

And since this is a new program, home hardening is such a sort of mystery in my mind. Sure, we know how to harden a home, but do we know which are the home-hardening investments that are the ones we should subsidize for the benefit of the community.

So I don't mind that it's taking them a while to come up with us from that standpoint.

Well, certainly that's true, but as a result, it's kind of getting defunded.

And I would offer 76% of the, there are a whole lot of budgets that are cut a lot more than 26%. So they're still believing in the program.

Agreed.

And almost everybody's taking something. And so anyway, just wanted to offer that, but Cal Fire, do you want to respond?

Yeah. Good afternoon, Chair and Assembly Members. Daniel Berlant, California's State Fire Marshall, appreciate the questions and very much acknowledge the frustration it has taken to get us to this point. I want to start off though, actually the very first home is now under construction as we speak.

And in the coming months, that number will continue to go up. But you're right, it has taken several months.

And as Mr. Benson accurately pointed out, part of the pilot and part of this challenge of this Home Harden Initiative was to figure out how can we access federal dollars and go through the barriers and the requirements of using that money. We are accessing in some cases upwards of 90% of federal funds.

But with that comes a number of very important environmental reviews the Federal Government has required of us. And so that has added to our ability, jointly with Cal OES to be able to get this money into retrofitting homes.

And Chair, to your point about answering the question of where should the state be investing money, this project is looking at vulnerable populations, whether those are individuals who cannot afford to do this work, cannot physically do this work, but are at a higher vulnerability, not only to wildfire risk, but also have these social vulnerabilities.

And as part of this pilot, we are going to be reporting to you in the coming months a legislative report that identifies those barriers. That will probably help explain why it's taken years of work on the Cal Fire and Cal OES team to get us to this point.

But again, Assemblymember this summer, we are now underway in harding homes. And we know that these homes that are now retrofitted will be better protected for wildfires. But appreciate very much your concern about the funding.

But I will reassure you that the funding that is preserved in this budget continues to allow us to not only go through with the five pilots that are in the initial phases, that's almost 2500 homes, but to expand to several others.

And so that will give us time to really work through some of these challenges so that we can come back to you report on the validity of the program, and then we can talk further about future investments in this initiative.

That sounds really good. Glad to hear that. Looking forward to continuing to all work together on that. And it looks like there's kind of a broader conversation going on as well about some other opportunities in this space. So really appreciate that. So Cal Trans, if you're available,

And, how many more questions do you have?

All right, great. I'm just trying to help us with our timing. And Assemblymember Peter Norris, how many questions do you have roughly? And Assemblymember Wilson? Three. Good. All right, so it sounds like we have about 10 more questions. So session starts at two.

More or less like one or two.

We can go over, but for Members that want to get back, I want to let you know that, or if you have something in a crisis, please let us know. Assemblymember?

Yeah, so again, no mystery the concern that's been reported about the cuts of $600 million from the act of transportation program, of the $1.05 billion total, given that this is a cornerstone of our climate strategies in the state and healthy living.

So really the question is, are the cuts to the ATP still not going to be filled from the State Highway Fund as has been traditionally kind of part of the solution? If so, can the panelists explain the reasoning of not just using this fund when it has been traditionally tapped for ATP projects?

Sure. James Moore with Finance. It is still the case that we're not recommending any sort of backfill.

It was used last year, as you point out, to backfill, and that's really one of the reasons that we're not comfortable doing it again, all of the money that we would be using to backfill for ATP comes straight out of other important highway priorities because of the magnitude that we have already shifted to state highway account, which is about $650 million in the last couple of years, as well as knowing how many storms and things have happened since then that really need our full attention and our full effort.

We really didn't feel it was appropriate to come back a second time.

Yeah, I think a number of us would push back on that, just kind of the premise. And in effect, ATP, I think, can be viewed as part of the overall transportation strategy.

I imagine maybe one of my colleagues may want to comment on that as well, but we're going to continue to kind of push back on that and hopefully have additional conversation. So thank you.

Sure. Thanks.

If I could piggyback on ATP. So this is something, when the budget first came out, I was very much concerned about ATP being cut essentially in half, as well as some other issues. But I'll bring those other issues up later when it's my appropriate time to have the floor.

But while we're on ATP, I wanted to talk it through. And what I recognize is that given the budget situation that we're in, cuts are necessary. I've had an opportunity to listen and on a few conversations when talking about human services.

And those are, you know, those are really painful when you hear the testimony around them and just what's being cut. And so, you know, I appreciate getting to sit on this Committee in terms of not having to deal with things that are directly, you know, a part of someone's survival. Right.

And these are programs that we deal with that are about of the greater good for the community as a whole and as we move forward. So I just wanted to lay that out there as I talk through, through ATP.

And so given that in comparison to other things that we're cutting in this budget that are really a part of someone's survival, when I look at ATP, I understand why you went there and doing a little research, noting that since its inception, it's programmed more than 3.8 billion for more than 1180 projects.

And definitely, as was noted, to expand the active transportation network here in California and improved cyclists and pedestrian safety. That is extremely, extremely important.

And I'm concerned about the cuts and its ability to slow our state's effort in ensuring that all modes of transportation are supported and that biking and walking are safe alternatives to traveling in a car. This is extremely important because typically when we think of the upper economic mobility of a person, we think about a car.

But really, I think the upper mobility of a person or economic mobility person is their choices in transportation. So not just a car, but the ability to walk and bicycle and do it in a safe way.

However, also, as I've been doing research over the last week, since the budget's been out, it's been unclear if the program is achieving its stated goals.

There was a study done and it says multiple program goals and limited public reported data regarding project delivery and performance has made it difficult for us in the Legislature and other stakeholders to evaluate the extent to which this program is achieving its attending goals and what changes might be warranted.

The Secretary of State Transportation Agency noted that the proposed ATP cut is a part of mitigated, is in part mitigated because more state highway and local road projects are incorporating ATP elements such as as bike lanes and sidewalks into their projects.

And I feel like this is a good opportunity to hold the Administration accountable and that we could should consider adopting trailer bill language requiring Cal Trans to provide an annual report summarizing the ATP elements included in highway and road projects.

Similarly, it would be useful to take this opportunity to improve ATP and consider narrowing the program's goals to focus on safety and mode shift and requiring data on measure outcomes in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of these investments.

I think this is going to lay a proper foundation for when we are in better budget years and we can allow for more resources. And so although I am concerned about losing half, I'm also taking into consideration the other cuts that we've made that deal with people's actual survival.

And so I think there's two, as I stated, two opportunities here.

I think that we should have budget trailer language about an annual report summarizing the ATP elements, and also that we should focus on safety and mode shift when it comes to ATP, the current allocation that we still do have in the budget and ensure that when we have budget buddy years, that's where it's focused on.

So it's measurable and actually does what it's supposed to. So although I'm concerned about ATP being cut, I do recognize that in light of this budget, we will have to cut somewhere.

So I want to take advantage of the lean time when we're being lean about it to make sure we have some more accountability and oversight as it relates to ATP. And I jumped in because he was on that subject.

And I'm going to jump your jump just because on the same subjects as a transportation Chair, I just like to share my thoughts that I very strongly support the ATP. Also, I want to make sure we get maximum bang for our buck. Overall, I think the State of California has to move more into active transportation setups.

It's just a common sense thing to do for all kinds of reasons, but we don't have the resources to do all of it.

So when we do have resources, I want to make sure that if we have a choice between a project that's going to give us 20 miles of bike lane and 10 miles of better ways for people to walk, that we do that over a project that's going to give us 5 miles of bike lanes, but a whole lot of pretty ornate things along the bike lanes and statues and that kind of stuff.

So I'm just, I want to make sure the ATP is invested in functionality, active transportation, and not decorative active transportation. And if so, if you do push on a trailer bill about reporting, I'd love to make sure we emphasize that in that it's a reform that I think we should have in ATP.

Chair I absolutely agree with you because I think that's where local dollars can add to the decorative element to these particular projects where the state is subsidizing the actual safety or mode shift, expanding the number of miles versus the functionality of it.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Are you finished, Assemblymember Conley? Assemblymember Petrie-Norris.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm just going to start with, I think, kind of like a macro level observation and a macro-level request. I'm not sure who this is for.

Department of Finance, all the departments in the room, and I think I've said in these hearings, I have found it very difficult to evaluate the proposed cuts alongside the proposed expenditures simply because it's very unclear to, I think, all of us what the Department methodology and criteria has been to propose cuts or to propose programs that we keep.

And so just as a very specific request for follow up, if all of the departments who are sharing with us, for example, their existing climate budgets, I would really like to better understand what methodology you utilized to evaluate these programs and determine that these are the programs that are actually delivering the best bang for the buck on California's climate goals.

I know we don't have time to go into all that right now, but we'd love to get that as a very specific piece of a follow-up from all of our departments. And then I have one very specific question for CEC.

Damien Mimnaugh, chief financial officer with CEC, available to answer any question you may have.

Okay, great. So it looks like the proposed cuts would eliminate all, or maybe virtually all funding for the carbon removal innovation support program crisp, is that correct?

No. The proposed cuts would retain about 27% of the original budget for the program, which was $75 million as of the 22/23 budget agreement.

Okay. All right. So there's a bit of money left, and I want to make sure that we retain some funding there. It's my understanding that that funding is potentially very, very powerful in terms of leveraging federal funds in this area.

And I'm not sure if you're the right person to ask to verify this, but my understanding is that there's actually an opportunity that with tens of millions of California committed funds, that we would potentially be able to get like hundreds of millions of DOE dollars. Is that correct?

Yes. In General, there are significant federal opportunities in this space. That's correct.

And again, back to my methodology question, maybe for you specifically, how are we incorporating an evaluation? I think we all recognize we're at a really historic moment, and the dollars that the Biden Administration has made available through the IRA, the IIJA, like, present just a generational opportunity, not just for the country, but for the State of California.

How are we evaluating those opportunities and including that assessment as part of the decisions we're making as we prioritize programs to either Fund or cut?

Yeah, I'll take a first shot at that question, and then we defer to my partner at the, my colleague at the Department of Finance, who believes at the table. But in General, we're working to reduce any impact to the program and maximize the federal funding that we're able to receive.

I will say with the funding that is available, it will allow California to be a leader in the carbon management space, which is a huge opportunity. And so with that, I think I'll turn it over to Steve Wells at the table if he has anything additional he may wish to add at this point. Thank you.

Thank you, Damian. Steve Wells, Department of Finance. I mean, it was a difficult process to look over everything and try to determine which things, you know, which things we have the opportunity to look at, finding solutions with.

But certainly we worked with the Department to determine, you know, where do we have, you know, which programs are the ones that are. That we have potential for federal funds. And so, you know, that that's. That's partially why there's $20 million left in this account, you know, for.

For carbon is that we, you know, we recognized the potential for the federal funds with that money. And we did that across all of the different programs as much as we can. And as we move forward, we will continue to look at those sort of things.

We've got, there are budget mechanisms for moving things around and there's, we look at this every year and we're going to make sure that we try to maximize available federal funds as we move forward.

Yes.

Got it. And is that an intentional part of DOF's process more broadly?

Okay. All right, great. So again, I guess back to my question about better understanding methodology, criteria. Just outlining some of that I think would be really helpful for all of us to understand how we got from, you know, a pie that was this big to now one that's that big. Okay. All right. That's it.

Assembly Member Wilson.

Mine is for CalSTA. And so about the safety grade separations program. But I do want to make an overall comment about from transportation in terms of, I'm really happy that the Governor retained the funding levels previously committed to public transit.

And this will help to ensure that this essential service remains operational and provides matching funds so that local agencies can draw down federal funds for critical projects that help to expand the transit network. So that was a, I want to at least get a good comment in there as it relates to the safety grade separation program. Completely.

And I don't know if you talked about it before I came in, so my apologies for being late, but Okay, great. And so it's completely eliminated. And I had noted this when the budget first came out.

I know that there's federal opportunities for dollar, federal dollars for this program, and so local agencies can apply for those, but that's pretty difficult. So I have two follow up questions. Why choose to eliminate the program in entirety and then also do we offer technical assistance at all to our local agencies related to safety grade separations?

Sure. James Moore with Department of Finance. And after I think I can answer the first and defer to Undersecretary Mark Tollefsen, who should be on the line. I think the real answer to why I eliminate the whole program is just that this was a program that was scheduled to get funds in budget year plus one.

And like you said, we didn't have to cut a ton in transportation, luckily. And we had to make difficult decisions that resulted in priorities being cut. I don't think there was any magic other than there was money in the out years and we needed to come up with a General Fund. Okay. All right.

The second thing, I think if Mark is on the line, he might be able to provide some more information.

Yeah, thanks, Assembly Members. Yeah, really, you know, to the point about grade separations. Obviously we have to make some very difficult decisions with budget.

I will say that one of the considerations, and this was mentioned in the context of the active transportation project as well, is that we are looking at potential opportunities to backfill with other funding sources. But we do have to be mindful of some of the backfills that have already been done in previous years.

So we are absolutely open to that conversation, I think, with respect to the actual technical assistance on some of these projects to determine how we can potentially fill those gaps. We are here at Calstop willing to meet with any of our project sponsors for the great separations.

We provided quite a bit of technical assistance as people ended up going through our port and freight infrastructure program as well as our transit inner city rail capital program.

So happy to continue those discussions to make sure that we are able to get some of these critical projects move forward, as well as the additional opportunities to tap or leverage federal funds.

Okay, thank you so much. That was it.

I have a quick follow up on that, since we have everybody here. The grade separation, are the grade separation dollars committed? Because the agencies are saying they're committed, but the funds aren't being appropriated. So can anybody help me with that?

Yeah, Mister Chiair, I'll take a stab at that and let my finance colleagues chime in if I miss something. But overall, those funds were awarded earlier this year. The actual dollars were appropriated in the out years. So yes, they were awarded, but the dollars weren't distributed yet or technically appropriate in the budget.

So that is something where a number of entities were working on what we call letters of no prejudice, where they could advance their own funds and get reimbursed through the program at a later date. So those are some of the challenges that I think some of our project sponsors may face.

And actually, Mister chair, since I am on the call here, I do want to circle back to your very first question about the port and freight infrastructure program. And in terms of the expenditures on green infrastructure, it's about 450 million of the 1.2 billion that would go towards zero emission infrastructure and equipment.

Thank you, Assemblymember Wilson looks like she has a follow up.

I want to make sure I understood you correctly. Did you say that they were able to, you sent notices that said they could expend their own funds and get reimbursed, and that's where the rub might have been. So that did happen.

So that was something that was contemplated. It was built into our guideline process where we could have letters of no prejudice issued. None of those were issued. That was something that was part of our discussions, part of our guidelines.

Okay, thank you. I thought some were, and then I was concerned. Then you zeroed it out with some of those letters being out. So I'm glad to know that no letters were actually sent.

Looks like LAO would like to jump in before we leave this and go to Assembly Members Zbur.

Thanks again. Rachel Ehlers with the LAO. Just want to highlight for the Committee that the proposed transportation reductions really do differ from most of the other programs before the Committee in the resources and climate space, and that in a lot of these programs, the funds have already been awarded to specific projects.

The funds aren't out the door, but there are local agencies who applied for and got the funding award letter. So they may have federal funds that are kind of matching for these. They may have entered into contracts at the local level.

So there is kind of a little or bigger than little potential for disruption at the local level for some of these transportation. This is for ATP, for the grade separations, for highways to boulevards as well. So this is just an additional consideration for you as you consider these reductions.

There may be some options to help mitigate some of that, either kind of giving these projects first in line for the next round of funding, for ongoing funding for some of these programs. You may want to give the Administration direction that they need to do that.

You could look at other funding sources like the state highway account, but there is this additional level of potential disruption for the local agencies that you don't have in some of these other proposed reductions where the funding awards haven't been made yet.

Thank you. Assemblymember Zbur.

Two quick questions. One, I just wanted to echo, I think, what assemblymember Petrie-Norris is sort of the vein of her questions, which is really understanding sort of what the criteria have been in sort of making some of the cuts and some of the decisions to retain funding.

You know, one of the things that, I don't know if this is available or not, but it would be helpful if there was some kind of catalog of all of the climate related federal funding opportunities that are out there with some kind of cross reference to whether or not it requires a match and whether we actually have funding that's in the budget, whether we're doing the things we need to capture that funding.

I mean, that would be something, I assume that's happening at Gobiz or CEC or someplace. And I'm just wondering if that's something that could be provided, because I think that could be a very helpful thing for us as we look through these and understanding what's in the budget.

And then the second question, which I'll just get out there because we're sort of out of time, is one of the things I've had concerns about in the budget generally. And we've had, I've had trouble getting from the Assembly staff because it's hard to understand.

Everything in the budget is where there are opportunities for funding for local agencies to do climate planning. We're asking them to do a lot and then under various pieces of legislation, and then there's no funding, especially for these small cities and small counties.

There's funding that looks like there's therefore climate resiliency planning, but not for planning to meet climate goals and in particular in the energy space.

And I'm wondering if you can tell me whether there's anything in the budget that is currently available for, for example, a city that might want to do planning in their own city to meet climate goals, to be doing a climate, a climate plan for the city, which we would like them all to be doing, but many of them are, you know, are stifled because they don't have the funding.

Yeah. There were two different programs out of the Office and planning of Office of Planning and Research related to these, this theme of local planning. And one of them was specifically for regional planning because the sea level rise doesn't stop at the city border.

So thinking about a regional plan, there is some funding left, but those received pretty significant reductions both in the last year's budget as well as proposed for this year. I think in the ballpark, the numbers went from like 275 million to kind of 30 million or in that range.

I'm sorry, I don't have the exact numbers, but, yeah, that was something. Part of the package that has been scaled down and proposed to be scaled down and is the money that's remaining there.

Is it available for a local jurisdiction that would want to do climate planning on their own?

It is on a competitive basis to the office of Planning and Research, and I apologize. I'd have to look at the details of whether it's just a city or it could be kind of a portion of a city, a nonprofit agency or a county. We can look at the specific details of the program and get back to your office.

Great. Thank you very much. Assemblymember Wilson.

Chair, taking into consideration the comments given from the LAo's office, how do we then mitigate local disruption so she had given some comments that we could provide direction, and I wasn't sure if the direction is through this hearing or is it direction through budget trailer language or formal letter?

I would, I would think that, number one, it's not going to be through this hearing because we're not taking any action. It's just informational. But I think the issue would be to clarify what is the direction we're trying to give them, what are the options we're trying to identify.

So I would think it would be most appropriate if you could craft up what you think those things are and submit those to me in writing, and then you and I can figure out whether we're in agreement and then we can submit them on and see whether we can come up with some kind of policy.

All right. Thank you very much. Hey, anything else? Members, right? Really appreciate the attention. I tell you, while I was out going to the restroom, everybody else was having long hearings, you know, and I know Assembly Member Wilson staff thought, zero, this would be really fast, but I think there's a tremendous amount of interest in the budget.

Will do.

I really appreciate the Assembly Members giving up their lunch period to be here and stuff. And for all of you from the agencies that we didn't call up, I'm sorry, you sat here for 2 hours without getting to say anything, but you might be relieved.

I'm not sure what your attitude is about that, but to all the agencies, the last 10 hearings, I just sincerely want to compliment the professionalism that has existed in this room since the very first hearing.

People are really trying to work to try to provide the information that the Legislature is looking for, try to identify the things that are in the best interest of the public in California. So the most important thing, one of the most important things in a democracy is quality public servants. It's a thing that is not identified enough.

And I just want you to know we really appreciate it and appreciate your service. So thank you all very much. We're now into public comments, and you, if you can speak for less than a minute, we will appreciate it. But you have a minute and we are starting back into session. Thank you, Members. Right.

Chair and Members Nate Solov on behalf of the Port of LA, on your question on the port information infrastructure funding, I just wanted to highlight the fact that the majority of funding did go to infrastructure and efficiency to help with the supply chain crisis.

Go ahead, give us your name and get started.

Some applicants did use some of that funding for zero emissions, but the vast majority of courts are focused on that zero emission transition. We have a 2030 deadline. And so just highlighting prior testimony that I provided a few weeks ago to say that currently we have 315 million in the GGRF that was pushed out to 26/27.

We're asking that a portion of that be provided this year and each of the next few years so that we can ramp up and meet that 2030 deadline as we try to seek for the emissions reductions. That's going to have a huge impact in our port communities. Historically, they've been a high polluting industry.

We're trying to transition our cargo handling equipment and infrastructure to zero emission. And so that's going to make a huge difference. So we're just asking that a portion of that money not be delayed. and GGRF at 2627 something you provided this year, next year, and the following year, just so they can spread out so that we can start to make those investments. Appreciate your support.

Thanks for coming back and reinforcing the message. If you go to 30 seconds, you'll get a smiley face from us.

Good afternoon. Barry Vester from the Climate Center and thank you for this opportunity. And I just wanted to say, in light of all the cuts that are being looked at, that I hope the Committee will seriously consider cutting oil and gas subsidies through water edge election and research development tax credits.

I also want to support Assemblymember Connally's suggestion of shifting ATP funds to the State Highway Fund. And that could be a really great way to do that. Yeah, switch that. And then the last thing I just wanted to say is I noticed that the CPUC is cutting from their budget the community capacity building grants.

These are really important grants. They allow these communities to participate in the CPUC process and access CPUC resources. This means more resilience in historically disadvantaged communities. That means saving lives. So I hope even if there's $5 million preserved in that program, it would make a big difference. Thanks so much.

Thank you Mister chair Members. Beth Olaso, on behalf of Water Reuse California appreciate our conversation about water recycling last year, but we remain really concerned that water recycling funding has been zeroed out. There's no grant funding left for water recycling projects, which just helps buy down the cost for ratepayers.

So we hope with this budget action that you can then support $1.0 billion investment in a climate bond for water recycling. Really important for our water resilience in California. Thank you.

30 seconds. Way to go.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California. We are supportive of the $24 million moving from General Fund over to GGRF for the dairy methane reduction programs. Very supportive of that.

We do urge funding within GGRF for the Food production investment program ranked in the top 10 out of all the climate investment programs and really important to reduce carbon at food that's produced and processed here in the state.

And we also urge a rejection of the BCP at the Department of Pesticide Regulation and instead urge trailer Bill Language pursuing more accountability and transparency at that Department. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi Asha Sharma on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, Association for Energy Affordability, the California Environmental Justice Alliance and Greenlining Institute, we urge Legislature to restore and protect funding for programs that support environmental justice communities. In particular, the May revise included an additional cut to the equitable building decarbonization program.

We think the funding should be restored to 639 million from the January budget proposal. Strategic actions for just economy also in support of this recommendation, we also recommend restoring the following originally allocated to these SJC programs which help with regional climate planning which was discussed today.

200 million for transformative climate communities, 10 million for regional climate collaboratives and 160 million for community resilience centers. And on behalf of Leadership Council, we appreciate the May revise this commitment to the Salton Sea and drinking water and wastewater needs. We also urge the Legislature not to Fund false climate solutions like CDFA's dairy digester and research development.

Thank you so much

Thank you very much.

Michael Jarred. On behalf of NextGen California and CAFF and the other 160 coalition Members who want to save the California Nutrition Incentive program even though it may cost me a smiley face, I'd like to thank the Committee for its Hard work all this year. And even though these are tough times, I think you guys have done a great process.

And particularly thank the Chair Bennett and assemblymember Connolly for your support for small family farmers and sustainable agriculture. We would really like to preserve CNEP. I think it's a really important program both to pull down federal funds but also to help small family farmers and to deal with food insecurity during times where food prices are going up. We feel like it's a great opportunity to get people into farmers markets and to support their ability to feed their families.

So please save CNEP if you can.

Thank you Mister Chairman Terry McHale with Aaron Read and associates representing CAL FIRE Local 2881. I will be very brief. We appreciate very, very much the support of the chair and of this Committee in taking care of the health and safety of our firefighters in support of the 66 hours work week.

It still means they will work three months more than other firefighters and other workers in the State of California. But it does make a difference. And while all cuts are difficult, we do know how hard you're working to keep the people of California safe, and we are appreciative.

Thanks for your brief comments.

Good Morning Mister chair and Members Jennifer Fearing on behalf of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, we support the proposed funding to the Ocean Protection Council ahead of offshore wind development for scientific research and robust consultation with tribes and communities. We appreciate very much that that also stems from Assemblywoman Addis's leadership with AB 80, which has demonstrated critical support for this need.

I want to reiterate from last week the deep opposition that National Wildlife Federation and San Diego Humane Society have with the Administration proposal to revert $45 million and end $20 million a year of General Fund to the Habitat Conservation Fund.

This is one of the only consistent, regular investments that the state makes in important habitat conservation, and to eliminate it six years prior to an agreed upon deal would be a travesty. Lastly, I'll just echo the remarks that say we desperately need a robust, equitable climate bond. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair Members Darryll Little Junior with NRDC. We respectfully urge the Legislature to pursue a more significant milfe update to avoid future budget shortfalls and ensure DPR has adequate funding to carry out its mission to protect human health and the environment.

Additionally, we respectfully request the restoration of the proposed $600 million cut to ATP in the $75 million cut to the highway to boulevards program by allocating 675 million in funding from the state highway account.

We also urge the Legislature to protect the funding commitments to the transit and inner city rail capital program and the zero emissions transit capital program to ensure public transit both survives and thrives. Lastly, we request the restoration of the proposed $630 million cut to the Ecuador building decarbonization program. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi chair Members Jamie Fanous, on behalf of the Community alliance with family farmers, or CAFF, thank you chair Bennett, for your comments to support sustainable agriculture and thank you to this Committee for your commitments to support underserved communities and many of which are small scale farmers.

We're deeply disappointed to see the additional cuts made to essential disaster relief in the governor's May revision, which undermines an agreement made last year on how to structure flood relief for agriculture.

We respectfully request the protection of the following two programs, the $17 million to CDFA's California underserved and small producer program, or CUSP, which is funding intended to keep small farmers afloat when they are impacted by climate disasters and the $14.4 million to CDFA's farm to community food hubs program.

Thank you.

This is a critical investment for small farm infrastructure and has been a legislative priority for several years now, but the continues to be on the chopping block for the Administration. Thank you.

Good afternoon chair Members Jeanie Ward-Waller on behalf of CalBike, Transform and Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, we want to work with you to find a solution solution within the transportation budget to the proposed cut to the active transportation program. Appreciate all the discussion today about backfilling from the state highway account.

We think that's a great solution and we want to work with you to develop options that mitigate the impacts to the state highway system. We think ATP is the most effective transportation program in terms of climate equity and safety. It's truly critical.

Also on behalf of leadership council, we ask you to consider shifting eligible TIRCP funds from the GGRF to the state highway account to free up funding for other critical climate programs. Thank you.

Thank you. Good luck with your arm.

Good afternoon Mister chair and Members Adam Quinonez, on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, just wanted to reiterate the comments of water reuse, strong support for maintaining as much funding for water infrastructure as possible, emphasis on recycled water and PFAS remediation.

And then Mister chair, if I could just add to your question regarding the voluntary agreements. These are really critical agreements and projects that AQUA and many communities throughout the state support. They have the potential to create an additional 825,000 acre feet per year of flows for Fish and Wildlife, 45,000 acre feet of new in stream habitat.

Many projects are completed, many are ongoing, and then there's a group of projects that are starting to move forward once the agreements have been approved. We expect that to happen early next year.

We're hopeful and we know that there's a significant push to try to get federal funding for this issue and it certainly makes that push stronger when we have state and local governments supporting that effort.

Thank you Mister chair Members. Michael Pimentel, Executive Director of the California Transit Association, good to be with you this afternoon. Just wanted to continue to echo our calls for the maintenance of the $5.1 billion for transit capital and operations.

One thing I wanted to highlight is there's been a lot of discussion around federal dollars and the potential for us as a state to draw down those dollars of one time opportunities that are presented to us in public transit. Those opportunities are more than hypothetical.

We have agencies who are in the final stages of entering into with the Federal Government what we call full funding grant agreements. The State Dollars that are currently on the table are going to be the last dollars in that can leverage quite literally billions of dollars of investment in the State of California.

If they're delayed, we potentially push those decisions out to a potential Trump Administration. And if the money isn't forthcoming, those monies may be lost for generation. And I just wanted to highlight as I close that in addition to those capital dollars, of course, we're investing in operations. We're investing in zero emission transitions.

We understand the importance of disadvantaged communities and the importance of providing ever better service to them. We're working on as part of this package, encourage the maintenance. Thank you.

Great. Appreciate your steady coming with comments. And I also want to be sure steady with our comments about reminding your members this is one time money.

Thank you, Mister chair Members. Brendan Twohig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, we appreciate the continued prioritization of the AB 617 community air Protection program.

We also, there's been a lot of discussion about focusing on programs that help disadvantaged communities also are cost effective, maintain our, keep us on track for our greenhouse gas reduction goals, climate goals and public health. Well, that describes the farmer program, which provides cleaner alternatives to dirty diesel engines. Unfortunately, it's zeroed out in the budget.

No funding is provided in the May revision. And so we strongly encourage you, especially considering the scarce resources that we have now. Let's focus on programs that keep the money going further and get the most for the investment. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Good afternoon. Charles Watson on behalf of BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District, echoing the comments by CTA as well as assemblymember Wilson, very thankful for the actions last year for the one time operational funding and support the proposed shift to GGRF to support the TIRCP and zero emissions transit capital programs. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair. My name is Lily Scurrilla with California Trout. We're a conservation organization that focuses on freshwater restoration projects statewide, and our goal is to restore critical fish populations to California's waters. And as an organization that focuses on projects on the ground, we support the trailer Bill to extend the statutory CEQA exemption for restoration projects. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kim Delfino since the voluntary agreements were brought up on behalf of the Golden State Salmon Association and Defenders of Wildlife, I would say that those agreements are a lot like the emperor has no clothes. We talked a lot about them.

We have yet anything to see, and that money could be used for projects that will benefit the environment right now. On behalf of Audubon California Defenders of Wildlife, Trout Unlimited, Sonoma Land Trust, Mojave Land Trust and Ducks Unlimited also want to echo support for the CEQA exemption for habitat restoration trailer Bill.

On behalf of the power and Nature Coalition, in addition to everyone else I just noted, want to strongly oppose the effort to shift the General Fund and reduce six years of promised funding to the Habitat Conservation Fund. It'll cost us $165 million for habitat and parks projects at a time when we've made commitments to meet 2030 goals.

We strongly support the funding, ongoing funding for the Wildlife Conservation Board, the Department of Fish and Wildlife's Wetlands Restoration Fund and the Salton Sea, and to continue that funding, even if it is through GGRF money. And appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you.

Alan Abbs with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District here in support of the continued funding for the AB 617 program, which provides vital and cost effective support to environmental justice communities in the Bay Area, including East Oakland, West Oakland, Bayview, Hunters Point and Richmond San Pablo. Thank you.

Thank you Mister chair Members. Chris Reardon, California Farm Bureau I promise I'll be very brief. Two issues I wanted to thank the Committee about the additional monies for oriental fruit fly and the challenges we face with invasive pests in California, particularly in our friends in San Bernardino Riverside County.

This is going away, so these resources are much appreciated. Secondly, we continue to be concerned about the Department of Pesticide Regulations Budget change proposal, particularly as it relates to budget authority and accountability and transparency. So appreciate the opportunity to talk and look forward to working with the full Committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Sustainable Conservation, California Association of Resource Conservation Districts and a number of land trusts and RCD's across the state in support of the governor's proposed trailer Bill to eliminate the sunset on the CEQA exemption for restoration projects.

This is a vital part of our cutting, cutting green tape program to ensure that we have projects being implemented to match the pace and scale of climate change. Second, here on behalf of Earth justice, in support of the proposed trailer Bill for the ERPA cap increase, we're sensitive and really concerned about how electricity rates continue to rise.

But we feel like this modest potential increase is really vital to ensure that the CEC has the ability and capacity to continue their programs that transition us to zero emission vehicles and appliances and push forward our clean air and climate goals.

And then lastly, on behalf of the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission, we respectfully oppose the proposed cut to wildfire funding at state conservancies. We heard earlier this year from the Natural Resources Agency how well conservancies implement these types of projects. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Bennett, Committee Members, Doctor Jeff Boehm with the Marine Mammal Center. I want to make clear a point that was raised earlier, and that is that the $2 million in question essentially passes through the Marine Mammal center to provide essential resources to 12 separate and distinct organizations, one of which, the Channel Islands Marine Wildlife Institute, relies on state funding for 50% of their operating budget.

The needs are only getting greater. We urge the Committee to reject the deletion of the funding to the Marine mammal center. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon. Isabel Gonzalez Potter with the Nature Conservancy first off, we'd like to express our.

You can bring that down and not have to be on your toes.

That's okay. Thank you. We'd first like to express our strong support for CERP. We'd align ourselves with the comments of the previous speakers on that topic and the trailer Bill associated with it.

Additionally, we support the governor's proposed budget solutions to protect 213 million in critical funding to the Wildlife Conservation Board, or WCB, by shifting these investments to GGRF. We urge the Legislature to pursue similar budget solutions to protect funding in the coastal resilience package for the state coastal Conservancy and the Ocean Protection Council.

Backfilling the proposed cuts with GGRF Dollars will preserve critical investments to address sea level rise and increase coastal protection and ocean resistance resilience. Finally, we urge the Legislature to reject the $45 million cut from the Habitat Conservation Fund, or HCF, and align our comments with the previous speakers as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tasha Newman, on behalf of the California Council of Land Trusts, we'd like to align our comments with the Nature Conservancy. In addition, on behalf of the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, we'd like to note that we are opposed to a potential cut to the climate smart land management program at the Department of Conservation.

This is a $7 million program for which grants have already been awarded. This program is poised to help bring in at least another $25 million in federal funds. And so we urge you to not cut the this critical funding. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair Sophia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air. We strongly urge you to restore the 600 million proposed cut to the active transportation program and to reject the 300 million loan from the Air Pollution Control Fund proposed in the May revise.

The active transportation program generates many climate and transportation benefits as it has reduced gg emissions by 44,000 metric tons and prevented over 6000 car crashes in the last cycle alone. Cutting this highly successful program would be detrimental to our progress in climate action.

Especially when the Legislature has the authority to backfill ATP funding using state highway count which has received 24 billion in federal funding. Similarly, air pollution control Fund exists to clean up the dirtiest air in the nation using fines paid by polluters. And the proposal would undermine efforts to bring our state into compliance with the Clean Air Act.

And I'm sorry, I'm going to have to cut you off for everybody else in line. I have to cut you down. I've just got an emergency order to end this. I'm going to cut you down to 30 seconds please. All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nicole Quinonez on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association, the non agricultural pesticide manufacturers just want to thank the Committee for their Robust work on the DPR mill assessment increase. And just encourage you to reject that as proposed so discussions can continue.

We do believe that we can find a workable solution that provides the Department more funding but also as accountability and transparency. Thank you.

Thank you Mister chair. Tim Shestek with the American Chemistry Council simply echo the comments of the previous speaker. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Taylor Roschen. On behalf of Variety of Agricultural Associations we support resources for exotic fruit fly dairy method emission reduction. We'd like to echo Miss Quinonez comments regarding DPR and also Mister Twohig's comments regarding the farmer program. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you Mister chair. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, just to express our continued strong support for the 66 hours workweek proposal in the Governor's Budget. I would echo the comments of Mister Mchale. Every hour reduced is less exposure to a cancer causing agent or a behavioral health stressor. We do think it's critical included in this budget. Would urge your support.

Thank you.

Thank you Mister chair. Ross Buckley on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District we would just request a continuing prioritization of the AB 617 funding which has targeted support for disadvantaged communities in terms of protecting public health, improving air quality. To that end we request that they view that last year's levels.

I'm sorry I was talking and I missed the first part of your. Say it again.

Just do. We request a continued prioritization of the AB 617 funding. Thank you Mister chair.

Edson Perez with Advanced Energy United. I wanted to highlight the importance of the distributed electricity backup assets or DEBA program. In the May revision. It's being zeroed out for this fiscal year and it's a program that would allow us to bring up clean, distributed energy to use during times of emergency as a counter to our polluting peaker plants. And so I just urge that it lets it'd be allowed to start up since hundreds of hours have been spent on program design and it could help us get through those times of emergency.

Mister chair Members. Andrew Antwih on behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, for brevity, I would like to echo comments provided by the California Transit Association thankful that the $5.1 billion package for transit capital and operations that you and your colleagues cobbled together just last year is being sustained in the fashion that Governor Newsom proposes in his may revise proposal.

Thank you.

We're grateful for that. And then on behalf of the American Heart Association, we support finding a way to sustain funding for CNIP.

Thank you. We have a problem. People keep walking in. Adding to the line. If you can make it 20 seconds, we'll be appreciative. But I'm getting in the hot water here for your guys benefit here. So please.

Absolutely. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the California Certified Organic farmers, just asking for an acceleration of Organic Pest management tools as part of the mill fee restoring the cusp funding. On behalf of the California Climate and Agriculture Network, we'd like GGRF shift for sweep to be for FY 2425 rather than 26627. And echo the comments from CARCD on climate Land smart. That's climate smart land.

Thank you Moira Topp on behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority, also realign our comments with the California Transit Association and my colleague from La Metro. But do want to underscore LAO's comments about the fact that the transportation cuts do start cutting into already awarded projects. Thank you Mister chair.

Thank you Mister chair. My name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California. Please restore the $6 million for the OPC and for the Coastal Commission for their offshore wind work and also expand the carbon removal project to include ocean carbon removal.

Thank you.

Martin Radosevich on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District, we just remain concerned about the cuts to dam safety, sea level rise funding and recycled water funding and also the eraf shift which could have impact on our funding for flood protection. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Abigail Smith on behalf of the California State Parks foundation here for two quick things. One is the sea level rise adaptation funding for state parks. 6.7 million. It was cut. It's all they have left for climate resilience and two is the state library parks pass, helping low income individuals have access to our outdoor spaces. Two really important programs. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair and staff, Nicholas Mazzotti, on behalf of the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, East Bay Regional Park District, Mid Peninsula Regional Park District, Save the Redwoods League, and environments fund, all expressing concern about the cuts to the coastal conservancy funding. And additionally, we'd like to thank the Legislature for the Fund shift for WCB funds to GGRF funding. Thanks.

Thank you.

Hi there. Megan Meckleberg, on behalf of Calstart, we are going to be submitting a letter along with 13 other organizations who are all supportive of medium and heavy duty infrastructure and vehicle funding, really concerned about the cuts that are happening at the CEC related to infrastructure. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you. Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, CEEB I want to appreciate the Administration DTSC's work with us to better understand an approach to helping address the gap with the hazardous waste control account. Those conversations are ongoing. It's certainly been productive. And on behalf of the Chemical Industry Council of California would like to echo the comments made by our industry colleagues on the DPRV mill assessment. Thank you.

Thank you. This meeting is closed.