Assembly Standing Committee on Revenue and Taxation

Want to say good afternoon and welcome to the hearing of the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. Pursuant to the Committee rules, bills will—bills with—a fiscal impact more than 150,000, whether the revenue gain or loss, will not be eligible for a vote immediately after the presentation.

Instead, the bill will be referred to our suspense file, which will be taken up during the second portion of today's hearing. In addition to the bills that are referred to the suspense files are regularly ordered portions of this hearing, we will take up those—these—bills immediately after the second portion of our hearing today.

With that in mind, only bills on today's agenda—the only Bill on today's agenda will be, they'll be eligible for a vote for our regular order business on file. We have file item number two, SB 63, by Senator Wiener. And I understand Senator Wiener is unable to make it, so we will have Assemblywoman Stefani in his stead.

So, thank you very much for being here. We don't have a quorum at the present time, so we'll be acting as a Subcommittee. Oh, there he is right there. Okay. So, with that being said, we will, again, act as a Subcommittee. We will have our first presenter, Mr. Seyarto, to SB 56, and we see him in the audience.

And you can please approach and have a seat, and you can begin when you're ready. Do you have a primary witness?

I do, depending upon how fast you can walk over here.

Okay, so. So, do you want to start now? You want to wait for your primary?

I will. And I go nice and slow.

Well, you don't have that luxury of going slow. Do you want to wait or?

They should be here momentarily.

Okay, so. Okay.

They're stuck in the line. You know what, they're stuck in the line trying to get in the building. So, if you want to have Ms. Stefani. Okay, I think we'll do that.

So, Mr. Seyarto, if you could just have a seat. We're going to have Ms. Stefani.

I was going to do that, but I was going to pull the chair out for him.

Oh, okay. Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

So, we're going to rearrange the agenda. We're going to have follow item number two, SB 63, Wiener. We have Member Stefani to approach and her witness. We're going to have you go first while Mr. Seyarto's witness is getting through the line. And you may proceed when, when ready. You have your witnesses. Witnesses, you have two minutes each.

And you may commence when ready. Thank you. And we're acting as a Subcommittee until the rest of the Members who are in route to get here. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and members. I am here to present SB 63 on behalf of Senator Wiener and Senator Arreguin, as and as a proud co-author of this critical measure for Bay Area public transportation. SB 63 authorizes a 10 to 15.

If you can pull the microphone closer to you.

Yes, I can do that. Is that better?

Okay. SB 63 authorizes a 10-to-15-year sales tax measure on the November 2020 ballot to fund major public transit systems with fiscal cliffs in Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco counties, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties have the opportunity to opt into the measure in the next month.

Yes.

Our region's major public transportation systems, BART, Caltrain, Muni, AC Transit are facing an unprecedented crisis. These agencies were already underfunded and overly reliant on fare revenue. The pandemic exposed this funding weakness by significantly changing commute patterns, reducing fare revenues and exacerbating operating shortfalls for some of our most fare reliant transit systems.

While emergency federal and state funding allow transit across the state to maintain service, that aid is temporary. A sustainable funding solution is necessary to prevent Bay Area transit systems from having to implement devastating service cuts. A state loan in this year's budget that would provide more funding is contingent on the passage of this measure.

If we do nothing, these agencies will be forced to make devastating cuts, closing BART stations, reducing Muni service by up to 50% and eliminating lines entirely across all of our transit systems, including Caltrain and AC Transit. The consequences of inaction are clear.

More traffic, more pollution and more people left behind, especially the working class, riders, seniors, and people with disabilities who depend most on public transit. SB 63 gives the region a path forward. It allows voters to approve a sustainable funding source, but it doesn't do so blindly.

This bill includes strong accountability measures; to receive funding for the regional measure, BART, Caltrain, Muni, and AC Transit are required to be in compliance with regional network management policies, undergo an independent financial efficiency review and adopt identified cost saving measures.

Given that these are complex matters that require diligent hyper local and regional engagement, this bill continues to be a work in progress.

The authors have appreciated the deep interest and engagement by all counties that may be a part of the measure, and they remain committed to optimistic that they will be able to agree on an expenditure plan in the next month.

SB 63 gives the Bay Area the tools it needs to take care of its own transit system, so we don't have to keep coming back to the state year after year. Asking for emergency funding. That's what local self-help looks like and it's what long-term stability requires.

Here to testify in support of the bill are Sue Nowak with the MTC, our MTC chair, and Robert Rayburn, Bay Area Rapid Transit District Board Director.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair Gibson and Vice Chair Ta. I'm Robert Rayburn, member of the BART Board of Directors. I want to thank Senators Wiener and Arreguin for their steadfast support of public transit and for inviting BART to testify today.

As you may know, before the pandemic, BART was a model for self-sufficiency with more than two thirds of our operating expenses covered by passenger revenue. But the pandemic and some of the lowest return to office rates in the country have turned our old model on its head.

BART is working to reduce costs and closed a $35 million deficit for fiscal year 26. However, we cannot cut our way out of this crisis, and we will face a $350 million plus deficit starting in fiscal year 27.

We're thankful for this year's state budget preserves that the budget preserves transit funding and provides for $750 million as a loan to BART, San Francisco, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit. This will allow us to get through to when regional measure funds would start flowing in the calendar year, fiscal year of 27 calendar year.

If BART is forced to drastically reduce service or close stations, connecting transit agencies will be affected; transit dependent individuals will be left behind, traffic congestion will worsen, and the Bay Area's economy will suffer. This is why SB 63 is so important to the Bay Area as a whole.

This measure is not a green light to continue the status quo. We are supportive of the financial transparency and accountability provisions. We have also been laser focused on improving the customer experience through better service, quality, safety and cleanliness. Through these efforts, BART's customer satisfaction rate is at its highest in 10 years.

Additionally, new fare gates to help prevent fare evasion are now installed at 40 of our 50 stations and will be completed system wide this year. Finally, we appreciate the work of the authors, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, our transit partners, county stakeholders, to develop an expenditure plan that acknowledges BART's need for a sustainable revenue future.

Thank you for your time and I respectfully ask for your support of Senate Bill 63.

Thank you very much. Next witness; two minutes.

Yes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Gibson and members. I'm Sue Nowak. I'm the Mayor of Pleasant Hill and the Chair of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. I'm here today in strong support of SB 63, which would give Bay Area voters the ability to decide whether to raise local funds to sustain and improve public transit.

Transit is essential to the Bay Area's economy. It underpin our housing goals., it keeps people moving, and without it, we can't meet our climate goals. But its importance goes beyond our region. The Bay Area is a major driver of California's economy. A strong transit network is part of what makes that possible. The pandemic upended our transit system.

Agencies like BART, Muni, AC Transit, and Caltrain were hit hard and continue to face a $700 million annual shortfall. Without new funding, service cuts are inevitable, jeopardizing access to jobs, worsening congestion on state highways and slowing the region's recovery. SB 63 doesn't raise taxes.

It simply gives the Bay Area permission to ask its voters whether they want to invest in their own future. And MTC has adopted strong principles to ensure that if voters say yes, they'll see real improvements, more affordable, accessible and easier to use services that brings in new riders.

As a regular BART rider, I shudder to think what the Bay Area would look like without frequent, reliable service. Please help the Bay Area help ourselves by supporting SB 63 today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of SB 63 needs, your name, your organization, and this is support only.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of El Cerrito and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Michael Pimentel, here on behalf of two organizations, Caltrain and SF Bay Ferry, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Katie McCammon on behalf of Climate Action California, in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, Daniel Larry, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sebastian Petty on behalf of SPUR, in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Mark Watts representing the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of Committee, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. Awesome support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. Scott Wetch on behalf of State Association of Electrical, in support.

thank you.

Anyone? Any primary witnesses in opposition, would you please come forward? Hearing and seeing none. Anyone in the room wishing to express opposition to SB 63, please come forward. Hearing and seeing - almost gotcha.

Peter Block with the California Taxpayers Association. We're in opposition. If I could just bring up one point. One section we're very concerned with is that an election code, section 9300 or any other laws, taxes authorized by this bill may also be imposed by qualified voter initiative.

We have concerns with provisions like these become more prevalent in legislation and enabling local taxes to circumvent Proposition 13 and Prop. 218's requirement for 2/3 approval for taxes. And so that's something that we just like to point out that is very concerning with the bill. Thank you.

Noted. Thank you very much. Bring it back to the committee. Any members wishing to speak? Hearing none. Thank you very much. You may close if you wish.

Thank you, Chair. I think our witnesses did a great job of explaining why this is so necessary. And I respectfully asked for an aye vote on behalf of myself, Senators Wiener and Arreguin.

When we have a quorum, we'll be bringing this item back up. Thank you very much to your witnesses. Thank you very much for appearing. Seyarto, is your witness with us? Great.

And you may commence when ready.

All right. Thank you very much, honorable Chair, and I'm here to present SB 56. SB 56 addresses a critical flaw in the system that unfairly penalizes disabled veterans by counting their disability benefits as income when determining eligibility for the disabled veterans' property tax exemption.

Over the past two years, both California and the Federal Government have recognized this issue and taken steps to exclude disability benefits from household income calculations in housing programs.

The problem is that veterans must be disabled to qualify for the tax exemption, yet their disability compensation is counted as income, pushing them over the income threshold and making them ineligible. This creates an unfair catch 22 that denies veterans the very support meant to help them.

Veterans are encouraged to apply for disability benefits, yet receiving them can disqualify them for other critical support programs. Before AB 535 passed this year, a homeless veteran who secured state housing and connected to support programs could suddenly exceed the income threshold, leading to their eviction and a return to homelessness.

Disability compensation is not a source of wealth, as it is recognition for service-related duties, yet it is treated as income in a way that reduces access to essential tax relief. Last session, the Legislature and Congress acted to remove disability income from government housing eligibility calculations. SB 56 extends that same principle to property tax relief.

And with me here today is Edward Skelton, the Merced County Veterans Services Officer, to testify further on the issue.

Thank you very much and welcome. You have two minutes.

Thank you, honorable Chair. As you know, the disabled veterans...

If you can pull the microphone closer to you. Great.

As you know, the disabled veterans' property tax exemption is a crucial tool in helping veterans with service-related disabilities afford homeownership and maintain financial stability. However, under current law, service-connected disability compensation is counted as income when determining eligibility for the low-income exemption.

This policy is fundamentally flawed as these payments are not traditional income, but compensation for the lasting impact of military service. By including them in income calculations, the law unfairly penalizes disabled veterans, often making them ineligible for tax relief meant to support them.

Many disabled veterans rely entirely on fixed incomes and face outgoing medical and living expenses that other homeowners do not. Rising costs of housing, health care, and daily necessities further compound financial difficulties, particularly for those unable to work due to their disabilities.

Excluding service-connected disability compensation from household income calculations will ensure that these veterans can access the tax relief that they need to remain in their homes and communities. And I thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of SB 56, please line up. Need your name, your organization, and support only.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Seth Reeve with Reeve Government Relations, representing American Legion Department of California, AmVets, Department of California Military Officers Association of America, California Council of Chapters, and the Vietnam Veterans of America California State Council, all in strong support.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Hi, I'm Matt Knox, on behalf of the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Nick Bussey, Founder and CEO of MilitaryEngagement.com, and I'm in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Primary witness in opposition, please come forward. Anyone in—primary witness opposition? Hearing and seeing none. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition in the rooms, please come forward. Seeing none, bring it back to the Committee. No? Okay.

Okay. Thank you very much. Senator, you may close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time comes.

Thank you very much, Senator. This item is—will be referred to the suspense file once we establish a quorum. Yes, thank you very much.

Thank you.

File item number three, SB 86, Senator Mcnerney. Thank you very much and welcome.

And has your witnesses—thank you very much. And you may commence when ready. And your witnesses also has two minutes each.

Chair Gipson, Vice Chair Ta, distinguished Members of the Committee. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee's technical amendment, and I thank the Committee for working with my staff on that. SB 86, which I'm presenting, will extend and expand the California Alternative Energy Advanced Transportation Financing Authority. I'll call that CAEATFA from now on.

It will expand CAEATFA's Sales Use Tax Extension Program. Basically, this program provides sales tax incentives to companies in California that work in renewable energy, advanced transportation, and advanced manufacturing. The highly successful program is set to expire in less than a year. It will expire at the end of this year.

SB 86 will reauthorize the program until January 1, 2031, increase the amount of funding to $200 million, and expand the program to include fusion energy, a favorite of mine, a cutting edge technology with potential to produce unlimited amounts of clean energy.

CAEATFA's STE program is one of the few incentive programs in California that encourages clean energy manufacturing in the state. SB 86 is essential for ensuring that California is not just a state for clean energy research and innovation, but also a state for clean energy manufacturing and quality job creation. With us today, I have testify Christina Sarron, Executive Director of CAEATFA, and Andy Foster of Aemetis. Christina, would you proceed?

Thank you very much. You have two minutes.

Hi. My name is Christina Sarron. I'm the Executive Director for CAEATFA. And I just want to say, because the Senator gave a very good prep about everything that we do. But if you've ever been asked the question, is California business friendly? My program is the answer to that.

Because if you've ever looked around and wondered who is the number one state? It's Wyoming. And they have a $50 billion GDP. But in the last 25 years, they've had five years of negative economic growth. In that same period, California has only had one. And it's because we have a large and diverse economy.

And doing that is what my program does. It encourages manufacturers to come to California and be here, grow, and bring jobs with them. So my program has brought in the last, since its inception in 2010, 385 projects, or 16.5 billion in manufacturing projects in 40 counties. That's nearly 70% of California.

And I'm looking to make that 100% of California eventually. But it resulted in creating or retaining 158,000-283,000 jobs. In addition, we coordinate with the rest of what I like to call call Team California, GO-Biz and CEC. Last year, we worked with GO-Biz team to add semiconductors to our Emerging Strategic Industries list.

And for the first round of 2025, we awarded approximately 50 million to semiconductor projects, most notably Bosch in Roseville. The STE program is popular. Over the years, in order to ensure fairness, we've created separate pools for small, medium, and large projects and instituted a competitive criteria. This year, we are oversubscribed by 11.8 million.

Without the passage of SB 86, the STE program will sunset on January 1, 2026. I hope I have explained the value of our program because it's important part of the capital stack for manufacturing in California, bringing and manufacturing thousands of jobs and assisting with building future economic growth throughout California. And today I brought Xee Moua, my program manager, to answer any technical questions.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name... Yes. Yes, sir. My name is Andy Foster. I'm the President of Aemetis Inc, one of California's largest renewable fuel producers with multiple production facilities located throughout Stanislaus and Merced Counties.

We own and operate the state's largest renewable fuel ethanol production plant, as well as a network of dairy digesters that produce renewable natural gas, or RNG, for use as transportation fuel. Aemetis employs approximately 100 full time employees in the Central Valley and the Bay Area.

I'm here today to express our strong support for the CAEATFA STE, and I strongly encourage your support and aye vote on behalf of its renewal. Since 2021, Aemetis has utilized the CAEATFA STE program as a critical part of our capital expansion program.

Our company is committed to investing over a half a billion dollars in projects that are reducing greenhouse gas emissions throughout the state. We build and operate our projects in disadvantaged communities that are adversely impacted by pollution and poor air quality.

By utilizing the CAEATFA STE program, we can continue displacing CO2 and methane emissions through the purchase of equipment that is critical to our production process. For our dairy RNG business, over $300 million will be invested by Aemetis over an eight year period, yielding 150 full time construction jobs, 20 permanent operational positions, and hundreds of indirect jobs.

Across all three CAEATFA awards Aemetis has received for our RNG projects, Aemetis will eliminate 347,600 metric tons of CO2 equivalent from the atmosphere annually, which is the equivalent to taking 75,000 passenger vehicles or 15,540 heavy duty vehicles off the road. At our ethanol production facility, we added a solar micro grid with battery backup system at our Keyes, California plant.

We are currently in the process of constructing an MVR system that will reduce our natural gas usage and greenhouse gas emissions by over 80%. All of these milestones have been possible because of the very real savings that the CAEATFA STE program has provided Aemetis over the past five years.

As you are all well aware, the cost of building or expanding in California is quite significant. In order to stay competitive with our neighboring states and to keep our state's economy thriving, this program is critical in making investment decisions and keeping California competitive. We urge you to renew this critical program and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of SB 86, please line up. Need your name, your organization, and this is support.

Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association along with ADAC, our Aerospace Defense Alliance of California, in strong support.

Noam Elroi. Noam Elroi on behalf of the California Compost Coalition in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Delilah Clay on behalf of Calpine in support.

Good afternoon. Sam Mahood with Capitol Advocacy on behalf of Bosch in strong support today.

Hello. Keely Morris on behalf of Los Angeles County Sanitation District in support.

Catherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Keilen Fong on behalf of the Cal Asian Chamber of Commerce in support.

Hello. Matt Klopfenstein on behalf of the Bioenergy Association of California, Searles Valley Minerals, and EnergySource Minerals in support. Thank you.

Ben O'Brien on behalf of California Life Sciences in support.

Krystal Raynes on behalf of Californians Against Waste in support.

Phillip Herrera, Herrera and Company, representing Life Sciences semiconductor companies, in strong support.

Jacob Brint on behalf of the California Retailers Association in support.

Alexandra Lavy on behalf of WateReuse California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Primary witness in opposition? Any primary witness in opposition in the room? Seeing none. Want to bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Hearing, seeing none from the Members. Senator, thank you very much for bringing this bill before our Committee. If you wish, you have an opportunity to close at this point.

Well, I thank the Chair and the Committee. This is a great bill. It's going to help California retain its leadership in clean energy manufacturing, and it passes the net benefits test. So in other words, it brings in more money and revenue ultimately than is taxed. So then the tax relief grants it. So with that, I will respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Once we get a, once we establish a quorum, this bill will be referred to our suspense file. And as you know, we will be dealing with our suspense file later on today. So thank you very much. Senator, you have another bill. Do you want to present that other bill? File item number seven, SB 11. 711. That rhymes, 711.

Hello again, Chairman Gipson, Vice Chair...distinguished Members of the Committee. I appreciate your willingness to allow me to present these two bills in a row. SB 711 makes it easier for people and businesses to file taxes by updating California's Revenue and Taxation Code to changes made in the Internal Revenue Service Code since January 1st of 2015.

There have been several bills in the last 10 years to selectively conform to specific federal changes, but there are more than 1,000 federal tax law changes the state has not yet acted upon. These differences frustrate taxpaying Californians when they find that federal and state tax laws hit the same issue in opposite ways.

This Bill is a consensus measure and it tends to implement tax policy changes that are fiscally responsible and avoid policy disputes. This Bill conforms to changes made in the last 10 years that were enacted under three different presidencies and every possible combination of unified or split partisan control of Congress.

However, because this Bill advances the state's tax conformity date to January 1st, 2025, it does not conform to any changes made from federal Bill recently enacted by Congress. I have with me today to testify in support one of the leading experts in California tax law and policy, Gina Rodriguez, whose experience in matters of conformity is absolutely unmatched.

I also have Doreen Defuncio and Jennifer Barton from FTB's Legislative Service Bureau and Aaron...from FTB's legal as well as state Revenue and Tax Committee staff, available for any technical questions. And with that, I will turn it over to Gina Rodriguez.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Gina Rodriguez. I serve as a Principal in the Advocacy Services Practice for Ryan LLC here in Sacramento. Senator McNerney invited me to speak today because I likely have worked on more omnibus federal conformed bills than anyone else in the state, including 1987's AB 53. Julia may have been there too.

1987. That legislation conformed to federal law by President Reagan's sweeping Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was driven by the principles of fairness, efficiency, simplicity, and revenue neutrality. AB 53 marked a fundamental shift in California's tax structure.

It moved the state away from a standalone personal income tax return, which when we had to previously reconstruct the federal return from scratch, to one that begins with federal AGI, and that's where we are today, beginning with federal AGI. This alignment represented a major step toward simplification and consistency between federal and state tax systems.

When addressing federal conformity, there are—there's a general methodology that applies across the states. Some states use rolling conformity, meaning the state automatically conforms to new and amended federal provisions. Some use static conformity. We call that also fixed state conformity, meaning the states conform to federal law, as of a certain date, and that takes deliberative legislative action.

And finally, some states use selective conformity where specific federal provisions are enacted into state law. California uses a combination of static and selective conformity and we use static conformity by way of a specified date, which I will explain in a minute.

But the Legislature also uses a selective conformity or non conformity, specifically conforming or decoupling to a specific federal provision. For example, California has never conformed to Health Savings Accounts or HSAs. Prior to 1983, the California Income and Franchise Tax Laws were standalone. We did not cross reference federal provisions, but we copied whole sections into our law.

Then, in the late 80s, and if you'll reference the chart I passed out, in the late 80s and 90s, California enacted conformity legislation nearly every year. But by the late 90s and 2000s, general date change conformity became less frequent, and the Legislature missed '94 through '96, '99 through 2000, 2002, and on and on.

And we went downhill from there, basically. We are now 10 years behind. In practical terms, what that means is, and again, if you could reference the chart, for example, if you are under audit for the 2014 tax year and there are taxpayers under audit for that year, you need to use federal law as it read January 1st, 2009.

This is just ridiculous, a ridiculous system. We need to update our specified date. If you are preparing a 2024 return, you need to use federal law as it read January 1st, 2015. So, we've got to go 10 years back just to prepare the '24 return.

That's why it is so important to update, as Senator McNerney's Bill does, from January 1st, 2015, to January 1st, 2025. Why conform? Simplification. Simplification all the way around, for taxpayers, for the tax administrators. It reduces their costs of administering such complex laws.

It eases the burden they, the federal—the Franchise Tax Board—can rely on federal law, can rely on federal audits. They can rely on federal case law and regulations. I applaud Senator McNerney and Colin especially and his team for taking on this effort after a 10-year absence. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of SB 711? Name, organization, and this is support.

Peter Blocker, with California Taxpayers Association, in support.

Thank you.

Jennifer Tannehill, with the California Society of Enrolled Agents, in support, and thank—want to thank the Committee and everyone for all their work on this.

Thank you.

Jason Fox, of the California Society of CPAs, in support, and want to thank the author and staff for an inclusive and transfer process.

Thank you. We're going to pause for a moment and establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

A quorum has been established. Anyone in the room, primary opposition to SB 711? Please come forward. Hearing and seeing no one, I want to bring it back to the dais. Any questions for this witness on SB 711? Senator, you may close.

Again, I thank the, the Chair and the Committee. I also want to thank my Committee, staff, and consultants who worked on this tirelessly for a good year, I, I guess. He nods his head. So, it was a good year. And with that, I will ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. This Bill will be referred to our suspense file, and we'll be dealing with our suspense file very shortly. We're going to go back to file item number two.

Well, we can do one, two, and three because we heard that. We just can't--

I'm sorry. What do you want to do?

These are all the ones that we heard that we had to wait until we got a quorum. So now we have a quorum. So--no, you have to refer that to suspense. You might want to go back. So here, I'll do this.

So File Item Number One: SB 56, and we'll refer to our suspense file. File Item Number...

No, we had to refer that to suspense. This one's a vote item. 63. We're on 63 now. We did that one.

Follow number two. SB63 is a vote. Item. Wiener. So can I have a motion? Second. Soon. Properly moved. And second. Madam Secretary, please call the row on file Item number to SB63.

Wiener on SB63. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call] That bill's on call. It needs one vote. That bill is on call. It needs one vote.

That bill is on call. It needs one vote.

File item number three. SB86. That item will be referred to our suspense file. So we have Mr. Grayson file item number six. SB328. Thank you very much for your patience. Is your witnesses present? Yes. Great.

You may commence when ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, esteemed members of the committee, and very capable staff. SB 328 is a necessary bill that would prevent significant cost increases for housing developers who have remediated contaminated soil and returned land to productive use.

In 2022, the legislature passed SB 158, a budget trailer bill that had the goal of stabilizing the budget for the Department of Toxic Substance Control, or we know it as DTSC. In order to achieve this, SB 158 made changes to one of the major fees that are paid to DTSC when remediating a site.

Before SB 158, DTSC used a tiered model with a fee that ranged depending on the project. The fees were also capped at $100,000 for most housing projects, and however, this model was replaced with a fixed price per ton model of $46.20 per ton.

These changes to the hazardous waste generator fee have had a significant impact on development and have increased costs for several essential housing projects and projects that provide community development. This fee significantly increased the cost of remediating contaminated soil in urban infill sites or or in situations where developers encountered naturally occurring toxic materials.

For instance, a housing project in San Francisco saw their fees rise from $100,000 to $800,000. The increased fee was has made several projects infeasible at a time where California is already struggling with rising cost. To help provide relief and reduce costs for these important essential housing projects.

SB 328 would establish a cap on hazardous waste generator fee at $100,000 per project per year for infill projects and 250,000 per project per year for master developed projects. This bill would also place timelines on DTSC for responding to development related actions to help prevent delays in the development process.

At a time where California is facing increased development costs, we must do what we can to create a more favorable environment that allows us to build housing that's affordable. Builders who are repurposing the land for productive use should not be penalized, especially those remediating pollution rather than causing it.

SB 328 would provide much needed relief at a time where costs are constantly increasing. I do have witnesses with me through the chair. I would have them self introduced.

Thank you very much. Two minutes please.

Mr. Chair and members, Louis Morante on behalf of the Bay Area Council here in support. Thanks for hearing us out. The Bay Area Council represents about 350 of the region's largest employers. We've worked on housing and related issues for over 80 years.

This bill would help us build more infill housing and lead to cleaning up more pollution by capping the generation and handling fee charged by DTSC for residential infill housing and master development projects. In 2021, when the legislature removed the cap on this fee, there was an unexpected- unexpectedly large fee increase for many infill housing projects.

As Senator Grayson mentioned, many of those fees went from $100,000 a year to $800,000 a year. In some cases, developers had to pay the fee twice, stopping projects in their tracks to be clear, these projects have in the past paid for the remediation of any soil they excavated and they will do so under the bill today.

The generation and handling fee is just for DTSC to monitor and verify that the cleanup is being done. We worry that an uncapped fee will push housing away from our urban areas and cause less soil remediation to occur, leaving communities polluted.

The bill also applies key principles from the state's Permit Streamlining act to the cleanup review process in ways that will make cleaning up that land easier to do. The bill would, for example, require DTSC to review and provide initial response to cleanup plans within 60 days or 120 days, depending on the size of the project.

DTSC would include in this response their request for any additional information or relevant timelines that the project must abide. We believe that these changes strike the right balance between allowing DTSC to cover the costs of their essential work while allowing important housing projects to move forward with certainty and at a reasonable cost.

For these reasons, the Bay Area Council is proud to co sponsor this bill and we urge your support for today. Thank you.

Two minutes please.

Thank you. Good afternoon chair and committee members. My name is Ali Sapirman. I'm the Advocacy and Policy Manager for the Housing Action Coalition, or HAC for short. HAC is a member supported statewide organization that advocates for building more infill homes at all levels of affordability.

I'm here today as a proud sponsor of SB 328, a bill that will provide certainty to housing projects on the amount of fees they are required to pay to the Department of Toxic Substances Control when cleaning up contaminated development sites.

Since the previous witness covered the history and the intent of the bill, I'm here to provide practical examples from our members of how the impact- of the impact the fee has had on projects. In August of 2023, UC Law SF, formerly known as UC Hastings, which is a public independent law school, opened up a mixed use building that provides 656 housing units for students.

Site preparation for the project resulted in the disposal of hazardous waste, approximately 89 tons in winter 2020 and 2,400 tons in 2021. In 2021, UC Law paid a $104,932 fee to verify the remediation.

In 2022, they received what was first believed to be an erroneous double billing, but ended up being additional fees for the same waste already assessed and paid for this time. Under the new 2022 fee structure, the additional fee, totaling $117,545 was coupled with $21,814.22 in penalties and interest for a grand total of over $240,000.

The new fee passed weeks before UC Law ceased generating There was no way they could have planned for it when underwriting the housing project. While the project itself was privately financed, most of the student body receives aid and every resident pays rent, meaning some of these costs are borne by the Taxpayer Dollars.

We surveyed our members and paying an additional $600,000 in fees was reported to be a regular occurrence. The issue is simply is not simply the fee, but it is the unanticipated increase of fees without a cap. We appreciate the vital role the department plays and we understand the challenges the state is facing.

However, the imposition of the increased fee to make up for the budget shortfalls has placed an unreasonable burden on California builders working to address our housing shortage. We believe that SB 328 can provide a win win for the state by ensuring that contaminated soil is cleaned up while allowing for important projects to move forward.

We respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in room wishing to speak in support?

Mr. Chair, members, Cesar Diaz with Capitol Advocacy on behalf of Housing California in support.

Thank you.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City of Vernon, in strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership and also today on behalf of the California Housing Consortium in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras, Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Habitat for Humanity California in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any primary witness in opposition, please come forward. Hearing and seeing none. Bring it back to the committee. Questions? Senator Grace. Okay. Senator Grayson, you may close if you wish.

Thank you so very much. Just a reminder, DTSC does not remove the contaminated materials. The developers remove it. Paying for that cost, DTSC simply certifies that contaminated toxic materials have been removed.

And with that, what we're trying to do is make sure that infill, especially something that can be used for housing, is attractive to developers to develop and turn into housing and not leave contaminated in perpetuity. Especially you find that not too uncommon in our underserved communities.

So with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time is appropriate.

Thank you very much. This bill will be referred to our suspense file. Thank you very much. Your witnesses for appearing. Thank you. Thank you. Is Mr. Archuleta coming? Senator Padilla, file item number five, SB 302. Thank you for hearing your witnesses with you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Okay. Fantastic. And you may proceed when ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members. Good afternoon. I'm here to present SB 302. I should begin by saying that we will accept committee amends referenced in the, in the analysis with respect to sunset, but our office did not hear back with respect to the specific timeline or closure date on the sunset.

So whatever that is, we'll accept that as respecting the standing policy of the committee. The development of affordable clean energy projects in California, as you know, is critical when mitigating rising energy costs for ratepayers. The 2022 federal Inflation Reduction Act contains several clean energy investment incentives.

Two of these key provisions of the IRA provide additional mechanisms for eligible taxpayers to monetize certain clean energy tax credits, but California's Tax Code has not been updated to reflect these, making it impossible to fully take advantage of these incentives.

Specifically, taxpayers here in California who sell CETC may be required to include the sale of the credits and the gross income for franchise tax purposes, negating the value of the credit in large part. Without the ability to fully utilize these incentives, clean energy projects in California will cost more to build, leading to higher ratepayer costs.

SB 302 would bring the California Tax Code into conformity with the provisions of the IRA, allow for renewable energy credits to be transferred and monetized. By allowing California business to utilize the incentives laid out in the IRA, SB 302 will help to increase clean energy development in California, advancing the state's clean energy goals and promoting affordability for ratepayers.

Here with me today is the CEO of Wellhead Electric, Hal Dittmer, and Jeremy Smith with the State Building Construction Trades Council of California.

Thank you very much. Welcome. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Hal Dittmer, President and CEO of Wellhead, a California-based energy company that my wife and I, Judy, started in Sacramento in 1982. We've been here about 40 years, built 22 projects, all of which have been very successful. We're focused almost exclusively now on developing energy storage projects.

We're a small company, 70 employees, proud to be here in California doing business. We're in the final planning stages of six new projects, 700 megawatts total, very critical to the future of California renewable energy, and by the way, I want to point out that energy storage has survived well the new legislation in Washington D.C. These projects are very, very capital-intensive. They're hard to build. We have what we call the three-legged financial stool, our own capital.

We have trusted financial institutions who have lent money to us all the way back to first project in Yuba City in 1990 and the federal energy tax credit. The energy tax credit is just absolutely key to this entire financing structure. And one of those legs disappears or gets hit badly, the projects really don't work.

Projects are real, they'll get built, but really critical is the conformity issue, conforming California tax law to the federal tax law. So we've built stuff on budget, on time, local hires, highly skilled engineers, union labor, got a good reputation. I want to underscore three points. This is a federal tax credit. This is not a state tax giveaway.

California is behind. Every other state has reached the conformity situation with the federal tax law. Every other state. Nonconformity--and this is a really big deal--is bad for affordability because what will happen here is if this gets included in the cost of building in California, those tax ultimately get passed on to ratepayers.

So in short, we think this is a common sense, pro-climate, pro-affordability bill, and we request, respectfully request your support in an aye vote on 302.

Thank you very much. Next witness, two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Jeremy Smith, here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. I'm not going to try and touch the tax conformity laws in my statement. It's for much smarter people. Looking at you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Ruff, the folks next to me here to talk about.

I wanted to just touch on the need for these, for this bill and for this historic investment that came out of the previous administration in Washington D.C. We, as you all know, fight very hard for our members, our thousands of members who work in the traditional energy sector in the state.

However, projects such as Wellhead's projects, energy storage projects, our members are trained to build those projects as well. We've built the vast majority of green projects, whether it be storage, whether it be geothermal, pump storage, hydro, solar over the last 20 years. We stand ready to build these projects as well.

These credits and this tax conformity are so critical to get some of these projects off the ground--many of these projects off the ground--and to give Californians--men and women who are journeymen or journeywomen or apprentices in the state of--pre-apprenticeship program--a place to work, a place to learn their craft and to, you know, spend time on a job site which they're required to do to become a journeyperson in their respective trade.

So this tax conformity seems very common sense, very simple to understand--we're the only state that hasn't done it yet--but just this small change is going to make a big difference in getting a lot of these projects off the ground and it's going to be able to put a lot of our members to work, and especially as the state transitions, you know, we need a lot more of these types of projects to get off the ground and get going. So for those reasons, we're here in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support, name, organization, and this is support.

Mr. Chair and members, Cesar Diaz with Capitol Advocacy, here on behalf of NextEra Energy, in support.

Thank you.

Ellon Brittingham with Full Moon Strategies, here on behalf of San Diego Community Power, in support.

Thank you.

Peter Blocker of the California Taxpayers Association, in support.

Cara Martinson, on behalf of the Large-Scale Solar Association, in support.

Catherine Charles, on behalf of San Jose Clean Energy, in support.

Thank you.

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

Delilah Clay, on behalf of the Independent Energy Producers Association, in support.

Thank you.

Jaime Minor, on behalf of the California Community Choice Association, Intersect Power, MCE, and the California Efficiency and Demand Management Council, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Constance Hovis, on behalf of ENGIE North America, in support.

Thank you.

Lily MacKay, on behalf of Terra-Gen, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Megan Murray, on behalf of AES, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors, on behalf of Fluence and Invenergy, in support.

Thank you.

Melissa Cortez, on behalf of the California Wind Energy Association, in support.

McKinley Thompson-Morley, on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association, EDF Power Solutions, and EDP, in support.

Juliet Lazard, on behalf of American Clean Power, in support.

Thank you. Any primary opposition, please come forward. Hearing and seeing none, bring it back to the committee. Any questions for this witness? Hearing and seeing none, Senator, you may close if you wish.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members. Hopefully at the right time presents itself, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. This bill will, in fact, be referred to our suspense file and we will be dealing with our suspense file later on today. Thank you very much, Senator, and to your witnesses for appearing. I think we have one more. If anyone sees Senator Archuleta, would you please tell them that we're looking for him?

So, we have an author with us, Senator Archuleta. We have file item number four, SB 296. Thank you very much, Senator, for joining us as your witnesses with you.

It is my honor, Mr. Chair, and, and Assembly Members, Committee Members. Thank you so very much, as Sharon Quirk-Silva and I just finished our going running back and forth with other veterans' issues that it seemed to be our Veterans Day today.

We've got—we had a big press conference this morning that we're finally going to have a veterans' cemetery in Orange County.

Well, congratulations on that.

Spearheaded by your very own Sharon Quirk-Silva, and she is taking the lead on that. And my Committee just passed it 100%.

So, hopefully by October this year and into early next year, we'll start breaking ground. It's amazing what we can do when we come together for our veterans. Well, Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to present my Bill. Everyone in this room deeply honors our veterans with their unwavering commitment to our country.

No doubt. Senate Bill 296 will offer much needed tax relief to veterans who either own a home or are looking to purchase their very first home in California.

Veterans from across the nation and here in California have shown their support for this particular Bill, recognizing the positive economic impact it will have on their families and their families in the future. The veterans eligible for this property tax exemption served our country with honor.

And in many cases, who gave up parts of their body mentally, physically, and whether it be in combat, whether it was literally falling out of an airplane, a truck, a Jeep, whatever it was, broke their backs and were no longer able to walk or work and became 100% disabled.

Housing affordability remains a significant concern for veterans, with nearly 35% of the veterans paying more than 30% of their income for housing. Housing is an issue here in California that addresses veterans and civilians alike. Disabled veterans is this Bill.

Disabled veterans are eager to reside in this state, yet the prevailing economic conditions are creating significant financial strains for them. So, imagine by having a tax relief, what that will do to our veterans. Senate Bill 296 provides a property tax exemption for 100% disabled veterans.

Let me point that again, 100% disabled veterans, that we don't have a lot of veterans who really own a property and have owned it for a considerably long time, but those that do, that exemption would really help. The veterans who may be now with the VA helping with wheelchair access will now be able to buy that home.

So, it's really going to open doors. This includes veterans who have either have that 100% rating from the VA, and some of those ratings consist of veterans who are blind in both eyes, who have lost two or more limbs.

This Bill also offers tax exemption to the unmarried surviving spouse of a qualifying deceased veteran, which is very, very important.

And with CalVet, I don't know if you know this, but CalVet now has a program that veterans who have young people in their family, their daughters and sons, can go on and get a full education with our Cal State schools because of CalVet. And that is for all veterans, not just disabled.

So, I think California is doing things that we're finally joining some of the other states in the union, supporting and loving our veterans. A full disabled veteran property tax exemption is a courtesy provided in numerous states, including Texas, which recently surpassed California and becoming the state with the largest number of veterans, but we want that population back.

We want to hold our veterans here. Other states who have passed legislation similar to Senate Bill 296 include Florida, Virginia, New Mexico, and Hawaii. We must do more to ensure that our veterans can afford to live in California.

And it's my hope that Senate Bill 296 will give veterans a much needed tax relief during these tough times and will open up the door for them to stay in California, buy a home in California and raise their families. So, with me today, I would normally have one of our veterans, but they were both called away.

So, my presentation is just from me, a veteran who served with the 82nd Airborne, a veteran who has two sons that are still serving right now who are both West Point graduates, paratroopers like I was, and they're raising their family.

So, I was just informed early this morning that my son, who's in Germany, will be back in California next year at this time, and I'm hoping that he can go ahead and think about buying his home and staying in California.

The other one is 100% disabled and he's looking to come back in two years and hopefully, he'll be able to have the ability to buy his home because of Senate Bill 296. And with that, I urge an aye vote.

Well, thank you very much, Senator. I always look forward to hearing you always talk and brag about your sons and thank you, as well as your sons, for your service. It is great country into this great nation and thank you for your service.

So, with that being said, anyone wishing to speak in support of SB 296, need your name, your organization, and this is support. Please approach.

Matt Knox, on behalf of the California Association County Veterans Service Officers, in strong support.

Thank you.

Nicole Wadleman, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Thank you.

Cody Pennington, from the Kings County Veterans Service Office, in full support.

Thank you.

Yolanda Benson for San Bernardino County Veterans Service Office.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Amy Garrett, California Association of Realtors, very much in support of the measure.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kasha Hunt with Nossaman, on behalf of the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors, in support.

Thank you very much. Any primary opposition, please come forward. Hearing and seeing none. Anyone in the room wishing to express opposition to SB 296, you have the same right. Hearing and seeing none. Want to bring it back to Committee for any questions. Member Quirk-Silva.

Just move the Bill, and very excited to see the work you've been doing in your time here as Chair of Senate. And today is a good day for veterans.

Thank you very much. This Bill is a candidate for Suspense file. Thank you very much. Senator, you may close if you wish.

Well, I would just like to say thank you for your love of our veterans and making it short because it's a long day and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for appearing and thank you again for your service to this country and to this state and your leadership. Thank you. This item is a suspense item. Will refer to the suspense file. Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

Want to lift the call for item number...

Item number two. SB 63. Madam Secretary, please call the row.

SB 63. Calling the absentees. [Roll Call]. That bill passes 4-0.

That bill passes 4-0. I mean, 4-2.

Four to two. Excuse me.

Thank you.

Okay. We're waiting for Ms. McKennor to join us.

So, as stated earlier this year, when we took up the suspense file for these Assembly bills, the current budget situation was uncertain. Economic outlook required us to act thoughtfully when considering bills that add a state revenue impact. It is the responsibility of this Committee to prioritize those measures.

That are most aligned with this, with our state's public policy goals. With that being in mind, we will now take up bills on our suspense file and file order starting with those bills that were present ear presented earlier. File item number one. SB56. Seyarto. SB56 is going to be held in Committee. Next File item number three.

SB86 by Senator McNerney. The Chair is recommending Aye vote with the amendments to reduce the aggregate cap to 1 million and. I'm sorry, excuse me. 100 million. Excuse me. 100 million annually. To provide a technical change of. The motion is do pass to the appropriation. Do I have a motion? And a Second as amended. File item.

Number three. SB86 improperly moved. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB 86 the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That passes 7-0.

That bill passes 7-0. Next, follow item number four. SB 96. Archuleta.

Never mind, never mind, never mind.

SB 296 will be made a two year bill. File item number. Follow number five. SB 302. Padilla. The Chair is recommending an Aye vote with the amendments to be made. The provisions effective starting January 1, 2026 apply a five year sunset. The motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations.

Do I have a motion properly moved in second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB 302 the motion is to pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That bill's out 7-0.

That bill's out 7-0. Next file on number six. SB. SB 328. Grayson. The Chair is recommending an Aye vote. The motion is do pass to appropriation. Do I have a motion? It's been properly moved in second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB328. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call] That bill's out 70.

That bill's out 70. Next is file item seven. SB 711. McNerney. The chair is recommending an Aye vote. The motions due pass the appropriation. Mother has been properly moved and seconded by Mr. Carrillo. Madam Secretary please call the roll.

On SB 711. The motion is due pass two appropriations. [Roll Call] That passes 4-1.

That bill passes four to one. Now we will move to the items that were referred to the suspense file at the prior hearing. We will move to file item 8, SB284. Seyarto. That bill will be held in Committee. We'll move to File item number 9, SB293. Perez. The Chair is recommending an Aye vote.

May I have a motion? So properly moved in second. Madam Secretary, please call to roll.

On SB293 the motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call] It passes 7-0.

That bill passes 7-0. SB profile item number 10. SB 353. Alvarado-Gil. That bill will be made a two year bill. File item number 11. SB 359. Niello. The Chair is recommending Aye vote. May I have a motion.

It's been properly moved. A second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB 359 The motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That's out 7-0.

That bill gets out 7-0. File item number 12. SB 419. Caballero. The Chair is recommending an Aye vote. May I have a motion been properly moved and second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on SB419.

On SB419. The motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That passes 7-0.

That bill is out 7-0. Next is file item 13. SB 587. Grayson, the Chair is recommending an Aye vote. Do I have a motion?

Properly moved in second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB587. The motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That passes 7-0.

That bill is out 7-0. File item number 14. SB 591. The Chair is recommending an Aye vote with amendments that do the following. Remove the provisions related to the corporation penalties to provide that the for individuals no penalties shall apply for the first violation for the EFT requirement. 3.

The provision provide the current percentage based penalties shall apply to all subsequent violations and 4. Make the Bill proud prospective. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriation. Do I have a motion? Need a second. It's been moved in second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due passes amended to appropriation. [Roll Call] That bill passes. 6-0.

Bill is out 6-0. File item 15. SB 603 Neo. The Chair is recommending an Aye vote with amendments to the Aye vote with amendments adding additional five year sunset. The motions do pass to appropriation as amended. Is there a motion? It's been properly moved in second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB603. The motion is due passes amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That's out 7-0.

That bill is out 7-0. Next is file item number 16. SB663. Allen. The Chair is recommending an Aye vote with amendments that that aligns with the eligible eligible date of damages with recent added qualifying fires and corrected a draft error. The motions do pass to appropriation. Do I have as amended. Do I have a motion?

It's been properly moved in second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB663. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

File item 16. SB663. Allen.

[Roll Call] That bill passes.

Bill passes. 5-0. File item number 17. SB710. Blakespear. The Chair is recommending an aye vote with amendments to limit the exclusion to a non residential property to qualify active solar energy system producing less than one megawatt of electricity. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriation. Is that right? Sure.

The Chair is recommending an aye vote with the amendments to limit the exclusion on a non residential property to qualified active Solar energy systems producing less than 1 megawatt of electricity excluded if they over 1 megawatt. Is there a motion? It's been moved. Is there a second? It's removed in second.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB 710 the motion is due passes amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Passes 4-0 that bill.

That bill is out. 4-0. File item number 18 SB 723. Choi. The bill is held in Committee. File item the final bill. The last bill on the agenda. The File item number 19 SB785. Caballero. The Chair's recommending Aye vote. Do I have a motion improperly moved? And second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB 785 the motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call] It's out 7-0.

That bill is out 7-0. Give me one moment.

This is the Last Committee for the Reverend Newton Taxation Committee. I want to thank my colleagues. Great job, hard work to the Committee staff. Thank you very much. We stand adjourned. Thank you very much.