HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON AND
WELCOME EVERYONE. TODAY WE ARE
HAVING A JOINT HEARING ON A
PROPOSED BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT
WOULD RAISE PERSONAL INCOME
TAXES FOR CERTAIN HOUSEHOLDS TO
FUND ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE
PROGRAMS AND WILDFIRE RELATED
ACTIVITIES. ANY MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC ATTENDING A HEARING IS
ENCOURAGED TO WEAR A MASK AT ALL
TIMES WHILE IN THE BUILDING. WE
ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE
WRITTEN TESTIMONY BY VISITING
THE COMMITTEE WEBSITE, PLEASE
NOTE THAT ANY WRITTEN TESTIMONY
SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE IS
CONSIDERED PUBLIC COMMENT AND BE
MAYBE READ INTO THE RECORD OR
REPRINTED. EVERYONE IS
ENCOURAGED TO WATCH THE HEARING
FROM ITS LIVESTREAM ON THE
ASSEMBLY'S WEBSITE. YOU CAN
TESTIFY IN PERSON IN THE HEARING
ROOM OR BY USING OUR TELEPHONE
SERVICE. EACH MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE TO
COMMENT, STARTING WITH THOSE
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE
HERE IN THE ROOM. TO USE OUR
TELEPHONE SERVICE. THE NUMBER TO
CALL IS 87769 TO 89 57. THE
ACCESS CODE IS 18 50 1100. FOR
WITNESSES CALLING INTO THE PHONE
, YOU'LL BE PLACED IN A QUEUE
UNTIL YOUR OPPORTUNITY
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
COMMENT. PLEASE MUTE YOUR DEVICE
TO PROVIDE SOUND DISTORTIONS IF
YOU'RE HAVING ANY PROBLEMS WITH
THE PHONE SERVICE. YOU CAN ALSO
CALL THE COMMITTEE DIRECTLY AT
916319 2093. WE'LL TRY TO HELP
YOU. AND IF YOU GET DISCONNECTED
AFTER YOUR ON HOLD OR AFTER
YOU'VE BEEN PICKED UP, JUST CALL
BACK AND WE'LL TRY TO TAKE YOUR
TESTIMONY. FINALLY THE ASSEMBLY
HAS, UNFORTUNATELY UH UM
EXPERIENCE A NUMBER OF
DISRUPTIONS TO THE COMMITTEE AND
FLOOR PROCEEDINGS OVER THE PAST
FEW YEARS, AND HE CONDUCT THAT
DISRUPTS DISTURBS HER OF THEIR
WIDES IMPEDE THE ORDERLY CONDUCT
OF THE HEARING IS PROHIBITED.
SUCH CONDUCT CONDUCT MAY INCLUDE
TALKING OR MAKING LOUD NOISES
FROM THE AUDIENCE, UTTERING LOUD
THREATENING OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE
SPEAKING LONGER THAN THE TIME
ALLOTTED, EXTENDED DISCUSSION OF
MATTERS NOT RELATED TO THE
SUBJECT OF THE HEARING. AND ANY
OTHER ACTS THAT WE DEEM
DISRUPTIVE. AND IF YOU DO ANY OF
THAT, WE WILL ASK YOU TO STOP.
AND THEN WE WILL HAVE YOU
REMOVED FROM THE BUILDING. WE'RE
ALSO GONNA DOCUMENT ON THE
RECORD WHO YOU ARE. AND THE
NATURE OF YOUR DISRUPTIVE
CONDUCT, AND WE MIGHT HAVE TO
RECESS. THE HEARING. AND, UM. I
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR
COOPERATION, AND WITH THAT WE'RE
GOING TO BEGIN OUR INFORMATIONAL
HEARING. THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S
HEARING IS TO COMPLY WITH STATE
LAW, WHICH REQUIRES THE
LEGISLATURE TO HOLD A JOINT
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SUBJECT OF
A PROPOSED INITIATIVE, WHICH HAS
SUBMITTED 25% OF THE NUMBER OF
SIGNATURES NEEDED TO QUALIFY THE
INITIATIVE FOR THE BALLOT. THIS
INITIATIVE PROPOSES TO RAISE
PERSONAL INCOME TAXES FOR
CERTAIN HOUSEHOLDS TO FUND ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND
WILDFIRE RELATED ACTIVITIES.
TODAY. WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM
THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
ON THE BACKGROUND AND THE
PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF THE
INITIATIVE WILL ALSO HEAR FROM
PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS OF THE
INITIATIVE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS
WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK
QUESTIONS AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST
WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD AND DURING THAT PERIOD WE
WILL TAKE ME CHOOSE PEOPLE
SAYING YES, I SUPPORT OR NO, I
DON'T SUPPORT BUT NOT LONGER
TESTIMONY AND WHEN IT'S YOUR
TURN TO DO THAT, PLEASE DO
IDENTIFY ANY ANY ORGANIZATION
THAT YOU'RE REPRESENTING. DOES
ANYBODY LIKE? WOULD ANYONE ON
THE COMMITTEE LIKE TO MAKE ANY
OPENING STATEMENTS? OKAY I SEE
NONE AND I WILL THEN WELCOME OUR
FIRST SPEAKER ROSS BROWN, WHOSE
PRINCIPAL FISCAL AND POLICY
ANALYST FOR THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE. WE'RE ALSO
GOING TO HAVE HELEN KIRSTEN FROM
THE LA WHO'S AVAILABLE VIA WEBEX
FOR THE Q AND A PORTION IF SHE'S
NEEDED, BUT SHE WON'T BE
SPEAKING. SO IF YOU WANT HER,
YOU WILL HAVE TO REQUEST HER AND
I'M SAYING THAT TWO MEMBERS
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS ROSS BROWN WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE.
HOPEFULLY EVERYONE CAN HEAR ME.
OKAY SO FROM MY PRESENTATION
TODAY, I'M JUST GOING TO SPEND
SOME TIME, UM, DESCRIBING OR
SUMMARIZING THE PROPOSAL, THE
PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE AS WELL
AS OUR ESTIMATE OF ITS MAJOR
FISCAL EFFECTS. I'M GOING TO BE
GOING OVER A HANDOUT, WHICH YOU
SHOULD HAVE IN YOUR PACKET, SO
I'M GOING TO BE WALKING THROUGH
THAT FOR JUST A FEW MOMENTS. UM
FOR THOSE, UH, FOLLOWING ALONG
AT HOME, THE HANDOUT SHOULD BE
POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE AT L A OH
DOT C A DOT GOV AND KIND OF THE
RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE OF THE
WEBSITE FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO
FOLLOW ALONG AND HARD COPIES ARE
IN THE BACK OF THE HEARING ROOM
AS WELL FOR THE PUBLIC. I'M
GOING TO JUMP RIGHT IN. AH, TWO
PAGE ONE OF THE HANDOUT. AH AND
BEFORE I KIND OF ACTUALLY
DESCRIBED THE MEASURE AND ITS
FISCAL EFFECTS, I DO WANT TO
JUST START OFF WITH JUST A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR ROLE IN THE
BALLOT MEASURE PROCESS. SO STATE
LAW REQUIRES OUR OFFICE TO WORK
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
TO PREPARE A JOINT, IMPARTIAL
FISCAL ANALYSIS OF EACH
INITIATIVE BEFORE IT GETS
CIRCULATED FOR SIGNATURES AND
LAW REQUIRES THAT THIS ANALYSIS
PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE OF THE
MEASURES FISCAL IMPACT ON STATE
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. AND A
SUMMARY OF THAT ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT IS INCLUDED ON PETITIONS
THAT ARE THEN CIRCULATED FOR
SIGNATURES FOR MEASURES THAT
QUALIFY FOR THE BALLOT LAW
REQUIRES OUR OFFICE TO PROVIDE
AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF ALL
STATEWIDE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS
FOR THE VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE.
INCLUDING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE
MEASURE AND ITS FISCAL EFFECTS,
SO WE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE
PROCESS OF PREPARING THESE
MATERIALS FOR THE NOVEMBER 2022
BALLOT, AND AS SUCH THE FISCAL
EFFECTS DESCRIBED IN THIS
HANDOUT IN MY DURING MY
PRESENTATION. ARE GENERALLY
BASED ON OUR EARLIER ANALYSIS
FROM SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, UM
PRIOR TO SIGNATURE COLLECTION.
AND I ALSO DO JUST WANT TO KNOW
THAT OUR ROLE IN THIS PROCESS
AND IN THE BALLOT MEASURE
PROCESS IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT
YOU MIGHT BE USED TO IN OUR
NORMAL PROCESS AND ROLL FOR THE
LEGISLATURE, SO WE'RE NOT ABLE
TO COMMENT ON THE PROS AND CONS
OF A PARTICULAR MEASURE. OFFER
ALTERNATIVES OR ANYTHING LIKE
THAT. OUR ROLE REALLY IS TO JUST
SUMMARIZE WHAT THE MEASURE WOULD
DO AND OUR ESTIMATE OF ITS MAJOR
FISCAL EFFECTS. SO I'M GONNA
JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO THAT NOW.
SO UM, I'M ACTUALLY GONNA SKIP
OVER THE PAGES TWO AND THREE
PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF
BACKGROUND ON STATE FUNDING FOR
THIEVES AND WILDFIRE AND
PERSONAL INCOME TAXES AND GONNA
JUMP TO PAGE FOUR OF YOUR HAND
OUT. WHERE WE SUMMARIZE THE
PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE, SO THE
MEASURE INCREASES THE PERSONAL
INCOME TAX FOR TAXPAYERS EARNING
MORE THAN $2 MILLION ANNUALLY.
THESE TAXPAYERS WOULD PAY AN
ADDITIONAL TAX OF 1.75. ON THE
SHARE OF THEIR INCOME ABOVE $2
MILLION. UH THE TAX INCREASE
WOULD IN THE EARLIEST OF EITHER
2024 OR FOLLOWING THREE
CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR YEARS IN
WHICH STATE WIDE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY
80% BELOW 1990 LEVELS. SO THE
MEASURE THEN ALLOCATES THE
ADDITIONAL REVENUE REVENUE TO
SUPPORT ZEV AND WILDFIRE
ACTIVITIES. THE FUNDING IS
CONTINUOUSLY APPROPRIATED. AH
AND IT IS CONTINUOUSLY
PROPAGATED TO THREE DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES OF FUNDING. SO FIRST
PORTANTINO LARGEST SHARE 45% OF
THE REVENUE WOULD BE
CONTINUOUSLY APPROPRIATED TO THE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
FOR PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLES AS WELL AS
OTHER MOBILITY OPTIONS. IN THE
INITIAL YEARS. AT LEAST TWO
THIRDS OF THE OVERALL FUNDING
MUST BE TARGETED TO PROGRAMS
THAT SUPPORT DEPLOYMENT OF
PASSENGERS. EVS CARDBOARD
DETERMINE HOW TO ALLOCATE THE
REST OF THE FUNDS. SOME ELIGIBLE
PROGRAMS INCLUDE INCENTIVES FOR
HEAVY DUTY ZEV ZEV AND OTHER
MOBILITY OPTIONS SUCH AS
ELECTRIC BIKES AND PROTECTED
BIKE LANES. AND THEN FINALLY, AT
LEAST HALF OF THE THIS CATEGORY
OF FUNDING MUST GO TO PROGRAMS
THAT PRIMARILY BENEFIT RESIDENTS
WHO LIVE IN OR NEAR LOW INCOME
AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.
PAGE FIVE OF YOUR HAND OUT THE
SECOND LARGEST CATEGORY OF
FUNDING, 35% WOULD BE
CONTINUOUSLY APPROPRIATED TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION FOR
XEV, FUELING INFRASTRUCTURE
PROGRAMS. COULD BE USED FOR
MULTI FAMILY CHARGING STATIONS.
AH SINGLE FAMILY CHARGING
STATIONS, FAST FUELING
INFRASTRUCTURE. AH AND MEDIUM
AND HEAVY DUTY FEELING
INFRASTRUCTURE AND AGAIN, AT
LEAST HALF OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
FUNDING MUST BE DEDICATED TO
PROJECTS THAT BENEFIT RESIDENTS
WHO LIVE IN OR NEAR LOW INCOME
AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.
AND THEN FINALLY, THE LAST
CATEGORY, 20% WOULD BE
CONTINUOUSLY APPROPRIATED FOR
WILDFIRE RELATED ACTIVITIES OF
THAT AMOUNT. 75% WOULD GO TO CAL
FIRE AND FOR THAT PIECE, TOP
PRIORITY WOULD BE GIVEN TO
HIRING AND TRAINING
FIREFIGHTERS. UM AND THEN THE
FIRST SIX YEARS, AT LEAST NO
MORE THAN ONE QUARTER OF THAT
FUNDING CAN BE USED FOR
ACTIVITIES LIKE DEFENSIBLE
SPACE, HOME HARDENING AND FOREST
RESILIENCE PROGRAMS. AND THEN
THE REMAINING 25% OF THE
WILDFIRE FUNDING WOULD GO TO THE
OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL
FOR WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION AND
PREVENTION ACTIVITIES. TURNING
TO PAGE SIX OF THE HANDOUT. AH I
MEAN, THIS IS SUMMARIZES ARE
KIND OF INITIAL ESTIMATE OF THE
FISCAL EFFECTS. I'M GOING TO
FOCUS REALLY, PRIMARILY ON THAT
FIRST CATEGORY, THE MAJOR FISCAL
EFFECT WHICH IS REALLY THE
MEASURES NEW TAX ON HIGH INCOME
EARNERS WOULD LIKELY WOULD RAISE
THREE BILLION TO 4.5 BILLION IN
MOST YEARS, AND AS DISCUSSED
EARLIER IT WOULD GO TO THE
VARIOUS ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE
AND WILDFIRE RELATED ACTIVITIES.
JUST I'M GONNA KIND OF RUN
THROUGH MAYBE JUST A FEW NUMBERS
TO KIND OF PUT THAT FUNDING INTO
CONTEXT. SO AH FOR THE PEACE
THAT WOULD GO TO THE ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLE INCENTIVES IT
WOULD BE GIVEN OUR INITIAL
REVENUE ESTIMATES ABOUT 1.4
BILLION TO TWO BILLION. DOLLARS
ANNUALLY GOING TO YOUR EMISSION
VEHICLE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. AH
ABOUT ONE BILLION TO 1.6 BILLION
GOING TO XEV INFRASTRUCTURE
PROGRAMS. AH TRADITIONALLY, AT
LEAST IN PREVIOUS YEARS, THE
STATE HAS SPENT, YOU KNOW
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
OR SO ON SIMILAR TYPES OF
PROGRAMS AS YOU'RE LIKELY AWARE
OF THE STATE. ADOPTED 3.13 POINT
$9 BILLION FOR XEV RELATED
ACTIVITIES AS PART OF LAST
YEAR'S BUDGET AGREEMENT, AND THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET THIS YEAR
INCLUDED ANOTHER 6.1 BILLION.
OVER SEVERAL YEARS FOR ZERO
MISSION VEHICLE RELATED
PROGRAMS, INCLUDING INCENTIVES
AND INFRASTRUCTURE. JUST TO PUT
THAT INTO INTO SOME PERSPECTIVE
AND THEN FOR THE WILDFIRE PIECE
UNDER OUR REVENUE ESTIMATES WE
HAVE HERE ABOUT 600 MILLION TO
900 MILLION WOULD GO TO, UH,
WILDFIRE RELATED ACTIVITIES. UH
AND AGAIN TO PUT THAT NUMBER
INTO CONTEXT FOR KIND OF HOW
MUCH WE SPENT IN PREVIOUS YEARS.
ABOUT TWO BILLION HISTORICALLY
HAS GONE TO WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION
ACTIVITIES. AND 300 MILLION FOR
PREVENTION AND RESILIENCE
ACTIVITIES, ALTHOUGH AS I'M SURE
MANY OF YOU ARE AWARE OF THOSE
NUMBERS HAVE BEEN HIGHER AND IN
RECENT YEARS ON BOTH OF THOSE UM
, THE REST OF THE PAGE COVERED
SOME OTHER POTENTIAL FISCAL
EFFECTS. THE MAGNITUDE OF THOSE
ARE, IN OUR VIEW, MORE UNCERTAIN
AND LOWER THAN SOME OF THE JUST
THE PRIMARY EFFECTS RELATED TO
THE REVENUE AND HOW THAT REVENUE
WOULD BE SPENT. SO I'M NOT GOING
TO GO OVER THOSE IN DETAIL BUT
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THAT YOU HAVE. FINALLY YOUR
STAFF ASKED US TO JUST PROVIDE A
LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ON
OTHER POTENTIAL MEASURES THAT
WOULD RAISE INCOME TAXES. AND SO
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE JUST WE'RE
TRACKING ONE OTHER POTENTIAL
MEASURE THAT COULD BE ON THE
BALLOT. UM WHICH WOULD PROVIDE
FUNDING FOR PANDEMIC DETECTION
AND PREVENTION BY INCREASING TAX
ON PERSONAL INCOME OVER $5
MILLION, SO THAT'S ANOTHER.
POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE THAT'S
OUT THERE. UM SO THAT MEASURE
WOULD AH, IMPOSE A 0.75% TAX ON
INCOME OVER $5 MILLION ANNUALLY
FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS. UM AND SO
THAT WOULD RAISE ABOUT 500
MILLION TO 1.5 BILLION IN
REVENUE ANNUALLY FOR PANDEMIC
DETECTION AND PREVENTION
PROGRAMS. SO I'M GOING TO END MY
COMMENTS THERE. AND, OF COURSE,
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION
WHEN THAT TIME COMES. THANK YOU
. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER
BALLOT MEASURES THAT ARE BESIDES
THE ONE THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT
ARE ATTEMPTING TO TAX THE SAME
POPULATION? WHERE NOT TRACKING
ANY OTHER ONES RIGHT NOW THAT
HAT THAT'S THE THAT'S THE ONLY
OTHER ONE THAT WE'RE TRACKING
RIGHT NOW. OKAY, MR CORKER. UM
THERE'S ALREADY ISN'T THERE 1%
TAX ALREADY ON THIS. ROUGHLY
THIS POPULATION, IT MIGHT START
AT ONE MILLION RATHER THAN TWO.
BUT ISN'T THERE 1% TAX THAT WAS
VOTED ON BY THE PUBLIC. I MEAN,
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT FOR
INCOME ABOVE UH, $200 MILLION
ANNUALLY. THE KIND OF TOTAL TAX
RATE IS ABOUT 13% ON THAT KIND
OF PIECE OF INCOME ABOVE $2
MILLION. I THINK THAT INCLUDES
SORT OF A FEW DIFFERENT PIECES,
UM, RELATED RELATED TO THAT,
YEAH. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
MEMBERS WISHING TO ASK
QUESTIONS. OKAY, IF WE HAVE ANY
OH, YES. COMMERCENTRE. MR.
BROWN, DR BROWN. I'M NOT SURE I
THINK ON THE AGENDA. I SEE THAT
THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER, UH,
ANALYST FROM THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE, BUT, UM,
EITHER YOURSELF OR IT HAS CURSE.
TI, UM COULD YOU TALK ABOUT. I
MEAN, I AM FULLY IN SUPPORT OF
THE OF THE GOALS AND THE
OBJECTIVES OF THIS THIS
INITIATIVE, BUT, YOU KNOW, I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
GOING INTO THIS WITH OUR EYES
WIDE OPEN. I KNOW THAT WHENEVER
THERE WAS TALK ABOUT ABOUT
INCREASING TAXES ON THE HIGHEST
INCOME EARNERS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THERE'S ALWAYS THE
IMMEDIATE RESPONSE THAT WE'RE
GOING TO DRIVE. UH UM, THE
HIGHEST. INCOME EARNERS FROM THE
STATE. DO YOU HAVE ANY IN THE
DATA? ANY DATA TO GIVE US? UH,
SOME ANALYSIS IN TERMS OF THE
MM. LIKELY IMPACT ON ON THAT
ISSUE. SO IN OUR INITIAL FISCAL
ANALYSIS, WE DID IDENTIFY SOME
POTENTIAL FISCAL EFFECTS RELATED
TO BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES RELATED
TO KIND OF A HIGHER INCOME TAX
RATE ON HIGHER INCOME EARNERS.
UM I THINK THAT THOSE THOSE
EFFECTS AND SORT OF THE
MAGNITUDE OF THOSE EFFECTS ARE
VERY UNCERTAIN AND I THINK WE
WERE UNABLE TO REALLY PUT A
CLEAR NUMBER ON IT IN OUR
INITIAL FISCAL ANALYSIS, AND IT
COULD BE THERE COULD BE A
VARIETY OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF
RESPONSES. RANGING FROM
POTENTIALLY THINGS THAT THAT YOU
MENTIONED, OR, UM, JUST OTHER
KIND OF BEHAVIORAL CHANGES TO AH
TO POTENTIALLY AVOID PAIN THAT
HIGHER INCOME TAX RATES SO BUT I
, UNFORTUNATELY, DON'T HAVE ANY
. UM YOU KNOW ANY PRECISE
NUMBERS ON WHAT THOSE EFFECTS
ARE, BUT THERE ARE SOME
POTENTIAL EFFECTS THAT COULD
RESULT IN SOME LOWER INCOME FROM
THOSE HIGH INCOME EARNERS OR
LOWER. EXCUSE ME LOWER TAX
REVENUE FROM THIS HIGH INCOME
EARNERS. I KNOW, UM MY COLLEAGUE
FROM THE EAST BAY, UM, MENTIONED
THE I BELIEVE IT WAS THE MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES. UH ACT TAX. UM
ON THE THOSE WITH INCOMES
MILLION DOLLARS OR MORE. BUT WAS
THERE ANY DATA? ARE YOU AWARE OF
ANY DATA IN TERMS OF, UH OF THE
EFFECT WHETHER THERE THERE WERE
A MISERABLE NUMBER OF HIGH
INCOME EARNERS FROM THAT TAX
THAT LOVES THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. SO I MIGHT HAVE TO
TAKE THAT QUESTION BACK TO SOME
OF OUR REVENUE AND TAX ANALYSTS
WHO HAVE KIND OF HELPED OUT ON
THIS PARTICULAR MEASURE, I THINK
. AH, MEET PERSONALLY, I'M NOT
AWARE OF ALL OF THE RESEARCH IN
THAT AREA, SO I CAN'T ANSWER
THAT DEFINITIVELY, BUT I'M HAPPY
TO TAKE THAT QUESTION BACK TO
THEM AND SEE WHAT I CAN FIND FOR
YOU. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
MR MCCARTY. I'M JUST GETTING
HERE. SO THIS IS THE L. A OF
COURSE, TALKING ABOUT THE FISCAL
EAST. AND THEN THE NEXT PERSON
IS GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT THESE
POLICY AND ELEMENTS. SO JUST ONE
BRIEF QUESTION TO YOU. UM I
ALWAYS THINK THAT IF YOU'RE
GOING TO INCREASE ONE TAXI,
BETTER THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX
AND PERSONAL INCOME WELL LIKE
THAT, BUT I SUPPORT THIS ONE AS
WELL. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT THAT TOP RATE FOR PEOPLE
THAT MAKE THIS INCOME LEVEL IS
LIKE 12% RIGHT POINT ON A LITTLE
OVER 12. YEAH I THINK THAT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S
AROUND 13. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S MY,
UH THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING BASED
ON THE CONVERSATIONS WITH SOME
OF OUR TAX FOLKS, SO WOULD ADD
IT. THIS WOULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL
ONE POINT 1.755 PEOPLE OVER TWO
MILLION CORRECT BASED ON OUR MY
INFORMATION HERE THAT CURRENT
TAX RATE IS FOR PEOPLE THAT MAKE
OVER 6 25. IS 12.5, AND MAYBE
THERE'S THE ADDITIONAL ONE FOR
THE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE THEY THOSE OUT
UP TO AROUND 13% CORRECT. THE
FLIP SIDE OF THIS IS THAT YEAH.
IF I COULD CHOOSE ONE OR THE
OTHER, I PROBABLY CHOOSE, UM,
THE CORPORATE BECAUSE
CORPORATIONS NO MATTER WHERE
THEY'RE LOCATED IN THE WORLD,
THEY'RE STILL PAY TAXES HERE
THEY DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS THERE IS THE ARGUMENT
THAT PEOPLE SAY YOU COULD LEAVE
CALIFORNIA. AND LIVE IN NEVADA
SOMEWHERE ELSE AND HAVE YOUR BE
ABLE TO HAVE PAY YOUR TAXES IN
THAT STATE. HOWEVER WE NOTED
THAT EVEN WITH THE MILLIONAIRE'S
TAX FOR THE MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES ACT ONE REVENUE WHO
SHOT UP OR FOLD SINCE I WAS
CREATED BY FORMER CURRENT MAYOR
SENATOR SEIDENBERG, THEN ABOUT
10 YEARS AGO. BUT RESEARCH SHOWS
THAT PEOPLE HAVEN'T LEFT IN THAT
TAX BRACKET. CORRECT. AGAIN
SIMILAR TO, UM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
MERITS. YUKI'S QUESTION. I THINK
THAT'S UM AH, THERE ARE OTHER
ANALYSTS IN OUR OFFICE. I THINK
WHO FOLLOWED THAT RESEARCH ON
KIND OF BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TO
TAX CHANGES, INCLUDING THE TAX
CHANGE THAT YOU'RE MENTIONING,
SO I'M HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH
THEM ON THAT SPECIFIC, UH,
THAT'S SPECIFIC RESEARCH ON THAT
SPECIFIC TAX AND GET A RESPONSE
TO YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER MEMBERS. QUESTIONS ARE YOU
GOING TO BE ABLE TO STAY UNTIL
THE END? OKAY I'M HAPPY TO STAY
HERE. IF THERE ARE OTHER
QUESTIONS THAT COME UP. THANK
YOU. ANDERSON E BUDDY, HAVE
QUESTIONS FOR MS KIRSTEIN. WE
DIDN'T SPEAK. I DON'T THINK. MR
DOCTOR WOULD JUST JUST A REAL
BRIEF QUESTION. DO WE HAVE ANY
IDEA HOW MANY PEOPLE OR HOW MANY
TAXPAYERS THIS ACTUALLY AFFECTS
THE NUMERICAL NUMBER? I HATE TO
DO THIS, BUT I'M I THINK WE
COULD PULL THAT INFORMATION FOR
YOU. I JUST DON'T HAVE IT AT MY
FINGERTIPS RIGHT NOW. JUST JUST
CURIOUS AS TO WHAT THE
POPULATION IS. OKAY THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. OKAY AND WITH THAT
WE'RE GOING TO BRING UP OUR
PROPONENT SPEAKERS. MELISSA
ROMERO, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE
MANAGER WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS, AND SCOTT
WENT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS AND EACH OF YOU WILL
HAVE FIVE MINUTES. FIVE MINUTES
TOTAL. SORRY, NOT EACH OF YOU.
FIVE MINUTES TOTAL. HAVEN'T BEEN
IN THIS NEW COMMITTEE ROOM YET
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS. SCOTT,
WHICH ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AND THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION OF UTILITY EMPLOYEES.
BEFORE I GIVE MY COMMENTS, I
THINK I NEED TO CORRECT THE
RECORD BECAUSE I THINK THERE MAY
BE SOME CONFUSION. I BE W WAS
ONE OF THE PRIMARY DRAFTERS OF
THIS INITIATIVE. THE 1.75% TAX
IS ON INCOME ABOVE TWO MILLION.
NOT ON IF YOU MAKE $2 MILLION OR
MORE. YOU PAY AN ADDITIONAL
1.75% ON YOUR ENTIRE INCOME.
IT'S ON THAT INCOME ABOVE TWO
MILLION. THAT'S A VERY
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENTIATION. I'M
SURE THE ELIO CAN PULL THE
NUMBERS. BUT SINCE WE PASSED
PROPOSITION 30, WHICH SIMILAR
MEMBER QUIRK WAS REFERENCING THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA
TAX FILERS MAKING OVER $30
MILLION HAS DOUBLED. UM. IT'S
ROUGHLY 35,000. TAXPAYERS IN
CALIFORNIA THAT NOW MAKE OVER $2
MILLION A YEAR. SO I'M SCOTT
WEST. AS I SAID WITH THE I B W
THE VW SPONSORING AND WAS ONE OF
THE SIGNIFICANT DRAFTERS OF THIS
MEASURE BECAUSE CALIFORNIA IS
SIMPLY NOT KEEPING. ON TRACK TO
MEET OUR CLIMATE GOALS OR ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLE GOALS, USING
THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
ESTIMATES FOR INSTALLATION OF
CHARGING STATIONS AND CPUC COST
ESTIMATES PER CHARGING STATION.
THE ROUGH ESTIMATED COST IN
ORDER TO MEET OUR
ELECTRIFICATION NEEDS IS ROUGHLY
$66 BILLION IN INVESTMENT. AS
YOU'VE HEARD BETWEEN, UM WHAT
HAS BEEN IN THE LAST COUPLE OF
BUDGETS, FEDERAL FUNDING. WE'VE
HIT PROXY LITTLE LESS THAN SIX
BILLION. THE PUC HAS DIRECTED
THE I O USED TO SPEND A COUPLE
MORE BUT WE SIMPLY ARE NOT ON
TRACK. THIS HAS BEEN VERY WELL
DOCUMENTEDIN MANY DIFFERENT
ARTICLES OF RECENTLY WE NEED AN
IMMEDIATE AND SUSTAINED
INVESTMENT AT SCALE TO DEVELOP
THE NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE TO
ACCELERATE ADOPTION BY
CONSUMERS. THE STATE BUDGET
PROCESS SIMPLY CANNOT PROVIDE
THE KIND OF SUSTAINED INVESTMENT
EVEN WITH THE CURRENT HUGE
BUDGET SURPLUS. THE CLEAN AIR
INITIATIVE PROVIDES THE ONGOING
SOURCE OF REVENUE THAT WE NEED.
THE I B W IS A PROUD IS PROUD TO
SPONSOR THIS INITIATIVE BECAUSE
IT PROVIDES NEARLY 35 BILLION
FOR CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND
GRID UPGRADES FOR E V S WEBS.
WE'RE PARTICULARLY PROUD OF THE
FACT INITIATIVE, BOTH ON THE
REBATE SIDE AND ON THE
INFRASTRUCTURE SIDE TARGETS, LOW
INCOME AND MODERATE INCOME
COMMUNITIES. MOST OF YOU MEMBERS
HAVE HEARD US PREACH IN
SPECIFICALLY IN UTILITIES
COMMITTEE. HOW REGRESSIVE OUR
ENERGY AND CLEAN ENERGY POLICIES
HAVE BEEN AND HOW WORKING
CALIFORNIANS AND DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES HAVE PAID BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS INTO SOLAR PROGRAMS.
OTHER CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAMS AND
GOTTEN VERY LITTLE IN RETURN
THIS AND THIS INITIATIVE CORRECT
THAT ISSUE. UM IN CLOSING. I'LL
JUST SAY IF YOU USE THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE'S, UH,
FIGURES FOR JOB CREATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT IN THE
GOVERNOR'S MOST RECENT BUDGET,
WHICH IS BASICALLY FOR EVERY
BILLION DOLLARS INVESTED. YOU
CREATE ABOUT 13,000 JOBS JUST ON
THE INFRASTRUCTURE SIDE OF THE
CLEAN AIR INITIATIVE. NOT ONLY
WOULD WE BE EXPANDING AND
MEETING OUR CLIMATE GOALS, BUT
WE WOULD BE CREATING 455,000
CLEAN ENERGY JOBS. WHICH I WOULD
SUBMIT TO. YOU SHOULD BE THE
CENTERPIECE OF WHAT YOU ALL
CONSIDER A JUST TRANSITION TO
BE, SO WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. YOU
HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT, BUT WE
WILL GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF
MINUTES. GOOD AFTERNOON.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MELISSA ROMERO
, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE MANAGER
WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS, FORMERLY CLC V. THIS IS
A REALLY CRITICAL TIME FOR AN
INITIATIVE LIKE THIS, AND IT'S
ONE OF OUR BIGGEST OPPORTUNITIES
WE'VE HAD FOR CALIFORNIANS. TO
DO SOMETHING BOLD TO FIGHT THE
CLIMATE CRISIS AND TO SOLVE BOTH
THIS HEALTH AND CLIMATE CRISIS.
WE NEED TO ADDRESS TWO MAIN
SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION CLIMATE
EMISSIONS IN CALIFORNIA, WHICH
IS TRANSPORTATION AND WILDFIRES.
WE SIMPLY WILL NOT MEET OUR
STATE'S GOALS TO FIGHT CLIMATE
CHANGE IF WE DON'T HAVE
SUSTAINED INVESTMENTS THAT MEET
THE SCALE AND MAGNITUDE OF THE
NEED, AND THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO
PASS THE CLEAN CARS CLEAN AIR
ACT. WE NEED TO STUDY STUDY
REVENUE SOURCE. IT'S NOT AT THE
MERCY OF A CHANGING STATE BUDGET
THAT WE CAN EXPECT AND PLAN LONG
TERMS WITH THIS CLEAN CARDS.
CLEAN AIR ACT PROVIDES CLEAN AIR
PROGRAMS WITH PROGRESSIVE
FUNDING WITH THE FOCUS ON
EQUITY. AND IT'S EXACTLY WHAT
OUR COMMUNITIES NEED TO CLEAN
CARS. CLEANING UP PROVIDES
APPROXIMATELY $100 BILLION IN
NEW REVENUE OVER THE NEXT 20
YEARS. THAT'S 20 BILLION TO
FIGHT AND PREVENT CATASTROPHIC
WILDFIRES. 35 BILLION TO EXPAND
ELECTRIC VEHICLE AND ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND 45 BILLION FOR SUBSIDIES TO
HELP CONSUMERS AND ORGANIZATIONS
TO AFFORD CLEAN VEHICLES. AH THE
CLEAN CARDS CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIRES THAT HALF OF THAT
FUNDING FOR THE VEHICLE
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS,
WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 40, PLUS
BILLION BENEFIT, LOW INCOME AND
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES, AND
IN DRAFTING THIS BALLOT MEASURE
, OUR TEAM WORK CLOSELY WITH
STAKEHOLDERS TO ENSURE THAT
WE'RE BALANCING PRIORITIES. WE
ADDRESS BOTH PASSENGER VEHICLES
AND MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLES BECAUSE OF COURSE,
HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS
CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO AIR
POLLUTION, PARTICULARLY IN LOW
INCOME AND RURAL COMMUNITIES. IN
ADDITION TO XEV INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENTS WILL CREATE TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF GOOD PAYING UNION
JOBS ACROSS CALIFORNIA. DEVELOP
MEASURE FUNDS. THESE INITIATIVES
BY INCREASING TAX AND PERSONAL
INCOME AND ACCESS TO $2 MILLION
AS WE'VE HEARD ALREADY, WHICH
ONLY AFFECTS ABOUT 20.1% OF
CALIFORNIANS, AND THAT ENSURES
THAT THE FUNDING COMING FROM
THOSE WHO ARE ABLE TO MOST
AFFORD IT. AND IT COSTS ARE NOT
PASSED THROUGH THE LOW AND
MIDDLE INCOME FAMILIES IN THE
FORM OF HIGHER PRICES, AND IT'S
SIMPLY BRINGS THE WEALTHIEST
VIEW IN OUR STATE BACK TO PRE
TRUMP TAX CUTS. SO CALIFORNIA
HAS STRONG CLEAN ENERGY AND
CLEAN VEHICLE POLICIES IN PLACE,
BUT WE NEED SUSTAINED
INVESTMENTS TO REACH OUR CLIMATE
, AIR QUALITY AND EQUITY GOALS
WITHOUT STRONG ACTION. NOW WE
WILL FACE MORE WILDFIRES WORST
AIR QUALITY IN THE CONSEQUENCES
FROM BOTH. CLEAN CAR'S CLEAN AIR
ACT IS OUR BEST IMMEDIATE
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE BOLD AND
HISTORIC INVESTMENTS THAT WE
DESPERATELY NEED. NOW TO FIGHT.
CLIMATE CHANGE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, AND WE'D
LOVE TO HAVE YOUR SUPPORT AS
INDIVIDUALS AND HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. THANK
YOU. WE DO HAVE A THIRD SPEAKER
WHO IS SCOT KAUFMAN, LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR FOR THE HOWARD JARVIS
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION. WHO IS
HERE BY WEBEX. WELCOME. YOU HAVE
FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU AND I
WON'T TAKE THE FULL FIVE MINUTES
OUT OF RESPECT FOR YOUR TIME,
BUT I'LL START NOW. CLIMATE
CHANGE IS AN ISSUE OF STATEWIDE.
MITIGATING ITS IMPACTS SHOULD BE.
ARE YOU TRYING TO GET HIM BACK
AGAIN? THANKS. WILL STAND BY.
AND FOR ANYONE LISTENING AT
HOME. I DID SAY THAT THE PUBLIC
COMMENT WOULD JUST BE YOUR
POSITION, BUT ACTUALLY, WE WILL.
IF WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF
PEOPLE, WE WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE
ONE MINUTE EACH FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT. ARE WE GOOD OR BEFORE
WE ADJOURN? YES, AND IF HE CAN'T
DO THE VIDEO, MAYBE HE CAN JUST
CALL IN AND WE CAN DO IT THAT
WAY. WHY DON'T WE TRY TO JUST
HAVE HIM CALL INTO THE OPERATOR?
WELCOME BACK. HOW MUCH OF THAT?
DID YOU HEAR? NONE IF WE GET TO
READ THE WHOLE THING, AND THEN
REALIZED IF THAT HAPPENS AGAIN,
PLEASE JUST TRY CALLING IN.
OKAY? OKAY, THANKS. ALL RIGHT.
AH! CLIMATE CHANGE IS AN ISSUE
OF STATEWIDE CONCERN. GETTING
IMPACT SHOULD BE PAID FOR OUT OF
THE GENERAL FUND, NOT THREE
STATE NOT THROUGH A TARGETED TAX
ON CALIFORNIA'S HIGHEST EARNERS,
WHO ALREADY PAY THE NATION'S
HIGHEST INCOME TAXES AND WHO THE
STATE'S BUDGET IS ALREADY HIGHLY
DEPENDENT ON THE TOP HALF
PERCENT OF THE STATE'S
TAXPAYERS, OR DO YOU PAY OVER
40% OF THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME
TAXES CALIFORNIA'S CURRENTLY
POSSESSES IN $95.7 BILLION
SURPLUS? THE STATE HAS A
DISCRETIONARY SURPLUS AROUND 94
BILLION FURTHER AND MAY OF 2021
, THE CALIFORNIA RESOURCES BOARD
AND ACCORDANCE WITH THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 10 14 OF
2018 ADOPTED A REGULATION
REQUIRING THAT RIDESHARE
COMPANIES BEGIN ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC VACATION. OF THEIR
CALIFORNIA FLEET, STARTING IN
2023. ONE OF THE MAJOR FUNDERS
OF THIS INITIATIVE HAPPENS TO BE
A RIDE SHARING COMPANY. WE DO
NOT BELIEVE THE TWO TO BE
UNRELATED, THE STATE CREATED A
MANDATE IT SHOULD FUND THE
INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY FOR
RIDESHARING COMPANIES TO
IMPLEMENT IT. WE ASKED THAT THE
LEGISLATURE WORKED WITH THE
PROPONENTS OF THIS INITIATIVE TO
FIND A WAY TO MEET THIS MANDATE
THROUGH FUNDING THAT ALREADY
EXISTS IN THE GENERAL FUND, NOT
ON THE BACK OF OUR STATE'S
HIGHEST INCOME EARNERS. YET
AGAIN, THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
BREVITY. SO WITH THAT WE'RE
GOING TO GO TO QUESTIONS FROM
MEMBERS. UM AND I WILL START
WITH, UM. A QUESTION FOR THE
PROPONENTS. UM I VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO, AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF
THINGS TO LIKE IN THIS. I DO
HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE
TIMETABLE BECAUSE THE MEASURE
FUND ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES
UNTIL 2043, BUT WE HAVE A ZEV
MANDATE THAT ONLY ZEB WILL BE
ABLE TO BE SOLD AFTER 2035. SO
WHY DOES THIS NOT? WHY ARE WE
SUBSIDIZING? BASICALLY AT THAT
POINT, JUST CARSON CAR PURCHASES
. UM NEW CAR PURCHASES. UM OR AT
LEAST WHY IS THAT PART OF THIS
WHEN THAT'S GOING TO BE
MANDATED? IN TERMS OF WHAT
VEHICLES ARE OFFERED AND SOLD.
YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION
. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SO RIGHT NOW
. CALIFORNIA HAS GOALS IN PLACE
FOR CHARGING AND FUELING
STATIONS FOR 2025. SO THAT'S 200
HYDROGEN FILLING STATIONS,
250,000, BATTERY ELECTRIC
VEHICLE CHARGERS AND 10,000
DIRECT CURRENT FAST CHARGERS. AS
OF JANUARY 4TH OF THIS YEAR.
SORRY OF LAST YEAR, 2021. WE
HAVE JUST 70,000 OF THOSE
250,000 CHARGERS 6000 OF THE
10,000 DIRECT CURRENT, UH, FAST
CHARGERS AND 44 OUT OF THE 200
HYDROGEN CHARGERS TO STOP YOU
PUTTING THAT ASIDE, BUT THERE'S
ANOTHER PART OF THIS THAT
PURCHASES THAT THAT FUNDS DIRECT
PURCHASES OF VEHICLES. THAT'S
THE PART I'M ASKING ABOUT. I
UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'D WANT TO
CONTINUE THE INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT. BUT BUT GIVEN THAT
YOU ARE ALREADY GOING TO BE
MANDATING THAT NO INTERNAL
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES AND
FOR NEW VEHICLES ARE SOLD AFTER
2035, WHY WOULD YOU STILL HAVE
TO GIVE PEOPLE AN INCENTIVE TO
PURCHASE EVS? YEAH NO, IT'S A
IT'S A GOOD QUESTION, AND SO
JUST TO DIRECTLY ANSWER THAT IT
WILL TAKE SOME TIME FOR ELECTRIC
VEHICLES AND CLEAN ENERGY
VEHICLES TO REALLY INFILTRATE
THE MARKET AT THE LEVEL THAT IT
WILL BE AFFORDABLE TO ALL
CALIFORNIANS. AND SO PROVIDING
FLEXIBILITY FOR THAT FUNDING IS
REALLY KEY. THE FUNDING FOR
VEHICLES ISN'T ONLY FOR
INDIVIDUAL PASSENGER VEHICLES.
THERE'S ALSO FLEXIBILITY FOR THE
CEO TO SPEND A PRETTY
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FUNDING.
ONE BILLION PER YEAR ON
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ZERO EMISSION
BUSSES, ANOTHER PUBLIC TRANSIT
VEHICLES, UM AND SO THERE'S SORT
OF FLEXIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT AS
WE CONTINUE ON THROUGHOUT TIME
THAT WE CAN REALLY MEET THE
NEEDS OF THAT MOMENT. BUT IT
WILL TAKE SOME TIME AND REALLY,
YOU KNOW, EVEN JUST TO THE POINT
THAT WAS MADE FROM THE OPPONENT.
UM WE NEED ALL OF THE ABOVE. WE
NEED BOTH THE STATE BUDGET AS
WELL AS THE INVESTMENTS THAT ARE
OUTLINED IN THIS INITIATIVE, UM
, TO REALLY BE ABLE TO MEET THAT
NEED AT THE LEVEL. THAT IS GOING
TO BE REQUIRED OVER THE NEXT 10
20 YEARS. SO I THOUGHT THAT MOST
OF THE FUNDING GOES FOR THE
INCENTIVES GOES FOR PASSENGER
VEHICLES. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT
WITHOUT THIS PEOPLE JUST WON'T
BUY A CAR AT ALL? KNOW WHAT I'M
SAYING IS THAT THEY'RE THE
INCENTIVES. SO RIGHT. SO
BASICALLY WHAT THE WHAT THE
INITIATIVE SAYS THAT IN THE
FIRST FIVE YEARS OF THE
INITIATIVE THE CARB CAN SPEND
ABOUT HALF ARE SORRY A THIRD OF
THEIR FUNDING, WHICH IS ABOUT $2
BILLION PER YEAR ON NON
PASSENGER VEHICLES. YOUR
EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES THAT
INCLUDE TRUCKS THAT INCLUDES
BUSSES AND OTHER TRANSIT
VEHICLES. AND THEN AFTER THAT,
AFTER THAT YEAR, FIVE CARB CAN
ADJUST THIS PERCENTAGES AND
ACTUALLY SPEND EVEN MORE SO A
THIRD OR MORE ON ZERO EMISSION
AND MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLES AND TRANSIT BUSSES. SO
THERE IS THAT FLEXIBILITY THAT
OVER TIME, THE STATE CAN
ACTUALLY, UM MOLD THE FUNDING TO
ENSURE THAT WE'RE FUNDING WHAT
IS NEEDED IN THAT GIVEN SORT OF
YEAR, AND I'M GONNA GO TO SCOTT.
BUT LET ME JUST CLARIFY BECAUSE
, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE UNDERSTAND IT, AND
I'M NOT TRYING TO CHALLENGE YOU.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT IT DOES. SO DOES THAT MEAN
A 2035 WHEN ONLY ZEBRAS ARE SOLD
THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO FUND
ANY. THEY DON'T HAVE TO GIVE
ANY. PASSENGER VEHICLE
INCENTIVES, THEY COULD MOVE IT
ALL OVER TO TRUCKS AND BUSSES.
SO I THINK THAT THE I THINK THAT
THE FLEXIBILITY THAT'S GOING TO
BE PROVIDED IS GOING TO ALLOW
CARB THAT IS OVERSEEING THOSE
PROGRAMS TO REALLY ENSURE THAT
YEAH, THAT IT'S GIVEN TO THE
PART THE PARTS OF THE PUZZLE,
THE FULL PUZZLE THAT ARE REALLY
NEEDED IN THAT GIVEN YEAR. UM
BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA TAKE A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FUNDING TO
REALLY GET TO THE POINT WHERE
WE'RE ABLE TO ENSURE THAT CLEAN
VEHICLES ARE AFFORDABLE TO EVERY
CALIFORNIA AND SO THIS IS GOING
TO GO A LONG WAY TO GETTING US
THERE MUCH SOONER. YOU WANT TO
ADD? MR. WHICH YES, THANK YOU,
MADAM. CHAIR CARVED DOES HAVE
THE DISCRETION WITH THESE FUNDS
TO DECIDE BETWEEN ALLOCATIONS
TOWARDS FLEETS AND INDIVIDUAL
PURPOSES. UM 2035 GOALS, A LOFTY
GOAL. UM I DON'T KNOW IF
EVERYONE IS TOTALLY CONVINCED
THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO
MEET IT, UM I WOULD ARGUE THAT
FOR THOSE FOLKS WHO WOULD LIKE
TO SEE THE STATE MEET IT. THE
BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS TO
PROVIDE THE FINANCING,
ESPECIALLY FOR MEDIUM AND LOWER
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO BE ABLE TO
GET THERE, SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT
BIG PRESSURE THAT IT HAPPENS IN
2035. MM. INTO A MUCH THAT THANK
YOU. AND JUST LASTLY, UM, YOU
KNOW IF THE GOAL IS TWOFOLD, OF
COURSE, JOB CREATION AND CLEAN
JOBS, BUT, YOU KNOW, ALSO THE
CLIMATE GOALS AND MOBILITY GOALS
. I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY WHY
THERE WASN'T MORE MONEY OR ANY
MONEY IN THIS PUT INTO TRANSIT
INFRASTRUCTURE. UM IT SEEMS LIKE
ALMOST AN AFTERTHOUGHT, EVEN
HAVE ANYTHING WITH THE ONLY
THING I SAW CALLED OUT WAS MAYBE
YOU COULD DO AN E. V BY CLEAN
UNDER THIS, MAYBE, BUT NOT AS
FAR AS I'M READING IT AND MAYBE
I'M WRONG INVESTMENTS, FOR
INSTANCE, INTO LIGHT RAIL
INFRASTRUCTURE, THE THINGS THAT
WE REALLY NEED TO BE SUSTAINABLE
. IT SEEMS IT'S VERY LIKE IT'S
VERY MUCH ABOUT PASSENGER
VEHICLES SINGLE, YOU KNOW SINGLE
PASSENGER VEHICLES, EVEN THOUGH
THERE IS SOME DEDICATION TO, UM
TO TRUCKS AND BUSSES. IT SEEMS
LIKE IT'S REALLY ABOUT CARS, AND
I KIND OF THOUGHT THAT WE WERE
TRYING TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF CARS
AND MOVE THEM INTO TRANSIT
WHENEVER WE CAN. SO I'M JUST
WONDERING. CAN THE ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLE BE A ZERO MISSION TRAIN
OR IS IT HAVE TO BE WHY IS THIS
SO MUCH ABOUT AUTOMOBILES WITH
ALL OF THE ADDED ISSUES THAT
AUTOMOBILES BRING THAT, YOU KNOW
, LAND USE PROBLEMS. SPRAWL
PROBLEMS. HEAT ISLAND EFFECT.
EQUITY ISSUES, HEALTH ISSUES,
EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THEY DO.
WHY IS THIS ALL SEEM TO BE
ABOUT? ABOUT CARS. YEAH SO IT'S
A GREAT IT'S A GREAT QUESTION
AND SORT OF SIMILAR TO THE POINT
OF, YOU KNOW, THE WE NEED ALL OF
THE ABOVE FOR FUNDING. WE NEED
ALL OF THE ABOVE. FOR REALLY,
TRULY TRANSITIONING OUR
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR 20
EMISSION AND THIS ASPECT OF THAT
OF THAT PUZZLE PIECE, WHICH IS
THE VEHICLES AND THE
INFRASTRUCTURE. IS REALLY ONE
THAT IS GOING TO BE EXTREMELY
COSTLY AND THAT WE DO NEED BOTH
THE GENERAL FUND AND THIS
INITIATIVE FUNDING TO REALLY GET
SOMEWHERE SIGNIFICANT. UM AND
YES,THE C E C CAN ACTUALLY
SPEND THAT SIGNIFICANT PORTION
OF THAT BILLION DOLLAR PLUS PER
YEAR ON ZERO EMISSION BUSSES AND
OTHER PUBLIC TRANSIT VEHICLES.
AND TO THE POINT THAT YOU MADE
HARD CAN SPEND A PORTION OF THAT
ALLOCATED MONEY ON BIKE. SHARES
ON E BIKES, PROTECTED BIKE LANES
AND OTHER SORT OF NONMOTORIZED
TRANSPORTATION THAT FURTHERS
MEASURES GOALS. SO THERE ARE
DEFINITELY SOME SUPPORTIVE
ASPECTS OF THAT. AND I GUESS YOU
KNOW, JUST IN RESPONSE TO IT,
THERE'S A LOT THAT NEEDS TO
HAPPEN TO REALLY TRULY
TRANSITION OR TRANSPORTATION
SECTOR. AND THESE ARE THE YOU
KNOW, IN IN THE BALANCING OF THE
PRIORITIES THAT ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN WRITING
THIS INITIATIVE HAD THIS WAS
THIS WAS THE FOCUS THAT WE
DECIDED WAS GOING TO BE MOST
IMPACTFUL AND REALLY DID REQUIRE
THIS LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANT
FUNDING OVER SUCH A LONG PERIOD
OF TIME. AND THAT'S NOT TO SAY
THAT YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC
TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
YOU'RE MENTIONING ISN'T AN
IMPORTANT PIECE OF THAT. IT'S
JUST THAT YOU KNOW, THIS IS SORT
OF WHAT INITIATIVE AND THIS IS
GOING TO TAKE CARE OF PRETTY,
YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF
BUT IF IT'S ALL OF THE ABOVE,
THEN WHY ISN'T THAT IN HERE? I
GUESS THAT'S THAT'S MY ISSUE.
IT'S ALL OF THE ABOVE. EXCEPT
THAT YOUR INITIATIVE DOESN'T
REALLY FUND ANY OF THAT. AND THE
MOST SUSTAINABLE TYPE OF
TRANSPORTATION IS EXACTLY WHAT'S
NOT BEING FUNDED BY THIS AS
IMPORTANT AS ALL OF THIS IS SO I
JUST I'M JUST I THINK IT'S A BIT
OF A MISSED OPPORTUNITY. MR IS A
LOT OF THINGS THAT MADAM CHAIR
IN THIS THAT ARE NOT IN THIS
INITIATIVE THAT THE I B W WOULD
HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN IN THIS
INITIATIVE. BUT HAVING BEEN ONE
OF THE MAJOR PROPONENTS AND
ENGAGED WITH THE ENERGY
COMMISSION AND AT THE CPUC. AND
KNOWING THAT WE'RE UNDER
SHOOTING. WE HAVE THIS HUGE PLAN
FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN
CALIFORNIA. WE'VE ONLY FUNDED,
YOU KNOW LESS THAN 10% OF THE
NEED. SO IT AND WE JUST CAN'T BE
ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE. THIS
IS THIS IS TARGETED AT
ATTEMPTING TO GET AT THE AT THIS
PARTICULAR NEED. GOT IT. THANKS
AND LET ME SEE IF WHAT QUESTIONS
AND COMMENTS WE HAVE FROM MY
COLLEAGUES. DR QUIRKE. TYPICALLY
WHEN THE LEGISLATURE IS ALLOWED
TO CHANGE AN INITIATIVE THE
AMOUNT OF ASKED FOR TWO THIRDS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS
GOING TO ASK FOR THREE QUARTERS,
WHICH IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE. IT'S
VERY HARD FOR US OFTEN TO GET
THE TWO THIRDS, FOR EXAMPLE, ON
THE CANNABIS INITIATIVE. WE'VE
YOU KNOW? IT'S REQUIRED ALL
SORTS OF TUNING. UM AND WE'VE
MANAGED. BUT GETTING THREE
QUARTERS. I MEAN, YOU IF YOU
DON'T CHANGE THAT, I THINK YOU
WILL REGRET IT BECAUSE THERE'LL
BE CHANGES THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK
YOU NEEDED BUT SUDDENLY YOU DO
NEED TO GO TO THREE QUARTERS.
LONG AS THEY'RE. LONG AS THE
REPUBLICANS IN THE ASSEMBLY.
THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY
DIFFICULT. SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU FOR THAT, UM, LET ME
REMEMBER. AND JUST JUST IN
RESPONSE, YOU KNOW, I THINK
REALLY, THE IMPORTANT THING TO
KNOW ABOUT THIS INITIATIVE IS
THE FLEXIBILITY THAT IT PROVIDES
TO REALLY ALLOW THE STATE
AGENCIES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN
ALLOCATING THE FUNDS TO BE ABLE
TO OVER THE YEARS AS NEEDS
CHANGE TO GO THROUGH THEIR
PUBLIC PROCESSES OF THEIR
PROGRAMS. THERE ARE GOING TO BE
IN PLACE AND TO HAVE ALL OF
THOSE KIND OF BE HELD BY THOSE
AGENCIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE
ABLE TO SAY OVER THE YEARS AS
THE NEED CHANGES IN BOTH
INFRASTRUCTURE AND VEHICLE
NEEDS. WELL AS WILDFIRES THAT
WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SHIFT
WHERE THE FUNDING GOES TO WHAT
IS NEEDED IN THAT GIVEN YEAR AND
SO HOPEFULLY THAT CAN, YOU KNOW
, JUST IN RESPONSE TO THAT
CONCERN THAT YOU RAISED THAT
THERE'S GOING TO BE FLEXIBILITY
THAT WE'RE NOT BEING OVERLY
PRESCRIPTIVE T WHAT WILL BE
FUNDED, BUT RATHER WHAT ARE THE
PRIORITIES AND THE ISSUES THAT
WE NEED TO ADDRESS? NOBODY EVER
UNDERSTANDS, INCLUDING ME WHEN I
RUN A BILL, BUT ALL THE
IMPLICATIONS ARE GOING TO BE AND
OFTEN TIMES A YEAR OR TWO LATER,
WE'RE REVISING, EVEN THOUGH IT
WENT THROUGH ONE HEARING AFTER
ANOTHER, WHICH, FRANKLY, IS MUCH
MORE DETAILED THAN THE HEARING
WERE. HAVE HE HERE? WE DON'T
REALLY HAVE AN ANALYSIS OF THE
TYPE THAT WE GET. WHEN WE GO
THROUGH COMMITTEE. TYPICALLY YOU
GO THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS TWICE
AND OR DIFFERENT POLICY
HEARINGS. THERE ARE THINGS IN
HERE THAT YOU WILL REGRET. AND
TO GO TO TWO THIRDS, WHICH IS
REALLY TOUGH. AND THEN 23
QUARTERS, WHICH IS PROBABLY
IMPOSSIBLE. I THINK YOU WILL. I
THINK THIS IS A MISTAKE. UM I DO
HAVE ONE OTHER POINT, BUT GO
AHEAD AND ANSWER. I JUST IN IN
RESPONSE TO THE POINT YOU'RE
MAKING AND I APPRECIATE YOU
SHARING. YOU KNOW WHERE WE'RE
COMING FROM IS WE HAVE TO DO
EVERYTHING THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN
IN THE TIME THAT WE HAVE LEFT TO
ADDRESS THE CLIMATE CRISIS
BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE, AND SO I
THINK THE BIGGER REGRET MIGHT
ACTUALLY BE TO NOT GO FORWARD
WITH INITIATIVES LIKE THIS. NO,
NO, NO, NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'VE
SAID. WHAT I'VE SAID IS YOU'RE
ASKING FOR THREE QUARTERS, THE
LEGISLATURE. TO MAKE A CHANGE
SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY? MR. I
ADMIT. GO AHEAD, SCOTT WORK, I
WOULD. THIS IS A 20 YEAR TIME
FRAME. SO IF THERE WAS SOME
CHANGE THAT THE LEGISLATURE FELT
WAS IMPERATIVE, UM, AND THE
THREE QUARTERS VOTE WAS
UNOBTAINABLE. YOU WOULD ALWAYS
HAVE THE OPTION WITH A MUCH
LOWER THRESHOLD TO PUT
INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT THROUGH
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO ALTER
THIS WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE VOTED
ON BY THE VOTERS. AND I THINK
THAT'S PROBABLY WAS THE, UH YOU
KNOW, THE MOTIVATION BETWEEN THE
THREE FORCES WANTED TO MAKE SURE
THAT IF THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT
CHANGES VOTERS WHO APPROVED IT
WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY THAN
TO SAY IF THEY WANTED IT TO BE
ALTERED. OKAY THAT'S THE ANSWER
TO MY QUESTION. I HAVE ANOTHER
CONCERN. IT LOOKS AS IF THIS IS
PRIMARILY DEVOTED THROUGH
ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. IN
PARTICULAR, THERE'S MONEY SET
ASIDE FOR ELECTRICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE. I REALLY THINK
THAT IN THE END ELECTRIC IS
GOING TO WORK FOR EVERYBODY WE
HAVE. IN HAYWARD, FOR EXAMPLE,
PEOPLE PARK ON THE STREET. SO
YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE VERY
DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO CHARGE
OVERNIGHT. UM AND I DON'T KNOW
THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GET
CHARGING IT EVERY WORKPLACE AND
UM, SO I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT
IT IS. ALREADY PUTTING ASIDE
MONEY FOR A PARTICULAR
TECHNOLOGY. IT'S NOT TECHNOLOGY
NEUTRAL. NOW. I UNDERSTAND.
THERE ARE ALSO FUNDS HERE THAT
COULD BE USED FOR HYDROGEN FOR,
UM BIOFUELS, ETCETERA, BUT IT
DOES SEEM IT'S NOT REALLY
TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL. MM HMM.
SIMILAR MEMBER. YOU'RE RIGHT
THAT A LOT OF THE VERB AGAIN THE
INITIATIVE SPEAKS TO E. V S, UM
, BUT IT DOES SPECIFICALLY CALL
IT ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES. WE
HAVE, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT PART
OF OUR COALITION, INCLUDING THE
PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS, THEIR
BIG HYDROGEN. THE DO BELIEVE
THAT THESE FUNDS WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR OTHER
TECHNOLOGIES. AND WE THINK THE
FLEXIBILITY FOR CARB TO BE ABLE
TO DO THAT. UH THE EASY IS, IS
THERE THAT WILL CERTAINLY PLAY
IT OUT IN OUR BALLOT ARGUMENTS
AND PUBLIC CAMPAIGN THAT WILL BE
THAT WILL PURSUED. THANK YOU.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO ASK. THANKS
VERY MUCH. AND THANKS FOR IN.
YOU DID ANSWER MY QUESTION, SO I
APPRECIATE IT. DOCTOR WOULD. YES
YES. THANK YOU. UM AND MY
QUESTION. MY QUESTION IS AROUND
THIS, UM AS I'VE BEEN READING
MORE AND MORE OBVIOUSLY, OUR OUR
ELECTRIC GRID IS PRETTY
CHALLENGED RIGHT NOW. AND THERE
HAVE BEEN STORIES MULTIPLE NEWS
AGENCIES WHO HAVE SAID THAT THE
STRAIN BY HUGE, YOU KNOW HUGE
INFLUX OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES ON
AND ALREADY STRUGGLING GRID
COULD BE DIFFICULT WERE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY
BLACKOUTS BROWNOUTS THIS SUMMER
BECAUSE OF CHALLENGES WITH POWER
BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE THINGS
WE'VE EXPERIENCED IN WELFARE
AREAS, AND SO ON. UM ARE THERE
RESOURCES TO AT WHAT POINT ARE
WE GOING? AND THAT MADE THAT MAY
NOT. YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE AN
ANSWER FOR THIS, BUT BUT WE
OBVIOUSLY NEED A STABLE GRID TO
BE ABLE TO DO THIS. IF WE'RE
COUNTING ON SOLAR POWER TO DO
THIS, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY
WORK AT NIGHT. QUITE FRANKLY, I
HAPPEN TO CHARGE MY CAR AT
NIGHT. UM DSPS EVENTS A VARIETY
OF THINGS THAT THAT THAT MAY
STILL BE PLAYING OUT FIVE YEARS.
SIX YEARS FROM NOW, SO I DIDN'T
SEE ANY FUNDING IN THIS OR IF
I'M WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME. IS
THERE ANY FUNDING TO HELP
STABILIZE THE GRID? SO THAT WE
CAN ACTUALLY HANDLE THIS. UM UH
, INFLUX OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES.
REMEMBER WHAT? I DON'T DISAGREE
WITH ANYTHING YOU SAID. BUT THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE AND CARVED
THROUGH THE SCOPING PLAN. ARE
MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF
ELECTRIFICATION AND
DECARBONIZATION OF BUILDINGS,
WHICH REQUIRES MORE ELECTRICITY
. AND SO AS LONG AS THE
LEGISLATURE CONTINUES TO PASS SB
100 SP 3 50 THESE BILLS ARE
GOING TO REQUIRE AND IN THE
BUILDING, YOU KNOW THE SCOPING
PLAN NOW CART CALLS TO DE
CARBONIZED ALL BUILDINGS, UM
WHICH WE SUPPORT. UH, THAT'S
GOING TO PUT STRAINS UNDER THE
GRID. UM THERE ARE THESE TWO.
THESE ARE YOU'VE IDENTIFIED
ANOTHER PROBLEM. UM BUT, YOU
KNOW, THIS INITIATIVE IS FOCUSED
ON MEETING WHAT'S IN THE SCOPING
PLAN AND WHAT THE LEGISLATURE
HAS DICTATED THAT WE NEED TO DO.
UM AND THERE'S OTHER VENUES
WHERE THOSE OTHER ISSUES
REGARDING THE GRID. ARE BEING
YOU KNOW, ARE BEING HANDLED.
THAT IS SO AT, UH, AT THE PUC
AND IN THIS BUILDING UM, I DON'T
DISAGREE WITH YOU, BUT NO, YOU
THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS
INITIATIVE THAT ADDRESSES
AGREED. THANKS. THANK YOU, MR
FONG. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. UM
I ACTUALLY WANTED TO ASK MR
BROWN THIS QUESTION HEARING FROM
MR KAUFFMAN. IF. IF THE
INVESTMENTS WERE NECESSARY,
NECESSARY AND TO BE DONE AT THE
GENERAL FUND AND READING YOUR
OTHER REPORTS IN REGARDS TO THE
BUDGET AND SELL, UM WHAT WOULD
BE THE IMPLICATIONS IF INSTEAD
OF DOING THIS INITIATIVE THAT IT
WAS, IT WOULD BE DONE AT THE
GENERAL FUND. WOULD THERE BE ANY
IN COULD IT BE DONE? WOULD HAVE
BEEN WITHOUT THIS INITIATIVE.
SORRY THE LEGISLATURE WOULD HAVE
TO BALANCE SORT OF DECISIONS ON
SPENDING ON THESE TYPES OF
ACTIVITIES WITH ALL OF ITS OTHER
BUDGET PRIORITIES, AND WITHIN
THE CONSTRAINTS THAT IT HAS ON
REVENUE THAT IT COLLECTS AND THE
CELL REQUIREMENTS THAT IT HAS.
SO UM YOU KNOW, IT WOULD KIND OF
HAVE THOSE THOSE SAME DECISIONS
THAT IT ALWAYS HAS WHEN, WHEN
CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO
PROVIDE MORE IN ADDITIONAL
FUNDING FOR AH FOR VARIOUS
PROGRAMS OR PRIORITIES. SO YOU I
WROTE. I TRIED TO WRITE DOWN THE
NUMBERS YOU GAVE ME. SO THIS
THIS INITIATIVE, WOULD YOU YOU
PROJECT WOULD BE THREE BILLION
TO 4.5 BILLION IN MOST YEARS.
AND THEN THE BREAKDOWN. SO THEN
HOW MUCH WOULD GET HOW MUCH GOES
TO XEV INFRASTRUCTURE CURRENTLY,
HE SAID. THREE POINT YOU SAID
3.9 BILLION LAST YEAR. THAT WHAT
YOU SAID SO LAST YEAR'S BUDGET
PROVIDED 3.9 BILLION OVER THREE
YEARS. THAT'S NOT JUST FOR XEV
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S FOR THE
ENTIRE RANGE OF XEV RELATED
PROGRAMS, INCLUDING INCENTIVES
AND CLEAN CARS FOR ALL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE. AH, FUNDING. SO
TO, UH. TO TRY TO PIGGYBACK OFF
THE CHAIRS. QUESTIONS HOW MUCH
CURRENTLY IN THAT THERE'S THE
STATE SPENT ON ON THE REBATES
AND ON THE ON THE PURCHASING OF
ZEPCE. AND HOW MUCH IS
INFRASTRUCTURE DO YOU KNOW? SO,
UM. THERE'S AS FAR AS KIND OF
THE STATE'S MAIN REBATE PROGRAM
, THE CVR P REBATE PROGRAM,
WHICH IS SORT OF THE PRIMARY
PROGRAM. THE LAST YEAR'S BUDGET
PACKAGE INCLUDED 525. MILLION
GENERAL FUND, AND THAT WAS MEANT
TO COVER A FEW YEARS OF THE
PROGRAM. UM, THERE'S ALSO, UH IN
AND COMBINING LAST YEAR'S BUDGET
PACKAGE AND THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL THIS YEAR. THERE'S
ABOUT 600 MILLION FOR CLEAN CARS
FOR ALL, UM. AH THERE'S AH,
ABOUT 900 MILLION AGAIN,
INCLUDING LAST YEAR'S BUDGET
PACKAGE AND THE PROPOSAL FOR
THIS YEAR FOR AS OF
INFRASTRUCTURE INCENTIVES, AND
SO THAT THOSE ARE ALL REALLY
FOCUSING ON KIND OF THE LIGHT
DUTY SIDE OF THINGS. THERE'S A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FUNNY ON
MONEY ON KIND OF A HEAVY DUTY
SIDE OF THINGS AS WELL. SO
THAT'S JUST MAYBE TO GIVE YOU A
LITTLE BIT OF FLAVOR. YEAH AND
THOSE ARE ALL SEPARATE PROGRAMS.
ARE YOU AGGREGATING THEM
COMPLETELY SO THE CVR P PROGRAM
IS A SEPARATE PROGRAM. CLEAN
CARS, FOR ALL IS A SEPARATE
PROGRAM. AH THE KIND OF
INFRASTRUCTURE INCENTIVES FOR
LIGHT DUTY PASSENGER VEHICLES. I
WAS SORT OF REFERENCING THAT
SEPARATELY FROM THE HEAVY DUTY
PIECES AS WELL. SO THERE'S THAT
WAS BREAKING THEM UP MOSTLY, AND
THE AND THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
EXCEL. IT TRIES TO ACCELERATE
THE INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT'S 66
BILLION. YOU, YOU YOU MENTIONED
THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSAL
ACCELERATES THAT INTO THE INTO
THE INTO THE NEAR TERM. YOU'RE
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL WOULD
ACCELERATE A VERY LARGE PORTION
OF KIND OF BOTH LAST YEAR'S AH,
PACKAGE THAT WAS AGREED UPON AS
WELL AS THE ONE THAT WAS
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN IN
JANUARY THIS YEAR, WHICH THEN
WAS ACCELERATED AND SUBSEQUENT
PROPOSALS. AND I WON'T PUT WORDS
IN YOUR MOUTH. BUT I WASN'T SUB
THREE WHEN YOU TESTIFIED, AND
YOU HAD CONCERNS OVER THE
ACCELERATION BECAUSE OF THE LACK
OF SPECIFICITY THAT GOES INTO
WHAT THOSE FUNDS WOULD BE USED
FOR. AM I CORRECT? I THINK OUR
COMMENTS ON THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL WHERE RELATED TO THE
LEGISLATURE BEING ABLE TO KIND
OF WEIGH IN OR REVIEW HOW THOSE
PROGRAMS ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED
BEFORE ADDITIONAL FUNDING IS
ALLOCATED AND SUBSEQUENT BUDGETS
, SO THE ORIGINAL JANUARY
PROPOSAL, WHICH WOULD HAVE HAD
THE FUNDING SPREAD OUT OVER
SEVERAL DIFFERENT YEARS, THE
LEGISLATURE COULD WEIGH IN PRIOR
TO ALLOCATING SOME OF THAT
ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN A FUTURE
YEAR IF IT FOUND THAT SOME OF
THE PROGRAMS WERE NOT BEING
IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY THAT IT IT
WANTED. UM AND SO ARE CONCERNS
RELATED TO THAT SPECIFIC
PROPOSAL. WE'RE UH WE'RE KIND OF
ON ON THAT PARTICULAR IF YOU
ACCELERATED IT YOU DIDN'T HAVE
THE LEGISLATURE DIDN'T HAVE THAT
SAME OPPORTUNITY. GOTCHA SO, SO
THE WITH THOSE SAME CONCERNS
APPLIED TO CARVE AND CC WITH THE
FUNDING THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED
UNDER THIS OR YOUR SEPARATE I WE
ARE ROLE HERE IS REALLY NOT TOO
PRONE TO COMMENT ON THIS
PARTICULAR MEASURE. I THINK WE
TAKE OUR ROLE VERY SERIOUSLY AND
JUST EXPLAINING WHAT THE MEASURE
WOULD DO. AND WHAT WE THINK IT'S
MAJOR FISCAL EFFECTS ARE SURE I
GOT YOU. I'M JUST TRYING TO. I'M
JUST TRYING TO KIND OF PUT THE
PIECES OF THE PUZZLE TOGETHER
THAT THAT THERE WAS CONCERNS
OVER THE SPECIFICITY OF THE
PROPOSAL PROVIDED BY THE
GOVERNOR ON ON HIS. FRONT
LOADING OF XEV INFRASTRUCTURE,
AND THIS PROPOSAL SEEKS TO GREAT
REVENUE TO DO THE SAME THING, I
GUESS IF, IF THAT IS IT? MY
UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT. UM BUT
TO YOUR POINT AND THEN TO THE TO
THE TO MR KAUFMAN'S POINT. IF
THE LEGISLATURE WERE TO DO IT,
WE COULD FUND AT THE SAME LEVEL.
THESE PROGRAMS THROUGH THE
GENERAL FUND. HOLDING ALL THINGS
CONSTANT, WITH PALIN AND THE
BUDGET CONSTRAINTS. I THINK IT
WOULD JUST REQUIRE
PRIORITIZATION OF ALL THE
DIFFERENT SPENDING THAT THE
LEGISLATURE DOES AND
CONSIDERATIONS OF SAL AND OTHER
THINGS LIKE THAT. WHICH I'M SURE
YOU'RE VERY WELL AWARE OF. UM
BUT THE LEGISLATURE HAS A LOT OF
FLEXIBILITY ON HOW IT SPENDS ITS
GENERAL FUND. AND SO IF IT
PRIORITIZED PROGRAMS LIKE THIS
IN THE FUTURE. SURE OPTION $300
BILLION BUDGET. WE COULD TAKE
333 TO 4.5 BILLION AND DEDICATED
TO THESE THINGS. I THINK THE
LEGISLATURE HAS FLEXIBILITY TO
SPEND MONEY, ITS GENERAL FUND
AND A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
OKAY, THANK YOU. AS MR
MURATSUCHI WAS ACTUALLY FIRST,
AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO MR
MCCARTHY. THANKS. THANK YOU. UM
I WANTED TO, UH UM FOLLOW ON THE
CHAIR'S COMMENTS ABOUT, UH YOU
KNOW? THE FOCUS ON THE. PASTOR
VEHICLES, MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLES AND NOT ON PUBLIC
TRANSIT. UM, I KNOW THAT WE'VE
ADD SIMILAR DISCUSSIONS. UM
BEFORE, BUT MY. I JUST WANT TO
MAKE A COMMENT AND THEN AND THEN
ADDRESS THE QUESTION AND FOLLOW
UP ON THAT. MY COMMENT IS THAT
YOU KNOW. FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS
OR SO. UH WE WE'VE BEEN TRYING
TO EXTEND THE METRO TO THE CITY
OF TORRENTS IN MY DISTRICT. AND
I JUST GOT THE LATEST UPDATE
THAT YOU KNOW, WHILE IT WAS
ORIGINALLY ON THE ON THE PLAN
FOR YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE 28 BY
28 PROJECTS BY THE 2028 LOS
ANGELES OLYMPICS. THAT NOW WITH
ALL THE SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES, I
MEAN THAT THAT'S THE EXCUSE
BEING OFFERED THAT THAT THE, UH
EXTENSION AND OPERATION DATA IS
NOW 2032. AND SO, YOU KNOW. IT
JUST SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE TOO MANY
EXAMPLES WHERE WE'RE SHOVELING
MONEY AT PROJECTS AND THEY DON'T
SEEM TO BE MAKING A DIFFERENCE
IN TERMS OF GETTING PEOPLE OUT
OF THEIR CARS AND UNDER PUBLIC
INTO PUBLIC TRANSIT, ESPECIALLY
WHEN IT'S TAKING SO YOU KNOW,
EMBARRASSINGLY LONG. YOU KNOW,
HERE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TO BUILD ANYTHING THAT PEOPLE
ACTUALLY USE, AND SO YOU KNOW, I
DO SHARE THE, UH PERSPECTIVE OF
MR ROMERO FROM THE ENVIRONMENT
EATERS THAT WE NEED TO, YOU
KNOW, RECOGNIZE THE URGENCY NOW
, WHEN YOU KNOW CLIMATE
SCIENTISTS ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW
THE NEXT 10 YEARS ARE GOING TO
BE CRITICAL. YOU KNOW, TO TRY TO
MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF
THE TRAJECTORY OF OUR FIGHT
AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE. UM BUT
TO THAT. POINT THAT I'M TRYING
TO MAKE MISS ROMERO. YOU KNOW?
HOW DO WE KNOW? HOW CAN WE
REASSURE VOTERS THAT THIS THESE
MONIES HERE ARE NOT GOING TO BE
A CONTINUATION OF THIS? HISTORY
OF JUST SHOVELING MONEY AT AT
THAT, YOU KNOW, AT INVESTMENTS
THAT WE THINK YOU KNOW, MAKES
SENSE IN TERMS OF TRYING TO, UH
CUT DOWN ON GREENHOUSE
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. UM AND
MORE SPECIFICALLY, I MEAN, DID
THE PROPONENTS OF THIS
INITIATIVE DO ANY, YOU KNOW,
STUDIES OR ANALYSIS IN TERMS OF
WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO TAKE
TO GET LIKE LOW INCOME AND
WORKING CLASS CALIFORNIANS,
ESPECIALLY TO GET THEM OUT OF
GAS POWERED CARS AND INTO E V.
AH ELECTRIC VEHICLES. I MEAN,
WAS THERE ANY ANALYSIS IN TERMS
OF WHAT IS THE. THE PROJECTED
PRICE POINT. YOU KNOW WHERE THE
MARKET IS HEADED, AND THEN
THERE'S A ANOTHER ISSUE THAT
WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW WHERE THE
DEMAND FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES FAR
EXCEEDS. THE SUPPLY OR EVEN IF
PEOPLE WANT TO GET TVS, THEY CAN
GET THEIR HANDS ON AN E V. SO,
UM I WANTED TO HEAR IF THERE WAS
ANY ANALYSIS BY THE INITIATIVE
PROPONENTS IN TERMS OF YOU KNOW
WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO GET
PEOPLE OUT OF GAS POWERED CARS
INTO E V S, AND, UH, THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FOR THE
QUESTION, SO THIS INITIATIVE
REALLY DOES HAVE A FOCUS ON
GETTING CLEAN VEHICLES INTO
HOUSEHOLD AND A REALLY KEY PART
OF THAT IS THAT THE MEASURE DOES
REQUIRE 50% OF THE ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLE AND ZERO MACHINE VEHICLE
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS TO
BENEFIT LOW INCOME IN
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. AND
IT DOES SET ASIDE SOME FUNDING
FOR THE STATE AUDITOR AND
CONTROLLER WHO CONDUCT
PERFORMANCE AUDITS EVERY 2 TO 4
YEARS RESPECTIVELY, TO REALLY
VERIFIED THAT THAT THE
INITIATIVE IN THE FUNDING AND
THE INVESTMENTS ARE COMPLYING.
WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS. UM AND
YOU KNOW, JUST TO THE POINT OF,
YOU KNOW SOME OF THOSE PROGRAMS
AND HOW MUCH MONEY THIS MEASURE
WOULD BRING. COMPARED TO
EXISTING PROGRAMS ARE GETTING
RIGHT NOW. 50% WOULD BE
INCREDIBLY IMPACTFUL AND NOT
FUNDING WOULD GO TOWARDS THE
EQUITY FORWARD CARD PROGRAMS
LIKE THE CLEAN MOBILITY OPTIONS
AND CLEAN CARS FOR ALL PROGRAMS.
AS WELL AS EXPANDING THAT ZERO
MISSION INVESTMENT IN THE HYBRID
AND ZERO MISSION TRUCK AND BUS
VOUCHER INCENTIVE PROGRAM. IT
WOULD REALLY DRAMATICALLY EXPAND
EQUITY FORWARD. UM PROGRAMS THAT
THE ENERGY COMMISSION LIKE THE
RELIABLE, EQUITABLE AND
ACCESSIBLE CHARGING FOR MULTI
FAMILY HOUSING TO REACH PROGRAM.
WHICH IS THE ONE THAT
PRIORITIZES THE INSTALLATION OF
CHARGING EQUIPMENT IN MULTI
FAMILY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS FOR LOW INCOME AND
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. SO
WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, SORT OF SET
ASIDE THAT REALLY SIGNIFICANT
SET ASIDE. UM THAT'S A THAT'S A
PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE WHAT
WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW, WITH THE
FOCUS ON, UM ENSURING THAT
HOUSEHOLDS CAN HAVE ACCESS TO
AFFORDABLE, CLEAN VEHICLES, AND
ESPECIALLY OVER TIME, ENSURING
THAT IN ADDITION TO THAT SORT OF
ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURE THAT'S IN
THAT'S IN PLACE TO REALLY ENSURE
THAT THOSE INVESTMENTS ARE
ACTUALLY ACHIEVING THOSE GOALS.
UM, WE FEEL LIKE THAT'S THAT'S
GOING TO REALLY CHANGE THINGS IN
TERMS OF WHAT THE SITUATION THAT
WE'RE IN NOW, WHICH IS CLEAN
VEHICLES ARE NOT NECESSARILY
ACCEPT ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE
TO ALL HOUSEHOLDS. UM AND THIS
WILL GO REALLY, REALLY FAR AND
CHANGING THAT DRASTICALLY. I'M
HEARING REALLY DRAMATICALLY MAKE
AN IMPACT AND REALLY MAKE A BIG
DIFFERENCE, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR
ACTUAL ANALYSIS. SO IN TERMS OF
IN TERMS OF ANALYSIS, I MEAN,
YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF SORT
OF SPECULATIVE NUMBERS OF THIS
IS HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST TO
GET. YOU KNOW THIS AMOUNT OF
CLEAN CARS ON THE ROAD. UM AND
YOU KNOW, WE'RE CONTINUING TO
TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S A
DEFINITIVE WAY TO REALLY
ACTUALLY GET AT THOSE NUMBERS.
UM BUT IT'S DIFFICULT TO
ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, HAVE A
DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO THAT
QUESTION. I WOULD WHAT I WOULD
SAY IS THAT YOU KNOW, THIS ACT
REALLY DOES ESSENTIALLY CODIFY.
SOME OF THAT THE PRIORITIES OF
BILLS THAT THIS LEGISLATURE HAS
HAS CONSIDERED AND THAT HAVEN'T
PASSED AND SO YOU KNOW, THERE'S
A LOT TO GAIN. THERE'S A LOT TO
GAIN. AND, UM I THINK THAT IN
TERMS OF THE ANALYSIS OF HOW
THIS IS GOING TO SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDE IN TERMS OF WHAT IS THE
WHAT IS THE EXSTING NEED? UM
IT'S A QUESTION THAT WE'RE ALSO
WORKING TO ANSWER AS WELL AND BE
HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH YOU.
ONCE WE GET A CLEAR PICTURE OF
THAT MISS ROMERO. YOU KNOW THAT
? I'VE ALREADY ENDORSED THIS
INITIATIVE. AND SO I I'M ALREADY
YOU KNOW, IN SUPPORT OF THE
GOALS AND ASPIRATIONS OF THIS
INITIATIVE, BUT AS THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS INDICATES, I MEAN WE?
WE ONLY HAVE SO MANY SHOTS AT AT
AT MILLIONAIRE, PLUS TAX
INCREASES, AND SO I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT THIS IS THE ONE THAT'S
ACTUALLY GOING TO MAKE A
DIFFERENCE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR MCCARTHY. YEAH THANK YOU
. UM I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS
BRIEFLY THAT THE BUDGET QUESTION
THAT, UM LONG AND A LEFT, BUT
THIS IS A 20 YEAR PLAN. RIGHT SO
THIS IS A ONE TIME SURGE RIGHT
NOW. WITH DISCUSSIONS ON GAME
THE SOUTH, SO I THINK THAT'S
HYPOTHETICAL. THAT MAY NOT EXIST
IN A FEW YEARS. AND SO I SUPPORT
THIS, IN LARGE PART BECAUSE A
LONG TERM DEDICATED FUNDING
SOURCE TO OUR KEY ENVIRONMENTAL
GOALS SO WE HAVE CAP AND TRADE
MONEY, AND THAT'S BEEN WAITING
UP ANDDOWN. UM WE HAVE ONE TIME
MONEY WE PUT IN LIKE IN THIS
YEAR'S BUDGET, AND WE GOT MONEY.
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE
LAST TWO YEARS. AND SO I GUESS
MY QUESTION TO THE PROPONENTS IS
YOUR VISION FOR THIS IS NOT, UM
IN LIEU OR SUPPLANTING WHAT
WE'RE DOING. BUT ON TOP TO REACH
OUR CLIMATE GOALS IS THAT
CORRECT? CORRECT THANKS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SO, UM IN YOU
KNOW, OF COURSE, WE APPRECIATE
THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATORS
LEADERSHIP ON ON THE CLIMATE
BUDGET, BUT IT JUST SIMPLY IS
NOT ENOUGH AND UM, YOU KNOW, TO
THE POINT THAT YOU MADE IN THIS
LARGE SCALE, LONG TERM,
SUSTAINABLE, UM, FUNDING SOURCE
THAT WE CAN REALLY USE
EFFECTIVELY TO COMBAT AIR
POLLUTION THAT'S REALLY GOING TO
SCALE UP OUR CAPACITY AS A STATE
TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. AND THE
INITIATIVE VERY CLEARLY INCLUDES
THAT IT PROVIDES THAT MONEY IN
THE FUND IS INTENDED TO INCREASE
AND ENHANCE PURPOSES OF AN
OBJECTIVE AND NOT REPLACE OTHER
EXISTING REVENUES. SO THE
NONSTOP PLANTATION POINT THAT
YOU MADE WITH WITH, YOU KNOW, SO
THERE REALLY IS A WAY THAT THIS
THIS FUNDING IS GOING TO BUILD
ON THE STATE'S GENERAL FUND
DOLLARS THAT ARE GOING TOWARDS
I'M SIMILAR SIMILAR GOALS. BUT
WHAT ALONE THAT THE BUDGET IS
JUST SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH AND
HAVING THIS KIND OF LONG TERM
SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT THAT WILL
ALSO SORT OF BE ADDED, YOU KNOW,
ADDITIVE. UM, IT'S GOING TO BE
REALLY CUTE. AND THEN AS FAR AS,
UM ON THAT POINT. IT'S NOT
EITHER OR IF WE HAD ALL OF THIS
OR ALL OF THE BUDGET ALLOCATIONS
NECESSARILY GET WHERE WE WANT TO
GO. ANYWAY THIS IS A KEY PIECE
OF THE PUZZLE. BUT AS I NOTED BY
MR WEST. JUST THE GRID NEEDS
OVER THE OUT. YEARS ARE
TREMENDOUS. AND SO WITH THAT
SAID, UM YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE THE
THERE'S BEEN THREE BUCKETS
RIGHT, SO THERE'S ONE BUCKET FOR
INCENTIVES AND THERE'S ONE BACK.
WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED ABOUT YET
FOR WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION OF THE
MIDDLE ONE FOR THE
INFRASTRUCTURE. YOU KNOW THAT'S
FOCUSING ON MULTI FAMILY AND
CHARGING STATIONS AND SO FORTH.
SO MINOR STANDING THAT THAT 80
90% OF PEOPLE TODAY. YOU HAVE
TVS THEY CHARGE AT HOME. SO THIS
ALSO GOES FOR CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE. BUT NOT REALLY
THE ELECTRICAL GRID. HOW DOES
THAT PLAYING TO EACH OTHER.
THANK YOU SIMILAR MEMBER. FIRST
OF ALL ON YOUR FIRST POINT, YOU
KNOW, ACCORDING TO THE C E C
THIS IN THE PUC. THE STATE NEEDS
TO INVEST ABOUT $30 BILLION IN
LIGHT CHARGING STATION
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABOUT 36
BILLION IN MEDIUM SIZED AND
HEAVY STATION INFRASTRUCTURE. SO
THIS INITIATIVE IS ONLY REALLY
GONNA GET US. ABOUT HALFWAY
THERE TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
UM AD, UH, THE INITIATIVE WOULD
, UH, ALLOW MONIES TO BE SPENT
ON UPGRADES TO THE DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM, NOT THE ENTIRE GRID THAT
MR WOOD WAS TALKING ABOUT, BUT
TO THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.
WE'RE UPGRADES ARE NECESSARY TO
SUPPORT THOSE, UM, THOSE
CHARGING STATIONS SO THEY DIDN'T
WANT TO. MISLEADING BUDDY. THERE
IS MONEY IN THE IN THE
INITIATIVE THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO
GO TOWARDS UPGRADING THE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TO SUPPORT
THOSE CHARGING STATIONS WHERE
IT'S NECESSARY. OKAY? YEAH, AND
SO OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE BOTH
NEEDED. UM, IN THAT. THEN. I
WANTED TO MENTION SOMETHING
EARLIER THAT THESE THESE REBATES
THEIR TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL, RIGHT
. IT'S A CLEAN CAR, WHETHER IT'S
A ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE OR
HYDROGEN OR SOME OTHER
TECHNOLOGY THAT COMES OUT THERE.
CORRECT. THE TERMINOLOGY AND THE
MEASURE IS ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE
RIGHT, WHICH COULD INCLUDE A
VARIETY OF TECHNOLOGIES. AND
THEN BACK TO MR FRIEDMAN'S
QUESTION FROM A LITTLE WHILE
AGO. DO YOU THINK? THAT WE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED. THIS
IS OVER 20 YEARS. SO DO YOU
THINK THAT WE SHOULD SPEND ALL
THE REBATE MONEY BEFORE 2035?
WHEN THE STATE GOAL IS FOR THE
100% CLEAN CARS IN CALIFORNIA OR
HAVE IT SPREAD OUTPOSTS. OR THE
L A. L SEBA. I MEAN, I DON'T
KNOW THAT I CAN COMMENT ON KIND
OF WHAT SHOULD BE DONE. I'LL
JUST SAY THAT THE MEASURE, UM AH
INCLUDES THAT THE TAX WOULD BE
IN EFFECT UNTIL 2043 OR IT COULD
BE EARLIER. IT COULD KIND OF AH
, NO LONGER BE IN EFFECT IF
STATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
DROPPED BELOW 80% BELOW 1990
LEVELS FOR THREE YEARS IN A ROW.
AND SO, BUT THAT MONEY WILL
WOULD CONTINUE TO COME INTO
THESE FUNDS AND WOULD BE
RESERVED FOR THE SPECIFIC
PURPOSE IS SET OUT IN THE
MEASURE UNTIL ONE OF THOSE DATES
OCCURS. SO UM, YOU KNOW, NOT NOT
ALL OF IT WOULD BE RAISED AT ONE
TIME. IT WOULD BE COMING IN ON
AN ANNUAL BASIS UNTIL WE HIT ONE
OF THOSE ONE OF THOSE TRIGGERS,
AND IT WOULD BE CARB THAT'S
MAKING THE DECISIONS ON THE
INCENTIVE FUNDING AND MAKING THE
DECISION ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE
FUNDING. HMM I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE
2035 OBJECTIVE IS REGARDING THE
SALE OF NEW VEHICLES. WE'RE NOT
GOING TO INSTANTANEOUSLY
VAPORIZED EVERY FOSSIL FUEL
DRIVEN VEHICLE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA SO THAT THE NEED TO
INCENTIVIZE THAT LOW OR MODERATE
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS STILL DRIVING
THAT YOU KNOW IT KIND OF VAN
FROM 1975THIS GUZZLING, YOU
KNOW, GASOLINE IS STILL GONNA
EXIST AFTER 2035. YEP. GOOD
POINT. AND JUST A BIG PICTURE.
OF COURSE WE'RE FOCUSING ON OUR
CLIMATE CHANGE GOALS, BUT IN THE
AREA LIKE SACRAMENTO, WHERE WE
HAVE HUGE AIR QUALITY
CHALLENGES, AS WELL, YOU KNOW
THAT'S ONE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PIECES DON'T ALWAYS TALK ABOUT
SO WE LIVE HERE. THE BATHTUB AND
ALL UP AND DOWN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY. THIS HAS A JOINT IMPACT
OF FOCUSING ON OUR CLIMATE GOALS
AND ARE VERY ACUTE. LOCAL AIR
QUALITY CHALLENGES AS WELL. AND
REST. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
OH, A BIG ISSUE FOR ME HAS TO DO
WITH EQUITY AND TRANSPARENCY. UM
THINK THAT FINDING WAYS TO. AND
I KNOW THAT THIS HAS A LOT TO DO
WITH THE DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES ARE POOR
COMMUNITIES. WE'RE NOT. WE KNOW
THAT THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE
MOST IMPACTED OFTENTIMES. UM MY
FIRST QUESTION IS, WHAT SUPPORT
DO YOU HAVE FROM THE FROM THE EJ
COMMUNITY FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S, UH, WE DO HAVE
SUPPORT FROM SEVERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING CENTER
FOR COMMUNITY ACTION.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, EASTERN
COMMUNITIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE AND THE PEOPLE'S
COLLECTIVE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE. WE ALSO HAVE SUPPORT
FROM PROGRESSIVE IN CONSUMER
ADVOCACY GROUPS LIKE COURAGE,
CALIFORNIA UTILITY REFORM
NETWORK AND A NUMBER OF PUBLIC
HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL
LIKE THE AMERICAN LUNG
ASSOCIATION. PUBLIC HEALTH
ADVOCATES ALLIANCES FOR ALLIANCE
FOR NURSES FOR HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENTS AS WELL AS OF
COURSE, A NUMBER OF
ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND
RDC COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
UNIT CONCERNED SCIENTISTS AND
THEN, UM, LABOR IS, OF COURSE,
REPRESENTED OUR COALITION'S
LEADERSHIP FROM MY BI W TWO
PIPE FITTERS TO CAL FIRE, SO WE
REALLY DO HAVE QUITE A DIVERSE
GROUP OF SUPPORTERS AND
STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED. INCLUDING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT I MENTIONED
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS
ASKED NIGHT DON'T RECALL. WHICH
OF MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT WHETHER
OR NOT THERE'S BEEN SOME STUDY
THAT SHOWS WHAT EXACTLY, IT'S
GOING TO TAKE TO GET MORE PEOPLE
INTO THE ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES.
I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT. IS IT
GOING TO BE GOING TO BE THE
REBATES IS WHAT EXACTLY IS WHAT
IS IT THAT WE NEED TO DO TO
REACH OUR GOALS? UM AND SO I'D
LIKE TO ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN.
WHAT IS IT? HOW ARE WE GOING TO
REACH THOSE GOALS WITH WITH THIS
BOND. THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION, AND DEFINITELY IT'S A
REALLY KEY ASPECT OF THIS
INITIATIVE IS A FOCUS ON
EQUITABLE TRANSITION OF OUR
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR 20
EMISSIONS. AND OF COURSE, YOU
KNOW, AS WE MENTIONED, THIS ACT
DOES REQUIRE HALF OF THAT
FUNDING FOR VEHICLE
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND, UM, AND
VEHICLE AND INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENTS, I SHOULD SAY, WHICH
ADDS UP TO APPROXIMATELY 40
BILLION OVER THAT 20 YEARS. AND
SPECIFICALLY TO BENEFIT LOW
INCOME IN DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES. THERE'S OF COURSE,
THE AUDIT THAT THAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN EVERY 2 TO 4 YEARS TO
REALLY VERIFY IF WE ARE, IF THE
IF THE INVESTMENTS ARE COMPLYING
WITH THAT. AND YOU KNOW THOSE
ARE GOING TO GO TOWARDS THE
TYPES OF ZEB EQUITY AND AIR
QUALITY CONTROL ACCOUNT
DEDICATED. THAT'S FOR PROJECTS
AND ACTIVITIES THAT REALLY BRING
BENEFITS TO DISADVANTAGE AND LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES. LIKE THE
ZERO EMISSIONS SCHOOL BSSES AND
ZERO MISSION TRANSIT BUSSES
PROGRAM, INCENTIVES FOR
GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESSES TO BUY
MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY AND
OFFERED AGRICULTURAL AND
CONSTRUCTION TVS AND SAYS OF
FINANCING ASSISTANCE AND
INCENTIVES TO HELP THOSE WITHOUT
ACCESS TO CAPITAL OR CREDIT TO
ACQUIRE NEW AND USED TVS AND ZEV
HELP FOR PEOPLE TO RETIRE SOME
OF THOSE OLD POLLUTING VEHICLES
AND REPLACING THEM WITH NEW AND
USED TVS AND ZEB. AND THEN ALSO
HELPING AGRICULTURAL WORKERS AND
OTHERS TO UTILIZE ZERO EMISSION
BAND POOLS SO REALLY INCREASING
ACCESS TO NON AUTO CLEAN
MOBILITY OPTIONS INCLUDED IN
THAT IS THE SORT OF WHAT I
MENTIONED PRAYER, WHICH IS THE
SUBSIDIES FOR EECTRIC BIKES AND
TRANSIT PASSES AND SUPPORTING
BIKE LANES AND EQUITABLE ACCESS
TO BIKE SHARING. SO ALL OF THOSE
INDIVIDUAL PART PROGRAMS ARE
GOING TO BE PART OF THAT OF THAT
PICTURE. AND THAT IS WHY THIS
INITIATIVE HAS DEDICATED HALF OF
THAT FUNDING OVER $40 BILLION
OVER 20 YEARS TO THAT PART SO IF
I MAY, MADAM CHAIR WHAT'S THE
ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISM THAT'S
GOING TO BE USED TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE MONEY IS SPENT AS IT'S
SUPPOSED TO BE SPENT THAT IT'S
BEING EFFECTIVE AND THAT WE
SHOULD CONTINUE TO INVEST IT OR
MAKE ADJUSTMENTS. ABSOLUTELY SO
, UM, SO THAT THAT THE
INITIATIVE DOES SET ASIDE THAT
FUNDING FOR THE STATE AUDITOR
AND CONTROLLER TO CONDUCT THAT
PERFORMANCE AUDIT EVERY 2 TO 4
YEARS. THE MEASURE ALSO EXEMPT
COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
FROM THE MEASURES CAP ON ADMIN
EXPENSES BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT
THOSE THOSE THOSE, UM EFFORTS OF
OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REALLY DO
NEED TO BE INCLUSIVE AND ROBUST.
AND THAT IS GOING TO BE REALLY
KEY TO THE SUCCESS OF THOSE
INVESTMENT. IN DEFINING MAY HAVE
MR WATCH HOW DO WE PROVIDE FOR
THE PROTECTION FOR OUR WORKERS?
UM ARE ARE THERE PROGRAMS TO
INCREASE THE WORKFORCE TO TAKE
CARE OF THE NEEDS? THAT WILL BE
PROVIDED HERE. THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION. WELL, FIRST OF ALL,
SINCE THIS MONEY WILL ALL GO
INTO THE STATE COFFERS AND THEN
BE ALLOCATED BY EITHER CAR
PROVIDED THE ENERGY COMMISSION.
UH, IT WILL ALL BE COVERED BY
PREVENTING WAGE SO WE WILL HAVE
CERTAIN WAGE AND HOUR SORT OF
PROTECTIONS. WITH THIS TYPE,
JUST SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
INVESTMENT GOING INTO
PARTICULARLY LOW INCOME AND MY
INCOME. UM COMMUNITIES. WE THINK
THAT THAT WILL CREATE JOB
CREATION IN THOSE COMMUNITIES. I
KNOW THAT, FOR INSTANCE, THE EYE
BW LOCALS WILL BE WORKING ON
BUILDING. A LOT OF THIS
INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE WITHIN
THOSE COMMUNITIES. AND SO IT
WILL BE, YOU KNOW, NEED TO
EXPAND OUR APPRENTICESHIP
PROGRAMS, UM, TO ACCOMMODATE YOU
KNOW ALL THE ADDITIONAL WORK
THAT WILL COME FROM US. AND UM,
TYPICALLY WILL BE TARGETING
THOSE COMMUNITIES WHERE WE'RE
GONNA BE DOING THIS WORK. UM
WELL, I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR
QUESTION. THANK YOU. I THINK IT
IS IMPORTANT THAT IF WE'RE GOING
TO PUT THE FUNDING INTO
SOMETHING LIKE THIS. WE HAVE TO
BE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE
WORKFORCE AND THAT THAT
PREVAILING WAGE IS SOMETHING
THAT IS IT IS, UM IT IS INSISTED
UPON AND FINALLY, UM. MEDIUM AND
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES. I KNOW THAT
IN THE CHART THAT IS PROVIDED.
UM IT'S 10% FOR MEDIUM AND HEAVY
DUTY. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS
BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
THE PORTS AND THE GOODS MOVEMENT
INTO THE INLAND EMPIRE OR INTO
LOGISTICS CENTERS THAT IS WHERE. THE MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY MAY
ACCOUNT FOR FEWER NUMBER OF
VEHICLES, BUT IT ACCOUNTS FOR
90% OF THE EMISSIONS. UM
AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, AS
YOU MENTIONED IS ONE OF THE
PROPONENTS ARE ONE OF THE
SUPPORTERS. THIS IS ALL
INFORMATION WE KNOW ABOUT SO
SPECIFICALLY. WHAT CAN WE DO OR
WHAT WILL BE DONE TO ADDRESS THE
ISSUES OF MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY
AND MOVING THOSE 20 EMISSIONS
AND THEN MAKE THE INVESTMENTS?
SPECIFICALLY ON THE
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THOSE. YEAH
IT'S A IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM AND
SO YOU KNOW WHAT IS REALLY
CRITICAL TO TALK ABOUT IS JUST
HOW THIS FUNDING IS GOING TO BE
SPLIT UP. SO IN TERMS OF THE
ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE
AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM THAT IS
45% OF THE TOTAL REVENUE, AND SO
THAT IS GOING TO BE INCLUSIVE OF
CONVERTING MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY
AND OFF ROAD VEHICLES TO TVS AND
SEB'S. THE FOCUS ON BENEFITING
AIR QUALITY AND LOW INCOME AND
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES,
REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS. AND IN TERMS OF THE
INFRASTRUCTURE PERCENTAGE OF
THIS INITIATIVE, UM, THAT IS
GOING TO BE, UM MEDIUM AND HEAVY
DUTY, FUELING INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND FUNDING BOTH UM AND ALSO OFF
ROAD CONSTRUCTION. UM FOR
PRIORITIZING LOCATIONS THAT ARE
NOT WELL SERVED BY EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE, SO THE WAY THAT
THAT THIS FUNDING IS SPLIT UP IS
SORT OF WITHIN BOTH THE VEHICLE
SIDE, THE INFRASTRUCTURE SIDE AS
WELL AS A WILDFIRE PIECE. AND
YOU KNOW, PUTTING IN ENSURING
THAT THOSE ISSUES ARE
REPRESENTED IN WHAT IS GOING TO
BE FUNDED WITHIN THAT PIECE OF
THE TOTAL INVESTMENTS. UM WAS A
REALLY CRITICAL PRIORITY OF ALL
THE STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED. AND
THAT IS THAT IS SORT OF WHY YOU
SEE IT THERE AND, UM, IN TERMS
OF WHAT AMOUNT OF THAT FUNDING
WOULD GO TOWARDS EACH OF THOSE
INDIVIDUAL THINGS IS REALLY
GOING TO BE DETERMINED ON WHAT
IS THE GREATEST NEED. HOW ARE WE
GOING TO TRANSITION ARE CLEAN.
OUR TRANSPORTATION SECTOR CLEAN
ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE. UM AND THE HEAVY
DUTY AND MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS ARE
REALLY CRITICAL PART OF THAT,
BOTH ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE SIDE
IN THE VEHICLE.
FROM NOW, VERSUS EIGHT YEARS
FROM NOW IT'S GOING TO BE VERY
DIFFERENT. AND SO THAT WAS AN
IMPORTANT ASPECT TO BE ABLE TO
NOT BE SO PRESCRIPTIVE THAT THIS
IS THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING GOING
TOWARDS THIS EXACT PROGRAM.
BECAUSE WE CAN'T PREDICT THE
NEED, YOU KNOW, 10 YEARS FROM
NOW, UM AND WE WANTED TO ENSURE
THAT THE PRIORITIES ARE LAID OUT
AND WHAT WILL BE FUNDED? UM, BUT
THAT THE STATE HAS THE
FLEXIBILITY TO DETERMINE
WONDERFUL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
YES MORE COMMENTS THAN QUESTIONS
AND JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT THE QUESTION MADE BY OUR
COLLEAGUE FROM FOR THE
STEINORTH. NORTHERN POINT OF THE
STATE REGARDING INFRASTRUCTURE,
AND I THINK WE HAVE A GREAT
OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY, UM AND A
COUPLE OUR EFFORTS, UM, WITH
THESE LARGE INVESTMENTS THAT ARE
BEING PROPOSED IN THIS YEAR'S
BUDGET. FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
PURPOSES WITH THIS INITIATIVE,
UM, YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS THAT
WERE BEING ASKED ABOUT
ACCOUNTABILITY ARE ON POINT. UM
OVERSIGHT, THE INTENTIONAL
INVESTMENTS IN DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES ARE CLEARLY
DESCRIBED IN THE INITIATIVE. ONE
QUESTION WAS, HOW DO WE ENSURE
THAT LOW AND VERY LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES HAVE ACCESS TO TWO
ELECTRIC VACATION TRANSPORTATION
AND ONE THING THAT WE NEED TO
KEEP IN MIND THAT TIES INTO THE
QUESTION BY DR WOOD IS THE COST
OF ELECTRICITY. AH AND THAT WE
HAVE TO BE MINDFUL GIVEN THE
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS THAT EXIST
, WHETHER IT BE BUILT BY THE
STATE OR INVESTED IN
INFRASTRUCTURE BY THE STATE OR
BY THAT, FOR THAT, MATTER BY THE
INDEPENDENT OWNED UTILITIES. HOW
DO WE ENSURE THAT THE COST OF
ENERGY UH, DOESN'T INCREASE AND
THAT BECOME ITS OWN BARRIER FOR
THE PURPOSES OF LOW INCOME
FAMILIES IN CALIFORNIA? NOT
WANTING TO GO IN THAT DIRECTION.
CLEARLY THE COST OF GAS TODAY
MAY YOU KNOW OUTWEIGH THE OPTION
OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE FOR SOME,
BUT I THINK THAT THAT WILL
ALWAYS BE A BARRIER AND SO JUST
WONDERING. IF THERE'S ANY
THOUGHTS, UH, IN PARALLEL WITH
HOW THE BUDGET INVESTMENTS ARE
BEING PROPOSED, UM, THAT COULD
SUPPORT THESE OBJECTIVES THAT
ARE IN THE INITIATIVE. I GUESS
IT DID TURN INTO A QUESTION. SO
JUST WONDERING IF YOU HAVE ANY
THOUGHTS ON THAT, GIVEN THAT
THAT TO ME RIGHT AND OUR ROLE IN
THE UTILITIES ENERGY COMMITTEE.
WE'VE HAD A SERIES OF
DISCUSSIONS ON TRANSMISSION AND
THE COST OF AFFORDABILITY KEEPS,
YOU KNOW. BEING PART OF THE
FRONT AND CENTER. TAKE AWAY SO
JUST ANY THOUGHTS ON ON THAT
FRONT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
THAT QUESTION. UM YES, 100% WITH
YOU AND THAT AFFORDABLE,
AFFORDABLE ENERGY. CLEAN ENERGY
IS A REALLY CRITICAL ASPECT OF
OUR CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE. AND THE
FUNDS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THIS
INITIATIVE, UM, ARE GOING TO
REALLY HELP TO RELIEVE SOME
PRESSURE FROM THE STATE'S
GENERAL FUND TO BE ABLE TO
INVEST IN SOME OF THOSE REALLY
CRITICAL PRIORITIES THAT ARE
GOING TO GET US TO CLEAN ENERGY
FUTURE MUCH SOONER. AND SO YOU
KNOW, ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA OF
WILDFIRE PREVENTION AND
SUPPRESSION AND RESILIENCY. UM
YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, THERE IS
THE NON SUPPLEMENTATION. UM
PROVISIONS OF THIS INITIATIVE,
BUT YOU KNOW, WE IN IT WILL
RELIEVE SOME OF THAT STRESS AND
WE WILL WE DO HOPE TO WORK WITH
YOU AND OTHERS TO ENSURE THAT WE
CAN MAKE THOSE INVESTMENTS TO,
UM MAKE SURE THAT OUR CLEAN
ENERGY FUTURE IS AFFORDABLE FOR
ALL CALIFORNIANS, THAT IS
ABSOLUTELY A PRIORITY. MR
CHAIRMAN, I THINK, UM, YOU WERE
PROBABLY AS AWARE AS ANY AS
ANYONE IN THE BUILDING THAT
WE'RE FACING BOTH A AND ENERGY,
UM, SHORTFALL THAT IS GROWING IN
THE OUT YEARS AND WE'RE GETTING
TO THE POINT OF RATE. UM YOU
KNOW, NON SUSTAINABILITY, THE
GROWTH AND SO, UM, WHAT WE
EMBRACE THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
IN THE BUDGET ON HIS CLEAN
ENERGY INVESTMENTS. THIS ONE
TIME FUNDING FOR THE MOST PART,
SO IT'S NICE, BUT IT'S NOT GOING
TO GET GET US NEARLY FAR ENOUGH
TO WEAR THE YOU KNOW THE SCOPING
PLAN FOR INSTANCES. AND I THINK
ONE REASON WHY TURN AND OTHER
REPAIR GROUP SUPPORT THIS
INITIATIVE IS BECAUSE WE'RE
TAKING A LOT OF WHAT WOULD
NORMALLY BE BORN BY RATEPAYERS
TO PAY FOR THIS, AND WE'RE
PUTTING IT IN A MORE, UM
PROGRESSIVE WAY OF RAISING THE
FUNDS. SO I THE SAME VW'S
POSITION THAT THIS HELPS ADDRESS
BOTH THOSE SORT OF TSUNAMIS
COMING AT US GROWTH RATE GROWTH
AS WELL AS UM, NEED TO INCREASE
YOU KNOW OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.
LOOK FORWARD TO MAYBE DIVING
INTO THIS CONVERSATION, AND
PERHAPS THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND
THE UTILITIES AND ENERGY
COMMITTEE TO HAVE ANOTHER JOINT
CONVERSATION LOOKING AT OTHER
COMPONENT OF E V TRANSITION. T
ELECTRIFICATION, UM AND THE
ISSUE OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND
RATES. SO PERHAPS, YOU KNOW,
TAKEAWAY HERE WOULD BE SOME
FOLLOW UP WORK FOR US TO DIVE
INTO. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
YOU'RE ON. WE WILL DO IT. I LOVE
THE IDEA. THANK YOU FOR THE
SUGGESTION. SEEING NO MORE
COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES.
WE'RE GOING TO NOW GO TO THE
PUBLIC AND WE'RE GOING TO START
WITH ANYBODY IN THE ROOM WHO
WISHES TO GIVE ANY TESTIMONY.
SEEING NO ONE RUSHING UP TO THE
MIC OPERATOR. CAN YOU PLEASE
OPEN THE PHONE LINES FOR ANY
PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE BALLOT
MEASURE? YES MADAM CHAIR IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
COMMENTS TODAY, PLEASE PRESS
ONE, THEN ZERO THAT COMMAND
AGAIN. ONE BEEN ZERO IN ONE
MOMENT, PLEASE FOR OUR FIRST
COMMENT. AND FIRST WE'LL GO TO
LINE 24. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. IT'S PAUL MASON WITH
PACIFIC FOREST TRUST, AND I WAS
ONE OF THE COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON
THE WELFARE PORTION OF THE
PROPOSAL. UH AND I JUST NOTE
THAT THE FUNDING THAT'S
AVAILABLE THERE IS
OVERWHELMINGLY FOCUSED. THERE IS
PARTICULARLY FOCUSED ON
INCREASING STAFFING AND BENEFITS
AND THE RELATED ACTIVITIES AT
CAL FIRE. WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY
IMPORTANT. THERE'S A LOT OF
ONGOING LEGISLATIVE
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT INCREASING,
UM, CAPACITY THERE TO SORT OF
MATCH THE MOMENT IF YOU WILL. UM
BUT I WILL NOTE THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS REALLY STEPPED
UP IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS
AND IDENTIFIED THAT WE REALLY
NEED AN ONGOING COMMITMENT TO,
UH OTHER ASPECTS OF PREPAREDNESS
. YOU KNOW, FOREST MANAGEMENT TO
SOME OF THOSE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS
TO PREPARE FOR FIRES. AND THIS
PROPOSAL DOESN'T DO VERY MUCH
THERE. IT'S CAPPED AT YOU KNOW
WHAT WOULD PROBABLY BE AROUND
$150 MILLION A YEAR OUT THROUGH
2030. IT'LL BE REALLY IMPORTANT
FOR THE LEGISLATURE JUST TO KID
KOPPE OF MIND THAT THIS DOES NOT
SOLVE OUR NEED TO MAKE ONGOING
COMMITMENTS. TO PREPARING THE
LANDSCAPE IN OUR COMMUNITIES FOR
FIRE. YEAH OTHER THINGS I WOULD
OBSERVE IS THIS THIS IS SUPPOSED
TO BE ADDITIONAL FUNDING ON TOP
OF WHATEVER THE BASELINE.
CALIFORNIA BUDGET IS FOR
SUPPORTING QUALIFIER. UM AND SO
THAT'S GONNA BE SOMETHING TO
KEEP IN MIND AS THE LEGISLATURE
FINALIZES, BUT IN NEGOTIATIONS
THIS YEAR IS THAT WHATEVER IS IN
THE BUDGET THIS YEAR WILL BE THE
BASELINE UPON WHICH WERE THEN
ADDING ANOTHER FOUR OR $500
MILLION A YEAR OF SUPPORT FOR
CAL FIRE, SO JUST BEING AWARE OF
THAT AS WE'RE PUTTING TOGETHER
OUR BUDGET, RECOGNIZING WE
CLEARLY NEED TO INCREASE
CAPACITY THERE. BUT JUST BEING
WELL AWARE THAT THIS PAST IT
WILL BE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT CALL, PLEASE. LINE 28. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS THE DIRECTOR OF STATE
POLICY. PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCATES
MEMBER OF THE CLEANER CALIFORNIA
COALITION, WHICH INCLUDES LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUPS, FIREFIGHTERS. PUBLIC
HEALTH ADVOCATES, ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS AND
BUSINESSES SUPPORTING THE CLEAN
CARS AND CLEAN AIR ACT FOR THE
BALLOT THIS NOVEMBER. THANK YOU.
AND NEXT WE'LL GO TO LINE NINE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, DANIEL GUTIERREZ
ON BEHALF OF TURN THE UTILITY
REFORM NETWORK, WHICH STANDS IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS
INITIATIVE FOR THE NOVEMBER
BALLOT. THIS MEASURE IS
NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT FUNDS
ARE AVAILABLE TO HELP ADDRESS
SOME OF THE MAIN SOURCES OF
EMISSIONS IN THE STATE
TRANSPORTATION AND WILDFIRES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. IN LINE
25. HELLO THANK YOU. A DRILL.
COOK FOR THE LOS ANGELES CLEAN
TECH INCUBATOR, LACEY. WE'RE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. LINE 19. THANK
YOU. MY NAME'S WILL BARRETT ON
THE NATIONAL SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR
CLEAN AIR ADVOCACY WITH THE
AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION FOR
SUPPORTING THIS INITIATIVE
BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT CONSISTENT
FUNDING, PARTNERED WITH STRONG
CLEAN AIR RULES IS NEEDED TO
MAINTAIN PROGRESS ON
CALIFORNIA'S DECADES. OF EFFORTS
TO CLEAN THE AIR AND GIVE EVERY
CALIFORNIA AND THE HEALTHIER
THEY DESERVE, BUT THAT IT'S SO
OFTEN OUT OF REACH. DESPITE
DECADES OF PROGRESS, CALIFORNIA
CONTINUES TO FACE THE MOST
DIFFICULT AIR POLLUTION
CHALLENGES IN THE UNITED STATES.
THE CHALLENGES ARE NOT FELT
EQUALLY AND ARE BEING MADE MORE
DIFFICULT DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
THROUGHOUT EXTREME HEAT AND
WILDFIRES. THIS MEASURE WILL
ENSURE CONSISTENT FUNDING FOR
REDUCING FINE PARTICLE
POLLUTION. SMOG FORMING
EMISSIONS AND DIESEL EXHAUST A
COORDINATION WITH ONGOING LIFE
SAVING PROGRAMS THAT THE STATE
HAS ALREADY CHAMPIONED. THE
TRANSITION TO ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLES IS CRITICAL TO
ACHIEVING HEALTH PROTECTIVE
CLEAN AIR STANDARDS. BOTH IN THE
PASSENGER VEHICLE SECTOR AND THE
HEAVY DUTY SECTOR AGAIN. THIS IS
A CRITICAL CLEAN AIR MEASURE ON
TOP OF THE CLIMATE BENEFITS THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THIS
MEASURE WILL SUPPORT CRITICAL
INVESTMENTS IN ZERO EMISSION,
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE TO ACCELERATE THE
PATH SET BY PENDING REGULATIONS
, AS WELL AS MAKING IMPORTANT
INVESTMENTS IN WELFARE FUNDING.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
NEXT CALLER. NEXT WE'LL GO TO
LINE 15. GOOD AFTERNOON,
ISABELLA ORQUERA WAS LIGHTHOUSE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, CALLING ON
BEHALF OF FOR STORIES AND STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS SALAD MEASURE TO
PROVIDE ONGOING DEDICATED
INVESTMENTS TO REDUCE AIR
POLLUTION IN GHG EMISSIONS.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND PREVENT
DEADLY WILDFIRES. THANK YOU.
LINE 21. CHRIS CHÁVEZ, WITH
COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR, WHICH
IS A MEMBER OF THE CLEAN AIR
CALIFORNIA CAMPAIGN. WE ARE
SUPPORTED THIS MEASURE JUST TO
NOTE THAT CALIFORNIA HAS
MULTIPLE AIR BASES, WHICH FAILED
DIFFERING AIR NATIONAL AMBIENT
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS. IN THE
BULK OF THAT THE PRIMARY DRIVER
OF THAT POLLUTION IS THE
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR, AND WE
NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN AS
QUICKLY AS WE CAN TO THE PLACE,
CLEAN TRANSPORTATION THROUGHOUT
THE STATE, AS WELL AS DEPLOYING
IT EQUITABLY TO COMMUNITIES THAT
HAVE SEVERE POLLUTION IMPACTS
AND SOCIOECONOMIC
VULNERABILITIES. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. LINE 16.
BLACKSTONE ENERGY NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL NRDC,
MEMBER OF THE CLEANER CALIFORNIA
CAMPAIGN IN SUPPORT AND
RESPONDING TO A FEW QUESTIONS
THAT WERE RAISED DURING THE Q
AND A CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
MEASURES BEING MORE OR LESS
EXCLUSIVELY FOCUSED ON CARS. MAY
HAVE BEEN FAIR AS TO THE
ORIGINAL MEASURE SUBMITTED TO
THE SECRETARY OF STATE WITH THE
REVISED MEASURE, THE ONE THAT WE
SUPPORT AND THAT WHOLE HOST OF
DIVERSE OTHER PUBLIC INTEREST
GROUPS SUPPORT HAS A STRONG
EMPHASIS ON MEDIUM AND HEAVY
DUTY VEHICLES, INCLUDING TRANSIT
IN SCHOOL BUSSES, AS WELL AS
OTHER THINGS THAT WILL REDUCE
CAR DEPENDENT. AND COULD ALLOW
FOR LITERALLY TENS OF BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS TO BE SPENT, UM TO
FURTHER THOSE EFFORTS. AND WITH
RESPECT TO THE QUESTION AS TO
THE ANALYSIS UNDERPINNING THE
MEASURE. EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS WAS
DONE BY THE CAMPAIGN TO ESTIMATE
THE SIZE OF THE INVESTMENT
NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THIS
TRANSITION. AND IT COMPORTS WITH
THE SAME ANALYSIS. MY COLLEAGUE
DR SIMON WE PRESENTED TO THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE. LAST
SESSION WITH HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP
ON THAT. AND THEN JUST LASTLY,
WITH RESPECT TO THE GRID, WHICH
IS REALLY MY AREA OF FOCUS.
TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION
IS ONE OF THE BRIGHT SPOTS
REALLY CAN PUT DOWNWARD PRESSURE
ON ELECTRIC RATES. THE BENEFIT
OF ALL TIME CUSTOMERS. YOUR TIME
IS UP. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. IN LINE 14.
GOOD AFTERNOON MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MY TOWEL,
AND I'M THE POLITICAL DIRECTOR
WITH COURAGE CALIFORNIA, A MULTI
ISSUES STATEWIDE ORGANIZATION.
WE ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLEAN AIR
CALIFORNIA COALITION ENFORCE
SUPPORT OF THIS CLEAN CARS AND
CLEAN ACT FOR THE SALAD. THIS
NOVEMBER. WE ARE IN FULL
SUPPORTERS OF THE MEASURE AND
BELIEVE THAT THE SUSTAINED
INVESTMENT WILL ADDRESS THE
DISRUPTIVE AND OTHER STATING
IMPACT THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS
HAVING ON CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. LINE 26. HELLO MY NAME
IS MICHAEL CHUCKAS AND I'M THE
CLIMATE POLICY DIRECTORATE
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
IN SANTA BARBARA. AND WE'RE A
MEMBER OF THE CLEAN AIR
CALIFORNIA COALITION AND
STRONGLY SUPPORT THE MEASURE.
WE'VE BEEN PIONEERING
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS ON
CALIFORNIA'S CENTRAL COAST SINCE
1970 AND OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS,
WE'VE ENTIRELY FOCUSED ON
CLIMATE, INCLUDING A LARGE FOCUS
ON MAKING IT EASIER TO DRIVE
ELECTRIC VEHICLES. WE HAVE
WITNESSED FIRSTHAND THE LACK OF
FUNDING AND CHALLENGES IN
DEPLOYING CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL AS THE
START AND STOP NATURE OF MANY OF
THE STATES. ZEV REBATE PROGRAMS
AND THIS STABLE FUNDING FROM THE
MEASURE WILL GIVE A HUGE BOOST
TO THE ABILITY OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENERGY COMMISSION AND CARB AND
OTHER AGENCIES TO LEAD THE
TRANSITION TO XEV. FROM THIS
EXPERTS POINT OF VIEW THIS
MEASURE AS MUCH NEEDED. THANK
YOU. LINE 22. LINE 22. YOUR MIC
IS OPEN. YES I BELIEVE THAT'S ME
. THIS IS ELI LIVING FROM MOVE L
. A SPEAKING ON BEHALF F MOVE
L. A COALITION AND DENNY ZANE.
WE ARE IN FULL SUPPORT AND THE
MEMBER AND SUPPORTER OF THE
CLEAN AIR INITIATIVE. WHAT IS
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS
MEASURE IS NOT SIMPLY THAT IT
PROVIDES FUNDING TO INVEST IN
THEIR EMISSION, CHARGING
APPEALING INFRASTRUCTURE AND
PROVIDING CENTERS FOR
ACCELERATED DEPLOYMENT OF ZERO
EMISSION CARS. MEDIUM AND HEAVY
DUTY TRUCKS, TRAINS, SHIPS,
PLANES, CONSTRUCTION IMPORT
EQUIPMENT. IT DOESN'T ADD SCALE
AND SUSTAINED, PREDICTABLE AND
RELIABLE, DURABLE EFFORT OVER
TIME. THIS IS AN EFFORT
CONVINCER IT WITH THE CHALLENGE
, AND IT'S DESIGNED TO GIVE
MANUFACTURERS, OPERATORS AND
CONSUMERS THE CONFIDENCE THEY
NEED, BUT IF THEY MAKE THEIR OWN
INVESTMENTS IN ZERO EMISSION
TECHNOLOGY, THEY CAN RELY UPON
SUPPORT THAT EFFORT WITH BOTH
SUFFICIENT AND SUSTAINED
FUNDING. IT WILL NOT BE LEFT
HOLDING THE BAG WITH ANOTHER
HERE TODAY. GONE TOMORROW,
GOVERNMENT PROMISE. AS YOU KNOW
, WE HAVE MOVED, LIKE SHARE YOUR
DEEP COMMITMENT TO THE
DEVELOPMENT AND MATURATION OF
OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM,
PUTTING RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEMS NOW
NOW BEING DEVELOPED AND OPERATED
BY L. A METRO. AS WELL AS BUS
SYSTEMS AS WELL AS METROLINK IN
THE FIVE COUNTIES SO WE CAN
SUPPORT EFFORTS TO EXPAND THOSE
WELL, THANK YOU LINE 32. YES I
WAS JUST CURIOUS. WHAT PLANET DO
YOU GUYS COME FROM? I MEAN, WE
CAN CALL UP ELON MUSK TO SEND
YOU GUYS BACK WHERE YOU CAME
FROM. NEXT CALLER, PLEASE. 9 27.
HI THERE. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE
ME. CAN YOU HEAR ME? AM I IN
COMMITTEE, UM, WITH PLANET
NEPTUNE, APPARENTLY BECAUSE YOU
PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN KEEP THE
LIGHTS ON. AND YOU PLANES, 30.
HI I'M LINDA FROM PLEASURE
COUNTY. I MIGHT HAVE CALLED IT
THE WRONG THING. YOU CAN CORRECT
ME IF I'M WRONG. I'M CALLING TO
OPPOSE THIS VERY, VERY MUCH. AM
I WITH THE OPPOSED OR FOR GROUP
RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. YOU'LL BE
ABLE TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER. THANK
YOU. SO FOR CALLING IN NEXT
COLOR, PLEASE. AND MADAM CHAIR.
THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS AT
THIS TIME. THANK YOU WITHOUT THE
JOINT BALLOT INITIATIVE HEARINGS
HEARING IS COMPLETE AND WE ARE
ADJOURNED.