Assembly Revenue And Taxation Committee

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Gibson, Vice Chair Sanchez, distinguished members of the committee. The solar tax occlusion ends in 2027. counties will get new revenue. So this bill is not doing anything except taking the new revenue and helping to understand how to assess it. The solar energy is ready to pay the taxes that will start in 2027, and counties will be receiving new revenue from solar property tax. However, once the exclusion ends, solar will be assessed differently in all 58 counties or potentially differently in all 58 counties. This increases uncertainty for solar future in California. As a former renewable energy developer, I know financial planning is a great challenge. Without certainty around tax liability, we will be losing new solar developments to other states, increasing prices for our ratepayers. SB 1329 creates statewide standards for solar property assessment so that developers will know how to be taxed or how they will be taxed. Specifically, SB 1329 excludes intangibles like federal tax credits and renewable energy credits from assessed property value, provides clear definitions for useful life and fair market value. value. California continues to need seven gigawatts of solar developments every year to reach our 100 percent renewable energy goals. We must continue to develop in-state. SB 1329 protects our climate goals and helps solar energy providers supply renewable energy at affordable prices. Today with me I have John Röding-Shaffer from Avantis, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. Welcome. Two minutes, please. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is John Redling-Shafer. I'm the Senior Tax Counsel for Avantis, a San Diego-based company building six gigawatts of solar and storage across California. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of SB 1329 today. Let me be clear up front. Our industry is ready to pay its fair share of property taxes, and in doing so, supporting the communities which host us. Avantis expects to pay over a billion dollars in property tax during the life of the projects which are currently going to be installed during the next three years. However, as this new era begins, developers face a real risk of over-assessment. When costs go up, ratepayers pay the price. SB 1329 mitigates the risk of over-assessment. It brings property tax consistency to all 58 counties and it gives developers the certainty they need to continue building the power which California needs for grid reliability climate goals and affordability The bill in front of us is narrower than where we started We listened to the opposition and removed what concerned them most What remains is simple, a clear and fair set of inputs for assessing solar projects. Here's why it matters. We sell power to utilities under long-term contracts, and the price of the contract is built upon our cost. Higher costs or uncertain taxes means higher energy prices. It's a direct correlation. The formula in SB 1329 is fair. It's based on the value of what we actually invest, our net cost to build. Opposition may claim that solar is seeking special treatment, and it's important to highlight how solar is unique. The state mandates the purchase of solar, and ratepayers don't have discretion over this. So keeping their energy prices low is equitable. In short, 1329 is not a favor. It's a necessity. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair members, Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council. Happy to be here in support.

Next witness. Hello, Chair and members. McKinley Thompson-Morley on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association, EDF Power Solutions, and EDP all in support.

Thank you. Kara Martinson on behalf of the Large-Scale Solar Association in strong support.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair and members. Alicia Priego on behalf of Nexamp in support.

Chair and members, Max Perry on behalf of Qcell is also in support. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. Members, Brady Van England here on behalf of Southern California Addison in support.

Thank you. Good evening. Brandon Garcia with Advanced Energy United in support.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Kristen Olson-Kate here on behalf of Terrigen in strong support.

Thank you.

Okay. Good evening, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Laura Avila. I'm the Kern County Assessor Recorder, and I'm here speaking on behalf of the California Assessors Association in respectful opposition to SB 1329. We appreciate the author's amendments, but the bill still contains structural issues that cannot be resolved through additional edits. First, without the original cost approach wording, the bill still creates a statutory formula. by defining useful life, limiting allowable revenue, and prescribing adjustments. When statute dictates the inputs, it predetermines the value, preventing assessors from determining fair market value as required under California law. Second, the bill sets a fixed 25-year useful life, which is not supported by actual operating evidence. Useful life must come from market data, not statute. A shortened life accelerates depreciation and forces assessments below market. Third, the bill excludes recognized revenue streams, including revenue tied to renewable energy attributes. These facilities generate both electricity and the associated environmental benefits, and buyers consider both when determining price. Excluding recognized revenue prevents the income approach from reflecting market value. Fourth, SB 1329 sets up dangerous precedent for industry-specific valuation rules. Once one industry is granted a statutory formula, others will pursue the same, undermining statewide uniformity and the stability of the property tax system. Finally, California already has a strong framework for valuing complex property. Existing Board of Equalization rules allow assessors to account for depreciation, obsolescence, and incentives without abandoning market value principles. For these reasons, we must remain opposed. The core conflicts remain, and the bill still replaces fair market value appraisal within a statutory method that is inconsistent with California property tax system.

Mr. Chair and members, Paul Yoder, Chayder Antwi on behalf of the eight counties in the Central Valley of California. They're individually and collectively opposed to the bill. I'm going to keep this brief, one, because of the hour, two, because I forgot my reading glasses. As Laura mentioned, this is preferential tax treatment for large-scale commercial solar projects at the direct expense of rural counties that are staring down the barrel of H.R. 1 and the impacts and the costs of that. This bill would hardwire artificially low valuation formulas into statute. To what the witness said for the bill, just on two points that I'm going to wrap. One, that the author took amendments, and I have nothing but respect for the author, work with him all the time on important issues to Central Valley. But on the statement that amendments have been taken to address what matters to the counties most and what they identified, that's not correct. What the counties care about is the loss of revenue at the expense of a tax break, a continued tax break in California for large-scale solar. In terms of the uniqueness of solar, again, as Laura touched on, every industry in California members thinks they're unique. Every industry in California would love to have this bill, and I guarantee the rest of them will be here if this goes to the governor and gets signed. So I respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.

Nicole Wardleman on behalf of San Bernardino County in opposition. Thank you. Emma Jungworth on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Sarah Duquette on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, respectful opposition.

Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, also opposed. Thank you. And Jeff Neal representing the County of Imperial, also opposed. Thank you. Greetings, Chair. I was two seconds too late, so NRDC is supporting. I was just too late, but thank you. We're supporting.

We did take several amendments, including eliminating the reference to the preferred methodology. And the intangibles was was shortened down. But one of the issues was that the opposition raised is that the amendments don't address loss of revenue. But that's not really the way it looks to me. If you're having an asset that's not having any tax revenue, and then the law changes to bring in tax revenue, then you're not losing revenue. And so the real opposition comes down to wanting to not wanting to be told, not wanting to be recommended how to assess property. And solar property is unique in the sense that the assets, the physical assets aren't the entire asset, but we have to have some way to identify what the asset is so that it can be assessed in a uniform way across the strait. the state, which would encourage development of solar energy in the state of California, instead of seeing those developments go to other states and having Californians pay for that energy without creating jobs. So I think we have a pretty good case here, and I do respect what the opposition said, but honestly, we didn't see a single recommended amendment from the opposition. We just looked at their opposition notes and did the best we could to address those comments. So with that, I'm going to have to ask for an aye vote, and I appreciate the committee's indulgence.

Okay, yes.

Again, I thank the chair, vice chair Gibson, vice chair Gibson, vice chair Sanchez and distinguished members of the committee. Last year, we enacted SB 711, California's first date change conformity bill in 10 years. SB 711 made hundreds or maybe a thousand of substantial changes in the revenue and taxation code to make tax filing and compliance easier for all Californians. California's however was there was a significant emission and SB 711 which SB 1435 would fix the bill also makes other technical and conforming changes suggested by tax practitioners and the franchise tax board I have no witnesses in support but committee staff is here for any technical questions I respectfully request consideration of the measure for your suspense file

Thank you. Yeah, I want to thank you for bringing this forward. As we know, we have spent many hours deliberating the budget, which we know impacts many of our food banks and so forth, and have had to look long and hard for resources to provide. So anything that we can do related to these food bank donations is definitely needed and warranted. So I support this.

It's a suspense file. Well, I want to say last year, the bill SB 711 did make maybe 1,000 changes in the tax code. It generated additional revenue, but there wasn't a mission, and this is just really basically correcting that mission. So I indulge the committee to ask for an aye vote.

Well, good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Is it appropriate to start with go Dodgers? Okay. Well, I'm here to present on Senate Bill 661, the Airport Expansion and Regional Optimization Act. And before I begin, I would like to thank the committee consultant for the hard work put into this bill and for working with my office. And I'll be accepting the committee amendments outlined in the analysis. And I'm going to really just cut my statement short today and say that, you know, Senate Bill 661 is about creating a dedicated funding stream using existing jet fuel sales tax revenues. to support our entire airport network and better prepare California for the nation's aviation strategy. This bill also brings California closer into compliance with federal aviation revenue use requirements by making targeted investments that strengthen every part of our airport network, from our largest international gateways to our smallest community airports. If we want California to remain the nation's leader in transportation, commerce, and innovation, We must invest in the entire airport network not just pieces of it and that what SB661 does So with me today I have Jim Leitz Executive Director for the California Airport Council and Juliet Jordan the Managing Director of Industry Affairs with the National Air Transportation Association

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members. This bill takes an incredibly important step towards moving California into compliance with an FAA requirement that all sales tax revenues derived from aviation fuel sales be used for an aviation purpose. This is a longstanding rule that the FAA honestly did not seek to enforce for the better part of 30 years. But this has been a 10-year discussion at this point. And so we're incredibly thankful to the author, Senator Hurtado, for bringing this forward. And we ask for an aye vote and go Dodgers.

Good evening, distinguished members of the committee. As the senator mentioned, I am Julia Jordan, Managing Director of Industry Affairs at the National Air Transportation Association, which represents aviation businesses and airports across the United States, including 145 in the state of California. I live in San Francisco, and I serve on the board of the Association for California Airports. And today I want to highlight native support for SB 661. NATO supports this legislation as an important step toward bringing the state of California into compliance with federal aviation revenue use requirements. For decades, federal policy has made clear that aviation fuel tax revenues must be used for airport and aviation purposes. SB 661 recognizes that principle and takes a constructive step to ensure aviation-generated revenues are reinvested back into California's diverse aviation system. California's aviation network is a vital transportation and economic asset. The state is home to more than 200 general aviation airports. Together, those facilities support emergency rescue, medical transport, law enforcement, fire response, agricultural operations, flight training, freight movement, and access for communities that may not have scheduled airline service. General aviation airports support important functions that benefit the broader aviation network, including communities, the traveling public, and the state economy. However, small airports operate on thin margins. To support critical public services, these airports require financial assistance and funding. Reinvesting aviation fuel tax revenues into their infrastructure helps to maintain safe operations and preserve the significant services that communities across California rely on. Native views SB 661 as a necessary and constructive step toward compliance, reinvestment, and long-term aviation system strength. I ask and encourage your support of SB 661 in favor of protecting California's airport ecosystem, strengthening the statewide aviation network, and ensuring aviation-generated revenues are used for designated aviation purposes. Thank you kindly.

Mr. Chair and other members, Paul Yoder, this time on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors, and strong support. Cannot thank the Senator enough for her work on this bill. Thank you.

Isha Ayer on behalf of the City of Bakersfield, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you. in opposition this afternoon, but didn't feel appropriate to come up here and support either. Alberto Chorico on behalf of Airlines for America. Subsequent to the Senate Transportation Committee hearing where the chair directed the parties to engage in good faith negotiations. We've done that. We've all done that. I'm not questioning that. But there does remain a very important part of the puzzle that the airlines, and I say with some confidence LAX and SFO don't agree with, which is the distribution of the money. In the current version of the bill, Mr. Chairman, we've talked about this with you and members of the committee, there's a 70-30 split. The 70% also, from the 70%, there's another million dollars taken off the top to cover administrative costs. And our position is that some of the airlines believe that all the money should stay at the airport where it's generated. I'm not here to take that position today. I just want to contextualize it. Some airlines believe that's the case. Some airports believe that there should be 85, 90% should stay at the airport of origin. Despite our efforts to negotiate, we can't support the 70-30 split today. We think that it is appropriate to, number one, take urgent action on this matter because the FAA is threatening severe sanctions. Two, it is appropriate to support the smaller airports to a degree. And it's also appropriate to support the Bakersfield Airport, which is in the Senator's district. And I appreciate the fact that any legislator here runs a bill, and if they want to bring some benefit to the district, it's completely appropriate. But unfortunately, we can't support the bill in its current iteration, and we hope that we can continue to have discussions with the author and others to come up with a more equitable and something that the airlines and the large airports can live with. Regrettably, we won't be able to support the bill today.

Yeah, Julie Malinowski-Ball on behalf of Southwest Airlines. We share the concerns you just heard from Airlines for America and encourage everyone to keep working on this bill.

Kathy Van Austin on behalf of United Airlines. Share this position of A4A.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the comments here made today. Look, when I first got started with this bill, I wanted it all just for Bakersfield, right? I tried to get away with that, but as we moved along, we obviously, there was an issue that we needed to address. And actually when the bill made its way, well, it actually got started in the Senate where, in Senate transportation, where some members were like, well, we want some funding for our airports. And then when I got to the assembly side, it's like, well, we, I heard from more assembly members saying that, that they wanted some funding for their smaller airports too And and the way that we see this is that this is an investment in the safety of the public across the state And you know there critical airports that provide transportation to ensure that when there fires that there aviation that can take the air and be able to put those fires out throughout the state of California So all airports have a critical role to play here in the state of California. They all deserve investment, no matter how big or how small. And we think that this is a step in the right direction. And, of course, happy to always continue conversations moving forward. But I respect Blast for an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you. So I'm here for SB 1172, and before I begin, I want to thank the committee consultants for their diligence and assistance in working through this measure, and after careful consideration, we'll be accepting the committee amendments today. Thank you. This measure is really about protecting our communities and the hard-earned dollars that those communities and the individuals within those communities make. And SB 1172 is really a balanced and responsible approach on tax-sharing agreements. And when cities work to attract businesses, create jobs, and grow their local economies, they should be able to rely on receiving the revenues generated through these efforts. So SB 1172 provides reasonable safeguards and we ask that I would respect Blas for an aye vote.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Chris McKaylee here on behalf of the City of Shafter. First, I wanted to thank our state senator for authoring this measure and for your committee and other interested parties in working together on the language. As the Senator indicated, we believe that this bill is important because it provides some guardrails. Of course, it is prospective in nature, so it does not impact any existing contracts or agreements on tax sharing. And it provides important guardrails in capping or limiting compensation and also the duration of that compensation. So I would respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ryan Elaine on behalf of the California Retailers Association in support. Thank you.

Isha Iyer on behalf of the City of Bakersfield and the City of Thousand Oaks in support. Thank you very much.

So I think everyone is removing their opposition. Okay. We were based on the acceptance of the committee amendments So Nicole Wordleman on behalf of NUMO we had requested the amendment as recommended by the chair and we are greatly appreciative of the author for taking that amendment and we are removing our opposition Thank you Thank you very much. Mr. Chair of the Committee, Bob Young, client services director with HDL Companies, and like Nicole and the prior speaker, we appreciate the senators accepting of the amended language and the chair's suggestions therein, and we remove our opposition. Thank you very much.

I'm in opposition. You have the same right.

Second.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Great. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I want to really thank your team and thank you for discussing this with us.

So this bill is really about the inspection of homes in high wildfire severity zones to short compliance with defensive space standards. More than 2 million California households, approximately 1 in 4, are located within proximity to high or extremely high fire risk areas. And overwhelming data suggests the two most important factors in protecting homes from wildfires are, number one, selection of building materials. Number two, the maintenance of vegetation and other flammable materials in order to establish adequate defensive space. Additionally, the insurance industry has told us time and time again they're more likely to insure homes in higher fire threat severity zones when there's compliance with defensive space standards. In 2019, our former colleague, Jim Wood, passed a bill through the legislature that approved legislation requiring that a seller of real property that is located in high fire severity zones provide the buyer documentation stating that the property is in compliance with fire defensive space standards or agree that the buyer will bring the home into compliance within a year of sale. Now, these sales transactions are an ideal time to bring a home up to code, but there's no provision in the law on how to alert the appropriate fire enforcement agency of said agreement between seller and buyer. So how best to make that notification? Key stakeholders in the real estate industry have agreed there's no need to create a new form. But let's use an existing real estate form called the Preliminary Change of Ownership Report, or PCOR, to alert fire enforcement agencies. This is a form that provides essential information about a real estate transaction to the assessor, and by law is made available to specified government agencies Assessors have expressed concerns over using PCOR and while I appreciate their concern I just want to make two points in response. Number one, the statute already authorizes the use of PCOR for numerous other government agencies unrelated to property assessment, including Department of Social Services, Water Resources, and Caltrans, among others. And two, just in case, I believe the public benefit and purpose of using the PCOR in this case, to enhance wildfire safety, should hopefully outweigh the concern over the particular use of that form. The bill is supported by the California Fire Chiefs Association, all the property counseling associations, the Fire Districts Association, who all agree that getting properties into compliance defensive space is critical. So here today in support, we have Chief Steve Albert representing the California Fire Chiefs and the Fire Districts Association.

Good evening, Chair and Committee members. I am Steve Aubert. I'm here tonight to represent the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association in support of SB 911. It's a practical and important wildfire resilience measure that helps close a significant defensible compliance gap that currently exists during property transfers in the high fire hazard severity zones. As California's fire service continues responding to larger, faster-moving, and more destructive wildfires, one thing remains clear. Defensible space works. Proper vegetation management reduces combustible fuel loading and limits the ember ignition potential. It also improves firefighter access and significantly increases the home likelihood of surviving a wildfire event. Today, when properties change ownership, like we discussed, defensible space-compliant responsibilities often are deferred. And at this point in time, there's no mechanism to follow up on those actions that need to be taken. SB 9-11 strengthens that process by creating a practical accountability framework that provides local fire agencies and Cal Fire with notification of those compliance obligations and the ability to verify that defensible space requirements are completed within the required timeframe. This bill not simply is about individual properties. Wildfire risk is a community risk, and non-compliant parcels can contribute to structure-to-structure ignition, increase fire spread, and threaten entire neighborhoods during major wildfire events. By improving defensible space compliant rates over time, SB 9-11 helps strengthen community survivability, supports firefighter safety, and advances California's broader wildfire mitigation goals. For those reasons, the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Jim Wood here on behalf of Fireside, a technology-based wildfire risk management company, in support.

Good evening again. Again, I'm Laura Avalo, the current county assessor recorder here on behalf of the California Assessors Association with an opposed and less amended position to SB 911. The association has no concern with the author's intent to streamline the communications and access that Cal Fire and local fire agencies have as it relates to documentation of compliance. However, as assessors, we are administrators and have strong concerns with the bill's use of the Preliminary Change in Ownership Report, also known as the PCOR. As noted in the bill analysis, the PCOR is an administrative document designed to be used exclusively for assessment purposes enforced by current law that states that the PCOR shall not include any questions that are not germane to the assessment function. Defensible space compliance is not an assessment function. It's also important to note that a PCOR is not legally required to be filled out and included to complete a property transaction, emphasizing that this document is not the correct process or place for this disclosure. In addition, redesigns of the PCOR are done by the State Board of Equalization in consultation with the assessors. And as far as spacing on the PCOR, there is no additional space available for additional information. Additional items such as what would be prescribed by SB 9-11 would require additional pages, leading to additional printing and mailing costs for assessors. Coming out of Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Becker expressed a commitment to working with our association to explore alternatives that would remove the PCOR from SB 9-11. Following that committee, our association provided the author and his staff an alternative method that would provide a proper streamlined route for Cal Fire and local fire agencies. to assess all documentations of compliance. The alternative we suggested would establish a separate, standalone, recordable document that could be recorded concurrently with the sale or purchase of real property. This recorded document would be available to Cal Fire and local fire agencies. This alternative process would carry out the author's intent with SB 9-11 and would remove the PCOR and our offices from handling such matter that does not fall within our purview. The PCOR is an important document for ensuring buyers receive an accurate property tax assessment. Adding questions unrelated to the assessment of the property risks adding confusion and complexity for something unrelated and is outside the PCOR's purpose. It is for all of these reasons that I stated that we'd ask you to reconsider passage of SB 9-11 out of this committee. Thank you.

Sure. We've been all around this issue. We've looked at every possibility, and ultimately, this is just the best way to do it. It's an existing form. I hear their concerns, and we have worked with them, and I appreciate their engagement, but we've looked at every way to do this. Again, this is since 2019 when our former colleague passed this bill. We've been trying to deal with this issue. And, you know, for the reasons I mentioned, you know, we feel that statute already authorizes the use of this form for numerous other government agencies. And, again, although, you know, we hear their concerns, we feel that the case of public wildfire safety, you know, has to kind of rule the day in this case.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Quirk Silva, aye.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. With the opportunity to present SB1408, which is a district-specific bill to address the transportation needs of the county of Contra Costa, which I represent. SB1408 would authorize the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, or CCTA, to place a countywide sales tax measure of up to 1% on a future ballot to continue funding transportation programs within the county. Currently, CCTA is receiving funding for Measure J, a previously approved transportation sales tax that was approved by the voters in November of 2004, and set to expire in 2034. Through a stakeholder process, CCTA adopted a countywide expenditure plan for Measure J expenditures, which have funded major freeway and interchange improvements, such as Interstate 680, in addition to local street repair programs, bus and rail infrastructure, and paratransit services for seniors and people with disabilities. CCTA seeks to put a measure to the voters in advance of 2034 because early renewal ensures a smooth transition between the new measure and the prior transportation sales tax to allow project certainty as transportation projects have a long lead time for funding and completion. Similar to Measure J, CCTA, if this bill moves forward, will prepare a countywide expenditure plan in coordination with local agencies, stakeholders, and the public. It is anticipated that the revenues generated from the new sales tax will continue investments in state highway construction upgrades, local road maintenance and improvements, biking and pedestrian infrastructure, public transit and mobility programs. So with me to testify in support of the bill is Mark Watts on behalf of C.C.T.A. At the appropriate time, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Chair and members. As indicated, I'm Mark Watts here today in support of SB 1408. on behalf of the board of directors of CCTA. First, I'd like to thank the, or the board would like me to thank the author for introducing this measure. For more than 35 years, Contra Costa County has had a very clear record of success as a self-help county in providing transportation services. Through voter-approved transportation funding, CCTA has delivered transformative projects that improve mobility safety and economic vitality throughout the region For example the half addition of the fourth floor of the Caldecott Tunnel improved connectivity between Alameda and Contra Costa counties and was delivered on time and on budget The author did mention the 680 program that's underway that will increase corridor throughput without adding general-purpose lanes. Contra Costa voters have twice renewed their commitment to this local transportation model because they have seen real results. They know that local decision-making, accountability, and efficient project delivery create value for taxpayers. Simply put, SB 1408 provides local residents the opportunity to decide whether to renew the existing 1.5-cent transportation sales tax before it expires in 2034. On behalf of CTA Board of Directors, I respectfully ask for your support of SB 1408 And I'll leave it at that. Try to cut this short.

Isha Ayer on behalf of the city of El Cerrito in support.

Mr. Chair Jeff Neal, representing the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County,

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Aye.

Sanchez, no.

Carrillo, aye.

DeMaio, no.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay. Thank you. Once again, Mr. Chair, members, as a chairman of the Senate housing committee, I'm presenting the annual housing omnibus bill, which is intended to make a variety of technical, non-controversial changes to state law within the Senate Housing Committee's jurisdiction. And the bill updates various provisions of state law relating to the low-income housing tax credit statute to account for recent federal changes, among other technical changes. As we know, the omnibus bills are brought forward and reviewed by an extensive list of housing policy experts and practitioners. And as per omnibus policy all measures must have consensus between all members of the committee This is a bipartisan measure that received no votes throughout the process including on the Senate floor and respectfully ask for an aye vote

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Aye.

Sanchez, aye.

Carrillo, aye.

Aye.

McKenna, aye.

Quirk Silva, aye.

Michelle Rodriguez, aye.

Just one.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

and I'd also like to thank the committee as well because I know each and every one of you worked awfully hard to move this along with me and I appreciate that. So it's important that the economy in California and the economy of hydrogen and EV is moving forward. So this bill, with your support, has moved along and that's why I appreciate accepting your amendments and working with me to this point. Senate Bill 1424 will allow zero-emission vehicle fueling equipment, including charging and hydrogen stations, to qualify for the state's existing partial sales and use tax program intended to support advanced manufacturing and power generations. This program is administered by the California Department of Tax and Fee administration and is scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2020. So assuming this bill is passed and signed, it would be a term-limited three-year bill, which is very, very important. A term-limited three-year bill, partial sales tax exemption. California's transportation sector account for roughly 50 percent of the state's green gas emissions and about 90 percent of the diesel participant matter in pollution, making the transportation and the transition to zero emissions technologies essential to achieving the state's climate and air quality goals. To this end, California has established ambitious zero-emission vehicle deployment targets through both legislation and executive action. Achieving these goals depends heavily on the availability of a robust fueling network, which Senate Bill 147, is designed to support. By expanding the existing partial sales tax exemption to include a broader range of zero-emission vehicle fueling equipment, California can help mitigate the significant impacts stemming from reduced federal support for clean transportation. These challenges have been further compounded by the federal actions under the Trump administration that have undermined key programs California has relied on, such as the Natural Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program, also known as the NEVI Program, and ARCHES, California's hydrogen hub, thereby setting back the state's transportation decarbonization efforts. Senate Bill 1424 seeks to support those activities investing in the decarbonization of California's transportation sector by providing a term-limited exemption from the state's portion of the sales and use tax for zero-emission vehicle fueling equipment. This targeted incentive will reduce upfront capital costs for infrastructure developers, help projects pencil out, and accelerate the deployment of both charging and hydrofueling networks at the scale required to meet California's climate and clean energy mandates. Without this support, California risks slower infrastructure expansion, higher costs for operators and consumers, and delays in achieving its emissions reductions targeted by broader transportation decarbonization goals. This bill has received no votes, has no known opposition, and is supported by both the hydrogen and charging community. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today, I have Teresa Cook with the California Hydrogen Coalition and Julie Melonowski-Ball, representing the California Electric Transportation Coalition, to testify in support and help answer any technical questions you may have.

Good evening, Chair and members. Teresa Cook on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, pleased to co-sponsor SB 1424. This measure would provide additional support to zero-emission vehicle fueling infrastructure developers by expanding the existing sales and use tax exemption for manufacturing under CDTFA for the remaining three years until the program sunset. The timing of this support mechanism is critical as industry seeks to continue investing private capital in clean transportation while the enabling regulatory policies and federal support have stalled. SB 1424 also contains critical reporting mechanisms to ensure funds are meaningfully impacting charging station and hydrogen station counts. For these reasons, we encourage your support for 1424 at the appropriate time, and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Julie Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition in support. You know, Callie, the author already talked about this, but, you know, the federal government is rolling back all our clean air goals. You know, in particular, our zero emission vehicle incentives have disappeared. Our infrastructure incentives to the tune of over a billion dollars have disappeared. Our vehicle emissions standards have been rolled back and our CAFE standards. You know so the so when a vehicle needs to meet certain basic you know fuel efficiency rules those things have been rolled back Now California can make up for everything that the federal government is doing to attack our clean air goals So this bill, SB 1424, comes in and says, well, at the very least, let's make sure that for those who have vehicles today and those who are going to buy zero emission vehicles in the future, at the very least, let's make sure that we can fuel them long into the future. That is why we are supporting this technology-neutral approach. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks for allowing me to hit a home run today. And go Dodgers. And thank you. And thank you for your I vote. And I appreciate it.

Calling the absentee members. Madam Chair. DeMaio. Secretary? DeMaio, aye. Michelle Rodriguez? Michelle Rodriguez, aye. What's the?

It's already out. Because that bill is already out.

Madam Secretary, for absent members. The bill has passed. Absentees. DeMaio? 1172. Jamayo, aye. McKinner? Yes. McKinner, aye. Michelle Rodriguez? Michelle Rodriguez, aye.

Sorry.

Move it.

Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. DeMaio? DeMaio, aye. McKenner? Aye. McKenner, aye. Quirk Silva? Aye. Quirk Silva, aye. Michelle Rodriguez? Aye.

Moved and seconded by Cork-Silver and seconded by McKenna.

Oh, yes. Yes.

Gibson? Aye. Gibson, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. DeMaio? No. DeMaio, no. McKinner? Aye. McKinner, aye. Quirk Silva? Aye. Quirk Silva, aye. Michelle Rodriguez?

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

We didn't. CR Troy. Yes. What are we doing? Did I do it? We did not.

Yes.

So I didn't.

Go ahead. So I was correct. Yes.

So I was correct.

Mr. Chair. We're going to be voting on these.

Yes. We're going back to number. We're going back to number file.

Moved.

Gibson? Aye. Gibson, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. DeMaio? DeMaio, aye. McKenna? Aye. McKenna, aye. Quirk Silva? Quirk Silva, aye. Michelle Rodriguez? Aye. Michelle Rodriguez, aye.

Move on Cork-Silver. Second by McKenna.

Gibson? Aye. Gibson, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. DeMaio? Aye. Demayo, aye. McKenna? Aye. McKenna, aye. Quirk Silva? Quirk Silva, aye. Michelle Rodriguez?

Gibson? Aye. Gibson, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. DeMaio? DeMaio, aye. McKenner? Aye. McKenner, aye. Quirk Silva? Aye. Quirk Silva, aye. Michelle Rodriguez?

So moved.

Gibson. I Gibson. I Sanchez. I Sanchez. I Korea Korea. I DeMille. I DeMille. I Mckinner. I Quirk Silva. Quirk Silva. Quirk Silva. I Michelle Rodriguez. Michelle Rodriguez. Aye. Michelle Rodriguez.

Motion.

Gibson? Aye. Gibson, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. DeMaio? Aye. DeMaio, aye. McKenna? Aye. McKenna, aye. Quirk Silva? Aye. Quirk Silva, aye. Michelle Rodriguez? Aye. Michelle Rodriguez.

Yes, sir.

Yes, we did that. Yes. The chair, the chair is recommend.

Yes, you are a no.

We can go back.

888. DeMaio, aye. McKinner? Aye. McKinner, aye. Cork Silva? Aye. Cork Silva, aye. Michelle Rodriguez?

Gibson? Aye. Gibson, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. DeMaio? Aye. DeMaio, aye. McKenna? Aye. McKenna, aye. Quirk Silva? Aye. Quirk Silva, aye. Michelle Rodriguez? Aye.

No.

Okay, hold here.

Gibson? Aye. Gibson, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. DeMaio? DeMaio, no. McKenna? Aye. McKenna, aye. Cork Silva? Cork Silva, aye. Michelle Rodriguez? Aye. Michelle Rodriguez, aye.

Moved by Ms. Rodriguez. Second. Second by Ms. Cork-Silver.

Gibson? Aye. Gibson, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. DeMaio? DeMaio, aye. McKinner? Aye. McKinner, aye. Quirk Silva? Aye. Quirk Silva, aye. Michelle Rodriguez?

Thank you.

We're good.

Thank you. Thank you.