Senate Emergency Management Committee

good afternoon

it is my pleasure today to present AB 1749 AB 1749 would prohibit the use of an unmanned aerial vehicle, remotely piloted aircraft or drone, as we know that by, to knowingly or recklessly interfere with law enforcement or emergency response efforts related to wildfire suppression. AB 1749 would also authorize the Attorney General, County Council, or City Attorney to bring a civil action against an individual who violates emergency response airspace with a specific drone or unmanned aerial vehicle. Visitors, violators can face a civil penalty of up to $75,000 for each individual violation. During last year's devastating wildfires in Pacific Palisades, we saw the significant risk that drones can pose to first responders after a civilian-operated drone collided with a super scooper aircraft responding to the fire. AB 1749 is an important step to strengthen our deterrence against the unlawful operation of drones in wildfire response areas where air operations are underway. In times of emergency, every second counts, and we must ensure that our first responders who are already putting their lives at risk are not put in further jeopardy while performing their duties. AB 1749 has a broad range of support, including California Professional Firefighters, Orange County Fire Authority, the California Special District Association, California State Sheriff's Association, and the California Narcotic Officers Association. My office remains engaged in discussion regarding potential amendments to the bill. With opposition, this bill received unanimous bipartisan support in the Assembly and has received no-no votes. I respectfully request an aye vote.

We'll hear from either lead witnesses or if you want to do just general witnesses and support. Yeah, no lead witnesses. No lead.

Well, thank you.

So journalists would not be prohibited, for example. But it's really to leave that airspace safe for the emergency responders.

I'm a big fan of it, and I will take a motion when we have a quorum.

Thanks for what you're doing.

Thanks for coming back and keep working on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. I also want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the chair and the committee staff for working with my office to get this bill to where it's at today. Suicide prevention should never be political. It's a public health responsibility. And when a young person is at their lowest point and finds the courage to ask for help, the worst thing we can do is let that call go unanswered. Last year, national funding for the 98-LGBTQ-Plus Suicide Prevention Line was cut, shutting down a lifeline that thousands of young people relied on in its darkest moments. According to the CDC, our LGBT plus youth attempt suicide at almost triple the rate compared to their peers. With the pressure of the world on their backs and a president who thinks transgender people are not real, our youth are begging for help. Not because they are broken, but because too often the systems around them are. AB 1540 is about restoring a lifeline. It reinstates the press 3 option within the 98 system so that when someone reaches out in crisis, they can be connected to trained counselors who understand the unique challenges LGBTQ plus faiths. And restoring this service means restoring something simple but powerful, the chance for someone on the other end of the line to say, you're not alone, stay with me. Sometimes the difference between tragedy and tomorrow is just one voice picking up the phone. AB 1540 helps make sure that voice is heard. Today, primary witnesses in support to highlight the impact of the bills are Bridget McCarthy, longtime friend and supporter of many of the bills since I've been here, mother to Riley and advocacy with the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and we also have Diva Sheev Senior Policy Advocate for California Alliance of Child and Family Services to act as tactical support And before they start I just like to say happy pride Happy pride indeed Thank you for bringing this We turn to your lead witnesses We

Hello. Hello. My name is Divya Shiv, Senior Policy Advocate of Behavioral Health at the California Alliance of Child and Family Services. As the Assemblymember stated, I'm here to provide expert testimony and we are a proud co-sponsor of the bill and I will yield the rest

We'll hear from others.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, California State Association of Psychiatrists, City of West Hollywood, and Humboldt County all in support Thank you Thank you very much Good afternoon Mr Chair Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association and proud support Thank you Thanks Good afternoon, Chair and members of Beth Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association of California in support. Thanks. Mary Creasy on behalf of All In for Safe Schools in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, John Scoglin with the County of Los Angeles in support. Hey. Hello. Yeah. Josh Gogger on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support. Cassandra Whetstone, a volunteer with NorCal Gun Violence Prevention in support. Good afternoon. Bindu Mukhamla with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter in strong support. Thank you. Hello, everyone. Caden Shepard-Choy with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls Youth Advisory Council in full support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support. Thanks. Good afternoon, Brian Ricks with the Los Angeles Unified School District in support. Good afternoon, Katie McKenzie with the Commission for Behavioral Health in support of AB 1540. Thank you. Thanks. Sarah Weber with the Drug Policy Alliance in support. Thank you. Thank you. Julie Chapman, volunteer with NorCal Gun Violence Prevention, in support. Thank you. Zach Flowers with the Health Officers Association of California, in proud support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Ruby Arceau, on behalf of Children Now, in support. Thanks. Mr. Chair and Senator Adam Kegel on behalf of California LULAC and the Alliance College Ready Public Schools, in support. Thank you. Sumayana Haran on behalf of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, also in support. Thank you. Noemi Marquet on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Aleni Kounalakis, in support. Thank you.

Paul Everts on behalf of Cause and Our Duty. I am a school teacher. This bill directs the California HHS to contract with an entity that can operate a hotline that specializes in LGBTQ plus suicide prevention. The Trevor Project is the only such organization. This bill is clearly about the Trevor Project. The author passed AB 727 last year, which put the Trevor Project contact number on the student IDs. I wonder how much Trevor donates to his campaign. I understand why the author hides the actual beneficiary of this bill. Trevor Online social platform, Trevor Space, explicitly facilitates direct communication between minors and adults ages 13 to 24. But actually, there is no age limit since there is no identity or age verification process. Minors of any age can connect with men pretending to be females and even babies. One of the featured chat rooms is devoted to age regression, a known male sexual fetish related to sexual abuse, child sexual abuse. There's a polyamorous chat room, one for furries, and of course, multiple ones for trans and even one for chosen families. Anyone visiting the Treasurer Project main page is invited to enter Trevor's space by tapping Meet Friends. Once there, the minor is encouraged to provide private contact information on its Discord server, a platform rife with sexual predators. The result is a pedophiles and traffickers dream scenario. How does sexualizing kids prevent suicide? The author needs to answer that plea. How does moving this bill forward show the state of California you want to help lower these kids' suicide rate? Please stop telling kids they were born wrong and calling their parents bigots when their parents love them in their natural bodies. Please vote no.

Lisa Disbro, former teacher in Moms for Liberty. The premise of this bill is that teens who identify as LGBTQ are at vastly increased risk of suicide that they need a dedicated helpline, even though 988 itself says it is fully capable of handling calls from everyone. According to the author, suicide attempts are up in the precise cohort specifically targeted by the Trevor Project over the last two decades. Suicide prevention was the same reason you push schools to teach about transgenderism in every class. Every school, pardon me, ever consider that possibly teaching non-conforming kids that they could have been born wrong might result in more kids being depressed or anxious? The author and Trevor Project's claims that suicide safeguarding children's bodies are causing increased suicide is based on irresponsible speculation. A 2026 peer-reviewed critique in Nature Human Behavior found that the Trevor Project's claim of a 72% increase in suicide attempts came from a single state, Idaho, where no relevant law was actually in force. More importantly, analyzing the data correctly suggests that enacting the bans on transgender medicine led to less suicidality. This bill is just another pretext to fill the coffers of a nonprofit that only stays in business if it can continue to espouse the lie that LGBTQ youth are more and more suicidal. The Trevor Project brought in about $30 million in 2020, nearly tripling to $84 million by 2023, paying its CEO $750,000 in 2024. Suicide prevention is laudable, but 988 already fills that need, and California should not be redirecting public funds to a politically motivated organization whose own data has been debunked. Vote no. I have copies of our information. If I could give it to someone.

Erin Friday, licensed attorney, president of our duty, also representing cause, women are real, LGB Alliance, LGB Courage Coalition, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, and Genspect. We urge no.

Rochelle Connor, Concerned Women for America, representing thousands of families. We oppose this bill. Thank you.

Yeah, Mr. Gonzalez, I'll be supporting your measure today.

We know this has been a critical issue for a lot of people right now who don feel seen and I appreciate your lead testimony ma And you know what lies in that darkness between you and eternity hopefully is some comfort in some progress here So I know that you must face it every single day, and I don't know how you bear that burden.

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the staff. Thank you to those who are here in support and obviously those who are in opposition because this is why we need this bill from the rhetoric that we heard in the last couple of minutes. 988 is about suicide prevention, plain and simple. And obviously we know that this administration is trying to cut that lifeline from us. I mentioned on the floor, on the assembly floor, a friend of mine who called 988 was originally saved by it and a few months later, unfortunately, in April took his own life. and the last couple of weeks I went to his his funeral and they gave away one of those memorial cards and I just want to close by reading the end of that memorial card I cannot attribute it as to who wrote it but I I do know it's it's out there but on the back of this card it says don't grieve for me for now I'm free I turned my back and I left it all I could not stay another day to laugh to love to work to play tasks left undone must stay that way I found that peace at the close of the day and my parting has left a void then fill it with remembering joy a friendship shared a laugh a kiss a yes these things I too shall miss but be not burdened with the times of sorrow I wish you the sunshine of tomorrow my life's been full I savored much good friends good times and a loved one's touch perhaps my time seem all too brief don't lengthen it now with undue grief lift up your heart and that was on the back of that memorial card from a friend of mine who unfortunately took his life a few weeks ago and I want to pass this bill in his memory and I thank you Mr. Chair and Bridget for sharing your story and I respectfully ask for your eye vote. Thank you

No, Senator. One of the witnesses has to do double duty, just like we're all doing today. So I am going to start with 1805. Okay.

Good afternoon, Senator and committee members. I'm Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom, and I have the honor of chairing the Assembly Committee on Emergency Management. In recent months, the legislature and public we serve have become aware of flagrant race and abuse of one of our fundamental essential public safety projects, the Next Generation 9-1-1 Modernization Project. The goals of the project are straightforward to modernize our 9-1-1 infrastructure away from old wired infrastructure and into a more modern Internet protocol system. This is a system that we can allow on for communications over phone, text, and other modalities, increasing options for people with dangerous situations to quickly communicate essential information The system is also intended to connect the numerous law enforcement and public safety entities involved in a 911 response to make sure they can communicate quickly and effectively and respond to emergencies as fast as possible As we saw in Pacific Palisades in Antedena last January, a reliable 911 network is critical to putting resources and manpower in the right place at the right time. And the cost is getting worse. And it's definitely more costly when human lives involved. Unfortunately, the crucial project has spent nearly half a billion taxpayer dollars and needed to be scrapped with little to show for it. The Office of Emergency Services has requested permission to go back to the drawing board, putting that time and money to waste. And when the tests of the system had been rolled out, there had been such significant issues that the entire region of our state was left without 911 access for hours. Those are very real people in very real emergencies. people who needed assistance and who rely on one number that they've been taught to rely on since they were children. That meant that law enforcement who would have been there to help was not able to get the information. And I can tell you firsthand when we had the sheriff come and testify about active shooters in our community, we learned that one of the delays was the fact that people were at addresses that they did not know where they were because they were at a birthday Party and that there were delays in getting to those people because the law enforcement officers could not find them. So Californians have been taught for decades that when you have an emergency you call 9-1-1. Allowing that essential life-saving service to be poorly mismanagement is not just a waste of taxpayer dollars and staff time, it's abuse of public trust. 18-05 is about fixing this. We know that we are all looking for a pathway forward. We've heard that from emergency services. We've heard that throughout the legislature. And so this bill takes critical steps to ensure that that actually happens. It does three things. It calls for an immediate audit of the project by the state auditor, providing their office with a list of hard hitting questions developed with feedback from the state auditor's office so that lawmakers and public have the answers, not just to relitigate things that we already know that have happened, but to ensure that we are able to move forward in a way that has the right contractors and vendors at the table and that has the right expertise. The bill revises and strengthens the existing 9-1-1 Advisory Board, giving the board the authority to make concrete recommendations to Cal OES and requiring OES to justify their decisions if they ignore the recommendations. AB 1805 requires detailed quarterly reports to the legislature on the status of the project, roadblocks it is encountering and solutions being proposed to solve that challenges. I would also be remiss if I did not mention that as part of the audit, we're also requesting a technical audit, which is different than what's happened, but looking to ensure that the technical pathway forward that we choose is actually right, because we know that we originally were going to do a regional approach. Now we're doing a statewide approach. And if you've watched any of those hearings. We ask questions about how did you choose this approach and we want to make sure that there is the right technical expertise involved in making these decisions. This bill is not just a step forward in the right direction. It's an opportunity for the project to remember that 911 is meant to serve and to put in hard work so that everyone in California has an emergency call system that they know that they can rely on. We also want to make sure that we don't go ahead to get to the end of the line and just move forward with a project to spend another half billion dollars and find out that we didn't do it right again so with me today to testify I have Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association and at this point I will go ahead and refer to him and I also I sorry before I move forward like to say that we have Heather Gonzalez on behalf of the Legislative Analyst Office she be here to answer

you Mr. Chair and members Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. Thank you guys for accommodating me. I want to thank the author for all of her work up to this point this year in highlighting this issue, putting solutions on the table and ensuring that we're actually having a robust discussion around this. And to the chair, thank you for your work on this bill and moving it forward in our conversations. I've been involved in this project since before it even got off the ground, working with the legislature to pass measures necessary to fund our NextGen 911 system and have stayed in touch with the folks moving that project forward since then. Unfortunately, we did end where we ended where we have to kind of take a moment to reflect on what went wrong before moving forward. And I think the policies in the bill before you and those being discussed in the legislature are incredibly important to make sure that we don't make the same mistakes that we made last time, but we also get this right the second time moving forward. It's incredibly critical that we move into this next-gen 911 system. Our legacy system does provide 911 services, but it is an outdated system. It doesn't at all come close to what we should expect in a modern 2026 911 system that has text capabilities, video capabilities, better location and mapping. We're excited to finally get this project done and completed, but I don't think it's going to get there without the type of oversight that the legislature can play. that the police chiefs and our other public safety allies need to play in a better position in this, and that's what this bill is aimed to do, and for those reasons, we are asking for you to support the bill today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Mark Smith on behalf of CalNINA. That's the California chapter of the National Emergency Number Association. That's a mouthful, but we are the 911 dispatchers in the state of California, and if I just might for 10 seconds. Please. echo the words of the other witness. We've waited very long for this project to be implemented. We need to get it across the finish line. I want to appreciate everything that the author has done, both in the policy and budget context, to move this conversation forward, and we urge you to act

of Social Workers, California chapter, and strong support. Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no others in support, do we have anyone here in opposition, either lead or me to testimony? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Do we have comments or questions from members?

So we're going to invite Heather Gonzalez on behalf of the Legislative Analyst's Office to answer that question.

But before she does that, I want to say this is why we think it's important that we have both an audit and a technical evaluation because we want to make sure that we have the right approach. But I'm going to give it to her. Okay.

Yeah. In short, yes. The technical evaluation that we have been recommending would look principally at two questions that have been very much part of the policy debate over the last few months since we released our initial recommendations in February. And that is, first and foremost, can the regional system that we have built out already work? Now, OES says no, vendors who built it say yes, and we need a competent technical evaluation to determine what's the right answer to that question. The second question that is critical to understanding for the go forward is, can the statewide system that the Office of Emergency Services has proposed, is that going to be the reliable answer that we all want in the go forward? And again, we believe that having additional technical evaluation from an independent expert would help gain confidence and a more informed analysis of the answer to that question.

The question, one of the central questions with the statewide is not whether it's regional or statewide, but if it's regional, how do you do it so that it is sufficient? There are some states that have statewide systems where they've had statewide 911 blackouts. It just goes offline. And so we need to make sure that the system is reliable, which is a term of art in this space that essentially means it's as close to non-failable as possible. And there are different ways from an architecture and an IT standpoint that you can get to reliability. One way is through multiple backups. You could, for example, have two statewide systems that are sort of running simultaneously and almost like a juggler juggling data back and forth. If one can't, if there's a failure in one part, the other part picks up instantaneously. And I think to some degree, there was the thought that the regional system might serve a little bit like that. And then what the Office of Emergency Services has argued is that they're going to have redundancy. So each part of the system itself, it'll be a single system, but each part will have backups. And that and through that redundancy, we will gain the reliability that we want. But again, we would recommend getting an independent technical evaluation of these different options to determine which one is is actually going to deliver in part because in some ways the technology that we looking at is still emerging and we still developing standards We're sort of early iPhone, if you will, here. And so until things kind of really get mature in this space, we want to make sure that we're getting a lot of support.

And for the audit, though, that wouldn't be done by someone with technical – that kind of technology or could or how would that – You could. So you have a couple of ways you could do this. You could ask the state auditor to do the audit and the technical evaluation, and that would take the time that it would take. One of the advantages to having the state auditor do it is that they're reporting to you, and so whatever information you get isn't going to be filtered through anyone other than the auditor reporting to you. Whereas if you send it to a state agency, they may have the opportunity to shape their scope of the report. You could also, as we have discovered, you can direct the technical evaluation separately on its own. You don't have to do it through an audit. You could also send it to the state agency and have the state agency put out an RFP and do an audit. But you could do this directly through legislation, the budget, et cetera. You could do it, like I said, through an agency. You could do it through the audit. And the principal differences there are how much independence is going to be allowed in this analysis and who will scope the questions that get asked because that's going to shape the answers you get.

the bill anticipates that being conducted under the auspices of the agency.

It's a third party, and we want to be as far away from the agency as possible. Without getting too deep in the weeds, there are concerns,

Okay. So at present, the bill nests this technical evaluation, I think, within the state auditor's office, as I understand it. Or that it shall come in. Sorry.

I completely agree. And we'll just – I trust in your thoroughness and good intentions here with all this. So I think with the amendments sort of leaving some of those questions open of exactly how you want to do that contracting, I think having the technical and having the third party and having them be independent makes sense outside agency. So I agree with that. And I would just say that technical – I would like to see that technical expertise drive the evaluation process. And because there's sort of an eval and an audit piece, that's I think what we're wrestling with is what's the relative value of both. And that there is a contingency for moving ahead. And something I want to flag for both our dispatchers and our chiefs and all the serious people here who do this work every day. Just, you know, my precaution for everyone is that we don't want to slow down this process in process. We've already been delayed a lot. We've got to get this right. I think doing this technical evaluation on an expedited basis makes a lot of sense and having it be independent. I think all that's solid. We look forward to working with you all going forward to see sort of how best to get that piece right. Right. And the the you know, the inhibition I have is that if the state auditor not through a technical evaluator, but on their own is on a separate front doing an audit and then everything is sort of contingent on that audit being complete. That's not even necessarily going to opine on the technical aspects. Right. It'll be sort of a non-technical and more procedural or where there are conflicts or those kinds of things. and sort of a look back, I just, yeah, I'm going to be paying close attention to that timing going forward. So I'd like to be clear just that what you just stated makes me think that maybe there

Right now, this is, we know that this is an important project that does need to move forward, but we, as we're already hearing, there's conflicts between vendors and contractors. Some of those same vendors are still engaged. And so how we are moving forward with contracting and conflicts are is very important part of that evaluation. So it's not just a look back, it's also look forward.

Right.

Okay. Well, thank you for that. Yeah. Look, I appreciate this is a dynamic thing, and then there's budget conversations underway as well. So we'll just stay engaged with you going forward. I do want to clarify that you're open to accepting these amendments from the committee?

It's 10 and – well, I'm only looking at 10 and 11 right now. But we did accept the evaluations that kept the audit, and we can accept all of it. I'm looking at – yes, these are all the amendments that we – These are all the amendments discussed, and we just want to clarify that you accept that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Without further comments, I'm sure you're dying to jump in here. Yeah, you'd love to. Probably dying to get through this. It's great. No, we'll appreciate the insight from the LAO on this complicated and urgent issue, and thank you for your work here, Madam Chair.

Oh, you were closing comments. Thank you. So I want to thank Mr. Feldman and thank the witnesses for their testimony. Special thanks to our legislative analyst office because they've done a lot of tireless work that helped us to really understand and underscore what's been happening. 911 is a phone number that no one ever wants to have to call. But when you need it, we want to know that it's reliable. So we shine a light on the project that's meant to keep our state safe and make sure that we don't waste another dollar until we have an evidence-based pass forward. So with that, I want to thank you and your committee for all of your efforts. I know that there's a lot of people that have a lot of interest in this, but we really want to get this done right. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

chair we're gonna move forward to AB 1832 I believe that's item number three okay

system this one is 211 all right so good afternoon again chair and senators i'm here to present ab 1832 this bill will strengthen and expand statewide access to vital 211 services across california currently we are the only state in the country without full statewide 211 coverage many disaster prone states including louisiana texas new jersey virginia utilize 211 as a critical service that connects residents to programs, reliable information, and disaster response. In California, we are falling a little short, unfortunately. Today, more than a dozen counties have no access to 2-1-1, and many others lack the capacity to answer incoming calls. They are at risk of losing service entirely during the unstable local funding. 2-1-1 can play a critical role during emergencies, whether it's wildfires, winter storms, public health crises. People turn to 2-1-1 for trusted, real-time information and resources. Without the system, non-emergency calls can flood 911 lines, overwhelming emergency responders, and leaving thousands without access in a timely manner. When you think about things like the Los Angeles fires, after the smoke and the fires are done, people still need help. And so they were calling 211 for these services. So they were able to answer during this time, 42,000 calls and texts, which help secure short-term housing for 15,000 households. Despite this success, the system lacks statewide infrastructure, capacity, and integration into our emergency planning needed to keep up with increasingly frequent and severe disasters. Without state partnership, California is missing out on valuable real-time data. 2-1-1 can provide insight into community needs by zip code, by region, by type, and helping the state to better target our resources. AB 1832 addresses these gaps by establishing a statewide fund to support core capacity and to create a community needs dashboard to provide actionable data. And when the time comes, I will respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Yes, so with me today I have Alana Hitchcock, the executive director and CEO of 211 California, and Alma Bowen, the founder and executive director of Nuestra Comunidad.

Thank you, members of the committee. Alana Hitchcock, CEO of 2-in-1 California. When we think about California's emergency response system, as we've heard today, we think about 9-1-1, and we also increasingly think about 9-8-8. But between 9811 and 988 stands another critical lifeline that millions of Californians rely on every year, and that's 211. Together, these three systems form a delicate ecosystem and support network for Californians, with 211 connecting people to the information, resources, and services that keep a crisis from becoming an emergency. Many of the 1.8 million calls to 211 every year are not just requests for information. They are moments for crisis intervention A senior facing eviction or trying to stay safe in extreme heat a mother unable to feed her children people struggling to access our health care or behavioral health services. They are opportunities to prevent the calls to 911, the visits to the emergency room, or the deepening of a behavioral health crisis. That role becomes even more critical during disasters, as you will hear from our other witness. Whether it's the ongoing Boyle Heights fire right now, where 2-1-1 is connecting people to life-saving air purifiers and emergency housing, or other wildfires, public safety

Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Alma Bowen, and I am the founder and executive director of Nuestra Comunidad, RNC, a nonprofit that serves Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte counties. Before this work, I spent over 18 years as a 911 dispatcher. One of the most impactful nights of my career was working during the 2017 Sonoma Complex fires. I answered call after call from people fleeing their homes, separated from loved ones, and desperately searching for information and help. That experience changed my life. It not only became the catalyst to start NC, but it continues to fuel my passion for strengthening California's emergency support systems and my strong support for AB 1832. One thing I learned during my years in emergency communications is that 911 and 211 are not separate systems. They are interdependent systems. During a disaster, 911 should be focused on life-threatening emergencies where lives and property are in immediate danger. But when people need evacuation information, shelter location, and other disaster-related information, they need somewhere else to turn. And that is where 211 becomes critical. A strong 2-1-1 system allows 9-1-1 to operate in its optimum capacity by handling non-urgent calls and connecting people to resources and information that do not require an emergency response. This preserves resources that are valuable during emergencies, and it ensures that first responders can focus on saving lives. AB 1832 recognizes 2-1-1 not simply as a referral line. It recognizes that it is essential to emergency infrastructure. Investing in 2-1-1 is investing in a stronger 9-1-1. It also promotes resilient communities, and it invests in California to make it better prepared for the disasters that we know are coming. So today I ask respectfully for your support of AB 32. Thank you.

communications and emergency planning throughout the state. Your name and who you represent and position. Kelly LaRue with Resilient Advocacy on behalf of the IEHP Foundation, an organization

network in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Dan Oakenfuss with the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

On behalf of United Way of Northern California, we are in full support. Okay, thank you so much.

Thanks. Okay. Seeing no other in support, we'll look for any opposition that there may be. Now's the time. General, specific. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dice. Questions, comments? Senator Grayson.

I applaud the witness as well. And I'll tag on. Send me on to your bill from down in Los Angeles. I know going through, I think it's 27 fires in my limited time in office. 211 has been a lifeline during these crises. So I think it's time for a big vision like you put forward here, some member. And I think this is going to take not just this bill, but this coalition coming together, going forward, and trying to figure out. to, you know, you can build a fund, then we got to fill the fund, right? So that's going to be the test. And I just think, yeah, the diversity of this coalition and the depth of it should be a really good start for what I hope is a longer term effort. So applaud you with it.

Senator Grayson for already starting my close. And I want to thank everyone for their respectful attention to the witnesses and thank you so much for being here today. This work is already being done. We just really need to fill in some gaps and the bill is about making sure that we build the infrastructure that we need to keep California safe, informed, and supported, especially during a time of crisis. Again, thank you for your support. Happy to add you as co-authors. With that, I

All right. Well, this one's even more fun. Okay. So I really, again, I really do appreciate the opportunity to be here as the chair of the Assembly Emergency Management. It really is our goal to make sure that we are not only responsive to what's happening with disasters and emergencies in our state, but that we are also prepared and proactive in advance. That brings us to our next bill i want to thank the committee for the work on assembly bill 2543 there are suggested amendments that are in the committee analysis that we've been discussing and i'm going to kind of enumerate what we've committed to accepting and implementing namely including mobile charges chargers and backup power definition having the cec issue guidance to counties on operator compliance with the recommendations developed as specified in this bills and for operators identified DC FC sites to submit an emergency management plan to counties that consider options to be used during an emergency and we'll definitely need to work on what that looks like once received the county shall incorporate the information into the next update of its emergency operating plan and we know that by asking counties to do this we've kind of triggered an unfunded mandate Mandate which will also be something that we'll need to work on So for those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about Assembly bill 2553 is a bill that will strengthen emergency preparedness in the electrical the electric vehicle sector in California This is a necessary emergency preparedness measure because California's transportation system is rapidly changing But emergency planning has not caught up as As California advances towards 100% zero emission vehicle targets by 2035, emergency planning must be integrated at every stage of implementation. The importance of reliability and emergency preparedness in charging networks is recognized at both the federal and state level through California's Clean Transportation Goals and the Federal Highway Administration's NEVI Infrastructure Program. This preventative measure will get ahead of problems seen in the last few years and give our emergency managers in the state of California the tools they need to address the growing EV community. I don't need to remind everybody about how devastating January 2025 was, especially with the Los Angeles County wildfires. Many of your districts were directly affected. The surrounding areas experienced widespread power outages, transportation disruptions, abandoned EVs, and emergency response operation challenges. And that was because of our lack of infrastructure and preparedness in the EV space. The fires illustrated how transportation networks, energy systems, and emergency response operations are increasingly interconnected during large-scale disasters. As the Assembly Emergency Management Chair, I've committed to doing what it takes to protect our communities across the state of California. This bill is one of those ways that I am fulfilling my commitment. AB 2543 takes a practical forward-looking approach by ensuring that emergency planning keeps pace with the energy commitments and will supplement existing evacuation and general emergency planning by ensuring that charging is available and accessible where Californians may need it during a disaster. The bill builds on successful public-private partnerships. There are already federal and state funding incentives, grants, and support that private entities can access, such as the NEVI program and the California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project, which is how many of these things came to be, these charging stations. We are also starting to see movement in the public-private partnership space emerging from disasters. Following the 2025 fires, General Motors deployed mobile charging units to assist affected residents, including charges each chargers each capable of dc fast charging to evs simultaneously we've seen recently florida has similarly deployed mobile fast chargers along evacuation routes during hurricane milton so ab2543 provides us in california with the framework to identify where these resources will be most valuable before the next disaster occurs rather than relying solely on reactive emergency deployment that's not part of the emergency response plans. It is an if, not, it is not an if, I should say, that there will be another disaster, but when. So we want to plan ahead. We want our EV charging stations to tell us what their backup plan is in an emergency. We're not being prescriptive and saying they have to have one modality or another, but we want to know what their options will be and where they will be located and how Californians can access them. By planning ahead, we strengthen evacuation readiness, support disaster recovery, and improve resilience. I respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time comes. Thank

Good afternoon Chair Stern and committee members and Assemblymember Ransom. I'm Scott Cox on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association in respectful opposition to 2543. We share the author's goal of a refueling network that serves drivers during disasters, but this bill will not get us there, even with the amendments, and for three reasons. First, the bill can do more to keep all drivers safe. When the power goes out, every fueling station goes dark Gas diesel natural gas hydrogen they all demand electricity to function properly This bill focuses on a small part of California fleet While we're glad to say that one in five new cars over the last three years in California are fully electric, they still account for no more than 7% of the cars on the road today. That is to say 93% of 30 million light-duty vehicles still rely on gasoline or diesel. This bill contains no provisions for those stations. Emergency preparedness should address all fuels rather than giving 100% of its focus to 7% of vehicles. Second, the cost to meet the goals and the provisions in this bill are high and will slow deployment. Compliance with some of the provisions in this bill can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per site, as battery storage alone can double the cost of a fast-charging deployment. The new cost will divert resources from building new chargers, just as federal support is being withdrawn. The CEC today estimates we need 2.1 million chargers to achieve our deployment goals. That includes 83,000 fast chargers by 2035. Today we have just over 200,000, 18,000 of which are fast chargers. The predictable result of the provisions in this bill means fewer chargers when the state can least afford it. The committee's amendment adding mobile chargers points to the right direction, and as the assembly member pointed out, Florida used these successfully, but these chargers are funded and managed by the state itself, not by private operators. No state has a mandate, as this bill proposes, for private charging operators. The only state that has requirements related to backup fueling capacity is Florida, but that requires it of certain gas stations on emergency routes, not EV chargers. Finally, we did want to draw attention to the bill's timeline, driving some level of confusion. The operability requirements are due as recommendations by July of 2027, but we have to file annual emergency management plans and reports in January of 2028 before the standards are fully established. And then Cal OES is then tasked with implementation without any clear feasibility assessment and a minor general public comment period. Thank you. I'll ask you a wrap-up. Yes, of course. We respect the author's commitment to resilience and want to work toward an approach that accounts to all fuel types in emergency planning without slowing EV charging deployment. For these reasons, we respectfully

Good afternoon. Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of Tesla, respectfully opposed.

Electric Transportation Coalition in respectful opposition. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. Chris Strong with Capital Advocacy on behalf of ChargePoint

to the dais. Comments or questions, or maybe I can just help level set here. I think the committee worked very hard to try to get you some amendments. Unfortunately, the element that I'm still struggling with in it is this notion that the private operators have to submit standalone emergency management plans. And I know we've talked about this. Gas stations don't have to do this. Data centers don't have to do this. Even the 911 operators that we just talked about don't have to submit emergency management plans. They do have to coordinate with counties. And I think that coordination element is excellent in the bill but I think it just to establish new precedent I still struggling with why only electric vehicle charging operations And I think that element of the measure just I can't quite get to support on. So I'll leave it to you for how you want to proceed with the measure. But I would just say that, yeah, the exceptionalism I struggle with. I've been through fires that I've lost had plenty of people who yeah had challenges in those those days of evacuation to get to infrastructure I think take the Palisades for example the the overwhelming issue that we heard wasn't about not having a backup power source say in the community where everything else burnt down anyways. So even if you had a battery backup, that's burnt down. But getting out of the burn zone and to the nearby infrastructure and having robust regional networks, I think, is very forward-looking on your part. And I think that, especially if we're going to rely on electricity to be more of a backbone fuel supply, even though to the opposition's point it is only, I think, 7% of the system right now, I think it's good planning on Ford. So I think I like section one of your bill, and I think the planning exercise is going to be good, but I still have a challenge with the insistence on the private operators being sort of uniquely subject to an emergency management plan that under current law, there is no other private operation required to do that. a food bank, a 911 operator, whomever. So that's the part where I think emergency management plans ought to be reserved for public agencies. So anyhow, I just want to make that sort of general statement. You're welcome to consider that or reference that as you wish, and also others are happy to have questions or comments as you wish. So would you like me to respond?

Thank you for that clarification.

The mandate is to have a plan to tell us where your resources are. We're not mandating that you have a certain amount of resources. the goal is when you speak to county managers or you speak to even some of the the folks in the communities they didn't know where the resources were right you just and i'm just trying to clarify my own mind because the word recommended was used recommend as far as a modality like we just listed like the potential like maybe you're going to have a charge a truck charger maybe you're going to have

that they come up with an emergency plan. Yes. All right and so by coming up with an emergency plan does that mean all they have to do is tell you what they have in existence right now not you but in their report say what they have right now and make that their emergency plan or is there the expectation that they're going to put into the report what would exist if they were told you have to have an emergency plan to where you are providing electricity after a crisis or an emergency event? Yes, thank you for that question and for that I think that's an important clarification. So what our goal is is for them to identify a backup power source if in the event that their facility is not available. So by implication, it's putting them in a position where they have to now put into their capital plan to come up with storage, battery storage or generator storage to create the electricity. Or could they contract with someone who has the, just like we've seen in other places, where they contract to bring in trucks from other places or they have some places have generators. I don't think it's so we're not requiring them to go build new facilities like we're not being that when I say we're not being prescriptive. We do want them to identify. We want them to think about in a state that has different emergencies that knock off powers. We want them to be thinkable.

There are some, I'd call hiccups or whatever, there are some areas that I would share of concern with the chair on doing this with private industry. And you brought up the point about California and energy, that it's all private.

No problem. Thank you. Other questions, comments? Seeing none. Yeah, appreciate the back and forth. Should the bill move forward today, do look forward to working with you on sort of trying to iron out some of those details. I think part of what Senator Grayson might have been pointing at is that with emergency plans, there's obligations embedded in them. And I do hear clearly from you that you want to see more accountability on those who are the installers. I think that the challenge we have is who that obligation actually ought to fall on. When Tesla decides with their own private money to build a fast charger or supercharger in a target parking lot, should they be required to build a second one somewhere else in that community or have a backup battery there even if there's a fire coming or put that battery somewhere in the circumference of that and essentially build a redundancy or two systems that from a public perspective that is how we run things right and and i do you know we were just talking about next gen 9-1-1 redundancy is everything that's what's going to get your liability i just think the implication of having And it be an emergency management plan implies that it's a private obligation to mitigate that potential. And I worry we're going to chase away capital at a time when, again, we have 7 percent penetration. Like we need more of these folks. We need more. The public can't subsidize all of this. So that's that's my concern. That's why I won't be able to support today. But do appreciate you, you know, working through these details on it. And yeah, we'll allow you to close. Thank you.

So did the author accept the committee amendments or not accept them?

You did? Okay. The chair is staying off the bill still. Yes, exactly. I'm staying off today, but I'm going to work with her going forward. Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Let's establish a quorum while we still got one. Did you mind calling the roll? Thank you. Senator Stern.

Sarato here. Allen. Ashby. Blakespeare. Blakespeare here.

Rubio present. We've established a quorum.

Not voting. Seroton?

Aye. Ashby, aye.

Blake Spear, aye. Dali?

Oh, beat you to it, Senator Ashby, which the motion is due pass to Senate Health.

Aye. Stern, aye.

No. Sarah Tanneau, Alan, Ashby, Ashby, I, Blake Spear, Blake Spear, I, Dolly, Grayson, Grayson, I, Perez, Rubio, I. Okay, great. I will leave that on. Yeah, for the absent members, we will leave that on call. Okay, file number two, AB 1749, Dixon. Motion is from the vice chair, do pass to judiciary. Please call the roll. Senator Stern. Stern, aye. Serato, aye.

Blake Spear, aye.

Grayson, aye.

All right, we'll leave that one on call.

Privacy, Digital Technology, and Consumer Protection

Senator Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Sarato? Aye. Sarato, aye.

Blake Spear, aye. Dally? Aye. Dally, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Prez?