AFTERNOON. THANKS FOR YOUR
PATIENCE. WE'RE ALL TRYING TO
SQUEEZE LOTS OF THINGS IN HERE,
TODAY, WELCOME TO ASSEMBLY
BUDGET SUB FOR TODAY'S A
SUBCOMMITTEE'S LAST HEARING. AND
OUR HEARING WILL BE STRUCTURED
DIFFERENTLY THAN PREVIOUS
HEARINGS. NO SPECIFIC DEPARTMENT
OR AGENCY WILL PRESENT ON ITEMS
INSTEAD, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR MEMBERS TO ASK QUESTIONS AND
SHARE THEIR PRIORITIES AS WE
ENTER FINAL NEGOTIATIONS OF THIS
YEAR'S BUDGET. AFTER ALL THE
ITEMS ARE HEARD, WE'LL TAKE
PUBLIC COMMENT FROM MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO PROVIDE
PUBLIC COMMENT. YOU'LL HAVE ONE
MINUTE TO SPEAK TO ENSURE WE CAN
ACCOMMODATE EVERYONE, BUT I
ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO SUBMIT
LETTERS AS WELL. BEFORE WE
START, I'D LIKE TO EXTEND AND MY
DEEPEST THANKS TO THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST OFFICE, YOUR
THOUGHTFULNESS AND DILIGENCE ARE
ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL TO BUILDING
A BUDGET THAT IS BOTH BALANCED
AND REFLECTIVE OF THE
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES, AND, AND
I SINCERELY MEAN THAT WE'VE SAID
THAT A NUMBER OF TIMES, BUT IT
IS IN MANY WAYS, A CHALLENGING
ROLE TO BE CLOSE, BUT NOT IN THE
DECISION MAKING ROLE, BUT JUST
CONSTANTLY MAKING
RECOMMENDATIONS. SO WE REALLY
APPRECIATE THE PROFESSIONALISM,
IN TOTAL, SUB FOUR HAS MET TEN
TIMES TO EVALUATE THE
TRANSPORTATION CLIMATE, NATURAL
RESOURCE ISSUES IN THE PROPOSED
2024 BUDGET. PRIORITIZING
TRANSIT AGENCY AND INCLUSIVITY
HAS BEEN OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO
ME. AND, AS A SUB CHAIR
THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, I
APPRECIATE THE STANDING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THAT HAVE
BEEN HERE AND THE MEMBERS
OUTSIDE THE SUBCOMMITTEE WHO
HAVE JOINED US FROM TIME TO
TIME. I WELCOME ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
OF BR HERE TODAY AND, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CONLEY, A STANDING
COMMITTEE MEMBER WHO'S BACK
AGAIN, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDERS WHO HAVE
ENGAGED AND HELPED US, CRAFT OUR
ASSEMBLY PRIORITIES IN THIS
FINAL PUSH. I WILL CONTINUE TO
FIGHT FOR MAINTAINING AND
RESTORING FUNDING FOR WILDFIRE
PRESERVATION, WATER RESILIENCE,
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WITHIN THE
BOUNDS OF THE OF THE BUDGET
CONSTRAINTS THAT WE HAVE. AS YOU
ALL KNOW, THAT'S NOT AN EASY
TASK GIVEN THIS BUDGET SHORTFALL
IN OUR CURRENT FISCAL REALITY,
FOR EVERY DOLLAR WE TRY TO
RESTORE, WE HAVE TO CUT
SOMEWHERE ELSE. HOWEVER, EVEN IN
A DEFICIT, I'M PROUD TO FIGHT
ALONGSIDE EACH OF YOU WHO
ADVOCATE FOR THESE PROGRAMS AND
HAVE SPENT YOUR TIME FIGHTING TO
PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT AND THE
COMMUNITIES HARDEST HIT BY THE
IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE. I'LL
NOW TURN TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO MAKE ANY,
INITIAL COMMENTS AND BEGIN WITH
THEIR QUESTIONS. SUBCOMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THEN SUBCOMMITTEE
MEMBERS. I HAVE ABOUT TEN
QUESTIONS. I DON'T WANT TO
DOMINATE THE FLOOR. IF YOU HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU WANT TO
MAKE. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. YOU WANT
ME TO DO THEM AFTERWARDS OR
YOU'RE GOING TO DO YOURS
AFTERWARDS? YEAH. GREAT THERE WE
GO. GOOD. SO, STAFF HAS GIVEN
YOU THE TOTAL OF ABOUT TWO
MINUTES. ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT I'M GETTING READY
TO ASK. SO I'M SURE YOU'LL BE
VERY COMPLETE AND THOROUGH IN
YOUR ANSWERS. BUT MY FIRST
QUESTION STARTS WITH PORTS,
GOODS, AND WHOEVER IS THE PERSON
THAT COULD ANSWER ON THE PORTS
AND GOODS MOVEMENT, PART OF THE
BUDGET. THANK YOU. CAMPAÑA ALL
RIGHTY. AND SOME WITNESSES WILL
BE ON WEBEX, WHICH IS ALWAYS AN
ADVENTURE OF ITS OWN. I'M GOING
TO APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE. I HAVE
TEN QUESTIONS. THAT'S PROBABLY
MEANS TEN DIFFERENT TIMES. WE'RE
GOING TO CHANGE PEOPLE UP HERE.
AND MY QUESTIONS ARE USUALLY
PRETTY SHORT. SO PROBABLY A LOT
OF WALKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF
SPEAKING, BUT WE'LL SEE,
ALTHOUGH PLEASE BE AS GENEROUS
WITH YOUR ANSWERS AS, AS, AS YOU
CAN BE, ON THE PORTS GOODS I
KNOW THAT THAT FUNDING INCREASED
SIGNIFICANTLY WHEN WE HAD THE
SUPPLY CHAIN CHALLENGES AND THE
PORTS WERE GETTING ALL BOTTLED
UP. AND SO I KNOW A SIGNIFICANT
PORTION OF THAT MONEY IS GOING
FOR EXPANDING ROADS, TRYING TO
HELP WITH THE MOVEMENT OF THE
ACTUAL VEHICLES IN AND OUT OF
THE PORTS. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF IT
IS ALSO ON THE GREENING OF THE
PORTS, THE SPENDING THAT IS
GOING TO, MAKE THE PORTS HAVE A
LOWER IMPACT EITHER ON THE
IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ON
THEIR OVERALL CLIMATE CHANGE
EMISSIONS. CAN YOU HELP ME WITH
THAT AND GIVE ME EXAMPLES? YES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, KEITH DUNCAN.
CALTRANS BUDGETS, THANK YOU FOR
THE QUESTION, CHAIR. WHILE OF
ALL THE AWARDED PROJECTS, THERE
ARE NO SPECIFIC PROJECTS
DEDICATED TO JUST, WE'LL SAY,
GREENING ASPECTS, BUT THERE ARE
VARIOUS COMPONENTS FOR EACH OF
THE PROJECTS THAT DO HAVE
GREENING ASPECTS, SOME OF THEM
ARE PROVIDING OR RE RENEWING
PORT INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEY
HAVE SPECIFIC, ZERO EMISSION,
PORT MACHINERY, WE'LL CALL IT
FOR, FOR, UNLOADING AND LOADING,
CARGO. SO, WE CAN PROVIDE YOU A
BETTER LISTING WHEN IT COMES TO
ALL THE, ALL THE PROJECTS AND
THOSE SPECIFIC COMPONENTS AND
THE DOLLAR VALUES OF THAT. BUT I
DON'T HAVE IT OFF THE TOP OF MY
HEAD. I'M SORRY. AFTER TWO
MINUTES, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT
LIST. WOW. I'M TRYING TO DO MY
CALCULATOR. MY BRAIN IS JUST NOT
THAT QUICK, BUT I APOLOGIZE. ALL
RIGHT, BUT. SO THE MONEY IS NOT
JUST FOR STREETS. IT IS ALSO FOR
CARGO HANDLING. YES. AND TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE CARGO HANDLING
EQUIPMENT IS NEWER AND HAS LESS
EMISSIONS, AND TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE PORT HAS A POLICY OF
TRYING TO BE ZERO EMISSIONS,
IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT THAT
SPENDING WOULD GO. YES. JUST IN
YOUR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT,
WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE MONEY
SPENT ON, ON THE ROADS, STREETS,
THAT KIND OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
PROBABLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY DIRECT
IMPACT VERSUS MACHINERY LOADING,
ETC. WOULD, WOULD, WOULD THE
MACHINERY LOADING AND THAT BE IN
THE 10% CATEGORY? THE 30%
CATEGORY OR I, I DON'T YOU DON'T
HAVE A PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT.
YES. RIGHT. LÀ Ó DO YOU HAVE
ONE SINCE YOU JUST SHOWED UP
GOOD AFTERNOON, RACHEL ALERS
WITH LEO. I JUST WANTED TO FLAG
THAT OUTSIDE OF THE
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
PACKAGE, THERE WAS ALSO FUNDING
WITHIN THE ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE
PACKAGE. THE CLIMATE PACKAGE,
SPECIFICALLY FOR PORTS UNDER THE
MAY REVISION THAT IS PROPOSED TO
BE DELAYED TO A FUTURE YEAR. SO
IT HASN'T GONE OUT YET, BUT AND
I THINK WAS ALSO REDUCED. BUT
THERE IS SOME FUNDING
SPECIFICALLY FOR PORTS WITHIN
THE ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE
PACKAGE, WHICH MAY GET AT SOME
OF THE ACTIVITIES YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT. GREAT. AND I'D APPRECIATE
YOU STAYING UP HERE SO YOU DON'T
HAVE TO WALK BACK AND FORTH FOR
ALL OF THESE. BUT I AM AWARE
THAT WE'VE SLOWED DOWN THE ZEV
PACKAGE. MY QUESTION WAS ON THE
PORT INFRASTRUCTURE ITSELF. WAS
THERE SOMETHING ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, GENTLEMEN, I
APPRECIATE IT, HIGHWAYS TO
BOULEVARDS, YOU GUYS AGAIN.
WONDERFUL. ALL RIGHT. OH. GO
AHEAD. I DON'T KNOW IF THESE ARE
THE RIGHT FOLKS FOR THE QUESTION
THAT I HAVE. GIVE IT A TRY, AND
WE'LL FIND OUT ON PAGE TEN OF
THIS DOCUMENT UNDER THE SECTION
CALDERON. CONDITION UNDER
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, IT
NOTES THAT THE $45 MILLION THAT
WAS PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED FOR
OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE HAS
BEEN HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 20 BY
20 MILLION TO 25. AND THEN IT
REALLOCATES THAT TO A NUMBER OF
THINGS. AND ARE YOU ALL THE
FOLKS TO DEAL WITH THIS? ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT WAS ONE OF THE
THINGS I WAS NERVOUS ABOUT WAS
THE FACT THAT I THOUGHT THAT THE
45 MILLION WAS, IN PART, TO SORT
OF HELP THE PORTS AT THE PORT OF
LONG BEACH, PORT OF HUMBOLDT, TO
OTHER PORTS TO ENGAGE IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RELATED TO
OFFSHORE WIND. AND NOW IT LOOKS
LIKE WHAT'S LEFT WON. THE 45
MILLION WAS CUT TO 20 MILLION,
AND THAT THERE'S NOTHING IN
THERE FOR THE NEAREST TERM,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THAT NEEDS
TO TAKE PLACE. THERE'S
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THE
COASTAL COMMISSION, FOR THE
OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL FOR THE
, FOR THE STATE LANDS
COMMISSION. THERE'S 6.7 MILLION
IN CÁC FOR OFFSHORE WIND PORT
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING, BUT
THERE'S NOTHING FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. AND THESE
ARE, YOU KNOW, SEPARATE
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, THE PORT OF
LONG BEACH, THE PORT OF
HUMBOLDT, SO I'M JUST WONDERING
WHY. I MEAN, THAT'S THE NEAREST
THING THAT NEEDS TO BE THAT
NEEDS TO HAPPEN. THÀNH. SO I'M
JUST VERY CONCERNED THAT NOT
ONLY WAS THE CUT BACK SO MUCH,
BUT THEN SOME OF THE NEAREST
FUNDING ISN'T ALLOCATED TO THE
FOLKS THAT NEED THE FUNDING. SO
STEVE WALLS, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, JUST YOU HAVE THAT
RIGHT, WE DID TAKE THE 45
MILLION AND, AND, ALLOCATE 16
MILLION OF IT TO, SEVERAL,
NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCIES THAT,
YOU KNOW, THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, OTHERS THAT AND
THAT, THAT THAT'S MEANT TO
ACCELERATE THE PERMITTING
PROCESS AND TO, TO START, YOU
KNOW, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS
THERE. AND WE LEFT THE 6.5
MILLION THERE FOR THE, YOU KNOW,
ON THE CEC SIDES FOR THE PORT,
FOR PORT INFRASTRUCTURE. BUT
THAT INCLUDES SORT OF ALL
ASPECTS OF THE PORT
INFRASTRUCTURE PROCESS. SO
THAT'S THAT'S MEANT TO BE A
THREE YEAR PLAN TO DO, YOU KNOW,
THE THINGS THAT WE CAN GET DONE
IN THE IN THE NEAR TERM AND TO
SORT OF STREAMLINE AND BE AS
COMPREHENSIVE AS WE CAN. BUT I
GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHY THE
NEAREST TERM, ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW? THAT'S ALREADY STARTING
IS AT THE PORTS. SO WE RETAIN
MONEY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FOR THESE AGENCIES THAT DON'T
HAVE ANYTHING PENDING. BUT WE'VE
ACTUALLY ELIMINATED IT FOR THE
NEAR TERM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PROJECTS. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON,
NAZARIAN DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
SO THE ADMINISTRATION TOOK A
VERY STRATEGIC APPROACH TO
ADDRESSING OUR OFFSHORE WIND
ENERGY NEEDS. AS PART OF THAT,
WE HAVE PROVIDED A $16 MILLION
VERY CONCISE, CONSOLIDATED,
STREAMLINED PACKAGE, WHICH DOES
INCLUDE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FUNCTIONS AT THE STATE LANDS
COMMISSION, CEC AND COASTAL
COMMISSION. AND BUT WHY NOT THE
PORTS? THE PORTS HAVE TO GO
THROUGH THERE. I MEAN, THAT'S
THE NEAREST TERM, ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW THAT'S TAKING PLACE.
PERHAPS ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES
ONLINE MAY BE ABLE TO HELP
DIRECTLY ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION.
AND WE DON'T HAVE TO BELABOR
THIS, BUT I JUST WOULD THROW OUT
A FLAG THAT I THINK THAT'S A BIG
MISTAKE. I THINK THAT THEY NEED
FUNDING. THAT'S THE NEAREST TERM
FUNDING THAT'S OUT THERE. I
DON'T OBJECT TO THE OTHER
FUNDING. ALL OF THEM NEED
FUNDING. BUT BUT THE CUTTING IT
OUT FROM THE PORT OF LONG BEACH,
PORT OF HUMBOLDT AND SOME OF THE
OTHER PORTS THAT ARE ENGAGING IN
SOME OF THE REVIEW. NOW WHEN I
LOOK AT THE OFFSHORE WIND, THE
THING THAT I'M MOST WORRIED
ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT WE DON'T
HAVE THE PORT PIECE IS THE FIRST
THING THAT SORT OF HAS TO
HAPPEN. AND SO ANYTHING THAT'S
DELAYING THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
I GET VERY NERVOUS ABOUT THE
ENTIRE OFFSHORE WIND TRAJECTORY
IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. SO
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ONLINE READY
TO ADDRESS, ASSEMBLYMEMBERS.
BURR'S QUESTION, AND I'LL TELL
YOU WHILE YOU'RE GETTING
ORGANIZED, WHEN YOU COME ONLINE,
WE'LL TAKE YOU, BUT WE'LL GO
BACK AND ASK THE QUESTIONS, ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS, TOPIC,
MR. ZUBIATE? NO THAT'S IT. ALL
RIGHT. SO GREAT. SO I'LL BRING
BACK THE HIGHWAYS TO BOULEVARDS,
FOLKS. RIGHT, THANK YOU FOR
STAYING CLOSE. RIGHT, AND IF
ANYBODY, FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION, HOW STAFF LET ME
KNOW. HOW WILL THEY LET US KNOW?
WILL THEY JUST SHOW UP ON THE
SCREEN? ADMINISTRATION
REPRESENTATIVE, YOU SAID
SOMEBODY MAY SHOW UP ON THE
SCREEN. HOW WILL WE KNOW THAT
SOMEBODY IN THE ADMINISTRATION
WANTS TO PARTICIPATE? GOT ANY
ANY HELP FOR US ON THAT? OKAY.
GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN YOU CAN YOU
HEAR ME? THIS IS DAMIAN
MIMNAUGH, THE CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER AT THE ENERGY
COMMISSION. GREAT, MR. ZUBER HAS
BEEN ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT WHY
NOT FUNDING FOR, TO THE PORTS
DIRECTLY TO HELP THEM SUBSIDIZE
THE COST AND MOVE ALONG ON THE
EIRS FOR THE WIND PROJECTS?
THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, SO I
HAVE WITH ME ELIZABETH HUBER,
THE DIRECTOR OF OUR SITING,
SITING DIVISION HERE, BUT AT A
HIGH LEVEL, THE PORTS HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO DO THEIR OWN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEWS.
AND I'LL PASS IT ON TO ELIZABETH
IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBER. THANK
YOU. HI. MY NAME IS ELIZABETH
HUBER. I'M THE, SITING,
TRANSMISSION, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION DIVISION DIRECTOR AT
THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION, FOR THE RECORD. AND
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT'S
GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
ASSEMBLYMAN ZUBER IS, THAT
HUMBOLDT IS ALREADY UNDERWAY,
THE LEGISLATURE DID GRANT, IN
21, 22, A $11 MILLION, AWARD
SPECIFIC TO THE WORK UP AT THE
HUMBOLDT HARBOR DISTRICT AND SO
THAT ENVIRONMENTAL WORK IS WELL
UNDERWAY ALMOST TWO YEARS LATER
AND WITH THE, STREAMLINED
BUDGETING, THE FUNDS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE, WE'RE LOOKING AT
DOING AT A COMPETITIVE PROCESS
THAT WILL AGAIN SUPPORT THE,
SITE ASSESSMENT DESIGN
ASSESSMENT THROUGH, THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AT PORTS,
NEED TO DO WITH THE FUNDING
STILL AVAILABLE. SO, SO WITH THE
6.7 MILLION THAT'S LISTED, WOULD
THAT BE AVAILABLE FOR THE FOR
EXAMPLE, FOR THE PORT OF LONG
BEACH TO CONTINUE WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE THAT
PORT NGUYEN PROJECT, ABSOLUTELY.
IF THEY, YOU KNOW, APPLY TO THE
SOLICITATION FOR, FOR ONE OF THE
GRANTS, IT DEFINITELY, COULD
CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR WORK ON
THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW WORK
THERE. I DON'T WANT TO TAKE MORE
TIME THAN THIS, BUT, I WOULD
APPRECIATE MAYBE IF WE COULD
OFFLINE UNDERSTAND SORT OF THE,
THE DOLLAR FIGURES IN TERMS OF
HOW THEY'RE ALLOCATED, MY FOCUS,
AS I KNOW YOURS IS AS WELL, IS
REALLY NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT
SLOWS DOWN OFFSHORE WIND AND
MAKING SURE WE'RE GETTING MONEY
TO THE NEAREST TERM, NEEDS. AND,
AND I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT
WHETHER THE, YOU KNOW, THE 25
MILLION THAT'S LEFT AND HOW IT
WAS ALLOCATED, WHETHER OR NOT
THOSE ARE ACTUALLY AT THE
NEAREST TERM NEEDS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. THAT HAS
TO HAPPEN. SO NO, ABSOLUTELY.
FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR OFFICE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. IT WAS REALLY
NICE TO SEE YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AND I'M IMPRESSED. WE
CAN GET A LOT OF DIFFERENT
PEOPLE ANSWERING QUESTIONS AND
NOBODY KNOWS WHO'S GOING TO GET
WHAT QUESTION. SO IT'S I MEAN,
IT IS A PRETTY, PRETTY EFFECTIVE
WAY. I MEAN, THINK OF 25 YEARS
AGO, YOU CERTAINLY COULDN'T BE
HAVING A HEARING LIKE THIS. SO
APPRECIATE IT. HIGHWAYS TO
BOULEVARDS. WHAT'S THE CHANCE OF
GETTING FEDERAL DOLLARS IF WE
HAVE FUNDING IN THAT PROGRAM?
YEAH, KEITH DUNCAN, CALTRANS
BUDGETS. THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION. BASED ON DISCUSSIONS
WITH OUR CONTACTS WITHIN THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
QUITE HIGH, THE INITIAL INTENT
AS PART OF THE PILOT OVERALL WAS
TO, SET THESE PROJECTS UP SO WE
CAN TRY TO LEVERAGE ANY
AVAILABLE FEDERAL FUNDS AS
DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS. WHAT
KIND OF WHAT KIND OF MATCH ARE
WE TALKING ABOUT? PERCENTAGE
MATCH DOUBLING. TRIPLING. THAT'S
MOST OF THE GRANTS COME IN. THEY
COME IN WITH IT. WE'D HAVE TO
PROVIDE A NON FEDERAL OR STATE
MATCH. SO THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD
BE LEVERAGING. SO 100% MATCH. WE
PUT IN 20. THEY PUT IN 20. YEAH.
GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. ALRIGHTY. BROADBAND
LAST MILE. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR
BENNETT RACHEL PETERSEN WITH THE
CPUC HERE. GREAT. NICE TO HAVE
YOU HERE, RACHEL, WE ALSO HAVE A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ADMINISTRATION STEP FORWARD.
ALSO AND YOU ARE? STEVE. WELCOME
DEPARTMENT FINANCE. ALL RIGHT.
GREAT. AND SO MY QUESTION IS
WE'VE HAD, 70 MEMBER SUPPORT
SUGGEST THAT WE DELAY THE
SPENDING OF THE STATE MONEY ON
BROADBAND LAST MILE SO THAT WE
USE ALL THE FEDERAL MONEY FIRST.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THE
FEDERAL MONEY COMES WITH STRINGS
ATTACHED. AND THAT WAY IF WE
HAVE PROBLEMS, ETC, WITH
PROJECTS THAT WE CAN'T FUND WITH
FEDERAL MONEY, WE STILL HAVE
STATE MONEY. WHEREAS IF WE SPEND
THE STATE MONEY EARLY, THEN WE
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO, USE FEDERAL
MONEY IF IT HAD A RESTRICTION TO
IT, WANTED TO JUST GET THE TAKE
OF BOTH OF YOU OF THAT THE VALUE
OF THAT STRATEGY. WE'LL START
WITH YOU, RACHEL. YOU OUTRANKING
? YES THANK YOU. CHAIR. IT'S A
VERY WISE STRATEGY AND ONE THAT
WE'RE ACTUALLY ALREADY PLANNING
TO IMPLEMENT. SO OUR ROLLOUT HAS
ALWAYS BEEN PLANNING TO USE THE
540 MILLION IN FEDERAL SPECIAL
PROJECTS FUND FIRST, BECAUSE
YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT IS THE SET OF
FUNDS THAT HAS A SHARPER, SOONER
DEADLINE THAN THE STATE FUNDS.
GREAT. THANK YOU. ANYTHING THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, JUST TO
PUT TO NOTE ON THE RECORD, WE
DID AS PART OF THE MAY REVISION
PROPOSAL, REDUCE THE AMOUNT THAT
WE PROPOSE TO BE AVAILABLE IN
BUDGET YEAR AND BUDGET YEAR,
PLUS ONE FROM 300 MILLION TO 100
MILLION, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT
THAT THAT ADDITIONAL 100
MILLION, CAN BE, YOU KNOW, MOVED
OUT, THAT THAT WOULD BE, YOU
KNOW, IF THAT WOULD BE PER
WHATEVER, PER THE PLAN FOR HOW
THEY'RE THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD,
AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD
HAVE ANY IMPACT. OKAY ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. METHANE
SATELLITES AND ON DECK. WOULD BE
THE STRATEGIC RESERVE. THE OTC
PLANS, SO, SO THE QUESTION ON
THE METHANE SATELLITES IS THAT
WE ALREADY HAVE SOME, AND THERE
IS THIS PROPOSAL TO EXPAND THEM.
AND THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH
MARGINAL GAIN DO WE GET FOR THIS
EXPENSE? IT'S AN ISSUE THAT'S
BEEN RAISED A NUMBER OF TIMES.
LET ME GIVE YOU ONE LAST SHOT ON
THIS ONE. SURE GOOD MORNING,
BRANDON MERRITT, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, SO THE RFP WILL BE USED
TO CONTRACT WITH A VENDOR TO
BUILD AND LAUNCH SATELLITES THAT
, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILL
THEN BE ABLE WILL THEN PURCHASE
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA FROM.
THE STATE CAN REQUEST SPECIFIC
IN DEPTH OBSERVATIONS FROM THE
SATELLITES, SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE
, FROM A SPECIFIC OIL FIELD, SO
IN OTHER WORDS, METHANESAT,
WHICH IS THE NAME OF THE,
ORGANIZATION THAT CALIFORNIA
WOULD BE WORKING WITH FOR THIS
PROJECT CAN PINPOINT INDIVIDUAL
PLUMES OF METHANE, AND SO THIS
PINPOINT CAPABILITY IS NOT
CURRENTLY OFFERED BY OTHER
EXISTING METHANE SATELLITES. AND
CHAIR BENNETT, CHRISTIAN BELTRAN
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
I ALSO WANTED TO JUST ADD A
COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL POINTS
HERE. SO THIS WAS, APPROVED IN
LAST YEAR'S BUDGET ACT. SO THIS
IS NOT A GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
PROPOSAL. THIS WAS APPROVED LAST
YEAR. I ALSO WANT TO KIND OF
EMPHASIZE THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF
THIS IS THAT YOU REFER TO SOME
ALREADY EXISTING SATELLITES THAT
ARE OUT THERE, THOSE PARTICULAR
SATELLITES ARE NOT CURRENTLY
CONTRACTED WITH THE STATE,
THAT'S A SEPARATE NONPROFIT THAT
HAS THE ABILITY TO USE THOSE
SATELLITES FOR THEIR PURPOSES.
WE MAY BENEFIT FROM SOME OF THE
DATA THAT THEY'RE COLLECTING,
BUT IT'S NOT THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT
OF DATA THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR
AS A STATE, AS MY COLLEAGUE HAD
MENTIONED, THIS PARTICULAR DATA
THAT WE WOULD BE GATHERING IS
MUCH MORE GRANULAR. IT HAS A
MUCH BIGGER USE FOR THE STATE,
AND WE WOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO,
PARTNER WITH DIFFERENT STATES
AND OTHER KIND OF, ENTITIES TO
HELP RELEASE SOME OF THIS DATA.
SO THERE IS SOMEWHAT OF A
BENEFIT TO THAT AS WELL, BUT
ALSO WANT TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR OUR COLLEAGUES FROM THE AIR
RESOURCES BOARD TO ADD ANY
COMMENTS, IF THEY HAVE ANY
ADDITIONAL ONES. AND I HAVE A
FURTHER QUESTION AS THEY'RE
ADDING COMMENTS. AND THAT IS WHO
WILL ACTUALLY CONTROL THE
SATELLITE. YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS
. YOU'RE SAYING WE DON'T CONTROL
THE SATELLITES RIGHT NOW THAT
WE'RE PURCHASING DATA FROM AND,
AND A FURTHER QUESTION IS IF, IF
WE DON'T CONTROL THESE
SATELLITES, I'VE HEARD YOU SAY
WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO CONTRACT TO
GET THE DEBT. DOES THIS MEAN WE
HAVE TO BUILD INTO THE BUDGET
MONEY TO GET THE DATA? ALSO OR
IS THIS MONEY TAKE CARE OF DATA
FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, OR THE
MONEY TAKES CARE OF THE DATA
PURCHASE? FOR HOW LONG? I THINK
I BELIEVE IT'S OVER THE NEXT
FIVE YEARS, BUT I WANT TO DEFER
TO CARB FOR THAT IF THEY'RE ON
THE LINE AND WISH TO SPEAK. SO I
WANT TO BE CLEAR, ARE THESE
SATELLITES ALREADY UP THERE? AND
WE'RE JUST SPENDING MONEY TO TRY
TO GET THE DATA? THEY ARE NOT.
OR IF WITHOUT OUR FUNDING, WILL
THE SATELLITES STILL GO UP AND
WE JUST WON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE
DATA OR THE MONEY IS TO OUR,
OUR, OUR OUR FUNDING FOR THE
SATELLITES? YEAH, THE FUNDING IS
TO BUILD AND LAUNCH THE
SATELLITES AND THEN INCLUDED IN
THAT APPROPRIATION IS THE
PURCHASE OF DATA FROM THOSE
SATELLITES. CHAIR BECKER, IF I
CAN ALSO CLARIFY, THE SATELLITES
THAT ARE AT ARE AT QUESTION
RIGHT NOW DON'T CURRENTLY EXIST.
THE MONEY THAT WAS APPROPRIATED
IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET CREATES A
MARKET FOR BUILDING THESE
SATELLITES. AND SO THEREFORE,
THE TWO SATELLITES THAT ALREADY
EXIST FROM THE NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION THAT'S CURRENTLY
OUT THERE IS SPECIFICALLY OUT
THERE OPERATING INDEPENDENTLY OF
THE STATE'S CONTRACTING NEEDS.
THE RFP THAT WE ARE RELEASING,
OR THAT WAS RELEASED CURRENTLY,
IS TO CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
VENDORS TO BID ON, PROVIDING
DATA TO THE STATE. BUT OPERATE
THEIR OWN SATELLITES. SO THE
VENDOR THEMSELVES WOULD HAVE TO
OPERATE AND BUILD THESE
SATELLITES AND I THINK THAT'S
KIND OF A PRUDENT APPROACH FROM
THE STATE, BECAUSE WE WE'RE NOT
WE DON'T HAVE ANY KIND OF NASA
AGENCY OR ANYTHING TO OPERATE
SATELLITES. SO THE VENDORS WOULD
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OPERATING AND
BUILDING THESE SATELLITES, BUT
PROVIDING THE DATA AS REQUESTED
BY THE STATE WHEN WE WOULD LIKE
IT. AND HOW WE WOULD LIKE IT. SO
WE WOULD OWN THE DATA AND GET
THE DATA FROM THEM. AND WE WOULD
CONTROL WHEN WHAT PICTURES
THEY'RE TAKING AND WHERE
PICTURES ARE TAKEN. OKAY, I'M
NOT SURE. I THINK THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF, OF PEOPLE THAT THINK
THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS OUT IN
SPACE A LOT. WHEN YOU SAID WE
DON'T HAVE A NASA, COMPONENT
THERE, BUT, WHAT ENFORCEMENT
WILL BE DONE AS TO THE OTHER,
WHAT ENFORCEMENT WILL BE DONE
AFTER WE HAVE THE DATA? WHAT'S
THE DATA GOING TO GIVE US THAT
WOULD WOULD WHAT WOULD WHAT
WOULD CHANGE IF WE GET THIS
DATA? WELL, I THINK THE GOAL IS
TO JUST FIRST OFF UTILIZE THE
DATA TO REALLY IDENTIFY WHERE
PLUMES OF METHANE ARE REALLY
LEAKING THROUGHOUT THE STATE. IN
TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT.
ENFORCEMENT WASN'T PART OF THE
PROPOSAL LAST YEAR. THIS IS
REALLY JUST TO CREATE A MORE
DATA AND HAVE THE DATA
ACCESSIBLE ACROSS WITHIN THE
STATE, BUT ALSO ACROSS TO
DIFFERENT PARTNERS. THE
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM THAT WOULD
FOLLOW WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION
OR NOT NEGOTIATION, BUT RATHER
FURTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
LEGISLATURE AND WITHIN THE
ADMINISTRATION TO SEE HOW THAT
DATA CAN BE UTILIZED ACROSS THE
DIFFERENT PROGRAMS THAT GO IN.
SPECIFICALLY, LOOK FOR BAD
ACTORS IN TERMS OF METHANE
EMISSIONS. THANK YOU. AND IS
ANYBODY ON THE SCREEN THAT WANTS
TO JUMP IN? YES. DAVID GARCIA,
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR FOR CARB,
SO AS A CHRISTIAN MENTIONED, THE
SENSORS ON THE SATELLITES WILL
BE PROVIDING DATA TO THE STATE
THAT WILL HAVE INCREDIBLE
SPATIAL RESOLUTION THAT WILL
ALLOW US TO SEE INDIVIDUAL
PLUMES OF METHANE EMANATING FROM
SPECIFIC AND IDENTIFIABLE
INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE GROUND,
SUCH AS AN OIL RIG, A PIPELINE,
OR A PARTICULAR LOCATION IN A
LANDFILL. AND SO WITH THAT, WE
CAN USE IT AS A MITIGATION TOOL.
TO BETTER SUPPORT OUR AND
ENFORCE OUR REGULATIONS, RECENT
AMENDMENTS TO THE GHG EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR OIL AND GAS
FACILITIES INCLUDE A SATELLITE
BASED REMOTE DETECTION PROVISION
WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
FACILITY OPERATORS TO FIX LEAKS
AFTER BEING NOTIFIED OF A PLUME
DETECTION BICARB WITH THE
SATELLITE DATA AND SIMILAR
PROVISIONS ARE BEING WORKSHOPPED
OR IN THE EARLY STAGES OF
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE LANDFILL
METHANE REGULATION. SO WE CAN'T
DO THAT TODAY WITH OUR CURRENT
SETUP. NO WE DON'T HAVE ANY
SATELLITE DATA TO DATE THAT
WOULD ALLOW US TO SEE THE KIND.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE
GOING TO GO TO A STRATEGIC
RESERVE. AND ON DECK IS CENTRAL
PROCUREMENT. ALL RIGHT. IF
CENTRAL PROCUREMENT WANTS TO
MOVE DOWN AND SIT IN THE FRONT
ROW SO THAT YOU CAN MOVE
QUICKLY, WE'D APPRECIATE IT. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO, IN THE
STRATEGIC RESERVE, WE HAVE 75
MILLION LEFT. AND WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN IF THE 75 MILLION WASN'T
AVAILABLE, MEGAN LARSON,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, I WOULD
PASS IT TO OUR COLLEAGUES AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES TO
SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO THAT.
THANK YOU, SIR. OH, THAT
DEPARTMENT OF WATER. OKAY ALL
RIGHT. WE'RE. DO WE HAVE SOMEONE
FROM DWR ON THE LINE? WE DO. I
APOLOGIZE, I'M TRYING TO,
RECONFIGURE MY CAMERA, BUT CAN
YOU HEAR ME AT LEAST? YES, WE
CAN. OKAY, FANTASTIC. I
APOLOGIZE. I HAVE TO ROLL BACK A
LITTLE BIT AND AS FAR AS I'M
CONCERNED, I'M AWARE OF A $55
MILLION CUT. COULD I MAYBE,
PERHAPS GET SOME CLARIFICATION
ON THAT? ON THAT I APOLOGIZE. MY
NAME IS HÌ, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
STATEWIDE ENERGY AT DWR. YEAH.
THE DATA I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME
SHOWS THAT 75 MILLION HAS NOT
BEEN APPROPRIATED YET. THAT'S IN
THE 25, 26 BUDGET. AND I HAVE
ANOTHER THING. ANOTHER THING
THAT IDENTIFIES 20 BILLION, 20
BILLION, 20 MILLION, I'M SORRY.
IS, STILL AVAILABLE IN 24, 25,
BUT I'M LOOKING AT THE 25, 26,
75 MILLION. AND IT IS. YEAH.
THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT, ALL
RIGHT. WHAT DO YOU HAVE? CAN WE
TELL THEM WHAT THIS DOCUMENT IS?
THIS THEIR DOCUMENT? THIS IS
YOUR DOCUMENT. SO I'LL TRY TO
HELP YOU PAGE WISE IF YOU WANT.
DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE THE LINE
ITEM? IT IS THE SECOND ITEM ON
DWR ON, THE DOCUMENT THAT SAYS
CLIMATE AND OPPORTUNITY BUDGET
IN MILLIONS 2020 4TH MAY
REVISION AMOUNT MAINTAINED. SO
IT'S ON THE SECOND TO THE LAST
PAGE. I'M SORRY THE THIRD TO THE
LAST PAGE. TWO ITEMS DOWN.
EXCUSE ME. CHAIR MEGAN LARSON,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. JUST TO
CLARIFY, I THINK SOME OF THE
CONFUSION IS ABOUT A DELAY THAT
WAS PROPOSED AT GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET AND THEN A SOLUTION THAT
WAS PROPOSED AT MAY REVISION. SO
THERE WAS A $55 MILLION DELAY
FROM 2024 25 TO 20 2526 AT
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET IN THE MAY
REVISION, WE'VE PROPOSED A
SOLUTION OF 55 MILLION FROM THAT
20 2526. SO AT MAY REVISION,
WHAT WOULD REMAIN IN 20 2526 IS
20 MILLION. YES, THERE 1,000,500
MILLION. OKAY 95 MILLION. ALL
RIGHT. SO YOU DELAYED 55, RIGHT?
ANYWAY, WHETHER IT'S 95 MILLION
OR 50 5 MILLION OR 75 MILLION,
WHAT HAPPENS IF WE CUT IT? I
WOULD I CAN TAKE. THANK YOU,
AGAIN. DELFIN HÌ, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR AT STATEWIDE WATER AND
ENERGY AT DWR, SO THE DOLLARS DO
MATTER. WHEN WE WERE ORIGINALLY
LOOKING AT A $55 MILLION SHIFT,
THAT IS QUITE MANAGEABLE BECAUSE
WE DO HAVE SEVERAL MULTIYEAR
CONTRACTS. IF WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT A CUT, WE DO FEEL LIKE THE
55 MILLION IS ALSO MANAGEABLE.
BUT THE WAY IN WHICH WE WOULD
MANAGE THAT IS WE WOULD REALLY
FOCUS ON OUR CURRENT CONTRACTS,
AND THAT WE HAVE TO PRIORITIZE
THOSE ABOVE ANYTHING, ANYTHING
ELSE, LIKE SUCH AS NEW PURSUITS
WITHIN THE RESERVE SO WE CAN
REFOCUS THAT, LOOK AT OUR
CURRENT CONTRACTS AND MAKE SURE
WE CAN EXECUTE ON THOSE IN THE
OUT YEARS. HOWEVER, ABOVE THAT
AMOUNT, I THINK THAT IS REALLY
GOING TO START TO AFFECT OUR
CURRENT CONTRACTS. AND AGAIN,
WE'VE SIGNED THESE LEGALLY
BINDING CONTRACTS WITH OUR
COUNTERPART FOR PERFORMANCE FOR
MULTIPLE YEARS THROUGHOUT THE
RESERVE. SO WE REALLY WANT TO
PRESERVE, THAT FLEXIBILITY,
ESPECIALLY IN THE OUT YEARS AS
WE GO THROUGH OUR CONTRACTS. SO
IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY THAT IF,
IF WE CUT MORE THAN 55 MILLION,
IT WOULD AFFECT CURRENT
CONTRACTS, BUT THE OTHER 55
MILLION WOULD JUST MEAN YOU
COULDN'T PURSUE OTHER CONTRACTS
TO SUPPLEMENT THE STRATEGIC
RESERVE. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S
CORRECT, THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S
HOW WE VIEW IT. WE WERE HOPING
TO OH, I APOLOGIZE. NO, GO AHEAD
, ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE
RESERVE IS TO LOOK AT CLEAN
ENERGY RESOURCES OR BATTERY
STORAGE RESOURCES. AND WITH THE
BUDGET THAT WOULD REALLY REDUCE
OUR CAPABILITY TO DO SO. BUT I
THINK FOR NOW, $55 MILLION CUT
THAT WOULD STILL ENABLE US TO
FOCUS ON OUR CURRENT CONTRACTS.
THANK YOU. AND LAO ALWAYS FEEL
FREE TO JUMP IN IF YOU HAVE
SOMETHING. SO MY FINAL QUESTION
IS WHAT'S THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
DOLLARS NEEDED JUST FOR THE
CURRENT CONTRACTS THAT RIGHT NOW
ARE IN THE ENTIRETY OF OUR
BUDGET IS, I DON'T HAVE THE
EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT IS OVER $2
BILLION. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT
ALMOST THE ENTIRETY OF THE
RESERVE ALLOCATION THAT WE HAVE
FROM, FROM OUR FUND, FROM THE
VARIOUS FUNDING SOURCES AND
WITH, ALSO SOME CONTINGENCY TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN WEATHER
THROUGH VARIABILITY WITH OUR
COUNTERPARTIES. SO THE CURRENT
CONTRACTS ARE ABOUT $2 BILLION
ROUGHLY. RIGHT. SO THAT IS
GREAT. RIGHT EXACTLY. SO, SIR,
YOU HAD MENTIONED THE ONCE
THROUGH COOLING RESOURCES. BUT
AGAIN, WE DO HAVE OTHER ASSETS
WITHIN THE RESERVE. SO IT'S THE
TOTALITY OF THOSE ASSETS AS WELL
AS THE FUNDS THAT WE HAVE SPENT
FOR OTHER ACTIVITIES EARLIER, IN
THE IN THE FUNDING CYCLE FOR
THINGS LIKE IMPORTS, GREAT.
THANK YOU, WE'RE ON TO CENTRAL
PROCUREMENT AND WE'LL WELCOME
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, PETRIE-NORRIS,
WHO HAS JOINED US ALSO. AND I
HAVE FOUR MORE QUESTIONS LEFT.
AND THEN ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CONNELLY HAS SOME QUESTIONS, AND
THEN WE'LL BE OPEN TO ANY
QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. AND ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS HAVE HEARD JUMP
WHENEVER, YOU LIKE IN THAT
PROCESS, CENTRAL PROCUREMENT,
AND, AND WITH THE CENTRAL
PROCUREMENT PROCESS, CPUC WILL
NEED THE CPUC ON TO HELP WITH
THIS. THEY HAVEN'T DETERMINED
WHAT ENTITY IS GOING TO DO THE
CENTRAL PROCUREMENT SO FAR. SO
MY QUESTION IS, DO WE NEED DO WE
NEED IMMEDIATE FUNDING OR IS
THERE CAN WE TAKE MORE TIME
BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T EVEN
IDENTIFIED WHO'S GOING TO DO THE
CENTRAL PROCUREMENT, CHAIR,
CHAIR BENNETT, RACHEL PETERSON
WITH THE CPUC. I CAN SPEAK TO
TIMING ON OUR PROCESS. OKAY, SO
WE HELD A WORKSHOP IN EARLY MAY,
AND FOR OUR PROCESS, COMMENTS
AND REPLY COMMENTS ARE COMING IN
OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS.
AND WE WILL WE ARE PUSHING OUT A
DECISION IN SEPTEMBER ON THE
ENTITY THAT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR TO CENTRAL PROCUREMENT, SO
WE WON'T KNOW THE ENTITY UNTIL
DECEMBER, SEPTEMBER, SEPTEMBER.
OKAY. YES. THANK. THANK YOU.
ALRIGHTY, ANYTHING YOU WANT TO
ADD HERE? ADMINISTRATION. ANDREW
HÌ WITH DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE I
WOULD WE WOULD JUST NOTE THAT
THAT THAT DEADLINE WAS ALWAYS
BUILT INTO THE FUNDING. THAT'S
WHY IT HASN'T BEEN ENCUMBERED
YET. BUT IT'S CLOSELY
APPROACHING. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, COMMUNITY SOLAR
AND ON DECK. VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENTS.
GIVEN THE DECISIONS THAT THE
CPUC MADE ABOUT WHAT THE RATES
AND RATE REIMBURSEMENTS ARE
GOING TO BE FOR SOLAR, IF THIS
MONEY WAS NOT CUT, HOW WOULD IT
BE SPENT? THE RATE IS THE RATE
IS LOW ENOUGH THAT IT'S NOT
LIKELY THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO SEE A FINANCIAL BENEFIT
IN TERMS OF INSTALLING SOLAR. SO
HOW HOW WOULD THE DEPARTMENT BE
SPENDING THIS MONEY? STEVE
WELLS, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SO
FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR, THE MAY
REVISED PROPOSAL, YOU KNOW,
WE'VE GOT $33 MILLION CURRENTLY
APPROPRIATED FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR
AND THE MAY REVISION PROPOSES AN
ADDITIONAL 50 MILLION IN GRF
FUNDING IN BUDGET YEAR PLUS ONE
AND BUDGET YEAR PLUS FOUR. SO
THIS IS ACTUALLY A AND THIS IS
SORT OF AN OFFSET TO THE
PROPOSED REDUCTIONS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PROGRAM. SO
SO, BUT THIS IS A THIS PROPOSAL
IS TO INCREASE THE BUDGET FROM
33 MILLION TO 83 MILLION. BUT
HOW WILL IT BE EFFECTIVE GIVEN
THAT WE HAVE, VERY LOW
REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR SOLAR
NOW, BASED ON THE CPUC DECISION?
I MEAN, THERE'S NOT A I MEAN,
WE'RE TRYING TO WE WERE TRYING
TO HELP LOW INCOME PEOPLE PUT
SOLAR ON. BUT IF AFTER THEY PUT
SOLAR ON, THEIR RATE DOESN'T
REALLY CHANGE BECAUSE IT IS ONLY
THE AVOIDED COST THAT THEY GET
IN TERMS OF THE VALUE OF THE
SOLAR BEING ON, THERE'S NOT A
FINANCIAL IMPROVEMENT FOR LOW
INCOME PEOPLE TO, TO ENGAGE IN
THE SOLAR. SO IF THAT'S THE CASE
AND THE SAME THING, TRUE WITH,
YOU KNOW, WITH COMMUNITY SOLAR.
SO I'M TRYING TO KNOCK BOTH OF
THOSE OUT AT THE SAME TIME.
DOESN'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'D
SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON IF
PEOPLE WOULD SIT THERE AND
SCRATCH THEIR HEAD AND SAY, WHY
WOULD A LOW INCOME FAMILY MAKE
THE DECISION TO INSTALL SOLAR?
IF IT'S, I THINK I'M GOING TO
NEED SOME, ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION FROM RACHEL. I CAN
HOP IN. YES THANKS. THANK YOU.
THANKS. CHAIR. BENNETT. YEAH.
FIRST, JUST AS TO PROCESS THE
CPUC, WE DO HAVE A PROPOSED
DECISION OUT IN PUBLIC, BUT WE
ACTUALLY THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE
NOT ACTUALLY ACTED ON IT YET,
AND SO I, I CAN'T REALLY GET OUT
AHEAD OF THAT CHAIR AND, IN
ADDITION, WE KNOW THE, THE
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LAW, AND
WE ARE DEFINITELY GOING TO LOOK
AT HOW BEST TO USE THE FUNDS
THAT IN THE WAYS THAT YOU'RE
SPEAKING ABOUT. BUT THE
COMMISSIONERS ARE THE ONES WHO
WILL ACT ON THAT. AND ACT AGAIN
IN THE FUTURE ON THOSE
QUESTIONS. SURE I'M, I'M NOT
TRYING IN THIS HEARING TO DEBATE
THE WHAT WHAT THE COMMISSIONER
SHOULD DO, ETC. BUT I'M SAYING
IF THE DRAFT PROPOSAL IS THAT'S
THE BEST DATA THAT I HAVE,
WHATEVER YOU HAVE OUT THERE, IF
IT IS, IF IT IS, THAT SEEMS LIKE
THERE'S A DRAMATIC DROP IN THE,
IN THE SOLAR THAT IS GOING TO BE
INSTALLED AND SO I WONDER, WHAT
WILL THESE, WHAT WERE THESE
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BE USED FOR?
BUT I THINK I'LL LEAVE THAT
QUESTION AND GO ON TO VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENTS NOW. THANK YOU. AND
THEN THE FINAL ON DECK IS DATA
RESEARCH. SO SUPER SHORT
QUESTION. DID THE VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENTS GET SIGNED? YES.
THERE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. SO
STATE, FEDERAL AND DOZENS OF
LOCAL AGENCIES ARE WORKING TO
ADVANCE A TRANSFORMATIONAL,
WATERSHED WIDE APPROACH TO
INCREASE RIVER FLOWS AND RICO
RESTORE ECOSYSTEMS IN THE
SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
WATERSHEDS, AND ALSO
STRENGTHENED WATER SUPPLY
RELIABILITY ACROSS THE STATE.
THERE HAS BEEN AN MOU THAT HAS
BEEN SIGNED. THE AGREEMENTS ARE
NOT IN EFFECT YET. THEY ARE
ACTUALLY CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH
THE WATER BOARD OF REGULATORY
PROCESS. THE WATER BOARD IS
CONSIDERING THESE AGREEMENTS AS
A POTENTIAL PATHWAY, AS IT WORKS
THROUGH UPDATE THE BAY DELTA
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN. SO
WE DON'T HAVE CONTRACTS SIGNED
YET. WE HAVE SOME MOUS OR THE
CONTRACTS DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR
DROUGHTS DURING DURING PERIODS
OF DROUGHTS IN TERMS OF THE
BENEFITS OF THE PUBLIC THAT COME
FROM THE CONTRACT. SO ACTUALLY
WE HAVE, SOME, FOLKS FROM THE
AGENCY AND DEPARTMENTS ONLINE
WHO COULD PROBABLY BETTER SPEAK
TO THE TO THOSE DETAILS. THANK
YOU. WELCOME. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WILSON WILL BE TO YOUR QUESTIONS
SHORTLY. I HAVE JUST ONE MORE
QUESTION AFTER THIS. JAMES
NEWCOME, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
OVER INTEGRATED WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT, HAPPY TO ANSWER THIS
QUESTION, BUT I WANT TO FIRST
PAUSE FOR A SECOND AND YIELD TO
ANY OTHER CALIFORNIA NATURAL
RESOURCE AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
WHO WANT TO TAKE AN INITIAL
SHOT. OKAY. AND THE QUESTION WAS
SPECIFIC TO THE WATER YEAR TYPES
THAT WE'RE TARGETING FOR THESE
THESE CONTRACTS AND THE ANSWER
TO THAT IS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT
ALL WATER YEAR TYPES. SO REALLY
TRYING TO ACHIEVE A BETTER FLOW
CONDITION ACROSS ALL WATER YEAR
TYPES. BUT THE QUESTION IS A
GOOD ONE BECAUSE A BIG CRITICAL
PIECE TO THAT ARE THE CRITICALLY
DRY YEAR WATER TYPES WHERE WE
NEED TO MEET MINIMUM WATER
QUALITY CONDITIONS. SO I COULD
SEE THE BENEFITS TO THE TO THE
PEOPLE WHO WHO WANT TO TAKE THE
WATER DURING HIGH FLOW TIMES.
AND THIS WOULD BE TO ALLOW THEM
TO MORE EASILY AND TAKE MORE
WATER IN EXCHANGE FOR MAKING
SURE THAT THEY SUPPLY MORE WATER
DURING THE DROUGHT PERIODS OF
TIMES. ESSENTIALLY CORRECT ON
THE CONCEPT. THERE IS A
BALANCING CONCEPT TO THAT
CORRECT. RIGHT, AND IS THERE A
REASON WHY THE CONTRACTS HAVEN'T
BEEN SIGNED YET? WE'VE BEEN
AFTER THIS PROCESS FOR QUITE
SOME TIME. YEAH. SO REALLY IT
JUST STEMS FROM THE AMOUNT OF
COORDINATION AND MODELING THAT
HAS TO HAPPEN AS YOU INTEGRATE
ALL THESE DIFFERENT FLOW ACTIONS
, INTO INTO ONE SORT OF
COMPREHENSIVE MODEL TO DETERMINE
WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES
MIGHT BE, AND THEN TRANSMITTING
THAT INFORMATION OVER TO THE
WATER BOARD, HAS TAKEN A LONG
TIME, IN THE WATER BOARD IS
CURRENTLY SITTING WITH THAT
INFORMATION AND REVIEWING IT.
AND SO IF IT IS, DO YOU HAVE AN
DO YOU HAVE A TARGET TIME WHEN
YOU BELIEVE THE CONTRACTS WILL
BE SIGNED. SO I BELIEVE THAT THE
WATER BOARD WILL WILL ISSUE A
DECISION SOMEWHERE AROUND THE
EARLY PART OF 2025 AND IS THERE
A NEED FOR THE FUNDING BEFORE
THE CONTRACTS ARE SIGNED? AS
LONG AS THE FUND, YOU KNOW, THE
FUNDING IS GOING TO BE THERE.
IT'S JUST DOES THE FUNDING HAVE
TO BE THERE IN 24, 25 IS A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PLANNING
WORK THAT HAS TO HAPPEN. WE HAVE
TO START WORKING ON THESE
CONTRACT AGREEMENTS NOW. AND THE
SHORT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS
, YES, THE FUNDING IS NEEDED
FOR. BUT I COULD PROVIDE A MORE
SUBSTANTIAL ANSWER, YOU KNOW,
AFTER THIS MEETING AS TO WHY
THAT IS, MY QUESTION ISN'T IT?
YOU NEED TO HAVE CERTAINTY THAT
THE FUNDING IS COMING FOR THE
CONTRACTS, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING
TO BE PAYING ANYBODY ON THE
CONTRACTS UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE
SIGNED CONTRACTS. CORRECT I
DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC ANSWER
ON ON THAT, I'LL HAVE TO FOLLOW
UP EXACTLY WHAT THE SEQUENCE
WILL BE. OKAY AND I KNOW PART OF
WHY I'M ASKING AND WHAT'S A
LITTLE CONFUSING IS WE HAVE DWR
HABITAT RESTORATION MONEY. WE
ALSO HAVE THE LARGE SCALE
HABITAT MONEY AND ALL OF THAT'S
BLENDED IN IN TERMS OF THESE
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS. SO WE'RE
STILL TRYING TO WRESTLE AND MAKE
SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
FUNDING IS NEEDED FOR, FOR THE
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS. IS IT
NEEDED FOR THE STUDIES BY THE
DEPARTMENT SO THAT THEY CAN SIGN
THE PROPER AGREEMENTS, OR IS IT
NEEDED FOR FUNDING AFTER THE
CONTRACTS ARE SIGNED TO CARRY
OUT THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT?
AND SO IF YOU COULD, THE SOONER
YOU COULD GET THAT INFORMATION
TO US, THE MORE WE'D APPRECIATE
IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND
THEN WE'RE ON TO DATA RESEARCH,
THAT WHOLE CATEGORY, OF DATA
RESEARCH AND. WHAT I'M TRYING TO
FIND IT OVER HERE. THAT'S IS IN.
THERE WE GO. WHEN WE WHEN WE TRY
TO PULL THE DATA ON THIS, IT
JUST SAID VARIOUS PROJECTS AND
IF YOU CAN HELP US WITH MORE
DETAIL THAN VARIOUS PROJECTS,
WE'D APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT.
ANDREW HÌ WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
ANDREW HÌ WITH DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME
CATEGORY BECAUSE WE HAVE DATA
RESEARCH FOR A FEW DIFFERENT
AREAS. IS THIS DWR IN PARTICULAR
, THIS IS DATA RESEARCH AND
COMMUNICATIONS. IT SAYS VARIOUS
HERE. BUT, LIZZIE OR DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE? I CAN TAKE THIS.
THIS IS A $600,000 INVESTMENT AT
THE RESOURCES NATURAL RESOURCES
AGENCY. NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT
$127 MILLION THAT'S LEFT OVER
FUNDING FROM 2022 2023. WE MIGHT
HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON WHICH
CATEGORY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON
THIS ONE. OKAY YOU HAVE ANY ANY
MORE CLARIFICATION?
CLARIFICATION CLARIFYING DATA ON
WHICH CATEGORY THIS IS? CALLED
DATA RESEARCH AND
COMMUNICATIONS. AND UNDER
DEPARTMENT IT SAYS VARIOUS. SO
WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT I
THINK IT'S PRIMARILY TO DWR BUT
WE'RE NOT SURE. AND SO WE'RE
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE IT
WENT. AND ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A
STATUS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THESE FUNDS. YEAH OKAY. WE CAN
FOLLOW UP. YEAH. FOR THAT SINCE
IT COVERS MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS,
WE MIGHT NEED TO CIRCLE BACK.
LET ME HELP YOU IDENTIFY BECAUSE
I DO HAVE SOME RESEARCH ON WHAT
THOSE DEPARTMENTS ARE. AND THEY
ARE. HERE WE GO. AND THEY WERE
CDFA CNRA. THAT'S THE 600,000
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A DWR
AND, SWRCB. RIGHT. SO STATE
WATER BOARD, DWR AND THE OTHER
TWO. AND SO, IT'S JUST UNCLEAR
FOR US WHAT'S HAPPENING AT EACH
OF THOSE AGENCIES WITH THESE
FUNDS. SURE, IF I MAY, FOR THE
SENIOR CENTER, A COMPONENT MAY
REVISION DID PROPOSE THE
$600,000 AS A GENERAL FUND
SOLUTION. HOWEVER WE HAVE SINCE
DETERMINED THAT THAT FUNDING IS
NOT AVAILABLE AS A SOLUTION. IT
WAS UTILIZED TO SUPPORT, LIMITED
TERM POSITION FOR THREE YEARS.
OKAY, SO THAT'S OFF THE TABLE,
CORRECT, 91 MILLION FOR DWR OR
ANYBODY AT DWR WANT TO TRY TO
ANSWER THAT ONE, THIS IS ANDREW
HÌ WITH DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. I
CAN SAY THAT DWR RECEIVED $91
MILLION IN 2122. THEY'RE SHOWING
RIGHT NOW, AN AVAILABLE
UNCOMMITTED BALANCE OF 9.4
MILLION, I WOULD DEFER TO THE
DEPARTMENT ON MORE DETAILS FOR
THAT OF HOW QUICKLY THEY ARE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO ENCUMBER
THAT, AND THEN WHILE WE'RE AT
IT, THE WATER BOARD WAS GIVEN
LOOKS LIKE $3.5 MILLION. THEY
HAVE SINCE FULLY COMMITTED THAT,
AND SO THERE'S A ZERO BALANCE
THERE. ALL RIGHT. SO 9 MILLION
LEFT IN DWR AND THEN CDF TO DO
YOU HAVE WHAT'S LEFT IN CDF.
CRISTIAN BELTRAN WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. MR. CHAIR
I BELIEVE WE'LL HAVE TO PROBABLY
EITHER GET BACK TO YOU ON THE
SPECIFIC ENCUMBRANCE OF THOSE
DOLLARS OR IF A COLLEAGUE FROM
CDF ON THE LINE HAS THOSE
NUMBERS, HAPPY TO TURN IT TO
THEM TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION
. ALL RIGHT, LEO, YOUR DROUGHT
CHART HAS, TWO, 202 MILLION
APPROPRIATED FOR DATA, RESEARCH
AND COMMUNICATION. WHAT DO YOU
THINK REMAINS? YEAH, AGAIN, MR.
CHAIR. RACHEL ALEJO'S FROM THE
LÀ. WE'LL HAVE TO GET BACK TO
YOU AND SOME OF THESE CHARTS,
BECAUSE SOME OF THESE SINGLE
APPROPRIATIONS WERE SO SMALL,
THEY END UP GETTING ROLLED UP.
SO YOUR CHART DOESN'T SPAN, 15
PAGES, SO WE'LL WORK WITH YOUR
STAFF TO KIND OF BREAK THAT OUT.
AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
PROVIDED A RECENT UPDATE ON
EXPENDITURES SO WE CAN WORK ON
THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL
RIGHT. AND WE WILL NOW TURN TO
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS WITH QUESTIONS.
AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONNOLLY,
YOU INDICATED YOU HAD SOME.
THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU.
CHAIR, YOU COVERED A LOT OF GOOD
GROUND. I'M GOING TO TRY NOT TO
BE DUPLICATIVE. SO IF WE CAN
START WITH DEPARTMENT OF FOOD
AND AG.
WELCOME, AND WE'VE COVERED THIS
IN PRIOR HEARINGS, BUT REALLY
WANTED TO PUT A FINER POINT ON A
COUPLE OF PROGRAMS THAT
EFFECTIVELY ARE BEING FULLY CUT,
ONE IS THE FARM TO COMMUNITY
FOOD HUBS PROGRAM, CUTS OF 14.4
MILLION OF 15 MILLION. AND THEN
THE CALIFORNIA NUTRITION
INCENTIVE PROGRAM, OR SNAP,
WHICH FUNDS MARKET MATCH CUTS OF
33.2 MILLION, ARE ARE, BEING
CUT, SO I GUESS AGAIN AND WE'VE
KIND OF DISCUSSED THIS, BUT,
CONCERNS THAT YOU KNOW, WHY
THESE PROGRAMS AND NOT OTHERS,
THAT HAVE HIGHER COSTS AND
AREN'T DIRECTLY FOCUSED ON
HELPING VULNERABLE RESIDENTS.
WHY THESE ONES ARE TAKING SUCH A
BIG HIT? HAS THE ADMINISTRATION
VERIFIED THE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF
SMALL FARMERS, THAT HAVE ASKED
FOR THIS RELIEF AND WILL NOT
RECEIVE IT? SO JUST KIND OF
GENERALLY, WHERE ARE THINGS AT,
AT THIS POINT, GIVEN OUR ONGOING
DISCUSSION? YEAH, JULIE AND ROLF
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
SO I'LL DEFER TO CDFA REGARDING
YOUR LAST QUESTION REGARDING THE
HEALTH OF SMALL FARMERS. BUT
OVERALL CUTS WERE MADE ON
PROGRAMS WHERE THE MONEY HADN'T
GONE OUT. AND SO THE CNIP, FOR
EXAMPLE, WAS ONE OF THOSE WHERE
THERE IS A SMALL PORTION OF
FUNDS REMAINING FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS TO HELP
WITH FOR, FOR THAT PROGRAM AS
WELL AS THE FARM TO COMMUNITY
HUBS. BUT THERE ARE OTHER FARM
PROGRAMS THAT ARE HELPING THE
LOCAL FARMERS IN THE STATE SO
THAT THERE ARE FUNDS LIKE THE
FARM TO SCHOOL, FOR EXAMPLE,
THAT ARE HELPING SUSTAIN FARMERS
ACROSS THE STATE AND CAN PROVIDE
MORE CONTEXT, CHRISTIAN BELTRAN
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
AGAIN, JUST TO KIND OF
UNDERSCORE THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS ENGAGED WITH,
A GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS
PERTAINING TO THESE TWO
PARTICULAR PROGRAMS AND ARE
AWARE OF THEIR CONCERNS. SO
DEFINITELY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
DISCUSS THESE DIFFICULT
DECISIONS WITH THEM, COMPLETELY
UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACTS THAT
IT MAY HAVE TO THEM IN THEIR
ORGANIZATIONS. I WOULD ALSO NOTE
THAT THE SENATE PROGRAM, IN
PARTICULAR, THE ADMINISTRATION'S
UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT THIS IS A
PARTICULAR, PROGRAM THAT HAS
HISTORICALLY HAD SOME
INVESTMENTS FROM THE STATE IN
THE PAST. AND, REALLY WAS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO GET
ONGOING FUNDING AT THIS POINT.
HOWEVER, GIVEN THE CURRENT
BUDGET SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN,
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PARTICULAR
PROGRAMS THAT WAS NOT REALLY
VIEWED IN THE IN THE SCOPE OF
BEING A CORE PROGRAM THAT THE
STATE TRADITIONALLY PROVIDES, AS
PART OF A PROGRAM DELIVERY. AND
THEREFORE, WE HAD TO MAKE THE
DIFFICULT DECISION TO, CUT THE
CUT THE FUNDS RELATED TO THAT
PROGRAM. WELL, HERE'S ANOTHER
CONCERN WITH SNAP. AND
STAKEHOLDERS HAVE SHARED THIS,
MY UNDERSTANDING AND CORRECT ME
IF I'M WRONG, THE STATE HAS
ALREADY LOST ACCESS TO A $15
MILLION FEDERAL MATCH, TO SNAP
IN 2024 DUE TO THE PROPOSED
CUTS. GIVEN THE TIMING OF THE
FEDERAL MATCH PROGRAM. SO, FIRST
OF ALL, DO YOU DISAGREE WITH
THAT? BUT IN YOUR VIEW, WHAT
LEVEL OF FUNDING DO WE NEED TO
MAINTAIN TO DRAW DOWN ON FEDERAL
FUNDS? AND IS THERE AN ARGUMENT
TO BE MADE THAT WE SHOULD
PRIORITIZE MAINTAINING PROGRAMS
THAT CAN DRAW IN SUCH FEDERAL
INVESTMENTS? I WOULD ARGUE THE
ANSWER IS YES. SO I BELIEVE IT'S
12 MILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDS FOR
THAT WOULD BE FROM THE DRAWDOWN,
BUT YEAH, SO THE TIMING IS,
WE'VE PASSED THAT MAY 14TH WAS
THE DEADLINE. SO UNFORTUNATELY,
WE DID MISS OUT ON THAT. BUT IN
TERMS OF FUTURE FEDERAL FUNDS, I
BELIEVE CDFA IS BETTER EQUIPPED
TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. YEAH
OKAY. WELL, I WOULD BE
INTERESTED IN AN ANSWER TO THAT.
YEAH WE'LL BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH
THEM TO PROVIDE THAT. IF THEY'RE
NOT ON THAT. WAS IT ON AG,
RESOURCE AGENCY? I JUST REALLY
HAVE JUST ONE POINT. IT'S
PROBABLY NOT WORTH COMING UP
UNLESS YOU NEED TO, AND CHAIR, I
APPRECIATE YOU CONCURRING ON
THIS POINT. AT OUR LAST,
HEARING. AND THAT IS CONCERNING
THE $2 MILLION, CUT TO THE
MARINE MAMMAL CENTER, IT'S
GETTING COMPLETELY ELIMINATED,
THIS CENTER IS IN MY DISTRICT,
BUT HAS VERY IMPORTANT
SIGNIFICANCE TO THE REGION. AND
FRANKLY, THE WHOLE STATE, GIVEN
THE TYPE OF WORK AND STUDY THAT
THEY DO. SO, AGAIN, WHY IN THE
SCOPE OF THE LARGE BUDGET
ISSUES, WE HAVE SOMETHING THIS
SMALL WOULD BE TARGETED. SURE.
LIZZY, YOUR DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION, AS WE UNDERSTAND FROM
PUBLIC TESTIMONY MADE IN LAST
WEEK'S HEARING, WE BELIEVE THAT
THE MARINE MAMMAL CENTER'S
OVERALL BUDGET IS $35 MILLION,
OF WHICH THE STATE HAS RECENTLY,
SUPPORTED WITH AN ADDITIONAL $2
MILLION AS PART OF OUR APPROACH
TO THE MAYOR VISION, WE REALLY
EMPHASIZED MAINTAINING CORE
STATE OPERATIONS. AND FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE OF THE MARINE MAMMAL
CENTER DOES NOT MEET THAT
CRITERIA. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I
WOULD I WOULD JOIN THE CHAIR IN
ADVOCATING THAT WE KEEP THAT $2
MILLION. I THINK IT IS VITAL,
THAT WAS IT FOR THAT TOPIC, HAD
A QUICK NOTE ON HOME HARDENING.
AND MAYBE I CAN PONTIFICATE A
LITTLE BIT WHILE YOU'RE WALKING
UP, NOTING THAT, THROUGH AB 38
AND 2019 ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOOD,
THE LAO SAYS IT HAS, QUOTE,
FACED VERY VARIOUS
IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES. AND
AS SUCH, ROUGHLY $25 MILLION OF
GENERAL FUND THAT HAS NOT YET
BEEN COMMITTED, TO THIS, FROM
THIS PROGRAM, FROM ALLOCATIONS,
WE KNOW THAT HOME HARDENING IS A
KEY CORNERSTONE OF OUR WILDFIRE
PREVENTION STRATEGIES, CERTAINLY
IN MY DISTRICT, BUT, THROUGHOUT
THE STATE. SO VERY CONCERNING,
THAT WE SEE THE SLOW
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMS BY
DEPARTMENTS AS THE REASONING
BEHIND, SUGGESTED BUDGET CUTS.
CERTAINLY IN THIS CASE, WE'RE
SEEING THAT, REPEATEDLY IN A
NUMBER OF, THE AREAS WHERE
COVERING. SO IN OUR ANALYSIS,
THE LOW SUGGESTS CUTTING THE
HOME HARDENING GRANT PROGRAM
BECAUSE OF IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
AND THE FACT THAT UNCOMMITTED
FUNDS REMAIN. SO MY QUESTION, IS
WHY? WHY HAS THIS PROGRAM LAGGED
, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS CREATED IN
2019? WHY DO YOU FEEL IT'S
JUSTIFIED TO HAVE $12 MILLION
CUT FROM IT, WHEN IT HASN'T EVEN
BEEN PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED YET?
AND PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE
HEIGHTENED LEVEL OF CONCERN THAT
FOLKS HAVE IN THIS SPACE. SURE
THING. HAPPY TO COMMENT ON THAT.
MY NAME IS TESS SCHRECKENBACH
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
SO I'LL JUST GIVE A QUICK
OVERVIEW OF KIND OF WHERE THINGS
STAND GIVEN THE MAY REVISION AND
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PROPOSAL
FROM THE ADMINISTRATION, SO THIS
PROGRAM WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE
GRANTS TO HOMEOWNERS FOR
RETROFITTING PROJECTS, AND IT
WAS ALLOCATED 50 MILLION TOTAL
ACROSS THE 2021 AND THE 2022
CLIMATE BUDGETS. SO THE GENERAL
FUND SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION AT GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET WOULD RESULT IN A TOTAL
OF $12 MILLION, OR 24, BEING
REDUCED FROM THIS PROGRAM,
MAINTAINING 38 MILLION OR 76% OF
THE TOTAL ORIGINAL ALLOCATION,
UNDERSTAND THAT THE LAO HAD A
DIFFERENT ANALYSIS THAT THEY
PROVIDED EARLIER IN THE YEAR,
WHICH I'M SURE THEY CAN KIND OF
CLARIFY THEIR REASONING FOR
SUGGESTING. BUT THE
ADMINISTRATION DOES, YOU KNOW,
FIND SIGNIFICANT VALUE IN THIS
PROGRAM, WHICH IS WHY WE PROPOSE
TO MAINTAIN 76% OF THE ORIGINAL
APPROPRIATION, I KNOW THAT WE
HAVE SOME REPRESENTATIVES
POTENTIALLY ON THE LINE FROM CAL
FIRE THAT CAN TALK SPECIFICALLY
ABOUT THE STRUGGLES, THE
PROGRAM. HAD AT THE BEGINNING.
BUT I'LL JUST COMMENT BY SAYING
THAT YOU KNOW, THIS IT'S
DIFFICULT TO STAND UP PROGRAMS
FROM THE FROM THE ONSET, YOU
KNOW, COMPLETELY NEW PROGRAM
TOOK TIME TO DEVELOP AND GET IT
STOOD UP, AND THEY HAVE MADE
PROGRESS IN ALLOCATIONS.
CALLOWAY'S SPECIFICALLY HAS
WORKED WITH TWO COMMUNITIES FOR
THE REMAINING 13 MILLION. THE
ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES TO
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE. AND THEY
HAVE TWO COMMUNITIES SLATED IN
SISKIYOU COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE
COUNTY THAT THEY'RE WORKING TO
GET, YOU KNOW, TO GET THAT
FUNDING OUT THE DOOR. AND SO
THAT'S WHY WE PROPOSED
MAINTAINING THAT FUNDING. IF I
COULD JUST ADD STEVEN BENSON,
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. SO IT
CERTAINLY TOOK SOME TIME FOR THE
DEPARTMENTS TO STAND UP THE NEW
PROGRAMS. BUT I DO WANT TO
EMPHASIZE THAT THE SIGNIFICANT
PORTION OF THE DELAY IS THIS
PROGRAM WORKS WITH THE FEMA TO
DRAW DOWN MATCHING FUNDS AND A
SIGNIFICANT PORTION, IN FACT,
THE MAJORITY OF THE FUNDING THAT
GOES TO THE OVERALL PROJECT IS
COMING FROM FEMA. MOST OF THE
DELAY IS GETTING PROJECTS
SUBMITTED TO FEMA AND THEN
WAITING FOR FEMA TO APPROVE
THOSE. SO THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF
THE DELAY COMES IN. AND I THINK
WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW IS
THERE IS A NUMBER OF PROJECTS
THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND ARE
STARTING TO MOVE FORWARD, AND WE
HAVE A NUMBER OF YEARS WHERE
THOSE WILL BE BUILT OUT BECAUSE
OF THIS PARTICULAR FUNDING HAD
NOT YET BEEN SORT OF COMMITTED
TO PROJECTS IN SPECIFIC
COMMUNITIES. YET THE
AVAILABILITY OF IT AND THE
SEVERITY OF THE BUDGET SITUATION
IS THE REASON WHY WE'RE
PROPOSING TO CUT IT. SO CALTRANS
IS AVAILABLE AND WANTS TO WEIGH
IN. CAL CAL FIRE. EXCUSE ME. CAL
FIRE. CALTRANS IS NEXT. JUST ON
DECK. YOU KNOW, CAL FIRE BEFORE
CAL BEFORE CAL FIRE WEIGHS IN. I
WOULD JUST LIKE TO OFFER THIS
BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT
THEIR THOUGHTS ARE ABOUT IT, IF
YOU DON'T MIND, ON THE SAME
TOPIC. AND THAT IS THAT, YOU
KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WHEN
YOU'RE TRYING TO ROLL OUT A NEW
PROGRAM, YOU CAN GO FAST OR YOU
CAN GO, YOU CAN GO FAST OR SLOW,
BUT IF YOU GO FAST, THE ODDS
THAT YOU'RE GOING TO ROLL IT OUT
REALLY EFFICIENTLY AND PROPERLY
ARE SLIM. AND SINCE THIS IS A
NEW PROGRAM, HOME HARDENING IS
SUCH A SORT OF MYSTERY IN MY
MIND. SURE, WE KNOW HOW TO HARD
TO HOME, BUT DO WE KNOW WHICH
ARE THE HOME HARDENING
INVESTMENTS THAT ARE THE ONES WE
SHOULD SUBSIDIZE, YOU KNOW, FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY? SO
I DON'T MIND THAT IT'S TAKING
THEM A WHILE TO COME UP WITH US
FROM THAT STANDPOINT, WHICH IS
CERTAINLY THAT'S TRUE. BUT AS A
RESULT, IT'S KIND OF GETTING
DEFUNDED. SURE. THAT'S THE RUB.
AND, AND I WOULD OFFER 76% OF
THE THERE ARE A WHOLE LOT OF
BUDGETS THAT ARE CUT A LOT MORE
THAN 36. SO THEY'RE STILL
BELIEVING IN THE PROGRAM.
AGREED. AND ALMOST EVERYBODY IS
TAKING SOMETHING. AND SO ANYWAY,
I JUST WANTED TO OFFER THAT. BUT
CAL FIRE, DO YOU WANT TO
RESPOND? YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
DANIEL BERLANT, CALIFORNIA'S
STATE FIRE MARSHAL, APPRECIATE
THE QUESTIONS. AND VERY MUCH
ACKNOWLEDGE THE FRUSTRATION IT
HAS TAKEN TO GET US TO THIS
POINT. I WANT TO START OFF,
THOUGH, THE ACTUALLY, THE VERY
FIRST HOME IS NOW UNDER
CONSTRUCTION AS WE SPEAK. AND IN
THE COMING MONTHS, THAT NUMBER
WILL CONTINUE TO GO UP. BUT
YOU'RE RIGHT, IT HAS TAKEN
SEVERAL MONTHS. AND AS, MR.
BENSON ACCURATELY POINTED OUT,
PART OF THE PILOT AND PART OF
THIS CHALLENGE OF, OF THIS HOME
HARDENING INITIATIVE WAS TO
FIGURE OUT HOW CAN WE ACCESS
FEDERAL DOLLARS AND GO THROUGH
THE BARRIERS AND THE
REQUIREMENTS OF USING THAT
MONEY. WE ARE ACCESSING, IN SOME
CASES, UPWARDS OF 90% OF FEDERAL
FUNDS. BUT WITH THAT COMES A
NUMBER OF VERY IMPORTANT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS REQUIRED OF US.
AND SO THAT HAS ADDED TO OUR
ABILITY JOINTLY WITH CAL OES, TO
BE ABLE TO GET THIS MONEY INTO
INTO RETROFITTING HOMES. AND
CHAIR, TO YOUR POINT ABOUT
ANSWERING THE QUESTION OF WHERE
SHOULD THE STATE BE INVESTING
MONEY THIS PROJECT IS LOOKING AT
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, WHETHER
THOSE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT
AFFORD TO DO THIS WORK, CANNOT
PHYSICALLY DO THIS WORK, BUT ARE
AT A HIGHER VULNERABILITY NOT
ONLY TO WILDFIRE RISK, BUT ALSO
HAVE THESE SOCIAL
VULNERABILITIES. AND AS PART OF
THIS PILOT, WE ARE GOING TO BE
REPORTING TO YOU IN THE COMING
MONTHS A LEGISLATIVE REPORT THAT
IDENTIFIES THOSE BARRIERS THAT
WILL PROBABLY HELP EXPLAIN WHY
IT'S TAKEN YEARS OF WORK ON THE
CAL FIRE AND CAL OES TEAM TO GET
US TO THIS POINT. BUT AGAIN,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER THIS SUMMER, WE
ARE NOW UNDERWAY IN HARDENING
HOMES. AND WE KNOW THAT THESE
HOMES THAT ARE NOW RETROFITTED
WILL BE BETTER PROTECTED FOR
WILDFIRES. BUT BUT APPRECIATE
VERY MUCH YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE
FUNDING. BUT I WILL I WILL
REASSURE YOU THAT THE FUNDING
THAT IS PRESERVED IN THIS BUDGET
CONTINUES TO ALLOW US TO NOT
ONLY, GO THROUGH WITH THE FIVE
PILOTS THAT ARE IN THE INITIAL
PHASES. THAT'S ALMOST 2500
HOMES. BUT TO EXPAND TO SEVERAL
OTHERS. AND SO THAT WILL GIVE US
TIME TO REALLY WORK THROUGH SOME
OF THESE CHALLENGES SO THAT WE
CAN COME BACK TO YOU, REPORT ON
THE VALIDITY OF THE PROGRAM, AND
THEN WE CAN TALK FURTHER ABOUT,
FUTURE INVESTMENTS IN THIS
INITIATIVE. THAT SOUNDS REALLY
GOOD. I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT.
LOOKING FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO
ALL WORK TOGETHER ON THAT. AND
IT'S IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S KIND
OF A BROADER CONVERSATION GOING
ON AS WELL ABOUT SOME OTHER
OPPORTUNITIES IN THIS SPACE. SO,
REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. SO
CALTRANS, IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE
AND HOW MANY MORE QUESTIONS DO
YOU HAVE. MORE OR LESS LIKE 1 OR
2. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. YEAH I'M
JUST TRYING TO HELP US WITH OUR
TIMING AND, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PETRIE-NORRIS, HOW MANY
QUESTIONS DO YOU HAVE ROUGHLY
FIVE. I CAN MAKE. AND ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WILSON. THREE. GOOD. ALL
RIGHT. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE
ABOUT TEN MORE QUESTIONS. SO
SESSION STARTS AT TWO. WE CAN GO
OVER, BUT FOR MEMBERS THAT WANT
TO GET BACK, WANT TO LET YOU
KNOW THAT. OR IF YOU HAVE
SOMETHING YOU'RE GOING TO
CRISIS, PLEASE LET US KNOW.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. YEAH. SO AGAIN,
NO, MYSTERY, THE CONCERN THAT'S
BEEN REPORTED ABOUT THE CUTS OF
$600 MILLION FROM THE ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM, OF THE
$1.05 BILLION TOTAL. GIVEN THAT
THIS IS A CORNERSTONE OF OUR,
CLIMATE STRATEGIES IN THE STATE
AND HEALTHY LIVING, SO REALLY, A
QUESTION IS, ARE THE CUTS TO THE
ATP, ATP STILL NOT GOING TO BE
FILLED, FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY
FUND, AS HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY
KIND OF PART OF THE SOLUTION. IF
SO, CAN THE PANELISTS EXPLAIN
THE REASONING OF NOT JUST USING
THIS FUND WHEN IT HAS BEEN
TRADITIONALLY TAPPED FOR ATP
PROJECTS? SURE JAMES MOORE WITH
FINANCE, IT IS STILL THE CASE
THAT THE WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING
ANY SORT OF BACKFILL, IT WAS
USED LAST YEAR, AS YOU POINT
OUT, TO BACKFILL. AND THAT'S
REALLY ONE OF THE REASONS THAT
WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE DOING IT.
AGAIN ALL OF THE MONEY THAT WE
WOULD BE USING TO BACKFILL, FOR
ATP COMES STRAIGHT OUT OF OTHER
IMPORTANT HIGHWAY PRIORITIES,
BECAUSE OF THE MAGNITUDE THAT WE
HAVE ALREADY SHIFTED TO STATE
HIGHWAY ACCOUNT, WHICH IS ABOUT
$650 MILLION IN THE LAST COUPLE
OF YEARS, AS WELL AS KNOWING HOW
MANY STORMS AND THINGS HAVE
HAPPENED SINCE THEN, THAT'S
REALLY NEED OUR, OUR OUR FULL
ATTENTION AND OUR FULL EFFORT,
WE REALLY DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS
APPROPRIATE TO COME BACK A
SECOND TIME. YEAH, I THINK A
NUMBER OF US WOULD PUSH BACK ON
THAT. JUST KIND OF THE PREMISE,
AND IN FACT, ATP, I THINK CAN BE
VIEWED AS PART OF THE OVERALL,
TRANSPORTATION, STRATEGY. I
IMAGINE MAYBE ONE OF MY
COLLEAGUES MAY WANT TO COMMENT
ON THAT AS WELL. BUT, WE'RE
GOING TO CONTINUE TO KIND OF
PUSH BACK ON THAT AND HOPEFULLY
HAVE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION. SO
THANK YOU. SURE. THANKS. IF I
COULD, PIGGYBACK ON ATP, SO THIS
IS SOMETHING WHEN THE WHEN THE
BUDGET FIRST CAME OUT, I WAS
VERY MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT ATP
BEING CUT ESSENTIALLY IN HALF,
AS WELL AS SOME OTHER ISSUES.
BUT I'LL BRING THOSE OTHER
ISSUES UP LATER WHEN IT'S MY
APPROPRIATE TIME TO HAVE THE
FLOOR. BUT WHILE WE'RE ON ATP, I
WANTED TO TALK IT THROUGH, AND
WHAT I RECOGNIZE IS THAT GIVEN
THE BUDGET SITUATION THAT WE'RE
IN, CUTS ARE NECESSARY, I'VE HAD
AN OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN, AND ON
A FEW CONVERSATIONS WHEN TALKING
ABOUT HUMAN SERVICES, AND THOSE
ARE, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE REALLY
PAINFUL WHEN YOU HEAR THE
TESTIMONY AROUND THEM AND JUST
WHAT'S BEING CUT, AND SO, YOU
KNOW, I APPRECIATE GETTING TO
SIT ON THIS COMMITTEE. IN TERMS
OF NOT HAVING TO DEAL WITH
THINGS THAT ARE DIRECTLY, YOU
KNOW, A PART OF SOMEONE'S
SURVIVAL. RIGHT, AND THESE ARE
PROGRAMS THAT WE DEAL WITH THAT
ARE ABOUT OF THE GREATER GOOD
FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE AND
AS WE MOVE FORWARD. SO I JUST
WANTED TO LAY THAT OUT THERE AS
I TALK THROUGH ATP, AND SO,
GIVEN THAT, IN COMPARISON TO
OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE CUTTING
IN THIS BUDGET THAT ARE REALLY A
PART OF SOMEONE'S SURVIVAL, WHEN
I LOOK AT ATP, I UNDERSTAND WHY
YOU WENT THERE, AND DOING, YOU
KNOW, A LITTLE RESEARCH NOTING
THAT SINCE ITS INCEPTION, ITS
PROGRAM MORE THAN 3.8 BILLION
FOR MORE THAN 180 PROJECTS AND
DEFINITELY, AS WAS NOTED, TO
EXPAND THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK HERE IN CALIFORNIA AND
IMPROVE CYCLIST AND PEDESTRIAN
SAFETY. THAT IS EXTREMELY,
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. AND I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT THE CUTS, AND,
AND ITS ABILITY TO, SLOW OUR
STATE'S EFFORT IN ENSURING THAT
ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION ARE
SUPPORTED AND THAT BIKING AND
WALKING ARE SAFE ALTERNATIVES TO
TRAVELING IN A CAR, THIS IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
TYPICALLY WHEN WE THINK OF THE
UPWARD ECONOMIC MOBILITY OF A
PERSON, WE THINK ABOUT A CAR,
BUT REALLY, I THINK THE UPWARD
MOBILITY OF A PERSON OR ECONOMIC
MOBILITY OF A PERSON IS THEIR
THEIR CHOICES IN TRANSPORTATION.
SO NOT JUST A CAR, BUT THE
ABILITY TO WALK AND BICYCLE AND,
AND DO IT IN A, IN A SAFE WAY.
HOWEVER ALSO, AS I'VE BEEN DOING
RESEARCH OVER THE LAST, YOU
KNOW, WEEK SINCE THE BUDGET'S
BEEN OUT, IT'S BEEN UNCLEAR IF
THE PROGRAM IS ACHIEVING ITS
STATED GOALS, THERE WAS A STUDY
DONE, AND IT SAYS MULTIPLE
PROGRAM GOALS AND LIMITED PUBLIC
REPORTED DATA REGARDING PROJECT
DELIVERY AND PERFORMANCE HAS
MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR US IN THE
LEGISLATURE AND OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS TO EVALUATE THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THIS PROGRAM IS
ACHIEVING ITS ATTENDING GOALS
AND WHAT CHANGES MIGHT BE
WARRANTED. THE SECRETARY OF
STATE, TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED ATP CUT
IS A PART OF MITIGATED IS IN
PART MITIGATED BECAUSE MORE
STATE HIGHWAY AND LOCAL ROAD
PROJECTS ARE INCORPORATING ATP
ELEMENTS, SUCH AS BIKE LANES AND
SIDEWALKS INTO THEIR PROJECTS.
AND I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A GOOD
OPPORTUNITY TO HOLD THE
ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTABLE AND
THAT WE COULD SHOULD CONSIDER
ADOPTING TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE,
REQUIRING CALTRANS TO PROVIDE AN
ANNUAL REPORT SUMMARIZING THE
ATP ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN HIGHWAY
AND ROAD PROJECTS. SIMILARLY IT
WOULD BE USEFUL TO TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE ATP AND
CONSIDER NARROWING THE PROGRAM'S
GOALS TO FOCUS ON SAFETY AND
MODE SHIFT, AND REQUIRING DATA
DATA ON MEASURABLE OUTCOMES IN
ORDER TO ASSESS THE COST
EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE
INVESTMENTS. I THINK THIS IS
GOING TO LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION
FOR WHEN WE ARE IN A BETTER
BUDGET YEARS, AND WE CAN ALLOW
FOR MORE RESOURCES. AND SO
ALTHOUGH I AM CONCERNED ABOUT
LOSING HALF, I'M ALSO TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION THE OTHER
CUTS THAT WE'VE MADE, THAT DEAL
WITH PEOPLE'S ACTUAL SURVIVAL.
AND SO I THINK THERE'S TWO, AS I
STATED, TWO OPPORTUNITIES HERE.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE
BUDGET TRAILER LANGUAGE ABOUT AN
ANNUAL REPORT, SUMMARIZING THE
ATP ELEMENTS AND ALSO, THAT WE
SHOULD FOCUS ON SAFETY AND MODE
SHIFT, WHEN IT COMES TO ATP, THE
CURRENT ALLOCATION THAT WE STILL
DO HAVE IN THE BUDGET AND ENSURE
THAT WHEN WE HAVE BUDGET BETTER
YEARS, THAT'S WHERE IT'S FOCUSED
ON. SO IT'S MEASURABLE AND
ACTUALLY DOES WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED
TO. SO ALTHOUGH I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT ATP BEING CUT, I DO
RECOGNIZE THAT IN LIGHT OF THIS,
BUDGET, WE WILL HAVE TO CUT
SOMEWHERE. SO I WANT TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE LEAN TIME WHEN
WE'RE BEING LEAN ABOUT IT, TO
MAKE SURE WE HAVE SOME MORE
ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT AS
IT RELATES TO ATP. AND I JUMPED
IN BECAUSE HE WAS ON THAT
SUBJECT, AND I'M GOING TO JUMP
YOUR JUMP. ALL RIGHT, JUST
BECAUSE ON ON THE SAME SUBJECTS
AS THE TRANSPORTATION CHAIR, I'D
JUST LIKE TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS
THAT I'VE VERY STRONGLY SUPPORT
THE ATP, ALSO, I WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE GET MAXIMUM BANG FOR OUR
BUCK OVERALL. PAUL, I THINK THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS TO MOVE
MORE INTO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
SETUPS. IT'S JUST A COMMON SENSE
THING TO DO FOR ALL KINDS OF
REASONS. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO DO ALL OF IT. SO
WHEN WE DO HAVE RESOURCES, I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE
HAVE A CHOICE BETWEEN A PROJECT
THAT'S GOING TO GIVE US 20 MILES
OF BIKE LANE AND TEN MILES OF
BETTER WAYS FOR PEOPLE TO WALK,
THAT WE DO THAT OVER A PROJECT
THAT'S GOING TO GIVE US FIVE
MILES OF BIKE LANES, BUT A WHOLE
LOT OF PRETTY ORNATE THINGS
ALONG THE BIKE LANES AND STATUES
AND THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO I'M
JUST I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE ATP
IS INVESTED IN FUNCTIONAL,
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND NOT
DECORATIVE ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION. AND IF SO, IF
YOU IF YOU DO PUSH ON A TRAILER
BILL ABOUT REPORTING, I'D LOVE
TO MAKE SURE WE EMPHASIZE THAT
IN THAT IT'S A REFORM THAT I
THINK WE SHOULD HAVE AN ATP
CHAIR. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH
YOU, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S
WHERE LOCAL DOLLARS CAN ADD TO
THE DECORATIVE ELEMENT TO THESE
PARTICULAR PROJECTS, WHERE THE
STATE IS SUBSIDIZING THE ACTUAL
SAFETY OR MODE SHIFT, OR
EXPANDING THE NUMBER OF MILES
VERSUS THE FUNCTIONALITY OF IT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ARE YOU FINISHED ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CONNOLLY, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PETRIE-NORRIS. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, AND I'M JUST GOING TO
START WITH, I THINK KIND OF LIKE
A MACRO LEVEL OBSERVATION AND A
MACRO LEVEL REQUEST. I'M NOT
SURE EVEN WHO THIS IS FOR.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, ALL THE
DEPARTMENTS IN THE ROOM. AND I
THINK I'VE SAID IN THESE
HEARINGS, I HAVE FOUND IT VERY
DIFFICULT TO EVALUATE THE
PROPOSED CUTS ALONGSIDE SIDE THE
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES, SIMPLY
BECAUSE IT'S VERY UNCLEAR TO I
THINK ALL OF US WHAT THE
DEPARTMENT METHODOLOGY AND
CRITERIA HAS BEEN TO, TO PROPOSE
CUTS OR TO PROPOSE PROGRAMS THAT
WE KEEP. AND SO, JUST AS A VERY
SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR FOLLOW UP,
IF ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS WHO
ARE SHARING WITH US, FOR
EXAMPLE, THEIR, YOU KNOW,
EXISTING CLIMATE BUDGETS, I
WOULD REALLY LIKE TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND AND WHAT METHODOLOGY
YOU UTILIZED TO EVALUATE THESE
PROGRAMS AND DETERMINE THAT
THESE ARE THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE
ACTUALLY DELIVERING THE BEST
BANG FOR THE BUCK ON
CALIFORNIA'S CLIMATE GOALS, NO.
WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO INTO
ALL THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT WE'D
LOVE TO GET THAT AS A VERY
SPECIFIC PIECE OF FOLLOW UP FROM
ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS, AND THEN
I HAVE ONE VERY SPECIFIC
QUESTION FOR CÁC.
DAMIAN, I'M NOT CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER WITH CDC AVAILABLE TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTION YOU MAY
HAVE. OKAY, GREAT, SO IT LOOKS
LIKE, THE PROPOSED CUTS WOULD
ELIMINATE ALL OR MAYBE VIRTUALLY
ALL FUNDING FOR THE CARBON
REMOVAL INNOVATION SUPPORT
PROGRAM. CRISP. IS THAT CORRECT,
NO, THE PROPOSED CUTS, WOULD
RETAIN ABOUT 27% OF THE ORIGINAL
BUDGET FOR THE PROGRAM, WHICH
WAS $75 MILLION AS OF THE 2223
BUDGET AGREEMENT. OKAY. ALL
RIGHT. SO THERE'S A BIT OF MONEY
LEFT, AND I GUESS I, I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE RETAIN SOME
FUNDING THERE, IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT FUNDING
IS POTENTIALLY VERY, VERY
POWERFUL IN TERMS OF, LEVERAGING
FEDERAL FUNDS IN THIS AREA. AND
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'RE THE RIGHT
PERSON TO ASK TO VERIFY THIS,
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT,
THERE'S ACTUALLY AN OPPORTUNITY
THAT WITH TENS OF MILLIONS OF
CALIFORNIA, THE COMMITTED FUNDS
THAT WE WOULD POTENTIALLY BE
ABLE TO GET LIKE HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOE DOLLARS IS THAT
CORRECT? YES IN GENERAL, THERE
ARE SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL
OPPORTUNITIES IN THIS SPACE.
THAT'S CORRECT. AND AGAIN, BACK
TO MY METHODOLOGY QUESTION.
MAYBE FOR YOU SPECIFICALLY, HOW
ARE WE INCORPORATING AN
EVALUATION? SO I THINK WE ALL
RECOGNIZE WE'RE AT A REALLY
HISTORIC MOMENT. AND THE DOLLARS
THAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION
HAS MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE
IRA, THE IIJA LIKE, PRESENT JUST
A GENERATIONAL OPPORTUNITY, NOT
JUST FOR THE COUNTRY, BUT FOR
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. HOW ARE
WE EVALUATE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES
AND INCLUDING THAT ASSESSMENT AS
PART OF THE DECISIONS WE'RE
MAKING, AS WE PRIORITIZE
PROGRAMS TO EITHER FUND OR CUT,
YEAH. I'LL TAKE A FIRST SHOT AT
THAT QUESTION, AND I MAY DEFER
TO MY, PARTNER AT THE MY
COLLEAGUE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE WHO BELIEVES IN THE
TABLE, BUT IN GENERAL, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE WORKING TO REDUCE ANY
IMPACTS OF THE PROGRAM AND
MAXIMIZE THE FEDERAL FUNDING
THAT WE'RE ABLE TO RECEIVE. I
WILL SAY WITH THE FUNDING THAT
IS AVAILABLE, IT WILL ALLOW
CALIFORNIA TO BE A LEADER IN THE
CARBON MANAGEMENT SPACE, WHICH
IS WHICH IS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY,
AND SO WITH THAT, I THINK I'LL
TURN IT OVER TO, I BELIEVE,
STEVE WALTZ AT THE TABLE. IF HE
HAS ANYTHING ADDITIONAL HE MAY
WISH TO ADD AT THIS POINT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. DAMIAN, STEVE
WELLS, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. I
MEAN, IT WAS A DIFFICULT PROCESS
TO LOOK OVER EVERYTHING AND TRY
TO DETERMINE WHICH THINGS, YOU
KNOW, WHICH THINGS WE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT, FINDING
SOLUTIONS WITH. BUT CERTAINLY WE
WORKED WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO
DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, WHERE DO WE
HAVE, YOU KNOW, WHICH PROGRAMS
ARE THE ONES THAT ARE THAT WE
HAVE POTENTIAL FOR FEDERAL FUNDS
. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S
THAT'S PARTIALLY WHY THERE'S $20
MILLION LEFT IN THIS ACCOUNT,
YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR CARBON IS
THAT WE YOU KNOW, WE RECOGNIZED
THE POTENTIAL FOR THE FEDERAL
FUNDS WITH THAT MONEY. AND WE
DID THAT, YOU KNOW, ACROSS ALL
OF THE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS, AS
MUCH AS WE CAN. AND AS WE MOVE
FORWARD, I MEAN, WE WILL
CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THOSE SORT
OF THINGS. WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW,
THERE ARE BUDGET MECHANISMS FOR
MOVING THINGS AROUND. AND
THERE'S, YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AT
THIS EVERY YEAR AND WE'RE GOING
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TRY TO
MAXIMIZE AVAILABLE FEDERAL FUNDS
AS WE MOVE FORWARD. GOT IT. AND
IS THAT AN INTENTIONAL PART OF
DOE'S PROCESS MORE BROADLY? YES
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. SO
AGAIN, I GUESS BACK TO MY
QUESTION ABOUT BETTER, BETTER
UNDERSTANDING METHODOLOGY
CRITERIA. JUST OUTLINING SOME OF
THAT I THINK WOULD BE REALLY
HELPFUL FOR ALL OF US TO
UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT FROM, YOU
KNOW, PIE THAT WAS THIS BIG TO
NOW ONE THAT'S THAT BIG. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THAT'S IT. GREAT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON, MINE IS
FOR CAL ESTÁ, AND SO ABOUT THE
SAFETY GRADE SEPARATIONS
PROGRAM. BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE
AN OVERALL COMMENT ABOUT, FROM
TRANSPORTATION IN TERMS OF I'M
REALLY HAPPY THAT THE GOVERNOR
RETAINED THE FUNDING LEVELS
PREVIOUSLY COMMITTED TO PUBLIC
TRANSIT, AND THIS WILL HELP TO
ENSURE THAT THIS ESSENTIAL
SERVICE REMAINS OPERATIONAL AND
PROVIDES MATCHING FUNDS SO THAT
LOCAL AGENCIES CAN DRAW DOWN
FEDERAL FUNDS FOR CRITICAL
PROJECTS THAT HELP TO EXPAND THE
TRANSIT NETWORK. SO THAT WAS A I
WANT TO AT LEAST GET A GOOD,
GOOD COMMENT IN THERE, AS IT
RELATES TO, THE SAFETY GRADE
SEPARATION PROGRAM COMPLETELY.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU TALKED
ABOUT IT BEFORE I CAME IN. SO MY
APOLOGIES FOR BEING LATE, BUT
OKAY. GREAT. AND SO IT'S
COMPLETELY ELIMINATED. ED, AND I
HAD NOTED THIS WHEN THE BUDGET
FIRST CAME OUT, I KNOW THAT
THERE'S FEDERAL OPPORTUNITIES
FOR DOLLARS, FEDERAL DOLLARS,
FOR THIS PROGRAM. AND SO AND
LOCAL AGENCIES CAN, YOU KNOW,
APPLY FOR THOSE. BUT THAT'S
PRETTY DIFFICULT. SO I HAVE TWO
FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS. THEN WHY
WHY CHOOSE TO ELIMINATE THE
PROGRAM IN ENTIRETY, AND THEN
ALSO, IS DO WE OFFER TECHNOLOGY
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AT ALL TO
OUR LOCAL AGENCIES, RELATED TO
SAFETY GRADE SEPARATIONS? SIR
JAMES MOORE WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE. AND AFTER, I THINK I
CAN ANSWER THE FIRST AND DEFER
TO, UNDERSECRETARY MARK
TOLLEFSON, WHO SHOULD BE ON THE
LINE. I THINK THE REAL ANSWER TO
WHY ELIMINATE THE WHOLE PROGRAM
IS JUST THAT THIS WAS A PROGRAM
THAT WAS SCHEDULED TO GET FUNDS
IN BUDGET YEAR ONE. AND LIKE YOU
SAID, WE DIDN'T HAVE TO CUT A
TON IN TRANSPORTATION. LUCKILLY
AND WE HAD TO MAKE DIFFICULT
DECISIONS THAT RESULTED IN
PRIORITIES BEING CUT. I DON'T
THINK THERE WAS ANY, MAGIC OTHER
THAN THERE WAS MONEY IN THE OUT
YEARS. AND WE NEEDED TO COME UP
WITH SOME GENERAL FUND. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THE SECOND THING I
THINK IF MARK IS ON THE LINE, HE
MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME
MORE INFORMATION. YEAH. THANKS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS, YEAH. REALLY
YOU KNOW, TO THE POINT ABOUT
GRADE SEPARATIONS. OBVIOUSLY, WE
HAD TO MAKE SOME VERY DIFFICULT
DECISIONS, WITH THE WITH THE
BUDGET, I WILL SAY THAT ONE OF
THE CONSIDERATIONS AND THIS WAS
MENTIONED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT AS
WELL, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE,
YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT POTENTIAL
OPPORTUNITIES TO, YOU KNOW, TO
BACKFILL, YOU KNOW, WITH, YOU
KNOW, OTHER FUNDING SOURCES.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE TO BE
MINDFUL OF SOME OF THE BACKHOES
THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE AND
PREVIOUS YEARS. SO WE ARE
ABSOLUTELY OPEN TO THAT
CONVERSATION. I THINK, YOU KNOW,
WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTUAL
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ON SOME OF
THESE PROJECTS TO DETERMINE HOW
WE CAN POTENTIALLY FILL THOSE
GAPS, WE ARE HERE AT KELSO
WILLING TO MEET WITH ANY OF OUR
PROJECT SPONSORS FOR THE GRADE
SEPARATIONS, WE PROVIDED QUITE A
BIT OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AS,
PEOPLE ENDED UP GOING THROUGH
OUR PORT AND FREIGHT
INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM, AS WELL
AS OUR TRANSIT AND INTERCITY
RAIL CAPITAL PROGRAM. SO HAPPY
TO CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO
GET SOME OF THESE CRITICAL
PROJECTS MOVED FORWARD, AS WELL
AS THE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
TO TAP OR LEVERAGE FEDERAL FUNDS
. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT
WAS IT. I HAVE A QUICK FOLLOW UP
ON THAT. SINCE WE HAVE EVERYBODY
HERE, THE GRADE SEPARATION, THE
GRADE SEPARATION DOLLARS
COMMITTED BECAUSE THE AGENCIES
ARE SAYING THEY'RE COMMITTED.
BUT THE FUNDS AREN'T BEING
APPROPRIATED. SO CAN ANYBODY
HELP ME WITH THAT? YEAH. MR.
CHAIR, I'LL TAKE A STAB AT THAT
AND LET MY FINANCE COLLEAGUES
CHIME IN. IF I NÓ MISS MISS
SOMETHING. BUT, OVERALL, THOSE
FUNDS WERE AWARDED, EARLIER THIS
YEAR, THE ACTUAL DOLLARS, IN
WERE APPROPRIATED IN THE OUT
YEARS. SO YES, THEY WERE AWARDED
BUT THE DOLLARS WEREN'T, YOU
KNOW, DISTRIBUTED YET OR
TECHNICALLY APPROPRIATED IN THE
BUDGET. SO, THAT IS SOMETHING
WHERE A NUMBER OF ENTITIES WERE
WORKING ON WHAT WE CALL LETTERS
OF NO PREJUDICE, WHERE THEY
COULD ADVANCE THEIR OWN FUNDS
AND GET REIMBURSED THROUGH THE
PROGRAM AT A LATER DATE, SO
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CHALLENGES
THAT I THINK SOME OF OUR PROJECT
SPONSORS MAY FACE. AND ACTUALLY,
MR. CHAIR, SINCE, I AM ON, ON,
ON THE CALL HERE, I DO WANT TO
CIRCLE BACK TO YOUR VERY FIRST
QUESTION ABOUT THE PORT AND
FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
AND IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, KIND
OF THE EXPENDITURES ON GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE, IT'S ABOUT 450
MILLION OF THE 1.2 BILLION THAT
WOULD GO TOWARDS ZERO EMISSION,
INFRASTRUCTURE AND EQUIPMENT.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WILSON LOOKS LIKE SHE HAS A
FOLLOW UP. JUST I WANT TO MAKE
SURE I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY.
DID YOU SAY THAT THEY WERE ABLE
TO YOU SENT NOTICES THAT SAID
THEY COULD EXPEND THEIR OWN
FUNDS AND GET REIMBURSED, AND
THAT'S WHERE THE RUB MIGHT HAVE
BEEN. SO THAT DID HAPPEN. SO
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS
CONTEMPLATED THAT WAS BUILT INTO
OUR GUIDELINE PROCESS WHERE WE
COULD HAVE, LETTERS OF NO
PREJUDICE ISSUED, NONE OF THOSE
WERE ISSUED, OKAY. POINT. ALL
RIGHT. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT
WAS PART OF OUR DISCUSSIONS,
PART OF OUR GUIDELINES. OKAY.
THANK YOU. I THOUGHT SOME WERE.
AND THEN I WAS CONCERNED. THEN
YOU ZEROED IT OUT WITH SOME OF
THOSE LETTERS BEING OUT. SO I'M
GLAD TO KNOW THAT NO LETTERS
WERE ACTUALLY SENT. LOOKS LIKE
LÀ WOULD LIKE TO JUMP IN BEFORE
WE LEAVE THIS AND GO TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS OF BR, THANKS
AGAIN, RACHEL ALEJO'S WITH THE
LÀ I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT FOR
THE COMMITTEE THAT THE TRANS THE
PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION
REDUCTIONS REALLY DO DIFFER FROM
MOST OF THE OTHER, PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND THE
RESOURCES AND CLIMATE SPACE, AND
THAT IN A LOT OF THESE PROGRAMS,
THE FUNDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN
AWARDED TO SPECIFIC PROJECTS.
THE FUNDS AREN'T OUT THE DOOR,
BUT THERE ARE LOCAL AGENCIES WHO
APPLIED FOR AND GOT THE FUNDING
AWARD, LETTER. SO THEY MAY HAVE
FEDERAL FUNDS THAT ARE KIND OF
MATCHING FOR THESE. THEY MAY
HAVE ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL, SO THERE IS
KIND OF A LITTLE, OR OR BIGGER
THAN LITTLE, POTENTIAL FOR
DISRUPTION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
FOR SOME OF THESE
TRANSPORTATION. THIS IS FOR ATP,
FOR THE GRADE SEPARATIONS, FOR
HIGHWAYS TO BOULEVARDS AS WELL.
SO, THIS IS JUST AN ADDITIONAL
CONSIDERATION FOR YOU AS YOU
CONSIDER THESE REDUCTIONS. THERE
MAY BE SOME OPTIONS TO HELP
MITIGATE SOME OF THAT, EITHER
KIND OF GIVING, GIVING THESE
PROJECTS FIRST IN LINE FOR THE
NEXT ROUND OF FUNDING FOR
ONGOING FUNDING FOR SOME OF
THESE PROGRAMS, YOU MAY WANT TO
GIVE THE ADMINISTRATION
DIRECTION THAT THEY NEED TO DO
THAT. YOU COULD LOOK AT OTHER
FUNDING SOURCES LIKE THE STATE
HIGHWAY ACCOUNT, BUT THERE IS
THIS ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF
POTENTIAL DISRUPTION FOR THE
LOCAL AGENCIES THAT YOU DON'T
HAVE IN SOME OF THESE OTHER
PROPOSED REDUCTIONS, WHERE THE
FUNDING AWARDS HAVEN'T BEEN MADE
YET. THANK YOU. SO MANY MEMBERS
OF BR, TWO QUICK QUESTIONS. ONE,
I JUST WANTED TO ECHO, I THINK
WHAT ASSEMBLYMEMBERS
PETRIE-NORRIS IS SORT OF THE
VEIN OF HER QUESTIONS, WHICH IS,
YOU'RE REALLY UNDERSTAND SORT OF
WHAT THE CRITERIA AND HAVE BEEN
AND SORT OF MAKING SOME OF THE
CUTS AND SOME OF THE, DECISIONS
TO RETAIN FUNDING. AND, YOU
KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I
DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS AVAILABLE
OR NOT, BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL
IF THERE WAS SOME KIND OF
CATALOG OF ALL OF THE CLIMATE
RELATED FEDERAL FUNDING OPTIONS,
ENTITIES THAT ARE OUT THERE WITH
SOME KIND OF CROSS REFERENCE TO
WHETHER OR NOT IT REQUIRES A
MATCH AND WHETHER WE ACTUALLY
HAVE FUNDING THAT'S IN THE
BUDGET, WHETHER WE WE'RE DOING
THE THINGS WE NEED TO CAPTURE
THAT FUNDING, AND THAT WOULD BE
SOMETHING I ASSUME THAT'S
HAPPENING SOMEPLACE AT GO-BIZ OR
CÁC OR SOMEPLACE. AND I'M JUST
WONDERING IF THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT COULD BE PROVIDED, BECAUSE
I THINK THAT COULD BE A VERY
HELPFUL THING FOR US AS WE LOOK
THROUGH THESE AND UNDERSTANDING
WHAT'S IN THE BUDGET. AND THEN
THE SECOND QUESTION, WHICH I'LL
JUST GET OUT THERE BECAUSE WE'RE
SORT OF OUT OF TIME, IS ONE OF
THE THINGS I'VE HAD CONCERNS
ABOUT IN THE BUDGET GENERALLY.
AND WE'VE HAD I'VE HAD TROUBLE
GETTING FROM THE ASSEMBLY STAFF
BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND
EVERYTHING IN THE BUDGET IS
WHERE THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR FUNDING FOR LOCAL AGENCIES
TO DO CLIMATE PLANNING. WE'RE
ASKING THEM TO DO A LOT AND
THEN, UNDER VARIOUS PIECES OF
LEGISLATION, AND THEN THERE'S NO
FUNDING, ESPECIALLY FOR THESE
SMALL CITIES. AND SMALL
COUNTIES. THERE'S FUNDING THAT
LOOKS LIKE THERE'S THERE FOR
CLIMATE RESILIENCY PLANNING, BUT
NOT FOR PLANNING TO MEET CLIMATE
GOALS, AND IN PARTICULAR IN THE
ENERGY SPACE. AND I'M WONDERING
IF YOU CAN TELL ME WHETHER
THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE BUDGET
THAT IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR,
FOR EXAMPLE, A CITY THAT MIGHT
WANT TO DO PLANNING IN THEIR OWN
CITY TO MEET CLIMATE GOALS, TO
BE DOING A CLIMATE, A CLIMATE
PLAN FOR THE CITY, WHICH WE
WOULD LIKE THEM ALL TO BE DOING.
BUT MANY OF THEM ARE, YOU KNOW,
ARE STIFLED BECAUSE THEY DON'T
HAVE THE FUNDING. YEAH, THERE
WERE TWO DIFFERENT PROGRAMS OUT
OF THE OFFICE AND PLANNING OF
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
RELATED TO THESE. THIS THEME OF
LOCAL PLANNING, AND ONE OF THEM
WAS SPECIFICALLY FOR REGIONAL
PLANNING, BECAUSE THE SEA LEVEL
RISE DOESN'T STOP AT THE CITY
BORDER. SO THINKING ABOUT A
REGIONAL PLAN, THOSE, THERE IS
SOME FUNDING LEFT, BUT THOSE
RECEIVE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT
REDUCTIONS, BOTH IN THE LAST
YEAR'S BUDGET AS WELL AS
PROPOSED FOR THIS YEAR, I THINK
I THINK IN THE BALLPARK, THE
NUMBERS WENT FROM LIKE 275
MILLION TO KIND OF 30 MILLION OR
IN THAT RANGE. I'M SORRY, I
DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS,
BUT YEAH, THAT WAS SOMETHING
PART OF THE PACKAGE THAT THAT
HAS BEEN SCALED DOWN AND
PROPOSED TO BE SCALED DOWN. AND
IT IS THE BILL IS THE MONEY
THAT'S REMAINING THERE. IS IT
AVAILABLE FOR A LOCAL
JURISDICTION THAT WOULD WANT TO
DO CLIMATE PLANNING ON THEIR
OWN? IT IS ON A COMPETITIVE
BASIS TO THE OFFICE OF PLANNING
AND RESEARCH, AND I APOLOGIZE.
I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DETAILS
OF WHETHER IT'S JUST A CITY OR
IT COULD BE KIND OF A PORTION OF
A CITY, A NONPROFIT AGENCY OR A
COUNTY. SO WE CAN LOOK AT THE
SPECIFIC, DETAILS OF THE PROGRAM
AND GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE.
GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON, CHAIR,
FOR, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION
THE COMMENTS GIVEN FROM THE LÀ
JOE'S OFFICE, HOW DO WE THEN
MITIGATE LOCAL DISRUPTION, SO
SHE HAD GIVEN SOME COMMENTS THAT
WE COULD PROVIDE DIRECTION, AND
I WASN'T SURE IF THE DIRECTION
IS THROUGH THIS, THIS HEARING OR
IS IT DIRECTION THROUGH BUDGET,
TRAILER LANGUAGE OR, IS FORMAL
LETTER? I WOULD I WOULD THINK
THAT NUMBER ONE, IT'S NOT GOING
TO BE THROUGH THIS HEARING
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY
ACTION. WE'RE JUST IT'S JUST
INFORMATIONAL, BUT I THINK THE
ISSUE WOULD BE TO CLARIFY WHAT
IS THE DIRECTION WE'RE TRYING TO
GIVE THEM, WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS
WE'RE TRYING TO IDENTIFY. SO I
WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE MOST
APPROPRIATE IF YOU COULD CRAFT
IT UP WHAT YOU THINK THOSE
THINGS ARE AND SUBMIT THOSE TO
ME IN WRITING. AND THEN YOU AND
I CAN FIGURE OUT WHETHER WE'RE
IN AGREEMENT AND THEN WE CAN
SUBMIT THEM ON AND SEE WHETHER
WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF
POLICY. WE'LL DO. ALRIGHTY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY.
ANYTHING ELSE? MEMBERS. RIGHT.
REALLY APPRECIATE THE ATTENTION.
I'LL TELL YOU, WHILE I WAS OUT
GOING TO THE RESTROOM, EVERYBODY
ELSE WAS HAVING LONG HEARINGS,
YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW SOME MEMBER
WILSON'S STAFF THOUGHT, OH, THIS
WOULD BE REALLY FAST, BUT I
THINK THERE'S A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF INTEREST IN THE
BUDGET. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS GIVING UP THEIR
LUNCH PERIOD TO BE HERE AND
STUFF. AND FOR ALL OF YOU FROM
THE AGENCIES THAT WE DIDN'T CALL
UP, I'M SORRY. YOU SAT HERE FOR
TWO HOURS WITHOUT GETTING TO SAY
ANYTHING, BUT YOU MIGHT BE
RELIEVED. I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOUR
ATTITUDE IS ABOUT THAT, BUT TO
ALL THE AGENCIES, THE LAST TEN
HEARINGS, I JUST SINCERELY WANT
TO COMPLIMENT THE
PROFESSIONALISM THAT HAS EXISTED
IN THIS ROOM SINCE THE VERY
FIRST HEARING. PEOPLE ARE REALLY
TRYING TO WORK TO TRY TO PROVIDE
THE INFORMATION THAT THE
LEGISLATURE IS LOOKING FOR, TO
TRY TO IDENTIFY THE THINGS THAT
ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
PUBLIC IN CALIFORNIA. SO, THE
MOST IMPORTANT THING, ONE OF THE
MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN A
DEMOCRACY IS QUALITY PUBLIC
SERVANTS. IT'S THE THING THAT IS
NOT IDENTIFIED ENOUGH. AND I
JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW, WE REALLY
APPRECIATE IT AND APPRECIATE
YOUR SERVICE. SO THANK YOU ALL
VERY MUCH. WE'RE NOW INTO PUBLIC
COMMENTS. AND YOU, IF YOU CAN
SPEAK FOR LESS THAN A MINUTE, WE
WILL APPRECIATE IT. BUT YOU HAVE
A MINUTE. AND WE ARE STARTING
BACK INTO SESSION. THANK YOU.
MEMBERS. RIGHT THIS CHART OKAY.
BUT GO AHEAD, GIVE US YOUR NAME
AND GET STARTED. SHARON. MEMBERS
NATE SOLOVE, ON BEHALF OF THE
PORT OF LÀ, ON YOUR QUESTION ON
THE PORT INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING,
I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THE
FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF
FUNDING DID GO TO INFRASTRUCTURE
AND EFFICIENCY TO HELP WITH THE
SUPPLY CHAIN CRISIS. SOME
APPLICANTS DID USE SOME OF THAT
FUNDING FOR ZERO EMISSIONS, BUT
THE VAST MAJORITY OF PORTS ARE
FOCUSED ON THAT ZERO EMISSION
TRANSITION. WE HAVE A 2030
DEADLINE. AND SO JUST
HIGHLIGHTING PRIOR TESTIMONY
THAT PROVIDED A FEW WEEKS AGO TO
SAY THAT THE CURRENTLY WE HAVE
315,000,000IN THE GRF THAT WAS
PUSHED OUT TO 26, 27. WE'RE
ASKING THAT A PORTION OF THAT BE
PROVIDED THIS YEAR IN EACH OF
THE NEXT FEW YEARS, SO THAT WE
CAN RAMP UP AND MEET THAT 2030
DEADLINE AS WE TRY TO SEEK THE
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS. THAT'S
GOING TO HAVE A HUGE IMPACT IN
OUR PORT COMMUNITIES.
HISTORICALLY, THEY'VE BEEN A
HIGH POLLUTING INDUSTRY. WE'RE
TRYING TO TRANSITION OUR CARGO
HANDLING EQUIPMENT AND
INFRASTRUCTURE TO ZERO EMISSION,
AND SO THAT'S GOING TO MAKE A
HUGE DIFFERENCE. SO WE'RE JUST
ASKING THAT A PORTION OF THAT
MONEY NOT BE DELAYED IN GRF AT
2627. SOME BE PROVIDED THIS YEAR
, NEXT YEAR AND THE FOLLOWING
YEAR SO THEY CAN SPREAD OUT SO
THAT WE CAN START TO MAKE THOSE
INVESTMENTS. APPRECIATE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANKS FOR COMING BACK
AND REINFORCING THE MESSAGE YOU.
IF YOU GO TO 30S, YOU'LL GET A
SMILEY FACE FROM US. ALL RIGHT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, BARRY VESTER
FROM THE CLIMATE CENTER. AND,
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY, IN
LIGHT OF ALL THE CUTS THAT ARE
BEING LOOKED AT, THAT I HOPE THE
COMMITTEE WILL SERIOUSLY
CONSIDER, CUTTING OIL AND GAS
SUBSIDIES THROUGH WATER EDGE
ELECTION AND RESEARCH
DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDITS, I ALSO
WANT TO SUPPORT ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CONNOLLY'S, SUGGESTION OF
SHIFTING, ATP FUNDS TO THE STATE
HIGHWAY FUND, AND THAT THAT
COULD BE A REALLY GREAT WAY TO
DO THAT. YEAH SWITCH THAT, AND
THEN THE LAST THING I JUST
WANTED TO SAY IS I NOTICED THAT
THE CPUC IS CUTTING FROM THEIR
BUDGET THE CAPACITY, COMMUNITY,
CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS, THESE
ARE REALLY IMPORTANT GRANTS.
THEY ALLOW THESE COMMUNITIES TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE CPUC PROCESS
AND ACCESS CPUC RESOURCES. THIS
MEANS MORE RESILIENCE IN
HISTORICALLY DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES, THAT MEANS SAVING
LIVES. SO I HOPE EVEN IF THERE'S
$5 MILLION PRESERVED IN THAT
PROGRAM, IT WOULD MAKE A BIG
DIFFERENCE, THANKS SO MUCH.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS.
BETH, ALSO, ON BEHALF OF WATER
REUSE CALIFORNIA, APPRECIATE OUR
CONVERSATION ABOUT WATER
RECYCLING. LAST YEAR, BUT WE
REMAIN REALLY CONCERNED THAT
WATER RECYCLING FUNDING HAS BEEN
ZEROED OUT, THERE'S NO GRANT
FUNDING LEFT FOR WATER RECYCLING
PROJECTS, WHICH JUST HELPS BUY
DOWN THE COST FOR RATEPAYERS, SO
WE HOPE WITH THIS BUDGET ACTION
THAT YOU CAN THEN SUPPORT $1
BILLION INVESTMENT IN A CLIMATE
BOND FOR WATER RECYCLING. REALLY
IMPORTANT FOR OUR WATER
RESILIENCE IN CALIFORNIA. THANK
YOU. 30S. WAY TO GO. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS TRICIA
GEHRINGER WITH AGRICULTURAL
COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA. WE ARE
SUPPORTIVE OF THE $24 MILLION
MOVING FROM GENERAL FUND OVER TO
GRF FOR THE DAIRY METHANE
REDUCTION PROGRAMS. VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. WE DO URGE
FUNDING WITHIN GRF FOR THE FOOD
PRODUCTION INVESTMENT PROGRAM,
RANKED IN THE TOP TEN OUT OF ALL
THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT PROGRAMS
AND REALLY IMPORTANT TO REDUCE
CARBON AT FOOD THAT'S PRODUCED
AND PROCESSED HERE IN THE STATE.
AND WE ALSO URGE A REJECTION OF
THE BCP AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
PESTICIDE REGULATION AND INSTEAD
URGE TRAILER BUILDING, TRAILER
BILL LANGUAGE, PURSUING MORE
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
AT THAT DEPARTMENT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. HI. ASHER SHARMA, ON
BEHALF OF LEADERSHIP COUNCIL FOR
JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
ASSOCIATION FOR ENERGY
AFFORDABILITY, THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE
AND GREENLINING INSTITUTE, WE
URGE THE LEGISLATURE TO RESTORE
AND PROTECT FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS
THAT SUPPORT ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE. COMMUNITIES IN
PARTICULAR, THE MAY REVISE
INCLUDED AN ADDITIONAL CUT TO
THE EQUITABLE BUILDING
DECARBONIZATION PROGRAM. WE
THINK THE FUNDING SHOULD BE
RESTORED TO 639 MILLION FROM THE
JANUARY BUDGET PROPOSAL.
STRATEGIC ACTIONS FOR JUST
ECONOMY. ALSO, IN SUPPORT OF
THIS RECOMMENDATION, WE ALSO
RECOMMEND RESTORING THE
FOLLOWING ORIGINALLY ALLOCATED
TO THESE SCC PROGRAMS WHICH HELP
WITH REGIONAL CLIMATE PLANNING,
WHICH WAS DISCUSSED TODAY. 200
MILLION FOR TRANSFORMATIVE
CLIMATE COMMUNITIES, 10 MILLION
FOR REGIONAL CLIMATE
COLLABORATIVES, AND 160 MILLION
FOR COMMUNITY RESILIENCE
CENTERS. AND ON BEHALF OF
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL, WE
APPRECIATE THE MAY REVISE
CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO THE
SALTON SEA AND DRINKING WATER
AND WASTEWATER NEEDS. WE ALSO
URGE THE LEGISLATURE NOT TO FUND
FALSE CLIMATE SOLUTIONS LIKE
CFAS, DAIRY DIGESTER AND
RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. MICHAEL.
JARED, ON BEHALF OF NEXT GEN
CALIFORNIA AND CAF AND THE OTHER
160 COALITION MEMBERS WHO WANT
TO SAVE THE CALIFORNIA NUTRITION
INCENTIVE PROGRAM, EVEN THOUGH
IT MAY COST ME A SMILEY FACE.
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
FOR ITS HARD WORK. ALL THIS
YEAR. AND EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE
TOUGH TIMES, I THINK YOU GUYS
HAVE DONE A GREAT PROCESS AND
PARTICULARLY THANK THE CHAIR.
BENNETT AND ASSEMBLYMEMBER
CONNELLY, FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR
SMALL FAMILY FARMERS AND
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE. WE
WOULD REALLY LIKE TO PRESERVE
CNET. I THINK IT'S A REALLY
IMPORTANT PROGRAM, BOTH TO PULL
DOWN FEDERAL FUNDS, BUT ALSO TO
HELP SMALL FAMILY FARMERS AND TO
DEAL WITH FOOD INSECURITY DURING
TIMES WHERE FOOD PRICES ARE
GOING UP. WE FEEL LIKE IT'S A
GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO GET PEOPLE
INTO FARMERS MARKETS AND TO
SUPPORT THEIR ABILITY TO FEED
THEIR FAMILIES, SO PLEASE SAVE
CNIB IF YOU CAN. THANK YOU. MR.
CHAIRMAN, TERRY MCHALE, WITH
AARON REED AND ASSOCIATES
REPRESENTING CAL FIRE LOCAL
2881. I WILL BE VERY BRIEF. WE
APPRECIATE VERY, VERY MUCH THE
SUPPORT OF THE CHAIR AND OF THIS
COMMITTEE IN TAKING CARE OF THE
HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR
FIREFIGHTERS IN SUPPORT OF THE
66 HOUR WORKWEEK. IT STILL MEANS
THEY WILL WORK THREE MONTHS MORE
THAN OTHER FIREFIGHTERS AND
OTHER WORKERS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, BUT IT DOES MAKE A
DIFFERENCE. AND WHILE ALL CUTS
ARE DIFFICULT, WE DO KNOW HOW
HARD YOU'RE WORKING TO KEEP THE
PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA SAFE, AND
WE ARE APPRECIATIVE. THANKS FOR
YOUR BRIEF COMMENTS. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR, AND MEMBERS.
JENNIFER FEARING ON BEHALF OF
THE MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM, WE
SUPPORT THE PROPOSED FUNDING TO
THE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL
AHEAD OF OFFSHORE WIND
DEVELOPMENT FOR SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH AND ROBUST CONSULTATION
WITH TRIBES AND COMMUNITIES, WE
APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THAT THAT
ALSO STEMS FROM ASSEMBLYWOMAN
ADDIS'S LEADERSHIP WITH AB 80,
WHICH IS DEMONSTRATED CRITICAL
SUPPORT FOR THIS NEED. I WANT TO
REITERATE FROM LAST WEEK, THE
DEEP OPPOSITION THAT NATIONAL
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION AND
SAN DIEGO HUMANE SOCIETY HAVE
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL
TO REVERT $45 MILLION AND END
$20 MILLION A YEAR OF GENERAL
FUND TO THE HABITAT CONSERVATION
FUND. THIS IS ONE OF THE ONLY
CONSISTENT REGULAR INVESTMENTS
THAT THE STATE MAKES IN
IMPORTANT HABITAT CONSERVATION,
AND TO ELIMINATE IT SIX YEARS
PRIOR TO AN AGREED UPON DEAL
WOULD BE A TRAVESTY. LASTLY,
I'LL JUST ECHO THE REMARKS THAT
SAY WE DESPERATELY NEED A
ROBUST, EQUITABLE CLIMATE BOND.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS DARRELL LITTLE,
JUNIOR WITH NRDC. WE
RESPECTFULLY URGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO PURSUE A MORE
SIGNIFICANT MILFY UPDATE TO
AVOID FUTURE BUDGET SHORTFALLS
AND ASSURE DPR HAS ADEQUATE
FUNDING TO CARRY OUT ITS MISSION
TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT. ADDITIONALLY, WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE
RESTORATION OF THE PROPOSED $600
MILLION CUT TO ATP IN THE $75
MILLION CUT TO THE HIGHWAYS TO
BOULEVARDS PROGRAM BY ALLOCATING
675 MILLION IN FUNDING FROM THE
STATE HIGHWAY ACCOUNT. WE ALSO
URGE THE LEGISLATURE TO PROTECT
THE FUNDING COMMITMENTS TO THE
TRANSIT AND INTERCITY RAIL
CAPITAL PROGRAM AND A ZERO
EMISSIONS TRANSIT CAPITAL
PROGRAM TO ENSURE PUBLIC TRANSIT
BOTH SURVIVES AND THRIVES.
LASTLY, WE REQUEST THE
RESTORATION OF THE PROPOSED $630
MILLION CUT TO THE EQUITABLE
BUILDING DECARBONIZATION
PROGRAM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
HI, CHAIR AND MEMBERS JAMIE, ON
BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY ALLIANCE
WITH FAMILY FARMERS OR CAF,
THANK YOU, CHAIR BENNETT FOR
YOUR COMMENTS TO SUPPORT
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND
THANK YOU TO THIS COMMITTEE FOR
YOUR COMMITMENTS TO SUPPORT
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES, AND
MANY OF WHICH ARE SMALL SCALE
FARMERS. WE'RE DEEPLY
DISAPPOINTED TO SEE THE
ADDITIONAL CUTS MADE TO
ESSENTIAL DISASTER RELIEF AND
THE GOVERNOR'S MAY REVISION,
WHICH UNDERMINES AN AGREEMENT
MADE LAST YEAR ON HOW TO
STRUCTURE FLOOD RELIEF FOR
AGRICULTURE. WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST THE PROTECTION OF THE
FOLLOWING TWO PROGRAMS THE $17
MILLION TO CFA'S CALIFORNIA
UNDERSERVED AND SMALL PRODUCER
PROGRAM, OR CUSP, WHICH IS
FUNDING INTENDED TO KEEP SMALL
FARMERS AFLOAT WHEN THEY ARE
IMPACTED BY CLIMATE DISASTERS.
AND THE $14.4 MILLION TO CFA'S
FARM TO COMMUNITY FOOD HUBS
PROGRAM. THIS IS A CRITICAL
INVESTMENT FOR SMALL FARM
INFRASTRUCTURE AND HAS BEEN A
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY FOR SEVERAL
YEARS NOW. BUT THE BUT THE
CONTINUED CONTINUES TO BE ON THE
CHOPPING BLOCK FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR
MEMBERS. JEAN WARD WALLER ON
BEHALF OF CAL BIKE TRANSFORM AND
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY, WE WANT TO
WORK WITH YOU TO FIND A SOLUTION
WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION BUDGET
TO THE PROPOSED CUT TO THE
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM.
APPRECIATE ALL THE DISCUSSION
TODAY ABOUT BACKFILLING FROM THE
STATE HIGHWAY ACCOUNT. WE THINK
THAT'S A GREAT SOLUTION, AND WE
WANT TO WORK WITH YOU TO DEVELOP
OPTIONS THAT MITIGATE THE
IMPACTS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY
SYSTEM, WE THINK ATP IS THE MOST
EFFECTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
IN TERMS OF CLIMATE EQUITY AND
SAFETY, IT'S TRULY CRITICAL,
ALSO, ON BEHALF OF LEADERSHIP
COUNCIL, WE ASK YOU TO CONSIDER
SHIFTING ELIGIBLE TO RCPP FUNDS
TO FROM THE GRF TO THE STATE
HIGHWAY ACCOUNT TO FREE UP
FUNDING FOR OTHER CRITICAL
CLIMATE PROGRAMS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR
ARM. OKAY GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. ADAM QUINONEZ
ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES, JUST
WANTED TO REITERATE THE COMMENTS
OF WATER REUSE, STRONG SUPPORT
FOR MAINTAINING AS MUCH FUNDING
FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AS
POSSIBLE, PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON
RECYCLED WATER AND PFAS
REMEDIATION, AND THEN, MR.
CHAIR, IF I COULD JUST ADD TO
YOUR QUESTION REGARDING THE
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS, THESE ARE
REALLY CRITICAL AGREEMENTS AND
PROJECTS THAT AQUA AND MANY
COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE
SUPPORT, THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL
TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL 825,000
ACRE FEET PER YEAR OF FLOWS FOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE, 45,000 ACRE
FEET OF NEW INSTREAM HABITAT,
THAT MANY PROJECTS ARE
COMPLETED, MANY ARE ONGOING. AND
THEN THERE'S A GROUP OF PROJECTS
THAT ARE, STARTING TO MOVE
FORWARD ONCE THE AGREEMENTS HAVE
BEEN APPROVED. WE EXPECT THAT TO
HAPPEN EARLY NEXT YEAR. WE'RE
HOPEFUL, AND WE KNOW THAT
THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT PUSH TO
TRY TO GET FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
THIS ISSUE. AND IT CERTAINLY
MAKES THAT PUSH STRONGER WHEN WE
HAVE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SUPPORTING THAT EFFORT. THANK
YOU. MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS
MICHAEL PIMENTEL, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
TRANSIT ASSOCIATION, GOOD TO BE
WITH YOU. THIS AFTERNOON. I JUST
WANTED TO CONTINUE TO ECHO OUR
CALLS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE
$5.1 BILLION FOR TRANSIT CAPITAL
AND OPERATIONS. ONE THING I
WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT IS THERE'S
BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION AROUND
FEDERAL DOLLARS AND THE
POTENTIAL FOR US AS A STATE TO
DRAW DOWN THOSE DOLLARS OF ONE
TIME OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE
PRESENTED TO US AND PUBLIC
TRANSIT. THOSE OPPORTUNITIES ARE
MORE THAN HYPOTHETICAL. WE HAVE
AGENCIES WHO ARE IN THE FINAL
STAGES OF ENTERING INTO WHAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHAT WE CALL
FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENTS,
THE STATE DOLLARS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY ON THE TABLE ARE GOING
TO BE THE LAST DOLLARS IN THAT
CAN LEVERAGE, QUITE LITERALLY,
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
INVESTMENT IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. IF THEY'RE DELAYED,
WE POTENTIALLY PUSH THOSE
DECISIONS OUT TO A POTENTIAL
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. AND IF THE
MONEY ISN'T FORTHCOMING, THOSE
MONIES MAY BE LOST FOR
GENERATION. AND I JUST WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT, AS I CLOSE, THAT IN
ADDITION TO THOSE CAPITAL
DOLLARS, OF COURSE, WE'RE
INVESTING IN OPERATIONS. WE'RE
INVESTING IN ZERO EMISSION
TRANSITIONS. WE UNDERSTAND THE
IMPORTANCE OF DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES AND THE IMPORTANCE
OF PROVIDING EVER BETTER SERVICE
TO THEM. WE'RE WORKING ON IT AS
PART OF THIS PACKAGE. ENCOURAGE
THE MAINTENANCE. THANK YOU.
GREAT. I APPRECIATE YOUR STEADY
COMING WITH COMMENTS. AND I ALSO
WANT TO BE STEADY WITH OUR
COMMENTS ABOUT REMIND YOUR
MEMBERS THIS IS ONE TIME MONEY.
THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS BRENDAN TUG ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION. WE APPRECIATE THE
CONTINUED PRIORITIZATION OF THE
AB 617 COMMUNITY AIR PROTECTION
PROGRAM. WE ALSO, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION
ABOUT FOCUSING ON PROGRAMS THAT
HELP DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.
ALSO, OUR COST EFFECTIVE
MAINTAIN OUR, KEEP US ON TRACK
FOR OUR GREENHOUSE REDUCTION,
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION GOALS,
CLIMATE GOALS, AND PUBLIC
HEALTH. WELL, THAT DESCRIBES THE
FARMER PROGRAM, WHICH PROVIDES,
CLEANER ALTERNATIVES TO DIRTY
DIESEL ENGINES. UNFORTUNATELY,
IT'S ZEROED OUT IN THE BUDGET.
NO FUNDING IS PROVIDED IN THE
MAY REVISION. AND SO WE STRONGLY
ENCOURAGE YOU, ESPECIALLY
CONSIDERING THE SCARCE RESOURCES
THAT WE HAVE. NOW, LET'S FOCUS
ON PROGRAMS THAT KEEP THE MONEY
GOING FURTHER AND GET THE MOST,
FOR THE INVESTMENT. I APPRECIATE
IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR COMMENTS. GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHARLES WATSON, ON BEHALF OF
BART, BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT
DISTRICT, ECHOING THE COMMENTS
BY CTA AS WELL AS ASSEMBLYMEMBER
WILSON. VERY THANKFUL FOR THE
ACTIONS LAST YEAR FOR THE ONE
TIME OPERATIONAL FUNDING AND
SUPPORT, THE PROPOSED, SHIFT TO
GRF TO SUPPORT THE TIP AND ZERO
EMISSION TRANSIT CAPITAL
PROGRAMS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR. MY NAME IS
LILY SCURRIA WITH CALIFORNIA
TROUT. WE'RE A CONSERVATION
ORGANIZATION THAT FOCUSES
FOCUSES ON FRESHWATER
RESTORATION PROJECTS STATEWIDE.
AND, OUR GOAL IS TO RESTORE
CRITICAL FISH POPULATIONS TO
CALIFORNIA'S WATERS. AND AS AN
ORGANIZATION THAT FOCUSES ON
PROJECTS ON THE GROUND, WE
SUPPORT THE TRAILER BILL TO
EXTEND THE STATUTORY CEQA
EXEMPTION FOR RESTORATION
PROJECTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, KIM DELFINO,
SINCE THE VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS
WERE BROUGHT UP ON BEHALF OF THE
GOLDEN STATE SALMON ASSOCIATION
AND DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, I
WOULD SAY THAT THOSE AGREEMENTS
ARE A LOT LIKE THE EMPEROR HAS
NO CLOTHES. WE TALK A LOT ABOUT
THEM. WE HAVE YET ANYTHING TO
SEE. AND THAT MONEY COULD BE
USED FOR PROJECTS THAT WILL
BENEFIT THE ENVIRONMENT RIGHT
NOW, ON BEHALF OF AUDUBON
CALIFORNIA, DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE, TROUT UNLIMITED,
SONOMA LAND TRUST, MOJAVE DESERT
LAND TRUST, AND, DUCKS
UNLIMITED. ALSO WANT TO ECHO
SUPPORT FOR THE CEQA EXEMPTION
FOR HABITAT RESTORATION, TRAILER
BILL ON BEHALF OF THE POWER IN
NATURE COALITION. IN ADDITION TO
EVERYONE ELSE, I JUST NOTED, I
WANT TO STRONGLY OPPOSE THE,
EFFORT TO SHIFT THE GENERAL FUND
AND REDUCE SIX YEARS OF PROMISED
FUNDING TO THE HABITAT
CONSERVATION FUND. IT WILL COST
US $165 MILLION FOR HABITAT AND
PARKS PROJECTS, AT A TIME WHEN
WE'VE MADE COMMITMENTS TO MEET
2030 GOALS, WE STRONGLY SUPPORT
THE FUNDING, ONGOING FUNDING FOR
THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD,
THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE'S WETLANDS RESTORATION
RESTORATION FUND, AND THE SALTON
SEA, AND TO CONTINUE THAT
FUNDING, EVEN IF IT IS THROUGH
GRF MONEY. AND APPRECIATE THAT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALAN ADAMS
WITH THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HERE IN
SUPPORT OF THE CONTINUED FUNDING
FOR THE AB 617 PROGRAM, WHICH
PROVIDES VITAL AND COST
EFFECTIVE SUPPORT TO
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
COMMUNITIES IN THE BAY AREA,
INCLUDING EAST OAKLAND, WEST
OAKLAND, BAYVIEW, HUNTERS POINT
AND RICHMOND. SAN PABLO. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS CHRIS REARDON,
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU, PROMISE.
I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. TWO ISSUES.
I WANTED TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL MONIES FOR
THE ORIENTAL FRUIT FLY AND THE
CHALLENGES WE FACE WITH INVASIVE
PESTS IN CALIFORNIA,
PARTICULARLY IN OUR FRIENDS IN
SAN BERNARDINO, RIVERSIDE COUNTY
, THIS IS A GOING AWAY. SO THESE
RESOURCES ARE MUCH APPRECIATED.
SECONDLY, WE CONTINUE TO BE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT
OF PEST PESTICIDE REGULATIONS
BUDGET CHANGE PROPOSAL,
PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO
THE BUDGET AUTHORITY, AND
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY,
SO APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TALK AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH WITH THE FULL COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MARK FENSTERMAKER FOR
SUSTAINABLE CONSERVATION,
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS,
AND A NUMBER OF LAND TRUSTS AND
RCDS ACROSS THE STATE IN SUPPORT
OF THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED
TRAILER BILL TO ELIMINATE THE
SUNSET ON THE SEQUA EXEMPTION
FOR RESTORATION PROJECTS. THIS
IS A VITAL PART OF OUR CUT AND
GREEN TAPE PROGRAM TO ENSURE
THAT WE HAVE PROJECTS BEING
IMPLEMENTED TO MATCH THE PACE
AND SCALE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
SECOND, HERE ON BEHALF OF
EARTHJUSTICE, IN SUPPORT OF THE
PROPOSED TRAILER BILL FOR THE
ARPA CAP INCREASE, WE'RE
SENSITIVE AND REALLY CONCERNED
ABOUT HOW ELECTRICITY RATES
CONTINUE TO RISE. BUT WE FEEL
LIKE THIS MODEST POTENTIAL
INCREASE IS REALLY VITAL TO
ENSURE THAT THE CDC HAS THE
ABILITY AND CAPACITY TO CONTINUE
THEIR PROGRAMS THAT TRANSITION
US TO ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES AND
APPLIED SCIENCES, AND PUSH
FORWARD OUR CLEAN AIR AND
CLIMATE GOALS. AND THEN LASTLY,
ON BEHALF OF THE COACHELLA
VALLEY CONSERVATION COMMISSION,
WE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THE
PROPOSED CUT TO WILDFIRE FUNDING
AT STATE CONSERVANCIES WE HEARD
EARLIER THIS YEAR FROM THE
NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY HOW
WELL CONSERVANCIES IMPLEMENT
THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN
BENNETT, COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
DOCTOR JEFF BOEHM WITH THE
MARINE MAMMAL CENTER. I WANT TO
MAKE CLEAR A POINT THAT WAS
RAISED EARLIER, AND THAT IS THAT
THE $2 MILLION IN QUESTION
ESSENTIALLY PASSES THROUGH THE
MARINE MAMMAL CENTER TO PROVIDE
ESSENTIAL RESOURCES TO 12
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
ORGANIZATIONS, ONE OF WHICH, THE
CHANNEL ISLANDS MARINE WILDLIFE
INSTITUTE, RELIES ON STATE
FUNDING FOR 50% OF THEIR
OPERATING BUDGET. THE NEEDS ARE
ONLY GETTING GREATER. WE URGE
THE COMMITTEE TO REJECT THE
DELETION OF THE FUNDING TO THE
MARINE MAMMAL CENTER. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON.
ISABELLA GONZALEZ POTTER WITH
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY. FIRST
OFF, WE'D LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR
YOU CAN BRING THAT DOWN AND NOT
HAVE TO BE ON. YES OKAY. THANK
YOU. WE'D FIRST LIKE TO EXPRESS
OUR STRONG SUPPORT FOR CIRP.
WE'D ALIGN OURSELVES WITH THE
COMMENTS OF THE PREVIOUS
SPEAKERS ON THAT TOPIC AND THE
TRAILER BILL ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
ADDITIONALLY, WE SUPPORT THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET
SOLUTIONS TO PROTECT 213 MILLION
IN CRITICAL FUNDING TO THE
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD, OR
WCB, BY SHIFTING THESE
INVESTMENTS TO GRF, WE URGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO PURSUE SIMILAR
BUDGET SOLUTIONS TO PROTECT
FUNDING IN THE COASTAL
RESILIENCE PACKAGE FOR THE STATE
COASTAL CONSERVANCY AND THE
OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL.
BACKFILLING THE PROPOSED CUTS
WITH GRF DOLLARS WILL PRESERVE
CRITICAL INVESTMENTS TO ADDRESS
SEA LEVEL RISE AND INCREASE
COASTAL PROTECTION AND OCEAN
RESILIENCE. FINALLY, WE URGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO REJECT THE $45
MILLION CUT FROM THE HABITAT
CONSERVATION FUND, OR HCF, AND
WE'D ALIGN OUR COMMENTS WITH THE
PREVIOUS SPEAKERS AS WELL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
TASHA NEWMAN. ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF LAND
TRUSTS, WE'D LIKE TO ALIGN OUR
COMMENTS WITH THE NATURE
CONSERVANCY, IN ADDITION, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF RESOURCE
CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, WE'D
LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE ARE OPPOSED
TO A POTENTIAL CUT TO THE
CLIMATE SMART LAND MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSERVATION. THIS IS A $7
MILLION PROGRAM FOR WHICH GRANTS
HAVE ALREADY BEEN AWARDED. THIS
PROGRAM IS POISED TO, HELP BRING
IN AT LEAST ANOTHER $25 MILLION
IN FEDERAL FUNDS. AND SO WE URGE
YOU TO NOT CUT THIS CRITICAL
FUNDING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR SOPHIA C
WITH THE COALITION FOR CLEAN
AIR. WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO
RESTORE THIS 600 MILLION
PROPOSED CUT TO THE ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND TO
REJECT THE 300 MILLION LOAN FROM
THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL FUND
PROPOSED IN THE MAY. REVISE THE
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
GENERATES MANY CLIMATE AND
TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS AS IT
HAS REDUCED GHG EMISSIONS BY
44,000 METRIC TONS AND PREVENTED
OVER 6000 CAR CRASHES IN THE
LAST CYCLE ALONE. CUTTING THIS
HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM WOULD
BE DETRIMENTAL TO OUR PROGRESS
ON CLIMATE ACTION, ESPECIALLY
WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO BACKFILL ATP
FUNDING USING STATE HIGHWAY
ACCOUNT, WHICH HAS RECEIVED 24
BILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDING.
SIMILARLY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
FUND EXISTS TO CLEAN UP THE
DIRTIEST AIR IN THE NATION USING
FINES PAID BY POLLUTERS, AND THE
PROPOSAL WOULD UNDERMINE EFFORTS
TO BRING OUR STATE INTO
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLEAN AIR
ACT AND I'M SORRY, I'M GOING TO
HAVE TO CUT YOU OFF. OKAY, FOR
EVERYBODY ELSE IN LINE, I HAVE
TO CUT YOU DOWN. I'VE JUST GOT
AN EMERGENCY ORDER TO END THIS,
I'M GOING TO CUT YOU DOWN TO
30S, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, NICOLE QUINONEZ,
ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSEHOLD AND
COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION,
THE NONAGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE
MANUFACTURERS JUST WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR ROBUST
WORK ON THE DPR MILL ASSESSMENT
INCREASE AND JUST ENCOURAGE YOU
TO REJECT THAT AS PROPOSED SO
DISCUSSIONS CAN CONTINUE. WE DO
BELIEVE THAT WE CAN FIND A
WORKABLE SOLUTION THAT PROVIDES
THE DEPARTMENT MORE FUNDING, BUT
ALSO ADDS ACCOUNTABILITY AND
TRANSPARENCY. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. TIM
SHOSTAK WITH THE AMERICAN
CHEMISTRY COUNCIL SIMPLY ECHO
THE COMMENTS OF THE PREVIOUS
SPEAKER. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
TAYLOR GERSHON. ON BEHALF OF A
VARIETY OF AGRICULTURAL
ASSOCIATION, WE SUPPORT
RESOURCES FOR EXOTIC FRUIT FLY,
DAIRY METHOD AND MISSION
REDUCTION. WE'D LIKE TO ECHO
MISS QUINONEZ'S COMMENTS
REGARDING DPR AND ALSO MR.
TWIGG'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE
FARMER PROGRAM. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DOUG
SILVERS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS, JUST EXPRESS OUR
CONTINUED STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE
66 HOUR WORKWEEK PROPOSAL IN THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET. I WOULD ECHO
THE COMMENTS OF MR. MCHALE EVERY
HOUR REDUCED IS LESS EXPOSURE TO
A CANCER CAUSING AGENT OR A
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH STRESSOR
STRESSOR. WE DO THINK IT'S
CRITICAL IT'S INCLUDED IN THIS
BUDGET. WOULD URGE YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
ROSS BUCKLEY, ON BEHALF OF SOUTH
COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, WE WOULD JUST REQUEST
A CONTINUED PRIORITIZATION OF
THE AB 617 FUNDING, WHICH
PROVIDES TARGETED SUPPORT FOR
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES IN
TERMS OF PROTECTING PUBLIC
HEALTH AND IMPROVING AIR QUALITY
. TO THAT END, WE REQUEST THAT
THEY BE PUT AT LAST YEAR'S
LEVELS. I'M SORRY I WAS TALKING
AND I MISSED THE FIRST PART OF
YOUR. SO SAY IT AGAIN, JUST WE
REQUEST THE CONTINUED
PRIORITIZATION OF THE AB 617
FUNDING ON BEHALF OF SOUTH
COAST. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
EDSON PEREZ WITH ADVANCED ENERGY
UNITED, I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
DISTRIBUTED ELECTRICITY BACKUP
ASSETS, OR DBA PROGRAM IN THE
MAY REVISION. IT'S BEING ZEROED
OUT FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR, AND
IT'S A PROGRAM THAT WOULD ALLOW
US TO BRING UP CLEAN,
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY TO USE DURING
TIMES OF EMERGENCY AS A COUNTER
TO OUR POLLUTING PEAKER PLANTS
AND SO I JUST URGE THAT IT LET
IT BE ALLOWED TO START UP, SINCE
A HUNDREDS OF HOURS HAVE BEEN
SPENT ON PROGRAM DESIGN, AND IT
COULD HELP US GET THROUGH THOSE
TIMES OF EMERGENCY. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, AND MEMBERS. ANDREW
ANTHONY, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, FOR
BREVITY, I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO
COMMENTS PROVIDED BY THE
CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSOCIATION.
THANKFUL THAT THE $5.1 BILLION
PACKAGE FOR TRANSIT CAPITAL AND
OPERATIONS THAT YOU AND YOUR
COLLEAGUES COBBLED TOGETHER JUST
LAST YEAR IS BEING SUSTAINED IN
THE FASHION THAT GOVERNOR NEWSOM
PROPOSES IN HIS MAY REVISE
PROPOSAL. WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR
THAT. AND THEN, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, WE
SUPPORT, FINDING A WAY TO
SUSTAIN FUNDING FOR CNIB. THANK
YOU. WE HAVE A PROBLEM. PEOPLE
KEEP WALKING IN, ADDING TO THE
LINE, IF YOU CAN MAKE IT 20S,
WE'LL BE VERY APPRECIATIVE, BUT
I'M I'M GETTING IN THE HOT WATER
HERE FOR YOUR GUYS'S BENEFIT
HERE, SO PLEASE. ABSOLUTELY.
REBECCA MARCUS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CERTIFIED ORGANIC
FARMERS, JUST ASKING FOR AN
ACCELERATION OF ORGANIC PEST
MANAGEMENT TOOLS AS PART OF THE
MILL FEE, RESTORING THE CUSP
FUNDING ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CLIMATE AND
AGRICULTURE NETWORK. WE'D LIKE
GQF SHIFT FOR SWEEP TO BE FOR FY
2425 RATHER THAN 2627, AND ECHO
THE COMMENTS FROM CRC ON CLIMATE
LAND SMART, THE CLIMATE SMART
LAND STRATEGY. MOIRA TOPP, ON
BEHALF OF THE ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ALSO
ALIGN OUR COMMENTS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSOCIATION
AND MY COLLEAGUE FROM LA METRO.
BUT DO WANT TO UNDERSCORE LIU'S
COMMENTS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE
TRANSPORTATION CUTS DO START
CUTTING INTO ALREADY AWARDED
PROJECTS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MY NAME IS
DAN JACOBSON WITH ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA. PLEASE RESTORE THE
$6 MILLION FOR THE OPC AND FOR
THE COASTAL COMMISSION FOR THEIR
OFFSHORE WIND WORK AND ALSO
EXPAND THE CARBON REMOVAL
PROJECT TO INCLUDE OCEAN CARBON
REMOVAL. THANK YOU. MARTIN
RADOSEVICH, ON BEHALF OF SANTA
CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT. WE
JUST REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT THE
CUTS TO DAM SAFETY, SEA LEVEL
RISE, FUNDING AND RECYCLED WATER
FUNDING, AND ALSO THE ERAF
SHIFT, WHICH COULD HAVE AN
IMPACT ON OUR FUNDING FOR FLOOD
PROTECTION. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. ABIGAIL
SMOUT, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS
FOUNDATION HERE FOR TWO QUICK
THINGS. ONE IS THE SEA LEVEL
RISE ADAPTATION FUNDING FOR
STATE PARK 6.7 MILLION. IT WAS
CUT. IT'S ALL THEY HAVE LEFT FOR
CLIMATE RESILIENCE. AND TWO IS
THE STATE LIBRARY. PARKS PASS,
HELPING LOW INCOME INDIVIDUALS
HAVE ACCESS TO OUR OUTDOOR
SPACES TO REALLY IMPORTANT
PROGRAMS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND STAFF,
NICHOLAS MAZZOTTI, ON BEHALF OF
THE LAND TRUST OF SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY, EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK
DISTRICT, MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL
PARK DISTRICT, SAVE THE REDWOODS
LEAGUE AND SOME REVISIONS FUND
ALL EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT THE
CUTS TO THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
FUNDING, AND ADDITIONALLY, I
WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
LEGISLATURE FOR THE FUND SHIFT
FOR WCBB FUNDS TO GQF FUNDING.
THANKS. THANK YOU. HEY THERE,
MEGAN MEKELBURG, ON BEHALF OF
CAL START, WE ARE GOING TO BE
SUBMITTING A LETTER ALONG WITH
13 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE
ALL SUPPORTIVE OF MEDIUM AND
HEAVY DUTY INFRASTRUCTURE AND
VEHICLE FUNDING. REALLY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE CUTS THAT
ARE HAPPENING AT THE CEC RELATED
TO INFRASTRUCTURE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PATIENCE. THANK YOU. DAWN KOBQ,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND
ECONOMIC BALANCE, I WANT TO
APPRECIATE THE ADMINISTRATION
DTSC WORK WITH US TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND AN APPROACH TO
HELPING ADDRESS THE GAP WITH THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL ACCOUNT.
THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE ONGOING,
BUT CERTAINLY BEEN PRODUCTIVE
AND ON BEHALF OF THE CHEMICAL
INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
WOULD LIKE TO ECHO THE COMMENTS
MADE BY OUR INDUSTRY COLLEAGUES
ON THE DPR MILL ASSESSMENT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS
MEETING IS CLOSED. A STOP WORK
ORDER.