Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance

The communications and conveyance committee is now called to order. My name is Tasha Boerner, and I serve as Chair of this committee. Joining me on the dais today are is Kate Sanchez, who is subbing in for Leticia Castillo. There we go. It's already here.

And we have Chris Rogers, as well. And we are also joined by Emilio Perez, chief consultant of the communications committee, and Elizabeth Delgado, the committee secretary. As well, we have Daniel Ballen as the Republican policy consultant.

There are two items on today's agenda, and there are no items on the proposed consent agenda. Before we begin our presentation, I'd like to take care of some logistical housekeeping as we proceed with the witnesses and public comment.

I wanna make sure everyone understands that the assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order run and efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings regardless of the viewpoints they express.

We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California. You can exit the hearing room once you are done testifying or return to your seat. Now let us cover the ground rules for appropriate conduct.

The assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to committee and floor proceedings in the past few years. As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention, to the rules for public attendance and participation, which were posted outside the door.

In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of our legislative proceedings.

We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place as permitted by me, the Chair. Public comment must relate be related to the subject being discussed today. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of these hearings.

Please be aware that violations of these rules may be sub may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions.

We noticing the absence of a quorum will operate as a subcommittee and will proceed to item one. Do we have nope. We're gonna res proceed to item two unless I'm mistaken. Yeah. So we have item two.

We're hearing AB 2279 by Assemblymember Gipson relating to the California Advanced Services Fund, rural and urban regional broadband consortia grant account. Assemblymember Gipson, you may open.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2279. The record is freezing in here, but we won't complain. I wanna start off by thanking the committee and the Chair, for working with my team, and I'll be accepting the committee amendments.

So I wanna go on record. Assembly Bill 2279 seeks to strengthening the partnership between the regional broadband consortium and the California Public Utilities Commission to close the the the digital divide, promoting the digital inclusion and achieve the digital equity.

The Regional Broadband Consortium makes up of dedicated individuals from nonprofit local governments and economic development organizations from all over California. California face a precedence digital divide. Millions of low income housing and rural residents lack meaningful broadband access.

The regional broadband consortium are the local experts in their community helping to close the digital divide. Excuse me. Tongue twister. Maximizing federal and state funds and connecting every California to be, to have Internet regardless of their ZIP codes and or their income.

They position, as regional hubs to coordinate infrastructure development, connecting underserved communities to affordable services and deliver digital literacy programs, but only if funds are empowered to do so. Under current law, the regional, broadband consortium authorize authorized limit or authorized limited funds, are available.

AB 2279 seeks to expand the Regional Broadband Consortium authorized modern modernizing, their funds structure by, amending the California Advanced Servicing funds. Specifically, the bill would do the following.

One, expanding authority for the regional broadband consortium. Two, engage in all aspects of broadband's development and adoption.

To provide sufficient multiyear funding to 200,000 to 500 thousands per consortium per year to support meaningful stakeholders, engagement. Three, perform, reform, grants from reimbursement based to performance based, payment, which is important.

Assembly Bill 2279's goal is very clear, to close the digital divide, promote digital inclusion, and achieve true digital equity across California.

Here with me to to provide supporting testimony to AB2279 will be representative from Redwood, Coastal Broadband Consortium, who was self introduced.

Each of the witnesses have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the committee. My name is Connie Stewart. I am the Executive Director of Initiatives for Cal Poly Humboldt. I need to say to you I'm glad to say to you the board of trustees has not taken a position on this bill yet, nor has Humboldt State.

But I have the honor of hosting the Redwood Coast Regional Consortia. And, I have been doing this for about 17 years trying to bring broadband to the the Northern Region.

I'm here on behalf of all of the consortia from across the state who are very thankful to Assembly Member Gipson for introducing AB 2279. This bill is meant to strengthen the work of the regional consortia.

And let me just pause and say, what we really do is we are field representatives for the issue of broadband in our region. We know our region.

Everyone who is doing this work is really interconnected in our region, and we are the field reps for for we provide field reps not only for our, our our organizations in our regions, but also, work very closely with the, Internet providers in our region.

This bill, as Assembly Member Gipson, said does three things. It expands the role to add some adoption activities as essential to closing the digital divide. And I just wanna take a moment and give you an example I came up with today.

When AT&T calls and asks me to help them set up laptop giveaways to to youth in the community, Technically, I can't do that under this program. So there's some limited adoption activities that really help engage deployment.

And secondly, this will increase funding because yeah. So I got three seconds. And finally, this will help us with performance based pay instead of being paid twice a year.

Thank you. And I will pause the the supporters' presentation right now To take a moment to establish quorum. Secretary, can you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Okay. You may continue two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Navreet Hundal representing Valley Vision, which manages the Connected Capital Area Broadband Consortium encompassing the Greater Sacramento region and counties of Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba.

For over a decade, Valley Vision has managed the Broadband Consortium, building trust with our local government jurisdictions, regional planning authorities, and key stakeholders to support the commission's goal for broadband deployment and address a high

priority need for our region. Under current legislative guidelines, consortium scope of work on data collection, information sharing, application assistant, and other forms of technical assistance are limited to deployment grants.

As our state remains committed to equitable broadband access highlighted through the Broadband for All initiative, as well as the commission's CASF adoption account, digital divide grant program, and California lifeline home broadband pilot, one thing is clear,

deployment and adoption cannot work in silos. Our local government jurisdictions, partners request for technical assistance and support does not stop at broadband deployment. Consortiums are continuously requested buyer partners to identify needs and opportunities

within their communities that address connectivity through both deployment and adoption. These expanded opportunities are fundamental in aligning deployment with local broadband strategy plans, achieving commitments to residents on broadband access,

and strengthening local partnerships to the state's broadband for all goals. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have we're joined by Assemblymember Bonta, Assemblymember Hoover. So we have a quorum, and I would like to thank the proponents, and we'll move to any additional witnesses in support. You may approach the mic with name, affiliation, and position only, please.

Hello. My name is Kat Zignat. I'm with the California Emerging Technology Fund, and we are in support of AB227.

Good afternoon. My name is Mark Reavis. I'm the manager of North Bay North Coast broadband consortium. Oh, thank you. My name is Mark Reavis.

I'm the manager of the North Bay North Coast Broadband Consortium and also the broadband project manager for the county of Napa, and I support this bill.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet in support.

Good afternoon. I'm Maura Gilday. On behalf of the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership and Central Coast Broadband Consortium, we are in support of AB 2279.

Thank you to our witnesses in support. Moving on, are there any primary witnesses in opposition? We had none registered. Okay. Then we will move on.

Any witnesses in opposition just that wanna say name, position, or name, organization, position only? Okay. Seeing none. Thank you to all the witnesses bringing back to the committee. Are there any Members that like to speak on this bill?

Assemblymember Rogers.

Thank you so much, Chair. Mostly, I wanna speak just to say hi to Connie Stewart who's just amazing in our district and does a good job for Cal Poly Humboldt and came a long way to be here to advocate for the bill.

But since I can ask you a question, you've shared with me some of the challenges of operating some of the grants as they exist at an institution in California, especially from a a smaller perspective.

Can you share some of those with the committee and how this bill might help out a little bit?

Well, I think that the issue of going to performance space really will solve a lot of the problems currently. We have to do time cards for the CPUC that, and deployment doesn't change on a fifteen minute time card. Right? That's not how we get service into the community.

I think that this will help with paperwork. Plus, the CPUC has a unique way of considering considering how to pay us and reimburse us. They ask for the bill I mean, the the current law requires them to do a separate audit on this $200,000.

So although many of our organizations do annual audits, we have to bring the auditors in to do a specific audit on this 200,000, which costs us about $10,000 a year. So already, $30,000 in some cases of the grant over a three year period is going to auditing $200,000. So,

And to punctuate the point, because you operate under the CSU system, does the CSU's auditing system already account for these grants? Do you have to do a separate secondary audit?

Currently, we run about $62,000,000 of grants through our system. And so this year, I was not able to apply for a grant because just the nature of the fact that the CPUC considers, like, they want us to separate fringe benefits from wages and count them as administrative,

and they have other requirements that are included right now, we realized we would have to build an entirely different accounting system for $200,000. And so that's an audit that would produce an audit finding on its own.

Why are you treating this money different than you treat every other state and federal grant? So we I was told I could not apply. Our consortia, ironically, went to to USDA, and we got a grant from the Trump administration for twice as much money, $400,000 for this year.

So that's also why we're we also have the provision here to ask for a little bit more money. 200,000 was a lot of money when this program was created when then Senator Padilla was in office. It's not a lot of money now for doing regional. My area is the size of the state of Connecticut.

Right now, we're not allowed to get reimbursed for travel. So oftentimes, I'm telling community members I can only Zoom into their meeting, and they really wanna see me. They really wanna see me.

So I what we're really asking is to be field reps again like we used to be where we would show up in the community and be able to introduce the provider and and really work with that community to make sure that we were closing the digital divide. Thank you for the question.

Yeah. Absolutely. And especially with the focus on middle mile and all of the work that you've had up up in our region on that. And then just the last note is the community does wanna see Connie. That's why she tried to retire almost four months ago, and they wouldn't let her. And she's here today.

I have flunked retirement again and agreed to stay on longer. Yes.

Just to work just to work on this project and behavioral. Yeah.

Yes.

I appreciate it.

And was that a motion on the bill, Mr. Rogers. Second. Thank you. Well, the motion was by Rogers, second by Crowell. Okay.

Any other questions from members? We have a motion. I have a second. Assembly Member Gipson, you may close.

I will let, miss Connie's, remarks be my closing. Thank you.

Very wise, Mr. Gipson. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. Your bill enjoys a due pass as amended recommendation with the committee amendments and no opposition. Thank you to you and your sponsors for working constructively with the committee on the amendments.

The motion on AB 2279 by Assembly Member Gipson is due passed as amended and re referred to the committee on appropriations.

Will the secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That is out. We're waiting for one Member to arrive, so that goes out. Congratulations, Mr. Gipson.

So much.

Thank you to the witnesses. So with that, our next bill, we're hearing AB 2041 by Assembly Member Juan Carrillo related to emergency medical services. And just as a friendly reminder to everyone in this room and my committee, our committee's jurisdiction is only I can't read my own writing.

Only over the end use surcharge in this bill. So just as a friendly reminder, this bill is also referred to committee on emergency management.

Our committee jurisdiction is over the end use surcharge. And with that, Assemblymember Carrillo, you may open, and then each of your witnesses will have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members as well, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2041. Last year, my bill, AB 645, a requirement for public safety agencies to train 911 dispatchers and how to provide callers with pre arrival medical assistant instructions

related to CPR, chalking, child beer, bleeding control, and other emergencies. AB 2041 seeks to build upon this work by adding what's already required by law to the list of mandatory standards. Public safety agencies must meet to qualify for the state emergency telephone number account, otherwise known as SEDNA funding.

And to be clear, this bill will not affect or make any changes to the SEDNA funding structure or dollar amount. Dispatchers are often the first voice a person hears in a life or death emergency, and we owe it to Californians to ensure those voices are trained and equipped to save lives.

Studies show that when dispatchers provide step by step instructions over the phone, bystanders are significantly more likely to perform these life saving maneuvers. This bill is aimed at helping Californians help their family members, their friends, and their neighbors when they are experiencing

a critical public health need. Joining me today to testify are regional director Katie McNulty, representing the medical American Medical Response and Jimmy Pearson, president of Medic Ambulance, and I take it over to them.

Thank you. My name is Katharina McNulty, and I've been involved with the emergency medical dispatch for 23 years. I'm here today to share why emergency medical dispatch protocols matter because I personally have seen their impact and have been honored on three separate

occasions for providing life saving instructions over the phone using these protocols. Each of those calls begin the same way. Someone on the other end of the line experiencing the worst moment of their life, a loved one not breathing, a friend with uncontrolled bleeding from a

laceration of the neck, and most recently, an imperiled community trapped by wildfire. With the use of pre arrival instructions, I was able to give them a fighting chance to survive. In those moments, there is no room for guesswork. Emergency medical dispatch protocols provided

structure, evidence based instructions, and allowed dispatchers to turn a bystander into instant help. Through calm direction, coaching CPR, managing airways, controlling bleeding, delivering breech babies, and so much more,

We can bridge the critical gap between 911 call and the arrival of EMS. The three awards I received were not about personal recognition. They were acknowledgments that the instructions given over the phone directly contributed lives being saved.

In each case, the patient survived because early protocol driven intervention began before responders could arrive. These outcomes reinforce the important truth. Dispatchers can be the first chain of survival.

When properly trained and supported by validated protocols, emergency medical dispatch saves lives every day, quietly, consistently, and often without public awareness. For the life of me, I cannot imagine answering a 911 call and not having these tools available.

How helpless I would feel trying to provide reassurance that help is on the way while listening to someone take their last breaths. I share this testimony to advocate for continued investment in the protocols, information, dispatcher training, and recognition of the critical role dispatch plays in emergency medical response. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, Members. My name is James Pearson. I'm the President of Medicam Loan Service. We operate in eight counties. Eight counties across Northern California and our 911 provider in Sonoma, Solano, and Sacramento Counties.

I'm also a board member of the California Association, past president, and I'm here to support, Assemblymember Carrillo and AB 2041. I want to be very clear. This bill is about ensuring that when someone calls 911 in California, they receive life saving instructions immediately no matter

where they are. At medic ambulance, we don't see that as a theoretical issue. It's something that we do live every day. In Solano County, across our cities like Fairfield, Sioux City, Vallejo, and Benicia, we experienced inconsistencies and sometimes no emergency medical dispatch sorry,

pre arrival instructions at all. That means two different patients can activate same emergency system in neighboring cities and receive two very different levels of of emergency calls before they arrive before we arrive. And in emergencies like cardiac arrest, choking, or severe bleeding,

those first few minutes matter. I've been a paramedic for thirty years. I've seen it or twenty years. Sorry. I just added ten more years of my career, but I haven't earned it yet. The difference between getting instructions and not getting them can be the difference between that life and death

before, like I said, before we arrive. AB 645 establishes that ex expectation, and AB 2041 simply ensures that expectation becomes a reality. We've heard concerns that this bill is premature or punitive. From our perspective on the ground, the risk is not acting soon enough.

Without accountability, implement implementation can be uneven, and patients will continue to experience gaps in the care depending on where they call from. This bill is not about punishment or punishing anyone. It's about setting a consistent minimum standard of care for 911 callers.

Every other I'll end it there. Sorry.

You can respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

You can respectfully ask for an Aye vote. With that, thank you to the proponents. We'll move to any additional witnesses in support. You may approach the mic with name, affiliation, and position only, please.

What's that?

Seeing no additional witnesses, moving on, there's one primary witness that registered before him in opposition, Mark Smith from Calnena.

Is that correct? You you could come set up the dais if you want.

Do you mind if I stand, Madam Chair?

Don't mind if you stand.

Thank you. I just don't like sitting with my back to members all the time when I talk. My name is Mark Smith. I'm representing the California chapter of the National Emergency Number Association. We are the voice of 911 dispatchers in California.

Let me be clear to state based on the, testimony from the witnesses. We are not disputing the need for pre arrival instructions or emergency medical dispatch, and we all agreed to that last year under the provisions of AB 645.

What we are concerned about today and the reason for our opposed position is twofold. One, this bill doesn't even take effect until January 1, 2027.

So what is happening today is that the sponsors of the measure are presupposing that there are going to be public safety answering points that are not going to follow the law that the legislature implemented last year in AB 645.

We don't believe that to be the case. In any case, we believe that it's premature to bring in a bill with an enforcement mechanism forward today when we still have nine months to go before the bill is already law.

Second, we are concerned about the enforcement mechanism, and I think this fits the jurisdiction of the committee. This bill proposes to restrict a PSAP from any access to SEDNA funding if it occurs that this limited amount of training has not been provided.

Let's be clear what SEDNA funding does. That is the funding that helps a PSAP operate. It helps staff. It helps with the technical infrastructure. It helps with the transition to next generation 911. It helps with all of the things that emergency dispatch does for you and your communities every single day.

I'm not sure that we want to deny a PSAP access to this funding because this one issue is not being appropriately addressed. Finally, we would say, and we have asked for this repeatedly, we asked for this during the AB 645 conversation.

Please tell us which PSAPs in the state of California do not already offer pre arrival instructions or emergency medical dispatch as part of life saving care when you call 911.

I'd like to start with an education campaign as opposed to a weaponized enforcement mechanism that restricts access to funding. The sponsors have never been able to provide us with a list of those dispatch centers that they believe are not appropriately providing these triage instructions.

Oh, I've heard Solano County. Well, I have heard nowhere else in the state of California. We believe that 99% of dispatch already provides this lifesaving care, and that's why there is a provision in 645 that says, if you already do this, nothing new has to happen in terms of your PSAP operation.

So if they're not gonna provide that information to us, we ask that you, the committee, ask for that information so that you can provide it to us. We think an education campaign would be the right place to start if there are people who will not comply with the law that is set to take effect nine

months from now. For all of these reasons, we oppose the bill as it is introduced today. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll move to any additional witnesses in opposition. You may approach the mic with name, affiliation, and position only, please.

Good afternoon, Lieutenant. Julio De Leon from the Riverside County Sheriff's Office in opposition.

Thank you. Bringing it back to the committee, are there any members that would like to speak on this bill? Questions? Moved by Krell?

Seconded by, is that, what is this? Questions.

Oh, moved by Krell? Second. Second by Bonta? Okay. With that, I will go to Rogers and then Rubio.

Thank you so much. So Assembly Member, there were a couple of questions that were raised that I think I would like to hear an answer to. One is about jurisdictions that aren't currently doing this, where those are, how prevalent that is.

The second question was around if the bill that you passed last year does not go into effect until January, why are we coming back with an enforcement mechanism before we see if there's a a compliance problem?

And then the third, and I think it's kind of the fundamental one, which is the folks that would have their funding withheld are the folks that probably need to be forced into compliance, but also probably need that as a tool to be able to continue to provide services.

So from a local government perspective, which I know you came from and and I came from, how how is the enforcement mechanism actually going to still allow for service to be delivered at the local level, given that we don't know why somebody's not complying.

I'll answer your second question, then I'll rely on the witnesses. Because this 645 maybe will be effective next year as stated, which is correct. We thought that if we have those that will not want to comply, they can take advantage of having this time in between to be able to

make implement AB 645. That was the thinking behind it. As far as other jurisdictions that was mentioned that have not provided the services by the opposition, that was the question that we've been asking, and they just gave us that last night.

So in your County, Mono County Bishop, City Bishop, City Of Palm Springs, City Of Hemet. No pre arrival confirmed on City Of Hemet. The City of Blythe also know of a pre arrival confirmed.

Imperial County, the Northeast, Eastern City, Fairfield, Venetia, Vallejo. Again, these searches what the they provided to us just last night because that's something that we also been asking, but they just provided that to us.

To answer your other questions, I wanna invite you.

Just really fast so I can jump in. Are you willing to provide that to the opposition as well?

Yes.

Right.

And then before we go on to the other question, given that the bill that you negotiated last year doesn't take effect until January.

Yes.

Was this one of the negotiating points in the agreement last year? Because there was a request.

I don't recall that was discussed at the time. No.

That's helpful. Thank you.

But if the other

Yeah. It's not part of it. K. Did Our opposition witness who doesn't wanna sit at the dais now back up with the mic. So I don't know if you Assemblymember Rogers, was it your intention of asking sorry.

It was not.

Was it Assemblymember Rogers, was it your intention to ask the opposition witness?

Yeah. I just wanna make sure because oftentimes, we do when we're working on bills, make agreements in passing a bill. And I wanna know, given the the discussion last year, was this one of the partial topics that was discussed in the agreement intentionally excluded?

Is this a new issue, or is this a rehashing of a issue that wasn't part of the final agreement?

No. And thank you for the question. No. This is a completely new issue. We did not talk about an enforcement mechanism, and we would not be opposed to talking to folks who will not follow California law.

Right? We agreed that this is a thing that dispatch centers should do. We just disagree strongly with the enforcement mechanism and the timing. I don't believe it's appropriate.

Great. Thank you.

Assembly Member Rubio.

Yeah. Just, just to follow-up on that question, are there alternative approaches? And I completely understand we've been going through that with many issues that or many laws that we've been implementing that, you know, folks are not necessarily compliant.

So I understand that part, but is there any alternative approaches that were considered to encourage compliance as opposed to this?

I think the opposition made it made a suggestion. Why not do an education campaign on their side? They are the ones that have to comply with these regulations. So if the education campaign is part of what they're suggesting, this is the time to do that.

Thank you. Any other questions from Members? Hoover.

I'll make a quick comment. Appreciate the bill. I do think, you know, there's some issues that need to be worked out. I'm gonna support the bill today, but definitely would love to see some of these things get worked on over the next few weeks.

No. Absolutely. We we can continue those conversations again, but, again, with the suggestions of the opposition, that education campaign seems appropriate. This will not become effective until next year for them to also comply with AB 645 as well. We'll be happy to continue those conversations.

Any other questions or comments from Assembly Members? K. With that, Assembly Member Carrillo, you may close.

AB 2041 will ensure that 911 caller receive high quality of life saving support when they need it most. With that, I respectfully ask when Aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Carrillo, for bringing this bill forward. Your bill does enjoy a due pass recommendation. Should this bill pass, it will move on to emergency management committee.

I would encourage you to keep working with the opposition and consider some of the policy recommendations noted in this committee's analysis. For example, how to strike the balance between incentivizing compliance with continuing to properly fund the public safety answering points.

I know it's not your intention to defund them. Yeah. I also think it's perfectly fine for us to have enforcement mechanisms to things that are important.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

911 is funded through end user surcharges of 5¢ per access line. It's critical that this money remains available across the state to continue 911 operations. We have a motion by Krell, second by Bonta.

Members, this, there's been a the motion is, AB 2041 by Assemblymember Carrillo is due passed, and may refer to committee on emergency management. Will secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call] Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

That bill is out. We still need a few more votes to add on. We're waiting for Assembly Member Lowenthal. I know he's on his way. So with that, thank the members of the committee, and we'll keep the role open for a while.

Okay. Committee secretary, will we please call the roll on all all the bills?

This is for AB 2041 Carrillo. It's a due pass and re referred to the committee on emergency management. [Roll Call]

That bill is AB 2041 by Carrillo. Ayes, 8. Not voting 1. No, 0.

For AB 2279 Gipson, it's a due pass as amended and referred to the committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill AB 2279 by Gipson is out 9 to 0.

Really cool. Members, that concludes the bill presentations for today. Let's do a call. We'll note the call. This concludes the work on the Assembly Committee on Communications and Conveyance for today.

We are adjourned.