Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance

Okay. The communications and conveyance, committee is caught now called to order. My name is Tasha Buoener. I serve as the Chair of the Committee. Joining me on the dias today are Assembly members Chris Rogers and Assembly member Maggie Krell.

We are awaiting Oh. And we have a our vice Chair, Josh Hoover, just joined us. Woo. We are also joined by Emilio Perez, the chief consultant of the communications committee, and Elizabeth Delgado, the committee secretary, as well as Daniel Ballen, the Republican policy consultant. There are five items on today's agenda.

We have one item on proposed consent calendar, item five SB 985 Strickland. Before we get begin our presentations, I would like to take care of some logistical housekeeping. As we proceed with the witnesses and public comment, I wanna make sure everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings regardless of their viewpoints they express.

We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective delivery deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California.

You can exit the hearing room once you're done testifying or return to your seat. Now let's cover the ground rules for appropriate conduct. The Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to committee and floor proceedings in the last few years. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

We'll not accept the disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence.

The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place as permitted by the Chair. Public comment must relate to the subject being discussed today. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violations of these rules may be subject to your remove may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions.

And lastly, a public announcement as noticed in the daily file, the utilities and energy committee is now meeting at 2PM or upon an adjournment of the communications and conveyance committee in Capital Room 126. Please note the time and room change. K. We noticing the accent of the quorum, we'll operate as a subcommittee. We'll proceed to item one, SB 739, Arreguin.

Related to the California clean mile standard incentive program, Senator Arregiun, you may open when ready, and each of your witnesses has have two minutes. I it goes by quickly, so I'll count down with my fingers five four three two one, and then I will politely cut you off.

Well, thank you very much, madam Chair, members. It's my pleasure to present Senate bill 739. This bill will update the Clean Mile Standard Incentive Program to to ensure that the program is meeting its greenhouse emissions and electric vehicles, miles travel targets that transportation network companies in California need to comply with. I wanna start by sincerely thanking the Chair and the committee for working with my office and the bill sponsors. I am accepting the committee's amendments.

This bill would allow for the California Air Resources Board and the California Public Utilities Commission to adjust the current CMS targets so that they are reflecting the changing policy and economic landscape. As a strong climate supporter, it is unfortunate that the current Federal Government has been so hostile towards California's climate efforts. And the modest adjustments in my bill will allow for the clean miles standard to continue to be on a trajectory to grow the zero emissions market for TNC drivers. And I wanna also acknowledge, and this will be,

I think, touched upon by my witness testimony, the work that the TNC companies are already doing to make investments towards that ZEP transition. Without these changes, we'd be placing hundreds of thousands of California rideshare drivers in a difficult position where they might lose platform access if they do not adopt zero emission vehicles pursuant to the statutory targets. Many of these drivers are working a second or third job to help make ends meet.

We have yet to provide assistance to these drivers to purchase ZEVs through the driver assistance fund. And I know that's one of the amendments that the Chair recommended.

I very much appreciate the inclusion of that in the bill. Currently, the clean mile standard is requiring t and c's and drivers to meet an electric vehicle miles travel target of 13% by 2025, and that target more than triples next year to 50%. The bill as amended with the committee would provide interim targets of 17% by 2027 and nineteen percent by 2028 so that we can continue to make progress on these targets while state agencies work through adjustments.

Finally, before I introduce this bill, one of the main points of feedback that I received was that the law as written did not provide state agencies with the flexibility needed to adjust targets. And in fact, I met with both, staff and representatives of the California Air Resources Board and the California Public Utilities Commission, to get a briefing on the implementation of the Clean Mile standard.

And, CARB was very clear that they do not believe under the current statute that they have the legislative authorization to make adjustments to the targets after the first targets were established. As written, the law only allowed for either implementing the targets or delaying them. This bill will provide flexibility to both respective boards and agencies. With me to testify are the cosponsors, John Finley representing Uber and Malcolm McFarland representing Lyft, and at the appropriate time, respectfully ask for Neva.

Sorry. My back to you all here. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Malcolm McFarland the second here on behalf of Lyft in support of Senate Bill 739. Lyft would like to thank Chair Boerner and this committee for the thoughtful engagement on this issue.

California deserves a climate policy that works, and SB 739 updates the original 2018 clean mile standard targets to reflect the realities of what's achievable today. To be clear, Lyft is committed to supporting California's climate goals and has demonstrated that commitment in action. We have met every EVMT target since the clean model standard took effect, electrifying our platform at over twice the statewide adoption rate since 2023.

We have invested over 64 million dollars in driver bonuses, EV rentals, and in app tools to make driving electric easier. Lyft remains committed to continuing those investments, which this bill appropriately directs the commission to consider when evaluating any enforcement action.

California's clean mile standard targets were set using 2018 data before a global pandemic reshaped rideshare, before the federal ev tax credit was eliminated, and before 5 billion dollars in charging infrastructure funding was halted. These are documented and structural barriers. And for many drivers, affordability and availability remain real challenges that fall disproportionately on low and moderate income drivers. Notably, the CPUC's own unanticipated barriers report recommends pausing enforcement of targets it acknowledges are no longer achievable.

SB 739 fills that gap and makes reasonable adjustments to the CMS program supported by a two year review process and requires an annual EVMT increase to ensure continued progress toward electrification until new targets are adopted and implemented by the board.

Lyft would also like to note our support of protecting TNCs that meet at least one of the annual EVMT or GHG targets from enforcement action beginning in 2029.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next two minutes comes fast.

Alright. Thank you, madam Chair and members. John Finley here on behalf of Uber in strong support of Senate bill 739. Uber is deeply committed to a zero emissions future. We've invested hundreds of millions of dollars in driver incentives, vehicle discounts, education initiatives, and charging partnerships, and it's working.

Drivers on the Uber platform adopt EVs five times faster than the average motorist in United States, Canada, and Europe, and nearly one in five miles on the Uber platform in the state of California is already all electric. But the current CMS framework is no longer technically or economically feasible.

A perfect storm of high electricity costs, rising interest rates, elimination of federal tax credits, and ongoing constraints of EV supply and access to affordable public charging infrastructure led CPUC staff just last week to recommend a three year pause on the CMS program. Forcing an unworkable standard on TNCs won't help accelerate EV adoption. It will simply risk the premature deactivation of thousands of low income working Californians who cannot yet afford or otherwise unable to transition to electric vehicles right now.

SB 739 provides a realistic and durable path forward. It provides CARB with the authority to recalibrate the CMS targets in light of existing market conditions and the most up to date data to increase the likelihood that these targets remain technically and economically achievable. CARB can then more regularly reevaluate and adjust those targets based on future market conditions and policies. It would also revoke enforcement of the original targets in light of new interim and future targets coming into enforcement under this bill.

Despite significant challenges, Uber is not backing away from this commitment.

This year alone, we've committed a hundred million dollars to expanding fast charging globally and launched a nationwide go electric grant program offering a $4,000 incentive for drivers who switch to EVs. We are doing our part, and we ask that California continue to do the same by passing a flexible framework that protects drivers while continuing climate progress. We thank Senator Arreguin for bringing this issue forward and respectfully urge an aye vote on SB 739. Thank you.

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

Timothy Byrd junior. Timothy Byrd junior on behalf of TechNet in support. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you to the witnesses in support. And moving on, are there any primary witnesses in opposition? We had none registered. So please, if you, first two people can come up, come up to the desk.

And we're gonna pause right there because we have a quorum. Will the committee secretary please call the roll?

This is to establish quorum. Burner?

Here.

Burner present. Hoover?

Here.

Hoover present. Bonta? Colosa? Castillo, Krell?

Krell present. Lowenthal? Rogers?

Here.

Rogers present. Rubio?

Here.

Here.

Rubio present.

K. We have a quorum. You now have four minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm doctor Benjamin Liu, and I'm the cleaner advocacy manager for the American Lung Association. We're we we are in respectful opposition to SB 739. I just wanted to highlight, some, emphasize for for the members that the according to the Lung Association's latest state of the air report, over 80% of Californians still live in communities impacted by unhealthy levels of air pollution.

Fuel combustion in the transportation sector is the primary source of smog forming, smog forming ozone pollution and a significant contributor to PM 2.5 particles.

This pollution leads to both acute and chronic health emergencies such as asthma, heart attacks and stroke, developmental harm, lung cancer, and premature death. These are costly and disruptive health emergencies that strain family budgets and contribute to the affordability crisis in the state. The clean mile standard was designed to promote adoption of EVs among transportation network companies' drivers. And, consequently, the goal is to try and, limit this kind of air pollution.

We appreciate the amendments that, were in print the latest amendments in print, and are committed to working with the author on further amendments to address our opposition.

Specific, one thing in particular is that the current amendments in print prescribed decelerating targets over, for 2027-28, plus 4%, the electric vehicle miles traveled in '27 and then plus 2% to '28, we feel like this program should have accelerating targets. The program was designed to drive, to drive EV adoption over time as opposed to, you know, merely match or decelerate. And so, we're committed to working with the author on further amendments. But for now, we are in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Any additional witnesses,opposition that would like to state their name, affiliation, and position only, please? You may approach the mic.

Good afternoon. Jacob Evans with Sierra California in opposition. Thank you.

Marquis King Mason at the Research Defense Council. We appreciate the amendments, but still in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Bringing it back to the committee. Any questions, comments from committee members? Yes. Assemblymember Rubio.

Thank you. I just wanted to chime in for a second. I, you know, I understand the concerns. However, my concern has always been about the EV programs that we don't have enough resources to provide to those same people that we're trying to help. My parents are eighty five and 80, and I've been talking to them about an electric vehicle and they're like, first of all, they think I'm crazy.

You know, they they don't see how not having any infrastructure, for example. So talking to my mom, and she says, well, what is it gonna take to, you know, have an EV vehicle? And when we start pricing it, it's unaffordable to them to change from gas to, like, you know, to electric vehicles. And the bill I know references the fact that there is no infrastructure available.

And so, you know, with that in mind, you know, it's unaffordable either way, and trying to push people into EVs when we don't have the infrastructure actually, I think, hurts them more.

Plus, now they have a bad taste in the mouth about being pushed into electric vehicles when we don't have the proper infrastructure. So just wanted to point that out because you brought up the affordability issue. You know, unfortunately, if everything's unaffordable right now and trying to push people into, you know, EVs while there is no infrastructure, you know, hurts them even more.

So I just wanted to make sure that I address that because I know that, the Assembly or the Senator has been working hard, took a bunch of amendments to make sure that, you know, we got to a better place, and I appreciate, the work that you've done and, you know, appreciate my chairwoman, you know, for bringing this up and trying to balance, you know, the affordability issue with, you know, the health issues, which I think we're all concerned about.

But, you know, at the moment, if there's no infrastructure, then where do we go from here?

And I think the incentives to, you know, be able to do that, I think, is what the goal is or the the study to make sure that that folks do have the opportunity eventually to convert to electric vehicles. Thank you.

Assemblymember Rogers.

No. Thank you so much. This is the second time in, I think, just, like, three days that I've had a chance to see this bill. You know, I supported it in transportation. I'm gonna support it today.

I I don't take backtracking on our climate goals lightly, but I do think the built in flexibility that you're talking about is important when we make a commitment, but then the level of investment that we need to meet that commitment doesn't materialize, whether it's because our body doesn't approve the funding or, in this case, in particular, the Federal Government backtracking on commitments and failing to deliver, when we are helping to fund the rest of the nation, we do have to take a serious look at who is impacted by not being flexible, and whether or not it harms our overall goals of trying to get more people to accept climate solutions that they view as unattainable, unaffordable.

And so for me, the built in flexibility here helps us to keep folks saying that we are reasonable in these goals, that they're not just lofty for the sake of being lofty, but that we're going to match our commitment and our investment with what is attainable. It's not always gonna be the case. I'm not always gonna vote for these bills. But but in this, in this case, I think that the author's done a good job of trying to work with folks to do something reasonable.

So I'm happy to support.

K. Do we have a motion?

I'd like to move the bill.

Second.

Moved by Assemblymember Crowell. Do we have a second?

Second by Assemblymember Rubio.

Any other further comments? Okay. Senator Arreguin, would you like to close?

Well, once again, thank you madam Chair and committee staff for your work with us on this bill. I wanna thank the opposition. You know, we've met with with some of the opposition. We're committed to meet with all of them. We've reviewed their letters.

We're happy to work on any amendments that would address concerns, but towards the goal of trying to provide that flexibility that Assemblymember Rogers talked about. And I take the issue of clean air very seriously. I represent Oakland and Richmond, which are two some of the first AB 617 communities in California who've had significant air quality issues.

And that's why the Clean Mile Standard was created because of the large number of TNC trips that are happening on our roads, making sure that we make that transition. And I strongly support that goal, but we have to recognize a change in the political and economic reality, sadly, and make sure that we are moving forward with the implementation of this program in a way that works for the drivers and for the state of California, respectfully, I ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Arreguin, for bringing this bill forward. Your bill does enjoy a do pass as amended recommendation, and thank you for cooperation with the committee amendments. The amendments will prohibit the CPUC from finding a TNC in violation from of the targets and goals if they meet it at least one of the two most recent annual targets or goals, which would apply to the updated targets and goals.

We have to find better words for targets and goals because it gets very confusing when you read the bill. It's like targets and goals, and then there's yearly targets and goals, and then there's actual GHG, the VMT targets and goals, lots of targets and goals.

I think what was important in this bill was balancing ambitious targets and goals Yeah. That are also attainable targets and goals, and we've done that. I grew up in the Inland Empire. We had third degree smog alerts every single day as a child. I still have problems running, and that's, you know, many, many too many decades later.

And, additionally, the thing that we also took you took as an amendment in this bill is we know that our drivers need assistance with gaining access to EVs. And so the amendments will require that the CPUC commence issuing support from the driver's assistance program, which they've been collecting for years, starting 01/01/2027. Because if you look at how the bill is designed, we do a pause. We have a slow ramp up. I wouldn't say it's a ramp down.

It's a ramp up. Maybe not at the angle we want, but it's still an angle. And in that time, you guys have two and a half years, you know, of getting the drivers or a year two years to get the driver's assistance fund before really needing to get event ramping up. And that is ambitious and attainable, and that's what this bill balances. So that we have a motion by Krell, seconded by Rubio.

The motion on SB 739 by Senator Arreguin is do pass as amended and re-referred to the committee on appropriations. Will the committee secretary please call the roll?

Boerner.

Aye.

Boerner, aye. Hoover. Bonta. Caloza.

Aye.

Caloza, aye. Castillo. Krell.

Aye.

Krell, aye. Lowanta. Rogers.

Aye.

Rogers, aye. Rubio.

Aye.

Rubio, aye.

That bill is out. We'll leave the row open so that other members can add on their votes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we're hearing, I see, is Senator Grove here? Did I see Senator Grove? Yep. Next, we're hearing SB 1190 by Senator Grove relating to transport escort services. That's exciting.

I didn't think we were going to get that in this committee, but it's exciting. Senator Grove, you may open when you're ready. And you have one primary witness, I understand. You will have four minutes. I'll count down the last five seconds.

It goes fast.

I do, Madam Chair. Thank you. Yes. I hate that title that's in statute. I'm choosing to call it the Safe Passage for Youth Act, but the other title is what's in statute, which had to be used to come to this committee.

And so, just to be funny and stress my chief of staff out, when she googled it to try to get the explanation, it sent an alert to the computer that you're no longer allowed on the site. So we should definitely look at changing that title in statute. So I'm here today to present SB 1190. I thank the Chair. This is the Safe Passage for Youth Act.

Before I get started, I want to accept the committee amendments and thank the Chair as well as the committee staff for their hard work on this bill. I also want to thank the bill's sponsor, Paris Hilton, and all the survivors associated with 11:11 Media Impact for their tireless engagement over the last several years and their bravery in sharing their own personal trauma in order to advance protections for vulnerable youth.

As some of you may know, Paris Hilton was ripped from her bed in the middle of the night by strangers and transported across state lines. This bill is a direct response to the trauma that she experienced as well as the experiences of many other youth in our state. When a parent arranges for out-of-state residential placement facilities, those residential placement facilities often recommend the transport escort service.

These companies often hire security-type individuals to show up in the dead of night, awaken startled children, strip them from their phones, and transport them across state lines. We're seeing a trend of minors being subjected to physical restraints, blindfolds, abuse, and severe emotional distress, and this is completely unacceptable. SB 1190 establishes the Safe Passage for Youth Act to directly dismantle these abusive practices and ensure that this industry is properly regulated.

SB 1190 achieves this by requiring transport companies to secure charter party carrier permits through the CPUC and mandates that all staff be TrustLine background checked. Furthermore, it strictly bans the use of blindfolds, hoods, or unauthorized physical restraints and institutes a 9 PM to 6 AM transport curfew, meaning you can't rip kids out of their bed anymore.

And it empowers the AG to go after bad actors. If children are to be transported at all, they should be provided with a regulated safe passage that protects their dignity, respect, and health. Here with me today to testify in support on behalf of the sponsor is Amanda Simmons, an attorney who represents youth victims of institutional abuse and is a survivor of the troubled teen industry herself.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Amanda Simmons. I'm a special education and school injury attorney, and I come to this issue with extensive experience surrounding institutional child abuse, both as an attorney and as someone with lived experience. I am here in strong support of SB 1190. I would also like to relay the powerful testimony of a fellow troubled teen industry survivor and advocate, Alex Gaeta.

She has testified in Senate committee hearings but couldn't be here today. She has asked me to read her story for the record. I would like to thank her for her bravery in sharing her experience. Her story is just one of countless children, many of whom disproportionately come from the state of California. These are Alex's powerful words.

On 06/23/2019 in Menlo Park, I was awoken before dawn by two strangers standing over my bed. They said they had been hired by my parents to take me somewhere, but wouldn't say where. They told me not to resist or it would be worse for me later. I was 14 and terrified. I wasn't dressed.

I asked them to leave the room so that I could get dressed. They refused, saying I was a flight risk, and they watched me. I begged to say goodbye to my dog. They said no. Each of them grabbed one of my wrists and a shoulder.

I have a connective tissue disorder, and they held me so hard that my joints partially dislocated. They marched me to a car, then to the airport, where they showed paperwork saying my parents had signed over temporary legal guardianship to them. When I asked to use the bathroom, the female transporter followed me into the stall. I was a child with no history of dangerous behavior. I had straight A's.

None of this mattered. It has been almost seven years, and I still have nightmares. I can't sleep in my childhood bedroom because it's too triggering. Nothing can undo what has happened to me. But today, you have the chance to make sure fewer stories like mine happen.

Thank you. This bill matters because private youth transport services have operated in California without real guardrails for far too long. For decades, children have described being taken from their homes in the middle of the night by strangers. As the brave survivor testimony just described so powerfully, youth are being handcuffed, zip tied, blindfolded, and otherwise forced into transport. These are not isolated stories.

They are a pattern. And this trauma does not end when the transport does. Many survivors carry it for years: nightmares, PTSD, anxiety, and a deep mistrust that follows them well into adulthood. Parents and families are often harmed too. Many families never fully understand the force, fear, and coercion that may be used on their children until long after, by which point the damage is done, including serious and lasting harm to the relationship between parent and child.

The bottom line is simple. If a private company is going to transport children for pay, there must be basic safety standards, clear boundaries, and real accountability. SB 1190 begins to provide that. It requires transport services to use TrustLine registered staff, get a state permit, train their staff on de-escalation and child abuse reporting, and obtain parental consent. And it bans some of the worst practices that have caused the most harm: blindfolds, hoods, and middle-of-the-night pickups.

This bill is about dignity, safety, and accountability. It is an important step towards finally putting safeguards around an industry that has operated in the shadows for far too long. On behalf of Alex, myself, 11:11 Media, and other survivor advocates across the state and beyond, we thank you for your consideration, and we respectfully urge your yes vote on SB 1190.

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

Hi. Good afternoon. Chantel Joy Johnson representing Youth Law Center and also Disability Rights California today in strong support. Thank you.

Okay. Moving on. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Anybody who wants to come to the mic and just say name, position, and affiliation only? Okay.

With that, move it back to the committee. Any questions? Assemblymember Krell.

I just want to thank Senator Grove for your tireless efforts for child safety and for bringing this bill. I would love to be added as a coauthor if you'll have me, and also, thank you to the sponsors for your work on this and, you know, for sharing today, and everything you've done to get this bill to this place.

Thank you.

Did you make, did you move the bill?

Moved by Krell, second by Castillo. Any other comments from committee members? Okay. Senator Grove, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And absolutely, I'd love to add my good friend and colleague, who is on that same battle to protect youth and women in our state, as a coauthor. This TCP permit is just a requirement that governs any person who engages in these transports. It requires insurance, workers' comp, corporate officers. They just can't be fly-by-night organizations anymore.

They just go snatch kids out of their bed in the middle of the night and make brutal things happen to them that should never have happened to a child. And, again, I don't fault the parents. I think that they are trying to figure out what's best for their kid, and they arrange services with these out-of-state organizations. And they're like, hey, we'll take care of the transport and everything.

And before they can, they have to sign all these documents that say they won't interfere, they won't stop, they won't engage.

And by the time this all happens, it's too late, and it takes a while for these kids to actually recover. I want to thank the sponsor again, Paris Hilton, and her incredible husband, Carter, who has been advocating on his wife's behalf as well, side by side, from the national level as well, to protect all children, but specifically those here in California. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Grove, for bringing this bill forward. Your bill does enjoy a do pass as amended recommendation with the committee amendments, and I commend you for taking on this thorny issue. Thank you for working productively with my staff to get the technical aspects correct. We have a motion by Krell, second by Castillo. The motion on SB 1190 by Senator Grove is do pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Will the secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you, members. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members, SB 1190 is out. We'll leave the roll open so other members can add on their votes. Next, we're hearing SB 1191 by Senator Ochoa Bogh relating to communications universal service programs. Senator, you may open, and I think you have two witnesses. You each have two minutes.

I'll count down. It goes by fast.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Senate Bill 1191 extends the sunset date for the California High Cost Fund A and B Programs by... Sorry. That's okay. Okay. This is better? Yep. Okay. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Senate Bill 1191 extends the sunset date for the California High Cost Fund A and B Programs by five years to January 1, 2033.

These two universal programs are essential in ensuring that residents in rural and high cost areas of the state have access to affordable basic telephone service through reliable networks. Due to the high cost of serving areas with sparse populations, tough terrain, and extreme weather, the High Cost Fund Programs continue to be necessary for rural communities.

California has a long standing commitment to affordable, universal service, and these programs have been a key part of that effort since they were first established in statute in 1987 and reauthorized multiple times by the legislature. Joining me today is Eric Votaw with Varcomm and Pam Loomis, legislative analyst with the California's independent telecommunication companies.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Eric Votaw. I'm the chairman and CEO and principal owner of Varcomm. We are a communications telephone company in rural California, and we're, and I'm also a member of CalCom. I'm here in strong support of SB 1191.

At its core, this bill is about one thing, making sure that every Californian, no matter where they live, can access essential telecommunication services. Varcomm, my company, serves rural communities where geographic and economic make telephone service a challenge to provide. Varcomm serves rural communities in Tulare and Tehama Counties where geography and economics are challenged. 100% of the children in the town of Ducor where we serve are on free lunch.

The average median household income in Ducor, California is $73,635 per year in comparison to the average statewide median household income of 99,000. Varcomm serves the working poor, the farm workers who put food on everybody's table and keeps our agricultural economy moving. In my Kennedy Meadows Exchange, which is at 7,000 feet in the Sierra Nevadas, there is no commercial power, and we are the only connection for communications to that community for essential 911 services.

My last exchange, Rancho Tehama, which is in Tehama County, is even worse economically than Ducor, where the average median household income is $53,606 a year. The poverty rate in Rancho Tehama is at 27%. The California High Cost Fund makes it possible for us to provide access to telecommunications services at rates that are affordable and comparable to urban. I support this and hope that you will continue to make telecommunications affordable for Californians.

Thank you. Pam, you have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Pam Loomis, and I'm the legislative advocate for a coalition of nine small telephone companies that receive financial support from the California High Cost Fund A. We are in support of SB 1191. Building on Mr. Votaw testimony, the A Fund provides vital support for the operation and maintenance of telecommunications networks, networks that are necessary to provide cell phone and internet service in our remote communities.

Networks that support Cal Fire's operations at our local fairgrounds. And networks used by law enforcement and counties to send reverse 911 alerts to our rural residents. Those are just to name a few of the critical services our networks enable in rural California. We are deeply committed to our rural communities we live in and serve and cannot do it without the ongoing support of the legislature through the High Cost Fund Programs. We are grateful to Senator Ochoa Bogh for carrying SB 1191 and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. To the proponents, we'll move on to any additional witnesses in support. You may approach the microphone with name, affiliation, and position only, please. Okay. Don't fight for the microphone. I saw that.

Good afternoon. Tracy Rhine, Rural County Representatives of California, in support.

Yolanda Benson, US Telecom, the Broadband Association, in strong support.

David Nelson on behalf of California Communications Association in strong support.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Anybody who wants to come to the mic and just say me too in opposition? Seeing none. Turning to the committee. Do we have any questions, comments? Assembly Member Krell.

I wanna thank the Member for, thank the Senator for bringing this bill and the sponsors for meeting with me about it. I think it's a great program. Happy to move the bill.

Motion by Krell, second by Rogers. Any other questions, comments from the committee? With that, Senator, you may close.

Thank you very much for your support. SB 1191 extends our state's long standing policy of supporting the availability of affordable basic telephone service to California's rural communities. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh, for bringing this bill forward. Your bill does enjoy a do pass recommendation. As you know, I'm a strong advocate for telecommunications and our small telecommunications companies. I don't, if you've gone out on a tour and seen their facilities, you see what hard work they do for our communities. And without them, so many people would be disconnected. So we have a motion by Krell, second by Rogers. The motion on SB 1191 by Senator Ochoa Bogh is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the Secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That's out. We'll leave the bill open for other Members to add on. So we could let's do consent. We have a motion on the consent calendar. Okay. Okay. Motion by Rubio. Second by Krell. Rogers. Krell, Rogers. Rogers. Secretary, please call the roll.

Okay. This is item five SB985 Strickland 911 emergency system. The motion is do passed and referred to the committee on appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Consent is out. We'll leave the role open for other members to add on. And with that, I see that we have Senator Cortese here. We're gonna be hearing SB 1246 by Senator Cortese relating to autonomous vehicles. Senator Cortese, you may approach the bench or the table, the desk.

You may open when ready, and you I think you have two witnesses here. One witness. One witness. Two.

We have one we have two witnesses.

Two witnesses. You each get two minutes. It goes by fast. I'll count down with my fingers on the last five seconds. Senator, you may start when ready.

Members and Chair, I'm I'm here to present SB 1246. Appreciate the opportunity. Appreciate the committee's analysis. Reports of AVs running red lights, obstructing traffic, and driving through active law enforcement activities have grown nationwide as as the fleets have grown.

In December, a citywide power outage in San Francisco caused 1,500 Waymo stoppages at blocked intersections and impeded first responders in dangerous weather conditions. Many of us remember that news. Emergency personal were left on hold for 53 minutes, as whole mode operations were overwhelmed. When whole operations are delayed, sector workers, our firefighters, law enforcement, and traffic officials step in, despite the strain it puts on our public resources. SB 1246 set standards to provide immediate coordinated response to AV incidents. Under SB 1246, AV companies must provide local jurisdictions with the location and status of their vehicles when system wide failures occur.

It also requires remote drivers to be based in the United States and have US driver's license.

Most importantly, SB 1246 ensures public workers are not treated as default road assistance. The bill requires AV companies to send a trained autonomous vehicle worker to the scene of an AV accident or obstruction. The DMV, with stakeholder input, will set appropriate guidelines for response times during regular operations. But if there's an emergency and an AV interferes with the first responder operations for more than thirty minutes, manufacturers is going to face penalties under the bill.

Finally, SB 1246 protects first responders by ensuring that all AVs could be manually or remotely disabled upon the request.

We've held frequent meetings with opposition. Numerous might be a better description and taking amendments to address their concerns. I'm confident the bill is moving in a positive direction, and as such, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote. With us here today as the two witnesses, Matt Lege with our sponsor, SEIU California, Megan Subers with the California Professional Firefighters. Thank you.

You have two minutes.

Good afternoon. Matt Lage with SEIU California, the proud sponsor of, SB 1246, and I appreciate our author for carrying this bill and the Chair for hearing and your work of your committee staff as well. We're proud sponsor this effort because we wanna ensure that public employees are not acting as roadside assistance for these companies, particularly as they can they expand and get deployed further.

From our perspective, what we've seen is that the technology was is still new and working through the implementation roadblocks. We don't want the public to be suffering when there's glitches on the streets and want there to be some responsibility of the companies to step forward, handle these issues, with their local incident technicians as proposed in the bill, so that every day, police, fire, and parking officials are not stepping in and saying, "Hey. This car needs to move when it's just not moving and blocking traffic and disrupting the public." We think that having the local incident technicians there to respond to the emergency or accident involving property, the injured, damage, or entry is a basic step to ensure that these companies are bearing that responsibility and responding appropriately.

Also, I would just highlight the need to that the bill is proposing to make sure that the US drivers, people doing driving tasks are based in The United States, which is critically important to, given the latency time between, the US and other countries. And that delay, particularly as things start to move at high speeds of the freeway and others, are not causing additional issues. So, this technology has the potential to be incredibly disruptive, as we saw in San Francisco and numerous other instances when it glitches. If there's issue, we think that there should be some common sense safety, requirements and staffing requirements, and we think this bill takes an important step forward. For those reasons, we respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Megan Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, and we're pleased to be in support of the bill today. I'd like to thank the author for continuing his work, on these policies to improve AV safety on our streets. As you've likely heard me and my members say, there have been several incidents, involving AV, operators across the state.

And one of the things that they always tell me is that we need clear protocols that we know how to, interact with these vehicles if it's during an emergency.

We've had examples of them, entering into live fire incidents, running over fire hoses, blocking entrances and exits out of fire stations. And so, we think this bill is a step in that direction. The issue that our members always say is that if we can't disable the vehicle, they're also concerned that it may move. They're not sure if it's off. They don't know if it's gonna continue to, inner you know, interfere with the the people on the street there or with their operations.

But, I understand that this bill will not require, an emergent you know, will not require that we have access to the vehicle or be able to move the vehicle ourselves necessarily, but we do think the steps that require the company to do so themselves immediately is an important step, and those are the reasons that we're in support today. And along with setting up guidelines for response times for those local incident technicians and creating a fine structure, if an AV does interfere with emergency operations.

And so for those reasons, we are in support.

Thank you to the proponents. We'll move on to witnesses and support. You may approach the mic with name, affiliation, and position only, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California and Amalgamated Transit Union in support.

Madam Chair and members, Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Cody Boyles, on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. Thank you.

Chair and members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. Apologize for our updated letter wasn't in time to be reflected in the committee analysis, but we remain in support. Thank the author for his work.

Sean Flanagan, on behalf of the Dawn Project, in support.

Christopher Sanchez, on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California, in support.

Caroline Tessa, California School Employees Association, in support.

Madam Chair and members, Louie Costa with Smart Transportation Division Safety and Legislative Board, in support.

Motion by Lowenthal, second by Rogers. Okay. With that, we have we have primary witnesses in opposition. We have Sarah Boot. You get four minutes.

Oh, well, I won't need that long. Thank you.

Thank you for that too. You do have four minutes.

Am I on? Okay.

You're on. You're gonna have to hold the mic as if you're, like, doing a podcast.

Oh, that's exciting. Madam Chair and members, Sarah Boot on behalf of the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association with an opposed unless amended position. We appreciate the committee's thoughtful analysis, and we appreciate the author and the sponsors and their willingness to work with us on this bill, accept amendments, and to consider our remaining concerns. I'm gonna briefly highlight them here.

So, first, while the recent amendments to manual override provisions are an improvement, the bill still moves California into regulating vehicle design and performance, an area governed by federal standards.

That national framework ensures manufacturers design vehicles to one uniform set of safety safety requirements, while states retain authority over the rules of the road and vehicle operations. Second, we continue to oppose allowing local governments to enforce compliance with the manufacturer's DMV permit. Those determinations are best made by the DMV, which has the necessary expertise. California's AV framework is built on uniform statewide oversight and allowing individual jurisdictions to impose penalties based on an alleged permit violation could permit violation could undermine that consistency. Third, if an AV cannot be moved remotely, the bill requires an immediate dispatch of a local incident technician. The problem is, that term is defined to mean either an employee of the AV company, which is fine, or a tow truck company with at least 50 employees. Because a lot of tow truck companies do not have that many employees, the bill could actually prevent companies from dispatching the closest available tow truck.

Fourth, the bill requires AV companies to notify emergency dispatch of any fleet wide emergency.

We understand that intent, but the definition's overly broad. It includes any event that merely affects multiple AVs, which could be two or three AVs. And and that could also be the case even when emergency dispatch isn't needed, which could lead to unnecessary notifications and that could burden limited emergency dispatch resources. Finally, the bill imposes a penalty if a disabled AV cannot be removed within thirty minutes during an emergency. We understand that.

We accept that. But we think the bill should account for circumstances beyond an AV company's control. So, if the company immediately dispatches assistance, but then they can't access the vehicle in thirty minutes because of road closures or severe traffic congestion or other emergency conditions, they shouldn't be subject to a penalty in those instances. So, with that, we look forward to continuing these discussions on the bill and respectfully request a no vote for today, and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition that would wish to state their name, affiliation, and position only, please? You may approach the mic.

Elizabeth Esquivel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also recognizing the recent amendment that the author had taken. We have moved our position from opposed to opposed unless amended for the reasons that were already provided. Thank you.

Camille Wagner with KP Public Affairs representing Waymo. Also appreciate the work with the author, oppose unless amended for the reason stated. Look forward to continuing the conversation. Thanks.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Guasona here on behalf of Tesla. Still reviewing the latest amendments, but in this at this time, opposed. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jon Kendrick from Cal Chamber, opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair. Brenda Contreras on behalf of the Bay Area Council and Chamber of Progress, in respect to opposition.

Jack Yanos with Sloat Higgins Jensen, on behalf of Consumer Technology Association, will line our comments with them. Thank you.

Thank you to all the witnesses bringing it back to the committee. Are there any members who would like to speak on the bill? Assemblymember Rubio?

Just a couple questions about addressing the permits issued by the DMV versus the local governments: how's that gonna work? That's one question. And then does the the issue about the flexibility about arrival?

I'm from LA. Like, everything's forty minutes away even if it's four miles. You know? And I know that that might be a factor. And I know San Jose, for example, is kind of the same way as San Francisco, and pretty soon Sacramento is getting congested.

So, is there any flexibility for that, which is out of their control? So, again, the primary one is the the permits being issued by the DMV versus local entities and then the flexibility about the, you know, how how long it takes to arrive.

Thank thank you, Assemblymember Rubio. Unfortunately, my opinion is unfortunate. We don't have local control of commercial AVs at this time. DMV has occupied that space and, with the exception of a bill that was done by Assemblymember Ting, you may recall, which took a step forward. I think he presented the bill often when he was here as taking a first step forward.

We're trying to build on that. But there's a limit to, you know, what we can do in terms of allowing the locals to do what they usually do with other motor vehicles, committed in force, established congestion management areas, established, taxi stands and things like that. Those kinds of things are not allowed yet under state law.

So, we're just - I think we're deferring to state law to the extent that we have to and then, you know, trying to do what we can within that framework. That said, your other question with regard to the thirty minutes, I wanna be very, very clear.

It's thirty minutes if the AV is interfering with first responder activities. It's not like they get, you know, fined if they're not there in thirty minutes. There's nobody else there yet. You know, this isn't something that somebody's running a timer on. The question is if first responders are there, there's a collision, could be somebody trapped inside the AV itself.

We're trying to protect those passengers as well. First responders are are trying to work around that situation. And, obviously, unlike a vehicle that we would drive, humans would drive, there's just nobody there to cooperate with what's going on. We find that to be a problem. At once earlier stage in this bill, we thought it was a much cleaner and more elegant solution to just say that, emergency dispatch needs to be notified immediately.

The AV technology allows that right now. They're communicating with their own home offices, their own headquarters, their own remote drivers, their own remote assistance. That all happens real time just like it would if you have an OnStar system in a in a Chevy. And we thought, "Hey, why don't we do away with all all this response stuff with human beings and just do it that way." But that was negotiated out of the bill, you know, by mutual agreement with the opposition.

So, we are where we are and we we think we found spot. We're gonna keep working on that.

Yeah. No. No. I just wanna - I haven't I didn't see it specifically articulated that way. That's why I was asking if, you know, because I you know, I completely understand what you're saying, and I agree with that.

You know, it's just that definition. If it's explicitly in there, maybe we can, you know, at least because you understand. I mean, and I completely understand that. It's the STAR system, I think, is a perfect example that immediately notify so I could see if it's interfering with with, you know, emergency services. But the definition, I guess, is what I'm looking for, just to be more specific.

Appreciate this. It should be it should be clear enough in the bill right now, you know, given the amendments, but we'll be happy to get that to you afterwards. And we're happy to keep working with the opposition.

This is literally one of those areas that, you know, where there's been give and take for the last couple of months.

Because it keeps evolving, you know, on a day to day basis. So, I think that that those are my only questions. So, thank you for that, and, you know, thank you for being willing to work with the opposition on those particular issues.

Thank you. We will continue to do so.

Vice Chair Hoover.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Alright. So, Senator, you know, I, obviously, the opposition raised quite a few concerns. I guess I just wanted to know, first off, like, if you're willing as we move forward; I know we're getting pretty late in the process here to consider any of those potential amendments. It seems like, something that could obviously help the bill move forward, but also, you know, help address some of the opposition's concerns.

So, I just wanted to see what your thoughts were on us.

Yeah. It what has been good about working with opposition and with the association on this and that - you're an author. We sometimes run into oppose unless amended or just oppose and the amendments never come. And we don't we don't really get the industry help in trying to hit the sweet spot land land where we need to land. We have had ongoing back and forth negotiation that will continue, almost by necessity on this, you know, right up to the end.

And, of course, my hope that we're successful.

So, I think my other question, you know, is is sort of related to a bill authored by a former member of the Assembly, Assemblymember Phil Ting. Those regulations, specifically referring to AB 1777, just went into effect today, I believe. And so, you know, I guess I feel like this bill is a little premature.

I think that, you know, that bill got quite a bit of bipartisan support, I think, was - that's a bill I even supported, despite, you know, having some initial concerns with it. Why is it that we shouldn't let, you know, those regulations sort of run their course and and see how those improve the public safety response process before we sort of jump into, you know, or put another layer on top of that?

You know, there's there's some things that the bill didn't address that we're talking about today, which seem very, very much to be necessities. The immobilization issue wasn't complete. I mean, this bill actually says that you can have two types of of vehicles at least with those that have steering wheels and those that don't. We've just expanded on 1777 a little bit. I mean, it really only took it took a step.

It took two geofencing and in the right of first responders to to intervene. I'll let the witnesses respond because, obviously, we have somebody here representing first responders. I think they could give a better response as to how we're trying to sort of graduate up from that bill a little bit, especially on behalf of first responders.

Thank you. And, thank you for the question. I think, you're correct. Those - that bill goes in, or most of that bill goes into effect today. It's been a year and a half since that bill was passed.

And I think in that year and a half, we've recognized some deficiencies. We were not in support of the previous bill. We were actually asking for more to be included in that bill. And so for a few reasons, one the author just mentioned, which is the way the first responder interaction is, I guess, discussed in that bill is that if the vehicle has a manual override system, then the first responders will get trained on how to do it.

And in the last year and a half, we've learned a lot more about a lot of the I think, path going forward for the AV companies.

And most of them, we've been told don't have manual override systems or steering wheels like you've heard. So, we think that that bill will still address the AVs that have that system, but the bill, SB 1246, will address both. So, the vehicles who don't have a way or a mechanism for first responders to actually interact with the vehicle directly themselves, this will address those other capture those other instances, if that makes sense.

So, I think I would just I'll just end on some comments here. You know, I we recently had an informational hearing on this topic in the Assembly Transportation Committee. I would say that the testimony there conflicted quite a bit with sort of what I'm hearing here.

We actually had, you know, the police and fire personnel from San Francisco to test testifying that, you know, companies are working very well with public safety officials that, you know, there's obviously always learning things that we're learning and and processes, but that we are - that that things are definitely improving, based on not just the bills that we've passed, but the DMV regulations based on just better practices being established. And so, I personally don't see the necessity of this legislation.

You know, I also continue to remain concerned with, you know, some of your previous legislation such as SB 915 that sort of, I think, goes after the industry more directly. And just overall concerned about putting these things into statute. I think the current system that we have right now is working very well. It's very flexible. We have CHP and DMV managing regulations and adjusting those regulations as time goes on and technology improves and as technology changes.

I mean, as you know, you know, I know there's companies in California that are were born in California, that are operating in California, that have technologies that don't have a steering wheel. Right? They don't have some of the things that are, sort of in this legislation. And I worry that by putting something like this in statute, we're actually limiting what we can do in California from a tech technological perspective.

I think, you know, I would just close by asking the opposition, you know, is is there is there more that do you think can be done with this legislation that, you know, in terms of amendments that would make this more workable?

And and if so, you know, are you willing to continue working with the author as we move forward?

Yeah. Yes. We we have sent over recently - there was a lot of amendments taken in the previous committee, and we kinda had the dust settled from there and have everybody review the changes. And what emerged from that is, a bill that's improved much since then. And then what I laid out today are basically five main issues that we still wanna address.

And the author's office is actually meeting, and the sponsors are meeting with us on Thursday to talk about that. And we just gave them the language a couple days ago. So, okay.

Thank you for that. I think just in closing, I think I would greatly appreciate, you know, those those changes being considered. I think, until that point, I will be voting no today, but I appreciate you bringing the bill forward. Thank you.

Any other comments from committee? Okay. That with that, Senator, you may close.

Thank you again very much. I do believe, long term, this is gonna be an iterative process, not just with this bill today. And I think Ting's bill basically was, you know, the first the first advancement of any kind in terms of beginning to deal with commercial AVs as motor vehicles in terms of their interaction with first responders and other motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and and others, like we've been doing ever since Henry Ford established the first Assembly line.

And, you know, to to the credit of the automobile industry and I, as you know, chair transportation on the Senate side and, yes, we had an informational hearing and, yes, this bill is very, very consistent with what we heard there. The automobile industry the traditional automobile industry up to this point has done a tremendous job of cooperating with federal regulation and state regulation.

They have a culture of give and take and, look, we're introducing something that's out in the public, that's out on the roads, and we're gonna have to figure it out. That's how we got curves and gutters and street lights. It's a stop signs and stop lights, w-o lines, broken lines, motor vehicle tests.

And there is gonna have to be this this dance that we do, for lack of a better way to put it, you know, to ultimately get to the place of just the right balance of embracing this innovation and making sure that there's public safety all the way around. So, with that, and in that spirit, I would I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I think it's really important to that the opposition has moved from opposed to opposed unless amended. It's encouraging when you say Thursday, I assume you mean tomorrow so that your those last five things could be addressed as it moves out of that. I trust the Senator to continue working on these final remaining issues. You wanna have appropriate emergency response times.

You wanna be able to move these vehicles out of the way, keep our community safe. You also want it to be feasible. Ambitious and feasible is the theme of today's CNC hearing. And with that, we have a motion by Lowenthal, second by Rogers. The motion on SB 1246 by Senator Cortese is do passed and may refer to the Committee on Appropriations.

Will the secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call].

The bill is out.

Are we holding it open? Oh, yeah.

We're holding it open for absent members.

Thank you so much.

Members, that concludes the bill presentations for the day. Can the secretary please check and see if there's still items on call?

[Roll Call]

We're gonna we're gonna recess, the C&C committee and give it time for Assembly member Bonta to finish up presenting. And when she's on her way back over, we'll reconvene.

Okay. Resuming the communications and conveyance hearing. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

SB 1246, Cortese. That bill is out seven to one. Thank you, and that concludes this year's oh, when I'm done. We now lifted the call. Hold on. Members, that concludes the work of the Assembly committee on communications and conveyances, today and hopefully for this session. We are adjourned.