June 9, 2026 · Transportation · 4,693 words · 9 speakers · 37 segments
The Senate Transportation Committee will come to order. Good afternoon and welcome. We have a total of 11 measures on today's agenda. First, a few housekeeping items, as usual. We're going to allow for two primary witnesses, each for the support and opposition. Each witness will have two minutes, and any additional witnesses will ask to limit yourselves to name affiliation and your position on the bill. Of the 11 measures today, we have eight measures proposed for consent. And I'll go ahead and read those off. And as we take a vote on those, we'll have the assistant identify them again. But in case you're here for one of these, item 1, file item 1, AB 431, Wilson. Item 2, AB 1614 Dixon. Item 3, AB 1625 Nguyen. Item 6, ACR 126 Tanjipa. Item 7 and 8, ACR 137, ACR 142 Ransom. Item 9, ACR 169 DeMaio. Item 10, SCR 155 Jones. When we have sufficient members, we will identify a quorum, but it doesn't look like we're there yet. So we will proceed and begin hearing the remaining bills as a committee of the whole. And our first author would be Assemblymember Alex Lee. I see him here. Please come forward to the podium whenever you're ready. He may begin presenting.
This is AB 1944. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I'm here to present AB 1944. In 2015, the legislature passed AB 1250, which set a maximum curb weight of 25,000 pounds per axle for zero-emission buses. This limit was designed to decrease by 1,000 pounds every two years. with a final maximum weight of 22,000 pounds in 2022. This approach came from negotiations with cities and counties who raised concerns about the potential impact of heavier buses on public transportation infrastructure. The declining schedule was believed to provide sufficient time for advancement in battery technology to reduce weight while maintaining high performance standards. However, improvements in battery weight have not kept pace with earlier expectations. Transit agencies have yet to acquire buses that both meet the current weight limits and provide the range needed for longer routes, which often require additional batteries. AB 1944 provides a practical and responsible solution by postponing the implementation of timeline of these axle weight limits while maintaining the final weight cap established in 2015. This adjustment ensures that transit agencies continue to provide reliable and quality public transportation while we're working towards our zero-emission goals. With me today in support, I have Brendan Rapicki, the legislative advocate for the California Transit Association.
All right. You may proceed. You'll have a couple minutes.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Senators. Brendan Rapicki with the California Transit Association. We're the sponsors of AB 1944. This bill would support compliance for us with the Innovative Clean Transit Regulation by providing transit agencies and bus manufacturers additional time to meet the axle weight limits for zero-emission buses in current law. As you likely know, in 2018, CARB adopted the ICT regulation, which requires that transit agencies purchase a fixed percentage of ZEBs with each procurement, with the ultimate requirement that transit agencies have a 100% zero-emission bus fleet by 2040. As ZEB deployments continue to increase, transit agencies will soon need to procure ZEBs with extended ranges to complete longer routes. As you can guess, extended ranges require additional batteries, which means additional weight. This bill aims to address the conflict between the state's ICT regulation for zero emission fleets and the current axle weight limits that apply to ZEBS by postponing the dates by which certain axle weight limits apply, but without changing the maximum axle weight limit in current law today. So in doing so, this bill acknowledges that the descending schedule of axle weights in current law that the author mentioned assumed a more aggressive pace of technology advancement than what has been realized. I urge your aye vote. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. You can stay here in case there's questions later. We come back to the committee. Those who wish to speak in support, you may do so now.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the San Mateo County Transit District as well as the Monterey Salinas Transit District, both in support.
Good afternoon. Steve Wallach on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District and the Napa Valley Transportation Authority in support.
Thank you. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in opposition? If you are a lead opposition witness, you may come forward. Sit right here or anywhere. You'll have a couple minutes. Please identify yourself. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Damon Conkin with the League of California Cities. We sympathize with the transit association. We, too, are mandated to comply with the ACF and have similar issues with complying with the regulation as technology is a bit nascent for zero emissions. But with this particular bill, pavement deterioration is driven primarily by axle weight, not traffic volume. And the relationship is exponential. An analysis by this committee on AB 2061 of 2018 recognized that an increasing axle load from 20,000 pounds to 22,000 pounds can increase pavement damage by 50%. For cities, that translates directly into more frequent pavement rehabilitation, reconstruction, higher life cycle costs, and accelerated deterioration. These concerns are reinforced by a recent study released by the CTC that pavement damage increases exponentially from 20,000 to 25,000 with a 244% damage. These findings are not merely theoretical. They reflect the daily experience of pavement engineers and public work directors responsible for maintaining our local streets and roads. AB 1944 would exasperate an already significant infrastructure funding challenge. Again, the CTC noted local agencies are facing a $74 billion deferred maintenance backlog. At a time when transportation revenues are under increasing pressures and cities are struggling to maintain existing infrastructure, authorizing heavier transit vehicles will only accelerate pavement deterioration and increase long-term maintenance obligations. In closing, AB 1944 is not occurring in a vacuum. Local governments are being asked to absorb infrastructural costs generated by a state regulatory program without receiving dedicated funds to offset those impacts. And for those reasons, we oppose.
All right. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the committee room who wishes to speak in opposition? If so, please come forward at this time. I've seen none. We will come back to the committee for any comments, questions, or concerns. Senator Sarato followed by Senator Archuleta.
Thank you very much. And, you know, this kind of falls in the category of what's a growing category of we put regulations in place without understanding fully what the implications of the regulations are. Have there been any studies done on the, you know, it's not just the pavement damage. When you're increasing the weight on a vehicle, you're increasing the wear on the tire, and the wear on the tire actually goes onto the pavement. When you're damaging pavement, that means the wear on all tires go onto the pavement. And then when it rains, that goes into our water system, our storing grain system, and now we have pollution there. And so has the Water Resources Agency weighed in on this issue? because while we're trying to make conservation or help the environment in one area, we're harming it even more in another area. And so have they had any discussions with Water Resources Board about the consequences of increasing that and having the studies done for it?
Not to our knowledge, Senator, no.
All right. So that's my concern. As we increase the weight, we're hurting things down the road. These buses cost three times as much or twice as much as a normal bus, and I don't know that we're getting the environmental mileage that we thought we were going to get. At some point, we have to kind of reevaluate our strategy and start throttling back a little bit on mandates that are requiring agencies, are requiring, you know, like the authorities, the busing authorities and things like that, to mandate them into compliance with stuff that as they comply with it, they're creating even more damage elsewhere. And so I won't be supporting this bill. I don't think we should do that. I think we have to address the bigger problem, which is we have too many mandates that are creating more problems than the good that we thought they were going to do. And therefore, I won't be supporting the bill.
SENATOR ARCHLEIDA. SENATOR ARCHLEIDA. YES. THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING THIS. OBVIOUSLY WE ALL KNOW THAT WE'VE GOT TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN FOR ZERO ADMISSIONS HYDROME FUEL CELL BATTERY BUSES AND JUST EVERYTHING THAT WE DOING IN REFERENCE TO OUR CLIMATE AND EVERYTHING ELSE hydrogen fuel cell battery buses and just everything that we doing in reference to our climate and everything else And so we encouraging everybody to ride the buses and participate And so I think this is something that's necessary to keep our buses moving. But my question is, at 25,000 pounds for the year 27 and taking it down to 22,000 by 32, are the bus lines going to be able to drop $3,000 over that time period by 2032? I'll see if my witness wants to answer that one. Thank you, Senator.
Yeah, that's a great question, something we've pursued with the leading bus manufacturers. I mean, I don't think we can say with 100% certainty they feel confident that they would be able to make this pushed out timeline. Yes, sir. I bring it up. And you're right. One thing, you get something else in trying to get people in the Olympics, we're hoping we have hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of buses on the road all over the county of Los Angeles. So we're going to find that people who do ride the buses may turn out that, hey, this is not a bad idea, especially go to the venues in Los Angeles County and Los Angeles. So I think we have to look ahead, and we encourage the industry to keep producing the buses, and this is a message that you've got to make them lighter some way, somehow, because we can only hold them off so long. So I'm going to support the bill, and I'll move it at the appropriate time.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, if I could just respond to the question as well. So the schedule on weight decrease is the same weight decrease schedule that we originally had from 2015 to 2022, so now we're extending it to a different time frame. But as you know, as you've led on ZEV things, especially with hydrogen, the market and industry, especially on ZEV with either EVs or hydrogen, was very different in the 2015-22 market than it is today. So I am hopeful and hopefully optimistic that the market will catch up to it since, you know, it's come a long way since 2015, and now hopefully they can have high performance and lightweight at the same time going forward.
Anyone else? Thank you. Yeah, I'm going to be an aye vote on the bill. I appreciate the opposition's comments in uplifting or elevating the issue of pavement maintenance across the board, really. I don't think that this particular bill and this particular universe of vehicles is fatal one way or the other in terms of what happens with our pavement maintenance. But it's in bad shape. It's in bad shape right around us here. And that's going to have to be addressed and taken into account. I don't think, again, one way or the other, this bill, you know, swings that pendulum too far one way or the other. So that's where I'm at on it. Member Lee, if you'd like to close, you're welcome to do so.
Thank you, Chair Cortese, and thank you to the Senator who spoke. And just to Senator Ciardo's point, you know, this is, I think, actually an example of where the regulations did not work out the way we intended to in real life. And so this is one of those things where we're going back and revisiting and trying to make sure that technology has time to catch up while still also maintaining a status quo that people can still ride cleaner, less emission vehicles and buses on the road. Yes, there are some wear and tear aspect to it, but there's also balancing our responsibility of also reducing overall traffic and overall traffic patterns as well. So I think this is a continuation of where we're going. We're going back and fixing some things where it didn't quite work out. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
All right. We're going to establish a quorum, and then we'll take the roll call vote on the bill. Assistant? Senators Cortese? Here. Cortese here. Strickland? Here. Strickland here. Archuleta? Here. Archuleta here. Arreguin? Here. Arreguin here. Blakespeare? Daly? Aye. Here. Daly here. Gonzalez? Grayson? Here. Grayson here. Menjivar? Here. Menjivar here. Richardson? Sayarto? Here. Sayarto here. Valadez? Wiener? All right. We have a quorum, and And Senator Archuleta had offered a motion on AB 1944. Again, this is file item four. We'll go ahead and take the roll call vote on that. The motion is due passed. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Aragain? Aye. Aragain, aye. Blakespeare? Daly? No. Daly, no. Gonzalez? Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Richardson? Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Valadares? Wiener? Okay, we're at 5 to 3. We'll leave the roll open on that bill for absent members. Mr. Chair, can I move the consent calendar? Thank you. Yes, Vice Chair, we have a motion from the Vice Chair to move the consent calendar. To adopt the consent calendar, Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Arch Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adagin? Aye. Adagin, aye. Blake Spear? Daly? Aye. Dali, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson, aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar, aye. Menjivar, aye. Richardson, Ciarto, aye. Ciarto, aye. Valadirez, Wiener. All right. Consent is 9-0 on call. And I'm just looking to see if we have an author. Oh, yes, we do. We have an author present and Assemblymember Rodriguez, correct? Please come forward to the podium. We'll have you present from here. And you can begin whenever you're ready. This is on file item 5, AB2453. I apologize about my contacts on today, so it was straining to see who was out there. You have good staff.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators, for allowing me to present this bill today. AB 2453 is a practical public safety measure that provides clear statutory authority for first responders and peace officers to use off-highway vehicles while performing official duties. California firefighters, search and rescue teams, and law enforcement personnel are often called to respond in remote recreational areas, trail systems, deserts, beaches, and rugged terrain where traditional vehicles cannot safely operate. Current law provides limited authority for peace officers but leaves uncertainty for many first responders who rely on these vehicles during emergencies. AB 2453 closes that gap and ensures all public safety personnel have the tools they need to respond quickly and effectively. This bill allows peace officers and first responders to travel limited distances up to five miles on public roads and to access patrol locations and off-highway recreation areas where these vehicles are needed. Importantly, AB 2453 does not create unrestricted use. It requires local jurisdiction to adopt policies governing operation, establish safety and training standards, identify authorized locations and activities, and make these policies available for public view. The bill strikes the right balance between operational flexibility and public accountability by allowing local governments to tailor policies to their unique geographic and public safety needs. By reducing operational uncertainty and improving access to remote areas, AB 2453 will help improve emergency response times, enhance public safety patrols, and better serve California who recreate an off-highway area across the state. With me today, I have Fire Chief Kevin Linz of the Carlsbad Fire Department, representing the sponsors of the bill.
Thank you for being here, Chief. You may begin. You'll have a couple of minutes.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Kevin Linz, Division Chief for the City of Carlsbad Fire Department. I'd like to begin by thanking Assembly Members Rodriguez and Davies for advocating on behalf of the city and carrying AB 2453. I'd also like to take a moment to thank the committee for their time. The city, which includes the Fire Department, Police Department, and Ocean Lifeguards, use UTVs for patrol of our beaches, lagoons, and open spaces, for responding to incidents on our many hiking and mountain biking trails, and during special events where use of standard vehicles is prohibitive due to their size and crowds. Due to the changes in the California Highway Patrol's procedures, Carlsbad's first responders are no longer allowed to drive UTVs on public roads to access beaches and other open space areas for patrol or incident response. As a result, this has limited operational capabilities and will increase response times to emergencies. Using UTVs under the current legal framework is prohibitive and time-consuming, and operational use must be modified to remain in compliance. For example, having to trailer the UTVs to the beach or trailhead, storing the trailer at an access point that avoids public streets. Historically, the city of Carlsbad converted UTVs to be street legal through modifications such as adding side view mirrors, turn signals, DOT rated tires, followed up by a CHP inspection who would then issue us license plates for them. AB 2453 would enable firefighters, lifeguards, and police to reach off-road areas such as beaches and open space more quickly without operationally burdensome and time-consuming workarounds like using a trailer. When utilized for special events, UTVs are operated in enclosed and defined areas that are not open to pedestrian vehicle traffic, such as street fairs and marathons. This bill will allow first responders to protect the community in an efficient and effective manner. Thank you and I urge your aye vote on AB 2453.
All right Thank you for your testimony Others here who wish to speak in support of the bill please come forward Nicole Wardleman on behalf of the City of Ontario in support Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing none, we'll ask if there's any opposition. Do we have an opposition witness in the room? Do we have anyone who wishes to speak in opposition at all? Seeing no one come forward in the committee room, we'll come back to the dais. And Vice Chair Strickland has offered a motion on the bill. Any further comment or questions? Seeing none, I will give you an opportunity to close, Assemblymember.
Thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
All right. We will now come back to the assistant for a roll call vote. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Arrigin. Aye. Arrigin, aye. Blakespeare. Daly. Aye. Daly, aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar. Aye. Menjivar, aye. Richardson. Ciarto. Aye. Ciarto, aye. Valaduras. Wiener. All right. The vote is at 9-0, and we will leave that on call. Thank you very much. Thank you. The remaining item is SJR 16, which is Senator Caballero. I do not see her in the room yet. We will pause for a minute or two, and if we need to, we'll recess. But let's see if we give her a chance to get here. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm not getting any signal that the audio is a problem, so we're going to go ahead and have you continue or have you present whenever you're ready. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members, for the opportunity to present SJR 16 today. This resolution amplifies the voices of California's commercial truck drivers, the lifeblood of our state's supply chain and economy. On August 12, 2025, Florida Highway Patrol responded to a tragic fatal crash caused by a commercial truck driver after he executed an improper U-turn. The driver fled to California where the authorities later arrested him. The following month, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration issued a preliminary determination of noncompliance against the California DMV, arguing that the driver involved in the crash may have failed to meet the English language proficiency standard required for commercial driver examination. In November, the federal administration finalized its review with a conditional determination of noncompliance, arguing that California had not complied with federal safety standards. In response, DMV took corrective action and rescinded 17,000 alleged non-compliant, non-domiciled commercial learner's permits and commercial driver's licenses. The federal regulators continued to apply pressure throughout the period and withheld roughly $160 million in federal highway funds. The federal administration has the authority to fully decertify a state's driver's license program if it finds substantial noncompliance. A full decertification has barred California from issuing, renewing, or upgrading any commercial credentials, not just those classified as non-domiciled, which has brought our state's ability to license in that category to a halt. California DMV pushed back, filing litigation against the federal administration, arguing that states retain meaningful autonomy under federal regulations to determine how they assess compliance and adequacy within their own licensing programs. And in March, the federal court directed DMV to cancel approximately 16,000 California drivers' licenses, stripping thousands of experienced drivers of their livelihoods overnight. The federal government took an undeniably tragic accident and utilized it as a weapon against hardworking immigrant drivers and businesses. These commercial truck drivers are from many ethnic and cultural backgrounds. My district has a large Sikh and Latino community, many of whom have started their own businesses making major investment in commercial vehicles and who have spent decades building relationships and learning the craft necessary to engage in commercial transactions and who now have been disproportionately affected by this rulemaking. These drivers, many with decades of experience behind the wheel, now face unemployment with no path to restore their driving privileges. They are the men and women who log countless hours on the road and spend weeks away from their families to deliver the essential goods we all depend on, medical supplies, fuel, and the food that stock our shelves. As California fights to lower the cost of living, sidelining the very drivers who move our goods will only drive prices higher and strain families further. Not only that, but there has been no showing that these drivers are not capable of continuing to drive as appropriate on our highways, nor that they don't speak the language with enough proficiency. SJR 16 urges the United States Congress to act swiftly, reinstate these drivers' credentials and for those who meet California's DMV standards and safeguard the strength and resilience of our supply chain to allow California to continue with driver's licenses. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Thank you, Senator. Any witnesses today?
No.
Okay. Anyone in the committee room who is speaking in support, please come forward.
Good afternoon, Chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California in support Thank you Anyone else in support Seeing none we going to ask if there anyone who here to speak in opposition Seeing no one come forward in the committee room is there anyone who wishes to express opposition at this time
All right, final call on opposition. We will come back to the dais for any comments or questions at this time. Seeing none, you'll have an opportunity to close.
I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, sir.
Thank you. We do motions from Senator Archuleta, and we'll ask the assistant to call the roll. The motion is to be adopted. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Araguin? Aye. Araguin, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Dallee? No. Dallee, no. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjavar? Aye. Menjavar, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Ciarto? No. Ciarto, no. Valadares? Wiener? All right. That leaves us at 8-3. We'll leave that open for the moment. And we'll thank you very much. Thank you. And we'll ask the assistant to call the open items at this time. Yeah. The consent calendar consists of file item 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The current vote is 9-0. Senators Blakespear? Aye. Blakespear, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Valadares? Wiener? Not here. 11-0 on call. We'll leave that on call for a moment. It's at 11-0 at this time. Next item. File item 4, AB 1944 by Assemblymember Lee. The motion is due passed. The current vote is 5-3. With the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Valadez? Wiener? Great vote is currently 8-3. We'll leave that open. File item 5, AB 2453 by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez. The motion is due to pass to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. The current vote is 9-0. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, ayes, and Valaduras. Weiner. 11-0. We'll leave that open. We'll try to determine if any absent members will be showing up. I think Senator Weiner is outstanding on the roll call. And Valaduras. It's Valaduras. All right. All right. We will just pause for a moment, not an official recess, and hoping to hear from Senators Poladaris and Wiener. Thank you. Thank you. Call the open items again. I know Senator Wiener's right. For the consent calendar for our file item 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The current vote is 11-0. Senators Valadaris, Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 12-0. Leave it open. File item 4, AB 1944 by Assemblymember Lee. The motion is due. Passed. The current vote is 8-3. Senators Valadaris, Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 9-3, we'll leave it open. File item 5, AB 2453 by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. The current vote is 11-0. Senators Valadez, Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 12-0, we'll leave it open. File item 11, SGR 16 by Senator Caballero. The motion is to be adopted. The current vote is 8-3 with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Valadez, Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. All right. 9-3, we'll leave it open. And then consent. Is he? We did get consent. All right. That concludes Senator Wiener's voting activity for this committee. Today, at least.
I'm all done, right?
You are all done. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yeah, thank you. All right. We will just pause informally again as we're expecting to see Senator Valdez arrive. Thank you. Thank you. One more time. The consent calendar consists of file item 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The current vote is 12-0. Senators Valaduras? Aye. Valaduras, aye. All right. Consent is out. 13-0. File item 4, AB 1944 by Assemblymember Lee. The motion is due passed. The current vote is 9-3. Senators Valaduras? Aye. Valaduras, aye. Bill's out. 10-3. File item 5, AB 2453 by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. The current vote is 12-0. Senators Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. Bill's out. 13-0. File item 11, SJR 16 by Senator Caballero. The motion is to be adopted. The current vote is 9-3 with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Valadares? Not voting. 9-3. Bill's out. Thank you. That concludes the voting for today. Thank you to everyone who participated, and thank you to the committee staff for getting us ready for this hearing today. And I look forward to seeing everybody again soon. Senate Transportation Committee is now adjourned for the day. Thank you.