Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Good afternoon and welcome everyone. The hearing room is open for attendance of this hearing and it can be watched from a live stream on the Assembly's website. We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the Committee's website. Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted.

We will allow two minutes each for two primary witnesses in support and opposition, and these witnesses must testify in person in the hearing room. Additional witness comments will be limited to your name, organization and position. With that, we will begin our hearing. It looks like we do not have a quorum, so we will start as informational and we will go to, let's see, file order. It looks like item number one, we will not be hearing. This is AB 2392 Soria.

It was pulled by request of the author. With that, we'll move on to item number three. AB 2697 Irwin to the author at your convenience. Microphone. We can't hear you.

I'm pleased to present AB 2697, a bill related to the electric vehicle charging experience. As an EV driver, I'm frustrated with the all too common experience of trying and failing to find a functioning public charger. As a Legislator, I'm frustrated to see our tax dollars being wasted rather than funding working, more accessible public chargers a recent study by JD Power showed that one-fifth of attempts to use a public charger were unsuccessful.

According to the CEC, 41% of our publicly funded EV chargers are installed with state grants and taxpayer money. This amounts to roughly 40,000 chargers across the state. This bill requires the state-funded chargers that we've installed prior to 2024 be subject, first, subject to CEC to reliability standards, which are being finalized this summer. And number two, subject to roaming agreements so that different company chargers can talk to one another and drivers can have easy access to all of them.

The requirements in AB 2697 are intended to benefit consumers since taxpayers funded this infrastructure. California has spent nearly $1.7 billion on EV charging infrastructure in an attempt to meet our climate goals. Without accountability, these chargers are at risk of becoming stranded assets, nothing more than sculptures in a grocery store parking lot. Without improving the driveware experience, we are jeopardizing our clean transportation future. With us to testify on behalf of plug in America is Alexia Melendez Martineau.

Hello, can you hear me?

Hello. My name is Alexia Melendez Martineau and I represent Plug In America. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you all today. Plug In America is a national nonprofit organization based here in California. Founded by EV drivers, we work to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles and charging. We represent a network of EV drivers across the US and leverage their real-world insights to drive the market forward and create a best-in-class user experience.

We're here today to support AB 2697 which will improve the EV charging experience for drivers. We conduct an annual EV driver survey and based on results from Plug In America's 2023 survey, public EV charging is currently unreliable and has left consumers wanting more. The early insights from our California results from this year's annual survey also confirm that charging availability and reliability remain top of mind for EV drivers. Access to charging is one of the biggest considerations when considering transitioning to an electric vehicle.

Currently, as an EV driver, which I am myself, there is a really high expectation of your ability and willingness to adapt to the EV charging ecosystem. This can often mean having to spend several minutes each time you charge on a new network, downloading an app, and setting up an account on that app to charge. And that's assuming the process works reliably.

Especially as California embarks on mass-market adoption of EVs, we must make the EV charging experience more user-friendly and reduce barriers to clean transportation. Roaming agreements help simplify the charging experience for consumers by allowing them to use their favorite app for other charging networks. This empowers drivers to choose their preferred platform and creates competition amongst companies to provide the best possible user experience. Through pursuing roaming agreements for EV charging, AB 2697 can help make the public charging experience seamless for EV drivers.

Additionally, as California pursues a clean transportation future to meet its ambitious climate goals, we must accurately understand the current and future EV charging landscape. Setting uptime, recordkeeping, and reporting standards for post 2024 infrastructure will complement the requirements the CEC is currently developing for post-2024 infrastructure. Thank you so much again for the opportunity to speak with you today in support of AB 2697.

Thank you. We'll take a brief pause to establish the quorum. Secretary, could you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

All right, with that, we'll move to public testimony. This is an opportunity for members of the public who would like to provide me two comments. That's name, organization, and position.

Julee Melinowski Ball on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, we have a support, if amended position. We just want to see the retroactive provisions still worked on. We just think needs more work done.

Hi, Michelle Canales. On behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Okay, now we'll move on to any testimony and opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Reed Addis on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association in opposition today. But I do have some clarifications to that opposition based on the work the Assemblymembers office and the Committee have done over the last week. We, our original opposed letter was very specific to the retroactivity element of the bill and we were neutral on the roaming provision and continue to be neutral on the roaming provision, or at least silent, let me put it that way.

As it relates to our opposed position, we worked as diligently as we could to update that opposed letter. It's still opposed, but it is signaling our great appreciation for the author and her staff and the Committee and recognizing some of the difficulties in trying to take a current state of art and the regulations that the CEC are working on today and trying to apply that retroactively to old state of art where you just can't have that type of technical communication and standards applied.

We like this new approach. We appreciate the effort to look at the CEC. We just could not be in a place as an Association across 20 some members to delve into each and every word in the amendment. We have to go through some additional conversations. We hope to come back with maybe a different position, but we did update our opposed letter. Unfortunately, I think we did it in real-time as I walked up here today.

So sorry for that late update, but hopefully that's a signal of our appreciation, the direction of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to public testimony, are there any Members of the public who wish to add on in opposition name, position or an organization seeing none. Moving it to Members of the Committee if there's any questions, concern, or discussion needed to be had. Assemblymember Carillo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank the author for bringing this measure in front of us and for continuing to be a champion in this issue. I know that it's frustrating. I myself drive an electric vehicle myself. It's a hybrid. Nevertheless, sometimes it can be challenging to get to a working electric vehicle charging station. So thank you for doing that. And if you would consider me being a co-author of your bill.

Thank you, Assemblymember Carillo.

Ting?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm also proud to be a joint author of this bill. I think this bill is a common sense proposal, very key that we make sure that our electric charging infrastructure works. And I think this bill tries to strike a balance to make sure that there is reliability, that there is accountability, that there are some regulations. We're investing billions of dollars into EV charging infrastructure. And given the customer experience so far, we have to make sure that there's reliability.

And that when customers can go up and get that charging done, it's very, very critical that it works. And so, again, really appreciate the bill and thank the author for all her hard work.

Well, thank you for bringing this bill forward to address the issue of reliable and accessible EV chargers. I appreciate you working with the Committee and stakeholders to find a practical middle ground. This bill makes sure that EV Chargers work as best as possible and works for everyone. A better EV charging experience is critical to increase EV adoption and to achieve our climate goals. With that, I will be supporting this bill today we had a first by Aguiar-Curry.

A second, it was tied, but called it to Wallace. And with that, give you an opportunity to close before the secretary calls the roll.

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

All right, that bill is a, but we'll finish, we'll leave the roll open for Members to add on.

Thank you very much.

All right. With that, we're going to move to consent before we consider any other bills. First and second. But hold on 1 second. And then we'll also ask if we get a call for. It looks like we need authors, so yes, we'll switch over. Yes, we'll switch over to Members sitting first. Okay. Who did the. Is it Aguiar-Curry? And Ting. Okay. All right. So let me read the bills on consent and then we'll do the vote.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

All right, going in file order, we'll jump to item number 11. AB 2286. Aguirre Curry. Hello, author. At your convenience.

Great. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, the goal of this Bill is simple. Full testing and full deployment of an autonomous vehicle, over 10,000 pounds can be permitted by the DMV to operate on public roads in California. While we await the analysis of safety data and recommendations to the Legislature by the Executive branch, that vehicle must be accompanied by a qualified human safety operator. There is nothing about a human safety operator that prevents the autonomous trucking industry from testing and deploying autonomous vehicles anywhere in California.

The only conceivable motivation for rushing forward without a monitor in the cab is to increase profits at the risk of public safety and the livelihoods of our trained, expert trucking workforce. The rollout of a light duty autonomous vehicle in San Francisco is a perfect example of why the Legislature should be involved in the final decision making on personless 80,000 pound trucks.

Hundreds of incidents with driverless autonomous cars have prompted city public safety officials and elected officials to plead with the CPUC to rein in the deployment of driverless autonomous vehicles. Their experience and review of the data do not conclude this deployment has been safe. In these incidents, driverless vehicles stop suddenly, impeding traffic and causing accidents. In others, they have blocked emergency vehicles, including preventing police from responding to a mass shooting. The vehicles have driven through emergency scenes and into downed wires.

One even drove away from police officers during a vehicle stop. We have also seen a horrific accident where a pedestrian was dragged by an autonomous vehicle and trapped under it. The company responsible did not disclose full footage to the DMV initially. Meanwhile, the companies deploying the technology are pulling out all the stops, lobbying for expansion over the passionate objection of local officials.

Let me be clear that I believe this technology has great potential, which is why the Bill affirmatively recognizes we should move forward with testing and deployment of these vehicles. But there is absolutely no reason to believe the San Francisco experience won't be repeated in testing driverless trucks. Unlike San Francisco taxis, these vehicles weigh an extra 76,000 pounds, drive at significantly higher speeds, and present a greater threat to the public.

We need the data collection and reporting in AB 2286 to get a real sense of the of broader impacts of AB trucking technology. All this Bill does is include the legislative branch of government in a more transparent process as the final decision is made to remove humans from the trucking in our state. We remember, we answer to our constituents.

It firmly lays the groundwork for companies to test and deploy autonomous trucks, and it contains a statutory trigger for legislative consideration of final approval of driverless operation based on real data analyzed by the safety experts in the Executive branch. They then will appear in a hearing to make sure to make recommendations to the elected legislators at that time. With me today to testify and support our Mike Fry, representing Teamsters locals 2785 and Yvonne Fernandez, representing the California Labor Federation.

And I've also included Matt Broad, can be here for technical questions on behalf of the Teamsters. Thank you.

Chair, Members of the board. My name is Michael Fry, proud 28 year Member of 2785 San Francisco Teamsters. I'm here today because I strongly believe that autonomous trucks over 10,000 pounds is a ridiculous concept to me. I'm a properly trained driver. I cannot imagine 80,000 pounds of what I drive a day rolling down the highway without a driver like myself behind the wheel. It frightens me. Small autonomous vehicles have already wreaked havoc in the streets of San Francisco and caused a lot of problems.

We're talking about a truck that's 10 times the amount and weight of these smaller vehicles and without a properly trained driver, it seems chaotic to me. As a trained truck drivers, we don't just go from a to b. We are stewards of the highways. Oftentimes we are the first responders. We're there. We're the guys that call the EMTs, the medevacs, all that. We're sometimes administering triage by the time they get there.

In my opinion, there's no way an autonomous vehicle without a driver in it is going to be able to help in a situation like that. During my driving experience a couple years ago, I was on 101 in the Bay Area going southbound. A young couple was struck by another car from behind. They lost control and end up lodged under my 53 foot trailer.

I knew there was no way to stop safely where we were at, so I slowly merged and contacted another truck driver with my horn that then saw the car lodged. He blocked traffic for me so I could get to the side of the road and then use the bushes on the side of the highway to pop their car out from under my trailer, to dislodge it. I then pulled the trailer back out into traffic a little bit so I could block oncoming traffic.

I then got out of the truck, ran back, dislodged the couple from the mangled car, and called emergency services. When emergency services got there, they accredited me to saving their lives and they asked me you know, how did you think to do that? I told them it was just instinct. You can't program these things to have instinct. It's common sense and instinct and drivers like myself that are out there every day that saves situations like this.

Right now, the new technology in these vehicles, even the trucks that I'm driving, some of the new technology is troublesome. They're implementing new safety features that we don't quite agree with some of the guys.

I was so captivated by your story that we went over time. So sorry, we'll have to go to the next witness. My apologies for not giving you time to close.

Please support this Bill.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Federation, a proud co sponsor of AB 2286 a Bill that will protect jobs and public safety by requiring a human safety operator to be in any autonomous vehicle weighing over 10,000 pounds. The introduction of driverless vehicles without worker centered guardrails poses immediate threats to the safety and the livelihood of millions of Californians.

As we've seen through the deployment of robo taxis, driverless sedans have already caused a wide range of safety incidents. These incidents have included causing collisions due to hard stops and interfering with firefighters and other first responders by running through yellow emergency tape and blocking fire station and driveways. Fire station driveways. Just this year, the DMV had to investigate the allegations that a driverless sedan nearly hit a seven year old boy after that sedan failed to yield to his family crossing the street.

These are just a few of the examples of the dangers caused by robotaxis. The risk posed by heavy duty autonomous vehicles would be even worse. Not only are they a danger to our safety, without worker centered guardrails, heavy duty autonomous vehicles have the potential of displacing millions of drivers. These millions of drivers. These union jobs, have provided workers without college degrees with a path to the middle class. Union drivers are able to support their families by earning a stable income, health coverage, and retirement security.

Essentially operating as small business owners, truck drivers often invest tremendous amounts of time and money to launch and maintain their operations. The advancement of AB technology should not lead to the full elimination of their livelihoods. AB 2286 will protect workers, the public, and the economy by requiring a human safety operator in autonomous medium and heavy duty vehicles. AB 2286 allows for the testing and further developments of autonomous heavy duty vehicles on public roads, but puts appropriate guardrails for safety and security.

California cannot afford for technology to be just a cost cutting strategy. Born on the backs of workers. AB 2286 strikes the necessary balance needed between the technological advancement and the public good. And for these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving to public testimony for #MeToo. Name, position and organization, please.

Madam Chair, Members. Matt Broad here as a proud co sponsor on behalf of the Teamsters and Amalgamated Transit Union and in strong support for CSEA. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Bryan Mara-Montes with American Federation of State, County Municipal Employees and support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. Louis Costa with smart transportation division, state legislative board in support.

Good afternoon. Ryan Snow, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen in support.

Good afternoon. James Sandoval International Vice President SMART Transportation Division and strong support. Thank you.

Hello. Monica Sandoval. My husband is a bus operator, and so are a lot of my friends and family, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Deekay Lee. I'm from Teamsters Local 439. I support the Bill.

Good afternoon. Apollo Wallace, Teamsters Local 2785. You support the Bill? Thanks.

Hi Florencio Sinogui, Teamsters Local 665 in San Francisco, in support of the Bill.

Hello. Joe Matekel, Teamsters Local 665. Strongly support the Bill.

Nathaniel Abrego, bus operator in Santa Cruz. I support the Bill.

Mark Malouf, business agent with Teamsters Local 665 in strong support of this Bill.

Madam Chair and Members. Corey Hallman, with Teamsters Local 856 in support of this Bill.

Chris Garlick, secretary treasurer, Local 431, out of Fresno. I strongly support this Bill.

Quentin Booker, Local 350, San Francisco. I strongly support this Bill.

Renee Wilson, Teamsters Local 431 and I strongly support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Sylvia Solis Shaw, here on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the City and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sean Katz. I'm a campus safety facilitator with Newport Mesa Unified School District. I'm also the legislative Committee representative for CSEA, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Mario Bojorquez. I'm a transportation assistant with the Vista Unified School District. I'm also a Member of CSCA's legislative Committee. I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Veronica Peña. I'm a child development teacher with the Al Monte City School District, also part of the CSCA political action Committee, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Gloria Huerta. I'm short. I'm a custodian bus driver for cutlery. Rosa Uniform, and also a CSCA pace Committee, and I support this Bill.

Hector Munoz. I am a technology services support technician for the Yuba County Office of Education. I am also on the CSEA Legislative Committee, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. I'm Starr Avila. I work for the Jurupa Unified School District and I'm part of the PACE Committee for CSEA, and I support this Bill.

I'm Richard Alvarez with Perris Elementary School District as a health technician, and I'm. On the CSCA Legislative Committee as well. And I'm strongly in support of this Bill.

Hello. My name is Valerie Vargas. I am also with the PACE Committee with CSEA. I am a finance Clerk over at the Escondido Union High School District, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is David Collum. I'm a retired technology technician for the Miami County Office of Education. I'm also a Member of the CSEA's political action Committee. I strongly support this Bill.

Hello, I'm Brittney Clark of my high school library media Clerk at Orestimba High in Newman, California. I'm also a Member of CSDA's legislative. Committee, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Edith Williams and I'm a school staff secretary for Kern High School District, and I strongly support this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Meb Steiner. I am a special education paraeducator in Palo Alto Unified School District. I am also on the CSEA Legislative Committee and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Brad Freeland. I am a school custodian with Windsor Unified School District. I'm also a retired truck driver of 25 years, and I strongly support this Bill.

Hello, my name is Steve Lopez. I am an electronic technician at Garvey School District. I'm also the chairperson for the legislative Committee for CSEA and I'm strongly in support of this Bill.

I'm Reginald Roberts with Rowland Unified School District, driver trainer and also a member of CSEA Legislative Committee and I support this Bill.

My name is Cheryl McDonald. I am a member of CSEA Burbank Chapter 674, where I am a part of the Legislative Committee and I am supporting this Bill.

Hi, I'm Kayleigh McDonald. I am from Burbank Unified School District as a paraeducator for special ed and also part of the Political Actions Committee for CSEA, and I am supportive of this Bill.

Trish Suzuki Blinstrub, Teamsters Joint Council 7, in strong support of this Bill.

Cole Scandaglia, Senior Legislative Representative, Headquarters of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, in strong support of this Bill.

Good afternoon. Troy Hall. I'm a paraeducator with the Newport Mesa Unified School District. I'm also a member participant with the PACE Committee and strongly support this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Luis Diaz, secretary, treasurer, and principal officer of Teamsters Local 948 from Visalia and Modesto with over 5,500 members. And we strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll move to witnesses and opposition to the Bill. A total of five minutes were given, inadvertently, to the supporters of the Bill. So you have a total of five minutes between you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Julian Kennedy, presidency of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. And I'm here on behalf of our over 125 Hispanic and diverse chambers and business association members representing the interests of not only Hispanic business, but California's diverse and small businesses. At this time, we regretfully, respectively, and regretfully oppose AB 2286. The Bill would block Californians from accessing the benefits of autonomous trucking technology, further setting the state back in this critical innovation, and hurt diverse small businesses and consumers.

We believe that autonomous vehicles will boost our supply chain efficiency, create new, high-quality career opportunities for California workers and help small businesses keep California's economy moving. Federal government data shows our country must move 50% more freight by 2050. Californians have already been negatively impacted by the supply chain crisis at current freight levels.

As consumers and small business owners, we feel the pinch with empty store sales and sowing prices in our communities every day, particularly in lower-income and diverse communities. By adding much-needed capacity to our goods movement system in California, autonomous trucks will help ease the strain on our supply chains and make goods more readily accessible for small businesses and consumers.

Moreover, autonomous long-haul trucking has the potential to broadly benefit the economy by improving the efficiency of countless industries that rely on moving goods via trucks such as agriculture, retail, and manufacturing. According to a study funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation and FHA, automating long-haul trucking will spur 111 billion in aggregate investment spending across the U.S. economy and will increase total U.S. employment by 26,400 to 35,100 jobs per year on average.

In California specifically, a study found that autonomous trucking technology can add 6.5 billion to economic activity to the state while bringing greater efficiency to our supply chain, spurring wage gains and job growth. This critical certainty for businesses and consumers, but also vital for the state as we confront a $32 billion deficit this year. By treating autonomous vehicles as an asset instead of shutting the technology down through this Bill, we believe California, its businesses, its consumers, and its workers have an incredible amount to gain.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge your no vote on AB 2286. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Wilson. How much time is remaining?

2:15.

Thank you. Chair Wilson, my name is Ariel Wolf and I'm here on behalf of the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association alongside dozens of groups that represent thousands of California businesses and millions of your constituents, to testify in strong opposition to AB 2286. Let me address the quote AV's are not ready for prime time slogan that's been raised here and before. Let me just give some picture here, the prime time we're seeing today with human drivers.

Just in the past few weeks alone, a human driver sped onto the wrong side of the road and killed an entire family at the West Portal Bus Stop. On April 2, a big rig in Glendale crashed into a sedan and killed the driver. A few months before that, in September 2023 in Winchester, a truck driver on drugs crashed and killed two people. Last year, a drunk truck driver in Oregon killed seven people in a horrific calamity.

And in 2020, right here in Sacramento, a speeding semi inexplicably plowed into slowing traffic, killing one and injuring many more. The video is still online and it's devastating to watch. I'll be direct. If prime time is what we are seeing on the roads today, with human drivers at the wheel, then make no mistake, we want no part of it. We want to make the roads safer. And it's exactly what autonomous trucks are doing.

Because they don't speed, they don't do drugs, they don't get distracted, and they don't have heart attacks. Unlike in California, AV trucks have been operating on the roads in several states, not one fatality or serious injury. Second, as with last year, this Bill remains completely unnecessary. AV trucks have been prohibited here for 13 years. DMV has been working on rules to get this technology slowly rolled out for the better part of a decade.

And just as we get to the goal line after billions of dollars of investment and thousands of businesses counting on it, and when Governor Newsom said they are just months away from putting out draft rules that would be considered by all the stakeholders over a period long period of time, this Bill would shut it down for a minimum of another six years with no guarantee of ever letting it happen. That's unfortunate. And frankly, as a policy matter, it is unserious.

We strongly urge a no vote on this Bill, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Moving on to members of the public who are in opposition as well, this is the me too time and so name position and organization.

Tim Taylor with the National Federation of Independent Business, in opposition. Thank you.

Mike Williams with the California Delivery Association, in opposition.

Keelin Fong, on behalf of the Cal Asian Chamber, in opposition.

Robert Singleton with Chamber of Progress, respectfully opposed.

Marcus Gomez, exporter of used clothing, California Clothing Recyclers, and I'm also the Vice Chair of the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. And I have to deal with transportation every day with my business, and there's a lack of truck drivers. So I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Phil Vermeulen, representing the coalition of Small and Disabled veteran businesses and the Flasher Barricade Association. We're in strong opposition to this measure. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Brady Van Engelen, California Chamber of Commerce, here in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jose Torres with Tech Net, in strong opposition.

Good afternoon. Michael Zaragoza, on behalf of the Latin Business Association, in opposition.

Good afternoon. Doug Kessler, Political Director for the Central Valley Yemen Association. And we're opposed to this legislation.

Good afternoon. My name is Jess Gonzales and I'm with Si Se Puede Community Service Organization out of the Central Valley, and we're strongly opposed to this Bill.

Madam Chair and Members Alex Royce with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Peter Larolle Munoz, on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group as well as the Los Angeles County Business Federation, respectfully opposed.

Madam Chair and Members Timothy Burr on behalf of Aurora Innovation in opposition. Thanks.

Right. Thank you to all those who have testified or provided public testimony and support or opposition. I'm bringing it back to the committees for any questions, comments or concerns. Papan.

I was happy to co-author this Bill last year, and I'd like to be a co-author this year, and I'd like to move the Bill.

Thank you.

Okay, we have a first and a second. Any other comments? Oh, sorry. Vice Chair Davies.

Thank you. When we saw this Bill last year was something that, you know, it really kind of hit me. And what I like to do is obviously my district, when I have issues like this, I like to put surveys out there because ultimately I'm representing those votes and those voices. And we put the survey out there. And again, I think we all agree that this is going to be going, you know, we will be getting there.

But right now we want to make sure that public safety is one of the number one issues. And when we did a polling, it was 98% felt more comfortable having someone behind the wheel. And for that, that is one of the reasons why I supported it, and I'll continue to support it. Thank you.

Hoover.

For Ariel, I just, I appreciate the kind of comments you made. You know, actually, both of the opposition comments, I think, I was curious if you could talk a little bit more to the potential benefits when it comes to the economic impact that this Bill could have. Obviously, the negative impacts if, you know, if we do pass this Bill, but also the positive impacts that we could see once this technology is safely on the roads.

Assembly Member, thank you so much for the question, and happy to get into that just for a moment here. In addition to the safety benefits that would accrue as a result of the elimination or reduction of human impairment crashes that are a scourge of the roads today, the economic benefits are well documented and they're substantial. I think it starts with the, again, well-documented driver shortage that we have that's projected to increase for a long period of time.

It was mentioned 50% more surface freight needs to be shipped in the coming decade. And so where is that going to come from? The median age of a long-haul truck driver is over 50 years old. And so in order to fix our supply chain and get that in a place where we need it, we need this technology to be able to do that.

And in addition to that, there are many studies that show that this is going to result in a increase in jobs, in the reduction of consumer prices, consumer goods that are there, and a number of other benefits that I'd be happy to provide to the Committee as we move forward. This was a U.S. Department of Transportation study that was done in addition to a few other studies.

Thank you. And just for the author, I think obviously this went to the Governor's desk last year. He expressed some concerns about it being unnecessary, and we've kind of heard some of the concerns. But what is the feeling this year on working with the Governor's office? Are there going to be any changes to the Bill this year? Just kind of curious.

We are working with the Governor's office. They've been. We've had the opportunity to outreach with them. I think we're headed in the right direction with the Bill, and I'm confident that he will give a thorough review of the Bill and that we'll get to a place that will be beneficial to our constituents.

Okay. Thank you. I would just close on a comment. I feel like I obviously opposed the Bill last year. I laid out my concerns. My concerns continue to be that I do agree with a number of what the proponents have said, that I want to make sure our streets are safe in California. I think where my disagreement lies is that I think it's the human operator that is the barrier to that.

And so obviously, we have a lot of work to do in the current process to make sure that these vehicles are safe. That's why we created the process, because we have to make sure that if these ever operate on California roads, that they're doing so in a safe manner. But I think that the potential for this technology to actually improve the safety of our roads is too great. So I won't be able to support the Bill today. Thank you.

Seeing no other comments, I just one follow-up question. You noted that there were AV trucks outside of the State of California. Did those have human operators in them, or are they operating independently?

Thank you, Chair Wilson. It's an important question at the moment. They do, but there are plans, active plans, to not have human operators this year, in 2024. And as noted, this legislation, as it did last year, would slam the door on that for at least another six years to remove any operator whereas companies have active plans to remove the driver in 2024.

Okay, thank you for following up on that. I'd like to note the promise of autonomous vehicles is one I truly believe in. Over 4,300 Californians lost their lives to traffic collisions in 2021. Developing technology that can drive better than humans is imperative to saving tens of thousands of lives. At the same time, I'm concerned that DMV has not done an adequate job in regulating AV's for small vehicles. The potential carnage that can be caused by an 80,000-pound truck is alarming.

Our constituents expect that its government will do everything it can to keep people safe. Yet 68% of Americans are afraid of autonomous vehicles. I believe we, as a Legislature, should require a human safety operator in an automated training truck until autonomous vehicles companies and the regulators have instilled confidence in these vehicles' ability to operate safer than a human operator. And with that, I'll support the Bill today. We have a motion on the floor by Papan, second by Carrillo.

Would you like to close before I have the secretary call the roll.

Quick like. I want to thank you all for thoughtful discussion. Many of you have talked to me along the way. This is a complex issue, and because autonomous trucking holds promise, however, if it's deployed poorly in California, it will cost us lives while ignoring the interest of 500,000 California expert workers. This ban, let's make it clear, does not ban autonomous trucks. It does ask for that a human safety operator be present to monitor the technology as it is tested and deployed to respond to emergencies.

I just want to make a quick comment on the supply chain. Studies by MIT have shown that there is not a trucker shortage, but there is a chronic underutilization of American truck drivers. For example, there are many truck drivers who joined the workforce to help alleviate the supply chain crisis. However, today are struggling to make ends meet because they cannot find work that pays them enough to cover their costs.

Truck driving is one of the most common jobs, and this Bill helps the transition to that workforce. I want to thank you all for considering our constituents. As we know, last year, as Assembly Member Davies commented on, she did a survey for in her district. Last year when we did AB 316, I just want to remind you, we had 105 aye votes in the Legislature last year. It had broad bipartisan support, and polling showed that 73% of California's agreed with our policy.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, could you call the roll?

AB 2286. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Communications and Conveyance.

10-1. We'll leave that open for other Members to add on.

Thank you very much and thank you to your Committee.

All right, with that, we will move on to item number 10. AB 3123. Jones Sawyer to the author at your convenience.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I present AB 3123, which seeks to ensure that ethics laws that govern elected officials statewide apply equally to Los Angeles Metro board of directors. With the recent passage of SB 1439, which amends the Levine act in 2023, California made clear that there should be a uniform ethics law governing all contract decisions by local and state officials, regardless of the composition of a board or Commission.

However, La Metro is still subject to a 30 year old law that imposes different standards on board Members regarding contract decisions in receipt of campaign contributions from contractors. For example, under the current law, board Members are prohibited from accepting contributions over $10, while the Levine act prohibits campaign contributions over 250s. These differing standards and requirements have made it difficult for La Metro to comply simply because board Members are subject to both the Levine act and the Hayden Bill in their roles as Metro Board Members.

As such, La Metro seeks to be consistent with all other officials in the state making contract decisions under the standards and guidance of the Levine act, which governs their primary elected positions. AB 3123 is a narrowly tailored Bill that will bring the Metro board into alignment with the Levine act by removing out of date language on gifts, honorarium travel and financial conflicts that contrast with current applicable state law and metro code of conduct.

This Bill also makes changes to Metro's lobbyist registration statute, alignment, reporting requirements, standards and prohibitions with similar agencies. Finally, AB 3123 codifies the specific authorities of Metro's Ethics Department and mandates its Independence. With me in support of this Bill is Madeline Moore, deputy Executive officer for Laylee Metro, and Paul Salas, chief ethics officer for La Metro.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Madeleine Moore. I am representing Los Angeles Metro government relations. Los Angeles Metro is the proud sponsor of AB 3123. I will now turn it over to LA Metro's chief ethics officer, Paul Solis, to provide comment.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Solis, Chief Ethics Officer, La Metro. La Metro is the third largest transportation system in the United States and has one of the largest capital construction and system expansion programs in the nation to prepare for the 2020 olympics and beyond. Currently, I advise the LA Metro board on issues related to state pay to play laws.

Metro is subject to two of these laws, one in the Public Utilities Code or the PUC, that applies exclusively to Metro and one in the government code known as the Levine act that applies statewide. The Metro specific PUC law employs different terms, language, dollar thresholds and time periods in the Levene actual importantly, the Levine act has ample interpretive guidance issued by the California Fair Political Practices Commission and courts, while the PUC law has virtually none. This creates issues with compliance and is frankly very confusing.

It also creates liability and risk for Metro. The current sponsored amendments would allow the Levine act to govern the Metro board's pay to play responsibilities consistent with all other local agencies in the state and the intent of this Legislature in 2023. There are additional amendments I want to briefly explain.

First, the Bill would make amendments to Metro's lobbyist registration statute, keeping it consistent with all other jurisdictions in the State of California and the City of La. Next, the Bill would remove out of date language in the board's code of conduct that contrasts with current applicable state law and Metro's administrative codes. The Bill would also enact changes and additions that exist in peer agency codes. Finally, this Bill strengthens Metro's ethics Department by specifying its authority and relationship with the board and agency.

It also adds a two thirds vote requirement, instead of a simple majority for the board to fire the ethics officer, the same as Metro's Inspector General that 's currently codified in state law. In conclusion, Metro is simply seeking to implement a clear system where board Members, employees, lobbyists and contractors can all have confidence they're knowledgeable and compliant with important ethics laws and rules. Thus, Metro supports AB 3123. Thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee.

Thank you. Moving on to public testimony and support. Looking for me too? Name, position and organization. Are there any? Seeing none. Are there any testimony in opposition or me too? A short comment. Seeing none. Moving it back to Members for any questions, comments or concerns. Seeing none, there is a motion. Okay. All right. So as the author noted, this Bill amends and updates the code of conduct and lobbying rules for La Metro.

Most local agencies adopt their own code of conduct and lobbying rules at the local level, allowing for public input. However, La Metro established theirs in state statute. Therefore, it will be important for you to ensure that all Members of the La County delegations are in support of the content of this Bill as it moves forward. I will be supporting this Bill today. There's a motion on the floor by Berman, seconded by Carrillo. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

There we go. Madam Secretary, please call the roll

[Roll Call]

82 will leave the roll open for Members to add on.

Okay, thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members.

All right, moving on to item number seven. AB 20815. Petrie Norris, author, at your convenience.

Hello. Okay. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Pleased to be here to present AB 2815 which will help California modernize our existing EV charging station network. I want to thank the Chair and Committee staff for your work on this bill, and I will be accepting the Committee amendments. California has led the nation when it comes to the transition from combustion vehicles to zero-emission vehicles.

Today, California has approximately 94,000 charging stations. We need to achieve truly astronomical growth over the course of the next 10 years to achieve our climate goals. It's estimated that we are going to need 2.1 million charging stations by 2035. AB 2815 aims to be part of that solution by directing the CEC to allocate a portion of existing funds to modernize legacy charging stations that are at least five years old.

And I want to clarify, because I've had some good conversation with Committee Members, it is not my intention that this will be a way for private companies to double dip. So what we will be doing is taking some clarifying amendments in prior to the next Committee to clarify that if you are a private company who received state funding in order to install your station, you are not eligible then for this additional station state funding for repair and replacement.

And while, as I said, the bill is currently silent on that point, we'll be clarifying that before the next Committee. So with that, pleased to be joined today by Megan Mekelburg from the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, who will provide additional testimony.

Hi there, Chair and Members. Thank you very much for having me and thank you to the Assemblymember for authoring AB 2815. My name is Megan Mekelburg and I represent the Electric Vehicle Charging Association.

Founded in 2015, EVCA is a not-for-profit organization of 22 leading companies that design, manufacture, install, operate and maintain EV charging software, hardware and more. EVCA provides a voice for the industry to educate and partner with policymakers on critical policies to help the market scale and achieve California's EV charging goals. The Association is a proud sponsor of AB 2815 which will support the modernization of inoperable EV chargers that are in needs of repair or replacement.

Since the introduction of the mass market, California has been, as was stated, an unequivocal leader when it comes to EV charging. Over the last decade into the electric vehicle transition, many public EV chargers are nearing the end of their useful life. At the same time, EV charging technology has advanced rapidly in recent years and many legacy chargers do not have the same charging performance that EV drivers have come to expect from newer, modern charging equipment.

Additionally, the Federal Government and the state have instituted a number of new regulations in recent years, including standards for payment, electricity delivery, reliability, connectors, and more. AB 2815 represents an opportunity to incentivize the repair and replacement of existing infrastructure to meet today's standards, which will increase the number of operational chargers and enhance reliability of the existing fleet of infrastructure.

By incentivizing the replacement and repair of the inoperable charging stations, recipient owners and operators will be more inclined to fix their station and will be subject to the newest standards, including new reliability and uptime standards being developed by the Energy Commission. Importantly, any recipients of those funds would be required to contribute alongside the state's investment, and at least 50% of the funding must go to disadvantaged or low-income communities.

For those reasons, EVCA is proud to sponsor AB 20815 and respectfully ask for your support today.

Thank you. Looking to members of the public who would like to provide testimony in a me-too fashion, name, position, and organization.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support

Michelle Canales on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Chris Zgraggen on behalf of ChargePoint in support.

Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy in support.

Margie Lie, Samson Advisors on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association in strong support.

Thank you. Moving on to any testimony, any witnesses in opposition? I don't think there were any on file. Not seeing anyone for short opposition. Seeing none. Moving to Members of the Committee if there was any questions or concerns. Carillo?

No, no questions or concerns. I want to thank the author for bringing this measure again, and thank you for including that 50% of those funds will go to disadvantaged communities like the ones that I represent. Thank you for doing that. And I guess the challenge is going to be to make sure that those funds are available for those communities, and I'm hopeful that that will be the case. Thank you.

All right with that, thank you for bringing this bill forward, working with the Committee on the amendments and addressing additional concerns brought forth by Members of this Committee. EV charging has advanced leaps and bounds in the last few years and many broken chargers are several generations old. This bill will help bring old chargers back to life and up to date with current performance standards. However, the state has to prioritize building many more new chargers to reach our climate goals.

These funds will keep the state's charging infrastructure afloat until more chargers are built. Station owners and operators should acknowledge and accept their responsibility to maintain existing chargers. With that, I will be supporting this bill today. There's been a motion by Davies, seconded by Aguiar-Curry. Would you like to close?

I will just close by respectfully requesting your aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

AB 2815 is do pass to the Committee on Natural Resources.

[Roll Call]

All right, 11. We'll wait for any Members. We'll leave the roll open for any Members to add on.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members.

All right, with that, we're moving on to item number eight. AB 3061 Haney.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm here today to present AB 3061, which is the Self-Driving Cars Safety Act. AB 3061 promotes transparency and accountability in the testing and deployment of self-driving cars, also known as autonomous vehicles, by making incident-related data more accessible to the public. Our state is a national leader in self-driving car technology, offering a real-world testing ground for this evolving technology.

However, recent incidents involving self driving cars, including collisions, traffic disruptions and pedestrian injuries, have raised public safety concerns. This bill enacts statutory minimum requirements for data collection regarding the testing and deployment of AVs. This legislation is designed to supplement current regulation and promote transparency in AV operations. The DMV current data collection practices lack consistency with federal requirements. Existing regulations haven't been updated since 2018.

Despite advancements in AB Technology and a shift towards commercial deployment, particularly in the ride-hailing industry, there is strong public interest in AV data transparency and safety, emphasizing the need for legislative action to address these concerns. With this Bill, AB 3061 will enact these statutory minimum for data collection during both testing and deployment phases of AVs. The bill supplements existing regulations overseen by the DMV and Public Utilities Commission to ensure that the AB companies uphold safety standards on public roads.

It addresses discrepancies between state and federal data reporting requirements, aligning state regulations with those overseen by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The bill will mandate AB companies to report detailed data on incidents mirroring federal guidelines. This bill promotes public confidence in the development and deployment of ABs through transparency and will empower users with more information, allowing them to make more informed choices about AB technology.

I do want to note that we are taking several amendments and I want to thank the Chair and your staff and folks from the industry who have worked with us on these amendments. I was told to note these here, so I know that we're taking them, I think, in the next Committee. But just so everyone is aware, we are deleting sex assault and harassment in response to industry flag that is already covered by CPUC.

Clearer timelines of when to report which adopts the NHTCA time SA timelines deletion of the cause of collision language in response to industry concerns revision of vehicle performance data in the collision section to use the language NHTSA uses with the addition of whether the technology was engaged penalty provision revised from mandatory to discretionary and the suspension or revocation of permits changed from mandatory to discretionary.

We have a very broad coalition of folks who are supporting this bill, and it will support, I think, the transparency and consumer confidence that we need when it comes to AVs. Here to testify today in support of the bill are the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for having me. My name is Quentin Booker. Excuse me? My name is Quentin Booker.

I'm a sanitation truck driver and a proud Member of the Teamsters Local 350. I'm here today to support the Assembly Bill 3061 because it's time for we pass common sense AB legislation to ensure public transparency and privacy in data reporting requirements. I've been a professional driver for over 20 years. When I'm behind the wheel of a truck, above all, I prioritize safety and hope that other drivers around me are doing the same.

I have had robo taxis block my sanitation truck to prevent me from doing my job in a timely manner, cleaning the streets. I have witnessed collisions, traffic pileups of these robotaxis not operating correctly. It's not just an inconvenience, it's an impediment to the commercial drivers like me who are servicing in the role that are essential for our community. Despite the fact that these autonomous vehicles are rapidly being deployed on our roads, there are glaring loopholes in the data collected at the state level.

At the time, AV companies face almost no accountability for their vehicle malfunctions for either the regulatory agencies under California law. Part of this is because the state is not collecting enough data on the AVs deployment, that is has the authority. California DMV has not consistently tracked at-fault data for collisions involving autonomous vehicles for several years, and the CPUC continues to push through approved explosion of robo taxis onto our roads despite the ongoing safety accident harming pedestrians and drivers. It is time. Excuse me. At the same time, our state regulatory choose a reply on data.

We'll have to have you wrap up.

Thank you and I urge you the Assembly Transportation to complete the pass upon this law. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members. Thank you for having me. I am Jean Paul Velez with the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. For more than a decade, San Francisco has developed a wealth of experience from collaborating with some of the most innovative companies in the world to make travel in San Francisco safer, healthier, and easier for all. This has also been our approach with AV companies.

We believe that they have great potential, particularly for improving road safety. But in order for them to realize that potential common sense improvements to existing laws and regulations are urgently needed, such as closing critical gaps in reporting, transparency, and accountability. AB 3061 addresses these gaps. For example, currently AB companies are only required to submit data reports to the DMV on their testing permits and not on their deployment permits, which is when they offer rights to passengers for a fare and scale operations.

Moreover, only a limited amount of the data that is reported to regulators is made available to the public, with significant reductions. As a result, I cannot report to you here today very basic information like how many AVs are operating in San Francisco, where the most common traffic violations or how often are they involved in crashes or obstructing emergency response activities. It is imperative that this basic information is shared with the public transparently.

Especially at this early stage when public acceptance and trust are so mixed following a series of high-profile hazards and crashes, industry regulators and local governments need to collaborate closely to maximize the benefits of AVs and to prevent unintended negative impacts. Boosting transparency in the manner that AB 3061 proposes will be a foundational step in that direction. We thank Assemblymember Haney for his leadership authoring this bill, and thank you all for your time. And yeah, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. With that, we'll move on to public testimony. Those and a me too stance, name, position, and organization.

Good afternoon, my name is Nancy Drabble. I'm the CEO of Consumer Attorneys of California and we are very proud to co-sponsor this bill and we urge your yes vote.

Good afternoon. Matt Broad on behalf of the Teamsters who are co-sponsors in this bill as well as CSEA and ATU and support. Thank you.

Ivan Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Mike Fry 2785 Local Teamster from San Francisco in strong support.

Paul Wallace, Teamsters Local 2785 business agent, in support

Ryan Snow, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, in support.

Good afternoon. DK Lee from Teamsters 439. We support.

Trish Suzuki, Teamsters Joint Council 7, in support.

Cole Scandaglia, Headquarters of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in support.

Chris Garlick, Local 431, Fresno, California, in support.

Renee Wilson, Teamsters Local 431 from Fresno, California, in support.

James Sandoval, International Vice President of SMART Transportation, on behalf of the Smart TD California State Legislative Board and Smart Executive Board in full support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Corey Hallman, Teamsters Local 856 here in support.

Christopher Sanchez, with the Mesa Verde Group representing the Consumer Federation of California, who are proud to be a co-sponsor.

Nathaniel Abrego, Smart TD Local 0023 and bus operator in Santa Cruz, in support.

Monica Sandoval, a taxpayer and a concerned mother, in support.

Florence Kosunogi, Teamsters 6665 in San Francisco in support.

Joe Matakal, Teamsters Local 665, in support.

Mark Malouf, business agent with Teamsters Local 665 in strong support.

Good afternoon. Sean Katz, I am a campus safety with Newport Mesa, and I am also in the California School Employees Association Legislative Committee and in support.

My name is Mario Bojorquez, a transportation assistant with the Vista Unified School District. I'm also a member of CSEA's legislative Committee, and I strongly support this bill.

Good afternoon. Richard Alvarez, from the Paris Elementary School District as health technician, in strong support of this bill, and I'm with the CSEA Legislative Committee as well.

Andrea Varney, CSEA Legislative Committee I work for Santa Clara Community College School District, and I'm in support of this bill.

Good afternoon. Veronica Pena, child development teacher. I work with the Al Monte City School District, also part of the CSEA Pace Committee and support this bill.

Good afternoon. Meb Steiner, special education paraeducator in Palo Alto Unified, and I am also on the CSEA Legislative Committee and strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Valerie Vargas. I'm with the CSEA Pace Committee and I support this bill.

Hi, Brittany Clark, high school library media Clerk and Newman Crows Landing Unified and Member of CSEA's legislative Committee, in support.

Good afternoon. Hector Munoz, I am a technology services support technician for the Yuba County Office of Education, and I'm also on CSEA's Legislative Committee in strong support.

Good afternoon. My name is David Kong. I'm a retired technology technician for the Martin County Office Education and also a member of the CSEA Political Action Committee. I'm strongly in support.

Reginald Robinson, Rolling Unified School District driver trainer, CSEA Legislative Committee, and I'm in strong support at this meeting.

Hello, my name is Cheryl McDonald. I'm from CSEA representing the Legislative Committee, and I'm in support.

Hi, I'm Katie McDonald I'm a paraeducator for Birmingham High School District and also a Political Ections Committee for CSEA. And I'm in support of this bill.

Hi, I'm Star Avila, a CSEA Pace Committee Member, and I support this bill.

Hi, I'm Edith Williams from Kern High School District. I'm on the legislative Committee. I'm in support of this bill.

Hello, my name is Steve Lopez. I'm an electronics technician at Garvey Elementary School District. I'm also the CSEA legislative Committee Chairperson. I am in support of this bill.

Good afternoon, I'm John Sullivan. I'm an elementary day custodian from the La Mesa Spring Valley School District and the Chairperson for CSEA's Political Action Committee and I support this bill.

Good afternoon, I'm Brad Freeland. I am a lead custodian with Windsor Unified School District. I'm also on the Pace Committee and I'm in support of this bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Troy Hall. I'm a paraeducator from the Newport Mesa Unified School District. I am in support of this bill. I'm also with the pace Committee.

Good afternoon. My name is Luis Diaz, secretary, treasurer, principal officer, Teamsters Local 948 from Visalia and Modesto. And we're in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Right. Thank you. Moving on to opposition witnesses in the opposed position. At your convenience.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Peter Larro Munozin. I'm representing the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a business association with more than 200 member companies in the innovation economy. My counterpart will address the specifics of our collective opposition to the bill. But I wanted to speak more broadly about the importance of autonomous vehicles to California and our economy. Any discussion of the dollars and cents of a policy should be grounded in quantitative research.

And to that end, the Leadership Group recently commissioned a study in conjunction with Victoria University to study the macroeconomic and labor impacts of a discrete segment of the autonomous vehicle industry, heavy-duty trucking. And while the findings are therefore limited to that area they are nonetheless instructive to the potential economic gains that accrue with autonomous vehicles as a whole.

And the report found that the deployment of this type of autonomous vehicle would increase California's economy by $6.5 to $8.0 billion annually with higher gains accruing with earlier adoption. Moreover, greater adoption of AVs would lead to a net increase of 2400 jobs both among short-haul drivers as well as those employed to monitor, service, and repair autonomous trucks and vehicles and those in ancillary service jobs, including hospitality and food service. Our state cannot thrive without investment in emerging and innovative technologies.

This bill creates a set of restrictions and makes it more difficult to conduct business and engage in innovation that is important to our global reputation as the lead for technology. Further, we can no longer afford to let regions like Arizona, Florida, and Texas usurp our innovation lead and siphon our workers. Thank you.

Chair Wilson. My name is Ariel Wolf. On behalf of the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, thanks again for giving me the opportunity here to testify today. You're in opposition to AB 3061.

We've had a chance to meet with the author and staff, and we understand the current version of the bill is planning to be amended, and so we look forward to reviewing those amendments. I want to just focus on a couple of points here today. Let me start with a reminder that nearly 41,000 people died in traffic crashes last year. And in recent years we've seen increases in fatalities involving large trucks, pedestrians, motorcyclists, and drivers over 65 years old.

But one important note, and I think it's becoming an inconvenient fact here, but it has to be stated, not a single one of these fatalities involved an autonomous vehicle. Not a single one. In fact, AVs have built a strong safety record over more than a dozen years. They've driven nearly 70 million miles on US roads, and have done so under multiple legal frameworks that provide the public with access to data. The industry is committed to transparency.

Notably, AB companies must report crash data to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under its standing general order. This includes reporting minor incidents and those caused by human drivers. The details are made public on NHTSA's website for everyone to see. Also, as has been noted, the DMV collects crash data and disengagement data, and the CPUC also collects data on autonomous ride health services. So we'll look at the amendments as I noted.

But the bill as written would add another reporting structure with vague terms as currently written, that would create confusion and impose unnecessary burdens on companies that are already providing this information to the public. And then lastly on the bill would create, or would have created, a reporting process that gives any ,ember of the public, any member of the public the power to force the DMV.

I guess in this shifting to the discretion for the DMV to suspend the AV company's permit based on a report, and that would be pending an investigation into whether a report is even credible. So that would happen. So we're concerned about that and we hope to be able to continue to work with the author on the language in its current form. However, we would respectfully encourage the Committee to vote against AB 3061. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving to public testimony, me too comments, those that are noting name, position, and organization.

Madam Chair, Members Tim Taylor, representing the National Federation of Independent Business and the Cal Asian Chamber, in opposition. Thank you.

Kurt Augustine, Senior Director of government affairs for the alliance for Automotive Innovation. We oppose the bill but do look forward to reviewing the amendments. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Phil Vermeulen, representing the coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran businesses and the Flasher Barricade Association in opposition to the measure. Thank you.

Robert Singleton with Chamber of Progress, also respectfully opposed, but do appreciate the amendments to make the suspension process discretionary or mandatory.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Mike Williams here on behalf of the California Delivery Association, respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon Chair and Members, Jose Torres with Technet, respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Michael Saragosa, on behalf of Latin Business Association, in opposition, thank you.

Good afternoon. Doug Kessler, on behalf of the Central Valley Yemen Society, we proposed to the bill.

Jessie Gonzalez with the Si Se Puede organization out of Central Valley, and we oppose this bill.

Good afternoon. Marcus Gomez, small business owner and Vice Chair of the California Hispanic Chamber, with 125 chamber members throughout California, strongly opposed. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Alex Torres Brownstein, on behalf of the Bay Area Council, in opposition.

Thank you. Moving to Members of the Committee who have any questions, concerns, comments. Berman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think my comments are kind of for this bill and for the earlier bill from our colleague that it was, it's been mentioned a couple of times that 4200 people in California have died every year from vehicle accidents. That's 350 a month. That's about 80 a week. That's 12 people a day. And I think the numbers are so big that we've gotten desensitized to it as a society, and I'd gotten desensitized to it as a society.

And then about 15 months ago, two high school friends of mine were killed in a car accident, and their little girls were in the backseat and survived. And to be clear, I don't think autonomous vehicle technology would have saved them. This was an accident of two people who were being investigated for street racing. So I don't think AVs anytime soon would change that.

But I saw so clearly and personally the impact that this has, the impact that every one of those deaths that we've become desensitized to has on families, on loved ones, on communities. That's just devastating. And so that's why I am a supporter of AV technology, and I'm excited by the potential of AV technology. The jobs are great, although I have significant concerns about the impact that it will also have on jobs.

And I've talked to the industry a lot about the need to do more to address that. But it's the safety issues, it's the lives that can be saved that matter the most to me. And so I am very wary of bills that I worry are really going to stifle the technology and stifle the ability to save those lives as quickly as possible. I don't think this bill is intended to do that.

And I've had good conversations with the author, and I've had good conversations with the supporters of the bill. And I know that their intention with this bill, that I agree with their intentions of this bill, which is data transparency, making sure that companies are doing the right thing to make sure that government gets the information about what's happening on the streets and so that the public can get comfort with this new scary technology that a lot of people rightfully have anxiety about.

I think the amendments that are being taken do a good job of kind of getting the bill in a better direction in terms of taking out kind of parts of the bill that I think would unnecessarily impact industry. I'm not quite there yet, and so I'm going to lay off today, but I do really hope to support this bill soon. And I want to encourage industry to keep on working with the author on these issues.

The reality is, and I've said this to industry a lot over the past eight years, is one bad actor is going to ruin the whole thing. And that's what happened with a company last year and an incident in San Francisco. And so this is the reaction to that. It's a reasonable one to want to get more data, want to get more transparency, you want to make sure that companies are reporting when negative incidents happen, whether it's during the testing phase or after the testing phase.

So I support a lot of the concepts of this bill. I look forward to hopefully being able to support the bill soon, but I'm not comfortable supporting it today. Thanks.

All right. Hoover.

Yeah, I just want to align myself with the comments of my colleague. I think these bills are really tough because we obviously, I think all of us want our roads to be safer. My own mother's been involved in two major accidents in her life where someone ran a stop sign. In one case, the car actually rolled suffered substantial injuries. I happened to be in the car for one of those as a child. But I think a lot of us are excited about AV technology.

Obviously a lot of bugs that need to be worked through. But the reality is that we want our roads to be safer. And so I do appreciate the author for your continuing to work on this bill and continuing to work with the opposition. I mean, do you feel that AV technology does have that potential to make the road safer?

Yes, you know, what I would say about this bill is whether or not you support AV technology and you think it's the greatest thing ever, or you have concerns and are opposed to it, I think this is something that we should be doing and you should get behind the reporting. Right now that happens to the Federal Government makes a lot of sense, but we don't have access to it as a state when we are doing the large amount of regulation.

So what we're asking is simply to have a level of transparency that's being provided to the Federal Government. Mirroring that with what is available to us, though, you know, the folks who are actually managing our roads, our city and county, don't have access to this type of data and information that they can use to keep everyone safe, including people who are now engaged in driving the sanitation trucks or the people who are driving on the roads.

And they're coming across regularly now deployed vehicles that don't have a driver in it. Our cities and counties are responsible for making sure that everyone in that situation is safe. So also, and I think everyone can acknowledge this, there are still some serious trust issues that the public has, that our regulators have, that elected officials have.

And if we are going to get to the point where there's enough trust in this building and among regulators, among local agencies, among the public, we're going to have to lean much more heavily into transparency and get people to a place where they're much more broadly supportive in the ways that you hope that they can be. So I appreciate the comments about the potential for AVs and what they can provide with safety.

And for that reason, I would hope that we can get behind transparency and building trust and building a reality where they actually can provide that for all of our residents and for our roads. And I think we're not there yet, as you recognize, and this bill will help us get there.

Appreciate that. I think, you know, we obviously are. We have a process in place. One of the companies mentioned had their permit pulled at one point.

I guess my fear is that if we pass this legislation, at least in its current form. And again, I'm willing to keep looking at it and keep staying up to date with the amendments. But if we pass this legislation as is, my fear is that we're going to be delaying the implementation of a technology and the adoption of a technology that has the potential to save lives.

And so, you know, and it is somewhat telling to me that the absence of those supporting this legislation, there are no public safety groups supporting this information. There's no law enforcement groups supporting this legislation. And so it is, you know, to me, I think we have to strike the right balance as a Legislature, I'm not sure that this bill strikes that balance yet. We'll continue to keep an eye on it, but won't be able to support it today. Thank you.

Vice Chair Davies.

Thank you. I want to thank you so much for taking the amendments. Myself and the office had some concerns today, and a lot of it was the mandated fines, as well as basically stopping the ability of the company to continue working. So putting that under discretion instead of making it mandate. I greatly appreciate it.

I know that I'll be seeing this in CNC, so I'm going to go ahead and support this, but with the right that if I don't see these amendments in writing, that I may change my vote. Thank you.

I commit to you that you will see them and they will happen. And I appreciate the support on that and appreciate the comments and am grateful for the work that was done on the amendments, which I'm glad we're able to address some of the concerns that folks had.

All right, not seeing any more members wishing to comment. It's been moved. I'll take you as a second. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. Autonomous vehicles have the potential to significantly reduce roadway fatalities and completely reshape the way we travel. At the same time, we owe the public some surety that we are not permitting dangerous technology to be tested on public roads without any oversight. Unfortunately, DMV regulations only require crash data to be reported to them while a vehicle is in the testing phase.

DMV has granted deployment permits to autonomous vehicles that clearly still have issues, as we've all witnessed with repeated incidents in San Francisco. DMV cannot and should not be relying on press stories alone to monitor crashes involving autonomous vehicles. I appreciate your commitment to work with the autonomous vehicle industry on removing items from the bill that are either vague or unfair as this bill moves forward. Please continue to work with the industry as you have with Committee staff. I will be supporting your bill today.

There's a motion on the floor by Aguiar-Curry and seconded by Lowenthal. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you. Absolutely.

With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 3061. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Communications and Conveyance. [Roll Call]

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, let me just thank you and the Committee for your help on the bill. Also, we commit to continue to work with CARB to find the right balance on the bill. Today I'm presenting AB 2401, which is codifying clean cars for all into state law. It also codifies the recently expanded program plus requires data collection to allow for more targeted outreach to more lower income Californians.

And then lastly, we want to ask CARB to look at increasing incentives to drivers who are driving the oldest cars and driving the largest distances. With that, I have two. We have one witness, Mr. Roman Partida with Greenlining Institute. And also Tom Knox is here, Executive Director of Valley CAN to answer any questions. So, Mr. Partida.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Roman Partida-Lopez, senior legal counsel for transportation equity at the Greenlining Institute and co-sponsors of 2401. We're an advocacy organization based in Oakland, California, focused on driving investments and opportunities into formerly redlined communities. The state recently surpassed the 1.5 million EV mark and is on the path to meet the 5 million EVs by 2035.

However, the majority of these vehicles and incentives have yet to reach those that seek to benefit the most from these limited state resources. Low income and disadvantaged communities continue to face significant barriers to EV adoption and continue to bear the brunt of air pollution. A recent report co-authored by Union of Concerned Scientists found that pre 2004 vehicles emit almost three times as much smog forming NOx pollution as do all 2004 and later vehicles combined.

Even though older passenger vehicles make up only 19% of those in the state and 12% of miles driven, they are responsible for 73% of all NOx from passenger vehicles. Kultura report found that in California, the top 20% of drivers, in terms of their gasoline use, are using 55% of the gasoline. The existing budget deficit has put more pressure on making sure that we maximize the benefits provided by state resources. We can do this by being more intentional and targeted on who we reach with these incentives.

This is why it's imperative that we modernize this program via 2401. Even though clean cars for all already targets lower income households in DAC zip codes, this bill updates and improves the guidelines by having car prioritize low income households and live within disadvantaged community census tracts that drive a pre 2004 or 20 year old vehicle and drive long distances. This will ensure that we don't leave any community behind and that we provide the much needed air quality and economic benefits. Greenlining along with our partners, UCS Kultura, Coalition for Clean Air, and Valley CAN, respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Moving on to public testimony. Me too. Name, position, and organization.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of Kultura. Proud and enthusiastic co-sponsor.

Erica Romero on behalf of Communities Firm, Better Environment, Rokulta Energy, and Green Latinos in strong support.

Sophia Aficova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Mark Vukovich on behalf of Streets for All in support.

Santiago Rodriguez with California Environmental Voters in support.

Michelle Canela, Union of Concerned Scientists, proud co-sponsor in support.

Catherine Borg with Southern California Edison in support.

Margie Lie, Samson Advisors on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association in strong support.

Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition in support.

Savannah Jorgensen, Lutheran Office of Public Policy California in support.

All right, I don't see any opposition on file, but just to confirm, are there any members, are any witnesses in opposition to testify? Seeing none. Are there any members of the public who would like to offer any short testimony? Seeing none. Moving to Committee to see if there's any questions, concerns, or comments. Chair Davies.

I just want to say thank you so much for bringing this forward, and I would love to be a co-author.

Happy to add you. Wonderful.

It's already done. This bill provides increased incentives to people in disadvantaged and low income communities who drive the farthest distances with the oldest, most polluting vehicles, as was stated. They also stand to benefit the most from EV adoption, but often have the least resources to do so. Thank you for working with the Committee to address concerns around increased paperwork and administrative burden on potential candidates to qualify for the means based incentives.

Recognizing that CARB is in the process of developing the statewide program, I appreciate your willingness to continue discussions with them about implementation as the bill moves forward. I will be supporting this bill today. We have a motion on the floor by Davies, Chair Davies, and a second by Hoover. Would you like to close?

Just respect for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary.

AB 2401, do pass to the Committee on Natural Resources. [Roll Call]

All right, that's 13 and we'll leave the roll open for Members who would like to add on. With that, we're moving to item 13, AB 2583 Berman. At your convenience.

Hey, Wallis and Davies. Got that right that time, right?

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. I would like to begin by thanking the Chair and your Committee staff for working with my office on amendments early on to get the bill to the place it is today. I've heard from too many parents concerned about close calls in front of schools or tragically, children being hit by cars and seriously injured or even killed.

In fact, an eight-year-old boy was hit and killed by a driver while walking in a school zone crosswalk to his elementary school in my district in 2022. Jacob was one of far too many students killed or injured just trying to get to school. I've seen firsthand the enduring grief that an accident like this leaves with a community. I was shocked to learn that traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for school-age children in California. Let me say that again.

Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for school-aged children in California. School zones should be safe havens for all Californians. That's why I'm authoring AB 2583 to update our policies to advance school zone safety, putting kids' and adults' well-being first. School zone signs in California lower the speed limit when children are present, which is a standard--hold on one second. Yeah, sorry. School zone signs in California lower the speed limit with, in quotes, 'when children are present.'

That's what the sign says, which is a standard that is difficult for drivers to know how to comply with, difficult to enforce, and does not appropriately protect parents, caregivers, teachers, or school employees. Drivers shouldn't have to ask themselves whether someone looks like a child to to start slowing down. That's why only six other states mandate the use of, quote, 'when children are present' language. AB 2583 aligns California with the majority of other states, including New York, Texas, Oregon, and Michigan by utilizing set timeframes.

With this change to timeframes for the school zone speed limit, we'll achieve higher compliance with the law, which is critically important for student safety. AB 2583, the Safer School Zones Act, will also lower school zone speed limits to 20 miles per hour or less. Of the 39 states that set a maximum school zone speed by statute, California is one of just nine states in the country with a school zone speed limit greater than 20 miles per hour.

I'm so proud to have the California Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics supporting this bill, as well as many other great organizations. AB 2583 will prioritize the safety of every child walking and biking to school. I'm committed to continuing to work with stakeholders on the timeline for the bill's implementation, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And with me today are Marc Vukcevich, Director of State Policy with Streets For All, and Gloria Huerta, a bus driver and custodian from the Cutler-Orosi Joint Unified School District in Fresno.

Good afternoon, Committee. My name is Marc Vukcevich, Director of State Policy for Streets For All, proud sponsor of the bill, and I'm here today because of the simple fact that the Assembly Member laid out: traffic violence is the number one cause of death for California school-aged children; more than disease, more than guns, more than drowning, it's getting hit by a car. And for context, the societal cost of car crashes is more than the cost of wildfires. It's more than the cost of cancer.

Pedestrian deaths in this country have shot up 77 percent since 2010, and it's even worse in California, and that fact I mentioned earlier, traffic violence is actually the number one cause of death for all people from the age of five to 44 years old. And that fact aligns with our intent. Schools are community hubs where children, parents, crossing guards, teachers, grandparents all coexist in an effort to educate our young people.

But one of the problems with the current schema is it relies on, quote, 'when children are present.' That standard is vague. CHP doesn't like the standard. There are local police officers--if you interview the same department, every different police officer will have a different answer of what it means. This leads to an uncompliable mess. It also doesn't protect people like 72-year-old Poncho Rios, who died in Dinuba.

He died while getting hit by a car when he pushed his daughter out of the way to save her--granddaughter out of the way to save her. So what we're proposing is a time-based standard and lowering the school zone's speed limit. Texas and Nevada recently changed this because it led to a higher compliance within the school zone. You will note that our bill is not a local control bill. It is a state mandate.

But I want you, everyone to know, that we see this as an essential piece. By creating a standard that is the same from the state in every single school zone, we are not relying on people to look at signage or whether there is a child there or not. We're trying to establish a new norm at a state level to save lives from whether you're in Shasta County to San Diego County that you know that before and after school you need to slow down. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Gloria Huerta, and I am a classified school employee and more specifically a bus driver custodian with the Cutler-Orosi Joint Unified School District in Tulare County. Classified employees are the support staff who keep our schools running and keep our students safe, but safety begins before our kids even set foot on campus.

Students, parents, and staff come and go to school every day, and classified employees put themselves in the middle of a crosswalk to help ensure all students can cross the street safely. But the current speed limit of 25 miles per hour is too fast when approaching or passing a school and leaving it up to the drivers to determine if children are present is too subjective. By the time someone driving at 25 miles per hour can see a small child, it's too late for them to stop.

Reducing the speed limit to at least 20 miles per hour with the options for cities to lower it to 15 miles per hour, clearly defining the hours it is in effect, and establishing a safe perimeter around a school will create a much safer environment for our students, parents, and school staff. Just this year, I received like three text messages from our school site of three separate accidents: two of two children, elementary students that got hit by a car, and one of a high school student crossing on the crosswalk in front of our schools. That is why California's classified employees are asking you to support AB 2583. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving to members of the public who would like to offer #MeToo comments: name, position, and organization.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jeanie Ward-Waller, representing CalBike in support of the bill.

Xong Lor with the California School Employees Association, also in support of the bill.

Hi. My name is David Kong. I'm a retired technology technician for the Monteray County Office of Education, also a member of the CSEA PACE Committee. I'm also a school board member in a small town called Greenfield. I strongly support this bill.

I'm Kayla McDonald. I'm a paraeducator for Barrington High School District and a mother of a soon to be TK, and I support this bill.

My name is Cheryl McDonald. I am with CSEA Ed Legislative Committee and a member of Burbank Unified School District, and I am in support of this bill.

Brad Freeland, still a lead custodian from Windsor Unified School District. My school has 1,300 students, and I'm out there in the crosswalk every day, and it's scary, so I strongly support this bill.

Meb Steiner, special education paraeducator in Palo Alto Unified School District, also on the Legislative Committee of CSEA, parent, grandparent, and I am very, very proud to support this bill. Strongly support it.

Hi. I'm Starr Avila. I'm part of the PACE Committee for CSEA, and I strongly support this bill.

Richard Alvarez with the Perris Elementary School District, CSEA's Legislative Committee member, strongly support this bill.

Troy Hall, paraeducator, Newport-Mesa Unified School District, also member participant of PACE Committee, strongly supporting this bill.

Good afternoon. Hector Muñoz, technology support technician from the Yuba County Office of Education. I'm also on CSCA's Legislative Committee, strongly supporting this bill.

Good afternoon. I'm Sean Katz. I am on Campus Safety for Newport-Mesa Unified School District, and I'm also on the California School Employees Association Legislative Committee, and I'm strong support of this bill. Thank you.

My name is still Mario Bojorquez, and I'm a transportation assistant with the Vista Unified School District who works with amazing school bus drivers, and I strongly support this bill.

Andrea Varney, CSEA, Chapter 725. I'm with my sister here, Gloria, in supporting this bill. I saw a police officer as a sheriff, sitting--

You'll have to limit it just to--

Oh. Excuse me. Thank you, ma'am.

Your name, organization, and position.

Edith Williams, Kern High School District staff to secretary. I strongly support this bill. I have parents calling me every day for homework for students. Thank you.

Thank you. Limit it--

Good afternoon. My name is Veronica Peña. I am a child development teacher with El Monte City School District, also part of the PACE Committee, and I support this bill.

Hello. My name is Valerie Vargas. I'm with CSEA PACE Committee, and I also support this bill.

Brittney Clark, high school library media clerk for Orestimba High and Newman-Crows Landing Unified and proud member of CSEA's Legislative Committee, in support of this bill.

Reginald Robinson, Rowland Unified School District, driver, trainer, and I support this bill, and we are great.

Hi. My name is John Sullivan, CSEA PACE Committee, DACA study. I'm from La Mesa-Spring Valley, and I strongly support this bill.

Hello. My name is Steve Lopez. I'm an electronics technician for Garvey School District. I'm also the Legislative Committee chairperson for CSEA, and I am in support of this bill.

Thank you. All right, moving--I think there was no opposition. Oh, wait. No, there is. I just saw opposed unless amended bringing forward for testimony. Sorry about that.

There we go. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Jay Beeber, Executive Director of Safer Streets L.A., Member of Institute of Transportation Engineers. We regretfully have to oppose this bill as it's currently written. We agree with a number of the principles behind the bill, but unfortunately, the expansive nature of the hours of the school zones that are being proposed here, we believe will actually make school zones less safe.

And the reason is that those hours will cause school zones to be in effect when children are not likely to be present, and what we want to do with school zones is to make sure that the school zone is active when the children are congregating to the school, coming to the school.

One of the most comprehensive studies on school zone speed zones was conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute, which determined that the most effective time for school zones was approximately 30 minutes before the school starts and approximately 30 minutes after. Whether that's exactly the right time or not for California is certainly to be worked on.

But we believe that that three-hour period before and after is way too expansive and will actually teach drivers to ignore school zones as opposed to be aware of children in the school zone. We also agree with the author and the proponents of this bill that the vagueness of the 'when children are present' sign needs to be corrected. Their proposal is to have a static time on the sign. We believe that that actually doesn't solve the problem.

We believe that all school zones should be using the flashing beacons, which says school zone active when flashing. That's what we would like to see, and we would like to see that time tied specifically to the hours that are agreed upon for when the school zone should be active. It could also be used at times when the school--when it's not specifically a school day, but there's a major event at the school, but again, limited times before and after those events. So while we would love to continue working with the author, we cannot support the bill as it is currently written.

Thank you. Looking to public testimony who would like to offer #MeToo in opposition to the bill: name, organization, and position. Seeing none, I'm turning it over to Members of the Committee for questions, comments, and concerns. I see Lowenthal.

Yeah, this is actually directed to you, Mr. Beeber. I would like to ask you, identify yourself as representing Safe Streets L.A.

Safer Streets L.A.

Safer Streets L.A. Looking at your LinkedIn profile, it says that you're Director of Policy and Research for the National Motorists Association?

Yes, that's also one of my positions.

Okay. Are you representing the National Motorist Association?

I'm representing Safer Streets L.A. today.

Okay. Because I have concerns that the National Motorist Association has ongoing opposition to a national speed law to encourages members to challenge traffic tickets, to oppose red light cameras, to oppose automated speed limit enforcement, to oppose stop arm cameras on school buses, to operate a speed trap registry, to oppose checkpoints, and to oppose the use of breathalyzers.

If that's a question, yes. The National Motors Association, which I'm not here representing at the moment, does have opposition to a number of those things because we feel that there are other things that actually make roads safer than some of the things that you mentioned. For example, automated enforcement, red light cameras--

And I was going to note, that is off-topic, and so since he's not representing--

And I'm happy to discuss it with you off time as to exactly what the positions are and why we hold those positions. We believe that it's a question of safety, and we can disagree how you get to safety, but--

We'll limit it to the subject of the bill today.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. I have Hoover and Wallis.

Already ready. Thanks for the bill. Appreciate it. We'll be supporting today. Just curious if you have any data or have seen any evidence on--because my big only concern really is changing driver behavior, right, like drivers actually adjusting to it. Have any of these states had issues with that or--I don't know if there's any data out there about, you know, how are we going to teach drivers to kind of adjust to this change?

Yeah, I'm going to defer to my expert. I've got data not at my fingertips, but data definitely shows that states that have changed to specific time zones and especially states that have lowered the maximum speed limit from 25 to either 20 or 15 definitely reduces--not only does it reduce the number of accidents, it reduces the severity of the accidents, which is pretty logical. So there's definitely data. Defer to my expert.

Yes, Assembly Member, so probably the most successful state has been Nevada, which did this very recently, and they've seen a tremendous amount of success in that shift of both the lowering of school zone speed limit and the time-based standard, and Nevada being the kind of the state answer to your question, in terms of the research answer to your question, the NHTSA shows that lowering the posted speed limit reduces, and it's not proportional.

I don't want to give anyone the impression that by lowering 5 miles per hour, every driver is going to reduce 5 miles per hour, but even the speed that is reduced makes a substantial difference for safety. I also have a study from the Canadian Journal of Traffic Engineers, which it's in kilometers per hour, but just also reduced, that reduction also led to a 45 percent reduction in collisions as well. So everything we're doing is incredibly research-backed.

And that was what we worked with the Committee on in terms of making sure that we were interrogating the research and even interrogating the study that Mr. Beeber mentioned to make sure that what we were doing is applicable to California with a research backing.

All right.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That was actually my question, but I do want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I'd like to request to be added as a co-author, if that's okay. All right, thank you.

Ting?

Yeah, just quick, quick question to Mr. Beeber. One of the--I guess you cited this study in your testimony. What year was that study done?

I'm sorry. I don't have the year, but it's fairly recent. I believe it was in the early twenty-teens, and I actually had a lot of conversation with the authors of that study. And again, and I appreciate what he was saying, that this study looked at everything and it said, we think the best times: 30 minutes before, 30 minutes after, it could be 45 minutes, could be an hour, could be just when the crossing guards are there. That's when the school zone should be active. And again, we don't disagree with the premise. It's just the expansiveness. We're just afraid that it would cause disrespect when it's too much, and that's what our concern is.

Got it. So your issue isn't with lowering the speed limit, it's with the time amount?

Whether it's--we didn't mention this, but as long as you asked, we do have concerns about lowering the speed limit when it's on very, very large, like arterials and things like that, in terms of compliance. On small roadways around schools and neighborhood streets and that sort of thing--and that's what the Vehicle Code does say--you can lower it to 15 miles an hour when, you know, when it's a neighborhood street and certain things like that.

Again, the TTI study suggested the speed limits based on the type of street it was, as opposed to just a blanket number, but wasn't something we were gonna get into today. Our main concern is the expansive hours and causing disrespect and actually using the flashing beacons as opposed to a static number of the sign, which is kind of inflexible.

Got it. But like in my city, San Francisco, one of the main issues we're trying to do is slow traffic down because we find that the faster people go, that the more fatalities, more accidents happen. So it doesn't sound like you agree with that kind of premise.

No, I wouldn't say that at all. I would actually say that it's a question of whether you can get compliance on a particular roadway.

But that's law enforcement's job.

Well, no, it has to do with the nature of the way the roadway is built. If you have a 55-mile-an-hour roadway, you can probably get people to comply for a short period of time for a block or so, which is a school zone, okay? So we're not debating that point. We're just basically saying that if you have--the type of roadway should be more aligned with what the speed limit is. And again, this is not me saying it. It's the TTI study that said it should be tied more to that. So it's not a question of me agreeing or disagreeing with anything. It's a question of what the study said.

Okay. Okay.

Thank you for the question. I appreciate it.

All right. I don't see any other questions, comments, or concerns. With that, thank you for working with the Committee on the amendments prior to this bill being heard. The safety of our children walking to school is of the utmost importance. I appreciate your work to help provide clarity to when the school zone speed limit is in effect.

Please continue to work with cities to ensure they have the flexibility they need to implement this bill and consider providing them with flexibility to avoid this bill being considered a local mandate. I will be supporting your bill today. There's a motion on the floor by Wallis with a second by Vice Chair Davies. Would you like to close?

Just briefly, I appreciate the conversation, appreciate the work with the Chair and the Committee staff. I should note that there is local flexibility in the bill, so if local municipalities want to change the time zone, it doesn't have to be seven to ten and two to five. We had a city reach out and say they want it to be longer. It can be longer. It can be shorter. 20 miles per hour is the ceiling. You can lower it to 15 miles per hour in certain situations if you think that that's what's best for your community.

I agree that flashing beacons is the gold standard. If my friend has an extra billion or two, we can get that implemented at every school across this state. Might be more than two billion, but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when it comes to the safety of our children. So respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Madam Secretary.

AB 2583: the motion is 'do pass to the Committee on Local Government.' [Roll Call].

All right. Thank you. With that--oh, sorry. 15; that bill is out.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. With that, there's no further business of the Committee. This meeting is adjourned. This hearing is adjourned.