Senate Standing Committee on Emergency Management

Alright. The Senate Emergency Management Committee will come to order. We're gonna start as a subcommittee here to allow us a member Dixon to present and then at the appropriate time we establish quorum, we'll be, accepting motions and the like. So please welcome. And at your convenience you could begin.

I think we're on file item number two for those following along AB 1749. Good afternoon.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon Chair and members of the committee or member of it is my pleasure today to present AB 1749. AB 1749 would prohibit the use of an unmanned aerial vehicle, remotely piloted aircraft or drone, as we know that by, to knowingly or recklessly interfere with law enforcement or emergency response efforts related to wildfire suppression.

AB 1749 would also authorize the attorney general, county council, or city attorney to bring a civil action against an individual who violates emergency response airspace with a specific drone or unmanned aerial vehicle.

Visitors violators can face a civil penalty of up to $75,000 for each individual violation. During last year's devastating wildfires in Pacific Palisades, we saw the significant risk that drones can pose to first responders after a civilian operated drone collided with a super scooper aircraft responding to the fire. AB 1749 is an important step to strengthen our deterrent against the unlawful operation of drones and wildfire response areas where air operations are underway.

In times of emergency, every second counts, and we must ensure that our first responders who are already putting their lives at risk are not put in further jeopardy while performing their duties. AB 1749 has a broad range of support, including California professional firefighters, Orange County Fire Authority, the California Special District Association, California State Sheriff's Association, and the narc California Narcotic Officers Association.

My office remains engaged in discussion regarding potential amendments to the bill with opposition. This bill received unanimous bipartisan support in the Assembly and has received no no votes. Respectfully request an Aye vote.

Okay. Thank you so much. We'll, we'll hear from either lead witnesses or, if we wanna do just general witness support.

Yeah. No. We'd let no lead witness.

No lead. Okay. So we'll just hear, Me Too testimony. If anyone wants to testify in support of the building, now is the proper time to make your way. Seeing none, I think we have a few noted on file, but not here in person.

So we will move to opposition. Is there any lead opposition or any two testimony on that front? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to me on the glass. I appreciate your bill. I think it's critically important and I think you know I just hope that the standard, which I think we're gonna be looking at in judiciary if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah. We just wanna make sure that folks can't plead ignorance here when they're so I I think we can work with it. But if anything, I want this this bill more rigorous. It's it's someone who's been through, I think, 27 fires since I got elected. Yeah.

The voyeurism, the paparazzi nature of sort of, you know, disaster relate even when it's not, say, intentionally going to disrupt law enforcement ends up doing that.

And but I think your standard, even if it's not intentional, but if it's knowing, which is that you have to actually have an awareness that you may cause that risk, but you're not you haven't necessarily plotted to disrupt a super scooper, plotted to disrupt a, you know, law enforcement operation during one of those disasters that that I still think your standard should hit it. So

Well, thank you. And this is different than last year by putting that extra standard in there to require operations who knowingly or recklessly interfere. So journalists would not be prohibited, for example. But it's really to leave that airspace safe for the emergency responders.

Well, if if you do take further amendments, please add me to your legislation. I'm a big fan of it. And I will take a motion when we we have quorum.

I appreciate that. Yeah. Thanks for watching.

Thanks for coming back and keep working on this.

All right.

Thank you very much.

We appreciate it. So we don't have quorum, we're just we're going to hear Bill's presentation for the moment although I think we might have none, unless someone wants to just get up one open mic or people have feelings they want to share with us as a committee. Let's take a brief pause. Alright. We'll take a brief recess.

Alright. We're gonna reconvene the committee in thirty seconds. Okay. Great. Embarrassment and riches.

We have our counterpart in the Assembly, Chair Ransom, and then Mister Gonzales here to present file number one. We'll get you going. We're just subcommittee, so please present and take it away.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. I also wanna begin by expressing my appreciation to the Chair and the committee staff for working with my office to get this bill to where it's at today. Suicide prevention should never be political. It's a public health responsibility.

And when a young person is at their lowest point and finds the courage to ask for help, the worst thing we can do is let that call go unanswered. Last year, national funding for the 988 LGBTQ plus suicide prevention line was cut, shutting down a lifeline that thousands of young people relied on in its darkest moments. According to the CDC, our LGBT plus youth attempt suicide at almost triple the rate compared to their peers.

With the pressure of the world on their backs and a president who thinks transgender people are not real, our youth are begging for help. Not because they are broken, but because too often the systems around them are.

AB 1540 is about restoring a lifeline. It reinstates the press three option within The United States system so that when someone reaches out in crisis, they can be connected to trained counselors who understand the unique challenges LGBTQ plus face. And restoring the service means restoring something simple but powerful, The chance for someone on the other end of the line to say, you're not alone. Stay with me. Sometimes the difference between tragedy and tomorrow is just one voice picking up the phone.

AB 1540 helps to make sure that voice is heard. Today, primary witnesses in support to highlight the impact of the bills are Bridget McCarthy, longtime friend and supporter of many of the bills since I've been here, mother to Riley in advocacy with the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, And we also have Diva Shiv, senior policy advocate for California Alliance of Child and Family Services to act as technical support. And before they start, I'd just like to say happy pride.

Happy pride indeed. Thank you for bringing this. We'll turn to your lead witnesses. We're gonna go two minutes each. So whichever word you'd like to proceed.

Hello.

Hello. My name is Divya Shiv, Senior Policy Advocate of Behavioral Health at the California Allianceof Child and Family Services. As, Assembly Member as the Assembly Member stated, I'm here to provide expert testimony, and we are a proud cosponsor of the bill, and I will yield the rest of my time to Bridget. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello. Thank you, first of all. My name is Bridget McCarthy, and I'm here on behalf of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, which is the nation's largest private funder of suicide prevention research. More importantly, though, I'm here as a mother.

In September 2020, just twelve days after his sixteenth birthday, I lost my amazing son, Riley, to suicide. His birthday balloons were still floating in his room. That's an image I carry with me every day, and that's why I'm here. I'm here for Riley and Bella and David and Matthew and Daejon and Henry and the many others we have lost and the many mothers who will no longer buy birthday balloons. In California, suicide is the second leading cause of death for young people.

And as Mark just said, for LGBTQ plus youth, the risk is significantly higher. After we lost Riley, we learned that in the middle of the crisis, he had reached out. He had texted a gay friend hoping for a connection that never came. At that time, there was no 988. There was no option 3, a dedicated line where LGBTQ plus youth could speak to somebody who understands their world.

We know a veteran looks to a fellow soldier. In the same way, an LGBTQ child needs to know the person on the other end of the line truly sees them. Last year, the Federal Government eliminated 3 in the LGBTQ subnetwork of 988, cutting off a critical lifeline. This was not a niche service. It handled 73,000 calls from Californians in a single year.

With suicide attempt rates amongst trans youth more than four times higher than their peers, we cannot afford this gap. AB 1540 restores that lifeline. It ensures that when a young person reaches out, someone who understands will answer. My son was reaching out into the dark. He could not find a hand that felt familiar, and that is the heartbreak I live with.

It's a heartbreak no parent should endure. So for Riley and for every child still reaching out, please support AB 1540 because this legislation is the hand in the dark. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll hear from others.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, California State Association of Psychiatrists, Cities City of West Hollywood, and Humboldt County all in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in proud support. Thank you.

Thanks.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members Edward Franco here on behalf of California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association of California in support.

Thanks.

Mary Creasy on behalf of All In for Safe Schools in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. John Scoglin with the County of Los Angeles in support.

Hey. Hello. Yeah. No.

I know. Josh Gaugher on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support.

Cassandra Whetstone, a volunteer with NorCal Gun Violence Prevention in support.

Good afternoon. Bindu Macamla with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter in strong support.

Thank you.

Hello, everyone. Caden Shepritoy with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls Youth Advisory Council in full support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Angela Pontes on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support.

Thanks.

Good afternoon. Brian Ricks with Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Good afternoon. Katie McKenzie with the Commission for Behavioral Health in support of AB 1540. Thank you.

Thanks.

Sarah Webber with the Drug Policy Alliance in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Julie Chapman, volunteer with Narkel Gun Violence Prevention in support.

Thank you.

Zach Flowers with the Health Officers Association of California in proud support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Ruby Arso on behalf of Children Now in support.

Thanks.

Mister Chair and Senator Adam Kegelean on behalf of California LULAC and the Alliance College Ready Public Schools in support.

Thank you.

Sumay Enhar on behalf of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists also in support.

Thank you.

Noemi Marque on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis in support.

Thank you. Alright. I think we'll move now to any opposition testimony wishing to testify. There's lead testimony. You'll have two minutes each.

Paul Evertz on behalf of Cause and Our Duty. I'm a school teacher. This bill directs the California HHS to contract with an entity that can operate its hotline that specializes in LGBTQ plus suicide prevention. The Trevor Project is the only such organization. This bill is clearly about the Trevor Project.

The author passed AB 727 last year, which put the Trevor Project contact number on the student IDs. I wonder how much Trevor donates to his campaign. I understand why the author hides the actual beneficiary of this bill. Trevor online social platform, Trevor Space, explicitly facilitates direct communication between minors and adults ages 13 to 24, but actually there is no age limit since there is no identity or age verification process.

Minors of any age can contact can connect with men pertaining to be females and even babies.

One of the featured chat rooms is devoted to age regression, a known male sexual fetish related to sexual abuse, child sexual abuse. There's a polyamorous chat room, one for furries and, of course, multiple ones for trans and even one for chosen families. Anyone visiting the Treasure Project main page is invited to enter Trevor's face by tapping meet friends. Once there, the minor is encouraged to provide private contact information on its Discord server, a platform rife with sexual predators.

The result is a pedophiles and trafficker's dream scenario.

How does sexualizing kids prevent suicide? The author needs to answer that, please. How does moving the spill forward show the state of California you wanna help lower these kids suicide rate? Please stop telling kids they were born wrong and calling their parents bigots when their parents love them in their natural bodies. Please vote no.

Next, lead opposition.

Lisa Disbrow, former teacher at Moms for Liberty. The premise of this bill is that teens who identify as LGBTQ are at vastly increased risk of suicide that they need a dedicated helpline even though nine eighty eight itself says it is fully capable of handling calls from everyone. According to the author, suicide attempts are up in the precise cohort specifically targeted by the Trevor Project over the last two decades. Suicide prevention was the same reason you push schools to teach about transgenderism in every class.

Every school, every ever consider that possibly teaching non conforming kids that they could have been born wrong might result in more kids being depressed or anxious?

The author and Trevor Project's claims that suicide safeguarding children's bodies are causing increased suicide is based on irresponsible speculation. A 2026 peer reviewed critique in Nature Human Behavior found that The Trevor Project's claim of a seventy two percent increase in suicide attempts came from a single state Idaho where no relevant law was actually enforced. More importantly, analyzing the data correctly suggests that enacting the bans on transgender medicine led to less suicide analytic.

This bill is just another pretext to fill the coffers of a nonprofit that only stays in business if it can continue to espouse the lie that LGBTQ youth are more and more suicidal. The Trevor Project brought in about 30,000,000 in 2020 nearly tripling to $84,000,000 by 2023 paying its CEO $750,000 in 2024.

Suicide prevention is laudable, but nine eighty eight already fills that need and California should not be redirecting public funds to a politically motivated organization whose own data has been debunked. Vote no. I have copies of our information. If I could give it to someone.

Sure. The sergeants are there to receive your submission. Thank you. Others in, opposition. Now is the time to come forward.

Name and affiliation only, please.

Erin Friday, licensed attorney, president of our duty, also representing CAUSE, Women Are Real, LGB Alliance, LGB Courage Coalition, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, and Genspect. We urge no.

Okay. Next.

Rochelle Connor, Concerned Women for America representing thousands of families. We oppose this bill.

Thank you. Seeing no others in support or opposition, we will bring it back to the dice if there are questions or comments. Seeing none, yeah, Mr. Gonzalez, I'll be supporting your measure today. We have an iRECO on it.

We know this is been a critical issue for for a lot of people right now who don't feel seen, and I appreciate your lead testimony, ma'am. And, you know, what what lies in that darkness between you and and and eternity, hopefully, is some comfort and and some progress here. So I know that you must face it every single day and it's a I don't know how you bear that burden. So, I do appreciate you and, something where I allow you to close. Sure.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you to the staff. Thank you to those who are here in support and, obviously, those who are in opposition because this is why we need this bill from the rhetoric that we heard on the last couple of minutes. Nine eight eight is about suicide prevention, plain and simple. And, obviously, we know that this administration is trying to cut that lifeline from us.

I mentioned on the floor, in the Assembly floor, a friend of mine who called 988 was originally saved by it. And a few months later, unfortunately, in April, took his own life. And the last couple of weeks, I went to his his funeral, and they gave away one of those memorial cards. And I just wanna close by reading the end of that memorial card. I cannot attribute it as to who wrote it, but I I do know it's it's out there.

But on the back of this card, it says, don't grieve for me for now I'm free. I turned my back, and I left at all. I could not stay another day to laugh, to love, to work, to play. Tasks left undone must stay that way. I found that peace at the close of the day, and my parting has left a void, then fill it with remembering joy, a friendship shared, a laugh, a kiss.

Yes, these things I too shall miss. But be not burdened with the times of sorrow. I wish you the sunshine of tomorrow. My life's been full. I savored much.

Good friends, good times, and a loved one's touch. Perhaps my time seem all too brief. Don't lengthen in now. With undue grief, lift up your heart. And that was on the back of that memorial card from a friend of mine who unfortunately took his life a few weeks ago.

And I want to pass this bill in in his memory, and I thank you, Mister Chair and Bridget, for sharing your story. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. When we have a quorum, we'll invite a motion. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Alright. I think it's, Assembly Member Ransom. Yeah. We've got our last two items on the calendar here. I'm sorry, three items.

I'll leave it to you, but you wanna go file order or however you'd like to proceed?

No, Senator. One of the witnesses has to double duty.

We're all doing today. So I am going to start with, 1805.

Very good.

Okay. File number 3 AB 1805. Alright. Please proceed.

Alright. Good afternoon, Senator and committee members. I'm Assembly member Rhodesia Ransom, and I have the honor of chairing the Assembly committee on emergency management. In recent months, the legislature and public, we serve have become aware of flagrant race and abuse of one of our fundamental essential public safety projects, the next generation nine one one modernization project. The goals of the project are straightforward to modernize our nine one one infrastructure away from old wired infrastructure and into a more modern Internet protocol system.

This is a system that we can allow on for communications over phone, text, and other modalities, increasing options for people with dangerous situations to quickly communicate essential information. The system is also intended to connect the numerous law enforcement and public safety entities involved in a nine one one response to make sure they can communicate quickly and effectively and respond to emergencies as fast as possible.

As we saw in Pacific Palisades in Altadena last January, a reliable 911 network is critical to putting resources and manpower in the right place at the right time. And the cost is getting worse, and it's definitely more costly when human lives are involved. Unfortunately, the crucial project has spent nearly half 1,000,000,000 taxpayer dollars and needed to be scrapped with little to show for it.

The office of emergency services has requested permission to go back to the drawing board, putting that time and money to waste. And when the tests of the system had been rolled out, there had been such significant issues that the entire region of our state was left without 911 access for hours. Those are very real people in very real emergencies, people who needed assistance and who rely on one number that they've been taught to rely on since they were children.

That meant that law enforcement who would have been there to help was not able to get their the information. And I can tell you firsthand when we had the sheriff come and testify about active shooters in our community, we learned that one of the delays was the fact that people were at addresses that they did not know where they were because they were at a birthday party, and that there were delays in getting to those people because the law enforcement officers could not find them.

So Californias have been taught for decades that when you have an emergency, you call 911. Allowing that essential life saving service to be poorly mismanagement is not just a waste of taxpayer dollars and staff time, it's abuse of public trust. Eighteen o five is about fixing this. We know that we are all looking for a pathway forward. We've heard that from emergency services.

We've heard that throughout the legislature. And so this bill takes critical steps to ensure that that actually happens. It happens. It does three things. It calls for an immediate audit of the project by the state auditor, providing their office with a list

of hard hitting questions developed with feedback from the state auditor's office so that law lawmakers and public have the answers, not just to relitigate things that we already know that have happened. So have the answers, not just to relitigate things that we already know that have happened, but to ensure that we are able to move forward in a way that has the right contractors and vendors at the table and that has the right expertise.

The bill revises and strengthens the existing nine one one advisory board, giving the board the authority to make concrete recommendations to Cal OES and requiring OES to justify their decisions if they ignore the recommendations. AB 1805 requires detailed quarterly reports to the legislature on the status of the project, roadblocks it is encountering, and solutions being proposed to solve that challenges.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention that as part of the audit, we're also requesting a technical audit, which is different than what's happened, but looking to ensure that the technical pathway forward that we choose is actually right because we know that we originally were gonna do a regional approach.

Now we're doing a statewide approach. And if you've watched any of those hearings, we ask questions about how did you choose this approach, and we wanna make sure that there is the right technical expertise involved in making these decisions. This bill is not just a step forward in the right direction.

It's an opportunity for the project to remember that 911 is meant to serve and to put in hard work that's so that everyone in California has an emergency call system that they know that they can rely on. We also wanna make sure that we don't go ahead and get to the end of the line and just move forward with a project to spend another half billion dollars and find out that we didn't do it right again.

So with me today to testify, I have Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association. And at this point, I will go ahead and refer to him. And I'd also I'm sorry. Before I move forward, I'd like to say that we have Heather Gonzalez on behalf of the analyst office. She'll be here to answer any questions that you may have.

There was also a legislative analyst report that, very much informed how we move forward with this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm your lead witness. Welcome.

Mister Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. Thank you guys for accommodating me. I wanna thank the author for all of her work up to this point this year in highlighting this issue, putting solutions on the table and ensuring that we're actually having a robust discussion on this and to the Chair, thank you for your work on this bill and moving it forward.

And our conversations, I've been involved in this project since before it even got off the ground working with the legislature to pass measures necessary to fund our next gen nine one one system and have stayed in touch with the folks moving that project forward since then. Unfortunately, we did end where we ended where we have to kind of take a a moment to reflect on what went wrong before moving forward.

And I think the policies in the bill before you and those being discussed in the legislature are incredibly incredibly important to make sure that we don't make the same mistakes that we made last time, but we also get this right the second time moving forward. It's incredibly critical that we move into this next gen nine one one system. Our legacy system does provide nine one one services, but it is an outdated system.

It doesn't at all come close to what we should expect in a modern twenty twenty six nine one one system that has text capabilities, video capabilities, better location and mapping. We're excited to finally get this project done and completed, but I don't think it's gonna get there without the type of oversight that the legislature can play, that the police chiefs and our other public safety allies need to play in a better position in this, and that's what this bill is aimed to do.

And for those reasons, we are asking for you to support the bill today.

Okay. Thank you. Any others in support, come on forward.

Thank you, Mister Chair members. Mark Smith on behalf of Calnana. That's the California chapter of the National Emergency Number Association. That's a mouthful, but we are the 911 dispatchers in the state of California. And if I just might for ten seconds

Please.

Echo the words of the other witness. We've waited very long for this project to be implemented. We need to get it across the finish line. And we wanna appreciate everything that the author has done both in the policy and budget context to move this conversation forward, and we urge you to act now. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Bindu Mukhamala on behalf of the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter in strong support. Thank you.

Thanks.

John McHale on behalf of Orange County Fire Authority here in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no others in support, do we have anyone here in opposition, either lead or me too testimony?

Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Do we have comments or questions from members? I'll just say I appreciate, you working with, our committee, on this measure and on, on, on the on this issue more broadly. Appreciate all your leadership and insistence on, nothing less than total competence from the state, and I think that's a standard we should all, demand, especially in these, you know, these these are the worst possible circumstances when people pick up that phone and it's got to work.

My question, maybe for you, I think more maybe more so for your lead witness is just notes in the analysis the some of Cal OES's written to written comments in response to this LAO report.

And so when you're talking about sort of what how to move forward. Right? There's the the you know, you talked about some some of the elements that you think will be important to ensure that. But, this this notion of, backup technology configurations within a data center, multiple data centers, multiple distribution networks utilizing separate physical paths to allow for failover, transitioning from one network to another if issues arise. Are these all issues you think are gonna be assessed in the technical evaluation?

So we're gonna invite Heather Gonzales on behalf of the legislative analyst office to answer that question. Yeah. Perfect. But before she does that, I wanna say this is why we think it's important that we have both an added an audit and a technical evaluation because we wanna make sure that we have the right approach. But I'm gonna give it to her.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

In short, yes. The technical evaluation that we have been recommending would look principally at two questions that have been very much part of the policy debate over the last few months since we released our our initial recommendations in February. And that is, first and foremost, can the regional system that we have built out already work? Now, OES says no. Vendors who built it say yes.

And we need a competent technical evaluation to determine what's the right answer to that question. The second question that is critical to understanding for the go forward is, can the statewide system that the Office of Emergency Services has proposed, is that going to be the reliable answer that we all want, in the go forward? And again, we believe that having additional technical evaluation from an independent expert would help gain, confidence and a a more informed analysis of the answer to that question.

So what else is there besides regional or statewide? What what other alternatives might get evaluated? Do you have a sense?

The question one of the central questions with the statewide is not whether it's regional or statewide, but if it's regional, how do you do it so that it is sufficient? There are some states that have statewide systems where they've had statewide nine eleven blackouts. It just goes offline. And so we need to make sure that the system is reliable, which is a term of art in this space that essentially means it's as close to nonfailable as possible.

And there are different ways from an architecture and an IT stand standpoint that you can get to reliability.

One way is through multiple backups. You could, for example, have two statewide systems that are sort of running simultaneously and, almost like a juggler juggling data back and forth. If one can't if there's a failure in one part, the other part picks up instantaneously. And I think to some degree, there was the thought that the regional system might serve a little bit like that. And then what the office of emergency services has argued is that they're going to have redundancy.

So each part of the system itself, it'll be a single system, but each part will have backups. And that and through that redundancy, we will gain the reliability that we want. But again, we would recommend getting an independent technical evaluation of these different options to determine which one is is actually going to deliver in part because in some ways the technology that we're looking at is still emerging and they're we're still developing standards. We're so we're sort of early iPhone If you will here.

And so until things kind of really get mature in this space, we wanna make sure that we're getting a lot of of support.

That's very helpful. I'll come back to lead witness in one Sec. Just my follow-up to that, though, is, given the sort of the need for expertise, I guess, if you will, to chart the path forward and given how emerging all this is, I'm trying to distinguish between because the bill has a few elements before you can move forward. It has the contingency around this technical evaluation and then also the audit function. And from the for the audit, though, that wouldn't be done by someone with technical

There's a

that kind of technology or could or how how would that

You could. So you have a couple of ways you could do this. You could have you could ask the state auditor to do the audit and the technical evaluation, and that would take the time that it would take. One of the advantages to having the state auditor do it is that they're reporting to you. And so you won't get the, whatever information you get isn't going to be filtered through anyone other than than the auditor reporting to you.

Whereas if you send it to a state agency, they may have the opportunity to shape their scope of the report. You could also, as we have discovered, you can direct the technical evaluation separately and on its own. You don't have to do it through an audit. You can, you could also send it to the state agency and have the state agency put out an RFP and do an audit. But you could do this directly through legislation, the budget, etcetera.

You could do it, like I said, through an agency. You could do it through the audit. And it's the the principal differences there are, how much independence is going to be allowed in this analysis and whether or you know, and who will scope the questions that get asked because that's going to, shape the answers you get.

But in you were talking about the technical evaluation itself needs to be independent. Yeah. The bill anticipates that being conducted under the auspices of the agency. No. No.

It doesn't. Okay.

It's a third party. And and Third. We wanna be as far away from the agency as possible. Without getting too deep in the weeds, there are concerns. And so when we're talking about an audit and we're talking about contracting and technical expertise, it's really important that we have people that can inform the the choices as the auditor did mention.

You know, there are so many different options to move forward. We don't wanna get to the end and find out that the backup system's not appropriate or that people are not able to access the system. And in kind of in our previous hearings, asking questions about how modalities were selected and who was in charge of the technical pieces. We we learned a couple of things.

One, the advisory board, although those were the end users who use the technology, they did not have a real weight to the selections.

And then we also learned that there were not a lot of technical experts. The Department of Technology was used primarily for contracting and procurement, but not for the modalities and the the pathway forward. You asked a question or the and the LEO also mentioned that the vendor disagrees with the agency. Well, that's also an issue where we have selected vendors, and and one of the vendors continues on the project to continue moving forward. Right now, we've selected vendors who disagree with the agency.

So these are very important questions that really we don't need the vendors to decide those those, the evaluations and we also don't want the agency to have to get too deep in the weeds because that's not their technical expertise and it's really a public trust.

We wanna be able to know that when we release to the public and when we are moving forward, the public feels confident that we've done our best to really remove any conflicts of interest, remove any, you know, guilt or shame or whatever it is that we've really put this project ahead of any of the other issues that have been plaguing it for quite some time.

Okay. So at present, the bill nests the this technical evaluation, I think, within the state auditor's office as I understand it. It's Or did it shall come in? Sorry.

That's not the so there's been amendments. The request was for the them to hire or contract with I don't wanna name a company, but maybe similar to, like, a Rand or some outside auditor or outside technical evaluator. But as was mentioned, the auditor's office did say that that's something that they could do

And they could they can do it multiple ways. They can have the auditor do it. They can also bring in a third party. Yep. So there's different ways to do it, but most important thing is that it happens.

I see.

I completely agree and that we'll just, I trust in in your, your thoroughness and and good intentions here with all this. So, I think, with the the amendments sort of leaving some of those questions open of exactly how you wanna do that contracting, I think, having the technical and having the third party and having them be independent makes sense outside the agency. So I agree with that.

And, I would just say that technical I would like to see that technical expertise drive the evaluation process. And and and the because there's sort of a eval and an audit piece, that's I think what we're wrestling with is what's the relative value of both.

And that there is a contingency for moving ahead and something I wanna flag for our both our dispatchers and our chiefs and all the serious people here who do this work every day. Just, you know, my, precaution for everyone is that, we don't we don't wanna slow down this process in process. We've already been delayed a lot. We gotta get this right. I think doing this technical evaluation on an expedited basis makes a lot of sense and having it be independent.

I think all that's solid. I just, we look forward to working with you all going forward to see sort of how best to get that that piece right. And the inhibition I have is that if the state auditor not through a technical evaluator, but on their own is in on a separate front doing audit and then everything is sort of contingent on that audit being complete. That's not even necessarily going to opine on the technical aspects, right?

It'll be a sort of a nontechnical and more procedural or where there conflicts or those kinds of things and sort of a look back.

I just, yeah, I'm gonna be paying close attention to that timing going forward.

So So I'd like to be clear just Yeah. Because what you just stated makes me think that maybe there may be a misunderstanding. So when we're looking at if you look at the audit questions, it there is a look back because that is important, but it there's also a look at, like, how contracting decisions are made. Right now, this is we know that this is an important project that does need to move forward, but we as we're already hearing, there's conflicts between vendors and contractors.

Some of those same vendors are still engaged.

And so how we are, moving forward with contracting and conflicts are is very important part of that evaluation. So it's not just a look back, it's also a look forward. And then I also wanna say, I'm looking right now, it looks as if you have on page ten eleven of the analysis, the amendments on the technical evaluation. So

I think the amendments start on page six and they go through page 11.

Right. Ten and eleven speak to what we're speaking referring to right now regarding the technical evaluation.

Yeah. I think to your point though, you also have the amendment to Section three noted on page six that deals with the assurance that the vendors have no financial interest in the state next gen system and that the way the contract is set up is. So I think you've done a good job of checking that box around conflicts with that provision. I guess what I'm saying is I don't know that the audit piece gets you to that, you don't yeah.

I understand.

That's not part of that piece, right? That that's a that's a separate provision of law going forward so

I would okay. Well thank you for that. Yeah.

I look I appreciate this a dynamic thing and then there's a there's budget conversations underway as well. So we'll just stay engaged with you going forward. I do wanna clarify that you're open to accepting these amendments from the committee?

We have the amendments that we were, accepting are the amendments that we requested, which are the ones regarding the technical evaluation piece.

I think it's pages six through 11.

It's 10 and well, I'm only looking at ten and eleven right now. But we did accept the evaluations that kept the audit, and we would we can accept all of it. I'm looking at yes these are all the amendments that we discussed. Yes sir.

Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. And without further comments I'm sure you're dying to jump in here. Yeah.

Yeah. You'd love to. Probably dying to get you Great. No. We'll appreciate the insight from the LAO on this on this complicated and urgent issue and thank you for your work here Madam Chair.

Any other questions or comments, we'll allow you to close. Please.

Oh, oh, you were closing comments. Thank you. So I wanna I wanna thank, Mister Feldman and thank the witnesses for their testimony. Special thanks to our legislative analyst office because they've done a lot of tireless work that helped us to really understand and underscore what's been happening. 911 is a phone number that no one ever wants to have to call.

But when you need it, we wanna know that it's relied that's reliable. So we shine a light on the project that's meant to keep our state safe and make sure that we don't waste another dollar until we have an evidence based path forward. So with that, I wanna thank you and your committee for all of your efforts. I know that there's a lot of people that have a lot of interest in this, but we really wanna get this done right.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Okay. We will, wait for a quorum and then we'll accept a motion. I will invite one. You wanna present on your next dealer's choice. What 1832 or 2543?

Yes, Chair. We're gonna move forward to AB 1832. I believe that's Item Number Three.

Okay. Great.

Awesome. So, all right. We're gonna start over everybody. All right. Moving forward to another system. This one is 211. All right. So, good afternoon, again, Chair and senators. I'm here to present AB 1832. This bill will strengthen and expand statewide access to vital 211 services across California.

Currently, we are the only state in the country without full statewide 211 coverage. Many disaster-prone states, including Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey, Virginia, utilize 211 as a critical service that connects residents to programs, reliable information, and disaster response. In California, we are falling a little short, unfortunately. Today, more than a dozen counties have no access to 211 and many others lack the capacity to answer incoming calls. They are at risk of losing service entirely during the unstable local funding.

211 can play a critical role during emergencies, whether it's wildfires, winter storms, public health crises. People turn to 211 for trusted real-time information and resources. Without the system, non-emergency calls can flood 911 lines, overwhelming emergency responders and leaving thousands without access in a timely manner. When you think about things like the Los Angeles fires, after the smoke and the fires are done, people still need help, and so they were calling 211 for these services.

So they were able to answer during this time 42,000 calls and texts, which helped secure short-term housing for 15,000 households. Despite the success, the system lacks statewide infrastructure, capacity, and integration into our emergency planning needed to keep up with increasingly frequent and severe disasters. Without state partnership, California is missing out on valuable, real-time data. 211 can provide insight into community needs by ZIP code, by region, by type, and helping the state to better target our resources.

AB 1832 addresses these gaps by establishing a statewide fund to support core capacity and to create a community needs dashboard to provide actionable data. And when the time comes, I will respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you. Witness in support, please.

Yes. So with me today, I have Alana Hitchcock, the Executive Director of-- and CEO of 211 California, and Alma Bowen, the Founder and Executive Director of Nuestra Comunidad.

Okay. Thank you. And for a brief moment, Mr. Grayson, are you willing to take this gavel? They gotta get me over to present one bill or they're adjourning on me. So-- okay. Thank you.

Just an example of the California senators hard at work, guys.

Alright. So we're gonna turn it over to witnesses in support. Again, Alana Hitchcock and Alma Bowen.

First witness.

Thank you, members of the committee. Alana Hitchcock, CEO of two in one California. When we think about California's emergency response system, as we've heard today, we think about 911, and we also increasingly think about 988. But between 9811 and 988 stands another critical lifeline that millions of Californians rely on every year, and that's two one one.

Together, these three systems form a delicate ecosystem and support network for Californians with two in one connecting people to the information, resources, and services that keep a crisis from becoming an emergency.

Many of the 1,800,000 calls to 211 every year are not just requests for information. They are moments for crisis intervention, a senior facing eviction or trying to stay safe in extreme heat, a mother unable to feed her children, people struggling to access our health care or behavioral health services. They are opportunities to prevent the calls to 911, the visits to the emergency room, or the deepening of a behavioral health crisis. That role becomes even more critical during disasters as you will hear from our other witness.

Whether it's the ongoing Boyle Heights fire right now where 211 is connecting people to life saving air purifiers and emergency housing or other wildfires, public safety power shutoffs, floods, extreme heat events, or future disasters, Californians need more than just alerts.

They need a trusted human being who can help them understand and interpret those alerts to take action and keep themselves and their family safe. For seniors, people with disabilities, families with limited English proficiency, and those without reliable access to Internet, two in one is the bridge to help people understand when they need to pack up and evacuate or stay put. This moment is so urgent because as our member mentioned, we currently face the risk of closure or severe service reductions in nearly 24 counties.

So we ask for your support for AB 1832 to create two one one system stability and improve coordination within the emergency management framework at Cal OES. Thank you.

Fantastic. Right at two minutes. Next witness, two minutes.

Good afternoon, senators. My name is Alma Bowen, and I am the founder and executive director or of Nostra Comunidad OR NC, a nonprofit that serves Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties. Before this work, I spent over eighteen years as a nine one one dispatcher. One of the most impactful nights of my career was working during the twenty seventeen Sonoma Complex fires. I answered call after call from people fleeing their homes, separated from loved ones, and desperately searching for information and help.

That experience changed my life. It not only became the catalyst to start NC, but it continues to fuel my passion for strengthening California's emergency support systems and my strong support for AB 1832. One thing I learned during my years in emergency communications is that 911 and 211 are not separate systems. They are interdependent systems. During a nine during a disaster, 911 should be focused on life threatening emergencies where lives and property are in immediate danger.

But when people need evacuation information, shelter location, and other disaster related information, they need somewhere else to turn. And that is where 211 becomes critical. A strong 211 system allows 911 to operate in its optimum capacity by handling non urgent calls and connecting people to resources and information that do not require an emergency response. This preserves resources, that are valuable during emergencies, and it ensures that first responders can focus on saving lives. AB 1832 recognizes two one one not simply as a referral line.

It recognizes that it is essential to emergency infrastructure. Investing in two one one is investing in a stronger nine one one. It also promotes resilient communities, and it invests in California to make it better prepared for the disasters that we know are coming. So today, I ask respectfully for your support of AB 32. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you so much for your testimony. Those in the public that would like to add on and support your name, who you're representing, and your position.

Good afternoon, senators. Rod Brewer for Southern California Edison. We're here in support of AB 1832. We believe this bill will help improve communications and emergency planning throughout the state.

Your name and who you represent in position.

Kelly LaRue with Resilient Advocacy on behalf of the IEHP Foundation, an organization that supports, nonprofits and CBOs throughout the Inland Empire region. Thank you. Julian Keegan from the California Community Action Partnership Association and our statewide network in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Dan Okenfoss with the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Claire Morgerson. I'm with United Way Bay Area. We cover the counties of Marin, Napa, Solano, San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara County, and we are in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thanks. Good afternoon. Josh Wright with the California Association of Food Banks in support. Thanks. Keith Coolidge, AARP California in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Danielle Bautista with United Ways of California, proud cosponsor of AP 1832 in support, also providing a me too on behalf of two one one San Diego.

Okay. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Christina Rico on behalf of two eleven LA in strong support of AB 1832.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Hi, doctor Danielle Kilshenstein from Inland SoCal United Way in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties asking for your support. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Lisa Catarino. I'm the president and CEO of United Way, the wine country. We cover Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, and Sonoma Counties. We are the CPUC's administrator for two one one in Mendocino and in Sonoma County.

We are here in support, and I have a me too from the Sonoma County Office of Equity.

Thank you.

Hello. Sadie Ayala from Family Resource Center, host of two one one San Joaquin. And I'm here in full support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Robert Morton on behalf of United Way of Northern California. We are in full support.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Adriel Coro with United Way California Capital Region covering Amador, Placer, Yolo, and, Sacramento Counties in support.

Thanks. Okay. Seeing no other oh, none other in support. We'll look, for any opposition that there may be. Now's the time.

General specific. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dice. Questions, comments? Senator Grayson.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And I just want to state, first of all, fantastic bill. I think it's a really good bill and and would love to be added on as a cloth. Aye, wanna compliment the witnesses. In a matter of four minutes, you truly educated on the vital importance of how, nine one one and two one one are interconnected, and that they are not one and the same, but they are dependent upon each other.

And how we use 911 for our emergencies and 211 for the information after the emergencies or crisis or while it's taking place. And by using 211, we're actually keeping public safety at at its utmost for our citizens. So in four minutes, you did a tremendous job that should be broadcasted across California to educate. Fabulous. I don't know if that's okay to clap in a committee, but I invite that.

Thank you so very much.

Awesome. Alright. Thank you. I applaud applaud the witness as well. And I'll tag on.

Send me send me on to your bill from from down in Los Angeles. I know going through, I think it's 27 fires in my limited time in office. Two one one's been a lifeline during these crises. So I think it's it's time for a big vision like you put forward here as a member.

And I think this is gonna take, you know, not just this bill but the this coalition coming together going forward and trying to figure out, you know, you can build a fund then we got a field fund.

Right? So that's gonna be the the the the test and I I I just think, yeah, the diversity of this coalition and the depth of it should should be a a really good start for, what I hope is a longer term effort. So applaud you with it. Allow you to close at your appropriate time.

Awesome. Thank you. Well, I wanna thank Senator Grayson for already starting my close, and I wanna thank everyone for their, respectful attention to the witnesses, and and thank you so much, for being here today. This work is already being done. We just really need to fill in some gaps.

And the bill is about making sure that we build the infrastructure that we need to keep California safe, informed, and supported, especially during a time of crisis. Again, thank you for your support. Happy to add you as co authors. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye votes.

Okay. We will the musical interlude will take a we'll take a motion once we get a quorum. Last bill if you wanna present?

Yes sir. Thank you so much. All right. Well this one's even more fun. Okay.

So I really, again-- I really do appreciate the opportunity to be here as the Chair of the Assembly Emergency Management. It really is our goal to make sure that we are not only responsive to what's happening with disasters and emergencies in our state but that we are also prepared and proactive in advance. That brings us to our next bill. I wanna thank the committee for the work on Assembly Bill 2543.

There are suggested amendments that are in the committee analysis that we've been discussing, and I'm going to kind of enumerate what we've committed to accepting and implementing, namely including mobile chargers and backup power definition, having the CEC issue guidance to counties on operator compliance with the recommendations developed, as specified in these bills, and for operators identify DCFC sites to submit an emergency management plan to counties that consider options to be used during an emergency, and we'll definitely need to work on what that looks like.

Once received, the county shall incorporate the information into the next update of its emergency operating plan, and we know that by asking counties to do this, we've kind of triggered an unfunded mandate which will also be something that we'll need to work on. So for those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, Assembly Bill 2553 is a bill that will strengthen emergency preparedness in the electric vehicle sector in California.

This is a necessary emergency preparedness measure because California's transportation system is rapidly changing but emergency planning has not caught up. As California advances towards 100% zero-emission vehicle targets by 2035, emergency planning must be integrated at every stage of implementation.

The importance of reliability and emergency preparedness in charging networks is recognized at both the federal and state level through California's clean transportation goals and the Federal Highway Administration's NEVI infrastructure program. This preventative measure will get ahead of problems seen in the last few years and give our emergency managers in the state of California the tools they need to address the growing EV community. I don't need to remind everybody about how devastating January 2025 was, especially with the Los Angeles County wildfires.

Many of your districts were directly affected. The surrounding areas experienced widespread power outages, transportation disruptions, abandoned EVs, and emergency response operation challenges, and that was because of our lack of infrastructure and preparedness in the EV space. The fires illustrated how transportation networks, energy systems, and emergency response operations are increasingly interconnected during large-scale disasters. As the Assembly Emergency Management Chair, I've committed to doing what it takes to protect our communities across the state of California. This bill is one of those ways that I am fulfilling my commitment.

AB 2543 takes a practical, forward-looking approach by ensuring that emergency planning keeps pace with the energy commitments and will supplement existing evacuation and general emergency planning by ensuring that charging is available and accessible where Californians may need it during a disaster. The bill builds on successful public-private partnerships.

There are already federal and state funding incentives, grants, and support that private entities can access, such as the NEVI Program and the California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project, which is how many of these things came to be, these charging stations. We are also starting to see movement in the public-private partnership space emerging from disasters. Following the 2025 fires, General Motors deployed mobile charging units to assist affected residents, including chargers each capable of DC fast charging to EVs simultaneously.

We've seen recently Florida has similarly deployed mobile fast chargers along evacuation routes during Hurricane Milton. So AB 2543 provides us in California with the framework to identify where these resources will be most valuable before the next disaster occurs rather than relying solely on reactive emergency deployment that's not part of the emergency response plans.

It is an if, not-- it is not an if, I should say, that there will be another disaster, but when. So we wanna plan ahead. We want our EV charging stations to tell us what their backup plan is in an emergency. We're not being prescriptive as in saying they have to have one modality or another, but we wanna know what their options will be and where they will be located and how Californians can access them. By planning ahead, we strengthen evacuation readiness, support disaster recovery, and improve resilience. I respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time comes. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll turn to witnesses in support. Anyone wishing to come forward and testify in support, now's the time. Seeing none, we'll turn to witnesses in opposition. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Welcome. You get two minutes. Great.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Stern and committee members and Assembly Member Ransom. I'm Scott Cox, on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, in respectful opposition to 2543. We share the author's goal of a refueling network that serves drivers during disasters, but this bill will not get us there, even with the amendments, and for three reasons.

First, the bill can do more to keep all drivers safe. When the power goes out, every fueling station goes dark. Gas, diesel, natural gas, hydrogen--they all demand electricity to function properly. This bill focuses on a small part of California's fleet. While we're glad to say that one in five new cars over the last three years in California are fully electric, they still account for no more than 7% of the cars on the road today.

That is to say 93% of 30 million light-duty vehicles still rely on gasoline or diesel. This bill contains no provisions for those stations. Emergency preparedness should address all fuels rather than giving 100% of its focus to 7% of vehicles. Second, the cost to meet the goals in the provisions in this bill are high and will slow deployment.

Compliance with some of the provisions in this bill can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per site as battery storage alone can double the cost of a fast-charging deployment. The new cost will divert resources from building new chargers, just as federal support is being withdrawn. The CEC today estimates we need 2.1 million chargers to achieve our deployment goals. That includes 83,000 fast chargers by 2035. Today, we have just over 200,000, 18,000 of which are fast chargers. The predictable result of the provisions in this bill means fewer chargers when the state can least afford it.

The committee's amendment adding mobile chargers points to the right direction, and as the Assembly Member pointed out, Florida used these successfully, but these chargers are funded and managed by the state itself, not by private operators. No state has a mandate, as this bill proposes, for private charging operators. The only state that has requirements related to backup fueling capacity is Florida, but that requires it of certain gas stations on emergency routes, not EV chargers.

Finally, we did wanna draw attention to the bill's timeline driving some level of confusion. The operability requirements are due as recommendations by July of 2027, but we have to file annual emergency management plans and reports in January of 2028 before the standards are fully established, and then Cal OES is then tasked with implementation without any clear feasibility assessment and a minor general public comment period.

Thank you. I'll ask you to wrap up.

Oh, yes. Of course. We respect the author's commitment to resilience and wanna work toward an approach that accounts to all fuel types in emergency planning without slowing EV charging deployment. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in opposition? Please come forward.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Guansona, here on behalf of Tesla. Respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Obed Franco, here on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, in respectful opposition.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and members. Chris Zgraggen with Capitol Advocacy, on behalf of ChargePoint, in opposition.

Thanks.

Thanks, Chair and members. Meegen Murray with the Weideman Group, on behalf of Electrify America, in opposition.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no others in opposition, I'll bring it back to the dais. Comments or questions? Or maybe I can just help level set here. I think the committee worked very hard to try to get you some amendments.

Unfortunately, the element that I'm still struggling with in it is this notion that the private operators have to submit stand-alone emergency management plans, and I know we've talked about this. Gas stations don't have to do this, data centers don't have to do this, even the 911 operators that we just talked about don't have to submit emergency management plans. They do have to coordinate with counties.

I think that coordination element is excellent in the bill, but I think it's-- just to establish new precedent, I'm still struggling with why only electric vehicle charging operations, and I think that element of the measure just-- I can't quite get to support on. So I'll leave it to you for how you wanna proceed with the measure, but I would just say that-- yeah, the exceptionalism I struggle with. You know, I've been through fires, have lost, had plenty of people who--yeah--had challenges in those those days of evacuation to get to the infrastructure.

I think-- take the Palisades, for example. The overwhelming issue that we heard wasn't about not having a backup power source, say, in the community where everything else burnt down anyways. So even if you had a battery backup, that's burnt down. But getting out of the burn zone and to the nearby infrastructure and having robust regional networks I think is very forward-looking on your part, and I think that especially if we're going to rely on electricity to be more of a backbone fuel supply--even though to the opposition's point, it is only, I think, 7% of the system right now--I think it's good planning going forward.

So I think-- I like Section 1 of your bill and I think the planning exercise is going to be good, but I still have challenge with the insistence on the private operators being sort of uniquely subject to an emergency management plan that under current law there is no other private operation required to do that--a food bank, a 911 operator, whomever.

So I just-- that's the part where I think emergency management plans ought to be reserved for public agencies. So anyhow, that-- just want to make that sort of general statement. You're welcome to consider that or reference that as you wish, and also others, happy to-- questions or comments as you wish.

So would you like me to respond?

You wanna respond initially and then--

One hundred percent. Absolutely. So I appreciate the opposition for coming forward with their comments. I do wanna say that perhaps there's a little bit of a misunderstanding on their part on what's being requested. So the recommendations are that they developed a holistic approach. We're not being prescriptive. There is no intent to burden anyone, especially small businesses, and that's why we're asking about the number of chargers, the number-- like, what is the plan? How many chargers are nearby? The 2027 date was amended to 2028 to give people time to purchase-- to complete the plans.

There was no requirement that they purchase. We just wanna know, what is your backup? And the reason why this is important as we are being forward-looking, EV charging takes longer than refueling gasoline. What we saw in these catastrophes were abandoned electric vehicles that could not be charged, and so given the difference in charging speed and geographic availability--because there's already a lack of availability of charging stations throughout our state, which is why we give all these grants to the folks who are happy to take our money to build these stations--that's why we do it, because we wanna make sure that they are accessible and that there's equity.

So it's important to further emphasize that during emergency planning that people who have electric vehicles can also access the charging stations. I also wanna kind of hone in on your point about who else we ask. We don't have public utilities in the state of California. We have private investor-owned utilities, but because the access to the energy is so important, we ask them to do certain things.

This is no different than that. This is emergency planning, which is our priority; is to ensure that people who have these electric vehicles are actually not stranded, have to abandon their cars, further block up streets. There are mobile charger stations, there are--that you can bring in. There are generators you can bring in.

Maybe you point people to your station that's, you know, in close proximity. We're not being prescriptive. We're just asking, what is your plan? And so this dollar amount that they've assigned, I don't even know where they came up with the dollar amount because there's not even been-- we haven't even developed the guidance. That's what we're asking the agencies to do is to be able to incorporate in existing emergency plans how we handle emergency vehicles, and this was something that was identified as we looked at the emergency plans for the state and we looked at some recent disasters. This was an area of opportunity. It's not just about fires. We also have earthquakes and other emergency power shutoffs and that leaves people stranded. Senator.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Senator Grayson. Yep.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Couple of things, and I'm trying to remember them in order. You just-- no, you're fine. In your response to the Chair, you mentioned these are our recommendations. Is this bill a bill about recommending or is it a mandate to produce an emergency plan?

The mandate is to have a plan to tell us where your resources are. We're not mandating that you have a certain amount of resources. The goal is when you speak to county managers or you speak to even some of the folks in the communities-- they didn't know where the resources were.

Right. You just-- and I'm just trying to clarify my own mind because the word recommended was used.

Recommend as far as the modality. Like, we just listed, like, the potential-- like, maybe you're gonna have a truck charger. Maybe you're going to have a generator. Maybe you're gonna-- like, those are just-- they may have even battery storage. There's different ways, so we can't tell them what to do.

All right. You're telling-- so you're not laying out prescriptively--

Yes.

--what you have to have in your emergency plan. What you're just asking for is that they come up with an emergency plan.

Yes.

All right. And so, by coming up with an emergency plan, does that mean all they have to do is tell you what they have in existence right now? Not you, but in their report, say what they have right now and make that their emergency plan or is there the expectation that they're going to put into the report what would exist if they were told you have to have an emergency plan to where you are providing electricity after a crisis or an emergency event?

Yes. Thank you for that question and for that. I think that's an important clarification. So what our goal is is for them to identify a backup power source in the event that their facility is not available.

So by implication, it's putting them in a position where they have to now put into their capital plan to come up with storage, battery storage or generator storage to create the electricity--

Or could they contract with someone who has the-- just like we've seen in other places where they contract to bring in trucks from other places or they have-- some places have generators. I don't think-- so we're not requiring them to go build new facilities. Like, we're not being-- when I say we're not being prescriptive, we do want them to identify.

We want them to think about-- in a state that has different emergencies that knock off powers, we want them to be thoughtful on how do we make sure that folks can still access power. And so, I do understand-- I hear-- see where you're going with your concern, and we're happy to work to be more clear about what we're asking or what those options are.

Okay. Your intentions with the bill, especially having gone through crisis and emergencies, is pure and it just shines from the bill. There are some, I'd call, hiccups or whatever. There are some areas that I would share of concern with the Chair on doing this with private industry, and you brought up the point about California and energy, that it's all private, but putting that responsibility on one industry, and that's not expected--that I know of--of others--but I can stand to be corrected--that I know of on any other sector, energy sector.

So, having said that, I share those concerns and would definitely be looking for some work to be done with the opposition to try to figure out with clarity and with also the implementation and how this would work and-- from-- well, I'll leave it at that for right now.

Thanks, Senator. No problem. Thank you.

Other questions, comments? Seeing none. Yeah. Appreciate the back and forth. Should the bill move forward today, I do look forward to working with you on sort of trying to iron out some of those details. I think-- yeah, I think part of what Senator Grayson might have been pointing at is that, you know, with emergency plans, they're sort of-- there's obligations embedded in them, and I do hear clearly from you that you want to see more accountability on those who are the installers. I think that the challenge we have is that-- who that obligation actually ought to fall on.

When Tesla decides with their own private money to build a fast charger or Supercharger in a Target parking lot, should they be required to build the second one somewhere else in that community or have a backup battery there even if there's a fire coming or put that battery somewhere in the circumference of that and essentially build a redundancy or two systems that-- from a public perspective, that is how we run things, right?

And I do-- you know, we were just talking about Next Gen 911. Redundancy is everything. That's what's gonna get you liability. I just think the implication to having it be in an emergency management plan implies that it's a private obligation to mitigate that potential and I worry we're gonna chase away capital at a time when-- again, we have 7% penetration. Like, we need more of these folks. We need more. The public can't subsidize all of this. So that's my concern. That's why I won't be able to support today, but do appreciate you, you know, working through these details on it and, yeah. I'll allow you to close.

Thank you. I really do appreciate the conversation. This was a double-referred, so it would go to Energy. Happy to iron out details in the next committee. Happy to take the feedback. I'd like to think that we're already subsidizing through the California grant programs the building of these things, and so I think it's important that we are very fair and very clear about that. But with that said, the goal is to make sure that California is ready and evolving as electric vehicle charging stations are impacted through power shutoffs and disasters.

And so I will respectfully ask for your aye vote and commit to working with you, those senators who have concerns about what we can do to make sure that we're not burdensome but that we are accountable to the citizens of the state of California. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Chair, could I ask you a quick question? So did the author accept the committee amendments or not accept them?

You did? Okay. But the Chair is still-- is staying off the bill still?

I did.

Yes. Exactly. I'm staying off today, but gonna work with her going forward.

Okay. Okay, great. Thank you.

Let's establish a quorum while we still got one. Would you mind calling the roll? Thank you.

[Roll call]. We've established quorum.

Okay. Thank you. With that, I would entertain a motion. Okay. The motion is from Senator Rubio. I believe the motion is do pass as amended to Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications. Is that right?

No, just do pass because the amendments will be taken in Energy.

Sorry. Do pass to Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications with amendments to be taken in the next committee. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Please call the roll.

All right. [Roll call].

Great.

Great. We'll leave that measure on call if the absent members. We have a quorum. So if anyone wants to make a motion on any of the other outstanding items I believe we need one on everything else.

To help expedite you want to go back to the first one?

back to the first one?

Yeah. Yeah. So file item number one needs a motion AB 1540 Gonzales. Oh, beat you to it. Senator Ashby, which the motion is do passed to Senate health. Please call the roll.

I will make oh, go ahead.

Okay. Great. I will leave that on. Yeah. For the absent members, we will leave that on call. Motion is, from senators, from the vice Chair do pass the judiciary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Alright. We will leave that one on call. What is it? 7 to 0.

We'll leave that on call if the absent members. File number three, AB 180 five. The there's a motion from the vice Chair. The motion is do passed to privacy digital technology and consumer protection with amendments to be taken in the next committee. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Alright. Thank you. I'm sorry. We're on four. That's three. Okay. So we'll move to file in number four AB 1832 would entertain a motion on Senator Ashby moves. It is do passed to Energy Utilities and Communications. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thanks. And then lastly, let's just move the consent calendar. There's only one item today folks. File in number 6AB1836. Gabriel, please call I would entertain a motion on the consent calendar. Move by the vice Chair. Please hold the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll leave that one on call if you have some members and we would invite other members of the committee to come on by and cast this final votes. But the rest of you, thank you for your work.

We'll take a brief recess. We're going to reconvene in thirty seconds. Sure. Okay. Senate energy, emergency management is hereby, reconvened. We're gonna start at the top to lift the call for absent members. File number one, AB 1540 Gonzales. The motion is do passed to health. The current vote is five to one.

[Roll Call]

This is file number one, fifteen forty, Gonzales.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll leave that on call for the absent members. File number two, AB 1749 Dixon. The motion is do passed to judiciary. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

I'm sorry. The vote count is seven zero. Chair Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay. File number four. Sorry. File number three. This is AB 1805 Ransom do passed to private privacy digital technologies and consumer protections with the amendments to be taken in the next committee.

Please hold Current motion. Current motion. 7-0 Chair and Vice Chair voting Aye.

[Roll Call]

item four AB 1832. The motion is do passed to energy utilities and communications. Current vote is seven zero. Chair and vice Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Eight to zero file number 5AB2543. The motion is do passed to energy utilities and communications with amendments to be taken in the next committee. The current vote is Four to one.

Four to one, Chair abstaining, vice Chair voting no. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll leave that on call for the absent members. Last is the consent calendar AB 1836. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Well, we will take one more brief recess here. We're gonna reconvene in thirty seconds or we're ready. Okay. We'll reconvene. We're gonna work through the bills one last time here. We have consent calendar one item. So for absent members, we're gonna lift the calls on file number six, AB 1836, the consent calendar. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Nine zero bills out. We'll move to file item number one, AB 1540 Gonzales. The motion is do passed to health. The vote is Six to one. Vice Chair voting I No. I know. Sorry. Senate Chair voting Aye, vice Chair voting no. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Bill's out. File number two, AB 1749. Motion is do passed to judiciary. Current vote is eight zero. Chair and vice Chair voting aye. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Sorry. File number three, AB 185. The motion is do passed to privacy digital technologies and consumer protection for amendments to be taken in the next committee. Current vote is eight zero. Chair and vice Chair voting aye. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Bill's out. File number four, AB 1832 ransom. The motion is do passed to energy utilities and communications. Current vote is eight zero. Chair and vice Chair voting aye. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Nine zero bills out. And last item is file number five AB 2543. The motion is do passed to energy utilities and communications with amendments to be taken in the next committee. And the current vote is? Four to one with the Chair abstaining and the vice Chair voting no. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Bill's out. Great. Six to one. With that, I think our work here is done. Thank you, staff. Thanks, everyone. Meeting here is hereby adjourned.