Assembly Standing Committee on Emergency Management

There you go. Can you all hear me now? Yeah. Thanks, guys. Alright. We're gonna call this meeting to order.

Currently, we do not have a quorum, so we're gonna operate as a subcommittee. I wanna welcome everyone. We have nine bills that are eligible today. One is on consent. That's assembly bill, nights oh, and assembly bill nineteen sixty has been pulled off of consent at the request of the vice chair.

Each bill is entitled to a primary witness in support and a primary witness in opposition, and each will be allotted two minutes, again, two minutes for their testimony. Following the presentations, additional individuals may approach the microphone, state your name, affiliation, and position on that bill, name, affiliation, and position. Written testimony may be submitted directly to the committee. With that, we're gonna go ahead and just jump right in because we don't have a quorum. Once we do, we will take a role.

Do we have a quorum now? Okay. With that, let's establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We're gonna move on with our consent calendar. We have AB 2517 Calderon. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriation. Is it is there a motion in the second for the items on the consent calendar? Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We're gonna hold the role open for absent members. Next, we're gonna move forward. We are moving forward. This is not an order.

We're gonna move forward in sign in order. And up next, we have assembly bill 2141, which is a Carrillo bill, which is going to be no. We're not doing that. I'm sorry. We're at 2152.

Assembly member Mark Gonzalez will present his bill, Assembly Bill 2152. You may proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you, madam chair and members. I wanna first begin by thanking you and the your no. You're you're thanking you, the chair, and your staff for working on this bill. AB 2152 is about balancing the scales, ensuring essential fire stations, projects move forward, while also protecting the environment. This bill streamlines the legal review process ensuring that a sequel lawsuit were to occur, it would be resolved within one year.

The other piece of the bill that I have committed to work on is crafting a series of best practices at a job site must follow. In addition to the other considerations already listed that will lead to a presumptive negative declaration for new construction of a fire station, Firefighters are at the backbone of our communities, access to our great state. Calls have have hit historic heights with firefighters responding to emergencies at unprecedented rates. And while call volume has surged, fire department infrastructure hasn't exactly kept up.

In 1960, Los Angeles fire department had a 112 stations serving 2,500,000 residents.

Today, it has a 106 stations serving only 3,900,000 residents. So Los Angeles has six fewer stations to serve 1,400,000 more residents. And the last time LAFD tried to build a new fire station in Van Nuys, they did everything right and still a group of residents sued under CEQA, not once but twice. That project delayed for two years, put thousands of lives at risk and cost taxpayers 1,900,000 in reports and legal fees.

Here to support the bill and give us on the ground perspective, Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters.

Good morning, madam chair. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We're pleased to cosponsor AB 2152. I would like to thank the author, for bringing it forward and the committee for their work on this measure. We also would like to voice their support of, the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local one twelve, who, as the author noted, are in critical need of expansion of stations.

The construction of fire stations in communities is about community safety and firefighter safety. Recent standards of coverage analysis by the International Association of Firefighters identified that the city of Los Angeles, needs 62 stations and more than 4,000 firefighters just to meet the NFPA seventeen ten standard response time of four minutes.

We think that the the firefighters in Los Angeles are currently working on efforts to to to build new stations, and we think it is wholly appropriate to streamline those stations to improve, as I mentioned, community safety and firefighter safety. New fire stations are built with better accommodations for the firefighters in the facility.

They have, better construction and storage of personal protective equipment to prevent additional exposures, and they also have extractors or cleaning equipment at stations to clean turnouts after, firefighters are in a in a fire incident and remove some of the toxins on their gear.

For these reasons, we'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank thank you. So we've heard from a primary witness in support. We don't have any registered witnesses in opposition. Is there anyone that'd like to add on their me too testimony in support? Okay.

Anyone like to speak in opposition?

Good morning, madam chair and members. Richard Western Electrical Contractors Association. We oppose this AB 2152. The bill is framed in a way to accelerate station construction by streamlining judicial process, but in practice, will actually do the opposite especially in parts of California that need these facilities the most. First, rural and underserved communities will lose access to this tool.

By conditioning the streamlining on a project labor agreement, the bill adds cost, complexity, and delay. Many local agencies can't or won't participate and they will lose this judicial streamlining tool because of a labor agreement. So instead of accelerating fire protection projects, AB 2152 risks leaving these communities waiting for their critical infrastructure. Second, the $50,000 threshold is very unique. I've never seen a PLA in California that has a $50,000 threshold.

This threshold shuts out small businesses. These smaller construction rehab and maintenance, these are this is not construction. This is painting or replacing important electrical components. Things like that are gonna be subject to this. These are entry points for small business enterprises and disabled veteran business enterprises.

This is where contractors build their capacity, hire locally, and get their first public works experience. They won't be able to do it under the PLA. AB 2152 effectively removes this pathway. Third, the bill restricts workforce participation. California already requires apprenticeship in the payment of prevailing wage.

PLAs typically require the use of only union construction workers and union apprentices, limiting opportunities for apprentices trained in other state approved nonunion program. This means fewer opportunities for many workers who are already in the pipeline. Finally, this is not nondiscrimination. It's about access. Supporters often point to California public contracts code 2,500 and say PLAs don't discriminate.

But in reality, these agreements restrict how contractors can use their own workforce. They limit core employees and require contractors to fire to follow union hiring systems. For many local contractors, that's not a workable model, especially on small short term projects. Remember, this goes into effect at $50,000. You can't even remodel, you know, the typical single family home for $50,000.

And it raises a fundamental question. Should a contractor be required to set aside their own trained, trusted employees to take a public job? Remember, union contractors are not subject to these replacement mandates. It's not about discrimination. It's about whether we value the workforce that already exists in the community.

Maybe twenty one fifty two will increase costs, reduce participation, and slow the essential delivery of these projects. For those reasons, we could is opposed. Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to add opposition to the bill?

Actually, I got here a little late. Mike West, building trades. Oh, thank you.

Adding support? Okay. Thank you, mister West.

Okay. Mike West with the state building structure trades Council of Council with California in support.

Thank you. K. Is there anyone in support or opposition? I see none. We're gonna bring it back to the members.

Any questions for the author?

Okay. Well, is there a motion? Oh, it's been moved. We have a motion.

I'm so sorry. We have a first and second. Thank you. Arambula and Hedwick. Alright.

Cool. Thank you. Mister Gonzales, would you like to make any closing statements?

Thank you, madam chair. At the end of the day, this bill is about something pretty simple, making sure firefighters can do their job safely and effectively. Right now, the demand is growing and infrastructure is aging, and the gap between the two is getting harder to ignore. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you, secretary. Please call the vote. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations.

[Roll Call]

Awesome. Next up, we have assembly bill twenty forty one, by assembly member Carrillo regarding medical emergency medical services. Assembly member, you can begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to present assembly bill 2041. Last year, my bill, AB 641, established a requirement for public safety agencies to train 911 dispatchers on how to provide callers with pre arrival medical assistant instructions related to choking, CPR, childbirth, bleeding control, and other emergencies.

AB 2041 seeks to build upon this life saving work to help Californians help their family members, their friends, and their neighbors when they are experiencing a critical public health need.

As of yesterday, we reached an agreement with the opposition to amend these bills so that it will only require public safety agencies that were not in compliance at the start of this year to report their status of compliance to their local EMS agency by 01/31/2027. While we are making these changes as commit media amendments today, we commit to doing so at the next available opportunity. Joining me today to testify is Jason Chad on behalf of the Ambulance Association.

Thank you. My name is Katarina McNulty, and I've been involved with emergency dispatch for 23 years. I'm here today to share why emergency medical dispatch protocols matter because I have personally seen their impact on three separate in three separate occasions stand out to me. Each of these calls begin the same way.

Someone on the other end of the line experiencing the worst moment of their life, a loved one not breathing, a friend with uncontrolled bleeding, a laceration to the neck, and most recently, an imperiled community trapped by wildfire.

With the use of pre arrival instructions, I was able to give them a fighting chance at survival. In those moments, there's no room for guesswork. Emergency medical protocols provide structured evidence based instructions that allow dispatchers to turn a bystander into a first responder through calm direction, coaching CPR, managing airways, controlling bleeding, delivering breech babies, and so much more. We can bridge the critical gap between the 911 call and arrival of EMS. Thank you.

Okay.

My name is Jason Chand I'm RN, paramedic, former EMD dispatcher given who gave prior pre arrival instructions and ran a medical communication center for 32 years. First, I wanna say KT's underselling a little bit. Those events, she was actually honored and awarded for saving lives in those circumstances. And I think it's a little bit of the untold story in in EMS, the importance of dispatchers in that first few minutes when a caller calls 911.

The first few minutes in a truly critical emergency is far more important than the next several minutes when the ambulance is on their way.

And I say several minutes. If it's in a rural area, it might be fifteen, thirty, forty five minutes, or over an hour.

And the the role of the dispatcher is probably, in those cases, the most critical link in the chain of survival. American Heart Association did a study with 230,000 patients not long ago and determined that pre arrival instructions more than double the likelihood of survival in a cardiac arrest, more than double. I just wanna share a brief story from the caller's perspective. Vice president of our association, Sean Sullivan, shared a story with us.

He has a good friend, 47 year old father of four, that was playing basketball with his son.

Fell down from a heart attack, was in cardiac arrest. Son called 911. And there's two things that can happen. If you're in an area that doesn't have pre arrival instructions, the dispatch might tell you to put the dogs away, unlock doors, give you some basic instructions, and the ambulance is on the way. The other alternative is that if they're giving pre arrival instructions, they're gonna say, I'm gonna stay on the line with you until somebody gets there.

And here's what I want you to do. And they'll take them step by step through CPR or controlling a major hemorrhage or helping through an emergency childbirth. This case, the dispatcher did give pre arrival instructions. Actually came out of a center that KT used to manage in Sonoma County, and that 47 year old is still a father of four and up and walking around. And this is one of many, many, many, many stories out there where pre arrival instructions had saved lives.

Senate bill, our Senate bill 2041 helps us to identify gaps. Fortunately, I would say most of the state in fact, we know that most of the state is giving pre arrival instructions right now, those 911 call process centers. But we've identified a number of gaps, and we know there's a number of unidentified gaps out there.

And we believe our role here is to make sure that every single Californian, when they call 911, if it's an extreme emergency that requires immediate attention that there's somebody on their end other end of the line that can guide them through the first part of that process. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you both for your testimony. Is there anyone else who'd like to add support to this bill? Anyone else like to add support? K.

We don't have any registered primary witness opposition witnesses. Is there anyone that's gonna speak in opposition?

Thank you, madam chair. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We really appreciate the collaboration with the author and commitment to the amendments, and when those amendments are in print, we will be removing our opposition. Thank you.

Yes, madam chair. Julian Voorhis on behalf of the lead California cities. Also really appreciate the amendments. I do wanna say that we're not opposed to pre arrival. We work very closely with the assembly member last year to ensure that we just have a few cities that need to need the year to come into compliance.

But we really appreciate the amendments and hope to move our opposition at the next stop. Thank you.

Audra Hartmann on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association. We have similar comments from our our colleagues who comment before we are removing our opposition. We see the amendments in print. And then we have another colleague from Cal Nina who was not able to be here, who also wants to express the same sentiment. Thank you.

Awesome. Thank you. Are there any other tweeners or anyone else in opposition? K. Seeing no one, I'm gonna bring it back, to the committee for comments, members.

Assemblymember Calderon.

Thank you, madam chair. Thank you for bringing this bill forward, and, I'm pleased to to hear you say that you're gonna continue working with the opposition. I think that's always you get the best results.

So I just wanted to thank you for that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other members, I'm gonna thank Assemblymember Carrillo for being very workable. We really do appreciate, you know, your concern for making sure that people have the best outcomes in their emergency situations. Originally, we were going to do a do neutral position recommended from the chair, but after the amendments that you've made and working with the stakeholders to make sure that there's no negative impact to their agencies, we are going I am going to do a do pass recommendation.

So with that, is there a motion? Awesome. We have a first and second, Romula and Calderon. Secretary, please call the vote. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations.

AB 2041 Carrillo. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. Ransom.

Aye.

Aye.

Ransom, Aye. Hadwick.

Aye.

Hadwick, aye. Arambula?

Arambula, aye.

Baines. Bennett. Calderon.

Calderon, aye. De Maio.

Aye.

Awesome. Thank you. We'll keep the role open for absent members. Next up

Thank you madam chair and committee members.

Thank you. Assembly member. Next up, we have AB 2101, assembly member Mike Gibson regarding human trafficking notice and training for disaster sites. Assembly member, you may begin whenever you and your witness are ready.

Thank you very much, madam chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present assembly bill 2101. Assembly bill twenty one 2101 seeks to strengthens strengthen and protect for disaster response workers to protect them from human trafficking. Let me I think it's very important that, one, we understand what human trafficking is. Human trafficking is a crime involving exploitation of persons or labor services or commercial sex through the use of force, fraud, or coercion.

It is often described as a form of modern day slavery where victims are compelled to work or to engage in sexual acts against their will often for profit or for other things. Human trafficking is a global issue with an estimated 27,600,000 people is forced into labor or sex exploitations that takes place each and every day in this country. And the aftermath of natural disasters, recoveries, efforts are often driven by utility crews, debris removal teams, construction workers, electricians, or lay or day laborers.

These workers are are disproportionately immigrants, and I want to underscore immigrants who are, watch this, undocumented or hold temporary status with limited English proficiency. Despite the essential role they play, they often face widespread issues of wage theft and exploit and expose to hazard conditions without proper training.

Most recent unethical employers and supervisors exploit exploit them by threatening them with ICE, coerced workers into unpaid labor, unsafe working conditions. Disaster recovery sites often involve long, subcontracting and chains, limit overtime, and force and and force and and a workforce that is mostly immigrants, temporary, and marginalized. Yet these same workers play a vital role in rebuilding and restoring affected communities, making these protections especially critical. AB 2101 addresses these, these needs by requiring posting just posting.

And I wanna under I wanna also show this is what we're talking about when we talk about posting.

Posting know your rights. A human trafficking hotline information as a designated at the designated disaster sites as well as at businesses that hire or deploy disaster relief or disaster response workers. The bill also established a standardized training requirement to ensure workers and supervisors understand that these protections and how to identify this activity in the field. By increasing awareness, education, and accountability, this bill empowers some of the most vulnerable workers while strengthening integrity of disaster recovery efforts.

With me to provide with and let me also simply say this, that we have worked with opposition and we will continue to work with opposition until we hopefully reach, you know, getting individuals who oppose this bill to a either neutral or to a position where that they can support this particular piece of legislation with me to provide supporting testimony who was self introduced is the director of the anti trafficking initiative from Loyola Law School who was self introduced.

Hello. My name is professor Stephanie Richard, and I'm the director of the Sunita Jain Anti-Trafficking Initiative at Loyola Law School. I've worked on human trafficking in California for the last twenty years. SJI got involved in the connection between human trafficking and natural disasters and observed firsthand the lack of information and understanding of this issue on the ground in Los Angeles in the wake of the 2025 fires.

During this response to the LA fires, elected officials and agency heads spoke a lot about the increase of price gouging, looting, but said nothing about human trafficking.

Indeed, in the wake of natural disasters, the focus is on rebuilding and rebuilding quickly for the infrastructure that we need. But more than two decades of evidence based data shows that this comes at a cost of our workers doing the rebuilding. Indeed, recent reports have shown that disaster workers are two times more likely than common construction workers that are not working in disaster sites to experience labor trafficking, and seventy seven percent more likely to experience labor exploitation. So these risks are not accidental.

Disaster restoration and mitigation sites, by their natures, complain high risk high risk condition work sites that are dispersed and subcontracting, okay?

And that workforce, as was indicated, is often made of immigrant workers who in this climate of fear are even more at risk of being threatened and forced to continue an unsafe working environments. Thus, AB 1, 2101 does an effective way of having workers both know their rights and have the information to address their rights, as well as other workers who are going to those sites having that knowledge, and having the information to call out for help for other workers.

And the last thing I just wanna say is I've worked on legislation like this since 2016, so these provisions are based on well established human trafficking law around hotline posting and training that have been enacted for specific locations and businesses known at high risk. And now that we have the evidence based data on disasters, and we know that in California, disasters and response will increase, unfortunately, we must protect our workers. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Are there any other witnesses in support? If anybody wants to come up in support please do that now.

Madam chair and members, Courtney Jensen on behalf of the Sunita Jain Anti Trafficking Initiative. I've been, asked to provide a me too on on behalf of Justice at Last and Resilience Force. Thank you.

Do we have any other witnesses in support? Are there any witnesses in support?

Wasn't planning on saying anything here, but I'm at San Clemente City Council member hearing this in support of this, fantastic.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Okay. You'll have two minutes to present your testimony in opposition whenever you're ready.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Amanda Gualderama with Cal Broadband. We have an opposing less amended position on this bill. We appreciate the continuing conversation with the author, sponsor, and staff in your committee. Cal Broadband shares the legislature's commitment to ensuring the safety and resilience of our critical infrastructure, particularly during emergencies and disaster events.

Our industry plays a central role in maintaining communication networks that support 911, emergency alert, public safety communications, and the continuity of government operations. We appreciate the intent behind this bill, but as drafted, AB 2101 lacks clarity on compliance for entities like telecommunications providers, when there are no public interest entrances or structures where the public is located within disaster sites. We roll out with first responders, when a disaster hits.

We set up mobile cell towers to ensure that firefighters and other, public safety officials have communication and that the public can receive those evacuation notices and other emergency alerts that are so critical during those times. When we move out to repair facilities with utilities, there are no structures.

We utilize bucket trucks and other trucks to restore that communication. There this is very specialized work. Hiring practices go be far beyond accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and include lengthy and involved training. If there is a shortage of workforce, the companies will redirect their own workers from other parts of the state or other states to ensure that, you know, we have the staff on the job that is trained and capable of doing this technical work.

Since there is no place for the signage and disaster response and recovery and we only have employees working at these sites, we have been requested to be removed from this bill.

We look forward to the continuing conversations and happy to respond to any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Tracy Ryan with Rural County representatives of California and also with the proposal less amended. And I do wanna say that we've been working with the sponsor and the author's office and appreciate that open conversation. The analysis outlines situations that have heightened risk for human trafficking. Right?

So mass shelters, temporary housing placement, and discusses where key people in places, such as emergency shelter managers, disaster centers, volunteer operation centers, where they need to be made aware of human trafficking and have processes in place. And we completely agree with that, but I don't think that's what this bill does. This bill targets disaster areas and mitigation areas, and something we pointed out in our letter was these are not defined places. These are large places.

Fuel mitigation areas in the bill would be an SRA or state responsibility area.

That's one third of California's land mass. These are huge areas. And when you have large disasters such as the Caldor fire fire, these could be hundreds of thousands of acres, and there's no really defined place to do the posting. Also, designated disasters can come months after. The governor just came out in April about the floods that were in 2025.

And so I think there's implementation concerns that that counties have. We contract with these entities to do cleanup in these areas. And if it's not clear, that's extra cost to the counties and local governments. And so we just wanted to be really clear how we can comply with this. We are absolutely in support of where the bill wants to go.

We just need to make sure it's administered administerable. Thank you.

Are there any other witnesses or people that would act like to add into opposition?

Yes. Good morning. Good morning, chair. Okay. It's your responsibility.

Assemblyman. Yolanda Benson representing US Telecom, the Broadband Association. Also want to just mirror the the comments that were made. We're willing to work with the author, and we appreciate the work that's happened so far. But we continue to have need to have those conversations.

Thank you.

Madam chair, Julian Voorhis on behalf of the league of California cities is also opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Hello. Audra Hartmann on behalf of the California Communications Association. These are the small companies and mostly rural areas of California. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill.

Thank you. I'm gonna bring it back to the committee.

Hi. You guys as soon as they talked about rural, everybody knew I was gonna ask questions. So I have a lot of concerns. My my disasters look a lot different than, like, the fire in LA. Right?

And it would would have been my job previously to make sure we complied with this as a county. What what is the plan for an area like the Dixie Fire that was a million acres? Like, there was no buildings. There was no there's multiple shelters. Is it just at the shelters?

Is it a is it a incident command? Is it at the emergency operating center? Like

Yes. So thank you for that great question, and I wanna be really clear that the responsibility isn't about the areas for the employers who are responding to that area. And then all the posting and most labor laws in California have the same standards where it's in a conspicuous area that employees can see it. And, you know, that's been the standard for all 15 other businesses locations. Now that said, disaster sites, right, or broader.

But when I've talked with our co sponsor Resilience Force who is an expert in disaster recovery and on the ground with workers all the time, there are always common locations like rally points, temporary structures, things like that, where the posting can be. But that said, we are in discussions on if there is absolutely nowhere for broadband or telecommunications to post given their unique location that they can post at their hubs.

And we see that as valuable because what we see in the trafficking context is that no one understands what it looks like and therefore can't recognize it, whether it be for themselves or they're working alongside or in areas where other workers are. So having access to a hotline that's posted permanently allows workers to reach out and gather information, and also having them train that twenty minutes, I can't tell you it puts a light bulb on people's head.

Because most people when they think about trafficking think about sex trafficking maybe, but they definitely don't think about labor trafficking happening here in California.

They think about it happening in India or China or somewhere else. And so that is what this framework does, and it is based on evidence based practice that we will identify and protect workers. And I do think it's equally relevant for rural counties where actually workers are hidden for longer and might be abused even easier.

I I absolutely don't disagree with the intent of the bill. It's the implementation. So there often isn't a hub, especially in smaller fires or smaller disasters. They're coming in a car. They're coming in a truck.

They're coming to turn are they gonna have to post when they turn off the power? Because they're going into a different county. Like, my people are coming I live I live three hours from everything. So, like, they're coming from a long ways away. They might get a hotel room if they're lucky.

Sometimes they're camping, and they're in tents because we don't have hotels. So there isn't if there isn't that hub, then what is the employer on the hook for at that point? Like, can it can it be emailed to them? Can it be like, the training I'm all for. But

Yeah. So, again, the general standard is in a conspicuous location where the employees are. And so, again, often that gives a lot of flexibility for the employer to understand its own needs and be in compliance by posting. And when I said hub, I wanna say that what we've been in discussion about is that it's where the hub of the business where their their regular employment notices are all posted.

At their office, three hours away. Because So it doesn't matter at the site

Well, except for they'll have had the training, and they'll have had when they're in the office that access to that hotline. Again, ideally, we would rather the postings be at the disaster sites, and our opinion is is that they could be placed on a cone or there's lots of places that you could easily post this notice. But if it's impossible, we do think there's the flexibility in either working through an amendment or in the language that's already there.

And we just haven't heard these concerns in the past about posting locations, but again, we're still in conversations because disaster sites, as you've said, disaster mitigation sites are, you know, the first time. And this is first of its kind legislation in the country that I think California will be proud of when it enacts.

Okay. So in the bill, it appears that it applies also to, like, a homeowner clearing vegetation to harden their home. Is that true?

No. Because it applies to employers. So in the mitigation zone, it's gonna be anyone if you con it's gonna be the person you contract to clear your home.

So they

So that contractor has to have something posted at the home that they're there

Because they have employees

for three hours that day.

That's correct.

Okay. Okay. And it counts it it applies to all utilities. So electric utilities, the

If they are, and they're not private. Private if it applies to private entities, so no not public services.

Okay. So we also often have out of state vendors come. They're now have to do that as well when they get to camp or they get to incident command.

When you say out of state, you mean contractors for construction and other services?

Just for mop up for strike teams. We have

Yeah. So they of course, they would have to do that.

I live on

We want those are some of the some of the more vulnerable workers that are coming from out of state often, are the ones that are subcontracted and have just because they don't have the same connections to the state and be most at risk.

So I even with your answers, I just don't see how this would work in my I have 11 counties. Like, we're out in the middle of nowhere. They're like, you could put a cone down, and then you're gonna be 250 miles the other way, you know, responding in that same disaster. So I I think I think the idea is there, and I totally get the concern. I just feel like the implementation has to be different.

I have will have to oppose the bill today.

And I I certainly understand and, you know, hear your concern. And for me, this is about, one, making sure that people are not being taken advantage of and we've seen the proliferation of people being exploited and taken advantage of. And we hear human trafficking.

We certainly believe that there is a a sexual component to this, but there's also a component of this that as I owe as I talked about and articulated the the slavery part, but also the wage part of this, that people are not being fairly compensated for their work. And we can talk about the stories that people long hours not being compensated for even a minimum wage.

Right? And then being threatened with ICE, and in this day and age and the sensitivity that's around someone saying that if you don't do this, then I'm gonna call ICE and hearing on hearing on the radio or seeing it on TV and all that that brings and the trauma that brings and the unfairness that that brings just to have something posted to let people know.

And we're talking about by and large, these are subcontractors and the companies in which the the national companies and we honor, you know, the vital work that these companies bring, and the long standing that these companies provides to California. And we understand that it's not these companies, but we're talking about and we're targeting very specifically the subcontractors that don't represent these companies, but they work for these companies, but they subcontracts for these companies. Right?

They don't have the standards. Hiring people, you know, that may not have, you know, the the ethics. Now in the training, all they're doing is picking up people and

they're intimidating these people. And they're getting away with not paying these people who work for the the wages and the benefits that they rightfully deserve under California's law. And that's what we're attempting to stop. But and we know that knowledge is power. And if we hope that if the

if someone sees this hotline and as someone sees, this hotline and as well as this notice, stop human trafficking and and call or text this, that it will be a gateway to send someone. And notify someone that this is happening, and we can put a stop to this. Right? We don't want this in California, and that's what this bill is trying to accomplish.

So I we actually have a lot of labor trafficking in my district. We have a lot of illegal cannabis grows. So it's a huge problem. Very talked about in my district. I just it's strictly the implementation, like, even having a digital version or having a you know, add it to the briefing in the morning for two minutes or something, put it in all the bathrooms.

Like, something like that would be easier. It's just so vague that I don't think it'll work in in in our disasters. I think there's just a a philosophical difference of what my disaster zones look like and what a city disaster zone looks like because we're we're just we're out there in the middle of nowhere.

Thank you.

I understand.

Thank you very much. I wanna thank the author. Thank you, assembly member, for your input. I wanna appreciate the author author for his willingness to continue to work with the stakeholders and with the opposition. I think there were some really good ideas on how we can make sure that this ultimately works for everyone because I believe that your goal based on on what you stated is to ensure that people have the the awareness.

And I do understand the concerns about rural areas, but people clearly have to have a place to relieve themselves even if they're in the middle of nowhere, right, on some of these job sites. They're clearly getting employment information and signing paperwork and when they're being hired. So it's it's really going to be incumbent upon everyone to just really find out a way to get this information to the vulnerable people. So we appreciate the assembly member for this bill and for the willingness.

The next stop for this bill, because this bill does enjoy a do pass recommendation, shall it pass today, will be appropriation.

So you'll need to work on getting those amendments together with the opposition. Would you have any closing comments, Assemblymember?

Thank thank you very much, madam chair, and to the committee members, and also to, member Hadwick for her dialogue, and also for the opposition. I will assure this committee and to the chair and to member Hadwick that we will continue to work with opposition, to try it again to even to moving them to neutral on this because we wanna get it right. And as the excuse me. As a professor from Loyola has indicated, first of its kind, and we wanna get it right the first time.

And it's important for me to want hear from both sides.

The those who oppose this particular bill, we wanna make sure that when California leads in positions and areas of its first kind that other nations and other countries and other states follow. And so we want them to follow California. We wanna follow them the right way. And so I respectfully ask when I vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Do we have a motion? I'm not. Okay. So we have a first by Rambla, second by Calderon.

Secretary, please call the vote. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations.

AB 2101 Gibson. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. Ransom.

Ransom, aye.

Aye.

Hadwick, no. Arambula?

Hadwick?

Aye.

No.

Arambula, aye. Baines. Bennett. Calderon.

Calderon, Aye. Demaio.

Aye.

Okay. We will hold the roll open for the absent members. Thank you. Awesome. We have three bills remaining.

We're waiting for assembly members, Demaio and Bennett. Four bills four bills remaining. Do you wanna see how long you're gonna be for a street over there?

I said just go. I think that's on that.

Okay. Alright. I'll get my head right. So, Heather. If you want. Okay.

Okay. The next bill up, I'm going to go ahead and present my bill. I'm going to turn it over to Vice Chair Heather Hadwick to preside over the meeting while I present AB 1805.

Thank you, Chair Ransom.

You may begin whenever you're ready.

Awesome. Speaky chaur. Good afternoon. Okay. So I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 1805.

I want to start by accepting the committee amendments. As we know, in recent months, the legislature and the public we serve has become aware of flagrant waste of $456,000,000 on one of our most fundamental, essential public safety projects, the Next Generation 911 modernization project. The goals of this project are essential, as they are basic, to modernize our 911 infrastructure away from outdated wired infrastructure known as the legacy system and into a modern Internet protocol system.

Hopefully and eventually, this system will allow 911 callers to share text, voice, videos, photos, and improved location data with dispatch centers, allow dispatchers to share this data directly with first responders, and ensure resiliency by automatically rerouting 911 calls to other dispatch centers when there are high call volumes during large emergencies or if a dispatch center is not operating.

These modernizations will provide the public with increased access and faster communications with emergency services when facing dangerous situations, and increase the speed and efficiency in which law enforcement and public safety entities coordinate a 911 response.

Unfortunately, this project has spent nearly half a billion taxpayer dollars with too little to show for it. People could be hurt or killed without being able to call one phone number that they've been taught to rely on. We all know when you're in trouble, you call 911.

We've spent decades and a lifetime telling Americans and children that it is a reliable place for them to get in touch with the fire department, with emergency medical services, and with law enforcement. Allowing these essential life saving services to be so poorly mismanaged, we are leaving Californians without the best level of access to the service, and this is simply unacceptable.

Walking away from NextGen 911 is not an option. The real question is, how do we get it done right, and how do we do it with public trust? AB 1805 is a fix. The bill starts with three critical steps towards fixing the project right now. Number one, this bill calls for an immediate audit of the NextGen 911 project by the state auditor, providing their office with a list of hard questions so that both lawmakers and the public we represent have answers.

Those answers will not only let us know what happened, but also inform us as we move forward. Number two, the bill creates and strengthens the existing 911 advisory board, renaming the 911 advisory board as an oversight board, and gives the board authority to conduct rigorous oversight on the project.

The board will have oversight over technical and operational standards for the 911 system, training standards for county coordinators, any budgetary decisions made on the project, and direct oversight on changes to currently approved plans. They would be able to hire technical experts if necessary in order to ensure that we have the right people at the table.

And three, AB 1805 requires detailed quarterly reports to the legislature on the status of the project, roadblocks they may be encountering, and the solutions being proposed to solve these challenges.

The legislature has a key role to play in reorienting this project towards success. To do that, we need to understand what has gone wrong and how new proposals address all potential issues. My goal is simple: to make sure that NextGen 911 is reliable, accountable, and completed without further delay. This bill is not just a step in the right direction for NextGen 911.

This is an opportunity for this project to remember the people that 911 is meant to serve and to put in the work so that our constituents have an emergency call system that they can rely on.

So with me today to testify, I have Mr. Mark Smith on behalf of the California chapter of the National Emergency Number Association, as well as staff here. They are here if necessary. The Legislative Analyst's Office is on standby to answer any technical questions that we may have. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Smith.

Move the bill.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Mark Smith on behalf of CalNENA, the California chapter of the National Emergency Number Association. We are the association that represents the professionals who sit behind the desks and answer the phone calls, and the other folks who keep the dispatch centers up and running. We want to thank the member for bringing the bill forward today.

I'd actually like to thank the members of this committee, the members of the budget committee who have currently spent countless hours talking about Next Generation 911 and the proposed transition to Next Generation 911, including an oversight hearing, which was incredibly informative. CalNENA supports the need for additional transparency and accountability over the rollout and deployment of Next Generation 911.

The folks again who we represent have been told three times now, going back to 2010 and even earlier, that Next Generation 911 is coming and it's just around the corner. We don't want to go through the process another time to find ourselves four years from now right back where we are starting now. This is important, life saving technology.

Other states are deploying Next Generation 911. Citizens of California deserve to have Next Generation 911 deployed in the state as well. I want to also clarify that we continue to have trust in Cal OES and the state process to move this forward, but we do appreciate the role that the legislature has in an oversight and transparency capacity. And so for those reasons, we support the provisions as put forward today.

I also want to clarify that we are still attempting to analyze the change from an advisory board to an oversight board.

I think it's important to get that right, so that we don't actually delay the project further by creating complications. But the intention is there, and the notion is solid, and we look forward to working with the member and the committee and members of the legislature on refining the proposals as they move forward. Thank you very much. And again, we ask for your support of AB 1805 today.

Thank you. I was really hoping for some very hard hitting questions for this bill. Look, we are California, and we're used to leading. This is such an important project for the state.

And while we have definitely suffered, you know, I don't want to call it some embarrassments, but we are needing to really recalibrate and move forward. This bill really answers questions. We've tried to get audits, but due to some of the technical deadlines and things like that, we were not able to get that done. This bill gets that done.

People want answers, and those answers will also include the answer to how we are moving forward and whether we are moving forward in the best way possible for California.

So I'd like to thank my witness for the testimony. I know that we did not call the LAO up, but I want to appreciate the work that they've done as well as them being here today. 911 helps everyone in this room if they need it, and I hope that no one ever is in the situation and it does not work for them. If we need it, the last thing we should be wondering is whether our calls will go through.

I've given an example several times about what happened in my county when folks were at a mass shooting, and it was a birthday party and no one knew the address.

And our first responders were confused about where they needed to go. This bill shines a light on this project that is meant to keep everyone safe from harm. The NextGen 911 project needs to be properly planned and executed in order to keep us connected. And so with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote so that we can move this project forward in the best way possible.

Thank the author for your leadership on this. It's very important, especially to my district, plagued with disasters and often have longer response calls. And you have led the way on this, so I appreciate it. I'd love to be added as a coauthor as well. Yes, ma'am.

Secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

We will hold the roll for our absent members, and we

Is it out?

Yep.

Yeah. It's out. Yes.

Awesome. Thank you. To start with the Addis bill? Yes. Okay.

Awesome. Next up, we have Assembly bill 1536, which is a bill by Assembly member Dawn Addis regarding offshore oil pipeline safety that will be presented by Assembly member Bennett on behalf of Assembly member Addis. You may proceed when you are ready.

Thank you very much, madam chair and members. Today. I'm here to present AB 1536 to Save our Shores Act on the sit on behalf of assembly member Addis. This bill will protect California's thriving coastline communities and economy from the threat of dirty offshore oil and gas activity. What's the problem?

California's coastal economy is essential to our state's prosperity. This is particularly the case along the Central Coast. This didn't happen by accident. It happened because of the people who stood firm in protecting our environment, coastal way of life, and ocean based economy. California's ocean based economy generates over 42 to $51,000,000,000 annually and employs more than a half a million people, almost 10 times the economic benefit that comes from offshore oil drilling.

The way we protect California's economy is through our coast, but we can't do this when offshore oil disasters kill our wildlife, soil our shores like they did in California's largest oil spill in Santa Barbara County in 1969 and again during the Refugio, Refugio spill in 2015. The Refugio spill alone cost hundreds of millions of dollars, shutting down fisheries, harming marine mammals, and halting businesses.

Despite this, the Trump administration is proposing to open new offshore drilling for the first time in over forty years, and I'm going to repeat that. The Trump administration is proposing to open new offshore drilling for the first time in over forty years. The solution, it's time that we modernize and approve our safety standards for pipelines operating in state waters, especially those that are looking to reopen after a spill.

When a company attempts to restart a pipeline, AB 1536 will, a, require a sixty day public comment period on any exemptions to safety regulations, b, ensure that projects that receive an exemption are still subject to CEQA review, and, c, require best available technology in order to restart operations, d, ensure that the most dangerous pipelines, those that have spilled more than 10,000 gallons, will be decommissioned.

It will also mandate operators to prepare detailed leak detection and response plans for any new coastal oil infrastructure, building, and critical safety measures from day one. I have witnesses with me here today. Christina from the California climate policy director of she's the she's the California climate policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity and the Climate Law Institute and Peter from the Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast, and I would like to turn it over to them. Thank you very much, madam chair.

You may proceed. You'll have two minutes each.

Thank you. Good morning. Well, thanks to the chair, Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity, proud cosponsor of AB 1536. This is a bill to protect California's $51,000,000,000 coastal economy, our unique biodiversity communities and cultures from yet another devastating oil spill. Trump plans to expand drilling off our coast even as he drops bonding guardrails and cuts hundreds of millions from coastal protection, emergency management, and environmental cleanup.

California has had many spills, but 16 since 2010 have dumped 10,000 gallons or more on our shores. Three major spills dumped more than 4,000,000 gallons, impacting marine protected areas and beaches, closing fisheries and killing wildlife. The 2015 spill on Chumash Lands and the 2021 spill on Tongva Lands contaminated thousands of acres, closing fisheries and state parks, costing the state millions, including more than 200,000,000 in damages and 3,900,000 in lost recreational value. The federal plan could bring another 1,900,000 gallons to pollute our coast.

California's multi billion dollar coastal economy enjoys over 150,000,000 visitors per year, nearly 600,000 jobs that all rely on clean beaches and a healthy ocean.

Coastal tourism and recreation are the major drivers of GDP and employment for our marine economy. Oil spills devastate ecosystems, homes, businesses, and livelihoods. This is about fiscal responsibility. What it won't do is raise gasoline prices, which are set by global markets. Even the rosiest scenario for unmitigated oil production off California would not be produced until 2040, would only account for 0.22% of global production.

That's a drop in the bucket, not enough to move oil prices. It's also not true that this would increase reliance on high cost, high carbon imports because California's oil is more carbon intensive than imports. And on a per barrel basis, imports are less expensive than oil produced here offshore. Californians have, for decades, overwhelmingly opposed drilling off our unique and beautiful coast. We urge you to vote yes to to protect against these very foreseeable risks to all we hold dear.

Thank you.

Hi. How you doing? My name is Peter Belden. Excited. It's my first time in the state capital and part of a process like this.

So thank you for listening. So like I said, I'm a member of the business alliance for protecting the Pacific Coast. I've also been a lifeguard in Newport Beach for twenty six years. And for the last ten years, I had a surf club in Newport where we, had offered memberships and surfboard rentals to residents and visitors from all over the world.

And I just wanna give you, kind of my experience, what happened to the twenty twenty one oil spill in Huntington Beach, and how that affected me, my business.

But even more importantly, maybe some lesser known or obvious, impacts from that. So for me, obviously, lost revenue during that period. You know, there's an oil spill, that's bad for business as a surf club. And you can imagine every other kind of tourist business that's involved with the the beaches there. So huge fiscal impact to me.

Also, I had to shorten my business hours, which means lower wages or hours for my employees. So there's a lot of effects to my businesses, which are obvious, but there's two things I want to highlight. Number one was the media and the public perception after that oil spill. So for the the next week, we are hit over the head every single day, local news, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook. You see pictures of, you know, oiled pelicans and fish washing up, and you see caution sign on the beach.

And those images get pumped into the public perception, and it's day in, day out. Well, when they reopen the beach nine days later, obviously, they're not gonna have the same kind of response to let everybody know, hey, beaches are open. So while it was a nine day closure in Newport and Huntington, for me as a business, it lasted months after. In fact, up to six months later, I was still getting calls asking if it's safe to go to the beach.

And these are our, like, these are California residents that wanna enjoy our beaches.

That's why we live here. And that image so when there's an oil spill, like, yeah, it might get cleaned up quickly, but that image lasts way longer to the people of California. The other one that was very surprising to me was how massive the downstream effect was. So obviously, my business was impacted. But then I was no longer ordering surfboards, leashes, fins, surfboard wax, drinks.

I mean, even less like toilet paper and and paper towels. Like, it affects so much downstream of me, not just the direct impact. And I had lots of friends that, you know, they're just outside the eligibility zone, you know, to get compensation from the oil company, and they had coffee shops and other things like that, and they got nothing. Their businesses were impacted because we live in a tourist town just like so many others. Oh, is it my time?

Okay. So last point I wanna make is I think what's in this bill is very reasonable. Like, I actually thought when I read this that a lot of these were already in place. So if there's an old pipeline that has a history of problems, I can't believe we're are already addressing that. And that oil leak in Huntington, that had a leak detection system.

It was just faulty, also with some operator error. But if you had up to date technology, we wouldn't be here and I wouldn't be here right now. That would already be solved. So please support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Good good job for a first timer.

So I'm nervous. My heart's going.

Appreciate that. So with that, is there anyone is there anyone with that would like to add on in support of this bill?

Yes. Thank you, madam chair. Will Brieger. I'm here for 350 Humble up in the North Coast. Climate Action California, we're everywhere in California.

And I gotta say, my real clients, my six grandchildren, I'm always bragging on California to them. So, we support the bill. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of our firm's clients, Oceana, Monterey Bay Aquarium, and the Surfrider Foundation.

I was also asked to convey the support of Sierra Club California, California environmental voters, active San Gabriel Valley, California Coastkeeper Alliance, Center for Environmental Health, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Environmental Defense Center, Food and Water Watch, Los Padres Forest Watch, Ocean Conservation Research, the Bay Area and San Diego three fifties, Santa Cruz Climate Action Network, Save Our Shores, and Turtle Island Restoration Network, all in support.

Good morning. Josh Gauger on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Jordan Curley on behalf of Clean and Healthy California in strong support.

Good morning. Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support. This is critically important for our coastal cities to have greater oversight over hazardous spills and potential leakage to protect our coastal economies. Thank you.

Hi. I'm Tess Albin Smith. I'm city council of Fort Bragg, also on the coastal cities committee representing most of Northern California coastal cities. And we have a very fragile ecosystem on the Mendocino Coast, as well as most of our coastal cities do. And up in our area, this is where the whales get food and the sharks get their food and all the other wildlife get their food.

So it's really important that the Northern California coast is preserved and as well as all of California's coast. So I am a here in favor.

Mark Enmeier, San Clemente City Council and chair of the Cal Cities Coastal Leadership Group, also downstream from Huntington Beach, in support.

Thank you. I know typically we just say name and affiliation, but it's an important issue. So we wanna I gave a little grace. With that being said, are there anyone is there anyone to give opposition testimony? And I see one.

So I'm gonna ask you to scoot a little closer so we can make room for the witness in opposition. Alright.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Paul Deiro representing the Western States Petroleum Association. I will tell you in the current environment that we're in, we have attempted to both stabilize crude supply and stabilize gasoline supply because there are shortages. This bill goes exactly in the wrong direction. It will impact thousands of miles of pipeline.

It will impact the conveyance and the transport of gasoline from the crude supplied in California to the refineries. So this isn't really I mean, it's not just the Sable issue. We, they are not members of WISPA. So we don't have a dog in that fight. But our member companies have a huge concern about this bill.

The impact of the 10,000 gallon threshold of leaking oil, these are pipelines that are in place for decades. And thousands of gallons of gas or oil is transported through those pipe lines every day. So the 10,000 versus a 100,000 gallons, we believe is a is a big problem. And if there are currently, according to the state fire marshal, there are currently 48 existing pipelines that transport crew to refineries over their life have have, spilled 10,000 gallons. Those have been repaired quickly and addressed.

So and and the bill would require the closure of all of those pipelines right now. So if that happens, the transports of crude in state California will come come to a crawl. And we believe this bill is much broader and will affect many pipelines that exist now and are critical infrastructure to the conveyance of gasoline from production to refineries. For those reasons, we oppose the bill. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this bill? Is there anyone who'd like to add on any testimony in opposition or any me too testimony? No? K.

Seeing none, I thank you all for your witnesses. I'm gonna bring it back to the committee. Assembly member Arambula recognized.

I wanna start by thanking the author for bringing this bill forward as well as our colleague on this committee for presenting today. I will move the bill.

Assembly, thank you for moving the bill. Assembly Member Hadwick.

Hi. I had a lot of questions for the author, so I'm hoping maybe witnesses can do them, or at least get us information. So I'm very concerned about the 10,000 gallon threshold that the opposition witness mentioned. It's applied across multiple provisions without a clear scientific or engineering basis. It risks triggering permanent abandonment regardless of the shutdown.

Can you explain how this threshold was decided and what factors went into applying the threshold?

I can't. Perhaps the witnesses that are with me can.

Yeah. I'm happy to. And despite what opposition says, that's a big spill, 10,000 gallons. There have only been 18 since 2010 that have spilled that amount. Many of those pipelines have spilled that amount two or three times.

So these are repeat offenders. It's consistent with federal regulation, which increases regulation at that 10,000 gallon threshold.

Okay.

And I'm happy to answer some of the other things as well.

And does this bill allow room for any flexibility on the safety improvements? When they're achieved, how does it mandate shutdowns regardless of whether a pipeline can be upgraded or improved?

There's it's built in already. Happy to have those discussions. Certainly, we'll defer to the author on that. But the State Fire Marshal can put off abandonment for a year, to have continued discussions. That's within their purview to discuss that with the operator. Obviously, repairs are different.

Those repairs were not made quickly. Many things are still happening. In fact, some of these pipelines will never be active again. For example, the one that would service Richmond is no longer going to be active. So how long something takes to be repaired is very particular to that particular pipeline, and that would be worked out with the State Fire Marshal as it's been done for years and years.

Okay.

So I've heard from the opposition that the timelines aren't feasible and that developing the regulations, reviewing compliance, approving abandonment, and restoration plans cannot realistically be completed in those deadlines. How do you refute this? Is the bill setting timelines with expectations that can't be hit or makes them not be able to comply? And with that expectation, if they don't have that infrastructure and they don't have that done, are they going to be pushed offline?

Go ahead.

Through the Chair? You know, Sable maintains that they are already up and operating. So, I mean, their timeline was pretty quick, wasn't it? And they just got the go ahead from the president. What?

So days later, they claimed they were up. Now that's still currently being litigated. The state says they're in violation of a lot of laws and injunctions doing that. But, as I said, each repair is going to be particular to that situation. And the counter to that is how much risk we're putting to these coastal economies in the meantime.

Right? So you have to counter those risks. You're going to have hits to employment when this happens. You're not going to get oil to market if it's spilling or seeping through rusty old corroded Swiss cheese pipelines. So what we're asking for is currently in law requires best available technology, but it's limited to valves, and you know, we saw with Huntington Beach that wasn't enough.

We're asking for up to date. Some of these regulations and laws are years old. And as you mentioned, these pipelines are decades old, and many of them are currently inactive.

I am concerned about the best available technology definition as well because it's very vague. Right? And it could change fast. I think what I am worried about is the risk. Who's accountable if this leads to higher costs or further supply constraints and shortages?

Because we're hearing all over the news that we're going to be in a complete fuel crisis in weeks now, not even months.

Yeah. I have a list of, like, 20 economic experts that say that oil production off the coast of California, much less in the state of California, much less the entire United States, does not impact global oil markets. I'm happy to list them off for you. They include those from UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, Stanford, but also MIT and the Cato Institute, Yale. I have lists of them.

So the economic experts say you're wrong. It will not increase gas prices. We also have lots of data that we're happy to provide from economic experts saying this is a drop in the bucket. It will not impact California supply. We see already in these conversations about how we're going to get through this transition, and you hear from the vice chair over at CEC and from DPMO, they constantly are going back to imports.

Why? Because imports are cheaper and cleaner despite what the opposition says. And so you have not just what's easiest for the state, and what Gunda and the DPMO keep going back to is that we're going to have to look at managing that transition through increased imports. But you also have, these are profit companies, they have a duty to their shareholders to find the cheapest way to bring that gasoline to market.

And so they're going to be more interested in cheaper imports. The high cost of offshore production is very expensive.

I don't think we do anything easier in California, but I'd like to let the opposition

Yeah. Thank you very much for the time, through the Chair. The fact of the matter is the transportation of imports, of which we import over 75% of the crude that the refineries need to make gasoline for California drivers. I will also say the transport of the crude via pipeline in state costs a dollar a barrel. The transport of crude from the Middle East or Southeast or South America is 5 to $6.

So there is cost impact. And I will also say this, since we import so much of the crude that 90% of the cars in California need as far as gasoline. We get 30% of it through the Persian Gulf. We are not getting that. So that is a fundamental problem, and I will tell you the places where we get the imported crude are not cleaner.

They're flaring methane. We can't do that in California. We capture it. So to answer your question

Thank you. Thank you. That's all I have.

Are there any other questions or comments? Okay. Would you like to make any closing? Well, I'm sorry. Before we do that, I don't even have a motion.

I don't have a motion on this. If there is a motion. Okay.

I don't have a second. Do I need a second? Okay. Well, I will second the motion.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the motion and the second. A few things in the close. A few of these are comments that the author asked me to say and then a few things I'd like to add that I think further the conversation. But whether or not they do, this bill establishes, whether or not they build new pipelines, I should say, this bill establishes new standards that'll protect California and protect California's coast.

That's why it's vital that we protect this coast because we care deeply about California. AB 1536 is about improving the public process so that local communities have a voice in improving pipeline safety requirements. I would point out that we were doing fine here until the Trump administration intervened specifically in the Sable case, and then rode roughshod over local and state requirements and guidelines to try to protect our area.

We have a responsibility to respond to that federal intervention again here in the state of California. This bill is an effective counter to that federal intervention by the Trump administration, unlike some of the other things that we've done that have been more symbolic.

This actually does change the impact of that federal intervention. And then the final thing I would offer to you is that world oil prices influence the price of gasoline here in California. This project, as has been eloquently stated, does not move the needle in terms of the price.

In fact, whether you're bringing the oil in by pipeline at the dollar, and he talked about the $5, the oil price that's going to be factored in is going to be the world oil price.

Who benefits from that is not going to be the consumer, it's going to be the companies that receive the benefits from that because we're going to be pricing the oil and calculating the stuff based on that world oil price.

So today, we have a world oil price that is skyrocketing way above the equilibrium price because of the same person that caused the need for this bill, which is President Trump came in and overrode the local government, overrode the state.

We're trying to counter that, and we're saying in the name of not raising prices, we should let the person who is triggering one of the worst oil crises that we have in the world right now continue to be able to play both sides of this angle. Oil is needed in this transition. The state has been sensitive to that.

That's why we increased the drilling permission from Kern County, but we should not take the next step and allow the president to run roughshod over our local and state governments.

So, final thing of what we'd like to point out, I'm sorry for going on longer, but this is really important. And that is that my understanding from the author is this is a last minute request coming in from WSPA that the author has not had conversations about these concerns. I could be wrong with that. I'm happy to be corrected. But if the author was aware of that, it was communicated to me that the author had not heard from the opposition.

In response to that, they've had our letter for some time.

Sorry. I think we're in my close. Right? Yeah.

[Roll Call]

Yes. I need to move for reconsideration. Yes.

Reconsideration would be granted. I don't need a motion for that one. Alright. I'll let you regather yourself as someone.

Thank you very much. Can I start with the 1964, the fire marshal survey?

Okay. Alright. Next up, we have AB 1964, Assemblymember Bennett, regarding state fire marshal, county recorder, home hardening program.

I'd like to start by accepting the committee's amendments on page seven of the analysis. I wanna thank the committee staff for your work on this bill. California is at a tipping point. 14 of the 20 most destructive fires occurred within the last ten years. And there's no end in sight.

The state's wildfire season continues to grow more ferocious and long. We lack comprehensive data on the state of the home hardening of homes in California. This requires a state fire marshal to conduct a survey, identifies a number of homes in moderate to very high fire severity zones, how many have achieved hardening, and an estimate of the cost to complete the hardening. With a more complete understanding, the state can better focus the limited resources we always have to wrestle with.

And I'd like to point out that we have today that I'd like to point out that we have letters of support, and one of them is from the Nature Conservancy.

And they point out that you can't manage what you can't measure. And it is important for us to understand the situation. If this is, and I believe it will be, one of the most important things California will do, which is transform our commitment to home hardening just like we transformed communities when after whole cities were burning down because they didn't have fire standards. So with that, we're ready to answer any questions about the bill. Thank you very much.

Do we have any witnesses or anyone who'd like to add support to this bill? Is there anyone who'd like to add a testimony in opposition to this bill? I see none. I'm gonna bring it back to the committee. Vice chair Hadwick.

I have so many questions today. I'm sorry. I wanted to see where what's the position of the county recorders on this bill? And are they

I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.

What's the position of the county recorders on this bill? And are are they already collecting these rec like, records related to construction?

Well, I'll answer the second question first, which is that they some of this information they're collecting, like, what kind you know, you've put a new roof on. When did you put the new roof on? It'll tell you tell us whether it's a class one roof or whether it's not a class one roof. But some of this information, they are not collecting at this point in time. I have not heard anything in opposition about the bill, but I've not heard anything from the recorders at all.

But this, I don't believe, would any be any kind of significant problem. With everything digital and everything electronic, they could simply ask the recorders to give them access to to the information that they could very easily create some kind of of ability to extract that information from the data. Okay.

And how well, you kind of answered it, I guess. How would they obtain records related to defensible space maintenance, which happens frequently? So, like like, we do it twice twice a year in our our neck of the woods, you know, at home.

Certainly. This this is going to be a general one time survey that's out there to get us started on this. And from that, we'll learn a lot about whether we should do the survey every five years or should we measure, you know, because I think we we want to to measure how well we're doing in terms of this. But this first time, that wouldn't be the case. And I think you're going to see a lot of this being done by GPS, by photography.

They they may fly drones over areas to be able to look at at that. But it's not going to be a every six month adjustment based on how well people have trimmed a particular trees, etcetera.

I really like the idea, and I appreciate what you're trying to achieve.

Great. Thank you.

Any other committee members? Okay. We have a motion. We have a motion. Is there a second? A second, . Would you like to make a closing statement?

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

Awesome. So I should probably start by saying I I really appreciate you bringing this bill and your commitment to home hardening after the Los Angeles Fire. Several of us went down there, and there were there was a real clear difference on homes that were hardening because they were still standing in homes homes that were not. And just for the record, would like to state that the committee did reach out to the recorders association or the recorder's group and did not receive any response. And so just wanted to to state that for the record.

With that, secretary, please call the vote. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations.

[Roll Call]

Alright. That bill is out. Thank you. Alright. Next up, we have AB 1960, Assemblymember Bennett, wildfire prevention grants program identified cohesive fire communities. You may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, madam chair. Last year marked a historic and devastating year for wildfires in California, as I mentioned earlier, decimating Eaton and Palisades. AB 1960 allows CAL FIRE to fund community level hardening projects through their wildfire prevention fund. What we're trying to do is we're trying to create incentives, low cost incentives for the state of California to try to get people to harden their own homes. We are very sensitive to the fact that low income people will have some difficulty in terms of doing this.

So we want to try to save our our resources to try to help in that situation, but we need incentives for people to Harden homes. And one of the greatest incentives research has found is if one or two neighbors are Hardening and they go to their neighbors and say, hey. Why don't you join us in Harabedian? Why don't we do this together? Why don't we bring in a contractor together to do things?

That is the way you can really have community wide hardening, and hardening is much more effective. It's just like the measles vaccine. If more people that do it, the more even the people that don't do it are protected in this situation. So, this is a, an incentive bill far more than it is a major resource reallocation bill. And it's just 20% of the grants, and it goes to a community if they can get 50%.

And it doesn't even start at 50%. It starts at 10% of a community that that that that Hardens and gives discretion to the fire marshal will be able to move forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Assemblyman Bennett. Are there any witnesses in support of this bill? Any witnesses in opposition of this bill? Okay. I'm gonna bring it back. This was pulled by vice chair Hadwick. Did you have any specific questions?

K. I'm gonna try to be fast. I'm sorry. I know we've had discussions. My concern is that this hardening your home is very expensive.

It's roofs, gutters, vents, eaves siding, doors, windows, decks, fences, metal fences instead of wood fences, truck stacking instead of wood decking. I have very low income communities that are in high forested areas. We depend on those wildfire prevention dollars. I know we shouldn't be, but we are, and we have a lot of land to cover, and we're still very behind.

So I'm very concerned that we're incentivizing the people that can afford to do that and and get taken away from the communities that need it the most.

I'd I'd I'd like to respond by saying, if no matter how much money we have, we don't have enough money for all of the wildfire prevention activities that you'd like to do in your community. We could take all of the money in the state and send it to your community. It would not be enough. There needs to be a recognition that people in your community are paying higher home insurance cost because Palisades burned down.

When you have a $35,000,000,000 loss, everybody in the state pays for that.

And so we can't take a it's all gotta go to one one area of the state, one need. Yes. Those those forest are have real challenges, particularly where the trees are dying, because of beetle infestation, etcetera. Those are real risk. But we have to think about the whole state and say, what's the best way for us to decrease our insurance rates?

Well, one of the big ways to do that is make sure Palisades doesn't burn down, make sure Eaton doesn't burn down, make sure, you know, you know, communities in in Northern California don't burn down. And encouraging communities to think this is the only bill that encourages communities community wide to Harden. And community wide Hardening helps everybody, whether you're low income or high income, even though it may not send dollars directly to you.

So we have been missing the boat in sort of thinking about that whole commute I mean, that whole state approach and trying to stretch preciously few resources that we're going to have for hardening. We're trying to stretch those by maximizing the marketing bang that we get.

I would offer to you, there's more of a marketing bang from this bill than there will ever be from the actual dollar spent because we will be able to advertise to all communities. If you get to 10% early, you're gonna get this. All of a sudden, then it buzzes through the community and people sit there and start talk I'm trying to get people to talk about home hardening.

This is a very modest modification, but allows people to in every community say, we've got a chance of doing that. You could have 10% of the people in your community do that. And in your community, 10% of the people could afford to Harden.

Not every community.

But but I mean, in some in some of your communities, 10% of the people could probably afford it. 10% of them may already be hardened. Right? And they maybe could just apply.

And suddenly, look what you have. They're buzzing because, hey, we had 10% that were already hardened. We got qualified. We got cert you know, we met the certifications. Now bang.

We get to talk about that's the kind of buzz I'm trying to create. I feel more like a marketing manager and advertising manager than I feel like a fire safety person with this, but that's what we need. We need marketing to join with Cal Fire and all the others out there. So pardon me, but thank you for letting me sort of be

I absolutely agree with you. I think that that's the that is support for the bill. That is the and didn't go that far. That is what we want. And, unfortunately, the fear of these communities burning is the only way we get people to do things and move.

I can't I we we don't have the funds to pay for it. So that's the thing. It doesn't define hardening, which makes me nervous too because then that's gonna be very subjective. We had discussed who was going to certify and how often, and I I don't know if you can explain that to the committee.

You know, I I I you we had a nice conversation

Yes. Yeah.

Before, and I greatly respect that you approached me, told me you had concerns. We had a chance. I had a chance to try to explain that to you. But in the interest of the committee and and everything, I don't wanna belabor this too long, but we don't know. So in two answers, we don't know what the hardening standards exactly will be until Cal Fire adopts those.

Right? But it's very possible they may adopt a two tier certification program, and the first tier may be pretty much low cost stuff, putting the vents on, clearing the brush. And if that's the case, there may be a way for for that them to qualify in terms of this. So there are ways that that things could happen. Yeah.

But, again, I really respect that you reached out. You reached out in advance so that we could have the conversation and not try to do it all right here.

Yes. Yeah. I am just trying to protect. I have the most CAL FIRE stations in my district too, trying to protect them. We have very large counties.

They don't have the capacity to do this kind of a code enforcement. We we had discussed Fire Safe Councils doing that. I I really don't think that's a good idea, but to put on them, but I I I think this is it's one of many bills that are taking a little small percentage and taking it away from the rest of the state. So I think we do need to focus on the whole state. Leave that 20% open to everybody. But we just we agree to disagree.

Madam Chair, if I may, there's one very important point I want to

One very important point.

This is about code enforcement. I I

Sorry. Not code enforcement. Certification.. Certification.

This is voluntary certification. Somebody asked somebody to come and check my house out. That's very, very different than mandatory code enforcement. Yeah. That is not what this is, and that's a buzzkill for the marketing program that we need in the state of California.

I retract that. The buzzkill. So I do retract that. I meant certification. Sorry.

Alright. Are there any other committee questions? Alright. We have a first and a second. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. Secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

I I appreciate that your no was quiet because that's that helps on the marketing campaign.

every individual, I would say yes.

We're gonna keep the role open for the absent member. We're now gonna invite Assemblyman De Maio to present AB 1863 regarding fire protection, district fees, 911 telephone calls. Whenever you are ready, you may begin.

Thank you very much. And in the interest of time, I will keep it brief. I'm here to present a b's eighteen sixty three. This bill has been brought forward in response to concerns by community members that if they dial 911, they would be charged a fee. There are some cities that are going to a charge as part of cost recovery for services rendered.

We wanna use AB 1863 to put concerns to rest to ensure that an individual who does not receive a service would not receive a charge if they dial 911. Fire districts will be able to charge for services rendered. We are accepting committee amendments to that effect and make sure that we clarify that. But no locality will be permitted to charge a citizen just for making a 911 call or when emergency services are dispatched, but no aid or services rendered.

Californians deserve the right to know that they can dial 911 in case of a concern about a potential emergency.

We certainly don't want to allow predatory calls, prank calls. Those can still be charged and and people can be penalized. But we wanna make sure that in an era of tight budgets that this is not one area that some of the localities will look to for funds. Thank you again, chair and staff. We're working with my team on this bill, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. We have a motion. I'll second the motion. Are there any witnesses in support of this bill? Seeing none, are there any witnesses in opposition of this bill?

I'm gonna bring it back to the committee. Are there any questions or concerns? I wanna just thank the assembly member for accepting the amendments, having been on a fire authority and chair of fire authority. Definitely wanna ensure that Californians know that they can call 911 without, you know, being concerned about any absorbent fees.

And then also wanna make sure that our districts know that if they do go out and administer IVs or things like that, they can still, you know, bill insurance and be recover any costs.

So we think that this bill hits the sweet spot. And with that, we I do you do enjoy the do pass request from the chair. We have a first and a second. Secretary, please call the vote. No.

No. No. Did you have any closing statements?

I just ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We're gonna now go back over to add on votes for committee members who joined after the meeting started.

[Roll Call]

Okay. The meeting is adjourned.