Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

Thank you all for your patience. All right, the Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Good afternoon. Welcome, everyone. It is a great time in the legislative session, as we are marching towards the end of days. Well, not those end of days. Sorry to make it so heavy. I didn't mean to do that.

And hopefully those words will not come true. So anyway. All right. The hearing room is open for attendance of this hearing, and it can be watched from live stream on the Assembly's website. We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the Committee website.

Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. We will allow two minutes each for two primary witnesses in support and opposition, and these witnesses must testify in person in the hearing room. Additional witnesses witness comments will be limited to your name, organization, and position. With that, we will begin our hearing. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We do have a quorum. Thank you, Members. Today we have three highway namings on consent, file items four, SCR 13 by Senator Roth, file item five, SCR 159, Senator Hurtado, file item six, SCR 169, Senator Dodd. Is there a motion? I see Aguiar-Curry. And second by... I think that was Lowenthal. Correct. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Consent calendar. The SCRs are to be adopted to the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Thank you. There are 11 aye votes. We'll hold that roll open for other Members to add on. With that, we have three bills to discuss today. The following bills will be heard for a concurrence vote pursuant to Assembly Rule 772. These are file items one, AB 1122, Bains, file item two, AB 1296, Grayson, and file item three, AB 3179, Juan Carrillo.

Before we take up these bills, I'd like to make a few opening remarks that apply to all three. Now, I understand that the transition to zero emission vehicles and vessels is hard. It is challenging. And I'm very sympathetic to the great uncertainty that this is resulting in, especially for impacted industries and the resulting challenges that they ultimately face. The state has committed to reducing particulate and greenhouse gas emissions, and we really will not be able to reach our goals without making these changes.

This is true especially in the transportation sector. The bills on today agenda seeks exemptions for certain vessels and vehicles from the California Air Resources Board, also known as CARB, commercial harbor craft, and the Advanced Clean Fleets regulations and compliance deadlines.

Given where we are in the legislative session and the timing of these regulations taken to a place, potentially these could be premature. And I know a few people have reached out to say so. The two major concerns these bills raise are the US EPA is currently reviewing both regulations to approve waivers that grant California the authority to enforce the regulations under the federal Clean Air Act.

If signed into law, each of these bills would require CARB to start a new rulemaking, new rulemaking to amend the regulations and restart the waiver process, which is currently at review at US EPA. And this is depend on when they finish their cycle in comparison to when these bills are actually implemented.

Now, as a result, the renewal of this waiver and CARB's ability to enforce these regulations could be at risk and could be at risk and risk reducing emissions. As we know, the state's most vulnerable communities are typically impacted when we delay these types of regulations and rules.

In addition, under the Clean Air Act, the state is also required to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards established by the US EPA. If the standards are not met, the US EPA could impose sanctions that could likely put at risk billions in federal highway funding that the state receives each year.

Now, this is if a series of decision points happen. And there has been a lot of conversation, as I understand it, as people have called my office, on whether this is a final statement or not. It is a factual statement. It could, depending on the timing of decisions and what we do.

But I want to make it clear that although a factual statement, there are some other ifs in there. Now, as long as I'm Chair of this Committee, I commit always to hold hearings and work closely with every single stakeholder and CARB to ensure that our transition to these standards is as smooth as possible, weighing in all factors.

That's something I've done as a Legislator and something that I do as Chair. I look to be a partner to every single stakeholder holder, and that includes CARB, to ensure we have the smooth transition. And so I just wanted to give these comments. I'm not going to make comments on each and every bill. These comments apply to all three. As many people know, as we get through these, as we get through these bills, you know, I will lean to my colleagues for motions and to the authors for making their what they would like the Committee to do.

But these will be the only comments I make in regard to all three bills. And so with that, I'm going to invite up... I see we have one author in the room, is that correct? Yes. So with that, I'm going to invite up Assembly Member Grayson for file item number two, AB 1296. At your convenience, sir.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and Members. Thank you for this opportunity. AB 1296 revises current state regulations mandating the replacement of three specified pilot station boats, allowing for the replacement of a boat only if it has reached the end of its useful service life.

San Francisco Bar Pilots, or SFBP, provide an essential service for safely navigating commercial vessels to and from nine Northern California ports. Under California code, SFBP is the only pilot group in the state-mandated by law to maintain a minimum of two pilot boats in service, with one boat on station in the open ocean at all times.

To meet these requirements, SFBP maintains a fleet of five pilot boats. California Air Resources Board's commercial harbor craft regulations, effective December 31st, 2024 will render SFBP's services nearly impossible. Of SFBP's existing fleet of pilot boats, three are immediately subject to CARB's compliance deadlines.

Compliance for pilot vessels, California and San Francisco expire in December of 2024, and the pilot vessel Drake expires in December 2025. With a total construction cost of 68 million, not including the financing. Replacing these three vessels within the specified deadlines is neither financially or even logistically feasible.

Furthermore, these three pilot vessels are necessary to the state's supply chain, at least the needs. And taking any of these vessels out of service could severely disrupt commercial traffic. AB 1296 proposes a viable pathway to achieve CARB compliance by extending carbs deadlines to match the service life of the station boats.

This approach allows sufficient time to collect the necessary funds to build new CARB-compliant boats one at a time without financing the construction cost and saving literally tens of millions of dollars. Ultimately, AB 1296 will ensure the economic, health and stability of the piloted system while aligning with California's environmental goals.

And with me today through the chair, I have two witnesses, Captain Anne McIntyre, Business Director, San Francisco Bar Pilots, and also Mike Jacob, President of Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.

Move the Bill.

There's a motion and second, there's a motion made by Aguiar-Curry and a second by Lowenthal. We'll turn it over to our witnesses. Anne McIntyre, Mike Jacob, you have two minutes apiece.

Thank you, Madam Chair and the Committee. Appreciate the opportunity to provide comment today. First of all, I would like to state that the San Francisco Bar Pilots 100% support the intent of the commercial harbor craft regulations. We're not seeking an exemption.

What we are seeking is the best, and what we see as the only achievable pathway to compliance for a very unique set of circumstances related to three vessels. Bottom line, up front, it's impossible for SFBP to meet the current harbor craft compliance deadlines.

And when you dive into the details, the extension program that CARB offers is insufficient to support the critical role that these vessels play in supporting the state's economy, supply chain, and protecting our natural resources. Without these three vessels, nine California ports, including the Port of Oakland, would cease to operate. Pretty simple.

No pilots, no ships, no goods on the shelf. As background, piloted service operates very similar to a public utility. We're overseen by the California Pilot Board of Pilot Commissioners, and the harbor and navigation code requires that we have these station boats operating in the open ocean. It's 11 miles west of the Golden Gate Bridge.

It's outside of state waters, and it's far away from any impacted communities. As a matter of practice, with these three boats, only one boat is operating at any one time, and they idle offshore 95% of the time. So, these boats are uniquely designed for very specific mission of safely boarding and disembarking pilots.

Due to size and other design constraints, we can't repower these boats. Therefore, we do have to replace them. With the financing, the cost is about $84 million. That's money SFBP can't borrow. And it takes a while for the system for us to raise those funds via our ratepayers.

And I just want to be very clear that people that don't support the bill have made comments that there's state funding and federal funding available to support these programs. There is no funding available to support. Our ratepayers will be ultimately responsible for bearing the cost of that.

And so, in order to make this work, in order to raise the money, what we're proposing is a service life extension for three very unique vessels. The first one, service life, would be extended by four years. The second.

We'll have to have you wrap up.

Okay.

All right. Okay. Thank you. So that was 30 seconds over. And so, we'll have to give that to the opposition as well. I wasn't watching the time. My apologies.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Mike Jacob, Pacifc Merchant Shipping Association. And just wanted to reiterate Captain McIntyre's points regarding the transparency of this process. We are not seeking new emission standards for these vessels. We're not seeking exemptions for these vessels.

We're asked for a compliance pathway, and the compliance pathway we're seeking is obviously one where both the providers of the service and the customers of the service are in a place where we have no other options. We have compulsory piloters in the state, which means we cannot bring a vessel in without a pilot.

If we don't physically have a pilot available, that vessel will not move. That is, that's just the fact. That's the law. That is not being proposed to change either. What we're asking for is the ability to make sure the commerce is still flowing as we cycle these rules into place.

We disagree with the characterization that this is actually going to require either an amendment to the rules or a change in the emissions standard waiver process at U.S. EPA under the Clean Air Act. Two reasons for that.

One is that the existing regulations already say that the rules have to be complied with in a way which is consistent with other state law and federal law, including from the Coast Guard. This bill changes the harpers and navigation code, doesn't change anything about the emission standard itself.

The secondary thing is 9th circuits already come to the conclusion in another case which is actually a case that was brought what PMSA is the plaintiff back in 2008 with respect to what is required, and emission standards are required to go through the process, but the compliance and enforcement of those standards is not subject to a waiver process.

That's what we're talking about here. The state actually going through a process of determining how do you comply with the standards. We're not challenging the standards. The pilots are going to build a boat to the emission standards.

So, when the waiver is adopted, and we believe the waiver will be adopted, those will be in place, and this provides a compliance pathway for us to get there. So, we appreciate your consideration. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Moving on to opposition, as I understand it, there are two witnesses in opposition, William Barrett and Theresa Bui. As was noted, our customary time is two minutes, but I did allow the proponents of the bill to go over 30 seconds, and so we'll extend that to you as well.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson and Members. My name is Teresa Bui with the environmental group Pacific Environment. We have a consultative status with the International Maritime Organization which sets global shipping laws. Just two years ago, California passed the first ferry standard, zero-emission ferry standard in the nation, and we are seeing the regulation become reality.

Just last month we saw the first hydrogen fuel cell ferry launch at the port of San Francisco. And then in July, we saw the first all-electric tugboat at the Port of San Diego. Now, we understand that the sponsors of the bills are concerned with cost and the shipyard availability in order for the transition.

In terms of the cost, corporations and ship owners who use bar pilot services pay 100% of the operating costs, including the cost of obtaining new vessels. I know there was a cap, and so we supported SB 295 by Senator Dodd that allows the bar pilots to raise the cap for them to transition this.

In terms of the shipyard availability, we are seeing a global shift in terms of transitioning to zero emission. And CARB, through their process, has built in a compliance extension process where they can apply every two years. And if it's outside of their responsibility, if it's outside their hand, they can have unlimited renewals.

And so, we would much prefer that the sponsors go through the CARB process instead of seeking this through the Legislature because of the impacts of the waiver. I know three vessel doesn't seem like a lot, but it sets a terrible precedent.

And CARB has confirmed with us that if this bill were to become law, they would have to seek a new waiver from U.S. EPA. And given the backlog, this bill or this rule has been waiting from EPA for more than a year and a half.

We really, and this same Committee, has voted no on a bill that just exempted one vessel earlier this year, AB 3153. And so, we hope that you will vote no, again today. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. My name is Will Barrett. I'm the Senior Director for Nationwide Clean Air Advocacy with the American Lung Association. As the chair noted at the beginning of the hearing, this is the first of three bills hearing today that have the effect of delaying or deferring clean air protections developed to meet health-protective air quality standards.

The expression death by 1000 cuts is really an apt one for today's hearing. We have seen that diesel exhaust is a carcinogenic, toxic air contaminant that can be controlled through policies to reduce emissions, such as the commercial harbor craft standard adopted by CARB and currently pending authorization by U.S. EPA.

Implementation of this rule will save nearly 500 lives and billions and billions of dollars in public health benefits. It'll reduce cancer risk in communities most impacted by these types of vessels, and we want to see these bills rejected. Diesel engines are dominant sources of California's worst in the nation, air pollution.

These are also one of the top three sources of cancer risk in communities nearest harbor craft operations. These are, again, very much toxic air contaminants that cause lung cancer, premature death, and a wide range of negative health consequences, especially concentrated in our most disadvantaged communities.

So, the Lung Association is one of 65 organizations just last week who called on EPA to approve the suite of eight waivers. There are currently six waivers or authorizations pending that are dealing with amendments to prior rules.

So, we want to make sure that that's clear, that amendments to the regulations, including changes to dates that are tantamount to a change in the regulation that this bill would occur, must go through EPA's process. So again, the current pending rule at EPA is a set of amendments to prior regulation.

So, we stand with our partners here and just want to echo that there are public health organizations in the Bay Area opposed to this legislation. There are numerous reasons why this public process that CARB went through was robust, thorough, and it took quite a while to get through with stakeholder engagement throughout the way.

The provisions sought here are already included in the regulation and should be the source or the location for that relief if that's being sought. It should not be granted automatically. So, we urge your no vote.

Thank you. Bringing it to members of the public who are in support, who would like to offer me to testimony. Name, position and organization. This is for support.

Madam Chair and Members, Alex Torres, on behalf of the Bay Area Council, representing 320 large employers in the nine-county Bay Area, in support.

Now moving to. Seeing no others, moving to members of the public who are in opposition. Name, position, and organization.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of Ocean Conservancy in respectful opposition.

Sophia Aficoa with the Coalition for Clean Air in opposition.

Good afternoon. Michelle Canales in opposition on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists and Earth Justice.

Hello. Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Environment California and CalPERG in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no other members of the public, we do have a motion made by Aguiar-Curry and a second by Lowenthal. Wanted to see if there's any Members of the, of the Committee who would like to make any comments. Seeing none, I'll move back to the author to close.

Just noting, you know, I appreciate you bringing the bill forward. As I noted in my remarks earlier that where we are in the legislative session, and I don't know if I made this part particularly clear, where we are in the legislative session, it doesn't allow the chair to make any amends.

It's really important when bills come to my committee to be able to weigh in on them. And so, I am going to be abstaining today, but I've made none recommendation to the Members of the Committee. So, they'll be voting as they. As they please, as they always do. With that, I'll give you an opportunity to close, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for that clarification. And also, to the Committee Members who are voting today, just transitioning into green and clean economy and an environment. It's a false choice to choose between a just trans or a just transition of a green economy or a green environment.

I think you can have both economic justice and environmental justice at the same time. As far as protecting our environment, I know this because I represent the refinery that's in the district has literally transitioned from a fossil-based diesel to a completely renewable diesel. So, that's one front of that transition of using these vessels.

But I do want to make it very clear we are not. And AB 1296 is an important element for the San Francisco Bar Pilot's plans to comply with the commercial harbor craft rule. It is not a carve-out. It is not an exemption. It is a pathway to compliance.

So, with that, the San Francisco Bar Pilots have been working diligently to find an appropriate path towards compliance. And by the way, it was mentioned that there's two years extension, unlimited. That is absolutely not true. It is not unlimited, which is why we're here today and which is why I'm carrying this bill.

It cannot realistically be accomplished to build a new station boat under these aggressive timelines. So, with that, again, that's why we're here today. I thank you for your consideration and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. With that, Madam Secretary, could you please call the roll?

AB 1296. The motion is do pass. [Roll call]

That's 13 vote. That bill passes. Thank you. All right. With that, I see we have another author in the room. Moving on to item one, AB 1122, Bains. You can begin at your convenience.

I'll get this one of these days. Sorry. Thank you, Chair. California leads the nation in environmental progress, and our ports are a vital part of the economy. But we must ensure that our progress does not come at the expense of the safety or the well being of our maritime workforce.

New CARB regulations will reduce air pollution at our ports by requiring more efficient and cleaner engine technologies on commercial harbor craft like tugboats. Improving air quality in frontline port communities is a very important goal that I absolutely support.

As a family physician, I see far too many kids and seniors with asthma and other potentially life threatening respiratory conditions, so this is very important work that I definitely want to see come to fruition. One of the challenges in achieving these air quality improvements is that the engine technology to meet CARB's requirements simply doesn't really exist yet, and it will require the use of special filters that reach temperatures of over 1500 degrees.

These high temperatures and developing technologies pose unique dangers on boats, where a fire or a loss of propulsion is deadly and potentially disastrous, as we saw just this year in Baltimore, where lives were lost and repairs were estimated at more than 4 billion.

In recognition of these concerns, the US Coast Guard, the maritime industry, and the unions representing vessel workers had asked that CARB's regulations include a bypass system that would allow the captain to maintain full power in the event of an emergency. CARB rejected those requests, and the regulations disallow any bypass system to be used even during an emergency.

AB 1122 will ensure that these safety concerns are not ignored by permitting a bypass system to be used during an emergency. To ensure these systems are not abused, the bill requires robust reporting requirements that detail when, why, and how they were used.

While CARB has since revisited its position and has now indicated they will issue an executive order to override their ban on bypass systems, they still have yet to do so. Since executive orders are issued outside the public process and can be unilaterally rescinded, AB 1122 provides the certainty that should have been included in the original regulations.

In addition to addressing these safety concerns, the bill includes a provision that will minimize lost income for workers when their vessel is in dry dock being upgraded with cleaner engine components. While vessels are in dry dock, crews are not paid, and the unions have estimated that their members could lose 25 to even 30% of their income during this period. AB 1122 addresses this problem by allowing vessels to align their Coast Guard inspection schedule with the requirement to install new engines.

Since crews already operate around these inspections, alignment will significantly reduce the impact on worker incomes. Committee amendments taken in the Senate both clarify and cap these alignment extensions so that they are truly, that they truly are for the benefit of workers and not used as an excuse to extend non-compliance.

We have drafted AB 1122 with the intent to be narrow and tailored in addressing the legitimate safety and economic concerns raised by stakeholders. The bill is supported by the unions representing workers, including the California Labor Federation, amongst many others. With me today in support, I have Greg Hurner on behalf of AWO and Sara Flocks on behalf of the California Labor Federation.

Move the bill.

Okay, so we have a motion on the floor by Aguiar-Curry and a second by Hoover. With that, we will go to testimony in support. You have two minutes apiece.

Thank you. Greg Hurner on behalf of American Waterways Operators, that is working in partnership with all of the mariner unions that crew our vessels. I don't want to be repetitive, and I know you want to have lunch as well before you have to return to the floor. So I want to make this quick. But CARB was notified of the safety concerns in 2021 during rule development. Chose not to address them. It wasn't until November of last year that they said that they would do an executive order to address some of these safety concerns.

These are safety concerns that are similar that I worked with Assembly Member Chris Ward on for charter fishing vessels and whale watching vessels during rule development. So CARB has been well aware of this. We had to do a FOIA request to actually get the Coast Guard letter to become aware that they were sharing the same concerns that we were. If CARB is concerned about their waiver process, in the last 10 months, why didn't they issue the waiver?

Why didn't they issue the executive order to address the Coast Guard concerns on safety? 10 months. We're talking about worker safety issues. 10 months since they've acknowledged that there is safety risk that the Coast Guard's brought to them. Why?

We're simply asking protect workers, protect the environment, protect the infrastructure in our ports, protect the logistics in our ports. Our ports right now are the busiest they've ever been. It's critical that we have vessels operational to support that. Assembly Member Papan has toured with the Select Committee with us, and we appreciate her engagement.

Her staff did a tug tour with us. Many of you have had staff go out with us to learn about these issues firsthand, and we appreciate that. This is simple, common sense safety issues. It's not an exemption. The only ones that are exempt are commercial fishing from this regulation. Everybody else is looking to comply. Our members have done the first in the nation zero emission tugs. We're trying to comply. Thank you.

Thank you. To the next witness, reminder of two minutes.

Madam Chair, Members, Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation. We represent the Mariners Unions, who have been very involved in this bill, and we are very supportive of the bill as we are of the state's progress towards climate goals, as long as we embed labor standards in it to protect workers at the same time. And we do think we can reach both goals simultaneously. And so this bill does two things to protect the workforce. One, it really looks out for the health and safety of mariners who are on these ships.

They've been very involved, and their stories were very vivid about what could happen when you are stuck on a ship in the middle of the ocean or the bay when a fire starts or something happens from these engines. And the second is that it avoids the lengthy dry docking of many of these ships, which means a huge loss of income to mariners and their families. And so we think this is a good, smart bill to get these ships into compliance, and we urge your aye vote.

All right, thank you. Moving to opposition. As I understand it, we have two testimonies in opposition, William Barrett and Teresa Bui.

Hello again. My name is Teresa Bui with Pacific Environment. Harbor crafts are one of the top three cancer causing emissions at the ports. And so we were really pleased when CARB passed the harbor craft rule. We understand that this bill is regarding safety issues, and CARB has already conducted approximately 9000 hours of DPF operations on marine vessels with no documented safety attributed to DPFs.

In addition, the provisions regarding the bypass system isn't necessary because CARB has already agreed to issuing an executive order for use of these DPFs, and they will be posting it on CARB's website by end of September. By mandating an override or bypass safety system, it's actually going to cost more for the operators to transition.

And CARB already allows, rather than require the operators to bypass, to install a bypass system. And this is only if they're installing a tier four engine. If they were to skip the tier four diesel engine and go straight to zero emission, they would not have to install a DPF.

So that's one way to get around the DPF issues. There's record funding available right now at the federal and at the state level to support the transition to zero emission. Vessel owners and operators can take advantages of these opportunities to support the compliance. And harbor craft are well suited for zero emission technology, such as electrification.

IBEW supported the rule when I was going through the process. And we are very sympathetic in terms of the dry docking time, but this provision would allow delaying implementation from 2.5 to five years. And there's nothing that actually prevents a vessel operator from aligning their scheduled dry docking time for repair in order to meet compliance deadlines. So therefore, this bill is not needed. And there's already CARB processes to address these concerns. So with that, we hope that you vote no on AB 1122. Thank you.

Hello again. Will Barrett with the American Lung Association. I'm the Senior Director for Nationwide Clean Air Advocacy. Long engagement with the Air Resources Board on the development of the commercial harbor craft regulation as a critical plank in the platform that is California's ozone standards or plan to meet ozone standards at the federal level.

The harbor craft rule was developed through a long public process with stakeholder engagement, including from industry, advocates, and experts throughout the field. We think that the provisions here, as have been noted by my colleague here, are included. They're incorporated into the regulation. That's where these types of provisions being sought are best addressed, especially with regard to the executive order that is forthcoming.

We see the development of the commercial harbor craft rule as critical not only for meeting our ozone standards, which if we don't, there are significant consequences of missing those standards coming from the US EPA through the Clean Air Act. But there's also the issues of significant, significant public health harms caused by commercial harbor craft operating in California waters.

We want to make sure that the communities at downwind of these vessels are being protected to the greatest extent possible through the regulation that was adopted and approved by the California Resources Board and through the administrative law process it's now pending at EPA.

We want to make sure that nothing goes sideways with EPA's review because of amendments being taken that cut the legs out from under some of the regulatory provisions. We think that's a significant threat, and again, that's why we're opposed to this regulation, along with some of our public health partners who are very concerned about this in California and beyond. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving to Members of the public who would like to add on their support or opposition. We'll start with support. Those would like to come forward. Name, organization, and position.

Good afternoon. Steve Wallauch on behalf of Crowley Maritime, the makers of that zero emission tug, in support of the bill.

Good afternoon, I think. Matt Robinson on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no others, we'll move to those in opposition who would like to add on. Name, organization, and position.

Hello. Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air in opposition.

Jennifer Fang for Ocean Conservancy in respectful opposition.

Mark Fenstermaker on behalf of Earthjustice in opposition.

Michele Canales with the Union of Concerned Scientists in opposition.

Gracyna Mohabir with Enviro Voters and on behalf of Sunflower Alliance in opposition. Thank you.

Environment California and CALPIRG in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Bringing it back to the Committee. We do have a motion made by Aguiar-Curry and a second by Hoover. Are there any comments, questions, or concerns for Members of the Committee? Seeing none. I'll just note, I made opening comments in regard to all three bills.

As we are in the legislative session, where we are in the legislative session not being able to weigh in as Chair on amendments. I am going to abstain today. However, I've made no recommendation to my colleagues of this Committee in regard to this bill. With that, I'll turn it over to Madam Secretary for the vote call.

AB 1122. The motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

That passes.

That bill passes with 13 votes. All right, we're moving to our final bill of the committee, our fellow member. This is Item Number Three: AB 3179: Juan Carrillo. You may begin at your convenience.

Madam Chair and Committee Members, thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 3179. AB 3179 is a necessary measure that would allow for a narrow exemption specifically for bucket trucks and cell on wheels to the CARB advanced fleet regulations with a sunset of 2030.

Bucket trucks played a vital role in performing aerial maintenance and repairs on telecommunication lines, ensuring connectivity for emergency services. Similarly, cell on wheels are deployed to restore cellular coverage swiftly in temporary locations during emergencies or outages, ensuring that essential communication channels remain operational for emergency calls and services.

Without these specialized vehicles, telecommunications providers would face significant delays in restoring services during emergencies, potentially endangering lives and compromising public safety. There are no manufacturers that provide reliable bucket trucks or cells on wheels vehicles that meet the current ACF regulation.

These vehicles face challenges in adopting zero-emission electric vehicles due to their heavy-duty nature requiring high power and long-range capabilities. Additionally, rapid deployment needs during emergencies, often in areas with limited or no commercial power, further complicates the feasibility of electric options.

The California Resources Board has recognized the important roles of emergency vehicles playing times of crisis and exempted them from their advanced clean fleet regulations. Unfortunately, existing exemptions and off-ramps are not viable options for privately owned telecommunication providers as they only apply to publicly owned vehicles.

With the unpredictability of natural disasters, we must remain prepared and ready to ensure that our communities are provided with reliable connection to essential services in case of severe weather, wildfires, or floods. Joining me to testify in support and answer technical questions is Amanda Gualderama with CalBroadband and Terry McHale with the California Association of Highway Patrolmen.

All right, you may begin. You have two minutes each.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Amanda Gualderama with CalBroadband, proud co-sponsors of AB 3179. First want to thank the author and his staff for their hard work on the bill and thank the Chair and her staff for this hearing.

As the Assembly Member stated, this bill will allow for a very narrow delay to the advanced clean fleet regulations for bucket trucks and cell on wheels until 2030. Telecommunication providers are entrusted with maintaining the network infrastructure crucial for facilitating 911 and emergency alert communications. They must comply with CPUC and FCC requirements related to these 911 services.

Bucket trucks and cell on wheels are specialized vehicles that telecommunications providers utilize when performing maintenance and repairs to lines or utilize to temporarily restore cell service during emergencies or outages. Committee analysis states that private and public sectors may need to be uncomfortable to tackle climate change.

Being uncomfortable is different than being uncertain whether or not we can meet our state and federally required emergency response and our obligation for Californians to ensure access to 911. The industry is adapting to a new way of doing things with our dozens of other vehicle types. We have tried the regulatory route, including extensively reviewing the exemptions offered, but those do not provide the certainty required for these types of vehicles.

The transition to fully electric solutions remains impractical for these two types of vehicles and making this delay critical for maintaining the reliability and availability of emergency communications infrastructure. We disagree with the contention that this bill would require a change in the rules, since it is simply a delay until 2030.

It also does not change California's core vehicle emission standards. It is a narrowly tailored--it is narrowly tailored to a small number of specified vehicles, less than 3,000 for all companies for the entire state. So AB 3179 should not trigger the US EPA to require California to get a new Clean Air Act waiver.

It is imperative to pass this bill to ensure that telecommunications providers can effectively provide communication services for emergencies and restore critical services promptly so Californians can reach 911--

You'll have to wrap up.

Yep--or receive a notice to evacuate, which does save lives. I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Madam Chair, Terry McHale with Aaron Read and Associates, representing the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. The 14.6 million trucks registered in California, we're talking about 3,000.

California Highway Patrol is very proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill because it is so important to the public safety of our firefighters, our police officers, and our communities. CHP fights alongside CAL FIRE thousands of fires every year. Most of them are held to 15 acres or ten acres in a one-day burn.

But even on those fires, communication is essential and communication needs to be put in place before we reach the emergency situation. Again, we are talking about a small, specific de minimis amount of vehicles that are used specifically for communication purposes that are absolutely critical during times of emergency.

And that is why CAL FIRE and CHP are so proud to be co-sponsors. It does not mean that we do not want to work on electric vehicles. It does not mean that we do not want to be collaborative and cooperative with CARB. It's just we're not ready for it yet. We will continue to work as the technology advances, but this is a sensible bill. It will save lives and property, and I ask for your support. Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses. Now moving on to the witnesses in opposition. I believe we have two: Victoria Rome and Michele Canales.

Thank you. Hello, Madam Chair and Members. Michele Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists, in regrettable opposition to AB 3179. UCS recognizes the clear need for reliable emergency telecommunication vehicles. However, we believe this bill is unnecessary and could inadvertently undermine California's advanced clean fleets rule, or ACF rule.

The ACF rule was crafted with several compliance exemptions that take into account the practical uses of medium and heavy-duty vehicles and fleet needs. This includes exemptions when zero-emission models cannot fulfill an operation's daily needs, as well as when zero-emission configurations are simply not available.

Given the nature of telecommunication companies work and emergency response obligations, bucket trucks and cell on wheel units would likely qualify for these exemptions in CARB's existing process. UCS is also concerned that the bill may have larger impacts to the viability of the entire ACF rule, as has been mentioned today.

ACF was adopted last year, but the rule requires federal approval through a waiver process at US EPA. The EPA hearing was just this month and the waiver application is currently pending. Should this bill pass, amendments would need to be made to the regulation at CARB who would submit those changes to US EPA, and if the federal administration is not one that is supportive, there is a real possibility that the entire rule could be pulled back to a CPA and not approved.

Given the timing of this bill, federal administration uncertainty in the coming months, we do not believe that this is a risk that we should take, especially with the numerous health and economic benefits that ACF compliance will bring to our state. For these reasons, UCS respectfully opposes the bill and asks for your no vote. Thanks.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Victoria Rome. I'm with Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, also respectfully opposed. We certainly understand how crucial it is to keep emergency telecommunication vehicles running when they're needed most, but we do not believe AB 3179 is the best solution because we already have measures in place to address these concerns.

The ACF rule already has several exemptions, as my colleague from UCS pointed out. There's a ZEV purchase exemption, a daily usage exemption, and a ZEV infrastructure delay extension.

Adding specific exemptions through AB 3179 might lead to confusion and unnecessary changes to the ACF rule, again putting at risk the waiver from the US EPA and potentially calling into question whether we would need another waiver if the rule had to change.

The ACF is expected to prevent deaths, hospital admissions, and emergency room visits, resulting in an estimated 26.5 billion dollars in statewide health benefits by 2050. We believe we should stick with the current ACF framework, which already provides the needed flexibility for essential services while moving us towards our environmental goals. Thank you.

Thank you to the witnesses for the testimony. Now moving to our #MeToo add-ons. So first for support, and that would be name, organization, and position.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Usha Mutschler, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs' Association, in support of AB 3179. Thank you.

Thank you. Julee Malinowski-Ball, on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California, in support.

Good afternoon. Roxanne Gould with the Wireless Infrastructure Association as well as the American Nurses Association of California, in support.

Good afternoon. Damon Conklin with League of California Cities as well as the California State Association of Counties and Rural Counties Representatives of California, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support.

Yolanda Benson, on behalf of USTelecom, the Broadband Association, proud co-sponsors of this bill. We ask for your support.

Pam Loomis, on behalf of the small telephone companies that are members of the California Communications Association, in support.

Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, in support. Thank you.

Alex Torres, Bay Area Council, in support.

John Moffatt for Comcast NBCUniversal, in support.

Madam Chair and Members, Kendra Daijogo with the Gualco Group, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Jonathan Ehrenbell, on behalf of CTIA, the trade association for the wireless industry, in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Natalie Rodgers, on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians and the California Ambulance Association, in strong support.

Thank you. Seeing no further, we'll move on to those members of the public who are in opposition who would like to add on. Name, organization, and position.

Hello. Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California, in opposition. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of CALPERG and my colleagues at Greenlining Environment California and the Environmental Defense Fund. Thank you. In opposition.

Hello. Will Barrett with the American Lung Association, also in opposition.

Mark Fenstermaker for Earth Justice, also in opposition.

Teresa Bui with Pacific Environment, and on behalf of Center for Biological Diversity, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Bringing it back to members of the committee, we do have a motion made by Lowenthal and a second by Hoover. Are there any questions, comments, or concerns for members of the committee? Seeing none, moving back to the author to give the opportunity to close. You know, I appreciate you bringing this bill forward.

As I noted in my earlier testimony, you know, during this legislative session, where we are, there is not a chance for the Chair to weigh in, and so I will be abstaining today, but I've made no recommendation to my colleagues in regard to their vote. With that, sir, opportunity--

Thank you for your time, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary.

AB 3179: the motion is do pass. [Roll Call].

That's 13 vote. That bill passes, and with that there--oh, wait. We do have some add-ons. That's right. I was about to, like, close this out. My apologies. All right, moving to consent calendar. We had three items on consent. All highway namings. Madam Secretary, could you call the roll?

[Roll Call].

Let me check and see if she still--that's our only one, right? Everybody else weighed in? That has 14. We'll wait for members to add on. We're in the bathroom. Oops. All right, going back to consent calendar for members to add on, we have three items on consent, all related to highway namings.

[Roll Call].

That has 15 votes; unanimously passes out. With that, there being no further business of this committee, the Transportation--Assembly Transportation Committee is now adjourned.