Assembly Transportation Committee, Monday, April 13, 2026
Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Assembly Transportation Committee California State Assembly
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 3
Our analysis found that allowing the sale of noncarbob with a fee used to replace old dirty cars would effectively mitigate these emissions in the year of replacement and pay long term dividends for the climate and communities. But after all this research, we realized that California has already had this tool on the books for thirty years. Industry sponsored legislation shrewdly gave CARB the authority to grant waivers, allowing non CARBob to enter the market during emergencies, with a fee to offset the emissions difference and to protect in state refineries when the market is functioning well. We can be forgiven for not knowing about it because this tool has never been used for thirty years despite two frequent supply shortages and price spikes. AB2672 fixes that.
The bill requires the CEC to establish clear parameters for when producers must make use of this variance to protect consumers from price spikes. It integrates the variance into the resupply planning requirements already established by ABX-two-one and allows CARB to update its regulations to incorporate CEC analysis and regulations. Thank you very much, and we respectfully request your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their support and come to the mic. Name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 4
Jenna Price, on behalf of Environmental Voters, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Climate Center in strong support. Thanks.
Redner 6
Thank you, madam chair and members. Zach Leary on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association. Apologies for the late letter on this one. We are opposed to this concept of bringing non carbop fuel or requiring sellers of gasoline to sell non carbop fuel in California under the current proposal. Currently, the waiver process is optional.
So it is if you don't have the fuel, this was done initially during the when we transitioned to a new carbop gasoline. I think folks were probably concerned about being able to produce carob of gasoline and and that this waiver process was set up. The market looks a lot different now than it did back in the nineties. We are mainly concerned with this proposal because it is a tax. So the bill is keyed two thirds, and it states in the bill that it would result in taxpayers paying higher taxes within the meaning of the constitution.
The concern around that is you're passing legislation potentially with unknown fees which are are required to be paid, so they're considered taxes under the proposal. And we don't know what that number is gonna be. The other main issue we have with the bill is our refiners made the investments that the state wanted to make carbon gasoline. Those were not insignificant investments that they made back when CARBAB was first adopted and that we continue to have to make as refineries do turnarounds and maintenance and so forth. We feel that this could potentially further undermine the California market in in the sense that it would be foreign competitors bringing and seeking this non carbop waiver to bring that fuel into the state.
The other main issue is
Redner 6
Yep. Is is the optional or the permissive language that this gives to the CEC. This was similar language that was adopted in the special sessions as it pertained to the margin cap and penalty. Even having that permissive language in code is a deterrent to investment because it's always going to be a risk if the CEC changes their minds.
Redner 1
Now moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their opposition and come to the microphone, name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 5
Good afternoon. Erin Lahain on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California in support of California's union refineries and opposed to the bill. Thank you. Thank you.
Redner 1
Seeing no other, moving it back to committee. For any questions, comments, concerns? Assembly member Lackey.
Redner 7
Yeah. Coming from a commuter community, I couldn't be more against this, unfortunately. I will tell you that we're about ready to see some very catastrophic circumstances as it becomes to fuel costs. And a lot of it is because of what we've done to the refineries in this state. And I have real fears about what lies ahead.
And and this just adds to the the frustration that I don't understand. I mean, I understand somewhat the justification, but what I don't understand is how bad it punishes people who live in rural areas. And that's enough said. Thank you.
Redner 5
Thank you so much, chair. First of all, I wanted to thank Union of Concerned Scientists and the assembly member for tackling an issue that has been thorny. When I read through the opposition, I really see kind of two things. One is concern from some folks about the impact that it could have on local jobs, and I think that that is understood, and that's why the legislature last year was really trying to be diligent in how they approach this problem. Some of the opposition, I feel like, is disingenuous, where the folks who are making the most money from scarcity and from a crisis are now opposing the very metrics that they put in place to try to relieve that outlet at an appropriate time.
Redner 8
And I think that especially for folks who have advocated for the repeal of Carbob entirely, that some of their arguments fall a little bit on deaf ears, that that it it's if you wanna have a an actual conversation about Carbob, let's have a conversation about Carbob. And that for some folks, a full repeal of that is absent anything short of that, they're making up reasons to oppose this narrowly crafted, very fine tuned approach that will reduce the overall cost on my constituents at a time when we see peaks and when we see it hit a crisis level. So the bill is not gonna be perfect. It's something different. But I appreciate the assembly member bringing it forward for discussion.
Redner 1
Yeah. Go ahead. You're talking about into the the comment mister Rogers made in regard to the opposition statement.
Redner 6
Yeah. Don't I don't think and as somebody member, I don't think you've heard from the Western States Petroleum Association us argue against CARBA being California's fuel blend. That has been the law of the land since the nineties. Our member companies made the investments to do it. Is carob a cost driver?
Yes. Has it made California unique? Yes. But for us, the use of non carbob comes down to logistical challenges because California is set up for a one fuel system. Once you and carbob is very unique in its chemistry.
It's limited on its sulfur, its aromatics, and its other components. So once you start bringing non carbob fuel in and getting those barrels mixed with carbob fuel barrels, now you have non compliant fuel throughout the system. And then it potentially gets into storage challenges at gas stations, and the the mixing of the two, it's like mixing milk and water. If you mix the two, you have milky water. You don't have pure milk.
Redner 8
Thank you. I appreciate that. You are not actually the opposition that I was talking to to Carbob, but your opposition, your members are the ones that profit when there is no relief valve. So two different opposition arguments. Whisper created this exemption originally, and I think that has found that it's more profitable for your members to not utilize this exemption, which I think is what the assembly member is trying to do is agreeing that that was a good idea at the time and could actually save taxpayers money by at critical moments, for that exemption to be utilized or forcing that exemption to be utilized.
Redner 1
Okay. Did you have a comment you wanted to make before I go to Vice Chair Davies?
Redner 3
Yeah. Just in response to the inability of California's system to handle multiple fuel specifications. The same pipelines today take diesel fuel, jet fuel, CARBOB, and then at some refineries, Azerbaijan and the Nevada fuel. The same pipelines deliver those to terminals in batches, and then they're sorted into tanks. And then they can be moved throughout the state to different gas stations.
So there is no structural inability to move non CARBOB and CARBOB within the state. And additionally, the milky water analogy is interesting, but milky water is not unsafe to drink. And just like if you were to drive your car from California being half full of carbob gasoline, drive it to Nevada, fill it half full with Nevada gasoline, it's not going to cause any issues for use. The same is true for the system. It's really an enforcement concern which CARB is in charge of and could enforces throughout the entire fuel system.
Redner 1
Okay. I noted that they can get brief if it's a direct response to something that was said.
Redner 6
And it does come down to enforcement. And so once you have mixed fuel and don't know where that mixed fuel came from, or the fuel is mixed and you're getting tested if you're meeting the standards of CARBob, it changes the enforcement, landscape in California.
Redner 1
So meaning you could if you were being in if the enforcement mechanism would change, if you got tested post one of these things, there would be an issue. Okay. Thank you. Vice Chair Davies?
Redner 5
Thank you very much. I appreciate where you're coming from with this bill, but I just you know, I've been here going in my six years now, and we are seeing information coming from all over the place. We obviously are in a major fuel crisis in California. This is a California crisis. It's not a United States crisis.
I just was in North Carolina, $3.50 for gas. We're up to $6.07, and eight. It's what we have done. And studies and stats are coming out that the reason we're in this situation is because of policy, policy that we've put out there, basically supply and demand. We could look at the special session two years ago saying, all right, we're going to have you go ahead and put away 20%, 25% of your inventory.
Well, what happens? They can't sell that inventory, yet they've paid for that inventory. It's like telling a grocer, Just in case we have a disaster, I want you to put 25% of your inventory away in case we have a disaster, and yet they have no income coming in. We are in this spot because of bad policy. And when I look at this right now, I one of the biggest concerns I have is that we're giving the power with a two thirds vote over to CARB to do basically whatever they want.
We, as legislators, we need to be responsible here. We need to be able to oversee, and if we have concerns, to be able to change it. But to give CARB this opportunity where literally it says
Redner 5
And we and, you know, let's let's go back to the word affordability. Seems to be affordability seems to be the keyword, but every time I hear the word affordability, I'm not seeing what's affordable. And when it says under this here, tax, allows CARB to raise a gas tax on non California compliant gasoline by any amount. Any amount. So all of a sudden, we get to a point where we don't have any surplus here.
We have no fuel. We need to go out and use what we have. And now we're being taxed, and they can continue to tax as much as they want. It's just very confusing to me when we're talking affordability and and making sure we're not getting gouged here. Well, we're gonna get gouge the hell out of it if we're reaching out there.
So I'm very, very confused. I'm just frustrated. I'm frustrated because we keep going and blaming it on places where it's not coming from. But I really believe that this and I talked to my colleagues this has got to be our responsibility. We cannot be giving, just by voting two thirds carb, the responsibility to be able to handle this.
I mean, we've seen what's happened. We owe this. This is ours. We need to be sure that we are responsible, that if something goes awry, that we can bring these prices down, that we can come back to the table. So you take this bill as it is, but do not give CARB the responsibility to be able to go ahead and and charge whatever they want.
And then we're gonna have to sit there and see where the accountability is, where's the money actually going as we watch day after day fraud coming everywhere and anywhere. So I'm sorry. But like I it takes a lot for me to get upset. But this, to me, makes no sense whatsoever. And I'm sorry that I can't support it.
Redner 3
May I respond? Yes. Yeah. Yeah, thank you very much for those comments. Just wanted to say that the language you're referencing is existing law.
This is a variance process at CARB. And CARB already has the ability to impose fees and conditions as part of this original authority that they were given. The other point around the fee is this would only be paid on gasoline that is currently unable to be sold in the state of California. So it's not a new gasoline fee. This would only be something that would be paid if we're bringing additional gasoline into the state, increasing supply, and thus lowering prices overall.
And then the last point around California policies being the cause of gas price spikes, I just want to say that in this case, car bob does make the system extremely fragile and is a reason why it is very difficult to bring additional supply in when we have an unplanned refinery outage. And what we're seeing with this bill is a number of organizations working together to try to solve that problem without undermining the environmental outcomes. And it's the industry here today that's arguing to keep the California regulation in place.
Redner 5
Vice That's where I just wanted to hit is, right now, it is considered a voluntary fee, correct? So by making a mandate, it does become a tax by law.
Redner 3
Yeah. It would be under the fees and conditions that the CEC sets, under the terms and conditions that the CEC sets. But we have language in there that they would not be able to advance their regulations on when this variance must be used if it was going to increase costs for consumers or lead to the closure of any additional in state refineries.
Redner 5
But they can still make that decision, correct? Legislation cannot at that point.
Redner 1
The legislature, she's noting that the decision, once the bill is signed into law, it is up to the CC to determine whether the fee they set doesn't cost consumers more or not, and to determine whether it doesn't impact a refinery. And then they they accept the trigger point. They do all the regulations around in our this bill would just be giving permission to require it versus it being a voluntary program.
Redner 3
Yeah, that's correct. I will note that language around is very similar to the price gouging penalty language. And the thing I would note about that is CEC just recently decided not to implement the price gouging penalty because they were concerned that it would undermine in state refining capacity. So this is something we have trusted CEC, and I feel that they've shown the ability to make that determination.
Redner 1
And I think to Opposition's point, just to note, and Assembly Member Jackson, Doctor. Jackson is next, to Opposition's point, that's where they're saying just the ability for them to have the control sent a market signal, the fact that they have been given that authority absent the legislature.
Redner 5
Correct. And it's up to their discretion. So, they can decide, you know, what they think is right, and if they want to keep raising the tax, because it will be a tax, they can do that. And there's nothing we can do here. Correct?
Redner 2
Well, this is the first hearing for this bill. It's a complex subject. And obviously, we're going to continue to work to address the concerns that you raised and others have brought up as well. But the concept of this is pretty simple. You know, CARBOB creates a fuel island in California, and it was intended to protect air quality in California.
And in its inception, that was a very powerful and important tool. As time has gone on, the difference between CARBOB fuel and non carbob fuel from an air pollution benefit has changed and become less critical. And the fuel island problem that is caused by carbob fuel is a bigger problem. And so I'm starting the conversation, trying to have a dialogue to say, can we look at this differently? And can we say that there may be an opportunity when there are price spikes to sell non carbop fuel in California and lower prices for consumers?
The purpose of the fee is twofold. One, to protect California refineries from having a predatory price environment where out of state lower cost fuel is effectively outcompeting in state fuel. We don't want that to happen. We want to protect the jobs of the refineries. We want to protect the stability of Mr.
Leary's clients and his members of the association. And twofold, it would be great to have a fee that we could use to reduce demand for gasoline by encouraging low income consumers who reside in Mr. Glackie's district, have very long commutes, and provide a disproportionate volume of gasoline demand to reduce that, and to try and protect those consumers with a better solution in the long run. And so that's the purpose of the bill. That's what we're here to talk about.
And appreciate all the questions. And look forward to
Redner 5
Real And you know, I respect you very much. And so I keep hearing the word fee, but it will be a tax. So why don't we work on an amendment, making it that it is a fee and it's not mandated and it's not a tax? Just an idea. But thank you.
Redner 1
Okay. Before we go to Doctor. Jacksonand I did see your hand raised, Mr. Leary, and I'm going to keep the debate back and forth between the committee and the presenters versus amongst the presenters. But before we go on to that, let's establish our quorum.
Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 4
Wilson? Here. Wilson, here. Davies? Here.
Davies here. Aguirre Curry? Aaron's? Here. Aaron's here.
Carrillo? Carrillo here. Carabedian. Hart? Hart here.
Hoover? Jackson? Jackson here, Lackey here, Masito, Tappan, Ransom, Rogers, Rogers here, Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins here, Ward.
Redner 1
We have a quorum. All right. We will continue on. We are currently on file item number six, AB2672. Doctor.
Jackson.
Redner 9
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, Assembly Member, for your thoughtfulness on this. I mean, obviously the status quo is not working for consumers. And I think that your idea is definitely worthy to continue the conversation, to continue this bill so we can continue to debate this. Think it's an important debate.
You're talking to someone who has driven 80 miles one way to go to work for six years and boy, I don't know how many times I was on e before I was able to get to get back home. And I think that the authorization to import other fuels that may not be car car whatever you however you say it. Something Bob. Car Bob. Thank you.
See? I think what members are saying and sometimes I kinda feel the same way to be honest is that once you give additional authority to an independent body, now depending on where you're from and some people trust it more than others, I think I'm kind of in the middle. Sometimes I trust them, sometimes I don't. But I think the fee issue I think is something we should really continue to talk about because I am concerned that if I understand the market part where you can flood the market with lower fuels which means it could actually displace, we've got to figure out a check and balance on that but I'm not sure if the fee is the portion to do it. And so I would love to continue to have that discussion.
I am concerned about the fee issue and the potential that it could raise prices even though there has been some restraint that the commission has done recently to say, no, we understand that there's some cost pressures and we're gonna lay off this time. But I'm just concerned it just depends on which administration's in office too. And so I would love to have the conversation, of course, I'll be supportive because for today to move the bill forward, I think it's a I think in some way this bill is important to the mix. And so I think we should continue this discussion and get some version of this to the governor's desk because I think it's part of the solution. I'm just leery as well on the cost pressure things because my constituents, for us, it's not a choice to be able to drive.
We have to. And so there's no there's nothing that can stop. There's nothing there's no alternative for us to be able to use less gas because we drive to be able to make our living. You see what I'm saying? And I know sometimes it depends on what part of the state you're from or things like that.
I mean, obviously, a member of Lackey, we share the same constituents who have to drive. It's not a luxury for us. It's a matter of survival. But I do think in times where supply is low, we have to find a way to bring more in so that we can make sure that we tamp down on the prices though. So we gotta figure this out but just letting you know kind of where I am but certainly this is a great debate we need to continue to have.
And so thank you for generating that debate for us.
Redner 6
Thank you, madam chair. I I do have those same concerns from assemblymember Lockheed and doctor Jackson. You know, we we just have to drive. We just have to to fill our tank. And down the hill we go, as we say over there, to get to LA or San Bernardino County.
And it is just a real concern for me too. And I just wanted to let you know that that's something that I wanna weigh in my decision today. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you to the author. You know, we had an opportunity to serve together on a work group last year when we were figuring out how do we stabilize our refineries. And this was one of the things that came out of it, and along with the work from Vice Chair Gunda and his working group. And, you know, there was controversy around it last year, which is why it wasn't included in the package. And I know with the understanding that, you know, some of these things we'd work on in the New Year.
So I appreciate you trying to work on it and have the debate. You know, we are focusing on, excuse me, transitioning away from fossil transportation fuels. It needs to be a managed transition. We need to ensure that as we do that, we alleviate the gas spikes, but at the same time, we want to protect our refineries as strategic assets through that entire process. They provide the fuel that moves us, as well as the jobs that help support our economy.
Recognizing that your bill leverages existing fuel specification variance processes, adds some additional data some additional and requirements and utilizing CEC. And so, I very much was concerned as chair about the fact that this would disadvantage in state refineries, because it's going from a voluntary program to a mandatory program. And I appreciate your work, as we updated some of the language, to address that and to bolster that as you navigate the process. So before we move on to the close, I wonder, what about this process would not just cause in state refineries to leave and produce outside of the state and just put in, right, and just ship their product, ship non carb, move to the point where because if we lose, then we can always just use non carb to fill in. I recognize the fee is entirely existing to make a fair price.
That's why there's flexibility, because the market changes. How do we could this potentially just encourage refineries to continue to leave at a faster space than we want them to and then import in if have the option to be reliant on CarBOP. This is to the author. Then I see you, Mr. Leary, and I'll give you a chance to respond.
But I want to first address it to the author and the support support witness, excuse me.
Redner 2
Well, that is certainly not an outcome that we are seeking. And the intent of the fee is to try and prevent that from happening by creating price uncertainty. But this is obviously a work in progress. And I appreciate the work that your staff has done to improve the bill. We'll continue to work on it.
And I heard very clearly from members probably representing the districts that have the longest commutes that this is a fraught, complicated, difficult subject. I understand that and appreciate that. And the purpose of the other element of the bill to provide funding to encourage people with long distance commutes and older cars to make the transition in a more affordable way to electric vehicles to help in the long term reduce demand in California. I mean, that's our fundamental problem, is that we are on a glide scope where refinery capacity is declining in a stair step fashion and demand for gasoline is declining at a glide slope fashion. And when those things rub, we have a challenge.
So everything we can do to decrease demand for gasoline, even at, you know, like a sub 10% amount, can have a profound impact on price spikes. And so the attempt is to expand supply when the supplies are low and in jeopardy and to provide more opportunity for gasoline to get into California to be sold, and at the same time to reduce demand by taking a fee that is, in a perfect world, cost neutral to California refineries and protects their investment and their operations. This is not an easy thing to do. If it was, it would have been done previously. But the point is to have a conversation about hard stuff because the transition is not easy and needs to happen.
And if we can help facilitate that and protect consumers, that is my goal.
Redner 6
And I wanted to respond to Madam Chair and Doctor. Jackson. We're always open for debate on all the policies in California. And so what's driven us to this situation that we're in is the policies. It's when some of those debates become the law of the land and send the wrong market signals to our companies that need to continue to invest in California to operate.
Redner 3
I think the big picture we're talking about is supply, and that comes to comes down to in state refining capacity. It it's no mystery that California refineries are some of the most competitively disadvantaged refineries in the world, and that's due to the hard costs to operate here. And that's the the bigger challenge is how do you, as the legislature and the administration, protect the remaining assets that you have left? Because this past year, we lost 20% of the in state refining capacity with two refineries. So protecting what's left is really important, and we'd love to partner with you and the administration to do that.
Redner 1
Thank you. And I think you have an invitation to the partnership. With that, is there a motion? Rogers, errands, or Aaron, Rogers? No.
Rogers, errands. With that there we go again, Dre. With that, Assembly Member Hart, your opportunity to close.
Redner 2
Well, I would just appreciate this dialogue. I think Mr. Leary and I have been in front of you now for a couple of years in a row. We will continue to work together. And ideally, we will find a solution that everybody can embrace because I think we all understand what the challenge is.
Finding a solution that works for everybody is not easy, but you have my commitment to continue to try to do that. And I respectfully urge an I vote.
Redner 4
AB twenty six seventy two, the motion is due passed to the Utilities and Energy Committee. Wilson? Aye. Wilson? Aye.
Davies? No. Davies? No. Aguirre Curry?
Arons? Arons? I. Carrillo? Carrillo not voting.
Arabedian. Heart. Heart I. Hoover. Jackson.
Aye. Jackson I. Lacky. No. Lackey.
No. Macedo. Happen. Ransom. Rogers?
Redner 1
Thank you. We'll hold that bill open, the roll open for other members to add on. With that, we're going to go back to the top now that we have a quorum. We have three bills on our consent calendar. As noted before, AB 2,307, AB 2,719, AB 2,372.
I'll entertain a motion.
Redner 4
Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies? Aye. Davies, aye.
Aguirre Curry? Arons? Aaron's I, Carrillo, Carrillo I, Harabedian, Heart, Heart I, Hoover, Jackson, Jackson I, Lackey I, Lackey I, Masito, Happen, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp Collins, Ward.
Redner 1
We will hold the roll open for members to add on. As noted earlier, we have three bills that were agendized for today. We note that we are not hearing file item number four, AB fifteen fifty seven Pappan, today per the author's request. We've heard file item number six, AB2672, Heart, which leaves file item three, AB2761, Petrie Norris, and file item seven, AB1874, Wilson. We'll take a brief moment to assess where our authors are.
One of them is sitting here, but we usually go last, so we'll wait. Okay. All right. We will wait just a moment for one of our authors who's in transit here before we begin. So we're not recessing.
But if you want to stand up, move, take a few deep breaths, now would be an appropriate time to do so. While we wait, we'll call consent calendar again.
Redner 4
Consent calendar, Aguirre Curry, Arabedian, Hoover, Moseto, Happen, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins I, Ward.
Redner 1
All right. I see we have an author present. We'll move on to item number three, AB 26 I'm sorry, 2,761. You may begin at your convenience.
Redner 10
There we are. Take two. Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Pleased to join you today to present a b twenty seven sixty one, a common sense bill to modernize how California collects and utilizes traffic crash data. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, NHTSA, California accounts for approximately ten percent of all injury crashes nationwide.
Existing law requires law enforcement agencies to submit fatality and injury involved crash reports to the CHP in a certain form and timeframe. Unfortunately, many agencies miss this deadline and submit paper based reports of varying quality. As a result, California, arguably the international epicenter of tech innovation, hosts a crash data system that is outdated, fragmented, and only 13.5% compliant with national data standards. Today, is split across two separate systems. There's up to a two year delay before data is finalized, and 40% of law enforcement agencies are not submitting reports electronically.
Redner 9
These delays have real consequences, including slower identification of dangerous road conditions, delayed vehicle safety recalls and defect detection, and reduced ability to secure federal funding and evaluate safety programs. In short, we are making safety decisions with incomplete and outdated information. AB twenty seven sixty one brings California into the twenty first century by directing CHP to create and requiring local agencies to utilize a single statewide electronic crash reporting system. This bill will improve roadway safety across California and will ensure that law enforcement and safety experts have the timely accurate information necessary to save lives. With me, I am pleased to be joined by Mike Knutson, who's here on behalf of AAA.
Redner 6
Madam Chair members, Mike Knutson here on behalf of the Automobile Club of Southern California. You know, this one is we deal with a lack of the proper data on a regular basis. This is for for crashes. These kinds of decisions have real life consequences. We're very excited that we are in a position to modernize it, and we hope that the committee will support it.
I'm here to answer any questions. It's time to modernize and it's time to make sure we're getting the data that we need when we need it.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. With that, we'll move on to members of the public who would like to add on their support. Can come to the microphone, name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 4
Good afternoon. Irena Rapitan on behalf of AAA Northern California in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now moving on to opposition. We don't have any opposition registered on file, but we will give an opportunity for members of the public who may be present, which would like to note their opposition on this bill. Now would be appropriate time to come to the mic with name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving to members of the committee for discussion.
Assembly member Arons. I saw your saw your motion, but was there any discussion? Assembly member Lackey.
Redner 7
Just real quickly, I'm very familiar with sweaters, and it's amazing that it hasn't been adapted by anyone other than the highway patrol. So I'd like to even be a coauthor on this piece if you'd if you'd have me.
Redner 1
All right. Seeing no other conversation from the committee, I'll note thank you for introducing this important bill. As was noted, it is about time that we modernize our vehicle data crash sorry, vehicle crash data reporting systems. Reporting timely and accurate crash data creates an important feedback loop that can help us identify trends, refine enforcement strategies, and inform safety improvements to vehicles and roads. I understand that this bill is consistent with a federal grant that the state has received to help it fund this modernization effort, so I will be supporting your bill today.
We have a motion made by Aaron, seconded by Vice Chair Davies. I'll give you an opportunity to close.
Redner 4
AB 2,761, the motion is due pass to appropriations. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies?
Aye. Davies, aye. Aguirre? Aguirre? Aguirre?
Aye. Arons, aye. Carrillo? Carrillo, aye. Harabedian?
Aye. Hoover? Jackson? I. Jackson I.
Lacky?
Redner 1
All right, we'll hold that roll open for members to be able to add on. Thank you. Madam Chair. Now we're moving on to item number 71874.
Redner 5
All right, we're going to have our chair maker weigh on down again for AB1874. 1874.
Redner 1
Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair, as well as the members of this committee. I'm pleased to come before you to present my second transportation safety bill, AB eighteen seventy four. Today, when someone is convicted of a dangerous driving offense, a court will suspend their license, but under current law, suspension can be served while the individual is incarcerated and already lacking access to a vehicle. The result: dangerous drivers can serve all or part of their license suspension while incarcerated, allowing them back behind the wheel the very same day they're released.
That is not accountability. The purpose of a license suspension is not symbolic. It is a critical public safety tool. According to the License to Kill reports from Cal Matters last year, nearly forty percent of the drivers charged with vehicular manslaughter since 2019 have a valid license. And since 2019, roughly 400 drivers accused of causing a fatal crash went on to receive another ticket, get into another collision, or both after the date they allegedly killed someone on the road.
That should be of concern to every single one of us because it means preventable risks are still on our roads. California has a responsibility to ensure that anyone allowed back on the road does not pose an ongoing risk to others. AB eighteen seventy four ensures that people convicted of serious driving offenses cannot concurrently serve their license suspension while actively incarcerated and without access to a vehicle. This is targeted on the most serious and dangerous driving offenses, such as vehicular manslaughter, repeat reckless and hit and run driving, and fleeing law enforcement causing death or severe injury. By aligning license suspensions with the time when someone is back on our roads, we create real accountability, strengthen deterrence, and most importantly, reduce the risk of repeat harm.
AB eighteen seventy four is supported by a coalition of public safety advocates, including California Police Chiefs Associations, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. We are grateful for the strong bipartisan support for AB eighteen seventy four, including a strong showing in Public Safety Committee. And we're also adding Assembly Member Ellis on as a joint author, as he had a similar bill and withdrew that bill to come on and support ours. I would like to now introduce my witness. My witness is Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association and Justin Fanslaw on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition.
Redner 4
Good afternoon, Justin Fansal, on behalf of the California Safe California Roads Coalition. I'd like to thank the author for bringing this forward. A lot of the legislation, the legislature has been going through this year regarding the article that came out in Cal Matters last year around DUI and other things comes down to one very important detail and that is that California has lacked in providing consequences for people who do bad things on the road. When you make a decision to get behind the vehicle, turn the key and you've been drinking and you cause an accident, you fatally harm some or you fatally kill somebody or you harm them in a large way, you have made that choice. The consequence currently doesn't exist and going to jail and serving both your time in jail and the suspension is yet another example of how that consequence doesn't exist.
Redner 11
So we appreciate this effort. If we're going to pass or if we're going to have a punishment at the court system that includes a suspension of the license then in the public's interest that person should have to serve that when they are actually able to be on the street driving. Thank you.
Redner 6
Afternoon. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, also in strong support of the bill and thank the author. I want to just make it clear that the administrative penalties, the suspension of a license is meant to address the reckless driving behavior, and it's supposed to be an administrative penalty focused on the issues of the driver and the dangerous situation they created. It's separate from the criminal penalties, which are meant to address the criminal side of the conduct. So to say that somehow we're extending penalties or we're extending and unfairly treating people given different sentences, they're completely separate.
Redner 12
And the only way that the administrative penalties against, again, meant to address the driving behavior, is effective at all is if it has a practical impact on the individual, meaning that they cannot serve it concurrently while they're incarcerated because it means absolutely nothing at that point. And so for those reasons, for the fact that this is actually adding the utility of this tool back into state statute, we are in strong support and urgent I vote.
Redner 5
Thank you very much. At this time, we're going to go into the public testimony. Me too. Those in support, if we have any, please come forward. All right.
Seeing none, do we have any in opposition witnesses? Alright. Seeing none, we will also then go to MeTube for the public testimony in opposition. Bringing it back to members. I'm a start with assembly member Lackey, then we'll go to assembly member Jackson.
Redner 8
Yeah. This is clearly an area that that deserves attention. And we've already heard this in public safety, I'm thankful to see that it was very successful in that committee. Because what most people don't understand is is without your your proposal, all we do is administer fake suspensions. They're fake because they can't drive in prison.
Redner 7
And so in order to assign any meaning or any accountability at all, this needs to happen. So very, very thankful for I mean, I've heard about common sense measure. Good grief. This is about as common sense as it gets. So thank you for bringing it forward.
Redner 9
You're doing it right, girl. Perhaps this is just not as cut as dry to me. So I need you're the Jackson whisperer, so I need you to help me here.
Redner 9
I understand that if they are going to prison that is outside of the driving incident, that it would be appropriate for them to also make sure that they're experiencing the penalty for the driving incident as well. But what if they're the same thing?
Redner 1
Well, what it is, is weand this came up in public safety prior to getting to public safety, because we narrowed the bill, rightis that we picked cases where that is the punishment. The punishment is prison and license suspension. And so we're just making sure you realize the license suspension portion. Because if you don't have the vehicle, if you don't have access to a vehiclemeaning, like, in prisonso not just, I don't have a vehiclebut just, If you don't have a chance to experience the license suspension, then why are we giving you a license suspension as a part of the punishment? So it usually is the same act.
And as we noted, these are the most heinous act with a car. So these are the top four. It's only four. So there are other areas where you get license suspension and incarceration, but you can serve them concurrently. And a lot of times, the time that you're in prison is shorter, so you do experience some of that license extension, but we don't make you do that concurrently.
Reserved it to the fore where we say you are a reckless driver, and because you did all these other things, you should spend some time incarcerated. And so then, because we took away your license for being a reckless driver, we want you to what it's like to not have the privilege of driving, to be out of prison and not have that privilege so you can understand that it really is a privilege to be able to have a license. It's not right.
Redner 9
I guess my only concern is that once you're out, we still ask them to be productive members of society.
Redner 1
A level of accountability, but not the full accountability. The judge gave them two things. The judge gave them prison, and the judge gave them license suspension. And so only one was experienced. There is no use of a license while incarcerated.
Redner 9
No, yeah, I get that part. Yeah. I'm just saying, does the judge have the decision making authority to do one but not the other, or does he have to do the suspension?
Redner 1
For those four crimes, no. For those four crimes, they are we have determined that that is the punishment for those four crimes. Other crimes, judge does have discretion, and also including discretion around restricted licensing and things like that.
Redner 9
Right. So when they are sentenced to prison, our law already says this is also going to just automatically happen. So it's not as if the judge decided to give them these extra things. It's just what our laws have determined to be true.
Redner 1
You're right. You're right. When they were convicted of that particular crime, they laid out that. And the judge there are some minimums, but there is some discretion with the judge as it relates to the time of They can be in prison, including time of revocation, but there are minimums. We have minimums in our state for those four particular crimes.
Redner 9
I think that's the part that I'm having trouble with because I would understand if, for instance, they were sentenced to two years in prison and three years, which means then, hey, you still got another year you can't use your car. Right?
Redner 9
whether we're setting people up for failure rather than setting them up for success to curtail their driving behavior.
Redner 1
Remember when you're set for a certain amount of time in prison, you usually start out with getting out and let if you are good behavior and don't do anything, you will not serve the full two years. So that person would get not for these ones, but just in general, they will probably have some significant period of time where they would not be able to use their license. But a reminder, if you are doing these types of heinous things, right and these involve a loss of life. So these are not like
Redner 1
Those kind of things. You should experience some level of not being able to drive and the consequence is that. And I want to set every single person up for success because the majority of people that enter our criminal justice system and are incarcerated will be free, right? And we want them to be comproductive members of the society. But there's no guarantee that you'll have a car.
Right? You know, I was a single mom going to school, and there were periods of time where I didn't have a car. We used the bus, and I toted my little son on the bus. And I had a license but didn't have access to a vehicle. So you can get around a community without having access to a vehicle.
And once again, this is a privilege, so we want those individuals to experience it. What is it like to have to take the bus? What is it like to have to ask for rides? What is it like to have to rely on a program to take you wherever you need to go in terms of work and rehab and visitation if that's required? What is it like to have to use Uber and other kind of services so you recognize when you get that privilege back that it is a privilege.
And now maybe you'll make different decisions and not do repeat behavior because you know what it's like to not experience a license versus a person who went to jail, got out and immediately, the day they got out, could use their license. And I liken it to own personal story in my family, where someone or friend, but she liked family, and the person who died was like a little brother to me is the person who killed them had already been on was on probation while drunk driving. And then got drunk, killed them, going over 90 miles an hour, in prison, through a whole little prison system how we do things. The person will be out this summer. Day one, they can get in a car.
Haven't drove since they killed, you know, our little brother. But day one, they get out of prison. Well, I've never experienced what it's like to not have a vehicle. And this will be their second time having done that.
Redner 1
So there has to be a point where you get out of prison and you feel the weight of what you did with a privilege, not a right. You're now free. Your physical self can do whatever it is you want to do within the confines of community. But to say that you get immediately behind the wheel without understanding the full ramifications of what you did and having to experience the full consequence, you know, because you use the word level accountability, without experiencing the full accountability for your actions, I think is extremely important. And that's where I begged the question that, What is the point of suspending your license?
That is symbolic if we suspend your license and you can spend the entire time in jail without a license. And remember, we reserved it, we narrowed it heavily in Public Safety Committee to four offenses that involve the death of someone. And there are top level of crimes within the vehicular space in terms of taking someone's life.
Redner 9
You know, I really appreciate this year in committee because we've been dealing with a lot of these really delicate, intricate issues, whether they be scooters, whether they be fuels, whether they be all kinds of things. And so I really appreciate the conversation. I, too, was moved by the article. I don't think there's been an article that's been so profound to so many of us when it comes to the idea on how we've normalized auto deaths in many cases. And so I appreciate it.
I think it's worth, for me, I'm inclined to support it to continue this conversation because it's one that we definitely need to have. I think we've got to I'm looking forward to the floor debate as well. Mean, obviously this is something that we need to continue to work on. Thank you.
Redner 5
Members, any other questions? Alright. Oh, okay. Is there any more mosquito? No?
Yes. I just wanted to
Redner 10
tell you this is such a great bill. Would love to be added as a coauthor, and I was gonna move the bill, but it's only been Aaron's beat me to it. So thank you. Sounds good.
Redner 7
And I also too would love to be co author, and you the hit and runs are just amazing right now. I'm constantly over and over and over and no repercussions, and I'm so grateful that we we have incredible members now that are realizing that there does have to be punishment. And like citizens, we have a great transit systems. And there's a lot of us that have taken that when you didn't have a car or you couldn't afford one. And that's one thing great about our transportation system.
Redner 5
So we do have that alternate transportation method. However, again, this is a privilege to be able to drive, and you're absolutely right. So thank you very much. And I think we've got a motion in a second. Let's go to roll call.
Would you like to finish? Close. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. I appreciate those that testified. I appreciate those that have signed on as coauthors and those that were existing who's part of this greater package. And really, this is about continued accountability on California's roads. We reserve this to those who take a life and really who are doing repeat offenses.
We want to make sure our roads are safe for everyone. And this is one avenue to get that, to ensure that we're not careless with vehicles. Having a vehicle and being able to drive a vehicle on a road is a privilege. Vehiclewe talk a lot about gun safety. You think about how big a vehicle is and how many people's lives are shattered when someone uses it recklessly.
We have to prevent that and driving at the heart of the issue. And so I thank you all, and I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 4
A b eighteen seventy four do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, I. Davies?
Aye. Davies, I. Aguirre Curry? Aguirre Curry, I. Arons?
Redner 1
Arons, I. Carrillo? Carrillo I, Harabedian, Harabedian I, Hart, Hart, I, Hoover, Hoover I, Jackson, Jackson I, Lackey I, Lackey Masito, Sito I, Pappin, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins, I. Ward.
Redner 5
That's 13 support. And we'll leave this open for those that aren't here right now. Thank you.
Redner 1
All right. Let's go from the top, starting with consent calendar. Madam Secretary.
Redner 4
Aguirre? Aguirre Curry I. Haribedian? Aye. Haribedian I.
Hoover? Hoover I. Mosito? Mosito I. Pappin?
Ransom? Rogers? Ward? Ward, aye. That
Redner 1
bill has 13 votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Moving on to file item number three, AB 2,761. Harabedian?
Redner 4
Aye. Harabedian, aye. Hoover? Hoover, aye. Happen, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins, aye, Ward, Ward, aye.
Redner 1
That has 13 votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Moving on to item number six, AB2672.
Redner 4
Aguirre Curry? Aguirre Curry, I. Arabedian? Aye. Arabedian, I.
Hoover? Hoover? Mussido? Mussido, no. Happen?
Ransom? Ward? Ward, I. I do have
Redner 1
that bill has nine aye votes and four no votes. We'll hold the bill we'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. I saw no changes in membership for item number seven, so we'll wait for the remaining members of this committee to come. To those remaining members, please make your way so we can close out this committee. Thank you.
Alright. Starting from the top, consent calendar.
Redner 1
That bill has 14 votes. Starting from the top, consent calendar, madam secretary.
Redner 1
Moving on to item number three, a b twenty seven sixty one. Oh, wait. Okay. There we go.
Redner 1
That bill has six those bills have 16 votes, and it is out. Moving on to item number three, a B2761.
Redner 1
11 to four. That bill has 11 aye votes and four no votes. It is out. Did I note that item three was I didn't. What was item three?
Redner 1
No number of votes? Alright. Item three, AB 2,761 has 16 votes. That bill is out. Item number seven, AB eighteen seventy four.
Redner 1
That bill has 16 votes and is out. With that, there's no further business of the Transportation Committee. We are now adjourned.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.