Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

Okay. We are going to call the California State Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee meeting to order. When we have enough Members arrive, we will establish a quorum at whatever moment that is. Until then, we'll be able to proceed as a Committee of ourselves.

Couple of announcements today to those of you who have business in front of Business, Professions and Economic Development today. We should be able to get through it pretty quickly. My hope is to be done before the noon hour, but we'll see how that goes. There are a few items that have been removed from the agenda today.

So here they are. We have 16 bills on. And file. Item four, which is SB460 by Ochoa Bogh, has been pulled. File item five, SB687, which is also by Ochoa Bogh, has been pulled. And file item 8, which is SB479 by Senator Arreguin, has also been pulled from today's agenda.

We have three items on our consent that we will come back to again when we have a quorum. One, brief announcement. You will see Members of the California State Senate wearing denim today, including some of the Members up here and some of the Members presenting. That is unusual for us.

It's not part of our dress code, but it is an active protest to a case that happened in Italy many years ago where we won't hold the Italians. In fairness to the Italians, they did reverse the judgment many years later.

But a woman who was a rape victim was deemed to be in part responsible for her victimhood because she was wearing jeans. So folks in Los Angeles started a protest, an annual Denim Day, to say that women should be able to wear whatever they want, obviously. And nothing condones rape.

So Members of the California State Senate today will be wearing denim. Members of the Assembly will wear denim later this week. And this is, in General, a week where we actively protest that case and stand with sexual assault victims. So that is my announcement.

We still don't quite have enough for a quorum, but we're going to go ahead and allow Senator Richardson to present her Bill because she needs to be somewhere else timely. Thank you for being here. Right off the bat, Senator, she is presenting file item 6, SB656, Richardson around small business and a small business liaison. When you are ready, Senator, you may begin.

Well, good morning, all of you. And you can see I'm wearing my uniform. So in the spirit of Denim Day, yes, it's important that we always represent and remember.

So first of all, I want to start off by thanking the Madam Chair, and also Members of your staff in this Committee who work with us to review this Bill and to make sure, you know, it adheres to progress of where we're trying to go.

With that being said, let me start with some background and some facts. California small businesses are drivers of economic growth and mobility, creating two thirds of the net new jobs in the state and employing nearly half of all the private sector employees, building communities, income, innovating to solve global problems, and launching future growth industries.

California leads the nation in the number of patents, quantity of research institutions, investments, and deploys more venture and equity capital, excuse me, than any other state. So if California small businesses have a significant footprint in California's economy, the question is, what's the problem? One answer is the longevity of state and local contracting.

Current law attempts to address access and participation opportunities through the use of small business liaisons. A small business liaison is responsible for duties relating to interactions between the state agency and small businesses. So the questions become what can we do to foster success and sustainability?

California is home to 4.1 million small businesses, representing 99.8% of all the businesses in the state. These small businesses generate $1.3 trillion in revenue, creating 7.2 million jobs. Although, unfortunately, in California, 18.5% of those businesses, that's almost 20%. One in five small businesses fail within the first and further alarming 46.2%, that's almost 50%.

One in two of those businesses, all their hard earned efforts typically fail within five years.

So as we did the research to see about the liaisons and how we could better engage the small businesses, we looked at current law which requires only the large state agencies and departments such as CalTrans and Department of General Services, who regulate small businesses, to designate a small business liaison.

What's interesting though, is that there's over 116 agencies. So imagine all of those agencies and the contracts that they have that small businesses could be participating in. SB 656 will require every state agency to designate a staff person who can assist as a small business liaison to increase small business participation.

Specifically, this Bill will further require all state agencies to designate a small business liaison, as I said.

Require that small business liaison to annually submit the following information to the Office of the Small Business Advocate, which was created in 2011 in order to advocate the causes of small businesses and to provide small businesses with information they need to survive in the marketplace.

The information that needs to be on the website is: a list of current contracts between the state agency and small business contracts of the state agency that include a subcontract with a small business, the total amount of each contract described above, the total dollar amount paid to a small business under a contract or a subcontract described, and the expiration and or contract bidding period.

I would like to further add that while a Bill in print addresses small business liaisons, I've been working with the Controller's Office and the GO, Government Organization Committee, to address the need to increase participation for the Disabled Veterans Business Enterprise and to address underserved communities.

While we understand that there have been past problems with the DVBE, the Department of General Services has indicated the program is successful under their current tenure. Also, we're working with the Legislative Analyst Office to have them complete a past due report on the DVBE that we believe will demonstrate the need to expand this program.

I also intend to use the census data to help identify and equitably distribute resources to underserved communities. With that, utilizing this data and ensuring that all state agencies are designating a small business liaison, California can increase the development and participation of small businesses, micro businesses, and ultimately the success of Californians.

And with that, I'll yield to my witness here with the Controller's Office.

Great. Before we go to your witness, we're going to establish a quorum. That way we should be able to take a vote on your Bill. Senator?

[Roll Call]

That is enough. We have a quorum. You may proceed. You have two minutes. Thank you for joining us today.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Chair Ashby. Good morning, Chair Ashby, Vice Chair Choi, Members of the Committee. I'm Evan Johnson, Acting Deputy Controller for Legislative Affairs at the State Controller's Office. And I'm here representing Controller Malia Cohen. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue.

And thank you, Senator Richardson, for your partnership, your deep partnership, I should add, and authoring this Senate Bill 656. Control Cohen is proud to sponsor this Bill which builds upon the important work that the Legislature and the Governor's Office did in codifying Governor Schwarzenegger's executive order that established the 25% small business contracting goals for all state agencies.

Specifically, in September 2022, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 2019 into law that required state agencies, departments, boards and commissions state to meet a minimum goal of 25% for small business contracting and 3% for Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises in contracting with the state. The key provisions of AB 2019 took effect January 1, 2024.

Shortly thereafter, Controller Cohen took immediate action to align with the objectives of this legislation, instituting a 25% small business participation goal for all procurements made by or on behalf of the Controller's Office. Notably, this commitment has been applied to our two largest contracts, one of which is the single largest, IT procurement and state government.

Through this experience, we now know firsthand how challenging it is, but how essential this work is as well.

That's why in order to fully realize the goals set forth in AB 2019, Controller Cohen, in partnership with Senator Richardson, is committed to creating the internal infrastructure and requirements necessary to not only meet but exceed the state's small business procurement goals.

We'll continue refining this proposal in the coming weeks as mentioned by Senator Richardson, and we look forward to working with Committee Members and investing in small businesses that help form the backbone of our state's economy. For these reasons, the Controller respectfully requests your aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the room in favor of SB 656? If so, please come to the microphone now. Share your name, organization, position on the Bill. Seeing none. Do we have lead opposition in the room?

Is there anyone in the room who would like to speak in opposition to SB 656? Seeing no one. We will come back to the dais. Comments from my colleagues. We have Senators Archuleta and Niello.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this Bill. As the chair of the Military and Veterans Committee, I'm really excited you brought this forward because veterans right now, especially the California Disabled Veterans Enterprise Program, is so essential to have that leadership, that involvement, the participation and a push up.

And I think this is what this liaison will do, and not just for the veterans, but small businesses across the entire spectrum in California. As we all know that California is always leading the way.

But if we can emphasize that we are business friendly, we are opening our doors to people to come back into the State of California, people to open their doors and reestablish their businesses. But to understand that we, as the Senate, Assembly, the Governor and everyone, we're there to help.

And I think this is a big step forward and I will totally support the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta.

Senator Niello.

I will echo what Senator Archuleta said. Small businesses in our state need a lot of help. And the state, of course, is widely known to be one to be difficult to do business in, especially small businesses. So I'm really happy to see this proposal to give advantages for government contracts. And I would move the Bill, Madam Chair.

And I would welcome you and others to join me in other things that we could do of significance to make it easier for small businesses to do business in the States. Such things as the minimum wage. We have the highest minimum wage in the country. This isn't by way of criticizing your proposal.

I think it's great. But I think we need to understand that it's more than this that makes it difficult, especially for small businesses. The expansive paid sick leave and family leave laws, which I agree with, by the way. And large businesses voluntarily provide benefits like that.

But for a small business of, say, 10 people, it really disrupts their operation. The overtime and labor law complexities could be much more simple. The meal and rest break requirements are things that especially small businesses have very difficult time complying with.

So I would welcome you and others to work with, with me to try to ease some of those things along with this proposal, which again, I think is great and I support it.

Thank you, sir. And I am open to that.

We do have a motion, so. Yeah, briefly. Go for it. Senator Archuleta.

One of the other things that I think, all of us on the dais agree and understand, regulations. I think our small businesses are overregulated and we need to make some adjustments.

I think with the labor board that we have, with the enthusiasm we have, with the Governor and everyone else, we have to shift back more into the conservative side.

To be quite honest with you, the logical side and common sense side, that if we're going to help these businesses, we have to look at some of these things that are there. Pagas is one.

The other, the regulations when it comes to helping these people get started with the loans and having those loans not be punitive at the end, but to be helping these small businesses. So I would just like to add that, Madam Chair and I thank you for the opportunity.

Great. Thank you very much. Senator Choi.

Yeah. So also business supporter, conservative. I'm so glad to hear this morning many good comments in support of businesses, including this Bill and also especially Senator Achuleta. We need to bring back business to California by deregulating so many difficult regulations that for small business to survive in California.

And this is one step, making the effort by establishing liaison. I'll be in supporting. Thank you.

Lots of support for you. Senator Richardson, would you like an opportunity to close?

I would just, normally I just say I respectfully ask for an aye vote. They say, you know, when you're winning, keep winning, but I do. I would be remiss not to say to my colleagues that I agree with everything that you've said. I have an MBA.

I'm a small business owner myself, and I understand the challenges, and I'm very open to working with all of you. And Mr. Archuleta has shared that in our caucus, and I join him in that. One of the best things about California is our small businesses.

So we're going to work to really do the fullness of this program, and I remain committed to work with you all. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And not for nothing, Senator Richardson and Senator Archuleta are both huge advocates for the small business community in our caucus at all times. So I think you'll find a great partner in her. You have a motion. Let's call the roll.

Motion is do pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That's six.

Okay, six to zero. We will leave that item on call. Thank you, Senator Richardson. Thank you, Senator Grayson. The consent calendar is moved by Senator Grayson. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Richardson. Let's call the roll on consent.

[Roll Call]

All right. And my. What's the. That was 6. 0. Also, we'll leave consent on call. We'll come back to it. I have three bills, I think maybe four bills on the agenda to present. So in order to keep us moving, I am going to present those now. Senator Choi. Can I hand you the gavel, sir?

Okay. I have no reason to use this. Okay. You have several bills this morning. 1234. So let's begin with the item sequential number number 12.

Thank you, Senator Choi. Yeah, we'll start with item 12. SB370. This is the California Music Festival's preservation grant program. So when you're, Are you ready for me to begin, sir?

No, go ahead.

All right. Thank you so much. And I appreciate my witnesses for being here as well. All right, hold on one second.

All right. Sorry. I am proud to present SB370. This is a music festival preservation act which would establish a music festival grant program within the Office of Go Biz.

Music festivals have a profound impact on the State of California. They attract thousands of visitors each year, generate millions in economic activity, create jobs and contribute significant tax revenues that bolster the local economies that host the events.

For example, in 2024, two Sacramento music festivals that are back to back weekends, Aftershock and Golden sky, generated an estimated impact combined of $44.6 million for the Sacramento region. Another music festival in San Francisco known as Outside Lands, generated 75 million in economic activity for the Bay Area.

Despite music festivals generating significant revenue for host cities, they face many challenges. These challenges include high production costs, especially for essential services such as the venue, security, sanitation, staff fees, all the things it takes to set up in advance of the event.

Most expenses must be covered well before the event takes place, which leaves music festivals largely reliant on ticket and vendor sales to recoup those costs. And if for some reason they do not, it leaves the venues and the events and the community upside down.

Many music festivals operate on a thin margin and festival promoters are reluctant to increase ticket costs because they don't want to price customers out of the market. SB370 addresses these issues by establishing a funding source for multi day, independent live music festivals that significantly impact local economies.

It is critical that we invest in the creative economy in California and multi day music festivals are a clear driver of opportunity and success for cities and small communities across the State of California. Today I have with me to testify a couple of individuals who work and live in this space.

The first is a good friend of mine. His name is Mike Testa. He's the President and CEO of Visit Sacramento. He brings many events to our region. If you have questions about events or about the economic impacts of events like this, I highly recommend you ask him.

I know Senator Niello will probably share his also pride and support of Mr. Testa. Also with us today is Dylan Welsh, who's the Senior Director of Legal affairs for Danny Wimmer Presents, which is the organization that brings many of these music festivals to our region.

They are certainly the entity responsible for golden sky and Aftershock, but they also work in other states and can tell you what some of the challenges are that are unique to California. These are my two witnesses and I know they know they each have two minutes to share their thoughts with you.

Okay, go ahead. We have ready first.

Thank you. Thank you. Senator Ashby. My name is Mike Testa. I'm the President and CEO of Visit Sacramento. Music festivals are high risk business endeavors that have inconsistent revenue streams due to unpredictable factors like weather, wildfires, and competition. If putting on a music festival were financially easy, everyone would do it.

While the festival organizer takes 100% of the financial risk, it is cities and states that reap the benefits with no risk. To ensure the economic benefits produced by these festivals, California should help to safeguard their success, which becomes our collective success. In 2023, Sacramento hosted four major music festivals.

Combined, those festivals drove $55 million to Sacramento's economy, more than 2.8 million in state and local taxes, and created more than 15,000 jobs. In 2024, because of unpredictable revenues and significant financial risk for the organizer, Sacramento lost Soul Bloom for the same reason Sacramento has lost Golden Sky.

The cancellation of those festivals equated to more than $16 million lost in economic impact, almost $1.0 million lost in state and local taxes, and more than 7,000 lost jobs. Aftershock is Sacramento's largest festival, driving $35 million in economic impacts for our region.

Without question, losing it because it no longer pencils for the organizer would be financially catastrophic for Sacramento. But this isn't just about Aftershock in Sacramento. It's about Bottle Rock in Napa. It's about Outside Lands in San Francisco. It's about Coachella and Palm Springs. It's about California roots in Monterrey.

It's about is about the Waterfront Festival in San Diego. The effect of these festivals across California is beyond significant. At more than 12 billion in annual economic impact across the state, more than 83,000 jobs created, and $675 million generated in state and local taxes for the four festivals that I mentioned above.

For Sacramento, the state collects more than $4.6 million in taxes. I'll leave you with this last thought. Aftershock is not branded to Sacramento. It is not branded to California. It could be picked up and moved to any state in this country to help make the organizers ensure its financial success. Thank you for the time.

Okay, second witness.

Thank you. My name is Dylan Welsh. I'm the senior Director of Legal affairs for Danny Wimmer Presents. Danny Wimmer Presents is the largest independent music festival producer in the country. We're a California company and 60% of our staff reside in California. We've been producing music festivals on publicly owned properties in California since 2012.

And in the last 12 years, we've gone from producing one single day festival for 12,800 attendees to producing this year, hosting over 230,000 attendees over seven days of music. Building each of these Festivals is like building a city.

We have to build the infrastructure, the staffing, the safety and public services needed to host hundreds of thousands of fans, only to dismantle it the following week and and rebuild it again the next year. As you can imagine, building a city is really expensive. In 2024, our cost to produce the festival was $38.7 million.

And we commit to these expenses before we know what the weather is going to be. And if something happens, we don't know for sure that we'll get the show on. Of that $38.7 million, 22.6 million of the costs are spent directly in California.

That includes $3.1 million in staffing, 17 million spent with local businesses, 830,000 in public services, $2.3 million in taxes, 200,000 to local charities. And this doesn't include what we spend as a headquarters in California and doesn't include what the fans spend and our vendors spend when they're in the market.

Can you bring up a microphone close to your mouth so people can hear better?

DWP is deeply committed to investing in California Music Festivals. But the model is currently unsustainable. Our production costs have risen by 64% over the last three years. And to attract the top artists, we're having to make offers more than two years in advance without knowing what our production costs are going to be.

We cannot pass these costs onto our fans and the ticket price. We're in the tourism business and if we do that and we increase our prices, we may price a lot of people out of the market, especially fans traveling from out of state.

California has a proud tradition of investing in industries like the film and television industry to generate jobs, drive tourism and inject millions into the economy. Festivals are no different and we do them every year. Our fans create thousands of jobs, fill hotel rooms and support small businesses. And the festivals showcase California.

Our artists, our culture, our businesses, especially our wineries, our agriculture and our culinary businesses. We are not looking for a handout. We are looking for short term investment to yield long term economic, social and branding returns to California. And this will help build a sustainable future for live music in California. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses among the public? You can state your name and organization, support or oppose.

Good afternoon chairmembers. Ross Buckley on behalf of the city of Sacramento in support.

Good afternoon. Brandon Knapp representing National Independent Venue Association in strong support as well as me too in the capacity for Alex Torres as an advocate for California Capital Venues Coalition. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any lead opposition, witness? How about among the ordinary audience in the public? No. Okay. Senator. Yeah.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. This is a great economic driver for California. I'm looking forward to working with you. I want to ask a question. If a local city wanted to tap into these grants, what's the process of tapping into the 20 million?

Because 20 million might seem like a lot of money, but there's a lot of different. I know. Congratulations to Visit Sacramento. I work with Visit HB very frequently, Kelly Miller. And we do a lot of work and provides a lot of money for the City of Huntington Beach and also the region of Orange County.

But what would it be? What would the process be for the tapping of that 20 million?

Well, right now the regulations that we have put in place by way of this Bill would be that it's a multi day event. So it's not couldn't be a single day event that it generates an extraordinary amount of revenue.

So it couldn't be like a small startup that doesn't have a background of having produced few million dollars for moving forward and that it would involve the public land in some way. So those three components would need to be a part of it.

Obviously in Sacramento, my strategy is to have things run through Visit Sacramento because he's coordinating, organizing. My guess would be it's less likely that the City of Huntington Beach would do it, more likely that visit HB would do it and they would certainly be eligible based on this.

We haven't obviously I need to get it across the finish line and then we can write in the implementation components. Working with Go Biz. But this board oversees Go Biz, which is part of why I took this Bill on. I think it's critically important.

You know, the creative economy is a huge part of our identity in California and we are losing them.

I think this is a fantastic Bill. I just think that 20 million is going to run out really quick. I agree, but that's why I asked what that process was because I want to make sure that my community gets a taxis once you pass this Bill. But thank you for bringing this forward.

This is a positive Bill for economics of California. Thank you. I'd like to move the Bill when appropriate.

Thanks, Senator.

Okay. Anyone. Anyone else? Okay Senator Archuleta

I'm going to support the Bill. My concern is the smaller venues that are not the Coachellas, Coachella Valleys and so on. But from what you just explained, it has to be over the weekend, not just one day. As an example, it can't be a startup, someone who has some background in doing it, you know.

But I just want to make sure that the smaller promoters that do do it. As an example, in my city, one of my cities in Pico Rivera, we have the Pico Rivera Sports center there. And they have them every weekend and during the entire season, predominantly Mexican music, that sort of thing.

Every so often they do have the thing started on a Friday, going to Sunday and they come from all over and they'll do maybe 75,000 people, 100,000. Would that qualify in that category? All right.

Yeah, I think so. It depends on how much revenue they were generating. But if they had 75,000 people coming over a weekend and did multi nights, that sounds to me like they would qualify.

One of the key components is the overnights because as you know, that generates TOT tax and that generates an additional economic value to the region. The food entities that they bring in, the restaurants and hotel night stays, all of that contributes. All of those are included in the numbers that Mr. Testa shared with you about Sacramento.

Well, my concern was just that it wasn't to the magnitude of what Coachella Valley does and what that sort of, you know, someone, and like I mentioned mine is 100,000 people, that sort of thing. So, I think it's a great idea. It takes money to make money.

The old saying goes, so let's bring some money back into California, let's keep them going and let's bring those people back. I will support the Bill.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta.

Okay, Senator Ashby. I think the intent of the Bill is really supportable and encouraging music festivals to be successful so that it will also promote local businesses and local revenues. That's great. But my concern is that this year particularly state is facing deficit and deficit level is fluctuating so much.

And then also higher education representatives are banging on my door not to cut their budgets. That 8.7 something percent projected initially it made. So the deficit may go up or down and based upon that, their cut may also may be different. And this one is in support of a live, more professional musical festivals.

However, there are so many small ones as well. Even In Sacramento on May 3rd there will be a Korean American cultural festival. And also I was the founder and operator for 10 years of Korean cultural festival. Sometimes we made money with the sponsorships, sometimes we lost money.

This Bill is supporting, I assume large such independent, more live music dedicated for music itself, not the cultural festivals, et cetera. So at the time of this state deficit, 20 million sounds not so much to allocate set aside and are also subject to Appropriations Committee approval. So I don't know how they will move.

But overall, I think this kind of support for this type of musical, independent musical festival may be good in good years with abundant like $100.0 billion surplus the one time we had. So unfortunately this time I will have to lay off for myself.

Senator Troy, just to address the question, and I'm going to side with Senator Strickland here, I would argue that in a down economy is the exact year that we need to invest $20 million. Because the $20 million investment is going to protect a big chunk of what the state takes in in revenue from these events.

If we spend 20 million, we are basically spending 20 million, as Senator Archuleta has said, to retain closer to 100 million in the revenue that these events generate. I agree with you that cultural festivals are important and some of them may rise to the level of being supported by this.

But the point of this Bill, while it does support the creative economy and it does support the arts, but the point of it is to protect a very vital and important tax base coming into the State of California. I believe it's important for us to continue to support these entities so that we don't lose the money.

For example, a $2 million investment out of this Fund into Sacramento would have kept $16 million in Sacramento revenue just for Golden Sky.

Now amplify that across San Diego, Napa, San Francisco, Huntington Beach and wherever else in the State of California a large entity like Wimmer Presents is willing to come in and spend their money and leave more than $10 million behind in that community. That's what we're protecting, so we don't have to spend the 20 million on this.

We could cut it, but you need to know that you're going to take further cuts to child care, you're going to take further cuts to education, you're going to take further cuts to everything else when the revenue from tourism and music industry also ceases to exist in these small neighborhoods and communities.

So that would be my pitch for them.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, if I can.

Senator Ashby, you are absolutely correct. And since it really needs more funding, I know where to find it. As I read this, it kind of reminded me of the motion picture tax credit, which is not universally supported. In fact, the LAO kind of panned it.

But what's different about this is that it benefits a much wider geographic area. You mentioned Northern California, Central California, Southern California communities throughout the state that benefit on a multiplier basis relative to the Money invested in it seems to me far more, and I'm not trying to create controversy here, but I throw this out as a suggestion.

The amount of money that our budget appears to be headed to fund, the motion picture tax credit, that money could be transferred to this effort and have far more benefits throughout the state for individual communities and as Senator Ashby mentioned, therefore indirectly benefiting those other things that we're looking at potentially cutting back.

So I don't think there's been a motion I. I move the Bill.

Okay Senator

I think where we're all going is the realization that California has got to wake up and start supporting our small businesses enterprises, that is bringing employment, bringing funds into our state and bringing people back. I think that's what we have to do.

And as you can see, the support is bipartisan, which is what exactly what we need. We this Bill shouldn't be a Republican or Democrat or Independent. It should be a California Bill because it's California enterprise, California small businesses.

And I think it's a great way to start and it will go over into the movie industry as it should, and maybe it should go into other aspects in science and industries and so on. So let's go ahead and wake up and let's take that first step.

Appreciate that very much. Okay, if I close, Senator Choi Great.

I think we have one more comment.

I was just going to say if you amended down the line, I would be a co author of this.

Sure. Thank you, Senator Strickland. I appreciate that very much. I'll close quickly and just say thank you so much. I do support the filman tax credit as well for the same reason that I support this, because if we invest in business, business invests back in California.

And I know I may have learned some of that from you, Senator Niello, as you led one of the largest investment groups in the entire region in Sacramento.

I believe in not just the talent of these two individuals and the organizations they represent, but in the very heart and spirit of California, which is born and bred around art and culture and entertainment.

And if we can't invest in that industry in the great State of California, then I think we are missing the mark and missing the opportunity. It does not matter if you're rooting for Tim McGraw, Metallica, Beyonce or Ed Sheeran, which are not random names.

Those are all headliners of events we've talked about today or if you're fighting for San Diego, Palm Springs, Napa, San Francisco or Sacramento, everyone has a piece of the pie. And if you think that it makes a big difference in A region like Sacramento, which is millions of people, to bring in 70 million.

Imagine what Bottlerock does for little tiny Napa. And if they lost it, what kind of dent that would in their tourism industry. We owe it to these groups to invest in them. The way they continue to come back to California. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We do have a motion by Senator Niello. Right.

And Strickland. I think I heard two of them in there.

And call the roll, please.

Moved by everybody.

Great.

Aye.

Motion is due. Passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Ashby.

Ashby, Aye. Choi?

Abstain.

Grayson, aye. Menjivar, Niello.

Archuleta.

Aye.

Adeghuin, Grayson.

Niello, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Strickland.

Aye.

Archuleta, Aye.

Strickland, aye. Umberg, Weber-Pierson.

Aye.

Aye.

Five.

Okay 5-0. And leave it open for absent members. And you do have a next Bill, item number 14SB774.

All right. I don't see other authors, so. I'm sorry, did you say item 14774?

Yes.

All right, great. Let's make quick work of these. These are Committee bills. Colleagues. So this is SB774, which is the Department of Real Estate and the Bureau of Real Estate and Appraisers sunset extension Bill. This Bill addresses issues discussed during the License board sunset review hearing in their sunset review report and the Committee's sunset review background paper.

This Bill also makes technical changes to the real estate law to remove outdated references. I will be accepting the amendments outlined in the analysis to extend each program by four years and to replace gender specific references to the real estate Commissioner with gender neutral terms.

Team is here to work with the stakeholders to continue to push this through the process and with me. I do have two witnesses. Sonia Palladino, who's the Deputy Director of Legislation for the Department of Real Estate. No, that's not who I have here. Right.

I have Angela Hechemat who's the Executive Director of the Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers and let you introduce yourself.

Okay. Sonia, if you're ready.

Hi, I'm Robert Simpson. I'm a legislative specialist with the Department of Real Estate. Sonia is making her way through security right now.

Subbing in. Go ahead. If you. We'll just go ahead with Angela. I think we'll be okay. And then you can answer technical questions.

Yes, good morning. My name is Angela Jemmott, Bureau Chief Of the Real Estate Appraisers. I'm here to answer any technical questions. You may have regarding this Bill. Thank you.

I think they're good. Senator Choi. If you want to see if there's other support and opposition in the room.

I think any public in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Mike Bellot for the Appraisal Institute. We have worked with you. The Committee is well aware of the issues facing Brea in terms of their fiscal health. So we look forward to continue working with the Committee to solve these problems. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have opposition? Lead witness? Okay. Public. No. Okay. A motion has been. Okay. Motion has been already made by Senator Strickland and Senator Archuleta.

Yes, thank you. I would like to again, thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I am a real estate broker, have been for a good number of years. And this week we have the real estate industry here. Car representatives are here. Appraisers will be here.

I think people that are interested in anything and everything to do with the real estate industry will be here this week.

And as I keep pointing out that the boards that are here that represent Realtors, not licensed people, but Realtors who take a pledge of honor and dignity and professionalism as the appraisers are now uplifting with the Bureau. And I'm glad we're doing that.

I just want to make sure that as we elevate those in the real estate industry as brokers and licensees and realtors, that we do the same with the appraisers.

Because as we've heard the fires that was going on, and there's discrepancies and so on, they are vital right now to Southern California that their professionalism, their integrity is on the line. And we want to make sure that your leadership is there for them, madam. And we will continue to back them.

And I will support the Bill, and I think it's a great opportunity. I wouldn't mind being a co author.

Great. We can add you as a co author. Thank you so much.

Would you like to close?

It's straightforward Bill. Urge an aye vote. Thank you so much.

Okay, motion has been made. Please call the room.

[Roll Call]

Okay. 660. And we'll leave it open for abstinent Members. Now you have next item, item number, file number item 15, SB775. You're busy this morning.

Thank you. Senator Choi. SB775 is the Board of Behavioral Services and Board of Psychology sunset extension Bill. This Bill addresses issues discussed during the license board sunset review hearing. In the sunset review report and the Committee's sunset review background paper.

SB775 makes technical and conforming changes to the term advertising in the four practice acts regulated by the Board of Behavioral Sciences. I will be accepting the amendments outlined in the analysis and will continue to work with the stakeholders on this issue. I believe we have folks here for technical questions if you want to have them introduce themselves.

Okay. Do you have any witnesses?

Go ahead. Yes. Hi, I'm Steve Sodergren. I'm the Executive officer of the Board of Behavioral Sciences. And with me I have my legislative manager.

I'm Rosanne Helms. I'm the legislative manager of the Board of Behavioral Sciences. We're here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any statements you want to make?

Just that we, you know, we appreciate you sponsoring the Bill, Senator Ashby, and we just respect your aye vote.

Okay. Any public in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Tyra Rinde, on behalf of the California Psychological Association, we're a bit of a tweener. We really appreciate the discussions with the author at this point and we really appreciate the proposed amendments to include our proposal to expand the degrees for psychological testing technicians.

Grateful for that and just look forward to the additional discussions on other aspects of the sunset report. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other.

I'd like to move the Bill.

Okay. Moved by Senator Strickland. Any discussions? No opposition. Any lead? Opposition or public. Okay, we are good. Woulf you like to close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Motion has been made in the Clerk, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, 6-0. They will leave it open for abstinent Members. And you have last Bill file number 16, 776.

Great. Thank you very much. And before I start this Bill, I would just say if you are a Senator and you have a Bill in the Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee this morning, you should make your way to the chamber as this is my last Bill to present to the Committee and we will need to have the additional authors enter soon.

SB 776 is the board of Optometry sunset extension Bill. This Bill addresses issues that we did discuss during the Board's robust sunset review hearing in their sunset review report and in the Committee's sunset review background paper. Bill extends the operations of the board and its authority to appoint an Executive officer by four years to January 12030.

It requires applicants and licensees to provide the Board with an email address if available to ensure the Board can provide timely licensing and practice act updates. SB 776 also establishes parity for dispensing opticians by permitting the Board to issue a probationary registration similar to the optometrist applicants.

This Bill will allow the Board to hold a Reserve of 24 months instead of six months, one of their requests, which is consistent with the majority of other Healing arts license boards.

I would like to accept the amendments in the Committee analysis to update the reporting requirement for mobile optometric offices to eliminate duplicity and to help the Board achieve efficiency. The changes in this Bill aim to improve the overall operations of the board to ensure a healthy and efficient optometric workforce in California.

I know there were some other issues raised during the board's background paper and I am committed to continue working with stakeholders, this Committee and my Assembly business and professions colleagues on any remaining issues.

I also would like to thank the mobile clinics for being patient to wait for this sunset review Bill for some of the things that they are interested in and for their diligence and willingness to work on making sure that we have continuity of care for all individuals who received optometric services in the State of California to the best of our ability.

Support witness who's probably just here for technical questions in case you need him, is my longtime friend, Greg Pruden. Greg is the Executive officer of the Board of Optometry.

Sure. Thank you, Chair Ashby, Vice Chair Choi. Members, thank you for that introduction. Just want to testify in support of the Bill. Appreciative of the Committee's work and the thoughtful suggestions in the Committee analysis. As the chair mentioned, we are continuing to work together. I know there's a few outstanding issues including optical businesses.

So we will continue to engage with the chair and Members and stakeholders on that issue. Happy to answer any technical questions that you all might have. Thank you.

Thank you. Any public support. State your name and organization support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Meghan Loper, on behalf of Luxottica, you would probably know us in our consumer facing brands, LensCrafters and Eye Exam of California and Target Optical. We really appreciate the transparency with which both the Committee, the author and the board staff have worked with us on issues.

We don't currently have an official position, but have really enjoyed the discussions with the board and the Committee staff and look forward to continuing to engage as the Bill moves through the process.

Thank you, chair and Members. Megan Allred, on behalf of National Vision, also echoing the comments. Appreciate working with the board and continuing To work in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Lindsey Golehorn, on behalf of Vision to Learn, just want to say we really appreciate the work the chair and Committee staff on potential amendments to lift the cap on mobile optometric offices. Look forward to continuing those convers. Thanks.

Christine Schultz, representing the California Optometric Association. Also want to thank the Chair for her work on amendments. We appreciate being part of the process as this move forward. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, any Member discussions or questions? Okay. We have to go through oppositions. Any opposition witnesses in the public? Nobody. Our motion has been made by Senator Archuleta. Any discussions? Okay. Senator Grayson,

Thank you, Vice Chair. And I want to thank the chair. For the great work and your Committee staff for the great work, especially in. Addressing continuity of care and making sure that there is continued access to optometry services. So thank you very much for that support you today.

Okay, Senator Niello.

Question First of all, I always like to give credit to clever acronyms the mobile optometric offices or otherwise moves. But I digress. To clarify, is the cap on the number being lifted or not? I'm unclear.

It is a work in progress. As we move forward from this Committee, we will be doing some lifting of the cap. But Senator Niello, I am also asking them to come back to me with a commitment on how they can guarantee for me continuity of care for the folks that they serve.

In other words, I'm all for mobile clinics, but I don't want a mobile clinic to show up at a school, provide glasses for a child and then never have access to updating that prescription again. So we're working on that piece. We'll have it sorted. I'm sure by the time we see it again.

Everybody involved in that conversation has been a terrific partner. I have no doubt that we will get to a really good solution here by the time this bill's.

Good point. I, I think they do really good work. But I understand your point.

In reference to the cap, I think it's at 12. Is that what I understand?

Yeah. There was a cap that was meant to match the brick and mortar.

I, I'm, I, you know, because in my community, in my district like today, we've been sacramental. Yes. Let's talk about Southern California. Talk about the 30th Senate district with the vast number of students that we have that are in dire need of help. And these mobile clinics really make a difference.

So going from 12 to 14 as an example would expand to some of the school districts I have. So I hope you take that into consideration when you start negotiating because I will support any expansion. I will probably not support you if you don't.

So. Because I've seen the work firsthand as a mayor of the community. I've seen the mobile units come in and I've seen the parents line up with these kids and it's a terrific program, but I just couldn't get it to everybody. But if we can expand, it would really make a difference.

I think that Mr. Pruden and I are less concerned with the number of mobile units and more concerned with the continuity of care that people received. In other words, we should be able to lift the cap to something more reasonable if we even place a number on it.

But what we want to do when we remove that cap is have assurances that people will still have access to optometric services. And we do this in other areas, too. We did this around dental work, which also in Southern California and the Valley can be sparse in terms of where you can get services.

So we want to make sure that a young person who learns in second grade that they're going to need glasses and vision care, that again in third grade, has that same help, and fourth grade and fifth grade and through the trajectory of their life, where we all know that prescriptions change over time and that you need that continuity of care. So that is what we're really pushing in this.

Let me tell you about the care. I thought it was very professional, very heartwarming, and the same template can be applied. So I have all the confidence in the world that those in the industry will be as professional as carrying as those in the past. So that expansion is.

We definitely agree with that. We just wanted to come back year after year, too.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other closing statement?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. A motion has been made, as amended. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

7-0 we'll leave it open. Okay. I think that concludes Chairman Ashby's bills. And now you can take over.

Thank you, Senator Choi. Appreciate you very much. Let's go with one of the Members here at the dais. Senator Niello, do you have your Bill ready to go? Of course. Born ready. I forget. And then when he said, I do think Senator Smallwoo-Cuevas also has a Bill on say, so maybe you'd be ready to go after that.

All right, great. She is Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, are you presenting on behalf of Senator Gonzalez as well? Great. Yeah, that'd be wonderful. So we'll take you next after Senator Niello, keep ourselves moving here. Okay. Senator Niello, when you are ready. This is catch up with myself. File item 11, SB 788, tax preparers and exemptions.

That is completely consistent with what I'm looking at.

Perfect.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I apologize for my coughing in the background. Hopefully I can make it through this presentation without breaking down again. But I am presenting SB 788. Really a pretty simple Bill.

It just clarifies that CPAs and CPA firms, including their employees, are not subject to the requirements of the Tax Preparation act, but instead are licensed by the licensed and regulated by the California Board of of Accountancy.

CPA firms in California occasionally have CPAs licensed in other states providing tax preparation services under the CBA's the Board of Accountancies Interstate Practice Rules. Under existing law, these employees, these CPAs would also be subject to the oversight from both the cba, as I mentioned, but also ctec, the California Tax Education Counsel.

The interplay between these two areas of law has created a bit of confusion for CPAs and CPAs firms. CPA firms. And as a CPA, I can tell you it's hard to confuse a CPA. I emphasize that, but especially for those licensed in another state but authorized to practice in California under the Board of Accountancies Interstate Practice Rules.

Amendments that have been listed by the Committee align with our intent on the Bill. And I thank the Committee for that assistance and accept the amendments I have with me today. Jason Fox with Cal CPA to testify in support of the Bill.

Good morning. Jason Fox with the California Society of CPAs. SB788 aims to resolve confusion and prevent duplicative regulation by clarifying the overlap between two areas of law, specifically to reinforce existing exemptions for CPAs under the Tax Preparation act administered by the California Tax Education Council, or ctac.

As the Senator noted, by making it clear that licensed CPAs and CPA firms who are already regulated under the California Accountancy act, which is enforced by the California Board of Accountancy, are exempt from the Tax Preparation act when providing tax preparation services in California.

With respect to CPAs, the Tax Preparation act only exempts CPAs who are licensed in California. However, under the Calency Act, CPAs licensed in other states are authorized to practice in California under existing interstate practice or mobility provisions.

As the Senator notes, this creates significant confusion and the potential for duplicative regulation, especially for CPAs licensed in other states as well as professionals working in a CPA firm who are licensed and regulated by the California Board of Accountancy. These individuals are already under CPA oversight.

Yet the overlapping provisions of the Tax Preparation act introduce unnecessary complexity and compliance burdens for CPAs and firms working to serve consumers needs effectively and efficiently. SB 788 addresses this confusion, and it's really a technical reinforcement of existing law. And with that, we'd urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. No other lead witnesses? Okay. All right. Are there others in the room in support of SB788? Please come forward. State your name and agency. All right, how about those in opposition to SB 788? Seeing none. We will come back to the dais, colleagues. All right, Moved by Senator Archuleta.

Would you like an opportunity to close, Senator Niello?

I would. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. That's our favorite kind of close. Would you please call the roll

[Roll Call]

All right, that's seven. And. zero, we'll put it on call. Senator Niello. And then just a quick call out to Senators. We are looking for the Senators who have bills up in business, professions and economic development. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. I know you're one, you're waiting for a witness. Can you do the other? Yes. Can you do that one?

All right, we're going to go with file item one, which is SB263, and then we're hopefully have resolution on one other issue prior to finishing out that Bill. And we'll give Senator Smallwood Cuevas's testimony, folks, a chance to get here on her Bill.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas will be presenting file item one, SB 263 for Senator Gonzalez. This is on international trade, tariffs impact study.

Good morning and thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here today to present on behalf of Majority Leader Gonzalez Senator Bill 263, which directs the Transportation Agency in coordination with the Department of Finance and the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development to conduct a study on the impacts of tariffs on California.

Last year, California handled over 800 billion in imports and exports. 40% of containerized imports and 30% of exports flow through California seaports alone. Tariffs imposed without careful strategic planning will raise costs for California families, businesses, harm our workers, and weaken our relationships with international partners.

The Trump tariffs are reckless, they're irresponsible and short sighted, and they have already provoked retaliatory tariffs from other nations. California must stand up for our workers, residents, businesses who are already feeling economic pressure due to chaos at the federal level. SB 263 will ensure policymakers have comprehensive statewide data to help us understand the impacts of tariffs and design data driven policies to mitigate any negative effects on our state.

It is supported by groups including CalChamber, the California Retailers Association, the California Trucking Association, and the California Grocers Association. Testifying in support, I have Mike Jacob, President of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, and Dan Dunmoyer, President and CEO of the California Building Industry Association. I thank you and respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 263.

Go right ahead. You each have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. Mike Jacob with the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. Pleased to be here this morning to speak in favor of this bill. Thank you, Senator, for presenting. We obviously have a lot of dynamic issues going on in this space right now. And I think it's unnecessary to say, but I think it's worth pointing out that the state doesn't have a formal model for addressing these things in place.

It doesn't have a way to actually sit back once we actually know what this space looks like to evaluate what those actual impacts are, how deep they run, how shallow they run, where they're impacting things like state and local tax revenues, and how they impact investments in the space where our members work, which is the largest port complex in the Western Hemisphere, which is the ports of LA and Long Beach.

Of course, we have a lot of other niche ports that are very important. Some that are relatively large, like Port of Oakland, which is top 10 container port, but other ports that are moving really important commodities, including in San Diego and Hueneme and Stockton, that are leading their commodity spaces.

So one of the things that we want to make sure is happening, and we thank the Committee and Senators who've seen this in transportation already with moving this bill forward, is making sure that we have an adequate, measured, and data driven focus for how we're going to continue to invest in this space wisely.

What are we planning for? We don't have a national industrial policy in this space. It's obviously evolving for a lot of different areas of the tariff conversation for a lot of different policy reasons. We're not here to debate that. The issue is what's the state's measured response going to be, and if it has one, is it going to be based on data? And to do that, you have to have a basis for actually acquiring that data and verifying it. That's what this does. And thank you for your support of the measure moving forward.

All right, thank you very much.

Good morning. Dan Dunmoyer, President and CEO of the California Building Industry Association. We represent the home builders of California. Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We too are testifying in support of SB 263. Just to kind of give you a perspective on tariffs.

Obviously, a balanced trade concept for the United States is very crucial to our success as a country and our success as a state. But the current approach, unfortunately, that's being taken on this issue is having a very direct and negative impact on our ability to build housing in California.

Specifically, our relationships with Canada and Mexico are crucial to building housing in California. For Canada, it's softwood lumber, some of the best lumber that we can have access to. And also in Mexico, it's gypsum, which is used for drywall. The walls behind you have a drywall component underneath them.

Finally, the impact in China is fasteners, things like doorknobs, hinges, etc. And also appliances. To give you a sense of impact for us, our estimate right now is the impact in housing is about an increase of $9,200 per home. May not sound much since her average home price in California is $863,000. But here's a stat that might be helpful.

And that is for every $1000 in increase in housing costs, it prices out 7,950 families from buying a new home. It's really mathematical calculation. Do this through mortgage bankers. So for us, the impact is very profound. Give you a sense of how big this is. For one of our vendors, Whirlpool, it's $100 million a month in increased costs so far from China. So these are things that are real. Specific to the study, as my colleague has noted, the best way to respond to the impact of tariffs is on facts.

And so we are very much, as much as studies are not always welcomed in this body, this is a very important study for us. It's a study that only the State of California can do. We can't pick it up from another state because this is the impact in our state. So last two comments.

The timing is very poor for our rebuild in Los Angeles. Insurance proceeds are capped. They don't grow with tariffs. And so even though it costs more to build, the insurance payments don't increase. So for us, that's also the timing. This is very, very unacceptable from just the humane side of Southern California. Last thing I'd just like to say in this...

We just need you to give us a quick final thought there.

Final thought here is just it's very important we have this information to make wise choices and impact the future of trade in the state. And last thing I want to say is every home we build in California is built in California. We don't ship it from any other country. Madam Chair, thank you. We ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you very much. I see some folks lined up. This would be in support of the bill. Please share your name, organization, position on the bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Actually, my colleague Jonathan Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce asked me to express CalChamber's support for the bill. Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Senators, Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the California Grocers Association in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris Shimoda on behalf of the California Trucking Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Keshav Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of the Pacific Maritime Association in support.

Good morning. Jacob Brint with the California Retailers Association in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Melissa Koshlaychuck on behalf of Western Growers in support. Thank you.

Great. Is there anyone in the room in opposition to the bill? We'd be looking for lead opposition testimony right now. Seeing none. Is there anyone in opposition that would like to just state their name, organization? Okay, then we'll bring it back to the dais. Senator Strickland.

So I thank you for bringing forward this bill. I do also agree that we need to take a look at the data. I talked about this in Transportation Committee. I hope we look at the whole pie of this, including I'm with some of the testimony here. I don't like tariffs. I think tariffs are terrible.

But we also have to look at other countries that been tariff our goods going into their countries. And so right now my understanding is administration has 70 different countries coming to the negotiation table to open up their markets to American products, which will help grow our middle class. I hope we talk about that a little bit within the study.

Also within the study. You know, we also need to... Dan Dunmoyer, you're spot on in terms of building and timber and lumber. It's a horrible time for this to have the fluctuations that are going on. But I'm hoping that people on this dais take a look at we used to have a robust timber industry here in California that we shut down. We had a robust... It's I believe a lot of it is in Dahle's district. But visit if you haven't been there. It looks like ghost towns now.

It used to be a robust timber industry. We should fire up that timber industry. We should look at ways here in California as this moves forward. Why are we importing timber from Canada when we could do it here in California and create those jobs in California?

Why are we importing energy from other countries when we have the ability to be energy independent here in California? I'm not saying just oil. I'm saying all forms of energy should be done and create that middle class and that working class here in California. So I'm hoping that we do take this data forward. And we did look at the whole enchilada in the whole pie that says where were tariffs on American goods coming in? Where are we moving towards?

But then I'm also asking my colleagues to look at why are we importing some of these goods when we have the opportunity to build them right here, have the jobs right here in California, and grow here in California and grow that middle class here in California. So with that, I'm proud to move the bill. I'm hoping that we get that whole picture of it. But I would not want to just look at it from a vacuum that a lot of people want to look at a vacuum. Let's look at it from a whole holistic perspective. And so therefore, I'll be supporting the bill.

Senator Arreguín. Okay, sure. Senator Arreguín.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, for presenting this important bill. You know, I think Senator Strickland raises some good points about how we can grow our local supply chain in California. But the reality is, at the present time, these tariffs are destroying our nation's economy.

They're at a time where we need to be making our country and our state more affordable it is exacerbating our affordability crisis. I really appreciate Mr. Dunmoyer being here to really lift up the impact it's having on housing production. Something that we have worked hard over the last decade to streamline and to incentivize the construction of homes.

This is increasing the cost of steel, timber, other critical materials that are critical for a state to address the significant deficit of building homes. We need two and a half million homes just to address the existing shortage. So I think this study is absolutely essential to understand the impact and for us to think strategically about how we're going to respond and be able to support our state's economy. And I'm very proud to support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We have several other speakers. Senator Choi, then Senator Archuleta, then Senator Niello.

Thank you, Chair. I know this is not exactly your bill you are presenting on behalf of another author. But I would like to address just for the public, and if you can answer also you can say. I know this bill is asking to conduct a necessary study that will make an impact on the potential future increases in tariffs and reciprocal tariffs on international trade. As Senator Strickland has mentioned that there are many industries in California.

We can be self sufficient and the cost could be lower. But as you know, our state refineries are being forced to shut down. Many of them will do that. We are the number one high gas price state. And by shutting down these oil refineries and the producers of the oil, as you know, California has abundant of oil but now we will have to depend on foreign oil to be imported into California to sustain our infrastructure and current automobiles.

And I think this study, I would like to make sure that you convey this message that this study will also include how much the tariffs based upon imported oils, future imported oils in the future, five years or 10 years, how much it will impact upon the prices of the gas that we will be paying.

So I'm appreciating the discussion. And, you know, I want to just reiterate what the witnesses have said is, you know, this is, we didn't have the opportunity to have the these kinds of debates and discussions before the tariffs went into effect. So now this is a self inflicted wound and California is bearing the cost at a time when Californians are already saying that affordability is an issue. I mean, you know, even in your district where you have the auto industry and Rivian is in your industry deeply, deeply impacted by these tariffs right now.

And so, you know, this is, you know, California doing what it should do which is to look at how trade is going to impact California and what can California do about it. How can we deal with this wound that is causing so many businesses and so many workers to bleed right now?

And so, you know, this is a common sense study. I think you've heard some of the early statistics, which is I want to say really news for many of us. We need to go deeper, we need to understand the impacts, and we need to understand now. And most importantly we need to have data driven information for us to figure out what are the policies that can quickly help us to course correct. I appreciate the long term, you know, look at forestry in the long term of refinery, but these things were not done in a long term manner.

They were done suddenly and urgently and we are paying the price. So this is really about California getting enough information to figure out how do we weather right now and ensure that the auto industry and the agricultural industry and so many others are able to weather this. And not just weather it, but do what we need to do to have the partners and the exports and imports that we know sustain so much of this economy.

Yeah, to follow up. Consumer prices and the state economy is not just impacted by current situation we are in with the dealing with the tariffs. But this study is necessary. I support that, so I'll be supporting that. So while we are doing that support, I am suggesting the impact of the oil restriction that we can be.

I mean this morning we heard many concerns from bipartisan way that we need to boost our economy as much as possible and that also include regulations that the large or small businesses that cannot sustain in our states. So that's why what is impacting all the cost of the negative cost that being impacting our consumer prices in our state.

So I think not only the impact of the tariffs, but this is about time for us to look into all the restrictive regulations that we are killing our industry, many different industries, especially oil industry and the timber industry, etc. That we need to wake up and deregulate and welcome our businesses.

Okay, thank you for your comments, Senator Choi. Senator Archuleta.

Yes, well this morning this on the dais we all heard about, certainly I've said it, that we should start thinking of not being Republicans, Democrats, Independents, but as Californians trying to do something to move California forward. But how do we do that? Where is that compass?

And the point of this bill is to give us an impartial look and where it may lie could be some of the things that said. But more importantly it also points out to the everyone in the State of California, that these tariffs, are they doing, going to do good or are they doing bad? Is it necessary, unnecessary?

And where will it lead us? That's the key. Unemployment, will it lead us there? Job growth, will it lead us there? But the indications are it's all going to the negative. But it's an urgency that we all understand that we've got to see what's going on. And that's why this bill needs to go forward.

That's why this bill is so important. And we also talked about timing, a perfect timing for a bill like this. So I think all of us, no matter what side of the fence you're on, have got to realize, we've got to see what's in the horizon. We've got to see it. And let's go ahead and accept it and let's open it up to everyone in California. That's what this bill will do. And that's why I'm in total support.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta. Senator Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to the impact on the automobile industry, that is up close and personal to me and is going to be very significant, but it goes far beyond that. Of course, I am not in agreement with the federal policy direction relative to international trade, and I think it does make good sense to assess what the economic cost of that is.

But in our concern about the impact of the President Trump administration's policies on California, about which we have a plethora of bills in this institution, some things introduced about issues that don't even have any impact yet. But we have, and I'm going to be echoing other comments made and also to an extent what we talked about with Senator Richardson's bill, we have other issues that impact this also, and we don't look at those.

So if it takes an introspection of impacts on our economy and our quality of life relative to the entree of the Trump administration, then that's a good thing. So let's take a holistic look. Tariffs are going to have an impact on our economy, and the economy of the rest of the country. It's going to have an impact on the flow through of goods through our ports. But are our ports the most economic and efficient port operations in the country? They are not. There are additional labor costs here.

There are environmental impacts here. The relative high cost of operating ports in California relative to other parts of the country that also have ports, that's a very competitive industry. It would really be nice to take a look at those details also. How competitive are our ports?

So if we're going to be taking this opportunity to be introspective relative to impacts of the practices of the Trump administration, then maybe we ought to also be introspective with regard to the impacts of what our own policies do to our economy, our cost of living, and our quality of life.

Great. I think there are no other... Okay. Sorry. Senator Dr. Weber.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair. I just really want to thank Senator Smallwood-Cuevas for bringing this forward on behalf of Senator Gonzalez. It is definitely timely and very needed. I think when people think about tariffs, just in general, even those of us in California, they think about, oh, the potential for their everyday goods to go up in price, but they don't actually realize here in California that we have a significant number of ports.

And right now, it was interesting, I heard this morning many of the shipments that are coming are, you know, down 40% in terms of goods. There is a question about whether or not people need to go out and start buying things that they need because the scarcity may be an issue in the future. And so looking at this issue is extremely critical.

Yes, we've got a lot of different issues that we can look at, but this bill is definitely timely. And to my fellow Senators, Senator Niello, looking at the ports, I completely agree with that. In fact, when I was in the Assembly last year, Assembly Member Gipson had had a tour, he had a select committee and actually went up and down and looked at all 11 ports, how they worked, how they function, what we could do to improve, what they need to do to improve.

So I would strongly recommend that you reach out to him. I actually went on the tour with him of the port in San Diego when he came down and looked at that. But he actually went and did an assessment of all of the 11 ports. So it is something that is needed. It is something that people are doing here in the legislative body, whether it's in this house or the next house. And look forward to being able to support this bill. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Would you like an opportunity to close?

Sure. I just want to say that this study is outcome neutral. Okay. In addition to seeking information about the negative impacts of tariffs will have on our goods movement and industry and affordability and factors, we want to know if some of the tariff benefits struggling US Industries and workers. So this information is valuable. We appreciate all of the discussion today. We are playing catch up, but we certainly will get the job done to know what the impact is and how we can better protect California businesses and workers. And with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Appreciate that. Strong leadership from our Majority Leader and great presentation from Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. And no surprise, the broad and wide support that our Majority Leader has garnered on this bill. Important for California. We do have a motion from Senator Strickland. Take the roll.

Motion is do pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Great. Thank you to your witnesses. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, do you want to wait for a minute? Okay, great. Senator Padilla, thank you for being here. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas still has one other bill, but we're waiting for a witness to arrive. So we'll take you now if you're prepared. And then we are down to two bills.

Senator, witness is here.

Are they here? Are you okay, Senator Padilla, to let her present, her witness is here. All right, we'll have her finish out really quick this. So we're going to go to Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. We just have a couple of bills left. Colleagues, we are almost through with this agenda. SB 756. Which file item 10 so on the California Film Commission motion picture text credits, tracking and compliance. When you're ready, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Go ahead.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and colleagues, I am proud to present SB 756, the Film Tax Credit Accountability and Equity Act. There is no debate that our film and tax and television industry is homegrown. It's ours. We have to protect it. We have to grow it. What this bill is about is modernizing.

This bill is about modernizing how we as a state track and monitor and support this industry in growth and building a workforce of the future. California's film and television industry is one of the world's strongest economic drivers.

As the senator of South Central, representing South Central Los Angeles, where much of the state's filming does happen, I see firsthand the gap between where productions take place and who often gets the opportunity to participate. Major productions from companies like Netflix and HBO are filming in communities like Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park.

Residents see the trailers, the crews, the road closures, but they rarely understand exactly how to get access. And it's very difficult to see them within the workforce. This is a missed opportunity for all of us. And according to a study by the UCLA Hollywood diversity report, just 18% of below the line film production workers in California are women and fewer than 6 are black.

Meanwhile, the state spends nearly 330 million on the tax credits. But we don't have a basic and consistent way of understanding the information of how the workforce is built and how they are promoting and moving up within the industry.

We understand that investing in this industry is critical and understanding how we grow that workforce is equally so. Some have raised concerns that SB 756 may duplicate existing reporting efforts by the California Film Commission.

To be clear, while this CFC collect some diversity work plans and aggregate data, and track broadly how many workers are in the industry, there are major gaps. This bill seeks to standardize the workforce, demographic and geographic reporting across all productions, creating consistency and compare, comparability for those who are receiving the tax credits.

It expands beyond self reported goals to include hard data on actual hiring outcomes, local zip code hiring, apprenticeship use and justice impact individuals, among other disadvantaged groups. It ensures that the data is independently analyzed and publicly reported in a transparent and accessible format that can be used across productions, across studios, across unions.

This bill does not create unnecessary bureaucracy. It empowers the CFC to build upon its existing infrastructure with a more comprehensive compliance network, ensuring that our investment achieves the intended goal, which is economic and equitable outcomes.

The Legislative Analyst Office made it clear in its February 2025 report recommending that the legislature collect more detailed demographic and geographic data to better evaluate the program's performance and we recognize that the importance of clarity in data reporting requirements are essential.

SB 756 directs the CFC to develop detailed guidance templates for tax credit recipients, ensuring that reporting is practical and feasible. The terms like state and local revenue impacts and growth and production related industries will be carefully defined and regulations developed in consultation with key stakeholders.

The bill requires productions receiving tax credits to submit annual workforce compliance reports including demographic information and ensuring that we understand and have analysis that protects the individual, individual privacy. No personal identifiable data or information would be published. Only aggregate zip code data will be used. The accountability standards are not new.

Los Angeles World Airports already requires this level of workforce reporting on major capital public investments, tracking veteran status and pre apprenticeship and apprenticeship participation levels, wage rates, and zip code data. If we can expect this level of transparency for airports, we can expect the same for companies receiving millions in public subsidies through the film tax credit.

This is not about penalizing the industry and I want to be very clear. It's about making sure that we are seeing the intention of our investments it's about making sure that the public investments deliver the public benefit. And right now, we just simply don't have enough data to tell us that.

With me today is Marco Flores with Local 80 Grips Union and Hollywood CPR, an amazing program in our area, who is here to testify in support, as well as Veronica Soto from the Los Angeles World Airports, who is here as a subject matter expert.

Okay, great, thanks. You each have two minutes. Go for it.

Hello, my name is Marco Flores. I was born and raised in Pacoima. I grew up in a dysfunctional home, gang infested area which led me to join a gang at a young age. At the age of 15, I was arrested and tried as an adult and sentenced to die in prison.

13 years later, Governor Jerry Brown commuted my sentence and I was released. Coming home and staying out are two different things. I was just a kid when I went in. I didn't know how to be an adult. I don't know how to drive a car, credit score and all that stuff. I never had a job.

Upon coming home, I enrolled into Hollywood CPR. It's a program that allows students, individuals who have no pathway into the film industry, providing them with training skills and tools needed to compete in a job in the film industry in a craft of their choice.

After completing a year of school, I was offered an internship in one of the biggest shows in LA, Lucasfilm, Star Wars, the Mandalorian, Season 2. I was officially sworn into Local 80 after my internship was over. I have been working for the past four years now on all Star Wars films.

My crew is a mix of different races, different backgrounds, and younger and older, and we're all there to help one another. As of December 2024, we finished filming the Mandalorian and Grogu movie. Lucasfilms decided to relocate and abandon California, leaving most of us with no work. These bills will help us bring back not only California.

I mean, sorry. These bills will help us bring back not only work to California, but the beauty of our craft that originated in this beautiful state. Our communities are also affected. We need to make a change before it's too late.

The film industry changed my philosophy of life and gave me a purpose and helps me provide for my family and community in a way that my younger self could never dream of. All I can remember is those words that I will never amount to nothing in life, but today they are my motivation and my drive. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much for coming and sharing your story. Could you please state your name on there? I'm not sure.

Marco Flores.

All right, got it. Thank you, Mr. Flores, for being here. All right, go right ahead.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I develop public agency, economic and workforce development programs for public agencies. And when you look at the cumulative amount and value of those projects, it's about over $65 billion. And the way that we have been able to track is through proactive compliance.

You know, we are tracking and reporting, which allows us to measure the success of these programs and the public policy that actually created them. I use LCPtracker on many projects to monitor labor compliance, local hire, workforce development outcomes, and local and regional economic impact.

There's a sample report that I created specifically for SB 756 that creates a small, quick snapshot of the number of people who work on a production, the hours worked, the wages earned, the position levels, race and gender, veteran status, and the successful employment of individuals who graduate from career readiness programs such as Hollywood CPR.

The area section of the report shows the number of workers who reside in a specific city, county, or even outside of the state. You decide the area parameters. Local workers are defined by residency, and you decide what that is as well. Disadvantaged workers are critically important to track.

These are the individuals who present employment barriers such as criminal justice, impacted single custodial parents, foster youth, homeless, those living in poverty. The demographic profile that you're able to capture in these reports is powerful.

We're able to be able to capture the diversity of the workforce, to determine their representation not just in the production, but also in this industry, when you look holistically at all the reports to determine who is represented and who is not represented. The career readiness programs, your workforce development pipeline, like Hollywood CPR, it allows you to track that mobility, that upward mobility of individuals.

We do need your final thought if you.

Final thought is, I'm almost done. Proactive compliance, tracking and reporting, are key tasks to create transparency and measure job creation and retention, which are the benefits of 756, while presenting data that can be the basis for supporting greater investment in workforce development programs that will support more beneficiaries of SB 756.

I need you to state your name for the record, too.

Veronica Soto.

Okay, got it. Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony. Appreciate it very much. Are there others in the room in support of SB 756? If so, please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Yeah. Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the California Arts Advocates. In support. Thank you.

All right, anybody in opposition to SB 756, please come forward now. Seeing no one will come back to the dais. Colleagues with questions, concerns? Senator Archuleta.

Yes. Thank you. You know, today we've talked so much about economics in California and the necessity to include everyone in our growth, because I am anticipating, as we deregulate to some degree, we all understand that the Chamber of Commerce is with a lot of these bills that we're looking at, and labor is with a lot of these bills we're looking at.

It seems like it's now a joint venture. It's a matter of survival. And I think California going forward, it should never forget its people, those in need and those who can contribute.

So I think this bill will open up the books, in essence, to see if we are going to give these tax credits, that it should be equitable, it should be inclusive, and it should give everyone an opportunity to participate in our future. So with that, I will move the bill, and it's hard to. And I will support it. Thank you.

You have a motion. Would you like an opportunity to close?

I just want to say thank you to the witnesses here today and for the support on this bill. We just need to make sure that we have universal receipts on the investments that we're making.

And this is the way in which we can ensure that no matter what the production that gets the opportunity to participate in these tax credits, that we have universal data to understand how our dollars are working to build a stronger industry, but also a future and workforce that is equitable. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. We will call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

I think that's 9-0. We'll leave it on call. And actually, do we need to leave it on call, or do we have everybody here? Okay. We still have one absent member, so we'll leave it on call. All right. Thank you very much for presenting that bill and for the other bill, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Senator Padilla, you ready to go?

Yes, ma'am, I am.

All right. Thank you for joining us today. You have File Item Two, SB 314, weights and measures. When you are ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. I'm pleased to present SB 314, which establishes a more efficient, sustainable, and consumer-protective system for the deployment of EV chargers. The existing process of bringing charging stations online is confusing, inconsistent, costly, and riddled with long delays.

According to the California Energy Commission, one million public chargers are needed in California by the end of 2030 to support California's goal of 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by the year 2035.

A recent report found that only 7,761 EV charging stations have been registered statewide, with none registered in 22 of the 58 counties including Los Angeles and Sacramento. This means that despite there being 178,000 public and shared private chargers installed, roughly 5% have been inspected, tested, and determined to comply with existing state regulations.

This bill--issue came to a head in my own district, part of my own district in Imperial County where a nonprofit who is here to testify faced complications with certification as they sought to increase infrastructure in a very rural part of the state.

Current process resulted in infrastructure being placed out of compliance a week before their ribbon cutting. The issue was not resolved for more than seven months, and only after the nonprofit reached out to multiple state and local agencies and lost thousands of dollars. This is infeasible and undermines California's goal of deploying EV chargers, especially in rural counties.

It also is a disincentive for small businesses and nonprofits from helping the state meet its mandate and hurts consumers when chargers are offline. Two major issues arise--excuse me--with the current process that leads to these various setbacks.

First, testing is conducted by registered service agencies, but there is a major shortage with only 16 certified RSA statewide who are not EV charging station manufacturers. This has made it very expensive to test these stations up, which can cost up to $400 per charging port to test.

Second, enforcement of the compliance process is defined by each of California's 58 counties, verifying greatly the implementation. This bill offers a solution to efficiently build infrastructure and ensure consumer protection through four key provisions.

First, the bill directs county sealers to test in place in service all charging stations that have previously been installed within a specified timeline to address this backlog of chargers.

Second, the bill directs the California Division of Measurement Standards and the California Energy Commission to identify existing funds that can cover the purchase of expensive testing equipment to alleviate the cost for county sealers or RSAs. Thirdly, the bill supports and codifies efforts underway by CalDMS to allow in-factory testing of equipment, establishing an efficient system moving forward.

And lastly, the bill requires counties to adopt standardized statewide compliance, resources, and information developed by CalDMS to make it available on their website for consistency and transparency. SB 314 is supported by a coalition of 15 organizations that highlight the need of a streamlined and consumer-protective system to deploy EV chargers.

Our office is also actively and will continue to actively work with county sealers and RSAs to ensure this bill is feasible when put in practice. With me today, I have Christian Torres from Comito Civico Del Valle, and Matt Trout, who is a certified RSA, to testify. Also would like to advise the committee that Ms. Susie Goldberg with ChargePoint is here to answer any technical questions if needed.

Thank you very much, Senator Padilla. To each of the two witnesses speaking today, you have two minutes each, and then for the person who is going to provide technical assistance, you can just state your name for the record and then folks may well have questions for you. Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair Ashby and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Matt Trout, and I'm here both as a contractor and a registered service agent. My business is in Riverside. I also live in Riverside.

My company offers essential installation, maintenance, and testing services for EV charging stations all throughout the State of California. I fully support the intent behind weights and measures regulations. They are critical to ensuring fairness and accuracy in EV charging, but the way the RSA process is currently implemented creates real and costly challenges for contractors like me.

First, there's a lack of consistency. Every county seems to interpret and enforce the RSA requirements differently. Some don't enforce them at all. This approach leaves us navigating unclear and sometimes conflicting rules, depending on where the job is located. Second, the cost and access to testing equipment is a major barrier.

Equipment can cost upwards of $50,000, and even if you can't afford it, it's often not readily available. That puts a huge burden on those of us who are trying to follow the law. What's most frustrating is that by doing the right thing, it actually penalizes us.

While we bear the extra time and cost to comply, many of our competitors skip the RSA process entirely, making their bids lower and more attractive. Meanwhile, most customers aren't even aware of these requirements, so price becomes the deciding factor, not compliance.

If this system is going to work, we need uniform enforcement, better access to resources, and a real effort to educate both contractors and consumers. And most importantly, we need support to offset the cost of compliance through equipment, subsidies, or other form of assistance. Otherwise responsible contractors like us will keep paying the price while noncompliance goes unchecked. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys may have.

All right, thank you very much.

Morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Christian Torres with Comite Civico Del Valle. As the Senator explained, we had this situation pop up with us last year. When our region was identified as Lithium Valley, we wanted to make sure that our residents were able to benefit from the zero-emissions technology that would be powered by that lithium for electric vehicle batteries. We set out with the First 40 campaign, a campaign to install 40 fast chargers in our community so that we were not left behind.

At the start of our project, we were the lowest per capita county in all of California with access to EV charging equipment. Right now, we have 16 DC fast chargers that we've installed, one Level Two that we operate freely, and we're planning for the next four to go in this year.

When we were approached about being not in compliance, it was a surprise. We had worked with our county planning departments, public works, our cities, and no one knew that this RSA requirement would be coming up. We found out a week before we were set to launch these chargers publicly.

The resolution that we had in the short term was to operate these free of cost for consumers, which we were happy to do because we're a nonprofit. We are not here to make revenue. We are here to provide our resource for our community.

The resolution did not come for almost half a year where the interagency team that we had to convene were able to actually identify the steps appropriate to make sure that one: we were in compliance, and two: the proper equipment would be identified.

It is a very major challenge on the nonprofit side to be able to do this, gathering donations through foundations, corporations, automakers to be able to finance our projects. Imagine for a private developer that is trying to do this out of the goodwill of their heart to provide zero-emissions technology.

We suffered thousands of dollars in costs in public utilities because we were powering these chargers for consumers for free. As of now, we have four technicians on our staff that have been trained to maintain, operate, and rehabilitate these chargers. They've all become registered service agents, and our nonprofit is actually going to be an RSA.

We've been able to procure the equipment that costs more than six figures to be able to do this properly, but these are costs that not everybody can bear, and we hope that this law is able to provide a solution.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Do you want to introduce yourself so folks know?

Yeah. Susie Goldberg with ChargePoint.

All right, great. Here for technical assistance if we need you, right? Got it. All right, are there others here in the audience today in support of SB 314? If so, please come forward. State your name and association as well as your position on the bill.

Lizzie Cootsona, here on behalf of Tesla, in support. Thank you.

Megan Allred, on behalf of General Motors, in support.

Jacob Brent, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in support.

Great. Are there lead witnesses in opposition to SB 314? If so, please come forward. We might need to ask some of you to vacate the seats so that they can come in and do opposition comments, please. Thank you very much. Come on forward.

Good morning, Madam Chairmembers. Matthew Siverling, on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association, just first wanted to apologize to the Committee and to the author for our letter not being reflected in the analysis. We did get it in late last week, or I guess mid last week.

And just to underscore the statement that was made by the author at the conclusion of his remarks, we have been at the table and on the phone and on Zoom and all sorts of other venues with, with the sponsors and with the author staff all this year, all last year when it was a Villa pudua issue in 2024.

So hopefully it did not catch you by surprise, sir, that that we are in an opposing, less amended position at this time. We had requested some specific amendments to the bills.

We've also discussed some larger, more fundamental changes to the entire approach to the Bill to maintain the consumer protection that our programs provide while trying to expedite the process to allow these EV chargers to spread through the state a little bit more quickly. But at this time, as the Bill reads in print, we remain opposed. Thank you.

Okay, thank you for your comments. Go ahead. You have two minutes.

Humberto Izquierdo, Yolo County Sealer Weights and Measures and I'm here representing the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association. Unfortunately, the Association remains in a oppose unless amended. I think the Bill still retains, despite our collaboration and conversations we had with the author and the sponsors, continues to contain unworkable mandates, unfavorable carve outs and misuse of terminology.

We as sealers ensure accuracy in commercial weighing devices to promote consumer protection and equity in the marketplace. We inspect many weights and measure devices, including gas pumps, scales, meters, to ensure that they're accurate and meet legal standards. This helps protects consumers, businesses and fundamental practices to ensure accurate measurement in commercial transactions.

A solid foundation of consumer in consumer confidence is very important so that when the consumer goes and charges the vehicle, they feel that they're getting what they're paying for.

As previously stated, Cacasa has participated in ongoing discussions with the author and the sponsor and we continue to push and maintain fundamental consumer protection aspects of our weights and measures programs as they relate to EV chargers, while recognizing the unique speed at which these devices need to be put out without the state.

We want to maintain the ability to have consumer protection and be able to have these devices be accurate and protect the consumer and getting what they're paid for.

We commit to continue working with the author, urge them and value the importance of we urge them to value the importance of the Western emissions program as they provide, you know, great consumer protection for the California consumers. Since the Bill has not been amended to address our concerns, Casa still maintains a position at this time.

All right, thank you very much for your comments. Are there others in the room in opposition, the SB 314? If so, please come forward and say your name and organization. Seeing none. I will come back to the dais seeing no comments from my colleagues. I do have a comment on this Bill. Senator Choi, did you have a comment first?

Yes. Thank you. Senator, I understand that the need of the charging stations is by 2031 million, but right now the state has only 178,549 stations. That's way far Shorter. And only no 7761 are registered. And there are only 16 people to register and then ensure the all necessary compliance of the chargers.

Why can we have more than 16 people to ensure all of this? That's my first question. And we are moving to the right direction, but I think we need to address all the opposition points. Would you be willing to work with the opposition points and improve your Bill?

Madam Chair and Senator, to your question first. That's a wonderful question and I would respectfully submit that is the question is why can't we get out of our own way? We've set appropriate and aggressive GHG reduction standards in the state. We've set out a framework to achieve that.

At some point in the near future, vehicles sold in California will be electric. That has a potentially tremendous beneficial impact on our public health and on our environment. However, that's all a pipe dream if we don't build the processes and the infrastructure and the support to be able to achieve that in an operational manner.

So, Senator, I would say I appreciate the question. It is the question that the Bill is attempting to address and recognizing that there are some substantial technical issues in terms of achieving operability. We are going to continue to engage vigorously and to work with the opposition's concerns.

I'd also draw the Committee's attention to the final closing of the Committee analysis, which I thought was. Thank you. Very well done and comprehensive. And it points out, while not insisting on amends, points to some specific potential for good amendments to deal with timelines and standards.

So again, the Bill seeks to strike a balance between improving the process accessibility, more rapid deployment so we can have infrastructure to support EVs, but also to reduce unnecessary obstacles and maintain consumer protection so that when they draw down on these instruments, they know that what they're paying for, they're actually getting.

Thank you for Your willingness to work with the opposition, then I will be in support.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay. Seeing no other comments, I will make mine. I can't really. Did you want to respond to Senator Choi's question? Is that what you're seeking to go ahead. Okay.

So, I mean, yeah, as far as the RSA issue is concerned, I think that's an issue that can be easily addressed with the process that the state already has, which is a very, you know, simple test that people can take and become rsa.

So I think that that's something that can be addressed, and we're more than willing to work with the authors and the sponsors to get this issue resolved.

Thank you.

Encourage you work with the author.

Thank you, Senator Choi. Okay, so the analysis on this Bill from this Committee, I think, was fair and does request that the author do quite a bit of work between now and the next time we see this Bill.

I am going to support the Bill today and put it on the agenda to move forward because it's a really important issue and something that we definitely need to address. I would like to have seen more progress before it left this Committee.

And if we don't see that progress, as you know, we can always call it back to this Committee and provide the author some additional assistance down the road. But I have every confidence that he will continue to work for those changes that need to happen. We know that there's a significant need for electric vehicle charging services.

I've received a lot of calls on this Bill, including from some of our commissioners in this space who are concerned with consumer confidence and consistency. And so we need to make sure that those components are in place. It's. It's really important for us to address those moving forward.

I would not support the Bill on the floor in the end if those components are not in place. But some of these conversations are very challenging and take a little more time than the author has had to get to this point.

The Bill in print now, though, is inadequate to address those concerns, and it is critical that he work with the stakeholders to get it right, including the weights and measures aspect, maybe particularly the weights and measures aspect that this Committee has jurisdiction for.

There needs to be a way that the product readiness and the quality can be verified and reliable for Californians.

So knowing that he will work hard, knowing him well, and that he has a bit more time, giving him this opportunity to leave this first hearing and then move forward and have an opportunity to keep working with you all, I would just encourage the.

Both the proponents and opponents of this Bill to stay in dialogue because it is an important and valuable issue that we need to resolve for Californians to achieve our climate goals. But we have to do it in a way that people can rely on upon the services that we are putting our stamp of approval on.

So I will give you a lot of credit for taking on a tough issue, Senator Padilla, and some more time to work on it. And then if we need to bring it back to this Committee in the future, then we'll do so. But hopefully everything will be resolved before we see it again.

I'm not sure you have a motion, but motion from Senator Archuleta. We will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We will leave the Bill on call. We have a couple of absent Members, Senator Padilla, and then we'll bring it back up at the end in our.

Thank you, Madam Chair.