Assembly Standing Committee on Emergency Management

There we go. Good afternoon. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. We're going to allow people to come in from other committees and try to establish a quorum before we get started. Give it one or two more minutes. Thank you for your patience, folks.

We just want to make sure that Members are able to get here so that we can adopt the rules before we hold the meeting. Thank you, sir. No, just go ahead and get settled. You're fine. Yeah, thank you. Well, you're the quorum, so we're going to start. We'll wait for her. Yeah. Thank you. Awesome. All right.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for your patience. I'm Assembly Member, Rhodesia Ransom, Chair of the Emergency Management Committee. We have 15 bills to hear today, nine of which will be on consent. I want to announce that three bills you'll notice on the agenda.

AB270, AB 624 and AB 716, were removed from the file at the author's request, and they will be eligible to be heard at the next hearing. Right now, we're going to go ahead and adopt the Committee's rules for the session. And when my chair gets here, I'd like to acknowledge her and thank her.

So with that, we look forward to working with all of our colleagues here on this Committee to ensure that able to help Californians quickly recover from the disasters and also to be prepared for future events and to help mitigate future risk here. So with that, let's go ahead and establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Our next order of business is the adoption of the Committee rules. Is there a motion and a second second? I would. That would be Arambula and deo. Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right. Next, we'll make the following motions for the items on the consent calendar. AB239, do pass to the Committee on appropriations. AB294, do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. AB372, do pass to the Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. AB 426, do pass to the Committee on Judiciary.

AB 441, do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. AB 841, do pass to the Committee On labor and Employment. AB 1075, do pass to the Committee On Natural Resources. AB 1284, do pass to the Committee On Appropriations. AB 1285, do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Is there a motion and a second on consent items?

Can we remove an item from the consent calendar? 1075

You would like to make a motion to remove an item.

Motion on the remaining items on consent.

Okay. Is there a second? Well, first, don't we need a second to remove the item? Do we need you just remove it. All right. Cool. Not like local government, but okay. That's fine. We'll let you have that one. Mr. DeMaio, is there a motion on the second on the remainder of the calendar? .

Okay, so that was Mr. Assemblymember DeMaio. Okay. All right, Secretary, please call the roll for consent.

[Consent Calendar]

All right, thank you. Looks like the vote is 5 to 2. 5 and 2 not voting. And so we'll hold the roll open for absent Members. So with that, we're going to go ahead and move forward to hear the remainder of the bills. And so we'd like to invite Assembly Member Caloza to hear a Bill. AB262.

Alright, this is Assembly Bill 262, Caloza, regarding the California Individual Assistance Program. Assemblymember, whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair Ransom and colleagues. First, let me just thank the work of the entire committee for doing a tremendous amount of work and sharing information during the recent fires in the Eaton fire and the Palisades fire. You sent out a lot of information that was incredibly use- incredibly useful to myself.

So thank you for jumping in right away. I'm sure you did not anticipate doing that when you accepted this role as chair, that you would be faced with a disaster pretty much immediately.

So thank you to the work of the committee. I'm here to represent- to present AB 262, which is about helping our communities and our families respond and recover from disasters. When a disaster hits, what communities and families need most is immediate access to resources so they can meet their most essential needs.

First, I would like to thank the committee for working with us on the amendments which we accept. AB 262 will establish the California Individual Assistance act, creating a grant program administered by the Office of Emergency Services to provide direct financial assistance to local agencies, community organizations and individuals with disaster related costs.

California experiences a range of disasters annually, including wildfires, floods, earthquakes and extreme weather events. And while the state has mechanisms to assist local agencies during these emergencies, many individuals and families without sufficient resources for recovery are left without sufficient resources for recovery- recovery, particularly in cases where federal disaster aid is not available.

This disparity has highlighted the need for a state level program to address the urgent needs of disaster victims such as housing assistance, groceries, income replacement and medical expenses. AB 262 will facilitate quicker recovery for local agencies and community organizations who are on the ground.

Many disasters do not meet federal thresholds for aid, leaving survivors without critical resources to address their immediate needs. This lack of support amplifies inequities in underserved communities and delays in recovery efforts.

A state level solution is needed to bridge this gap, ensuring swift and equitable recovery and assistance for all Californians impacted by emergencies, no matter where they live. I believe California can lead the way in strengthening disaster resilience by ensuring communities have the resources they need to recover quickly.

Emergencies impact everyone and it's imperative that we provide timely and equitable support to those affected. Here with me today to support this bill are Melissa Sparks-Kranz, Legislative Advocate with the League of California Cities, and Mayor Debra Garnes from the City of Rio Dell. And we'll start with Melissa.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Ransom and Committee Members. Thank you, Assemblymember Caloza. My name is Melissa Sparks-Kranz and I'm with the League of California Cities. We are the sponsors of AB 262.

AB 262, as stated, would create the California Individual Assistance act under the California Office of Emergency Services to provide financial assistance to communities for costs related to disaster that may not be eligible for federal disaster assistance. Currently under federal law, federal assistance is commonly provided under several programs, including public assistance and individual assistance.

AB 262 would parallel that structure in state law and Cal OES as proposed under the bill would be able to provide both public assistance and individual assistance to support where there are state or local emergencies declared and where federal assistance is not available.

So whether it's fire, flood, storm, tsunami, earthquake or other acts that threaten public safety, California cities have seen it all. Cal Cities believes AB 262 is a common sense measure that simply builds upon the state's existing efforts and programs for emergency response, adding another tool in the state's toolbox to help our communities.

Where our cities deploy mutual aid, local officers train community emergency response teams to fight disaster and support communities with interim housing, clothing and food. When it comes to recovery, AB 262 will provide a more diverse set of tools in the state support network to help people in our communities recover after facing such life changing impacts.

You will hear from one of our cities next how disaster can dramatically impact communities and individuals and I'm very pleased to introduce City of Rio Dell Mayor Debra Garnes to testify for you today.

In closing, we appreciate the author's work with the committee on the amendments to help clarify the intent of the bill and we respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair Ransom and Committee Members. I'm Debra Garnes, Mayor of the City of Rio Dell. Thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of AB 262 and we thank Assemblymember Caloza for for authoring AB 262, which will create the California Individual Assistance act to provide financial aid and disaster- for disasters costs not eligible for federal assistance.

Rio Dell is a small town of 3400 residents in Humboldt County with a median household income of $36,000, significantly below county and state averages. We're a severely economically disadvantaged community.

On December 20th, 2022 Rio Dell was struck by a 6.4 magnitude earthquake with a ground acceleration of 1.4 G's that was the third highest ever recorded in the State of California. The damage impacted 25% of homes, interrupted water, power and communication services and displaced 300 residents as 94 dwelling units were red tagged.

A second 5.4 earthquake struck on January 1st, creating further damage. The estimated damages in Rio Dell were well in excess of $32 million. Despite this immense impact, this event wasn't declared a federal disaster because FEMA's threshold for California is $72 million.

Apart from the SBA and the USDA through low interest loans, the federal government played no role in response or recovery from the earthquakes. The lack of a federal declaration not only slowed the recovery but but caused increased stress and suffering. This inequity will likely not be addressed by the feds soon, if ever, without a federal declaration.

We were not afforded individual assistance which provides crisis counseling, legal services, disaster unemployment insurance, housing assistance and critically disaster case management. Instead, Rio Dell relied on voluntary donations to assemble recovery services. This shouldn't happen in our state. The federal threshold will only increase and philanthropic assistance isn't guaranteed in future disasters.

AB 262 recognizes that communities need help with both infrastructure damages and individual recovery after disasters when federal assistance is not available. And for these reasons, we support AB 262. Thank you very much.

Thank you for that. Thank you very much for the the testimony and support. Are there any witnesses in opposition to AB 262? Are there any additional witnesses in support of AB 262?

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members. Kobe Pizotti on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks, also in support. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon Members. Bernice Jimenez Krieger with the California Association of Realtors. We are in between at the moment. We do have an opposed unless amended. Or sorry, support if amended. And we're working with them with a member's office. So we thank the member for collaborating with us.

And I do believe this is going to a different committee where we will hopefully be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. At this point it looks like there are no additional witnesses. I'm going to bring it to the Committee Members for questions. Mr. Demaio.

Assembly Bill 262 seems to be trying to do two- two things simultaneously, one of which I can understand, which is where there is a disaster that does not meet certain federal thresholds, the state would have a program that would try to backfill. Understood.

City of Rio Dell provides a very good example of why we may want to be thinking about a state program. However, the second thing that's happening with this bill is you are carving out the authority for state funding to go to illegal immigrants.

Would the author of the bill be willing to clarify through an amendment that no funds shall be provided to someone who is a non citizen?

Thanks for your. Oh, go ahead.

Go ahead.

Thanks for your question. Mr. Demaio.

As somebody who is a proud immigrant, as somebody who has just gone through a disaster in Los Angeles, I don't think what happened in the Palisades or in the Eaton fires, I don't think fires decide whether or not you have legal status here or not.

Everyone is impacted by disaster and our most vulnerable are impacted by this disaster. So to answer your question, the answer is no.

Okay, so you won't accept the amendment. And I think that's really confirming what this is really about. Pardon me if I am wrong about this, but, ma'am, the mayor of Rio Dell.

I think you're being used as window dressing to a bill that's truly not about your community, but rather opening the door for taxpayer funds to go to people here illegally.

Now, what's particularly galling about this is it's described as the bill would allow the Director of Emergency Services, a state agency, to, quote, prioritize funds for people who are not here legally, people who are non citizens. And the bill says, well, these people are here lawfully.

My concern is that what many in Sacramento describe as legal immigrants are people who cross the border under false pretense. They say that they are politically persecuted, when, in fact, they're just exploiting our- our asylum laws, our very generous asylum laws. Nobody begrudges people wanting to come to this country. We are a nation of immigrants. We support that.

We celebrate that, If someone follows our rules legally, comes to this country legally, and they become a citizen, they go through the process, they will be covered by our federal programs, by our state programs. But this bill seems to carve out specifically legislative rights for illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense.

So I guess the final question I'll have is, how much are we talking about here? It says that we're going to prioritize funds for these individuals, presumably taking money from the state budget. Presumably, that means less funding is available for other citizens. So do we have a rough estimate of you know.

Do you have a case study of a recent disaster? How much money would have been available to illegal immigrants? Do we know what sort of blank check we're opening up here by making this a statutory obligation that they get priority over California citizens?

Well, just to clarify, there's nothing in this bill that has any language about citizenship. And so I, you know, appreciate your effort to try to.

It says California Individual Assistance.

I wasn't finished talking, but let me answer your question. This bill is about helping victims and families and people, especially all of our local communities, who don't qualify for federal FEMA dollars, including your own community. Should there be a disaster that happens, God willing, God forbid, in your district, this would benefit them.

And whether it's a fire or a flood or something else, natural disaster does not discriminate whether or not it's going to impact you and your community, depending on your immigration status. And so this bill is really about helping people and communities.

And so happy to chat with you about it afterward, but respectfully I disagree with your mischaracterization of what this bill is.

No, I don't think so. I just want to clarify because maybe my first question. Maybe. Maybe you want to change your answer to the first question. I asked if you would amend your bill to make it clear that this would not go to illegal immigrants.

Mr. DeMaio, the question was-

And you said no.

Mr. Demaio, the question was asked and answered already.

I got two different answers. That's my concern here. The second answer was no, it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants. But the first question was, would you be willing to amend to make sure that people know it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants? I'm kind of confused.

So her first answer was no. I believe it was no.

So it does have. It does allow for illegal immigrants-

So the bill is for communities that don't qualify for federal assistance. So I- I think that's everyone that falls into that bracket. So she's answered the question. So if it's okay with you-

For that reason, unfortunately, I don't think a conversation is needed afterwards. I think we have it on record.

I will be a no vote for this bill because I can't ask my citizens to take a lower priority and wait in the back of the line so that we can divert money and quote, unquote, prioritize funds for individuals that are not eligible under the federal act. I can't do that.

Doesn't benefit any disaster victims in my community that are US citizens.

Thank you for your input, Mr. Demaio. Assemblymember Calderon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I would like to thank the author for bringing this bill forward, and I'd also like to thank your witnesses for coming here to testify today. We appreciate you being here. You know, I understand that this bill will help families and human beings and communities that need it during a disaster, and that.

That's. That's what's important. So thank you. And I'll be supporting the bill today.

Assemblymember Hadwick.

Hi. We spoke earlier about the bill. I spent the last seven years as an emergency manager, so I guess I have. I feel like I get. I totally understand the intent of the bill. I am worried about the cost because we have a lot of disasters. It doesn't really clarify who's in charge of those funds.

Do you think, like, do you want it through Cal OES or the counties or the cities? Like, I have a very rural area. So we have 11 counties. Most are not incorporated cities, so they don't have, like, a City Council or. What- What was the intent of the author I guess.

Through the chair.

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you for the question. So I think the funding, it's contingent on several things, right.

So that one, that there's the case in which where there is not federal assistance being provided, whether that's public assistance or individual assistance under federal disaster law, it also requires that this funding go through the California Department of Office of Emergency Services.

The bill also requires the director to adopt regulations for the criteria for how this funding would be administered. And once we're past that point in the implementation of this bill, it would require that the local agency or community organization or individual make that request within 60 days of the disaster declaration.

So there's a lot of contingencies built in to ensure that there's checkpoints, there's due diligence in the review of how the funding is being spent. And at the end of the day, how the California Disaster Assistance Fund is administered is through the direction of the director of OES. They have final determination on the allocation.

And have you guys spoke with them? Do they have the capacity to do this? I've worked with them a lot on grants and they are always understaffed. And a lot of their employees deploy during disasters which are now year round around the nation and the world, for that matter, would they have to hire an entire new department?

Like what, what does that look like, capacity wise?

Okay.

Yeah. So we're actively working with staff to ensure that, you know, we're working to build a program that we can sustain here at the state level.

And just to clarify, AB 262 does not appropriate any money, but it creates a program so that when funding becomes available and is needed for disaster relief, that we have that mechanism in place.

I think we learned a lot about the recent Palisades and Eaton fires and all the disasters that have happened across the state, including in your own district. And what we do know is that we need these programs in place, we need this infrastructure in place to be ready.

And when we have those monies, we can appropriate it accordingly.

Okay, so I am worried about the individual assistance portions. I know there are some holes. We have a lot of amazing nonprofits that fill a lot of those holes in our disasters. I- a lot of our response gets abused.

And you can't deny a person that shows up at a shelter because their driver's license could have burnt in the fire or whatever, you know, floods, whatever. So I am worried about that abuse or, or that could happen, but it's mostly the cost.

So we have hundreds of fires in my district every summer that would never, like my entire county could flatten and it wouldn't be eligible for a federal declaration. So that it makes me nervous. It also says major catastrophes, but that part's not defined. And it's defined with OES.

But like I have a declaration right now for wolves in three or four of my, four of my counties now. Like with those, those other disasters we've had disasters for illegal grow operations and the environmental impact, would those others besides fire, flood and earthquake count in that?

Because that county is saying that's a disaster or is this just like fire, floods, earthquakes, or I would just say to make a note of that so it's more limited later. I will be opposing. I completely respect the intent of the bill.

I- it's simply the cost and the capacity for the responders in the emergency services that, that's a lot to take on during an incident. So and- and during recovery. So. But I respect the intent of it.

Mr. Arambula.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'll begin with an appreciation towards the Assemblymember for bringing this bill forward. It's not the first time this committee has seen this bill, but it would have been incredibly impactful and helpful for us during these last disasters.

Our ability to see all Californians who continue to be hardworking, who are tax paying, as valued members of our communities and as a government ensuring that we are creating systems that seize them, that insist that we are giving them the dignity and respect that they've earned through their hard work is what I am excited to support within your bill here today.

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion for this bill and when appropriate, I'd like to be considered as a co author.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second?

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bennett.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this bill. The author bringing this bill forward. As my colleague just pointed out, we've had this bill in front of us before and the bill has been held up in approach and it's held up in approach because there's not a funding mechanism attached to this bill.

The estimates in the past have been $1 billion for this bill. And I experienced in my county, we've had over 1,000 homes burned and many fire victims. And we wrestled with the same thing, which was no funding for individual assistance and that that was being had to be taken care of by the nonprofits in our county.

So I just want to be realistic as I support this bill that without a funding source, it's very difficult to think that the bill will move all the way through the process. But it is a way to raise the issue that we don't have.

There is no individual funding in these disasters beyond just the immediate care that you get for Red Cross, etc. So with that, good luck as the bill moves forward, but without a funding source, we should be realistic here of the challenges that we have.

And I offer that as not as a criticism but as a compliment for- for trying and trying to be realistic at the same time.

Thank you. I'd like to thank all the Assemblymembers for their comments. Assemblymember Caloza, did you have any closing statements?

I do. Thank you so much, Chair Ransom. Thank you to my two witness testimonies, to the mayor, to League of California Cities, and thank you all for your comments and your feedback. We are actively working to identify a funding source, Assemblymember Bennett, and appreciate, you know, your feedback on this bill.

And you know, as what I stated earlier, this is really to ensure that no one is left behind when a disaster hits. And so we want to make sure that individuals, families, our local organizations, and especially cities and counties that don't qualify for federal funding get the help they need.

And we need to make sure that infrastructure is in place so that we can all make it out on the other side. And this bill is really critical in making sure that happens. So thank you so much and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Secretary. Please call the vote. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.

AB 262. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

Thank you. The vote is four yes, two no and the motion passed will hold the roll open for absent members. Thank you Assemblymember.

Thank you.

All right, next up we're going to move Next we're going to move to Assembly Bill 539 regarding mega sporting events and human trafficking. That's Assembly Member Gabriel. Alright thank you, Assembly Member Gabriel. Again AB549. Mega sporting events and human trafficking. You may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much Madam Chair and colleagues. I am pleased today to present AB 549, a measure that will ensure the safety and security are prioritized when California hosts some of the biggest sporting events in the world, including the 2026 FIFA World cup, the 2027 Super Bowl, and the 2028 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games.

These events present a unique opportunity to boost our economy, generate millions in state and local tax revenue and further enhance California's global brand. At the same time, these events also require enhanced security coordination to ensure the safety of attendees, athletes and our local communities.

AB549 will accomplish this goal by establishing a framework for interagency coordination ensuring that state and local agencies as well as host committees are aligned in their efforts to provide the highest level of security, while also reducing the risk of human trafficking, racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination.

Ensuring the highest level of security coordination is appropriate given notable instances of violence at major international sporting events, including the attacks in New Orleans prior to the Sugar bowl earlier this year.

While we always hope for a safe and peaceful event, AB549 ensures that California is prepared for any incident, whether it be a natural disaster, a medical emergency or a security threat, so that we can deliver the best possible events on the global stage.

This bill is supported by a coalition that includes the California Travel Association, the California Hotel and Lodging Association, and the California Police Chiefs Association. I am very pleased to have with me today to testify in support of the bill Emellia Zamani, on behalf of the California Travel Association. Thank you and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. As the Assemblymember said, my name is Emellia Zamani. I'm the Director of Government Affairs and Public Policy for the California Travel Association. We are the advocacy organization representing the travel and tourism industry in our state. My members include destinations, lodging, attractions, transportation companies and others for whom travel and tourism is important.

According to our partners Visit California travelers infused $156.4 billion into our economy last year, which supported 1.2 million jobs and generated $12.6 billion in local and state tax revenue. We anticipate that these numbers will increase as we host several international mega events in the next few years. These mega events represent more than just sporting competitions.

Their investments in California's economic future, workforce development and international reputation. While the next few years will showcase everything we love about California, our world class venues, vibrant cities and beautiful landscapes, they will also bring increased scrutiny. It is critical that with the world's eyes on California, we ensure the safety and security of our visitors, workers and residents.

AB549 develops a framework for interagency coordination to ensure these sporting events are safe for everyone involved and the only memories people leave California with are good ones. The positive attention we garner from these games will hopefully result in many years of return visits from around the globe. For these reasons, we urge an aye vote on AB549. Thank you.

Awesome. Thank you so much with that. Okay, are there any witnesses in support of the bill.

Madam Chair and Members. Dan Felizzatto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support.

Madam Chair and Members. Ahwad Kidani with the Los Angeles Rams on behalf of the Los Angeles Entertainment and Sports Commission. We're not. We don't have an official position. I suspect we will be in support in the very near future because of the masterful work of the author and his staff. Just a little bit of history.

The commission uses the very events that this body has heard about as economic fuel for the Los Angeles region. So any tightening of security and recognition of how important this issue is we support in concept. So thank you to the author.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you Chair and Members. My name is Keshav Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of the Bay Area Host Committee. Similar to the LA Sports and Entertainment Commission we do not have a formal position, but we do really appreciate the author's work on this issue. We look forward to having a position very soon.

The Bay Area is very excited about the 26th World Cup and the opportunity to host six of the games that we'll have in Santa Clara. And so we look forward to continuing the work that needs to be done to ensure public safety is a priority.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Obed Franco here on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association in support.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward.

Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Okay, ma'am, please state your name, your position, and then we'll have two minutes to state your opposition.

Thank you so much. My name is Maxine Doogan. I'm with the Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education, and Research Project, and we are in opposition of this bill. An erotic service provider is anybody who earns a living from their erotic labor.

You can be an exotic dancer, you can be an adult film content creator, and I myself worked as a prostitute of 30 plus years, and I pretty much plan on working as a prostitute for another 30 plus more.

So we are in opposition to this bill because every year we see these debunked human trafficking tropes being trotted out so that they can garner public safety sympathy to create slush funds for the police to arrest people for prostitution. And we oppose that.

So we see now in the public sphere that human trafficking now means arresting people for prostitution. So before the fires were even out in LA, the Los Angeles Police Department were making hundreds of arrests for misdemeanor prostitution. We think that that is a misuse of the public's funds.

So we see that this bill will further make it so that people are going to be arrested for prostitution under the guise of rescuing human trafficking victims.

We see that, you know, these prostitution arrests violate the California Racial Justice Act, that primarily it's always people of color who are arrested predominantly for prostitution under the guise of rescuing human trafficking victims, and that they, people of color are primarily prosecuted for these misdemeanor prostitution prosecutions.

So if you're arrested for prostitution, that prostitution arrest can be used to, you know, discriminate against you in any access to housing, access to another type of job besides prostitution. You can be discriminated against in child custody issues.

And so we just, you know, for a whole host of those discriminatory reasons, you know, we oppose this bill as Los Angeles has already received $49 million, you know, from Homeland Security for, you know, human trafficking. You know, this Office of Emergency Management has already allocated over $20 million towards that end. And I'm almost done. Sorry.

Thank you. But I feel like the weight of this bad bill is just so bad. I just really want to take a minute to tell you that, you know, we do not need to create another slush fund. There's $17 million slated in the current budget because he's the chair of the budget, you know, so he knows that.

So we just think that this is a horrible misuse of funds. And we oppose this bill. We urge your no vote to this bill.

Thank you for your testimony. With that I'm going to bring it to members for questions. Go ahead.

I just want to clarify this. Oh, sorry. This bill is just to coordinate stakeholders to plan for safety and. Okay, just want to clarify that. Thank you for bringing this bill. I'm from the north and we already do this in the north, although we don't have events this large.

But glad to support it and make sure that everybody's working together in the south. So thank you.

Assemblymember Bennett.

I just want to compliment the author. We need to be proactive as we have these huge events coming up and so it's just very appropriate. So appreciate the leadership on this.

Assemblyman DeMaio.

There's not a whole lot that brings the two political parties together in Sacramento. But I want to applaud the author. This is common sense. We know that these large scale events, particularly the international events, have these issues and so having a thoughtful and proactive approach to coordination, it's a no brainer and I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you sir. Will the author have any closing statements?

Yeah. I just want to thank the chair and the committee for their thoughtful assistance with this bill. We are very excited about all these events. We think it's an awesome opportunity to showcase California on the global stage and want to make sure that we are prepared as possible. And so with that would respectfully request your I vote.

Thank you sir. Secretary, please call the vote. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Arts and Entertainment, Sports and Tourism.

AB549. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports and Tourism.

[roll call]

Vote is 5-0. Oh, 6-0. The vote is 6-0. Thank you. Do pass. We will hold the roll open for the absent member. You're welcome. Next up, AB270 Petrie-Norris, autonomous firefighting activities.

Good afternoon.

All right up right now we have Assembly Bill 270 regarding autonomous firefighting activities.

Assemblymember, you can begin when you are ready. Thank you.

All right, thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Thanks to your team for your work on this Bill with us. As we all know, California is in the midst of a truly unprecedented wildfire crisis.

Wildfires have devastated every corner of this state and I know the response to the Southern California wildfires has consumed much of the work of the Committee over the last several months and just want to commend the chair on her leadership as we've responded to those fires.

Emerging technologies and early detection, suppression and response to what wildfires really do offer offer opportunities for us to protect property and to save lives. AB270 will create a pilot project that will assess the viability and the potential of autonomous aerial firefighting helicopters in California.

And just for the avoidance of doubt, not as a replacement to our existing aerial response force, but really as a supplement. This technology really has potential to provide tremendous benefits.

And my incredible witnesses will go into some of those details, but the way that I would describe it is that this technology really offers us an opportunity to expand the envelope of time when aerial operations are possible.

And so the three year pilot project would be overseen by the Orange County Fire Authority, an entity with tremendous experience working with innovative by wildfire solutions and implementing innovative new technologies. This project would also allow fire personnel from across the state to participate in the trainings and to learn more about the technology.

Ultimately, the pilot project will allow experts, first responders, and those on the front lines to explore and to evaluate this technology and really to determine if this is something that we should deploy as part of our fire response across the State of California.

And this is being accompanied by a budget ask that would Fund the three year pilot project. Pleased to be joined today by Chief Brian Fennesee from the Orange County Fire Authority, as well as by Camille Wagner, who is providing testimony on behalf of former Cal OES Director Mark Gierducci. With that, Chief Fennessy over to you.

Awesome. Before you start, sir, I just want to ask that if our witnesses can keep it to two minutes, that would be very helpful. Thank you.

I think I'm going to be really close, maybe a little over. Good afternoon. My name is Brian Fennessy and I serve as the Fire Chief of the Orange County Fire Authority. Also serve as the President of the California Fire Chiefs Association, and I chair the Firescope Board of Directors.

All of us have witnessed the horrors of what has become a year round fire season, perhaps particularly in Los Angeles in January, a month that is about as far from what we used to call our fire season as you can get.

Fortunately, if there is one area growing with the same exponential speed and force of wildfires, it's technology. And we at the OCFA have long served as a national leader in leveraging that resource. In wildland firefighting. That innovation begins with asking one simple question. What does quote unquote normal look like in the future?

In 2019, the OCFA partnered with the UCSD WiFire Lab and Assembly. Petrie-Norris to answer that question with the Fire Integrated Real Time Intelligence System or firus. Why? Because we felt normal in the future would begin with the world's first fixed wing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platform on every initial attack wildfire response.

That program proved so successful it recently transitioned to the State of California. Also in 2019, we at the OCFA felt normal in the future would include the world's first 24/7 fully nocturnal wildfire aerial task force led by the largest firefighting helicopters on the planet. That program, which we call the Quick Reaction force, launched in 2021 and has been so successful it became a year round asset in 2023.

Today, if you were to ask me what normal will look like in the future of wildland firefighting, I can envision many innovative tools, but none more promising than the autonomous aerial suppression technology at the center of AB270. I want to be clear.

All of the weapons we have to keep Wildfire small, none are more effective than overwhelming suppression on initial attack. When time matters to the second, precision matters to the foot and volume of water matters to the gallon.

In fact, research by the Moore foundation shows that reducing wildfire response time by just 15 minutes could save California billions of dollars annually. The need to continue adapting is evident and autonomous aircraft meets that need in ways no other emerging technology can.

By operating in conditions that may be inaccessible to traditional aircraft due to wind conditions, poor visibility or other impediments, autonomous aircraft, both crewed and uncrewed, will serve as a force multiplier, increasing flexibility and capacity for the on the ground instant commanders and ultimately saving lives and property.

That is why so many of us in the fire service support AB270 and believe it is exactly what normal should look like in the future. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Camille Wagner with KP Public Affairs. Thank you for allowing me to read a statement on behalf of Mark Gilarducci. Madam Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today in support of AB270.

The principal objective of this pilot program is to develop and integrate autonomous aerial firefighting capabilities into our state firefighting strategies. This presents a transformative opportunity and represents the next generation enhancement in wildfire response to protect lives and property.

Serving as Cal OES Director over the last decade, I dealt with some of the most complex and devastating wildfire events in state history. Despite significant investments that have been made to date in capacity building and mitigation, Mother Nature continues to outpace us. We cannot afford to simply sit idle with the capability that currently exists.

We must continue to innovate, leverage new technologies and build further capabilities. California has a history of leading innovation in the wildfire response and mitigation space, as Chief Fennessy just highlighted. Like Firus, autonomous aerial firefighting technology can provide several critical advantages. It will not replace crewed aircraft, but can amplify existing capabilities by enhancing response times.

Reaching remote or inaccessible areas can assist in scouting for hotspots or operate in challenging weather conditions where traditional aerial firefighting may be hazardous.

Autonomous aerial firefighting units can also provide for increased safety for firefighters and flight crews being deployed at night or beyond crewed flight hours and increasing the quantity of time that aircraft can remain engaged in firefighting operations.

Supporting the establishment of this pilot program makes sense to evaluate the feasibility, time, cost, risks and potential benefits of this capability before a full scale launch. Thank you for your consideration and for your support of this vital initiative.

Awesome. Thank you for the testimony. Witnesses, do we have any witnesses in support?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Paul Bauer, on behalf of Lockheed Martin Sikorski, we'd like to thank the author for bringing the Bill forward and urge your support for the measure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair Members. Alicia Priego, on behalf of the Chamber of Progress in support.

Madam Chair Members Daniel Woolley, head of strategy and partnerships for rain, a company focused on on autonomous aerial suppression technology. And we are in full support of AB270.

Good afternoon, Chair Members Obed Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association of California in support.

Good afternoon. Chris Rosa, on behalf of Cal Forest, the California Forestry Association, in support.

Awesome. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Okay, we have a motion and a second, but we're going to bring it back to the Members for questions.

I have a question for Chief Fennessy and it's specifically I'm enthusiastic about this technology and what it can do for California and you've identified a number of the things.

But the issue that seems to get in our way more than any other is usually these fires are associated with high winds and for significant periods of time, we have to ground the aircraft because of the high winds.

To what extent do you think this will push the boundaries in terms of the fact that these could be unmanned and therefore we're not putting lives at risk. Does that change the equation very much, do you think, in terms of how high a wind events these helicopters could handle? Helicopters do better than fixed aircraft in high winds. But would unmanned, autonomous drone, autonomous helicopter push the envelope significantly further?

Significantly I don't know. Will it make a difference? I absolutely think it will. Certainly the military is watching very closely as well what we're doing here. Will it perform as it does in high winds or beyond what the other, you know, UH 60 Blackhawks or the Firehawks do? Still to be determined.

I mean, at some point the wind is blowing so hard, it doesn't matter what they're dropping. You know, they're dropping in those kind of conditions. The product, whether it's retardant or water, just blows somewhere else and doesn't reach the target.

What I really like about the software, the range software that goes with this aircraft is that it's like it, that the aircraft can actually see the terrain. And we're not talking radar, altimeters or TCAST or some of these other technologies, but uncrewed, it is actually seeing the geography and through the smoke and those sorts of things.

So I do believe it's going to be able to get in and work fires that maybe we can't when those winds do not put us out of service.

And then a question for the author. What is the dollar amount request for the budget request that goes along with this? And what is the, what is the total cost of the helicopter if those two numbers are different?

The funding for the pilot program, for the three year pilot program is 15.5 million dollars. And if this were something that we were to decide to roll out across the state, we don't have a price tag on that.

That would of course depend on how many, I guess, how large a fleet you wanted to deploy and in what parts of the state. But the initial investment that we are seeking to accomplish is $15 million for.

A three year pilot program. What is the anticipated cost of one autonomous helicopter?

You know, a new helicopter of this type. I know because we just bought two of them, are almost $30 million. This aircraft is a former military aircraft which now I'm told they are selling. The military is making those available. The Alpha models were the early Blackhawks here they're past those.

So now they're making available the L models or the Lima models. And I'm hearing anywhere between 5 and $10 million for a Lima.

And then to convert it over to autonomous. You know, that's a great question.

I don't know. I've asked that question as well. I know how much time it takes. That was my question when I asked Sikorsky as well. I don't know that answer. But it does take probably up to nine months to configure an aircraft that does not have the technology.

They do have one with the technology and that's the one we'd be operating.

Thank you.

And I'd say, I think we recognize, we definitely recognize that this would amount to a significant investment, which is why I always like to take an approach where we structure a finite pilot program and a smaller investment so that we can really evaluate the efficacy of that and determine if the larger investment is something that makes sense for us, for California.

Thank you. Well done.

Thanks.

Are there any other questions from the Committee? Okay.

I just want to thank the author for this. This is the first autonomous item that I've been very excited about. If you would like to have a north pilot program, I'm sure I could find you some. We live in some of the most dangerous fire fighting country in the state.

I think that there's no amount that is too much when we can save lives of firefighters. And if you've worked a fire where we've lost a firefighter, it's devastating and happens too often. And so I'm really excited to follow this and see the progress. So thank you.

Thank you, Assembly member. I really appreciate that.

Okay. Assembly member Bennett, were you asking another question?

Yeah, one other. One other quick follow up question. Number of companies that do this. Is there competition? Are we going to be dealing with single source?

There's nobody else operating a, UH 60 Black Hawk helicopter autonomously. Are there other companies that are working to develop and have developed smaller aircraft, working towards that end? Yes, there are. Thank you.

Thank you. We want to thank the Assembly Member and the witnesses. Did you have a closing statement?

Just would respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Awesome. Thank you. Secretary, please call the vote. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Privacy and consumer protection.

AB270. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Hadwick? Aye. Hadwick, aye. Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Bains. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Calderon? Aye. Calderon, Aaye. Demaio? Aye. Demaio, aye.

Thank you. The vote is 6o. We will hold the roll open for the outset. Member. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. All right, at this point, I think I started the meeting off telling you all how much I appreciate it. My Vice Chair, Assembly Member Heather Hadwick, for partnership and collaboration.

She is going to take over the Committee meeting so that I can head out to vote in another meeting. And I'll see you soon. Thank you.

So you want to go to Bennett? Go to Bennett then. Okay. So we are going to move to AB367 with Assemly Member Bennett, County of Ventura Water district and fire suppression. Assembly Member Bennett you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chair and Members. In 2017, December of 2017, the Thomas Fire hit in Ventura County. It hit specifically in my county supervisorial district that I represented.

And it hit on the street that I live on, with the five houses across the street from me burning down on the four houses on my side of the street catching on fire. But we were able to catch those fires. But I experienced that wind driven ember shower that is the bane now of California.

We used to have whole cities burned down because building codes allowed cities to, I mean buildings to be built right next to each other so that when Mrs. O'Leary's cow kicked the lantern over, it burned the whole City of Chicago down. We fixed that problem.

And I'm committed to trying to make sure that we decrease the losses that we are experiencing right now from wildfires.

With climate change, we may not be able to stop the wildfires from happening, but we have to have literally a Marshall combination of the Marshall Plan and the moonshot effort to try to decrease the losses from wildfire or else home insurance will become truly unsustainable in California with tremendously tremendous negative impacts.

And so there are a series of things that we need to do that, but the first one is the simplest, and that is that the fire hydrant system that we have today in a community ought to be able to work at its maximum capability when that wildfire hits.

And there is no attempt on my part to suggest that we need to change the fire hydrant system so that it can fight hundreds of homes engulfed in a blaze at the same time. That is not doable. That's not a practical solution for us to build a hydrant system of that magnitude.

But it's a shame that too often the hydrant system we have doesn't work to its maximum capability.

And the example I would offer to you in Ventura County, in my district was in the Thomas fire where the tanks above the city were not filled, even though there was a red flag warning out for a significant period of time.

And the tanks were actually allowed to run down to close to their lowest because at midnight is when the electricity rates were the lowest to be able to fill the tanks. And the fire swept into the City of Ventura at 10:30 at night. So consequently, we evacuated people out of their hillside homes. They were down below.

They watched the fire trucks race up the hill to their homes that were on Fire and watch the fire trucks turn around and come right back out and drive out. And the communities would ask, why are you leaving? And they said, because there's no water in the hydrants.

They were going to go someplace else where there was water and hydrants. And as a result of that, many homes caught on fire from these wind driven embers. Spot fires. Wasn't a wall of flame moving through Ventura County and through my community at the time.

It was a series of ember fires starting spot embers, starting spot fires, and no water to put those spot fires out. It does not take very much water to put a spot fire out. Takes a lot of water once a house gets fully engulfed. And if those hydrants, if that.

If those tanks would have been full, they could have lasted hours rather than minutes. And who knows how many homes would have been saved and how many. The multiplier effect when the brush fire comes in and then that brush fire catches a house on fire, and now you have hundreds of thousands more embers spreading through the community.

That's how you lose whole communities in these situations. So the solution to that is one that I am proposing for the County of Ventura right now. Because we've had these problems too many times in the County of Ventura. I cite the Thomas fire, where they didn't top the tanks off in the Thomas fire.

Also they didn't have backup generators that were staged in anywhere near where they could be used to run the pumps when the power was shut off. The power is inevitably shut off when wildfires hit. Now that's always the case.

And when the power goes off there, they had in the Thomas fire, no ability to run the water pumps. So not only were the tanks low, they didn't have any ability to fill the tanks when the power shut off.

And so we had houses burn down, catch on fire 12 hours after the first incident because the community was stuck without any water and no backup generators. And that's just not the level of preparedness that a community deserves, particularly a community that's defined as a high fire risk community.

And then the third thing that's happened recently, as we had another fires, we have more Thomas. I mean, we have more Santa Ana driven wildfires than any place else in Southern California. In Ventura County, because of the unique geography and how the wind comes over the grapevine, et cetera.

But we had water pumps burn up because they were housed in wooden structures in the middle of high wildfire brush area without defensible space around them. And so three simple solutions to maximize the hydrants that we do have.

Have the tanks filled when there's a red flag warning, have backup generators that can kick on within 30 minutes of the power being shut off and should kick on, I might add, immediately. You know, they should be able to do this.

Most technology would allow them to do this, but give them a little bit of gr and in terms of that for the deadline. And third, Harden the critical infrastructure, that's the pumps and the backup generators so that they don't burn up in the middle of the fire. Very simple, straightforward. Is there any cost involved?

Yes, there is some cost, but it is not cost prohibitive to do this relative to the potential benefits for the community of having this happen. We are working on trying to make sure that we can create some funding available. We've been very successful on the hardening side of it. And there's FEMA funding available.

If the water districts will take advantage of that FEMA funding. Now, knowing this Bill is moving through the Legislature to be able to harden their facilities and then the backup generators vary depending upon the city's. But for most cities, it's just best practices to do these three things.

And I shouldn't say cities, but the reason that I'm doing this with state legislation is we have 125 different water districts in Ventura County. These are special districts that are created oftentimes by the state. And so the county fire Department can't tell them to do this. Nobody can tell them to do this except the State of California.

And just this just makes common sense. And I appreciate the Committee's support for this Bill if that is where it ends up. Thank you.

Do you have any primary witnesses?

I have no primary witnesses.

Any witnesses in support in the room?

Thank you. Madam Vice Chair. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Ventura. In support.

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

Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

If you could state your name on your agency, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Kylie Wright. I'm with the Association of California Water Agencies. ACWA represents approximately 470 public water agencies across California and has an opposed unless amended position on this bill. We have concerns on the implementation of the bill's requirements, the lack of consideration of wildfire preparedness planning water agencies are already implementing, and the precedent that this bill would set for future statewide efforts.

I appreciate Assembly Member Bennett's comments on the limitations on the design of the fire hydrant systems. ACWA is supportive of the bill's goals of emergency preparedness and resilience, but each water system is unique and each emergency situation comes with its own challenges. Water agencies already take steps to plan and prepare to ensure that water deliveries are safe and reliable.

Water suppliers need to be provided the adequate resources and the flexibility to plan for these events. First, the bill lacks sufficient funding. Backup power sources such as stationary or mobile generators are costly, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Due to this cost and consideration of water affordability, water agencies utilize mutual aid agreements, allowing generators and other resources to be shared amongst agencies. For agencies to be required by the state to purchase these backup power sources, a budget allocation would be needed.

In addition, amendments are needed to allow for the flexibility for water agencies to adequately prepare for a power shutoff and protect agencies from legal liability in the case that an emergency event prevents a system from operating as planned. This could include bad information on a power shutoff or a wildfire destroying critical infrastructure or access to it.

Further, water systems on backup generation typically would not be operating at normal capacity. Therefore, this requirement in the bill is unreasonable. The bill should also not transfer operational decisions from the water agency to outside entities such as the Ventura County OES. Operational decisions should remain under the jurisdiction of the state certified employees of the water agency. I want to thank Assembly Member Bennett for the early conversations with his office on this bill. But as the bill sits in print, ACWA asks Members of the Committee to vote no. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's bring it back to the Members. Are there any questions? Oh. Anyone else in opposition? Sorry.

Sorry. Lily Mackay on behalf of the United Water Conservation District in the Member's district. Very much share his concerns about making sure we're ready for fire preparedness, but share ACWA's concerns about cost for now as well. Thank you.

Any questions from any of the Members?

Assemblyman Bennett, thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. I know how hard you've been working in the space for, since you got here. Do you have any Idea what the anticipated costs are for the water suppliers?

Well, every water supplier is different. Every water supplier's situation is different. But to give you an idea of what we've tried to, to make sure that this is as collaborative of an approach as possible. And I think this is probably of all the bills that I've worked, the most collaborative I've endeavored to work. We sent out to all 125 water districts in Ventura County, well before we wrote this legislation, a questionnaire asking them all of these questions. Do you already have backup generating capacity? How many generators would you have to purchase?

Inviting them to give us all the information that they thought would be pertinent for us, you know, to do this. We sent that to all of the cities that also operate their own water districts. And we got amazing, you know, varying in response, but most water districts said we're okay in terms of generators.

We already have the generators we need to do that. So in Ventura County, there was not an identification of a major cost in terms of generators. One district that I had a verbal conversation with, they didn't want to put all of this in writing, said that generators would cost them, probably a generator would cost them about $250,000. They thought they might need two. And they thought that that cost spread over their ratepayers.

This wasn't a great big large district, but spread over their rate payers would be about $2 a month in terms of an increase. So from my standpoint, $2 a month if you live in a high fire risk area. And I can assure you of this, the residents, when these wildfires hit, we've had so many hit in my district that when these wildfires hit, the very first thing people ask is, you know, what happened with the water system?

Did the water system operate like it should? And there's, you know, oftentimes great frustration because you can't even get the answer about whether the water system operated properly. But this bill would give assurances that proactively water systems did take the steps that obviously people... You know, the request here is for the water districts to maintain their autonomy, the water districts to have the flexibility, you heard that term, the flexibility to decide how to prepare, et cetera.

That's exactly what they've had up to this point in time. And that's exactly, and the result we've gotten in Ventura County has not reflected well on the water districts. I mean, they didn't fill the tanks up under red flag warning. So in terms of cost, with FEMA currently able to cover the cost of hardening of water infrastructures in Ventura County, which we've been able to find and the FEMA grant for that has not been over subscribed. So the hardening is there. It comes down to generating.

A large city, if they had to buy backup generating capacity for the whole city, would that would be a, that would be an expensive generator. But you know, we don't have, you know, but we don't have any city that's told us that's the situation that they would have to have in the surveys that we've had.

So I wish I could be more precise, but I do think this. If you asked yourself this question, should water districts that are servicing high fire risk areas, this only applies to high fire risk areas, not the whole. Should water district as a standard practice have this topping off responsibility?

Should they have backup generating capacity that's set and ready to kick in immediately? Not a shared system where they say this is what's happened with the shared generator system. They go, oh, it's going to take us. This actually happened in Ventura. It's going to take us 12 hours to get the generator from another system.

12 hours is the critical moment. You need that generating capacity to be there. But should this be standard practice for water districts that service high fire risk areas? They should do all three of the things described here. It should be standard practice, should be built into the rates, and built in over a period of time.

We're trying to be as flexible as possible with the timelines, very generous timelines to do this. If there is a shortage of generators out there that some people have identified, we said all you have to do is contract for the generator and you've met the requirements.

So when the generator is delivered, you know, a year later, you still meet that. So there's a little bit of a lengthy answer, but I wanted to take this opportunity to talk about how collaborative we've tried to be with our water districts. And that is why... You asked about speakers here.

That's why the Ventura County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted for this right to go forward. That's why every Legislator that represents, Senator and Assembly Member that represents Ventura County is a co-author of this bill. And that's why so many residents say they are really strongly supportive of this bill. But you don't have residents coming and saying they're opposed to this bill. It's just the autonomy question on the part of some water districts.

Thank you. I have another question, so thank you for that very detailed answer. I appreciate it. So There would be potential cost to the ratepayers, one. And two, you mentioned the FEMA grants, that they still have funds that haven't been touched. But given kind of the uncertainty with what's going on in Washington, and, you know, there have been some discussion that FEMA may be completely eliminated. I mean, is that a concern?

My understanding is this has already been because of the LA fires. Ventura County qualifies also, and there's a part of the FEMA grant that's already been 100% funded, just like the other things for LA. And we've been, we've been told that that funding is available and in the past has never been oversubscribed.

This, this particular niche of funding has not been over prescribed. And again, we're talking about hardening a pump. We're not talking about building the Taj Mahal, you know, you're talking about a concrete cinder block, you know, around the pump and a backup generator. I don't want to minimize any cost anytime to taxpayers, etc.

But relative, just relative to the increase in insurance costs that will happen to the communities that burned now. And maybe some of those homes would not be... Certainly in the Thomas Fire, I believe we've, I've had firefighters tell me they think hundreds of homes would have been saved. Out of 700 that burned, hundreds of homes would have been saved in my district. And that's, you know, you're talking about $1.0 million a home, far more than the cost of hardening or backup generators.

Last question. Are you going to continue working with opposition?

Absolutely. I wouldn't have gone out there. We reached out to ACWA even though this was not a statewide bill. We reached out to ACWA because we knew that... So we proactively contacted them at the very beginning and shared the bill with them. Said, we know you represent people in our district and we want to be able to let you know, if you've got input for us for the bill, we'd love to hear it. But if the input is, you know, to maintain the autonomy of the water districts without, you know, these regulations, that's a bridge too far in terms of what makes sense for us.

Okay. Assembly Member DeMaio.

Thank the author of the bill for your intent. We want our water districts to be better prepared. We want them to be more thoughtful about what happens if the power goes out. Do you have backup generators? But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's nice to say.

Well, the Ventura Board doesn't oppose this because it's a really easy position to be in as a politician to say, you know what, I'm gonna vote to say that the water district ought to have backup generators because I don't want to be blamed if I vote against this and there's a problem down the line.

You're imposing a cost on another entity in government just the same way that we impose costs on the private sector. I could swallow this if you came to us with, number one, hard numbers as to what it's going to cost. Right now, you have one anecdote.

One of your communities has to do 250,000, which you said was $2 per month, which would translate for the $2 per month per water user on average, 24 bucks a year for one bill. And then extrapolate that to all the good intentioned ideas that we have here, and that's our California cost of living crisis.

If you came to us with a cost estimate that was a bit firmer and then walked in with the bill that said, and in order to help the water districts afford this risk reduction strategy, we're going to waive the following cost drivers that water districts have to pay right now, state regulation. So, you know, if we're going to put another regulation on a, on a, on an entity, we take one or two out.

I mean, that's what a thoughtful public policy would be. That's what a business would do. If we're going to do this, we have to see how we can trim over here. And so I want to applaud you for your intent and you've studied a lot of this and there's no doubt that your office has done a lot of outreach on a well intended bill. But I think we need harder cost figures for this bill before we should proceed forward.

We have to find a way to give flexibility to our water agencies so that they're not passing on the cost to the ratepayer of $2 a month times 12 months a year, which is 24 bucks. Soon it all adds up. It's literally drip, drip, drip, drip for these poor working families.

And the crushing blow is they can no longer keep their nose above water. So unless amended with some cost savings, I unfortunately will have to oppose the bill. And I urge the author to really drill down on costs and see if we can come up with savings for these water agencies.

Thank you. Assembly Member Bains, did you have questions?

Yes. Assembly Member Bennett, this is a district bill, correct?

That's correct. It just applies to Ventura County and is supported by all the, all the legislators in Ventura County, Senators and Assembly Members that represent Ventura County.

I mean, this being a district bill, I will defer to you guys knowing your district as I know my district best representing them. But I wouldn't support this as a statewide led effort, but I will be supporting it today since it just impacts your district.

Thank you.

I just wanted to add comment too. I thank you for working with my office so well with this. I too appreciate that you kept it very local and very district focused. You have all of the support in your district and you have to answer to your constituents. So I hope that as we bring those district focused bills that we will make sure that we act on the faith that our Assembly Member representing that district knows their district the best. So I am also in support of this bill. I don't believe we have a second. We had a motion, but not a second. Okay. Calderon was second. And do you have closing, any closing remarks?

I do appreciate the comments here. I think that as I heard the drip, drip, drip as a reason not to do this because of a cost factor. I think of the drip, drip, drip, which is what was coming out of the fireman's hoses because there was no water. And I think that, in this situation, the community would much prefer that they make sure that they get the maximum out of that hydrant that the hydrant was designed to deliver. And so with that, I very much appreciate the support that has been offered by the Members today.

I particularly appreciate the questions from Assembly Member Calderon about cost. And I would offer this, if there was a way. We've asked every water district tell us the cost, but we have got nothing from water districts in terms of specific costs. We just, you know, this is a district wide bill. So every, every 125 water districts, every water district has a different cost impact.

And until they give that to us, we just can't provide more than that. The final thing I would offer though is this fundamental question. Should there be backup generators or not? Assembly Member on my right here identified that should be left up to the water districts.

And I would offer to you, that's the fundamental question in front of us. Should these things be left up to the vagrancies of a water district when the community may not even know that the water district doesn't have any backup power? I suggest no. And that's why I suggest I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the vote. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Utilities and Energy.

AB 367, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Utilities and Energy. [Roll Call]

Thank you. The vote is six to one. Passing. We'll hold the roll open for any absent Members. And our Chair is back, so I'll turn it back over to her.

Awesome. I want to thank my Vice Chair, Heather Hadwick for keeping things moving. We're going to move on to Assembly Bill 1143. Bennett home. Oh, I'm so sorry. We're going to move past that. We're going to go to Assembly Bill. Help me out here. 615. Okay, thank you. Assembly Bill 615 Davies. Regarding emergency response plans for power facilities and Whenever you're ready, you can begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Today I'm here to present AB615. I first want to thank Committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure.

Under current law, Public Utilities Code 761.3 requires that each battery energy storage facility located in the state have an emergency response and emergency action plan that covers the premise of the battery energy storage facility. The plan must be developed in coordination with the local emergency agencies.

Furthermore, Public Resources Code 25520 requires an application to the California Energy Commission for the operation of the energy facility to include, amongst other things, safety and reliability information about the facility for emergency operations.

However, under both of these existing laws, a developer for a new energy facility is not required to submit as a part of their initial application to the CEC an emergency action plan.

AB615 is a common sense policy public safety measure to require that not only shall an emergency action plan be submitted with the initial application for the development of the facility, but they also must work with local first responder agencies to feedback on the proposed site if any safe if it's in a safe area and meets national safety standards.

This information will be vital for their proving state agencies such as the Energy Commission. A lithering battery fire at the Moss Landing power plant led to its evacuation in January. Monterey County officials confirmed that the fire released a plume containing hydrogen fluoride.

This incident renewed concerns about how close energy storage facilities should be to residential communities and vegetation sites. As the technology behind energy storage systems continue to evolve, new safety challenges may emerge. It's important to stay ahead of these developments by continually updating safety standards and conducting thorough risk assessments.

These assessments should be done in coordination with local Emergency responders early on the process to determine if a proposed site is safe enough. This Bill has no opposition. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Did you have a. You have a primary witness. Do you want to introduce? No. No. Okay. Awesome. Are there any witnesses in support of this Bill?

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

Awesome. Are there any witnesses in opposition of this Bill? Okay. Seeing second. Okay. Well, with that, we'll bring it back to the Members. Are there any questions? All right, we have a motion and a Second by Assemblymember DeMaio. Seconded by Assemblymember Hadwick. Are there any. Would you like to make any closing comments?

I respectfully. Ask for an aye vote.

Awesome. Secretary, please call the vote. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Utilities and Energy.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. The vote is 7-0. We will hold the roll. There are no reasons to hold the roll pin. Thank you. All right, with that, we're going to move forward to Assembly Bill 1143. Assembly Member Bennett, regarding home hardening certification. You want to back up? Okay. We'll. We're going to take a Detour, Mr. Bennett.

If you can just be patient, give us one moment. We're going to bring back Assembly Bill 1075 Assemblymember Bryan, regarding fire protection, privately contracted firefighters and-- Okay, so there's a motion. Is there a second?

Okay, so we have a motion and second regarding the fire protection, privately contracted firefighters. Seeing no witnesses. Is there anyone who wants to speak in opposition of the bill? Is there anyone who would like to speak in support of the bill? Okay, well, seeing no one. We'll bring it back to the Committee for questions.

All right, well, we have a first and second. And with that, Secretary, please call the vote. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Natural Resources.

AB 1075. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Natural Resources. [Roll call]

All right, thank you. The vote is 6-0. And with that we are out. Thank you. 6-1. I'm so sorry, Mr. Assembly Member Demaio. I did hear you. 6-1. And with that, we're going to move forward to Assembly Bill 1143 regarding home hardening certification.

Assembly Member Bennett, you can begin whenever you're ready.

Madam Chair and Members, California's wildfire destruction has reached a tipping point. Wildfires are now sweeping into urban areas in new, more intense and uncontrollable ways. Since 2018, California's lost three whole communities. Paradise, Palisades and Eaton. We are facing an existential crisis.

What we've seen is not walls of flames enveloping communities, its ember showers driven into walls, roofs and vents. In many of our communities, the greatest risk to your house burning down is if your neighbor's house catches on fire. The science is clear. Home hardening works.

A statewide certification program that is trusted by all stakeholders is needed in California. A certification that ensures the home hardening is holistic and comprehensive and includes defensible space, that's the key to decreasing property losses. Partial home hardening is not anywhere near as effective as completely hardening the home. A certification process that clarifies that is essential.

The benefits of the investments in your home hardening need to be rewarded for the property owner. And a certification program that is trusted statewide would allow people to potentially get lower insurance rates and have higher property values for their home, particularly when it comes time to resell their home if they have this certification process.

So AB 1143 would direct the state fire marshal to convene a working group and establish a voluntary home hardening certification program. Want to emphasize it's a voluntary home hardening certification program that identifies the hardening measures, including defensible space, that would qualify the home for home hardening certification.

And this is, I think, our best way to accomplish the goal that I talked about with my last bill, which is if we don't take the important steps necessary to decrease our losses, all of us in California will suffer from unsustainable home insurance cost increases that are going to be coming in the future.

So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Assemblymember Bennett, are there any witnesses in support of Assembly Bill 1143?

No, I have no witnesses.

I was talking to you guys.

Oh, I'm sorry. No, primary.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Edward Franco here, on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association in support.

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

Zach Cefalu the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the committee. Are there any questions? Yes.

I just want to thank the author for making this a voluntary program and letting people choose to opt in or opt out, even though we know how important it is. I think having that choice is a very good way to write the bill. So thank you.

Assemblymember Demaio.

Ditto, Ms. Hadwick. More voluntary, more best practices, less mandates, less cost. We can improve the state of practice through best practices, not mandates.

Thank you, Assemblymember Bennett. I want to thank you for bringing this bill. Having personally gone down and seen the fires and seen structures that were the difference between structures that were hardened, that remain standing and structures that were not hardened, that were no longer there. We thank you for bringing this bill with that.

We have a first and a-do we have a first? Did I miss something? Yes, we do. We have a first and a second. Would you like to make any closing comments?

I'd just like to make one. And that is appreciate the support and the idea that it is. But because this is voluntary and because I genuinely believe this is an existential crisis to California, this is really one of the things that we're making a mistake if we don't get these losses under control and we have the science and technology to do that. But there is a, there is a cost involved.

So because it's a voluntary program, it's incumbent upon all of us to come up with the incentive programs that can really drive people to do this, both an individual and a community.

Because what I envision, and I think it's going to be the solution is a whole community coming together and saying we're going to become a firewise community. And as many of us as possible, as many of us as can afford it, are going to take the hardening steps with our homes.

And by doing that, we're protecting the people that even don't harden their homes because we can surround homes. I'll finish with this. I have a good friend down in Los Angeles. The fire, the winds were blowing parallel with his street. So that means each house as one caught on fire, the next one caught on fire.

31 houses in a row burnt down till it got to his house. His house was hardened, did not burn down, and that protected the house right next to him. That was not hardened. This is the technology that we have to embrace thoroughly in the high fire risk areas in California.

And the work is not done with just a certification program. It has to have an incentive program. We should set a goal. We should literally set a goal in California.

There are about 5 million houses that should be hardened and we should try to figure out how many do we want to get hardened a year so that we could, say, 10 years from now. We have created immunity for wildfire damage in these communities. So sorry for going on, but I'm passionate.

This is the passion that I have for California right now. And I will be back with some more efforts in this area.

Thank you.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Secretary, please call the vote. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Natural Resources.

AB 1143. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Natural Resources. [Roll Call]

Awesome. Thank you. That Bill is out. So I think we're going to go back to bills that we left for to add Members on to the bills. So we'll start with. Okay. We'll start with the adoption of the rules. Yeah, you did. You. We didn't start until you got here. Yes. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

All right, we'll move forward to the consent calendar. Minus. Was it 1075? Assembly, the consent calendar minus 1075. It was Bennett and Baines and Hadwick

[Roll Call]

Okay, consent calendar's out. Assembly Bill 262 regarding California Individual Assistance Act.

[Roll Call]

Assembly Bill 270. Petrie Norris, Department of Forest and Fire Protection, Autonomous firefighting pilot project.

[Roll Call]

Assembly Bill 367. Bennett. Which. No, she was here for that. We skipped it. All right. Assembly Bill 5. 549. Gabriel, Emergency Services, Human Trafficking.

[Roll Call]

I think that's it. Awesome. All bills are out. Thank you. That concludes our meeting.