Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

All right. Senate Committee on Judiciary will come to order. Good morning. We're holding this Committee hearing in room 2100 of the O Street Building. I ask that all Members of the Committee present themselves in room 2100 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing at the outset.

For those of you who are present here in the Committee room as well as those who are watching from other locations, today is perhaps the busiest day this year in the Capitol. There are multiple committees that are going on simultaneously. We will be here for a little while.

So when you see Committee Members who are absent, it is because they are in other committees, including me here momentarily. But let's do this. I'm going to do a bit of housekeeping, and then I'm going to turn the gavel over to Senator Niello. There are 57 bills on our agenda today. That's down from 68.

Two bills have been pulled. They are File item number 23, SB634, by Senator Perez and file item number 26, SB4 25, by Senator Rubio.

We're going to hear bills today until 11:45, and we have to break for lunch and we'll resume at 1:30 and we'll come back to room 2100 to hear the rest of the items on our agenda. Once we have a quorum, we will turn to the consent calendar immediately.

We have nine bills on consent today, and they are as follows. File number 1, SB793 by Senator Archuleta. File number 4, SB339 by Senator. File item number 6, SB650 by Senator Cabaldom. File item number 10, SB750 by Senator Cortese with amendments. File item number 21, SB355 by Senator Perez. Filem number 27. SB738 by Senator Rubio with amendments.

Filem number 39. SB861 by the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. Filem number 44. Sb517 by our very own Senator Niello with amendments. Filem number 50. Sb236 by Senator Weber Pearson. All right. So we're going to proceed in file order today unless we do not have an author.

And then we will go to the author, whoever is present here in the Committee hearing room. I see we do have some authors here present. The ground rules are as follows, just as they have been for the last several years, that on each Bill there's two primary witnesses in support. If you have.

You don't have to have two primary witnesses in support, but if you do have primary witnesses in support. Each of them will be afforded two minutes to testify. And then after the support witnesses testify, the primary support witnesses testify. Then others may come to the microphone and give us their name, their position and their affiliation.

Their name, their position, their affiliation. After that we'll turn to the opposition. The opposition will have the same opportunity as the proponents. With two witnesses in opposition, each afforded two minutes and then the so called MeToo testimony where individuals may come to the microphone and give us their name and their affiliation and their position on the Bill.

If you wish to provide further information, you should go to the Senate website, Senate Judiciary website, and there you'll see instructions how to submit information to the portal. And with that I'm going to turn it over to Senator Niello and I'll be back, I hope shortly.

So I know that Senator Grayson is here, but I believe Senator Becker is on the file before so. Senator Becker, come on down. Senator Becker, before you begin, do you agree to accept the Committee's amendments? Yes, I do. You may proceed.

Well, thank you. I know you have a long agenda in front of you. This is a big bill. I'll take some time. I know we'll have some. Some discussion even with the Members that are here.

And again, I do want to begin by thanking the committee chair and staff for the time spent carefully considering this measure, which will help make the grid more reliable, allow us to reach our decarbonization goals as effectively and fast as possible, and reduce air pollution in California.

I can spend a lot of time on the benefits, but since you have 60 bills, I- I won't go into depth unless there's questions on the benefits.

We only have 57 bills.

Oh, 57. Okay, good, good. You get out early. So I'll focus on some of the questions and- and then happy to- to.

I'm sure we'll have some discussion. Currently, California participates in a voluntary electricity market called the WEIM, the Western Energy Imbalance Market. In this market, participants buy and sell power near the time it's consumed is about a 15 minute head market to balance our grid.

The WEIM has generated over $6.6 billion in savings the last 10 years, with 2.2 billion directly benefiting California. This bill bills on the success of the WEIM by allowing California to participate in a market governed by a regional organization if and only if it meets extensive guardrails.

As probably clear from the broad coalition in support of this bill, making this move is consequential for achieving clean energy goals. At the same time as addressing rising energy costs. Some of the opponents have raised reasonable concerns and I believe the committee and I appreciate those and we'll continue discussion.

I believe the committee amendments not only address these concerns but further strengthen the protections in this bill. I want to be clear at one point. Even before the bill would not let us decide to join this market before 2027, really mid 2027. The amendments now make it so we cannot join this before January 2028.

So we have a full three years of watching the new administration, seeing what it does and if it attempts to do regarding California's energy markets before CAISO in consultation, coming to share its finding and receiving feedback from the assembly and Senate Energy Committees makes a final decision.

Let me go over some of the core amendments. They require the regional organization's governing documents and the tariff approved by the FERC include obligations to respect the authority of each state and manage energy markets consistent with existing California protection. Second, clarify that the regional organization cannot establish capacity markets. Why is that important?

Because that strategy under capacity markets is what is outlined by Project 2025 as the mechanism to force states to buy coal. So we cannot establish capacity markets under this bill or establish any mandatory reserve or resource adequacy requirements.

Third, the commitments are clear that the tariff filed with FERC cannot assess any cost of fossil fuel generation resources to California participants, e.g. can't force California to pay for coal generated in Wyoming.

Fourth, in addition to allowing a state or participant to withdraw unilaterally and without further approval from the RO's energy markets, which was already in the bill, the tariff must allow for petitions to withdraw without penalties or unreasonable costs.

Fifth, requires that CAISO provide testimony, receive feedback from the senate and assembly energy committees prior to adopting the resolution again, which only happened before 2028. To join a regional organization. Six, require a CAISO conducts a jobs study and include that study in its findings and the resolution it adopts.

Seventh, and this is important, requires the CC direct electrical corporations leave the market if one of three things happen if any market rules are detrimental to California consumers or its public policies. Third- Second, if the RPS is held invalid by reviewing court on claims of impermissible discrimination.

Third, if Trump uses any emergency powers or future president to require California to subsidize fossil fuels so we now have it in the bill if any of those things happen automatically required withdrawal.

We also add language that strengthens protections and we appreciate our work with with turn Juliet Reform Network on this that strengthens the protections of renewable portfolio standard by ensuring they've secured firm transmission into California. One of my witnesses today was one of the architects of California's RPS, Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Can speak more specifically on how this bill protects it. Quickly, some of the other amendments clarify because I'm sure you've never had a chance to read all of them, clarify, the California Public Advocates Office is one of the consumer advocate organizations that the regional organization makes funding available for.

Second, clarifies that the regional organization's open process is at least as stringent as California law. And third, require that every two years CISO provide the CEC and the senate and assembly energy committees updates on the compliance with the provisions in this bill. All very substantial amendments. I appreciate the committee.

However, there are also concerns I frankly believe are falsely evoking public fear that- that this exposes California to federal meddling. If FERC wants to interfere with our markets today or our climate policies via our energy markets, they can do that today.

Just to be extremely clear, in reality, even republican controlled public utility commissioners are- are not answering Trump's call for clean coal. Just this week, Arizona's Corporation Commission ignored calls to reopen Arizona's Chola Coal fired power plant on the grounds that bringing the coal plant back would be too expensive to ratepayers.

One of the themes and the impetuses for this bill, besides the urgency of other states now looking to the markets plus from this from the Southern Power Pool, one of the other guiding themes is that the best way to reduce the use of fossil fuels across the west is to force them to compete with zero marginal cost renewables, which will happen under this bill.

And again, not only do today's amendments extend the timeline for implementation to 2028 so they can't even join, don't have to join in January 2020, but can't even join before 2028. So we have plenty of time to assess the risks and benefits together of joining the regional organization even though again FERC already regulates our energy markets.

Every two years CAISO will provide the CC and Senate Assembly Committee updates on compliance and provisions. As I mentioned, as I said last week, there's still many conversations to be had. As you can see, we've made a lot of progress, even just in the past week.

I look forward to continue to work with all stakeholders on this bill. I have today with me two witnesses, Mark Joseph representing the Coalition of Utility Employees and State Association of Electrical Workers, and Caitlin Rodner Sutter from the Environmental Defense Fund.

Thank you. Now we'll hear from the witnesses.

Thank you Mr. Vice Chair and Member, My name is Mark Joseph, represent the Coalition of California Utility Employees and the State Association of Electrical Workers, both co sponsors of the bill, along with the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Three times before regionalization was brought up before this legislature and three times before it lost, we opposed it. We opposed it vigorously.

could you lift the microphone up a little bit and speak a little closer to it? I think we'd hear you better.

The legislature said-

Thank you.

The legislature said to us, go figure it out. There are too many benefits to leave on the table. And so we did, and we did so successfully. The proposal would reduce cost for ratepayers, it would improve reliability during times of stress on the grid, and it would reduce emissions.

The joint support letter that you have demonstrates the widespread support for this. Everyone from Cal Chamber. I'm a little nervous being in the same bill with Cal Chamber, the IBEW and other unions, environmental groups, large customers, industrial customers, CCAs, renewable developers, distributed energy resource companies and more. I want to thank the committee for the amendments.

They make the bill stronger. As Senator Becker outlined, there's still some discussion required. You know, this bill is perhaps seven pages long. The pathways proposal itself was like 107 pages long.

And so there are a lot of details we have to be sure we go through to sync up the bill with the proposal and be sure we get all the details right. The analysis correctly points out that the Trump Administration is a threat to our energy markets. That threat exists today.

We are already at risk today, with or without this bill. Our existing energy markets are under FERC jurisdiction. It's not like today we're immune from FERC jurisdiction. And if we pass this bill, suddenly we come into FERC jurisdiction. We're there today. This bill does not give FERC any more jurisdiction over our policies than it has today.

In any case, as Senator Becker said, the decision to participate won't come before 2028. So we have plenty of time to evaluate whether this remains a good idea. If it's not, we just don't do it. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And true collaboration would create joy when one is supported by one's other erstwhile adversaries. You may proceed.

Thank you very much, Vice Chair and Members of the committee. I'm Caitlin Rodner Sutter, California Director at Environmental Defense Fund, echoing my colleagues comments. This is really wonderful to have enviros and labor and some of the utilities and chamber all together on- on one bill. We're pleased to co sponsor SB 540 alongside our labor partners.

California has huge clean electricity potential, but we often have excess supply with nowhere to send it. Our solar generation is curtailed, meaning that we are wasting clean electricity that we have already built and paid for.

But planning imports and exports further in advance, which this bill would allow us to do with a better connected market, enables this cleaner power to displace the old dirty coal plants. Furthermore, the benefit of solar and wind is that they have no fuel cost.

As the senator talked about, resources bidding into the market at zero fuel cost will always beat higher cost resources like coal or even natural gas. No federal executive order or press release changes the market fundamentals that price coal out of the market every time.

This market is also going to take a few years to establish and we should not let the latest headline influence the next decade of cleaner, more affordable and more reliable electricity. SB 540 also helps California's electricity supply to become more reliable at times when our grid is under severe strain.

Having the widest possible source of power gives us more options to prevent blackouts. We need a grid that is larger than one extreme weather event.

Additionally, this bill explicitly preserves California's authority to set our own climate transmission, resource adequacy and procurement requirements and maintains the senate's overall responsibility of oversight, including the role confirming leadership for all California energy regulators. SB 540 helps to unlock more and cheaper clean electricity resources for California. I really appreciate the author's leadership.

I am proud of this incredibly diverse coalition of supporters that you've heard about and I'm happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have others in the room to support? State your name, organization and position on the bill.

Chris Rosa on behalf of Silicon Valley Leadership Group in support.

Mr. Chairman, Chris Micheli on behalf of Silicon Valley Clean Energy in support of the bill. Thank you.

R.L. Miller on behalf of Climate Hawks Vote, strong support. Thank you.

Chance Money Jones from the Independent Energy Producers, a strong proponent of this bill and the RPS. Thank you.

Nick Broca on behalf of Microsoft in support.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, strong support.

Jamie Miner on behalf of the California Efficiency and Demand Management Council, CEDMC, MCE and Pioneer Energy. Pleased to support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jason Eichert on behalf of the California Community Choice Association also in support.

Good morning. Larissa Marcado on behalf of Clean Power Alliance, Amazon Web Services, Data Center Coalition and RIVIAN all in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Melissa Kosio with Pacific Gas and Electric, in strong support. Thank you.

Kathleen Staks with Western Freedom, strong support. Thank you so much.

Megan Loper on behalf of SDG and E, in support.

Chris Kahn, representing Southern California Edison, in support.

Michael Jarred with the Nature Conservancy, in support.

Rachel McMahon with EDF Renewables, in support.

Delaney Hunter on behalf of EDP Renewables and the Solar Energy Industries Association, in support.

Daniel Barad on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists. In support.

Good morning. Victoria Rome with NRDC, co sponsor in support.

Jaelson Dantas, Full Moon Strategies on behalf of the San Diego Community Power in support.

Clean Energy Buyers Association. In support.

Okay.

Mark Fenstermaker, Peninsula Clean Energy in support.

Martin Vindiola, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers and the Coalition of California Utility Employees, co sponsors in support. Thank you.

Robert Boykin with TechNet, in support.

Katherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council, in support.

Andrew Antwih with Shaw, Yoder, Antwih, Schmelzer and Lang, here today on behalf of Advanced Energy United, in support.

Jenna Price for American Clean Power and Central Coast Community Energy, in support.

Good morning. Derek Dolfie, on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, we support the bill in print and look forward to of reviewing the amendments and working with the author to address any concerns. Thank you.

Morning. Matt Klopfenstein, on behalf of SMUD, echoing the comments of CMUA. Thank you.

Elizabeth Esquivel of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in support.

Audience members in support, we'll turn our attention to the opposition primary witnesses, two minutes each.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Bernadette Del Chiaro, Senior Vice President, Environmental Working Group. It's never easy to oppose a bill, especially one brought by friends, but it is a very good thing

we live in a place where we can have a healthy debate, where edicts aren't handed down from on high, and where the voice of the public interest remains at the table. Thank you for the opportunity to be here.

While EWG appreciates the intention of the authors and the sponsors to solve myriad problems associated with our centralized electric grid, namely rising rates and reliance on dirty energy, we respectively remain in opposition to SB 540. Bigger isn't always better. Open electricity markets without proper controls never result in the grand promises the promoters espouse.

Indeed, the last time California embarked on such an adventure, powered in part by the promise of greener horizons, it went very badly. Hasty policymaking involving large energy companies who stand to make a lot of money off of California ratepayers is generally a bad idea.

Why not follow the precedent of SB 350 and bring this decision back to the legislature when all of the information has been brought to light? Legislative oversight hearings are good, but they actually are for show unless you give yourself the power to pull it back. Again, we appreciate the officer's intentions.

I'll share the rest of my time with former CPUC Commissioner, Loretta Lynch. Thank you.

Chairman and Members. My name is Loretta Lynch and I am speaking in opposition to SB 540 on behalf of a coalition of community based environmental groups. As the committee analysis explains, there are dangers in moving forward with this bill and these dangers are even greater now. Under this bill, California would open the state up to federal challenges.

This the two major legal concerns that arise from this bill, according to the committee analysis, are based on the federal preemption doctrine and the dormant commerce clause. And the committee analysis concludes that there is a growing volume of case law that supports the reality of these risks.

I would also note that pacificorp has just decided to keep six coal plants open that they were going to close. So it's a very fraught and unclear time.

And while the proposed amendments attempt to close the legal deficiencies that make California vulnerable and I applaud the author for considering proposed amendments, they do not go far enough to protect California.

And most importantly, they change the law now, today and provide too much of California's current legal authority, giving it over to the FERC and to the new RO.

Specifically, SB 540 needs to maintain Section 345.5 B's requirement that electricity markets are run consistent with, instead of, in lieu of California law because California, not FERC must keep the right to both interpret and enforce our laws.

Putting that California language into the new RO tariffs only gives away California's authority to enforce and even interpret those laws to FERC. And that interpretation and enforcement can come after we've already joined the market and we will have no ability because it will just be a tariff requirement that FERC gets to interpret, not California gets to enforce.

And that leads me to SB 540 must require the CAISO to keep all Section 205 filing rights if it runs the regional markets. SB 540 allows the CAISO to become the one that runs the regional markets, but only according to the new rules as set by the new regional market operator and as approved by FERC.

That means that CAISO will do all the work running the markets, but will cede the authority, the crucial legal right to under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act to be able to propose fixes if there are problems. And in fact that's- And in fact CAISO used that in 20- after the 2020 blackouts to fix the markets.

Note that withdrawal is really the unilateral withdrawal.

You've utilized your time and the time that the previous person left for you. So if you could-

Thank you. I would just note that the withdrawal provisions, while well intentioned, are unenforceable because under federal law, FERC must approve withdrawals and a future FERC could override a current FERCs withdrawal authority.

Thank you. Now others in the audience in support. State your name, organization and position.

Opposition.

Excuse me, opposition. I'm sorry, I was supposed to have some time here, but apparently I'm not. But I'll just say two words. My name is Dr. Gene Nelson and the two words are federal preemption. That's what this bill is all about. Please oppose.

Good morning. Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Watchdog and the Center for Biological Diversity, in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Shane Levine, on behalf of the Northern California Power Agency. Regrettably, we are moving from a support to an opposed and less amended position, based on the amendments. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Cynthia Shallet and I strongly oppose this bill. I represent Sacramento Indivisible and 60 groups of Sacramento Indivisible Green Team and the Climate Justice Group and also for a total of 133 organizations including the Center for Biological Diversity, the Food and Water Watch and 350 Bay Area Action and many more. Vehemently opposed. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the Utility Reform Network or TURN, we have an opposed unless amended position. I want to thank the author for his ongoing conversations with TURN. Thank the committee for the amendments.

We look forward to reviewing the amendments when they're in print to assess to the extent that they address our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in the audience opposed? Seeing no one come forward. We'll bring it back to the- oh.

Cruz, on behalf of the California State Council of Laborers, I want to thank the author and his willingness to work with us on our issues associated with job creation and the impacts of jobs in California. We want to remove our opposition and move to a neutral position on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll bring it back to the subcommitee for questions or comments. Senator Laird and then Senator Stern.

Thank you. I'm disappointed there aren't more committee members here because this is probably the biggest bill that we have on our agenda today. And I think the- one of the issues is though is I think half of this committee voted on the bill in the previous committee. So I know they have heard it and they have discussed it.

Let me just tease out a couple of the issues that I know that you addressed and are of concern to- to some of the witnesses. And one is- is- is that the Brattle report is drawn on in this regularly. But the Brattle report was done before the first hundred days of the Trump Administration.

How do you reflect on what has happened since then and what is in that report that really is the basis for a lot of pieces of this effort?

Well, we actually the- the Brattle group really underestimates in fact the- the carbon reduction piece of it because the baseline there was compared to one in which California is already participating in a small extended day ahead market which we're not yet and still trading with many other western balancing authorities as- as we do right now under the- the WEIM.

However, that scenario is- is unrealistic because if others in the west join markets plus then they're not going to trade with us either in that- in that current 15 minute Western Energy Imbalance Market.

So- So- So, we actually think that was sort of underestimated in terms of, you know, other things that the Brattle group would touch on specific to the efforts of the new administration. I have to go back through. If there's things specifically that you're concerned about from the Brattle study, let me know.

Okay, just, it came up from there.

Okay.

That's the issue. And then six coal plants were mentioned and coal has been a big concern that somehow through this process we-we would lose our control over renewables and have to accept coal energy and that somehow this process is incenting coal plants. Could you speak to that?

Yeah, absolutely. I- I would add a couple things and then maybe my joint author would- would add something there as well. I hear the concern and certainly I- I'm not going to do anything and I think this coalition will do anything that's going to increase coal into California.

So the difference is now than 20 years ago with the energy regulation is most of our energy comes from long term contracts. So about 75% of our energy is coming from long term contracts now. And those long term contracts under a parota bill prohibit coal.

And then if coal is bidding into the market, it has to bid in at the cap and trade price. So that makes coal non economic for California.

Now if the Trump Administration or any federal administration, shall we say decides to do anything to subsidize coal or for subsidize coal, you know, we've certainly heard those concerns and that's why these amendments specifically put pieces in the bill that call for automatic withdrawal, unquestionable withdrawal if, if those things happen.

You know, as I mentioned, if we're forced to, you know, subsidize coal anyway, also, this bill again clarifies that the regional organization with the amendments we cannot establish capacity markets, which is what's the process outlined in Project 2025, the main one, as a mechanism for states to buy coal. So that's what I would say.

And again, I'll turn over to my joint author here.

Oh, he- he'll- on- I have another question.

Okay. He might comment on both.

I'll- I'll just say the last part then, because I thought he might mention, because he's very passionate about this, that we believe the best way to reduce fossil fuel use across the west is force fossil fuels to compete against zero marginal cost renewables. As one of my witnesses shared.

And then you teed up my other question, which is there's big concerns that we lock ourselves into this and that there's no ability to pull back at different times in the process. If in fact California's interests and California's renewable energy interests are disadvantaged.

Could you speak to that in the sense that the bottom line is, is that true or is that false? I mean, do you with the amendments have a chance to pull back at any given time in this bill if there's an attack on California authority or there's a problem with renewables?

Yeah, we feel it's very clear. Again, happy to continue discussions. We appreciate. We've taken amendments from term, we've taken amendments that Ms. Lynch has- has proposed and others. We feel it's very clear these are, number one, these are voluntary markets. FERC cannot force any participant to join a market or leave a market.

Second, the protections in the bill are- are clear. The tariff filed with FERC has to include a procedure for universal unilateral withdrawal from the markets by any state or participant with reasonable prior notice without any penalties or final approvals.

And then we also, one of the things which, you know, again, and we're not saying it's perfect yet, but I think the commendable piece of this is that this effort been tried for many years because, as was mentioned, because of all the benefits but, you know, was found lacking and people were told to go in a room and they did that for a year and a half and came up with this proposal, which is different.

And one of the parts that's different is that CAISO must maintain the technical capabilities to revert to running a market for California participants. So there's not going to be, there wouldn't be a, a big lag if we decide to leave the Puc.

Can direct electoral corporations leave the market at any time if the market rules result in any violation of this bill or otherwise have any negative impacts.

And of course, all electrical corporations within CAISO's balancing authority, as we said, must leave if according to the amendments, for any reason, the RPS or the IRP, Integrated Resource Planning, process is deemed invalid by the court on grounds of impermissible discrimination, or the federal government somehow uses federal market powers to force this market to subsidize coal.

So we put in a lot of protections there that we feel very strongly about.

And then if everyone that is on this committee that was on the Energy Commission happened- Energy Committee happens to vote for the bill, it's getting out.

So the question is, if this bill moves forward, are there still issues you're working on and still issues you feel you need to address to address some of the concerns that were raised?

Yeah, I'd say first of all, it's a very broad coalition and therefore, you know, we try to. It takes a long time to sort of vet things by the coalition. We already heard some concern from one of the former, you know, proponents of it today. So it's a lot to sort of balance. But I'd say yes.

I mean, we addressed, for example, the turn letter, which was very substantive. I think we address a lot of the things here today. But we're, there are other pieces we're still in conversations with- with them in the coalition and with other opponents. So, yeah, happy to continue discussions.

We said we've seen a lot, this is a lot to digest, I think these amendments, but we will absolutely continue the discussions.

Okay. I think that's very important given the concerns and given bringing people along. Thank you for answering.

Thank you. And I do think these amendments strengthen the bill and we'll continue those discussions. Yeah, for sure.

Thank you, Senator Laird, Senator Stern.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the joint author for soldiering forward here with such good faith and diligence despite the specious and deeply inappropriate character attacks that are being leveled by the opposition here.

I- I'm very disappointed to hear the tone of sort of the politic tone being used today and then the heated rhetoric being used publicly against, not just you, this legislation and this effort. To

speak out of both sides of your mouth and act polite in a room and then accuse people of having corrupt intent is really doesn't warrant much more of a response than that.

I worked at the Public Utilities Commission at a time when we were- when we were having coal power coming into California in the wake of President Lynch's presidency. We were importing much more coal power than we are today. We had to clean up some of that mess when I was working at the PUC.

And we did so by establishing essentially a carbon adder on imported power into this state under then AB 32 to ensure that any spot market power coming into this state couldn't simply sneak by, but that in fact we would have at our border a mechanism for assessing unspecified powers, sort of baseline carbon intensity, and that those who wanted to specify their sources of power could do so and establish say lower carbon intensity.

So if you're a solar project in Arizona and you don't think you have the baseline carbon intensity for the broader WEC, you wouldn't be subject to that adder.

But if you weren't specifying that power, and let's say a coal generating facility wanted to participate in a- in a day ahead market and put that power on the market that already under existing law, separate from this legislation, those protections exist. Nothing is being said to criticize those existing protections.

And I don't hear the opponents talking about the potential preemption or infirmities under existing law, while they do. In fact there are vulnerabilities there. I don't think this bill expands any existing vulnerabilities. In fact, I think it makes it more explicit and tighter.

If you look at subsection 13 of the new amendments offered by committee and that you've worked on so diligently, senator, this ensures that, quote, that- that nothing in this tariff will cause California electrical corporations, participating transmission owners or load serving entities to be assessed.

Any cost of fossil fuel generation resources that are not dispatched to serve California end use loads or any cost to subsidize fossil fuel generation resources could not be made any more explicit.

And so this continued sort of intimation that this is a backdoor on our clean energy policies is belied by the plain language in the legislation as well as the current state of law in our state.

That said, you know, we can't control what other states do and we couldn't reach into other western states and say we're going to change what your resource mix is. So if another state, say wanted to double down on coal for whatever reason, they are free to do so. We can't control those outcomes.

They will end up paying more for that power though. They'll be resurrecting what is a uneconomical market right now to their ratepayers detriment.

And the way I see this legislation working is if we actually build a market that- that is robust and we don't sort of whittle away at it so much through all these sort of exit hatches and remove, you know, these sort of legislative interventions and other things to sort of cast uncertainty on our confidence entering this.

If we enter this market robustly and actually embrace it, the California ratepayers are going to be the beneficiaries and California climate policies are ultimately going to benefit, especially if other states in the west decide to go embrace the uneconomical power because we'll take on the cheap solar and wind that for political reasons people, you know, in other places might not want to finance or might not want to bring on the rate base and they can take the super expensive old coal plants.

I think this sets up a dynamic, especially if we invest in a robust process here and not one that sort of hedges or has one foot out the door, but we embrace it fully, that not only will our rate payers benefit, but that we will be a beachhead for renewables throughout the west, a place that you could actually sell power to at zero marginal cost.

And hopefully those economics will start to show the path beyond politics, that others will start to see the error in sort of putting some special mark on a particular fuel source just because, you know, the President tells you it's the right thing to do when your own people have to pay for it.

But again, we don't have that in our control. What we do have in our control is this legislation before us here today and the- and the construct of this market. And I think you've done an excellent job in working with Judiciary Committee on these amendments.

I think it gets close to that line of having a strategy to exit the market should conditions require it without actually undercutting it. I don't think it's wise at this point to add some other sort of stage gate that has to go through a secondary layer of legislative approval before we actually move forward.

We went through this when we built the cap and trade market in this state. We- We put what, you know, some call the fire alarm or, you know, an exit hatch. There was a-

There's a provision still in AB 32 to this day that says, you know, if things go really bad in the economy, you can always cancel the cap and trade market. It is now the strongest carbon market in- in all the Americas. And we're, you know, we're the last market standing.

If we had inserted some other stage gate to say the Air Board couldn't approve their scoping plan until the legislature said, okay, we would have cast serious uncertainty and billions of dollars of investment would not have come into that state.

If we- If we put a similar provision in this legislation, we are going to hurt the renewables market in the western United States, full stop. So I appreciate your good faith and overly accommodating, I would say, approach to what we're hearing from the opposition. I don't think it actually merits that much attention.

But um- But I do think the Judiciary Committee along with your office have struck the right balance here today. Working with some of the stakeholders especially TURN, I think there's some good faith work in there that's going on. So you know, when we do a full committee, I would love to move the legislation and that's all I've got.

Alrighty, thank you very much. Any other questions? Seeing no further questions, at the appropriate time, I understand Senator Stern is going to make a motion. Thank you. Senator Becker, I know how passionate you are on this issue, how hard you've worked on this issue. You and I have had and your, your team have had conversations.

This still has a little bit of a way to go, but I appreciate all that you're doing in this space. And with that, would you like to close?

Sure. Thank you. Again, appreciation to your team. The hard work on this bill as long as the 56 others today. I just, you know, I'll quote just a little bit from a letter I think was one of the probably the best thing read on this bill from Climate Action California, 350 Humboldt, 350

Sacramento, Climate Rally Project, Climate Hawks Vote said the opportunity in front of us today is to build a west wide energy market that will benefit California for decades to come. The feared- fears about actions of the Trump Administration impacting the new RO that won't even start till 2028 at the earliest are short sighted and missing the point.

We take this opportunity to collaborate with our neighbors today or we lose it for the foreseeable future. 10 years of success with the WEIM have showed us how to lead the way. I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Alright, thank you, Senator Becker. Next up we have Senator Blakespear. Senator Blakespear here? Yes, yes, she is. Senator Blakespear. File item number 3, SB 403. After Senator Blakespear, if Senator Cabaldon is here, he'll be next.

Senator Blakeskear, the floor is yours.

Okay, thank you. Chair. Hello, colleagues. I am pleased to author SB403, which is sponsored by Compassion and Choice's Action Network. This Bill removes the January 12031 sunset for the End of Life Option act, which is California's medical aid in dying law.

The Legislature passed the End of Life option act in 2015 to give mentally capable terminally ill Californians the right to request aid in dying drugs from their Doctor so that they can have an end of life experience that is aligned with their beliefs and values.

To qualify, a person must be an adult, a resident of California, and be diagnosed with a terminal disease defined as an incurable and irreversible disease that will, within reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months. The person must have the mental capacity to make medical decisions and be able to self administer or or inject the medication.

There are many safeguards in place in this law. These include requiring a Doctor to determine the person has the capacity to make informed medical decisions and is not making the request under undue influence of another. Also, the person must be informed of alternative options such as palliative care and that they can change their mind at any time.

Furthermore, the diagnosis and prognosis must be confirmed by a second medical provider. Additionally, the person must make two oral requests directly to their Doctor at least 48 hours apart and submit a written request witnessed by two adults. In 2013 or sorry. In 20231281 people received an aid and dying prescription and 835 took the medication and died.

Nearly 93% were age 60 or older and 93.8% were receiving hospice and or palliative care at the time of death.

Since the law went into effect In June of 2016, a total of 4,287 people have died following ingestion of aid and dying medication under the End of Life Option act and people died with the same medical conditions that everybody dies with. 63% with cancer, 12% cardiovascular disease, 8.8% neurologic disease.

Nine years of data shows that the law is working as intended and that medical aid in dying is being safely practiced in California. There have been no reported problems or abuses. Further, I've accepted amendments that require the Department of Public Health to meet with stakeholders and determine what already collected information should be added to its annual report.

There's a large amount of information available every year on the state's website.

No other medical aid and dying law in the country has a sunset date and the reason to remove the sunset is the looming sunset can cause undue stress and fear in people who are diagnosed with a disease that will in several years be the cause of their death.

SB 403 removes the sunset, making the End of Life Option act permanent. Patients, advocates, medical providers and faith leaders who rely on the law will no longer need to worry about access to medical aid and dying being removed. With me today, I am honored to have Dan Diaz.

He's the husband of Brittany Maynard, a young woman who was forced to move from her home in California to Oregon to access the medical aid and dying drug before it was legal here. Brittany's story inspired millions and helped us pass the End of Life Option act here in California.

Dan continues to share her story across the country to help people understand the importance of these laws. I also have today Jaspreet Chowdhury, who is the Legislative Council for Compassion and Choices, where she monitors the impact of the California End of Life Option act as well as similar laws across the country.

And we have available for technical assistance Dr. Katherine Forrest, a clinical associate Professor of community and family medicine and public health specialists. And in 2021, her husband, will Forrest, benefited from the End of Life Option Act. So with that, I'd like to ask my two witnesses to come forward.

Thank you very much. Unfortunately, the table's occupied, so please come forward to the microphone.

Hello, my name is Jaspreet Chaudhry and I'm the senior legislative counsel at Compassion and Choices and the Compassion and Choices Action Network. We strongly support SB403, which removes the sunset provision in the California End of Life Option Act.

Since the California End of Life Option act went into effect in 2016, data collected by the California Department of Public Health shows that the law works as intended for those who can access it. This aligns with nearly 30 years of national data on the effectiveness and safety of medical aid and dying laws.

As you know, the law includes numerous safeguards, including a multi step request process, confirmation of eligibility, and the opportunity for the patient to rescind their request if they change their mind. Since the End of Life Option act went into effect in 2016, more than 4,000 people have utilized medical aid and dying in California.

Yet California is the only state in the nation with a medical aid and dying law that includes a sunset clause. If not removed, the provision will repeal the End of Life option act on January 12031 leaving patients, providers and families in fear and uncertain about the future of end of life care in our state.

For all of these reasons, it is essential that the sunset provision is Removed and the California End of Life Option act becomes permanent. When the law was authorized, the data reports were created to answer two key questions while protecting patient and provider confidentiality. Who is utilizing the law? And is it working as intended?

Both of those questions have been answered with the annual reports. We thank the California Department of Public Health for their commitment to transparency, timely and accurate reporting. I respectfully ask that you vote the Bill out of Committee. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please.

Good morning. My name is Dan Diaz, and I am Brittany Menard's husband. Brittany died on November 12014. She was only 29 years old. Brittany experienced a gentle death only because of the. Of medical aid dying. So, yes, my wife utilized the very program that we are discussing here today.

Without this option, the brain tumor would have tortured her to death. I have seen this program firsthand with all the rigid safeguards and protections that are in place. I am testifying in support of SB403.

Brittany's case received significant media attention because at the time, we had to leave our home here in California and moved to Oregon so she could access their law. When Brittany died, there were only four states with this option.

I made a promise to Brittany to help pass legislation in more states so that no one else would ever have to leave their home like we did. There are now 11 states with this option. Just two months after Brittany died, we introduced California's End of Life Option Act. That was in January of 2015.

Governor Jerry Brown signed our Bill into law in October of that year. So here we are 10 years later with the current legislation, SB 403, which simply makes the End of Life Option act permanent in California by removing the sunset provision.

The people of California deserve better than the odyssey that Brittany had to go through of leaving the state just to ensure a gentle death. Making this law permanent ensures that option. Please support SB 403. It does not result in more people dying. It simply results in fewer people suffering. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. And thank you for your testimony. Sorry for your loss. All right, others in support of SB403, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation and your position.

I'm Dr. Katherine Sandquist Forrest. I'm in strong favor of this, and I'm available for any technical conversations as both a prescribing and a consulting physician in the State of California.

Thank you.

Good morning. Roxanne Gould representing the American Nurses Association in support.

Hello, I'm Dr. Sara Pender, Hospice Bereavement Coordinator, Medical Hospital Loss and Death Program Department Chair for degree program in gerontology and I urge the support of the removal of this sunset.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Dr. Garrett Eckerling, family physician in support. Thank you.

Bonnie McKeegan, Grass Valley. My mother used medical aid and dieting in 2018. I'm in strong support. Thank you.

Jim McKeegan with Bonnie.

I'm Deborah Whitman, a resident of Rockland, California, and I'm in support.

Thank you.

Patricia Portillo from Long Beach, California, strongly support. My brother suffered horribly before his death. Patricia Portillo De Long Beach, California En apoyo esta medida mi hermano sufiosumue GR.

Leslie Chinchilla from Pico Rivera, California. The law is working as intended and I'm in strong support for this bill.

Thank you. Chris Kahn, representing the ALS Network in support. Thank you.

Deborah DaCosta in strong, strong support.

Thank you.

Beatrice Moe, registered nurse in strong support.

Thank you.

Angela Hill, on behalf of the California Medical Association. Want to thank the author. We are neutral due to her work. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, anyone else in support of SB403, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else, approach the microphone. Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB403, please approach microphone. Two primary witnesses in opposition. Go ahead. The floor is yours.

Good morning, Senators. My name is Dan Oakenfuss and I'm the public policy manager for the California Foundation for Independent Living centers. We represent 26 independent living centers serving thousands of people with disabilities all over the state, and we respectfully speak today in opposition to SB403.

We're dedicated to protecting the dignity, autonomy and safety of people with disabilities across our state, and many individuals with disabilities continue to experience significant systemic barriers in accessing health care, particularly low income, rural, immigrant and minority communities.

The End of Life Option act passed in 2015 included the Sunset position provision that we are debating today a vital safeguard ensuring transparency and accountability and opportunity for future legislative review based on real world data. Why we oppose Removing the Sunset since legalization policy discussions have prioritized expansion over careful evaluation of the law's impact.

Key data about usage, patient demographics and safeguards is missing, incomplete or unpublished, and without a full evaluation. Removing the sunset would eliminate one of the Legislature's only oversight tools. Oversight is critical to preventing discrimination, coercion and systemic bias against people with disabilities. And without robust safeguards, people with disabilities risk being disproportionately pressured into life ending decisions.

Living with disabilities deserve strong protections and full transparency, not fewer safeguards. And our request, the Committee, is a full public evaluation of the End of Life Options act impacts before considering permit removal of oversight. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good morning, Honorable Chair Umberg, Vice Chair Niello and Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Orlando Fuentes and I am a resident of Sacramento and a proud Member of LULAC Council 2862.

I'm here today on behalf of the California League of United Latin American Citizens and in partnership with the La Luz Project to respectfully voice our opposition to SB403. California LULAC, one of the oldest and most respected Latino civil rights organizations in the country, is—whoops, whoops, I blacked out.

Is a co-founder of the La Luz Project and a broad, diverse coalition of disability rights advocates, health care providers, senior advocates, and community leaders. Our mission is simple but vital: to shine a light—La Luz—on California's end-of-life option and ensure transparency, accountability, and protection for all Californians, especially the most vulnerable.

We are deeply vested in this work because California was the first highly diverse state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, with Latinos comprising the largest diverse population impacted by this law. Unfortunately, disparities persist.

Too many low-income, rural, and immigrant Latino Californians continue to face significant barriers to health care access, particularly within Medi-Cal, and experience structural biases that cannot be ignored. Since legalization in 2015, discussions have centered primarily on expanding access rather than ensuring the law's safety, oversight, and proper implementation.

The sunset provision, originally included in the End-of-Life Option Act, was critical—a critical safeguard. A promise to allow meaningful evaluation is essential. While some data is collected by the California Department of Public Health, important information remains missing, incomplete, or unreported.

We respectfully request that the Legislature prioritize a full and public review of all relevant data before removing critical oversight mechanisms like the sunset provision.

Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Assume you're opposed.

Yes, we oppose. Thank you very much.

All right, now for me too. Witnesses. Go ahead.

I'm not sure if I'm a me too witness.

Your name, your affiliation and your position.

My name is Karen Stephen. I am a hospice nurse. I have been a hospice nurse for 18 years. I have personally attended about six or seven.

And are you opposed?

I am for. I'm sorry, I got lost in the building and this is the only opportunity I have. You're in support? I am in support because I have had patients that told me that they were losing their faith in God and because of this medication.

All right, thank you. Thanks.

Miss. On behalf of the alliance of Catholic. Healthcare and opposition, thank you.

David Bollog. The potential for the slippery slope is too real I'm in opposition. Thank you.

Greg Burke, California Family Council in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who's opposed to SB403, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's now turn to Committee for questions, questions by Committee Members. Senator Niello, then Senator Stern.

No question: this is not a political issue, it's not a partisan issue; it is a profoundly personal, philosophic issue.

And in reviewing the material, I've always had concerns about this. Reviewing the material, I see Governor Brown's letter when he signed it—compelling—but I, I find it... I heard the comments about why to remove the sunset, but the sunset is almost six years out, and with such a serious issue, I have a hard time removing the sunset at this point.

I could consider it closer to the sunset but it's almost six years out.

Thank you, Senator Stern. Yeah, thank you to the authority. A very difficult issue—yeah—looking at going through these things personally and having been part of end-of-life care for two people in my home, both my in-laws, and helping them through both Parkinson's and dementia, along with other related issues.

Parkinson's for a 30-year period of time, where I'm sure my mother-in-law probably thought about these possibilities—especially going through Covid by yourself, frozen and isolated.

I still can't quite get my head around the suffering that entailed, and yet she didn't pursue this. We were there with her at her bedside, with our newborn, as she passed. I personally found that transformative, and the palliative care that we were able to administer through the nursing home, I thought, was deeply compassionate.

That said, you know, the choices that my family makes—or that I make—on either a religious or a moral basis, I don't want to insert my judgment over somebody else's and the kinds of decisions I would hope to make. I don't assume any moral righteousness in that over another persons.

My question for you—and maybe you can address it now or in your close—is a little more on the statistical side and maybe less on the moral side.

I guess, to LULAC's point, the analysis notes that the uptake in 2023, according to CDPH—and I think it was 1,281 prescriptions and 884 individuals from ingestion—a slight decrease from 2022 but far higher than 2021 and prior.

My only sort of lurking concern here—and you know, especially as we have a little time before sunset—the pressure on the system, the cost, and increasingly, the silver wave, right? The increasingly aging population and the costs of medical care and hospice care, especially for those who may be terminal, is huge.

And sometimes it's confoundingly huge.

I do worry, in places, maybe that we're less compassionate or less focused—where the medical care maybe wasn't of the highest grade—that there would have been pressure on somebody like my mother-in-law to pursue this option to, say, relieve the nursing home, or the hospital, or doctors who, you know, might, you know, might sort of be pursuing this for, you know, just different reasons.

So, I just, I don't know how you.

Whether there's a way to sort of identify or wrestle with that issue—or sort of preventative measures, maybe, in this—to, to keep an eye on that sort of inherent pressure that the system might find it, you know, more cost-effective to be promoting end-of-life options as opposed to palliative and hospice care, and sort of denying people that opportunity to go through this mystery in a different way.

And so that's my biggest concern. I know.

Can I respond to that, please? Is that chair through the chair?

Would you like to respond to that in your close or.

No, I'd like to just directly address this if you can. So, before I was in public office, I worked as an estate planning attorney, and I had a lot of conversations with people as part of drafting their wills, trusts, and advanced health care directives about the legal options that they have.

And the reality of our—both our culture and our legal framework—is that it's designed to keep you alive. So, when somebody wants to—if they are incapacitated and they want—they're not able to make their own decision, they appoint an agent to make a decision for them. That's not possible in medical aid in dying.

That's one of the core pieces of this—is that you have to have capacity. So, if you have, for example, Alzheimer's or dementia, you could not use medical aid in dying or any other neurodegenerative disease.

But I feel like what happens in conversations is an immediate concern about people being pressured to die—which I have seen no evidence of. And, in reality, there are a lot of people who are being kept alive by our medical establishment, and by our expectations, and by family members. And so, the momentum is to keep people alive.

And that's why we have a health care directive that allows you to say under what conditions you would like your agent to be able to determine that you shouldn't be kept alive—if you have no more function or you'll be in a persistent vegetative state and would never recover—and this kind of thing. So, you know.

So, in your personal experience, you did not experience pressure, and your family member was allowed to have the exit of her choosing—which was profoundly important for you and for her. And I think that this medical aid in dying is designed in that exact same way.

It's designed to allow for people to have the exit of their choosing and to be surrounded, as Brittany was, by her family—and not have to go through, really, the tortuous experience of losing all dignity and capacity and going into a state where someone doesn't want to go when they know that death is imminent.

I mean, you have to be. More than 90% of the people who use this are on hospice, so they are already within six months of death, and they have to have a terminal illness. So that's to that point.

Then, the other point you made is that the reason for the uptick is because the law changed right around that time—with a Bill from Susan Eggman—that decreased the time between when you had to ask for it twice.

So now it's 48 hours, and before, it was substantially longer—which meant there are all sorts of things that happen in the circumstances of why we need to wait multiple days between two requests for the medication. So, it moved to 48 hours.

I mean, people who request the medication—some have it as a comfort where they know if they get to that stage, they could take it. Some people die; they decide not to take it. Some people die before they can take it. They're just not—you know—it just doesn't work out that way.

So, because people, of course, don't know the exact minute they're going to die. So, in total, the number of people is actually relatively small, and the amount of data is relatively high.

So sometimes, I mean, if you look at the Department of Public Health and you see the different statistics that are collected, you know, there'll be something like, "What kind of insurance does somebody have?" And it'll say Medicare—or is it Medi-Cal, or is it private insurance, or no insurance?

And then there'll be a very small percentage that says "Did not answer that question"—like less than 1% or something. But that doesn't mean that there's a data problem because someone didn't answer the question of what type of insurance they have.

So, I think what we see is that we've been collecting data for nine years, and that I don't see a reason to jam ourselves—in the sense that we wait until we're right at the finish line and then say, "Okay, let's extend the sunset"—especially because people have serious anxiety about this now.

And I recognize that from the work that I did and also from the fact that I had a town hall, and it was called Charting Your Own Exit about medical aid in dying, and more than 700 people RSVP'd for it. We had to move it partially online because the community college couldn't accommodate that number of people.

There's a tremendous interest in this because of the silver tsunami and because of the number of people who have experienced their own family members or their loved ones, and they want to be—they think about it. Well, what's going to happen with me?

And so, I think there's really a desire to know that if someone has a terminal illness, they'll be able to access this drug when it comes—if that happens to be several years from now. So, thank—thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Weber Pierson.

Thank you, Chair. Want to thank the Senator for bringing this forward and having this conversation. You know, I saw this or heard this bill in Health, and I support.

But one of the things that really came out during that Committee hearing—and I think a little bit here—has to do with the potential for disproportionate use of this option and how it can have a negative impact; disproportionate, negative impact on certain communities: ethnic, social, economic.

You know, to Senator Stern's point—would there be a possibility of encouraging someone to do this in certain areas? It may have a certain type of insurance, you know, instead of some of the other options.

I do have a question as to why now, since the sunset isn't until 2031. And, you know, with the data, I think people are asking for more data and how it impacts certain communities and certain ethnic groups. And, you know, I hear that—I hear you stating that in the data set.

There's a lot of questions that are being looked at, but the reality is that the number is small—the N is small. That's what we talk about when we talk about scientific data because, to your own statement, there has not been a huge number of patients or people who have actually taken this.

So you can look at 100 different data points, but if you still have a small sample size, then what you're seeing is not truly statistically significant because you haven't reached that threshold yet. I am also a little concerned when I hear about the uptick recently, because it was a decrease in the time frame.

Because then I wonder—well, when people had more time to think—did they change their mind? I don't know that information. But to say zero—when we shorten it—there are more people that ended up doing it. It makes me wonder: if people have more time, do they reconsider or just choose not to do it?

But, you know, these are all things that I'm thinking about. I will support it to help it get out of Committee today—not committing to vote for it on the floor if it gets to the floor.

But again, the one question that I want you to kind of dig deep into is: hearing that people are looking for more data and more time, why are we doing this in 2025—eliminating a sunset that is supposed to go into effect in 2031?

Yes. Thank you. So, you know, it's January of 2031. So sometimes it does take bills multiple times to get through the Legislature. People have terminal illnesses for many years, and their long declines—with good, good medical care—can go on for a while. So, there is true anxiety right now about this Bill sunsetting.

And so, recognizing that this is the law in this state and has been for nine years, there are no—The data shows that there have been no problems and no abuses. And the data that is being collected—I understand your point that when there's very little data, it doesn't show as much.

It can end up not really saying anything. But, you know, it's a total of 4,000 people who have died following ingestion of the Medical Aid in Dying Act. So 4,000 people is data to know who is using it, and that's how we know that 93% were over age 60—93% were receiving hospice or palliative care.

You know, those types of statistics. So, I'm pursuing the Bill now because we have enough data to determine that it's working. This is not an expansion of the law.

This is recognizing that this gives people at the end of life the medical autonomy—the determination to say, I don't want to have to choose to withhold food and water to stop the suffering I'm in.

And those are the other alternatives that people have—to say, you know, I'm going to figure out how to chart my own exit in whatever way I can. And that is a very common thing—to withhold food and water as well. But that takes 10 days to die.

So allowing people who have capacity, have a condition that they will die of, to be able to access medication that they have to take. You know, this is not physician-assisted suicide. The physician is not doing anything—they're not injecting anything. There's nothing that involves the physician. People can take it alone.

They can take it with their family members—they can have a party, they can have a ceremony—they can do it on their terms. And that, ultimately, is the benefit of this. And so I do see this as a need now, and I think we have enough data to say that the sunset—we don't need the sunset.

Also, those of us in the Legislature experience sunset—proposed sunset removals on different types of bills. And the reality is that the Legislature can always reinsert itself in any question.

Its sunsets are put on there initially to say, well, let's make sure that we can look at the data. And we have the data now that we have been looking at, and it is all positive. But, you know, the Department of Public Health is still involved in this.

It's not as if we are taking ourselves or the Department of Public Health out of anything—we're just saying to people that you will be able to access this medication in many years.

If you happen to be at that stage—which is essentially on hospice—in six years, you'll be able to access it then, and it won't be gone from your options.

Yeah, I appreciate the answer. I think, you know, for people who are currently eligible for hospice, this medication is available to them now, next year, all the way to 2031. I guess the argument of anxiety and what may happen in 2031, 2032, 2033 doesn't really move me because there are so many things that happen—right? —in 2031.

We may have different medications—we may do things differently. Right. So, we do have, you know, for the next however many years, the ability to provide this for individuals while still understanding that if we get the data, we can always switch things around and.

But like I said, I will be supporting it today to help get it out of the Committee—but I do reserve my vote for the floor. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions. Seeing no further questions, at the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion. Senator Blakespear, would you like to close?

Okay. Thank you.

Yes, I think I'll just close with what Dan Diaz closed with, which is that this will not lead to more people dying—it will lead to fewer people suffering. And that's—that is really the core of this. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. All right, next we have Senator Cabaldon. Then I see Senator Corteze is here. So, assuming no one else appears after Senator Cabaldon, it will be Senator Corteze. Just a few housekeeping matters—in particular, for authors: if you do not have opposition, just bear that in mind when you're presenting.

We've done two bills so far, and I've done the math. With the remaining bills—subtracting those on consent and assuming we don't break today—we're due to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. tomorrow. So, and for Committee Members, we want to have each bill fully explored. We'd ask that you ask questions and focus on the questions.

So. All right, Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'm here, and members, I'm here to present SB 351, which is an update to California's corporate bar in the practice of medicine to allow the Attorney General to enforce violations by private equity and hedge funds involved in medical and dental practices. I do want to make two things clear.

First is that the bill is not about vilifying private equity, that private equity has a role to play in health care and has been. And second, that this is not a repeat, an entire repeat of the legislation from last year that the Governor vetoed. This is responsive to the governor's veto.

That does not include the provision that required the Attorney General to review and approve every private equity transaction that's not in this bill. But what we've seen is a massive increase in private equity activity in health care.

The number of private equity and hedge fund investments in health care surged to, it's the fastest growing segment of health care acquisitions in the country and in California. Nationwide we've seen a 20 fold increase in private equity activity in health care.

And that kind of growth demands modern enforcement tools, not to restrict the investment, but to ensure that it doesn't compromise clinical integrity, patient outcomes, or drive up the cost to patients, to providers, and to government. So SB 351 strengthens enforcement of existing California guidance from the California Medical Board.

The bill mirrors the guidance that the medical board has issued and protects providers in that way. The key question that has been raised about the bill by the opposition is why private equity is different in this case. And I just want to focus on that for just a quick moment. First is this is where the action is.

As I noted, it's the only segment where we're seeing this kind of growth 20 times over the last 15 years. But second, in private equity, the transactions are very quick. Not so in most of health care.

Private equity transactions in health, in health care more generally, research, pharmaceuticals, and what have you, tend to be a quick transaction that then translates to a long term strategic holder of that of that enterprise. Not so with medical and dental practices.

The average hold period for medical and dental practices is now under three years, and it's been declining every year. These are very rapid fire transactions, and so our traditional mechanisms of accountability can't respond quickly enough.

Also, when nonprofit organizations acquire or expand in their healthcare space, they are subject to the full transparency of our nonprofit laws and reviews. Same thing for publicly held companies. That's not the case for private equity.

And reports from both physicians and study after study after study show substantial impacts on costs for consumers, but also for payers, including government, in private equity transactions. Specifically, the leveraged buyout model on private equity.

And the most common practice, which is to acquire or through physician and dental service organizations, capture as much of the market as possible as quickly as possible, and use that market power then to drive up costs in the rest of the chain, presents specific and unique consequences for our health care system.

So there is also substantial evidence of higher physician turnover and dissatisfaction, shorter appointments, more expensive procedures, more high cost billing, and a higher cost to patients and to plans. And so for that reason, thebBill is a targeted approach to try to address that issue. And with that, I'd like to introduce our witnesses Mr. Chair by name.

Thank you. First witness, please. Please approach the microphone.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Sheirin Ghoddoucy and I am the Senior Legal Counsel and Director of Legal Advocacy for the California Medical Association. CMA is co sponsoring SB 351 to protect the integrity of the patient physician relationship and ensure that medical decisions are made free from private equity and hedge fund interference.

Over the years, CMA has followed the growth of private equity groups and hedge funds in health care and its impact on physicians ability to practice medicine and exercise their clinical judgment.

While private equity investment can serve as an important source of capital for practices seeking to expand services or maintain autonomy in an increasingly consolidated health care market, the reality of these arrangements often falls far short of expectations after the deal has closed.

Physicians with private equity investments have shared in confidence that their ability to make medical decisions are compromised and overridden by economic need for return on investments. In response to this, SB 351 strengthens California's corporate practice of medicine laws by empowering the Attorney General to act when commercial investors overstep and interfere with clinical care.

California already prohibits non physicians from practicing medicine or controlling clinical decisions, but private equity acquisitions increasingly blur these lines. SB 351 helps preserve California's strong protection against corporate practices of medicine and helps ensure accountability in a rapidly consolidating healthcare landscape. Thank you for your time and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Next witness, please. After the next witness, we'll go to Me Too testimony. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Umberg and members. My name is Dr. Letitia Edwards and I'm a pediatric dentist in Los Angeles, California and the Chair of the California Dental Association Governmental Affairs Council.

As a clinician and on behalf of my dentist colleagues across the state, I'm here in support of SB 351 and to share my experience about what happens when decision boundaries are crossed by private equity in clinical practice. Patients put their trust in their doctors to do what's right for their care.

Dentists are held to professional and ethical standards to ensure patient care remains in the hands of qualified practitioners and that that trust is protected. With SB 351, we're asking that California law explicitly regulate the increasing involvement of private equity and hedge funds to keep those investors out of the clinical lanes.

This bill is especially timely and necessary for dentistry as dental office acquisitions outpaced mergers and acquisitions of all other medical specialties in 2024. I currently practice in three different offices, two of which are corporate practices and one of which is private equity backed.

So I have experienced some of the pressures private equity firms can put on dentists to maximize profits. As a dentist only two and a half years into my career, many of my early career colleagues share the similar ways they feel trapped by the production goals set for them by private equity firms.

Newer graduates have an average of nearly half $1.0 million in educational debts and are attracted to the availability of positions in corporate practices. Graduates who are offered these jobs don't always know that a practice is private equity backed and it can feel challenging to push back on production expectations which don't align with the standard of care which we learned in dental school.

Whether it's patient quotas which limit the amount of time which we're able to spend with our patients, or encouragement to over treatment plan unnecessary X rays, cleanings, or restorative work, PE has the ability to influence and apply pressure to a dentist which ultimately can compromise clinical decision making and professional integrity. The specific parameters in SB351 help to ensure.

Thank you. If you could go ahead and wrap it up. Thank you. You urge an aye vote.

Thank you.

All right. Anyone else wishing to express support, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Thank you, Chair and members. Tim Madden representing the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, in support.

Thank you.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association, in support.

Thank you.

Lawrence Gaydon with the California Dental Association, a proud co sponsor.

Thank you.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYN's District 9 and the California Podiatric Medical Association, both in support,

Thank you.

Monea Jennings on behalf of the California Association for Orthodontists in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Jennifer Tannehill with Aaron Read and Associates on behalf of the California Dental Hygienists Association in support.

Thank you.

Angela Hill with the California Medical Association, a proud co sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Tiffany Brokaw on behalf of California Attorney General, Rob Bonta, in support, thanks.

Thank you.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 351, please approach the microphone.

Chair Umberg, members of the committee, my name is John Steinbrun. I'm the CEO of Children's Choice Dental Care and we're respectfully opposed to SB 351 unless amended. Children's Choice was found in Sacramento and we've delivered dental care to children since 2008.

We've expanded to 28 locations in California and annually we see over 380,000 pediatric visits, 86% of which are our children on Medi-Cal dental. We've been able to expand because we've been able to access private equity funding.

The purpose of corporate practice of medicine laws is to ensure that medical decisions are made solely based on patient care and not influenced by corporate interests or the pursuit of profit. We are not opposed to prohibiting the corporate practice of medicine or dentistry.

We are, however, opposed to any measure that focuses on ownership structure rather than healthcare outcomes. Existing law already prohibits the corporate practice of medicine and dentistry and applies to all, not just to private equity firms and hedge funds.

So why does SB 351 seek to protect patients who are cared for by a private equity backed dental practice differently than patients who are cared for by other practices? Applying SB 351 only to private equity and hedge funds may be politically expedient, but it's not in the best interest of patients, nor is it sound public policy.

Finally, SB 351 sends a strong message that private equity investment is not welcome in California, thereby threatening our ability to raise capital from private equity so that we can build more dental clinics in underserved areas and take care of more kids.

I ask this committee to direct the author to work with us to amend the bill so that it applies to all, regardless of ownership structure. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Dr. Tim Herman, a practicing dentist for 36 years and a member of the ADA, the CDA, and the Sacramento District Dental Society with seven locations in the Sacramento region. I'm here representing the Association of Dental Support Organizations, the ADSO.

Our association has 15 member companies in California, supporting thousands of dentists and hygienists and serving patients in every corner of our state. The ADSO wants to work with lawmakers and the CDA to ensure that future legislation advances our shared priorities, advancing both oral health and the ability for dental professionals to practice their profession.

To achieve this, we ask this body pursue amendments to SB 351 to improve the clarity of language, specificity of definitions, and alignment with existing standards.

The core of our request is to protect the practitioners and the patients, especially those in underserved communities, by protecting their access to care and preventing cost increases, while ensuring that dental and medical decisions rest solely with licensed professionals.

Dental support organizations play a critical role in ensuring that dentists can focus on providing quality care to their patients by managing the burden and complexities of running a business. These challenges include procurement, legal compliance, accounting, and facility management.

By supporting these back office services, DSOs clear the way for dental professionals to do what they are trained to do, provide quality dental care.

Our goal is to work with you to create clear and enforceable protections for dental providers, accountability for bad actors in our profession, including those in private equity, and most of all, regulatory clarity for ethical, transparent support organizations.

Making these amendments promotes fairness, reduces uncertainty, and spares those who are serving their committee from unneeded litigation or misdirected enforcement measures. And it supports the preservation of a healthy, sustainable dental care ecosystem serving Californians at a time when confusion and cost increases are front of mind for families and business owners across California.

DSOs serve to simplify the process and create greater access and affordability. We look forward to collaborating with you to preserve this ability. One quick example of how DSO supported our practice, in 2020, when the pandemic started, we were able to get the PPEs we needed to stay open.

All right, thank you, doctor. All right. Others in opposition to SB 351, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's now turn to the committee. Oh, go ahead.

Matt Roman representing PDS Health here. Opposed unless amended.

Thank you. All right, let's bring it back to committee. Senator Laird.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I salute the author for bringing this bill back and trying to address the governor's veto. I would refer everybody to my floor speech last year on this, but I think the crux of it is I spent time three years ago saving a hospital, did a bill, 19 days. We raised $60 million.

We did what it takes because a hedge fund bought it, was not competent in management, and was announcing it was going to close it and lay off 600 employees and have no emergency care for one of the most disadvantaged valleys along the Central Coast.

And whether any of that was right or wrong would have been worth a conversation. And that's really what this bill does. It says you can have a conversation before you go into a situation like that. I think that's very important, especially about capacity, because it could have saved us a lot of grief.

I recognize, and we recognize last year that some private equity firms that when medical or dental practices, the physicians or dentists age out, that in many ways it's private equity firms that are the only market for buying those practices. I appreciate that, but I think that that also is worth the conversation. So at the appropriate point, I will move the bill.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Other questions? Senator Niello

Seems like all of the opposition is opposed unless amended. I think. So. What are the status of the discussions you might be having with them?

Well, we just recently received the Dental Service Organization Association amendment. So we are in review. We're committed to try to work all of those issues out because as I said at the beginning, we're not. This is not a bill to try to ban private equity.

And there are plenty of practices in both medical and dental in my own district that depend on private equity for exactly the back office support that allows providers to focus on patient care. So we're open to continuing to work that through.

We did just receive them, but we're committed to try to make sure the bill works for those situations while continue to protect clinical practitioners and the quality of care.

Thank you.

Alrighty, thank you. Senator Weber Pierson.

Really want to thank the senator for bringing this bill forward. It is really unfortunate that medicine or healthcare has turned into a business instead of focusing on doing what's right for the patients, whether it's in the medical realm or in the dental realm.

And so, you know, as many of the outside hands that have no knowledge nor training in health care, out of health care. That's always a good thing. I do hope that you continue to have conversations, although with the opposition.

You know, some of these private equity firms are on the up and up and needed to keep access in certain areas, rural areas, underserved areas, some of their private practices open and afloat. So really appreciate you bringing this bill forward. We'll definitely be supporting it and hope that you continue to talk with opposition.

Alrighty, thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. I share some of the concerns of the opposition because we don't want non medical providers, non physicians basically prescribing treatment or prohibiting treatment. And we do want investment. And therein lies the tension.

And I know you will continue to try to work things out here as best as can be done. With that, would you like to close?

I would. When I first was approached about this issue in the bill, I noticed and when we introduced it then Google Alerts started telling me every time somebody had an article or a website change about it.

And so I saw dozens and dozens and dozens of reports, newsletter updates from the law firms that represent private equity firms that are in the health care space. Every single one of them said the same thing. The bill mirrors the existing guidance from the medical board. Makes no changes. It won't. It shouldn't change the investment climate at all.

But you should keep an eye on it and be ready to comply, just as you already should be with the medical board guidance. So our language doesn't go any further in that domain. It does allow it.

I think it's fair to say private equity is, doesn't work based on polling or vibes. Just looking at the numbers. And legal firm reports verify that there will continue to be strong investments.

And as we make the amendments to make sure that we are as narrow as possible in this application, that we want to make sure that we are creating the right investment climate to attract the capital that we and many providers and patients need in order to give access to quality care.

Thank you very much. I understand Senator Laird is going to make the motion, and I expect we'll have a vote. All right, thank you. Did you have another bill? No, you did not. Okay, good.

Thank you.

All right, next. Senator Cervantes is not here, but Senator Cortese is here.

And Senator Cortese, I understand that you are going to be presenting item number nine, SB 550, but also are you presenting on behalf of our colleague who couldn't be here, Senator Reyes?

I am.

Both of her bills? Just one. All right.

All right, so you'll be presenting file item number nine, SB 550, as well as file item number 25, SB 847. All right, the floor is yours.

Should I start with SB 847 Reyes? I'll do that. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Members. Appreciate the opportunity to be here to present first in this case for Senator Reyes on SB 847.

It's directed at stopping uninsured employers from evading the responsibility to reimburse the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund to recoup that money from the trust fund to pay on an employer's behalf. The most effective method of collection employed against uninsured employers is through recording a certificate of lien.

While this has proven to be a successful method by which the trust fund recoups those amounts, some of the worst offending employers have exploited a current loophole of transferring property to a relative or friend after a worker injury to avoid repaying the fund.

What SB 847 does is resolve this issue by allowing a prima facie determination to be made when this loophole is exploited that the property is held in a resulting trust in favor of the illegally uninsured employer. So the certificate of lien would continue to attach to the property.

This will allow reimbursement from the employer for all sums paid by the trust fund on the injured workers claim by collecting the amounts the trust fund has expended when the employer closes a sale or refinances through an escrow.

The bill protects the financial stability of the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund while also providing long term timely relief for injured workers. Here to testify in support, we have Mr. Alberto Torrico on behalf of the California Applicant Attorneys Association, I believe. Is he here?

I understand there's no opposition to this bill, is that correct?

That's my understanding, but--

So Mr. Torrico will assume that he testified quite eloquently in support. We'll stipulate to that. All right, other witnesses in support of SB 847 by Senator Reyes, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone. Let's turn to the opposition.

If you're opposed to SB 847, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members. Seeing no questions by committee members. Senator Cortese, would you like to close on behalf of Senator Reyes?

On behalf of Senator Reyes, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alrighty, thank you very much. Appropriate time I expect to be a motion and a vote. So let's turn to your bill now SB 550, file item number nine.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair, Members. I'm here to present SB 550, a bill that addresses a long standing gap in California's legal education system by creating a pathway to establish a public law school in San Jose.

The bill simply authorizes a potential merger or integration of a nonprofit state accredited law school into San Jose State University as a fully recognized academic unit. San Jose is the third largest city in California, as most of us know, and the largest city in the Bay Area without a public law school.

Santa Clara County is home to nearly 2 million residents, yet the region lacks an affordable, accessible option for legal education. In Santa Clara County, over 65% of the population identifies as Asian or Latino. Both groups remain serious, severely underrepresented among licensed attorneys statewide, as do many others amongst our diverse population, particularly in Santa Clara County.

The average debt for law graduates of private schools now exceeds $130,000. A 2024 study conducted by the American Bar Association found that 67% of all young lawyers, including those without loans, reported feeling stressed about their finances. The cost barrier drives talent away from public service careers and prevents first generation and underrepresented students from entering the legal profession.

A 2024 study from Equal Justice Works found that 79% of recent law school graduates cite low salary as a reason they would not pursue public interest law, which we believe is at least in part connected to the debt issue. In 2023, only 9.7% of law graduates secured public interest jobs. This amounts to only 3095 positions.

92% of low income American civil legal needs went unmet in 2022. 92%. And an estimated 150 million legal problems go unresolved annually in the United States. Excuse me. So what does any of that have to do with SB 550?

SB 550 helps close those gaps by enabling the development of an affordable public law school to serve the heart of Silicon Valley and diversify California's legal pipeline. And let me be at least modest enough about the bill to say it's not going to close all those gaps in California.

We're talking about a bill that has an impact or in effect strictly in San Jose and Santa Clara County through San Jose State University. SB 550 reflects substantial stakeholder engagement.

I want to note for this Committee that I've agreed to take the amendments laid out in the Committee analysis requiring five years of accreditation for any emerging law school to ensure academic stability, clarifying that CSU is not precluded from pursuing ABA accreditation for the law school in the future, and confirming that the CSU Board of Trustees must approve any potential incorporation.

I'll also note that the bill does not impose a timeline for implementation or a mandate to act, giving CSU full flexibility and control. The potential incorporation is entirely contingent on mutual agreement between CSU, San Jose State itself and the eligible law school.

With us today we have Cynthia Chagolla, Chief Program Officer of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, as well as Magnus Herrlin, President of the San Jose State University Pre-Law Society. And at the appropriate time and when able, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. First witness, please approach the microphone.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. We are pleased to express our support for SB 550. The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley provides free legal services to low and moderate households in Santa Clara County. Our services vary from housing to family law, public benefits, and some immigration matters.

The vast majority of our clients are children, young people and persons with disabilities. The reason for our support that I want to emphasize here is the opportunity to address the justice gap. I also recognize it's not going to solve all the issues, but it will move us closer to expanding services to those who need them most.

Increasing affordable options for law school will strengthen our recruitment poplar pipeline to legal aid organizations.

And a very real example is in a few weeks we were scheduled to have law student interns start at our organization and we've received withdrawals because those individuals are realizing how far the commute would actually be from some of the upper Bay Area cities.

While we recognize that an affordable option will again-- without an affordable option, positions at our organization go vacant and unfilled for a long period of time, which really impacts our availability, our position to provide services to the broader community that needs it most.

Again, we think that adding this affordable option will address the justice gap and enhance services to low and moderate income individuals. So we ask for for your support and respectfully request a yay vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'm going to have to depart to another Committee, but before I do, I'm going to support the bill. I wish you luck. I engaged in this effort with the University of California, Irvine. It only took us 15 years to make it come to fruition. Started with your father, actually, in 1991.

One of the challenges in California in terms of providing an affordable law school education is that all our five UC law schools are full-time programs. And there are some very elite law schools that actually have part-time programs as well. And in this journey I'd ask that you consider that or those who are applying consider that.

And with that, I'm going to turn over to my even more capable Vice Chair, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for all your help with this and that of the Committee. Very much appreciated.

And is there another primary witness in support?

Good afternoon Committee Members. My name is Magnus Herrlin and I am a proud senior at San Jose State University. I am here today in strong support of SB 550. In high school I struggled academically, but coming to SJSU changed everything for me. During my freshman year, I decided that I wanted to pursue law.

I worked hard every day towards this goal and this fall I will be attending a University of California law school. I share this because I am not the exception at SJSU. I'm the norm. My story is the SJSU story, a story shared by thousands of students and alumni who reflect the diversity of California.

Nearly half of all SJSU students are first generation college students. And more than 70% identify as students of color. This is why SB 550 is so important. Unfortunately, the legal profession does not reflect the diversity of our state.

According to the bar, people of color make up nearly 60% of our state's population, but only 35% of the state bar. A law school at SJSU would help address this inequity by providing an affordable, accessible legal education. However, SB 550 does something else.

It sends a powerful message to students like me and students who will come after me. It tells them that they can be an attorney and that they belong in this profession. Just as I found my place at San Jose State University, I know this law school will inspire others who will come after me.

Justice is not the deviation from the CSU or SJSU mission. It is a destination. Thank you. And I humbly ask for your support on this bill.

Thank you. Now for me-too testimony, are there others here in support? State your name, your organization and your position on the bill.

Jason Amezcua, Dean of Lincoln Law School of San Jose, and I am in support.

And seeing others approaching the microphone.

Good afternoon. Sophia Diaz, President of the San Jose State Mock Trial Program, in support.

Any others in support?

Good afternoon. Maria Vera, Vice President of the San Jose State Mock Trial Program, in support.

Luckily it's not quite afternoon yet, but thank you.

Audrey Way, member of San Jose State's Mock Trial Program, in support.

Daphne Milik, member of SJSU's Pre-Law Society, in support.

Nikita Panov, proud member of the SJSU Pre-Law Society, in support.

Alex Ito, member of SJSU Mock Trial, in support.

Others in support? Seeing none come forward. Do we have primary witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Jessica Duong with the University of California here in respectful opposition to SB 550. We appreciate the author's intent in providing a public law school option in his district. However, the Master Plan on Higher Education maintains that UC has the exclusive authority to offer doctoral degrees for public higher education segments.

We do understand that since the Master Plan was adopted in 1960, the education and labor force needs have changed significantly in this state. That's why in 2023, UC came to an agreement with CSU to allow CSU to offer joint doctoral degrees.

This law, AB 656, includes a review process that would ensure non-duplication of existing UC degree programs. Additionally, the legislature is considering multiple bills on higher education coordinating bodies. These coordinating bodies would revisit the Master Plan and would consider the changing workforce needs of the state instead of piecemeal approaches.

It may be best to discuss changes to the Master Plan within this body. For these reasons, we must respectfully oppose SB 550. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Morning, Chair and Members. Alex Graves of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, or AICCU. Also here in respectful opposition. Among our 87 accredited member institutions, we have over a dozen that offer approved or accredited law schools.

You know, this legislation continues a trend in recent years to legislate degree authority expansion for this segments and whether it's been nursing at community colleges, teacher preparation at community colleges, or public health at the CSU, oftentimes, like this bill, we see the discussion is framed in the context of workforce needs and or regional needs.

We think that degree authority expansion is but one way to tackle those challenges. And like my counterpart from the UC, we do believe that a better approach to tackling those issues would be through one of the various proposals currently circulating around education and workforce coordination and meeting those needs that way. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, Anyone else opposed to SB 550, please approach, provide your name, your affiliation, your position. Seeing no one approaching. Let's bring it back. Senator Laird.

Thank you very much. I chair the Education Budget Subcommitee and these issues are many times within our purview in two comments. One is that the three most underfunded University of California campuses are those that don't have a medical school or a law school.

And I know that we are working to get a medical school at UC Santa Cruz over time. I don't want anything to jeopardize that. But the CSU and UC systems are proposed by the governor for an 8% reduction right now.

And while we are working really hard to reverse that reduction, there's going to be a lot of difficulty just holding their own in the short term. And I appreciate the author taking an amendment that this requires the approval of the CSU Board of Trustees because then they can weigh that.

They can decide if they're facing an 8% cut, whether this is something that they should be considering in that whole mix. So I'm going to vote to move the bill along, but there are those concerns that are out there.

Thank you. Senator Weber Pierson.

Thank you, Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. Completely understand your intent of the bill. I do have significant concerns with this piecemealing that we have done and this bill would do in terms of not looking at everything from a higher perspective of where things need to be.

I know the California Master Plan for Higher Education is older and potentially outdated, but there are conversations and things moving along to look at things and to revamp them and bring them up to speed.

You know, understanding in the past that there have been changes in teaching and health degrees, specifically around nursing, and those are generally because we have a significant shortage of teachers and public health providers. I'm not completely sure what the shortages of lawyer is in California. Completely understand the issue with diversity.

I have nothing against attorneys. My father was an attorney. I was with a bunch of attorneys this weekend as they were inducting him into Cable's Law of Fame-- or Hall of Fame, excuse me.

But I do have significant concerns with this piecemeal approach and really I'm looking forward to doing a more holistic overview of what we need to do here at the state in terms of our higher education. Thank you.