Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

12345.

Good morning everyone. Welcome. The Senate Committee on Governmental Organization will convene in 60 seconds.

It.

You had the early updated.

Turn me off. Don't do that. Thank you.

Good morning. Senate Committee on Government Authorization will come to order. We do not as yet have the votes to establish a quorum, so we will proceed as a sub. We have a request from an author with respect to File item number 7 AB881. Assemblymember Petrie Norris. Welcome and congratulations. Welcome Assemblymember. Please proceed when ready.

Wherever you're comfortable typically there. Yes, please.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. Please to join you this morning to present AB881, a Bill that will ensure that California can meet our climate goals by supporting the safe transport of of carbon of captured carbon by pipelines. Carbon capture technologies are a necessary and important part of California's strategy to achieve our climate goals.

Recognizing the importance of CCUS, California has set carbon removal goals of 20 million metric tons by 2030 and 100 million metric tons by 2045. In 2022, as some of the Members may recall, California passed SB 905 which established a framework for carbon capture in the State of California.

As part of that, California decided to place a moratorium on building new carbon dioxide pipelines because the Federal Government was in the process of establishing safety regulations. So we established a moratorium that was to remain in place until the Federal Government finalized their safety regulations.

In January of 2025, a draft of those federal regulations was released by the Biden Administration. However, three days later, Donald Trump was inaugurated and that regulatory process was paused and is now ground to a halt.

What comes next from the Federal Government is uncertain, but it has certainly left California in limbo and it's an important opportunity for us to take our destiny in our own hands. So with this Bill, AB881, we direct the fire marshal to build upon those draft federal guidelines and allow the state to lift our moratorium.

AB881 will leverage billions of dollars in federal support for carbon capture. It will help California meet our climate goals and it will create thousands of high road green jobs.

Before I welcome our witnesses, I also want to just appreciate the ongoing commitment of AB 881 sponsors to work with community advocates as we craft a Bill that is protective of the communities where these pipelines will be located and is also supportive of the nascent carbon removal industry that is so essential to mitigate the worst impacts of the climate crisis.

So with that, I am pleased to be joined by Laura Lewis, who is the Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer at SMUD. Welcome. Thank you.

Morning. Welcome. Please state your name again for the record and your time will be limited to four minutes if you're the only primary witness.

Laura Lewis, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer for SMUD, Chair Padilla and Members of the Committee. I'm Laura Lewis, Chief legal and government affairs officer for SMUD. SMUD is the nation's sixth largest Committee owned electric utility in the nation in terms of customers served.

We serve about 1.5 million customers in Sacramento county and small adjoining portions of Placer and Yolo counties. I'm pleased to be here today in strong support of AB881, a Bill critical to the advancement of carbon capture and storage technology.

SMUD has a goal to completely eliminate carbon from our power supply by 2030 within the guardrails of affordability and reliability. This is the most ambitious goal of any large utility in the nation. We believe proven clean technologies like hydro, solar, wind and storage will get us up to 90% of the way there.

To reach the remaining 10% while still remaining reliable and affordable, we need emerging technologies such as carbon capture and storage. To this end, SMUD is partnering with Calpine Corporation to retrofit its 550 megawatt Sutter natural gas plant near Yuba City, California to carbon capture and storage facility.

SMUD will be the off taker of the energy produced at this facility. This project will provide us with clean, dispatchable energy that is necessary for us to maintain reliability as we transition to cleaner energy sources.

It will also help keep our rates affordable because it allows us to leverage existing infrastructure while reducing over 95% of the carbon emissions of the facility. AB881 will ensure that carbon capture and storage projects can proceed in a manner that is protective of public health and safety, while also preserving existing jobs and creating new ones.

As a community owned electric utility, we put community safety at the forefront. We would not consider this technology if we thought it would be not be done safely and responsibly. And for these reasons we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Thank you for joining by another primary witness. Please state your name again for the record and your time will be limited to two minutes.

Mr. Chairman and Member Scott Wetch on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, sponsor of the Bill. This is an issue we've been working on for quite some time. In 2022, we co-sponsored the Governor's SB905 by Senator Caballero to basically create the streamline permitting process for carbon capture projects at CARB.

In the very final hours of those negotiations, there was this limitation put into the Bill that restricted the construction of any pipelines until PHMSA, federal agency that regulates pipelines, regulated safety guidelines and standards. Unfortunately, because of the transition at the end of the Biden Administration, we thought those guidelines would be done by now. They were waylaid.

Now the Trump Administration has basically put a freeze on any standards that had been in the pipeline or been adopted by the Biden Administration. And this window for carbon capture projects is in sequestration is narrowing. The Bill had a 10 year sunset. The federal funding has a sunset of 10 years on it.

We're getting to the point of no return. If we don't get all these projects like the CalPine project moving forward, we're not going to be able to build any carbon capture projects in California. As you are well aware, the Committee Members, the scoping plan has 100 million metric tons of carbon capture in it. It's an essential part.

Now, with offshore wind being taken off the table by the Trump Administration, being able to have that 100 million metric tons plus is absolutely critical to meeting our 2045 carbon neutrality goals. And so this Bill is urgent. I would like to see an urgency clause put into it. That's how narrow this window is closing.

And so we would urge an aye vote of this Committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any individuals in the hearing room that would like to register support on the Bill? Please come forward to the mic. State your name, affiliation and position on the Bill. Welcome.

Hello. Leah Barros, on behalf of Calpine and the Independent Energy Producers Association, in support.

Mr. Chair. Members, Mike Monaghan, on behalf of the State Building Trades, a strong proponent of carbon capture and we strongly support this Bill.

Morning, Mr. Chairman. Timothy Jeffries, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers here in a strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Primary witnesses in opposition? Yeah. Please come forward. Make yourself comfortable at the table. Just state your name for the record. And are you the only primary witness in opposition?

All right. Your time will be limited to four minutes. Welcome. Please proceed.

It will be far quicker than that. Marie Liu, on behalf of the Central California Environmental Justice Network. Sorry, just ran down the stairs. The communities that CCEJN works with in the Southern San Joaquin Valley are the ones who are most likely to be impacted by the pipelines for CO2 geologic to sequester CO2 into geologic reserves.

We appreciate the author's work on adding some important protections to this Bill. However, the Bill does not yet address protections that are critical to consider when pipelines are near people. Regardless of your opinions about CCUS, the pipelines, the safety and the siting of the pipelines is a separate issue. CO2 pipelines are hazardous compared to natural gas pipelines.

Leaks are more likely to lead to zipper like fractures which release substantial amounts of CO2 which can cause that hang in a dense cloud, posing a cloud of CO2 that can travel through communities. This high levels of CO2 means that causes asphyxiation risk and actually can lower oxygen levels.

So even things like emergency vehicles cannot perform, which is something we saw that happened in Satartia, Mississippi where emergency responders could not come into the areas because their vehicles didn't work. So we believe that the Bill needs to specifically add some additional protections based off of the- based off the proximity of the pipelines to populations.

This is something that FSMA could not do due to some congressional restrictions that do not apply to California. So we've provided the author with some language that would require additional safety requirements for pipelines that are cited close to people and prohibits the very close siting of pipelines to sensitive receptors.

And we look forward to working with author before this Bill reaches its next Committee.

Thank you very much. At least somebody got their exercise this morning. So that's off to you. Are there any other individuals in the hearing room would like to register opposition to the Bill? Come forward. State your name, affiliation and position. Welcome.

Good morning. Thank you. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in respectful opposition and also noting the opposition of 39 other organizations on the letter that we submitted. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Mary Sulecki. I ran into the room about 15 seconds too late. I actually have a client in support of the Bill, Clean Air Task Force. I'm sorry to be out of order.

That's fine. Thank you. You're on the record. Thank you. Anyone else? All right, thank you very much. We'll bring it back to Members of the Committee for any questions. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the author so much for bringing this Bill forward. We started talking about carbon capture and sequestration and problem solvers caucus over nearly five years ago. So it's so phenomenal to see how many amazing things have happened to get us to that point. I did support Senator Stern's similar Bill.

I know that you are working with him on this concept and, and I just needed some clarification though. The directive is going to have the state fire marshal create the standards based on the Biden administration's recent standards. But that's, can you just clarify that that's just a starting point.

Obviously, we know that the Biden Administration standards were a bit rushed, so I want to make sure that they meet California standards. And I just wanted some clarity on that.

And I really appreciate the question. Thank you, Senator. That's exactly right. So the federal guidelines really are a starting point for the State Fire Marshal, who will then build on those and ensure that we have regulations and safety standards that aren't just the strongest in the nation, but are the strongest in the world.

And I am confident that that process is going to be successful. And I do think that that will be an appropriate opportunity also to address the input that has been raised by the opposition of ensuring that we've got safety standards that are dynamic and reflect where these facilities and pipelines are going to be cited. So, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other Members of the Committee have questions on this Bill? Would you like to close Assemblymember?

Well, thank you for the question. I really appreciate, as I said earlier. The engagement that we've had from some of the folks in opposition and confident that we will be able to craft a regulation that is both protective of our communities and also advances California's clean energy goals and climate transition.

So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember and again, congratulations. We'll place this item on call. I see also we have Assemblymember Aguilar-Curry in the audience. Welcome, ma' am. This is with respect to File item number 2 AB 445. Please proceed when ready.

Good morning. So nice to be over here in the red room. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I want to start by thanking the Committee Staff for their work on this Bill. This Bill is very important for Colusa County, a rural community just north of here.

Under the current licensing system, Colusa County hasn't qualified for any new alcoholic beverage licenses for over 20 years. As a result, the demand exceeds the availability of licenses in the county and small businesses are forced to pay up to $400,000 for a license.

This Bill will grant Colusa County 10 on-sale liquor licenses to support local economic development and empower small community-rooted business. Respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Thank you very much. I don't see any witnesses in support or opposition. Are there individuals willing to speak to this Bill in the hearing room? Seeing no one come forward. Are there questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Seeing none. Would you like to close, Assemblymember?

It's kind of ironic. I had a conversation with our ex-Governor, Jerry Brown, the other day and told him the importance of this Bill and he said, where do I sign up? So, I would appreciate your vote today.

Thank you very much. We'll place this item on call. Thank you, Assemblymember.

Great. Thank you.

You bet. That would bring us to file item—who do we have?

Bennett.

Bennett.

Ah, Assemblymember Bennett. File Item 5, AB5 581. Please proceed when ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members. AB 581 will make the bigberry manzanita the official state shrub. We've reached a tipping point when it comes to wildfire, and we should turn our focus to what is burning and how the environment rebounds following a fire.

The bigberry manzanita is one of the first plants to be found rising through the ash following a fire. Its seeds germinate at a higher rate following fire exposure, making it a key component to chaparral recovery.

However, the increased frequency in wildfires is posing a threat to this shrub as it requires many years in between fire exposure to build up its seed bank. This uniquely California shrub can teach us how native plants can be instrumental in fire recovery and prevention.

I wish I had my witness here today, which is why I was standing at the door. Oh, my gosh. On time delivery here. Right. Come on up. This Mr. John Hunter. He's a botanist and the past President of the California Native Plant Society. Thank you very much.

Thank you assemblymember. Never heard of these guys. Welcome. Sorry. State your name for the record. Your time's limited to four minutes. Thank you. Welcome.

My name is John Hunter. As you've heard, I'm a UC trained botanist at Pennsylvania, past President of the California Native Plant Society. And I'm here to assure you that you couldn't pick a better shrub to be our state shrub than bigberry manzanita. They're familiar to most, manzanitas are. They're found throughout most of the state, manzanitas are.

With their bright red stems, they're strikingly beautiful. Makes a good icon. They're characteristic of chaparral, a distinctly Californian vegetation type. They can rise back phoenix like after fire. Nice traits. Very symbolic. And they're- they're icons of our biodiversity. There are dozens of manzanitas. Some are rare, some are common.

Almost all are California. As our state shrub, bigberry manzanita would remind Californians of the beauty and diversity that we've been blessed with in our state. And it will encourage creator understanding Appreciation and stewardship. We couldn't have a more fitting state shrub than big berry manzanita. A flagship of manzanitas, I might add, a particularly striking one.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. At this time, we'll suspend for a second to establish a quorum. Please call the roll.

[roll call]

Alright, thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to this bill? Any individuals in the hearing room like to state their support for the bill or opposition? Seeing none. Bring it to the committee for questions or comments.

I have to. Sorry.

Have to. Just for clarification, is the bigberry manzanita the shrub that actually people use a lot for wedding decorations because of the- of the shape of the branches? Is this the one that they.

Senator. You have to comment.

Yeah, yeah. Probably several different manzanitas fit that bill. But because big berry is common around Southern California urban areas, it's probably more frequently used than others. And it has a redder stem. Some of them have more like terracotta stems.

Okay. And just for clarification, if we make this the state shrub, are we going to be forbidden from using them for decorations?

I hope not.

Okay, good. I'll be supportive of the bill.

Thank you. Senator Wahab.

I have a question. I'd like to know what other shrubs were in competition.

Oh, you know, I dreaded that question. I'm the worst person to ask. I sat up last night, I flipped through the manual of trees and shrubs to California. And, you know, there's- there's lots of shrubs in California that are beautiful or unique to California, but a lot of them are very rare or they're not.

They don't make a good icon. They're not very symbolic, so they're not familiar to people, I guess that didn't directly answer your question, but there's a bladder pod that I- terrible common name, but Staphylea, that has beautiful flowers. But it also. There are bladder pods that grow outside of California, too, and they're not really associated

with our state, as an example.

This shrub that you have, do you have a photo of it that we can take a look at?

I believe there was one in your briefing in. In- In this.

AI. Alright, thank you.

There are better photos than those, but they work.

I'll move the bill.

Thank you, Senator. That bill you all are have triggering some PTSD. My ex- My ex husband's a field biologist. Okay. Sorry. It's. These are my favorite bills. The bill has been moved. There's a motion. The motion is do pass the Senate Floor. Please call the roll.

[roll call]

Alright. The ayes are eight that we placed on call. Thank you very much.

I realize this is the most challenging vote you'll have.

Absolutely.

I- I'll also move Cottie Petrie-Norris'.

Thank you.

Coming up. Is this. Well, I think we have. Do we have her on?

I said we have a mushroom, we. Have a frog, we have a lizard. We have a bird.

Yes. All right. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That item will be placed back on call. Senator Wahab moves consent. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That item be placed back on call. Senator Wahab moves. File item number two, AB 445. Please call the roll.

Motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Padilla.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That item is on call. Thank you, Senator Wahab.

All right. A little cleanup. I see that Assembly Member Addis is here. Welcome. With respect to file item 8 AB1008. Welcome Assembly Member. Please proceed when ready, wherever you're comfortable.

Thank you.

Well, thank you Chair and staff and our advocates. We're here to present AB 1008 which will make a modest increase the number of alcohol licenses available in San Luis Obispo County, to account for significant growth in tourism.

And the problem is that on-sale general eating licenses authorize the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption on a licensed premises. But given the high level of tourism in San Luis Obispo County, we simply don't have enough of those licenses.

So, this Bill would increase the number of licenses up to 10 new on-sale general licenses in the county, with up to five new licenses each year and would prevent a price spike on the secondary market with licenses issued under this Bill not being able to be sold or transferred for a price greater than the original fee paid.

So, joining me to testify in support is Dylan Elliott representing the County of San Luis Obispo.

Welcome.

Are you the only primary witness?

Yes, I am.

All right. State your name again for the record. You'll have four minutes.

Thank, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Dylan Elliott here today on behalf of the County of San Luis Obispo. We are the proud sponsors and thank the author for Assembly Bill 1008.

As was shared, San Luis Obispo County is a very tourism-focused community. And the current system of allocating licensees based on populations creates challenges for local communities with tourism-based economies.

And although the population growth in San Luis Obispo County has remained steady, tourism growth has increased exponentially, and the demand has driven an increase in the need for alcoholic licenses. The problem is that new, on-sale general licenses have not been issued in the county since 2014 and existing restaurants have been prevented from expanding their offerings.

And it also deters new restaurants or commercial development growth from operating in the county. When alcoholic licenses are unavailable, creates an unregulated secondary market where licenses can sell for up to hundreds of thousands of dollars within the community. And in comparison, a standard license from ABC costs only $19,315.

Because the current system of allocating licensees is based on population and doesn't account for this increased tourism, it forces local businesses and entrepreneurs to turn to the exorbitant prices of the secondary market, preventing some businesses from opening doors altogether.

We, San Luis Obispo County, are the proud sponsor of AB1008 because it provides a much-needed solution and it'll allow ABC to issue up to 10 new on-sale general licenses, five per year, as shared by the author, and in order to prevent a price spike on the secondary market, licenses under this Bill may not be sold or transferred for a price greater than the original fee.

This will drive job growth, generate tax revenue, and encourage the continued development of the tourism economy in San Luis Obispo County. We respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any individuals in the hearing room would like to register support on this Bill? Seeing no one come forward. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition, or any individuals in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it to the Committee for questions or comments. Senator...would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Thank you very much. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We will place that item on call. Thank you very much, Assemblymember. I don't see any additional authors, so what we'll do is the Committee will stand in recess, and we'll call for authors.

All right. At Senator Weber's request, we'll lift calls and get some folks out of here. Let's start with the consent calendar. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

All right. File item number two. AB 445 by Aguiar Curry

[Roll Call]

That item's back on call. Let's see. That brings us to file item five, AB581, Bennett. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That item is placed back on call. Brings us to Item file item 7, AB881. Petrie, Norris. Please left the call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That item is back on call. File item 8 AB 1008 Addis. Please lift the call. .

[Roll Call]

That will stay on call and. Yep. Thank you. We'll stand in recess for a few moments. All right, colleagues, let's reconvene the Committee on Governmental Organization. I see that we have Assemblymember Brian present. Welcome, sir. Come forward to wherever you are comfortable. With respect to File item number nine, AB 1075. Welcome, sir. Proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Apologize for my tardiness. Just came in from Los Angeles. AB 1075 is a really simple and straightforward measure that has had bipartisan support on the Assembly side.

It essentially says that private firefighters who are there to protect private interests can't hook up to public water sources without first checking in with our professional public firefighters who have a responsibility to protect all residents and not just particular private interests. Like I said, it's a simple bill.

It's some cleanup language for legislation regarding regulations around private firefighters that began four or five years ago with Majority Leader Aguiar Curry, and I respectfully ask your admiral. With me to testify is Doug Stuber from the California Professional Firefighters.

Thank you. Only primary witness and support. All right, state your name again for the record. Your time is limited to four minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, we're pleased to sponsor this bill and strongly support the measure. We appreciate the author and bringing it forward. As the author noted, this bill is about safety and ensuring we have clear controls in place when private resources are acting on a fire incident.

In 2018, the Legislature passed AB 2380, which established regulations on how these resources are permitted to operate on a large active fire incident. And those regulations provide a lot of requirements around checking in at incident command, providing GPS and automatic vehicle locators, being clearly marked non emergency.

But one of the things that was not included in the structure of that bill is what is proposed before you today. A limitation on the ability to access public water systems by these resources.

That's imperative because we need to understand when public fire agencies are moving around an incident, they need to be able to quickly access public water supplies to respond to the incident. We think ultimately this bill will just promote more safety for the community and for firefighters. And for those reasons, we've respectfully asked for a vote.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Any individuals like to register support for the bill? Seeing no one come forward. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition or individuals in opposition that would like to come forward on the bill? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee.

Senator Ashby.

Thank you so much. First of all, great bill. We need to be able to manage our public resources to make the decisions for the greatest good, especially at the most urgent time. So happy to make the motion to move this bill forward at the appropriate time.

I thank the firefighters for working with the Assemblyman from La. And side note, Judge, just point of privilege, thank you for your leadership in LA over the Last few days from a voice in Sacramento. I've done the best I can to amplify you, but appreciate your fight for the people of Southern California.

Thank you. Thank you. Senator Ashby. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Good Morning and I just want to say appreciate the author bringing this bill forward. We know we watched in total shock to see residents trying to access water with very low pressure and not able to save their homes, while we saw private companies pumping gallons of water on commercial properties that were totally intact and untouched by the fire.

That is an inequitable equation. Our communities can't afford it. And I'm glad that you are taking the steps to correct it. And I will support this Bill when the time is right.

Thank you. Any other Members? All right. The Bill is moved by Senator Ashby. Please call the roll.

AB 1075. Motion is due. Passed to Natural Resources and Water Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, thank you. We'll place that on call. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. Good luck. All right. I see Assemblymember Valencia is in the house. With respect to File item number four, AB 344. Welcome, sir.

Please proceed when ready. Appreciate that. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. AB344 updates and clarifies the definition of successor beer manufacturer to reflect present day business entities regardless of their license status or whether the entity has brewed beer. This update will uphold fair and competitive business practices.

California's existing alcohol regulations have historically been interpreted to guarantee that beer wholesalers receive fair market value compensation in the event a brewery they have partnered with is sold to another entity. However, a recent court ruling has created a loophole that could jeopardize the fair market value protection wholesalers have relied upon for decades.

With me to provide testimony on AB344 is Kevin Luckey, the Executive Director for the California Family Beer Distributor.

Welcome. Are you the only primary witness?

I am today.

You have up to four minutes. State your name for the record. Welcome.

I am Kevin Luckey with the California Family Beer Distributors and we're here in sponsorship and support of AB344. As the offer alluded to, this Bill is really a technical change from a 2007 statute that has worked well for going on 20 years. It's a small change. Very small part of the provision.

I'll keep my comments to a minimum, but I am happy to answer any questions should you have them request and I vote. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone individuals in the hearing room want to register support on this Bill? Seeing none, there are no. Does not appear to be any primary witness in opposition or individuals. The Bill has been moved by Richardson. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. A place that on call. Thanks. Assembly. I think we are waiting for one outstanding author.

No, Nope. That's it.

Who want to lift calls? All right, let's start from the top on the consent calendar. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Okay, let me know.

That's 13. You leave it open.

All right. We'll keep that on call. Brings us to file item 2 AB445. Aguiar Curry. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

We'll place that back on call. File item 4, AB344, Valencia. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. We'll keep that on call. File item five, AB 581, Bennett. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We'll keep that. Okay. Thank you. We'll keep that back on call. File item seven, AB881. Petrie, Norris. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Keep that on call. File item eight, AB1008. Petrie Norris. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We'll keep that on call. File item 9 AB 1075. Bryan. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

All right. We'll keep that item on call. Thank you. We'll be in recess. We'll reconvene the Committee for purpose of lifting calls. We will start with the consent calendar. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are 14. That Bill is out. File item 2 AB 445. Aguiar Curry. Please lift the call

[Roll Call]

Ayes are 14. That Bill is out. File item 4 AB 344, Valencia. Please left the call.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are 13. That Bill is out. File item 5 AB 581. Bennett. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are 13. Those are zero. That Bill is out. File item seven. AB881. Petrie Norris. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are 14. Those are zero. That Bill is out. File item eight. AB 1008. Petrie Norris. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are 14. That Bill is out. File item nine. AB 1075. Brian. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are 13 Noes are zero. That Bill is out. Thank you very, very much. At this time, the Committee will recess. Adjourn.