Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Good afternoon and welcome, everyone. The hearing room is open for the attendance of this hearing, and it can be watched from a live stream on the Assembly's website. 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.

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 legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence.

We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the committee website. Please note that any written testimony submitted to the committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. We will allow two minutes each for the two primary witnesses in support and opposition of the bill.

As a reminder, primary witnesses in support must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have registered a support position with the committee. And the primary witnesses in opposition must have their opposition registered with the committee.

All of the support and opposition can be stated at the standing mic when called upon by simply stating name, affiliation, and position. With that, we will begin our hearing. We do not yet have a quorum, so we'll start our hearing as a subcommittee. I would like to note that there are five bills on our proposed consent calendar.

And we will, and I'll note what those five items are just for the record. Item two, AB 1756. Item three, AB 2055. Item four, AB 1765. Item six, AB 2453. And item seven, AB 2541. We will now go in file item order based on our order as well as those Members that are present.

Present. I would ask that, members of this committee would make their way to this room so we can establish quorum. Beginning with item file item number one, AB 1614, I see that author is present, ready, and accounted for. And so, Assemblymember Dixon, you may begin at your convenience. Try one more time. Wait. Hold on. There we go.

Alright. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I want to start by thanking the committee and committee staff for working on this issue with our office. AB 1614 is a common sense measure that prohibits piggybacking on bikes and eBikes on a class one bikeway.

SB 527 from 2009, Mr. Kehoe, prohibited a person from operating a bicycle on a highway if that person was riding other than upon or a stride a permanent and regular seat attached to the bicycle, unless the bicycle was designed by the manufacturer to be ridden without a seat.

Existing law also prohibits the operator of a bike from allowing another person to ride as a passenger on a highway unless there is a separate seat attached. However, under existing law, this prohibition is currently limited to a highway and does not apply to bicycles ridden on a class one bikeway. The increased speed and accessibility of eBikes have consistently led to higher rates of injury with an increasing number of injuries occurring when other when riders piggyback.

With multiple riders, the driver can be more easily distracted and or lose control, causing serious injuries such as multiple open long bone fractures, concussions, and brain bleeds to all riders. Sadly, many of these injuries are life changing.

Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego has created a bike safety program as a result of the overwhelming number of e bike related injuries, including those due to multiple passengers on a single bike. They advise riders to, quote, never share the seat with a friend or ride on the handlebars. Only one person should be on a bike at a time. It's easy to lose balance or suddenly swerve into traffic when riding with a passenger, end quote.

Additionally, eBike frames and braking systems are manufactured to support a certain amount of weight.

By adding a second rider, the structural and mechanical integrity of the bike can be compromised. AB 1614 creates consistency with existing law and improves the safety of all riders, pedestrians, and drivers.

The bill is sponsored by the California Orthopedic Association and has received support from the California Association of Bicycling Organizations, the Automobile Club of Southern California, Automobile Club of Northern California, Nevada, and Utah, the City of Newport Beach, the City of Irvine, the City of Carlsbad, the City of Los Alamitos, City Of Laguna, DeGel, City of Huntington Beach, Town of Hillsborough, the League of California Cities.

With me today, I have Ryan Spencer on behalf of the bill's sponsors, the California Orthopedic Association, and Dr. Francois Lalonde of Rady's Children's Hospital pediatric orthopedic surgeon in Orange County. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair. Ryan Spencer on behalf of the bill's sponsors, the California Orthopedic Association. I simply like to thank the author for taking on the support measure and the committee staff for all their work on it as well. I'd like to re leave my remaining comments for Dr. Lalonde who is not only from Rady's Children's Hospital, but also a member of the California Orthopedic Association.

Good afternoon. As stated, I'm doctor Francois Lalonde. I'm a pediatric orthopedic surgeon at the Rady Children's Hospital in Orange County, which is a busy level one trauma center. And just a few words briefly. This year, we had the unfortunate event of piggyback or dying at the scene, and the driver was severely injured.

So we we're seeing firsthand, you know, the major trauma and life altering events that can happen. We feel that there's other factors that are beyond what's been discussed including this could be a last minute decision for the piggyback rider to ride, you know, on the bicycle. They may not have a helmet. They may not have a bike of their own. They may not be aware of the speeds that these bikes go.

They're not, you know, in a good position on a bicycle to brace themselves. There's an impact. This was a ebike versus car accident at high speed. And they often will get launched, you know, be well beyond the bicycle because they they're not aware of what's going on on the road with Rotherm. Thank you.

Thank you, for that testimony. Moving on now to those in support of the bill, name, affiliation, and position.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Carlin Shelby on behalf of the cities of Irvine, Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and Saint Ramon. Very strong support. Thank you.

Ethan Naylor on behalf of the city of Carlsbad and the town of Hillsborough in support.

Good afternoon. Irita Repichan on behalf of AAA Northern California in support.

Madam chair members, Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach in support.

Hi. Good afternoon. Angela Hill with the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you. Now moving on to opposition. I believe we do have opposition testimony.

Alright. Now I'm on. Good afternoon, chair and members. Jeanne Ward-Waller, representing People for Bikes. Apologies for our late letter, and thank you for hearing the bill.

People for Bikes is the national advocate and trade association for US manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of bicycle products, including low speed electric bikes. While we share the goal of improving safety for all path users, we are concerned that AB 1614 unnecessarily expands existing bicycle operation requirements to class one trails in a way that could risk creating new barriers to safe and accessible riding.

By prohibiting common low risk behaviors, the bill could criminalize everyday use, particularly among youth, families, lower income riders who rely on bicycles for transportation and recreation. We don't believe these changes will meaningfully improve safety outcomes and instead could increase the likelihood of unnecessary law enforcement interactions on shared use paths. California has been a national leader in promoting bicycle bicycling as a safe, practical, and inclusive mode of transportation, and we worry that AB 1614 runs counter to those goals.

We urge a no vote on AB 1614.

Thank you for that testimony. Now moving on to members of the public who also are in opposition. Now be appropriate time to come forward noting your name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving it back to committee to see if there's any comments, questions, or concerns. We are still waiting on a quorum.

Vice Chair Davies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just listening to this, I live you know, my district is a South Orange County in North San Diego, and I would say this is probably the number one topic if I ask anyone in any community. And I can tell you that I've watched kids with three people, three kids on a bike, before. It's and probably under the age of 10.

And I'm just a little concerned about how it would actually affect because to me, if you have one rider, that's one less injury you're having.

And so, to me, that would be a safe, you know, a safe a safer route. And again, they aren't aware. They're underage. And I can tell you that a lot of the parents don't even know how fast these these, bikes go. So that's really for me, it's it's education, and I know we're trying to bring parents in education, but I think this is a really good start.

And I would ask to I'm gonna support it, and I would ask to be co author on it.

Any other comments? Alright. Well, then I'll note to thank you to the assembly member for bringing this bill forward. The rules of the road that apply for bicycles on streets, which also applies to them on sidewalks, should also apply for them on bicycle paths. And so we made this change in 2018, applying that you couldn't do piggybacking on on streets and sidewalks.

And so now this is about adding it onto the bicycle paths. And it will make sure that our kids are not piggybacking on bicycles or eBikes when they're riding their bicycles no matter where they are, which is, you know, important safety measure. So I'm going to be supporting this bill. And when it's appropriate, we will get, we'll ask for a motion in a second, but I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Moving on. I see the author present. Moving on to file item number five, AB2193.

Assemblymember, Ta, you can begin at your convenience. Make sure you turn your mic on.

Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair and Member of the Committee. I first want to accept the committee amendment, and I want to thank the committee staff for their work on on the issue. AB92192 is a common sense view that that bring clarity, accountability and fairness to California rolling autonomous vehicle industry.

AB2193 ensure that the manufacturer of autonomous vehicle technology is responsible for any traffic enforcement station that are issued for violation. Autonomous vehicle are no longer just a thing of the future to operate in our street through companies like Waymo and Bruce LLC. Unfortunately, our our traffic law have not kept pace with this technology. AB 2193 asked for a very, very simple question.

When a fully driverless vehicle commit a traffic violation to The US side, AB 2193 fix a problem by establish a clear and fair rules.

If no one is in the private seat, the manufacturer of the private system is responsible. AB2193 does not intend to slow innovation. What it does, it ensure that innovation operate within an accountability framework. AB21A has to ensure that as we move into the future of competition, responsibility remain clear, enforcement remain possible, and the public remain protected. I'm pleased to introduce Matt Broad with Teamsters and Louis Costa with the Smart Commutation Division to testify.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Matt Brod here on behalf of Teamsters California. Just wanted to say we're in strong support of AB2193. It's a common sense measure that, creates and restores parity. What goes for human beings should go for autonomous vehicle.

A couple years ago, there was a a bill by former Assemblymember Ting, AB1777, that dealt with the issue of how do we, properly enforce against autonomous vehicles. And that bill kind of came up with a notice of noncompliance that police officers could assign to a vehicle, a navy that made a mistake.

We thought, at the time, continue to think that, that was a mistake and that, no police officer in their right mind was gonna take the time to do a a notice of noncompliance if there was no financial penalty there. And so I think that bill takes us this bill takes us back to sort of restore that issue. And going forward, the only thing I think that can make this bill even better is just thinking about the issue of compounding penalties.

So for example, when a Teamster member or myself or any of you get multiple tickets, you can have points on your license, which can affect your ability to have a license in the long term. I think there's probably some wisdom in thinking about that for an autonomous vehicle manufacturer where you may not have the same driver, but you have the the software system malfunctioning across multiple vehicles. Since with that, I think this bill is a great start, and we're happy to support it. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Louis Costa with SMART Transportation Division. We're also here in strong support of the bill. I'm not gonna repeat what Mister Broad has already said and assembly member talk because we we're in line with all of those comments. I will just say, however, we represent bus operators and and school bus operators.

Had countless accounts from our school bus operators, specifically in San Francisco, where these vehicles are not complying with the valid stop sign on the side of a bus and flashing red lights. If if Thomas Veal go goes through there and I go through there right behind him, I'm gonna get stopped and get cited for the same reasons that mister Broad said. That could compound into some serious concerns for me later, but that vehicle has nothing but a slap on the hands. They don't do it again.

Autonomous the autonomous vehicle industry continually tells us it's safer than human operators.

Why should they not be then held accountable to the same requirements as human operators? For those reasons, we ask for your support here today. Thanks.

Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their support, name, affiliation, and position, please. Oh, wait. Let's get the mic turned on.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Members. Elmer Lizardi here with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Thank you. Now moving on to opposition. We don't have any registered on file, but I would like give an opportunity for members of the public who would like to note their opposition to this bill to please come forward. Now would be an appropriate time to do so with their name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving to now to members of the committee.

Are there any comments, questions, or concerns? Alright. Seeing none, just noting we are still operating as a subcommittee, so encouraging members of this committee, to report to duty so we can establish a quorum. With that, I'd like to thank you, assembly member, for bringing this forward and accepting the committee amendments. I too was concerned when AB 1777 was amended to only require a notice of noncompliance to be issued to an AV company and that penalties associated with such notice were unspecified.

And so I appreciate your work to clear up when an AV company should be held criminally liable under our vehicle code. And thank you once again for working with the committee to be able to get this get the language right. And so I'm supporting your bill today. In an appropriate time, we'll ask for a motion and a second, but I will give you an opportunity to close.

I really appreciate your comment, and I want to thanks all the committee staff for working with our office. And I continue to continue to work on this issue to address all the concerns that you may have in the future, and I respectfully ask for your your eyeball. Thank you very much.

Alright. With that, we are moving on to the next author who is present. And so we're moving on to item number eight, AB 2629, and that is Chen. You, Assembly Member, you can begin at your convenience. Okay. Make sure you turn that mic on.

Will do, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for your time, and I want to thank your staff for their extensive work on this bill. They did an incredible job. AB 2629 will prohibit business partners that provide online vehicle registration services from charging excessive fees for the same services offered directly by the DMV by establishing a reasonable cap to prevent Californians from being price gouged.

The Business Partner Automation Program authorizes DMV to contract private business partners to provide electronic registration and titling services to process registrations for the public, along with several other vehicle related interactions. Currently, many partners impersonate the DMV website and use fine print disclosures to clarify their affiliation.

With these unclear disclosure permitting throughout BPA business partners' registration services website, California has paid excessive fees for registration services that can be found on the DMV website at no additional cost. As there is no cap on what these businesses partners can charge, many do have exorbitant hidden fees that price gouge consumers and cost Californians billions of dollars in unnecessary fees.

Our bill would prohibit business partners that handle online and vehicle registration services from charging more than 5% above the fees that DMV charges for the same service. Our bill is narrow in scope and helps protect consumers from being tricked into paying more than is necessary. I'm very happy to have with us today people to testify, Mr. Robert Herrell here on behalf of Consumer Federation of California, and Allyn Peterson, also a consumer.

Chairperson and Committee Members. My name is Allyn Peterson. In 2024, I was not aware that the DMV authorized third parties to process car registration renewals for an additional fee, essentially tax farming. Unaware of this, I mistakenly renewed my registration through a company called Need Tags, whose website is designed to mimic the DMV.

The result was I paid an additional $73, 33% above the DMV fees. I contacted 7 On Your Side, which resulted of my speaking to this committee in 2025 in support of AB 1190. That bill died in the Senate suspense file without even a vote.

It's now 2026. And again, I'm speaking to this committee, this time on behalf of AB 2629, capping the service charge at 5%. If this bill had been enacted prior to 2024, I would have only paid $11 extra and said, fine. I was tricked by Need Tags, but I've learned my lesson.

How many of your constituents have been hurt by the DMV Need Tags? How many have paid for an average renewal an additional $106 to Need Tags instead of the $16 allowed by this bill? How many cannot afford that extra $90? Pass the bill. Work with your colleagues in the Senate to pass this bill.

I have spent more money coming to speak to this committee than the $73 I lost to Need Tags. I don't wanna have to come back in 2027, but I will keep coming back until Californians are protected from the DMV Need Tags collusion. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Robert Herrell. I'm the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. We're proud to be the sponsor of this measure. As the other witness indicated, this is a narrower version of a bill last year that you heard by Assembly Member Haney, AB 1190, which passed this committee on bipartisan vote.

This bill is a bit narrower because it's just focused on registration services. So we think this should be pretty straightforward for the Members of the Committee. Second of three points I'd like to make is that, as you heard from the witness, some sites are spoofing, as we say, the look and feel of the California DMV site. Others are not.

But what the others do is even if they don't have the look and feel of the California DMV site, they sort of hide behind the imprimatur of this partner program. So the reasonable consumer expectation is that, oh, if you're a DMV partner, then I'm gonna pay the same amount as if I was on the DMV website. But as you all know now, that's not the case.

In fact, there is no cap whatsoever on the amount of up charge that can be charged by these partners to consumers, and therein lies the problem. And the third and final point I'll make is that one of the challenges here is that the partner program was created decades ago when we were in a different place. And I understand the rationale at the time for the creation of the program.

You wanted people out of the DMV offices to handle as much as they could with the partners or now online. But the times have changed enough where I actually think that, beyond just this bill, it's probably ripe for a refresh and a relook at the whole partner program to begin with. Because what's happening far too frequently is that people are being ripped off into thinking that they're getting something for the same price of the DMV, but they're not.

And I would just note, the DMV is more than a little complicit in this because they get a piece of the action for every transaction. And so it's a sort of confluence of factors that have led to the need for Assembly Member Haney's bill last year and Assembly Member Chen's bill this year. We urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm now looking for any members of the public who would like to also lend their support to this bill. Now would be an appropriate time to come forward with name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, we'll move on to opposition testimony. As I understand it, we do have registered

opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members. John Wenger here on behalf of Samba Safety. We're a first line business partner with the DMV and have hundreds of second line business partner clients, that would be impacted by this bill. Obviously, we would disagree with the characterization of this program. We believe this has been a pretty successful public private partnership between us and the DMV.

The program helps modernize how essential transactions are processed. It shifts routine workloads away from the government offices so that staff can focus on more complex needs. It's reduced administrative burdens, improved data accuracy by minimizing manual entry, and made service access faster and more convenient for the public. I think I would agree that the DMV website has gotten better. It's been improved, but there's still a lot of services that the DMV cannot provide online.

And when that happens, if you do not use a business partner, then you do have to go to a field office, which we're trying to move away from. Some of those examples would be somebody that needs language services, somebody that's scared to go to the field office because of immigration enforcement. There's a lot of other complex transactions that could be handled through a business partner that cannot be handled through the DMV online database.

So, obviously, our biggest concern with the bill is that the 5% cap is well below the cost of doing business and would essentially cause major disruptions with the business model. We have fixed or our our second line folks have, fixed and unavoidable expenses, such as licensing fees, staff salaries, equipment, customer support, all of which cannot be covered by the, proposed fee structure in this bill.

The result would be massive reductions or closures from the business partnership program, and an increase in field office visits. I I would like to, in closing, just say thank you to the author and staff for the productive conversations that we've had. We look forward to continuing to have those those conversations. But as the bill is proposed right now, it's untenable for our clients, and so we are opposed. Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam chair and committee members. My name is Brandon Berndt. I'm the CEO of carregistration.com, a family owned business in Elk Grove, California, with dozens of employees. We respectfully oppose AB 2629. At its core, the bill imposes a strict 5% cap on additional fees that licensed registration service providers can charge for services also offered by the DMV.

While that may sound reasonable on paper, in practice, it would fundamentally undermine the business partner automation program. Private partners like us do far more process than process simple DMV transactions. We help Californians navigate complex, time consuming, and often confusing situations every day. That includes out of state transfers with missing documentation, registration holds tied to compliance issues, title corrections, and other transactions that often require multiple steps and significant guidance. In many cases, our customers are not just looking for a transaction, they're looking for help.

They wanna speak with someone, walk through the issue, and get it resolved correctly. That is especially true for elderly Californians and others who cannot easily spend hours waiting in line or making repeated trips to the field offices. This is important this is an important point. The problem that this bill is trying to address is exactly the kind of gap our services help solve.

But at these rates, it's simply not economically workable to operate a California business that provides that level of support, staffing, compliance oversight, customer care, regardless of whether the transaction begins online.

Our company alone averages over 3,000 calls per month. Over time, we have served millions of Californians and completed millions of transactions with only a very small number of complaints. That record reflects the value of service we provide and the trust customers place in us. We've also generated more than $16,000,000 in revenue for the DMV, and a portion of those funds support DMV system improvements. So this is not a system we are taking from.

It is a system we are helping sustain. The policy issue here is straightforward. This bill reduces service capacity without reducing demand. It weakens a proven public partner private partnership with replacing the value that partnerships provide. The real world impact will be fewer service options for Californians, more pressure on DMV field offices, longer waiter times, and greater frustration in the public.

It also puts California jobs and small businesses at risk. This is not just about convenience. It's about access, efficiency, and preserving a working system that millions that serves millions of Californians. And for this reason, we respectfully urge a no vote on a B2629.

Okay. Thank you. You gave a little extra time because I did give the gentleman sixteen seconds. You got eighteen seconds beyond two minutes, so we were trying to be fair. With that, I'm going to look to members of the audience who would like to register their opposition as well. Name, affiliation, and position.

Hi. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors here on behalf of eTAGs. Align our comments with Samba in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Before I come to committee for questions, comments, and concerns, We now have a quorum. Thank you, Assemblymember Bapin. Alright. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Wilson. Here. Wilson here. Davies.

Here.

Davies here. Aguilar Curry. Aguilar Curry present. Arons, Carrillo? Here.

Carrillo present. Harabedian, Hart, Hoover. Jackson. Jackson here. Lackey.

Masito. Happen. Happen here. Ransom. Ransom here.

Rogers. Here. Rogers here. Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins here.

Ward.

Alright. We have a quorum. With that, I'm bringing it back to committee for any questions, comments, or concerns on this bill. Assemblymember Ransom.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just curious as to how we landed at 5%. That was a a question because we know that I think I appreciate that the bill does handle concerns with spoofs and the fact that some people could think that they're going to a DMV site. But there are also folks who just wanna avoid the DMV and who want convenience and having been one of those people, you know, I just wanna know, like, how do we come land at 5%?

Is it do we find that to be a workable number as far as, you know, leaving an appropriate level of profit and then also covering what it takes to do that job?

And I I can answer that for you Assemblymember Chen. Excuse me. As was noted, this was in our committee last year was 1% and we amended it to five.

I know. I understand that. But I wanna know, like, technically, I understand that we amended it to five, but how do we decide that five was a number that was appropriate to charge folks to do this particular service?

What I'm saying is it was 1% before.

I understand that. I understand what the committee is saying, but I would like to hear from the the folks who are supporting the bill. How is it just was that just a negotiation or do we feel that that is a sufficient amount?

Assembly member, thank you so much for the question. Like Madam Chair, I said early on, one, as you said it before, that this is a bill that we incorporated from Assembly member Matt Haney. So that was part of the discussion process from 1% to 5%. I will say that discussions that we have currently opposition is clearly specifically based on the cap rate of what that percentage would be appropriate. And that right now is a discussion that is ongoing.

Truth be told, I am confident that this is something that we can resolve as we move forward in the committee process. Additionally, I would also say that the bill has been amended to a point where that's specifically just for registration alone, which means some of the concerns that the opposition had, be it issues with immigration or ICE or language, is severely diminished based on that.

But also, we'll defer to my witness testimony in terms of some of the percentage numbers for some more technical answering, if Mr. Robert Herrell would please answer that.

Thank you, Assemblymember, for the question. Yeah. We look. We at the Consumer Federation in California are always willing to have a reasonable conversation. But I do think that one of the things that needs to be clear is that people know that they can go to the DMV website or what have you.

Let's just focus on the website and not have to pay anything above this. What if you if you pay by credit card, for example, I think you pay, I wanna say, a 2% fee, I could be off. It's the interchange bank fee, basically. And that's it. But you're paying the same amount.

So I I think that's the part that really seems to the consumer complaints that we get, into our offices at CFC and that I know some other offices have received as well are focused on this notion of, I didn't know until it was too late.

And then after the fact, when they tried to circle back with some of these partner companies, the customer service is atrocious, to the point where when the DMV was asked about any issues relating to this by a media outlet, they said, well, if there's a problem, go talk to the AG, which we don't think is a sufficient response.

I understand that. And I I don't disagree with that. I'm just curious as to the 5%. And the reason for my question is sometimes people will choose that they want to not deal with DMV. And also, I've seen, you know, if your registration is late, there's sometimes that you cannot go through the DMV website and for convenience, you may wanna use another service.

But given that the registration amount declines from, you know, year to year as your value of your car changes, etcetera. So 5% when your car is brand new, it's gonna be different than 5% when your car is older. So I'm I wanna know how did we land on 5%?

There was no particular magic. There were some conversations that occurred and, you know, per the author, we're certainly open to continuing those conversations.

Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. I appreciate that. Thank you.

So I'll note for the record. Excuse me. I had a chance to be around cherry blossoms and didn't realize I was allergic to them. So so I'm still recovering. No.

No. No. I'm still recovering from that experience. So what what I was trying to note is last year, this bill was in our committee, and the author had put it at 1%. And we negotiated it to 5% primarily because of when you think about it, a a fee to do a service is typically somewhere between 510%.

And so we landed on 5%, which was well above 1%, which we don't we didn't think I didn't think as chair was a reasonable amount for an administrative fee charge, but also 10% seemed a bit high, especially because in in as was noted through testimony, is that you can do these things online with the DMV for free. Like, you don't there is no charge to do these things through the DMV website, and so wanted to keep it more reasonable.

So that's where 5% was negotiated last year. And as the author noted during testimony, this was a bill that was picked up from last year because it it died in Senate suspense, and then it was narrowly tailored, the amount the fee charge was not changed. It kept with the original bill and then it just what it applied to, the types of services have a cap, whereas other services in the last year's bill did not had a cap this year, you're you're not touching that.

You're just focused on registration. So I just wanted to make sure that I was trying to get it out, but I kept coughing. So I kept trying to get off mic. So my apologies, Assemblymember Ransom. Any other questions, comments, or concerns?

Okay. We will actually get to to a motion and a and a and a second on this bill. But I wanna thank you, you know, for bringing this back. It was disappointing to hear that it, died in the Senate. I appreciate the work that you're doing to protect consumers against unreasonable charges with registration services.

You know, as DMZ DMV services have increasingly shifted online, you know, I still, like I did last year, question the need for private industry partners that provide the same service that d m DMV provides for free on its website. And so that is why, you know, I'm going to support your bill today like I did the other last year. And I appreciate you adjusting it to try to figure out a pathway forward on the Senate side.

And so with that, I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you, madam chair and committee members. I really appreciate the questions today and the robust discussion. You have my promise that, moving forward as well as in previous encounters, I've been talking to the opposition. I'm very confident that we can come up with a suitable number moving forward. That is something that I can bring consensus on both sides.

With that, I respectfully ask for a vote, madam chair. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion made by Aghir Khoury and seconded by Sharp Collins. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2629. The motion is do passed to appropriations. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.

Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Aguiar Curry? Aguiar Curry, aye.

Arons, Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Harabedian, Hart, Hoover. Jackson.

Aye.

Jackson, Aye. Lackey. Mesito. Happen. Aye.

Happen, Aye. Ransom. Ransom, not voting. Rogers. Aye.

Rogers, Aye. Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins, Aye. Ward.

That bill has eight votes, and so we'll hold the roll open for other members to add on. Before we move on, to our the rest of our bills, we have two committee members presenting. We'll start from the beginning. That way, those that came early, once those bills are done, you can make your way out. I do call on members of this committee who are not yet present to please come once we finish with the bills.

All the bills will do one more roll through and then otherwise and and then close it out. So with that, we noted earlier that we had at least let me see. We have five bills on consent calendar. Those are file item two AB1756, File item three, AB2055. File item four, AB1765.

File item six, AB2453. File item 7, AB2541. I'll entertain a motion. Moved by Rogers. Yes.

Yep. Seconded by Davies. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

We have nine votes for the consent calendar. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Moving on to file items that we heard as sub a subcommittee. File item one, AB1614.

AB1614. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

We did not do a motion. Just jumping ahead. Is there a motion for item? Thank you. That is why we have the majority leader on our committee.

I know. Right? So item number one that we heard as a subcommittee, AB1614, I'll entertain a motion. Motion. So moved by Davies.

I'll second it. Oh, well, there go Rogers. Rogers seconded. So we have a motion by Davies, seconded by Rogers. With that, madam secretary, now officially call the roll.

[Roll call]

That has nine votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Moving on to item number five, AB29 sorry, twenty one ninety three. We heard in this in subcommittee, so looking for a motion. Moved by Sharp Collins.

Seconded by Aguiar-Curry. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

AB2193. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Communications and Conveyance. [Roll call]

That bill has nine votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Now continuing on, now that we have a quorum, continuing on in file item order, we have a file item nine, AB2046 Ransom.

That bill has nine votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Now continuing on, now that we have a quorum, continuing on in file item order, we have a file item nine, AB2046 Ransom.

We have a motion by Davies. Is there a second?

No second. Rogers? We have a motion by Davies and a second by Rogers.

Alright.

Alright. Thank you, madam chair and colleagues. I am here to present Assembly Bill 2046. AB 2046 will expand consumer choice by providing Californians with more access to cleaner, more affordable fuel options. Californians, as we know, consistently pay more at the pump than drivers in other states, and families are continuing to face growing uncertainty as gas prices spike due to international conflicts and in state refinery closures.

EB—AB 2046—allows E 85, a fuel blend consisting of ethanol and gasoline, which is a less carbon intensive fuel option and typically costs less per gallon than regular gasoline, to be accessed by drivers. For many Californians, especially commuters like those in my district, using this fuel is a simple, practical way to save money.

However, E 85 is not accessible to many California drivers as California is currently the only state that prohibits the use of E 85 conversion kits, which is a proven technology allowing vehicles to operate on E 85 gasoline. AB 2046 would allow US EPA-approved E 85 conversion kits to operate within the state of California. In doing so, we will give families more flexibility at the pump instead of being locked into higher fuel cost options as they are today.

With all of that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and we have a couple of witnesses here to provide testimony. We have Alessandra Magnasco, the Senior Director of Government Affairs at the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, and we have Mr. Jeff Wilkinson, the Manager of Government Policy and Regulatory Affairs at Pearson Fuels, and I'm going to turn it over to Alessandra.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember. Good afternoon, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Alessandra Magnasco on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, proud sponsor of AB 2046. At its core, this bill is about three things Californians care deeply about: lowering costs, reducing emissions, and strengthen our state's fuel supply.

California drivers face some of the highest and most volatile fuel prices in the nation. Ethanol blends, particularly E 85, offer immediate and meaningful relief. E 85 is typically priced a $1.50 to $2.00 per gallon lower than conventional gasoline. At a time when families and small businesses are feeling the strain of high fuel costs, that difference matters.

AB 2046 helps ensure consumers are aware of and able to access this lower cost option. Additionally, E 85 can deliver life cycle greenhouse gas reductions approaching 80% compared to traditional gasoline. That's a significant emissions reduction available today using existing vehicles and infrastructure. Expanding the use of lower carbon fuels like ethanol is a practical and immediate way to support California's climate goals without requiring costly transitions for consumers.

Finally, California's fuel supply system is uniquely constrained with limited in-state refining capacity and heavy reliance on imports that are vulnerable to global disruptions.

Ethanol helps diversify that system. It is produced from domestic feedstocks, moves through a separate and more flexible supply chain, and is largely insulated from global oil shocks that drive sudden price spikes. Increasing the use of ethanol blends adds stability to California's fuel market and helps reduce pressure on our constrained gasoline supply. Simply put, AB 2046 is a smart, consumer-focused policy.

It expands access to lower cost fuel, reduces emissions, and strengthens the reliability of our fuel supply, all without requiring new technology or new vehicles.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Members. My name is Jeff Wilkerson from Pearson Fuels, California's largest E 85 supplier. Our company distributes E 85 through nearly 500 retail gas stations across the state, and we strongly support AB 2046 as a tangible way to reduce fuel costs for California drivers. E 85 is traditionally used in flex fuel vehicles, or FFVs, in which the driver has the option to choose gasoline or E 85, depending on price and availability.

AB 2046 would help Californians by allowing them to turn their normal internal combustion engine into an FFE. Use of E 85 in California has increased more than 600% over the last decade, largely driven by station expansion and high gas prices. As Alessandra mentioned, E 85 is usually available for a $1.50 to $2.00 per gallon less than gasoline. However, when gas prices spike, like what your constituents are facing now and has become more frequent in California, the savings are more drastic.

As gas prices rose above $5 and then $6 per gallon in March, stations in our network on average sold E 85 for $2.50 per gallon less than gasoline.

We estimate the use of E 85 led to savings of nearly $20,000,000 for the state's consumers over the last month. With expanded access via AB 2046, overall savings could reach hundreds of millions, thousands per household, and remove hundreds of thousands of metric tons of GHGs in the process. Absent passage of AB 2046, this technology will be locked out of California, forcing drivers to pay whatever it costs to commute to work, school, or family engagements.

We urge you to vote aye today and help bring needed relief to the pump.

Thank you for the testimony. Now moving to members of the public who would like to add on their support, name, affiliation, and position.

Good afternoon. Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors on behalf of Growth Energy, in support. Thank you.

Afternoon. Chris Bollinger on behalf of the California Asian Chamber of Commerce, also in support.

Hello, madam chair. Matt Robinson with the Specialty Equipment Market Association, SEMA, in support.

Good afternoon. John Kendrick on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Madam chair and members, Adam Keigwin on behalf of California LULAC, in support.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Larisa Cespedes here on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association, in support.

Thank you. Now, moving on to those in opposition. We don't have any registered on file. We're looking to the public to see if there's anybody who would like to note their opposition. Now would be an appropriate time to do so.

Name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving to members of the committee. Assemblymember Jackson.

Thank you very much, assemblymember, for this bill. I think my, my question to your witnesses are, how, how close is this? I mean, this is this bill is actually timely given the rise of gas prices due to international conflict. However, I read that article about Brazil's diversification and how, while the rest of us around the world are experiencing such dramatic increases in prices, Brazil is not because of the diversification and particularly with ethanol.

Can you talk a little bit about that and how, how does this bring us closer to that kind of diversification and how much further we may need to go?

Yeah. Thanks for the question. You're referring to Brazil's vehicle fleet, which is almost exclusively flex fuel vehicles. So, they transition between about a 30% blend of ethanol and, and a 100%, essentially. We have 1.1 million flex fuel vehicles on the road today that are capable of using gasoline or ED 5, switching back and forth.

But what we're trying to do is offer more flexibility to everyday drivers who have a vehicle that will be in their household for years to come. And this will allow them to fill with fuel that's, today, $2 to $3 cheaper per gallon with fewer carbon emissions throughout the lifetime. We have a long ways to go to meet where Brazil is at.

But we're hopeful that with a voluntary program like this and with where gas prices are, we would see tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, consumers choose this technology as a way to give themselves more flexibility at the pump.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember, thank you for this bill. Obviously, very timely, and I, I think more work to be done on this, and this helps to start that conversation. Thank you very much. Would love to be a coauthor if you have me.

Happy to add you. Thank you.

Alright. Next, we have Assemblymember Ahrens and then, Assemblymember Carrillo.

Thank you, madam chair. I just wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I think it's really common sense. We don't get enough of these types of bills to address affordability and real-world issues that are affecting our constituents. And I believe I'm already a proud coauthor, but I just wanna go on record thanking you for always looking at these kind of common-sense solutions that we desperately need and echo the sentiments of my colleague from Southern California about how much we need to be talking more about solutions like this.

And so, wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward and happy to be a co-author.

Thank you, sir. Alright. Carrillo.

Thank you, madam chair. Is there an estimate on what the cost savings would be for per gallon? Also, what the cost is to do that conversion per vehicle? And does it have to be replaced every so often?

Yeah. So, cost savings, on average, $1.50 to $2.00 per gallon, but now we have a station in the Chair's district that's actually selling for $3.70 below gasoline. So, the savings are pretty substantial, which would mean that even on a normal year, we would assume the payback period is less than a year. The installation costs, in addition to the kit, well under a thousand dollars.

I think more competition, more kit makers in the market, would help bring that cost down, but I think you're looking at somewhere between $600 to $800 for a kit.

And, no, you wouldn't need to replace it every few years. It would be one kit, and that should last the life of the vehicle.

Thank you for that. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. Are there any others? No. Where are the kits made? Manufactured?

Yes. Some are domestic and then there are international manufacturers as well. France has a very mature market. So, to, Assemblymember Jackson's question, France has done this to the tune of the aftermarket community, meaning they don't have as many flex fuel vehicles on the road from the manufacturers, but they have around 260,000 vehicles that have these kits on there already. They also have the price discount of E 85 relative to gasoline.

So, we're trying to recruit everybody into the marketplace. I think that breeds competition and gives consumers more options when they're looking at trying to buy a kit for their specific vehicle.

Alright. Sharp-Collins.

As we continue to talk about the affordability process, just wondering if there is any conversations about programs to assist people with being able to even purchase kits?

The first step for us was to make sure that this was a, a, this is a bipartisan and a highly valued effort here in the state legislature, and then once this is adopted, I think we can look at I think what you're talking about is equity and how we wanna make sure that folks can actually afford it. So, that's actually a broader part of the affordability conversation.

Alright. With that, thank you so much for bringing this forward. As you know, the, California Air Resources Board currently has the authority to approve alternative fuel conversion systems for motor vehicles. And so, this bill exempts US EPA-approved E 85 conversion kits from that CARB requirement and would allow federally certified E 85 conversion kits to be used in California so that we can get to setting up programs and things like that to make it more affordable.

We know that doing this will help to increase fuel options for California, and that's why I'm enthusiastically supporting your bill today.

I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you, members and chair. Again, it's my pleasure to bring this bill. E 85 is already available in California. We already have flex fuel vehicles in California. All throughout gas stations, you'll see the yellow gas pumps.

And now, more than ever, we need to make sure that Californians have alternatives to the high price of gasoline. So, I'm really proud to, to bring AB 2046, which champions affordability at a time when Californians are feet me—feeling it—the most. This is about common sense and affordability and solving the crisis and providing needed relief for families across California. So, again, thank you for all of the wonderful questions and the support. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion on the floor by Davies, seconded by Rogers. With that, madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Alright. That bill has nine votes, so we'll hold the roll open for Members to call on. Doing a call for Members of this Committee and staff who are listening. For Members of this Committee, this is our final bill, file item number ten, AB 2346. So I ask that you come this way so that we can then have other Members add on to, Members add on to the other bills. Thank you. Thank you.

Chair Wilson, we're gonna invite you on down. Chair Wilson, when you're ready. This, again, is AB 2346.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Good afternoon, Members. Alongside joint author, Assembly Member Berman, I am proud to introduce AB 2346, a measure aimed to modernize California's e-bike safety laws and protect our communities while ensuring we preserve access to this growing mode of accessible transportation.

As e-bike technology continues to rapidly grow, our laws must keep up the pace to ensure that our safety, that safety on our roads, bike paths, and sidewalks are for the communities that utilize them. California is currently experiencing sharp increase in serious e-bike related injuries.

Physicians across California are also raising alarms about the growing number of preventable injuries tied to high speed and lack of safeguards, particularly among children and teenagers. These devices are often marketed like toys, but can operate at high speeds and are legally available for young children to use.

Utilizing the Internet and other social media apps, e-bikes can also be easily modified to exceed legal limits... Excuse me, legal speed limits, putting riders and the public at risk with some modifications ramping up to higher speeds, such as 30 or 40 miles per hour.

AB 2346 implements targeted and practical solutions, such as, but not limited to, one, requiring speedometers on class one and two e-bikes and integrated lights on all e-bikes. Two, establishing clear speed limits, including 15 miles per hour for minors and limits on sidewalks.

Three, providing local governments authority to set speed limits where needed. And four, requiring clear consumer education at the point of sale so riders understand the law. These changes focus on behavior to reduce dangerous speeds and improve awareness, not to restrict user access.

AB 2346 is a balanced approach that improves public safety, empowers local communities, and supports the continued growth of sustainable transportation. With me today is Rustin Banks, Chief of Rocklin PD and CPCA, which is the California Police Chiefs Association, Board Member. And Dr. Francois... I'm gonna say it wrong. How do you say it? Okay. Francois Lalonde, pediatric and orthopedic surgeon.

Witnesses, just a reminder, you each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Rustin Banks, Police Chief for the City of Rocklin and Board Member of the California Police Chiefs Association, representing municipal police chiefs and public safety leaders across California.

We are here in strong support of Assembly Bill 2346, which takes a thoughtful and evidence based approach to addressing the growing safety risks associated with electric bicycles, particularly amongst our youth.

Across California, we are seeing a rapid increase in e-bike use. And with that, a corresponding rise in serious injuries. For Rocklin, we first noticed an uptick in our e-bike related collisions and calls for service in 2023. In response, we focused on education and enforcement.

We produced informational videos and created a trifold flyer distributed through the school district, launched e-bike safety page on our website. We actually had eight school assemblies on e-bike safety and conducted multiple enforcement patrols as well.

Where we would give citations when we saw irresponsible behavior and then positive tickets that could be redeemed for a free donut... Yes, a donut, to our safe riders. Despite these efforts, collision numbers continue to rise in both 2024 and then again in 2025.

A key concern of CPCA is youth access to faster, higher powered e-bikes that function more like motor vehicles than traditional bicycles. Younger riders often lack the experience, judgment, and understanding of traffic laws needed to safely operate these devices.

We're also seeing risk taking behavior combined with speeds that exceed what their coordination and reaction time can safely handle. At those speeds, even small mistakes can result in serious or life threatening injuries. These concerns are not theoretical.

Officers across California are responding to more collisions involving young riders, high speed devices, and modified e-bikes being used beyond their intended design. We're also seeing confusion amongst riders and parents about e-bike classifications and legal requirements, which creates enforcement challenges and risk.

California already experiences over 4,000 traffic fatalities annually, and we must ensure emerging technologies do not add to that total. AB 2346 addresses these issues in a balanced and practical way by establishing clear safety standards.

Including reasonable speed limitations for youth and in pedestrian heavy areas. It also requires basic safety equipment like speedometers and lighting and ensures consumers receive clear...

Excuse me. Can you please finish up? Thank you.

I'm sorry. The... I'll just say for these reasons, the California Police Chiefs Association respectfully urges your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Dr. Francois Lalonde. I'm a pediatric orthopedic surgeon from Rady Children's Hospital in Orange County, a level one trauma center, speaking on in support of AB 2046 on behalf of the co-sponsors, the California Orthopedic Association and California Medical Association.

From a clinical perspective, we're seeing a sharp rise in serious, life threatening e-bike injuries among children. At our level one trauma center, this is no longer occasional. We are treating more high energy trauma than ever before in this population.

In fact, e-bike injuries are now the number one cause of major trauma injuries presenting to our busy emergency department. These are not simple falls. These are high energy traumas, open fractures, multiple concurrent upper and lower extremity fractures per patient, concussions, brain bleeds, severe facial trauma, and multisystem injuries that can permanently alter a child's life.

The key issue is the speed of devices combined with inexperience and lack of clear safety standards. We're also seeing particularly dangerous behavior where children are riding these e-bikes at high speed without helmets, without securing a chin strap, which significantly increases the risk of loss of control and severe injury to all riders.

Furthermore, during the past few months, we have treated children with multiple injuries resulting from e-bike to e-bike collisions on paths and from e-bikes colliding with pedestrians at crosswalks. The data confirms what we are seeing in the operating room.

At our recent annual National American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons meeting in March 2026 in New Orleans, it was reported there was a greater than 300% increase in e-bike accidents among kids between 2019 and 2023, with injuries often much more severe than traditional bicycle accidents. The trend of increasing numbers of pediatric e bike accident continues to grow year to year.

AB 2346 is a targeted common sense response. It establishes clear safety expectations around speed for our young children, equipment, and consumer awareness while allowing local communities to adopt additional protections where needed.

From a physician standpoint, these are practical preventive measures that directly address the root cause of these injuries we are treating every day. I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We're gonna have public testimony me too. Name, organization, and position.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association, proud co-sponsors of the measure. Thank you.

Angela Hill, California Medical Association, proud co-sponsors. Thank you.

Carlin Shelby on behalf of the Cities of Irvine and Santa Barbara in strong support. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Carlsbad in support. Thank you.

Matt Robinson on behalf of the City County Association of Governments of San Mateo in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kelly Mac Millan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics California and the Children's Specialty Care Coalition in support.

Good afternoon, Chair. Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach in support.

Alright. We're now going to have opposition witnesses come forward, please. And again, two minutes each, please. Thank you.

Good afternoon again, Vice Chair and Members. Jeanne Ward-Waller representing People for Bikes. People four Bikes is the national advocate and trade association for US manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of bicycle products, including low speed electric bikes. Many of the 330 members of People four Bikes are California based small and large businesses. You're gonna hear from us on several bills, to address e-bike safety this year since there are many.

People for Bikes has been working, as a national leader, working with 45 other states, including the Federal Government, to create consistent standards based on California's three class, e-bike definition for the regulation of e-bikes across the country. I wanna stress the importance of consistency to the responsible manufacturers and retailers of e-bikes. That will be a theme in my comments. With deep respect to the author, as well as the sponsors who we've had good conversations with, we are opposed to this bill unless amended.

We appreciate the engagement and believe we are generally aligned in our shared goal of improving safety for e-bike riders, particularly for children.

However, we believe this bill should address illegally operated Emotors, which were referenced quite a bit in the comments of the sponsors, rather than low speed legal electric bikes that are already well regulated in California. Some Emotors have motors with thousands of Watts of power and can reach highway speeds of 65 miles per hour. Definitely not something that we want 10 and 12 year olds riding. Recent research tallied that 90% of devices ridden by children were actually Emotos.

That was, taken at schools, and reports to the medical community about increasing crashes do not distinguish between what's a legal e-bike and an e moto.

We have three concerns. I'll just maybe focus on the biggest one. In this bill, our biggest concern is regarding the penalty provision, which risks exposing bicycle retailers to 15,000 or up to $50,000, fines for violating a notification requirement to consumers about California law. This presents potentially a devastating fee structure at a time when the bicycle industry is facing rising costs due to Trump tariffs and other pressures.

Other states like New Jersey have passed laws that have effectively stopped the sale of e-bikes in their state because they're so restricted.

Excuse me. If you could please finish up. Thank you.

I'll stop there. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Kendra Ramsey. I'm the executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition. We are the voice of the everyday bicyclist in the state capital.

I will also say that I'm a proud owner of a class one legal e-bike, which I ride with my three year old almost every day. I wanna echo, Jeanne's comments on the difference between legal e-bikes and illegal e motors and that being a big issue that's been discussed here today. I do appreciate the issue being safety, with this bill. However, we do also have the position of oppose unless amended.

The issue that Cal Bike chiefly has with the bill at the moment is that establishing a speed limit for people riding bicycles based on age, can be highly problematic.

Establishing a speed limit for people riding bicycles, firstly, is unnecessary because people riding bicycles do have to follow posted speed limits. And establish establishing a speed limit based on age can create problematic conditions for children who could be subject to interactions with police that are unnecessary and potentially unwarranted based on their physical appearance. We all know that it it is it can be very difficult to tell how old a child or an adult is based on how they look.

And our children, may be having interactions with police based on how they are, you know, potentially riding their bicycle based on how they look. And in some communities, the And in some communities, this may cause interactions with police that could be detrimental.

So that is a big concern that we have. We do appreciate some previous amendments to the bill that alleviated our other concerns. So really appreciate that work. We also, you know, do wanna state that while these crashes involving children are tragic and, we would like to see them prevented, we do know that the recently released, legislatively requested study on safety for e-bikes, did not find that there's evidence that there are, there is a higher likelihood of children to be involved in e-bike collisions.

It is actually more likely for adults to be involved, And that we we would really like to see this component of speed limits to be removed.

Thank you very much for your time.

Alright. Thank you. We're gonna move it to public testimony. Me too, in opposition.

Vice hair, a bit of a Tweener position. Mark Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All. We have some concerns that per that persist on the ability of the rider to comply with some provisions of the bill, and some concerns that are the effects of small businesses with the fine penalty, but are really supportive of the light and speedometer requirements. And I think the amendments have moved the direction of the bill in a really supportive and positive direction. So thank you.

We're gonna close public testimony and move this over to comments from our members. Assemblymember, Ahrens.

I, I just remember to

It's okay.

Okay. Go ahead, Assemblymember.

I wanted to see if the author would be able to respond to the comments about how speed limits based on age could be a problem for children, but then also now going into the racial profiling conversation. So I just wanted to hear from from the from from the sponsor and from the, Assemblymember in regards to what, Opposition is bringing forth.

Okay. Thank you, for that question, and I appreciate the concern brought up from opposition in regard to that. You know, I, I I'm chair emeritus for the Black Caucus, and one of the things that we've talked about quite a bit in the Black Caucus is criminal justice reform and recognizing that, there's a lot to do in this space and and recognizing our interactions, especially for people of color, with police have not been positive.

And that, whether it's riding a bicycle, walking down the street, being in a car, You can be pulled over for all kinda random reasons, whether law you know, related to breaking the law or not. And so that's always top of mind and concern to me.

At the same time, we have to balance safety. And at the same time, we have to balance accountability where if you're doing something wrong, then the police should be interacting with you.

And then we have to do a better job of training our police to be sure that they can be effective in all situations and treat people fairly in all situations no matter what they look like, how they're dressed, the color of their skin, that they could say this person is doing something they shouldn't be doing, just because they're not not should be doing that, not something that's some outside characteristics.

And so we've been really mindful of that in in the Black Caucus and and and doing that, and a and a balanced and fair way. And so as I look through this bill, I consider us doing the same thing of being fair and balanced and recognizing that children, of a certain age should not be driving, or riding in, legal motorcycle I mean, motorcycles.

Legal electric vehicles or electric bicycles, beyond 15, miles per hour. They couldn't do it in a regular bicycle. And if they get to those speeds, it's it's very dangerous. And you remind her, these children don't know the rules of the roads. They're not required to.

Right? And so we wanna make sure they're doing it in a safe way. I'll look to our police chief to talk about those types of interactions and and and the work that I know the Police Chiefs Association has done to try to reduce racial profiling.

Yeah. And thank you for the question. I, I, I think I would acknowledge that enforcement related to this bill might not be absolutely perfect, but I, I do believe that age based age age based restrictions are common in traffic safety. We see them in home at laws and in other areas, and they can serve an important deterrent in educational function. And, the intent is not to constantly go out and issue citations here.

It's to establish safer operating norms for younger riders who may like the experience in that judgment. And, we support kind of pairing this provision with the some of the other elements of the bill, the the speedometer and the and the lighting and the public education, which would hopefully direct and point towards compliance and improve clarity.

And I'll note through the vice chair, there are a number as was noted from the testimony, there are a number of e-bike bills or legislation this year, and I would look at this bill as in the concert of all of those and as a comprehensive package. There was another note from opposition that I just wanna clarify, and it was that it was more likely for adults to be involved in a alter or incident than children.

And I, I don't believe that to be true, and so I wanna give an opportunity if the vice chair will allow for doctor Malone to address that.

Certainly. Please go ahead.

Thank you. For those on the front lines that there's a disconnect with that comment as well. I think we have presented the statistics from the AOS, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeon, three hundred percent increase from 2019 to 2023. And it's our number one cause of trauma, major trauma at our level one trauma center out in Orange County. If you talk to policemen, EMT, those of us that are on the front lines, this is there's a disconnect with that comment.

And I, I would challenge that comment because we're seeing the opposite. We're seeing it's the kids that are coming in and they're just increasing month after month, year after year.

Okay. Thank you. Assemblymember Pappan.

Hi. Okay. Well, thank you all so much for your testimony and the efforts here. My question I have question and comment. So the question relates to the disclosure requirements.

What is the medium by which those have to occur? Is it in writing? And if it's in writing, is it through something that's on a sheet of paper or does it come electronically? What are you envisioning?

So I believe that I believe it's in writing when the at the purchase of the bill along I mean, purchase of the bill purchase of the bike along with the bike. Is it

on a piece of paper?

Yes. I believe so. And I think it's it can reference electron a a place to look at it electronically like how you currently can see when you get your warranty, you can see that, but there might be a reference to an electronic place where it's more detailed and additional information. I believe we allow that.

And when do you anticipate that to take effect, the requiring of the disclosures?

I believe at the time that the bill I don't think there's a delay. If I remember, there's not a delay on this. And so at the time, 01/01/2027.

Okay. Yeah. I didn't see one. Yeah. And that'll be those will be law specific at that moment in time.

Fair to say? In other words, they could be peculiar to California and no other state.

Right.

Okay.

Yes.

Alright. So that and that's fine. I don't have an issue with it. I just, I, I needed some clarification. So as you know, I have an e-bike bill and Yes.

I, I thank the doctor for his testimony and I would add, you know, it certainly amplifies or illustrates the urgency. I would add that children are dying in my community. Okay. I happen to come from a community where there's lots of tech, lots of tech money. Orange County is probably not a whole lot different.

And they're early adopters of electric devices. And their kids are riding in ways that would blow your mind. So it is amplified in my community. The bill is timely. Yes.

We have a lot of bills in legislature, And I just cannot emphasize enough the urgency that is out there. And I recognize that the opposition may want some consistency. My community cannot wait. Cannot wait. End of story.

Assembly Member Hoover.

Thank you. So a few questions. I'm gonna start with the opposition if I could. Just a couple, I guess, technical questions. Are there traditional bikes that can go over 20 miles an hour at this point, or is that some speeds that we do see on on on roads?

Are You're talking about traditional pedal bikes that don't have motors? Yeah. Certainly. K. Yeah.

Especially, think of going downhill or

Sure. Sure. And then just according to your understanding of the bill, do these speed limits that are proposed in the bill that could be imposed at the 20 mile per hour limit apply to all bikes or just e-bikes under the current language? And I guess I could ask you or the author that, but yeah.

I don't have the bill in front of me. Okay. Yeah. I believe e-bikes.

I don't

Can you can you repeat the question? I was referencing something that was noted earlier.

know if you have

So so the speed limit provisions, not the sidewalk, but the the the local government, the limits that could be imposed, do they are they see what's

So the if you look at section

Do they apply to all bikes or just e-bikes? Sorry.

It's, it's, it applies to all bikes. What it's on a bicycle path, and so it applies to all bikes. It it says a local authority may set a speed limit on a bicycle path of 15 or 20 miles per hour subject to subdivision c, and then it talks about some restrictions around certain zones and things of that nature. And then for a multiuse trail, ten, fifteen, or 20 miles per hour.

K. And under current law, how does this differ from current law? So current law, they can go the speed limit of the road. Is that, obviously, trail multi use trail would be different, but

If I

recall correctly, the current law, there's no speed limit at all on a bicycle path. So you can go as fast as you your legs can take you or your motor can take you.

Sure. Okay.

And that's to the opposition's point, that's an a a legal bike or Emoto Right. Which is not a legal bike.

First this testimony.

We'll Okay.

So yeah. So just looking here. I mean, I will say I have some concerns. There's a lot in this bill that I like, that I think, you know, I think over time, you might be able to get me there on the speedometers and the, you know, bike manufacturer requirements. I, I do think that some of that's a little broad, but I do understand I do understand the the purpose behind that.

And I do think, in some ways, retailers and manufacturers need to have a little more responsibility when it comes to e-bike usage in California. 100% agree with you on the 10 mile per hour on sidewalks and the prohibiting peep kids 16, from riding a certain levels of e-bikes. I think where I'm really struggling is this 20 mile per hour speed limit on a on a bike path, which potentially could be on a road. Right?

The I mean, the slowest speed limit on most roads in California are 25 miles per hour.

I imagine there's a lot of bicyclists that are are 25 miles per hour.

I imagine there's a lot of bicyclists that are going above 20 miles per hour without an e-bike. And so, I guess, my question is, why 20 miles per hour? And is there any

Can you clarify? Did you say that because you can go 20 miles an hour on the road. Are you concerned about a limit on a road?

Correct. But this is only 20 miles per hour seems very slow to me.

It's only on a bicycle path or a multi use path that they are allowed to set this limit. So remember, you're given the authority for the locals to set the limit. Otherwise, there's no limit.

Right. Correct. But I'm saying when we're saying a bicycle path, right, we're we're talking about a bicycle path connected to a roadway. Am I am I

No. No. You're talking about a bike lane?

Oh, so okay. So that that that is where the the challenge is then. Okay.

So you're saying so these would all be non road bike? Think versions of sidewalks. Okay. So so with that in mind, so so you're saying so bike lanes would continue to be operated by the road the road rules of the road? Yes.

Is that is that Yes. The correct interpretation of your bill?

Not touching biking lanes.

Okay.

On the road so the a biking lane is a part of the road, so we are not touching the road. K. So if you go to off the road and you're on a side a version of a sidewalk or and when I say sidewalk, it could be concrete or gravel, but so a designated bicycle path or a multiuse path. Multiuse trail.

So that's yes. A multiuse trail. Those separate distinct things from a road, then that's what we're talking about.

So, essentially, under your bill and sorry, apologies because I do want this is helping clarify things for me. Essentially, a local government could set a speed limit for any bike at as low as 10 miles per hour on a multi use trail. Is that am I reading that correctly?

Yes. A sidewalk is a multiuse trail.

Or a bike path?

Yes. Bikes path. But if it's a bike path, it's 15 or 20. So not the low 10 miles.

Okay.

So we have so I, I live in Suisun City. Along Highway 12, we have a trail that's pretty wide enough. I'm trying to remember the class now that it is, but it's a Marsh Creek Trail. So you that is considered a multiuse trail. So that would could go down to 10, and you see regularly seniors on it, mothers and fathers, but families pushing strollers, you know, people walking their dogs.

And so in theory, Suisun City could say on that trail that's regularly used by all those people that you could only go 10 miles per hour.

Okay.

Or they cannot do anything at all. Correct.

What what is the fastest legal e-bike at this point? Do I mean, I don't know if there is a limit, but I know there's a distinction between illegal and legal, but 750 watts.

So a level three e-bike is 28 miles per hour. Okay?

Okay.

And then you'll be riding on this you can do the exercise yourself. You can be in your car at 40 miles per hour, and there's a e-bike passing you or traveling in the same that e motor. I like that that What's the terminology?

That would be an illegal?

Correct. But right now, it's muddied, you know. Like, you don't know, you know, as physicians and surgeons, we don't know which families are allowing their kids to be on e-bikes, the classes which I we respect and then or Emotos. We're seeing a lot of Emotos, you know, injuries.

Which are not legal.

Correct. Which are not legal. Yeah. But if you they've they've done audits and I wish I can remember which school it was that we were just talking about recently, but they've done audits at bikes at schools. And the majority of the bikes were illegal bikes, not allowed even allowed in California.

90%.

Was it 90? Yeah.

in San Mateo County and Marin County.

It was

That's a

bunch of schools, middle school Sibley River

Pappas District. Why why she's talking about the urgency of this and and other bills, including hers?

Yeah. So I and I and I actually agree with the urgency. We're having similar challenges in my district. I think my challenge is sort of this distinction, right, between legal and illegal. Because to me, 28 miles per hour is not very fast, especially on a on a bike.

Sorry. I just wanna echo what what we've seen recently because the further you go along this, you know, e-bike history, reminding you that we've seen e-bikes hit e-bikes on trails and and the e-bike taking off like a hit and run. We've seen e-bike hitting pedestrians at crosswalks. So that's why I think this is important because I think, like, the strollers and the elderly people, they're they're they're starting to get hit by these e motors. Yeah.

You go ahead.

Well and, and that's why I say I do fully support the, you know, provision relating to sidewalk specifically. I think that's an important provision. I think my challenge is typically on these trails that are more designed for, you know, bicycles, for example. Right? Where and then and then again, you know, requiring 16 year olds and younger from using these 28 mile per hour bikes, absolutely.

E-motors.

But to me, when you're on a bicycle, you're going 28 miles per hour at the Max, You know, that's that's not that's not really much faster than you can go on a traditional bike if you're going downhill. So I think that's where I'm struggling with its particular these provisions relating to the bike pass and the multi use trails. I'll try to keep an open mind as the bill moves forward.

Not sure where I'm gonna be at today, but I do think that there's a lot in here that needs to happen. And so I am hopeful that we're able to, you know, come to some sort of agreement on that, and I'll keep an eye on the bill.

Thank you. Senator Ransom.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, madam chair, for bringing this bill out. I'll try not to be redundant to things that have already been said. I think what stands out to me is the importance that we have to share the sidewalks and share and and folks that are on these bicycles or, you know, whether they're e-bikes or regular bikes have to share. And we need to make sure that it's safe.

So that's what I appreciate most about this bill, especially since we could not have known years ago the technology would get us here today, but now we're starting to see just, you know, these bikes are everywhere. The bikes, the the kids get together and they kinda do street takeovers in my community where they, like, literally won't even let the cars go by. And they're going really fast, but and I appreciate that.

So we do need to figure out a way that we can all coexist together. I also wanna just point out, I guess, the difference versus a distinction when we're talking about the Emoto versus the the e-bikes.

I, I really feel like this gives us an opportunity to catch the folks who were on the illegal bikes because we we do have the, opportunity to put a safety regulation as far as the speed limit on there. And if if it happens to be a person on an e model versus an e-bike, well, now we we we've caught that person.

We we now have a a better opportunity because we now have a standard for what we expect to see, on our sidewalks, on our bike pathways, in any way that would endanger others. So I just wanna say that I think this is makes a lot of sense based on what we are experiencing, how we are experiencing e-bikes right now. This makes a lot of sense for the safety of everyone.

So thank you for bringing the bill.

Thank you. I appreciate those comments and noting, you know, just wanna pinpoint something you said about it being a shared pathway. Whether it's a bicycle path or a, multi use path, it is a shared pathway. And so these are we're giving the authority to the locals to be able to determine, speed limits, and that has to go through a public process.

So if a speed limit is not needed for that particular pathway, I get you would see an objection rise up from the people who live in that community that we don't need a speed limit there.

But then where there is needed for a speed limit, the community would rise up and say there needs to be a speed limit. Because whether you're on a multiuse where there's children and seniors and, you know, dogs and things like that or a bicycle path, there are other bicycles that maybe aren't e-bikes. Right? And we know that e-bikes can go faster, they're heavier, and so when they're involved in a collision, it could be pretty devastating as the doctor has noted. Doctor Limon sorry.

Limon?

Just briefly, something was alluded by a chairperson, Wilson, is is how heavy these bikes are. I, I, I just want the committee members to understand how heavy these bikes are. We're we're seeing injuries in three-year-olds where the bike is just parked at the beach and falls on the child or falls on your foot instead of having one fracture yet they hit there's, like, multiple.

So these bikes are very heavy, let alone when they fall on you than when they hit you at the high speeds.

That's the member of Jackson.

Yeah. This is a very interesting time being in the legislature due to technology and how fast things are moving, and because we're in unchartered territory. And so it's kind of like we're we're trying to experiment with public policy as we're trying to keep up with technology and all the variations. Probably, many of these parents have no clue whether these things are legal or illegal sometimes. All they know is my kid says, I want this one.

But I also think that one of our biggest problems that I that I've noticed as a legislature is that we continue to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and that we are seeing people dying. We're seeing children dying, particularly with whether they're legal or illegal. I've I'm I would assume that they're a little bit of both, But not to do anything, I'm not sure if we can really, say we're doing our job by doing nothing because it wasn't perfect enough.

And I assume that we might need to make some changes. I was on my local traffic safety commission when I was just, you know, volunteer in the community, and we had these type of local discussions.

But what's good about this bill is that it it gives locals localities those type of discussions to have, because it may not be appropriate for us to try to make all of those because we don't know the particular trail. We don't know the particular park. We don't know the particular street. Right? And so those are more localized.

We're just giving local people the authority to make these decisions as they see fit to protect their children and their and their community. And so I would just wanna make sure that we're setting the context a little bit more and making sure that we're not drifting off into different different places. But the end of the day is when we see people being hurt, we have a job to try to find ways to do it.

And for us to continue to try to find ways why we shouldn't do something when people are dying, I think we need to make sure that we're we're having a little bit more reflection on that.

Thank you. I appreciate those comments.

Thank you for bringing the bill forward. I've had quite a few people from the police and sheriffs come by and talk to me about this bill. I remember when I was running for a campaign, I had a young kids asking me, what's my job? It was really easy. It's about safety.

I have to take care of my community. I have to make sure it's safe. And it really worries me because I've seen these bikes. I pull out of my car out of the driveway. I've got all those little things to say a car is coming by.

It doesn't tell me that I've got a young person on a e-bike flying by me. When people are on bicycles, they think they're more cautious because most people are at least in my neighborhood, a lot of them are older. But nevertheless, is that what I have seen in the past couple months, I feel sorry for the police officers because they don't have a really clear direction on what is a correct motorbike or whatever. I really feel bad that it's we're this is all about education. Yeah.

You know, why people cannot follow the rules and know what it says, it drives me nuts. And when I have a young man right in the the my intersection and without a blink of an eye, he ran it and I missed him by inches. Because he's he's young. He doesn't know the rules. Oh, I can't I'm invincible.

So I really like the bill. I'm, obviously gonna support it. And I don't know. I wish that you could put urgency on it because we cannot wait much longer.

Thank you. Appreciate those comments.

Members, any more comments? Great. I'd just like to finish up, obviously, dealing with the e-bikes. When COVID came up, that's basically when the bikes came up, which was, you know, great. The e-bikes, great family activity so forth, but like we said is rules of the road.

And I can tell you on Saturday, in one of the cities that I represent, they had 200 kids basically took over the streets. And these are streets where it's 50 miles an hour ziggzagging back

and forth, and the danger, half of them not wearing helmets. And so, at least, it is you have technology. And unfortunately, with technology, we have to find out what it does, the good and the bad. And then we are we're all behind it trying to figure out how do we deal with public safety. So, I mean, I, I support this.

And something I just wanna bring up is with law enforcement, I think that's the other part we're missing is how how can we help you? How are you supposed to enforce something when you don't know if a child's 16 or 13 or if that bike is going, you know, 30 miles an hour or 15 miles an hour, and you can't just pull them over. We've seen them. They take off.

And so this also is such a parental responsibility, and we've got to get parents involved where I do know that, some of the cities that we have, they have certifications where if the child's 16, the parent has to be at that certification.

It's not just a test where you can take online test, which would be easy enough to cheat, if you're just doing this. They're also having to do kind of a mobile test like we do when we drive. How do we help with that, to be able to make you be enable to actually, enforce it? And we can't have separate groups coming out here. So I, I completely support the bill.

We've gotta start making parents responsible and finding the parents if their child, isn't obeying the, you know, the regulations. Not to mention half these parents have never been on a bike before. They didn't even know how fast they went, which we found out with all the injuries. So I completely support this bill, but I would just like to say is how can we help? We need to get a statewide certification and make it to that point.

Sounds good. I would look to the do you wanna provide it Absolutely.

Thank you for the question. It you you guys are alright and everyone's kinda touched on it. There's a significant amount of challenges. We're dealing with oftentimes 10, 12 year olds that simply just don't have the judgment. They they don't understand the rules of the road.

And what we're doing is we're being reactive waiting for that irresponsible behavior. And then if we do do enforcement at that point, now we're hoping for compliance and it creates a few other layers. And we spend a lot of time talking about legal e-bikes and e-motors, and then we haven't even really touched on the fact that oftentimes these legal e-bikes can be easily modified after watching a TikTok video or so. And now they're they're operating at a level that is unsafe yet again.

And so to answer your question, I, I would say that anytime we can really point to equipment, and this bill does that to a certain extent by working with our manufacturers and and dialing back the capabilities of that technology, I think is is a very safe and responsible way of, trying to address this issue.

Alright. Thank you. Seeing no more quest Assemblymember Hoover? Yes.

What penalties does this allow for like, what is the enforcement that this will change for law enforcement as a result of the bill?

Well, on the they can get cited for breaking the speed limit. It doesn't have a point on your record like a driver's license would, but you can be cited. And then there's a second provision related to the disclosure that Assemblywoman Pappan was asking about. There is a and I think it was also noted from opposition, the penalty provision. And so For

the manufacturers.

Yes. And so they are required to have a disclosure and and then in the bill, it talks about it being at least in 12.5, and it gives you the exact language that you have to stay. And if you don't disclose, then you could be liable to up to $15,000 charge as a manufacturer retailer if you don't have that statement.

But for law enforcement on the ground, how does this change from the status quo in terms of

They can now

cite give you more tools so you cannot currently cite, is what you're saying, under the status quo?

Go ahead. I mean, if it exceed well, go ahead.

I'll just say that right now, we have to treat e-bikes consistent with our traditional bicycles. And there's some challenges Right. Related to it. So this will further the needle in the right direction.

More tools in the toolbox. More tools in the toolbox.

Okay. Got it. Thank you.

Alright. Seeing no more comments or questions, if you'd like to close.

Thank you. Thank you for the lively discussion on this bill. I appreciate it. As, you know, one of our committee members noted, it is urgent. There is an issue, as our doctor has explained that number of children coming into the ER and having some serious injuries has to be addressed.

And as our majority leader noted, it is our job to address those issues. And I will say there's a saying that says boundaries are only are not respected when they're explained. They're respected when they're enforced. And I would say the same thing is to our laws. You know, explaining our laws does nothing, but enforcing our laws is what gets them respected.

And so this is another tool in the toolbox, as as to my colleague said, that allows us to enforce our laws related to, electric bicycles. We still have to deal with the fact that we have illegal bicycles out there. EMotors are like, one of our, professors said, it's our bicycle shaped devices. A lot of illegal bicycle shaped devices are out there. But at this point, we have to make sure that we have clear law that can be enforced.

And I believe this is what this gets us moving in the right, needle. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote and for this committee who will hear a lot of e-bike legislation, I ask that you keep an OBA mind and support the other bills in this package, to make our our community safer. Thank you.

Alright. We're gonna go ahead and call roll. I'm sorry. Do I have a motion?

So moved.

Second. Thank you. Thank you.

AB 2346. The motion is do passed to the Judiciary Committee. [Roll call]

We have 12 votes. Alright. That moves the bill. We'll go back on those that haven't been able to vote on the previous bills.

Alright. We're gonna go to we're gonna do one pass through and wait a moment to do another pass through. I don't but I wanted to make sure that members who've been here get a chance to leave out. And so we had five bills on our consent calendar. Madam secretary, can you call the roll for the remaining members?

Consent calendar. Ahrens?

Yes.

Arons, Aye. Harabedian, Hart, Hart, Aye. Hoover, Aye.

Lackey?

Just Lackey. Aye.

Lackey, Aye. Macedo? Aye. Macedo, Aye. Ward. Ward, Aye.

That bill has 15 votes. We'll leave the roll open, for members to add on. Going from the beginning for items heard in the committee today, file item one AB1614, Dixon.

AB1614. The motion was do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Ahrens?

Aye.

Arons, aye. Harabedian? Hart? Hart? Hart aye. Hoover? Hoover, Aye. Lackey?

Aye.

Lackey, Aye. Macedo? Macedo, Aye. Ward? Ward, Aye.

That bill has 15 votes. We'll leave it open for members to be able to add on. File item number 5AB29 I'm sorry, 2193 Ta.

AB2193. The motion was do passes amended to the Committee on Communications and Conveyance. Ahrens?

Aye.

Ahrens, aye. Harabedian? Hart? Hart, aye. Hoover? aye. Lackey?

Aye

Lackey, aye. Macedo? Macedo, aye.

Ward? Ward, aye.

Alright. That bill has 15 votes. We'll hold it open for members to add on. Moving on to file item number eight, AB 2629 Chen.

AB 2629. The motion do passed to appropriations. Ahrens?

Aye

Ahrens, aye

Harabedian? Harabedian, aye. Hart? Hart, Aye. Hoover? Hoover, Aye. Lackey?

Aye

Lackey, aye. Macedo?

Macedo, Aye. Ward? Ward, Aye.

Ransom your vote. Changing from not voting to aye.

That bill has 16 votes and is oh, right? That's all of us. That that bill has 16 votes and is out. Moving on to file item 9, AB2046 Ransom.

AB 2046, the motion do passed to appropriations. Harabedian?

Aye

Hairabedian, Aye. Hart? Hart, aye.

Hoover? Hoover, aye. Lackey?

Aye.

Lackey, aye. Macedo? Aye. Rogers? Ward?

Aye.

Ward, aye. That's 15.

That bill has 15 votes. We'll hold it open for members to add on. Moving on to file item 10. AB 2346 Wilson.

AB 2346 do pass to the Judiciary Committee. Ahrens?

Aye.

Ahrens, aye. Carrillo. Harabedian? Harabedian, aye.

Rogers.

That bill has 14 votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Going back to the top file item I'm sorry, the consent calendar. There's five items. Madam secretary?

Harabedian?

Aye.

Harabedian, aye.

That bill- Those bills have 16 votes. It is now out of committee. Moving on to file item one, AB 1614 Dixon

Harabedian?

Aye.

Harabedian, aye.

16.

That bill has 16 votes, leaving it's now out of committee. Moving on to file item number five, AB 2193 Ta.

Harabedian? Harabedian aye.

That bill has now 16 votes. I think that goes we have two members who are absent. And so we will check to see if they're returning before we close out the other bills.

Alright. We're gonna go ahead and call roll up for a B2046 ransom.

File item 9AB2046. The motion is do passed to appropriations, Rogers?

Rogers, aye.

Alright. We're gonna go to AB 2346 Wilson.

The motion was do passed to the Judiciary Committee. Carrillo? Rogers?

Aye.

Rogers, aye.

15.

Okay. Great.

That ends our session.