AND 30. A BALLOT INITIATIVE
INITIATIVE THAT WILL BE BEFORE
THE VOTERS AT THE AT THE GENERAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD. THIS
NOVEMBER. TODAY'S HEARING IS A
JOINT HEARING OF THE COMMITTEES
ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE.
ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMERCE.
AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER.
IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO
COLLABORATE WITH MY COLLEAGUES
FROM THESE COMMITTEES. SO AS WE
CONTINUE TO TAKE SOME
PRECAUTIONS TO MANAGE THE
ONGOING COVID 19 RISKS, THE
SENATE CONTINUES TO WELCOME THE
PUBLIC AND HAS PROVIDED ACCESS
TO BOTH IN PERSON AND
TELECONFERENCE PARTICIPATION FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT. FOR INDIVIDUALS
WISHING TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
COMMENT VIA THE TELECONFERENCE
SERVICE. THE PARTICIPANT. TOLL
FREE NUMBER AND ACCESS CODE IS
POSTED ON OUR COMMITTEE WEBSITE
AND I WILL ANNOUNCE IT NOW.
TODAY'S PARTICIPANT NUMBER IS
844. 2914185. AND THE ACCESS
CODE IS 98411. I WILL MAINTAIN
DECORUM DURING THE HEARING, AS
IS CUSTOMARY, AND ANY INDIVIDUAL
WHO IS DISRUPTIVE MAY BE REMOVED
FROM THE REMOTE MEETING SERVICE
OR HAVE THEIR CONNECTIONS MUTED.
I HAVE TO SAY WE HAVEN'T HAD TO
DO THAT HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE,
AND SO I DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE TO
DO IT TODAY. ALL OF OUR
PARTICIPANTS HAVE BEEN VERY
UNDERSTANDING OF OUR PROCESS AND
HAVE HAVE, REALLY, UM. DONE WHAT
THEY NEEDED TO DO TO BE HEARD.
ALL OF OUR WITNESSES TODAY ARE
PARTICIPATING REMOTELY. FOR OUR
REMOTE PARTICIPANTS AND
PARTICIPANTS. PLEASE MUTE YOUR
PHONES OR COMPUTERS. THIS WILL
GREATLY AID IN ELIMINATING ANY
ACOUSTIC FEEDBACK. I ASKED THAT
EVERY TIME YOU WISH TO BE
RECOGNIZED, YOU USE THE RAISE
THE HAND FEATURE IN THE PROGRAM
EACH TIME YOU WERE RECOGNIZED TO
SPEAK A POP UP WINDOW WILL
APPEAR ASKING IF YOU WOULD LIKE
TO MUTE. AND MUTE. PLEASE SELECT
AND MUTE BEFORE YOU BEGIN
SPEAKING. OUR I T PERSONNEL WILL
PUT PUT YOU BACK ON MUTE WHEN
YOU ARE DONE. ONCE RECOGNIZED TO
SPEAK, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU CAN
BE SEEN ON THE SCREEN STATE YOUR
NAME, AND THEN YOU'RE READY TO
ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE. FOR
TODAY'S HEARING. WE WILL WE WILL
BE HEARING ALL OF THE PANEL OF
WITNESSES ON THE AGENDA PRIOR TO
TAKING ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. ONCE
WE HAVE HEARD ALL OF THE
WITNESSES, WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD FOR THOSE WHO
WISH TO COMMENT ON THE TOPICS.
ON TODAY'S AGENDA. AS WE WILL
HEAR FROM OUR PANELISTS.
PROPOSITION 30 MAKES CHANGES TO
CALIFORNIA'S PERSONAL INCOME TAX
TO GENERATE REVENUE FOR ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLE PROGRAMS AS
WELL AS WILDLIFE SUPPRESSION. WE
WILL START WITH OPENING COMMENTS
FROM THE CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS
OF OUR PARTNER COMMITTEES. THEN
HERE FROM THE LAO THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE AND
PROCEED ONTO THE INITIATIVE
PROPONENTS AND THE OPPONENTS WE
WILL CONCLUDE WITH PUBLIC
COMMENT AS WELL AS CLOSING
REMARKS FROM MEMBERS. TODAY'S
HEARING IS NOT A BILL HEARING.
THERE ARE NO FORMAL MOTIONS THAT
THE COMMITTEES CAN MAKE ON THE
INITIATIVE. WE ARE CONSIDERING
THE MEASURE AS AN INFORMAL
MATTER, AS IS REQUIRED BY THE
ELECTIONS CODE. I'D LIKE TO
RECOGNIZE SENATORS WESSEL WHO
WHO IS HERE AND IS CHAIR OF ONE
OF THE OTHER COMMITTEES. UM, AS
WELL AS VICE CHAIRS, NIELSEN'S
AND JONES FOR ANY OPENING
REMARKS SHOULD THEY APPEAR SO
SENATOR WHISTLE WELCOME IN THE
FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MADAM CHAIR AND IT'S A
PLEASURE TO BE HERE TODAY. I
FEELS A LITTLE LIKE DEJA VU.
BECAUSE BACK IN 2012. WE WERE
CONTEMPLATING UH, PROPOSITION 30
AS WELL. IF YOU RECALL IT WAS A
VERY SIMILAR MEASURE. IT WAS
MORE AIMED AT BALANCING THE
STATE'S BUDGET, WHICH BACK THEN
WAS, UH, AT VERY WOEFULLY LOW.
LEVELS AND THIS WAS A TAX ON. UH
THE ULTRA RICH AS WELL TO HELP
BALANCE THE BUDGET. AS WE KNOW,
TODAY, WE'RE SITTING HERE. AH IN
A DIFFERENT PLACE WITH PROBABLY
ONE OF THE BIGGEST BUDGETS IN U.
S HISTORY OF ANY STATE. AND WELL
ON OUR WAY TO MAKE CONSIDERABLE
INVESTMENTS IN IN OUR COMMUNITY
, AND IT'S BEEN AN AMAZING YEAR
AND IT'S TAKEN MANY YEARS TO
COME HERE. SO AND AS I WAS VERY
SUPPORTIVE AS THE OF THE LAST
PROPOSITION AND INVOLVED IN THE
AND GETTING IT PASSED. I AM HERE
NOW, 10 YEARS LATER
CONTEMPLATING ANOTHER PROBLEM,
30. AND I'M I'M VERY EAGER TO
LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS
PROPOSITION. AH YOU KNOW, AS
PEOPLE HAVE OFTEN CRITICIZED
CALIFORNIA FOR BEING THE ONLY
ONES THAT HAVE BEEN VERY SERIOUS
ABOUT COMBATING THE CLIMATE
CRISIS, I TELL PEOPLE IN
RESPONSE THAT AS CALIFORNIA HAS
PUSHED FOR THESE POLICIES THERE
ARE OTHER STATES AND OTHER
COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD THAT
HAVE FOLLOWED CALIFORNIA'S LEAD.
AND PEOPLE ARE CONTINUING TO OF
FOLLOW CALIFORNIA, AND I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT CALIFORNIA
CONTINUE TO LEAD ON THE SUBJECT
pAND SHOW THAT MANY MORE THINGS
ARE NECESSARY. AND MANY MORE
THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. SO I'M
LOOKING WITH THIS AT THIS NEW
PROPOSITION. WITH A LOT OF
INTEREST. AND A LOT OF
ENTHUSIASM TO CONTINUE THE
DEBATE AND THE WORK. ON
COMBATING THE CLIMATE CRISIS.
CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN AN AMAZING
LEADER IN MANY RESPECTS,
ESPECIALLY IN OUR EFFORTS TO
REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM OUR ENERGY
SECTOR. WHICH IS WELL ON ITS WAY
TO ACHIEVE SB 100 GOALS THAT
WE'VE HELPED CODIFY IN THIS VERY
CHAMBER. AND SO AS WE CONTINUE
THIS THIS, UH, EFFORT AH, WE
HAVE AN ENORMOUS OPPORTUNITY
THROUGH THIS PROPOSITION TO
CONTINUE THAT WORK. AH ONE OF
THE QUESTIONS I DO HAVE AND ONE
OF THE THINGS WE ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO CONSIDER IS THAT THE
CURRENT EFFORTS OF THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION TO PASS THE
INFLATION REDUCTION ACT, WHICH
INCLUDES OVER 300 BILLION FOR
CLEAN ENERGY AND CLIMATE RELATED
FUNDING EFFORTS, INCLUDING TENS
OF BILLIONS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE
INCENTIVES. WE WERE GOING TO
REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW
CALIFORNIA IS GOING TO BENEFIT
FROM NOT ONLY THESE FUNDS THIS
FUNDING BUT THIS POLICY AND HOW
WE COULD INTEGRATE THAT INTO THE
WORK THAT WE'RE DOING AND
WHETHER I'M PROP 30. CAN NOW BE
AT LEAST AT SOMEHOW ADJUSTED. TO
UH IF AT ALL TO, UH, ACCOUNT FOR
A WHOLE NEW PROGRAM THAT'S GOING
TO PUT CALIFORNIA AND IN A MUCH
BETTER POSITION WITH MORE
RESOURCES THAN THAN WE ALREADY
HAVE WITH AN ABILITY TO DO QUITE
A BIT MORE. INCLUDING YOU KNOW,
WE HAVE SOME UNRESOLVED ISSUES
THAT INVOLVE CONSIDERABLE
FUNDING. THAT WE COULD FUND
THROUGH THE, UH, INFLATION
REDUCTION ACT. AND SO THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD TALK
ABOUT. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE
SHOULD CONSIDER. AS THE CHAIR OF
THE SENATE, ENERGY, UTILITIES
AND COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE. I
ALSO WELCOME FUNDING THAT IS NOT
COLLECTED FROM ELECTRIC UTILITY
RATES TO FUND OUR EFFORTS IN
THIS REGARD. UTILIZING TAXES AS
WELCOME. AH AND IT'S BEEN USED
IN THE PAST TO HELP A RATE PAIRS
AND WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO LOOK
AT THAT AS AN OPTION. I WOULD
LIKE ALSO TO HEAR FROM ALL THE
PANELISTS ABOUT THE IMPACTS
PROPOSITO THE IMPACTS OF THIS
PROPOSITION OR PROP 32 THE
STATE'S ABILITY TO ADJUST A
FUTURE STATE BUDGETS. AND THAT
IS, YOU KNOW, CALIFORNIA HAS
OFTEN STRUGGLED WITH ENORMOUS.
INCREASES AND REDUCTIONS IN OUR
STATE BUDGET, AND I THINK IT'S
GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT THAT
SHOULD WE CONTEMPLATE. MEASURE
LIKE THIS THAT IT ALSO INCLUDE
SOME PROVISIONS. TO HELP US
BALANCE OUR BUDGET. AS YOU KNOW
THE GANG LIMIT ONLY I PUT A
LIMIT IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH THE
STATE BUDGET CAN GO UP. IT
DOESN'T PUT A LIMIT ON HOW MUCH
THE STATE BUDGET CAN GO DOWN.
AND IF WE HAVE A RAINY DAY FUND
THE CURRENT STATUTES IN OUR
CONSTITUTION DO NOT ALLOW US TO
USE GAN LIMIT SURPLUS FUNDS TO
PUT IN A RAINY DAY FUND. I THINK
, IF GENERALLY THE PUBLIC IN
CALIFORNIA UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY
WERE, THEY WOULD BE VERY
FAVORABLE. TO ALLOWING US TO SET
ASIDE FUNDS ON ON A WINDFALL
YEAR. THEN SET THOSE TOWARD. A
RAINY DAY FUND THAT WILL HELP US
BALANCE THE BUDGET IN FUTURE
YEARS. THAT AND MANY MORE ISSUES
SHOULD BE AT LEAST CONTEMPLATED
BEFORE. THIS MEASURE IS PUT ON
THE BALLOT, AND I THINK WE
SHOULD, UH WORK TO MAKE SURE
THIS THIS DEVELOPED MEASURE IS
AS EFFECTIVE AS COULD POSSIBLY
BE. AND I THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING
ME TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS. THANK
YOU, SENATOR WEST. SO, REALLY,
UM GOOD COMMENTS, AND I'M SURE
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SPIRITED
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD FOR
ALL OF THE REASONS THAT YOU
STATED, UM, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO
DO NOW IS MOVE ON. I DO NOT SEE
, UM THE OTHER CHAIR IN THE RICE
CHAIR, SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON
TO THE TESTIMONY TODAY. THE
FIRST PART IS THE INITIATIVE
OVERVIEW. WE HAVE ROSS BROWN,
WHO'S THE PRINCIPAL FISCAL AND
POLICY ANALYST FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE.
AND WITH HIM HERE TODAY ARE, UM
HELEN KIRSTEN, WHO'S A PRINCIPAL
, FISCAL AND POLICY ANALYSTS AND
CHEST ALAMO, WHO'S ALSO A POLICY
PRINCIPLE POLICY AND FISCAL AND
POLICY ANALYST WELCOME TO THE
COMMITTEE. AND MR BROWN THAT THE
FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS ROSS BROWN
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE. HOPEFULLY YOU ALL CAN
SEE AND HEAR ME. OKAY I'M GONNA
DO MY BEST TO PROVIDE AN
OVERVIEW. HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF
PROPOSITION 30 AND OUR OFFICES
ESTIMATES OF THE MAJOR FISCAL
EFFECTS OF THE MEASURE. I'M
JOINED AS YOU MENTIONED BY MY
COLLEAGUES HELEN KIRSTEIN AND
CHAZ ALAMO. THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO
HELP ANSWER QUESTIONS. WHEN WE
GET TO THAT POINT, I'M GONNA BE
BASING A LOT OF MY COMMENTS ON A
HANDOUT, WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE
AVAILABLE IN YOUR PACKET.
UNFORTUNATELY IT DOESN'T KIND OF
SHOW VERY WELL ON THE SCREEN
HERE, BUT HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE A
HARD COPY IN FRONT OF YOU. AND
I'M GOING TO BE REFERENCING THAT
A LITTLE BIT. THERE SHOULD BE
HARD COPIES AVAILABLE AS WELL
AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE FOLLOWING
ALONG AT HOME. THE HANDOUT IS
POSTED. I THINK ON THE
COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE AS WELL AS
OUR WEBSITE AT L A. OH DOT C A
DOT GOV. IF YOU GO TO THE
HOMEPAGE THERE, IT'S ON THE ON
THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, BUT I'LL DO
MY BEST TO MAKE MY COMMENTS KIND
OF UNDERSTANDABLE, EVEN IF IT'S
UM THE HANDOUT ISN'T IN FRONT OF
SOMEONE. UM SO WITH THAT, I'M
GONNA MOVE TO THE FIRST PAGE OF
THE HANDOUT, WHICH IS AGAIN
BEFORE I START KIND OF
DESCRIBING THE MEASURE AND THE
FISCAL EFFECTS I DO JUST WANT TO
TOUCH. VERY BRIEFLY ON THE L. A
S ROLE IN THE INITIATIVE AND
BALLOT MEASURE PROCESS BECAUSE
IT IS DIFFERENT FROM OUR TYPICAL
ROLE AS LEGISLATIVE STAFF AND
WHERE YOU MIGHT SEE US ANOTHER
HEARINGS AND OTHER LEGISLATIVE
SETTINGS SO FOR QUALIFIED BALLOT
MEASURES, STATE LAW REQUIRES OUR
OFFICE TO PROVIDE, UM, AN
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF ALL
STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS FOR THE
VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE, SO OUR
ROLE IS REALLY TO KIND OF
DESCRIBE THE PROPOSITION. AND
ITS MAIN FISCAL EFFECTS TO
VOTERS. SO UNLIKE OTHER
LEGISLATIVE SETTINGS, WHERE WE
MIGHT COMMENTS ON THE MERITS OF
A PROPOSAL OR POTENTIAL
DRAWBACKS, OR OFFER ALTERNATIVES
OR RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT IS
REALLY NOT OUR ROLE, UH AND KIND
OF THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS, AND
WE TAKE OUR KIND OF ROLE AS A AS
A NEUTRAL KIND OF IMPARTIAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE, AND
IT'S ESTIMATED FISCAL EFFECTS,
SO I DID JUST WANT TO KIND OF
STEP THAT UP UP FRONT, BUT YOU
KNOW, WE MAYBE CAN'T COMMENT. ON
THE SAME TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE
WOULD ANOTHER OTHER LEGISLATIVE
HEARINGS. SO WITH THAT I'M GOING
TO MOVE TO PAGE TWO OF THE
HANDOUT. I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND
MUCH TIME ON THIS JUST PROVIDES
A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON
PERSONAL INCOME TAXES AND
VARIOUS PROGRAMS. UM FOR EXAMPLE
, ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE PROGRAMS
AS I'M SURE MANY OF YOU KNOW,
THE STATE HAS A VARIETY OF
PROGRAMS, BOTH ON THE FUNDING
SIDE INCENTIVIZE ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLES AS WELL AS REGULATORY
PROGRAMS REQUIRING COMPANIES TO
USE OR SELL THROUGH EMISSION
VEHICLES AND WILDFIRE RESPONSE
AND PREVENTION STATE HAS, OF
COURSE, KIND OF FUNDING THERE AS
WELL. AND THE RESPONSE SIDE, UH
, OTHERWISE GOING TO KNOWN AS
FIREFIGHTING SIGNIFICAN. SOME
FUNDING GOES THERE, AS WELL AS
PREVENTION ACTIVITIES TO REDUCE
THE CHANCES THAT WILD FILES WERE
START. WILDFIRES WILL START TO
LIMIT THE DAMAGE THEY CAUSE WHEN
THEY DO OCCUR, SO I'M NOT GOING
TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THAT
RIGHT NOW. I'M GONNA JUST JUMP
TO PAGE THREE OF THE HANDOUT,
WHICH IS REALLY THE HIGH LEVEL
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL. UH
PROPOSITION 30 CREATES A NEW TAX
ON HIGH INCOME TAXPAYERS. SO
BEGINNING JANUARY 2023, THE
MEASURE WOULD REQUIRE TAXPAYERS
WITH INCOMES ABOVE $2 MILLION
ANNUALLY TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL
TAX OF 1.75% ON THAT SHARE OF
THEIR INCOME. THAT'S ABOVE $2
MILLION UM, SO THIS TAX WOULD
END BY JANUARY 2043 OR
POTENTIALLY EARLIER OF
CALIFORNIA IS ABLE TO DROP ITS
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TO AT
LEAST 80% BELOW 1990 LEVELS FOR
THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS. UM THE
BOTTOM PART OF PAGE THREE KIND
OF GIVES A PIE CHART OF FOR THE
MONEY THAT'S COLLECTED FROM THE
NEW TAX, HOW IT WOULD BE
DISTRIBUTED. 80% OVERALL WOULD
GO TO ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE
PROGRAMS, AND THAT INCLUDES KIND
OF 45% POT FOR TARGETED MOSTLY
TOWARDS VEHICLES AND 35% FOR
FUELING AND CHARGING STATIONS.
AND THEN THE REMAINING 20% FOR
WILDFIRE RESPONSE AND
PREVENTION. SO IF YOU FLIP TO
PAGE FOUR OF YOUR HAND OUT, THIS
WILL GIVE JUST A LITTLE BIT
MORE, UM, MORE DETAIL ON KIND OF
SPENDING SIDE OF THINGS WITH THE
MONEY THAT'S COLLECTED. SO AGAIN
FOR THE ZEF PROGRAMS. THERE'S
KIND OF TWO MAIN BUCKETS. ONE IS
THE 45% THAT GOES TO LARGELY FOR
PAYMENTS TO HELP BUY NEW ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLES. UM UM MOST OF
THE MONEY KIND OF IN THAT 45%
WOULD BE FOR NEW PASSENGER EVS
FOR HOUSEHOLDS, BUSINESSES AND
GOVERNMENTS OF THE REST OF THE
MONEY WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR
OTHER PROGRAMS, INCLUDING
PAYMENTS TO HELP BY HEAVY DUTY
DESERVES AND PROGRAMS TO
ENCOURAGE LESS DRIVING AND A
ROOF AIR QUALITY. AND I SHOULD
SAY THIS KIND OF THESE PAYMENTS
FOR THE NEW ASSENGER VEHICLES
AND OTHER RELATED PROGRAMS, AND
THIS WOULD BE A CONTINUOUS
APPROPRIATION TO THE CALIFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD. FOR THE
SECOND KIND OF POT OF MONEY IN
THE IN THE PROGRAMS. IT'S A
FUELING STATIONS AND ARE FEELING
AND CHARGING THIS WOULD BE A
CONTINUOUS APPROPRIATION TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,
WHICH WOULD BE USED TO FUND KIND
OF INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF
THE CHARGING AND FUELING
STATIONS AT PLACES SUCH AS
DEPARTMENT BUILDING, SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES AND PUBLIC
LOCATIONS. AND FOR BOTH OF THESE
CATEGORIES OF FUNDING WITHIN THE
ZEV PROGRAMS, AT LEAST HALF OF
THE MONEY MUST BE SPENT ON
PROJECTS THAT BENEFIT PEOPLE WHO
LIVE IN DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES AND OR LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES. AND THEN FINALLY,
THE REMAINING 20. MUST BE SPENT
ON WILDFIRE RESPONSE AND
PREVENTION ACTIVITIES. IN
GENERAL. THE MEASURE REQUIRES
THAT THE STATE PRIORITIZE AND
AGAIN, THIS IS A CONTINUOUS
APPROPRIATION TO CAL FIRE, THE
STATE WOULD HAVE TO PRIORITIZE
SPENDING TO HIRE, TRAIN AND
RETAIN STATE FIREFIGHTERS AND
THE REST OF THE MONEY COULD BE
USED FOR OTHER KIND OF RESPONSE
AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES. SO
MOVING TO PAGE FIVE OF THE
HANDOUT. I'M GONNA TOUCH ON
REALLY THE KIND OF MAIN FISCAL
EFFECTS OF THE EASURE, WHICH IS
AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE, WHICH IS
THE INCREASED TAX REVENUES FROM
I JUST MENTIONED. SO OUR
ESTIMATES ARE THAT THE NEW TAX
ON HIGH INCOME TAXPAYERS WOULD
RAISE 3.5 BILLION TO $5 BILLION
ANNUALLY. GROWING OVER TIME. AND
BASED ON THE SPENDING
REQUIREMENTS THAT I JUST JUST
MENTIONED, UM AND PROVIDE A
LITTLE BIT OF A BREAKDOWN AND
KIND OF WHAT THAT MEANS IN TERMS
OF DOLLARS FOR EACH SET OF
PROGRAMS. SO FOR THE ZEV
PROGRAMS BASED ON OUR REVENUE
ESTIMATES, IT WOULD MEAN ABOUT
2.2 8,000,000,004 BILLION
ANNUALLY FOR, UM, THE RESERVE
PROGRAMS TOTAL. AND JUST TO PUT
THAT NUMBER INTO PERSPECTIVE.
THE STATE TYPICALLY HAS SPENT
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
ANNUALLY ON ZEV PROGRAMS, BUT,
UM, AS SOME OF THE MEMBERS
MENTIONED ALREADY, THE STATE HAS
ALSO KIND OF RECENTLY COMMITTED
TO SPENDING ABOUT $10 BILLION
OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD FOR HIS
OF PROGRAMS. AND THEN FOR THE
WILDFIRE RESPONSE AND PREVENTION
ACTIVITIES AGAIN, BASED ON OUR
REVENUE ESTIMATES THE INCREASE
STATE FUNDING FOR WILDFIRE
RESPONSE AND PREVENTION WOULD BE
AN ESTIMATED 700 MILLION TO $1
BILLION ANNUALLY. AND AGAIN FOR
CONTEXT THE STATE TYPICALLY
SPENDS ABOUT 2 2,000,000,004
BILLION ANNUALLY ON WILDFIRE
ACTIVITIES, MOSTLY ON ON FIRE
FIGHTING. UM NOW THE REST OF THE
HANDOUT DISCUSSES SOME OTHER
POTENTIAL FISCAL EFFECTS,
INCLUDING KIND OF EFFECTS
RELATED TO THE INCREASE SPENDING
AND IMPACT THAT MIGHT HAVE ON A
VARIETY OF STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT REVENUES AND COSTS.
UM THE POTENTIAL CHANGES OR
DECREASES IN STATE AND LOCAL
COSTS FOR A WILDFIRE RESPONSE
AND RECOVERY. UH DECREASES IN
STATE REVENUE FROM FOR OTHER
ACTIVITIES KIND OF GETTING UP
THE POTENTIAL TAXPAYER RESPONSES
TO THE ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX AS
WELL AS IMPLICATIONS FOR
POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS AND
RELATIONS TO THE STATE
APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT. NOW ALL OF
THESE EFFECTS ARE EITHER SMALLER
IN MAGNITUDE OR MUCH MORE
UNCERTAIN THAN JUST THE KIND OF
CORE EFFECTS THAT I'VE ALREADY
TALKED ABOUT. IN TERMS OF JUST
THE REVENUE RAISED FROM THE
MEASURE AND HOW IT WOULD BE
SPENT. SO I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND
A LOT OF TIME GOING THROUGH
THOSE, BUT OF COURSE, HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU
MIGHT HAVE. SO I'M GONNA END MY
OVERVIEW THERE AND, OF COURSE,
NOW OR WHENEVER THE TIME MIGHT
COME. MY COLLEAGUES AND I ARE
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THAT YOU HAVE. VERY GOOD. MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THE OTHER TWO
WITNESSES ARE AVAILABLE ARE
AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IN THE
EVENT THAT WE HAVE QUESTIONS AT
THE END. THAT'S RIGHT. VERY
GOOD. UM SO I JUST TO JUST TO BE
CLEAR. UM YEAH, AT LEAST AT THIS
POINT, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO
MOVE ON TO THE OTHER. THE OTHER
WITNESSES BEFORE WE COME TO
QUESTIONS IS YOU I HAVE TO
ASSUME THAT YOU HAVEN'T HAD A
CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE FEDERAL
EXPENDITURE IN THESE AREAS SO
THAT WE COULD COMPARE WHETHER
IT'S IN ADDITION TO OR WHETHER
IT IS EVEN ALIGNED WITH THE
FEDERAL PROGRAM. IT'S SO NEW.
I'M WE'RE THE DETAILS ARE I
WOULD IMAGINE OR JUST NOT
AVAILABLE. YEAH I THINK THAT
THAT'S RIGHT. WE JUST WE HAVEN'T
HAD HAD TIME TO KIND OF REALLY
ANALYZE THE FEDERAL BILL AND
WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE THAT.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR
PROPONENT PRESENTATIONS. IF WE
COULD START WE HAVE TWO
WITNESSES. UM THE TWO WITNESSES
ARE SCOTT WITCH FROM THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS. AND OSCAR
GARCIA FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS. SO THE
FLOOR IS YOURS, MR. WHICH THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR SCOTT WITCH ON
BEHALF OF 150,000, MEMBERS OF
THE STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS AND THE
75,000 MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION OF UTILITY EMPLOYEES.
AH WE THANK YOU FOR INVITING US
TO BE HERE TODAY. MY CLIENTS ARE
SPONSORS OF PROPOSITION 30 FOR A
VERY SIMPLE REASON. THE STATE'S
FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS TO MEETING
OR CLIMATE GOALS ARE NOT KEEPING
PACE. WITH ON TRACK TO ACHIEVE
THOSE GOALS. INDEPENDENT
ANALYSIS FROM MANY DIFFERENT
GROUPS, INCLUDING NEXT 10,
ENERGY INNOVATION, CARB,
STANFORD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON AND SEVERAL OTHERS HAVE
DOCUMENTED THAT WE OR ON A PATH
TO MEETING OR 24 45
DECARBONIZATION GOALS WITH THE
CURRENT FINANCING LEVELS. IT'S
PROJECTED THAT CURRENT STATE
PROGRAMS DIRECTED AT ELECTRIC
VEHICLES. ALONG WITH FEDERAL TAX
INCENTIVES, INCLUDING THE NEW
INCENTIVES IN THE INFLATION
REDUCTION ACT. WILL ONLY GET
CALIFORNIA TO A 70% OF ALL NEW
CAR SALES BY 2043. ONLY BY
INCLUDING PROPOSITION 30 REVENUE
. CAN WE MEET OUR GOAL OF
ACTUALLY HAVING 100% CLEAN
VEHICLE SALES BY 2045.
PROPOSITION 30 WILL INVEST
APPROXIMATELY $4 BILLION
ANNUALLY AND $100 BILLION OVER
20 YEARS TOWARD OUR SHARED
CLIMATE GOALS WHILE CREATING
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF HIGH PAYING
GREEN JOBS. NOT ONLY ARE WE NOT
SPENDING ENOUGH ON MEETING THESE
GOALS. WE ARE FAILING
DISADVANTAGED AND LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE THE LOWEST
DENSITY OF CLEAN VEHICLE
OWNERSHIP. BUT ARE ALSO E. V
CHARGING DESSERTS PROPOSITION.
30 ALLOCATES 80% OF THAT $100
MILLION TO VEHICLES, SUBSIDIES
AND INFRASTRUCTURE. AND OF THAT
80% 1 HALF MUST BE SPENT IN
DISADVANTAGED AND LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES. NEVER HAVE WE SEEN
AN INITIATIVE BEFORE THE VOTERS
THAT PROVIDE THIS TYPE OF
EQUALITY TO WORKING FAMILIES.
THE OTHER HALF MUST BE SPENDS
ALLOCATED BY NHI. THE
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT IS
CRITICAL STUDIES HAVE SHOWN,
PARTICULARLY IN WORKING CLASS
COMMUNITIES THAT SUBSIDIES ARE
NOT SUFFICIENT. TO GET CONSUMERS
TO PURCHASE CVS. THEY MUST HAVE
CONFIDENCE THAT THERE ARE
ADEQUATE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
AVAILABLE TO THEM. FINALLY.
OPPONENTS ARGUE THAT SOMEHOW
PROPOSITION 30 HURTS THE STATE
BUDGET TIES THE HANDS OF THE
LEGISLATURE QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
IT IS. THE ABLEST IS CLIMATE AS
A STATE PRIORITY AND CREATES A
100% NEW FUNDING SOURCE. THAT
WILL RELIEVE PRESSURE IN THE OUT
YEARS ON THE GENERAL FUND TO
INCREASED SPENDING ON CLIMATE.
MADAM CHAIR TO YOU AND TO
SENATOR HUESO CHAIRMAN HUESO IS
QUESTION THE FIGURES REGARDING
THE, UH, INFLATION REDUCTION ACT
ARE QUITE AVAILABLE, AND I WOULD
LIKE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT
COMPARISON THAT YOU JUST ASKED
FOR IN REGARD TO EVIE INCENTIVES
THE IRA WILL PROVIDE $12.5
BILLION SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT
THE ENTIRE 50 STATES.
PROPOSITION 30 AND COMPARISON
WILL PROVIDE BETWEEN 36 45
BILLION. COMPARED TO THE 12.5
SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE
UNITED STATES. IN REGARD TO
INFRASTRUCTURE. THE IRA PROVIDES
$1.7 BILLION FOR E V.
INFRASTRUCTURE AGAIN SPREAD OUT
THROUGHOUT THE 50 STATES.
PROPOSITION 30 PROVIDES BETWEEN
28 35 BILLION AND FINALLY IN
REGARD TO WILDFIRE. THE
INFLATION REDUCTIONACT PROVIDES
1.8 BILLION SPREAD OUT
THROUGHOUT 50 STATES.
PROPOSITION 30 WILL PROVIDE
BETWEEN 16 AND 20 BILLION TO
GIVE YOU THE TOTAL FIGURES.
MADAM CHAIR. THAT IS $14.2
BILLION IN THE IRA SPREAD OUT
AMONGST ALL 50 STATES. WHEREAS
PROP 30 WILL PROVIDE BETWEEN 80
AND $100 BILLION FOR THESE
PROGRAMS FOR CALIFORNIANS WILL
BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS THAT AGAIN. THANK YOU
FOR HAVING US THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
APPRECIATE IT. NOW WE'RE GONNA
MOVE ON TO MR GARCIA. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR OSCAR GARCIA WITH
CAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING
YOUR TIME TODAY FOR HEARING US.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS DEVASTATING
CALIFORNIA WITH PROLONGED
DROUGHTS, EXTREME HEAT
INCREASINGLY INCREASINGLY
CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES THAT COST
LIVES DESTROYED PROPERTY HEARD
OUR STATE'S ECONOMY RUIN OUR AIR
QUALITY IN AN ACT OF PUBLIC
HEALTH TOLL. THE QUALITY IN
CALIFORNIA THEY ARE QUALITY IN
CALIFORNIA IS BY FAR THE WORST
IN THE COUNTRY, POSING MULTIPLE
RISKS PUBLIC HEALTH AND ERODING
THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN EVERY
REGION OF THE STATE. THESE
IMPACTS ARE FELT BY
CALIFORNIANS, BUT PARTICULARLY
BY LOW INCOME RESIDENTS AND
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. AIR
POLLUTION HAS SERIOUS EFFECTS ON
OUR HEALTH, INCREASED ASTHMA
ATTACKS PRETERM PREGNANCIES, LOW
BIRTH WEIGHT, HEART ATTACKS AND
STROKES. LUNG, CANCER IMPAIRED,
COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING AND EVEN
PREMATURE DEATH. THE RISKS ARE
ELEVATED FOR WOMEN, CHILDREN AND
SENIORS AS WELL FOR LONG COME IN
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WHERE
AIR POLLUTION AIR POLLUTION IS
FREQUENTLY MORE CUBE. ALL OF
WHICH TRANSLATES INTO BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS IN HIGHER HEALTH CARE
COSTS FOR FAMILIES AND EMPLOYERS
IN THE STATE AND THE STATE. THE
CLIMATE CRISIS IS HURTING OUR
ECONOMY AS WELL. CALIFORNIA'S
AGRICULTURE, WINE, LEISURE AND
HOSPITALITY INDUSTRIES ARE SOME
ARE JUST SOME OF THE SECTORS
HAVE SUFFERED FROM THE DIRECT OR
INDIRECT IMPACT OF WILDFIRES.
WILD HAUSER ALSO DISRUPTING
SUPPLY CHAINS CAUSE LOST WORK
DAYS AND LOST JOBS, INCREASED
HEALTH CARE COSTS FOR EMPLOYERS
AND INCREASED INSURANCE COSTS.
TO SOLVE THE CRISIS. WE NEED TO
ADDRESS CALIFORNIA'S TWO BIGGEST
SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION AND
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS,
TRANSPORTATION AND WILDFIRES. WE
NEED IMMEDIATE, SUSTAINED
INVESTMENT AND FREE FROM VAULT
BRIEFING VOLATILITY OF THE STATE
BUDGET CYCLE, ONE THAT REDUCES
THE FREQUENCY INTENSITY AND
IMPACT OF EXTREME WILDFIRES AND
TO ACCELERATE THE EQUITABLE
TRANSITION TO CLEAN
TRANSPORTATION. TO ADDRESS THESE
ISSUES, THE COALITION OF AN
EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE COALITION
AND HISTORICAL COALITION HAS
COME TOGETHER OF LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS. E J GROUPS,
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, RACIAL
JUSTICE GROUPS, FIREFIGHTERS,
PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCATESAND
PROGRESSIVE INSTANCES TO SUPPORT
PROP 32 CLEAN AIR INITIATIVE.
ONE OF THE BEST PARTS OF THE
CLEAN AIR INITIATIVE. IS THAT
THE FUNDING SOURCE? IT'S A IT'S
. IT'S THE ONLY PROGRESSIVE WELL
TAXED ON THE BALLOT THIS
NOVEMBER BY ONLY TAXING ROUGHLY
ONLY 0.1% OF CALIFORNIA,
BASICALLY ABOUT 35,000
INDIVIDUALS ASLEEP, THEY'RE
STILL LEAVES THE VAST MAJORITY
OF THIS COHORT IN A BETTER
FINANCIAL POSITION THAN BEFORE
THE TRUMP TRIBE MONKEY BEFORE
THE TRUMP TAX CUTS WERE ENACTED.
LISTEN. THIS APPROACH ENSURES
THAT THE FUNDING COMES FROM
THOSE MOST ABLE TO AFFORD IT,
AND THE COSTS ARE NOT PASSED
THROUGH LOW INCOME AND MIDDLE
INCOME FAMILIES IN THE FORM OF
HIGHER PRICES. CALIFORNIA HAS A
STRONG CLEAN ENERGY AND CLEAN
VEHICLES POLICY IN PLACE BUT
NEEDS SUSTAINED INVESTMENT TO
REACH OUR CLIMATE, ERIC QUALITY
AND EQUITY GOALS. OUR COALITION
IS SUPPORTING THE BETTER
INFLATION REDUCTION ACT. BUT
INDEPENDENT MODELING SHOWS THAT
EVEN THOSE SUBSIDIES ARE NOT
SUFFICIENT TO MEET OUR GOALS.
ABSENT STRONG ACTION TODAY TO
BOOST OUR EFFORTS, WE WILL FACE
MORE WILDFIRES, WORST AIR
QUALITY AND CONSEQUENCES FROM
BOTH. THAT'S WHY WE'RE URGING
EVERYONE TO REALLY SUPPORT PROP
30 THE CLEAN AIR INITIATIVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY. WE'RE
NOW GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR
OPPONENT PRESENTATIONS. UM,
THERE ARE TWO WITNESSES. SCOT
KAUFMAN FROM THE HOWARD JARVIS
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION AND K
HARDMAN FROM THE CALIFORNIA
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION. SO TURN
THE MIC OVER TO SCOT KAUFMAN.
HELLO. GOOD MORNING. THE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
AS MANDATED THAT RIDESHARE
COMPANIES BEGIN ELECTRIFICATION
OF THEIR CALIFORNIA POLICE BY
2023 1 RIDE SHARING COMPANY HAS
DECIDED THAT THE COST OF THIS
MANDATE SHOULD BE PAID BY
CALIFORNIA'S HIGHEST INCOME
EARNERS PAY ALMOST HALF OF THE
STATE'S INCOME TAXES RATHER THAN
RIDE SHARING COMPANIES
THEMSELVES FOR THE STATE.
HOWEVER OVER THE LAST FEW
SESSIONS, THE STATE HAS ALREADY
COMMITTED TO SPENDING MORE THAN
50 BILLION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE
CHANGE. THAT INCLUDES 10 BILLION
TO ACCELERATE THE TRANSITION TO
ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES AND TO
THE LEGISLATURE'S CREDIT HAS
DONE SO WITHOUT RAISING TAXES.
IF FUNDING IF MORE FUNDING IS
NEEDED THE STATE'S $97.5 BILLION
BUDGET SURPLUS SHOULD BE USED
NOT TARGETED TAX CREDITS FOR
SPECIAL INTERESTS. OR A MULTI
BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY COULD
SIMPLY PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. WELL, NEXT MOVE
ON TO K HARDMAN. GOOD MORNING
, KATIE HARDMAN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
. UM FIRST I JUST WANTED TO SAY
THAT IT'S NOT EVERY DAY THAT THE
CHAIRS ON THE SAME SIDE AS
HOWARD JARVIS, SO I GUESS
THERE'S BROAD OPPOSITION HERE
AND SO BELIEVES ALL CALIFORNIANS
DESERVE AND CLEAN AIR AND AGREE
AGREE THIS THAT IT IS AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE. THERE'S NO
DEBATE ABOUT THAT. UNFORTUNATELY
PROP 30 IS NOT THE SOLUTION. IT
WILL ALLOW CORPORATIONS SUCH AS
LYFT TO SUBSIDIZE THEIR BUSINESS
MODEL USING INCOME TAX. AXES
THAT TRADITIONALLY WOULD GO TO
THE GENERAL FUND TO FUND OUR
SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, HEALTHCARE,
PUBLIC SAFETY AND OTHER
IMPORTANT PRIORITIES.
SPECIFICALLY PROP 30 REVENUE IS
EXCLUDED FROM THE PROPOSITION 98
CALCULATION, WHICH, AS YOU KNOW
, IS THE CONSTITUTIONALLY
REQUIRED FUNDING LEVEL FOR OUR
SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES.
AND BY CIRCUMVENTING THE GENERAL
FUND AND PROP 98 ON THIS MEASURE
WILL MAKE OUR STATE'S FINANCES
MORE UNSTABLE AND TIE THE HANDS
OF THE LEGISLATURE AND MAKING
BUDGETARY DECISIONS. FOR EXAMPLE
, DURING A RECESSION, THE STATE
COULD BE FACED WITH MAKING
SIGNIFICANT CUTS TO EDUCATION
AND OTHER SERVICES, WHILE THE
FUNDING GENERATED BY PROP 30
WOULD BE PROTECTED FROM ANY
BUDGET REDUCTIONS, AND THERE'S
NO MECHANISM IN THE INITIATIVE
FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO SUSPEND
ANY PROVISION IN TOUGH BUDGET
TIMES LIKE WE HAVE FOR PREP 98
UM, TWO YEARS AGO LIFT MADE A
PLEDGE AND THAT 100% OF THEIR
VEHICLES WOULD BE ELECTRIC BY
2030. AND NOW THEY'RE ASKING
TAXPAYERS TO FUND IT. PROP 30
WOULD SUBSIDIZE THESE
CORPORATIONS BUT ALSO STRIPPING
THE LEGISLATURE OF THEIR ROLE IN
BUDGETING AND OVERSIGHT.
ADDITIONALLY WHILE MANY FAMILIES
ARE STRUGGLING TO PAY RENT AND
PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE AND PROP
30 DOES NOT GUARANTEE LOW INCOME
FAMILIES WILL BENEFIT. WE KNOW
MOST ELECTRIC VEHICLES ARE
PURCHASED BY HIGHER INCOME
EARNERS AS SHOWN IN THE COW
MATTERS. ARTICLE JUST LAST WEEK.
REBATES DON'T GUARANTEE ACCESS
GIVEN LONG WAITLIST, CHIP
SHORTAGES AND OTHER AND RISING
COSTS OF THESE ELECTRIC VEHICLES
AND PROP 30 DOES NOT ADDRESS
THIS INEQUITY. SO FOR THESE
REASONS TTS SUPPOSED TO PROP 30
UM AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME
TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY HERE
TODAY. NOW I'M GOING TO MOVE ON
AND SEE IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS
THAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE
SO THAT WE CAN ASK THEM BEFORE
WE GET TO PUBLIC COMMENT. PUBLIC
UM ANY QUESTIONS? YES, CHAIR
STERN. UM, THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR, HONOR TO DO THIS HEARING
WITH YOU AND CHAIR HUESO, UM,
APPRECIATE THE OPENING
PRESENTATIONS FROM BOTH THE L A
AS WELL AS THE ADVOCATES. UM MY
QUESTION IS ABOUT UH, THE POINT
THAT THE OPPONENTS MADE THAT I'M
TRYING TO FIND THE SOURCE OF THE. THE CONCERN OR THE CRITIQUE IN
THE IN THE ACTUAL PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT ITSELF, UM MAYBE L A OH,
CAN CLARIFY INITIALLY ABOUT
MECHANICS BUT IN TERMS OF HOW
THE FUNDING FOR THE ELECTRIC
VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE PART OF
THIS LEGISLATION MOVE
SPECIFICALLY ON THE LIGHT DUTY
FLEET PORTION UM MY READ OF THE
PROVISION IS THAT THERE'S NO UM
SOME ON THE SCALE OR CARVE OUT
IF YOU WILL FOR SRIDE SHARING
SERVICES OR FOR THOSE KIND OF
CORPORATE FLEETS VERSUS UM, ANY
PASSENGERS? EV, CAN YOU WALK US
THROUGH? JUST HOW YOU SEE THE
MECHANICS OF THERE'S A FEW
DIFFERENT PROVISIONS A FEW
DIFFERENT CHAPTERS IN THE ACT
THAT TOUCH ON SORT OF THE
MECHANICS FOR, UH, FACTORY NEW
PASSENGERS, EV INCENTIVE
PROGRAMS, AIR QUALITY, BUT UM,
I'M SEEING A SORT OF A BROADER
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARB
AS THE OVERALL MECHANICS NOT SO
MUCH. A SWEETHEART DEAL IF YOU
WILL, FOR, UH, FOR THAT
PARTICULAR COMPANY. BUT MAYBE I
MIGHT BE MISSING SOME
PROVISIONS. SO MAYBE AT THE AT
THE OUTSET IF ELIO COULD JUST
TALK US THROUGH. I GUESS THE
MIGHT BE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF BICARB SECTION ARTICLE TO
AFFORDABILITY. MAYBE JUST WALK
US THROUGH THAT AND HOW YOU SEE
IT? BENEFITING? UM. BENEFITING
PEOPLE VERSUS CORPORATE OWNED
SHARED VEHICLE FLEETS. YEAH SO
THERE'S UM KIND OF A FEW
DIFFERENT PIECES, AND IT SOUNDS
LIKE MAYBE YOU'RE MOSTLY
INTERESTED IN KIND OF THE PIECES
THAT ARE GOING TO CARB, SO I'LL
KIND OF START WITH THAT. AND IF
YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE
ENERGY COMMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE
SIDE, THEN I CAN KIND OF, UM,
TRY TO TRY TO HELP WITH THAT AS
WELL. BUT SO FOR CARB, UM THE
MONEY KIND OF IS BASICALLY SORT
OF THE 45% IS CONTINUOUS IS
CONTINUOUSLY APPROPRIATED TO
CARB, AND IT CAN GO INTO TO IT
GOES INTO A KIND OF TWO
DIFFERENT POTS. BASICALLY, ONE
POT IS KIND OF AN EQUITY FOCUSED
PART OF FUNDING WHICH CAN GO TO,
UH, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY IS KIND
OF RESERVED FOR PROJECTS THAT
BENEFITS PEOPLE WHO AND LOW
INCOME AND DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES. AND THEN THERE'S
KIND OF THE OTHER PIECE THAT
GOES TO KIND OF THE MORE BROAD
KIND OF VEHICLE REBATE PROGRAM
THAT KIND OF GENERAL VEHICLE
REBATE PROGRAM. UM THERE IS SOME
LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT, UH,
GIVES DIRECTION TO CARVE ON KIND
OF WHEN IT'S ESTABLISHING
ELIGIBILITY AND REBATE LEVELS OR
INCENTIVE LEVELS. TO GIVE SOME
PRIORITY TO FIRST, UH, JUST
HOUSEHOLDS AND SECOND, UM LEGAL
ENTITIES AND GOVERNMENTS THAT
HAVE HIGH UTILIZATION. SO UM,
AND THAT SORT OF DEFINED AS
WHERE THERE'S THEY CAN KIND OF
DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY'RE LIKELY
TO USE THE VEHICLES MORE THAN
25,000 MILES PER YEAR. I BELIEVE
, AND THEN, FINALLY, JUST ALL
OTHER BASICALLY ALL OF THEIR
LEGAL INDICES SO THAT'S KIND OF
THE JUST THE BASIC STRUCTURE. IT
DOES GIVE KIND OF CARB. UM,
BASICALLY AUTHORITY TO KIND OF
ESTABLISH WHAT THE ELIGIBILITY
AND INCENTIVE STRUCTURE WOULD
LOOK LIKE WITH SOME OF THOSE
KIND OF BROAD PRIORITY
CATEGORIES FOR THAT FUNDING, SO
I WILL KIND OF STOP THERE AND
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY MORE
DETAILED QUESTIONS. BUT IF I
COULD FOLLOW UP ON THAT, SO YOUR
POINT IS THAT THE PRIMARY CARVE
OUT IN THE LEGISLATION IS
CORRECT, WITTY FOR DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES THAT SOUNDS LIKE
THERE'S ANY THERE'S ANY SORT OF
FRONT OF THE LINE. UM,
PROVISIONS. IT'S. THE 50% INTO
THE ZEV EQUITY. AN AIR QUALITY
ACCOUNT. DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT?
YEAH SO THERE? WELL, I MEAN, SO
, YEAH. 50% GOES INTO THAT
ACCOUNT. THE OTHER 50% GOES INTO
, UM, THE OTHER. SORRY I'M
TRYING TO REMEMBER THE NAME OF
THE Z GENERAL ACCOUNT. THERE IS
LANGUAGE THAT KIND OF OVERALL
FOR THE FIRST FEW YEARS, TWO
THIRDS OF THE OVERALL POT OF
MONEY AND GOING TO CARB GOES TO
A NEW PASSENGER VEHICLES AND
THEN FOR THE KIND OF PEACE
THAT'S REALLY KIND OF THE MAIN
REBATE FUNDING PIECE, AND
THERE'S THAT GENERAL ACCOUNT.
THERE'S SOME OF THESE KIND OF
PRIORITY. UM YOU KNOW PRIORITIES
THAT I MENTIONED AGAIN SORT OF
FIRST, FOCUSING ON HOUSEHOLDS
AND THEN ON KIND OF HIGH
UTILIZATION, SO THAT THAT'S I
THINK JUST KIND OF REALLY A
SUMMARY OF JUST SORT OF HOW THE
FUNDING FLOWS AND SOME OF THE
MAIN DIRECTION THAT'S GIVEN TO
CARB. SO I AWAIT TOWARDS
PASSENGER VEHICLES UP FRONT, BUT
NOT NECESSARILY A THUMB ON THE
SCALE FOR UM FOR AH, GOVERNMENT
OR CORPORATE OWNED FLEETS LIKE
THAT. THAT'S THE PRIMARY LIKE IF
THERE'S ANY AREA WHERE THE
LEGISLATURE'S DISCRETION IS
LIMITED FOR THE FIRST FEW YEARS
OF THE OPERATION, IT'S THAT
WAITING TOWARDS PASSENGER
VEHICLES AND THEN SAY THE 50% OF
EQUITY CARVE OUT. YEAH AND I
THINK JUST THE OTHER KIND OF,
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE PERHAPS SORT
OF RELEVANT PIECE OF THAT. IS
THIS THE KIND OF PRIORITY FOR
HIGH UTILIZATION VEHICLES BUT
THAT YOU KNOW THERE'S NOT A
DOESN'T SORT OF SPECIFY. YOU
KNOW, COMPANIES OR ANYTHING. IT
JUST SAYS, YOU KNOW, LEGAL. I
THINK IT'S LEGAL ENTITIES, UM,
IN CALIFORNIA AS WELL AS
GOVERNMENTS. THAT KIND OF YOU
KNOW, UH, WOULD BE USING THE
VEHICLES FOR TRAVELING A LOT OF
MILES, BUT BUT NO SET NUMBER
THERE, RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT.
SUGGESTION TO CARB TO
PRIORITIZE. THAT'S RIGHT. AND
THE LAST QUESTION ON THAT FRONT
, THEN, UM APPRECIATE THAT THAT
INSIGHT ON THE MECHANICS BUT IN
TERMS OF THE LEGISLATURE'S ROLE
GOING FORWARD. UM ARE ARE THERE
PROVISIONS WITHIN THE, UM, THE
PROPOSED ACT THAT WOULD GIVE THE
LEGISLATURE OR YOU KNOW, BY THAT
TOKEN, THE GOVERNOR DISCRETION
IN MODIFYING OR EMPHASIZING
CERTAIN CATEGORIES MORE THAN
OTHERS. IN OTHER WORDS, DOES
THIS BIND OUR HANDS TO THIS
PARTICULAR FRAMEWORK? OR DOES IT
LEAVE SOME DISCRETION TO THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION GOING FORWARD? UM
SO I THINK THE MOST RELEVANT
PROVISIONS THERE IS CHAPTERS
SEVEN OF THE MEASURE, AND IT
ESSENTIALLY SAYS THE LEGISLATURE
CAN AMEND THE DIVISION BY A
STATUTE PASSED BY UK HOUSE WITH
THREE FORCE VOTE OF THE
MEMBERSHIP. UM AS LONG AS THAT
CHANGES CONSISTENT WITH AND
FURTHERS THE PURPOSE OF THE
DIVISION, SO THERE IS SORT OF A
THREE FORCE BOTH THRESHOLDS FOR
MOST OF THE CHANGES, AND THEY
HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT
THE, UM THE KIND OF THE PURPOSE
OF THE OF THE MEASURE TO
ACTUALLY CHANGE, SAY THE
FORMULAS BUT WITHIN THE BROADER
FORMULAS AS WELL, THERE'S THAT
THE ADMINISTRATION WITH IT, YOU
KNOW, PRESUMABLY THE INPUT OF
THE LEGISLATURE BASED ON OUR
OTHER POLICY GOALS. CARB COULD
SAY PUT AN EXTRA SPECIAL
EMPHASIS IN XEV EQUITY ON THE
CLEAN CARS FOR ALL PROGRAMS. THE
ACT DOESN'T SPECIFY THAT, BUT IT
LEAVES SOME DISCRETION AND
IMPLEMENTATION. DO YOU THINK
THAT'S A FAIR WAY TO DESCRIBE
THE MECHANICS OF BOTH THE FIRE
AND THE ZEV PORTIONS OF THIS UM
, YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S UM
IT IS CONTINUOUSLY APPROPRIATED
, SO THE LEGISLATURE DOES NOT
SORT OF NEED TO KIND OF PROVIDE
THAT AUTHORITY OR DIRECTION IN
ORDER FOR KIND OF CARVED TO KIND
OF MAKE IT MAKE DECISIONS ON
THAT. BUT IF THERE UM MY
UNDERSTANDING IS AND THIS IS
GETTING A LITTLE BIT INTO KIND
OF LEGAL TERRITORY THAT I'M NOT
100% CONFIDENT ON AND DON'T WANT
TO KIND OF COMMENT ON WITH GREAT
CERTAINTY, BUT I THINK IT DOES
LEAVE. UH YOU KNOW IF THERE'S
SOME DIRECTION THAT THE
LEGISLATURE GIVES AND THE
GOVERNOR KIND OF AGREES ON, AND
STATUTE WITHIN KIND OF THE
PARAMETERS OF THE MEASURE THAT
MIGHT BE ALLOWABLE. UNDERSTOOD,
SO WE DON'T IT DOESN'T FORCE THE
LEGISLATURE TO WEIGH IN OR
NECESSARILY ADMINISTRATION. WELL
THE ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO
HAVE TO WEIGH IN BECAUSE THEY'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO
GET THE DOLLARS AT THE DOOR. BUT
THE LEGISLATURE HAS, UM SOME
SOME ROOM TO SAY IF WE HAD
CERTAIN INCREASED E V CHARGING
GOALS, OR WE'D SET UP A
FRAMEWORK AROUND WHAT WE WANT TO
SEE FOR EQUITY TARGETS IN
PARTICULAR COMMUNITIES OR HOW WE
DEFINE THOSE COMMUNITIES. UM IT
SEEMS LIKE YEAH, WE MAYBE NOT
NEED TO, BUT WE MAY THAT FAIR.
UM, YEAH, I THINK I MEAN, THERE
NEEDS TO YEAH, THERE NEEDS TO BE
SOME AGREEMENT WITH, I THINK IN
GENERAL WITH THE ADMINISTRATION
AS WELL ON THAT, OF COURSE. YEAH
OKAY. AND SO MY FINAL QUESTION.
MY FINAL POINT IS ACTUALLY NOT A
QUESTION JUST TO COMMENT. LOOK
WITH RECOGNIZING THE THOSE
CONCERNS, THEN RAISED BY THE
OPPONENTS ABOUT HOW? HOW THIS
WOULD FUNCTION. UM YOU KNOW MY
CONCERN ABOUT CLIMATE MITIGATION
AND RESILIENT SPENDING OVERALL
IS THAT WE'RE UNDER DOING IT AS
A STATE IN GENERAL, DO WE HAVE A
TRILLION DOLLAR LIABILITY OVER
THE NEXT 40 YEARS? UM AND THAT
WE'RE CURRENTLY NOT ACCOUNTING
FOR THAT, AND SO WHILE THIS MAY
BE ADDITIONAL TO ACTION THAT THE
GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE ARE
TAKING HERE WITHIN THIS BODY,
SAYING THIS CURRENT YEAR'S
BUDGET OR HOPEFULLY, FUTURE
YEARS, UM, ADDING, EVEN ALL OF
THIS UP TO EVERYTHING WE'VE DONE
, UM, ON TOP OF THE GOVERNORS,
UH, VERY AMBITIOUS CLIMATE
BUDGET, AND WITH THE LEGISLATURE
HAS PUT FORWARD IT'S EQUALLY
AMBITIOUS, I WOULD SAY. UM I
DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DOWNSIDE
RISK HERE, UM, TO PUSHING MORE
TOWARDS THIS PROBLEM, WORRIED
ABOUT 7% OF XEV PENETRATION THE
CHAIR TRANSPORTATION CAN WEIGH
IN. I DON'T KNOW 7 TO 10% MAYBE
, AND WE'RE ON THE VERGE OF A OF
A RAMP HERE THAT WE HAVE TO GET
TO, UM AND 2035 IS SITTING THERE
VERY CLOSE. SO I DON'T EVEN KNOW
IF WHAT WE'VE THROWN AT IT. PLUS
THIS INITIATIVE IS ENOUGH,
FRANKLY, BECAUSE THE STAKES ARE
JUST THAT HIGH AND THE FOSSIL
FUEL DEMAND IS OF TOTAL
VULNERABILITY FOR OUR ECONOMY. I
MEAN, YOU LOOK AT WHAT GAS
PRICES DID THE REGULAR PEOPLE WE
CAN'T AFFORD TO LEAVE PEOPLE
VULNERABLE TO WHAT VLADIMIR
PUTIN OR ECUADOR DOING AND WE'VE
GOT TO ELECTRIFY TRANSPORTATION
AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT PEOPLE
LIVE IN THE PATH OF CLIMATE, SO
I'M EXCITED ABOUT THIS EFFORT.
AND I THINK I APPRECIATE THE
LUOS FEEDBACK IN TERMS OF JUST
SOME OF THE MECHANICS TO, UM TO
AT LEAST UM US OUT. SOME OF
THOSE CONCERNS I GET. MAYBE
THERE'S SOME SORT OF OTHER
LOOMING CONCERNS ABOUT WHO DOES
WHAT WITH THE TAX BASE, BUT BUT
I THINK FROM A FROM A SPECIAL
INTEREST PERSPECTIVE, DESPITE
WHO MAY BE PUTTING FUNDS
TOGETHER, I SEE THIS AS A
ACTUALLY A VERY FAIRLY COMPOSED
AND, UM EQUITY DRIVEN FORMAT, AS
OPPOSED TO ANY KIND OF SPECIAL
INTEREST FORMAT. SO I'M EXCITED
ABOUT THE MEASURE, AND I
APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. CHAIRMAN STERN.
WANNA THIS IS THE QUESTION AND
ANSWER PERIOD AND THERE IS A
HAND RAISED BY SCOTT WITCH, SO I
WANT TO MAKE SURE TO GIVE HIM AN
OPPORTUNITY. HE MAY HAVE WANTED
TO RESPOND TO THE ORIGINAL
QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED. I WANT
TO GET THROUGH THE QUESTIONS. SO
THEN WE CAN GET TO PUBLIC
COMMENT, AND THEN WE CAN WRAP UP
BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR
YOUR INPUT EARLY ON. SO UM, I
WANT TO INVITE MR. WHICH TO
PLEASE, UM, COMMENT, MADAM CHAIR
, SENATOR STERN TO YOUR QUESTION
. UM I DON'T REPRESENT ANY
RIDESHARING COMPANIES. UH BUT
THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS
INITIATIVE THAT PUTS THE FINGER
ON THE SCALE FOR RIDE SHARING
COMPANIES. UM IN, YOU KNOW,
TREATS, YOU KNOW RIDESHARING
COMPANIES BUSINESS MODEL ARE NOT
TO OWN FLEETS THAT INDIVIDUAL
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR DRIVERS,
UH, OWN THEIR OWN VEHICLES. UM
WITH IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER
OF LIFT DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA,
IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM
TO EVEN ACCESS 1/10. OF 1% OF
THE PROP 30 SUBSIDIES BECAUSE
THERE'S JUST NOT THAT MANY OF
THEM. THE INITIATIVE WOULD TREAT. A ELECTRICIAN, A
SCHOOLTEACHER. A LIFT DRIVER
COOK YOU A LEGISLATOR, ALL EQUAL
AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO ACCESS
THIS FUNDS, WITH THE ONE
EXCEPTION THAT 50% OF THESE
FUNDS AND SUBSIDIES WILL BE SET
ASIDE FOR LOW INCOME
CALIFORNIANS, BUT OTHER THAN THE
INCOME RESTRICTIONS, IT'S A
COMPLETE OPEN TO ALL
CALIFORNIANS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, UM, SENATOR
JERUSALEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. UM AND ALL THE
CHAIRS OF THE OTHER COMMITTEES.
UM A FEW QUESTIONS, AND THIS IS
SORT OF TAKING OFF. FROM WHAT?
UH SENATOR, UH, SENATOR, STERN
SAID SORRY. SENATOR FROM. OKAY?
UM IS ABOUT THERE IS THERE ARE
GOALS IN THESE THAT THESE FUNDS
WOULD BE USED FOR AH, UM,
CHARGING FUELING STATIONS. UH UM
MORE MORE LOCATIONS, UM, THAT BE
INCREASED ACCESS OF MEDIUM AND
HEAVY DUTY TRUCK. MY QUESTION
AND MY CONCERN IS THAT WE HAVE
HAD PROGRAMS WITH LESS MONEY BUT
ALLEGEDLY TO, UM. INCLUDE PEOPLE
OF LOWER INCOME RESOURCES TO BE
ABLE TO PURCHASE THESE VEHICLES
LIKE THE CLEAN CARS FOR ALL, UM
AS A WHOLE, AND I DON'T HAVE
SPECIFIC NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME
. UM, THOSE PROGRAMS HAVE REALLY
NOT. BEEN ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE
OF LOW INCOME, AND SO WE COULD
SAY THAT THERE'S TWO BILLION OR
10 BILLION OR 20 BILLION, BUT
THE REAL QUESTION IS. WHAT ARE
WE GONNA DO? DIFFERENT TO EXPAND
ACCESS? UM HOW DO WE MAKE SURE
THAT THE PROGRAM MEETS ITS
INTENT OF REACHING THOSE PEOPLE
OF LOW INCOME. HOW DO WE MAKE
SURE? UM MANY OF WHICH DO NOT
LIVE IN SINGLE, YOU KNOW, FAMILY
HOMES. THEY LIVE IN A
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S
REALLY GOING TO CHANGE AS WE
MOVE FORWARD WITH? UM IF WE MOVE
FORWARD WITH, UH, THIS
PROPOSITION SO THAT'S A NOT SURE
WHO COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION,
BUT, UH, YOU KNOW THE THEORY
BEHIND IT, UM, HAS JUST NOT
WORK. UM AND I WANT TO KNOW WHAT
IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT THIS
TIME. DO YOU WANT TO DIRECT THAT
QUESTION TO MR WHICH AS A
PROPONENT, WANTS TO JUMP FOR AN
ANSWER. MAYBE THE MR WEDGE OR
THE L. A, L OR OR OR MR GARCIA.
SENATOR DURAZO. UM SO UNDER THE
PROPOSITION, 30 WE WERE WE WERE
GENERATED BETWEEN 36 45 BILLION
ON THE INCENTIVE SIDE. AND IT
MANDATES THAT ONE. HALF OF THAT
OF THOSE FUNDS GO TO LOW INCOME
AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.
SO IT WILL BE INCUMBENT ON CAR
IN HAVING TO SPEND THIS
CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO
STRUCTURE THESE PROGRAMS IN A
WAY THAT ACTUALLY GETS PEOPLE IN
THOSE COMMUNITIES TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF AND THEN THE BIT
AND THEN THE INITIATIVE. SETS
WOULD RAISE BETWEEN 28 $35
BILLION FOR EVIE INFRASTRUCTURE
, AND HALF OF THAT POT OF MONEY
HAS TO GO TO THAT SAME
DISADVANTAGED AND LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES, WHICH WILL
NECESSITATE IN ORDER TO DERAIL
THE MEAT. THE INITIATIVES
MANDATE STATE THAT THAT THAT THE
ENERGY COMMISSION DEVELOPED
THOSE PROGRAMS IN A WAY THAT
EFFECTIVELY PENETRATES INTO
MULTI FAMILY HOUSING AND INTO
YOU KNOW, UH, LOW INCOME, BOTH
RURAL AND URBAN COMMUNITIES WHO
HAVE NOT SEEN THE INVESTMENT. UM
TODAY IN IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND
IN THE LEGISLATURE'S ROLE OF
DOING OVERSIGHT WITH CARB AND
MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE
ACTUALLY MEETING THE STATUTORY
MANDATE, UM, PASSED BY THE
VOTERS. VERY GOOD. IT SOUNDS
REALLY GREAT. UM BUT I'M SORRY.
I DON'T HAVE THE SAME OPTIMISM
AND THE SAME FAITH, UH, THAT IT
WILL ACTUALLY GET TO OUR LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES. UM AND WE'VE
SEEN AGAIN PROGRAM AFTER PROGRAM
WHERE THE FUNDING IS THERE, AND
IT JUST DOES NOT GET INTO OUR
COMMUNITIES, SO I WON'T ARGUE
BACK AND FORTH ON THAT, UM, ON
THE ISSUE OF, UM. THE IMPACT ON
PROP 98. IT WAS AS WAS MENTIONED
BY, UM, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE CT. A IF THERE COULD BE
EITHER MR GARCIA OR MR WHICH WE
RESPOND TO THAT OR OR THE L. A.
OH, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S A THAT'S
SOMETHING OF CONCERN WE DON'T
WANT TO MAKE. WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT FUNDING FOR EDUCATION
IS NOT IMPACTED. SO WHY DON'T WE
CHECK WITH THE AH AND SEE IF
THEY HAVE A COMMENT IN REGARDS
TO, UM THE EXCLUSION OF PROP 98
, THEN WE CAN GO TO THE
PROPONENTS AFTER THAT. YEAH, SO
THE MEASURE DOES PUT THE NEW TAX
REVENUE INTO A NEW SPECIAL FUND.
AND THEN IT ALSO DOES EXPLICITLY
STATE THAT THE KIND OF REVENUE
WAS NOT, UM, SUBJECT TO PROP 98
. SO IT UH, IT IS KIND OF
SPECIFICALLY DEDICATED TO THE TO
THE ACTIVITIES THAT WE'VE BEEN
WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING HERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UM DOES
THAT? ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,
SENATOR DURAZO OR SO LIKE
CLARIFICATION, YOU MISS MISS
MISS CHAIR. I JUST, UM I GUESS
WHAT ELSE CAN WE. WHAT CAN WE
SAY ABOUT THE PROP 30 THAT.
WOULD HELP ALLAY THAT CONCERN
THAT FUNDING COULD BE FUNDING
FOR EDUCATION COULD BE IMPACTED.
SO DO YOU WANT TO DIRECT THAT TO
THE PROPONENTS? OR ARE YOU
ASKING THAT THE ELIO MAYBE THE L
A. OH, UM UM. YEAH. I MEAN, I
MEAN, I MIGHT KIND OF SUGGESTING
KIND OF DEFER THAT QUESTION TO
THE TO THE PROPONENTS AND
OPPONENTS KIND OF DISCUSSED THE
PROBLEM. 98 IMPLICATIONS. I
MEAN, I THINK JUST AS A FACTUAL
MATTER, UM THE MEASURE DOES KIND
OF PUT IT AGAIN. KIND OF PUT IT
IN A SPECIFIC PART, AND DOESN'T
THE MONEY CAN'T BE YOU KNOW,
ISN'T KIND OF SUBJECT TO
PROPOSITION 98. SO, UNLIKE OTHER
MORE GENERAL KIND OF TAX
INCREASES, WHERE A SET SHARE OF
THAT TAX REVENUE GOES TO PROP
98. THIS PUTS THE MONEY IN A
SPECIAL FUND IN IT. IT DOESN'T
KIND OF HAVE THAT THAT SAME
REQUIREMENT. OKAY? BUT UNLESS
THE PROPONENTS HAVE SOMETHING
DIFFERENT TO SAY. I'LL SEE IF
THE PROPONENTS HAVE ANYTHING
ADDITIONAL TO ADD TO THAT. IF
NOT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT
QUESTION IN THE NEXT, OKAY.
THANK YOU. MANAGER ON THE ISSUE
OF WILDFIRE. UM SUPPRESSION. UM
CAN YOU SPEAK MORE TO THE
INTENDED GRANTS FOR HOME
HARDENING IN LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES? UM HOW DO WE MAKE
SURE THAT THE FUNDS ARE
DISTRIBUTED WHO QUALIFIES? UM
AND THE EXAMPLES OF THAT TAKING
PLACE RIGHT NOW. SENATOR DURAZO
. IS THAT DIRECTED TO THE L A.
OH, AT THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK
THE PROPONENTS BUT THAT THEY
WON'T HAVE THE ANSWER, AT LEAST
FOR THE LAST PART OF YOUR
QUESTION IS MY GUEST. UM LET'S
START WITH THE L A L C YOU VERY
GOOD. GOOD THANK YOU. AND IF
IT'S OKAY, I MIGHT, UM, KIND OF
DEFER THAT QUESTION TO MY
COLLEAGUE HELEN KERSTEIN FROM
HIS ON THE LINE. WELCOME GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS HELEN
CHRISTINE WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. UM, SO
THERE IS SOME, UM SOME FUNDING
THAT COULD BE PROVIDED FOR THOSE
PURPOSES. IT'S PROVIDED TO CAL
FIRE AND HELL FIRE WOULD HAVE
HAVE, UM, PROBABLY SIGNIFICANT
DISCRETION IN TERMS OF HOW HOW
IT ACTUALLY SPEND THOSE FUNDS
THAT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF
DETAIL IN THE MEASURE ITSELF
ABOUT EXACTLY HOW THIS WILL GO
OUT AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY
WILL PRIORITIZE THOSE
COMMUNITIES. UM IN TERMS OF THE
STATE'S EXISTING PROGRAMS. YOU
KNOW, THE STATE HAS CERTAINLY
DEDICATED FUNDING, UM TO HOME
HARDENING EFFORTS. THERE IS
CURRENTLY A PILOT PILOT EFFORT
IN THREE COUNTIES RELATED TO
HOME HARDENING, AND MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT
THAT'S BEEN TRYING THAT'S BEEN
REALLY, UM THAT THE GOAL OF THAT
PILOT PROGRAM WHICH HAS BEEN
FUNDED WITH GENERAL FUND AS WELL
IN SOME FEDERAL FUNDING IS TO
REALLY TRY TO FOCUS ON THOSE LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES. BUT AGAIN, I
THINK IN TERMS OF THE DETAILS,
THE LANGUAGE DOES SAY THAT IT'S
SUPPOSED TO BE FOCUSED ON LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES, BUT BEYOND
FOR THE HOME PARDONING
SPECIFICALLY DIFFERENT SPACE, IT
DOESN'T MENTION IN THE MEASURE.
EXACTLY HOW THAT'S GOING TO
GOING TO, UM, GOING TOBE DONE,
BUT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF
DETAIL BEYOND SORT OF THAT THAT
GENERAL LANGUAGE THAT IT'S
INTENDED TO BE FOCUSED ON INCOME
COMMUNITY, SO I THINK THAT
THERE'S PROBABLY MORE DETAIL
THAT WILL BE IF THIS MEASURE
PASSES THAT THINK HELLFIRE WILL
DEVELOP AS IT AS IT WOULD
IMPLEMENT THE MEASURE. OKAY
THANK YOU. UM, AND ON THE
STATEWIDE APPRENTICESHIP
COMMITTEES. UH TO BE ESTABLISHED
. THIS IS AS I UNDERSTAND IT, UM
, TO IMPROVE THE TRAINING WITHIN
THE FIRE SERVICE AND STANDARDS.
UM COULD YOU TALK MORE ABOUT
THOSE LABOR STANDARDS, OR CAN
ANYONE TALK TO WHAT THOSE LABOR
STANDARDS ARE? UM HOW ARE THE
FUNDS GOING TO BE USED, FOR
EXAMPLE FOR RECRUITING TRAINING
, UM, HIRING OF FIREFIGHTERS. I
DON'T KNOW. MADAM CHAIR IS THAT
L A OR ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO
RESPOND? JUST, UM SENATOR DRAWS
WILL BE HAPPY TO GET THAT BACK
TO YOU. ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS
THAT THAT VISION WITHIN THE
INITIATIVE WAS DRAFTED IN CLOSE
CONCERT WITH LOCAL 21 88, WHICH
REPRESENTS ALL OF THE WORKFORCE
AT CAL FIRE. AND SO I CAN GET
FROM THEM AND GET TO YOU WITH
SPECIFICITY. EXACTLY YOU KNOW
HOW THEY SEE THAT WORKING AND
ENVISIONED, BUT IT WAS DONE WITH
WITH THE HAND OF THE OF THE CAL
FIRE UNION IN DRAFTING RIGHT?
AND I SAY THAT JUST YOU KNOW,
AND WITH THIS IS, UM THAT'S AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR RECRUITMENT AND
TRAINING FROM PEOPLE THROUGHOUT
, UM YOU KNOW, TO DIFFERENT
PARTS OF OUR STATE. UM AND I
WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE MORE,
UM ASSERTIVE EFFORTS ON THE
RECRUITMENT, UM, FRONT. UH AS
FAR AS WHO GETS INTO INTO THOSE
CAREERS. YES AND FROM WHAT I'VE
READ RECENTLY, AND I HAVE FAMILY
WITHIN CAL FIRE THAT, UM THEY?
THEY'RE HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME
ATTRACTING PEOPLE FROM, YOU
KNOW, INTO THE SERVICE, AND SO
THEY ARE BEING VERY AGGRESSIVE
IN REACHING OUT TO ALL CORNERS
OF THE STATE, AND I THINK THEY
WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT. THIS
COULD BE ONE OF THOSE SUBJECTS
FOR OUR SOON TO BE USED
APPRENTICESHIP. UM UM, PROGRAMS
. UM AND, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR THE
RECRUITMENT OF OTHER SECTORS OF
OUR COMMUNITY. UM SO ANYWAY,
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR QUESTIONS, SENATOR
GONZALES. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
. THANK YOU FOR THIS GREAT
DIALOGUE AND COMMITTEE HEARING,
SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS, YOU
KNOW, AS MANY PEOPLE HAVE OFTEN
HEARD ME SAY, YOU KNOW,
OBVIOUSLY MY DISTRICTS AND A
DISTRICT 33 SUFFERS FROM SOME OF
THE WORST AIR QUALITY IN THE IN
THE NATION BEING, UM, SUPPORT
COMMUNITY AND, OF COURSE, ALL
THE DIESEL TRUCKS GOING IN AND
OUT. SO THIS IS A PARTICULAR
INTEREST, OF COURSE, FOR OBVIOUS
REASONS, BUT GIVEN ALL OF THAT,
HAVING THE WORST AIR QUALITY
HAVING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
HAS THE WORST AIR QUALITY IN THE
NATION. WHAT SPECIFICALLY WHAT
ELEMENTS OF PROP 30 SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESS THE IMBALANCE OF THE
POLLUTION AND LACK OF INVESTMENT
IN THESE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
COMMUNITIES. I'D LOVE TO HEAR
FROM SOMEONE WHO CAN ADDRESS
THAT. MAYBE MR GARCIA OR ANYONE
ELSE WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND. THE
QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO MR
GARCIA. YES WE'RE ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS.
WE DEFINITELY SEE PROP 30, AS IN
ECUADOR PIECE THAT IMPORTANT
PIECE OF THE PUZZLE WHEN IT
COMES DOWN TO REALLY
TRANSITIONING PEOPLE'S MINDS
SETS TO CLEAN TRANSPORTATION,
PROVIDING A CLEAN BIKE LANES.
LAST MILE INFRASTRUCTURE
WALKWAYS OF FOR ELECTRIC BIKES
AND SCOOTERS TO REALLY
TRANSITION COMMUNITIES AND ALSO
TO TRANSITION LIGHTER. BUS
FLEETS IN THESE SMALL
COMMUNITIES, SUCH AS LIKE IN
LINWOOD, OR IN A COMMUNITY
SERVICES, SUCH AS ULTIMATE WITH
THEIR PACE PROGRAMS IN THEIR
SETTLE FLEETS, ALSO ALLOWING
THEM TO GET SUBSIDIES FOR THE
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO
BE NEEDED TO CHARGE THESE
SHUTTLE FLEET AS WELL THROUGH
THEIR PACE PROGRAMS. SO IT IS A
TRANSITIONAL GENERATIONAL
TRANSITIONAL PROPOSITION THAT
WE'RE TRYING TO INCORPORATE HERE
BECAUSE IF YOU REALLY SEE WHAT
$100 BILLION AND OF COURSE, A 45
BILLION OF THAT GOING INTO LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES WOULD TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF AND REALLY
TRANSFORM THESE COMMUNITIES INTO
CLEAN SPACES AND REALLY
TRANSFORM THE MINDSETS OF THE
COMMUNITY MEMBERS LIVING IN
THESE AREAS TO REALLY TRY TO GET
OUT OF THOSE VEHICLES AND
TRANSITION TO MASS TRANSIT
TRANSIT AND TWO CLEANER AND MORE
EQUITABLE POLICIES THAT REALLY
TRANSITION. OUR COMMUNITIES HAVE
BEEN TAKING ADVANTAGE OF FOR SO
LONG AND TWO ON THE TOUCH OF THE
PLACE OF THE SENATOR RUSSELL
WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO HOW DO WE
MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ALWAYS
BEEN GIVING THESE PROMISES THAT
THAT THESE ARE FUNDS ARE GOING
TO COME TO LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES, AND THAT'S THE
BEAUTY OF THIS COALITION THAT WE
BUILT THROUGH IE UNITED THROUGH
THE CATHERINE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
THROUGH COURAGE CAMPAIGN WE'VE
BUILT SO MANY RACIAL EQUITY,
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GROUPS
THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO
HOLD THESE SUBSIDIES ACCOUNTABLE
AND REALLY INFORMED THE PUBLIC
ABOUT THESE PROGRAMS, SO WE MAKE
SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE INFORMED
ABOUT THESE ISSUES AND THE
SUBSIDIES ARE AVAILABLE TO THEM
, BECAUSE MANY TIMES IN LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES IS WE JUST
DON'T KNOW THAT THESE PROGRAMS
EXIST AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM
, AND SOMETIMES THE MONEY'SGO
AWAY OR THEY GET RE
APPROPRIATED. SO THAT'S THE WAY
WE SEE IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MR
GARCIA. THANK YOU FOR THAT
RESPONSE BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY
THE I THINK WHAT HAD BEEN
MENTIONED BY SENATOR GRASSO, AS
WELL AS SENATOR STERN IN TERMS
OF THE EQUITY COMPONENT IS YES.
OUR COMMUNITIES DO SEE A LOT OF
THESE INCREDIBLE PROGRAMS. BUT
DON'T I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE PART
OF THE SOLUTION BECAUSE THEY'RE
NOT PHYSICALLY IN OUR
COMMUNITIES WHETHER YOU LIVE IN
MY DISTRICT, WHICH IS AN URBAN,
UM, COMMUNITY OR RURAL
COMMUNITIES AS WELL. I KNOW
SENATOR CAVALLERO HAS HAS ALWAYS
TALKED ABOUT HER COMMUNITY AND
JUST THE LACK OF FEELING LIKE
THEY ARE PART OF THESE ROBUST
PROGRAMS. UM SO ON THAT POINT AS
WELL, IN TERMS OF COORDINATION,
I HAVE THIS OTHER QUESTION IN
TERMS OF COORDINATION. I KNOW
WE'RE TALKING A LOT ABOUT CARB
AND HOW THEY ALL SORT OF SET THE
STAGE FOR ADDITIONAL EQUITY
COMPONENTS. BUT YOU KNOW WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VEHICLE AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT IN THE
LEGISLATURE. THERE'S SO MANY
DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
CARBS BC. I SO CALLOUS OBEYS,
ETCETERA. HOW DO WE? HOW DOES
PROP 30 SORT OF TACKLE THE
COORDINATION EFFORTS SO WE DON'T
HAVE EVERYONE STEPPING ALL OVER
EACH OTHER, AND SO IT CAN BE
EXTREMELY SIMPLE IMPLEMENTATION
FOR THESE COMMUNITIES AS WELL
AND, OF COURSE. NON GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE YOURSELVES.
AND THAT IS FOR WHOMEVER THAT
PROBABLY WOULD BE DIRECTED
TOWARDS OSCAR AS WELL, MR GARCIA
. WE CAN DO THAT. OR WHOEVER
ELSE WOULD LIKE TO, UM, WE CAN
SEE IF THERE'S ANY DIRECTION. UM
AND HAVE THE QUESTION DIRECTED
TO THE LAO IF YOU'D LIKE, AND
THEN WITH FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.
THAT WAS RIGHT. WHY DON'T WE DO
THAT? WE'LL START WITH THE
QUESTION TO THE AH, IN TERMS OF
COORDINATION AND, UM, AN
ORGANIZATION, I THINK TO ADD TO
THAT IT'S PROBABLY IMPORTANT
THAT WE DON'T END UP SPENDING A
MAJORITY OF THE MONEY ON
ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD BECAUSE
THERE'S SO MANY FINGERS IN THE
POT. SO IT'S A GOOD QUESTION, UM
, DIRECTED TO THE L A. L TO
BEGIN WITH. YEAH I'M JUST TRYING
TOKIND OF TRYING TO THINK ABOUT
KIND OF SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT
MIGHT BE IN THE MEASURE RELATED
TO COORDINATION. I THINK THERE'S
CERTAINLY SOME LANGUAGE IN THEIR
RELATED TO KIND OF THINKING
ABOUT GREAT IMPACTS, FOR EXAMPLE
, AND MAKING SURE THAT YOU KNOW
KIND OF DIRECTION TO THE
AGENCIES TO KIND OF CONSIDER
THOSE TYPES OF IMPACTS. AND
THAT, OF COURSE, SORT OF
REQUIRES. COORDINATION ON THE
FINAL ON THE LAST POINT ON KIND
OF ADMINISTRATION IN AN
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS THERE. UM
THERE IS, UH, PROVISION IN THE
MEASURE THAT CAPS THE
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AT 5%
FOR ALL OF THE DIFFERENT PIECES
OF FUNDING AND SO ON UP TO 5% OF
THE TOTAL MONEY CAN BE USED ON
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. UM
INSIGHT. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION, SENATOR GONZALEZ SAID.
WOULD YOU LIKE IT DIRECTED ALSO
TO MR GONZALEZ. MR GARCIA, THAT
ANSWERS MY QUESTION. SO THANK
YOU, AND I JUST HAVE ONE OTHER
QUICK QUESTION. AND THEN I'LL
CONCLUDE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
FOR INDULGING ME. THE LAST
QUESTION IS ABOUT JUST BETWEEN
LIGHT DUTY AND HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLES BECAUSE WE FOCUSED A
LOT ON LIGHT DUTY, AND I THINK
THAT'S OF COURSE WHAT WE NEED TO
DO, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO FOCUS
OUR ATTENTION AS WELL, TOO HEAVY
DUTY VEHICLES AND HOW WE
DISTINGUISH WHEN WE HAVE SPENT
TOO MUCH, MAYBE IN THE LIGHT
DUTY SPACE, OR WHAT'S THAT PIVOT
POINT OR HOW DO WE, UM HOW DO WE
MANAGE THE TWO AND HOW WE'RE
DOING IN BOTH AREAS UNDER THIS
PROPOSITION? SO UM, I CAN START
OFF WITH MAYBE JUST A FEW PIECES
OF THE MEASURE THAT ARE RELEVANT
TO THIS QUESTION. AND THEN, OF
COURSE, IF THE OTHER PANELISTS
HAVE COMMENTS THAT THEY WOULD
LIKE TO ADD. UM OF COURSE, CAN
DO THAT AS WELL. SO I THINK ON
THE, UM I'M NOT VEHICLE SIDE AND
KIND OF A PIECE THAT GOES TO
CARB. THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN
THE MEASURE THAT FOR THE FIRST
FOR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S
GOING TO CARB FOR THE FIRST
SEVERAL YEARS, TWO THIRDS OF
THAT GO TO THE PASSENGER
VEHICLES. UM AND THEN THE REST
IS KIND OF LEFT UP TO CARVE TO
KIND OF DETERMINE HOW IT
ALLOCATES TO A VARIETY OF OTHER
PROGRAMS, WHICH COULD INCLUDE
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES. UM AND THEN
KIND OF ONCE THAT EXPIRES THERE
COULD BE KIND OF A KIND OF
REASSESSMENT OF KIND OF HOW THAT
DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN PASSENGER
VERSUS HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES GOES
ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE SIDE.
THERE ARE SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR
BOTH THE EQUITY PIECE EVENTUALLY
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING AS WELL
AS THE GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURE
FUNDING. THERE ARE SOME MINIMUM
SPENDING REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING
A 10% MINIMUM ON FOR EACH OF
THOSE POTS OF MONEY FOR HEAVY
DUTY INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT THERE'S
ALSO A SIGNIFICANT CHUNK OF THE
FUNDING THAT GOES TO THE ENERGY
COMMISSION, WHICH I THINK IT'S
ABOUT 50% WHICH IS KIND OF LEFT
UP TO THEIR DISCRETION ON HOW
THEY ALLOCATE THAT BETWEEN, UM
BETWEEN PASSENGER VEHICLES AND
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES, SO THAT'S
JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT KIND OF
HOW THE HOW THE STRUCTURE IS SET
UP, AND HOPEFULLY THAT'S
HELPFUL. VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. VERY
GOOD. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
SENATOR DRAWS? OH, JUST A VERY
QUICK I'M SORRY FOR MY IGNORANCE
ON THIS. BUT WHERE THE BUSSES
FALL IN AS FAR AS LIGHT AND
HEAVY DUTY. ARE THEY INCLUDED IN
THIS EQUATION, SO IT MIGHT BE
GOOD. THAT'S A REALLY GOOD
QUESTION. IF SOMEBODY COULD
ANSWER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE OR
TRANSPORT, UM PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION AS OPPOSED TO
SCHOOL BUSSES, UM AND THEY MAY
OFFER OUT FIND IN THE SAME
CATEGORY, BUT IT MIGHT BE GOOD
TO HAVE A DIFFERENTIATION. YEAH,
I MEAN, SO I THINK BUSSES IN
GENERAL FALL INTO KIND OF THE
HEAVY DUTY CATEGORY, AT LEAST OR
AT LEAST THE KIND OF NON
PASSENGER VEHICLE CATEGORIES SO
THEY WOULD FALL INTO KIND OF THE
THAT OTHER, UM, PART OF MONEY
THAT IS NOT KIND OF SPECIFICALLY
RESERVED FOR PASSENGER VEHICLES
, WHICH COULD INCLUDE HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLES, INCLUDING TRANSIT AND
SCHOOL BUSSES. AND ALSO WITH
THAT INCLUDE JUST TO JUMP IN ON
THAT THE RIDE PROGRAMS THAT ARE. THAT ARE DONE THAT ARE A
LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN A VAN,
FOR EXAMPLE, BUT NOT QUITE A
BUS. I DON'T. I DON'T KNOW THAT
THERE'S A KIND OF OFTEN A
WAITING THERE'S OFTEN A KIND OF
WEIGHT DELINEATION BETWEEN KIND
OF, YOU KNOW, PASSENGER AND WHAT
SORT OF LIGHT DUTY VERSUS MEDIUM
DUTY DUTY VERSUS HEAVY DUTY. AND
SO I THINK IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON
THE SPECIFIC VIDEO, OF COURSE,
BUT GENERALLY WHEN YOU'RE KIND
OF GETTING AT VEHICLES THAT ARE
LARGER THAN JUST KIND OF A BIG
BAND, AND YOU KIND OF GET INTO
MORE OF THE MEDIUM DUTY TYPES OF
VEHICLES THAT ARE NOT PASSENGER
VEHICLES. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
THAT ANSWER. APPRECIATE IT. ARE
THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM
THE COMMITTEE? SAYING NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSES.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. AND SO I
ANT TO INVITE THE PUBLIC TO, UM
TO CALL IN ON THE NUMBER.
LOOKING FOR THAT NUMBER AGAIN.
WHY DON'T WE OPEN THAT LINE? LET
ME SEE. SO OUR TODAY'S
PARTICIPANT NUMBER IS 8442914.
AND THE ACCESS CODE IS 984113 I
WANT TO INVITE ANYONE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT IN
REGARDING REGARDING THIS, UM
PROPOSITION. 32 PLEASE DIAL IN
AND INDICATE THAT YOU'RE
AVAILABLE, SO IF WE COULD OPEN
THE LINES NOW AND ASKED THE
MODERATOR TO QUEUE UP THE
PARTICIPANTS. ACTUALLY WANT TO
SEE IF THERE LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO,
UH IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
YOUR YOUR STANCE, PLEASE PRESS
10 AT THIS TIME. YOU'LL HEAR AN
INDICATION YOU'VE BEEN PLACED
INTO Q AND IN A T AND T
SPECIALISTS WILL PROVIDE YOU
WITH YOUR LINE NUMBER. WELL
FIRST GO TO LINE 14. MR.
MODERATOR I'M SORRY. I NEED TO
CHECK AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYBODY
IN THE IN THE ROOM TODAY WITH US
FIRST. SO IF I COULD INVITE
ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE
PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT'S HERE IN
THE CHAMBERS TO PLEASE GO TO THE
MIC AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND
YOUR COMMENT, PLEASE. AND
WELCOME. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
AND OTHER CHAIRS AND MEMBERS OF
MY NAME IS HUNTER STERN. I'M
WITH THE I. B W LOCAL 12 45 ARE
MEMBERS WORK FOR INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES AND PUBLICLY OWNED
UTILITIES IN NORTHERN CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA. WE ARE STRONGLY IN
SUPPORT OF PROP 30 AND WOULD
LIKE TO ADD THAT THE, UH,
TESTIMONY ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE
OF CONSISTENT AND REGULAR
FUNDING FOR THIS XEV
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT OVER
THE PERIOD OF THE DURATION OF
THE INITIATIVE IS CRITICAL. BOTH
FOR THE UTILITIES THAT ARE
MEMBERS WORK FOR IN TERMS OF
PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND
EXECUTING, CONSTRUCTING, UH
GREATER INFRASTRUCTURE TO
SUPPORT AND SEV. INTEGRATION AND
ADOPTION AS WELL AS AN
UNEXPECTED BENEFIT THAT AS WE
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF E V S
OPERATING IN CALIFORNIA, WE HAVE
SEEN THAT THE COST PER CUSTOMER
IS REDUCED AND WE'RE WORKING NOW
TO UPDATE THOSE STUDIES. BUT
THESE WERE ANALYSIS THAT WOULD
HAVE DONE ON BEHALF OF NRDC, UM,
THAT HAS BEEN SHARED IN THE PAST
AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO SHARE THE
CURRENT STATUS OF THAT WITH
STAFF. BUT AGAIN IN STRONG
SUPPORT, AND THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
NEXT. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
THANK YOU. ALL THE CHAIRS. THANK
YOU. COMMITTEE MEMBERS, PRESTON
YOUNG FROM THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND OUR
ORGANIZATION IS OPPOSED TO
PROPOSITION 30. AND JUST IN
BRIEF CONCERNS WE HAVE IS THAT
THE NEW TAX ASSOCIATED WITH
PROPOSITION 30 WOULD IMPACT
SMALL BUSINESSES AND THAT WOULD
BE PRIMARILY PAST PREVENTED.
HE'S SUCH AS PARTNERSHIPS.
PROPRIETORS S CORPSE.
ADDITIONALLY THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD IN 2020 INDICATED THAT
20200.2% OF FILLERS FOR INCOME
TAX RETURNS WOULD MEET THE
THRESHOLD THAT'S OUTLINED
PROPOSITION 30, HOWEVER, THAT
300.2% OF TAXPAYERS ACTUALLY
PAID 64% OF THE STATE'S TOTAL
INCOME TAXES AND WITH RECESSION
LOOMING, THE CONCERN IS YOU'RE
DRIVING AWAY THE TAXPAYERS WHO
PROVIDE THE ECONOMIC CUSHION
DURING TOUGH TIMES. ADDITIONALLY
PROPOSITION 30 IS UNNECESSARY
BECAUSE THE STATES ALREADY
INVESTING HEAVILY IN CLIMATE
CHANGE AND ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLES WITH THE MORE MEASURED
APPROACH INCLUDES A TOTAL
INVESTMENT OF $47 BILLION, WHICH
EQUATES TO NEARLY 10 BILLION PER
YEAR TO FUND CLIMATE CHANGE
ISSUES AND SEVEN ACCELERATION.
UM ADDITIONALLY, THE CONCERN WE
HAVE WITH PROPOSITION 30 IS IT
WOULD INVEST IN ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
BUT NOT POWER GRID
INFRASTRUCTURE, SO A MASSIVE AND
RAPID EXPANSION OF THE STATES OF
FLEET WILL BE A MAJOR STRESS ON
THE POWER GRID, AND IT'S ALREADY
A THINLY STRETCHED PARA GRID. SO
THANK YOU FOR THE TIME IN THE
CONSIDERATION TODAY. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE
ON TO THE TELECONFERENCE LINE.
SO MR MODERATOR, IF YOU COULD
PLEASE CALL OUT THE FIRST PERSON
TO TESTIFY, AND IF YOU COULD
TELL ME HOW MANY PEOPLE WE HAVE,
I CAN I DON'T WANT TO LIMIT UM,
TESTIMONY, BUT BUT IF EVERYONE
COULD PLEASE TAKE ABOUT ONE
MINUTE. THAT WOULD BE TERRIFIC.
CURRENTLY WE HAVE FIVE LINES IN
QUÊ. WELL, FIRST GO TO LINE 14
GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS TRISTAN, BROWNWOOD
CFT UNION OF EDUCATORS AND
CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS, THANKS
TO SENATOR HUESO FOR MENTIONING
AT THE TOP OF THE HEARING
HISTORIC TAX PASSED BY VOTERS A
DECADE AGO THAT HELPED THE
MULTITUDE OF STUDENTS AND
WORKING FAMILIES ACROSS THE
STATE. AS THE ORIGINAL
PROPONENTS OF THAT IMPLEMENTS,
PROP 30. WE MUST OPPOSE THIS
PROP 30. IT'S REGRETTABLE THAT
THE PROPONENTS OF THE MEASURE
FAILED TO REACH OUT TO THE
EDUCATION COMMUNITY TO PROPERLY
CRAFT A REVENUE MEASURE THAT
WOULDN'T HARM OUR STATE
STUDENTS. AS ALREADY RECOGNIZED
THIS HEARING THE MEASURABLE
CARVE OUT VALUABLE REVENUE FROM
OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM. AS
WE CONTINUE OUR ATTEMPT TO CLIMB
OUT OF THE BOTTOM HALF OF OUR
PERFUME SPENDING AND RESTORE
EDUCATION SYSTEM TO ITS HIGH
WATER MARK PRIOR TO PROP 13, WE
SHOULD BE CLEAR TO CFT IS
DEDICATED TO REVERSING CLIMATE
CHANGE. BUT THIS NEW PROP 30,
HOWEVER, IT'S SIMPLY A CAUTIOUS
FROM MAJOR RIDESHARE COMPANIES.
DUBIOUS LABOR PRACTICES, SPEND
MILLIONS AND PERPETUATING
INSTITUTIONAL POVERTY BY KEEPING
THE DRIVERS FROM BEING
EMPLOYEES. AND CALIFORNIA IS
LEADING THE WAY IN PROLIFERATING
GREEN TECHNOLOGY, AS REPRESENTED
BY THE AMAZING STATE BUDGET. YOU
ALL JUST PASSED, SO WE JOINED
GOVERNOR NEWSOM, HE SAID. PROP
30 IS A SPECIAL INTEREST, CARVE
OUT A CYNICAL SCHEME DEVISED BY
A SINGLE CORPORATION OF FUNNEL
STATE INCOME TAX REVENUE TO THE
COMPANY, AND THAT'S WHY WE
JOINED OUR SIBLINGS AND THE HIâU
CSC, A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS AND THE CT AND
OPPOSING THIS MEASURE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT,
PLEASE. LINE 16. YES MY NAME IS
ELI LIBMAN. I'M EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF MOVE L. A. WE HAVE
BEEN WORKING ON THIS EFFORT
SINCE 2018. SO OVER FOUR YEARS
TO TWO P UP THE IDEA OF A
STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURE THAT
WOULD GET UR JOB DONE ON CLEAN
AIR. AND CLEAN UP OUR PORTS,
WHICH ARE CAUSING IRREPARABLE
HARM TO STUDENTS TO RESIDENTS IN
THOSE AREAS. WE HAVE ALSO BEEN
TRYING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE
SHORT LIVED CLIMATE POLLUTANTS,
AND IN FACT, IF YOU GO TO L A
DOT ORG YOU CAN SEE ALL THE WORK
THAT WE PUT IN WITH MULTIPLE
ORGANIZATIONS. DOZENS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS THE
CRAFTED MEASURE THAT WOULD
ENSURE THAT 50% OF THE MONEY
GOES. FIRST INTO AN EQUITY FUND
THAT GOES DIRECTLY TO
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES THAT
ARE STRUGGLING WITH DIRTY AIR IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. WE NEED
THIS MONEY. I THINK IT'S SENATOR
STERN SAYS. THE LEGISLATURE AND
THE GOVERNOR PUT TOGETHER A
FANTASTIC BUDGET. WE DO NOW HAVE
POTENTIALLY FUNDS COMING FROM
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. BUT EVEN
OUR OWN PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN,
ADMIT ADMITTED THAT THAT
LEGISLATION THE IRA LEGISLATION
ONLY GETS US 40% OF THE WAY
WHERE WE NEED TO GO. WE NEED THE
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
STEP UP WITH BETTER TRANSIT
CLEANER VEHICLES. CLEANER TRUCKS
CLEANER, TUG BUDS, CLEANER,
CLEANER AIRPLANES, AND THIS
MEASURE WILL DO IT. SO WE JOINED
WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS WITH THE EAST SHARDS.
COMMUNITIES WITH. COALITION FOR
CLEAN AIR AND WITH GROUPS FROM
ACROSS THE STATE IN SUPPORT OF
PROPOSITION 30 TO ENSURE THAT WE
CAN GET THEJOB DONE AND FINALLY
ADDRESS OUR CHALLENGES WITH
WILDFIRES THAT CLIMATE CHANGE
AND ARE TERRIBLE, TOXIC CLEAN
AIR THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA BUT THROUGHOUT THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU
FOR THIS HEARING, AND PLEASE
CONSIDER YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH NEXT, PLEASE. LINE 12.
GOOD MORNING CHAIRS MEMBERS.
THIS IS ROBIN BLACKS ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA SMALL BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION. WE ALSO ARE
COMMITTED TO HELPING COMBAT
CLIMATE CHANGE. BUT REGRETFULLY
, WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO PROP
30 JUST BECAUSE OF THE ONGOING
IMPACT SOME OF THE CURRENT
RECESSION AND OR THEORETICAL
RECESSION. INFLATION UM, THAT
THE CORONAVIRUS IT'S JUST A VERY
DIFFICULT TIME FOR SMALL
BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA. WE
APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS, BUT
REGRETFULLY, WE ARE OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
NEXT, PLEASE. LINE 15. HELLO MY
NAME IS JENNY ZANE. UM, I'M
FOUNDER OF MOVE L A AND BEGAN
WORKING ON THE ISSUES OF THE
DIALOGUE WHICH LED TO PROSPERITY
BACK AND ARE COVERED 2020 PROP
30 DOES EXACTLY WHAT WE NOW NEED
. WE ARE FACING A CLIMATE
EMERGENCY. AND IF THE 2018 I P.
P. C SPECIAL REPORT CLIMATE
CHANGE DID NOT CONVINCE US THAT
DAY TO DAY EXPERIENCE WE HAVE OF
DROUGHT, WILDFIRE FLOODS,
EXTRAORDINARY WEATHER EVENTS ALL
AROUND THE WORLD. REMINDS US OF
THIS EVERY DAY. TRANSPORTATION
IS 40 50% OF THE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS. IN MUCH LARGER SHARE
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA'S AIR
POLLUTION. IT SHOULD BE IN NEEDS
TO BE A TOP PRIORITY. THE GOOD
NEWS IS, OF COURSE, WE CAN SEE
THE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE
STRATEGIES NEEDED. TO
DRAMATICALLY REDUCE BOTH
GREENHOUSE GASSES AND AIR
POLLUTION. UM, ARE NOW AVAILABLE
. WE NEED TO ACCELERATE THEIR
DEPLOYMENT. WE NEED TO CHANGE
INDUSTRIES TO DO. TO DO THAT. WE
NEED NOT ONE OFF FUNDING, WHICH
IS HELPFUL. AROUND HIM. LARGE
PARTS OF ONE TIME. MONEY IS
HELPFUL, BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH. WE
NEED A SUSTAINED EFFORT. WE NEED
SIGNIFICANT FUNDING RELIABLE
OVER TIME, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
GIVES MANUFACTURERS THE
CONFIDENCE THEY NEED TO TAKE THE
RISK TO ACCELERATING THE CHANGE
IN THE MANUFACTURING PRACTICES
AND IN THEIR PRODUCT. EARLY
EMPHASIS IN THIS MEASURE ON LIKE
DUTY. INVESTMENTS IN LIGHT DUTY
ZERO EMISSIONS VEHICLES. I THINK
IS TOTALLY CORRECT. IT REFLECTS
AN EMPHASIS ON CLIMATE LIGHT
DUTY VEHICLES. UM ABOUT TWO
THIRDS OF THE TRANSPORTATION
EMISSIONS DATA THAT THE DHC
EMISSIONS OTHER CATEGORIES LIKE
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES VERY MUCH
GREATER SHARE OF AIR POLLUTANTS
LOWER SHARE OF CLIMATE EMISSIONS
, AND SO THIS MEASURE REFLECTS
AN EMPHASIS ON CLIMATE ALSO
REFLECTS THE FACT THAT HEAVY
DUTY VEHICLES. IN PARTICULAR
THAT NEED TO BE, UM, PROGNOSIS
DEVELOPED ZERO EMISSION PRODUCT
NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED. NEED A
RAMP UP TIME IN ORDER TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT EFFECTIVELY
WHILE THEY'RE RAMPING UP, WE CAN
BE ESSENTIALLY MAKING GASOLINE
VEHICLES OBSOLETE. UM, I DO NOT
SEE AT ALL. HOW IT IS. THE LIFT
IS IMAGINE TO BE A MAJOR
BENEFICIARY OF THIS. LIFT DOES
NOT OWN VEHICLES DOES NOT BUY
VEHICLES. INDIVIDUAL DRIVERS
MIGHT BENEFIT AND SHOULD BENEFIT
ESPECIALLY, UM DRIVERS FROM LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES AND
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. THEY
MIGHT BENEFIT FROM THIS MEASURE
AND BE ABLE TO BUY EBS WITH
THEIR OWN AND THEN GO LOOK FOR
JOBS LIKE 2000 LIFT. THAT
PERHAPS A LARGER POTENTIAL
WORKFORCE MAYBE LIFT BENEFITS IN
THAT WAY, BUT WE ALL BENEFIT IN
THAT WAY. THIS IS I THINK AN
EXTRAORDINARY ASKED YOU TO WRAP
UP, PLEASE. CALIFORNIA SHOULD
SHOW AGAIN. THE LEADERSHIP THAT
HAVE ALWAYS SHOWN TAKE THIS
EFFORT TO THE NEXT LEVEL. WE ARE
AN ENORMOUS PART OF THE WORLD
ECONOMY. EVERY MANUFACTURER
SELLS PRODUCTS HERE, DO IT IN
CALIFORNIA, AND THEY'LL DO IT
FOR THE WORLD. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH NEXT, PLEASE. LINE 19.
MORNING THIS IS DENNIS ALBION E.
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
FAMILY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION. WE
OPPOSED PROP 30 AND APPRECIATE
THE EARLIER OUR WITNESS WHO
TESTIFIED THAT OVER 60% OF THE
UH, PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUES
COME FROM THESE HIGH WAGE
EARNERS AND THOSE BOOTS ANY OF
THOSE MOVE OUT OF STATE BECAUSE
OF THE ADDITIONAL TAX. IT WOULD
HURT ALL TAXPAYERS THAT WOULD
HURT THE ENTIRE STATE BUDGET. SO
FOR THOSE REASONS WE OPPOSE THIS
MEASURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. NEXT, PLEASE. ONE
MOMENT, PLEASE. LINE, 20 GO
AHEAD. MY NAME IS WILL BARRETT
I'M THE NATIONAL SENIOR DIRECTOR
BETWEEN AIR ADVOCACY WITH THE
AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION. THE
LONG ASSOCIATION IS A STRONG
SUPPORTER OF THE BALLOT MEASURE
AND ONE OF MANY HEALTH
ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE EXPRESSED
THEIR SUPPORT TO DATE. WE THINK
THAT PROP 30 REALLY DOES BUILD
ON CALIFORNIA'S CLEAN AIR
LEADERSHIP, BUT STILL WE KNOW WE
FACE THE MOST DIFFICULT AIR
POLLUTION CHALLENGES IN THE
UNITED STATES ALONG
ASSOCIATION'S ANNUAL REPORT,
CALLED THE STATE OF THE AIR THIS
YEAR, FOUND THAT 98% OF
CALIFORNIA. ARE STILL LIVING IN
COMMUNITIES IMPACTED BY OZONE OR
PARTICLE POLLUTION. WE HAVE SIX
OF THE SMOGGIEST 10 SMOGGIEST
CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND
CALIFORNIA AND EIGHT OF THE
CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES,
MOST IMPACTED BY PARTICLE
POLLUTION. WILDFIRES AND
TRANSPORTATION POLLUTION OR TWO
OF THE MOST DIFFICULT AIR
POLLUTION CHALLENGES AND BURDENS
FAITH IN CALIFORNIA TODAY, AND
THIS BALLOT MEASURE REALLY GETS
TO THE HEART OF SUSTAINED
INVESTMENT IN ADDRESSING THESE
SOURCES OF MAJOR POLLUTION. WE
KNOW THAT THE BURDENS OF
SOLUTIONS DO NOT FALL EQUALLY IN
CALIFORNIA. WE KNOW THAT
CHILDREN AND SENIORS ARE AT
GREATER RIFT. WE KNOW THAT
PREGNANT PEOPLE AND PEOPLE
LIVING WITH ASTHMA AND OTHER
RESPIRATORY AND CARDIOVASCULAR
ILLNESSES ARE AT GREATER RISK,
AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT PEOPLE OF
COLOR AND LOWER INCOME
COMMUNITIES MEMBERS ARE AT
GREATER RISK AND OFTEN
DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN. FUTURE
ON UNHEALTHY AIR. WE KNOW THE
PROPER 30 WILL PROVIDE SUSTAINED
SUPPORT TO ACCELERATE THE
CLEANER CLEANER BENEFITS OF
CLEANING UP THE TRANSPORTATION
SECTOR AND LOOKING TO PRODUCE
THE IMPACT OF WILDFIRES ON
COMMUNITY HEALTH. AND WE ALSO
VERY MUCH SUPPORT THE
DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT HAS SUCH
AN EMPHASIS ON EQUITY AND
CLOSING GAPS. IN ACCESS TO CLEAN
AIR. FOCUS ON LIGHT DUTY. MR
ZANE JUST TALKED ABOUT WILL
REALLY HELP US MOVE THAT SECTOR
FORWARD, BUT ON THE HEAVY DUTY
SIDE, THIS IS A MAJOR INVESTMENT
OPPORTUNITY IN CLEANING THE AIR
IN ADDRESSING THE MOST THE
LARGEST SOURCES OF POLLUTION ON
POLLUTION IN CALIFORNIA HEAVY
DUTY TRUCKS REPRESENT 5 TO 10%
OF ALL THE VEHICLES ON THE ROAD
BUT PRODUCED MORE THAN HALF THE
SMOG AND PARTICLE FORMING, NOT
SUBMISSIONS. THAT MAKE
CALIFORNIANS SIX. WE ALSO NO, NO
, WE HAVE THE GROWING CHALLENGES
OF WILDFIRES IN THE BALLOT
MEASURE REALLY GETS TO A
SUSTAINED, ONGOING EFFORT TO
REDUCE THE IMPACT OF WILDFIRES
THROUGH PREVENTION MEASURES AND,
UM, SUPPRESSION MEASURES. AND
THEN ALSO JUST A NOTE THERE.
REALLY THIS IS A BALLOT MEASURE
THAT IS NOT DEFINED BY ANY CAR
BOATS. UH THIS IS ONLY DEFINED
AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SUSTAINED
INVESTMENT IN HEALTHY AIR FOR
ALL CALIFORNIANS, ANOTHER
ENCLOSING THE TWO PLEASE WRAP UP
THIS YEAR. SURE UM, WE KNOW THAT
THERE ARE TENS AND TENS OF
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PUBLIC
HEALTH BENEFITS TO BE HAD
THOUSANDS OF LIVES TO BE SAVED
BY MAKING THE TRANSITION TO ZERO
MISSION TECHNOLOGIES ACROSS THE
BOARD THAT SHOULD BE A TOP
PRIORITY FOR ONGOING INVESTMENT
IN THE STATE. AND THE MEASURE
DOES JUST THAT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. NEXT, PLEASE. LINE
18. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
MINE WINDOW. I'M CALLING ON
BEHALF OF COURAGE, CALIFORNIA.
UM I YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE THAT
CALIFORNIA HAS THE OPPORTUNITY
TO BE A BEACON OF PROGRESSIVE
AND EQUITABLE DEMOCRACY, WHICH
INCLUDES BEING A LEADER IN
TACKLING THE VERY REAL
EXISTENTIAL DAILY THREAT OF
CLIMATE CHANGE, AND RC HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD ON SO MANY
FRONTS THIS YEAR AND POSITION.
30 IS ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE
CAN DO SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. MR MODERATOR,
MODERATOR. HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE
DO WE HAVE ON THE LINE? MADAM
CHAIR. WE HAVE NO FURTHER LINES
IN QUÊ. VERY GOOD THAT CONCLUDES
OUR PUBLIC COMMENT, AND I WANT
TO THANK YOU ALL FOR
PARTICIPATING BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR FINAL
QUESTIONS. IT MAY HAVE BEEN
RAISED. I DO HAVE A QUESTION
THAT I NEGLECTED TO ASK, UM AND
I ALSO HAVE AN AND WE'VE
RECEIVED A NOTICE AND MR GARCIA
, WHY DON'T I TAKE THAT UP FIRST
? UM I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THERE
MAY HAVE BEEN A POTENTIAL
MISREPRESENTATION OR INADVERTENT
MISREPRESENTATION IN REGARDS TO
SEE HI. YES MADAM CHAIR. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. YES. S E I U AT
THEIR STATE COUNCIL WHEN A
NEUTRAL ON THE PROPOSITION AND
THEY ARE NOT OPPONENTS OF
PROPOSITION. 30 THERE ARE
NEUTRAL ON THE ISSUE. VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION. I APPRECIATE IT.
SO THE QUESTION I HAD HAD TO DO
WITH THE, UM THE TAX I SAID,
APPLIES TO FILING STATUS. UM
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
TAX APPLIES. IN THIS MEASURE
WHENEVER THE INCOME ON THE
RETURN EXCEEDS THE THRESHOLD AS
AN INDIVIDUAL OR JOINTLY AS A
MARRIED COUPLE OR REGISTERED
DOMESTIC PARTNER. UM SO THE
QUESTION IS, IS REALLY WAS IT
WAS IT INTENDED TO PENALIZED?
MARRIED COUPLES ARE REGISTERED
DOMESTIC PARTNERS WHO FILED
JOINTLY BECAUSE IF YOU FILE
SEPARATELY, YOU DON'T END UP.
MANY MAY NOT REACH THAT
THRESHOLD, SO I'M UM MIGHT BE MR
GARCIA OR UM OR MR WHICH. ON
THAT IT WAS THAT INTENTIONAL OR
WAS THAT ONE OF THE WHAT WAS
THAT? AN OVERSIGHT. NO, I DON'T
BELIEVE THERE WAS INTENTIONAL
AND SOMETHING I COULD GET YOU
MORE CLARIFICATION ON AS WELL
WHEN I CHECKED WITH OUR PARTNERS
, BUT IF IT IS AN OVERSIGHT, WE
WILL DEFINITELY ADDRESS IT AS
WELL. VERY GOOD. WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE TREAT PEOPLE UM, IN
THIS INCOME CATEGORY FAIRLY,
TOO, SO I SEE NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS
. SO SENATOR STERN WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CONCLUDE AS ONE OF THE
CHAIRS? AND YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY
SO IF YOU HAVE I'M OKAY WITH
THAT. NO, I'M HAPPY TO. I THINK
THIS HAS BEEN A USEFUL HEARING,
UM, NOT JUST HEAR FROM THE
ADVOCATES BUT ESPECIALLY FROM
THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
, UM, TO KIND OF GET DOWN TO THE
BRASS TACKS. IF YOU WILL, UM
WHAT THIS PROVISION OF WHAT THIS
ACT WOULD UM, PUT TOGETHER AND
THE SPACE FRANKLY, THAT IT
LEAVES US AS A LEGISLATURE TO
ADDRESS A LOT OF PRIORITIES THAT
WE'VE BEEN FAILING ON AS A STATE
FROM AN EQUITY PERSPECTIVE, UM,
WHETHER IT'S OR NOT ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLE GOALS OR WHO
GOES FIRST IN LINE WHEN IT COMES
TO WILDFIRE RESILIENCE, THINKING
ABOUT WHO HAS TO BREATHE THAT
SMOKING EVERY TIME THERE IS A
WILDFIRE. IT'S NOT JUST UM, YOU
KNOW THE PEOPLE IN RURAL AREAS,
BUT IT'S WHERE CLUSTERS AND AIR
BASINS UM AND I GUESS WHAT I MY
BIG TAKEAWAY FROM FROM THE
HEARING IS UM WHILE I APPRECIATE
THIS SORT OF OVERALL CONCERNS
THAT HOWARD JARVIS IS ALWAYS
GOING TO MAKE ABOUT ANY TAX
MEASURE THAT THOSE MAKING THE
KIND OF INCOMES WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT. UM ARE DOING WELL ENOUGH
DURING THIS PERIOD OF. OF
SLOWING INFLATION AND THAT THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE HURTING, UM
DESPERATELY NEED SOME SUPPORT.
AND IF WE CAN LOWER THEIR
MONTHLY BILL ON WHAT THEY PAID,
IT COMMUTE THEMSELVES AROUND THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY, UM
PLUGGING INSTEAD OF FILLING UP
AT THE PUMP OR KEEP PEOPLE FROM
, UM FROM BURNING DOWN OR OR OR
INHALING THAT SMOKE FROM FROM
THAT. I THINK WE'RE GONNA SEE
SOME REALLY IMPORTANT OUTCOMES
HERE AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, I
THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD, UM, SHOULD
THIS ACT BE ENACTED TO ACT
OURSELVES AND TO FILL SOME OF
THOSE GAPS, UM, TO PUT EQUITY
PROVISIONS. INTO OUR WILDFIRE
BUDGET DECISION MAKING AROUND
CAL FIRE TO LOOK AT THE FORMERLY
INCARCERATED FIRST IN OUR
APPRENTICESHIP STRATEGIES TO
LOOK AT, YOU KNOW THESE TRAINING
PROGRAMS OUT THERE AND
PRIORITIZE HIGH ROADS APPROACHES
THERE AND TO DO THE SAME THING
ON EVIE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
AND TO FIND A WAY TO APPRECIATE
THE POINT ABOUT THE POWER GRID.
BUT AS WE WRESTLE WITH THE
ENERGY SYSTEM RIGHT NOW AND
TRAILER AND IN BUDGET AGAIN
PUTTING EQUITY FIRST, I THINK
WE'VE BEEN LEFT SPACE IN THIS
PROPOSITION DO THAT, BUT I THINK
IT'S ON THE LEGISLATURE IN THIS
GOVERNOR TO FILL IN THOSE
DETAILS, SO LOOK FORWARD TO
GETTING INTO THAT WORK OVER THE
NEXT THREE WEEKS. AND SHOULD
THIS MOVE FORWARD OVER THE NEXT
FEW YEARS, SO APPRECIATE THE
SHARED OVERSIGHT HEARING, AND,
UH. YEAH, WE'LL SEE OUR NEXT
STEP JUST TO CLARIFY, UM UNDER
THE STEINBERG LAW THAT THAT
THESE HEARINGS INTO PLACE WE'RE
NOT ONLY HAVING THIS OVERSIGHT
HEARING, BUT THERE WILL BE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR I THINK THE
LEGISLATURE TO SEND BACK
COMMENTS. WHAT'S THE CAN I ASK
YOU, ELLIE. ELLIE OFF THEY
RECALL IS THERE ONE MORE STEP IN
THE CITIZEN DRIVEN INITIATIVE-PROCESS FOR THE LEGISLATURE.
HERE. I GET THAT THERE'S THIS
HEARING. MAYBE MADAM CHAIR IF
YOU KNOW, FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN,
BUT I THINK THERE'S THIS
OVERSIGHT HEARING. THAT'S ONE OF
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. AND
THEN IS THERE ONE OTHER PIECE?
AH THIS FROST BROWN FROM THE L.
A I'M NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY
HEAD. I, UH I DON'T REMEMBER
SORT OF ANOTHER PIECE, BUT I'M
NOT 100% CONFIDENT ON THAT MANY
OF MY COLLEAGUES WERE ON THE
CALL SHOULD FEEL FREE TO JUMP
IN. IF THEY NO, BUT I CAN CIRCLE
BACK AROUND WITH MY COLLEAGUE
WHO KIND OF HANDLES THAT THE
PROCESS A LITTLE BIT MORE
FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS A
LITTLE BIT MORE ON MY AND LET
YOU KNOW IF THERE'S SOMETHING
ELSE YOU MIGHT. MY UNDERSTANDING
WAS THAT WE'RE IN A WINDOW. I
THINK IT'S A 60 DAY WINDOW. UM
I'M NOT SURE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF
WE'RE PASSED AMENDMENT DEADLINE
ON THE PROPOSITION, I THINK WE
ARE BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THE
LEGISLATURE COULD AT LEAST OFFER
COMMENTS OR FEEDBACK TO THE
PROPONENTS TO CONSIDER. BUT I
FORGET IF THIS HEARING IS COMING
OUT THE HELL AT THE TAIL END OF
THAT PROCESS, OR IF WE STILL
HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY, SO MAYBE
YOU COULD GET US SOME CLARITY ON
THAT GOING FORWARD. PERHAPS THE
PROPONENTS MAY KNOW OR EVEN THE
OPPONENT'S ANYONE ON THE MAKING
A MESS OF MY HEARING HERE. WHY
DON'T WE? WHY DON'T WE GET THAT
INFORMATION? BECAUSE MY
UNDERSTANDING AS WE STAND HERE
TODAY, THAT IS THAT THE WHATEVER
NEGOTIATIONS IS DRY. WE'RE DONE.
THE INK IS DRY, BUT IF THERE'S
AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENTS
, MAYBE THE CHAIRS CAN GET
TOGETHER AND MAKE SOME
SUGGESTIONS WITH THE HELP OF OUR
THAT'S A GREAT IDEA SENATORS
THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE HEARING
. THAT'S OKAY. I'M JUST GIVING
YOU THE MIC. UM YEAH, MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WERE DONE
IN TODAY'S HEARING. THIS IS, UM
WAS PART OF THE PROCESS, BUT WE
DON'T VOTE ON IT AND WE DON'T
TAKE A POSITION. UM, IT'S UM
IT'S FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES.
SO I WANT TO THANK THE MY FELLOW
CHAIRS AND THE PARTICIPATING
SENATORS WHO ASKED SOME REALLY
GOOD QUESTIONS, THE WITNESSES AS
WELL AS THE MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC WHO CALLED IN TODAY TO
SHARE THEIR VIEWS ON THIS
IMPORTANT INITIATIVE. I HOPE
THAT THE INFORMATION PRESENTED
TODAY WILL HELP INFORM VOTER
DECISIONS AS WELL AS OUR OWN.
WHEN PROPOSITION 30 IS
CONSIDERED AT THE NOVEMBER
ELECTION AND THISJOINT
INFORMATIONAL HEARING STANDS
ADJOURNED, SO THANK YOU TO
EVERYBODY. OKAY?