GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. THANK
YOU FOR ATTENDING AND TUNING IN
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
COMMUNICATION AND CONVEYANCES
BILL HEARING TODAY. MY NAME IS
TASHA BERNARD. I SERVE AS THE
CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE. JOINING
ME ON THE DAIS TODAY, WE HAVE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LORI DAVIES. SO
WE'RE GOING TO BE. AND WE'RE
ALSO JOINED BY EMILIO PEREZ, THE
CHIEF CONSULTANT OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE, AND
ELIZABETH DELGADO, THE COMMITTEE
SECRETARY. AND JOINING US IN THE
HEARING IS DANIEL BALIN,
CONSULTANT WITH THE REPUBLICAN
CAUCUS POLICY UNIT, TODAY'S
AGENDA HAS SEVEN ITEMS, AND
THERE ARE NO ITEMS ON CONSENT.
BEFORE WE BEGIN OUR BILL HEARING
A PRESENTATION, I'D LIKE TO TAKE
CARE OF SOME LOGISTICAL
HOUSEKEEPING. IF ANY MEMBER OF
THE PUBLIC IN THE ROOM WOULD
LIKE TO TESTIFY ON A BILL DURING
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, I'LL
INVITE YOU TO APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. I'D ASK THAT THE PUBLIC
NOT TOUCH THE MICROPHONE. YOU
CAN EXIT THE HEARING ROOM ONCE
YOU'RE DONE TESTIFYING OR RETURN
TO YOUR SEAT. NOW LET'S COVER
THE GROUND RULES FOR APPROPRIATE
CONDUCT THAT THE ASSEMBLY HAS
EXPERIENCED A NUMBER OF
DISRUPTIONS, TO COMMITTEE AND
FLOOR PROCEEDINGS IN THE LAST
FEW YEARS. CONDUCT THAT
DISRUPTS, DISTURBS, OR OTHERWISE
IMPEDES THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF
THE HEARING IS PROHIBITED. SUCH
CONDUCT MAY INCLUDE TALKING OR
MAKING LOUD NOISES FROM THE
AUDIENCE, UTTERING LOUD,
THREATENING OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE,
SPEAKING LONGER THAN THE
ALLOTTED TIME. EXTENDED
DISCUSSIONS OF MATTERS NOT
RELATED TO THE SUBJECT OF THE
HEARING OR THE BILL, AND ANY
OTHER DISRUPTIVE ACTS TO ADDRESS
ANY DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT. I'LL
TAKE THE FOLLOWING STEPS. IF AN
INDIVIDUAL DISRUPTS OUR HEARING
PROCESS, I WILL DIRECT THEM TO
STOP AND WARN THEM THAT
CONTINUED DISRUPTIONS MAY RESULT
IN REMOVAL FROM THE CAPITAL
BUILDING. I WILL ALSO DOCUMENT
ON RECORD THE INDIVIDUAL
INVOLVED AND THE NATURE OF THE
DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT. I MAY
TEMPORARILY RECESS THE HEARING.
IF THE CONDUCT DOES NOT STOP, I
WILL REQUEST THE ASSISTANCE OF
THE SERGEANTS IN ESCORTING THE
INDIVIDUAL FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING, AND SO NOW WE WILL
START AS A SUBCOMMITTEE, SO WITH
THAT, WE ARE GOING TO GO TO OUR
FIRST BILL. I DON'T SEE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HOLDEN, SO WE'RE GOING TO
START WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER JUAN
CARRILLO, WE ARE HEARING AB 2221
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER JUAN CARRILLO
RELATING TO BROADBAND PROJECTS,
ELECTRIC POWER DESIGN APPROVAL.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CARRILLO, YOU
MAY OPEN AND I UNDERSTAND YOU
HAVE TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
ATTENDANCE. I SEE ONE I ASSUME
YOU'RE WEST. I AM. THERE YOU GO.
THERE'S THE SECOND ONE COMING UP
AND EACH OF YOU WILL HAVE TWO
MINUTES. ONCE, THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HAS FINISHED. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, THANK
YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT
ASSEMBLY BILL 2221. MY STAFF.
ENOUGH. MY STAFF AND I HAVE
SPENT SEVERAL MONTHS MEETING
WITH STAKEHOLDERS ALL OVER THE
STATE WITH THE INTENT TO FIND A
BALANCE THAT WILL PROTECT
WORKERS. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT OVER THE COURSE OF MY
CAREER AS A LOCAL CITY PLANNER
WITH 20 PLUS YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE, WHAT I HAVE
CONDUCTED AND APPROVED THESE
KIND OF PERMITS, I HAVE UNDER NO
CIRCUMSTANCE APPROVED ANYTHING
THAT WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE HEALTH
AND SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITIES
AND WORKERS, OR THE SAFETY OF
OUR WORKING MEN AND WOMEN IN OUR
COMMUNITY REMAINS MY TOP
PRIORITY, AND IT IS AT THE CORE
OF THE WORK THAT I PLAN TO DO
WITH THIS BILL. AND THROUGHOUT
THE PROCESS, MEMBERS I KNOW WE
ALL SHARE THE COMMON GOAL OF
CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE. WE
ALL WANT TO CONNECT UNSERVED AND
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES ACROSS
OUR STATE. THIS BILL ENSURES OUR
CONSTITUENTS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO
BROADBAND PROJECTS IN MONTHS
INSTEAD OF YEARS. BY REQUIRING
BROADBAND PROVIDERS AND
UTILITIES TO WORK TOGETHER AND
UTILIZE BEST PRACTICES TO REDUCE
DELAYS, WE NEED TO DO ALL WE CAN
TO STREAMLINE THE DEPLOYMENT OF
BROADBAND. SINCE STATE AND
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CALIFORNIA'S
BROADBAND FOR ALL NEEDS TO BE
ALLOCATED BY THE END OF THIS
YEAR, AND PROJECTS NEEDS TO BE
BUILT BY THE END OF 2026. IF WE
DON'T ACCOMPLISH THIS, MONEY
WILL HAVE TO BE SENT BACK TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AB 2221
STILL KEEPS ALL THE DECISION
MAKING WITH THE UTILITIES. THEY
CAN APPROVE OR DENY THE
APPLICATION. IT JUST REQUIRES
THAT THEY MAKE A DECISION IN A
REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME,
CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL SHOT
CLOCKS AND EXISTING LAW OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, AB 2221 STILL KEEPS
ALL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS IN
PLACE. IT GIVES UTILITY AS LONG
AS IT WANTS TO PERFORM
INSPECTIONS TO MAKE SURE THE
PROJECT MEETS ALL THEIR SAFETY
STANDARDS BEFORE ELECTRICITY IS
CONNECTED, AND ONCE ALL THE
SAFETY INSPECTIONS ARE PERFORMED
AND THE UTILITY APPROVES THE
PROJECT, IT REQUIRES UTILITY TO
CONNECT POWER TO THE PROJECT
MEMBERS. THIS BILL STRIKES THE
RIGHT BALANCE. IT CONTINUES TO
GIVE ALL DECISION MAKING TO THE
UTILITIES AND ENSURES THEY STILL
PERFORM ALL THEIR SAFETY CHECKS.
WE NEED TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
YOLANDA BENSON WITH US TELECOM
AND WEST JONES WITH CROWN
CASTLE. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
MEMBERS YOLANDA BENSON
REPRESENTING US TELECOM. THE
BROADBAND ASSOCIATION. WE'RE
VERY PLEASED TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL, AND WE THANK THE CHAIR AND
HER COMMITTEE STAFF AND
CERTAINLY THE COMMITTEES PRIOR
TO HEARING THIS BILL. I KNOW
THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
AMENDMENTS PUT INTO THE BILL.
AND I THINK THEY'RE ACTUALLY IN
PRINT NOW. SO IF ANY CHANGES
NEED TO BE MADE, WE'LL HEAR
ABOUT IT. I'M SURE, WHAT THE
BILL DOES NOT DO, IT DOES NOT
PUT BROADBAND AT THE FRONT OF
THE LINE. IT DOES NOT CIRCUMVENT
SAFETY INSPECTIONS BY THE
UTILITIES. IT DOES NOT TIE THE
HANDS OF UTILITIES WITH
TIMELINES. THESE TIMELINES ARE
SIMPLY THERE FOR BETTER
COMMUNICATION AND BETTER
CERTAINTY AND BETTER
COLLABORATION THAN EXISTS TODAY.
WHAT THE BILL DOES DO IS IT
ESTABLISHES THE GUIDELINES LINES
FOR BETTER COLLABORATION ON SOME
OF THE PRACTICES THAT SOME OF
THE IOUS ALREADY DO, AND WHAT
SOME OF THE POA'S ALREADY DO. SO
THERE'S ARE SOME REALLY GOOD
ACTORS WHO HAVE BEEN PARTNERS
WITH US IN TRYING TO ENSURE THAT
PROJECTS CAN MOVE FORWARD IN THE
BROADBAND SPACE. IT DOES ALLOW
60 TO 90 DAYS FOR THE UTILITY TO
DENY OR APPROVE AN APPLICATION,
BUT IN THAT TIMELINE, THEY CAN
CHANGE IT ANY TIME. SO IF 90
DAYS ISN'T ENOUGH, THEY CAN ASK
FOR AN EXTENSION THÀNH. SO IT IS
IN THE HANDS OF THE UTILITY. THE
SAFETY INSPECTIONS CONTINUE TO
BE IN THE HANDS OF THE
UTILITIES. WHEN THEY DO
ELECTRIFY THE FINAL BROADBAND
PROJECT. WITH THE UNPRECEDENTED
FUNDING THAT WE ARE RECEIVING
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
ENSURE THAT WE'RE REACHING THE
LAST MILE FOR BROADBAND IN
CALIFORNIA, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE
THAT NOT ONLY DO WE MEET THE
DEADLINES, ALTHOUGH WE'RE A
LITTLE BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL
WITH NOT EVEN GETTING THE MONEY
JUST YET, BUT WITH OVER 400
APPLICATIONS BY ISP PROVIDERS TO
ENSURE THAT THEY CAN REACH THAT
LAST MILE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT BY THE END OF 2026, WE'RE
ABLE TO BUILD THEM. I KNOW THAT
SOME OF YOU HAVE SEEN THIS, BUT
THERE'S LITTLE BOXES THAT SHOW
EVERY PLACE WHERE THERE IS
POTENTIAL, HURDLE AND BARRIER TO
DEPLOYING BROADBAND. WE JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT WE'VE BEEN
WORKING WITH THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, AND IT'S WORKING.
AND WE HOPE THAT THIS SAME
COLLABORATION AND UNDERSTANDING
HOW TO WORK WITH BROADBAND
COMPANIES IN A BETTER WAY WOULD
BE THE SAME. THANK YOU FOR
AUTHORING THIS BILL. WE SUPPORT
IT. THANK YOU, NEXT WE'LL MOVE
TO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. YOU MAY APPROACH? OH,
SORRY. I MOVE A LITTLE TOO FAST
EVEN FOR ME TODAY. GO AHEAD.
WES. TWO MINUTES. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, MY NAME IS WES JONES.
I'M THE DIRECTOR OF PERMITTING,
UTILITIES AND REGULATORY
COMPLIANCE AT CROWN CASTLE.
WE'RE THE NATION'S LEADING
NEUTRAL HOST INSTALLER OF
BROADBAND, WHICH MEANS WE
INSTALL FIBER, SMALL CELLS, AND
OTHER WIRELESS FACILITIES FOR A
VARIETY OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
ENTITIES, INCLUDING SCHOOLS,
LIBRARIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND BEYOND. I
WANT TO START BY THANKING
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CARRILLO FOR HIS
COMMITMENT TO CLOSING THE
DIGITAL DIVIDE, AND THE CHAIR
AND THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE FOR ALL THE WORK
THEY'VE DONE TO ACCELERATE
BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT TO UNSERVED
AND UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES. AT
CROWN CASTLE, WE'RE WORKING
EVERY DAY THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA
AND BEYOND THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY AS WELL INSTALLING
BROADBAND FACILITIES. WE'VE SEEN
A LOT OF PROGRESS IN CALIFORNIA
AS IT RELATES TO THE
JURISDICTIONAL PIECE OF BUILDING
OUT BROADBAND, THERE'S BEEN
NUMEROUS LEGISLATION APPROVED BY
THIS BODY. IN FACT, TO IMPROVE
THE DELAYS WE'RE SEEING THROUGH
THE JURISDICTIONS. AND WE'RE
LOOKING FOR THE SAME TYPE OF
ACTIVITY ON THE UTILITY SIDE,
OUR EXPERIENCE IS IT CAN TAKE 1
TO 2, EVEN THREE YEARS FOR A
UTILITY TO REVIEW AND APPROVE
OUR APPLICATIONS FOR A BROADBAND
FACILITY, CURRENTLY, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO
PROCESS THOSE TYPE OF PERMITS IN
A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, BUT
UTILITIES DON'T HAVE THOSE SAME
REQUIREMENTS, KIND OF CREATING
AN ETHER. WHEN WE SEND OUT
APPLICATIONS, THEY JUST TAKE
FOREVER TO GET TO, UTILITIES CAN
STALL OUT THOSE APPLICATIONS.
FOR MANY MONTHS. WE SEE THAT,
ROUTINELY ACROSS THE STATE. THIS
BILL SIMPLY REQUIRES UTILITIES
AND BROADBAND PROVIDERS TO WORK
TOGETHER IN A MORE COLLABORATIVE
WAY TO AVOID THOSE DELAYS, THE
BILL STRIKES THE PERFECT BALANCE
BETWEEN CONTINUING TO GIVE
UTILITIES FULL CONTROL TO
APPROVE OR DENY APPLICATIONS,
AND BUT IT REQUIRES THEM TO MAKE
A DECISION IN A REASONABLE
AMOUNT OF TIME, 60 TO 90 DAYS,
CONSISTENT WITH THE
JURISDICTIONAL PIECE, CONTINUING
ON THE BILL ALSO SPECIFIES THAT
THE UTILITY MUST PERFORM ALL ITS
SAFETY INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO THE
PROJECT BEING ENERGIZED. THAT'S
A VERY CRITICAL POINT. AT THE
END OF THE DAY, THE UTILITY IS
THE ONE WHO ENERGIZES THE SITE
REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S BUILT. IF
THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THE SITE,
THEY CAN REQUEST TO TAKE IT DOWN
AND NOT ENERGIZE THE SITE PRIOR
TO THAT HAPPENING, THIS IS A
CRITICAL POINT BECAUSE I
UNDERSTAND THE OPPOSITION IS
ARGUING THAT THIS BILL THREATENS
SAFETY. THAT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
THE UTILITY STILL HAS COMPLETE
CONTROL TO DENY THE APPLICATION
IN AT SEVERAL PHASES OF THE
PROCESS. THE UTILITY HAS THE
COMPLETE CONTROL TO PERFORM ALL
THEIR SAFETY INSPECTIONS AS
WELL. BEFORE THEY ENERGIZE THE
PROJECT. IF YOU CAN WRAP UP.
YEAH, IN CLOSING, WE DO SUPPORT
THIS BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND
WE THANK THE MEMBER FOR HIS
COMMITMENT TO CLOSING THE
DIGITAL DIVIDE. THANK YOU. SO
WITH THAT NOW, WE'LL MOVE TO
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
YOU MAY APPROACH THE MIC WITH
YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION ONLY. PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, TRACY RYAN,
RURAL COUNTY, REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. NICO
MOLINA, ON BEHALF OF THE SILICON
VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. ROXANNE GOULD,
REPRESENTING THE WIRELESS
INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, AMANDA
VALDERRAMA WITH CAL BROADBAND
AND SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON,
AUDRA HARTMAN ON BEHALF OF
QUALCOMM IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, JONATHAN ARAMBULA ON
BEHALF OF CTIA, THE TRADE
ASSOCIATION FOR THE WIRELESS
INDUSTRY, IN SUPPORT JULIAN
KENNEDY ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
HISPANIC CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE,
IN SUPPORT RYAN, ELAINE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION, IN
SUPPORT ROCHELLE SWANSON ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
WIRELESS ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT
. CHAIR AND MEMBERS NATE SOLOVE
ON BEHALF OF THE FOLLOWING
ORGANIZATIONS WHO COULDN'T BE
HERE TODAY. THE CALIFORNIA
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, PASADENA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SAN
FRANCISCO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
SAN MATEO COUNTY ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, AND THE
SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP.
THANK YOU. NOW, DO WE DO WE HAVE
ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? WE HAVE NONE
REGISTERED BEFOREHAND. WE HAVE
SCOTT, WHICH. HELLO. MR. WHICH
YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES TOTAL. WE
HAVE A SECOND ONE. THEN YOU GET
TWO, TWO AND TWO. MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, SCOTT, WHICH ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE ASSOCIATION
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS AND THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF UTILITY
EMPLOYEES, YOU OFTEN HEAR ABOUT
JOB KILLER BILLS IN THIS
BUILDING. I REFER TO THIS AS THE
UTILITY WORKER KILLER BILL, THE
AMENDMENTS TAKING THE UTILITIES
COMMITTEE WERE A BAIT AND
SWITCH. THEY DIDN'T THEY? THEY
WERE PRESENTED TO US IN A
WRITTEN FORM. AND THEN WHEN THEY
CAME OUT IN PRINT, THEY DO NOT
REFLECT THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS
GIVEN TO US. THIS BILL CONTAINS
SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERNS. I'M NOT
SURPRISED THAT ONE OF THE WORST
ACTORS IN THE INDUSTRY WOULD
CLAIM THAT IT DOES NOT. IN LÀ
DWP TERRITORY TODAY, CROWN AND
CASTLE SINCE 19 SINCE 2018, HAS
PUT IN APPROXIMATELY 900
APPLICATIONS FOR ATTACHMENTS OUT
OF THOSE, 900, 754 WERE FLAGGED
FOR SAFETY VIOLATIONS. SERIOUS
SAFETY VIOLATIONS OF GEO. GEO
ORDER 95, WHICH IS THE PUC
SAFETY ORDER THAT PROTECTS
UTILITY WORKERS. LET ME SHARE
WITH YOU WHAT MANY OF THESE
VIOLATIONS WERE NOT PROPERLY
GROUNDING THE SYSTEMS, GROSSLY
EXCEEDING THE VOLTAGE LIMIT PER
ANTENNA, PLACING 40 AMP ANTENNAS
IN VIOLATION OF THE 20 AMP
LIMIT, WHICH PREVENTS SAFE AND
ADEQUATE GROUNDING. NO EMERGENCY
DISCONNECTS. AND THE LARGEST
VIOLATION IS NOT PROVIDING THE
CLEARANCE THAT IS REQUIRED OF
THESE ANTENNAS SO THAT UTILITY
WORKERS WHO HAVE TO CLIMB THE
POLES TO DEAL WITH HOT WORK,
WHICH IS THE HIGH VOLTAGE WORK
THAT THEY HAVE TO DO, THEY DON'T
HAVE ENOUGH CLEARANCE. IT
ENDANGERS THEIR SAFETY,
PARTICULARLY IN INCLEMENT
WEATHER. SO EVEN THOUGH THE
UTILITY HAS THE ABILITY TO
ENERGIZE OR NOT ENERGIZE, WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE MULTIPLE
HUNDREDS OF THESE INSTALLATIONS?
THEY END UP GETTING ENERGIZED
BEFORE ALL THE FINAL SAFETY
INSPECTIONS HAPPEN. BUT EVEN IF
THEY'RE NOT ENERGIZED, IF ONE OF
MY CREWS GOES OUT IN A STORM TO
REPLACE A DOWNED LINE AND THE
ANTENNA IMPOSED BY CROWN CASTLE
HAS NOT PROVIDED THE ADEQUATE
CLEARANCE FOR THEM TO CLIMB THAT
POLE, THEY HAVE TO CLIMB AROUND
THE SIDE OF THE POLE AND PUT
THEIR LIVES IN DANGER. OKAY,
KURT, YOUR TWO MINUTES ARE UP,
SO IF YOU COULD CLOSE JUST ONE
FINAL POINT. THERE'S CURRENTLY
OVER 150 UNRESOLVED
INSTALLATIONS AT LADWP ALONE.
THE AMENDMENT THAT WE REQUESTED
WAS IF AN APPLICANT DOES NOT
HAVE HAS NOT CLEARED ALL OF
THEIR SAFETY VIOLATIONS, THEIR
ORDERS TO CORRECT THAT THIS
THIS, PROVISION OF THIS BILL
SHOULD BE TOLD THEY SHOULDN'T
GET THIS EXPEDITED PROCESS UNTIL
THEY FIX THEIR SAFETY
CONSIDERATIONS. I HOPE EVERY
MEMBER WILL TAKE THIS ISSUE VERY
SERIOUSLY BECAUSE IT IS VERY
SERIOUS TO MY MEMBERS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. AND IF YOU YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES, BUT IF YOU
WANT TO BE MORE CONCISE, THEN
THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE
REST OF OUR AUTHORS WHO ARE HERE
FOR THEIR BILLS TO FOR SURE.
I'LL BE MORE CONCISE. THANK YOU.
COMMITTEE. AND, THANK YOU TO THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER AND THE STAFF
FOR BEING REALLY RESPECTFUL WITH
THEIR TIME AND LETTING US AIR
OUR CONCERNS AND HEARING US OUT,
I THINK I'LL SIMPLY STATE THIS
AND CONSIDER WITH SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON, I'LL SIMPLY
STATE THAT THIS BILL PRIORITIZES
BROADBAND OVER EVERYTHING ELSE.
THE ENERGY OPTIONS THAT MIGHT BE
ASSOCIATED WITH A HOSPITALS,
WITH SCHOOLS, WITH HOUSING, YOU
NAME IT, THEY ALL FALL LOWER ON
THE ON THE TOTEM POLE. THE MAIN
REASON BEING THAT IT ESTABLISHES
A SHOT CLOCK AND THERE ARE
CRIMINAL PENALTIES THAT ARE
ASSOCIATED WITH NONCOMPLIANCE.
SO IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE
APPLICATIONS IN THE PILE, WE
WILL AUTOMATICALLY PUT A
BROADBAND APPLICATION ON THE TOP
IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THIS
BILL. AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN,
MY COLLEAGUE HERE KINDLY POINTED
OUT THE SAFETY ISSUES THAT ARE
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BILL, SO I
WON'T TALK ABOUT THAT. AND
FINALLY, I'LL JUST SAY THAT
THERE ARE THIS THIS BILL WAS
ALREADY LEGISLATED LAST YEAR, OR
THIS SUBJECT WAS ALREADY
LEGISLATED LAST YEAR WITH AB 15,
SB 410, WHICH OPENED UP
PROCEEDINGS OVER AT THE CPUC TO
LOOK AT ENERGIZATION TIMELINES
AND BOTH THE SPONSORS AND ALSO
THE SUPPORTERS ARE PARTIES TO
THAT PROCEEDINGS. OVER AT THE
CPUC, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A
NO VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
WELL, EVERYBODY'S ALREADY KNOW
WHAT'S COMING NEXT. ARE THERE
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? YOU MAY APPROACH THE
MIC TO IDENTIFY YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION ONLY,
PLEASE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
ISRAEL SALAS WITH SAN DIEGO GAS
AND ELECTRIC ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS, BRIAN WHITE ON BEHALF
OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF
WATER AND POWER, ALSO OPPOSED.
DEREK DOLPHIN, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION.
KIARA ROSS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF BURBANK. DEPARTMENT OF
WATER AND POWER IN OPPOSITION.
DON GILBERT FOR SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,
OPPOSED. BRANDON EBCLC, ON
BEHALF OF PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC, OPPOSED. MARGIE LEE,
ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER
AUTHORITY, OPPOSED DEAN TALLEY
WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. MEG SNYDER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, OPPOSED. ETHAN
NAGLER, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. CHRIS
KHAN WITH THE BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU TO ALL THE WITNESSES AND
BRINGING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE BEFORE FOR BEFORE WE
OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. I
WANTED TO HAVE A QUESTION OF THE
AUTHOR, YOU KNOW WHAT, MR. WHICH
BROUGHT FORWARD IS SOMETHING
THAT I KNOW WHEN I USED TO WORK
FOR T-MOBILE INTERNATIONAL, THAT
WAS ALWAYS A GREAT CONCERN IS
WHAT IS THE SAFETY OF WORKERS ON
THE POLES? THAT IS, I THINK FOR
MOST INDUSTRIES, IT'S THEIR
NUMBER ONE THING IS YOU CAN DO
ALL THE YOU CAN DO ALL THE
TECHNOLOGY. YOU NEED, BUT THE
SAFETY OF THE WORKERS HAVE TO
COME FIRST, WHEN YOU ARE IN YOU
AND Â AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE
SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE
WAS A VERY QUICK TURNAROUND FROM
YOU AND Â TO US. WE GOT THE
LANGUAGE ON MONDAY, WE DIDN'T
GET ANY AMENDMENTS FROM THE
OPPOSITION, BEFORE TODAY, SO.
BUT YOU HAVE BEEN, I THINK,
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION,
COULD YOU HAVE YOU CONSIDERED
SOME OF THE SAFETY CONCERNS THAT
HAVE BEEN RAISED TODAY,
SPECIFICALLY WITH THE DEEMED
APPROVED APPLICATION STANDARD?
AND WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO
THOSE CONCERNS? BECAUSE I KNOW
YOU SHARE THE CONCERNS FOR
WORKER SAFETY, AS I DO KNOW
ABSOLUTELY. SAFETY IS THE MOST
CONCERN FOR MYSELF TOO. AND ALL
THE WORKERS FOR BROTHERS AND
SISTERS THAT ARE DOING THIS
WORK, ABSOLUTELY NOT. SURE WHY
NOT. THE AMENDMENTS WERE THERE,
BUT I'LL PUT IT ON THE RECORD
AGAIN. WE DID ACCEPT ALL THE
AMENDMENTS FROM THE PRIOR
COMMITTEE, SAFETY AGAIN IS AN
ISSUE THAT WE CARE A LOT ABOUT,
AND THE CONCERNS. I BELIEVE THAT
WERE ADDRESSED AT THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WE TOOK AT THE LAST
COMMITTEE, SIX AMENDMENTS. WE
WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE FOR OVER
A MONTH AND A HALF, AND WE WERE
TRYING TO GET TO, MEET ALL OF
THEIR CONCERNS, WHICH I BELIEVE
THAT WE DID AT THE LAST
COMMITTEE WHEN WE ACCEPTED ALL
THE AMENDMENTS. AND AGAIN, I
WENT ON THE RECORD, THE LAST
COMMITTEE, I ACCEPTED THE
AMENDMENTS FOR CLARIFICATION. IF
IT NEEDS TO BE FURTHER, I DO
ACCEPT ALL THE AMENDMENTS AS
WORK AS IT CAME OUT OF THE LAST
COMMITTEE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO
REQUIRE YOU TO TAKE THE
COMMITTEE BECAUSE I DIDN'T. THE
PROCESS IS DIFFERENT. I THINK
THE CONCERN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP
BY THE OPPOSITION IS ONE THAT I
SHARE. IF THEY HAVE ALL THESE
OUTSTANDING VIOLATIONS AND THEY
HAVEN'T BEEN REMEDIED, YOU KNOW,
I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO
CONSIDER MOVING FORWARD, WHEN
YOU GO INTO APPROPRIATIONS AND
WE'D BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU
ON THAT. I DO THINK WE HAVE TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE GOOD
ACTORS IN THE FIELD. I DO ALWAYS
I SEE WHY WE'RE DOING THE
STREAMLINING. OF COURSE, I HAVE
AN ERECO, BUT I THINK WHEN WE
THINK ABOUT DEEMED APPROVED,
YOU, YOU WANT DEEMED APPROVED,
BUT YOU DON'T WANT DEEMED
APPROVE WITHOUT THE PROPER
SAFETY REVIEW. RIGHT. AND SO
YOU'RE TRYING TO STRIKE THAT
BALANCE. AND I KNOW THAT'S YOUR
INTENTION. BUT THERE MAY BE MORE
WORK TO DO AS YOU GO FORWARD TO
THINK ABOUT WHAT DOES DEEMED
APPROVED. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
IF THERE WASN'T A SAFETY REVIEW
AND IT WAS JUST DEEMED APPROVED
IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, DO
YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT? THE
I'M SORRY, ONE SECOND. WE HAVE A
QUORUM. SO I WANT TO ESTABLISH
QUORUM WITH THE COMMITTEE
SECRETARY, CALL THEM, NOT CALL
THE ROLL. WHAT DO YOU CALL? TAKE
ATTENDANCE QUORUM. BURNER. HERE
BURNER. PRESIDENT. PATTERSON.
PATTERSON PRESENT. BONTA. DAVIES
HERE. DAVIES. PRESENT. GARCIA
HOLDEN. HOLDEN. PRESENT. HOOVER
MAIENSCHEIN. NGUYEN. NGUYEN.
PRESENT THREE OF US. THREE OF
US. PRESENT. RODRIGUEZ AND WITH
THAT, I THINK MAYBE, THERE WERE.
WE HAVE A QUORUM, SORRY, A
QUORUM IS PRESENT. OKAY, SO I
DON'T KNOW IF EITHER ANY OF THE
WITNESSES. SO THE DEEMED
APPROVED IS PART OF WHAT'S
ALREADY WITH THE LOCAL CITIES
AND COUNTIES. THAT'S IN THEIR
LANGUAGE AS WELL, DEEMED
APPROVED. IT'S NEVER BEEN USED.
IT ACTUALLY TAKES A LOT TO GET
TO THE DEEMED APPROVED. THERE'S
SO MUCH TIME IN BETWEEN THAT
DEEMED APPROVE DOESN'T JUST
HAPPEN. IT WOULD REQUIRE COURT
PROCEEDINGS AND OTHER THINGS
THAT THAT ISPS DON'T WANT TO GO
THROUGH. THE EXPENSE OF EVEN
DOING THAT. IT'S REALLY ABOUT
ENSURING IT'S LIKE BACKSTOP. SO
JUST TALK TO US. IF YOU TELL US
THAT YOU NEED ANOTHER THREE
MONTHS, WE WOULD SAY, THAT'S
FINE. WHATEVER IS NEEDED BY THE
UTILITY. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE
A HARD HAMMER. IT'S MEANT JUST
TO BE A BACKSTOP SO THAT IT
ENSURES THAT AT LEAST THERE'S
CONVERSATION THÀNH IT'S ABOUT
CONVERSATION NOT ACTUALLY
DEEMING SOMETHING APPROVED OR
DENYING SOMETHING. IT'S ABOUT
ENSURING COMMUNICATION. SO THAT
BRINGS UP WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY
TRYING TO DO IS YOU DON'T WANT
DEEMED APPROVE. DO YOU WANT MEET
AND CONFER, I THINK THAT YOU
NEED A BACKSTOP. I THINK YOU
NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING. WHAT I
JUST HEARD. SORRY WELL, THAT'S
IN MY TALKING POINTS. WELL, MEET
AND CONFER IS FINE. I JUST THINK
THAT THE DEEMED APPROVED IS KIND
OF OUR BACKSTOP. SO I DON'T KNOW
THAT MEET AND CONFER WOULD
ACTUALLY MAKE THE UTILITY MEET
AND CONFER. WELL, I THINK DEEMED
APPROVED DOESN'T REQUIRE. DOES
IT MEAN NECESSARILY BECAUSE YOU
HAVE A SHOT CLOCK ON IT DOESN'T
NECESSARILY MEAN THE SAFETY
STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET. AND I
THINK THERE ARE VERY GOOD ACTORS
AND THERE ARE SOME BAD ACTORS.
AND WHAT YOU WANT IS TO STRIKE
THE RIGHT BALANCE TO MAKE SURE
PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED AND THAT
THE SAFETY STANDARDS ARE MET,
AND THEN THE TIMELINES ARE NOT
TOO LONG. SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN,
WE DON'T HAVE AMENDMENTS FROM
THIS COMMITTEE. I HAVE AN ERECO.
I WOULD JUST ASK THE AUTHOR TO
CONTINUE LOOKING AT THIS,
BECAUSE I THINK WHEN WE READ THE
AMENDMENTS OUT OF THE UND Â,
WE, WE THINK IT'S STILL A LITTLE
VAGUE AND COULD BE MORE
SPECIFIC. AND OF COURSE, WE
DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO SUGGEST A
MINUTE, SO WE DIDN'T DO THAT.
AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT
TO YOU. BUT IF YOU IF YOU WOULD
CONSIDER CONTINUING TO WORK ON
THIS, THEN WE WOULD BE HERE TO
KIND OF OFFER OUR. ABSOLUTELY.
AND WE DID ASK FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION ON THE LAST
AMENDMENT, THE LAST COMMITTEE WE
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THOSE.
AND JUST TO ANSWER A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP,
WHEN AN APPLICATION IS
SUBMITTED, THE AGENCIES HAVE TO
RESPOND WITHIN THE ALLOTTED
TIME. BUT IF AN APPLICATION IS
DEEMED INCOMPLETE HEAT, THAT'S
THE RESPONSE FROM THE LOCAL
AGENCY IN THIS CASE THE
UTILITIES. THEN THE APPLICANT
HAS TO MAKE THOSE CORRECTIONS
AND RESUBMIT IN ORDER TO HAVE A
COMPLETE APPLICATION. THE
ALLEGATIONS THAT YOU THESE,
FACILITIES WERE ENERGIZED, THAT
HAS TO DO WITH THE LOCAL
JURISDICTION, THE UTILITIES
DOING THE INSPECTIONS. BY NO
MEANS SHOULD A CARRIER HAVE THE
LIBERTY TO ELECTRIFY A UNIT
WITHOUT FIRST HAVING MET THE
INSPECTION. THE INSPECTION IS
NOT DUE UP TO THE CARRIER. IT'S
DUE TO THE AGENCY THAT IS
ISSUING THE PERMIT. THE
APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED IS
REVIEWED. PERMIT IS ISSUED. THEN
THERE ARE INSPECTIONS THAT TAKE
PLACE. CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE THE
LIBERTY TO ENERGIZE THE POLES OR
THE UNITS WITHOUT HAVING IT
BEING DEEMED A COMPLETE PROCESS.
ONCE THE APPLICATION AND THE
PROCESS THE INSPECTIONS ARE
DONE, THEN THE UTILITIES ARE THE
ONLY ONES THAT CAN TURN ON THE
SWITCH. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS, I THINK AS VICE
CHAIR, PATTERSON HAS A QUESTION,
THEN HOLDEN, AND THEN THEY SEE
SOMETHING THEN. SO MY QUESTION,
I, BUT I WANT TO ALIGN MY
COMMENTS, MY CONCERNS WITH THE
CHAIR, I DO THINK THAT SAFETY
HAS TO BE, VERY IMPORTANT. I
THOUGHT THE SUGGESTED, AMENDMENT
WITH RESPECT TO HOW TO MAKE THE
PEOPLE UP ON THAT POLE SAFE. I
THINK THAT'S REASONABLE AND
OUGHT TO BE SERIOUSLY
CONSIDERED, I CANNOT VOTE FOR
THE BILL TODAY, BUT I WOULD LIKE
TO TRY TO GET THERE. IF YOU CAN
SATISFY SOME OF THESE
FUNDAMENTAL CONCERNS THAT I
HAVE. THE CHAIR HAS, AND OTHERS
I THINK THAT'S IN THE INTEREST
OF TRYING TO, MAKE THIS, AN AREA
WHERE THOSE WHO HAVE TO GO DO
THE WORK AND CLIMB THE POLES AND
ALL THAT HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT
THEY HAVE BEEN CARED FOR, THAT
THEY'VE BEEN PAID ATTENTION TO.
AND IF YOU WILL FIX THE BILL TO
THAT DEGREE, I'LL BE GLAD TO
SUPPORT IT NEXT TIME AROUND.
ABSOLUTELY SO MEMBER HOLDEN,
IT'S WITHIN THE SAME AREA OF
CONCERN. I GUESS WHAT I WANT TO
UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE IT WAS,
EXPRESSED BY THE OPPOSITION THAT
THERE WAS LANGUAGE THAT WAS, I
GUESS EXPECTED OR ANTICIPATED
BEING ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS AND,
IT WAS RECITED AND I DON'T KNOW
IF IT'S I'M NOT LOOKING TO SORT
OF MAKE IT ALL HAPPEN HERE
TODAY, BUT I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT IF THERE WAS AN
EXPECTATION THAT AT LEAST ONE
PARTY BELIEVED THAT LANGUAGE IS
STRUCTURED IN A CERTAIN WAY TO
ADDRESS SAFETY, IS THERE A
CONCERN WITH WHAT YOU HEARD IN
TERMS OF WHAT WAS EXPECTED TO
BE, AN AREA THAT WAS CONSIDERED
MAYBE JUST RESTATING WHAT THE
EXPECTATION OF WHAT THAT
AMENDMENT REPRESENTED AROUND
SAFETY AND MAKING SURE THAT
BEFORE THERE'S EXPEDITED
EXPEDITING THE PROCESS, THAT ALL
SAFETY ISSUES HAVE BEEN
RESOLVED. I KNOW THAT YOU'VE
SAID IN SOME FORM OR FASHION
THAT YOUR EXPECTATION IS THAT
WOULD BE THE OUTCOME. AND I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S
EXPRESSED IN A WAY THAT THE
LANGUAGE IN THE BILL ULTIMATELY
WILL REFLECT THAT. YES, THE
EXPECTATION IS ON, EXCUSE ME, ON
THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE TOOK AT
THE LAST COMMITTEE. SAFETY IS OF
MOST IMPORTANCE TO ME. BUT WHAT
I'M UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE
AMENDMENTS APPARENTLY, ONCE THEY
CAME OUT, DID NOT NECESSARILY GO
TO THE POINT THAT I THINK THAT
THE OPPOSITION WAS EXPECTING
THEM TO. AND I GUESS THAT'S
WHERE I'M I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING, THAT THE COMMITTEE SAID
HERE ARE OUR AMENDMENTS AND WE
CAN'T REALLY GET INTO ALL OF
WHAT ANOTHER COMMITTEE, ALTHOUGH
I WAS A PART OF THAT COMMITTEE.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
AROUND THAT. AND MAYBE THIS IS
REALLY A QUESTION TO THE
OPPOSITION IN TERMS OF WHAT THE
EXPECTATION OF THE PREVIOUS
COMMITTEE, BASED ON AN AMENDMENT
THAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR, YOU
THOUGHT WAS GOING TO BE IN THE
BILL, WAS NOT IN THE BILL. AND
THAT SEEMS TO BE WHERE THE
DISCONNECT IS. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLDEN, THE DAY
BEFORE THE HEARING, A MOCK UP OF
THE BILL WAS CIRCULATED BY THE
COMMITTEE, WHICH I RECEIVED,
WHICH HAD AN AMENDMENT IN IT
THAT SAID IF A CARRIER, A
BROADBAND CARRIER, VÀ, HAS
OUTSTANDING SAFETY CORRECTION
ORDERS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
RECTIFIED, THAT THIS STATUTE
WOULD BE SUSPENDED, THAT THEY
WOULDN'T GET THIS EXPEDITED
PROCESS UNTIL THEY CLEANED THEIR
THEIR STUFF UP. AND THEN WHEN IT
WAS PRESENTED IN COMMITTEE, THE
AUTHOR SAID HE WAS ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT. SOMEWHERE
IN BETWEEN THERE, THAT LANGUAGE
CAME OUT AND IT WAS SUBSTITUTED
WITH LANGUAGE. AND I'M NOT
SAYING THIS WAS THE AUTHOR. SOME
COMMUNICATION WITH THE
COMMITTEE, THE AMENDMENT THAT
WAS PUT INTO THE BILL SIMPLY
SAYS THAT THE UTILITIES IS
AUTHORIZED TO PUT A CORRECTIVE
PLAN TOGETHER WITH THE, WITH THE
WITH THE BROADBAND CARRIER.
WELL, THAT'S EXISTING PRACTICE
TODAY. SO IT'S AN ABSOLUTELY DO
NOTHING AMENDMENT. AND RIGHT NOW
LOCAL 18 OF THE IBEW AND LADWP
HAS PRODUCED A REPORT THAT SHOWS
THAT THEIR CREWS ARE SPENDING
270 HOURS A MONTH JUST
CORRECTING CROWN AND CASTLE
SAFETY PROBLEMS. AND IT'S NOT A
MATTER OF ENERGIZATION. I CONCUR
COMPLETELY. THE UTILITY CONTROLS
THE ENERGIZING OF THE SYSTEM,
BUT IN THE INTERIM MONTHS THEY
HAVE 151 OF THESE OUT THERE.
OUTSTANDING IN MOST OF THEM ARE
WHERE THEY'VE CROWDED THE
ANTENNA IN VIOLATION OF THE
SPATIAL RULES. AND SO IN THE
INTERIM MONTHS UNTIL IT GETS
CORRECTED, MY MEMBERS HAVE TO GO
AND CLIMB A POLE THAT PUTS THEIR
LIVES IN DANGER BECAUSE THEY'RE
OBSTRUCTED. AND THAT'S WHY THIS
IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND WHY
THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS TAKEN,
THE OTHER COMMITTEE COMPLETELY
AND WHOLLY DID NOT ADDRESS THE
SAFETY ISSUE. AND JUST WHAT MY
COMPETING THOUGHT ON IT WOULD
BE. AND I DON'T WHAT I'M HEARING
THE AUTHOR SAY IS THAT AND MAYBE
THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT YOU'VE
DESCRIBED, IT RUNS AFOUL, BUT IT
SOUNDS LIKE THE GENERAL
PRINCIPLE OF WHAT HAS BEEN
DESCRIBED AS SOMETHING THAT
YOU'RE SUPPOSED NATIVE OF. I'M
SUPPORTIVE OF. YES, ABSOLUTELY.
SAFETY IS OUR PRIORITY. YES. SO
IN TERMS OF THE LANGUAGE, MAYBE
THIS CAN BE RECONCILED BETWEEN
OR IN APPROPRIATION SHOULD IT
GET OUT TODAY SO THAT THE
COMMITTEE, THIS COMMITTEE AND
THE UTILITY COMMITTEE WORKING
WITH THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. ABSOLUTELY. I COMMIT
TO CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS
ISSUE WITH THE OPPOSITION TO.
ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. THANK YOU. I
JUST REVIEWED THE LANGUAGE, AND
IT IS DOES NOT SAY THAT THIS
SHALL BE SUSPENDED SHOULD THESE
OUTSTANDING VIOLATIONS HAPPEN.
IT SAYS THIS SHOULD BE A PLAN TO
SORT IT OUT. AND THEREFORE IF
THIS GOES FORWARD, THEY'D HAVE
TO HAVE A DIFFERENT TIMELINE. SO
THERE'S SUBSTANCE TO ME FROM
COMING FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
SURE. YOURSELF YOU UNDERSTAND
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT. SO
AGAIN NOT OUR COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. AND IT'S NOT REALLY
THAT'S THE JURISDICTION OF UNI.
BUT I WOULD SAY I WOULD STRONGLY
RECOMMEND LOOKING AT THAT MORE,
CORRECTIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE I
THINK THAT IS WHAT'S GOING TO
KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. ABSOLUTELY.
AND THAT'S HOW WE DIFFERENTIATE,
YOU KNOW, THE GOOD ACTORS FROM
THE BAD ACTORS. IT'S THE ONES
THAT DON'T HAVE OUTSTANDING
VIOLATIONS, SORRY. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER NGUYEN. SORRY THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR, I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT
AND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. I
DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS AND MANY
OF THE CONCERNS I WON'T REPEAT
BECAUSE THE CHAIR RAISED IT. BUT
ALSO, MR. HOLTON ASKED THE
QUESTION, WHICH I WASN'T QUITE
UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE
AMENDMENTS WERE. WHAT CONCERNS
ME, THOUGH, IS THAT WHAT WAS
AGREED TO AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE
NOT TALKING ABOUT AMENDMENTS,
BUT THAT WASN'T TAKEN. AND IT'S
COME TO US IS KIND OF WHAT I'M
UNDERSTANDING. SO I'M A LITTLE
CONFUSED. WHERE IS THERE
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE AGREED UPON
BUT THEN DIDN'T GET TAKEN AND IT
CHANGED THE LANGUAGE, OR AND IS
IT GOING TO GET CHANGED AGAIN
BEFORE IT GOES TO ANOTHER
COMMITTEE? I THINK THE SAFETY,
AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, IS A
HUGE ISSUE, HUGE, HUGE ISSUE FOR
ME, AND I HOPE THAT, YOU KNOW,
YOU CAN WORK THINGS OUT, BEFORE
IT GETS TO THE FLOOR, SHOULD IT
PASS THIS COMMITTEE. I WANT TO
BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, BUT I
WANT TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT WHEN
IT COMES TO THE FLOOR. SHOULD IT
MAKE IT TO THE FLOOR SO THAT IT
IT ADDRESSES MANY OF THE
CONCERNS AND THE ISSUES THAT WAS
DISCUSSED EARLIER? I AGREE.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER DAVIES. QUESTION
FOR YOU IN REGARDS TO THE
AMENDMENTS THAT MR. WELCH HAD
SAID, ARE YOU, WOULD YOU TAKE
THOSE? I JUST WANT TO. YES. OR
NO? SO I KNOW THAT THAT'S
SOMETHING YOU WOULD BE TALKING
ABOUT. WE TOOK THE AMENDMENTS AS
THEY WERE PRESENTED TO US AT THE
LAST COMMITTEE. BUT TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTION, YES, WE TOOK THE
AMENDMENTS THAT DON'T KNOW WHAT
HAPPENED. WE ARE NOT IN CONTROL
OF AMENDMENTS. ONCE WE AGREE TO
THEM WITH COMMITTEE, THEY ARE
THE ONES THAT PUT THE AMENDMENTS
TOGETHER. I THINK IF I COULD
CLARIFY WHAT I THINK HAPPENED,
WHAT WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT,
WHAT HAPPENED IS THERE WAS
AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE IN
LANGUAGE. THE COMMITTEE DRAFTED
THE AMENDMENTS AND SOME PEOPLE
DON'T LIKE HOW THE AMENDMENTS
WERE DRAFTED. NOW THAT'S WITHIN
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NOT WITHIN
THE BOUNDARIES OF THIS
COMMITTEE, BUT WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF AUTHOR. TO GO BACK
TO THAT COMMITTEE AND CONTINUE
WORKING WITH THE UN CONSULTANT
TO GET THE LANGUAGE WHERE IT
NEEDS TO BE, BECAUSE THERE'S A
SOLUTION HERE. AND, YOU KNOW, I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT'S IN
OUR JURISDICTIONS, OUR
JURISDICTION. BUT I THINK THAT'S
WHAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED. OKAY.
AND I THINK AGAIN, WE ALL KNOW
PUBLIC SAFETY NUMBER ONE. AND
SO, I'M GOOD WITH MOVING THIS
FORWARD. HOWEVER, IF THEY ARE
NOT IN THERE AND THERE'S AN
AGREEMENT WHEN IT COMES TO THE
FLOOR, IF IT GETS THROUGH
APPROPRIATIONS, I WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. OKAY. NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS. OH LOOK, IT'S ANOTHER
EXCITING SEE AND SEE, HEARING.
SO WITH THAT, WE'RE LET ME GO
BACK TO WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO
DO, ASSEMBLY MEMBER CARRILLO,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES, I
WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. WELL, THE
BILL ALLOWS UTILITIES TO RETAIN
CONTROL. THEY DECIDE IF THEY
APPROVE OR DENY THE APPLICATION
THAT DECIDED THE PROJECT MEETS
THEIR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. THE
BILL IS ABOUT STREAMLINING THE
PROCESS, OR COMMUNITIES CAN GET
CONNECTED TO HIGH SPEED INTERNET
AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. IT IS
ABOUT SETTING UP CONSISTENT
PROCESS STATEWIDE, SO BOTH LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND UTILITIES ARE
PROCESSING BROADBAND
APPLICATIONS AS EFFICIENT AS
POSSIBLE. WE DON'T WANT TO SEND
BROADBAND FUNDING BACK TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THAT'S GOING
TO BE A LOT OF MONEY AND A BIG
LOSS FOR THE STATE. BUT THE ONES
THAT ARE GOING TO LOSE THE MOST
ARE THOSE THAT WE REPRESENT
BECAUSE WE NEED TO PROVIDE A
SERVICE TO THEM. WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CARRILLO I WILL
BE SUPPORTING THIS DAY. I DON'T
NEED TO BELABOR THAT. THERE'S A
LITTLE BIT MORE WORK TO BE DONE,
AND I TRUST YOU. YOU'RE A VERY
GOOD AUTHOR. YOU HAVE A VERY
GOOD BACKGROUND IN PLANNING, AND
YOU PROBABLY KNOW HIS TIMELINES
AND PROCESS MORE THAN MOST OF US
HERE, SO, I DON'T THINK
ANYTHING'S AT ODDS WITH WHAT
YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO DO. AND I
THINK WE CAN CRAFT A BILL THAT
WILL GET APPLICANTS MORE
CERTAINTY AROUND TIMELINES
WITHOUT RUNNING THE RISK OF
NEGATIVE SAFETY IMPACTS. TO
EITHER, CUSTOMERS OR OUR WORKERS
. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD NEED A
MOTION MOVED BY RIVAS. SECOND BY
HOLDEN, WITH THAT, THE MOTION,
ON AB 2221 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
JUAN CARRILLO IS Dð PASSED AND
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. WILL THE
SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
BERNER AYE. BERNER AYE.
PATTERSON VOTE TO MOVE THIS
ALONG. STIPULATING THAT IT HAS
TO MEET THE TEST. THAT MEMBER
DAVIES PUT FORWARD. WE DON'T SEE
THAT ON THE FLOOR WITH THE
SATISFACTION OF THE OPPONENTS. I
CANNOT VOTE FOR IT, BUT I WILL
GIVE IT AN AYE RIGHT NOW,
PATTERSON. AYE. BONTA. DAVIES
DAVIES. AYE. GARCIA HOLDEN.
HOLDEN. AYE. HOOVER MAIENSCHEIN.
NGUYEN. NGUYEN NGUYEN. NOT
VOTING. THREE OF US. THREE OF
US. AYE. RODRIGUEZ. WITH THAT,
THE BILL IS ON CALL WITH. GOES
ON CALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MEMBERS. WITH THAT, I SEE. WE
HAVE ASSEMBLY MEMBER HENDERSON
HERE IS HOLDING ONE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HOLDEN. WE SKIPPED YOU AT
THE BEGINNING. DO YOU WANT TO GO
NOW OR WOULD YOU GO TO AT THE
ENDS? BECAUSE, WE HAVE SOME
OTHER AUTHORS HERE. THERE ARE, I
THINK, WHAT THAT WILL GO TO
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES. WELL, YOU
MAY HAVE TO GO SOMEWHERE, I
DON'T KNOW. YESTERDAY WE WERE
ALL IN 25 DIFFERENT COMMITTEES.
YEAH, I KNOW. SO NEXT WE'RE
HEARING AB 3020 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER REYES RELATED TO THE 211
INFRASTRUCTURE ACT.
INFRASTRUCTURE ACT. WHEN YOU'RE
READY. YEAH, WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
REYES THAT IS WONDERFUL. THANK
YOU. WELL, AB 3020 WILL REQUIRE
THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY
PARTNERSHIPS AND STRATEGIC
COMMUNICATIONS UNDER THE OFFICE
OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH TO
ESTABLISH THE STATE'S FIRST 211
ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THIS
COMMITTEE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR
COLLABORATION BETWEEN 211
PROVIDERS AND VARIOUS STATE
EFFORTS, INITIATIVES AND
DEPARTMENTS TO ENHANCE COMMUNITY
SUPPORT AND RESOURCES
ACCESSIBILITY ACROSS THE STATE.
AND RATHER THAN TELL YOU
EVERYTHING ABOUT IT, I'M GOING
TO INTRODUCE MY TWO WITNESSES.
I'M VERY PROUD TO HAVE THEM FROM
THE INLAND EMPIRE, HERE TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF AB 3020 ARE KIM
STARS, THE CEO OF INLAND SOCAL,
UNITED WAY, AND ALANA HITCHCOCK,
CEO OF 211 CALIFORNIA. THANK
YOU. EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES, BUT
IF YOU WANT YOU HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND. SO GOOD AFTERNOON
I'M KIM. GOOD AFTERNOON I'M KIM
STARS CEO OF INLAND SOCAL UNITED
WAY AND 211 PLUS. AND I AM SO
HONORED TO BE HERE WITH YOU
TODAY. AND THE SOCAL UNITED WAY.
ANSWERS ABOUT 500,000 CALLS
ANNUALLY FROM A REGION OF ABOUT
5 MILLION PEOPLE, THE NEED IS
INCREDIBLE FOR THE SERVICES THAT
ARE PROVIDED, MOST FOLKS WHO
CALL OUR 12-1 HAVE ALREADY TRIED
TO NAVIGATE SERVICES ON THEIR
OWN, WITHOUT SUCCESS. WE'RE ABLE
TO PROVIDE A HELPING HAND 24
HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK,
TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE ARE ABLE
TO NAVIGATE RESOURCES AT THEIR
TIME OF GREATEST NEED, ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT WE'RE VERY PROUD
OF IS THE PARTNERSHIP WE HAVE
WITH DIFFERENT AGENCIES IN THE
INLAND REGION. WE WORK WITH OUR
COUNTY OFFICES OF HEALTH, PUBLIC
HEALTH, SAFETY, EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT TO ENSURE THAT IN
TIMES OF DISASTER THAT THERE IS
A CENTRAL PLACE FOR INFORMATION
FOR FOLKS. THEY'RE ALREADY
CALLING IN AND REQUESTING THAT
INFORMATION. AND THAT
PARTNERSHIP ENSURES THAT IT'S
CORRECT INFORMATION AND THAT
PEOPLE KNOW WHERE TO GO. AND WE
ARE SO PROUD TO BE IN
PARTNERSHIP HERE. AND THIS BILL
WOULD HELP MOVE US TOWARDS A
MORE INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF
SERVICE DELIVERY FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS. RIGHT NOW, FUNDING
REALLY DEPENDS ON THE PROWESS OF
FUNDRAISING BY DIFFERENT UNITED
WAYS AND TWO ON ONES ACROSS THE
STATE, WHICH ENSURES THAT IT IS
NOT EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED FOR
ALL CALIFORNIANS. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE FOR THIS, AND THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. GOOD
AFTERNOON. ALANA HITCHCOCK WITH
TWO ON ONE CALIFORNIA
REPRESENTING THE LOCAL PROVIDERS
ACROSS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
I'LL KEEP THIS VERY, VERY QUICK
FOR YOUR TIME. APPRECIATE ALL OF
YOU. AND BEING HERE TODAY. AND,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER REYES, WHAT I
JUST WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT
TWO AND ONE IS A UNIQUE SOCIAL
UTILITY FOR OUR STATE, AND IT
HAS A BIG GAP IN THAT IT IS
CURRENTLY APPROVED BY THE STATE
AT THE CPUC, BUT THERE IS NO
MECHANISM FOR ONGOING
COORDINATION, COMMUNICATION OR
FUNDING WITH THE STATE, DESPITE
THE FACT THAT 211 WORKS TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT STATE
PROGRAMS, TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
INFORMATION, AND TO CONNECT
RESIDENTS ACROSS THE STATE TO
THOSE PROGRAMS. SO WE BELIEVE
THAT THIS BILL WILL HELP
ESTABLISH THAT COORDINATING BODY
AND TO THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE,
AS WELL AS THE RESIDENTS OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, SO NEXT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT. YOU MAY APPROACH THE
MIC WITH YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION
AND POSITION ONLY. PLEASE THANK
YOU. JOSE VARGAS WITH UNITED
WAYS OF CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
MATT PLOTKIN WITH UNITED WAY OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
MELISSA LOVATO, ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA IN SUPPORT
. JOHN BIBEAU, ON BEHALF OF
ORANGE COUNTY AND SUPPORT. JASON
MENDEZ, UNITED WAY, BAY AREA IN
SUPPORT. HI, DOCTOR. DANIELLE
STEIN, RESIDENT FROM RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU FOR THE WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT. MOVING ON. DO WE HAVE
ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? THÀNH WE DON'T HAVE
ANY REGISTERED. OKAY ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES OF
OPPOSITION IN THE ROOM? YOU CAN
CALL UP TO THE MIC NAME,
POSITION, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION ONLY SEEING NONE. WE'LL
RETURN BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
QUESTIONS. NO QUESTIONS. DO I
HAVE A MOTION? DO I HAVE A
SECOND? WE HAVE. OH, WE ALREADY
HAVE MOTION BY NGUYEN. SECOND BY
PATTERSON, SO WITH THAT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER REYES, WE'D LIKE
TO CLOSE. I SINCERELY APPRECIATE
THE SUPPORT. I WILL TELL YOU
THAT I MY OFFICE CALLED 211 WHEN
WE HAD A WOMAN WHO WAS HOMELESS
AND WITH THE HELP OF 211 AND
SOME OF OUR OTHER AGENCIES
AROUND THE COUNTY, WE WERE ABLE
TO FIND HER HOUSING. SHE IS
STILL HOUSED. AND THAT WAS OVER
A YEAR AGO. AND I'M SO PLEASED
WITH THE COLLABORATION AND THE
PARTNERSHIP WITH 211. SO WITH
THAT, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
REYES, FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD. I PLAN TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL. I WANTED TO FLAG THOUGH A
FEW POINTS RAISED IN THE
ANALYSIS, FIRST, I AGREE THAT
SOME OF THE WORK PROPOSED BY THE
COMMISSION WOULD BENEFIT FROM
SPECIFIC TIMELINES AND ALSO
LANGUAGE AROUND THE COMMISSION
ESTABLISHING A FUNDING SOURCE.
SOURCE SHOULD BE GIVEN A LITTLE
BIT MORE THOUGHT MOVING FORWARD.
I'M SURE YOU WILL. YOU'RE VERY
THOUGHTFUL AUTHOR, SO WITH THAT,
WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A
SECOND, THE MOTION ON AB 3020 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES IS DO PASS
AND BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS. WILL THE
SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
BERNER. AYE. BERNER AYE.
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. AYE BONTA.
DAVIES. DAVIES. AYE. GARCIA
HOLDEN. HOLDEN. AYE. HOOVER
MAIENSCHEIN. NGUYEN. NGUYEN AYE.
THREE OF US. THREE OF US. AYE.
RODRIGUEZ. THAT BILL IS OUT, AND
WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR OTHER
ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WITH THAT,
I SEE THAT OUR MAJORITY LEADER
HAS JOINED THE COMMITTEE HEARING
ROOM. SO WE'LL BE HEARING AB
2286 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
AGUIAR-CURRY RELATED TO VEHICLES
AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER AGUIAR-CURRY YOU
MAY OPEN WHEN YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU. 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 THE SAFETY
DATA AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
LEGISLATURE FROM 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 AND MONITORING THE CAB
IS TO INCREASE PROFITS. AT THE
RISK OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE
LIVELIHOODS OF OUR TRAINED
EXPERT TRUCKING WORKFORCE. THE
ROLLOUT OF LIGHT DUTY AUTONOMOUS
VEHICLES IN SAN FRANCISCO IS A
PERFECT EXAMPLE. WHY THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE INVOLVED
IN THE FINAL DECISION MAKING ON
PERSONAL 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 DRIVER OF A
DRIVERLESS, AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES.
THEIR EXPERIENCE AND REVIEW OF
THE DATA DO NOT CONCLUDE THIS
DEPLOYMENT HAS BEEN SAFE IN
THESE INCIDENTS, DRIVERLESS
VEHICLES STOPPED SUDDENLY
IMPEDING TRAFFIC, CAUSING
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 BEEN SEEING
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 ARE DEPLOYING THE
TECHNOLOGY, ARE PULLING OUT ALL
THE STOPS LOBBYING AGAINST
LOBBYING FOR EXPANSION OVER THE
PASSIONATE OBJECTION OF LOCAL
OFFICIALS. LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR
I BELIEVE THIS TECHNOLOGY HAS
GREAT POTENTIAL, WHICH IS WHY
THIS BILL AFFIRMATIVELY
RECOGNIZES THAT WE SHOULD MOVE
FORWARD WITH FULL 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 AN EXPONENTIALLY GREATER
THREAT TO THE PUBLIC. WE NEED
THE DATA COLLECTION AND
REPORTING IN AB 2286 TO GET A
REAL SENSE OF BROADER IMPACTS OF
AV 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 TRUCKING IN
OUR STATE, WE ALL OF US HERE
ANSWER TO OUR CONSTITUENTS. IT
AFFIRMATIVELY LAYS OUT 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
WILL THEN APPEAR IN A HEARING TO
MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO ELECTED
LEGISLATORS. AT THAT TIME. WITH
ME TODAY TO TESTIFY AS MATT
BRAUDE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC
AFFAIRS COUNCIL, AND LOUIE
COSTA, DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATIVE
BOARD FOR THE SMART
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION. THANK
YOU. YOU EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS
MATT BRAUDE HERE. ON BEHALF OF
THE TEAMSTERS. I'LL MAKE MY
COMMENTS QUICK, THIS BILL IS ALL
ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY. WE'VE BEEN
VERY CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING
THAT IT IS TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL.
WE'RE NOT SAYING YOU CANNOT
OPERATE OR TEST HEAVY DUTY
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES ON THE ROAD.
WE'RE SAYING THAT IF YOU DO, YOU
NEED TO HAVE A HUMAN SAFETY
OPERATOR ON BOARD. I WOULD JUST,
YOU KNOW, GENTLY POINT OUT THAT
IT WAS THIS COMMITTEE LAST YEAR
IN WHICH WE PUT, AND WORKED VERY
HARD WITH THE CHAIR ON A SOFT
SUNSET, WHICH BASICALLY REQUIRES
AGENCIES TO COME BACK AND MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE
LEGISLATURE, SPECIFICALLY ON THE
HUMAN SAFETY OPERATOR PIECE. IN
THAT CASE, IT WILL BE INCUMBENT
ON THE COMPANIES TO SHOW THAT
THEIR TECHNOLOGY, IS READY FOR
PRIME TIME AND THAT IT CAN BE
DEPLOYED SAFELY UP TO 80,000
POUNDS WITHOUT CAUSING SOME OF
THE, POTENTIAL SAFETY RISKS
THAT, THE MAJORITY LEADER HAS
FLAGGED, AND UNTIL THEN, THEY
CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE AND TEST
THEIR HEART'S DESIRE. AND SO
WITH THAT, I WOULD JUST ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE AND, THANK YOU AGAIN.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, LOUIE COSTA WITH SMART
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION. WE
REPRESENT BUS OPERATORS. OUR
CONCERNS ARE SAFETY RELATED AS
WELL, ROBO TAXIS COULDN'T FIGURE
OUT THE FOG IN SAN FRANCISCO AND
JUST STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF
THE ROAD. NOW, CONSIDER A BIG
RIG TRUCK OR A BUS IN THE
CENTRAL VALLEY DOING THE SAME
THING ON HIGHWAY 99. WHAT ABOUT
THE PUBLIC? WHAT ABOUT THE CARS
THAT ARE GOING TO BE BEHIND
THEM? WHAT ABOUT THE PASSENGERS
ON THAT VEHICLE? IT'S A SAFETY
CONCERN FOR OUR MEMBERS. WE'VE
HAD MEMBERS WHO HAVE HAD TO
REROUTE SEVERAL DIFFERENT
DIRECTIONS IN ORDER TO GET THEIR
PASSENGERS SAFELY FROM ONE
LOCATION TO THE NEXT, LEAVING
SAN JOSE, GOING BACK TO SANTA
CRUZ, WASH OUT ON HIGHWAY 17.
THE OPERATOR HAS TO TURN THE BUS
AROUND AND DECIDED TO HEAD SOUTH
ON 101 TO GILROY TO GET THE
PASSENGERS TO SANTA CRUZ SAFELY.
THAT ROUTE WAS FLOODED BECAUSE
OF THE TORRENTIAL RAINS. REROUTE
NUMBER THREE THE ONLY SAFE WAY
TO GET THEM TO THEIR DESTINATION
WAS TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK UP
NORTH, HEAD OVER TO HALF MOON
BAY, AND THEN BACK DOWN SOUTH
ONE TO GET THEM SAFELY TO SANTA
CRUZ. DURING THAT TRIP, HE
STOPPED AND GOT WATER FOR THEM
AND SNACKS BECAUSE HE WAS
CONCERNED FOR THEM AND THE
AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY'RE ON
THEIR BUS. YOU CAN'T AUTOMATE
THE HUMAN ELEMENT AND THE
COMPASSION THAT ARE WITH THESE
OPERATORS AND TRUCK DRIVERS.
IT'S A SAFETY CONCERN. OAN IT'S
NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME. YOU
NEED A HUMAN SAFETY OPERATOR TO
BE ON BOARD DURING THIS
DEPLOYMENT. DURING THIS TESTING
PERIOD. AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR INPUT. THANK YOU. NOW
WE'LL MOVE TO ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT IN THE
ROOM. YOU MAY APPROACH THE MIC,
YOU NAME AFFILIATION AND
POSITION ONLY, PLEASE. MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS. MIKE WEST, ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL AND
SUPPORT SCOTT BRANT SMART
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION ON
BEHALF OF REPRESENTING 36 LOCALS
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, 7600
MEMBERS. WE ARE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. RYAN SNOW, ON BEHALF
OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE
ENGINEERS AND TRAINMEN IN
SUPPORT, CLIFTON WILSON ON
BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. NANCY
DRABBLE, ON BEHALF OF CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA, IN
SUPPORT. MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS
YVONNE FERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION,
A PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU. DANIEL PEARL, ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES IN STRONG
SUPPORT. WITH THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO
THE WITNESSES AND SUPPORT. DO WE
HAVE ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? MAY APPROACH THE
TABLE NOW? AND YOU'LL EACH GET
TWO MINUTES. YEAH. GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. JULIAN KENNEDY,
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE
CALIFORNIA HISPANIC CHAMBERS OF
COMMERCE. I'M HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF OUR 125 HISPANIC AND
DIVERSE CHAMBERS AND BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, WHO
COLLECTIVELY REPRESENT THE
INTERESTS OF HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF HISPANIC AND
DIVERSE OWNED BUSINESSES IN
CALIFORNIA. TODAY WE REGRETFULLY
OPPOSE AB 22286. THE BILL WOULD
BLOCK CALIFORNIA'S FROM
ACCESSING THE BENEFITS OF
AUTONOMOUS TRUCKING TECHNOLOGY
FURTHER SETTING THE STATE BACK
ON ON THIS CRITICAL INNOVATION
AND HURTING DIVERSE SMALL
BUSINESSES AND CONSUMERS. WE
BELIEVE THAT AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
WILL BOOST OUR SUPPLY CHAIN
EFFICIENCY, CREATE NEW CAREER
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CALIFORNIA
WORKERS, AND HELP SMALL
BUSINESSES KEEP CALIFORNIA'S
ECONOMY MOVING, FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DATA SHOWS. OUR
COUNTRY MUST MOVE UP, MOVE 50%
MORE FREIGHT IN 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
SHELVES AND SOARING PRICES IN
OUR COMMUNITIES EVERY DAY,
PARTICULARLY IN LOWER INCOME
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, 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 AG RETAIL AND MANUFACTURING.
ACCORDING TO THE US DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION STUDY,
AUTOMATING LONG HAUL TRUCKING
WILL SPUR 111 BILLION AGGREGATE
INVESTMENT SPENDING ACROSS THE
US ECONOMY AND WILL INCREASE,
TOTAL US EMPLOYMENT, BY CLOSE TO
35,000 JOBS PER YEAR ON AVERAGE.
IN CALIFORNIA. SPECIFICALLY, A
STUDY FOUND THAT AUTONOMOUS
TRUCKING TECHNOLOGY CAN ADD 6.5
BILLION IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY TO
THE STATE WHILE BRINGING GREATER
EFFICIENCY TO OUR SUPPLY CHAIN,
SPURRING WAGE GAINS AND JOB
GROWTH. THIS IS CRITICAL FOR
BUSINESSES AND CONSUMERS, BUT
ALSO VITAL FOR THE STATE AS WE
CONFRONT A 32 BILLION BUDGET
DEFICIT THIS YEAR. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR THANK YOU. TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS,
MY NAME IS RENEE GIBSON. I'M THE
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
FOR THE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION. I'M
TESTIFYING IN STRONG OPPOSITION
TO AB 2286 ALONGSIDE DOZENS OF
GROUPS THAT REPRESENT THOUSANDS
OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES AND
MILLIONS OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS.
AV'S SHARES THE SAFETY CONCERNS
OF THE AUTHOR. SAFETY IS
PARAMOUNT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF
AVS. THIS BILL WOULD MAKE
CALIFORNIANS LESS SAFE BECAUSE
IT WOULD HALT THE DEPLOYMENT OF
AV TRUCKS BY IMPOSING A
PERMANENT BAN ON DRIVERLESS AV
TRUCKS IN CALIFORNIA, WITH NO
ARTICULATED PATH FOR THE STATE
TO APPROVE AUTONOMOUS TRUCKS,
AND WITHOUT ANY DEMONSTRATION OF
WHY A HUMAN OPERATOR WILL
IMPROVE SAFETY. UNLIKE IN
CALIFORNIA, AV TRUCKS HAVE BEEN
OPERATING ON THE ROADS IN
SEVERAL STATES. NOT ONE FATALITY
OR SERIOUS INJURY HAS OCCURRED.
THIS BILL REMAINS UNNECESSARY.
GOVERNOR NEWSOM RECOGNIZED THAT
THAT WHEN HE VETOED THE BILL
LAST YEAR AND EXPLAINED THAT THE
BILL WAS UNNECESSARY FOR THE
OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION OF
HEAVY DUTY AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE
TECHNOLOGY IN CALIFORNIA. AV
TRUCKS HAVE BEEN PROHIBITED HERE
FOR 13 YEARS. THE DMV HAS BEEN
WORKING ON RULES TO GET THIS
TECHNOLOGY SLOWLY ROLLED OUT FOR
A BETTER PART OF A DECADE, AND
JUST AS WE GET TO THE GOAL LINE
AFTER BILLIONS IN INVESTMENT IN
THOUSANDS OF BUSINESSES COUNTING
ON IT, AND WHEN GOVERNOR NEWSOM
SAID THEY ARE JUST MONTHS AWAY
FROM PUTTING OUT DRAFT RULES,
THE BILL WOULD SHUT DOWN, SHUT
IT DOWN FOR A MINIMUM OF ANOTHER
SIX YEARS WITH NO GUARANTEE OF
EVER LETTING IT HAPPEN. IT IS
IMPERATIVE THAT CALIFORNIA'S
EXPERT REGULATORS BE ALLOWED TO
DO THEIR JOB. WE STRONGLY URGE A
NO VOTE ON THE BILL, AND I WOULD
BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. AND
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. THE ROOM YOU MAY
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE, NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION ONLY.
PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. LIZZIE
KUTSUNA HERE ON BEHALF OF TESLA,
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, GRACE COPELAND HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA
COUNCIL AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, SAM LESH,
ON BEHALF OF WABI INNOVATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANKS, MADAM CHAIR,
CHRIS WILSON WITH THE LA COUNTY
BUSINESS FEDERATION. WE ARE
OPPOSED. ANDREA DEVAULT ON
BEHALF OF AURORA TECHNET AND THE
CALIFORNIA ASIAN CHAMBER IN
OPPOSITION. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS,
TIMOTHY BURR, ON BEHALF OF
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, SI SE
PUEDE LATIN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
AND THE CENTRAL VALLEY YEMEN
SOCIETY, ALL IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. DEAN TALLY, WITH THE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. HEY, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
I JUST DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT
THE BILL DOES ACTUALLY HAVE, AND
WAS WHAT WAS NEGOTIATED IN THIS
COMMITTEE LAST YEAR A VERY CLEAR
PATH AND PROCESS FOR DATA
COLLECTION AND BRING IT BACK TO
THE LEGISLATURE FOR A FUTURE
DECISION. SO JUST AS A
CLARIFICATION OF WHAT THE BILL
DOES, SORRY TO THE AUTHOR THAT I
FELT THE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT,
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY
OTHER, LET ME ASK THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY OF THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS QUESTIONS?
NONE. MOTION MOTION MOVED BY
NGUYEN. SECOND BY SECOND. RIVAS.
OKAY SO, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
AGUIAR-CURRY, WOULD YOU,
MAJORITY LEADER AGUIAR-CURRY
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL TRY TO KEEP
THIS QUICK. I JUST WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR THE THOUGHTFUL
DISCUSSION. I REALLY WANT TO
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND YOUR
TEAM, FOR PROVIDING US WITH SOME
GREAT AMENDMENTS. LAST TIME WE
WENT AROUND AND WE KEPT THOSE AS
WELL, JUST LET US NOT FORGET IS
THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT, DOES
NOT BAN AUTONOMOUS TRUCKS AND
BUT IT DOES ASK THAT THE HUMAN
SAFETY OPERATOR BE PRESENT TO
MONITOR THE TECHNOLOGY AS IT IS
TESTED AND DEPLOYED TO RESPOND
TO EMERGENCIES. THIS BILL HAS A
TRIGGER FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
TO REVISIT THIS REQUIREMENTS.
WHEN THE REAL DATA IS AVAILABLE.
IT INCLUDES A REPORTING AND
RECOMMENDATION REQUIREMENT THAT
WILL HELP US ANSWER QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE
TECHNOLOGY AND THE IMPACTS OF
OUR WORKFORCE. I INTRODUCED THIS
BILL BECAUSE I REPRESENT A
DISTRICT LYING BETWEEN THE
CAPITAL AND THE BAY AREA THAT
INCLUDES HIGHWAY FIVE, HIGHWAY
80, AND OTHER MAJOR SHIPPING,
TOURISM AND COMMUTER ROUTES.
LAST YEAR, POLLING ON THIS BILL
SHOWED THAT 73% OF CALIFORNIANS
AGREED WITH THIS POLICY.
MEANWHILE, POLLS BY AA SHOWED
THAT PEOPLE ARE LOSING TRUST IN
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES, AND THAT'S
WHAT I'M HEARING FROM MY
CONSTITUENTS WHEN I TALK ABOUT
THIS BILL. WE CANNOT REPEAT THE
STEADY STREAM OF ACCIDENTS AND
INCIDENTS THAT WE HAVE SEEN WITH
DRIVERLESS PASSENGER VEHICLES.
THERE IS JUST TOO MUCH AT RISK,
WITH 80,000 POUND TRUCKS
TRAVELING ON OUR INTERSTATES AT
65 TO 70MPH. MEMBERS, PLEASE
JOIN ME AND THE 30 BIPARTISAN
COAUTHORS OF THIS BILL IN
PROTECTING PUBLIC SAFETY IN OUR
WORKFORCE. AND THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. SO UP THERE,
WE HAVE A MOTION BY NGUYEN.
SECOND, BY RIVAS. THE MOTION ON
AB 2286 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
AGUIAR-CURRY IS DO PASS AND BE
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. WILL THE
SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
BERNER. AYE. BERNER AYE.
PATTERSON PATTERSON. AYE. BONTA.
DAVIES DAVIES. AYE. GARCIA.
HOLDEN. HOLDEN AYE. HOOVER.
MAIENSCHEIN. NGUYEN. NGUYEN AYE.
AYE. THREE OF US. THREE OF US.
AYE. RODRIGUEZ VELOSO. WE'LL
LEAVE IT, THE ROLL OPEN FOR
OTHERS TO ADD ON. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HANEY. ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCKENNA
IS HERE. SO WE'RE GOING TO NOW
HEAR AB 2780 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MCKENNA RELATED TO, CARRIER OF
PASSENGERS ACT OF 2024. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MCKENNA. WHEN YOU'RE
READY, YOU MAY OPEN. UNDERSTAND?
YOU HAVE TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES,
THEY'LL EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR.
HAPPY DENIM DAY. MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE TO START
BY SAYING I'M DOING AUTHORS
AMENDMENTS AS SUGGESTED BY THE
COMMITTEE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK YOU GUYS FOR WORKING WITH
US. AB 2780 WOULD REQUIRE
CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS PRIOR TO
TRANSPORTING TEN OR MORE
VULNERABLE PASSENGERS, TO NOTIFY
LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND SEEK
AUTHORIZATION, AMONG OTHER
REQUIREMENTS. SINCE APRIL 2020,
TWO DIFFERENT STATES HAVE
CONTRACTED TRANSPORTATION
COMPANIES TO TRANSPORT TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF VULNERABLE PERSONS,
MOSTLY MIGRANTS FROM COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR TO DESTINATIONS OUTSIDE
OF THEIR STATE BORDERS. OVER
THREE DOZEN BUSLOADS OF ASYLUM
SEEKERS AND OTHER RECENT
IMMIGRANTS HAVE BEEN DUMPED IN
LOS ANGELES ALONE, SOMETIMES
PRIOR NOTICE TO LOCAL
AUTHORITIES OR NONPROFIT GROUPS
BEFORE DISCHARGING VULNERABLE
PASSENGERS ARE NOT PROVIDED, AND
OTHER TIMES THESE NOTICES ARE
INCONSISTENT, THEREBY
ENDANGERING THE PASSENGERS AND
OVERWHELMING THE LOCAL
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES. AB 2780
WOULD REQUIRE CARRIERS
TRANSPORTING TEN OR MORE PERSONS
WHOM THE DRIVER SHOULD REASON,
WE KNOW, WILL NEED SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES UPON DISEMBARKING.
EMBARKATION I DON'T KNOW, SORRY
TO MEET THE FOLLOWING
REQUIREMENTS. THERE SHALL BE A
PRESUMPTION THAT PASSENGERS WHO
HAVE ARRIVED IN THE UNITED
STATES IN THE PREVIOUS 30 DAYS
ARE LIKELY TO SEEK SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES, PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE
GOVERNING BODY OF THE LOCATION
WHERE THEY ARE BEING DROPPED.
LOCAL 30 AUTHORITIES MUST NOTIFY
OF AND PROVIDE AUTHORIZATION 24
HOURS PRIOR TO DROPPING THEM
OFF. MOREOVER, IN ORDER TO SEEK
PREVENTIVE RELIEF, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, A PERSON BEING
TRANSPORTED AND PERSONNEL FOR
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROVIDED MAY
BRING CIVIL ACTION. IN ADDITION,
THE DUMPING OF PASSENGERS WOULD
RESULT IN A PENALTY OF UP TO
$10,000 FOR EACH ACT OF
TRANSPORTING A PERSON THAT
RESULTED IN ONE OR MORE
VIOLATIONS OF THE BILL. HERE TO
TESTIFY TODAY IS CAITLIN LOEWEN,
DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR AT
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE, AND CHRIS BACA,
DIRECTOR OF HUMANITARIAN
RESPONSE AND MIGRANT ASSISTANCE
WITH THE COALITION FOR HUMANE
IMMIGRATION RIGHTS. CHIRLA THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR BERNARD, VICE CHAIR
PATTERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS KAELAN
LOUGHNEY. I'M DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR HERE ON BEHALF OF
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER RICARDO
LARA AND THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE.
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER LARA IS A
PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF AB 2780
FIRST COMMISSIONER LADA WOULD
LIKE TO THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MCKENNA FOR HER LEADERSHIP AND
AUTHORING THIS IMPORTANT MEASURE
AND INTRODUCING IT HERE TODAY.
COMMISSIONER LADA IS SPONSORING
AB 2780 BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IN
CALIFORNIA'S ABILITY TO SOLVE
PROBLEMS. CALIFORNIA ALREADY
WELCOMES MORE MIGRANTS AND
ASYLUM SEEKERS THAN ANY OTHER
STATE. THERE IS CURRENTLY A
ROBUST NETWORK OF PUBLIC,
NONPROFIT AND RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS WHO WORK TOGETHER
TO PROVIDE BASIC SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES TO NEWLY ARRIVED
MIGRANTS. WE'RE TALKING WATER,
FOOD, CLOTHING, MEDICAL
SCREENINGS. WHEN VULNERABLE
PEOPLE ARRIVE IN CALIFORNIA,
CALIFORNIANS STEP UP. DESPITE
THE EFFORTS OF SOME TO USE THESE
VULNERABLE PEOPLE AS POLITICAL
PAWNS, OUR MOTIVATING QUESTION
IS WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE THE
SITUATION BETTER? THE SITUATION
IS THAT CERTAIN OTHER STATES
HAVE CHOSEN TO MOVE THOUSANDS,
LIKELY TENS OF THOUSANDS, OF
VULNERABLE PEOPLE, INTO
CALIFORNIA FOR NO OR
INCONSISTENT PRIOR NOTICE IS
PROVIDED BY THESE ACTORS OR BY
THE BUS COMPANIES THAT DISCHARGE
VULNERABLE PASSENGERS AT
SEEMINGLY RANDOM LOCATIONS AT
ALL TIMES OF THE DAY AND NIGHT.
SUPPORT SERVICES THEN SCRAMBLE
TO MEET THE BUSSES BEFORE
PASSENGERS ARE RELEASED ONTO THE
STREETS, ENDANGERING THE
PASSENGERS AND OVERWHELMING
LOCAL SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.
INSTEAD, AB 2780 WOULD REQUIRE
PRIOR NOTICE OF THE ANTICIPATED
DATE AND TIME OF ARRIVAL AND
WOULD ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
SET THE LOCATION WHERE THE
BUSSES CAN DROP OFF PASSENGERS
LET US KNOW WHERE AND WHEN, AND
WE WILL DO THE REST IF YOU CAN
WRAP UP. THANK YOU. THIS
LEGISLATION PROVIDES A HEADS UP
TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND
NONPROFITS WHO THEN STEP UP TO
DO THE REAL WORK. ON BEHALF OF
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
CHARULATA, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. HELLO, MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS CHRIS BALKAN. I'M THE
DIRECTOR OF HUMANITARIAN
RESPONSE IN MIGRANT ASSISTANCE
AT THE COALITION FOR HUMANE
AMERICAN RIGHTS, OR CHIRLA. AND
I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT AB 2780,
WHICH WOULD REQUIRE BUS
COMPANIES TRANSPORTING MORE THAN
TEN INDIVIDUALS SEEKING
EMERGENCY SERVICES TO NOTIFY
RECEIVING CITIES WITHIN 24 HOUR
NOTICES. SO BEGINNING IN 2022,
TEXAS BEGAN SENDING BUSSES OF
NEWLY ARRIVED IMMIGRANTS, CGRTS
AND MIGRANTS TO, DEMOCRATICALLY
CONTROLLED STATES. AT THAT TIME,
THE PRIMARILY THE PRIMARY STATES
RECEIVING THESE WERE TEXAS AND
ILLINOIS. CHIRLA FELT IT WAS
UNJUST AND INHUMANE TO USE
VULNERABLE MIGRANTS TO ADVANCE
HARMFUL ANTI-IMMIGRANT
NARRATIVES. AND IN ANTICIPATION
OF RECEIVING OUR OWN BUSSES,
CHIRLA HELPED ESTABLISH THE LOS
ANGELES WELCOMES COLLECTIVE, A
PARTNERSHIP WITH CITY, COUNTY
AND PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS TO
ENSURE WE WELCOME NEWLY ARRIVED
MIGRANTS WITH DIGNITY AND
RESPECT. IN JUNE 2023, CHIRLA
AND THE WELCOMES COLLECTIVE
RECEIVED OUR FIRST BUS, AND
SINCE THEN WE'VE RECEIVED 39
BUSSES, EACH WITH 40 TO 52
INDIVIDUALS, EACH INCLUDING
INFANTS, SENIORS, PREGNANT
WOMEN, INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES, FAMILIES, WHEN WE
DO RECEIVE NOTICES, MY
PARTNERSHIPS HAVE MENTIONED, IN
LOS ANGELES, WE WORK TO SECURE A
SITE THAT SERVES AS A WELCOME
CENTER. WE ALSO, COORDINATE FOOD
AND CLOTHING. WE MOBILIZE
VOLUNTEERS. WE COORDINATE
MEDICAL SCREENINGS, PRELIMINARY,
PRELIMINARY, LEGAL AND CASE
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT, AS WELL AS
FAMILY REUNIFICATION, AFTER 39
BUSSES, IT HAS BEGUN.
UNDOUBTEDLY CLEAR THAT HAVING 24
HOUR NOTICE IS THE BEST WAY TO
ENSURE A WELL COORDINATED AND
TRAUMA INFORMED RESPONSE, IN
INSTANCES WHERE WE HAVEN'T
RECEIVED NOTIFICATION,
OFTENTIMES UNANNOUNCED BUSSES,
WE ARE UNABLE TO GUARANTEE THAT
EACH INDIVIDUAL IS SERVED, THIS
POSES MANY RISKS. TO BEGIN,
INDIVIDUALS CAN END UP IN
UNHOUSED SITUATIONS AS LOS
ANGELES IS NOT THEIR INTENDED
DESTINATION, AND THEY DO NOT
HAVE THE RESOURCES TO PURCHASE
TICKETS TO THEIR FINAL, INTENDED
DESTINATION. ADDITIONALLY, THERE
IS RISK OF THEM FALLING VICTIMS
OF LABOR ABUSE OR SCAMS SUCH AS
GETTING CHARGED FOR SERVICES
THAT ARE FREE BY LOCAL SERVICE
PROVIDERS AND IN WORST CASES,
MAY BE VULNERABLE TO HUMAN
TRAFFICKING. IF YOU CAN WRAP IT
UP, THANK YOU, AND, YEAH, WE,
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR
APPROVAL. OKAY. THERE YOU GO. I
THINK YOU MEANT I VOTE, BUT
THERE YOU GO, SO DO WE HAVE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? YOU
MAY APPROACH THE MICROPHONE NOW.
NAME, AFFILIATION AND POSITION
ONLY, PLEASE. HI. CYNTHIA GÓMEZ,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF STATE POLICY
AND ADVOCACY WITH CHIRLA. PROUD
CO-SPONSOR AND STRONG SUPPORT.
OKAY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY
REGISTERED PRIMARY WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION. DO WE HAVE ANY IN
THE ROOM THAT WOULD LIKE TO
APPROACH THE TABLE SEEING NONE?
DO WE HAVE ANY ME TWOS IN THE
ROOM IN OPPOSITION? WE DON'T.
OKAY RETURNING BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE A MOTION BY OR DID YOU
HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER DAVIES, WE DO HAVE A
MOTION BY. WHEN DO WE HAVE A
SECOND BY HOLDEN? YEAH. SO,
MEMBER DAVIES, YOU CAN ASK YOU A
QUESTION. JUST A QUESTION FOR
THE SPONSOR. LOOKING I KNOW I'M
LOOKING AT THIS BILL, STARTING
ON PAGE SIX, LINE 20, IT SAYS A
CARRIER PASSENGER SHOULD PROVIDE
A WRITTEN NOTICE. AND THIS
WRITTEN NOTICE SHALL INCLUDE ALL
OF THE FOLLOWING UNDER PARAGRAPH
THREE ON LINE 28, IT SAYS THE
WRITTEN NOTICE MUST INCLUDE THE
NUMBER OF PASSENGERS ON THE
MOTOR VEHICLE WHO ARRIVE IN THE
UNITED STATES WITHIN 30 DAYS OF,
EMBARK ATION. CORRECT, I JUST IF
JUST IF YOU CAN CLARIFY ME, SO
HERE, IF THE OUT OF STATE BUS
COMPANY DOES SHARE A COPY OF THE
NOTIFICATION REQUIRED BY THE
BILL WITH THIS, TELL IMMIGRATION
AUTHORITIES EXACTLY WHERE AND
WHEN THE BUS IS DEPARTING. HOW
MANY IMMIGRATION IMMIGRANTS ARE
ON THE BOARD AND WHERE IT IS
GOING. YES OKAY. THANK YOU.
OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? YES. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, VICE CHAIR PATTERSON.
THANK YOU. I WANT YOU TO KNOW
THAT I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL, I WAS MAYOR OF FRESNO FOR
EIGHT YEARS. WE COME FROM ALL
PARTS OF THE GLOBE. FRESNO HAS
BEEN A VERY WELCOMING PLACE FOR
A LONG, LONG TIME, AS I'VE
MENTIONED ON THE FLOOR A NUMBER
OF TIMES, BUT ALSO RECENTLY,
FRESNO WAS A RECIPIENT OF A
SURPRISE BUSLOAD AND IT THROUGH
OUR CITY GOVERNMENT, OUR SOCIAL
SERVICE PROVIDERS IN A BIT OF
DISARRAY. AND I THINK THAT PRIOR
NOTICE AND NOT JUST DRIVING THEM
IN AND DUMPING THEM OFF, WE NEED
THAT IN ORDER, I THINK, TO LIVE
UP TO WHAT WE BELIEVE. FRESNO IS
ALL ABOUT AND THE KIND OF THINGS
THAT WE HOLD DEAR. AND, WE HAVE
A HUGE, DIVERSE POPULATION, AS I
HAVE OFTEN MENTIONED. AND, AND
WE'RE THE ONES THAT, SAY, YOU
KNOW WHAT, YOU WANT TO BE HERE
AND YOU WANT TO BE OUR
NEIGHBORS, WE'RE GOING TO
WELCOME YOU. AND SO I'M. I AM
GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS, AND I
THINK THAT PRIOR NOTICE IS
REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO DO
OUR JOB, NOT BE SURPRISED AND BE
LATE ON TAKING CARE OF PEOPLE,
PARTICULARLY MOMS WITH BABIES
AND LITTLE KIDDOS. SO I'M WITH
YOU ON THIS ONE AND I APPRECIATE
YOU COMING FORWARD WITH IT. I'LL
BE AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. AND,
SEEING NO OTHER COMMITTEE
MEMBERS WANT TO SPEAK, I WANT TO
MAKE A FEW COMMENTS ON THE BILL,
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER FOR
MCKENNA FOR WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE, TO RESOLVE SOME OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ISSUES
THAT WERE FLAGGED IN THE
PREVIOUS VERSION OF THIS BILL. I
THINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO
PROTECT THE HUMANITY OF
IMMIGRANTS IS REALLY, REALLY
IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY WHERE IN
SAN DIEGO, WHERE WE'RE VERY
FLUID IN SAN DIEGO, AND SO, AND
WE HAVE A LARGE IMMIGRANT
POPULATION. I'VE ALWAYS WANTED
TO SUPPORT THIS BILL, AND I'M
PLEASED THAT WE COME TO A PLACE
WHERE THE BILL IS IN A VERY,
VERY STRONG POSITION TO MOVE
FORWARD, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE ON THIS BILL? YES. I'D
LIKE TO THANK ALL THE MEMBERS
FOR THE SUPPORT ON THIS BILL.
THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT
AS PEOPLE COME INTO OUR STATE,
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT WE
THAT WE TREAT THEM IN A HUMANE
WAY. AND THAT IS WHAT THIS BILL
WILL DO. THIS BILL WILL ALLOW
CITIES AND COUNTIES TO BE ABLE
TO WELCOME OUR BROTHERS AND
SISTERS HERE TO CALIFORNIA AND
BE READY FOR THEM, AND NOT HAVE
SOMEONE JUST TAKE THEM AND USE
THEM AS A POLITICAL TOOL AND
DROP THEM OFF IN OUR STATE AND
SO I THANK YOU GUYS, AND I URGE
YOU FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
THE MOTION ON AB 2780 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCKENNA IS DUE
PASS AND BE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
WILL THE SECRETARY PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL? BERNER AYE. BERNER AYE
. PATTERSON. PATTERSON. AYE.
BONTA. DAVIS EYES. DAVIS NOT
VOTING. GARCIA THE HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE. HOOVER. MAIENSCHEIN.
NGUYEN NGUYEN. AYE. THREE OF US.
LÀ RIVA. AYE. RODRIGUEZ.
RODRIGUEZ AYE. THE BILL IS OUT,
KEEP IT OPEN FOR OTHER MEMBERS
TO ADD ON. AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HEANEY, IT'S YOUR TIME. YOU WERE
THE FIRST ONE HERE BEFORE I WAS
EVEN HERE. SO WE'RE. WELL, IF WE
EVER GET A VACANCY, WE'LL ASK
YOU TO SUB IN. SO WE'RE HEARING
AB 3061 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER HANEY
RELATED TO VEHICLES. AUTONOMOUS
VEHICLE INCIDENT REPORTING. WE
HAVE A MOTION BY RODRIGUEZ. A
SECOND BY NGUYEN. YOU HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. MR. HANEY,
I WILL BE VERY QUICK. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, I'M
HERE TO PRESENT AB 3061, WHICH
WILL ENHANCE, ENHANCE
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
AND THE TESTING AND ROLLOUT OF
SELF-DRIVING CARS OR AUTONOMOUS
VEHICLES BY INCREASING PUBLIC
TRANSPARENCY TO INCIDENT RELATED
DATA, IT WILL ENACT, ENACT
STATUTORY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
FOR DATA COLLECTION IN BOTH THE
TESTING AND DEPLOYMENT PHASES
AND WILL SUPPLEMENT EXISTING
REGULATIONS OVERSEEN BY THE DMV
AND PUC TO ENSURE AV COMPANIES
UPHOLD SAFETY STANDARDS ON
PUBLIC ROADS. WE KNOW THAT OUR
STATE IS LEADING THE NATION, AS
YOU ALL HAVE HEARD MANY TIMES IN
THIS COMMITTEE ON SELF-DRIVING
CAR TECHNOLOGY, SERVING AS A
PRIME TESTING LOCATION, AND IT
IS CRITICAL THAT WE HAVE THE
ADEQUATE LEVELS OF PUBLIC TRUST
AND PUBLIC SAFETY HERE WITH ME
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL IS ROBERT HARO FROM THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA AND KEVIN TUCKER FROM
THE CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA. YOU EACH HAVE TWO
MINUTES, BUT YOU DO HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND, AND I WILL
ACCORDINGLY BE BRIEF. I'M ROBERT
HARRELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA, WHERE CO-SPONSOR OF
THIS BILL. I WANT TO THANK THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FOR HIS WORK ON
THIS ISSUE. AT ITS CORE, IT'S A
SIMPLE BILL. AS AVS BECOME MORE
PREVALENT, AS YOU HEARD IN
ANOTHER BILL A FEW MINUTES AGO,
AND AS THE INDUSTRY WANTS THEM
TO BE UBIQUITOUS, IT BEHOOVES
YOU ALL AS POLICYMAKERS AND US
AS CONSUMERS AND SAFETY
ORGANIZATIONS, TO MAKE SURE WE
HAVE FACTUAL AND COMPREHENSIVE
INFORMATION TO HELP GUIDE US
INTO THE FUTURE, ULTIMATELY,
THIS BILL IS ABOUT FILLING DATA
GAPS. THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
ACTUALLY DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB
OF SUMMARIZING THIS ISSUE. ON
PAGE FIVE. IT CORRECTLY POINTS
OUT, QUOTE, THERE IS A DATA GAP
OF INFORMATION THAT OUGHT TO BE
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC THAT
THIS BILL MAY HELP RESOLVE,
UNQUOTE. COULDN'T SAY IT BETTER
MYSELF, AS THE, WE HAVE
UNDERGONE A NUMBER OF
CONVERSATIONS WITH SOME OF THE
STAKEHOLDERS THAT WILL PROCESS
WILL CONTINUE. BUT ULTIMATELY,
THIS ISSUE IS ABOUT CONSUMER
SAFETY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION.
WE URGE YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS DAVINA TUCKER WITH THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA, A PROUD CO-SPONSOR,
ALONG WITH CONSUMER FAD AND THE
TEAMSTERS. I'LL BE BRIEF, BUT,
SPEAKING OF THAT HOLE AND
REPORTING, AVS ARE NOT JUST
BEING TESTED. THEY'RE DEPLOYED
CLEARLY ALL OVER CALIFORNIA IN
THE BAY AREA, SACRAMENTO, SAN
DIEGO, SAN MATEO COUNTY, SANTA
CLARA COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO
COUNTY, AND ALL THROUGHOUT LOS
ANGELES. SO, THE CURRENT
REGULATIONS ARE NOT COLLECTING
ANY DATA ON ALL THOSE DEPLOYED
VEHICLES YET. WE'RE HEARING
ABOUT THEM IN THE NEWS OVER AND
OVER AND OVER AGAIN. EVERYONE
KNOWS ABOUT THE CRUISE VEHICLE
THAT KILLED A WOMAN. THERE WAS
ALSO RECENT ARTICLES AS RECENT
AS LAST WEEK, WHERE SEVEN WAYMO
TAXIS BLOCKED TRAFFIC IN SAN
FRANCISCO. GETTING ONTO THE ON
RAMP, PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY
PHYSICALLY GETTING OUT OF THEIR
CARS ON THE FREEWAY TO MOVE
CONES TO GET AROUND. THE CARS
TOOK 30 MINUTES FOR THEM TO
ADDRESS THAT BLOCKAGE, AS
RECENTLY AS MONDAY, WAYMO
TAXICAB IN SAN FRANCISCO WAS
DRIVING ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE
ROAD. AND THIS WAS REPORTED IN
THE SF CHRONICLE. AND I
HIGHLIGHT THOSE TO DEMONSTRATE
THAT THAT DATA IS NOT BEING
REPORTED AT THE DMV. ONE WAS A
VIDEO RECORDED BY A USER ON
REDDIT THAT WAS THEN CONFIRMED
BY WAYMO. AND THE OTHER ONE WAS
A VIDEO OF A BICYCLIST THAT
WAYMO THEN LATER CONFIRMED. SO
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT OUR
GOVERNING BODIES IN CALIFORNIA,
LIKE THE DMV AND CPUC, COLLECT
THIS DATA THEMSELVES SO WE CAN
GET A HOLISTIC VIEW OF HOW THE
AVS ARE OPERATING FOR CONSUMER
SAFETY AND TRANSPARENCY. WE URGE
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. ANY,
WITNESSES IN THE ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO SUPPORT NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION? ONLY
MATT BROD WITH THE TEAMSTERS
PROUD CO-SPONSORS, THE
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION AND
CSEA AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. MADAM CHAIR, COMMITTEE
MEMBERS LOUIE COSTA WITH SMART
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION IN
SUPPORT. RYAN SNOW, BROTHERHOOD
OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND
TRAINMEN STRONG SUPPORT. YVONNE
FERNANDEZ, CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION AND SUPPORT JOHN PAUL
VELEZ WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.
SUPPORT DOUG SUPERS ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS IN SUPPORT GREGORY
KRAMER ON BEHALF OF DISABILITY
RIGHTS CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT,
AS AMENDED. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, DO WE HAVE ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION AND NONE
REGISTERED. SO PLEASE MOVE TO
THE TABLE. SO THERE'S ONLY ONE.
YOU GET FOUR MINUTES. I'M NOT
GOING TO TAKE FOUR MINUTES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
AGAIN, I'M RENEE GIBSON ON
BEHALF OF THE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTING THE WORLD'S LEADING
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE COMPANIES.
MANY OF WHICH ARE BASED HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. WE APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO, TO WORK WITH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER HAYNIE, WHO'S MY
FORMER COLLEAGUE, IN SENATOR
SIMITIAN'S OFFICE MANY YEARS
AGO. TO DEVELOP AN APPROPRIATE
APPROACH FOR AV DATA REPORTING
AND TRANSPARENCY. WE ALSO
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S
AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED IN THIS
COMMITTEE ADDRESS. SOME OF OUR
FEEDBACK. WE'VE PROVIDED MORE
DETAILED FEEDBACK DIRECTLY TO
THE AUTHOR, BUT I WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT A FEW OF OUR CONTINUED
CONCERNS. FIRST, I'D LIKE TO
JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO NOTE THAT
NEARLY 41,000 PEOPLE DIED IN
TRAFFIC CRASHES LAST YEAR. IN
RECENT IN RECENT YEARS, WE'VE
SEEN INCREASES IN FATALITIES IN
INVOLVING LARGE TRUCKS,
PEDESTRIANS, MOTORCYCLES AND
DRIVERS OVER 65 YEARS OLD. NOT A
SINGLE ONE OF THOSE FATALITIES
INVOLVED AN AV. IN FACT, AVS
HAVE BUILT A STRONG SAFETY
RECORD OVER MORE THAN A DOZEN
YEARS. THEY HAVE DRIVEN NEARLY
70 MILLION MILES ON US ROADS.
THEY HAVE DONE SO UNDER MULTIPLE
LEGAL FRAMEWORKS THAT PROVIDE
THE PUBLIC WITH ACCESS TO DATA.
NOTABLY, AV COMPANIES MUST
REPORT CRASH DATA TO NHTSA 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. THE
DMV COLLECTS CRASH DATA AND
DISENGAGEMENT DATA, AND THE PUC
COLLECTS DETAILED DATA FOR
AUTONOMOUS RIDE HAIL SERVICES,
INCLUDING QUARTERLY REPORTS ON
AV ACTIVITIES. AS WRITTEN, THE
BILL WOULD ADD ANOTHER REPORTING
STRUCTURE, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT
THE TERMS ARE VAGUE AND COULD BE
CONSTRUED BROADLY. THE BILL
WOULD ALSO CREATE A REPORTING
PROCESS THAT GIVES ANY MEMBER OF
THE PUBLIC THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TRIGGER SUSPENSION OF A PERMIT,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE REPORT
IS ACCURATE OR CREDIBLE. AND I
DO APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WE HAVE THAT WE HAVE HERE
IN THIS COMMITTEE, BUT I THINK
WE JUST NEED MORE WORK ON THAT
LANGUAGE, NO INDUSTRY OR
BUSINESS COULD OPERATE UNDER
SUCH UNPREDICTABLE PERMITTING
APPROACH. NOT IN THAT LANGUAGE,
WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
THE BILL, SPONSORS AND IT'S
CURRENT FIRM. WE WOULD
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A NO VOTE,
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION IN THE
ROOM, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. NAME, AFFILIATION
AND POSITION ONLY. GOOD
AFTERNOON. LIZZY KUTSUNA HERE ON
BEHALF OF TESLA WITH AN OPPOSING
, LESS AMENDED POSITION AND
APOLOGIES FOR MISSING THE LETTER
DEADLINE. THANK YOU, JOHN
MOFFATT. ON BEHALF OF THE
ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE
INNOVATION, ALSO OPPOSE, UNLESS
AMENDED. GOOD AFTERNOON. ANDREA
DEVAULT ON BEHALF OF TECHNET,
NFIB SI SE PUEDE, THE LATIN
BUSINESS ASSOCIATION AND CENTRAL
VALLEY YEMEN SOCIETY ALL
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. DEAN TALLY
WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED
. SAM, BOBBY. INNOVATION.
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
WE GO BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. ANYBODY WHO WOULD
LIKE TO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS,
WE HAVE A MOTION BY RODRIGUEZ, A
SECOND BY NGUYEN, BEFORE WE MOVE
TO YOUR CLOSE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE
A FEW COMMENTS AND ASK A
QUESTION FIRST. CAN YOU TALK
ABOUT HOW YOU'VE ENGAGED THE
DISABILITY COMMUNITY IN CRAFTING
THE LANGUAGE RELATED TO
DISABILITY ACCESS? YES. SO I
BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE
AMENDMENTS IN THIS RECENT ROUND
AND HENCE YOU HEARD FROM THE
DISABILITY RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS
THAT THEY'RE THEY'RE NOW
SUPPORTIVE OF IT. AND SO WE'VE
BEEN WORKING COLLABORATIVELY
WITH THEM AND SOME OF THE
REPORTING NOW REFLECTS THE, THE
FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVE FROM
THEM. OKAY. I THINK IT'S, WE
JUST NEED TO BE MINDFUL. I THINK
WE ABSOLUTELY NEED THE
DISABILITY ACCESS DATA, BUT
MINDFUL THAT PASSENGERS, MAY NOT
WANT TO DISCLOSE THEIR OWN
DISABILITIES. RIGHT. AND SO THAT
DATA POINT, IT BECOMES DIFFICULT
TO COLLECT. SO INHERENTLY
COLLECTING DATA FROM THE
COMMUNITY SOMETIMES CAN BE
AUTOMATICALLY CAN BE DIFFICULT.
SO JUST AS A MINDFUL THING, AND
SECONDLY, I BELIEVE STRONGLY
THAT THE POTENTIAL THAT AVS HAVE
TO MAKE OUR ROADS SAFER.
HOWEVER, WE ALSO HAVE TO BUILD
PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN
THIS TECHNOLOGY. AND ONE WAY WE
BUILD THAT TRUST IS THROUGH
TRANSPARENCY AND DATA. AND
THAT'S WHY I'M VERY HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HAYNIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU
FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP IN THIS
COMMITTEE'S LEADERSHIP. I THINK
IT'S, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
CONVERSATION, AND I AGREE WITH
YOU ON THE POTENTIAL OF THE
TECHNOLOGY AND ALSO, THE ROLE
THAT TRANSPARENCY AND DATA CAN
PLAY TO BUILD PUBLIC TRUST AND
ALSO ALLOW, REGULATORS, LOCAL
AND STATE, TO ENSURE PUBLIC
SAFETY AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HAYNIE. THE MOTION ON AB
3061 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER HAYNIE
IS DUE PASS AND BE REFERRED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
WILL THE SECRETARY PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL? BURNER I BURNER I
PATTERSON. PATTERSON I BONTA.
DAVIES. DAVIES. I GARCIA.
HOLDEN. HOLDEN. I HOOVER. MAIN
SHANE. NGUYEN. NGUYEN. I THREE
OF US. THREE OF US I RODRIGUEZ.
RODRIGUEZ I THAT BILL IS OUT.
WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR OTHER
MEMBERS TO ADD ON IT. AND NOW
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLDEN, THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
WE'RE GOING TO HEAR AB 1826 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLDEN RELATING
TO DIGITAL EQUITY AND VIDEO
FRANCHISING ACT OF 2024.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLDEN YOU MAY
OPEN AND I THINK YOU HAVE TWO.
YOU HAVE ONE WITNESS WHO HAS I
THINK ONE WITNESS IS THAT
CORRECT? ONE WITNESS. AND THEN
YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. THE
WITNESS HAS FOUR MINUTES. THANK
YOU. WELL GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE AB
1826, THE DIGITAL EQUITY AND
VIDEO FRANCHISING ACT OF 2024.
AS THEY SAY, THIRD TIME'S A
CHARM. I WANT TO BEGIN BY
STATING I ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND THANK THE CHAIR
AND HER STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
MY OFFICE ON THE IMPORTANT, THIS
IMPORTANT ISSUE. MY OFFICE HAS
HELD TWO STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
WITH CALIFORNIA EMERGING
TECHNOLOGY FUND, CALIFORNIA
ALLIANCE FOR DIGITAL EQUITY AND
CAL BROADBAND TO FOCUS ON
SECTIONS OF THE BILL WHERE THERE
WAS MUTUAL AGREEMENT. I
APPRECIATE YOU ALL FOR COMING
TOGETHER. COMING TO THE TABLE
FOR A MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION, AND
BY ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, I HOPE IT SHOWS I'M
COMMITTED TO WORKING ON THE
PUBLIC PROCESS FOR FRANCHISE
RENEWALS AND FINES. THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS WILL REMOVE
SECTION 5890 DEALING WITH EQUAL
ACCESS AND ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
STANDARDS. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING
THERE ARE OTHER LEGISLATIVE
EFFORTS THAT WILL ENSURE
COMPANIES WILL BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANY
DISCRIMINATORY BUSINESS
PRACTICES, REYES. AS AMENDED, AB
1826 WILL UPDATE THE DIGITAL
INFRASTRUCTURE AND VIDEO
COMPETITION ACT OF 22,006 TO
CREATE A ROBUST PUBLIC PROCESS
TO ALLOW FOR PUBLIC TO
PARTICIPATE IN A STREAMLINED
PROCESS. AB 1826 WOULD REQUIRE
THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE'S OFFICE TO
REVIEW AND CREATE A REPORT
BEFORE EACH RENEWAL ON HOW WELL
EACH STATE VIDEO FRANCHISE HAS
MET THE NEEDS OF THEIR
COMMUNITY. LASTLY, AB 1826 WILL
INCREASE THE FINES FOR ANY
CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS
ENFORCED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY
ACCEPTING THESE AMENDMENTS. AB
1826 WILL UPDATE NEARLY TWO
DECADE OLD POLICY TO ENSURE
THERE'S TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE STATE.
VIDEO FRANCHISING PROCESS. WITH
ME TO TESTIFY IS LETITIA
ALEJANDRO'S DIRECTOR OF POLICY
AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH
CALIFORNIA EMERGING TECH
EMERGENCY EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
FUND. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE. UPPER GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, WE'RE REALLY
PLEASED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AND SUPPORT
OF AB 1826. BUT FIRST, WE WISH
TO THANK AND EXPRESS OUR
APPRECIATION TO ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HOLDEN FOR HIS LEADERSHIP IN
REVISITING VIDEO FRANCHISING IN
THIS BILL, I'M LETICIA
ALEJANDRE, THE DIRECTOR OF
POLICY AND COMMUNICATIONS FOR
THE CALIFORNIA EMERGING
TECHNOLOGY FUND. FOR THOSE OF
YOU WHO ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH CITF
, WE WERE DIRECTED TO BE
ESTABLISHED BY THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AS A
PUBLIC BENEFIT FROM CORPORATE
CONSOLIDATION. THE MISSION OF
CITF IS TO CLOSE THE DIGITAL
DIVIDE, PROMOTE DIGITAL
INCLUSION, OAN, ACHIEVE DIGITAL
EQUITY IN CALIFORNIA, AND WE DO
THIS BY ACCELERATING UBIQUITOUS
DEPLOYMENT AND UNIVERSAL
ADOPTION OF BROADBAND INTERNET,
ESPECIALLY IN UNSERVED AND
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES. CITF
SUPPORTED THE PRECURSOR TO THIS
BILL, WHICH WAS AB 41 BY AGAIN
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLDEN. THE
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE WAS VERY
INSTRUCTIVE, WITH THE REFERENCE
TO THE NEED FOR A STRONGER BILL
FOR DEPLOYMENT AS WELL AS THE
REFERENCE TO AFFORDABILITY. CITF
IS TAKING THIS VETO MESSAGE AS
INSTRUCTIONS FOR AB 1826, AND
THE OTHER DIGITAL EQUITY BILLS.
VIDEO FRANCHISING IS A POWERFUL
VEHICLE FOR CLOSING THE DIGITAL
DIVIDE AND ACHIEVING DIGITAL
EQUITY. WE WANT TO SUPPORT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLDEN AND THE
STAKEHOLDERS IN GETTING THIS
BILL RIGHT TO SECURE GOVERNOR'S
SIGNATURE. THIS BILL WOULD
REVISE EXISTING LAW PERTAINING
TO STATEWIDE VIDEO FRANCHISE TO
ADVANCE FAIR AND TRANSPARENT
RENEWAL PROCESS AT THE CPUC. AS
YOU ALREADY HEARD, THE BILL IS
IMPERATIVE FOR CALIFORNIA STATE
VIDEO FRANCHISING PROCESS. IN
SHORT, IT ENACTS ITS ENACTMENT
WILL SIGNIFICANTLY ENHANCE
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
IT REQUIRES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN HEARINGS. IT GRANTS THE
PUBLIC ADVOCATES THE AUTHORITY
TO REVIEW FRANCHISES AND
PROVIDES OVERSIGHT. AND IT
EMPOWERS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
ENFORCE CUSTOMER SERVICE
REQUIREMENTS EFFECTIVELY. AB
1826 IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
STRENGTHEN DIVKA TO ACCELERATE
FOR UBIQUITOUS, UBIQUITOUS
DEPLOYMENT AND UNIVERSAL
ADOPTION, TO ACHIEVE DIGITAL
EQUITY. WE URGE YOUR AYE VOTE
FOR AB 1826. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT CAN
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION ONLY.
PLEASE YEAH. MARVIN, ON BEHALF
OF LA COOPERATIVA CAMPESINA DE
CALIFORNIA, THE FARMWORKER
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT, AND LOS
AMIGOS DE LA COMUNIDAD AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE
HAVE ONE PRIMARY WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION, AMANDA VALDERRAMA
FROM CAL BROADBAND. AND YOU HAVE
FOUR MINUTES AS WELL. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIRS. MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, AMANDA VALDERRAMA
WITH CAL BROADBAND. I'D LIKE TO
FIRST THANK THE AUTHOR, THE
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
WORKING WITH US, ON THE
AMENDMENTS. BUT WE DO REMAIN
OPPOSED TO THE BILL. WE HAVE
SEEN THIS BILL BEFORE. A FEW
TIMES LAST YEAR. CAL BROADBAND
WAS ABLE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE
AUTHOR AND GO NEUTRAL ON AB 41.
IN THE SECOND HOUSE, WHEN THE
BILL CAME THROUGH THE ASSEMBLY,
MULTIPLE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE VOTED NO OR ABSTAINED
FROM THE BILL ON THE FLOOR. BUT
WHEN IT CAME BACK ON CONCURRENCE
WITH OUR NEUTRALITY, NO ONE ON
THIS COMMITTEE VOTED NO. AND
ONLY ONE VOTE WAS NOT RECORDED.
AB 41 WAS A COMPROMISE. NO PARTY
RECEIVED EVERYTHING THEY WANTED,
WHICH IS USUALLY A SIGN OF A
WELL NEGOTIATED PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. FORTUNATELY, THE
GOVERNOR DISAGREED AND VETOED
THE BILL. CAL BROADBAND HAS NOT
BEEN TOLD BY THE ADMINISTRATION
EXACTLY WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO
SEE OUT OF A BILL AMENDING THE
DVCA STATUTE. WE UNDERSTOOD THE
AUTHOR WANTED TO TRY AGAIN AND
AGREED TO COME TO THE TABLE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE BILL
INTRODUCED THIS YEAR DID NOT
START FROM OUR NEGOTIATED
LANGUAGE THAT PASSED ON
CONCURRENCE LAST YEAR EASILY.
INSTEAD, IT STARTED FROM WHERE
CAL BROADBAND WAS OPPOSED, AND
MULTIPLE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE UNDERSTOOD THE FLAWS.
THUS, THE ASSOCIATION IS
COMPELLED TO OPPOSE AB 1826. WE
UNDERSTAND THAT WITH THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL HAVE BEEN
TAKEN OFF THE TABLE BECAUSE
THERE COULD NOT BE A CONSENSUS
BETWEEN US FORMER SPONSORS AND
THE CURRENT SPONSORS OF THE
BILL, AND WE APPLAUD THAT
MOVEMENT. BUT NOW THE BILL
ENTAILS DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT
WERE NOT VETTED LAST YEAR. AND
TO BE CLEAR, DEVCO REGULATES OUR
VIDEO SERVICES OR OUR CABLE
ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, NOT
BROADBAND. THE BILL PROPOSES A
PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS THROUGH
THE CPUC AND AN EVALUATION
PROCESS BY THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE'S
OFFICE TO BE ADDED TO THE
RENEWAL OF OUR VIDEO FRANCHISE.
TAKING THE LATTER ADDITION
FIRST, THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE'S
OFFICE IS SITUATED AT THE CPUC
AND IS CHARGED WITH INTERVENING
ON BEHALF OF UTILITY RATEPAYERS
IN ANY MATTER WITHIN THE CPUC
JURISDICTION, CALLING IT AN
EVALUATION BY THE PUBLIC
ADVOCATE'S OFFICE. INDEPENDENT
IS A STRETCH. IT IS NOT CLEAR
WHY THIS EVALUATION IS NEEDED,
CONSIDERING IT IS THE CPUC
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION'S JOB TO
EVALUATE RENEWALS OF DIVKA
FRANCHISES. ALREADY, THE PUBLIC
ADVOCATE'S OFFICE CAN INTERVENE
DURING THE RENEWAL PROCEEDINGS
IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO, AND
ADDING NEW AUTHORITY TO THE
PUBLIC ADVOCATE'S OFFICE IS
DUPLICATIVE. SPEAKING OF
DUPLICATIVE, THE CPUC IS
CURRENTLY UNDERGOING A
PROCEEDING TO CONSIDER CHANGES
TO ITS LICENSING AND OVERSIGHT
OF VIDEO FRANCHISES UNDER THE
DIVKA STATUTE. THIS PROCEEDING
CONTEMPLATES MODERNIZING DIVKA,
THE COLLECTION OF GRANULAR DATA
ON LOCATIONS SERVED BY FRANCHISE
HOLDERS, AND ADDRESSING CUSTOMER
SERVICE REQUIREMENTS AND
COMPLAINTS. CAL BROADBAND
COMMUNITY ADVOCATE
ORGANIZATIONS, COUNTIES, AND
CITIES ARE ALL PARTIES TO THIS
PROCEEDING. AT THIS POINT, IT
WOULD SEEM THAT THE CPUC
BELIEVES IT ALREADY HAS THE
STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MODERNIZE
DIVKA, AND THAT CHANGES TO THE
STATUTE ARE UNNECESSARY FOR ALL
THE REASONS STATED. CAL
BROADBAND REMAINS OPPOSED TO AB
1826. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION MAY APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. NAME AFFILIATION,
POSITION ONLY, PLEASE. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
ROBERT MURRAY FOR THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ALSO A
POST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. JACKIE ONIS, ON
BEHALF OF DIRECT TV, WE HAVE AN
OPPOSING, LESS AMENDED POSITION,
BUT WE'RE STILL ANALYZING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU.
JONATHAN ARAMBULA FILLING IN FOR
US TELECOM ALSO OPPOSED. THANK
YOU TO ALL THE WITNESSES.
BRINGING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS
WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS
BILL? IS THERE A MOTION? A
MOTION BY RIVAS. SECOND BY A
SECOND. SECOND BY MAIENSCHEIN.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLDEN, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE. THANK YOU.
FIRST OF ALL, THE BILL FROM LAST
YEAR MADE IT OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE WITH SUPPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE, RECOGNIZING THAT WE
STILL HAD SOME WORK TO DO. AND
WE STAYED COMMITTED TO THAT. I
DON'T THINK AT ANY POINT WHEN IT
LEFT THE COMMITTEE, WE
UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHERE THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE WAS. SO I
THINK WE WERE ALL IN THE SAME
PLACE ON THAT. I THINK IT WAS
VERY CLEAR THAT WHEN IT
RECEIVED, FEEDBACK FROM THE
SENATE COMMITTEE, WE WERE VERY
DISAPPOINTED THAT IT DIDN'T
ADDRESS EVERYTHING THAT WE
WANTED. AND I DON'T THINK I'VE
SEEN YET A BILL THAT GETS
THROUGH THIS PROCESS. IT GIVES
YOU EVERYTHING YOU WANT. BUT BUT
WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO REFORM A
PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE
FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND NOT
REALLY GETTING TO THE MARK THAT
WE ALL WANTED IT TO GET TO IN
TERMS OF ADDRESSING THE
CONCERNS, BECAUSE I WAS ON A
CITY COUNCIL AT A TIME WHEN CITY
COUNCILS APPROVED THESE TYPE OF
FRANCHISES, AND WE HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN AND WE
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE SOME
DIRECTION ON HOW OUR COMMUNITY
WOULD BE A PART OF THAT PROCESS.
THIS IS WHAT THIS BILL DOES NOW,
AND TRYING TO EXPAND ON THINGS
THAT WERE NOT DONE UNDER
DIFFICULT. IT IS ABOUT EQUITY,
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
STAY FOCUSED ON. IT'S ABOUT
INCREASING OPPORTUNITY FOR
PARTICIPATION, FOR COMMUNITIES
TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
PROCESS. WE TOOK OUT A VERY
IMPORTANT PART OF THIS BILL, ON
EQUITY AND ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
LANGUAGE. THE COMMITTEE IN THE
SENATE LAST YEAR GAVE, IN
ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES TO
CPUC THAT AT LEAST ALLOWED FOR
US TO SEE THIS ELEMENT
INTRODUCED SO THAT THERE WOULD
BE SOME WEIGHING IN ON THE
CONCERNS, THE GOVERNOR VETOED
THE BILL. SO I THINK AS WE'RE
TRYING THIS YEAR, WE SEE OTHER
BILLS THAT ARE TACKLING THAT
PARTICULAR SUBJECT. AND SO WE'VE
REMOVED THAT ELEMENT FROM THIS
BILL, HOPEFULLY MAKING IT A
LITTLE CLEARER HOW WE CAN MOVE
FORWARD IN THAT SPACE. AND SO I
THINK THAT WE'RE WE'RE STILL AT
A PLACE WHERE I'M HOPING THAT,
THOSE WHO CONTINUE TO BE OPPOSED
, ARE WILLING TO HAVE DISCUSSION
BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN STILL
MOVE FORWARD AND DO THAT. THE
GOALS OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING
TO ACCOMPLISH ARE STILL VERY
MUCH CLEAR. AND WHAT'S IN FRONT
OF US TODAY, I THINK THE CHAIR
AND THE STAFF FOR HELPING
ARTICULATE A POSITION NOT IDEAL
TO WHAT I WANTED, BUT WHAT I DO
BELIEVE AT LEAST KEEPS THE
IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF THIS
CONVERSATION MOVING FORWARD. SO
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE AND, THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLDEN FOR YOUR
PRESENTATION. FIRST, I WANT TO
THANK YOU ALSO FOR AND YOUR
STAFF FOR WORKING CONSTRUCTIVELY
WITH ME AND MY COMMITTEE, OVER
THE LAST FEW YEARS. THIS IS THE
FOURTH TIME THAT THIS COMMITTEE
HAS HEARD A BILL TO REFORM
DIEVCA. AND I THINK WE'RE
HOPEFULLY ON A PATH TO MAKE
CHANGES THAT WILL BENEFIT THE
PUBLIC. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
WILLING WILLINGNESS TO
COLLABORATE WITH THE COMMITTEE
AND ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS. IT HAS
NOT BEEN AN EASY PATH. I ALSO
APPRECIATE YOU ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
WHERE YOU'RE BASED ON THE
DISCUSSIONS YOU AND ARE YOUR
STAFF HAS HAD WITH THE
STAKEHOLDERS. I THINK IT'S A
WISE CHOICE AND STRATEGY TO
FOCUS THE PARTS OF DIVKA WHERE
THERE'S MOST AGREEMENT, TO FIX,
WHICH IS THE PUBLIC PROCESS.
ADDING PUBLIC HEARINGS CERTAINLY
HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BRING A LOT
OF INFORMATION TO THE SURFACE AT
CPUC. AS A CPUC REVIEWS
FRANCHISE APPLICATIONS, WE HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND AND THE
MOTION ON AB 1826 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HOLDEN IS Dð PASS AS
AMENDED, AND RE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
WILL THE SECRETARY PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL? BERNER. AYE. BERNER
AYE. PATTERSON ON PATTERSON NOT
VOTING. BONTA DAVIES NOT VOTING.
DAVIES. NOT VOTING. GARCIA
HOLDEN. HOLDEN I HOOVER. MÀ.
MAIENSCHEIN. MAIENSCHEIN I
NGUYEN. NGUYEN ON THE FLOOR WHEN
NOT VOTING. THREE OF US. THREE
OF US I RODRIGUEZ. RODRIGUEZ I.
THAT BILLS ON CALL. THANK YOU.
AND WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO PASS
IT OVER TO MY VICE CHAIR SO I
CAN PRESENT MY BILL. SO HERE YOU
GO. OH, HE HAS IT. OKAY. ALL
RIGHT, MEMBERS, NEXT WE'RE GOING
TO HEAR, AB 2575 BY OUR CHAIR
RELATING TO BROADBAND AND STATE
OVERSIGHT. AND. MADAM CHAIR, YOU
MAY OPEN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MEMBERS, FOR LISTENING WITH OPEN
EARS AS I PRESENT MY BILL TO
ESTABLISH THE DEPARTMENT OF
BROADBAND AND DIGITAL EQUITY AND
THE AND THE BROADBAND AND
DIGITAL EQUITY COMMISSION. THIS
IS, PROBABLY ONE OF THE FIRST
TASHBIH SPECIALS WE'RE GOING TO
HEAR TODAY. I THINK THERE ARE
THREE TOTAL UP IN COMMITTEES
TODAY. THE DEPARTMENT WILL SERVE
AS A CENTRALIZED STATE
DEPARTMENT FOR BROADBAND AND
DIGITAL EQUITY ACTIVITIES WITHIN
THE STATE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY
SPLIT BETWEEN THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AND
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY. CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF
THE ONLY STATES WHERE ESSENTIAL
BROADBAND PROGRAMS ARE SPLIT
BETWEEN THE TWO AGENCIES, AND IS
NOT NECESSARILY LED TO BETTER
OUTCOMES. IN OUR RESEARCH, WE
FOUND ONLY TWO OTHER STATES, NEW
MEXICO AND CONNECTICUT, THAT DO
WHAT WE DO. AND LET ME BE CLEAR
THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT PUNISHING
ANY AGENCY OR SCUTTLING THE WORK
THAT HAS BEEN ONGOING FOR
SEVERAL YEARS. I APPRECIATE THE
WORK OF THE STAFF OF THE CPUC
AND K¾T, AND GETTING THE STATE'S
PROGRAMS OFF THE GROUND.
NONETHELESS, DESPITE THE EFFORT
AND ATTENTION, WE HAVE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN
PERSISTENT CHALLENGES NOT JUST
CIRCUMSTANTIAL CHALLENGES, BUT
PERSISTENT CHALLENGES THAT I
BELIEVE ARE ATTRIBUTED TO THE
STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE SET UP
HERE IN CALIFORNIA TO SOLVE THE
STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS, WE NEED A
STRUCTURAL SOLUTION, AND THAT IS
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT AB 2575 IS
ABOUT. UNDER THIS BILL, THE
STATE'S EXISTING BROADBAND
PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES WOULD
BE CONSOLIDATED UNDER ONE AGING
AGENCY BEGINNING JULY 1ST, 2027,
TO OVERSEE THIS AGENCY. THE BILL
ALSO ESTABLISHES AN 11 MEMBER
BROADBAND AND DIGITAL EQUITY
COMMISSION THAT WOULD INCLUDE
MEMBERS WITH BACKGROUNDS IN
BROADBAND, DIGITAL EQUITY, LABOR
INDUSTRY, TRIBES AND COMMUNITY
ADVOCATES. THE COMMISSION WOULD
NOT NOT MERELY BE ADVISORY, BUT
WOULD HAVE ACTUAL POWER AND
AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS
ABOUT GRANT FUNDING, DIGITAL
DISCRIMINATION, OAN
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS AND
THE DEPARTMENT'S WORK FROM WHAT
I'VE OBSERVED WITH THE CURRENT
STRUCTURE OF THE BROADBAND
PROGRAMS, THERE ARE THREE
PERSISTENT CHALLENGES DIFFICULT
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, OFTEN
CONFUSING DECISION MAKING
PROCEDURES, AND POOR INTERAGENCY
COORDINATION. IN TANDEM, THESE
THREE PERSISTENT PROBLEMS
SNOWBALL INTO MUCH LARGER AND
VISIBLE CHALLENGES, SUCH AS THE
SO-CALLED EQUITY MAPS RELEASED
BY THE CPUC RELATED TO FFA
FUNDING, FUNDING DELAYS, PHASING
OF A MIDDLE MILE PROJECT WITH NO
PUBLIC INPUT, INACCURATE
MAPPING, AND A BROADBAND PLAN
THAT WILL FAIL TO ACHIEVE THE
GOAL OF UNIVERSAL BROADBAND
CONNECTIVITY. WHILE WE HAVE
WHILE WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY
RAISED THESE ISSUES THROUGH
LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS AND CNC AND
THE BUDGET PROCESS, THE
PERSISTENT CHALLENGES REMAIN
UNLESS WE START THINKING RIGHT
NOW ABOUT WHAT THE NEXT THREE
YEARS, FIVE YEARS, AND TEN YEARS
WILL LOOK LIKE, WE MAY NEVER
CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE, BUT WE
HAVE THE POWER TO SHAPE WHAT
THIS LOOKS LIKE FOR CALIFORNIA
AND SEND A MESSAGE OF
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
I'M COMMITTED TO BROADBAND FOR
ALL, FOR CONSUMERS PROTECTION
AND THE GOALS THAT I KNOW WE ALL
SHARE ON THIS COMMITTEE. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT AND I'LL LEAVE MY
PRESENTATION THERE. I WELCOME
ENCOURAGE ANY QUESTIONS AND
DISCUSSIONS FROM MEMBERS. MOVED
THE BILL SECOND. MEMBER
RODRIGUEZ HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. NO OTHER PRIMARY
WITNESSES, TASHA. BE SPECIAL.
IT'S JUST ME. ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. PLEASE
COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE
POSITION. AND WE ARE WITH. OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. PLEASE
COME FORWARD. ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION, GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS. IGNACIO HERNANDEZ, ON
BEHALF OF TURN, BASED ON THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WENT INTO PRINT
ON THURSDAY OF LAST WEEK, WE DO
HAVE CONCERN, WITH THE BILL AND
LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR
MOVING FORWARD. I'M HAPPY TO
EXPAND ON THAT. IF THERE ARE ANY
QUESTIONS. YEAH, THERE WE GO.
ANY OTHERS IN OPPOSITION? BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY COMMENTS?
QUESTIONS MEMBER BONTA I WANT TO
THANK THE CHAIR FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. I KNOW THAT
YOU'VE BEEN TRACKING FOR MANY,
MANY YEARS THE DEFICIENCIES IN
OUR CURRENT REGULATORY SYSTEM
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AROUND BROADBAND. AND I VERY
MUCH APPRECIATE YOU THOUGHTFULLY
PULLING TOGETHER A WAY IN WHICH
WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HAVE A
DEPARTMENT OF BROADBAND AND
DIGITAL EQUITY, FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. I JUST WANTED TO
GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY, PERHAPS
TO EXPAND ON A TWO, TWO ITEMS.
ONE IS, I KNOW THAT YOU'VE DONE
EXTENSIVE RESEARCH ON,
CALIFORNIA'S DEPARTMENT VERSUS
OTHER STATES. IF YOU COULD JUST
GIVE US A SENSE OF WHERE, YOU
KNOW, WHERE WE SEE OTHER
BROADBAND DEPARTMENTS IN OTHER
STATES AND SOME OF THE OUTCOMES
AND KIND OF PURVIEW AND
JURISDICTION OF, OF, OF THOSE
STATES AND WHERE THIS IS YOUR
THE INTENDED DEPARTMENT IS
ALIGNED, AND THEN SECONDARILY,
JUST TO HIT ON SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT MIGHT BE IT SOUNDS
LIKE PROBABLY UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE RAISED BY
EQUITY ORGANIZATIONS LIKE TURN.
SURE. SO IN THE STATES. SO OTHER
STATES GENERALLY DON'T HAVE THE
CHALLENGES THAT CALIFORNIA HAS
IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF
DISPARITIES THAT WE HAVE. INCOME
INEQUALITY AS WELL AS URBAN,
RURAL, AND THE SIZE. SO THE
STATES THAT ARE DOING THE BEST
JOB AT DEPLOYING, LIKE THE FFA
FUNDING AND DOING THIS STUFF,
HAVE A CONSOLIDATED OFFICE OF
BROADBAND. WHAT THEY DON'T OFTEN
HAVE IS ALWAYS A COMMISSION, AND
WE HAVE CONSTRUCTED THAT
COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY TO
ENSURE THAT YOU HAD EQUITY IN
THE DECISION MAKING OF WHERE
GRANT MONEY IS GOING, WHAT ARE
THE PROGRAMS, HOW ARE THEY BEING
ADMINISTERED. SO THAT WAS
SOMETHING WE WERE VERY MINDFUL
OF. WE MODELED ON THE CTC. ALL
THE THINGS IN THIS BILL, BECAUSE
IT'S NATASHA BIÂU SPECIAL, ARE
ALL FLEXIBLE. SO WHAT WE HEARD
WHEN WE MET WITH SOME OF THE
COMMUNITY GROUPS WAS THEY WANTED
A SLIGHT CHANGES IN THE BOARD.
YOU KNOW, WE WERE MAYBE MORE
SPECIFIC ON WHO THE INDUSTRY WAS
, MAYBE LESS SPECIFIC ON
COMMUNITY ADVOCATES. AND WE
SAID, WE'RE YOU KNOW, SUGGEST
LANGUAGE. WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK
WITH YOU, WE JUST MODELED IT ON
THE CTC INITIALLY. SO THOSE ARE
ALL OPEN FOR THAT. THAT WAS THE
PRIMARY OPPOSITION, OR KIND OF
FEEDBACK. I WOULDN'T EVEN SAY
OPPOSITION. IT'S THE FEEDBACK
THAT WE HEARD. AND WE'LL
CONTINUE WORKING WITH ALL
PARTIES TO GET THIS TO A PLACE,
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE
THIS EPIC, HISTORIC INVESTMENT
IN BROADBAND. AND WHAT WE SEE BY
THE BIFURCATED RESPONSIBILITIES
BETWEEN MIDDLE MILE AND K¾T AND
LAST MILE. AND CPUC IS PART OF
THE PROBLEM. NORMALLY YOU
WOULDN'T CREATE A MIDDLE MILE
WITHOUT KNOWING WHERE YOUR LAST
MILE IS GOING TO BE, AND THAT'S
AN INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
PROBLEM. THAT'S ONE OF THOSE
PERSISTENT CHALLENGES. THE OTHER
THING THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT,
AND I'M NOT SURE IF ANY OF YOU
HAVE EVER WATCHED A CPUC HEARING
AND RELATED TO BROADBAND. IT
OPERATES LIKE A COURT. IT'S NOT
A PUBLIC ACCESS PROCESS. YOU
KNOW, IF YOU GO AND YOU LOOK,
YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE NOT A PARTY
WITHIN THE CPUC, YOU'RE NOT ON
THE RECORD. SO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE
BECOME A LEGAL PARTY OF A CPUC
HEARING TO BE ON THE RECORD.
THAT'S NOT HOW PUBLIC INPUT
SHOULD WORK ON SOMETHING THAT'S
SO IMPORTANT TO ALL OF OUR
COMMUNITIES. YOU KNOW, I THINK
WHEN WE LOOK AND WE SEE HOW
SPREAD THIN THE CPUC IS ON
BROADBAND ISSUES, THEY HAD 75
HEARINGS, ONLY TWO OF WHICH WERE
PRESIDED BY BY COMMISSIONERS.
THEY HAD 75 HEARINGS WHERE A
COMMISSIONER WAS PRESENT. ONLY
TWO WERE PRESIDED BY THE
COMMISSIONER. THE BY THE
COMMISSION ITSELF. THE REST WAS
AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
THINK ABOUT ANYBODY THAT IS FROM
A COMMUNITY THAT MAYBE DOESN'T
HAVE ORGANIZED COMMUNITY
ADVOCATES, AND THEY WANT TO GO
AND SAY, HEY, I'M BEING LEFT OUT
, OR I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THEY'RE NOT A PARTY. THEY CAN'T
BE HEARD. ALL THAT INPUT THEY
PROVIDE DOESN'T GO INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD. SO YOU HAVE THESE
REALLY BIG PROBLEMS THAT THIS
CLUNKY REGULATORY AGENCY THAT
WAS MEANT TO REGULATE MONOPOLIES
IS NOW DOING SOMETHING THAT'S
NOT MONOPOLY REGULATION. THEY'RE
TRYING TO DO GRANT PROGRAMS. WE
SHOULD PUT THAT CONSOLIDATED,
LIKE OTHER STATES THAT WERE MORE
AGILE DIRECTLY UNDER THE CONTROL
OF THE ADMINISTRATION, WHERE WE
COULD GIVE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION
AND SAY, THESE ARE OUR
PRIORITIES FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
THAT'S THE BIGGEST ADVANTAGE OF
CREATING AN OFFICE OF BROADBAND
AND DIGITAL EQUITY. ANY OTHER
MEMBERS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING HEAR
NONE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. AND, MADAM SECRETARY,
CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS. AND WE REFER
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS BURNER A BURNER I
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. NOT VOTING
BONTA I BONTA I DAVIES. DAVIES
NOT VOTING. GARCIA. HOLDEN.
HOLDEN I HOOVER MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN I NGUYEN NGUYEN I
THREE OF US THREE OF US I
RODRIGUEZ. RODRIGUEZ I. HOW MANY
VOTES? I'M SORRY. OKAY OKAY,
MADAM CHAIR, THAT, YOUR BILL IS
OUT, AND WE'LL HOLD THE ROLL
OPEN FOR OTHERS WHO MAY WANT TO
ADD ON LATER. THANK YOU.
OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE
COMMITTEE. OH, LOOK, THERE'S
SOME MEMBER GARCIA, AND I THINK
WE'RE MISSING HOOVER. IS THAT IT
? SO, ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOOVER, IF
YOU CAN PLEASE COME TO
COMMITTEE, IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO
COME, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
THE COMMITTEE SECRETARY CALL THE
ROLL SO PEOPLE CAN ADD ON.
FIRST, WE'RE GOING TO LIFT THE
CALL ON AB 1826. HOLDEN. FOR
1820, 86 BONTA. I BONTA I GARCIA
I GARCIA I. OKAY. THAT BUILDS
OUT. WE'RE WAITING FOR ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HOOVER. FIRST WE'RE GOING
TO LIFT THE ON CALLS OR WE'RE
GOING TO CALL THE BILLS THAT ARE
ON CALL. AND THEN WE'LL DO THE
ADD ONS. SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO
DO AB 2221 CARILLO. ONE CARILLO.
FOR AB 2221 BONTA I ALIGNING MY
WOULD HAVE BEEN COMMENTS SHOULD
I HAVE NOT BEEN CAUGHT IN
ANOTHER COMMITTEE WITH ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS? HOLDEN AROUND RESERVING
MY RIGHT TO CHANGE MY VOTE
SHOULD THE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO
SAFETY CONCERNS NOT BE INCLUDED?
BONTA. AYE. GARCIA. GARCIA I
HOOVER. MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN
I RODRIGUEZ. RODRIGUEZ I BILL IS
OUT. OKAY. NOW WE'RE GOING TO DO
ADD ONS.
AB 2286 BONTA I BONTA I GARCIA.
GARCIA I HOOVER MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN I RODRIGUEZ.
RODRIGUEZ I. AB 2780. BONTA I
BONTA I DAVIES. VOTE CHANGE
FROM. NOT VOTING TO I DAVIES.
VOTE CHANGE FROM NOT VOTING TO I
GARCIA. GARCIA I HOOVER
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I. AB
3020 BONTA I BONTA I GARCIA
GARCIA I HOOVER MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN I RODRIGUEZ
RODRIGUEZ I. AB 3061 BONTA I
BONTA I GARCIA GARCIA I. HOOVER
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I. AB
2575. GARCIA GARCIA I HOOVER.
ALL THE BILLS ARE OUT. WE'RE
JUST WAITING FOR ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HOOVER TO HOOVER HIS WAY OVER
HERE. YEAH, I KNOW.
OKAY, SECRETARY, CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS. ARE YOU READY? YEAH.
OKAY. FOR AB 1826. HOOVER. NO.
HOOVER. NO NO.
YEAH. WHAT IS THIS? WHERE'S THE.
WHERE'S THE THING? AB 1826.
HOLDEN. THAT HAS SEVEN EYES.
ONE. NO, THAT BILL IS OUT. AB
2221. HOOVER HOOVER. I.
AB 2221 ONE CARILLO. THAT HAS
TEN EYES. NO NOS. THAT BILLS OUT
. FOR AB 2286. HOOVER. NO.
HOOVER NO.
AB 2286 AGUIAR-CURRY TEN. EYES
ONE. NO THAT BILL IS OUT. AB
2780. HOOVER NO. HOOVER. NO IS
THE FUN ONE. NOW WE KNOW. AB
2780 MOCINHA TEN EYES ONE. NO.
THAT BILL IS OUT. AB 3020
HOOVER. HOOVER I. AB 3020 REYES
11. EYES ZERO KNOWS THAT BILL'S
OUT AB 3061. HOOVER. NO. HOOVER
NO. AB 3061 HANEY TEN. EYES ONE.
NO. THAT BILL IS OUT. AB 2575
HOOVER. HOOVER I. AB 2575. IS
THAT A NINE? YES A BURNER, THAT
BILL IS OUT. EYES NINE. NOS
ZERO. OKAY, OKAY. THIS CONCLUDES
THE WORK OF THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND
CONVEYANCE TODAY. WE ARE
ADJOURNED. YOU AND YOU CAN START
UP. DID NOT TAKE AS LONG AS I
THOUGHT. I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING
TO GO FOR NO