Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

I know. Right? I know. The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Good afternoon, and welcome, everyone.

The hearing room is open for 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 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 within the with the committee. And the primary witnesses and opposition must have their opposition registered with the committee.

All other support and opposition can be stated at the standing mic when called upon to simply state name, affiliation, and position.

With that, we will begin our hearing. We do not have a quorum at this time, so we will start as a subcommittee. I ask that all members of this committee please report to the Committee Hearing Room, Room 1100. When at appropriate time, we will go to consent calendar. We have three bills on our proposed consent calendar.

They are AB 2307, AB 2719, and AB 2372. With that, we'll move to our, here are bills and file item order. Our first author that is present is file item number six, AB 2672 by Assemblymember Hart. You may begin at your convenience.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 2672, a bill to ensure California can nimbly respond in the face of fuel supply shocks to help lower consumer costs.

In the 1990s and early 2000's, California adopted stringent regulations in response to increased air pollution from gasoline vehicles. To this day, California mandates that only cleaner car bob gas can be sold statewide.

That stands for California reformulated gasoline blend stock for oxygenate blending, the key ingredient in our state's cleaner fuel blend.

At the time, these standards were far ahead of the rest of the country. But over the last two decades, federal and other state standards have dramatically narrowed this gap.

Today, when emergency strikes, suppliers must seek out car bob gasoline often from out of the country and ship it back to California. Waiting for increased supply for relief often leads to weeks with significant price spikes for Californians at the pump.

As refinery capacity continues to diminish statewide and escalating geopolitical conflict is raising costs at the pump, our state needs more tools to address urgent shocks to our gasoline supply.

The California Air Resources Board already has the authority to allow producers to apply for a waiver to sell non carb gasoline with a fee, but this waiver process has never been used in its decades long existence.

AB 2672 requires the California Energy Commission to develop regulations setting parameters for when refineries must apply for and use this waiver process to protect consumers from price spikes. Producers must pay a fee to use this authority, protecting in state refining capacity.

Revenue from this fee will be used to mitigate emissions associated with dirtier pre 2004 cars, disproportionately helping lower income consumers transition to new cleaner vehicles more quickly.

As my witness will discuss, this fee structure allows California to get more dirty vehicles off the road and entirely offsets additional emissions due to the combustion of non car bob gas.

This bill will advance a sustainable fuels transition in an equitable manner and promote a more stable and reliable fuel market that protects consumers from unpredictable cost. Testifying in support of this bill with me today is Daniel Barad from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Daniel Barad on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists, proud sponsor of AB 2672, which will prevent gas price spikes and fund clean vehicles.

As the author said, gas price spikes are often caused by an emergency supply shock such as an unplanned refinery outage, which leads to the lengthy process of importing car bob gasoline while consumers endure weeks of painful price spikes.

Meanwhile, there is non car bob being produced at California refineries, in neighboring states, and on nearby ships that we cannot use due to our state fuel specification regulations.

UCS wanted to understand if there was a way to add flexibility into the system by allowing the use of non car bob gasoline in emergencies without undermining environmental outcomes.

Our analysis found that allowing the sale of non car bob with a fee used to replace old dirty cars would effectively mitigate these emissions in the year of replacement and pay long term dividends for the climate and communities.

But after all this research, we realized that California has already had this tool on the books for thirty years. Industry sponsored legislation shrewdly gave car bob the authority to grant waivers allowing non car bob to enter the market during emergencies with a fee to offset the emissions difference

and to protect in state refineries when the market is functioning well. We can be forgiven for not knowing about it because this tool has never been used for thirty years despite two frequent supply shortages and price spikes. AB 2672 fixes that.

The bill requires the CEC to establish clear parameters for when producers must make use of this variance to protect consumers from price spikes. It integrates the variance into the resupply planning requirements already established by a ABX two one and allows CARB to update its regulations to

incorporate CEC analysis and regulations. Thank you very much, and we respectfully request your Aye vote.

Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their support and come to the mic. Name, affiliation, and position.

Jenna Price on behalf of Environmental Voters, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Climate Center in strong support. Thanks.

Kate Eager with Weideman Group on behalf of NextGen in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other, we will now move on to opposition testimony.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Zach Leary on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association. Apologies for the late letter on this one. We are opposed to this concept of bringing non carbon fuel or requiring sellers of gasoline to sell non carbon fuel in California under the current proposal.

Currently, the waiver process is optional. So it is if you don't have the fuel, this was done initially during the when we transitioned to a new car bob gasoline. I think folks were probably concerned about being able to produce car bob gasoline and and that this waiver process was set up.

The market looks a lot different now than it did back in the nineties. We are mainly concerned with this proposal because it is a tax. So the bill is keyed two thirds, and it states in the bill that it would result in taxpayers paying higher taxes within the meaning of the constitution.

The concern around that is you're passing legislation potentially with unknown fees, which are rebuked are required to be paid, so they're considered taxes under the proposal. And we don't know what that number is gonna be.

The other main issue we have with the bill is our refiners made the investments that the state wanted to make car bob gasoline.

Those were not insignificant investments that they made back when car bob was first adopted and that we continue to have to make as refineries do turnarounds and maintenance and so forth.

We feel that this could potentially further undermine the California market in in the sense that it would be foreign competitors bringing and seeking this non car bob waiver to bring that fuel into the state.

The other main issue is.

We'll have to have you wrap up.

Yep. Is is the optional or the permissive language that this gives to the CEC. This was similar language that was adopted in the special sessions as it pertained to the margin cap and penalty.

Even having that permissive language in code is a deterrent to investment because it's always gonna be a risk if the CEC changes their minds. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their opposition. You can come to the microphone, name, affiliation, and position.

Good afternoon. Erin Lehane on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California in support of California's Union Refineries and opposed to the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other, moving it back to committee for any questions, comments, concerns. Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah. Coming from a commuter community, I couldn't be more against this, unfortunately. I will tell you that we're about ready to see some very catastrophic circumstances as it becomes to fuel costs. And a lot of it is because of what we've done to the refineries in this state.

And I have real fears about what lies ahead.

And and this just adds to the the frustration that I don't understand. I mean, I understand somewhat the justification, but what I don't understand is how bad it punishes people who live in rural areas. And that's enough said. Thank you.

Rogers.

Thank you so much, Chair. First of all, I wanna thank Union of Concerned Scientists and the Assembly Member for tackling an issue that has been thorny. When I read through the opposition, I really see kind of two things.

One is a concern from some folks about the impact that it could have on local jobs, and I think that that is understood and that's why the legislature last year was really trying to be diligent in how they approach this problem.

Some of the opposition, I feel like, is disingenuous where the folks who are making the most money from scarcity and from a crisis are now opposing the very metrics that they put in place to try to relieve that outlet at an appropriate time.

And I think that especially for folks who have advocated for the repeal of Karbab entirely, that some of their arguments fall a little bit on deaf ears. That that it's if you wanna have a an actual conversation about Karbab, let's have a conversation about Karbab.

And that for some folks, a full repeal of that is absent anything short of that, they're making up reasons to oppose this narrowly crafted, very fine tuned approach that will reduce the overall cost on my constituents at a time when we see peaks and when we see it hit a crisis level.

So the bill is not gonna be perfect. It's something different, but I appreciate the assembly member bringing it forward for discussion.

Madam Chair, may I respond?

Yeah. Go ahead. You're talking about into the com the the comment mister Rogers made in regard to the opposition statement.

Yeah. I don't I don't think and Assembly Member, I don't think you've heard from the Western States Petroleum Association, us argue against Car bob being California's fuel blend. That has been the law of the land since the nineties. Our member companies made the investments to do it.

Is car bob a cost driver?

Yes. Has it made California unique? Yes. But for us, the the the use of non carbob comes down to logistical challenges because California is set up for a one fuel system. Once you and carbob is very unique in its chemistry.

It's limited on its sulfur, its aromatics, and its other components. So once you start bringing non carbob fuel in and getting those barrels mixed with carbob fuel barrels, now you have non compliant fuel throughout the system. And then it potentially gets into storage challenges at gas stations.

And the the mixing of the two, it's like mixing milk and water. If you mix the two, you have milky water. You don't have pure milk.

Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that. You are not actually the opposition that I was talking to to car bob, but your opposition, your members are the ones that profit when there is no relief valve. So two different opposition, arguments.

WISPA created this exemption originally, and I think that has found that it's more profitable for your members to not utilize this exemption, which I think is what the Assembly Member is trying to do is agreeing that that was a good idea at the time and could actually save taxpayers money by,

at critical moments allowing for that exemption to be utilized or forcing that exemption to be utilized.

Okay. Did you have a comment you wanted to make before I go to Vice Chair Davies.

Yeah. Just in response to the inability of California's system to handle multiple fuel specifications. The same pipelines today take diesel fuel, jet fuel, car bob, and then in some at some refineries, AZERBOB and the Nevada fuel.

The same pipelines deliver those to terminals in batches, and then they're sorted into tanks. And then they can be, moved throughout the state to, different gas stations.

So there is no structural inability to move non car bob and car bob with within the state. And additionally, the milky water analogy is interesting, but milky water is not unsafe to drink. And just like, if you were to drive your car from California being half full of car bob gasoline, drive it to Nevada,

fill it half full with Nevada gasoline, it's not going to cause any issues for use. The same is true for the system. It's really about and it's really an enforcement concern which CARB is in charge of and could enforces throughout the entire fuel system.

Okay. I noted that they can get brief if it's a direct response to something that was said.

And it and it does come down to enforcement. And so once you have mixed fuel and don't know where that mixed fuel came from or the fuel is mixed and you're getting tested if you're meeting the standards of car bob, it changes the enforcement landscape in California.

So meaning you could if you were being in if the enforcement mechanism would change, if you got tested post one of these things, there would be an issue. Okay. Thank you. Vice chair Davies?

Thank you very much. I appreciate where you're coming from with this bill, but I just you know, I've I've been here going in my six years now, and we are seeing information coming from all over the place. We obviously are in a major fuel crisis in California. This is a California crisis. It's not a United States crisis.

I just was in North Carolina, $3.50 for gas. We're up to 6, 7, and 8. It's what we have done. And studies and stats are coming out that the reason we're in this situation is because of policy, policy that we've put out there, basically, supply and demand.

We could look at the special session two years ago saying, alright.

We're gonna have you go ahead and put away 25% of your of your inventory. Well, what happens? They can't sell that inventory, yet they pay for that inventory.

It's like telling a grocer, just in case we have a disaster, I want you to put 25% of your inventory away in case we have a disaster, and yet they have no income coming in. We are in this spot because of bad policy.

And when I look at this right now, I one of the biggest concerns I have is that we're giving the power with the two thirds vote over the CARB to do basically whatever they want. We, as legislators, we need to be responsible here.

We need to be able to oversee, and if we have concerns, to be able to change it. But to give CARB this opportunity where literally, it says forgive me here. And we're and, you know, let's let's go back to the word affordability.

Seems to be, affordability seems to be the key word, but every time I hear the word affordability, I'm not seeing what's affordable. And when it says under this here, tax, allows CARB to raise a gas tax on non California compliant gasoline by any amount. Any amount.

So all of a sudden, we get to a point where we don't have any surplus here. We have no fuel. We need to go out and use what we have. And now we're being taxed, and they can continue to tax as much as they want.

It's just very confusing to me when we're talking affordability and and making sure we're not getting gouged here. Well, we're gonna get gouged the hell out of it if we're reaching out there. So I'm very, very confused.

I just I'm just frustrated. I'm frustrated because we keep going and blaming it on places where it's not coming from. But I really believe that this and I talked to my to my colleagues. This has gotta be our responsibility. We cannot be giving just by voting two thirds carb the responsibility to be able to handle this.

I mean, we've seen what's happened. We owe this. We this is ours. We need to be sure that we are responsible, that if something goes awry, that we can bring these prices down, that we can come back to the table.

So, you know, you take this bill as it is, but do not give CARB the responsibility to be able to go ahead and and charge whatever they want.

And then we're gonna have to sit there and see where the accountability is, where is the money actually going as we watch day after day, fraud coming everywhere and anywhere.

So I'm sorry, but, like I said, it takes a lot for me to get upset. But this to me makes no sense whatsoever, and I'm I'm sorry that I can't support it.

May I respond?

Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. Thank you very much for those comments. Just wanted to say that the, language you're referencing is existing law. This is a variance process at CARB, And CARB already has the ability to impose fees and conditions as part of this original authority that they were given.

The other point around the the fee is this would only be paid on gasoline that is currently unable to be sold in the state of California. So it's not a new gasoline fee.

This would only be something that would be paid if we're bringing additional gasoline into the state, increasing supply, and thus lowering prices overall.

And then the last point around California policies being the cause of gas price spikes, I just wanna say, in this case, car bob does make the system extremely fragile and is a reason why it is very, difficult to bring additional supply in when we have an unplanned refinery outage.

And what we're seeing with this bill is a number of, organizations working together to try to solve that problem without undermining the environmental outcomes.

And it's the industry here today that's arguing to to keep the California regulation in place.

Thank you. Yes. Go ahead, Vice Chair.

If I may respond.

Yes.

Sure. That's where I just wanted to hit is, right now, it is considered a a voluntary fee. Correct? So by making a mandate, it does become a tax by law.

Yeah. It would be under the fees and conditions, but that the CEC sets under the terms and conditions that the CEC sets, but we have language in there that they would not be able to advance their regulations on when this variance must be used if it was going to increase,

costs for consumers or, lead to the closure of any additional in state refineries.

But they can still make that decision. Correct? Legislation cannot at that point.

Can you clarify your question?

The legislature, she's noting that the decision once the bill is signed into law, it is up to the CEC to determine whether the fee they set doesn't cost consumers more or not and to determine whether, it doesn't impact a refinery. And then they they they accept the trigger point. They do all the regulations surrounding

Yeah.

Our this bill would just be giving permission to require it versus it being a voluntary program?

Yeah. That's correct. And I will note that that language around it's very similar to the price gouging penalty language. And the thing I would note about that is CEC just recently decided not to implement the price gouging penalty because they were concerned that it would undermine in state refining capacity.

So this is something we have trusted CEC, and I feel that they've they've shown the ability to, make that determination.

And I think to opposition's point, just to note and Assemblymember Jackson, Dr.Jackson is next. To opposition point, that's where they're saying just the the ability for them to have the control sent to Marcus a market signal that the fact that they have been given that authority absent the legislature.

Correct. And it's their it's up to their discretion. So they can decide, you know, what they think is right and if they wanna keep raising the tax because it will be a tax, they can do that. And there's nothing we can do here. Correct?

Well, this is the first hearing for this bill. It's a complex subject. And, obviously, we're gonna continue to work to address the concerns that you raised and others have brought up as well. But this the concept of this is pretty simple.

You know, car bob creates a fuel island in California, and it was intended to protect air quality in California.

And in in its inception, that was a very powerful and important tool. As time has gone on, the difference between car bob fuel and non car bob fuel from an air pollution benefit has changed and become less critical. And the the fuel island problem that is caused by car bob fuel is a bigger problem.

And so I'm starting the conversation, try to have a dialogue to say, can we look at this differently? And can we say that there may be an opportunity when there are price spikes to sell non car bob fuel in California and lower prices for consumers?

The purpose of the fee is twofold. One, to protect California refineries from having a predatory price environment where out of state lower cost fuel is effectively out competing in state fuel. We don't want that to happen. We wanna protect the jobs of the refineries.

We wanna protect the stability of Mr. Leary's clients and and his members association. And twofold, we would be great to have a fee that we could use to reduce demand for gas line gasoline by encouraging low income consumers who reside in Mr. Lackey's district, who have very long commutes,

and provide a disproportionate volume of gasoline demand to reduce that, and to try and protect those consumers with a better solution in the long run. And so that's that's the purpose of the bill. That's what we're here to talk about and appreciate all the questions. And Just wondering.

Look forward to the opportunity to continuing this conversation.

Okay. Real quick. Real quick. And, you know, you now respect you very much. And so I keep hearing the word fee, but it will be a tax.

So why don't we work on an amendment making it that it is a fee and it's not mandated and it's not a tax. Just an idea. But thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Assemblymember.

Okay. Before we go to Dr. Jackson, and I did see your, hand raised, Mr. Leary, and I'm gonna keep the debate back and forth between the committee and the, and the presenters versus amongst the presenters. And so but before we go on to that, let's establish our quorum. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Alright. We will continue on. We are currently on file item number 6 AB 2672. Doctor Jackson.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, Assembly Member, for, your thoughtfulness on this. I mean, obviously, the status quo is not working for consumers, and I think that, your idea is definitely worthy to continue the conversation, to continue this bill so we can continue to debate this.

I think it's a important debate. You're talking to someone who has driven 80 miles one way to go to work for six years.

And, boy, I don't know how many times I was on e before I was able to get to get back home. And I think that the authorization to import other fuels that may not be whatever you however you say it. Something Bob. Car Bob. Thank you.

See? I think what members are saying, and sometimes I kinda feel the same way to be honest, is that once you give additional authority to an independent body now depending on where where you're from and some people trust it more than others, I think I'm kind of in the middle.

Sometimes I trust them, sometimes I don't. But I think the fee issue, I think, is something we should really continue to talk about. Because I am concerned that if I understand the market part where you can flood the market with lower fuels, which means it could actually displace.

We gotta figure out a check and balance on that, but I'm not sure if it the if if the fee is the portion to do it. And so I would love to continue to have that discussion.

I am concerned about the fee issue and the potential that it could raise prices even though there has been some restraint that the commission has done recently to say, no, we understand that there's some cost pressures and we're gonna lay off this time. But I'm just concerned.

It just depends on which administrations in office do. And so I would love to have the conversation, of course, I'll be supportive because for today to move the bill forward, I think it's a con I think in some way, this bill is important to the mix.

And so I think we should continue this discussion and get some version of this to the governors desk, because I think it's part of the solution. I'm just leery as well on the cost pressure things, because my constituents, for us, is not a choice to be able to drive.

We have to. And so there's no there's nothing that can stop there's nothing there's no alternative for us to be able to use less gas because we drive to be able to make our living.

You see what I'm saying? And I know it sometimes it depends on what part of the state you're from or things like that. I mean, obviously, Assemblymember Lackey, we share the same kinda same constituents who have to drive. It's not a luxury for us. It's not it's a merit of survival.

But I do think in times where supply is low, we have to find a way to bring more in so that we can make sure that we tap down on the prices, though.

So we gotta figure this out, but just letting you know kinda where I am, but certainly, this is a great debate we need to continue to have. And so thank you for generating that debate for us.

Assembly Member Carrillo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have those same concerns from Assemblymember Lackey and doctor Jackson, you know, we we just have to ride. We just have to to fill our tank, and down the hill we go, as we say over there, to get to LA or San Bernardino County.

And it is just a a real concern for me too. And I just wanted to let you know that that's something that I wanna weigh in my decision today. Thank you.

Thank you to the author. You know, we had an opportunity to serve together on a work group last year when we were figuring out how do we, stabilize our refineries. And this was one of the things that came out of it and and along with the work from Vice Chair Gunda and his working group.

And, you know, there was controversy around it last year, which is why it wasn't included in the package. And I know with the understanding that, you know, some of these things we'd work on in the new year.

So I appreciate you try to work on it and have the debate. You know, we are focusing on, excuse me, transitioning away from fossil transportation fuels. It needs to be a managed transition. We need to ensure that as we do that, we alleviate the gas spikes.

But at the same time, we want to, protect our refineries as strategic assets, through that entire process. They provide the fuel that moves us, as well as the jobs that help, support our economy.

Recognizing that your bill leverages existing fuel specification variance processes, add some additional data and, some data requirements and utilizing CEC.

And so, I very much was concerned, as chair about the the fact that this would disadvantage in state refineries because it's going from a voluntary program to a mandatory program.

And I appreciate your work as we updated some of the language to address that and to bolster that as you navigate, the process. So before, we move on to the close, I wonder what about this process would not just cause in state refineries to leave and produce outside of the state and just put it in,

right, and just ship their product, ship non carbarbit, like, to move to the point where because if we lose, then we can always just use non carbarbit to fill in, and I recognize the fee is entirely existing to make a fair price.

Is that's why there's flexibility because the market changes. But how do we could this potentially just encourage refineries to continue to leave at a faster space than we want them to, and then import in if we're all if we if we have the option to be relying on car bob.

This is to the author, and then I see you, Mr. Leary, and I'll give you a chance to, respond, but I wanna, first address it to the author and the support testimony support witness. Excuse me.

Well, that is certainly not an outcome that we are seeking, and the the intent of the fee is to try and prevent that from happening by creating, price uncertainty. But this is obviously a work in progress, and I appreciate, the work that your staff has done to improve the bill.

We'll continue to work on it. I heard very clearly from, members probably representing the districts that have the longest commutes that this is, you know, a fraught, complicated, difficult subject. I understand that and appreciate that.

And the purpose of the other elements of the bill to, you know, provide funding to encourage people with long distance commutes and older cars to make the transition, you know, on a more affordable way to electric vehicles to help in the long term reduce demand in California.

I mean, that's our fundamental problem, is that we are on a glide scope where refinery capacity is declining, you know, in a stair step fashion, and, demand for gasoline is declining at a at a glide slope fashion.

And when those things rub, we have a challenge. So everything we can do to decrease demand for gasoline, even at, you know, like a sub 10% amount can have a profound impact on price spikes.

And so the attempt is to expand supply when when when supplies are low and and in jeopardy, and to provide more opportunity for gasoline to get into California to be sold, and at the same time, to reduce demand by taking a fee that is, in a perfect world,

cost neutral to California refineries and protects their investment and their operations.

This is not an easy thing to do. If it was, it would have been done previously. But the point is to have a conversation about hard stuff because the transition is not easy and needs to happen. And if we can help facilitate that and protect consumers, that is my goal.

Thank you, Mr. Leary.

And I wanted to respond to Madam Chair and Dr. Jackson. We're we're always open for debate on all the policies in California and that's what's driven us to this situation that we're in is the policies.

It's when some of those debates become the law of the land and send them wrong market signals to our companies that need to continue to invest in California to operate. I think the big picture we're talking about is supply, and that comes to comes down to in state refining capacity.

It it's no mystery that California refineries are some of the most competitively disadvantaged refineries in the world, and that's due to the hard cost to operate here.

And that's the the bigger challenge is how do you as the legislature and the administration protect the remaining assets that you have left? Because this past year, we lost 20% of the in state refining capacity with two refineries.

So protecting what's left is really important, and we'd love to partner with you and the administration to do that.

Thank you. And I think you have an invitation to the partnership. With that, is there a motion? Rogers, Ahrens, or Ahrens Rodgers? No.

Rogers, Ahrens. I with that there we go again. Right? With that, Assembly Member Hart, your opportunity to close.

Well, I would just appreciate this dialogue. I think mister Leary and I have been in front of you now for a couple years in a row. We will continue to work together. And, ideally, we will find a solution that everybody can embrace. Because I think we all understand what the challenge is.

Finding a solution that works for everybody is not easy, but you have my commitment to continue to try to do that. And I respectfully urge an Aye vote.

Thank you. With that, I will turn it over to madam secretary to call the roll.

AB 2672. The motion is due passed to the utilities and energy committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you. We'll hold that, bill open. The roll open for other Members to add on. With that, we're gonna go back to the top now that we have a quorum. We have three bills on our consent calendar as noted before, AB 2307, AB 2719, AB 2372.

I'll entertain a motion.

So moved.

Moved by Lackey, seconded by Ahrens. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

Alright. We will, hold the roll open for Members to add on. As noted earlier, we have three bills, that were agendized for today. Note that we are not hearing file item number four, AB1557 Papan today per the author's request.

We've heard file item number six, AB 2672 Hart, which leaves file item three, AB 2761 Petrie Norris, and file item seven, AB 1874 Wilson.

We'll take a brief moment, to assess where our authors are. One of them is sitting here, but we usually go last, so we'll wait. Okay. Alright. We will, wait just a moment for, one of our authors who's in transit here, before we get in.

So we're not recessing, but if you wanna stand up, move, you know, take a few deep breaths, now would be an appropriate time to do so.

While we wait, we'll call consent calendar again.

Consent calendar, Aguilar Curry, Harabedian, Hoover, Macedo, Hapin, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins Aye, Ward.

All right. I see we have an author present. We'll move on to item number three, AB 2761. You may begin at your convenience.

There we are. Take two. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Pleased to join you today to present AB 2761, a Common Sense bill to modernize how California collects and utilizes traffic crash data. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA, California accounts for approximately ten percent of all injury crashes nationwide.

Existing law requires law enforcement agencies to submit fatality and injury involved crash reports to the CHP in a certain form and time frame. Unfortunately, many agencies miss this deadline and submit paper based reports of varying quality. As a result, California, arguably the international epicenter of tech innovation, hosts a crash data system that is outdated, fragmented, and only 13.5% compliant with national data standards. Today, data is split across two separate systems.

There's up to a two-year delay before data is finalized, and 40% of law enforcement agencies are not submitting reports electronically.

These delays have real consequences, including slower identification of dangerous road conditions, delayed vehicle safety recalls and defect detection, and reduced ability to secure federal funding and evaluate safety programs. In short, we are making safety decisions with incomplete and outdated information. AB 2761 brings California into the twenty first century by directing CHP to create, and requiring local agencies to utilize a single statewide electronic crash reporting system.

This bill will improve roadway safety across California and will ensure that law enforcement and safety experts have the timely, accurate information necessary to save lives. With me, I am pleased to be joined by Mike Knudsen, who's here on behalf of AAA.

Madam chair members, Mike Knudsen here on behalf of the Automobile Club of Southern California. You know, this one is, we deal with a lack of the proper data on a regular basis. This is for for crashes. These kinds of decisions have real-life consequences. We're very excited that we are in a position to modernize it, and we hope that the committee will support it.

I'm here to ask, answer any questions. It's time to modernize, and it's time to make sure we're getting the data that we need when we need it.

Thank you so much. With that, we'll move on to members of the public who would like to add on their support. You can come to the microphone, name, affiliation, and position.

Good afternoon. Ireda Epichan on behalf of AAA Northern California, in support.

Thank you. Now, moving on to opposition. We don't have any opposition registered on file, but we will give an opportunity for members of the public who may be present which wil like to note their opposition on this bill? Now would be appropriate time to come to the mic with name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none.

Moving to members of the committee for discussion. Assemblymember Ahrens. I saw your saw your motion, but was there any discussion? Assemblymember Lackey.

Just real quickly, I'm very familiar with SWITRS. And, it's amazing that it hasn't been adapted by anyone other than the highway patrol. So I'd like to even be a co-author on this piece if you'd if you'd have me.

Thank you, assembly member. Would be delighted to add you.

Alright. Seeing no other conversation from the committee, I'll note, thank you for introducing this important bill. As was noted, it is about time that we modernize our vehicle data crash, sorry, vehicle crash data reporting systems. Reporting timely and accurate crash data creates an important feedback loop that can help us identify trends, refine enforcement strategies, and inform safety improvements to vehicles and roads. I understand that this bill is consistent with a federal grant that the state has received to help it fund this modernization effort.

So I will be supporting your bill today. We have a motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Vice Chair Davies. I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you, madam chair. I'll, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam secretary.

AB 2761. The motion is due passed to appropriations. Wilson?

Aye.

Wilson, Aye, Davies?

Aye.

Davies, Aye. Aguiar-Curry?

Aye.

Aguiar Curry, Aye. Ahrens.

Aye.

Aye.

Ahrens, Aye. Carrillo.

Carrillo, Aye. Harabedian..Hart.

Aye

Hart, Aye. Hoover...Jackson.

Aye.

Jackson, Aye. Lackey.

Very Aye.

Lackey, Aye. Macedo.

Aye.

Masito Aye. Pappen...Ransom...Rogers.

Sharp Collins...Ward.

All right. We'll hold that roll open for members to be able to add on. Thank you. Madam Chair. Now we're moving on to item number seven, 1874.

That bill has 13 votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Moving on to file item number three, AB 2761.

[Roll Call]

That bill has 16 votes and is out. With that, there's no further business of the Transportation Committee. We are now adjourned.